THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


From  the  collection  of 
Julius  Doerner,  Chicago 
Purchased,  1918. 


ao-o.3 

I960 

CP  P'2- 


CYCLOPAEDIA 


BIBLX 


j 


NOTED  BIBLICAL  Vi 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


7 m 


RCHES. 


ILLTJS 


THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Prom  the  collection  of 
Julius  Doerner,  Chicago 
Purchased,  1918. 

KCb5c 

reeo 

V.2. 

CPp'-i 


BIBLICAL  LITERATURE. 

< 

EDITED  BY 

JOffiST  KITTO,  D.D.,  F.S.A., 

NOTED  BIBLICAL  WRITERS,  REPRESENTING  ALL  THE  GREAT  EVANGELICAL  CHURCHES. 


ILLUSTRATED  BY  NUMEROUS  ENGRAVINGS. 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 
VOL.  II. 


NEW  YORK  : 

AMERICAN  BOOK  EXCHANGE, 
Tribune  Building. 

1 88  0. 


CYCLOPAEDIA 


OF 

BIBLICAL  LITERATURE. 


IBZAN. 


V 


IBZAN  illustrious ; Sept.  ’A/3 auraav), 

the  tenth  ‘judge  of  Israel.’  He  was  of  Bethle- 
hem, probably  the  Bethlehem  of  Zebulun  and  not 
of  Judah.  He  governed  seven  years.  The  pro- 
sperity of  Ibzan  is  marked  by  the  great  number 
of  his  children  (thirty  sons  and  thirty  daughters), 
and  his  wealth,  by  their  marriages — for  they  were 
all  married.  Some  have  held,  with  little  proba- 
bility, that  Ibzan  was  the  same  with  Boaz : b.c. 

1 182  (Judg.  xii.  8). 

I-CHABOD  (“1*133  'N,  where  is  the  glory  ; 
Sept.  ’Axitw/3),  son  of  Phinehas  and  grandson  of 
Eli.  He  is  only  known  from  the  unhappy  circum- 
stances of  his  birth,  which  occasioned  this  name  to 
— be  given  to  him.  The  pains  of  labour  came  upon 
nis  mother  when  she  heard  that  the  ark  of  God 
was  taken,  that  her  husband  was  slain  in  battle, 
and  that  these  tidings  had  proved  fatal  to  his 
father  Eli.  They  were  death-pains  to  her ; and 
when  those  around  sought  to  cheer  her,  saying, 
‘ Fear  not,  for  thou  hast  borne  a son,’  she  only 
answered  by  giving  him  the  name  of  I-chabod,  ad- 
ding, ‘The  glory  is  departed  from  Israel'  (1  Sam. 
iv.  19-22):  b.c.  1141.  The  name  again  occurs 
in  1 Sam.  xiv.  3 [Eli]. 

ICON1UM  Q1k6viov),  a town,  formerly  the 
capital  of  Lycaonia,  as  it  is  now,  by  the  name 
:>f  Konieh,  of  Karamania,  in  Asia  Minor.  It  is 
situated  in  N.  lat.  37°  51',  E.  long.  32°  40',  about 
one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  inland  from  the 
Mediterranean.  It  was  visited  by  St.  Paul  in 
a. i>.  45,  when  many  Gentiles  were  converted; 
but  some  unbelieving  Jews  excited  against  him 
and  Barnabas  a persecution,  which  they  escaped 
with  difficulty  (Acts  xiii.  51  ; xiv.  1,  &c.).  He 
undertook  a second  journey  to  Iconium  in  a.d.  51. 
The  church  planted  at  this  place  by  the  apostle 
continued  to  flourish,  until,  by  the  persecutions 
of  the  Saracens,  and  afterwards  of  the  Seljukians, 
who  made  it  one  of  their  sultanies,  it  was  nearly 
extinguished.  But  some  Christians  of  the  Greek 
and  Armenian  churches,  with  a Greek  metro- 
politan bishop,  are  still  found  in  the  suburbs  of 
the  city,  not  being  permitted  to  reside  within  the 
walls. 

Konieh  is  situated  at  the  foot  of  Mount 
Taurus,  upon  the  border  of  the  lake  Trogitis, 
in  a fertile  plain,  rich  in  valuable  productions, 
particularly  apricots,  wine,  cotton,  flax,  and 
grain.  The  circumference  of  the  town  is  between 

VOL.  ii.  2 


IDDO. 

two  and  three  miles,  beyond  which  are  suburbs 
not  much  less  populous  than  the  town  itself.  The 
walls,  strong  and  lofty,  and  flanked  with  square 
towers,  which,  at  the  gates,  are  placed  close  to- 
gether [see  cut,  No.  317],  were  built  by  the  Sel- 
jukian  Sultans  of  Iconium,  who  seem  to  have 
taken  considerable  pains  to  exhibit  the  Greek  in- 
scriptions, and  the  remains  of  architecture  and 
sculpture,  belonging  to  the  ancient  Iconium, 
which  they  made  use  of  in  building  the  walls. 
The  town,  suburbs,  and  gardens,  are  plentifully 
supplied  with  water  from  streams  which  flow 
from  some  hills  to  the  westward,  and  which,  to 
the  north-east,  join  the  lake,  which  varies  in 
size  with  the  season  of  the  year.  In  the  town 
carpets  are  manufactured,  and  blue  and  yellow 
leathers  are  tanned  and  dried.  Cotton,  wool, 
hides,  and  a few  of  the  other  raw  productions 
which  enrich  the  superior  industry  and  skill  of 
the  manufacturers  of  Europe,  are  sent  to  Smyrna 
by  caravans. 

The  most  remarkable  building  in  Konieh  is 
the  tomb  of  a priest  highly  revered  throughout 
Turkey,  called  Hazreet  Mevlana,  the  founder  of 
the  Mevlevi  Dervishes.  The  city,  like  all  those 
renowned  for  superior  sanctity,  abounds  with 
dervishes,  who  meet  the  passenger  at  every  turn- 
ing of  the  streets  and  demand  paras  with  the 
greatest  clamour  and  insolence.  The  bazaars 
and  houses  have  little  to  recommend  them  to 
notice  (Kinneir’s  Travels  in  Asia  Minor ; Leake’s 
Geography  of  Asia  Minor ; Arundell’s  Tour 
in  Asia  Minor). 

1.  IDDO  (i^,  seasonable;  Sept.’A5$c0,  a pro- 
phet of  Judah,  who  wrote  the  history  of  Reho- 
boam  and  Abijah ; or  rather  perhaps,  who,  in 
conjunction  with  Seraiah,  kept  the  public  rolls 
during  their  reigns,  it  seems  from  2 Chron.  xiii. 
22  that  he  named  his  book  KHTD,  Midrash,  or 
‘ Exposition.’  Josephus  ( Antiq . viii.  9.  1)  states 
that  this  Iddo  was  the  prophet  who  was  sent  to 
Jeroboam  at  Bethel,  and  consequently  the  same 
that  was  slain  by  a lion  for  disobedience  to  his  ixs?- 
structions  (1  Kings  xiii.);  and  many  commenr 
tators  have  followed  this  statement. 

2.  IDDO,  grandfather  of  the  prophet  Zecha* 
riah  (Zech.  i.  1 ; Ezr.  v.  1 ; vi.  14). 

3.  IDDO  (HK),  chief  of  the  Jews  of  the  capti- 
vity established  at  Casiphia,  a place  of  which  it 
is  difficult  to  determine  the  position.  It  was  t» 


X 


IDDO. 


IDOLATRY. 


min  that  Ezra  sent  a requisition  for  Levites  and 
Nethinim,  none  of  whom  had  yet  joined  his 
caravan.  Thirty-eight  Levites  and  250  Nethi- 
nim  responded  to  his  call  (Ezra  viii.  17-20), 
B.c.  457.  It  would  seem  from  this  that  Iddo 
was  a chief  person  of  the  Nethinim,  descended 
from  those  Gibeoniies  who  were  charged  with  the 
servile  labours  of  the  tabernacle  and  temple. 
This  is  one  of  several  circumstances  w.hich  indi- 
cate that  the  Jews  in  their  several  colonies  under 
the  Exile  were  still  ruled  by  the  heads  of  their 
nation,  and  allowed  the  free  exercise  of  their 
worship. 

4.  IDDO  (fa',  lovely  ; Sept.  TaSaf),  a chief  of 
-the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  beyond  the  Jordan 
■{!  Cbron.  xxvii.  21). 

IDLE.  The  ordinary  uses  of  this  word  re- 
•quire  no  illustration.  But  the  very  serious  pas- 
sage in  Matt.  xii.  36  may  suitably  be  noticed  in 
this  plate.  In  the  Authorized  Version  it  is  trans- 
lated, ‘ I say  unto  you,  that  every  idle  word  that 
-men  shall  speak,  they  shall  give  an  account 
thereof  in  the  day  of  judgment.’  The  original 
is,  *Oti  irav  prjpa  apyoe,  t>  ihv  ol 

Urdpcviroi,  aTTo8'J>aov<n  rrepl  avrov  \6yov  ev  rj/xepa 
♦rpjVews.  The  whole  question  depends  upon 
the  meaning  or  rather  force  of  the  term  pvpa 
dpy6r,  rendered  ‘ idle  word,’  concerning  which 
there  has  been  no  little  difference  of  opinion. 
Many  understand  it  to  mean  ‘ wicked  and  in- 
jurious words,’  as  if  apy6v  were  the  same  as 
■novr}p6v.  which  is  indeed  found  as  a gloss  in  Cod. 
126.  The  sense  is  there  taken  to  be  as  follows  : — 
J Believe  me,  that  for  every  wicked  and  injurious 
word  men  shall  hereafter  render  an  account.’ 
And  our  Lord  is  supposed  to  have  intended  in  this 
passage  to  reprehend  the  Pharisees,  who  had  spoken 
impiously  against  Him,  and  to  threaten  them 
with  the  severest  punishments ; inasmuch  as  every 
one  of  their  injurious  and  impious  words  should 
4>ne  day  be  judged.  This  interpretation  of  the 
word  apy6 v is,  however,  reached  by  a somewhat  cir- 
cuitous process  of  philological  reasoning,  which  is 
examined  with  much  nicety  by  J.  A.  H.  Tittmann, 
-and  shown  to  be  untenable.  He  adds  : ‘ This  in- 
terpretation, moreover,  would  not  be  in  accordance 
with  what  precedes  in  verses  33-35,  nor  with  what 
follows  in  verse  37.  For  it  is  not  any  wicked 
•discourse  which  is  there  represented;  but  the 
feigned  piety  of  the  Pharisees,  and  their  affected 
zeal  for  the  public  welfare.  In  order  to  avoid  a 
charge  of  levity  and  indifference,  they  had  de- 
manded “ a sign,”  crypeiou ; as  if  desirous  that 
both  they  and  others  might  know  whether  Jesus 
was  truly  the  Messiah.  Against  this  dissimula- 
tion in  those  who  uttered  nothing  sincerely  and 
from  the  heart,  Jesus  had  inveighed  in  severe  and 
appropriate  terms  in  verses  33-35,  using  the  com- 
parison of  a tree,  which  no  one  judges  to  be  good 
and  useful  unless  it  bears  good  fruit,  and  from 
which,  if  it  be  bad,  no  one  expects  good  fruit. 
But  if  now  the  sense  of  verse  36  is  such  as  these 
interpreters  would  make  it,  there  is  added  in 
it  a sentiment  altogether  foreign  to  what  pre- 
cedes, and  apy6v  becomes  not  only  destitute  of 
effect  and  force,  but  involves  a sentiment  incon- 
gruous with  that  m verse  37.  For  where  our 
Lord  says  that  hereafter  every  one  shall  be  judged 
according  to  his  words,  He  cannot  be  understood 
V)  mean  that  every  one  will  be  capable  of  prov- 


ing his  integrity  and  goodness  merely  by  Ilil 
words  alone — a sentiment  surely  as  far  as  possible 
from  the  intention  of  our  Divine  Master.  We 
must,  therefore,  necessarily  understand  a certain 
kind  of  words  or  discourse,  whicl  under  the 
appearance  of  sincerity  or  candour,  is  often  the 
worst  possible,  and  /caraSi/ca^et  rbv  avbwnov,  “ com 
demns  a man,”  because  it  is  uttered  with  an  evn 
purpose.  If,  then,  we  interpret  apyiv  according 
to  established  Greek  usage,  there  arises  a natural 
and  very  appropriate  sense,  namely,  apy6v  is  the 
same  as  &epyov,  otiosus,  vain,  idle  ;■ ' then,  void 
of  effect,  without  result,  followed  by  no  corre- 
sponding event.  Therefore  prjpa  apyou  is  empty 
or  vain  words  or  discourse,  i.  e.  void  of  truth, 
and  to  which  the  event  does  not  correspond.  In 
short,  it  is  the  empty,  inconsiderate,  insincere 
language  of  one  who  says  one  thing  and  means 
another ; and  in  this  sense  apy6s  is  very  fre- 
quently employed  by  the  Greeks.’  This  Tittmann 
confirms  by  a number  of  citations ; and  then 
deduces  from  the  whole  that  the  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage under  review  is:  ‘Believe  me,  he  who  uses 
false  and  insincere  language  shall  suffer  grievous 
punishment : your  words,  if  uttered  with  sincerity 
and  ingenuousness,  shall  be  approved ; but  if 
they  are  dissembled,  although  they  bear  the 
strongest  appearance  of  sincerity,  they  shall  be 
condemned  ’ (See  Tittmann,  On  the  Principal 
Causes  of  Forced  Interpretations  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  Am.  Bib.  Repository  for  1831, 
pp.  481-484). 

IDOLATRY.  In  giving  a summary  view  of 
the  forms  of  idolatry  which  are  mentioned  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  expedient  to  exclude  all  notice  of 
those  illegal  images  which  were  indeed  designed 
to  bear  some  symbolical  reference  to  the  worship 
of  the  true  God,  but  which  partook  of  the  nature 
of  idolatry  ; such,  for  example,  as  the  golden  calf 
of  Aaron  (cf.  Nell.  ix.  18);  those  of  Jeroboam; 
the  singular  ephods  of  Gideon  and  Micah  (Judg. 
viii.  27  ; xvii.  5)  ; and  the  Teraphim. 

Idolatry  was  the  most  heinous  offence  against 
the  Mosaic  law,  which  is  most  particular  in  de- 
fining the  acts  which  constitute  the  crime,  and 
severe  in  apportioning  the  punishment.  Thus,  it 
is  forbidden  to  make  any  image  of  a strange  God  ; 
to  prostrate  oneself  before  such  an  ima^e,  or  before 
those  natural  objects  which  were  also  worshipped 
without  images,  as  the  sun  and  moon  (Deut.  iv. 
19)  ; to  suffer  the  altars,  images,  or  groves  of  ido.8 
to  stand  (Exod.  xxxiv.  13);  or  to  keep  the  gold 
and  silver  of  which  their  images  were  made,  and 
to  suffer  it  to  enter  the  house  (Deut.  vii.  25,  26); 
to  sacrifice  to  idols,  most  especially  to  offer  human 
sacrifices;  to  eat  of  the  victims  offered  to  idols 
by  others  ; to  prophesy  in  the  name  of  a strange 
god  ; and  to  adopt  any  of  the  rites  used  in  idol- 
atrous worship,  and  to  transfer  them  to  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Lord  (Deut.  xii.  30,  31).  As  for 
punishment,  the  law  orders  that  if  an  individual 
committed  idolatry  he  should  be  stoned  to  death 
(Deut.  xvii.  2-5) ; that  if  a town  was  guilty  of 
this  sin,  its  inhabitants  and  cattle  should  be  slain, 
and  its  spoils  burnt  together  with  the  town  itself 
(Deut.  xiii.  12-18).  To  what  degree  also  the 
whole  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  is  abhorrent 
from  idolatry,  is  evident  (besides  legal  prohibitions, 
prophetic  denunciations,  and  energetic  appeals  like 
that  in  Isa.  xliv.  9-20)  horn  the  literal  sense  of  the 
terms  which  are  used  as  synonymes  for  idols  and 


IDOLATRY. 


IDOLATRY. 


3 


their  worship.  Thus  idols  are  called 
the  inane  (Lev.  xix.  4)  ; vanities — the  rd 

udraia  of  Acts  xiv.  15  — (Jer.  ii.  5)  ; pN,  nothing 
(Isa.  lxvi.  3);  abominations  (1  Kings 

xi.  5);  dMj,  stercora  (Ezek.  vi.  4);  and  their 
worship  is  called  ichoredom,  which  is  expressed 
by  the  derivatives  of  POT. 

The  early  existence  of  idolatry  is  evinced  by 
Josh.  xxiv.  2,  where  it  is  stated  that  Abram  and 
nis  immediate  ancestors  dwelling  in  Mesopotamia 
’ served  other  gods.’  The  terms  in  Gen.  xxxi. 
53,  and  particularly  the  plural  form  of  the  verb, 
*eem  to  show  that  some  members  of  Ter  ah's 
family  had  each  different  gods.  From  Josh.  xxiv. 
14,  and  Ezek.  xx.  8,  we  learn  that  the  Israelites, 
during  their  sojourn  in  Egypt,  were  seduced  to 
worship  the  idols  of  that  country ; although  we 
possess  no  particular  account  of  their  transgression. 
In  Amos  v.  25,  and  Acts  vii.  42,  it  is  stated  that 
they  committed  idolatry  in  their  journey  through 
the  wilderness;  and  in  Num.  xxv.  1,  sq.,  that 
they  worshipped  the  Moabite  idol  Baal-peor  at 
Shittim.  After  the  Israelites  had  obtained  pos- 
session of  the  promised  land,  we  find  that  they 
were  continually  tempted  to  adopt  the  idolatries 
of  the  Canaanite  nations  with  which  they  came 
in  contact.  The  book  of  Judges  enumerates 
several  successive  relapses  into  this  sin.  The 
gods  which  they  served  during  this  period  were 
Baal  and  Ashtoreth,  and  their  modifications  ; and 
Syria,  Sidon,  Moab,  Ammon,  and  Philistia,  are 
named  in  Judg.  x.  6,  as  the  sources  from  which 
they  derived  their  idolatries.  Then  Samuel  ap- 
pears to  have  exercised  a beneficial  influence  in 
weaning  the  people  from  this  folly  (1  Sam,  vii.)  ; 
and  the  worship  of  the  Lord  acquired  a gradually 
increasing  hold  on  the  nation  until  the  time  of 
Solomon,  who  was  induced  in  his  old  age  to  per- 
mit the  establishment  of  idolatry  at  Jerusalem. 
On  the  division  of  the  nation,  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  (besides  adhering  to  the  sin  of  Jeroboam  to 
the  last)  was  specially  devoted  to  the  worship  of 
Baal,  which  Ahab  had  renewed  and  carried  to  an 
unprecedented  height ; and  although  the  energetic 
measures  adopted  by  Jehu,  and  afterwards  by  the 
priest  Jehoiada,  to  suppress  this  idolatry,  may 
have  been  the  cause  why  there  is  no  later  express 
mention  of  Baal,  yet  it  is  evident  from  2 Kings 
xiii.  6,  and  xvii.  10,  that  the  worship  of  Asherah 
continued  until  the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes. 
This  event  also  introduced  the  peculiar  idolatries 
of  the  Assyrian  colonists  into  Samaria.  In  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  on  the  other  hand,  idolatry 
continued  during  the  two  succeeding  reigns  ; was 
suppressed  for  a time  by  Asa  (1  Kings  xv.  12)  ; 
was  revived  in  consequence  of  Joram  marrying 
into  the  family  of  Ahab;  was  continued  by  Ahaz; 
received  a check  from  Hezekiah;  broke  out  again 
more  violently  under  Manasseh ; until  Josiah 
made  the  most  vigorous  attempt  to  suppress  it. 
But  even  Josiah’s  efforts  to  restore  the  worship  of 
the  Lord  were  ineffectual ; for  the  later  prophets, 
Zephaniah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  still  continue 
to  utter  reproofs  against  idolatry.  Nor  did  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  under  Jehoiachim  awaken 
this  peculiarly  sensual  people  ; for  Ezekiel  (viii.) 
shows  that  those  who  were  left  in  Jerusalem  under 
the  government  of  Zedekiah  had  given  themselves 
up  to  many  kinds  of  idolatry;  and  Jeremiah 
(xliv.  8)  charges  those  inhabitants  of  Judah  who 


had  found  an  asylum  in  Egypt,  with  paving 
turned  to  serve  the  gods  of  that  country.  On  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  after  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity, they  appear,  for  the  first  time  in  their  his- 
tory, to  have  been  permanently  impressed  with  a 
sense  of  the  degree  to  which  their  former  idolatries 
had  been  an  insult  to  God,  and  a degradation  of 
their  own  understanding — an  advance  in  the  cul- 
ture of  the  nation  which  may  in  part  be  ascribed 
to  the  influence  of  the  Persian  abhorrence  of 
images,  as  well  as  to  the  effects  of  the  exile  as  a 
chastisement.  In  this  state  they  continued  until 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  made  the  last  and  fruitless 
attempt  to  establish  (he  Greek  idolatry  in  Pales- 
tine (1  Macc.  i.). 

The  particular  forma  of  idolatry  into  which 
the  Israelites  fell  are  described  under  the  names 
of  the  different  gods  which  they  worshipped  [Ash- 
toreth, Baai,,  &c.]  : the  general  features  of  their 
idolatry  require  a brief  notice  here.  According 
to  Movers  (Vie  Phonizier , i.  148),  the  religion  of 
all  the  idolatrous  Syro-Arabian  nations  was  a 
deification  of  the  powers  and  laws  of  nature,  an 
adoration  of  those  objects  in  which  these  power’s 
are  considered  to  abide,  and  by  which  they  act. 
The  deity  is  thus  the  invisible  power  in  nature 
itself,  that  power  which  manifests  itself  as  the 
generator,  sustainer,  and  destroyer  of  its  works. 
This  view  admits  of  two  modifications : either  the 
separate  powers  of  nature  are  regarded  as  so  many 
different  gods,  and  the  objects  by  which  these 
powers  are  manifested — as  the  sun,  moon,  &c. — 
are  regarded  as  their  images  and  supporters ; or 
the  power  of  nature  is  considered  to  be  one  and 
indivisible,  and  only  to  differ  as  to  the  forms 
under  which  it  manifests  itself.  Both  views  co- 
exist in  almost  all  religions.  The  most  simple 
and  ancient  notion,  however,  is  that  which  con- 
ceives the  deity  to  be  in  human  form,  as  male 
and  female,  and  which  considers  the  male  sex  lc 
be  the  type  of  its  active,  generative,  and  de- 
structive power ; while  that  passive  power  of  na- 
ture whose  function  is  to  conceive  and  bring 
forth,  is  embodied  under  the  female  form.  The 
human  form  and  the  diversity  of  sex  lead  natu*- 
rally  to  the  different  ages  of  life — to  the  old  man 
and  the  youth,  the  matron  and  the  virgin — ac- 
cording to  the  modifications  of  the  conception ; 
and  the  myths  which  represent  the  influences,  the 
changes,  the  laws,  and  the  relations  of  these  na- 
tural powers  under  the  sacred  histories  of  such 
gods,  constitute  a harmonious  development  of 
such  a religious  system. 

Those  who  saw  the  deity  manifested  by,  or 
conceived  him  as  resident  in,  any  natural  objects, 
could  not  fail  to  regard  the  sun  and  moon  as  the 
potent  rulers  of  day  and  night,  and  the  sources  cf 
those  influences  on  which  all  animated  nature 
depends.  Hence  star-worship  forms  a prominent 
feature  in  all  the  false  religions  mentioned  in  the 
Bible.  Of  this  character  chiefly  were  the  Egyptian, 
the  Canaanite,  the  Chaldaean,  and  the  Persian  re- 
ligions. The  Persian  form  of  astrolatry,  however, 
deserves  to  be  distinguished  from  the  others ; fot 
it  allowed  no  images  nor  temples  of  the  god,  but 
worshipped  him  in  his  purest  symhol,  fire.  It  is 
understood  that  this  form  is  alluded  to  in  most, 
of  those  passages  which  mention  the  worship  of 
the  sun,  moon,  and  heavenly  host,  by  incense,  on 
heights  (2  Kings  xxiii.  5, 12  ; Jer.  xix.  13).  The 
other  form  of  astrolatry,  in  which  the  idea  of  the 


4 


I DU  M. LA. 


IDUMAEA. 


sun,  moon,  and  planets,  is  blended  with  the  wor- 
ship of  the  god  in  the  form  of  an  idol,  and  with 
the  addition  of  a mythology  (as  may  be  seen  in 
the  relations  of  Baal  and  his  cognates  to  the  sun), 
easily  degenerates  into  lasciviousness  and  cruel 
rites. 

The  images  of  the  gods,  the  standard  terms  for 
which  are  mVD,  3VJ1,  and  D btf,  were,  as  to 
material,  of  stone,  wood,  silver,  and  gold.  Tlie 
first  two  sorts  are  called  as  being  hewn  or 

carved ; those  of  metal  had  a trunk  or  stock  of 
wood,  and  were  covered  with  plates  of  silver  or 
gold  (Jer.  x.  4);  or  were  cast  (IT3DD).  The 
general  rites  of  idolatrous  worship  consist  in 
burning  incense;  in  offering  bloodless  sacrifices, 
as  the  dough-cakes  (D'MS)  and  libations  in  Jer. 
vvi.  18,  and  the  raisin-cakes  'tWN) 

in  Hos.  iii.  1 ; in  sacrificing  victims  (1  Kings 
xvia.  26),  and  especially  in  human  sacrifices 
[Moi.och].  These  offerings  were  made  on  high 
places,  hills,  and  roofs  of  houses,  or  in  shady 
groves  and  valleys.  Some  forms  of  idolatrous 
worship  had  libidinous  orgies  [Ashtoheth], 
Divinations,  oracles  (2  Kings  i.  2),  and  rabdo- 
mancy  (Hos.  iv.  12)  form  a part  of  many  of  these 
false  religions.  The  priesthood  was  generally  a 
numerous  body ; and  where  persons  of  both  sexes 
were  attached  to  the  service  of  any  god  (like  the 
and  TVlKHp  of  Ashtoreth),  that  service 
was  infamously  immoral.  It  is  remarkable  that 
the  Pentateuch  makes  no  mention  of  any  temple 
of  idols;  afterwards  we  read  often  of  such. — 

J.  N. 

IDUMLA.  JI 5ovpala  is  the  Greek  form  of  the 
Hebrew  name  Edom,  or,  according  to  Josephus 
(Antiq.  ii.  1.  1),  it  is  only  a more  agreeable  mode 
of  pronouncing  what  would  otherwise  be  \A5 a>,ua 
(comp.  Jerome  on  Ezek.  xxv.  12).  In  the  Sep- 
tuagint.  we  sometimes  meet  with  ’ESi^u,  but  more 
generally  with  ’Idovjuala  (the  people  being  called 
’ Idov/uaioi ),  which  is  the  uniform  orthography  in 
the  Apocrypha  as  well  as  in  Mark  iii.  8,  the  only 
passage  in  the  New  Testament  where  it  occurs. 
Our  Authorized  Version  has  in  three  or  four 
places  substituted  for  Edom  ‘ Idumea/  which  is 
the  name  employed  by  the  writers  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  though  it  is  to  be  noted  that  they, 
as  well  as  Josephus,  include  under  that  name 
the  south  of  Palestine,  and  sometimes  Pales- 
tine itself,  because  a large  portion  of  that  coun- 
try came  into  possession  of  the  Edomites  of  later 
times. 

The  Hebrew  EHX  Edom,  as  the  name  of  the 
people  is  masculine  (Num.  xx.  22)  ; as  the  name 
of  the  country,  feminine  (Jer.  xlix.  17).  We 
often  meet  with  the  phrase  Eretz-Edom , * the 
Land  of  Edom/  and  once  with  the  poetic  form 
Sedeh-Edom,  ‘ the  Field  of  Edom  ’ (Judg.  v.  4). 
The  inhabitants  are  sometimes  styled  Beni- Edom , 
‘the  Children  of  Edom/  and  poetically  Bath- 
Edom,  ‘ the  Daughter  of  Edom’  (Lam.  iv.  21, 
22).  A single  person  was  called  Adomi, 

‘an  Edomite’  (Deut  xxiii.  8),  of  which  the  femi- 
nine plural  IVD'li'?  Adomith  occurs  in  1 Kings 
xi.  1.  The  name  was  derived  from  Isaac’s  son 
Edom , otherwise  called  Esau,  the  elder  twin- 
brother  of  Jacob  [Esau].  It  signifies  red , and 
seems  first  to  have  been  suggested  by  bis  appear- 
ance at  his  birth,  when  ‘ he  came  out  all  red  ’ 

e.  covered  with  red  hair,  Gen,  xxv,  25),  and 


was  afterwards  more  formally  and  permanently 
imposed  on  him  on  account  of  his  unworthy  dis- 
posal of  his  birth-right  for  a mess  of  red  lent! let 
(Gen.  xxv.  30).  The  region  which  came  to  bear 
bis  name,  is  the  mountainous  tract  on  the  east 
side  of  the  great  valleys  El  Ghor  and  El  Araba 
extending  between  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Elanitit 
Gulf  of  the  Red  Sea.  Some  have  conjectured 
that  the  latter  sea  was  called  ‘ Red/  because  i ; 
washed  the  shore  of  ‘ Edom  ;’  but  it  never  bears  in 
Hebrew  the  name  of  Yam-Edom : it  is  uniformly 
designated  Yam-Suph,  i.  e.  ‘ the  Sea  of  Madre- 
pores.’ Into  this  district  Esau  removed  during  his 
father’s  life-time,  and  his  posterity  gradually  ob- 
tained possession  of  it  as  the  country  which  God 
had  assigned  for  their  inheritance  in  the  prophetic 
blessing  pronounced  by  his  father  Isaac  (Gen. 
xxvii.  39,  40;  xxxii.  3;  Deut.  ii.  5-12,  22). 
Previously  to  their  occupation  of  the  country,  it 
was  called  TJJL?  “1H,  Mount  Seir,  a designation 
indeed  which  it  never  entirely  lost.  The  word 
seir  means  hairy  (being  thus  synonymous  with 
Esau),  and,  when  applied  to  a country,  may  sig- 
nify rugged , mountainous,  and  so  says  Josephus 
{Antiq.  i.  20.  3)  : ‘ Esau  named  the  country 
“ Roughness  ” from  his  own  hairy  roughness/ 
But  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  20,  we  read  of  an  individual 
of  the  name  of  Seir,  who  had  before  this  inhabited 
the  land,  and  from  whom  it  may  have  received 
its  first  appellation.  Part  of  the  region  is  still 
called  Esh-SAeraA,  in  which  some  find  a trace  of 
Seir,  but  the  two  words  have  no  etymological 
relation  : the  former  wants  the  )},  a letter  which 
is  never  dropped,  and  it  signifies  ‘ a tract,  a pos 
session,’  and  sometimes  ‘ a mountain.’ 

The  first  mention  made  of  Mount  Seir  in  Scrijv 
ture  is  in  Gen.  xiv.  6,  where  Chedorlaomer  and 
his  confederates  are  said  to  have  smitten  ‘ the 
Horim  in  their  Mount  Seir.’  Among  the  earliest 
human  habitations  were  caves,  either  formed  by 
nature  or  easily  excavated,  and  for  the  construc- 
tion of  these  the  mountains  of  Edom  afforded 
peculiar  facilities.  Hence  the  designation  given 
to  the  Aboriginal  inhabitants — Horim,  i.  e.  cave- 
dwellers  (from  “)H,  a ‘ cave’),  an  epithet  of  similar 
import  with  the  Greek  Troglodytes.  Even  in  the 
days  of  Jerome  ‘ the  whole  of  the  southern  part  of 
Idumaea,  from  Eleutheropolis  to  Petra  and  Aila, 
was  full  of  caverns  used  as  dwellings,  on  account 
of  the  sun’s  excessive  heat’  (Jerome  on  Obadiah, 
ver.  1);  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  rho 
possessors  of  the  country  in  every  age  occupied 
similar  habitations,  many  traces  of  which  are  ye» 
seen  in  and  near  Petra,  the  renowned  metropolis. 

VVe  are  informed  in  Deut.  ii.  12,  that  ‘ the 
children  of  Esau  succeeded  \marg.  inherited]  the 
Horim  when  they  had  destroyed  them  from  be- 
fore them,  and  dwelt  in  their  stead,  as  Israel 
did  unto  the  land  of  his  possession,  which  Je- 
hovah gave  unto  them.’  From  this  it  may 
inferred,  that  the  extirpation  of  the  Horim  by 
the  Esauites  was,  like  that  of  the  Canaauites  by 
Israel,  very  gradual  and  slow.  Some  think  this 
supposition  is  confirmed  by  the  genealogical 
tables  preserved  in  the  36th  chapter  of  Genesis 
(comp.  1 Chron.  1.),  where  we  have,  along  with  a 
list  of  the  chiefs  of  Edom,  a similar  catalogue  of 
Horite  chieftains,  who  are  presumed  to  have  been 
their  contemporaries.  But  for  the  chronology  of 
these  ancient  documents  we  possess  no  data  what- 
soever, and  very  orecarious,  therefore,  must  b* 


IDUMEA. 


IDUMAEA. 


ft 


tny  deductions  that  are  drawn  from  them.  This 
much,  however,  we  there  learn  of  the  political  con- 
stitution of  the  Seirite  Aborigines,  that,  like  the 
Ksauites  and  Israelites,  they  were  divided  into 
tribes,  and  these  tnbes  were  sub-divided  into 
families  — the  very  polity  which  still  obtains 
among  the  Arabs  by  whom  Idumaea  is  now 
peopled.  Each  tribe  had  its  own  Alhif—  a term 
which  is  unhappily  rendered  in  the  English  Ver- 
sion by  ‘ Duke  ' — for  though  that  has,  no  doubt, 
the  radical  meaning  of  the  Latin  dux,  a 4 leader,’ 
it  now  only  suggests  the  idea  of  a feudal  title  of 
nobildy.  Of  these  chiefs  of  the  Horites  seven  are 
enumerated,  viz.,  Lotan,  Shobal,  Zibeon,  Anah, 
Dishon,  Ezer,  and  Dishan.  The  only  one  of 
these  who  is  spoken  of  as  related  to  the  other  is 
An  ah,  the  son  of  Zibeon.  The  primitive  and 

iiaatoral  character  of  the  people  is  incidentally 
irought  out  by  the  circumstance  that  this  Anah, 
though  a chieftain’s  son,  was  in  the  habit  of  tend- 
ing his  father's  asses.  It  was  when  thus  employed 
that  he  found  in  the  wilderness  eth-ha-yemim,  ren- 
dered in  the  English  Version  by  ‘ the  mules,’  but 
meaning  more  probably  ‘ the  hot  springs and 
thus  interpreted,  the  passage  seems  to  be  an  inti- 
mation that  he  was  the  first  to  discover  the  faculty 
with  which  asses  and  other  animals  are  endowed, 
of  snuffing  the  moisture  of  the  air,  and  thus 
sometimes  leading  to  the  opportune  discovery 
of  hidden  waters  in  the  desert.  There  is  in  the 
country  to  the  south-east  of  the  Dead  Sea  (which 
formed  part  of  the  Seirite  possessions),  a place, 
Kallirhoz,  celebrated  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  for  its  warm  baths,  and  which  has  been 
visited  by  modem  travellers  (Josephus,  De  Bell. 
Jud.  i.  33.  5;  Pliny,  Ilist.  Nat.  v.  5.  17  ; Legh's 
Travels). 

Esau  first  married  into  two  Canaanitish  families 
if  the  Hittite  and  Hivite  tribes  (Gen.  xxvi.  34  ; 
xxxvi.  2 ; in  one  or  other  of  which  places,  how- 
ever, the  text  seems  corrupt)  ; but  anxious  to  pro- 
pitiate his  offended  parents,  he  next  formed  a 
matrimonial  alliance  with  one  of  the  race  of 
Abraham,  viz.,  Mahalath,  otherwise  called  Bashe- 
math,  daughter  of  Ishmael,  and  sister  of  Ne- 
baioth,  whose  descendants,  the  Nabathaeans,  by  a 
singular  coincidence,  obtained  in  after  times  pos- 
session of  the  land  of  Edom  (Gen.  xxviii.  9). 
Esau’s  first-born  (by  Adah  or  Bashemath,  of  the 
daughters  of  Iieth)  was  Eliphaz,  whose  son 
T 'eman  gave  name  to  a district  of  the  country 
(Gen.  xxxvi.  11,  34;  1 Chron.  i.  45;  Ezek.  xxv. 
13;  Obad.  verse  9).  The  Temanites  were  re- 
nowned for  their  wisdom  (Jer.  xlix.  7,  20  ; Baruch 
iii.  22,  23).  The  chief  speaker  in  the  book  of 
Job  is  another  Eliphaz,  a Termini te, — which  is 
one  of  the  circumstances  that  have  led  many  to 
place  the  scene  of  that  story  in  the  land  of  Edom 
IJob].  The  name  of  Teman  was  preserved  to 
the  days  of  Eusebius  in  that  of  Thaiman,  a small 
town  five  Roman  miles  from  Petra.  Another  son 
of  the  first-mentioned  Eliphaz  was  Amalek , who 
is  not  to  be  confounded,  however,  with  the  father 
of  the  Amalek  ites,  one  of  the  doomed  nations  of 
Canaan,  of  whom  we  hear  so  early  as  the  age  of 
Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.  7). 

As  a modem  Arab  sheikh  is  often  found  to  ex- 
rrcise  influence  far  beyond  the  sphere  of  his  here- 
ditary domain,  so  in  the  list  of  the  Edomite  emirs 
preserved  by  Moses  we  have  perhaps  only  the 
names  of  the  more  distinguished  individuals  who 


acquired  more  or  less  authority  over  all  the  tribe*. 
This  oligarchy  appears  gradually  to  have  changed 
into  a monarchy,  as  happened  too  among  the 
Israelites;  for  in  addition  to  the  above  mentioned 
lists,  both  of  Horite  and  Esauite  leaders,  we  have, 
at  Gen.  xxxvi.  31,  a catalogue  of  eight  kings 
(Bela,  Jobab,  Husham,  Iladad,  Samlah,  Saul, 
Baal-hanan,  Hadar  or  Hadad)  who  ‘reigned  in 
the  land  of  Edom  before  there  reigned  any  king 
over  the  children  of  Israel.’  It  is  not  necessary 
to  suppose  that  this  was  said  by  Moses  propheti- 
cally : it  is  one  of  those  passages  which  may 
have  been  inserted  by  Ezra  when  finally  arranging 
the  canon,  inasmuch  as  it  occurs  also  in  thefirst 
book  of  Chronicles,  of  which  he  is  the  reputed 
compiler.  The  period  when  this  change  to  regal 
government  took  place  in  Idumaea  can  only  be 
matter  of  conjecture.  In  the  Song  of  Moses 
(Exod.  xv.  15)  it  is  said  that  at  the  tidings  of 
Israel's  triumphant  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  the 
rulers  or  princes  (. Alluf ) of  Edom  trembled  with 
affright,  but  when,  some  forty  years  afterwards, 
application  had  to  be  made  by  the  Israelites  for 
leave  to  traverse  the  land  of  Edom,  it  was  to  the 
king  (Melek)  that  the  request  was  addressed 
(Num.  xx.  14)  The  road  by  which  it  was 
sought  to  penetrate  the  country  was  termed  ‘ the 
king  s highway  ’ (ver.  17),  supposed  by  Robinson 
to  be  the  Wady  el-Ghuweir,  for  it  is  almost  the 
only  valley  that  affords  a direct  and  easy  passage 
through  those  mountains.  From  a comparison  of 
these  incidents  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  change 
in  the  form  of  government  took  place  during  the 
wanderings  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert,  unless 
we  suppose,  with  Rosenmiiller,  that  it  was  only 
this  north-eastern  part  of  Edom  which  was  now 
subject  to  a monarch,  the  rest  of  the  country  re- 
maining under  the  sway  of  its  former  chieftains. 
But  whether  the  regal  power  at  this  period  em- 
braced the  whole  territory  or  not,  perhaps  it  did 
not  supplant  the  ancient  constitution,  but  was 
rather  grafted  on  it,  like  the  authority  of  the 
Judges  in  Israel,  and  of  Saul,  the  first  king, 
which  did  not  materially  interfere  with  the  go- 
vernment that  previously  existed.  It  further  ap- 
pears, from  the  list  of  Iduinsean  kings,  that  the 
monarchy  was  not  hereditary,  but  elective  (for  no 
one  is  spoken  of  as  the  son  or  relative  of  his  pre- 
decessor); or  probably  that  chieftain  was  acknow- 
ledged as  sovereign  who  was  best  able  to  vindi- 
cate his  claim  by  force  of  arms.  Every  succes- 
sive king  appears  to  have  selected  his  own  seat  of 
government : the  places  mentioned  as  having  en- 
joyed that  distinction  are  Dinhahah,  Avith,  Pagu 
or  Pai.  Even  foreigners  were  not  excluded  from 
the  throne,  for  the  successor  of  Samlah  of  Masre- 
kah  was  Saul,  or  Shaul,  ‘ of  Rechoboth,  on  the 
river.’  The  word  ‘Rechoboth’  means,  literally, 
streets,  and  was  a not  uncommon  name  given  to 
towns;  but  the  emphatic  addition  of  ‘the  river,’ 
points  evidently  to  the  Euphrates,  and  between 
Rakkah  and  Anah,  on  that  river,  there  are  still 
the  remains  of  a place  called  by  the  Arabs  Ra- 
chabath-Malik-Ibn  Tauk.  In  the  age  of  Solo- 
mon we  read  of  one  Hadad,  who  ‘was  of  the 
king's  seed  in  Edom’  (1  Kings  xi.  14) ; from  whitm 
some  have  conjectured  that  by  that  period  there 
was  a royal  dynasty  of  one  particular  family  ; but 
all  that  the  expression  may  imply  is,  that  he  wa» 
a blood-relation  of  the  last  king  of  the  country 
Hadad  was  the  name  of  one  of  the  early  sore- 


IDUMAEA. 


0 IDUMAEA. 


reigns  4 who  smote  Midian  in  the  field  of  Moab’ 
(Gen.  xxxvi.  35). 

The  unbrotherly  feud  which  arose  between 
Esau  and  Jacob  was  prolonged  for  ages  between 
their  posterity.  The  Israelites,  indeed,  were  com- 
manded ‘not  to  abhor  an  Edomite,  for  he  was 
their  brother’  (Deut.  xxiii.  7) ; but  a variety  of 
circumstances  occurred  to  provoke  and  perpetuate 
the  hostility.  The  first  time  they  were  brought  into 
direct  collision  was  when  the  Edomites,  though 
entreated  by  their  4 brother  Israel,’  refused  the 
latter  a passage  through  their  territories;  and  they 
had  consequently  to  make  a retrograde  and  toil- 
some march  to  the  Gulf  of  Elath,  whence  they 
nad  to  •'  compass  the  land  of  Edom’  by  the  moun- 
tain desert  on  the  east.  We  do  not  again  hear  of 
the  Edomites  till  the  days  of  Saul,  who  warred 
against  them  with  partial  success  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
47) ; but  their  entire  subjugation  was  reserved 
for  David,  who  first  signally  vanquished  them  in 
the  Valley  of  Salt  (supposed  to  be  in  the  Ghor, 
beside  TJsdum,  the  Mountain  of  Salt) ; and, 
finally,  placed  garrisons  in  all  their  country  (2 
Sam.  viii.  14;  1 Chron.  xviii.  11-13;  1 Kings  xi. 
15.  Comp,  the  inscription  of  Ps.  lx.  and  v. 
p,  9;  cviii.  9,  10,  where  ‘the  strong  city’ may 
denote  Selah  or  Petra).  Then  were  fulfilled  the 
prophecies  in  Gen.  xxv.  23  and  xxvii.  40,  that 
the  ‘elder  should  serve  the  younger;’  and  also 
the  prediction  of  Balaam  (Num.  xxiv.  18),  that 
Edom  and  Seir  should  be  for  possessions  to  Israel. 
Solomon  created  a naval  station  at  Ezion-geber, 
at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Elath,  the  modern 
Akaba  (1  Kings  ix.  26  ; 2 Chron.  viii.  18).  To- 
wards the  close  of  his  reign  an  attempt  was  made 
to  restore  the  independence  of  the  country  by  one 
Hadad,  an  Idumaean  prince,  who,  when  a child, 
had  been  carried  into  Egypt  at  the  time  of  David's 
invasion,  and  had  there  married  the  sister  of  Tah- 
panhes  the  queen  (1  Kings  xi.  14-23)  [Hadad]. 
If  Edom  then  succeeded  in  shaking  off  the  yoke, 
it  was  only  for  a season,  since  in  the  days  of  Jeho- 
shaphat,  the  fourth  Jewish  monarch  from  Solomon, 
it  is  said,  ‘ there  was  no  king  in  Edom  ; a deputy 
was  king ;’  i.  e.  he  acted  as  viceroy  for  the  king  of 
Judah.  For  that  the  latter  was  still  master  of  the 
country  is  evident  from  the  fact  of  his  having 
fitted  out,  like  Solomon,  a fleet  at  Ezion-geber 
(1  Kings  xxii.  47,  48;  2 Chron.  xx.  36,  37).  It 
was,  no  doubt,  his  deputy  (called  king')  who 
joined  the  confederates  of  Judah  and  Israel  in 
their  attack  upon  Moab  (2  Kings  iii.  9,  12,  26). 
Yet  there  seems  to  have  been  a partial  revolt  of 
the  Edomites,  or  at  least  of  the  mountaineers  of 
Seir,  even  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron. 
xx.  22):  and  under  his  successor,  Jehoram,  they 
wholly  rebelled,  and  ‘ made  a king  over  them- 
selves’ (2  Kings  viii.  20,  22 ; 2 Chron.  xxi.  8,  10). 
From  its  being  added  that,  notwithstanding  the 
temporary  suppression  of  the  rebellion,  ‘ Edom 
revolted  from  under  the  hand  of  Judah  unto  this 
day,’  it  is  probable  that  the  Jewish  dominion 
was  never  completely  restored.  Amaziah,  indeed, 
invaded  the  country,  and  having  taken  the  chief 
city,  Selah  or  Petra,  he,  in  memorial  of  the  con- 
quest, changed  its  name  to  Joktheel  ( q . d.  sub- 
dued of  God);  and  his  successor,  Uzziah,  re- 
tained possession  of  Elath  (2  Kings  xiv.  7 ; 2 
Chron.  xxv.  11-14;  xxvi.  3).  But  in  the  reign 
of  Ahaz,  hordes  of  Edomites  made  incursions  into 
Judah,  and  carried  away  captives  (2  Chron.  xxviii. 


17).  About  the  same  period  Rezin,  king  of  Syria, 
expelled  the  Jews  from  Elath,  which  (according  tc 
the  correct  reading  of  2 Kings  xvi.  6)  was  thence- 
forth occupied  by  the  Edomites.  In  our  version 
it  is  said,  ‘the  Syrians  dwelt  in  Elath;’  but  the 
Keri,  or  marginal  Masoretic  reading,  instead  of 
D’EHN,  Aramaeans,  has  rnDYlN,  Edomites,  the 
letter  T being  substituted  for  1 ; and  this  is  fol- 
lowed by  many  MSS.,  as  well  as  by  the  Sept,  and 
Vulgate,  and  best  accords  with  historical  fact. 
But  then,  to  make  both  clauses  of  the  verse  to 
correspond,  we  must,  with  Le  Clerc  and  Houbi- 
gant,  read  the  whole  thus  : ‘At  that  time  Rezin, 
king  of  Aram,  recovered  Elath  to  Edom,  and 
drove  the  Jews  from  Elath  ; and  the  Edomites 
came  to  Elath,  and  continued  there  unto  this 
day.’  Now  was  fulfilled  the  other  part  of  Isaac’s 
prediction,  viz.  that,  in  course  of  time,  Esau 
‘ should  take  his  brother’s  yoke  from  off  his  neck’ 
(Gen.  xxvii.  40).  It  appears  from  various  inci- 
dental expressions  in  the  later  prophets,  that  the 
Edomites  employed  their  recovered  power  in  the 
enlargement  of  their  territory  in  all  directions. 
They  spread  as  far  south  as  Bedan  in  Arabia,  and 
northward  to  Bozrah  in  the  Hhauran ; though  it 
is  doubtful  if  the  Bozrah  of  Scripture  may  not 
have  been  a place  in  Idumaea  Proper  (Isa.  xxxiv. 
6;  lxiii.  1;  Jer.  xlix.  7,  8-20;  Ezek.  xxv.  13; 
Amos  i.  12).  When  the  Chaldaeans  invaded 
Judah,  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  Edomites  be- 
came their  willing  auxiliaries,  and  triumphed 
with  fiendish  malignity  over  the  ruin  of  their 
kinsmen  the  Jews,  of  whose  desolated  land  they 
hoped  to  obtain  a large  portion  to  themselves 
(Obad.  verses  10-16;  Ezek.  xxv.  12-14;  xxxv. 
3-10;  xxxvi.  5;  Lament,  iv.  21).  By  this  cir- 
cumstance the  hereditary  hatred  of  the  Jews  was 
rekindled  in  greater  fury  than  ever,  and  hence 
the  many  dire  denunciations  of  the  ‘ daughter  or 
Edom,’  to  be  met  with  in  the  Hebrew  prophets 
(Ps.  cxxxvii.  7-9;  Obad.  passim ; Jer.  xlix.  7; 
Ezek.  xxv.  and  xxxv.).  From  the  language  of 
Malachi  (i.  2,  3),  and  also  from  the  accounts  pre- 
served by  Josephus  (Antiq.  x.  9.  7),  it  would  seem 
that  the  Edomites  did  not  wholly  escape  the  Chal- 
daeari  scourge;  but  instead  of  being  carried  captive, 
tike  the  Jews,  they  not  only  retained  possession  of 
their  own  territory,  but  became  masters  of  the  south 
of  Judah,  as  far  as  Hebron  (1  Macc.  v.  65,  comp, 
with  Ezek.  xxxv.  10  ; xxxvi.  5).  Here,  however, 
they  were,  in  course  of  time,  successfully  at- 
tacked by  the  Maccabees,  and  about  b.c.  125, 
were  finally  subdued  by  John  Hvrcanus,  who 
compelled  them  to  submit  to  circumcision  and 
other' Jewish  rites,  with  a view  to  incorporate 
them  with  the  nation  (1  Macc.  v.  3,  65  ; 2 Macc. 
x.  16  ; xii.  32;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  9.  1 ; 15.  4). 
The  amalgamation,  however,  of  the  two  races 
seems  never  to  have  been  effected,  for  we  after- 
wards hear  of  Antipater,  an  Idumaean  by  birth, 
being  made  by  Caesar  procurator  of  all  Judaea  ; 
and  his  son,  commonly  called  Herod  the  Great, 
was,  at  the  time  of  Christ's  birth,  king  of  Judaea, 
including  Idumaea ; and  hence  Roman  writers 
often  speak  of  all  Palestine  untier  that  name 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  1.  3;  8.5;  xv.  7.  9 ; xvii. 
11.  4).  Not  long  before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus,  20,000  Idumaeans  were  called  in  to  the 
defence  of  the  city  by  the  Zealots  ; Out.  both  par- 
ties gave  themselves  up  to  rapine  and  murdei 
(Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  4.  5;  6.  I ; vii  8.  1) 


1DUM/EA. 


IDUM.EA. 


7 


This  13  the  last  mention  made  of  the  Edomites 
in  history.  Tlie  author  of  a work  on  Job,  once 
ascribed  to  Origen,  says  that  their  name  and  lan- 
guage had  perished,  and  that,  like  the  Ammonites 
and  Moabites,  they  had  all  become  Arabs.  In 
the  second  century  Ptolemy  limits  the  name 
Idumaea  to  th®  country  west  of  the  Jordan. 


360.  [Ravine  in  Idumaea.] 


But  while,  during  the  captivity  of  the  Jews  in 
Babylon,  the  Edomites  had  thus  been  extending 
their  territory  to  the  north-west,  they  were  them- 
selves supplanted  in  the  southern  part  of  their 
native  region  by  the  Nabathseans,  the  descendants 
of  Ishmael’s  eldest  son,  and  to  the  article  Ne- 
baiotii,  we  must  refer  the  reader  for  the  subse- 
quent history  of  the  land  of  Edom. 

From  the  era  of  <be  Crusades  down  to  the  pre- 
sent century  the  land  of  Esau  was,  to  Europeans, 
a terra  incognita.  Its  situation  was  laid  down 
on  the  best  maps  more  than  a hundred  miles  from 
the  true  position,  and  as  if  lying  in  a direction 
where  it  is  now  known  there  is  nothing  but  a vast 
expanse  of  desert.  Yolney  had  his  attention 
drawn  towards  it,  when  at  Gaza,  by  the  vague 
reports  of  the  Arabs,  and  in  1807  the  unfortunate 
Seefzen  penetrated  a certain  way  into  the  country, 
and  heard  of  the  wonders  of  the  Wady  Musa; 
but  the  first  modern  traveller  who  ‘passed  through 
the  land  of  Edom  ’ was  Burckhardt,  in  the  year 
1812.  And  it  has  been  well  remarked  by  Dr. 
Robinson  (Amer.  Bib.  Reposit.  vol.  iii.  p.  250), 
that  ‘ rad  he  accomplished  nothing  but  his  re- 
searches in  these  regions,  his  journey  would  have 
been  worth  all  the  labour  and  cost  expended  on 
it,  although  his  discoveries  thus  shed  their 
strongest  light  upon  subjects  which  were  not 
comprehended  in  the  plan  or  purpose  either  of 
himself  or  his  employers.’  Burckhardt  entered 
Idumaea  from  the  north,  and  in  the  year  1818  he 
was  followed  in  the  same  direction  by  Messrs. 
J>*gh,  Bankea,  Jrby  and  Mangles.  In  1828 


Laborde  and  Linant  found  access  from  the  so  nth ; 
and  since  then  it  has  been  visited  and  described 
by  so  many  that  the  names  of  its  localities  liave 
become  familiar  as  household  words. 

The  limit  of  the  wanderings  of  tne  Israelites  in 
the  desert  was  the  brook  Zered,  after  crossing 
which  they  found  themselves  in  the  territory  of 
Moab  (Deut.  ii.  13-18).  This  brook  is  supposed 
to  be  identical  with  the  Wady-el- Ahsy,  which, 
rising  near  the  Castle  ehAhsy,  on  the  route  to 
Mecca  of  the  Syrian  caravan  upon  the  high 
eastern  desert,  penetrates  through  the  whole  chain 
of  mountains  to  near  the  south-east  corner  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  It  was  thus  the  southern  border  of 
Moab  and  the  northern  of  Edom,  whence  the 
latter  region  extended  southwards  as  far  as  to 
Elath  on  the  Red  Sea.  The  valley  which  runs 
between  the  two  seas  consists  first  of  El-Ghor, 
which  is  comparatively  low,  but  gradually  rises 
into  the  more  elevated  plain  of  El-Arabah  to  the 
south.  The  country  lying  east  of  this  great 
valley  is  the  land  of  Idumaea.  It  is  a mountain 
tract,  consisting  at  the  base  of  low  hills  of  lime- 
stone or  argillaceous  rock,  then  lofty  mountains 
of  porphyry  forming  the  body  of  the  mountain ; 
above  these,  sandstone  broken  up  into  irregular 
ridges  and  grotesque  groups  of  cliffs ; and  again 
farther  back,  and  higher  than  all,  long  elevated 
ridges  of  limestone  without  precipices.  East  of 
all  these  stretches  off"  indefinitely  the  high  plateau 
of  the  great  eastern  desert.  Robinson  and  Smith 
estimated  the  height  of  the  porphyry  cliff's  at 
about  2000  feet  above  the  Arabah  ; the  elevation 
of  Wady  Musa  above  the  same  is,  perhaps,  2000 
or  2200  feet,  while  the  limestone  rkiges  further 
back  probably  do  not  fall  short  of  3000  feet. 
The  whole  breadth  of  the  mountainous  tract 
between  the  Arabah  and  the  eastern  desert 
does  not  exceed  fifteen  or  twenty  geographical 
miles.  Of  these  mountains  the  most  remark- 
able is  Mount  Hor,  near  the  Wady  Musa. 
[Hor,  Mount].  While  the  mountains  on  the 
west  of  the  Arabah,  though  less  elevated,  are 
wholly  barren,  those  of  Idumaea  seem  to  enjoy  a 
sufficiency  of  rain,  and  are  covered  with  tufts  of 
herbs  and  occasional  trees.  The  wadys,  too,  are 
full  of  trees  and  shrubs  and  flowers,  while  the 
eastern  and  higher  parts  are  extensively  culti- 
vated, and  yield  good  crops.  Hence  Robinson 
thinks  its  appearance  fulfils  the  promise  made  to 
Esau  (Gen.  xxvii.  39),  ‘ Thy  dwelling  shall  be 
the  fatness  of  the  earth  and  of  the  dew  of  heaven 
from  above.’  Yet  many  critics  are  of  opinion 
( e . g.  Vater,  De  Wette,  Geddes,  Yon  Bohlen) 
that  should  there  be  rendered  ‘ from,' 

i.  e.  ‘ far  away  from,  or  destitute  of,’  the  fatness 
of  the  earth,  &c.  ; and  it  is  immediately  added, 
‘for  thou  shalt  live  by  thy  sword ;’  and  it  does 
not  appear  that  Idumasa  was  ever  particularly 
noted  for  its  fertility.  Th  is  mountainous  region 
is  at  present  divided  into  two  districts.  The 
northern  bears  the  name  of  Jebdl , i.  e.  ‘ The 
Mountain,’  the  Gebal  of  the  Hebrews  (Ps. 
lxxxiii.  8),  and  the  Gebalene  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans.  Commencing  at  Wady  el-Ahsv,  it 
terminates,  according  to  Burckhardt,  at  Wady 
el  Ghuweir,  the  largest  place  in  it  being  TufileK 
perhaps  the  Tophel  of  Deut.  i.  1.  The  southern 
district  is  esh- Sherah,  extending  as  far  as 
Akabah,  and  including  Shobak,  Wady  Musa, 
Maan,  &c.  Burckhardt  mentions  a third  dis- 


s 


IDUMAEA. 


IMMANUEL. 


trict,  Jtbal  Hesfna ; hut  Robinson  says  that 
though  there  is  a sandy  tract,  el-Hismah,  with 
mountains  around  it,  on  the  east  of  Akabah,  it 
does  not  constitute  a separate  division. 

The  whole  of  this  region  is  at.  present  occupied 
by  various  tribes  of  Bedouin  Arabs.  The  chief 
tribe  in  the  Jehal  is  the  Hejaya,  with  a branch  of 
tire  Kaabineh,  while  in  esh-S/ierah  they  are 
all  of  the  numerous  and  powerful  tribe  of  the 
Haweitat,  with  a few  independent  allies.  The 
Bedouins  in  Idumaea  have  of  late  years  been  par- 
tially subject  to  the  Pacha  of  Egypt,  paying  an 
annual  tribute,  which,  in  the  case  of  the  Beni 
Sukhr,  is  one  camel  for  two  tents.  The  fellahin, 
or  peasants,  are  half  Bedouin,  inhabiting  the  few 
villages,  but  dwelling  also  in  tents;  they  too 
pay  tribute  to  the  Egyptian  government,  and 
furnish  supplies  of  grain. 

Among  the  localities  connected  with  Edom 
which  are  mentioned  in  Scripture  may  be  noticed 
Dinhabah,  Bczrah,  Theman,  Maon  (now  Maan), 
Kadesh-barnea  (which  Robinson  identifies  with 
el-Weibeh  in  the  Wady  el  Jeib),  Zephath  (which 
he  supposes  to  be  the  pass  of  Es-Sufah),  Elath, 
and  Ezion-geber,  & c. ; but  the  most  celebrated 
place  in  all  the  region  was  the  chief  city,  Selah 
or  Petra,  for  a description  of  which  the  reader  is 
referred  to  the  latter  head  [Petra]. 

Could  the  scene  of  the  book  of  Job  be  with 
certainty  fixed  in  Idumaea,  we  should  then  pos- 
sess much  curious  and  valuable  information  re- 
specting both  the  country  and  people  soon  after 
it  had  been  colonized  by  the  descendants  of 
Esau  (See  Mason  Good,  Wemyss,  and  others 
upon  Job).  But  all  that  we  learn  directly  of 
the  ancient  Edomites  from  the  historical  books  of 
Scripture  represents  them  as  not,  indeed,  neglect- 
ing agriculture  or  trade  (Num.  xx.  17),  yet,  on 
the  whole,  as  a warlike  and  predatory  race,  who, 
according  to  the  prediction  of  their  progenitor 
Isaac,  ‘ lived  by  their  sword.’  The  situation  of 
the  country  afforded  peculiar  facilities  for  com- 
merce, which  seems  to  have  been  prosecuted  from 
a very  early  period.  ‘ Bordering,’  says  Volney, 

‘ upon  Arabia  on  the  east,  and  south,  and  Egypt 
on  the  south-west,  and  forming,  from  north  to 
south,  the  most  commodious  channel  of  commu- 
nication between  Jerusalem  and  her  dependencies 
on  the  Red  Sea,  through  the  continuous  valleys 
of  El-Ghor  and  El  Araba,  Idumaea  may  be  said 
to  have  long  formed  the  emporium  of  the  com- 
merce of  the  East.’  The  era  of  its  greatest  pros- 
perity was  after  the  Nabathaeans  had  become 
masters  of  the  country  and  founded  the  kingdom 
of  Arabia  Petraea,  of  which  the  renowned  metro- 
polis was  Petra.  The  religion  of  the  early  Edom- 
ites was,  perhaps,  comparatively  pure  ; but  in 
process  of  time  they  embraced  idolatry : in 
2 Chron.  xxv.  20,  we  read  of  the  ‘ gods  of  Edom,’ 
one  of  whom,  according  to  Josephus  ( Antiq . xv. 
7.  9),  was  called  Kotze.  With  respect  to  the 
striking  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  denunciations 
upon  Edom,  we  need  only  refer  the  reader  to  the 
well-known  work  of  Keith,  who  frequently  errs, 
However,  in  straining  the  sense  of  prophecy  be- 
vond  its  legitimate  import,  as  well  as  in  seeking 
out  too  literally  minute  an  accomplishment.  On 
Idumaea  generally,  see  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Diss.  de 
Antiquiss.  Idumccor.  Ilist.  in  Pott  and  Ruperti's 
Sylloge  Comment.  Theologic.  Part  VI.  p.  121  ; 
J D.  Michaelis,  Comment,  de  Troglodyte  Set- 


ritis,  in  the  Syntagma  Commentt .,  Part  I.  p :94 ; 
but  especially,  Sketches  of  Idumea  and  its presenx 
Inhabitants,  by  Dr.  E.  Robinson,  in  the  Amer 
Bib.  Repository  for  April,  1833,  p.  217;  and 
the  Bib.  Besectrches  of  the  same  writer,  vol.  ii. 
p.  551.— N.  M. 

ILLYRICUM  (*IAA vpu<6v),  a country  lying 
to  the  north-west  of  Macedonia,  and  answering 
nearly  to  that  which  is  at  present  called  Dal- 
matia; by  which  name  indeed  the  southern  part 
of  lllyricum  itself  was  known,  and  whither  St. 
Paul  informs  Timothy  that  Titus  had  gone 
(2  Tim.  iv.  10).  Paul  himself  preached  the 
Gospel  in  lllyricum,  which  was  at  that  time 
a province  of  the  Roman  Empire  (Iiom.  xv 
19). 

IMMANUEL  Sept.  ’Fju/eavo^A) 

or  Emmanuel.  This  word,  meaning  ‘ God  with 
us,'  occurs  in  the  celebrated  verse  of  Isaiah  (v ii 
14),  ‘ Behold,  a virgin  shall  conceive  and  bear  a 
son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel.’  ii 
forty-three  MSS.  and  thirty-nine  printed  editions 
the  word  is  given  in  the  separate  form 
hut,  as  Dr.  Henderson  remarks,  ‘ in  the  ortho- 
graphy of  all  compound  names,  the  MSS.  and 
editions  widely  dilfer.’  In  the  name  itself  there  is 
no  difficulty ; hut  the  verse,  as  a whole,  has  been 
variously  interpreted.  From  the  manner  in  which 
the  word  God,  and  even  Jehovah,  is  used  in  the 
composition  of  Hebrew  names,  there  is  no  such  jk> 
culiarity  in  that  of  Immanuel  as  in  itself  requires 
us  to  understand  that  he  who  bore  it  must  he  in 
fact  God.  Indeed,  it  is  used  as  a proper  name 
among  the  Jews  at  this  day.  This  high  sense  has, 
however,  been  assigned  to  it  in  consequence  of 
the  application  of  the  whole  verse,  by  the  Evan- 
gelist Matthew  (i.  23),  to  our  Divine  Saviour. 
Even  if  this  reference  did  not  exist,  the  history 
of  the  Nativity  would  irresistibly  lead  us  to  th« 
conclusion  that  the  verse — whatever  may  have 
been  its  intermediate  signification — had  an  ulti- 
mate reference  to  Christ. 

The  state  of  opinion  on  this  point  has  been 
thus  neatly  summed  up  by  Dr.  Henderson,  in  bis 
note  on  the  text : — ‘ This  verse  has  long  been  a 
subject  of  dispute  between  Jews  and  professedly 
Christian  writers,  and  among  the  latter  mutually. 
While  the  former  reject  its  application  to  the 
Messiah  altogether, — the  earlier  rabbins  explain- 
ing it  of  the  queen  of  Ahaz  and  the  birth  of  his 
son  Hezekiah ; and  the  later,  as  Kimchi  and 
Abarbanel,  of  the  prophet’s  own  wife, — the  great 
body  of  Christian  interpreters  have  held  it  to  lie 
directly  and  exclusively  in  prophecy  of  our 
Saviour,  and  have  considered  themselves  fully 
borne  out  by  the  inspired  testimony  of  the  Evan- 
gelist Matthew.  Others,  however,  have  departed 
from  this  construction  of  the  passage,  and  have 
invented  or  adopted  various  hypotheses  in  support 
of  such  dissent.  Grotius,  Faber,  Isenbiehl,  Hezel, 
Bolten,  Fritsche,  Pluschke,  Gesenius,  and  Hitzig, 
suppose  either  the  then  present  or  a future  wife 
of  Isaiah  to  be  the  almah  [rendered 

“ virgin”],  referred  to.  Eichhorn,  Paulus,  Hensler 
and  Ammon,  are  of  opinion  that  the  prophet  had 
nothing  more  in  view  than  an  ideal  virgin,  and 
that  both  she  and  her  son  are  merely  imaginary 
personages,  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  prophetic 
illustration.  Bauer,  Cube,  Steudel,  and  sorn4 


INCENSE. 


INDIA. 


fi 


ttfiiers,  think  that  the  prophet  pointed  to  a young 
woman  in  the  presence  of  the  king  and  his 
courtiers.  A fourth  class,  among  whom  are 
Richard  Simon,  Lowfh.  Koppe,  Dathe,  Williams, 
Von  Meyer,  Olshausen,  and  l)r.  J.  Pye  Smith, 
Admit  the  hypothesis  of  a double  sense : one,  in 
which  the  words  apply  primarily  to  some  female 
living  in  the  time  of  the  prophet,  and  her  giving 
birth  to  a son  according  to  the  ordinary  laws  of 
nature;  or,  as  Dathe  holds,  to  some  virgin,  who 
at  that  time  should  miraculously  conceive;  and 
the  other,  in  which  they  received  a secondary 
and  plenary  fulfilment  in  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion and  birth  of  Jesus  Christ.’ 

INCENSE,  a perfume  which  gives  forth  its 
fragrance  by  burning,  and,  in  particular,  that 
perfume  which  was  burnt  upon  the  altar  of  in- 
cense [Altar;  Censer].  Indeed,  the  burning 
of  incense  seems  to  have  been  considered  among 
the  Hebrews  so  much  of  an  act  of  worship  or 
sacred  offering,  that  we  read  not  of  any  other 
use  of  incense  than  this  among  them.  Nor 
among  the  Egyptians  do  we  discover  any  trace 
of  burnt  perfume  but  fa  sacerdotal  use;  but 
in  the  Persian  sculptures  we  see  incense  burnt 
before  the  king.  The  prohibition  of  the  Hebrews 
to  make  any  perfume  for  private  use — ‘ to  smell 
to  ’ — like  that  prepared  for  the  altar,  merely  im- 
plies, we  apprehend,  that  the  sacred  incense  had 
a peculiarly  rich  fragrance  before  being  burnt, 
which  was  forbidden  to  be  imitated  in  common 
perfumes. 

The  incense  is  denoted  by  the  words  ItDpD 
miktar  (Exod.  xxx.  1);  ”|J3p  hitter  (Jer.  xliv. 
21);  and  HlIDp  hituroth  (Exod.  xxx.  1 ; xxxi. 
11;  Ezek.  xvi.  18)  ; all  of  which  are  equally 
from  the  root  “UDp,  which,  in  Pihel.  signifies  gene- 
rally to  raise  an  odour  by  burning ; and  in  the 
verbal  form  it  is  applied  not  only  to  the  offering 
of  incense  but  also  of  sacrifices,  the  smoke  or  efflu- 
vium of  which  is  regarded  as  an  acceptable  orsweet 
odour  to  God.  Indeed,  the  word  which  denotes 
an  incense  of  spices  in  Exod.  xxx.  1 describes 
an  incense  of  fat  in  Ps.  lxvi.  15. 

The  ingredients  of  the  sacred  incense  are  enume- 
rated with  great  precision  in  Exod.  xxx.  34,  35  : 

‘ Take  unto  thee  sweet  spices,  stacte  netaph ), 

and  onycha  (r&nt?  shecheleph),  and  galbanum 
chelbenah ) ; these  sweet  spices  with  pure 

frankincense  lebonah ) : of  each  shall 

there  be  a like  weight.  And  thou  shalt  make  of 
it  a perfume,  a confection  after  the  art  of  the 
apothecary,  tempered  together,  pure  and  holy.’ 
For  an  explanation  of  these  various  ingredients 
we  must  refer  to  their  several  ifebrew  names  in 
the  present  work.  The  further  directions  are, 
that  this  precious  compound  should  be  made  or 
broken  up  into  minute  particles,  and  that  it 
should  be  deposited,  as  a very  holy  thing,  in  the 
tabernacle  ‘ before  the  testimony  ’ (or  ark).  As 
the  ingredients  are  so  minutely  specified,  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  wealthy  persons  from 
having  a similar  perfume  for  private  use : this, 
therefore,  was  forbidden  under  pain  of  excom- 
muuication  : ‘Ye  shall  not  make  to  yourselves 
according  to  the  composition  thereof : it  shall 
Ixs  unto  thee  holy  for  the  Lord.  Whosoever  shall 
make  like  unto  that,  to  smell  thereto,  shall  even 
he  cut  off  from  his  people  ’ (ver.  37,  38). 


The  word  which  describes  the  various  ingredi- 
ents as  being  ‘tempered  together'  literally  means 
‘ salted  ’ (rfcDD  memullach)j  The  Chaldee  and 
Greek  versions,  however,  have  set  the  example  ol 
rendering  it.  by  ‘ mixed ' or  * tempered ,’  as  if  their 
idea  was  that  the  different  ingredients  were  to  be 
mixed  together,  just  as  salt  is  mixed  with  any 
substance  over  which  it  is  sprinkled.  Ainsworth 
contends  for  the  literal  meaning,  inasmuch  as  the 
law  (Lev.  ii.  13)  expressly  says,  ‘ With  all  thine 
offerings  thou  shalt  offer  salt.’  In  support  of  this 
he  cites  Maimonides,  who  affirms  that  there  was 
not  any  thing  offered  on  the  altar  without  salt, 
except  the  wine  of  the  drink  offering,  and  the 
blood,  and  the  wood ; and  of  the  incense  he  says, 
still  more  expressly,  that  ‘they  added  to  it  a cab 
of  salt.’  In  accordance  with  this,  it  is  supposed, 
our  Saviour  says,  ‘ Every  sacrifice  shall  be  salted 
with  salt  ’ (Mark  ix.  49).  Ainsworth  further  re- 
marks : * If  our  speech  is  to  be  always  with  grace, 
seasoned  with  salt,  as  the  apostle  teaches  (Col. 
iv.  6),  how  much  more  should  our  incense,  our 
prayers  unto  God,  be  therewith  seasoned?’  It,  is, 
however,  difficult  to  see  how  so  anomalous  a sub- 
stance as  salt  could  well  be  combined  in  the 
preparation;  and  if  it  was  used,  as  we  incline 
to  think  that  it  was,  it  was  probably  added  in  the 
act  of  offering. 

The  above  reference  to  Maimonides  reminds  ua 
of  the  reason  which  he  assigns,  in  the  More  Ne- 
vochim , for  the  use  of  incense  in  the  Jewish 
ritual  service  : ‘ To  prevent  the  stench  wnich 
would  otherwise  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
number  of  beasts  every  day  slaughtered  in  the 
sanctuary,  God  ordain,  d that  incense  should  be 
burned  in  it  every  morning  and  evening,  and 
thereby  rendered  the  odour  of  the  sanctuary  and  of 
the  vestments  of  those  that  ministered  exceedingly 
grateful : which  has  occasioned  the  saying  of  our 
rabbins,  That  the  odour  of  the  incense  extended 
to  Jericho.  This,  therefore,  is  another  of  the  pre- 
cepts conducing  to  the  reverence  and  veneration 
which  ought  to  be  entertained  for  the  sanctuary  : 
for  if  the  perfume  thereof  lmd  not  been  pleasant, 
but  the  contrary,  it  would  have  produced  con- 
tempt instead  of  veneration,  since  a grateful 
odour  pleases  and  attracts,  while  an  unpleasant 
one  disgusts  and  repels.’ 

Tin’s  is  very  well ; and  no  doubt  the  use  of 
incense,  which  we  always  find  in  religions  where 
worship  is  rendered  by  sacrifice,  had  its  origin  in 
some  such  considerations.  But  we  are  not  to  lose 
sight  of  the  symbolical  meaning  of  this  grateful 
offering.  It  was  a symbol  of  prayer.  It  was 
offered  at  the  time  when  the  people  were  in  the 
posture  and  act  of  prayer ; and  their  orisons  were 
supposed  to  be  presented  to  God  by  the  jrriest,  and 
to  ascend  to  Him  in  the  smoke  and  odour  of  that 
fragrant  offering.  This  beautiful  idea  of  the  in- 
cense frequently  occurs  in  Scripture  (comp.  Ps. 
cxli.  2;  Mai.  i.  11  ; Zech.  xiv.  16;  Acts  x.  4; 
Rev.  v.  8 : viii.  4). 

INCHANTMENTS.  [Witchcraft.] 

INDIA  (•Vnn ; Sept.  *1  f5ik^).  This  name 
occurs  only  in  Esther  i.  1 ; viii.  9,  where  the  Pei 
sian  king  is  described*  as  reigning  ‘ from  India 
unto  Ethiopia,  over  a hundred  and  seven  anu 
twenty  provinces.’  It  is  found  again,  however,  in 
the  Apocrypha,  where  India  is  mentioned  among 
the  countries  which  the  Romans  took  from  Anti- 


10 


INDIA. 


INHERITANCE. 


ochus  and  gave  to  Eumenes  (1  Macc.  viii.  8).  It 
is  also  with  some  reason  conceived  that  in  Acts  ii. 
9,  we  should  read  'Ij /Stay,  India,  and  not  'IovSatav, 
Judaea.  If  this  could  be  admitted,  an  interesting 
subject  of  inquiry  would  arise  ; for  these  dwellers 
in  India — that  is,  Jews  of  India — are  described 
as  being  present  in  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover. 
There  is  much  to  say  in  favour  of  this  reading, 
but  more  in  favour  of  Idumaea  ; for  the  name  of 
that  country,  T Sovjualav,  might,  much  more  easily 
than  that  oflndia,  'li/Siau,  have  been  accidentally, 
or  rather  careless'ly,  corrupted  into  TouSalav  : and, 
at  the  same  time,  the  name  of  Idumaea  would 
come  better  into  the  list  than  that  of  India,  seeing 
that  the  enumeration  is  manifestly  taken  from 
east  to  west;  which  allows  Idumaea  with  great 
propriety  to  follow  Mesopotamia,  but  forbids  India 
to  do  so.  Whichever  may  be  right,  Judaea  can- 
not but  be  wrong  ; and,  indeed,  on  the  face  of  the 
list,  we  cannot  but  see  the  superlluousness*of  the 
information,  that  tire  people  of  Judaea  were  present 
in  their  own  city  at, the  Passover. 

It  is  evident  on  the  face  of  the  above  intima- 
tions, and  indeed  from  all  ancient  history,  that  the 
country  known  as  India  in  ancient  times  extended 
more  to  the  west,  and  did  not  reach  so  far  to  the 
east — that  is,  was  not  known  so  far  to  the  east — 
as  the  India  of  the  moderns.  When  we  read  of 
ancient  India,  we  must  cleaily  not  understand 
the  whole  of  Hindustan,  but  chiefly  the  northern 
Darts  of  it,  or  the  countries  between  the  Indus  and 
the  Ganges ; although  it  is  not  necessary  to  assert 
that  the  rest  of  that  peninsula,  particularly  its 
western  coast,  was  then  altogether  unknown.  It 
was  from  this  quarter  that  the  Persians  and  Greeks 
(to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  eailiest  accounts 
of  India)  iuvaded  the  country ; and  this  was  con- 
sequently the  region  which  first,  became  generally 
known.  The  countries  bordering  on  the  Ganges 
continued  to  be  involved  in  obscurity,  the  great 
Kingdom  of  the  Prasians  excepted,  which,  situated 
nearly  above  the  modem  Bengal,  was  dimly  dis- 
cernible. The  nearer  we  approach  the  Indus,  the 
more  clear  becomes  our  knowledge  of  the  ancient 
geography  of  the  country  ; and  it  follows  that  the 
districts  of  which  at  the  present  day  we  know  the 
least,  were  anciently  best  known.  Besides,  the 
western  and  northern  boundaries  were  not  the 
same  as  at  present.  To  the  west,  India  was  not 
then  bounded  by*the  river  Indus,  but  by  a chain 
of  mountains  which,  under  the  name  of  Koh 
(whence  the  Grecian  appellation  of  the  Indian 
Caucasus),  extended  from  Bactria  to  Makran,  or 
Gedrosia,  enclosing  the  kingdoms  of  Candahar 
and  Cabul,  the  modern  kingdom  of  Eastern  Persia, 
or  Afghanistan.  These  districts  anciently  formed 
part  of  India,  as  well  as,  further  to  the  south,  the 
less  perfectly  known  countries  of  the  Arabi  and 
Haurs  (the  Arabitae  and  Oritae  of  Arrian,  vi.  21), 
bordering  on  Gedrosia.  This  western  boundary 
continued  at  all  times  the  same,  and  was  removed 
to  the  Indus  only  in  coniequence  of  the  victories 
of  Nadir  Shah. 

Towards  the  north,  ancient  India  overpassed 
not  less  its  present  limit.  It  comprehended  the 
whole  of  the  mountainous  region  above  Cashmir, 
Badakshan,  Belur  Land,  the  western  boundary 
mountains  of  Little  Bucharia,  or  Little  Thibet, 
and  even  the  desert  of  Cobi,  so  far  as  it  was 
known.  The  discovery  of  a passage  by  sea  to 
tkz  coasts  oflndia  has  contributed  to  withdraw 


from  these  regions  the  attention  of  Europeans, 
and  left  them  in  an  obscurity  which  hitherto  has 
been  little  disturbed,  although  the  current  Oi 
events  seems  likely  ere  long  to  lead  to  our  better 
knowledge. 

From  this  it.  appears  that  the  India  of  Scripture 
included  no  part  of  the  present  India,  seeing  that  it 
was  confined  to  the  territories  possessed  by  the  Per- 
sians and  the  Syrian  Greeks,  that  never  extended 
beyond  the  Indus,  which,  since  the  time  of  Nadir 
Shah,  has  been  regarded  as  the  western  boundary 
of  India.  Something  of  India  beyond  the  Indus 
became  known  through  the  conquering  march  of 
Alexander,  and  still  more  throrgh  that  of  Seleu- 
cus  Nicator,  who  penetrated  to  the  banks  of  the 
Ganges ; but  the  notions  thus  obtained  are  not 
embraced  in  the  Scriptural  notices,  which,  both 
in  the  canonical  and  the  Apocryphal  text,  are 
confined  to  Persian  India.  (See  Heeren’s  Histo- 
rical Researches , i.  c.  1,  § 3,  on  Persian  India; 
ami  Rennel's  Geog.  of  Herodotus). 

INHERITANCE.  The  laws  and  observances 
which  determine  the  acquisition  and  regulate  the 
devolution  of  property,  are  among  the  influences 
which  afl'ect  the  vital  interests  of  states;  and  it  is 
therefore  of  high  consequence  to  ascertain  the 
nature  and  bearing  of  the  laws  and  observances 
relating  to  this  subject,  which  come  to  us  with 
the  sanction  of  the  Bible.  We  may  also  premise 
that,  in  a condition  of  society  such  as  that  in 
which  we  now  live,  wherein  the  two  diverging 
tendencies  which  favour  immense  accumulations 
on  the  one  hand,  and  lead  to  poverty  and  pau- 
perism on  the  other,  are  daily  becoming  more 
and  more  decided,  disturbing,  and  baneful,  thers 
seems  to  be  required  on  the  part  of  these  who 
take  Scripture  as  their  guide,  a careful  study  of 
the  foundations  of  human  society,  and  of  the 
laws  of  property,  as  they  are  developed  in  the 
divine  records  which  contain  the  revealed  will  of 
God. 

That  will,  in  truth,  as  it  is  the  source  of  all 
created  things,  and  specially  of  the  earth  and 
its  intelligent  denizen,  man,  so  is  it  the  original 
foundation  of  property,  and  of  the  laws  by  which 
its  inheritance  should  be  regulated.  God,  as  the 
Creator  of  the  earth,  gave  it  to  man  to  be  held, 
cultivated,  and  enjoyed  (Gen.  i.  28,  sq. ; Ps. 
cxv.  It) ; Eccles.  v.  9).  The  primitive  records 
are  too  brief  and  fragmentary  to  supply  us  with 
any  details  respecting  the  earliest  distribution 
or  transmission  of  landed  property ; but  from 
the  passages*  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
the  important  fact  appears  to  be  established 
beyond  a question,  that  the  origin  of  property  is  to 
be  found,  not  in  the  achievements  of  violence,  the 
success  of  the  sword,  or  any  imaginary  implied 
contract,  but  in  the  will  and  the  gift  of  the  com- 
mon Creator  and  bountiful  Father  of  the  human 
race.  It  is  equally  clear  that  the  gift  was  made 
not  to  any  favoured  portion  of  our  race,  but  to 
the  race  itself — to  man  as  represented  by  our 
great  primogenitor,  to  whom  the  use  of  the  divine 
gift  was  first  graciously  vouchsafed.  The  indi- 
vidual appropriation  of  portions  of  the  earth,  and 
the  transmission  of  the  parts  thus  appropriated, 
in  other  words,  the  consuetudinary  laws  of  pro- 
perty, would  be  determined  in  each  instance  by 
the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  an  indivi- 
dual, a family,  or  a clan,  might  find  itself  placed 
in  relation  to  the  world  anti  its  other  inhabitants, 


INHERITANCE. 


INHERITANCE. 


5or  is  it  now,  in  the  absence  of  written  evidence, 
possible  to  ascertain,  and  it  is  useless,  if  not  worse, 
to  attempt  to  conjecture,  what  these  laws  were. 
This,  however,  is  certain,  that  if  in  any  case 
they  inflicted  injury,  if  they  aided  the  aggran- 
disement of  the  few,  and  tended  to  the  depression 
of  the  many,  they  thereby  became  unjust,  and  not 
only  lost  their  divine  sanction,  but,  by  opposing 
the  very  purposes  for  which  the  earth  was  given  to 
man,  and  operating  in  contravention  of  the  divine 
will,  they  were  disowned  and  condemned  of  God, 
die  tenure  of  the  property  was  forfeited,  and  a 
recurrence  to  first  principles  and  a re-distribution 
became  due  alike  to  the  original  donor,  and  to 
those  whom  He  had  intended  impartially  to  be- 
nefit. 

The  enforcement  of  these  principles  has,  in 
different  periods  of  human  history,  been  made  by 
the  seen  hand  of  God,  in  those  terrible  providen- 
tial visitations  which  upturn  the  very  foundations 
of  society  and  reconstruct  the  social  frame.  The 
Deluge  was  a kind  of  revocation  of  the  divine 
gift ; the  Creator  took  back  into  his  own  hands 
the  earth  which  men  had  filled  with  injustice 
and  violence.  The  trust,  however,  was,  after  that 
terrible  punishment,  once  more  committed  to 
man,  to  be  held,  not  for  himself,  but  lor  God, 
and  to  be  so  used  and  improved  as  to  further 
Inc  divine  will  by  furthering  human  good.  And, 
whatever  conduct  may  have  been  pursued,  at  any 
period,  at  variance  with  the  divine  purpose,  yet  it 
is  in  trust,  not  in  absolute  possession,  it  is  for 
God’s  purposes,  not  our  own,  that  the  earth  at 
large,  and  every  portion  of  the  earth,  has  been 
and  is  still  held.  In  truth,  man  is  the  tenant, 
nor  the  proprietor,  of  the  earth.  It  is  the  tem- 
porary use,  not  the  permanent  possession  of  it 
that  he  enjoys.  The  lord  of  ten  thousand  broad 
acres,  equally  with  the  poor  penniless  squatter,  is 
a sojourner  and  pilgrim  in  the  land,  as  all  his 
fathers  were,  and  is  bound,  not,  less  than  the 
other,  to  remember,  not  only  that  property  has 
its  duties  as  well  as  its  rights,  but  also  that 
its  best  titles  are  held  by  a momentary  tenure, 
revocable  at  the  will  of  an  omnipotent  power, 
and  subject  to  unerring  scrutiny,  in  regard  both 
to  their  origin  and  their  use,  in  a court  where 
the  persons  of  men  are  not  respected,  where  justice 
is  laid  to  the  line,  and  judgment  to  the  plummet 
(Isa.  xviii.  17). 

The  impression  which  the  original  gift  of  the 
earth  was  calculated  to  make  on  men,  the  Great 
Donor  was  pleased,  in  the  case  of  Palestine,  to 
render,  for  his  own  wise  purposes,  more  decided 
and  emphatic  by  an  express  re-donation  to  the 
patriarch  Abraham  (Gen.  xiii.  14,  sq.).  Many 
years,  however,  elapsed  before  the  promise  was 
fulfilled.  Meanwhile  the  notices  which  we  have 
regarding  the  state  of  property  in  the  patriarchal 
age3,  are  few  and  not  very  definite.  The  products 
of  the  earth,  however,  were  at  an  early  period  ac- 
cumulated and  held  as  property.  Violence  in- 
vaded the  possession;  opposing  violence  recovered 
t lie  goods.  War  soon  sprang  out  of  the  passions 
of  the  human  heart.  The  necessity  of  civil  go- 
vernment was  felt.  Consuetudinary  laws  ac- 
cordingly developed  themselves.  The  head  of 
the  family  was  supreme.  His  will  was  law.  The 
physical  superiority  which  he  possessed  gave  him 
this  dominion.  The  same  influence  would  secure 
he  transm'esion  in  the  male  rather  than  the  fe- 


male line.  Hence  too  the  rise  of  the  rights  of 
primogeniture.  In  the  early  condition  of  society 
which  is  called  patriarchal,  landed  property  had 
its  origin,  indeed,  but  could  not  be  held  of  first 
importance  by  those  who  led  a wandering  life, 
shifting  continually,  as  cor  venience  suggested, 
from  one  spot  to  another.  Cattle  were  then  the 
chief  property  (Gen.  xxiv.  35).  But  land,  if  held, 
was  held  on  a freehold  tenure ; nor  could  any 
other  tenure  have  come  into  existence  till  more 
complex  and  artificial  relations  arose,  resulting,  in 
all  probability,  from  the  increase  of  population 
and  the  relative  insufficiency  of  food.  When 
Joseph  went  down  into  Egypt,  lie  appears  to  have 
found  the  freehold  tenure  prevailing,  which,  how- 
ever, he  converted  into  a tenancy  at  will,  or,  at 
any  rate,  into  a conditional  tenancy.  Other  in- 
timations are  found  in  Genesis  Which  confirm 
the  general  statements  which  have  just  been 
made.  Daughters  do  not  appear  to  have  had  any 
inheritance.  If  there  are  any  exceptions  to  this 
rule,  they  only  serve  to  prove  it.  Thus  Job  (the 
book  so  called  is  undoubtedly  very  old,  so  that 
there  is  no  impropriety  in  citing  it  in  this  con- 
nection) is  recorded  (xlii.  15)  to  have  given  his 
daughters  an  inheritance  conjointly  with  their 
brothers — a record  which  of  itself  proves  the  sin- 
gularity of  the  proceeding,  and  establishes  our 
position  that  inheritance  generally  followed  the 
male  line.  How  highly  the  privileges  conferred 
by  primogeniture  were  valued,  may  be  learnt  from 
the  history  of  Jacob  and  Esau.  In  the  patriarchal 
age  doubtless  these  rights  were  very  great.  The 
eldest  son,  as  being  by  nature  the  first  fitted  for 
command,  assumed  influence  and  control,  under 
his  father,  over  the  family  and  its  dependents ; 
and  when  the  father  was  removed  by  death,  he 
readily,  and  as  if  by  an  act  of  Providence,  took 
his  father's  place.  Thus  he  succeeded  to  the  pro- 
perty in  succeeding  to  the  headship  ot  the  family, 
the  clan,  or  the  tribe.  At  first  the  eldest  son  most 
probably  took  exclusive  possession  of  his  father's 
property  and  power;  and  when,  subsequently,  a 
division  became  customary,  he  would  still  retain 
the  largest  share — a double  portion,  if  not  more 
(Gen.  xxvii.  25,  29,  49).  That  in  the  days 
of  Abraham  other  sons  partook  with  the  eldest, 
and  that  too  though  they  were  sons  of  concubines, 
is  clear  from  the  story  of  Hagar’s  expulsion  : — 
‘ Cast  out  (said  Sarah)  this  bondwoman  and  her 
son  ; for  the  son  of  this  bondwoman  shall  not  be 
heir  with  my  son,  even  with  Isaac  ’ (Gen.  xxi.  10). 
The  few  notices  left  us  in  Genesis  of  ihe  transfer 
of  property  from  hand  to  hand  are  interesting, 
and  bear  a remarkable  similarity  to  what  takes 
place  in  Eastern  countries  even  at  this  day  (Gen. 
xxi.  22,  sq.  ; xxiii.  9,  sq.).  The  purchase  of 
the  Cave  of  Machpelah  as  a family  burying- 
place  for  Abraham,  detailed  in  the  last  passage, 
serves  to  show  the  safety  of  property  at  that  early 
period,  and  the  facility  with  which  an  inheritance 
was  transmitted  even  to  sons’  sous  (comp.  Gen. 
xlix.  29).  That  it  was  customary,  during  the 
father’s  lifetime,  to  make  a disposition  of  property, 
is  evident  from  Gen.  xxiv.  .35,  where  it  is  said 
that  Abraham  had  given  all  he  had  to  Isaac.  This 
statement  is  further  confirmed  by  ch.  xxv.  5,  6, 
where  it  is  added  that  Abraham  gave  to  the  sons 
of  his  concubines  ‘gifts,  sending  them  away  from 
Isaac  His  son,  while  he  yet  lived,  eastward  unto 
the  east  country.’  Sometimes,  however,  bo  far 


INHERITANCE. 


INHERITANCE. 


13 

were  (he  children  of  unmarried  females  from 
oeing  dismissed  with  a gift,  that  they  shared, 
with  what  we  should  teim  the  legitimate  children, 
in  the  father’s  property  and  rights.  Thus  Dan 
and  Naphtali  were  sons  of  Bilhah,  Rachel's  maid, 
whom  she  gave  to  her  husband,  failing  to  bear 
children  herself.  So  Gad  and  Asher  were,  under 
similar  circumstances,  sons  of  Zilpah,  Leah’s 
maid  (Gen.  xxx.  2-14).  In  the  event  of  the 
eldest  son’s  dying  in  the  father’s  lifetime,  the 
next  son  took  his  place;  and  if  the  eldest  son  left 
a widow,  the  next  son  made  her  his  wife  (Gen. 
xxxviii.  7,  sq.),  the  offspring  of  which  union  was 
reckoned  to  the  first-born  and  deceased  son. 
Should  the  second  likewise  die,  the  third  son 
took  his  place  (Gen.  xxxviii.  11).  While  the 
rights  of  the  first-born  were  generally  established 
*nd  recognised,  yet.  were  they  sometimes  set  aside 
in  favour  of  a younger  child.  The  blessing  of 
the  father  or  the  grandsire  seems  to  have  been  an 
act  essential  in  the  devolution  of  power  and  pro- 
perty— in  its  effects  not  unlike  wills  and  testa- 
ments with  us ; and  instances  are  not  wanting  in 
which  this  (so  to  term  it)  testamentary  bequest 
set  aside  consuetudinary  laws,  and  gave  prece- 
dence to  a younger  son  (Gen.  xlviii.  15,  sq.). 
Special  claims  on  the  parental  regards  were  ac- 
knowledged and  rewarded  by  special  gifts,  as  in 
the  case  of  Jacob's  donation  to  Joseph  (Gen. 
xlviii.  22).  In  a similar  manner,  bad  conduct 
on  the  part  of  the  eldest  son  (as  well  as  of  others) 
subjected  him,  if  not  to  the  loss  of  his  rights  of 
oroperty,  yet  to  the  evil  influence  of  his  father’s 
dying  malediction  (Gen.  xlix.  3) ; while  the  good 
and  favoured,  though  younger,  son  was  led  by 
the  paternal  blessing  to  anticipate,  and  probably 
also  to  reap,  the  richest  inheritance  of  individual 
and  social  happiness  (Gen.  xlix.  3-22). 

The  original  promise  made  to  Abraham  of  the 
land  of  Palestine  was  solemnly  repeated  to  Isaac 
(Gen.  xxvi.  3),  the  reason  assigned  being,  be- 
cause ‘ Abraham  obeyed  my  voice  and  kept  my 
charge,  my  commandments,  my  statutes,  and  my 
laws while  it  is  expressly  declared  that  the 
earlier  inhabitants  of  the  country  were  dispos- 
sessed and  destined  to  extermination  for  the 
greatness  of  their  iniquity.  The  possession  of 
the  promised  land  was  embraced  by  Isaac  in  his 
dying  benediction  to  Jacob  (Gen.  xxviii.  3,  4),  to 
whom  God  vouchsafed  (Gen.  xxviii.  15;  see  also 
xxxv.  10,  11)  to  give  a renewed  assurance  of  the 
destined  inheritance.  That  this  donation,  how- 
ever, was  held  to  be  dependent  for  the  time  and 
manner  of  its  fulfilment  on  the  divine  will,  ap- 
pears from  Gen.  xxxiii.  18,  where  Jacob,  on 
coming  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  bought  for  an 
hundred  pieces  of  money  4 a parcel  of  a field,  at 
the  hand  of  the  children  of  Hamor.’  Delayed 
Chough  the  execution  of  the  promise  was,  con- 
fidence never  deserted  the  family  of  Abraham,  so 
that  Joseph,  dying  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  assured 
his  brothers  that  they  would  be  visited  of  God 
and  placed  in  possession  of  Canaan,  enjoining  on 
them,  in  this  conviction,  that,  when  conducted 
to  their  possession,  they  should  carry  his  bones 
with  them  out  of  Egypt  (Gen.  1.  25). 

A promise  thus  given,  thus  repeated,  and  thus 
oelieved,  easily,  and  indeed  unavoidably,  became 
the  fundamental  principle  of  that  settlement  of 
property  which  Moses  made  when  at  length  he 
had  ^fleeted  the  divine  will  in  the  redemption 


of  the  children  of  Israel.  The  observances  ujuJ 
practices,  too,  which  we  have  noticed  as  prevailing 
among  the  patriarchs  would,  no  doubt,  have  great 
influence  on  the  laws  which  the  Jewish  legislator 
originated  or  sanctioned.  The  land  of  Canaan 
was  divided  among  the  twelve  tribes  descended 
through  Isaac  and  Jacob  from  Abraham.  The 
division  was  made  by  lot  for  an  inheritance 
among  the  families  of  the  sons  of  Israel,  accord- 
ing to  the  tribes,  and  to  the  number  and  size  of 
families  in  each  tribe.  The  tribe  of  Levi,  how- 
ever, had  no  inheritance;  but  forty-eight  cities  with 
their  suburbs  were  assigned  to  the  Levites,  each 
tribe  giving  according  to  the  number  of  cities 
that  fell  to  its  share  (Num.  xxxiii.  50;  xxxiv.  1 ; 
xxxv.  1).  The  inheritance  thus  acquired  was 
never  to  leave  the  tribe  to  which  it  belorged  ; 
every  tribe  was  to  keep  strictly  to  its  own  inherit- 
ance. An  heiress,  in  consequence,  was  net  allowed 
to  marry  out  of  her  own  tribe,  lest  property  should 
pass  by  her  marriage  into  another  tribe  (Num. 
xxxvi.  6-9).  This  restriction  led  to  the  marriage 
of  heiresses  with  their  near  relations  : thus  the 
daughters  of  Zelophehad  ‘ were  married  unto  then- 
father’s  brother’s  sons,’  4 and  their  inheritance  re- 
mained in  the  tribe  of  the  family  of  their  father  ’ 
(ver.  11,  12;  comp.  Joseph.  Antiq.  iv.  7.  5).  In 
general  cases  the  inheritance  went  to  sons,  the 
first-born  receiving  a double  portion,  ‘for  he  is 
the  beginning  of  his  father’s  strength.’  If  a man 
had  two  wives,  one  beloved,  the  other  hated,  and 
if  the  first-born  were  the  son  of  her  who  was 
hated,  he  nevertheless  was  to  enjoy  4 the  right  of 
the  first-born’  (Deut.  xxi.  15).  If  a man  left  no 
sons,  the  inheritance  passed  to  his  daughters ; if 
there  was  no  daughter,  it  went  to  his  brothers ; in 
case  there  were  no  brothers,  it  was  given  to  his 
father’s  brothers;  if  his  father  had  no  brothers, 
it  came  into  possession  of  the  nearest  kinsman 
(Num.  xxvii.  8).  The  land  was  Jehovah’s,  and 
could  not  therefore  be  permanently  alienated. 
Every  fiftieth  year,  whafever  land  had  been  sold 
returned  to  its  former  owner.  The  value  and 
price  of  land  naturally  rose  or  fell  in  proportion 
to  the  number  of  years  there  were  to  elapse  prior 
to  the  ensuing  fiftieth  or  jubilee-year.  If  he  who 
sold  the  land,  or  a kinsman,  could  redeem  the 
land  before  the  year  of  jubilee,  it  was  to  l)e 
restored  to  him  on  his  paying  to  the  purchaser 
the  value  of  the  produce  of  the  years  remaining 
till  the  jubilee.  Houses  in  villages  or  unwalled 
towns  might  not  be  sold  for  ever ; they  were  re- 
stored at  the  jubilee,  and  might  at  any  time  be 
redeemed.  If  a man  sold  a dwelling-house  situ- 
ated in  a walled  city,  he  had  the  option  of  re- 
deeming it  within  the  space  of  a full  year  after  it 
had  been  sold  ; but  if  it  remained  unredeemed,  it 
belonged  to  the  purchaser,  and  did  not  return  to 
him  who  sold  it  even  at  the  jubilee  (Lev.  xxv.  8. 
23).  The  Levites  were  not  allowed  to  sell  the 
land  in  the  suburbs  of  their  cities,  though  they 
might  dispose  of  the  cities  themselves,  which, 
however,  were  redeemable  at  any  time,  and  must 
return  at  the  jubilee  to  their  original  possessors 
(Lev.  xxvii.  16). 

The  regulations  which  the  laws  of  Moses  esta- 
blished rendered  wills,  or  a testamentary  dispo- 
sition of  (at  least)  landed  property,  almost,  if  no 
juite,  unnecessary;  we  accordingly  find  no  pro- 
vision for  anything  of  the  kind.  Some  difficulty 
may  have  been  now  and  then  occasioned  when 


INSPIRATION. 


INSPIRATION. 


IS 


near  relations  failed;  but,  this  was  met.  by  the 
traditional  law,  which  furnished  minute  direc- 
tions on  the  point  (Misch.  Baba  Bathra , iv.  3, 
c.  8,  9).  Personal  properly  would  naturally  fol- 
low the  land,  or  might  be  bequeathed  by  word  of 
mouth.  At  a later  period  of  the  Jewish  polity 
the  mention  of  wills  is  found,  but  the  idea  seems 
to  have  been  taken  from  foreign  nations.  In 
princely  families  they  appear  to  have  been  used,  as 
we  learn  from  Josephus  ( Antiq . xiii.  16.  1 ; xvii. 
3.  2 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  2.  3) ; but  such  a prac- 
tice can  hardly  suffice  to  establish  the  general 
use  of  wills  among  the  people.  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament, however,  wills  are  expressly  mentioned 
(Gal.  iii.  15;  Heb.  ix.  17).  Michaelis  (Com- 
mentaries, i.  431)  asserts  that  the  phrase  (2  Sam. 

xvii.  23  ; 2 Kings  xx.  1 : iTltf)  ‘set  thine 

house  in  order  ’ has  reference  to  a will  or  testa- 
ment. But  his  grounds  are  by  no  means  sufficient, 
the  literal  rendering  of  the  words  being,  ‘ give 
commands  to  thy  house/  The  utmost  which 
such  an  expression  could  inferentially  be  held  to 
comprise  in  regard  to  property,  is  a dying  and 
final  distribution  of  personal  property ; and  we 
know  that  it  was  not  unusual  for  fathers  to  make, 
while  yefalive,  a division  of  their  goods  among 
their  children  (Luke  xv.  12 ; Rosenmiill.  Mor- 
genl.  v.  197).— J.  R.  B. 

INK,  INKHORN.  [Writing.] 

INSPIRATION.  This  word  is  sometimes 
used  to  denote  the  excitement  and  action  of  a 
fervent  imagination  in  the  poet  or  orator.  But 
even  in  this  case  there  is  generally  a reference  to 
some  supposed  divine  influence,  to  which  the  ex- 
cited action  isowing.  It  is  once  used  in  Scrip- 
ture to  denote  that  divine  agency  by  which  man 
is  endued  with  the  faculties  of  an  intelligent 
being,  when  it  is  said,  ‘ the  inspiration  of  the  Al- 
mighty giveth  him  understanding.’  But  the  in- 
spiration now  to  be  considered  is  that  which 
belonged  to  those  who  wrote  the  Scriptures,  and 
which  is  particularly  spoken  of  in  2 Tim.  iii.  16, 
and  in  2 Pet.  i.  21  : ‘ All  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God  ;’  4 Holy  men  of  God  spake  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost/  These  pas- 
sages relate  specially  to  the  Old  Testament; 
but  there  is  at  least  equal  reason  to  predicate 
divine  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  definition  which  Dr.  Knapp  gives  of  in- 
spiration is  the  one  we  shall  adopt.  He  says, 
‘ It  may  be  best  defined,  according  to  the  repre- 
sentations of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  as  an  ex- 
traordinary divine  agency  upon  teachers  while 
giving  instruction , whether  oral  or  written , by 
which  they  were  taught  what  and  hoio  they 
should  write  or  speak.'  Or  we  may  say  more 
briefly,  that  the  sacred  penmen  were  completely 
under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  that  they 
wrote  under  a plenary  inspiration.  Dr.  Calamy’s 
definition  agrees  substantially  with  that  of  Dr. 
Knapp. 

To  prove  that  the  Scriptures  are  divinely  in- 
spired we  might  with  propriety  refer  to  the 
excellence  of  the  doctrines,  precepts,  and  pro- 
mises, and  other  instructions,  which  they  contain  *, 
to  the  simplicity  and  majesty  of  their  style ; to 
the  agreement  of  the  different  parts,  and  the 
scope  of  the  whole;  especially  to  the  full  dis- 
covery they  make  of  man's  fallen  and  ruined 
state,  and  the  way  of  salvation  through  a Re- 


deemer; together  with  their  power  tc  enlighten 
and  sanctify  the  heart,  and  the  accompanying 
witness  of  the  spirit  in  believers.  These  are  cir- 
cumstances of  real  importance,  and  the  discerning 
advocates  of  inspiration  have  not  overlooked  them. 
But  the  more  direct  and  conclusive  evidence  that 
the  Scriptures  were  divinely  inspired,  is  found  in 
the  testimony  of  the  writers  themselves.  And 
as  the  writers  did,  by  working  miracles,  and  in 
other  ways,  sufficiently  authenticate  their  divine 
commission,  and  establish  their  authority  and  in- 
fallibility as  teachers  of  divine  truth,  their 
testimony,  in  regard  to  their  own  inspiration,  is 
entitled  to  our  full  confidence.  For  who  can  doubt 
that  they  were  as  competent  to  judge  of,  and 
as  much  disposed  to  speak  the  truth  on  this  sub- 
ject as  on  any  other?  If  then  we  admit,  their 
divine  commission  and  authority,  why  should  we 
not  rely  upon  the  plain  testimony  which  they 
give  concerning  the  divine  assistance  afforded 
them  in  their  work?  To  reject  their  testimony  in 
this  case  would  be  to  impeach  their  veracity,  and 
thus  to  take  away  the  foundation  of  the  Christian 
religion.  And  it  is  well  known  that  those  who 
deny  the  justice  of  the  claim  which  they  set  up 
to  divine  inspiration,  do,  in  fact,  give  up  the  in- 
fallible truth  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
adopt  the  principles  of  deism. 

It  is,  then,  of  the  first  importance  to  inquire 
what  representations  are  made  by  the  prophets, 
and  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  respecting  the  inspi- 
ration, and  the  consequent  authority,  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures. 

The  prophets  generally  professed  to  speak  the 
word  of  God.  What  they  taught  was  introduced 
and  confirmed  by  a * Thus  saith  the  Lord ;’  or 
4 The  Lord  spake  to  me,  saying/  And,  in  one 
way  or  another,  they  gave  clear  proof  that  they 
were  divinely  commissioned,  and  spoke  in  the 
name  of  God,  or  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  God  spake  by  them. 

But  the  strongest  and  most  satisfactory  proof  of 
the  inspiration  and  divine  authority  of  the  Old 
Testament  writings,  is  found  in  the  testimony  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles. 

The  Lord'  Jesus  Christ  possessed  the  spirit  of 
wisdom  without  measure,  and  came  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  truth.  His  works  proved  that  he  was 
what  he  declared  himself  to  be — the  Messiah,  the 
great  Prophet,  the  infallible  Teacher.  The  faith 
which  rests  on  him  rests  on  a rock.  As  soon  then 
as  we  learn  how  he  regarded  the  Scriptures,  we 
have  reached  the  end  of  our  inquiries.  His  word 
is  truth.  Now  every  one  who  carefully  attends 
to  the  four  Gospels  will  find,  that  Christ  every- 
where spoke  of  that  collection  of  writings  called 
the  Scripture,  as  the  word  of  God ; that  he  re- 
garded the  whole  in  this  light ; that  he  treated 
the  Scripture,  and  every  part  of  it,  as  infallibly 
true,  and  as  clothed  with  divine  authority, — thus 
distinguishing  it  from  every  mere  human  produc- 
tion. Nothing  written  by  man  can  be  entitled  to 
the  respect  which  Christ  showed  to  the  Scriptures. 
This,  to  all  Christians,  is  direct  and  incontro- 
vertible evidence  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  is,  by  itself,  perfectly  conclusive. 

But  there  is  clear  concurrent  evidence,  and 
evidence  still  more  specific,  in  the  writings  of  the 
Apostles.  In  two  texts  in  particular,  divine  in- 
spiration is  positively  asserted.  In  the  first  (2 
Tim.  iii.  16),  Paul  lays  it  down  as  the  charac- 


14 


INSPIRATION. 


INSPIRATION. 


ferististic  of  ‘ all  Scripture ,’  that  it  ‘ is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God'  ( QeSrcvevaTos , ‘ divinely  in- 
spired); and  from  this  results  its  profitableness. 
Some  writers  think  that  the  passage  should  be 
rendered  thus  : All  divinely  inspired  Scripture, 
or,  all  Scripture,  being  divinely  inspired . is 
profitable.  According  to  the  common  render- 
ing, inspiration  is  predicated  of  all  Scripture. 
According  to  the  other,  it  is  presupposed,  as  the 
attribute  of  the  subject.  But  this  rendering  is 
liable  to  insuperable  objections.  For  Q*6trvev- 
<rros  and  <y#eA ipos  are  connected  by  the  con- 
junction Kai,  anil  must  both  be  predicates,  if 
either  of  them  is ; and  uuless  one  of  them  is  a 
predicate  there  is  no  complete  sentence.  Hen- 
derson remarks,  that  the  mode  of  construction  re- 
ferred to  ‘ is  at  variance  with  a common  rule  of 
Greek  syntax,  which  requires,  that  when  two 
adjectives  are  closely  joined,  as  OeSTryewTos  and 
axpetepos  here  are,  if  there  be  an  ellipsis  of  the 
substantive  verb  ian,  this  verb  must  be  supplied 
after  the  former  of  the  two,  and  regarded  as  re- 
peated after  the  latter.  Now  there  exists  pre- 
cisely such  an  ellipsis  in  the  case  before  us;  and 
as  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  which  would 
lead  to  any  exception  to  the  rule,  we  are  bound 
to  yield  to  its  force.’  And  he  adds,  that  ‘ the 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  common  rendering, 
derived  from  the  Fathers,  and  almost  all  the  ver- 
sions, is  most  decided.’  It  cannot  for  a moment 
be  admitted,  that  the  Apostle  meant  to  signify 
that  divine  inspiration  belongs  to  a part  of  Scrip- 
ture, but  not  to  the  whole ; or  that  he  meant,  as 
Semler  supposes,  to  furnish  a criterion  by  which 
to  judge  whether  any  work  is  inspired  or  not, 
namely,  its  utility.  ‘ That  author  proceeds  fear- 
lessly to  apply  this  criterion  to  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  to  lop  off  eight  of  them,  as 
not  possessing  the  requisite  marks  of  legitimacy. 
Most,  of  the  German  divines  adopt  Sender's  hypo- 
thesis.’ But  it  is  very  manifest  that  such  a sense 
is  not  by  any  means  suggested  by  the  passage 
itself,  and  that  it  is  utterly  precluded  by  other 
parts  of  the  New  Testament.  For  neither  Christ 
nor  any  one  of  his  apostles  ever  intimates  a dis- 
tinction between  some  parts  of  Scripture  which 
are  inspired  and  other  parts  which  are  not  in- 
spired. The  doctrine  which  is  plainly  asserted 
in  the  text  under  consideration,  and  which  is 
fully  sustained  by  the  current  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  is,  that  all  the  writings  deno- 
minated the  Scriptures  are  divinely  inspired. 

The  other  text  (2  Pet.  i.  21)  teaches  that  ‘ Pro- 
phecy came  not  by  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men 
of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.’  This  passage,  which  the  apostle  Peter 
applied  particularly  to  the  subject  of  which  he 
was  speaking,  may  be  considered  as  explanatory 
of  what  is  intended  by  inspiration.  For  to  say 
that  all  Scripture  is  divinely  inspired,  and  that 
men  of  God  wrote  it  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  one  and  the  same  thing. 

The  various  texts  in  which  Christ  and  the  Apos- 
tles speak  of  Scripture  as  the  word  of  God , and 
as  invested  with  authority  to  decide  all  questions 
of  truth  and  duty,  fully  correspond  with  the  texts 
above  considered. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject  it  follows,  that 
the  attempt  which  has  been  made  by  a certain 
class  of  writers,  to  account  for  the  production  of 
tl/e  whole  or  any  part  of  the  Scriptures  by  the 


will  or  agency,  the  ingenuity,  diligence  or  fide- 
lity of  men,  in  the  use  of  the  means  within  theit 
reach,  without  the  supernatural  inlluence  of  the 
spirit,  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  teachings  ol 
Christ  and  the  Apostles  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
sacred  writings. 

As  the  Christian  dispensation  surpasses  the 
former  in  all  spiritual  privileges  and  gifts,  it  is 
reasonable  to  presume  that  the  New  Testament 
was  written  under  at  least  an  equal  degree  of 
divine  influence  with  the  Old,  and  that  it  comes 
recommended  to  us  by  equal  characteristics  of 
infallible  truth.  But  of  this  there  is  clear  positive 
evidence  from  the  New  Testament  itself. 

In  the  first  place,  Jesus  Christ,  whose  works 
proved  him  to  be  the  great  unerring  Teacher,  and 
to  be  possessed  of  all  power  in  Heaven  and  earth, 
gave  commission  to  his  Apostles  to  act  in  his 
stead,  and  to  carry  out  the  work  of  instruction 
which  he  had  begun , confirming  their  authority 
by  investing  them  with  power  to  perform  miracles. 
But  how  could  such  a commission  have  answered 
the  end  proposed,  had  not  the  Divine  Spirit  so 
guided  the  Apostles  as  to  render  them  infallible 
and  perfect  teachers  of  divine  truth? 

But,  secondly,  in  addition  to  this,  Jesus  ex- 
pressly promised  to  give  them  the  Holy  Spirit , 
to  abide  with  then),  continually , and  to  guide 
them  into  all  the  truth.  He  said  to  them,  ‘ When 
they  shall  deliver  you  up,  take  no  thought  how 
or  what  ye  shall  speak  ; for  it  shall  be  given  you 
in  the  same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak.  . For  it  is 
not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father 
that  speaketh  in  you.’  Storr  and  Flatt.  think  this 
is  the  idea  intended:  ‘The  instructions  which 
ye  in  general  give  are  derived  not  so  much  from 
yourselves  as  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence,  whei 
ye  are  called  on  to  defend  your  doctrines,  ye  need 
feel  no  anxiety,  but  may  confidently  rely  on  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  vindicate  his  own  doctrines,  by 
suggesting  to  you  the  very  words  of  your  defence.’ 
If  these  promises  were  not.  fulfilled,  then  Jesus 
was  not  a true  prophet.  If  they  were  fulfilled,  as 
they  certainly  were,  then  the  Apostles  had  the 
constant  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and,  whe- 
ther engaged  in  speaking  or  writing,  were  under 
divine  guidance,  and,  of  course,  were  liable  to  no 
mistakes  either  as  to  the  matter  or  manner  of  their 
instructions. 

In  the  third  place,  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  manifestly  considered  themselves  to 
be  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
their  instructions,  whether  oral  or  written,  to  be 
clothed  with  divine  authority,  as  the  word  of 
God. 

‘ We  speak,’  they  say,  ‘ as  of  God.’  Again, 
‘Which  things  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  which 
man’s  wisdom  teacheth,  but  in  words  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacheth.’  They  declared  what  they 
taught  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  the  things 
they  wrote  to  be  the  commandments  of  God. 
Now  the  Apostles,  being  honest,  unassuming, 
humble  men,  would  never  have  spoken  of  them- 
selves and  their  writings  in  such  a manner,  had 
they  not  known  themselves  to  be  under  the  un- 
erring guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  their 
instructions  perfectly  in  accordance  with  the  mind 
of  God. 

From  several  passages  in  Paul's  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  it  has  been  supposed  that,  in  the 
cases  referred  to,  he  meant  to  disclaim  inspiration. 


INSPIRATION. 


INSPIRATION. 


15 


Bill  that  those  passages  will  bear  another  con- 
struction, ami  ouglit  to  he  understood  in  another 
manner,  has  been  satisfactorily  argued  by  several 
writers,  particularly  by  Haldane  and  Gaussen  in 
their  treatises  on  inspiration,  and  by  Henderson 
in  his  lectures.  And  the  writer  of  this  article 
would  take  the  liberty  to  refer  also  to  his  lectures 
on  the  same  subject. 

It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  plenary  in- 
spiration here  maintained,  that  God  operated  on 
the  minds  of  inspired  men  in  a variety  of  ways, 
sometimes  by  audible  words,  sometimes  by  direct 
inward  suggestions,  sometimes  by  outward  visible 
signs,  sometimes  by  the  Urim  and  Thummim, 
and  sometimes  by  dreams  and  visions.  This 
variety  in  the  mode  of  divine  influence  detracted 
nothing  from  its  certainty.  God  made  known 
his  will  equally  indifferent  ways ; and,  whatever 
the  mode  of  his  operation,  he  made  it  manifest  to 
his  servants  that  the  things  revealed  were  from 
him. 

But  inspiration  was  concerned  not  only  in 
making  known  the  will  of  God  to  prophets  and 
apostles,  but  also  in  giving  them  direction  in 
writing  the  sacred  books.  They  wrote  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  in  this, 
also,  there  was  a diversity  in  the  mode  of  divine 
influence.  Sometimes  the  Spirit  of  God  moved 
and  guided  his  servants  to  write  things  which  they 
could  not  know  by  natural  means,  such  as  new 
doctrines  or  precepts,  or  predictions  of  future 
events.  Sometimes  he  moved  and  guided  them 
to  write  the  history  of  events  which  were  wholly 
or  partly  known  to  them  by  tradition,  or  by  the 
testimony  of  their  contemporaries,  or  by  their  own 
observation  or  experience.  In  all  these  cases  the 
Divine  Spirit  effectually  preserved  them  from  all 
error,  and  influenced  them  to  write  just  so  much 
and  in  such  a manner  as  God  saw  to  be  best. 
Sometimes  he  moved  and  guided  them  to  write  a 
summary  record  of  larger  histories,  containing 
what  his  infinite  wisdom  saw  to  be  adapted  to  the 
end  in  view,  that  is,  the  benefit  of  his  people  in 
all  ages.  Sometimes  he  influenced  them  to  make 
a record  of  important  maxims  in  common  use,  or 
to  write  new  ones,  derived  either  from  their  own 
reason  or  experience,  or  from  special  divine 
teaching.  Sometimes  he  influenced  them  to  write 
parables  or  allegories,  particularly  suited  to  make 
a salutary  impression  of  divine  things  on  the 
minds  of  men  ; and  sometimes  to  record  super- 
natural visions.  In  these  and  all  other  kinds  of 
writing  the  sacred  penmen  manifestly  needed 
special  divine  guidance,  as  no  man  could  of  him- 
self attain  to  infallibility,  and  no  wisdom,  except 
that  of  God,  was  sufficient  to  determine  what 
things  ought  to  be  written  for  permanent  use  in 
the  church,  and  what  manner  of  writing  would 
be  best  fitted  to  promote  the  great  ends  of  revela- 
tion. 

Some  writers  speak  of  different  modes  and 
different  kinds,  and  even  different  degrees  of  in- 
spiration. And  if  their  meaning  is  that  God 
influenced  the  minds  of  inspired  men  in  different 
ways ; that  he  adopted  a variety  of  modes  in  re- 
vealing divine  things  to  their  minds;  that  he 
guided  them  to  give  instruction  in  prose  and  in 
jjoetry,  and  in  all  the  different  forms  of  composi- 
tion ; that  he  moved  and  guided  them  to  write 
history,  prophecy,  doctrines,  commands,  promises, 
reproofs,  and  exhortations,  and  that  he  adapted 


his  mode  of  operation  to  each  of  these  cases — 
against  this  no  objection  can  be  made.  It  is  a 
fact,  that  the  Scriptures  exhibit  specimens  of  all 
these  different  kinds  of  writing  and  these  different 
modes  of  divine  instruction.  Still  each  and 
every  part  of  what  was  written  was  divinely  in- 
spired, and  equally  so.  It  is  all  the  word  of  God, 
and  clothed  with  divine  authority,  as  much  as  if 
it  had  all  been  made  known  and  written  in  one 
way. 

Dr.  Henderson,  who  labours  perhaps  with  too 
much  zeal  against  carrying  inspiration  to  extreme 
lengths,  still  says  that  if  those  who  hold  to  different 
modifications  of  inspiration  intend  that  there  are 
different  modifications  and  degrees  of  authority 
given  to  Scripture,  their  opinion  must  meet  with 
unqualified  reprobation  from  every  sincere  be- 
liever. He  insists  that  a diversity  iri  the  modes 
and  degrees  of  divine  operation  did  exist  in  the 
work  of  inspiration,  and  that  this  diversity  was 
the  result  of  infinite  wisdom  adapting  itself  to 
different  circumstances.  He  thinks  that,  unless 
we  admit  such  a diversity,  we  cannot  form  correct 
ideas  of  the  subject.  But  he  is  confident  that  the 
distinction  which  he  endeavours  to  establish  is  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  hostile  to  the  divine  au- 
thority of  Scripture.  He  affirms  that  no  part  of 
that  holy  book  teas  written  without  miraculous 
influence  ; that  all  parts  were  equally  inspired  ; 
that  in  regard  to  the  whole  volume  the  great  end 
was  infallibly  attained,  namely,  the  commitment 
to  writing  of  precisely  such  matters  as  God  de 
signed  for  the  religious  instruction  of  mankind ; 
that  the  sacred  penmen  wrote  what  had  for  its 
object  not  merely  the  immediate  benefit  of  indi- 
vidual persons  or  churches,  but  what  would  be 
useful  to  Christians  in  all  future  times ; and  that 
in  regard  to  the  most  minute  and  inconsiderable 
things  which  the  Scripture  contains  we  are  com- 
pelled to  say,  this  also  cometh  from  the  Lord. 

The  controversy  among  orthodox  divines  re- 
specting what  is  called  verbal  inspiration , appears 
to  arise,  in  a great  measure,  from  the  different 
senses  affixed  to  the  phrase.  Dr.  Henderson,  who 
is  among  the  most  candid  and  able  writers  op- 
posed to  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration,  seems 
to  understand  the  doctrine  as  denoting  the  imme- 
diate communication  to  the  writers  of  every  word , 
and  syllable,  and  letter  of  what  they  wrote,  inde- 
pendently of  their  intelligent  agency  and  without 
any  regard  to  their  peculiar  mental  faculties  or 
habits  while  those  who  most  earnestly  and  suc- 
cessfully contend  for  the  higher  views  of  inspira- 
tion, particularly  Calamy,  Haldane,  and  Gaussen, 
consider  the  doctrine  they  maintain  as  entirely 
consistent  with  the  greatest  diversity  of  mental 
endowments,  culture,  and  taste  in  the  writers,  and 
with  the  most  perfect  exercise  of  their  intelligent 
agency, — consistent  with  their  using  their  own 
memory,  their  own  reason,  their  own  manner  of 
thinking,  and  their  own  language, — consistent, 
too,  with  their  making  what  they  were  to  write 
the  subject  of  diligent  and  laborious  study, — only 
insisting  that  it  was  all  under  the  unerring 
guidance  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 

In  a controversy  of  such  a character  as  this,  we 
may  often  succeed  in  removing  difficulties,  and 
in  presenting  the  subject  in  a light  which  will  be 
satisfactory  to  all  concerned,  by  laying  aside  an 
ambiguous  word  or  phrase,  and  making  use  of 
one  which  will  express  the  idea  intend©  l with 


INSPIRATION. 


INSPIRATION. 


1C 

clearness  anti  certainty.  The  word  verbal , in  its 
most  common  senses,  is  not  well  suited  to  the 
present  subject.  According  to  the  best  philolo- 
gists its  first  signification  is,  ‘spoken,  expressed  to 
the  ear  in  words,  not  written.’  But  no  one  sup- 
poses that  when  God  inspired  the  sacred  writers 
he  generally  spoke  to  them  in  audible,  words.  It 
is,  indeed,  true,  that  he  sometimes  uttered  articu- 
late words  in  making  known  his  will,  as  at  Sinai, 
at  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  on  some  other  occa- 
sions. In  such  cases  he  did,  properly  speaking, 
make  verbal  communications,  or  give  verbal  in- 
struction. Bur  we  should  hardly  call  this  verbal 
inspiration.  Who  can  suppose  that,  this  was 
commonly,  if  ever,  the  way,  in  which  God  inspired 
holy  men  of  old  while  engaged  in  writing  the 
Scriptures?  Who  can  suppose  that  he  taught 
them  what  to  write  by  speaking  words  in  their 
ears,  as  a man  teaches  his  amanuensis?  His  in- 
fluence was  doubtless  imoard.  He  guided  them 
in  writing  by  an  operation  in  their  minds. 

The  next  meaning  of  verbal  is  ‘ oral,  uttered 
by  the  mouth ;’  and  this  agrees  no  better  with  our 
subject.  Other  significations  of  verbal  are,  ‘ con- 
sisting in  mere  words ; respecting  words  only ; 
literal as  in  a translation,  ‘ having  word  answer- 
ing to  word.’  Neither  of  these  senses  is  adapted 
to  the  subject.  Now  it  would  be  nothing  strange, 
if  applying  this  word  to  inspiration,  and  thus 
giving  it  an  unusual  sense,  should  occasion  need- 
less perplexity  and  confusion.  For  the  sake  of 
avoiding  this  evil,  why  would  it  not  be  expedient 
to  employ  such  words  as  will  convey  the  idea 
intended  clearly  and  definitely  ; and,  if  necessary, 
to  incur  the  inconvenience  of  using  an  exact  ex- 
planation, instead  of  the  word  or  phrase  which 
causes  the  difficulty? 

The  real  question,  and  the  whole  question  at 
issue,  may  be  stated  thus  : did  the  work  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  in  the  sacred  penmen  relate  to  the 
language  they  used,  or  their  manner  of  express- 
ing their  ideas  ; and  if  so,  how  far,  and  in  what 
way  ? 

All  those  with  whom  we  are  concerned  in  the 
discussion  of  this  question,  hold  that  divine  in- 
spiration had  some  respect  to  the  language  em- 
ployed by  the  inspired  writers,  at  least  in  the  way 
of  general  supervision.  And  Dr.  Henderson 
shows,  in  various  passages  of  his  excellent  lectures, 
that  there  is  no  material  difference  between  him 
and  those  who  profess  to  maintain  higher  ground. 
He  allows  that,  to  a certain  extent,  what  is  called 
verbal  inspiration,  or  the  inspiration  of  words, 
took  place.  ‘ In  recording  what  was  immediately 
spoken  with  an  audible  voice  by  Jehovah,  or  by 
uu  angel  interpreter;  in  giving  expression  to 
points  of  revelation  which  entirely  surpassed  the 
comprehension  of  the  writers  ; in  recording  pro- 
phecies, the  minute  bearings  of  which  they  did 
not  perceive  ; in  short,  in  committing  to  writing 
any  of  the  dictates  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  could 
not  have  otherwise  accurately  expressed,  the 
writers,’  he  alleges,  ‘ were  supplied  with  the 
words  as  well  as  the  matter.’  He  says,  that 
even  when  Biblical  writers  made  use  of  their  own 
faculties,  and  wrote  each  one  in  his  own  manner, 
without,  having  their  mental  constitution  at  all 
disturbed,  they  were  yet  ‘ always  secured  by 
celestial  influence  against  the  adoptiou  of  any 
forms  of  speech,  or  collocation  of  words,  that 
would  have  injured  the  exhibition  of  divine  truth, 


or  that  did  not  adequately  give  it  expression;' 
that  the  characteristic  dill'ereuces  of  style,  sa 
apparent  among  the  sacred  w riters,  were  employed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  purposes  of  inspiration, 
and  ‘ were  called  forth  in  a rational  way  ;’  that 
the  writers,  ‘ being  acted  upon  by  the  Divine 
Spirit,  expressed  themselves  naturally ; that  while 
the  divine  influence  adapted  itself  to  whatever 
was  peculiar  in  the  minds  of  inspired  men,  it 
constantly  guided  them  in  writing  the  sacred 
volume.’  He  declares  his  belief  that  the  Scrip- 
tures were  written  not  under  a partial  or  imper- 
fect, but  under  a plenary  and  infallible  inspira- 
tion ; that  they  were  entirely  the  result  of  divine 
intervention,  and  are  to  he  regarded  as  the  oracles 
of  Jehovah.  Referring  to  2 Tim.  iii  16,  he  says, 
‘ We  are  here  expressly  taught  the  divine  inspi- 
ration of  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  Codex  ; 
that  the  Scriptures  are  inspired  as  written  docu- 
ments ; that  they  are  the  result  of  the  special 
and  extraordinary  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and 
contain  whatever  the  Spirit  caused  to  be  written 
for  our  instruction.’  Referring  to  1 Cor.  ii.  13, 
he  says,  ‘ It  is  past  all  dispute  that  the  apostle 
here  unequivocally  ascribes  both  the  doctrines 
which  he  and  his  fellow  labourers  taught,  and 
their  manner  of  propounding  them,  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  same  divine  agent ;’  that  the  passage 
conveys  the  idea  4 that  the  style,  or  mode  of  ex- 
pression which  they  used,  was  such  as  they  were 
instructed  by  the  Spirit  to  employ  ;’  that  ‘ in 
delivering  their  doctrines  they  were  under  the 
constant  guidance  of  the  Great  Instructor,  and 
clothed  them  in  that  garb  which  he  directed 
them  to  use ;’  that,  in  the  passage  alluded  to,  the 
apostle  refers  ‘ to  the  entire  character  of  the  style 
whicli  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity  were 
taught  to  use  in  announcing  its  all  important 
doctrines.’  The  passage  in  Matt.  x.  9,  10,  he 
says,  implies,  ‘ that  (he  subject  matter  of  apology 
was  to  be  supplied  to  the  apostles;  and  they 
might  be  well  assured  that  if  this,  which  was  the 
most  important,  wa3  secured  by  divine  instruc- 
tion, the  mere  expression  would  not  be  wanting. 

‘ To  remove  all  ground  of  hesitation  from  their 
minds,  our  Lord  says,  it  is  not  ye  that  speak, 
but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  which  speaketh  in 
you.  By  his  teaching  and  superintending  influ- 
ence, they  would  always  be  enabled  to  express 
themselves  in  a manner  worthy  of  the  divine 
cause  which  they  were  called  to  defend — a man 
ner  which  they  could  never  have  attained  by  the 
exertion  of  their  unassisted  powers;  so  that,  al 
though  these  powers  were  not  to  be  superseded, 
but  employed,  it  was  to  be  as  the  organs  of  the 
divine  agency  by  which  they  were  employed.’ 
And  he  concedes  that,  as  to  all  practical  pur- 
poses, they  were  favoured  with  divine  influence 
in  composing  their  writings,  as  well  as  in  their 
public  speaking. 

Our  author  says  that  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
when  the  apostles  were  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  ana  spake  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit 
gave  them  utterance,  ‘ verbal  inspiration  in  the 
strictest  sense  of  the  term  took  place.’  ‘ The  im- 
mediate supply  of  words,’  he  holds,  ‘ was  in  this 
and  every  similar  instance  aiisolutely  necessary. 
And  he  thinks  that  direct  veibal  inspiration  waj 
indispensably  requisite  in  all  instances  in  which 
prophets  and  apostles  were  employed  to  write 
what  they  did  not  cleaily  comprehend.  The 


INSPIRATION. 


INSPIRATION 


n 


passages  in  which  such  terms  as  the  word  of  Godf 
the  Lord  spake , etc.,  occur,  are,  in  this  view,  de- 
scriptive of  immediate  verbal  communications. 
He  supposes  that,  in  all  such  cases,  ? cords  were 
literally  spoken,  or  audibly  pronounced  by  God 
himself,  or  by  an  angel  in  his  name.  In  this 
opinion,  however,  I think  he  is  mistaken.  For 
unquestionably  the  word  of  the  Lord  often,  if  not 
generally,  came  to  the  prophets  in  the  way  of 
dreams,  or  other  modes  of  inward  suggestion. 

The  doctrine  of  a plenary  inspiration  of  all 
Scripture  in  regard  to  the  language  employed,  as 
well  as  the  thoughts  communicated,  ought  not  to 
be  rejected  wifircr.it  valid  reasons.  The  doctrine 
is  so  obviously  important,  and  so  consonant  to  the 
feelings  of  sincere  piety,  that  those  evangelical 
Christians  who  are  pressed  with  speculative  ob- 
jections against  it,  frequently,  in  the  honesty  of 
their  hearts,  advance  opinions  which  fairly  imply 
it.  This  is  the  case,  as  we  have  seen,  with  Dr. 
Henderson,  who  says,  that  the  Divine  Spirit 
guided  the  sacred  penmen  in  writing  the  Scrip- 
tures ; that  their  mode  of  expression  was  such  as 
they  were  instructed  by  the  Spirit  to  employ; 
that  Paul  ascribes  not  only  the  doctrines  which 
the  apostles  taught,  but  the  entire  character  of 
their  style , to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  He 
indeed  says,  that  this  does  not  always  imply  the 
immediate  communication  of  th-e  words  of  Scrip- 
ture ; and  he  says  it  with  good  reason.  For  im- 
mediate properly  signifies,  acting  ivithout  a 
medium , or  without  the  intervention  of  another 
cause  or  means , not  acting  by  second  causes. 
Now  those  who  hold  the  highest  views  of  inspira- 
tion do  not  suppose  that  the  Divine  Spirit,  except 
in  a few  instances,  so  influenced  the  writers  of 
Scripture  as  to  interfere  with  the  use  of  their 
rational  faculties  or  their  peculiar  mental  habits 
and  tastes,  or  in  any  way  to  supersede  secondary 
causes  as  the  medium  through  which  his  agency 
produced  the  desired  effect. 

In  regard  to  this  point,  therefore,  there  appears 
to  be  little  or  no  ground  for  controversy.  For,  if 
God  so  influenced  the  sacred  writers  that,  either 
with  or  without,  the  use  of  secondary  causes,  they 
wrote  just  what  he  intended,  and  in  the  manner 
he  intended,  the  end  is  secured ; and  what  they 
wrote  is  as  truly  his  word. , as  though  he  had 
written  it  with  his  own  hand  on  tables  of  stone, 
without  any  human  instrumentality.  The  very 
words  of  the  decalogue  were  all  such  as  God  chose. 
And -they  would  have  been  equally  so  if  Moses 
had  been  moved  by  ihe  Divine  Spirit  to  write 
them  with  his  Hand.  The  expression,  that  God 
immediately  imparted  or  communicated  to  the 
writers  the  very  words  which  they  wrote,  is  evi- 
dently not  well  chosen.  The  exact,  truth  is  that 
the  writers  themselves  were  the  subjects  of  the 
divine  influence.  The  Spirit  employed  them  as 
active  instruments,  and  directed  them  in  writing, 
l>oth  as  to  matter  and  manner.  They  wrote  ‘ as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.’  The  mat- 
ter, in  many  cases,  was  what  they  before  knew, 
and  the  manner  was  entirely  conformed  to  their 
habits;  it  was  their  men.  But  what  was  written 
was  none  the  less  inspired  on  that  account.  God 
may  have  influenced  and  guided  an  apostle  as 
infallibly  in  writing  what,  he  had  before  known, 
and  that  guidance  may  have  been  as  really  neces- 
sary, as  in  writing  a new  revelation.  And  God 
may  have  influenced  Paul  or  JohD  to  write  a 

von.  ii.  Q 

1 


hook  in  his  own  peculiar  style , and  that  influence 
may  have  been  as  real  and  as  necessary  as  if  the 
style  had  been  what  some  would  call  a divine 
style.  It  was  a divine  style,  if  the  writer  used  it 
under  divine  direction.  It  was  a divine  style, 
and  it  was,  at.  the  same  time,  a human  style,  and 
the  writer's  own  style,  all  in  one.  Just  as  the 
believer’s  exercises,  faith  and  love,  are  his  own 
acts,  and  at  the  same  time  are  the  effects  of  divine 
influence.  ‘ In  efficacious  grace,’  says  Eduards, 

‘ we  are  not  merely  passive,  nor  yet  does  God  do 
some  and  we  do  the  rest.  But  God  doe3  all,  and 
we  do  all.  God  produces  all,  and  we  act  all. 
For  that  is  what  he  produces,  namely,  our  own 
acts.  God  is  the  only  proper  author  and  founda- 
tion : we  only  are  the  proper  actors.  W e are,  in 
different  respects,  wholly  passive  and  wholly 
active.  In  the  Scriptures,  the  same  things  are 
represented  as  from  God  and  from  us.  God  is 
said  to  convert  men,  and  men  are  said  to  convert 
and  turn.  God  makes  a new  heart,  and  we  are 
commanded  to  make  us  a new  heart — not  merely 
because  we  must  use  the  means  in  order  to  the 
effect,  but  the  effect  itself  is  our  act  and  our 
duty.  These  things  are  agreeable  to  that  text, 
“ God  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do.”  ’ 
The  mental  exercises  of  Paul  and  of  John  had 
their  own  characteristic  peculiarities,  as  much  as 
their  style.  God  was  the  author  of  John's  mind 
and  all  that  was  peculiar  to  his  mental  faculties 
and  habits,  as  really  as  of  Paul’s  mind  and  what 
was  peculiar  to  him.  And  in  the  work  of  inspi- 
ration he  used  and  directed,  for  his  own  purposes, 
what  was  peculiar  to  each.  When  God  inspired 
different  men  he  did  not  make  their  minds  and 
tastes  all  alike,  nor  did  he  make  their  language 
alike.  Nor  had  he  any  occasion  for  this  ; for  while 
they  had  different  mental  faculties  and  habits, 
they  were  as  capable  of  being  infallibly  directed 
by  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  infallibly  speaking  and 
writing  divine  truth,  as  though  their  mental  facul- 
ties and  habits  had  been  all  exactly  alike.  And 
it  is  manifest  that  the  Scriptures,  written  by  such 
a variety  of  inspired  men,  and  each  part  agreeably 
to  the  peculiar  talents  and  style  of  the  writer,  are 
not  only  equally  from  God,  but,  taken  together, 
are  far  better  adapted  to  the  purposes  of  general 
instruction,  and  all  the  objects  to  be  accomplished 
by  revelation,  than  if  they  had  been  written  by 
one  man,  and  in  one  and  the  same  manner. 

This  view  of  plenary  inspiration  is  fitted  to 
relieve  the  difficulties  and  objections  which  have 
arisen  in  the  minds  of  men  from  the  variety  of 
talent  and  taste  which  the  writers  exhibited,  and 
the  variety  of  style  which  they  used.  See,  it  is 
said,  how  each  writer  expresses  himself  naturally, 
in  his  own  way,  just  as  he  was  accustomed  to  do 
when  not  inspired.  And  see  too,  we  might  say 
in  reply,  how  each  apostle,  Peter,  Paul,  or  John, 
when  speaking  before  rulers,  with  the  promised 
aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  spoke  laturally,  with  his 
own  voice,  and  in  his  own  way,  as  he  had  been 
accustomed  to  do  on  other  occasions  when  not 
inspired.  There  is  no  more  objection  to  plenary 
inspiration  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  The 
mental  faculties  and  habits  of  the  apostles,  their 
style,  their  voice,  their  mode  of  speech,  all  re- 
mained as  they  were.  What,  then,  had  the  divine 
Spirit  to  do?  What  was  the  work  which  apper- 
tained to  Him?  We  reply,  His  work  was  so  ta 
direct  the  apostles  in  the  use  of  their  own  talents 


18 


INSPIRATION. 


INSPIRATION. 


and  habits,  their  style,  their  voice,  and  all  their 
peculiar  endowments,  that  they  should  speak  or 
write,  each  in  his  own  way,  just  what  God  would 
have  them  speak  or  write,  for  the  good  of  the 
Church  in  all  ages. 

The  fact  that  the  individual  peculiarities  of 
the  sacred  penmen  are  everywhere  so  plainly 
impressed  on  their  writings,  is  often  mentioned  as 
an  objection  to  the  doctrine,  that  inspiration  ex- 
tended to  their  language  as  well  as  their  thoughts. 
This  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  most  common  ob- 
jections, and  one  which  has  obtained  a very  deep 
lodgment  in  the  minds  of  some  intelligent  Chris- 
tians. It  may,  therefore,  be  necessary  to  take 
some  further  pains  completely  to  remove  it. 
And  in  our  additional  remarks  relative  to  this 
and  other  objections,  it  will  come  in  our  way  to 
show  that  such  a writer  as  Gaussen,  who  contends 
with  great  earnestness  and  ability  for  the  highest 
views  of  inspiration,  does  still,  on  all  important 
points,  agree  with  those  who  advocate  lower  views 
of  the  subject. 

Gaussen  says,  ‘Although  the  title  of  each  book 
should  not  indicate  to  us  that  we  are  passing  from  one 
author  to  another ; yet  we  could  quickly  discover, 
by  the  change  of  their  characters,  that  a new  hand 
has  taken  the  pen.  It  is  perfectly  easy  to  recog- 
nise each  one  of  them,  although  they  speak  of  the 
same  master,  teach  the  same  doctrines,  and  relate 
the  same  incidents.’  But  how  does  this  prove  that 
Scripture  is  not,  in  all  respects,  inspired  ? ‘ So  far 
are  we,’  says  this  author,  ‘ from  overlooking  human 
individuality  everywhere  impressed  on  our  sacred 
books,  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  with  profound 
gratitude,  and  with  an  ever-increasing  admiration, 
that  we  regard  this  living,  real,  human  character 
infused  so  charmingly  into  every  part  of  the 
Word  of  God.  We  admit  the  fact,  and  we  see  in 
it  clear  proof  of  the  divine  wisdom  which  dictated 
the  Scriptures.’ 

Those  who  urge  the  objection  above  men- 
tioned are  plainly  inconsistent  with  themselves. 
For  while  they  deny  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
some  parts  of  Scripture,  because  they  have  these 
marks  of  individuality,  they  acknowledge  inspi- 
ration in  the  fullest  sense  in  other  parts,  particu- 
cularly  in  the  prophecies,  where  this  individuality 
of  the  writers  is  equally  apparent. 

In  truth,  what  can  be  more  consonant  with  our 
l>est  views  of  the  wisdom  of  God,  or  with  the  gene- 
ral analogy  cf  his  works,  than  that  he  should  make 
use  of  the  thoughts,  the  memories,  the  peculiar 
talents,  tastes,  and  feelings  of  his  servants  in 
recording  his  Word  for  the  instruction  of  men? 
Why  should  he  not  associate  the  peculiarities  of 
their  personal  character  with  what  they  write  under 
his  personal  guidance  ? But,  independently  of 
our  reasoning,  this  matter  is  decided  by  the  Bible 
itself.  ‘All  Scripture  is  divinely  inspired,’  and 
it  is  all  the  Word  of  God.  And  it  is  none  the  less 
“die  Word  of  God,  and  none  the  less  inspired, 
because  it  comes  to  us  in  the  language  of  Moses, 
and  David,  and  Paul,  and  the  other  sacred  writers. 

‘ It  is  God  who  speaks  to  us,  but  it  is  also  man ; 
it  is  man,  but  it  is  also  God.’  The  Wor  l of  God, 
in  order  to  be  intelligible  and  profitable  to  us, 

•‘  must  be  uttered  by  mortal  tongues,  and  be 
written  by  mortal  hands,  and  must  put  on  the 
features  of  human  thoughts.  This  blending  of 
humanity  and  divir.ity^in  the  Scriptures  remind* 

of  die  majesty  an  I t he  condescension  of  God. 


Viewed  in  this  light,  the  Word  of  God  has  une* 
quailed  beauties,  and  exerts  an  unequalled  powei 
over  our  hearts.’ 

The  objection  to  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  from  the  inaccuracy  of  the  translations 
and  the  various  readings  of  the  ancient  manu- 
script copies,  is  totally  irrelevant.  For  what  we 
assert  is,  the  inspiration  of  the  original  Scriptures, 
not  of  the  translations  or  the  ancient  copies.  The 
fact  that  the  Scriptures  were  divinely  inspired, 
cannot  be  expunged  or  altered  by  any  subsequent 
event.  The  very  words  of  the  decalogue  were 
written  by  the  finger  of  God,  and  none  the  less  so 
because  the  manuscripts  which  transmit  it  to  us 
contain  some  variations.  The  integrity  of  the 
copies  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  inspiration  of 
the  original.  It  is,  however,  well  known  that  the 
variations  are  hardly  worthy  to  be  mentioned. 

But  if  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures  which  we 
have  are  not  inspired,  then  how  can  the  in- 
spiration of  the  original  writings  avail  to  our 
benefit?  The  answer  is,  that,  according  to  the 
best  evidence,  the  original  writings  have  been 
transmitted  to  us  with  remarkable  fidelity,  and 
that  our  present  copies,  so  far  as  anything  of  con- 
sequence is  concerned,  agree  with  the  writings  as 
they  came  from  inspired  men ; so  that,  through 
the  gracious  care  of  divine  providence,  the  Scrip- 
tures now  in  use  are,  in  all  important  respects, 
the  Scriptures  which  were  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  are  stamped  with  divine  authority.  In 
this  matter,  we  stand  on  the  same  footing  with  the 
apostles.  For  when  they  spoke  of  the  Scriptures, 
they  doubtless  referred  to  the  copies  which  had 
been  made  and  preserved  among  the  Jews,  not  to 
the  original  manuscripts  written  by  Moses  and 
the  prophets. 

It  has  been  made  an  objection  to  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  they  generally  quote  from  the  Septuagint 
version,  and  that  their  quotations  are  frequently 
wanting  in  exactness.  Our  reply  is,  that  their 
quotations  are  made  in  the  usual  manner,  accord- 
ing to  the  dictates  of  common  sense,  and  alwa)  \ 
in  such  a way  as  to  subserve  the  cause  of  truth  , 
and  therefore,  that  the  objection  is  without  force. 
And  as  to  the  Septuagint  version,  the  apostles 
never  follow  it  so  as  to  interfere  with  the  authority 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Their  references  to  the 
Old  Testament  are  just  such  as  the  case  required. 
There  is  a noble  freedom  in  their  quotations,  but 
that  freedom  never  violates  truth  or  propriety. 

If  any  one,  like  Priestley  and  others  of  the  same 
school,  alleges,  that  there  are  in  the  Scriptures 
errors  in  reasoning  and  in  matters  of  fact,  he  opens 
the  door  to  the  most  dangerous  consequences.  In- 
deed he  takes  the  ground  of  infidelity.  And  if  any 
one  holds,  that  some  parts  are  inspired,  while  other 
parts  are  not  inspired,  then  we  ask,  who  shall  make 
the  distinction?'  And  if  we  begin  this  work,  where 
will  it  end?  But  our  present  concern  is  with 
those  who  deny  that  inspiration  respected  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture. 

There  are  some  who  maintain  that  all  which 
was  necessary  to  secure  the  desired  results,  was  an 
infallible  guidance  of  the  thoughts  of  the  sacred 
writers  ; that  with  such  a guidance  they  might  be 
safely  left  to  express  their  thoughts  in  their  own 
way,  without  any  special  influence  from  above. 

Now,  if  those  who  take  this  view  of  the  subject 
mean  that  God  not  only  gives  the  sacred  penmen 


INSPIRATION. 


INSPIRATION. 


19 


the  very  ideas  which  they  are  to  write,  but,  in 
tome  way , secures  an  infallible  connection  between 
those  ideas  and  a just  expression  of  them  in  words ; 
then,  indeed,  we  have  the  desired  result — an  infal- 
lible revelation  from  God,  made  in  the  proper 
language  of  the  writers.  But  if  any  one  supposes 
that  there  is  naturally  such  an  infallible  connec- 
tion between  right  thoughts  and  a just  expression 
of  them  in  language,  without  an  effective  divine 
superintendence,  he  contradicts  the  lessons  of  daily 
experience.  But  those  to  whom  we  refer  evidently 
do  not  themselves  believe  in  such  an  infallible 
connection.  For  when  they  assign  their  reason 
for  denying  that  inspiration  related  to  the  language 
cf  the  Scriptures,  they  speak  of  the  different,  and, 
as  they  regard  them,  the  contradictory  statements 
of  facts  by  different  writers — for  example,  the  dif- 
ferent accounts  of  the  crucifixion  and  the  resur- 
rection, and  the  different  accounts  of  the  numbers 
of  the  slain  in  Num.  xxv.  9 and  1 Cor.  x.  8. 
Who,  they  say,  can  believe  that  the  language  was 
inspired,  when  one  writer  says  that  24,000  were 
slain,  and  the  other  23,000  ? But  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  difficulty  presses  with  all  its  force  upon 
those  who  assert  the  inspiration  of  the  thoughts. 
For  surely  they  will  not  say  that  the  sacred  writers 
had  true  thoughts  in  their  minds,  and  yet  uttered 
them  in  the  language  of  falsehood.  This  would 
contradict  their  own  idea  of  a sure  connection 
between  the  conceptions  of  the  mind  and  the 
utterance  of  them  in  suitable  words,,  and  would 
clearly  show  that  they  themselves  feel  it  to  be 
necessary  that  the  divine  guidance  should  extend 
to  the  words  of  inspired  men  as  well  as  their 
thoughts.  But  if  Paul,  through  inadvertence, 
committed  a real  mistake  in  saying  that  23,000 
fell  in  one  day,  it  must  have  been  a mistake  in 
his  thoughts  as  well  as  in  his  words.  For  when 
he  said  23,000,  had  he  not  the  idea  of  that  num- 
ber in  his  mind  ? If,  then,  there  was  a mistake, 
it  lay  in  his  thoughts.  But  if  there  was  no  mis- 
take in  either  of  the  writers,  then  there  is  nothing 
to  prove  that  inspiration  did  not  extend  to  the 
language.  If,  however,  there  was  a real  mistake, 
then  the  question  is  not,  what  becomes  of  verbal 
inspiration,  but  what  becomes  of  inspiration  in 
any  sense. 

As  to  the  way  of  reconciling  the  two  statements 
above  mentioned,  but  a few  words  can  be  offered 
here.  Some  writers  attempt  to  remove  the  diffi- 
culty in  this  manner.  The  first  writer  says, 
24,000  were  slain,  meaning  to  include  in  that 
number  all  who  died  in  consequence  of  that'  rebel- 
lion. The  other  writer  says,  23,000  fell  in  one 
day,  leaving  us  to  conclude  that  an  addition  of 
1000  fell  the  next  day.  But  it  may  perhaps  be 
more  satisfactory  to  suppose,  that  neither  of  the 
writers  intended  to  state  the  exact  number,  this 
being  of  no  consequence  to  their  objects.  The 
real  number  might  be  between  23,000  and  24,000, 
and  it  might  be  sufficient  for  them  to  express  it 
in  general  terms,  one  of  them  calling  it  24,000, 
and  the  other  23,000,  that  is,  about  so  many , 
either  of  the  numbers  being  accurate  enough  to 
make  the  impression  designed.  Suppose  that  the 
exact  number  was  23,579,  and  that  both  the 
writers  knew  it  to  be  so.  It  was  not  at  all  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  maintain  their  character  as  men 
of  veracity,  that  they  should,  when  writing  for 
such  a purpose , men  ;_on  the  particular  number 
The  particularity  anh  length  of  the  express ior 


would  have  been  inconvenient,  and  might  have 
made  a less  desirable  impression  of  the  evil  of  sin 
and  the  justice  of  God,  than  expressing  it  more 
briefly  in  a round  number;  as  we  often  say,  with 
a view  merely  to  make  a strong  impression,  that 
in  such  a battle  10,000,  or  50,000,  or  500.000 
were  slain,  no  one  supposing  that  we  mean  to  state 
the  number  with  arithmetical  exactness,  as  our 
object  does  not  require  this.  And  who  can  doubt 
that  the  Divine  Spirit  might  lead  the  sacred  pen- 
men to  make  use  of  this  principle  of  rhetoric,  and 
to  speak  of  those  who  were  slain,  according  to  the 
common  practice  in  suchacase,in  round  numbers? 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  sacred  writers 
were  of  themselves  generally  competent  to  express 
their  ideas  in  proper  language , and  in  this  respect 
had  no  need  of  supernatural  assistance.  But  there 
is  just  as  much  reason  for  saying  that  they  were 
of  themselves  generally  competent  to  form  their 
own  conceptions , and  so  had  no  need  of  super- 
natural aid  in  this  respect.  It  is  just  as  reason- 
able to  say  that  Moses  could  recollect  what  took 
place  at  the  Red  Sea,  and  that  Paul  could  recol- 
lect that  he  was  once  a persecutor,  and  Peter 
what  took  place  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration, 
without  supernatural  aid,  as  to  say  that  they 
could,  without  such  aid,  make  a proper  record 
of  these  recollections.  We  believe  a real  and 
infallible  guidance  of  the  Spirit  in  both  respects, 
because  this  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  And  it 
is  obvious  that  the  Bible  could  not  be  what  Christ 
and  the  apostles  considered  it  to  be,  unless  they 
were  divinely  inspired. 

The  diversity  in  the  narratives  of  the  Evan- 
gelists is  sometimes  urged  as  an  objection  against 
the  position  we  maintain  in  regard  to  inspiration, 
but  evidently  without  reason,  and  contrary  to 
reason.  For  what  is  more  reasonable  than  to 
expect  that  a work  of  divine  origin  will  have 
marks  of  consummate  wisdom,  and  will  be  suited 
to  accomplish  the  end  in  view.  Now  it  will  not 
be  denied  that  God  determined  that  there  should 
be  four  narratives  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus 
from  four  historians.  If  the  narratives  were  all 
alike,  three  of  them  would  be  useless.  Indeed 
such  a circumstance  would  create  suspicion,  and 
would  bring  discredit  upon  the  whole  concern. 
The  narratives  must  then  be  different.  And  if, 
besides  this  useful  diversity,  it  is  found  that  the 
seeming  contradictions  can  be  satisfactorily  re- 
conciled, and  if  each  of  the  narratives  is  given 
in  the  peculiar  style  and  manner  of  the  writers, 
then  all  is  natural  and  unexceptionable,  and  we 
have  the  highest  evidence  of  the  credibility  and 
truth  of  the  narratives. 

We  shall  advert  to  one  more  objection.  It  is 
alleged  that  writers  who  were  constantly  under  a 
plenary  divine  inspiration  would  not  descend  to 
the  unimportant  details,  .the  trifling  incidents, 
which  are  found  in  the  Scriptures.  To  this  it 
may  be  replied  that  the  details  alluded  to  must 
be  admitted  to  be  according  to  truth,  and  that 
those  things  which,  at  first  view,  seem  to  be  trifles 
may,  when  taken  in  their  connections,  prove  to  be 
of  serious  moment.  And  it  is  moreover  manifest 
that,  considering  what  human  beings  and  human 
affairs  really  are,  if  all  those  things  which  are 
called  trifling  and  unimportant  were  excluded, 
the  Scriptures  would  fail  of  being  conformed  to 
fact;  they  would  not  be  faithful  histories  of  hu- 
man life : so  that  the  very  circumstance  which 


to 


INTERPRETATION. 


INTERPRETATION. 


is  demanded  as  proof  of  inspiration  wouk  be-, 
come  an  argument  against  it.  And  hereir  wo 
cannot  but  admire  the  perfect  wisdom  which 
guided  the  sacred  writers,  while  we  mark  the 
weakness  and  shallowness  of  the  objections  which 
are  urged  against  their  inspiration. 

On  the  whole,  after  carefully  investigating  the 
subject  of  inspiration,  we  are  conducted  to  the 
important  conclusion  that  ‘all  Scripture  is  di- 
vinely inspired that  the  sacred  penmen  wrote 
‘as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost and 
that  these  representations  are  to  be  understood  as 
implying  that  the  vi  liters  had,  in  all  respects,  the 
effectual  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit.  And  we 
are  still  more  confirmed  in  this  conclusion  be- 
cause we  find  that  it  begets  in  those  who  seriously 
adopt  if,  an  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  origin 
of  Scripture,  a reverence  for  its  teachings,  and  a 
practical  regard  to  its  requirements,  like  what 
appeared  in  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Being  con- 
vinced that  the  Bible  has,  in  all  parts  and  in 
all  respects,  the  seal  of  the  Almighty,  and  that 
it  is  truly  and  entirely  from  God,  we  are  led  by 
reason,  conscience,  and  piety  to  bow  submissively 
to  its  high  authority,  implicitly  to  believe  its 
doctrines,  however  incomprehensible,  and  cor- 
uially  to  obey  its  precepts,  however  contrary  to 
our  natural  inclinations.  We  come  to  it  from 
day  to  day,  not  as  judges,  but  as  learners,  never 
questioning  the  propriety  or  utility  of  any  of  its 
contents.  This  precious  Word  of  God  is  the  per- 
fect standard  of  our  faith,  and  the  rule  of  our  life, 
our  comfort  in  affliction,  and  our  sure  guide  to 
heaven. — L.  W. 

INTERPRETATION  (BIBLICAL),  and 
HERMENEUTICS.  There  is  a very  ancient 
and  wide-spread  belief  that  the  knowledge  of  divine 
things  in  general,  and  of  the  divine  will  in  parti- 
cular, is  by  no  means  a common  property  of  the 
whole  human  race,  but  only  a prerogative  of  a few 
specially-gifted  and  privileged  individuals.  It 
has  been  considered  that  this  higher  degree  of 
knowledge  has  its  source  in  light  and  instruction 
proceeding  directly  from  God,  and  that  it  can 
be  imparted  to  others  by  communicating  to  them 
a key  to  the  signs  of  the  divine  will.  Since,  how- 
ever, persons  who  in  this  manner  have  been  indi- 
rectly taught,  are  initiated  into  divine  secrets,  and 
consequently  appear  as  the  confidants  of  deity, 
they  also  enjoy,  although  instructed  only  through 
the  medium  of  others,  a more  intimate  communion 
with  God,  a more  distinct  perception  of  his 
thoughts,  and  consequently  a mediate  conscious- 
ness of  deity  itself.  It  therefore  follows  that 
persons  thus  either  immediately  or  mediately 
instructed  are  supposed  to  be  capable,  by  means 
of  their  divine  illumination  and  their  knowledge 
of  the  signs  of  the  divine  will,  to  impart  to  mankind 
the  ardently-desired  knowledge  of  divine  things 
and  of  the  will  of  deity.  They  are  considered  to 
be  interpreters  or  explainers  of  the  signs  of  the 
divine  will,  and,  consequently,  to  be  mediators 
between  God  and  man.  Divine  illumination  and 
a communicable  knowledge  of  the  signs  and  ex- 
pressions of  the  divine  will,  are  thus -supposed  to 
be  combined  m one  and  the  same  person. 

This  idea  is  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  K'QJ,  pro- 
pksi*  The  prophet  is  a divinely-inspired  seer, 
and,  as  such,  he  is  an  interpreter  and  preacher  of  the 
divine  will.  He  may  either  be  directly  called  by 
God,  or  have  been  prepared  for  his  office  in  the 


schools  of  the  prophets  (comp.  Knobel,  Der  Pro 
phetismus  der  Hebrcier  vollstdndig  dargestellt, 
Breslau,  1837,  pt.  i.  p.  . 02,  sq. ; pt.  ii.  p.  45,  sq.). 

However,  the  being  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  the  most  prominent  feature  in  the  Hebrew 
idea  of  a prophet.  This  is  even  implied  in  the 
usual  appellation  $033,  which  means  a person  in 
the  state  of  divine  inspiration  (not  a predicter  of 
future  events).  Prophetism  ceased  altogether  as 
soon  as  Jehovah,  according-to  the  popular  opinion 
ceased  to  communicate  his  Spirit. 

The  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  kept  the  idea 
of  divine  inspiration  more  distinct  from  the  idea 
of  interpretation  of  the  divine  will.  They,  accord- 
ing to  a more  natural  manner  of  viewing  the  sub- 
ject, recognised  generally,  in  the  mediator  between 
God  and  man,  more  of  an  experienced  and  skilful 
interpreter  than  of  a divinely- inspired  seer.  They 
distinguished  the  interpreter  and  the  seer  by  dif- 
ferent names,  of  which  we  will  speak  hereafter. 
It  was  the  combination  of  the  power  of  interpreta- 
tion with  inspiration,  which  distinguished  the 
Hebrew  prophets  or  seers  from  those  of  other  ancient 
nations.  The  Hebrew  notion  of  a 8023  appears, 
among  the  Greeks,  to  have  been  split  into  its  two 
constituent  parts  of  p duns,  from  palveaOai,  to  rave 
(Platonis  Phcedrus,  § 48,  ed.  Steph.  p.  244,  a.  b.), 
and  of  t £77777x775,  from  ifyyeTadai,  to  expound. 
However,  the  ideas  of  pavns  and  of  i^yywvs 
could  be  combined  in  the  same  person.  Comp. 
Boissonnade,  Anecdota  Grccca,  i.  96,  Adpiruy 
<^£77777x775  pavns  yap  rfy  /cal  XPVO'povs  e£ Tjyeiro 
(comp.  Scholia  in  Aristophanis  Nubes,  336),  and 
Arriani  Epictetus,  ii.  7,  rbv  pdvnv  rbv  e|?jyoi>- 
psvov  ra  orjpeia ; Plato,  De  Legibus , ix.  p.  871 
c.,  per  e£pr)yr)rcov  Kal  pdmeeov,  Euripidis  Phce - 
nissce,  v.  1018,  6 parr  is  €£7777700x0,  and  Iphigenia 
in  Aulide,  l.  529.  Plutarch  ( Vita  Numce,  caj. 
xi.)  places  €£77777x775  and  Tvpo^A]Tys  together;  sc 
also  does  Dionysius  Halicarnassensis,  ii.  73.  The 
two  first  of  these  examples  prove  that  €’£77777x011 
were,  according  to  the  Greeks,  persons  who  pos- 
sessed the  gift  of  discovering  the  will  of  the  Deity 
from  certain  appearances,  and  of  interpreting 
signs.  Jul.  Pollux,  viii.  121,  €’£77777x01  Se  eKa- 
Kovvto,  ol  ret,  irepl  reev  Siocppelccv  Kal  ra  twv 
&\\oov  tepefy  bibdffKovTes.  Harpocration  says,  and 
Suidas  repeats  after  him,  €£77777x775  6 i^yyovpevos 
ra  Upa.  Comp.  Bekker,  Anecdota  Grccca,  i.  185, 
i^gyovyrai  oi  epireipoi.  Creuzer  defines  the  efy- 
77 7x01,  in  his  Symbolik  und  Mythologie  der  Alten 
Vblker,  i.  15,  as  ‘persons  whose  high  vocation  it  wag 
to  bring  laymen  into  harmony  with  divine  things.’ 
These  €’£77777x01  moved  in  a religious  sphere  (comp. 
Herod,  i.  78,  and  Xenophontis  Cyropcedia,  viii. 
3,  11).  Even  the  Delphic  Apollo,  replying  to 
those  who  sought  his  oracles,  Is  called  by  Plato 
ityyTiT'fjs  (Polit.  iv  448,  b.).  Plutarch  mentions,  in 
Vita  Thesei,  c.  25,  Scrluv  Kal  Upwv  €’£77777x00 ; comp, 
also  the  above-quoted  passage  of  Dionysius  Hali- 
carnassensis, and  especially  Ruhnken  (ad  Timcci 
Lexicon,  ed.  Lugd.  Bat.  1789,  p.  189,  sq.).  The 
Scholiast  on  Sophocles  (Ajax,  l.  320)  has  (£777770-11 
€7 tI  tu>v  Oelcov,  and  the  Scholiast  on  Electra, 
426,  has  the  definition  €£777770-11  biacrd<pri<ns  QViuiv. 
It  is  in  connection  with  this  original  signification 
of  the  word  €’£77777x775  that  the  expounders  of  the  law 
are  styled  €£77777x01 ; because  the  ancient  law  was 
derived  from  the  gods,  and  the  law-lang  Mtge  had 
become  unintelligible  tc  the  multitude.  (Comp. 
Lvsias,  vi.  10  ; Diodorus  Siculus,  xiii.  3*«  ; Ruhn 


INTERPRETATION. 

ken,  as  quoted  above;  the  annotators  on  Pollux 
and  Harpocration  ; and  K.  Fr.  Hermann,  Lehr- 
buch  der  Griechischen  Staats-alterthiimer , Mar- 
burg, 1836,  § 104,  note  4).  In  Athenaeus  and 
Plutarch  there  are  mentioned  books  under  the  title 
r^riyrfTiKd,  which  contained  introductions  to  the 
right  understanding  of  sacred  signs.  (Comp.  Yale- 
sius,  ad  Harpocrationis  Lexicon,  Lipsiae,  1824, 
ii.  462.) 

Like  the  Greeks,  the  Romans  also  distinguished 
between  votes  and  interpres  (Cicero,  Fragm. ; 
Hortens.)  : — Sive  vates  sive  in  sacris  initiisque 
tradendis  divinae  mentis  interpretes.'  Servius 
(ad  Virgilii  jEn.  iii.  359)  quotes  a passage 
from  Cicero,  thus  : — ut  ait  Cicero,  omnis  divi- 
nandi  peritia  in  duas  partes  dividitur.  Nam 
aut  furor  est,  ut  in  vaticinantibus;  aut  ars,  ut 
in  aruspicibus,  fulguritis  sive  fulguratoribus,  et 
auguribus : that  is,  ‘ the  science  of  divination  is 
twofold  ; it  is  either  a sacred  raving,  as  in  prophets, 
or  an  art,  as  in  soothsayers,  who  regard  the  intes- 
tines of  sacrifices,  or  lightnings,  or  the  flight  of 
birds.’  The aruspices,fulguriti,fulguratores , and 
augures,  belong  to  the  idea  of  the  interpres  deo~ 
rum.  Comp.  Cicero,  Pro  domo  sua,  c.  4 1 Equi- 
uem  sic  accepi,  in  religionibus  suscipiendis  caput 
esse  interpretari  quae  voluntas  deorum  immorta- 
lium  esse  videatur  : — ‘ I have  been  taught  thus, 
that  in  undertaking  new  religious  performances 
tlie  chief  thing  seems  to  be  the  interpretation  of 
the  will  of  the  immortal  gods.’  Cicero  (De  Divi- 
natione,  i.  41)  says : — Etruria  interpretatur  quid 
quibusque  ostendatur  monstris  atque  portends. 

‘ The  Hetrusci  explain  the  meaning  of  all  re- 
markable foreboding  signs  and  portents.’  Hence, 
in  Cicero  ( De  Legibus , ii.  27),  the  expression, 

‘ interpretes  religionum.’ 

An  example  of  this  distinction,  usual  among 
the  Greeks,  is  found  in  1 Cor.  xii.  4,  30.  The 
Corinthians  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  were 
yXuxroais  X aXovvres,  speaking  in  tongues , conse- 
quently they  were  in  the  state  of  a pavris ; but 
frequently  they  did  not  comprehend  the  sense  of 
their  own  inspiration,  and  did  not  understand  how 
to  interpret  it  because  they  had  not  the  eppgveia 
yXonrauv,  interpretation  of  tongues : consequently 
they  were  not  e^riygrai. 

The  Romans  obtained  the  interpretatio  from 
tne  Etruscans  (Cicero,  De  Divmatione,  i.  2,  and 
Ottfried  Muller,  Die  Etrusker,  ii.  8,  sq.) ; but 
the  above  distinction  was  the  cause  that  the 
interpretatio  degenerated  into  a common  art, 
which  was  exercised  without  inspiration,  like  a 
contemptible  soothsaying,  the  rules  of  which  were 
contained  in  writings.  Cicero  ( De  Divinatione , 
i.  2)  says: — Fur  or  is  divinationem  Sibyl  linismax- 
ime  versibus  contineri  arbitrati,  eorum  decern 
interpretes  delectos  e civitate  esse  voluerunt : — 
‘ Supposing  that  divination  by  raving  was  espe- 
cially contained  in  the  Sibylline  verses,  they  ap- 
pointed ten  public  interpreters  of  the  same.’ 

Tin  ideas  of  interpres  and  of  interpretatio  were 
not  confined  among  the  Romans  to  sacred  sub- 
jects ; which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  case  among 
the  Greeks  with  the  corresponding  Greek  terms. 
The  words  interpres  and  interpretatio  were  not 
only,  as  among  the  Greeks,  applied  to  the  expla- 
nation of  the  laws,  but  also,  in  general,  to  the  ex- 
planation of  whatever  was  obscure,  and  even  to 
a mere  intervention  in  the  settlement  of  affairs ; 
for  instance,  we  find  in  Livy  (xxi.  12)  pads 


INTERPRETATION  *1 

interpres,  denoting  Alorcas,  by  whose  instrumen- 
tality peace  was  offered.  At  an  earlier  period 
interpretes  meant  only  those  persons  by  means  erf 
whom  affairs  between  God  and  man  were  settled 
(comp.  Virgilii  JEneis,  x.  175,  and  Servius  on 
this  passage).  The  words  interpretes  and  con- 
jectores  became  convertible  terms  : — unde  etiam 
somniorum  atque  ominum  interpretes  conjectores 
vocantur : — ‘ for  which  reason  the  interpreters  of 
dreams  and  omens  are  called  also  conjecturers ' 
(Quintil.  Instit.  iii.  6). 

From  what  we  have  stated  it  follows  that 
i£'fiyr]<ns  and  interpretatio  were  originally  terms 
confined  to  the  unfolding  of  supernatural  subjects, 
although  in  Latin,  at  an  early  period,  these  terms 
were  also  applied  to  profane  matters.  The  Chris- 
tians also  early  felt  the  want  of  an  interpretation 
of  their  sacred  writings,  which  they  deemed  to  lw 
of  divine  origin ; consequently  they  wanted  in- 
terpreters and  instruction  by  the  aid  of  which  the 
true  sense  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  might  be  dis- 
covered. The  right  understanding  of  the  nature 
and  will  of  God  seemed,  among  the  Christians, 
as  well  as  at  an  early  period  among  the  heathen, 
to  depend  upon  a right  understanding  of  certain 
external  signs  ; however,  there  was  a progress  from 
the  unintelligible  signs  of  nature  to  more  intelli- 
gible written  signs,  which  was  certainly  an  im- 
portant progress. 

The  Christians  retained  about  the  interpreta- 
tion of  their  sacred  writings  the  same  expressions 
which  had  been  current  in  reference  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  sacred  subjects  among  the  heathen. 
Hence  arose  the  fact  that  the  Greek  Christians 
employed  with  predilection  the  words  i^ynois 
and  6^17717x775  in  reference  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  But  the  circumstance  that 
St.  Paul  employs  the  term  ep/xijveta  yXuoauv 
for  the  interpretation  of  the  yXcoocrais  AaAefv 
(1  Cor.  xii.  10,  xiv.  26),  greatly  contributed  that 
words  belonging  to  the  root  kpppv^veiv  were  also 
made  us^of.  According  to  Eusebius  (Historic 
Ecclesiastica,  iii.  9),  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis, 
wrote,  as  early  as  about  a.d.  100,  a work  under 
the  title  of  AoyiW  KvpiaKcov  i£r]yricns,  which 
means  an  interpretation  of  the  discourses  of 
Jesus.  Papias  explained  the  religious  contents 
of  these  discourses,  which  he  had  collected  fmm 
oral  and  written  traditions.  He  distinguished 
between  the  meaning  of  e!;r)ye?(r0ai  and  kpp.r\vev*Lv, 
as  appears  from  his  observation  (preserved  by 
Eusebius  in  the  place  quoted  above),  in  which  lie 
says  concerning  the  A oyta  of  St.  Mathew,  written 
in  Hebrew,  epprii/evoe  avra  iSuvaro  e/caoTos, 
‘ but  every  one  interpreted  them  according  to  hi3 
ability’.  In  the  Greek  Church,  6 i^yprys  and 
e^yijTal  rod  x6yov  were  the  usual  terms  for 
teachers  of  Christianity.  (See  Eusebii  Historia 
Ecclesiastica,  vii.  30,  and  Heinichen  on  this 
passage,  note  21;  Photii  Biblioth.  Eod.  105; 
Cave,  Hist.  Liter,  i.  146).  Origen  called  his  com- 
mentary on  the  Holy  Scriptures  i^riyrjriKa  ; and 
Procopius  of  Gaza  wrote  a work  on  several  books 
of  the  Bible,  entitled  cr^oXai  e^ypriKal.  How- 
ever, we  find  the  word  epfj.7)vdu  employed  as  a 
synonym  of  e^rpyricris,  especially  among  the  inha- 
bitants of  Antioch.  For  instance,  Gregorius 
Nyssenus  says,  concerning  Ephraim  Syrus,  ypacpijy 
oXr)v  aicpifi&s  irphs  Xe^iv  r)pfj.r,uevaev  (see  Gregorii 
Nysseni  Vita  Ephraimi  Syri ; Opera,  Paris,  ii. 
p.  1033).  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia,  Theodore^ 


12 


INTERPRETATION. 


INTERPRETATION. 


and  others,  wrote  commentaries  on  the  sacred 
Scriptures  under  the  title  of  kpgyvela  (compare  A. 
H.  Niemeyer,  de  Isidori  Pelnsiotce  Vita,  Scriptis , 
et  Doctrina,  Halae,  1S25.  p.  20V). 

Among  the  Latin  Christians  the  word  interpres 
had  a wider  range  than  the  corresponding  Greek 
term,  and  the  Latins  had  no  precise  term  for  the 
exposition  of  the  Bible  which  exactly  corresponded 
with  the  Greek.  The  word  interpretatio  was 
applied  only  in  the  sense  of  occupation  or  act 
of  an  expositor  of  the  Bible,  but  not  in  the  sense 
of  contents  elicited  from  biblical  passages. 
The  words  tractare,  tractator , and  tractatus 
were  in  preference  employed  with  respect  to  bib- 
lical exposition,  and  the  sense  which  it  elicited. 
Together  with  these  words  there  occur  commen- 
taries and  expositio.  In  reference  to  the  exege- 
tical  work  of  St  Hilary  on  St.  Matthew,  the 
codices  fluctuate  between  commentaries  and 
tractatus.  St.  Augustine’s  tractatus  are  well 
known  ; and  this  father  frequently  mentions  the 
divinarum  scripturarum  tractatores.  For  in- 
stance, Retractationes  1.23.  divinorum  tractatores 
eloquiomm.  Sulpicius  Severus,  Dial.  i.  6. 
onginis  ....  qui  tractator  sacrorum  peritissimas 
habebatur.  Vincentius  Lirinensis  observes  in  his 
Commonitoriem  on  ICor.  xii.  28  : — tertio  doctores 
qui  tractatores  nunc  appellantur  ; quos  hie  idem 
apostolus  etiam  prophetas  interdum  nuncupat,  eo 
quod  per  eos  prophetarum  mysteria  populis  aperi- 
antur  : — ‘ in  the  third  place  teachers  who  are  now 
called  tractatores  ; whom  the  same  apostle  some- 
times styles  prophets,  because  by  them  the  mysteries 
of  the  prophets  are  opened  to  the  people’  (com- 
pare Dufresne,  Glossarium  mediae  et  infimee 
Latinitatis,  sub  tractator  et  tractatus  ; and 
Baluze,  ad  Servat.  Lupum,  p.  479). 

However,  the  occupation  of  interpres , in  the 
nobler  sense  of  this  word,  was  not  unknown  to  St. 
Jerome ; as  may  be  seen  from  his  Prafatio  in 
libros  Samuelis  (Opera,  ed.  Vallarsi,  ix.p.  459) : — 
Quicquid  enim  crebrius  vertendo  et  emendando 
solicitius  ei  didicimus  et  tenemus,  n<#trum  est. 
Et  quum  intellexeris,  quod  antea  nesciebas,  vel 
interpretem  me  estimate  si  gratus  es,  vel  irapa- 
<Ppaaryv  si  ingratus  : — ‘ for  whatever  by  frequently 
translating  and  carefully  correcting  we  have 
learned  and  retain,  is  our  own.  And  if  you  have 
understood  what  you  formerly  did  not  know,  con- 
sider me  to  be  an  expositor  if  you  are  grateful,  or 
a paraphrast  if  you  are  ungrateful.’ 

In  modern  times  the  word  inlerpretatio  has 
again  come  into  repute  in  the  sense  of  scriptural 
exposition,  for  which,  indeed,  interpretation  is 
now  the  standing  technical  term. 

The  German  language  also  distinguishes  be- 
tween the  words  auslegen  and  erkl'dren  in  such  a 
manner  that  the  former  corresponds  to  e^rjyeiadae 
and  interpretari.  The  word  auslegen  is  always 
used  in  the  sense  of  rendering  perceptible  what  is 
contained  under  signs  and  symbols.  Compare 
Dionysii  Halicarnassensis  Antiq.  Rom.  ii.  73  : 
rv7s  re  ISiwrals,  oiroaoi  gy  laaai  robs  re  pi  ra  0e?a 
ere  Baa  govs,  e^yy  yral  yivovrai  /cal  npoepyrai : ‘ for 
the  ignorant,  who  do  not  know  what  belongs  to 
divine  worship,  there  are  expositors  and  prophets.’ 

The  word  erkldren , on  the  contrary,  means  to 
clear  up  by  arguments  what  has  been  indistinctly 
understood,  so  that  what  was  incomprehensible 
is  comprehended. 

The  Erklarer  does  not  develope  wnat  is  hidden 


and  concealed,  but  explains  what  is  uncieur  an* 
obscure  (see  Weigand,  Wortcrbuch  der  Deut* 
schen  Synonymen,  1.  Mainz,  1840,  p.  140  sq  ). 
Hence  it  follows  that  the  Ausleger  of  the  Bible 
occupies  a position  different  from  that  of  the 
Erklarer , although  these  terms  are  frequently 
employed  as  if  they  were  synonymous.  The 
Ausleger,  e^yyyr-fjs,  opens  what  is  concealed  under 
the  words  of  the  Bible.  He  unveils  mysteries, 
while  the  Erklarer,  epgyuevs,  sees  in  the  words  of 
the  Bible  not  merely  signs  for  something  concealed 
and  hidden,  but  words  the  sense  of  which  is  to  be 
cleared  up  whenever  it  is  obscure.  The  Erhldrei 
stands  on  natural,  ground,  but  the  Ausleger  on 

SUPERNATURAL. 

From  ancient,  times  the  church,  or  rather  eccle- 
siastical bodies  and  religious  denominations, 
have  taken  the  supernatural  position  with  reference 
to  the  Bible,  as,  before  the  Church,  the  Jews  did 
in  respect  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  church  and 
denominations  have  demanded  Ausleger , not 
Erklarer.  They  have  supposed  that  in  the  authors 
of  Biblical  books  there  did  not  exist  a literary 
activity  of  the  same  kind  which  induces  men  to 
write  down  what  they  have  thought,  but  have 
always  required  from  their  followers  the  belief 
that  the  Biblical  authors  wrote  in  a state  of  in- 
spiration, that  is  to  say,  under  a peculiar  and 
direct  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  Sometimes 
the  Biblical  authors  were  described  to  be  merely 
external  and  mechanical  instruments  of  God’s 
revelation.  But  however  wide,  or  however  nar 
row  the  boundaries  were,  within  which  the  ope- 
ration of  God  upon  the  writers  was  confined  by 
ecclesiastical  supposition,  the  origin  of  the  Bibli- 
cal books  was  always  supposed  to  be  essentially 
different  from  the  origin  of  human  compositions; 
and  this  difference  demanded  the  application  of 
peculiar  rules  in  order  to  understand  the  Bible. 
There  were  required  peculiar  arts  and  kinds  of 
information  in  order  to  discover  the  sense  and 
contents  of  books  which,  on  account  of  their  ex- 
traordinary origin,  were  inaccessible  by  the  ordi-  ! 
nary  way  of  logical  rules,  and  whose  written 
words  were  only  outward  signs,  behind  which  a 
higher  and  divine  meaning  was  concealed.  Con- 
sequently, the  church  and  denominations  required 
Deleter,  Ausleger,  efyyyral,  or  interpreters,  of  the 
signs  by  means  of  which  God  had  revealed  his 
will.  Thus  necessarily  arose  again  in  the  Chris- 
tian church  the  art  of  opening  or  interpreting  the 
supernatural ; which  art  had  an  existence  in 
earlier  religions,  but  with  this  essential  difference, 
that  the  signs,  by  the  opening  of  which  superna- 
tural truth  was  obtained,  were  now  more  simple, 
and  of  a more  intelligible  kind,  than  in  earlier 
religions.  They  were  now  written  signs,  which 
belonged  to  the  sphere  of  speech  and  language, 
through  which  alone  all  modes  of  thinking  obtain 
clearness,  and  can  be  readily  communicated  to 
others.  But  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  which  divine 
revelation  was  preserved,  differ,  by  conveying 
divine  thoughts,  from  common  language  and 
writing,  which  convey  only  human  thoughts. 
Hence  it  followed  that  its  sense  was  much  deeper, 
and  far  exceeded  the  usual  sphere  of  human 
thoughts,  so  that  the  usual  requisites  for  the  right 
understanding  of  written  documents  appeared  to 
be  insufficient.  According  to  this  opinion  a 
lower  and  a higher  sense  of  the  Bible  wer* 
distinguished.  The  lower  sense  was  that  which 


INTERPRETATION. 


INTERPRETATION 


could  be  elicited  according  to  the  rules  of 
grammar;  the  higher  sense  was  considered  to 
consist  of  deeper  thoughts  concealed  under  the 
grammatical  meaning  of  the  words.  These  deeper 
thoughts  they  endeavoured  to  obtain  in  various 
ways,  but  not  by  grammatical  research. 

The  Jews,  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  employed  for 
this  purpose  especially  the  typico-allegorical  in- 
terpretation. The  Jews  of  Palestine  endeavoured 
by  means  of  this  mode  of  interpretation  especially 
to  elicit  the  secrets  of  futurity,  which  were  said  to 
be  fully  contained  in  the  Old  Testament.  (See 
Wsehner,  Antiquitates  Hebrceorum,  vol.  i.  Got- 
tingae,  1743,  p.  341,  sq. ; Dopke,  Hermeneutik 
der  neuiestamentlichen  Schriftsteller , Leipzig, 
1829,  p.  88,  sq.,  164,  sq. ; Hirsc’nfeld,  der  Geist 
der  Talmudischen  Auslegung  der  Bibel,  Berlin, 
1840 ; comp.  Juvenal,  Sat.  xiv.  103 ; Justin 
Martyr,  Apol.  i.  pp.  52,  61 ; Bretschneider,  His- 
torisch-dogmatische  Auslegung  des  Neuen  Testa- 
mentes,  Leipzig,  1806,  p.  35,  sq.) 

The  Alexandrine  Jews,  on  the  contrary,  en- 
deavoured to  raise  themselves  from  the  simple 
sense  of  the  words,  t6  xj/uxinSr,  to  a higher,  more 
general,  and  spiritual  sense,  rb  TrvtvyariKov  (see 
D'ahne,  Geschictliche  Darstellung  der  J'udisch- 
Alexandrinischen  Religions-Philosophie,  Halle, 
1834,  i.  p.  52,  sq.;  ii.  17.  195,  sq,,  209,  228, 
241).  Similar  principles  were  adopted  by  the 
authors  of  the  New  Testament  (see  Be  Wette, 
TJeber  die  Symbolisch-Typische  Lehr  art  in  Brief e 
an  die  Hebraer,  in  der  Theologischen  Zeitschrift , 
von  Schleiermacher  und  De  W ette,  part  iii. ; 
Tholuck,  Beilage  zum  Commentar  uber  den 
Brief  an  die  Hebraer,  1840). 

These  two  modes  of  interpretation,  the  alle- 
GOrico  typical  and  the  allegorico-mystical, 
are  found  in  the  Christian  writers  as  early  as  the 
first  and  second  centuries ; the  latter  as  yuuais, 
the  former  a?  a demonstration  that  all  and  every- 
thing, both  what  had  happened,  and  what  would 
come  to  pass,  was  somehow  contained  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  (see  Justin  Martyr,  as  quoted  above, 
and  Tertullian,  Adversus  Marcionem , iv.  2, 
Praedicatio  disci  pul  orum  suspecta  fieri  posset  si 
non  assistat  auctoritas  : — ‘ The  preaching  of  the 
disciples  might  appear  to  be  questionable,  if  it 
was  not  supported  by  other  authority  ’). 

To  these  allegorical  modes  of  interpretation 
was  added  a third  mode,  which  necessarily  sprung 
up  after  the  rise  of  the  Catholico-apostolical 
church,  namely,  the  dogmatical,  or  theolo- 
gico-kcclesiastical.  The  followers  of  the 
Catholico-apostolical  church  agreed  that  all 
apostles  and  all  apostolical  writings  had  an  equal 
authority,  because  they  were  all  under  an  equal 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  it  followed 
that  they  could  not  set  forth  either  contradictory 
or  different  dochines.  A twofold  expedient  was 
adopted  in  order  to  effect  harmony  of  interpreta- 
tion. The  one  was  of  the  apparent  and  relative 
kind,  because  it  referred  to  subjects  which  appear 
incomprehensible  only  to  the  confined  human 
understanding,  but  which  are  in  perfect  harmony 
in  the  divine  thoughts.  Justin  ( Dialogus  cum 
Tryphone,  c.  65)  says  : — e/c  it avr6s  ireneurperos 
Srt  ovbepia  ypaipj]  rf/  It  epa  ivavria  early,  avrbs 
vouv  paWov  opoXoyrjaw  ra  elpi jpeya  : — ‘ Being 
quite  certain  that  no  Scripture  contradicts  the 
other,  I will  rather  confess  that  I do  not  under- 
stand what  is  said  therein.’  St.  Chrysostom 


restricted  this  as  follows  : — iravra  ffcuprj  kc n ebdta 
ra  irapa  ra?s  OeiaTs  ypa<pa?s,  iravra  ra  avayuaia 
5rj\a  ( Homil . iii.  c.  4,  in  Ep.  2 ad  Thessaloni- 
censes)  : — ‘ In  the  divine  writings  everything  is 
intelligible  and  plain,  whatever  is  necessary  is 
open  ’ (compare  Homil.  iii.  de  Lazaro , and 
Athanasii  Oratio  contra  gentes ; Opera  i.  p.  12). 

The  second  expedient  adopted  by  the  church 
was  to  consider  certain  articles  of  faith  to  be 
leading  doctrines,  and  to  regulate  and  de- 
fine accordingly  the  sense  of  the  Bible  wher- 
ever it  appeared  doubtful  and  uncertain.  This 
led  to  the  theologico-ecclesiastical  or  dog- 
matical mode  of  interpretation,  which,  when 
the  Christians  were  divided  into  several  sects, 
proved  to  be  indispensable  to  the  Church,  but 
which  adopted  various  forms  in  the  various  sects 
by  which  it  was  employed.  Not  only  the  heretics 
of  ancient  times,  but  also  the  followers  of  the 
Roman  Catholic,  the  Greek  Catholic,  the  Syrian, 
the  Anglican,  the  Protestant  Church,  &c.,  have 
endeavoured  to  interpret  the  Bible  in  harmony 
with  their  dogmas.  i 

The  different  modes  of  interpreting  the  Bible 
are,  according  to  what  we  have  stated,  the  follow- 
ing three — the  grammatical,  the  allegorical. 
the  dogmatical.  The  grammatical  mode  of 
interpretation  simply  investigates  the  sense  con- 
tained in  the  words  of  the  Bible.  The  allegorical, 
according  to  Quintilian’s  sentence  ‘ aliud  verbis, 
aliud  sensu  ostendo,’  maintains  that  the  words  of 
the  Bible  have,  besides  their  simple  sense,  another 
which  is  concealed  as  behind  a picture,  and  en- 
deavours to  find  out  this  supposed  figurative  sense, 
which,  it  is  said,  was  not  intended  by  the  authors 
(see  Olshausen,  Ein  Wort  iiber  tieferen  Schrift- 
sinn,  Konigsberg,  1824).  The  dogmatical  mode 
of  interpretation  endeavours  to  explain  the  Bible 
in  harmony  with  the  dogmas  of  the  church,  lbl 
lowing  the  principle  of  analogia  fidei.  Com 
pare  Consilii  Tridentini  sess.  iv.  decret.  2 : — Ne 
quis  Sacram  Scripturam  interpretari  audeat  con- 
tra eum  sensum  quern  tenuit  et  tenet  sancta 
mater  ecclesia,  cujus  est  judicare  de  vero  sensu  et 
interpretatione  Scripturarum  Sacrarum  : — ‘ Let 
no  one  venture  to  interpret  the  Holy  Scriptures 
in  a sense  contrary  to  that  which  the  holy  mother 
church  ha3  held,  and  does  hold,  and  which  has 
the  power  of  deciding  what  is  the  true  sense  and 
the  right  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.’ 

Rambach,  Institutiones  Hermeneuticoe  Sacra", 
Jenae,  1723  •.  Auctoritas,  quam  haec  analogia 
fidei  in  re  exegetica  liabet,  in  eo  consistit,  ut  sit 
fundamentum  ac  principium  generale,  ad  cujus 
normam  omnes  Scripturae  expositione3,  tamquam 
ad  lapidem  Lydium,  exigendae  sunt : — ‘ The  au- 
thority which  this  analogy  of  faith  exercises  upou 
interpretation  consists  in  this,  that  it  is  the  foun- 
dation and  general  principle  according  to  the 
rule  of  which  all  Scriptural  interpretations  are  to 
be  tried  as  by  a touchstone.’ 

Ecclesia  Anglicana,  art.  xx. : — Ecclesije  non 
licet  quicquam  instituere,  quod  verbo  Dei  script© 
adversetur,  nec  unum  Scripturae  locum  sic  ex- 
ponere  potest,  ut  alteri  contradicat : — : It  is  not 
lawful  for  the  church  to  ordain  anything  that  is 
contrary  to  God’s  word  written,  neither  may  it 
expound  one  place  of  Scripture  so  as  to  be  repug- 
nant to  another.’ 

Confessio  Scotica,  18: — Nullam  enim  inter 
pretationem  admittere  audemus,  quae  alicui  oria 


IN  TERPRETATION. 


INTERPRETATION. 


M 

cipali  articulo  fidei,  ant  alicui  piano  textui 
S;rlptura).  ant  caritatis  regulae  repugnat,  &c. : — 
' We  dare  not  admit  any  interpretation  which 
contradicts  any  leading  article  of  faith,  or  any 
plain  text  of  Scripture,  or  the  rule  of  charity,’  &c. 

Besides  tire  three  modes  of  interpretation  which 
have  been  mentioned  above,  theologicil  writers 
have  spoken  of  typicai.,  propiieticai  , empha- 

TICAI.,  PHILOSOPHICAL,  TRADITIONAL,  MORAL, 

or  practical  interpretation.  But  all  these  are 
only  one-sided  developments  of  some  single  fea- 
ture contained  in  the  above  three,  arbitrarily 
chosen ; and,  therefore,  they  cannot  be  considered 
to  be  separate  modes,  but  are  only  modifications 
of  one  or  other  of  those  three.  The  interpretation 
in  which  all  these  modes  are  brought  into  har- 
mony, has  lately  been  called  the  panharmoni- 
cal,  which  word  is  not  very  happily  chosen  (F. 
H.  Germar,  Die  Panharmonische  Interpretation 
der  Ileiligen  Schrift , Leipsic,  1821 ; and  by  the 
same  author,  Beitrag  zur  Allgemeinen  Ilermc- 
netttik,  Altona,  1828). 

The  allegorical,  as  well  as  the  dogmatical, 
mode  of  interpretation,  presupposes  the  gram- 
matical, which,  consequently,  forms  the  basis  of 
the  other  two;  so  that  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  can  exist  entirely  without  it.  Consequently, 
the  grammatical  mode  of  interpretation  must  have 
an  historical  precedence  before  the  others.  But 
history  also  proves  that  the  church  has  constantly 
endeavoured  to  curtail  the  province  of  grammatical 
interpretation,  to  renounce  it  as  much  as  possible, 
and  to  rise  above  it.  If  we  follow,  with  the  exa- 
mining eye  of  an  historical  inquirer,  the  course 
in  which  these  three  modes  of  interpretation,  in 
their  mutual  dependence  upon  each  other,  have 
generally  been  applied,  it  becomes  evident  that 
in  opposition  to  the  grammatical  mode,  the  alle- 
gorical was  first  set  up.  Subsequently,  the  alle- 
gorical was  almost  entirely  supplanted  by  the 
dogmatical ; but  it  started  up  with  renewed  vigour 
when  the  dogmatical  mode  rigorously  confined 
the  spiritual  movement  of  the  human  intellect,  as 
well  as  all  religious  sentiment,  within  the  too 
narrow  bounus  of  dogmatical  despotism. 

The  dogmatical  mode  of  interpretation  could 
only  spring  up  after  the  church,  renouncing  the 
original  multiplicity  of  opinions,  had  agreed  upon 
certain  leading  doctrines;  after  which  time,  it 
grew,  together  with  the  church,  into  a mighty  tree, 
towering  high  above  every  surrounding  object, 
and  casting  its  shade  over  every  thing.  The 
longing  desire  for  light  and  warmth,  of  those  who 
were  spell-bound  under  its  shade,  induced  them 
to  cultivate  again  the  allegorical  and  the  gram- 
matical interpretation ; but  they  were  unable  to 
bring  the  fruits  of  these  modes  to  full  maturity. 
Every  new  intellectual  revolution,  and  every 
spiritual  development  of  nations,  gave  a new 
impulse  to  grammatical  interpretation.  This  im- 
pulse lasted  until  interpretation  was  again  taken 
captive  by  the  overwhelming  ecclesiastical  power, 
whose  old  formalities  had  regained  strength,  or 
which  had  been  renovated  under  new  forms. 
Grammatical  interpretation,  consequently,  goes 
hand  in  hand  with  the  principle  of  spiritual  pro- 
gress, and  the  dogmatical  with  the  conservative 
principle.  Finally,  the  allegorical  interpretation 
is  as  an  artificial  aid  subservient  to  the  conserva- 
tive principle,  when,  by  its  vig  orous  stability,  the 
\atter  exercises  a too  unnatural  pressure.  This  is 


confirmed  by  the  history  of  all  times  and  countries 
so  that  we  may  confine  ourselves  to  the  following 
few  illustrative  observations.  The  various  ten- 
dencies of  the  first  Christian  period  were  com- 
bined in  the  second  century,  so  that  the  principle  of 
one  general  (Catholic)  church  was  gradually 
adopted  by  most  parties.  But  now,  it  became 
rather  difficult  to  select,  from  the  variety  of  doc* 
trines  prevalent  in  various  sects,  those  by  the 
application  of  which  to  biblical  interpretation,  a 
perfect  harmony  and  systematical  unity  could 
be  effected.  Nevertheless,  the  wants  of  science 
powerfully  demanded  a systematical  arrangement 
of  biblical  doctrines,  even  before  a general  agree- 
ment upon  dogmatical  principles  had  been 
effected.  The  wants  of  science  were  especially 
felt  among  the  Alexandrine  Christians  ; and  in 
Alexandria,  where  the  allegorical  interpretation 
had  from  ancient  times  been  practised,  it  offered 
the  desired  expedient  which  met  the  exigency  of 
the  church.  Hence,  it  may  naturally  be  ex- 
plained why  the  Alexandrine  theologians  of 
the  second  and  third  century,  particularly 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Origen,  interpreted 
allegorically,  and  why  the  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion was  perfected,  and  in  vogue,  even  before  the 
dogmatical  came  into  existence.  Origen,  espe- 
cially in  his  fourth  book,  De  Principiis , treats 
on  scriptural  interpretation,  using  the  following 
arguments  : — The  Holy  Scriptures,  inspired  by 
God,  form  an  harmonious  whole,  perfect  in  itself, 
without  any  defects  and  contradictions,  and  con- 
taining nothing  that  is  insignificant  and  super- 
fluous. The  grammatical  interpretation  leads  to 
obstacles  and  objections,  which,  according  to  the 
quality  just  stated  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  are 
inadmissible  and  impossible.  Now,  since  the 
merely  grammatical  interpretation  can  neither 
remove  nor  overcome  these  objections,  we  must 
seek  for  an  expedient  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
grammatical  interpretation.  The  allegorical  in- 
terpretation offers  this  expedient,  and  consequently 
is  above  the  grammatical.  Origen  observes  that 
man  consists  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit;  and  he 
distinguishes  a triple  sense  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
analogous  to  this  division  : — ovkovv  rpicc&s 
anoypacpecdai  Set  els  rrjv  eavrov  tyvxw  Ta  cwv 
ayloov  ypa.jAixa.T06v  voi'jpara'  'Lva  6 pev  an rXovcrepos 
olKoboprjrai , anb  rf;s  olovel  ca.pK.bs  t rjs  ypaoprjs, 
0UT06S  OVOpa(6vTC6V  Tj/ACOV  TT)V  7 Tp6\^^pOV  OKboX^V 
6 de  iirl  nocbv  avafiefiTjiccos-  anb  rrjs  ucnepel 
i/zuX’fs  avrrjs ‘ 6 be  rehetos  /cat  ttpoios  roTs  napa  t $ 
anocroKcp  (1  Cor.  ii.  6,  7)  A eyopevois’  collar 

tie  \a\ovpev anb  rod  nvevpariKOv  v6poo 

CKiav  exovTos  rwv  peWovroov  ayaOwV  tSocnep  yap 
6 IxvOpunGs  cvvecTTjKev  etc  coo  par  os  ical  xpvxvs  kou 
nveiparos,  rbv  avrbv  npinov  Kal  p olKOVcppOelca 
vnb  rov  6eov  els  avdptioncov  cooTpplav  boOrjveu 
ypacpiiv  : — ‘ The  sentiments,  therefore,  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  to  be  impressed  upon  our  minds  in 
a three-fold  manner,  in  order  that  whosoever  be- 
longs to  the  simpler  sort  of  persons,  may  receive 
edification  from  the  flesh  of  the  Scripture  (thus  we 
call  their  obvious  meaning),  but  he  who  is  some- 
what more  advanced  from  its  soul ; but  whosoever 
is  perfect,  and  similar  to  those  to  whom  the  apostle 
alludes,  where  he  says,  “ we  speak  wisdom”.  . . 
from  the  spiritual  law  which  contains  a shadow 
of  good  things  to  come;  for  as  man  consists  oi 
spirit,  body,  and  soul,  so  also  the  Holy  Writ, 
which  God  has  planned  to  be  granted  for  thr 


INTERPRETATION. 


INTERPRETATION. 


25 


salvation  of  mankind’  (De  Princip.,  iv.  108; 
compare  Klausen,  Iiermeneutik  des  Neuen  Tes~ 
tamentes,  Leipzig,  1841,  p.  104,  sq.). 

Since,  however,  allegorical  interpretation  can- 
not be  reduced  to  settled  rules,  but  always  de- 
pends upon  the  greater  or  less  influence  of 
imagination  ; and  since  the  system  of  Christian 
doctrines,  which  the  Alexandrine  theologians 
produced  by  means  of  allegorical  interpretation, 
was  in  many  respects  objected  to ; and  since,  in 
opposition  to  these  Alexandrine  theologians,  there 
was  gradually  established,  and  more  and  more 
firmly  defined,  a system  of  Christian  doctrines 
which  formed  a firm  basis  for  uniformity  of  inter- 
pretation, in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  the 
majority,  there  gradually  sprung  up  a dogmatical 
mode  of  interpretation  founded  upon  the  inter- 
pretation of  ecclesiastical  teachers,  which  had 
jeen  recognised  as  orthodox  in  the  Catholic 
church.  This  dogmatical  interpretation  has  been 
in  perfect  existence  since  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  then  more  and  more  sup- 
plauted  the  allegorical,  which  henceforward  was 
left  to  the  wit  and  ingenuity  of  a few  individuals. 
Thus  St.  Jerome,  about  a.d.  400,  could  say  : — 
Regula  scripturarmn  est : ubi  manifestissima 
prophetia  de  futuris  texitur  per  incerta  aele- 
gore®  non  extenuare  quae  scripta  sunt  ( Com ■- 
merit,  in  Malachi i.  16): — ‘The  rule  of  scriptures 
is,  that  where  there  is  a manifest  prediction  of 
future  events,  not  to  enfeeble  that  which  is  written 
by  the  uncertainty  of  allegory.’  During  the 
whole  of  the  fourth  century,  the  ecclesiastico- 
dogmatical  mode  of  interpretation  was  developed 
with  constant  reference  to  the  grammatical.  Even 
Hilary,  in  his  book  De  Trinitate,  i.  properly 
asserts  : — Optimus  lector  est,  qui  dictomm  infel- 
ligentiam  expectet  ex  diefis  potius  quam  imponat, 
et  retulerit  magis  quam  attulerit ; neque  cogat 
id  videri  dictis  contineri,  quod  ante  lectionem 
praesumpserit  intelligendum.  ‘ He  is  the  best 
reader  who  rather  expects  to  obtain  sense  from 
the  words,  than  imposes  it  upon  them,  and  who 
carries  more  away  than  he  has  brought,  nor  forces 
that  upon  the  words  which  he  had  resolved  to 
understand  before  he  began  to  read.’ 

After  the  commencement  of  the  fifth  century, 
grammatical  interpretation  fell  entirely  into  de- 
cay ; which  ruin  was  effected  partly  by  the  full 
development  of  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  doc- 
trines defined  in  all  their  parts,  and  by  a fear 
of  deviating  from  this  system,  partly  also  by  the 
continually  increasing  ignorance  of  the  lan- 
guages in  which  the  Bible  was  written.  The 
primary  condition  of  ecclesiastical  or  dogmatical 
interpretation  was  then  most  clearly  expressed  by 
Yincentius  Lirinensis  ( Commonit . i.)  : — Quia 
videlicet  scripturam  sacram  pro  ipsa  sua  altitu- 
dine  non  uno  eodemque  sensu  universi  accipiunt, 
sed  ejusdem  eloquia  aliter  atque  aliter  alius  atque 
alius  interpretatur,  ut  psene  quot  homines  sunt, 

tot  illine  sententiae  erui  posse  videantur 

in  ipsa  catholica  ecclesia  magnopere  curandum 
est,  ut  id  teneamus,  quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  ' 
quod  ab  omnibus  creditum  est: — ‘Since  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  on  account  of  their  depth,  are 
not  understood  by  all  in  the  same  manner,  but 
its  sentences  are  understood  differently  by  different 
persons,  so  that  they  might  seem  to  admit  as 
many  meanings  as  there  are  men,  we  must  well 
take  cart  that  within  the  pale  of  the  Catholic 


church  we  hold  fast  what  has  been  believed  every 
where,  always,  and  by  all’  (Compare  Commonit. 
ii.  ed.  Bremensis,  1688,  p.  321,  sq.)  Hencefor- 
ward, interpretation  was  confined  to  the  mere  col- 
lection of  explanations,  which  had  first  been  give*, 
by  men  whose  ecclesiastical  orthodoxy  was  un- 
questionable. Prsestantius  presumpta  novitate 
non  imbui,  sed  priscorum  fonte  satiari : — ‘ It  is 
better  not  to  be  imbued  with  the  pretended  no- 
velty, but  to  be  filled  from  the  fountain  of  the 
ancients  ’ (Cassiodori  Institutiones  Divines,  Preef. 
Compare  Alcuini  Epistola  ad  Gislam ; Opera, 
ed.  Frobenius,  i.  p.  464.  Comment,  in  Joh. 
Preef .,  ib.  p.  460.  Claudius  Turon,  Prolego- 
mena in  Comment,  in  libros  Regum.  Hayrno, 
Historia  Ecclesiastica,  ix.  3,  &c.).  Doubtful 
cases  were  decided  according  to  the  precedents  of 
ecclesiastical  definitions.  In  his  quae  vel  dubia 
vel  obscura  fuerint  id  noverimus  sequendum 
quod  nec  praeceptis  evangelicis  contrarium,  neo 
decretis  sanctorum  invenitur  adversum  : — ‘ In 
passages  which  may  be  either  doubtful  or  obscure, 
we  might  know  that,  we  should  follow  that  which 
is  found  to  be  neither  contrary  to  evangelical 
precepts,  nor  opposed  to  the  decrees  of  holy  men’ 
(Benedicti  Capitulara,  iii.  58,  in  Pertz,  Monu- 
menta  Veteris  German.  Histor.  iv.  2,  p.  107). 
But  men  like  Bishop  Agobardus  (a.d.  840,  in 
Galandii  Bibl .,  xiii.  p.  4-16),  Johannes  Scotus, 
Erigena,  Druthmar,  Nicolaus  Lyranus,  Roger 
Bacon,  and  others,  acknowledged  the  necessity  of 
grammatical  interpretation,  and  were  only  want- 
ing in  the  requisite  means,  and  in  knowledge,  for 
putting  it  successfully  into  practice. 

During  the  whole  period  of  the  middle  ages  the 
allegorical  interpretation  again  prevailed.  The 
middle  ages  were  more  distinguished  by  sentiment 
than  by  clearness,  and  the  allegorical  interpre- 
tation gave  satisfaction  to  sentiment  and  occupa 
tion  to  free  mental  speculation. 

When,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  classical  studies 
had  revived,  they  exercised  also  a favourable 
influence  upon  Biblical  interpretation,  and  re- 
stored grammatical  interpretation  to  honour.  It 
was  especially  by  grammatical  interpretation  that 
the  domineering  Catholic  church  was  combated 
at  the  period  of  the  Reformation  ; but  as  soon  as 
the  newly  sprung-up  Protestant  church  had  been 
dogmatically  established,  it  began  to  consider 
grammatical  interpretation  a dangerous  adversary 
of  its  own  dogmas,  and  opposed  it  as  much  as  did 
the  Roman  Catholics  themselves.  From  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  to  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century  this  important  ally  of  Protestantism  was 
subjected  to  the  artificial  law  of  a new  dogmati- 
cal interpretation  ; while  the  Roman  Catholic 
church  changed  the  principle  of  interpretation 
formerly  advanced  by  Vincentius,  into  an  eccle- 
siastical dogma.  In  consequence  of  this  new 
oppression  the  religious  sentiment,  which  had 
frequently  been  wounded  both  among  Roman 
Catholics  and  Protestants,  took  refuge  in  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  which  then  re-appeared 
under  the  forms  of  typical  and  mystical  theology. 

After  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century 
grammatical  interpretation  recovered  its  autho- 
rity. It  was  then  first  re-introduced  by  the 
Arminians,  and,  in  spite  of  constant  attacks,  to- 
wards the  conclusion  of  that  century,  it  decidedly 
prevailed  among  the  German  Protestants.  It 
ei  >rcised  a very  beneficial  influence,  although  it 


tb 


INTERPRETATION. 


INTERPRETATION. 


cannot  be  denied  that  manifold  errors  occurred  in 
its  application.  During  the  last  thirty  years  both 
Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  have  again 
curtailed  the  rights  and  invaded  the  province  of 
grammatical  interpretation,  by  promoting  (accord- 
ing to  the  general  reaction  of  our  times)  the  op- 
posing claims  of  dogmatical  and  mystical  inter- 
pretation (comp.  J.  Rosenmiiller,  Historia  In- 
terpretationis  Libronmx  sacrorum  in  Ecclesia 
Christiana , Lipsiae,  1795-1814,  5 vols.;  W.  Van 
Mildert,  An  Inquiry  into  the  General  Principles 
of  ScriptiiYe  Interpretation , in  Eight  Sermons., 
&c.,  Oxford,  1815;  G.  W.  Meyer,  Geschichte 
der  Schrifterkldrung  seit  der  Wiederherstellung 
der  Wissenschaften,  Gottingen,  1802-9,  5 vols. ; 
Richard  Simon,  IJistoire  Critique  des  principaux 
Commentateurs  duNouv.  Test.,  Rotterdam,  1693; 
H.  N.  Klausen,  Hermeneutik  des  Neuen  Testa - 
mentes , Aus  dem  Diinischen,  Leipzig,  1841,  p. 
77,  sq. ; E.  F.  K.  Roseumiiller,  Handbuch  fiir 
die  Literatur  der  Bibhtchen  Kritik  und  Exegcse , 
Gottingen,  1797-1800,  4 vols.). 

The  aim  of  human  speech  in  general  may  be 
described  as  the  desire  to  render  one’s  own  thoughts 
intelligible  to  others  by  means  of  words  in 
their  capacity  of  signs  of  thoughts.  These  words 
may  be  written,  or  merely  spoken.  In  order  to 
understand  the  speech  of  another,  several  arts  and 
branches  of  knowledge  are  requisite.  The  art  of 
understanding  the  language  of  another  is  called 
Hermeneutics,  t&xvt),  or  imaT-ppy]. 

Every  art  may  be  reduced  to  the  skilful  applica- 
tion of  certain  principles,  which,  if  they  proceed 
from  one  highest  principle,  may  be  said  to  be 
based  on  science. 

Here  we  have  to  consider  not  the  spoken,  but 
the  written  language  only.  The  rules  to  be  ob- 
served by  the  interpreter,  and  the  gifts  which 
qualify  him  for  the  right  understanding  of  written 
language,  are  applicable  either  to  all  written  lan- 
guage in  general,  or  only  to  the  right  understand- 
ing of  particular  documents ; they  are,  therefore, 
to  be  divided  into  general  and  particular,  or  espe- 
cial rules  and  gifts.  In  Biblical  interpretation  arises 
the  question,  whether  the  general  hermeneutical 
rules  are  applicable  to  the  Bible  and  sufficient 
for  rightly  understanding  if,  or  whether  they  are  in- 
sufficient, and  have  to  undergo  some  modification. 

Most  Biblical  interpreters,  as  we  might  infer 
from  the  principle  of  dogmatical  and  allegorical 
interpretation,  have  declared  the  general  hermen- 
eutical principles  to  be  insufficient  for  explaining 
the  Bible,  and  required  for  this  purpose  especial 
hermeneutical  rules,  because  the  Bible,  they  said, 
which  bai»  been  written  under  the  direct  guidance 
of  tht  Holy  Ghost,  could  not  be  measured  by  the 
common  rules  which  are  applicable  only  to  the 
lower  sphere  of  merely  human  thoughts  and  com- 
positions. Therefore,  from  the  most  ancient 
times,  peculiar  hermeneutical  rules,  meeting  the 
exigency  of  biblical  interpretation,  have  been  set 
forth,  which  deviated  from  the  rides  of  general 
hermeneutics.  Thus  Biblical  Hermeneutics  were 
changed  into  an  art  of  understanding  the  Bible 
according  to  a certain  ecclesiastical  system  in 
vogue  at  a ceitain  period. 

The  advocates  of  grammatical  interpretation 
have  apposed  these  Biblical  hermeneutics,  as 
proceeding  upon  merely  arbitrary  suppositions. 
Sometimes  they  merely  limited  its  assertions,  and 
sometimes  they  reiected  it  altogether.  In  the 


latter  case  they  said  that  the  principles  of  genera' 
hermeneutics  ought  to  be  applicable  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  also.  Against  tire  above-mentioned 
train  of  argument  cited  from  Origen,  on  which  the 
demand  of  particular  Biblical  hermeneutics  essen- 
tially rests,  the  following  argument  might,  with 
greater  justice,  be  opposed  : if  God  deemed  it 
requisite  to  reveal  his  will  to  mankind  by  means 
of  intelligible  books,  he  must,  in  choosing  this 
medium,  have  intended  that  the  contents  of  these 
books  should  be  discovered  according  to  those 
general  laws  which  are  conducive  to  the  right 
understanding  of  documents  in  general.  If  this 
were  not  the  case  God  would  have  chosen  insuffi- 
cient and  even  contradictory  means  inadequate  to 
the  purpose  he  had  in  view. 

The  interpretation,  which,  in  spite  of  all  eccle- 
siastical opposition,  ought  to  be  adopted  as  being 
the  only  true  one,  strictly  adheres  to  the  demands  of 
general  hermeneutics,  to  which  it  adds  1 «ose  par- 
ticular hermeneutical  rules  which  meet  the  requi- 
sites of  particular  cases.  This  has,  in  modern 
times,  been  styled  the  iiistorico-grammaticai. 
mode  of  interpretation.  This  appellation  has 
been  chosen  because  the  epithet  grammatical 
seems  to  be  too  narrow  and  too  much  restricted  to 
the  mere  verbal  sense.  It  might  be  more  correct 
to  style  it  simply  the  historical  interpretation, 
since  the  word  historical  comprehends  every- 
thing that  is  requisite  to  be  known  about  the  lan- 
guage, the  turn  of  mind,  the  individuality,  & c.  of 
an  author  in  order  rightly  to  understand  his  book. 

In  accordance  with  the  various  notions  con- 
cerning Biblical  interpretation  which  we  have 
stated,  there  have  been  produced  Biblical  her- 
meneutics of  very  different  kinds;  for  instance, 
in  the  earlier  period  we  might  mention  that  of  the 
Donatist  Ticonius,  who  wrote  about  the  fourth 
century  his  Regulce  ad  investigandam  et  inveni- 
endam  InteUigentiam  Scripturarum  Septem  ; 
Augustinus,  De  Doctrina  Christiana , lib.  i.  3; 
Isidorus  Hispalensis,  Sentent.  419,  sq. ; Santis 
Pagnini  (who  died  in  1511)  Isagoga  ad  Mysticos 
Sacrce  Scriptures  Sensus,  libri  octodecim,  Colon 
1540;  Sixti  Senensis  (who  died  1599)  Biblio- 
theca Sancta , Venctiis,  1566.  Of  this  work, 
which  has  been  frequently  reprinted,  there  be 
longs  to  our  present  subject  only  Liber  tertius 
Artem  exponendi  Sancta  Scripta  Catholicis  Ex - 
positoribus  aptissimis  Regulis  et  Exemplis 
ostendens.  At  a later  period  the  Roman  Catholics 
added  to  these  the  works  of  Bellarmine,  Martianay, 
Cal  met,  Jahn,  and  Arigler. 

On  the  part  of  the  Lutherans  were  added  by 
Matt.  Flaoius,  Clavis  Scripture  Sacrer , Basileae, 
1537,  and  often  reprinted  in  two  volumes;  by 
Johann  Gerhard,  Traciatus  de  Legit ima  Scrip- 
turee  Sacrce  Interpretations,  Jenae,  1610 ; by 
Solomon  Glassius,  Philologies  Sacrce , libri 
quinque,  Jenae,  1623,  and  often  reprinted ; by 
Jacob  Rambach,  Institutiones  llermeneuticcc 
Sacrce,  Jenae,  1723. 

On  the  part  of  the  Calvinists  there  were  fur- 
nished by  J.  Alph.  Turretinus,  De  Scriptures 
Sacrce  Interpretations  Tractatus  Bipartitus . 
Dortrecht,  1723,  and  often  reprinted.  In  the 
English  Church  were  produced  by  Herbert  Marsh 
Lectures  on  the  Criticism  and  Interpretation  oj 
the  Bible,  Cambridge,  1828. 

Since  the  middle  of  the  last  century  it  has  been 
usual  to  treat  on  the  Old  Testament  hermeneuiica 


INTRODUCTION. 


INTRODUCTION, 


fend  on  those  of  the  New  Testament  in  separate 
works.  For  instance,  G.  W.  Meyer,  Versuch 
finer  Eermeneutik  des  Alten  Testamentes,  Lii- 
beck,  1799;  J.  H.  Pareau,  Institutio  Interpret  is 
Veteris  Testamenti,  Trajecti,  1822;  J.  A.  Er- 
nesti,  Institxdio  Interprets  Novi  Testamenti , 
Lipsias,  1761,  ed.  5ta.,  curante  Ammon,  1809. 
Translated  into  English  by  Terrot,  Edinburgh, 
1 833  ; Morus,  Super  Hermeneutica  Novi  Testa- 
menti acroases  academicce , ed.  Eichstaedt,  Lipsiae, 
1797-1802,  in  two  volumes,  but  not  completed; 
K.  A.  G.  Kell,  Lehrbuch  der  Eermeneutik  des 
Neuen  Testamentes , nach  Grundsdtzm  der 
grammatisch-historischen  Interpretation , Leipzig, 
1810;  the  same  work  in  Latin,  Lipsiae,  1811; 
T.  T.  Conybeare,  The  Bampton  Lectures  for 
the  year  1824,  being  an  attempt  to  trace  the 
History  and  to  ascertain  the  limits  of  the  se- 
condary end  spiritual  Interpretation  of  Scripture , 
Oxford,  1824 ; Schleiermacher,  Eermeneutik 
und  Kridk  mit  besonderer  Beziehung  auf  das 
Neue  Testament , herausgegeben  von  Liicke, 
Berlin,  .838;  H.  Nik.  Klausen,  Eermeneutik 
des  Neuen  Testamentes , aus  dem  Diinischen, 
Leipzig,  1841;  Chr.  Gottlieb  Wilke,  Die  Her- 
meneutik  des  Neuen  Testamentes  systematisch 
dargestellt,  Leipzig,  1843.* — K.  A.  C. 

INTRODUCTION,  BIBLICAL.  The  Greek 
word  elcraycayp,  in  the  sense  of  an  introduction  to 
a science,  occurs  only  in  later  Greek,  and  was 
first  used  to  denote  an  introduction  to  the  right 
understanding  of  the  Bible,  by  a Greek  called 
Adrian,  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century  after  Christ. 
’Adptavov  etcrayuy )]  rrjs  ypacprjs  is  a small  book, 
the  object  of  which  is  to  assist  readers  who  are 
unacquainted  with  biblical  phraseology  in  rightly 
understanding  peculiar  words  and  expressions.  It 
was  first  edited  by  David  Hoeschel,  under  the  title 
of  Adriani  Isagoge  in  Sacram  Scripturam  Greece 
cum  Scholiis,  Augustse  Vindobonae,  1602,  4to. 
This  work  is  reprinted  in  the  London  edition  of  the 
Critici  Sacri , tom.  viii. ; and  in  the  Frankfort  edi- 
tion, tom.  vi.  Before  Adrian,  the  want  of  similar 
works  had  already  been  felt,  and  books  of  a 
corresponding  tendency  were  in  circulation,  but 
they  did  not  bear  the  title  of  elcra ywyy.  Melito  of 
Sardis,  who  lived  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second 
century,  wrote  a book  under  the  title  y Kheis, 
being  a key  both  to  the  Old  and  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  so-called  A el-eis,  which  were  written 
at  a later  period,  are  books  of  a similar  description. 
Some  of  these  A e|e;s  have  been  printed  in  Mat.thaei’s 
Novum  Testamentum  Greece , and  in  Boissonade's 
Anecdota  Grceca , tom.  iii.  Parisiis,  1831.  These 
are  merely  linguistic  introductions  ; but  there  was 
soon  felt  the  want  of  works  which  might  solve  other 
questions ; such  as,  for  instance,  what  are  the  prin- 
ciples which  should  guide  us  in  biblical  interpre- 
tation. The  Donatist  Ticoniits  wrote,  about  the 
year  380,  Regulee  ad  investigandam  et  invenien- 
dam  Intelligentiam  Scripturarum  Septem.  St. 
Augustine,  in  his  work  De  Doctrind  Christian d, 

* The  writer  of  this  article  does  not  seem  to 
nave  become  acquainted  with  a very  valuable 
work  on  the  general  subject,  recently  published  in 
this  country,  under  the  title  of  Sacred  Herme- 
neutics developed  and  applied;  including  a 
History  of  Biblical  Interpretation  from  the 
earliest  of  the  Fathers  to  the  Reformation , by 
* »»  Rev.  S.  Davidson,  LL.D.,  Edinburgh,  1843. 


(iii.  302),  says  concerning  these  seven  rules,  that 
the  author's  intention  was  by  means  of  them  to 
open  the  secret  sense  of  Holy  Writ,  ‘ quasi  cla- 
vibus,’  as  if  it  were  by  keys. 

There  arose  also  a question  concerning  the  ex- 
tent of  Holy  Writ — that  is  to  say,  what  belonged, 
and  what  did  not  belong,  to  Holy  Writ ; and  also 
respecting  the  contents  of  the  separate  biblical 
books,  and  the  order  in  which  they  should  follow 
each  other,  &c. 

About  a.d.  550,  Cassiodorus  wrote  his  Institu- 
iiones  Divines.  He  mentions  in  this  work,  under 
the  name  of  Introductores  Divince  Scriptures 
five  authors  who  had  been  engaged  in  biuiica. 
investigations,  and  in  his  tenth  chapter  speaks  of 
them  thus  : — Ad  introductores  scripturae  divinao 

sollicita  mente  redeamus,  id  est  Ti- 

conium  Donatistam,  Sanctum  Augustinum  de 
doctrina  Christiana,  Adrianum,  Eucherium,  et 
Junielum,  quos  sedula  curiositate  collegi,  ut, 
quibus  erat  similis  intentio,  in  uno  corpore  adu- 
nati  codices  clauderentur  : — ‘ Let  us  eagerly 
return  to  the  guides  to  Holy  Writ ; that  is  to  say, 
to  the  Donatist  Ticonius,  to  St.  Augustine  on 
Christian  doctrine,  to  Adrian,  Eucherius,  and 
Junillus,  whom  I have  sedulously  collected,  in 
order  that  works  of  a similar  purport  might  be 
combined  in  one  volume.5 

Henceforward  the  title,  Introductio  in  Scrip- 
turam Sacram,  was  established,  and  remained 
current  for  all  works  in  which  were  solved  ques- 
tions introductory  to  the  study  of  the  Bible.  In 
the  Western,  or  Latin  church,  during  a thousand 
years,  scarcely  any  addition  was  made  to  the  col- 
lection of  Cassiodorus ; while  in  the  Eastern,  or 
Greek  church,  only  two  works  written  during  this 
long  period  deserve  to  be  mentioned,  both  bearing 
the  title,  2vvo\(/is  rrjs  Betas  ypacpijs.  One  of  these 
works  was  falsely  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  and  the 
other  as  falsely  to  Chrysostom. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century 
the  Dominican  friar,  Sautes  Pagninus,  who  died 
in  1541,  published  his  Isagoge,  by  means  of  which 
he  intended  to  revive  the  biblical  knowledge  of 
Jerome  and  St.  Augustine.  This  work,  consider- 
ing the  time  of  its  appearance,  was  a great  step 
in  advance.  Its  title  is,  Santis  Pagnini  Lucensis 
Isagoge  ad  Sacras  Literas , liber  unicus.  Colonise, 
1540,  fol. 

The  work  of  the  Dominican  friar,  Sixtus  of 
Sienna,  who  died  in  1599,  is  of  greater  importance, 
although  it  is  manifestly  written  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Inquisition,  which  had  just  been 
restored,  and  is  perceptibly  shackled  by  the  de- 
crees of  the  Council  of  Trent.  Sixtus  had  the 
intention,  worthy  of  an  inquisitor,  to  expurgate 
from  Christian  literature  every  heretical  element. 
The  Index  Librorum  Prohibitorum,  which  was 
then  first  published,  had  the  same  object ; but 
Sixtus  furnished  also  a list  of  books  to  be  used  by 
a true  Catholic  Christian  for  the  right  understand- 
ing of  Holy  Writ,  as  well  as  the  principles  wnieh 
should  guide  a Roman  Catholic  in  criticism  and 
interpretation.  The  title  of  his  work  is,  Bibliotheca 
Sancta  ab  A.  F.  Sixto,  Senensi,  ordinis  preedir 
catoo'um,  ex  preecipuis  Catholics}  Ecclesice  auc- 
toribus  collecta,  et  in  octo  libros  digesta , Venet.iis, 
1566.  This  book  is  dedicated  to  the  Cardinal 
Ghisleri,  who  ascended  the  papal  throne  in  1566, 
under  the  name  of  Pius  V.  : it  has  liequeutlv 
been  reprinted. 


28 


INTRODUCTION. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  prevented 
the  Roman  Catholics  from  moving-  freely  in  the 
Geld  of  biblical  investigation,  while  the  Protestants 
zealously  carried  out  their  researches  in  various 
directions.  The  Illyrian,  Matthias  Flacius,  in 
his  Clavis  Scriptures  Sacra,  seu  de  Sermone  Sa- 
crarum  Liter  arum,  which  was  first  printed  at 
Basle,  1567,  in  folio,  furnished  an  excellent  work 
on  biblical  Hermeneutics;  but  it  was  surpassed 
by  the  Prolegomena  of  Brian  Walton,  which  be- 
long to  his  celebrated  Biblia  Sacra  Polyglotta, 
London,  1657,  six  volumes  fol.  These  Prolego- 
mena contain  much  that  will  always  be  accounted 
valuable  and  necessary  for  the  true  criticism  of 
tne  sacred  text.  They  have  been  published  sepa- 
rately, with  notes,  by  Archdeacon  Wrangham,  in 
2 vols.  Svo.  Thus  we  have  seen  that  excellent 
works  were  produced  on  isolated  portions  of  bi- 
blical introduction,  but  they  were  not  equalled  in 
merit  by  the  works  in  which  it  was  attempted  to 
furnish  a whole  system  of  biblical  introduction. 

The  following  biblical  introductions  are  among 
the  best  of  those  which  were  published  about  that 
period  : Michaelis  Waltheri  Officina  Biblica  no - 
viter  adaperta,  & re.,  Lipsise,  first  published  in 
1636  ; Abrahami  Calovii  Criticus  Sacer  Biblicus, 
8fc.,  Viternbergae,  1643  ; J.  H.  Hottinger,  The- 
saurus Philolvgicus,  seu  Clavis  Scriptures  Sacrce, 
Tiguri,  1649;  Johannis  Henrici  Heidegger  En- 
chiridion Biblicum  Upopv7)poviK.6u , Tiguri,  1681 ; 
Leusden,  a Dutchman,  published  a work  entitled 
Philologus  Hebrceus,  §c.,  Utrecht,  1656,  and  Phi- 
lologus  Hebrceo-Grcecus  Generalis,  Utrecht,  1670. 
All  these  works  have  been  frequently  reprinted. 

The  dogmatical  zeal  of  the  Protestants  was 
greatly  excited  by  the  work  of  Louis  Capelle,  a 
reformed  divine  and  learned  professor  at  Saumur, 
which  appeared  under  the  title  of  Ludovici  Cap- 
pelli  Critica  Sacra ; sive  de  variis  qua  in  veteris 
Testamenti  libris  occurrunt  lectionibus  libri  sex. 
Edita  opere  ac  studio  Joannis  Cappelli,  auctoris 
filii,  Parisiis,  1650.  A learned  Roman  Catholic 
and  priest  of  the  Oratory,  Richard  Simon,  who 
was  born  in  1658,  and  died  in  1712,  rightly  per- 
ceived, from  the  dogmatical  bile  stirred  up  by 
Capelle,  that  biblical  criticism  was  the  most 
effective  weapon  to  be  employed  against  the  Pro- 
testantism which  had  grown  cold  and  still’  in  dog- 
matics.  He  therefore  devoted  his  critical  knowledge 
of  the  Bible  to  the  service  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  and  endeavoured  to  inflict  a death-blow 
upon  Protestantism.  The  result,  however,  was  the 
production  of  Simon’s  excellent  work  on  biblical 
criticism,  which  became  the  basis  on  which  the 
science  of  biblical  introduction  was  raised.  Si- 
mon was  the  first  who  correctly  separated  the  cri- 
ticism of  the  Old  Testament  from  that  of  the  New. 
His  works  on  biblical  introduction  appeared  under 
the  following  titles  : Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux 
Testament , Paris,  1678.  This  work  was  inaccu- 
rately reprinted  at  Amsterdam  by  Elzevir  in  1679, 
and  subsequently  in  many  other  bad  piratical  edi- 
tions. Among  these  the  most  complete  was  that 
printed,  together  with  several  polemical  treatises 
occasioned  by  this  work,  at  Rotterdam,  in  1685, 
4to. ; — Histone  Critique  du  Texte  du  Nouveau 
Testament , Rotterdam,  1689 ; Histoire  Critique 
des  Versions  du  Nouveau  Testament,  Rotterdam, 
1690 ; Histoire  Critique  des  principaux  Com- 
menteteurs  du  Nouveau  Testament,  Rotterdam, 
1693.  By  these  excellent  critical  works  Simon 


established  a claim  upon  the  gratitude  of  all  real 
friends  of  truth ; but  he  was  thanked  by  none  of 
the  prevailing  parties  in  the  Christian  church. 
The  Protestants  saw  in  Simon  only  an  enemy 
of  their  church,  not  the  thorough  investigator  and 
friend  of  truth.  To  the  Roman  Catholics,  on  the 
other  hand,  Simon’s  works  appeared  to  be  destruc- 
tive, because  they  demonstrated  their  ecclesiastical 
decrees  to  be  arbitrary  and  unhistorical.  The 
Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament  was  sup- 
pressed by  the  Roman  Catholics  in  Paris  imme- 
diately after  its  publication,  and  in  Protestant 
countries  also  it  was  forbidden  to  reprint  it.  The 
Roman  Catholic  bishop,  Bossuet,  lamented  that 
Simon  had  undermined  the  dogma  of  tradition, 
and  had  changed  the  holy  fathers  into  Protestants. 
Simon,  as  an  honest  investigator  and  friend  of 
truth,  remained  undisturbed  ; but  kept  aloof  from 
both  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants,  by  both  of 
which  parties  he  was  persecuted,  and  died  in  1712, 
in  a merely  external  connection  with  the  Romish 
church. 

The  churches  endeavoured,  witn  apparent  suc- 
cess, to  destroy  Simon  and  his  writings,  in  a host 
of  inimical  and  condemnatory  publications,  by 
which  the  knowledge  of  truth  was  not  in  the  least 
promoted.  However,  the  linguistic  and  truly 
scientific  researches  of  Pocock  ; the  Oriental  school 
in  the  Netherlands;  the  unsurpassed  work  of 
Humphry  Hody,  De  Bibliorum  Textibus  Ori- 
ginalibus  Versionibus,  S$c.,  Oxoniae,  1705,  folio; 
the  excellent  criticism  of  Mill,  in  his  Novum  Tes- 
tamentum Gr cecum  cum  Lectionibus  Variantibus , 
Oxoniae,  1707,  folio;  which  was  soon  followed  by 
Wetstein’s  Novum  Testamentum  Gr  cecum  edi - 
tionis  receptee , cum  Lectionibus  Variantibus, 
Amstelodami,  1751-2,  folio,  and  by  which  even 
Johann  Albert  Bengel,  who  died  in  1752,  waa 
convinced,  in  spite  of  his  ecclesiastical  orthodoxy 
(comp.  Bengelii  Apparatus  Criticus  Novi  Tes- 
tamenti, p.  634,  sq.)  ; the  biblical  works  by  Jo- 
hann Heinrich  Michaelis,  especially  his  Biblia 
Ilebraica  ex  Manuscriptis  et  impressis  Codicibus , 
Halae,  1720  ; and  Benjamin  Kennicott's  Vctus 
Testamentum  Hebraicum  cum  variis  Lectionibus , 
Oxoniae,  1776,  and  the  revival  of  classical  philo- 
logy ; — all  this  gradually  led  to  results  which 
coincided  with  Simon’s  criticism,  and  showed  the 
enormous  difference  between  historical  truth  and 
the  arbitrary  ecclesiastical  opinions  which  were 
still  prevalent  in  the  works  on  biblical  introduc- 
tion by  Pritius,  Black  wall,  Carpzov,  Van  Til, 
Moldenhauer,  and  others.  Johann  David  Mi- 
chaelis, who  died  in  1791,  mildly  endeavoured  to 
reconcile  the  church  with  historical  truth,  but  has 
been  rewarded  by  the  anathemas  of  the  eccle- 
siastical party,  who  have  pronounced  him  a heretic. 
By  their  ecclesiastical  persecutors,  Richard  Simon 
was  falsely  described  to  be  a disciple  of  the 
atheistical  Spinoza,  and  Michaelis  as  a follower 
of  both  Simon  and  Spinoza.  However,  the  me- 
diating endeavours  of  Michaelis  gradually  pre- 
vailed. His  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 
appeared  first  as  a work  of  moderate  size,  under 
the  title  of  Johann  David  Michaelis  Einleitung 
in  die  Gottlichen  Schriften  des  Neuen  Bundes, 
Gottingen,  1750,  8vo.  It  was  soon  translated  into 
English.  In  the  years  1765-6  Michaelis  published 
a second  and  augmented  edition  of  the  German  ori- 
ginal, in  two  volumes.  The  fourth  edition,  which 
received  great  additions,  and  in  which  many  alter- 


INTRODUCTION. 


INTRODUCTION, 


36 


ations  were  made,  appeared  in  1788,  in  two  vols. 
4to.  This  edition  was  translated  and  essentially 
augmented  by  Herbert  Marsh,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Peterborough,  and  appeared  under  the  title,  Intro- 
duction to  the  New  Testament,  by  John  David 
Michaelis,  translated  from  the  fourth  edition  of  the 
German,  and  considerably  augmented,  Cambridge, 
1791-1801, 4 vols.  8vo.  Michaelis  commenced  also 
an  introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  but  did  not 
complete  it.  A portion  of  it  was  printed  under 
the  title,  Einleitung  in  die  Gottlichen  Schriften 
des  Alten  Bundes,  Theil  i.  Abschnitt  1,  Hamburg, 
1787. 

A work  by  Ed.  Harwood,  entitled  A New  In- 
troduction to  the  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the 
New  Testament,  London,  1767-71,  was  translated 
into  German  by  Schulz,  Halle,  1770-73,  in  three 
volumes.  In  this  book  there  are  so  many  hete- 
rogeneous materials,  that  it  scarcely  belongs  to 
the  science  of  introduction. 

The  study  of  New  Testament  introduction  was 
in  Germany  especially  promoted  also  by  Johann 
Solomon  Semler,  who  died  at  Halle  in  1791.  It 
was  by  Semler’s  influence  that  the  critical  works 
of  Richard  Simon  were  translated  into  German, 
and  the  works  of  Wetstein  re-edited  and  circulated. 
The  original  works  of  Semler  on  biblical  intro- 
'uction  are  his  Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Novi  Tes- 
tamenti  Interpretationem,  Halae,  1767,  and  his 
Abhandlung  von freier  TJntersuchung  des  Canons, 
4 vols.,  Halle,  1771-5. 

Semler’s  school  produced  Johann  Jacob  Gries- 
bach,  who  died  at  Jena  in  the  year  1812.  Gries- 
bach’s  labours  in  correcting  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  are  of  great  value.  K.  A.  Haenlein 
published  a work  called  Ilandbuch  der  Einlei- 
tung in  die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testamentes, 
Erlangen,  1794-1802,  in  two  volumes,  in  which 
he  followed  up  the  lectures  of  Griesbach.  A 
second  edition  of  this  work  appeared  in  the  years 
1801-9.  This  introduction  contains  excellent 
materials,  but  is  wanting  in  decisive  historical 
criticism. 

Johann  Gottfried  Eichhom,  who  died  at  Got- 
tingen in  1827,  was  formed  in  the  school  of  Mi- 
idiaelis  at  Gottingen,  and  was  inspired  by  Herder’s 
poetical  views  of  the  East  in  general,  and  of  the 
literature  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  in  particular. 
Eichhcrn  commenced  his  Introduction  when  the 
times  were  inclined  to  give  up  the  Bible  alto- 
gether, as  a production  of  priestcraft  inapplicable 
to  the  present  period.  He  endeavoured  to  bring 
the  contents  of  the  Bible  into  harmony  with  mo- 
dem modes  of  thinking,  to  explain,  and  to  recom- 
mend them.  He  endeavoured  by  means  of  hypo- 
theses to  furnish  a clue  to  their  origin,  without 
sufficiently  regarding  strict  historical  criticism. 
Eichhorn’s  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  was 
first  published  at  Leipsic  in  1780-83,  in  three 
volumes.  The  fifth  edition  was  published  at  Got- 
tingen, 1820-24,  in  five  volumes.  His  Einleitung 
in  das  Neue  Testament  was  published  at  Gottin- 
gen in  1804-27,  in  five  volumes.  The  earlier 
volumes  have  been  republished.  The  external 
treatment  of  the  materials,  the  style,  aim,  and 
many  separate  portions  of  both  works,  are  masterly 
and  excellent ; but  with  regard  to  linguistic  and 
historical  research,  they  are  feeble  and  over- 
whelmed with  hypotheses. 

Leonhardt  Bertholdt  was  a very  diligent  but 
Bncritical  compiler.  He  made  a considerable  step 


backward  in  the  science  of  introduction,  nut  only 
by  reuniting  the  Old  and  New  Testament  into 
one  whole,  but  by  even  intermixing  the  separate 
writings  witli  each  other,  in  his  work  entitled 
Historisch-hritische  Einleitung  in  sammtliche 
kanonische  und  Apocryphische  Schriften  des 
Alten  und  Neuen  Testamentes,  Erlangen,  1812- 
19,  in  six  volumes. 

The  Isagoge  Historico-critica  in  Libros  Novi 
Foederis  Sacros,  Jense,  1830,  of  H.  A.  Schott,  is 
more  distinguished  by  diligence  than  by  penetra- 
tion. The  Lehrbuch  der  Historisch-kritischen 
Einleitung  in  die  Bibel  A.  und  N.  T.  Berlin ; 
Theil  1,  Die  Allgemeine  Einleitung  und  das  Alte 
Testament  enthaltend,  1817  (fifth  edition,  1840); 
Theil  2,  Das  Neue  Testament  enthaltend,  1826 
(fourth  edition,  1842),  by  W.  M.  Lebrecht  de 
Wette,  is  distinguished  by  brevity,  precision, 
critical  penetration,  and  in  some  parts  by  com- 
pleteness. This  book  contains  an  excellent  survey 
of  the  various  opinions  prevalent  in  the  sphere  of 
biblical  introduction,  interspersed  with  original 
discussions.  Almost  every  author  on  biblical  cri- 
ticism will  find  that  De  Wette  has  made  use  of 
his  labours  ; but  in  the  purely  historical  portions 
the  book  is  feeble,  and  indicates  that  the  author 
did  not  go  to  the  first  sources,  but  adopted  the 
opinions  of  others;  consequently  the  work  has  no 
internal  harmony.  An  English  translation  of 
this  work,  with  additions  by  the  translator,  Theo^ 
dore  Parker,  has  lately  appeared  in  America, 
under  the  title  of  A Critical  and  Historical  In- 
troduction to  the  Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  word  ‘ introduction  ’ being  of  rather  vague 
signification,  there  was  also  formerly  no  definite 
idea  attached  to  the  expression  Biblical  In- 
tkoduction.  In  works  on  this  subject  (as  in 
Horne's  Introdxiction ) might  be  found  contents 
belonging  to  geography,  antiquities,  interpreta- 
tion, natural  history,  and  other  branches  of  know- 
ledge. Even  the  usual  contents  of  biblical  intro- 
ductions weie  so  unconnected,  that  Schleier- 
mac’ner,  in  his  Kurze  Darstellung  des  Theolo- 
gischen  Stadiums,  justly  called  it  ein Mancherlei ; 
that  is,  a farrago  or  omnium-gatherum.  Biblical 
introduction  was  usually  described  as  consisting 
of  the  various  branches  of  preparatory  knowledges 
requisite  for  viewing  and  treating  the  Bible  cor- 
rectly. It  was  distinguished  from  biblical  history 
and  archaeology  by  being  less  intimately  con- 
nected with  what  is  usually  ca’Uu  history.  It 
comprised  treatises  on  the  origin  of  the  Bible,  on 
the  original  languages,  on  the  translations,  and 
on  the  history  of  the  sacred  text;  and  was  divided 
into  general  and  special  introduction. 

The  author  of  this  article  endeavoured  to  re- 
move this  vagueness  by  furnishing  a firm  defini- 
tion of  biblical  introduction.  In  his  work, 
Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  von  Dr.  K. 
A.  Credner,  th.  i.  Halle,  1836,  he  defined  biblical 
introduction  to  be  the  history  of  the  Bible,  and 
divided  it  into  the  following  paits  : 

1.  The  history  of  the  separate  biblical  books. 

2.  The  history  of  the  coUection  of  these  books^ 
or  of  the  canon. 

3.  The  history  of  the  spread  of  these  books,  or 
of  the  translations  of  it. 

4.  The  history  of  the  preservation  of  the  text. 

5.  The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  it. 

This  view  of  the  science  of  introduction  has 


30 


INTRODUCTION. 


INTRODUCTION. 


received  much  approbation,  and  is  the  basis  of 
Reus’s  Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Schriften  des 
Neuen  Testamentes , Halle,  1842.  The  results 
of  the  critical  examination  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  are  comprehended  in  the  follow- 
ing work,  Das  Neue  Testament  nach  seinem 
Zweck , Ursprunge  und  Inlialt,  von  A.  R.  Credner, 
Giessen,  1841-3,  in  two  volumes. 

The  critical  investigation  which  prevailed  in 
Germany  after  the  days  of  Michaelis,  has  of  late 
been  opposed  by  a mode  of  treating  biblical  intro- 
duction, not  so  much  in  the  spirit  of  a free  search 
after  truth  as  in  an  apokigetical  and  polemical 
style.  This  course,  however,  has  not  enriched 
biblical  science.  To  this  class  of  books  belong 
a number  of  monographs,  or  treatises  on  separate 
subjects ; also  the  Handbuch  der  Historisch-kri- 
tischen  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  Erlan- 
gen, 1836,  by  H.  A.  C.  Havernick,  of  which  there 
have  been  published  two  parts,  in  three  volumes, 
and  of  which  an  English  translation  is  in  pre- 
paration ; and  also  H.  E.  Ferd.  Guericke’s  Ein- 
leitung in  das  Nene  Testament , Halle,  1843,  in 
which  too  frequently  an  anathema  against  here- 
tics serves  as  a substitute  for  demonstration.  The 
apologet.ical  tendency  prevails  in  the  work  of 
G.  Hamilton,  entitled  A General  Introduction 
to  the  Study  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  8$c., 
Dublin,  1814;  in  Thomas  Hartwell  Horne’s 
Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Know- 
ledge of  the  Holy  Scrip  hires,  8$c.,  London,  1818, 
four  volumes  (the  eighth  edition,  1839,  five  vo- 
lumes) ; and  in  J.  Cook’s  Inquiry  into  the  Books 
of  the  Neto  Testament,  Edinburgh,  1824. 

The  Roman  Catholics  also  have,  in  modern 
times,  written  on  biblical  introduction,  although 
the  unchangeable  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
hinder  all  free,  critical,  and  scientific  treatment  of 
the  subject.  The  Roman  Catholics  can  treat  bibli- 
cal introduction  only  in  a polemical  and  apologe- 
tical  manner,  and  are  obliged  to  keep  up  the  atten- 
tion of  their  readers  by  introducing  learned  archae- 
ological researches,  which  conceal  the  want  of  free 
movement.  This  latter  mode  was  adopted  by 
J.  Jahn  (who  died  at  Vienna  in  1816)  in  his  Ein- 
leitung in  die  Gottlichen  Bucher  des  alten  Bundes, 
Vienna,  1793,  two  volumes,  and  1802,  three 
volumes;  and  in  his  lntroductio  in  Libros  Sacros 
Veteris  Testamenti  in  epitomen  redacta,  Viennae, 
1805.  This  work  has  been  republished  by  F. 
Ackermann,  in  what  are  asserted  to  be  the  third 
and  fourth  editions,  under  the  title  of  lntroductio 
in  Libros  Sacros  Veteris  Testamenti,  usibus  aca- 
demicis  accommodata,  Viennae,  1825,  and  1839. 
But  these  so-called  new  editions  are  full  of  altera- 
tions and  mutilations,  which  remove  every  free 
expression  of  Jahn,  who  belonged  to  the  liberal 
period  of  the  Emperor  Joseph. 

Johann  Leonhard  Hug’s  Einleitung  in  das  Neue 
Testamert,  Stuttgart  and  Tubingen,  1808,  two 
volumes,  third  edition,  1826,  surpasses  Jahn’s 
work  in  ability,  and  has  obtained  much  credit 
among  Protestants  by  its  learned  explanations, 
although  these  frequently  swerve  from  the  point 
in  question.  Hug’s  work  has  been  translated 
into  English  by  the  Rev.  D.  G.  Wait,  LL.D. ; 
but  this  translation  is  much  surpassed  by  that 
of  Fosdick,  published  in.  the  United  States, 
and  enriched  by  the  addenda  of  Moses  Stuart. 
The  polemical  and  apologetical  style  prevails 
Lu  the  work  of  J G.  Herbst,  Historisch-kri- 


tische  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  des  Alter, 
Testamentes,  completed  and  edited  after  (he 
death  of  the  author,  by  Welle,  Carlsruhe,  1840; 
and  in  L' Introduction  Historique  et  Critique 
aux  Livres  de  V Ancien  et  du  Nouveau  Testa- 
ment, par  J.  B.  Glaire,  Paris,  1839,  four  volumes. 
The  work  of  the  excellent  Feilmoser,  who  died  in 
1831,  Einleitung  in  die  Bucher  des  Neuen  Bundes , 
in  the  second  edition,  Tubingen,  1830,  forsakes 
the  position  of  a true  Roman  Catholic,  inasmuch 
as  it  is  distinguished  by  a noble  ingenuousness 
and  candour.  All  these  last-mentioned  works 
prove  that  the  science  of  introduction  cannot 
prosper  in  ecclesiastical  fetters. — K.  A.  C. 

[It  seems  desirable  to  add  to  this  article  a short 
view  of  the  works  on  Biblical  Introduction  which 
have  appeared  in  England.  These  are  mostly  of 
small  importance  in  comparison  with  the  great 
works  on  the  subject  which  have  been  produced 
on  the  Continent ; and  hence  few  of  them  have 
engaged  the  notice  of  the  Contributor  to  whom 
we  are  indebted  for  the  preceding  article. 

Collier’s  Sacred  Interpreter,  2 vols.  8vo.  1746, 
was  one  of  our  earliest  publications  of  this  kind. 
It  went  through  several  editions,  and  was  trans- 
lated into  German  in  1750.  It  relates  both  to 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  is  described 
by  Bishop  Marsh  as  ‘ a good  popular  preparation 
for  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.’ 

Lardner’s  History  of  the  Apostles  and  Evan- 
gelists, 3 vols.  8vo.  1756-7,  is  described  by  the 
same  critic  as  an  admirable  introduction  to  the 
New  Testament.  ‘ It  is  a storehouse  of  literary 
information,  collected  with  equal  industry  and 
fidelity.’  From  this  work,  from  the  English 
translation  of  Michaelis’s  Introduction , 1761 
and  from  Dr.  Owen’s  Observations  on  the  Gos- 
pels, 1764,  Dr.  Percy,  Bishop  of  Dromore,  com- 
piled a useful  manual,  called  A Key  to  the  New 
Testament,  which  has  gone  through  many  edi 
tions,  and  is  much  in  request  among  the  candi- 
dates for  ordination  in  the  Established  Church. 

The  Key  to  the  Old  Testament,  1790,  by 
Dr.  Gray,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Bristol,  was  writ- 
ten in  imitation  of  Percy’s  compilation  ; but  it 
is  a much  more  elaborate  performance  than  the 
Key  to  the  Neio  Testament.  It  is  a compilation 
from  a great  variety  of  works,  references  to 
which  are  given  at  the  foot  of  each  page.  Bishop 
Marsh  speaks  of  it  as  ‘a  very  useful  publication 
for  students  of  divinity,  who  will  find  at,  one 
view  what  must  otherwise  be  collected  from 
many  writers.’  It  is  still  popular,  the  tenth 
edition  having  been  published  in  1841.  But  a 
professed  compilation,  which  contains  in  its  latest 
edition  no  reference  to  any  work  published  for 
above  half  a century  past,  must  necessarily  be  far 
behind  the  present  state  of  our  information  on  the 
subjects  of  which  it  treats. 

Dr.  Harwood's  Introduction  to  the  Study  and 
Knowledge  of  the  New  Testament,  2 vols.  8vo. 
1767,  1771,  although  noticed  by  our  contributor, 
is  not  properly  an  introduction  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament, in  the  usual  and  proper  sense  of  the  term. 
It  does  not  describe  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  is  a collection  of  dissertations  relative 
partly  to  the  character  of  the  sacred  writers,  Jew- 
ish history  and  customs,  and  to  such  parts  of 
heathen  antiquities  as  have  reference  to  the  New 
Testament. 

The  first  volume  of  Bishop  Tomline's  Elements 


IOTA. 


IRON. 


3 


vf  Christian  Theology  contains  an  introduction 
both  to  the  Old  and  to  the  New  Testament,  and 
has  been  published  in  a separate  form.  It  is 
suited  to  its  purpose  as  a manual  for  students  in 
divinity  ; but  the  standard  of  present  attainment 
cannot  be  very  high  if,  as  Marsh  states,  ‘ it  may 
be  read  with  advantage  by  the  most  experienced 
divine.' 

The  works  of  Dr.  Cook,  the  Rev.  G.  Hamilton, 
and  the  Rev.  T.  H.  Horne,  are  mentioned  in  the 
above  article;  but  the  slight  notice  of  Horne’s 
Introduction  which  it  contains  will  scarcely 
satisfy  those  who  are  aware  that  it  is  the  largest 
and  most  important  work  of  the  kind  which  we 
uossess.  We  cheerfully  subscribe  to  the  opinion 
of  Bishop  Marsh,  that  it  is  ‘ upon  the  whole  a 
very  useful  publication,  and  does  great  credit  to 
the  industry  and  researches  of  the  indefatigable 
author.’  We  may  add,  that  it  has  worthily 
occupied  for  above  a quarter  of  a century  a high 
and  influential  place  in  our  theological  literature ; 
during  which  it  has  satisfied  the  current  demand 
for  the  kind  of  information  which  it  offers,  and 
has  done  much  to  form  a class  of  students  who 
now  take  their  stand  upon  it,  and  look  with  desire 
to  the  fields  beyond,  where  lie  the  vast  treasures 
in  every  department  of  biblical  literature  which 
the  wonderful  activity  of  continental  research 
has  of  late  years  accumulated.  Had  the  able 
and  pious  author  more  largely  availed  himself  of 
these  important  sources  of  information,  the  value 
of  his  work  to  a large  and  rapidly-increasing 
class  of  students  would  have  been  very  much 
enhanced.  A very  useful  abridgment  of  this 
Introduction , in  1 vol.  12mo.,  appeared  in  1829 
under  the  title  of  A Compendious  Introduction 
to  the  Study  of  the  Bible.  Another  manual, 
under  the  title  of  A Scripture  Help,  1806,  by  the 
Rev.  E.  Bickersteth,  has  been  received  with  emi- 
nent favour ; and  we  have  seen  the  first  volume 
of  an  admirable  work  for  junior  students  pub- 
lished in  the  United  States  in  1835  under  the 
title  of  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  and  Inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible , by  C.  E.  Stowe.  We 
know  not  whether  the  second  volume  has  yet 
appeared]. 

IOTA  (Auth.  Vers.  ‘‘Jot  ’),  the  smallest  letter  of 
the  Greek  alphabet  (4);  derived  from  the  He- 
brew jod(f)  and  the  Syriac  judh  (-**),  and  em- 
ployed metaphorically  to  express  the  minutest 
trifle.  It  is,  in  fact,  one  of  several  metaphors 
derived  from  the  alphabet — as  when  alpha , the 
first  letter,  and  omega , the  last,  are  employed  to 
express  the  beginning  and  the  end.  We  are  not 
to  suppose,  however,  that  this  proverb  was  exclu- 
sively apposite  in  the  Greek  language.  The 
same  practical  allusion  equally  existed  in  He- 
brew, some  curious  examples  of  which  may  be 
seen  in  Wetstein  and  Lightfoot.  One  of  these 
may  here  suffice  : — In  the  Talmud  ( Sanhed . xx.  2) 
it  is  fabled  that  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  came 
and  prostrated  itself  before  God,  and  said,  ‘ O 
Lord  of  the  universe,  thou  hast  written  in  me  thy 
law,  but  now  a testament  defective  in  some  parts 
i3  defective  in  all.  Behold,  Solomon  endeavours 
to  root  the  letter  jod  out  of  me’  (i.  e.  in  the  text, 

D WHITT  ah,  ‘he  shall  not  multiply  wives’ 
(Deut.  xvi.  17).  ‘The  hnly,  blessed  God  an- 
»w«red- — Solomon,  and  a th<  usand  such  as  he,  shall 


perish,  but  the  least  word  shall  not  perish  out  of 
thee.’  This  is,  in  fact,  a parallel  not  only  to  the 
usage  but  the  sentiment,  as  conveyed  in  Matt, 
v.  18,  ‘ One  jot,  or  one  tittle,  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
from  the  law.’ 

IRON.  This  word,  wherever  it  occurs  in  the 
English  Version,  answers  to  or  to  its  Chal- 

daic  ; to  alorjpos  in  the  Sept. ; and  to  ferrum  in 
the  Vulg.,  except  where  it  gives  an  explanatory 
translation,  as  ‘ falcatos  currus’  (Judg.  iv.  3), 
though  it  sometimes  gives  the  literal  translation 
of  the  same  term,  as  ‘ ferreos  currus’  (Josh.  xvii. 
18).  The  use  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  words,  in 
classical  authors  of  every  age,  fixes  their  mean- 
ing. That  c'ibppos  means  iron,  in  Homer,  is 
plain  from  his  simile  derived  from  the  quenching 
of  iron  in  water,  which  he  applies  to  the  hissing 
noise  produced  in  piercing  the  eye  of  Polyphemus 
with  the  pointed  stake  ( Odys . ix.  391).  Much 
stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  absence  of  iron 
among  the  most  ancient  remains  of  Egypt ; but  the 
speedy  decomposition  of  this  metal,  especially  when 
buried  in  the  nitrous  soil  of  Egypt,  may  account 
for  the  absence  of  it  among  the  remains  of  the 
early  monarchs  of  a Pharaonic  age  (Wilkinson’s 
Ancient  Egypt.,  iii.  246).  Tubal-Cain  is  the 
first-mentioned  smith,  ‘a  forger  of  every  instru- 
ment of  iron’  (Gen.  iv.  22).  From  that  time  we 
meet  with  manufactures  in  iron  of  the  utmost 
variety  ( some  articles  of  which  seem  to  be  anti- 
cipations of  what  are  commonly  supposed  to  be 
modern  inventions) ; as  iron  weapons  or  instru- 
ments (Num.  xxxv.  7 ; Job  xx.  24)  ; barbed 
irons,  used  in  hunting  (Job  xli.  7) ; an  iron  bed- 
stead (Deut.  iii.  11)  ; chariots  of  iron  (Josh.  xvii. 
16,  and  elsewhere);  iron  weights  (shekels) 
(1  Sam.  xvii.  7);  harrows  of  iron  (2  Sam.  xii. 
31);  iron  armour  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  7);  tools 
(1  Kings  vi.  7 ; 2 Kings  vi.  5);  horns  (1  Kings 
xxii.  11);  nails,  hinges  (1  Chron.  xxii.  3);  fet- 
ters (Ps.  cv.  18);  bars  (Ps.  cvii.  16);  iron  bars 
used  in  fortifying  the  gates  of  towns  (Ps.  cvii.  16  ; 
Isa.  xlv.  2) ; a pen  of  iron  (Job  xix.  24 ; Isa. 
xvii.  1);  a pillar  (Jer.  i.  18);  yokes  (Jer. 
xxviii.  13);  pan  (Ezek.  iv.  3)  ; trees  bound  with 
iron  (Dan.  iv.  15) ; gods  of  iron  (Dan.  v.  4)  ; 
threshing-instruments  (Amos  i.  3)  ; and  in  later 
times,  an  iron  gate  (Acts  xii.  10);  the  actual 
cautery  (1  Tim.  iv.  2)  ; breastplates  (Rev.  ix.  9), 

The  mineral  origin  of  iron  seems  clearly  al- 
luded to  in  Job  xxviii.  2.  It  would  seem  that  in 
ancient  times  it  was  a plentiful  production  of 
Palestine  (Deut.  viii.  9).  There  appear  to  have 
been  furnaces  for  smelting  at  an  early  period  in 
Egypt  (Deut.  iv.  20).  The  requirement  that  the 
altar  should  be  made  of  ‘ whole  stones  over  which 
no  man  had  lift  up  any  iron,’  recorded  in  Josh, 
viii.  31,  does  not  imply  any  objection  to  iron  as 
such,  but  seems  to  be  merely- a mode  of  directing 
that,  in  order  to  prevent  idolatry,  the  stones  must 
not  undergo  any  preparation  by  art.  Iron  was 
prepared  in  abundance  by  David  for  the  building 
of  the  temple  (1  Chron.  xxii.  3),  to  the  amount  of 
one  hundred  thousand  talents  (1  Chron.  xxix.  7), 
or  rather  ‘without  weight’  (1  Chron.  xxii.  14). 
Working  in  iron  was  considered  a calling 
(2  Chron.  ii.  7)  [Smith],  Iron  seems  to  have 
been  better  from  some  countries,  or  to  have  under- 
gone some  hardening  preparation  by  the  inha- 
bitants of  them,  such  aa  were  the  people  called 


ISAAC. 


ISAAC. 


Chalybes,  living  near  the  Euxine  Sea  (Jer.  xv. 
12  j;  to  have  been  imported  from  Tarshish  to 
Tyre  (Ezek.  xxvii.  12),  and  ‘bright  iron’  from 
Dan  and  Javan  (ver.  19).  The  superior  hardness 
of  iron  above  all  other  substances  is  alluded  to  in 
Dan.  ii.  40.  It  was  found  among  the  Midian- 
ites  (Num.  xxxi.  221,  and  was  part  of  the  wealth 
distributed  among  the  tribes  at  their  location  in 
ti.e  land  (Josh.  xxii.  8). 

Iron  is  metaphorically  alluded  to  in  the  fol- 
lowing instances: — affliction  is  signified  by  the 
furnace  for  smelting  it  (Dent.  iv.  20)  ; under  the 
same  figure,  chastisement  (Ezek.  xxii.  18,  20,  22); 
reducing  the  earth  to  total  barrenness  by  turning 
it  into  iron  (Deut.  xxviii.  23)  ; slavery,  by  a yoke 
of  iron  (Deut.  xxviii.  48) ; strength,  by  a bar  of 
it  (Job  xl.  18);  the  extreme  of  hardness  (Job  xli. 
27)  ; severity  of  government,  by  a rod  of  iron 
(Ps.  ii.  9)  ; affliction,  by  iron  fetters  (Ps.  cvii.  10); 
prosperity,  by  giving  silver  for  iron  (Isa.  lx.  17); 
political  strength  (Dan.  ii.  33);  obstinacy,  by  an 
iron  sinew  in  the  neck  (Isa.  xlviii.  4) ; giving 
supernatural  fortitude  to  a prophet,  making  him 
an  iron  pillar  (Jer.  i.  18);  destructive  power  of 
empires,  by  iron  teeth  (Dan.  vii.  7) ; deterioration 
of  character,  by  becoming  iron  (Jer.  vi.  28  ; Ezek. 
xxii.  18),  which  resembles  the  idea  of  the  iron 
age ; a tiresome  burden,  by  a mass  of  iron  (Ec- 
clus.  xxii.  15);  the  greatest  obstacles,  by  walls  of 
iron  (2  Macc.  xi.  9)  ; the  certainty  with  which  a 
real  enemy  will  ever  show  his  hatred,  by  the  rust 
returning  upon  iron  (Ecclus.  xii.  10).  Iron 
seems  us6d,  as  by  the  Greek  poets,  metonymically 
for  tire  sword  (Isa.  x,  34),  and  so  the  Sept,  under- 
stands it,  paxaipa.  The  following  is  selected  as 
a beautiful  comparison  made  to  iron  (Prov. 
xxvii.  17),  ‘Iron  (literally)  uniteth  iron;  so  a 
man  uniteth  the  countenance  of  his  friend,’  gives 
stability  to  his  appearance  by  his  presence.  A 
most  graphic  description  of  a smith  at  work  is 
found  in  Ecclus.  xxxviii.  28. — J.  F.  D. 

ISAAC  (pnv?  i Sept.  I <raa/c),  son  of  Abraham 
and  Sarah,  born  in  his  parents’  old  age.  The 
promise  of  a sort  had  been  made  to  them  when 
Abraham  was  visited  by  the  Lord  in  the  plains 
of  Mamre,  and  appeared  so  unlikely  to  be  ful- 
filled, seeing  that  both  Abraham  and  Sarah  were 
‘ well  stricken  in  years,’  that  its  utterance  caused 
the  latter  to  laugh  incredulously.  Being  reproved 
for  her  unbelief,  she  denied  that  she  had  laughed. 
The  reason  assigned  for  the  special  visitation  thus 
promised  was,  in  effect,  that  Abraham  was  pious, 
and  would  train  Iris  offspring  in  piety,  so  that  he 
would  become  the  founder  of  a great  nation,  and 
all  the-  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed  in 
nim. 

In  due  time  Sarah  gave  birth  to  a son,  who  re- 
ceived the  name  of  Isaac.  The  reason  assigned 
in  Gen.  xxi.  6 for  tire  adoption  of  this  name,  has 
reference  to  the  laughter  occasioned  by  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  divine  intention — ‘and  Sarah 
said,  God  hath  made  me  to  laugh,  all  that  hear 
will  laugh  with  me" — the  laugh  of  incredulity 
being  changed  into  the  laugh  of  joy  (comp.  Gen. 
xxi.  0;  xviii.  12;  xvii.  17).  In  the  last  passage 
Abraham  is  said  to  have  laughed  also  when  in- 
formed of  God  himself  that  he  and  Sarah  should 
nave  a son,  though  he  was  a hundred  and  his 
wife  ninety  years  old. 

Some  writers  have  seen  a discrepancy  in  the  pas- 


sages before  referred  to,  and  nave  hence  conjectured 
that  we  have  here  to  do,  not  with  history,  but 
historical  legends  (Winer,  Ilandwdrterb .).  Wo 
are  unable  to  find  anything  of  a nature  to  excite 
suspicion  or  abate  confidence,  there  being  scarcely 
any  variations,  and  certainly  none  but  such  as 
might  easily  arise  on  a purely  historical  ground. 

The  first  fact  that  we  read  of  in  the  hfstory  of 
Isaac,  is  the  command  given  to  his  father  to  offer 
the  youth — ‘ thy  son,  thine  only  son  Isaac,  whom 
thou  lovest’ — for  a burnt-offering  on  a tnountain 
in  the  land  of  Moriah.  Abraham  proceeded  to 
obey  the  divine  direction,  and  was  on  the  point  of 
slaying  Isaac,  when  his  hand  was  withheld  by  tlw 
interposition  of  God,  a ram  for  sacrifice  being 
provided  instead. 

This  event  has  found  no  few  detractors.  Eich- 
horn  (Bibl.  f.  Bibl.  Lit.  i.  45,  sq.)  regarded  the 
whole  as  a vision  ; Otmar  (Henkes's  Mag.  ii.  517), 
as  the  explanation  of  an  hieroglyph;  Bruns 
( Paulus  Memorab.  vi.  1,  sq.)  finds  the  source 
of  it  in  the  Phoenician  custom  of  sacrificing 
children.  Some  compare  (Rosenmiiller,  Mor- 
genl.  i.  95)  with  this  narrative  the  Grecian  story 
of  Iphigenia,  and  other  fables  of  a similar  kind. 
The  general  aim  of  certain  writers  has  been,  as 
they  consider  it,  to  relieve  the  Bible  from  the 
odium  which  the  narrated  circumstances  are  in 
their  opinion  fitted  to  occasion.  That  the  passage 
is  free  from  every  possible  objection,  it  may  be 
too  much  to  assert : it  is,  however,  equally  clear 
that  many  of  the  objections  taken  1o  it  arise  from 
viewing  the  facts  from  a wrong  position,  or  under 
the  discolouring  medium  of  a foregone  and  ad- 
verse conclusion.  The  only  proper  way  is  to 
consider  it  as  it  is  represented  in  the  sacred  page. 
The  command,  then,  was  expressly  designed  to 
try  Abraham’s  faith.  Destined  as  the  patriarch 
was  to  be  the  father  of  the  faithful,  was  he  worthy 
of  his  high  and  dignified  position1?  If  his  own 
obedience  was  weak,  he  could  not  train  others  in 
faith,  trust,  and  love  : hence  a trial  was  neces- 
sary. That  he  was  not  without  holy  dispositions 
was  already  known,  and  indeed  recognised  in  the 
divine  favours  of  which  he  had  been  the  object ; 
but  was  he  prepared  to  do  and  to  suffer  all  God;3 
will?  Religious  perfection  and  his  position  alike 
demanded  a perfect  heart : hence  the  kind  ot 
trial.  If  he  were  willing  to  surrender  even  nis 
only  child,  and  act  himself  both  as  offerer  and 
wiest  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  required  victim,  if 
le  could  so  far  conquer  his  natural  affections,  so 
subdue  the  father  in  his  heart,  then  there  could  be 
no  doubt,  that  his  will  was  wholly  reconciled  to 
God’s,  and  that  he  was  worthy  of  every  trust, 
confidence,  and  honour.  The  trial  was  made, 
the  fact  was  ascertained,  the  victim  was  not  slain. 
What  is  there  in  this  to  which  either  religion  or 
morality  can  take  exception?  This  view  is  both 
confirmed  and  justified  by  the  words  of  God 
(Gen.  xxii.  16,  sq.),  ‘ because  thou  hast  not  with- 
held thy  only  son,  in  blessing  I will  bless  thee, 
and  in  multiplying  I will  multiply  thy  seed  as 
the  stars  of  the  heaven,  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.’ 

We  remark  also  that,  not  a part,  but  the  entire, 
of  the  transaction  must  be  taken  under  considei- 
ation,  and  especially  the  final  result.  If  -^e 
dwell  exclusively  on  the  commen cement  ol  it, 
there  appears  to  be  some  sanction  j? .ven  to  human 
sacrifices;  but  the  end,  and  the  ;oncl  tiding  and 


ISAAC. 

evfor-endnring  fact,  has  the  directly  opposite  bear 
ing.  Viewed  as  a whole,  the  transaction  is  in 
truth  an  express  prohibition  of  human  sacrifices. 

Isaac  passed  his  youthful  days  under  the  eye 
jf  his  father,  engaged  in  the  care  of  (locks  and 
herds  up  and  down  the  plains  of  Canaan.  At 
length  his  father  wished  to  see  him  married. 
Abraham  therefore  gave  a commission  to  his  old- 
est and  most  trustworthy  servant  to  the  effect  that, 
in  order  to  prevent  Isaac  from  taking  a wife  from 
among  the  daughters  of  the  Canaanites,  he  should 
proceed  into  Mesopotamia,  and,  under  the  divine 
direction,  choose  a partner  among  his  own  rela- 
tives for  his  beloved  son.  Rebekah,  in  conse- 
quence, becomes  Isaac’s  wife,  when  he  was  now 
forty  years  of  age. 

In  connection  with  this  marriage  an  event  is 
recorded  which  displays  the  peculiar  character 
of  Isaac,  while  it  is  in  keeping  with  the  general 
tenor  of  the  sacred  record  regarding  him.  Pro- 
bably in  expectation  of  the  early  return  of  his 
father’s  messenger,  and  somewhat  solicitous  as  to 
the  result  of  the  embassy,  he  went  out  to  meditate 
in  the  field  at  the  eventide.  While  there  engaged 
in  tranquil  thought,  he  chanced  to  raise  his  eyes, 
when  lo ! he  beheld  the  retinue  near  at  hand,  and 
soon  conducted  his  bride  into  his  mother’s  tent. 
In  unison  with  all  this  is  the  simple  declaration 
of  the  history,  that  Isaac  ‘ loved  her.’  Isaac  was 
evidently  a man  of  kind  and  gentle  dispositions, 
of  a calm  and  reflective  turn  of  mind,  simple  in 
his  habits,  having  few  wants,  good  rather  than 
great,  fitted  to  receive  impressions  and  follow  a 
guide,  not  to  originate  important  influences,  or 
perform  deeds  of  renown.  If  his  character  did 
not  take  a bent  from  the  events  connected  with 
his  father’s  readiness  to  offer  him  on  Mount 
Moriah,  certainly  its  passiveness  is  in  entire  agree- 
ment with  the  whole  tenor  of  his  conduct,  as  set 
forth  in  that  narrative. 

Isaac  having,  in  conjunction  with  his  half- 
brother  Ishmael,  buried  Abraham  his  father,  ‘ in 
a good  old  age,  in  the  cave  of  Machpelah,’  took 
up  a somewhat  permanent  residence  ‘ by  the  well 
Lahai-roi,’  where,  being  blessed  of  God,  he  lived 
in  prosperity  and  at  ease.  One  source  of  regret, 
novvever,  he  deeply  felt.  Rebekah  was  barren. 
In  time,  two  sons,  Jacob  and  Esau,  are  granted 
to  his  prayers.  As  the  boys  grew,  Isaac  gave  a 
preference  to  Esau,  who  seems  to  have  possessed 
those  robuster  qualities  of  character  in  which  his 
father  was  defective,  and  therefore  gratified  him 
by  such  dainties  as  the  pursuits  of  the  chace  en- 
abled the  youth  to  offer ; while  Jacob,  ‘ a plain 
man  dwelling  in  tents,’  was  an  object  of  spe- 
cial regard  to  Rebekah — a division  of  feeling  and 
a kind  of  partiality  which  became  the  source  of 
much  domestic  unhappiness,  as  well  as  of  jealousy 
and  hatred  between  the  two  sons. 

A famine  compels  Isaac  to  seek  food  in  some 
foreign  land.  Divinely  warned  not  to  go  down 
to  Egypt,  the  patriarch  applies  to  a petty  prince 
of  Philistia,  by  name  Abimelech,  who  permits 
him  to  dwell  at  Gerar.  Here  an  event  took  place 
which  has  a parallel  in  the  life  of  his  father  Abra- 
ham. Rebekah  was  his  cousin  : afraid  lest  she 
should  be  violently  taken  from  him,  ami  his  own 
life  sacrificed  to  the  lust  of  Abimelech.  he  repre- 
sented her  as  his  sister,  employing  a latitude  of 
meaning  which  the  word  ‘sister’  admits  in  Oriental 
usage.  The  subterfuge  was  discovered,  and  is 
VOL.  II.  4 


ISAIAH.  33 

justified  by  Isaac  on  the  grounds  which  prompted 
him  to  resort  to  it. 

Another  parallel  event  In  the  lives  of  Abraham 
and  Isaac  may  be  found  by  comparing  together 
Gen.  xxvi.  26,  sq.,  and  xxi.  22,  sq.  If  these 
parallels  should  excite  a doubt  in  the  mind  of 
any  one  as  to  the  credibility  of  the  narratives,  let 
him  carefully  peruse  them,  and  we  think  that 
the  * simplicity  and  naturalness  which  pervade 
and  characterize  them  will  effectually  substan- 
tiate the  reality  of  the  recorded  events,  and  ex- 
plode the  notion  that  fiction  has  had  anything  to 
do  in  bringing  the  narrative  into  its  present  shape. 

Isaac,  in  his  old  age,  was,  by  the  practices  of 
Rebekah  and  the  art  of  Jacob,  so  imposed  upon 
as  to  give  his  blessing  to  the  younger  son  Jacob, 
instead  of  to  the  first-born  Esau,  and  with  that 
blessing  to  convey,  as  was  usual,  the  right  of 
headship  in  the  family,  together  with  his  chief 
possessions.  In  the  blessing  which  the  aged  pa- 
triarch pronounced  on  Jacob  it  deserves  notice 
how  entirely  the  wished-for  good  is  of  an  earthly 
and  temporal  nature,  while  the  imagery  which  is 
employed  serves  to  show  the  extent  to  which  the 
poetical  element  prevailed  as  a constituent  part  of 
the  Hebrew  character  (Gen.  xxvii.  27,  sq.).  Most 
natural,  too,  is  the  extreme  agitation  of  the  poor 
blind  old  man,  on  discovering  the  cheat  which 
had  been  put  upon  him  : — ‘And  Isaac  trembled 
very  exceedingly,  and  said  (to  Esau),  Who?  where 
is  he  that  hath  taken  venison  and  brought  it  me, 
and  I have  eaten,  and  have  blessed  him?  Yea, 
and  he  shall  be  blessed.’  Equally  natural  is  the 
reply  of  Esau.  The  entire  passage  is  of  itself 
enough  to  vindicate  the  historical  character  and 
entire  credibility  of  those  sketches  of  the  lives  of 
the  patriarchs  which  Genesis  presents. 

The  stealing,  on  the  part  of  Jacob,  of  his 
father’s  blessing  having  angered  Esau,  who  seems 
to  have  looked  forward  to  Isaac’s  death  as  afford- 
ing  an  opportunity  for  taking  vengeance  on  his 
unjust  brother,  the  aged  patriarch  is  induced,  at 
his  wife’s  entreaty,  to  send  Jacob  into  Mesopo- 
tamia, that,  after  his  own  example,  his  son  might 
take  a wife  from  amongst  his  kindred  and  people,. 
‘ of  the  daughters  of  Laban,  thy  mother’s  brother.’ 

This  is  the  last  important  act  recorded  of  Isaac. 
Jacob  having,  agreeably  to  his  father’s  command, 
married  into  Laban’s  family,  returned,  after  some 
time,  and  found  the  old  man  at  Mamre,  in  the 
city  of  Arbah,  which  is  Hebron,  where  Abraham 
and  Isaac  .sojourned.  Hero,  ‘ being  old  and  full 
of  days  ’ (ISO),  Isaac  ‘ gave  up  the  ghost,  and 
died,  and  was  gathered  unto  his  people,  and  his 
sons  Esau  and  Jacob  buried  him  ’ (Gen.  xxxv. 
27,  sq.).  On  the  subjects  treated  of  in  this  article 
the  following  works  may  be  consulted : — H.  A. 
Zeibich,  Isaaciortusinfab.Orionis  Vestigia;  De- 
Wet  te,  Krit.  d.  Is.  Gesch.  p.  133,  sq. ; Niemeyer, 
Charakteristik  der  Bibel,  2nd  part ; Ew  aid’s  Is  - 
raeliten , p.'  338,  sq. — J.  R.  B. 

ISAIAH  (n$fc”  ; Sept.  'Htrafes).  I.  Times 
and  circumstances  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah. — The 
heading  of  this  book  places  the  prophet  under 
the  reigns  of  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Heze- 
kiah,  kings  of  Judah  ; and  an  examination  oi 
the  prophecies  themselves,  independently  of  the 
heading,  leads  us  to  the  same  chronological  re- 
sults. Chapter  vi.,  in  u'liich  is  related  the  call  of 
Isaiah,  not  to  his  prophetic  office,  but  to  a higher 


S4 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


degree  of  it,  is  tnus  headed  : ‘ In  the  year  in  which 
king  Uzziah  died  I saw  the  Lord,’  &c.  The  col- 
lection of  prophecies  is  chronologically  arranged, 
and  the  utterances  in  the  preceding  chapters  (i.  to 
vi.)  belong,  for  chronological  and  other  reasons,  to 
an  earlier  period,  preceding  the  last  year  of  the 
reign  of  Uzziah,  although  the  utterances  in  chap- 
ters ii.  iii.  iv.  and  v.  have  been  erroneously  assigned 
to  the  reign  of  Jotham.  We  have  no  document 
which  can,  with  any  degree  of  certainty,  or  even  of 
probability,  be  assigned  to  that  reign.  We  by  no 
means  assert  that  the  prophetic  ministry  of  Isaiah 
was  suspended  during  the  reign  of  Jotham,  but 
merely  that  then  apparently  the  circumstances  of 
the  times  did  not  require  Isaiah  to  utter  pre- 
dictions of  importance  for  all  ages  of  the  church. 
We  certainly  learn  from  the  examples  of  Nathan, 
Elijah,  and  Elisha,  that  a powerful  prophetic  mi- 
nistration may  be  in  operation,  although  the  pre- 
dictions uttered,  finding  their  accomplishment 
within  the  times  of  the  prophet,  do  not  point  to 
subsequent  ages.  As,  however,  the  position  of 
affairs  was  not  materially  changed  under  the 
reign  of  Jotham,  we  may  say  that  the  first  two 
utterances  have  a bearing  upon  that  reign  also. 
These  two  prophecies  contain  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  what  Isaiah  taught  during  twenty  years 
of  his  life.  If  these  prophetic  utterances  belong- 
ing to  the  reign  of  Uzziah  had  not  been  extant, 
there  would,  doubtless,  have  been  written  down  and 
preserved  similar  discourses  uttered  under  the 
reign  of  Jotham.  As,  however,  the  former  utter- 
ances were  applicable  to  that  reign  also,  it  was 
unnecessary  to  preserve  such  as  were  of  similar 
import. 

The  continuation  of  prophetic  authorship,  or 
the  writing  down  of  uttered  prophecies,  depended 
upon  the  commencement  of  new  historical  deve- 
lopments, such  as  took  place  under  the  reigns  of 
Ahaz  and  Hezekiah.  Several  prophecies  in  the 
seventh  and  following  chapters  belong  to  the 
reign  of  Ahaz  ; and  most  of  the  subsequent  pro- 
phecies to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  The  prophetic 
ministry  of  Isaiah  under  Hezekiah  is  also  de- 
scribed in  an  historical  section  contained  in  chap- 
ters xxxvi.-xxxix.  The  data  which  are  contained 
in  this  section  come  down  to  the  fifteenth  year 
of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah;  consequently  we  are 
in  the  possession  of  historical  documents  proving 
that  the  prophetic  ministry  of  Isaiah  was  in  opera- 
tion during  about  forty-seven  or  fifty  years,  com- 
mencing in  the  year  B.c.  763  or  759,  and  extend- 
ing to  the  year  b.c.  713.  Of  this  period,  from 
one  to  four  years  belong  to  the  reign  of  Uzziah, 
sixteen  to  the  reign  of  Jotham,  sixteen  to  the  reign 
of  Ahaz,  and  fourteen  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah. 

Stiiudlein,  Jahn,  Bertholdt,  and  Gesenius,have, 
in  modern  times,  advanced  the  opinion  that 
Isaiah  lived  to  a much  later  period,  and  that  his 
life  extended  to  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  the  suc- 
cessor of  Hezekiah.  For  this  opinion,  the  fol- 
lowing reasons  are  adduced  : — 

1.  According  to  2 Chron.  xxxii.  32,  Isaiah 
wrote  the  life  of  King  Hezekiah.  It  would  hence 
appear  that  he  survived  that  king. 

2.  We  find  a tradition  current  in  the  Talmud, 
in  the  Fathers,  and  in  Oriental  literature,  that 
Isaiah  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  reign  of  Ma- 
nasseh, by  being  sawn  asunder.  It  is  thought 
that  an  allusion  to  this  tradition  is  found  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (xi.  37),  in  the  expression 


they  were  sawn  asunder  (e-rrpla07i<rar'),  which  seem* 
to  harmonize  with  2 Kings  xxi.  16,  ‘moreover 
Manasseh  shed  innocent  blood  very  much.1 

3.  The  authenticity  of  the  second  port.on  of 
the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  being  admitted,  the 
nature  of  this  portion  would  seem  to  confirm  the 
idea  that  its  author  had  lived  under  Manasseh. 
The  style  of  the  second  portion,  it  is  asserted,  is 
so  different  from  that  of  the  first,  that  both  could 
not  well  have  been  composed  by  the  same  author, 
except  under  the  supposition  that  a .considerable 
time  intervened  between  the  composition  of  the 
first  and  second  portion.  The  contents  of  the  lat- 
ter— such  as  the  complaints  respecting  gross  idol- 
atry, the  sacrifice  of  children  to  idols,  the  wicked- 
ness of  rulers,  & c. — seem  to  be  applicable  neither 
to  the  times  of  the  exile,  into  which  the  prophet 
might  have  transported  himself  in  the  spirit,  nor 
to  the  period  of  the  pious  Hezekiah,  but  are  quite 
applicable  to  the  reign  of  Manasseh. 

These  arguments,  however,  do  not  stand  a strict 
scrutiny.  The  first  can  only  prove  that  Isaiah 
survived  Hezekiah  ; but  even  this  does  not  follow 
with  certainty,  because  in  2 Chron.  xxxii.  32, 
where  Isaiah’s  biography  of  Hezekiah  is  men- 
tioned, the  important  words  ‘first  and  last1  are 
omitted;  while  in  chap.  xxvi.  22,  we  read,  ‘Now 
the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Uzziah,  first  and  i.ast, 
did  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  write.1  If  we  take 
into  consideration  this  important  omission,  we  can 
easily  believe  that  Isaiah  died  before  Hezekiah, 
although  he  wrote  his  biography  up  to  a certain 
point ; more  especially  if  we  bear  in  mind  that, 
according  to  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
the  latter  years  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  were  de- 
void of  important  events.  We  certainly  find,  in 
all  ages  of  literature,  biographies  of  persons  written 
during  their  life-time. 

W e may  well  suppose  that  the  history  of  He- 
zekiah terminated  with  the  glorious  aid  granted 
to  him  in  his  war  with  the  Assyrians,  and  with 
the  events  immediately  consequent  upon  that 
war. 

In  reply  to  the  second  argument,  we  observe, 
that  it  is  not  certain  that  the  word  iirpiadrjaav, 
they  were  sawn  asunder , is  used  in  Hebrews 
with  reference  to  Isaiah.  The  statement  in  the 
Fathers,  and  in  Oriental  writers,  is  entirely  de- 
duced from  the  Jewish  tradition,  which  is 
throughout  of  so  doubtful  a character  that  no 
conclusive  argument  can  be  based  upon  it. 

With  regard  to  the  third  argument,  we  remark, 
that  the  difference  discernible,  if  we  compare  the 
latter  with  the  former  portions  of  Isaiah,  can,  and 
ought  to  be,  differently  accounted  for.  Such 
merely  external  attempts  at  explanation,  when  ap- 
p’lied  to  Holy  Writ,  always  appear  unsatisfactory 
if  closely  examined.  We  invariably  find  that  the 
real  cause  of  the  external  appearance  lies  deeper, 
and  in  the  nature  of  the  subject  itself.  For 
instance,  the  peculiarity  of  Deuteronomy  arises 
from  the  special  bearing  of  that  book  upon  the 
other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  peculiar 
style  of  the  Apocalypse  arises  from  its  relation 
to  the  gospel  of  St.John.  The  appeal  to  such 
merely  external  arguments  always  proceeds  from 
an  inability  to  understand  the  essence  of  the 
matter.  In  reference  to  the  censures  occurring 
in  the  later  portion  of  Isaiah,  we  observe,  that  thej 
might  also  have  a bearing  uj>on  the  corruptions 
prevalent  in  former  reigns,  and  that  they  wer* 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


S» 


not  necessarily  confined  to  manifestations  of 
wickedness  occa  Ting  at  the  time  when  they  were 
written  down.  These  censures  might  also  refer 
to  the  gross  perversions  under  Ahaz;  and  it  is 
also  unlikely  that  the  personal  piety  of  Hezekiah 
entirely  extinguished  all  abuses  among  his  people. 
We  certainly  do  not  find  that  the  personal 
piety  of  King  Josiah  had  that  effect  upon  all  his 
mbjects. 

Several  other  arguments  adduced  against  the 
opinion  that  Isaiah  died  during  the  reign  of  Ma- 
nasseh,  are  certainly  of  little  weight.  For  in- 
stance, the  argumentum  e silentio,  or  the  proof 
derived  from  the  silence  of  the  historical  books 
respecting  Isaiah  during  the  reign  of  Manasseh. 
This  argument  is  of  no  importance  at  all,  since, 
at  any  rate,  the  death  of  Isaiah  is  nowhere  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible;  from  which  circumstance 
we  infer,  that,  on  account  of  his  advanced  age,  he 
had  retired  from  active  life. 

Of  somewhat  more  weight  is  the  objection  that, 
according  to  the  supposition  that  Isaiah  died 
under  Manasseh,  too  great  an  age  would  be 
ascribed  to  the  prophet.  Although  we  were  to 
suppose  that  Isaiah,  as  well  as  Jeremiah,  was 
called  to  the  prophetic  office  at  an  early  age — 
perhaps  in  his  twentieth  year — he,  nevertheless,  in 
the  fifteenth  year  of  Hezekiah,  up  to  which  date 
we  can  prove  his  ministrations  by  existing  docu- 
ments, would  have  reached  quite  or  nearly  to  his 
seventieth  year,  which  is  the  usual  duration  of 
human  life ; consequently,  at  the  time  of  the  acces- 
sion of  Manasseh  he  would  have  been  about 
eighty-four  years  old ; and  if,  with  the  defenders 
of  the  tradition,  we  allow  that  he  exercised  the 
prophetic  functions  for  about  seven  or  eight  years 
during  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  he  must  at  the 
period  of  his  martyrdom  have  attained  to  the  age 
of  ninety-two.  This,  indeed,  is  quite  possible. 
The  example  of  the  prophet  Hosea,  who  exercised 
nis  prophetic  calling  during  sixty  years,  and  that 
of  the  priest  Jehoiada,  who,  according  to  2Chron. 
xxiv.  15,  was  a hundred  ami  thirty  years  old 
when  he  died,  prove  the  possibility  of  the  age  as- 
cribed to  Isaiah. 

The  chief  argument  against  the  tradition,  how- 
ever, is  contained  in  the  inscription  of  the  book 
itself.  According  to  this  inscription  all  the 
prophecies  of  Isaiah  in  our  collection  are  included 
within  the  period  from  Uzziah  to  Hezekiah.  Not 
one  of  the  prophecies  which  are  headed  by  an 
inscription  of  their  own  is  placed  after  the  fif- 
teenth year  of  Hezekiah;  and  the  internal  evi- 
dence leads  us  in  none  beyond  this  period. 
Hence  we  infer  that  the  prophetic  ministry  of 
Isaiah  terminated  soon  after  its  fullest  develop- 
ment, to  which  it  attained  during  the  period  of  the 
Assyrian  invasion,  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah. 

According  to  these  statements  Isaiah  belongs 
to  the  cycle  of  the  most  ancient  prophets  whose 
predictions  have  been  preserved  in  writing.  He 
was  a contemporary  of.  Hosea,  Amos,  and  Jonah, 
although  younger  than  those  prophets,  who  be- 
longed to  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  He  was  like- 
wise a contemporary  and  co-worker  of  the  prophet 
Micah  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  We  infer  also 
from  the  circumstance  that,  the  prophecies  of  Joel 
are  inserted  among  the  books  of  the  minor  pro- 
hets  before  those  of  Micah,  that  Isaiah  must 
uve  been  a contemporary  of  Joel,  since  the  minor 
prophets  are  chronologically  arranged. 


Micah  entered  upon  his  prophetic  office  und«l 
the  reign  of  Jotham,  consequently  somewhat  later 
than  Isaiah  commenced  his  prophetic  career. 
Obadiah,  who  is  placed  among  the  minor  pro- 
phets, between  Joel  and  Micah,  was  likewise  a 
contemporary  of  Isaiah.  It  is  not  accidental 
that  Isaiah  and  all  these  prophets  commence  the 
series  of  those  whose  prophetic  utterances  were 
written  down  and  preserved.  Nor  is  there  any 
reason  to  assert  that  the  preceding  age  was 
neglectful  of  the  preservation  of  prophetic  litera- 
ture, although  even  Ewald,  in  his  Propheten  (i. 
p.  54,  Stuttgard,  1840),  asserts  that  beyond  the 
prophetic  literature  which  we  possess  there  lay  an 
earlier,  which  was  more  comprehensive.  There 
is,  however,  no  one  genuine  proof  sufficient  to 
evince  that  there  were  written  prophecies  before 
Isaiah  and  his  contemporaries.  Hosea  refers 
(viii.  12),  not  to  earlier  prophetic  writings,  but  to 
the  books  of  Moses.  This  has  been  proved  by 
Hengstensberg  ( Beitrcige , part  ii.  p.  604,  sq  ). 
Isaiah  ii.  and  Micah  iv.  do  not  rest  upon  an  ear- 
lier prophetic  production  which  was  lost;  but 
Isaiah  rests  upon  Micah  as  Jeremiah  do®  upon 
Obadiah  ; and  it  is  not  the  case  that  both  prophets 
rest  upon  a third  unknown  prophet.  At  the  period 
when  these  prophets  commenced  their  career,  pro- 
phetism  itself  had  attained  a new  epoch,  at  which 
a great  number  of  important  prophets  were  ranged 
beside  each  other.  The  affairs  of  the  Israelites 
became  at  this  period  more  interwoven  with  those 
of  the  great  Asiatic  empires,  which  then  began 
to  bring  about  the  threatened  judgments  of  the 
Lord  upon  his  people.  Henceforward,  also,  the 
prophetic  office  was  to  be  conducted  on  a grander 
scale.  To  the  prophets  it  was  now  assigned  to 
declare  and  to  interpret  the  judgments  of  the 
Lord,  in  order  to  render  the  people  conscious  as 
well  of  his  chastising  justice  as  of  his  preserving 
mercy.  A larger  field  was  now  opened  to  the 
strictly  prophetic  office,  which  consisted  in  utter- 
ing predictions  of  the  future.  The  admonitions 
to  repentance  were  now  also  supported  by  more 
powerful  motives.  The  hopes  of  a coming  Mes- 
siah were  revived.  To  the  worldly  power,  which 
threatens  destruction  to  the  external  theocracy,  is 
henceforth  opposed  the  kingdom  of  God,  destined 
to  conquer  and  to  govern  the  world  through  the 
Messiah.  This  consolation  was  offered  to  those 
who  would  otherwise  have  been  driven  to  despair. 
Now  only  was  prophetism  able  to  develop  its  full 
power  and  become  important  for  all  subsequent 
ages.  This  persuasion  induced  the  prophets  to 
write  their  prophecies,  and  it  caused  these  docu- 
ments also  to  be  carefully  preserved.  The  reason 
why  the  earlier  prophets  did  not  commit  their 
utterances  to  writing  is  the  same  that,  with  two 
exceptions,  led  Isaiah  not  to  write  under  Uzziah, 
and  to  omit  writing  his  utterances  under  Jotham 
altogether. 

Little  is  known  respecting  the  circumstances 
of  Isaiah’s  life.  His  father's  name  was  Amoz. 
The  fathers  of  the  church  confound  him  with  the 
prophet  Amos,  because  they  were  unacquainted 
with  Hebrew,  and  in  Greek  the  two  names  are 
spelled  alike.  The  opinion  of  the  Rabbins,  that 
Isaiah  was  a brother  of  King  Amaziah,  rests  also 
on  a mere  etymological  combination.  Isaiah 
resided  at  Jerusalem,  not  far  from  the  temple. 
We  learn  fr*m  chapters  vii.  and  viii  that  he 
was  married.  Two  of  his  sons  are  mentioned. 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


»6 

Shear-jashul  and  Maher-shalal-hash-baz.  These 
significant  names,  which  he  gave  to  liis  sons,  prove 
how  much  Isaiah  lived  in  his  vocation.  He  did 
not  consider  his  children  to  belong  jnerely  to 
himself,  but  rendered  them  living  admonitions 
to  the  people.  In  their  names  were  contained  the 
two  chief  points  of  his  prophetic  utterances  : one 
recalled  to  mind  the  severe  and  inevitable  judg- 
ment wherewith  the  Lord  was  about  to  visit  the 
world,  and  especially  his  people  ; the  other,  which 
signifies  ‘ The  remnant  shall  return,’  pointed  out 
the  mercy  with  which  the  Lord  would  receive  the 
elect,  and  with  which,  in  the  midst  of  apparent 
destruction,  he  would  take  care  to  preserve  his 
people  and  his  kingdom.  Isaiah  calls  his  wife 
prophetess.  This  indicates  that  his  mar- 
riage-life was  not  in  opposition  to  his  vocation,  and 
also  that  it  not  only  went  along  with  his  vocation, 
but  that  it  was  intimately  interwoven  with  it. 
This  name  cannot  mean  the  wife  of  a prophet, 
but  indicates  that  the  prophetess  of  Isaiah  had  a 
prophetic  gift,  like  Miriam,  Deborah,  and  Huldah. 
The  appellation  here  given  denotes  the  genuine- 
ness of  their  conjugal  relation. 

Even  the  dress  of  the  prophet  was  subservient  to 
his  vocation.  According  to  chap.  xx.  2,  he 
wore  a garment  of  hair-cloth  or  sackcloth.  This 
seems  also  to  have  been  the  costume  of  Elijah, 
according  to  2 Kings  i.  8 ; and  it  was  the  dress  of 
John  the  Baptist.  Hairy  sackcloth  is  in  the 
Bible  the  symbol  of  repentance  (compare  Isa.  xx. 
11,12,  and  1 Kings  xxi.  27).  This  costume  of  the 
prophets  was  a sermo  propheticus  realis,  a pro- 
phetic preaching  by  fact.  The  prophetic  preacher 
comes  forward  in  the  form  of  personified  repent- 
ance. What  he  does  exhibits  to  the  people  what 
they  should  do.  Before  he  has  opened  his  lips 
his  external  appearance  proclaims  perayoeirt, 
repent. 

II.  On  the  Historical  works  of  Isaiah. — Be- 
sides the  collection  of  prophecies  which  has  been 
preserved  to  us,  Isaiah  also  wrote  two  historical 
works.  It  was  part  of  the  vocation  of  the  prophets 
to  write  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  to 
exhibit  in  this  history  the  workings  of  the  law  of 
retribution,  and  to  exhort  to  the  true  worship  of  the 
Lord.  History,  as  written  by  the  prophets,  is  itself 
retroverted  prophecy,  and,  as  such,  offers  rich  ma- 
terials for  prophecy  strictly  so-called.  Since  all  the 
acts  of  God  proceed  from  his  essence,  a complete 
understanding  of  the  past  implies  also  the  future; 
and,  vice  versa , a complete  understanding  of  the 
future  implies  a knowledge  of  the  past.  Most  of 
the  historical  books  in  the  Old  Testament  have 
been  written  by  prophets.  The  collectors  of  the 
Canon  placed  most  of  these  books  under  the  head 
D'iO!!13,  prophets  ; hence,  it  appears  that,  even 
when  these  historical  works  were  re-modelled  by 
later  editors,  these  editors  were  themselves  pro- 
phets. The  Chronicles  are  not  placed  among  the 
DW33  : we  may,  therefore,  conclude  that  they 
were  not  written  by  a prophet.  But  their  author 
constantly  indicates  that  he  composed  his  work 
from  abstracts  taken  verbatim  from  historical  mo- 
aograpbies  written  by  the  prophets;  consequently 
me  books  of  Ruth,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther, 
tie  t’ne  only  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
<hich  did  not.  originate  from  prophets. 

The  first  historical  work  of  Isaiah  was  a bio- 
grapny  of  King  Uzziah  (comp.  2 Chron.  xxvi. 
32),  ‘Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Uzziah,  first  and 


last,  did  Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz^ 
write.’  The  second  historical  work  of  Isaiah  was  a 
biography  of  King  Hezekiah,  which  was  subse- 
quently inserted  in  the  annals  of  Judah  and  Israel. 
These  annals  consisted  of  a series  of  prophetic 
monographies,  which  were  received  partly  entire, 
partly  in  abstracts,  and  are  the  chief  source  from 
which  the  information  contained  in  the  Chronicles 
is  derived.  In  this  work  of  Isaiah,  although  its 
contents  were  chiefly  historical,  numerous  prophe- 
cies were  inserted.  Hence  it  is  called  in  2 Chron. 
xxxii.  32,  inW'  flTH,  The  Vision  of  Isaiah.  In 
a similar  manner  the  biography  of  Solomon  by 
Ahijah,  is  called  in  2 Chron.  ix.  29,  ‘ the  prophecy 
of  Ahijah.’  The  two  historical  works  of  Isaiah 
were  lost,  together  with  the  annals  of  Judah  and 
Israel,  into  which  they  were  embodied.  Whatever 
these  annals  contained  that  was  of  importance  for 
all  ages,  has  been  preserved  to  us  by  being  received 
into  the  historical  hooks  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  predictions  of  the  most  distinguished  prophets 
have  been  formed  Into  separate  collections.  After 
this  was  effected,  less  care  was  taken  to  preserve  the 
more  diffuse  annals,  which  also  comprehended 
many  statements,  of  value  only  for  particular 
times  and  places. 

III.  The  integral  authenticity  of  the  prophecies 
of  Isaiah. — The  Jewish  synagogue,  and  the  Chris- 
tian church  during  all  ages,  have  considered 
it  as  an  undoubted  fact  that  the  prophecies  which 
bear  the  name  of  Isaiah  really  originated  from  that 
prophet.  Even  Spinoza  did  not  expressly  assert 
in  his  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus  (viii.  8), 
that,  the  book  of  Isaiah  consisted  of  a collection 
originating  from  a variety  of  authors,  although  it 
is  usually  considered  that  he  maintained  this 
opinion.  But  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth 
century  this  prevailing  conviction  appeared  to 
some  divines  to  be  inconvenient.  In  the  theology 
of  the  natural  man  it  passed  as  certain,  that  nature 
was  complete  in  itself,  and  that  prophecies,  az 
well  as  miracles,  never  had  occurred,  and  were 
even  impossible.  Whoever  is  spell-bound  within 
the  limits  of  nature,  and  has  never  felt  the  influ- 
ence of  a supernatural  principle  upon  his  own 
heart,  is  incapable  of  understanding  the  super- 
natural in  history,  and  feels  a lively  interest  in 
setting  it  aside,  not  only  on  account  of  its  appear- 
ing to  him  to  be  strange  and  awful,  but  also  because 
supernatural  events  are  facts  of  accusation  against 
the  merely  natural  man.  The  assumption  of  the 
impossibility  of  miracles  necessarily  demanded 
that  thq.  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  should  be 
rejected  ; and,  in  a similar  manner,  the  assumption 
of  the  impossibility  of  prophecy  demanded  that  a 
great  portion  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  should  be 
rejected  likewise.  Here  also  the  wish  was  father 
to  the  thought,  and  interest  led  to  the  decision  of 
critical  questions,  the  arguments  for  which  were 
subsequently  discovered.  All  those  who  attack 
the  integral  authenticity  of  Isaiah  agree  in  consi- 
dering the  book  to  be  an  anthology,  or  gleanings 
of  prophecies,  collected  after  the  Babylonian  exile, 
although  they  differ  in  their  opinions  respecting 
the  origin  of  this  collection.  Koppe  gave  gentle 
hints  of  this  view,  which  was  first  explicitly  sup- 
ported by  Eichhorn  in  his  Introduction.  Eiclv 
horn  advances  the  hypothesis  that  a collection  oi 
Isaian  prophecies  (which  might  have  been  aug- 
mented, even  before  the  Babylonian  exile,  by  se- 
veral not  genuine  additions)  formed  the  basis  of 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


37 


the  present  anthology,  and  that  the  collectors, 
after  the  Babylonian  exile,  considering  that  the 
scroll  on  which  they  were  written  did  not  form  a 
volume  proportionate  to  the  size  of  the  three  other 
prophetic  scrolls,  containing  Ezekiel,  Jeremiah, 
and  the  minor  prophets,  annexed  to  the  Isaian 
collection  all  other  oracles  at  hand  whose  authors 
were  not  known  to  the  editors.  In  this  supposition 
of  the  non-identity  of  date  and  authorship,  most 
learned  men,  and  lately  also  Hitzig  and  Ewald, 
followed  Eichhorn.  Gesenius,  on  the  contrary, 
maintained,  in  his  introduction  to  Isaiah,  that  all 
the  non-Isaian  prophecies  extant  in  that  book 
originated  from  one  author  and  were  of  the 
same  date.  Umbreit  and  Koster  on  the  main 
point  follow  Gesenius,  considering  chapters  xl.  to 
lxvi.  to  be  a continuous  whole,  written  by  a 
pseudo-Isaiah  who  lived  about  the  termination  of 
the  Babylonian  exile.  In  reference  to  other  por- 
tions of  the  book  of  Isaiah  the  authenticity  of 
which  has  been  questioned,  Umbreit  expresses 
himself  doubtingly,  and  Koster  assigns  them  to 
Isaiah.  Gesenius  declines  to  answer  the  question, 
how  it  happened  that  these  portions  were  ascribed 
to  Isaiah,  but  Hitzig  felt  that  an  answer  to  it 
might  be  expected.  He  accordingly  attempts  to 
explain  why  such  additions  were  made  to  Isaiah 
and  not  to  any  of  the  other  prophetical  books, 
by  the  extraordinary  veneration  in  which  Isaiah 
was  held.  He  says  that  the  great  authority  of 
Isaia.h  occasioned  important  and  distinguished 
prophecies  to  be  placed  in.  connection  with 
his  name.  But  he  himself  soon  after  destroys 
the  force  of  this  assertion  by  observing,  that  the 
great  authority  of  Isaiah  was  especially  owing  to 
those  prophecies  which  were  falsely  ascribed  to 
him.  A considerable  degree  of  suspicion  must, 
however,  attach  to  the  boasted  certainty  of  such 
critical  investigations,  if  we  notice  how  widely 
these  learned  men  differ  in  defining  what  is  of 
Isaian  origin  and  what  is  not,  although  they  are 
all  linked  together  by  the  same  fundamental 
tendency  and  interest.  There  are  very  few  por- 
tions in  the  whole  collection  whose  authenticity 
has  not  been  called  in  question  by  some  one  or  other 
of  the  various  impugners.  Almost  every  part  has 
been  attacked  either  by  Dcederlein,  or  by  Eichhorn 
(who,  especially  in  a later  work  entitled  Die 
Hebraischen  Propheten , Gottingen,  1816  to  1819, 
goes  farther  than  all  the  others),  or  by  Justi  (who, 
among  the  earlier  adversaries  of  the  integral 
authenticity  of  Isaiah,  uses,  in  his  Vermischte 
Sc  hi  if  ten  (vols.  i.  and  ii.),  the  most  comprehensive 
and,  apparently,  the  best  grounded  arguments), 
or  by  Paulus,  Rosenmuller,  Bauer,  Bertholdt, 
De  W ette,  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  or 
others.  The  only  portions  left  to  Isaiah  are 
chaps,  i.  3-9,  xvii.,  xx.,  xxviii.,  xxxi.,  and 
xxxiii.  All  the  other  chapters  are  defended 
by  some  and  rejected  by  others;  they  are  also 
referred  to  widely  different  dates.  In  tire 
most  modern  criticism,  however,  we  observe 
an  inclination  again  to  extend  the  sphere  of 
Isaian  authenticity  as  much  as  the  dogmatic 
principle  and  system  of  the  critics  will  allow. 
Modern  criticism  is  inclined  to  admit  the  genuine- 
ness of  chaps,  i.  to  xxiii.,  with  the  only  excep- 
tion of  the  two  prophecies  against  Babylon  in 
chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv.,  and  in  chap.  xxi.  1-10. 
Chaps,  xxviii.-xxxiii.  are  allowed  to  be  Isaian  by 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  others. 


Divines,  who  were  not  linked  to  these  critics  by 
the  same  dogmatical  interest,  undertook  to  defend 
the  integrity  of  Isaiah,  as  Ilensler,  Jesaias  neu 
ubersetzt,  1788;  Piper,  Integritas  Jesaiee,  17,93; 
Beckhaus,  TJeber  die  Integritat  der  Prophetischen 
SchHften , 1796 ; Jahn,  in  his  Enleitung , wlio 
was  the  most  able  among  the  earlier  advocates ; 
Dereser,  in  his  Bcarbeitung  des  Jesaias  iv.  I ; 
Greve,  Vaticinia  Jesaiee,  Amsterdam,  1810.  All 
these  works  have  at  present  only  an  historical 
value,  because  they  have  been  surpassed  by  two 
recent  monograph ies.  The  first  is  by  Jo.  Ulr. 
Moeller,  De  Authentia  Oraculorum  Jesaiee , ch. 
xl.-lxvi.,  Copenhagen,  1825.  Although  this  work 
professedly  defends  only  the  latter  portion  of 
the  book  of  Isaiah,  there  occur  in  it  many  argu- 
ments applicable  also  to  the  first  portion.  The 
standard  work  on  this  subject  is  that  of  Kleiner*, 
De  Aechtheit  des  Jesaias , vol.  i.,  Berlin,  1829. 
It  is,  however,  very  diffuse,  and  contains  too 
many  hypotheses.  The  comprehensive  work  of 
Schleier,  Wurdigung  der  Einwurfe  gegen  die  A l - 
testamentlichen  Weissagungen  im  Jesaias . chap, 
xiii.  and  xiv.,  of  course  refers  more  especialjy  to 
these  chapters,  but  indirectly  refers  also  to  all  the 
other  portions  whose  authenticity  has  been  at- 
tacked. Since  the  objections  against  the  various 
parts  of  Isaiah  are  all  of  the  same  character,  it  is 
very  inconsistent  in  Koster,  in  his  work  Die  Pro- 
pheten des  alien  Testamentes,  to  defend,  in  page 
102,  the  genuineness  of  chaps,  xiii.,  xiv.,  and 
xxi.;  but,  nevertheless,  in  pages  117  and  297, 
to  ascribe  chaps,  xl.-lxvi.  to  a pseudo-Isaiah. 

After  this  survey  of  the  present  state  of  the 
inquiry,  we  proceed  to  furnish,  first,  the  external 
arguments  for  the  integral  authenticity  of  Isaiah. 

1.  The  most  ancient  testimony  in  favour  of 
Isaiah’s  being  the  author  of  all  the  portions  of  the 
collection  which  bears  his  name,  is  contained  in  the 
heading  of  the  whole  (i.  1),  ‘ The  vision  of  Isaiah 
the  son  of  Amoz,  which  he  saw  concerning  Judah 
and  Jerusalem,  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham, 
Ahaz,  Hezekiab,  kings  of  Judah.’  It  is  here 
clearly  stated  that  Isaiah  was  the  author  of  the 
following  prophecies,  uttered  during  the  reign  of 
four  successive  kings.  This  inscription  is  of 
great  importance,  even  if  it  originated  not  from 
Isaiah,  but  from  a later  compiler.  If  we  adopt 
the  latest  date  at  which  this  compilation  could 
have  been  made,  we  must  fix  it  at  the  time  of  its 
reception  into  the  canon  in  the  days  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah.  Consequently  the  compiler  could 
not  be  separated  by  many  years  from  the  pseudo- 
Isaiah  who  is  said  to  have  prophesied  just  before 
Babylon  was  conquered,  or  who,  according  to 
most  critics,  wrote  even  after  the  fall  of  Babylon. 
It  is  not  credible  that  a compiler  living  so  near 
the  times  of  the  author,  should  have  erroneously 
ascribed  these  prophecies  to  Isaiah,  who  lived  so 
much  earlier,  especially  if  we  bear  in  mind  that 
this  so-called  pseudo-Isaiah  must  have  been  a 
very  remarkable  person  in  an  age  so  devoid  of  the 
prophetic  spirit  as  that  in  which  he  is  said  to  have 
lived. 

It  is  still  less  credible  that  a pseudo-Isaiah 
should  himself  have  fraudulently  ascribed  his 
prophecies  to  Isaiah.  None. of  the  adversaries  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  book  make  such  an  assertion. 

If  the  compiler  lived  before  the  exile,  the  in- 
scription appears  to  be  of  still  greater  importance. 
That  the  collection  was  made  so  early  is  very 


99 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


likely,  from  the  circumstance  that  Jeremiah  and 
other  prophets  apparently  made  use  of  the  pro- 
phecies of  Isaiah.  This  fact  indicates  that  the 
prophecies  of  Isaiah  early  excited  a lively  in- 
terest, and  that  the  compiler  must  have  lived  at  a 
period  earlier  than  that  which  is  ascribed  to  the 
pseudo-Isaiah  himself.  From  all  this  we  infer 
that  the  compiler  lived  before  the  exile.  The 
adversaries  themselves  felt  the  weight  of  this  argu- 
ment. They,  therefore,  attempted  to  remove  it 
by  various  hypotheses,  which  received  a semblance 
of  probability  from  the  circumstance  that  even 
the  considerate  Yitringa  had  called  in  question 
the  authenticity  of  the  heading.  Vitringa  con- 
jectured that  this  heading  belonged  originally  to 
the  first  chapter  alone.  He  further  conjectured 
that  it  originally  contained  only  the  words,  pro- 
phecy  of  Isaiah , the  son  of  Amoz,  which  he  saio 
concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  The  follow- 
ing words,  he  says,  were  added  by  the  compiler, 
who  enlarged  the  particular  inscription  of  the  first 
chapter  to  a general  one  of  the  whole  collection. 
According  to  Vitringa  the  inscription  does  not 
suit  (lie  whole  book,  the  contents  of  which  are 
not  confined  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem  alone.  This 
had  been  felt  even  by  Kimchi,  who,  anticipating 
the  objection,  observes,  queecunque  contra  gentes 
profert,  ea  omnia  propter  Judam  dicit.  What- 
soever Isaiah  utters  against  the  nations,  he  says 
on  account  of  Judah.  Judah  and  Jerusalem  are 
the  chief  subject,  and,  in  a certain  sense,  the  only 
subject  of  prophecy.  There  is  no  prophecy  con- 
cerning other  nations  without  a bearing  upon  the 
covenant  - people.  If  this  bearing  should  be 
wanting  in  any  portion  of  prophecy,  that  portion 
would  be  a piece  of  divination  and  soothsaying. 
No  prophet  against  foreign  nations  prophesied  con- 
cerning them  with  the  view  to  spread  his  predictions 
among  them,  because  the  mission  of  all  prophets  is 
to  Israel.  The  predictions  against  foreign  nations 
are  intended  to  preserve  the  covenant-people  from 
despair,  and  to  strengthen  their  faith  in  the  omni- 
potence and  justice  of  their  God.  These  predictions 
are  intended  to  annihilate  the  reliance  upon  poli- 
tical combinations  and  human  confederacies. 
They  are  intended  to  lead  Israel  to  the  question, 

‘ If  they  do  these  things  in  the  green  tree,  what  shall 
be  done  in  the  dry  ?’  If  this  is  the  punishment  of 
those  who  are  less  intimately  allied  with  God, 
what  shall  then  become  of  us  to  whom  He  nas 
more  clearly  revealed  Himself?  But  they  are 
also  intended  to  indicate  the  future  conversion  of 
the  heathen,  and  to  open  to  the  view  of  the  faithful 
the  future  glory  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  its 
final  victory  over  the  kingdoms  of  this  world ; and 
thus  to  extirpate  all  narrow-minded  nationality. 
God  shall  be  revealed  not  only  as  Jehovah  but  also 
as  Elohim.  His  relation  to  Israel  is  misunder- 
stood, if  that  relation  is  exclusively  kept  in  view 
without  any  regard  to  the  universe.  Therefore 
the  whole  collection  is  justly  entitled  Prophecies 
concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  No  matter 
whether  this  inscription  originated  from  Isaiah 
nimself  or  from  an  ancient  compiler.  That  the 
word  pin  means  not  merely  a vision,  but  also  a 
collection  of  visions  and  prophecies,  may  be 
learned  from  2 Chron.  xxxii.  32,  and  Nah.  i.  1. 
It  means  a collection  of  prophecies  and  vision 
united  like  a picture  in  an  historical  frame 
(comp.  Jer.  xiv.  14),  although  it  may  also  denote 
une  separate  prophecy,  as  in  Obadiah,  verse  1. 


jlTH  has  no  plural  (comp.  Hitzig’s  Commentary 
on  ch.  i.  1 ; Ewald,  Propheten , i.  p.  59). 

The  inscription  in  ch.  i.  1 has  a general  bear* 
ing  upon  the  whole  collection.  Then  follows  the 
first  portion,  which  contains,  as  it  were,  the  genera] 
prophetic  programme.  Thereupon  follows  a series 
of  prophecies  directly  bearing  upon  Judah  and 
Jerusalem,  commencing  again  with  a particular 
heading  (ii.  1).  To  this  succeeds  a series  of  pro- 
hecies  indirectly  bearing  upon  Judah  and 
erusalem,  but  directly  upon  foreign  nations. 
The  first  of  this  series  has  again  its  own  heading 
(xiii.  1). 

Geseniug,  advancing  in  the  direction  to  which 
Vitringa  had  pointed,  although  he  grants  the 
integral  authenticity  of  ch.  i.  1,  nevertheless 
maintains  that  this  heading  belonged  originally 
only  to  chs.  i.-xii.,  in  which  were  contained 
genuine  prophecies  of  Isaiah.  To  this  collection, 
he  asserts,  were  afterwards  subjoined  the  antho- 
logies contained  in  the  following  chapters,  and 
the  heading  was  then  misunderstood  as  applying 
to  the  whole  volume.  This  opinion  is  more  in- 
consistent than  that  of  Vitringa,  since  there  occur 
in  the  first  twelve  chapters  two  prophecies  against 
foreign  nations ; one  against  the  Assyrians,  in 
cl),  x.  and  another  against  Ephraim,  in  ch.  ix. 

Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  their  followers,  are  also 
refuted  by  the  parallel  passage  in  the  heading  of 
Amos,  ‘ The  words  of  Amos,  which  he  saw  con- 
cerning Israel.’  The  prophecies  of  Amos  in 
general  are  here  said  to  be  concerning  Israel, 
although  there  are,  as  in  Isaiah,  several  against 
foreign  nations,  a series  of  which  stands  even  at 
the  commencement  of  the  book.  To  this  we  may 
add  the  similarity  of  the  headings  of  other  pro- 
phetical books.  For  instance,  the  commencement 
of  Jeremiah,  Hosea,  Micah,  and  Zephaniah. 

Ewald  spoils  the  argument,  of  Vitringa  still 
more  than  Gesenius,  by  extending  the  original" 
collection  to  ch.  xxiii.,  and  thus  introducing 
within  the  cycle  headed  by  the  inscription,  whose 
genuineness  he  grants,  most  of  the  predictions 
against  foreign  nations.  Whoever  subjoined  the 
subsequent  portions  to  the  so-called  original  col- 
lection, did  i.t  only  because  he  perceived  that 
these  portions  could  be  brought  under  the  general 
heading.  He  could  only  have  been  induced  to 
make  the  so-called  additions,  because  he  per- 
ceived that  the  heading  applied  to  the  whole : con- 
sequently neither  Gesenius  nor  Ewald  rid  them- 
selves of  the  troublesome  authority  of  ch.  i.  1 ; 
the  words  of  which  have  the  more  weight,  since 
all  critics  ascribe  to  the  headings  of  the  prophetical 
books  a far  greater  authority  than  to  the  head- 
ings of  the  Psalms,  and  agree  in  saying  that 
nothing  but  the  most  stringent  arguments  snould 
induce  us  to  reject  the  statements  contained  in 
these  prophetical  headings. 

2.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  there  ever  existed 
any  so-called  prophetic  anthology  as  has  been 
supposed  to  exist  in  the  book  of  Isaiah.  We  find 
nothing  analogous  in  the  whole  range  of  prophetic 
literature.  It  is  generally  granted  that  the  col- 
lections bearing  the  names  of  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  contain  only  productions  of  those  authors 
whose  name  they  bear.  In  the  book  of  the  minor 
prophets,  the  property  of  each  is  strictly  distin- 
guished from  the  rest  by  headings.  The  authen- 
ticity of  only  the  second  portion  of  Zechariah  has 
been  attacked ; and  this  with  very  feeble  argu- 


ISAIAII. 


ISAIAH. 


39 


ments,  which  have  been  refuted.  De  Wette  him- 
self has,  in  the  latest  editions  of  his  Introduction , 
confessed  that  on  this  point  he  is  vanquished. 

But  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  the  pro- 
phecies of  Zechariah  belonged  to  two  different 
authors,  namely,  as  Bertlioldt  and  Gesenius  sup- 
pose, to  the  two  Zechariahs,  each  of  whom  hap- 
pened to  be  the  son  of  a Berechiah,  this  identity 
of  names  might  be  considered  an  inducement  for 
uniting  the  productions  of  the  two  authors  in  one 
collection  : still  this  case  would  not  be  analogous 
to  what  is  asserted  to  be  the  fact  in  Isaiah.  In 
Isaiah,  it  is  alleged  not  only  that  a series  of 
chapters  belonging  to  a different  author  were  sub- 
joined, commencing  about  chap,  xxxiv.,  but  it 
is  affirmed  that,  even  in  the  first  thirty-three  chap- 
ters, the  genuine  and  spurious  portions  are  inter- 
mixed. Before  we  admit  that  the  compilers 
proceeded  here  in  a manner  so  unreasonable,  and 
so  contrary  to  their  usual  custom,  we  must  ex- 
pect some  cogent  proof  to  be  adduced.  Gesenius 
declares  that  he  would  not  attempt  to  touch  this 
problem.  This  is  as  much  as  to  admit  the  vali- 
dity of  our  objection.  Eichhorn  supposes  that  the 
spurious  additions  were  made  because  the  scroll 
otherwise  would  not  have  been  filled  up.  But 
this  fug  a vacui , this  abhorrence  of  a vacuum, 
does  not  explain  the  intermixture  of  the  spurious 
with  the  genuine.  It  does  not  explain  why  the 
additions  were  not  all  subjoined  at  the  end  of  the 
genuine  portions.  Doederlein  creates  for  himself 
a second  Isaiah,  son  of  Amoz,  living  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  exile.  But  even  this  fiction  does 
not  explain  why  the  property  of  these  two  pro- 
phets was  intermixed  in  spite  of  their  being  sepa- 
rated from  each  other  by  two  centuries,  and  so 
k jermixed  that  it  is  now  difficult  to  say  which 
. dongs  to  which.  Augusti  supposes  that  the 
spurious  pieces  were  added  to  the  genuine  on  ac- 
count of  their  being  written  entirely  in  the  spirit 
and  style  of  Isaiah.  But  in  this  he  seems  to 
contradict  himself,  since  he  bases  his  attack 
against  their  authenticity  upon  the  asserlion  that 
they  differed  from  Isaiah  in  spirit  and  manner. 
The  style  of  Isaiah  was  certainly  not  the  style  of 
the  age  in  which  the  pseudo-Isaiah  is  said  to  have 
lived.  Justi  supposes  that  the  prediction  con- 
cerning the  Babylonian  exile,  in  chap,  xxxix.,  led 
to  the  addition  of  the  whole  of  the  second  portion. 
But  this  hypothesis  is  improbable  and  without 
analogy,  and  it  does  not  explain  the  intermix- 
ture of  the  genuine  with  the  spurious  in  the 
first  portion. 

How  untenable  all  these  hypotheses  are  may  be 
readily  perceived  from  the  fact  that  each  of  them 
remained  the  almost  exclusive  property  of  its 
author,  and  that  each  following  savant  felt  him- 
self prompted  to  discover  a new  hypothesis,  until 
Gesenius  endeavoured  to  stop  them  by  cutting 
the  Gordian  knot.  Hitzig,  however,  again  at- 
tempted to  unloose  it,  but,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  unsuccessfully.  Ewald  maintains  that  the 
compiler  never  intended  that  chaps,  xl.-lxvi. 
should  belong  to  Isaiah,  and  that  the  last  twenty- 
six  chapters  had  been  subjoined  merely  in  order 
to  preserve  them  the  better.  But  it  is  untrue 
that  the  first  portion  is  unconnected  with  these 
chapters.  The  first  portion  terminates  with  the 
prediction  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  and  the  se- 
cond commences  with  the  annunciation  of  a 
future  redemption  from  this  captivity.  Chaps. 


xl.-lxvi.  have  no  heading  of  their  own  ; which 
proves  that  the  compiler  annexed  them  as  Isaion, 
and  intended  them  to  be  read  as  such.  The  so- 
called  spurious  portions  in  the  first  part  of  Isaiah 
were,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Ewald  (p.  62), 
intermixed  with  the  genuine,  because  the  com- 
piler really  supposed  them  to  belong  to  Isaiah. 
Thus  Ewald  admits  that  the  intermixed  pieces 
have  the  testimony  of  the  compiler  in  favour  of 
their  authenticity.  To  deny  that  this  testimony 
extends  also  to  the  second  part,  is  an  arbitrary 
assumption.  Now,  if  this  testimony  is  granted, 
we  are  content.  With  it  we  gain  this  much,  that 
the  attacked  portions  have  the  presumption  of 
genuineness  in  their  favour,  and  that,  therefore, 
very  substantial  reasons  are  required  for  denying 
their  Isaian  origin.  This  is  all  that  we  want. 

3.  According  to  the  opinion  of  several  critics, 
all  the  spurious  portions  of  Isaiah  belong  to  one 
and  the  same  author.  But  it  so  happens  that,  the 
portion  which  is  most  emphatically  declared  to 
be  spurious,  namely,  chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv.,  bear 
an  inscription  which  expressly  ascribes  them  to 
Isaiah.  Now,  as  the  internal  arguments  against 
the  authenticity  of  all  the  portions  which  are 
said  to  be  spurious,  are  nearly  identical,  if  the 
opposition  to  chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv.  is  given  up,  it 
cannot  with  consistency  be  maintained  against 
the  other  portions.  This  argument  serves  also  as 
an  answer  to  those  who  ascribe  the  portions  which 
they  consider  spurious  to  several  authors.  The 
contents  of  these  portions  are  similar.  They 
contain  predictions  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  and  of 
the  redemption  of  Israel  from  captivity.  What- 
ever proves  the  genuineness  of  one  of  these  por- 
tions, indirectly  proves  the  others  also  to  be 
genuine. 

4.  According  to  Josephus  (Antiq.  xi.  c.  1, 
§ 1,  2)  Cyrus  was  induced  by  the  prophecies  of 
Isaiah  respecting  him  to  allow  the  return  of  the 
Jews,  and  to  aid  them  in  rebuilding  the  temple. 
The  credibility  of  Josephus,  who  in  regard  to 
facts  of  ancient  history  is  not  always  to  be  relied 
upon,  is  here  supported  by  two  circumstances. 
First,  the  favour  shown  by  Cyrus  to  the  Jews, 
which  remains  inexplicable  except  by  the  fact 
mentioned,  in  combination  with  the  influence  of 
Daniel.  In  modern  times,  the  favour  of  Cyrus 
to  the  Jews  has  been  called  a prudential  measure ; 
but  it  does  not  appear  what  he  could  either  hope 
or  fear  from  a people  so  enfeebled  as  the  Jew3 
were  at  that  period.  It  has  been  added  that 
Cyrus  was  favourable  to  the  Jews  on  account  of 
the  similarity  between  the  Persian  and  the  Jewish 
religion  ; but  there  is  no  historical  proof  that 
the  Persians,  on  any  other  occasion,  favoured  the 
Jews  on  account  of  their  religion.  The  favours 
shown  to  Nehemiah  on  behalf  of  Israel  were  only 
personal  favours,  owing  to  his  position  at  the 
Persian  court.  We  allow  that  all  this  would  be 
insufficient  to  prove  the  correctness  of  the  above 
statement  in  Josephus,  but  it  must  render  us  in- 
clined to  admit  its  truth. 

The  second  argument  is  much  stronger  : it  is, 
that  the  statement  of  Josephus  is  supported  by 
the  edict  of  Cyrus  (Ezra  i.).  This  edict  pre-sup- 
poses  the  fact  related  by  Josephus,  so  that  Jahn 
calls  the  passage  in  Josephus  a commentary  on  the 
first  chapter  of  Ezra,  in  which  we  read  that  Cyrus 
announces  in  his  edict,  that  he  was  commanded 
by  Jehovah  to  build  him  a temple  in  Jerusalem, 


40 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


and  that  he  received  all  the  conquered  kingdoms 
of  the  earth  as  a gift  from  Jehovah.  This  can- 
not refer  to  any  other  predictions  of  the  prophet, 
hut  only  to  what  are  called  the  spurious  portions 
of  Isaiah,  in  which  the  Lord  grants  to  Cyrus  all 
his  future  conquests,  and  appoints  him  to  be  the 
restorer  of  his  temple  (comp.  xli.  2-4 ; xliv.  24- 
28;  xlv.  1-13;  xlvi.  11;  xlviii.  13-15).  The 
edict  adopts  almost  the  words  of  these  passages 
(comp,  the  synopsis  in  the  above-mentioned  work 
of  Kleinert,  p.  142).  In  reply  to  this,  our  adver- 
saries assert  that  Cyrus  was  deceived  by  pseudo- 
prophecies forged  in  the  name  of  Isaiah  ; but  if 
Cyrus  could  be  deceived  in  so  clumsy  a manner, 
he  was  not  the  man  that  history  represents  him  ; 
and  to  have  committed  forgery  is  so  contrary  to 
what  was  to  be  expected  from  the  author  of  chaps, 
xl.-lxvi.,  that  even  the  feelings  of  our  opponents 
revolt  at  the  supposition  that  the  pseudo-Isaiah 
should  have  forged  vaticinia  post  eventum  in  the 
name  of  the  prophets.  Had  these  prophecies 
been  written,  as  it  is  alleged,  only  in  sight  of  the 
conquest  of  Babylon,  Cyrus  would  have  been 
deceived  before  the  eyes  of  the  author,  and  this 
could  not  have  been  effected  without  collusion  on 
the  part  of  the  author.  This  collusion  would  be 
undeniable,  since  the  author  again  and  again 
repeats  that  he  was  proclaiming  unheard-of  facts, 
which  were  beyond  all  human  calculation. 

5.  In  the  books  of  the  prophets  who  lived  after 
Isaiah,  and  before  the  period  of  the  so-called 
pseudo-Isaiah,  we  find  imitations  of  those  pro- 
phecies w'hich  have  been  ascribed  to  the  latter. 
Since  Gesenius  has  demonstrated  that  all  the  por- 
tions which  have  been  considered  spurious  are  to 
be  ascribed  to  only  one  author,  it  can  be  shown 
that  they  were  all  in  existence  before  the  time 
assigned  to  the  pseudo-Isaiah,  although  we  can 
produce  the  imitations  of  only  some  of  these  por- 
tions. But  even  those  opponents  who  ascribe 
these  portions  to  different  authors  must  grant  that 
their  objections  are  invalidated,  if  it  can  be  shown 
that  later  prophets  have  referred  to  these  portions, 
because  the  arguments  employed  against  them 
closely  resemble  each  other  : consequently  these 
prophecies  stand  and  fall  together.  The  verbal 
coincidence  between  Jeremiah  and  the  so-called 
pseudo-Isaiah  is  in  this  respect  most  important. 
Jeremiah  frequently  makes  use  of  the  earlier 
prophets,  and  he  refers  equally,  and  in  the  same 
manner,  to  the  portions  of  Isaiah  whose  genuine- 
ness has  been  questioned,  as  to  those  which  are 
deemed  authentic  (comp.  Kiiper,  Jeremias  libro- 
rum  sacrorum  interpres  atque  vindex,  pp.  132- 
155).  The  most  striking  is  the  coincidence  of  Jere- 
miah 1.  51,  with  the  predictions  against  Babylon  in 
Isaiah.  Jeremiah  here  gives  to  God  the  appella- 
tion t5>np,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel , 

which  frequently  occurs  in  Isaiah,  especially  in 
the  portions  whose  authenticity  is  questioned,  but 
is  found  only  three  times  in  the  other  books  of  the 

Old  Testament.  Isaiah  uses  the  appellation 
Wnp  with  peculiar  predilection,  because  it 
points  out  the  omnipotent  covenant-fidelity  of  the 
Lord  ; which  was  to  be  considered,  especially  as 
guarantees  the  truth  of  the  contents  of  those 
prophecies  which  are  attacked  by  our  opponents. 
This  circumstance  is  so  striking  that  Von  Coelln 
and  De  Wette,  on  this  account,  and  in  contradic- 
tion to  every  argument,  declare  even  the  xnrespond- 


ing  chapter  of  Jeremiah  to  be  spurious.  Tins  it 
certainly  a desperate  stroke,  because  the  chapter 
is  otherwise  written  in  the  very  characteristic 
style  of  that  prophet.  This  desperatiou,  how- 
ever, gives  us  the  advantage  afforded  by  an  in- 
voluntary testimony  in  favour  of  those  portion! 
of  Isaiah  which  have  been  attacked.  The  words 
of  Isaiah,  in  ch.  li.  15,  ‘I  am  the  Lord  thy  God 
who  moves  the  sea  that  its  waves  roar,’  are  re- 
peated in  Jer.  xxxi.  35.  The  image  of  the  cup 
of  fury  in  Isa.  li.  17,  is  in  Jer.  xxv.  15-29,  trans- 
formed into  a symbolic  act,  according  to  his 
custom  of  embodying  the  imagery  of  earlier  pro- 
phets, and  especially  that  of  Isaiah.  In  order  to 
prove  that  other  prophets  also  made  a similar  use 
of  Isaiah,  we  refer  to  Zephaniah  ii.  15,  where  we 
find  Isaiah’s  address  to  Babylon  applied  tr 
Nineveh,  ‘ Therefore  hear  now  this,  thou  that  art 
given  to  pleasures,  that  dwellest  carelessly,  that 
sayest  in  thine  heart  I am,  and  none  else  beside 
me,’  &c.  Zephaniah,  living  towards  the  termina- 
tion of  prophetism,  has,  like  Jeremiah,  a depend- 
ent character,  and  has  here  even  repeated  the 
characteristic  and  difficult  word  tDDK-  Kiiper 
(p.  138)  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  passage 
cannot  be  original  in  Zephaniah.  The  words  of 
Isaiah  (lii.  7),  ‘ How  beautiful  upon  the  mountains 
are  the  feet  of  him  that  bringeth  good  tidings, 
that  publisheth  peace,’  are  repeated  by  Nahum 
in  ch.  i.  15  (ii.  1);  and  what  he  adds,  ‘the 
wicked  shall  no  more  pass  through  thee,’  agrees 
remarkably  with  Isa.  lii.  1,  ‘ for  henceforth  shall 
no  more  come  into  thee  the  uncircumcised  and 
the  unclean.’  Nahum  iii.  7 contains  an  allu- 
sion to  Isa.  li.  19.  Beside  these  references  to  the 
portions  of  Isaiah  which  are  said  to  be  spurious, 
we  find  others  "to  the  portions  which  are  deemed 
genuine  (compare,  for  instance,  Nahum  i.  13, 
with  Isa.  x.  27). 

G.  Again,  the  most  ancient  production  of  Jew- 
ish literature  after  the  completion  of  the  canon, 
furnishes  proof  of  the  integral  authenticity  of 
Isaiah.  The  book  of  Jesus  Sirach,  commonly 
called  Ecclesiasticus,  was  written  as  early  as  the 
third  century  before  Christ,  as  Hug  has  clearly 
demonstrated,  in  opposition  to  those  who  place  it 
in  the  second  century  before  Christ.  In  Eccle- 
siasticus xlviii.  22-25,  Isaiah  is  thus  praised : 

‘ For  Hezekiah  had  done  the  thing  that  pleased 
the  Lord,  and  was  strong  in  the  ways  of  David 
his  father,  as  Isaiah  the  prophet,  who  was  great 
and  faithful  in  his  vision,  had  commanded  him. 
In  his  time  the  sun  went  backward,  and  he 
lengthened  the  king’s  life.  He  saw  by  an  ex- 
cellent spirit  what  should  come  to  pass  at  tin* 
last,  and  he  comforted  them  fiat  mourned  in 
Sion.  He  showed  what,  should  come  to  pass  for 
ever,  and  secret  things  or  ever  they  came.’ 

This  commendation  especially  refers,  as  even 
Gesenius  grants,  to  the  disputed  portions  of  the 
prophet,  in  which  we  find  predictions*  of  the  most 
distant  futurity.  The  comfort  for  Zion  is  found 
more  particularly  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah, 
which  begins  with  the  wwds  ‘ Comfort  ye,  comfort 
ye,  my  people.’  The  author  of  this  second  part  him- 
self says  (xlviii.  3),  ‘ I have  declared  the  former 
things  from  the  beginning ; and  they  went  forth  oul 
of  my  mouth,  and  I showed  them.’  Thus  we  per- 
ceive that  Jesus  Sirach,  the  learned  scribe,  con 
fluently  attributes  the  debated  passages  to  Isaiah 
in  such  a manner  as  plainly  indicates  that  then 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


41 


was  no  doubt  in  his  days- respecting  the  integral 
authenticity  of  that  book,  which  has  the  testimony 
of  historical  tradition  in  its  favour.  Jesus  Siracli 
declares  his  intention  (Ecclus.  xliv.-l.)  to  praise 
the  most  celebrated  men  of  his  nation.  The 
whole  tenor  of  these  chapters  shows  that  he  does 
not  confine  himself  to  celebrated  authors.  We 
therefore  say  that  the  praise  which  he  bestows 
upon  Isaiah  is  not  intended  for  the  book  personi- 
fied, but  for  the  person  of  the  prophet.  If  Jesus 
Siracli  had  entertained  doubts  respecting  the 
genuineness  of  those  prophecies  on  which,  in  par- 
ticular, he  bases  his  praise,  he  could  nqt  have 
so  lauded  the  prophet. 

In  the  Jewish  synagogue  the  integral  authen- 
ticity of  Isaiah  has  always  been  recognised. 
This  general  recognition  cannot  be  accounted  foi 
except  by  the  power  of  tradition  based  upon 
truth ; and  it  is  supported  as  well  by  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  Isaiah  is  quoted  as  the 
author  of  the  whole  collection  which  bears  his 
name,  as  also  by  the  express  testimony  of  Jo- 
sephus, especially  in  his  Antiquities  (x.  2.  2, 
and  xi.  1.  1).  After  such  confirmation  it  would 
be  superfluous  to  mention  the  Talmudists. 

7.  According  to  the  hypothesis  of  our  oppo- 
nents, the  author  or  authors  of  the  spurious  por- 
tions wrote  at  the  end  of  the  Babylonian  exile. 
They  confess  that  these  portions  belong  to  the 
finest  productions  of  prophetism.  Now  it  is  very 
remarkable  that  in  the  far  from  scanty  historical 
accounts  of  this  period,  considering  all  circum- 
stances, no  mention  is  made  of  any  prophet  to 
whom  we  could  well  ascribe  these  prophecies. 
This  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  at  that 
period  prophetism  was  on  the  wane,  and  the  few 
prophets  who  still  existed  excited  on  that  account 
the  greater  attention.  What  Ewald  (p.  57) 
writes  concerning  the  time  about  the  conclusion 
of  the  Babylonian  exile,  is  quite  unhistorieal. 
He  says,  ‘ In  this  highly  excited  period  of  liberty 
regained,  and  of  a national  church  re-established, 
there  were  rapidly  produced  a great  number  of 
prophecies,  circulated  in  a thousand  pamphlets, 
many  of  which  were  of  great  poetical  beauty.’ 
What  Ewald  states  about  a new  flood  of  prophetic 
writings  which  then  poured  forth,  is  likewise  un- 
historieal. History  shows  that  during  the  exile 
prophetism  was  on  the  wane.  What  we  read  in 
the  books  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  proves  that 
these  prophets  were  isolated ; and  from  the  book 
of  Ezra  we  learn  what  was  the  spiritual  condition 
of  the  new  colony.  If  we  compare  with  their 
predecessors  the  prophets  who  then  prophesied, 
Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  we  cannot  say 
much  about  a revival  of  the  prophetic  spirit  to- 
wards the  conclusion  of  the  exile.  Everything 
concurs  to  show  that  the  efficiency  of  prophetism 
was  drawing  towards  its  end.  The  later  the  pro- 
phets are,  the  more  do  they  lean  upon  the  earlier 
prophets ; so  that  we  are  enabled  to  trace  the 
gradual  transition  of  prophetism  into  the  learning 
of  scribes.  Prophetism  dug,  as  it  were,  its  own 
grave.  The  authority  which  it  demands  for  its 
earlier  productions  necessarily  caused  that  the 
later  were  dependent  upon  the  earlier , end  the 
more  this  became  the  case  during  the  progress  of 
time,  the  more  limited  became  the  field  for  new 
productions.  It  is  not  only  unhistorieal,  but, 
according  to  the  condition  of  the  later  productions 
of  propheev,  quite  impossible,  that  about  the  con- 


clusion of  the  exile  there  should  have  sprung  up 
a fresh  prophetic  literature  of  great  extent.  In 
this  period  we  hear  only  the  echo  of  prophecy. 
That  one  of  the  later  prophets  of  whom  we  posses* 
most,  namely  Zechariah,  leans  entirely  upon  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel,  as  upon  his  latest  predecessors. 
There  is  not  a vestige  of  an  intervening  prophetic 
literature.  The  feebleness  of  our  opponents  is 
manifested  by  their  being  obliged  to  have  recourse 
to  such  unhistorieal  fictions  in  order  to  defend 
their  opinions. 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  we  possess  a series  of 
external  arguments  in  favour  of  the  integral  au- 
thenticity of  Isaiah.  Each  of  these  arguments  is 
of  importance,  and,  in  their  combination,  they  have 
a weight  which  could  only  be  counterbalanced 
by  insurmountable  difficulties  in  the  contents  of 
these  prophecies.  We  now  proceed  to  show  that 
there  are  no  such  difficulties,  and  that  the  internal 
arguments  unite  with  the  external  in' demonstrating 
the  authenticity  of  Isaiah  as  a whole. 

1.  The  portions  of  Isaiah*  which  have  been  de- 
clared by  our  opponents  to  be  spurious  are,  as  we 
have  already  said,  almost  entirely  such  as  con- 
tain prophecies  of  an  especially  definite  character. 
It  is  this  very  definiteness  which  is  brought  for- 
ward as  the  chief  argument  against  their  genuine- 
ness. Those  of  our  adversaries  who  go  farthest 
assert  in  downright  terms  that  predictions  in  the 
stricter  sense,  such,  namely,  as  are  more  than  a 
vague  foreboding,  are  impossible.  The  more 
considerate  of  our  opponents  express  this  argu- 
ment in  milder  terms,  saying,  that  it  was  against 
the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  to  prophesy  with 
so  much  individuality,  or  to  give  to  their  prophe- 
cies so  individual  a bearing.  They  say  that  these 
prophecies  were  never  anything  more  than  general 
prophetic  descriptions,  and  that,  consequently, 
where  we  find  a definite  reference  to  historical 
facts  quite  beyond  the  horizon  of  a human  being 
like  Isaiah,  we  are  enabled  by  analogy  to  declare 
those  portions  of  the  work  in  which  they  occur 
to  be  spurious. 

Although  this  assertion  is  pronounced  with 
great  assurance,  it  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  an 
impartial  examination  of  the  prophetic  writings. 
Our  opponents  have  attempted  to  prove  the  spuri- 
ousness of  whatever  is  in  contradiction  with  this 
assertion,  as,  for  instance,  the  book  of  Daniel;  but 
there  still  remain  a number  of  prophecies  an- 
nouncing future  events  with  great  definiteness. 
Micab,  for  example  (iv.  8-10),  announces  the 
Babylonian  exile,  and  the  deliverance  from  that 
exile,  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  its  ac- 
complishment, and  before  the  commencement 
of  any  hostilities  between  Babylon  and  Judah, 
and  even  before  Babylon  was  an  independent 
state.  All  the  prophets,  commencing  with  the 
earliest,  predict  the  coming  destruction  of  their 
city  and  temple,  and  the  exile  of  the  people.  All 
the  prophets  whose  predictions  refer  to  the  Assy- 
rian invasion,  coincide  in  asserting  that  the 
Assyrians  would  not  be  instrumental  in  realising 
these  predictions ; that  Judah  should  be  delivered 
from  those  enemies,  from  whom  to  be  delivered 
seemed  impossible ; and  this  not  by  Egyptian  aid, 
which  seemed  to  be  the  least  unlikely,  but  by  an 
immediate  intervention  of  the  Lord ; and,  on  the 
contrary,  all  the  prophets  whose  predictions  refer 
to  the  successors  of  the  Assyrians,  the  Chaldees 
unanimously  announce  that  these  were  to  fulfil  th« 


13 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


ancient  prediction,  and  exhort  to  resignation  to 
this  inevitable  fate.  These  are  facts  quite  beyond 
human  calculation.  At  the  period  when  the 
Chaldaean  empire  had  reached  the  summit  of  its 
power,  Jeremiah  not  only  predicts  in  general 
terms  its  fall,  and  the  destruction  of  its  chief  city, 
but  also  details  particular  circumstances  con- 
nected therewith ; for  instance,  the  conquest  of 
the  town  by  the  Medes  and  their  allies ; the  en- 
trance which  the  enemy  effected  through  the  dry 
bed  of  the  Euphrates,  during  a night  of  general 
revelry  and  intoxication ; the  return  of  the 
Israelites  after  tire  reduction  of  the  town ; the 
utter  destruction  and  desolation  of  this  city, 
which  took  place,  although  not  at  once,  yet  cer- 
tainly in  consequence  of  the  first  conquest,  so 
tlrat  its  site  can  scarcely  be  shown  with  certainty. 
In  general,  all  those  proud  ornaments  of  the 
ancient  world,  whose  destruction  the  prophets  pre- 
dicted— Nineveh,  Babylon,  Tyre,  Memphis,  the 
chief  cities  of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  and 
many  others — have  perished,  and  the  nations  to 
whom  the  prophets  threatened  annihilation — 
the  Ammonites,  Moabites,  Philistines,  and  Idu- 
maeans — have  entirely  disappeared  from  the  stage 
of  history.  There  is  not  a single  city  nor  a single 
people,  the  fate  of  which  has  been  at  variance  with 
prophecy.  All  this  is  not  a casual  coincidence. 
The  ruins  of  all  these  cities,  every  vestige  of  the 
former  existence  of  those  once  flourishing  nations, 
are  loud-speaking  witnesses,  testifying  to  the  fu- 
tility of  the  opinion  which  raises  into  a fact  the 
subjective  wish  that  prophecy  might  not  exist. 
Zechariah  clearly  describes  the  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander (ix.  8).  He  foretells  that,  the  Persian  empire, 
which  he  specifies  by  the  symbolic  name  Hadrach, 
shall  be  ruined  ; that  Damascus  and  Hamath 
shall  be  conquered ; that  the  bulwarks  of  the 
mighty  Tyre  shall  be  smitten  in  the  sea,  and 
that  the  city  shall  be  burned ; that  Gaza  shall 
lose  its  king,  and  that  Ashdod  shall  be  peopled 
with  the  lowest  rabble ; and  that  Jerusalem  shall 
be  spared  during  all  these  troubles.  These  prophe- 
cies were  fulfilled  during  the  expedit  ion  of  Alex- 
ander (comp.  Jahn's  Einleitung,  vol.  i.  p.  84,  sq. ; 
vol.  ii.  p.  349,  sq.).  Eichhorn  despaired  of  being 
able  to  explain  the  exact  correspondence  of  the 
fulfilment  with  the  predictions ; he,  therefore,  in 
his  work,  Die  Hebruisckcn  Propheten,  endeavours 
to  prove  that  these  prophecies  were  veiled  historical 
descriptions.  He  has  recourse  to  the  most  violent 
operations  in  order  to  support  this  hypothesis ; 
which  proves  how  fully  he  recognised  the  agree- 
ment of  the  prophecies  with  their  fulfilment,  and 
that  the  prophecies  are  more  than  general  poetical 
descriptions.  The  Messianic  predictions  prove 
that  the  prophecies  were  more  than  veiled  histo- 
rical descriptions.  There  is  scarcely  any  fact  in 
Gospel  history,  from  the  birth  of  our  Saviour  at 
Bethlehem  down  to  his  death,  which  is  unpre- 
iicted  by  a prophetical  passage. 

Eichhorn ’s  hypothesis  is  also  amply  refuted  by 
the  unquestioned  portion  of  Isaiah.  How  can 
it  be  explained  that  Isaiah  confidently  predicts 
the  destruction  of  the  empire  of  Israel  by  the  As- 
syrians, and  the  preservation  of  the  empire  of 
Judah  from  these  enemies,  and  that  he  with  cer- 
tainty knew  beforehand  that  no  help  would  be 
afforded  to  J udah  from  Egypt,  that  the  Assyrians 
would  advance  to  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  and 
iisre  be  destroyed  only  by  the  judgment  of  the 


Lord  ? No  human  combinations  can  lead  to  suck 
results.  Savonarola,  for  instance,  was  ■ a pious 
man,  and  an  acute  observer ; but  when  he  fancied 
himself  to  be  a prophet,  and  ventured  to  predict 
events  which  should  come  to  pass,  he  was  im- 
mediately refuted  by  facts  (comp.  Biographic 
Savonarola's , von  Rudelbach). 

If  we  had  nothing  of  prophetic  literature,  be- 
side the  portions  of  Isaiah  which  have  been  at- 
tacked, they  alone  would  afford  an  ample  refuta 
tion  of  our  opponents,  because  they  contain,  in 
chapter  liii.,  the  most  remarkable  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecies,  predicting  the  passion,  death, 
and  glory  of  our  Saviour.  If  it  can  be  proved 
that  this  one  prophecy  necessarily  refers  to  Christ, 
we  can  no  longer  feel  tempted  to  reject  other  pro- 
phecies of  Isaiah,  on  account  of  their  referring  too 
explicitly  to  some  event,  like  that  of  the  Babylo- 
nian exile.  As  soon  as  only  one  genuine  pro- 
phecy has  been  proved,  the  whole  argument  of 
our  opponents  falls  to  the  ground.  This  argu- 
ment is  also  opposed  by  the  authority  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles ; and  whoever  will  consistently 
maintain  this  opinion  must  reject  the  authority 
of  Christ.  The  prophets  are  described  in  the  New 
Testament  not  as  acute  politicians,  or  as  poets 
full  of  a foreboding  genius,  but  as  messengers  of 
God  raised  by  His  Spirit  above  the  intellectual 
sphere  of  mere  man.  Christ  repeatedly  mentions 
that  the  events  of  his  own  life  were  also  destined 
to  realise  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  saying, 4 this 
must  come  to  pass  in  order  that  the  Scripture  may 
be  fulfilled.’  And  after  his  resurrection,  he  inter- 
prets to  his  disciples  the  prophecies  concerning  him- 
self. Peter,  speaking  of  the  prophets,  says,  in  his 
First  Epistle  (i.  11),  4 Searching  what,  or  what 
manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  which  was  in 
them,  did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should 
follow  and,  in  his  Second  Epistle  (i.  21),  4 For 
the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of 
man  ; but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost’ — virb  wevpaTOs  aylov 
<pep6/u.ei/oi. 

Since  we  have  shown  that  there  are  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  definite  prophecies,  the  d priori  argu- 
ment of  our  opponents,  who  pretend  that  prophecy 
is  useless,  loses  its  significance.  Even  if  we  could 
not  understand  the  purpose  of  prophecy,  the  in- 
quiry respecting  its  reality  should  nevertheless  l>e 
independent  of  such  a priori  reasoning,  since  the 
cause  of  our  not  understanding  it  might  be  in 
ourselves.  We  frequently  find,  after  we  have  been 
raised  to  a higher  position,  the  causes  of  facts 
which  at  an  earlier  period  we  could  not  compre- 
hend. A later  age  frequently  understands  what 
was  hidden  to  the  preceding.  However,  the  pur- 
pose of  definite  predictions  is  not  hidden  to  those 
who  recognise  the  reality  of  the  divine  scheme  for 
human  salvation. 

There  is  one  truth  in  the  opinion  tff  our  oppo- 
nents. The  predictions  of  the  future  by  the  pro- 
phets are  always  on  a general  basis,  by  which 
they  are  characteristically  distinguished  from 
soothsaying.  Real  prophecy  is  based  upon  the 
idea  of  God.  The  acts  of  God  are  based  upon 
his  essence,  and  have  therefore  the  character  of 
necessity.  The  most  elevated  prerogative  of  the 
prophets  is  that  they  have  possessed  themselves  of 
his  idea,  that  they  have  penetrated  into  his  es- 
sence, that  they  have  become  conscious  of  the 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAII. 


4a 


eternal  laws  by  which  the  world  is  governed. 
For  instance,  if  they  demonstrate  that  sin  is  the 
perdition  of  man,  that  where  the  carcase  is,  the 
eagles  will  be  assembled,  the  most  important 
point  in  this  prediction  13  not  the  how  but  the 
what  which  first  by  them  was  clearly  communi- 
cated to  the  people  of  God,  and  of  which  the 
lively  remembrance  is  by  them  kept  up.  But 
if  the  prophets  had  merely  kept  to  the  that,  and 
had  never  spoken  about  the  how,  or  if,  like  Savo- 
narola, they  had  erroneously  described  this  how, 
they  would  be  unfit  effectually  to  teach  the  that 
to  those  people  who  have  not  yet  acquired  an  inde- 
pendent idea  of  God.  According  to  human  weak- 
ness, the  knowledge  of  the  form  is  requisite  in  order 
to  fertilize  the  knowledge  of  the  essence,  especially 
in  a mission  to  a people  among  whom  formality 
so  much  predominated  as  among  the  people  of 
the  Old  Covenant.  The  position  of  the  prophets 
depends  upon  these  circumstances.  They  had 
not,  like  the  priests,  an  external  warrant.  There- 
fore Moses  (Deut.  xviii.)  directed  them  to  produce 
true  prophecies  as  their  warrant.  According  to 
verse  22,  the  true  and  the  false  prophet  are  dis- 
tinguished by  the  fulfilment  or  non-fulfilment  of 
prophecy.  This  criterion  is  destroyed  by  the 
modern  opinion  respecting  prophetism.  Without 
this  warrant,  the  principal  point  of  prophetical 
preaching,  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah,  could  not 
be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  people,  as 
being  of  primary  importance.  Without  this  ful- 
filment the  prophets  had  no  answer  to  those  who 
declared  that  the  hopes  raised  by  them  were  fan- 
tastic and  fanatical. 

It  is  true  that,  according  to  what  we  have  stated, 
the  necessity  of  prophecy  arises  only  from  the 
weakness  of  man.  Miracles  also  are  necessary  ofily 
on  account  of  this  weakness.  Prophecy  is  necessary 
only  under  certain  conditions;  but  these  conditions 
were  fully  extant  during  the  period  of  the  ancient 
Covenant.  During  the  New  Covenant  human 
weakness  is  supported  by  other  and  more  powerful 
means,  which  were  wanting  during  the  time  of  the 
Old  Covenant ; especially  by  the  operation  of 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  upon  the  hearts  of  the  faithful ; 
which  operation  is  by  far  more  powerful  than  that 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  during  the  Old  Covenant ; 
consequently,  definite  predictions  can  be  dispensed 
with,  especially  since  the  faithful  of  the  New 
Testament  derive  benefit  also  from  the  prophecies 
granted  to  the  people  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  predictions  of  futurity  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment have  also  a considerable  bearing  upon  the 
contemporaries  of  the  prophet.  Consequently, 
they  stand  not  so  isolated  and  unconnected  as 
our  opponents  assert.  The  Chaldaeans,  for  in- 
stance, who  are  said  to  threaten  destruction  to 
Israel,  were,  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  already  on  the 
stage  of  history ; and  their  juvenile  power,  if  com- 
pared with  the  decline  of  the  Assyrians,  might 
lead  to  the  conjecture  that  they  would  some  time 
or  other  supplant  the  Assyrians  in  dominion  over 
Asia.  Babylon,  certainly,  was  as  yet  under  Assy- 
rian government ; but  it  was  still  during  the  life- 
time of  the  prophet  that  this  city  tried  to  shake  oft' 
their  yoke.  This  attempt  was  unsuccessful,  but 
the  conditions  under  which  it  might  succeed  at  a 
future  period  were  already  in  existence.  The  future 
exaltation  of  this  city  might  be  foreseen  from 
history,  and  its  future  fall  from  theology.  In  a 
pagan  nation  success  is  always  the  forerunner  of 


pride,  and  at!  its  consequences.  And,  according 
to  the  eternal  laws  by  which  God  governs  the 
world,  an  overbearing  spirit  is  the  certain  fore- 
runner of  destruction.  The  future  liberation  of 
Israel  might  also  be  theologically  foreseen ; and 
we  cannot  look  upon  this  prediction  as  so  abrupt 
as  a prediction  of  the  deliverance  of  other  nations 
would  have  been,  and  as,  for  instance,  a false  pre- 
diction of  the  deliverance  of  Moab  would  have 
appeared.  Even  the  Pentateuch  emphatically  in- 
forms us  that  the  covenant-people  cannot  be  given 
up  to  final  perdition,  and  that  mercy  is  always 
concealed  behind  the  judgments  which  befall 
them. 

2.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  demonstrate 
the  spuriousness  of  several  portions  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  author  takes  his  position  not 
in  the  period  of  Isaiah,  but  in  much  later  times, 
namely,  those  of  the  exile.  It  has  been  said, 
‘ Let  it  be  granted  that  the  prophet  had  a know- 
ledgeof  futurity : in  that  case  we  cannot  suppose  that 
he  would  predict  it  otherwise  than  as  future,  and 
he  cannot  proclaim  it  as  present.’  The  prophets, 
however,  did  not  prophesy  in  a state  of  calculat- 
ing reflection,  but  virb  7 ryev/xaros  aylov  (pGpojJ.ei'oi, 
‘ borne  along  by  the  Holy  Ghost.’  The  objects  offer- 
ed themselves  to  their  spiritual  vision.  On  that 
account  they  are  frequently  called  seers,  to  whom 
futurity  appears  as  present.  Even  Hebrew  gram- 
mar has  long  ago  recognised  this  fact  in  the  terms 
prceterita  prophetica.  These  prophetical  prseter 
tenses  indicate  a time  ideally  past,  in  contra-dis- 
tinction to  the  time  which  is  really  past.  Every 
chapter  of  Isaiah  furnishes  examples  of  this 
grammatical  fact.  Even  in  the  first  there  is  con- 
tained a remarkable  instance  of  it.  Interpreters 
frequently  went  astray,  because  they  misunder- 
stood the  nature  of  prophecy,  and  took  the  prce- 
terita  prophetica  as  real  praeterites ; consequently, 
they  could  only  by  some  inconsistency  escape 
from  Eichhorn’s  opinion,  that  the  prophecies  were 
veiled  historical  descriptions.  The  prophets  have 
futurity  always  before  their  eyes.  Prophetism, 
therefore,  is  subject  to  the  laws  of  poetry  more 
than  to  those  of  history  (compare  the  ingenious 
remarks  on  the  connection  of  poetry  and  pro- 
phetism in  the  work  of  Steinbeck,  Der  Dichter 
ein  Seher,  Leipzig,  1836).  Prophetism  places 
us  in  medias  res,  or  rather  the  prophet  is 
placed  in  medias  res.  The  Spirit  of  God  ele- 
vates him  above  the  terra  Jirma  of  common 
reality,  and  of  common  perception.  The  pro- 
phet beholds  as  connected,  things  externally 
separated,  if  they  are  linked  together  by  their  in- 
ternal character.  The  prophet  beholds  what  is 
distant  as  near,  if  its  hidden  basis,  although  con- 
cealed to  the  eyes  of  flesh,  already  exists.  This 
was,  for  instance,  the  case  with  Israel’s  captivity 
and  deliverance.  Neither  happened  by  chance. 
Both  events  proceeded  from  the  justice  and  mercy 
of  God,  a living  knowledge  of  which  necessarily 
produced  the  beholding  knowledge  of  the  same. 
The  prophet  views  things  iu  the  light  of  that 
God  who  calls  the  things  that  are  not  as  though 
they  were,  and  to  whom  the  future  is  present. 

3.  What  the  prophet  says  about  what  is  present 
to  him  (namely,  about  that  which  appears  to  him 
in  the  form  of  the  present  time),  is  correctly  and 
minutely  detailed ; and  what  he  describes  as 
future,  are  ideal  and  animated  hopes  which  far 
exceed  terrene  reality  iJence  our  opponents 


44 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


attempt  to  prove  that  the  present  time  in  those 
portions  which  they  reject,  is  not  ideal  but  real ; 
and  that  the  author  was  actually  an  eye-witness  of 
the  exile,  because,  they  say,  if  the  prophet  merely 
placed  himself  in  the  period  of  the  exile,  then  this 
present  time  would  be  ideal,  and  in  that  case  there 
could  be  no  difference  between  this  ideally  present 
time  and  the  more  distant  future.  But  we  question 
this  fact  most  decidedly.  The  descriptions  of  the 
person  of  Messiah  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah  are 
far  more  circumstantial  than  the  descriptions  of 
the  person  of  Cyrus.  Of  Cyrus  these  prophecies 
furnish  a very  incomplete  description.  Whoever 
does  not  fill  up  from  history  what  is  wanting,  ob- 
tains a very  imperfect  idea  of  Cyrus.  But  there 
is  sufficient  information  to  show  the  relation 
between  history  and  prophecy ; and  nothing  more 
was  required  than  that  the  essence  of  prophecy 
should  be  clear.  The  form  might  remain  obscure 
until  it  was  cleared  up  by  its  historical  fulfilment. 
The  Messiah,  on  the  contrary,  is  accurately  de- 
picted, especially  in  ch.  liii.,  so  that  there  is 
scarcely  wanting  any  essential  trait.  It  is  quite 
natural  that  there  should  be  greater  clearness  and 
definiteness  here,  because  the  anti-type  of  redemp- 
tion stands  in  a far  nearer  relation  to  the  ideal  than 
is  the  case  with  Cyrus,  so  that  form  and  essence 
less  diverge. 

The  assertion  that  the  animated  hopes,  ex- 
pressed in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  had  been  very 
imperfectly  fulfilled,  proceeds  from  the  erroneous 
supposition  that  these  hopes  were  to  be  entirely 
fulfilled  in  the  times  immediately  following  the 
exile.  But  if  we  must  grant  that  these  prophecies 
refer  both  to  the  deliverance  from  captivity,  and 
to  the  time  of  the  Messiah  in  its  whole  extent, 
from  the  lowliness  of  Christ  to  the  glorious  com- 
pletion of  his  kingdom,  then  the  fulfilment  is 
clearly  placed  before  our  eyes ; and  we  may 
expect  that  whatever  is  yet  unfulfilled,  will,  in 
due  time,  find  its  accomplishment.  In  this  hope 
we  are  supported  by  the  New  Testament,  and  still 
more  by  the  nature  of  the  matter  in  question. 
If  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  were  nothing  but  arbi- 
trary predictions  on  his  own  external  authority, 
without  any  internal  warrant,  one  might  speak 
here  of  an  evasion  of  the  difficulty ; but  as  the 
matter  stands,  this  objection  proves  only  that  those 
who  make  it  are  incapable  of  comprehending 
the  idea  which  pervades  the  whole  representation. 
The  entire  salvation  which  the  Lord  has  destined 
to  his  people  has  been  placed  before  the  spiritual 
eye  of  the  prophet.  His  prediction  is  not  entirely 
fulfilled  in  history,  so  that  we  could  say  we  have 
now  done  with  it,  but  every  isolated  fulfilment 
is  again  a prediction  de facto,  supporting  our  hope 
of  the  final  accomplishment  of  the  whole  word  of 
prophecy. 

4.  Our  opponents  think  that  they  have  proved 
that  a portion  of  Isaiah  is  not  genuine,  if  they 
can  show  that  there  occur  a few  Aramaic  words 
and  forms  of  speech,  which  they  endeavour  to  ex- 
plain from  the  style  prevalent  in  a period  later 
than  Isaiah. 

That  this  argument  is  very  feeble  even  our 
opponents  have  granted  in  instances  where  it  can 
be  adduced  with  by  far  greater  stringency  than  in 
the  questioned  portions  of  Isaiah.  This  appears 
especially  from  the  example  of  the  Song  of  Solo- 
mon, in  which  there  occur  a considerable  number 
of  Aramaic  words  and  expressions,  said  to  belong 


to  the  later  Hebrew  style.  Bertholdl.  Umbreit 
and  others,  base  upon  this  their  argument,  that 
the  Song  of  Solomon  was  written  after  the  Baby- 
lonian exile.  They  even  maintain  that  it  could 
not  have  been  written  before  that  period.  On  the 
contrary,  the  two  most  recent  commentators. 
Ewald  and  Doepke,  say  most  decidedly  that  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  in  spite  of  its  Aramaisms,  was 
written  in  the  days  of  Solomon. 

Hirzel,  in  his  work  De  Chaldaismi  Biblici 
origine , Leipsic,  1830,  has  contributed  consider- 
ably to  the  formation  of  a correct  estimate  of  this 
argument.  He  has  proved  that  in  all  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  even  in  the  most  ancient, 
there  occur  a few  Chaldaisms.  This  may  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  the  patriarchs  were 
surrounded  by  a population  whose  language  was 
Chaldee.  Such  Chaldaisms  are  especially  found 
in  poetical  language  in  which  unusual  expressions 
are  preferred.  Consequently,  not  a few  isolated 
Chaldaisms,  but  only  their  decided  prevalence, 
or  a Chaldee  tincture  of  the  whole  style,  can  prove 
that  a book  has  been  written  after  the  exile.  No- 
body can  assert  that  this  is  the  case  in  those 
portions  of  Isaiah  whose  authenticity  has  been 
questioned.  Even  our  opponents  grant  that  the 
Chaldaisms  in  this  portion  are  not  numerous. 
After  what  have  erroneously  been  called  Chal- 
daisms are  subtracted,  we  are  led  to  a striking 
result,  namely,  that  the  unquestionable  Chal- 
daisms are  more  numerous  in  the  portions  of 
Isaiah  of  which  the  genuineness  is  granted,  than 
in  the  portions  which  have  been  called  spurious. 
Hirzel,  an  entirely  unsuspected  witness,  mentions 
in  his  work  De  Chaldaismo,  p.  9,  that  there  are 
found  only  four  real  Chaldaisms  in  the  whole  of 
Isaiah  ; and  that  these  all  occur  in  the  portions 
which  are  declared  genuine;  namely,  in  vii.  14 
(where,  however,  if  the  grammatical  form  is 
rightly  understood,  we  need  not  admit  a Chal- 
daism)  ; xxix.  1 ; xviii.  7 ; xxi.  12. 

5.  The  circumstance  that  the  diction  in  the 
attacked  portions  of  Isaiah  belongs  to  the  first, 
and  not  to  the  second  period  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, must  vender  us  strongly  inclined  to  admit 
their  authenticity.  It  has  been  said  that  these 
portions  were  written  during,  and  even  after,  the 
Babylonian  exile,  when  the  ancient  Hebrew  lan- 
guage fell  into  disuse,  and  the  vanquished  people 
began  to  adopt  the  language  of  their  conquerors, 
and  that  thus  many  Chaldaisms  penetrated  into 
the  works  of  authors  who  wrote  in  ancient  He- 
brew. Since  this  is  not  the  case  in  the  attacked 
portions  of  Isaiah,  granting  the  assertions  of  our 
opponents  to  be  correct,  we  should  be  compelled 
to  suppose  that  their  author  or  authors  had  inten- 
tionally abstained  from  the  language  of  their 
times,  and  purposely  imitated  the  purer  diction  of 
former  ages.  That  this  is  not  quite  impossible 
we  learn  from  the  prophecies  of  Haggai,  Malachi, 
and  especially  from  those  of  Zechariah,  which  are 
nearly  as  free  from  Chaldaisms  as  the  writings 
before  the  exile.  But  it  is  improbable,  in  this 
case,  because  the  pseudo-Isaiah  is  stated  to  have 
been  in  a position  very  different  from  that  of  the 
prophets  just  mentioned,  who  belonged  to  the 
newly  returned  colony.  The  pseudo-Isaiah  has 
been  placed  in  a position  similar  to  that  of  the 
strongly  Chaldaizing  Ezekiel  and  Daniel;  and 
even  more  unfavourably  for  the  attainment  of 
purity  of  diction,  because  he  had  not,  like  these 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


43 


puphets,  spent  his  youth  in  Palestine,  but  is  said 
to  have  grown  up  in  a country  in  which  the 
Aramaean  language  was  spoken ; consequently, 
it  would  have  been  more  difficult  for  him  to 
write  pure  Hebrew  than  for  Ezekiel  and  Daniel. 
In  addition  to  this  it  ought  to  be  mentioned  that 
an  artificial  abstinence  from  the  language  of  their 
times  occurs  only  in  those  prophets  who  entirely 
lean  upon  an  earlier  prophetic  literature  ; but 
that  union  of  purity  in  diction  with  independence, 
which  is  manifest  in  the  attacked  portions  of 
Isaiah,  is  nowhere  else  to  be  found. 

The  force  of  this  argument  is  ’still  more  in- 
creased when  we  observe  that  the  pretended  pseudo- 
Isaiah  has,  in  other  respects,  the  characteristics 
jf  the  authors  before  the  exile;  namely,  their 
clearness  of  perception,  and  their  freshness  and 
beauty  of  description.  This  belongs  to  him,  even 
according  to  the  opinion  of  all  opponents.  These 
excellences  are  not  quite  without  example  among 
the  writers  after  the  exile,  but  they  occur  in  none 
of  them  in  the  same  degree ; not  even  in  Zechariah, 
who,  besides,  ought  not  to  be  compared  with  the 
pseudo-Isaiah,  because  he  does  not  manifest  the 
same  independence,  but  leans  entirely  upon,  the 
earlier  prophets.  To  these  characteristics  of  the 
writers  before  the  exile  belongs  also  the  scarcity 
of  visions  and  symbolic  actions,  and  what  is  con- 
nected therewith  (because  it  proceeds  likewise 
from  the  government  df  the  imagination),  the 
naturalness  and  correctness  of  poetical  images. 
What  Umbreit  says  concerning  the  undisputedly 
genuine  portions  of  Isaiah  fully  applies  also  to 
toe  disputed  portions  : ‘ Our  prophet  is  more  an 
orator  than  a symbolic  seer.  He  has  subjected 
the  external  imagery  to  the  internal  government 
of  the  word.  The  few  symbols  which  he  exhibits 
are  simple  and  easy  to  be  understood.  In  the  pro* 
phets  during  and  after  the  exile  visions  and  sym- 
bolic actions  prevail,  and  their  images  frequently 
bear  a grotesque  Babylonian  impress.  Only  those 
authors,  after  the  exile,  have  not  this  character, 
whose  style,  like  that  of  Haggai  and  Malachi, 
does  not  rise  much  above  prose.  A combination 
of  vivacity,  originality,  and  vigour,  with  natural- 
ness, simplicity,  and  correctness,  ?s  not  found  in 
any  prophet  during  and  after  the  exile.’  Nothing 
but  very  strong  arguments  could  induce  us  to  as- 
cribe to  a later  period  prophecies  which  rank  in 
language  and  style  with  the  literary  monuments  of 
the  earlier  period.  In  all  the  attacked  portions 
of  Isaiah  independence  and  originality  are  mani- 
fest in  such  a degree,  as  to  make  them  haimonize 
not  only  with  the  prophets  before  the  exile  in 
general,  but  especially  with  the  earliest  cycle  of 
these  prophets.  If  these  portions  were  spurious, 
they  would  form  a perfectly  isolated  exception, 
which  we  cannot  admit,  since,  as  we  have  before 
shown,  the  leaning  of  the  later  prophets  upon  the 
earlier  rests  upon  a deep-seated  cause  arising  from 
the  very  nature  of  prophetism.  A prophet  form- 
ing such  an  exception  would  stand,  as  it  were, 
without  the  cycle  of  the  prophets.  We  cannot 
imagine  such  an  exception. 

6.  A certain  difference  of  style  between  the 
portions  called  genuine  and  those  called  spurious 
does  not  prove  what  our  opponents  assert.  Such 
a difference  may  arise  from  various  causes  in  the 
productions  of  one  and  the  same  author.  It  is  fre- 
quently occasioned  by  a difference  of  the  subject- 
10 alter,  and  by  a difference  of  mood  arising  there- 


from ; for  instance,  in  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah 
against  foreign  nations,  the  style  is  more  elevated 
and  elastic  than  in  the  home-prophecies.  How 
little  this  difference  of  style  can  prove,  we  may 
learn  by  comparing  with  each  other  the  prophecies 
which  our  opponents  call  genuine ; for  instance, 
ch.  ix.  7-x.  4.  The  authenticity  of  this  pro- 
phecy is  not  subject  to  any  doubt,  although  it.  has 
not  that,  swing  which  we  find  in  many  prophecies 
of  the  first  part.  The  language  has  as  much  ease 
as  that  in  the  second  part,  with  which  this  piece 
has  several  repetitions  in  common.  The  difference 
of  style  in  the  prophecies  against  foreign  nations 
(which  predictions  are  particularly  distinguished 
by  sublimity),  from  that  in  chapters  i.-xii.,  which 
are  now  generally  ascribed  to  Isaiah,  appeared 
to  Bertholdt  a sufficient  ground  for  assigning  the 
former  to  another  author.  But  in  spite  of  this 
difference  of  style  it  is,  at  present,  again  generally 
admitted  that  they  belong  to  one  and  the  same 
author.  It  consequently  appears  that  our  op- 
ponents deem  the  difference  of  style  alone  not  a 
sufficient  argument  for  proving  a difference  of 
authorship  ; but  only  such  a difference  as  does 
not  arise  from  a difference  of  subjects  and  of 
moods,  especially  if  this  difference  occurs  in  an 
author  whose  mind  is  so  richly  endowed  as  that 
of  Isaiah,  in  whose  works  the  form  of  the  style  ia 
produced  directly  by  the  subject.  Ewald  cor- 
rectly observes  (p.  173),  ‘We  cannot  state  that 
Isaiah  had  a peculiar  colouring  of  style.  He  is 
neither  the  especially  lyrical,  nor  the  especially 
elegiacal,  nor  the  especially  oratorical,  nor  the 
especially  admonitory  prophet,  as,  perhaps,  Joel, 
Hosea,  or  Micah,  in  whom  a particular  colouring 
more  predominates.  Isaiah  is  capable  of  adapting 
his  style  to  the  most  different  subject,  and  in  this 
consists  his  greatness  and  his  most  distinguished 
excellence.’ 

The  chief  fault  of  our  opponents  is,  that  they 
judge  without  distinction  of  persons ; and  here 
distinction  of  persons  would  be  proper.  They  mea- 
sure the  productions  of  Isaiah  with  the  same  mea- 
sure tkat  is  adapted  to  the  productions  of  less- 
gifted  prophets.  Jeremiah,  for  example,  does  not 
change  his  tone  according  to  the  difference  of 
subject  so  much  that  it  could  be  mistaken  by  an 
experienced  Hebraist.  Of  Isaiah,  above  all,  we 
might  say  what  Fichte  wrote  in  a letter  to  a 
friend  in  Konrgsberg  : ‘ Strictly  speaking,  I have 
no  style,  because  1 have  all  styles 1 (Fichtes’ 
I.eben  von  seinem  Sohnc , tb.  i,  p.  196).  If 
we  ask  how  the  difference  ot  sty  le  depends  upon 
the  difference  of  subject,  the  answer  must  be  very 
favourable  to  Isaiah,  in  whose  book  the  style  does 
not  so  much  differ  according  to  the  so-called 
genuineness  or  spuriousness,  as  rather  according 
to  the  subjects  of  the  first  and  second  parts.  The 
peculiarities  of  the  second  part  arise  from  the 
subjects  treated  therein  ; and  from  the  feelings  to 
which  these  subjects  give  rise.  Here  the  prophet 
addresses  not  so  much  the  multitude  who  live 
around  him,  as  the  future  people  of  the  Lord, 
purified  by  his  judgments,  who  are  about  to 
spring  from  the  e/cAoyt),  that  is,  the  small  number 
of  the  elect  who  were  contemporaries  of  Isaiah. 
Here  he  does  not  speak  to  a mixed  congregation, 
but  to  a congregation  of  brethren  whom  he  com- 
forts. The  commencement,  ‘ Comfort  ye,  comfort 
ye,  my  people,’  is  the  theme  of  tne  whole.  Hence 
arise  the  gentleness  and  tenderness  of  style,  and 


46 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


the  frequent  repetitions.  Comforting  love  has 
many  words.  Hence  the  addition  of  many  epi- 
thets to  the  name  of  God,  which  are  so  many 
shields  by  which  the  strokes  of  despair  are  warded 
off,  and  so  many  bulwarks  against  the  attacks  of 
the  visible  world  which  was  driving  to  despair. 
The  sublimity,  abruptness,  and  thunders  of  the 
first  part  find  no  place  here,  where  the  object  of 
Isaiah  is  not  to  terrify  and  to  shake  stout-hearted 
sinners,  hut  rather  to  bring  glad  tidings  to  the 
meek  ; not  to  quench  the  smoking  flax,  nor  to 
break  the  bruised  reed.  But  wherever  there  is  a 
similarity  of  hearers  and  of  subject,  there  we  meet 
also  a remarkable  similarity  of  style,  in  both  the 
first  and  second  part ; as,  for  example,  in  the 
description  of  the  times  of  Messiah,  and  of  the 
punishments,  in  which  (lvi.-lix.)  the  prophet  has 
the  whole  nation  before  his  eyes,  and  in  which 
he  addresses  the  careless  sinners  by  whom  he  is 
surrounded. 

We  attach  no  importance  to  the  collections  of 
isolated  words  and  expressions  which  some  critics 
have  gleaned  from  the  disputed  parts  of  Isaiah, 
and  which  are  not  found  in  other  portions  that 
are  deemed  genuine.  We  might  here  well  apply 
what  Kruger  wrote  on  a similar  question  in  pro- 
fane history  (Z)e  authentia  et  hitegritate  Anab. 
Xenophontis,  Halle,  1 824,  p.  27)  : Hoc  argic- 
mentandi  genus  perqunm  lubricurn  est.  Si  quid 
numerus  valeret,  urgeri  posset , quod  in  his  libris 
amplius  quadraginta  vocabulci  leguntur , quce  in 
reliquis  Xenophontis  operibus  frustra  qucerantur. 
Si  quis  propter  vocabula  alibi  ab  hoc  scriptore  vel 
alia potestate,  velqtrorsus  non  usurp  ath,  Anabasin 
ab  eo  profectam  neget,  hac  ratione  admissa  quod- 
vis  aliud  ejus  opus  injuria  ei  tribui , ostendi 
potest ; that  is,  ‘ This  is  a very  slippery  mode  of 
reasoning.  If  number  were  of  importance,  it 
might  be  urged  that  in  these  books  occur  more 
than  forty  words  for  which  one  searches  in  vain 
in  the  other  works  of  Xenophon.  But  if  it 
should  be  denied  on  account  of  those  words 
winch  this  author  has  either  employed  in  a dif- 
ferent sense,  or  has  not  made  use  of  at  all,  that 
the  Anabasis  was  written  by  him,  it  could,  by  the 
same  reasoning,  be  shown  that  every  other  work 
was  falsely  attributed  to  him.’ 

7.  We  find  a number  of  characteristic  peculi- 
arities of  style  which  occur  both  in  what  is  ac- 
counted genuine  and  what  is  styled  spurious  in 
Isaiah,  and  which  indicate  the  identity  of  the 
author.  Certain  very  peculiar  idioms  occur 
again  and  again  in  all  parts  of  the  book.  Two  of 
them  are  particularly  striking.  The  appellation 
of  God,  ‘ the  Holy  One  of  Israel,’  occurs  with 
equal  frequency  in  what  has  been  ascribed  to 
Isaiah  and  in  what  has  been  attributed  to  a pseudo- 
Isaiah;  it  is  found  besides  in  two  passages  in 
which  Isaiah  imitates  Jeremiah,  and  only  three 
times  in  the  whole  of  the  remainder  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Another  peculiar  idiom  is  that  ‘ to 
be  called  ’ stands  constantly  for  ‘ to  be.’  These 
are  phenomena  of  language  which  even  our  oppo- 
nents do  not  consider  casual ; but  they  say  that  the 
later  poet  imitated  Isaiah,  or  that  they  originated 
from  the  hand  of  a uniformising  editor,  who  took 
an  active  part  in  modelling  the  whole.  But 
there  cannot  be  shown  any  motive  for  such  inter- 
ference ; and  we  find  nothing  analogous  to  it  in 
the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  Such  a sup- 
position cuts  away  the  linguistic  ground  from 


under  the  feet  of  higher  criticism,  and  deprives  it 
of  all  power  of  demonstration.  In  this  manner 
every  linguistic  phenomenon  may  easily  be  re- 
moved, when  it  is  contrary  to  preconceived  opi- 
nions. But  everything  in  Isaiah  appears  so 
natural,  bears  so  much  the  impress  of  originality, 
is  so  free  from  every  vestige  of  patch-work,  that  no 
one  can  conscientiously  maintain  this  hypothesis. 

We  have  still  to  consider  the  other  conjecture 
of  our  opponents.  If  we  had  before  us  a prophet 
strongly  leaning,  like  Jeremiah  and  Zechariah, 
upon  preceding  prophets,  that  conjecture  might 
be  deemed  admissible,  in  case  there  were  other 
arguments  affording  a probability  for  denying 
that  Isaiah  was  the  author  of  these  portions — a 
supposition  which  can  here  have  no  place.  But 
here  we  have  a prophet  whose  independence  and 
originality  are  acknowledged  even  by  our  op- 
ponents. In  him  we  cannot  think  of  imitation, 
especially  if  we  consider  his  peculiarities  in 
connection  with  the  other  peculiar  character- 
istics of  Isaiah,  and  of  what  has  been  said  to 
belong  to  a pseudo-Isaiah ; wre  refer  here  to  the 
above-mentioned  works  of  Mcelle  and  of  Kleinert 
(p.  231,  sq.).  In  both  portions  of  Isaiah  there 
occur  a number  of  words  which  are  scarcely  to 
be  found  in  other  places ; also  a frequent  repe- 
tition of  the  same  word  in  the  parallel  members 
of  a verse.  This  repetition  very  seldom  occurs 
in  other  writers  (compare  the  examples  collected 
by  Kleinert,  p.  239).  Other  writers  usually 
employ  synonymes  in  the  parallel  members  of 
verses.  It  further  belongs  to  the  characteristics 
of  Isaiah  to  employ  words  in  extraordinary  ac- 
ceptations ; for  instance,  JHT  is  used  contemptu- 
ously for  brood ; DlK,  for  rabble;  for  a 

shoot.  Isaiah  also  employs  extraordinary  con- 
structions, and  has  the  peculiar  custom  of  ex- 
plaining his  figurative  expressions  by  directly 
subjoining  the  prosaical  equivalent.  This  custom 
has  induced  many  interpreters  to  suppose  that 
explanatory  glosses  have  been  inserted  in  Isaiah. 
Another  peculiarity  of  Isaiah  is  that  he  inter- 
sperses his  prophetic  orations  with  hymns ; that 
he  seldom  relates  visions,  strictly  so-called,  and 
seldom  performs  symbolic  actions ; and  that  he 
employs  figurative  expressions  quite  peculiar  to 
himself,  as,  for  example,  pasted-up  eyes , for  spiri- 
tual darkness  ; morning-red , for  approaching  hap- 
piness ; the  remnant  of  olive-trees , vineyards , and 
orchards , for  the  remnant  of  the  people  which  have 
been  spared  during  the  judgments  of  God ; re- 
jected tendrils  or  branches , for  enemies  which 
have  been  slain. 

In  addition  to  this  we  find  an  almost  verbal 
harmony  between  entire  passages ; for  instance, 
the  Messianic  description  commencing  xi.  6, 
compared  with  lxv.  25. 

IV.  The  origin  of  the  present  Collection , and 
its  arrangement. — No  definite  account  respecting 
the  method  pursued  in  collecting  into  books  the 
utterances  of  the  Prophets  has  been  handed  down 
to  us.  Concerning  Isaiah,  as  well  as  the  rest,  these 
accounts  are  wanting.  We  do  not  even  know 
whether  he  collected  his  prophecies  himself.  But 
we  have  no  decisive  argument  against  this  opinion. 
The  argument  of  Kleinert,  in  his  above-mentioned 
work  (p.  112),  is  of  slight  importance.  He  says, 
If  Isaiah  himself  had  collected  his  prophecies, 
there  would  not  be  wanting  some  which  are  net 
to  be  found  in  the  existing  book.  T©  this  we 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAII. 


47 


reply,  that  it  can  by  no  means  be  proved  with 
any  degree  of  probability  that  a single  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  has  been  lost,  the  preservation  of  which 
would  have  been  of  importance  to  posterity,  and 
which  Isaiah  himself  would  have  deemed  it  neces- 
sary to  preserve.  Kleinert  appeals  to  the  fact, 
that  there  is  no  prophecy  in  our  collection  which 
can  with  certainty  be  ascribed  to  the  days  of 
Jptham ; and  he  thinks  it  incredible  that  the  pro- 
phet, soon  after  having  been  consecrated  to  his 
office,  should  have  passed  full  sixteen  years  with- 
out any  revelation  from  God.  This,  certainly,  is 
unlikely ; but  it  is  by  no  means  unlikely  that 
during  this  time  he  uttered  no  prophecy  which  he 
thought  proper  to  preserve.  Nay,  it  appears  very 
probable,  if  we  compare  the  rather  general  cha- 
racter of  chapters  i.-v.,  the  contents  of  which 
would  apply  to  the  days  of  Jotham  also,  since 
during  his  reign  no  considerable  changes  took 
place ; consequently  the  prophetic  utterances 
moved  in  the  same  sphere  with  those  preserved  to 
us  from  the  reign  of  Uzziah.  Hence  it  was  na- 
tural that  Isaiah  should  confine  himself  to  the 
communication  of  some  important  prophetic  ad- 
dresses, which  might  as  well  represent  the  days 
of  Jotham  as  those  of  the  preceding  reign.  We 
must  not  too  closely  identify  the  utterances  of  the 
prophets  with  their  writings.  Many  prophets  have 
spoken  much  and  written  nothing.  The  minor 
prophets  were  generally  content  to  write  down  the 
quintessence  alone  of  their  numerous  utterances. 
J eremiah  likewise,  of  his  numerous  addresses  under 
Josiah,  gives  us  only  what  was  most  essential. 

The  critics  who  suppose  that  the  present  book 
of  Isaiah  was  collected  a considerable  time  after 
the  death  of  the  prophet,  and  perhaps  after  the 
exile,  lay  especial  stress  upon  the  assertion  that 
the  historical  section  in  the  26th  and  following 
chapters  was  transcribed  from  2 Kings  xviii.-xx. 
This  supposition,  however,  is  perfectly  unfounded. 

According  to  Ewald  (p.  39),  the  hand  of  a later 
compiler  betrays  itself  in  the  headings.  Ewald 
has  not,  however,  adduced  any  argument  suffi- 
cient to  prove  that  Isaiah  was  not  the  author  of 
these  headings,  the  enigmatic  character  of  which 
seems  more  to  befit  the  author  himself  than  a 
compiler.  The  only  semblance  of  an  argument 
is  that  the  heading  ‘ Oracle  (better  translated 
burden ) concerning  Damascus’  (xvii.  1),  does  not 
agree  with  the  prophecy  that  follows,  which  refers 
rather  to  Samaria.  But  we  should  consider  that 
the  headings  of  prophecies  against  foreign  nations 
are  always  expressed  as  concisely  as  possible,  and 
that  it  was  incompatible  with  the  usual  brevity 
more  fully  to  describe  the  subject  of  this  prophecy. 
We  should  further  consider  that  this  prophecy  re- 
fers to  the  connection  of  Damascus  with  Samaria, 
in  which  alliance  Damascus  was,  according  to 
chap,  vii .,  the  prevailing  power,  with  which 
Ephraim  stood  and  fell.  If  all  this  is  taken  into 
account,  the  above  heading  will  be  found  to  agree 
with  the  prophecy.  According  to  the  Talmudists, 
the  book  of  Isaiah  was  collected  by  the  men  of 
Hezekiah.  But  this  assertion  rests  merely  upon 
Prov.  xxv.  1,  where  the  men  of  Hezekiah  are  said 
to  have  compiled  the  Proverbs.  The  Talmudists 
do  not  sufficiently  distinguish  between  what,  might 
be  and  what  is.  They  habitually  state  bare  possi- 
bilities as  historical  facts. 

To  us  it  seems  impossible  that  Isaiah  left  it 
to  others  to  collect  his  prophecies  into  a volume, 


because  we  know  that  he  was  the  author  of  histo- 
rical works ; and  it  is  not  likely  that  a man 
accustomed  to  literary  occupation  would  have 
left  to  others  to  do  what  he  could  do  much  better 
himself. 

Hitzig  has  of  late  recognised  Isaiah  as  the  col- 
lector and  arranger  of  his  own  prophecies.  But 
he  supposes  that  a number  of  pieces  were  inserted 
at  a later  period.  The  chronological  arrangement 
of  these  prophecies  is  a strong  argument  in  favour 
of  the  opinion  that  Isaiah  himself  formed  them 
into  a volume.  There  is  no  deviation  from  this 
arrangement,  except  in  a few  instances  where  pro- 
phecies of  similar  contents  are  placed  together ; 
but  there  is  no  interruption  which  might  appear 
attributable  to  either  accident  or  ignorance.  There 
is  not  a single  piece  in  this  collection  which  can 
satisfactorily  be  shown  to  belong  to  another  place. 
All  the  portions,  the  date  of  which  can  be  ascer- 
tained either  by  external  or  internal  reasons,  stand 
in  the  right  place.  This  is  generally  granted  with 
respect  to  the  first  twelve  chapters,  although  many 
persons  erroneously  maintain  that  ch.  vi.  should 
stand  at  the  beginning. 

Chaps,  i.-v.  belong  to  the  later  years  of  Uzziah  ; 
chap.  vi.  to  the  year  of  his  death.  What  follows 
next,  up  to  chap.  x.  4,  belongs  to  the  reign  of 
Ahaz.  Chaps,  x.-xii.  is  the  first  portion  apper- 
taining to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  Then  follows 
a series  of  prophecies  against  foreign  nations,  in 
which,  according  to  the  opinions  of  many,  the  chro- 
nological arrangement  has  been  departed  from,  and, 
instead  of  it,  an  arrangement  according  to  con- 
tents has  been  adopted.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
The  predictions  against  foreign  nations  are  also  in 
their  right  chronological  place.  They  all  belong 
to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  are  placed  together 
because,  according  to  their  dates,  they  belong  to  the 
same  period.  In  the  days  of  Hezekiah  the  nations 
of  Western  Asia,  dwelling  on  the  banks  of  the  Eu- 
phrates and  Tigris,  more  and  more  resembled  a 
threatening  tempest.  That  the  prophecies  against 
foreign  nations  belong  to  this  period  is  indicated  by 
the  home-prophecy  in  ch.  xxii.,  which  stands  among 
the  foreign  prophecies.  The  assertion  that  the  first 
twelve  chapters  are  a collection  of  home-pro- 
phecies is  likewise  refuted  by  the  fact  that  there 
occur  in  these  chapters  two  foreign  prophecies. 
The  prophetic  gift  of  Isaiah  was  more  fully  un- 
folded in  sight  of  the  Assyrian  invasion  under  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah.  Isaiah,  in  a series  of  visions, 
describes  what  Assyria  would  do,  as  a chastising  rod 
in  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  and  what  the  successors  of 
the  Assyrians,  the  Chaldees,  would  perform,  accord- 
ing to  the  decree  of  God,  in  order  to  realise  divine 
justice  on  earth,  as  well  among  Israel  as  among  the 
heathen.  The  prophet  shows  that  mercy  is  hidden 
behind  the  clouds  of  wrath.  There  is  no  argument 
to  prove  that  the  great  prophetic  picture  in  chaps, 
xxiv.-xxvii.  was  not  depicted  under  Hezekiah. 
Chaps,  xxviii.-xxxiii.  manifestly  belong  to  the 
same  reign,  but  somewhat  later  than  the  time  in 
which  chaps,  x.,  xi.,  and  xii.  were  written.  They 
were  composed  about  the  time  when  the  result  ol 
the  war  against  the  Assyrians  was  decided.  With 
the  termination  of  this  war  terminated  also  the 
public  life  of  Isaiah,  who  added  an  historical 
section  in  chaps,  xxxvi.-xxxix.,  in  order  to  faci- 
litate the  right  understanding  of  the  prophecies 
uttered  by  him  during  the  most  fertile  period  of  his 
prophetic  ministry.  Then  follows  the  conclusion 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


of  his  work  on  earth.  The  second  part,  which 
contains  his  prophetic  legacy,  is  addressed  to  the 
small  congregation  of  the  faithful  strictly  so 
called.  This  part  is  analogous  to  the  last 
speeches  of  Moses  in  the  fields  of  Moab,  and  to 
the  last  speeches  of  Christ  in  the  circle  of  his 
disciples,  related  by  John.  Thus  we  have  every- 
where order,  and  such  an  order  as  could  scarcely 
have  proceeded  from  any  one  but  the  author. 

V.  Contents , Character , and  Authority  of  the 
Book  of  Isaiah. — It  was  not  the  vocation  of  the 
prophets  to  change  anything  in  the  religious  con- 
stitution of  Moses,  which  had  been  introduced  by 
divine  authority  ; and  they  were  not  called  upon 
to  substitute  anything  new  in  its  place.  They 
had  only  to  point  out  the  new  covenant  to  be 
introduced  by  the  Redeemer,  and  to  prepare  the 
minds  of  men  for  the  reception  of  it.  They 
themselves  in  all  their  doings  were  subject  to  the 
law  of  Moses.  They  were  destined  to  be  extra- 
ordinary ambassadors  of  God,  whose  reign  in  Is- 
rael was  not  a mere  name,  not  a mere  siiadow  of 
earthly  royalty,  but  rather  its  substance  and 
essence.  They  were  to  maintain  the  government 
of  God,  by  punishing  all,  both  high  and  low,  who 
manifested  contempt  of  the  Lawgiver  by  offending 
against  his  laws.  It  was  especially  their  vocation  to 
counteract  the  very  ancient  delusion,  according  to 
which  an  external  observance  of  rites  was  deemed 
sufficient  to  satisfy  God.  This  opinion  is  contrary 
to  many  passages  of  the  law  itself,  which  admonish 
men  to  circumcise  the  heart,  and  describe  the  sum 
of  the  entire  law  to  consist  in  loving  God  with  the 
whole  heart;  which  make  salvation  to  depend 
upon  being  internally  turned  towards  God,  and 
which  condemn  not  only  the  evil  deed,  but  also 
the  wicked  desire.  The  law  had,  however,  at  the 
first  assumed  a form  corresponding  to  the  wants 
of  the  Israelites,  and  in  accordance  with  the  sym- 
bolical spirit  of  antiquity.  But  when  this  form, 
which  was  destined  to  be  the  living  organ  of  the 
Spirit,  was  changed  into  a corpse  by  those  who 
were  themselves  spiritually  dead,  it  offered  a point 
of  coalescence  for  the  etvor  of  those  who  contented 
ihemselves  with  external  observances. 

The  prophets  had  also  to  oppose  the  delusion  of 
those  who  looked  upon  the  election  of  the  people 
of  God  as  a preservative  against  the  divine  judg- 
ments ; who  supposed  that  their  descent  from  the 
patriarchs,  with  whom  God  had  made  a covenant, 
was  an  equivalent  for  the  sanctification  which 
they  wanted.  Even  Moses  had  strongly  opposed 
this  delusion  ; for  instance,  in  Lev.  xxvi.  and  Deut. 
xxxii.  David  also,  in  the  Psalms,  as  in  xv.  and 
xxiv.,  endeavours  to  counteract  this  error,  which 
again  and  again  sprang  up.  It  was  the  vocation 
of  the  prophets  to  insist  upon  genuine  piety,  and  to 
show  that  a true  attachment  to  the  Lord  necessarily 
manifests  itself  by  obedience  to  his  precepts  ; that 
this  obedience  would  lead  to  happiness,  and  dis- 
obedience to  misfortune  and  distress.  The  pro- 
phets were  appointed  to  comfort  the  faint-hearted, 
by  announcing  to  them  the  succour  of  God,  and 
to  bring  glad  tidings  to  the  faithful,  in  order  to 
strengthen  their  fidelity.  They  were  commissioned 
to  invite  Ibe  rebellious  to  return,  by  pointing  out 
to  them  future  salvation,  and  by  teaching  them 
that  without  conversion  they  could  not  be  par- 
takers of  salvation  ; and  in  order  that  their  admo- 
nitions and  rebukes,  their  consolations  and  awaken- 
ings, might  gain  more  attention,  it  was  granted 


to  them  to  behold  futurity,  and  lo  foresee  fJu 
blessings  and  judgments  which  would  ultimately 
find  their  full  accomplishment  in  the  days  of 
Messiah.  The  Hebrew  appellation  nebiim  is  by 
far  more  expressive  than  the  Greek  Trpocpirrrjs, 
which  denotes  only  a part  of  their  office,  and 
which  lias  given  rise  to  many  misunderstandings. 
The  word  (from  the  root  fcOb  which  occurs  in 
Arabic  in  the  signification  of  to  inform , to  explain, 
to  speak ) means,  according  to  the  usual  significa- 
tion of  the  form  a person  into -whom  God 

has  spoken  ; that  is,  a person  who  communicates 
to  the  people  what  God  has  given  to  him.  The 
Hebrew  word  indicates  divine  inspiration.  What 
is  most  essential  in  the  prophets  is  their  speaking 
eV  TTvevjxa.n ; consequently  they  were  as  much 
in  tneir  vocation  when  they  rebuked  and  admo- 
nished as  when  they  predicted  future  events.  The 
correctness  of  our  explanation  may  he  seen  in  the 
definition  contained  in  Deut.  xviii.  18,  where 
the  Lord  says,  ‘ I will  raise  them  up  a prophet 
from  among  their  bretnren  like  unto  thee,  and  will 
put  my  words  in  his  mouth ; and  he  shall  speak 
unto  them  all  that  I shall  command  him.* 

The  prophet  here  mentioned  is  an  ideal  person. 
It  is  prophe%m  itself  personified.  It  is  a charac- 
teristic mark  that  God  gives  his  word  into  the 
mouth  of  the  prophet,  by  means  of  which  he  is 
placed  on  an  equality  writh  the  priest,  who  is  like- 
wise a bearer  of  the  word  of  God.  The  prophet  is 
at  the  same  time  distinguished  from  the  priest, 
who  receives  the  word  of  God  from  the  Scriptures, 
while  the  prophet  receives  it  without  an  inter- 
vening medium.  The  internal  communications 
of  God  to  the  prophets  are  given  to  them  only  as 
being  messengers  to  his  people.  By  this  circum- 
stance the  prophets  are  distinguished  from  rnystief 
and  theosophers,  who  lay  claim  to  divine  commu- 
nications especially  for  themselves.  Prophetisnr 
has  an  entirely  practical  and  truly  ecclesiastical 
character,  remote  from  all  idle  contemplativeness, 
all  fantastic  trances,  and  all  anchoret.ism. 

In  this  description  of  the  prophetical  calling 
there  is  also  contained  a statement  of  the  contents 
of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah.  lie  refers  expressly 
in  many  places  to  the  basis  of  the  ancient  cove- 
nant, that  is,  to  the  law  of  Moses ; for  instance, 
in  viii.  16,  20,  and  xxx.  9,  10.  In  many  other 
passages  his  utterance  rests  on  the  same  basis, 
although  he  does  not  expressly  state  it.  All  his 
utterances  are  interwoven  with  references  to  tlie 
law.  It  is  of  importance  to  examine  at  least  one 
chapter  closely,  in  order  to  understand  how  pro- 
phecies are  related  to  the  law.  Let  us  take  as 
an  example  the  first.  The  beginning  ‘ Hear, 
O heavens,  and  give  ear  O earth,’  is  taken  from 
Deut.  xxxii.  Thus  the  prophet  points  out  that 
his  prophecies  are  a commentary  upoft  the  M.*gna 
Charta  of  prophetism  contained  in  the  book?  of 
Moses.  During  the  prosperous  condition  of  the 
state  under  Uzziah  and  Jotham,  luxury  and  im- 
morality had  sprung  up.  The  impiety  of  Ahaz 
had  exercised  the  worst  influence  upon  the  whols 
people.  Great  part  of  the  nation  had  forsaken 
the  religion  of  their  fathers  and  embraced  gross 
idolatry  ; and  a great  number  of  those  who  wor- 
shipped God  externally  had  forsaken  Him  in 
their  hearts.  The  divine  judgments  were  ap- 
proaching. The  rising  power  of  Assyria  was 
appointed  to  be  the  instrument  of  divine  justice. 


IS  MAH. 


ISAIAH. 


4ft 


Among  trip  people  cfGod  internal  demoralisation 
was  always  the  forerunner  of  outward  calamity. 
This  position  of  affairs  demanded  an  energetic 
intervention  of  prophetism.  Without  prophetism 
the  e/cA.07/1,  the  number  of  the  elect,  would  have 
jecn  constantly  decreasing,  and  even  the  judg- 
ments of  the  Lord,  if  prophetism  had  not  fur- 
nished their  interpretation,  would  have  been  mere 
facts,  which  would  have  missed  their  aim,  and, 
in  many  instances,  might  have  had  an  effect 
opposite  to  that  which  was  intended,  because 
punishment  which  is  not  recognised  to  be  punish- 
ment, necessarily  leads  away  from  God.  The  pro- 
phet attacks  the  distress  of  his  nation,  not  at  the 
surface,  but.  at  the  root,  by  rebuking  the  prevail- 
ing corruption.  Pride  and  arrogance  appear  to 
him  to  be  the  chief  roots  of  all  sins. 

He  inculcates  again  and  again  not  to  rely  upon 
the  creature,  but  upon  the  Creator,  from  whom 
all  temporal  and  spiritual  help  proceeds ; that  in 
order  to  atta'n  salvation,  we  should  despair  of  our 
own  and  all  human  power,  and  rely  upon  God. 
He  opposes  those  who  expected  help  through 
foreign  alliances  with  powerful  neighbouring  na- 
tions against  foreign  enemies  of  the  state. 

The  people  of  God  have  only  one  enemy,  and 
one  ally,  that  is,  God.  It  is  foolish  to  seek  for 
aid  on  earth  against  the  power  of  heaven,  and  to 
fear  man  if  God  is  our  friend.  The  panacea 
against  all  distress  and  danger  is  true  conversion. 
The  politics  of  the  prophets  consist  only  in  point- 
ing out  this  remedy.  The  prophet  connects  with 
his  rebuke  and  with  his  admonition,  his  threaten- 
ings  of  divine  judgment  upon  the  stiff-necked. 
These  judgments  are  to  be  executed  by  the  inva- 
sion of  the  Syrians,  the  oppression  of  the  Assyrians, 
the  Babylonian  exile,  and  by  the  great  final 
separation  in  the  times  of  the  Messiah.  The  idea 
which  is  the  basis  of  all  these  threatenings,  is  pro- 
nounced even  in  the  Pentateuch  (Lev.  x.  3), 
4 I will  be  sanctified  in  them  that  come  nigh  me, 
and  before  all  the  people  I will  be  glorified and 
also  in  the  words  of  Amos  (iii.  2),  4 You  only 
nave  I known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth ; 
therefore  I will  punish  you  for  all  your  iniquities.-’ 
That  is,  if  the  people  do  not  voluntarily  glorify 
God,  He  glorifies  Himself  against  them.  Partly 
in  order  to  recal  the  rebellious  to  obedience, 
partly  to  comfort  the  faithful,  the  prophet  opens  a 
prospect  of  those  blessings  which  the  faithful  por- 
tion of  the  covenant-people  shall  inherit.  In 
almost  all  prophetic  utterances,  we  find  in  regular 
succession  three  elements— rebuke,  threatening, 
and  promise.  The  prophecies  concerning  the  de- 
struction of  powerful  neighbouring  states,  partly 
belong,  as  we  have  shown,  to  the  promises,  be- 
cause they  are  intended  to  prevent  despair,  which, 
as  well  as  false  security,  is  a most  dangerous 
hindrance  to  conversion. 

In  the  direct  promises  of  deliverance  the  pur- 
pose to  comfort  is  still  more  evident.  This  de- 
liverance refers  either  to  burdens  which  pressed 
upon  the  people  in  the  days  of  the  prophet,  or  to 
burdens  to  come,  which  were  already  announced 
by  the  prophet;  such,  for  instance,  were  the  op- 
pressions of  the  Syrians,  the  Assyrians,  and  finally, 
of  the  Chaidaeans. 

The  proclamation  ot‘  the  Messiah  is  the  inex* 
haustible  source  of  consolation  among  the  pro- 
phets. In  Isaiah  this  consolation  is  so  clear  that 

ViU.  II.  c 


some  fathers  of  the  church  were  inclined  to  style 
him  rather  evangelist  than  prophet.  Ewald 
pointedly  describes  (p.  169)  the  human  basis  of 
Messianic  expectations  in  general,  and  of  those  of 
Isaiah  in  particular: — 4 lie  who  experienced  in  his 
own  royal  soul  what  infinite  power  could  be 
granted  to  an  individual  spirit  in  order  to  influ- 
ence and  animate  many,  be  who  daily  observed 
in  Jerusalem  the  external  vestiges  of  a spirit 
like  that  of  David,  could  not  imagine  that  the 
future  new  congregation  of  the  Lord  should  ori- 
ginate from  a mind  belonging  to  another  race 
than  that  of  David,  and  that  it  should  be  main- 
tained and  supported  by  any  other  ruler  than  a 
divine  ruler.  Indeed  every  spiritual  revival  must 
proceed  from  the  clearness  and  firmness  of  an  ele- 
vated mind  ; and  this  especially  applies  to  that 
most  sublime  revival  for  which  ancient  Israel 
longed  and  strove.  This  longing  attained  to 
clearness,  and  was  preserved  from  losing  itself  in 
indefiniteness,  by  the  certainty  that  such  an  ele- 
vated mind  was  to  be  expected.’ 

Isaiah,  however,  was  not  the  first  who  attained 
to  a knowledge  of  the  personality  of  Messiah. 
Isaiah’s  vocation  was  to  render  the  knowledge  of 
this  personality  clearer  and  more  definite,  and 
to  render  it  more  efficacious  upon  the  souls  of  the 
elect  by  giving  it  a greater  individuality.  The 
person  of  the  Redeemer  is  mentioned  even  in  Gen. 
xlix.  10,  4 The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from 
Judah,  nor  a lawgiver  from  between  bis  feet,  until 
Shiloh  ( the  tranquilliser')  come ; and  unto  Him 
shall  the  gathering  of  the  people  be’  (i.  e.  Him 
shall  the  nations  obey).  The  personality  of 
Messiah  occurs  also  in  several  psalms  which  were 
written  before  the  times  of  Isaiah;  for  instance,  in 
the  2nd  and  II 0th,  by  David;  in  the  45th,  by 
the  sons  of  Korah ; in  the  72nd,  by  Solomon. 
Isaiah  has  especially  developed  the  perception  of 
the  prophetic  and  the  priestly  office  of  the  Re- 
deemer, while  in  the  earlier  annunciations  of  the 
Messiah  the  royal  office  is  more  prominent ; al- 
though in  Psalm  cx.  the  priestly  office  also  is 
pointed  out.  Of  the  two  states  of  Christ,  Isaiah 
has  expressly  described  that  of  the  exinanition  of 
the  suffering  Christ,  while,  before  him,  his.  state  of 
glory  vas  made  more  prominent.  In  the  Psalms 
the  inseparable  connection  between  justice  and 
suffering,  from  which  the  doctrine,  of  a suffering 
Messiah  necessarily  results,  is  not  expressly  ap- 
plied to  the  Messiah.  We  must  not  say  that 
Isaiah  first  perceived  that  the  Messiah  was  to 
suffer,  but  we  must  grant  that  this  knowledge  was 
in  him  more  vivid  than  in  any  earlier  writer ; and 
that  this  knowledge  was  first  shown  by  Isaiah  to 
be  an  integral  portion  of  Old  Testament  doctrine. 

The  following  are  the  outlines  of  Messianic 
prophecies  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  : — A scion  or 
David,  springing  from  his-  family,  after  it  has 
fallen  into  a very  low  estate,  but  being  also 
of  divine  nature,  shall,,  at  first  in  lowliness, 
but  as  a prophet  filled  with  the  spirit  of  God, 
proclaim  the  divine  doctrine,  devel ope  the  law- 
in  truth,  and  render  it  the  animating,  principle 
of  national  life;  he  shall,  as  high  priest,  by  his 
vicarious  suffering  and  his  death,  remove  the 
guilt  of  his  nation,  and  that  of  other  nations, 
and  finally  rule  as  a mighty  king,  not  only  over 
the  covenant-people,,  but  over  all  nations  of  the 
earth  who  will  subject  themselves  to  his  peaceful 


ISAIAH. 


ISAIAH. 


SO 

iceptre,  not  ty  violent  compulsion,  but  induced 
by  love  and  gratitude.  He  will  make  both  the 
moral  and  the  physical  consequences  of  sin  to 
cease ; the  whole  earth  shall  be  tilled  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord,  and  all  enmity,  hatred, 
and  destruction  shall  be  removed  even  from  the 
brute  creation.  This  is  tlie  survey  of  the  Messianic 
preaching  by  Isaiah,  of  which  he  constantly 
renders  prominent  those  portions  which  were  most 
calculated  to  impress  the  people  under  the  then 
existing  circumstances.  The  first  part  of  Isaiah 
is  directed  to  the  whole  people,  consequently  the 
glory  of  the  Messiah  is  here  dwelt  upon.  The 
fear  lest  the  kingdom  of  God  should  be  over- 
whelmed by  the  power  of  heathen  nations,  is  re- 
moved by  pointing  out  the  glorious  king  to  come, 
who  would  elevate  the  now  despised  and  appa- 
rently mean  kingdom  of  God  above  all  the  king- 
doms of  this  world.  In  the  second  part,  which  is 
more  particularly  addressed  to  the  e/cA.07^,  the 
elect , than  to  the  whole  nation,  the  prophet  ex- 
hibits the  Messiah  more  as  a divine  teacher  and 
bigh-priest.  Tiie  prophet  here  preaches  righteous- 
ness through  the  blood  of  the  servant  of  God,  who 
will  support  the  weakness  of  sinners  and  take 
upon  Himself  their  sorrows. 

We  may  show,  by  an  example  in  chap.  xix.  18- 
25,  that  the  views  of  futurity  which  were  granted 
to  Isaiah  were  great  and  comprehensive,  and  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  raised  him  above  all  narrow- 
minded nationality.  It  is  there  stated  that  a time 
should  come  when  all  the  heathen,  subdued  by  the 
judgments  of  the  Lord,  should  be  converted  to  him, 
and  being  placed  on  an  equality  with  Israel,  with 
equal  laws,  would  equally  partake  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  form  a brotherly  alliance  for  his  wor- 
ship. Not  the  whole  mass  of  Israel  is  destined, 
according  to  Isaiah,  to  future  salvation,  but  only 
the  small  number  of  the  converted.  This  truth 
he  enounces  most  definitely  in  the  sketch  of  his 
prophecies  contained  in  chapter  vi. 

Isaiah  describes  with  equal  vivacity  the  divine 
justice  which  punishes  the  sins  of  the  nation  with 
inexorable  severity.  Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the 
Lord  of  Sabaoth,  is  the  key-note  of  his  prophe- 
cies. He  describes  also  the  divine  mercy  and  co- 
venant-fidelity, by  which  there  is  always  preserved 
a remnant  among  the  people  : to  them  punish- 
ment itself  is  a means  of  salvation,  so  that  life 
everywhere  proceeds  from  death,  and  the  congre- 
gation itself  is  led  to  full  victory  and  glory. 

Isaiah  saw  the  moral  and  religious  degradation 
of  his  people,  and  also  its  external  distress,  both 
then  present  and  to  come  (chap.  vi.).  But  this 
did  not  break  his  courage ; he  confidently  ex- 
pected a better  futurity,  and  raised  himself  in  God 
above  all  that,  is  visible.  Isaiah  is  not  afraid  when 
the  wdiole  nation  and  its  king  tremble.  Of  this 
we  see  a remarkable  instance  in  chapter  vii.,  and 
another  in  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  invasion  under 
Hezekiah,  during  which  the  courage  of  his  faith 
rendered  him  the  saviour  of  the  commonwealth, 
and  the  originator  of  that  great  religious  revival 
which  followed  the  preservation  of  the  state.  The 
faith  of  the  king  and  of  the  people  wa3  roused  by 
that  of  Isaiah. 

Isaiah  stands  pre-eminent  above  all  other  pro- 
phets, as  well  in  the  contents  and  spirit  of  his 
predictions,  as  also  in  their  form  and  style.  Sim- 
plicity, clearness,  sublimity,  and  freshness,  are 


the  never-failing  characters  of  his  prophecies 
Even  Eichhorn  mentions,  among  the  first  merili 
of  Isaiah,  the  concinnity  of  his  expressions,  the 
beautiful  outline  of  his  images,  and  the  fine  exe- 
cution of  his  speeches.  In  reference  to  richness 
of  imagery  he  stands  between  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel.  Symbolic  actions,  which  frequently 
occur  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  seldom  occur  in 
Isaiah.  The  same  is  the  case  with  visions,  strictly 
so  called,  of  which  there  is  only  one,  namely, 
that  in  chapter  vi.;  and  even  it  is  distinguished 
by  its  simplicity  and  clearness  above  that  of  the 
later  prophets.  But  one  characteristic  of  Isaiah 
is,  that  he  likes  to  give  signs—that  is,  a fact  then 
present,  or  near  at  hand — as  a pledge  for  the  more 
distant  futurity ; and  that  he  thus  supports  the 
feebleness  of  man  (comp.  vii.  20  ; xxxvii.  30; 
xxxviii.  7,  sqq.).  The  instances  in  chapters  vii. 
and  xxxviii.  show  how  much  lie  was  convinced 
of  his  vocation,  and  in  what  intimacy  lie  lived 
with  the  Lord,  by  whose  assistance  alone  he 
could  effect  what  lie  offers  to  do  in  the  one 
passage,  and  what  he  grants  in  the  other.  The 
spiritual  riches  of  the  prophet  are  seen  in  the  va- 
riety of  bis  style,  which  always  befits  the  subject.. 
When  lie  rebukes  and  threatens,  it  is  like  a storm, 
and,  when  he  comforts,  his  language  is  as  tender 
and  mild  as  (to  use  his  own  words)  that  of  a 
mother  comforting  her  son.  With  regard  to  style, 
Isaiah  is  comprehensive,  and  the  other  prophets 
divide  his  riches. 

Isaiah  enjoyed  an  authority  proportionate  to 
his  gifts.  We  learn,  from  history  how  great  this 
authority  was  during  liis  life,  especially  under 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  Several  of  his  most  defi- 
nite prophecies  were  fulfilled  while  lie  was  yet 
alive ; for  instance,  the  overthrow  of  the  king- 
doms of  Syria  and  Israel ; the  invasion  of  the 
Assyrians,  and  the  divine  deliverance  from  it; 
the  prolongation  of  life  granted  to  Hezekiah  ; and 
several  predictions  against  foreign  nations.  Isaiah 
is  honourably  mentioned  in  the  historical  books. 
The  later  prophets,  especially  Nahum,  Habakkuk, 
Zepbaniah,  Jeremiah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and 
Malaclii,  clearly  prove  that  bis  book  was  dili- 
gently read,  and  that  his  prophecies  were  atten- 
tively studied. 

The  authority  of  the  prophet  greatly  increased 
after  the  fulfilment  of  his  prophecies  by  the  Baby- 
lonian exile,  the  victories  of  Cyrus,  and  the  de- 
liverance of  the  covenant-people.  Even  Cyrus 
(according  to  the  above-mentioned  account  in  Jo- 
sephus, Antiq.  xi.  1.  § I,  2)  was  induced  to  set  the 
Jews  at  liberty  by  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  concern- 
ing himself.  This  prediction  of  Isaiah  made  so 
deep  an  impression  upon  him  that  he  probably  took 
from  it  the  name  by  which  he  is  generally  known 
in  history.  Jesus  Siraeh  (xlviii.  22-25)  bestows 
splendid  praise  upon  Isaiah,  and  both  Philo  and 
Josephus  speak  of  him  with  great  veneration.  He 
attained  the  highest  degree  of  authority  after  the 
times  of  the  New  Testament  had  proved  the  most 
important  part  of  his  prophecies,  namely,  the  Mes- 
sianic, to  be  divine.  Christ  and  the  apostles  quote 
no  prophecies  so  frequently  as  those  of  Isaiah,  in 
order  to  prove  that  lie  who  had  appeared  was  one 
and  the  same  with  Him  who  had  been  promised. 
The  fathers  of  the  church  abound  in  praises  0/ 
Isaiah.— E.  W.  II. 

ISHBI,  or  ISHBI-BENOB.  [Giants.] 


ISH-BOSHETH. 


ISIIMAEL. 


B1 


ISH-BOSIIETH  (ngh.Uh «,  man  of  shame ; 
Sept.  ’UfioarOi),  a son  of  king  Saul,  and  the  enly 
one  who  survived  him.  In  I Chron.  viii.  33,  and 

ix.  39,  this  name  is  given  as  Eshbaal. 

Baal  was  the  name  of  an  idol,  accounted  abomi- 
nable by  the  Hebrews,  and  which  scrupulous  per- 
sons avoided  pronouncing,  using  the  word  bosheth, 
‘ shame  ’ or  ( vanity,’  instead.  This  explains  why 
the  name  Eshbaal  is  substituted  for  Ish-bosheth, 
Jerubbaal  for  Jerubbesheth  (comp.  Judg.  viii.  35 
with  2 Sam.  xi.  21),  and  Merib-baal  for  Mephi- 
bosheth  (comp.  2 Sam.  iv.  4 with  1 Chron.  viii.  34 
and  ix.  40").  Ish-bosheth  was  not  present  in  the 
disastrous  battle  at  Gilboa,  in  which  his  father  and 
brothers  perished;  and,  too  feeble  of  himself  to 
seize  the  sceptre  which  had  fallen  from  the  hands 
of  Saul,  he  owed  the  crown  entirely  to  his  uncle 
Abner,  who  conducted  him  to  Mahanaim,  be- 
yond the  Jordan,  where  he  was  recognised  as 
king  by  ten  of  the  twelve  tribes.  He  reigned 
seven,  or,  as  some  will  have  it,  two  years — -If  a 
power  so  uncertain  as  his  can  be  called  a reign. 
Even  the  semblance  of  authority  which  he  pos- 
sessed he  owed  to  the  will  and  influence  of  Ab- 
ner, who  himself  kept  the  real  substance  in  his 
own  hands.  A sharp  quarrel  between  them  led  at 
hist  to  the  ruin  of  Ish-bosheth.  Although  accus- 
tomed to  tremble  before  Abner,  even  his  meek 
temper  was  roused  to  resentment  by  the  disco- 
very that  Abner  bad  invaded  the  haram  of  his 
late  father  Saul,  which  was  in  a peculiar  manner 
sacred  under  his  care  as  a son  and  a king.  By 
this  act  Abner  exposed  the  king  to  public  con- 
tempt; if  it  did  not  indeed  leave  himself  open  to 
the  suspicion  of  intending  to  advance  a claim  to 
the  crown  on  his  own  behalf.  Abner  highly  re- 
sented the  rebuke  of  Ish-bosheth,  and  from  that  time 
contemplated  uniting  all  the  tribes  under  the 
sceptre  of  David.  Ish-bosheth,  however,  reverted  to 
his  ordinary  timidity  of  character.  At  the  first  de- 
mand of  David,  he  restored  to  him  his  sister  Michal, 
who  had  been  given  in  marriage  to  the  son  of  Jesse 
by  Saul,  and  had  afterwards  been  taken  from  him 
and  bestowed  upon  another.  It  is,  perhaps,  right 
to  attribute  this  act  to  his  weakness ; although,  as 
David  allows  that  he  was  a righteous  man,  it  may 
have  been  owing  to  his  sense  of  justice.  On  the 
death  of  Abner  Ish-bosheth  lost  all  heart  and 
hope,  and  perished  miserably,  being  murdered  in 
his  own  palace,  while  he  took  his  mid-day  sleep, 
by  two  of  his  officers,  Baanah  and  Rechab.  They 
sped  with  his  head  to  David,  expecting  a great 
reward  for  their  deed  ; but  the  monarch — as  both 
right  feeling  and  good  policy  required — testified 
the  utmost  horror  and  concern.  He  slew  the 
murderers,  and  placed  the  head  of  Ish-bosheth 
with  due  respect  in  the  sepulchre  of  Abner  : b.c. 
1048  (2  Sam.  ii.  8-11 ; iii.  6-39;  iv.).  There 
is  a serious  difficulty  in  the  chronology  of  this 
reign.  In  2 Sam.  ii.  10  Ish-bosheth  is  said  to  have 
feigned  two  years ; which  some  understand  as  the 
whole  amount  of  his  reign.  And  as  David 
reigned  seven  and  a half  years  over  Judah  before 
he  became  king  of  all  Israel  upon  the  death  of 
Ish-bosheth,  it  is  conceived  by  the  Jewish  chro- 
taologer  ( Seder  Olam  Rabba , p.  37),  as  well  as  by 
Kimchi  and  others,  that  there  was  a vacancy  of 
five  years  in  the  throne  of  Israel.  It  is  not, 
However,  agreed  by  those  who  entertain  this  opi- 


nion, whether  this  vacancy  took  place  before  cr 
after  the  reign  of  Ish-bosheth.  Some  think  it  was 
before,  it  being  then  a matter  of  dispute  whether 
he  or  Mephibosheth,  the  son  of  Jonathan,  should  ba 
made  king;  but  others  hold  that  after  his  death, 
five  years  elapsed  before  David  was  generally 
recognised  as  king  of  all  Israel.  If  the  reign  of 
Ish-bosheth  be  limited  to  two  years,  the  latter  is 
doubtless  the  best  way  of  accounting  for  the  other 
five,  since  no  ground  of  delay  in  the  accession  of 
Ish-bosheth  is  suggested  in  Scripture  itself ; for  the 
claim  of  Mephibosheth,  the  son  of  Jonathan, 
which  some  have  produced,  being  that  of  a 
lame  boy  five  years  old,  whose  father  never 
reigned,  against  a king’s  son  forty  years  of  age, 
would  have  been  deemed  of  little  weight  in 
Israel.  Besides,  our  notions  of  Abner  do  not 
allow  us  to  suppose  that  under  him  the  question 
of  the  succession  could  have  remained  five  years 
in  abeyance.  But.  it  is  the  more  usual,  and 
perhaps  the  better  course,  to  settle  this  question 
by  supposing  that  the  reigns  of  David  over  Judah, 
and  of  Ish-bosheth  over  Israel,  were  nearly  con- 
temporaneous, and  that  the  two  years  are  men- 
tioned as  those  from  which  to  date  the  commence- 
ment of  the  ensuing  events — namely,  the  wars  be- 
tween the  house  of  Saul  and  that  of  David. 

1.  ISHMAEL  God  hears , Sept. , 

TcTjucdjA),  Abraham’s  eldest  son,  born  to  him  by 
Hagar;  the  circumstances  of  whose  birth,  early 
history,  and  final  expulsion  from  his  father’s  tents, 
are  related  in  the  articles  Abraham,  Hagar. 
[See  also  Isaac,  Inheritance].  He  afterwards 
made  the  desert  into  which  lie  had  been  cast 
his  abode,  and  by  attaching  himself  to,  and  ac- 
quiring influence  over,  the  native  tribes,  rose  to 
great  authority  and  influence.  It  would  seem  to 
have  been  the  original  intention  of  his  mother 
to  have  returned  to  Egypt,  to  which  country 
she  belonged ; but  this  being  prevented,  she 
was  content  to  obtain  for  her  son  wives  from 
thence.  Although  their  lots  were  cast  apart,  it 
does  not  appear  that  any  serious  alienation  existed 
between  Ishmael  and  Isaac ; for  we  read  that  they 
both  joined  in  the  sepulchral  rites  of  their  father 
Abraham  (Gen.  xxv.  9).  This  fact  has  not  been 
noticed  as  it  deserves.  It  is  full  of  suggestive 
matter.  As  funerals  in  the  East  take  place  almost 
immediately  after  death,  it  is  evident  that  Ish- 
mael must  have  been  called  from  the  desert  to 
the  death-bed  o,f  his  father;  which  implies  that 
relations  of  kindness  and  respect  had  been  kept  up, 
although  the  brevity  of  the  sacred  narrative  pre- 
vents any  special  notice  of  this  circumstance. 
Ishmael  had,  probably,  long  before  received  an 
endowment  from  his  father’s  property,  similar  to 
that  which  had  been  bestowed  upon  the  sons  of 
Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  6).  Nothing  more  is  re- 
corded of  him  than  that  he  died  at  the  age  of  137 
years,  and  was  the  father  of  twelve  sons,  who  gave 
their  names  to  as  many  tribes  (Gen.  xvii.  20 ; 
xxvii.  9).  He  had  also  two  daughters,  one  of 
whom  became  the  wife  of  Esau. 

It  has  been  shown,  in  the  article  Arabia,  that 
Ishmael  has  no  claim  to  the  honour,  which  i* 
usually  assigned  to  him,  of  being  the  founder  of 
the  Arabian  nation.  That  nation  existed  before 
he  was  born.  He  merely  joined  it,  and  adopted 
its  habits  of  life  and  character;  and  the  tribe* 


ISHMAEL. 


ISRAEL. 


*2 

which  sprung  fi^n  him  formed,  eventually  an 
important  section  of  the  tribes  of  which  it  was 
composed.  The  celebrated  prophecy  which  de- 
scribes the  habits  of  life  which  he,  and  in  him 
his  descendants,  would  follow,  is,  therefore,  to 
be  regarded  not  as  describing  habits  which  he 
would  first  establish,  but  such  as  he  would 
adopt.  The  description  is  contained  in  the 
address  of  the  angel  to  Hagar,  when,  before 
the  birth  of  Ishmael,  she  fled  from  the  tents  of 
Abraham: — ‘Behold,  thou  art  with  child,  and 
shalt  bear  a son,  and  slialt  call  his  name  Ishmael 
( God  hears),  because  the  Lord  hath  heard  thine 
affliction.  And  he  shall  be  a wild  man  : his 
hand  shall  be  against  every  man,  and  every 
man’s  hand  against,  him,  and  lie  shall  dwell  in 
the  presence  of  all  his  brethren’  (Gen.  xvi.  11, 
12).  This  means,  in  short,  that  he  and  his 
descendants  should  lead  the  life  of  the  Bedouins 
of  the  Arabian  deserts;  and  how  graphically 
this  description  portrays  their  habits,  may  be 
seen  in  the  article  Arabia,  in  the  notes  on  these 
verses  in  the  ‘ Pictorial  Bible,’  and  in  the  works 
of  Niebuhr,  Burckhardt,  Lane,  &c. ; and,  more 
particularly,  in  the  Arabian  romance  of  Antar, 
which  presents  the  most  perfect  picture  of  real 
Bedouin  manners  now  in  existence.  The  last 
clause,  ‘ He  shall  dwell  in  the  presence  of  all  his 
brethren,’  is  pointedly  alluded  to  in  the  brief 
notice  of  his  death,  which  states  that  ‘ he  died 
in  the  presence  of  all  his  brethren’  (Gen.  xxv.  18). 
Of  this  expression  various  explanations  have  been 
given,  but  the  plainest  is  the  most  probable : 
which  is,  that  Ishmael  and  the  tribes  springing 
from  him  should  always  be  located  near  the 
kindred  tribes  descended  from  Abraham.  And 
this  was  a promise  of  benefit  in  that  age  of  mi- 
gration, when  Abraham  himself  had  come  from 
beyond  ths  Euphrates,  and  was  a stranger  and 
sojourner  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  There  was  thus, 
in  fact,  a relation  of  some  importance  between 
this  promise  and  the  promise  of  the  heritage  of 
Canaan  to  another  branch  of  Abraham's  off- 
spring. It  had  seemingly  some  such  force  as 
this — The  heritage  of  Canaan  is,  indeed,  des- 
tined for  another  son  of  Abraham ; but  still  the 
lot  of  Ishmael,  and  of  those  that  spring  from  him, 
shall  never  be  cast  far  apart  from  that  of  his 
brethren.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  circum- 
stance, that  the  Israelites  did,  in  fact,  occupy  the 
country  bordering  on  that  in  which  the  various 
tribes  descended  from  Abraham  or  Terali  had 
settled — the  Israelites,  Edomite^,  Midianites,  Mo- 
abites, Ammonites,  &c.  Most  interpreters  find  in 
this  passage,  a promise  that  the  descendants  of 
Ishmael  should  never  be  subdued.  But  we  are 
unable  to  discover  this  in  the  text ; and,  more- 
over, such  has  not  been  the  fact,  whether  we 
regard  the  Ishmael ites  apart  from  the  other 
Arabians,  or  consider  the  promise  made  to  Ish- 
mael as  applicable  to  the  whole  Arabian  family. 
The  Arabian  tribes  are  in  a state  of  subjection  at 
this  moment  ; and  the  great  Wa'nabee  confederacy 
among  them,  which  not  many  years  ago  filled 
Western  Asia  with  alarm,  is  now  no  longer 
heard  of. 

2.  ISHMAEL,  a prince  of  the  royal  line  of 
Judah,  who  found  refuge  among  the  Ammonites 
from  the  ruin  whi^h  involved  his  family  and 
nation.  After  the  Chaldteans  had  departed  he 


returned,  and  treacherously  slew  the  too-confidiiif 
Ge^aliah,  who  had  been  made  governor  of  the 
miserable  remnant  left  in  the  land  [Gedai.iahJ. 
Much  more  slaughter  followed  this,  and  Ishmael, 
with  many  people  of  consideration  as  captive^, 
hastened  to  return  to  the  Ammonites.  But  he 
was  overtaken  near  the  pool  of  Gibeon  by  Joha- 
nan,  a friend  of  Gedaliali,  and  was  compelled  to 
abandon  his  prey  and  escape  for  his  life,  with 
only  eight  attendants,  to  Baalis,  king  of  the  Am- 
monites, with  whom  he  appears  to  .have  had  a 
secret  understanding  in  these  tiansactions  : b.c. 
58S  (Jer.  xli.). 

ISLE,  ISLAND  ('fc$ ; Sept.  yrj<ros,  Vulg 
Ursula').  The  Hebrew  word  is  invariably  trans- 
lated, either  by  the  former  or  by  the  latter  of  these 
English  words,  which,  having  the  same  meaning 
will  be  considered  as  one.  It  occurs  in  the  three 
following  senses.  First,  that  of  dry  land  in  opposi- 
tion to  water ; as  ‘ I will  make  the  rivers  islands’ 
(Isa.  xlii.  15).  In  Isa.  xx.  6,  the  Isle  of  Ashdod 
means  the  country,  arid  is  so  rendered  in  the 
margin.  In  Isa.  xxiii.  2,  6,  ‘the  isle ’means  the 
country  of  Tyre,  and  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  6,  7,  that  of 
Chittim  and  Elisha.  (See  also  Job  xxii.  30). 
Secondly ; it  is  v sed  both  in  Hebrew  and  Eng- 
lish, according  to  its  geographical  meaning,  for  a 
country  surrounded  by  water,  as  in  Jer.  xlvii.  4, 

‘ the  isle  (margin)  of  Caphtor,’  which  is  probably 
that  of  Cyprus.  ‘ The  isles  of  the  sea  ’ (Esfh.  x. 
1)  are  evidently  put  in  opposition  to  ‘ the  land,’ 
or  continent.  In  Ps.  xcvii.  1,  ‘ the  multitude  of 
the  isles’  seem  distinguished  from  the  earth  or 
continents,  and  are  evidently  added  to  complete 
the  description  of  the  whole  world.  Thirdly ; 
the  word  is  used  hy  the  Hebrews  to  designate  all 
those  countries  divided  from  them  by  the  sea.  In 
Isa.  xi.  1 1,  after  an  enumeration  of  countries  lying 
on  their  own  continent,  the  words,  ‘ and  the  islands 
of  the  sea,’  are  added  in  order  to  comprehend 
those  situate  beyond  the  ocean.  The  following 
are  additional  instances  of  this  usage  of  the  word, 
which  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence  (Isa.  xlii 
10;  lix.  18;  Ixvi.  19;  Jer.  xxv.  22;  Ezek.  xxvii 
3,  15;  Zeph.  ii.  11).  It  is  observed  by  Sir  I 
Newten  (on  Daniel , p.  276),  ‘ By  the  earth  the 
Jews  understood  the  great  continent  of  all  Asia 
and  Africa,  to  which  they  had  access  by  land 
and  hy  the  isles  of  the  sea  they  understood  th< 
places  to  which  they  sailed  by  sea,  particular!} 
all  Europe.’ — J.  F.  D. 

ISRAEL  Sept.  ’Iopc^A)  is  tin 

sacred  and  divinely  bestowed  name  of  the  pa- 
triarch Jacob,  and  is  explained  to  mean,  1 A 
prince  with  God,’  from  mt^,  principatum  tenuil 
Winer  ( Heb . Lexicon)  interprets  it pugnator  Dei 
from  another  meaning  of  the  same  root.  A1 
though,  as  applied  to  Jacob  personally,  it  is  a» 
honourable  or  poetical  appellation,  it  is  the  com 
mon  prose  name  of  his  descendants;  while,  oi 
the  contrary,  the  title  Jacob  is  given  to  them  onlj 
in  poetry.  In  the  latter  di visit  n of  Isaiah  (aftei 
the  39th  chapter),  many  instances  occur  of  tht 
two  names  used  side  by  side,  to  subserve  tht 
parallelism  of  Hebrew  poetry,  as  in  ch.  xl.  27 ; 
xli.  8,  14,  20,  21 ; xlii.  24  ; xliii.  1,  22,  28,  &c. ; 
so,  indeed,  in  xiv.  1.  The  modem  Jews,  at  least 
in  the  East,  are  fond  of  being  named  Israeli  in 
preference  to  Yahudi,  as  more  honourable. 


' 

'i 


ISRAEL. 


ISRAEL. 


53 


1 he  separation  of  the  Hebrew  nation  into  two 
partu,  of  which  one  was  to  embrace  ten  ofjhe 
tribes,  and  be  distinctively  named  Israel,  had  its 
origin  in  the  early  power  and  ambition  of  the 
tribe  of  Ephraim.  The  rivalry  of  Ephraim  and 
Judah  began  a most  from  the  first  conquest  of  the 
and ; nor  is  it  unsignificant,  that  as  Caleb  be- 
longed to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  so  did  Joshua  to 
that  of  Ephraim.  From  the  very  beginning 
Judah  learned  to  act  by  itself ; but  the  central 
position  of  Ephraim,  with  its  fruitful  and  ample 
soil,  and  the  long- continued  authority  of  Joshua, 
must  have  taught  most  of  the  tribes  west  of  the  J or- 
dan  to  look  up  to  Ephraim  as  their  head  ; and  a 
still  mor*  important  superiority  was  conferred  on 
the  same  tribe  by  the  fixed  dwelling  of  the  ark  at 
Shiloh  for  so  many  generations  (Josh,  xviii.  &c.). 
Judah  could  boast  of  Hebron,  Macpelah,  Beth- 
lehem, names  of  traditional  sanctity ; yet  so  could 
Ephraim  point  to  Shechem,  the  ancient  abode  of 
Jacob;  and  while  Judah,  being  on  the  frontier, 
was  more  exposed  to  the  attack  of  the  powerful 
Philistines,  Ephraim  had  to  fear  only  those 
Canaanites  from  within  who  were  not  subdued  or 
conciliated.  The  haughty  behaviour  of  the 
Ephraimites  towards  Gideon,  a man  of  Manasseh 
(Judg.  viii.  1),  sufficiently  indicates  the  preten- 
sions they  made.  Still  fiercer  language  towards 
Jephthah  the  Gileadite  (Jud.  xii.  1)  was  retorted 
by  less  gentleness  than  Gideon  had  shown;  and 
a bloody  civil  war  was  the  result,  in  which  their 
pride  met  with  a severe  punishment.  This  may 
in  part  explain  their  quiet  submission,  not  only 
to  the  priestly  rule  of  Eli  and  his  sons,  who  had 
their  centre  of  authority  at  Shiloh,  but  to  Samuel, 
whose  administration  issued  from  three  towns  of 
Benjamin.  Of  course  his  prophetical  character 
and  personal  excellence  eminently  contributed  to 
this  result;  and  it  may  seem  that  Ephraim,  as 
well  as  all  Israel  besides,  became  habituated  to 
the  predominance  of  Benjamin,  so  that  no  serious 
resistance  was  made  to  the  supremacy  of  Saul. 
At  his  death  a new  schism  took  place  through 
their  jealousy  of  Judah  ; yet,  in  a few  years’ 
time,  by  the  splendour  of  David’s  victories,  and 
afterwards  by  Solomon’s  peaceful  power,  a per- 
manent national  union  might  seem  to  have  been 
effected.  But  the  laws  of  inheritance  in  Israel, 
excellent  as  they  were  for  preventing  permanent 
alienation  of  landed  property,  and  the  degradation 
of  the  Hebrew  poor  into  praedial  slaves,  neces- 
sarily impeded  the  perfect  fusion  of  the  tribes, 
by  discouraging  intermarriage,  and  hindering  the 
union  of  distant  estates  in  the  same  hands.  Hence, 
when  the  sway  of  Solomon  began  to  be  felt  as  a 
tyranny,  the  old  jealousies  of  the  tribes  revived, 
and  Jeroboam,  an  Ephraimite  (1  Kings  xi.  26), 
being  suspected  of  treason,  fled  to  Shishak,  king 
of  Egypt.  The  death  of  Solomon  was  followed 
by  a defection  of  ten  of  the  tribes,  which  esta- 
blished the  separation  of  Israel  from  Judah 
(b.c.  975). 

This  was  the  most  important  event  which  had 
befallen  the  Hebrew  nation  since  their  conquest 
of  Canaan.  The  chief  territory  and  population 
were  now  with  Jeroboam,  but  the  religious  sanc- 
tion, the  legitimate  descent,  lay  with  the  rival 
monarch.  From  the  political  danger  of  allowing 
the  ten  tribes  to  go  up  to  the  sanctuary  of  Jeru- 
salem, the  princes  of  Israel , as  it  were  in  self- 
lefence,  set  up  a sanctuary  of  their  own  ; and  the 


intimacy  of  Jeroboam  with  the  king  of  Egypt 
may  have  determined  his  preference  for  the  form 
of  idolatry  (the  calves)  which  he  established  at 
Dan  and  Bethel.  In  whatever  else  his  successors 
differed,  they  one  and  all  agreed  in  upholding 
this  worship,  which,  once  established,  appeared 
essential  to  their  national  unity.  Nevertheless  it 
is  generally  understood  to  have  been  a worship  of 
Jehovah,  though  under  unlawful  and  degrading 
forms.  Worse  by  far  was  the  worship  of  Baal, 
which  came  in  under  one  monarch  only,  Ahab, 
and  was  destroyed  after  his  son  was  slain,  by 
Jehu.  A secondary  result  of  the  revolution  was 
the  ejection  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  from  their  lands 
aud  cities  in  Israel ; at  least,  such  as  remained 
were  spiritually  degraded  by  the  compliances  re- 
quired, and  could  no  longer  offer  any  resistance 
to  the  kingly  power  by  aid  of  their  sacred  cha- 
racter. When  the  priestly  tribe  had  thus  lost 
independence,  it  lost  also  the  power  to  assist  the 
crown.  The  succession  of  Jeroboam’s  family 
was  hallowed  by  no  religious  blessing;  and  when 
his  son  was  murdered,  no  Jehoiada  was  found  to 
rally  his  supporters  and  ultimately  avenge  his 
cause.  The  example  of  successful  usurpation 
was  so  often  followed  by  the  captains  of  the 
armies,  that  the  kings  in  Israel  present  to  us  an 
irregular  series  of  dynasties,  with  several  short 
and  tumultuous  reigns.  This  was  one  cause  of 
disorder  and  weakness  to  Israel,  and  hindered  it 
from  swallowing  up  Judah  : another  was  found 
in  the  relations  of  Israel  towards  foreign  powers, 
which  will  presently  be  dwelt  upon. 

We  must  first  attend  to  the  chronology;  in 
discussing  which  Israel  and  Judah  must  be  taken 
together.  It  lies  on  the  face  of  the  narrative  that 
the  years  of  reign  assigned  are  generally  only 
broken  years:  thus  Nadab  is  said  to  have  come 
to  the  throne  in  the  second  and  to  have  been 
slain  in  the  third  year  of  Asa,  and  yet  to  have 
reigned  two  years  (l  Kings  xv.  25,  28);  conse- 
quently every  reign  is  liable  to  a deduction  not 
exceeding  eleven  months.  Instances  will  also 
appear  in  which  reigns  are  rmcferrated  by  a frac- 
tion of  a year  : it  is  doubtful  whether  this  is 
another  sort  of  phraseology,  or  is  an  error  properly 
so  called.  Some  have  further  maintained  (as  Mr. 
Gresvvell)  that  the  reigns  of  kings  were  counted, 
at  least  occasionally,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Jewish  year.  To  illustrate  the  effect  of  this:  sup- 
pose a king  of  England,  to  come  to  the  throne  in 
September,  an  event  which  happened  in  the  fol- 
lowing March  might  be  assigned  to  the  seco-nd 
year  of  his  reign,  though  he  would  not  have  com- 
pleted even  a single  year.  The  great  objections  to 
applying  this  principle  are,  1.  that  we  have  no  proof 
that  it  was  actually  used ; 2.  that  it  introduces 
great  vagueness,  since  we  do  not  once  know  at 
what  season  of  the  year  any  king  began  his  reign; 
3.  that  it  solves  none  of  the  greater  difficulties  en- 
countered, and  that  it  is  not  worth  while  appealing 
to  it  for  the  smaller  ones.  Even  if  applied,  the 
total  effect  of  it  on  the  chronology  is  almost  inap- 
preciable, for  the  limits  of  possible  error  remain 
perhaps  exactly  as  without  it.  The  once  favourite 
system,  of  imagining  a king  to  rule  conjointly 
with  his  father,  when  it  is  not  intimated  in  the 
Scripture,  is  now  deservedly  exploded  by  all  the 
ablest  chronologers. 

The  following  table  contains  the  materials  for 
chronology  furnished  in  the  Scriptures : — 


54 


ISRAEL 


ISRAEL. 


Years 

v , i 

i ear  of  pre- 

; 

Years 

Year  of  pre- 

Aecssaion of  a king  of  Judah. 

of 

ceding  king 

Accession  of  a king  of  Israel. 

of 

ceding  king 

Reign. 

of  Israel. 

Reign. 

of  Judah. 

Rehoboam 

*17 



Jeroboam  . 

. 

9 

22 



Abijah  * 

3 

18th 

Asa 

41 

20th 

Nadab  . . 

• 

2 

2nd 

Baasha  . . 

, , 

21 

3rd 

Elah  . . . 

2 

26th 

Zimri  . . 

7 days 

27th 

Omri  , . . 

12 

*(31  st) 

Ahab  . • . 

*22 

38  th 

Jehoshaphat 

*25 

4th 

Ahaziah  . . 

2 

17th 

Jehoram  . • 

, 

12 

18  th 

Jehoram 

8 

5th 

Ahaziah 

1 

12th 

[Queen  Athaliah]  . • 

Jehoash 

7 



Jehu  . • 

*28 

— 

40 

7th 

Jehoahaz  . 

17 

23rd 

Jehoash  . 

# 

16 

*37tii 

Amazia’n  ..... 

29 

2nd 

Jeroboam  II. 

• • 

|41 

15th 

Uzziah 

*52 

f27th 

Zachariah  . 

38th 

* 

Shallum  • 

• 

• • 

ft 

39th 

Menahem 

, # 

*10 

39th 

Pekahiah 

. # 

2 

50th 

Pekah  . . 

. 

# • 

|20 

52nd 

Jotham  .••••• 

16 

2nd 

Ahaz  ...... 

16 

17  th 

Hoshea 

• 

© 

12th 

Hezekiah  ..... 

29 

*3rd 

Samaria  taken 

• 

• • 

— 

6th 

Some  of  these  data  are  inconsistent  with  others, 
and  it  is  important  to  decide  which  of  them  need 
correction.  Of  course  (other  things  being  equal), 
those  changes  are  to  be  preferred  which  least  dis- 
turb the  system  as  a whole.  But  it  is  well  to 
distinguish  between  the  numbers  marked  with 
an  asterisk  (*)  and  those  to  which  an  obelus  (f) 
is  added.  The  former  are  wrong  only  by  a unit 
or  two,  and  therefore  perhaps  can  be  resolved  by 
interpretation : the  latter  are  quite  untenable. 
These  must  be  separately  remarked  upon. 

I. — 1.  Rehoboam  is  said  to  have  reigned  17 
years;  yet  Abijah  succeeded  him  in  the  18th 
year  of  Jeroboam.  We  must  then  explain  17  to 
mean  17  and  a fraction,  which  is  contrary  to  the 
usual  Hebrew  method.  2.  Ahab  seems  to  have 
reigned  less  than  21  years,  since  Jehoshaphat 
succeeded  in  his  4th  year,  and  Ahaziah  followed 
in  Jehoshaphat’s  17th  year.  It  is  better  to  alter 
22  to  21  than  4th  to  5th,  or  17th  to  18th;  for  if 
4th  were  changed  to  5th,  Asa’s  reign  would  be- 
come (more  than)  42,  not  41  years  : if  17th  were 
made  18th,  the  accession  of  Jehoram  in  the  18th 
year  must  be  further  disturbed.  3.  The  length 
of  Jehoshaphat’s  reign  involves  a difficulty  at 
first  sight : since  Jehoram  of  Israel  came  to  the 
throne  in  his  18th  year,  and  in  Jehoram’s  5th  the 
other  Jehoram  followed,  Jehoshaphat  appears  to 
have  reigned  less  than  18  -f-  5 years.  It  is  true 
that  his  son  was  installed  in  power  during  his  life 
(2  Kings  xviii.  16);  but  in  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Clinton  and  others  the  son’s  reign  could  not  be 
•eckoned  from  that  event,  but  from  the  father’s 


death.  If  tins  be  true,  25  must  be  altered  to  2r 
or  22,  as  by  far  the  simplest  remedy.  Nevertlu. 
Ies3  Mr.  Clinton’s  opinion  ie  here  by  no  mean.\ 
self-evident.  If  Jehoram  received  not  merely 
actual  power,  as  Jotham  did,  who  was  regent  fo. 
his  father  (2  Kings  xv.  5),  but  a ceremonial  in- 
stallation, it  is  credible  thi*t  his  reign  should  have 
been  dated  from  this  event,  although  Jehoshaphat's 
reign  would  still  be  estimated  from  its  commence- 
ment to  his  death.  We  may  then  neglect  the 
25  as  insignificant  to  the  chronology,  regarding 
Jehoram  in  any  case  to  have  commenced  his 
reign  in  the  22nd  or  23rd  of  his  father.  [After 
these  remarks  a very  simple  process  determines 
that  from  Jeroboam  to  Jehu  includes  more  than 
88  and  less  than  92  years.  Thus — 


Years. 

Mnths. 

Years. 

Mnths. 

Jeroboam  . 

. 0 

0 

0 

0 

Abijah 

. 18 

1 

or 

18 

0 

Asa 

. 20 

2 

20 

11 

Jehoshaphat  . 

. 60 

3 

61 

10 

Jehoram  of  Israel 

. 77 

4 

79 

9 

Jehu  . 

. 88 

5 

91 

8 

Hence  no  decisive 

result 

is  attainable  from  the 

data.] 

But  further : 4.  Jehu’s  reign  exceeded  28 
years,  since  Jehoash  succeeded  in  his  7th  year, 
and  Jehoahaz  in  Jehoash’s  23rd.  We  must  in- 
terpret 28  to  mean  28  and  a fraction,  as  in  Reho- 
boam s case.  5.  Jehoash  of  Judah  reigned  less 
than  39  full  years  if  his  namesake  of  Israel  began 
to  reign  in  his  37th  year,  and  in  the  2nd  year  of 


ISRAEL. 


ISRAEL 


G& 


Che  litter  Arnaziah  succeeded.  The  Sept,  lias 
39  instead  of  37  ‘in  some  copies,’  says  Mr.  Clin- 
ton (the  Vatican  Sept,  agrees  with  the  received 
text,  and  so  does  Josephus) ; and  though  this  is 
probably  a mere  correction,  it  seems  to  be  light, 
siuce  it  is  requisite  to  make  good  the  17  years  of 
reign  for  Jehoahaz.  6.  Uzziah  reigned  more 
than  52  full  years,  since  Pekah  came  to  the 
throne  in  his  52nd  and  Jotliam  in  Pekah’s  2nd 
year.  Once  more,  then,  52  means  52  and  a frac- 
tion. 7.  Menahem,  for  a like  reason,  reigned 
not  1U  years  current,  but  10  years  and  some 
months,  since  he  succeeded  in  Uzziah’s  39th,  and 
Pekahiah  followed  in  Uzziah’s  50th.  In  all  the 
cases  where  a whole  number  is  thus  used  with 
the  omission  of  a fraction,  a cautious  chronqloger 
ought  perhaps  to  add  days  less  than  a month,  if 
that  is  enough  to  satisfy  the  other  conditions. 
8.  Ahaz  reigned  not  16  years  current,  but  less 
than  15  full  years,  if  Hoshea  succeeded  in  his 
1 2th  and  Hezekiah  in  Hoshea ’s  3rd  year ; but 
which  of  the  three  numbers  concerned  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  faulty  is  extremely  doubtful.  Winer 
and  Clinton  both  make  Hezekiah  ascend  the 
throne  in  the  fourth  year  of  Hoshea;  but  it 
would  serve  equally  well  to  alter  ‘ 12th  of  Ahaz’ 
into  13th  or  14th. 

II. — Some  greater  deviations  must  now  be  no- 
ticed. 1.  The  accession  of  Omri  is  placed  in  the 
31st  year  of  Asa;  but  this  must  clearly  be  reck- 
oned from  his  residence  in  Samaria  (1  Kings 
xvi.  23).  Even  this  is  inconsistent  with  the 
statement  that  he  reigned  ‘ six  years  in  Tirzah  ;’ 
for  in  the  31st  of  Asa  five  full  years  were  not 
completed.  2.  A great  error,  and  not  a mere 
numerical  one,  is  found  in  2 Kings  i.  17,  which 
makes  Jehoram  king  of  Israel  come  to  the  throne 
in  the  second  year  of  his  namesake  of  Judah, 
whom  he  really  preceded  by  four  full  years  (viii. 
16).  3.  Uzziah  cannot  have  succeeded  in  the 

27th  year  of  Jeroboam  II.,  otherwise  his  father’s 
reign  would  be  more  than  14+26  year’s.  The 
number  27  is  variously  corrected  to  14,  16,  and 
17.  4.  The  41  years’  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.  can- 
not be  correct.  Interpreters  in  general  choose  to 
imagine  an  interregnum  of  i l years  between 
Jeroboam  and  his  son,  which  is  contrary  to  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  text,  ar*l  intrinsically  im- 
probable after  an  eminently  prosperous  reign.  A 
well-known  and  able  writer  even  dilates  on  the 
‘ 11  yrears  of  anarchy  and  civil  strife’  as  a proved 
fact  of  great  moment  in  the  history ! But  to  in- 
vent facts  of  this  sort  in  deference  to  a mere  num- 
ber, where  so  many  numbers  are  not  trustworthy, 
and  with  violence  to  the  narrative,  is  highly  ob- 
jectionable. 5.  Similar  remarks  apply  to  the 
interregnum  invented  after  the  death  of  Pekah. 
Of  his  murderer  it  is  written  (2  Kings  xv.  30), 

‘ he  slew  him  and  reigned  in  his  stead ;’  which 
certainly  does  not  hint  at  an  anarchy  of  nine 
years  between.  If  Hoshea  could  not  immediately 
force  himself  into  the  vacant  throne,  he  was  not 
likely  to  survive  Iris  daring  deed  for  so  many 
years,  and  then  effect  his  purpose.  The  date, 
however,  in  that  verse  is  quite  untenable.  It 
places  the  murder  in  the  20th  year  of  Jotham  ; 
but  Jotham  reigned  only  16  years,  and  Pekah 
survived  him  (xvi.  5).  The  date  in  another  text 
(xv.  27),  which  assigns  to  Pekah  20  years  of 
reign,  must  also  be  rejected,  in  preference  to  tam- 
L'e.’ing  with  the  historical  facts. 


Counting  downwards  from  Jehoash  of  Israel, 
and  representing  fractional  parts  of  years  by 
Greek  letters : — 


Jehoash  of  Israel 
Arnaziah  . 
Jeroboam  . 

Uzziah 

Zachariah  . . 


. 0 

. 1+« . 

. 15  +•  a + fi 

. 29  + a + 7 
• 66  + a + 7 + S 


It  is  hence  easy  to  see  that  Jeroboam  reigned 
more  than  50  full  years,  and  certainly  less  than 
52  : it  is  probable  then  that  the  41  years  assigned 
to  him  ought  to  be  51.  Assuming  this,  it  will 
follow  that  Uzziah  followed  Jeroboam  by  less 
than  14  full  years  ; so  that  ‘ the  27th,’  in  2 Kings 
xv.  1,  will  need  to  be  corrected  ‘ the  14th.’  It 
cannot  be  made  greater  than  15th,  consistently 
with  the  other  date,  even  if  Jeroboam’s  reign  be 
prolonged  into  a 52nd  or  53rd  year,  by  throwing 
it  as  early  as  possible,  and  that  of  Zachariah  as  late 
as  possible. 

Pekah  will  have  reigned  more  than  27  and 
less  than  29  full  years,  if  we  correct  the  date  of 
Hezekiah ’s  accession,  with  Winer  and  Clinton,  as 
above  noticed.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  alter  the 
accession  of  Hoshea  to  the  13th  or  14th  year  of 
Ahaz,  Pekah’s  reign  exceeds  28,  but  is  less  than 
31  years.  If  we  suppose  30  more  likely  to  have 
been  corrupted  into  20,  than  28  or  29,  we  may 
choose  this  alternative. 

So  much  being  premised,  it  readily  appears 
that  from  Jehu  to  Uzziah  is  more  than  73  years, 
and  less  than  76  ; thus  : — 


Years. 

Mnths. 

Years.  Mnths. 

Jehu  . . 

. . 0 

0 

0 

0 

Jehoash 

. . 6 

1 

or 

6 

11 

Arnaziah  . 

. . 45 

2 

46 

10 

Uzziah 

. . 73 

3 

75 

9 

and  that  from 

Uzziah  to  the  capture  of  Samaria 

is  more  than  88 

, and  less  than  9 1 

years  : — 

Years. 

Mnths. 

Years.  Mnths. 

Uzziah 

. . 0 

0 

0 

0 

Jotham 

. . 52 

2 

or 

52 

11 

Ahaz  . 

. . 67 

3 

68 

10 

Hezekiah  . 

. . 82 

4 

83 

9 

Samaria  taken 

. 88 

5 

*5 

90 

8 

From  Jehu  to  the  capture  of  Samaria  then  is 
more  than  161  years,  and  less  than  167  : finally, 
the  whole  period  of  the  Israel itish  monarchy  lies 
between  the  limits  of  249  and  259  years.  Since 
positive  truth  is  here  unattainable,  it  does  not 
appear  worth  while  to  disturb  (as  a whole)  any 
received  chronological  system  : it  is  enough  to 
mark  (when  possible)  the  limits  of  error.  The 
date  of  the  capture  of  Samaria  now  most  re- 
ceived is  b.c.  721  ; yet  this  is  arrived  at  through 
the  reigns  of  the  early  Persian  kings,  and  without 
any  very  satisfactory  check  upon  error. 

The  following  scheme  of  chronology  agrees 
with  Winer  in  its  total  range,  but  has  minor 
changes  by  a single  unit  in  some  of  the  kings 


Rehoboam  . 
Abijah  . 
Asa  * 


B.C. 

975  Jeroboanr . 'k 
957  I 

955  f 

954  Nadab.  j 
952  Baaslia  > 
929  Elah.  { 
928  Zimri,  Omri 


56 


ISRAEL. 


ISRAEL. 


R.C. 


017 

Ahab. 

Jenosnapnat 

. 914 

89  7 

Ahamli,  j 

896 

Jehoram.  J 

J ehoram  . . 

. 889 

Ahaziah 

. 885 

Queen  Athaliah 

. 884 

Jehu.  > 

Jehoash 

. S78 

855 

Jehoahaz. 

840 

Jehoash. 

Amaziah  . 

. 838 

821 

Jeroboam  II. 

Uzziah  . . . 

. 809 

772 

Zachariah. 

771 

Shallum,  Menanem. 

760 

Pekahiah. 

758 

Pekah. 

Jotham 

. 757 

Ahaz  . . 

. 711 

729 

Hoshea. 

Hezekiah  . 

. 726 

721 

Samaria  captured. 

The  dynasties  in  Israel  are  denoted  by  brackets. 


Leaving  the  subject  of  chronology,  vve  pass  to  the 
substance  of  the  history. 

Jeroboam  originally  fixed  on  Shechem  as  the 
centre  of  his  monarchy,  and  fortified  it ; moved 
perhaps  not  only  by  its  natural  suitability,  but 
by  the  remembrances  of  Jacob  which  clove  to  it, 
and  by  the  auspicious  fact  that  here  first  Israel 
had  decided  for  him  against  Rehoboam.  But  the 
natural  delightfulness  of  Tirzah  (Cant.  vi.  4) 
led  him,  perhaps  late  in  his  reign,  to  erect  a 
palace  there  (1  Kings  xiv.  17).  After  the  murder 
of  Jeroboam's  son,  Baaslia  seems  to  have  intended 
to  fix  his  capital  at  Hamah , as  a convenient 
place  for  annoying  the  king  of  Judah,  whom  he 
looked  on  as  his  only  dangerous  enemy ; but 
when  forced  to  renounce  this  plan  (xv.  17,  21), 
he  acquiesced  in  Tirzah,  which  continued  to  be 
the  chief  city  of  Israel,  until  Omri,  who,  since  the 
palace  at  Tirzah  had  been  burned  during  the  civil 
war  (1  Kings  xvi.  18),  built  Samaria,  with  the 
ambition  not  uncommon  in  the  founder  of  a new 
dynasty  (xvi.  21).  Samaria  continued  to  the  end 
of  the  monarchy  to  be  the  centre  of  administration ; 
and  its  strength  appears  to  have  justified  Omri’s 
choice.  For  details,  see  Samaria  ; also  Tirzah 
and  Sheciiem. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Jeroboam  carried 
back  with  him  into  Israel  the  good  will,  if  not  the 
substantial  assistance,  of  Shishak ; and  this  will  ac- 
count for  his  escaping  the  storm  from  Egypt  which 
swept  over  Rehoboam  in  his  fifth  year.  During 
that  first  period  Israel  was  far  from  quiet  within. 
Although  the  ten  tribes  collectively  had  decided 
in  favour  of  Jeroboam,  great  numbers  of  indivi- 
duals remained  attached  to  the  family  of  David 
and  to  the  worship  at  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  three 
first  years  of  Rehoboam  migrated  into  Judah 
(2  Chron.  xi.  16,  17).  Perhaps  it  was  not  until 
this  process  commenced,  that  Jeroboam  was  worked 
up  to  the  desperate  measure  of  erecting  rival 
sanctuaries  with  visible  idols  (1  Kings  xii.  27): 
a measure  which  met  the  usual  ill-success  of  pro- 
fane state-craft,  and  aggravated  the  evil  which  he 
beared.  It  set  him  at  war  with  the  whole  order  of 
priests  and  J.evites,  whose  expulsion  or  subjuga- 


tion, we  may  be  certain,  was  not  effected  withoui 
convulsing  his  whole  kingdom,  and  so  occupying 
him  as  to  free  Rehoboam  from  any  real  danger, 
although  no  peace  was  made.  The  king  of  Judah 
improved  the  time  by  immense  efforts  in  fortifying 
his  territory  (2  Chron.  xi.  5-1 L);  and,  although 
Shishak  soon  after  carried  oft’  the  most  valuable 
spoil,  no  great  or  definite  impression  could  be 
made  by  Jeroboam.  Israel  having  so  far  taken 
the  place  of  heathen  nations,  and  being,  already 
perhaps  even  in  alliance  with  Egypt,  at  an  early 
period — wre  know  not  how  soon — sought  and 
obtained  the  friendship  of  the  kings  of  Damascus. 
A sense  of  the  great  advantage  derivable  from 
such  a union  seems  to  have  led  Ahab  afterwards 
to  behave  with  mildness  and  conciliation  toward? 
Benhadad,  at  a time  when  it  could  have  been 
least  expected  (1  Kings  xx.  31-34).  From  that 
transaction  we  learn  that  Benhadad  I.  had  made 
in  Damascus  ‘streets  for  Omri,’  and  Omri  for 
Benhadad  in  Samaria.  This,  no  doubt,  implied 
that  ‘ a quarter  ’ was  assigned  for  Syrian  mer- 
chants in  Samaria,  which  was  probably  fortified 
like  the  ‘ camp  of  the  Tyrians  ’ in  Memphis,  or 
the  English  factory  at  Calcutta;  and  in  it,  of 
course,  Syrian  worship  would  be  tolerated. 
Against  such  intercourse  the  prophets,  as  might  be 
expected,  entered  their  protest  (ver.  35-13)  ; but  it 
was  in  many  ways  too  profitable  to  be  renounced. 
In  the  reign  of  Baasha,  Asa  king  of  Judah,  sen- 
sible of  the  dangerous  advantage  gained  by  his 
rival  through  the  friendship  of  the  Syrians,  deter- 
mined to  buy  them  off  at  any  price  [see  also 
under  Judah]  ; and  by  sacrificing  ‘ the  treasures 
of  the  house  of  the  Lord  and  the  treasures  of  the 
kings  house’  (xv.  18),  induced  Benhadad  I.  to 
break  his  league  with  Baasha  and  to  ravage  all 
the  northern  district  of  Israel.  This  drew  off  the 
Israel  it  ish  monarch,  and  enabled  Asa  to  destroy 
the  fortifications  of  Ramah,  which-  would  have 
stopped  the  course  of  his  trade  (xv.  17),  perhaps 
that  with  the  sea-coast  and  with  Tyre.  Such  was 
the  beginning  of  the  war  between  Israel  and 
Syria , on  which  the  safety  of  Judah  at  that  time 
depended.  Cordial  union  was  not  again  restored 
between  the  two  northern  states  until  the  days  of 
Ilezin  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah  the  son  of  Rema- 
liah,  when  Damascus  must  have  already  felt  the 
rising  power  of  Nineveh.  The  renewed  alliance 
instantly  proved  so  disastrous  to  Judah,  which 
was  reduced  to  extremest  straits  (Isa.  vii.  2; 
2 Kings  xv.  37  ; 2 Chron.  xxviii.  5,  6),  as  may 
seem  to  justify  at  least  the  'policy  of  Asa's  pro- 
ceeding. Although  it  was  impossible  for  a pro- 
phet to  approve  of  it  (2  Chron.  xvi.  7),  we  may 
only  so  much  the  moi-e  infer  that  Judah  was 
already  brought  into  most  pressing  difficulties, 
and  that  the  general  course  of  the  war,  in  spite  of 
occasional  reverses,  was  decidedly  and  increas- 
ingly favourable  to  Israel. 

The  wars  of  Syria  and  Israel  were  carried  on 
chiefly  under  three  reigns,  those  of  Benhadad  II.. 
Hazael,  and  Benhadad  III.,  the  two  first,  monarchs 
being  generally  prosperous,  especially  Hazael,  the 
last  being  as  decidedly  unsuccessful.  Although 
these  results  may  have  depended  in  part  on  per- 
sonal qualities,  there  is  high  probability  that  the 
feebleness  displayed  by  the  Syrians  against  Jehoash 
and  his  son  Jeroboam  was  occasioned  by  the 
pressure  of  the  advancing  empire  of  Nineveh 
To  make  this  clear,  a small  table  of  synchronism* 


ISRAEL. 


ISRAEL. 


m 


B.C. 

SYRIA. 

B.C. 

Assyria. 

090? 

Rezon. 

1050 

Nineveh  unable  to  resist  the  king  oi 

| 

Zobah,  and  quite  unheard  of  in 

9S0? 

Hizion. 

Palestine. 

9G0  ? 

j 

Tabrimon. 

940 

J 

Benhadad  I. 

910 

Nineveh  still  unable  to  interfere  with 

I 

the"*Syrians,  but  perhaps  beginning 

910? 

Benhadad  II. 

to  rise  into  empire  by  the  conquest 

885 

Hazael. 

I | 

of  Media  and  Babylon. 

845 

1 

Benhadad  III. 

850 

Assyria  undoubtedly  coming  forward 

into  great  power. 

800? 

[Damascus  taken  by  Jeroboam  II.] 

800 

Assyria  probably  in  possession  of 

Northern  Syria. 

758 

Rezin. 

765? 

The  king  of  Assyria  marches  for  the 

t 

i 

first  time  into  Israel. 

^presenting  the  two  heathen  powers  may  be  ser- 
riceable.  The  dates  are  only  approximate. 

Asa  adhered,  through  the  whole  of  his  long 
reign,  to  the  policy  of  encouraging  hostility  be- 
tween the  two  northern  kingdoms ; and  the  first 
Benhadad  had  such  a career  of  success  that  his 
son  found  himself  in  a condition  to  hope  for  an 
entire  conquest  of  Israel.  His  formidable  inva- 
sions wrought  an  entire  change  in  the  mind  of 
Jehoshaphat  (1  Kings  xxii.  44),  who  saw  that  if 
Israel  was  swallowed  up  by  Syria  there  would  be 
no  safety  for  Judah.  We  may  conjecture  that 
this  consideration  determined  him  to  unite  the 
two  royal  families ; for  no  common  cause  would 
have  induced  so  religious  a king  to  select  for  his 
son's, wife  Athaliah  the  daughter  of  Jezebel.  The 
age  of  Ahaziah,  who  was  sprung  from  this  mar- 
riage, forces  us  to  place  it  as  early  as  b.c.  912, 
which  is  the  third  year  of  Jehoshaphat  and  sixth 
of  Ahab.  Late  in  his  reign  Jehoshaphat  threw 
himself  most  cordially  (1  Kings  xxii.  4)  into  the 
defence  of  Ahab,  and  by  so  doing  probably  saved 
Israel  from  a foreign  .yoke.  Another  mark  of  the 
low  state  into  which  both  kingdoms  were  falling, 
is,  that  after  Ahab's  death  the  Moabites  refused 
their  usual  tribute  to  Israel,  and  (as  far  as  can  be 
made  out  from  tire  ambiguous  words  of  2 Kings 
iii.  27)  the  united  force  of  the  two  kingdoms 
failed  of  doing  more  than  irritate  them.  Soon 
after,  in  the  reign  of  Jehoram  son  of  Jehoshaphat, 
the  Edomites  followed  the  example,  and  esta- 
blished their  independence.  This  event  possibly 
engaged  the  whole  force  of  Judith,  and  hindered 
it  from  succouring  Samaria  during  the  cruel  siege 
which  it  sustained  from  Benhadad  II.,  in  the 
reign  of  Jehoram  son  of  Ahab.  The  declining 
years  and  health  of  the  king  of  Syria  gave  a short 
respite  to  Israel ; but,  in  b.c.  885,  Hazael,  by  de- 
feating the  united  Hebrew  armies,  commenced 
the  career  of  conquest  and  harassing  invasion  by 
which  he  ‘ made  Israel  like  the  dust  by  threshing.’ 
Even  under  Jehu  he  subdued  the  trans-Jordanic 
tribes  (2  Kings  x.  32).  Afterwards,  since  he 
took  the  town  of  Gath  (2  Kings  xii.  17)  and  pre- 
pare! to  attack  Jerusalem  — an  attack  which 
Jehoash  king  of  Judah  averted  only  by  strictly 
following  Asa’s  precedent — it  is  manifest  that  all 
the  passes  and  chief  for4*  of  the  country  west  of 


the  Jordan  must  have  been  in  his  hand.  Indeed, 
as  he  is  said  ‘ to  have  left  to  Jehoahaz  only  fifty 
horsemen,  ten  chariots,  and  ten  thousand  footmen,1 
it  would  seem  that  Israel  wae  strictly  a conquered 
province,  in  which  Hazael  dictated  (as  the  Eng 
lish  to  the  native  rajahs  of  India)  what  military 
force  should  be  kept  up.  From  tins  thraldom 
Israel  was  delivered  by  some  unexplained  agency. 
We  are  told  merely  that  ‘Jehovah  gave  to  Israel 
a saviour,  so  that  they  went  out  from  under  the 
hand  of  the  Syrians;  and  the  children  of  Israel 
dwelt  in  their  tents  as  beforetime, ’ 2 Kings  xiii.  5. 
It  is  allowable  to  conjecture  that  the  (apparently 
unknown)  deliverer  was  the  Assyrian  monarchy, 
which,  assaulting  Hazael  towards  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Jehoahaz,  entirely  diew  away  the  Syrian 
armies.  That  it  was  some  urgent,  powerful,  and 
continued  pressure,  considering  the  great  strength 
which  the  empire  of  Damascus  had  attained, 
seems  clear  from  the  sudden  weakness  of  Syria 
through  the  reigns  of  Jehoash  and  Jeroboam  II., 
the  former  of  whom  thrice  defeated  Benhadad  III. 
and  ‘ recovered  the  cities  of  Israel the  latter  not 
only  regained  the  full  territory  of  the  ten  tribes, 
but  made  himself  master  (for  a time  at  least)  of 
Damascus  and  Hamath.  How  entirely  the 
friendship  of  Israel  and  Judah  had  been  caused 
and  cemented  by  their  common  fear  of  Syria,  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  no  sooner  is  the  power  of 
Damascus  broken  than  new  war  breaks  out  be- 
tween the  two  kingdoms,  which  ended  in  the 
p.’urder  of  Jerusalem  by  Jehoash,  who  also  broke 
down  its  walls  and  carried  off  hostages;  after 
which  there  is  no  more  alliance  between  Judah 
and  Israel.  The  empire  of  Damascus  seems  to 
have  been  entirely  dissolved  under  the  son  of 
Hazael,  and  no  mention  is  made  of  its  kings  for 
eighty  years  or  more.  When  Pekah,  son  of  Rema- 
liah,  reigned  in  Samaria,  Rezin,  as  king  of  Da- 
mascus, made  a last  but  ineffectual  effort  for  its 
independence. 

The  same  Assyrian  power  which  had  doubtless 
so  seriously  shaken,  and  perhaps  temporarily  over- 
turned, the  kingdom  of  Damascus,  was  soon  to  be 
felt  by  Israel.  Menahem  was  invaded  by  Pul 
(the  first  sovereign  of  Nineveh  whose  name  we 
know),  and  was  made  tributary.  His  successor, 
Tiglath-pileser,  in  the  reign  of  Pekah,  son  of 


68 


ISRAEL. 


ISSACHAR. 


Remaliah,  carried  captive  tire  eastern  and  northern 
tribes  of  Israel  (i.  e.  perhaps  all  their  chief  men 
as  hostages?),  and  soon  after  slew  Rezin,  the  ally 
of  Pekah,  and  subdued  Damascus.  The  following 
emperor,  Shalmanezer,  besieged  and  captured  Sa- 
maria, and  terminated  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
B.c.  721. 

This  branch  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy  suffered 
far  greater  and  more  rapid  reverses  than  the  other. 
From  the  accession  of  Jeroboam  to  the  middle  of 
Baasha's  reign  it  probably  increased  in  power  ; it 
then  waned  with  the  growth  of  the  Damascene 
empire ; it  struggled  hard  against  it  under  Ahab 
and  Jehoram,  but  sank  lower  and  lower ; it  was 
dismembered  under  Jehu,  and  made  subject 
under  Jehoahaz.  From  b.c.  910  to  b.c  850  is, 
as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained,  the  period  of  de- 
pression ; and  from  b.c.  914  to  b.c.  830  that  of 
friendship  or  alliance  with  Judah.  But  after 
(about)  b.c.  850  Syria  began  to  decline,  and 
Israel  soon  shot  out  rapidly ; so  that  Joash  and 
his  son  Jeroboam  appear,  of  all  Hebrew  monarchs, 
to  come  next  to  David  and  Solomon.  How  long 
this  burst  of  prosperity  lasted  does  not  distinctly 
appear;  but  it  would  seem  that  entire  dominion 
over  the  ten  tribes  was  held  until  Pekah  received 
the  first  blow  from  the  Assyrian  conqueror. 

Besides  that  which  was  a source  of  weakness  to 
Israel  from  the  beginning,  viz.  the  schism  of  the 
crown  with  the  whole  ecclesiastical  body,  other 
causes  may  be  discerned  which  made  the  ten 
tribes  less  powerful,  in  comparison  with  the  two, 
than  might  have  been  expected.  The  marriage 
of  Ahab  to  Jezebel  brought  with  it  no  political 
advantages  at  all  commensurate  with  the  direct 
moral  mischief,  to  say  nothing  of  the  spiritual 
evil;  and  the  reaction  against  the  worship  of 
Baal  was  a most  ruinous  atonemenc  tor  the  sin. 
To  suppress  the  monstrous  iniquity,  the  prophets 
let  loose  the  remorseless  Jehu,  who,  not  satisfied 
with  the  blood  of  Ahab's  wife,  grandson,  and 
seventy  sons,  murdered  first  the  king  of  Judah 
himself,  and  next  forty-two  youthful  and  innocent 
princes  of  his  house ; while,  strange  to  tell,  the 
daughter  of  Jezebel  gained  by  his  deed  the  throne 
of  Judah,  and  perpetrated  a new  massacre.  The 
horror  of  such  crimes  must  have  fallen  heavily  on 
Jehu,  and  have  caused  a wide-spread  disaffection 
among  his  own  subjects.  Add  to  this,  that  the 
Phoenicians  must  have  deeply  resented  his  pro- 
ceedings; so  that  we  get  a very  sufficient  clue  to 
the  prostration  of  Israel  under  the  foot  of  Hazael 
during  the  reign  of  Jehu  and  his  son. 

Another  and  more  abiding  cause  of  political 
debility  in  the  ten  tribes  was  found  in  the  imper- 
fect consolidation  of  the  inhabitants  into  a single 
nation.  Since  those  who  lived  east  of  the  Jordan 
retained,  to  a great  extent  at  least,  their  pastoral 
habits,  their  union  with  the  rest  could  never  have 
been  very  firm  ; and  when  a king  was  neither 
strong  independently  of  them,  nor  had  good 
hereditary  pretensions,  they  were  not  likely  to 
contribute  much  to  his  power.  After  their  con- 
quest of  the  Hagarenes  and  the  depression  of  the 
Moabites  and  Ammonites  by  David,  they  had 
free  room  to  spread  eastward  ; and  many  of  their 
clr’ef  men  may  have  become  wealthy  in  flocks 
an herds  (like  Machir  the  soti  of  Ammiel,  of 
Lodebar,  and  Barzillai  the  Gileadite,  2 Sam. 
xvii.  27),  over  whom  the  authority  of  the  Israel- 
Uisb  crown,  would  aaturr.lly  be  precarious;  while 


west  of  the  Jordan  the  agrarian  law  of  Mu  set 
made  it  difficult  or  impossible  for  a landed  no- 
bility to  form  itself,  which  could  be  formidable 
to  the  royal  authority.  That  the  Arab  spit  it  ol 
freedom  was  rooted  in  the  eastern  tribes,  may 
perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  case  of  the  Re* 
chabites,  who  "Would  neither  live  in  houses  noi 
plant  vines;  undoubtedly,  like  some  of  the  Nil* 
bathecans,  lest  by  becoming  settled  and  agricul- 
tural they  should  be  enslaved.  Yet  the  .need  of 
imposing  this  law  on  his  descendants  would  not 
have  been  felt  by  Jonadab,  had  not  an  opposite 
tendency  been  rising, — that  of  agricultural  settle- 
ment. 

On  another  point  our  information  is  defective, 
viz.  what  proportion  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
consisted  of  foreign  slaves,  or  subject,  and  degraded 
castes  [Soi.omon].  Such  as  belonged  to  tribes 
who  practised  circumcision  [Circumcision] 
would  with  less  difficulty  become  incorporated 
with  the  Israelites;  but  the  Philistines  who  were 
intermixed  with  Israel,  by  resisting  this  ordi- 
nance, must  have  continued  heterogeneous.  Ic 
1 Kings  xv.  27  ; xvi.  15,  we  find  the  town  ov 
Gibbethon  in  the  hand  of  the  Philistines  during 
the  reigns  of  Nadab,  Baasha,  and  Zimri:  nor  is  i< 
stated  that  they  were  finally  expelled.  Gibbethor 
being  a Levitical  town,  it  might  be  conjectured 
that  it  had  been  occupied  by  the  Philistines  whci 
the  Levites  emigrated  into  Judah  ; but  the  possi 
bilities  here  are  many. 

Although  the  priests  and  Levites  nearly  dis 
appeared  out  of  Israel,  prophets  were  perhaps  even 
more  numerous  and  active  there  than  in  Judah  , 
and  Abijah,  whose  prediction  first  endangered 
Jeroboam  (1  Kings  xi.  29-10),  lived  in  honour  at 
Shiloh  to  his  dying  day  (xiv.  2).  Obadiah  alone 
saved  one  hundred  prophets  of  Jehovah  from  the 
rage  of  Jezebel  (xviii.  13).  Possibly  their  extra- 
social character  freed  them  from  the  restraint 
imposed  on  priests  and  Levites;  and  while  they 
felt  less  bound  to  the  formal  rites  of  the  Law,  the 
kings  of  Israel  were  also  less  jealous  of  them.  In 
fact,  just  as  a great  cathedral  in  Christendom 
tends  to  elevate  the  priestly  above  the  prophetical 
functions,  so,  it.  is  possible,  did  the  proximity  of 
Jerusalem  ; and  the  prophet  may  have  moved 
most  freely  where  he  came  least  into  contact  with 
the  priest.  That  most  inauspicious  event — the 
rupture  of  Israel  with  Judah — may  thus  have  been 
overruled  for  the  highest  blessing  of  the  world, 
by  a fuller  development  of  the  prophetical  spirit. 

F.  W.  N 

1.  ISSACHAR  03 Sept.  'l<T<rdXaP),  a 
son  of  Jacob  and  Leah,  born  b.c.  1719,  who  gave 
name  to  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  (Gen.  xxx.  18  ; 
Num.  xxvi.  25). 

2.  The  tribe  called  after  Issacbar.  Jacob,  on 
his  death-bed,  speaking  metaphorically  of  the 
character  and  destinies  of  his  sons,  or  rather  ol 
the  tribes  which  should  spring  from  them,  said, 
‘ Issachar  is  a strong  ass  couching  down  between 
two  burdens’  (Gen.  xlix.  11,  15).  Remembering 
the  character  of  the  ass  in  eastern  countries,  we 
may  be  sure  that  this  comparison  was  not  intended 
in  disparagement.  The  ass  is  anything  but 
stupid  ; and  the  proverbial  obstinacy  which  it 
sometimes  exhibits  in  our  own  country,  is  rathe: 
the  result  of  ill-treatment  than  a natural  cliarac* 
teristic  of  the  animal.  Its  true  attributes  art 


1THAMAR. 


ITUR/EA. 


59 


patience,  gentleness,  great  capability  of  endurance, 
laborious  exertion,  and  a meek  submission  to  au- 
thority. Issachar,  therefore,  the  progenitor  of  a 
race  singularly  docile,  and  distinguished  for 
their  patient  industry,  is  exhibited  under  the 
similitude  of  the  meekest  and  most  laborious  of 
quadrupeds.  The  descriptive  character  goes  on  : 
— ‘And  he  saw  that  rest  was  good,  and  the  land 
that  it  was  pleasant,  and  he  bowed  his  shoulder 
te  bear,  and  became  a servant  unto  tribute ;' 
which  probably  does  not  imply  that  reproach 
upon  Issachar,  as  addicted  to  ignominious  ease, 
which  some  commentators  find  in  it.  It  seems 
simply  to  mean  that  finding  itself  in  possession  of 
a most  fertile  portion  of  Palestine,  the  tribe  de- 
voted itself  to  the  labours  of  agriculture,  taking 
little  interest  in  the  public  affairs  of  the  nation. 
Accordingly  Josephus  says  that  the  heritage  of 
the  tribe  ( was  fruitful  to  admiration,  abounding 
in  pastures  and  nurseries  of  all  kinds,  so  that  it 
would'  make  any  man  in  love  with  husbandry’ 
(Antiq.  v.  1.  22).  But  although  a decided  pre- 
ference of  agricultural  over  commercial  or  mili- 
tary pursuits  is  here  indicated,  there  seems  no 
reason  to  conclude,  a3  some  gather  from  the  last 
clause,  that  the  tribe  would  be  willing  to  purchase 
exemption  from  war  by  the  payment  of  a heavy 
tribute.  The  words  do  not  necessarily  imply 
this  ; and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  tribe  ever 
declined  any  military  service  to  which  it  was 
called.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  specially  com- 
mended by  Deborah  for  the  promptitude  with 
which  it  presented  itself  in  the  war  with  Jabin 
(Judg.  v.  15);  and  in  the  days  of  David  honour- 
able testimony  is  borne  to  its  character  (1  Chron. 
xii.  32).  In  this  passage  the  ‘ children  of  Issa- 
c'har’  are  described  as  ‘ men  that  had  understand- 
ing of  the  times,  to  know  what  Israel  ought  to 
do which,  compared  with  Esther  i.  1 3,  has 
been  supposed  to  mean  that  they  were  skilled  in 
the  various  practical  applications  of  astronomy. 
But  what  need  there  was  of  astronomy  on  the 
occasion  of  calling  David  to  the  thrtfne  of  Israel 
after  the  death  of  Abher  and  Ishbosheth,  is  not 
very  easy  to  discover.  It  more  probably  means 
that  they  were  men  held  in  esteem  for  their  pru- 
dence and  wisdom,  and  who  knew  that  the  time 
was  come  when  it  was  no  longer  safe  to  delay 
calling  David  to  the  throne  of  all  Israel.  On 
quitting  Egypt  the  tribe  of  Issachar  numbered 
54,000  adult  males,  which  gave  it  the  fifth  nume- 
rical rank  among  the  twelve  tribes,  Judah,  Simeon, 
Zebulun,  and  Dan  being  alone  above  it.  In  the 
wilderness  it  increased  nearly  10,000,  and  then 
ranked  as  the  third  of  the  tribes,  Judah  and  Dan 
only  being  more  numerous  (Num.  i.  xxvi.).  The 
territory  of  the  tribe  comprehended  the  whole  of  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon  and  fhe  neighbouring  districts 
—-the  granary  of  Palestine.  It  was  bounded  on 
the  east  by  the  Jordan,  on  the  west  and  south  by 
Manasseh,  and  on  the  north  by  Asher  and  Zebu- 
lun. It  contained  the  towns  of  Megiddo, 
Taanach,  Shunem,  Jezreel,  and  Bethshan,  with 
the  villages  of  Endor,  Aphek,  and  Ibleam,  all 
historical  names : the  mountains  of  Tabor  and 
Gilboa,  and  the  valley  of  Jezreel,  were  in  the 
territory  of  this  tribe,  and  the  course  of  the  river 
Kishon  lay  through  it. 

ITHAMAR  pfclVK,  palm-island, ; Sept. 

Xtfd/wtp),  fourth  son  of  Aaron.  He  was  conse- 


crated to  the  priesthood  along  with  his  brotner* 
(Exod.  vi.  23;  Num.  iii.  2,  3).  Nothing  is  in- 
dividually recorded  of  him,  except  that  the  pro- 
perty of  the  tabernacle  was  placed  under  his 
charge  (Exod.  xxxviii.  21),  and  that  he  superin- 
tended all  matters  connected  with  its  removal  by 
the  Levitical  sections  of  Gershon  and  Merari 
(Num.  iv.  28).  The  sacred  utensils  and  their 
removal  were  entrusted  to  his  elder  brother  Ele- 
azar.  Ithamar,  with  his  descendants,  occupied 
the  position  of  common  priests  till  the  high- 
priesthood  passed  into  his  family  in  the  person  ot 
Eli,  under  circumstances  of  which  we  are  igno- 
rant. Abiathar,  whom  Solomon  deposed,  was 
the  last  high-priest  of  that  line;  and  the  ponti- 
ficate then  reverted  to  the  elder  line  of  Eleazar  in 
the  person  of  Zadok  (1  Kings  ii.  27). 

ITURAEA  (’ Irovpaia ),  a district  in  the  north- 
east of  Palestine,  forming  the  tetrarchy  of  Philip, 
The  name  is  supposed  to  have  originated  with 
‘VUS'1  Itar,  or  Jetur,  one  of  Ishmael's  sons  (l 
Chron.  i.  31).  In  1 Chron.  v.  19  this  name  is 
given  as  that  of  a tribe  or  nation  with  which 
Reuben  (beyond  the  Jordan)  warred  ; and  from  its 
being  joined  with  the  names  of  other  of  ishmael's 
sons  it  is  evident  that  a tribe  descended  from  his 
son  Jetur  is  intimated.  In  the  latter  text  the 
Sept,  takes  this  view,  and  for  ‘ with  the  Hagarites, 
with  Jetur,  and  Nephish,  and  Nodab,’  reads, 
‘ with  the  Hagarites,  and  Iturseans,  and  Nephi- 
sseans  and  Nadabseans’ — per  a Tav'AyapTjvcioi/,  ncd 
Arovpaicov,  Kal  N acjncraloov,  Kal  NaSajSaiW.  The 
old  name  seems  to  be  still  preserved  in  that  of 
Jedur,  which  the  same  region,  or  a part  of  it,  now 
bears.  We  may  thus  take  the  district  to  have 
been  occupied  by  Ishmael’s  son,  whose  descend- 
ants were  dispossessed  or  subdued  by  the  Amo* 
rites,  under  whom  it  is  supposed  to  have  formed 
part  of  the  kingdom  of  Bashan,  and  subsequently 
to  have  belonged  to  that  half  tribe  of  Manasseh 
which  had  its  possessions  east  of  the  Jordan. 
From  1 Chron.  v.  19,  it  appears  that  the  sons  of 
Jetur,  whether  under  tribute  to  the  Amorites,  as 
some  suppose,  and  forming  "part  of  the  kingdom 
of  Bashan,  or  not,  were  in  actual  occupation  of 
the  country,  and  were  dispossessed  by  the  tribes 
beyond  the  Jordan ; which  is  a sufficient  answer  to 
those  who  allege  that  Itursea  lay  too  far  to  the 
north-east  to  have  belonged  to  Manasseh.  Dur- 
ing the  Exile  this  and  other  border  countries  were 
taken  possession  of  by  various  tribes,  whom,  al- 
though they  are  called  after  the  original  names, 
as  occupants  of  the  countries  which  had  received 
those  names,  we  are  not  bound  to  regard  as  de- 
scendants of  the  original  possessors.  These  new 
Itur  cleans  were  eventually  subdued  by  King  Aris- 
tobulus  (b.c.  100) ; by  whom  they  were  con- 
strained to  embrace  the  Jewish  religion,  and  were 
at  the  same  time  incorporated  with  the  state  (Jo- 
seph. Antiq.  xiii.  11.  3).  Nevertheless  the 
Iturseans  were  still  recognizable  as  a distinct 
people  in  the  time  of  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  23).  A3 
already  intimated,  Herod  the  Great,  in  dividing 
his  dominions  among  his  sons,  bequeathed  Itursea 
to  Philip,  as  part  of  a tetrarchy  composed,  accord- 
ing to  Luke,  of  Trachonitis  and  Itursea;  and  as 
Josephus  (Antiq.  xvii.  8.  8)  mentions  his  territory 
as  composed  of  Auranitis,  Trachonitis,  and  Bata- 
naea,  it  would  appear  as  if  the  Evangelist  regard- 
ed Auranitis  and  Paneas  as  comprehended  under 
Itursea.  The  name  is  indeed  so  loosely  applied 


50 


IVORY. 


IYAR. 


by  ancient  writers  that  it  is  difficult  to  fix  its 
boundaries  with  precision.  Perhaps  it  may  suf- 
fice for  general  purposes  to  describe  it  as  a district 
of  indeterminate  extent.,  traversed  by  aline  drawn 
from  the  Lake  of  Tiberias  to  Damascus;  and  by 
different  writers, and  under  different  circumstances, 
mentioned  with  extensions  in  various  directions, 
beyond  the  proper  limits  of  the  name.  The  present 
Jedur  probably  comprehends  the  whole  or  greater 
part  of  the  proper  Ituraa.  This  is  described  by 
Burckhardt  (Syria,  p.  286)  as  4 lying  south  of 
Jebelkessoue,  east  of  Jebel  es-Sheik  (Mount  Her- 
mon),  and  west  of  the  Hadj  road.’  He  adds,  that 
it  now  contains  only  twenty  inhabited  villages. 
By  the  help  of  these  lights  we  may  discover  that 
Ituraea  was  a plain  country,  about  thirty  miles 
long  from  north  to  south,  and  twenty-four  from 
east  to  west,  having  on  the  north  Abilene  and 
the  Damascene  district;  on  the  south  Auranitis 
and  part  of  Uashan  ; on  the  east  the  stony  region 
of  Trachonitis ; and  on  the  west  the  hill  country  of 
Bashan. 

IVORY  shenhabbim ; Chald. 

shin  diphel ; Syr.  gremphila  ; Sept.  oSoVres 
itecpdvTLi/oi.  New  Test.  kXscpavTivos ; 1 Kings 
x.  22;  2 Chron.  ix.  21 ; Rev.  xviii.  12).  ‘ Ele- 

phant's tooth,’  or  simply  ‘elephant,’  is  a common 
name  for  ivory,  not  only  in  the  Oriental  lan- 
guages and  in  Greek,  but  also  in  the  Western 
tongues ; although  in  all  of  them  teeth  of  other  spe- 
cies may  be  included.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  for 
example,  that  the  harder  and  more  accessible  ivory 
obtained  from  the  hippopotamus,  was  known  in 
Egypt,  at  least  as  early  as  that  obtained  from  the 


according  to  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  Jacob's  lied 
was  made  of  this  substance  (Gen.  xlix.  33); 
we  find  king  Solomon  importing  it  from  Tar. 
shish  (1  Kings  x.  22)  ; and  if  Psalm  xlv.  8 was 
written  before  his  reign,  ivory  was  extensively 
used  in  the  furniture  of  royal  residences  at  a 
still  earlier  period.  The  same  fact  is  corroborated 
by  Homer,  whotaiotices  this  article  of  luxury  in  the 
splendid  palace  of  Menelaus,  when  Greece  had  not 
yet  formed  that  connection  with  Egypt  and  the 
East  which  the  Hebrew  people,  from  tl/eir  geo- 
graphical position,  naturally  cultivated.  As  an 
instance  of  the  superabundant  possession  and  bar- 
barian use  of  elephants’  teeth,  may  be  mentioned 
the  octagonal  ivory  hunting-tower  built  by  Akbar, 
about  twenty-four  miles  west  of  Agra : it  is  still 
standing,  and  bristles  with  128  enormous  tusks 
disposed  in  ascending  lines,  sixteen  on  each  face. 
Mr.  Roberts,  remarking  on  the  words  of  Amos  (vi. 
4),  they  ‘ that  lie  upon  beds  of  ivory,  and  stretch 
themselves  upon  their  couches,’  refers  the  last 
word,  in  conformity  with  the  Tamul  version,  to 
swinging  cots,  often  mentioned  in  the  early  tales  of 
India,  and  still  plentifully  used  by  the  wealthy. 
But  it  does  not  appear  that  they  were  known 
in  Western  Asia,  or  that  figures  of  them  occur 
on  Egyptian  bas-reliefs.  It  is  more  likely  that 
‘ palkies’  (those  luxurious  travelling  litters)  are 
meant,  which  were  borne  on  men’s  shoulders, 
whilst  the  person  within  was  stretched  at  ease. 
They  were  in  common  use  even  among  the  Ro- 
mans; for  Cicero  fell  into  his  assassins’  hands 
while  he  was  attempting  to  escape  in  one  of  them 
towards  Naples.  The  tusks  of  African  elephants 
are  generally  much  longer  than  those  of  the 
Asiatic ; and  it  may  be  observed  in  this  place, 
that  the  ancients,  as  well  as  the  moderns,  are  mis- 
taken when  they  assert  elephants’  tusks  to  be  a 
kind  of  horns.  They  are  genuine  teeth,  com- 
bining in  themselves,  and  occupying,  in  the  upper 
jaw,  the  whole  mass  of  secretions  which  in  other 
animals  form  the  upper  incisor  and  laniary  teeth. 
They  are  useful  for  defence  and  offence,  and  for 
holding  down  green  brandies,  or  rooting  up  water- 
plants  ; but  still  they  are  not  absolutely  necessary, 
since  there  is  a variety  of  elephant  in  the  Indian 
forests  entirely  destitute  of  tusks,  and  the  females 
in  most  of  the  races  are  either  without  them,  or 
have  them  very  small ; not  turned  downwards, 
as  Bochart  states,  but  rather  straight,  as  correctly 
described  by  Pliny  [Elephant  j. — C.  H.  S. 


elephant.  We  have  seen  what  appeared  to  be  an 
ivory  sword-handle  of  Egyptian  workmanship, 
which  was  declared  by  dentists  to  be  derived  from 
the  river-horse,  and  of  tire  same  texture  as  that 
which  they  now  manufacture  into  false  teetli  to  sup- 
ply decayed  teeth  in  the  human  mouth.  This  kind 
of  ivory  does  not  split,  and  therefore  was  anciently 
most  useful  for  military  instruments.  Elephants’ 
teeth  were  largely  imported  as  merchandise,  and 
also  brought  as  tribute  into  Egypt.  The  processions 
of  human  figures  bearing  presents,  &c.,  still  extant 
on  the  walls  of  palaces  and  tombs,  attest  by  the 
black  crisp-haired  bearers  of  huge  teeth,  that  some 
of  these  came  from  Ethiopia  or  Central  Africa; 
and  by  white  men  similarly  laden,  who  also  bring 
an  Asaiatic  elephant  and  a white  bear,  that  others 
came  from  the  East.  Phoenician  traders  had  ivory 
in  such  abundance  that  the  chief  seats  of  their 
galleys  were  ii  laid  with  it.  In  the  Scriptures, 


IYAR  ; ’lap,  Josephus,  Antiq.  viii.  3.  1 
the  Macedonian  'Apr* pier ios)  is  the  late  name  o. 
that  month  which  was  the  second  of  the  sacred, 
and  the  seventh  of  the  civil  year  of  the  Jews,  anil 
which  began  with  the  new  moon  of  May.  The 
few  memorable  days  in  it  are  the  10th,  as  a fast 
for  the  death  of  Eli;  the  14th,  as  the  second  or 
lesser  Passover,  for  those  whom  uncleanness  or 
absence  prevented  from  celebrating  the  feast  in 
Nisan  (Num.  ix.  11);  the  23rd,  as  a feast  insti- 
tuted by  Simon  the  Maccabee  in  memory  of  his 
taking  the  citadel  Acra  in  Jerusalem  (1  Macc. 
xiii.  51,  52)  ; the  28th,  as  a fast  for  the  death  of 
Samuel. 

Gesenius  derives  Iyar  from  the  Hebrew  root 
*Y)&$,  to  shine ; but  Benfey  and  Stem,  following 
out  their  theory  of  the  source  from  which  tin* 
Jews  obtained  such  femes,  deduce  it  from  the 
assumed  Zend  representative  of  the  Persian  bahar, 


JABAL. 


JACOB. 


61 


spring’  (Monalsnamen,  p.  134).  The  name 
Ivar  does  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  this 
month  being  always  described  as  the  second 
month,  except  in  four  places  in  which  it  is  called 
Ziv  (1  Kings  v.  1,  37;  Dan.  ii.  31;  iv.  33). 
Ziv,  which  is  written  If  and  Vt,  is  not  considered 
to  be  a proper  name,  but  an  appellative.  It 
is  derived  from  *1  PIT,  and  is  a curtailed  form  for 
1'ftt,  ‘ zehlv,’  bright,  an  appropriate  epithet  of  the 
month  of  flowers. — J.  N. 


J. 


JABAL  (PI),  a stream;  Sept.  ‘I (ofifa),  a de- 
scendant of  Cain,  son  of  Lamech  and  Adah,  who 
is  described  in  Gen.  iv.  20,  as  ‘the  father  of  such 
as  dwell  in  tents,  and  have  cattle,’  This  obviously 
means  that  Jabal  was  the  first  who  adopted  that 
nomade  life  which  is  still  followed  by  numerous 
Arabian  and  Tartar  tribes  in  Asia.  Abel  had  long 
before  been  a keeper  of  sheep;  but  Jabal  in- 
vented such  portable  habitations  (formed,  doubt- 
less, of  skins)  as  enabled  a pastoral  people  to  re- 
move their  dwellings  with  them  from  one  place  to 
another,  when  they  led  their  flocks  to  new  pastures. 

JABBOK  (pi) ; Sept,  'la&dotc),  one  of  the 
streams  which  traverse  the  country  east  of  the 
Jordan,  and  which,  after  a course  nearly  from 
east  to  west,  falls  into  that  river  about  thirty  miles 
below  the  lake  of  Tiberias.  It  seems  to  rise  in 
the  Hauran  mountains,  and  its  whole  course  may 
he  computed  at  sixty-five  miles.  It  is  mentioned 
in  Scripture  as  the  boundary  which  separated  the 
kingdom  of  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites,  from 
that  of  Og,  king  of  Bashan  (Josh.  xii.  1-6);  and 
it  appears  afterwards  to  have  been  the  boundary 
tat'ween  the  tribe  of  Reuben  and  the  half-tribe 
of  Manasseh.  The  earliest  notice  of  it  occurs  in 
Gen.  xxxii.  22. 

The  Jabbok  now  bears  the  name  of  Zerka.  In 
its  passage  westward  across  the  plains,  it  more 
than  once  passes  under  gx-ourtd  ; and  in  summer 
the  upper  portion  of  its  channel  becomes  dry. 
But  on  entering  the  more  hilly  country  imme- 
iiately  east  of  the  Jordan,  it  receives  tribute  from 
several  springs,  which  maintain  it  as  a perennial 
stream,  although  very  low  in  summer.  From  this 
it  appears  that  not  only  its  volume,  but  the  length 
of  its  course,  is  much  smaller  in  summer  than  in 
winter.  On  approaching  the  Jordan  it  flows 
through  a deep  ravine,  the  steep  banks  being  over- 
grown with  the  solanum  furiosum,  which  attains 
a considerable  size.  But  the  ravine  is  not  so  well 
wooded  as  the  immediate  neighbourhood.  The 
water  is  pleasant,  and  the  bed  being  rocky  the 
stream  runs  clear  (Burckhardt’s  Syria,  p.  347  ; 
Irby  and  Mangles,  Travels , p.  3 1 9 ; Buckingham, 
Palestine , ii.  109;  Lindsay,  ii.  123). 

JABESH  (BO)  and  E”3)  ; Sept.  T aJSe7,  and 
‘la&is),  or  Jauesh-Gii.rad,  a town  beyond  the 
Jordan,  in  the  land  of  Gilead. 

Jabesh  belonged  to  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh, 
and  was  sacked  by  the  Israelites  for  refusing 
to  join  in  the  war  against  Benjamin  (Judg.  xxi. 
8).  It  is  chiefly  memorable  for  the  siege  it  sus- 
tained from  Nahash,  king  of  the  Ammonites, 
ths  raising  of  which  formed  the  first  exploit  of 


the  newly-elected  king,  Saul,  and  procured  hit 
confirmation  in  the  sovereignty.  The  inhabitants 
had  agreed  to  surrender,  and  to  have  their  right 
eyes  put.  out  (to  incapacitate  them  from  military 
service),  but  were  allowed  seven  days  to  ratify 
the  treaty.  In  the  meantime  Saul  collected  a 
large  army,  and  came  to  their  relief  (1  Sam.  xi.) 
This  service  was  gratefully  remembered  by  the 
Jabeshites;  and,  about  forty  years  after,  when 
the  dead  bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons  were  gib- 
beted on  the  walls  of  Bethshan,  on  the  other  side 
of  the  river,  they  made  a forced  march  by  night, 
took  away  the  bodies,  and  gave  them  honourable 
burial  ( 1 Sam.  xxxi.). 

Jabesh  still  existed  as  a town  in  the  time  of 
Eusebius,  who  places  it,  six  miles  from  Pella 
towards  Gerasa  ; but  the  knowledge  of  the  site  ia 
now  lost,  unless  we  accept  the  conclusion  ot 
Mr.  Buckingham,  who  thinks  it  may  be  found 
in  a place  called  Jebaz  or  Jejaz,  marked  by  ruins 
upon  a hill,  in  a spot  not  far  from  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  above  indications,  Jabesh  must  have 
been  situated  ( Travels , ii.  130  134). 

1.  JAB1N  (I'll),  discerner;  Sept.  Ta^tV) 
king  of  Hazor,  and  one  of  the  most  powerful  of  all 
the  princes  who  reigned  in  Canaan  when  it  was 
invaded  by  the  Israelites.  His  dominion  seems  to 
have  extended  over  all  the  north  pait  of  the  coun- 
try ; and  after  the  ruin  of  the  league  formed  against 
the  Hebrews  in  the  south  by  Adoriizedek,  king 
of  Jerusalem,  he  assembled  his  tributaries  near  the 
waters  of  Merom  (the  lake  Huleh),  and  called  all 
the  people  to  arms.  This  coalition  was  destroyed, 
as  the  one  in  the  south  had  been,  and  Jabin 
himself  perished  in  the  sack  of  Hazor,  his  capital, 
B.c.  1450.  This  prince  was  the  last  powerful 
enemy  with  whom  Joshua  combated,  and  his  over- 
throw seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  the  crown- 
ing act  in  the  conquest  of  the  Promised  Land 
(Josh.  xi.  1—14). 

2.  JABIN,  king  of  Hazor,  and  probably  de- 
scended from  the  preceding.  It  appears  that  during 
one  of  the  servitudes  of  the  Israelites,  proba,blv  when 
they  lay  under  the  yoke  of  Cushan  or  Eglon,  the 
kingdom  of  Hazor  was  reconstructed.  The  narra- 
tive gives  to  this  second  Jabin  even  the  title  of  ‘ king 
of  Canaan  ;’  and  ibis,  with  the  possession  of  SOU 
iron-armed  war-chariots,  implies  unusual  power 
and  extent  of  dominion.  The  iniquities  of  the 
Israelites  having  lost  them  the  Divine  protection, 
Jabin  gained  the  mastery  over  them  ; and,  stimu- 
lated by  the  remembrance  of  ancient  wrongs, 
oppressed  them  heavily  for  twenty  years.  From 
this  thraldom  they  were  relieved  by  the  great  vic- 
tory won  by  Bar  ak  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  over 
the  hosts  of  Jabin,  commanded  by  Srsera,  one  of 
the  most  renowned  generals  of  those  times,  b.c. 
1285.  The  well-compacted  power  of  the  king  of 
Hazor  was  not  yet,  however,  entirely  broken. 
The  war  was  still  prolonged  for  a,  time,  but  ended 
in  the  entire  ruin  of  Jabin,  and  t! re  subjugation 
of  his  territories  by  the  Israelites  (Judg.  iv.). 

This  is  the  Jabin  whose  name  occurs  in  Ps. 
Ixxxiii.  10. 

JACK  IN  AND  BOAZ,  the  names  of  two 
brazen  pillars  in  the  porch  of  Solomon's  tempi* 
[Tempj,e]. 

JACINTH.  [Leshem.] 

JACOB  (UDJJ)  ; Sept.  3lan(&j3)  was  the  second 
son  of  Isaac  by  his  wife  Rebekab.  Her  can- 


S2 


JACOB. 


JACOB. 


ceiving  is  stated  to  have  been  supernatural.  Led 
by  peculiar  feelings  she  went  to  inquire  of  the 
Lord,  and  was  informed  that,  she  was  indeed  with 
child,  that  her  offspring  should  be  the  founders  of 
two  nations,  and  that  the  elder  should  serve  the 
younger:  circumstances  which  ought  to  be 

borne  in  mind  when  a judgment  is  pronounced 
on  her  conduct  in  aiding  Jacob  to  secure  the  pri- 
vileges of  birth  to  the  exclusion  of  his  elder  bro- 
ther Esau — conduct  which  these  facts,  connected 
with  the  birth  of  the  boys,  may  well  have  in- 
fluenced. Some  have  indeed  denied  the  facts, 
and  taken  from  them  the  colouring  they  bear  in 
the  Bible ; and  such  persons  may  easily  be  led  on 
to  pronounce  a severe  and  indiscriminate  sentence 
ot  condemnation  on  Rebekah ; but  those  who  pro- 
fess to  receive  and  to  respect  the  Biblical  records 
are  unjustifiable,  if  they  view  any  part  of  them,  or 
any  event  which  they  record,  in  any  other  light 
than  that  which  the  Bible  supplies,  in  any  other 
position  than  that  which  the  Bible  presents.  It  is 
as  a whole  that  each  separate  character  should  be 
contemplated  — under  the  entire  assemblage  of 
those  circumstances  which  the  Bible  narrates. 
If  we  first  maim  an  historical  person  we  may  very 
readily  misrepresent  him. 

As  the  boys  grew,  Jacob  appeared  to  partake 
of  the  gentle,  quiet,  and  retiring  character  of  his 
father,  and  was  accordingly  led  to  prefer  the 
tranquil  safety  and  pleasing  occupations  of  a 
shepherd's  life  to  the  bold  and  daring  enterprises 
of  the  hunter,  for  which  Esau  had  an  irresistible 
predilection.  Jacob,  therefore,  passed  his  days  in 
or  near  the  paternal  tent,  simple  and  unpretending 
in  his  manner  of  life,  and  finding  in  the  flocks 
and  herds  which  he  kept,  images  and  emotions 
which  both  filled  and  satisfied  his  heart.  His 
domestic  habits  and  affections  seem  to  have  co- 
operated with  the  remarkable  events  that  attended 
his  birth,  in  winning  for  him  the  peculiar  regard 
and  undisguised  preference  of  his  mother,  who 
probably  in  this  merely  yielded  to  impressions 
which  she  could  scarcely  account  for,  much  less 
define,  and  who  had  not  even  a faint  conception 
of  the  magnitude  of  influence  to  which  her  pre- 
dilection was  likely  to  rise,  and  the  sad  conse- 
quences to  which  it  could  hardly  fail  to  lead. 

That  selfishness  and  a prudence  which  ap- 
' proached  to  cunning  had  a seat  in  the  heart  of  the 
youth  Jacob,  appears  but  too  plain  in  his  deal- 
ing with  Esau,  when  he  exacted  from  a famishing 
brother  so  large  a price  for  a mess  of  pottage,  as 
the  surrender  of  his  birthright.  Nor  does  the 
simple  narrative  of  the  Bible  afford  grounds  by 
which  this  act  can  be  well  extenuated.  Esau 
asks  for  food,  alleging  as  his  reason,  ‘for  I am 
faint.’  Jacob,  unlike  both  a youth  and  a brother, 
answers,  ‘ Sell  me  this  day  thy  birthright.’  What 
could  Esau  do  P ‘ Behold,’  he  replies,  ‘ I am 
at  the  point  to  die,  and  what  profit  (if  by  retain- 
ing my  birthright  I lose  my  life)  shall  this  birth- 
right dome?’  Determined  to  have  a safe  bar- 
gain, the  prudent  Jacob,  before  he  gave  the  needed 
refreshment,  adds,  ‘ Swear  to  me  this  day.’  The 
oath  was  given,  the  food  eaten,  and  Esau  * went 
his  xoay,'  leaving  a home  where  he  had  received 
so  sorry  a welcome. 

The  leaning  which  his  mother  had  in  favour  of 
Jacob  would  naturally  be  augmented  by  the  con- 
duct of  Esau  in  marrying,  doubtless  contrary  to 
ais  parents’  wishes,  .wo  Hittite  women,  who  are 


recorded  to  have  been  a grief  of  mind  unto  Isaac 
and  to  Rebekah. 

Circumstances  thus  prepared  the  way  for  pro- 
curing the  transfer  of  the  birthright,  when  Isaac 
being  now  old,  proceeded  to  take  steps  to  pro- 
nounce the  irrevocable  blessing  which  acted  with 
all  the  force  of  a modern  testamentary  bequest. 
This  blessing,  then,  it  was  essential  that  Jacob 
should  receive  in  preference  to  Esau.  Here 
Rebekah  appears  the  chief  agent;  Jacob  is  a 
mere  instrument  in  her  hands.  Isaac-  directs 
Esau  to  procure  him  some  venison.  This  Re- 
bekah hears,  and  urges  her  reluctant  favourite  to 
personate  his  elder  brother.  Jacob  suggests  diffi- 
culties : they  are  met  by  Rebekah,  who  is  ready 
to  incur  any  personal  danger  so  that  her  object  be 
gained.  ‘ My  father,  peradventure,  will  feel  me, 
and  I shall  seem  to  him  as  a deceiver,  and  I shall 
bring  a curse  upon  me  and  not  a blessing.  His 
mother  said  unto  him,  Upon  me  be  thy  curse,  my 
son,  only  obey  my  voice.’  Her  voice  is  obeyed, 
the  venison  is  brought,  Jacob  is  equipped  for  the 
deceit ; he  helps  out  his  fraud  by  direct  false- 
hood, and  the  old  man,  whose  senses  are  now  fail- 
ing, is  at  last  with  difficulty  deceived.  It  caniiot 
be  denied  that  this  is  a most  reprehensible  transac- 
tion, and  presents  a truly  painful  picture  ; in  which 
a mother  conspires  with  one  son  in  order  to  cheat 
her  aged  husband,  with  a view  to  deprive  another 
son  of  his  rightful  inheritance.  Justification  is 
here  impossible ; but  it  should  not  be  forgotten  in 
the  estimate  we  form  that  there  was  a promise  in 
favour  of  Jacob,  that  Jacob’s  qualities  had  en- 
deared him  to  his  mother,  and  that  the  prospect 
to  her  was  dark  and  threatening  which  arose  when 
she  saw  the  neglected  Esau  at  the  head  of  the 
house,  and  his  hateful  wives  assuming  command 
over  herself. 

Punishment  in  this  world  always  follows  close 
upon  the  heels  of  transgression.  Fear  seized  the 
guilty  Jacob,  who  is  sent  by  his  father,  at  the 
suggestion  of  Rebekah,  to  the  original  seat  of  the 
family,  in  order  that  he  might  find  a wife  among 
his  cousins,  the  daughters  of  his  mother's  brother, 
Laban  the  Syrian.  Before  he  is  dismissed  Jacob 
again  receives  his  father’s  blessing,  the  object  ob- 
viously being  to  keep  alive  in  the  young  man's 
mind  the  great  promise  given  to  Abraham,  and 
thus  to  transmit  that  influence  which,  under  the 
aid  of  divine  providence,  was  to  end  in  placing  the 
family  in  possession  of  the  land  of  Palestine,  and 
in  so  doing  to  make  it  ‘ a multitude  of  people.’  The 
language,  however,  employed  by  the  aged  father 
suggests  the  idea,  that  the  religious  light  which 
had  been  kindled  in  the  mind  of  Abraham  had 
lost  somewhat  of  its  fulness,  if  not  of  its  clearness 
also ; since  ‘ the  blessing  of  Abraham,’  which  had 
originally  embraced  all  nations,  is  now  restricted 
to  the  descendants  of  this  one  patriarchal  family. 
And  so  it  appears,  from  the  language  which  Jacob 
employs  (Gen.  xxviii.  16)  in  relation  to  the  dream 
that  he  had  when  he  tarried  all  night  upon  a 
certain  plain  on  his  journey  eastward,  that  his 
idea  of  the  Deity  was  little  more  than  that  of  a 
local  god — ‘ Surely  the  Lord  is  in  this  place,  and 
I knew  it  not.'  Nor  does  the  language  which  lie 
immediately  after  employs  show  that  his  ideas  of 
the  relations  between  God  and  man  were  of  an 
exalted  and  refined  nature  : — ‘ If  God  will  be  with 
me,  and  will  keep  me  in  the  way  that  I go,  and 
will  give  me  bread  to  eat  and  raiment  to  put  on. 


JACOB. 


JACOB. 


6? 


«o  tha  I come  again  to  my  father’s  house  in 
peace,  then  shall  the  Lord  he  my  God.’  The 
vision  therefore  with  which  Jacob  was  favoured 
was  not  without  occasion,  nor  could  the  terms  in 
which  he  was  addressed  by  the  Lord,  fail  to  en- 
large and  correct  his  conceptions,  and  make  his 
religion  at  once  more  comprehensive  and  more 
influential. 

Jacob,  on  coming  into  the  land  of  the  people  of 
the  East,  accidentally  met  with  Rachel,  Laban’s 
daughter,  to  whom,  with  true  eastern  simplicity 
and  politeness,  he  showed  such  courtesy  as  the 
duties  of  pastoral  life  suggest  and  admit.  And 
here  his  gentle  and  affectionate  nature  displays 
itself  under  the  influence  of  the  bonds  of  kindred 
and  the  fair  form  of  youth : — ‘Jacob  kissed  Rachel, 
and  lifted  up  his  voice  and  wept.’ 

After  he  had  been  with  his  uncle  the  space  of  a 
month,  Laban  inquires  of  him  what  reward  he  ex- 
pects for  his  services.  He  asks  for  the  ‘ beautiful 
and  well-favoured  Rachel.’  His  request  is  granted 
on  condition  of  a seven  years’  service-  -a  long 
period  truly,  but  to  Jacob  ‘ they  seemed  hut  a 
few  days  for  the  love  he  had  to  her.’  When  the 
time  was  expired,  the  crafty  Laban  availed  him- 
self of  the  customs  of  the  country,  in  order  to  sub- 
stitute his  elder  and  ‘ tender-eyed’  daughter  Leah. 
In  the  morning  Jacob  found  bow  he  had  been 
beguiled  ; but  Laban  excused  himself,  saying,  ‘ It 
must  not  be  done  in  our  country,  to  give  the 
younger  before  the  first-born.’  Another  seven 
years’  service  gains  for  Jacob  the  beloved  Rachel. 
Leah,  however,  has  the  compensatory  privilege  of 
being  the  mother  of  the  first-born — Reuben;  three 
other  sons  successively  follow,  namely,  Simeon, 
Levi,  and  Judah,  sons  of  Leah.  This  fruitful- 
ness was  a painful  subject  of  reflection  to  the  barren 
Rachel,  who  employed  language  on  this  occasion 
that  called  forth  a reply  from  her  husband  which 
shows  that,  mild  as  was  the  character  of  Jacob,  it. 
was  by  no  means  wanting  in  force  and  energy 
(Gen.  xxx.  2).  An  arrangement,  however,  took 
place,  by  which  Rachel  had  children  by  means 
of  her  maid,  Bilhah,  of  whom  Dan  and  Naphtali 
were  born.  Two  other  sons — Gad  and  Asher — 
were  born  to  Jacob  of  Leah’s  maid,  Zilpali.  Leah 
herself  bare  two  more  sons,  namely,  Issachar  and 
Zebulun;  she  also,  bare  a daughter,  Dinah.  At 
length  Rachel  herself  bare  a son,  and  she  called 
his  name  Joseph. 

Most  faithfully,  and  with  great  success,  had 
Jacob  served  his  uncle  for  fourteen  years,  when 
lie  became  desirous  of  returning  to  his  parents. 
At  the  urgent  request  of  Laban,  however,  he  is 
induced  to  remain.  The  language  employed 
upon  this  occasion  (Gen.  xxx.  25,  sq.)  shows  that 
Jacob’s  character  had  gained  considerably  during 
his  service  both  in  strength  and  comprehensive- 
ness ; but  the  means  which  he  employed  in  order 
to  make  his  bargain  with  his  uncle  work  so  as  to 
enrich  himself,  prove  too  clearly  that  his  moral 
feelings  had  not  undergone  an  equal  improve- 
ment, and  that  the  original  taint  of  prudence,  and 
the  sad  lessons  of  his  mother  in  deceit,  had  pro- 
duced some  of  their  natural  fruit  in  his  bosom. 
Those  who  may  wish  to  inquire  into  the  nature 
ind  efficacy  of  the  means  which  Jacob  employed, 
may,  in  addition  to  the  original  narrative,  con- 
sult Michaelis  and  Rosenmiiller  on  the  subject, 
as  well  a3  the  following: — Hieron.  Qucest.in  Gen.; 
V*iin.  Hist.  Nat.  vii.  10;  Oppi an, Cyneg.  i.  330,  sq. ; 


Hastfeer,  fiber  Schafzucht;  Bochart,  Hitx-oz.  i.  019 
Winer,  ITandwort .,  gives  a parallel  passage  from 
/Elian  ( IHst . Anim.  viii.  21). 

The  prosperity  of  Jacob  displeased  and  grieved 
Laban,  so  that  a separation  seemed  desirable 
His  wives  are  ready  to  accompany  him.  Accord- 
ingly he  set  out,  with  his  family  and  his  property, 

‘ to  go  to  Isaac  his  father  in  the  land  of  Canaan. 
It  was  not  till  the  third,  day  that  Laban  learned 
that  Jacob  had  fled,  when  he  immediately  set  out 
in  pursuit  of  his  nephew,  and  after  seven  days’ 
journey  overtook  him  in  Mount  Gilead.  Laban, 
however,  is  divinely  warned  not  to  hinder  Jacob's 
return.  Reproach  and  recrimination  ensued. 
Even  a charge  of  theft  is  put  forward  by  Laban 
— ‘Wherefore  hast  thou  stolen  my  gods?’  In 
truth,  Rachel  had  carried  off  certain  images 
which  were  the  objects  of  worship.  Ignorant  of 
this  misdeed,  Jacob  boldly  called  for  a search, 
adding,  ‘ With  whomsoever  thou  findest  thy  gods 
let  him  not  live.’  A crafty  woman’s  cleverness 
eluded  the  keen  eye  of  Laban.  Rachel,  by  an 
appeal  which  one  of  her  sex  alone  could  make, 
deceived  her  father.  Tlius  one  sin  begets  another  ; 
superstition  prompts  to  theft,  and  theft  necessitates 
deceit. 

Whatever  opinion  may  be  formed  of  the  tera- 
phim  which  Rachel  stole,  and  which  Laban  was 
so  anxious  to  discover,  and  whatever  kind  or  de- 
gree of  worship  may  in  reality  have  been  paid  to 
them,  their  existence  in  the  family  suffices  of 
itself  to  show  how  imperfectly  instructed  regard- 
ing the  Creator  were  at  this  time  those  who  were 
among  the  least  ignorant  on  divine  things. 

Laban’s  conduct  on  this  occasion  called  forth 
a reply  from  Jacob,  from  which  it  appears  that 
his  service  had  been  most  severe,  and  which  also 
proves  that  however  this  severe  service  might  have 
encouraged  a certain  servility,  it  had  not  pre- 
vented the  development  in  Jacob’s  soul  of  a high 
and  energetic  spirit,  which  when  roused  could 
assert  its  rights  and  give  utterance  to  sentiments 
both  just,  striking,  and  forcible,  and  in  the  most 
poetical  phraseology. 

Peace,  however,  being  restored,  Laban,  on  the 
ensuing  morning,  took  a friendly,  if  not  an  affec- 
tionate farewell  of  his  daughters  and  their  sons, 
and  returned  home.  Meanwhile  Jacob,  going  on 
his  way,  had  to  pass  near  the  land  of  Seir,  in 
which  Esau  dwelt.  Remembering  his  own  con- 
duct and  his  brother’s  threat,  he  was  seized  with 
fear,  and  sent  messengers  before  in  order  to  pro- 
pitiate Esau,  who,  however,  had  no  evil  design 
against  him ; but,  when  he  ‘ saw  Jacob,  ran  to 
meet  him  and  embraced  him,  and  fell  on  his 
neck  and  kissed  him,  and  they  wept’ — the  one 
tears  of  joyful  recognition,  the  other  of  gladness 
at  unexpected  escape. 

The  passage  in  which  this  meeting  is  recorded 
is  very  striking  and  picturesque.  In  moral  qua- 
lities it  exhibits  Jacob  the  inferior  of  his  generous, 
high-minded,  and  forgiving  brother;  for  Jacob’s 
bearing,  whatever  deduction  may  be  made  for 
Oriental  politeness,  is  crouching  and  servile.  In- 
dependently of  the  compellation,  ‘ my  lord,’  which 
he  repeatedly  uses  in  addressing  Esau,  what  can 
be  said  of  the  following  terms  : — ‘I  have  seen  thy 
face  as  though  I had  seen  the  face  of  God,  and 
thou  wast  pleased  with  me’  (Gen.  xxxiii.  10). 

It  was  immediately  preceding  this  interview 
that  Jacob  passed  the  night  in  wrestling  with  ‘ a 


61 


JACOB. 


JACOB. 


man,’  who  is  afterwards  recognised  as  God,  and 
who  at  length  overcame  Jacob  by  touching  the 
hollow  of  his  thigh.  Ilis  name  also  was  on  this 
event  changed  by  the  mysterious  antagonist  into 
Israel,  4 for  as  a prince  hast  thou  power  with  God 
and  with  men,  and  hast  prevailed  ’ (Gen.  xxxii. 
28).  It  is  added  that  on  this  account  his  de- 
scendants abstained  from  eating  the  thigh  of 
slaughtered  animals. 

This  passage  is  one  which  we  are  not  sure 
that  we  understand.  The  narrator  did  not,  we 
think,  intend  it  for  the  account  of  a dream.  A 
literal  interpretation  would  seem  difficult,  for  this 
would  make  the  Omnipotent  vanquish  one  of  his 
own  creatures,  not  without  a long  struggle,  and 
at  last  only  by  a sort  of  art  or  stratagem.  At 
the  same  time  it  must  be  said  that  the  only  way 
to  expound  the  narrative  is  to  divest  ourselves  of 
our  own  modern  associations,  and  endeavour  to 
contemplate  it  from  the  position  in  which  its  author 
stood.  Still  the  question  recurs — what  was  the 
fact  which  he  has  set  forth  in  these  terms?  (see  De 
Wette,  Krit.  d.  Is.  Gesch.  p.  132;  Ewald’s  Israel- 
iten , i.  405  ; Rosenmiiller’s  Scholia , in  loc.)  The 
design  (says  Wellbeloved,  in  loc.)  ‘ was  to  en- 
courage Jacob,  returning  to  his  native  land,  and 
fearful  of  his  brother's  resentment,  and  to  confirm 
his  faith  in  the  existence  and  providence  of  God. 
And  who  will  venture  to  say  that  in  that  early 
oeriod  any  other  equally  efficacious  means  could 
{rave  been  employed  ?'  Compare  the  language 
already  quoted  (ver.  28).  A very  obvious  end 
pursued  throughout  the  history  of  Jacob,  was  the 
development  of  his  religious  convictions,  and  the 
event  in  question,  no  less  than  the  altars  he 
erected  and  the  dreams  he  had,  may  have  ma- 
teiially  conduced  to  so  important  a result. 

Having,  by  the  misconduct  of  Ilamor  the 
Hivite  and  the  hardy  valour  of  his  sons,  been 
involved  in  danger  from  the  natives  of  Shechem 
in  Canaan,  Jacob  is  divinely  directed,  and  under 
the  divine  protection  proceeds  to  Bethel,  where 
ne  is  to  ‘ make  an  altar  unto  God  that  appeared 
unto  thee  when  thou  lleddest  from  the  face  of 
Esau  thy  brother.’  Obedient  to  the  divine  com- 
mand, Ire  first  purities  bis  family  from  ‘ strange 
gods,’  which  he  lrid  under  ‘ the  oak  which  is  by 
Shechem;’  after  which  God  appeared  to  him 
aaain  with  the  important  declaration,  ‘ I am  God 
Almighty,’  and  renewed  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 
While  journeying  from  Beth-el  to  Ephrath,  his 
beloved  Rachel  lost  her  life  in  giving  birth  to  her 
second  son,  Benjamin.  At  length  Jacob  came 
to  his  father  Isaac  at  Mamre,  the  family  residence, 
in  time  to  pay  the  last  attentions  to  the  aged  pa- 
triarch. Not  long  after  this  bereavement  Jacob 
was  robbed  of  his  beloved  soir  Joseph  through  the 
jealousy  and  bad  faith  of  his  brothers.  This  loss 
is  the  occasion  of  showing  us  how  strong  were 
Jacob's  paternal  feelings;  for  on  seeing  what  ap- 
peared to  be  proofs  that  4 some  evil  beast  had 
devoured  Joseph,’  the  old  man  4 rent  his  clothes, 
and  put  sackcloth  upon  his  loins,  and  mourned 
for  his  son  many  days,  and  refused  to  be  com- 
forted.'— 4 I will  go  down  into  the  grave  unto  my 
sou  mourning’  (Gen.  xxxvii.  33). 

A widely  extended  famine  induced  Jacob  to 
send  his  sons  down  into  Egypt,  where  he  had 
heard  there  was  corn,  without  knowing  by  whose 
instrumentality.  The  patriarch,  however,  re- 
tained his  youngest  son  Benjamin,  ‘ lest  mischief 


should  6efall  him,’  as  it  had  befallen  Joseph. 
The  young  men  returned  with  the  needed  sup* 
plies  of  corn.  They  related,  however,  that  they 
had  been  taken  for  spies,  and  that  there  was 
but  one  way  in  which  they  could  disprove  the 
charge,  namely,  by  carrying  down  Benjamin  to 
‘ the  lord  of  the  land.’  This  Jacob  vehemently 
refused  : — ‘ Me  have  ye  bereaved  ; Joseph  is  not. 
and  Simeon  is  not,  and  ye  will  take  Benjamin  : 
my  son  shall  not  go  down  with  you;  if  mischief 
befall  him,  then  shall  ye  bring  down  my  grey 
hairs  with  sorrow  to  the  grave’  (Gen.  xlii.  36). 
The  pressure  of  the  famine,  however,  at  length 
forced  Jacob  to  allow  Benjamin  to  accompany 
his  brothers  on  a second  visit  to  Egypt ; whence  in 
due  time  they  brought  back  to  their  father  the 
pleasing  •intelligence,  ‘Joseph  is  yet  alive,  and 
he  is  governor  over  all  the  land  of  Egypt.’  How 
naturally  is  the  effect  of  this  on  Jacob  told — ‘ and 
Jacob's  heart  fainted,  for  he  believed  them  not.' 
When,  however,  they  had  gone  into  particulars, 
he  added,  ‘ Enough,  Joseph  my  son  is  yet  alive  ; 
I will  go  and  see  him  before  I die.’  Touches  of 
nature  like  this  suffice  to  show  the  reality  of  the 
history  before  us,  anti  since  they  are  not  unfre- 
quent in  the  book  of  Genesis,  they  will  of  them- 
selves avail  to  sustain  its  credibility  against,  all 
that  the  enemy  can  do.  Each  competent  and  un- 
prejudiced judge,  on  reading  these  gems  of  truth, 
may  well  exclaim,  ‘ This  is  history,  not  mytho- 
logy; reality,  not  fiction.’  The  passage,  too, 
with  others  lecently  cited,  strongly  proves  how 
much  the  character  of  the  patriarch  hail  improved. 
In  the  entire  of  the  latter  part  of  Jacob’s  life,  he 
seems  to  have  gradually  parted  with  many  less 
desirable  qualities,  and  to  have  become  at  once 
more  truthful,  more  energetic,  more  earnest,  affec 
tionate,  and,  in  the  largest  sense  of  the  word, 
religious. 

Encouraged  ‘ in  the  visions  of  the  night,’  Jacob 
goes  down  to  Egypt.  4 And  Joseph  made  ready 
his  chariot,  and  went  up  to  meet  Israel  his  father, 
to  Goshen,  and  presented  himself  unto  him;  and 
he  fell  on  bis  neck,  and  wept  on  his  neck  a good 
while.  And  Israel  said  unto  Joseph,  Now  let  me 
die,  since  I have  seen  thy  face,  because  thou  art 
yet  alive’  (Gen.  xlvi.  29).  Joseph  proceeded  V 
conduct  his  father  into  the  presence  of  the  Egyptian 
monarch,  when  the  man  of  God,  with  that  self 
consciousness  and  dignity  which  religion  gives, 
instead  of  offering  slavish  adulation,  4 blessed 
Pharaoh.’  Struck  with  the  patriarch’s  venerable 
air,  the  king  asked,  4 How  old  art  thou?  ’ What 
composure  and  elevation  is  there  in  the  ^ply, 
4 The  days  of  the  years  of  my  pilgrimage  are  an 
hundred  and  thirty  years;  few  and  evil  have  tli8 
days  of  the  years  of  my  life  been,  and  have  not 
attained  unto  the  days  of  the  years  of  the  life  of 
my  fathers  in  the  days  of  their  pilgrimage : and 
Jacob  blessed  Pharaoh,  and  went  out  from  before 
Pharaoh’  (Gen.  xlvii.  8-10).  This  fine  passage  has 
been  travestied  after  his  own  manner  by  Voltaire 
( Diction . Philosoph.)  : 4 That  which  the  good  man 
Jacob  replied  to  Joseph  must  forcibly  strike  those 
who  can  read.  How  old  are  you  ? said  the  king. 
I am  a hundred  and  thirty  years  of  age,  answered 
the  old  man,  and  I have  not  yet  had  one  happy 
day  injhis  short  pilgrimage:'- — ‘A  proof  this,’ 
says  Niemeyer  fCharak.  der  Bib  el,  ii.  196),  4 how 
faithfully  Voltaire,  who  is  always  complaining  of 
the  quotations  of  others,  cites  the  Bible ; so  th^ 


JAEL 


JAIR. 


one  may  almost  conclude  that  lie  himself  must 
not  be  ranked  among  those  who  can  read' 

Jacob,  with  his  sons,  now  entered  into  posses- 
sioxr  of  some  of  the  best  land  of  Egypt,  where 
they  carried  on  their  pastoral  occupations,  and 
enjoyed  a very  large  share  of  earthly  prosperity. 
l<e  aged  patriarch,  aiter  being  strangely  tossed 
about  on  a very  rough  ocean,  found  at  last  a 
tranquil  harbour,  where  all  the  best  affections  of 
his  nature  were  gently  exercised  and  largely  un- 
folded. After  a lapse  of  time  Joseph,  being  in- 
formed that  his  father  was  sick,  went  to  him,  when 
‘ Israel  strengthened  himself,  and  sat  up  in  his 
bed.’  He  acquainted  Joseph  with  the  divine  pro- 
mise of  the  land  of  Canaan  which  yet  remained 
to  be  fulfilled,  and  took  Joseph’s  sons,  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh,  in  place  of  Reuben  and  Simeon, 
whom  he  had  lost.  How  impressive  is  his  bene- 
diction in  Joseph's  family  ! ‘ And  Israel  said  unto 
Joseph,  I had  not  thought  to  see  thy  face : and, 
o,  God  hath  showed  me  also  thy  seed’  (Gen. 
xlviii.  11).  ‘ God,  before  whom  my  fathers 

Abraham  and  Isaac  did  walk,  the  God  which  fed 
me  all  my  life  long  unto  this  day,  the  angel 
which  redeemed  me  from  all  evil,  bless  the  lads: 
and  let  my  name  be  named  on  them,  and  the 
name  of  my  fathers ; and  let  them  grow  into  a 
multitude  in  the  midst  of  the  earth  ’ (ver.  15, 
16).  ‘ And  Israel  said  unto  Joseph,  Behold  I die  ; 
but  God  will  be  with  you  and  bring  you  again 
unto  the  land  of  your  fathers’  (ver.  21).  Then 
having  convened  his  sons,  the  venerable  patriarch 
pronounced  on  them  also  a blessing,  which  is  full 
of  the  loftiest  thought,  expressed  in  the  most  poeti- 
cal diction,  and  adorned  by  the  most  vividly  de- 
scriptive and  engaging  imagery,  showing  how 
deeply  religious  his  character  had  become,  how 
freshly  it  retained  its  fervour  to  the  last,  and  how 
greatly  it  had  increased  in  strength,  elevation,  and 
dignity  : — ‘ And  when  Jacob  had  made  an  end  of 
commanding  his  sons,  he  gathered  up  his  feet  into 
tiie  feed  and  yielded  up  the  ghost,  and  was  gathered 
unto  his  reople’  (Gen.  xlix.  33). — J.  R.  B. 

JAEL  fyl  ivild  goat;  Sept.  ’IcdjA),  wife  of 
Hebei,  the  Kenite.  When  Sisera,  the  general  of 
Jabin,  had  been  defeated,  he  alighted  from  his 
chariot,  hoping  to  escape  best  on  foot  from  tiie 
hot  pursuit  of  the  victorious  Israelites.  On  reach- 
ing the  tents  of  the  nomade  chief,  he  remembered 
that  there  was  peace  between  his  sovereign  and 
the  house  of  Heber ; and,  therefore,  applied  for  the 
hospitality  and  protection  to  which  he  was  thus 
entitled.  This  request  was  very  cordially  granted 
by  the  wife  of  the  absent,  chief,  who  received  the 
vanquished  warrior  into  the  inner  part  of  the  tent, 
where  he  could  not  be  discovered  by  strangers 
without  such  an  intrusion  as  eastern  customs 
would  not  warrant.  She  also  brought  him 
milk  to  drink,  when  he  asked  only  water ; ami 
then  covered  him  from  view,  that  he  might  enjoy 
repose  the  more  securely.  As  he  slept,  a horrid 
thought  occurred  to  Jael,  which  she  hastened  too 
promptly  to  execute.  She  took  one  of  the  tent 
nails,  and  with  a mallet,  at  one  fell  blow,  drove  it 
through  the  temples  of  the  sleeping  Sisera.  Soon 
after,  Barak  and  his  people  arrived  in  pursuit, 
and  were  shown  the  lifeless  body  of  the  man  they 
sought  This  deed  drew  much  attention  to  Jael, 
and  preserved  the  camp  from  molestation  by  the 
victors ; and  there  is  no  disputing  that  her  act 


is  mentioned  with  great  praise  in  the  friumnnal 
song  wherein  Deborah  and  Burak  celebrate*!  the 
deliverance  of  Israel  (Judg.  v.  24). 

It  does  not  seem  difficult  to  understand  the 
object  of  Jael  in  tms  painful  transaction.  Her 
motives  seem  to  have  been  entirely  prudential, 
and, .on  prudential  grounds,  the  very  circumstance 
which  renders  her  act  the  more  odious — the  peace 
subsisting  between  the  nomade  chief  and  the  king 
of  Hazor — must,  to  her,  have  seemed  to  make  it 
the  more  expedient..  She  saw  that  the  Israelites 
had  now  the  upper  hand,  and  was  aware  that,  as 
being  in  alliance  with  the  oppressors  of  Israel,  the 
camp  might  expect  very  rough  treatment  from 
the  pursuing  force  ; which  would  he  greatly  ag- 
gravated if  Sisera  were  found  sheltered  within 
it.  This  calamity  she  sought  to  avert,  and  to 
place  the  house  of  Heber  in  a favourable  posi- 
tion with  the  victorious  party.  She  probably 
justified  .the  act  to  herself,  by  the  consideration 
that  a?  Sisera  would  certainly  be  taken  and 
slain,  she  might  as  well  make  a benefit  out  of  his 
inevitable  doom,  as  incur  utter  ruin  in  the  at- 
tempt to  protect  him.  We  have  been  grieved  t» 
see  the  act  vindicated  as  authorized  by  the 
usages  of  ancient  warfare,  of  rode  times,  and  of 
ferocious  manners.  There  was  not  warfare,  but 
peace  between  the  house  of  Heber  and  the  prince 
of  Hazor;  and,  for  the  rest,  we  will  venture  to 
affirm  that  there  dues  not  now,  and  never  did 
exist,  in  any  country,  a set  of  usages  under  which 
the  act  of  Jael  would  be  deemed  light. 

' It  is  much  easier  to  explain  the  conduct  of 
Jael  than  to  account  for  the  praise  which  it 
receives  in  the  triumphal  ode  of  Deborah  and 
Barak.  But,  the  following  remarks  will  go  far 
to  remove  the  difficulty  : — There  is  no  doubt 
that  Sisera  would  have  been  put  to  death,  if  he 
had  been  taken  alive  by  the  Israelites.  The  war 
usages  of  the  time  warranted  such  treatment,  and 
there  are  numerous  examples  of  it.  They  had,, 
therefore,  no  regard  to  her  private  motives,,  or  to 
the  particular  relations  between  Heber  and  Jabin, 
but  beheld  her  only  as  tke  instrument  of  accom**' 
plishing  what  was  usually  regarded  as  the  final: 
and  crowning  act  of  a great  victory.  And  the 
unusual  circumstance  that,  this  act  was  performed, 
by  a woman’s  hand,  was,  according  to  the  notions, 
of  the  time,  so  great  a humiliation,  that  it  could 
hardly  fail  to  he  dwelt  upon,  in  contrasting  the 
result  with  the  proud  confidence  of  victory  which, 
had  at  the  outset  been  entertained  (Josh.  iv.  5). 

1.  JAIR  (TN),  enlightener;.  Sept.  Ta/p),  sou 
of  Segub,  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  by  his  mother, 
and  of  Judah  by  his  father.  He  appears  to  have 
distinguished  himself  in  an  expedition  against 
the  kingdom  of  Bashan,  the  time  of  which  is 
disputed,  but  may  probably  be  referred  to  the  last 
year  of  the  life  of  Moses,  n.c.  1451.  It  seems  to 
have  formed  part  of  the  operations  connected  with 
the  conquest  of  the  country  east  of  the  Jordan. 
He  settled  in  the  part  of  Argob  bordering  on, 
Gilead,  where  we  find  twenty-three  villages  named 
collectively  Havoth-jair,  or  ‘ Jair's  villages’ 
(Num.  xxxii.  41;  Deut.  iii.  14  ; Josh.  xiii.  30;, 
1 Chron.  ii.  22). 

2.  JAIR,  eighth  judge  of  Israel,  of  Gilead,  in, 
in  Manasseh,  beyond  the  Jordan  ; and  therefore, 
probably  descended  from  the  preceding,  with  whom, 
indeed,  he  is  sometimes  confounded.  He  ruled 


60 


JAIRUS. 


JAME**. 


twenty-two  years,  and  his  opulence  is  indicated 
in  a manner  characteristic  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lived.  ‘He  had  thirty  sons,  that  rode  on  thirty 
ass-colts,  and  they  had  thirty  cities,  which  are 
called  Havoth-jair,  in  the  land  of  Gilead.’  A 
young  ass  was  the  most  valuable  beast  for  riding 
then  known  to  the  Hebrews  ; and  that  Jair  had  so 
many  of  them,  and  was  able  to  assign  a village 
to  every  one  of  his  thirty  sons,  is  very  striking 
evidence  of  his  wealth.  The  twenty-three  vil- 
lages of  the  more  ancient  Jair  were  probably 
among  the  thirty  which  this  Jair  possessed  (Judg. 
z.  3).  b.c.  1210. 

JAIRUS  (’Iaetpos),  a ruler  of  the  synagogue  at 
Capernaum,  whose  daughter  Jesus  restored  to  life 

<(Mark  v.  22;  Luke  viii.  41). 

JAMBRES  AND  JANNES  Clapfyrjs  teal 
*layy?is ),  two  of  the  Egyptian  magicians  who 

attempted  by  their  enchantments  (D'l3^5,  occulta 
artes,  Geseniusl  to  counteract  the  influence  on 
Pharaoh’s  mind  of  the  miracles  wrought  by 
Moses.  Their  names  occur  nowhere  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  only  once  in  the  New  Testament 
(2  Tim.  iii.  8).  The  Apostle  Paid  became  ac- 
quainted with  them,  most  probably,  from  an 
aEcient  Jewish  tradition,  or,  as  Theodoret  ex- 
presses it,  ‘from  the  unwritten  teaching  of  the 

. Jews’  (rrjs  ayoacpov  rwv  'lovbalwv  SiSacrnaAias). 
They  are  found  frequently  in  the  Talmudical 
and  Rabbinical  writings,  but  with  some  variations. 
Thus,  for  Jannes  we  meet  with  D13!',  D'3', 
X3rfi',  '3IYl',  '3X1'.  Of  these,  the  three  last  are 
forms  of  the  Hebrew  }3m\  which  has  led  to  the 

• supposition  that  ’I awns  is  a contracted  form  of 

• the  Greek  'luduvps.  Some  critics  consider  that 

■ these  names  were  of  Egyptian  origin,  and,  in  that 

case,  the  Jewish  writers  must  have  been  misled  by 
a similarity  of  sound  to  adopt  the  forms  above- 

• mentioned.  For  Jambres  we  find  X“OD,  '"IDE), 
D'T30\  D!"QD1',  and  in  the  Shalsheleth  Hakka- 
bala  the  two  names  are  given  1X'D1"ODXl  '3X1', 
i.  e.  Johannes  and  Ambroskis ! The  Tar- 
gum  of  Jonathan  inserts  them  in  Exod.  vii.  11. 
The  same  writer  also  gives  as  a reason  for  Pha- 
raoh’s edict  for  the  destruction  of  the  Israelitish 
male  children,  that  ‘ this  monarch  had  a dream 
in  which  the  land  of  Egypt  appeared  in  one  scale 
and  a lamb  in  another;  that  on  awakening  he 
sought  for  its  interpretation  from  his  wise  men; 
whereupon  Jannes  and  Jambres  (D'"QQ'l  D'3') 
said — ‘ A son  is  to  be  bom  in  the  congregation  of 
Israel  who  will  desolate  the  whole  land  of  Egypt.’ 
Several  of  the  Jewish  writers  speak  of  Jannes  and 
Jambres  as  the  two  sons  of  Balaam,  and  assert 
that  they  were  the  youths  ('*1)13,  servants , Anth. 
Vers.)  who  went  with  him  to  the  king  of  Moab 
(Num.  xxii.  22).  The  Pythagorean  philosopher 
Numenius  mentions  these  persons  in  a passage 
preserved  by  Eusebius  ( Prccp . Evang.  ix.  8),  and 
by  Origen  (c.  Cels.  iv.  p.  198,  ed.  Spencer)  ; also 
Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  xxx.  1).  There  was  an  ancient 
apocryphal  writing  entitled  Jannes  and  Mambrcs, 
which  is  referred  to  by  Origen  (in  Matt.  Com- 
ment. §117;  Opera , v.  29),  and  by  Ambrosiaster, 
ar  Hilary  the  Deacon  : it  was  condemned  by  Pope 
Gelasius  (Wetstenii  Nov.  Test.  Grace,  ii.  362; 
Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm.  Rahb.  col.  945 ; Lightfoot’s 
Sermon  on  Jannes  and  Jambres  ; Works,  vii. 
09 ; Erubhin,or  Miscellanies , ch.  xxiv. ; Works, 


\r.  33;  Lardner’s  Credibility , nt.  II.  cfe.  ob 
IVor/cs.  vii.  381.) — J.  E.  R. 

JAMES,  'ldtcwfios.  Two,  if  not  three  persorv 
of  this  name  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa 
ment. 

1.  James,  the  son  of  Zcbedee  (’ldnwfios  6 roS 
Ze/3 eSa(ov),  and  brother  of  the  evangelist  John. 
Their  occupation  was  that  of  fishermen,  probably 
at  Bethsaida,  in  partnership  with  Simon  Peter 
(Luke  v.  10).  On  comparing  the  account  given 
in  Matt.  iv.  21,  Mark  i.  19,  with  that  iu'Jbhn  i., 
it  would  appear  that  James  and  John  had  been 
acquainted  with  our  Lord,  and  had  received  him 
as  the  Messiah,  some  time  before  he  called  them 
to  attend  upon  him  statedly — a call  with  which 
they  immediately  complied.  Their  mother’s 
name  was  Salome.  We  find  James,  John,  and 
Peter  associated  on  several  interesting  occasions 
in  the  Saviour's  life.  They  alone  were  present 
at  the  Transfiguration  (Matt.  xvii.  1 ; Mark  ix. 
2;  Luke  ix.  28);  at  the  restoration  to  life  of 
Jairus's  daughter  (Mark  v.  42  ; Luke  viii.  51)  ; 
and  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  during  the 
agony  (Mark  xiv.  33;  Matt.  xxvi.  37;  Luke 
xxi.  37).  With  Andrew  they  listened  in  private 
to  our  Lord's  discourse  on  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
(Mark  xiii.  3).  James  and  his  brother  appear  to 
have  indulged  in  false  notions  of  the  kingdom  of 
the  Messiah,  and  were  led  by  ambitious  views  to 
join  in  the  request  made  to  Jesus  by  their  mother 
(Matt.  xx.  20-23 ; Mark  x.  35).  From  Luke 
ix.  52,  we  may  infer  .that  their  temperament  was 
warm  and  impetuous.  On  account,  probably,  of 
their  boldness  and  energy  in  discharging  their 
Apostleship,  they  received  from  their  Lord  the 
appellation  of  Boanerges,  or  Sons  of  Thunder 
(For  the  various  explanations  of  this  title  given  by 
the  fathers  see  Suiceri  Thcs.  Eccles..  s.  v.  BpGvrrj, 
and  Liicke’s  Commentar,  Bonn,  1840;  Einlei - 
tuhg,  c.  i.  § 2,  p.  17).  James  was  the  first  martyr 
among  the  Apostles.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in 
a fragment  preserved  by  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  i. 
9),  reports  that  the  officer  who  conducted  James 
to  the  tribunal  was  so  influenced  by  the  bold  de- 
claration of  his  faith  as  to  embrace  the  Gospel  and 
avow  himself  also  a Christian  ; in  consequence  of 
which  he  was  beheaded  at  the  same  time. 

2.  James,  the  son  of  Alphacus  (’Ia/cco/Sos  6 rov 
’AA (palov),  one  of  the  twelve  Apostles  (Mark  iii. 
18;  Matt.  x.  3;  Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13).  His 
mother’s  name  was  Mary  (Matt,  xxvii.  56  ; Mark 
xv.  40)  • in  the  latter  passage  he  is  called  James 
the  Less  (6  puepos,  the  Little),  either  as  being 
younger  than  James  the  son  of  Alphseus,  or  on 
account  of  his  low  stature  (Mark  xvi.  1 ; Luke 
xxiv.  10). 

3.  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord  (6  abeXcpbs 
rov  K vplov;  Gal.  i.  19).  Whether  this  James  is 
identical  with  the  son  of  Alphseus,  is  a question 
which  Dr.  Neander  pronounces  to  be  the  most 
difficult  in  the  Apostolic  history,  and  which  cannot 
yet  be  considered  as  decided.  We  read  in  Matt, 
xiii.  55,  ‘ Is  not  his  mother  called  Mary,  and  his 
brethren  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon,  ar.d 
Judas’?’  and  in  Mark  vi.  3,  ‘ Is  not  ‘his  the  car- 
penter, the  son  of  Mary,  and  brotht  r of  James 
and  Joses,  and  of  Juda  and  Simon  ? and  are  not 
his  sisters  here  with  us?’  Those  critics  who  sup- 
pose the  terms  of  affinity  in  these  and  paratlo? 
passages  to  be  used  in  the  laxer  sense  of  near  rela- 
tions, have  remarked  that  in  Mark  xv.  40,  mcn'ioj? 


JAMES. 


JAMES. 


07 


.8  made  of  ‘ Mary,  the  mothp- of  Jame3  the  less 
and  of  Joses;’  and  hat  in  JMn  xix.  25,  it  is  said, 
•there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus,  his  mother  and 
his  mother's  sister,  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleophas, 
and  Mary  Magdalene  they  therefore  infer  that 
the  wile  of  Cleophas  is  the  same  as  the  sister  of  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  and,  consequently,  that  James 
(supposing  Cleophas  and  Alphaeus  to  be  the  same 
name,  the  former  according  to  the  Hebrew,  the  latter 
according  to  the  Greek  orthography)  was  a first 
cousin  of  our  Lord,  and,  on  that  account,  termed 
nis  brother , and  that  the  other  individuals  called 
the  brethren  of  Jesus  stood  in  the  same  relation. 
It  is  also  urged  that  in  the  Acts,  after  the  death 
of  James  the  son  of  Zebedes,  we  read  only  of  one 
James  ; and,  moreover,  that  it  is  improbable  that 
our  Lord  would  have  committed  his  mother  to  the 
care  of  the  beloved  disciple,  had  there  been  sons 
of  Joseph  living,  whether  the  offspring  of  Mary 
or  of  a former  marriage.  Against  this  view  it 
has  been  alleged  that  in  several  early  Christian 
writers  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  is  distin- 
guished from  the  son  of  Alphaeus  ; that  the  iden- 
tity of  the  names  Alphaeus  and  Cleophas  is  some- 
what uncertain ; and  that  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  words  ‘his  mother’s  sister,’  in  John  xix.  21, 
are  to  be  considered  in  apposition  with  those  imme- 
diately following — ‘ Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleophas,’ 
or  intended  to  designate  a different  individual ; 
since  it  is  highly  improbable  that  two  sisters  should 
have  had  the  same  name.  Wieseler  ( Studien 
und  Kritiken , 1 840,  iii.  648)  maintains  that  not 
three,  but  four  persons  are  mentioned  in  this  pas- 
sage, and  that  since  in  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  Mark 
xv.  40,  besides  Mary  of  Magdala,  and  Mary,  the 
mother  of  James  and  Joses,  Salome  also  (or  the 
mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee)  is  named  as  pre- 
sent at  the  Crucifixion, __  it  follows  that,  she  must 
have  been  the  sister  of  our  Lord’s  mother.  This 
would  obviate  the  difficulty  arising  from  the 
sameness  of  the  names  of  the  two  sisters,  and 
would  set  aside  the  proof  that  James,  the 
Lord's  brother,  was  the  son  of  Alphaeus.  But 
even  allowing  that  the  sons  of  Alphaeus  were 
related  to  our  Lord,  the  narrative  in  the  Evange- 
lists and  the  Acts  presents  some  reasons  for  sus- 
pecting that  they  were  not  the  persons  described 
as  ‘the  brethren  of  Jesus.’  1.  The  brethren  of 
Jesus  are  associated  with  his  mother  in  a manner 
that  strongly  indicates  their  standing  in  the  filial 
relation  to  her  (Matt.  xii.  46  ; Mark  iii.  31 ; 
Luke  viii.  19  ; Matt.  xiii.  58,  where  ‘ sisters  ’ are 
also  mentioned ; they  appear  constantly  together 
as  forming  one  family,  John  ii.  12).  ‘ After  this 

he  went  down  to  Capernaum,  he,  and  his  mother, 
and  his  brethren,  and  his  disciples  ’ (Kuinoel, 
Comment,  in  Matt.  xii.  46).  2.  It  is  explicitly 

stated,  that  at  a period  posterior  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  twelve  Apostles,  among  whom  we  find 
‘ the  son  of  Alphaeus,’  ‘ neither  did  his  brethren  be- 
lieve on  him’  (John  vii.  5 ; LUcke’s  Commentary. 
Attempts,  indeed,  have  been  made  by  Grotius  and 
Lardner  to  dilute  the  force  of  this  language,  as  if 
It  meant  merely  that  their  faith  was  imperfect  or 
wavering — ‘ that  they  did  not  believe  as  they 
should  ;’  but  the  language  of  Jesus  is  decisive  : — 
‘ My  time  is  not  yet  come,  but  your  time  is  always 
ready;  the  world  cannot  hate  you,  but  me  ithateth’ 
(compare  this  with  John  xv.  18,  19  : ‘ If  the  world 
hate  you,’  &c.).  This  appears  to  overthrow  the 
argument  lor  the  identity  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus 


with  the  sons  of  Alphaeus,  drawn  fit  m the  same- 
ness  of  the  names;  for  as  to  the  supposition  that 
what  is  affirmed  in  John’s  Gospel  might  apply  to 
only  some  of  his  brethren,  it  is  evident  that,  ad- 
mitting the  identity,  only  one  brother  of  Jes  n 
would  be  left  out  of  the  ‘ company  of  the  Apostles.’ 
3.  Luke's  language  in  Acts  i.  13,  14,  is  op- 
posed to  the  identity  in  question  ; for,  after  enume- 
rating the  Apostles,  among  whom,  as  usual,  is 
‘James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,’ he  adds,  ‘ they  all 
continued  with  one  accord  in  prayer  and  suppli- 
cation with  the  women,  and  Mary,  the  mother  of 
Jesus,  and  with  his  brethren .’  From  this  pas- 
sage, however,  we  learn  that,  by  this  time,  his 
brethren  had  received  him  as  the  Messiah.  Thai 
alter  the  death  of  the  son  of  Zebedee  we  find  only 
one  James  mentioned,  may  easily  be  accounted 
for  on  the  ground  that  probably  only  one,  ‘ the 
brother  of  the  Lord,’  remained  at  Jerusalem  ; and, 
under  such  circumstances,  the  silence  of  the  his- 
torian respecting  the  son  of  Alphaeus  is  not  more 
strange  than  respecting  several  of  the  other  Apostles, 
whose  names  never  occur  after  the  catalogue  in 
ch.  i.  13.  Paul’s  language  in  Gal.  i.  19,  has  been 
adduced  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  Lord's  bro- 
ther with  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  by  its  ranking  him 
among  the  Apostles,  but  Neander  and  Winer  have 
shown  that  it  is  by  no  means  decisive.  (Winer’s 
Grammatih,  4th  ed.  p.  517  ; Neander’s  History 
of  the  Planting , &c.  vol.  ii.  p.  5,  Eng.  transl.).  If 
we  examine  the  early  Christian  writers,  we  shall 
meet  with  a variety  of  opinions  on  this  subject. 
Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  1)  says  that  James,  the 
first  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  brother  of  the  Lord,  son 
of  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  was  surnamed 
the  Just  by  the  ancients,  on  account  of  his 
eminent  virtue.  He  uses  similar  language  in 
his  Evangelical  Demonstration  (iii.  5).  In  his 
commentary  on  Isaiah  he  reckons  fourteen  Apo- 
stles ; namely,  the  twelve,  Paul,  and  James,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord.  A similar  enumeration  is 
made  in  the  ‘ Apostolic  Constitutions  ’ (vi.  14). 
Epiphanius,  Chrysostom,  and  Theophylact  speak 
of  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  as  being  the  same 
as  the  son  of  Cleopas.  They  suppose  that  Jo- 
seph and  Cleopas  wrere  brothers,  and  that  the 
latter  dying  without  issue,  Joseph  married  his 
widow  for  his  first  wife,  according  to  the  Jewish 
custom,  and  that  James  and  his  brethren  were  the 
offspring  of  this  marriage  (Lardner’s  Credibility , 
pt,.  ii.  ch.  118,  Works,  iv.  54S ; ch.  i.  163, 
Works,  v.  160  ; History  of  Heretics,  c.  xi.  $ 11, 
Works,  viii.  527  ; Supplement  to  the  Credibility , 
ch.  17,  Works , vi.  188).  A passage  from  Jose- 
phus is  quoted  by  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii. 
23),  in  which  James,  the  brother  of  ‘ him  who  is 
called  Christ,’  is  mentioned;  but  in  the  opinion  of 
Dr.  Lardner  and  other  eminent  critics  this  clause 
is  an  interpolation  (Lardner’s  Jewish  Testi- 
monies, ch.  iv. ; Works , vi.  496).  According  to 
Hegesippus  (a  converted  Jew  of  the  second  cen- 
tury), James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  undertook 
the  government  of  the  church  along  with  the 
Apostles  (pera  t uv  airoGToKwv).  He  describes 
him  as  leading  a life  of  ascetic  strictness,  and  as 
held  in  the  highest  veneration  by  the  Jews.  But 
in  the  account  he  gives  of  his  martyrdom  some 
circumstances  are  highly  improbable.  In  the 
Apocryphal  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  h® 
is  said  to  have  been  precipitated  from  a pinnaci® 
of  the  temple,  and  then  assaulted  with  stone#* 


OS  JAMES,  EPISTLE  OF. 

and  at  last  dispatched  by  a blow  on  the  bead  with 
a fuller's  pole  (Lardner's  Supplement , ch.  xvi., 
W 'orks,  vi.  p.  174;  Neander,  History  of  the 
Planting,  &c.  vol.  ii.  pp.  9,  22,  Eng’,  transl.). 
Dr.  Nieineyer  enumerates  not  less  than  five  per- 
sons of  this  name,  by  distinguishing  the  son  of 
Alphaeus  from  James  the  less,  and  assuming  that 
tire  James  last  mentioned  in  Acts  i.  13  was  not 
the  brother,  but  the  father  of  J udas  ( Charahteristik 
der  Bibel.  Halle,  1 830,  i.  399).— J.  E R. 

TAMES,  EPISTLE  OF  [Antii-egomena]. 
Tnis  is  called  by  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  23) 
the  first  of  the  Catholic  Epistles.  As  the  writer 
simply  styles  himself  James , a sei'vant  of  God 
and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  doubts  have 
existed,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  re- 
specting the  true 

Author  of  this  Epistle. — It  has  been  ascribed  to 
no  less  than  four  different,  persons,  viz.  James,  the 
son  of  Zebedee;  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus  (who 
were  both  of  the  number  of  the  twelve  apostles); 
James,  our  Lord’s  brother  (Gal.  i.  19);  and  to  an 
anonymous  author  who  assumed  the  name  of 
James  in  order  to  procure  authority  to  a supposi- 
titious writing. 

The  chief  authority  for  ascribing  this  epistle  to 
James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  is  the  inscription  to  the 
Syriac  manuscript,  published  by  Widmandstadt, 
wherein  it  is  termed  ‘ the  earliest,  writing  in  the 
New  Testament,’  and  to  an  Arabic  MS.  cited  by 
Cornelius  a Lapide.  Isidore  of  Seville,  and  other 
Spanish  writers  interested  in  maintaining  that 
■James  travelled  into  Spain  (Calmet’s  Comment- 
ary), assert  that  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  visit- 
ed in  person  the  ‘ twelve  tribes  scattered’  through 
that  as  well  as  other  countries,  and  afterwards 
addressed  to  them  this  epistle.  The  Mozarabic 
liturgy  also  supports  the  same  view,  and  the  old 
Italic,  published  by  Martianay,  contains  the 
inscription  Explicit  Epistola  Jacobi  fil.  Zebedcei. 
Hut  this  opinion  has  obtained  very  few  suffrages ; 
for,  as  Calmet  has  observed  ( Pref.  to  his  Com- 
mentary), it  is  not  credible  that  so  great  progress 
had  been  made  among  the  dispersed  Jews  before 
the  martyrdom  of  James,  which  took  place  at 
Jerusalem  about  a d.  42 ; and  if  the  author,  as 
has  lieen  commonly  supposed,  alludes  to  St.  Paul’s 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  (a.d.  58)  and  Galatians 
(a.d.  55),  it  would  be  a manifest  anachronism  to 
ascribe  this  epistle  to  the  son  of  Zebedee. 

The  claim  to  the  authorship  of  the  epistle, 
therefore,  rests  between  James  ‘ the  Lord's  brother,’ 
and  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus.  In  the  preceding 
article  the  difficult  question,  whether  these  names 
do  not,  in  fact,  refer  to  the  same  person,  has  been 
examined  : it  suffices,  in  this  place,  to  state  that 
no  writer  who  regards  James  ‘ the  Lord’s  brother’ 
as  distinct  from  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  has 
held  the  latter  to  be  the  author  of  the  epistle  : and 
therefore,  if  no  claim  he  advanced  for  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  James  ‘ the  brother  of  the  Lord  ’ remains 
the  only  person  whom  the  name  at  the  head  of 
this  epistle  could  be  intended  to  designate. 

Hegesippus,  cited  by  Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccles.  ii. 
23),  acquaints  us  that  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus, 
who  obtained  the  surname  of  the  Just,  governed 
the  church  of  Jerusalem  along  with,  or  after  the 
apostles  (pera  tuv  aivo<n6\(av).  Eusebius  (l.  c.) 
relates  that  he  was  the  first  who  held  the  episco- 
pate of  Jerusalem  (Jerome  says  for  thirty  years); 
ftzzd  both  he  and  Josephus  (Antiq.  xx.  9.  1)  give 


JAMES,  EPISTLE  OF. 

an  uccount  of  his  lr^tyrdom.  To  him,  therefore, 
is  the  authorship  of  an  epistle  addressed  to  the 
Jewish  Christians  with  good  reason  ascrilred. 

The  other  opinion,  which  considers  the  epistle 
as  pseudepigraphal,  we  shall  consider  in  treating 
of  its 

Authenticity  and  Canonical  Authority. — Euse- 
bius ( ut  supra)  observes  that.  ‘James  the  brother 
of  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ,  is  said  to  have 
written  the  first  of  the  Catholic  epistles ; hut  it 
is  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  considered  spurious 
( vodeverai ).  Not  many  of  the  ancients  have  men- 
tioned it,  nor  that  called  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  , . . 
Nevertheless,  we  know  that  these,  with  the  rest, 
are  publicly  read  in  most  of  the  churches.’  To  the 
same  effect  St.  Jerome : — ‘ St.  James,  surnamed 
the  Just,  who  is  called  the  Lord’s  brother,  is  the 
author  of  only  one  epistle,  one  of  the  seven  called 
Catholic,  which,  however,  is  said  to  have  been 
published  by  some  other  who  assumed  his  name, 
although  in  the  progress  of  time  it  gradually 
acquired  authority.’  Dr.  Lardner  is  of  opinion 
that  this  statement  of  St.  Jerome  is  a mere  repet  i- 
tion of  that  of  Eusebius.  It  was  also  rejected  in 
the  fourth  century  by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
and  in  the  sixth  by  Cosmas  Iudicopleusles  [An- 
tii.egomena].  It  is,  however,  cited  by  Clemens 
Romanus  in  his  first  or  genuine  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  (ch.  x.,  comp,  with  James  ii.  21,  23  ; 
and  ch.  xi.,  comp,  with  James  ii.  25,  and  Heb. 
xi.  31).  It  seems  to  be  alluded  to  in  the  Shep- 
herd of  Hennas,  ‘ Resist  the  devil,  and  he  will 
be  confounded  and  flee  from  you.’  It  is  also 
generally  believed  to  be  referred  to  by  Irenaeus 
( Hcer . iv.  1G,  2),  ‘ Abraham  believed  God,  and 
it  was,’  &c.  Origen  cites  it  in  his  Comment, 
on  John  i.  xix.  iv.  306,  calling  it,  however,  the 
reputed  epistle  of  James  [Antii.egomena,].  We 
have  the  authority  of  Cassiodorus  for  the  fact 
that  Clemens  Alexandrians  commented  on  this 
epistle;  and  it  is  not  only  expressly  cited  by 
Ephrem  Svrus  (Opp.  Grcec.  iii.  51,  ‘ James  the 
brother  of  our  Lord  says  “ weep  and  howl,”  ’ to- 
gether with  other  references),  but  it  forms  part  o! 
the  ancient  Syriac  version,  a work  of  the  second 
century,  and  which  contains  no  other  of  the  Anti • 
legomena,  except  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Bu‘ 
though  ‘ not  quoted  expressly  by  any  of  the  Latin 
fathers  before  the  fourth  century’  (Hug’s  Intro- 
duction), it  was,  soon  after  the  time  of  the  Council 
of  Nice,  received  both  in  the  eastern  and  western 
churches  without  any  marks  of  doubt,  and  was 
admitted  into  the  canon  along  with  the  other 
Scriptures  by  the  Councilsof  Hippo  and  Carthage. 
Nor  (with  the  above  exceptions)  does  there  appear 
to  have  been  a voice  raised  against  it  since  that 
period  until  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  when  the 
ancient  doubts  were  revived  by  Erasmus  (who 
maintains  that  the  author  was  not  an  apostle, 
Annot.  in  N.  T),  Cardinal  Cajetan  (Comment, 
in  7 Canonic.  Epist.,  1532),  and  Luther.  Cajetan 
observes  that  ‘ the  salutation  is  unlike  that  of  any 
other  of  the  apostolical  salutations,  containing 
tiothing  of  God,  of  grace,  or  peace,  but  sending 
greetings  after  the  profane  manner,  from  which, 
and  his  not  naming  himself  an  apostle,  the  author 
is  rendered  uncertain.’  We  have  already  re- 
ferred to  Luther’s  opinion  [Antii.egomena], 
who  is  generally  accused  of  calling  this  an  epistle 
of  straw.  The  following  are  his  words  : — ‘Thi* 
epistl*  in  comparison  with  the  writings  of  John. 


JAMES,  EPISTLE  OF. 

Paul,  and  Peter,  is  a right  strawy  epistle  (cine 
rechte  stroherne  epistel),  being  destitute  of  an 
evangelic  character’  ( Free. •/.  to  N.  T.).  And 
again  ( Prcef to  James  and  John), — ‘ This  epistle, 
although  rejected  by  the  ancients,  I notwithstand- 
ing praise  and  esteem,  as  it  teaches  no  doctrines 
of  men,  and  strenuously  urges  the  law  of  God. 
But,  to  give  my  opinion  frankly,  though  without 
jrejudice  to  any  other  person,  I do  net  hold  it  to 
)e  the  writing  of  an  apostle — and  these  are  my 
reasons;  first,  it  directly  opposes  St.  Paul  and 
other  Scriptures  in  ascribing  justification  to 
works,  saying  that  Abraham  was  justified  by 
works,  whereas  St.  Paul  teaches  that  Abraham 
was  justified  by  faith  without  works;  ....  but 
this  James  does  nothing  but.  urge  on  to  the  law 
and  its  works,  and  writes  so  confusedly  and  un- 
connected! y that,  it  appears  to  me  like  as  if  some 
good  pious  man  got  hold  of  a number  of  say- 
ings from  the  apostles’  followers,  and  thus  flung 
them  on  paper;  or  it  is  probably  written  by 
some  one  after  the  apostle’s  preaching.’  The 
eenturiators  of  Magdeburg  follow  the  same  train 
of  thought.  ‘ In  addition  to  the  argument  de- 
rived from  the  testimony  of  antiquity,  there 
are  other  and  by  no  means  obscure  indications 
from  which  it  may  be  collected  that  the  authors 
of  these  epistles  (James  and  Jude)  were  not 
apostles.  The  Epistle  of  James  differs  not 
slightly  from  the  analogy  of  doctrine,  in  ascribing 
justification  not  to  faith  alone,  but  to  works,  and 
calls  the  law  “a  law  of  liberty,’’  whereas  the  law 
« generates  to  bondage.”  ....  Nor  is  it  unlikely 
that  it  was  written  by  some  disciple  of  the  apo- 
stles at  the  close  of  this  (.the  first)  century,  or  even 
later’  (Cent.  i.  1.  2.  c.  4 col.  51).  The  same  sen- 
timents are  followed  by  Cbeunits,  Brentius.  and 
others  among  the  Lutherans,  and  among  the  Greeks 
by  Cyril  Lucaris,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  in 
the  seventeenth  century  (Lettres  Anecdotes  de  Cy- 
rille  Lucar , Amst.  1718.  Letter  vii.  p.  85). 

As  Luther  was  the  first  who  separated  the  ca- 
nonical from  the  deutero-canonical  or  apocryphal 
books  in  the  Old  Testament  [Deuteuo-canon- 
icaj,],  he  also  desired  to  make  a similar  dis- 
tinction in  the  New  [Antij.egomena  ; Hagio- 
okapha]  ; but  the  only  variation  which  lie  actu- 
ally adopted  consisted  in  his  placing  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  between  the  Epistles  of  John  and 
James  [Jude]. 

The  Calvinists,  who  never  questioned  the  au- 
thority of  this  epistle,  followed  the  arrangement 
of  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  in  which  the  Epistle 
of  James  ranks  as  the  first  of  the  Catholic 
epistles;  while  the  Council  of  Trent  followed  the 
order  of  the  Council  of  Carthage  and  of  the  apos- 
tolical canons,  viz.,  four  Gospels,  Acts,  fourteen 
epistles  of  Paul  (viz.,  Romans,  1 and  2 Coiin- 
thians,  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colos- 
siatis,  1 and  2 Thessalonians,  1 and  2 Timothy, 
Titus,  Philemon,  Hebrews),  1 and  2 Peter,  1, 
2,  and  3 John,  James,  Jude,  Apocalypse.  The 
Lutherans  themselves  soon  acquiesced  in  the  deci- 
sions of  the  universal  church  in  regard  to  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament,  until  the  contro- 
versy, which  had  long  slept,  was  again  revived 
in  Germany  in  modern  times  (De  Wefte,  Einlei - 
tuny).  De  Wette  maintains  that  although  this 
epistle  was  anterior  to  the  Clementine,  it  could 
not  have  been  written  so  early  as  the  time  of 
James,  principally  because  the  egree  of  tran- 


JAMES,  EPISTLE  OF.  69 

quillity  and  comfort  which  appears  to  have  bee* 
enjoyed  by  those  to  whom  the  epistle  was  ad- 
dressed, seems  to  him  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
state  cf  persecution  which  the  Christians  were 
subject  to  during  the  lifetime  of  St.  James.  He 
conceives  it  to  have  been  written  by  some  one 
who  assumed  the  name  of  James  in  order  to  give 
authority  to  his  arguments  against  Paul's  doc- 
trine of  justification.  Dr.  Kern  also,  in  his 
Essay  on  the  Origin  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James 
(in  the  Tubingen  Zeitschrift  fur  Theoloyie, 
1835),  took  the  same  view,  which,  however,' he 
has  lately  abandoned  in  his  Commentary.  But 
no  one  in  modern  times  has  combated  this  opi- 
nion with  greater  success  than  Neander  ( History 
of  the  First  Planting  of  the  Christian  Churc h, 
vol.  ii.).  Neander  (whose  reasonings  will  not 
admit  of  abridgment)  maintains  that  there  is  no 
discrepancy  whatever  between  St.  Paul  and  St. 
James ; that  it  was  riot  even  the  design  of  the 
latter  to  oppose  any  misapprehension  respecting 
St.  Paul’s  doctrine,  but  that  they  each  addressed 
different  classes  of  people  from  different  standing 
points,  using  the  same  familiar  examples. 

‘ Paul,’  he  says,  ‘ was  obliged  to  point  out  to 
those  who  placed  their  dependence  on  the  justify- 
ing power  of  the  works  of  the  law,  the  futility  of 
such  works  in  reference  to  justification,  and  to 
demonstrate  that  justification  and  sanctification 
could  proceed  only  from  the  faith  of  the  gospel : 
James,  on  the  other  hand,  found  it  necessary  to 
declare  to  those  who  imagined  that  they  could  be 
justified  in  God's  sight  by  faith  in  the  Jewish 
sense  ....  that  this  was  completely  valueless  if 
their  course  of  life  were  not  conformed  to  it.’ 
And  in  another  place  he  observes  that  James 
‘ received  the  new  spirit  under  the  old  forma, 
similarly  to  many  Catholics  who  have  attained 
to  free  evangelical  convictions,  and  yet  have  not 
been  able  to  disengage  themselves  from  the  old 
ecclesiastical  forms  ; or,  like  Luther,  when  he  had 
already  attained  a knowledge  of  justification  by 
faith,  but  before  he  was  aware  of  the  consequences 
flowing  from  it.  as  opposed  to  the  prevalent  doc 
trines  of  the  church.’ 

Age  of  the  Epistle. — By  those  who  consider 
James  the  Just,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  to  have 
been  the  author  of  this  epistle,  it  is  generally  be- 
lieved to  have  been  written  shortly  beibre  his 
martyrdom,  which  took  place  a.d.  62,  six  years 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  whose  im- 
pending fate  is  alluded  to  in  chap.  v.  Neandei 
fixes  its  date  at  a time  preceding  the  separate 
formation  of  Gentile  Christian  churches,  before 
the  relation  of  Gentiles  and  Jews  to  one  another 
in  the  Christian  Church  had  been  brought  under 
discussion,  in  the  period  of  the  first  spread  of 
Christianity  in  Syria,  Cilicia,  and  the  adjacent 
regions.  It  is  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians, 
tiie  descendants  of  the  twelve  tribes;  but  the  fact 
of  its  being  written  in  Greek  exhibits  the  author’s 
desire  to  make  it  generally  available  to  Christians. 

Contents  and  Character  of  the  Epistle. — ‘This 
epistle  commences  witli  consolations  addressed 
to  the  faithful  converts,  with  exhortations  to 
patience,  humility,  and  practical  piety  (cb.  i. 
1-27).  Undue  respect  to  persons  is  then  con- 
demned, and  love  enjoined  (ch.  ii.).  Erroneous 
ideas  on  justification  are  corrected  (ii.  13-26). 
the  temerity  of  new  teachers  is  repressed  (iii.  12); 
an  unbridled  tongue  is  inveighed  against,  and 


to 


JAPHETH. 


J ASHER. 


oeavenly  wislom  contrasted  witn  a spirit  of 
covetousness  (13-18).  Swearing  is  prohibited 
(v.  12).  The  efficacy  of  prayer  is  proved  by  ex- 
amples, and  the  unction  of  the  sick  by  the  Pres- 
byters, together  with  prayer  and  mutual  confession, 
are  enjoined  as  instruments  of  recovery  and  of 
forgiveness  of  sins  (v.  14-18).  The  approaching 
advent  of  the  Lord  is  foretold  (v.  7). 

The  style  of  this  epistle  is  close  and  sententious, 
and  is  characterized  by  Calmet  as  consisting  of 
‘ expressions  thrown  together  without  connection, 
and  adorned  by  poetical  similitudes.’  It  has, 
however,  been  illustrated  by  no  one  with  greater 
felicity  than  by  the  late  learned  and  pious 
Bishop  of  Limerick,  who  has  adduced  many 
examples  from  James  of  poetical  parallelism — 
which  was  the  principal  characteristic  of  Hebrew 
poetry.  In  reference  to  one  of  these  passages  (iii. 
1-12)  the  bishop  observes  that  ‘its  topics  are  so 
various,  and,  at  first  sight,  so  unconnected,  not  to 
say  incongruous,  that  it  may  be  thought  a rash 
undertaking  to  explore  the  writer's  train  of  thought, 
and  to  investigate  the  probable  source  and  the 
orderly  progress  of  his  ideas — an  evidence  at 
once  most  brilliant  and  satisfactory  that  the  easy 
flow  of  a great  mind,  when  concentrated  on  a 
great  object,  will  be  found  at  least  as  logically 
just  as  it.  may  be  poetically  beautiful.’  ‘His 
general  manner,’  he  observes,  ‘ combines  the  plain- 
est and  most  practical  good  sense  with  the  most 
vivid  and  poetical  conception ; the  imagery 
various  and  luxuriant ; the  sentiments  chastened 
and  sober ; his  images,  in  truth,  are  so  many 
analogical  arguments,  and  if,  at  the  first  view,  we 
are  disposed  to  recreate  ourselves  with  the  poet, 
we  soon  feel  that  we  must  exert  our  hardier 
powers  to  keep  pace  with  the  logician  ’ (Jebb's 
Sacred  Literature').  Seiler  designates  the  style 
of  this  epistle  as  ‘sometimes  sublime  and  prophe- 
tical, nervous,  and  full  of  imagery’  ( Biblical 
Hermeneutics,  § 315;  Wright's  translation,  p. 
548).  Wetstein  (note  to  ch.  iv.  5)  conceives 
the  author  to  have  been  familiar  with  the  book  of 
Wisdom.  In  ch.  i.  17  and  iv.  4 the  following 
perfect  hexixmeters  have  been  noticed — 

Tlacra  Socris  ayadi]  leal  ttuv  dcvprjpa  re\€iov 
and 

Moi^ol  nat  fxoLxa^lSes  ovk  otScere  on  <pi\ia. 

Trie  eloquence  and  persuasiveness  of  St.  James’s 
Epistle,  as  an  ethical  composition,  are  such  as 
must  command  universal  admiration. — W.  W. 

JAPHETH  (nn^  ; Sept.  ’Id£ed),  a son  of 
Noah.  In  Gen.  v.  32  he  is  mentioned  third  in 
order  • but  some  think,  from  Gen.  x.  21  (comp, 
ix.  24),  that  he  was  the  eldest  of  Noah's  sons, 
begotten  one  hundred  years  before  the  flood 
(Michael.  Spicil.  ii.  66).  In  Gen.  x.  2,  sq. 
he  is  called  the  progenitor  of  the  extensive  tribes 
in  the  west  (of  Europe)  and  north  (of  Asia),  pf 
the  Armenians,  Medes,  Greeks,  Thracians,  &c. 
De  Wette  ( Kritik , p.  72)  justly  repudiates  the 
opinion  of  the  Targumim , both  Jonath.  and 
Hieros.,  who  make  Japheth  the  progenitor  of  the 
African  tribes  also.  The  Arabian  traditions 
(DHerbelot,  Bibl.  Orient.)  rank  Japheth  among 
the  prophets,  and  enumerate  eleven  of  his  sons, 
the  progenitors  of  as  many  Asiatic  nations,  viz. 
Gin  or  Dshin  (Ciiinese),  Seklab  (Slavonians), 
Manshuge,  Gomari,  Tuik  (Turks),  Khalage, 
Khczar,  Ros  (Russians),  Sussan,  Gaz,  and  Torage. 


In  these  traditions  he  is  therefore  s.mply  called 


progenitor  of  the  Turks  and  Barbarians 


To  the  seven  sons  of  Japheth, 


mentioned  in  Gen.  x.  2 and  1 Chron.  i.  5,  the 
Sept,  and  Eusebius  add  an  eighth,  Elisha , though 
not  found  in  the  text.  Some  (Buttmann,  Bochart, 
and  Hasse)  identify  Japheth  with  the  ’IcnTe-ros  oi 
Greek  fable,  thedepository  of  many  ethnograplncal 
traditions;  while  others,  again,  connect,  him  wit! 
Hereus,  mentioned  in  the  ancient  historian  San- 
choniathon.- — E.  M. 


JARHA  ; Sept.  ’Io>x^A),  the  Egyptian 

slave  of  a Hebrew  named  Sheshan,  who  married 
the  daughter  of  his  master,  and  was,  of  course, 
made  free.  As  Sheshan  had  no  sons,  his  posterity 
is  traced  through  this  connection  (1  Chron.  ii. 
31-41),  which  is  the  only  one  of  the  kind  men- 
tioned in  Scripture.  Jarha  was  doubtless  a pro- 
selyte, and  the  anecdote  seems  to  belong  to  the 
period  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt,  although  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  how  an  Egyptian  could  there  be  slave 
to  an  Israelite. 

J ASHER,  BOOK  OF  (Tf»5  IKS),  a work 
no  longer  extant,  but  cited  in  Josh.  x.  13,  and 
2 Sam.  i.  18.  In  the  former  it  is  thus  intro- 
duced: ‘And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon 
stayed,  until  the  people  had  avenged  themselves 
upon  their  enemies.  Is  not  this  written  in  trie 
book  of  Jasher?  So  the  sun  stood  still  in  the 
midst  of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down  about 
a whole  day,’  &c.  And  in  the  passage  referred  to 
in  2 Sam.  i.  it  stands  thus  : ver.  17.  ‘ And  David 
lamented  with  this  lamentation  over  Saul  and  over 
Jonathan  his  son  :’  ver.  18.  ‘(Also  he  bade  them 
teach  the  children  of  Judah  [the  use  of]  the  bow  : 
behold  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Jasher).’  After 
which  follows  the  lamentation  of  David.  As  the 
word  Jasher  signifies  just  or  upright , by  which 
word  it  is  rendered  in  the  margin  of  our  Bibles, 
this  book  has  been  generally  considered  to  have 
been  so  entitled  as  containing  a history  of  just 
men.  Bishop  Lowth,  however  (Prcelect.  pp.  306, 
307),  conceives,  from  the  poetical  character  of 
the  two  passages  cited  from  it,  that  it  was  most 
probably  a collection  of  national  songs  written  at 
various  times,  and  that  it  derived  its  name  from 
jashar , ‘ he  sang,’  as  Exod.  xv.  1,  az  Jashir 
Mosheh , ‘ then  sang  Moses,’  &c. ; or  from  the 
circumstance  of  its  having  commenced  with 
the  word  Az  Jashar,  as  the  different  books 
of  the  Bible  derived  the  names  which  they  bore 
among  the  Jews  from  the  initial  word.  It  is,  at 
the  same  time,  by  no  means  an  improbable  con- 
jecture, that  the  book  was  so  called  from  the 
name  of  its  author.  Josephus  (. Antiq . v.  1.  17) 
speaks  of  the  book  of  Jasher  as  one  of  the  ‘ books 
laid  up  in  the  temple.’ 

De  Wette  ( Einleitung , § 169)  endeavours  to 
deduce  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  late  compo- 
sition of  the  book  of  Joshua  from  the  circum- 
stances of  its  citing  a work  (viz.  the  book  of 
Jasher)  which  ‘ points  to  the  time  of  David,  inas- 
much as  his  lamentation  over  Saul  and  Jonathan 
is  contained  in  it.’  But  it  has  been  supposed  by 
others  (although  the  American  translator  of  De 
Wette’s  Introduction  looks  upon  tins  as  quite  im- 
probable) that  the  book  may,  as  a collection  ol 
poems,  have  received  accessions  at.  various  ferions. 


J ASHER. 


JASIIER. 


75 


and,  nevertheless,  been  still  quoted  l>y  its  original 
name.  I)r.  Palfrey,  who  adopts  this  view  of  the 
book  of  Jaslier  in  his  Lectures , still  refers  the 
composition  of  Joshua  to  the  time  of  Saul. 
Among  the  fathers,  Theodoret  (see  Carpzov’s 
Introd.  p.  150)  flunks  the  whole  book  of  Joshua 
to  be  an  extract  from  the  book  of  Jasher,  and 
that  the  author,  ‘ fearing  that  his  assertion  of  the 
standing  still  of  the  sun  would  not  he  credited,’ 
therefore  referred  to  the  book  itself  as  his  authority 
for  the  account  of  the  miracle  ( Qucest . xiv.  in 
Josh , t.  i.  part  i.  p.  20:?);  whence,  lie  adds, 
it  is  plain  that  some  other  person  of  a later  date 
wrote  this,  taking  the  occasion  from  another 
book.  Jerome  is  of  opinion  (in  Ezek.  xviii.  p. 
819)  that  the  book  of  Jasher  is  no  other  than  the 
hook  of  Genesis,  which  is  also  the  opinion  of  some 
Jewish  authors.  Others  suppose  it  to  include  the 
Pentateuch  (see  Calmet's  Comment,  in  loc.). 
Mr.  Horne  ( Introd . vol.  i.)  asserts  that  ‘ some 
understand  by  the  book  of  Jasher  the  book  of 
Judges,  as  mention  is  therein  made  of  the  stand- 
ing still  of  the  sun.'  [?]  From  the  passage  above 
referred  to,  2 Sam.  i.  18 — ‘ Also  he  bade  them 
teach  the  children  of  Israel  [the  use  of]  the  bow’ 
— it  has  been  supposed  by  some  (see  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke's  Comment,  in  loc.,  and  Home's  Introd. 
vol.  i.)  that  the  book  of  Jasher  contained  a treatise 
on  archery  ; but  it  has  betn  observed  (see  Par- 
ker's translation  of  De  Wette’s  Introd.  vol.  i.  p. 
301)  that,  according  to  the  ancient  mode  of  cita- 
tion, which  consisted  in  referring  to  some  parti- 
cular word  in  ihe  document,  ‘ the  bow,’  which 
the  children  of  Israel  were  to  be  taught,  indicated 
the  poetical  passage  from  the  book  of  Jasher  in 
which  the  ‘ bow  of  Jonathan  ’ is  mentioned 
(2  Sam.  i.  22)  De  Wette's  translator  supposes 
that  our  English  translators  of  the  Bible  were, 
perhaps,  ignorant  of  thi.s  manner  of  reference,  and 
he  instances  this  as  a ‘ ludicrous  instance.’ 

The  Book  of  Jasher  is  also  the  title  of  two 
Rabbinical  works,  one  of  which  was  written  by 
Rabbi  Tham  in  the  thirteenth  century,  and 
printed  at  Cracow  in  1617.  It  is  a treatise  on 
Jewish  laws.  The  other  was  printed  in  1625,  and 
contains  (see  Batolocci’s  Bibliotheca  Rabbinica, 
and  Horne’s  Introd.  vol.  ii.,  Bibliogr.  App.)  some 
curious  but  many  fabulous  narrations ; among 
other  things,  that  it  was  discovered  at  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple  in  possession  of  an  old  man, 
who  was  found  shut  up  in  some  place  of  conceal- 
ment, and  who  had  a great  number  of  Hebrew 
books.  It  was  brought  to  Spain,  preserved  at 
Seville,  and  published  at  Naples. 

In  the  year  1751  there  was  published  in  Lon- 
don, by  a type-founder  of  Bristol  named  Jacob 
Hive,  a book  entitled  ‘ The  Book  of  Jasher , with 
Testimonies  and  Notes  explanatory  of  the  Text : 
to  which  is  prefixed  Various  Readings : trans- 
lated into  English  from  the  Hebrew  by  Alcuin 
of  Britain,  who  went  a pilgrimage  into  the  Holy 
Land.’  This  book  was  noticed  in  the  Monthly 
Review  for  December  1751,  which  describes  it  as 
a palpable  piece  of  contrivance,  intended  to 
Impose  upon  the  credulous  and  ignorant,  to  sap 
the  credit  of  the  books  of  Moses,  and  to  blacken 
the  character  of  Moses  himself.’  The  reviewer 
adds  that  ‘ the  Book  tf  Jasher  appears  to  have 
been  constructed  in  part  from  the  apocryphal 
writings  of  the  Rabbins ; in  part  from  a cento  of 


various  scraps  stolen  from  the  Pentateuch  ; and 
in  the  remainder  from  the  crazy  imaginings  of 
the  author  ’ (Ilive).  Prefixed  to  this  work  is  a 
narrative  professing  to  be  from  the  pen  of  Alcuin 
himself,  giving  a detailed  account  of  his  discovery 
of  the  Hebrew  book  of  Jasher,  in  the  city  of  Gazna 
in  Persia,  during  a pilgrimage  which  he  made 
from  Bristol  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  of  his  trans- 
lation of  the  same  into  English.  This  clumsy 
forgery  in  modern  English,  which  appeared  with 
the  chapters  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  the 
numerical  versicular  divisions  of  the  sixteenth, 
having  been  exposed  at  the  t me  of  its  appearanc.f, 
and  sunk  into  well-merited  oblivion,  was  again 
revived  in  1827,  when  it  was  reprinted  at  Bristol, 
and  published  in  London  as  a new.  discovery  of 
the  Book  of  Jasher.  A prospectus  of  a second 
edition  of  this  reprint  was  issued  in  1833  by  the 
editor,  who  herein  styles  himself  the  Rev.  C.  R. 
Bond.  Both  Hive’s  and  Bond’s  edition  contain 
the  following  pretended  testimony  to  the  value  of 
the  work  from  the  celebrated  Wicklifle; — ‘I 
have  read  the  book  of  Jasher  twice  over,  and  I 
much  approve  of  it,  as  a piece  of  great  antiquity 
and  curiosity,  but  1 cannot  assent  that  it  should 
be*made  a part  of  the  canon  of  Scripture.’  They 
also  contain  a statement,  from  the  pen  of  Alcuin, 
to  the  effect  that  he  (Alcuin,  not  Jasher,  as  Mr. 
Horne  supposes)  gave  the  book  before  his  death  to 
a clergyman  in  Yorkshire  (see  Horne’s  Introd. 
vol.  ii.,  Bibliogr.  Apjn).  It  is  further  asserted 
by  the  new  editor  that  the  book  was  discovered  in 
1721,  in  the  north  of  England;  and  that  again, 
after  the  year  1750,  it  passed  through  various 
hands,  until,  in  1829,  the  manuscript  came  into 
his  possession.  The  fiaud  was  now  again  ex- 
posed in  the  Dublin  Christian  Examiner  for 
1831,  wherein,  among  other  curious  letters  re 
lating  to  the  pretended  Book  of  Jasher , is  a 
communication  from  the  ‘ vicar  of  Donagh  ’ in 
Ireland,  who  states  that  he  had  been  kimsell 
favoured,  in  1806,  with  the  sight  of  a copy  of  this 
‘ curious  piece  of  antiquity,  which  was  in  the 
possession  of  the  Rev.  R.  Alexander,  D.D.,  who 
then  resided  at  New  Ross  in  Ireland.  Dr.  Alex- 
ander, it  appears,  had  made  his  transcript  from 
‘ a rare  copy,'  which  he  supposed  to  have  been 
unique,  then  in  possession  of  a Welsh  clergyman, 
but  refused  the  same  favour  to  the  * vicar  of 
Donagh.’  The  original  woik  was  published  at 
2s.,  and  the  unacknowledged  reprint  was  sold 
by  the  editor  for  £1.  per  copy.  From  a review 
of  this  work,  inserted  in  the  British  Critic  for 
January,  1834,  it  appears  that  several  copies  of 
this  impudent  and  stupid  fabrication  were  pur- 
chased by  the  ‘ simple,  the  charitable,  the  good 
nat.ured,  or  the  careless.’  This  fraudulent  literary 
hoax  has  obtained  a notoriety  far  beyond  its  merits 
in  consequence  of  the  able  critiques  to  which  it  gave 
rise,  and  of  an  elaborate  lefutation  from  the  j>en 
of  Mr.  Horne  ( Introd . vol.  ii.  ut  supra).  It  seems 
to  have  been  republished  in  New  Yoik  in  1840. 

The  chief  interest  connected  with  the  Scriptural 
book  of  Jasher  arises  from  the  circumstance  that 
it  is  referred  to  as  the  authority  lor  the  standing 
still  of  the  sun  and  moon.  There  are  few  pas- 
sages in  Biblical  literature  the  explanation  ol 
which  has  more  exercised  the  skill  of  com  men 
tators  than  this  celebrated  one.  We  shall  her* 
give  a brief  account  of  the  most  generally  re- 
ceived interpretations. 


n 


JASHOBEAM. 


JEBUSITES. 


The  lirst  is  that  which  maintains  that  the  account 
of  the  miracle  is  to  he  literally  understood.  Ac- 
cording to  this  interpretation,  which  is  the  most 
ancient,  the  sun  itself,  which  was  then  believed 
to  have  revolved  round  the  earth,  stayed  his 
course  for  a day.  Those  who  take  this  view 
argue  that  the  theory  of  the  diurnal  motion  of 
the  earth , which  has  been  the  generally  received 
one  since  the  time  of  Galileo  and  Copernicus, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  Scripture  narrative.  Not- 
withstanding the  general  reception  of  the  Coperni- 
can  system  of  the  universe,  this  view  continued  to 
be  held  by  many  divines,  Protestant  as  well  as 
Roman  Catholic,  and  was  strenuously  maintained 
by  Buddeus  (Hist.  Eccles.  V.  T.  Halle,  1715, 
1744,  p.  828,  sq.)  and  others  in  the  last  century. 

But  in  more  recent  times  the  miracle  has  been 
explained  so  as  to  make  it  accord  with  the  now 
received  opinion  respecting  the  earth’s  motion, 
and  the  Scripture  narrative  supposed  to  contain 
rather  an  optical  and  popular,  than  a literal 
account  of  what  took  place  on  this  occasion.  So 
that  it  was  in  reality  the  earth,  and  not  the  sun, 
which  stood  still  at  the  command  of  Joshua. 

Another  opinion  is  that  first,  suggested  by  Spi- 
noza (Tract.  Theology  Politic,  c.  ii.  p.  22,  and 
v..  vi.),  and  afterwards  maintained  by  Le  Clerc 
{Comment,  in  loc.),  that  the  miracle  was  pro- 
duced by  refraction  only,  causing  the  sun  to  appear 
above  the  horizon  after  its  setting,  or  by  some 

her  atmospherical  phenomena,  which  produced 
sufficient  light  to  enable  Joshua  to  pursue  and 
discomfit  his  enemies. 

The  last  opinion  we  shall  mention  is  that  of  the 
learned  Jew  Maimonides  (More  Nevo.  ii.  c.  53), 
viz.  that  Joshua  only  asked  of  the  Almighty  to  grant 
that  he  might  defeat  his  enemies  before  the  going 
down  of  the  sun,  and  that  God  heard  his  prayer, 
inasmuch  as  before  the  close  of  day  the  five  kings 
with  their  armies  were  cut  in  pieces.  This  opi- 
nion is  favoured  by  Vatablus,  in  the  marginal 
note  to  this  passage  (see  Robert  Stephens’  edition 
of  the  Bible,  fol.  1557),  ‘ Lord,  permit  that  the 
light  of  the  sun  and  moon  fail  us  not  before  our 
enemies  are  defeated.’  Grotius,  while  he  admitted 
that  there  was  no  difficulty  in  the  Almighty’s 
arresting  the  course  of  the  sun,  or  making  it  re- 
appear by  refraction,  approved  of  the  explanation 
of  Maimonides,  which  has  been  since  that  period 
adopted  by  many  divines,  including  Jahn,  among 
the  Roman  Catholics  (who  explains  the  whole  as 
a sublime  poetical  trope,  lntrod.  p.  ii.  § 30),  and 
among  orthodox  Protestants,  by  a writer  in  the 
Berlin  Evangelische  Kirch enzeitung , Nov.  1832, 
supposed  to  be  the  editor,  Professor  Ilengstenberg. 
Robinson's  Biblical  Repository,  1833,  vol.  iii. 
p.  791,  sqq.)  See  Seiler's  Biblical  Hermeneutics , 
English  Translator’s  note,  pp.  175,  176. — W.  W. 

JASHOBEAM  (DyilK^  ; Sept.  ’leaefiaSa),  son 
of  Hachmoni,  one  of  David’s  worthies,  and  the 
first  named  in  the  two  lists  which  are  given  of 
them  (2  Sam.  xxiii  8;  1 Chron.  xi.  11).  One  of 
these  texts  is  held  to  have  suffered  through  the  neg- 
ligence of  copyists,  and  as  Jashobeam  is  not  his- 
torically known,  commentators  have  been  much 
embarrassed  in  comparing  them.  The  former 
attributes  to  him  the  defeat  of  800,  the  latter 
of  300  Philistines  ; and  the  question  has  been 
whether  there  is  a mistake  of  figures  in  one  of 
these  accounts,  or  w he  the:  two  different  exploits  are 


recorded.  Further  difficulties  will  appear  h» 
comparing  the  two  texts.  We  have  assumed 
Jashobeam  to  be  intended  in  both ; but  this  is 
open  to  question.  In  Chronicles  we  read,  ‘ Jasno- 
beam,  the  Hachmonne,  chief  of  the  captains:  ha 
lifted  up  his  spear  against  300  men,  slain  by  hirn 
atone  time;’  but  in  Samuel  [margin],  ‘ Joseb- 
basebeth  the  Tachmonite,  chief  among  the  three, 
Auino,  of  Ezni,  who  lifted  up  his  spear  against  800 
men  whom  he  slew.’  That  Jashobeam  the  JHach- 
monite,  and  Joseb-besheth  the  Tachmonite,  are  the 
same  person  is  clear ; but  may  not  Adi  no  of 
Ezni,  whose  name  forms  the  immediate  antece- 
dent of  the  exploit,  which,  as  related  here,  con 
stitutes  the  sole  discrepancy  between  the  two  texts, 
be  another  person?  Many  so  explain  it, and  thus 
obtain  a solution  of  the  difficulty.  But  a further 
comparison  of  the  two  verses  will  again  suggest 
that  tlie  whole  of  the  last  cited  must  belong  to 
Jashobeam  ; for  not  only  is  the  pa.allel  incomplete, 
if  we  take  the  last  clause  from  him  and  assign  it 
to  another,  but  in  doing  this  we  leave  the  ‘ chief 
among  the  captains’  without  an  exploit,  in  a list 
which  records  some  feat  of  every  hero.  We  in- 
cline, therefore,  to  the  opinion  of  those  who  sup- 
pose that  Jashobeam,  or  Joseb-besebeth,  was  the 
title  as  chief,  Adiuo  the  proper  name,  and  Hach- 
monite  the  patronymic  of  the  same  person;  and 
the  discrepancy  which  thus  remains,  we  account 
for,  not.  on  the  supposition  of  different  exploits, 
but  of  one  of  those  corruptions  of  numbers  of  which 
several  will  lie  found  in  comparing  the  books  of 
Chronicles  with  those  of  Samuel  and  Kings. 

The  exploit  of  breaking  through  the  host  of  the 
Philistines  to  procure*  David  a di aught  of  water 
from  the  well  of  Bethlehem,  is  ascribed  to  the 
three  chief  heroes,  and  therefore  to  Jashobeam,  who 
was  the  first  of  the  three  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  13-17; 

1 Chron.  xi.  15-19). 

A Jashobeam  is  named  among  the  Korhites  who 
came  to  David  at  Ziklag  (1  Chron.  xii.  6);  but 
this  could  scarcely  have  been  the  same  with  the 
preceding. 

We  also  find  a Jashobeam  who  commanded 
24,000,  and  did  duty  in  David's  court  in  the 
month  Nisan  (1  Chron.  xxvii.  2).  He  was  the 
son  of  Zabdiel ; if,  therefore,  he  was  the  same 
as  the  first  Jashobeam,  his  patronymic  of  ‘ the 
Hachmonite  ’ must  be  referred  to  his  race  rather 
than  to  his  immediate  father.  This  seems  likely. 

JASON  (’idcoov),  a kinsman  of  St.  Paul,  and 
his  host  at  Thessaionica,  where  the  Jews  forced 
his  house  in  order  to  seize  the  Apostle.  Not  find- 
ing the  apostle,  they  dragged  Jason  himself  and 
some  other  converts  before  the  magistrates,  who  re- 
leased them  with  an  admonition  (a.d.  53).  Jason 
appears  to  have  accompanied  the  Apostle  to  C> 
linth  (Acts  xvii.  5-9;  Rom.  xvi.  21). 

JASPER.  [Yashpeh.] 

JAVAN,  the  fourth  son  of  Japhet.  The  in- 
terest connected  with  his  name  arises  from  his 
being  the  supposed  progenitor  of  the  original  set- 
tlers in  Greece  and  its  isles  [Nations,  Disper- 
sion op]. 

JAVELIN.  [Arms] 

JEBUSITES  (*p«J ; Sept.  ’Uflovoaioi'),  on  a 
of  the  most  powerful  of  the  nations  of  Canaan, 
who  settled  about.  Mount  Moriah,  where  they 
built  Jerusalem,  and  called  it  Jebus,  after  tl.« 
name  of  their  founder  (1  Chron.  xi.  4).  Although 


JEDUTHUN. 


JEHOIACIIIN. 


73 


they  were  defeated  vith  much  slaughter,  and 
Adonizedek,  their  king,  slain  by  Joshua  (Josh,  x.), 
they  were  not  wholly  subdued,  but  vveie  able  to 
retain  their  city  till  after  his  death  (*Judg.  i.  8), 
and  were  not  entirely  dispossessed  of  it  till  the 
time  of  David  (2  Sam.  v.).  By  that  time  the  in- 
veteracy of  the  enmity  between  the  Hebrews  and 
such  of  the  original  inhabitants  as  remained  in 
the  land  had  much  abated,  and  the  rights  of  pri- 
vate property  were  respected  by  the  conquerors. 
This  we  discover  from  the  fact  that  the  site  on 
which  the  Temple  afterwards  stood  belonged  to  a 
Jebusite,  named  Araunah,  from  whom  it  was  pur- 
chased by  king  David,  who  declined  to  accept 
it  as  a free  gift  from  the  owner  (2  Sam.  xxiv.). 
This  is  the  last  we  hear  of  the  Jebusites. 

JEDUTHUN  (j-m-IT,  praise-giver;  Sept. 
’IS iOovv),  a Levite  of  Merari’s  family,  and  one  of 
the  four  great  masters  of  the  templemusie  ( 1 Chron. 
xvi.  41,  42).  This  name  is  also  put  for  his  de- 
scendants, who  occur  later  as  singers  and  players 
on  instruments  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  15  ; Neh.  xi.  17). 
In  the  latter  signification  it  occurs  in  the  super- 
scriptions to  Ps.  xxxix.,  lxii.,  Ixxvii. ; but  A ben 
Ezra  supposes  it  to  denote  here — the  requiring  of 
a song,  and  Jarchi,  of  a musical  instrument. 

1.  JEHOAHAZ  (TnKin\  God-sustained; 
Sept.  ’Io>axaO>  son  of  J«liu>  king  <)f  Israel,  who 
succeeded  his  father  in  b c.  856,  and  reigned 
seventeen  years.  As  he  followed  the  evil  courses 
of  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  the  Syrians  under  Hazael 
and  Benhadad  were  suffered  to  prevail  over  him  ; 
so  that,  at  length,  he  had  only  left  of  all  his  forces 
fifty  horsemen,  ten  chariots,  and  10,000  loot. 
Overwhelmed  by  his  calamities,  Jehoahaz  at 
length  acknowledged  the  authorit  y of  Jehovah  over 
Israel,  and  humbled  himself  before  him;  in  con- 
sideration of  which  a deliverer  was  raised  up  for 
Israel  in  the  person  of  Joash,  this  king's  son,  who 
was  enabled  to  expel  the  Syrians  and  re-establish 
die  affairs  of  the  kingdom  (2  Kings  xiii.  1-9,  25). 

2.  JEHOAHAZ,  otherwise  called  Shallum, 
seventeenth  king  of  Judah,  son  of  Josiah,  whose 
reign  began  and  ended  in  the  year  b.c.  608. 
After  his  father  had  been  slain  in  resisting  the 
progress  of  Pcaraoh  Necho,  Jehoahaz,  who  was 
then  twenty-three  years  of  age,  was  raised  to 
the  throne  by  the  people,  and  received  at  Jeru- 
salem the  regal  anointing,  which  seems  to  have 
been  usually  omitted  in  times  of  order  and 
of  regular  succession.  He  found  the  land  full 
of  trouble,  but  free  from  idolatry.  Instead, 
however,  of  following  the  excellent  example  of 
ais  father,  Jehoahaz  fell  into  the  accustomed 
crimes  of  his  predecessors  ; and  under  the  encou- 
ragements which  his  example  or  indifference 
offered,  the  idols  soon  re-appeared.  It,  seems 
strange  that  in  a time  so  short,  and  which  must 
have  been  much  occupied  in  arranging  plans  for 
resisting  or  pacifying  the  Egyptian  king,  he 
should  have  been  able  to  deserve  the  stigma  which 
the  sacred  record  has  left  upon  his  name.  But 
there  is  no  limit  except  in  the  greatness  of  the  divine 
power  to  ti  e activity  of  evil  dispositions.  The 
sway  of  Jehoahaz  was  terminated  in  three  months, 
when  Pharaoh  Necho,  on  his  victorious  return 
from  the  Euphrates,  thinking  it  politic  to  reject  a 
king  not  nominated  by  himself,  removed  him 
from  the  throne,  and  set  thereon  Ins  brother  Jehoia- 


kim.  This  reign  was  the  shortest  in  the  kingdom 
of  Judah,  although  in  that  of  Israel  there  were 
several  shorter.  The  deposed  king  was  at  first 
taken  as  a prisoner  to  Kiblali  in  Syria;  hut  was 
eventually  carried  to  Egypt,  where  he  died  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  30-35;  2 Chron.  xxxvi.  1-4;  1 Chron.  iii. 
15;  Jer.  xxii.  10  12). 

The  anointing  of  this  king  has  drawn  attention 
to  the  defect  of  his  title  as  the  reason  for  the  addi- 
tion of  that  solemn  ceremony.  It  appears  from 
1 Chron.  iii.  15  that  Josiah  had  four  sons,  of 
whom  Johanan  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  ‘ the 
first-born.1  But  he  seems  to  have  died  before  his 
father,  as  we  nowhere  find  his  name  historically 
mentioned,  while  those  of  the  other  brothers  are 
familiar  to  us.  If,  therefore,  he  died  childless, 
and  Jehoahaz  were  the  next  son,  his  claim  would 
have  been  good.  But  he  was  not  the  next  son. 
His  name,  as  Shallum,  occurs  last,  of  the  four  in 
1 Chron.  iii.  15;  and  from  the  historical  notices 
in  2 Kings  xxiii.  and  1 Chron.  xxxvi.  we  as- 
certain that  when  Josiah  died  the  ages  of  the 
three  surviving  sons  were,  Eliakim  (Jehoiakirn) 
twenty-five  years,  Jehoahaz  (Shallum)  twenty- 
three  years,  Mattaniah  (Zedekiah)  ten  years; 
consequently  Jehoahaz  was  preferred  by  the 
popular  favour  above  his  elder  brother  Jehoiakirn, 
and  the  anointing,  therefore,  was  doubtless  intended 
to  give  to  his  imperfect,  claim  the  weight  of  that 
solemn  ceremony.  It  was  also  probably  suspected 
that,  as  actually  took  place,  the  Egyptian  king 
would  seek  to  annul  a popular  election  unsanc- 
tioned by  himself;  but  as  the  Egyptians  anointed 
their  own  kings,  and  attached  much  importance 
to  the  ceremony,  the  possibility  that  he  would 
hesitate  more  to  remove  an  anointed  than  an  un- 
anointed king  might  afford  a further  reason  for 
the  anointing  of  Jehoahaz  [Anointing]. 

Jehoahaz  is  supposed  to  be  the  person  who  is 
designated  under  the  emblem  of  a young  lion 
carried  in  chains  to  Egypt  (Ezek.  xix.  3,  4). 
JEIIOASH.  [Joash.] 

JEIIOIACHIN  (i'SW,  God-appointed; 
Sept.  T aiax^Oi  by  contraction  Jeconiah  and  Co- 
ni aii,  nineteenth  king  of  Judah,  and  son  of  Je- 
hoiakim.  When  his  father  was  slain,  b.c.  599, 
the  King  of  Babylon  allowed  him,  as  the  rightful 
heir,  to  succeed.  He  was  then  eighteen  years  of 
age  according  to  2 Kings  xxiv.  8;  but  only  eight 
according  to  2 Chron.  xxxvi.  9.  Many  attempts 
have  been  made  to  reconcile  these  dates,  the  most 
usual  solution  being  that  he  had  reigned  ten  years 
in  conjunction  with  his  father,  so  that  he  was 
eight  when  he  began  his  joint  reign,  but  eighteen 
when  he  began  to  reign  alone.  There  are,  how- 
ever, difficulties  in  this  view,  which,  perhaps, 
leave  it  the  safest  course  to  conclude  that  ‘ eight’ 
in  2 Chron.  xxxvi.  9,  is  a corruption  of  the  text, 
such  as  might  easily  occur  from  the  relation  of 
the  numbers  eight  and  eighteen. 

Jehoiachin  followed  the  evil  courses  which  had 
already  hi  ought  so  much  disaster  upon  the  royal 
house  of  David,  and  upon  the  people  under  its 
sway.  He  seems  to  have  very  speedily  indicated 
a political  bias  adverse  to  the  interests  of  the 
Chaldaean  empire;  for  in  three  months  after  his 
accession  we  find  the  generals  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
again  laying  siege  to  Jerusalem,  according  to  tin? 
predictions  of  Jeremiah  (xxii.  18 — xxiv.  30).  Con- 
vinced of  the  futility  of  resistance,  Jehoiachin 


74 


JEHOIADA. 


JE  HOI  AKIM. 


w*nt  out  and  surrendered  as  soon  as  Nebuchad- 
nezzar arrived  in  person  before  the  city.  He  was 
sent  away  as  a captive  to  Babylon,  with  his 
mother,  his  generals,  and  his  troops,  together  with 
the  artificers  and  other  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
to  the  numb-i-  of  ten  thousai  d.  Few  were  left  but 
the  poorer  so-  ;of  people  and  the  unskilled  labourers, 
few,  indeed,  wiiose  presence  could  be  useful  in 
Babylon  or  dangerous  in  Palestine.  Neither  did 
the  Babyionian  king  neglect  to  remove  the  trea- 
sures which  could  yet  be  gleaned  from  the  palace 
or  the  temple ; and  he  now  made  spoil  of  those 
sacred  vessels  of  gold  which  had  been  spared 
on  former  occasions.  These  were  cut  up  for 
present  use  of  the  metal  or  for  more  convenient 
transport ; whereas  those  formerly  taken  had  been 
sent  to  Babylon  entire,  and  there  laid  up  as 
trophies  of  victory.  Thus  ended  an  unhappy 
reign  of  three  months  and  ten  days.  If  the 
Chaldaean  king  had  then  put  an  end  to  the  show  of 
a monarchy  and  annexed  the  country  to  his  own 
dominions,  the  event  would  probably  have  been 
less  unhappy  for  the  nation.  But  still  adhering 
to  his  former  policy,  he  placed  on  the  throne 
Mattaniah,  the  only  surviving  son  of  Josiah, 
whose  name  he  changed  to  Zedekiah  (2  Kings 
xxiv.  1-16;  2 Chron.  xxxvi.  9,  10  ; Jer.  xxix.  2; 
xxxvii.  1). 

Jehoiachin  remained  in  prison  at  Babylon 
during  the  lifetime  of  Nebuchadnezzar;  but 
when  that  prince  died,  his  son,  Kvil-merodach, 
not  only  released  him,  but  gave  him  an  honour- 
able seat  at  his  own  table,  with  precedence  over 
all  the  other  dethroned  kings  who  were  kept  at 
Babylon,  and  an  allowance  for  the  support  of  his 
rank  (2  Kings  xxv.  27-1*0  ; Jer.  lii.  31-34).  To 
what  he  owed  this  favour  we  are  not  told  ; but  the 
Jewish  commentators  allege  that  Evil-merodach 
had  himself  been  put  into  prison  by  his  father 
during  the  last  year  of  his  reign,  and  had  there 
contracted  an  intimate  friendship  with  the  de- 
posed king  of  Judah. 

The  name  of  Jechoniah  re-appears  to  fix  the 
epoch  of  several  of  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel 
(Ezek.  i.  2),  and  of  the  deportation  which  ter- 
minated his  reign  (Esth.  ii.  vi).  In  the  genealogy 
of  Christ  (Matt.  i.  11)  he  is  named  as  the  ‘son 
of  Josias’  his  uncle. 

JEHOIADA  (^Tirr,  God -known;  Sept. 
TitfSae),  high-priest  in  the  times  of  Ahaziah  and 
Athaliah.  He  is  only  known  from  the  part  which 
ne  took  in  recovering  the  throne  of  Judah  for  the 
young  Joash,  who  had  been  saved  by  his  wife 
Jehosbehah  from  the  massacre  by  which  Athaliah 
sought  to  exterminate  the  royal  line  of  David. 
The  particulars  of  this  transaction  are  related 
under  other  heads  [Athai.iah  ; JoashJ.  Je- 
boiada  manifested  much  decision  and  forecast  on 
this  occasion ; and  he  used  for  good  the  great 
power  which  devolved  upon  him  during  the  mi- 
nority of  the  young  king,  and  the  influence  which 
he  continued  to  enjoy  as  long  as  he  lived.  The 
value  of  this  influence  is  shown  by  the  misconduct 
and  the  disorders  of  the  kingdom  after  his  death. 
He  died  in  n.c.  831,  at.  the  age  of  130,  and  his 
remains  were  honoured  with  a place  in  the  sepul- 
chre of  .lie  kings  at  Jerusalem  (2  Kings  xi.  12; 
2 Chron.  xxiii.  xxiv.). 

JEHOIAKIM  God-established;  Sept. 

l&ciKtfi'j,  originally  EEIAK1M,  second  son  of 


Josiah,  and  eighteenth  king  of  Judah.  On  th* 
death  of  his  father  the  people  raised  to  the  throne 
his  younger  brother  Jehoahaz;  but  three  months 
after,  when  the  Egyptian  king  returned  from  the 
Euphrates,  he  removed  Jehoahaz,  and  gave  the 
crown  to  the  rightful  heir,  Eliakim,  whose  name  he 
changed  to  Jehoiakim.  This  change  of  name  often 
took  place  in  similar  circumstances;  and  the 
altered  name  was  in  fact  the  badge  of  a tributary 
prince.  Jehoiakim  began  to  reign  in  n.c.  608,  and 
reigned  eleven  years.  He  of  course  occupied  the 
position  of  a vassal  of  the  Egyptian  empire,  and  it 
that  capacity  had  to  lay  upon  the  people  heavy 
imposts  to  pay  the  appointed  tribute,  in  addition 
to  t he  ordinary  expenses  of  government.  But,  as 
if  this  were  not  enough,  it  would  seem  from  va- 
rious passages  in  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxii.  13,  &c.' 
that  Jehoiakim  aggravated  the  public  charges, 
and  consequently  the  public  calamities,  by  a de- 
gree of  luxury  and  magnificence  in  his  establish- 
ments and  structures  very  ill-suited  to. the  con- 
dition of  his  kingdom  and  the  position  which 
he  occupied.  Hence  much  extortion  and  wrong- 
doing, much  privation  and  deceit;  and  when  we 
add  to  this  a general  forgetfulness  of  God  and 
proneness  to  idolatry,  we  have  the  outlines  of  that 
picture  which  the  prophet  Jeremiah  has  drawn  in 
the  most  sombre  hues. 

However  heavy  may  have  been  the  Egyptian 
yoke,  Jehoiakim  was  destined  to  pass  under  one 
heavier  still.  In  his  time  the  empire  of  Western 
Asia  was  disputed  between  the  kings  of  Egypt 
and  Babylon;  and  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 
pressed  between  these  mighty  rivals,  and  neces- 
sarily either  the  tributary  or  very  feeble  enemy 
of  the  one  or  the  other,  could  not  but  sutler  nearly 
equally,  whichever  proved  the  conqueror.  The 
kings  of  Judah  were  therefore  placed  in  a posi- 
tion of  peculiar  difficulty, out  of  which  they  could 
only  escape  witli  safety  by  the  exercise  of  great 
discretion,  and  through  the  special  mercies  of 
the  God  of  Israel,  who  had  by  his  high  covenant 
engaged  to  protect,  them  so  long  as  they  walked 
uprightly.  This  they  did  not,  and  were  in  con- 
sequence abandoned  to  their  doom. 

In  the  third  year  of  his  reign  Jehoiakim,  being 
besieged  in  Jerusalem,  was  forced  to  submit  to 
Nebuchadnezzar,  and  was  by  his  order  laden 
with  chains,  with  the  intention  of  sending  him 
captive  to  Babylon  (1  Chron.  xxxvi.  6);  but 
eventually  the  conqueror  changed  his  mind  and 
restored  the  crown  to  him.  Many  persons,  i|^v- 
ever,  of  high  family,  and  some  even  of  the  royal 
blood,  were  sent  away  to  Babylon.  Among 
these  was  Daniel,  then  a mere  youth.  A large 
proportion  of  the  treasures  and  sacred  vessels  of 
the  temple  were  also  taken  away  and  deposited 
in  the  idol-temple  at  Babylon  (Dan.  i.  1,  2). 
The  year  following  the  Egyptians  were  defeated 
upon  the  Euphrates  (Jer.  xlvi.  2),  and  Jehoiakim, 
when  he  saw  the  remains  of  the  defeated  army 
pass  by  his  territory,  could  not  but  perceive  how 
vain  had  been  that  reliance  upon  Egypt  against 
which  he  had  been  constantly  cautioned  by  Jere- 
miah (Jer.  xxxi.  1 ; xlv.  1).  In  the  same  year 
the  prophet  caused  a collection  of  his  prophecies 
to  be  written  out  by  his  faithful  Baruch,  and  to  be 
read  publicly  by  him  in  the  court  of  the  temple. 
This  coming  to  the  knowledge  of  the  king, 
he  sent  for  it  and  had  it  read  before  him.  Bui 
he  heard  not  much  of  the  bitter  denunciations 


JEHORAM. 


JEHOSHAPH  AT. 


Trith  which’ it  was  charged,  before  he  took  the  roll 
from  the  reader,  and  after  cutting  it  in  pieces 
threw  it  into  the  brasier  which,  it  being  winter, 
was  burning  before  him  in  the  ball.  The  coun- 
sel of  God  against  him,  however,  stood  sure ; a 
fresh  roll  was  written,  with  the  addition  of  a 
further  and  most  awful  denunciation  against  the 
king,  occasioned  by  this  foolish  and  sacrilegious 
act.  ‘ He  shall  have  none  to  sit  upon  the  throne 
of  David : and  his  dead  body  shall  be  cast  out 
in  the  day  to  the  beat  and  in  the  night  to  the 
frost’  (Jer.  xxxvi.).  All  this,  however,  appears 
to  have  made  little  impression  upon  Jehoiakim, 
who  still  walked  in  his  old  paths. 

The  condition  of  the  kingdom  as  tributary  to 
the  Chaldseans  probably  differed  little  from  that 
in  which  it  stood  as  tributary  to  the  Egyptians, 
except  that  its  resources  were  more  exhausted  by 
the  course  of  time,  and  that  its  gold  went  tb  the 
east  instead  of  the  south.  But  at  length,  alter 
three  years  of  subjection,  Jehoiakim,  finding  the 
king  of  Babylon  fully  engaged  elsewhere,  and 
deluded  by  the  Egyptian  party  in  his  court,  ven- 
tured to  withhold  his  tribute,  and  thereby  to 
throw  off’  the  Chaldaean  yoke.  This  step,  taken 
contrary  to  the  earnest  remonstrances  of  Jeremiah, 
was  the  ruin  of  Jehoiakim.  It  might  seem  suc- 
cessful for  a little,  from  the  Chaldseans  not  then 
having  leisure  to  attend  to  the  affairs  of  this 
quarter.  In  due  time,  however,  the  land  was 
invaded  by  their  armies,  accompanied  by  a vast 
number  of  auxiliaries  from  the  neighbouring 
countries,  the  Edomites,  Moabites,  and  others, 
who  were  for  the  most  part  actuated  by  a fierce 
hatred  against  the  Jewish  name  and  nation.  The 
events  of  the  war  are  not  related.  Jerusalem  was 
taken,  or  rather  surrendered  on  terms,  which 
Josephus  alleges  were  little  heeded  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. It  is  certain  that  Jehoiakim  was 
slain,  but  whether  in  one  of  the  actions,  or,  as 
Josephus  says,  after  the  surrender,  we  cannot  de- 
termine. His  body  remained  exposed  and  unla- 
mented without  the  city,  under  the  circumstances 
foretold  by  the  prophet — ‘ They  shall  not  lament 
for  him,  saying,  Ah,  my  brother ! or,  Ah,  sister ! 
They  shall  not.  lament  for  him,  saying,  Ah,  lord  ! 
or,  Ah,  his  glory  ! He  shall  be  buried  with  the 
• burial  of  an  ass,  drawn  and  cast  forth  beyond  the 
gates  of  Jerusalem’  (Jer.  xxii.  IS,  19  ; 1 Chron. 
hi.  15;  2 Kings  xxiii.  34-37;  xxiv.  1-7; 

2 Chron.  xxxvi.  4-8). 

It  jvas  not  the  object  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to 
destr®/  altogether  a power  which,  as  tributary  to 
him,  fonned  a serviceable  outpost  towards  Egypt, 
which  seems  to  have  been  the  great  final  object 
of  all  his  designs  in  this  quarter.  He  therefore 
still  maintained  the  throne  of  Judah,  and  placed 
on  it  Jehoiachin,  the  son  of  the  late  king.  He, 
however,  sent  away  another  body,  a second  corps 
cf  the  nobles  and  chief  persons  of  the  nation, 
three  thousand  in  number,  among  whom  was 
fe&ekicl,  afterwards  called  to  prophesy  in  the  land 
ci'  his  exile. 

JEHONADAB.  [Jonadab.] 

JEHORAM  (Dnirv,  God-exalted;  Sept.  ’I&>- 
eldest  son  and  successor  of  Jehoshaphat, 
and  fifth  king  of  Judah,  who  began  to  reign  (se- 
parately) in  B.c.  889,  at  the  age  of  thirty-five 
years,  and  reigned  five  years.  It,  is  indeed  said 
in  the  general  account  that  he  began  to  reign 


at  the  age  of  thirty-two,  and  that  be  reigned  eight 
years;  but  the  conclusions  deducible  from  the 
fact  that  his  reign  began  in  the  seventh  year  of 
Joram,  king  of  Israel,  show  that  the  reign  thus 
stated  dates  back  three  years  into  the  reign  of  hi3 
father,  who  from  this  is  seen  to  have  associated  his 
eldest  son  with  him  in  the  later  years  of  his  reign. 

Jel.oram  profited  little  by  this  association.  He 
had  unhappily  been  married  to  Attialiah,  the 
daughter  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel  ; and  her  influence 
seems  to  have  neutralized  all  the  good  he  might 
have  derived  from  the  example  of  his  father. 
One  of  the  first  acts  of  his  reign  was  to  put  his 
brothers  to  death  and  seize  the  valuable  appanages 
which  their  father  had  in  his  lifetime  bestowed 
upon  them.  After  this  we  are  not  surprised  to 
find  him  giving  way  to  the  gross  idolatries  of 
that  new  and  strange  kind — the  Phoenician — 
which  had  been  brought  into  Israel  by  Jezebel, 
and  into  Judah  by  her  daughter  Athaliah.  For 
these  atrocities  the  Lord  let  forth  his  anger 
against  Jelioram  and  his  kingdom.  The  Edom- 
ites revolted,  and,  according  to  old  prophecies 
(Gen.  xxvii.  40),  shook  off  the  yoke  of  Judah. 
The  Philistines  on  one  side,  and  the  Arabians  and 
Cushites  on  the  other,  also  grew  bold  against  a 
king  forsaken  of  God,  and  in  repeated  invasions 
spoiled  the  land  of  all  its  substance ; they  even 
ravaged  the  royal  palaces,  and  took  away  the 
wives  and  children  of  the  king,  leaving  him  only 
one  son,  Ahaziah.  Nor  was  this  all;  Jehoram 
was  in  his  last  days  afflicted  with  a frightful 
disease  in  his  bowels,  which,  from  the  terms 
employed  in  describing  it,  appears  to  have  been 
malignant  dysentery  in  its  most  shocking  and 
tormenting  form.  After  a disgraceful  reign,  and 
a most  painful  death,  public  opinion  inflicted 
the  posthumous  dishonour  of  refusing  him  a place 
in  the  sepulchre  of  the  kings.  Jehoram  was  by 
far  the  most  impious  and  cruel  tyrant  that  had 
as  yet  occupied  the  throne  of  Judah,  though  he 
was  rivalled  or  surpassed  by  some  of  his  suc- 
sessors  (2  Kings  viii.  16-24;  2 Chron.  xxi.). 

2.  JEHORAM,  King  of  Israel  [JohamJ. 
JEHOSHAPHAT  (ttBBnnj,  God-judged ; 
Sept.  ’lwo'CKpdi/'),  fourteenth  king  of  Judah,  and 
son  of  Asa,  whom  he  succeeded  in  *b.  c.  914, 
at  the  age  of  thirty-five,  and  reigned  twenty- 
five  years.  He  commenced  his  reign  by  forti- 
fying his  kingdom  against  Israel;  and  having  tlm, 
secured  himself  against  surprise  from  the  quarte 
which  gave  most  disturbance  to  him,  lie  proceeded 
to  purge  the  land  from  the  idolatries  and  idola- 
trous monuments  by  which  it  was  still  tainted 
Even  the  high  places  and  groves,  which  former  well- 
disposed  kings  had  suffered  to  remain,  were  by  the 
zeal  of  Jehoshaphat  in  a great  measure  destroy^!. 
The  chiefs,  with  priests  and  Levites,  proceeded 
from  town  to  town,  with  the  book  of  the  law  in 
their  hands,  instructing  the  people,  and  calling 
back  their  wandering  affections  to  ihe  leligion  ol 
their  fathers.  This  was  a beautiful  and  interest- 
ing circumstance  in  the  operations  of  the  young 
king.  Other  good  princes  had  been  content  to 
smite  down  the  outward  show  of  idolatry  by 
force  of  hand  ; but  Jehoshaphat  saw  that  this  was 
not.  of  itself  s ifficient,  anti  that  the  basis  of  a 
solid  reformation  must  be  laid  by  providing  fer 
tiie  better  instruction  of  the  people  in  their  reli- 
gious duties  and  privileges. 


76 


J EH  OSH  A P H AT. 


JEHOSHAPHAT. 


Jehoshaphat  was  too  well  instructed  in  the 
great  principles  of  the  theocracy  not  to  know  that 
his  faithful  conduct  had  entitled  him  to  expect 
the  divine  protection.  Of  that  protection  he 
eoon  had  manifest  proofs.  At  home  he  enjoyed 
peace  and  abundance,  and  abroad  security 
and  honour.  His  treasuries  were  tilled  with  the 
‘ presents ' which  the  blessing  of  God  upon  the 
people,  ‘ in  their  basket,  and  their  store,’  enabled 
then-  to  bring.  His  renown  extended  into  the 
neighbouring  nations,  and  the  Philistines,  as  well 
as  the  adjoining  Arabian  tribes,  paid  him  rich 
tributes  in  silver  and  in  cattle.  He  was  thus 
enabled  to  put  all  his  towns  in  good  condition, 
to  erect  fortresses,  to  organize  a powerful  army, 
and  to  raise  his  kingdom  to  a degree  of  import- 
ance and  splendour  which  it  had  not  enjoyed 
since  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes. 

The  weak  and  impious  Ahab  at.  that  time  oc- 
cupied the  throne  of  Israel ; and  Jehoshaphat, 
having  nothing  to  fear  from  his  power,  sought,  or 
at  least  did  n.>t  repel,  an  alliance  with  him. 
This  is  alleged  to  have  been  the  grand  mistake 
of  his  reign  ; and  that  it  was  such  is  proved  by 
the  consequences.  Ahab  might  be  benefited  by 
the  connection,  but  under  no  circumstance  could 
it  be  of  service  to  Jehoshaphat  or  his  kingdom,  and 
it  might,  as  it  actually  did,  involve  him  in  much 
disgrace  and  disaster,  and  bring  bloodshed  and 
trouble  into  bis  house.  H is  fault  seems  to  have 
been  the  result,  of  that  easiness  of  temper  and 
overflowing  amiability  of  disposition,  which  the 
careful  student  may  trace  in  his  character;  and 
which,  although  very  engaging  attributes  in  pri- 
vate life,  are  not  always  among  the  safest  or  most 
valuable  qualities  which  a king  in  his  public 
capacity  might  possess. 

After  a few  years  we  find  Jehoshaphat  on  a visit 
to  Ahab,  in  Samaria,  being  the  first  time  any  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  had  met  in  peace.  He 
here  experienced  a reception  worthy  of  his  great- 
ness; but  Ahab  failed  not  to  take  advantage  of  the 
occasion,  and  so  worked  upon  the  weak  points  of 
his  character  as  to  prevail  upon  him  to  take  aims 
with  him  against  the  Syrians,  with  whom,  hitherto, 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  never  had  had  any  war  or  oc- 
casion of  quarrel.  However,  Jehoshaphat  was  not 
so  far  infatuated  as  to  proceed  to  the  war  without 
consulting  God,  who,  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  theocratic  government,  was  the  final  arbiter  of 
war  and  peace.  The  false  prophets  of  Ahab  poured 
forth  ample  promises  of  success,  and  one  of  them, 
named  Zedekiah,  resorting  to  material  symbols, 
made  him  horns  of  iron,  saying,  ‘Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  with  these  shalt  thou  smite  the  Syrians  till 
they  be  consumed.’  Still  Jehoshaphat  was  not 
satisfied  ; and  the  answer  to  his  further  inquiries 
extorted  from  him  a rebuke  of  the  reluctance 
which  Ahab  manifested  to  call  Micab,  ‘the  pro- 
phet of  the  Lord.’  The  fearless  words  of  this 
prophet  did  not  make  the  impression  upon  the 
king  of  Judah  which  might  have  been  expected  ; 
or,  probabiy,  he  then  felt  himself  too  deeply  bound 
in  honour  to  recede.  He  went  to  the  fatal  battle 
of  Ramoth-Giiead.  and  there  nearly  became  the 
victim  of  a plan  whch  Ahab  had  laid  for  his  own 
safety  at  the  expense  of  his  too-confiding  ally.  He 
persuaded  Jehoshaphat  to  appear  as  king,  while  lie 
taimself  went  disguised  to  the  battle.  This  brought 
lire  heat  of  the  contest  around  him,  as  the  Syrians 
took  him  for  Ahab;  and  if  they  had  not  in  time 


discovered  their  mistake,  he  would  certainly  hart 
been  slain.  Ahab  was  killed,  and  the  hatthi 
lost  [Ahab]  ; but  Jehoshaphat  escaped,  and  r* 
turned  to  Jerusalem. 

On  his  return  from  this  imprudent  expe-*  ‘ 
he  was  met  by  the  just  reproaches  of  the  propit^ 
Jehu.  The  best  atonement  he  could  make  for 
this  error  was  by  the  course  he  actually  took, 
lie  resumed  his  labours  in  the  further  extirpation 
of  idolatry,  in  the  instruction  of  the  people,  and 
the  improvement  of  his  realm.  life  now  made 
a tour  of  his  kingdom  in  person,  that  he  might 
see  the  ordinances  of  God  duly  established,  and 
witness  the  due  execution  of  his  intentions  respect- 
ing the  instruction  of  the  people  in  the  divine 
law.  This  tour  enabled  him  to  discern  many 
defects  in  the  local  administration  of  justice, 
which  he  then  applied  himself  to  remedy.  lie 
appointed  magistrates  in  every  city,  for  the  de- 
termination of  causes  civil  and  ecclesiastical ; and 
the  nature  of  the  abuses  to  which  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  was  in  those  days  exposed,  may  lie 
gathered  from  his  excellent  charge  to  them 
‘ Take  heed  what  ye  do,  for  ye  judge  not  fo 
man,  but  for  the  Lord,  who  is  with  you  in  tlu 
judgment.  Wherefore  now  let  the  fear  of  the 
Lord  be  upon  you;  take  heed  and  do  it.:  for 
there  is  no  iniquity  with  the  Lord  our  God,  nor 
respect  of  persons,  nor  taking  of  gifts.’  Then  he 
established  a supreme  council  of  justice  at  Jeru- 
salem, composed  of  priests,  Levites,  and  ‘ the 
chiefs  of  the  fathers;’  to  which  difficult  cases 
were  referred,  and  appeals  brought  from  the  pro- 
vincial tribunals.  This  tribunal  also  was  in- 
ducted by  a weighty  but  short  charge  from  the 
king,  whose  conduct  in  this  and  other  matters 
places  him  at  the  very  head  of  the  monarchs  who 
reigned  over  Judah  as  a separate  kingdom. 

The  activity  of  Jehoshaphat’s  mind  was  then 
turned  towards  the  revival  of  that  maritime  com- 
merce which  had  been  established  by  Solomon, 
The  land  of  Edom  and  the  ports  of  the  Elauitic 
Gulf  were  still  under  the  power  of  Judah;  and 
in  them  the  king  prepared  a fleet  for  the  voyage 
to  Ophir.  Unhappily,  however,  he  yielded  to  the 
wish  of  the  king  of  Israel,  and  allowed  him  to 
lake  part  in  the  enterprise.  For  this  the  expe- 
dition was  doomed  of  God,  and  the  vessels  were 
wrecked  almost  as  soon  as  they  quitted  port- 
instructed  by  Eliezer,  the  prophet,  as  to  the  cause 
of  this  disaster,  Jehoshaphat  equipped  a new  fleet, 
and  having  this  time  declined  the  co-operation 
of  the  king  of  Israel,  the  voyage  prospered*  The 
trade  was  not,  however,  prosecuted  with  any  zeal, 
and  was  soon  abandoned  [Commurce], 

In  accounting  for  the  disposition  of  Jeliosh:i- 
phat  to  contract  alliances  with  the  king  of  Israel, 
we  are  to  remember  that  there  existed  a powerful 
tie  between  the  two  courts  in  the  marriage  of 
Jehosliaphat’s  eldest  son  with  Atbaliah,  the 
daughter  of  Ahab;  and,  when  we  advert  to  the 
part  in  public  affairs  which  that  princess  after- 
wards took,  it  may  well  be  conceived  that  even 
thus  early  she  possessed  an  influence  lor  evil  in 
the  court  of  Judah. 

After  the  death  of  Ahazlah,  king  of  Israel, 
Joram,  his  successor,  persuaded  Jehoshaphat  to 
join  him  in  an  expedition  against  Moab.  Thin 
alliance  was,  however,  on  political  grounds,  mor« 
excusable  than  the  two  former,  as  trie  Moabite*, 
who  were  under  tribute  to  Israel,  might  draw  inte 


JEHOSHAPHAT. 

therr  cause  the  Edomites,  who  were  tributary  to 
Judah.  Besides,  Moab  could  be  invaded  with 
most  advantage  from  the  south,  round  by  the  end 
of  the  Dead  Sea;  and  the  king  of  Israel  could 
not  gain  access  to  them  in  that  quarter  but  by 
inarching  through  the  territories  of  Jehoshaphat. 
The  latter  not.  only  joined  Joram  with  bis  own 
army,  but  required  his  tributary,  the  king  of 
Edom,  to  bring  his  forces  into  the  Held.  During 
seven  days"  march  through  the  wilderness  of  Edom, 
the  army  suffered  much  from  want  of  water;  and 
by  the  time  the  allies  came  in  sight  of  the  army 
of  Moab,  they  were  ready  to  perish  from  thirst. 
In  this  emergency  the  pious  Jehoshaphat  thought, 
as  usual,  of  consulting  the  Lord  ; and  hearing 
that  the  prophet  Elisha  was  in  the  cam}),  the 
three  kings  proceeded  to  his  tent.  For  the  sake 
of  Jehoshaphat,  and  for  his  sake  only,  deliverance 
was  promised ; and  it  came  during  the  ensuing 
night,  in  the  shape  of  an  abundant  supply  of 
water,  which  rolled  down  the  exhausted  vvadys, 
and  tilled  the  pools  and  hollow  grounds.  After- 
wards Jehoshaphat  took  his  full  part  in  the  ope- 
rations of  the  campaign,  till  the  armies  were 
induced  to  withdraw  in  horror,  by  witnessing  the 
dreadful  act.  of  Mesha,  king  of  Moab,  in  offering 
up  his  eldest  son  in  sacrifice  upon  the  wall  of  the 
town  in  which  he  was  shut  up. 

This  war  kindled  another  much  more  dangerous 
to  Jehoshaphat.  The  Moabites,  being  highly  ex- 
asperated at  the  part  he  had  taken  against  them, 
turned  all  their  wrath  upon  him.  Tiiey  induced 
their  kindred,  the  Ammonites,  to  join  them,  ob- 
tained auxiliaries  from  the  Syrians,  and  even  drew 
over  the  Edomites  ; so  that  the  strength  of  all  the 
neighbouring  nations  may  be  said  to  have  been 
united  for  this  great  enterprise.  The  allied  forces 
entered  the  land  of  Judah  and  encamped  at  En- 
gedi,  near  the  western  border  of  the  Dead  Sea.  In 
this  extremity  Jehoshaphat  felt  that  all  his  defence 
lay  with  God.  A solemn  fast  was  held,  and  the 
people  repaired  from  the  towns  to  Jerusalem  to 
Beek  help  of  the  Lord.  In  the  presence  of  the 
assembled  multitude  the  king,  in  the  court  of  the 
temple,  offered  up  a fervent  prayer  to  God,  con- 
cluding with — ‘ O our  God,  wilt,  them  not  judge 
them,  for  we  have  no  might  against  this  great 
company  that  cometh  against  us,  neither  know 
we  what,  to  do ; but  our  eyes  are  upon  thee.’ 
He  ceased ; and  in  the  midst  of  the  silence 
which  ensued,  a voice  was  raised  pronouncing 
deliverance  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  telling 
theffrto  go  out  on  the  morrow  to  the  cliff's  over- 
looking the  camp  of  the  enemy,  and  see  them 
all  overthrown  without  a blow  from  them.  The 
voice  was  that  of  Jahaziel,  one  of  the  Levites. 
His  words  came  to  pass.  The  allies  quarrelled 
among  themselves  and  destroyed  each  other ; so 
that  when  the  Judaliit.es  came  the  next  day  they 
found  their  dreaded  enemies  all  dead,  and  nothing 
was  left  for  them  but  to  take  the  rich  spoils  of  the 
slain.  This  done,  they  returned  with  triumphal 
songs  to  Jerusalem.  This  great  event  was  recog- 
nised even  by  the  neighbouring  nations  as  the  act 
cf  God  ; and  so  strong  was  the  impression  which 
it  made  upon  them,  that  the  remainder  of  the 
good  king's  reign  was  altogether  undisturbed. 
His  death,  however,  took  place  not  very  long 
after  this,  at  the  age  of  sixty,  after  having  reigned 
twerity-fve  years,  b.c.  898.  He  left  the  king- 
dom i*o  « nrosnerous  condition  to  his  eldest  son 


JEHU.  77 

Jehoram,  whom  he  had  in  the  last  years  of  his 
life  associated  with  him  in  the  government. 

‘Jehoshaphat,  who  sought  the  Lord  with  all  his 
heart,  was  the  character  given  to  this  king  by 
Jehu,  when,  on  that  account,  he  gave  to  his 
grandsire  an  honourable  grave  (2  Chron.  xxii.  9). 
Anil  this,  in  tact,  was  the  sum  and  substance  of 
his  character.  The  Hebrew  annals  offer  the  ex- 
ample of  no  king  who  more  carefully  squared 
all  his  conduct  by  the  principles  of  the  theocracy. 
He  kept  the  lord  always  before  his  eyes,  anfl 
was  in  all  things  obedient;  to  bis  will  when  made 
known  to  him  by  the  prophets.  Few  of  the  kings 
of  Juffah  manifested  so  much  zeal  for  the  real 
welfare  of  his  people,  or  took  measures  so  judi- 
cious to  promote  it.  His  good  talents,  the  bene- 
volence of  Ins  disposition,  and  bis  generally  sound 
judgment  are  shown  not.  only  in  the  great  mea- 
sures of  domestic  policy  which  distinguished  his 
reign,  hut  by  the  manner  in  which  they  were 
executed.  No  trace  can  he  found  in  him  of  that 
pride  which  dishonoured  some  and  ruined  others 
of  the  kings  who  preceded  and  followed  him. 
Most  of  his  errors  arose  from  that  dangerous  fa- 
cility of  temper  which  sometimes  led  him  to  act 
against  the  di<  tates  of  his  naturally  sound  judg- 
ment, or  prevented  that  judgment  from  being 
fairly  exercised.  The  kingdom  of  Judah  was 
never  happier  or  more  prosperous  than  under  his 
reign;  and  this,  perhaps,  is  the  highest  praise 
that  can  be  given  to  any  king. 

JEHOSHAPHAT,  VALLEY  OF,  the  name 
now  given  to  the  valley  which  hounds  Jerusalem 
on  the  east,  arid  separates  it  from  the  Mount  of 
Olives  [Jerusalem]. 

In  Joel  iii.  2,  12,  we  read,  ‘the  Lord  will 
gather  all  nations  in  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat, 
and  plead  with  them  there.’  Many  interpreters, 
Jewish  and  Christian,  conclude  fiom  this  that 
the  last  judgment  is  to  take  place  in  the  above- 
mentioned  valley.  But.  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  the  valley  then  bore  any  such  name; 
and  more  discreet  interpreters  understand  the  text 
to  denote  a valley  in  which  some  great  victory 
was  to  be  won,  most  probably  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, which  should  utterly  discomfit  the  ancient 
enemies  of  Israel,  and  resemble  the  victory  which 
Jehoshaphat  obtained  over  the  Ammonites,  Moab- 
ites, and  Edomites  (2  Chron.  xx.  22-26).  Others 
translate  the  name  Jehoshaphat  into  God's  judg- 
ment, and  thus  read,  ‘ the  valley  of  God’s  judg- 
ment,’ which  is  doubtless  symbolical,  like  ‘ the 
valley  of  decision,’  i.  e.  of  punishment,  in  the  same 
chapter. 

JEHOSHEBA,  daughter  of  Jehoram,  sister 
of  Ahaziah,  and  aunt  of  Joash,  kings  of  Judah. 
The  last  of  these  owed  his  life  to  her,  and  his 
crown  to  her  husband,  the  high-priest  Jehoiada 
[Jeiioiada], 

JEHOVAH  (niPP),  or  rather  perhaps  Jahveh 
accord  ng  to  the  reading  suggested  by 
Ewald,  Havernick,  and  others — the  name  bv 
which  God  was  pleased  to  make  himself  knowr 
under  the  covenant,  to  the  ancient  Hebrey 
(Exod.  vi.  2,  3).  The  import  of  this  name  lra«. 
been  considered  under  the  head  God. 

JEHU  (fcOrP,  God  is ; Sept.  ’loo ; Cod.  Alex- 
’EitjoC),  tenth  king  of  Israel,  and  founder  of  ita 


78 


JEHU. 


JEHU. 


fourth  dynasty,  who  began  to  reign  in  b.c.  884, 
and  reigned  twenty-eight  years. 

Jehu  held  a command  in  the  Israelite  army 
posted  at  Ramoth  Gilead  to  hold  in  check  the 
Syrians,  who  of  late  years  had  made  strenuous 
efforts  to  extend  their  frontier  to  the  Jordan,  and 
had  possessed  themselves  of  much  of  the  territory 
of  the  Israelites  east  of  that  river.  The  contest 
wfas  in  fact  still  carried  on  which  had  begun 
many  years  before  in  the  reign  of  Ahab,  the 
present  king's  father,  who  had  lost  his  life  in 
battle  before  this  very  Ramoth  Gilead.  Ahaziah, 
king  of  Judah,  had  taken  part  with  Joram,  king 
of  Israel,  in  this  war  ; and  as  the  latter  had 
been  severely  mounded  in  a recent  action,  and 
aad  gone  to  Jezreel  to  be  healed  of  his  wounds, 
Ahaziah  had  also  gone  thither  on  a visit  of  sym- 
pathy to  him. 

In  this  state  of  affairs  a council  of  war  was 
neld  among  the  military  commanders  in  camp, 
when  very  unexpectedly  one  of  the  disciples  of  the 
prophets,  known  for  such  by  his  garb,  appeared 
at  the  door  of  the  tent,  and  called  forth  Jehu,  de- 
claring that  he  had  a message  to  deliver  to  him. 
He  had  been  sent  by  Elisha  the  prophet,  in  dis- 
charge of  a duty  which  long  before  had  been 
confided  by  the  Lord  to  Elijah  (1  Kings  xix.  16), 
and  from  him  had  devolved  on  his  successor. 
When  they  were  alone  the  young  man  drew  forth 
a horn  of  oil  and  poured  it  upon  Jehu’s  head,  with 
the  words,  ‘ Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  I 
have  anointed  thee  king  over  the  people  of  the 
Lord,  even  over  Israel.  And  thou  shalt  smite 
the  house  of  Ahab  thy  master,  that  I may  avenge 
the  blood  of  my  servants  the  prophets,  and  the 
blood  of  all  the  servants  of  the  Lord,  at  the  hand 
of  Jezebel'  (2  Kings  ix.  7,  8).  Surprising  as 
this  message  must  have  been,  and  awful  the  duty 
which  it  imposed,  Jehu  was  fully  equal  to  the 
task  and  the  occasion.  He  returned  to  the  coun- 
cil, probably  with  an  altered  air,  for  he  was  asked 
what  had  been  the  communication  of  the  young 
prophet  to  him.  He  told  them  plainly  ; and 
they  were  obviously  ripe  for  defection  from  the 
house  of  Ahab,  for  they  were  all  delighted  at 
the  news,  and  taking  him  in  triumph  to  ‘ the  top 
of  the  stairs,’  they  spread  their  mantles  beneath 
his  feet,  and  proclaimed  him  king  by  sound  of 
trunqjet  in  the  presence  of  all  the  troops. 

Jehu  was  not  a man  to  lose  any  advantage 
through  remissness.  He  immediately  entered  his 
,hariot,  in  order  that  his  presence  at  Jezreel  should 
be  the  first  announcement  which  Joram  could 
receive  of  this  revolution. 

As  soon  as  the  advance  of  Jehu  and  his  party 
was  seen  in  the  distance  by  the  watchmen  upon 
the  palace-tower  in  Jezreel,  two  messengers  were 
successively  sent  forth  to  meet  him,  and  were 
commanded  by  Jehu  to  follow  in  his  rear.  But 
when  the  watchman  reported  that  he  could  now 
recognise  the  furious  driving  of  Jehu,  Joram 
went  forth  himself  to  meet  him,  and  was  accom- 
panied by  the  king  of  Judah.  They  met  in  the 
field  of  Naboth,  so  fatal  to  the  house  of  Ahab. 
The  king  saluted  him  with  ‘Is  it  peace,  Jehu?’ 
and  received  the  answer,  ‘ What  peace,  so  long 
as  the  whoredoms  ( idolatries)  of  thy  mother  Jezebel 
and  her  witchcrafts  are  so  many’s’  This  com- 
pletely opened  tbe  eyes  of  Joram,  who  exclaimed 
to  the  king  of  Judah,  ‘There  is  treachery,  O 
* bajiah  !’  and  turned  to  dee.  But  Jehu  felt  no 


infirmity  of  purpose,  and  knew  that  the  slightest 
wavering  might  be  fatal  to  him.  He  therefor® 
drew  a bow  with  his  full  strength  and  sent  forth 
an  arrow  which  passed  through  the  king’s  heart. 
Jehu  caused  the  body  to  be  thrown  back  into  the 
field  of  Naboth,  out  of  which  he  had  passed  in  his 
attempt  at  flight,  and  grimly  remarked  to  Bidkar 
his  captain,  4 Remember  how  that,  when  I and 
thou  rode  together  after  Ahab  his  father,  the  Lord 
laid  this  burden  upon  him.’  The  king  of  Judah 
contrived  to  escape,  but  not.  without  3.  wound,  of 
which  he  afterwards  died  at  Megiddo  [Ahaziah]. 
Jehu  then  entered  the  city,  whither  the  news  of 
this  transaction  had  already  preceded  him.  As 
he  passed  under  the  walls  of  the  palace  Jezebel 
herself,  studiously  arrayed  for  effect,  apr-eared  at 
one  of  the  windows,  and  saluted  him  with 
question  such  as  might  have  shaken  a man  o. 
weaker  nerves,  ‘ Had  Zimri  peace,  who  slew  his 
master?’  But  Jehu  was  unmoved,  and  instead 
of  answering  her,  called  out,  ‘ Who  is  on  my  side, 
who?’  when  several  eunuchs  made  their  appear- 
ance at  the  window,  to  whom  he  cried,  ‘ Throw 
her  down!’  and  immediately  this  proud  and 
guilty  woman  lay  a blood-stained  corpse  in  the 
road,  and  was  trodden  under  foot  by  the  horses 
[JidZEBEi,].  Jehu  then  went  in  and  took  pos- 
session of  the  palace. 

He  was  now  master  of  Jezreel,  which  was,  next 
to  Samaria,  the  chief  town  of  the  kingdom  ; but 
he  could  not  feel  secure  while  the  capital  itsel^ 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  royal  family,  and  o. 
those  who  might  be  supposed  to  feel  strong  at- 
tachment to  the  house  of  Ahab.  The  force  of 
the  blow  which  he  had  struck  was,  however,  fel : 
even  in  Samaria.  When  therefore  he  wrote  to 
the  persons  in  authority  there  the  somewhat 
ironical  hut  designedly  intimidating  counsel,  to 
set  up  one  of  the  young  princes  in  Samaria  as 
king  and  fight  out  the  matter  which  lay  between 
them,  they  sent  a very  submissive  answer,  giving 
in  their  adhesion,  and  professing  their  readiness  to 
obey  in  all  things  his  commands.  A second  letter 
from  Jehu  tested  this  profession  in  a truly  horrid 
and  exceedingly  Oriental  manner,  requiring  them 
to  appear  before  him  on  the  morrow,  bringing 
with  them  the  heads  of  all  the  royal  princes  in 
Samaria.  A fallen  house  meets  with  little  pity  in 
the  East ; and  when  the  new  king  left  his  palac« 
the  next  morning,  he  found  seventy  human  heads 
piled  up  in  two  heaps  at  his  gate.  There,  in  the 
sight  of  these  heaps,  Jehu  took  occasion  to  explain 
his  conduct,  declaring  that  he  must  be  regarded 
as  the  appointed  minister  of  the  divine  decrees, 
pronounced  long  since  against  the  house  of  Ahab 
bji  the  prophets,  not  one  of  whose  words  should 
fall  to  the  ground.  He  then  continued  his  pro- 
scriptions by  exterminating  in  Jezreel  not  only  all 
in  whose  veins  the  blood  of  the  condemned  race 
flowed,  but  also — by  a considerable  stretch  of  his 
commission — those  officers,  ministers,  and  crea- 
tures of  the  late  government,  who,  if  suffered  to 
live,  would  most  likely  be  disturbers  of  his  own 
reign.  He  then  proceeded  to  Samaria.’  So  rapid 
had  been  these  proceedings  that  he  met  some  of 
the  nephews  of  the  king  of  Judah,  who  were  going 
to  join  their  uncle  at  Jezreel,  and  had  as  yet  heard 
nothing  of  the  revolution  which  had  taken  place. 
These  also  perished  under  Jehu's  now  fully, 
awakened  thirst  for  blood,  to  the  number  vf  forty- 
two  persons. 


JEHU. 


JKfHTIIAH. 


79 


On  fiie  way  he  took  up  inro  his  chariot  the 
pious  Jehouadab  the  Rechabite,  whose  austere 
virtue  and  respected  character  would,  as  he  felt, 
go  fur  to  hallow  his  proceedings  in  the  eyes  of 
the  multitude.  At  Samaria  he  continued  the 
extirpation  of  the  persons  more  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  late  government.  This,  far  from 
being  in  any  way  singular,  is  a common  circum- 
stance in  eastern  revolutions.  But  the  great 
object  of  Jehu  was  to  exterminate  the  ministers 
and  more  devoted  adherents  of  Baal,  who  had 
been  much  encouraged  by  Jezebel.  There  was 
even  a temple  to  this  idol  in  Samaria;  and  Jehu, 
never  scrupulous  about,  the  means  of  reaching 
objects  which  he  believed  to  be  good,  laid  a snare 
by  which  he  hoped  to  cut  off  the  main  body  of 
Baal’s  ministers  at  one  blow.  He  professed  to 
be  a more  zealous  servant  of  Baal  than  Ahab 
had  been,  anti  proclaimed  a great  festival  in  his 
honour,  at  which  none  but  his  true  servants  were 
*o  be  present.  The  prophets,  priests,  and  officers 
of  Baal  assembled  from  all  parts  for  this  great 
sacrifice,  and  sacerdotal  vestments  were  given  to 
them,  that  none  of  Jehovah's  worshippers  might 
be  taken  for  them.  When  the  temple  was  full, 
soldiers  were  posted  so  that,  none  might  escape  ; 
and  so  soon  as  the  sacrifice  had  been  offered,  the 
word  was  given  by  the  king,  the  soldiers  entered 
the  temple,  and  put  all  the  worshippers  to  the 
sword.  The  temple  itself  was  then  demolished, 
the  images  overthrown,  and  the  site  turned  into  a 
common  jakes. 

Notwithstanding  this  zeal  of  Jehu  in  extermi- 
nating the  grosser  idolatries  which  had  gfown  up 
under  his  immediate  predecessors,  he  was  not 
prepared  to  subvert  the  policy  which  had  led 
Jeroboam  and  his  successors  to  maintain  the 
schismatic  establishment  of  the  golden  calves  in 
Dan  and  Beth-el.  The  grounds  of  this  policy  are 
explained  in  the  article  Jeroboam,  a reference 
to  which  will  show  the  grounds  of  Jehu’s  hesita- 
tion in  this  matter.  This  was,  however,  a crime 
in  him — the  worship  rendered  to  the  golden  calves 
being  plainly  contrary  to  the  law;  a x-r  should 
have  felt  that  He  who  had  app^i^f  'u  him  to  the 
throne  would  have  maintained  turn  in  it,  notwith- 
standing the  apparent  dangers  which  might  seem 
likely  to  ensue  from  permitting  his  subjects  to 
repair  at  the  great  festivals  to  the  metropolis  of 
the  rival  kingdom,  which  was  the  centre  of  the 
theocratical  worship  and  of  sacerdotal  service. 
Here  Jehu  fell  short : and  this  very  policy,  ap- 
parently so  prudent  and  far-sighted,  by  which  he 
hoped  to  secure  the  stability  and  independence  of 
ais  kingdom,  was  that  on  account  of  which  the 
!erm  of  rule  granted  to  his  dynasty  was  shortened. 
For  this,  it  was  foretold  that  his  dynasty  should 
extend  only  to  four  generations ; and  for  this,  the 
divine  aid  was  withheld  from  him  in  his  wars 
with  the  Syrians  under  Hazael  on  the  eastern 
frontier.  Hence  the  war  was  disastrous  to  him, 
and  the  Syrians  were  able  to  maintain  themselves 
in  the  possession  of  a great  part  of  his  territories 
beyond  the  Jordan.  He  died  in  b.c.  856,  and 
was  buried  in  Samaria,  leaving  the  throne  to  his 
non  Jehoanaz. 

There  is  nothing  difficult  to  understand  in  the 
eharacter  of  Jehu.  He  was  one  of  those  decisive, 
terrible,  and  ambitious,  yet  prudent,  calculating, 
passionless  men,  whom  God  from  time  to  time 
ui  t-j  change  the  fate  of  empires  and  execute 


his  judgments  on  the  earth.  He  boasted  of  his  zeal 
— ‘ come  and  see  my  zeal  for  the  Lord  ’ — but  at  tue 
bottom  it  was  zeal  for  Jehu.  His  zeal  was  great 
so  long  as  it  led  to  acts  which  squared  with  his  own 
interests,  but  it  cooled  marvellously  when  required 
to  take  a direction  in  his  judgment  less  favourable 
to  them.  Even  his  zeal  in  extirpating  the  idolatry 
of  Baal  is  .not  free  from  suspicion.  The  altar  of 
Baal  was  that,  which  Ahab  had  associated  with 
his  throne,  and  in  overturning  the  latter  he  could 
not  prudently  let.  the  former  stand,  surrounded  as 
it  was  by  attached  adherents  of  the  house  which 
he  had  extirpated  (2  Kings  ix.-x.). 

2.  JEIIU,  son  of  Hanani,  a prophet,  who  was 
sent  to  pronounce  upon  Baasha,  king  of  Israel, 
and  his  house,  the  same  awful  doom  which  had 
been  already  executed  upon  the  house  of  Jeroboam 
(1  Kings  xvi.  1-7)-  The  same  prophet  was,  many 
years  after,  commissioned  to  reprove  Jehoshaphat 
for  his  dangerous  connection  with  the  house  of 
Ahab  (2  Chron.  xix.  2). 

JEPHTHAII  (nrtQ?,  opener ; Sept.  *le<£0de), 
ninth  judge  of  Israel,  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh. 
He  was  the  son  of  a person  named  Gilead  by  a 
concubine.  After  the  death  of  his  father  he  was 
expelled  from  his  home  by  the  envy  of  his 
brothers,  who  refused  him  any  share  of  the 
heritage,  and  he  withdrew  to  the  land  of  Tob, 
beyond  the  frontier  of  the  Hebrew  territories.  It 
is  clear  that  he  had  before  this  distinguished 
himself  by  his  daring  charae^  and  skill  in 
arms ; for  no  sooner  was  his  withdraw ment.  known 
than  a great  number  of  men  of  desperate  fortunes 
repaired  to  him,  and  he  became  their  chief.  His 
position  was  now  very  similar  to  that  of  David 
when  he  withdrew  from  the  court  of  Saul.  To 
maintain  the  people  who  had  thus  linked  their 
fortunes  with  his,  there  was  no  other  resource  than 
that  sort  of  brigandage  which  is  accounted  ho- 
nourable in  theEast,  so  long  as  it  is  exercised 
against  public  mr  private  enemies,  and  is  not 
marked  by  needless  cruelty  or  outrage.  Even 
our  different  climate  and  manners  afford  some 
parallel  in  the  Robin  Hoods  of  former  days ; in 
the  border  forays,  when  England  and  Scotland 
were  ostensibly  at  peace;  and — in  principle, 
however  great  the  formal  difference — in  the  au- 
thorized and  popular  piracies  of  Drake,  Raleigh, 
and  the  other  naval  heroes  of  the  Elizabethan 
era.  So  Jephthah  confined  his  aggressions  to  the 
borders  of  the  small  neighbouring  nations,  who 
were  in  some  sort  regarded  as  the  natural  enemies 
of  Israel,  even  when  there  was  no  actual  war  be- 
tween them. 

Jephthah  led  thia  kind  of  life  for  some  years, 
during  which  his  dashing  exploits  and  successful 
enterprises  procured  him  a higher  military  reputa- 
tion than  any  other  man  of  his  time  enjoyed.  The 
qualities  required  to  ensure  success  in  such  opera- 
tions were  little  different  from  those  required  in 
actual  warfare,  as  warfare  was  conducted  in  the 
East  before  fire-arms  came  into  general  use;  and 
hence  the  reputation  which  might  be  thus  ac- 
quired was  more  truly  military  than  is  easily 
conceivable  by  modern  and  occidental  readers. 

After  the  death  of  Jair  the  Israelites  gradually 
fell  into  their  favourite  idolatries,  and  were 
punished  by  subjection  to  the  Philistines  on  the 
west  of  the  Jordan,  and  to  the  Ammonites  on  fh« 
east  of  thaf  river.  The  oppression  which  they 


*0 


JEPHTHAH. 


JEPHTHAH. 


sustained  for  eighteen  years  became  at  length  so 
heavy  that  they  recovered  their  senses  and  re- 
turned to  the  God  of  their  fathers  with  humilia- 
tion and  tears  ; and  lie  was  appeased,  and  promised 
them  deliverance  from  their  affliction  (u.c.  1143). 

The  tribes  beyond  the  Jordan  having  resolved 
to  oppose  the  Ammonites,  Jephthah  seems  to 
occur  to  every  one  as  i he  most  fitting  leader.  A 
deputation  was  accordingly  sent  to  invite  him  to 
take  the  command.  After  some  demur,  on  ac- 
count of  the  treatment,  he  had  formerly  received, 
he  consented.  The  rude  hero  commenced  his 
operations  with  a degree  of  diplomatic  considera- 
tion and  dignity  for  which  we  are  not  prepared. 
The  Ammonites  being  assembled  in  force  for  one 
of  those  ravaging  incursions  by  which  they  had  re- 
peatedly desolated  the  land,  he  sent  to  their  cam]) 
a formal  complaint  of  the  invasion,  and  a demand 
of  the  ground  of  their  proceeding.  This  is  highly 
interesting,  because  it  .shows  that  even  in  that 
age  a cause  for  war  was  judged  necessary — no 
one  being  supposed  to  war  without  provocation  ; 
and  in  this  case  Jephthah  demanded  what  cause 
the  Ammonites  alleged  to  justify  their  aggressive 
operations.  Their  answer  was,  that  the  land  of 
die  Israelites  beyond  the  Jordan  was  theirs.  It 
had  originally  belonged  to  them,  from  whom  it 
nad  been  taken  by  the  Amorites,  who  had  been 
dispossessed  by  the  Israelites  : and  on  this  ground 
tfiey  claimed  the  restitution  of  these  lands. 
Jephthah's  reply  laid  down  the  just  principle 
which  has  been  followed  out  in  the  practice  of 
civilized  nations,  and  is  maintained  by  all  the 
great  writers  on  the  law  of  nations.  The  land 
belonged  to  the  Israelites  by  right  of  conquest 
from  the  actual  possessors;  and  they  could  not 
he  expected  to  recognise  any  antecedent  claim  of 
former  possessors,  for  whom  they  had  not  acted, 
who  had  rendered  them  no  assistance,  and  who  had 
themselves  displayed  hostility  against,  the  Israel- 
ites. -It  was  not  to  he  expected  that  they  would 
conquer  the  country  from  the  pwerful  kings  who 
had  it  in  possession,  for  t lie  mere  purpose  of  re- 
storing it  to  the  ancient  occupants*  of  whom  they 
had  no  favourable  knowledge,  and  of  whose  pre- 
vious claims  they  were  scarcely  cognizant.  But 
the  Ammonites  re -asserted  their  former  views,  and 
on  this  issue  they  took  the  field. 

When  Jephthah  set  forth  against  the  Ammon- 
ites he  solemnly  vowed  to  the  Lord,  ‘ If  thou 
shalt  without  fail  deliver  the  children  of  Ammon 
into  my  hands,  then  it  shall  he,  that  whatsoever 
cometh  forth  of  the  doors  of  my  house  to  meet  me, 
when  I return  in  peace  from  the  children  of  Am- 
mon, shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,  and  I will  ofl'er 
it.  up  for  a burnt  offering.1  He  was  victorious. 
The  Ammonites  sustained  a terrible  overthrow. 
He  did  return  in  peace  to  his  house  in  Mizpeh. 
As  he  drew  nigh  his  house,  the  one  that,  came 
forth  to  meet  him  was  his  own  daughter,  his  only 
child,  in  whom  his  heart  was  bound  up.  Slie, 
with  her  fair  companions,  came  to  greet,  the  tri- 
umphant hero  ‘with  timbrels  and  with  dances.’ 
But  he  no  sooner  saw  her  than  he  rent  his  robes, 
and  cried, 4 Alas,  my  daughter ! thou  hast  brought 
me  very  low  ; . . . for  I have  opened  my  mouth 
unto  the  Lord,  and  cannot  go  back.’  Nor  did 
she  ask  it.  She  replied,  ‘Mv  father,  if  thou  hast 
opened  thy  mouth  unto  the  Lord,  do  to  me  ac- 
cording to  that  which  has  proceeded  out  of  thy 
mouth  ; forasmuch  as  the  Lord  hath  token  ven- 


geance for  thee  of  thine  enemies,  the  children 
Ammon.’  But  after  a pause  she  added,  ‘ Lev 
this  thing  be  done  for  me : let  me  alone  two 
months,  that  1 may  go  up  and  down  upon  the 
mountains,  and  bewail  my  virginity,  I and  my 
fellows/  Her  father  of  course  assented ; and 
when  the  time  expired  she  returned,  and,  we  are 
told,  * he  did  with  her  according  to  his  vow.’  It 
is  then  added  that  it  became  k a custom  in  Israel, 
that  the  daughters  of  Israel  went  yearly  to  lament 
the  daughter  of  Jephthah  the  Gileadite  three  days 
in  the  year/ 

The  victory  over  the  Ammonites  was  followed 
hy  a quarrel  with  the  proud  and  powerful 
Ephraimites  on  the  west,  of  the  Jordan.  This 
tribe  was  displeased  at.  having  had  no  share  irj 
the  glory  of  the  recent  victory,  and  a large  body  of 
men  belonging  to  it,  who  had  crossed  the  river  to 
share  in  the  action,  used  very  high  and  threatening 
language  when  they  found  their  services  were  not 
required.  Jephthah,  finding  his  remonstrances 
had  no  effect,  re-assembled  some  of  his  disbanded 
troops  and  gave  the  Ephraimites  battle,  when  they 
were  defeated  with  much  loss.  The  ^victors 
seized  t lie  fords  of  the  Jordan,  and  when  any  one 
came  to  pass  over,  they  made  him  pronounce  the 
word  Shibboleth  [an  ear  of  corn],  but.  if  he  could 
not  give  the  aspiration,  and  pronounced  the  word 
as  Sibboleth,  they  knew  him  for  an  Ephraimite, 
and  slew  him  on  the  spot.  This  is  a remarkable 
instance  of  the  dialectical  differences,  answering 
to  the  varieties  in  our  provincialisms,  which  had 
already  sprung  up  among  lire  tribes,  and  of  which 
other  instances  occur  in  Scripture. 

Jephthah  judged  Israel  six  years,  during  which 
we  have  reason  to  conclude  that  the  exercise  of 
his  authority  was  almost  if  not  altogether  con- 
fined to  the  country  east  of  the  Jordan. 

Volumes  have  been  written  on  the  subject  of 
‘Jephthah’s  rash  vow;’  the  question  being 
whether,  in  doing  to  his  daughter  ‘ according  to 
his  vow,’  lie  really  did  offer  her  in  sacrifice  or  not. 
The  negative  has  been  stoutly  maintained  by 
many  able  pens,  from  a natural  anxiety  to  clear 
the  character  of  one  of  the  heroes  in  Israel  from 
so  dark  a stain.  But  the  more  the  plain  rules  of 
common  sense  have  been  exercised  in  our  view  of 
biblical  transactions;  and  the  better  we  have  suc- 
ceeded in  realizing  a distinct  idea  of  the  times  in 
which  Jephthah  lived  and  of  the  position  which  he 
occupied,  the  less  reluctance  there  has  been  tc 
admit  the  interpretation  which  the  first  view  of 
the  passage  suggests  to  every  reader,  which  is,  that 
lie  really  did  offer  her  in  sacrifice.  The  expla- 
nation which  denies  this  maintains  that  she  was 
rather  doomed  to  perpetual  celibacy  ; and  this,  as 
it  appears  to  us,  on  the  strength  of  phrases  which,  ta 
one  who  really  understands  the  character  of  the 
Hebrew  people  and  their  language,  suggest  no- 
thing more  than  that  it  was  considered  a lament- 
able thing  for  any  daughter  of  Israel  to  die 
childless.  To  live  unmarried  was  required  by  no 
law,  custom,  or  devotement  among  the  Jews  : no 
one  had  a light  to  impose  so  odious  a condition 
on  another,  nor  is  any  such  condition  implied  or 
expressed  in  the  vow  which  Jephthah  uttered.  To 
get  rid  of  a difficulty  which  has  no  place  in  the  text, 
but  arises  from  our  reluctance  to  receive  that,  texjf 
in  its  obvious  meaning — we  invent  a new  thing  in 
Israel,  a thing  never  heard  of  among  the  Hebrew* 
in  ancient  or  modem  times,  and  more  entirely 


JEPHTHAH. 


JEREMIAH. 


01 


$ppcs*?d  to  their  peculiar  notions  than  any  thing 
which  the  wit  of  man  ever  devised — such  as  that 
a damsel  should  he  consecrated  to  perpetual  vir- 
ginity in  consequence  of  a vow  of  her  father, 
which  vow  itself  says  nothing  of  the  kind.  If 
people  allow  themselves  to  be  influenced  in  their 
interpretations  of  Scripture  by  dislike  to  take  the 
words  in  their  obvious  meaning,  we  might  at 
least  expect  that  the  explanations  they  would 
have  us  receive  should  be  in  accordance  with  the 
notions  of  the  Hebrew  people,  instead  of  being  en- 
tirely and  obviously  opposed  to  them.  The  Jewish 
commentators  themselves  generally  admit  that 
Jephthah  really  sacrificed  his  daughter;  and  even 
go  so  far  as  to  allege  that  the  change  in  the  pon- 
tifical dynasty  from  the  house  of  Eleazar  to  that  of 
Ithamar  was  caused  by  the  high-pi^st  of  the  time 
having  suffered  this  transaction  to  Take  place. 

It  is  very  true  that  human  sacrifices  were  for- 
bidden by  the  law.  But  in  the  rude  and  un- 
settled age  in  which  the  judges  lived,  when  the 
Israelites  had  adopted  a vast  number  of  errone- 
ous notions  and  practices  from  their  heathen 
neighbours,  many  things  were  done,  even  by 
good  men,  which  the  law  forbade  quite  as  posi- 
tively as  human  sacrifice.  Such,  for  instance, 
was  the  setting  up  of  the  altar  by  Gideon  at  his 
native  Ophrah,  in  direct  but  undesigned  opposi- 
tion to  one  of  the  most  stringent  enactments  of  the 
Mosaical  code. 

It  is  certain  that  human  sacrifice  was  deemed 
meritorious  and  propitiatory  by  the  neighbouring 
nations  [Sacrifice]  ; and, considering  the  manner 
of  life  the  hero  had  led,  the  recent  idolatries  in 
whir  h the  people  had  been  plunged,  and  the 
peculiarly  vague  notions  of  the  tribes  beyond  the 
Jordan,  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  contemplated 
from  the  first  a human  sacrifice,  as  the  most  costly 
offering  to  God  known  to  him.  It  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive that  he  could  expect  any  other  creature  than 
a human  being  to  come  forth  out  of  the  door  of 
his  home  to  meet  him  on  his  return.  His  house 
was  surely  not  a place  for  flocks  and  herds,  nor 
could  any  animal  be  expected  to  come  forth,4  to 
meet  him,1  i.  e.  with  the  purpose  of  meeting  him,, 
on  his  return.  W e think  it  likely  that  he  even  con- 
templated the  possibility  that  his  daughter  might 
be  the  person  to  come  forth,  and  that  he  took  merit 
to  himself  for  not  expressly  withholding  even  his 
only  child  from  the  operation  of  a vow  which  he 
deemed  likely  to  promote  the  success  of  his  arms. 
H is  affliction  when  his  daughter  actually  came 
forth  is  quite  compatible  with  this  notion ; and 
the  depth  of  that  affliction  is  scarcely  reconcil- 
able with  any  other  alternative  than  the  actual 
sacrifice. 

If  we  again  look  at  the  text,  Jephthah  vows 
that  whatsoever  came  forth  from  the  door  of  his 
house  to  meet  him  4 shall  surely  be  the  Lord's, 
and  I will  offer  it  up  for  a burnt-offering,’  which, 
in  fact,  was  the  regular  way  of  making  a thing 
wholly  the  Lord’s.  Afterwards  we  are  told  that 
‘ lie  did  with  her  according  to  his  vow,’  that  is, 
according  to  the  plain  meaning  of  plain  words, 
offered  her  for  a burnt-offering.  Then  follows  the 
intimation  that  the  daughters  of  Israel  lamented 
her  four  days  every  year.  People  lament  the  dead, 
not  the  living.  The  whole  story  is  consistent  and 
intelligible,  while  the  sacrifice  is  understood  to 
have  actually  taken  place  ; but  becomes  per- 
plexed and  difficult  as  soon  as  we  begin  *o  turn 

V CXL.  II.  rr 


aside  from  this  obvious  meaning  in  search  of  re- 
condite explanations. 

The  circumstances  of  this  immolation  we  can 
never  know.  It  probably  took  place  at  some  one 
of  the  altars  beyond  the  Jordan.  That  it  took, 
place  at  the  altar  of  the  tabernacle,  and  that  the 
high-priest  was  the  sacrificer,  as  painters  usually 
represent  the  scene,  and  even  as  some  Jewish 
writers  believe,  is  outrageously  contrary  to  all  tho 
probabilities  of  the  case. 

Professor  Bash,  in  his  elaborate  note  on  the  text, 
maintains  with  us  that  a human  sacrifice  was 
all  along  contemplated.  But  he  suggests  that, 
during  the  two  months,  Jephthah  might  have  ob- 
tained better  information  respecting  the  nature 
of  vows,  by  which  he  would  have  learned  that  his 
daughter  could  not  be  legally  offered,  but  might 
be  redeemed  at  a valuation  (Lev.  xxvii.  2-12). 
This  is  possible,  and  is  much  more  likely  than  the 
popular  alternative  of  perpetual  celibacy  ; but  we 
have  serious  doubts  whether  even  this  meets  the 
conclusion  that  ‘ he  did  with  her  according  to  his 
vow.1  Besides,  in  this  case,  where  was  the  ground 
for  the  annual  4 lamentations1  of  the  daughters  of 
Israel,  or  even  for  the  4 celebrations’  which  some 
understand  the  word  to  mean  ? See  the  Notes 
of  the  Pictorial  Bible  and  Bush’s  Notes  on 
Judges ; comp.  Calmet’s  Dissertation  sur  le 
Fceu  de  Jephte,  in  Comment.  Litter  at,  tom.  ii. ; , 
Dresde,  Votum  Jephthcc  ex  Antiq.  Judaica  illuslr. 
1778  ; Randolf,  Erkldr.  d.  Gelubdes  Jephtha , in 
Eichhorn’s  Repertorium,\ iii.  13;  Lightfool’siTar- 
mony,  under  Judges  xi„,  Erubhin , cap.  xvi.,  Ser- 
mon on  Judges  xi.  39;  Bp.  Russell’s  Connection 
of  Sacred  and  Profane  History,  i.  479-492. 

JEREMIAH  (-irPPT.  and  SW]*,  raised  xvp 
or  appointed  by  God ; Sept.  'Iepe/xias)  was  the 
son  of  Hilkiah,  a priest  of  Anathoth,  in  the  land 
of  Benjamin  [Anathoth].  Many  have  sup 
posed  that  his  father  was  the  high-priest  of  ‘the 
same  name  (2  Kings  xxii.  8),  who  found  the 
book  of  the  law  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah 
(Umbreit,  Praktischer  Commcntar  uber  den 
Jeremia , p.  x. ; see  Carpzov,  Jntrod.  part  iii.  p. 
130).  This,  however,  seems  improbable  on  several 
grounds  : — first,  there  is  nothing  in  the  writings  of 
Jeremiah  to  lead  us  to  think  that  his  father  was 
more  than  an  ordinary  priest  (4  Hilkiah  [one]  of 
the  priests,1  Jer.  i.  1) ; — again,  the  name  Hilkiah 
was  common  amongst  the  Jews  (see  2 Kings  xviii. 
13  ; 1 Chron.  vi.  45,  xxvi.  11;  Neh.  viii.  4 ; 
Jer.  xxix.  3); — and  lastly,  his  residence  at  Ana- 
thoth is  evidence  that  he  belonged  to  the  line  of 
Abiathar  (1  Kings  ii.  26-35),  who  was  deposed 
from  the  high-priest’s  office  by  Solomon:  after 
which  time  the  office  appears  to  have  remained  in 
the  line  of  Zadok.  Jeremiah  was  very  young, 
when  the  word  of  the  Lord  first  came  to  him 
(ch.  i.  6).  This  event  took  place  in  the 
thirteenth  year  of  Josiah  (b.c.  629),  whilst  the 
youthful  prophet  still  lived  at  Anathoth.  It  would, 
seem  that  he  remained  in  his  native  city  several 
years,  but  at  length,  in  order  to  escape  the  perse- 
cution of  his  fellow  townsmen  (ch.  xi.  21),  and 
even  of  his  own  family  (ch.  xii.  6),  as  well  as 
to  have  a wider  field  for  his  exertions,  he  left 
Anathoth  and  took  up  his  residence  at  Jerusalem. 
The  finding  of  the  book  of  the  law,  five  years 
after  the  commencement  of  his  predictions,  must 
have  produced  a powerful  influence  on  tne  mind 


62 


JEREMIAH. 


JEREMIAH. 


of  Jeremian,  and  king  Josiah  ao  doubt  fo  nd 
him  a powerful  ally  in  carrying  it  to  effect  the- 
reformation  of  religious  worship  (2  Kings  xxiii. 
1-25).  During  the  reign  of  this  monarch,  we 
may  readily  believe  that  Jeremiah  would  be  in  no 
way  molested  in  his  work ; and  that  from  the 
time  of  his  quitting  Anathoth  to  tne  eighteenth 
year  of  his  ministry,  he  probably  uttered  bis 
warnings  without  interruption,  though  with 
little  success  (see  ch.  xi.).  Indeed,  the  refor- 
mation itself  was  nothing  more  than  the  forcible 
repression  of  idolatrous  and  heathen  rites,  and  the 
re-establishment  of  the  external  service  of  God,  by 
the  command  of  the  king.  No  sooner,  therefore, 
was  the  influence  of  the  court  on  behalf  of  the 
‘rue  religion  withdrawn,  than  it  was  evident  that 
no  real  improvement  had  taken  place  in  the 
minds  of  the  people.  Jeremiah,  who  hitherto  was 
at  least  protected  by  the  influence  of  the  pious 
king  Josiah,  soon  became  the  object  of  attack,  as 
he  must  doubtless  bave  long  been  the  object  of 
dislike,  to  those  whose  interests  were  identified 
with  the  corruptions  of  religion.  We  hear  nothing 
of  the  prophet  during  the  three  months  which 
constituted  the  short  reign  ofJehoahaz;  but  ‘ in 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  ’ the 
prophet  was  interrupted  in  his  ministry  by  ‘ the 
priests  and  the  prophets,’  who  with  the  populace 
brought  him  before  the  civil  authorities,  urging 
that  capital  punishment  should  be  inflicted  on 
him  for  his  threatenings  of  evil  on  the  city  unless 
the  people  amended  their  ways  (ch.  xxvi).  The 
prince  ^em  to  have  been  in  some  degree  aware 
of  the  results  which  the  general  corruption  was 
bringing  on  the  state,  and  if  they  did  not  them- 
selves yield  to  the  exhortations  of  the  prophet, 
they  acknowledged  that  he  spoke  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  and  were  quite  averse  from  so  openly 
renouncing  His  authority  as  to  put  His  messenger 
to  death.  It  appears,  however,  that  it  was  rather 
owing  to  the  personal  influence  of  one  or  two, 
especially  Ahikam,  than  to  any  general  feeling 
favourable  to  Jeremiah,  that  his  life  was  preserved ; 
and  it  would  seem  that  he  was  then  either  placed 
under  restraint,  or  else  was  in  so  much  danger 
from  the  animosity  of  his  adversaries  as  to  make  it 
prudent  for  him  not  to  appear  in  public.  In  the 
•fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (b.c.  606)  he  was  com- 
manded to  write  the  predictions  which  had  been 
given  through  him,  and  to  read  them  to  the  people. 
From  the  cause,  probably,  which  we  have  inti- 
mated above,  he' was,  as  lie  says,  ‘shut  up,’  and 
could  not  himself  go  into  the  house  of  the  Lord 
(ch.  xxxvi.  5).  He  therefore  deputed  Baruch  to 
write  the  predictions  after  him,  and  to  read  them 
•publicly  on  the  fast-day.  These  threatenings 
being  thus  anew  made  public,  Baruch  was  sum- 
moned before  the  princes  to  give  an  account  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  roll  containing  them 
had  come  into  his  possession.  The  princes,  who, 
without  strength  of  principle  to  oppose  the  wicked- 
ness of  the  king,  had  sufficient  respect  for  religion, 
as  well  as  sagacity  enough  to  discern  the  importance 
of  listening  to  the  voice  of  God’s  prophet,  advised 
both  Baruch  and  Jeremiah  to  conceal  themselves, 
whilst  they  endeavoured  to  influence  the  mind  of 
the  king  by  reading  the  roll  to  him.  The  result 
ghowed  that  their  precautions  were  not  needless. 
The  bold  self-will  and  reckless  daring  of  the 
monarch  refused  to  listen  to  any  advice,  even 
though  coming  with  the  professed  sanction  of  the 


Most  High.  Having  read  th.ee  o:  fx.r  leaves  ‘ L>a 
cut  the  roll  with  tne  penknife  and  cast  it  into  the 
6/e  that  was  on  the  hearth,  until  all  tne  roll  was 
consumed, ’ and  gave  immediate  orders  for  the 
o .prehension  of  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  who,  hcw- 
ever,  were  both  preserved  from  the  vindictive 
monarch.  Of  the  history  of  Jeremiah  during  the 
eight  or  nine  remaining  years  of  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim  we  have  no  certain  account.  At  the 
command  of  God  he  procured  another  roll,  in 
w"  ich  he  wrote  all  that  was  in  the  roll  de- 
strf/ed  by  the  king,  ‘ and  added  besides  unto 
them  many  like  words’  (ch.  xxxvi.  32).  In 
the  *hort  reign  of  his-  successor  Jehoiachin  or 
Jecoiiiah,  we  find  him  still  uttering  his  voice 
of  warning  (see  ch.  xiii.  18;  comp.  2 Kings 
xxiv  12,  and  oh.  xxii.  24-30),  though  without 
effect.  It  was  probably  either  during  this  reign, 
or  af  tne  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah, 
that  l n was  put  in  confinement  by  Pashur,  the 
‘ chief  governor  of  the  house  of  the  Lord.’  He 
seems,  .however,  soon  to  have  been  liberated,  as  we 
find  thui  ‘ they  had  not  put  him  into  prison’  when 
the  artiv  of  Nebuchadnezzar  commenced  the 
siege  <i  Jerusalem.  The  Chaldaeans  drew  off 
their  r.my  for  a time,  on  the  report  of  help 
coming  from  Egypt  to  the  besieged  city  ; and 
now  feel. ng  the  danger  to  be  imminent,  and  yet 
a ray  of  hope  brightening  their  prospects,  the  king 
entreated  Jeremiah  to  pray  to  the  Lord  for  them. 
The  hopo*  of  the  king  were  not  responded  to  in 
the  mes?'fcge  which  Jeremiah  received  from  God. 
He  was  assured  that  the  Egyptian  army  should 
return  to  their  own  land,  that  the  Chaldaeans 
should  come  again,  and  that  they  should  take  the 
city  and  burn  it  with  fire  (ch.  xxxvii.  7,  8).  The 
princes,  apparently  irritated  by  a message  so  con- 
trary to  their  wishes,  made  the  departure  of  Jere- 
miah from  tne  city,  during  the  short  respite,  the 
pretext  fo;  accusing  him  of  deserting  to  the 
Chaldaeans,  *uid  he  was  forthwith  cast  into  prison. 
The  king  seems  to  have  been  throughout  inclined 
to  favour  the  prophet,  and  sought  to  know  from 
him  the  wor'T  of  the  Lord ; but  he  was  wholly 
under  the  influence  of  the  princes,  and  dared  not 
communica'ewithhim  except  in  secret(ch.xxxviii. 
14,28);  much  less  could  he  follow  advice  so 
obnoxious  to  meir  views  as  that  which  the  prophet 
gave.  Jeren  therefore,  more  from  the  hos- 
tility of  the  prances  than  the  inclination  of  the 
king,  was  stiL  in  confinement  when  the  city  was 
taken.  Nebuc-nadnezzar  formed  a more  just  esti- 
mate of  his  cnaracter  and  of  the  value  of  his 
counsels,  and  gave  a special  charge  to  his  captain 
Nebuzar-adan,  only  to  provide  for  him  but  to 
follow  his  advice'  ch.  xxxix.12).  He  was  accord- 
ingly taken  fr^m  the  prison  and  allowed  free 
choice  either  to  go  to  Baby  lop,  where  doubtless  he 
would  have  beer  V’d  in  honour  in  the  royal 
court,  or  to  re  with  his  own  people.  Wk 
need  scarcely  be  crU»  that  he  who  had  devoted 
more  than  forty  { unrequited  service  to  the 

welfare  of  his  j.  country,  should  choose 

to  remain  with  the  •»c-p..^ant  of  tv.5  people  rather 
than  seek  the  prec^'  V fame  which  might  await 
him  at  the  court  of  V King  ot  Babylon-  Ac- 
cordingly he  weir  V,  Mizpah  with  GeJaliah, 
whom  the  Babylonian  monarch  ha  i appointed 
governor  of  Judaea;  and  after  his  murder,  sought 
to  persuade  Johanan,  who  was  then  the  recognised 
leader  of  tne  people,  tc  remain  in  the  land,  assur- 


JEREMIAH. 

;■  ifcg  binj  and  the  people,  by  a message  from  God 
[ in  answer  to  their  inquiries,  that  if  they  did  so 
j the  Lord  would  build  them  up,  but  if  they  went 
to  Egypt  the  evils  which  they  sought  to  escape 
j should  come  upon  them  there  (ch.  xlii.).  The 
people  refused  to  attend  to  the  divine  message,  and 
| under  the  command  of  Johanan  went  into  Egypt, 
talcing  Jeremiah  and  Baruch  along  with  them 
| (ell.  xliii.6).  In  Egypt  the  prophet  still  sought  to 
turn  the  people  to  the  Lord,  from  whom  they  had 
so  long  and  so  deeply  revolted  (ch.  xliv.) ; but  his 
writings  give  us  no  subsequent  information  re- 
I specting  his  personal  history.  Ancient  traditions 
j assert  that  he  spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  in 
i1  Egypt.  According  to  the  pseudo-Epiphanius  he 
was  stoned  by  the  people  at  Taphnse  (eV  Tdcpvats), 

| the  same  as  'j'ahpanhes,  where  the  Jews  were  set- 
tled (J)e  Vitis  Prophet,  t.  ii.  p.  239,  quoted  by 
Fabncius,  Codex  Pseudepigraphus  V.  T.  t.  i.  p. 
1110).  It  is  said  that  his  bones  were  removed  by 
Alexander  the  Great  to  Alexandria  (Carpzov, 

I Introd.  part  iii.  p.  138,  where  other  traditions  re- 
; specting  him  will  be  found). 

Jeremiah  was  contemporary  with  Zephaniah, 
Hahalckuk,  Ezekiel,  and  Daniel.  None  of 
! these,  however,  are  in  any  remarkable  way 

| connected  with  him,  except  Ezekiel.  The 

writings  and  character  of  these  two  eminent 
prophets  furnish  many  very  interesting  points 
both  of  comparison  and  contrast.  Both,  during 
a long  series  of  years,  were  labouring  at  the 
| same  time  and  for  the  same  object.  The  re- 
I presentations  of  both,  far  separated  as  they  were 
j from  each  other,  are  in  substance  singularly  ac- 
! cordant ; yet  there  is  at  the  same  time  a marked 
[ (Inference  in  their  modes  of  statement,  and  a still 
| more  striking  diversity  jn  the  character  and 
natural  disposition  of  the  two.  No  one  who  com- 
| pares  them  can  fail  to  perceive  that  the  mind  of 
Jeremiah  was  of  a softer  and  more  delicate  tex- 
ture than  that  of  his  illustrious  contemporary. 
His  whole  history  convinces  us  that  he  was  by 
| nature  mild  and  retiring  (Ewald,  Propheten  des 
I Alt.  Bund.  p.  2),  highly  susceptible  and  sensitive, 
especially  to  sorrowful  emotions,  and  rather  in- 
i cl  ined,  as  we  should  imagine,  to  shrink  from  danger 
! than  to  brave  it.  Yet,  with  this  acute  perception 
i of  injury,  and  natural  repugnance  from  being 
‘ a man  of  strife,’  he  never  in  the  least  degree 
! shrinks  from  publicity  ; nor  is  he  at  all  intimidated 
by  reproach  or  insult,  or  even  b»y  actual  punish- 
ment and  threatened  death,  when  he  has  the 
I message  of  God  to  deliver.  Kings  and  priests, 
j princes  and  people  are  opposed  with  the  most 
resolute  determination,  and  threatened,  if  they 
disobey,  in  the  most  emphatic  terms.  When  he 
is  alone,  we  hear  him  lamenting  the  hard  lot 
which  compelled  him  to  sustain  a character  so 
alien  to  his  natural  temper ; but  no  sooner  does 
the  divine  call  summon  him  to  bear  testimony  for 
God  and  against  the  evils  which  surrounded  him, 
than  he  forgets  his  fears  and  complaints,  and 
stands  forth  in  the  might  of  the  Lord.  He  is,  in 
truth,  as  remarkable  an  instance,  though  in  a dif- 
ferent way,  of  the  overpowering  influence  of  the 
divine  energy,  as  Ezekiel.  The  oue  presents  the 
spectacle  of  the  power  of  divine  inspiration  acting 
on  a mind  naturally  of  the  firmest  texture,  and 
at  once  subduing  to  itself  every  element  of  the 
soul  ; whilst  the  other  furnishes  an  example, 
not  Hss  memorable,  of  moral  courage  sustained 


JEREMIAH.  83 

by  the  Barr.e  divine  inspiration  against  the  con- 
stantly opposing  influence  of  a love  of  retirement 
and  strong  susceptibility  to  impressions  of  out- 
ward evil.  Ezekiel  views  the  conduct  of  hi* 
countrymen  as  opposed  to  righteousness  and 
truth,  Jeremiah  thinks  of  it  rather  as  productive 
of  evil  and  misery  to  themselves — Ezekiel’s  indig- 
nation is  roused  at  the  sins  of  his  people,  Jere- 
miah’s pity  is  excited  by  the  consequences  of 
their  sins — the  former  takes  an  objective,  the  lat- 
ter a subjective  view  of  the  evils  by  which  both 
were  surrounded. 

The  style  of  Jeremiah  corresponds  with  this 
view  of  the  character  of  his  mind  ; though  not 
deficient  in  power,  it  is  peculiarly  marked  by 
pathos.  He  delights  in  the  expression  of  the 
fender  emotions,  and  employs  all  the  resources  of 
his  imagination  to  excite  corresponding  feelings 
in  his  readers.  He  has  an  irresistible  sympathy 
with  the  miserable,  which  finds  utterance  in  the 
most  touching  descriptions  of  their  condition. 
He  seizes  with  wonderful  tact  those  circum- 
stances which  point  out  the  objects  of  his  pity 
as  the  objects  of  sympathy,  and  founds  his  ex- 
postulations on  the  miseries  which  are  thus  exhi- 
bited. His  book  of  Lamentations  is  an  astonishing 
exhibition  of  his  power  to  accumulate  images  of 
sorrow.  The  whole  series  of  elegies  has  but  one 
object — the  expression  of  soi*row  for  the  forlorn 
condition  of  his  country  ; and  yet  he  presents 
this  to  us  in  so  many  lights,  alludes  to  it  by  so 
many  figures,  that  not  only  are  his  mournful 
strains  not  felt  to  be  tedious  reiterations,  but  the 
reader  is  captivated  by  the  plaintive  melancholy 
which  pervades  the  whole.  ‘ Nullum,  opincr,’ 
says  Lowth  (De  Sacra  Poesi  Heb.,  ed.  Mi- 
chaelis,  p.  458)  ‘ aliud  extat  poema  ubi  intra  tarn 
breve  spatium  tanta,  tarn  felix,  tam  lecta,  tam 
illustrk;  adjunctorum  atque  imaginum  varietas 
eluceat.  Quid  tam  elegans  et  poeticum,  ac  urbs 
ilia  florentissima  pridem  et  inter  gentes  princeps, 
nunc  sola  sedens,  aflflicta,  vidua ; deserta  ab 
amicis,  prodita  a necessariis ; frustra  tendens 

mauus,  nee  inveniens  qui  earn  consoletur 

Verum  omries  locos  elegantes  proferre,  id  sane  esset 
totum  poerna  exscribere.’  The  style  of  Jeremiah 
is  marked  by  the  peculiarities  which  belong  to 
the  later  Hebrew,  and  by  the  introduction  of 
Aramaic  forms  (Eichhorn,  Einleitung,  vol.  iii. 
p.  122;  Gesenius,  Geschichte  der  Heb.  Spracke, 
p.  35).  It  was,  we  imagine,  on  this  account 
that  Jerome  complained  of  a certain  rusticity  in 
Jeremiah’s  style.  Lowth,  however,  says  he  can 
discover  no  traces  of  it,  and  regards  Jeremiah  as 
nearly  equal  in  sublimity  in  many  parts  to 
Isaiah  (De  Sacra  Poesi  Heb.,  p.  426). 

The  genuineness  and  canonicity  of  the  writings 
of  Jeremiah  in  general  are  established  both  by  the 
testimony  of  ancient  writers,  and  by  quotations 
ajid  references  which  occur  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Thus  the  son  of  Sirach  refers  to  him  as 
a prophet  consecrated  from  the  womb,  and  quotes 
from  Jer.  i.  10,  the  commission  with  which  he 
was  intrusted  (‘  auros  iv  p^rpa  riyiaadg  rrpo- 
<pT)T7)S  eKpi&vv  Hal  KaKovv  KoX  airoWveiv,  uaavra's 
olKobopeiv  na\  KaTacporeveiv'  Ecclus.  xlix.  7).  In 
2 Macc.  ii.  1-8,  there  is  a tradition  respecting  his 
hiding  the  tabernacle  and  the  ark  in  a rock,  in 
which  he  is  called  ’Jepepias  6 TrpocpTjTrjs.  Philo 
speaks  of  him  as  irpoipriT^s,  pvargs,  lepocpayr?;^ 
and  calls  a passage  which  he  quote*  from  Jer 


JEREMIAH. 


JEREMIAH. 


Si 

iti.  4,  an  oracle,  xp3 * * * 7)(T^v  (Eichhorn,  Einleitung, 
vol.  i.  p.  95).  Josephus  refers  to  him  by  name 
as  the  prophet  who  predicted  the  evils  which  were 
coming  on  the  city,  and  speaks  of  him  as  the 
author  of  Lamentations  (jaeAos  QpgvqTLKiv')  which 
are  still  existing  (Antiq.,  lib.  x.  5.  1).  His 
writings  are  included  in  the  list  of  canonical 
books  given  by  Mel i to,  Origen  (whose  words  are 
remarkable,  *1  epepias  ervv  6 pivots  Kal  rfj  In-to-roAp 

lid),  Jerome,  and  the  Talmud  (Eichhorn,  Ein- 
leitung, vol.  in.  p.  184).  In  the  New  Testament 
Jeremiah  is  referred  to  by  name  in  Matt  ii.  17, 
where  a passage  is  quoted  from  Jer.  xxxi.  15, 
and  in  Matt.  xvi.  14  ; in  Heb.  viii.  8-12,  a pas- 
sage is  quoted  from  Jer.  xxxi.  31-31.  There  is 
one  other  place  in  which  the  name  of  Jeremiah 
occurs,  Matt,  xxvii.  9,  which  has  occasioned  con- 
siderable difficulty,  because  the  passage  there 
quoted  is  not  found  in  the  extant  writings  of 
the  prophet.  Jerome  affirms  that  he  found  the 
exact  passage  in  a Hebrew  apocryphal  book  (Fa- 
oricius,  Cod.  Pseudep.  i.  1103);  but  there  is  no 
proof  that  that  book  was  in  existence  before  the 
time  of  Christ.  It  is  probable  that  the  passage 
intended  by  Matthew  is  Zech.  xi.  12,  13,  which 
in  part  corresponds  with  the  quotation  he  gives, 
and  that  the  name  is  a gloss  which  has  found  its 
way  into  the  text  (see  Olshausen,  Commentar  iiber 
N’T.,  vol.  ii.  p.  493). 

Much  difficulty  has  arisen  in  reference  to  the 
writings  of  Jeremiah  from  the  apparent  disorder  in 
which  they  stand  in  our  present  copies,  and  from 
the  many  disagreements  between  the  Hebrew  text 
and  that  found  in  the  Septuagint  version ; and 
many  conjectures  have  been  hazarded  respecting 
the  occasion  of  this  disorder.  The  following  are 
the  principal  diversities  between  the  two  texts  • 
1.  The  prophecies  against  foreign  nations,  which 
in  the  Hebrew  occupy  chs.  xlvi.-li.  at  the  close 
of  the  book,  are  in  the  Greek  placed  after  ch.  xxv. 
14,  forming  chs.  xxvi.-xxxi. ; the  remainder  of 
ch.  xxv.  of  the  Heb.  is  ch.  xxxii.  of  the  Sept.  The 
following  chapters  proceed  in  the  same  order  in 
both  chs.  xliv.  and  xlv.  of  the  Heb.  forming  ch.  Ii. 
of  the  Sept.;  and  the  historical  appendix,  ch.  1’i. 
is  placed  at  the  close  in  both.  2.  The  prophecies 
against  the  heathen  nations  stand  in  a different 
order  in  the  two  editions,  as  is  shown  in  the  fol- 
lowing table : — 


Hebrew. 

Sept. 

Egypt. 

Elam. 

Philistines. 

Egypt. 

Moab. 

Babylon. 

Ammon. 

Philistines. 

Edom. 

Edom. 

Damascus. 

Ammon. 

Kedar. 

Kedar. 

Elam. 

Damascus. 

Babylon. 

Moab. 

3.  Various  passages  which  exist  in  the  Hebrew 

nre  not  found  in  the  Greek  copies  ( e . g.  ch.  xxvii. 
19-22;  xxxiii.  14-26;  xxxix.  4-14;  xlviii.  45- 

47),  Besides  these  discrepancies,  there  are  numerous 

omissions  and  frequent  variations  of  single  words 
and  phrases  (Movers,  De  utriusque  Vaticmiorum 
Jeremies  recensionis  indole  et  origine , pp.  8-32). 

To  explain  these  diversities  recourse  has  been  had 
to  the  hypothesis  of  a double  recension,  an  hypo- 
thesis which,  with  various  modifications,  is  held 
by  most  modern  critics  (Movers,  ut  supra;  De 


Wette,  Lchrbuch  der  Hist.-Crit.  Einleitung  in 
A.  T.,  p.  303  ; Ewald,  Propheten  des  Alt.  Bund. 
vol.  ii.  p.  23). 

The  genuineness  of  some  portions  of  the  book 
has  been  of  late  disputed  by  German  critics. 
Movers,  whose  views  have  been  adopted  by  De 
Wette  and  Hitzig,  attributes  ch.  x.  1-16,  and 
chs.  xxx.,  xxxi.,  and  xxxiii.  to  the  author  of  the 
concluding  portion  of  the  book  of  Isaiah.  His 
fundamental  argument  against  the  last-named 
portion  is,  that  the  prophet  Zechariah  (ch.  viii. 
7,  8)  quotes  from  Jer.  xxxi.  7,  8,  33,  and  in 
ver.  9 speaks  of  the  author  as  one  who  lived  ‘ in  the 
day  that  the  foundation  of  the  house  of  the  Lord 
of  hosts  was  laid.’  He  must,  therefore,  have  been 
contemporary  with  Zechariah  himself.  This  view 
obliges  him,  of  course,  to  consider  ch.  xxx.  1, 
with  which  he  joins  the  three  following  verses,  as 
a later  addition.  By  an  elaborate  comparison  of 
the  peculiarities  of  style  he  endeavours  to  show 
that  the  author  of  these  chapters  was  the  so-called 
pseudo-Isaiah.  He  acknowledges,  however,  that 
there  are  many  expressions  peculiar  to  Jeremiah, 
and  supposes  that  it  was  in  consequence  of  these 
that  the  prediction  wras  placed  among  his  writings. 
These  similarities  he  accounts  for  by  assuming 
that  the  later  unknown  prophet  accommodated 
the  writings  of  the  earlier  to  his  own  use.  Every 
one  will  see  how  slight  is  the  external  ground  on 
which  Movers'  argument  rests  ; for  there  is  nothing 
in  ver.  7,  8,  of  Zechariah  to  prove  that  it  is  intended 
to  be  a quotation  from  any  written  prophecy, 
much  less  from  this  portion  of  Jeremiah.  The 
quotation,  if  it  be  such,  is  made  up  by  joining 
together  phrases  of  frequent  recurrence  in  the 
prophets  picked  out  from  amongst  many  others. 
Then,  again,  the  mention  of  prophets  is  evidence 
that  Zechariah  was  not  referring  to  the  writings 
of  one  individual ; and,  lastly,  the  necessity  of  re- 
jecting the  exordium,  without  any  positive  ground 
for  suspecting  its  integrity,  is  a strong  argument 
against  the  position  of  Movers.  Hitzig  ( Jeremia , 
p.  230)  is  induced,  by  the  force  of  these  considera- 
tions, to  give  up  the  external  evidence  on  which 
Movers  had  relied.  The  internal  evidence  arising 
from  the  examination  of  particular  words  ami 
phrases — a species  of  proof  which,  when  standing 
alone,  is  always  to  be  received  with  great  caution 
— is  rendered  of  still  less  weight  by  the  evidence 
of  an  opposite  kind,  the  existence  of  which  Movers 
himself  acknowledges,  ‘ quumque  indicia  usus 
loquendi  tantummodo  Jeremiae  peculiaris  haud 
raro  inveniantur’  (p.  42).  And  this  evidence 
becomes  absolutely  nothing,  if  the  authenticity  of 
the  latter  portion  of  Isaiah  is  maintained  ;**  for  it 
is  quite  likely  that  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  would, 
when  relating  to  the  same  subjects,  bear  marks  of 
similarity  to  those  of  his  illustrious  predecessor. 
We  may  mention  also  that  Ewald,  who  is  by  no 
means  accustomed  to  acquiesce  in  received  opi- 
nions as  such,  agrees  that  the  chapters  in  question, 
as  well  as  the  other  passage  mentioned  ch.  x. 
1-16,  are  the  work  of  Jeremiah.  The  authenticity 
of  this  latter  portion  is  denied  solely  on  internal 
grounds,  and  the  remarks  we  have  already  made 
will,  in  substance,  apply  also  to  these  verses.  I» 

* For  a proof  of  its  authenticity,  see  Hengsten- 

berg’s  Christologie , vol.  i.  c.  2,  pp.  168-206, 
translated  in  the  Am.  Biblical  Repository , vol.  i. 
pp.  700-733  ; see  also  the  article  Isaiah. 


JEREMIAH. 


JERICHO. 


Kerns,  howeveiv  not  improbable  that  the  Chaldee 
of  ver.  11  is  a gbss  which  has  crept  into  the  text — 
both  because  it  is  (apparently  without  reason)  in 
another  language,  and  because  it  seems  to  inter- 
rupt the  progress  of  thought.  The  predictions 
against  Babylon  in  chs.  1.  and  li.  are  objected  to 
by  Movers,  De  Wette,  and  others,  on  the  ground 
that  they  contain  many  interpolations.  Ewald 
attributes  them  to  some  unknown  prophet  who 
imitated  the  style  of  Jeremiah.  Their  authen- 
ticity is  maintained  by  Hitzig  (p.  391),  and  by 
Umbreit  (pp.  290-293),  to  whom  we  must  refer  for 
an  answer  to  the  objections  made  against  them. 
The  last  chapter  is  generally  regarded  as  an 
appendix  added  by  some  later  author.  It  is  almost 
verbally  the  same  as  the  account  in  2 Kings  xxiv. 
18;  xxv.  30,  and  it  carries  the  history  down  to 
a later  period  pi#bably  than  that  of  the  death 
of  Jeremiah : that  it  is  not  his  work  seems  to  be 
indicated  in  the  last  verse  of  ch.  li. 

It  is  impossible,  within  the  limits  assigned  to 
this  article,  even  to  notice  all  the  attempts  which 
have  been  made  to  account  for  the  apparent  dis- 
order of  Jeremiah’s  prophecies.  Blayney  speaks 
of  their  present  disposition  as  a ‘preposterous 
jumbling  together  of  the  prophecies  of  the  reigns 
of  Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah,’  and  concludes  that 
* the  original  order  has,  most  probably,  by  some 
accident  or  other  been  disturbed’  (Notes,  p.  3). 
Eichhorn  says  that  no  other  explanation  can  be 
given  than  that  the  prophet  wrote  his  oracles  on 
single  rolls,  larger  or  smaller  as  they  came  to  his 
hand,  and  that,  as  he  was  desirous  to  give  his  coun- 
trymen a copy  of  them  when  they  went  into  cap- 
tivity, he  dictated  them  to  an  amanuensis  from 
the  separate  rolls  without  attending  to  the  order  of 
time,  and  then  preserved  the  rolls  in  the  same 
order  ( Einl . iii.  134).  Later  critics  have  attempted 
in  different  ways  to  trace  some  plan  in  the  present 
arrangement.  Thus  Movers  supposes  the  whole 
collection  to  have  consisted  of  six  books — the 
longest  being  that  written  by  Baruch  (Jer.  xxxvi. 
2,  32),  which  was  taken  by  the  collector  as  his 
foundation,  into  which  he  inserted  the  other  books 
in  such  places  as  seemed,  on  a very  slight  glance 
at  their  contents,  to  be  suitable.  All  such  theo- 
ries, however,  proceed  on  the  presumption  that  the 
present  arrangement  is  the  work  of  a compiler, 
which,  therefore,  we  are  at  liberty  to  alter  at 
pleasure ; and  though  they  offer  boundless  scope 
for  ingenuity  in  suggesting  a better  arrangement, 
they  serve  us  very  little  in  respect  to  the  explana- 
tion of  the  book  itself.  Ewald  adopts  another 
principle,  which,  if  it  be  found  valid,  cannot  fail  to 
throw  much  light  on  the  connection  and  meaning 
of  the  predictions.  He  maintains  that  the  book, 
in  its  present  form,  is,  from  ch.  i.  to  ch.  xlix,, 
substantially  the  same  as  it  came  from  the  hand 
of  the  prophet,  or  his  amanuensis,  and  seeks  to 
discover  in  the  present  arrangement  some  plan 
according  to  which  it  is  disposed.  He  finds  that 
various  portions  are  prefaced  by  the  same  formula, 
' The  word  which  came  to  Jeremiah  from  the 
Lord’  (vii.  1;  xi.  1;  xviii.  1;  xxi.  1;  xxv.  1; 
xxx.  1 ; xxxii.  1 ; xxxiv.  1,  8 ; xxxv.  1 ; xl.  1 ; 
xliv.  1),  or  by  the  very  similar  expression,  ‘ The 
word  of  the  Lord  which  came  to  Jeremiah1  (xiv. 
1 ; xlvi.  1 ; xlvii.  1 ; xlix.  34).  The  notices  of 
time  distinctly  mark  some  other  divisions  which 
are  more  or  less  historical  (xxvi.  1 ; xxvii.  1 ; 
xxxvi.  1 ; xxxvii.  1).  Two  other  portions  are 


53 

in  themselves  sufficiently  distinct  without  such 
indication  (xxix.  1 ; xlv.  1),  whilst  the  general 
introduction  to  the  book  serves  for  the  section 
contained  in  ch.  i.  There  are  left  two  sec- 
tions (ch.  ii.,  iii.),  the  former  of  which  has  only 
die  shorter  introduction,  which  generally  de- 
signates the  commencement  of  a strophe;  while 
the  latter,  as  it  now  stands,  seems  to  be  imperfect, 
having  as  an  introduction  merely  the  word  ‘say- 
ing.’ Thus  the  book  is  divided  into  twenty-three 
separate  and  independent  sections,  which,  in  the 
poetical  parts,  are  again  divided  into  strophes  of 
from  seven  to  nine  verses,  frequently  distinguished 
by  such  a phrase  as  ‘ The  Lord  said  also  unto 
me.’  These  separate  sections  are  arranged  by 
Ewald  so  as  to  form  five  distinct  books  : — I.  The 
introduction,  ch.  i. ; — II.  Reproofs  of  the  sins  of  the 
Jews,  ch.  ii.-xxiv.,  consisting  of  seven  sections,  viz. 
1.  ch.  ii.,  2.  ch.  iii.-vi.,  3.  vii.-x,  4.  ch.  xi.-xiii., 
5.  ch.  xiv.-xvii.  18,  6.  ch.  xvii.  19:!!-xx.,  7.  ch. 
xxi. -xxiv. ; — III.  A general  review  of  all  nations, 
the  heathen  as  well  as  the  people  of  Israel,  con- 
sisting of  two  sections,  1.  ch.  xlvi.-xlix.  (which 
he  thinks  have  been  transposed),  2.  ch.  xxv.,  and 
an  historical  appendix  of  three  sections,  1.  ch. 
xxvi.,  2.  ch.  xxvii.,  and  3.  ch.  xxviii.  xxix.  ; — 
IV.  Two  sections  picturing  the  hopes  of  brighter 
times,  1.  ch.  xxx.  xxxi.,  and  2.  ch.  xxxii.  xxxiii., 
to  which,  as  in  the  last  book,  is  added  an  his- 
torical appendix  in  three  sections,  1.  ch.  xxxiv. 
1-7,  2.  ch.  xxxiv.  8-22,  3.  ch.  xxxv.', — V.  The 
conclusion,  in  two  sections,  1.  ch.  xxxvi.,  2.  ch. 
xlv.  All  this,  he  supposes,  was  arranged  in 
Palestine,  during  the  short  interval  of  rest  between 
the  taking  of  the  city  and  the  departure  of  Jere- 
miah with  the  remnant  of  the  Jews,  to  Egypt. 
In  Egypt,  after  some  interval,  Jeremiah  added 
three  sections,  viz.  ch.  xxxvii. -xxxix.,  xl.-xliii. 
and  xliv.  At  the  same  time,  probably,  he  added 
ch.  xlvi.  13-26  to  the  previous  prophecy  respecting 
Egypt,  and,  perhaps,  made  some  additions  to 
other  parts  previously  written.  We  do  not  pro- 
fess to  agree  with  Ewald  in  all  the  details  of  this 
arrangement,  but  we  certainly  prefer  the  principle 
he  adopts  to  that  of  any  former  critic.  We  may 
add  that  Umbreit  ( [Praktischer  Comm.  iib.  d.  Je- 
remia , p.  xxvii.)  states,  that  he  has  found  himself 
more  nearly  in  agreement  with  Ewald,  as  to 
arrangement,  than  with  any  one  else. 

The  principal  predictions  relating  to  the  Mes- 
siah are  found  in  ch.  xxiii.  1-8;  xxx.  31-40; 
xxxiii.  14-26  (Hengstenberg’s  Christologie , vol. 
iii.  pp.  495-619). 

Besides  the  commentaries  which  have  been  re- 
ferred to  in  the  course  of  the  article,  we  may  add 
Venema,  Commentarius  ad  Librum  Jeremies  „• 
Dahler,  Jeremie ; Schnurrer,  Observationes  ad 
Vaticin.  Jerem .,  in  Velthusen’s  Commentations 
Theolog.,  vol.  iii. ; Spohn,  Jeremias  Vdtes  e Vers. 
Alex,  emend, ; Rosenmiiller,  Scholia  in  V.  T., 
part  viii. — F.  W.  G. 

JERICHO  (1IW.  and  ; Sept.  T epiXa ; 

Josephus,  T epixovs),  a town  in  the  plain  of  the 
same  name,  not  far  from  the  river  Jordan,  at 
the  point  where  it  enters  the  Dead  Sea.  It  lay 
before  the  Israelites  when  they  crossed  the  river, 
on  first  entering  the  Promised  Land ; and  the 


* Ewald  supposes  that  the  proper  place  of  the 
introductory  formula  to  ch.  xviii.  1,  is  ch.  xvii.  19, 


JERICHO. 


JERICHO. 


account  which  the  spies  who  were  sent  by  them 
into  the  city  received  from  their  hostess  Rahab, 
tended  much  to  encourage  their  subsequent 
operations,  as  it  showed  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  country  were  greatly  alarmed  at  their 
advance,  and  the  signal  miracles  which  had 
marked  their  course  from  the  Nile  to  the  Jordan. 
The  strange  manner  in  which  Jericho  itself  was 
taken  must  have  strengthened  this  impression  in 
the  country,  and  appears,  indeed,  to  have  been 
designed  for  that  effect.  The  town  was  utterly 
destroyed  by  the  Israelites,  who  pronounced  an 
awful  curse  upon  whoever  should  rebuild  it ; and 
all  the  inhabitants  were  put  to  the  sword,  except 
Rahab  and  her  family  (Josh.  ii.  vi.).  In  these 
accounts  Jericho  is  repeatedly  called  ‘ the  city  of 
palm-trees ;’  which  shows  that  the  hot  and  dry 
plain,  so  similar  to  the  land  of  Egypt,  was  noted 


beyond  other  parts  of  Palestine  for  the  tree  which 
abounds  in  that  country , but  which  was  and  ii 
less  common  in  the  land  of  Canaan  than  general 
readers  and  painters  suppose.  It  has  now  almost 
disappeared  even  from  the  plain  of  Jericho,  al- 
though specimens  remain  in  the  plain  of  the 
Mediterranean  coast. 

Notwithstanding  the  curse,  Jericho  was  soon 
rebuilt  [Hiei.],  and  became  a school  of  the  pro- 
phets (Judg.  iii.  13;  1 Kings  xvi.  34;  2 Kings 
ii.  4,  5).  Its  inhabitants  returned  after  the  exile,  ) 
and  it  was  eventually  fortified  by  the  Syrian 
general  Bacchides  (Ezra  ii.  34  ; Neh.  iii.  2 ; l 
Macc.  ix.  50).  Pompey  marched  from  Scytho*  • 
polis,  along  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  to  Jericho., 
and  thence  to  Jerusalem  ; and  Strabo  speaks  of 
the  castles  Thrax  and  Taurus,  in  or  near  Jericho,  .> 
as  having  been  destroyed  by  l^m  (Joseph.  Antiq. 


362.  [Jericho.] 


xiv.  4.  1 ; Strabo,  xvi.  2.  40).  Herod  the  Great, 
in  the  beginning  of  his  career,  captured  and 
sacked  Jericho,  but  afterwards  strengthened  and 
adorned  it,  when  he  had  redeemed  its  revenues 
from  Cleopatra,  on  whom  the  plain  had  been  be- 
stowed by  Antony  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xv.  4.  1,  2). 
He  appears  to  have  often  resided  here,  probably 
in  winter : he  built  over  the  city  a fortress 
called  Cypros,  between  which  and  the  former 
palace  he  erected  other  palaces,  and  called 
them  by  the  names  of  his  friends  (Joseph.  Antiq. 

xvi.  5.  2;  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  21.  4,  9).  Here  also 
was  a hippodrome  or  circus,  in  which  the  same 
tyrant,  when  lying  at  Jericho  on  his  death-bed, 
caused  the  nobles  of  the  land  to  be  shut  up,  for 
massacre  after  his  death.  He  died  here ; but  his 
bloody  intention  was  not  executed  (Joseph.  Antiq. 

xvii.  6.  5 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33.  6-8).  The  palace 
at  this  place  was  afterwards  rebuilt  more  magni- 
ficently by  Archelaus  {Antiq.  xvii.  31).  By  this 


it  will  be  seen  that  the  Jericho  which  existed  in  , 
the  time  of  our  Saviour  was  a great  and  important 
city — probably  more  so  than  it  had  ever  been  ;< 
since  its  foundation.  It  was  once  visited  by  him,  ' 
when  he  lodged  wi,th  Zaccheus,  and  healed  the  > 
blind  man  (Luke  xviii.  35-43;  xix.  1-7  ; Matt, 
xx.  29-34 ; Mark  x.  46-52).  Jericho  was  after-  • 
wards  made  the  head  of  one  of  the  toparchies, 
and  was  visited  by  Vespasian  before  he  left  the 
country,  who  stationed  there  the  tenth  legion  in 
garrison  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  3.  5 ; iv.  8.  1 ; 
v.  2.  3).  Eusebius  and  Jerome  describe  Jericho 
as  having  been  destroyed  during  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem,  on  account  of  the  perfidy  of  the  in- 
habitants, but  add  that  it  was  afterwards  re- 
built ; but,  as  Josephus  is  silent  respecting  this 
event,  Dr.  Robinson  regards  it  as  doubtful.  That 
the  town  continued  to  exist  as  a place  of  import- 
ance, appears  from  the  names  of  five  bishops  ol 
Jericho  which  have  been  collected  {Orient  Christ 


JERICHO. 


JERICHO. 


81 


iii.  654).  The  emperor  Justinian  built  here  a 
Xenodochium,  apparently  for  pilgrims,  and  also 
a church,  dedicated  to  the  Virgin ; and  the  mo- 
pastery  of  St.  John,  near  the  Jordan,  was  already 
;n  existence  (Procop.  De  JEdific.  Justiniani,  v.  9). 
The  town,  however,  appears  to  have  been  over- 
thrown during  the  Mohammedan  conquest ; for 
Adamnanus,  at  the  close  of  the  seventh  century, 
describes  the  site  as  without  human  habitations, 
and  covered  with  corn  and  vines.  The  celebrated 
palm-groves  still  existed.  In  the  next  century  a 
church  is  mentioned ; and  in  the  ninth  century 
several  monasteries  appear.  About  the  same 
time  the  plain  of  Jericho  is  again  noticed  for  its 
fertility  and  peculiar  products ; and  it  appears 
to  have  been  brought  under  cultivation  by  the 
Saracens,  for  the  sake  of  the  sugar  and  other  pro- 
ducts'for  which  the  soil  and  climate  were  more 
suitable  than  any  other  in  Palestine.  Ruins 
of  extensive  aqueducts,  with  pointed  Saracenic 
arches,  remain  in  evidence  of  the  elaborate  irri- 
gation and  culture  of  this  fine  plain — which  is 
nothing  without  water,  and  everything  with  it — at 
a period  long  subsequent  to  the  occupation  of  the 
country  by  the  Jews.  It  is  to  this  age  that  we 
may  probably  refer  the  origin  of  the  castle  and 
village,  which  have  since  been  regarded  as  repre- 
senting Jericho.  The  place  has  been  mentioned 
by  travellers  and  pilgrims  down  to  the  present 
time  as  a poof  hamlet  consisting  of  a few  houses. 
In  the  fifteenth  century  the  square  castle  or  tower 
began  to  pass  among  pilgrims  as  ihe  house  of 
Zaccheus,  a title  which  it  bears  to  the  present 
day. 

The  village  thus  identified  with  Jericho  now 
bears  the  name  of  Rihah,  and  is  situated  about 
the  middle  of  the  plain,  six  miles  west  from  the 
Jordan,  in  N.  lat.  31°  o7;,  and  E.  long.  35°  33'. 
Dr.  Olin  describes  the  present  village  as  ‘ the 
meanest  and  foulest  of  Palestine.’  It  may  per- 
haps contain  forty  dwellings,  formed  of  small 
loose  stones.  The  walls,  which  threaten  to  tumble 
lown  at  a touch,  are  covered  with  flat  roofs,  com- 
posed of  reed  or  straw  plastered  over  with  mud. 
Around  most  of  these  dwellings  a little  yard  is 
inclosed  with  dry  thorn-bushes.  The  village 
r.as  a similar  bulwark,  which,  insufficient  as  it 
appears  to  offer  resistance  to  an  invader,  is  quite 
effectual  against  the  marauding  Bedouins,  with 
their  bare  feet  and  legs,  or  any  other  enemy  in 
too  great  haste  to  burn  it.  The  most  important 
object  is  the  castle  or  tower  already  mentioned, 
which  Dr.  Robinson  supposes  to  have  been  con- 
structed to  protect  the  cultivation  of  the  plain 
under  the  Saracens.  It  is  thirty  or  forty  feet 
square,  and  about  the  same  height,  and  is  now 
in  a dilapidated  condition.  The  pilgrims,  as  we 
have  seen,  regard  it  as  the  house  of  Zaccheus ; 
and  they  also  point  to  a solitary  palm-tree , the 
only  survivor  of  the  groves  which  once  gave  the 
town  one  of  its  distinguishing  names,  as  the  iden- 
tical sycamore  which  was  climbed  by  the  same 
personage  to  view  the  Saviour  as  he  passed. 

Rihah  may  contain  about  two  hundred  in- 
habitants, who  have  a sickly  aspect,  and  are 
reckoned  vicious  and  indolent.  They  keep  a few 
cattle  and  sheep,  and  till  a little  land  for  grain 
as  well  as  for  gardens.  A small  degree  of  in- 
dustry and  skill  bestowed  on  this  prolific  soil, 
favoured  as  if  is  with  abundant  water  for  irri- 
gation, wouW  amply  reward  the  labour.  But 


this  is  wanting ; and  everything  bears  the  mark 
of  abject,  and,  which  is  unusual  in  the  East,  of 
squalid  poverty.  There  are  some  fine  fig-trees 
near  the  village,  and  some  vines  in  the  gardens 
But  the  most  distinguishing  feature  of  the  whole 
plain  is  a noble  grove  of  trees  which  borders  tlw 
village  on  the  west,  and  stretches  away  north 
ward  to  the  distance  of  two  miles  or  more. 

This  grove  owes  its  existence  to  the  waters  of 
one  of  the  fountains,  the  careful  distribution  of 
which  over  the  plain  by  canals  and  aqueducts 
did  once,  and  might  still,  cover  it  with  abund- 
ance. One  of  these  fountains  is  called  by  the 
natives  Ain  es-Sultan,  but  by  pilgrims  the 
Fountain  of  Elias,  being  supposed  to  be  the 
same  whose  bitter  waters  were  cured  by  that 
prophet.  Dr.  Robinson  thinks  there  is  reason 
for  this  conclusion.  It  lies  almost  two  miles 
N.W.  from  the  village.  It  bursts  forth  at  the 
foot  of  a high  double  mound,  situated  a mile  or 
more  in  front  of  the  mountain  Quarantana.  It 
is  a large  and  beautiful  fountain  of  sweet  and 
pleasant  water.  The  principal  stream  runs  to- 
wards the  village,  and  the  rest  of  the  water  finds 
its  way  at  random  in  various  streams  down  the 
plain.  Beyond  the  fountain  rises  up  the  bold 
perpendicular  face  of  the  mountain  Quarantana 
(Kuruntul),  from  the  foot  of  which  a line  of  low 
hills  runs  out  N.N.E.  in  front  of  the  mountains, 
and  forms  the  ascent  to  a narrow  tract  of  table- 
land along  their  base.  On  this  tract,  at  the  foot 
of  the  mountains,  about  two  and  a half  miles 
N.N.W.  from  the  Ain  es-Sultan,  is  the  still  larger 
fountain  of  Duk,  the  waters  of  which  aTe  brought 
along  the  base  of  Quarantana  in  a canal  to  the 
top  of  the  declivity  at  the  back  of  Ain  es-Sultan, 
whence  they  were  formerly  distributed  to  several 
mills,  and  scattered  over  the  upper  part  of  the 
plain  (Robinson’s  Bib.  Researches , ii.  284,  285). 

Under  the  mountains  on  the  western  confine 
of  the  plain,  about  two  miles  west  of  Rihah,  and 
just  where  the  road  from  Jerusalem  comes  down 
into  the  plain,  are  considerable  ruins,  extending 
both  on  the  north  and  south  side  of  the  road. 
There  is  nothing  massive  or  imposing  in  these 
remains,  although  they  doubtless  mark  the  site 
of  an  important  ancient  town.  The  stones  are 
small  and.  unwrought,  and  have  the  appearance 
of  being  merely  the  refuse,  which  was  left  as 
worthless  by  those  who  bore  away  the  more  valu- 
able materials  to  be  employed  in  the  erection  of 
new  buildings.  Mr.  Buckingham  was  the  first 
to  suspect  that  these  were  the  ruins  of  the  ancient 
Jericho.  He  shows  that  the  situation  agrees  bet- 
ter with  the  ancient  intimations  than  does  that 
of  the  modern  village,  near  which  no  trace  of 
ancient  ruins  can  be  found  ( Travels  in  Pales- 
tine, p.  293).  Since  this  idea  was  started  the 
matter  has  been  examined  by  other  travellers  ; 
and  the  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  Rihah  is 
certainly  not  the  ancient  Jericho,  and  that  there 
is  no  site  of  ancient  ruins  on  the  plain  which  so 
well  answers  to  the  intimations  as  that  now  de- 
scribed; although  even  here  some  drawback  to  a 
satisfactory  conclusion  is  felt,  in  the  absence  of 
any  traces  of  those  great  buildings  which  be- 
longed to  the  Jericho  of  king  Herod.  We  should 
like  to  examine  this  matter  more  in  detail  than 
would  be  satisfactory  to  any  but  an  antiquarian 
reader;  but  shall  be  content  to  introduce  the 
concise  and  clear  view  of  the  question  which  has 


JERICHO. 


JEROBOAM. 


88 

been  given  b / Dr.  Olin  in  his  very  useful  Tra- 
wls in  the  East.  ‘ Travellers  concur  in  calling  this 
wretched  place  (Rihah)  Jericho,  though  I am  not 
aware  that  any  reason  exists  for  believing  that  it 
occupies  the  site  of  the  ancient  city  of  that  name. 
Here  are  no  ruins  to  indicate  the  former  presence 
cf  a considerable  town ; nothing  but  the  tower  to 
induce  a suspicion  that  anything  much  better 
than  the  present  filthy  village  ever  existed  upon 
the  spot.  The  situation  does  not  agree  with  that 
of  the  ancient  city,  which,  according  to  Josephus, 
was  close  to  the  mountain,  and  nearer,  by  several 
miles,  to  Jerusalem.  The  ruins  already  described, 
at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  where  the  Jerusalem 
road  enters  the  plain,  not  improbably  mark  the 
site  of  ancient  Jericho.  Their  distance  from  the 
Jordan  and  from  Jerusalem  agrees  well  with  that 
of  the  Jericho  of  the  age  of  Josephus,  which  he 
states  to  have  been  sixty  furlongs  from  the  river, 
and  one  hundred  and  fifty  from  the  capital. 
This  site  also  satisfies  his  description  in  being 
situated  “ in  the  plain,  while  a naked  and  barren 
mountain  hangs  over  it.”  The  exact  position 
of  the  ancient  city  is  not  definitely  stated  in  the 
Bible,  though  it  is  always  spoken  of  as  at  a con- 
siderable distance  from  the  Jordan.  The  position 
at  the  foot  of  the  mountain  was  in  accordance 
with  the  customs  of  that  early  age,  and  of  Pa- 
lestine especially,  where  nearly  all  the  cities  of 
which  mention  is  made  in  its  early  history  occu- 
pied strong  positions,  either  embracing  or  adjacent 
to  a mountain  elevation,  on  which  a citadel  was 
erected  for  defence.  The  language  of  Josephus 
seems,  indeed,  to  imply  that  Jericho,  in  his  day, 
did  not  occupy  the  same  ground  as  the  city  de- 
stroyed by  Joshua,  and  that  the  description  quoted 
above  refers  to  the  later  city.  He  says,  in  de- 
scribing the  fountain  healed  by  Elisha,  that  it 
arises  near  the  old  city,  which  Joshua,  the  son 
of  Nun,  took  language  which  must,  perhaps, 
be  understood  to  imply  that  the  later  town  occu- 
pied a different  site.  It  was  highly  probable, 
after  the  terrible  malediction  pronounced  against 
those  who  should  rebuild  the  accursed  place,  that 
some  change  should  be  made  in  the  location, 
though  not  so  great,  as  to  lose  the  peculiar  advan- 
tages of  the  ancient  site.  Kiel,  the  Bethelite,  as 
we  know,  braved  the  prophetic  curse,  and  rebuilt 
the  city  upon  its  old  foundations ; but  the  same 
cause  might  still  operate,  and  with  additional 
effect,  after  his  punishment,  to  induce  jnore  pious 
or  scrupulous  men  to  prefer  a place  less  obnoxious 
to  the  divine  displeasure.  Both  sites,  that  near 
the  fountain  and  the  one  upon  the  Jerusalem 
road,  give  evidence  of  having  been  anciently 
covered  with  buildings.  They  were  probably 
occupied  successively,  or  both  may  have  been 
embraced  at  once  within  the  compass  of  a large 
city  and  its  suburbs.  In  order  to  render  the 
several  notices  of  Jericho  contained  in  the  Bible 
consistent  with  each  other,  and  with  the  descrip- 
tion in  Joseohus,  it  seems  necessary  to  suppose 
more  than  one  change  of  situation.  Joshua 
“ burned  the  chy  with  fire,  and  all  that  was 
therein,”  and  said,  “ Cursed  be  the  man  before  the 
Lord  that  riseth  up  and  buildeth  this  city  Je- 
richo : he  shall  lav  the  foundation  thereof  in  his 
first-born,  and  in  his  youngest  son  shall  he  set  up 
the  gates  thereof.”  It  was  about  520  years  after 
this,  in  the  impious  reign  of  Ahab,  that  Hiel  re- 
built the  city,  and  suffered  the  fearful  penalty 


that  had  been  denounced  against  B'-.ch  an  act  at 
daring  impiety.  “He  laid  the  foundation  thereof  i» 
Abiram  his  first-born,  and  set  up  the  gates  thereof 
in  his  youngest  son  Segub,  according  to  the  word 
of  the  Lord  which  he  spake  by  Joshua,  the  son  of 
Nun”  (1  Kings  xvi.  31).  Previous  to  this,  how- 
ever, and  almost  immediately  after  the  death  ol 
Joshua,  reference  is  made  to  the  city  of  palm- 
trees,  which  was  captured  by  Eglon,  king  of 
Moab  (Judg.  iii.  13),  and  it  was  nearly  100 
years  before  the  rebuilding  by  Hiel  that  David’s 
ambassadors,  who  had  been  so  grievously  insulted 
by  the  king  of  Ammon,  were  directed  “ to  tarry  at 
Jericho  until  their  beards  were  grown”  (2  Sam.  x. 

5).  We  are  to  infer,  from  these  several  state- 
ments, that  Jericho  was  rebuilt  soon  after  its  de- 
struction by  Joshua,  but  not  upon  its  ancient 
foundations — a change  by  which  the  penalty  was 
avoided.  The  malediction  had  probably  fallen 
into  oblivion,  or,  if  remembered,  was  likely  to  be 
treated  with  contempt  in  the  infidel  and  idola- 
trous age  when  Hiel  restored  the  original  city. 

It  was,  according  to  the  common  chronology, 
about  thirty  years  subsequent  to  this  restoration 
that  Elisha  healed  the  fountain  from  which  the 
city  derived  its  supply  of  water.  It  is  probable  that 
the  accursed  site  had  been  again  abandoned,  upon 
the  catastrophe  that  followed  the  impious  attempt 
of  Hiel,  for  the  existing  city  seems  to  have  been 
at  some  distance  from  “ the  spring  of  the  waters,” 
which  produced  sterility  and  disease  (2  Kings  ii. 

21).  It  may  have  occupied,  at  the  era  ol 
Elisha's  miracle,  the  same  site  as  it  did  when 
visited  by  our  Saviour,  and  described  by  J v- 
sephus.’ 

JEROBOAM  (pViy. ; Sept.  Te/w/3o<f,u),  son 
of  Nebat,  and  first  king  of  Israel,  who  became 
king  b.c.  975,  and  reigned  22  years. 

He  was  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  the  son 
of  a widow  named  Zeruiah,  when  he  was  no- 
ticed by  Solomon  as  a clever  and  active  young 
man,  and  was  appointed  one  of  the  superin- 
tendents of  the  works  which  that  magnificent  king  ! 
was  carrying  on  at  Jerusalem.  This  appointment, 
the  reward  of  his  merits,  might  have  satisfied  his 
ambition  had  not  the  declaration  of  the  prophet 
Ahijah  given  him  higher  hopes.  When  informed 
that,  by  the  divine  appointment,  he  was  to  become 
king  over  the  ten  tribes  about  to  be  rent  from  the 
house  of  David,  he  was  not  content  to  wait  pa- 
tiently for  the  death  of  Solomon,  but  began  to 
form  plots  and  conspiracies,  the  discovery  or 
which  constrained  him  to  flee  to  Egypt  to  escape 
condign  punishment.  The  king  of  that  country 
was  but  too  ready  to  encourage  one  whose  success- 
must  necessarily  weaken  the  kingdom  which  nad 
become  great  and  formidable  under  David  aiie 
Solomon,  and  which  had  already  pushed  its  iV->p- 
tier  to  the  Red  Sea  (1  Kings  xi.  20-40). 

When  Solomon  died,  the  ten  tribes  sent  to  call 
Jeroboam  from  Egypt;  and  he  appears  to  nave 
headed  the  deputation  which  came  before  the  sou 
of  Solomon  with  a demand  of  new  securit  ies  for  the 
rights  which  the  measures  of  the  late  king  had  com- 
promised. It  may  somewhat  excuse  the  harsh  an- 
swer of  Rehoboam,  that  the  demand  was  urged  by 
a body  of  men  headed  by  one  whose  pretensions 
were  so  well  known  and  so  odious  to  me  house  of 
David.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  in  making  theii 
applications  tnus  offensively,  they  struck  the  firs: 


JEROBOAM. 


JERUSALEM. 


8ft 


blow ; although  it  is  possible  that  they,  in  the 
first  instance,  intended  to  use  the  presence  of  Jero- 
boam for  no  other  purpose  than  to  frighten  the 
king  into  compliance.  The  imprudent  answer  of 
Rehoboam  rendered  a revolution  inevitable,  and 
Jeroboam  was  then  called  to  reign  over  the  ten 
tribes,  by  the  style  of  ‘ King  of  Israel’  (1  Kings 
xii.  1-20). 

The  general  course  of  his  conduct  on  the  throne 
nas  already  been  indicated  in  the  article  Israel, 
and  need  not  be  repeated  in  this  place.  The 
leading  object  of  his  policy  was  to  widen  the 
breach  between  the  two  kingdoms,  and  to  rend 
asunder  those  common  interests  among  all  the 
descendants  of  Jacob,  which  it  was  one  great 
object  of  the  law  to  combine  and  interlace.  To 
this  end  he  scrupled  not  to  sacrifice  the  most 
sacred  and  inviolable  interests  and  obligations  of 
the  covenant  people,  by  forbidding  his  subjects  to 
resort  to  the  one  temple  and  altar  of  Jehovah  at 
Jerusalem,  and  by  establishing  shrines  at  Dan  and 
Beth-el — the  extremities  of  his  kingdom — where 
‘ golden  calves’  were  set  up  as  the  symbols  of 
Jehovah,  to  which  the  people  were  enjoined  to 
resort  and  bring  their  offerings.  The  pontifi- 
cate of  the  new  establishment  he  united  to  his 
crown,  in  imitation  of  the  Egyptian  kings.  He 
was  officiating  in  that  capacity  at  Beth-el,  offering 
incense,  when  a prophet  appeared,  and  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  announced  a coming  time,  as 
yet  far  off,  in  which  a king  of  the  house  of  David, 
Josiah  by  name,  should  burn  upon  that  unholy 
altar  the  bones  of  its  ministers.  He  was  then 
preparing  to  verify,  by  a commissioned  prodigy, 
i he  truth  of  the  oracle  he  had  delivered,  when  the 
King  attempted  to  arrest  him,  but  \yas  smitten 
with  palsy  in  the  arm  he  stretched  forth.  At  the 
same  moment  the  threatened  prodigy  took  place, 
(he  altar  was  rent  asunder,  and  the  ashes  strewed 
ihr  around.  This  measure  had,  however,  no 
abiding  effect.  The  policy  on  which  he  acted 
lay  too  deep  in  what  he  deemed  the  vital  interests 
of  his  separate  kingdom,  to  be  even  thus  aban- 
doned : and  the  force  of  the  considerations  which 
determined  his  conduct  may  in  part  be  appre- 
ciated from  the  fact  that  no  subsequent  king  of 
Israel,  however  well  disposed  in  other  respects, 
ever  ventured  to  lay  a finger  on  this  schismatical 
establishment.  Hence  ‘ the  sin  of  Jeroboam  the 
son  of  Nebat,  wherewith  he  sinned  and  made 
Israel  to  sin,’  became  a standing  phrase  in  de- 
scribing that  iniquity  from  which  no  king  of 
Israel  departed  (1  Kings  xii.  25-33  ; xiii.). 

The  contumacy  of  Jeroboam  eventually  brought 
upon  him  the  doom  which  he  probably  dreaded 
beyond  all  others — the  speedy  extinction  of  the 
dynasty  which  he  had  taken  so  much  pains  and 
incurred  so  much  guilt  to  establish  on  firm 
foundations.  His  son  Abijah  being  sick,  he  sent 
his  wife  disguised  to  consult  the  prophet  Ahijah, 
who  had  predicted  that  he  should  be  king  of 
Israel.  The  prophet,  although  he  had  become 
blind  with  age,  knew  the  queen,  and  saluted  her 
with — 4 Come  in,  thou  wife  of  Jeroboam,  for  I 
am  sent  to  thee  with  heavy  tidings.’  These  were 
not  merely  that  the  son  should  die — for  that  was 
intended  in  mercy  to  one  who  alone,  of  all  the 
house  of  Jeroboam,  had  remained  faithful  to  his 
God,  and  was  the  only  one  who  should  obtain 
an  honoured  grave — but  that  his  race  should 
be  violently  and  utterly  extinguished  : e I will 


take  away  the  remnant  of  the  house  of  Jtroboam 
as  a man  taketh  away  dung,  till  it  be  all  gone  ’ 
(1  Kings  xiv.  1-18). 

The  son  died  so  soon  as  the  mother  crossed  the 
threshold  on  her  return ; and  as  the  death  of 
Jeroboam  himself  is  the  next  event  recorded,  it 
would  seem  that  he  did  not  long  survive  his  son. 
He  died  in  b.c.  951  (1  Kings  xiv.  20). 

Jeroboam  was  perhaps  a less  remarkable  man 
than  the  circumstance  of  his  being  the  founder  of 
a new  kingdom  might  lead  us  to  expect.  The 
tribes  would  have  revolted  without  him  ; and  he 
was  chosen  king  merely  because  he  had  been 
pointed  out  by  previous  circumstances.  His 
government  exhibits  but  one  idea — that  of  raising 
a barrier  against  the  re-union  of  the  tribes.  Of 
this  idea  he  was  the  slave  and  victim  ; and 
although  the  barrier  which  he  raised  was  effectual 
for  its  purpose,  it  only  served  to  show  the  weak- 
ness of  the  man  who  could  deem  needful  the  pro- 
tection for  his  separate  interests  which  such  a 
barrier  offered. 

2.  JEROBOAM,  thirteenth  king  of  Israel,  son 
of  Joash,  whom,  in  b.c.  824,  he  succeeded  on  the 
throne,  and  reigned  forty-one  years.  He  followed 
the  example  of  the  first  Jeroboam  in  keeping  up 
the  idolatry  of  the  golden  calves.  Nevertheless 
the  Lord  had  pity  upon  Israel,  the  time  of  its 
ruin  was  not  yet  come,  and  this  reign  was  long 
and  flourishing.  Jeroboam  brought  to  a success- 
ful result  the  wars  which  his  father  had  under- 
taken, and  was  always  victorious  over  the  Syrians. 
He  even  took  their  chief  cities  of  Damascus  and 
Hamath,  which  had  formerly  been  subject  to  the 
scept.ie  of  David,  and  restored  to  the  realm  of 
Israel  the  ancient  eastern  limits  from  Lebanon  to 
the  Dead  Sea.  He  died  in  b.c.  783  (2  Kings 
xiii.  15 ; xiv.  16,  23-29). 

The  Scriptural  account  of  this  reign  is  too  short 
to  enable  us  to  judge  of  the  character  of  a prince 
under  whom  the  kingdom  of  Israel  seems  to  have 
leached  a degree  of  prosperity  which  it  had  never 
before  enjoyed,  and  was  not  able  long  to  preserve. 
JERUB-BAAL.  [Gideon.] 

JERUSALEM  habitation  of  peace, 

Sept.  '\epovaa\yp.  ; Vulg.  Iiierosolyma ; Arab. 
El  Ends'),  the  Jewish  capital  of  Palestine.  It  is 
mentioned  very  early  in  Scripture,  being  usually 
supposed  to  be  the  Salem  of  which  Melchizedek 
was  king.  Such  was  the  opinion  of  the  Jews 
themselves:  for  Josephus,  who  calls  Melchizedek 
king  of  Solyma,  observes  that  this  name  was  after- 
wards changed  into  Iiierosolyma.  All  the  fathers 
of  the  church,  Jerome  excepted,  agree  with  Jose- 
phus, and  understand  Jerusalem  and  Salem  to 
indicate  the  same  place.  The  Psalmist  also  says 
(lxxvi.  2)  : 4 In  Salem  is  his  tabernacle,  and  his 
dwelling-place  in  Sion.’ 

The  mountain  of  the  land  of  Moriah,  which 
Abraham  (Gen.  xxii.  2)  reached  on  the  third  day 
from  Beersheba,  there  to  offer  Isaac,  is,  according 
to  Josephus  (Antiq.  i.  13.  2),  the  mountain  on 
which  Solomon  afterwards  built  the  temple  (2 
Cliron.  iii.  1). 

The  name  Jerusalem  first  occurs  in  Josh.  x.  1, 
where  Adoni-zedek,  king  of  Jerusalem,  is  men- 
tioned as  having  entered  into  an  alliance  with 
other  kings  against  Joshua,  by  whom  they  were 
all  overcome  (comp.  Josh.  xii.  10). 

In  drawing  the  northern  border  of  Judah,  we  find 


so 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


Jerusalem  again  mentioned  (Josh.  xv.  8 ; comp. 
Josh,  xviii.  16).  This  border  ran  through  the 
valley  of  Ben  Hinnom  ; the  country  on  the  south 
of  it,  as  Bethlehem,  belonged  to  Judah  ; but  the 
mountain  of  Zion,  forming  the  northern  wall  of 
the  valley,  and  occupied  by  the  Jebusites,  apper- 
tained to  Benjamin.  Among  the  cities  of  Benja- 
min, therefore,  is  also  mentioned  (Josh,  xviii.  28) 
‘ Jebus,  which  is  Jerusalem  1 (comp.  Judg.  xix.  10 ; 
1 Chron.  xi.  4). 

After  the  death  of  Joshua,  when  there  remained 
for  the  children  of  Israel  much  to  conquer  in 
Canaan,  the  Lord  directed  Judah  to  fight  against 
the  Canaanites  ; and  they  took  Jerusalem,  smote 
it  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  set  it  on  fire 
(Judg.  i.  1-8).  After  that,  the  Judahites  and 
the  Benjamites  dwelt  with  the  Jebusites  at  Jeru- 
salem ; for  it  is  recorded  (Josh.  xv.  63)  that  the 


children  of  Judah  could  not  drive  out  the  >ebu- 
sites  inhabiting  Jerusalem  ; and  we  are  farther 
informed  (Judg.  i.  21)  that  the  children  of  Benja 
min  did  not  expel  them  from  Jerusalem.  Probably 
the  Jebusites  were  removed  by  Judah  only  from 
the  lower  city,  but  kept  possession  of  the  moun- 
tain of  Zion,  which  David  conquered  at  a later 
period.  Jerusalem  is  not  again  mentioned  till 
the  time  of  Saul,  when  it  is  stated  (1  Sam.  xvii. 
54)  that  David  took  the  head  of  Goliath  and 
brought  it  to  Jerusalem.  After  David,  who  had 
previously  reigned  over  Judah  alone  in  Hebron, 
was  called  to  rule  over  all  Israel,  he  led  his 
forces  against  the  Jebusites,  and  conquered  the 
castle  of  Zion,  which  Joab  first  scaled  (1  Sam. 
v.  5-9;  1 Chron.  xii.  4-8).  He  then  fixed  hir 
abode  on  this  mountain,  and  called  it  ‘ the  citj 
of  David.’  Thither  he  carried  the  ark  of  thecov* 


*r.vvs 


363.  [Jerusalem.] 


nant ; and  there  he  built  unto  the  Lord  an  altar 
in  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah  the  Jebusite,  on 
the  place  where  the  angel  stood  who  threatened 
Jerusalem  with  pestilence  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  15-25). 
But  David  could  not  build  a house  unto  the 
name  of  the  Lord  his  God  for  the  wars  which 
were  about  him  on  every  side  (2  Sam.  vii.  13; 
1 Kings  v.  3-5).  Still  the  Lord  announced  to 
him,  through  the  prophet  Nathan  (2  Sam.  vii 
10),  ‘ I will  appoint  a place  for  my  people 
Israel,  and  will  plant  them,  that  they  may  dwell 
in  a place  of  their  own  and  move  no  more.’  From 
this  it  would  seem  that  even  David  had,  then  at 
least,  no  assurance  that  Jerusalem  in  particular 
was  to  be  the  place  which  had  so  often  been  spoken 
of  as  that  which  God  would  choose  for  the  central 
seat  of  the  theocratical  monarchy,  and  which  it 
became  after  Solomon's  temple  had  been  built. 

The  reasons  which  led  David  to  fix  upon  Jeru- 
salem as  the  metropolis  of  his  kingdom  have  been 
alluded  to  elsewhere  [Isiiaeu  ; Judah];  being, 


chiefly,  that  it  was  in  his  own  tribe  of  Judah,  In 
which  his  influence  was  the  strongest,  while  it 
was  the  nearest  to  the  other  tribes  of  any  site  ha 
could  have  chosen  in  Judah.  The  peculiar 
strength  also  of  the  situation,  enclosed  on  three 
sides  by  a natural  trench  of  valleys,  could  not  be 
without  weight.  Its  great  strength,  according  to 
the  military  notions  of  that  age,  is  shown  by  the 
length  of  time  the  Jebusites  were  able  to  keep 
possession  of  it  against  the  force  of  all  Israel. 
David  was  doubtless  the  best,  judge  of  his  own 
interests  in  this  matter;  but  if  those  interests  had 
not  come  into  play,  and  if  he  had  only  considered 
the  best  situation  for  a metropolis  of  the  whole 
kingdom,  it  is  doubtful  whether  a more  centrical 
situation  with  respect  to  all  the  tribes  would  not 
have  been  far  preferable,  especially  as  the  law  re- 
quired all  the  adult  males  of  Israel  to  repair  three 
times  in  the  year  to  the  place  of  the  Divine  pre- 
sence. Indeed,  the  burdensome  character  of  this 
obligation  to  the  more  distant  tribes,  seems  to  have 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


0) 


oeen  one  of  the  excuses  for  the  revolt  of  the  ten 
‘jibes  ; as  it  certainly  was  for  the  establishment  of 
schismatic  altars  in  Dan  and  Betli-el  (1  Kings  xii. 
28).  Many  travellers  have  suggested  that  Samaria, 
which  afterwards  became  the  metropolis  of  the 
separated  kingdom,  was  far  preferable  to  Jerusalem 
for  the  site  of  a capital  city  : and  its  centrical 
situation  would  also  have  been  in  its  favour  as  a 
metropolis  for  all  the  tribes.  But  as  the  choice  of 
David  was  subsequently  confirmed  by  the  Divine 
appointment,  which  made  Mount  Moriah  the  site 
of  the  temple,  we  are  bound  to  consider  the  choice 
as  having  been  providentially  ordered  with  refer- 
ence to  the  contingencies  that  afterwards  arose, 
by  which  Jerusalem  was  made  the  capital  ot  the 
separate  kingdom  of  Judah,  for  which  it  was  well 
adapted. 

The  promise  made  to  David  received  its  accom- 
plishment  when  Solomon  built  his  temple  upon 
Mount  Moriah.  By  him  and  his  father  Jerusalem 
had  been  made  the  imperial  residence  of  the  king 
of  all  Israel : and  the  temple,  often  called  * the 
house  of  Jehovah,’  constituted  it  at  the  same  time 
the  residence  of  the  King  of  kings,  the  supreme 
head  of  the  theocratical  state,  whose  vicegerents 
the  human  kings  were  taught  to  regard  them- 
selves. It  now  belonged,  even  less  than  a town 
of  the  Levites,  to  a particular  tribe  : it  was  the 
centre  Of  all  civil  and  religious  affairs,  the  very 
place  of  which  Moses  spoke,  Deut.  xii.  5 : ‘ The 
place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose  out 
of  all  your  tribes  to  put  his  name  there,  even  unto 
his  habitation  shall  ye  seek,  and  thither  thou 
shalt  come  ’ (comp.  ix.  6 ; xiii.  14  ; xiv.  23  ; xvi. 
11-16  ; Ps.  cxxii.). 

Jerusalem  was  not,  indeed,  politically  im- 
portant : it  was  not  the  capital  of  a powerful 
empire  directing  the  affairs  of  other  states,  but  it 
stood  high  in  the  bright  prospects  foretold  by 
David  when  declaring  his  faith  in  the  coming  of 
a Messiah  (Ps.  ii.  6;  1.  2;  lxxxvii. ; cii.  16-22; 
cx.  2).  In  . all  these  passages  the  name  Zion  is 
used,  which,  although  properly  applied  to  the 
southernmost  part  of  the  site  of  Jerusalem,  is  often 
in  Scripture  put.  poetically  for  Jerusalem  gene- 
rally, and  sometimes  for  Mount  Moriah  and  its 
temple. 

The  importance  and  splendour  of  Jerusalem 
were  considerably  lessened  after  the  death  of  Solo- 
mon ; under  whose  son,  Rehoboam,  ten  of  the 
tribes  rebelled,  Judah  and  Benjamin  only  re- 
maining in  their  allegiance.  Jerusalem  was  then 
only  the  capital  of  the  very  small  state  of  Judah. 
And  when  Jeroboam  instituted  the  worship  of 
golden  calves  in  Beth-el  and  Dan,  the  ten  tribes 
went  no  longer  up  to  Jerusalem  to  worship  and 
sacrifice  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  (1  Kings  xii. 
26-30). 

After  this  time  the  history  of  Jerusalem  is  con- 
tinued in  the  history  of  Judah,  for  which  the 
second  book  of  the  Kings  and  of  the  Chronicles 
are  the  principal  sources  of  information. 

After  the  time  of  Solomon,  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  was  almost  alternately  ruled  by  good 
kings,  ‘ who  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight 
of  the  Lord,’  and  by  such  as  were  idolatrous  and 
evil  disposed  ; and  the  leign  of  the  same  king 
often  varied,  and  was  by  turns  good  or  evil.  The 
condition  of  the  kingdom,  and  of  Jerusalem  in 
particular  as  its  metropolis,  was  very  much 
affected  by  these  mutations.  Under  good  kings 


the  city  flourished,  and  under  bad  kings  it 
suffered  greatly.  Under  Rehoboam  (b.c.  973) 
it  was  conquered  by  Shishak,  king  of  Egypt, 
who  pillaged  the  treasures  of  the  temple  (2 
Chron.  xii.  9).  Under  Amaziah  it  was  taken 
by  Jehoash,  king  of  Israel,  who  broke  down  400 
cubits  of  the  wall  of  the  city,  and  took  all  the 
gold  and  silver,  and  all  the  vessels  that  were 
found  in  the  temple  (2  Kings  xiv.  13,  14) 
Uzziah,  son  of  Amaziah,  who  at  first  reigned  well 
built  towers  in  Jerusalem  at  the  corner-gate,  at 
the  valley-gate,  and  at  the  turning  of  the  wall, 
and  fortified  them  (2  Chron.  xvi.  9).  His  son, 
Jotham,  built  the  high  gate  of  the  temple,  and 
reared  up  many  other  structures  (2  Chron.  xvii. 
3,  4).  Hezekiah  (b.c.  728)  added  to  the  other 
honours  of  his  reign  that  of  an  improver  of  Jeru- 
salem. His  most  eminent  work  in  that  cha- 
racter was  the  stopping  of  the  upper  course  of 
Gihon,  and  bringing  its  waters  by  a subterraneous 
aqueduct  to  the  west  side  of  the  city  (2  Chron. 
xxxii.  30).  This  work  is  inferred,  from  2 Kings 
xx.,  to  have  been  of  great  importance  to  Jeru- 
salem, as  it  cut  off  a supply  of  water  from  any 
besieging  enemy,  and  bestowed  it  upon  the  inha- 
bitants of  the  city.  Hezekiah's  son,  Manasseh, 
in  his  later  and  best  years,  built  a strong  and 
very  high  wall  on  the  west-side  of  Jerusalem 
(2  Chron,  xxxiii.  14).  The  works  in  the  city 
connected  with  the  names  of  the  succeeding  kings 
of  Judah  were,  so  far  as  recorded,  confined  to  the 
defilement  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  by  bad  kings, 
and  its  purgation  by  good  kings,  till  about  100 
years  after  Manasseh,  when,  for  the  abounding 
iniquities  of  the  nation,  the  city  and  temple  were 
abandoned  to  destruction.  Alter  a siege  of  three 
years,  Jerusalem  was  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
who  razed  its  walls,  and  destroyed  its  temple  and 
palaces  with  fire  (2  Kings  xxv. ; 2 Chron.  xxxvi. ; 
Jer.  xxxix.).  Thus  w-as  Jerusalem  smitten  with 
the  calamity  which  Moses  had  prophesied  would 
befal  it,  if  the  people  would  not  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord,  but  broke  bis  covenant 
(Lev.  xxvi.  14  ; Deut.  xxviii.). 

The  ten  tribes  forming  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
had  been  already  upwards  of  130  years  trans- 
ported to  Assyria,  when  Judah  also  was  exiled  to 
Babylon.  The  castle  of  David,  the  temple  of 
Solomon,  and  the  entire  city,  lay  in  ruins,  and 
to  all  appearance  there  was  an  end  of  the 
people  as  well  as  of  the  holy  city,  which  the 
Lord  had  chosen  to  himself.  But  God,  before 
whom  a thousand  years  are  as  one  day,  gave  to 
the  afflicted  people  a glimpse  beyond  the  present 
calamity  and  retributive  judgment,  into  a dis- 
tant futurity.  The  same  prophets  who  foretold 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  also  announced  the 
consolations  of  a coming  time. 

Moses  had  long  before  predicted  that  if  in  the 
land  of  their  captivity  they  repented  of  their  evil, 
they  should  be  brought  back  again  to  the  land 
out  of  which  they  had  been  cast  (Deut.  xxx. 
1-5;  comp.  1 Kings  viii.  46-53;  Neh.  i.  8,  9). 
The  Lord  also,  through  Isaiah,  condescended  to 
point  out  the  agency  through  which  the  restora- 
tion of  the  holy  city  was  to  be  accomplished, 
and  even  named  long  before  his  birth  the  very 
person,  Cyrus,  under  whose  ordeis  this  was 
to  be  effected.  ‘ Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  Cy- 
rus : He  is  my  shepherd  and  shall  perform  all 
mv  pleasure,  even  taying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou 


92 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


shalt  he  built ; and  to  the  temple,  Thy  founda- 
tion shall  be  laid  ’ (Isa.  xliv.  28  ; comp.  Jer.  iii. 
2,  7,  8;  xxiii.  3 ; xxxi.  10;  xxxii.  36,  37). 

Among  the  remarkably  precise  indications 
should  be  mentioned  that  in  which  Jeremiah 
(xxv.  9-12)  limits  the  duration  of  Judah's  cap- 
tivity to  70  years. 

These  encouragements  were  continued  through 
the  prophets,  who  themselves  shared  the  captivity. 
Of  this  number  was  Daniel,  who  thus  prayed  : 4 O 
Lord,  let  thine  anger  be  turned  away  from  thy  city 
Jerusalem,  thy  holy  mountain : because  for  our 
sins,  and  for  the  iniquities  of  our  fathers,  Jeru- 
salem and  thy  people  are  become  a reproach  to 
all  that  are  about  us.  O Lord,  hear,  forgive ; 
defer  not,  for  thine  own  sake,  for  thy  city  and  thy 
people  are  called  by  thy  name’  (Dan.  ix.  16. 19). 
While  the  prophet  was  yet  speaking  it  was  re- 
vealed to  him,  that  the  streets  and  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem  should  be  built  again,  even  in  trou- 
blous times  (ver.  25). 

Daniel  lived  to  see  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  king  of 
Persia  (Dan.  x.  i.),  and  the  fulfilment  of  his 
prayer.  It  was  in  the  year  b.c.  536,  ‘ in  the  first 
year  of  Cyrus,’  that,  in  accomplishment  of  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  the  Lord  stirred  up  the 
spirit  of  this  prince,  who  made  a proclamation 
throughout  all  his  kingdom,  expressed  in  these 
remarkable  words  : ‘The  Lord  God  of  heaven  hath 
given  me  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  and  he 
has  charged  me  to  build  him  a house  at  Jeru- 
salem, xohich  is  in  Judah.  Who  is  there  among 
you  of  all  his  people?  his  God  be  with  him,  and 
let  him  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  build  the  house 
of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel 1 (Ezra  i.  2,  3).  This 
important  call  was  answered  by  a considerable 
number  of  persons,  particularly  priests  and  Le- 
vites ; and  the  many  who  declined  to  quit  their 
nouses  and  possessions  in  Babylonia,  committed 
valuable  gifts  to  the  hands  of  their  more  zealous 
brethren.  Cyrus  also  caused  the  sacred  vessels 
of  gold  and  silver  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had 
taken  from  the  temple  to  be  restored  to  Shesh- 
bazzar,  the  prince  of  Judah,  who  took  them  to 
Jerusalem,  followed  by  42,360  people,  beside  their 
servants,  of  whom  there  were  7337’  (Ezra  i.  5-11). 

On  their  arrival  at  Jerusalem  they  contributed 
according  to  their  ability  to  rebuild  the  temple;' 
Jeshua,  the  priest,  and  Zerubbabel,  reared  up  an 
altar  to  offer  burnt-offerings  thereon  ; and  when  in 
the  following  year  the  foundation  was  laid  of  the 
new  house  of  God,  ‘ the  people  shouted  for  joy, 
but  many  of  the  Levites  who  had  seen  the  first 
temple,  wept  with  a loud  voice’  (Ezra  iii.  2,  12). 
When  the  Samaritans  expressed  a wisli  to  share 
^ in  the  pious  labour,  Zerubbabel  declined  the 
offer  ; and  in  revenge  the  Samaritans  sent  a de- 
putation to  king  Artaxerxes  of  Persia,  carrying 
a nresentment  in  which  Jerusalem  was  described 
as  a rebellious  city  of  old  time,  which,  if  re- 
built, and  its  walls  set  up  again,  would  not  pay 
toll,  tribute,  and  custom,  and  would  thus  enda- 
mage the  public  revenue.  The  deputation  suc- 
ceeded, and  Artaxerxes  ordered  that  the  building 
of  the  temple  should  cease.  The  interruption  thus 
caused  lasted  to  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of 
Darius  (Ezra  iv.  24),  when  Zerubbabel  and 
Jeshua,  supported  by  the  prophets  Haggai  and 
Zechariah,  again  resumed  the  work,  and  would 
not  cease  though  cautioned  by  the  Persian  go- 
vernor of  Judaea.  On  the  matter  coming  before 


Darius  Hystaspis,  and  the  Jews  reminding  hiifc 
of  the  permission  given  by  Cyrus,  he  decided  in 
their  favour,  and  also  ordered  that  the  expanse* 
of  the  work  should  be  defrayed  out  of  the  public 
revenue  (Ezra  vi.  8).  In  the  sixth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Darius  the  temple  was  finished,  when 
they  kept  the  Feast  of  Dedication  with  great  joy, 
and  next  celebrated  the  Passover  (Ezra  vi.  15,  16, 
19).  Afterwards,  in  the  seventh  year  of  the  se- 
cond Artaxerxes,  Ezra,  a descendant  of  Aaron, 
came  up  to  Jerusalem,  accompanied  by  a large 
number  of  Jews  who  had  remained  in  Babylon. 
He  was  highly  patronised  by  the  king,  who  not 
only  made  him  a large  present  in  gold  and  silver, 
but  published  a decree  enjoining  all  treasurers 
of  Judaea  speedily  to  do  whatever  Ezra  should 
require  of  them  ; allowing  him  to  collect  money 
throughout  the  whole  province  of  Babylon  for 
the  wants  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem ; and  also 
giving  him  full  power  to  appoint  magistrates  in 
his  country  to  judge  the  people  (Ezra  vii.  viii.) 
At  a later  period,  in  the  twentieth  year  of  king 
Artaxerxes,  Nehemiah,  who  was  his  cupbearer, 
obtained  permission  to  proceed  to  Jerusalem,  and 
to  complete  the  rebuilding  of  the  city  and  its  wall, 
which  lie  happily  accomplished,  despite  of  all  the 
opposition  which  he  received  from  the  enemies  ol 
Israel  (Neh.  i.  ii.  iv.  vi.).  The  city  was  then  ca- 
pacious and  large,  but  the  people  in  it  were  few, 
and  many  houses  lay  still  in  ruins  (Neh.  vii.  4). 
At  Jerusalem  dwelt  the  rulers  of  the  people  and 
‘ certain  of  the  children  of  Judah  and  of  the 
children  of  Benjamin but  it  was  now  deter- 
mined that  the  rest  of  the  people  should  cast  lots 
to  bring  one  of  ten  to  the  capital  (Neh.  xi.  1-4). 
All  strangers,  Samaritans,  Ammonites,  Moabites, 
&c.,  were  removed,  to  keep  the  chosen  people 
from  pollution;  ministers  were  appointed  to  the 
temple,  and  the  service  was  performed  according 
to  the  law  of  Moses  (Ezra  x. ; Neh.  viii.,  x.,  xii., 
xi i i .).  Of  the  Jerusalem  thus  by  such  great  and 
long-continued  exertions  restored,  very  splendid 
prophecies  were  uttered  by  those  prophets  who 
liourished  after  the  exile  : the  general  purport  of 
which  was  to  describe  the  temple  and  city  as 
destined  to  be  glorified  far  beyond  the  former, 
by  the  advent  of  the  long  and  eagerly  expected 
Messiah,  1 the  desire  of  all  nations  ’ (Zech.  ix.  9 ; 
xii.  10;  xiii.  3;  Hagg.  ii.  6,  7;  Mai.  iii.  11). 

Thus  far  the  Old  Testament  has  been  our 
guide  in  the  notices  of  Jerusalem.  For  what  fol- 
lows, down  to  its  destruction  fry  the  Romans,  we 
must  draw  chiefly  upon  Josephus,  and  the  b^oks 
of  the  Maccabees.  The  difficulty  here,  as  before,  4 
is  to  separate  what  properly  belongs  to  Jerusalem 
from  that  which  belongs  to  the  country  at  large. 
For  as  Jerusalem  was  invariably  affected  by 
whatever  movement  took  place  in  the  country  of 
which  it  was  the  capital,  its  history  might  be 
made,  and  often  has  been  made,  the  history  of 
Palestine. 

It  is  said  by  Josephus  (Antiq.  xi.  8),  that  when 
the  dominion  of  this  part  of  the  world  passed  from 
the  Persians  to  the  Greeks,  Alexander  the  Great 
advanced  against  Jerusalem  to  punish  it  for  the 
fidelity  to  the  Persians  which  it  had  manifested 
while  he  was  engaged  in  the  siege  of  Tyre 
His  hostile  purposes,  however,  were  averted  by 
the  appearance  of  the  high-priest  Jaddua  at  the 
head  of  a train  of  priests  in  their  sacred  vestments 
Alexander  recognised  in  him  the  figure  which  ia 


m 


JERUSALEM. 


i dream  had  encouraged  him  to  undertake  the 
sonquest  of  Asia.  He  therefore  treated  him  with 
respect  and  reverence,  spared  the  city  against 
which  his  wrath  had  been  kindled,  and  granted 
to  the  Jews  high  and  important  privileges.  The 
historian  adds  that  the  high-priest  failed  not  to 
ipprise  the  conqueror  of  those  prophecies  in  Da- 
niel by  which  his  successes  had  been  predicted. 
The  whole  of  this  story  is,  however,  liable  to  sus- 
picion, from  the  absence  of  any  notice  of  the  cir- 
cumstance in  the  histories  of  this  campaign  which 
we  possess. 

After  the  death  of  Alexander  at  Babylon 
(b.c.  324),  Ptolemy  surprised  Jerusalem  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  when  the  Jews  would  not  fight,  plun- 
dered the  city,  and  carried  away  a great  number 
of  the  inhabitants  to  Egypt,  where,  however,  from 
the  estimation  in  which  the  Jews  of  this  period 
were  held  as  citizens,  important  privileges  were 
bestowed  upon  them  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  1).  In 
the  contests  wnich  afterwards  followed  for  the 
possession  of  Syria  (including  Palestine),  Jeru- 
salem does  not  appear  to  have  been  directly  in- 
jured, and  was  even  spared  when  Ptolemy  gave 
up  Samaria,  Acco,  Joppa,  and  Gaza  to  pillage. 
The  contest  was  ended  by  the  treaty  in  b.c.  302, 
which  annexed  the  whole  of  Palestine,  together 
with  Arabia  Petraea  and  Coele-Syria,  to  Egypt. 
Under  easy  subjection  to  the  Ptolemies  the  Jews 
remained  in  much  tranquillity  for  more  than  a 
hundred  years,  in  which  the  principal  incident,  as 
regards  Jerusalem  itself,  was  the  visit  which  was 
paid  to  it,  in  b.c.  245,  by  Ptolemy  Euergetes,  on 
liis  return  from  his  victories  in  the  East.  He 
offered  many  sacrifices,  and  made  magnificent 
presents  to  the  temple.  In  the  wars  between 
Antiochus  the  Great  and  the  kings  of  Egypt, 
from  b c.  221  to  197,  Judaea  could  not  fail  to 
suffer  severely;  but  we  are  not  acquainted  with 
any  incident  in  which  Jerusalem  was  principally 
concerned,  till  the  alleged  visit  of  Ptolemy  Phi- 
lopator  in  b.c.  211.  He  offered  sacrifices,  and 
gave  rich  gifts  to  the  temple,  but  venturing  to 
enter  the  sanctuary,  in  spite  of  the  remonstrances 
of  the  high-priest,  he  was  seized  with  a super- 
natural dread,  and  fled  in  terror  from  the  place. 
It  i?  said  that  on  his  return  to  Egypt  he  vented 
his  rage  on  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  in  a very  bar- 
barous manner  [Alexandria].  But  the  whole 
aGcy  of  nis  visit  and  its  results  rests  upon  the 
sole  authority  of  the  third  book  of  Maccabees 
(chaps,  i.  and  ii.),  and  is  therefore  not  entitled  to 
implicit  credit.  Towards  the  end  of  this  war  the 
Jews  seemed  to  favour  the  cause  of  Antiochus  ; 
and  after  ne  had  subdued  the  neighbouring  coun- 
try, they  voluntarily  tendered  their  submission, 
and  rendered  their  assistance  in  expelling  the 
Egyptian  garrison  from  Mount  Zion.  For  this 
conduct  tney  were  rewarded  by  many  important 
privileges  by  Antiochus.  He  issued  decrees  di- 
recting, among  other  things,  that  the  outworks  of 
the  temple  should  be  completed,  and  that  all  the 
materials  for  needful  repairs  should  be  exempted 
from  taxes.  The  peculiar  sanctity  of  the  temple 
was  also  to  De  respected.  No  foreigner  was  to  pass 
the  sacreu  walls;  and  the  city  itself  was  to  be 
orotectea  from  pollution : it  being  strictly  for- 
oidden  trm  the  flesh  or  skins  of  any  beasts  which 
the  Jews  accounted  unclean  should  be  brought 
into  it  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  3.  3).  These  were  very 
aberal  concessions  to  what  the  king  himself  must 


JERUSALEM.  93 

have  regarded  as  the  prejudices  of  the  Jewiaa 
people. 

Under  their  new  masters  the  Jews  enjoyed  for  a 
time  nearly  a3  much  tranquillity  as  under  the 
generally  benign  and  liberal  government  of  the 
Ptolemies.  But  in  b.c.  17G,  Seleucus  Philopator, 
hearing  that  great  treasures  were  hoarded  up  in  the 
temple,  and  being  distressed  for  money  to  carry  on 
his  wars,  sent  his  treasurer,  Ileliodorus,  to  bring 
away  these  treasures.  But  this  personage  is  reported 
to  have  been  so  frightened. and  stricken  by  an  ap- 
parition that  he  relinquished  the  attempt ; and  Se- 
leucus  left  the  Jews  in  the  undisturbed  enjoyment 
of  their  rights  (2  Macc.  iii.  4-40  ; Joseph.  Antiq. 
xii.  3.  3).  His  brother  and  successor,  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  however,  was  of  another  mind.  He  took 
up  the  design  of  reducing  them  to  a conformity 
of  manners  and  religion  with  other  nations ; or, 
in  other  words,  of  abolishing  those  distinctive 
features  which  made  the  Jews  a peculiar  people, 
socially  separated  from  all  others.  This  design 
was  odious  to  the  great  body  of  the  people,  al- 
though there  were  many  among  the  higher  classes 
who  regarded  it  with  favour.  Of  this  way  of 
thinking  was  Menelaus,  whom  Antiochus  had 
made  high-priest,  and  who  was  expelled  by'  the 
orthodox  Jews  with  ignominy,  in  b.c.  169,  when 
they  heard  the  joyful  news  that  Antiochus  had 
been  slain  in  Egypt.  The  rumour  proved  un 
true,  and  Antiochus  on  his  return  punished  them 
by  plundering  and  profaning  the  temple.  Worse 
evils  befel  them  two  years  after  : for  Antiochus, 
out  of  humour  at  being  compelled  by  the  Ro- 
mans to  abandon  his  designs  upon  Egypt,  sent 
his  chief  collector  of  tribute,  Apollonius,  with  a 
detachment  of  22,000  men,  to  vent,  his  rage  on 
Jerusalem.  This  person  plundered  the  city,  and 
razed  its  walls,  with  the  stones  of  which  he  built  a 
citadel  that  commanded  the  temple  mount.  A 
statue  of  Jupiter  was  set  up  in  the  temple ; the 
peculiar  observances  of  the  Jewish  law  were  abo- 
lished ; and  a persecution  was  commenced  against 
all  who  adhered  to  these  observances,  and  refused 
to  sacrifice  to  idols.  Jerusalem  was  deserted  by 
priests  and  people,  and  the  daily  sacrifice  at  the 
altar  was  entirely  discontinued  (1  Macc.  i.  29- 
40;  2 Macc.  v.  24-26;  Joseph.  An  iq.  xii. 
5.  4). 

This  led  to  the  celebrated  revolt  of  the  Mac- 
cabees, who,  after  an  arduous  and  sanguinary 
struggle,  obtained  possession  of  Jerusalem  (b.c. 
163),  and  repaired  and  purified  the  temple,  which 
was  then  dilapidated  and  deserted.  New  utensils 
were  provided  for  the  sacred  services  : Ihe  old 
altar,  which  had  been  polluted  by  heathen  abo- 
minations, was  taken  away,  and  a new  one  erected. 
The  sacrifices  were  then  recommenced,  exactly 
three  years  after  the  temple  had  been  dedicated  to 
Jupiter  Olympius.  The  castle,  however,  remained 
in  the  hands  of  the  Syrians,  and  long  proved  a sore 
annoyance  to  the  Jews, although  Judas  Maccabaeus 
surrounded  the  temple  with  a high  and  strong  wall, 
furnished  with  towers,  in  which  soldiers  were  sta- 
tioned to  protect  the  worshippers  from  the  Syrian 
garrison  (1  Macc.  i.  36,  37  ; Joseph.  Antiq.  vii.  7). 
Eventually  the  annoyance  grew  so  intolerable 
that  Judas  laid  siege  to  the  cas/le.  This  attempt 
brought  a powerful  army  into  the  country  under 
the  command  of  the  regent  Lysias,  who,  however, 
being  constrained  to  turn  his  arms  elsewhere, 
made  peace  with  the  Jews  ; but  when  he  was  ad* 


JERUSALEM. 


81 

initted  into  the  city,  and  observed  the  strength  of 
the  place,  he  threw  down  the  walls,  in  violation  of 
the  treaty  (1  Macc.  vi.  48-05).  In  the  ensuing 
war  witii  Bacchides,  the  general  of  Demetrius 
Soter,  in  which  Judas  was  slain,  the  Syrians 
strengthened  their  citadel,  and  placed  in  it 
the  sons  of  the  principal  Jewish  families  as 
hostages  (1  Macc.  ix.  52,  53;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii. 
1.  3).  The  year  after  (b.c.  159)  the  temporising 
high-priest  Alcimus  directed  the  wall  which  sepa- 
rated the  court  of  Israel  from  that  of  the  Gen- 
tiles to  be  cast  down,  to  afford  the  latter  free 
access  to  the  temple  : but  he  was  seized  with  palsy 
as  soon  as  the  work  commenced,  and  died  in  great 
agony  (1  Macc.  ix.  51-57).  When,  a few  years 
after,  Demetrius  and  Alexander  Balas  sought  to 
outbid  each  other  for  the  support  of  Jonathan,  the 
hostages  in  the  castle  were  released  ; and  subse- 
quently all  the  Syrian  garrisons  in  Judaea  were 
evacuated,  excepting  those  of  Jerusalem  and 
Bethzur,  which  were  chiefly  occupied  by  apostate 
Jews,  who  were  afraid  to  leave  their  places  of 
refuge.  Jonathan  then  rebuilt  the  walls  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  repaired  the  buildings  of  the  city, 
besides  erecting  a palace  for  his  own  residence 
(1  Macc.  x.  2-4;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  2.  1).  The 
particular  history  of  Jerusalem  for  several  years 
following  is  little  more  than  an  account  of  the 
efforts  of  the  Maccabaean  princes  to  obtain  pos- 
session of  the  castle,  and  of  the  Syrian  kings  to 
retain  it  in  their  hands.  At  length,  in  b.c.  142, 
the  garrison  was  forced  to  surrender  by  Simon, 
who  demolished  it  altogether,  that  it  might 
not  again  be  used  against  the  Jews  by  their 
enemies.  Simon  then  strengthened  the  fortifica- 
tions of  the  mountain  on  which  the  temple  stood, 
and  built  there  a palace  for  himself  (1  Macc.  xiii. 
43-52;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  6.  6).  This  building 
was  afterwards  turned  into  a regular  fortress  by 
John  Hyrcanus,  and  was  ever  after  the  resi- 
dence of  the  Maccabaean  princes  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xv.  11.  4).  It  is  called  by  Josephus  ‘the  castle 
of  Baris,’  in  his  history  of  the  Jews;  till  it  was 
strengthened  and  enlarged  by  Herod  the  Great, 
who  called  it  the  castle  of  Antonia,  under  which 
name  it  makes  a conspicuous  figure  in  the  Jewish 
wars  with  the  Romans. 

Of  Jerusalem  itself  we  find  nothing  of  conse- 
quence, till  it  was  taken  by  Pompey  in  the  summer 
of  b.c.  63,  and  on  the  very  day  observed  by  the  Jews 
as  one  of  lamentation  and  fasting,  in  commemora- 
tion of  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. Twelve  thousand  Jews  were  massacred  in 
the  temple  courts,  including  many  priests,  who 
died  at  the  very  altar  rather  than  suspend  the 
sacred  rites  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  1-4).  On  this 
occasion  Pompey,  attended  by  his  generals,  went 
into  the  temple  and  viewed  the  sanctuary  ; but  lie 
left  untouched  all  its  treasures  and  sacred  things, 
while  the  walls  of  the  city  itself  were  demolished. 
From  this  time  the  Jews  are  to  be  considered  as 
under  the  dominion  of  the  Romans  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xiv.  4.  5).  The  treasures  which  Pompey  had 
spared  were  seized  a few  years  after  (b.c.  51)  by 
Crassus.  In  the  year  b.c.  43,  the  walls  of  the 
city,  which  Pompey  had  demolished,  were  rebuilt 
by  Antipater,  the  father  of  that  Herod  the  Great 
under  whom  Jerusalem  was  destined  to  assume 
the  new  and  more  magnificent  aspect  which  it 
bore  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  which  constituted 
the  Jerusalem  which  Josephus  describes.  This 


JERUSALEM. 

Jerusalem — the  Jerusalem  as  improved  by  the 
magnificent  tastes  and  profuse  expenditure  of 
Herod — was  probably  as  different  from  the  Jeru- 
salem before  his  time  as  the  London  of  1844  ia 
from  the  London  of  1800.  And  perhaps  the  dif- 
ference was  even  greater,  for  our  great  fanes  still 
exist ; whereas  the  temple,  which  always  formed 
the  great  architectural  glory  of  Jerusalem,  was 
taken  down  and  rebuilt  by  Herod  the  Great, 
with  a magnificence  exceeding  that  of  Solo- 
mon’s (Mark  xiii.  1 ; John  ii.  20 ; see  Temper). 
It  was  in  the  courts  of  the  temple  as  thus  rebuilt, 
and  in  the  streets  of  the  city  as  thus  improved, 
that  the  Saviour  of  men  walked  up  and  down. 
Here  he  taught,  here  he  wrought  miracles,  here 
he  suffered;  and  this  was  the  temple  whose 
‘ goodly  stones  * the  apostle  admired  (Mark 
xiii.  1),  and  of  which  he  foretold  that  ere  the 
existing  generation  had  passed  away  not  one  stone 
should  be  left  upon  another.  Nor  was  the  city 
in  this  state  admired  by  Jews  only.  Pliny  calk 
it  ‘ longe  clarissimam  urbium  orientis,  non  Ju- 
daeae  modo’  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  16). 

Jerusalem  seems  to  have  been  raised  to  this 
greatness,  as  if  to  enhance  the  misery  of  its  over- 
throw. So  soon  as  the  Jews  had  set  the  seal  to 
their  formal  rejection  of  Christ,  by  putting  him 
to  death,  and  invoking  the  responsibility  of  his 
blood  upon  the  heads  of  themselves  and  of  their 
children  (Matt,  xxvii.  25),  its  doom  went  forth. 
After  having  been  the  scene  of  horrors  without 
example,  it  was,  in  a.d.  70,  abandoned  to  the 
Romans,  who  razed  the  city  and  temple  to  the 
ground,  leaving  only  three  of  the  towers  and  a 
part  of  the  western  wall  to  show  how  strong  a place 
the  Roman  arms  had  overthrown.  Since  then  the. 
holy  city  has  lain  at  the  mercy  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  will  so  remain  4 until  the  times  of  the  Gen- 
tiles are  fulfilled.’ 

Modern  History. — The  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem by  the  Romans  did  not  cause  the  site  to  be 
utterly  forsaken.  Titus  left  there  in  garrison  the 
whole  of  the  tenth  legion,  besides  several  squad- 
rons of  cavalry  and  cohorts  of  foot.  For  these 
troops,  and  for  those  who  ministered  to  their  wants, 
there  must  have  been  dwellings  ; and  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  such  Jews  or  Christians  as 
appeared  to  have  taken  no  part  in  the  war  were 
forbidden  to  make  their  abode  among  the  ruins, 
and  building  them  up  so  far  as  their  necessities 
might  require.  But  nothing  like  a restoration  ot 
the  city  could  have  arisen  from  this,  as  it  was  not 
likely  that  any  but  poor  people,  who  found  an 
interest  in  supplying  the  wants  of  the  garrison, 
were  likely  to  resort  to  the  ruins  under  such  cir- 
cumstances. However,  we  learn  from  Jerome  that 
for  fifty  years  after  its  destruction,  until  the  time 
of  Adrian,  there  still  existed  remnants  of  the  city. 
But  during  all  this  period  there  is  no  mention  of 
it  in  history. 

Up  to  a.d.  131  the  Jews  remained  tolerahiv 
quiet,  although  apparently  waiting  any  favour- 
able opportunity  of  shaking  off  the  Roman  yoke. 
The  then  emperor,  Adrian,  seems  to  have  been 
aware  of  this  state  of  feeling,  and,  among  other 
measures  of  precaution,  ordered  Jerusalem  to  be 
rebuilt  as  a fortified  place  wherewith  to  keep  \n 
check  the  whole  Jewish  population.  The  works 
had  made  some  progress,  when  the  Jews,  unable 
to  endure  the  idea  that  their  holy  city  should  be 
occupied  by  foreigners,  and  that  strange  gocu 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


»hould  be  set  up  within  it,  broke  out  into  open 
rebellion  under  the  notorious  Barchochebas,  who 
claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  His  success  was  at 
list  very  great ; but  he  was  crushed  before  the 
tremendous  power  of  the  Romans,  so  soon  as  it 
could  be  brought  to  bear  upon  him ; and  a war 
scarcely  inferior  in  horror  to  that  under  Vespasian 
and  Titus  was,  like  it,  brought  to  a close  by  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem,  of  which  the  Jews  had  ob- 
ained  possession.  This  was  in  a.d.  135,  from  which 
period  the  final  dispersion  of  the  Jews  has  been 
often  dated.  The  Romans  then  finished  the  city 
■according  to  their  first  intention.  It  was  made  a 
Roman  colony,  inhabited  wholly  by  foreigners, 
he  Jews  being  forbidden  to  approach  it  on  pain 
'f  death  : a temple  to  Jupiter  Capitolinus  was 
erected  on  Mount.  Moriah,  and  the  old  name  of 
Jerusalem  was  sought  to  be  supplanted  by  that 
cf  MWa.  Capitolina,  conferred  upon  it  in  honour 
of  the  emperor,  j^Elius  Adrianus,  and  Jupiter  Ca- 
oitolinus.  By  this  name  was  the  city  kno,wn  till 
die  time  of  Constantine,  when  that  of  Jerusalem 
*gain  became  current,  although  JEl ia  was  still  its 
uublic  designation,  and  remained  such  so  late  as 
a.d.  536,  when  it  appears  in  the  acts  of  a synod 
leld  there.  This  name  even  passed  to  the  Mo- 
hammedans, by  whom  it  was  long  retained  ; and 
t was  not  till  after  they  recovered  the  city  from  the 
Crusaders  that  it  became  generally  known  among 
hem  by  the  name  of  El-Khuds — the  holy — which 
d still  bears. 

From  the  rebuilding  by  Adrian  the  history  of 
Jerusalem  is  almost  a blank  till  the  time  of  Com 
stantine,  when  its  history,  as  a place  of  extreme 
solicitude  and  interest  to  the  Christian  church, 
oroperly  begins.  Pilgrimages  to  the  Holy  City  now 
became  common  and  popular.  Such  a pilgrimage 
was  undertaken  in  a.d.  326  by  the  emperor’s  mo- 
ther Helena,  then  in  the  80th  year  of  her  age,  who 
rmilt  churches  on  the  alleged  site  of  the  nativity 
at  Bethlehem,  and  of  the  resurrection  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives.  This  example  may  probably  have 
excited  her  son  to  the  discovery  of  the  site  of  the 
aoly  sepulchre,  and  to  the  erection  of  a church 
thereofi.  He  removed  the  temple  of  Venus,  with 
which,  in  studied  insult,  the  site  had  been  en- 
cumbered. The  holy  sepulchre  was  then  puri- 
fied, and  a magnificent  church  was,  by  hi3  order, 
tmilt  over  and  around  the  sacred  spot.  This 
temple  was  completed  and  dedicated  with  great 
solemnity  in  a.d.  333.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
spot  thus  singled  out  is  the  same  which  has  ever 
mnce  been  regarded  as  the  place  in  which  Christ 
was  entombed  ; but  the  correctness  of  the  identifi- 
cation then  made  has  been  of  late  years  much 
disputed,  on  grounds  which  have  been  examined 
»n  the  article  Goi.gotha.  The  very  cross  on 
which  our  Lord  suffered  was  also,  in  the  course  of 
mese  explorations,  believed  to  have  been  disco- 
vered, under  the  circumstances  which  have  already 
,>een  described  [Cross]. 

By  Constantine  the  edict,  excluding*the  Jews 
h’om  the  city  of  their  fathers*  sepulchres,  was  so 
<ar  repealed  that  they  were  allowed  to  enter  it 
..  nee  a-year  to  wail  over  the  desolation  of  c the 
-•oly  and  beautiful  house,’  in  which  their  fathers 
worshipped  God.  When  the  nephew  of  Constan- 
une,  the  Emperor  Julian,  abandoned  Christianity 
•or  the  old  Paganism,  he  qpdeavoured,  as  a mat- 
er of  policy,  to  conciliate  the  Jews.  He  allowed 
t.em  free  access  to  the  city,  and  permitted  them 


95 

to  rebuild  their  temple.  They  accordingly  began 
to  lay  the  foundations  in  a.d.  362  ; but  the  speedy 
death  of  the  emperor  probably  occasioned  that 
abandonment  of  the  attempt,  which  contemporary 
writers  ascribe  to  supernatural  hindrances.  The 
edicts  seem  then  to  have  been  renewed  whicli 
excluded  the  Jews  from  the  city,  except  on  the 
day  of  annual  wailing. 

In  the  following  centuries  the  roads  to  Zion 
were  thronged  with  pilgrims  from  all  parts  of 
Christendom,  and  the  land  abounded  in  monas- 
teries, occupied  by  persons  who  wished  to  lead  a 
religious  life  amid  the  scenes  which  had  been 
sanctified  by  the  Saviour’s  presence.  After  much 
struggle  of  conflicting  dignities  Jerusalem  was,  in 
a.d.  451,  declared  a patriarchate  by  the  council 
of  Chalcedon.  In  the  next  century  it  found  a 
second  Constantine  in  Justinian,  who  ascended 
the  throne  a.d.  527.  He  repaired  and.  enriched 
the  former  structures,  and  built  upon  Mount 
Moriah  a magnificent  church  to  the  Virgin,  as  a 
memorial  of  the  persecution  of  Jesus  in  the  temple. 
He  also  founded  ten  or  eleven  convents  in  and 
about  Jerusalem  and  Jericho,  and  established  an 
hospital  for  pilgrims  in  each  of  those  cities. 

But  these  prosperous  days  were  soon  to  end. 
The  Persians,  who  had  long  harassed  the  empire 
of  the  East,  penetrated  into  Syria  in  a.d.  614, 
and  after  defeating  the  forces  of  the  Emperor 
Heraclius,  took  Jerusalem  by  storm.  Many  thou- 
sands of  the  inhabitants  were  slain,  and  much  of 
the  city,  including  the  finest  churches — that  of 
the  holy  sepulchre  among  them — was  destroyed. 
When  the  conquerors  withdrew  they  took  away 
the  principal  inhabitants,  the  patriarch,  and  the 
true  cross ; but  when,  the  year  after,  peace  was 
concluded,  these  were  restored,  and  the  Emperor 
Heraclius  entered  Jerusalem  in  solemn  state, 
bearing  the  cross  upon  bis  shoulders. 

The  damage  occasioned  by  the  Persians  was 
speedily  repaired.  But  Arabia  soon  furnished  a 
more  formidable  enemy  in  the  Khalif  Omar, 
whose  troops  appeared  before  the  city  in  a.d.  636, 
Arabia,  Syria,  and  Egypt  having  already  been 
brought  under  the  Moslem  yoke.  After  a long 
siege  the  austere  khalif  himself  came  to  the  camp, 
and  the  city  was  at  length  surrendered  to  him  in 
a.d.  637.  The  conqueror  of  mighty  kings  en- 
tered the  holy  city  in  his  garment  of  camel’s  hair, 
and  conducted  himself  with  much  discretion  and 
generous  forbearance.  By  his  orders  the  magni- 
ficent mosque  which  still  bears  his  name  was  built 
upon  Mount  Moriah,  upon  the  site  of  the  Jewish 
temple. 

Jerusalem  remained  in  possession  of  the  Ara- 
bians, and  was  occasionally  visited  by  Christian 
pilgrims  from  Europe  till  towards  the  year  1000, 
when  a general  belief  that  the  second  coming 
of  the  Saviour  was  near  at  hand,  drew  pilgrims 
in  unwonted  crowds  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  cre- 
ated an  impulse  for  pilgrimages  thither,  which 
ceased  not  to  act  after  the  first  exciting  cause  had 
been  forgotten.  The  Moslem  government,  in  order 
to  deri  ve  some  profit  from  this  enthusiasm,  imposed 
the  tribute  of  a piece  of  gold  as  the  price  of 
entrance  into  the  holy  city.  The  sight,  by  such 
large  numbers,  of  the  holy  place  in  the  hands 
of  infidels,  the  exaction  of  tribute,  and  the  in- 
sults to  which  the  pilgrims,  often  of  the  higfiest 
rank,  were  exposed  from  the  Moslem  rabble,  ex- 
cited an  extraordinary  ferment  in  Europe,  and  lf<d 


JERUSALEM. 

to  those  remarkable  expeditions  for  recovering  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  from  the  Mohammedans,  which, 
under  the  name  of  the  Crusades,  will  always  fill 
a most  important  and  curious  chapter  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  world. 

The  dominion  over  Palestine  had  passed  in 
a.d.  960  from  the  khalifs  of  Bagdad  to  the  Fate- 
mite  khalifs  of  Egypt,  who,  in  their  turn,  were 
dispossessed  in  a.d.  1073  by  the  Turkmans,  who 
had  usurped  the  powers  of  the  eastern  khalifat. 
The  severities  exercised  by  these  more  fierce  and 
uncivilized  Moslems  upon  both  the  native  Chris- 
tians anil  the  European  pilgrims  supplied  the 
immediate  impulse  to  the  first  eastern  expedition. 
But  by  the  time  the  crusaders,  under  Godfrey  of 
Bouillon,  appeared  before  Jerusalem,  on  the  17th 
of  June,  1099,  the  Egyptian  khalifs  had  recovered 
possession  of  Palestine  and  driven  the  Turkmans 
beyond  the  Euphrates. 

After  a siege  of  forty  days,  the  holy  city  was 
taken  by  storm  on  the  15th  day  of  July;  and  a 
dreadful  massacre  of  the  Moslem  inhabitants  fol- 
lowed, without  distinction  of  age  or  sex.  As  sbon 
as  order  was  restored,  and  the  city  cleared  of  the 
dead,  a regular  government  was  established  by 
the  election  of  Godfrey  as  king  of  Jerusalem. 
One  of  the  first  cares  of  the  new  monarch  was  to 
dedicate  anew  to  the  Lord  the  place  where  His 
Presence  had  once  abode  ; and  the  mosque  of 
Omar  became  a Christian  cathedral,  which  the 
historians  of  the  time  distinguish  as  ‘ the  temple 
of  the  Lord  ’ ( Templum  Domini ).  The  Christians 
kept  possession  of  Jerusalem  eighty-eight  years. 
During  this  long  period  they  appear  to  have 
erected  several  churches  and  many  convents.  Of 
the  latter  few,  if  any,  traces  remain  ; and  of  the 
former,  save  one  or  two  ruins,  the  church  of  the 
holy,  sepulchre,  which  they  rebuilt,  is  the  only 
memorial  which  attests  the  existence  of  the 
Christian  kingdom  of  Jerusalem.  In  a.d.  1187 
the  holy  city  was  wrested  from  the  hands  of 
the  Christians  by  the  Sultan  Saladin,  and  the 
order  of  things  was  then  reversed.  The  cross 
was  removed  with  ignominy  from  the  sacred 
dome,  the  holy  places  were  purified  from  Chris- 
tian stain  with  rose-water  brought  from  Damascus, 
and  the  call  to  prayer  by  the  muezzin  once  more 
sounded  over  the  city.  From  that  time  to  the 
present  day  the  holy  city  has  remained,  with 
slight  interruption,  in  the  hands  of  the  Moslems. 
On  the  threatened  siege  by  Richard  of  England  in 
1192,  Saladin  took  great  pains  in  strengthening  its 
defences.  New  walls  and  bulwarks  were  erected, 
and  deep  trenches  cut,  and  in  six  months  the 
town  was  stronger  than  it  ever  had  been,  and  the 
works  had  the  firmness  and  solidity  of  a rock. 
But  in  a.d.  1219,  the  Sultan  Melek  el  Moaddin 
of  Damascus,  who  then  had  possession  of  Jeru- 
salem, ordered  all  the  walls  and  towers  to  be 
demolished,  except  the  citadel  and  the  enclosure 
of  the  mosque,  lest  the  Franks  should  again  be- 
come masters  of  the  city  and  find  it  a place  of 
strength.  In  this  defenceless  state  Jerusalem  con- 
tinued till  it  was  delivered  over  to  the  Christians 
in  consequence  of  a treaty  with  the  emperor 
Frederick  II.,  in  a.d.  j229,  with  the  understand- 
ing that  the  walls  should  not  be  rebuilt.  Yet  ten 
years  later  (a.d.  1239 j the  barons  and  knights  of 
Jerusalem  began  to  build  the  walls  anew,  and  to 
erect  a strong  lorn-ess  or.  the  west  of  the  city. 
But  the  works  were  i 'derrupted  by  the  emir 


JERUSALEM. 

David  of  Kerek,  who  seized  the  city,  strangled 
the  Christian  inhabitants,  and  cast  down  the 
newly  erected  walls  and  fortress.  Four  years 
after,  however  (a.d.  1243),  Jerusalem  was  again 
made  over  to  the  Christians  without  any  restric- 
tion, and  the  works  appear  to  have  been  restored 
and  completed  ; for  tnev  are  mentioned  as  exist- 
ing when  the  city  was  stormed  by  the  wild  Kha- 
rismian  hordes  in  the  following  year ; shortly  after  [ 
which  the  city  reverted  for  the  last  time  into  the 
hands  of  its  Mohammedan  masters,  who  have  kept 
it  to  the  present  day. 

From  this  time  Jerusalem  appears  to  have  sunk 
very  much  in  political  and  military  importance  ; 
and  it  is  scarcely  named  in  the  history  of  the 
Memluk  sultans  who  reigned  over  Egypt  and  the 
greater  part  of  Syria  in  the  fourteenth  and  fif- 
teenth centuries.  At  length,  with  the  rest  of 
Syria  and  Egypt,  it  passed  under  the  sway  of  the 
Turkish  sultan  Selim  I.,  who  paid  a hasty  visit 
to  the  holy  city  from  Damascus  after  his  return 
from  Egypt.  From  that  time  Jerusalem  has 
formed  a part  of  the  Ottoman  empire,  and  during 
this  period  has  been  subject  to  few  vicissitudes  : 
its  history  is  accordingly  barren  of  incident. 
Tiie  present  walls  of  the  city  were  erected  by 
Suleiman  the  Magnificent,  the  successor  of  Se- 
lim, in  a.d.  1542,  as  is  attested  by  an  inscription 
over  the  Jaffa  gate.  So  lately  as  a.d.  1808,  the 
church  of  the  holy  sepulchre  was  partially  con- 
sumed by  fire;  but  the  damage  was  repaired  with 
great  labour  and  expense  by  September,  1810, 
and  the  traveller  now  finds  in  this  imposing  fa- 
bric no  traces  of  the  recent  calamity. 

In  a.d.  1832,  Jerusalem  became  subject  to 
Mohammed  Ali,  the  pasha  of  Egypt,  (lie  holy 
city  opening  its  gates  to  him  without  a siege 
During  the  great  insurrection  in  the  districts  of 
Jerusalem  and  Nabulus,  in  1834,  the  insurgents 
seized  upon  Jerusalem,  and  held  possession  of  it 
for  a time ; but  by  the  vigorous  operations  of  thi 
government  order  was  soon  restored,  and  the  citj 
reverted  quietly  to  its  allegiance  on  the  approach 
of  Ibrahim  Pasha  with  his  troops.  In  1841 
Mohammed  Ali  was  deprived  of  all  his  Syriau 
possessions  by  European  interference,  and  Jeru- 
salem was  again  subjected  to  the  Turkish  govern- 
ment., under  which  it  now  remains.  It  is  not, 
perhaps,  the  happier  for  the  change.  The  only 
subsequent  event  of  interest  has  been  the  esta- 
blishment of  a Protestant  bishopric  at  Jerusalem 
by  the  English  and  Prussian  governments,  and 
the  erection  upon  Mount  Zion  of  a church,  cal- 
culated to  bold  500  persons,  for  the  celebration 
of  divine  worship  according  to  the  ritual  of  the 
English  church.  For  the  history  of  Jerusalem  see 
History  von  Jerusalem , Strasbourg,  1518  ; Spald- 
ing, Ges'ch.  d.  Christl.  Konigsreichs  Jerusalem,, 
Beilin,  1803;  Deyling,  /Elite  Capitolinee  Origg. 
et  Historia,  Lips.  1743;  Poujoulat,  Histoire  de 
Jerusalem , Brux.  1842;  Raumer’s  Palastina ; 
Robinsorts  Bib.  Researches  in  Palestine. 

Before  proceeding  to  inquire  into  the  ancient 
state  of  the  city,  and  to  describe  its  present  con- 
dition, it  will  be  well  to  furnish  the  reader  with  a 
general  description  of  the  site,  that  he  may  be  en- 
abled to  follow  the  details  with  the  more  precision., 
For  this  purpose  we  shall  avail  ourselves  of  the 
able  sketch  given  by  Professor  Robinson  in  his 
Researches  (i.  380-383). 

G*;t>  ii-AL Topography. — ‘Jerusalem  lies  nea* 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


•1 


the  avmmif  of  a broad  mountain-ridge.  This  rid&e, 
or  mountainous  tract,  extends,  without  interrup- 
tion, from  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  lo  a line  drawn 
between  the  south  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the 
south-east,  corner  of  the  Mediterranean  ; or,  more 
properl y,  perhaps,  it  may  tie  regarded  as  extend- 
ing as  far  south  as  to  Jenel  Araif  in  the  Desert, 
where  it  sinks  down  at  once  to  the  level  of  the 
gueat  western  plateau.  This  tract,  which  is  every- 
where not  less  than  from  20  to  25  geographical 
miles  in  breadth,  is,  in  fact,  high  uneven  table- 
land. It  everywhere  forms  the  precipitous  west- 
ern wall  of  the  great  valley  of  the  Jordan  and  the 
Dead  Sea;  while  towards  the  west  it  sinks  down 
by  an  oil-set,  into  a range  of  tower  hills,  which  lie 
between  it  and  the  great  plain  along  the  coast  of 
the  Mediterranean.  The  surface  of  this  upper 
region  is  everywhere  rocky,  uneven,  and  moun- 
tainous; and  is,  moreover,  cut  up  by  deep  valleys 
which  run  east  or  west  on  either  side  towards  the 
Jordan  or  the  Mediterranean.  The  line  of  division, 
or  water-shed,  between  the  waters  of  these  valleys 
— a term  which  here  applies  almost,  exclusively 
to  the  waters  of  the  rainy  season — follows  for  the 
most  part  ihe  height,  of  land  along  the  ridge  ; yet 
not  so  but  that,  the  heads  of  the  valleys,  which 
run  off’  in  different  directions,  often  interlap  for 
a considerable  distance.  Thus,  for  example,  a 
valley  which  descends  to  the  Jordan,  often  has 
its  head  a mile  or  two  westward  of  the  commence- 
ment of  other  valleys  which  run  to  the  western 
sea. 

From  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon  onwards 
towards  the  south,  the  mountainous  country  rises 
gradually,  forming  the  tract  anciently  known  as 
the  mountains  of  Ephraim  and  Judah;  until,  in 
the  vicinity  of  Hebron,  it  attains  an  elevation  of 
nearly  3000  Paris  feet  above  the  level  of  the  Me- 
diterranean Sea.  Further  north,  on  a line  drawn 
from  the  north  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  towards  the 
true  west,  the  ridge  has  an  elevation  of  only  about 
2500  Paris  feet;  and  here,  close  upon  the  water- 
shed, lies  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  Its  mean  geo- 
graphical position  is  in  lat.  31°  46'  43"  N.,  and 
long.  35°  1 3'  E.  from  Greenwich. 

Six  or  seven  miles  N.  and  N.W.  of  the  city  is 
spread  out  the  open  plain  or  basin  round  about 
el-Jib  (Gibeon),  extending  also  towards  el-Bireh 
(Beerolh)  ; the  waters  of  which  (low  off  at  its  S.E. 
part  through  the  deep  valley  here  called  by  the 
Arabs  Wady  Beit  Hanina ; but  to  which  the 
monks  and  travellers  have  usually  given  the  name 
of  the  £ Valiev  cf  Turpentine,’  or  of  the  Terebinth, 
on  the  mistaken  supposition  that  it  is  the  ancient 
Valley  of  Elali.  This  great  valley  passes  along  in 
a S.W.  direction,  an  hour  or  more  west  of  Jerusa- 
lem ; and  finally  opens  out  from  the  mountains 
into  the  western  plain,  at  the  distance  of  six  or 
eight  hours  S.W.  from  the  city,  under  the  name 
of  Wady  es  Surar.  The  traveller,  on  his  way 
from  Ramleh  to  Jerusalem,  descends  into  and 
crosses  this  deep  valley  at  the  village  of  Kulonieh 
on  its  western  side,  an  hour  and  a half  from  the 
latter  city.  On  again  reaching  the  high  ground 
on  its  eastern  side,  he  enters  upon  an  open  tract 
eloping  gradually  downwards  towards  the  east ; 
and  sees  before  him,  at  the  distance  of  about  two 
miles,  the  walls  and  domes  of  the  holy  city,  and 
beyond  them  the  higher  ridge  or  summit  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  The  traveler  now  descends 
gradually  towards  t ie  city  alor.ig  a broad  swell 

VOL.  II.  c 


of.ground,  having  at  some  distance  on  his  left  tl<« 
shallow  northern  part  of  the  valley  of  J ehoshaphat ; 
close  at  hand  on  his  right  the  basin  which  form* 
the  beginning  of  the  Valley  of  Ilinnom.  Fur- 
ther down  both  these  valleys  become  deep,  narrow, 
and  precipitous;  that,  of  Ilinnom  bends  south  and 
again  east  nearly  at  right  angles,  and  unites 
with  the  other,  which  then  continues  its  course 
to  the  Dead  Sea.  Upon  the  broad  and  elevated 
promontory  within  the  fork  of  these  two  valleys 
lies  the  holy  city.  All  around  are  higher  hills; 
on  the  east  the  Mount,  of  Olives;  on  the  south 
the  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel,  so  called,  rising  directly 
from  the  Vale  of  Hinnom  ; on  the.  west  the  ground 
rises  gently,  as  above  described,  to  the  borders  of 
the  great  Wady  ; while  on  the  north,  a bend  of 
the  ridge,  connected  with  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
bounds  the  prospect  at  the  distance  of  more  than 
a mile.  Towards  the  S.W.  the  view  is  somewhat 
more  open ; for  here  lies  the  plain  of  Rephaim, 
commencing  just  at  the  southern  brink  of  the 
valley  of  Hinnom,  and  stretching  off  S.  W.,  where 
it  runs  to  the  western  sea.  In  the  N.W.  too,  the 
eye  reaches  up  along  the  upper  part  of  the  valley 
of  Jehosi.aphat ; and  from  many  points  can  dis- 
cern the  mosque  of  Nt  by  Samwii,  situated  on  a 
lofty  ridge  beyond  the  great  Wady,  at  the  distance 
of  two  hours. 

The  surface  of  the  elevated  promontory  itself, 
on  which  the  city  stands,  slopes  somewhat  steeply 
towards  the  east,  terminating  on  the  brink  of  the 
valley  of  Jelioshaphat.  From  the  northern  past* 
near  the  present  Damascus  gate,  a depression  oc 
shallow  wady  runs  in  a southern  direction,,  hav- 
ing on  the  west  the  ancient  hills  of  Akra  and 
Zion,  and  on  the  east  the  lower  ones  of  Bezetha 
and  Moriah.  Between  the  hills  of  Akra  and 
Zion  another  depression  or  shallow  wady  (still 
easy  to  he  traced)  comes  down  from  near  the  Jaffa 
gate,  and  joins  the  former.  It  then  continues 
obliquely  down  the  slope,  but  with  a deeper 
bed,  in  a southern  direction,  quite  to  the  pool  of 
Siloarn  and  the  valley  of  Jelioshaphat.  This, 
is  the  ancient  Tyropoeon.  West  of  its  lower  part 
Zion  rises  loftily,  lying  mostly  without  the  modem 
city  ; while  on  the  east  of  the  Tyropceon  and  the 
valley  first  mentioned,  lie  Bezetha,  Moriah,  and; 
Ophel,  the  last  a long  and  comparatively  narrow 
ridge,  also  outside  of  the  modern  city,  and  termi- 
nating in  a rocky  point  over  the  pool  of  Siloam. 
These  three  last  hills  may  strictly  be  taken  as 
only  parts  of  one  and  the  same  ridge.  The 
breadth  of  the  whole  site  of  Jerusalem,  from  the 
brow  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  near  the  Jaffa  gate* 
to  the  brink  of  the  valley  of  Jelioshaphat,  is  about 
1020  yards,  or  nearly  half  a geographical  mile; 
of  which  distance  318  yards  are  occupied  by  the 
area  of  the  great  mosque  el-Haram  esh-Sherif, 
North  of  the  Jaffa  gate  the  city  wall  sweeps 
round  more  to  the  west,  and  increases  the  breadth, 
of  the  city  in  .that  part. 

The  country  around  Jerusalem  is  all  of  lime- 
stone formation,  and  not  particularly  fertile.  The 
rocks  everywhere  come  out  above  the  surface, 
which  in  many  parts  is  also  thickly  strewed  with 
loose  stones;  and  the  aspect  of  the  wnole  region 
is  barren  and  dreary  ; yet  the  olive  thrives  here 
abundantly,  and  fields  of  grain  are  seen  in  the 
valleys  and  level  places,  hut  they  are  less  pro 
ductive  than  in  the  region  of  Hebron  and  Nabur 
lus.  Neither  vineyards  nor  lig-tnes  flourish  on 


P8 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


tue  nigh  ground  around  the  city,  though  the  latter 
are  found  in  the  gardens  below  Siloam,  and  very 
frequently  in  the  vicinity  of  Bethlehem. 

Ancient  Jerusalem — Every  reader  of  Seri p- 
tuse  feels  a natural  anxiety  to  form  some  notion 
of  the  appearance  and  condition  of  Jerusalem,  as 
it  existed  in  tne  time  of  Jesus,  or  rather  as  it 
stood  before  its  destruction  by  the  Romans.  There 
are  unusual  difficulties  in  the  way  of  satisfying 
this  desire,  although  it  need  not  be  left  altogether 
ungratified.  The  principal  sources  of  these  diffi- 
culties have  been  indicated  bv  different  travellers, 
and  by  none  more  forcibly  than  by  Richardson 
{ Travels , ii.  251).  ‘It  is  a tantalizing  circum- 
stance, however,  for  the  traveller  who  wishes  to  re- 
cognise in  his  walks  the  site  of  particular  buildings, 
•or  the  scenes  of  memorable  events,  that,  the  greater 
part  of  the  objects  mentioned  in  (he  description, 
Loth  of  the  inspired  and  of  the  Jewish  historian, 
are  entirely  razed  from  their  foundation,  without 
leaving  a single  trace  or  name  behind  to  point  out 
•where  they  stood.  Not  an  ancient  tower,  or  gate, 
or  wall,  or  hardly  even  a stone  remains.  The 
foundations  are  not  only  broken  up,  but  every 
fragment  of  which  they  were  composed  is  swept 
away,  and  the  spectator  looks  upon  the  bare  rock 
with  hardly  a sprinkling  of  earth  to  point  out  her 
gardens  of  pleasure,  or  groves  of  idolatrous  devo- 
tion. A few  gardens  still  remain  on  the  sloping 
•base  of  Mount  Zion,  watered  from  the  pool  of 
Siloam  : the  gardens  of  Gethsemane  are  still  in  a 
•sort  of  ruined  cultivation ; the  fences  are  broken 
•down  and  the  olive-trees  decaying,  as  if  the  hand 
which  dressed  and  fed  them  were  withdrawn  : the 
Mount  of  Olives  still  retains  a languishing 
verdure,  and  nourishes  a few  of  those  trees  from 
•which  it  derives  its  name;  hut  all  round  about 
Jerusalem  the  general  aspect  is  blighted  and 
barren  : the  grass  is  withered  : the  hare  rock  looks 
through  the  scanty  sward,  and  the  grain  itself, 
like  the  starving  progeny  of  famine,  seems  in 
doubt  whether  to  come  to  maturity  or  die  in  the 
ear.  Jerusalem  has  heard  the  voice  of  David  and 
Bolomon,  of  prophets  and  apostles;  and  He  who 
spake  as  man  never  spake  has  taught  in  her  syna- 
gogues and  in  her  streets.  Before  her  legislators, 
her  poets,  and  her  apostles,  those  of  all  other  coun- 
tries became  dumb,  and  cast  down  their  crowns, 
as  unworthy  to  stand  in  their  presence.  Once  she 
was  very  rich  in  every  blessing,  victorious  over  all 
her  enemies,  and  resting  in  peace,  with  every  man 
sitting  under  his  own  vine,  and  under  his  own 
rfig-tree,  with  none  to  disturb  or  to  make  him  afraid. 
.Jerusalem  was  the  brightest  of  all  the  cities  of  the 
east,  and  fortified  above  all  other  towns ; so  strong 
that  the  Roman  conqueror  thereof,  and  the 
master  of  the  whole  world  besides,  exclaimed,  on 
entering  the  city  of  David,  and  looking  up  at  the 
towers  which  the  Jews  had  abandoned,  “ Surely, 
we  have  had  God  for  our  assistance  in  the  war  : for 
what  could  human  hands  or  human  machines  do 
against  these  towers?  It  is  no  other  than  God 
who  has  expefied  the  Jews  from  their  fortifications.” 
It  is  impossible  for  the  Christian  traveller  to  look 
upon  Jerusalem  with  the  same  feelings  with  which 
he  would  set  himself  to  contemplate  the  ruins  of 
Thebes,  of  Athens,  or  of  Rome,  or  of  any  other 
city  which  the  world  ever  saw.  There  is  in  all 
the  doings  of  the  Jews,  their  virtues  and  their 
vices,  their  wisdom  and  their  lolly,  a height  and  a 
depth,  a breadth  and  a length  that  angels  cannot 


fathom  ; their  whole  history  is  a history  of  mira- 
cles; the  precepts  of  their  sacred  hook  are  the  most 
profound,  and  the  best  adapted  to  every  station  in 
which  man  can  lie  placed  : they  moderate  him  in 
prosperity,  sustain  him  in  adversity,  guide  him  in 
health,  console  him  in  sickness,  support  him  at 
the  close  of  life,  travel  on  with  him  through 
death,  live  with  him  throughout  endless  ages  of 
eternity,  and  Jerusalem  lends  its  name  to  the 
eternal  mansions  of  the  blessed  in  heaVeri  which 
man  is  admitted  to  enjoy  through  the  atonement 
of  Christ  Jesus,  who  was  horn  of  a descendant  of 
Judah.’ 

If  writers  who  have  actually  visited  Jerusalem 
have  encountered  such  difficulties,  to  those  wIki 
never  saw  the  place  it  must  he  still  more  diffi- 
cult, if  not.  impossible,  to  arrive  at  definite  con- 
clusions respecting  the  ancient  city.  It  is  certain 
that  our  knowledge  of  its  ancient  state  must  pro- 
ceed upon  an  accurate  knowledge  of  its  presen' 
condition.  But  if  we  compare  the  accounts  of 
different  travellers,  and  the  plans  which  many  of 
them  have  laid  down,  the  irreconcilable  differences 
between  them  produce  a discouraging  convic- 
tion of  the  insufficiency  of  the  basis  thus  offered 
for  the  foundation  of  any  fixed  conclusions.  And 
even  if  there  were  agreement  in  the  accounts  of 
the  superficies,  something  more  than  this  would  be 
required — something  more  than  ever  perhaps  will 
he  realized  while  the  site  continues  to  be  trodden 
under  foot  by  the  Gentiles.  Much  was  done  by 
Dr.  Robinson  and  others  during  the  period  of  the 
rule  of  the  Pasha  of  Egypt,  in  which  greater 
facilities  were  offered  for  exploration  than  are 
likely  to  he  soon  again  obtained.  But  a far  more 
minute  and  searching  examination  of  the  site 
than  was  even  then  realized  is  necessary  for  the 
purposes  of  antiquarian  comparison.  For  instance, 
the  surface  is  in  many  parts  covered  to  a vast,  depth, 
and  the  character  and  properties  of  particular  spots 
are  necessarily  much  altered,  by  the  accumulated 
rubbish  of  ages.  Some  notion  of  this  may  he 
formed  from  the  fact  that  in  seeking  a foundation 
for  the  Protestant  church  on  Mount  Zion,  super- 
incumbent rubbish  to  the  depth  of  fifty  feet  was 
dug  through  before  reaching  the  solid  rock  (Olin, 
ii.  254).  It  would  therefore  appear  that  not  only 
a very  minute  survey,  but  numerous  excavations, 
would  he  necessary  to  the  ends  of  a really  satis- 
factory investigation. 

To  the  obscurity  originating  in  these  causes  may 
he  added  that  which  arises  from  the  many  ambi- 
guities in  the  description  left  by  Josephus,  the 
only  one  which  we  possess,  and  which  must 
form  the  ground- work  of  most  of  our  notices 
respecting  the  ancient  city.  There  are  indeed 
some  manifest  errors  in  his  account,  which  the 
critical  reader  is  able  to  detect  without  having  the 
means  to  rectify. 

In  describing  Jerusalem  as  it  stood  just  before  its 
destruction  by  the  Romans,  Josephus  states  that  the 
city  was  buiit  upon  two  hills,  between  which  lay 
the  valley  Tyropoeon  (Cheesemonger's  Valley),  to 
which  the  buildings  on  both  hills  came  down. 
This  valley  extended  to  the  fountain  of  Siloam. 
The  hill  on  which  the  upper  town  stood  was  much 
higher  than  the  other,  and  straighter  in  its  extent. 
On  account  of  its  fortifications,  David  called  it 
the  Fortress  or  Castle ; but  in  the  time  of  Josephus 
it  was  known  by  the  name  of  the  Upper  Market. 
The  other  hill,  on  which  was  situaled  the  lower 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


09 


(own,  was  called  Akra.  It  was  in  the  form  of  a 
horees.ioo  or  crescent.  Opposite  to  Akra  was  a 
third,  and  naturally  lower  hill  (Moriah),  on 
which  the  temple  was  built;  and  between  this 
and  Akra  was  originally  a broad  valley,  which 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  filled  up  in  the  time 
of  Simon  Maccabaeus  for  the  purpose  of  connect- 
ing the  town  with  the  temple.  At  the  same  lime 
they  lowered  the  hill  Akra,  so  as  to  make  the 
temple  rise  above  it.  Both  the  hills  on  which  the 
upper  and  lower  towns  stood  were  externally  sur- 
rounded by  deep  valleys,  and  here  there  was 
no  approach  because  of  the  precipices  on  every 
side. 

The  single  wall  which  enclosed  that  part  of  the 
city  skirted  by  precipitous  valleys,  began  at  the 
tower  of  Hippicus.  On  the  west  it  extended 
(southward)  to  a place  called  Bethso,  and  the 
gate  of  the  Essenes ; thence  it  kept  along  on  the 
south  to  a point  over  against  Siloam  ; and  thence 
on  the  east  was  carried  along  by  Solomon’s  Pool 
and  Ophla  (Ophel),  till  it  terminated  at  the 
eastern  portico  of  the  temple.  Of  the  triple 
walls,  we  are  told  that  the  first  and  oldest  of  these 
began  at  the  tower  of  Hippicus,  on  the  northern 
part,  and  extending  (along  the  northern  brow  of 
Zion)  to  the  Xystus,  afterwards  terminated  at  the 
western  portico  of  the  temple.  The  second  wall 
began  at  the  gate  of  Gennath  (apparently  near 
Hippicus),  and  encircling  only  the  northern  part 
of  the  city,  extended  to  the  castle  of  Antonia  at 
the  north-west  corner  of  the  area  of  the  temple. 
The  third  wall  was  built  by  Agrippa  at  a later 
period : it  also  had  its  beginning  at  the  tower  of 
Hippicus,  ran  northward  as  far  as  the  tower  Pse- 
phinos;  and  thence  sweeping  round  towards  the 
n. >ith-ea'st  by  east,  it  turned  afterwards  towards 
the  south,  and  was  joined  to  the  ancient  wall  a.t 
or  in  the  valley  of  the  Kidron.  This  wall 
enclosed  the  hill  Bezetha. 

From  other  passages  we  learn  that  the  Xystus, 
named  in  the  above  descriptions,  was  an  open 
place  in  the  extreme  part  of  the  upper  city,  where 
the  people  sometimes  assembled,  and  that  a bridge 
connected  it  with  the  temple  (De  Bell.  Jud.  ii. 
16.  3;  vi.  6.  2;  vi.  8.  1 ; comp.  Antiq.  xiv.  4.  2). 
Further,  we  are  informed  that  on  the  western  side 
of  the  temple  area  were  four  gates;  one  leading 
over  the  valley  to  the  royal  palace  (on  Zion) 
adjacent  to  the  Xystus,  probably  by  the  bridge 
just  mentioned ; two  conducting  to  the  suburb 
(or  new  city)  on  the  north  ; and  the  remaining  one 
leading  to  ‘ the  other  city,’  first  by  steps  down 
into  the  intervening  valley,  and  then  by  an  ascent 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  xv.  11.5;  xx.  8.  11).  By  this 
‘other  city  ’ can  be  meant  only  the  lower  city  or 
Akra.  The  hill  Bezetha,  which  was  last  enclosed, 
lay  quite  near  on  the  north  of  the  temple  (Joseph. 
De  Bell.  Jud.  v.  5.  8).  From  the  account  of  the 
operations  of  the  Romans  under  Titus,  it  may 
also  be  collected  that  the  interior  and  most 
ancient  of  the  three  walls  on  the  north  lay 
between  Akra  and  the  upper  city,  forming  the 
defence  of  the  latter  in  this  part.  It  was,  doubt- 
less, the  same  wall  which  ran  along  the  northern 
brow  of  Zion. 

It  would  be  only  going  over  this  statement  in 
other  words  to  explain  the  results  which  it  offers; 
and  there  is  the  less  need  of  doing  so,  as  they  only 
serve  to  suppivt  the  conclusions  which  have  long 
been  regarded  is  established.  Dr.  Robinson.,  in 


comparing  the  information  derived  from  Josephus 
with  his  own  more  detailed  account,  declares  that 
the  main  features  depicted  by  the  Jewish  historian 
may  still  be  recognised.  ‘ True,’  he  says.  ‘ the 
valley  of  ihe  Tyropoeon,  and  that  between  Akra 
and  Moriah,  have  been  greatly  filled  up  with  the 
rubbish  accumulated  from  the  repeated  desolations 
of  nearly  eighteen  centuries.  Yet  they  are  still 
distinctly  to  be  traced  : the  hills  of  Zion,  Akra, 
Moriah,  and  Bezetha,  are  not  to  be  mistaken ; 
while  the  deep  valleys  of  the  Kidron,  and  of 
Hinnom,  and  the  Mount  of  Olives,  are  permanent 
natural  features,  too  prominent  and  gigantic  in- 
deed to  be  forgotten,  or  to  undergo  any  perceptible 
change’  ( Bibl . Researches,  i.  414). 

The  details  embraced  in  this  general  notice 
must  be  more  particularly  examined  in  connec- 
tion with  modern  observations;  for  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  the  chief  or  only  value  of  these 
observations  consists  in  the  light  which  they  throw 
on  the  ancient  condition  and  history  of  the  site. 

The  Wali.s. — Some  questions  of  much  in- 
terest are  connected  with  the  attempt  to  deter- 
mine the  course  and  extent  of  the  ancient  walls 
of  Jerusalem.  These  questions  chiefly  relate  to 
the  site  of  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  and  of  the 
sepulchre  in  which  he  was  laid.  If  the  site  at 
present  indicated  be  the  right  one,  then  certainly 
there  bos  been  much  alteration  ; for  it  is  consider- 
ably within  the  modem  walls,  although  we  knew 
that  our  Lord  suffered  and  was  entombed  without 
the  gate.  This  part  of  the  subject  has,  however, 
been  examined  in  the  article  Golgotha;  and 
the  conclusion  there  maintained  on  the  point  oi 
chief  interest  connected  with  the  walls,  limits 
the  inquiry  t6  which  the  present  notice  must  be 
directed. 

The  first,  or  most  ancient  wall,  appears  to  have 
enclosed  the  whole  of  Mount  Zion.  The  greater 
part  of  it,  therefore,  must  have  formed  the  exterior 
and  sole  wall  on  the  south,  overlooking  the  deep 
valleys  below  Mount  Zion  ; and  the  northern  par* 
evidently  passed  from  the  tower  of  Hippicus  or 
the  west  side,  along  the  northern  brow  of  Zion, 
and  across  the  valley,  to  the  western  side  of  the 
temple  area.  It  probably  nearly  coincided  with 
the  ancient  wall  which  existed  before  the  time  ol 
David,  and  which  enabled  the  Jebusites  to  main- 
tain themselves  in  possession  of  the  upper  city, 
long  after  the  lower  city  had  been  in  the  hands  of 
the  Israelites.  Mount  Zion  is  now  unwalled,  and 
is  excluded  from., the  modern  city.  Some  traces 
of  this  wall  were  visible  in  the  time  of  Benjamin 
of  Tudela,  who  says  that  the  stones  of  the  foun- 
dation were  then  taken  away  for  building  ( Itiner . 
ed.  Ashe*-.  i.  73).  No  trace  of  it  can  now  be  per- 
ceived, but  by  digging  through  the  rubbish,  the 
foundations  might  perhaps  be  discovered. 

The  account  given  by  Josephus,  of  the  second 
wall,  is  very  short  and  unsatisfactory.  This  is 
the  more  to  be  regretted,  as  on  the  course  taken  by 
the  eastern  part  of  that  wall  rests  the  question, 
whether  that  which  is  now  shown  as  the  site  of 
Calvary  and  the  Holy  Sepulchre  was  anciently 
beyond  the  wall  or  not.  The  difficulties  of  this 
question  are  very  great,  the  historical  evidence 
being  just  as  strongly  in  favour  of  the  present  site 
as  the  topographical  evidence  is  against  it.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  the  breadth  of  the  city,  in  a 
site  limited  by  nature,  and  where,  therefore,  every 
foot  of  ground  was  precious,  would  be  greatly  and 


JERUSALEiM. 


JERUSALEM. 


1<K> 

inconveniently  narrowed  by  drawing  th,e  line  so 
a*  to  place  the  present  holy  sepulchre  beyond  the 
walls.  But  on  the  other  .hand  it  must,  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  phrase  ‘ beyond  the  walls'  is  often 
interpreted  with  a larger  meaning  than  necessary. 
When  applied  to  executions,  gibbetings,  or  any 
purpose  not  allowable  within  the  walls,  we  have 
always  understood,  from  the  analogous  usages  in 
all  walled  towns,  that  it  denotes  the  slope  or  any 
oilier  practicable  space  immediately  wider  the 
wall,  and  so  near  to  it  that  a slight  advance  of 
the  wall  would  include  the  site.  The  fastening 
of  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons  to  the  wall  of 
Beth-shan  may  illustrate  this  view  of  the  case, 
which  tends  in  some  degree  to  lessen  the  difficulty 
of  the  question.  For  our  present  purpose  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  indicate  the  evident  fact  that  this  second 
wall  enclosed  the  whole  of  the  lower  city,  or  Akra, 
excepting  that  part  of  the  eastern  side  of  it  which 
fronted  the  Temple  area  on  Mount  Moriah,  and 
the  southern  side,  towards  the  valley  which  sepa- 
rated the  lower  from  the  upper  city.  In  short,  it 
was  a continuation  of  the  external  wall,  so  far 
as  necessary,  on  the  west  and  north,  and  on  so 
much  of  the  exist  as  was  not  already  protected  by 
the  strong  wall  of  the  Temple  area.  The  precise 
course  of  this  wall  might  perluips  be  determined 
by  excavations.  It  is  indeed  our  strong  convic- 
tion that  one  good  excavation  along  one  of  the  two 
sheets  which  intersect  the  Via  Dolorosa  would 
go  far  to  settle  for  ever  the  only  question  of  real 
interest  connected  with  the  subject.  It  is  likely 
that  the  foundations  of  the  old  wall  still  exist; 
and  if  it  lay  at  any  point  within  the  present  wall, 
those  foundations  must  pass  under  this  street,  and 
an  excavation  of  not  greater  extent  than  those 
which  are  made  every  day  in  London  for  sewerage, 
would  bring  them  to  light,  and  show  whether  the 
alleged  site  of  Calvary  lay  within  or  without  the 
wall. 

Although  these  were  the  only  walls  that  ex- 
isted in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  we  are  not  to 
infer  that  the  habitable  city  was  confined  within 
their  limits.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  because  the 
city  had  extended  northward  far  beyond  the 
second  wall  that  a third  was  built  to  cover  the 
defenceless  suburb : and  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  this  unprotected  suburb,  called  Be- 
r.etha,  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ.  This  wall 
is  described  as  having  also  begun  at  the  tower  of 
Ilippicus:  it  ran  northward  as  far  as  to  the  tower 
Psephinos,  then  passed  down  opposite  the  sepul- 
clu-e  of  Helena  (queen  of  Adiabene),  and  being 
carried  along  through  the  royal  sepulchres,  turned 
at  the  coiner  tower  by  the  Fullers’  monument, 
and  ended  by  making  a junction  with  the  ancient 
wall  at  the  valley  of  the  Kidron.  It  was  begun 
ten  or  twelve  years  after  our  Lord’s  crucifixion 
by  the  elder  Ilerod  Agiippa,  who  desisted  from 
completing  it  for  fear  of  offending  the  Emperor 
Claudius.  But  the  design  was  afterwards  taken 
up  and  completed  hv  the  Jews  themselves,  al- 
though on  a scale  of  less  strength  and  magnifi- 
cence. Dr.  Robinson  thinks  that  he  discovered 
some  traces  of  this  wall,  which  are  described  in 
his  great  work  ( Bibl . Researches , i.  4C6),  and  are 
indicated  in  our  plan  of  Jerusalem. 

The  same  writer  thinks  that  the  wall  of  the 
new  city,  ti  e /Elia  of  Adrian,  nearly  coincided 
with  that  of  the  present  Jerusalem  : and  the  por- 
tion of  Mount  Zion  which  riow  lies  outside, 


would  seem  then  also  to  have  been  excluded , 
for  Eusebius  and  Cyrill,  in  the  fourth  century, 
speak  of  the  denunciation  of  the  prophet  being 
fulfilled,  and  describes  Zion  as  ‘a  ploughed  field’ 
(Mich.  iii.  2). 

We  know  from  Josephus  that  the  circumference 
of  the  ancient  city  was  33  stadia,  equivalent  to 
nearly  three  and  a half  geographical  miles.  The 
circumference  of  the  present  walls  does  not  ex- 
ceed two  and  a half  geographical  miles  ;•  but  the 
extent  of  Mount  Zion,  now  without  the  walls,  and 
the  tract  on  the  north  formerly  enclosed,  or  partly 
so,  by  the  third  wall,  sufficiently  account  foi 
the  difference. 

The  history  of  the  modern  walls  has  already 
been  given  in  the  sketch  of  the  modern  history  of 
the  city.  The  present  walls  have  a solid  and 
formidable  appearance,  especially  when  cursorily 
observed  from  without ; anil  they  are  strengthened, 
or  rather  ornamented,  with  towers  and  battlements 
after  the  Saracenic  style.  They  are  built  of  lime- 
stone, the  stones  being  not  commonly  more  than  a 
foot  or  fifteen  inches  square.  The  height  varies 
with  the  various  elevations  of  the  ground.  The 
lower  parts  are  probably  about  twenty-live  feet 
high,  while  in  more  exposed  localities,  where  the 
ravines  contribute  less  to  the  security  of  the  city, 
they  have  an  elevation  of  sixty  or  seventy  feet. 

Gates.  Much  uncertainty  exists  respecting 
the  ancient  gates  of  Jerusalem.  Many  gates  are 
named  in  Scripture;  and  it  has  been  objected  that 
they  are  more  in  number  than  a town  of  the  size 
of  Jerusalem  cuuld  require — especially  as  they 
all  occur  within  the  extent  embraced  by  the  first 
and  second  walls,  the  third  not  thert  existing. 
It  has,  therefore,  been  suggested  as  move  than 
probable  that  some  of  these  gates  were  within  the 
city,  in  the  walls  which  separated  the  town  from 
the  temple,  and  the  upper  town  from  the  lower, 
in  which  gates  certainly  existed.  On  the  other 
hand,  considering  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  wall  was  rebuilt  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  it  is 
difficult  to  suppose  that  more  than  the  outer  wall 
was  then  constructed,  and  certainly  it  was  in  the 
wall  then  built  that  the  ten  or  twelve  gates  men- 
tioned by  Nehemiah  occur.  But  these  may  be 
considerably  reduced  by  supposing  that  two  or 
more  of  the  names  mentioned  were  applied  to  the 
same  gate.  If  this  view  of  the  matter  be  taken, 
no  better  distribution  of  these  gates  can  be  given 
than  that  suggested  by  Ruumer. 

a.  On  the  north  side. 

1.  The  Old  Gate,  probably  at  the  north-east 
corner  (Neh.  iii.  6 ; xii.  39). 

2.  The  Gate  of  Ephraim  or  Benjamin  (Jer. 
xxxviii.  7 ; xxxvii.  13;  Neh.  xii.  9;  2 Chron. 
xxv.  23).  This  gate  doubtless  derived  its  names 
from  its  leading  to  the  territory  of  Ephraim  and 
Benjamin ; and  Dr.  Robinson  supposes  it  may 
possibly  be  represented  by  some  traces  of  ruina 
which  he  found  on  the  site  of  the  present  gale  of 
Damascus. 

3.  The  Corner-gate , 300  cubits  from  the 
former,  and  apparently  at  the  north-west  corner 
(2  Chron.  xxv.  9;  2 Kings  xiv.  13;  Zech.  xiv. 
10).  Probably  the  Gate  of  the  Furnaces  is  the 
same  (Neh.  iii.  2 ; xii.  38). 

u.  On  the  west  side. 

4.  The  Valley-gate , over  against  the  Dragon- 
fountain  of  Gihon  (Neh.  ii.  13;  iii.  13  ; 2 Chron. 
xxxvi.  9).  It  was  probably  about  the  north-we*t 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


101 


comer  of  Zion,  where  there  appears  to  have  been 
ftlvays  a gate,  and  Dr.  Robinson  supposes  it  to 
be  the  same  with  the  Gennadi  of  Josephus. 

c.  On  the  south  side. 

5.  The  Dung-gate,  perhaps  the  same  as  Jo- 
sephus’s Gate  of  the  Essenes  (Neh.  ii.  13  ; xii.  31). 
It  was  1000  cubits  from  the  valley-gate  (Neh. 
iii.  14),  and  the  dragon-well  was  between  them 
(Neh.  ii.  13).  This  gate  is  probably  also  iden- 
tical with  ‘the  gate  between  two  walls’  (2  Kings 
xxv,  1 ; Jer.  xxxix.  4 ; Lam.  ii.  7). 

6.  The  Gate  of  the  Fountain,  to  the  south- 
east (Neh.  ii.  14;  iii.  15);  the  gate  of  the  foun- 
tain near  the  king's  pool  (Neh.  ii.  14);  the  gate 
of  the  fountain  near  ‘ the  pool  of  Siloali  by  the 
king's  garden'  (Neh.  iii.  15).  The  same  gate  is  pro- 
bably denoted  in  all  these  instances,  and  the  pools 
seem  to  have  been  also  the  same.  It  is  also  pos- 
sible that  this  fountain-gate  was  the  same  other- 
wise distinguished  as  the  brick-gate  (or  potter's 
gate),  leading  to  the  valley  of  IJinnom  (Jer.  xix. 
2,  where  the  Auth.  Ver.  has  ‘east-gate’). 

i).  On  the  east  side. 

7.  The  Water-gate  (Neh.  iii.  26). 

8.  The  Prison-gate,  otherwise  the  Horse-gate , 
near  the  temple  (Neh.  iii.  28;  xii.  39,  40). 

9.  The  Sheep  gate,  probably  near  the  sheep- 
pool  (Neh.  iii.  1-32;  xii.  29). 

10.  The  Fish-gate  was  quite  at  the  north-east 
(Neh.  iii.  3;  xii.  39;  Zeph.  i.  10;  2 Chron. 
xxxiii.  14). 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  two  of  the  cases  the 
distances  of  the  gates  from  each  other  are  men- 
tioned. Thus  the  corner  gate  (3)  was  only  300 
cubits  from  the  gate  of  Ephraim  (2),  and  the 
dung-gate  (5)  was  1U00  cubits  from  t he  valley- 
gate  (4).  This  suggests  that  the  gates  were  really 
nearer  to  each  other  than  the  objections  already 
stated  would  assume,  and  the  4 hundred-gated 
Thebes’  may  be  recollected  as  warranting  a doubt 
whether  the  ancient  Orientals  had  the  same  ob- 
jection to  gates  which  are  now  entertained.  At 
all  events,  if  the  circumference  of  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem,  before  the  third  wall  was  added,  be 
assumed  to  have  been  two  miles  and  a half,  or  equal 
to  the  present  wall,  then  this  extent  would  have 
allowed  ten  gates  at the  highest  named  distance 
of  1000  cubits  apait,  and  more  than  thrice  that 
number  at  the  lowest  named  distance  of  300 
cubits. 

In  the  middle  ages  there  appear  to  have  been 
two  gates  on  each  side  of  the  city,  making  eight 
dii  all;  and  this  number,  being  only  two  short 
of  those  assigned  in  the  above  estimate  to  the 
ancient  Jerusalem,  seems  to  vindicate  that  esti- 
mate from  the  objections  which  have  been  urged 
against  it. 

On  the  west  side  were  two  gates,  of  which  the 
principal  was  the  Porta  David,  Gate  of  David, 
often  mentioned  by  the  writers  on  the  Crusades. 
It  was  called  by  the  Arabs  Bah  el-Mihrab , and 
corresponds  to  the  present  J aff'a  gate,  or  Bah  el - 
Khulil  The  other  was  the  gate  of  the  Fuller’s 
Field  ( Porta  Villce  Fullonis \ , so  called  from  Isa. 
vii.  3.  This  seems  to  be  th*  same  which  others 
call  Porta  Judiciaria , and  which  is  described  as 
being  in  the  wall  over  against  the  church  of  the 
holy  sepulchre,  leading  to  Silo  (Neby  Samwil) 
anti  Gibeon.  This  seems  to  be  that  which  the 
Arabian  writers  call  Serb.  There  is  no  trace  of 
it  in  the  preaen*  wall. 


On  the  north  there  were  also  two  gates  ; and 
nil  the  middle-age  writers  speak  of  the  principa. 
of  them  as  the  gate  of  St.  Stephen,  from  the  notion 
that  the  death  of  the  protomartyr  took  place  neai 
it.  This  was  also  called  the  gate  of  Ephraim,  in 
reference  to  its  probable  ancient  name.  Arabic 
writers  called  it  Bab  ’ Amud  el-Ghurab,  of  which 
the  present  name,  Bab  el- Amud,  is  only  a con- 
traction. The  present  gate  of  St.  Stephen  i3  on 
the  east  of  the  city,  and  the  scene  of  the  martyr- 
dom is  now  placed  near  it ; but  there  is  no 
account  of  the  change.  Further  east  was  the 
gate  of  Benjamin  ( Porta  Benjaminis ),  corre- 
sponding apparently  to  what  is  now  called  the 
gate  of  Herod. 

On  the  east  there  seem  to  have  been  at  least 
two  gates.  The  northernmost  is  described  by 
Adamnanus  as  a small  portal  leading  down  to  the 
valley  of  Jehoshaphat.  It  was  called  the  gate  of 
Jehoshaphat,  from  the  valley  to  which  it  led.  It 
seems  to  be  represented  by  the  present  gate  of  St. 
Stephen.  The  Arabian  writers  call  it  Bab  cl- 
Usbat,  Gate  of  the  tribes,  being  another  form  of 
the  modern  Arabic  name  Bab  es-Svbat.  The 
present  gate  of  St.  Stephen  has  four  lions  sculp- 
tured over  it  on  the  outside,  which,  as  well  as  the 
architecture,  show  that  it  existed  before  the  pre- 
sent walls.  Dr.  Robinson  suggests  that  the 
original  ‘small  portal  ’ was  rebuilt  on  a larger 
scale  by  the  Franks,  when  they  built  up  the  walls 
of  the  city,  either  in  a.b.  1178  or  1239.  The 
other  gate  is  the  famous  Golden  Gate  ( Porta 


aurea ) in  the  eastern  wall  of  the  temple  area.  It  ia 
now  called  by  the  Arabs  Bab  ed-Dahariyeh,  but 
formerly  Bab  er-Rahmeh,  ‘Gate  of  Mercy.’  The 
name  Golden  Gate  appears  to  have  come  from  a 
supposed  connection  with  one  of  the  ancient  gates 
of  the  temple,  which  are  said  to  have  been  co- 
vered with  gold  ; but  this  name  cannot  be  traced 
back,  beyond  the  historians  of  the  Crusades. 
This  gate  is,  from  its  architecture,  obviously  of 
Roman  origin,  and  is  conjectured  to  have  be- 
longed to  the  enclosure  of  the  temple  of  Jupiter 
which  was  built  by  Adrian  upon  Mount  Moriao. 
The  exterior  is  now  walled  up  ; but  being  double, 
the  interior  forms  within  the  area  a recess,  which  is 
used  for  prayer  by  the  Moslem  worshipper.  Dif- 
ferent reasons  are  given  for  the  closing  of  this  gate. 
It  was  probably  because  it  was  found  inconvenient 
that  a gate  to  the  mosque  should  be  open  in  the 
exterior  wall.  Although  not  walled  up,  it.  was 
kept  closed  even  when  the  Crusaders  were  in  pos- 
session of  the  city,  find  only  opened  once  a yea* 
on  Palm  Sunday,  in  celebration  of  our  Lord’s  sup» 
posed-  triumphal  entry  through  it  to  the  tempi*. 


102 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


On  the  soutli  side  were  also  two  gates.  The 
easternmost  is  now  called  by  .the  Franks  the 
Dung-gate,  and  by  the  natives  Bab  el-Mugharibeh. 
The  earliest  mention  of  this  gate  is  by  Brocard, 
about  a.d.  1283,  who  regards  it.  as  the  ancient 
Water-gate.  Further  west,  between  the  eastern 
brow  of  Zion  and  the  gate  of  David,  the  Cru- 
saders found  a gate  which  they  call  the  Gate  of 
Zion,  corresponding  ti  one  which  now  bears  the 
same  name. 

It  thus  appears  that  before  the  rebuilding  of 
the  walls  of  Jerusale  n by  the  Turks  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  the  principal  gates  of  the  cify 
were  much  the  same  as  at  the  present  day.  But 
of  the  seven  gates  mentioned  as  still  existing, 
three,  the  Dung  Gate,  the  Golden  Gate,  and  lie- 
rod  s Gate,  are  closed.  Thus  there  are  only  four 
gates  now  in  use,  one  on  each  side  of  tire  town, 
all  of  which  have  been  enumerated.  St.  Stephen's, 
on  the  east,  leads  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  Bethany, 
and  Jericho.  From  the  nature  of  the  ground, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  situation  of  the 
temple,  a little  south,  there  must  always  have  been 
a great  thoroughfare  here.  Zion  Gate,  on  the  south 
side  of  the  city,  connects  the  populous  quarter 
around  the  Armenian  convent  with  that  part  of 
Mount  Zion  which  is  outside  the  walls,  and  which 
is  much  resorted  to  as  being  the  great  field  of 
Christian  burial,  as  well  as  for  its  traditionary 
sanctity  as  the  site  of  David's  tomh,  the  house  of 
Caiaphas,  house  of  Mary,  &c.  The  Jaffa  Gate, 
on  the  west,  is  the  termination  of  the  important 
routes  from  Jaffa,  Bethlehem,  and  Hebron.  The 
formation  of  the  ground  suggests  this  as  one  of 
the  great  thoroughfares  of  the  ancient  city,  which 
could  here  be  approached  from  the  quarters  just 
indicated  much  more  conveniently  than  at  any 
other  point.  The  Damascus  Gate,  on  the  north, 
is  also  planted  in  a vale,  which  in  every  age  of 
Jerusalem  must  have  been  a great  public  way,  and 
the  easiest  approach  from  Sariftuia  and  Galilee. 

Towehs. — The  towers  of  Jerusalem  are  often 
mentioned  in  Scripture  and  in  Josephus.  There 
is,  indeed,  no  general  account  of  them  ; but  some 
of  the  principal  are  described,  and  we  may  rea- 
sonably infer  that  the  others  resembled  them,  more 
or  less,  in  form  and  arrangement.  Most  of  the 
towers  mentioned  by  Josephus  were  erected  by 
Herod  the  Great,  and  were,  consequently,  stand- 
ing in  the  time  of  Christ.  It  was  on  these,  there- 
fore, that  his  eyes  often  rested  when  he  approached 
Jerusalem,  or  viewed  its  walls  and  towers  from 
the  Mount  of  Olives.  Of  all  these  towers,  the 
most  important  is  that  of  Ilippicus,  which  Jose- 
phus, as  we  have  alieady  seen,  assumed  as  the 
starting-point  in  his  description  of  all  the  walls  of 
the  city.  Herod  gave  to  it  the  name  of  a friend 
who  was  slain  in  battle.  It  was  a quadrangular 
structure,  twenty-five  cubits  on  each  side,  and 
built  up  entirely  solid  to  the  height  of  thirty  cubita. 
Above  this  solid  part  was  a cistern  twenty  cubits; 
and  then,  for  twenty-five  cubits  more,  were  cham- 
bers of  various  kinds,  with  a breastwork  of  two 
cubits,  and  battlements  of  three  cubits  upon  the 
top.  The  altitude  of  the  whole  tower  was  conse- 
quently eighty  cubits.  The  stones  of  which  it 
was  built  were  very  large,  twenty  cubits  long  by 
ten  broad  and  five  high,  and  (probably  in  the 
upper  part)  were  of  white  marble.  Dr.  Robinson 
oas  shown  that  this  tower  should  be  sought  at  the 
Qorth-  we-t  corner  of  the  upper  city,  or  Mount  Zien. 


This  part,  a little  to  the  south  of  the  Jaffa  Gate,  it 
now  occupied  by  the  citadel.  It  is  an  irregular 
assemblage  of  square  towers,  surrounded  on  the 
inner  side  towards  the  city  by  a low  wall,  and 
having  on  the  outer  or  west  side  a deep  fosse.  The 
towers  which  rise  from  the  brink  of  the  fosse  are 
protected  on  that  side  by  a low  sloping  bulwark 
or  buttress,  which  rises  from  the  bottom  of  the 
trench  at  an  angle  of  forty-five  degrees.  This 
part  hears  evident  marks  of  antiquity,  and  Dr. 
Robinson  is  inclined  to  ascribe  these  massive  out- 
works to  the  time  of  the  rebuilding  and  fortifying 
of  the  city  by  Adrian.  This  fortress  is  described 
by  the  middle  age  historians  as  tne  tower  or  citadel 
of  David.  Within  it,  as  the  traveller  enters  the 
city  by  the  Jaffa  Gate,  the  north-eastern  tower 
attracts  his  notice  as  bearing  evident  marks  of 
higher  antiquity  than  any  of  the  others.  The 
upper  pari  is,  indeed,  modern,  but  the  lower  pait 
is  built  of  larger  stones,  bevelled  at  the  edges,  and 
apparently  still  occupying  their  original  places. 
This  tower  has  been  singled  out  by  the  Franks, 
and  bears  among  them  the  name  of  the  Tower  of 
David,  while  they  sometimes  give  to  the  whole 
fortress  the  name  of  the  Castle  of  David.  Taking 
all  the  circumstances  into  account,  Dr.  Robinson 
thinks  that  the  antique  lower  portion  of  this  tower 
is  in  all  probability  a remnant  of  the  tower  of 
Hippicus,  which,  as  Josephus  states,  was  left 
standing  by  Titus  when  lie  destroyed  the  city. 
This  discoveiy,  however,  is  not  new:  the  identity 
having  been  advocated  by  Raumer  and  others  be- 
fore J>r.  Robinson  travelled. 

Josephus  describes  two  other  towers — those  of 
Phasaelus  and  Mariamne,  both  built  by  Herod, 
one  of  them  being  named  after  a friend,  and  the 
other  after  his  favourite  wife.  They  stood  not  far 
from  Hippicus,  upon  the  first  or  most.  ancient  wall, 
which  ran  from  the  latter  tower  eastward,  along 
the  northern  brow  of  Zion.  Connected  with  these 
towers  and  Hippicus  was  the  royal  castle  or 
palace  of  the  first  Herod,  which  was  enclosed  by 
this  wall  on  the  north,  and  on  the  other  sides  by  a 
wall  thirty  cubits  high.  The  whole  was  furnished 
with  great  strength  and  regal  splendour,  and  fur- 
nished with  halls,  and  galleries,  and  cisterns,  and 
apartments  without  number  (Joseph.  De  Bell. 
Jud.  v.  4.  3,  4 ; v.  4.  4).  These  were  the  three 
mighty  towers  which  Titus  left  standing  as  mo- 
numents of  the  strength  of  the  place  which  had 
yielded  to  his  arms.  But  nothing  now  remains 
save  the  above-mentioned  supposed  remnant  of  the 
tower  of  Hippicus. 

A fourth  tower,  called  Psephinos,  is  mentioned 
by  Josephus  ( De  Bell.  Jud.  v.  4.  2,  3).  It  stood 
at.  the  north-west  corner  of  the  third  or  exterior 
wall  of  the  city.  It  did  not,  consequently,  exist 
in  the  time  of  Christ,  seeing  that  the  wall  itself 
was  built  by  Herod  Agrippa,  to  whom  also  the 
tower  may  be  ascribed.  It  was  of  an  octagonal 
form,  seventy  cubits  high,  and  from  it  could  be 
seen  Aiabia  towards  the  rising  sun,  and  the  inhe- 
ritance of  the  Hebrews  quite  to  the  sea.  This 
shows  that  it  must  have  stood  upon  the  high  swell 
,jf  ground  which  extends  up  north-north-west  from 
the  north-west  corner  of  the  present  city.  In  this 
quarter  there  are  ancient  substructions,  apparently 
of  towers  and  other  fortifications,  and  although 
none  of  them  may  be  actually  those  of  Psephinos, 
Dr.  Robinson  conceives  that  the  tower  stoi  d seme- 
where  in  this  vicinity. 


JERUSALEM 


JERUSALEM. 


The  abor e are  the  only  towers  whi.  h the  his- 
torian particularly  mentions.  But.  in  describing 
the  outer  or  third  wall  of  Agrippa,  he  states  that 
it  had  battlements  of  two  cubits,  and  turrets  of 
three  cubits  more : and  as  the  wall  was  twenty 
subits  high,  this  would  make  the  turrets  of  the 
weight  of  twenty-five  cubits  or  nearly  thirty-eight 
feet.  Many  loftier  and  more  substantial  towers 
than  these  were  erected  on  each  of  the  walls  at 
regulated  distances,  and  furnished  with  every  re- 
quisite for  convenience  or  defence.  Of  those  on  the 
third  or  outer  wall  are  enumerated  ninety;  on  the 
middle  or  second  wall,  forty;  and  on  the  inner 
or  ancient  wall,  sixty. 

Public  Buildings. — The  temple  was  in  all 
ages  the  great  glory  and  principal  public  build- 
ing of  Jerusalem,  as  the  heathen  temple,  church,  or 
mosque,  successively  occupying  the  same  site,  has 
been  ever  since  the  Jewish  temple  was  destroyed. 
That  temple  is  reserved  for  a separate  article 
[Temple],  and  there  are  few  other  public  edifices 
which  require  a particular  description.  Those  most 
connected  with  Scripture  history  are  the  palace  of 
Herod  and  the  tower  of  Antonia.  The  former  has 
already  been  noticed.  In  the  time  of  Christ  it  was 
t lie  residence  of  the  Roman  procurators  while  in 
Jerusalem ; and  as  such  provincial  residences 
were  called  by  the  Romans  Pretoria,  this  was 
the  praetorium  or  judgment-hall  of  Pilate  (Matt, 
xxvii.  27 ; Mark  xv.  16;  John  xviii.  28).  In 
front  of  the  palace  was  the  tribunal  or  ‘judgment- 
seat,’  where  the  procurator  sat  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine the  causes;  and  where  Pilate  was  seated  when 
our  Lord  was  brought  before  him.  It  was  a raised 
pavement  of  mosaic  work  (AidSarpurou),  called 
in  the  Hebrew  Gabbatha,  or  ‘ an  elevated  place’ 
[Judgment-Hall]. 

The  tower  or  castle  of  Antonia  stood  on  a steep 
rock  adjoining  the  north-west  coiner  of  the  temple. 
It  has  already  been  mentioned,  (p.  94)  that  it 
originated  under  the  Maccabees,  who  resided  in 
it.  The  name  of  Baris  B apvs  or  BapeiV), 

which  it  obtained,  was  originally  thePersian  name 
of  a royal  palace  ; but  which,  according  to  Je- 
rome ( Epist . ad  Princip . ii.  669),  was  afterwards 
adopted  in  Palestine,  and  applied  to  all  the  large 
quadrangular  dwellings  built  with  turrets  and 
walls.  As  improved  by  Herod,  who  gave  it  the 
name  of  Antonia  after  bis  patron  Mark  Antony, 
this  fortress  had  all  the  extent  and  appearance  of 
a palace,  being  divided  into  apartments  of  every 
kind,  with  ga’leries  and  baths,  and  also  broad 
halls  or  barracks  for  soldiers;  so  that,  as  having 
every  thing  necessary  within  itself,  it  seemed  a 
city,  while  in  its  magnificence  it  was  a palace. 
At  each  of  the  four  corners  was  a tower,  one  of 
which  was  seventy  cubits  high,  and  overlooked  the 
whole  temple  with  its  couiis.  The  fortress  com- 
municated with  the  cloisters  of  the  temple  by 
secret  passages,  through  which  the  soldiers  could 
enter  and  quell  any  tumults,  which  were  always 
apprehended  at  the  time  of  the  great  festivals.  It 
was  to  a guard  of  these  soldiers  that  Pilate  re- 
ferred the  Jews  as  a c watch  ’ for  the  sepulchre 
of  Christ.  This  tower  was  also  ‘the  castle’  into 
which  St.  Pat  1 was  carried  when  the  Jews  rose 
against  him  i i the  temple,  and  were  about  to 
kill  him  ; and  where  he  gave  his  able  and  niainy 
account  of  his  conversion  and  conduct  (Acts  xxi. 
27-40 ; xx ii  ).  This  tower  was,  in  fact,  the  citadel 
»f  Jerusalem. 


10.1 

Waters  of  Jerusalem. — In  his  account  of 
the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey,  Strabo  says 
that  the  town  was  well  provided  with  water  within 
the  walls,  but  that  there  was  none  in  the  en- 
virons ( Geog . xvi.  2,  40).  Probably  the  Roman 
troops  then  suffered  from  want  of  water,  as  did 
other  armies  which  laid  siege  to  Jerusalem.  In 
the  narratives  of  all  such  sieges  we  never  read  of 
the  besieged  suffering  from  thirst,  although  driven 
to  the  most  dreadful  extremities  and  resources  by 
hunger,  while  the  besiegers  are  frequently  de- 
scribed as  suffering  greatly  from  want  of  water, 
and  as  being  obliged  to  fetcn  it  from  a great  dis- 
tance. The  agonits  of  thirst  sustained  by  the 
first  crusaders  in  their  siege  of  Jerusalem  will  be 
remembered  by  most  readers  from  the  vivid  pic- 
ture drawn  by  Tasso,  if  not  from  1 lie  account  fur- 
nished by  William  of  Tyre.  Yet  when  the  town 
was  taken  plenty  of  water  was  found  within  it. 
This  is  a very  singular  circumstance,  and  is 
perhaps  only  in  part  explained  by  reference  to  the 
system  of  preserving  water  in  cisterns,  as  at  this 
day,  in  Jerusalem. 

Solomon's  aqueduct  near  Bethlehem  to  Jem 
salem  could  have  been  no  dependence,  as  its 
waters  might  easily  have  been  cut  off  by  the  be- 
siegers. All  the  wells  also  are  now  outside  the 
town;  and  no  interior  fountain  is  mentioned  save 
that  of  Hezekiah,  which  is  scarcely  tit  for  drink- 
ing. At  the  siege  by  Titus  the  well  of  Siloam 
may  have  been  in  possession  of  the  Jews,  i.  e. 
within  the  walls;  but  at  the  siege  by  the  Cru- 
saders it  was  certainly  held  by  the  besieging 
Franks;  and  yet  the  latter  perished  from  thiisf, 
while  the  besieged  had  ‘ ingentes  copias  aquae.* 
We  cannot  here  go  through  the  evidence  which 
by  combination  and  comparison  might  throw  some 
light  on  this  remarkable  question.  There  is,  how- 
ever, good  ground  to  conclude  that  from  very  an- 
cient times  there  has  been  under  the  temple  an 
unfailing  source  of  water,  derived  by  secret  and 
subterraneous  channels  from  springs  to  the  west  of 
the  town,  and  communicating  by  other  subterra- 
neous passages  with  the  pool  of  Siloam  and  the 
fountain  of  the  Virgin  in  the  east  of  the  town, 
whether  they  were  within  or  without  the  walls  of 
the  town. 

The  existence  of  a perennial  source  of  water 
below  the  temple  has  always  been  admitted. 
Tacitus  knew  of  it  (Hist.  v.  12);  and  Aristeas,  in 
describing  the  ancient  temple,  informs  us  that  ‘ the 
supply  of  water  was  unfailing,  inasmuch  as  there 
was  an  abundant  natural  fountain  flowing  in  the 
interior,  and  reservoirs  of  admirable  construction 
under  ground,  extending  live  stadia  round  the 
temple,  with  pipes  and  conduits  unknown  to  all 
except  those  to  whom  the  service  was  entrusted, 
by  which  the  water  was  brought  to  various  parts 
of  the  temple  and  again  conducted  off.’  The 
Moslems  also  have  constantly  affiimed  the  exist- 
ence of  this  fountain  or  cistern.  But.  a reserve  has 
always  been  kept  up  as  to  the  means  by  which  it  is 
supplied.  This  reserve  seems  to  have  been  main- 
tained by  the  successive  occupants  of  Jerusalem 
as  a point  of  civic  honour  ; and  this  fact  alone 
intimates  that  there  was  danger  to  the  town  in  its 
becoming  known,  and  points  to  the  fact  that  the 
supply  came  from  without,  the  city  by  secret 
channels,  which  it  was  of  importance  not  to  dis- 
close. Yet  we  are  plainly  told  in  the  Bible  that 
Hezekiah  ‘ stopped  the  upper  water-course  of  Gihcm* 


104 


JERUSALEM. 


JERUSALEM. 


and  brought  it  down  to  the  west  side  of  the  city 
of  David’  (1  Kings  i.  33.  3R) : from  2 Chron. 
xxxii.  30,  it  seems  that  all  the  neighbouring  foun- 
tains were  thus  * stopped’  or  covered,  and  the 
hrook  which  they  had  formed  diverted  by  subter- 
raneous channels  into  the  town,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  preventing  besiegers  from  finding  the 
4 much  water’  which  previously  existed  outside  the 
walls  (comp,  also  Ecclus.  xlviii.  17).  Perhaps, 
likewise,  the  prophet  Ezekiel  (xlvii.  1-12)  alludes 
to  this  secret  fountain  under  the  temple  when  he 
speaks  of  waters  issuing  from  the  threshold  of  thv 
temple  towards  the  east,  and  flowing  down  to- 
wards the  desert  as  an  abundant  and  beautiful 
stream.  This  figure  may  be  drawn  from  the 
waters  of  the  inner  source  under  the  temple,  being 
at  the  time  of  overflow  discharged  by  the  outlets 
at  Siloam,  into  the  Kidron,  which  takes  the  east- 
ward course  thus  described. 

There  are  certainly  wells,  nr  rather  shafts,  in 
and  near  the  temple  area,  which  are  alleged  to 
derive  their  waters  through  a passage  of  masonry 
four  or  five  feet  high,  from  a chamber  or  reservoir 
cut  in  the  solid  rock  under  the  grand  mosque,  in 
which  the  water  is  said  to  rise  from  the  rock  into 
a basin  at  the  bottom  The  existence  of  this  re- 
servoir and  source  of  water  is  affirmed  by  all 
Moslems,  and  coincides  with  the  preceding  inti- 
mations, but  it  must  be  left  for  future  explorers 
to  clear  up  all  the  obscurities  in  which  the  matter 
is  involved. 

The  ordinary  means  taken  by  the  inhabitants  to 
secure  a supply  of  water  have  been  described 
under  the  article  Cistern  ; and  the  reader 
may  be  referred  for  interesting  details  to  Rau- 
mer's  Paliistina.  pp.  329  333;  Robinson’s  Re- 
searches, i.  479-516;  and  Olin's  Travels,  ii. 
168-181. 

Modern  Jerusalem. — In  proceeding  to  fur- 
nish a description  of  the  present  Jerusalem,  we 
shall,  for  the  most  part,  place  ourselves  under  the 
guidance  of  Dr.  Olin,  whose  account  is  not  only 
the  most  recent,  but  is  by  far  the  most  complete 
and  satisfactory  which  lias  of  late  years  been  pro- 
duced. 

The  general  view  of  the  city  from  the  Mount 
of  Olives  is  mentioned  more  or  less  by  all  tra- 
vellers as  that  from  which  they  derive  their 
most  distinct  and  abiding  impression  of  Jeru- 
salem. 

The  summit  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  about 
half  a mile  east  from  the  city,  which  it  completely 
overlooks,  every  considerable  edifice  and  almost 
every  bouse  being  visible.  The  city  seen  from 
this  point  appears  to  be  a regular  inclined  plain, 
sloping  gently  and  uniformly  from  west  to  east, 
or  towards  the  observer,  and  indented  by  a slight 
depression  or  shallow  vale,  running  nearly  through 
the  centre,  in  the  same  direction.  The  south-east 
corner  of  the  quadrangle — fur  that  may  be  as- 
sumed as  the  figure  formed  by  the  rocks — that 
which  is  nearest  to  the  observer,  is  occupied  by 
ihe  mosque  of  Omar  and  its  extensive  and  beau- 
tiful grounds.  This  is  Mount  Moriah,  the  site 
of  Solomon's  temple,  md  the  ground  embraced  in 
the  sacred  enclosure,  which  conforms  to  that  of 
the  ancient  temple,  occupies  about  an  eighth  of  the 
whole  modern  cify.  It  is  covered  with  green 
ivtard  and  planted  sparingly  with  olive,  cypress, 
and  other  trees,  and  it  is  certainly  the  most  lovely 
feature  of  the  town,  whether  we  have  reference  to 


the  splendid  structures  or  the  beautiful  laws 
spread  out  around  them. 

The  south-west  quarter,  embracing  that  part  o! 
Mount  Zion  which  is  within  the  modern  town,  is 
to  a great  extent  occupied  by  the  Armenian  con- 
vent, an  enormous  edifice,  which  is  the  only  con- 
spicuous object  in  this  neighbourhood.  The 
north-west  is  largely  occupied  by  the  Latin  con- 
vent, another  very  extensive  establishment.  About 
midway  between  these  two  convents  is  the. castle 
or  citadel,  close  to  the  Bethlehem  gatej  already 
mentioned.  The  north-east  quarter  of  Jerusalem 
is  but.  partially  built  up.  and  it  has  more  the  aspect 
of  a rambling  agricultural  village  than  that  of  a 
crowded  city.  The  vacant  spots  here  are  green 
with  gardens  and  olive-trees.  There  is  another 
large  vacant  tract  along  the  southern  wall,  and 
west  of  the  Haram,  also  covered  with  verdure. 
Near  the  centre  of  the  city  also  appear  two  or 
three  green  spots,  which  are  small  gardens.  The 
church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  is  the  only  conspi- 
cuous edifice  in  this  vicinity,  and  its  domes  are 
striking  objects.  There  are  no  buildings  which, 
either  from  their  size  or  beauty,  are  likely  to  en- 
gage the  attention.  Eight  or  ten  minarets  mark 
the  position  of  so  many  mosques  in  different,  pails 
of  the  town,  but  they  are  only  noticed  because  ot 
their  elevation  above  the  surrounding  edifices. 
Upon  the  same  principle  the  eye  rests  for  a mo- 
ment upon  a great  number  of  low  domes,  which 
form  the  roofs  of  the  principal  dwellings,  and 
relieve  the  heavy  uniibimily  of  the  flat  plastered 
roofs  which  cover  the  greater  mass  of  more  humble 
habitations.  Many  ruinous  piles  and  a thousand 
disgusting  objects  are  concealed  or  disguised  by 
the  distance.  Many  inequalities  of  surface,  which 
exist  to  so  great  an  extent  that  there  is  not  a level 
street,  of  any  length  in  Jerusalem,  are  also  un- 
perceived. 

From  the  same  commanding  point,  of  view  a 
few  olive  and  fig-trees  are  seen  in  the  lower  part 
of  the  valley  of  Jehoshapliat,  and  scattered  over 
the  side  of  Olivet  from  its  base  to  the  summit. 
They  are  sprinkled  yet  more  sparingly  on  ihe 
southern  side  of  the  city  on  Mounts  Zion  and 
Ophel.  North  of  Jerusalem  the  olive  plantations 
appear  more  numerous  as  well  as  thriving,  and 
thus  offer  a grateful  contrast  to  the  sun-burnt  fields 
and  bare  rocks  which  predominate  in  this  land- 
scape. The  region  west  of  the  city  appears  to  be 
destitute  of  trees.  Fields  of  stunted  wheat,  yellow 
with  the  drought  rather  than  while  for  the  harvest, 
are  seen  on  all  sides  of  the  town. 

Jerusalem,  as  seen  from  Mount  Olivet,  is  a 
plain  inclining  gently  and  equably  to  the  East. 
Once  epter  its  gates,  however,  and  il  is  found  to  be 
full  of  inequalities.  The  passenger  is  always  as- 
cending or  descending.  There  are  no  level  streets, 
and  little  skill  or  labour  lias  been  employed  to  re- 
move or  diminish  the  inequalities  which  nature  or 
time  has  produced.  Houses  are  built  upon  moun- 
tains of  rubbish,  which  are  probably  twenty,  thirty, 
or  fifty  feet  above  the  natural  level,  and  the  streets 
are  constructed  with  the  same  disregard  to  conve- 
nience, with  this  difference,  that  some  slight  atten- 
tion is  paid  to  the  possibility  of  carrying  off  surplus 
water.  The  latter  are,  without  exception,  nar- 
row, seldom  exceeding  eight  or  ten  feet,  in  breadth. 
The  houses  often  meet,  ami  in  some  instances  a 
building  occupies  both  sides  of  the  street,  which 
runs  ’judex  a succession  of  archea  barely  high 


JERUSALEM. 

enough  to  permit  an  equestrian  to  pass  under 
them.  A canopy  of  old  mats  or  of  plank  is  sus- 
pended over  the  principal  streets  when  not  arched. 
This  custom  had  its  origin,  no  doubt,  in  the  heat 
of  the  climate,  which  is  very  intense  in  summer, 
anti  it  gives  a gloomy  aspect  to  all  the  most 
thronged  anaL  lively  parts  of  the  city.  These 
covered  wayWtne  often  pervaded  by  currents  of 
air  when  a perfect  calm  prevails  in  oilier  places. 
The  principal  streets  of  Jerusalem  run  nearly  at 
right  angles  to  each  other.  Very  few  if  any  of 
them  bear  names  among  the  native  population. 
They  are  badly  paved,  being  merely  laid  irre- 
gularly with  raised  stones,  with  a deep  square 
channel,  for  beasts  of  burden,  in  the  middle;  but 
the  steepness  of  the  ground  contributes  to  keep 
them  cleaner  than  in  most  Oriental  cities. 

The  houses  of  Jerusalem  are  substantially  built 
of  the  limestone  of  which  the  whole  of  this  part  of 
Palestine  is  composed  : not  usually  hewn,  but 
broken  into  regular  forms,  and  making  a solid 
wall  of  very  respectable  appearance.  For  the 
most  part  there  are  no  windows  next  to  the  street, 
and  the  few  which  exist  for  the  purposes  of  light 
or  ventilation  are  completely  masked  by  case- 
ments and  lattice-work.  The  apartments  re- 
ceive their  light  from  the  open  courts  within.  The 
ground  plot  is  usually  surrounded  l>y  a high  enclo- 
sure, commonly  forming  ihe  walls  of  the  house 
only,  but  sometimes  embracing  a small  garden 
and  some  vaeant  ground.  The  rain-water 
which  falls  upon  the  pavement  is  carefully  con- 
ducted, by  means  of  gutters,  into  cisterns,  where 
it  is  preserved  for  domestic  uses.  The  people  of 
Jerusalem  rely  chieily  upon  these  reservoirs  for 
their  supply  of  litis  indispensable  article.  Every 
house  lias  its  cistern,  and  the  larger  habitations 
are  provided  with  a considerable  number  of  them, 
which  occupy  the  ground-story  or  cells  fumed 
for  the  purpose  below  it..  Stone  is  employed  in 
building  for  all  the  purposes  to  which  it.  can  pos- 
sibly be  applied,  and  Jerusalem  is  hardly  move 
exposed  to  accidents  by  tire  than  a quarry  or  sub- 
terranean cavern.  The  floors,  stairs,  &c.  are  of 
stone,  and  the  ceiling  is  usually  formed  by  a coat 
of  plaster  laid  upon  the  stones,  which  at  the  same 
time  form  the  roof  and  the  vaulted  top  of  the 
room.  Doors,  sashes,  and  a few  other  appurte- 
nances, are  all  that  can  usually  he  afforded  of  a 
material  so  expensive  as  wood.  The  little  timber 
which  is  used  is  muslly  brought  from  Mount 
Lebanon,  as  in  the  time  of  Solomon.  A rough, 
crooked  stick  of  the  fig-tree,  or  some  gnarled, 
twisted  planks  made  of  the  olive — the  growth  of 
Palestine — are  occasionally  seen.  In  other  respects 
the  description  in  the  article  House  will  afford 
a sufficient  notion  of  those  in  Jerusalem.  A large 
number  of  houses  in  Jerusalem  are  in  a dilapi- 
dated and  ruinous  state.  Nobody  seems  to  make 
repairs  so  long  as  his  dwelling  does  not  absolutely 
•efuse  him  shelter  and  safety.  If  one  room  tum- 
bles about  his  ears  he  removes  into  another,  and 
permits  rubbish  and  vermin  to  accumulate  as  they 
will  in  the  deserted  halls.  Tottering  staircases 
are  propped  to  prevent  their  fall ; and  when  the 
edifice  becomes  untenable,  the  ^ccupant  seeks 
another  a little  less  ruinous,  leaving  the  wreck  to 
a smaller  or  more  wretched  family,  or,  more 
probably,  to  a goatherd  and  his  flock.  Habi- 
tations which  have  a very  respectable  appearance 
13  seen  from  the  street,  are  of  ?n  found,  upon 


JERUSALEM.  103 

entering  them,  to  be  little  belter  than  heajs  of 
ruins. 

Nothing  of  this  would  be  suspected  from 
the  general  appearance  of  the  city  us  seen  from 
the  various  commanding  points  without  the 
walls,  nor  from  anything  that,  meets  the  eye 
in  the  streets.  Few  towns  in  the  East  olfer  a 
more  imposing  spectacle  to  the  view  of  the  ap- 
proaching stranger.  He  is  struck  with  the  height 
and  massiveness  of  the  walls,  which  are  kept  in 
perfect  repair,  and  naturally  produce  a favourable 
opinion  of  the  wealth  and  comfort  which  they  are 
designed  to  protect.  Upon  entering  the  gates,  he 
is  apt,  after  all  that  has  been  published  about  the 
solitude  that  reigns  in  the  streets,  to  be  surprised 
at  meeting  large  numbers  of  people  in  the  chief 
thoroughfares,  almost,  without  exception  decently 
clad.  A longer  and  more  intimate  acquaintance 
with  Jerusalem,  however,  does  not  fail  to  correct 
this  too  favourable  impression,  and  demonstrate 
the  existence  and  general  prevalence  of  the  poverty 
and  even  wretchedness  which  must  result  in  every 
country  from  oppression,  from  the  absence  of  trade, 
and  the  utter  stagnation  of  all  branches  of  indus- 
try. Considerable  activity  is  displayed  in  the 
bazaars,  which  are  supplied  scantily,  like  those  of 
other  Eastern  towns,  with  provisions,  tobacco, 
coarse  cottons,  and  other  articles  of  prime  neces- 
sity. A considerable  business  is  still  done  in  beads, 
crosses,  and  other  sacred  trinkets,  which  are  pur- 
chased to  a vast  amount  by  the  pilgrims  who 
annually  throng  the  holy  city.  The  support 
and  even  the  existence  of  the  considerable  popu- 
lation of  Jerusalem  depend  upon  this  transient 
patronage — a circumstance  to  which  a great  part 
of  the  prevailing  poverty  and  degradation  is  justly 
ascribed.  The  worthless  articles  employed  in  this 
pitiful  trade  are,  almost,  without  exception,  brought 
from  other  places,  especially  Hebron  and  Beth- 
lehem— the  former  celebrated  for  its  baubles  of 
glass,  the  latter  chiefly  fur  rosaries,  crucifixes,  and 
other  toys  made  of  mother-of-pearl,  olive-wood, 
black  stones  from  the  Dead  Sea,  &c.  These  are 
eagerly  bought  up  by  the  ignorant  pilgrims,  sprin- 
kled with  holy  water  by  the  priests,  or  consecrated 
by  some  other  religious  mummery,  and  carried 
ofl'  in  triumph  and  worn  as  ornaments  to  charm 
away  disease  and  misfortune,  and  probably  to  Ire 
buried  with  the  deluded  enthusiast  in  his  coffin, 
as  a sure  passport  to  eternal  blessedness.  With 
the  departure  of  the  swarms  of  pilgrims,  however, 
even  this  poor  semblance  of  active  industry  and 
prosperity  deserts  the  city.  With  the  exception 
of  some  establishments  for  soap-making,  a tannery, 
and  a very  few  weavers  of  coarse  cottons,  there 
do  not  appear  to  be  any  manufacturers  properly 
bedonging  to  the  place.  Agriculture  is  almost 
equally  wretched,  and  can  only  give  employment 
to  a few  hundred  people.  The  masses  really  seem 
to  be  without  any  regular  employment.  A con- 
siderable number,  especially  of  the  Jews,  profess- 
edly live  on  charity.  Many  Christian  pilgrims 
annually  find  their  way  hither  on  similar  resources, 
and  the  approaches  to  the  holy  places  are  thronged 
with  beggars,  who  in  piteous  tones  demand  alms  in 
the  name  of  Christ  and  the  Blessed  Virgin.  The 
general  condition  of  the  population  is  that  of  abject 
poverty.  A few  Turkish  officials,  ecclesiastical, 
civil,  and  military  ; some  remains  of  the  old  Mo- 
hammedan aristocracy — once  powerful  and  rich, 
but  now  much  impoverished  and  nearly  extinct; 


106 


JERL'SAl  EM. 


JERUSALEM. 


gether  with  a few  tradesmen  in  easy  circumstances, 
form  almost  the  only  exceptions  to  the  prevailing 
indigence.  There  is  not  a single  broker  among 
the  whole  population,  and  not  t he  smallest  sum 
can  be  obtained  on  the  best  bills  of  exchange  short 
of  Jafla  or  Beirout. 

Inhabitants. — The  number  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  has  been  variously  estimated  by 
different  travellers,  some  making  it  as  high  as 
30,000,  others  as  low  as  12,000.  An  average  of 
these  estimates  would  make  it  somewhere  between 
12,000  and  15,000;  but  the  Egyptian  system  of 
taxation  and  of  military  conscription  in  Syria 
has  lately  furnished  more  accurate  data  than  had 
previously  been  obtainable,  aud  on  these  Dr.  Ro- 
binson estimates  the  population  at  not  more  tnan 
11,500,  distributed  thus — 

Mohammedans  . . . 4,500 

Jews  ....  3,000 

Christians  . . . 3,500 


11,000 

If  to  this  be  added  something  for  possible  omis- 
sions, and  the  inmales  of  the  convents,  the  stand- 
ing population,  exclusive  of  the  garrison,  cannot 
well  exceed  1 1,51)0.  The  Mosiems,  it  will  be 
seen,  exceed  in  number  the  Jews  or  Christians 
respectively,  but  are  much  fewer  than  these  two 
bodies  united.  To  all  these  classes  Jerusalem  is 
holy;  and  is  the  only  city  in  the  world  which 
peoples  of  such  different  origin,  races,  language, 
and  religions  agree  to  regard  with  nearly  equal 
veneration. 

The  language  most  generally  spoken  among 
them  is  the  Arabic.  Schools  are  rare,  and  con- 
sequently facility  in  reading  is  not  often  met 
with.  The  general  condition  of  the  inhabitants 
has  already  been  indicated. 

The  Turkish  governor  of  the  town  holds  the 
rank  of  Pasha,  but  is  responsible  to  the  Pasha  of 
Beirout.  The  government  is  somewhat  milder 
than  before  the  period  of  the  Egyptian  dominion; 
but  it  is  said  that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  in- 
habitants at  least  have  ample  cause  to  regret  the 
change  of  masters,  and  the  American  mission- 
aries lament  that  change  without  reserve  (Am. 
Bib.  Repos,  for  1843).  Yet  the  Moslems  reve- 
rence the  same  spots  which  the  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians account  holy,  the  holy  sepulchre  only 
excepted  ; and  this  exception  arises  from  their 
disbelief  that  Christ  was  crucified,  or  buried,  or 
rose  again.  Formerly  there  were  in  Palestine 
monks  of  the  Benedictine  and  Augustine  orders, 
and  of  those  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Anthony ; but 
since  1304  there  have  been  none  but  Franciscans, 
who  have  charge  of  the  Latin  convent  and  the 
holy  places.  They  resided  on  Mount  Zion  till 
a.d.  1561,  when  the  T**vks  allowed  them  the  mo- 
nastery of  St.  Salvador,  which  they  now  occupy. 
They  had  formerly  a handsome  revenue  out  of  all 
Roman  Catholic  countries,  but  these  sources  have 
fallen  off  since  the  French  revolution,  and  the  esta- 
blishment is  said  to  be  poor  and  deeply  in  debt. 
Tiie  expenses  arise  from  the  duty  imposed  upon 
the  convent  of  entertaining  pilgiims;  and  the  cost 
of  maintaining  the  twenty  convents  belonging  1o 
the  establishment  of  the  Terra  Santa  is  estimated 
at  40,000  Spanish  dollars  a year.  Formerly  it 
wa3  much  higher,  in  consequence  of  the  heavy 
exacti  ms  of  the  Turkish  government.  Burck- 
kardt  6ays  that  the  brotherhood  paid  annually 


J2,000/.  to  the  Pasha  of  Damascus.  But  the 
Egyptian  government  relieved  them  from  these 
heavy  charges,  and  imposed  instead  a regular  tax 
on  the  property  possessed.  For  the  buildings  and 
lands  in  and  around  Jerusalem  the  annual  tax  was 
fixed  at  7000  piastres,  or  350  Spanish  dollars.  It 
is  probable  that  the  restored  Tui kish  government 
has  not  yet,  in  this  respect,  recurilfc  to  its  old 
oppressions.  The  convent  contain*,  fifty  monks, 
half  Italians  and  half  Spaniards.  In  it  resides 
the  Intmdant  or  the  Principal  of  all  the  convents, 
with  the  rank  of  abbot,  and  the  title  of  Guardian 
of  Mount  Zion  and  Custos  of  the  Holy  Land. 
He  is  always  an  Italian,  and  has  charge  of  all 
the  spiritual  affairs  of  the  Roman  Catholics  in  the 
Holy  Land.  There  is  also  a president  or  vicar, 
who  takes  the  place  of  the  guardian  in  case  of 
absence  or  death  : he  was  formerly  a Frenchman, 
but  is  now  either  an  Italian  or  Spaniard.  The 
procurator,  who  manages  their  temporal  affairs,  is 
always  a Spaniard.  A council,  called  Discre- 
torium,  composed  of  these  officials  and  three 
other  monks,  has  the  general  management  of  both 
spiritual  and  temporal  matters.  Much  of  the 
attention  of  the  order  is  occupied,  and  much  of 
its  expense  incurred,  in  entertaining  pilgrims  and 
in  the  distribution  of  alms.  The  native  Roman 
Catholics  live  around  the  convent,  on  which  they 
are  wholly  dependant.  They  are  native  Arabs, 
and  are  said  to  he  descended  from  converts  in 
the  times  of  the  Crusades. 

There  is  a Greek  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  but 
he  usually  resides  at  Constantinople,  and  is  re 
presented  in  the  holy  city  by  one  or  more  vicars 
who  are  bishops  residing  in  the  great  convent 
near  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  At  pre- 
sent the  vicars  are  the  bishops  of  Lydda,  Naza 
reth,  and  Kerek  (Petra),  assisted  by  the  other 
bishops  resident  in  tiie  convent.  In  addition  to 
thirteen  monasteries  in  Jerusalem,  they  possess 
the  convent,  of  the  Holy  Cross  near  Jerusalem, 
that  of  St.  Helena  between  Jerusalem  and  Beth- 
lehem, and  that,  of  St.  John,  between  Jerusalem 
and.  the  Dead  Sea.  All  the  monks  of  the  con- 
vents  are  foreigners.  The  Christians  of  the  Greet 
rite  who  are  not  monks  are  all  native  Arabs 
with  their  native  priests,  who  are  allowed  to  per 
form  the  church  services  in  their  mother  tongue — 
the  Arabic. 

The  Armenians  in  Jerusalem  have  a patriarch, 
with  three  convents  and  lUO  monks.  They  hav« 
also  convents  at  Bethlehem,  Ramleh,  and  Jaffa 
Few  of  the  Armenians  are  natives  : they  an 
mostly  merchants,  and  among  the  wealthiest 
inhabitants  of  the  place ; and  their  convent  in 
Jerusalem  is  deemed  the  richest  in  the  Levant 
Their  church  of  St.  James  upon  Mount  Zion  it 
very  showy  in  its  decorations,  but  void  of  taste. 
The  Coptic  Christians  at  Jerusalem  are  only 
some  monks  residing  in  the  convent  of  Es-Sultan, 
on  ihe  north  side  of  the  pool  of  Hezekiah.  There 
is  also  a convent  of  the  Abyssinians,  and  one  be- 
longing to  the  Jacobite  Syrians. 

The  estimate  of  the  number  of  the  Jews  in 
Jerusalem  at  3000  is  given  by  Dr.  Robinson  on 
the  authority  of  Mr.  Nicolayson,  the  resident 
missionary  to  the  Jews  ; yet  in  the  following  year 
(1839)  the  Scottish  deputation  set  them  down  at 
six  or  seven  thousand  on  the  same  authority.  On 
referring  this  difficulty  to  the  Rev.  R.  S.  Her- 
schell  (lately  returned  from  Jerusalem),  he  con* 


JESHUA. 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


107 


firms  the  lower  estimate  of  the  number  of  Jews, 
but  is  inclined  to  reckon  the  entire  population  at 
15,000.  They  inhabit  a distinct  quarter  of  the 
town  between  Mount  Zion  and  Mount  Moriah, 
This  is  the  worst  and  dirtiest  part  of  the  holy  city, 
and  that  in  which  the  plague  never  fails  to  make 
its  first  appearance.  Few  of  the  Jerusalem  Jews 
are  natives;  and  most  of  them  come  from  foreign 
parts  to  die  in  the  city  of  their  fathers’  sepulchres. 
The  greater  proportion  of  them  are  from  different 
parts  of  the  Levant,  and  appear  to  be  mostly  of 
Spanish  and  Polish  origin.  Few  are  from  Ger- 
many, or  understand  the  German  language. 
They  are  for  the  most  part  wretchedly  poor,  and 
depend  in  a great  degree  for  their  subsistence 
upon  the  contributions  of  their  brethren  in  dif- 
ferent countries.  These  contributions  have  of 
late  years  been  smaller  than  usual ; and  when 
they  arrive  are  the  occasion  of  much  heartburning 
and  strife.  The  Scottish  Deputation  ( Narrative , 
p.  148)  say,  * They  are  always  quarrelling,  and 
frequently  apply  to  the  consul  to  settle  their  dis- 
putes. The  expectation  of  support  from  the 
annual  European  contributions  leads  many  of 
fhem  to  live  in  idleness.  Hence  there  are  in 
Jerusalem  500  acknowledged  paupers,  anti  500 
more  who  receive  charity  in  a quiet  way.  Many 
are  so  poor  that,  if  not  relieved,  they  would  not 
stand  out  the  winter  season.  A few  are  shop- 
keepers, and  a few  more  hawkers,  and  a very  few 
are  operatives.  None  of  them  are  agriculturists — - 
not  a single  Jew  cultivates  the  soil  of  his  fathers.’ 
Reisner,  Iemsalem--  Vetustissima  Descripta , 
Francof.  1563  ; Olshausen,  Zur  Topographie  d. 
alten  Jerusalem , Kiel,  1833  ; Adrichomius,  Jeru- 
salem sicut  Christi  tempore  floruit , Colon.  1593  ; 
Chrysanthi  (Beat.  Patr.  Iiierosoiymorum)  His- 
toria  et  Descriptio  Terrce  Sanctce,  Urbisque 
Sanctce  Hierusalem,  Yenet.  1728  (this  work  is  in 
Greek) ; D'Anville,  Dissert,  sur  VEtendue  de 
V Ancienne  Jerusalem,  Paris,  1747:  the  articles 
on  Jerusalem  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encyclo- 
pedic ; in  Raumer's  Paliistina  ; in  Winer’s  Real- 
wort  erbuch  ; in  Eugene  Roger’s  La  Terre  Saihcte , 
ou  Descript.  Topographique  tres-particuhere  des 
Sainctes  Lieux,  et  de  la  Terre  de  Promission, 
Paris,  1646 ; and  in  Dr.  Robinson’s  Bibl.  Re- 
searches in  Palestine;  with  the  additions  since 
published  in  the  Biblical  Repository  and  Biblio- 
theca Sacra : also,  the  notices  of  Jerusalem  in  vari- 
ous books  of  travels,  particularly  those  of  Coto- 
vieus,  Zuallart,  Radzivil,  Morison,  Nau,  Sandys, 
Doubdan,  D'Arvieux,  Maundrell,  Pococke,  Nie- 
buhr, Clarke,  Turner,  Buckingham,  Richardson, 
Richter,  Jollitfe,  Jowett,  Prokesch,  Schclz,  Monro, 
Hardy,  Stephens,  Paxton,  Schubert,  Olin,  Stent, 
Formby,  and  the  Scottish  Deputation.  Less  im- 
portant notices  may  be  found  in  other  books  of 
travels;  and  the  Journals  of  Missionaries,  printed 
in  the  Missionary  Register , American  Missionary 
Herald , and  Jewish  Expositor,  have  occasionally 
contained  interesting  notices  of  the  Holy  City. 

JESHUA,  or  Joshua,  son  of  Jozedech,  and 
high-priest  of  the  Jews  when  they  returned,  under 
Zerubbabel,  from  the  Babylonian  exile  (b.c. 
536).  He  was,  doubtless,  born  during  the  exile. 
His  presence  and  exhortations  greatly  promoted 
the  rebuilding  of  the  city  and  temple.  The  altar 
of  the  latter  being  first,  erected,  enabled  him  to 
sanctify  their  labour  by  the  religious  ceremonies 
and  offerings  whir  i the  law  required.  Jeshua 


joined  with  Zerubbabel  in  opposing  the  machi- 
nations of  the  Samaritans  (Ezra  iv.  3)  ; and  he 
was  not  found  wanting  in  zeal  when  the  works, 
after  having  been  interrupted,  were  resumed  in 
the  second  year  of  Darius  Ilvstaspis  (Ezra  v.  2 ; 
Ilagg.  i.  12).  Several  of  the  prophet  Ilaggai's 
utterances  are  addressed  to  Jeshua  (Iiagg.  i.  1 ; 
ii.  2),  and  bis  name  occurs  in  two  of  the  sym- 
bolical prophecies  of  Zecha  'ah  (i ii.  1-10;  vi. 
11-15).  In  the  first  of  these  passages  Jeshua,  as 
pontiff,  represents  the  Jewisl  people  covered  at 
first  with  the  garb  of  slaves,  and  afterwards  with 
the  new  and  glorious  vestures  of  deliverance.  In 
the  second  he  wears  for  a moment  crowns  of 
silver  and  gold,  as  symbols  of  the  sacerdotal  and 
regal  crowns  of  Israel,  which  were  to  be  united 
on  the  head  of  the  Messiah. 

JESHURUN  (|W) ; Sept,  yyairypivos ; 
Vulg.  dilectus  in  Deut.,  rectissimus  in  Isaiah), 
a name  poetically  applied  to  Israel  in  Deut. 
xxxii.  15;  xxxiii.  5,  26;  Isa.  xliv.  2.  It  has 
been  very  variously  understood,  but  it  is  gene- 
rally agreed  to  be  a poetical  diminutive  expies- 
sive  of  affection.  The  root  is  to 

be  straight,  right,  upright,  righteous.  In  this 
character,  as  entirely  upright  (for  the  termination 
is  intensitive),  Jehovah  recognises  his  people  in 
consideration  of  their  covenant  relation  to  him, 
whereby,  while  they  observed  the  terms  of  that 
covenant,  they  stood  legally  righteous  before 
him  and  clean  in  his  sight.  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  the  ancient  kings  are  said  to  have  done 
“lK”n,  ‘ that  which  was  right  ’ in  the  eyes  of 
Jehovah. 

JESSE  firm  ; Sept.  ’Utraal),  a de- 

scendant of  Obed,  the  son  of  Boaz  and  Ruth. 
He  was  the  father  of  eight  sons  : from  the  youngest 
of  whom,  David,  is  reflected  all  the  distinction 
which  belongs  to  the  name.  He  seems  to  have 
been  a person  of  some  note"  and  substance  at 
Bethlehem,  his  propeity  being  chiefly  in  sheep. 
It  would  seem  from  1 Sam.  xvi.  10,  that  he 
must  have  been  aware  of  the  high  destinies  which 
awaited  his  son ; but  it  is  doubtful  if  he  ever 
lived  to  see  them  real  zed.  The  last  historical 
mention  of  Jesse  is  in  relation  to  the  asylum  which 
David  procured  for  him  with  the  king  of  Moab 
(1  Sam.  xxii.  3). 

JESUS  CHRIST  ('lyoovs  Xpien-Js,  Irj(rovs  6 
XpiarSs),  the  ordinary  designation  of  the  incarnate 
Son  of  God,  and  Saviour  of  mankind.  This 
double  designation  is  not,  like  Simon  Peter,  John 
Mark,  Joses  Barnabas,  composed  of  a name  and 
a surname,  but,  like  John  the  Baptist,  Simon 
Magus,  Bar-Jesus  Elymas,  of  a proper  name,  and 
an  official  title.  Jesus  was  our  Lord's  proper 
name,  just  as  Peter,  James,  and  John  were  the 
proper  names  of  three  of  his  disciples.  The  name 
seems  not  to  have  been  an  uncommon  one  among 
the  Jews.  The  apocryphal  book  EcclesiasticUs  is 
attributed  to  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  ; and,  in  the 
New  Testament,  we  read  of  Jesus,  the  father  ol 
Elymas  the  sorcerer  (Acts  xiii.  6),  and  of  ‘ Jesus, 
which  is  called  Justus  of  the  circumcision’  (Col 
iv.  11),  one  of  Paul’s  ‘ felloe-workers  unto  the 
kingdom  of  God  which  had  lieen  a comfort  to 
him.’  To  distinguish  our  Lord  from  others  bear- 
ing the  name,  he  was  termed  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
(John  xviii.  7,  &c.),  ’I17 <rovs  0 N afapalos,  and 
Jesus  the  sor  of  Joseph  (John  vi.  42,  &c.). 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


»58 

Some  of  the  fathers,  from  their  ignorance  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  have  given  a Greek  etymology 
co  the  name.  They  derive  it  from  the  noun 
taais,  healing.  Thus  Eusebius,  'Irjcrous  urogd^ero 

WRO  tXTOV  T 4]S  TCOU  dvdpCOir'iUCtiV  if/uxav  ld(T6(jOS  T6 
Kal  Reocnrelas  xaPLV  TV  tt dpobov  els  ggcis  err oieiro 
(Demonst.  Evang.  lib.  iv.) ; and  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem,’ ItjctoVs  KaXeirai  (pepcavv/j.(as,  e/c  r r,s  accrrjpiui- 
5eos  laaews  ex°*v  T5V  Trpoagyopiav  ( Catech. 
Ilium,  x.).* 

There  can  be  no  doubt  t.  at  Jesus  is  the  Greek 
form  of  a Hebrew  name,  which  had  been  borne 
by  two  illustrious  individuals  in  former  periods 
of  the  Jewish  history, — the  successor  of  Moses  and 
introducer  of  Israel  into  the  promised  land  (Exod. 
xxiv.  13),  and  the  high-priest  who,  along  with 
Zerubbahel  (Zech.  iii.  1),  took  so  active  a part  in 
the  re-establishment  of  the  civil  and  religious 
polity  of  the  Jews  on  their  return  from  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity.  Its  original  and  full  form  is 
Jehoshua  (Num.  xiii.  10).  By  contraction  it 
became  Joshua,  or  Jeshua  ; and  when  transferred 
into  Greek,  by  taking  the  termiuation  charac- 
teristic of  that  language,  it  assumed  the  form  Jesus. 
It  is  thus  the  names  of  the  illustrious  individuals 
•eferred  to  are  uniformly  written  in  the  Sept. ; 
and  the  first  of  them  is  twice  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament  hy^this  name  (Acts  vii.  45;  Heb. 
iv.  S). 

The  conferring  of  this  name  on  our  Lord  was 
not  the  result  of  accident,  or  of  the  ordinary 
course  of  things,  there  being  ‘ none  of  his  kindred,’ 
so  far  as  we  can  trace  from  the  two  genealogies, 

‘ called  by  that  name’  (Luke  i.  6‘1).  It  was  the 
consequence  of  a twofold  miraculous  interposition. 
The  angel  who  announced  to  his  virgin  mother 
that  she  was  to  he  ‘ the  most  honoured  of  women,’ 
in  giving  birth  to  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour 
of  men,  intimated  also  to  her  the  name  by  which 
the  holy  child  was  to  he  called  : ‘ Thou  sha.lt 
call  his  name  Jesus’  (Luke  i.  31).  And  it  was 
probably  the  same  heavenly  messenger  who  ap- 
peared to  Joseph,  and.  to  remove  his  suspicions 
and  quiet  Ins  fears,  said  to  hirn.  ‘ That  which  is 
conceived  in  thy  wife  Mary  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  she  shall  bring  forth  a son,  and  thou  shalt 
call  his  name  Jesus’  (Matt.  i.  20,  21).  The  pious 
pair  were  ’not  disobedient  to  the  heavenly  vision.’ 

‘ When  eight  days  were  accomplished  for  the  cir- 
cumcising of  the  child,  his  name  was  called  Jesus, 
which  was  so  named  of  the  angel  before  he  was 
conceived  in  the  worn!)’  (Luke  ii.  21). 

The  name  Jesus,  like  most  of  Jewish  proper 
names,  was  significant;  and,  as  might  well  he 
expected,  when  we  consider  who  imposed  it,  its 
meaning  is  at  once  important  and  appropriate. 
The  precise  import  of  the  word  has  been  a subject 
of  doubt  and  debate  among  interpreters.  As.  to 
its  general  meaning  there  is  all  but  an  unanimous 
concurrence  It  was  intended  to  denote  that  he 
who  bore  it  was  to  be  a Deliverer  or  Saviour. 
This,  whatever  more,  is  indicated  in  the  original 
wovd ; and  the  reason  given  by  the  angel  for  the 
imposition  of  this  name  on  the  Virgin's  son  was 

* Some  of  the  Patristic  etymologies  are  really 
very  odd.  II acr^a  is  traced  to  7r d<rx&> ; A evirrjs  is 
derived  from  die  Latin  levis  ; and  Aid/3o\os  from 
ivo  and  because  he  who  bears  that  name 

•wallows  man  at  two  tites,  first  the  soul,  and  th?n 

the  body. 


‘because  he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins 
(Matt.  i.  21).  But  while  some  interpreters  hold 
that  it  is  just  a part  of  the  verb  signifying  to  save 
in  the  form  Hiphil,  slightly  modified,  and  that  i< 
signifies  ‘ lie  shall  save,’  others  hold  that  it  is  a 
compound  word  formed  by  the  addition  of  twe 
letters  of  the  incommunicable  name  of  the  divinity, 
mn\  to  that  verb,  and  that  it  is  equivalent  t« 
‘ The  Salvation  of  the  Lord,’  or  ‘ The  Lord  tin 
Saviour.’  It  is  not  a matter  of  vital  importance 
The  following  circumstances  seem  to  gsve'proba 
bility  to  the  latter  opinion  It  does  not  appeal 
likely  that  Moses  would  have  changed  the  name 
of  his  destined  successor  from  Oshea,  which  signi- 
fies ‘saviour,’  into  Jehoshua  (Num.  xiii.  1(5),  if  the 
latter  signified  merely  lie  shall  save  ; whereas,  if 
the  word  be  a compound  term,  embodying  in  if.  the 
name  Jehovah,  we  see  an  adequate  reason  for  the 
change.  In  the  first  chapter  of  the  Gospel  by 
Matthew  (Matt.  i.  22,  23),  the  most  natural  in- 
terpretation of  the  words  (though  they  admit  o 
another  exegesis)  seems  to  imply  that  the  predic- 
tion of  Isaiah,  that  the  Virgin’s  son  should  be 
called  Immanuel,  was  fulfilled  in  the  imposition 
of  the  name  Jesus  on  the  Son  of  Mary.  This 
would  be  the  case  only  on  the  supposition  that 
Immanuel  and  Jesus  are  equivalent  terms,  a sup- 
position which  cannot  he  sustained  unless  Jesus 
can  be  fairly  rendered  ‘Jehovah  will  save,’  or 
‘ Jehovah  the  Saviour.’  In  that  case,  Jesus  and 
Immanuel — God  with  us,  i.e.  on  our  side — express 
the  same  ideas. 

It.  is  right,  however,  to  remark,  that  the  merely 
bearing  such  a name  as  either  Immanuel  or  Jesus, 
even  by  divine  appointment,  is  not  of  itself  evi- 
dence of  the  divinity  of  him  who  bears  it.  The 
Hebrews  were  in  the  habit  of  giving  names,  both 
to  persons  and  places,  which  were  intended  not  to 
describe  their  distinctive  properties,  but  to  express 
some  important  general  truth.  Jacob  called  an 
altar  built  by  him  El-Elohe-Israel  (Gen.  xxxiii. 
20),  ‘God  the  God  of  Israel.’  i.  e.  God  is  the  God 
of  Israel.  Moses  called  an  altar  he  built  Jehovah 
Nissi  (Exod.  xvii.  15),  ‘Jehovah  my  banner,’  i.  e. 
Jehovah  is  my  banner.  The  name  Jehoshua, 
as  home  by  him  who  brought  the  people  of  the 
Lord  into  the  heritage  of  the  Gentiles,  means  no 
more  tliyi  (hat  by  him  Jehovah  would  deliver  his 
people.  In  many  of  the  proper  names  in  the  Old 
Testament,  the  name  El,  or  Jehovah,  forms  a part. 
Yet  when,  as  in  the  case  before  us,  he  who  bears 
such  a name,  by  express  divine  appointment,  is 
shown  ‘ by  many  infallible  proofs  ’ to  be  indeed 
an  incarnation  of  divinity,  we  cannot  but  perceive 
a peculiar  propriety  in  this  divine  appointment, 
and  find  in  it,  if  not  a new  argument,  a corro- 
boration of  the  host  of  arguments  which  lead  us 
to  the  conclusion  that  He  who  ‘ according  to 
the  flesh  ’ was  the  Son  of  David,  ‘ according  to 
the  Spirit  of  Holiness’  was  ‘ the  Son  of  God,’ 

* God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever  ’ (Rom.  i.  3,  4 ; 
ix.  5). 

The  above  are  the  only  'probable  etymologies  of 
the  word.  Others,  however,  have  been  suggested, 
and  supported  with  considerable  learning  and  in- 
genuity. The  Valentinians,  according  to  Irenaeus 
(lib.  ii.  c.  41),  were  in  the  habit  of  writing  the  name 
and  explained  it  as  meaning  ‘ Him  who  pos- 
sesses heaven  and  earth,’  making  each  letter, 
according  to  the  cabbalistic  art  called  'rotar-ikon, 
expressive  of'  a word  or  clause ; thus,  for  niiV, 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


.09 


& for  and  1 for  jHfiO,  ‘ Jehovah  of  heaven 

Mid  earth.’ 

The  learned  hut  fanciful  Osiander  insists  that 
Jesu3  is  not  the  Greek  form  of  Joshua,  but  the 
ineffable  i ame,  the  Shem-hamphorash,  rendered 
utterable  ty  t he  insertion  of  the  letter  L2.  The 
reader  who  wishes  to  see  the  arguments  by  which 
ne  suppovis  this  wild  hypothesis  may  consult,  his 
Hannqnia  Evangelica , lib.  i.  c 6,  Basil,  1561. 
And  a safislactory  reply  may  be  found  in  Chem- 
nitius’  dissertation,  De  nomine  Jesu,  in  Thes.  Theol. 
Philol.  tom.  ii.  p.  62,  Amst.  1702;  and  in  Ca- 
ninii  Disquis.  in  loc.  aliq.  N.  T.  c.  i. ; apud 
Crit.  Sae.  tom.  ix. 

Castalio  maintains  an  equally  whimsical  notion 
as  to  the  etymology  of  the  word,  deriving  it.  from 
niil'  and  as  if  it  were  equivalent  to  Jehova- 
homo,  God-man. 

The  ‘ name  of  Jesus  ’ (Phil.  ii.  10)  is  not  Ihe 
name  Jesus,  but  ‘ the  name  above  every  name,’ 
ovujj.0.  rb  vn ep  irav  uvoga,  ver.  9. ; i.  e.  the  supreme 
dignity  and  authority  with  which  the  Father  has 
invested  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  reward  of  his  disin- 
terested exertions  in  the  cause  of  the  divine  glory 
and  human  happiness ; and  the  bowing  iv  ra > 
6v6/xan  T/ja rov  is  obviously  not  an  external  mark 
of  homage  when  the  name  Jesus  is  pronounced, 
but  the  inward  sense  of  awe  and  submission  to 
him  who  is  raised  to  a station  so  exalted. 

Christ  ; Gr.  Xpicrris  ; Heb.  This  is 

not,  strictly  speaking,  a proper  name,  but  an 
official  title.  Jesus  Christ,  or  rather,  as  it.  gene- 
rally ought  to  be  rendered,  Jesus  the  Christ,  is  a 
mode  of  expression  of  the  same  kind  as  John  the 
Baptist,  or  Baptiser.  In  consequence  of  not  ad- 
vetting  to  this,  the  force  and  even  the  meaning  of 
many  passages  of  Scripture  are  misapprehended. 
When  it  is  stated  that  Paul  asserted,  ‘This  Jesus 
whom  I preach  unto  you  is  Christ'  (Acts  xvii.  3), 
5 rt  ouros  icrnu  6 Xpurrbs ’bjcous,  ike.,  that  he  ‘ testi- 
fied to  the  Jews  that  Jesus  was  Christ’  (Acts  xviii. 
5),  the  meaning  is,  that  he  proclaimed  and  proved 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  r bv  Xpicrrhu  'lyaovv,  or 
Messiah — Ihe  rightful  owner  of  a title  descriptive 
of  a high  official  station  which  had  been  the  sub- 
ject of  ancient  prediction.  When  Jesus  himself 
says  that  ‘ it  is  life  eternal  to  know  the  only  true 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  has  sent  ’ (John 
xvii.  3),  he  represents  the  knowledge  of  himself 
as  the  Christ,  the  Messiah,  as  at  once  necessary 
and  sufficient  to  make  men  truly  and  permanently 
happy.  When  he  says,  ‘ What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?’ 
irepl  rod  Xpicrrov  : ‘ whose  son  is  he?’  (Matt.  xxii. 
42),  he  does  not  mean,  What  think  ye  of  me, 
or  of  my  descent?  but,  What  think  ye  of  the 
Christ — She  Messiah — and  especially  of  his  pa- 
ternity. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  word, 
though  originally  an  appellative,  and  intended  to 
bring  before,  the  mind  a particular  official  cha- 
racter possessed  by  him  to  whom  it  is  applied, 
came  at  last,  like  many  other  terms  of  the  same 
kind,  to  be  often  used  very  much  as  a proper 
name,  to  distinguish  our  Lord  from  other  persons 
bearing  the  name  Jesus.  This  is  a sense,  however, 
©f  comparatively  rare  occurrence  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

Proceeding,  then,  on  the  principle  that  Christ 
is  an  appellative,  let  us  inquire  into  its  origin 
and  signification  as  applied  to  our  Lord.  Christ 
is  the  English  form  of  a Greek  word,  Xparris, 
coi responding  in  meaning  to  the  Hebrew  word 


Messiah,  and  the  English  word  Anointed.  The 
Christ  is  just  Equivalent,  to  the  Anointed  One. 
The  important  question,  however,  remains  behind, 
What  is  meant  when  the  Si  viour  is  represented 
as  the  Anointed  One?  To  reply  to  this  question 
satisfactorily,  it  will  be  necessary  to  go  somewhat 
into  detail. 

Unction,  from  a very  early  age,  seems  to  have 
been  the  emblem  of  consecration,  or  setting  apart 
to  a particular,  and  especially  to  a religious,  pur- 
pose. Thus  Jacob  is  said  to  have  anointed  the 
pillar  of  stone,  which  he  erected  and  set  apart  as 
a monument  of  his  supernatural  dream  at  Beth-el 
(Gen.  xxviii.  18;  xxxi.  13;  xxxv.  14).  Under 
the  Old  Testament  economy  high-priests  and 
kings  were  regularly  set  apart  to  their  offices,  both 
of  which  were,  strictly  speaking,  sacred  ones,  by 
the  ceremony  of  anointing,  and  the  prophets  were 
occasionally  designated  by  the  same  rite.  This 
rite  seems  to  have  been  intended  as  a public 
intimation  of  a divine  appointment  to  office.  Thus 
Saul  is  termed  ‘the  Lords  anointed’  (1  Sam. 
xxiv.  6);  David,  ‘the  anointed  of  the  God  of 
Israel’  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  1);  and  Zedekiah,  ‘the 
anointed  of  the  Lord  ’ (Lam.  iv.  20).  The  high- 
priest  is  called  ‘the  anointed  priest’  (Lev.  iv.  3). 

From  the  origin  and  design  of  the  rite,  it  is  m** 
wonderful  that  the  term  should  have,  in  a secon- 
daiy  and  analogical  sense,  been  applied  to  persons 
set  apart  by  God  for  important  purposes,  though 
not  actually  anointed.  Thus  Cyrus,  the  King  of 
Persia,  is  termed  ‘the  Lord's  anointed  ’ (Isa.  xlv. 
1);  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  when  sojourning  in 
Canaan,  are  termed  ‘ God’s  anointed  ones  ’ (Ps. 
cv.  15)  ; and  the  Israelitish  people  receive  the  same 
appellation  from  the  prophet  Habakkuk  (Hab.  iii. 
13).  It  is  probably  with  reference,  to  this  use  of 
the  expression  that  Moses  is  said  by  the  writer  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  to  have  ‘counted  the 
rep-roach  of  Christ  ’ (Heb.  xi.  26),  roil  Xpnrrov 
(A aov),  the  same  class  who  in  the  parallel  clause 
are  termed  the  ‘people  of  God,’  ‘greater  riches  than 
the  treasures  of  Egypt.’ 

In  the  prophetic  Scriptures  we  find  this  appel- 
lation given  to  an  illustrious  personage,  who, 
under  various  designations,  is  so  often  spoken  of 
as  destined  to  appear  in  a distant  age  as  a great 
deliverer.  The  royal  prophet  David  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  who  spoke  of  the  great  deliverer 
under  this  appellation.  He  represents  the  heathen 
(the  Gentile  nations)  raging,  and  the  people  (the 
Jewish  people)  imagining  a vain  thing,  ‘ against 
Jehovah,  and  against  his  anointed'  (Ps.  ii.  2). 
He  says,  ‘Now  know  I that  the  Lord  saveth  his 
anointed  ’ (Ps.  xx.  6).  ‘ Thou  hast  loved  righte- 

ousness and  hated  iniquity  ’ says  he,  addressing 
himself  to  ‘ Him  who  was  to  come,’  ‘ therefore 
God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the 
oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows’  (Ps.  xlv.  7) 
In  all  the  passages  in  which  the  great  deliverer  is 
spoken  of  as  ‘ the  anointed  one,-  by  David,  he  is 
plainly  viewed  as  sustaining  the  character  of  a 
king. 

The  prophet  Isaiah  also  uses  the  appellation, 
* the  anointed  one,’  with  reference  to  the  promised 
deliverer,  but,  when  he  does  so,  he  speaks  of  him  as 
a prophet  or  great  teacher.  He  introduces  him  a a 
saying,  ‘ The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me, 
because  the  Lord  God  hath  anointed  me  to  preach 
good  tidings  unto  the  meek  ; he  hath  sent  me  to 
bind  up  the  broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  liberty  to 


110 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


tlie  captives,  and  the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them 
w ho  are  bound,  to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of 
the  Lord,  and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God, 
to  comfort  all  that  mourn,’  &c.  (Isa.  lxi.  1,  &e.). 

Daniel  is  the  only  other  of  the  prophets  who 
uses  the  appellation  ‘ the  anointed  one’  in  refer- 
ence to  the  great  deliverer,  and  he  plainly  repre- 
sents him  as  not  only  a prince,  but  also  a high-% 
priest,  an  expialor  of  guilt.  ‘Seventy  weeks  are 
determined  upon  thy  people  and  upon  thy  holy 
city,  to  punish  the  transgression,  and  to  make  an 
end  of  sins,  and  to  make  reconciliation  for  ini- 
quity, and  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness, 
and  to  seal  up  the  vision  and  the  prophecy,  and  to 
anoentf  the  most  holy.  Know  therefore  and  under- 
stand that  from  the  going  forth  of  the  command- 
ment to  restore  Jerusalem  unto  Messiah  the  Prince 
shall  be  seven  weeks  and  threescore  and  two  weeks ; 
the  city  shall  be  built  again,  and  the  wall,  even 
in  troublous  times ; and  after  threescore  and  two 
weeks  shall  Messiah  be  cut  oll^  but  not  for  him- 
self' (Dan.  ix.  24-26). 

During  the  period  which  elapsed  from  the  close 
of  the  prophetic  canon  till  the  birth  of  Jesus,  no 
appellation  of  the  expected  deliverer  seems  to  have 
been  so  common  as  the  Messiah  or  Anointed  One, 
and  this  is  still  the  name  which  the  unbelieving 
Jews  ordinarily  employ  when  speaking  of  him 
whom  they  still  look  for  to  avenge  their  wrongs 
and  restore  them  to  more  than  their  former  honours. 

Messiah,  Christ,  Anointed,  is,  then,  a term 
equivalent  to  consecrated,  sacred,  set  apart ; and 
as  th.e  record  of  divine  revelation  is  called,  by 
way  of  eminence,  The  Bible,  or  book,  so  is  the 
Great  Deliverer  called  The  Messiah,  or  Anointed 
One,  much  in  the  same  way  as  lie  is  termed  The 
Man,  The  Son  of  Man. 

The  import  of  this  designation  as  given  to  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  may  now  readily  he  apprehended. — 
(1.)  When  he  is  termed  the  Christ  it  is  plainly 
indicated  that  He  is  the  great  deliverer  promised 
under  that  appc.ilc.tion,  and  many  others  in  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  that  all  that  is 
said  of  this  deliverer  under  this  or  any  other  ap- 
pellation is  hue  of  Him.  No  attentive  reader  of 
the  Old  Testament  can  help  noticing  that  in  every 
part  of  the  prophecies  there  is  ever  and  anon  pre- 
sented to  our  view  an  illustrious  personage  destined 
X)  appear  at  some  future  distant  period,  and,  how- 
ever varied  may  be  the  figurative  representations 
given  of  him,  no  reasonable  doubt  can  be  enter- 
tained as  to  the  identity  of  the  individual.  It  is 
juite  obvious  that  the  Messiah  is  the  same  person 
is  ‘ the  seed  of  the  woman  ’ who  was  to  ‘ bruise  the 
lead  of  the  serpent  - (Gen.  iii.  15;*,  ‘the  seed  of 
Abraham,  in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  were 
io  be  blessed  ’ (Gen.  xxii.  18) ; the  great  ‘ prophet 
to  be  raised  up  like  unto  Moses,’  whom  all  were  to 
be  required  to  hear  and  ohey  (Deut.  xviii.  15); 
the  ‘ priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  ;’  ‘ the 
rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  which  should  stand 
for  an  ensign  of  the  people  to  which  the  Gentiles 
should  seek’  (Isa.  xi.  1,  10);  the  virgin’s  son 
whose  name  was  to  be  Immanuel  (Isa.  vii.  14); 

• the  branch  of  Jehovah  ’ (Isa.  iv.  2)  ; ‘ the  Angel 
of  the  Covenant  ’ (Mai.  iii.  1)  ; ‘ the  Lord  of  the 
Temple,’  &c.  &c.  (ib.).  When  we  say,  then,  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  we  in  effect  say,  ‘ This  is  He 
of  whom  Moses,  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets  did 
write  ’ (John  i.  45) ; and  all  that  they  say  ot  Him 
iii  true  of  Jesus. 


Now  what  is  the  sum  of  the  prophetic  testimcny 
respecting  him  ? It  is  this — that  lie  should  teleng 
to  the  very  highest  order  of  being,  the  incommuni- 
cable name  Jehovah  being  represented  as  right 
fully  belonging  to  him ; that  ‘ his  goings  forth  have 
been  from  old,  from  everlasting’  (Mic.  v.  2); 
that  his  appropriate  appellations  should  be  1 Won- 
derful, Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God  ’ (Isa.  ix.  6)  ; 
that  he  should  assume  human  nature,  and  become 
‘ a child  born  ’ of  the  Israelitish  nation  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  10).  of  the  family  cf  David 
(Isa.  xi.  1)  ; that  the  object  of  his  appearance 
should  be  the  salvation  of  mankind,  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles  (Isa.  xlix.  6);  that  lie  should  be 
‘ despised  and  rejected  ’ of  Ids  countrymen  ; that 
he  should  be  ‘ cut  offj  but  not- for  himself;’  Led 
he  should  be  ‘ wounded  for  men's  transgressions, 
bruised  for  their  iniquities,  and  undergo  the  chas- 
tisement of  their  peace;’  that  ‘ by  his  stripes  men 
should  be  healed  ;'  that  ‘ the  Lord  should  lay  on 
him  the  iniquity  ’ of  men  ; that  ‘ exaction  should 
be  made  and  he  should  answer  it,;’  that  he  should 
‘ make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin  ;’  that  after 
these  sufferings  he  should  be ‘exalted  and  extolled 
and  made  very  high  ;’  that  he  should  * see  of  the 
travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied,  and  by  his 
knowledge  justify  many’  (Isa.  liii.  passim) ; that 
Jehovah  should  say  to  him,  ‘ Sit  at  my  right  hand 
until  I make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool  ’ (Ps.  cx. 
1)  ; that  he  should  be  brought  near  to  the  Ancient 
of  Days,  and  that  to  him  should  he  given  ‘ domi- 
nion, and  glory,  and  a kingdom,  that  all  people, 
and  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  him — an 
everlasting  dominion  which  shall  not  pass  away, 
— a kingdom  that  shall  not  be  destroyed  ’ (Dan. 
vii.  13,  14).  All  this  is  implied  in  saying  Jesus 
is  the  Christ.  In  the  plainer  language  of  the  New 
Testament  ‘ Jesus  is  the  Christ  ’ is  equivalent  to 
Jesus  is  ‘ God  manifest  in  flesh  ’ (l  Tim.  iii.  16), 
— the  Son  of  God,  who,  in  human  nature,  by  his 
obedience,  and  sufferings,  and  death  in  the  room 
of  the  guilty,  has  obtained  salvation  for  them, 
and  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  for  himself, 
that  he  may  give  eternal  life  to  all  coming  to  the 
Father  through  him. 

(2.)  While  the  statement  * Jesus  is  the  Christ  ’ is 
thus  materially  equivalent  to  t!.e  statement  ‘all 
that,  is  said  of  the  Great  Deliverer  in  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  is  true  of  Him,’  it  brings 
more  directly  before  our  mind  those  truths  respect- 
ing him  which  the  appellation  ‘ the  Anointed 
One  ’ naturally  suggests.  He  is  a prophet,  a 
priest,  and  a king.  He  is  the  great  revealer  of 
divine  truth  ; the  only  expiator  of  human  guilt, 
and  reconciler  of  man  to  God  ; the  supreme  and 
sole  legitimate  ruler  over  the  understandings, 
consciences,  and  affections  of  men.  In  his  per- 
son, and  work,  and  word,  by  his  spirit  and  provi- 
dence, he  unfolds  the  truth  with  respect  to  the 
divine  character  and  will,  and  so  conveys  it  into 
the  mind  as  to  make  it  the  effectual  means  of 
conforming  man's  will  to  God’s  will,  man’s  cha- 
racter to  God’s  character.  He  has  by  his  spotless, 
all-perfect  obedience,  amid  the  severest  sufferings, 

‘ obedience  unto  death  even  the  death  of  the  cross, 
so  illustrated  the  excellence  of  the  divine  law  and 
the  wickedness  and  danger  of  violating  it,  as  to 
make  it  a righteous  thing  in  ‘ the  just  God  ’ tc 
‘justify  the  ungodly,’  thus  propitiating  the 
offended  majesty  of  heaven  ; while  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  divine  love  in  aj  pointing  and  accepting 


JESiJS  CHRIST. 


JEW. 


ni 


{his  atonement,  when  apprehended  by  the  mind 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  becomes 
the  effectual  means  of  reconciling  man  to  God 
and  to  his  law,  ‘ transforming  him  by  tlxj  renew- 
ing of  his  mind.’  And  now,  possessed  of  ‘all 
power  in  heaven  and  earth,’  ‘ all  power  over  all 
flesh,’ ‘ He  is  Lord  of  All.’  All  external  events 
and  all  spiritual  influences  are  equally  under  his 
control,  and  as  a king  he  exerts  his  .authority  in 
carrying  into  full  effect  the  great  purposes  which 
his  revelations  as  a prophet,  and  his  great  atoning 
sacrifice  as  a high-priest,  were  intended  to  accom- 
plish. 

(3.)  But  the  full  import  of  the  appellation  the 
Christ  is  not  yet  brought  out.  It  indicates  that 
He  to  whom  it  belongs  is  the  anointed  prophet, 
priest,  and  king— not  that  he  was  anointed  by 
material  oil,  but  that  be  was  divinely  appointed , 
qualified,  commissioned,  and  accredited  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  men.  These  are  the  ideas  which  the 
term  anointed  seems  specially  intended  to  con- 
vey. Jesus  was  divinely  appointed  to  the  offices 
he  filled.  He  did  not  ultroneouslv  assume  them, 
‘ he  was  called  of  God  as  was  Aaion  ’ (Heb.  v.  4), 
* Behold  mine  Elect,  in  whom  my  soul  de- 
lighteth.’  He  was  divinely  qualified  : ‘ God  gave 
to  him  the  Spirit  not  by  measure.’  ‘The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  was  upon  him,  the  spirit  of  wisdom 
and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and 
might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of 
the  Lord,  and  they  made  him  of  quick  under- 
standing in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  so  that  he  does 
not  judge  after  the  sight  of  his  eyes,  nor  reprove 
after  the  hearing  of  his  ears,  but  he  smites  the 
earth  with  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  with  the 
breath  of  his  lips  he  slays  the  wicked  ; and  right- 
eousness is  the  girdle  of  his  loins,  and  faithfulness 
the  girdle  of  his  reins  ’ (Isa.  xi.  2-4).  He  was 
divmely  commissioned:  ‘ The  Father  sent  him.’ 
Jehovah  said  to  him,  ‘Thou  art  my  servant,  in 
thee  will  I be  glorified.  It  is  a light  thing  that 
thou  shouldst  be  my  servant,  to  raise  up  the  tribes 
of  Jacob  and  to  restore  the  preserved  of  Israel ; I 
will  also  give  thee  for  a light  to  the  Gentiles,  that 
thou  mayst  be  my  salvation  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth’  (Isa.  xlix.  6).  ‘Behold,*  says  Jehovah, 
‘ I have  given  Him  for  a witness  to  the  people — a 
leader  and  commander  to  the  people.’  He  is 
divinely  accredited  : ‘ Jesus  of  Nazareth,’  says  the 
Apostle  Peter,  was  ‘a  man  approved  of  God 
among  you  by  miracles,  and  wonders,  and  signs 
which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you  ’ 
(Acts  ii.  22).  ‘The  Father  who  hath  sent  me,’ 
says  Jesus  himself,  ‘bath  borne  witness  of  me’ 
(John  v.  37).  This  he  did  again  and  again  by  a 
voice  from  heaven,  as  well  as  by  the  miracles 
which  he  performed  by  that  divine  power  which 
was  equally  his  and  his  Father’s.  Such  is  the 
import  of  the  appellation  Christ. 

If  these  observations  are  clearly  apprehended 
there  will  be  little  difficulty  in  giving  a satisfac- 
tory answer  to  the  question  which  has  sometimes 
been  proposed — when  did  Jesus  become  Christ? 
when  was  he  anointed  of  God?  We  have  seen 
that,  the  expression  is  a figurative  or  analogical  one, 
and  therefore  we  need  not  wonder  that  its  references 
are  various.  The  appointment  of  the  Saviour, 
like  all  the  other  divine  purposes,  was,  of  course, 
from  eternity.  ‘ He  was  set  up  from  everlasting  ’ 
(Prov.  viii.  513);  he  ‘ was  lore-ordained  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world.’  (1  Pet.  i.  20).  His  qua 


lifications,  such  of  (hem  as  were  conferred,  were 
bestowed  in,  or  during  bis  incarnation,  when  ‘ God 
anointed  him  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
power  ’ (Acts  x.  38).  Ilis  commission  may  b« 
considered  as  given  him  when  called  to  enter  on 
the  functions  of  his  office.  lie  himself,  after 
quoting,  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  in  the  com- 
mencement of  his  ministry,  the  passage  from  the 
prophecies  of  Isaiah  in  which  his  unction  to  the 
prophetical  office  is  predicted,  declared  ‘ This  day 
is  rtiis  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears.’  And  in 
his  resurrection  and  ascension,  God,  as  the  reward 
of  his  loving  righteousness  and  hating  iniquity, 
‘ anointed  him  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  his 
fellows  ’ (Ps.  xlv.  7),  i.  e.  conferred  on  him  a 
regal  power,  fruitful  in  blessings  to  himself  and 
others,  far  superior  to  that  which  any  king  had 
ever  possessed,  making  him,  as  the  Apostle  Peter 
expresses  it,  ‘ both  Lord,  and  Christ  ’ (Acts  ii.  3G). 
As  to  his  being  accredited,  every  miraculous  event 
performed  in  reference  to  him  or  by  him  may  be 
viewed  as  included  in  this  species  of  anointing — 
especially  the  visible  descent  of  the  Spirit  on  him 
in  his  baptism. 

These  statements,  with  regard  to  the  import 
of  the  appellation  ‘the  Christ,’  show  us  how  we 
are  to  understand  the  statement  of  the  Apostle 
John,  ‘ Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  is  born  of  God  ’ (1  John  v.  1),  i.  e.  is  ‘a 
child  of  God,’  ‘ born  again,’  ‘ a new  creature  and 
the  similar  declaration  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  ‘No 
man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,’  i.  e.  (he 
Christ,  the  Messiah,  ‘ but  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ’ 
(1  Cor.  xii.  3).  It.  is  plain  that  the  proposition, 
‘ Jesus  is  the  Christ,’  when  understood  in  (he  lati- 
tude of  meaning  which  we  have  shown  belongs  to 
it,  contains  a complete  summary  of  the  truth 
respecting  the  divine  method  of  salvation.  To 
believe  that,  principle  rightly  understood  is  to  be- 
lieve the  Gospel — the  saving  truth,  by  the  faith  of 
which  a man  is,  and  by  the  faith  of  which  only  a 
man  can  be,  brought  into  the  relation  or  formed 
to  the  character  of  a child  of  God;  and  though  a 
man  may,  without  divine  influence,  be  brought  to 
acknowledge  that  ‘Jesus  is  the  Lord,’  ‘Messiah 
the  Prince,’  and  even  firmly  to  believe  that  these 
words  embody  a truth,  yet  no  man  can  be  brought 
really  to  believe  and  cordially  to  acknowledge  the 
truth  contained  in  these  words,  as  we  have  at- 
tempted to  unfold  it,  without  a peculiar  divine 
influence.  That  Jesus  is  6 i\6wv,  6 Xpiards,  is  the 
testimony  of  God,  the  faith  of  which  constitutes  a 
Christian,  rb  eV,  the  one  thing  to  which  the  Spirit, 
the  water  and  the  blood,  unite  in  bearing  witness 
(1  John  v.  6,  8,  9).— J.  B. 

JESUS,  surnamed  Justus.  [Justus.] 
JETHRO.  [Hobau.] 

JEW  ('*TirP  Jehudi ; Sept.  ’IoaScuos),  a name 
formed  from  that  of  the  patriarch  Judah,  and 
applied  in  its  first  use  to  one  belonging  to  the 
tribe  or  country  of  Judah,  or  rather  perhaps  to  a 
subject  of  the  separate  kingdom  of  Judah  (2  Kings 
xvi.  6 ; xxv.  5).  During  the  Captivity  the  term 
seems  to  have  been  extended  to  all  the  people  of 
the  Hebrew  language  and  country,  without  dis- 
tinction (Esth.  iii.  6,  9;  Dan.  iii.  8,  12);  and 
this  loose  application  of  the  name  was  preserved 
after  the  restoration  to  Palestine,  when  it  came  to 
denote  not  only  every  descendant  of  Abraham  in 
the  largest  possible  sense,  but  even  proselytes  who 


JEZEBEL. 


JKZRGSL 


:i2 


aad  11c  Wood-relation  to  the  Hebrews  (Acts  ii.  5 ; 
comp.  10).  See  the  - articles  Hebkkw  Lan- 
guage; Israel ; Judah. 

JEZEBEL  7iot- inhabited , comp.  Isa- 

bella;  Sept.  ’le^ajSeX),  daughter  of  Ethbaal,  king 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  consort  of  Ahab,  king  of 
Israel  (b.c.  918).  This  unsuitable  alliance 
proved  most  disastrous  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel ; 
for  Jezebel  induced  her  weak  husband  not  only  to 
connive  at  her  introducing  the  worship  of  her 
native  idols,  but  eventually  to  become  himself  a 
worshipper  of  them,  and  to  use  all  the  means  in  his 
power  to  establish  them  in  the  room  of  the  God  of 
’srael.  This  was  a great  enormity.  The  worship 
.f  the  golden  calves  which  previously  existed  was, 
nowever  mistakenly,  intended  in  honour  of  Jehovah ; 
hut  this  was  an  open  alienation  from  him,  and  a 
turning  aside  to  foreign  and  strange  gods,  which, 
indeed,  were  no  gods.  Most  of  the  particulars  of  this 
bad  but  apparently  highly-gifted  woman's  conduct 
have  been  related  in  the  notices  of  Ahab  and 
Elijah.  From  the  course  of  her  proceedings  it 
would  appear  that  she  grew  to  hate  the  Jewish 
system  of  law  and  religion,  on  account  of  what 
must  have  seemed  to  her  its  intolerance  and  its 
anti-social  tendencies.  She  hence  sought  to  put  it 
down  by  all  the  means  she  could  command  ; and 
the  imbecility  of  her  husband  seems  to  have  made 
all  the  powers  of  the  state  subservient  to  her 
designs.  The  manner  in  winch  she  acquired 
and  used  her  power  over  Ahab  is  strikingly 
shown  in  the  matter  of  Naboth,  which,  peihaps, 
‘-more  than  all  the  other  affairs  in  which  she  was 
engaged,  brings  out.  her  true  character,  and  dis- 
plays the  nature  of  her  influence.  When  she  found 
him  puling,  like  a spoiled  child,  on  account  of 
the  refusal  of  Naboth  (o  gratify  him  by  selling 
him  his  patrimonial  vineyard  for  a ‘ garden  of 
herbs/  she  teaches  him  to  look  to  her,  to  rely 
upon  her  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  wishes  ; 
and  for  the  sake  of  this  impression,  more  perhaps 
than  from  savageness  of  temper,  she  scrupled  not 
at  murder  under  the  abused  forms  of  law  and 
religion.  She  had  the  reward  of  her  unscru- 
pulous decisiveness  of  character  in  the  triumph 
of  her  policy  in  Israel,  where,  at  last,  there  were  but 
7060  people  who  bad  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal, 
nor  kissed  their  hand  to  his  image.  Nor  was 
her  success  confined  to  Israel,  for  through  Atha- 
liah — a daughter  after  her  own  heart — who  was 
married  to  the  son  and  successor  of  Jehoshaphat, 
the  same  policy  prevailed  for  a time  in  Judah, 
after  Jezebel  herself  had  perished  and  the  house 
of  Ahab  had  met  its  doom.  It  seems  that  after 
the  death  of  her  husband,  Jezebel  maintained  con- 
siderable ascendancy  over  her  son  Joram ; and 
hei  measures  and  misconduct  formed  the  principal 
charge  which  Jehu  cast  in  the  teeth  of  that  un- 
happy monarch,  before  lie  sent  forth  the  arrow 
which  slew  him.  The  last  effort  of  Jezebel  was 
to  intimidate  Jehu  as  he  passed  the  palace,  by 
warning  him  of  the  eventual  rewards  of  even 
successful  treason.  It  is  eminently  characteristic 
of  the  woman,  that  even  in  this  terrible  moment, 
when  she  knew  that  her  son  was  slain,  and  must 
have  felt  that  her  power  had  depaited,  she  dis- 
played herself  not  with  rent  veil  and  dishevelled 
hair,  ‘ but  tired  her  head  and  painted  her  eyes  ’ 
before  she  looked  out  at  the  window.  The  eunuchs, 
at  a word  from  Jehu,  having  cast  her  down,  she 


met  her  death  beneath  the  wall  [Jehu]  ; and 
when  afterwards  the  new  monarch  bethought  hirn 
that,  as  ‘ a kings  daughter,’  her  corpse  should  not 
be  treated  with  disrespect,  nothing  was  found  of 
her  but  the  palms  of  her  hands  and  the  soles  of 
her  feet.  The  dogs  had  eaten  all  the  rest.  b.c. 
881  (1  Kings  xvi.  31;  xviii.  4,  13,  19;  xxL 
5-25 ; 2 Kings  ix.  7,  22,  30-37). 

JEZREEL  (^XJTIP  5 Sept.  Ie( oaeX),  a.  town 
in  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (Josh.  xix.  18),  where  the 
kings  ot  Israel  had  a palace,  and  where  the  court 
often  resided,  although  Samaria  was  the  metro- 
polis of  the  kingdom.  It  is  most  frequently  men- 
tioned in  the  history  of  the  house  of  Ahab.  Here 
was  the  vineyard  of  Naboth,  which  Ahab  coveted 
to  enlarge  the  palace-grounds  (1  Kings  xviii.  45, 
46;  xxi.),  and  here  Jehu  executed  bis  dread- 
ful commission  against  the  house  of  Ahab,  when 
Jezebel,  Joram,  and  all  who  were  connected  with 
that  wretched  dynasty  perished  (2  Kings  ix.  14- 
37;  x.  1-11).  These  horrid  scenes  appear  to 
have  given  the  khigs  of  Israel  a distaste  to  this 
residence,  as  it  is  not  again  mentioned  in  their 
history.  It  is,  however,  named  by  Hosea  (i.  4 , 
comp.  i.  11  ; ii.  22);  and  in  Judith  (i.  8;  iv.  3; 
vii.  3)  it  occurs  under  the  name  of  Esdraelon. 
In  the  days  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  it  was  still 
a large  village,  called  Esdraela  ( Onotnast . s.  v. 

‘ Jezrael  ’)  ; and  in  the  same  age  it  again  occurs 
as  Stradela  (Itin.  Ilieros.  p.  586).  Nothing 
more  is  heard  of  it  till  the  time  of  the  crusades, 
when  it  was  called  by  the  Franks  Parvurn  Ge- 
rinum,  and  by  the  Arabs  Zerin  ; and  it  is  de- 
scribed as  commanding  a wide  prospect — on  the 
east  to  the  mountains  of  Gilead,  and  on  the  west 
to  Mount.  Carmel  (Will.  Tyr.  xxii.  26).  But. 
this  line  of  identification  seems  to  have  been 
afterwards  lost  sight  of,  and  Jezreel  came  to  be 
identified  with  Jenin,  Indeed,  the  village  of 
Zerin  ceased  to  l>e  mentioned  by  travellers  till 
Turner,  Buckingham,  and  others  after  them  again 
brought  it  into  notice  ; and  it  is  still  more  lately 
that  tjie  ider.tific  ition  of  Zerin  and  Jezreel  has 
been  restored  (Raumer,  Paliist.  p.  155  ; Schubert, 
iii.  164;  Elliot,  ii.  379;  Robinson,  iii.  164). 

If  any  further  proof  of  the  fact  were  necessary, 
the  identity  of  the  names  Jezreel  and  Zerin,  or 
Jerin,  might  be  adduced.  This  does  not  at  first 
sight,  appear ; but  the  first,  feeble  letter  of  the 
Hebrew  being  dropped,  and  the  last  syllable  el 
becoming  in,  as  is  not  unusual  in  Arabic  (as 
Beitm  for  Bethel),  the  two  words  arc  seen  to  have 
been  originally  the  same. 

Zerin  is  seated  on  the  brow  of  a rocky  and  very 
steep  descent  into  the  great  and  fertile  valley  of 
Jezreel,  which  runs  down  between  the  mountains 
of  G'.boa  and  Hermori.  Lying  comparatively 
high,  it  commands  a wide  and  noble  view,  ex- 
tending down  the  broad  valley  on  the  east  tc 
Beisan  (Bethshean),  and  on  the  west,  quite  across 
the  great  plain  to  the  mountains  of  Carmel.  It 
is  described  by  Dr.  Robinson  ( Researches , iii. 
163)  as  a most  magnificent  site  for  a city,  which, 
being  itself  a conspicuous  object  in  every  part, 
would  naturally  give  its  name  to  the  whole  region. 
In  the  valley  directly  under  Zerin,  is  a consi- 
derable fountain,  and  another  still  larger  some- 
what further  to  the  east,  under  the  northern  side  of 
Gilhoa,  called  Ain  Jalud.  There  carq  therefore, 
be  little  question  that  as  in  Zer’r;  we  have  Jezreel, 


JOAB. 


JOAB. 

co  in  flie  valley  and  the  fountain  we  have  the 
‘valley  of  Jezreel,’  and  the  fountain  of  Jezreel, 
of  Sciipture. 

Zerm  has  at  present  little  more  than  twenty 
mnnble  dwellings,  mostly  in  ruins,  and  with  few 
inhabitants. 

JOAB  (3NV,  God-fathered ; Sept.  5Icod£),  one 
of  the  three  sons  of  Zeruiah,  the  sister  of  David, 
and  ‘(*iptainof  the  host  ’ (generalissimo)  of  the 
srnny  during  nearly  the  whole  of  David’s  reign. 

He  first  appears  associated  with  his  two  bro- 
thers, Atpshai  and  Asahel,  in  the  command  of 
David's  troops  against  Abner,  who  had  set  up  the 
claims  of  a son  of  Saul  in  opposition  to  those  of 
David,  who  then  reigned  in  Hebron.  The  armies 
having  met  at  the  pool  of  Gibeon,  a general  action 
was  brought  on,  in  which  Abner  was  worsted.  Li 
his  flight  lie  had  the  misfortune  to  kill  Joab’s  bro- 
ther, the  swift-footed  Asahel,  by  whom  he  was  pur- 
sueu  (2  Sam.  ii.  13-32).  The  consequences  of 
this  deed  have  been  explained  elsewhere  [Abner; 
Asahei/I.  Joab  smothered  for  a time  his  x’esent- 
m/fiit  against  the  shed  dvr  of  his  brother’s  blood; 
but  being  whetted  by  the  natural  rivalry  of  posi- 
tion between  him  and  Abner,  he  afterwards  made 
it  the  instrument  of  his  policy  by  treacherously, 
in  the  act  of  friendly  communication,  slaying 
Aimer,  at  the  very  time  when  the  services  of  the 
latter  to  David,  to  whom  he  had  then  turned, 
had  rendered  him  a most  dangerous  rival  to  him 
in  power  and  influence  (2  Sam.  iii.  22-27). 
That  Abner  had  at  first  suspected  that  Joab 
would  take  the  position  of  blood-avenger  [Bi.ood- 
Reyenge]  is  clear,  from  the  apprehension  which 
he  expressed  (2  Sam.  ii.  22);  but  that  he  thought 
that  joab  had,  under  all  the  circumstances,  aban- 
doned tl  lis  position,  is  shown  by  the  unsuspecting 
readiness  with  which  he  went  aside  with  him 
(2  Sam.  iii.  26,  27);  and  that  Joab  placed  his 
murderous  act  on  the  footing  of  vengeance  for  his 
brother’s  blood,  is  plainly  stated  in  2 Sam.  iii.  30  ; 
by  which  it  also  appears  that  the  other  brother, 
Abishai,  shared  in  some  way  in  the  deed  and  its 
•esponsibilities.  At  the  same  time,  as  Abner 
was  perfectly  justified  in  slaying  Asahel  to  save 
(lis  own  life,  it  is  very  doubtful  if  Joab  would 
ever  have  asserted  his  right  of  blood-revenge,  if 
Abner  had  not  appeared  likely  to  endanger  his 
influence  with  David.  The  king,  much  as  he 
reprobated  the  act,  knew  that  it  had  a sort  of  ex- 
cise in  the  old  customs  of  blood-revenge,  and  he 
stood  habitually  too  much  in  awe  of  his  impetu- 
ous and  able  nephew  to  bring  him  to  punishment, 
ar  even  to  displace  him  from  his  command.  ‘ I 
im  this  day  weak,  he  said,  ‘though  anointed 
ving,  and  these  men,  the  sons  of  Zeruiah,  be  too 
laid  for  me  \(2  Sam  iii.  39). 

Desirous  probably  of  making  some  atonement 
beftre  David  and  the  public  for  this  atrocity,  in 
a way  which  at  the  same  time  was  most  likely  to 
prove  effectual — namely,  by  some  daring  exploit, 
he  was  the  first  to  mount  to  the  assault  at  the 
storming  of  the  fortress  on  Mount  Zion,  which  had 
remained  so  long  in  the  hands  of  the  Jebusites. 
By  this  service  he  acquired  the  chief  command 
oi  the  army  of  all  Israel,  of  which  David  was  by 
this  time  king  (2  Sam.  v.  6-10). 

1 1 is  not  necessary  to  trace  the  subsequent  acts 
of  Joal , seeing  that  they  are  in  fact  the  public 
Acts  of  the  king  he  served.  And  he  served  him 

TOI..  II. 


HI 

faithfully  ; foi  although  he  knew  his  power  over 
David,  and  often  treated  him  with  little  cere- 
mony, there  can  be  no  doubt  lhat  he  was  most 
truly  devoted  to  his  interests,  and  sometimes  ren- 
dered him  good  service  even  against  his  own  will, 
as  in  the  affair  at  Mahanaim  (2  Sam.  xix.  5-8). 
But  Joab  bad  no  principles  apart  from  what  he 
deemed  his  duty  to  the  king  and  the  people,  and 
was  quite  as  ready  to  serve  his  master’s  vices  as 
his  virtues,  so  long  as  they  did  not  interfere 
with  his  own  interests,  or  tended  to  promote  them 
by  enabling  him  to  make  himself  useful  to  the 
king.  His  ready  apprehension  of  the  king’s 
meaning  in  the  matter  of  Uriah,  and  the  facility 
with  which  he  made  himself  the  instrument  of  the 
murder,  and  of  the  hypocrisy  by  which  it  was 
covered,  are  proofs  of  this,  and  form  as  deep  a 
stain  upon  his  character  as  his  own  murders  (2 
Sam.  xi.  14-25).  As  Joab  was  on  good  terms 
with  Absalom,  and  had  taken  pains  to  bring 
about  a reconciliation  between  him  and  his  father, 
we  may  set  the  higher  value  upon  his  firm  adhe- 
sion to  David  when  Absalom  revolted,  and  upon 
his  stern  sense  of  duty  to  the  king — from  whom 
he  expected  no  thanks, — displayed  in  putting  an 
end  to  the  war  by  the  slaughter  of  his  favourite 
son,  when  all  others  shrunk  from  the  responsibility 
of  doing  the  king  a service  against  his  own  will 
(2  Sam.,  xviii.  1-14).  In  like  manner,  when 
David  unhappily  resolved  to  number  the  people, 
Joab  discerned  the  evil  and  remonstrated  against 
it ; and  although  he  did  not  venture  to  disobey, 
he  performed  the  duty  tardily  and  reluctantly,  to 
afford  the  king  an  opportunity  of  reconsidering  the 
matter,  and  took  no  pains  to  conceal  how  odious 
the  measure  was  to  him  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  1-4). 
David  was  certainly  ungrateful  for  the  service? 
of  Joab,  when,  in  order  to  conciliate  the  powerfu 
party  which  had  supported  Absalom,  he  offered 
the  command  of  the  host  to  Amasa,  who  hai 
commanded  the  army  of  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xix 
13).  But  the  inefficiency  of  the  new  commander, 
in  the  emergency  which  the  revolt  of  Bichri's  son 
produced,  arising  perhaps  from  the  reluctance  of 
the  troops  to  follow  their  new  leader,  gave  Joab  an 
opportunity  of  displaying  his  superior  resources  ; 
and  also  of  removing  his  rival  by  a murder  very 
similar  to,  and  in  some  respects  less  excusable 
and  more  foul  than  that  of  Abner  [Amasa], 
Besides,  Amasa  was  his  own  cousin,  being  the 
son  of  his  mother’s  sister  (2  Sam.  xx.  1-13). 

When  David  lay  on  his  death-bed,  and  a de- 
monstration was  made  in  favour  of  the  succession 
of  the  eldest  surviving  son,  Adonijah,  whose  inte- 
rests bad.  been  compromised  by  the  preference  of 
the  young  Solomon,  Joab  joined  the  party  of  the 
natural  heir.  It  would  be  unjust  to  regard  this 
as  a defection  from  David.  It  was  nothing  more 
or  less  than  a demonstration  in  favour  of  the  na- 
tural heir,  which,  if  not  then  made,  could  not  be 
made  at  all.  But  an  act  which  would  have  been 
justifiable,  had  the  preference  of  Solomon  been  a 
mere  caprice  of  the  old  king,  became  criminal  as 
an  act  of  contumacy  to  the  Divine  king,  the  real 
head  of  the  government,  who  had  called  the  house 
of  David  to  the  throne,  and  had  the  sole  right  of 
determining  which  of  its  members  should  reign. 
When  the  prompt  measures  taken  under  the 
direction  of  the  king  rendered  this  demonstration 
abortive  (1  Kings  i.  7),  Joab  withdrew  into  private 
life  till  some  time  after  the  death  of  David,  when 

i 


a 


114 


JOANNA. 


JOASH. 


the  fate  of  Adonijah,  and  of  Abiathar — whose  life 
was  only  spared  in  consequence  of  his  sacerdotal 
character— warned  Joab  that  he  had  little  mercy  to 
expect  from  the  new  king.  He  fled  for  refuge  to 
the  altar ; but  when  Solomon  heard  this,  he  sent 
Benaiah  to  put  him  to  death;  and,  as  he  refused 
to  come  forth,  gave  orders  that  he  should  be  slain 
even  at  the  altar.  Thus  died  one  of  the  most 
accomplished  warriors  and  unscrupulous  men 
that  Israel  ever  produced.  His  corpse  was  re- 
moved to  his  domain  in  the  wilderness  of  Judah, 
and  buried  there,  b.c.  1015  (1  Kings  ii.  5,  28-34). 

JOANNA  (’Icodvi/a),  wife  of  Chuza,  the 
steward  of  Herod  Antipas,  the  tetrarch  of  Galilee. 
She  was  one  of  those  women  who  followed  Christ, 
and  ministered  to  the  wants  of  him  and  his 
disciples  out  of  their  abundance.  They  had  all 
been  cured  of  grievous  diseases  by  the  Saviour,  or 
had  received  material  benefits  from  him ; and  the 
customs  of  the  country  allowed  them  to  testify 
in  this  way  their  gratitude  and  devotedness  with- 
out reproach.  It  is  usually  supposed  that  Joanna 
was  at  this  time  a widow  (Luke  viii.  3 ; 
xxiv.  10). 

J.  JOASH  (KW!',  God-qivw;  Sept.  ’Io>ay), 
a contraction  of  Jehoash  (S^NIIT),  son  of 
Ahaziah  and  eighth  king  of  Judah,  who  began  to 
reign  in  b.c.  878,  at  the  age  of  seven,  and  reigned 
fo  *y-one  years. 

Jeash,  when  an  infant,  was  secretly  saved  by 
his  aunt  Jehoshebah,  who  was  married  to  the  high- 
priest  Jehoiada,  from  the  general  massacre  of  the 
fam’!y  by  Athaliah,  who  bad  usurped  the  throne 
[Athaliah  ; Jehoiada].  By  the  high-priest 
and  his  wife  the  child  was  privily  brought  up  in 
the  chambers  connected  with  the  temple  till  he 
had  attained  his  eighth  year,  when  Jehoiada 
deemed  that  the  state  of  affairs  required  him  to 
produce  the  youthful  heir  of  the  throne  to  the 
people,  and  claim  for  him  the  crown  which  his 
grandmother  had  60  unrighteously  usurped. 
Finding  the  influential  persons  whom  he  consulted 
favourable  to  the  design,  everything  was  secretly, 
but  admirably,  arranged  for  producing  Joash,  and 
investing  him  with  the  regalia,  in  such  a manner 
tliat  Athaliah  could  have  no  suspicion  of  the 
event  till  it  actually  occurred.  On  the  day  ap- 
pointed, the  sole  surviving  scion  of  David’s  illus 
trious  house  appeared  in  the  place  of  the  kings, 
by  a particular  pillar  in  the  temple-court,  and 
was  crowned  and  anointed  with  the  usual  cere- 
monies. The  high-wrought  enthusiasm  of  the 
spectators. then  found  vent  in  clapping  of  hands 
and  exulting  shouts  of  ‘Long  live  the  king!’ 
The  joyful  uproar  was  heard  even  in  the  palace, 
and  brought  Athaliah  to  the  temple,  from  which, 
at  a word  from  Jehoiada,  she  was  led  to  her 
death. 

Joash  behaved  well  during  his  non-age,  and  so 
long  after  as  he  remained  under  the  influence  of 
the  high-priest.  But  when  he  died  the  king  seems 
to  have  felt  himself  relieved  from  a yoke  ; and  to 
manifest  his  freedom,  began  to  take  the  contrary 
course  lo  that  which  he  had  followed  while  under 
pupilage.  Gradually  the  persons  who  had  pos- 
sessed influence  formerly,  when  the  house  of 
David  was  contaminated  by  its  alliance  with 
tne  house  of  Ahab,  insinuated  themselves  into  his 
councils,  and  ere  long  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and 
tLe  observances  of  he  law  were  neglected,  and  the 


land  was  defiled  with  idolatries  and  idolatroui 
usages.  The  prophets  then  uttered  their  warnings, 
but  were  not  heard;  and  the  infatuated  king  had 
the  atrocious  ingratitude  to  put  to  death  Zeehariab, 
the  son  and  successor  of  his  benefactor  Jehoiada. 
For  these  deeds  Joash  was  made  an  example  of  the 
divine  judgments.  He  saw  his  realm  devastated 
by  the  Syrians  under  Hazael ; his  armies  were 
cut  in  pieces  by  an  enemy  of  inferior  numbers ; 
and  he  was  even  besieged  in  Jerusalem,  and  only 
preserved  his  capital  and  his  crown  by  giving  up 
the  treasures  of  the  temple.  Besides  this,  a pain- 
ful malady  embittered  all  his  latter  days,  and  at 
length  he  became  so  odious  that  his  own  servants 
conspired  against  him,  and  slew  him  on  his 
bed.  They  are  said  to  have  done  this  to  avenge 
the  blood  of  Zeehariah,  who  at  his  death  had 
cried,  ‘ The  Lord  look  upon  it  and  require  it 
and  it  is  hence  probable  that  public  opinion 
ascribed  all  the  calamities  of  his  life  and  reign  to 
that  infamous  deed.'  Joash  was  buried  in  the 
city  of  David  ; but  a place  in  the  sepulchre  of 
the  kings  was  denied  to  his  remains  (2  Kings  xi. ; 
xii. ; 2 Chron.  xxiv.), 

2.  JOASH,  son  and  successor  of  Jehoahaz  on 
the  throne  of  Israel,  of  which  he  was  the  twelfth 
king.  He  began  to  reign  in  b.c  810,  and  reigned 
sixteen  incomplete  years.  He  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  his  predecessors  in  the  policy  of  keeping 
up  the  worship  of  the  golden  calves;  but,  apart 
from  this,  he  bears  a fair  character,  and  bad  in- 
tervals, at  least,  of  sincere  piety  and  true  devo- 
tion to  the  God  of  his  fathers.  Indeed,  custom 
and  long  habit  had  so  established  the  views  of 
political  expediency  on  which  the  schismatieal 
establishments  at  Dan  and  Bethel  were  founded, 
that  at  length  the  reprehension  which  regularly 
recurs  in  the  record  of  each  king's  reign,  seems 
rather  to  apply  to  it  as  a mark  of  the  continuance 
of  a public  crime,  than  as  indicative  of  the  cha- 
racter or  disposition  of  the  reigning  prince, 
wl.ich  is  to  be  sought  in  the  more  detailed 
accounts  of  his  own  conduct.  These  accounts 
are  favourable  with  respect  to  Joash.  He  held 
the  prophet  Elisha  in  high  honour,  looking  up  to 
him  as  a father.  When  he  heard  of  his  last  ill- 
ness he  repaired  to  the  bed-side  of  the  dying  pro- 
phet, and  was  favoured  with  promises  of  victories 
over  the  Syrians,  by  whom  his  dominions  were 
then  harassed.  These  promises  were  accomplished 
after  the  prophet’s  death.  In  three  signal  and 
successive  victories  Joash  overcame  the  Syrians, 
and  retook  from  them  the  towns  which  Hazael  had 
rent  from  Israel. 

These  advantages  rendered  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  more  potent  than  that  of  Judah.  He,  how- 
ever, sought  no  quarrel  with  that  kingdom  ; but 
when  he  received  a defiance  from  Amaziah,  king 
of  Judah,  he  answered  with  becoming  spirit  ir* 
a parable,  which  by  its  images  caPs  to  mind 
that  of  Jotham  [Parables]  : the  cosj!  disdain  of 
the  answer  must  have  been,  and  in  fact  was,  ex- 
ceedingly galling  to  Amaziah.  * The  thistle  that 
was  in  Lei  anon  sent  to  the  cedar  that  was  in 
Lebanon,  saying,  Give  thy  daughter  to  mv  son  to 
wife ; and  there  came  by  a wild  beast  that  was 
in  Lebanon  and  trod  down  the  thistle.’  Tin’s  was 
admirable;  nor  was  the  application  less  so: 
‘Thou  hast,  i:  deed,  smitten  Edom,  and  thine 
heart  hath  lifted  thee  up  : glory  of  this,  and  tarry 
at  nome;  for  why  shouldest  thou  meddle  to  toy 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

hurt,  that  thou  shouhlest  fall,  even  thou  and 
Judah  with  thee.’  In  the  war,  or  rather  action, 
which  followed,  Joash  was  victorious.  Having 
defeated  Amaziah  at  Beth-shemesh,  in  Judah,  he 
advanced  to  Jerusalem,  broke  down  the  wall  to 
♦lie  extent  of  400  cubits,  and  carried  away  the 
treasures  both  of  the  temple  and  tint  palace, 
together  with  hostages  for  the  future  good  be- 
haviour of  the  crest-fallen  Amaziah.  Joash  himself 
did  not  long  survive  this  victory;  he  died  in 
peace,  and  was  buried  in  Samaria  (2  Kings  xiii. 
0-2o;  xiv.  1-17). 

JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF.  We  shall  consider, 
first,  the  contents  of  this  book ; secondly,  its  ob- 
ject ; thirdly,  its  composition  ; and,  lastly,  the 
country,  descent,  and  age  of  its  author. 

I.  Contents.  In  the  land  of  Uz,  belonging  to 
the  northern  part  of  Arabia  Deserta,  lived  an 
honest,  pious  man,  called  Job.  For  his  sincere 
and  perfect  devotedness,  God  had  amply  blessed 
aim  with  worldly  property  and  children;  but  on 
Satan  obtaining  leave  to  tempt  him , he  suddenly 
lost  the  fortune  of  his  life.  Ultimately  he  is 
smitten  with  a severe  and  painful  disease ; but 
though  his  wife  moves  him  to  forsake  God,  he 
dill  continues  true  and  stanch  to  the  Lord. 
Three  friends,  Elipnaz,  Bildad,  and  Zophar,  hear 
if  his  calamities,  and  come  to  console  him.  His 
listressed  state  excites  their  heartfelt  compassion  ; 
>ut  the  view  winch  they  take  of  its  origin  pre- 
rents  them  from  at  once  assisting  him,  and  they 
emain  silent,  though  they  are  sensible  that  by  so 
loing  they  further  wound  his  feelings.  Seven 
lays  thus  pass,  until  Job,  suspecting  the  cause  of 
their  conduct,  becomes  discomposed  and  breaks 
silence.  His  first  observations  are  based  on  the 
assertion  - -not,  indeed,  broadly  expressed — that 
God  ac's  harshly  and  arbitrarily  in  inflicting 
:al amity  on  men.  This  causes  a discussion  between 
li rn  and  his  friends,  which  is  divided  into  three 
main  parts,  each  with  subdivisions,  and  embraces 
the  speeches  of  the  three  friends  of  Job,  and  his 
answers  : the  last  part,  however,  consists  of  only 
two  subdivisions,  the  third  friend,  Zophar,  having 
nothing  to  rejoin.  By  this  silence  the  author  of 
the  book  generally  designates  the  defeat  of  Job’s 
friends,  who  are  defending  a common  cause. 
Taking  a general  view  of  the  argument  which 
they  urge  against  him,  they  may  be  considered  as 
asserting  the  following  positions  : — 

1.  No  man  being  free  from  sin,  we  need  not 

wonder  that  we  are  liable  to  calamities,  for  which 
we  must  account  by  a reference,  not  to  God,  but 
to  ourselves.  From  the  misery  of  the  distressed, 
others  are  enabled  to  infer  their  guilt;  and  they 
must  take  this  view  in  order  to  vindicate  divine 
justice.  .. 

2.  The  distress  o*  a man  proves  not  only  that 
he  has  sinned,  but  shows  also  the  degree  and  mea- 
sure of  his  sin  ; and  thus,  from  the  extent  of  cala- 
mity sustained,  may  be  inferred  the  extent  of  sins 
committed ; and  from  this  the  measure  of  impend- 
ing misfortune. 

3.  A distressed  man  may  recover  his  former 
happiness,  and  even  attain  to  greater  fortune  than 
he  ever  enjoyed  before,  if  lie  takes  a warning  from 
his  afflictions,  repents  of  his  sins,  reforms  his  life, 
and  raises  himself  to  a higher  degree  of  moral  rec- 
titude. Impatience  and  irreverent  expostulation 
with  God  serve  but  to  prolong  and  increase  puuish- 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF.  115 

ment ; for,  by  accusing  God  of  injustice,  a fresh  sin 
is  added  to  former  transgressions. 

4.  Though  the  wicked  man  is  capable  of  pro- 
sperity, still  it  is  never  lasting.  The  most  awful 
retribution  soon  overtakes  him  ; and  his  transient 
felicity  must  itself  be  considered  as  punishment, 
since  it  renders  him  heedless,  and  makes  him  feel 
misfortune  more  keenly. 

In  opposition  to  them,  Job  maintains  : — 

1.  The  most  upright  man  may  be  highly  unfor 
tunate — more  so  than  the  inevitable  faults  and 
shortcomings  of  human  nature  would  seem  to 
imply.  There  is  a savage  cruelty,  deserving  the 
severities  of  the  divine  resentment,  in  inferring  the 
guilt  of  a man  from  his  distresses.  In  distributing 
good  and  evil,  God  regards  neither  mei'it  nor  guilt, 
but  acts  according  to  His  sovereign  pleasure.  His 
omnipotence  is  apparent  in  every  part  of  the 
creation  ; but  His  justice  cannot  be  seen  in  the 
government  of  the  world  ; the  afflictions  of  the 
righteous,  as  well  as  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked, 
are  evidence  against  it.  There  are  innumerable 
cases,  and  Job  considers  his  own  to  be  one  of  them, 
in  which  a sufferer  has  a right  to  justify  himself 
before  God,  and  to  repine  at  His  decrees.  Of  this 
supposed  right  Job  freely  avails  himself,  and  main- 
tains it  against  his  friends. 

2.  In  a state  of  composure  and  calmer  reflec- 
tion, Job  retracts,  chiefly  in  his  concluding  speech, 
all  his  former  rather  extravagant  assertions,  and 
says  that,  although  God  generally  afflicts  the 
wicked  and  blesses  the  righteous,  still  there  are  ex- 
ceptions to  this  rule,  single  cases  in  which  the  piui.s 
undergo  severe  trials  ; the  inference,  therefore,  of  a 
roan’s  guilt  from  his  misfortunes  is  by  no  means 
warranted.  For  the  exceptions  established  by  ex- 
perience prove  that  God  does  not  always  distribute 
prosperity  and  adversity  after  this  rule;  but  that  he 
sometimes  acts  on  a different  principle,  or  as  an  ab- 
solutelord,  according  to  his  mere  will  and  pleasure. 

3.  Humbly  to  adore  God  is  our  duty,  even, 
when  we  are  subject  to  calamities  not  at  all 
deserved  ; but  we  should  abstain  from  harshly 
judging  of  those  who,  when  distressed,  send  forth 
complaints  against  God. 

Both  parties  not  only  explain  their  principles 
generally,  but  apply  them  to  the  case  which  had 
caused  the  discussion.  At  first  the  friends  of  Job 
only  hint,  but  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  they 
broadly  assert,  that  his  very  great  afflictions  must 
have  been  caused  by  equally  great  sins  ; and  they 
tax  him  with  crimes  of  which  they  suspect  him  to 
have  been  guilty.  They  also  admonish  him  to  con- 
fess and  repent  of  the  guilt  of  which,  by  the  divine 
punishments  inflicted  on  him,  he  stood  already 
convicted.  If  he  should  follow  4his  counsel,  they 
promise  him  a return  of  prosperity;  but  if  he 
proved  refractory,  they  threaten  him  with  divine 
punishments  even  more  severe.  Job,  on  the  con- 
trary, represents  himself,  venial  frailties  excepted, 
as  altogether  upright  and  innocent,  thinks  himself 
unjustly  dealt  with  by  God,  and  reproaches  his 
friends  with  heaping  on  him  unfounded  crimina- 
tions, with  a view  of  ingratiating  themselves  with 
the  Almighty,  who,  however,  would  visit  with 
condign  punishment  such  busy,  meddling,  offi- 
cious vindicators  of  the  divine  government. 

The  interest  of  the  narrative  is  kept  up  with 
considerable  skill,  by  progressively  rising  and 
highly  passionate  language.  At  first,  Job’s  friends 
charge  him,  and  he  defends  himself,  in  mild 


1 1G 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 


# 

terms ; but  gradually  they  are  all  betrayed  into 
warmth  of  temper,  which  goes  on  increasing  u^til 
the  friends  have  nothing  more  to  object,  and  Job 
remains  in  possession  of  the  Held.  The  discussiou 
then  seems  to  be  at  an  end,  when  a fresh  dis- 
putant, Elihu,  appears.  Trusting  in  his  just  cause, 
Job  had  proudly  opposed  God,  with  whom  he 
expostulated,  and  whom  he  charged  with  injus- 
tice, when  the  sense  of  his  calamities  should  have 
led  him  to  acknowledge  the  sinfulness  of  human 
nature,  and  humbly  to  submit  to  the  divine  dis- 
pensations. Making  every  allowance  for  his  pain- 
ful situation,  and  putting  the  mildest  construction 
on  his  expressions,  he  is  still  substantially  wrong, 
and  could  not  therefore  be  suffered  to  remain  the 
vanquisher  m this  high  argument.  He  had  silenced 
his  friends,  but  the  general  issue  remained  to  be 
settled.  Elihu  had  waited  till  Job  and  his  friends 
bad  spoken,  because  the}  were  older  than  he ; but 
when  he  saw  that  the  three  visitors  ceased  to  answer, 
he  offers  himself  to  reason  with  Job,  and  shows  that 
God  is  just  in  his  ways.  He  does  this, 

1.  From  the  nature  of  inflictions. — He  begins 
by  urging  that  Job  was  very  wrong  in  boasting  of 
his  integrity,  and  making  it  appear  that  rewards 
were  due  to  him  from  God.  How  righteous  soever 
he  was,  he  still  had  no  claim  to  reward ; on  the 
contrary,  all  men  are  sinners  in  God’s  eyes  ; and 
nobody  can  complain  that  he  suffers  unjustly, 
for  the  very  greatest  sufferings  equal  not  his 
immense  guilt.  Then  Elihu  explains  a leading 
point  on  which  he  differs  from  the  friends  of  Job  : 
he  asserts  that  from  greater  sufferings  inflicted  on 
a person  it  was  not  to  be  inferred  that  he  had  sinned 
more  than  others  afflicted  with  a less  amount  of 
calamity.  Calamities  were,  indeed,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, punishments  for  sins  committed,  but 
at  the  same  time  they  were  correctives  also;  and 
therefore  they  might  be  inflicted  on  the  compara- 
tively most  righteous  in  preference  to  others.  For 
lie  who  was  most  loved  by  God,  was  also  most  in 
danger  of  forgetting  the  sinfulness  inherent  in  all 
men,  and,  consequently,  also  in  himself:  the  rather 
because  sin  would  in  him  less  strongly  manifest 
itself.  If  the  object  of  afflictions  was  attained, 
and  the  distressed  acknowledged  his  sinfulness,  he 
would  humble  himself  before  God,  who  would 
bless  him  with  greater  happiness  than  he  ever  be- 
fore enjoyed.  But  he  who  took  not  this  view,  and 
did  not  amend  his  ways,  would  be  ruined,  and  the 
blame  would  rest  wholly  with  himself.  Conse- 
quently, if  Job  made  the  best  of  his  misfortune,  God 
would  render  him  most  happy ; but  if  he  continued 
refractory,  punishment  would  follow  his  offences. 
According  to  this  view,  the  truly  righteous  cannot 
be  always  miserable  ; and  their  calamities,  which 
God  not  only  from  His  justice,  as  the  friends  of  Job 
stated,  but  also  from  His  love,  inflicts  temporarily 
on  them,  are  only  the  means  employed  to  raise  them 
to  higher  moral  rectitude  and  worldly  happiness. 
The  end  shows  the  distinction  between  the  perverse 
sinner,  and  the  righteous  man  subject  to  sinfulness. 

2.  From  a clear  conception  of  the  nature  of 
God. — ‘ How  darest  thou,’  says  Elihu,  ‘ instead  of 
humbling  thyself  before  God,  defy  Him,  and  offer 
to  reason  with  Him  ? The  whole  creation  shows 
forth  His  majesty,  and  evinces  His  justice.  For  a 
man  to  stand  up  against  Him  and  to  assert  that 
he  suffers  innocently,  is  the  greatest  anthropomor- 
phism, because  it  goes  to  deny  the  Divine  majesty, 
evident  in  all  the  facts  of  the  created  world,  and 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

including  God’s  justice.  His  nature  being  one  and 
indivisible,  it  cannot  on  one  side  exhibit  infinite 
perfection,  and  on  the  other  imperfection  : each 
example,  then,  of  God’s  grandeur  in  the  creation 
of  the  world  is  evidence  against  the  rash  accusers 
of  God’s  justice.  Thus  it  appears  that,  from  the 
outset,  there  must  have  been  a mistake  in  thy 
calculation,  and  thou  must  the  rather  acknow- 
ledge the  correctness  of  my  solution  of  the  ques- 
tion. God  must  be  just — this  is  certain  from  the 
outset;  and  how  His  justice  is  not  impaired  by 
calamities  inflicted  on  the  righteous  and  on  thy- 
self, I have  already  explained.’ 

Job  had,  in  a stirring  manner,  several  times,  chal- 
lenged God  to  decide  the  contest.  Elihu  suspects 
the  approach  of  the  Lord,  when,  towards  the  end 
of  his  speech,  a violent  thunder-storm  arises,  and 
God  answers  Job  out  of  the  whirlwind,  showing 
how  foolishly  the  latter  had  acted  in  offering  to 
reason  with  Him,  when  His  works  proved  his  in- 
finite Majesty,  and,  consequently,  His  absolute 
justice.  Job  now  submits  to  God.  and  humbly 
repents  of  his  offence.  Hereupon  &od  addresses 
Eliphaz,  Bildad,  and  Zophar,  declaring  unto  them 
His  displeasure  at  their  unmerciful  dealing  with 
their  friend,  the  consequences  of  which  could  only 
be  avoided  by  Job  offering  a propitiatory  sacw- 
fice.  This  is  done,  and  the  Lord  grants  unto  Job 
ample  compensation  for  his  sufferings. 

II.  Design  of  the  book.  We  here  assume 
the  integrity  of  the  book  of  Job,  or  that  it  has  been 
preserved  in  its  genuine,  unadulterated  state  ; and 
we  may  do  so  the  rather,  because  those  who  would 
eliminate  single  portions,  must  still  allow  the 
difficulty  of  showing  in  the  remainder  a fixed  plan 
and  leading  idea,  which  again  argues  against  them. 
Moreover,  by  determining  the  design  of  the  book 
the  best  foundation  is  laid  for  proving  its  integrity. 
All  agree  that  the  object  of  the  book  is  the  solution 
of  the  question,  how  the  afflictions  of  the  righteous 
and  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked  can  be  consistent 
with  God’s  justice.  But  it  should  be  observed 
that  the  direct  problem  exclusively  refers  to  the 
first  point,  the  second  being  only  incidentally 
discussed  on  occasion  of  the  leading  theme.  If 
this  is  overlooked.,  the  author  would  appear  to 
have  solved  only  one  half  of  his  problem  : the  case 
from  which  the  whole  discussion  proceeds,  has 
reference  merely  to  the  leading  problem.  There 
is  another  fundamental  error  which  has  led  nearly 
all  modern  interpreters  to  a mistaken  idea  of 
the  design  of  this  book.  Pareau  (De  J.mmor - 
talitatis  not.  in  libro  Jobi,  Deventer,  1807, 
p.  207)  is  the  only  one  who  saw  the  error  ad- 
verted to,  and  partially  combated  it  with  success. 
They  assume  that  the  problem  could  be  satis- 
factorily solved  only  when  the  doctrines  of  im- 
mortality and  retribution  had  been  first  established, 
which  had  not  been  done  by  the  author  of  the 
book  of  Job  : a perfect  solution  of  the  question 
was  therefore  not  to  be  expected  from  him.  Some 
assert  that  his  solution  is  erroneous,  since  retri- 
bution, to  be  expected  in  a future  world,  is 
transferred  by  him  to  this  life  ; others  say  that  he 
cut  the  knot  which  he  could  not  unloose,  and  has 
been  satisfied  to  ask  for  implicit  submission  and 
devotedness,  showing  at  the  same  time  that  every 
attempt  at  a solution  must  lead  to  dangerous 
positions : blind  resignation,  therefore,  war  the 
short  meaning  of  the  lengthened  discussion, 

On  nearer  examination,  however,  it  appears  that 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

the  doctrine  of  retribution  after  death  is  not  of  itself 
alone  calculated  to  lead  to  a solution  of  the  pro- 
blem. In  contemplating  the  lives  of  the  righteous, 
who  were  perfectly  embued  with  this  doctrine,  it 
will  appear  that  they  also,  str  lggled  with  doubts  ; 
that  a satisfactory  solution  of  the  question  is  to 
be  derived  only  from  the  fundamental  doctrine 
on  which  the  faith  in  retribution  rests;  and  that 
this  faith  is  shaken  where  it  has  not  the  necessary 
basis.  The  belief  in  a final  judgment  is  firm  and 
rational  only  when  it  rests  on  the  belief  in  God’s 
continued  providential  government  of  the  world, 
and  in  his  acting  as  sovereign  Lord  in  all  the 
events  of  human  life.  If  God  is  holy  and  just, 
He  must  also  have  the  will  to  manifest  these 
qualities  in  our  present  life  by  His  bearing  towards 
those  who  represent  His  image  on  earth,  as  well 
as  towards  those  who  renounce  it.  If  He  is  om- 
nipotent, nothing  can  in  this  life  prevent  Him 
from  exhibiting  His  justice;  but  if  this  is  not 
manifested,  and  if  no  reason  can  be  given  for 
which  He  at  times  defers  His  judgments,  the 
belief  in  retribution  after  death  would  be  flimsy 
and  shallow.  Woe  to  him  who  expects  in  a future 
world  to  be  supplied  with  everything  he  missed 
here,  and  with  redress  for  all  injuries  sustained ! 
He  deceives  himself.  His  God  was,  during  his 
life  on  earth,  inactive,  shutting  Himself  up  in 
heaven : is  he  sure  that  his  God  will  hereafter  be 
better  disposed  or  more  able  to  protect  him  ? As 
His  essence  remains  the  same,  and  the  nature  of 
sin  and  virtue  is  unchanged,  how  should  He 
then  in  a future  life  punish  the  former  and  reward 
the  latter,  if  He  .does  not  do  so  in  this  life ! Tem- 
porary injustice  is  still  injustice,  and  destroys 
the  idea  of  a holy  and  just  God.  A God  who  has 
something  to  redress  is  no  God  at  all.  Lucian, 
the  satirist,  composed  a dialogue  entitled  Zeus 
'EAe7x<fytej'os,  with  the  view  of  subverting  the 
belief  in  Divine  Providence;  in  which  he  justly 
finds  fault  with  that  God,  who  allows  the  wicked 
to  lead  a happy  and  pleasant  life  in  order  that,  at 
a distant  time,  they  may  be  tortured  according  to 
their  deserts,  and  who,  on  the  contrary,  exposes 
the  righteous  to  infinite  misery,  that  in  remote 
futurity  they  may  receive  the  reward  of  their  vir- 
tue. Some  men  of  sense  among  the  heathens  dis- 
played deep  penetration  on  this  subject.  Claudian, 
in  the  commencement  of  his  poem  against  the 
wicked  Rufinus,  hints  that  doubts  had  been  often 
entertained  of  Divine  Providence,  but  that  they  had 
been  now  removed  by  the  downfall  of  Rufinus  : — 

‘ Abstulit  hunc  tandem  Rufini  poena  tumultum 
Absolvitque  deos.  Jam  non  ad  culmina  rerum 
Injustos  crevisse  queror.  Tolluntur  in  altum 
Ut  lapsu  graviore  ruant.’ 

This  worldly  retribution  leads  him  to  a firm  belief 
in  that  after  death.  He  represents  Rufinus  de- 
scended to  the  nether  world,  doing  penance  and 
enduring  the  keenest  pains.  See  the  rich  collection 
by  Barth  (in  his  Notes  to  Claudian , 1078,  s.s.) 
of  those  passages  in  the  works  of  heathen  writers 
in  which  doubts  of  future  retribution  are  raised 
on  the  ground  of  disbelief  in  present  requitals. 
Scripture  knows  nothing  of  a God  whose  power 
aimits  of  increase,  or  who  is  active  only  in  the  life 
o come  : its  God  is  always  full  of  strength  and 
igour,  constantly  engaged  in  action.  God’s  just 
retribution  in  this  world  is  extolled  throughout  the 
Old  Testament.  Tne  notion  of  return  accommo- 
dated to  actions,  is  its  substance  and  centre.  It 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF.  117 

is  partii  alarly  urged  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  it  is 
only  when  it  had  been  deeply  rooted  in  the  public 
mind,  and  the  belief  in  future  requital  had  ac- 
quired a firm  and  solid  basis,  that  the  latter 
doctrine,  which  in  the  books  of  Moses  is  but 
dimly  hinted  at,  is  clearly  and  explicitly  pro- 
mulgated. The  New  Testament  holds  out  to  the 
righteous  promises  of  a future  life,  as  well  as  of  the 
present;  and  our  Saviour  himself,  in  setting  forth 
the  rewards  of  those  who,  for  His  sake,  forsook 
everything,  begins  with  this  life  (Matt.  xix.  29). 
A nearer  examination  of  the  benedictions  contained 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt,  v.),  shows  tha: 
none  of  them  exclusively  refer  to  future  blessings 
the  judgment  of  the  wicked  is  in  His  view  pro- 
ceeding without  interruption,  and  therefore  His 
examples  of  the  distribution  of  Divine  justice  in 
this  world,  are  mingled  with  those  of  requital  in  a 
future  order  of  things.  The  Galileans,  whose 
blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with  their  own  sacri- 
fices (Luke  xiii.  1),  were  in  Christ's  opinion  not 
accidentally  killed ; and  he  threatens  those  who 
would  not  repent,  that  they  should  in  like  manner 
perish.  That  sickness  is  to  be  considered  as  a 
punishment  for  sin,  we  are  clearly  taught  (John  v. 
14  ; Luke  v.  20,  24)  : in  the  former  passage  it  is 
threatened  as  punishment  for  sins  committed ; in 
the  latter  it  is  healed  in  consequence  of  punish- 
ment remitted.  Nay,  every  patient  restored  by 
Christ,  who  acted  pot  as  a superior  kind  of  Hip- 
pocrates, but  as  the  Saviour  of  men,  is  by  that  very 
act  declared  to  be  a sinner.  The  passage  in  John  ix. 
2,  3,  which  is  often  appealed  to,  in  proof  that  our 
Lord  did  not  consider  sickness  as  a punishment 
for  sin,  does  not  prove  this,  but  only  opposes  the 
Jewish  position — founded  on  the  mistaken  doe- 
trine  of  retribution— that  all  severe  sicknesses  and 
infirmities  were  consequences  of  crimes.  But 
what  is,  from  this  point  of  view,  the  solution  ot 
the  problem  regarding  the  sufferings  of  the  righte- 
ous ? It  rests  on  two  positions. 

1.  Calamity  is  the  only  way  that  leads  to 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Even  the  comparatively 
righteous  are  not  without  sin,  which  can  be  eradi- 
cated only  by  afflictions.  Via  crucis  est  via 
salutis.  He  who  repents  will  attain  to  a clearer 
insight  into  the  otherwise  obscure  ways  of  God. 
The  afflictions  of  the  pious  issue  at  once  from 
God’s  justice  and  love.  To  him  who  entertains 
a proper  sense  of  the  sinfulness  of  man,  no  ca- 
lamity appears  so  great  as  not  to  be  deserved  as  a 
punishment,  or  useful  as  a corrective. 

2.  Calamity,  as  the  veiled  grace  of  God,  is 
with  the  pious  never  alone,  but  manifest  proofs  of 
Div  ne  favour  accompany  or  follow  it*.  Though 
sunk  in  misery,  they  still  are  happier  than  the 
wicked,  and  when  it  has  attained  its  object,  it  is 
terminated  by  the  Lord.  The  nature  of  acts  of 
grace  differs  according  to  the  qualify  of  those 
on  whom  they  are  conferred.  The  consolations 
offered  in  the  Old  Testament  are,  agreeably  to  the 
weaker  judgment  of  its  professors,  derived  clmfly 
from  external  ciicumstances ; while  in  the  New 
Testament  they  are  mainly  spiritual,  without, 
however,  excluding  the  leading  external  helps. 
This  difference  is  not  essential,  nor  is  any  other, 
the  restitutio  in  integrum  being  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment principally  confined  to  this  life,  while  in  the 
New  Testament  the  eye  is  directed  beyond  the 
limits  of  this  world. 

It  i £ this  exclusively  correct  solution  of  the 


118  JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

problem  which  occurs  in  the  book  of  Job.  All 
interpreters  allow  that  it  is  set  forth  in  Elihu’s 
speeches,  and,  from  the  following  observations,  it 
will  appear  that  they  contain  the  opinion  of  the 
author  : — 1.  The  solution  cannot  be  looked  for  in 
Job’s  speeches ; for  God  proves  himself  gracious 
towards  him  only  after  he  has  repented  and 
humbled  himself.  The  author  of  the  book  says 
(i.  22  ; ii.  10 ; comp.  iii.  1)  that  Job  had  charged 
God  foolishly,  and  sinned  with  his  lips  ; and  the 
■n-purov  xf/eOSos,  the  materia  peccans , in  his 
speeches,  is  clearly  pointed  out  to  be,  that  ‘ he 
was  righteous  in  his  own  eyes,  and  justified  him- 
self rather  than  God’  (xxxii.  1,  2).  To  gather  from 
Job’s  speeches  a consistent  view  of  the  subject, 
and  a satisfactory  solution  of  the  question  mooted, 
is  impossible  also  on  account  of  the  many  contra- 
dictions in  them  ; as,  for  instance,  when  he  says 
at  one  time,  that  God's  justice  never  appears  in 
the  government  of  the  world,  and  at  another, 
that  it  generally  does  appear,  but  that  there  are 
evident  exceptions  to  the  general  rule,  not  liable 
to  objections.  Sound  principles  are  mixed  up 
by  him  with  wrong  ones  ; his  views  want  sifting, 
and  the  correct  ideas  must  be  completed,  which, 
even  in  his^concluding  address,  is  not  done  by  him- 
self, nor  is  it  performed  by  his  three  friends.  Job 
continues  to  be  embarrassed  for  the  solution,  and 
ne  is  only  certain  of  this,  that  the  solution  of  his 
friends  cannot  be  satisfactory.  Job  erred  chiefly 
in  not  acknowledging  the  sin  inherent  in  him; 
notwithstanding  his  integrity  and  sincere  piety, 
which  prevented  him  from  apprehending  the  ob- 
ject of  the  calamity  inflicted  on  him,  led  him  to 
consider  God’s  punishments  as  arbitrary,  and 
made  him  despair  of  the  return  of  better  days. 
The  greatness  of  his  sufferings  was  in  some  mea- 
sure the  cause  of  his  misconception,  by  exciting 
his  feelings,  and  preventing  him  from  calmly  con- 
sidering his  case.  He  was  in  the  state  of  a man 
tempted,  and  deserving  God’s  indulgence.  He  had 
received  considerable  provocation  from  his  friends, 
and  often  endeavoured  to  soften  his  harsh  asser- 
tions; which,  particularly  in  ch.  xxvii.,  leads  him 
into  such  contradictions,  as  must  have  occurred 
in  the  life  of  the  tempted  ; he  is  loud  in  acknow- 
ledging the  wisdom  of  God  (ch.  xxviii.),  and  raises 
himself  at  times  to  cheering  hopes  (comp.  ch. 
xix.).  But  this  can  only  excuse,  not  justify  him, 
and  therefore  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  honourable 
to  him,  that  he  remains  silent,  when  in  Elihu’s 
speeches  the  correct  solution  of  the  question  is 
given,  and  that  he  ultimately  acknowledges  his 
fundamental  error  of  doing  justice  to  himself  only. 

2.  The  solution  of  the  question  mooted  can- 
not be  contained  in  the  speeches  of  Job's  friends. 
Their  demeanour  is  reproved  by  God,  and  repre- 
sented as  a great  sin,  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  to 
obtain  pardon  for  them  Job  was  directed  to  offer  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice.  Their  error  proceeded  from 
a crude  notion  of  sin  in  its  external  appearance; 
and,  inferring  its  existence  from  calamity,  they 
were  thus  led  to  condemn  the  afflicted  Job  as 
guilty  of  heinous  crimes  (ch.  xxxii.).  The  moral 
use  of  sufferings  was  unknown  to  them;  which 
evidently  proved  that  they  themselves  were  not 
vet  purged  and  cleared  from  guilt.  If  they  had 
been  sensible  of  the  nature  of  man,  if  they  had 
understood  themselves , they  would,  on  seeing  the 
misery  of  Job,  have  exclaimed,  ‘God  be  merciful 
to  us  sinners  ! ’ There  is,  indeed,  an  important 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

correct  j inciple  in  their  speeches,  whose  centre  il 
forms,  so  much  so,  that  they  mostly  err  only  iii  the 
application  of  the  general  truth,  it  consists  in  the 
perception  of.  the  invariable  connection  between 
sin  and  misery,  which  is  indelibly  engrafted  on 
the  heart  of  man,  and  to  which  many  ancient 
authors  allude.  The  saying,  male  parta  male 
dilabuntur , is  to  be  found  in  every  language. 
The  problem  of  the  book  is  then  solved  hy  pro- 
perly uniting  the  correct  positions  of  the  speeches 
both  of  Job  and  his  friends,  by  maintaining  his 
comparative  innocence,  and  by  tracing  the  errors 
of  both  parties  to  a common  source,  the  want  of  a 
sound  insight  into  the  nature  of  sin.  Job  con- 
siders himself  righteous,  and  not  deserving  of  such 
inflictions,  because  he  had  not  committed  any 
heinous  crime ; and  his  friends  fancy  they  must 
assume  that  lie  was  highly  criminal,  in  order  to 
justify  his  misery. 

3.  The  solution  of  the  question  at  issue  is  not 
exclusively  given  in  the  addresses  of  God , which 
contain  only  the  basis  of  the  solution,  not  the 
solution  itself.  In  setting  forth  his  majesty,  and 
in  showing  that  imputing  to  him  injustice  is  repug- 
nant to  a correct  conception  of  his  nature,  these 
addresses  establish  that  there  must  be  a solution 
which  does  not  impair  divine  justice.  This  is  not, 
indeed,  the  solution  itself,  but  everything  is  thus 
prepared  for  the  solution.  We  apprehend  that.  God 
must  be  just,  but  it  remains  further  to  be  shown 
how  he  can  be  just,  and  still  the  righteous  be 
miserable. 

Unless,  then,  we  are  disposed  to  question  the 
general  result,  we  are,  by  the  arrangements  of  the 
book,  led  to  the  speeches  of  Elihu  as  containing 
the  solution  of  the  problem,  which  the  author, 
moreover,  has  indicated  with  sufficient  clearness 
by  making  the  commencement  and  end  of  the 
narrative  agree  perfectly  with  those  speeches.  The 
leading  principle  in  Elihu’s  statement  is,  that 
calamity  in  the  shape  of  trial  was  inflicted  even 
on  the  comparatively  best  men,  but  that  God  al- 
lowed a favourable  turn  to  take  place  as  soon  as  it 
had  attained  its  object.  Now  this  is  the  key  to 
the  events  of  Job’s  life.  Though  a pious  and 
righteous  man,  he  is  tried  by  severe  afflictions. 
He  knows  not  for  what  purpose  he  is  smitten, 
and  his  calamity  continues  ; but  when  he  learm 
it  from  the  addresses  of  Elihu  and  God,  and 
humbles  himself,  he  is  relieved  from  the  burden 
which  oppresses  him,  and  ample  prosperity  atones 
for  the  afflictions  he  has  sustained.  Add  to  this, 
that  the  remaining  portion  of  Elihu’s  speeches, 
in  which  he  points  to  God’s  infinite  majesty  as 
including  his  justice,  is  continued  in  the  ad- 
dresses of  God ; that  Elihu  foretells  God’s  ap- 
pearance ; that  he  is  not  punished  by  God  as  are 
the  friends  of  Job;  in  fine,  that  Job  by  his  very 
silence  acknowledges  the  problem  to  have  been 
solved  by  Elihu;  and  his  silence  is  the  more  sig- 
nificant because  Elihu  had  urged  him  to  defend 
himself  (xxxiii.  32),  and  because  Job  had  re- 
peatedly declared  he  would  ‘ hold  his  peace,’  if 
it  was  shown  to  him  wherein  he  had  erred  (vi. 
24,  25 ; xix.  4).  This  view  of  the  book  of  Job 
has  among  modern  authors  been  supported  chiefly 
by  StUudlin  ( Beitriige  zur  Religions  mid  Sitten- 
lehre,  vol.  ii.  p.  133)  and  Stickel  ( Das  Buck 
Hiob,  Leipzig,  1842),  though  in  both  it  is  mixed 
up  with  much  erroneous  mat.tey ; and  it  is  further 
confirmed  by  the  whole  Old  Testament  giving 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

? le  same  answer  to  the  question  mooted  which 
t.je  speeches  of  Eliliu  offer  : in  its  concentrated 
form  it.  is  presented  in  Ps.  xxxvii.  xlix.  lxxiii. 

From  these  considerations  it  appears,  that  those 
interpreters  who,  with  Bernstein,  De  Wette,  and 
Umhreit,  assume  that  the  book  of  Job  was  of  a 
sceptical  nature,  and  intended  to  dispute  the  doc- 
trine of  retribution  as  laid  down  in  the  other  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  have  entirely  misunderstood 
it.  The  doctrine  of  divine  retribution  is  here  not 
disputed,  but  strengthened,  as  the  case  under  con- 
sideration required  that  it  should  be.  The  object 
of  the  book  would  also  be  too  much  narrowed,  if 
it  was  restricted  to  proving  that  the  doctrine  of 
retribution,  as  expounded  by  the  friends  of  Elihu, 
was  erroneous.  The  speeches  of  Elihu  evidently 
oppose  the  discourses  of  Job  in  stronger  terms 
than  those  of  his  friends.  The  object  of  the  book 
is  rather  to  explain  generally  the  nature  and  ten- 
dency of  afflictions,  and  thereby  to  contribute 
towards  the  attainment  of  their  design,  to  console 
the  mind,  and  to  cheer  the  drooping  spirits.  It  is 
difficult  for  men  to  understand  that  their  suffer- 
ings, however  great,  are  still  under  that  degree 
which  they  deserve.  To  consider  afflictions  as 
proofs  of  divine  favour,  we  must  first  learn  to 
bring  them  into  unison  with  divine  justice.  Upon 
the  doctrine  of  retribution  after  death  our  author 
does  not  enter ; but  that  he  knew  it,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  several  passages  with  great  probability; 
as,  for  instance,  ch.  xiv.  14,  ‘ if  a man  die  shall  he 
live  again?  All  the  days  of  my  appointed  time 
will  I wait,  till  my  change  come.’  The  if  here 
shows  that  the  writer  had  been  before  engaged  in 
considering  the  subject  of  life  after  death ; and 
when  such  is  the  case,  a pious  mind  will  neces- 
sarily indulge  the  hope,  or  will,  at  least,  have  an 
obscure  presentiment  of  immortality.  The  truth, 
also,  of  God’s  unbounded  gi'ace,  on  which  the 
doctrine  of  immortality  is  based,  will  be  found 
clearly  laid  down  in  ch.  xix..  Still  the  author 
does  not  recur  to  this  hope  for  the  purjxose  of 
solving  his  problem  ; he  would  not  ground  it  on 
something  in  itself  wanting  support  and  a founda- 
tion, namely,  that  which  is  presented  in  this  book. 
The  doctrine  of  future  retribution,  if  not  sus- 
tained by  the  belief  in  retribution  during  this 
life,  is  truly  a castle  in  the  air.  The  author 
did  not  intend  in  his  discussion  to  exceed  the 
limits  of  what  God  had  clearly  revealed , and 
this  was  in  his  time  confined  to  the  vague 
notion  of  life  continued  after  death,  but  not  con- 
nected with  rewards  and  punishments.  Explicitly 
expressed,  then,  we  have  here  only  the  doctrine  of 
a Sheol  (see  the  collection  of  passages,  p.  123  sqq. 
t'f  Pareau's  work  above  quoted),  which,  indeed,  is 
not  erroneous  in  itself,  but  which  still  keeps  the 
background  veiled. 

Having  thus  established  the  design  of  the  book 
of  Job,  it  remains  to  consider  the  view  taken  by 
Ewald.  He  justly  rejects  the  common,  super- 
ficial view  of  its  design,  which  has  recently  been 
revived  and  defended  by  Hirzel  (see  his  Com - 
mentar,  Leipzig,  1839),  and  which  represents  the 
author  as  intending  to  show  that  man  cannot  ap- 
prehend the  plans  of  God,  and  does  best  to  submit 
in  ignorance  without  repining  at  afflictions.  The 
author  would  thus  be  rendered  liable  to  the  charge 
of  having  cut.  the  knot  which  he  could  not  loose. 
When  this  view  was  first,  set  up,  the  solution  ol  one 
of  the  most  important  religious  problems  was  very 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF.  119 

unsettled,  and  the  public  mind  generally  remained 
in  suspense;  in  accordance  with  which  state  of 
feeling  this  opinion  is  framed  relating  to  the  design 
of  the  book  of  Job.  The  alleged  theme  occurs  in 
no  passage,  not  even  incidentally.  The  writers  in 
question  chiefly  base  it  on  the  discourses  of  God  ; 
and  so,  latterly,  does  Stickel,  who,  although  ac- 
knowledging that  the  solution  of  the  problem  was 
afforded  by  Elihu,  still  thinks  that  in  the  sentiments 
uttered  by  God  the  sufferer  was  ultimately  referred 
to  human  short-sightedness  and  directed  to  be  silent, 
the  author  of  the  book  distrusting  the  correctness 
of  his  solution,  and  intending  at  all  events  to  vin- 
dicate God’s  justice.  Thus  they  entirely  misun- 
derstand the  main  point  in  the  discourses  of  God, 
which  set  forth  his  infinite  majesty  with  a view, 
not  of  censuring  Job’s  inquisitiveness  and  of  tax- 
ing him  with  indiscretion,  but  of  showing  that  it 
was  foolish  to  divest  God  of  justice,  which  is 
inseparable  from  his  essence.  His  searching  is 
not  itself  blamed,  but  only  the  manner  of  it. 
Nowhere  in  the  whole  book  is  simple  resignation 
crudely  enjoined,  and  nowhere  does  Job  say  that, 
he  submits  to  such  an  injunction.  The  prologue 
represents  his  sufferings  as  trials,  and  the  epilogue 
declares  that  the  end  had  proved  this ; conse- 
quently the  author  was  competent  to  give  a 
theodicee  with  reference  to  the  calamity  of  Job, 
and  if  such  is  the  case  he  cannot  have  intended 
simply  to  recommend  resignation.  The  biblical 
writers,  when  engaged  on  this  problem,  know  how 
to  justify  God  with  reference  to  the  afflictions  of 
the  righteous,  and  have  no  intention  of  evading 
the  difficulty  when  they  recommend  resignation 
(see  the  Psalms  quoted  above,  and,  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ch.  xii.X 
The  view  of  the  book  of  Job  alluded  to  would 
isolate  it,  and  take  it  out  of  its  natural  connection. 
Thus  far,  then,  we  agree  with  Ewald,  but  we  cannot 
approve  of  his  own  view  of  the  design  of  the  book  of 
Job.  According  to  his  system,  ‘ calamity  is  never 
a punishment  for  sins  committed,  but  always  a 
mere  phantom,  an  imaginary  show,  above  which 
we  must  raise  ourselves  by  the  consciousness  of 
the  eternal  nature  of  the  human  mind,  to  which, 
by  external  prosperity,  nothing  can  be  added,  and 
from  which,  by  external  misfortune,  nothing  can  be 
taken  away.  It  was  (says  Ewald)  the  merit  of  the 
book  of  Job  to  have  prepared  these  sounder  views  1 
of  worldly  evil  and  of  the  immortality  of  mind, 
transmitting  them  as  fruitful  buds  to  posterity.’ 
Now  from  the  outset  we  may  be  sure  that  this 
view  is  not.  to  be  found  in  our  book.  Credit  has 
always  been  given  to  Scripture  for  knowing  how 
to  console  the  distressed — which  Ewald’s  system 
must  fail  to  do.  Let  it  be  offered  to  those  who 
are  afflicted  with  severe  and  painful  illness,  and 
it  will  prove  abortive.  Fictitious  sufferings  may 
be  soothed  in  this  manner,  real  pains  certainly 
not.  Consciousness  of  the  eternal  nature  of  our 
mind  is  wanted  to  do  all,  but  how  is  it  possible 
when  the  mind  itself  is  depressed  ? Tula  to  the 
Psalms : do  we  find  in  them  shadowed  out  thig 
cold  consolation — the  doctrine  of  the  Stoics,  which 
has  been  always  considered  to  be  opposed  to  that  of 
Scripture?  Read  especially  Psalms  xxxvii..  xli., 
ancl  lxxiii.,  which  profess  to  treat  our  problem : take, 
in  the  New  Testament,  the  passage  in  Heb.  xii.  6, 
and  you  will  find  afflictions  considered  at  once 
as  punishments  inflicted  by  divine  justice,  and 
as  means  which  God  s love  employs  to  Lead  us  to 


120 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

higher  happiness.  4 Whom  the  Lord  loveth  he 
chasteneth,  and  scourgeth  every  one  whom  he 
receiveth.’  If  suffering  and  happiness  are  as 
nothing,  and  have  no  reality,  why  promises  our  Sa- 
viour rewards  to  his  followers,  and  why  threatens 
he  the  wicked  with  punishment  (Matt.  xix.  16- 
30)  ? Why  blesses  he  the  meek,  4 for  they  shall 
inherit  the  earth  ’ (Matt.  v.  5)  ? Why  says  he, 
‘ seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righte- 
ousness, and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto 
you’  (Matt.  vi.  33)  ? If  righteousness  already  pos- 
sesses everything  and  lacks  nothing,  why  says  Sr. 
Paul,  to  righteousness  are  held  out  the  promise  both 
of  this  life  and  of  the  life  to  come?  Being  thus  im- 
pressed against  Ewald’s  view,  from  the  Scriptures 
themselves,  we  also  find,  on  closer  inspection,  that 
it  does  not  apply  to  the  book  of  Job.  To  make  it 
appear  that  it  does,  he  excludes  the  speeches  of 
Elihu — which  seems  rather  suspicious  ; but  what 
he  objects  against  them  is  of  little  importance, 
and  has  been  proved  by  Stickel  to  be  erroneous. 
Taking,  however,  what  remains  of  the  book,  it  is 
evident  that  the  epilogue  is  decidedly  contrary  to 
Ewald’s  view.  Why  is  it  that  Job  receives  the 
double  of  all  that  he  had  lost,  when,  judged  by 
Ewald’s  principles,  he  had  lost  nothing  ? If  in 
any  place,  it  is  in  the  epilogue  that  the  leading 
idea  of  the  author  must  appear;  and  here  we 
have  not  speeches,  whose  drift  might  admit  of 
doubt,  but  acts,  divine  acts,  the  solution  of  the 
question  by  facts.  Equally  irreconcilable  is 
Ewald’s  view  with  the  prologue.  The  opening 
scene  is  in  heaven ; Satan  appears  before  God, 
and  obtains  leave  to  tempt  Job.  This  enables 
the  reader  from  the  outset  to  see  clearer  into  the 
case  under  consideration  than  did  Job  and  his 
friends,  who  judged  only  according  to  what 
passed  on  earth.  He  suspects  from  the  outset 
what  will  be  the  end  of  the  narrative.  If  it  is 
by  way  of  temptation  only  that  Job  is  subjected 
to  misery,  this  cannot  be  lasting  ; but  if  it  can- 
not and  must  not  be  lasting,  it  must  be  also  more 
than  an  imaginary  phantom — it  must  be  reality. 
We  might  easily  show  further  that  the  view 
referred  to  is  also  incompatible  with  the  speeches 
of  Job,  who  never  renounces  happiness ; he  is  always 
either  disconsolate  and  complains,  or  expresses 
cheering  hopes  of  a return  of  better  days;  he 
either  despairs  of  God's  justice,  or  expects  him  to 
prove  it  at  least  partially  by  his  rehabilitation. 
We  might  likewise,  with  little  trouble,  prove  that 
the  view  of  Ewald  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
speeches  of  God,  who  does  not  address  Job  in 
exhortations  to  the  effect,  4 Be  insensible  of  thy 
calamity;’  but,  ‘Humble  thyself  before  me;  ac- 
knowledge in  thy  severe  sufferings  my  justice 
and  my  love,  and  thy  own  sinfulness,  and  procure 
release  by  repentance.’  But  what  we  have  stated 
on  this  head  may  be  deemed  sufficient. 

III.  Character  ok  the  composition  ok  the 
Book. — On  this  aubject  there  are  three  different 
opinions  : — 1.  Some  contend  that  the  book  con- 
tains an  entirely  true  history.  2.  Others  assert 
that  it  is  founded  on  a true  history,  which  has 
been  recast,  modified,  and  enlarged  by  the  author. 
3.  The  third  opinion  is,  that,  the  book  contains  a 
narrative  entirely  imaginary,  and  constructed  by 
the  author  to  teach  a great  moral  truth. 

The  first  view,  taken  by  numerous  ancient  in- 
terpreters, is  now  abandoned  by  nearly  all  inter- 
preters. It  seems,  however,  to  have  been  adopted 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

by  Josephus,  for  he  places  Job  in  the  list  of  the  hi* 
torical  books;  and  it  was  prevalent  with  all  'he 
fathers  of  the  church.  In  its  support  four  reason* 
are  adduced,  of  which  the  third  and  fourth  are 
quite  untenable ; the  first  and  second  are  out- 
weighed by  other  considerations,  which  render  it 
impossible  to  consider  the  book  of  Job  as  an 
entirely  true  history,  but  which  may  be  used 
in  defence  of  the  second  view  alluded  to.  It  is 
said,  1.  That  Job  is  (Ezek.  xiv.  14-20)  mentioned 
as  a public  character,  together  with  Noah  and 
Daniel,  and  represented  as  an  example  of  piety. 

2.  In  the  Epistle  of  James  (v.  11),  patience  in 
sufferings  is  recommended  by  a reference  to  Job. 

3.  In  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Septuagint  a 
notice  is  appended  to  Gen.  xxxvi.  33,  which  states 
that  Job  was  the  King  Jobab  of  Edom.  This 
statement  is  too  late  to  be  relied  on,  and  originates 
in  an  etymological  combination  ; and  that  it  must 
be  erroneous  is  to  a certain  extent  evident  from  the 
contents  of  the  book,  in  which  Job  is  not.  repre- 
sented as  a king.  4.  Job’s  tomb  continues  to  be 
shown  to  Oriental  tourists.  Now  the  fact,  of  a 
Job  having  lived  somewhere  would  not  of  itself 
prove  that  the  hero  of  our  narrative  was  that  per- 
son, and  that  this  book  contained  a purely  histo- 
rical account.  Moreover,  his  tomb  is  shown  not 
in  one  place,  but  in  six,  and,  along  with  it,  the 
dunghill  on  which  Job  is  reported  to  have  sat! 

Against  this  view  it  must  be  remarked  gene- 
rally, that,  the  whole  work  is  arranged  on  a well- 
considered  plan,  proving  the  author's  power  of 
independent  invention ; that  the  speeches  are,  in 
their  general  structure  and  in  their  details,  so  ela- 
borate, that  they  could  not  have  been  brought  out 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  a conversation  or  dis- 
putation ; that  it  would  be  unnatural  to  suppose 
Job  in  his  distressed  state  to  have  delivered  such 
speeches,  finished  with  the  utmost  care  ; and  that 
they  exhibit  uniformity  in  their  design,  fulness, 
propriety,  and  colouring,  though  the  author,  with 
considerable  skill,  represents  each  speaker  whom 
he  introduces  arguing  according  to  his  character. 
Moreover,  in  the  prologue  and  epilogue,  as  well 
as  in  the  arrangement  of  the  speeches,  the  figures 
3 and  7 constantly  occur,  with  the  decimal  num- 
ber formed  by  their  addition.  The  transactions 
between  God  and  Satan  in  the  prologue  absolutely 
require  that  we  should  distinguish  between  the 
subject  matter  forming  the  foundation  of  the  work, 
and  its  enlargement;  which  can  be  only  done  when 
a poetical  principle  is  acknowledged  in  its  com- 
position. God's  speaking  out  of  the  clouds  would 
be  a miracle,  without  an  object  corresponding  to 
its  magnitude,  and  having  a merely  personal  refer- 
ence, while  all  the  other  miracles  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. are  in  connection  witli  the  theocratical 
government,  and  occur  in  the  midst  and  for  the 
benefit  of  the  people  of  God.  This  argument, 
which  might  be  further  extended  without  much 
difficulty,  proves  the  first  view  above  stated  of  the 
book  of  Job  to  be  erroneous,  and  is  meant  to  support 
the  second ; but  it  dues  not  bear  on  the  third,  which 
contends  that  the  narrative  is  an  entire  fiction,  with- 
out any  admixture  of  real  facts.  The  latter  opinion 
is,  indeed,  already  stated  in  the  Talmud,  which 
says  that  Job  never  existed  ; and  in  modem  times 
it  has  been  defended  chiefly  by  Bernstein ; but  is 
contrary  to  the  practice  which  anciently  prevailed, 
when  writers  rarely  invented  the  subject  of  a nar- 
rative and  rather  took  the  materials  furnished  by 


121 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

rradivion,  digesting,  enlarging,  and  modifying 
tnem,  so  as  to  make  tliem  harmonize  with  the 
leading  theme.  Taking  the  second  view,  we  must 
still  abstain  from  undertaking  to  determine  what 
the  poet  derived  from  tradition  and  wllat.  he  added 
himself,  since  we  know  not  how  far  tradition  had 
already  embellished  the  original  fact.  The  separa- 
tion of  the  historical  groundwork  from  the  poetical 
embellishments  could  only  succeed,  if  the  same 
history  had  been,  although  in  a poetical  dress, 
•transmitted  to  us  by  several  narf  ators.  Would  any 
person,  if  he  was  not  assisted  by  other  authorities, 
undertake  to  determine  what  is  history,  and  what 
is  fiction,  in  an  historical  romance  of  Walter  Scott, 
or  in  an  historical  drama  of  Shakspeare  or  Schil- 
ler ? Ewald,  indeed,  had  the  courage  to  under- 
take vindicating  for  history  certain  parts  of  our 
narrative,  but  his  efforts  were  abortive,  as  we  shall 
presently  show.  It  will  appear,  indeed,  that  exactly 
those  particulars  which  Ewald  considers  historical 
may  possibly  have  been  invented,  though  we  do 
not  contend  that  they  really  were  so,  which  would 
be  equally  presumptuous.  He  asserts,  1.  That  ‘the 
name  Job  is  not  invented  by  the  author  of  our 
book.’  This  would  have  some  semblance  of  truth, 
if  the  name  had  no  meaning  connecting  it  with 
the  contents  of  the  narrative.  But  Job  means  in 
Hebrew  ‘ the  assailed,’  and  may  be  traced  in  the 

form  of  -nb,  born , or  intoxicated , from 

to  attack ; whence  also  the  enemy , and 

enmity , are  derived.  Ewald  observes,  in- 
deed, that  the  import  of  the  word  is  not  very  ap- 
parent, and  is  not  easily  discoverable ; but  when 
it  strikes  us  at  once,  must  it  not  have  much  more 
readily  occurred  to  Hebrew  readers  ? The  sense  in 
which  the  hero  of  the  book  is  called  * the  assailed,’ 
appears  at  once  in  the  prologue,  where  Satan  ob- 
tains leave  to  tempt  him.  2.  ‘ The  names  of  the 
friends  of  Job  are  historical.’  As  to  the  name 
Eliphaz,  it  occurs  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  4,  10,  12'  and 
seems  to  be  taken  from  thence.  Adopting  names 
in  this  manner  amounts  to  inventing  them.  3.  ‘ It 
is  a fact  that  Job  lived  in  the  land  of  Uz,  which, 
in  Hebrew  history,  is  distinguished,  neither  in  itself 
nor  its  inhabitants,  and  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand why  the  author  selected  this  country,  if  he 
was  not  led  to  it  by  history.’  We  shall  see  below 
that  the  plan  of  the  author  required  him  f o lay  the 
scene  without  Palestine,  but  still  in  its  immediate 
neighbourhood  ; which  led  him  to  Uz,  a country 
already  mentioned  in  Genesis.  This  observa- 
tion applies  also  to  the  place  of  abode  of  Job’s 
friends,  which  could  not  be  Canaan,  but  must  be 
in  its  vicinity  ; wherefore  the  country  named  in 
the  book  is  assigned  to  them.  4.  1 The  sickness 
of  Job  is  an  historical  fact;  be  was  afflicted  with 
elephantiasis,  and  it"  is  inconceivable  why  the 
author  chose  this  disease,  which  is  of  rare  occur- 
rence, if  he  had  not  drawn  this  particular  fact 
from  real  history.’  Now  the  reason  of  this  se- 
lection was,  that  elephantiasis  is  a most  awful 
disease,  and  that  the  author  probably  knew  none 
more  so ; and  persons  labouring  under  elephan- 
tiasis were  generally  considered  as  smitten  by  God 
(Dent,  xxiv.  8,  9)  [Job's  Disease]. 

These  are  all  the  particulars  which  Ewald 
points  out  as  historical,  and  from  our  examina- 
tion of  them  it  will  be  clear,  that  we  must  confine 
ourselves  to  contending  for  an  historical  foundation 
of  the  book,  but  must  not  undertake  tc  determintf 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

the  exact  nature  of  the  groundwork  : we  infer  the 
character  of  the  composition  from  analogy,  but 
cannot  prove  it  from  the  book  itself.  That  its 
historical  framework  was  poetically  enlarged  by 
the  author,  has  been  already  observed  by  Luther 
(see  his  Tischreden,  or  Table  Talk , p.  318).  As 
for  the  rest,  the  subtility  displayed  in  explaining 
opposite  views,  the  carefully  drawn  characters  of 
the  persons  introduced,  and  their  animated  dis- 
courses, lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  question  at 
issue  had  previously  been  the  subject  of  various 
discussions  in  presence  of  the  author  who,  perhaps, 
took  part  in  them.  Thus  there  would  be  an  histo- 
rical foundation,  not  only  for  the  facts  related  in 
the  boo<c,  but  to  a certain  extent  also  for  the 
speeches. 

IV.  Descent,  country,  and  age  of  the 
author.' — Opinions  differed  in  ancient  times  as 
to  the  nation  to  which  the  author  belonged ; some 
considering  him  to  have  been  an  Arab,  others  an 
Israelite  ; but  the  latter  supposition  is  undoubtedly 
preferable.  For,  1st,  we  find  in  our  book  many 
ideas  of  genuine  Israelite  growth  : the  creation  of 
the  world  is  described,  in  accordance  with  the 
prevailing  notions  of  the  Israelites,  as  the  imme- 
diate effect  of  divine  omnipotence  ; man  is  formed 
of  clay ; the  spirit  of  man  is  God’s  breath ; God  em- 
ploys the  angels  for  the  performance  of  his  orders  ; 
Satan,  the  enemy  of  the  chosen  children  of  God,  is 
his  instrument  for  tempting  them  ; men  are  weak 
and  sinful ; nobody  is  pure  in  the  sight  of  God  ; 
moral  corruption  is  propagated.  There  is  pro- 
mulgated to  men  the  law  of  God, 'which  they  must 
not  infringe,  and  the  transgressions  of  which  are 
visited  on  offenders  with  punishments.  Moreover, 
the  nether  world,  or  Sheol,  is  depicted  in  hues  en- 
tirely Hebrew.  To  these  particulars  might,  with- 
out much  trouble,  be  added  many  more  ; but  the 
deep-searching  inquirer  will  particularly  weigh, 
2ndly,  the  fact,  that  the  book  displays  a strength 
and  fervour  of  religious  faith,  such  as  could  only 
be  expected  within  the  domain  of  revelation. 
Monotheism,  if  the  assertions  of  ancient  Arabian 
authors  may  be  trusted,  prevailed,  indeed,  for  a 
long  period  among  the  Arabs  ; and  it  held  its 
ground  at  least  among  a portion  of  the  nation  till 
the  age  off  Mohammed,  who  obtained  for  it  a 
complete  triumph  over  polytheism,  which  was 
spreading  from  Syria.  Still  the  god  of  the  Arabs 
was,  as  those  of  the  heathens  generally  were, 
a retired  god,  dwelling  far  apart,  while  the 
people  of  the  Old  Covenant  enjoyed  the  privilege 
of  a vital  communion  with  God  ; and  the  warmth 
with  which  our  author  enters  into  this  view,  in- 
controvertibly  proves  that  he  was  an  Israelite. 
3dly.  As  regards  the  language  of  our  book,  several 
ancient  writers  asserted  that  it  was  originally  writ- 
ten in  the  Aramaean  or  Arabic  tongue,  and  after- 
wards translated  into  Hebrew  by  Moses,  David, 
Solomon,  or  some  unknown  writer.  Of  this  opi- 
nion was  the  author  of  the  Appendix  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  and  the  compiler  of  the  tract  on  Job 
added  to  the  works  of  Origen  and  Jerome  : in 
modern  times  it  has  been  chiefly  defended  by 
Spanheim,  in  his  IJistoria  Jobi.  But  for  a trans- 
lation there  is  too  much  propriety  and  precision 
in  the  use  of  words  and  phrases  ; the  sentences  are 
too  compact,  and  free  from  redundant  expressions 
and  members  ; and  too  much  care  is  bestowed  on 
their  harmony  and  easy  flow.  The  parallelism 
also  is  too  accurate  and  perfect  for  a tramlatioo, 


122 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 


and  the  whole  breathes  a freshness  that  couK  re 
expected  from  an  original  work  only. 

Sensible  of  the  weight  of  this  argument  oti  ers, 
as  Eiehhorn,  took  a medium  course,  and  assumed 
that  the  author  was  a Hebrew,  though  he  did 
not  live  among  his  countrymen,  but  in  Arabia. 
‘ The  earlier  Hebrew  history,’  they  say,  ‘ is  un- 
known to  the  author,  who  is  ignorant  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob.  In  portraying  nature,  also, 
he  proves  himself  always  familiar  with  Arabia, 
while  he  is  silent  respecting  the  characteristics  of 
Palestine.  With  Egypt  he  must  have  been  well 
acquainted ; which  can  be  accounted  for  better 
by  supposing  him  to  have  lived  in  Arabia  than 
in  Palestine.’  These  reasons  are,  however,  not 
cogent.  The  cause  why  the  author  did  not  enter 
into  the  history  of  the  Hebrews,  and  the  nature  of 
Palestine,  appears  from  his  design.  In  deciding 
the  question  at  issue  he  waves  the  instruction 
given  by  divine  revelation,  and  undertakes  to 
perform  the  task  by  appealing  only  to  religious 
consciousness  and  experience.  On  the  plan  of 
the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  he  treats  the  question 
as  one  of  natural  theology,  in  order  that,  the 
human  mind  might  arrive  at  its  solution  spon- 
taneously, and  be  more  deeply  impressed.  He 
would  not,  by  referring  to  a few  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, overturn  errors  which  might  afterwards 
spring  up  again ; but  they  should  be  exposed  and 
demolished  separately,  and  the  truth  then  be  found 
by  uniting  the  correct  ingredients  of  opposite 
views.  In  following  this  plan  the  author  in- 
tended to  support  Scripture  : in  a similar  manner 
Pascal,  in  his  Pensees,  explains  the  nature  ot 
man  first  from  experience  only,  and  next  from 
Scripture.  This  plan  is  indicated  by  the  scene 
being  laid  not  in  Palestine,  but  among  a people 
quite  unconnected  with  its  inhabitants;  at  the 
same  time  he  will  not  go  farther  than  his  object 
required,  and  he  therefore  chooses  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  Palestine.  Thus  the  placing 
of  the  scene  in  a foreign  country  is  not  histoiical, 
but  proceeds  from  the  free  choice  of  the  author. 
The  scene  being  laid  in  a foreign  country,  the 
portraying  of  life  and  nature  must  of  course 
agree  with  that  country,  and  not  with  Palestine  (see 
ch.  xl.  23).  It  may  no  doubt  be  said,  that  the  re- 
markable vigour  and  sprightliness  of  the  author's 
descriptions  of  the  scenery  and  people,  justify  us 
in  assuming  that  he  was  actually  acquainted  with 
them  ; but  this  cannot  be  asserted  as  quite  cer- 
tain,since  it  wouldimpairthehigh  idea  entertained 
of  the  powers  of  poetry.  The  correctness  of  this 
view  is  eminently  strengthened  by  the  manner  in 
which  the  author  designedly  uses  the  names  of  God. 
The  Old  Testament  distinguishes  between  Elohim, 
the  abstract  God,  the  Deity,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Jehovah,  the  concreteGod,  with  whom  thelsraelites 
had  made  a covenant,  on  the  other  (Gen.  vi.  3,  4). 
Now  the  latter  name  occurs  in  Job  generally,  where 
the  author  himself  appears,  not  only  in  the  pro- 
logue and  epilogue,  but  in  the  short  sentences  in- 
troducing the  speakers,  as  in  xxxviii.  1 ; xl.  1,  3,  6. 
In  the  body  of  the  work,  however,  we  have  only 
the  names  Elohim,  Eloah,  and  similar  terms,  with 
the  exception  of  xii.  9,  where  Jehovah  occurs. 
Tnis  very  passage  argues  against  those  who,  from 
the  distinct  names  of  God,  would  infer  that  the 
prologue  and  epilogue  are  not  genuine.  Eich- 
born  (see  Einleitung , § 644,  a.)  assumes  that  the 
author  had,  bv  his  particular  use  of  the  names  of 


JuB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

God,  intended  to  represent  himself  as  younger  thaw 
the  other  interlocutors  ; but  the  notion  of  the  name 
Jehovah  having  come  later  into  general  use.  is  con* 
trary  to  history,  and  we  must  then  arrive  at  this  re- 
sult, that  tlip  author  by  his  selection  of  the  names  of 
God,  which  he  lends  to  the  interlocutors,  intended 
to  express  his  design  of  waving  all  theocratic 
principles.  The  few  passages  in  which  he  seems 
to  abandon  this  design,  namely,  in  addition  to 
that  quoted,  ch.  i.  21,  where  Job,  in  speaking  of 
God,  uses  the  name  Jehovah,  make  it  appear  even 
clearer.  By  thus  forgetting  himself,  he  betrays 
the  fact  that  his  general  use  of  the  names  of  God. 
proceeds  from  designedly  forsaking  the  usage  of 
the  language.  The  context,  moreover,  of  the 
two  passages  in  which  he  seems  to  forget  him- 
self and  uses  the  name  Jehovah,  proves  that 
this  change  is  judiciously  made,  the  deep  and 
awful  sense  of  liis  subject  prompting  him  to  an 
elevated,  solemn  style,  to  which  the  name  Eloah 
was  not  suitable.  And  if  there  is  design  in  the 
selection  of  the  names  of  God,  why  not  also  in  the 
selection  of  the  country  in  which  the  scene  is  laid? 
This  may  be  assumed  the  rather,  because  history 
says  nothing  of  Israelites  having  permanently 
taken  up  their  residence  in  the  land  of  Uz,  and  be- 
cause other  circumstances  already  detailed  oblige 
us  to  admit  that  the  author  was  not  only  an 
Israelite  by  descent,  but  lived  also  in  the  midst 
of  his  people,  and  enjoyed  the  advantage  of  a 
religious  communion  with  them.  It  should  als<t 
be  remembered,  that  the  author,  without  directly 
mentiovjing  the  Pentateuch,  frequently  alludes  t® 
portions  of  it,  as  in  ch.  iii.  4,  to  Gen.  i.  3;  in 
ch.  iv.  10,  and  xxxiii.  6,  to  Moses’  account  o I 
the  creation  of  man  ; in  ch.  v.  14,  to  Deut.  xxxii. 
32;  in  ch.  xxiv.  11,  to  Deut.  xxv.  4.  That  the 
name  of  Eliphaz  the  Temanite,  one  of  the  three 
iri^uus  Oi  jo Kjy  seems  also  to  have  been  taken  from 
the  Pentateuch,  was  mentioned  above.  In  addi- 
tion to  these  allusions  there  are  several  more  to 
other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  Psalms 
and  Proverbs — which  proves  that  the  author  must 
not  be  severed  from  the  Israelite  communion. 
From  what  we  have  stated  against  the  hypothesis 
that  our  book  was  composed  in  Arabia,  a judg- 
ment may  be  formed  of  the  opinion  of  Hitzig  and 
Hirzel,  who  assume  that  it  was  written  in  Egypt  ; 
the  sole  foundation  for  which  is,  that  the  author 
shows  himself  perfectly  acquainted  with  that  coun- 
try, which  proves  him  to  have  been  along  observer 
of  it.  Most  particulars  adduced  in  support  of  this 
view  cannot  stand  a close  examination.  Thus  it 
is  a mistake  to  suppose  that,  the  description  of  the 
working  of  mines  in  ch.  xxviii.  must  necessarily 
have  reference  to  Egypt : Phoenicia,  Arabia,  and 
Edom  afforded  much  better  materials.  That  tha 
author  must  have  known  the  Egyptian  mausolea 
rests  on  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  ch.  iii.  14, 
which  may  also  be  said  of  the  assertion  tn&t  ch. 
xxix.  18  refers  to  the  Egyptian  mythus  of  the 
Phoenix.  Casting  aside  these  arbitrarily  assumed 
Egyptian  references,  we  have  only  the  following: 
— Our  author  knows  the  Egyptian  vessels  of  bul 
rushes,  ix.  26;  the  Nile-grass,  viii.  12;  the 
Nile-horse  (Behemoth),  and  the  crocodile  (Levia- 
than), xi.  15,  xli.  1.  Now,  as  these  things  belong 
to  the  more  prominent  peculiarities  of  a neigh- 
bouring country,  they  must  have  been  known  to 
every  educated  Israelite : the  vessels  of  bulrushes 
are  mentioned  also  in  Isa.  xviii.  2.  Neither  are 


123 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

we  disposed  to  adopt  the  compromising  view  of 
Stickel.  who  assumes  that  the  author  wrote  his 
book  in  the  Israelite  territory,  indeed,  but  close  to 
the  frontier,  in  the  for  south-east  of  Palestine. 
That  the  author  had  there  the  materials  for  his 
descriptions,  comparisons,  and  imagery,  set  better 
before  his  eyes,  than  anywhere  else,  is  true;  for  there 
he  had  an  opportunity  of  observing  mines,  caravans, 
drying  up  of  brooks,  &c.  But  this  is  not  sufficient 
proof  of  the  author  having  lived  permanently 
in  that  remote  part  of  Palestine,  and  of  having 
there  written  his  book  : he  was  not  a mere  copyist 
of  nature,  but  a poet  of  considerable  eminence, 
endowed  with  the  power  of  vividly  representing 
things  absent  from  him.  That  he  lived  and  wrote 
in  the  midst  of  his  nation,  is  proved  by  all  ana- 
logy and  by  the  general  character  of  the  book. 
It  looks  not  like  a writing  composed  in  some 
remote  corner  of  the  world,  where  the  question  at 
issue  could  not  have  been  so  fully  discussed,  nor 
have  created  such  a deep  interest.  Jerusalem  was 
the  metropolis  of  the  Jews  in  a sense  quite  dif- 
ferent from  that  which  belongs  to  any  other  capi- 
tal : it  was,  by  order  of  God,  the  religious  centre 
of  the  nation,  where  all  general  and  leading  mea- 
sures of  the  nation  originated,  and  to  which  all 
pretending  to  distinction  and  superiority  resorted. 

Proceeding  to  the  inquiry  as  to  the  age  of 
the  author  of  this  book,  we  meet  with  three  opi- 
nions : — 1.  That  he  lived  before  Moses,  or  was,  at 
least,  his  contemporary.  2.  That  he  lived  in  the 
time  of  Solomon,  or  in  the  centuries  next  follow- 
ing. 3.  That  he  lived  shortly  before,  or  during,  or 
even  after  the  Babylonian  exile.  The  view  of 
those  who  assert  the  book  to  have  been  written  long 
aftei  the  Babylonian  exile,  can  be  supported,  as 
Hirzel  justly  observes,  neither  by  the  nature  of  its 
language  nor  by  reasons  derived  from  its  historical 
groundwork,  and  is  therefore  now  generally  re- 
jected; but,  apart  from  this  opinion,  there  is,  in 
those  remaining,  a difference  as  to  the  date  of  no 
less  than  1000  years. 

We  must,  first,  declare  ourselves  decidedly 
against  the  view  of  those  who — as  Le  Clerc  among 
earlier  interpreters;  and  among  recent  expositors, 
Bernstein,  Gesenius,  Umbreit,  and  De  Wette — 
place  our  book  in  the  time  of  the  Chaldaean  exile. 
They  were  led  to  this  conclusion  by  tlieir  precon- 
ceived opinion  that  the  doctrine  of  Satan,  who  is 
introduced  in  the  prologue,  was  of  Chaldaean 
origin  ; which  has  also  induced  others,  while  con- 
tending for  a higher  antiquity  of  the  book,  to  pro- 
nounce the  prologue,  at  least  the  scene  in  ch.  i. 
6-12,  to  be  spurious ; or  losing  sight  of  the  poetical 
character  of  the  prologue  as  well  as  of  the  speeches, 
to  assert  that  the  Satau  of  this  book  was  different 
from  the  Satan  of  later  times ; or  finally,  to  assume 
with  Stickel,  that  the  author  had  lived  in  a place 
where  he  could  be  impressed  with  Babylonian 
opinions  before  they  had  spread  among  the  great 
body  of  his  nation.  But  the  assertion,  that  the 
doctrine  of  Satan  originated  among  the  Jews 
during  the  Babylonian  exile,  and  was  derived 
generally  from  Babylonian  suggestions,  has  been 
shown  by  several  interpreters  to  be  erroneous,  and 
very  recently,  by  Hengstenberg  ( JEgypten  und  die 
Bucher  Mosis,  p.  164,  sq.).  This  opinion  was,  how- 
ever, suited  to  and  supported  by  those  who,  headed 
oy  Bernstein,  asserted  that  Job  was  a symbolic  per- 
sonage— a personification  of  the  Jews  suffering  in 
the  Exile  — and  who  thus  gave  to  our  book  a *.  ati  onal 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

reference  and  meaning;  in  like  manner  as  some  had 
before  introduced  a preposterous  system  of  inter 
preting  psalms  containing  personal  lamentations, 
by  converting  them  into  national  lamentations,  and 
applying  to  them  the  principle  of  symbolization. 
Now,  in  the  book  of  Job  there  is  certainly  no  tiace 
of  national  reference;  and  it  would  be  absurd  to 
assume  an  allegory  running  through  an  entire 
work,  and  still  nowhere  manifesting  its  presence. 
It  is  said  by  other  interpreters,  that,  in  the  times 
of  trouble,  during  the  Babylonian  exile,  first 
originated  the  disheartening  view  of  human  life, 
and  that  then  the  problem  of  our  book  first  en- 
grossed the  public  mind ; by  which  observation 
they,  by  way  of  compromise,  refer  its  composition 
to  that,  period,  without  contending  for  a symbolic 
exposition.  But  the  sense  of  misery  and  of  the 
nothingness  of  human  life,  is  found  among  all 
nations,  ancient  and  modern,  cultivated  and  un- 
cultivated : Noah,  Jacob,  Moses,  complain,  and 
as  old  as  suffering  must  be  the  question  of  the 
seeming  disparity  in  the  distribution  of  good  and 
evil,  and  how  this  disparity  can  be  reconciled  with 
God's  justice.  It  is  frequently  under  considera- 
tion in  the  Psalms. 

Against  those  who  refer  the  composition  of  Job 
to  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  militate, 
first,  the  references  to  it  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  prove  that  it  was  before  this  period  a gene- 
rally known  writing.  Thus,  in  Ezek.  xiv.  14-20, 
are  mentioned  ‘ three  men,  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job,1 
as  examples  of  righteousness.  Mr.  Bernstein,  in 
deed,  in  defending  his  hypothesis,  rejects  this 
passage  as  spurious,  but  it  bears  every  mark  of 
genuineness.  Further,  in  Jeremiah  xx.  14,  we 
find  evidently  imitated  Job’s  cursing  of  the  day 
of  his  birth  (ch.  iii.).  Not  only  the  sentiments 
but  the  words  are  often  the  same ; and  that  this 
coincidence  is  not  accidental,  or  that  the  author 
did  not  imitate  Jeremiah,  appears  from  the  life 
rary  character  of  each.  Jeremiah  shows  him- 
self throughout  dependent  on  ancient  writings, 
whereas  our  author  is  quite  original  and  inde- 
pendent, as  proved  by  Kiiper  (see  Jeremias  iibro 
rum  sacrorum  interpres  atque  vindex,  p.  164, 
sq.).  There  are  also  in  the  Lamentations  of  Jere- 
miah, many  passages  clearly  alluding  to  out 
book,  which  must  have  eminently  suited  his  taste 
and  interested  him  (comp.  xvi.  13  with  Lam.  ii. 
16;  and  xix.  8,  with  Lam.  iii.  7,  9).  In  Isaiah 
the  peculiar  use  of  &OV  (xl.  2)  refers  us  to 
Job  i.  (comp.  x.  17;  xiv.  14);  and  the  double 
received  from  God  s hand  alludes  to  the  end  of 
the  history  of  Job,  who  is  there  considered  as  typi- 
fying the  future  fate  of  the  church.  Isaiah  lxi.  7. 
‘ In  their  land  they  shall  have  the  double,’  al- 
ludes to  the  same  point ; ch.  li.  9 depends  on  Job 
xxvi.  13  ; and  ch.  xix.  5,  almost  literally  agrees 
with  Job  xiv.  1 1 (see  Kiiper,  p.  166).  Another 
example  of  words  borrowed  from  Job  occurs  in 
Psalm  cvii.  42,  where  the  second  part  of  the  verse 
agrees  literally  with  Job  v.  16.  2.  A most  de 

cisive  reason  against  assigning  the  composition  d 
Job  to  the  period  qf  the  Exile  is  derived  from  the 
language;  since  it  is  free  from  those  Chaldaisms 
which  occur  in  the  books  written  about  that  time, 
Eichhorn  justly  observes,  ‘ Let.  him  who  is  fit  for 
such  researches,  only  read,  first,  a writing,  tainted 
with  Aramaeisms,  and  next  the  book  of  Job  : they 
will  be  found  diverging  as  east  and  west.  There 
is  no  exam;  le  of  an  independent,  original  work, 


124 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

composed  in  pure  language,  after  the  Exile.  Ze- 
chariah  indeed,  though  writing  after  the  Exile, 
has  few  Chaldaisms ; but  a closer  inspection 
shows  that  this  case  is  not.  analogous  to  that,  of  our 
book.  The  comparative  purity  of  Zechariah's  lan- 
guage can  be  accounted  for  by  his  constant  occu- 
pation with  the  sacred  writings  of  the  period  before 
the  Exile,  on  which  he  proves  himself  entirely 
dependent.  3.  Equally  conclusive  is  the  poetical 
character  of  the  book.  The  Exile  might  produce  a 
soft,  moving  poem,  but  could  not  give  birth  to  such 
a rich,  compact,  animated,  and  warm  composition 
as  ours,  breathing  youthful  freshness  throughout. 
Ewald,  in  acknowledging  this,  says  justly,  ‘ The 
high  skill  displayed  in  this  bock  cannot  be  well 
expected  from  later  centuries,  when  poetry  had 
by  degrees  generally  declined,  and  particularly 
in  the  higher  art  required  by  large  compositions  ; 
and  language  so  concise  and  expressive  as  that  of 
our  author,  is  not  found  in  writings  of  later  times.’ 
To  the  view  which  places  the  age  of  the  book 
of  Job  in  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  is 
most  opposed  that  which  assigns  the  composition 
of  it  to  a period  prior  to  Moses.  In  support 
of  this  latter  view,  only  two  arguments  having  a 
semblance  of  force  can  be  adduced,  and  they 
will  not  bear  the  test  of  strict  inquiry.  It  is  said, 
1.  ‘ There  is  in  the  book  of  Job  no  direct  reference 
to  the  Mosaic  legislation ; and  its  descriptions 
and  other  statements  are  suited  to  the  period 
of  the  patriarchs ; as,  for  instance,  the  great  au- 
thority held  by  old  men,  the  high  age  of  Job,  and 
fathers  offering  sacrifices  for  their  families — which 
leads  to  the  supposition  that  when  our  book  was 
written  no  sacerdotal  order  yet  existed.’  These 
points,  however,  are  quite  intelligible,  if  the  design 
of  the  book,  as  stated  above,  is  kept  in  view. 
The  author  intended  not  to  rest  the  decision 
of  the  question  at  issue  on  particular  passages 
of  Scripture,  but  on  religious  consciousness  and 
experience.  This  at  once  explains  why  he 
places  the  scene  without  Palestine,  why  he  places 
it  in  the  patriarchal  age,  and  why  he  avoids  the 
use  of  the  name  Jehovah  ; of  these  three  items 
the  first  sufficiently  accounts  for  no  reference 
being  made  to  the  Mosaic  legislation.  It  is 
indeed  said,  that  for  an  author  of  a later 
period,  who  undertook  to  portray  earlier  times, 
it  would  hardly  have  been  possible  to  perform  his 
task,  without  occasionally  forgetting  his  roll.  But 
it  is  not  easy  to  determine  what,  in  such  a case, 
is  possible.  What  might  be  expected  from  our 
author  in  this  respect  may  be  inferred  from  his 
skill  in  the  intentional  use  of  the  names  of  God 
— from  the  steadiness  with  which,  among  foreign 
scenery,  he  proceeds  to  develop  his  subject — from 
the  able  disposition  of  the  speeches,  and  the 
nicely  drawing  of  the  characters  of  the  interlocu- 
tors, who  are  always  represented  speaking  and  act- 
ing in  conformity  witn  the  part  assigned  to  them. 
In  the  proper  execution  of  his  work  he  may 
have  been  assisted  by  witnessing  abroad  the  pa- 
triarchal life  of  nomades,  which,  in  its  essential  fea- 
tures, is  always  the  same.  This  supposition  is  ren- 
dered in  some  degree  probable,  from  the  descrip- 
tions of  Arabia  being  exactly  agreeable  to  its  natural 
condition,  and  being  even  more  specific  than 
those  of  Egypt,  though  Hirzel  is  pleased  to 
select  the  latter  country,  in  determining  (where 
the  author  of  our  book  lived  and  composed  it. 
% * The  language  of  the  book  of  Job  seems 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

strongly  to  support  the  opinion  of  its  having 
been  written  before  Moses.’  It  has  been  often 
said,  that  no  writing  of  the  Old  Testament  may 
be  more  frequently  illustrated  from  the  Arabic 
than  this  book.  Jerome  observes  ( Prafiat . in 
Dan.),  ‘ Jobum  cum  Arabica  lingua  plurimam 
habere  societatem  ;’  and  Schultens  proved  this  so 
inconti overt ibly  that  Gesenius  was  rather  too  late 
in  denying  the  fact  (see  his  Geschichte  der  He- 
brdischen  Sprache,  p.  33).  Now,  from  tjiig 
character  of  its  language  we  might  be  induced 
to  infer,  that  the  work  was  written  in  the  re- 
motest times,  when  the  separation  of  the  dialects 
had  only  begun,  but  had  not  yet  been  completed. 
This  inference  would,  however,  be  safe  only  if 
the  book  were  written  in  prose.  It  is  solely  from 
works  of  this  class,  that  the  general  usage  of  the 
language  prevailing  at  the  time  of  the  author 
can  be  seen.  On  the  contrary,  the  selection  of 
obsolete  and  rare  words  and  forms,  with  the 
Hebrews,  was  a peculiar  feature  of  the  poetical 
style,  and  served  to  distinguish  it  from  the  usual, 
habitual  way  of  writing.  This  peculiarity  belongs 
to  our  book  more  than  to  any  other ; which  may 
be  explained  from  its  elevated  character  and 
general  plan  ; it  rises  above  commonplace  ideas 
more  than  any  other  Hebrew  writing,  and  the 
plan  of  the  author  made  it  incumbent  on  him  to 
impress  on  the  language,  as  much  as  possible,  an 
antique  and  foreign  character. 

The  most  complete  statement  of  the  reasons  in 
support  of  the  opinion  that  the  book  of  Job  was 
written  after  the  age  of  Moses,  may  be  found  in 
Richter's  essay,  De  JEtate  Jobi  definienda,  re- 
printed in  llosenm tiller's  edition  of  Lowth’s  Free * 
lectiones  De  Poesi  Sacra  Hebrceoram  : in  which 
he  maintains  that  it  was  written  in  the  age  of 
Solomon.  Most  of  these  reasons,  indeed,  are  either 
not  conclusive  at  all,  or  not  quite  cogent.  Thus 
it  is  an  arbitrary  assumption,  proved  by  modern 
researches  to  be  erroneous,  that  the  art  of  writing 
was  unknown  previous  to  the  age  of  Moses.  The 
assertion  too0  that  the  marks  of  cultivation  and 
refinement  observable  in  our  book  belonged  to  a 
later  age,  rests  on  no  historical  ground.  Further, 
it  cannot  be  said,  that  for  such  an  early  time 
the  language  is  too  smooth  and  neat,  since 
in  no  Semitic  dialect  is  it  possible  to  trace  a 
progressive  improvement.  The  evident  corre- 
spondence also  between  our  book  and  the  Proverbs 
and  Psalms  is  not  a point  proving  with  resistless 
force  that  they  were  all  written  at  the  same  time. 
It  is,  indeed,  sometimes  of  such  a kind,  that,  the 
authors  of  the  Proverbs  and  Psalms  cannot  be 
exactly  said  to  have  copied  our  book ; but  it 
may  be  accounted  for  by  their  all  belonging  to 
the  same  class  of  writings,  by  the  very  great  uni- 
formity and  accordance  of  religious  conceptions 
and  sentiments  expressed  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  by  the  stability  of  its  religious  character. 

Still  the  argument  derived  from  the  correspond- 
ence between  our  book  and  the  Psalms  is  not  devoid 
of  force;  for  the  accordance  of  ideas,  sentiments, 
and  colouring  in  them  is  such  that  the  circum 
stances  referred  to  cannot  be  considered  as  com- 
pletely accounting  for  it.  There  are  passages  in 
which  the  author  of  our  book  clearly  alludes  to 
the  Psalms  and  Picverbs.  A striking  example 
of  this  kind  occurs  in  Ps.  xxxix.  13.  All  the 
words  of  this- verse,  which,  as  they  conclude  tht 
psalm,  may  have  been  deeply  impressed  on  tfca 


JCH  HE  BED. 


JOB,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

public  i lind,  arc  again  found  in  various  passages 
of  the  book  of  Job,  whose  author  must  have  been 
acquainted  with  that  psalm  (comp.  ch.  vii.  19; 
xiv.  6 ; X.  20, 21 ; vii.  8,  21,  in  the  Hebrew  Bible). 
The  whole  psalm  is  a text-book  for  the  speeches 
of  Job.  The  argument,  also,  derived  from  the 
skilful  plan  of  our  book  and  its  able  exposition, 
must  be  allowed  its  weight  in  deciding  that  its 
composition  is  not  to  be  assigned  to  an  age 
prior  to  Moses ; though  we  must  not  forget  that 
what  to  us  appears  to  be  art,  because  it  is 
done  according  to  established  rules,  may  also 
be  the  product  of  a creative  genius.  But  a 
conclusive  argument  against  assigning  so  early  a 
date  to  the  composition  of  our  book  is  its  reflecting 
and  inquiring  character.  A didactic  poem  could 
never  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  the  patri- 
archs ; but  our  book  presents  a strong  contrast  to 
those  immature  conceptions  and  those  statements 
which  strike  the  senses  but  do  not  appeal  to  reason, 
which  are  of  so  frequent  occurrence  in  Genesis. 
The  notion  which  our  author  entertains  of  God,  of 
his  omnipotence  and  omnipresence,  is  undoubt- 
edly more  refined  than  that  presented  in  the 
books  of  Moses.  In  addition  to  this  it  should  be 
observed,  that  from  many  indications  the  problem 
treated  in  our  book  was  at  the  time  of  its  com- 
position frequently  discussed  and  variously  solved. 
We  have  observed,  indeed,  above,  that  it  is  as  old 
as  the  cause  which  originated  it ; but  it  must  be 
allowed  that  the  Mosaic  revelation,  with  its  lead- 
ing doctrine  concerning  retribution,  was  calcu- 
lated to  direct  the  attention  more  forcibly  towards 
it  than  had  been  previously  the  case,  and  thus  to 
induce  God,  through  an  instrument  appointed  by 
him,  to  promulgate  the  true  solution.  There  are, 
moreover,  indirect  allusions  to  the  Pentateuch,  as 
stated  above. 

Summing  up  the  whole  of  our  investigations, 
we  take  it  to  be  a settled  point  that  the  book  of 
Job  does  not  belong  to  the  time  of  the  Baby- 
lonian exile ; and  it  is  nearly^  equally  certain 
that  it  was  not  composed  prior  to  the  time  of 
Moses.  Could  it  then  have  been  written  in  some 
age  preceding  Samuel  and  David  ? It  is  only 
with  them  that  a new  period  of  sacred  literature 
| began ; and  our  book  is  related  to  products  of  that 
I period,  or  enlarges  on  them.  But  it  cannot  have 
been  composed  later  than  Isaiah,  who  alludes  to 
it.  Thus  we  come  to  this  general  determination 
of  the  age  of  our  book,  that  it  was  written,  not 
before  Samuel  and  David,  but  not  later  than  the 
era  of  Isaiah.  With  this  result  we  must  rest 
satisfied,  unless  we  would  go  beyond  the  indica- 
tions presented.  The  intermediate  period  offers 
no  ground  on  which  we  can  safely  fix  the  compo- 
sition of  the  book  of  Job.  There  remains  then  un- 
certainty, but  it  does  not  concern  an  important 
point  of  religion.  The  significancy  of  our  book 
for  the  church  rests  on  the  evidence  of  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  in  support  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  whole  collection  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
on  the  "confirmation  which  this  external  evidence 
has  at  all  times  received,  and  continues  to  receive, 
from  the  internal  testimony,  among  the  true  be- 
lievers of  all  ages. — E.  W.  H. 

(There  is  perhaps  no  single  book  of  Scripture  of 
which  so  many  versions  and  commentaries  have 
been  published  as  on  that  of  Job,  or  respecting 
which  a greater  number  of  treatises  and  disserta- 
tions have  been  written.  The  following  are  only 


JCH  HE  BED.  123 

the  principal  examples : — Mercer,  Comment,  in 
Jobum , 1573  ; Drusius,  Nova  Versio  et  Scholia 
in  Jobum , 1630  ; Abbott’s  Paraphrase  of  the 
Book  of  Job , 1640  ; Spanheim,  Ilistoria  Jobi 
1672;  Schmid,  Comment,  in  Librum  Jobi , 1670 
Caryl's  Exposition  of  the  Book  of  Job , 1669 
Leigh's  Annotations  on  Job , 1656  ; Wesley,  Dis- 
sertatt.  in  Jobum , 1736;  Costard,  Observations 
on  the  Book  of  Job , 1742;  Schultens,  Liber 
Jobi,  1737  ; Chappelow’s  Commentary  on  Job, 
1752  ; Heath’s  Essay  on  the  Book  of  Job , 1756  ; 
Scott’s  Book  of  Job  in  English  Verse,  1773  ; 
Reiske,  Conjectures  in  Jobum , 1779;  Dathe  in 
Jobum,  1789;  Garden’s  Improved  Version  of 
the  Book  of  Job,  1796;  Eichhorn,  Das  Bitch 
Hiob , 1800  ; Gaab,  Das  Buch  Hiob,  1809  ; Eliza 
Smith’s  Book  of  Job,  1810;  Good’s  Book  of  Job, 
1812;  Bridel,  Le  Livre  de  Job , 1818;  Umbreit, 
Das  Buch  Hiob,  1824  (translated  in  the  Bibl. 
Cabinet,  vols.  xvi.,  xix.)  ; Fry’s  New  Transla- 
tion and  Exposition,  1827  ; Lange,  Das  Buch 
Hiob,  1831  ; Knobel,  De  Carminis  Jobi,  1835; 
Ewald,  Das  Buch  Hiob  erkldrt,  1836  ; Fackens, 
Comment,  de  Jobeide,  1836;  Lee’s  Book  of  Job, 
1837  ; Wemvss,  Job  and  his  Times,  1839.] 

JOB'S  DISEASE.  The  opinion  that  the 
malady  under  which  Job  suffered  was  elephan- 
tiasis, or  black  leprosy,  is  so  ancient,  that  it  is 
found,  according  to  Origen’s  Hexapla , in  the 
rendering  which  one  of  the  Greek  versions  has 
made  of  ch.  ii.  7.  It  was  also  entertained  by 
Abulfeda  {Hist.  Anteisl.  p.  26)  ; and,  in  modern 
times,  by  the  best  scholars  generally.  The  pas- 
sages which  are  considered  to  indicate  this  disease 
are  found  in  the  description  of  his  skin  burning 
from  head  to  foot,  so  that  he  took  a potsherd  to 
scrape  himself  (ii.  7,  8) ; in  its  being  covered 
with  putrefaction  and  crusts  of  earth,  and  being 
at  one  time  stiff  and  hard,  #hile  at  another  it 
cracked  and  discharged  fluid  (vii.  5) ; in  the 
offensive  breath  which  drove  away  the  kindness  of 
attendants  (xix.  17)  ; in  the  restless  nights,  whicn 
were  either  sleepless  or  scared  with  frightful  dreams 
(vii.  13,  14;  xxx.  17);  in  general  emaciation 
(xvi.  8);  and  in  so  intense  a loathing  of  the 
burden  of  life,  that  strangling  and  death  were 
preferable  to  it  (vii.  15). 

In  this  picture  of  Job’s  sufferings,  the  state  of 
the  skin  is  not  so  distinctly  described  as  to 
enable  us  to  identify  the  disease  with  elepnan- 
tiasis  in  a rigorous  sense.  The  difficulty  is  also 
increased  by  the  fact  that  shechin  is  generally 
rendered  ‘ boils.’  But  that  word,  according  to  its 
radical  sense,  only  means  burning,  inflammation 
— a hot  sense  of  pain,  which,  although  it  attends 
boils  and  abscesses,  is  common  to  other  cutaneous 
iiritations.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  Job  scraped 
himself  with  a potsherd  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
notion  that  his  body  was  covered  with  boils  or 
open  sores,  but  agrees  very  well  with  the  thickened 
state  of  the  skin  which  characterizes  this  disease. 

In  this,  as  in  most  other  Biblical  diseases,  there 
is  too  little  distinct  description  of  symptoms  to 
enable  us  to  determine  the  precise  malady  in- 
tended. But  the  general  character  of  the  com- 
plaint under  which  Job  suffered,  bears  a greater 
resemblance  to  elephantiasis  than  to  any  other 
disease  [Leprosy], — W.  A.  N. 

JOCHEBED  0?D'V>,  God- glorified ; Sept 
Ta>xa/3e5),  wife  of  Amram  and  mother  of  Mi  iam, 


126 


JOEL. 


JOEL. 


Moses  and  Aaron.  In  Exod.  vi.  20,  Jochebed  is 
expressly  declared  to  have  been  the  sister  of  Am- 
ram's  father,  and  consequently  the  aunt  of  her  hus- 
band. As  marriage  between  persons  thus  related 
was  afterwards  forbidden  by  the  law  (Lev.  xviii. 
12),  various  attempts  have  "been  made  to  show 
that  the  relationship  was  more  distant  than  the 
text  in  its  literal  meaning  indicates.  We  see  no 
necessity  for  this.  The  mere  mention  of  the 
relationship  implies  that  there  was  something 
remarkable  in  the  case ; but  if  we  show  that 
nothing  is  remarkable,  we  do  away  the  occasion 
for  the  relationship  being  at  all  noticed.  The 
fact  seems  to  be,  that  where  this  marriage  was 
contracted,  there  was  no  law  forbidding  such 
alliances,  but  they  must  in  any  case  have  been 
unusual,  although  not  forbidden;  and  this,  with 
the  writer’s  knowledge  that  they  were  subse- 
quently interdicted,  sufficiently  accounts  for  this 
one  being  so  pointedly  mentioned.  The  candour 
of  the  historian  in  declaring  himself  to  be  sprung 
from  a marriage,  afterwards  forbidden  by  the  law, 
delivered  through  himself,  deserves  especial  notice. 

JOEL  (W  ; Sept  . ’Ico^A  ; Gesenius,  Cut  Je- 
hova  est  Deus,  i.  e.  cultor  Jehovce),  one  of  the 
twelve  minor  prophets,  the  son  of  Pethuel.  Of 
his  birth-place  nothing  is  known  with  certainty; 
the  pseudo-Epiphanius  affirms  that  he  was  a native 
of  Betha,  in  the  tribe  of  Reuben  (De  Vit.  Propk. 
c.  14).  From  the  local  allusions  in  his  prophecy, 
we  may  infer  that  he  discharged  his  office  in  the 
kingdom  of  Judah.  But  the  references  to  the 
temple,  its  priests  and  sacrifices,  are  rather  slender 
grounds  for  conjecturing  that  he  belonged  to  the 
sacerdotal  order.  Various  opinions  have  been  held 
respecting  the  period  in  which  he  lived.  It  ap- 
pears most  probable  that  he  was  contemporary 
with  Amos  and  IsaiJh,  and  delivered  his  predic- 
tions in  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  between  800  and  780 
b.c.  This  is  the  opinion  maintained  by  Abarbanel, 
Vitringa,  Rosenmiiiler,  De  Wette,  Holzhausen, 
and  others.  Credner  and  Winer  place  him  in  the 
timeofJoash;  Bertholdt,  in  that  of  Hezekiah  ; 
Cramer  and  Eckevniaun,  in  Josiah’s  reign  ; Jahn 
in  Manasseh’s  ; and  Schroder  still  later. 

This  prophet  opens  his  commission  by  an- 
nouncing an  extraordinary  plague  of  locusts, 
accompanied  with  extreme  drought,  which  he  de- 
picts in  a strain  of  animated  and  sublime  poetry 
under  the  image  of  an  invading  army.  The 
fidelity  of  his  highly-wrought  description  is  corro- 
borated and  illustrated  by  the  testimonies  of 
§haw,  Volney,  Forbes,  and  other  eminent,  tra- 
vellers, who  have  been  eye-witnesses  of  the  ra- 
vages committed  by  this  most  terrible  of  the  insect 
tribe.  Their  accounts  tend  strongly,  we  think,  to 
free  the  literal  interpretation  from  the  charge  of 
being  ‘ the  greatest  exaggeration.’  It  is  also  to 
de  observed  that  lacusts  are  named  by  Moses  as 
instruments  of  the  divine  justice  (Deut.  xxviii. 
38,  39),  and  by  Solomon  in  his  prayer  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple  (1  Kings  viii.  37).  In 
the  second  chapter,  the  formidable  aspect  of  the 
locusts — their  rapid  progress — their  sweeping  de- 
vastation— the  awful  murmur  of  their  countless 
throngs — their  instinctive  marshalling — the  irre- 
sistible perseverance  with  which  they  make  their 
way  over  every  obstacle  and  through  every  aper- 
ture— are  delineated  with  the  utmost  graphic 
force.  Dr.  Ilengstenberg  calls  in  question  the 


mention  of  their  flight,  but,  as  it  appears  to  us^ 
without  adequate  reason.  He  considers  the  ex- 
pression * before  them,’  in  ch.  ii.,  as  equivalent  to 
‘before  they  rise:’  but  in  the  third  verse  the  same 

word  (V33^)  occurs  twice,  evidently  in  the  sense 
of  ‘ in  the  presence  of,’  ‘ in  their  front.'  The  emi- 
nent critic  just  named  lays  great  stress  on  the 
alleged  omission  of"  this  particular,  which  he  con- 
siders inexplicable,  unless  on  the  supposition  that 
the  reality  presented  nothing  corresponding  to  it. 
But  whether  this  characteristic  be  alluded  to  or 
not,  the  argument  for  or  against  the  literal  inter- 
pretation will  not  be  materially  affected.  Other 
particulars  are  mentioned  which  literally  can 
apply  only  to  locusts,  and  which,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  language  is  allegorical,  are  expli- 
cable only  as  being  accessory  traits  for  filling  up 
the  picture  (Davison’s  Sacred  Hermeneutics , p. 
310).  The  figurative  interpretation  has,  it  must 
be  allowed,  the  support  of  antiquity.  It  was 
adopted  by  the  Chaldee  paraphrast,  Ephrem  the 
Syrian  (a.d.  350),  and  the  Jews  in  the  time  of 
Jerome  (a.d.  400).  Ephrem  supposes  that  by  the 
four  different  denominations  of  the  locusts  were 
intended  Tiglath-pileser,  Shalmanaser,  Sennache- 
rib, and  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  Jews,  in  the  time 
of  Jerome,  understood  by  the  first  term  the  Assy- 
rians and  Chaldeans ; by  the  second,  the  Medes 
and  Persians  ; by  the  third,  Alexander  the  Great 
and  nis  successors ; and  by  the  fourth,  the  Romans. 
By  others,  however,  the  prophecy  was  interpreted 
literally ; and  Jerome  himself  appears  to  have 
fluctuated  between  the  two  opinions,  though  more 
inclined  to  the  allegorical  view.  Grotius  applies 
the  description  to  the  invasions  by  Pul  and  Shal- 
maneser. Holzhausen  attempts  to  unite  both 
modes  of  interpretation,  and  applies  the  language 
literally  to  the  locusts,,  and  metaphorically  to  the 
Assyrians.  It  is  singular,  however,  that,  if  a 
hostile  invasion  be  intended,  not  the  least  hint  is 
given  of  personal jnjury  sustained  by  the  inha- 
bitants ; the  immediate  effects  are  confined  en- 
tirely to  the  vegetable  productions  and  the  cattle. 
Dr.  Hengstenberg,  while  strongly  averse  from  the 
literal  sense,  is  not  disposed  to  limit  the  meta- 
phorical meaning  to  any  one  event  or  class  of 
invaders.  ‘ The  enemy,’  he  remarks,  ‘ are  de- 
signated only  as  north  countries.  From  the  north, 
however,  from  Syria,  all  the  principal  invasions  of 
Palestine  proceeded.  We  have  therefore  no  rea- 
son to  think  exclusively  of  any  one  of  them.  Nor 
ought  we  to  limit  the  prophecy  to  the  people  of 
the  old  covenant.  Throughout  all  centuries  there 
is  but  one  church  of  God  existing  in  unbroken 
connection.  That  this  church,  during  the  first 
period  of  its  existence,  was  concentrated  in  a land 
into  which  hostile  irruptions  were  made  from  the 
north  was  purely  accidental.  To  make  this  cir- 
cumstance the  boundary-stone  of  the  fulfilment 
of  prophecy  were  just  as  absurd  as  if  one  were 
to  assert  that  the  threatening  of  Amos,  “ by  the 
swt  rd  shall  all  sinners  of  my  people  die,”  has  not 
been  fulfilled  in  those  who  perished  after  another 
manner’  (Christology , Keith's  transl.  iii.  104). 

The  prophet,  after  describing  the  approaching 
judgments,  calls  on  his  countrymen  to  repent, 
assuring  them  of  the  divine  placability  and  readi- 
ness to  forgive  (ii.  12-17).  He  foretels  the  re- 
storation of  the  land  to  its  former  fertility,  and 
declares  that  Jehovah  would  still  be  their  God 


JOHAN  AN. 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 


127 


(ii.  18-26).  He  then  announces  the  spiritual 
;Iessings  which  would  be  poured  forth  in  the 
Messianic  age  (iii.  1-5,  Heb.  text ; ii.  28-32, 
Auth.  Vers.).  This  remarkable  prediction  is 
applied  by  the  Apostle  Peter  to  the  events  that 
transpired  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii. 
16-21).  In  the  last  chapter  (iv.  Heb.  text ; iii. 
Auth.  Vers.),  the  divine  vengeance  is  denounced 
against  the  enemies  and  oppressors  of  the  chosen 
people,  of  whom  the  Phoenicians,  Egyptians,  and 
Edomites  are  especially  named.  A minute  exa- 
mination of  these  predictions  would  exceed  our 
limits;  we  must  refer  the  reader  for  further  in- 
formation to  the  works  named  at  the  close  of  this 
article. 

The  style  of  Joel,  it  has  been  remarked,  unites 
the  strength  of  Micah  with  the  tenderness  of  Jere- 
miah. In  vividness  of  description  he  rivals  Nahum, 
and  in  sublimity  and  majesty  is  scarcely  inferior 
to  Isaiah  and  Habakkuk.  ‘ Imprimis  est  elegans, 
clarus,  fusus,  fluensque ; valde  etiam  sublimis 
accr,  fervidus  ’ (Lowth,  De  Sacra  Poesi  Hebr. 
Preel.  xxi.). 

The  canonicity  of  this  book  has  never  been 
called  in  question. 

A Paraphrase  and  Critical  Commentary  on 
the  Prophecy  of  Joel,  by  Samuel  Chandler,  4to. 
London,  1745  ; Die  Weissagung  des  Propheten 
Joel,  i'bersetzt  und  crklart , von  F.  A.  Holzhau- 
sen,  Gottingen,  1829;  Characteristik  der  Bibel, 
von  Dr.  A.  H.  Niemeyer,  Halle,  1831,  vol.  v. 
pp.  295-302 ; Dr.  Ilengstenberg’s  Christology  of 
the  Old  Testament,  8$c.,  transl.  by  Dr.  R.  Keith, 
Washington,  1839,  vol.  iii.  pp.  100-141. 

The  following  works  are  also  mentioned  by 
De  Wette  in  his  Lehrbuch,  &c.,  Berlin,  1840, 
p.  324  :—Joel  Explicatus,  in  quo  Textus  Ebr. 
per  paraph.  Chald.  masoram  magn.  et  parv. 
perque  trium  prcestantiss.  Rabb.  R.  Sal.  Jarchi, 
R.  Aben-Esrcs,  et  R.  Dav.  Kimchi  Comm.,  necnon 
per  notas  philol.  illustratur , §c.,  auct.  Joh.  Leus- 
den,  Ultraj.  1657  ; Interpret.  Joelis  in  Turretini 
Tract,  de  S.  Script.  Interpret.,  ed.  a G.  A.  Teller, 
pp,  307-343 ; G.  T.  Baumgartens  Ausleg.  el. 
Proplx.  Joel , Hal.  1756 ; C.  F.  Cramer,  Scyth. 
Denkmaler  in  Palcestina,  Kiel,  1777,  s.  143-245; 
C.  P.  Conz,  Diss.  de  Charactere  Poet.  Joelis , <$,<?., 
Tub.  1783;  Joel  Lat.  versus  et  notis  philol. 
illustratus,  ab  A.  Scanborg,  in  sex  Dissert.,  Upsal, 
1806  ; Ueberss.  m.  Erklt..  von  Eckermann,  1786  ; 
Justi,  1792;  Credner,  1831.— J.  E.  R. 

JOHAN  AN  (|3m\  God -bestowed ; Sept. 
lesvav),  one  of  the  officers  who  came  and  recog- 
nised Gedaliah  as  governor  of  Judaea  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  and  who  appears  to  have 
been  the  chief  in  authority  and  influence  among 
them.  He  penetrated  the  designs  of  Ishmael 
against  the  governor,  whom  he  endeavoured,  with- 
out success,  to  put  upon  his  guard.  When  Ish- 
mael had  accomplished  his  design  by  the  murder 
of  Gedaliah,  and  was  carrying  away  the  principal 
persons  at  the  seat  of  government  as  captives  to 
the  Ammonites,  Johanan  pursued  him,  and  re- 
leased them.  Being  fearful,  however,  that  the 
Chald seans  might  misunderstand  the  affair,  and 
make  him  and  those  who  were  with  him  respon- 
sible for  it,  he  resolved  to  withdraw  for  safety 
into  Egypt,  with  the  principal  persons  of  the  rem- 
nant left  in  the  land.  Jeremiah  remonstrated 
against  this  decision ; but  Johanan  would  not  be 


moved,  and  even  constrained  the  prophet  himself 
to  go  witli  them.  They  proceeded  to  Taphanes,  but 
nothing  further  is  recorded  of  Johanan.  u.c.  588  (2 
Kings  xxv.  23;  Jer.  xl.  8-16,;  xli.;  xlii.;  xliii.). 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  (Gr.  ’IchWtjs  6 flan- 
rto'T'tjs,  or  simply  ’Icodi >vr)s,  when  the  reference  is 
clear,  as  in  Matt.  iii.  4;  iv.  12;  Lat.  Joannes, 
Tacit.  Ilist.v.  12;  Hebrew  denoting  ‘grace’ 
or  ‘favour’).  In  the  church  John  commonly 
bears  the  honourable  title  of  ‘ forerunner  of  the 
Lord’ — antecursor  et  praeparator  viarum  Domini 
(Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  33)  ; in  Greek-,  irp6dpo/jLos, 
TvpoaLyyeXos  K vpiov.  The  accounts  of  him  which 
the  gospels  present  are  fragmentary  and  imper 
feet : they  involve,  too,  some  difficulties  which 
the  learned  have  found  it  hard  to  remove ; yet 
enough  is  given  to  show  that  he  was  a man  of  a 
lofty  character,  and  that  the  relation  in  which  he 
stood  to  Christianity  was  one  of  great  importance. 

His  parents  were  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth,  the 
latter  ‘a  cousin  of  Mary,’  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
whose  senior  John  was  by  a period  of  six  months 
(Luke  i.).  The  exact  spot  where  John  was  born 
is  not  delermined.  The  rabbins  fix  on  Hebron, 
in  the  hill-countrv  of  Judaea;  Paulus,  Kuinoel, 
and  Meyer,  after  Reland,  are  in  favour  of  Jutta, 

‘ a city  of  Judah.’  According  to  the  account  con- 
tained in  ihe  first  chapter  of  Luke,  his  father, 
while  engaged  in  burning  incense,  was  visited  by 
the  angel  Gabriel,  who  informed  him  that  in  com- 
pliance with  his  prayers  his  wife  should  bear  a son, 
whose  name  he  should  call  John— in  allusion  to 
the  grace  thus  accorded.  A description  of  the 
manner  of  his  son's  life  is  given,  which  in  effect 
states  that  he  was  to  be  a Nazarite,  abstaining 
from  bodily  indulgences,  was  to  receive  special 
favour  and  aid  of  God,  was  to  prove  a great  reli- 
gious and  social  reformer,  and  so  prepare  the  way 
for  the  long-expected  Messiah.  Zacharias  is  slow 
to  believe  these  tidings  and  seeks  some  token  in 
evidence  of  their  truth.  Accordingly  a sign  is 
given  which  acts  also  as  a punishment  of  his  want 
of  faith — his  tongue  is  sealed  till  the  prediction 
is  fulfilled  by  the  event.  Six  months  after  Eli- 
sabeth had  conceived  she  received  a visit  from 
Mary,  the  future  mother  of  Jesus.  On  being 
saluted  by  her  relation,  Elisabeth  felt  her  babe 
leap  in  her  womb,  and,  being  filled  with  the  holy 
spirit,  she  broke  forth  into  a poetic  congratulation 
to  Mary,  as  the  destined  mother  of  her  Lord.  At 
length  Elisabeth  brought  forth  a son,  whom  the 
relatives  were  disposed  to  name  Zacharias,  after 
his  father — but  Elisabeth  was  in  some  way  led  to 
wish  that,  he  should  be  called  John.  The  matter 
was  referred  to  the  father,  who  signified  in  writing 
that  his  name  was  to  be  John.  This  agreement 
with  Elisabeth  caused  all  to  marvel.  Zacharias 
now  had  his  tongue  loosed,  and  he  first  employed 
his  restored  power  in  praising  God,  These  sin- 
gular events  caused  universal  surprise,  and  led 
people  to  expect  that  the  child  would  prove  a 
distinguished  man. 

The  parents  of  John  were  not  only  of  a priestly 
order,  but  righteous  and  devout.  Their  influence, 
in  consequence,  in  the  training  of  their  son,  would 
be  not  only  benign  but  suitable  to  the  holy  office 
which  he  was  designed  to  fill.  More  than  this — 
the  special,  aids  of  God’s  Spirit  were  with  him 
(Luke  i.  66).  How  thoroughly  Zacharias  was 
penetrated  with  his  parental  responsibility  and  the 


128 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 


future  dignity  of  his  son,  appears  from  the  1 divine 
song  ’ to  which  he  gives  utterance  ; the  following 
words  deserve  notice— ‘And  thou,  child,  slia.lt  be 
called  the  prophet  of  the  Highest ; for  thou  shalt 
go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  prepare  his  ways ; 
to  give  knowledge  of  salvation  unto  his  people  by 
the  remission  of  their  sins,  through  the  tender 
mercy  of  our  God,  whereby  the  day-spring  from  on 
high  hath  visited  us,  to  give  light  to  them  that  sit 
in  darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death,  to  guide  our 
feet  in  the  way  of  peace.’  As  a consequence  of 
me  lofty  influences  under  which  he  was  nurtured, 
the  child  waxed  strong  in  spirit.  The  sacred 
writer  adds  that  ‘ he  was  in  the  deserts  till  the 
day  of  his  showing  unto  Israel  ’ (Luke  i.  80). 
The  apocryphal  Protev.  Jac.  ch.  xxii.  states  that 
nis  mother,  in  order  to  rescue  her  son  from  the 
murder  of  the  children  at  Bethlehem,  which  Herod 
commanded,  fled  with  him  into  the  desert.  She 
found  no  place  of  refuge ; the  mountain  opened 
at  her  request,  and  gave  the  needed  shelter  in  its 
bosom.  Zacharias,  being  questioned  by  Herod 
as  to  where  his  sou  was  to  be  found,  and  refusing 
to  answer,  was  slain  by  the  tyrant.  At  a later 
period  Elisabeth  died,  when  angels  took  the  youth 
under  their  care  (Fabricius,  Cod.  Apocryph.  p. 
117,  sq. ; comp.  Kuhn,  Leben  Jesu,  i.  163,  re- 
mark 4). 

In  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius, 
John  made  his  public  appearance,  exhibiting  the 
austerity,  the  costume,  and  the  manner  of  life  of 
the  ancient  Jewish  prophets  (Luke  iii. ; Matt.  iv.). 
His  raiment  was  camel's  hair;  he  wore  a plain 
leathern  girdle  about  his  loins;  his  food  was  what 
the  desert  spontaneously  offered — locusts  and  wild 
honey  from  the  rock.  Desert  though  the  place  is 
designated,  the  country  where  he  began  his  mis- 
sion— the  wild  mountainous  tract  of  Juda — lying 
between  Jerusalem  and  the  Dead  Sea,  along 
which  it  stretches,  was  not  entirely  destitute  of 
means  for  supporting  human  existence  (Matt.  iii. 
1-12;  Mark  i.  1-8;  Luke  iii.  1-20;  John  x.  28; 
Justin  Marty-,  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  c.  88).  Jo- 
sephus, in  his  Life  (ii.  2),  gives  an  account  of 
one  of  his  instructors,  Banus,  which  throws  light 
on  John’s  condition  in  the  desert : — ‘he  lived  in 
the  desert,  and  had  no  other  food  than  what  grew 
of  its  own  accord,  and  bathed  himself  in  cold 
water  frequently,  both  by  night  and  by  day.  I 
imitated  him  in  these  things,  and  continued  with 
him  three  years.’ 

The  burden  of  John’s  preaching  bore  no  slight 
resemblance  to  the  old  prophetic  exhortations, 
whose  last  echo  had  now  died  away  for  centuries. 
He  called  upon  the  Jewish  people  to  repent 
(f xeravoeiTe ),  to  change  their  minds,  their  dispo- 
sitions and  affections,  and  thus  prepared  the  way 
for  the  great  doctrine  promulgated  by  his  Lord, 
of  the  necessity  of  a spiritual  regeneration.  That 
th-e  change  which  John  had  in  view  was  by  no 
means  of  so  great  or  so  elevated  a kind  as  that 
which  Jesus  required,  is  very  probable;  but  the 
particulars  into  which  he  enters  when  he  proceeds 
to  address  classes  or  individuals  (Matt.  iii.  7,  sq. ; 
Luke  iii.  7,  sq.),  serve  fully  to  show  that  the  re- 
novation at  which  he  aimed  was  not  merely  of  a 
material  or  organic,  but  chiefly  of  a moral  nature. 
In  a very  emphatic  manner  did  he  warn  the  eccle- 
siastical and  philosophical  authorities  of  the  land 
of  the  necessity  under  which  they  lay  of  an  entire 
change  of  view,  of  aim,  and  of  desire;  declaring 


in  explicit  and  awful  terms! that  their  pride  ot 
nationality  would  avail  ilium  nothing  against  the 
coming  wrathful  visitation,  and  that  they  were 
utterly  mistaken  in  the  notion  that  Divine  Provi- 
dence had  any  need  of  them  for  completing  its 
own  wise  purposes  (Luke  iii.  8,  9).  The  first 
reason  assigned  by  John  for  entering  on  his  most 
weighty  and  perilous  office  was  announced  iri 
these  words — ‘ the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  ’ 
Ifr'tvas  his  great  work  to  prepare  the  mjnd  of  ln« 
nation,  so  that  when  Jesus  himself  came  they 
might  be  a people  made  ready  for  the  Lord. 
What  was  the  exact,  idea  which  John  intended 
to  convey  by  the  term  ‘ kingdom  of  heaven  ’ it 
is  not  easy,  at  least  in  the  space  before  us,  to  de- 
termine with  satisfaction.  We  feel  ourselves, 
however,  justified  in  protesting  against  the  prac- 
tice of  those  who  take  the  vulgar  Jewish  notion, 
and  ascribe  it  to  John,  while  some  go  so  far  as 
to  deny  that  our  Lord  himself,  at  the  first,  pos- 
sessed any  other.  The  reference  which  we  have 
made  to  John's  addreses  to  his  auditors  suffices  to 
show  that  there  was  an  ample  and  predominant 
moral  element  in  his  conception  of  this  kingdom; 
while,  if  he  entertained  the  vulgar  notion  of  the 
Messiah,  why  his  urgency  in  behalf  of  peravoia — 
an  entire,  internal  change?  Besides,  dues  tlie 
fact  need  enforcement,  that  all  superior  minds — 
especially  those  that  are  enlightened  by  the  Divine 
Spirit — have  both  correcter  and  nobler  views  than 
the  bulk  of  their  contemporaries,  and  that  it  is  the 
power  which,  under  God’s  aid,  these  views  give 
them,  that  sustains  them  in  their  duty  and  makes 
their  efforts  successful  ? If  John  really  came  in 
the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias — if  he  reproduced 
the  old  ardour  and  quickening  foresight  of  the 
prophets,  he  must  have  gone  far  beyond  the  vulgar 
conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  indeed 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  teaching  seems  to  our 
mind  intended  and  fitted  to  refine,  exalt,  and  ex- 
pand the  ordinary  Jewish  mind  and  so  to  prepare 
the  way  for  the  perfect  day  of  Christ. 

Had  we  space  to  develope  the  moral  character 
of  John,  we  could  show  that  this  fine,  stern,  high- 
minded  teacher  possessed  many  eminent  qualities; 
but  his  personal  and  official  modesty  in  keeping, 
in  all  circumstances,  in  the  lower  rank  assigned 
him  by  God,  must  not  pass  without  special  men- 
tion. The  doctrine  and  manner  of  life  of  John 
appear  to  have  roused  the  entire  of  the  south 
of  Palestine,  and  people  flocked  from  all  parts  to 
the  spot  where,  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  lie  bap- 
tized thousands  unto  repentance.  Such,  indeed, 
was  the  fame  which  he  had  gained,  that  ‘ people 
were  in  expectation,  and  all  men  mused  in  their 
hearts  of  John,  whether  he  were  the  Christ  or  not’ 
(Luke  iii.  15).  Had  he  chosen,  John  might 
without  doubt  have  assumed  to  himself  the  higher 
office,  and  risen  to  great  worldly  power.  But.  he 
was  faithful  to  his  trust,  and  never  failed  to  de- 
clare in  the  fullest  and  clearest  manner,  that  he 
was  not  the  Christ  but  merely  his  harbinger,  and 
that  the  sole  work  he  had  to  do  was  to  usher  in 
the  day-spring  from  on  high. 

The  more  than  prophetic  fame  of  the  Baptist 
reached  the  ears  of  Jesus  in  his  Nazarene  dwell- 
ing, far  distant  from  the  locality  of  John  (Matt, 
ii.  9,  11).  The  nature  of  the  report — namely,  that 
his  divinely-predicted  forerunner  had  appeared  in 
Judaea— showed  our  Loi  d that  the  time  was  now 
come  for  his  being  made  manifest  to  ^gracl. 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 


tfordingly  he  corues  to  the  place  where  John  is  (o 
be  baptised  cf  him,  in  order  that  thus  he  might 
fulfil  all  that  was  required  under  the  dispensation 
which  was  about  to  disappear  (Matt.  iii.  14). 
John's  sense  of  inferiority  inclines  him  to  ask 
rather  than  to  give  baptism  in  the  case  of  Jesus, 
who,  however,  wills  to  has'e  it  so,  and  is  accord- 
ingly baptized  of  John.  Immediately  on  the 
termination  of  this  symbolical  act,  a divine  at- 
testation is  given  from  the  opened  vault  of  heaven, 
declaring  Jesus  to  be  in  truth  the  long  looked-for 
Messiah — ‘ This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I 
am  well  pleased  ’ (Matt.  iii.  17).  The  events 
which  are  found  recorded  in  John  i.  Id,  sq.  seem 
to  have  happened  after  the  baptism  of  Jesua  by 
John.  This  appears  to  us  to  be  implied  in  the 
past  character  of  the  narrative.  John  is  obviously 
speaking  of  something  over  and  gone  : for  in- 
stance, ‘This  is  he  of  whom  I said'  (not  I say), 
‘ after  me  comelh  a man,’  &c. ; John's  testimony 
bad  already  been  borne  when  he  gave  his  reply  to 
the  Sanhedrim.  It  was  therefore  prior  to  his  bap- 
tism that  John  * knew  him  not' — knew  not  his 
person,  though,  of  course,  he  knew  that  the  Mes- 
siah was  on  the  point  of  coming  ; and  though 
John  and  Jesus  were  relatives,  yet,  considering 
the  distance  at  which  they  dwelt  from  each  other, 
and  the  habits  of  retirement  and  solitude  in 
which  both  indulged,  there  is  no  difficulty  what- 
ever in  the  statement.  But  it  may  be  asked,  if 
John  was  ignorant,  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  how  he 
could  acknowledge  his  superiority,  as  he  does 
when  he  intimates  that  it  was  more  meet  he 
should  receive  than  give  baptism.  This  difficulty 
has  excited  much  attention.  The  reader  may 
with  advantage  consult  the  very  learned  and,  for 
the  most  part,  impartial  commentary  of  Liicke,  on 
the  passage.  Our  view  is  this:  the  relation  in 
which  John  and  Jesus  stood  to  each  other  must 
have  been  well  known  to  both.  When,  therefore, 
Jesus  came  to  John,  he  would  naturally  declare 
himself  to  be  the  intended  Messiah.  Such  a de- 
claration— thus  pointing  out  the  person — would, 
of  course,  conciliate  belief  in  John’s  mind,  and 
might  naturally  prompt  the  self-abasing  language 
which  he  employs  when  requested  by  Jesus  to 
give  him  baptism.  No  other  fact  than  such  an 
assertion  would  communicate  to  John's  mind 
could  justify  the  language  which  the  Baptist  uses, 
since,  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah,  he  was 
second  to  him  only.  Still  the  divinely-promised 
evidence  remained  to  be  given — ‘upon  whom 
thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remain- 
ing on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with 
the  Holy  Ghost’  (John  i.  33).  That  evidence 
was  at  length  vouchsafed  after  the  baptism,  and 
then  the  divine  and  human  testimony  concurred 
in  giving  raich  satisfaction  to  John’s  mind  as  he 
had  been  led  of  God  to  expect,  and  which  the  im- 
portant interests  at  stake  seemed  to  demand. 

In  the  testimony  which  John  bears  to  Jesus,  as 
recorded  by  the  Evangelist  John,  Winer,  in  his 
Bealwbrterbuch,  finds  some  difficulty,  and  thinks 
that  there  is  a variation,  in  fact  a contrariety,  be- 
tween the  view  which  John  presents  of  the  person 
and  work  of  our  Lord  and  that  which  the  other 
evangelists  afford — a view,  indeed,  of  which  the 
Baptist  could  have  known  nothing,  but  which 
came  from  the  Gnosticizing  colours  of  John's 
mind.  We  again  refer  the  reader  to  Liioke's  valu- 
able Y/ork.  But  what  lias  already  been  remarked 


m 

will  have  shown  that  Winer  and  others  are  in  error 
in  the  supposition  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  these 
alleged  difficulties  and  variations — namely,  that 
John  the  Baptist  had  no  idea  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  higher  or  more  far-reaching  than  that  which 
was  prevalent  in  the  common  mind  of  Judaea.  It 
is  in  the  words  ‘Benold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world’  (John  i.  29,36), 
that  the  difficulty  is  thought  to  be  found.  What, 
it  is  asked,  could  John  the  Baptist,  have  known  at 
this  assumed  function — the  remission  of  sins'? 
Liicke  has,  we  think,  satisfactorily  shown  that  such 
a function  did  enter  into  the  prophetic  idea  of  the 
Messiah  (Isa.  liii.),  or  at  least  into  that  concep- 
tion of  him  which  the  authoritative  expounders  of 
religious  truth  had  drawn  from  the  peculiar  lan- 
guage of  prophecy.  And  this  is  unquestionably 
certain,  that  ‘ the  remission  of  our  sins,  through 
the  tender  mercy  of  our  God’  (Luke  i.  77),  did 
form  a part  of  the  conception  of  the  coming  Mes- 
siah which  Zacharias,  John’s  father,  entertained 
and  expressed  immediately  on  the  birth  of  his 
son ; while  in  the  account  given  by  the  syn- 
optical evangelists  (Matthew,  Mark,  Luke), 
to  the  effect  that  John  preached  ‘ the  baptism 
of  repentance,  for  the  remission  of  sins  ’ (Luke 
iii.  3),  adding  that  the  Christ  would  ‘ baptize 
with  the  Holy  Ghost , and  with  jire'  (Luke  iii. 
16),  may  surely  be  found  the  essence  of  the 
idea  conveyed  by  the  words  ‘ Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God,’  &c. 

The  relation  which  subsisted  between  John  and 
Jesus,  after  the  emphatic  testimony  above  recorded, 
had  been  borne,  we  have  not  the  materials  to  de- 
scribe with  full  certainty. 

It  seems  but  natural  to  think,  when  their  hitherto 
relative  position  is  taken  into  account,  that  John 
would  forthwith  lay  down  his  office  of  harbinger, 
which,  now  that  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  himself 
had  appeared,  was  entirely  fulfilled  and  terminated. 
Such  a step  he  does  not  appear  to  have  taken.  On 
the  contrary,  the  language  of  Scripture  seems  to  im- 
ply that  the  Baptist  church  continued  side  by  side 
with  the  Messianic  (Matt.  xi.  3;  Luke  vii.  19; 
Matt.  ix.  14 ; Luke  xi.  1 ; John  xiv.  25),  and  re- 
mained long  after  John's  execution  (Acts  xix.  3). 
Indeed,  a sect  which  bears  the  name  of  ‘ John’s  dis- 
ciples,’ exists  to  the  present  day  in  the  East,  whose 
sacred  books  are  said  to  be  pervaded  by  a Gnostic 
leaven.  They  are  hostile  alike  to  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  and  their  John  and  Jesus  are  alto- 
gether different  from  the  characters  bearing  these 
names  in  our  evangelists.  Still,  though  it  has  been 
generally  assumed  that  John  did  not  lay  down 
' his  office,  we  are  not  satisfied  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament establishes  this  alleged  fact.  John  may 
have  ceased  to  execute  his  own  peculiar  work,  as 
the  forerunner,  but  may  justifiably  have  conti- 
nued to  bear  his  most  important  testimony  to  the 
Messiahship,  of  Christ;  or  he  may  even  have  alto- 
gether given  up  the  duties  of  active  life  some  time, 
at  least,  before  his  death ; and  yet  his  disciples, 
both  before  and  after  that  event,  may  have  main- 
tained their  individuality  as  a religious  commu- 
nion. Nor  will  the  student  of  the  N ew  Testament 
and  of  ecclesiastical  history,  who  knows  how 
grossly  a teacher  far  greater  than  John,  was,  both 
during  his  life  and  after  his  crucifixion,  misun- 
derstood and  misrepresented,  think  it.  impossible 
that  some  misconception  or  some  sinister  motive 
may  have  had  weight  in  preventing  the  Baptist 


JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 


130  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 

church  from  dissolving  and  passing  into  that  of 
Christ. 

It  was,  not  improbably,  witn  a view  to  remove 
some  error  of  this  kind  that  John  sent  the  embassy 
of  his  disciples  to  Jesus  which  is  recorded  in  Matt, 
xi.  3;  Luke  vii.  19.  The  spiritual  course  which 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  were  more  and  more  taking, 
and  the  apparent  failure,  or  at  least  uneasy  post- 
ponement of  the  promised  kingdom  in  the  popular 
sense,  especially  the  fact  that  their  esteemed  mas- 
ter lay  in  prison,  and  was  in  imminent  danger  of 
losing  his  life,  may  well  have  led  John's  disciples 
to  doubt  if  Jesus  were  in  truth  the  expected  Mes- 
siah. Appearances,  to  them,  were  purely  adverse. 
What  step  so  fit  on  the  part  of  their  master,  as 
that  lie  should  send  them  to  Jesus  himself?  No 
intimation  is  found  in  the  record  that  John  re- 
quired evidence  to  give  him  satisfaction  ; and  all 
the  language  that  is  used  is  proper  and  pertinent 
if  we  suppose  that  the  doubt  lay  only  in  the  minds 
of  his  disciples.  That  the  terms  employed  ad- 
mit the  interpretation  that  John  was  not  without 
some  misgivings  (Luke  vii.  23 ; Matt.  xi.  6),  we 
are  free  to  allow.  And  if  any  doubt  had  grown 
up  in  the  Baptist's  mind  it  was  most  probably 
owing  to  the  defective  spirituality  of  his  views; 
for  even  of  him  Jesus  has  declared,  ‘ he  that  is 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than  lie’ 
(Matt.  xi.  11).  Were  this  the  case  it  would  of 
itself  account  not  only  for  the  embassy  sent  by 
John  to  Jesus,  but  also  for  the  continuance  and 
perpetuation  of  John's  separate  influence  as  the 
founder  of  a sect. 

The  manner  of  John’s  death  is  too  well  known 
to  require  to  be  detailed  here  (Matt.  iv.  12;  xiv. 
3;  Luke  iii.  19;  Mark  vi.  17;  Joseph.  Antiq. 
xviii.  5.  2).  He  reproved  a tyrant  for  a heinous 
crime,  and  received  his  reward  in  decapitation. 
Josephus,  however,  assigns  a somewhat  different 
cause  for  this  execution  from  that  given  in  the 
gospels.  The  passage  bears  forcible  evidence  to 
the  general  truth  of  the  evangelical  narrative  re- 
specting John,  and  therefore  we  transcribe  it : — • 
‘ Now  some  of  the  Jews  thought  that  the  destruc- 
tion of  Herod’s  army  came  from  God,  and  that 
very  justly,  as  a punishment  of  what  he  did 
. against  John  that  was  called  the  Baptist ; for 
, Herod  slew  him,  although  he  was  a good  man, 
and  commanded  the  Jews  to  exercise  virtue,  both 
.as  to  righteousness  one  towards  another  and  piety 
towards  God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism.  Now 
when  others  came  in  crowds  about  him — for  they 
were  greatly  moved  by  hearing  his  words — 
.Herod,  who  feared  lest  the  great  influence  John 
had  over  the  people  might  put  it  into  his  power 
and  inclination  to  raise  a rebellion  (for  they 
seemed  ready  to  do  any  thing  he  should  advise), 
thought  it  best,  by  putting  him  to  death,  to  prevent 
vauy  mischief  he  might  cause,  and  not  bring  him- 
self into  difficulties  by  sparing  a man  who  might 
make  him  repent  of  it  when  it  should  be  too  late. 
Accordingly  be  was  sent  a prisoner,  out  of  Herod’s 
suspicious  temper,  to  Machaerus,  the  castle  I before 
mentioned,  and  was  there  put  to  death.’ 

There  is  no  contrariety  between  this  account  and 
dhat  which  is  given  in  the  New  Testament.  Both 
■may  be  true : John  was  condemned  in  the 
mind  of  Herod  on  political  grounds,  as  endan- 
gering his  position,  and  executed  on  private  arid 
ostensible  grounds,  in  order  to  gratify  a mali- 
cious but  powerful  woman.  The  Scriptural 


reason  was  but  the  pretext  for  carrying  into  effect 
the  determinations  of  Herod’s  cabinet.  That  the 
fear  of  Herod  was  not  without  some  ground  may 
be  seen  in  the  popularity  which  John  had  gained 
(Mark  xi.  32;  Lardner,  Works,  vi.  483). 

The  castle  of  Machaerus,  where  John  was  im- 
prisoned and  beheaded,  was  a fortress  lying  on 
the  southern  extremity  of  Peraea,  at  the  top  of 
the  lake  Asphaltites,  between  the  dominions  of 
Herod  and  Aretas,  king  of  Arabia  Petraea,  and 
at  the  time  of  our  history  appears  to  have  Jbelbnged 
to  the  former  (Lardner,  vi.  483).  According  to 
the  Scripture  account,  the  daughter  of  Herodias 
obtained  the  Baptist’s  head  at  an  entertainment, 
without  delay.  How  could  this  be,  when  Ma- 
chserus  lay  at  a distance  from  Jerusalem  ? The 
feast  seems  to  have  been  made  at  Machaerus, 
which,  besides  being  a stronghold,  was  also  a 
palace,  built  by  Herod  the  Great,  and  Herod 
himself  was  now  on  his  route  towards  the  terri- 
tories of  Aretas,  with  whom  he  was  at  war. 
Bishop  Marsh  ( Lecture  xxvi.)  remarks,  that  the 
soldiers  who,  in  Luke  iii.  14,  are  said  to  have 
come  to  John  while  baptizing  in  the  Jordan,  are 
designated  by  a term  {(TTparevd^voi,  not  <rrpa- 
Ttwrat)  which  denotes  persons  actually  engaged 
in  war,  not  meiely  soldiers.  In  the  same  way, 
in  Mark  vi.  27,  the  officer  sent  to  bring  John’s 
head  bears  a military  title — crireKovXdTwp.  These 
minute  indications  are  quite  accordant  with  the 
fact  that  Herod  was  then  making  war  on  Aretas, 
as  appears  from  Josephus  {Antiq.  xviii.  5. 1),  and 
afford  a very  strong  evidence  of  the  credibility  of 
the  sacred  narratives,  by  showing  that  the  authors 
described  what  was  actually  proceeding  before 
their  own  eyes.  We  also  see  a reason  why  He- 
rodias was  present  on  this  occasion,  since  she  was 
Herod’s  paramour,  and  had,  ‘like  another  Helen,’ 
led  to  the  war. 

John  the  Baptist  is  mentioned  in  the  Koran, 
with  much  honour,  under  the  name  of  Jahja 
(see  Hettinger,  Historia  Oriental is,  pp.  144-149, 
Tiguri,  1660). 

The  literature  connected  with  the  subject  of 
this  article,  to  be  found  in  foreign  writers,  is 
very  rich.  Besides  the  works  already  named,  the 
following  may  be  consulted  : Hase  ( Leben  Jesu, 
3 Aufl.  Leipzig,  1840,  p.  8.0),  who,  together  with 
Walch  ( Bibliotheca  Theologica,  iii.  402),  gives 
the  chief  authorities;  Witsii  Exerc.  de  Joanne 
Bapt.  in  his  Miscell.  Sacra,  ii.  367 ; J.  G.  E 
Leopold,  Johannes  der  Tixnfer,  Hannov.  1825; 
Usteri,  Nachrichten  von  Johannes  dem  Tiiufer 
in  the  Studien  and  Kritiken , 1829,  part  iii.  p. 
439 ; L.  von  Rohden,  Johannes  der  Tiiufer, 
Liibeck,  1838  ; Neander,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  Hamb. 
1837,  p.  49.  Tiie  ecclesiastical  traditions  touch- 
ing John  may  be  found  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum , iv. 
687-846 ; and,  in  a compendious  form,  in  Tille- 
mont,  Memoires,  i.  82-108,  482-505. — J.  R.  B. 

JOHN  THE  APOSTLE.  I.  The  circum- 
stances of  his  life,  and  his  character. — He 
was  'the  son  of  Zebedee,  a fisherman,  and  of 
Salome.  It  is  probable  that  he  was  born  at 
Bethsaida,  on  the  lake  of  Galilee.  His  parents 
appear  to  have  been  m easy  circumstances;  at 
least,  we  find  that  Zebedee  employed  hired  ser- 
vants (Mark  i.  20),  and  that  Salome  was 
among  the  number  of  those  women  who  contri- 
buted to  the  maintenance  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xrvii. 
56).  We  also  find  that  John  received  Maty  mti 


JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 


JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 


131 


kis  house  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  Since  this 
house  seems  to  have  been  situated  at  Jerusalem 
(-dir’  rrjs  u>pas,  John  xix.  27),  it  would 

appear  that  he  was  the  owner  of  two  houses. 
John’s  acquaintance,  also,  with  the  high-priest 
(xviii.  15)  seems  to  indicate  that  he  lived  at 
Jerusalem,  and  belonged  to  the  wealthier  class. 
We  may  suppose  that  from  a tender  age  he 
nourished  religious  feelings,  since  Salome,  who 
evinced  so  much  love  for  Jesus,  probably  fostered 
at  an  earlier  period  those  hopes  of  a Messiah 
which  she  expresses  in  Matt.  xx.  20 ; and  we  find 
that  he  entered  into  communion  with  the  Baptist 
from  pure  motives.  The  occupation,  also,  of  a 
fisherman  was  adapted  to  promote  holy  medita- 
tions, since  it  would  frequently  lead  him  to  pass 
whole  nights  in  stillness  upon  the  water,  amid  a 
charming  country  similar  to  the  environs  of  the 
lake  of  Locarno.  On  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  the 
Baptist  directed  John  to  Jesus,  and  he  immedi- 
ately became  the  Lord's  disciple  and  accom- 
panied him  on  his  return  to  Galilee.  Having 
arrived  there,  he  at  first  resumed  his  trade,  but  was 
afterwards  called  to  remain  permanently  with  the 
Redeemer  (Luke  v.  5-10).  Jesus  was  particu- 
larly attached  to  John  (John  xiii.  23  ; xix.  26  ; 
xx.  2 ; xxi.  7),  who  was  one  of  the  three  who  were 
distinguished  above  the  other  apostles  (Matt, 
xvii.  1 ; xxvi.  37  ; Mark  v.  37).  After  the  as- 
cension, John  abode  at  Jerusalem,  where  Paul  met 
him  on  his  third  journey,  about  the  year  52  (Gal. 

ii.  3-9).  Since  he  had  undertaken  the  care  of 
the  mother  of  Jesus  we  cannot  well  suppose  that 
he  left  Jerusalem  before  Mary’s  death ; and,  in- 
deed, we  find  that  about  the  year  58,  when  Paul 
was  at  Ephesus,  John  was  not  yet  living  there. 
If  we  consider  the  great  importance  of  Ephesus 
among  the  various  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  and 
the  dangers  arising  from  false  teachers,  who  were 
prevalent  there  as  early  as  the  days  of  Paul  (Acts 
xx.  29),  it  will  appear  likely  that  John  was  sent 
to  Ephesus  after  Paul  had  left  that  scene,  about 
the  year  65.  During  the  time  of  his  activity 
in  Asia  Minor  he  was  exiled  by  the  Roman  em- 
peror to  Patmos,  one  of  the  Sporadic  isles  in  the 
.Egean  Sea,  where,  according  to  Revelations 
i.  9,  he  wrote  the  Apocalypse.  Irenaeus  ( Adv . 
Hcer.  v.  30)  and,  following  him,  Eusebius 
(ITist.  Eccles.  iii.  18)  state  that  John  beheld  the 
visions  of  the  Apocalypse  about  the  close  of  the 
reign  of  Domitian.  If  this  statement  can  be 
depended  upon,  the  exile  to  Patmos  also  took 
place  under  Domitian,  who  died  a.d.  96.  Ter- 
tullian  ( Prcescr . adv.  Hcer.  c.  30)  relates  that  in 
the  reign  of  Domitian  John  was  forcibly  conveyed 
to  Rome,  where  he  was  thrown  into  a cask  of  oil ; 
that  he  was  miraculously  released,  and  then  brought 
to  Patmos.  But  since  none  of  the  ancient  writers 
besides  the  rather  undiscriminating  Tertullian, 
relate  this  circumstance,  and  since  this  mode  of 
capital  punishment  was  unheard  of  at  Rome,  we 
ought  not  to  lay  much  stress  upon  it  (compare 
Mosheim,  Dissertationes  ad  Historiam  Eccle- 
siasticam,  i.  p.  497,  sq.).  It  is,  however,  likely 
that  John  was  called  to  suffer  for  his  faith,  since 
Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  writing  about 
a d.  200,  calls  him  /xdprvs  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles . 
v.  24).  According  to  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles. 

iii.  20,  235,  he  returned  from  exile  during  the 
reign  of  Nerva.  The  three  epistles  of  John,  as 
&1ik>  the  affecting  account  concerning  his  fidelity 


as  a spiritual  pastor,  given  by  Clemens  Alezan- 
drinus  (Quis  Dives  Salvus?  c.  52),  testify  that 
he  was  the  pastor  of  a large  diocese.  John’s 
second  epistle,  verse  12,  and  third  epistle,  verse 
14,  indicate  that  he  made  journeys  of  pastoral 
visitation.  John  died  at  Ephesus  past  the  age 
of  ninety,  in  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Trajan. 
According  to  Jerome,  he  was  a hundred  years  old, 
and  according  to  Suidas,  a hundred  and  twenty. 

If  we  endeavour  to  picture  to  ourselves  an 
image  of  John  as  drawn  from  his  Gospel  and  his 
Epistles,  aided  by  a few  traits  of  his  life  preserved 
by  the  fathers,*  he  appears  to  have  been  of  a wise, 
affectionate,  and  rattier  feminine  character. 

It  seems  that  originally  this  softness  of  disposi- 
tion would  sometimes  blaze  up  in  wrath,  as  femi- 
nine characters  in  general  feel  themselves  as 
strongly  repelled  as  attracted.  An  instance  of 
his  wrath  we  find  in  Luke  ix.  54,  sq.  We  trace 
also  a degree  of  selfishness  in  Mark  ix.  38  ; x.  35. 
Hence  it  appears  that  love,  humility,  and  mild- 
ness were  in  John  the  works  of  transforming  grace. 
At  a later  period  his  writings  indicate  not  only 
mildness,  but  also  a strict  moral  earnestness  (1 
John  i.  6 ; iii.  9,  20  ; v.  16  ; 2 John  10,  11). 

II.  The  Gospel  of  John. — Its  authenticity  and 
credibility. — During  the  eighteenth  century  and 
the  first  ten  years  of  the  nineteenth,  the  Gospel 
of  John  was  attacked,  but  with  feeble  arguments, 
by  some  English  Deists  and  by  four  German 
theologians.  Bretschneider  attempted  a stronger 
attack  in  his  book  entitled  Probabilia  de  Evan- 
gelii  et  Epistolarum  Johannis  origine  et  indole , 
1820.  According  to  him,  the  Gospel  was  written 
during  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  for 
the  purpose  of  spreading  the  metaphysical  doctrine 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  Although  this  attack 
was  very  learned,  it  met  with  but  little  approba- 
tion. The  same  arguments  were,  however,  resumed 
and  sharpened  by  Strauss,  who,  although  in  the 
third  edition  of  The  Life  of  Jesus  he  manifested 
an  inclination  to  give  up  his  doubts,  yet  reso- 
lutely returned  to  them  in  the  fourth  edition, 
principally,  as  he  himself  confesses,  because 
‘ without  them  one  could  not  escape  from  believing 
the  miracles  of  Christ.’  Strauss  attacked  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospel  of  John  principally 
with  arguments  deduced  from  the  subject-matter 
of  the  book  itself,  while  Lutzelberger  opposed  it 
on  historical  grounds  (Die  kirchliche  Tradition 
iiber  den  Apostel  Johannes  und  seine  Schriften , 
1840).  Schwegler  published  a treatise  on  the 
writings  of  John,  which  is  inserted  in  Der  Monta- 
nismus  und  die  Christliche  Kirchc  des  zioeiten 
Jahrhunderts , 1841,  and  in  which  he  endeavours 
to  prove  from  the  facts  of  ecclesiastical  hist  ory,  that 
the  Gospel  of  John  was  written  in  Asia  Minor 
about  the  year  of  Christ  170  by  one  of  the  followers 
of  the  elder  Apolliriaris,  and  that  it  was  ascribed 

* Jerome  (Comm,  ad  Gal.  iii.  p.  314,  mart.) 
relates  that  when  John  had  attained  a great  age  he 
was  so  feeble  that  he  could  not  walk  to  the  as- 
semblies of  the  church  ; he,  therefore,  caused  him- 
self to  be  carried  in  by  young  men.  He  was  no 
longer  able  to  say  much,  but  he  constantly  re- 
peated the  words,  ‘ Little  children,  love  one  another.’ 
On  being  asked  why  he  constantly  repeated  this 
one  saying,  he  replied,  ‘ Because  it  is  the  com- 
mand of  the  Lord  ; and  enough  is  done  if  tbi«  i? 
doue.’ 


132  JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 

to  the  apostle  in  order  to  influence  the  converts 
from  Judaism.  If  we  attached  much  importance 
to  the  arguments  employed  by  those  who  deny 
the  authenticity  of  John’s  Gospel,  we  should  here 
explicitly  point  out  how  these  arguments  may 
be  refuted  ; but  since  we  deem  them  unimportant, 
and  since,  even  in  Germany,  the  opponents  of  its 
authenticity  have  not  met  with  much  sympathy, 
we  refrain  from  discussion.  It  may  suflice  to 
observe  that  during  the  lapse  of  ages  up  to  the 
conclusion  of  the  eighteenth  century,  no  one  ever 
expressed  a doubt  respecting  the  genuineness  of 
John’s  Gospel,  except  the  small  sect  of  the  iiAoyoi, 
whose  scepticism,  however,  was  not  based  upon 
historical,  but  merely  upon  dogmatical  grounds. 

The  credibility  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  is 
open  to  attack  on  account  of  its  differing  so  much, 
as  well  in  substance  as  in  form,  from  the  three  first 
Gospels,  and  on  account  of  its  apparent  contradic- 
tion of  them.  Among  the  apparent  contradictions 
may  be  mentioned  the  statements,  that  Christ  was 
crucified  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  Passover 
was  to  be  eaten  (John  xviii.  28),  while  according 
to  the  other  Gospels  Jesus  ate  the  Passover  with 
his  disciples ; and  that  Jesus,  before  he  went  to 
Gethsemane,  offered  up  a prayer  full  of  sublimity 
and  confidence  (xvii.),  while  according  to  the 
other  Gospels  he  endured  in  Gethsemane  a very 
heavy  internal  conflict,  respecting  which  John  is 
silent.  But  the  most  striking  difference  is  that 
of  the  speeches.  This  difference  is,  perhaps,  still 
more  apparent  in  the  form  than  in  the  substance 
of  them. 

The  History  and  the  Speeches. — We  will  first 
consider  the  difference  of  the  Contents.  This 
difference  may  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  that 
John  intended  to  relate  and  complete  the  history  of 
the  Lord  according  to  his  own  view  of  it.  We  are 
led  to  this  supposition  from  the  following  circum- 
stances : that,  with  the  exception  of  the  history  of 
his  passion  and  his  resurrection,  there  are  only  two 
sections  in  which  John  coincides  with  the  synoptic 
gospels  (vi.  1-21  ; xii.  1) ; that  he  altogether 
omits  such  important  facts  as  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  by  John,  the  history  of  his  temptation  and 
transfiguration,  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  the  internal  conflict  at  Gethsemane ; 
and  that  chapters  i.  32,  iii.  24,  xi.  2,  indicate 
that  he  presupposed  his  readers  to  be  already  ac- 
quainted with  the  Gospel  history.  He  confined 
himself  to  such  communications  as  were  wanting 
in  the  others,  especially  with  regard  to  the  speeches 
of  Jesus.  The  historical  section  in  ch.  vi.  lie  com- 
municated because  it  is  connected  with  the  sub- 
sequent speeches  of  Jesus ; and  ch.  xii.  1,  be- 
cause it  was  of  importance  for  him  to  relate  the 
history  of  Judas,  so  that  each  event  should  clearly 
be  understood  to  be  the  result  of  a preceding  fact. 
The  history  of  Christ’s  sufferings  and  resurrection, 
being  a prominent  part,  could  not  be  omitted, 
although,  in  the  account  of  these  also,  John  differs 
in  his  statements  from  the  writers  of  the  other  Gos- 
pels. Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles. 
vi.  14)  relates,  as  he  says,  upon  the  statement 
of  old  Presbyters,  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel 
at  the  request  of  his  friends,  in  order  to  place 
by  the  side  of  the  (roopa tikcc  evayyeAia,  bodily 
gospels , his  Tvvzvfj.cn itcbv  evayyeAiov,  spiritual 
gospel.  The  same  account  is  confirmed  by  a 
Latin  fragment  of  the  second  century  preserved 
by  Muratori,  which  bears  that  the  aged  apostle  was 


JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 

solicited  by  his  co-disciples  to  commit  his  Go«]«J 
to  writing. 

Now  with  regard  to  the  difference  of  Form.  In 
the  Gospel  of  John,  Jesus  seldom  speaks  in  gnomes, 
sentences,  and  parables,  but  generally  in  longer 
speeches,  the  parts  of  which  are  not  closely  con- 
nected, containing  frequent  repetitions,  and  the 
linguistic  characteristics  of  which  strongly  re- 
semble those  of  his  epistles.  l)e  Wette  con- 
siders John  to  be  the  author  of  this  Gospel,  but 
has,  nevertheless,  given  up  the  authenticity  of  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  speeches,  and  main- 
tains that  the  Evangelist  at  a later  period,  on 
account  of  an  overflow  of  his  subjectivity,  gave 
his  own  thoughts  as  those  of  the  Redeemer.  This 
question  does  not  admit  of  a brief  solution  ; there- 
fore, consult  a full  discussion  of  the  subject  in 
Tholuck’s  Glaubw'urdigkeit  der  evangelischen 
Geschichte , 2nd  edit.  p.  314,  sq.  We  here  direct 
attention  only  to  the  following  particulars.  The 
gentle  and  feminine  character  of  the  disciple 
allows  us  to  suppose  that,  to  a certain  degree,  he 
adopted  as  his  own  the  expressions  of  the  Re- 
deemer, and,  consequently,  that  many  terms  in 
which  the  Epistles  agree  with  the  Gospel  did  not 
originate  with  the  disciple,  but  with  Christ  him- 
self. We  find  an  example  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  disciple  adopted  the  expressions  of  his 
Master  in  John  xii.  43,  compared  with  v.  41-44. 
We  do  not  deny  that  the  formation  of  sentences 
and  expressions  is  considerably  influenced  by  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  disciple,  but  with  regard 
to  the  particular  contents  of  the  speeches,  we 
see  no  reason  why  we  should  doubt  their  au- 
thenticity. Strauss  himself  makes  a concession 
from  which  much  results,  namely,  that  the  most 
characteristic  speeches  in  John  are  those  in  which 
occur  the  antitheses  of  aap£  and  7 vvevpa,  fcsh  and 
spirit , (poos  and  ck6tos , light  and  dark?iess,  £wf) 
and  davaros,  life  and  death , &voo  and  /cdrcv,  above 
and  beloio;  and  also  the  mystical  expressions  of 
tzpros  rrjs  bread  of  life , vdcop  £00 v,  living 

water.  These  terms  are  even  by  Strauss  (vol.  i. 
p.  176)  considered  to  be  parts  of  the  original 
speeches  of  Christ,  and  he  asserts  that  the  evan- 
gelist only  developed  them  in  thS  style  of  the 
Alexandrian  writers. 

It.  must  be  granted  that  the  peculiarities  of 
John’s  Gospel  more  especially  consist  in  the  four 
following  doctrines. 

1 . That  of  the  mystical  relation  of  the  Son  to 
the  Father. 

2.  That  of  the  mystical  relation  of  the  Redeemer 
to  believers. 

3.  The  announcement  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
the  Comforter. 

4.  The  peculiar  importance  ascribed  to  Love. 

Although  there  can  be  shown  in  the  writings  of 

the  other  evangelists  some  isolated  dicta  of  the 
Lord,  which  seem  to  bear  the  impress  of  John,  it 
can  also  be  shown  that  they  contain  thoughts  not 
originating  with  that  disciple,  but  with  the  Lord 
himself.  Matthew  (xi.  27)  speaks  of  the  relation 
of  the  Son  to  the  Father  so  entirely  in  the  style 
of  John  that  persons  not  sufficiently  versed  in  ; 
Holy  Writ  are  apt  to  search  for  this  passage  in 
the  Gospel  of  John.  The  mystical  union  of  the 
Son  with  believers  is  expressed  in  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 
The  promise  of  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
order  to  perfect  the  disciples  is  foun  1 in  Luks 
xxiv.  49.  The  doctrine  of  Paul  with  respect  U» 


JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 

love,  in  l Cor.  xiii.,  entirely  resembles  wnat,  ac- 
cording V o John,  Christ  taught  on  the  same  subject. 
Paul  here  deserves  our  particular  attention,  in 
the  writings  of  Paul  are  found  Christian  truths 
which  have  their  points  of  coalescence  only  in 
John,  viz.,  that  Christ  is  E ikiou  tov  &eov  rod 
aopdrov,  the  image  of  the  invisible  Gocl,  by  whom 
all  things  are  created  (Col.  i.  15,  16).  Paul 
considers  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  church,  the 
spiritual  Christ , as  Jesus  himself  does  (John  xiv. 
16),  frequently  using  the  words  eTvat  eV  Xpiarcp. 

That  the  speeches  of  Christ  have  been  faithfully 
reported  may  be  seen  by  a comparison  of  the 
speeches  of  the  Baptist  in  the  Gospel  of  John. 
The  Baptist’s  speeches  bear  an  entirely  Old  Test- 
ament character  : they  are  full  of  gnomes,  allu- 
sions to  the  Old  Testament,  and  sententious 
expressions  (John  iii.  27-30  ; i.  26-36). 

b.  The  purport  and  plan  of  the  Gospel  of 
John. — We  have  already  given  our  own  opinion 
on  this  subject.  Most  of  the  earlier  critics 
considered  the  Gospel  of  John  to  have  had  a 
polemico-dogmatical  purport.  According  to  Ire- 
naeus  ( Adv . Hcer.  iii.  12),  John  wrote  with  the 
intention  of  combating  the  errors  of  Cerinthus 
the  Gnostic.  Grotius,  Herder,  and  others  sup- 
pose that  the  polemics  of  the  evangelist  were 
directed  against  the  Zabii,  or  disciples  of  John  the 
Baptist.  Michaelis,  Storr,  and  Hug  assert  that 
they  were  directed  against  both  the  Zabii  and  the 
Gnostics.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  evan- 
gelist had  in  view,  both  in  his  Prologus  and  also 
in  cb.  xix.  34,  35,  some  heretical  opinions  of 
those  times,  but  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  this 
is  the  case  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Gospel. 
He  himself  states  (xx.  31)  that  his  work  had  a 
more  general  object. 

One  of  the  peculiarities  of  John  is  that,  in 
speaking  of  the  adversaries  of  Jesus,  he  always 
calls  them  ot  'lovddioi.  This  observation  has,  in 
modern  times,  given  rise  to  a peculiar  opinion 
concerning  the  plan  of  John’s  Gospel ; namely, 
that  the  evangelist  has,  from  the  very  beginning  of 
the  Gospel,  the  following  theme  before  his  eyes  : — 
the  eternal  combat  between  divine  light 

AND  THE  CORRUPTION  OK  MANKIND,  EXEM- 
PLIFIED BY  THE  MUTUAL  OPPOSITION  SUB- 
SISTING BETWEEN  THE  HOSTILE  JEWISH  PARTY 
AND  THE  MANIFESTATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  God, 
WHICH  COMBAT  TERMINATES  IN  THE  VICTORY 
OF  LIGHT. 

The  Prologus  of  the  Gospel  of  John  expresses 
this  theme  in  speaking  of  the  opposition  of  the 
world  to  the  incarnate  Logos.  This  theme  is 
here  expressed  in  the  same  manner  as  the  lead- 
ing idea  of  a musical  composition  is  expressed 
in  the  overture.  As  the  leading  idea  of  the 
whole  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  contained  in  ch.  i. 
17,  so  the  theme  of  the  Gospel  of  John  is  con- 
tained in  ch.  i.  11-13.  The  Gospel  is  divided 
into  two  principal  sections.  The  first  extends  to 
ch.  xii.  It  comprehends  the  public  functions  of 
Jesus,  and  terminates  with  a brief  summary  (ver. 
44-50).  The  second  section  contains  the  history 
of  the  Passion  and  of  the  Resurrection.  The 
-eader  is  prepared  for  this  section  by  ch.  xii.  23- 
32.  The  leading  idea  of  this  speech  is,  that 
Destruction  is  necessary,  because  without  it  there 
can  be  no  Resurrection. 

With  ch.  xiii.  begins  the  history  of  our  Lord’s 
Passion.  In  the  third  verse  the  apostle  directs  at- 


JOIIN  THE  APOSTLE.  133 

tention  to  the  fact  that  the  suffering  would  finally 
lead  to  glory. 

I’d  the  first  section  is  described  how  ihe  oppo- 
sition of  tne  influential  men  among  the  Jews  was 
gradually  increased  until  the  decisive  fact  of  tlys 
resurrection  of  Lazarus  led  to  a public  outburst 
of  their  hatred.  This  description  terminates  with 
the  official  decree  of  Caiaphas  (xi:  49,  50). 

c.  The  place , time,  and  language  in  which 
John’s  Gospel  was  written. — The  Fathers  supposed 
that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  written  at  Ephesus. 
The  author  of  a synopsis  annexed  to  the  works  of 
Athanasius  makes  an  observation  which  deserves 
to  be  noticed  on  account  of  the  assurance  with 
which  it  is  advanced.  It  is,  that  John  wrote  the 
Gospel  which  bears  his  name  in  Patmos,  but  that 
it  was  edited  by  the  same  Gaius  whom  Paul  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans  calls  6 £4vos  pov,  mine 
host  (Athanasii  Opera,  vol.  ii.  p.  155,  Venet.).  One 
jmight  be  inclined  to  explain  by  this  circumstance 
the  postscript  contained  in  John  xxi.  24,  25. 

There  is  some  internal  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
statement  that  this  Gospel  was  written  at  Ephesus 
— namely,  that  the  author  sometimes  alludes  to 
the  tenets  of  Hellenistic  theosophy,  and  that  he 
has  in  view  readers  who  do  not  live  in  Palestine 
(John  ii.  6,  13  ; iv.  9 ; v.  1,  2).  .In  addition  to 
this  must  be  mentioned  the  command  of  the 
Hellenistic  Greek  evinced  by  the  writer.  It  is, 
however,  not  unlikely  that  John  acquired  his 
knowledge  of  Greek  in  his  native  country.  The 
researches  of  Dr.  Paulus,  Hug,  and  Credner,  have 
rendered  it  highly  probable  that  the  knowledge 
of  Greek  was  then  widely  spread  in  Palestine, 
Even  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  although  he 
never  left  his  native  country,  writes  in  his  epistle 
tolerably  good  Greek. 

The  language  of  John's  Gospel  is  not  very 
periodic,  but  moves  uniformly  on  between  the 
particles  54  and  ovy.  For  instance,  in  chapter 
xix.  the  particle  ovv  occurs  at  the  commencement 
of  verses  20,  21, 23, 24  twice,  26,  29,  30,  31, 32,  38, 
40,  42.  Quite  as  frequent  is  the  simple  connec- 
tion by  the  conjunction  nal  (iii.  14;  v.  27;  viii. 
21,  49;  xvii.  11).  This  defect  of  style  may, 
however,  be  explained  by  the  mental  charac- 
teristics of  the  disciple.  John's  mind  was  defi- 
cient in  the  dialectic  element;  he  wanted  the 
logical  acuteness  of  Paul.  Even  where  he  reports 
the  speeches  of  Christ,  we  often  find  a want  of 
precision  in  his  representation.  The  simplicity 
of  John's  character  is  also  evinced  by  the  repe- 
tition of  certain  leading  thoughts,  reproduced  in 
the  same  words  both  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the 
Epistles  ; such  as  paprvpia,  testimony ; 5o£a, 
glory ; truth  ; <j bus,  light ; ck6tos,  dark- 

ness ; (cor)  aldvios,  eternal  life;  peyeiv,  to  abide. 
Although  the  language  of  the  Gospels  and  of  the 
Epistles  is  not  so  excellent  as  Eusebius  asserts,  we 
find  only  such  impurities  as  belong  to  the  Alex- 
andrine Greek  in  general.  For  instance,  the 
barbarism  c'yyooKay  in  xvii.  7 ; and  according  to 
the  codex  ad.,  also  ecopaKav  in  verse  6;  and 
according  to  some  manuscripts  instead 

of  e?xov ; and  in  xvi.  20,  22,  xap'fio'opai,  instead 
of  xapH- 

d.  The  interpreters  of  the  Gospel  of  John . 
— Among  the  ancient  commentators  upon  Jrhn’g 
Gospel,  Chrysostom  deserves  the  first  place.  The 
turn  compilers,  Theophylact,  who  died  a.d.  1107, 
and  Euthymius  Zigabenus,  who  died  after  a.d. 


134 


JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 


JOHN  THE  APOSTLE. 


1118,  are  also  worthy  of  notice.  Among  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  interpreters,  Maldonatus,  who  died 
hi  1583,  is  distinguished  by  originality  and  ac- 
curacy. Calvin  is  distinguished  above  the  other 
Reformers  for  the  originality  and  ease  of  his  in- 
terpretation, but  his  commentary  on  the  Epistles 
is  more  carefully  worked  out  than  that  on  the 
Gospel.  Beza  is  characterized'  by  philological 
and  critical  learning.  The  most  complete  con> 
mentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  is  ihat  of  Lampe, 
Commentarius  Exegetico-Analyticus  in  Evange- 
liurn  Johannis , Amstelodami,  1637,  3 vols.  4to. 
Tiie  style  of  this  commentary  is  tasteless  and 
stiff,  but  in  learning  the  author  has  not  been  sur- 
passed by  any  other  interpreter.  Liicke  (3rd  ed. 
1840)  is  the  most  comprehensive  of  the  modern 
commentators.  Shorter  commentaries  have  been 
written  by  Tholuck*  (5th  ed.),  by  Olshausen  (3rd 
ed.  1832),  and  by  De  Wette  (2nd  ed.  1839). 

As  introductions  to  the  study  of  the  writings 
of  John,  we  may  mention  Frommann’s  Johan- 
neischer  Lehrbegriff,  1831,  and  Neander’s  Abriss 
der  Johanneischen  Lehre  in  his  Geschichte  der 
Pfianzung  der  Christlicken  Kirche  (3rd  ed.  1841, 
p.  757,  sq.). 

III.  The  Epistles  of  John. — For  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  first  epistle  very  ancient  testimony 
may  be  adduced.  Papias,  the  disciple  of  John, 
quotes  some  passages  from  it.  Polycarp,  also, 
another  disciple  of  John,  quotes  a passage  from 
this  epistle  ( ad  Philipp .,  c.  7).  So,  also,  Irenaeus 
( Adv . Hcer.  iii.  16  ; v.  8). 

The  author  of  the  first  epistle  describes  him- 
self, at  its  commencement,  as  an  eye-witness  of 
the  life  of  our  Lord.  The  style  and  language 
manifestly  harmonize  with  those  of  the  author  of 
the  Gospel  of  John.  The  polemics,  also,  which 
in  ch.  ii.  18-26,  are  directed  against  the  Docetic 
Gnostics,  in  ch.  iv.  1-3,  agree  with  the  sphere  of 
action  in  Asia  Minor  in  which  the  Evangelist 
John  was  placed.  We  may,  therefore,  suppose 
that  the  epistle  was  written  to  Christian  congrega- 
tions in  Asia  Minor,  which  were  placed  under 
the  spiritual  care  of  the  apostle.  It  is  generally 
admitted  that  ch.  i.  2 refers  to  the  Gospel.  If 
this  is  correct,  the  apostle  wrote  this  epistle  at 
a very  advanced  age,  after  he  had  written  his 
gospel.  The  epistle  breathes  love  and  devotion, 
but  also  zeal  for  moral  strictness  (iii.  6-8;  v.  16). 
There  is  a remarkable  absence  of  logical  con- 
nection in  the  form  of  separate  expressions,  and 
in  the  transitions  from  one  thought  to  another. 
Some  writers  have  been  inclined  to  find  a reason 
for  this  in  the  advanced  age  of  the  writer.  Old 
age  may,  perhaps,  have  contributed  to  this  charac- 
teristic, but  it  is  chiefly  attributable  to  the  mental 
peculiarity  of  the  apostle. 

Eusebius  places  the  second  and  third  epistles 
of  John  among  the  avTiKcyogiva  (Hist.  Eccles. 
iii.  25).  These  two  epistles  were  originally 
wanting  in  the  ancient  Syriac  translation.  From 
their  nature,  it  may  easily  be  explained  how  it 
happened  that  they  were  less  generally  known  in 
ancient  Christian  congregations,  and  that  the 
fathers  do  not  quote  them  so  often  as  other  parts 
of  Scripture,  since  they  are  very  short,  and  treat  of 
private  affairs.  The  private  nature  of  their  con- 

*  Of  this  admirable  commentary  there  exists 
an  English  translation  in  the  United  States,  of 
which  two  editions  have  been  published. — Ed. 


tents  removes  also  the  suspicion  that  they  could 
have  been  forged,  since  it  would  be  difficult  to 
discover  any  purpose  which  could  have  led  to 
such  a forgery.  The  passage  in  the  second  epistle, 
verse  1 1,  which  might  seem  to  have  some  doctrinal 
importance,  is  several  times  quoted  by  the  fathers , 
for  instance,  by  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Hcer.  i.  16.  3).  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus,  who,  according  to  Eusebyis 
and  Photius,  wrote  a commentary  on  all  the 
seven  Catholic  epistles,  mentions  several  genuine 
epistles  of  John.  Origen  speaks  doubtingly  about 
the  authenticity  of  the  second  and  third  epistles, 
and  states  that  they  were  not  generally  admitted 
to  be  genuine. 

The  second  epistle  is  addressed  to  a lady, 
called  K vpia,  which  name  frequently  occurs  in 
ancient  writers  as  that  of  a woman  (comp.  Liicke's 
Commentar,  p.  351). 

The  third  epistle  is  addressed  to  Gaius,  a 
person  otherwise  unknown.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  writer  of  this  epistle  calls  himself 
6 irpea^uTepos.  If  this  means  the  same  as  pre- 
sident , as  in  1 Pet.  v.  1,  it  is  surprising  that 
John  should  make  use  of  this  official  designation 
in  a private  letter,  and.  not  in  the  first  epistle, 
which  is  addressed  to  the  congregation.  If 
7r pecr^vTepos  is  here  used  in  the  signification  of 
old  man,  as  Paul  calls  himself  in  the  Epistle  to 
Philemon,  verse  9,  one  is  surprised  that  John 
should  not  have  chosen  the  clearer  expression,  6 
yepwv  or  6 7rpecr/3uT7js.  Some  writers  have  been 
inclined  to  ascribe  these  letters  to  the  presbyter 
John,  who  is  sometimes  spoken  of  in  the  ancient 
church,  and  to  whom  even  the  Apocalypse  has 
been  attributed;  but  if  the  presbyter  John  wrote 
these  epistles,  John’s  Gospel  also  must  be  ascribed 
to  the  same  person,  of  whom  otherwise  so  little 
is  known.  This,  however,  is  inadmissible.  The 
omission  of  the  title,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
first  epistle^  cannot  be  received  as  proof  thau 
irpecrfivTcpos,  in  the  second  and  third  epistles,  is 
not  to  be  taken  as  an  official  designation ; since, 
in  the  first  epistle,  there  is  no  inscription  at  all, 
which  in  itself  is  a rather  startling  circumstance. 
We  may  suppose  that  the  term  TrpeafSvTepos 
expressed  in  the  epistles  of  John  a degree  of 
friendliness,  and  was  chosen  on  account  of  the 
advanced  age  of  the  writer.  The  apostle  Paul, 
also,  in  his  friendly  letter  to  Philemon,  abstains 
from  the  title  Apostle.  The  circumstances  and 
events  in  the  church,  to  which  the  second  epistle 
alludes,  coincide  with  those  which  are  otherwise 
known  to  have  happened  in  John's  congregation. 
Here,  also,  are  allusions  to  the  dangers  arising 
from  the  Gnostic  heresy.  The  adjnonition,  in 
verse  10,  not  to  receive  such  heretics  as  Christian 
brethren,  agrees  with  the  ancient  tradition,  that 
John  made  haste  to  quit  a public  bath  after  Ce- 
rinthus  the  Gnostic  entered  it,  declaring  he  was 
afraid  the  building  would  fall  down. 

Rickli’s  Johannis  erster  Brief  erkldrt  und  an - 
gewendet  mit  historischem  vorbericht  und  er~ 
klarenden  Anmerkungen  (Lucerne,  1828) ; and 
Liicke's  Atislegung  (2nd  ed.  1836),  will  assist  in 
interpreting  the  first  Epistle  of  John. — A.  T. 

[In  the  English  language  there  are  several 
works  on  separate  portions  of  St.  John’s  Gospel ; 
but  the  only  one  on  the  whole  of  it  is  in  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Shepherd's  Notes  on  the  Gospels  and  Epistles 
of  St.  John,  4to.  1796;  and  the  only  separate 
work  on  the  Epistles  is  Hawkins’  Commentary 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

m the  ft  pis  ties  of  St.  John,  1808.  A translation 
of  Lucke’s  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  St. 
John  exists  in  the  Biblical  Cabinet,  vol.  xv.J 

JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF.  In  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  as  at  present  received  in  the 
universal  church,  there  are  three  Epistles  ascribed 
to  the  Apostle  St.  John,  although  none  of  them 
bears  his  name.  The  first  of  these  ranks  among 
the  homolog oumena,  respecting  which  no  doubts 
ever  existed ; the  two  latter  form  part  of  the 
antilegomena , or  controverted  books.  All  three 
are  included  in  the  catholic  Epistles  [Episti.es]. 

The  First  Epistle  was  known  to  Papias,  bishop 
of  Hieropolis  in  the  second  century,  who  was 
contemporary  with  the  followers  of  the  Apostles, 
and  who,  as  we  are  informed  by  Eusebius  (Hist. 
Eccles.  iii.  39).  ‘ made  use  of  testimonies  from  the 
First  Epistle  of  St.  John.’  Polycarp  also,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (ch.  vii.),  a work  which, 
as  Liicke  justly  observes,  cannot  be  proved  to  be 
either  spurious  or  interpolated,  has  the  following 
remarkable  passage,  which  seems  evidently  to 
refer  to  1 John  iv.  3 : 1 Every  one  who  does  not 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is 
antichrist.’  Irenseus  also,  the  disciple  of  Poly- 
carp, is  stated  by  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  v.  8), 
to  have  extracted  many  testimonies  from  it  (comp. 
Irenaeus,  Adv.  Hcer.  iii.  15.  5,  8,  with  1 John  ii. 
18  ; iv.  1,  3 ; v.  1).  Clement  of  Alexandria  also 
(Stromata,  ii.  389)  observes  that  John  in  his 
larger  Epistle  uses  the  words,  £ If  any  man  see 
his  brother  sin  a sin,’  Sic.  (1  John  v.  16).  Ter- 
tullian  expressly  cites  John  as  the  author  of  the 
passage,  ‘ Which  w6  have  heard,’  &c.  (1  John  i.  1); 
and  Orig-en  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  25)  observes, 

‘ He  [John]  has  also  left  us  an  Epistle  containing 
a very  few  orlxoi : it  may  be  also  a second  and 
third  are  from  him,  but  not  all  agree  that  they  are 
genuine ; but  both  together  do  not  contain  a hun- 
dred (Ttixoi  ;’  and  Eusebius  himself  observes  (iii. 
25)  that  ‘ John’s  First  Epistle  is  universally  ac- 
knowledged by  those  of  the  present  day  and  by 
the  ancients  ’ (see  also  iii.  26).  There  is  no  an- 
cient catalogue  which  does  not  include  the  First 
Epistle,  and  it  forms  a part  of  all  the  ancient 
versions,  including  the  Syriac,  a work  of  the 
second  century.  In  fact  the  only  persons  who 
appear  not  to  have  recognised  this  Epistle  are 
the  ancient  heretics,  the  Alogi  and  the  Marcion- 
ites,  the  latter  of  whom  were  acquainted  with 
none  of  the  writings  of  St.  John,  and  the  former 
rejected  them  all,  ascribing  them  to  Cerinthus, 
not  upon  critical,  but  purely  arbitrary  and  dog- 
matical grounds. 

Complete,  however,  as  is  the  external  evidence 
in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  John’s  First 
Epistle,  the  internal  is  no  less  conclusive.  This 
is  manifest  from  its  exact  resemblance  in  sub- 
stance, phraseology,  and  sentiment  to  the  Gospel 
of  St.  John,  leaving  no  doubt  that  both  these 
compositions  proceeded  at  least  from  one  and 
the  same  author  [John,  Gospee  of].  Indeed, 
this  harmony  of  the  two  compositions  has  been 
acknowledged  by  critics  of  every  school,  while 
the  allusions  are  so  natural  and  incidental  as 
to  preclude  the  idea  of  the  Enistle  being  the 
production  of  a more  modern  imitator  of  the 
style  of  St.  John  (Eichhorn’s  Introduction).  De 
\yette  (Introduction)  furnishes  a host  of  pas- 
sages from  the  Gospel  and  Epistle,  which  will 
enable  the  reader  to  perceive  at  a glance  that 


L3J 

both  of  these  compositions  proceed  from  the  same 
author,  inasmuch  as  both  bear  ‘ the  most  certain 
stamp  of  relationship,  as  we'll  in  diction  as  in 
the  form  of  their  contents;  both  exercise  the  same 
spell  on  the  mind  of  the  reader.’  A few  German 
theologians  in  our  own  times  (Lange,  Schriften 
des  Joh.  iii.  4,  sq. ; Cludius,  Uransichten  des 
Christenth.  p.  52,  sq. ; Bretschneider,  Probdbilia, 
p.  166,  sq.)  have  been  the  first  critics  to  throw 
doubts  on  the  genuineness  of  any  of  John’s  writings, 
but  they  have  rnet  with  complete  refutations  from 
the  pens  of  Bertholdt  (vi.),  Harmsen  (Authent. 
de  Schr.  d.  Evangel . Johan),  and  Liicke  (Com- 
mentary on  the  Epistles  of  St.  John,  in  Bib.  Cab. 
vol.  xv.).  The  only  serious  objections  to  the 
Epistles  are  those  of  Bretschneider,  who  has 
equally  attacked  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel. 
He  maintains  that  the  doctrine  concerning  the 
logos,  and  the  anti-docetic  tendency  of  St.  John's 
First  Epistle,  betray  an  author  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, whom  he  assumes  to  be  John  the  Presbyter. 
But  it  is  beyond  all  question,  says  Liicke  (l.  c.), 
that  the  logos  doctrine  of  St.  John,  substantially, 
although  not  fully  developed,  existed  in  the  Jewish 
theological  notions  respecting  the  Son  of  God  ; and 
that  we  find  it  distinctly  expressed,  although  in 
different  words,  in  the  Pauline  representation  of 
Christ’s  exalted  dignity  (Coloss.  i.  comp,  with 
Heb.  1) ; that  the  rudiments  of  it  appear  in  the 
literature  of  the  Jews,  canonical  and  apocryphal, 
Chaldaic  and  Alexandrian ; that  in  the  time  'of 
Christ  it  was  considerably  developed  in  the 
writings  of  Philo,  and  still  more  strongly  in  the 
fathers  of  the  second  century,  who  were  so  far 
from  retaining  the  simple,  Hebraizing,  and  ca- 
nonical mode  of  expression  peculiar  to  John,  that 
in  them  it  had  assumed  a gnostically  erudite 
form,  although  essentially  identical.  St.  John 
intends  by  the  Word  (logos)  to  express  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ,  but  the  patristic  logology  at- 
tempts to  determine  the  relation  between  the  logos 
and  the  invisible  God  on  one  side,  and  the  world 
on  the  other.  The  earliest  fathers,  as  Justin 
Martyr  and  Tatian,  while  they  make  use  of  John’s 
phraseology,  further  support,  their  doctrines  by 
ecclesiastical  tradition,  which,  as  Liicke  observes, 
must  have  its  root  in  doctrines  which  were  known 
in  the  first  century.  But  from  Theophilus  of 
Antioch  downwards,  the  fathers,  mentioning  John 
by  name,  expressly  connect  their  elucidations 
with  the  canonical  foundation  in  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John,  without  the  granting  of  which  the  lan- 
guage of  Justin  would  be  inexplicable  (Olshausen, 
On  the  Genuineness  of  the  Four  Gospels,  p.  306, 
sq.).  Accordingly,  adds  Liicke,  on  this  side,  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  remains 
unassailable. 

On  similar  grounds  may  be  refuted  Bretschnei- 
der’s  arguments,  derived  from  the  anti-docetic  cha- 
racter of  John's  Epistle.  It  is  true,  docetism,  or 
the  idealistic  philosophy,  was  not  fully  developed 
before  the  second  century ; but  its  germ  existed 
before  the  time  of  Christ,  as  has  been  shown 
by  Mosheim,  Walch,  and  Niemeyer.  Traces  of 
Jewish  theology  and  Oriental  theosophy  having 
been  applied  to  the  Christian  doctrine  in  the 
apostolic  age,  are  to  be  found  in  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul,  and  it  would  be  unaccountable  to 
suppose  that  the  fully  developed  docetism  should 
have  first  made  its  appearance  in  the  Epistles  of 
Irenaeus  and  Polycarp.  We  have  the  authority 


136  JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

of  the  former  of  these  for  the  fact,  that  Cerinthus 
taught  the  docetic  heresy  in  the  lifetime  of  St.  John, 
in  the  simple  form  in  which  it  seems  to  be  at- 
tacked in  1 John  iv.  1-3  ; ii.  22 ; 2 John  7. 

These  attacks  of  modern  writers  are  said  to 
nave  been  made  rather  by  way  of  experiment  than 
with  any  serious  view  of  undermining  the  genuine- 
ness of  John’s  writings ; and  Liicke  concludes  his 
masterly  reply  to  Bretschneider  in  these  words  : 

' We  honour  and  respect  the  unprejudiced  divine, 
whose  modest  doubts  will  ever  have  the  merit 
of  having  promoted  once  more  the  scientific  ap- 
preciation and  established  certainty  respecting 
the  genuineness  and  canonical  dignity  of  such  a 
noble  portion  of  the  apostolical  literature  * ( Intro- 
duction to  Comment.). 

Time  and  place  of  writing  the  First  Epistle. — 
On  this  head  nothing  certain  can  be  determined. 
It  has  been  conjectured  by  many  interpreters, 
ancient  and  modern,  that  it  was  written  at  the 
same  place  as  the  Gospel.  The  more  ancient 
tradition  places  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  at 
Ephesus,  and  a less  authentic  report  refers  it  to 
the  island  of  Patmos.  Hug  ( Introduction ) infers, 
from  the  absence  of  writing  materials  (3  John  13), 
that  all  John’s  Epistles  were  composed  at  Pat- 
mos ! The  most  probable  opinion  is  that  it  was 
written  somewhere  in  Asia  Minor,  in  which  was 
the  ordinary  residence  of  the  Apostle  (Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  23),  perhaps,  according  to  the 
tradition  of  the  Greek  church,  at  Ephesus ; but 
for  this  we  have  no  historical  warrant  (Liicke’s 
Commentary). 

It  is  equally  difficult  to  determine  the  time 
of  the  writing  of  this  Epistle,  although  it  was 
most  probably  posterior  to  the  Gospel,  which 
seems  to  be  referred  to  in  1 John  i.  4.  Some  are 
of  opinion  that  the  Epistle  was  an  envelope  or 
accompaniment  to  the  Gospel,’  and  that  they 
were  consequently  written  nearly  simultaneously 
(Hug’s  Introd.).  As,  however,  the  period  when 
the  Gospel  was  written,  according  to  the  evidence 
of  tradition  and  criticism,  ‘ fluctuates  between 
the  sixth  and  ninth  decennium  of  the  first  cen- 
tury ’ (LUcke’s  Comment.),  we  are  at  a loss 
for  data  oft  which  to  found  any  probable  hypo- 
thesis respecting  the  exact  time  of  the  writing  of 
the  Epistle  ; but  that  it  was  posterior  to  the  Gospel 
is  further  rendered  probable  from  the  fact  that  it 
is  formed  on  such  a view  of  the  person  of  Jesus 
as  is  found  only  in  St.  John’s  Gospel,  and  that  it 
abounds  in  allusions  to  the  speeches  of  Jesus,  as 
there  recorded.  Liicke  concludes,  from  its  re- 
sembling the  Gospel  in  its  apologetical  and  po- 
lemical allusions,  that  it  indicates  such  a state 
of  the  Christian  community  as  proves  that  it 
must  be  posterior  even  to  the  last  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  and  consequently  that  the  ancient  church 
was  justified  in  classing  it  among  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  which  all  bear  this  chronological  cha- 
racter. 

It  has  been  argued  by  several,  from  ch.  ii.  18 
(eVxaT77  lapa  icrrlv),  that  the  Epistle  was  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ; while  others, 
founding  their  conjecture  on  the  same  passage, 
maintain  the  very  reverse.  Among  the  former 
are  to  be  found  the  names  of  Hammond,  Grotius, 
Calovius,  Lange,  and  Haenlein ; and  among  the 
latter  those  of  Baron i us,  Basnage,  Mill,  and  Le 
Cl  ere. 

Equally  unsatisfactory  is  the  argument,  in  re- 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

spect  to  the  time  when  this  Epistle  was  written, 
derived  from  its  supposed  senile  tone  [John]  ) 
for,  although  the  style  is  somewhat,  more  tauto- 
logical than  the  Gospel,  this  can  be  accounted' 
for  by  its  epistolary  character,  without  ascribing 
it  to  the  effects  of  senile  forgetfulness.  In  fact 
this  character  is  altogether  denied  by  some  of  the 
ablest  critics. 

It  is  equally  difficult  to  determine  who  were 
the  persons  to  whom  the  Epistle  was  addressed. 
Jn  ancient  Latin  manuscripts  of  the  Scriptures 
it  frequently  bears  the  subscription  ‘ ad  Par - 
thos.'  This  title  is  also  given  to  it  by  St.  Au- 
gustine ; but  there  is  no  authority  for  supposing 
that.  John  ever  went  on  a mission  to  the  Par- 
thians.  Various  conjectures,  more  or  less  happy, 
have  been  made  to  account  for  this  inscription. 
Whiston  ( Comment . on  the  Three  Cath.  Epist.) 
supposes  that  the  true  superscription  was  irphs 
irapQevovs,  to  the  virgins  (the  uncorrupted),  and 
that  irapQevovs  gave  rise  to  the  Latin  reading, 
Parthos.  This  conjecture  has  been  improved 
by  Hug  ( Introd.),  who  observes  that  the  second 
Epistle,  addressed  to  the  ‘ elect  lady,’  is  called 
by  some  of  the  ancients,  including  Clem.  Alex. 
(Frag.  ed.  Potter,  p.  1011),  ‘Epist..  ad  Vir- 
gines,’  -jrpbs  7 rapOtrovs ; that  this  phrase,  in  an 
abridged  form,  ‘ 7 rpbs  iraodovs,'  occurred  as  a 
colophon  to  the  Second  Epistle,  and  that  this 
colophon  sometimes  appearing  as  a superscription 
to  the  Second  Epistle,  to  which  it  seemed  unsuit- 
able, it  was  transferred  as  a colophon  to  the  First. 
Wegscheider  ingeniously  conjectures  that  ‘ ad 
Parthos  ’ was  a mistake  for  ‘ad  Sparsos,’  and  ob- 
serves that  in  one  ancient  MS.  (which,  however, 
he  unfortunately  does  not  particularize),  it  is  both 
superscribed  and  subscribed  7r pbs  robs  diacrirapoa- 
pevovs,  ‘ to  the  dispersed.’  This  conjecture  is 
further  favoured  by  the  corruption  ‘ ad  Sparlos,’ 
which  appears  in  a Latin  Bible  in  the  Geneva 
Library,  of  the  eleventh  century.  Scholz  observes 
that  ‘ ad  Sparsos ' occurs  in  a great  number  of 
MSS.  Various,  indeed,  have  been  the  hypotheses 
regarding  the  persons  to  whom  this  Epistle  was 
written,  but  it  is  by  no  means  improbable,  from 
the  absence  of  Old  Testament  references,  that  it 
was  addressed  to  Gentile  converts,  of  which  there 
were  several  congregations  in  Asia  Minor,  where 
John  exercised  his  apostolic  and  episcopal  func- 
tions. If  we  are  to  understand  the  term  catholic, 
as  applied  to  this  Epistle,  in  the  sense  of  circular, 
we  may  naturally  infer,  from  the  absence  of  the 
epistolary  form,  that  this  was  an  encyclical  let-ter 
addressed  to  several  of  John’s  congregations,  and 
in  all  probability  lo  the  churches  of  the  Ajro- 
calypse  [Epistles]. 

Object' and  design. — The  main  object  and  de- 
sign of  this  Epistle  has  been  generally  perceived 
to  consist  in  the  refutation  of  certain  errors  and 
heresies  in  the  churches  subject  to  St.  John’s 
episcopate.  But  opinions  are  divided  as  to  who 
the  teachers  of  these  heresies  were,  whether  Jews, 
Ebionites,  Gnostics,  Docetae,  Cerinthus  and  his 
followers,  or  finally  the  disciples  of  John  the 
Baptist.  This  polemical  object  appears,  how 
ever,  to  form  but  a secondary  part  of  the  design 
of  John,  his  main  object  being  rather  to  enforce 
the  necessity  of  progressive  sanctification,  ge- 
nuine brotherly  love,  and  the  renunciation  of  the 
■world.  The  design  of  the  Epistle  is  didactic 
rather  than  polemical;  and  the  Apostle  shows 


137 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

<hat  the  great  aim  of  the  Christian  is  to  over- 
come the  world:  in  • corroboration  of  which  he 
appeals  to  the  threefold  testimony  in  its  favour, 
showing  that  those  who  receive  the  witness  of  man 
should  still  more  receive  the  witness  of  God  (1 
John  v.  8,  9).  The  problem  of  the  Christian  life 
is  thus  by  faith  and  love  to  overcome  the  infidel 
and  antichristian  world,  whether  Jewish  or  pagan, 
which  is  using  both  violence  and  stratagem  to 
destroy  the  Christian  faith.  The  Ebionites,  or 
Judaizing  Christians,  recognized  only  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  and  in  their  rigid  monotheism 
could  not  lift  up  their  minds  to  the  divinity  of 
the  heavenly  logos  manifested  in  Christ;  while 
Cerinthus  denied  his  humanity,  reducing  it  to  a 
mere  docctism  or  appearance.  Against  both  these 
errors  the  polemical  portion  of  the  Epistle  seems 
to  be  addressed. 

Another  portion  of  this  Epistle  seems  directed 
against  a certain  class  of  antinomian  Christians, 
who  perverted  Christian  liberty  into  antichristian 
licentiousness  and  libertinism,  and  decided  what 
was  sinful  or  otherwise,  not  according  to  the  posi- 
tive law  of  God,  but  by  their  own  internal  feel- 
ings— thus  confounding  light  and  darkness,  God 
and  the  world.  This  vital  error  was  rather  to  be 
found  among  the  heathen  than  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, and  was  probably  founded  on  a perversion 
of  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 

Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  the  supposed 
senile  and  incoherent  character  of  the  epistle. 
Llicke,  who  in  his  Commentary  has  given  a 
copious  analysis  of  its  contents,  rejects  this  sup- 
position. Its  grace  and  cordiality,  adds  this  able 
and  discriminating  writer,  its  depth  and  simpli- 
city ; in  spite  of  this'simplieity,  so  much  freshness ; 
in  spite  of  obscurity  in  particulars.,  so  great  per- 
spicuity in  the  whole;  in  spite  of  apparent  dis- 
order and  abruptness,  so  much  of  internal  order 
and  connection ; in  spite  of  explicitness  in  the 
prevailing  ideas,  so  much  of  slight  allusions  and 
touches  on  truths  that  have  been  expressed ; and 
then,  above  all,  this  elevated  and  pure  light  and 
love-image  of  Christianity — all  this  has,  from 
the  earliest  ages,  had  such  an  enchanting  effect 
on  all  nobler  minds,  as  to  make  this  epistle  a 
favourite  book,  especially  with  those  who  more 
particularly  take  up  Christianity  as  a religion 
of  love,  a religion  of  the  heart — who  seek  no 
light  without  warmth,  no  faith  and  no  know- 
ledge without  love  and  deed,  and  who  endeavour 
to  render  the  communion  with  the  Redeemer 
effective  in  the  love  of  their  brother.  See  Augus- 
tine, Tractat.  x.  in  Ep.  Johannis  ad  Parthos. 
Luther’s  Zwiefache  Ausleg.  ed.  Walch.  vol.  ix. 
Bullinger,  In  Epist.  Joan . cum  brevi  et  catholica 
Exposit.  Episcopius,  Lectt.  Sacr.  Whiston’s 
Commentary  on  the  3 Cath.  Epist.  of  St.  John. 
Morius,  Pnelect.  Exiget.  Lange,  Die  Schriften 
des  John.  Liicke  Commentary  and  Biblical 
Cabinet  (ut  supra.) 

There  has  been  no  subject  connected  with 
Biblical  literature  which  has  attracted  more  at- 
tention than  this  epistle,  in  consequence  of  the 
controversies  which  have  existed  since  the  com- 
mencement of  the  sixteenth  century,  respecting 
the  once  contested  but  now  rejected  passage  in 
1 John  v.  7,  8.  Of  its  literary  history  we  shall 
cere  present  our  readers  with  a brief  sketch. 

In  all  the  first  printed  Bibles,  which  were  those 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  as  amended  by  Jerome, 
the  clause  appeared  in  the  following  form  : — ‘ Kt 
spijitus  est  qui  testification  quoniam  Chrislus  est 
veritas.  Quoniam  ties  sunt  qui  testimonium 
dant  [in  carlo,  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spi  lit  us  Sanctus, 
et  hi  ties  unum  sunt ; et  ties  sunt  qui  testimonium 
dant  in  terra.]  spiritus,  aqua  et  sanguis,  et  tres 
unum  sunt’  (Ed.  Princeps,  1462)  (And  it  is 
the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness,  because  Christ  is 
truth.  For  there  are  three  which  bear  witness  [in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  these  three  are  one;  and  there  are 
three  which  bear  witness  in  earth],  the  Spirit,  and 
the  Water,  and  the  Blood,  ana  these  three  are 
one).  Such  was  also  the  form  of  the  clause 
in  the  great  majority  of  manuscripts  of  the  Vul- 
gate. It  may  therefore  be  considered  as  the 
generally  received  form  at  that  period.  But  when 
the  first  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  appeared, 
which  was  that  of  Erasmus,  published  at  Basle 
in  1516,  the  part  of  the  clause  which  we  have 
placed  within  brackets  (that  referring  to  the  three 
heavenly  witnesses)  was  wanting!  and  the  clause 
appeared  in  the  following  seemingly  mutilated 
form  : — Kal  rb  irvtvpd  tan  rb  paprvpovv,  on  t o 
7r  v e v p a ioriv  7]  aA-ftOtia'  on  rpds  daw  o;  pap- 
rvpovvrts,  rb  ivvtvpa,  /cal  rb  vScop,  /cal  rb  aipa, 
/cal  cl  rpds  eis  rb  tv  daw.  ‘ And  it  is  lire 
Spirit  which  beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit 
is. truth.  For  there  are  three  which  bear  witness, 
the  Spirit,  and  the  Water,  and  the  Blood,  anil 
these  three  agree  in  one.’  Hence  arose  the  li- 
terary controversy  respecting  the  genuineness  of 
the  clause,  which  has  continued  with  more  or 
less  of  asperity  to  our  own  times.  Erasmus  was 
attacked  by  Stunica,  one  of  the  editors  of  the 
Complutensian  Polyglott,  of  which  the  New 
Testament  in  Greek  and  Latin  had  been  printed 
in  1714  (and  consequently  before  the  appearance 
of  Erasmus's  edition),  although  not  published  until 
1522.  Erasmus  replied  to  Stunica  by  observing 
that  he  had  faithfully  followed  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts from  which  he  had  edited  his  text ; but  pro- 
fessed his  readiness  to  insert  the  clause  in  another 
edition,  provided  but  a single  Greek  manuscript 
was  found  to  contain  it.  Such  a manuscript  was 
found  in  England ; upon  which  Erasmus,  although 
entertaining  strong  suspicions  respecting  this  ma- 
nuscript, yet,  faithful  to  his  word,  inserted  the 
clause  in  his  third  edition,  which  was  published 
in  1522,  as  follows Kal  rb  irvtvpa  tan  rb 
paprvpovv,  on  rb  rrvtvpd  iarw  yj  b.XyOtia'  on 
rpds  daw  ol  paprvpovvrts  iv  tm  ovpavw,  irar^p, 
Aoyos,  Kal  irvtvpa  ay  lov,  Kal  ovroi  ol  rptis  tv  dot' 
Kal  rpds  tlalv  ol  paprvpovvrts  iv  rrj  yfj,  irvtvpa, 
Kal  v8a>p,  Kal  cupa,  Kal  ol  rptis  ds  rb  tv  daw.  El 
TTjv  paprvpiav , k.  t.  A.  ‘ And  it  is  the  Spirit  which 
beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit  is  truth.  For 
there  are  three  which  bear  witness  in  heaven, 
Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  these  three 
are  one  ; and  there  are  three  which  bear  witness 
in  earth,  Spirit,  and  Water,  and  Blood,  and  these 
three  agree  in  one.’ 

Indeed,  the  absence  of  the  article  from  the  six 
nouns  in  the  disputed  passage  in  this  pretended 
manuscript  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  excite  sus- 
picions of,  if  not  completely  to  overthrow,  its 
genuineness.  What  has  become  of  the  manu- 
script is  not  known ; but  it  is  generally  believed 
to  have  been  the  same  with  that  now  possessed  by 
the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  called  the 


1 3S  JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

Codex  Montfoi  tianus , or  Dublinensis,  in  which 
the  disputed  clause  thus  appears  : — Kal  rb  irvevpa 
4ari  rb  paprvpovv,  oti  6 Xpiarbs  eanv  a\i)dsia. 
rOn  rpeis  elaiv  oi  paprvpovvres  ev  rep  oi/pav<£,  ira- 
r}/p,  \6yos,  Kal  irvevpa  ayiov,  Kal  ovroi  ol  rpeis 
eV  elatv.  Kal  rpeis  elan/  ol  paprvpovvres  ev  rfj  yrj, 
vvevpa,  vScop,  Kal  alpa.  El  rijv,  k.t.  A.  ‘And  it 
is  the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness,  because  Christ  is 
truth.  For  there  are  three  which  bear  witness  in 
heaven,  Father,  W ord,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  these 
three  are  one;  and  there  are  three  which  bear  wit- 
ness in  earth,  Spirit,  Water,  and  Blood.  It’  we 
receive,  &c.’  (without  the  final  clause .)  The 
Dublin  manuscript  thus  differs  from  the  text  of 
Erasmus’s  third  edition  in  its  remarkable  omis- 
sion of  the  final  clause,  as  well  as  in  its  omission 
of  Kal  before  88 cop,  while  it  differs  still  more  from 
the  text  of  the  supposed  Codex  Britannicus , as 
described  by  Erasmus  himself,  when  he  observes 
( Annot . p.  697,  ed.  4)  : — ‘ Veruntamen,  ne  quid 
di3simulem,  repertus  est  apud  Anglos  Grsecus 
codex  unus,  in  quo  habetur  quod  in  Vulgatis 
deest;  scriptum  est  enim  in  hunc  modum — • 
on  rpeis  elaiv  ol  paprvpovvres  ev  rep  ovpavtp , 
irari]p,  \6yos,  Kal  irvevpa,  Kal  ovroi  ol  rpeis  ev 
elaiv  Kal  rpeis  elaiv  paprvpovvres  ev  rrj  yrj, 
r-vevpa,  vSwp.  Kal  alpa  e 1 s * rfyv  paprvpiav  rcbv 
dvQpdnrcov,  K.r.X.  ‘And  that  I may  not  dis- 
semble, there  has  been  discovered  one  manuscript 
in  England,  in  which  the  clause  is  found  which 
is  wanting  in  the  vulgar  text  of  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts; for  it  is  thus  written:  “For  there  are 
three  which  bear  witness  in  heaven,  Father,  Word, 
and  Spirit,  and  these  three  are  one ; and  there 
are  three  bearing  witness  on  earth,  Spirit,  Water, 
and  Blood,  into  * the  testimony  of  men,’’  ’ &c. ; 
while  on  another  occasion  he  observes  that  ‘ the 
British  MS.  had  ovroi  oi  rpeis  (these  three),  while 
the  Spanish  edition  had  only  Kal  oi  rpeis  (and  the 
three),  which  was  also  the  case  in  the  Spirit, 
Water,  and  Blood ; that  the  British  had  ev  iiai 
(are  one),  the  Spanish  els  rb  ev  elaiv  (agree  in 
one),  and  finally  that  the  British  added  to  the 
earthly  witnesses  Kal  ol  rpeis  els  rb  ev  elai  (and 
the  three  agree  in  one),  which  was  not  here 
added  in  the  Spanish  edition.’  The  Dublin 
manuscript  is  generally  ascribed  to  the  fifteenth 
or  sixteenth  century,  and  cannot  possibly  be 
older  than  the  thirteenth,  inasmuch  as  it  con- 
tains the  Latin  chapters,  which  belong  to  this 
century.  It  is  also  the  only  Greek  manuscript 
which  follows  the  Vulgate  in  reading  Xpiar6s  for 
irvevpa  in  the  6th,  and  &pev  for  iapev  in  the  20th 
verse  of  this  chapter.  It  reads,  however,  0e6s, 
where  the  Vulgate  reads  quod  (1  Tim.  iii.  16); 
which  shows  that  it  is  not  a servile  imitation  of 
that  version,  as  some  have  supposed.  The  clause 
has  been  also  found,  although  in  a form  still  more 
corrupt,  in  a manuscript  in  the  Vatican  (Cod. 
Ottobon.  298),  of  the  fifteenth  century,  first  col- 
lated by  Dr.  Scholz,  of  Bonn,  as  follows  : — "On 
rpeis  elaiv  ol  paprvpovvres  airb  rod  ovpavov,  irarrjp, 
\6yos , Kal  irvevpa  ayiov , Kal  ol  rpeis  els  rb  ev  elaiv 
Kal  rpeis  elaiv  ol  paprvpovvres  air b rrjs  yrjs,  rb 
irvevpa,  Kal  rb  vScop,  ical  rb  aipa.  El  rgv  paprvpiav , 
«f.r.  A.  ‘For  there  are  three  which  bear  witness 
from  heaven,  Father,  W ord,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and 
Hie  three  agree  in  one  ; and  there  are  three  which 


* This  is  probably  a misprint. 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF 

bear  witness  from  earth,  the  Spirit,  and  the  Water 
and  the  Blood.  If  we  receive,  &c.’  The  Latir 
Vulgate,  which  is  annexed,  also  omits  tt  b fina. 
clause  of  the  8th  verse  in  this  copy. 

Tne  above  is  the  amount  of  Greek  manuscript 
authority  for  this  celebrated  clause  ; for  althougn 
all  the  libraries  in  existence  have  been  examined, 
no  other  copy  has  been  found  which  contains  a 
vestige  of  it.*  Nor  has  it  been  once  cited  by  a 
single  Greek  father,  although  abundant  opportu- 
nities presented  tnemselves  for  introducing  it, 
which  they  could  not  have  failed  to  avail  them- 
selves of,  had  it  existed  in  their  copies;  but  they 
have  invariably  cited  the  passage  as  it  has  been 
preserved  in  all  the  ancient  manuscripts.  It 
found  its  way,  however,  into  the  received  text 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  having  been  copied  from 
Erasmus's  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  editions  (1522, 
1527,  and  1535),  with  more  or  less  of  variation, 
into  all  Stephens's  editions,  from  the  third  or  folio 
edition  of  which  it  was  adopted  by  Beza  in  all 
his  editions,  the  first  of  which  was  published  in 
1565,  and  again  by  Elzevir,  in  his  edition  of 
1624,  to  which  his  anonymous  editor  gave  the 
name  of  Textus  undique  receptus.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  form  which  it  finally  assumed  im these 
editions: — "On  rpeis  elaiv  oi  paprvpovvres  it 
rw  ovpavcp , 6 irar^p,  6 A 6yos.  Kal  rb  ayiov  irvevua’ 
Kal  ovroi  ol  rpeis  ev  elai’  8.  Kal  rpeis  elatv  ol  pap- 
rvpovvres ev  rrj  yrj,  rb  irvevpa,  Kal  rb  vScop,  ical  rb 
afua*  /cal  ol  rpeis  els  rb  ev  elaiv.  ‘ For  there 
are  three  which  bear  witness  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  these 
three  are  one  : and  there  are  three  which  beai 
witness  in  earth,  the  Spirit,  and  the  Water,  and 
the  Blood,  and  the  three  agree  in  one.’ 

The  earliest  Greek  form  in  which  the  disputed 
clause  is  found  is  contained  in  the  Latin  transla- 
tion of  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Lateran,  held 
in  1215,  viz.  : — "On  rpeis  elaiv  ol  paprvpovvres 
ev  ovpavcp , 6 i rarrjp,  hbyos,  Kal  irvevpa  ayiov'  Kal 
r ovr  o i ol  rpeis  ev  elatv,  icaQibs  Se  irpoarlOgas 

* * * * KaOcbs  ev  rial  KcoBrj^iv  evpianerat, 

‘ For  there  are  three  which  bear  witness  in  heaven, 
the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  these 
three  are  one;  and  it  is  immediately  added 

* * * * as  it  is  found  in  some  copies.’  The 
omitted  passages,  represented  by  the  asterisks,  are 
thus  supplied  in  the  original : — Statimque  sub- 
jungitur,  Et  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  hi 
terra,  spiritus,  aqua,  et  sanguis ; et  tres  unum  sunt ; 
sicut  in  codicibus  quibusdam  invenitur.  ‘And  it 
is  immediately  added,  and  there  are  three  which 
bear  witness  in  earth,  the  Spirit,  the  Water,  and 
the  Blood ; and  these  three  are  one,  as  is  found 
in  some  copies ;’  meaning  that  the  final  clause, 
et  hi  tres  unum  sunt  (and  these  three  are  one), 
is  found  in  some  copies  of  the  Latin  Vulgate. 

The  first  Greek  writer  who  absolutely  cites  any 
part  of  it  is  Manuel  Calecas,  a Dominican  monk 
of  the  fourteenth  century,  who  has  the  words — 
rpeis  elaiv  ol  paprvpovvres , 6 irarrjp,  6 A 6yos,  Kal 
rb  irvevpa  rb  ayiov.  ‘ There  are  three  which  bear 
witness,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 


* There  are  above  one  hundred  and  eighty 
Greek  manuscripts  of  this  Epistle,  known  to  exist 
in  various  libraries,  written  between  the  fifth  and 
fifteenth  centuries,  riot  one  of  which  contains  a 
vestige  of  the  disputed  clause. 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

Spirit;’  and  in  (lie  next  century  it  is  thus  cited 
by  Joseph  Bryennius,  a Greek  monk  : — Kal  rb 
rvevfid  ian  paprvpovv , Utl  6 X p i a r 6 s ianv  r] 
a\-{]0(ia.  lln  rpds  daiv  ol  paprvpovvres  iv  rep 
ovpavcp,  6 Trar^p,  & \6yos,  Kal  rb  Trvevpa  r b ay  10V 
Kal  ovroi  oi  rpeis  ev  (in.  Kal  rpds  deny  ol  pap- 
r vpovvres  i v rrj  yrj,  t£>  Trvevpa,  rb  vdcop,  ical  rb 
aTjua.  ‘ And  it  is  the  Spirit  whicli  beareth  witness, 
because  Christ  is  truth.  For  there  are  three  which 
bear  witness  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  these  three  are  one ; 
and  there  are  three  which  bear  witness  on  earth, 
the  Spirit,  the  Water,  and  the  Blood.’ 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  these  writers  all 
omit  the  final  clause  of  the  8th  verse,  contrary  to 
the  authority  of  all  the  Greek  manuscripts,  and 
in  this  they  were  followed  by  the  Complutensian 
editors,  whose  form  of  the  verse  we  have  not  before 
noticed,  as  it  does  not  appear  whether  they  had  any 
manuscript  authority  whatever  for  the  clause, 
which,  however,  they  inserted  in  their  splendid 
Polyglott  edition,  begun  in  1502,  finished  in 
1517,  but  not  published  until  1522,  wherein  it 
appears  in  the  following  form  : — Kal  rb  irvevpd 
iern  rb  paprvpovv,  on  rb  tvv  e v pd  ear iv  rj  aAr]- 
6eia.  on  rpds  (laiv  ol  paprvpovvres,  iv  rep  ovpavcp , 
b irar^p,  Kal  b A oyos,  Kal  rb  ayiov  it  vevpa'  Kal  o l 
rpeis  els  rb  ev  eiai.  Kal  rpeis  elaiv  ol  paprv- 
povvres eirl  rrj s y r/s,  rb  irvev/m,  Kal  rb  vS&op,  Kal 
rb  aipa.  E l rr\v  paprvplav,  k.  r.  A.  4 And  it  is  the 
Spirit  which  beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit 
is  truth.  For  there  are  three  which  bear  witness 
in  heaven,  the  Father,  and  the  Word,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  three  agree  in  one  (as  in 
Cod.  Ottob.)  ; and  there  are  three  which  hear 
witness  on  earth,  the  Spirit,  and  the  Water,  and 
the  Blood.  If  we  receive,  &c.’  These  editors 
have  thus  also  omitted  the  final  clause  of  the  8th 
verse,  as  well  in  the  Greek  as  in  their  edition  of 
the  Latin  Vulgate.  For  this  latter  omission  they 
had  the  authority  of  several  modern  manuscripts 
of  the  Vulgate,  and  of  the  Council  of  Laterau,  to 
which  they  add  in  a note  that  of  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas, who  had  charged  the  Arians  with  having 
forged  this  .final  clause,  which  had  been  inter- 
preted by  the  Abbot  Joachim  to  have  implied  a 
unity  of  love  and  consent  only,  and  not  of  essence. 

This  final  clause  of  the  8th  verse,  however,  exists 
in  all  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  written  before 
the  thirteenth  century,  and  in  the  printed  editions 
published  by  authority  of  the  Roman  See  since  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  have  hi  ties  unum  sunt. 

The  clause  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  is 
; also  absent  from  all  existing  manuscripts  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  written  between  the  eighth  and 
tenth  centuries,  anterior  to  which  date  there  is  no 
manuscript  of  this  version  now  in  existence,  con- 
taining the  Catholic  Epistles.  Nor  has  any  writer 
of  the  western  church  cited  the  passage  before 
Cassiodorus  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century, 
although  even  the  fact  of  his  having  done  so  is 
ioubted  by  Porson  (ut  infra').  There  is,  indeed, 
a preface  to  the  canonical  Epistles,  bearing  the 
name  of  St.  Jerome,  in  which  the  omission  of  this 
clause  is  ascribed  to  4 false  translators  but  this, 
as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  is  a forgery.  The  clause 
is  also  wanting  in  all  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Syriac,  Armenian,  and  other  ancient  versions. 

From  the  circumstance,  however,  of  the  clause 
In  question  hav^ig  been  cited  by  two  north-west 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF.  130 

African  writers  of  the  fifth  century — Vigilius, 
Bishop  of  Tbapsus  (the  supposed  author  of  the 
Athanasiau  Creed),  and  Victor  Vitensis,  the  his- 
torian of  the  Vandal  persecution — it  lias  been  fairly 
presumed  that  it  existed  in  their  time  in  some  of 
the  African  copies  of  the  old  Latin  version,  from 
whence,  or  from  the  citations  of  these  writers,  it 
may  have  found  its  way  into  the  later  manuscripts 
of  the  Vulgate.  It  is  thus  cited  by  Victor,  as 
contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  drawn  up 
by  Eugenius,  Bishop  of  Carthage  : — Ties  sunt  qui 
testimonium  perhibent  in  coelo,  Pater,  Verbum, 
et  Spiritus  Sanctus,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.  4 There 
are  three  which  furnish  testimony  in  heaven,  trie 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  these 
three  are  one.’  Vigilius,  however,  cites  it  in  so 
many  various  ways,  that  little  reliance  can  be 
placed  on  his  authority ; he  transposes  the  clauses 
thus: — 4 Johannes  Evangelista  ad  Parthos : tres 
sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  terra,  aqua, 
sanguis,  et  caro,  et  tres  in  nobis  sunt,  et  tres  sunt 
qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  ccelo,  Pater,  Verbum, 
et  Spiritus,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt  ’ (John  the  Evan- 
gelist to  the  Parthians : There  are  three  which 
furnish  testimony  in  earth,  the  Water,  the  Blood, 
and  the  Flesh,  and  the  three  are  in  us  ; and  there 
are  three  which  offer  testimony  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit,  and  these  three 
are  one).  Contra  Varimadum.  And  again, 4 Tres 
sunt  qui  testimonium  dicunt  in  ccelo,  Pater,  et 
Verbum,  et  Spiritus,  et  in  Christo  Jesu  unum 
sunt  ’ (There  are  three  which  speak  testimony  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit,  and 
the  three  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus).  After  this  it  is 
cited  by  St.  Fulgentius,  Bishop  of  Rusopa,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  but  omitted  in  the 
same  century  by  Facundus,  Bishop  of  Hermione 
from  which  it  is  at  least  evident  that  the  copies  in 
that  age  and  country  varied.  But,  at  a much 
earlier  period,  the  whole  clause  is  thus  cited  by 
St.  Augustine  of  Hippo  : — Tres  sunt  testes , Spi- 
ritus, aqua,  et  sanguis , et  tres  unum  sunt.  4 There 
are  three  witnesses,  the  Spirit,  and  the  Water, 
and  the  Blood,  and  these  three  are  one .’  Ter- 
tullian  and  Cyprian  have  been  supposed,  indeed, 
to  have  referred  to  the  clause,  but  the  proof  of 
this  depends  on  the  proof  of  the  previous  fact, 
whether  the  clause  existed  or  not  in  their  copies. 
The  citation  of  Cyprian,  4 Qui  ties  unum  sunt’ 
(which  three  are  one),  and  of  Tertullian,  4et  hi 
tres  unum  sunt  ’ (and  these  three  are  one),  belong 
equally  to  the  eighth  as  well  as  the  seventh  verse  ; 
and  there  is  nothing  surprising  in  these  fathers 
mystically  applying  the  spirit,  the  water,  and  the 
blood,  to  signify  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
as  was  evidently  done  by  Augustine  at  a later 
period  ( Cont . Maximin.  iii.  22;  and  by  Euche- 
lius,  in  the  5th  century). 

It  has  been  maintained  that,  although  no  an- 
cient Greek  manuscripts  now  extant  contain  the 
clause,  it  must  have  existed  in  some  of  those 
which  were  used  by  the  original  editors,  especially 
Robert  Stephens.  In  his  beautiful  folio  edition 
(1550)  Stephens  cites  seven  Greek  manuscripts  in 
the  Catholic  Epistles,  of  which  he  had  three  from 
the  King’s  library.  When  any  words  are 
omitted  in  any  of  his  manuscripts  he  places  in 
his  text  an  obelus  before  the  first  word,  and  a 
small  semicircle  or  crotchet  after  the  last.  In  the 
passage  in  question  the  obelus  is  pilaced  Defore 
iv  rep  ovpavcp , and  the  crotchet  immediately  after 


1 40  JUHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

these  words ; from  which  it  has  been  inferred  that 
these  words  only,  and  not  the  whole  passage,  were 
absent  from  his  seven  MSS.  Subsequent  in- 
quiries, however,  undertaken  by  Lucas  Brugensis, 
Father  Simon,  and  the  late  Bishop  Marsh,  seem 
to  leave  no  doubt  that  the  crotchet  was  inserted  in 
the  wrong  place;  for  pot  one  of  the  manuscripts 
now  in  the  King’s  library  contains  the  passage ; 
and  one  of  Stephens’s  manuscripts,  now  in  the 
university  of  Cambridge,  is  equally  without  it. 
Archdeacon  Travis,  indeed,  denies  the  identity 
of  this  manuscript ; but  Bishop  Marsh  ( Letters  to 
Travis')  shows  that  the  probability  of  their  iden- 
tity is  as  two  nonillions  to  a unity.  Bishop 
Marsh's  Letters  to  Travis  have  been  in  other 
respects  truly  designated  as  ‘amass  of  recondite 
and  useful  biblical  erudition.’  We  have  men- 
tioned this  circumstance  in  order  that  the  reader 
may  fully  understand  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Gibbon, 
which  we  shall  presently  refer  to  : * The  three 
witnesses  have  been  established  in  our  Greek 
Testament,  by  the  prudence  of  Erasmus,  the 
honest  bigotry  of  the  Complutensian  editors,  the 
typographical  fraud  or  error  of  Robert  Stephens,  in 
the  placing  of  a crotchet,  or  the  deliberate  fraud 
or  strange  misapprehension  of  Theodore  Beza.’ 

The  following  are  some  of  the  principal  literary 
controversies  to  which  this  famous  clause  has 
given  rise,  of  which  a more  complete  account  will 
be  found  in  Mr.  Charles  Butler's  Horce  Biblicce. 
The  earliest  was  the  dispute  between  Erasmus 
and  Lee,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  York,  and  be- 
tween Erasmus  and  Stunica,  one  of  the  Complu- 
tensian editors.  Erasmus  was  the  first  to  suspect 
the  genuineness  of  the  preface  to  the  Canonical 
Epistles  above  referred  to,  which  ascribes  the 
omission  of  the  clause  to  false  translators  or 
transcribers.  The  genuineness  of  this  preface, 
which  led  Sir  Isaac  Newton  to  charge  St.  Jerome 
with  being  the  fabricator  of  the  disputed  clause 
(whereas  it  is  certain  that  that  learned  Father 
was  totally  unacquainted  with  its  existence)  of 
the  text,  is  now  given  up.  It  is  considered  in 
the  Benedictine  edition  of  Jerome's  works  to  be 
a forgery  of  the  9th  century  (Burigni,  Vie  d'E- 
rasme,  Paris,  1757,  i.  372-381  ; ii.  163-175; 
Crit.  Sac.  vii.  1229). 

It  was  afterwards  attacked  by  Sandius  the 
Arian  ( Nucleus  Hist.  Ecclesiast.  Cosmopoli  1669 ; 
and  Interpret.  Paradox,  in  Johan.').  It  was  de- 
fended by  Selden  ( De  Synedricis  Ebrceor.)  and 
ably  attacked  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Father 
Simon  (Hist.  Critique  du  Texte,  1680,  &c.  &c.). 
It  was  defended  again  by  Martin  (pastor  of  the  Re- 
formed church  in  Utrecht,  1717),  who  was  replied 
to  by  Thomas  Emlvn,  the  celebrated  and  much 
persecuted  English  Presbyterian  (A  full  Inquiry , 
&c.  1715-1720),  and  by  Caesar  de  Missy,  French 
preacher  in  the  Savoy.  There  are  other  able 
treatises  on  the  same  side  by  Dr.  Benson,  Sir  Isaac 
Newton,  and  the  learned  printer  Mr.  Bowyer ; 
and  in  its  favour  by  Smith  (1690),  Kettner, 
Galamy  (1722),  as  well  as  by  Bossuet  (16 — ), 
and  by  Cal  met  (1720)  in  France,  and  Sender 
in  Geimany  (1751).  In  Germany  it  was  also 
attacked  by  Schmidt  (Hist.  Antiqua , 1774),  and 
Michaelis,  in  his  Introduction;  but  found  an  able 
defender  in  the  excellent  Bengel  (Gnomon,  1773), 
who  conceived  that  the  passage  contained  a divine 
internal  evidence,  but  at  the  same  time  maintained 
that  its  genuineness  depended  on  the  transposition 


JOHN,  EPISTLES  OF. 

of  the  two  verses  so  as  to  make  the  earthly  witness*** 
precede  the  heavenly,  according  to  the  citation 
(supra)  of  Vigilius  of  Thapsus.  (See  Christian 
• Remembrancer , vol.  iv.  p.  43,  note.) 

The  third  and  most  important  stage  of  tne 
controversy  may  be  said  to  commence  with  the 
note  of  Gibbon,  above  referred  to,  and  which  was 
attacked  by  Archdeacon  Travis  in  three  letters, 
1784-1786.  This  publication  gave  rise  to  the 
most  celebrated  work  which  had  yet  appeared  on 
the  subject,  Professor  Porson’s  Letters  (1788): 
‘ an  eternal  monument  of  his  uncommon  erudition, 
sagacity,  and  tact  ’ (Horce  Biblicce).  Mr.  ^Butler 
concludes  his  enumeration  with  the  Obsei'vations 
of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  on  the  text  of  the  heavenly 
witnesses  (1805). 

Our  space  will  not  allow  us  to  enter  into  detail 
in  regard  to  the  principal  publications  which  have 
appeared  on  the  subject  since  this  period.  We 
shall  only  refer  to  a lew  of  the  principal.  Gries- 
bach's  Diatribe , at  the  close  of  the  second  volume 
of  his  celebrated  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament (1806),  contains  a complete  and  masterly 
view  of  the  evidence  on  both  sides;  but  as  this 
eminent  critic  had  completely  rejected  the  passage 
from  the  text,  he  met  with  an  indefatigable  adver- 
sary in  this  country  in  the  late  Bishop  Burgess. 
See  his  Vindication  (1821),  and  Introduction 
(1833).  The  writings  of  this  prelate  drew  down 
many  learned  replies,  but  his  most  able  and  suc- 
cessful opponent  was  Dr.  Turton,  Regius  Professor 
at  Cambridge,  and  now  Dean  of  Westminster 
(see  especially  Dean  Turton’s  Vindication  of  the 
Literary  Character  of  Professor  Porson  from 
the  Animadversions  of  the  Right  Rev.  Thomas 
Burgess , D.D.,  ^c.,  published  under  the  name  of 
Crito-Cantabrigiensis,  1827).  A temperate  vindi- 
cation of  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  had  been 
published  by  the  late  Bishop  Middleton  (1808), 
in  his  work  on  the  Greek  article,  which  was  also 
replied  to  by  Dr.  Turton  (ut  supra).  The  Memoir 
of  the  Controversy  respecting  the  Heavenly  Wit- 
nesses (1830),  by  the  Rev.  W.  Orme,  contains 
interesting  critical  notices  of  the  principal  writers 
on  both  sides  of  this  much  agitated  question. 

In  the  year  1834,  Dr.  Wiseman  renewed  tire 
controversy  in  favour  of  the  clause,  in  Two  Letters 
in  the  Catholic  Magazine , vol.  ii.  and  iii.,  reprinted 
at  Rome,  1835.  Dr.  Wiseman's  principal  argu- 
ments are  founded  on  the  citations  in  African 
writers.  He  supposes  that  there  were  two  ancient 
recensions  of  the  Vulgate,  the  Italian,  from  which, 
as  well  as  from  the  Greek  MSS.,  the  clause  had  been 
lost  at  an  early  period,  and  the  African.  He  sup- 
poses that  this  recension  contained  the  clause  which 
existed  in  the  Greek  MSS.  from  which  it  was  made, 
and  that  these  were  of  greater  antiquity  than  any 
we  can  now  inspect.  He  further  maintains,  after 
Eichhorn,  that,  as  the  Greek  language  was  suffi- 
ciently known  in  Italy  to  preclude  the  necessity 
of  an  early  translation  of  the  Latin  in  that 
country,  Africa  was  most  probably  the  birth- 
place of  the  primary  Latin  translation,  and  that 
consequently  the  African  recension  of  this  version 
is  far  superior  in  authority  to  the  Italian.  He 
therefore  draws  the  inference  that  ‘ the  existence 
of  an  African  recension  containing  the  verse  gives 
us  a right  to  consider  as  quotations  passages  of 
African  writers  (such  as  those  of  Cyprian  and 
Tertullian)  which  in  the  works  of  Italian  author* 
might  be  considered  doubtful.1®  As,  however 


JOHN  EPISTLES  OF. 


JOKTHEEL. 


141 


Augustine's  acknowledged  writings  all  evince  Ins 
ignorance  of  the  existence  of  this  passage,  Dr. 
Wiseman  supposes  that  Augustine  ordinarily- 
made  use  of  tiie  Italian  recension,  which  did  not 
contain  it.  However  he  adduces  the  authority 
of  a manuscript  of  the  Speculum  of  Augustine 
preserved  at  Rome,  in  the  monastery  of  the  Holy 
Cross  of  Jerusalem,  to  prove  that  Augustine  occa- 
sionally used  the  African  recension,  and  that  he 
has  cited  the  identical  passage  as  follows : — 

Item  Johannis  in  ^Epistola Item  illic  Ties 

sunt  qui  testimonium  dicunt  in  coelo,  Pater, 
Yerbum  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,  et  hi  tres.  unum 
sunt  (cap.  ii.  fol.  19,  De  Distinct.  Personarum). 
Dr.  Wiseman  supposes  this  manuscript,  which  is 
mentioned  by  Blanchini,  to  have  been  written  in 
the  seventh  century.  It  has  not,  however,  been 
proved  to  be  a genuine  work  of  Augustine.  (See 
Wright's  Appendix  to  his  Translation  of  Seiler's 
Hermeneutics , which  contains  some  account  of 
the  state  of  the  controversy  respecting  this  clause 
to  the  year  1 835 ; also  Horne's  Introduction , 8th 
edition,  vol.  ii.  pt.  ii.p.  185,  vol.  iv.  p.  448-471). 

The  most  remarkable  circumstance  connected 
with  the  literary  history  of  the  clause,  since  this 
period,  properly  belongs  to  the  history  of  editions 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  clause  appears  in  the 
principal  printed  editions  of  the  New  Testament 
before  the  time  of  Griesbach.  These  were  the 
editions  of  Mill  (1707),  Bengel  (1734),  and 
Wetstein  (1751);  the  two  former  of  whom  held 
it  to  be  genuine.  Since  the  time  of  Griesbach  it 
has  been  generally  omitted  in  all  critical  editions, 
and  especially  in  that  of  the  learned  Roman 
Catholic  Professor  Scholz,  of  Bonn  (1836),  who, 
though  following  a different  system  of  recensions 
from  that  of  Griesbach,  has  altogether  rejected  the 
passage  from  the  text  as  decidedly  spurious,  and 
as  opposed  to  the  authority  of  all  authentic  Greek 
MSS.,  of  all  ancient  MSS.,  of  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
and  of  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  Oriental  Fathers. 
The  venerable  Bishop  Burgess  replied  to  Scholz 
three  weeks  before  nis  death,  in  1836. 

Various  have  been  the  opinions  respecting  the 
internal  evidence  for  and  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  passage.  The  advocates  of  the  clause 
have  generally  maintained  that  the  context  re- 
quires its  insertion,  while  its  adversaries  maintain 
that  the  whole  force  of  the  argument  is  destroyed 
by  it.  Liicke,  one  of  the  ablest  modern  com- 
mentators on  St.  John's  writings,  maintains  that 
internal  evidence  alone  Would  be  sufficient  to 
reject  the  passage,  inasmuch  (besides  other  rea- 
sons) as  St.  John  never  uses  5 irar-fip  and  6 \6yos 
as  correlates,  but  ordinarily,  like  St.  Paul,  and 
every  other  writer  of  the  New  Testament,  asso- 
ciates 6 vlos  with  6 7 rarrjp  (ii.  22,  23;  iv.  14; 
v.  9,  11,  20,  &c.),  and  always  refers  the  Aoyos 
in  Christ  to  6 0e6s,  and  not  to  b Tvaryp.  He 
unites  with  those  crilics  who  look  upon  the  re- 
jected passage  as  an  allegorical  gloss,  which  found 
its  way  into  the  Latin  text,  where  it  has,  ‘ever 
since  the  fourth  century,  firmly  maintained  its 
place  as  a welcome  and  protective  passage,’  &c. 
He  adds,  however,  that  exegetical  conscience  will, 
in  our  age,  forbid  the  most  orthodox  to  apply  this 
massage,  even  if  it  were  genuine,  for  such  a pur- 
**>se,  as  kv  elvai  has  quite  a different  sense  from 
that  which  is  required  bv  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  Here  Liicke  fully  coincides  with  the 
t»te  Bishop  Middleton  ( Greek  Article).  Liicke’s 


conclusion  is  a strong  one.  ‘ Either  these  words 
are  genuine,  and  the  Epistle,  in  this  case,  a pro- 
duction of  the  third  or  fourth  century,  or  the 
Epistle  is  a genuine  work  of  St.  John's,  and  then 
these  words  spurious.’ 

The  latest  attempt  to  vindicate  the  genuineness 
of  the  passage  is  that  of  M.  Gaussen  of  Geneva,  in 
his  Theopneustia  (1839).  But  his  reasonings  are 
founded  on  a palpable  error — the  interpolation  of 
the  words  iu  rrj  yrj  (in  the  earth ) in  the  eighth 
verse,  which  he  absolutely  cites  upon  the  authority 
of  Griesbach’s  text,  where  they  do  not  exist! 
The  corresponding  words  in  terrd  are,  indeed, 
found  in  the  present  text  of  some  MSS.  of  the 
Vulgate,  and  of  some  ancient  writers,  although 
wanting  in  the  seventh  verse. 

Luther  uniformly  rejected  this  clause  from  all 
his  translations.  It  is  absent  from  his  last  edi- 
tion (1516),  published  after  his  death,  and  was 
first  inserted  in  the  Frankfort  edition  of  1574,  but 
again  omitted  in  1583,  and  in  subsequent  edi- 
tions. Since  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, with  the  exception  of  the  Wittemberg  edition 
of  1607,  its  insertion  has  been  general.  This 
was,  however,  in  opposition  to  Luther’s  injunction. 

It  is  inserted  in  all  the  early  English  printed 
versions,  commencing  with  Coverdale’s  in  1536, 
but  is  generally  printed  either  in  brackets  or  in 
smaller  letters.  It  was,  however,  printed  in  the 
editions  of  1536,  1552,  and  in  the  Geneva  Bible 
(1557),  without  any  marks  of  doubt.  It  found 
its  way  perhaps  from  Beza's  Greek  Testament 
into  the  then  authorized  English  version.  The  fol- 
lowing is  probably  the  oldest  form  extant,  in 
which  they  appear  in  the  English  language,  in  a 
translation  from  the  Vulgate  earlier  than  the  time 
of  Wieliff: — 1 For  three  ben  that  geven  witness- 
ing in  heven,  the  Fadir,  the  Word  or  Sone;  and 
the  Holy  Ghoost,  and  these  three  ben  oon ; and 
three  ben  that  geven  witnessing  in  erthe,  the 
Spirit,  Water,  and  Blood,  and  these  three  ben 
oon’  [Scriptures,  Holy]. — W.  W. 

JOHN,  EPISTLES,  II.  and  III.  [Antier 
gomena,  see  John]. 

JOh^  MARK.  [Mark.] 

JOHN  HYRCANUS.  [Maccabees.] 

JOIADA  (JTFi\  contraction  of  Jehoiada, 
which  see),  a high-priest  of  the  Jews,  successor  to 
Eliashib,  or  Joashib,  vrho  lived  under  Nebemiab, 
about  b.c.  434  (Neh.  xiii.  28). 

JOKSHAN  (j^jp),  fowler;  Sept.  se- 

cond son  of  Abraham  and  Keturah,  whose  sons 
Sheba  and  Dedan  appear  to  have  been  the 
ancestors  of  the  Sabaeans  and  Dedanites,  wl»o 
peopled  a part  of  Arabia  Felix  (Gen.  xxv.  2,  3) 
[Arabia]. 

JOKTAN  small;  Sept.  Te/crc^),  one 

of  the  sons  of  Eber,  a descendant  from  Shem 
(Gen.  x.  25,  26),  and  the  supposed  progenitor  of 
many  tribes  in  Southern  Arabia.  Tire  Arabians 
call  him  Kahtan,  and  recognise  him  as  one  of 
the  principal  founders  of  their  nation.  See 
Schultens,  Hist.  Imperii  Joctandin.  in  Arabia 
Felice;  Pocock,  Spec.  Hist.  Arab.  pp.  3,  38; 
Boch&rt’s  Phaleg.  iii.  15  [Arabia]. 

JOKTHEEL  (b^nfpl,  God-subdued;  Sept. 
Te0o7jA).  1 . A name  given  by  King  Azariah  to  tne 
city  Sela,  or  Petra,  the  capital  of  Arabia  Petma, 


142 


JONADAB. 


JONAH. 


when  lie  took  it  from  the  Edomites  (2  Kings 
xiv.  7)  [Petra].  2.  There  was  also  a city  of 
this  name  in  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  38). 

JONADAB  (3*131*,  contraction  of  3*131?!*, 
God-impelled;  Sept,  1.  A nephew 

of  David,  a crafty  person,  whose  counsel  suggested 
to  his  cousin  Amnon  the  means  by  which  he 
accomplished  his  abominable  design  upon  his 
half-sister  Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiii.  4,  5). 

2.  A son  or  descendant  of  Rechab,  the  pro- 
genitor of  those  nomadic  Rechabites,  who  held 
themselves  bound  by  a vow  to  abstain  from 
wine,  and  never  to  relinquish  the  nomadic  life. 
The  principle  on  which  the  tribe  acted  may  be 
^considered  elsewhere  [Rechabites].  Jonadab 
.was  at  tlie  head  of  this  tribe  at  the  time  when 
Jehu  received  his  commission  to  exterminate  the 
house  of  Ahab,  and  is  supposed  to  have  added  to 
it3  ancient  austerities  the  inhibition  of  wine. 
He  was  held  in  great  respect  among  the  Israelites 
generally:  and  Jehu,  alive  to  the  importance  of 
obtaining  the  countenance  and  sanction  of  such  .a 
man  to  his  proceedings,  took  him  up  in  his 
chariot,  when  on  his  road  to  Samaria  to  complete 
the  work  he  had  begun  at  Jezreel.  The  terms  of 
•the  colloquy  which  took  place  on  this  occasion 
are  rather  remarkable.  Perceiving  Jonadab,  he 
saluted  him,  and  called  out,  ‘ Is  thine  heart  right, 
as  my  heart  is  with  thy  heart  ?’  Jonadab  answered, 

* It  is.’  Then  said  Jehu,  ‘ If  it  be,  give  me  thine 
hand.’  And  he  gave  him  his  hand,  and  was  taken 
up  into  the  chariot,  Jehu  inviting  him  to  ‘Come 
and  see  my  zeal  for  the  Lord’  (2  Kings  x.  15-17  ; 
Jer.  xxxv.  6-10).  It  would  seem  that  the  Rechab- 
ites were  a branch  of  the  Kenites,  over  another 
branch  of  whom  Heber  was  chief  in  the  time  of 
Deborah  and  Barak  (.Judg.  iv.  11, 17):  and  as  it 
is  expressly  said  that  Jonadab  went  out  to  meet 
Jehu,  it  seems  probable  that  the  people  of  Samaria, 
alarmed  at  the  menacing  letter  which  they  had 
received  from  Jehu,  had  induced  Jonadab  to  go 
to  meet  and  appease  him  on  the  road.  His  vene- 
rated character,  his  rank  as  the  head  of  a tribe, 
and  his  neutral  position,  well  qualified  him  for 
this  mission  ; and  it  was  quite  as  much^the  in- 
terest of  Jonadab  to  conciliate  the  new  dynasty, 
in  whose  founder  he  beheld  the  minister  of  the 
divine  decrees,  as  it  was  that  of  Jehu  to  obtain 
his  concurrence  and  support  in  proceedings  which 
he  could  not  but  know  weie  likely  to  render  him 
odious  to  the  people. 

JONAH  (H3 7* ; Sept.  Tcovas),  the  fifth  in  order 
of  the  minor  prophets.  No  era  is  assigned  to  him 
in  the  book  of  his  prophecy,  yet  there  is  liftle  douht 
of  his  being  the  same  person  who  is  spoken  of  in 
2 Kings  xiv.  25.  The  Jewish  doctors,  with  their 
usual  puerility,  have  supposed  him  to  be  the  son  of 
the  widow  of  Sarepta  : ‘ Now  by  this  I know,’  said 
she  to  Elijah,  ‘ that  thou  art  a man  of  God,  and 
that  the  word  of  the  Lord  in  thy  mouth  is  truth  ’ 
(1  Kings  xvii.  24).  The  restored  child  was 
thenceforward  named  Tl£DX-j3,  a title  which  was 
to  preserve  the  memory  of  his  miraculous  resus- 
citation (Hieron.  Prcefat.  in  Jonani).  His  birth- 
place was  Gath-hepher,  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulon. 
Jonah  flourished  in  or  before  the  reign  of  Jero- 
boam II.,  and  predicted  the  successful  conquests, 
enlarged  territory,  and  brief  prosperity  of  the 
Israelitish  kingdom  under  that  monarch’s  sway. 
The  oracle  itself  is  not  extant,  though  Hitzig  has, 


by  a novel  process  of  criticism,  amused  nimself 
with  a fancied  discovery  of  it  in  chaps,  xv.  and  xvi, 
of  Isaiah.  Ilitzig,  Des  Propji.  Jon.  Orakel.  ueber 
Moab  Kritisch-vindicrit,  %c.,  Heidelberg,  1831. 

The  book  of  Jonah  contains  an  account  of  the 
prophet's  commission  to  denounce  Nineveh,  and 
of  his  refusal  to  undertake  the  embassy — of  the 
method  he  employed  to  escape  the  unwelcome 
task  [Tarshish],  and  the  miraculous  means 
which  God  used  to  curb  his  self-willed. spirit,  and 
subdue  his  petulant  and  querulous  disposition. 
The  third  and  fourth  chapters  briefly  detail 
Jonah’s  fulfilment  of  the  divine  command,  and 
present  us  with  another  exemplification  of  his 
refractory  temper.  His  attempt  to  flee  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  must  have  sprung  from  a 
partial  insanity,  produced  by  the  excitement  of 
distracting  motives  in  an  irascible  and  melan- 
choly heart.  The  temerity  and  folly  of  the  fugi- 
tive could  scarcely  be  credited,  if  they  had  not 
been  equalled  by  future  outbreaks  of  a similar 
peevish  and  morbid  infatuation.  The  mind  of 
Jonah  was  dark  and  moody,  not  unlike  a lake 
which  mirrors  in  the  waters  the  gloomy  thunder- 
clouds which  overshadow  it,  and  flash  over  its 
sullen  waves  a momentary  gleam. 

The  history  of  Jonah  is  certainly  striking  and 
extraordinary.  Its  characteristic  prodigy  does  not 
resemble  the  other  miraculous  phenomena  re- 
corded in  Scripture ; yet  we  must  believe  in  its 
literal  occurrence,  as  the  Bible  affords  no  indi- 
cation of  being  a mythus,  allegory,  or  parable. 
On  the  other  hand,  our  Saviour’s  pointed  and 
peculiar  allusion  to  it  is  a presumption  of  its 
reality  (Matt.  xii.  40).  The  opinion  of  the  earlier 
Jews  (Tobit  xiv.  4 ; Joseph.  Antiq.  ix.  10.  2)  is  also 
in  favour  of  the  literal ity  of  the  adventure.  It  re- 
quires less  faith  to  credit  this  simple  excerpt  from 
Jonah’s  biography,  than  to  believe  the  numerous 
hypotheses  that  have  been  invented  to  deprive  it 
of  its  supernatural  character,  the  great  majority 
of  them  being  clumsy  and  far-fetched,  doing  vio- 
lence to  the  language,  and  despite  to  the  spirit  of 
revelation  ; distinguished,  too,  by  tedious  adjust- 
ments, laborious  combinations,  historical  conjec- 
ture, and  critical  jugglery.  In  vindication  of  the 
reality  of  this  striking  narrative,  it  may  be  argued 
that  the  allusions  of  Christ  to  Old  Testament  events 
on  similar  occasions  are  to  actual  occurrences 
(John  iii.  14;  vi.  48);  that  the  purpose  which 
God  had  in  view  justified  his  miraculous  interpo- 
sition ; that  this  miracle  must  have  had  a salutary- 
effect  both  on  the  minds  of  the  Ninevites  and  on 
the  people  of  Israel.  Neither  is  the  character  of 
Jona’h  improbable.  Many  reasons  might  induce 
him  to  avoid  the  discharge  of  his  prophetic  duty — . 
fear  of  being  thought  a false  prophet,  scorn  of  a 
foreign  and  hostile  race,  desire  for  their  utter  de- 
struction, a false  dignity  which  might  reckon  it 
beneath  his  prerogative  to  officiate  among  uncir- 
cumcised idolaters  (Verschuir,  Ojmsc.  p.  73,  &c.  5 
Alber,  Institut.  Hermen.  Vet.  Test.  iii.  399, 
407 ; Jahn,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament , 
translated  by  S.  Turner,  pp.  372,  373,  trans- 
lator’s notes ; Budleus,  Hist.  Eccles.  V.  T.  ii.  589, 
sqq. ; Laberenz,  De  Vera.  lib.  Jonce  Interp. 
Fulda,  1836).  Some,  who  cannot  altogether  reject 
the  reality  of  the  narrative,  suppose  it  to  have  had 
a historical  basis,  though  its  present  form  be  fan- 
ciful or  mythical.  Such  an  opinion  ic  the  evident 
result  of  a mental  struggle  between  receiving  it  m 


JONAH. 


JONAH. 


143 


a real  transaction  or  regarding  it  as  wholly  a fic- 
tion (Goldhorn,  Excurs.  z.  B.  Jon.  p.  28  ; Fried- 
rischsen,  Krit.  Ueberblick  der  Ausichten  B.  Jon. 
p.  219).  Grimm,  in  his  Uebersetz,  p.  61,  regards 
it  as  a dream  produced  in  that  sleep  which  loll 
upon  Jonah  as  he  lay  on  the  sides  of  the  ship. 
The  opinion  of  the  famous  Herman  von  der  Hordt, 
in  ns  Jonas  in  luce , &c.  a full  abstract  of  which 
is  given  by  Rosenmiiller  (Prole gom.  in  Jonam. 
p.  19),  was,  that  the  boolc  is  a historical  allegory, 
descriptive  of  the  fate  of  Manasseh,  and  Josiah  his 
grandson,  kings  of  Judah.  The  fancy  of  this 
eccentric  author  has  found  ample  gratification. 
Tarshish,  according  to  him,  represents  the  kingdom 
of  Lydia ; the  ship,  the  Jewish  republic,  whose 
captain  was  Zadok  the  high-priest  ;*  while  the  cast- 
ing of  Jonah  into  the  sea  symbolized  the  temporary 
captivity  of  Manasseh  in  Babylon.  We  cannot 
say,  with  Rosenmuller,  that  this  theory  deserves 
even  the  praise  of  ingenious  fiction. 

Others  regard  this  book  as  an  allegory,  such  as 
Bertholdtand  Rosenmuller,  Gesenius,  and  Winer 
—an  allegory  based  upon  the  Phoenician  Mythus 
of  Hercules  and  the  Sea-monster.  Less,  in  his 
tract,  Von  llistorischen  Styl  der  Urwelt,  sup- 
posed that  all  difficulty  might  be  removed  by 
imagining  that  Jonah,  when  thrown  into  the  sea, 
was#  taken  up  by  a ship  having  a large  fish  for  a 
figure-head — a theory  somewhat  more  pleasing 
than  the  rancid  hypothesis  of  Anton,  who  fancied 
that  the  prophet  took  refuge  in  the  interior  of  a 
dead  whale,  floating  near  the  spot  where'  he  was 
cast  overboard  (Rosen.  Prolegom.  in  Jon.  p.  328). 
Not  unlike  the  opinion  of  Less  is  that,  of  Charles 
Taylor,  in  his  Fragments  affixed  to  Calmet’s  Dic- 
tionary, No.  cxlv.,  that  HI  signifies  a life-pre- 
server, a notion  which,  as  his  manner  is,  he  endea- 
vours to  support  by  mythological  metamorphoses 
founded  on  the  form  and  names  of  the  famous 
fish-god  of  Philistia.  De  Wette  regards  the  story 
as  not  a true  history,  yet  not  a mere  fiction ; its 
materials  being  derived  from  popular  legends,  and 
wrought  up  with  the  design  of  making  a dida-ctic 
work.  But  many  regard  it  as  a mere  fiction 
with  a moral  design — the  grotesque  coinage  of  a 
Hebrew  imagination.  This  opinion,  variously 
modified,  seems  to  be  that  of  Semler,  Michaelis, 
Herder,  Stiiudlin,  Eichhorn,  Augusti,  Meyer, 
Fareau,  and  Maurer. 

The  plain,  literal  import  of  the  narrative,  being 
set  aside  with  misapplied  ingenuity,  the  supposed 
design  of  it  has  been  very  variously  interpreted. 
Michaelis  (Vbersetz  d.  N.  T.  part  xi.  p.  101)  and 
Sender  (Apparat.  ad  Lib.  Vet.  Test.  Interpret. 
p.  271)  supposed  the  purpose  of  the  narrative  to 
l»e  the  injustice  of  that  arrogance  and  hatred 
cherished  by  the  Jews  towards  other  nations. 
Eichhorn  (Einleit.  § 577),  and  Jahn  (Introduct. 
6 127)  think  the  design  was  to  teach  the  Jews 
that  other  people  with  less  privileges  excelled  them 
in  pious  obedience.  Kegel  (Bebel  d.  A.  und 
N.  Test.  vol.  vii.  p.  129,  sqq.)  argues  that  this 
episode  was  meant  to  solace  and  excite  the  pro- 
phets under  the  discharge  of  difficult  and  danger- 
ous duties;  while  Paulus  ( Memorabilia , vi.  32, 
sqq.)  maintains  that  the  object  of  the  author  of 
Jonah  is  to  impress  the  fact  that  God  remits  pu- 
nishment on  repentance  and  reformation.  Similar 
14  thy  idea  of  Kimchi  and  Pareau  (Interpretation 
of  Old  Testament , Biblical  Cabinet,  No.  xxv. 
p.  263).  Krahmer  think?  that  the  theme  of  the 


writer  is  the  Jewish  colony  in  its  relation  to  the 
Samaritans  (Des  B.  Jon.  Krit.  untersucht,  p.  65). 
Maurer  (Comment,  in  Proph.  Min.)  adheres  to 
the  opinion  which  lies  upon  the  surface,  that  it 
inculcates  the  sin  of  not  obeying  God,  even  ill  pro- 
nouncing severe  threa tenings  on  a heathen  people; 
and  lastly,  Koester  (Die  Proplieten  des  A.  und 
N.  Test , Leipz.  1839)  favours  the  malignant  in- 
sinuation that  its  chief  end  was  to  save  the  credit 
of  the  prophets  among  the  people,  though  their 
predictions  against  foreign  nations  might  not  be 
fulfilled,  as  Nineveh  was  preserved  after  being 
menaced  and  doomed. 

These  hypotheses  are  all  vague  and  baseless, 
and  do  not  merit  a special  refutation.  Endea- 
vouring to  free  us  from  one  difficulty  they  plunge* 
ns  into  others  yet  more  intricate  and  perplexing. 
Much  profane  wit  has  been  expended  on  the  mira- 
culous means  of  Jonah’s  deliverance,  very  unne- 
cessarily and  very  absurdly;  it  is  simply  said, 

‘ The  Lord  had  prepared  a great  fish  to  swallow 
up  Jonah.’  Now  the  species  of  marine  ‘animal  is 
not  defined,  and  the  Greek  icrjTos  is  often  used  to 
specify,  not  the  genus  whale,  but  any  large  fish 
or  sea-monster.  All  objections  to  its  being  a 
whale  which  lodged  Jonah  in  its  stomach  from 
its  straitness  of  throat,  or  rareness  of  haunt  in  the 
Mediterranean,  are  thus  removed.  Hesychius 
explains  Krjxos  as  GaXdacrios  ixGvs  TrappeyeOps. 
Eustathius  explains  its  correspondent  adjective 
Kprcbecrcrar  by  peyaXpv,  in  the  Homeric  line 
(Iliad,  ii.  581)— 

ol  5’  elxov  Ko'iXpu  Acucebalpova  Kpreoecrcrav. 
Diodorus  Siculus  speaks  of  terrestrial  monsters  as 
npradp  (£>a,  and  describes  a huge  fish  as  tcpra* 
a.TriatTov  r b peyeGos.  The  Scripture  thus  speaks 
only  of  an  enormous  fish,  which  under  God’s  direc- 
tion swallowed  the  prophet,  and  does  not  point  ou* 
the  species  to  which  the  voracious  prowler  be 
longed.  There  is  little  ground  for  the  supposition 
of  Bishop  Jebb,  that  the  asylum  of  Jonah  was  not 
in  the  stomach  of  a whale,  but  in  a cavity  of  its 
throat,  which,  according  to  naturalists,  is  a very 
capacious  receptacle,  sufficiently  large,  as  Captain 
Scoresby  asserts,  to  contain  a merchant  ship's 
jolly-boat  full  of  men  (Bishop  Jebb,  Sacred  Lite- 
rature, p.  178).  Since  the  days  of  Bochart  it  has 
been  a common  opinion  that  the  fish  was  of  the 
shark  species,  Lamia  cards  carcharias,  or  ‘ sea- 
dog’  (Bochart,  Op.  iii.  72;  Calmet’s  Dissertation 
sur  Jon.).  Entire  human  bodies  have  been  found 
in  some  fishes  of  this  kind.  The  stomach,  too,  has 
no  influence  on  any  living  substance  admitted 
into  it.  Granting  all  these  facts  as  proof  of  what 
is  termed  the  economy  of  miracles,  still  must  we 
say,  in  reference  to  the  supernatural  preservation 
of  Jonah,  Is  anything  too  hard  for  the  Lord? 

Though  we  cannot  accede  to  the  system  of  Gale, 
Huet,  Bryant,  Faber,  and  Taylor,  in  tracing  all 
pagan  fiction,  legend,  and  mythology  to  scripture 
facts  and  events,  yet  we  are  inclined  to  believe 
that  in  the  miraculous  incident  of  the  book  of 
Jonah  to  be  found  the  origin  of  the  various  fables 
of  Arion  and  the  Dolphin  (Herodot.  i.  24),  and 
the  wild  adventure  of  Hercules  which  is  referred 
to  in  Lycophron  (Cassandra,  v.  33)  : — 

Tpiecrirepov  Xeovros  ov  ttotg  yvddois 

T| o'itoovos  ppdXaxf/e  Kapxapcs  Kxnav. 

Oft  that  three-sighted  lien  whom  of  old 

Triton’s  fierce  dog  with  furious  jaws  devoured. 


144 


JONAH. 


JONATHAN. 


Gy  rill  as  Alex.,  In  his  Comment,  in  Jon.,  notices 
this  similitude  between  the  incident  of  Jonah  and 
the  fabled  enterprise  of  the  son  of  Alcmena. 
Compare,  too,  Theophylact  (Opp.  tom.  iv.  p. 
169).  On  what  portion  of  the  coast  Jonah  was 
set  down  in  safety  we  are  not  informed.  The 
opinions  held  as  to  the  peculiar  spot  by  Rabbins 
and  other  Thaumaturgic  expositors  need  not  to  be 
repeated.  The  prophet  proceeded,  on  receiving 
a second  commission,  to  fulfil  it.  The  fearful 
menace  had  the  desired  effect.  The  city  humbled 
itself  before  God,  and  a respite  was  vouchsafed. 
The  king  (Pul,  according  to  Usher)  and  his 
people  fasted,  and  their  penitence  was  accepted. 
The  spirit  of  Jonah  was  chafed  that  the  doom  he 
had  uttered  was  not  executed.  He  retired  to  a 
station  out  of  the  city  whence  he  might  witness 
the  threatened  catastrophe.  Under  the  shadow  of 
a gourd  prepared  by  God  he  reclined,  while  Je- 
hovah taught  him  by  the  growth  and  speedy  death 
of  this  plant,  and  his  attachment  to  it,  a sublime 
lesson  of  patient  and  forgiving  generosity.  No 
objection  against  the  credibility  of  this  l*ook  can 
be  brought  from  the  described  size  and  population 
of  the  Assyrian  metropolis  (Pictorial  Bible,  sub 
locA  The  gourd,  jl'p'p,  was  probably  the 
liicinns , whose  name  Kiki  is  yet  preserved  in 
some  of  the  tongues  of  the  East.  The  Sept,  ren- 
ders it  koXokvvQt].  Jerome  translates  it  hedera,  but 
against  his  better  judgment  and  for  fear  of  giving 
offence  to  the  critics  of  his  age,  as  he  quietly  adds 
in  justification  of  his  less  preferable  rendering, 
‘sed  timuimus  grammaticos.’  The  book  of  Jonah 
is  a simple  narrative  with  rhe  exception  of  the 
waver  or  thanksgiving  in  chap.  ii.  Its  style 
Sul  mode  of  nuirration  are  uniform.  There 
are  no  traces  of  compilation,  as  Nactigall 
supposed;  neither  is  the  prayer,  as  De  Wette 
(Einleit.  o 237)  imagines,  improperly  borrowed 
from  some  other  sources.  That  prayer  contains, 
indeed,  not  only  imagery  peculiar  to  itself,  but 
also  sucli  imagery  as  at  once  was  suggested  to  the 
mind  of  a pious  Hebrew  preserved  in  circum- 
stances of  extreme  jeopardy.  On  this  principle 
we  account  for  the  similarity  of  some  portions  of 
its  phraseology  to  Ps.  lix.,  xlii.,  &c.  The  lan- 
guage in  both  places  had  been  hallowed  by  fre- 
quent usage,  and  had  become  the  consecrated 
idiom  of  a distressed  and  succoured  Israelite. 
Perhaps  the  prayer  of  Jonah  might  be  uttered  by 
him,  not  during  his  mysterious  imprisonment,  but 
after  it.  May  not  H inn  'yDD  be  rendered  ‘ on 
account  of,’  a common  signification  of  the  particle 
D (Gesen.  Lex.  sub  voc.)  1 or  rather  may  not  D 
have  what  Nordheimer  calls  its  primary  significa- 
tion, viz.,  that  of  ‘ distance  from  a place  or  per- 
son?' Jonah  prayed  unto  the  Lord  his  God  out, 
i.  e.  when  out,  of  the  fish’s  belly  (compare  Job 
xix.  26  ; xi.  15).  Ihe  hymn  seems  to  have  been 
composed  after  his  deliverance,  and  the  reason 
why  his  deliverance  is  noted  after  the  hymn  is 
recorded  may  be  to  show  the  occasion  of  its  com- 
position. ‘The  lord  had  spoken  unto  the  fish, 
and  it  had  vomited  Jonah  on  the  dry  land.’ 
There  was  little  reason  either  for  dating  the  com- 
position of  this  book  later  than  the  age  of  Jonah, 
or  for  supposing  it  the  production  of  another  than 
the  prophet  himself.  The  Chaldaeisms  which 
Jahn  and  others  find  may  be  accounted  for  by  the 
nearness  of  the  canton  of  Zebulon,  to  which 
ronan  belonged,  to  the  northern  territory,  whence 


by  national  intercourse  Aramaic  poeuliaritie* 
might  be  insensibly  borrowed.  Gesenius  and 
Bertholdt  place  it  before  the  exile;  Jahn  ami 
Koester  after  it.  Rosenmuller  supposes  the  author 
may  have  been  a contemporary  of  Jeremiah; 
Hitzig  postpones  it  to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees. 
Apocryphal  prophecies  ascribed  to  Jonah  may  be 
found  in  the  pseudo-Epiphanius  (De  Vitis  Proph. 
c.  16),  and  the  Chronic.  Paschale,  p.  149.  Various 
spots  have  been  pointed  out  as  the  pla^c  of  his 
sepulchre,  such  as  Mosul  in  the  East,  and  Gath- 
hepher  in  Palestine;  while  the  so-called  Epi- 
phaaius  speaks  of  his  retreating  to  Tyre  and  being 
buried  there  in  the  tomb  of  Cenezaeus,  judge  of 
Israel. 

Among  the  numerous  commentators  on  Jonah 
may  be  noticed  J.  Gerhard \,Annot.  in  Proph. 
Am.  et  Jon.  & c.  Frag.  1692;  Lessing,  Observat. 
in  Vatic.  Jon.  1782;  Grimm,  Der  Proph.  Jiona* 
af.  Neue  Ubersetz , 1798;  Forbiger,  Prolusio , &c. 
1827  ; Krahmer.  Das  B.  Jon.  Hist.  Krit.  unter- 
sucht,  Cassel,  1839. — J.  E. 

1.  JONATHAN  *(jnri\  God-given;  comp. 
Theodoros;  Sept.  T wvdQav),  a Levite  descended 
from  Gershom,  the  son  of  Moses  (Judg.  xviii. 
30).  It  is,  indeed,  said*  in  our  common  copies, 
that  the  Gershom  from  whom  this  Jonathan 
sprang  was  ‘ the  son  of  Mauasseh;’  but  it  is  on 
very  good  grounds  supposed  that  in  the  name 
Moses  (H^D),  the  single  letter  n (J)  has  been 
interpolated,  changing  it  into  Manasseh  (H&OO), 
in  order  to  save  the  character  of  the  great  law- 
giver from  the  stain  of  having  an  idolater  among 
his  immediate  descendants.  The  singular  name 
Gershom,  and  the  date  of  the  transaction,  go 
far  to  establish  this  view.  Accordingly,  the  Vul- 
gate, and  some  copies  of  the  Septuagint,  actually 
exhibit  the  name  of  Moses  instead  of  Manasseh. 
The  interpolation,  however,  has  been  very  timidly 
executed.  The  letter  D was  originally  placed 
above  the  line  of  the  other  letters  (as  it  now  ap- 
pears in  the  printed  Hebrew  Bibles),  as  if  rather 
to  suggest  than  to  make  an  alteration;  hut  in 
process  of  time  the  letter  sunk  down  into  the  body 
of  the  word.  The  Hebrew  writers  themselves 
admit  the  fact  of  the  interpolation,  and  allege  the- 
intention  to  veil  the  disgrace  of  Moses,  by  sug- 
gesting a figurative  descent  from  Manasseh.  The 
history  of  this  Jonathan  is  involved  in  the  nar- 
rative which  occupies  Judges  xvii.,  xviii.;  and 
is  one  of  the  two  accounts  which  foim  a sort  of 
appendix  to  that.  book.  The  events  themselves 
appear  to  have  occurred  soon  after  the  death  of 
Joshua,  and  of  the  elders  who  outlived  him,  when 
the  government  was  in  a most  unsettled  state. 
Its  proper  place,  in  the  chronological  order,  would 
have  been  between  the  second  and  third  chapter* 
of  the  hook. 

Jonathan,  who  was  resident  at  Bethlehem,  lived 
at  a time  when  the  dues  of  the  sanctuary  did  not 
afford  a livelihood  to  the  numerous  Levites  who 
had  a claim  upon  them  ; and  belonged  to  a tribe 
destitute  of  the  landed  possessions  which  gave  to 
all  others  a sufficient  maintenuace.  He,  there- 
fore, went  forth  to  seek  his  fortune.  In  Mount 
Ephraim  he  came  to  ‘a  house  of  gods,’  which 
had  been  established  by  one  Micab,  who  wanted 
nothing  but  a priest  to  ma'ke  his  establishment 
complete  [Micah].  This  person  made  Jonathan 
what  was  manifestly  considered  the  handsoma 


JONATHAN. 


JOPPA. 


(45 


offer  of  engaging  him  as  his  priest,  for  his  vic- 
tuals, a yearly  suit  of  clothes,  and  ten  shekels 
(twenty-five  shillings)  a year  in  money.  Here  he 
lived  for  some  time,  till  the  Danite  spies,  who 
weie  sent,  fey  their  tribe  to  explore  the  north, 
passed  this  way  and  formed  his  acquaintance. 
When,  not  long  after,  the  body  of  armed  Danites 
passed  the  same  way  when  going  to  settle  near  the 
sources  of  the  Jordan,  the  spies  mentioned  Micah’s 
establishment  to  them ; on  which  they  went  and 
took  away  not  only  ‘ the  ephod,  the  teraphim, 
and  the  graven  image,’  but.  the  priest  also,  that 
they  might  set  up  the  same  worship  in  the  place 
of  "which  they  were  going  to  take  possession. 
Mi  call  vainly  protested  against  this  robbery  ; but 
Jonathan  himself  was  glad  at  the  improvement  in 
his  prospects,  and  from  that  time,  even  down  to 
the  captivity,  he  and  his  descendants  continued 
to  he  priests*  of  the  Danites  in  the  town  of  Laisn, 
the  name  of  which  they  changed  to  Dan. 

There  is  not  any  reason  to  suppose  that  this 
establishment,  whether  in  the  hands  of  Micah  or  of 
the  Danites,  involved  an  apostacy  from  Jehovah. 
It  appears  rather  to  have  been  an  attempt  to 
localize  or  domesticate  His  presence,  under  those 
symbols  and  forms  of  service  which  were  common 
among  the  neighbouring  nations,  but  were  for- 
bidden to  the  Hebrews.  The  offence  here  was 
two-fold, — the  establishment  of  a sacred  ritual 
different  from  the  only  one  which  the  law'  recog- 
nised, and  the  worship  by  symbols,  naturally 
leading  to  idolatry,  with  the  ministration  of  one 
who  could  not  legally  be  a priest,  but  only  a 
Levite,  and  under  circumstances  in  whicli  no 
Aarouic  priest  could  legally  have  officiated.  It 
is  more  than  likely  that  this  establishment  was 
eventually  merged  in  that  of  the  golden  calf, 
which  Jeroboam  set  up  in  this  place,  his  choice  of 
which  may  very  possibly  have  been  determined  by 
its  being  already  in  possession  of  ‘ a house  of  gods.’ 

2.  JONATHAN,  eldest  son  of  Saul,  king  of 
Israel,  and  consequently  heir  apparent  of  the 
throne  which  David  was  destined  to  occupy  (1 
Sam.  xiv.  9;  1 Chron.  viii.  33;  ix.  39).  The 
war  with  the  Philistines,  which  occupied  the  early 
part  of  his  father’s  reign,  afforded  Jonathan  more 
than  one  opportunity  of  displaying  the  chivalrous 
valour  and  the  princely  qualities  with  which  he 
was  endowed.  His  exploit  in  surprising  the-  Phi- 
listine garrison  at  Michmash,  attended  only  by 
his  armour-bearer,  is  one  of  the  most  daring 
which  history  or  even  romance  records  (1  Sam. 
xiv.  1-14).  His  father  came  to  follow  up  this 
victory,  and  in  the  ensuing  pursuit  of  the  con- 
founded Philistines,  Jonathan,  spent  with  fatigue 
and  hunger,  vef  res  tied  himself  with  some  wild 
honey  which  he  found  in  a wood  through  which 
he  passed.  He  knew  not  that  his  father  had 
rashly  vowed  to  put.  to  death  any  one  who 
touched  a morsel  of  food  before  night.  When 
the  fact  transpired,  Saul  felt,  himself  bound  to 
execute  his  vow  even  upon  his  gallant  son ; but 
the  people,  with  whom  the  young  prince  was  a 
great  favourite,  interposed,  saying,  ‘Shall  Jonathan 
ilie,  who  hath  wrought  this  great  salvation  in 
Israel  ? God  forbid ! As  the  Lord  livetb,  there 
thal'l  i ot  one  hair  of  his  head  fall  to  the  ground; 
or  hath  wrought  with  God  this  day’  (1  Sam. 
i ' . 16-52). 

Jealousy  and  every  mean  or  low  feeling  were 
dangers  to  the  generous  heart  of  Jtnathan. 

VOU  IL.  11 


Valiant  and  accomplished  himself,  none  knew 
better  how  to  acknowledge  valour  and  accom- 
plishment in  others.  The  act  of  David  in  meeting 
the  challenge  of  Goliath,  and  in  overcoming  that 
huge  barbarian,  entirely  won  his  heart ; and  from 
that,  day  forward  the  son  of  Jesse  found  no  one 
who  loved  him  so  tenderly,  who  admired  his  high 
gifts  with  so  much  enthusiasm,  or  who  risked,  so 
much  to  preserve  him  from  harm,  as  the  very 
prince  whom  lie  was  destined  to.  exclude  from  a 
throne.  Jonathan  knew  well  what  was  to  happen, 
and  he  submitted  cheerfully  to  the  appointment 
which  gave  the  throne  of  his  father  to  the  young 
shepherd  of  Bethlehem.  In  the  intensity  of  his  love 
and  confidence  he  shrank  not.  to  think  of  David  as 
his  destined  king  and  master ; and  his  dreams  of 
the  future  pictured  nothing  brighter  than  the  day 
in  which  David  should  reign  over  Israel,  and  he 
be  one  with  him  in  friendship,  and  next  to  him  in 
place  and  council — not  because  he  was  covetous 
even  of  this  degree  of  honour,  but  because  ‘ next 
to  David  ’ was  the  place  where  he  wished  always 
to  be,  and  where  he  desired  to  rest. 

When  Saul  began  to  hate  David  rshis  in- 
tended successor,  he  was  highly  displeased  at  the 
friendship  which  had  arisen  between  him  and 
his  son.  This  exposed  Jonathan  to  much  con- 
tumely, and  even  to  danger  of  life;  for,  once  at 
least,  the  king’s  passion  against  him  on  this 
account  rose  so  high  that  he  cast  a javelin  at 
him  ‘ to  smite  him  to  the  wall.’ 

This  unequivocal  act  taught  Jonathan  that  the 
court  of  Saul  was  no  safe  place  for  David.  He 
told  him  so,  and  they  parted  with  many  tear&>. 
David  then  set  forth  upon  those  wandering., 
among  strangers  and  in  solitary  places,  which, 
lasted  all  the  time  of  Saul.  The  friends  met  only 
once  more.  Saul  was  in  pursuit  of  David  when, 
he  was  in  the  wilderness  of  Zipli ; and  Jonathan , 
could  not  forbear  coming  to  him  secretly  in.  the 
wood  to  give  him  comfort  and  encouragement: 
(1  Sam.  xxiii.  16  18).  Nothing  more  is  related, 
of  Jonathan  till  both  he  and  his  father. lost  their 
lives  in  the  fatal  battle  of  Gilboa,  combating 
against  the  enemies  of  their  country. 

There  is,  perhaps,  nothing  in  Hebrew  poetry 
more  beautiful  and  touching  than  the  lamentation 
of  David  for  the  loss  of  his  friend-— nothing  more 
complete  as  a whole,  or  more  full  of  fine  images- 
and  tender  thoughts.  The  concluding  strophe 
may  be  quoted  by  way  of  specimen  : — 

‘ O Jonathan,  slain  on  thy  own  mountains  ! 

1 am  distressed  for  thee,  my  brother  Jonathan  : 
Very  dear  hast  thou  been  to  me  : 

Thy  love  to  me  was  wonderful. 

Surpassing  the  love  of  women  ! 

How  are  the  mighty  fallen, 

And  the  weapons  of  war  perished  !* 

JOPPA  (’Id7r7r?2;  in  Hebrew  Japho,  ; 
which  name  is  still  preserved  in  the  Arabic 
Yaffa,  or  Jaffa),  a sea-port  town  and  haven  on 
the  coast  of  Palestine,  situated  on  ap  eminence,  , 
in  a sandy  soil,  about  forty  miles  N.W.  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  nine  miles  VV.N.W.  from  Ramleh. 
It  was  a very  ancient  town.  An  existence,  prior- 
to  the  Deluge  is  claimed  for  it  (Pomp.  Mela,  i. 
14  ; Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  13).  Rabbinical  writers., 
derive  its  name  from  Japbet,  while  the  Classical 
geographers  refer  it  to  lope,  daughter  of  .Avdua,, 
and  affirm  tha,t  it, was  on  this  shore  that  Aud«fc:. 


40 


/OPPA. 


JOPPA. 


meda.  was  rescued  by  Perseus  from  the  sea- 
monstei  (Strabo,  xvi.  2,  28;  PI  in.  Hist.  Nat. 
v.  14;  Jerome,  In  Jon.  i.).  These  and  other 
fables  connected  with  the  place,  suffice  to  show 
the  great  antiquity  of  the  town.  But  this 
evidence  is  not  needed,  as  the  place  existed  when 
the  Israelites  invaded  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  is 
mentioned  as  lying  on  the  border  of  the  tribe  of 
Dan  (Josh.  xix.  40).  Joppa  was  the  only  port 
assessed  by  the  Israelites  till  Herod  formed  the 
larbour  at  Caesarea ; and  hence  it  was  here 
that  the  timber  from  Lebanon  destined  for  both 
the  first  and  second  temples  was  landed  (1  Kings 
v.  9 ; 2 Chron.  ii.  16;  Ezra  iii.  7).  It  was  the 
place  to  which  Jonah  went,  in  expectation  of 
finding  a ship  bound  on  some  distant  voyage,  and 
where  he  found  one  going  to  Tarshish  (Jonah  i. 
3).  Joppa  belonged  to  the  powers  which  were 
.'Successively  dominant  on  this  shore;  and  it  does 


not.  again  appear  in  Jewish  history  till  the  time  of 
Judas  Maccabaeus,  when  the  inhabitants  having, 
contrary  to  the  faith  of  treaties,  thrown  200  Jews 
into  the  sea,  the  hero,  to  avenge  them,  surprised 
the  haven  by  night,  and  set  the  shipping  on  fire 
(2  Macc.  xii.  3-7).  The  town  itself  was  a few 
years  after  taken  by  Jonathan  (1  Macc.  x.  74-76)  ; 
but  was  not  long  retained,  as  we  find  it  again 
taken  by  Simon  (xii.  34),  and  mentioned  as 
an  acquisition  of  especial  importance,  •which  he 
strongly  fortified  (xiv.  5;  xv  28).  Joppa  was 
annexed  by  Pompev  to  the  Roman  government 
of  Syria,  together  with  several  other  towns  on  the 
coast  of  which  the  Jews  bad  obtained  possession 
(Joseph  Antiq.  xiv.  4.  4).  It  is  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament  only  in  connection  with  the 
visit  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  who  here  raised  Tabitha 
from  the  dead,  and  lodged  in  the  outskirts  of 
the  town  with  Simon,  the  tanner,  when  favoured 


SS4.  [Joppa.] 


1 with  the  vision  which  taught  him  to  * call  no 
man  common  or  unclean  ’ (Acts  ix.  36-39  ; x.  5, 
18;  xi.  5).  During  the  Jewish  war  Joppa  was 
taken  by  surprise  by  Cestius,  when  it  was  plun- 
dered and  burnt,  and  8409  of  the  inhabitants 
were  put  to  the  sword  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Juxl.  ii. 
18.  10).  Its  ruins  afterwards  became  the  refuge 
of  a great  number  of  persons  who  had  escaped 
from  the  destruction  of  other  cities  by  Vespa- 
sian, and  who  took  to  piracy  for  a subsistence. 
Hence  the  Romans  again  marched  against  the 
place,  when  the  inhabitants  tied  to  their  boats, 
but  were  driven  (jack  by  a storm  and  destroyed. 
The  city  was  *hen  utterly  demolished  ( T>e  Bell. 
Jud.  iii.  9).  Joppa  was  the  seat  of  a bishopric 
in  the  time  of  Constantine  the  Great,  as  well  as 
when  taken  by  the  Arabians  under  Omar  in  a.d. 
636.  There  was  a bishop  of  Joppa  in  the 
council  held  at  Jeruss’em  in  a.d.  536.  During 


the  crusades  Joppa  was  besieged  a..  I taken  by 
Baldwin  I.  ; and  was  recovered  by  the  Moslems 
under  Saladin  in  a.d.  1186.  From  the  first  cru- 
sade down  to  our  own  day,  Joppa  has  been  the 
landing-place  of  pilgrims  going  to  Jerusalem,  and 
is  hence  mentioned  in  almost  all  the  innumerable 
itineraries  and  books  of  travels  in  the  Holy  Land 
which  have  appeared  in  different  languages. 
There  is  still  here  an  hospital  for  pilgrims,  depen- 
dent on  the  convent  of  St.  Salvador  in  Jerusalem, 
and  occupied  by  Spanish  monks.  In  1797  the 
place  was  taken  by  storm  by  the  French  army 
under  Napoleon,  and  was  sacked  without  mercy  ; 
when  the  Turkish  prisoners,  to  the  number  of  500 
or  600,  were  carried  to  the  neighbouring  sand-hills 
and  put  to  death  by  his  order. 

Josephus  describes  the  natural  unfitness  of 
Jaffa  for  a haven  in  terms  very  similar  to  those 
which  modem  travellers  employ  (De  Bell.  Jzui 


JORAM. 


JORAM. 


141 


tii.  9.  3).  The  fact  is,  the  port  is  so  dangerous, 
from  exposure  to  the  open  sea,  that  the  surf  often 
rolls  in  with  the  utmost  violence,  and  even  so 
lately  as  1842  a lieu  .enant  and  some  sailors  were 
lost  in  pulling  to  ‘.he  shore  from  an  English 
steamer  that  lay  in  the  harbour  (Stent's  Egypt 
and  the  Holy  Land , ii.  28).  But  however  bad, 
it  was  the  only  port,  which  existed  within  reach  of 
the  important  district  which  lay  behind  it  inland  : 
and  the  miserable  state  of  the  ancient  roads,  or 
rather  perhaps  the  absence  of  any  roads,  made  a 
near  harbour,  however  incommodious,  of  more 
immediate  consequence  than  a good  one  at  a 
greater  distance. 

The  town  is  approached  on  the  land  side 
through  rich.  and  extensive  gardens  and  orchards, 
and  is  very  picturesquely  situated  upon  an  emi- 
nence or  p.omontory,  which  is  crowned  by  a castle. 
It  chiefly  facts  the  north  ; and  the  buildings  ap- 
pear, from  the  steepness  of  the  site,  as  if  standing 
upon  one  another.  The  most  prominent  features 
of  the  architecture  from  without  are  the  flattened 
domes  by  which  most  of  the  buildings  are  sur- 
mounted, and  the  appearance  of  arched  vaults. 
But  the  aspect  of  the  whole  is  mean  and  gloomy, 
and  inside  the  place  has  all  the  appearance  of  a 
poor  though  large  village.  There  are  no  public 
buildings  to  engage  the  eye,  and  the  houses  are 
mean  and  comfortless.  No  ancient  ruins  have 
been  observed,  nor  are  any  to  be  expected  in  a 
place  so  often  destroyed  in  war.  From  the  steep- 
ness of  the  site  many  of  the  streets  are  connected 
by  flights  of  steps,  and  the  one  that  runs  along 
the  sea-wall  is  the  most  clean  and  regular  of  the 
whole.  There  are  three  mosques  in  Joppa,  and 
Latin,  Greek,  and  Armenian  convents.  The 
former  is  that  in  which  European  pilgrims  and 
travellers  usually  lodge.  The  town  still  enjoys  a 
considerable  trade  with  the  neighbouring  coasts. 
Its  chief  manufacture  is  soap,  which  is  largely 
consumed  in  the  baihs  of  Cairo  and  Damascus  ; 
and  its  excellent  fruits  are  exported  in  large 
quantities,  especially  water-melons,  which  are 
very  extensively  cultivated  here  and  in  other 
parts  of  the  plain  of  Sharon.  The  inhabitants 
are  said  not  to  exceed  4000,  of  whom  one-fourth 
are  reckoned  to  be  Christians.  A British  consul 
is  now  resident  in  the  place.  (Raumer's  Paliis- 
tina;  Volney,  i.  136,  sq. ; Chateaubriand,  ii.  103  ; 
Clarke,  iv.  438,  sq.  ; Buckingham,  i.  227,  sq. ; 
Richter,  p.  12:  Richardson,  ii.  16;  Skinner,  i. 
175-184;  Robinson,  i.  18;  Stent,  ii.  27). 

JORAM  (DTI1’  ; Sept.  ’I copay.,  a contraction  of 
Jehouam),  ninth  king  of  Israel,  son  of  Ahab, 
and  successor  to  his  elder  brother  Ahaziah,  who 
died  childless.  He  began  to  reign  n.c.  896,  and 
reigned  twelve  years  (2  Kings  i.  17 ; iii.  1). 
Joram  adhered  to  the  sinful  policy  of  Jeroboam 
in  the  matter  of  the  golden  calves  ; but,  although 
his  mother  Jezebel  was  still  alive,  ne  discontinued 
the  dark  idolatries  of  Baal  which  she  had  intro- 
duced and  maintained  at  such  high  cost  of  guilt 
and  blood  to  the  nation. 

The  Moabites  had  been  tributary  to  the  crown 
sf  Israel  since  the  separation  of  the  two  king- 
doms. But  king  Mesha  deemed  the  defeat  and 
death  of  Ahab  so  heavy  a blow  to  the  power  of 
Israel  that  he  might  safely  assert  his  indepen- 
dence. He  accordingly  did  so,  by  withholding 
his  tribute  of*  160,000  lambs  and  100,000  rams, 


with  the  wool.’  The  short  reign  of  Ahaziah  had 
afforded  no  opportunity  for  any  operations  against 
the  revolters ; but  the  new  king  hastened  to  re- 
duce them  again  under  the  yoke  they  had  cast 
oft*.  The  good  king  of  Judah,  Jehoshaphat,  was 
too  easily  induced  to  take  a part  in  the  war. 
He  perhaps  feared  that  the  example  of  Moab, 
if  allowed  to  be  successful,  might  seduce  into  a 
similar  course  his  own  tributary,  the  king  of 
Edom,  whom  he  now  summoned  to  join  in  this 
expedition.  The  deliverance  of  the  allies  from 
perishing  for  lack  of  watei,  and  the  signal  ever- 
throw  of  the  Moabites  at  the  word  of  Elisha,  have 
been  already  described  under  Elisha  and  Jeho- 
shaphat. 

After  this  a more  redoubtable  enemy,  Benba- 
dad,  king  of  Syria,  occupied  for  a long  time  the 
attention  and  strength  of  the  king.  In  the  sacred 
records  the  more  striking  events  of  this  war  seem 
to  be  recorded  for  the  sake  of  showing  forth  the 
great  acts  of  Elisha,  and  they  have  therefore 
been  related  under  his  name.  It  suffices  here  to 
indicate  that  they  consisted  in  the  Syrian  king 
being  constrained  to  terminate  one  campaign  in 
consequence  of  al  1 his  plans  being  made  known 
by  the  prophet  to  the  king  of  Israel  (2  Kings  vi. 
1-23) ; and  in  the  deliverance  of  Samaria,  ac- 
cording to  the  prediction  of  the  prophet,  from  a 
horrible  famine,  caused  by  the  city  being  besieged 
by  the  Syrians  (2  Kings  vi.  24-33 ; vii.),  An 
interval  of  the  war  also  afforded  occasion  for  the 
remarkable  cure  of  Naaman,  the  Syrian  leper, 
by  the  same  prophet  (2  Kings  v.)  [NaamanJ. 
These  events  serve  to  manifest  the  uncertain 
character  of  Joram,  and  the  too  strong  influence 
of  instant  circumstances  upon  his  faith  and  con- 
duct. So  in  his  conduct  to  Elisha,  we  And  him 
at  one  time  obedient  to  the  prophet,  and  full  of 
respectful  admiration  of  his  office  and  character ; 
and  at  another  time  devoting  his  head  to  destruc- 
tion, sending  messengers  to  put  him  to  death,  and 
then  starting  himself  after  them — probably  to 
prevent  his  own  orders  from  being  executed 
(2  Kings  vii.  31-33). 

After  the  death  of  Benhadad,  Joram  found  a 
new  and  active  enemy  in  his  murderer  and  suc- 
cessor, Hazael.  During  the  illness  of  Benhadad, 
the  king  of  Israel  seems  to  have  employed  him- 
self in  strengthening  his  eastern  frontier  against  the 
Syrians,  and  in  fortifying  Ramoth-Gilead,  which 
had  fallen  into  his  hands,  and  which  his  father 
had  perished  in  the  attempt  to  recover  from  the 
Syrians.  This  strong  fortress  thenceforth  became 
the  head-quarters  of  the  operations  beyond  the 
river.  Hazael  was  scarcely  settled  on  the  throne 
before  he  took  arms,  and  marched  against  Ramoth, 
in  the  environs  of  which  the  Israelites  sustained  a 
defeat,  and  the  king  was  wounded.  He  returned 
to  Jezreel  to  be  healed  of  his  wounds,  leaving  the 
army  in  the  charge  of  Jehu,  one  of  his  ablest  and 
most  active  generals.  It  was  in  this  interval  that 
Jehu  was  anointed  king  of  Israel  by  the  messenger 
of  Elisha,  and  immediately  proceeded  to  Jezreel 
to  fulfil  his  commission  to  exterminate  the  house 
of  Ahab.  The  king,  who  went  forth  from  the  city 
to  meet  him  when  the  watchman  on  the  tower  of 
Jezreel  announced  his  approach,  was  slain  unde* 
the  circumstances  described  in  the  article  Jehu;' 
and  Ahaziah,  the  king  of  Judah,  who  was  at  Jea- 
reel  on  a visit  to  his  sick  cousin,  shared  bis  fate 
(b.c.  884).  With  Joram  ended  the  dynasty  00 


US 


JORDAN. 


JOSEPH. 


Aliab,  which  reigned  forty- four  years  in  Israel 
(2  Kings  viii.  25-29  ; ix.  1-20). 

JORDAN,  the  principal  liver  of  Palestine. 
(Palestine.] 

JOSEPH  (P]DV  ; Sept.  ’I wafo),  son  of  Jacob 
and  Rachel,  born  under  peculiar  circumstances, 
as  may  be  seen  in  Gen.  xxx.  22 ; on  which  ac- 
count, and  because  he  was  the  son  of  his  old  age 
(xxxvii.  3),  he  was  beloved  by  his  father  more 
than  were  the  rest  of  his  children,  though  Ben- 
jamin, as  being  also  a son  of  Jacob’s  favourite  wife, 
Rachel,  was  in  a peculiar  manner  dear  to  the 
patriarch.  The  partiality  evinced  towards  Joseph 
by  his  father  excited  jealousy  on  the  part  of  his 
brethren,  the  rather  that  they  were  born  of  different 
mothers  (xxxvii.  2).  Joseph  had  reached  his 
seventeenth  year,  having  hitherto  been  engaged  in 
boyish  sports,  or  aiding  in  pastoral  duties,  when 
some  conduct  on  the  part  of  4 the  sons  of  Bilhah 
and  the  sons  of  Zilpali,  his  father’s  wives,'  seems 
to  have  been  such  as  in  the  opinion  of  Joseph  to 
require  the  special  attention  of  Jacob,  to  whom, 
accordingly,  he  communicated  the  facts.  This 
regard  to  virtue,  and  this  manifestation  of  filial 
fidelity,  greatly  increased  his  brothers’  dislike, 
who  henceforth  ‘ hated  him,  and  could  not  speak 
peaceably  unto  him  ’ (xxxvii.  4).  Their  aver- 
sion, however,  was  carried  to  the  highest  pitch 
when  Joseph  acquainted  them  with  two  dreams 
that  he  had  had,  to  the  effect — the  first,  that  while 
he  and  they  were  binding  sheaves,  his  sheaf  arose 
and  stood  erect,  while  theirs  stood  round  and  did 
obeisance  to  his ; the  second,  that  ‘ the  sun  and 
the  moon  and  the  eleven  stars  paid  him  homage.’ 
These  dreams  appeared  to  indicate  that  Joseph 
would  acquire  pre-eminence  in  the  family,  if  not 
sovereignty  ; and  while  even  his  father  rebuked 
him,  his  brothers  were  filled  with  envy.  Jacob, 
however,  was  not  aware  of  the  depth  of  their  ill 
will;  so  that  on  one  occasion,  having  a desire  to 
hear  intelligence  of  his  sons,  who  were  pasturing 
their  flocks  at  a distance,  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
make  Joseph  his  messenger  for  that  purpose.  His 
appearing  in  view  of  his  brothers  was  the  signal 
for  their  malice  to  gain  head.  They  began  to 
devise  means  for  his  immediate  destruction,  which 
they  would  unhesitatingly  have  effected,  but  for 
his  half-brother,  Reuben,  who,  as  the  eldest  sou, 
might  well  be  the  party  to  interfere  on  behalf  of 
Joseph.  A compromise  was  entered  into,  in 
virtue  of  which  the  youth  was  stripped  of  the 
distinguishing  vestments  which  he  owed  to  his 
father's  affection,  and  cast  into  a pit.  Having 
performed  this  evil  deed,  and  while  they  were 
taking  refreshment,  the  brothers  beheld  a caravan 
of  Arabian  merchants,  who  were  bearing  the  spices 
and  aromatic  gums  of  India  down  to  the  well- 
known  and  much-frequented  mart,  Egypt.  Judah 
on  this  feels  a bitter  emotion  arise  in  his  mind, 
and  proposes  that,  instead  of  allowing  Joseph  to 
perish,  they  should  sell  him  to  the  merchants, 
whose  trade  obviously  from  this  embraced  human 
beings  as  well  as  spicery.  Accordingly  the  un- 
happy young  man  was  sold  for  a slave,  to  be  con- 
veyed by  his  masters  into  Egypt.  While  on  his 
way  thither,  Reuben  returned  to  the  pit,  intending 
to  rescue  his  brother,  and  convey  him  safely  back 
to  their  father.  Joseph  was  gone.  On  which 
Reuben  went  to  the  wicked  young  men,  who,  not 
content  with  selling  a brother  into  slavery,  deter- 


mined to  punish  their  father  for  his  partiality 
towards  the  unoffending  sufferer.  With  this  view 
they  dipped  Joseph's  party-coloured  garment  in 
the  blood  of  a kid  and  sent  it  to  Jacob,  in  order 
to  make  him  believe  that  his  favourite  child  had 
been  torn  to  pieces  by  some  wild  beast.  The 
trick  succeeded,  and  Jacob  was  grieved  beyonc" 
measure. 

Meanwhile  the  merchants  sold  Joseph  to  Pof.i- 
plmr,  an  officer  of  Pharaoh’s,  and  captain  of  the 
royal  guard,  who  was  a native  of  thd  country. 
It  is  by  no  means  easy  to  determine  who  at  this 
time  was  the  Pharaoh,  or  ruling  monarch,  though, 
what  is  for  more  important,  the  condition  of  the 
country,  and  therein  the  progress  of  civilization, 
are  in  certain  general  and  important  features 
made  clear  in  the  course  of  the  narration.  Ac- 
cording to  Syncellus,  however,  the  general  opinion 
in  his  day  was  that  the  sovereign’s  name  who 
ruled  Egypt  at  the  time  of  the  deportation  of 
Joseph  was  Aphopbis. 

In  Potiphar  s house  Joseph  enjoyed  the  highest 
confidence  and  the  largest  prosperity.  A higher 
power  watched  over  him  ; and  whatever  he  under- 
took succeeded,  till  at.  length  his  master  gave 
every  thing  into  his  hands.  The  Hebrew  race 
have  always  been  remarkable  for  personal  beauty, 
of  which  Joseph  seems  to  have  had  an  unusual 
share.  This  fact  explains,  if  it  cannot  palliate, 
the  conduct  of  Potiphar ’s  wife,  who  tried  every 
means  to  bring  the  uncontaminated  and  pure- 
minded  youth  to  fulfil  her  unchaste  desires.  Foiled 
in  her  evil  wishes,  she  resolved  to  punish  Joseph, 
who  thus  a second  time  innocently  brings  on  him- 
self the  vengeance  of  the  ill-disposed.  Charged 
with  the  very  crime  to  which  he  had  in  vain  been 
tempted,  he  is,  with  a fickleness  characteristic  of 
Oriental  lords,  at  once  cast  into  the  state  prison. 

The  narrative,  which  is  obviously  constructed 
in  order  to  show  the  workings  of  divine  Providence, 
and  may  not  impossibly  have  received  some  shape 
or  hue  from  the  predominant,  idea,  states,  however, 
that  Joseph  was  not  left  without  soecial  aid,  in 
consequence  of  which  he  gained  favour  with  the 
keeper  of  the  prison  to  such  an  extent  that  every 
thing  was  put  under  his  direction.  If  the  sudden- 
ness and  magnitude  of  this  and  other  changes  in 
the  lot  of  Joseph  should  surprise  anyone,  the  feel- 
ing will  be  mainly  owing  to  his  want  of  acquaint- 
ance with  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  East, 
where  vicissitudes  not  less  marked  and  sudden 
than  are  those  presented  in  our  present  history  are 
not  uncommon;  for  those  who  come  into  the 
charmed  circle  of  an  Eastern  court,  especially  if 
they  are  persons  of  great  energy  of  character,  are 
subject  to  the  most  wonderful  alternations  of  for- 
tune, the  slave  of  to-day  being  the  vizier  of  to- 
morrow. 

Among  the  many  advantages  secured  to  pos- 
terity by  this  interesting  and  admirable  narrative 
regarding  the  patriarch  Joseph,  is  an  intimate  ac- 
quaintance (so  far  as  it  goes)  with  the  state,  at  the 
time  to  which  it  refers,  of  civilization  in  Egypt. 
In  the  part  at  which  we  are  now  arrived  we  read 
of  ‘ the  chief  of  the  butlers  ’ and  ‘ the  chief  of  the 
bakers ;’  officers  who  vouch,  by  the  duties  which 
they  had  to  discharge,  for  the  advanced  and  com- 
plex condition  of  society  in  which  their  services 
were  required  and  supplied.  How  true  and  trust- 
worthy, too,  the  Biblical  narrative  is,  may  be 
learned  by  an  implication  which  is  here  offered. 


JOSEPH. 


JOSEPH. 


149 


The  head-butler  had  a dream  in  which  he  saw  a 
fine.  On  the  authority  of  Herodotus  and  others, 
it  was  long  denied  that  the  vine  grew  in  Egypt ; 
and  if  so,  the  imagery  of  the  butler’s  dream  would 
hardly  have  been  appropriate  Wilkinson,  however, 
has  shown  beyond  a question  that  vines  did  grow 
in  Egypt,  and  thus  not  only  removed  a doubt, 
but  given  a positive  confirmation  of  the  sacred 
record  (Manners  of  the  Anc.  Egypt,  ii.  152). 

The  two  regal  officers  just  mentioned  had,  while 
in  prison  with  Joseph,  each  one  a dream,  which 
Joseph  interpreted  correctly.  The  butler,  whose 
fate  was  auspicious,  promised  the  young  Hebrew 
to  employ  his  influence  to  procure  his  restoration 
to  the  free  air  of  day ; but  when  again  in  the 
enjoyment  of  his  4 butlership,’  ‘lie  forgat’  Jo- 
seph (xl.).  Pharaoh  himself,  however,  had  two 
dreams,  which  found  in  Joseph  a successful  ex- 
pounder; for  the  butler  remembered  the  skill  of 
ris  prison-companion,  and  advised  his  royal  mas- 
ter to  put  it  to  the  test  in  his  own  case.  Pharaoh's 
dream,  as  interpreted  by  Joseph,  foreboded  the 
approach  of  a seven  years’  famine  ; to  abate  the 
evils  of  which  Joseph  recommended  that  some 
‘ discreet  and  wise ' man  should  be  chosen  and 
6et  in  full  power  over  the  land  of  Egypt.  The 
monarch  was  alarmed,  and  called  a council  of 
his  advisers.  The  wisdom  of  Joseph  was  recog- 
nised as  of  divine  origin  and  supereminent  value; 
and  the  king  and  his  ministers  (whence  it.  appears 
that  the  Egyptian  monarchy  - at  Memphis — was 
not  despotic,  but  constitutional)  resolved  that 
Joseph  should  be  made  (to  borrow  a term  from 
Rome)  Dictator  in  the  approaching  time  of  need. 

1 And  Pharaoh  said  unto  Joseph,  Forasmuch  as 
God  hath  shewed  thee  all  this,  there  is  none  so 
discreet  and  wise  as  thou  art.  Thou  shalt  be  over 
my  house,  and  according  unto  thy  word  shall  all 
my  people  be  ruled  : only  in  the  throne  will  I he 
greater  than  thou.  See,  I have  set  thee  over  all 
the  land  of  Egypt.  And  Pharaoh  took  oft’  his 
ring  and  put  it  upon  Joseph's  hand,  and  arrayed 
him  in  vestures  of  fine  linen,  and  put  a gold  chain 
about  his  neck  ; and  he  made  him  to  ride  in  the 
second  chariot  which  he  had ; and  they  cried  be- 
fore him,  Bow  the  knee.  And  Pharaoh  said  unto 
Joseph,  I am  Pharaoh,  and  without  thee  shall  no 
man  lift  up  his  hand  or  foot  in  all  the  land  of 
Egypt.  And  Pharaoh  called  Joseph’s  name 
Zaphnath-paaneah  (‘saviour  of  the  woild comp. 
Jablonsky,  Qpasc.  i.  207,  sq.) ; and  he  gave  him 
to  wife  Asenath,  the  daughter  of  Poti-pherah, 
priest  of  On.  And  Joseph  went  out  over  all  the 
land  of  Egypt  ’ vxli.  39,  sq.).  It  has  been  sup- 
posed that  Joseph  was' taken  into  the  priestly  order, 
and  thus  ennobled.  The  Biblical  narrative  does 
not  support  this  opinion,  though  it  leaves  it  with- 
out a doubt  that  in  reality,  if  not  in  form  as  well, 
tho  highest  trust  and  the  proudest  honours  of  the 
state  were  conferred  on  one  so  recently  a Hebrew 
slave. 

Seven  years  of  abundance  afforded  Joseph  op- 
portunity to  carry  into  effect  such  plans  as  secured 
an  ample  provision  against  the  seven  years  of  need. 
Toe  famine  came,  but  it  found  a prepared  people. 
The  visitation  did  not  depend  on  any  mere  local 
causes,  for  4 the  famine  was  over  all  the  face  of 
the  earth  , * and  all  countries  came  into  Egypt  to 
Joseph  to  buy  corn’  (ver.  56.  57).  Among  these 
customers  appeared  ten  brethren,  sous  of  the 
Hebrew  Jacob.  They  had  of  necessity  to  appear 


before  Joseph,  whose  licence  for  the  purchase  of  com 
was  indispensable.  Joseph  had  probably  expected 
to  see  them,  and  he  sewms  to  have  formed  a deli- 
berate plan  of  action.  His  conduct  has  brought 
on  him  the  always  ready  charges  of  those  who 
would  rather  impeach  than  study  the  Bible,  and 
even  friends  of  that  sacred  book  have  hardly  in 
this  case  done  Joseph  full  justice  (Niemevcr, 
Charakt.  ii.  366  ; Heuser,  Diss.  non  inhumaniter 
sed  prudentissime  Josephum  cum  fratribus  fe- 
cisse , Hal.  1773).  Joseph’s  main  object  appears 
to  have  been  to  make  his  brothers  feel  and  recog- 
nise their  guilt  in  their  conduct  towards  him.  For 
this  purpose  suffering,  then  as  well  as  now,  was 
indispensable.  Accordingly  Joseph  feigned  not  to 
know  his  brothers,  charged  them  with  being  spies, 
threatened  them  with  imprisonment,  and  allowed 
them  to  return  home  to  fetch  their  younger  bro- 
ther, as  a proof  of  their  veracity,  only  on  condition 
that  one  of  them  should  remain  behind  in  chains, 
with  a prospect  of  death  before  him  should  not 
their  words  be  verified.  Then  it  was,  and  not  be- 
fore, that  4 they  said  one  to  another,  We  are  verily 
guilty  concerning  our  brother,  in  that  we  saw  the 
anguish  of  his  soul  and  would  not  hear ; therefore 
is  this  distress  come  upon  us.  And  Reuben  said, 
Spake  I not  unto  you,  saying,  Do  not  sin  against 
the  child,  and  ye  would  not  hear?  therefore,  be- 
hold, also  his  blood  is  required  ’ (xlii.  21).  On 
which,  after  weeping  bitterly,  he  by  common 
agreement  bound  his  brother  Simeon,  and  left  him 
in  custody.  How  deeply  concerned  Joseph  was 
for  his  family,  how  true  and  affectionate  a heart 
he  had,  may  be  learned  from  the  words  which 
escape  from  the  brothers  in  their  entreaty  that 
Jacob  would  allow  Benjamin  to  go  into  Egypt, 
as  required  by  Joseph : 4 The  man  asked  us 
straitly  of  our  state  and  of  our  kindred,  saying, 
Is  your  father  yet  alive?  have  ye  another  brother?’ 
(xliii.  7).  At  length  Jacob  consents  to  Benjamin’s 
going  in  company  with  his  brothers  : 4 And  God 
Almighty  give  you  mercy  before  the  man,  that  he 
may  send  away  your  other  brother,  and  Benjamin. 
If  I be  bereaved  of  my  children,  I am  bereaved  7 
(ver.  14j.  Thus  provided,  with  a present  consist- 
ing of  balm,  honey,  spices  and  myrrh,  nuts  and 
almonds,  and  with  double  money  in  their  hands 
(double,  in  order  that  they  might  repay  the  sum 
which  Joseph  had  caused  to  be  put  into  each 
man's  sack  at  their  departure,  if,  as  Jacob  sup- 
posed, 4 it  was  an  oversight  ’),  they  went  again 
down  to  Egypt  and  stood  before  Joseph  (xliii. 
15);  and  there,  too,  stood  Benjamin,  Joseph’s 
beloved  brother.  The  required  pledge  of  truth- 
fulness was  given.  If  it  is  asked  why  such  a 
pledge  was  demanded,  since  the  giving  of  it 
caused  pain  to  Jacob,  the  answer  may  be  thus  : 
Joseph  knew  not  how  to  demean  himself  towards 
his  family  until  he  ascertained  its  actual  condition. 
That  knowledge  he  could  hardly  be  certain  he 
had  gained  from  the  mere  words  of  men  who  had 
spared  his  life  only  to  sell  himself  iido  slavery. 
How  had  these  wicked  men  behaved  towards  his 
venerable  father?  His  beloved  brother  Benjamin, 
was  he  safe?  or  had  he  suffered  from  their  jealousy 
and  malice  the  worse  fate  with  which  he  himself 
had  been  threatened  ? Nothing  but  the  sight  of 
Benjamin  could  answer  these  questions,  and  re- 
solve these  doubts. 

Benjamin  had  come,  and  immediately  a na- 
tural change  took  place  in  Joseph’s  conduct  *.  tits 


150 


oOSEPII. 


JOSEPH. 


brother  began  to  claim  his  rights  in  Joseph’s 
bosom.  Jacob  was  safe,  and  Benjamin  was  safe. 
Joseph's  heart  melted  at  the  sight  of  Benjamin  : 
* And  he  said  to  the  ruler  of  his  house,  Bring  these 
men  home,  ind  slay  and  make  ready,  for  these  men 
shall  dine  .vith  me  at  noon’  (xliii.  16).  But.  guilt 
is  always  the  ready  parent  of  fear.  Accordingly 
the  brothers  expected  nothing  but  being  reduced 
to  slavery.  When  taken  to  their  own  brother's 
house,  they  imagined  they  were  being  entrapped. 
A colloquy  ensued  between  them  and  Joseph's 
steward,  whence  it  appeared  that  the  money  put 
into  their  sacks,  to  which  they  now  attributed  their 
peril,  was  in  truth  a present  from  Joseph,  designed, 
after  his  own  brotherly  manner,  to  aid  his  family 
in  their  actual  necessities.  The  steward  said, 
‘ Peace  be  to  you,  fear  not  : your  God  and  the  God 
of  your  father  hath  given  you  the  treasure  in  your 
sacks.  1 had  your<  money’  (ver.  23). 

Noon  came,  and  with  it  Joseph,  whose  first 
question  regarded  liome  : ‘ He  asked  them  of  their 
welfare,  and  said,  Is  your  father  well,  the  old  man 
of  whom  ye  spake?  is  lie  yet  alive?  And  he  lifted 
up  his  eyes  and  saw  his  brother  Benjamin,  his 
mother's  son,  and  said,  Is  this  your  younger  bro- 
ther? And  he  said,  God  be  gracious  unto  thee, 
my  son  !’  ‘ And  Joseph  made  haste,  for  his 

bowels  did  yearn  upon  his  brother,  and  he  sought 
where  to  weep,  and  he  entered  into  his  chamber 
and  wept  there.’  Does  this  look  like  harshness? 

The  connection  brings  into  view  an  Egyptian 
custom,  which  is  of  more  than  ordinary  import- 
ance, in  consequence  of  its  being  adopted  in  the 
Jewish  polity  ; ‘ And  they  set  on  (food)  for  him 
by  himself  (Joseph),  and  for  them  by  themselves 
(the  brethren),  and  for  the  Egyptians  which  did 
eat  with  them,  by  themselves  : because  the  Egyp- 
tians might  not  eat  bread  with  the  Hebrews;  for 
that  is  an  abomination  with  the  Egyptians’  (ver. 
32).  This  passage  is  also  interesting,  as  proving 
that  Joseph  hail  not,  in  his  princely  grandeur, 
become  ashamed  of  his  origin,  nor  consented  to 
receive  adoption  into  a strange  nation  : he  was 
still  a Hebrew,  waiting,  like  Moses  after  him,  for 
the  proper  season  to  use  his  power  for  the  good  of 
bis  own  people. 

Other  customs  appear  in  this  interesting  nar- 
rative : ‘ And  they  (the  brothers)  sat  before  him 
(Joseph),  the  first-born  according  to  his  birthright , 
and  the  youngest  according  to  his  youth.’  4 And 
he  sent  messes  (delicacies)  unto  them  from  before 
him  ; but  Benjamin’s  mess  was  five  times  so  much 
as  any  of  theirs  ’ (ver.  32,  33).  Fear  had  now 
given  place  to  wonder,  and  wonder  at  length  issued 
in  joy  and  mirth  (comp.  ver.  18,  33,  34).  Thus 
ended  the  second  act  in  the  drama.  Another  now 
opens. 

Joseph,  apparently  with  a view  to  ascertain  how 
fcir  his  brethren  were  faithful  to  their  father,  hit 
upon  a plan  which  would  in  its  issue  serve  to 
show  whether  they  would  make  any,  and  what, 
sacrifice,  in  order  to  fulfil  their  solemn  promise 
of  restoring  Benjamin  in  safety  to  Jacob.  Ac- 
cordingly he  orders  not  only  that  every  man's 
money  (as  before)  should  be  put  in  his  sack’s 
mouth,  but  also  that  his  ‘silver  cup,  in  which  my 
lord  drinketh,  and  whereby  lie  divineth,’  should 
be  put  in  the  sack’s  mouth  of  the  youngest.  The 
brethren  leave,  but  are  soon  overtaken  by  Joseph's 
steward,  who  charges  them  with  having  surrepti- 
tiously carried  off  this  costly  and  highly-valued 


vessel.  They  on  heir  part  vehemently  repel  fka 
accusation,  adding,  ‘ with  whomsoever  of  thy  ser- 
vants it  be  found,  both  let  him  die,  and  we  also 
will  be  my  lord’s  bondmen.’  A search  is  made, 
and  the  cup  is  found  in  Benjamin's  sack.  Accord 
ingly  they  return  to  the  city.  And  now  comes 
the  hour  of  trial  : Would  they  purchase  their  own  ‘ 
liberation  by  surrendering  Benjamin?  After  a 
most  touching  interview,  in  which  they  prove 
themselves  worthy  and  faithful,  Joseph  declares  1 
himself  unable  any  longer  to  withstand  the  appeal  5j 
of  natural  affection.  On  this  occasion  Judah,  j 
who  is  the  spokesman,  shows  the  deepest  regard  i 
to  his  aged  father's  feelings,  and  entreats  for  the 
liberation  of  Benjamin  even  at  the  price  of  his  . 
own  liberty.  In  the  whole  of  "literature  we  know  j 
of  nothing  more  simple,  natural,  true,  and  irn-  i 
pressive;  nor,  while  passages  of  this  kind  stand  'I 
in  the  Pentateuch,  can  we  even  understand  what  1 
is  meant  by  terming  that  collection  of  writings  1 
‘ the  Hebrew  national  epic,’  or  regarding  it  as  an  1 
aggregation  of  historical  legends.  If  here  we  have  j 
not  history,  we  can  in  no  case  be  sure  that  history  4 
is  before  us  (xliv.). 

Most  natural  and  impressive  is  the  scene  also  ] 
which  ensues,  in  which  Joseph,  after  informing  I 
his  brethren  who  he  was,  and  inquiring,  first  of 
all,  ‘ Is  my  father  alive?’  expresses  feelings  free  ft 
from  the  slightest  taint  of  revenge,  and  even  shows  j 
how,  under  Divine  Providence,  the  conduct  of  his  1 
brothers  had  issued  in  good — 4 God  sent  me  before  A 
you  to  preserve  a posterity  in  the  earth,  and  to  | 
save  your  lives  by  a great  deliverance.'  Five  < 
years  had  yet  to  ensue  in  which  4 there  would 
be  neither  earing  nor  harvest and  therefore  the  j 
brethren  were  directed  to  return  home  and  bring  i 
Jacob  down  to  Egypt  with  all  speed.  ‘ And  he  1 
fell  upon  his  brother  Benjamin’s  neck  and  wept ; i 
and  Benjamin  wept  upon  his  neck.  Moreover,  | 
he  kissed  all  his  brethren  and  wept  upon  them  ; s 
and  after  that  his  brethren  talked  with  him  ’ 1 
(xl  v.  14,  15). 

The  news  of  these  striking  events  was  carried  to 
Pharaoh,  who  being  pleased  at  Joseph's  conduct,  1 
gave  di lections  that  Jacob  and  his  family  should  ) 
come  forthwith  into  Egypt — ‘ I will  give  you  the  i 
good  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  ye  shall  eat  the  * 
fat  of  the  land  ; regard  not  your  stuff,  for  the  i 
good  of  all  the  land  is  yours.’  The  brethren  de-  I 
parted,  being  well  provided  for — ‘ And  to  his 
father  Joseph  sent  ten  asses  laden  with  the  good  ^ 
things  of  Egypt,  and  ten  she  asses  laden  with  | 
corn  and  bread  and  meat  for  his  father  by  the 
wav.’ 

The  intelligence  which  they  bore  to  their 
father  was  of  su%h  a nature  that  ‘ Jacob’s  heart  9 
fainted,  for  he  believed  them  not.’  When,  how-  M 
ever,  he  had  recovered  from  the  thus  naturally  j 
told  effects  of  his  surprise,  the  venerable  patriarch  "3 
said,  ‘Enough;  Joseph  my  son  is  yet.  alive:  9 
I will  go  and  see  him  before  I die’  (xlv.  26,  28).  S 

Accordingly  Jacob  and  his  family,  to  the  num-  I 
ber  of  threescore  and  ten  souls,  go  down  to  Egypt,  j 
and  by  the  express  efforts  of  Joseph,  are  allowed  .j 
to  settle  in  the  district  of  Goshen,  where  Joseph 
met  his  father:  ‘ And  he  fell  on  his  neck,  an d , 

wept  on  his  neck  a good  while.’  There  Joseph  1 
‘ nourished  his  father  and  his  brethren,  and  all 
his  father’s  household,  with  bread,  acivrding  t« 
their  families  ' (xlvii.  12). 

Meanwhile  the  predicted  famine  was  paupei- 


JOSEPH. 


JOSEPH, 


15! 


wing  Egypt.  The  inhabitants  found  then-  money 
exhausted,  and  their  cattle  and  substance  all  gone, 
being  parted  with  in  order  to  purchase  food  from 
the  public  granaries,  until  at  length  they  had 
nothing  to  give  in  return  for  sustenance  but  them- 
selves. ‘ Buy  us  1 — they  then  imploringly  said 
to  Joseph — ‘and  our  land  for  bread,  and  we  and 
our  laud  will  be  slaves  unto  Pharaoh.’  •'  And 
Joseph  bought  all  the  land  of  Egypt  lor  Pharaoh, 
so  the  land  became  Pharaoh’s.'  The  people  too, 

‘ Joseph  removed  to  cities  from  one  end  of  the 
borders  of  the  land  to  the  other  end.’  Religion, 
however,  was  too  strong  to  submit  to  these  politi- 
cal and  social  changes,  and  so  the  priests  still 
retained  their  land,  being  supplied  with  provi- 
sions out  of  tin;  common  store  gratuitously.  The 
land,  which  was  previously  the  people’s  own,  was 
now  let  to  them  on  a tenancy,  at  the  rent  of  one- 
fifth  of  the  pn  Juce  : the  laud  of  the  priests  being 
exempted. 

This  is  one  of  the  greatest,  if  not  the  greatest, 
social  revolution  recorded  in  history.  Under  the 
pressure  of  famine  an  entire  nation  is  reduced 
from  freedom  to  dependance ; while  the  popula- 
tion, which  had  been  apparently  limited  to  certain 
districts,  was  distributed  alT  over  the  land  on 
different  spots. 

At  this  distant  period  it  may  not  be  easy  to 
understand  and  explain  the  entire  conduct  ob- 
served by  Joseph  in  this  crisis  of  tiie  nation's  fate; 
but  we  must  protest  against  the  application  to  it 
of  measures  of  judgment  which  aie  derived  from 
modern  notions,  and  the  pure  and  lofty  morality 
of  the  Gospel.  If  a great  change  was  suddenly 
effected  in  the  social  condition  of  the  people,  we 
are  not  hastily  to  conclude  that  the  change  was 
for  the  worse,  especially  considering  that  a very 
long  and  grievous  famine  had  afflicted  so  fertile 
a land  as  Egypt  under  the  previously  existing 
social  condition.  And  if  an  opportunity  was 
taken  to  increase  the  royal  power  over  the  nation, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  nation  was  saved 
from  impending  destruction  by  the  foresight,  wis- 
dom, and  benevolence  of  the  Hebiew  vizier. 

Joseph  bad  now  to  pass  through  the  mournful 
scenes  which  attend  on  the  death  and  burial  of  a 
father.  Having  had  Jacob  embalmed,  and  seen 
the  rites  of  mourning  fully  observed,  the  faith- 
ful and  affectionate  son — leave  being  obtained  of 
the  monarch — proceeded  into  the  land  of  Canaan, 
in  order,  agreeably  to  a promise  which  the  pa- 
triarch had;  exacted,  to  lay  t he  old  man's  bones 
with  those  of  his  fathers,  in  ‘ the  field  of  Ephron  the 
Hittite.’  Having  performed  with  long  and  bitter 
mourning  Jacob's  funeral  rites,  Joseph  returned 
into  Egypt.  The  last  recorded  act  of  his  life  forms 
a most,  becoming  close.  After  the  death  of  their 
father,  his  brethren,  unable,  like  all  guilty  people, 
to  forget  their  criminality,  and  characteristically 
finding  it  difficult  to  think  that  Joseph  had  really 
forgiven  them,  grew  afraid  now  they  were  in  his 
power,  that  lie  would  take  an  opportunity  of  in- 
flicting some  punishment  on  them.  They  ac- 
cordingly go  into  his  presence,  and  in  imploring 
terms  and  an  abject,  manner,  entreat  his  for- 
giveness. ‘ Fear  not  ’ — this  is  his  noble  reply — 
‘ I will  nourish  you  and  your  little  ones.’ 

Joseph  lived  an  hundred  and  ten  years,  kind 
and  gentle  in  his  affections  to  the  last ; for  we  are 
told,  ‘ The  children  of  Machir,  the  son  of  Ma- 
aasseh,  were  brought  up  upon  Joseph’s  knees’ 


(1.  25).  And  so  having  obtained  a promise  from 
his  brethren,  that  when  the  time  came,  as  h« 
assured  them  it  would  come,  that  God  should 
visit  them,  and  ‘ living  them  unto  the  land  which 
he  sware  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob,’ 
they  would  carry  up  his  hones  out  of  Egypt, 
Joseph  at  length  ‘died,  and  they  embalmed  him, 
and  he  was  put  in  a coffin’  (1.  26).  This  pro- 
mise was  religiously  fulfilled.  Ilis  descendants, 
after  carrying  the  corpse  about  with  them  in  their 
wanderings,  at  length  put  it  in  its  final  resting- 
place  in  Sliecliem,  in  a parcel  of  ground  that 
Jacob  bought  of  the  sons  of  Iiamor,  which  became 
the  inheritance  of  the  children  of  Joseph  (Josh, 
xxiv.  32). 

By  his  Egyptian  wife  Asenath,  daughter  of  the 
high  priest  of  Heliopolis,  Joseph  had  two  sons, 
Manasseh  and  Ephraim  (Gen.  xli.  50,  sq.),  whom 
Jacob  adopted  (Geu.  xlviii.  5),  and  who  accord- 
ingly took  their  place  among  the  heads  of  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  Among  other  authorities 
the  following  may  he  consulted: — Wolfenb. 
Fragment ; Less,  Geschichte  der  Rel.  i.  267; 
J.  T.  Jacobi,  Siimmtl.  Schrift . 3 till.  ; Hess, 
Gesch.  der  Patriarch . ii.  324  ; Niemeyer, 
Charukt.  ii.  340 ; A llg . Welthist.  ii.  322 ; 
Heeren,  Ideen,  ii.  551. — J.  R.  B. 

JOSEPH,  ‘ the  husband  of  Mary,  of  whom 
was  born  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ’  (Matt.  i. 
16).  By  Matthew  he  is  said  to  have  been  the 
son  of  Jacob,  whose  lineage  is  traced  by  the  same 
writer  through  David  up  to  Abraharn.  Luke  re- 
presents him  as  being  the  son  of  Heli,  and  traces 
his  origin  up  to  Adam.  This  is  not  the  place  to 
attempt  to  reconcile  these  two  accounts,  as  it 
would  lead  to  discussion  and  detail,  for  which  we 
have  not  space ; hut  it  may  he  mentioned  that 
Luke  appears  to  have  had  some  specific  object 
i,n  view,  since  he  introduces  his  genealogical  line 
with  words  of  peculiar  import : — ‘ Jesus  being  (as 
was  supposed)  the  son  of  Joseph,  which  was  the 
son  of  Heli'  (Luke  iii  23) — ws  ivogl^ro,  ‘as 
was  supposed,’  in  other  terms,  as  accounted  by 
law,  as  enrolled  in  the  family  registers  ; for  Joseph 
being  the  husband  of  Mary,  became  thereby,  in 
law  ( v6/jlos ),  the  father  of  Jesus.  And  as  being  the 
legal  father  of  Jesus,  he  might  have  his  origin 
traced  in  the  line  of  Mary's  family,  as  well  as  in 
that  of  his  own. 

The  statements  of  Holy  Writ  in  regard  to 
Joseph  are  few  and  simple.  According  to  a 
custom  among  the  Jews,  traces  of  which  are  still 
found,  such  as  hand-fasting  among  the  Scotch, 
and  betrothing  among  t lie  Geimans,  Joseph  had 
pledged  his  faith  to  Mary  ; hut.  before  the  mar- 
riage was  consummated  she  proved  to  he  with 
child.  Grieved  at  this,  Joseph  was  disposed  to 
break  off  the  connection;  hut,  not  wishing  to  make 
a public  example  of  one  whom  he  loved,  he  con- 
templated a private  disruption  of  their  bond. 
From  this  step,  however,  he  is  deterred  by  a 
heavenly  messenger,  who  assures  him  that  Mary 
has  conceived  under  a divine  influence.  ‘ And 
she  shall  bring  forth  a son,  and  thou  sha.lt  call  his 
name  Jesus;  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins’  (Matt.  i.  IP,  sq. ; Luke  i.  27).  To 
this  account  various  objections  have  been  taken  ; 
but  most  of  them  are  drawn  from  the  ground 
of  a narrow,  short-sighted,  and  half-informed  ra- 
tionalism, which  judges  everything  by  its  own 
small  standard,  and  either  denies  niracle*  alto* 


152 


JOSEPH. 


JOSEPH  OF  ARIMATHEA. 


gelher,  or  admits  only  such  miracles  as  find 
favour  in  its  sight;  attempting  not  to  learn  what 
Christianity  is,  nor  what  was  suitable  and  proper 
in  the  days  of  Christ,  but  to  construct  a Chris- 
tianity of  its  own,  and  then  to  impose  the  new 
creation  on  the  writers  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  pri- 
mitive church. 

Joseph  wa3  by  trade  a carpenter,  in  which 
business  he  probably  educated  Jesus.  In  Matt, 
xiii.  55,  we  read,  ‘ Is  not  this  the  son  of  the  car- 
penter? ’ and  in  Mark  vi.  3,  ‘ Is  not  this  the  car- 
penter, the  son  of  Mary  ? ’ The  term  employed, 
reKTiov,  is  of  a general  character  (from  revxw,  ‘ I 
form  ’),  and  may  be  fitly  rendered  by  the  English 
word  ‘artificer’  or  ‘ artizan,'  signifying  anyone 
that  labours  in  the  fabrication  ( faber  in  Latin) 
of  articles  of  ordinary  use,  whatever  the  material 
may  be  out  of  which  they  are  made.  Accord- 
ingly, sometimes  it  denotes  a smith  as  well  as  a 
carpenter  or  joiner,  and  in  the  Septuagint  the  addi- 
tional term  ‘ iron  * (aiSypov)  or  ‘ wood  ’ (£v\cev) 
is  employed,  in  order  to  denote  its  specific  appli- 
cation. If  some  doubt  may  exist  whether  ‘car- 
penter ’ is  the  necessary  rendering  of  the  word 
when  applied  to  Joseph,  yet  there  is  no  impro- 
priety in  that  rendering,  for  not  seldom  the  word, 
when  used  without  any  explanatory  addition,  has 
that  signification.  Schleusner  (in  voc .)  asserts 
that  the  universal  testimony  of  the  ancient,  church 
represents  our  Lord  as  being  a carpenter's  son. 
This  is,  indeed,  the  statement  of  Justin  Martyr 
(Dial,  cum  Try  phone,  § 8S),  for  he  explains  the 
term  tcktiov,  which  he  applies  to  Jesus,  by  saying 
that  he  made  &porpa  kcu  £uy a,  ploughs  and  yokes  ; 
but  Origen,  in  replying  to  Celsus,  who  indulged 
in  jokes  against  the  bumble  employment  of  our 
Lord,  expressly  denied  that  Jesus  was  so  termed 
in  the  Gospels  (see  the  passage  cited  in  Otho’s 
Justin  Martyr,  tom.  ii.  p.  3(K>,  Jeuae,  1813)— -a 
declaration  which  suggests  the  idea  that  the  copies 
which  Origen  read  differed  from  our  own;  while 
Hilarius,  on  Matthew  (quoted  in  Simon’s  Die- 
tionnaire  de  la  Bible,  i.  (591),  asserts,  in  terms 
which  cannot  be  mist  iken,  that  Jesus  was  a smith 
(ferrum  igne  vincentis,  massamque  formantis , 
etc.).  Of  the  same  opinion  was  the  venerable 
Rede ; while  others  have  held  that  our  Lord  was 
a mason,  and  Cardinal  Cajetan,  that  he  was  a 
goldsmith. 

The  last  notion  probably  had  its  origin  in  those 
false  associations  of  more  modern  times  which 
disparage  hand-labour.  Among  the  ancient  Jews 
all  handicrafts  were  held  in  so  much  honour,  that 
they  were  learned  and  pursued  by  the  first  men  of 
the  nation. 

Jewish  tradition  (Ilieros.  Schaph.  c.  14)  names 
the  father  of  Jesus  3Q,  Phenedira,  and  repre- 
sents him  (Orig.  c.  Cels.  i.  32)  as  a rough  soldier, 
who  became  the  father  of  Jesus,  after  Mary  was 
betrothed  to  Joseph.  Another  form  of  the  legend 
sets  him  forth  (Toled  Jeschu,  p.  3,  ed.  Wagenseil ; 
Epiphan.  Hcer.  78.  7)  under  the  name  of  Pan- 
dira,  Christian  tradition  makes  Joseph  an  old 
man  when  first  espoused  to  Mary  (Epiphan.  Hser. 
78.  7),  being  no  less  than  eighty  years  of  age,  and 
father  of  four  sons  and  two  daughters.  Theophy- 
lact,  on  Matt.  xiii.  55,  says  that  Jesus  Christ,  had 
brothers  and  sisters,  all  children  of  Joseph,  whom 
lie  had  by  his  sister-in-law,  wife  of  his  brother 
Cleophas,  who  having  died  without  issue,  Joseph 
pas  obliged  by  law  to  marry  his  widow.  Of  f )e 


sons,  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  was,  h« 
states,  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  Eusebio*- 
(Hist.  Eccles.  ii  1)  agrees  in  substance  with 
Theophylact;  so  also  does  Epiphanius,  adding 
that  Joseph  was  fourscore  years  old  when  he 
married  Mary.  Jerome,  from  whom  it  appear* 
that  the  alleged  mother's  name  was  Escha,  op- 
poses this  tradition,  and  is  of  opinion  that  whal 
are  termed  the  brothers  of  Jesus  were  really  hii 
cousins.  The  painters  of  Christian  antiquity  con- 
spire with  the  writers  in  representing  Joseph  as  an 
old  man  at  the  period  of  the  birth  of  our  Lord — 
an  evidence  which  is  not.  to  be  lightly  rejected, 
though  the  precise  age  meutioned.may  be  but  an 
approximation  to  fact. 

Another  account  (Niceph.  ii.-^)  gives  the  name 
of  Salome  as  that  of  Joseph's  first  wife,  who  was 
related  to  the  family  of  John  the  Baptist. 

It  is  not  easy  to  determine  when  Joseph  died. 
That  event  may  have  taken  place  before  Jesus 
entered  on  Lis  public  ministry.  This  has  been 
argued  from  the  fact,  that  his  mother  only  ap- 
peared at  the  feast  at  Cana  in  Galilee.  Tiie 
premises,  however,  hardly  bear  out  the  inference. 
With  more  force  of  argument,  it  has  been  alleged 
(Simon,  Diet,  de  la  Bible)  that  Joseph  must 
have  been  dead  before  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus, 
else  he  would  in  all  probability  have  appeared 
with  Mary  at  the  cross.  Certainly  the  absence 
of  Joseph  from  the  public  life  of  Christ,  and  the 
absence  of  reference  to  him  in  the  discourses  and 
history,  while  ‘ Mary  * and  ‘ His  brethren  ’ not 
unfrequently  appear,  afford  evidence  not  only  of 
Joseph's  death,  but  of  the  inferior  part  which,  as  the 
legal  father  only  of  our  Lord,  Joseph  might  have 
been  expected  to  sustain.  So  far  as  our  scanty  ma- 
terials enable  us  to  form  an  opinion,  Joseph  appears 
to  have  been  a good,  kind,  simple-minded  man,  who, 
while  he  afforded  aid  in  protecting  and  sustaining 
the  family,  would  leave  Mary  unrestrained  to 
use  all  the  impressive  and  formative  influence  of 
her  gentle,  affectionate,  pious,  and  thoughlful 
soul.  Those  who  may  wish  to  pursue  this  subject 
in  its  details,  we  refer  to  the  following  works  : — 
J.  1'.  Meyer,  Num  Jos.  tempore  Nativ.  C. 
fuerit  sencx  decrepitus ; Hist.  Joseph,  fabri 
lignar.,  Arab.  ed.  G.  Wallin,  a Latin  translation 
of  which  may  lie  found  in  Fabricii  Pseudepigr.  i. 
309.  The  traditions  respecting  Joseph  are  collected 
in  Act.  Sanct.  iii.  p.  4,  sq, ; there  is  a Life  of 
Joseph  written  in  Italian  by  Affaitati. — J.  R.  B. 

JOSEPH  OF  ARIMATHEA.  The  name 
Aviraathea  denotes  probably  the  place  where 
Jos  ph  was  born,  not  that  where  he  resided.  We 
make  this  remark  because  Michaelis  (Begriibniss- 
und  auferstehungs  gescli.  Christi , p.  44,  trans 
lated  into  English)  states  it  as  his  opinion  that 
it  was  unlikely  that  Joseph  possessed  a burial- 
place  in  or  near  Jerusalem,  since  tjiat  city  was 
not  his  ordinary  abode  So  easy  is  it  to  be  led 
away  by  modern  associations  in  interpreting  the 
Scripture,  that  even  a man  of  Michaelis’  learn- 
ing could  allow  Germany  to  overpower  Palestine, 
and  modern  days  to  give  their  colouring  to  an- 
cient ones,  and  thus  hold  that  ‘ of  Arimalhea  ’ 
must  of  necessity  denote  the  residence  and  not 
the  birth-place  of  Joseph  ; whereas  a little  reflec- 
tion might  have  taught  him  that  in  a measure  ic 
his  own  times,  and  fully  so  in  the  days  of  on/ 
Lord,  such  a form  of  speech  indicated  rather  a 
man’s  birth-place  than  his  customary  abode. 


JOSEPH  called  BARS  A A AS. 


JOSHUA. 


153 


Arimatliea  lay  in  the  territory  of  Benjamin, 
on  the  mountain  range  of  Ephraim,  at  no  great 
distance  south  of  Jerusalem  (Josh,  xviii.  25 ; 
Judg.  iv.  5),  not  far  from  Gibeah  (Judg.  xix.  13 ; 
Isa.  x.  29  ; IIos.  v.  R). . 

Joseph  was  a secret  disciple  of  Jesus — ( an 
honourable  counseller  (fiouKevriis),  who  waited 
for  the  kingdom  of  God  ’ (Mark  xv„43),  and  who, 
on  learning  the  death  of  our  Lord,  ‘ came  and  went 
in  boldly  unto  Pilate,  and  craved  the  body  of 
Jesus.’  Pilate  having  learned  from  the  centurion, 
who  commanded  at  the  execution,  that  ‘ Jesus 
was  actually  dead,'  gave  the  l>ody  to  Joseph,  who 
took  it  down  and  wrapped  his  deceased  Lord 
in  tine  linen  which  lit*  had  purchased  for  the  pur- 
pose ; after  which  he  laid  the  corpse  in  a sepul- 
chre which  was  hewn  out.  of  a rock,  and  rolled  a 
stone  unto  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  (Mark  xv. 
43,  sq.).  From  the  parallel  passages  in  Matthew 
(xxvii.  58,  sq.),  Luke  (xxiii.  50,  seq.),  and  John 
(xix.  38,  seq.),  it  appears  that  the  body  was  pre- 
viously embalmed  at  the  cost  of  another  secret 
disciple,  Nicodemus,  and  that  the  sepulchre  was 
new,  ‘ wherein  never  man  before  was  laid  also 
that  it  lay  in  a garden,  and  was  the  property  of 
Joseph  himself.  This  garden  was  ‘ in  the  place 
where  Jesus  was  crucified.’  Luke  describes  the 
character  of  Joseph  as  ‘ a good  man  and  a just,’ 
adding  that  ‘he  had  not  consented  to  the  counsel 
and  deed  of  them,'  i.  e.  of  the  Jewish  authorities. 
From  this  remark  it  is  clear  that.  Joseph  was  a 
member  of  the  Sanhedrim  : a conclusion  which  is 
corroborated  by  the  epithet  ‘counsellor,’ applied  to 
him  by  both  Luke  and  Mark.  Whether  or  not 
Joseph  was  a priest,  as  Lightfoot  (//or.  Heb.  p. 
669)  thought,  there  is  not  evidence  to  determine. 
Various  opinions  as  to  his  social  condition  may 
be  found  in  Thiess  (Krit.  Comment,  ii.  119). 
Tradition  represents  Joseph  as  having  been  one  of 
the  Seventy,  and  as  having  first  preached  the 
Gospel  in  our  own  country  (Ittig,  Diss.  de  Pat. 
Apostol.  § 13;  Assemani  Bibliuth.  Orient,  iii. 
1.  319,  sq.).  For  an  attempt  to  fix  the  precise 
spot  where  Jesus  died  and  was  buried,  see  the 
article  Golgotha. — J.  R.  B. 

JOSEPH  called  BARSABAS  was  one  of 
the  two  persons  whom  the  primitive  church,  im- 
mediately after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  nomi- 
nated, praying  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  show 
which  of  them  should  enter  the  apostolic  band 
in  place  of  the  wt etched  Judas.  On  the  lots 
being  cast,  it  proved  that  not  Joseph,  but  Mat- 
thias, was  chosen. 

Joseph  bore  the  honourable  surname  of  Justus, 
which  was  not  improbably  given  him  on  account 
of  his  well-known  probity.  He  was  one  of  those 
who  had  ‘ com  pan  i.  d with  the  Apostles  all  the 
time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  amongst 
them,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,’  until 
the  ascension  (Acts  i.  15,  sq.).  Tradition  also 
accounted  him  one  of  the  Seventy  (Euseb.  Hist. 
Eccles.  i.  12).  The  same  historian  relates  (iii. 
39),  on  the  authority  of  Papias,  that  Joseph  the 
J ust  ‘ drank  deadly  poison,  anil  by  the  grace  of 
God  sustained  no  harm  ’ It  has  been  main- 
tained that  he  is  the  same  as  Joses  surnamed 
Barnabas,  mentioned  in  Acts  iv.  36 ; but  the 
manner  in  which  the  latter  is  characterized  seems 
to  point  to  a different  person  (Heinrichs,  On 
Acts  i.  23;  Ulimann,  in  the  Theolog.  Stud,  und 
Kritik , i.  377).-- J.  R.  B. 


1.  JOSES  (Taxnjs),  son  of  Mary  and  Cleop&a, 
and  brother  of  James  the  Less,  of  Simon  and  of 
Jude,  and,  consequently,  one  of  those  who  are 
called  the  ‘ brethren'  of  our  Lord  (Matt.  xiii.  55  j 
xxvii.  56;  Mark  vi.  3;  xv.  40,  47).  [James; 
Jude],  He  was  the  only  one  of  these  brethren 
who  was  not  an  apostle — a circumstance  which  has 
given  occasion  to  some  unsatisfactory  conjecture 
It  is  perhaps  more  remarkable  that  three  of  them 
were  apostles  than  that  the  fourth  was  not.. 

2.  JOSES  [Barnabas]. 

JOSHUA.  The  name  V.^,-  or 

VI £2),  is  rendered  by  Josephus,  the  Septuagint, 
and  the  New  Testament,  ’ liqcrovs . In  the  same 
manner  is  spelt  the  name  of  the  author  of  tiie 
apocryphal  book  Eccle-uast  icus.  This  is  the 
name  of  four  persons  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
means  whose  salvation  is  Jehovah  (compare  the 
German  name  Gotthilf).  The  moot  distinguished 
of  the  four  persons,  so  called,  who  occur  in  the 
Old  Testament,  is  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  of  the 
tribe  of  Ephraim,  the  assistant  and  successor  of 
Moses.  His  name  was  originally  J7£/hn,  salva- 
tion (Num.  xiii.  8)  ; and  it  seems  that  the  subse- 
quent alteration  of  it  by  Moses  (Num.  xiii.  16) 
was  significant,  and  proceeded  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple as  that  of  Abram  into  Abraham  (Gen. 
xvii.  5),  and  of  Sarai  into  Sarah  (Gen.  xvii.  15). 

According  to  the  Tsemach  David , Joshua  was 
born  in  Egypt,  in  the  year  of  the  Jewish  era 
2406  (b.c.  1 1 >37).  In  the  Bible  he  is  first  men- 
tioned as  being  the  victorious  commander  of 
the  Israelites  in  their  battle  against  the  Amalek- 
ites  at  Rephidim  (Exod.  xvii.  8-16).  He  dis- 
tinguished himself  by  his  courage  and  intel- 
ligence during  and  after  the  exploration  of  the 
laud  of  Canaan,  on  which  occasion  he  repre-  * 
sented  his  tribe,  which  was  that  of  Ephraim 
(Num.  xiii.,  xiv.).  Moses,  with  the  divine  sanc- 
tion, appointed  him  to  command  the  Israelites, 
even  during  his  own  lifetime  (Num.  xxvii.  18-23  ; 
Deut.  iii.  28;  xxxi.  23).  After  the  death  of 
Moses  he  led  the  Israelites  over  the  Jordan,  forti- 
fied a camp  at  Gilgal  (Josh.  ix.  6;  x.  6-43). 
conquered  the  southern  and  middle  portions  of 
Canaan  (vi.-x.),  and  also  some  of  the  northern 
districts  (ix.).  But  the  hostile  nations,  although 
subdued,  were  not  entirely  driven  out  and  de- 
stroyed (xiii.;  xxiii.  13;  Jndg.  i.  27-35).  In 
the  seventh  year  after  entering  the  land,  it  was 
distributed  among  the  various  tribes,  which  then 
commenced  individually  to  complete  the  con- 
quest by  separate  warfare  (xv.  13,  sq. ; xvi. 
10;  xvii.  12,  sq.).  Joshua  died  110  years  old 
(b.c.  1427),  and  was  buried  at  Timnath-serah 
(Josh,  xx iv..),  on  Mount  Ephraim.  According  to 
the  Archaologia  or  Antiquities  of  Josephus  (v.  1. 
29),  Joshua  commanded  the  Jews  twenty-five 
years,  but,  according  to  other  Jewish  chronologers, 
twenty-seven  years.  The  Tsemach  David , on  the 
years  of  the  Jewish  era  2489  and  2496,  remarks  : — 

‘ It  is  written  in  the  Sedei'  Olam  that  Joshua 
judged  Israel  twenty-five  years,  commencing 
from  the  year  2488,  immediately  from  the  death 
of  Moses,  to  the  year  2516.  This,  however,  would 
not  be  known  to  us  but  for  cabbalistic  tradi- 
tion, but  in  some  degree  also  by  reasoning,’  &c. 
Hottinger  ( Smegma , p.  469),  says  : — ‘According 
to  the  Midrash , Rahab  was  ten  years  old  when 
the  Israelites  left  Egypt;  she  played  the  whow 


154 


JOSHUA. 


OSHUA. 


during  the  forlv  years  in  which  the  Israelites 
were  in  the  desert.  She  became  the  wife  of 
Joshua,  and  eight  prophets  descended  from  her, 
viz.  Jeremiah,  Mahasia,  Hanamael,  Shallum, 
•Baruch,  Ezekiel.  Some  say  also  that  Huhiah 
the  prophetess  was  her  descendant.'  Some  clno- 
nologers  have  endeavoured  to  reduce  the  rule 
r.f  Joshua  to  seventeen,  and  others  to  twenty-one 
years. 

There  occur  some  vestiges  of  the  deeds  of 
Joshua  in  other  historians  besides  those  of  the 
Bible.  Procopius  mentions  a Phoenician  inscrip- 
tion near  the  city  of  Tingis  in  Mauritania,  the 
sense  of  which  in  Greek  was: — ‘ Hyu.e7s  iapeu  ol 
t^vyoi’Tts  cbri>  irpoacoTrov  ’lpirou  rod  A rjcrrov  vioO 
Kavg — ‘ We  are  those  who  tied  before  the  face  of 
Joshua  the  robber,  the  son  of  Nun  ’ ( De  Bell. 
Vandal,  ii.  10).  Stiidas  (sub  voce  Xaradr) : — 
rjucls  ia/iev  Xavavcuoi  ovs  iSicvgev  5 Irjcrovs  6 
Kparris — ‘ We  are  the  Canaanites  whom  Joshua 
the  robber  persecuted.'  Compare  Fabricii  Codex 
Pseudepigraphus  Vcteris  Testamenti , i.  889,  sq., 
and  the  doubts  respecting  this  statement  in  Dale, 
De  Origine  et  Progressn  Idolatries , p.  749,  sq 

A letter  of  Shaubech,  "plK*.  king  of  Armenia 
Minor,  in  the  Samaritan  book  of  Joshua  (ch. 

xxvi.),  styles  Joshua  lupus 

percussor,  ‘ the  murderous  wolf;’  or,  according 
to  another  reading  in  the  book  Juchasin  (p.  154, 
t\  1),  and  in  the  Shalsheleth  Rakkabbalah  (p.  90), 
rVQ-iy  2NT,  lupus  vespertiuus,  1 the  evening 
wolf*  (comp.  Hab.  i.  8;  Hotfinger,  Historia 
Orientalis.  Tiguri,  1651,  p.  40,  sq. ; B udder. 
Hist.  Eccles.  ]).  964,  sq.'.  A comparison  of 
Hercules,  according  to  the  Phoenician  and  Greek 
mythology,  with  Joshua  has  been  attempted  by 
Hercklitz  ( Quod  Hercules  idem  sit  ac  Josua, 
Lipsia?,  1706,  4to.) 

The  book  of  Joshua  is  so  called  from  the  per- 
sonage who  occupies  the  principal  place  in  the  nar- 
ration of  events  contained  therein,  and  may  be 
considered  as  a continuation  of  the  Pentateuch.  It 
commences  with  the  word  VP1,  which  may  be  ren- 
dered thereupon  it  happened.  Books  beginning 
with  what  l)r.  Samuel  Lee  calls  the  illative  vau , 
are  to  be  regarded  as  continuations  of  earlier 
works.  The  Pentateuch,  and  especially  Deute- 
ronomy, are  lepeatedlv  referred  to  in  the  book  of 
Joshua,  the  narration  of  which  begins  with  the 
death  of  Moses  and  extends  to  the  death  of 
Joshua,  embracing  a chronological  period  of  some- 
what less  than  thirty  years.  The  subject  of  the 
book  is  thus  briefly  stated  in  ch.  i.  5,  6 : ‘ There 
shall  not  any  man  be  able  to  stand  before  thee 
all  the  days  of  thy  life.  As  I was  with  Moses, 
so  I will  be  with  thee  : I will  not  fail  thee,  nor 
forsake  thee.  Be  strong  and  of  a good  courage ; 
for  unto  this  people  shalt  thou  divide  for  an 
inheritance  the  land  which  I svvare  unto  their 
fathers  to  give  them.1  In  these  two  verses  is  also 
indicated  the  division  of  the  book  into  two  princi- 
pal portions,  with  reference  to  the  conquest  and  the 
distribution  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  conquest 
is  narrated  in  the  first  twelve,  and  the  distribution 
in  the  following  ten  chapters.  In  the  last  two 
chapters  are  subjoined  the  events  subsequent  to 
the  distribution  up  to  the  death  of  Joshua.  The 
history  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  is  a series  of 
miracles,  than  which  none  more  remarkable  are 
recorded  in  any  part  of  sacred  history.  The 


passage  into  the  Promised  Land,  as  well  as  tha" 
out  of  Egypt,  was  through  water.  Jericho  was 
taken  not  by  might,  but  by  the  falling  of  the  walls 
on  the  blast  of  the  trumpets  of  seven  priests  ; and 
in  the  war  against  Gibeon  the  day  was  prolonged 
to  afford  time  for  the  completion  of  the  victory'. 

It.  is  generally  granted  that  the  first  twelve 
chapters  form  a continuous  whole:  although  the 
author  in  ch.  x.  13,  refers  to  another  work,  he  not 
merely  transcribes  but  intimately  coirrhiYies  the 
quotation  with  the  tenor  of  his  narration.  It  is 
certain  that,  there  sometimes  occur  episodes  which 
seem  to  interrupt  the  chronological  connection,  as 
for  instance  1 he  portion  intervening  between  chs. 
i.,  ii.,  and  iii.  1.  Especially  it  has  been  asserted 
that  the  whole  of  the  second  chapter  is  an  episode 
interposed  between  chapters  i.  and  iii.;  but  it 
belongs  to  the  nature  of  detailed  historical  works 
to  contain  such  episodes.  It  would  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  select  analogous  instances  from  profane 
works  which  are  considered  to  lie  finished  models 
of  historiography.  Even  in  writers  who  have 
most  carefully  digested  their  materials,  such  as 
Thucydides,  Tacitus,  Gibbon,  Hume,  Robertson, 
and  others,  we  meet  occasionally  with  such  epi- 
sodes; and  it  may  be  truly  said  that,  from  the 
nature  of  history  in  general,  occasional  digres- 
sions must  occur;  consequently  it  is  an  indica- 
tion of  thoughtless  assertion  when  those  which  are 
found  in  rhe  book  of  Joshua  are  declared  to  prove 
a variety  of  authorship,  if  anything  is  meant  be- 
yond the  truism,  that  no  historical  writer  ori- 
ginates, but  only  communicates,  historical  truth. 

We  return  to  our  subject,  and  assert  that  if  the 
facts  contained  in  the  second  chapter  were  to  be 
related  at  all,  they  stand  very  properly  between 
those  of  the  first  and  third  chapters,  and  that  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  for  them  a more  fitting 
place. 

The  whole  tenor  of  the  first  twelve  chapters 
bespeaks  an  eye-witness  who  bore  some  part  in 
the  transactions.  Compare  the  expression 
we  passed  over , in  ch.  v.  1,  where  the  kri  has 
D“Qy.  Sept,  biafiaiveiv  avrovs.  Vulg.  transirent. 
The  Chaldee  pat aph rase  in  the  Targum  of  Jona- 
than has  also  until  rimy  passed  over, 

and  so  the  Syi  iac  and  Arabic.  On  account  of  this 
kri  and  the  various  ancient  tenderings,  which 
substitute  the  third  for  the  first  person,  we  must 
not  lay  too  much  stress  on  the  usual  reading, 
although  we  deem  it  correct,  corresponding  as  it 

does  to  1^,  to  us,  in  the  sixth  verse.  But  we 
rely  less  on  such  isolated  expressions  than  on  the 
circumstantial  vividness  of  the  narrative,  which 
clearly  indicates  that  the  writer  was  an  eye- 
witness. This  feature  is  so  striking  that  Van 
Herweden,  who,  in  his  Disputatio  de  libro  Josuce, 
sive  de  diversis  ex  quibus  constat  Josuce  liber 
monumentis,  deque  estate  qua  eoruin  vixerunt 
auctores,  Groningaj,  1826,  has  endeavoured  to 
dissect  the  book  of  Joshua  into  ten  different 
monumenta , or  original  documents,  nevertheless, 
in  page  123,  says,  in  reference  to  Josh.  vi.  25:— 
alterutrum  esse  verum  oportet : aut  impostor  haec 
scripsit,  aequalem  se  esse  rerum  gestarum  prae  se 
ferens,  quern  tarneri  non  esset,  aut  revera 
scuipsit  ^equai.is — ‘ This  was  written  eithet 
by  an  impostor  who  falsely  pretended  that  he 
was  a contemporary  of  the  events  r?lated,  or  a 
contemporary  really  wrote  it.’ 


JOSHUA. 


JOSHUA, 


155 


The  authority  ascribed  to  the  book  of  Joshua 
by  the  Apostles,  compels  us  to  embrace  the  latter 
burn  of  this  dilemma.  Therefore  we  maintain 
that  the  first  twelve  chapters  were  written  by  a 
contemporary  of  the  events  recorded,  and  most 
probably  by  Joshua  himself,  towards  the  close  of 
fiis  life.  The  statement  that,  the  monuments  which 
he  erected  were  extant  to  this  day,  indicates  that 
he  did  not  promulgate  the  book  immediately  after 
the  events  narrated  (comp.  iv.  9;  vii.  20;  viii. 
28,  29  ; x.  27).  The  book  could  not  have  been 
written  very  long  after  the  time  of  Joshua,  be- 
cause we  find  that  Raliab  was  still  alive  when  it 
was  composed  (vi.  29).  The  section  from  chapter 
xiii.  to  xxii.  inclusive,  which  contains  an  account 
of  the  distribution  of  the  land,  seems  to  he 
based  upon  written  documents,  in  which  the  pro- 
perty was  accurately  described.  That  this  was 
the  case  is  likely  not  merely  on  account  of  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  diplomatic  contents  by 
which  this  ‘Doomsday  Book’  is  distinguished 
from  the  preceding  part  of  Joshua,  but  also  on 
account  of*  the  statement  in  chapter  xviii.  4,  where 
Joshua  says  to  the  children  of  Israel,  ‘ Give  out 
from  among  you  three  men  from  each  tribe  : and 
I will  send  them,  and  they  shall  lise,  and  go 
through  the  land,  and  describe  it  (nni&$  tDn!P')) 
according  to  the  inheritance  of  them  ; and  ihey 
shall  come,  again  to  trie.’  Compare  verse  6, 

‘ Ye  therefore  shall  describe  the  land  (13j"l2n 
fM&n  nX)  into  seven  parts.’  Compare  also 
verses  8 and  9,  ‘ And  the  men  arose  and  went 
away;  and  Joshua  charged  them  that  went  to 
describe  the  land,  saying,  Go,  and  walk  through 
the  land,  and  describe  it,  and  come  again  to  me, 
that  I may  here  cast  lots  for  you  before  the  Lord 
in  Shiloh.  And  the  men  went  and  passed  through 
the  land,  and  described  it  by  cities  into  seven 
parts  in  a book,  and  came  again  to  Joshua  to  the 
host  at  Shiloh.’  It  seems  that  the  author  of  this 
lection,  following  the  ‘ Doomsday  Book  ’ com- 
piled by  the  body,  to  which  each  tribe  sent  three 
representatives,  furnished  a more  accurate  de- 
scription than  was  contained  in  the  book  com- 
piled Under  Joshua’s  direction.  It  may  thus  be 
explained  how,  when  the  various  towns  mentioned 
are  summed  up,  they  seem  to  he  more  than  the 
towns  introduced  into  the  lists  of  the  possessions  of 
the  separate  tribes,  and  vice  versa.  This  circum- 
stance cannot  be  explained  by  supposing  a corrup- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  t,ext,  since  the  text  in  the  book 
of*  Joshua  is  particularly  correct.  However  Judah 
had  more  towns  than  are  mentioned  in  chapter  xv. 
Zabulon  had  more  towns  than  are  mentioned  in 
chapter  xix.  15.  Naphtali  had  more  towns  than 
are  mentioned  in  xix.  35-39.  This  discrepancy 
arose  not  merely  from  new  towns  springing  up, 
hut  also  from  the  fact,  that  it  was  unnecessary 
to  specify  in  the  ‘ Doomsday  Book  ’ all  the  inferior 
localities  of  the  various  tribes,  especially  since 
the  constant,  addition  subjoined  to  the  names  of 
the  more  important  towns  (jiTHVni,  literally  and 
their  inclosures,  usually  translated  and  their 
villages)  obviates  all  quibbles. 

Although  there  is  a degree  of  uniformity  in  the 
commencement  and  close  of  the  descriptions  of 
the  various  tribes,  there  is  a considerable  differ- 
ence in  the  contents.  There  is  no  little  variety 
in  the  arrangement  and  ordei  of  the  notices  con- 
ceniing  each  tribe.  The  boundaries  are  stated 
sometimes  with  greater,  sometimes  with  less  pre- 


cision; and  in  the  description  of  the  tribe  of 
Issachar  (xix.  17-23),  they  are  omitted  altogether. 
Such  discrepancies  in  the  mode  of*  description 
will  he  found  particularly  striking  on  comparing 
chapters  xiii.  and  xiv.  with  xviii.  and  xix.  Hence 
we  infer  that  the  original  documents  from  which 
these  chapters  were  compiled  differed  considerably 
in  form,  and  that  the  compiler  did  not  feel  au- 
thorized, in  his  manifest  endeavour  after  unifor- 
mity, to  introduce  any  changes  in  the  contents. 

The  li*st  of  towns  granted  to  the  Levites  in 
Josh.  xxi.  differs  from  that  in  1 Cluon.  vi.  39-66 
so  much  that  we  must  suppose  the  latter  to  con- 
tain abstracts  from  a source  different  from  that 
in  the  hook  of  Joshua.  That  a change  of  cir- 
cumstances might  demand  changes  in  such  lists 
becomes  evident,  if  we  consider  the  fate  of  indi- 
vidual cities.  For  instance,  Ziklag  was  given  to 
the  tribe  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  5)  ; nevertheless  we 
read  in  1 Sam.  xxvii.  6,  that  Aohish  gave  Ziklag 
to  David,  and  therefore  "Ziklag  pertainetli  to  the 
kings  of*  Judah  unto  this  day.'  The  town  of  Nob 
does  not  occur  in  the  list  of*  Levitical  towns  in  the 
book  of  Joshua,  but  in  the  days  of  Saul  it  is  styled 
TS,  city  of  the  priests.  AH  this  abund- 
antly proves  that  there  took  place  changes  in 
regard  to  particular  places  which  requiied  corre- 
sponding changes  in  the  lists  written  at  various 
periods. 

Since  the  book  of  Joshua  contains  also  a de- 
scription of  the  territories  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and 
the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  situated  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Jordan,  which  tribes  entered  into  pos- 
session before  the  death  of  Moses,  the  Pentateuch 
itself  may  be  considered  as  one  of  t he  sources 
from  which  the  second  part  of*  1 he  book  of  Joshua 
has  been  compiled.  That  the  author  of  the  book 
of  Joshua  derived  part  of  his  information  from  the 
Pentateuch  is  evident,  if*  we  compare  Dent,  xviii. 
1,  2,  and  Num.  xviii.  20.  with  Josh.  xiii.  14,  33  ; 
xiv.  4.  Even  the  unusual  form  is  repealed 
in  Joshua.  Compare  also  Num.  xxxi.  8,  with 
Josh.  xiii.  21  and  22. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Joshua  frequently 
repeats  the  statements  of  the  Pentateuch  in  a 
more  detailed  form,  and  mentions  the  changes 
which  had  taken  place  since  the  Pentateuch  was 
written.  Compare  Num.  xxxiv.  13  and  14, 
with  Josh.  xiii.  7,  sq.  ; Num.  xxxii.  37,  with 
Josh.  xiii.  17,  sq  ; Num.  xxxv.  with  Josh.  xxi. 

There  is  also  considerable  similarity  between 
the  following  passages  in  the  books  of  Joshua  and 
Judges  : — Josh.  xiii.  4,  Judg.  iii.  3;  Josh.  xv. 
13,  sq.,  Judg.  i.  10,20;  Josh.  xv.  15-19.  Judg. 
i.  11-15;  Josh.  xv.  62,  Judg.  i.  21  ; Josh.  xvi. 
10,  Judg.  i.  29;  Josh.  xvii.  12,  Judg.  i.  27; 
Josh.  xix.  47,  Judg.  xviii.  The  book  of  Joshua 
Seems  to  explain  the  text  of  the  hook  of  Judges  by 
brief*  notices;  as.  for  instance,  the  names  Shesha, 
Achiman,  and  Talmai  (Josh.  xv.  14),  by  pJjJH  'JID 
and  Hlr'1  (comp.  Judg.  i.  13),  and  makes 

use  of  more  regular  grammatical  foims,  such  as 
and  nvnnn,  instead  of  the  more  unusual 
forms  in  the  hook  of  Judges,  arid  HTinD. 

For  these  and  other  equal  iv  inconclusive  reasons, 
even  Havernick  asserts  that  the  second  part  of  the 
book  of  Josluia  was  written  after  the  book  of 
Judges.  Havernick  particularly  urges  that  the  fact- 
mentioned  in  fosh.  xix.  47.  happened  according 
Judges  xviii.  2,  after  the  dea  u of  Jos  ma,  and 


156 


JOSHUA. 


JOSHUA. 


that  the  private  expeditions  of  separate  tribes 
against  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
commenced,  according  the  express  statement  of 
the  book  of  Judges,  only  after  the  death  of  Joshua. 
These  assertions  of  Hlivernick  are  not  sufficiently 
supported  by  the  sacred  text.  We  certainly  learn 
from  the  book  of  Judges  that  the  private  expedi- 
tions against  the  Canaanites  were  especially  fre- 
quent subsequently  to  the  death  of  Joshua,  but  it 
is  nowhere  slated  that  no  such  expedition  hap- 
pened before  the  death  of  Joshua.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  read  in  Josh.  xvii.  15,  that  Joshua 
replied  to  the  children  of  Joseph,  who  complained 
that  their  territory  was  not  proportionate  to  their 
numbers,  ‘ Get  thee  up  to  the  wood-country,  and 
cut  down  fur  thyself  there  in  the  land  of  the 
Perizzites  and  the  giants.’ 

The  whole  position  ol‘  the,  tribes  would  render 
it  likely  that  such  expeditions  were  as  frequent 
as  the  hostile  incursions  of  the  Dutch  boors  at  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope  are  into  the  territories  of  the 
Bushmen,  Hottentots,  and  CaftYes ; which  incur- 
sions, if  they  do  not  lead  to  permanent,  possession, 
are  frequently  repeated  under  similar  circum- 
stances. If  we  take  this  into  consideration  it  must 
anpear  very  doubtful,  whether  the  facts  men- 
tioned in  Josh.  xix.  47,  and  Judg.  xviii.  2,  are 
one  and  the  same  ; and  even  if  they  are  admitted 
to  be  so,  the  priority  of  the  hook  of  Judges  does 
not  necessarily  follow. 

The  discourses  of  Caleb,  Joshua,  and  Phinehas, 
recorded  in  Josh.  xiii.  1-6;  xiv.  6-15;  xvii. 
14;  xviii.  22,  are  not  contained  in  the  above- 
mentioned  sources,  and  are  either  derived  from 
written  documents,  or  are  the  condensations  of  a 
witness  present  at  their  delivery. 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  intention  of  the  author 
of  chapters  xiii.-xxii.  to  furnish  authentic  records 
concerning  the  arrangements  made  by  Joshua 
after  the  conquest,  of  Canaan.  Since  we  do  not 
find  in  the  subsequent  history  that  the  tribes,  after 
the  death  of  Joshua,  disagreed  among  themselves 
about  the  ownership  of  the  land,  it  would  appear 
that  the  object  of  the  hook  of  Joshua,  as  a ‘ Dooms- 
day Book,’  was  fully  attained.  The  circumstance 
that  the  book  of  Joshua  contains  many  Cariaan- 
itish  names  of  places  to  which  the  Hebrew  names 
are  added,  seems  also  to  indicate  that  the  second 
part  originated  in  an  early  age,  when  neither  the 
Canaanitish  name  was  entirely  forgotten,  nor  the 
Hebrew  name  fully  introduced;  so  that  it  was 
exjiedient  to  mention  both. 

In  the  last  two  chapters  occur  two  orations  of 
Joshua,  in  which  he  bids  farewell  to  the  people 
whom  he  had  commanded.  In  chapter  xxiv.  26, 
we  read,  ‘ And  Joshua  wrote  these  words  in 
the  hook  of  the  law  of  God.’  The  expression, 
these  words,  seems  to  refer  only  to  his  last  ad- 
dress, and  the  subsequent  resolution  of  the  people 
to  follow  his  example.  We  are  here,  however, 
expressly  informed  that  Joshua  did  write  this 
much  ; and  consequently,  we  deem  it  the  more 
likely  that  he  also  committed  to  writing  the  other 
memorable  events  connected  with  his  career,  such 
as  the  conquest  and  the  distribution  of  the  land. 

Viewing  all  the  circumstances  together,  we 
consider  it  highly  probable  that  the  whole  hook  of 
Joshua  was  composed  by  himself  up  to  the  twenty- 
eighth  verse  of  the  last  chapter ; to  which  a 
friendly  hand  subjoined  some  brief  notices,  con- 
tained in  verse*  29-33,  concerning  the  death,  age, 


and  burial  of  Joshua ; the  continuance  of  his  in 
fluence  upon  the  people;  the  interment,  in 
Shechem,  of  the  bones  of  Joseph,  which  the  chil 
dren  of  Israel  had  brought  from  Egypt ; and  the 
death  and  huiial  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron, 
whom  his  son  Phinehas  interred  in  his  allotment 
on  Mount  Ephraim.  We  wish,  however,  to  imi- 
tate the  modesty  of  Hermann  YYitsius,  who,  in 
the  second  edition  of  his  Miscellanea  Sacra  (p. 
209),  thus  sums  up  the  argument,  on  this'head  : — 
‘ It  seems  to  me  that  the  argumentation  of  Huet 
has  not  the  weight,  of  a real  demonstration,  who, 
from  the  words  just  quoted — “Joshua  wrote  all 
these  words  in  the  hook  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  ” — 
makes  the  following  inference  : — “ This  certainly 
proves  that  Joshua,  like  Moses,  wrote  an  account 
of  Ins  own  doings,  and  that  he  subjoined  his  hook 
to  the  Mosaical  law,  which  is  still  its  place.” 
But  I say  that  every  attentive  reader  will  easily 
perceive  that  in  Josh.  xxiv.  26  there  is  not  men- 
tioned the  whole  history  of  Joshua,  but  only  the 
solemn  renewal  of  the  covenant,  and  that  it.  is  by 
no  means  stated  there  that  another  volume  should 
be  subjoined  to  the  volume  of  the  law,  but  only 
that  the  lepetition  of  the  covenant,  was  inscribed 
in  the  volume  of  the  law.  But  the  opposite  argu- 
ments also  are  mostly  such  as  might  easily  lie 
refuted.  Therefore  1 beg  leave  to  withhold  my 
decision.’ 

The  authority  of  the  book  of  Joshua  mainly 
rests  upon  the  manner  in  which  it  is  treated  in 
other  parts  of  the  Bible. 

Besides  the  above  allusions  in  the  hook  of 
Judges,  we  find  Joshua  referred  to  in  l Kings  xvi, 
34: — ‘In  his  days  did  Hiel  the  Bethelite  build 
Jericho  : he  laid  the  foundation  thereof  in  Abiram, 
his  first-born,  and  set.  up  the  gates  thereof  in  his 
youngest,  son  Segub,  according  to  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  which  he  spake  by  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.’ 
(Comp.  Josh.  vi.  26.)  The  second  and  third  verses 
of  Psalm  xliv.  contain  a brief  summary  of  the 
whole  book  of  Joshua: — ‘Thou  didst  drive  out 
the  heathen  with  thy  hand,  and  plantedst  them  : 
thou  didst  afflict  the  people,  and  cast  them  out.. 
For  they  got  not  the  land  in  possession  by  their 
own  sword,  neither  did  their  own  arm  save  them : 
hut  thy  right  hand  and  thine  arm,  and  the  light 
of  thy  countenance,  because  thou  hadst  a favour 
unto  them.’  (Compare  Psalm  lxviii.  12-14  ; 
lxxviii.  54,  55;  cxiv.  3 and  5,  which  refer  to  the 
hook  of  Joshua.)  Also,  Hah.  iii.  11  : ‘The  sun  and 
moon  stood  still  in  their  habitation,’  &c.  Heb. 
xiii.  5:  ‘For  he  hath  said,  I will  never  leave 
thee,  nor  forsake  thee.’  (Compare  Josh.  i.  5.) 
Heb.  xi.  31  : ‘By  faith  the  harlot  Rahab  perished 
not  with  them  that  believed  not,  when  she  had 
received  the  spies  with  peace;’  and  James  ii.  25  : 
‘ Likewise  also  was  not  Raliab  the  harlot  jus- 
tified by  works,  when  she  had  received  the  mes- 
sengers, and  had  sent  them  out  another  way  V 
(Compare  Josh.  ii.  and  vi.  22-25.)  Acts  vii.  45  : 
‘Which  (the  tabernacle)  also  our  fathers  lha; 
came  after  brought  in  with  Jesus  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  Gentiles,  whom  God  drave  out 
before  the  face  of  our  fathers.’  (Compare  Josh.  iii. 
14.)  Heb.  xi.  30  : ‘ By  faith  the  walls  of  Jericho 
fell  down,  after  they  were  compassed  about  seven 
days.’  (Compare  Josh.  vi.  17-23.)  Heb.  iv.  8: 
‘ For  if  Jesus  [Joshua]  had  given  them  rest> 
then  would  he  not  afterwards  have  spoken  u 
another  day.’ 


JOSHUA. 


JOSHUA. 

The  value  ascribed  to  the  book  of  Joshua 
will  be  variously  estimated  according  to  the  theo- 
logical and  philosophical  System  of  the  .divines 
who  have  ventured,  and  who  venture,  to  express 
their  opinion  on  this  subject.  It  is  evident  that 
writers  who  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  nothing 
miraculous  ever  has  happened,  must,  in  consis- 
tency, declare  the  contents  of  the  book  of  Joshua 
to  be  fabulous,  mythical,  unhistorical,  and  even 
immoral  and  wicked;  while  those  divines  who 
are  convinced  that  miracles  are  possible,  and 
have  actually  happened,  find  no  difficulty  in  ad- 
mitting the  authority  ascribed  to  the  book  of 
Joshua  in  the  New  Testament,  where  it.  is  repeat- 
edly quoted.  The  chief  stumbling-block  «has 
been  the  quotation  from  the  book  of  Jasher  re- 
specting the  standing  still  of  the  sun  and  moon 
at  the  command  of  Joshua:  but  this  subject  has 
been  already  considered  in  the  article  Jasher. 

The  inquiry  respecting  the  author  of  the  book 
of  Joshua,  led  Carpzov  to  a result  which  he  thus 
expresses  in  his  Introduction,  p.  155  : ‘ It  is  likely 
that  Joshua  himself  committed  to  writing  most  of 
the  contents  of  this  book,  although  it  cannot  be 
said  that  he  composed  the  whole  book ; and  it 
cannot  be  made  out  clearly  whether  Samuel,  or 
some  other  pious  person,  composed  the  whole 
book,  or  oidy  augmented  and  completed  it  by 
adding  the  events  which  happened  after  the  death 
of  Joshua.’ 

Our  investigations  have  led  us  to  a more  definite 
result;  namely,  that  the  book  was  written  before 
the  death  of  Rahab  (vi.  26),  but  not  immediately 
after  the  erection  of  monuments  by  Joshua,  be- 
cause it  is  said  that  they  exist  until  this  day — 
an  observation  which  indicates  that  they  had  been 
standing  for  some  time.  As,  however,  various 
opinions  concerning  the  author,  and  concerning 
the  so-called  apparent  contradictions  of  the  book 
of  Joshua,  have  occupied  the  attention  of  biblical 
scholars,  so  much  so  as  to  become  themselves  sub- 
jects of  history,  it  is  becoming  that  we  furnish  our 
readers  with  a brief  survey  of  these  rather  incon- 
clusive lucubrations. 

It  has  been  urged  especially  that  the  conquest 
of  the  whole  country  is  ascribed  to  Joshua  in 
some  passages  of  this  book,  while  in  others,  and 
in  the  book  of  Judges,  it  is  stated  that  some 
portions  were  still  to  be  subdued.  To  this  we 
reply  that  Joshua  conquered  the  whole  country, 
so  far  as  to  render  it  possible  for  individual  tribes 
and  families  gradually  to  complete  its  occupa- 
tion by  private  warfare.  We  read  in  x.  40, 

‘ Joshua  smote  aP  the  country  Of  the  hills,  and  of 
the  south  ; and  in  xi.  16, 1 Joshua  took  all  that  land, 
the  hills,  and  all  the  south  country.’  It  is  urged 
tL»t  these  passages  strikingly  contradict,  xiii.  4, 
wl.^re  it  is  read,  ‘ Thoi  e remaineth  yet  very  much 
land  to  be  possessed  from  the  south,  all  the  land 
of  tlw  Canaanites  unto  Meavah,  that  beside  the 
Sidonuns,’  &c.  Here  it  has  been  overlooked,  that 
the  sov.th  country  beside  (Vis  Sidonians  differs 
from  the  southern  regions  of  Palestine. 

In  a similar  manner  the  distribution  of  the 
country  ascribed  to  Joshua,  has  been  said  to  be 
contradicted  by  subsequent  distributions  in  the 
book  of  Judges;  but  we  reply  that  the  later  dis- 
tribution in  detail  is  perfectly  consistent  with  an 
earlier  general  distribution. 

When  the  destruction  of  all  the  Canaanites  is 
ascribed  to  Joshua,  it  is  meant  that  none  could 


157 

stand  in  battle  before  him,  and  that,  he  destroyed 
those  whom  he  overcame.  Bui.  this  is  not  contra- 
dicted by  the  fact  that  some  Canaanites  kept  out 
of  the  way,  having  taken  refuge  in  their  fastnesses, 
and  that  these  gathered  strength  again  after  the 
days  of  Joshua.  It  lias  also  been  urged  that. 
Jericho  and  Ai,  which  Joshua  destroyed,  were  at 
a later  period  inhabited  again ; but  this  argu- 
ment seems  to  have  no  weight,  and  therefore  re- 
quires no  answer,  the  purpose  of  Joshua  being 
fulfilled  by  the  demolition  of  their  fortifications. 
It  is  also  doubtful  whether  the  new  cities  stood 
on  the  sites  which  the  old  ones  occupied  [Je- 
richo]. 

The  quotation  from  the  book  of  Jasher  (Josh.  x. 
13)  is  said  to  be  contrail icted  by  2 Sam.  i.  18, 
where  it  appears  that  this  book  was  written  in  the 
days  of  David.  But  this  is  by  no  means  clear 
from  the  passage  referred  to;  and  even  if  it.  were 
so,  it  would  seem  that  the  book  of  Jasher  was  an 
anthologia,  augmented  in  the  days  of  David. 
Others  have  based  upon  this  quotation  the  infer- 
ence that  the  book  of  Joshua  was  written  after 
the  times  of  David.  De  Wette,  in  his  Einleitung 
(Berlin,  1S33,  p.  219),  asserts  that  the  book  of 
Joshua  was  written  after  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

The  mention  of  the  book  of  Jasher  has  given 
rise  to  some  spurious  compilations  under  that 
name,  as  well  in  Hebrew  as  in  English.  See 
the  article  Jasher. 

The  Samaritans,  who  for  dogmatical  purposes 
endeavoured  to  depreciate  the  authority  of  'per- 
sons mentioned  in  the  hitter  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  such  as  Eli,  Samuel,  Zerubbabel,  and 
others,  bad  no  such  interest  to  attack  the  person 
of  Joshua.  Eulogius,  according  to  Photii 
Codex , p.  230,  states  : Tu>r  ’Sa/xapeirur  rb  irXrjSos 
ot  fxev  ’ lgaovu  rbv  Ncod)  id6£a£ov  elvai  Trepl  ov 
M avarjs  elire,  ivpotyrjT'pv  rj/u v avacrT7)<TGi  K vpios, 
etc. — ‘ The  Samaritan  multitude  believes  that 
Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  is  the  person  concerning 
whom  Moses  said,  “ The  Lord  will  raise  us  up  a 
prophet, ’’  ’ &c.  (Compare  Lampe,  Comment . in 
Evangelium  Johannis , vol.  i.  p.  748.)  The  Sama- 
ritans even  endeavoured  to  exalt  the  memory  ol 
Joshua  by  making  him  the  nucleus  of  many  strange 
legends  which  they  embodied  into  their  Arabic 
book  of  Joshua,  a work  which  seems  to  have  been 
compiled  in  the  middle  ages,  and  is  quoted  by 
the  Rabbinical  chroniclers  of  that  period,  Sepher 
Juchasin,  R.  Samuel,  Sclmllam  (f.  15D,  Selial- 
scheleth  ( Nakabbalah , p.  96),  Hettinger  ( His- 
toric Orientalis , p.  40,  sq.),  Zunz  (Gottesdienst- 
liche  Gebraische  der  Juden , p.  140).  Reland 
supposed  that  this  book  was  written  at  an  earlier 
period,  and  augmented  in  the  middle  ages ; but 
it  is  more  likely  that  the  whole  is  a late  compi- 
lation. (Compare  Johannis  Henrici  Hottingeri 
Historic  Orientalis , p.  40,  sq. ; and  Hottingeri 
Smegma , p.  468.) 

The  so-called  book  of  Joshua  of  the  Samaritans 
consists  of  compilations  from  the  Pentateuch, 
our  book  of  Joshua,  the  books  of  Judges,  and  o( 
Samuel,  intermixed  with  many  Jewish  legends. 
Its  compiler  pretends  that  it  is  translated  from 
the  Hebrew  into  Arabic,  but  it  was  probably 
originally  written  in  Arabic,  and  manifestly  after 
the  promulgation  of  the  Koran, ^which  exercised  a 
perceptible  influence  upon  it.  Compare  Reland 
De  Samaritanis , Dissertationes  Miscellanea,  ii, 
pp.  12  and  68.  The  author  of  this  compilation 


JOSHUA. 


153 

endeavours  (o  prove  that  the  Samaritans  are 
Israelites,  ai  d he  claims  for  them  the  celebrity 
of  the  Jews.  He  attempts  to  turn  the  traditions 
of  Jewish  history  in  .favour  of  the  Samaritans.  By 
nis  account  Joshua  built  the  temple  on  Mount 
Gerizim,  and  there  established  public  worship  ; 
the  schism  between  Jews  and  Samaritans  com- 
menced under  Eli,  who,  as  well  as  Samuel,  was 
an  apostate  and  sorcerer ; after^the  return  from 
the  Babylonian  exile,  the  Samaritan  form  of 
worship  was  declared  to  be  the  legitimate  form  ; 
Zerubbabel  and  his  sacred  books,  which  were  cor- 
rupted, were  authoritatively  rejected  ; Alexander 
the  Great  expressed  his  veneration,  not  for  the 
Jews,  but  for  the  Samaritans ; these  were  op- 
pressed under  the  Emperor  Adrian,  but  again 
obtained  permission  to  worship  publicly  on  Mount 
Gerizim.  The  whole  book  consists  of  a mixture 
of  biblical  history  and  legends,  the  manifest  aim 
being  to  falsify  facts  for  dogmatical  .purposes. 
This  book  terminates  with  the  history  of  the 
Jewish  war  under  Adrian.  The  only  known 
copy  of  this  book  is  that  of  Jos.  Scaliger,  which 
is  now  in  the  library  at  Leyden.  Although  the' 
language  is  Arabic,  it  is  written  in  Samaritan 
characters.  Even  the  Samaritans  themselves 
seem  to  have  lost  it.  Huntington,  in  his  Epis- 
iolre,  London,  1701.  p.  43,  mentions  that  lie  could 
not  find  it  at  Nabulus,  nor  have  subsequent  in- 
quiries led  to  its  discovery  there. 

Besides  this  adulterated  version  of  the  history 
of  Joshua,  there  exists  still  another  in  the  Sama- 
ritan chronicles  of  Abul  Phetach.  See  Acta 
Eruditorum  Lips.,  anni  1691,  p.  167  ; Schnur- 
rer's  Samar  itanischer  Brief wechsel,  in  Eich- 
horn’s  Repertorium.  ix.  51;  a specimen  by 
Schnurrer,  in  Paulus’s  Neuem  Rcpertorium , i. 
117,  sq. 

For  further  information  see,  besides  the  Intro- 
ductions of  EiAlihorri,  l)e  Wetfe,  and  Ilavernick, 
the  following  works  : Josuee  Historia  illustrata 
ab  Andr.  Masio,  Antverpiae,  1571,  fbl. ; Sebas- 
tiani  Schmidt  Pradcctiones  in  viii.  priora  capita 
libri  Josucp  ; Johann  is  Clerici  Commentarius  in 
Josuam  \ Johannis  Drusii  Annotationes  in  loca 
difficiliora  Josux ; A.  J.  Osiandri  Commentarius 
in  Josuam , Tubingae,  16S1  ; Jacobi  Bonfrerii 
Commentarius  in  Josuam , Judices,  et  Ruth , 
Paris,  1631,  fol. ; Nic.  Serarii  Commentarius  in 
libros  Josua Judicum , Ruth,  Regum , et  Para- 
lipomenoi ^ Mog.  16u9,  x.  2 vols.  fol. ; Exege- 
tisches  Ilandbuch  des  Alien  Testamentes ; Erstes 
und  drittes  Stiick;  Paulus  Bliche,  In  das  Buch 
Josua,  in  his  Theologisch-exegetisches  Conserva- 
tor ium,  ii.  119,  sq.  ; T.  J.  V.  D.  Maurer,  Com- 
mentar  iiber  das  Buch  Josua,  Stuttgart,  1831 ; 
Rosenmiiller  in  Josuam,  Lipsia?,  1833;  George 
Bush,  Notes  on  Joshua  and  Judges,  New  York, 
1838. 

The  other  persons  of  this  name  in  the  Bible  are  : 

Joshua,  a Beth-shemite  (1  Sam.  vi.  14, 18),  an 
Israelite,  the  owner  of  the  field  into  which  the  cart 
came  which  bore  the  ark  on  its  return  from  the 
land  of  the  Philistines. 

Joshua  (2  Kings  xxiii.  8),  the  governor  of  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  at  the  commencement  of  the 
reign  of  Josiah. 

Joshua,  the  son  of  Josedec  (Hagg.  i.  1, 12,  14  ; 
Zech.  iii.  1 , 3,  9 ; vi.  1 1),  a high-priest  in  the  time 
of  Haggai  and  Ze-chariah  [Jeshua]. 


JOSIAII. 

JOSIAH  God-healed ; Sept,  ‘lualas^ 

seventeenth  king  of  Xudah,  and  son  of  Ainon. 
whom  he  succeeded  on  the  throne  in  b.c.  698,  ai 
the  early  age  of  eight  years,  and  reigned  thirty* 
one  years. 

As  Josiah  thus  early  ascended  the  throne,  we 
may  the  more  admire  the  good  qualities  which 
he  manifested,  seeing,  as  Coquerel  remarks, 
‘ qu'il  est  difficile  de  recevoir  une  bonne  educa- 
tion sur  le  tione’  ( Biographie  Sacree , p.  305). 
Avoiding  the  example  of  his  immediate  prede- 
cessors, he  ‘ did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight 
of  the  Lord,  and  walked  in  all  the  ways  of  David 
his  father,  and  turned  not  aside  to  the  right  hand 
or  #o  the  left’  (2  Kings  xxii.  1,  2;  2 Chron. 
xxxiv.  1,  2).  So  early  as  the  sixteenth  year  of 
his  age  he  began  to  manifest  that  enmity  to  idol- 
atry in  all  its  forms  which  distinguished  his 
character  and  reign  ; and  he  was  not  quite  twenty 
years  old  when  he  proclaimed  open  war  against 
it,  although  more  or  less  favoured  by  many  men 
of  rank  and  influence  in  the  court  and  kingdom. 
He  then  commenced  a thorough  purification  of 
the  land  from  all  taint  of  idolatry,  by  going 
about  and  superintending  in  person  the  operations 
of  the  men  who  were  employed  in  breaking  down 
idolatrous  altars  and  images,  and  cutting  down 
the  groves  which  had  been  consecrated  to  idol- 
worship.  His  detestation  of  idolatry  could  not 
have  been  more  strongly  expressed  than  by  ran- 
sacking the  sepulchres  of  the  idolatrous  priests  of 
former  days,  and  consuming  their  bones  upon 
the  idol  altars  before  they  were  overturned.  Yet 
this  operation,  although  unexampled  in  Jewish 
history,  was  foretold  326  years  before  Josiah 
was  born,  by  the  prophet  who  was  commissioned 
to  denounce  to  Jeroboam  the  future  punishment 
of  his  sin.  He  even  named  Josiah  as  the  person 
by  whom  this  act  was  to  be  performed ; and  said 
that  it  should  be  performed  in  Beth-el,  which  was 
then  a part  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (1  Kings 
xiii.  2).  All  this  seemed  much  beyond  the  range 
of  human  probabilities.  But  it  was  performed 
to  the  letter  ; for  Josiah  did  not  confine  his  pro- 
ceedings to  his  own  kingdom,  but  went  over  a 
considerable  part  of  the  neighbouring  kingdom 
of  Israel,  which  then  lay  comparatively  desolate, 
with  the  same  object  in  view  ; and  at  Beth-el,  in 
particular,  executed  all  that  the  prophet  had  fore- 
told (2  Kings  xxiii.  1-19;  2 Chron.  xxxiv.  3-7, 
32).  In  these  proceedings  Josial:  seems  to  have  been 
actuated  by  an  absolute  hatred  of  idolatry,  such 
as  no  other  king  since  David  had  manifested,  and 
which  David  had  scarcely  occasion  to  manifest  in 
the  same  degree. 

In  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign  and  the 
twenty-sixth  of  his  age,  when  the  land  had  been 
thoroughly  purified  from  idolatry  and  all  that  be- 
longed to  it,  Josiah  proceeded  to  repair  .and 
beautify  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  In  the  course 
of  this  pious  labour,  the  high-priest  Hilkiah  dis- 
covered in  the  sanctuary  a volume,  which  proved 
to  contain  the  books  of  Moses,  and  which,  from  the 
terms  employed,  seems  to  have  been  considered 
the  original  of  the  law  as  written  by  Moses.  On 
this  point  there  has  been  much  anxious  discussion 
and  some  rash  assertion.  Some  writers  of  the 
German  school  allege  that  there  is  no  external 
evidence — that  is,  evidence  beside  the  law  itself— 
that  the  book  of  the  law  existed  till  it  was  thus 
produced  by  Hilkiah.  This  assertion  it  is  the  lean 


JOSIAH. 


JUBILEE. 


159 


accessary  to  ai-swer  here,  as  it.  is  duly  noticed  in 
the  art.  Pentateuch.  But  it,  may  be  observed 
that  it  is  founded  very  much  on  the  fact  that  the 
king  was  greatly  astonished  when  some  parts  of 
the  law  were  read  to  him.  It  is  indeed  perfectly 
manifest  that  he  had  previously  been  entirely 
ignorant  of  much  that  lie  then  heard  ; and  he 
rent  his  clothes  in  consternation  when  he  found 
that,  with  the  best  intentions  to  serve  the  Lord,  he 
and  all  his  people  had  been  living  in  the  neglect 
of  duties  which  the  law  declared  to  be  of  vital 
importance.  It  is  certainly  difficult  to  account 
for  this  ignorance.  Some  suppose  that  all  the 
copies  of  the  law  had  perished,  and  that  the  king 
had  never  seen  one.  But  this  is  very  unlikely; 
but  however  scarce  complete  copies  may  have 
been,  the  pious  king  was  likely  to  have  been  the 
possessor  of  one.  The  probability  seems  to  be 
that  the  passages  read  were  those  awful  denun- 
ciations against  disobedience  with  which  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  concludes,  and  which  from  some 
cause  or  other  the  king  had  never  before  read,  or 
which  had  never  before  produced  on  his  mind  the 
same  strong  conviction  of  the  imminent  dangers 
under  which  the  nation  lay,  as  now  when  read  to 
him  from  a volume  invested  with  a character  so 
venerable,  and  brought  with  such  interesting  cir- 
cumstances under  his  notice. 

The  king  in  his  alarm  sent  to  Huldah  ‘ the 
prophetess,’  for  her  counsel  in  this  emergency 
[Hui.dah]  : her  answer  assured  him  that,  although 
the  dread  penalties  threatened  by  the  law  had 
been  incurred  and  would  be  inflicted,  he  should 
be  gathered  in  peace  to  his  fathers  before  the  days 
of  punishment  and  sorrow  came. 

It  was  perhaps  riot  without  some  hope  of  avert- 
ing this  doom  that  the  king  immediately  called 
the  people  together  at  Jerusalem,  and  engaged 
them  in  a solemn  renewal  of  the  ancient  covenant 
with  God.  When  this  had  been  done,  the  Pass- 
over  was  celebrated  with  careful  attention  to  the 
directions  given  in  the  law,  and  on  a scale  of 
unexampled  magnificence.  But  all  was  too  late; 
the  hour  of  mercy  had  passed;  for  ‘the  Lord 
turned  not  from  the  fierceness  of  his  great  wrath, 
wherewith  his  anger  was  kindled  against  Judah  ’ 
(2  Kings  xxii.  3-20;  xxiii.  21-27;  2 Qwiron. 
xxxiv.  8-33;  xxxv.  1-19). 

That  removal  from  the  world  which  had  been 
promised  to  Josiali  as  a blessing,  was  not  long 
delayed,  and  was  brought  about  in  a way  which 
lie  had  probably  not  expected.  His  kingdom  was 
tributary  to  the  Chaldaean  empire ; and  when 
Pharaoh-necho,  king  of  Egypt,  sought  a passage 
through  his  territories,  on  an  expedition  against 
the  Chaldseans,  Josiali,  with  a very  high  sense  of 
the  obligations  which  his  vassalage  imposed, 
refused  to  allow  the  march  of  the  Egyptian  army 
through  his  dominions,  and  "prepared  to  resist  the 
"attempt  by  force  of  arms.  Necho  was  very  un- 
willing to  engage  in  hostilities  with  Josiali  : the 
appearance  of  the  Hebrew  army  at  Megiddo, 
however,  brought  on  a battle,  in  which  the  king 
of  Judah  was  so  desperately  wounded  by  arrows 
that  his  attendants  removed  him  from  the  war- 
chariot,  and  placed  him  in  another,  in  which  he 
was  taken  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  died.  No  king 
that,  reigned  in  Israel  was  ever  more  deeply  la- 
mented by  all  his  subjects  tnan  Josiali : and  we 
are  told  that  the  prophet  composed  on  the  occa- 
sion an  elegiac  ode,  which  was  long  preserved 


among  the  people,  but  which  is  not  now  in 
existence  (2  Kings  xxiii.  29-37  ; 2 Cliron.  xxxv. 
20-27) 

1.  JOTHAM  (Qni\  God  is  upright ; Sept. 
5 ludOu/j .),  the  youngest  of  Gideon’s  seventy  legiti- 
mate sons ; and  the  only  one  who  escaped  when 
the  rest,  were  massacred  by  the  order  of  A oimelech. 
When  the  fratricide  was  made  king  by  the  people 
of  Sliechem,  the  young  Jotlnirn  was  so  daring  as 
to  make  his  appearance  on  Mount  Gerizim  for  the 
purpose  of  lifting  up  a protesting  voice,  and  of 
giving  vent  to  his  feelings.  This  he  did  in  a 
beautiful  parable,  wherein  the  trees  are  represented 
as  making  choice  of  a king,  and  bestowing  on  the 
bramble  the  honour  which  the  cedar,  the  olive, 
and  the  vine  would  not.  accept.  The  obvious  a}>- 
plicafion,  which  indeed  Jotliam  failed  not  himself 
to  point  out,  must  have  been  highly  exasperating 
to  Abimelech  and  his  friends ; but  the  speaker 
tied,  as  soon  as  lie  had  delivered  his  parable,  to 
the  town  of  Beer,  and  remained  there  out  of  his 
brother’s  reach,  AVe  hear  no  more  of  him  ; but 
three  years  after,  if  then  living,  be  saw  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  malediction  he  had  pro- 
nounced (Jiulg.  ix.  5-21). 

2.  JOTHAM,  tenth  king  of  Judah,  and  son  of 
Uzziah,  whom  he  succeeded  in  b.c.  758,  at  the  age 
of  twenty-five:  he  reigned  sixteen  years.  His 
father  having  during  his  last  years  been  excluded 
by  leprosy  from  pubic  life  [LIzziah],  the  govern- 
ment was  administered  by  his  son.  Jotliam  pro- 
fited by  the  experience  which  the  reign  of  his  father, 
and  of  the  kings  who  preceded  him.  afforded,  and 
he  ruled  in  the  fear  of  God,  although  he  was 
unable  to  correct  all  the  corrupt  practices  into 
which  the  people  had  fallen.  His  sincere  inten- 
tions were  rewarded  with  a prosperous  reign.  He 
was  successful  in  his  wars.  The  Ammonites, 
who  had  ‘given  gifts’  as  a sort  of  tribute  to 
Uzziah,  but  had  ceised  to  do  so  after  his  leprosy 
had  incapacitated  him  from  governing,  were  con- 
strained by  Jotliam  to  pay  for  three  years  a heavy 
tribute  in  silver,  wheat,  and  barley  (2  Chron. 
xxvi.  8 ; xxvii.  5,  6).  Many  important  public 
works  were  also  undertaken  and  accomplished 
by  Jotliam.  The  principal  gate  of  the  temple  was 
rebuilt  by  him  on  a more  magnificent  scale  ; the 
quarter  of  Ophel,  in  Jerusalem,  was  strengthened 
by  new  fortifications ; various  towns  were  built 
or  rebuilt  in  the  mountains  of  Judah  ; and  castles 
and  towers  of  defence  were  erected  in  the  wilder- 
ness. Jotliam  died  greatly  lamented  by  his 
people,  and  was  buried  in  the  sepulchre  of  the 
kings  (2  Kings  xv.  38 ; 2 Chron.  xvii.  3-9). 

JUBAL  pn-V',  jubilum,  i.  e.  music  ; Sept. 
’Iau/JaA),  one  of  Cain's  descendants,  son  of 
Lamech  and  Adah.  He  is  described  as  the  in- 
ventor of  the  1133  hinnor , and  the  33  lj?  ugab, 
rendered  in  our  version  ‘ the  harp  and  the  organ,’ 
but  perhaps  more  properly  ‘ the  lyre  and  mouth- 
organ,’  or  Pandean  pipe  (Gen.  iv.  21)  [Music]. 

JUBILEE  (^nVn  or  merely  ?3P,  as  in 
Lev.  xxv.  28;  Sept.,  eros  rrjs  a^eVews,  or  simply 
&<pe(Tis  ; Vulg.  Annus  Jubilei,  or  Jubileus),  ac- 
cording to  some  a period  of  fifty  years,  according 
to  others,  of  forty-nine  years,  the  termination  of 
which  led  to  certain  great  changes  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  Hebrews,  all  of  which  seem  to  have 
been  designed  and  fitted  to  bring  about  from  tiew 


160 


JUBILEE. 


JUBILEE. 


to  time  a restoration  of  the  original  social  state 
instituted  by  Moses,  and  so  to  sustain  in  its  unim- 
paired integrity  the  constitution  of  which  he  was 
the  author.  We  remark  at  the  commencement, 
that  notwithstanding  the  many  great  names  which 
favour  the  shorter  period  — namely,  forty-nine 
years — we  consider  that  the  language  of  Scripture 
is  very  clear  in  behalf  of  the  longer  one  : an  opinion 
for  which  it  would  be  easy  to  marshal  at  least  as 
many  and  as  great  authorities  as  for  the  other. 
Many  of  these  authorities  may  be  found  mentioned 
in  the  most  recent  tractate  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted on  the  subject,  that  of  J.  T.  Krauold,  I)e 
Anno  Hebreeo  Jubilceo , Gutting,  p.  23.  In  the 
same  piece  the  reader  may  tind  a pretty  full  dis- 
cussion respecting  the  derivation  and  import  of 
the  term  Jubilee  (p.  18  sq.) ; of  which  it  may 
suffice  here  to  say  that,  while  difference  of  opinion 
prevails  as  to  its  exact  signification — and  hence 
appears  the  propriety  of  the  course  taken  by  King 
James’s  translators  in  retaining  the  original  word 
itself — the  root-idea  of  the  word  seems  to  be  con- 
nected with  two  external  acts— flowing  (Gen.  vi. 
17)  and  sounding  (Gen.  iv.  21),  which  are  ob- 
viously one  and  the  same  in  different  aspects ; 
for  sound  is  but  the  flow  of  breath  or  wind,  as  a 
stream  is  the  flow  of  water.  From  this  idea  of 
pouring  forth  came  the  particular  meaning  of  the 
term  Jubilee,  as  employed  in  relation  to  the  year 
so  called,  which  was  announced  and  introduced 
by  the  blast  of  a trumpet,  the  signal  fur  the  dis- 
solution of  certain  existing  arrangements,  and  a 
general  system  of  restitution  : whence  is  seen  the 
propriety  of  .that  translation  of  the  Hebrew  which 
the  Seventy  give,  eros  acpecrews,  4 year  of  release’ 
or  ‘restoration.’  And  as  the  restitutions  which 
then  took  place  were  occasions  of  joy  to  thousands, 
so  the  term  Jubilee  came  to  imply  a period  of 
general  gladness. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  Jubilee  was 
another  singular  Mosaic  institution,  namely,  the 
Sabbatical  year.  On  this  account  we  shall  speak 
briefly  of  the  latter,  as  preparatory  to  a right 
understanding  of  the  former. 

While  yet  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  and 
therefore,  before  they  had  entered  4 the  land  of 
promise,’  the  children  of  Israel  received  from 
the  lips  of  their  great  legislator  the  following 
law — ‘six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  land,  and 
shalt  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof:  but  the 

seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  it  rest ; that  thine 
ox  and  thine  ass  may  rest,  and  the  son  of 
thy  handmaid  and  the  stranger  may  be  refreshed  ’ 
(Exod.  xxiii.  10  sq.).  This  injunction  is  re- 
peated in  Lev.  xxv.  1-7,  where  it  stands  as 
proceeding  immediately  from  the  Lord.  The 
land  is  to  keep  ‘ a sabbath  for  the  Lord.’  It  is 
added  — ‘ that  which  groweth  of  its  own  accord  of 
thy  harvest  thou  shalt  not  reap,  neither  gather  the 
grapes  of  thy  vine  undressed.  And  the  sabbath 
of  the  land  shall  be  meat  for  you ; for  thee,  and 
for  thy  servant,  and  for  thy  cattle.’  Then  in  im- 
mediate sequence  follows  the  law  relating  to  the 
Jubilee  (Lev.  xxi.  8).  ‘And  thou  shalt  nura- 
oer  seven  sabbaths  of  years  unto  thee,  seven  times 
seven  years,  forty  and  nine  years ; then  shalt  thou 
cause  the  trumpet  of  the  Jubilee  to  sound  in  the 
tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month,  in  the  day  of 
atonement  shall  ye  make  the  trumpet  sound 
tlnoughout  all  your  land.  And  ye  shall  hallow 
the  fiftieth  year,  and  proclaim  liberty  throughout 


all  the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  tliereof;  and 
ye  shall  return  every  man  unto  his  possession  and 
unto  his  family.  A Jubilee  shall  that  fiftieth 
year  be  unto  you.  Ye  shall  not  sow,  neither  reap 
that  which  groweth  of  itself  in  it,  nor  gainer  the 
grapes  of  thy  vine  undressed  ; for  it  is  the  Jubilee ; 
it  shall  be  holy  unto  you ; ye  shall  eat  the  increase 
thereof  out  of  the  field.  And  if  thou  sell  ought 
unto  thy  neighbour  or  buyest  ought,  according  to 
the  number  of  years  after  t he  Jubilee  thou  shalt 
buy,  and  according  to  the  fewness  of  years  (to  the 
ensuing  Jubilee)  thou  shalt  diminish  the  price  of 
it,  for  according  to  the  number  of  the  fruits  (of 
harvests)  doth  he  sell.  And  the  land  shall  yield 
her  fruits,  and  ye  shall  eat  your  till  and  dwell 
therein  in  safety.  I will  command  my  blessing 
upon  you  in  the  sixth  year  (‘tn  six  years  ’ con- 
jectures Michaelis,  Comment,  vol.  i.  p.  290),  and 
it  shall  bring  forth  fruit  for  three  years.  And  ye 
shall  sow  the  eighth  year  and  eat  of  old  fruit 
until  the  ninth  year.  The  land  shall  not  be  sold 
for  ever,  for  the  land  is  mine:  in  all  the  land  of 
your  possession  ye  shall  grant  a redemption  for 
the  land’  (Lev.  xxv.  8-21).  Land  might  be  re- 
deemed by  a kinsman  or  by  the  party  who  sold  it; 
but  in  the  Jubilee  year  it  must  return  to  its 
original  proprietor.  Dwelling-houses  within  u 
walled  city  might  be  redeemed  within  the  first 
year;  if  not  redeemed  within  the  space  of  a ful. 
year  they  became  the  freehold  of  the  purchaser. 
The  houses  of  villages  were  to  he  counted  as  the 
fields  of  the  country.  The  cities  and  houses  of 
the  Levites  were  redeemable  at  any  time,  and 
could  never  be  held  longer  than  the  ensuing 
Jubilee:  the  field  of  the  suburbs  of  their  cities 
might  not  be  sold  (vers.  25-38).  Israelites  who 
were  hired  semints  (Israel it ish  bond- servants  were 
not  allowed)  might  serve  till  the  year  of  Jubilee, 
when  they  returned  to  their  possessions.  A He- 
brew sold  as  a slave  to  a foreigner  resident  in 
Palestine  was  redeemable  by  himself  or  relatives 
at  any  time,  by  making  payment  according  to  the 
number  of  years  to  elapse  before  the  next  Jubilee  ; 
but  at  the  Jubilee  such  bondsman  was,  under  all 
circumstances,  to  be  set  at  liberty  (vers.  39-55). 
The  only  exception  to  this  system  of  general  re- 
stitution was  in  the  case  of  property  set  apart  and 
devoted  to  the  Divine  service — 4 Every  devoted 
thing  is  most  holy  unto  the  Lord ; none  devoted 
shall  he  redeemed  ’ (Lev.  xxvii.  28-29). 

With  these  scriptural  details  the  account  given 
by  Josephus  (. Antiq . iii.  12.  3)  substantially 
agrees.  The  latter,  however,  states  that  in  the 
year  of  Jubilee  ‘debtors  are  freed  from  their 
debts.’  And  in  regard  to  the  restitution  of  land, 
he  says,  ‘when  the  Jubilee  is  come,  which  name 
denotes  liberty,  he  that  sold  the  land  and  he  that 
bought  it  meet  together,  and  make  an  estimate  on 
one  hand  of  the  fruits  gathered,  and  on  the  other 
of  the  expenses  laid  out  upon  it.  If  the  fruits 
gathered  come  to  more  than  the  expenses  laid  out, 
he  who  sold  it  takes  the  land  again;  hut  if  the 
expenses  prove  more  than  the  fruits,  the  present 
possessor  receives  of  the  former  owner  the  differ- 
ence, and  leaves  the  land  to  him  ; and  if  the  fruits 
received  and  the  expenses  laid  out  prove  equal, 
the  present  possessor  relinquishes  it  to  the  former 
owner.’ 

Our  object  in  making  this  quotation  is  not 
merely  to  afford  an  illustration  of  the  way  in 
which  the  law  of  release  was  worked,  but  to  show 


JUBILEE. 


JUBILEE. 


191 


that  the  Jewish  historian  speaks  of  the  law  as  a 
reality,  as  a present  reality,  as  something  in 
actual  operation : the  importance  of  which  evi- 
dence will  presently  appear. 

The  time  required  by  the  Sabbatical  year  and 
by  the  Jubilee  to  be  rescued  from  tire  labours  of 
the  field,  was  very  considerable.  Strictly  inter- 
preted the  language  we  have  cited  would  take  out 
of  the  ordinary  course  of  things  every  sixth, 
seventh,  and  eighth  year,  during  each  successive 
septenary,  till  the  circle  of  fifty  years  was  in  each 
period  completed.  Nay  more,  the  old  store,  pro- 
duced in  the  sixth  year,  was  to  last  until  the  ninth 
year,  for  the  sixth  year  was  to  bring  forth  fruits 
for  three  years. 

The  reader  has  now  before  him  the  whole  of 
this  extraordinary  piece  of  legislation,  which, 
viewed  in  all  its  bearings — in  its  effects  on  human 
labour,  on  character,  on  religious  institutions  and 
observances,  as  well  as  on  the  general  condition 
of  society,  no  less  than  on  the  productiveness  of 
the  land,  and  the  means  of  sustenance  to  its 
inhabitants — is  wholly  unparalleled  by  any  event 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  But  are  we  therefore 
to  disbelieve  and  reject  it.  ? The  admission  that 
these  laws  were  not  only  given  but  executed,  is  of 
course  an  acknowledgment  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Mosaic  institutions  : an  acknowledgment  which 
involves  the  further  recognition  of  miracle — 
indeed  of  a continually  revolving  cycle  of  mi- 
racles. Such  a recognition,  however,  is  opposed  to 
what  some  theologians,  with  a strange  perversion 
of  the  name,  have  regarded  as  a first  principle  in 
their  system,  namely,  that  miracles  are  inadmis- 
sible, either  as  being  impossible  or  improbable. 
Accordingly,  since  the  existence  of  the  law  is  un- 
questionable, its  execution  has  been  denied. 

We  at  once  admit  that  the  Scriptures  do  not 
afford  strictly  historical  data  by  which  we  are 
enabled  to  prove  that  the  law  was  carried  into 
effect  in  the  earlier  periods  of  the  Jewish  state. 
But  how  rash  to  deduce  a positive  conclusion 
from  a mere  negation  ! In  order  that  such  an 
inference  should  possess  any  weight,  it  is  necessary 
to  show  that  the  sacred  history  was  designed  and 
fitted  to  give  a complete  detail  of  all  that  con- 
cerned the  Hebrew  nation,  and  specially  to  ex- 
hibit in  actual  operation  the  laws  given  by  Mos-es. 
No  such  aim  have  the  Scriptures  in  view,  no  such 
office  do  they  execute ; nor  are  we  sure  that 
their  credibility  would  be  at  all  enhanced,  did 
they  appear  framed  for  any  such  unlikely,  not  to 
say  suspicious,  purpose. 

There  are  some  pr»sumptions  in  favour  of  the 
reality  Af  the  lews  under  consideration.  The  re- 
curring periods  of  seven  years  are  in  keeping  with 
the  institution  of  the  seventh  day  as  a Sabbath 
for  man  and  beast.  The  aim  in  both  is  similar — • 
needful  repose.  The  leading  idea  involved  in  the 
Jubilee  — namely,  restitution  — also  harmonizes 
with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Mosaic 
system.  The  land  was  God’s,  and  was  entrusted 
for  use  to  the  chosen  people  in  such  a way  that 
every  individual  had  his  portion.  A power  of  per- 
petual alienation  would  have  been  a virtual  denial 
of  God’s  sovereign  rights,  while  the  law  of  Jubilee 
was  one  continued  recognition  of  them.  The 
conception  is  purely  theocratical  in  its  whole 
character  and  tendencies.  The  theocracy  was  of 
such  a nature  as  to  disallow  all  subordinate 
•thrones,  principalities,  and  powers;’  and  conse- 
voa..  ii.  ^2 


quently,  to  demand  entire  equality  on  the  part 
of  the  people.  But  the  power  of  perpetual  aliena- 
tion in  regard  to  land  would  have  soon  given  rise 
to  the  greatest  inequalities  of  social  condition,  pre- 
senting what  modern  states  have,  alas ! exhibited 
but  too  much  of — splendid  affluence  on  one  side 
and  sordid  pauperism  on  the  other.  But  these 
laws  tended  to  preserve  the  original  level  which 
had  a divine  origin  ; for  they  would  prevent  vast 
accumulations,  restrain  cupidity,  preclude  do- 
mestic tyranny,  and  constantly  remind  rich  and 
poor  of  their  essential  equality  in  themselves, 
in  the  state,  and  before  God.  A passage  in 
Deuteronomy  (xv.  4),  when  rightly  understood,  as 
in  the  marginal  translation — ‘ to  the  end  that  there 
be  no  poor  among  you  ’ — seems  expressly  to  de- 
clare that  the  aim  in  view,  at  least,  of  the  Sabba- 
tical release,  was  to  prevent ‘the  rise  of  any  great 
inequality  of  social  condition,  and  thus  to  pre- 
serve unimpaired  the  essential  character  of  the 
theocracy.  Equally  benevolent  in  its  aim  and 
tendency  does  this  institution  thus  appear,  show- 
ing how  thoroughly  the  great  Hebrew  legislator 
cared  and  provided  for  individuals,  instead  of 
favouring  classes.  Beginning  with  a narrow  cycle 
of  seven  days,  he  went  on  to  a wider  one  of  as 
many  years,  embracing  at  last  seven  times  seven 
annual  revolutions,  seeking  in  all  his  arrange- 
ments rest  for  man  and  beast,  and,  by  a happy 
personification,  rest  even  for  the  brute  earth  ; and 
in  the  rest  which  he  required  for  human  beings, 
providing  for  that  more  needful  rest  of  mind 
which  the  sharp  competitions  and  eager  rivalries 
of  modern  society  deny  to  ten  thousand  times  ten 
thousand.  As  being  of  a benign  character  and 
tendency,  the  law  of  the  Sabbatical  and  Jubilee 
year  is  in  accordance  with  the  general  spirit  of 
the  Mosaic  legislation,  and  appears  not  unworthy 
of  its  divine  origin. 

Warburlon  adduced  this  law  (Divine  Legation 
of  Moses)  in  order  to  show  that  Moses  was  in 
truth  sent  and  sustained  by  God,  since  nothing 
but  a divine  power  could  have  given  the  neces- 
sary supplies  of  food  in  the  sixth  year.  That, 
there  is  some  force  in  this  argument  no  unpreju- 
diced person  can  well  deny  : how  much  surprised) 
then  will  the  reader  be,  after  perusing  the  forego- 
ing remarks,  to  find  Michaelis  ( Comment . i.  389*. 
note)  speaking  thus:- — ‘ This  proof  would  in  plain, 
English  amount  to  this  : this  law  is  so  extremely 
absurd,  that  he  who  gave  it  must  necessarily  have 
been  sent  from  God,  because  none  but  God  is 
capable  of  counteracting  the  destructive  effectsrof 
such  a law.’ 

To  our  mind,  we  remark  in  continuation  of 
these  presumptive  evidences,  there  is  something 
noble,  as  well  as  self-relying  in  the  annunciation 
of  these  laws  in  the  desert,  ere  yet  the  land  was 
gained,  as  a part  of  a general  system  of  religious 
and  social  polity,  before  a horde  rather  than  a 
nation,  a people  thirsting  for  a tranquil  settlement, 
and  therefore  hostile  to  any  mere  illusions,  and 
likely  to  visit  on  their  author's  head  such  fond 
notions  as,  according  to  Michaelis,  these  com- 
mands appeared.  And  why,  if  the  attempt  was 
unreal  or  unsupported,  why  this  legislation  for 
future  times?  Why,  unless  Moses  was  supported 
by  a consciousness  of  a divine  guidance,  this  risk 
of  provoking  either  the  ridicule  or  the  disgust  gi 
his  wandering  tribes  ? In  truth,  however,  Motui 
in  these  laws  lays  the  foundation,  while  yet  iit 


182 


JUBILEE. 


JUBILEE. 


the  wilderness,  of  institutions  which  were  in  full 
harmony  with  the  entire  system  which  lie  said 
he  had  received  of  God. 

But  these  laws  either  emanated  from  Moses,  or 
they  did  not.  If  they  did  not,  they  arose  after 
the  settlement  in  Canaan,  and  are  of  such  a na- 
ture as  to  convict  their  fabricator  of  imposture,  if, 
indeed,  any  one  could  have  been  found  so  daring 
as  to  bring  forth  laws  implying  institutions  which 
did  not  exist,  and  which  under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances could  not  find  permanence,  even  if 
they  could  ever  be  carried  into  operation  at  all. 
But  if  these  laws  emanated  from  Moses,  is  it 
credible  that  he  would  have  given  utterance  to 
commands  which  convict  themselves  of  impos- 
sibility? or  caused  the  rise  of  institutions,  which, 
if  unsupported  of  heaven,  must  come  to  a speedy 
termination,  and  in  so  doing  act  to  his  own  dis- 
credit as  a professed  divine  messenger?  There  is 
a species  of  self-confidence,  there  is  a moral 
daring  which  of  itself  vindicates  its  divine  origin  : 
the  case  before  us  seems  to  be  an  instance. 

Nor  can  we  see  that  the  law  is  either  ‘ absurd  ’ 
cr  ‘ pernicious  ’ (Michaelis,  xit  supra).  That  for 
its  successful  execution  special  divine  aid  was 
needful,  we  by  no  means  deny  ; but  the  Mosaic 
polity  was  in  its  origin,  and  in  its  very  nature, 
special,  and,  ‘ according  to  the  Scriptures,’  received 
special  aid  of  God. 

So  far  as  the  system  of  restitution  is  concerned, 
we  see  nothing  but  what  the  power  of  law  and 
the  authority  of  religion  were  capable  of  bringing 
about.  But  could  the  land  sustain  the  people  ? 
Whv  not?  Palestine  had  a most  fertile  soil. 
Every  man  having  land,  would  be  a husband- 
man, and  therefore  every  part  would  be  carefully 
tilled.  And  as  his  sustenance  and  that  of  his 
family  would,  in  the  case  of  each  proprietor, 
depend,  not  only  on  his  industry  but  his  fore- 
thought, on  making  provision  not  for  a contingent 
but  a certain  want ; so  every  head  of  a house 
would  labour  wisely  and  well,  and  husband  with 
due  care  for  the  year  of  rest:  thus,  while  making 
provision  for  his  bodily  wants,  rising  in  a proper 
self-respect,  and  cultivating  many  important 
moral  qualities.  Besides,  a year  of  rest  was  a 
great  tiling  to  work  for  ; which  would  sharpen,  all 
a man’s  faculties  and  quicken  his  hands ; and 
when  at  length  the  wished  for  time  arrived, 
the  excellence  of  character  which  the  system 
fostered  would  save  the  licence  from  abuse,  if  not 
turn  it  to  most  important  intellectual  and  re- 
ligious purposes.  We  shall  be  much  deceived  in 
our  estimate  of  the  moral  and  social  effects  of  the 
Jubilee,  if  we  judge  from  what  is  probable  in 
regard  to  the  overworked,  uninstructed,  and  irre- 
ligious thousands  which  crowd  our  modern  cities  or 
cover  our  fields.  On  the  possibility  of  the  land’s 
affording  sufficient  food,  we  find  the  following 
important  passage  in  Palfrey’s  ‘ Lectures  on  the 
Jewish  Scriptures ,’  Boston,  1841,  vol.  i.  p.  303  : 
I find  no  difficulty  arising  from  any  inadequacy 
of  the  produce  of  six  years  to  afford  sustenance  to 
the  people  for  seven.  To  say  that  this  was  in- 
tended would  merely  be  to  say  that  the  design 
was  that  the  consumption  of  each  year  should 
only  amount  on  an  average  to  six-sevenths  of 
its  produce.  In  such  an  arrangement  it  can- 
not be  thought  that  there  was  any  thing  imprac- 
ticable. There  are  states  of  tfo’s  Union  which 
export  yearly  more  than  half  their  produce, 


and  subsist  substantially  on  the  remainder^ 
their  imports  consisting  mostly  of  luxuries. 
Again,  in  England  nearly  three  quarters  of  the 
families  are  engaged  in  commerce,  manufactures, 
professions,  and  unproductive  pursuits;  but  in 
J udaea  every  man  was  a producer  of  food,  with 
the  advantage  of  a fine  climate  and  a rich  soil.’ 
The  remainder  is  worth  consulting. 

It  may  be  of  some  importance  to  remark  that 
those  who  believe  that  these  laws  were  good,  and 
were  also  executed,  are  not  therefore  required  to 
maintain  that  the  regular  and  intended  series  of 
things  was  never  interrupted.  The  promises  of 
God  are  in  all  cases  conditioned  on  human  obedi- 
ence. This  condition  is  expressly  laid  down  in 
the  case  before  us  (Lev.  xxv.  18,  36,  38).  At  the 
same  time,  the  silence  of  the  sacred  history  before 
the  captivity  looks  as  if  the  law  in  question  was  so 
uninterruptedly,  regularly,  and  as  a matter  of 
course,  observed  from  Jubilee  to  Jubilee,  that  no 
occasion  transpired  for  remark.  In  history,  as  in 
every  day  life,  more  is  said  of  the  exceptional 
than  the  periodical  and  the  ordinary. 

The  tenor  of  these  observations  will  probably 
lead  the  reader  to  consider  it  a somewhat  sur- 
prising assertion,  that  these  laws  were  not  executed 
before  the  Babylonish  exile  ; yet  such  is  the  state- 
ment of  Winer  ( Real-io'drterb . s.  v.  ‘ Jubeljahr’) 
and  De  Wette  ( Lehrh . der  Archiiol.  p.  158).  Some 
passages  of  Scripture  are  referred  to,  which  are 
thought  to  imply  the  truth  of  this  position,  as 
1 Kings  xxi.  2;  Isa.  v.  8;  2 Chron.  xxxvi.  21 ; 
Lev.  xxvi.  34.  Our  space  does  not  allow  us  to 
go  into  a critical  examination  of  these  texts,  but 
we  may  say,  that  having  carefully  considered 
their  import  and  bearing,  we  cannot  find  in  them 
the  alleged  implication. 

For  the  opposite  view,  there  is,  in  agreement 
with  the  general  tenor  of  this  article,  some  posi- 
tive evidence  which  must  be  briefly  indicated. 
The  Roman  historian  Tacitus  bears  witness  to 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbatical  year  at  least,  in 
the  following  terms: — ‘Septimo  die  otium  pla- 
cuisse  ferunt,  quod  is  finem  laborum  tulerit ; dein 
blandiente  inertia,  septimum  quoque  annum  ig- 
naviae  datum  :’  ‘ They  give  the  seventh  day  to  ease 
because  it  put  an  end  to  labours ; moreover, 
through  the  allurements  of  idleness,  the  seventh 
year  also  is  given  to  inactivity’  (Tac.  Hist.  v.  4). 
Of  course  this  is  an  enemy’s  version,  but  the 
evidence  is  distinct,  pointed,  and  unquestionable. 
We  find  another  strong  evidence  furnished  by 
Josephus  ( Antiq . xiv.  10.  6),  where,  giving  cer- 
tain decrees  of  Julius  Caesar  in  the  terms  in  which 
they  were  issued,  he  records  these  words : — 
‘ Caesar  hath  ordained  that  the  Jews  pay  a tribute 
yearly  excepting  the  seventh , which  they  call  the 
Sabbatical  year , because  thereon  they  neither 
receive  the  fruits  of  their  trees,  nor  do  they  sow  their 
land further  on  he  says  : ‘ every  year,  the  seventh 
year  excepted,  which  they  call  the  Sabbatic  year, 
whereon  they  neither  plough  nor  receive  the  pro- 
duct of  their  trees.’  Another  testimony  is  found 
in  1 Macc.  vi.  49  : ‘ for  they  came  out  of  the 
city  (Bethura),  because  they  had  no  victuals  there 
to  endure  the  siege,  it  being  a year  of  rest  to 
the  land.'  In  Ezekiel  a passage  occurs,- where 
beyond  a question  the  year  of  Jubilee  is  intended 
(xlvi.  17)  : ‘ if  he  give  a gift  of  his  inheritance  to 
one  of  his  servants,  then  it  shall  be  his  to  the  year 
of  liberty .’  But  there  is  a passage  in  Isaiah  (lxi 


JUD/32A. 


JUDAEA. 


1,  2)  which  appears  to  us  to  furnish  remarkable 
and  sat,isfa<  toi  y evidence  that  the  Jubilee  itself 
was  observed  before  the  captivity  : — ‘ The  spirit  of 
the  Lord  God  is  upon  me,  because  the  Lord  hath 
anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  unto  the 
meek,  to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and 
the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound, 
to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord .’ 

The  words  of  Isaiah  we  consider  very  strong. 
It  is  admitted  that  they  allude  to  the  year  of 
Jubilee  (Kranold  De  Anno  Jubilceo,  p.  80) — but 
then  they  are  poetry,  not  history.  Why,  what  a 
purblind  objection  is  this  ! The  clear  implications 
of  poetry  are  the  best  and  truest  history,  for  they 
are  an  appeal  to  what  is  generally  known  and 
recognised  in  the  public  mind.  There  would 
have  been  no  pertinency  in  the  words  of  Isaiah, 
had  not  the  Jubilee  been  a thing  of  which  the 
world  around  him  had  actual  experience ; just 
as  the  force  and  import  of  the  words  do  not 
appear  to  the  mind  of  a modern  reader,  until  he 
is  acquainted  with  the  Mosaic  laws,  and  the 
Jewish  observances  on  the  point. 

If,  however,  the  essential  element  of  this  system 
of  law,  namely  the  Sabbatical  year,  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  an  established  institution  in  the  days  of 
Tacitus,  Josephus,  the  Maccabees,  Ezekiel,  and 
Isaiah,  we  think  the  fair  and  legitimate  inference 
is  in  favour  of  those  laws  having  been  long  pre- 
viously observed,  probably  from  the  early  periods 
of  the  Hebrew  republic.  Their  existence  in  a 
declining  state  of  the  commonwealth  cannot 
be  explained  without  seeking  their  origin  nearer 
the  fountain-head  of  those  pure,  living  waters, 
which,  with  the  force  of  all  primitive  enthusiasm, 
easily  effected  great  social  wonders,  especially 
when  divinely  guided  and  divinely  sustained. — 
9 J.  R.  B. 

JUDAEA,  the  southernmost  of  the  three  divi- 
sions of  the  Holy  Land.  It  denoted  the  kingdom 
of  Judah  as  distinguished  from  that  of  Israel. 
But  after  the  captivity,  as  most  of  the  exiles  who 
returned  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  the 
name  Judaea  (Judah)  was  applied  generally  to 
the  whole  of  Palestine  west  of  the  Jordan  (Hag. 
i.  1,  14  ; ii.  2).  Under  the  Romans,  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  Palestine  was  divided  into  Judaea,  Ga- 
lilee, and  Samaria  (John  iv.  4,  5;  Acts  ix.  31), 
the  last  including  the  whole  of  the  southern 
part  west  of  the  Jordan.  But  this  division  was 
only  observed  as  a political  and  local  distinction, 
for  the  sake  of  indicating  the  part  of  the  country, 
just  as  we  use  the  name  of  a county  (Matt.  ii. 
1,5;  iii.  1;  iv.  25 ; Luke  i.  65);  but  when  the 
whole  of  Palestine  was  to  be  indicated  in  a 
general  way,  the  term  Judaea  was  still  employed. 
Thus  persons  in  Galilee  and  elsewhere  spoke  of 
going  to  Judaea  (John  vii.  3 ; xi.  7),  to  distin- 
guish the  part  of  Palestine  to  which  they  were 
proceeding ; but  when  persons  in  Rome  and  other 
places  spoke  of  Judaea  (Acts  xxviii.  21),  they 
used  the  word  as  a general  denomination  for  the 
country  of  the  Jews,  or  Palestine.  Indeed,  the 
name  seems  to  have  had  a more  extensive  appli- 
cation than  even  to  Palestine  west  of  the  Jordan. 
It  denoted  all  the  dominions  of  Herod  the  Great, 
who  was  called  king  of  Judaea;  and  much  of 
these  lay  beyond  the  river.  After  the  death  of 
Herod,  however,  the  Judaea  to  which  his  son 
Archelaus  succeeded  was  only  the  southern  pro- 
vince so  called  (Matt.  ii.  22) ; which  afterwards 


became  a Roman  province  dependent  on  Syria 
and  governed  by  procurators,  and  this  was  its  con- 
dition during  our  Lord’s  ministry.  It  was  after- 
wards for  a time  partly  under  the  dominion  of 
Herod  Agrippa  the  elder  (Acts  xii.  1-19),  but 
on  his  death  it  reverted  to  its  former  condition 
under  the  Romans. 

It  is  only  Judaea,  in  the  provincial  sense,  that 
requires  our  present  notice,  the  country  at  large 
being  described  in  the  article  Palestine.  In 
this  sense,  however,  it  was  much  more  extensive 
than  the  domain  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  even  more 
so  than  the  kingdom  of  the  same  name.  There 
are  no  materials  for  describing  its  limits  with 
precision ; but  it  included  the  ancient  territories 
of  Judah,  Benjamin,  Dan,  Simeon,  and  part  of 
Ephraim.  It  is,  however,  not  correct  to  describe 
Idumaea  as  not  anciently  belonging  to  Judah. 
The  Idumaea  of  later  times,  or  that  which  be- 
longed to  Judaea,  was  the  southern  part  of  the 
ancient  Judah,  into  which  the  Idumaeans  had 
intruded  during  the  exile,  and  the  annexation  of 
which  to  Judaea  only  restored  what  had  anciently 
belonged  to  it. 

In  the  rabbinical  writings  Judaea,  as  a division 
of  Palestine,  is  frequently  called  ‘ the  south,’  or 
‘ the  south  country,’  to  distinguish  it  from  Galilee, 
which  was  called  ‘ the  north’  (Lightfoot,  Chorog. 
Cent.  xii.).  The  distinction  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
into  ‘ the  Mountain,’  ‘ the  Plain,’  and  ‘ the  Vale,’ 
which  we  meet  with  in  the  Old  Testament  (Num. 
xiii.  30),  was  preserved  under  the  more  extended 
denomination  of  Judaea.  The  Mountain , or  hill 
country  of  Judaea  (Josh.  xxi.  11  ; Luke  i.  39), 
was  that  ‘ broad  back  of  mountains,’  as  Lightfoot 
calls  it  ( Chorog . Cent,  xi.),  which  fills  the  centre 
of  the  country  from  Hebron  northward  to  beyond 
Jerusalem.  The  Plain  was  the  low  country 
towards  the  sea-coast,  and  seems  to  have  included 
not  only  the  broad  plain  which  extends  between 
the  sea  and  the  hill  country,  but  the  lower  parts 
of  the  hilly  region  itself  in  that  direction.  Thus 
the  rabbins  allege  that  from  Bethoron  to  the  sea  is 
one  region  ( T.  Pieros.  Sheviith,  ix.  2).  The  Vale 
is  defined  by  the  rabbins  as  extending  from  En- 
gedi  to  Jericho  (Lightfoot,  Panergon , § 2)  ; from 
which,  and  other  indications,  it  seems  to  have 
included  such  parts  of  the  Ghor,  or  great  plain  of 
the  Jordan,  as  lay  within  the  territory  of  Judaea. 
This  appropriation  of  the  terms  is  far  preferable  to 
that  of  some  writers,  such  as  Lightfoot,  who  sup- 
pose ‘ the  Plain  ’ to  be  the  broad  plain  of  the 
Jordan,  and  ‘the  Valley’  to  be  the  lower  valley 
of  the  same  river.  That  which  is  called  the 
Wilderness  of  Judcea , was  the  wild  and  in- 
hospitable region  lying  eastward  of  Jerusalem,  in 
the  direction  of  the  Jordan  and  Dead  Sea  (Isa. 
xl.  3;  Matt.  iii.  1 ; Luke  i.  80  ; iii.  2-4).  We 
may  have  some  notion  of  the  extent  northward 
which  Judaea  had  obtained,  from  Josephus  calling 
Jerusalem  the  centre  of  the  country  (De  Bell. 
Jud.  iii.  3.  5) ; which  is  remarkable,  seeing  that 
Jerusalem  was  originally  in  the  northernmost 
border  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  In  fact,  he  describes 
the  breadth  of  the  country  as  extending  from  the 
Jordan  to  Joppa,  which  shows  that  this  city  was 
in  Judaea.  How  much  further  to  the  north  the 
boundary  lay,  we  cannot  know  with  precision,  as 
we  are  unacquainted  with  the  site  of  Annath, 
otherwise  Borceros,  which  he  says  lay  on  the 
boundary  line  between  Judaea  and  Samaria.  The 


164 


JUD^A. 


JUDAH. 


tners  fact  that  Josephus  makes  Jerusalem  the 
centre  of  fne  land  seems  to  prove  that  the  pro- 
vince did  not  extend  so  far  to  the  south  as  the 
ancient  kingdom  of  the  same  name.  As  the 
southern  boundary  of  Judaea  was  also  that  of  the 
whole  country,  the  questions  connected  with  it 
belong  to  the  article  Palestine  ; and  it  is  only 
necessary  to  remark  that  Josephus  places  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  Judaea  of  the  time  of 
Christ  at  a village  called  Jardan,  on  the  confines 
of  Arabia  Petraea.  No  place  of  this  name  has 
been  found ; and  the  indication  is  very  indistinct, 
from  the  fact  that  all  the  country  which  lay  be- 
yond the  Idumaea  of  those  times  was  then  called 
Arabia.  In  fixing  this  boundary,  Josephus  re- 
gards Idumaea  as  part  of  Judaea,  for  he  imme- 
diately after  reckons  that  as  one  of  the  eleven 
districts  into  which  Judaea  was  divided.  Most 
of  these  districts  were  denominated,  like  our 
counties,  from  the  chief  towns.  They  were, 

I.  Jerusalem;  2.  Gophna ; 3.  Acrabatta;  4. 
Thumna;  5.  Lydda;  6.  Emmaus ; 7.  Pella; 
8.  Idumaea ; 9.  Engaddi ; 10.  Herodium  ; and 

II.  Jericho. 

Judaea  is,  as  the  above  intimations  would  sug- 
gest, a country  full  of  hills  and  valleys.  The 
hills  are  generally  separated  from  one  another  by 
valleys  and  torrents,  and  are,  for  the  most  part, 
of  moderate  height,  uneven,  and  seldom  of  any 
regular  figure.  The  rock  of  which  they  are  com- 
posed is  easily  converted  into  soil,  which  being 
arrested  by  the  terraces  when  washed  down 
by  the  rains,  renders  the  hills  cultivable  in  a 
series  of  long,  narrow  gardens,  formed  by  these 
terraces  from  the  base  upwards.  In  this  manne$ 
the  hills  were  in  ancient  times  cultivated  most 
industriously,  and  enriched  and  beautified  with 
the  fig-tree,  the  olive-tree,  and  the  vine ; ar.d  it  is 
thus  that  the  scanty  cultivation  which  still  sub- 
sists is  now  carried  on.  But  when  the  inhabitants 
were  rooted  out,  and  the  culture  neglected,  the 
terraces  fell  to  decay,  and  the  soil  which  had 
been  collected  in  them  was  washed  down  into  the 
valleys,  leaving  only  the  arid  rock,  naked  and 
desolate.  This  is  the  general  character  of  the 
scenery ; but  in  some  parts  the  hills  are  beauti- 
fully wooded,  and  in  others  the  application  of 
the  ancient  mode  of  cultivation  still  suggests  to 
the  traveller  how  rich  the  country  once  was  and 
might  be  again,  and  how  beautiful  the  prospects 
which  it  offered.  As,  however,  much  of  this  was 
the  result  of  cultivation,  the  country  was  probably 
anciently,  as  at  present,  naturally  less  fertile  than 
either  Samaria  or  Galilee.  The  present  difference 
is  very  pointedly  remarked  by  different  travellers  ; 
and  Lord  Lindsay  plainly  declares  that  ‘ all 
Judaea,  except  the  hills  of  Hebron  and  the  vales 
immediately  about  Jerusalem,  is  barren  and  de- 
solate. But  the  prospect  brightens  as  soon  as  you 
quit  it,  and  Samaria  and  Galilee  still  smile  like 
the  land  of  promise.’  But  there  is  a season — after 
the  spring-rains,  and  before  the  summer  heat  lias 
absorbed  all  the  moisture  left  by  them — when 
even  the  desert  is  clothed  with  verdure ; and  at 
that  season  the  valleys  of  Judaea  present  a refresh- 
ingly green  appearance.  This  vernal  season,  how- 
ever, is  of  short  duration,  and  by  the  beginning  of 
May  the  grass  upon  the  mountains,  and  every 
vestige  of  vegetation  upon  the  lower  grounds,  have 
ia  general  completely  disappeared  (see  Pictorial 
History  of  Palestine  ; Introduct.  pp.  39,  40,  119, 


120 ; Nau,  p.  439 ; Roger,  p.  182;  Mariti,  ii.  362 
Lindsay,  ii.  70  ; S’.ephens,  ii.  249  ; Elliot,  p.  408, 
409  ; Olin,  ii.  323 j. 

JUDAH  (iTTllT,  celebrated ; Sept.  ’IovSas), 
fourth  son  of  Jacob  and  Leah  (b.c.  1755).  The 
narrative  in  Genesis  brings  this  patriarch  more 
before  the  reader,  and  makes  known  more  of  his 
history  and  character,  than  it  does  in  the  case  of 
any  other  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob, -with  the 
single  exception  of  Joseph.  It  is  indeed  chiefly 
in  connection  with  Joseph  that  the  facts  respecting 
Judah  transpire ; and  as  they  have  already  been 
given  in  the  articles  Jacob  and  Joseph,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  indicate  them  shortly  in  this 
place.  It  was  Judah’s  advice  that  the  brethren 
followed  when  they  sold  Joseph  to  the  Ishmaelites, 
instead  of  taking  his  life.  By  the  light  of  his 
subsequent  actions  we  can  see  that  his  conduct 
on  this  occasion  arose  from  a generous  impulse, 
although  the  form  of  the  question  he  put  to  them 
has  been  sometimes  held  to  suggest  an  interested 
motive  : — ‘ What  profit  is  it  if  we  slay  our  brother 
and  conceal  his  blood?  Come,  let  us  sell  him,’ 
&c.  (Gen.  xxxvii.  26,  27). 

Not  long  after  this  Judah  withdrew  from  the 
paternal  tents,  and  went  to  reside  at  Adullam, 
in  the  country  which  afterwards  bore  his  name. 
Here  he  married  a woman  of  Canaan,  called 
Shuah,  and  bad  by  her  three  sons,  Er,  Onan,  and 
Shelah.  When  the  eldest  of  these  sons  became 
of  fit  age,  he  was  n4R-ried  to  a woman  named 
Tamar,  but  soon  after  died.  Ashe  died  childless, 
the  patriarchal  law,  afterwards  adopted  into  the 
Mosaic  code  (Deut.  xxv.  6),  required  him  to 
bestow  upon  the  widow  his  second  son.  This  he 
did  : but  as  Onan  also  soon  died  childless,  Judah 
became  reluctant  to  bestow  his  only  surviving 
son  upon  this  woman,  and  put  her  off  with  the 
excuse  that  he  was  not  yet  of  sufficient  age. 
Tamar  accordingly  remained  in  her  father’s  house 
at  Adullam.  She  had  the  usual  passion  of 
Eastern  women  for  offspring,  and  could  not  endure 
the  stigma  of  having  been  twice  married  without 
bearing  children,  while  the  law  precluded  her 
from  contracting  any  alliance  but  lhat  which 
Judah  withheld  her  from  completing. 

Meanwhile  Judah’s  wife  died,  and  after  the 
time  of  mourning  had  expired,  he  went,  accom- 
panied by  his  friend  Hirah,  to  attend  the  shearing 
of  his  sheep  at  Timnath  in  the  same  neighbour- 
hood. These  circumstances  suggested  to  Tamar 
the  strange  thought  of  connecting  herself  with  ■ 
Judah  himself,  under  the  guise  of  a loose  woman.  , 
Having  waylaid  him  on  the  road  to  Timnath, 
she  succeeded  in  her  object,  and  when  the  conse-  \ 
quences  began  to  be  manifest  in  the  person  of  j 
Tamar,  Judah  was  highly  enraged  at  her  crime,  j 
and,  exercising  the  powers  which  belonged  to  him 
as  the  head  of  the  family  she  had  dishonoured,  j 
he  commanded  her  to  be  brought  forth,  and  com-  J 
mitted  to  the  flames  as  an  adulteress.  But  when 
she  appeared,  she  produced  the  ring,  the  brace- 
let,  and  the  staff,  which  he  had  left  in  pledge 
with  her;  and  put  him  to  confusion  by  declaring  I 
that  they  belonged  to  the  father  of  her  coming 
offspring.  Judah  acknowledged  them  to  be  his, 
and  confessed  that  he  had  been  wrong  in  with 
holding  Shelah  from  her.  The  result  of  this  pain- 
ful affair  was  the  birth  of  two  sons,  Zerah  and 
Pharez,  from  whom,  with  Shelah,  the  tribe  of 


JUDAH,  TRIBE  OF. 

Judah  descended.  Pharez  was  the  ancestor  of 
the  line  from  which  David,  the  kings  of  Judah, 
and  Jesus  came  (Gen.  xxxviii. ; xlvi.  12;  1 
Chron.  ii.  3-5;  Matt.  i.  8;  Luke  iii.  33). 

These  circumstances  seem  to  have  disgusted 
Judah  with  his  residence  in  towns;  for  we  find 
him  ever  afterwards  at  his  father’s  tents.  His 
experience  of  life,  and  the  strength  of  his  cha- 
racter, appear  to  have  given  him  much  influence 
with  Jacob;  and  it  was  chiefly  from  confidence 
in  him  that  the  aged  father  at  length  consented 
to  allow  Benjamin  to  go  down  to  Egypt.  That 
this  confidence  was  not  misplaced  has  already 
been  shown  [Joseph]  ; and  there  is  not  in  the 
whole  range  of  literature  a finer  piece  of  true 
natural  eloquence  than  that  in  which  Judah  offers 
aimself  to  remain  as  a bond-slave  in  the  place  of 
Benjamin,  for  whose  safe  return  he  had  made 
himself  responsible  to  his  father.  The  strong  emo- 
tions which  it  raised  in  Joseph  disabled  him  from 
keeping  up  longer  the  disguise  he  had  hitherto 
maintained,  and  there  are  few  who  have  read  it 
without  being,  like  him,  moved  even  to  tears. 

We  hear  nothing  more  of  Judah  till  he  re- 
ceived, along  with  his  brothers,  the  final  blessing 
of  his  father,  which  was  conveyed  in  lofty  lan- 
guage, glancing  far  into  futurity,  and  strongly 
indicative  of  the  high  destinies  which  awaited  the 
tribe  that  was  to  descend  from  him. 

2.  JUDAH,  TRIBE  OF.  This  tribe  sprang 
from  Judah,  the  son  of  Jacob.  When  the  Israelites 
quitted  Egypt,  it  already  exhibited  the  elements 
of  its  future  distinction  in  a larger  population 
than  any  of  the  other  tribes  possessed.  It  num- 
bered 74,000  adult  males,  being  nearly  12,000 
more  than  Dan,  the  next  in  point  of  numbers,  and 

34.100  more  than  Ephraim,  which  in  the  end  con- 
tested with  it  the  superiority  among  the  tribes. 
During  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  Judah 
neither  gained, like  some  tribes,  nor  lost  like  others. 
Its  numbers  had  increased  to  76,500,  being 

12.100  more  than  Issachar,  which  had  become 
next  to  it  in  population  (Num.  i.  25).  In  the 
first  distribution  of  lands,  the  tribe  of  Judah  re- 
ceived the  southernmost  part  of  Palestine,  to  the 
extent  of  fujly  one-third  of  the  whole  country  to 
be  distributed  among  the  nine  and  a half  tribes 
for  which  provision  was  to  be  made.  This  over- 
sight was  discovered  and  rectified  at  the  time  of 
the  second  distribution,  which  was  founded  on 
an  actual  survey  of  the  country,  when  Simeon 
and  Dan  received  allotments  out  of  the  territory 
which  had  before  been  wholly  assigned  to  Judah 
(Josh.  xix.  9).  That  which  remained  was  still 
very  large,  and  more  proportioned  to  the  future 
greatness  than  the  actual  wants  of  the  tribe.  We 
now  also  know,  through  the  researches  of  recent 
travellers,  that  the  extent  of  good  land  belonging 
to  this  tribe,  southward,  was  much  greater  than  had 
usually  been  supposed,  much  of  that  which  had 
been  laid  down  in  maps  as  mere  desert,  being  actu- 
ally composed  of  excellent  pasture  land,  and  in 
part  of  arable  soil,  still  exhibiting  some  traces  of 
ancient  cultivation.  When  Judah  became  a 
kingdom,  the  original  extent  of  territory  assigned 
to  the  tribe  was  more  than  restored  or  compen- 
sated, for  it  must  have  included  the  domains  of 
Simeon,  and  we  know  that  Benjamin  was  in- 
cluded in  it. 

The  history  of  the  Judges  contains  fewer  facts 
respecting  this  important  tribe  -van  might  be  ex- 


JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF.  185 

pected.  It  seems  however  lo  have  been  usually 
considered  that  the  birthright  which  Reuben  for- 
feited had  passed  to  Judah  under  the  blessing  of 
Jacob;  and  a sanction  was  given  to  this  impression 
when,  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  the  divine  oracle 
nominated  Judah  to  take  precedence  of  the  other 
tribes  in  the  war  against  the  Canaanites  (Judg. 
i.  2).  It  does  not  appear  that  any  tribe  was  dis- 
posed to  dispute  the  superior  claim  of  Judah  on 
its  own  account,  except  Ephraim,  although  in 
doing  this  Ephraim  had  the  support,  of  other 
tribes.  Ephraim  appears  to  have  rested  its  claims 
to  the  leadership  of  the  tribes  upon  the  ground 
that  the  house  of  Joseph,  whose  interest  it  repre- 
sented, had  received  the  birthright,  or  double  por- 
tion of  the  eldest,  by  the  adoption  of  the  two  sons 
of  Joseph,  who  became  the  founders  of  two  tribes 
in  Israel.  The  existence  of  the  sacerdotal  esta- 
blishment at  Shiloh,  in  Ephraim,  was  doubtless 
also  alleged  by  the  tribe  as  a ground  of  superiority 
over  Judah.  When,  therefore,  Judah  assumed 
the  sceptre  in  the  person  of  David,  and  when  the 
sacerdotal  establishment  was  removed  to  Jeru- 
salem, Ephraim  could  not  brook  the  eclipse  it  had 
sustained,  and  took  the  first  opportunity  of  erect- 
ing a separate  throne,  and  forming  separate  esta- 
blishments for  worship  and  sacrifice.  Perhaps  the 
separation  of  the  kingdoms  may  thus  be  traced  to 
the  rivalry  of  Judah  and  Ephraim.  After  that 
separation  the  rivalry  was  between  the  two  king- 
doms ; but  it  was  still  popularly  considered  as 
representing  the  ancient  rivalry  of  these  great 
tribes ; for  the  prophet,  in  foretelling  the  repose  of 
a coming  time,  describes  it  by  saying,  ( The  envy 
also  of  Ephraim  shall  depart,  and  the  adversaries 
of  Judah  shall  be  cut  off:  Ephraim  shall  not.  envy 
Judah,  and  Judah  shall  not  vex  Ephraim’  (Isa. 
xiii.  12). 

3.  JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF.  When  the  ter- 
ritory of  all  the  rest  of  Israel,  except  Judah  and 
Benjamin,  was  lost  to  the  kingdom  of  Rehoboam, 
a special  single  name  was  needed  to  denote  that 
which  remained  to  him  ; and  almost  of  necessity 
the  word  Judah  received  an  extended  meaning,  ac- 
cording to  which  it  comprised  not  Benjamin  only, 
but  the  priests  and  Levites,  who  were  ejected  in 
great  numbers  from  Israel,  and  rallied  round  the 
house  of  David.  At  a still  later  time,  when  the 
nationality  of  the  ten  tribes  had  been  dissolved, 
and  every  practical  distinction  between  the  ten 
and  the  two  had  vanished  during  the  captivity, 
the  scattered  body  had  no  visible  head,  except  in 
Jerusalem,  which  had  been  re-occupied  by  a por- 
tion of  Judah’s  exiles.  In  consequence  the  name 
Judah  (or  Jew ) attached  itself  to  the  entire 
nation  from  about  the  epoch  of  the  restoration. 
But  in  this  article  Judah  is  understood  of  the 
people  over  which  David’s  successors  reigned,  from 
llehoboam  to  Zedekiah.  Under  the  article  Israei. 
the  chronology  of  the  two  kingdoms  has  been  dis- 
cussed, which,  however,  was  not  carried  below  the 
capture  of  Samaria.  In  the  lower  part  of  the  list 
we  lose  the  check  which  tne  double  line  of  kings 
afforded  ; but  for  the  same  reason  the  problem  is 
simpler.  The  only  difficulty  encountered  here 
rises  out  of  the  ages  assigned  to  some  of  the  kings 
of  Judah.  For  this  reason,  in  the  following  list, 
all  their  ages  are  inserted,  so  far  as  they  are 
recorded.  It  has  been  thought  sufficient  to  add 
Winer’s  chronology  to  the  dates  as  given  abors 
in  the  article  Israel. 


160  JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF. 


Accession  of 

Years 

of 

Reign. 

Age. 

B.  C. 

Father’s 
Age  at 
Son’s 
Birth. 

Rehoboam 

17 

41 

975 



Abijah 

3 

— 

957 

*22 

Asa  .... 

41 

— 

955 

*22 

Jehoshaphat  . 

25 

35 

914 

*22 

[Jehoram  installed] 
Jehoram  alone 

8 

32 

(35) 

889 

25 

Ahaziah  . 

1 

22 

885 

17 

[Queen  Athaliah] 

7 

— 

884 

— 

Jehoash 

39? 

7 

878 

22 

Amaziah  . • 

29 

25 

838 

22 

Uzziah  . 

53? 

16 

809 

38 

Jotham 

16 

25 

757 

43 

Ahaz  .... 

16 

20 

741 

22 

Hezekiah  . v . 

29 

25 

726 

10 

Manasseh  . 

55 

12 

696 

42 

Amon  .... 

2 

22 

641 

45 

Josiah  .... 

31 

8 

639 

16 

Jehoahaz  . 

i 

4 

23 

609 

15 

Jehoiakim,  his  bro- 
ther .... 

11 

25? 

609 

13? 

Jehoiachin 

i 

18 

598 

18 

Zedekiah,  his  fa- 
ther’s brother  . 

ll 

21 

598 

28 

Zedekiah  is  deposed 

— 

— 

588 

— 

The  ages  of  Abijah  and  Asa  at  their  accession 
not  being  given,  the  three  first  numbers  in  the  last 
column  are  averages  only,  Rehoboam  having  been 
bom  66  or  67  years  before  Jehoshaphat.  It  is 
clearly  impossible  that  Ahaz  should  have  been 
only  10  years  older  than  his  son  Hezekiah.  To 
lessen  the  absurdity,  Mr.  Clinton  follows  the 
reading  of  the  Sept,  in  2 Chron.  xxviii.  1,  which 
makes  Ahaz  25  years  of  age  at  his  accession. 
But  in  2 Kings  xvi.  2,  the  Sept,  has  20,  so  that 
no  weight  can  be  laid  on  its  reading  in  the  other 

{ passage.  Besides,  this  is  inadequate  to  untie  the 
mot ; for  it  still  remains  that  Jotham  was  a 
grandfather  by  the  male  line  at  the  age  of  31 
(indeed,  a year  earlier  in  Mr.  Clinton’s  scheme, 
who  places  the  accession  of  Jotham  in  b.c.  756)  ; 
nor  is  it  probable  that  three  kings  in  succession 
ascended  the  throne  at  the  age  of  25  years.  If 
arbitrary  change  must  be  used,  the  most  effectual 
would  be  to  lower  the  age  of  Hezekiah  at  his 
accession  by  10  years;  but  no  certainty  on  these 
matters  can  be  effected.  A similar  difficulty 
occurs  with  Jehoiakim,  whose  father  Josiah  is 
made  to  have  been  but  13  years  older  than  he. 
Since,  however,  it  is  probable  that  Jehoahaz  was 
older  than  Jehoiakim,  perhaps  the  number  25, 
wnich  expresses  Jehoiakim’s  age  at  his  accession, 
is  corrupt. 

From  Rehoboam  to  Jehoiachin  are  16  genera- 
tions and  400  years,  between  the  births  of  the  first 
and  last ; which  gives  an  average  of  25  years  to  a 
generation.  This  is  rather  short  for  the  direct  line 
of  descent,  especially  when  we  consider  that,  where 
polygamy  is  practised,  the  eldest  son  is  by  no  meajis 
so  certain,  when  alive,  to  succeed  to  the  throne  as 
with  us.  In  fact,  from  the  ages  of  their  fathers 
we  may  probably  infer  that  Amon,  Manasseh, 
Jotham,  and  Uzziah,  were  younger  sons,  as  Aha- 
ziah is  said  to  have  been  (2  Chron.  xxii.  1).  The 
three  last  generations  of  the  series  together  occupy 
but  i6-J-13-f-18  = 47  years;  so  that  Amon,  had 


JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF. 

he  lived,  would  have  been  a great-grand fati.er  (t> 
the  male  line ) at  the  age  of  47  ; a thing  so  un- 
paralleled as  to  lead  to  the  suspicion  that  the 
later  chronology,  where  we  lose  the  double  series 
of  kings,  is  less  to  be  depended  on.  There  is  an 
apparent  difficulty  also  as  to  Ahaziah,  found  in 
2 Chron.  xxii.  1,  2.  That  he  was  ‘ 42  years  old’ 
at  his  accession  is  an  obvious  error  for  22 
(2  Kings  viii.  26)  : that  he  should  have  been  the 
youngest  of  many  sons,  and  yet  only‘l7  years 
younger  than  his  father,  is  to  be  explained  by  his 
father  already  having  many  wives  ; but  still  it  is 
remarkable. 

Where  polygamy  prevails,  the  extermination  of 
a royal  house  by  the  enmity  of  brothers  is  notori- 
ously to  be  dreaded,  in  spite  of  the  number  of  pos- 
terity which  single  monarchs  can  sometimes  count. 
That  the  house  of  David  encountered  this  danger 
is  not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  Kings.  Two 
massacres  are  therein  found ; one  of  ‘ the  brethren 
of  Ahaziah,’  ‘ forty-two  men,’  the  sons  of  Jehoram, 
by  the  hypocritical  zeal  of  Jehu;  and,  almost 
simultaneously,  ‘ all  the  seed-royal’  (the  sons  of 
Ahaziah?)  by  Queen  Athaliah  (2  Kings  x.  13, 
14  ; xi.  1).  Only  an  infant  son  of  Ahaziah  (all 
in  fact  must  have  been  of  tender  age)  was  saved 
from  this  slaughter,  who,  44  years  afterwards,  was 
assassinated  by  his  own  people  (2  Kings  xii.  20), 
as  was  his  son  Amaziah  (xiv.  19),  and  at  a later 
period  Amon  (xxi.  23) ; but  no  massacre  of  the 
royal  family  accompanied  either  of  these  murders. 
In  the  Chronicles  (2  Chron.  xxi.  4)  we  read  that 
Jehoram  slew  all  his  brethren,  the  sons  of  Jeho- 
shaphat, from  jealousy  of  the  power  with  which 
their  father  had  invested  them ; and  Jehoram ’s 
own  sons  are  said  to  have  been  all  slain,  but  one, 
by  the  Philistines  and  Arabians  ; so  that  Ahaziah 
had  no  brethren  left  l'or  Jehu  to  slay;  but 
‘ brethren  ’ must  be  taken  with  some  latitude  to 
mean  ‘ brothers’  sons’  (2  Chron.  xxi.  4,  17  ; xxii. 
1,  8).  It  must,  however,  be  confessed  that  this 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  chronology  ; for  at  this 
time  the  age  of  Jehoram,  their  supposed  grand- 
father (had  he  been  alive),  would  have  been  38 
years  ; so  that  the  eldest  of  these  ‘ forty-two  men  ’ 
could  barely  have  been  6 years  old.  Some  error, 
therefore,  must  be  admitted  in  the  narrative  of 
the  Chronicler  concerning  Jehoram  and  his  son  ; 
and,  in  fact,  this  is  not  the  only  point  in  which  it 
is  inconsistent  with  that  in  the  Kings.  Jehoram 
is  said  to  have  received  a letter  from  Elijah  the 
prophet  (2  Chron.  xxi.  12)  at  a time  when  lie  had 
already  ascended  into  heaven,  according  to  the 
Kings : also,  in  2 Kings  viii.  24,  he  is  stated  to 
have  been  buried  ‘ with  his  fathers,’  which  is 
directly  contradicted  by  2 Chron.  xxi.  20.  To 
finish  the  subject  of  chronology  it  may  be  ob- 
served : (1.)  It  is  remarkable  that  Jehoshabeath, 
the  daughter  of  Ahaziah,  should  have  been  wife 
of  Jehoiada  the  priest  (2  Chron.  xxii.  11).  For 
as  Jehoiada  lived  to  the  age  of  130  (xxiv.  15), 
and  died  many  years  before  Jeboash,  the  priest 
must  have  been  some  70  years  older  than  his 
wife.  (2.)  The  date  ‘ 36  years,’  in  2 Chron. 
xvi.  1,  is  certainly  wrong,  since  Baasha  died  in 
the  twenty-sixth  year  of  Asa.  The  number  16 
instead  of  36  would  agree  sufficiently  well  with 
the  history  ; but  we  cannot  with  propriety  so  cor- 
rect the  text,  because  of  the  date  35  in  the  last 
verse  of  the  preceding  chapter;  not  to  mention 
that  the  narrative  in  the  Chronicles  represents  tbs 


JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF. 

declension  of  the  pious  Asa  as  being  only  towards 
the  end  of  Ins  reign  (xv.  17).  Clinton  overlooks 
this,  and  wishes  (‘  with  many  commentators  ’)  to 
interpret  ‘ the  thirty-sixth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Asa  ’ to  mean  ‘ the  thirty-sixth  year  of  the  divided 
monarchy ;’  but  this  is  not  interpretation  at  all. 

When  the  kingdom  of  Solomon  became  rent 
with  intestine  war,  it  might  have  been  foreseen 
that  the  Edomites,  Moabites,  and  other  surround- 
ing nations  would  at  once  refuse  their  accustomed 
tribute,  and  become  again  practically  inde- 
pendent; and  some  irregular  invasion  of  these 
tribes  might  have  been  dreaded.  It  was  a mark 
of  conscious  weakness,  and  not  a result  of  strength, 
that  llehoboam  fortified  15  cities  (2  Chron.  xi. 
5 11),  in  which  his  people  might  find  defence 
against  the  irregular  armies  of  his  roving  neigh- 
bours. But  a more  formidable  enemy  came  in, 
Shishak  king  of  Egypt,  against  whom  the  for- 
tresses were  of  no  avail  (xii.  4),  and  to  whom 
Jerusalem  was  forced  to  open  its  gates ; and,  from 
the  despoiling  of  his  treasures,  Rehoboam  pro- 
babl  y sustained  a still  greater  shock  in  its  moral 
effect  on  the  Moabites  and  Edomites,  than  in  the 
direct  loss : nor  is  it  easy  to  conceive  that  he  any 
longer  retained  the  commerce  of  the  Red  Sea,  or 
any  very  lucrative  trade.  Judged  of  by  the 
number  of  soldiers  recounted  in  the  Chronicles, 
the  strength  of  the  early  kings  of  Judah  must  have 
been  not  only  great,  but  rapidly  increasing.  The 
following  are  the  armies  there  given  : — 

Rehoboam  gathered  180,000  chosen  men  (2 
Chron.  xi.  1).  (Shishak  attacked  him  with 

60.000  horse,  1200  chariots,  besides  infantry.) 
Abijah  set  in  array  400,000  valiant  men  (xiii. 
3,  17),  and  slew  500,000  of  Jeroboam’s  800,000 
in  one  battle.  Asa  had  300,000  heavy  armed, 
ind  280,000  light  armed  men  (xiv.  8).  (Zerah 
nvaded  him  with  1,000,000  men  and  300  cha- 
iots.)  Jehoshaphat  kept  up  : — 

300.000  under  Adnah, 

280.000  under  Jehonahan, 

200.000  under  Amasiah. 

200.000  (light  armed)  under  Eliadah, 

180.000  under  Jehozabad  (xvii.  14-19), 

Total  . 1,160,000  for  field  service. 

‘ These  waited  on  the  king besides  the  garrisons 
‘ in  the  fenced  cities.’ 

After  Jehoshaphat  followed  the  calamitous 
affinity  with  the  house  of  Ahab,  and  the  mas- 
sacres of  both  families.  Under  Jehoiada  the 
priest.,  and  Jehoash  his  pupil,  no  martial  efforts 
were  made ; but  Amaziah  son  of  Jehoash,  after 
hiring  100,000  Israelites  to  no  purpose,  made 
war  on  the  Edomites,  slew  10,000,  and  threw 

10.000  more  down  from  the  top  of  their  rock 
(xxv.  5,  6,  11,  12).  His  own  force  in  Judah, 
from  20  years  old  and  upwards,  was  numbered 
at  only  300,000  choice  men,  able  to  handle  spear 
and  shield.  His  son  Uzziah  had  2600  military 
offices,  and  307,500  men  of  war  (xxvi.  12,  13). 
Ahaz  lost,  in  a single  battle  with  Pekah,  120,000 
valiant  men  (xxviii.  6),  after  the  severe  slaughter 
ne  had  received  from  Rezin  king  of  Syria ; after 
which  no  further  military  strength  is  ascribed  to 
the  kings  of  Judah.  As  to  all  these  numbers  the 
Vatican  Sept,  agrees  with  the  received  Hebrew 
text. 

These  figures  have  caused  no  small  perplexity, 
and  have  suggested  to  some  the  need  of  conjec- 


JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF.  167 

tural  emendation.  But  if  they  have  been  cor- 
rupted, it  is  by  system,  and  on  purpose;  for  them 
is  far  too  great  uniformity  in  them  to  be  the  resuli 
of  accident.  It  perhaps  deserves  remark,  that  in 
the  book  of  Kings  no  numbers  of  such  startling 
magnitude  are  found.  The  army  ascribed  to 
Rehoboam  (1  Kings  xii.  21)  is,  indeed,  as  in 
Chronicles,  180,000  men  : but  if  we  explain  it  of 
those  able  to  fight,  the  number,  though  certainly 
large,  may  be  dealt  with  historically.  See  the 
article  on  Population. 

As  the  most  important  external  relations  of 
Israel  were  with  Damascus,  so  were  ’ those  of 
Judah  with  Edom  and  Egypt.  Some  revolution 
in  the  state  of  Egypt  appears  to  have  followed  the 
reign  of  Shishak.  Apparently  the  country  must 
have  fallen  under  the  power  of  an  Ethiopian 
dynasty;  for  the  name  of  the  Lubim,  who  ac- 
companied Zerah  in  his  attack  ofi  Asa,  is  gene- 
rally regarded  as  proving  that  Zerah  was  from 
Sennaar,  the  ancient  Meroe.  But  as  this  inva- 
sion was  signally  repulsed,  the  attempt  was  not 
repeated;  and  Judah  enjoyed  entire  tranquillity 
from  that  quarter  until  the  invasion  of  Pharaoh- 
necho.  In  fact  it  may  seem  that  this  success 
assisted  the  reaction,  favourable  to  the  power  of 
Judah,  which  was  already  begun,  in  conse- 
quence of  a change  in  the  policy  of  Damascus. 
Whether  Abijah  had  been  in  league  with  the 
father  of  Benhadad  I.  (as  is  generally  inferred 
from  1 Kings  xv.  19)  may  be  doubted ; for  the 
address  cannot  be  rendered,  ‘ Let  there  be  a 
league  between  me  and  thee,  as  there  teas  between 
my  father  and  thine;’  and  it  possibly  is  only  a 
hyperbolical  phrase  of  friendship  for,  ‘ Let  us  be 
in  close  alliance ; let  us  count  our  fathers  to  have 
been  allies.’  However  this  may  Asa  bought, 
by  a costly  sacrifice,  the  serviceable  aid  of  the 
Damascene  king.  Israel  was  soon  distressed,  and 
Judah  became  once  more  formidable  to  her  south- 
ern neighbours. ' Jehoshaphat  appears  to  have  re- 
asserted the  Jewish  authority  over  the  Edomites 
without  w-ar,  and  to  have  set  his  own  viceroy  over 
them  (1  Kings  xxii.  47).  Intending  to  resume 
the  distant  commerce  which  had  been  so  profitable 
to  Solomon,  he  built  ships  suitable  for  long*  voy- 
ages (‘  ships  o/Tarshish’  as  they  are  rightly  called 
in  1 Kings  xxii.  48 — a phrase  wliich  the  Chronicler 
has  misunderstood,  and  translated  into  ‘ ships  to 
go  to  Tarshish,’  2 Chron.  xx.  36) ; but  not  hav- 
ing the  advantage  of  Tyrian  sailors,  as  Solomon 
had,  he  lost  the  vessels  by  violent  weather  before 
they  had  sailed.  Upon  this,  Ahaziah,  king  of 
Judah,  offered  the  service  of  his  own  mariners,  pro- 
bably from  the  tribe  of  Asher  and  others  accus- 
tomed to  the  Mediterranean ; but  Jehoshaphat 
was  too  discouraged  to  accept  his  offer,  and  the 
experiment  was  never  renewed  by  any  Hebrew 
king.  The  Edomites,  who  paid  only  a forced 
allegiance,  soon  after  revolted  from  Jehoram,  and 
elected  their  own  king  (2  Kings  viii.  20,  22).  At 
a later  time  they  were  severely  defeated  by  Ama- 
ziah (2  Kings  xiv.  7),  whose  son,  Uzziah,  fortified 
the  tow^*  of  Elath,  intending,  probably,  to  resume 
maritime  enterprise;  but  it  remained  a barren 
possession,  and  was  finally  taken  from  them  by 
Rezin,  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (2  Kings  xvi.  6). 
The  Philistines,  in  these  times,  seem  to  have  fallen 
from  their  former  greatness,  their  league  having 
been  so  long  dissolved.  The  most  remarkable  even! 
in  which  they  are  concerned  is  the  assault  on  J©. 


168  JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF. 

rusalem,  in  the  reign  of  Jelioram  (2  Chron.  xxi. 
16,  17). 

It  is  strikingly  indicative  of  the  stormy  scenes 
through  which  the  line  of  David  passed,  that  the 
treasures  of  the  king  and  of  the  Temple  were  so 
often  plundered  or  barga  ned  away.  First,  under 
Rehoboam,  all  the  hoards  of  Solomon,  consecrated 
and  common  alike,  were  carried  off  by  Shishak 
(1  Kings  xiv.  26).  Two  generations  later,  Asa 
emptied  out  to  Benhadad  all  that  had  since  accu- 
mulated ‘ in  the  house  of  Jehovah  or  in  the  king’s 
house.’  A third  time,  when  Hazael  had  taken 
Gath,  and  was  preparing  to  march  on  Jerusalem, 
Jehoash,  king  of  Judah,  turned  him  away  by 
sending  to  him  all  ‘ that  Jehoshaphat,  Jehoram, 
Ahaziah  and  Jehoash  himself  had  dedicated,  and 
all  the  gold  that  was  found  in  the  treasures  of  the 
house  of  Jehovah  and  in  the  king’s  house’  (2 
Kings  xii.  18).  In  the  very  next  reign  Jehoash, 
king  of  Israel,  defeated  and  captured  Amaziah, 
took  Jerusalem*,  broke  down  the  walls,  carried  off 
hostages,  and  plundered  the  gold  and  silver  depo- 
sited in  the  temple  and  in  the  royal  palace  (2  Kings 
xiv.  11-14).  A fifth  sacrifice  of  the  sacred  and  of 
the  royal  treasure  was  made  by  Ahaz  to  Tiglath- 
pileser  (2  Kings  xvi.  8).  The  act  was  repeated 
by  his  son  Hezekiah  to  Sennacherib,  who  had  de- 
manded ‘300  talents  of  silver  and  30  talents  of 
gold.’  It  is  added,  ‘ Hezekiah  cut  off*  the  gold 
which  he  had  overlaid,  from  the  doors  of  the  temple 
and  from  the  pillars’  (2  Kings  xviii.  14-16).  In 
the  days  of  Josiah,  as  in  those  of  Jehoash,  the 
temple  appears  to  have  been  greatly  out  of  repair 
(xii.  and  xxii.) ; and  when  Pharaoh-necho,  hav- 
ing slain  Josiah, had  reduced  Judah  to  submission, 
the  utmost  tribute  that  could  be  exacted  was  100 
talents  of  silver  and  one  talent  of  gold.  Even 
this  sum  was  obtained  by  direct  taxation,  and  no 
allusion  is  made  to  any  treasure  at  all,  either  in 
the  temple  or  in  the  king’s  house.  It  is  the  more 
extraordinary  to  find  expressions  used  when  Ne- 
buchadnezzar took  the  city,  which  at  first  sight 
imply  that  Solomon’s  far-famed  stores  were  still 
untouched.  ‘Nebuchadnezzar  carried  out  all 
the  treasures  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  and  of  the 
king's  house,  and  cut  in  pieces  all  the  vessels  of 
gold  which  Solomon  had  made  in  the  temple  of 
Jehovah’  (2  Kings  xxiv.  13).  They  must  evi- 
dently have  been  few  in  number,  for  in  1 Kings 
xiv.  26,  ‘ all  ’ must,  at  least,  mean  ‘ nearly  all 
* Shishak  took  away  the  treasures  of  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  and  of  the  king's  house ; he  even  took 
away  all.'  Yet  the  vessels  of  gold  and  silver  taken 
away  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  restored  by  Cyrus 
are  reckoned  5400  in  number  (E^ra  i.  11). 

The  severest  shock  which  the  house  of  David 
received  was  the  double  massacre  which  it  endured 
from  Jehu  and  from  Athaliah.  After  a long  mi- 
nority, a youthful  king,  the  sole  surviving  male 
descendant  of  his  great-grandfather,  and  reared 
under  the  paternal  rule  of  the  priest  Jehoiada,  to 
whom  he  was  indebted  not  only  for  his  throne  but 
even  for  his  recognition  as  a son  of  Ahaziah,  was 
not  in  a situation  to  uphold  the  royal  authority. 
That  Jehoash  conceived  the  priests  to  have  abused 
the  power  which  they  had  gained,  sufficiently 
appears  in  2 Kings  xii.,  where  he  complains  that 
they  had  for  twenty-three  years  appropriated  the 
money,  which  they  ought  to  have  spent  on  the 
repairs  of  the  temple.  Jehoiada  gave  way  ; but 
we  see  here  the  beginning  of  a feud  (hitherto  un- 


JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF. 

known  in  the  house  of  David)  between  the  crow* 
and  the  priestly  order;  which,  after  Jehoiada’i 
death,  led  to  the  murder  of  his  son  Zachariah. 
Tiie  massacre  of  the  priests  of  Baal,  and  of  Atha- 
liah, grand-daughter  of  a king  of  Sidon,  mu»t 
also  have  destroyed  cordiality  between  the  Phoe- 
nicians and  the  kingdom  of  Judah  ; and  when 
the  victorious  Hazael  had  subjugated  all  Israel 
and  showed  himself  near  Jerusalem,  Jehoash 
could  look  for  no  help  from  without,  and  had  neither 
the  faith  of  Hezekiah  nor  a prophet  like  Isaiah  to 
support  him.  The  assassination  of  Jehoash  in  his 
bed  by  ‘ his  own  servants’  is  described  in  the  Chro- 
nicles as  a revenge  taken  upon  him  by  the  priestly 
party  for  his  murder  of  ‘ the  sons’  of  Jehoiada  ; 
and  the  same  fate,  from  the  same  influence,  fell 
upon  his  son  Amaziah,  if  we  may  so  interpret  the 
words  in  2 Chron.  xxv.  27 : ‘ From  the  time  that 
Amaziah  turned  away  from  following  Jehovah 
they  made  a conspiracy  against  him,’  &c.  Thus 
the  house  of  David  appeared  to  be  committing 
itself,  like  that  of  Saul,  to  permanent  enmity 
with  the  priests.  The  wisdom  of  Uzziah,  during 
a long  reign,  averted  this  collision,  though  a 
symptom  of  it  returned  towards  its  close.  No 
further  mischief  from  this  cause  followed,  until 
the  reign  of  his  grandson,  the  weak  and  unfor- 
tunate Ahaz : after  which  the  power  of  the  king- 
dom rapidly  mouldered  away.  On  the  whole  if 
would  appear  that,  from  Jehoiada  downward,  the 
authority  of  the  priests  was  growing  stronger,  and 
that  of  the  crown  weaker ; for  the  king  could  not 
rule  successfully,  except  by  submitting  to  (what 
we  might  call)  ‘ the  constitutional  check’  of  the 
priests;  and  although  it  is  reasonable  to  believe 
that  the  priests  became  less  simple-minded,  more 
worldly,  and  less  religious,  as  their  order  ad- 
vanced in  authority  (whence  the  keen  rebukes  of 
them  by  the  prophets),  it  is  not  the  less  certain 
that  it  was  desirable  for  Judah,  both  in  a temporal 
and  a spiritual  sense,  to  have  the  despotic  power 
of  the  king  subjected  to  a strong  priestly  pressure. 

The  struggle  of  the  crown  against  this  control 
was  perhaps  the  most  immediate  cause  of  the  ruin 
of  Judah.  Ahaz  was  probably  less  guided  by 
policy  than  by  superstition,  or  by  architectural 
taste,  in  erecting  his  Damascene  altar  (2  Kings 
xvi.  10-18).  But  the  far  more  outrageous  pro- 
ceedings of  Manasseh  seem  to  have  been  a sys- 
tematic attempt  to  extirpate  the  national  religion 
because  of  its  supporting  the  priestly  power;  and 
the  ‘ innocent  blood  very  much,’  which  he  is  stig- 
matized for  shedding  (2  Kings  xxi.  16),  was 
undoubtedly  a sanguinary  attack  on  the  party 
opposed  to  his  impious  and  despotic  innovations. 
The  storm  which  he  had  raised  did  not  burst  in 
his  lifetime ; but,  two  years  after,  it  fell  on  the 
head  of  his  son  Amon  ; and  the  disorganization  of 
the  kingdom  which  his  madness  had  wrought  is 
commemorated  as  the  cause  of  the  Babylonish 
captivity  (2  Kings  xxiii.  26  ; xxiv.  3,  4).  It  is 
also  credible  that  the  long- continued  despotism 
had  greatly  lessened  patriotic  spirit ; and  that 
the  Jewish  people  of  the  declining  kingdom  were 
less  brave  against  foreign  invaders  than  against 
kindred  and  neighbour  tribes  or  civil  opponents. 
Faction  had  become  very  fierce  within  Jerusalem 
itself  (Ezek.  xxii.),  and  civil  bloodshed  was  com 
mon.  Wealth,  where  it  existed,  was  generally  a 
source  of  corruption,  by  introducing  foreign 
luxury,  tastes,  manners,  superstitions,  imnos- 


JUDAS. 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT. 


169 


rsuity,  or  idolatry,  and  when  consecrated  to 
pious  pur] toses,  as  by  Hezekiah  and  Josiah,  pro- 
duced  little  more  than  a formal  and  exterior  re- 
ligion. 

Thoroughly  to  understand  the  political  working 
of  the  monarchy,  we  ought  to  know,  1.  What  con- 
trol the  king  exercised  over  ecclesiastical  appoint- 
ments; 2.  How  the  Levites  were  supported  when 
ejected  from  Israel;  3.  What  proportion  of  them 
acted  as  judges,  lawyers,  and  scribes,  and  how 
far  they  were  independent  of  the  king.  The  na- 
ture of  the  case  and  the  precedent  of  David  may 
satisfy  us  that  the  king  appointed  the  high- 
priest  at  his  own  pleasure  out  of  the  Aavonites  ; 
but  (as  Henry  II.  of  England  and  hundreds  of 
monarchs  besides  have  found)  ecclesiastics  once 
in  office  often  disappoint  the  hopes  of  their  patron, 
and  to  eject  them  again  is  a most  dangerous 
exertion  of  the  prerogative.  The  Jewish  king 
would  naturally  avoid  following  the  law  of  de- 
scent, in  order  to  preserve  his  right  of  election 
unimpaired  ; and  it  may  he  suspected  that  the 
line  of  Zadok  was  rather  kept  in  the  background 
by  royal  jealousy.  Hilkiah  belonged  to  that 
line ; and  if  any  inference  can  be  drawn  from 
his  genealogy,  as  given  in  1 Chron.  vi.  8-15,  it 
is,  that  none  of  his  ancestors  between  the  reigns 
of  Solomon  and  Josiah  held  the  high-priesthood. 
Even  Azariah,  who  is  named  in  2 Chron.  xxxi. 
10  as  of  the  line  of  Zadok,  is  not  found  among 
Hilkiah’s  progenitors.  Jehoiada,  the  celebrated 
priest,  and  Urijah,  who  was  so  complaisant  to  the 
innovating  Ahaz  (2  Kings  xvi.),  were  of  a dif- 
ferent family.  It  would  seem  that  too  many 
iiigh-priests  gained  a reputation  for  subservience 
t iiir  it  often  happens  in  history  that  the  eccle- 
siastical heads  are  more  subservient  to  royalty 
man  me  mass  of  their  order)  ; so  that,  after  Hil- 
kiah, the  race  of  Zadok  became  celebrated  for 
uprightness,  in  invidious  contrast  to  the  rest  of  the 
priests ; and  even  the  Levites  were  regarded  as 
more  zealous  than  the  generality  of  the  Aaronites 
(2  Chrcn.  xxix.  34).  Hence  in  Ezekiel  and  other 
late  wi  iters  the  phrase  ‘ the  priests  the  sons  of 
Zadok,  or  even  c the  priests  the  Levites,’  is  a more 
honourable  title  than  £ the  priests  the  sons  of 
Aaron.'  Hilkiah’s  name  seems  to  mark  the  era 
at  which  (by  a reaction  after  the  atrocities  of 
Manasseh  and  Amon)  the  purer  priestly  senti- 
ment obtained  its  triumph  over  the  crown.  But 
the  victory  came  too  late.  Society  was  corrupt 
and  convulsed  within,  and  the  two  great  powers 
of  Egypt  and  Babylon  menaced  it  from  without. 
True  lovers  of  their  God  and  of  their  country, 

! like  Jeremiah,  saw  that  it  was  a time  rather  for 

! weeping  than  for  action ; and  that  the  faithful 

must  resign  themselves  to  the  bitter  lot  which  the 
sins  of  their  nation  had  earned. — F.  W.  N. 

JUDAS  is  merely  the  Greek  form  of  the 
Hebrew  name  Judah.  The  Septuagint,  however, 
represents  Judah  by  ’louSa,  Juda,  which  we  find 
also  in  Luke  iii.  26,  30r  as  the  name  of  two  of 
the  ancestors  of  Christ  not  otherwise  known.  The 
persons  named  Judas  were  the  following  : — 

1.  JUDAS  MACCABEUS.  [Maccabees.] 

2.  JUDAS  ISCARIOT.  The  object  of  this 

article  is  not  to  elucidate  all  the  circumstances 
recorded  respecting  this  person,  but  simply  to 
investigate  his  motives  in  delivering  up  Jesus  to 
the  chief-priests.  The  evangelists  relate  his  pro- 
ceedings, but  give  no  opinion.  The  subject  is 


consequently  open  to  inquiry.  Our  conclusion* 
must  be  guided  by  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  the 
known  feelings  and  principles  of  human  nature. 
Some  hypothesis  is  necessarily  formed  by  every 
reader.  That  one  of  our  Lord's  immediate  fol- 
lowers and  delegates,  the  treasurer  of  his  house- 
hold, who  was  admitted  to  his  most  secret  coun- 
sels, and  to  the  observation  of  his  most  private 
character,  should  at  that  particular  juncture 
wait  upon  the  Jewish  rulers,  and  engage,  for  a 
pecuniary  recompense,  to  lead  their  officers  to  his 
retiring-place,  and,  after  time  for  reflection, 
should  actually  fulfil  his  engagement,  and  thus 
become  the  means  of  bringing  his  Master  to  the 
cross,  is  a fact  too  nearly  connected  with  the 
honour  of  Christianity  to  allow  us  to  remain  un- 
concerned as  to  his  motives.  Even  the  credibility 
of  this  part  of  the  narrative  depends  upon  our 
being  able  to  form  a rational  conception  of  them. 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  his  sanity.  We  can 
neither  ascribe  his  conduct  to  the  mere  love  of 
evil,  nor  can  we  entertain  the  idea  that  it  resulted 
from  an  arbitrary  decree  or  impulse  of  the  Al- 
mighty. His  conduct  might  have  been  foreseen 
(Acts  i.  16),  but  surely  it  was  not  commanded. 
Even  supposing  him  to  have  been  perfectly  obdu- 
rate, and  judicially  abandoned  to  fall  by  his  own 
wickedness,  we  must  still  seek  the  proximate 
cause  of  his  ruin  in  his  own  intelligible  motives. 
But  his  well  known  confession  and  remorse 
clearly  prove  that  he  was  not  wholly  obdurate. 
Had  he  been  so,  he  would  have  persisted  in  his  con- 
duct, or  have  attempted  to  calumniate  Jesus  and 
his  disciples ; or,  perhaps,  under  the  auspices  of 
the  chief-priests,  have  headed  a most  powerful  op- 
position to  Christianity.  The  only  conceivable 
motives  for  the  conduct  of  Judas  are,  a sense  of 
duty  in  bringing  his  Master  to  justice,  resent- 
ment^ avarice,  dissatisfaction  with  the  procedure 
of  Jesus,  and  a consequent  scheme  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  own  views.  With  regard  to  the 
first  of  these  motives,  if  Judas  had  been  actuated 
by  a sense  of  duty  in  bringing  his  Master  to  justice 
f®r  anything  censurable  in  his  intentions,  words, 
or  actions,  he  would  certainly  have  alleged  some 
charge  against  him  in  his  first  interview  with  the 
chief-priests,  and  they  would  have  brought  him 
forward  as  a witness  against  Jesus,  especially 
when  they  were  at  so  great  a loss  for  evidence  ; or 
they  would  have  reminded  him  of  his  accusations 
when  he  appealed  to  them  after  our  Lord’s  con- 
demnation, saying,  ‘ I have  sinned  in  that  I have 
betrayed  innocent  blood’ — a confession  which 
amounts  to  an  avowal  that  he  had  never  seen 
anything  to  blame  in  his  Master,  but  everything 
to  approve.  Moreover,  the  knowledge  of  the 
slightest  fault  in  Jesus  would  have  served,  at 
least  for  the  present,  to  tranquillize  his  own  feel- 
ings, and  prevent  his  immediate  despair.  The 
chief-priests  would  also  most  certainly  have  al- 
leged any  charge  he  had  made  against  Jesus, 
as  a justification  of  their  conduct,  when  they 
afterw'ards  endeavoured  to  prevent  his  apostles 
from  preaching  in  his  name  (Acts  iv.  15-23 ; 
v.  27,  28-40).  The  setond  motive  supposed, 
namely,  that  of  resentment,  is  rather  more  plau- 
sible. Jesus  had  certainly  rebuked  him  for 
blaming  the  woman  who  had  anointed  him  in  the 
house  of  Simon  the  leper,  at  Bethany  (comp. 
Matt.  xxvi.  8-17;  John  xii.  4,  5);  and  Mat- 
thew’s narrative  seems  to  connect  his  going  to  the 


170 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT. 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT. 


chief-priests  with  that  rebuke  (ver.  14).  ‘ Then 

one  of  the  twelve,  called  Judas  Iscariot,  went 
unto  the  chief-priests  but  closer  inspection  will 
convince  the  reader  that  those  words  are  more 
properly  connected  with  ver.  3.  Besides,  the  re- 
buke was  general,  ‘ Why  trouble  ye  the  woman  V 
Nor  was  it  nearly  so  harsh  as  that  received  by 
Peter,  ‘ Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan’  (Matt.  xvi. 
23),  and  certainly  not  so  public  (Mark  viii.  32, 
33).  Even  if  Judas  had  felt  ever  so  much  re- 
sentment, it  could  scarcely  have  been  his  sole 
motive ; and  as  nearly  two  days  elapsed  between 
his  contract  with  the  chief-priests  and  its  comple- 
tion, it  would  have  subsided  during  the  interval, 
and  have  yielded  to  that  covetousness  which  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe  was  his  ruling  passion. 
St.John  expressly  declares  that  Judas  ‘was  a thief, 
and  had  the  bag,  and  bare  (that  is,  conveyed  away 
from  it,  stole,  ifi<x<rra^v)  what  was  put  therein  ’ 
(xii.  6;  comp.  xx.  15,  in  the  original,  and  see 
a similar  use  of  the  word  in  Joseph,  p.  402.  39,  ed. 
Uuds.).  This  rebuke,  or  rather  certain  circum- 
stances attending  it,  might  have  determined  him 
to  act  as  he  did,  but  is  insufficient,  of  itself,  to 
account  entirely  for  his  conduct,  by  wjpch  he  en- 
dangered all  his  expectations  of  worldly  advance- 
ment from  Jesus,  at  the  very  moment  when  they 
seemed  upon  the  verge  of  being  fulfilled.  It  is, 
indeed,  a most  important  feature  in  the  case,  that 
the  hopes  entertained  by  Judas,  and  all  the  apos- 
..es,  from  their  Master’s  expected  elevation,  as 
the  Messiah,  to  the  throne  of  Judaea,  and,  as  they 
believed,  to  the  empire  of  the  whole  world,  were 
never  more  stedfast  than  at  the  time  when  he 
covenanted  with  the  chief-priests  to  deliver  him 
into  their  hands.  Nor  does  the  theory  of  mere 
resentment  agree  with  the  terms  of  censure  in 
which  the  conduct  and  character  of  Judas  are 
spoken  of  by  our  Lord  and  the  evangelists.  Since, 
then,  this  supposition  is  insufficient,  we  may 
consider  another  motive  to  which  his  conduct  is 
more  commonly  ascribed,  namely,  covetousness. 
But  if  by  covetousness  be  meant  the  eager  de- 
sire to  obtain  ‘ the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,’  with 
which  the  chief-priests  ‘ covenanted  with  him’ 
(Matt.  xxvi.  15),  it  presents  scarcely  a less  in- 
adequate motive.  Can  it  be  conceived  that 
Judas  would  deliberately  forego  the  prospect  of 
immense  wealth  from  his  Master,  by  delivering 
him  up  for  about  four  pounds  ten  shillings  of  our 
money,  upon  the  highest  computation,  and  not 
more  than  double  in  value,  a sum  which  he 
might  easily  have  purloined  from  the  bag?  Is  it 
likely  that  he  would  have  made  such  a sacrifice 
for  any  further  sum,  however  large,  which  we 
may  suppose  ‘ they  ‘promised  him’  (Markxiv.  11), 
and  of  which  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  might 
have  been  the  mere  earnest  (Luke  xxii.  5)  ? Had 
covetousness  been  his  motive,  he  would  have  ulti- 
mately applied  to  the  chief-priests,  not  to  bring 
again  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  with  the  confession, 
‘ I have  sinned  in  that  I have  betrayed  the  inno- 
cent blood*  (Matt,  xxvii.  4),  but  to  demand  the 
completion  of  their  agreement  with  him.  We  are 
now  at  liberty  to  consider  the  only  remaining 
motive  for  the  conduct  of  Judas,  namely,  dissatis- 
faction with  the  procedure  of  his  Master,  and  a con- 
sequent schemefor  the  furtherance  of  his  own  views. 
It  seems  to  us  likely,  that  the  impatience  of  Judas 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  worldly  views,  which 
we  conceive  to  have  ever  actuated  him  in  fob 


lowing  Jesus,  could  no  longer  be  restrained,  and 
that  our  Lord’s  observations  at  Bethany  served 
to  mature  a stratagem  he  had  meditated  long 
before.  He  had  no  doubt  been  greatly  disap- 
pointed at  seeing  his  Master  avoid  being  made  a 
king,  after  feeding  the  five  thousand  in  Galilee. 
Many  a favourable  crisis  had  he  seemed  to  lose, 
or  had  not  dared  to  embrace,  and  now  while  at 
Bethany  he  talks  of  his  burial  (John  xii.  7) ; and 
though  none  of  his  apostles,  so  firm  were  their 
worldly  expectations  from  their  Master,  could 
clearly  understand  such  ‘ sayings’  (Luke  xviii. 
34) ; yet  they  had  been  made  ‘ exceeding  sorry’ 
by  them  (Matt.  xvii.  23).  At  the  same  time 
Judas  had  long  been  convinced  by  the  miracles 
he  had  seen  his  Master  perform  that  he  was  the 
Messiah  (John  vii.  31).  He  had  even  heard 
him  accept  this  title  from  his  apostles  in  private 
(Matt.  xvi.  16).  He  had  promised  them  that 
when  he  should  ‘ sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory, 
they  should  sit  upon  twelve  thrones  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel’  (Matt.  xix.  28).  Yet 
now,  when  everything  seemed  most  favourable  to 
the  assumption  of  empire,  he  hesitates  and  de- 
sponds. In  his  daily  public  conferences,  tot 
with  the  chief-priests  and  pharisees,  he  appears 
to  offend  them  by  his  reproofs,  rather  than  to 
conciliate  their  favour.  Within  a few  days,  the 
people,  who  had  lately  given  him  a triumphal 
entry  into  the  city,  having  kept  the  passover, 
would  be  dispersed  to  their  homes,  and  Judas  and 
his  fellow  apostles  be,  perhaps,  required  to  attend 
their  Master  on  another  tedious  expedition  through 
the  coqntry.  Hence  it  seems  most  probable  that 
Judas  resolved  upon  the  plan  of  delivering  up 
his  Master  to  the  Jewish  authorities,  when  lie 
would  be  compelled,  in  self-defence,  to  prove  his 
claims,  by  giving  them  the  sign  from  heaven  they 
had  so  often  demanded  ; they  would,  he  believed, 
elect  him  in  due  form  as  the  King  Messiah,  and 
thus  enable  him  to  reward  his  followers.  He 
did,  indeed,  receive  from  Jesus  many  alarming 
admonitions  against,  his  design;  but  the  plainest 
warnings  are  lost  upon  a mind  totally  absorbed 
by  a purpose,  and  agitated  by  many  violent 
passions.  The  worst  he  would  permit  himself  to 
expect,  was  a temporary  displeasure  for  placing 
his  Master  in  this  dilemma  ; butashe  mostfikely 
believed,  judging  from  himself,  that  Jesus  anti- 
cipated worldly  aggrandizement,  he  might  cal- 
culate upon  his  forgiveness  when  the  emergency 
should  have  been  triumphantly  surmounted.  Not 
was  this  calculation  wholly  unreasonable.  Many 
an  ambitious  man  would  gladly  be  spared  the 
responsibility  of  grasping  at  an  empire,  which  he 
would  willingly  find  forced  upon  him.  Sextus 
Pompey  is  recorded  to  have  rebuked  his  servant 
Menas,  who  offered  to  put  him  in  possession  of 
the  empire  by  the  treacherous  seizure  of  the  tri- 
umvirs, for  not  having,  unknown  to  him,  per- 
formed the  service,  which,  when  proposed  to  him, 
he  felt  bound  in  honour  to  reject  (Suet.  Octav A 
In  Shaksneare’s  version  of  his  language — 

‘ Ah,  this  thou  shouldst  have  done, 

And  not  have  spoke  on’t 

Being  done  unknown 

I should  have  found  it  afterwards  well  done. 

Ant.  and  Cleop. 

Judas  could  not  douht  his  master’s  ability  to 
extricate  himself  from  his  enemies  by  miracle. 
He  had  known  him  do  so  more  than  once  (Luke 


JUDAS. 


JUDE. 


171 


iv.  SO;  John  viii.  59;  x.  39).  Hence  his  direc- 
tions to  the  officers  to  ‘ hold  him  fast,’  when  he  was 
apprehended  (Matt.  xxvi.  48).  With  other  Jews 
he  believed  the  Messiah  would  never  die  (John 
xii.  34);  accordingly,  we  regard  his  pecuniary 
stipulation  with  the  priests  as  a mere  artful  cover 
to  his  deeper  and  more  comprehensive  design ; 
and  so  that  he  served  their  purpose  in  causing  the 
apprehension  of  Jesus,  they  would  little  care  to 
scrutinize  his  motive.  All  they  felt  was  being 
‘ glad’  at  his  proposal  (Mark  xiv.  11),  and  the 
plan  appeared  to  hold  good  up  to  the  very  mo- 
ment of  our  Lord’s  condemnation ; for  after  his  ap- 
prehension his  miraculous  powe^seemed  unabated, 
from  his  healing  Malchus.  Judas  heard  him 
declare  that  he  could  even  then  ‘ ask,  and  his  father 
would  give  him  twelve  legions  of  angels  ’ for  his 
rescue.  But  when  Judas,  who  awaited  the  issue 
of  the  trial  with  such  different  expectations,  saw 
that  though  Jesus  had  avowed  himself  to  be  the 
Messiah,  he  had  not  convinced  the  Sanhedrim  ; 
and,  instead  of  extricating  himself  from  their 
power  by  miracle,  had  submitted  to  be  ‘ con- 
demned, buffeted,  and  spit  upon  ’ by  his  judges 
and  accusers;  then  it  should  seem  he  awoke 
to  a full  view  of  all  the  consequences  of  his 
conduct.  The  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, ‘ that  Christ  should  suffer,’  and  of  Jesus, 
concerning  his  own  rejection  and  death,  flashed 
on  his  mind  in  their  true  sense  and  full  force, 
and  he  found  himself  the  wretched  instrument  of 
their  fulfilment.  He  made  a last  desperate  effort 
to  stay  proceedings.  He  presented  himself  to  the 
chief-priests,  offered  to  return  the  money,  con- 
fessed that  he  had  sinned  in  that  he  had  betrayed 
the  innocent  blood,  and  upon  receiving  their 
heartless  answer  was  wrought  into  a phrenzy  of 
lespair,  during  which  he  committed  suicide. 
There  is  much  significancy  in  these  words  of 
Matt,  xxvii.  3,  ‘Then  Judas,  when  he  sato  he  was 
condemned,'  not  expiring  on  the  cross,  ‘ repented 
himself,’  &c.  If  such  be  the  true  hypothesis  of  his 
conduct,  then,  however  culpable  it  may  have  been, 
as  originating  in  the  most  inordinate  covetous- 
ness, impatience  of  the  procedure  of  Providence, 
crooked  policy,  or  any  other  bad  quality,  he  is 
certainly  absolved  from  the  direct  intention  of 
procuring  his  Master’s  death.  ‘ The  difference,’ 
says  Archbishop  Wbately,  ‘ between  Iscariot  and 
his  fellow  apostles  was,  that  though  they  all  had 
the  same  expectations  and  conjectures,  he  dared 
to  act  on  his  conjectures,  departing  from  the  plain 
course  of  his  known  duty  to  follow  the  calcula- 
tions of  his  worldly  wisdom,  and  the  schemes  of 
his  worldly  ambition.’  The  reader  is  directed  to 
the  Primate’s  admirable  Discourse  on  the  Trea- 
son of  Judas  Iscariot,  and  Notes,  annexed  to 
Essays  on  some  of  the  Dangers  to  Christian 
Faith,  Lond.  1839;  Whitby  on  Matt,  xxvii.  3, 
for  the  opinions  of  Theophylact,  and  some  of  the 
Fathers;  Bishop  Bull’s  Sermons,  ii.  and  iii.,  On 
some  Important  Points,  vol.  i.,  Lond.  1713; 
Hales’s  New  Analysis  of  Chronology,  vol.  ii. 
b.  ii.  pp.  877,  878 ; Macknight’s  Harmony  of 
the  Gospels,  vol.  ii.  pp.  427-30,  Lond.  1822 ; 
Rosenmiiller.  Kuinoel,  in  loc. — J.  F.  D. 

3.  JUDAS,  or  JUDE,  surnamed  Barsabas, 
a Christian  teacher  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  An- 
tioch along  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  (Acts  xv. 
22,  27,  32).  He  is  supposed  to  have  been  one  of 
the  seventy  disciples,  and  brother  of  Joseph,  also 


surnamed  Barsabas  (son  of  Sabas),  who  was 
proposed,  with  Matthias,  to  fill  up  the  place  of 
the  traitor  Judas  (Acts  i.  23).  Judas  and  Silas 
(who  was  also  of  the  party)  are  mentioned  to- 
gether as  ‘ prophets  ’ and  ‘ chief  men  among  the 
brethren.’ 

4.  JUDAS.  [Jude.] 

5.  JUDAS,  a Jew  of  Damascus  with  whom 
Paul  lodged  (Acts  ix.  11). 

6.  JUDAS,  surnamed  the  Galilaean  (5  TaAi- 
Actios,  Acts  v.  37),  so  called  also  by  Josephus 
(Antiq.  xviii.  1.  6 ; xx.  5.  2;  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii. 
8.  1),  and  likewise  ‘ the  Gaulonite’  (6  ravXovlrys ; 
Antiq.  xviii.  1.  1).  In  company  with  one  Sadoc 
he  attempted  to  raise  a sedition  among  the  Jews, 
but  was  destroyed  by  Cyrenius  (Quirinus),  then 
proconsul  of  Syria  and  Judsea. 

JUDE,  or  JUDAS  (T ovdas).  There  wero 

two  of  this  name  among  the  twelve  Apostles— 
Judas,  called  also  Lebbseus  and  Thaddaeus 
(Matt.  x.  4;  Mark  iii.  18,  which  see),  and  Judas 
Iscariot.  Judas  is  the  name  of  one  of  our  Lord’s 
brethren,  but  it  is  not  agreed  whether  our  Lord’s 
brother  is  the  same  with  the  Apostle  of  this  name 
[James].  Luke  (Gospel,  vi.  16;  Acts  i.  13.) 
calls  him  'IouSas  ’laicc&fiov,  which  in  the  English 
Authorized  Version  is  translated*  Judas,  the  brother 
of  James.’  The  ellipsis,  however,  between  ’IovSas 
and  ’laic&fiov  is  supplied  by  the  old  Syriac  trans- 
lator (who  was  unacquainted  with  the  epistle  of 
Jude,  the  writer  of  which  calls  himself  TouSos 
ctSeA <pbs  ’laKwfiov)  with  the  word  son,  and  not  bro- 
ther. Among  our  Lord’s  brethren  are  named  James, 
Joses,  and  Judas  (Matt  xiii.  55;  Mark  vi.  3). 
If,  with  Helvidius  among  the  ancients  (see  Jerome, 
Contra  Helvidium),  and  Kuinoel,  Neander,  and 
a few  other  modern  commentators,  we  were  to 
consider  our  Lord’s  brethren  to  be  children  of  Jo- 
seph and  the  Blessed  Virgin  (an  hypothesis  which 
Kuinoel  acknowledges  to  be  incapable  of  proof 
from  Scripture),  we  should  be  under  the  necessity 
of  supposing  that  there  was  a James,,  a Joses,  and 
a Judas,  who  were  uterine  brothers  of  our  Lord, 
together  with  the  Apostles  James  and  Judas,  who 
were  children  of  Mary,  the  sister  or  cousin  of  the 
Virgin  (see  Pearson  On  the  Creed,  art.  iv.).  If, 
however,  the  hypothesis  of  their  being  children  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin  be  rejected,  an  hypothesis  in- 
consistent with  tlie  ancient  and  universal  tradition 
of  the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  Virgin,  a tra- 
dition the  truth  of  which  is  received  even  by  Dr 
Lardner  (Hist,  of  the  Apostles ),  there  remains  for 
us  only  a choice  between  the  two  opinions,  that  our 
Lord’s  brethren  were  children  of  Joseph  by  a for- 
mer wife  (Eschaor  Salome,  according  to  an  Apo- 
cryphal tradition),  which  was  the  sentiment  of  the 
majority  of  the  fathers  (still  received  in  the  Oriental 
church),  and  that  adopted  in  the  Western 
church,  and  first  broached  by  St.  Jerome  (Cont. 
Helvid.'),  that  the  brethren  of  our  Lord  were  his 
cousins,  as  being  children  of  Mary,  the  wife  of 
Cleophas,  who  must  therefore  be  considered  as  the 
same  with  Alphseus  [see  JamesJ.  If  we  consider 
James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  to  be  a different 
person  from  James  the  son  of  A]  phams,  and  not 
one  of  the  twelve,  Jude,  the  brother  of  James, 
must  consequently  be  placed  in  the  same  cate- 
gory [James]  ; but  if  they  are  one  and  the  same, 
Jude  must  be  considered  as  the  person  who  is 
numbered  with  our  Lord's  Apostles.  We  are  not 
informed  a3  to  the  time  of  the  vocation  of  tba 


172  JUDE,  EPISTLE  OF. 

Apostle  Jucle  to  that,  dignity.  Indeed,  the  only 
circumstance  relating  to  him  which  is  recorded 
in  the  Gospels  consists  in  the  question  put  by 
aim  to  our  Lord  (John  xiv.  22).  ‘ Judas  saith 

unto  him  (not  Iscariot),  Lord,  how  is  it  that 
thou  wilt  manifest  thyself  to  us,  and  not  unto 
the  world  V Nor  have  we  any  account  given  of 
his  proceedings  after  our  Lord’s  resurrection,  for 
the  traditionary  notices  which  have  been  preserved 
of  him  rest  on  no  very  certain  foundation.  It  has 
been  asserted  that  he  was  sent  to  Edessa,  to 
Abgarus,  king  of  Osro'ene  (Jerome,  Annot.  in 
Matt.),  and  that  he  preached  in  Syria,  Arabia, 
Mesopotamia,  and  Persia  ; in  which  latter  country 
he  suffered,  martyrdom  (Lardner’s  Hist,  of  the 
Apostles).  Jude  the  Apostle  is  commemorated 
in  the  Western  church,  together  with  the  Apostle 
Simon  (the  name,  also,  of  one  of  our  Lord’s 
brethren)  on  the  8th  of  October.  There  is  an 
interesting  account  preserved  by  Hegesippus  (Eu- 
sebius, Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  20)  concerning  some  of 
Jude's  posterity  : ‘ When  Domitian,’  he  observes, 
‘ inquired  after  David’s  posterity,  some  grandsons 
of  Jude,  called  the  Lord’s  brother,  were  brought 
into  his  presence.  Being  asked  concerning  their 
possessions  and  mode  of  life,  they  assured  him 
that  they  had  thirty-nine  acres  of  land,  the  value 
of  which  was  nine  thousand  denarii,  out  of  which 
they  paid  him  taxes,  and  maintained  themselves 
by  the  labour  of  their  hands.  The  truth  of  this  was 
confirmed  by  the  hardness  of  their  hands.  Being 
asked  concerning  Christ  and  the  nature  of  his  king- 
dom, they  replied  that  it  was  not  a kingdom  of  this 
world,  but  of  a heavenly  and  angelic  nature; 
that  it  would  be  manifested  at  the  end  of  the 
world,  when  he  would  come  in  glory  to  judge 
the  living  and  the  dead,  and  render  to  every  man 
according  to  his  works.  Having  observed  their 
humble  condition  and  their  harmless  principles, 
he  dismissed  them  with  contempt,  after  which 
they  ruled  the  churches,  both  as  witnesses  and 
relatives  of  the  Lord.’ 

St.  Luke  (Acts  xv.  22, 27-33)  speaks  of  Judas, 
the  son  of  Barsabas,  in  company  with  Silas,  both 
of  whom  he  styles  ‘ prophets,’  and  ‘ chief  men 
among  the  brethren.’  Schott  supposes  that  Bar- 
sabas means  the  son  of  Sabas,  or  Zabas,  which 
he  looks  upon  as  an  abridged  form  for  Zebedee, 
and  concludes  that  the  Judas  here  mentioned 
was  a brother  of  the  elder  James  and  of  John. 

JUDE,  EPISTLE  OF  [Antilegomena], 
is  placed  by  Eusebius  among  the  controverted 
books  (Hist.  Eccles.,  vii.  25),  having  been  rejected 
by  many  of  the  ancients.  ‘Jude,  the  brother  of 
James,’  says  Jerome,  ‘ has  left  us  a short  epistle, 
which  is  one  of  the  seven  called  Catholic,  and 
because  it  cites  a testimony  from  the  apocryphal 
book  of  Enoch  it  is  rejected  by  most.  It  has, 
however,  obtained  such  authority  by  antiquity 
and  use  that  it  is  now  reckoned  among  the  Holy 
Scriptures.’  It  is  cited  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
(Strom,  iii.  431),  by  Origen  (Com.  in  Matt., 
&c.  &c.),  and  by  Tejrtullian  (De  Habit.  Fcem).  It. 
is  also  included  among  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  in  the  ancient  catalogue  discovered  by 
Muratori,  a work  of  the  second  century.  It  is 
found  in  the  catalogues  of  the  Councils  of  Lao- 
dicea,  Hippo,  and  Carthage,  and  in  the  Apos- 
tolical canons,  but  is  wanting  in  the  Peshito,  or 
ancient  Syriac  version.  It  is,  however,  cited  as 
rtf  authority  by  Ephrem.  In  modern  times  its 


JUDE,  EPISTLE  OF. 

apostolic  source  at  least,  if  not  its  canonicity, 
was  called  in  question  by  Luther  (Wawhised 
vol.  xiv.  150),  Grotius,  Bolten,  Dahl,  Berger, 
and  Michaelis,  but  it  is  acknowledged  by  most  to 
be  genuine.  Indeed,  the  doubts  thrown  upon  its 
genuineness  arose,  as  we  have  already  seen,  from 
the  fact  of  the  writer  having  cited  two  apocryphal 
books  (Enoch  and  the  Assumption  of  Moses).  In 
reference  to  this  subject  Tertullian  has  a long 
statement,  in  which,  from  the  fact  that'  ‘’Enoch 
had  some  value  as  an  authority  with  the  apostle 
Jude,'  he  is  disposed  to  uphold  the  authenticity 
of  the  book  of  Enoch.  As,  however,  that  book, 
which  is  still  extant,  is  universally  reckoned  a 
spurious  production,  the  circumstance  of  Jude's 
having  employed  a citation  from  it  is  one  of  the 
most  difficult  and  embarrassing  in  sacred  criti- 
cism, especially  as  Jude  expressly  calls  Enoch  the 
‘ seventh  from  Adam’  (ver.  1 4).  That  the  ancients 
were  acquainted  with  the  Prophecy  of  Enoch  is 
evident  from  the  testimony  of  several  of  the 
fathers,  and  from  the  copious  fragments  of  it  pre- 
served by  Syncellus  in  his  Chronography  (Fa- 
bricii  Cod.  Pseud.),  which  were  discovered  by 
George  Scaliger.  None  of  these,  however,  con- 
tain ihe  passage  in  Jude  14. 

It  was  not  until  the  eighth  century  that  the 
book  of  Enoch  sunk  into  oblivion.  Since  the 
commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century,  how- 
ever, it  had  been  supposed  that  this  long-lost  book 
was  still  extant  in  an  Ethiopic  version  in  Abys- 
sinia, and  this  fact  was  fully  established  by 
Bruce,  who  first  brought  it  into  Europe  [Enoch]. 
This  work  contains  the  words  of  the  prophecy 
cited  by  Jude ; but  whether  Jude  cited  it.  from 
the  book  of  Enoch,  or  from  a Jewish  tradition,  is 
a point  still  in  debate.  The  decision  of  this 
question  is  inseparably  connected  with  that  of 
the  age  of  the  present  book  of  Enoch,  a point  on 
winch  critics  are  not  quite  agreed.  Dr.  Lau- 
rence (its  learned  translator)  attributes  the  book 
of  Enoch  to  an  early  period  of  the  reign  of  Herod  j 
the  Great,  to  which  time  Hoffmann  (Das  Buc/i  | 
Henoch)  also  assigns  it ; while  Liicke  and  others, 
who  have  subsequently  investigated  the  subject, 
place  it  in  the  second  half  of  the  first  century, 
and  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (see  Liicke, 
Ver  such  einer  vollstdndigen  Einleitung  in  die 
Offenbarung  Johannis).  It  was  a well  known 
book  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  Testament 
of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  at  tire  close  of  the  first 
or  commencement  of  the  second  century*  [Rb- 
vei.ations.,  Spurious]. 

The  writer  of  the  epistle  is  also  supposed  to 
have  cited  an  apocryphal  work  (in  ver.  9),  where 
he  speaks  of  the  dispute  of  the  archangel  Michael 
with  the  Devil  respecting  the  body  of  Moses. 
Origen  found  this  very  relation  in  a Jewish 
Greek  book  called  the  Assumption  of  Moses 
('AydAr/xl/is  Mwcrews),  and  was  so  persuaded  that  ^ 
this  was  the  book  which  Jude  had  cited,  that  he 
quoted  the  work  itself  as  of  authority  (Marsh's 
Michaelis,  vol.  vi.  p.  379).  The  work  is  also 
cited  by  CEcumenius  (vol.  ii.  p.  629),  where  the 
passage  actually  refers  to  the  dispute  of  Michael 
the  archangel  and  the  devil  respecting  the  body 

* A writer  in  the  Christian  Observer  (voL 
xxx.)  attempts  to  prove  the  book  of  Enoch  a work 
which  could  not  have  been  written  earlier  than 
the  middle  of  the  second  century. 


JUDGES. 


173 


JUDE,  EPISTLE  OF. 

ef  Moaes.  There  is  a work  still  extant  in  He- 
brew, entitled  Phetirah  Moshe,  or  ‘ The  death  of 
Moses  of  this  two  editions  have  been  published, 
one  at  Constantinople  in  1518,  and  the  other  at 
Venice  in  1544  and  1605.  De  la  Rue  and  other 
critics  have  supposed  that  this  is  the  same  work 
which  was  known  to  Origen.  But  Michael  is  has 
shown  that  the  present  work  is  so  unlike  the 
former  (besides  containing  quotations  from  the 
Talmud  also,  and  even  from  Aben  Ezra),  that, 
although  it  contains  similar  relations,  it  is  un- 
questionably a modern  production. 

Others,  embarrassed  by  the  circumstance  of 
Jude’s  citing  an  apocryphal  book,  not  merely  for 
illustration,  as  St.  Paul  cites  Aratus,  Menander, 
and  Epimenides,  but  as  of  authority  (as  when  he 
cites  Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam ),  have  en- 
deavoured to  give  a mystical  explanation  to 
Jude’s  assertion  respecting  the  dispute  about  the 
body  of  Moses.  Among  these  are  Vitringa  and 
Dr.  Lardner.  They  think  that  by  the  body  of 
Moses  is  meant  the  Jewish  nation,  and  that  Jude 
alludes  to  the  vision  in  Zech.  iii.  1 ; and  Vitringa 
even  proposes  to  alter  the  ‘ body  of  Moses’  into 
the  ‘ body  of  Joshua .’  For  the  details  of  this  in- 
genious explanation  we  must  refer  the  reader  to 
Lardner 's  Hist,  of  the  Apostles. 

Author , age,  8$c. — Notwithstanding  these  diffi- 
culties, this  epistle  was  treated  by  the  ancients 
with  the  highest  respect,  and  regarded  as  the 
genuine  work  of  an  inspired  writer.  Although 
Origen  on  one  occasion  speaks  doubtfully,  calling 
it  the  ‘ reputed  epistle  of  Jude,’  yet  on  another 
occasion,  and  in  the  same  work  (Com.  in  Matt.), 
he  says,  ‘ Jude  wrote  an  epistle,  of  few  lines  in- 
deed, but  full  of  the  powerful  words  of  heavenly 
grace,  who  at  the  beginning  says,  “ Jude,  the  ser- 
vant of  Jesus  Christ  and  brother  of  James.”  ’ The 
same  writer  (Com.  in  Rom.  and  De  Princip.  iii. 
‘2,  i.  138)  calls  it  the  writing  of  Jude  the  Apostle. 
The  moderns  are,  however,  divided  in  opinion 
between  Jude  the  apostle  and  Jude  the  Lord’s 
brother,  if  indeed  they  be  different  persons  : Hug 
and  De  Wette  ascribe  it  to  the  latter.  The  author 
simply  calls  himself  Jude,  the  brother  of  James, 
and  a servant  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  form  of  ex- 
pression has  given  rise  to  various  conjectures. 
Hug  supposes  that  he  intimates  thereby  a nearer 
degree  of  relationship  than  that  of  an  apostle. 
This  accords  also  with  the  sentiment  of  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  (A dumb. ; Opp.  ii.  p.  1007,  ed. 
Venet.):  £Jude,  who  wrote  the  Catholic  epistle, 
one  of  the  sons  of  Joseph,  a pious  man,  although 
he  well  knew  his  relationship  to  Jesus,  yet  did 
not  call  himself  his  brother,  but  said,  Jude,  the 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ  (as  the  Lord),  and  the 
brother  of  James.’  At  the  same  time  it  must  be 
acknowledged  that  the  circumstance  of  his  not 
naming  himself  an  apostle  is  not  of  itself  neces- 
sarily sufficient  to  militate  against  his  being  the 
apostle  of  that  name,  inasmuch  as  St.  Paul  does 
not  upon  all  occasions  (as  in  Philippians,  Thessa- 
lonians,  and  Philemon)  use  this  title.  From  his 
calling  himself  the  brother  of  James,  rather  than 
the  brother  of  the  Lord,  Michaelis  deduces  that 
he  was  the  son  of  Joseph  by  a former  wife,  and 
not  a full  brother  of  our  Lord’s,  as  Herder 
contends  [James,  Jude]  From  the  great  coin- 
cidence both  in  sentiment  and  subject  which  exists 
between  our  epistle  and  the  second  of  St.  Peter, 
it  has  been  thought  by  many  critics  that  one 


of  these  writers  had  seen  the  other’s  work ; but 
we  shall  reserve  the  discussion  as  to  which  was 
the  earlier  writing  until  we  come  to  treat  of 
St.  Peter’s  Epistle.  Dr.  Lardner  supposes  that 
Jude's  Epistle  was  written  between  the  years  64 
and  66,  Beausobre  and  L’Enfant  between  70  and 
75  (from  which  Dodwell  and  Cave  do  not  mate- 
rially differ),  and  Dr.  Mill  fixes  it  to  the  year  90. 
If  Jude  has  quoted  the  apocryphal  book  of 
Enoch,  as  seems  to  be  agreed  upon  by  most  mo- 
dern critics,  and  if  this  book  was  written,  as 
Liicke  thinks,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
the  age  of  our  epistle  best  accords  with  the  date 
assigned  to  it  by  Mill. 

It  is  difficult  to  decide  who  the  persons  were  to 
whom  this  epistle  was  addressed,  some  supposing 
that  it  was  written  to  converted  Jews,  others  to 
all  Christians  without  distinction.  Many  of  the 
arguments  seem  best  adapted  to  convince  the 
Jewish  Christians,  as  appeals  are  so  strikingly 
made  to  their  sacred  books  and  traditions. 

The  design  of  this  epistle  is  to  warn  the  Chris- 
tians against  the  false  teachers  who  had  insinuated 
themselves  among  them  and  disseminated  dan- 
gerous tenets  of  insubordination  and  licentious- 
ness. The  author  reminds  them,  by  the  example 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  that  God  had  punished 
the  rebellious  Jews  ; and  that  even  the  disobedient, 
angels  had  shared  the  same  fate.  The  false  teachers 
to  whom  he  alludes  ‘ speak  evil  of  dignities,’ 
while  the  archangel  Michael  did  not  even  revile 
Satan.  He  compares  them  to  Balaam  and  Korah, 
to  clouds  without  water,  and  to  raging  waves. 
Enoch,  he  says,  foretold  their  wickedness ; at  the 
same  time  he  consoles  believers,  and  exhorts  them 
to  persevere  in  faith  and  love.  The  epistle  is 
remarkable  for  the  vehemence,  fervour,  and  energy 
of  its  composition  and  style.  — W.  W. 

JUDGES.  This  name  is  applied  to  fifteen  per- 
sons who  at  intervals  presided  over  the  affairs  of  the 
Israelites  during  the  450  years  which  elapsed  from 
the  death  of  Joshua  to  the  accession  of  Saul.  The 
term  Judges,  used  in  the  English  Bibles,  does  not 
exactly  represent  the  original  shophetim , 

i.  e.  ‘ rulers  of  the  people,’  from  which  is 

not  synonymous  with  judicare , but  signifies 

in  its  general  acceptation,  causam  alicujus  agere , 
tueri  ( see  Bertholdt,  Theolog.  Litt.  Blatt.  vii.l,  sq. ; 
comp.  Gesenius  s.v.  ££)£*).  The  station  and  office 
of  these  shophetim  are  involved  in  great  obscurity, 
partly  from  the  want  of  clear  intimations  in  the 
history  in  which  their  exploits  and  government  are 
recorded,  and  partly  from  the  absence  of  parallels 
in  the  history  of  other  nations,  by  which  our 
notions  might  be  assisted.  In  fact  the  government 
of  the  judges  forms  the  most  singular  part  of  the 
Hebrew  institutions,  and  that  which  appears  most 
difficult,  to  comprehend.  The  kings,  the  priests,  the 
generals,  the  heads  of  tribes — all  these  offer  some 
points  of  comparison  with  the  same  functionaries 
in  other  nations;  but  the  judges  stand  alone  in 
the  history  of  the  world  : and  when  we  think  that 
we  have  found  officers  resembling  them  in  other 
nations,  the  comparison  soon  breaks  down  in  some 
point  of  importance,  and  we  still  find  that  no- 
thing remains  but  to  collect  and  arrange  the  con- 
cise intimations  of  the  sacred  text,  and  draw  our 
conclusions  from  the  facts  which  it  records. 

The  splendid  administrations  of  Moses  and  of 
Joshua  so  fill  the  mind  of  the  reader  of  Scrip* 


174 


JUDGES. 


JUDGES. 


ture,  toat  after  their  death  a sense  of  vacancy  is 
experienced,  and  we  wonder  how  it  happens  that 
no  successor  to  them  was  appointed,  and  how  the 
machinery  of  the  government  was  to  be  carried 
on  without  some  similar  leaders.  But  when  we 
come  to  examine  the  matter  more  closely,  we 
perceive  that  the  offices  filled  by  Moses  and 
Joshua,  whose  presence  was  so  essential  for  the 
time  and  the  occasion,  were  not  at  all  involved  in 
the  general  machinery  of  the  Hebrew  government. 
These  persons  formed  no  part  of  the  system  : they 
were  specially  appointed  for  particular  services, 
for  the  performance  of  which  they  were  invested 
with  extraordinary  powers;  but  when  their  mis- 
sion was  accomplished,  society  reverted  to  its 
permanent  institutions  and  its  established  forms 
of  government.  It  is,  therefore,  in  the  working 
of  these  institutions,  after  the  functions  of  the 
legislator  and  the  military  leader  had  ceased,  that 
we  must  look  for  the  circumstances  that  gave  rise 
to  the  extraordinary  leaders  which  engage  our 
present  attention.  Now  we  shall  find  that,  apart 
from  such  offices  as  those  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  a 
very  excellent  provision  existed  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  chosen  people,  both  as  regarded  the 
interests  of  the  nation  generally,  as  well  as  of  the 
several  tribes. 

To  this  latter  branch  of  the  government  it  is 
important  to  draw  particular  attention,  because,  as 
it  existed  before  the  law,  and  is  assumed  through- 
out as  the  basis  of  the  theocratical  constitution, 
we  hear  but  little  of  it  in  the  books  of  Moses,  and 
are  apt  to  lose  sight  of  it  altogether.  This  part  of 
the  subject  belongs,  however,  to  the  art.  Tkibe  ; 
and  it  suffices  to  mention  in  this  place  that  every 
tribe  had  its  own  hereditary  chief  or  ‘prince,’  who 
presided  over  its  affairs,  administered  justice  in 
all  ordinary  cases,  and  led  the  troops  in  time  of 
war.  Ilis  station  resembled  that  of  the  Arabian 
emirs,  or  rather,  perhaps,  of  the  khans  of  the  Tartar 
tribes  inhabiting  Persia  and  the  countries  further 
east.  He  was  assisted  in  these  important  duties 
by  the  subordinate  officers,  the  chiefs  of  families, 
who  formed  his  council  in  such  matters  of  policy 
as  affected  their  particular  district,  supported  his 
decisions  in  civil  or  criminal  inquiries,  and  com- 
manded under  him  in  the  field  of  battle  (Num. 
xxvi.  xxvii. ; Josh.  vii.  16-18).  This  was,  in  fact, 
the  old  patriarchal  government,  to  which  the 
Hebrews  were  greatly  attached.  It  seems  to  have 
been  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of  the  separate 
government  of  the  tribes  : but,  as  we  find  in  simi- 
lar cases,  it  was  deficient  in  force  of  cohesion 
among  the  tribes,  or  in  forming  them  into  a com- 
pacted nation.  In  fact,  it  was  an  institution  suited 
to  the  wants  of  men  who  live  dispersed  in  loosely 
connected  tribes,  and  not  to  the  wants  and  exi- 
gencies of  a nation.  It  was  in  principle  segre- 
gative, not  aggregative ; and  although  there  are 
traces  of  united  agreement  through  a congress 
of  delegates,  or  rather  of  national  chiefs  and 
elders  of  the  tribes,  this  was  an  inefficient  in- 
strument of  general  government,  seeing  that  it  was 
only  applicable  or  applied  to  great  occasions,  and 
could  have  no  bearing  on  the  numerous  questions 
of  an  administrative  nature  which  arise  from 
day  to  day  in  every  state,  and  which  there  should 
somewhere  exist  the  fewer  to  arrange  and  deter- 
mine. This  defect  of  the  general  government  it 
was  one  of  the  objects  of  the  theocratical  institu- 
tions to  remedy. 


Jehovah  had  taken  upon  himself  the  function 
of  king  of  the  chosen  people,  and  he  dwelt  among 
them  in  his  palace-tabemacle.  Here  he  was 
always  ready,  through  his  priest,  to  counsel  them 
in  matters  of  general  interest,  as  well  as  in  tnose 
having  reference  only  to  particular  tribes;  and 
to  his  court  they  were  all  required  by  the  law  to 
repair  three  times  every  year.  Here,  then,  was 
the  principle  of  a general  administration,  calcu- 
lated and  designed  to  unite  the  tribes  into  a nation, 
by  giving  them  a common  government  in  .all  tho 
higher  and  more  general  branches  of  adminis- 
tration, and  a common  centre  of  interest  for  all 
the  political  and  ecclesiastical  relations  of  the 
community. 

It  was  on  this  footing  that  the  law  destined  the 
government  of  the  Hebrews  to  proceed,  after  the 
peculiar  functions  of  the  legislator  and  the  con- 
queror had  been  fulfilled. 

The  fact  is,  however,  that,  through  the  per- 
versity of  the  people,  this  settlement  of  the  general  'i 
government  on  theocratical  principles  was  not 
carried  out  in  its  proper  form  and  extent;  and  it 
is  in  this  neglect  we  are  to  seek  the  necessity  for 
those  officers  called  Judges,  who  were  from  time 
to  time  raised  up  to  correct  some  of  the  evils 
which  resulted  from  it.  It  is  very  evident,  from  j 
the  whole  history  of  the  judges,  that  after  the  ] 
death  of  Joshua  the  Israelites  threw  themselves  : 
back  upon  the  segregative  principles  of  their  go-  1 
vemment  by  tribes,  and  all  but  utterly  neglected,  j 
and  for  long  periods  did  utterly  neglect,  the  rules 
and  usages  on  which  the  general  government,  was 
established.  There  was,  in  fact,  no  human  power 
adequate  to  enforce  them.  They  were  good  in 
themselves,  they  were  gracious,  they  conferred  j 
high  privileges  ; but  they  were  enforced  by  no 
sufficient  authority.  No  one  was  amenable  to 
any  tribunal  for  neglecting  the  annual  feasts,  or  for 
not  referring  the  direction  of  public  affairs  to  the 
Divine  King.  Omissions  on  these  points  involved 
the  absence  of  the  divine  protection  and  blessing,  J 
and  were  left  to  be  punished  by  their  consequences.  1 
The  man  who  obeyed  in  this  and  other  things,  was  * 
blessed ; the  man  who  did  not,  was  not  blessed  ; 
and  general  obedience  was  rewarded  with  national  | 
blessing,  and  general  disobedience  with  national 
punishment.  The  enormities  and  transgressions 
into  which  the  people  fell  in  consequence  of  such 
neglect,  which  left  them  an  easy  prey  to  idolatrous 
influences,  are  fully  recorded  in  the  book  of 
Judges.  The  people  could  not  grasp  the  idea  of 
a Divine  and  Invisible  King : they  could  not  bring  i 
themselves  to  recur  to  him  in  all  those  cases  in  , 
which  the  judgment  of  a human  king  would  have 
determined  the  course  of  action,  or  in  which  his 
arm  would  have  worked  for  their  deliverance..  . 
Therefore  it  was  that  God  allowed  them  judges, 
in  the  persons  of  faithful  men,  who  acted  for  the 
most  part  a^  agents  of  the  divine  will,  regents  for 
the  Invisible  King ; and  who,  holding  their  com- 
mission  directly  from  him,  or  with  his  sanction, 
would  be  more  inclined  to  act  as  dependent  vas- 
sals of  Jehovah  than  kings,  who,  as  members  of 
royal  dynasties,  would  come  to  reign  with  notions 
of  independent  rights  and  royal  privileges,  which 
would  draw  away  their  attention  from  their  true 
place  in  the  theocracy.  In  this  greater  depend- 
ence of  the  judges  upon  the  Divine  King  we  see 
the  secret  of  their  institution.  The  Israelites  were 
disposed  to  rest  upon  their  separate  interests  as 


JUDGES. 


JUDGES 


175 


hibes ; and  having  thus  allowed  the  standing 
general  government  to  remain  inoperative  through 
disuse,  they  would  in  cases  of  emergency  have 
been  disposed  ‘ to  make  themselves  a king  like  the 
nations,1  had  their  attention  not  been  directed  to 
the  appointment  of  officers  whose  authority  could 
rest  on  no  tangible  right  apart  from  character  and 
services ; which,  with  the  temporary  nature  of  their 
power,  rendered  their  functions  more  accordant, 
with  the  principles  of  the  theocracy  than  those  of 
any  other  public  officers  could  be.  And  it  is  pro- 
bably in  this  adaptation  to  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  Hebrew  theocracy  that  we  shall 
discover  the  reason  of  our  inability  to  find  afiv 
similar  office  among  other  nations.  In  being  thus 
peculiar  it  resembled  the  Dictatorship  among  the 
Romans  ; to  which  office  indeed  that  of  the  judges 
has  been  compared ; and  perhaps  this  parallel  is 
the  nearest  that  can  be  found.  But  there  is  this 
great  difference,  that  the  dictator  laid  down  his 
power  as  soon  as  the  crisis  which  had  called  for  its 
exercise  had  passed  away,  and  in  no  case  could 
this  unwonted  supremacy  be  retained  beyond  a 
limited  time  (Liv.  ix.  34) ; but  the  Hebrew  judge 
remained  invested  with  his  high  authority  during 
the  whole  period  of  his  life ; and  is  therefore 
usually  described  by  the  sacred  historian  as  pre- 
siding to  the  end  of  his  days  over  the  tribes  of 
Israel,  amid  the  peace  and  security  which  his 
military  skill  and  counsels  had,  under  the  divine 
blessing,  restored  to  the  land. 

Having  thus  traced  the  origin  of  the  office  to 
the  circumstances  of  the  times  and  the  condition 
of  the  people,  it  only  remains  to  inquire  into  the 
nature  of  the  office  itself,  and  the  powers  and  pri- 
vileges which  were  connected  with  it.  This  is 
by  no  means  an  easy  task,  as  the  nature  of  the 
record  enables  us  to  perceive  better  what  they  were 
not  than  what  they  were,  what  they  could  not  than 
what  they  could  accomplish. 

It  is  usual  to  consider  them  as  commencing 
their  career  with  military  exploits  to  deliver  Israel 
from  foreign  oppression  ; but  this  is  by  no  means 
invariably  the  case.  Eli  and  Samuel  were  not 
military  men ; Deborah  judged  Israel  before  she 
planned  the  war  against  Jabin  ; and  of  Jair, 
Ibzan,  El  on,  and  Abdon,  it  is  at  least  uncertain 
whether  they  ever  held  any  military  command. 
The  command  of  the  army  can  therefore  be 
scarcelyconsidered  thedistinguishing  characteristic 
of  these  men,  or  military  exploits  the  necessary 
introduction  to  the  office.  In  many  cases  it  is 
true  that  military  achievements  were  the  means 
by  which  they  elevated  themselves  to  the  rank  of 
judges ; but  in  general  the  appointment  may  be 
said  to  have  varied  with  the  exigencies  of  the 
times,  and  with  the  particular  circumstances 
which  in  times  of  trouble  would  draw  the  public 
attention  to  persons  who  appeared  suited  by  their 
gifts  or  influence  to  advise  in  matters  of  general 
concernment,  to  decide  in  questions  arising  be- 
tween tribe  and  tribe,  to  administer  public  affairs, 
and  to  appear  as  their  recognised  head  in  their 
intercourse  with  their  neighbours  and  oppressors. 
As  we  find  that  many  of  these  judges  arose  during 
fcimes  of  oppression,  it  seems  to  us  that  this  last 
circumstance,  which  has  never  been  taken  into 
account,  must  have  had  a remarkable  influence 
in  the  appointment  of  the  judge.  Foreigners 
could  not  be  expected  to  enter  into  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Hebrew  constitution,  and  would 


expect  to  receive  the  proposals,  remonstrances,  or 
complaints  of  the  people  through  some  person  re- 
presenting the  whole  nation,  or  that  part  of  it  to 
which  their  intercourse  applied.  The  law  pro- 
vided no  such  officer  except  in  the  high-priest; 
but  as  the  Hebrews  themselves  did  not  recognise 
the  true  operation  of  their  theocracy,  much  less 
were  strangers  likely  to  do  so.  On  the  officer 
they  appointed  to  represent  the  body  of  the  people, 
under  circumstances  which  compelled  them  to 
deal  with  foreigners  mightier  than  themselves, 
would  naturally  devolve  the  command  of  the 
army  in  war,  and  the  administration  of  justice 
in  peace.  This  last  was  among  ancient  nations, 
as  it  is  still  in  the  East,  regarded  as  the  first  and 
most  important  duty  of  a ruler,  and  the  interfer- 
ence of  the  judges  was  probably  confined  to  the 
cases  arising  between  different  tribes,  for  which  the 
ordinary  magistrates  would  find  it  difficult  to 
secure  due  authority  to  their  decisions. 

In  nearly  all  the  instances  recorded  the  appoint- 
ment seems  to  have  been  by  the  free  unsolicited 
choice  of  the  people.  The  election  of  Jephthah, 
who  was  nominated  as  the  fittest  man  for  the  exist- 
ing emergency,  probably  resembled  that  which  was 
usually  followed  on  such  occasions;  and  pro- 
bably, as  in  his  case,  the  judge,  in  accepting  the 
office,  took  care  to  make  such  stipulations  as  he 
deemed  necessary*  The  only  cases  of  direct  divine 
apointment  are  those  of  Gideon  and  Samson,  and 
the  last  stood  in  the  peculiar  position  of  having 
been  from  before  his  birth  ordained  ‘ to  begin  to 
deliver  Israel.’  Deborah  was  called  to  deliver 
Israel,  but  was  already  a judge.  Samuel  was 
called  by  the  Lord  to  be  a prophet,  but  not  a 
judge,  which  ensued  from  the  high  gifts  which 
the  people  recognised  as  dwelling  in  him  ; and  as 
to  Eli,  the  office  of  judge  seems  to  have  devolved 
naturally,  or  rather  ex-officio,  upon  him  ; and 
his  case  seems  to  be  the  only  one  in  which  the 
high-priest  appears-  in  the  character  which  the 
theocratical  institutions  designed  for  him. 

The  following  clear  summary  of  their  duties 
and  privileges  is  from  Jahn  ( Biblisches  Archdo- 
logie , th.  ii.  bd.  1,  sect.  22 ; Stowe's  translation, 
ii.  86) : — ‘ The  office  of  judges  or  regents  was 
held  during  life,  but  it  was  not  hereditary,  neither 
could  they  appoint  their  successors.  Their  au- 
thority was  limited  by  the  law  alone  ; and  in 
doubtful  cases  they  were  directed  to  consult  the 
Divine  King  through  the  priest  by  Urim  and 
Thummim  (Num.  xxvii.  21).  They  were  not 
obliged  in  common  cases  to  ask  advice  of  the 
ordinary  rulers ; it  was  sufficient  if  these  did  not 
remonstrate  against  the  measures  of  the  judge. 
In  important  emergencies,  however,  they  con- 
voked a general  assembly  of  the  rulers,  over 
which  they  presided  and  exerted  a powerful  in- 
fluence. They  could  issue  orders,  but  not  enact 
laws ; they  could  neither  levy  taxes  nor  appoint 
officers,  except  perhaps  in  the  army.  Their  au- 
thority extended  only  over  those  tribes  by  whom 
they  had  been  elected  or  acknowledged ; for  it 
is  clear  that  several  of  the  judges  presided  over 
separate  tribes.  There  was  no  income  attached 
to  their  office,  nor  was  there  any  income  appro- 
priated to  them,  unless  it  might  be  a larger 
share  in  the  spoils,  and  those  presents  which 
were  made  them  as  testimonials  of  respect 
(Judg.  viii.  24).  They  bore  no  external  marks 
of  dignity,  and  maintained  no  retinue  of  corn 


176 


JUDGES. 


JUDGES. 


tiers,  though  some  of  them  were  very  opulent. 
They  were  not  only  simple  in  ;heir  manners, 
moderate  in  their  desires,  and  free  from  avarice 
and  ambition,  but  noble  and  magnanimous  men, 
who  felt  that  whatever  they  did  for  their  country 
was  above  all  reward,  and  could  not  be  recom- 
pensed ; who  desired  merely  to  promote  the  public 
good,  and  who  chose  rather  to  deserve  well  of  their 
country  than  to  be  enriched  by  its  wealth.  This 
exalted  patriotism,  like  everything  else  connected 
with  politics  in  the  theocratical  state  of  the  He- 
brews, was  partly  of  a religious  character,  and 
those  regents  always  conducted  themselves  as  the 
officers  of  God  ; in  all  their  enterprises  they  relied 
upon  Him,  and  their  only  care  was,  that  their 
countrymen  should  acknowledge  the  authority  of 
Jehovah,  their  invisible  king  (Judg.  viii.  22,  sq. ; 
comp.  Heb.  xi.).  Still  they  were  not  without 
faults,  neither  are  they  so  represented  by  their 
historians;  they  relate,  on  the  contrary,  with  the 
utmost  frankness,  the  great  sins  of  which  some 
of  them  were  guilty.  They  were  not  merely  de- 
liverers of  the  state  from  a foreign  yoke,  but 
destroyers  of  idolatry,  foes  of  pagan  vices,  pro- 
moters of  the  knowledge  of  God,  of  religion,  and 
of  morality ; restorers  of  theocracy  in  the  minds 
of  the  Hebrews,  and  powerful  instruments  of 
Divine  Providence  in  the  promotion  of  the  great 
design  of  preserving  the  Hebrew  constitution, 
and,  by  that  means,  of  rescuing  the  true  religion 
from  destruction.’ 

The  same  writer,  in  the  ensuing  section,  gives  a 
clear  view  of  the  general  condition  of  the  Hebrews 
in  the  time  of  the  judges.  ‘ By  comparing  the 
periods  during  which  the  Hebrews  were  oppressed 
by  their  enemies,  with  those  in  which  they  were 
independent  and  governed  by  their  own  constitu- 
tion, it  is  apparent  that  the  nation  in  general  ex- 
perienced much  more  prosperity  than  adversity  in 
the  time  of  the  judges.  Their  dominion  con- 
tinued four  hundred  and  fifty  years ; but  the  whole 
time  of  foreign  oppression  amounts  only  to  one 
hundred  and  eleven  years,  scarcely  a fourth  part 
of  that  period.  Even  during  these  one  hundred 
and  eleven  years,  the  whole  nation  was  seldom 
under  the  yoke  at  the  same  time,  but  for  the  most 
part  separate  tribes  only  were  held  in  servitude ; 
nor  were  their  oppressions  always  very  severe';  and 
all  the  calamities  terminated  in  the-  advantage 
and  glory  of  the  people,  so  soon  as  they  abolished 
idolatry  and  returned  to  their  King,  Jehovah. 
Neither  was  the  nation  in  such  a state  of  anarchy 
at  this  time  as  had  been  generally  supposed. 
There  were  regular  judicial  tribunals  at  which 
justice  could  be  obtained  ; and  when  there  was 
no  supreme  regent,  the  public  welfare  was  pro- 
vided for  by  the  ordinary  rulers’  (Ruth  iv.  1-11  ; 
Judg.  viii.  22;  x.  17,  IS;  xi.  1-11;  l Sam.  iv. 
1 ; vii.  1-2). 

‘ These  times  would  certainly  not  be  considered 
so  turbulent  and  barbarous,  much  less  would  they 
be  taken,  contrary  to  the  clearest  evidence  and  to 
the  analogy  of  all  history,  for  a heroic  age,  if  they 
were  viewed  without  the  prejudices  of  a precon- 
ceived hypothesis.  It  must  never  be  forgotten  that 
the  book  of  Judges  is  by  no  means  a complete 
history.  This  no  impartial  inquirer  can  ever  deny. 
It  is,  in  a manner,  a mere  register  of  diseases, 
from  which,  however,  we  have  no  right  to  conclude 
that  there  were  no  healthy  men,  much  less  that 
there  were  no  healthy  seasons  ; since  the  book 


itself,  for  the  most  part,  mentions  only  a few  tril<ei 
in  which  the  epidemic  prevailed,  and  notices  long 
periods  during  which  it  had  universally  ceased. 
Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  more  accurate  in- 
vestigation, it  remains  undeniable  that  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Hebrews  during  this  period  perfectly 
corresponds  throughout  to  the  sanctions  of  the  law ; 
and  they  were  always  prosperous  when  they  com- 
plied with  the  conditions  on  which  prosperity  was 
promised  them ; it  remains  undeniable  that  the 
government  of  God  was  clearly  manifested,  not 
only  to  the  Hebrews,  but  to  their  heathen  neigh- 
bours ; that  the  fulfilling  of  the  promises  and 
threatenings  of  the  law  were  so  many  sensible 
proofs  of  the  universal  dominion  of  the  Divine 
King  of  the  Hebrews  ; and,  consequently,  that  all 
the  various  fortunes  of  that  nation  were  so  many 
means  of  preserving  the  knowledge  of  God  on  the 
earth.  The  Hebrews  had  no  sufficient  reason  to 
desire  a change  in  their  constitution;  all  required 
was,  that  they  should  observe  the  conditions  on 
which  national  prosperity  was  promised  them.’ 

The  chronology  of  the  period  in  which  the 
judges  ruled  is  beset  with  great  and  perhaps  in- 
superable difficulties.  There  are  intervals  of  time 
the  extent  of  which  is  not  specified;  as,  for 
instance,  that  from  Joshua’s  death  to  the  yoke  of 
Cushan  Rishathaim  (ii.  8) ; that  of  the  rule  of 
Shamgar  (iii.  31);  that  between  Gideon's  death 
and  Abimelech’s  accession  (viii.  31,  32);  and 
that  of  Israel’s  renewal  of  idolatry  previous  to 
their  oppression  by  the  An.  monites  (x.  6,  7). 
Sometimes  round  numbers  seem  to  have  been 
given,  as  forty  years  for  the  rule  of  Othniel,  forty 
years  for  that  of  Gideon,  and  forty  years  also  for 
the  duration  of  the  oppression  by  the  Philistines. 
Twenty  years  are  given  for  the  subjection  lo 
Jabin,  and  twenty  years  for  the  government,  of 
Samson;  yet  the  latter  never  completely  con- 
quered the  Philistines,  who,  on  tiie  contrary, 
succeeded  in  capturing  him.  Some  judges,  who 
are  commonly  considered  to  hpve  been  successive, 
were  in  all  probability  contemporaneous,  and 
ruled  over  different  districts.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, it  is  impossible  to  fix  the  date  of  each 
particular  event  in  the  book  of  Judges;  but 
attempts  have  been  made  to  settle  its  general 
chronology,  of  which  we  must  in  this  place  men- 
tion the  most  successful. 

The  whole  period  of  the  judges,  from  Joshua  to 
Eli,  is  usually  estimated  at  299  years,  in  order  to 
meet  the  480  years  which  (1  Kings  vi.  1)  are 
said  to  have  elapsed  from  the  departure  of  the 
Israelites  from  Egypt  to  the  foundation  of  the 
temple  by  Solomon.  But  St.  Paul  says  (Acts 
xiii.  20),  ‘God  gave  unto  the  people  of  Israe* 
judges  about  the  space  of  450  years  until  Samuel, 
the  prophet.’  Again,  if  the  number  of  years  spe- 
cified by  the  author  of  our  book,  in  stating  fact9, 
is  summed  up,  we  have  410  years,  exclusive  of 
those  years  not  specified  for  certain  intervals  of 
time  above  mentioned.  In  order  to  reduce  these 
410  years  and  upwards  to  299,  events  and  reigns 
must,  in  computing  their  years  of  duration,  either 
be  entirely  passed  over,  or,  in  a most  arbitrary 
way,  included  in  other  periods  preceding  or  sub 
sequent.  This  has  been  done  by  Archbishop  Usher, 
whose  peculiarly  faulty  system  has  been  adopted 
in  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Scriptures.  He 
excludes  the  repeated  intervals  during  which  the 
Hebrews  were  in  subjection  to  their  enemies,  and 


JUDGES 


JUDGES. 


reckons  on!  y the  years  of  peace  and  rest  which  were 
assigned  to  the  successive  judges.  For  example, 
he  passes  over  the  eight  years  of  servitude  in- 
flicted upon  the  Hebrews  by  Cushan-rishathaim, 
and,  without  any  interruption,  connects  the  peace 
obtained  by  the  victories  of  Othniel  with  that 
which  had  been  conferred  on  the  land  by  the 
government  of  Joshua ; and  although  the  sacred 
historian  relates  in  the  plainest  terms  possible  that 
the  children  of  Israel  served  the  king  of  Mesopo- 
tamia eight  years,  and  were  afterwards  delivered 
by  Othniel,  who  gave  the  land  rest  forty  years, 
the  archbishop  maintains  that  the  forty  years  now 
mentioned  began,  not  after  the  successes  of  this 
judge,  but  immediately  after  the  demise  of  Joshua. 
Nothing  certainly  can  be  more  obvious  than  that 
in  this  case  the  years  of  tranquillity  and  the  years 
of  oppression  ought  to  be  reckoned  separately. 
Again,  we  are  informed  by  the  sacred  writer,  that 
after  the  death  of  Ehud  the  children  of  '■  srael 
were  under  the  oppression  of  Jabin  king  of  Hazor 
for  twenty  years,  and  that  afterwards,  when  their 
deliverance  was  effected  by  Deborah  and  Barak, 
the  land  had  rest  forty  years.  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  this ; yet  Usher’s  system  leads  him 
to  include  the  twenty  years  of  oppression  in  the 
forty  of  peace,  making  both  but  forty  years.  All 
this  arises  from  the  obligation  which  Usher  un- 
fortunately conceived  himself  under  of  following 
the  scheme  adopted  by  the  Masoretic  Jews,  who, 
as  Dr.  Hales  remarks,  have  by  a curious  inven- 
tion included  the  four  first  servitudes  in  the  years 
of  the  judges  who  put  an  end  to  them,  contrary 
to  the  express  declarations  of  Scripture,  which 
represents  the  administrations  of  the  judges,  not  as 
synchronising  with  the  servitudes,  but  as  succeed- 
ing them.  The  Rabbins  were  indeed  forced  to 
allow  the  fifth  servitude  to  have  been  distinct 
from  the  administration  of  Jephthah,  because  it 
was  too  long  to  be  included  in  that  administra- 
tion ; but  they  deducted  a year  from  the  Scrip- 
ture account  of  the  servitude,  making  it  only  six 
instead  of  seven  years.  They  sank  entirely  the 
sixth  servitude  of  forty  years  under  the  Philistines, 
because  it  was  too  long  to  be  contained  in  Sam 
son's  administration ; and,  to  crown  all,  they 
reduced  Saul’s  reign  of  forty  years  to  two  years 
only. 

The  necessity  for  all  these  tortuous  operations 
nas  arisen  from  a desire  to  produce  a conformity 
with  the  date  in  1 Kings  vi.  1,  which,  as  already 
cited,  gives  a period  of  only  480  years  from  the 
Exode  to  the  foundation  of  Solomon’s  temple. 
As  this  date  is  incompatible  with  the  sum  of  the 
different  numbers  given  in  the  book  of  Judges, 
and  as  it  differs  from  the  computation  of  Josephus 
and  of  all  the  ancient  writers  on  the  subject, 
whether  Jewish  or  Christian,  it  is  not  unsatis- 
factory to  find  grounds  which  leave  this  text 
open  to  much  doubt,  and  suspicion.  We  cannot 
here  enter  into  any  lengthened  proof ; but  that 
the  text  did  not  exist  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
copies  of  the  Scripture  till  nearly  three  cen- 
turies after  Christ,  is  evident  from  the  absence 
of  all  reference  to  it  in  the  works  of  the  learned 
men  who  composed  histories  of  the  Jews  from 
the  materials  supplied  to  them  in  the  sacred 
books.  This  may  be  shown  by  reference  to  va- 
rious authors,  who,  if  the  number  specified  in  it 
had  existed,  could  not  fail  to  have  adduced  it. 
L>  particular,  it  is  certain  that  it  did  not  exist  in 

VOL.  XX.  13 


1T7 

the  Hebrew  or  Greek  Bibles  in  the  days  of  Jo- 
sephus ; for  lie  alludes  to  the  verse  in  which  it  is 
contained  without  making  the  slightest  observa- 
tion in  regard  to  it,  although  the  period  which  he, 
at  the  same  time,  states  as  having  elapsed  between 
the  exode  and  the  foundation  of  the  temple,  is 
directly  at  variance  with  it  to  the  extent  of  not 
less  than  112  years  ( Antiq . viii.  3).  If  the  num- 
ber ‘ 480  years’  had  then  existed  in  the  text,  he 
could  not,  while  referring  to  the  passage  where  it 
is  now  inserted,  have  dared  to  state  a number  so 
very  different.  Then  we  have  the  testimony  oi 
St.  Paul  (Acts  xiii.  20),  who  makes  the  rule  ot 
‘ the  judges  until  Samuel’  extend  over  450  years, 
which,  wifh  the  addition  of  ascertained  num 
hers,  raises  the  amount  for  the  whole  period  to 
592  years.  This  evidence  seems  so  conclusive 
that  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  any  other; 
but  it  may  be  mentioned,  that  Origen,  in  his 
Commentary  on  St.  John,  cites  1 Kings  vi.  1, 
and  even  mentions  the  year  of  Solomon's  reign, 
and  the  month  in  which  he  began  to  build  the 
temple,  without  the  slightest  notice  of  the  number 
of  years  (as  now  stated  in  the  text)  which  inter- 
vened between  that  event  and  the  exode.  It  has 
consequently  been  inferred,  with  good  reason,  that 
in  a.d.  230,  when  Origen  wrote,  the  interpolation 
of  the  date  in  question  had  not  yet  taken  place. 
Eusebius,  however,  in  his  Chronicon , written 
about  a.d.  325,  doe3  use  the  date  as  the  basis  of 
a chronological  hypothesis ; whence  it  is  inferred 
that  the  date  was  inserted  about  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century,  and  probably  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Masoretic  doctors  of  Tiberias.  It  is 
also  to  be  remarked  that  Eusebius,  in  the  Prcep. 
Evangelica,  a work  written  some  years  after  the 
Chronicon,  and  in  all  his  other  works,  uses  the 
more  common  and  ancient  system  of  dates. 

It  may  also  be  remarked  that  even  the  ancient 
versions,  as  they  at  present  exist,  do  not  agree  in 
the  number.  The  present  eopies  of  the  Septuagint, 
for  instance,  have  440,  not  480  years  ; on  which 
and  other  grounds  some  scholars,  who  have  hesi- 
tated to  regard  the  text  as  an  interlopation,  have 
deemed  themselves  authorized  to  alter  it  to  592 
years  insteail  of  480,  producing  in  this  way  the 
same  result  which  would  be  obtained  if  the  text 
had  -no  existence.  This,  xc  has  been  already 
remarked, , is  the  number  given  by  Josephus 
(Antiq.  viii.  3.  1),  and  is  in  agreement  with  the 
statement,  of  St.  Paul.  The  computation  of  the 
Jews  in  China  has  also  been  produced  in  support 
of  it  (see  Isaac  Voss,  Dissert,  de  LXX.  Intei'p. 
eorumque  trnnslatione  et  chronologia.  Hagaa 
Comit.  1664.4;  Michaelis,  Orientalische  Bib- 
liothek,  v.  81).  There  would  then  be  for  the 
period  from  Moses's  death  to  Saul’s  accession 
468  years,  and  the  whole  period  of  the  judges 
from  the  death  of  Joshua  to  that,  of  Samuel  might 
be  estimated  at.  450  years,  agreeably  to  Acts  xiii. 
20.  If  we  add  to  these  450  years  forty  years  for 
the  march  in  the  desert,  eighty-four  years  for  the 
reign  of  Saul,  David,  and  Solomon,  until  fho 
fouixdation  of  the  temple,  the  amount  would,  be 
574  years.  For  the  time  when  Joshua  acted  as 
an  independent  chieftain,  eighteen  years  may  be 
counted,  which  added  to  574  would  make  up  the 
above  number  of  592  years  (comp.  Michaelis, 
Orientalische  Bibliothek,  v.  228,  whose  arrange- 
ment of  years  differs  in  some  points  from  the 
above).  It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  tin 


178 


JUDGES. 


JUDGES. 


number  of  450  years  represents  only  tlie  sum 
total  of  all  chronologically  specified  facts  of  our 
book  down  to  the  death  of  Eli,  and  does  not  in- 
clude the  intervals  of  time  of  which  the  years  are 
not  given.  The  statement  of  Josephus  above  re- 
ferred to  rests  only  on  his  own  individual  computa- 
tion, and  is  contrary  to  another  statement  of  the 
same  author  ( Antiq . xx.  10 ; Cont.  Apion.  ii.  2). 

The  latest  attempt  towards  settling  the  chro- 
nology of  the  Judges  is  that,  of  Dr.  Keil,  in 
his  work  D'wptsche  Beitrage  zu  den  Theolo- 
gischen  Wissenschaften,  or,  ‘ Contributions  to- 
wards the  furtherance  of  the  theological  sciences,’ 
by  professors  of  the  university  of  Dorpat.  He 
supports  the  number  of  480  years  in  l Kings 
vi.  1,  and  from  the  invasion  of  Cushan-rishathaim 
to  Jair  (Judg.  iii.-x.)  retains  the  chronological 
statements  of  our  book  for  events  which  he  con- 
siders successive.  But  the  period  of  the  domina- 
tion of  the  Philistines  over  the  (western)  Israelites 
until  the  death  of  Saul,  a space  of  seventy-nine 
years,  he  considers  contemporaneous  with  the  time 
of  oppression  and  deliverance  of  the  eastern  and 


northern  tribes,  for  which  (Judg.  x.  12)  are  reck- 
oned forty  years.  He  next  estimates  the  period 
from  the  distribution  of  the  land  under  Joshua  to 
the  invasion  by  the  king  of  Mesopotamia  at  ten 
years,  and  (he  period  from  the  time  when  the 
Philistines  were  conquered  until  the  death  oi 
Saul  at  thirty-nine  years,  thus  making  up  the 
above  number  of  480  years.  In  this  attempt  at 
settling  the  chronology  of  the  book  of  Judges 
Dr.  Kiel  evinces  great  ingenuity  and  .learning; 
but  it  appears  that  his  computations  rest  on  his- 
torical and  chronological  assumptions  which  can 
never Jje  fully  established.  In  order  satisfactorily 
to  settle  the  chronology  we  lack  sufficient  data, 
and  the  task  has  therefore  been  abandoned  by  the 
ablest  modern  critics,  as  Eichhorn,  De  Wette,  and 
others.  Nothing  beyond  general  views  is  attain- 
able on  this  subject. 

Having  explained  this  matter,  it  only  remains 
to  arrange  the  different  systems  of  the  chronology 
of  this  period  so  as  to  exhibit  them  in  one  view 
to  the  eye  of  the  reader.  It  has  been  deemed 
light,  for  the  better  apprehension  of  the  differences, 


3 

3 

% 

n 

3 

Hales. 

Jackson. 

Russel 

•a. 

4 

p. 

0 

a> 

£ 

8 

3 

w 

Usher. 

Yrs. 

B.C. 

Years. 

H.C. 

Yrs. 

Yrs. 

Yrs. 

Years. 

Years. 

DO. 

Exode  to  death  of  Moses  . 

40 

1648 

40 

1593 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

1491 

Joshua  (and  the)  ...  1 

Elders  ......  / 

26 

1608  j 

• • 

25 

25 

27 

27 

»'• 

1451 

First  Division  of  Lands  . 

# # 

1602  > 

27 

1553 

Second  Division  of  Lands 

* * 

1596 

6 4 m. 

1444 

Anarchy  or  Interregnum  . 

10 

1582) 

. . 

. . 

2 

1413 

I.  Servitude,  Mesopotam.  . 

8 

1572 

8 

1526 

8 

18 

8 

8! 

40 

1.  Othniel 

40 

1561 

40 

1518 

40 

40 

40 

40  } 

1105 

11.  Servitude,  Moabit.  , . 

18 

1524 

18 

1478 

. . 

# , 

18 

18 

] 

1343 

2.  Ehud  (and)  ...  1 

80 

1506 

80 

1460 

80 

(80 
1 1 

80 

1 

80 

> 80 

1323 

3.  Shamgar  . . . . J 

omitted. 

J 

III.  Servitude,  Canaanit.  . 

20 

1426 

20 

1380 

20 

20 

20 

20  ) 

40 

1285 

4.  Deborah  and  Barak  , 

40 

1406 

40 

1360 

40 

40 

40 

40  j 

1265 

IV.  Servitude,  Midian. 

7 

1368 

7 

1320 

7 

7 

7 

7l 

40 

1252 

5.  Gideon 

40 

1359 

40 

1313 

40 

40 

40 

40  / 

1245 

0.  Abimelech  ..... 

3 

1319 

3 

1273 

3 

3 

3 

3 

9 2 m. 

1236 

7.  Tola 

23 

1316 

22 

1270 

22 

22 

22 

23  ) 

48 

1232 

8.  Jair 

22 

1293 

22 

1248 

22 

22 

22 

22  / 

1210 

V.  Servitude,  Ammon.  . 

18 

1271 

18 

1226 

IS 

18 

18 

18  l 

0 

1206 

9.  Jephthah 

6 

1253 

6 

1208 

6 

6 

6 

61 

U 

1188 

10.  Ibzan  

7 

1247 

7 

1202 

7 

7 

7 

7 ) 

1182 

11.  Elon 

10 

1240 

10 

1195 

10 1 

10 

10 

10  1 

25 

1175 

1 2.  Abdon 

8 

1230 

8 

1185 

8j 

8 

8 j 

1165 

VI.  Servitude,  Philist.  20  1 
•13.  Samson  . . . 20  J 

40 

1222 

40 

1177 

40 

40 

20 

40 

20 

40  1 
20  1 

40 

Interregnum 

40 

f 

14.  Eli 30) 

Samuel  called  as  a prophet  10  J 

40 

1182 

20* 

1137 

20  f 

40 

20 

40  J 

1157 

VII.  Servitude  or  Anarchy 

20 

1142 

20 

1117 

204 

15.  Samuel  ..... 

12 

1122 

20 

1097 

12 

12 

, , 

, , 

21 

1116 

Samuel  and  Saul  . . 18  ) 

40 

1110 

J •' 

, . 

40 

18 

Saul 22  J 

1 20 

1077 

2 

20 

40 

40 

1095 

David 

40 

1070 

40 

1057 

40 

40 

40 

40  ) 

43 

1055 

Solomon  to  Found,  of  the  Temple 

3 

1030 

3 

1017 

3 

3 

3 

3/ 

1014 

Exode  to  F.  of  Temple  . . 

621 

1027 

579 

1014 

5914 

592 

612 

600 

4781 

1012 

* Samson  and  Eli  are  supposed  to  have  been  f Besides  the  20  years  under  the  sixth  servi- 
Judges  simultaneously  during  20  years  of  this  tude. 


JUDGES,  BOOK  OF. 

to  make  the  table  embrace  the  whole  period  from 
the  exode  to  the  building  of  Solomon’s  temple. 
The  headings  are  taken  from  Hales,  simply  be- 
cause, from  being  the  most  copious,  they  afford 
a framework  within  which  all  the  explanations 
may  be  inserted. 

The  authorities  for  this  table  are  : Josephus, 
Antiquities,  v.  1*10  ; Theophilus,  Bp.  of  Antioch 
(a.d.  330),  Epist.  ad  Autolycum , iii. ; Euse- 
bius (a.d.  330),  Prceparatio  Evangelica,  x.  14  ; 
Usher  (1650),  Chronologia  Sacra,  p.  71 ; Jackson, 
(1752),  Chronological  Antiquities , p.  145;  Hales, 
(1811),  Analysis  of  Chronology , i.  101 ; Russell 
(1827),  Connection  of  Sacred  and  Profane  His- 
tory, i.  147.  In  the  last  work  the  full  tables, 
with  others,  are  given ; and  we  have  here  com- 
bined them  for  the  sake  of  comparison.  Other 
authorities  on  the  subject  of  this  article  are  : 
Herzfeld,  Chronologia  Judicum,  Berol.  1836; 
Moldenhauer,  Gedanken  iiber  die  Zeitrechnung 
im  Buch  der  Richter,  p.  15,  sq. ; Ditmar,  Ge- 
schichte  der  Israelitcn,  p.  91  ; Hug,  in  the 
Freiburger  Zeitschrift,  i.  p.  129,  sq. ; Carpzov, 
Introduct.  V.  T.,  i.  169;  Simon,  Hist.  Crit.  de 
V.  Test.’,  Jahn,  Bibl.  Archaolog.,  ii.  1.  85;  De 
Wette,  Lehrbuch,  p.  30. 

JUDGES,  BOOK  OF,  the  third  in  the  list  of 
the  historical  compositions  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  consists  of  two  divisions,  the  first  comprising 
chaps,  i-xvii. ; the  second,  being  an  appendix, 
chaps,  xvii.-xxi. 

I.  Pi.an  ok  the  Book. — That  the  author,  in 
composing  this  work,  had  a certain  design  in  view, 
is  evident  from  ch.  ii.  11-23,  where  he  states  the 
leading  features  of  his  narrative.  He  introduces 
it  by  relating  (ch.  i.)  the  extent  to  which  the  wars 
against  the  Canaanites  were  continued  after  the 
death  of  Joshua,  and  what  tribes  had  spared  them 
in  consideration  of  a tribute  imposed ; also  by  al- 
luding (ch.  ii.  1-10)  to  the  benefits  which  Jehovah 
had  conferred  on  them,  and  the  distinguished  pro- 
tection with  which  he  had  honoured  them.  Next 
he  states  his  leading  object,  namely,  to  prove  that 
the  calamities  to  which  the  Hebrews  had  been 
exposed  since  the  death  of  Joshua  were  owing  to 
their  apostacy  from  Jehovah,  and  to  their  idolatry. 
‘ They  forsook  the  Lord,  and  served  Baal  and 
Ashtaroth’  (ch.  ii.  13) ; for  which  crimes  they  were 
deservedly  punished  and  greatly  distressed  (ch.  ii. 
15).  N evertheless,  when  they  repented  and  obeyed 
again  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  he  delivered 
them  out  of  the  hand  of  their  enemies  by  the 
Shophetim  whom  he  raised  up,  and  made  them 
prosper  (ch.  ii.  16*23).  To  illustrate  this  theme, 
the  author  collected  several  fragments  of  the 
Hebrew  history  during  the  period  between  Joshua 
and  Eli.  Some  episodes  occur ; but  in  arguing  his 
subject  he  never  loses  sight  of  his  leading  theme,  to 
which,  on  the  contrary,  he  frequently  recurs  while 
stating  facts,  and  shows  how  it  applied  to  them  ; 
the  moral  evidently  being,  that  the  only  way  to 
happiness  was  to  shun  idolatry  and  obey  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord.  The  design  of  the  author 
was  not  to  give  a connected  and  complete  history 
of  the  Hebrews  in  the  period  between  Joshua  and 
the  kings ; for  if  he  had  intended  a plan  of  that 
kind,  he  would  also  have  described  the  state  of 
the  domestic  affairs  and  of  the  government  in  the 
•everal  tribes,  the  relation  in  which  they  stood  to 
each  other,  and  the  extent  of  power  exercised  by 
% judge ; he  would  have  further  staled  the  num* 


JUDGES,  BOOK  OF.  179 

her  of  tribes  over  whom  a judge  ruled,  and  the 
number  of  years  during  which  the  tribes  were  not 
oppressed  by  their  heathen  neighbours,  but  enjoyed 
rest  and  peace.  The  appendix,  containing  two 
narratives,  further  illustrates  the  lawlessness  and 
anarchy  prevailing  in  Israel  after  Joshua’s  death. 
In  the  first  narrative  (chaps,  xvii.-xviii.),  a rather 
wealthy  man,  Micah,  dwelling  in  Mount  Ephraim, 
is  introduced.  He  had  * a house  of  gods,’  and 
molten  and  graven  images  in  it,  which  he  wor- 
shipped. After  having,  at  an  annual  salary, 
engaged  an  itinerant  Levite  to  act  as  his  priest  and 
to  settle  in  his  family,  the  Danites,  not  having  as 
yet  an  inheritance  to  dwell  in,  turn  in  thither, 
seize  the  images,  and  take  the  priest  along  with 
them.  They  then  establish  idolatry  at  Leshem, 
or  Laish,  in  Coele-Syria,  which  they  conquered, 
smiting  the  quiet  and  secure  inhabitants  with  the 
edge  of  the  sword.  The  second  narrative  (chaps, 
xix.-xxi.)  first  gives  an  account  of  the  brutal  and 
criminal  outrage  committed  by  the  Benjamitos  of 
Sibeah  against  the  family  of  a Levite  dwelling,  in 
the  age  immediately  subsequent  to  Joshua’s  death, 
on  the  side  of  Mount  Ephraim  ; and  next  relates 
its  consequence,  a bloody  civil  war,  in  which  all 
the  tribes  joined  against  the  tribe  of  Benjamin 
and  nearly  destroyed  it.  The  appendix  then  does 
not  continue  the  history  of  the  first  sixteen  chap- 
ters, and  may  have  an  author  different  from  him 
who  composed  the  first  division  of  the  book,  to 
which  inquiry  we  now  turn. 

II.  Author. — If  the  first  and  second  divisions 
had  been  by  the  same  author,  the  chronological 
indications  would  also  have  been  the  same.  Now 
the  author  of  the  second  division  always  describes 
the  period  of  which  he  speaks  thus  : ‘ In  those  days 
there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  but  every  man  did 
that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes’  (ch.  xvii.  6 : 
xviii.  1 ; xix.  1 ; xxi.  25) ; but  this  expression  never 
once  occurs  in  the  first  division.  If  one  author  had 
composed  both  divisions,  instead  of  this  chrono- 
logical formula,  we  should  rather  have  expected, 
‘ In  the  days  of  the  Shophetim,’  ‘ At  a time  when 
there  was  no  Shophet,’  &c.,  which  would  be  con- 
sonant with  the  tenor  of  the  first  sixteen  chapters. 
The  style  also  in  the  two  divisions  is  different, 
and  it  will  be  shown  that  the  appendix  was  writ- 
ten much  later  than  the  first  part.  All  modem 
critics,  then,  agree  in  this,  that  the  author  of  the 
first  sixteen  chapters  of  our  book  is  different  from 
him  who  composed  the  appendix  (see  L.  Bertholdt, 
Historisch-Kritiscke  Einleitung  in  die  sdmmt- 
lichen  Schriften  des  A.  und  N.  T.,  p.  876  ; 
Eichhorn’s  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.,  iii.  § 457). 
The  authorship  of  the  first  sixteen  chapters  has 
been  assigned  to  Joshua,  Samuel,  and  Ezra. 
That  they  were  not  written  by  Joshua  appears 
from  the  difference  of  the  method  of  relating  sub- 
jects, as  well  as  from  the  difference  of  the  style. 
In  the  book  of  Joshua  there  is  a continual  refer- 
ence to  the  law  of  Moses,  which  is  much  less  fre- 
quent in  the  book  of  Judges ; and  in  Joshua,  again, 
there  are  no  such  inferences  from  history  as  are 
common  in  Judges  (ch.  iii.  1,4;  viii.  27 ; ix.  56). 
The  style  of  the  book  of  Joshua  is  neater  than  that 
of  Judges ; the  narration  is  more  clear,  and  the 
arrangement  is  better  (comp.  ch.  i.  10, 1 1, 20,  with 
Josh.  xiv.  6-15,  and  xv.  13-19  ; also  ch.  ii.  7-10, 
with  Josh.  xxiv.  29-31).  That  the  book  of  Judges 
was  composed  by  Samuel  is  an  invention  of  the 
Talmudists,  unsupported  by  any  evidence ; not 


180  JUDGES,  BOOK  OF. 

will  the  opinion  that  it  was  written  by  Ezra  be  en- 
tertained by  any  who  attentively  peruses  the  origi- 
nal. For  it  has  a phraseology  of  its  own,  and  cer- 
tain favourite  ideas,  to  which  it  constantly  reverts, 
but  of  which  there  is  not  a trace  in  Ezra.  If  Ezra 
had  intended  to  continue  the  history  of  the  Hebrews 
from  Joshua  down  to  Eli  in  a sejxirate  work,  he 
would  not  have  given  a selection  of  incidents  to 
prove  a particular  theme,  but  a complete  history. 
The  orthography  of  the  book  of  Ezra,  with  many 
phrases  characteristic  of  his  age,  do  not  appear  in 
the  book  of  Judges.  The  prefix  6?  occurs,  indeed 
(ch.  v.  7 ; vi.  17  ; vii.  12 ; viii.  26)  ; but  this  cannot 
be  referred  to  in  proof  that  the  language  i3  of  the 
time  of  Ezra,  for  it  belonged  to  the  dialect  of  North 
Palestine,  as  Ewald  and  others  have  proved.  HD, 
instead  of  is  found  also  in  Deut.  xxiii.  3. 

Forms  like  ver.  14, and  HD',  ver.  2S,  j*HD, 

ver.10,  nUJ7,  ver.  .11,  resemble  Chaldaisms,  but  may 
l>e  accounted  for  by  the  poetical  style  of  the  song  of 
Deborah.  The  forms  'J1K  (ch.  xvii.  2),  and 
(ch.  xix.  1),  belonging  to  a late  age  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  may  be  considered  as  changes  intro- 
duced by  copyists  (see  Ottmar,  in  Henke  s Ma~ 
gazin , vol.  iv. ; W.  M.  L.  de  Wette,  Lehrbuch 
der  Einleitung  in  die  Bibel,  Berlin,  1833-39, 
2 vols.  8vo.). 

But  though  we  cannot  determine  the  author- 
ship of  the  book  of  Judges,  still  its  age  may 
be  determined  from  internal  evidence.  The  first 
sixteen  chapters  must  have  been  written  under 
Saul,  whom  the  Israelites  made  their  king  in  the 
hope  of  improving  their  condition.  Phrases  used 
in  the  period  of  the  Judges  may  be  traced  in  them, 
and  the  author  must  consequently  have  lived 
near  the  time  when  they  were  yet  current.  He 
says  that  in  his  time  4 the  Jebusites  dwelt  with  the 
children  of  Benjamin  in  Jerusalem  ’ (ch.  i.  21)  : 
now  this  was  the  case  only  before  David,  who 
conquered  the  town  and  drove  out  the  Jebusite3. 
Consequently,  the  author  of  the  first  division  of 
the  book  of  Judges  must  have  lived  and  written 
before  David,  and  under  king  Saul.  If  he  had  lived 
under  David,  he  would  have  mentioned  the  cap- 
ture of  Jerusalem  by  that  monarch,  as  the  nature 
of  his  subject  did  not  allow  him  to  pass  it  over  in 
silence.  The  omission,  moreover,  of  the  history, 
not  only  of  Samuel  but  also  of  Eli,  indicates  an 
author  who,  living  in  an  age  very  near  that  of  Eli, 
considered  his  history  as  generally  known,  because 
so  recent.  The  exact  time  when  the  appendix  was 
added  to  the  book  of  Judges  cannot  indeed  be 
determined,  but  its  author  certainly  lived  in  an 
age  much  later  than  that  of  the  recorded  events. 
In  his  time  the  period  of  the  events  which  he 
relates  had  been  long  forgotten:  which  may 
be  inferred  from  the  frequent  chronological  for- 
mula, 4 in  those  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel  ’ 
(ch.  xvii.  6) ; and  certain  particulars  of  his 
narrative  could  no  longer  be  ascertained,  which 
caused  him  to  omit  the  name  of  the  Levite 
whose  history  is  given  in  ch.  xix.  In  his  time 
also  the  house  of  God  was  no  longer  in  Shiloh 
(ch.  xviii.  31);  and  it  will  be  recollected  that 
it  was  David  who  brought  the  ark  to  Jerusalem. 
The  author  knew  also  that  the  posterity  of  Jona- 
than were  priests  of  the  graven  image  in  Dan,  or 
Laish,  4 until  the  day  of  the  captivity  of  the  land  ’ 

pNH  nta  DP  Ttf  (ch.  xviii.  30>  This 
latter  circumstance  proves,  as  already  observed 


JUDGES,  BOOK  OF. 

by  Le  Clerc  and  others,  that  the  appendix  wet 
not  published  until  after  the  Babylonian  cap* 
tivity,  or  at  least  until  after  that  of  Israel  by 
Shalmaneser  and  Esar-haddon.  It  cannot  be  un- 
derstood of  the  domination  of  the  Philistines  over 
the  Israelites,  which  would  very  improperly  be 

called  f‘"lNn  JYl^U,  this  expression  always  im- 
plying the  deportation  of  the  inhabitants  of  a 
country.  The  circumstance  that  the  quthor,  in 
mentioning  Shiloh,  adds,  4 which  is  ‘in  the  land 
of  Canaan  ’ (ch.  xxi.  12),  and  that  the  topogra- 
phical description  of  the  site  of  Shiloh  is  given 
(ch.  xxi.  19),  has  led  some  interpreters  to  assert 
that  the  author  of  the  appendix  must  have  been 
a foreigner,  as  to  an  Israelite  such  remarks  would 
have  appeared  trivial  (see  Briefe  einiger  Hoi' 
lundischen  Gottesgelehrten  uber  It.  Simon’s 
kritische  Geschichte  des  A.  T.,  edited  by  Le 
Clerc  at  Zurich,  p.  490).  The  inference  is  cer- 
tainly specious,  but  to  judge  of  it  duly  we  must 
look  at  the  context.  The  first  passage  runs  thus : 
4 And  they  fouftd  among  the  inhabitants  ot 
Jabesh-gilead  four  hundred  young  virgins  that 
had  known  no  man,  and  they  brought  them  unto 
the  camp  to  Shiloh , which  is  in  the  land  of 
Canaan .’  The  second  passage  is  : 4 There  is  a 
feast  of  the  Lord  in  Shiloh  yearly,  in  a place 
which  is  on  the  north  side  of  Bethel,  on  the  east 
side  of  the  highway  that  goes  up  from  Bethel  to 
Shechem,  and  on  the  south  of  Lebonah.’  It  ap- 
pears that  in  the  first  passage  Shiloh  is  opposed  to 
Jabesh  in  Gilead,  a town  without  the  land  of 
Canaan,  and  that  this  led  the  author  to  add  to 
Shiloh  that  it  was  in  Canaan.  The  second 
passage  describes  not  the  site  of  Shiloh,  but  of  a 
place  in  its  neighbourhood,  where  an  annual 
feast  was  celebrated,  when  the  daughters  of  Shiloh 
came  out  to  dance,  to  sing,  and  to  play  on  in- 
struments of  music.  The  author  thus  enabled 
his  readers,  and  all  those  who  had  never  been  at 
Shiloh,  to  form  a distinct  idea  of  the  festival,  and 
to  find  its  scene  without  the  employment  of  a 
guide ; his  topographical  observation  was  cal- 
culated to  raise  the  interest  of  his  narrative,  and 
was  consequently  very  proper  and  judicious.  It 
cannot,  there  ore,  authorize  us  to  infer  that  he  was 
a foreigner. 

III.  Character  or  the  Book. — Parts  of  the 
work  are  undoubtedly  taken  from  ancient  records 
and  genealogies,  others  from  traditions  and  oral 
information.  From  ancient  authentic  documents 
are  probably  copied  the  song  of  Deborah  (ch.  v.), 
the  beautiful  parable  of  Jotham  (ch.  ix.  8-15),  and 
the  beginning  of  Samson’s  epinician,  or  triumphal 
poem  (ch.  xv.  16).  In  their  genealogies  the 
Hebrews  usually  inserted  also  some  historical 
accounts,  and  from  this  source  may  have  been 
derived  the  narrative  of  the  circumstances  that 
preceded  the  conception  of  Samson,  which  were 
given  as  the  parents  related  them  to  others  (ch. 
xiii.).  These  genealogies  were  sometimes  further 
illustrated  by  tradition,  and  several  incidents  in 
the  history  of  Samson  appear  to  have  been  derived 
from  this  kind  of  information.  But  on  many 
points  tradition  offered  nothing,  or  the  author 
rejected  its  information  as  not  genuine,  and  un- 
worthy of  belief.  Thus  it  is  that  of  Tola,  Jair, 
Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon,  the  author  gives  only  the 
number  of  years  tl  tat  they  governed  and  the 
number  of  their  chile  ren,  but  relates  none  of  thew 


JUDGES,  BOOK  OF. 

transactions  (ch.  x.  1-5 ; xii.  8,  9, 11, 13).  In  some 
insi  ances  the  very  words  of  the  ancient  documents 
which  the  author  used  seem  to  have  been  pre- 
served; and  this  proves  the  care  with  which  he 
composed.  Thus  in  the  first  division  of  our 
book,  but  nowhere  else,  rich  and  powerful  men 
are  described  as  men  riding  on  ass-colts 

(ch.  x.  4 ; xii.  14,  &c.).  It  is  remark- 
able that  this  phrase  occurs  also  in  the  song  of 
Deborah,  which  is  supposed  to  have  been  written 
out  in  her  time  (ch.  v.  9,  10):  ‘My  heart  is 
towards  the  governors  of  Israel,  that  offered  them- 
selves willingly  among  the  people.  Speak  ye 
that  ride  on  white  asses , ye  that  sit  in  judgment.’ 
In  the  appendix  also  of  this  book,  but  nowhere 
else,  a priest  has  the  honorary  title  of  father  given 
him  (ch.  xvii.  10;  xviii.  19).  But  though  the 
author  sometimes  retained  the  words  of  his  sources, 
still  the  whole  of  the  composition  is  written  in  a 
particular  style,  distinguishing  it  from  all  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  idea  of  the 
Israelites  being  overcome  by  their  enemies,  he 
expresses  often  in  this  way  : ‘ The  anger  of  the 
Lord  was  hot  against  Israel,  and  he  sold  them 
into  the  hands  of  their  enemies,’  Din'  P]K  TITI 

pn'3'iK  Tn  d-wi  (ch.  ii.  ].4;  iii.  8; 

iv.  2 ; x.  7).  A courageous  and  valiant  warrior 
is  described  as  a person  upon  whom  rests  the 

spirit  of  Jehovah,  mil'  ITH  TUT),  or  as  a 
person  whom  the  spirit  of  Jehovah  clothed,  iTH 

pjna  na  mrp  (ch.  vi.  34 ; ix.  29;  xiv. 

6,  19 ; xv.  14,  &c.). 

IV.  Authority  of  the  Book. — It  was  pub- 
lished at  a time  when  the  events  related  were 
generally  known,  and  when  the  veiacity  of  the 
author  could  be  ascertained  by  a reference  to  the 
original  documents.  Several  of  its  narratives  are 
confirmed  by  the  books  of  Samuel  (comp.  Judg. 
iv.  2;  vi.  14  ; xi.,  with  1 Sam.  xii.  9-12  : Judg. 
ix.  53  with  2 Sam.  xi.  21).  The  Psalms  not 
only  allude  to  the  book  of  Judges  (comp.  Ps. 
Ixxxiii.  11,  with  Judg.  vii.  25),  but  copy  from  it 
entire  verses  (comp.  Ps.  lxviii.  8,  9 ; xcvii.  5 ; 
with  Judg.  v.  4,  5).  Philo  and  Josephus  knew 
the  book,  and  made  use  of  it  in  their  own 
compositions.  The  New  Testament  alludes  to 
it  in  several  places  (comp.  Matt.  ii.  13-23 
with  Judg.  xiii.  5;  xvi.  17;  Acts  xiii.  20; 
Heb.  xi.  32).  This  external  evidence  in  support 
of  the  authority  of  the  book  of  Judges  is  corro- 
borated by  many  internal  proofs  of  its  authen- 
ticity. All  its  narratives  are  in  character  with 
the  age  to  which  they  belong,  and  agree  with  the 
natural  order  of  things.  We  find  here  that  shortly 
after  the  death  of  Joshua  the  Hebrew  nation  had, 
by  several  victories,  gained  courage  and  become 
valorous  (ch.  i.  and  xix.)  ; but  that  it  afterwards 
turned  to  agriculture,  preferred  a quiet  life,  and 
allowed  the  Canaanites  to  reside  in  its  territory 
vn  consideration  of  a tribi  ite  imposed  on  them, 
when  he  original  plan  was  that  they  should  be 
expelled.  This  changed  their  character  entirely  : 
they  became  effeminate  and  indolent — a result 
which  we  find  in  the  case  of  all  nations  who, 
from  a nomadic  and  warlike  life,  turn  to  agri- 
culture. The  intercourse  with  their  heathen 
neighbours  frequently  led  the  uncultivated  He- 
brews to  idolatry ; and  this,  again,  further  pre- 
pared tbem  for  servitude.  They  were  conse- 


JUDGF.S,  BOOK  OF.  18! 

quently  overpowered  and  oppressed  by  their 
heathen  neighbours.  The  first  subjugation,  in- 
deed, by  a king  of  Mesopotamia,  they  endured 
but  eight  years  ; but  the  second,  more  severe,  by 
Eglon,  lasted  longer : it  was  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  public  spirit  having  gradually 
more  and  more  declined,  arid  of  Eglon  having 
removed  his  residence  to  Jericho  with  a view  of 
closely  watching  all  their  movements  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  v.  5).  When  Ehud  sounded  the  trumpet 
of  revolt,  the  whole  nation  no  longer  rose  in  amis, 
but  only  the  inhabitants  of  Mount  Ephraim  (ch. 
iii.  27)  ; and  when  Barak  called  to  arms  against 
Sisera,  many  tribes  remained  quietly  with  their 
herds  (ch.  v.  14,  15,  26,  28).  Of  the  30,000  mer 
who  offered  to  follow  Gideon,  he  could  make  use 
of  no  move  than  300,  this  small  number  only 
being,  as  it  would  seem,  filled  with  true  patriotism 
and  courage.  Thus  the  people  had  sunk  gradually, 
and  deserved  for  forty  years  to  bear  the  yoke  of  (lie 
Philistines,  to  whom  they  had  the  meanness  to 
deliver  Samson,  who,  however,  loosed  the  cords 
with  which  he  was  tied,  and  killed  a large  number 
of  them  (ch.  xv.).  It  is  impossible  to  consider 
such  an  historical  work,  which  perfectly  agrees 
with  the  natural  course  of  things,  as  a fiction  : at 
that  early  period  of  authorship,  no  writer  could 
have,  from  fancy,  depicted  the  character  of  the 
Hebrews  so  conformably  with  nature  and  esta- 
blished facts.  All  in  this  book  breathes  the  spirit  of 
the  ancient  world.  Martial  law  we  rind  in  it,  as 
could  not  but  be  expected,  hard  and  wild.  The 
conquered  people  are  subjected  to  rough  treat- 
ment, as  is  the  case  in  the  wars  of  all  uncivilized 
people;  the  inhabitants  of  cities  are  destroyed 
wholesale  (ch.  viii.  16,  17 ; xx.).  Hospitality 
and  the  protection  of  strangers  received  as  guests 
is  considered  the  highest  virtue  : a father  will 
rather  resign  his  daughter  than  allow  violence  to 
be  done  to  a stranger  who  stops  in  his  house  for 
the  night  (ch.  xix. ; comp.  Gen.  xix.). 

In  the  state  of  oppression  in  which  the  Hebrews 
often  found  themselves  during  the  period  from 
Joshua  to  Eli,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  men, 
filled  with  heroism,  should  now  and  then  rise  up 
and  call  the  people  to  arms  in  order  to  deliver 
them  from  their  enemies.  Such  valiant  men  are 
introduced  by  our  author,  and  he  extols  them, 
indeed,  highly  ; but  on  the  other  hand  he  is  not 
silent  respecting  their  faults,  as  may  be  seen  in 
the  instances  of  Ehud,  whom  he  reports  to  have 
murdered  a king  to  recover  liberty  for  his  country 
(ch.  iii.  16,  sq.) ; of  Gideon,  who  is  recorded  to 
have  punished  the  inhabitants  of  Succoth  and 
Penuel  cruelly,  for  having  refused  bread  to  his 
weary  troops  (ch.  viii.  16,  17)  ; and  of  Jephthah, 
who  vows  a vow  that  if  he  sliould  return  home 
as  a conqueror  of  the  Ammonites,  he  would  offer 
as  a burnt-offering  whatever  should  first  come  out 
of  the  door  of  his  house  to  meet  him  : in  conse- 
quence of  this  inconsiderate  vow,  his  only  daughter 
is  sacrificed  by  a savage  father,  who  thus  become* 
a gross  offender  against  the  Mosaic  law,  which 
expressly  forbids  human  immolations  (ch.  xi.  34), 
This  cannot  be  a fiction ; it  is  no  panegyric  on 
Israel  to  describe  them  in  the  manner  the  author 
has  done.  And  this  frank,  impartial  tone  pervades 
the  whole  work.  It  begins  with  displaying  the 
Israelites  as  a refractory  and  obstinate  people, 
and  the  appendix  ends  with  the  statement  of  a 
crime  committed  by  the  Benjamites,  which  had  the 


192 


JUDGMENT-HALL. 


JUDGES,  BOOK  OF. 

most  disastrous  consequences.  At  the  same  time 
due  praise  is  bestowed  on  acts  of  generosity  and 
j istice,  and  valiant  feats  are  carefully  recorded. 

But  are  not  the  exploits  of  its  heroes  exag- 
gerated in  our  book,  like  those  of  Sesostris,  Semi- 
ramis,  and  Hercules  ? Their  deeds  are,  no  doubt, 
often  splendid ; but  they  do  not  surpass  belief, 
provided  we  do  not  add  to  the  narrative  anything 
which  the  original  text  does  not  sanction,  nor  give 
to  particular  words  and  phrases  a meaning  which 
does  not  belong  to  them.  Thus,  when  we  read 
that  ‘ Shamgar  sleic  of  the  Philistines  600  men’ 
(ch.  iii.  31),  it  would  have  been  more  correct  if 
the  Hebrew  had  been  rendered  by  ‘put  to 
flight;’  and  it  should  be  further  recollected,  that 
Shamgar  is  not  stated  to  have  been  alone  and 
unassisted  in  repelling  the  enemy : he  did  it,  no 
doubt,  supported  by  those  brave  men  whose 
leader  he  was.  It  frequently  happens  that  to 
the  leader  is  attributed  what  has  been  performed 
by  his  followers.  We  find  (1  Sam.  xiii.  3)  that 
Jonathan  repulsed  the  Philistines,  and  no  one 
doubts  that  it  wa3  done  by  the  1000  men  men- 
tioned in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter.  We  read 
also  (1  Sam.  xviii.  7)  that  ‘Saul  has  slain  his 
thousands,  and  David  his  ten  thousands,’  but  of 
course  with  the  assistance  of  troops ; and  many 
more  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  are  to  be  in- 
terpreted on  the  same  principle,  as  1 Sam.  xviii. 
27  ; 2 Sam.  viii.  2.  Nor  can  it  offend  when,  in 
the  passage  quoted  above,  it  is  said  that  Shamgar 
repelled  the  Philistines  with  an  ox-goad  ; for  this 
was  exactly  the  weapon  which  an  uncultivated 
Oriental  warrior,  who  had  been  brought  up  to 
husbandry,  would  choose  in  preference  to  other 
instruments  of  olTence.  From  the  description 
which  travellers  give  of  it,  it  appears  to  have  been 
well  suited  to  such  a purpose  [Agriculture]. 
It  is,  however,  chiefly  the  prodigious  strength  of 
Samson  which  to  very  many  readers  seems  exag- 
gerated, and  surpassing  all  belief.  He  is,  e.  g.y 
reported  to  have,  unarmed,  slain  a lion.  ( ch. 
xiv.  5,  6) ; to  have  caught  300  jackals  (D  vJ71K>), 
l>ound  their  tails  to  one  another,  put  a firebrand 
between  two  tails,  and  let  them  go  into  the  stand- 
ing com  of  the  Philistines,  which  was  thus  burnt 
up  (ch.  xv.  4,  5,  8)  ; to  have  broken,  with  perfect 
ease,  the  new  cords  with  which  his  arms  were 
bound,  &c.  (ch.  xv.  14  ; xvi.  7-9,  1 1).  Now,  there 
is  in  these  and  other  recorded  feats  of  Samson  no- 
thing which  ought  to  create  difficulty,  for  history 
affords  many  instances  of  men  of  extraordinary 
strength,  of  whom  Goliath  among  the  Philistines 
is  not  the  least  remarkable  ; and  for  others  we  re- 
f“r  to  T.  Ludolf,  Historia  JEthiopiee,  i.  10  ; to  the 
Acta  Dei  per  Francos , i.  75,  314;  and  to  Schil- 
linger,  Missionsbericht , iv.  79.  Lions  were  also 
slain  by  other  persons  unarmed,  as  by  David 
(1  Sam.  xvii.  36)  and  Benaiah  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
20).  The  explanation  of  Samson’s  other  great 
exploits  will  be  found  under  his  name  [Samson]. 
It  will  be  easy  to  show  that,  when  properly  under- 
stood, they  do  not  necessarily  exceed  the  limits  of 
human  power.  Extraordinary  indeed  they  were ; 
but  they  are  not  alleged  by  the  Scripture  itself  to 
have  been  supernatural.  Those,  however,  who  do 
hold  them  to  have  been  supernatural  cannot  reason- 
ably take  exception  to  them  on  the  ground  of  their 
extraordinary  character.  A cautious  reader  may, 
perhaps,  resolve  on  abstaining  entirely  from  giving 
his  views  of  Samson’s  feats ; but,  at  all  events, 


he  will  not  presume  to  say  that  they  exceed 
human  power,  and  are  fabulous.  He  may  say 
that  they  do  not  necessarily  exceed  human  power, 
and  are  therefore  neither  supernatural  on  the  one 
hand,  nor  fabulous  on  the  other;  or  if  he  believes 
them  above  human  power,  he  must  admit  that 
they  are  supernatural,  and  will  have  no  right  to 
conclude  that  they  are  fabulous.  Considering 
the  very  remote  period  at  which  our  book  was 
written — considering  also  the  manner  of  viewing 
and  describing  events  and  persons  which  pre- 
vailed with  the  ancient  Hebrews,  and  which  very 
much  differs  from  that  of  our  age — taking,  more- 
over, into  account  the  brevity  of  the  narratives, 
which  consist  of  historical  fragments,  we  may 
well  wonder  that  there  do  not  occur  in  it  more 
difficulties,  and  that  not  more  doubts  have  been 
raised  as  to  its  historical  authority  (see  Herder, 
Geist  der  Ilebriiischen  Poesie,  ii.  250,  59;  Eich- 
horn,  Repertorium  der  Biblischen  und  Morgen - 
liindischen  Litteratur , vii.  78). — J.  v.  H. 

JUDGMENT- HALL.  llpatTcopiov  occurs 
Matt,  xxvii.  27  ; Mark  xv.  16 ; John  xviii.  28, 
33;  xix.  9;  Acts  xxiii.  35;  Phil.  i.  13;  in  all 
which  places  the  Vulgate  has  prcetorhim.  The 
English  version,  however,  uses  prsetorium  but 
once  only,  and  then  unavoidably,  Mark  xv.  16, 
‘ The  hall  called  Praetorium.’  In  all  the  other 
instances  it  gives  an  explanation  of  the  word 
rather  than  a translation : thus,  Matt,  xxvii.  27, 
‘ the  common-hall ;’  margin,  ‘ or  governor’s  house 
John  xviii.  28,  33,  ‘ the  judgment-hall ;’  margin, 
‘ or  Pilate's  house  :’  Philipp,  i.  13,  ‘ the  palace  ;’ 
margin,  ‘ or  Caesar’s  court.*  The  object  of  the 
translators,  probably,  was  to  make  their  version 
intelligible  to  the  mere  English  reader,  and  to 
exhibit  the  various  senses  in  which  they  consi- 
dered the  word  to  be  used  in  the  several  passages. 
It  is  plainly  one  of  the  many  Latin  words  to  be 
found  in  the  New  Testament  [Latinisms],  being 
the  word  prcetorium  in  a Greek  dress,  a deri- 
vative from  prcetor;  which  latter,  from  prceeo , ‘ tc 
go  before,’  was  originally  applied  by  the  Romans 
to  a military  officer — the  general.  But  because  tli6 
Romans  subdued  many  countries  and  reduced 
them  to  provinces,  and  governed  them  afterwards 
at  first  by  the  generals  who  had  subdued  them, 
or  by  some  other  military  commanders,  the  word 
praetor  came  ultimately  to  be  used  for  any  civil 
governor  of  a pi-ovince,  whether  he  had  been  en- 
gaged in  war  or  not;  and  who  acted  in  the 
capacity  of  Chief  Justice,  having  a council  asso- 
ciated with  him  (Acts  xxv.  12).  Accordingly 
the  word  praetorium,  also,  which  originally  sig- 
nified the  general’s  tent  in  a camp,  came  at 
length  to  be  applied  to  the  residence  of  the  civil 
governor  in  provinces  and  cities  (Cic.  Verr.  ii. 
v.  12) ; and  being  properly  an  adjective,  as  is  also 
its  Greek  representative,  it  was  used  to  signify 
whatever  appertained  to  the  praetor  or  governor ; 
for  instance,  his  residence,  either  the  whole  or  any 
part  of  it,  as  his  dwelling-house,  or  the  place 
where  he  administered  justice,  or  even  the  large 
enclosed  court  at  the  entrance  to  the  praetorian 
residence  (Bynaeus,  De  Morte  Jes.  Christ,  ii.  407, 
Amst.  1696). 

These  observations  serve  to  elucidate  the  several 
uses  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament,  which 
have,  however,  much  exercised  the  ingenuity  and 
research  of  many  eminent  scholars,  as  may  be 
seen  upon  referring  to  Pitisci  Lex.  An  tig  Roma* 


JUDGMENT-HALL. 


JUDITH. 


183 


«.  v. 1 PraeJOrium.1  Upon  comparing  the  instances 
in  which  the  evangelists  mention  the  praetorium, 
it  will  be  seen,  first,  that  it  was  the  residence  of 
Pilate  ; for  that  which  John  relates  in  ch.  xviii. 
28,  ‘ Then  led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  into  the 
praetorium,’  & c.,  is  most  certainly  the  same  incident 
which  Luke  relates  in  ch.  xxiii.  1,  * And  the  whole 
multitude  arose  and  led  him  to  Pilate,’  &c.  A 
collation  of  the  subsequent  verses  in  each  passage 
will  place  this  point  beyond  doubt.  Nonnus 
says,  that  leaving  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  they 
took  Jesus  els  bo  gov  gyepdvos,  ‘ to  the  governor’s 
house.’  This  residence  of  Pilate  seems  to  have 
been  the  magnificent  palace  built  by  Herod, 
situated  iu  the  north  part  of  the  upper  city,  west 
r<f  the  temple  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xv.  9.  3),  and  over- 
looking the  temple  (xx.  8.  11).  The  reasons  for 
this  opinion  are,  that  the  Roman  procurators, 
whose  ordinary  residence  was  at  Caesarea  (Acts 
xxiii.  23,  &c. ; xxv.  1,  &c.),  took  up  their  resi- 
dence in  this  palace  when  they  visited  Jerusalem, 
their  tribunal  being  erected  in  the  open  court  or 
area  before  it.  Thus  Josephus  states  that  Florus 
took  up  his  quarters  at  the  palace  (ev  rots  fiacn- 
\etois  av\l(eTCu) ; and  on  the  next  day  he  had 
his  tribunal  set  up  before  it,  and  sat  upon  it  ( De 
Bell.  Jud.  ii.  14.  8).  Philo  expressly  says  that 
the  palace,  which  had  hitherto  been  Herod’s,  was 
now  called  ttjv  obciav  rcav  eTnrpdTrcov , ‘ the  house  of 
the  praetors’  ( Legat . ad  Caium,\).  1033,  ed.  Franc.). 
Secondly,  the  word  is  applied  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  synecdoche,  to  a particular  part  of  the 
praetorian  residence.  Thus,  Matt,  xxvii.  27,  and 
Mark  xv.  16,  ‘ And  the  soldiers  led  Jesus  away 
into  the  hall  called  Praetorium,  and  gathered 
unto  them  the  whole  band,  and  they  clothed  him 
with  purple,’  &c. ; where  the  word  rather  refers  to 
the  court  or  area  in  front  of  the  praetorium,  or 
some  other  court  where  the  procurator’s  guards 
were  stationed.  In  John  xix.  9,  the  word  seems 
applied,  when  all  the  circumstances  are  consi- 
dered, to  Pilate’s  private  examination  room.  In 
like  manner,  when  Felix  ‘ commanded  Paul  to  be 
kept  in  Herod’s  praetorium  ’ (Acts  xxiii.  25),  the 
words  apply  not  only  to  the  whole  palace  ori- 
ginally built  at  Caesarea  by  Herod,  and  now  most 
likely  inhabited  by  the  praetor,  but  also  to  the 
keep  or  donjon , a prison  for  confining  offenders, 
Such  as  existed  in  our  ancient  royal  palaces  and 
grand  baronial  castles.  Thirdly,  in  the  remain- 
ing instance  of  the  word,  Phil.  i.  3,  ‘ So  that  my 
bonds  in  Christ  are  manifest  in  all  the  praetorium,’ 
*’  palace,’  it  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  best  commen- 
tators, used  by  hypallage  to  signify  the  praetorian 
camp  at  Rome,  a select  body  of  troops  constituted 
by  Augustus  to  guard  his  person  and  to  have 
charge  of  the  city,  the  ‘cohortes  praetorianae'  (Suet. 
Tib.  37;  Claud.  10;  Ner.  8;  Tacitus,  Annul. 
xii.  69);  so  that  the  words  of  the  apostle  really 
mean,  ‘ My  bonds  in  Christ  are  manifest  to  all 
the  praetorians,  and  by  their  means  to  the  public 
at  large  ’ (Bloomfield’s  Recensio  Synopt .,  in  loc.). 
The  praefectof  this  camp  was  the  aTparoireddpxvs 
to  whose  charge  Paul  was  committed  (Acts 
xxviii.  26),  as  the  younger  Agrippa  was  once 
imprisoned  by  this  officer  at  the  express  command 
of  the  Emperor  Tiberius  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii. 
6.  6;  Olshausen,  Topogr.  des  alt  Jerusalem , 
§ iii.  9 ; Perizonius,  De  Origins  et  Significations 
et  usu  vocum  Prcetoris  et  Prcetorii,  Frank.  1690  ; 
Perixonius,  Disquisitio  cum  Ulrico  Huber o , 


Lugdun.  Bat.  1696  ; Shorzius,  De  Prcctorio 
Pilati  in  Exercit.  Phil.  Hag.  Com.  1774;  Zor- 
nius,  Opuscula  Sacra,  ii.  699 ; Winer,  Bibl.  Real- 
Worterbuch,  art.  ‘ Richthaus’). — J.  F.  D. 

JUDITH  (’Iovdld;  or'IovSfjd,  Judeth,  as  in  the 
English  version,  and  in  Origen)  [Apocrypha], 
the  name  of  one  of  the  apocryphal  or  deutero* 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  placed 
in  manuscripts  of  the  Alexandrine  version  between 
the  books  of  Tobit  and  Esther.  In  its  external 
form  this  book  bears  the  character  of  the  record 
of  an  historical  event,  describing  the  complete 
defeat  of  the  Assyrians  by  the  Jews  through  the 
prowess  of  a woman. 

The  following  is  a sketch  of  the  narrative : — 
Nebuchadnezzar,  or,  as  he  is  called  in  the  Greek, 
Nabuchodonosor,  king  of  the  Assyrians,  having, 
in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  reign,  conquered  and 
taken  Arphaxad,  by  whom  his  territory  had  been 
invaded,  formed  the  design  of  subduing  the  people 
of  Asia  to  the  westward  of  Nineveh  his  capital, 
who  had  declined  to  aid  him  against  Arphaxad. 
With  this  view  he  sent  his  general,  Holofernes,  at 
the  head  of  a powerful  army,  and  soon  made  him- 
self master  of  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  Libya,  Cilicia, 
and  Idumaea.  The  inhabitants  of  the  sea-coast 
made  a voluntary  submission;  which,  however, 
did  not  prevent  their  territories  from  being  laid 
waste,  their  sacred  groves  burned,  and  their  idols 
destroyed,  in  order  that  divine  honours  should  be 
paid  only  to  Nebuchadnezzar.  Holofernes,  having 
finally  encamped  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  (ch.  i. 
3),  remained  inactive  for  a whole  month — or  two, 
according  to  the  Latin  version.  But  the  Jews, 
who  had  not  long  returned  from  captivity,  and 
who  had  just  restored  their  temple  and  its  worship 
prepared  for  war  under  the  direction  of  their  high- 
priest  Joacim,  or  Eliakim,  and  the  senate.  The 
high-priest  addressed  letters  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Bethulia  (Gr.  Berv\ ova)  and  Betomestham,  near 
Esdraelon  (ch.  iv.  6),  charging  them  to  guard  the 
passes  of  the  mountains.  The  Jews  at  the  same 
time  kept  a fast,  and  called  upon  God  for  protec- 
tion against  their  enemies.  Holofernes,  astonished 
at  their  audacity  and  preparations,  inquired  of  the 
Moabites  and  Ammonites  who  these  people  were. 
Achior,  the  leader  of  the  Ammonites,  informed 
him  of  the  history  of  the  Jews,  adding,  that  if 
they  offended  their  God  he  would  deliver  them 
into  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  but  that  otherwise 
they  would  be  invincible.  Holofernes,  however, 
prepares  to  lay  siege  to  Bethulia,  and  commences 
operations  by  taking  the  mountain  passes,  and  in- 
tercepting the  water,  in  order  to  compel  the  inhabit- 
ants to  surrender.  Ozias,  the  governor  of  the  city, 
holds  out  as  long  as  possible  ; but  at  the  end  of 
thirty-four  days’ siege,  the  inhabitants  are  reduced 
to  that  degree  of  distress  from  drought,  that  they 
are  determined  to  surrender  unless  relieved  within 
five  days.  Meantime  Judith,  a rich  and  beautiful 
woman,  the  widow  of  Manasseh,  forms  the  patriotic 
design  of  delivering  the  city  and  the  nalion. 
"With  this  view  she  entreats  the  governor  and 
elders  to  give  up  all  idea  of  surrender,  and  to 
permit  the  gates  of  the  city  to  be  opened  for  her. 
Arrayed  in  rich  attire,  she  proceeds  to  the  camp 
of  Holofernes,  attended  only  by  her  maid,  bearing 
a bag  of  provisions.  She  is  admitted  into  th«* 
presence  of  Holofernes,  and  informs  him  that 
the  Jews  could  not  be  overcome  so  long  as  they 
remained  faithful  to  God,  but  that  they  haa  now 


JUDITH. 


JUDITH. 


I Si 

■inned  against  Him  in  converting  to  their  own 
use  the  tithes,  which  were  sacred  to  the  priests 
alone ; and  that  she  had  fled  from  the  city  to 
escape  the  impending  and  inevitable  destruction 
which  awaited  it.  She  obtains  leave  to  remain 
in  the  camp,  with  the  liberty  of  retiring  by  night 
for  the  purpose  of  prayer,  and  promises  that  at 
the  proper  moment  she  will  herself  be  the  guide 
of  Holofernes  to  the  very  walls  of  Jerusalem. 
Judith  is  favourably  entertained  ; Holofernes  is 
smitten  with  her  charms,  gives  her  a magnificent 
entertainment,  at  which,  having  drunk  too  freely, 
he  is  shut  up  with  her  alone  in  the  tent.  Taking 
advantage  of  her  opportunity,  while  he  is  sunk  in 
sleep,  she  seizes  his  falchion  and  strikes  off  his 
head.  Giving  it  to  her  maid,  who  was  outside 
the  tent  door,  she  leaves  the  camp  as  usual,  under 
jjretence  of  devotion,  and  returns  to  Bethulia,  dis- 
playing tiie  head  of  Holofernes.  The  Israelites, 
next  morning,  fall  on  the  Assyrians,  who,  panic- 
struck  at  the  loss  of  their  general,  are  soon  dis- 
comfited, leaving  an  immense  spoil  in  the  hands 
of  their  enemies.  The  whole  concludes  with  the 
triumphal  song  of  Judith,  who  accompanies  all 
the  people  to  Jerusalem  to  give  thanks  to  the 
Lord.  After  this  she  returns  to  her  native  city 
Bethulia,  gives  freedom  to  her  maid,  and  dies  at 
the  advanced  age  of  105  years.  The  Jews  enjoying 
a profound  and  happy  peace,  a yearly  festival 
(according  to  the  Vulgate)  is  instituted  in 
honour  of  the  victory. 

The  difficulties,  historical,  chronological,  and 
geographical,  comprised  in  the  narrative  of  Judith 
are*  so  numerous  and  serious  as  to  be  held  by 
many  divines  altogether  insuperable.  Events, 
times,  and  manners  are  said  to  lie  confounded,  and 
the  chronology  of  the  times  before  and  those  after 
the  exile,  of  the  Persian  and  Assyrian,  and  even 
of  the  Maccabaean  period,  confusedly  and  unac- 
countably blended. 

The  first  and  greatest  difficulty  is  to  fix  the 
period  when  the  alleged  events  took  place.  Those 
who  place  them  before  the  exile  are  divided  in 
opinion  between  the  time  of  Manasses  and  that  or 
Zedekiah.  Among  those  who  refer  the  history  to 
the  time  of  Manasseh  are  Cal  met  {Commentary) , 
Prideaux  ( Connection ),  Montfaucon,  who  places 
the  scene  in  the  latter  part  of  his  reign  {Hist. 
Ver.  Judith.),  and  Bellarmine  {De  Verbo  Dei). 
These  writers  consider  Nebuchadnezzar  to  be  the 
same  with  Saosduchin.  See  also  Lud.  Capell 
(Comm.  Crit.),  and  Huet  {Dem.  Evangel.). 

As  the  events  in  Judith  are  positively  asserted  to 
have  taken  place  after  the  captivity  (ch.  iv.  3 ; v. 
1 8, 19  in  the  Greek ; ch.  v.  22,  23  in  the  Vulgate), 
the  commentators  who  adopt  the  view  just  referred 
to  assume  that  it  is  only  some  temporary  and 
transient  captivity  (as  that  of  Manasseh)  which 
is  here  meant.  Calmet  is  not  disconcerted  by 
supposing  that  Judith  might  in  this  case  be  sixtv- 
three  or  sixty  years  old,  ‘ being  then  what  we  call 
a fine  woman,  and  having  an  engaging  air  and 
person,’  ‘ likely,’  adds  Du  Pin,  f to  charm  an  old 
general.’  Jahn,  however,  maintains  that  it  would 
be  altogether  inconsistent  with  historical  truth 
to  assert  that  the  Jews  had  no  idols  in  the  reign 
of  Manasseh  (ch.  viii.  18). 

The  reign  of  Zedekiah  has  been  held  by  others 
as  the  era  of  Judith  : and  Genebrard  is  of  opinion 
that  the  Nebuchadnezzar  of  Judith  is  Nebuchad- 
nezzar the  Great  [Nebuchadnezzar].  Jahn 


conceives  that  the  author  of  Judith  confounds 
Nebuchadnezzar  with  Nereglissor,  who,  in  pre* 
paring  his  expedition  against  the  Medes,  invited 
the  Lydians,  Phrygians,  Carians,  Cappadocians, 
Cilicians,  Paphlagonians,  and  other  neighbouring 
nations  to  the  war,  when,  however,  he  was  himself 
overcome  and  slain  by  Cyrus  ( Bibl . Archceol. 
part  ii.  tom.  i.  § 47,  p.  216). 

Those  who  consider  the  events  recorded  in  Judith 
to  have  taken  place  after  the  captivity,  find  equal 
difficulty  in  fixing  the  era.  The  most  ancient 
tradition  of  the  Jews  (preserved  by  Eusebius  in 
his  Chrotiicon)  considers  Cambyses  as  the  Nebu- 
chadnezzar of  Judith.  Julius  Africanus,  who  is 
followed  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Professor  Alber,  of 
Pesth,  ascribes  the  history  to  the  time  of  Xerxes, 
others  to  that  of  Darius  Hystaspis  (Whiston, 
Hist,  of  the  Old  Test.),  or  of  Artaxerxes  Ochu3 
(Sulpitius  Severus,  Hist.  Sac.  ii.  12).  Jahn  {In- 
trod.)  maintains  that  there  was  no  time  after  the 
exile  when  it  was  possible  for  these  events  to  have 
taken  place,  for  he  observes  that  the  Jews  were 
subject  to  the  Persians  for  207  years,  after  which 
they  were  subject  to  Alexander  the  Great,  then  to 
the  Ptolemies,  and  to  the  kings  of  Syria,  until  they 
obtained  their  independence.  The  only  time  to 
which  they  could  possibly  be  referred  is  that  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  but  this  supposition  is  in- 
consistent with  the  tact  that  the  Jews  had  but 
recently  returned  from  captivity,  and  restored  the 
worship  of  God  in  the  Temple.  The  geographical 
difficulties  are  equally  embarrassing. 

While  some  have  endeavoured  to  account  for 
these  difficulties  by  imputing  them  to  the  errors 
of  transcribers,  others  have  supposed  that  the  book 
of  Judith  could  not  possibly  have  been  intended 
by  its  author  to  be  a purely  historical  narrative. 
Grotius  conceived  it  to  be  an  allegory,  the  design 
of  which  was  to  encourage  the  Jews  in  their 
hopes  of  deliverance  from  the  Syrians,  when  the 
Temple  was  polluted  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
Judith,  he  says,  represents  the  Jewish  nation ; 
Bethulia,  the  Temple;  the  sword  issuing  from 
them,  the  prayers  of  the  saints  ; Nebuchad- 
nezzar, the  devil ; and  Holofernes  (KTU 
the  Officer  of  the  Serpent),  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
who  wishes  to  overcome  the  beautiful  but  wi- 
dowed Judaea.  The  prayers  of  the  saints  were 
heard,  and  he  was  punished  by  God.  Eliakim, 
the  name  of  the  high-priest,  signifies  that  God  will 
arise.  Among  the  Roman  Catholics  this  notion 
of  an  allegory  is  favoured  by  Jahn,  who  main- 
tains that  the  difficulties  are  otherwise  insuperable. 
De  Wette,  however,  considers  that  the  fact  of  Ho- 
lofernes being  an  historical  name  (together  with 
other  reasons),  militates  against  the  notion  of  an 
allegory,  as  maintained  by  Grotius.  The  name 
Holofernes  is  found  in  Appian  (In  Syriac,  c.  47), 
and  in  Polybius  (x.  11).  The  latter  historian 
states  that  Holofernes,  having  conquered  Cappa- 
docia, lost  it  by  endeavouring  to  change  the 
customs  of  the  country,  and  to  introduce  the 
drunken  rites  of  Bacchus;  and  Casaubon  (ad 
Athen.)  conjectures  that  this  was  the  Holofernes 
of  Judith.  From  its  termination  the  name  is  sup- 
posed to  be  of  Persian  extraction,  as  Tissaphemes 
Artaphernes,  Bargaphernes,  &c. 

Luther  first  conceived  the  idea  that  the  book 
of  Judith  was  a patriotic  romance,  a drama  or 
sacred  poem,  written  bv  some  pious  man,  with  the 


JUDITH. 


JUDITH. 


185 


intention  of  showing  that  God  was  accustomed  to 
assist  the  Israelites  who  had  faith  in  his  promises. 
This  view  was  subsequently  adopted  by  utiddeus 
(Hist.  Ecclcs.  V.  7’.,  ii.  611,  sq.),  Sender,  and 
Bertholdt.  ‘ Judith,’  says  Luther,  ‘ is  a beautiful 
composition ; it  is  good,  sound,  and  worthy  of 
being  read  with  attention  by  Christians.  Its  con- 
tents ought  to  be  read  as  the  work  of  a sacred 
poet,  or  of  a prophet  animated  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  instructs  by  the  characters  whom  he  intro- 
duces on  the  stage  to  speak  in  his  name’  ( Pref ’ to 
Judith).  And  again,  ‘ If  the  action  of  Judith 
could  be  justified  by  proof  drawn  from  incontest- 
able historical  documents,  it  would  doubtless 
merit  to  be  received  into  the  number  of  sacred 
books  as  an  excellent  work.’ 

Date  of  the  composition , and  author. — The 
authorship  of  the  book  is  as  uncertain  as  its  date. 
It  is  not  named  either  by  Philo  or  Josephus  ; nor 
have  we  any  indication  whatever  by  which  to 
form  a conjecture  respecting  its  author.  But  it 
has  been  supposed  by  some  that  it  could  not  have 
been  written  by  a contemporary,  from  the  cir- 
cumstance of  the  family  of  Achior  being  men- 
tioned as  still  in  existence,  and  of  the  Festival  of 
Judith  being  still  celebrated.  If  this  festival 
ever  took  place,  it  must  have  been  of  temporary 
duration,  for,  as  Calmet  observes,  no  record  of  it 
can  be  traced  since  the  exile.  Professor  Alber  of 
Pesth,  however,  maintains  that  it  is  still  recorded 
in  the  Jewish  calendars.  Jahn,  after  Grotius, 
refers  the  date  of  the  book  to  the  Maccabsean 
period,  and  derives  an  argument  for  its  late  com- 
position from  the  fact  of  the  Feast  of  the  New 
Moon  being  mentioned  (ch.  viii.  6,  compared 
with  Mark  xv.  42).  De  Wette  ( Einleitung ) con- 
ceives that  the  whole  composition  bespeaks  an 
author  who  was  a native  of  Palestine,  who  could 
not  have  lived  beyond  the  end  of  the  first  cen- 
tury of  the  Christian  era  (the  date  assigned  to 
it  by  Eichhorn),  inasmuch  as  it  is  then  cited 
by  Clement  of  Rome;  but  that  the  probability 
is  that  it  was  much  earlier  written.  Movers, 
a Roman  Catholic  Professor  at  Bonn,  a man  of 
great  penetration  in  similar  investigations  re- 
specting the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, endeavours  to  fix  the  date  of  its  composition 
in  the  year  b.c.  104.  ‘ The  author,’  he  observes, 

‘ who  has  transferred  the  geographical  relations 
of  his  own  time  to  a former  period,*  makes 
the  Jewish  territory  commence  at  Scythopolis 
(ch.  iii.  10),  and  makes  Bethulia,  against 
which  Holofernes  directed  his  attack,  the  first 
Jewish  city  at  the  entrance  into  Judaea  (iv.  7), 

* The  Rev.  Charles  Forster  (Geography  of 
Arabia , 1844)  observes  (i.  185),  ‘ that  in  the 
book  of  Judith  the  race  of  Ishmael  is  noticed 
by  their  patronymic  as  extending  to  the  southern 
confines  of  Syria  and  Cilicia.  Holofernes,  moving 
south  from  Cilicia,  spoiled  all  the  children  of 
Rasses  and  the  children  of  Ishmael  which  were 
towards  the  wilderness,  at  the  south  of  the  land 
of  the  Chillians.  The  same  verse,’  he  adds 
(Judith  ii.  23),  ‘ makes  mention  of  “ Phud  and 
Lud  ” as  inhabitants  of  the  hill  country,  or 
Upper  Cilicia,  and  thereby  corrects  the  geography 
Of  Bochart  and  Wells,  who  not  only  carry  these 
iwo  nations  into  Africa,  but  confine  them  exclu- 
sively to  that  continent.  The  march  of  Holo- 
fernes is  wholly  inconsistent  v*  vh  this  notion,’ 


reckoning  the  territory  intervening  tatwecn  this 
and  Samaria  as  tributary  to  the  Jewish  high- 
priest.  This  state  of  affairs  continued  from  the 
time  of  John  Hyrcanus  to  Pompey’s  invasion  of 
Judaea.  Hyrcanus  had  seized  upqn  Samaria,  and 
wrested  Scythopolis,  with  the  surrounding  territory, 
from  Kpicrates,  the  general  of  Ptolemy  Lathurus 
(Josephus,  Antiq.  xiii.  10.  3),  b.c.  110,  according 
to  Usher.  But  Samaria  and  Scythopolis,  with 
other  acquisitions  of  the  Maccabees,  were  lost  for 
ever  to  the  Jewish  nation,  when  Pompey,  b.c. 
48,  reduced  Judaea  to  its  ancient  limits.  The 
sea-coast  (ch.  iii.  1),  independent  of  the  Jews, 
continued,  since  the  last  years  of  the  reign  of 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  to  be  a Jewish  possession  ; 
but  Carmel,  which  (ch.  i.  8)  was  inhabited  by  the 
Gentiles,  was  still  independent  in  the  beginning 
of  his  reign,  and  he  first  seized  it  after  the  war 
with  Ptolemy  Lathurus  (xiii.  15.  4).  It  is  to 
this  war  that  Movers  considers  the  book  of  Judith 
to  refer,  and  he  supposes  it  to  have  been  written 
after  the  unfortunate  battle  at  Asochis  in  Galilee 
(or  rather  Asophen  on  the  Jordan)  (Movers,  Ueber 
die  Ursprache  der  Deuterokan.  Bucher,  in  the 
Bonner  Zeitschrift,  xiii.  35,  sq.).  De  Wette 
conceives  that  this  hypothesis  is  opposed  by 
the  following  geographical  combinations  : — 1. 
Galilee  belonged  to  the  Asmonseans,  the  proof  of 
which,  indeed,  is  by  no  means  certain,  while 
the  following  indications  thereof  present  them- 
selves : — (a)  Asochis  seems  to  have  belonged  to 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  as  it  received  Ptolemy 
Lathurus  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  12.  4,  comp,  with 
xv.  4).  (b)  Hyrcanus  had  his  son  Alexander  Jan- 
naeus hroughtup  in  Galilee  (xiii.  12. 1).  (e)  Anti- 
gonus  returned  from  Galilee  (De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  3.  3). 

(d)  Aristobulus  seized  upon  Ituraea  (Antiq.  xiii. 
11. 3),  which  presupposes  the  possession  of  Galilee. 

(e)  Even  after  the  limits  of  Galilee  were  circum- 

scribed by  Pompey,  it  still  belonged  to  the  Jewish 
high-priest  (De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  10.  4).  2.  Idumaea 
belonged  to  the  Jewish  state,  but  the  sons  of  Esau 
came  to  Holofernes  (vii.  8.  18).  3.  If  the  author 

had  the  war  with  Ptolemy  Lathurus  in  view,  the 
irruption  of  Holofernes  would  rather  correspond 
with  the  movements  of  the  Cyprian  army,  which 
proceeded  from  Asochis  to  Sepphoris,  and  thence 
to  Asophen  (Einleitung,  § 307). 

Language  of  Judith. — The  original  language 
is  uncertain.  Eichhorn  and  Jahn  (Introduction) 
and  Seiler  (Biblical  Hermeneutics),  with  whom 
is  Bertholdt,  conceive  it  to  have  been  Greek. 
Calmet  states  on  the  authority  of  Origen  (Ep.  ad 
African.),  that  the  Jews  had  the  book  of  Judith 
in  Hebrew  in  his  time.  Origen’s  words,  however, 
are,  ‘ They  make  no  use  of  Tobit,  nor  of  Judith, 
nor  have  they  them  even  in  the  Apocrypha  in 
Hebrew,  as  we  have  learned  from  themselves.’ 
Jerome  (Pref.  to  Judith)  states  that  it  is  written 
in  Chaldee,  from  which  he  translated  it,  with  the 
aid  of  an  interpreter,  giving  rather  the  sense  than 
the  words.  He  also  complains  of  numbers 
of  incorrect  copies  of  Judith  in  the  Latin 
translation,  which  he  had  expurgated,  retaining 
only  what  was  in  the  Chaldee.  Many  of  the 
errors  of  Jerome’s  translaLcri  can  be  corrected  by 
the  Greek ; as,  for  instance,  airargs,  ‘of  deceit’ 
(ch.  xi.  5),  was  mistaken  for  aydirys,  and  translated 
caritatis ; uXavaovrai  was  mistaken  for  Kavcrovrai , 
and  translated  urentur,  &c.  &o.  The  Chaldee  text, 
from  which  Jerome  translates,  and  which  varies 


JUDITH. 


JUSTIFICATION. 


m 


eonsiderably  from  the  Greek,  betrays,  according 
to  De  Wette,  many  and  undoubted  marks  of  a 
Hebrew  original.  It  is  impossible,  however,  to 
gay  whether  this  was  best  represented  by  the 
Greek  or  by  the  Chaldee.  Jerome  probably 
nimself,  or  his  interpreter,  took  many  liberties 
with  the  original,  with  which  he  states  that  he 
was  but  imperfectly  acquainted. 

The  Syriac  version  seems  evidently  taken  from 
'he  Greek,  and  the  more  correct  manner  in  which 
the  names  of  cities  are  given,  as  well  as  other 
variations,  have  been  supposed  to  attest  the  ex- 
istence of  more  correct  Greek  copies  than  those 
.which  we  now  possess,  as  no  book  in  the  Septua- 
gint  has  so  few  Greek  particles  as  the  book  of 
Judith. 

Gesenius,  and  especially  Movers,  have  been 
very  successful  in  their  efforts  to  correct  the 
present  geographical  errors  by  the  supposition  of  a 
Hebrew  original.  Betani  (ch.  i.  9)  the  latter 
conceives  to  be  Beth-anoth  (Josh,  xv),  and  the  two 
seas  (ch.  i.  12),  the  two  arms  of  the  Nile.  For 
XaAAalwv  he  reads  ^aAScuW,  and  considers  Rasses 
to  be  an  oversight  for  Tarshish.  Movers,  observes 
J)e  Wette,  explains  the  historical  inaccuracies 
and  anachronisms,  by  a free  poetical  use  of  his- 
tory after  the  manner  of  Shakspeare.  Movers 
may  therefore  be  included  among  those  writers 
who  have  followed  Luther  in  considering  Judith 
an  historical  romance.  Seiler  ( Biblical  Herme- 
neutics) conceives  it  to  be  a fiction,  founded  on 
fact,  written  by  a Palestinian  Jew. 

The  old  Latin  ante-hieronymian  version  (from 
the  Greek)  is  still  extant,  and  the  many  discre- 
pancies between  it  and  Jerome’s  version,  confirm  the 
tact  of  the  great  and  faulty  variety  in  the  copies, 
of  which  that  father  complains.  The  text  of  this 
version  is  by  some  supposed  to  have  been  mixed 
with  that  of  Jerome,  and  the  variations  between 
the  Vulgate  and  the  Greek  are  numerous  and 
considerable. 

Authority  of  Judith  in  the  Cfihrch. — Although 
the  book  of  Judith  never  formed  part  of  the 
Jewish  canon  [Deutero-canonicai.],  and  finds 
no  place  in  the  ancient  catalogues,  its  authority 
in  tire  Christian  church  has  been  very  great.  It 
is  thus  referred  to  by  Clemens  Romanus,  the 
companion  of  the  Apostles,  in  his  first  (or  genuine) 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians  : — ‘The  blessed  Judith, 
when  the  city  was  besieged,  asked  leave  of  the 
elders  to  go  to  the  camp  of  the  foreigners,  and 
fearless  of  danger  in  her  patriotism,  she  proceeded, 
and  the  Lord  delivered  Holofernes  into  the  hands 
of  a woman.  In  like  manner,  Esther,’  &c.  &c. 
Jerome  observes  that  ‘ Ruth,  Esther,  and  Judith 
had  the  honor  of  giving  their  names  to  sacred 
books’  (Ad  Principiam).  Among  the  Hebrews,  he 
observes,  4 it  is  reckoned  among  the  Hagiographa 
(or  Apocrypha)  whose  authority  is  not  proper  for 
confirming  controverted  matters,’  but  he  adds, 
‘ since  the  council  of  Nicaea  is  read  ( legitur ) 
to  have  reckoned  Judith  among  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures, I have  agreed  to  your  request  (to  translate 
it).  . . . Receive  Judith  as  an  example  of  chas- 
tity. . . . He  who  was  the  rewarder  of  her  chastity 
gave  her  such  virtue  as  to  enable  her  to  over- 
come him  who  was  invincible.’  It  is  spoken  of 
by  Origen  as  received  by  the  church  (Horn.  xix. 
in  Gen.  & i.  iii.  in  Johan.'),  and  is  cited  by  Ter- 
tullian  (De  Monoyamia),  Ambrose  (lib.  iii.  De 
OJfic.),  and  Chrysostom  (Homil.). 


Indeed,  no  question  as  to  Judith’s  being  an  hi** 
torical  personage  appears  to  have  been  raised  before 
the  era  of  the  Reformation,  and  this  question  i» 
still  unsettled.  4 Even,’  says  Calmet  (ut  supra),  4 if 
by  the  force  of  our  adversaries’  reasons  we  should 
be  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  the  book  con- 
tains but  a parable,  or  a fiction  written  for  the 
encouragement  of  the  Jews  in  their  affliction,  and 
to  give  them  a model  of  virtue  in  the  person  of 
Judith,  we  do  not  perceive  what  advantage  they 
would  derive  against  us,  and  against  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  book.  Would  it  be  on  that  account 
the  less  divine,  less  inspired,  less  worthy  of  the  Holy 
Spirit?  The  fathers  who  have  cited  it,  the  coun- 
cils which  have  received  it  into  the  canon,  tire 
church  which  authorizes  it  and  receives  it, — would 
they  be  on  this  account  in  error?  and  would  re- 
ligion suffer  the  least  injury  ? Does  not  the  Old 
Testament,  as  well  as  the  New,  abound  in  pa- 
rables, so  circumstantially  detailed  as  to  present 
the  appearance  of  real  histories,  &c.  ?’  (Pref.  to 
Comm.)  And  as  to  the  action  of  Judith,  the  same 
able  commentator  observes:  4 We  cannot  approve 
in  all  respects,  either  the  prayer  or  the  action  of 
Judith;  we  commend  her  good  intentions,  and 
think  that  the  uprightness  of  her  design  and  her 
ignorance  abate  much  of  the  crime.  . . . Yet  will 
not  this  suffice  entirely  to  excuse  her;  a lie  told 
with  so  much  solemnity,  and  carried  on  through 
her  whole  conversation  with  Holofernes,  is  still  in- 
defensible. The  employing  her  beauty  and  her 
little  winning  arts  to  inflame  his  passion,  and 
thereby  exposing  her  person  to  a rude  attack,  is  a 
step  likewise  not.  to  be  justified.’ 

The  book  of  Judith  is  supposed  by  some  to  be 
referred  to  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  x.  9,  10,  comp, 
with  Judith  \ iii.  24,25).  Judith,  with  the  other 
deuterocanonical  books,  has  been  at  all  times  read 
in  the  church,  and  lessons  are  taken  from  it  in 
the  Church  of  England  in  course. — W.  W. 

JULIA  (TouAia,  a name  common  among  the 
Romans),  a Christian  woman  of  Rome,  to  whom 
St.  Paul  sent  his  salutations  (Rom.  xvi.  15) ; 
she  is  named  with  Philologus,  and  is  supposed  to 
have  been  his  wife  or  sister. 

JULIUS  (T ov\ios),  the  centurion  who  had  the 
charge  of  conducting  Paul  a?s  a prisoner  to  Rome, 
and  who  treated  him  with  much  consideration 
and  kindness  on  the  way  (Acts  xxvii.  1,  3). 

JUNIAS  (T ovvlas),  a person  who  is  joined 
with  Andronicus  in  Rom.  xvi.  7 : 4 Salute  An- 
dronicus  and  Junias,  my  kinsmen  and  fellow- 
prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostles.1 
They  were,  doubtless,  Jewish  Christians. 

JUSTIFICATION  Justification  may  be  de- 
fined, in  its  theological  sense,  as  the  non-imputation 
of  sin,  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness.  That 
there  is  a reciprocation  between  Christ  and  be- 
lievers, i.  e.  in  the  imputation  of  their  sins  unto 
Him,  and  of  His  righteousness  unto  them;  and 
that  this  forms  the  ground  of  the  sinner's  justifi- 
cation and  acceptance  with  God,  it  will  be  the 
object  of  the  following  remarks  to  demonstrate. 

The  vicarious  nature  of  the  Redeemer’s  suffer- 
ings was  set  forth  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
by  very  significant  types,  one  of  the  most  ex- 
pressive of  which  was  the  offering  of  the  scape- 
goat : 4 And  Aaron  shall  lay  his  hands  upon  tb« 
head  of  the  live  goat,  and  confess  over  him  all 
the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all 
their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins,  putting  thee* 


JUSTIFICATION. 


JUSTIFICATION. 


1ST 


on  the  head  of  the  goat,  and  the  goat  shall  bear 
upon  him  all  their  iniquities  ’ (Lev.  xvi.  21,  22). 
Abarbinel,  in  the  introduction  to  his  commentary 
on  Leviticus  ( De  Viet.  p.  301),  represents  this  cere- 
mony as  a symbolical  translation  of  the  sins  of 
the  offender  upon  the  head  of  the  sacrifice,  and  as 
a way  by  which  the  evil  due  to  his  transgression 
was  to  be  deprecated. 

Nachmaindes  also,  commenting  on  Lev.  i., 
observes,  respecting  (he  burnt-offerings  and  sacri- 
fices for  sin  : ‘ It  was  right  the  offerer’s  own  blood 
should  be  shed,  and  his  body  burnt,  but  that  the 
Creator,  in  His  mercy,  hath  accepted  this  victim 
from  him  as  a vicarious  substitute  and  atonement, 
that  its  blood  should  be  poured  out  instead  of  his 
blood,  and  its  life  stand  in  place  of  his  life.’ 

We  are  informed  by  Herodotus  (ii.  39)  that 
the  practice  of  imprecating  on  the  head  of  the 
victim  the  evils  which  the  sacrificer  wished  to 
avert  from  himself  was  usual  also  amongst  the  hea- 
then. The  Egyptians,  he  adds,  would  not  taste 
the  head  of  any  animal,  but  flung  it  into  the  river 
as  an  abomination. 

If  this  type  foreshadowed  the  vicarious  nature 
of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ — and  who 
with  the  inspired  comment  of  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  before  him  can  doubt 
this? — we  may  with  confidence  appeal  also  to 
the  voice  of  prophecy,  and  the  expositions  of 
apostles,  for  the  further  illustration  and  enforce- 
ment of  the  same  truth.  The  53rd  chapter  of  Isaiah 
is  so  full  upon  this  point,  that  Bishop  Louth  says, 

‘ This  chapter  declares  the  circumstances  of  our 
Saviour’s  sufferings  so  exactly,  that  it  seems 
rather  a history  of  His  passion  than  a prophecy.’ 
In  verses  5 and  6 we  are  told  that  God  ‘ laid  upon 
Him  the  iniquities  of  us  all,  that  by  His  stripes 
we  might  be  healed’ — that  our  sin  was  laid  on 
Him,  and  He  bare  it  (ver.  11).  St.  Paid,  re- 
echoing the  same  truth,  says,  ‘ He  was  made  sin 
for  us  who  knew  no  sin,  that  w'e  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him’  (2  Cor.  v.  21). 
This  is  the  reciprocation  spoken  of  above.  Again, 
in  Rom.  viii.  3,  4,  the  apostle  informs  us  that 
God  sent  His  owr  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh,  and  for  sir  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh,  that 
the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in 
us;  that  sin  was  made  His,  and  he  bore  its 
penalty ; His  righteousness  is  forensically  trans- 
ferred to  the  believer,  and  he  becomes  a happy 
participator  of  its  benefits.  This,  then,  is  the 
change  in  relation  to  God  from  which  the  soul 
of  a convinced  sinner  can  find  peace.  Before  we 
notice  the  objections  which  have  been,  and  still 
are,  urged  against  this  view  of  the  question,  we 
may  inquire  how  far  it  is  confirmed  by  the  earliest 
and  most  eminently  pious  fathers  of  the  Christian 
church. 

Amongst  these  fathers  none  could  have  been 
better  acquainted  with  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  than 
the  venerable  Clement  of  Rome,  inasmuch  as  he 
is  honourably  recorded  by  the  apostle  as  one  of 
his  fellow-labourers  in  the  Gospel  whose  names 
are  written  in  the  book  of  life  (Philipp,  iv.  3). 
Nothing  can  be  more  explicit  than  this  writer  is 
on  the  point  of  forensic  justifying  righteousness , 
and  of  intrinsic  sanctifying  righteousness  (see 
Clem.  Rom.  Epist.  ad  Corinth,  i.  sec.  32,  33). 
Chrysostom’s  commentary  on  2 Cox’,  (ch.  v.  Horn. 
ii.)  is  also  x ery  expressive  on  this  subject : ‘ What 
word,  what  speech  is  this,  what  mind  can  com- 


prehend or  speak  it?  for  he  saith,  He  made  Him 
who  was  righteous  to  be  made  a sinner,  that  He 
might  make  sinners  righteous  ; nor  yet  doth  He 
say  so  neither,  but  that  which  is  far  more  sublime 
and  excellent.  For  He  speaks  not  of  an  inclina- 
tion or  affection,  but  expresseth  the  quality  itself. 
For  He  says  not,  He  made  Him  a sinner,  but  sin, 
that  we  might  be  made  not  merely  righteous,  but 
righteousness,  and  that  the  righteousness  of  God, 
when  we  are  justified  not  by  works  (for  if  we 
should,  there  must  be  no  spot  found  in  them),  but 
by  grace,  whereby  all  sin  is  blotted  out.’ 

Again,  Justin  Martyr  (Epist.  ad  Diognet .) 
speaks  to  the  same  purpose  : ‘ He  gave  His  son  a 
ransom  for  us ; the  holy  for  transgressors ; the 
innocent  for  the  guilty  ; the  just  for  the  unjust ; 
the  incorruptible  for  the  corrupt;  the  immortal  for 
mortals.  For  what  else  could  hide  or  cover  our 
sins  but  His  righteousness  ? In  whom  else  could 
we  wicked  and  ungodly  ones  be  justified,  or 
esteemed  righteous,  but  in  the  Son  of  God  alone  ? 
O sweet  permutation  or  change ! O unsearchable 
work,  or  curious  operation  ! O blessed  beneficence, 
exceeding  all  expectation  ! That  the  iniquity  of 
many  should  be  hid  in  one  Just  One,  and  the 
righteousness  of  one  should  justify  many  traxis- 
gressors  !’ 

So  Gregory  Nyssen  ( Or  at.  II.  in  Cant.)  de- 
serves notice  : ‘He  hath  transferred  to  Himself 
the  filth  of  my  sins,  and  communicated  unto  me 
His  purity,  and  made  me  partaker  of  His  beauty  !’ 

Augustine  also  speaks  to  the  same  effect : ‘He 
was  sin  that  we  might  be  righteousness,  not  our 
own,  but  the  righteousness  of  Gud,  not  in  ourselves, 
but  in  Him’  ( Enchirid . ad  Laurent,  c.  41). 

As  our  limits  will  not  admit  of  more  quotations 
from  those  who  are  usually  designated  ‘ the 
fathers  of  the  church,’  we  must  refer  the  reader 
to  Suicer's  Thesaurus , tom.  i.  p.  900. 

In  accordance  with  the  above  expressed  views 
of  the  fathers  on  the  important  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation, is  that  which  is  taken  by  the  church  of 
England.  Articles  eleventh,  twelfth,  and  thir- 
teenth run  thus : — 

‘ We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only 
for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings. 
Wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort, 
as  more  largely  is  expressed  in  the  Homily  of  Jus- 
tification.’ 

‘ Albeit  that  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits 
of  faith,  and  follow  after  justification,  cannot  put 
away  our  sins,  and  endure  the  severity  of  God’s 
judgment ; yet  are  they  pleasing  and  acceptable 
to  God  in  Christ,  and  do  spring  out  necessarily 
of  a true  and  lively  faith,  insomuch  that  by  them 
a lively  faith  may  be  as  evidently  known  as  a 
tree  discerned  by  the  fruit.’ 

‘Works  done  before  the  grace  of  Christ,  and 
the  inspiration  of  His  Spirit,  are  not  pleasant  to 
God,  forasmuch  as  they  spring  not  of  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ,  neither  do  they  make  men  meet  to 
receive  grace,  or  (as  the  School-authors  say)  de- 
serve grace  of  congruity  : yea,  rather,  for  that 
they  are  not  done  as  God  hath  willed  and  com- 
manded them  to  be  done,  we  doubt  not  but  they 
have  the  nature  of  sin.’ 

The  homily  referred  to  in  the  eleventh  article, 
under  the  title  of  the  Homily  of  Justification,  i? 
styled  in  the  first  book  of  Homilies  itself,  1 A 


188 


JUSTIFICATION. 


JUSTIFICATION. 


Sermon  of  the  Salvation  of  Mankind,  by  only 
Christ  our  Saviour,  from  sin  and  ieath  everlasting.’ 
In  this  sermon  the  reader  will  find  strikingly  set 
forth  the  inseparable  connection  there  is  between 
justification  and  sanctification , the  one  the  cause, 
tire  other  the  effect. 

It  was  this  doctrine  of  justification  which  con- 
stituted the  great  ground  of  controversy  between 
the  reformers  and  the  church  of  Rome  (see  Luther 
to  Geo.  Spenlein,  Epist.  Ann.  1516,  tom.  i.).  That 
tire  reader  may  be  able  to  see  in  a contrasted  form 
the  essential  differences  upon  this  head  between 
the  two  churches,  we  subjoin  what  the  Tridentine 
fathers  have  stated.  In  sess.  vi.  c.  xvi.p.  54,  they 
announce  the  views  of  their  church  on  justifica- 
tion in  the  following  language  : — 

‘ Jesus  Christ,  as  the  head  into  the  members,  and 
as  the  vine  into  the  branches,  perpetually  causes 
His  virtue  to  flow  into  the  justified.  This  virtue 
always  precedes,  accompanies,  and  follows  their 
good  works ; so  that  without  it  such  good  works 
could  in  nowise  be  acceptable  to  God,  and  bear 
the  character  of  meritoriousness.  Hence  we  must 
believe,  that  to  the  justified  themselves  nothing 
more  is  wanting  which  needs  to  prevent  us  from 
thinking  both  that  they  have  satisfied  the  divine 
law,  according  to  the  state  of  this  life,  by  those 
works  which  are  performed  in  God  ; and  also 
that,  in  their  own  time,  provided  they  depart  in 
grace,  they  truly  merit  the  attainment  of  eternal 
life.  Thus  neither  our  own  proper  righteousness 
is  so  determined  to  be  our  own,  as  if  it  were  from 
ourselves ; nor  is  the  righteousness  of  God  either 
unknown  or  rejected.  For  that  which  is  called 
our  righteousness,  because  through  its  being  in- 
herent in  us  we  are  justified,  that  same  is  the 
righteousness  of  God,  because  it  is  infused  into 
us  by  God  through  the  merit  of  Christ.  Far, 
however,  be  it  from  a Christian  man  that  he 
should  either  trust  or  glory  in  himself,  and  not 
in  the  Lord ; whose  goodness  to  all  is  so  great, 
that  what  are  truly  His  gifts  He  willeth  to  be 
estimated  as  their  merits.’ 

Such,  so  far  as.  the  justification  and  accept- 
ance of  man  before  God  are  concerned,  rs  the 
doctrinal  scheme  of  the  church  of  Rome ; and 
nothing  can  be  more  foreign  than  it  is  from  the 
system  set  forth  by  the  church  of  England.  In 
the  view  of  the  latter,  justification  signifies  making 
just  in  trial  and  judgment,  as  sanctification  is 
making  holy  ; but  not  making  just  by  infusion  of 
grace  and  holiness  into  a person,  according  to  the 
view  of  the  former,  thus  confounding  justification 
and  sanctification  together.  On  the  Protestant 
principle  justification  is  not  a real  change  of  a 
sinner  in  himself,  though  a real  change  is  an- 
nexed to  it ; but  only  a relative  change  in  refer- 
ence to  God's  judgment.  Thus  we  find  the  word 
used  in  Rom.  iii.  23,  24,  25,  26.  In  fine,  the 
doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  may  be  ex- 
pressed in  Scriptural  language  thus  : ‘ All  have 
ginned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God  ; every 
mouth  must  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  become 
guilty  before  God ; therefore,  by  the  deeds  of 
the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  living  be  justified  in 
His  sight.  But  we  are  justified  freely  by  His 
race  through  the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ 
esus,  whom  God  hath  set  forth  as  a propitiation 
through  faith  in  His  blood,  to  declare  His  right- 
eousness for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God.  Where  is  boast- 


ing, then?  It  is  excluded.  By  what  law?  of 
works  ? Nay  : but  by  the  law  of  faith.  Therefore 
we  conclude  that  a man  is  justified  by  faith  with- 
out the  deeds  of  the  law.’  For  a full  exposition 
of  the  differences  between  the  two  churches,  see 
Mohler’s  Symbolik , translated  from  the  German 
by  Robertson. 

We  now  come  to  notice  the  objections  which 
may  be  urged  against  this  view  of  justification. 

1.  It  does  not  consist,  say  some,  with  the  truth 
and  holiness  of  God,  that  the  innocent  should 
suffer  for  the  guilty.  We  answer,  that  it  is  no 
injustice,  or  cruelty,  for  an  innocent  person  to 
sutler  for  the  guilty,  as  Christ  did,  provided  there 
be  these  conditions  : — 

1.  That  the  person  suffering  be  of  the  same 
nature  with  those  for  whom  he  suffers. 

2.  That  he  suffers  of  his  own  free  will. 

3.  That  he  be  able  to  sustain  all  that  shall  be 
laid  upon  him. 

4.  That  a greater  amount  of  glory  redound  tp 
the  divine  attributes  than  if  he  had  not  so  suffered. 
Now  the  Scriptures  assure  us  that  all  these  con- 
ditions were  realized  in  the  incarnate  Saviour. 

Bishop  Butler  ( Analogy , ch.  v.)  has  a striking 
answer  to  this  objection.  He  shows  that  in  the 
daily  course  of  God’s  natural  providence  the 
innocent  do  often  and  constantly  suffer  for  the 
guilty ; and  then  argues  that  the  Christian  ap- 
pointment against  which  this  objection  is  taken, 
is  not  only  of  the  same  kind,  but  is  even  less  open 
to  exception,  ‘ because,  under  the  former,  we  are 
in  many  cases  commanded,  and  even  neces- 
sitated, whether  we  will  or  no,  to  suffer  for  the 
faults  of  others;  whereas  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  voluntary.  The  world’s  being  under  the 
righteous  government  of  God  does,  indeed,  imply 
that,  finally,  and  upon  the  whole,  every  one  shall 
receive  according  to  his  personal  deserts ; and  the 
general  doctrine  of  the  whole  Scripture  is,  that 
this  shall  be  the  completion  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment. But  during  the  progress,  and  for  aught 
we  know,  even  in  order  to  the  completion  of  this 
moral  scheme,  vicarious  punishments  may  be  fit, 
and  absolutely  necessary.  Men,  by  their  follies, 
run  themselves  into  extreme  distress — into  diffi- 
culties which  would  be  absolutely  fatal  to  them, 
were  it  not  for  the  interposition  and  assistance  of 
others.  God  commands  by  the  law  of  nature 
that  we  afford  them  this  assistance,  in  many 
cases  where  we  cannot  do  it  without  very  great 
pains,  and  labour,  and  sufferings  to  ourselves 
And  we  see  in  what  variety  of  ways  one  person’s 
sufferings  contribute  to  the  relief  of  another,  and 
how,  or  by  what  particular  means,  this  comes  to 
pass,  or  follows  from  the  constitution  or  laws  ot 
nature  which  come  under  our  notice,  and,  being 
familiarised  with  it,  men  are  not  shocked  with  it. 
So  that  the  reason  of  their  insisting  upon  objec- 
tions of  the  foregoing  kind  against  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ,  is  either  that  they  do  not  consider  God’s 
settled  and  uniform  appointments  as  His  appoint- 
ments at  all,  or  else,  they  forget  that  vicarious 
punishment  is  a providential  appointment  of 
every  day’s  experience ; and  then,  from  their 
being  unacquainted  with  the  more  general  laws 
of  nature  or  divine  government  over  the  world, 
and  not  seeing  how  the  sufferings  of  Christ  coult? 
contribute  to  the  redemption  of  it  unless  by  arbi- 
trary and  tyrannical  will,  they  conclude  hi* 
sufferings  could  not  contribute  to  it  any  other 


JUSTIFICATION. 


KABBALAH. 


189 


way.  .And.  yet,  what  has  been  often  alleged  in 
justification  of  this  doctrine,  even  from  the  ap- 
parent natural  tendency  of  this  method  of  our 
redemption — its  tendencies  to  vindicate  the  au- 
thority of  God’s  laws  and  deter  his  creatures  from 
sin, — this  has  never  yet  been  answered,  and  is,  I 
think,  plainly  unanswerable.’ 

2.  Again  it  is  objected,  if  we  are  justified  on 
receiving  Christ  by  faith  as  the  Lord  our  right- 
eousness, and  if  this  be  the  sole  ground  of  salva- 
tion propounded  by  St.  Paul,  there  is  then  a pal- 
pable discrepancy  between  him  and  St.  James;  for 
the  former  states,  that  a man  is  justified  by  faith 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law  (Rom.  iii.  8 ; Gal. 
ii.  16);  while  the  latter  says,  ‘ a man  is  justified 
by  works  and  not  by  faith  only’  (James  ii.  24). 
That  there  is  a difficulty  l\ere  there  can  be  no 
question,  and  that  it  led  Eusebius  and  Jerome, 
together  with  Luther  and  Erasmus,  to  question 
the  authority  of  St.  James’s  Epistle,  is  notorious 
to  every  reader  of  ecclesiastical  history.  The 
church  of  Rome  builds  her  system  of  man  being 
justified  by  reason  of  inherent  righteousness,  on 
the  assumption  that  when  St.  Paul  says  ‘ by  the 
deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified,’  he 
means  the  ceremonial  and  not  the  moral  law. 
In  this  way  she  would  establish  her  own  system 
of  human  merit,  and  harmonise  the  two  apostles. 
But  it  is  quite  clear  to  the  impartial  reader  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  the  scope  of  St. 
Paul's  argument  must  include  both  the  moral 
and  the  ceremonial  law;  for  he  proves  both  Jew 
and  Gentile  guilty  before  God,  and  this  with  the 
view  of  establishing  the  righteousness  of  faith  in 
the  imputed  merits  of  Christ  as  the  only  ground 
of  a sinner’s  salvation.  Leaving,  then,  this  so- 
phistical reconcilement,  we  come  to  that  which  our 
Protestant  divines  propose.  This  is  of  a two-fold 
character,  viz.,  first,  by  distinguishing  the  double 
sense  o f justification,  which  may  be  taken  either 
for  the  absolution  of  a sinner  in  God's  judgment, 
or  for  the  declaration  of  his  righteousness  before 
men.  This  distinction  is  found  in  Scripture,  in 
which  the  word  justify  is  used  in  both  accepta- 
tions. Thus  St.  Paul  speaks  of  justification  in 
faro  Dei ; St.  James  speaks  of  it  in  for o hominis. 
A man  is  justified  by  faith  without  works,  saith 
the  one ; a man  is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by 
faith  only,  declares  the  other.  That  this  is  the 
true  solution  of  the  difficulty  appears  from  the 
fact  that  the  two  apostles  draw  their  apparently 
opposite  conclusions  from  the  same  example  of 
Abraham  (Rom.  iv.  9-23;  comp.  James  ii. 
21-24). 

‘ If  Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath 
whereof  to  glory,  but  not  before  God.  For  what 
saith  the  Scripture?  Abraham  believed  God, and 
it.  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness’  (Rom. 
iv.  2,  3).  Thus  speaks  St.  Paul ; yet  St.  James 
argues  in  manner  following  : ‘ Was  not  Abraham 
our  father  justified  by  works  when  he  had  offered 
Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar  ? Seest  thou  how 
faith  wrought  with  his  works;  and  from  works 
faith  was  perfected?  And  the  Scripture  was  ful- 
filled which  saith,  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it 
was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  Ye  see 
then  how  from  works  a man  is  justified,  and  not 
from  faith  only.’ 

Another  mode  of  reconciling  the  apostles  is  by 
regardin  % faith  in  the  double  sense  in  which  it  is 
often  found  in  Scripture.  St.  Paul,  when  he 


affirms  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,  speaks 
of  that  faith  which  is  true  and  living,  working 
by  love.  St.  James,  when  he  denies  that  a man 
is  justified  by  faith  only,  disputes  against  that 
faith  which  is  false  and  unproductive;  wheL 
the  true  Christian,  speaking  to  the  hypocritical 
boaster  of  his  faith,  asks,  ‘Show  me  thy  faith 
without  thy  works,  and  I will  show  thee  my  faith 
by  my  works.’ 

3.  One  objection  more  may  be  urged  against 
this  fundamental  doctrine,  that  sinners  are  justified 
by  the  free  grace  of  God  through  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  the  Redeemer,  namely,  that  it 
weakens  the  obligations  to  holiness  of  life.  This 
objection  the  apostle  himself  anticipates  when  he 
asks,  ‘ What  shall  we  say  then  ? shall  we  continue 
in  sin  that  grace  may  abound?’  To  which  he 
answers  by  rejecting  the  consequence  with  the 
utmost  abhorrence,  and  in  the  strongest  manner 
affirming  it  to  be  without  any  foundation.  ‘ How 
shall  we,’  he  continues,  ‘ that  are  dead  to  sin,  live 
any  longer  therein?’  (Rom.  vi.  1-2).  He  who  ex- 
pects justification  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ,  has  the  clearest  and  strongest  convictions 
of  the  obligation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  of  its  ex- 
tent and  purity.  He  sees  in  the  vicarious  sufferings 
of  his  Saviour  the  awful  nature  of  sin  and  the  in- 
finite love  of  God ; and  this  love  of  God,  being  t hus 
manifested,  constrains  him  to  deny  ungodliness 
and  worldly  lusts,  and  to  live  soberly,  righteously, 
and  godly  in  this  world.  In  a word,  he  loves 
much  because  he  feels  that  God  hath  forgiven 
him  much,  because  the  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  his  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is 
given  unto  him.  What  a practical  illustration 
have  we  of  this  in  the  life  of  the  great  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  himself?  (See  further  on  this  subject 
the  several  treatises  on  Justification  by  Hooker; 
Winterspoon,  vol.  i. ; Anthony  Burgess,  Loud. 
1655;  Win.  Pemble,  Oxon.  1629;  Faber,  Lend. 
1839  ; Walter  Marshall,  Lond.  1692).— J.  W.  D 

1.  JUSTUS  (Tow-ros),  surnamed  Barsabas 
[Joseph.] 

2.  JUSTUS,  a Christian  at  Corinth,  with  whom 
Paul  lodged  (Acts  xviii.  7). 

3.  JUSTUS,  called  also  JESUS,  a believing 
Jew,  who  was  with  Paul  at  Rome  when  he  wrote 
to  the  Colossians  (Col.  iv.  11).  The  apostle 
names  him  and  Marcus  as  being  at  that  time  his 
only  fellow-labourers. 


K. 

KABBALAH  (n^Sj?,  from  ^5i?>  to  receive). 
This  word  is  an  abstract,  and  means  reception , 
a doctrine  received  by  oral  transmission  ; so  that 
with  mere  reference  to  its  etymological  significa- 
tion, it  is  the  correlate  of  miDD,  tradition.  The 
term  Kabbalah  is  employed  in  the  Jewish  writings 
to  denote  several  traditional  doctrines:  as,  for 
example,  that  which  constituted  the  creed  of  tlie 
patriarchal  age  before  the  giving  of  the  law  ; that 
unwritten  ritual  interpretation  which  the  Jews 
believe  was  revealed  by  God  to  Moses  on  the 
mount,  and  which  was  at  length  committed  to 
writing  and  formed  the  Mishnah.  Besides  being 
applied  to  these  and  other  similar  traditions,  it 
has  also  been  used  in,  comparatively  speaking, 
modem  times,  to  denote  a singular  mystical  mod* 


190 


KABBALAH. 


KABBALAH. 


of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  sense 
only  it  forms  the  subject  of  the  present  article. 

This  Kabbalah  is  an  art  of  eliciting  mysteries 
from  the  words  and  letters  of  the  Old  Testament 
by  means  of  some  subtle  devices  of  interpretation, 
or  it  is  an  abstruse  theosophical  and  metaphysical 
doctrine  containing  the  traditional  arcana  of  the 
remotest  times.  Itjs  of  two  kinds,  practical’1' 
and  speculative  (JVKtJJD  and  n'M'JJ).  The  spe- 
culative Kabbalah,  to  which  we  confine  ourselves, 
is  again  subdivided  into  the  artificial  and  inar- 
tificial, which  correspond  to  the  terms  of  our 
definition. 

The  artificial  Kabbalah,  which  is  so  called 
because  it  is  a system  of  interpretation  the  appli- 
cation of  which  is  bound  by  certain  rules,  is 
divided  info  three  species.  The  first,  Gematria 
from  the  Greek  yewperpla,  but  used  in 
a wider  sense),  is  the  arithmetical  mode  of  interpre- 
tation, in  which  the  letters  of  a word  are  regarded 
with  reference  to  their  value  as  numeral  signs, 
and  a word  is  explained  by  another  whose  united 
letters  produce  the  same  sum.  For  example,  the 

word  Shiloh  (n'TO  Gen.  xl  ix.  10),  the  letters  of 
which  amount,  when  considered  as  numerals,  to 
35S,  is  explained  to  be  Messiah  (ITtTO),  because 
they  are  both  numerically  equivalent,  and  the 
three  Targums  have  actually  so  rendered  it.  The 
second  species,  Temurah  (ITYlDn,  penmitation'), 
is  the  mode  by  which  one  word  is  transformed 
into  another  different  one  by  the  transposition  or 
systematic  interchange  of  their  letters ; as  when 

my  angel  (Exod.  xxiii.  23),  is  made  into 

Michael.  The  kinds  of  commutation 
described  in  the  article  Atbach  also  belong  to 
this  species.  The  third  species,  Notarikon 
(jlp'Htb'n,  from  the  Latin  notare ),  is  that  in 
which  some  or  all  of  the  letters  of  a word  are  con- 
sidered to  be  signs  denoting  other  words  of  which 
they  are  the  initials,  and  is  of  two  kinds.  In  the 
one,  either  the  initial  or  the  final  letter  of  two  or 
more  words  occurring  together  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  combined  to  form  one  new  word,  as 
when  'UTO,  Maccabee,  is  made  out  of  “pDD  'O 

HUT  (Exod.  xv.  11);  or  when  the  divine 

name  JYirV  is  extracted  from  HD  W TO  ^ 
(Exod.  iii.  13).  In  the  other,  the  several  letters 
of  one  word  are  taken  in  their  series  to  be  the 
initials  of  several  other  words,  as  when  D*7X  is 
explained  by  HTO,  DT,  ‘lSDX,  dust,  blood , gall. 

The  inartificial  or  dogmatical  Kabbalah  con- 
sists solely  of  a traditional  doctrine  on  things 
divine  and  metaphysical,  propounded  in  a sym- 
bolical form.  It  treats  principally  of  the  mys- 
teries of  the  doctrine  of  emanation,  of  angels 
and  spirits,  of  the  four  Kabbalistical  worlds,  and 
of  the  ten  Sephiroth  or  so-called  Kabbalistic 
tree.  It  is  a system  made  up  of  elements 
which  are  also  found  in  the  Magian  doctrine 
of  emanation,  in  the  Pythagorean  theory  of 


* It  may  suffice  for  our  present  purpose  merely 
to  notice  the  existence  of  the  practical  Kabbalah, 
which  differs  little  from  magic.  He  who  is 
curious  in  such  things  will  find  one  of  the  fullest 
details  of  the  portentous  miracles  which  are  said 
to  have  been  effected  by  its  agency  in  Edzard’s 
edition  of  the  second  chapter  of  the  tract  Abodah 
Zarah , p.  346,  sq. 


numbers,  in  the  philosophy  of  the  later  Platonists, 
and  in  the  tenets  of  the  Gnostics;  but  these  doc- 
trines are  here  stated  with  enigmatical  obscurity, 
and  without  the  coherence  and  development  of  a 
single  and  entire  scheme.  Its  general  tenor  may 
be  conceived  from  the  eminent  prerogatives  which 
it  assigns  to  the  law,  and  from  the  consequent 
latitude  of  interpretation.  Thus,  it  is  argued  in 
the  book  of  Sohar : ‘ Alas  for  the  man  who  thinks 
that  the  law  contains  nothing  but  what  appears 
on  its  surface;  for,  if  that  were  true,  there  would 
be  men  in  our  day  who  could  excel  it.  But  the 
law  assumed  a body  ; for  if  angels  are  obliged, 
when  they  descend  to  this  world,  to  assume  a body 
in  order  that  they  may  subsist  in  the  world,  and 
it  be  able  to  receive  them,  how  much  more  neces- 
sary was  it  that  the  law,  which  created  them  and 
which  was  the  instrument  by  which  the  world  was 
created,  should  be  invested  with  a body  in  order 
that  it  might  be  adapted  to  the  comprehension  of 
man  ? That  body  is  a history,  in  which  if  any 
man  think  there  is  not  a soul,  let  him  have  no 
part  in  the  life  to  come.’  Manasseh-ben-Israel , 
.who  makes  this  citation  from  the  book  of  Sohar, 
enforces  this  view  with  many  arguments  ( Con- 
ciliator, Amstelod.  1633,  p.  169). 

The  ten  Sephiroth  have  been  represented  in 
three  different  forms,  all  of  which  may  be  seen  in 
H.  More  s Opera  Philos,  i.  423 ; and  one  of 
which,  although  not  the  most  usual  one,  has 
been  already  given  in  the  article  God.  The 
Sephiroth  have  been  the  theme  of  endless  discus- 
sion ; and  it  has  even  been  disputed  whether  they 
are  designed  to  express  theological,  philosophical, 
or  physical  mysteries.  The  Jews  themselves 
generally  regard  them  as  the  sum  and  substance 
of  Kabbalistical  theology,  as  indicating  the 
emanating  grades  and  order  of  efflux  according 
to  which  the  nature  and  manifested  operation  of 
the  Supreme  Being  may  be  comprehended. 
Several  Christian  scholars  have  discerned  in  them 
the  mysteries  of  their  own  faith,  the  trinity,  and 
the  incarnation  of  the  Messiah.*  In  this  they 
have  received  some  sanction  by  the  fact  noticed 
by  Wolf,  that  most  learned  Jewish  converts  en- 
deavour to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  Christianity 
out  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Kabbalah  ( Biblioth . 
Hebr.  i.  360).  The  majority  of  all  parties 
appear  to  concur  in  considering  the  first  three 
Sephiroth  to  belong  to  the  essence  of  God,  and  the 
last  seven  to  denote  his  attributes,  or  modes  of  ex- 
istence. The  following  treatises  on  this  subject 

* It  is  worth  while  to  adduce  the  words  of 
Count  G.  Pico  della  Miraridola,  as  cited  in  Hot- 
tinger’s  Thesaurus  Philologicus,  p.  439 : ‘ Hos 
ego  libros  non  mediocri  impensa  mihi  cum  com- 
parassem,  summa  diligentia,  indefessis  laboribus 
cum  perlegissem,  vidi  in  illis  (testis  est  Dens) 
religionem  non  tarn  Mosaicam,  quam  Christianam. 
Ibi  Trinitatis  mysterium,  ibiVerbi  incarnatio,  ibi 
Messiae  divinitas,  ibi  de  peccato  originali,  de 
illius  per  Christum  expiatione,  de  ccelesti  Hisru- 
salem,  de  casu  daemonum,  de  ordinibus  ange- 
lorum,  de  purgatoriis,  de  inferorum  poenis : eadem 
legi,  quae  apud  Paulum  et  Dionysium,  apud 
Hieronymum  et  Augustinum  quotidie  legimui 
....  In  plenum,  nulla  est  ferme  de  re  nobis  cum 
Hebraeis  controversia,  de  qua  ex  libris  Cabbali* 
tarum  ita  redargui  convincique  non  possint,  ut  n« 
augulus  quidem  reliquus  sit,  in  quem  se  condant  • 


KABBALAH. 


KADESH. 


191 


are  among  the  most  remarkable  : a dissertation  by 
Rkenferd,  De  Stylo  Apocalypseos  Cabbalistico , 
in  Danz’s  Nov.  Test,  ex  Talmude  i/lust.  p.  1090, 
in  which  he  endeavours  to  point  out  many  extra- 
ordinary coincidences  between  the  theosophy  of 
the  Kabbalah  and  the  book  of  Revelation  (which 
may  be  compared  with  an  essay  of  similar  ten- 
dency in  Eichhorn’s  Bibl.  Biblioth.  iii.  191); 
and  a dissertation  by  Vitringa,  De  Sephiroth 
Kabbalistarum , in  his  Observat.  Sacr.  i.  120,  in 
which  he  first  showed  how  the  Sephiroth  accorded 
with  the  human  form. 

The  origin  of  the  Kabbalah  is  involved  in  great 
obscurity.  The  Jews  ascribe  it  to  Adam,  or  to 
Abraham,  or  to  Moses,  or  to  Ezra ; the  last  being 
apparently  countenanced  by  2 Esdras  xiv.  20-48. 
The  opinions  of  Christian  writers  are  as  variously 
divided;  and  the  Kabbalah  is  such  a complex 
whole,  and  has  been  aggregated  together  at  such 
distant  periods,  that  no  general  judgment  can 
apply  to  it.  Their  opinions  need  only  be  noticed 
in  their  extremes.  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  Rhen- 
ferd  and  others  maintain  that  the  Jewish  church 
possessed,  in  its  inartificial  Kabbalah,  an  ancient 
unwritten  traditional  doctrine,  by  which  they 
were  instructed  that  the  types  and  symbols  of  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  were  (to  use  Luther’s  words) 
but  the  manger  and  the  swaddling-clothes  in 
which  the  Messiah  lay — of  which  genuine  doc- 
trine, however,  they  nevertheless  believe  our  pre- 
sent Kabbalah  to  contain  only  fragments  amidst 
a mass  of  Gentile  additions.  On  the  other  hand, 
Eichhorn  accounls  for  the  origin  of  that  important 
part  of  this  Kabbalah,  the  system  of  allegorical 
interpretation  (by  which  their  occult  doctrine  was 
either  generated,  or,  if  not,  at  least  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  law),  by  supposing  that  the 
Jews  adopted  it  immediately  from  the  Greeks. 
According  to  him,  when  the  Jews  were  brought 
into  contact  with  the  enlightened  speculations  of 
the  Greek  philosophers,  they  felt  that  their  law  (as 
they  had  hitherto  interpreted  it)  was  so  far  behind 
the  wisdom  of  the  Gentiles,  that — both  to  vindi- 
cate its  honour  in  the  eyes  of  the  scoffing  heathen, 
as  well  as  to  reconcile  their  newly  adopted  philo- 
sophical convictions  with  their  ancient  creed — 
they  borrowed  from  the  Greek  allegorizers  of 
Homer  the  same  art  of  interpretation,  and  applied 
it  to  conjure  away  the  unacceptable  sense  or  the 
letter,  or  to  extort  another  sense  which  harmonized 
with  the  philosophy  of  the  age  (Bibl.  Biblioth.  v. 
237,  sq.). 

Both  these  opinions,  however,  coincide  at  a cer- 
tain point,  in  assuming  that  the  Jews  did  adopt 
the  doctrines  of  Gentile  philosophy ; and  a wide 
field  is  open  for  conjectures  as  to  the  particular 
Bources  from  which  the  several  elements  of  the 
Kabbalah  have  been  derived.  Thus,  whether  the 
Persian  religion,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  ema- 
nation is  so  prominent  (the  zeruane  akerene , or 
infinite  time , being  the  FpD  j'K  of  the  Sephiroth), 
Bupplied  that  theory  to  the  Jews  during  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity ; or  whether  it  was  borrowed 
from  any  other  scheme  containing  that  doctrine, 
down  as  late  as  the  origin  of  Gnosticism  ; or  even 
whether,  as  H.  More  asserts,  the  Kabbalah  itself 
is  the  primitive  fountain  from  which  the  Gentiles 
have  themselves  drawn — these,  and  the  many 
such  questions  which  could  be  raised  about  the 
origin  of  the  other  Kabbalistic  doctrines,  can 
only  receive  a probable  solution. 


However  these  matters  may  be  decided,  the  dal* 
of  the  most  important  works  in  which  the  doctrm* 
of  the  Kabbalah  is  contained  may  be  brought  to  a 
nearer  certainty.  Of  these  the  book  Jezirah 
(STW,  creation ),  which  is  the  oldest  of  them, 
and  which  is  attributed  to  the  patriarch  Abraham, 
cannot  be  credibly  ascribed  to  any  earlier  author 
than  the  Rabbi  Akibah,  who  lived  in  the  first 
century  of  our  era;  but  the  cautious  Wolf  thinks 
that  it  is  prudent  not  to  insist  on  any  earlier  or 
more  precise  date  for  it  than  that  it  was  written 
before  the  completion  of  the  Talmud,  as  it  is 
cited  in  the  treatise  Sanhedrin.  It  has  often  been 
printed;  as  by  Rittangel,  a converted  Jew,  with 
a Latin  version  and  notes,  Amsterd.  1642,  4to. ; 
and,  more  recently,  with  a German  version,  notes, 
and  a glossary,  by  J.  F.  von  Meyer,  Leipz.  1830, 
4to.  The  obscure  book  of  Sonar  (“iiTlT,  splen- 
dour),  which  has  been  called  the  Bible  of  the  Kab- 
balists,  is  ascribed  to  Simeon  ben  Jochai,  who 
was  a pupil  of  R.  Akibah  ; but  the  earliest  men- 
tion of  its  existence  occurs  in  the  year  1290 ; and 
the  anachronisms  of  its  style,  and  of  the  facta 
referred  to,  together  with  the  circumstance  that  it 
speaks  of  the  vowel-points  and  other  Masoretic 
inventions,  which  are  clearly  posterior  to  the 
Talmud,  justify  J.  Morinus  (although  too  often 
extravagant  in  his  wilful  attempts  to  depreciate 
the  antiquity  of  the  later  Jewish  writings)  in  as- 
serting that  the  author  could  not  have  lived  much 
before  the  year  1000  of  the  Christian  era  ( Exerci - 
tationes  Biblicce , pp.  358-369).  The  best  edition 
of  the  book  of  Sohar  is  that  by  Baron  C.  von 
Rosenroth,  with  Jewish  commentaries,  Sulzbach, 
1684,  fol.,  to  which  his  rare  Cabbala  Denudata , 
1677-1684,  4to.,  forms  an  ample  introduction. 

Wolf  has  given  an  extended  account  of  the 
Kabbalah,  and  of  the  numerous  manuscripts  and 
printed  Jewish  works  in  which  its  principles  are 
contained,  as  well  as  abundant  references  to 
Christian  authors  who  have  treated  of  it  ( Biblioth. 
Hebr.  ii.  1191,  sq.).  The  work  of  P.  Beer  ( Ge - 
schichte  der  Lelxren  aller  Secten  der  Juden,  und 
der  Cabbala,  Briinn,  1822,  2 vols.  Svo.),  which  is 
mentioned  with  approbation,  has  not  been  avail- 
able for  this  article. — J.  N. 

KADESH  ( KHi?  ; Sept.  KaSfc),  or  Kadesh- 
barnea,  a site  on  the  south-eastern  border  of  the 
Promised  Land  towards  Edom,  of  much  interest 
as  being  the  point  at  which  the  Israelites  twice 
encamped  with  the  intention  of  entering  Pales- 
tine, and  from  which  they  were  twice  sent  back  ; 
the  first  time  in  pursuance  of  their  sentence  to 
wander  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  and  the 
second  time  from  the  refusal  of  the  king  of  Edom 
to  permit  a passage  through  his  territories.  It 
was  from  Kadesh  that  the  spies  entered  Palestine 
by  ascendi-ng  the  mountains ; and  the  murmuring 
Israelites  afterwards  attempting  to  do  the  same 
were  driven  back  by  the  Amalekites  and  Ca- 
naanites,  and  afterwards  apparently  by  the  king 
of  Arad,  as  far  as  Hormah,  then  called  Zephath 
(Num.  xiii.  17  ; xiv.  40-45 ; xxi.  1-3 ; Dent, 
i.  41-44  ; comp.  Judg.  i.  7).  There  was  also  at 
Kadesh  a fountain  (En-mishpat)  mentioned  long 
before  the  exode  of  the  Israelites  (Gen.  xiv.  7) ; 
and  the  miraculous  supply  of  water  took  place 
only  on  the  second  visit,  which  implies  that  at 
the  first  there  was  no  lack  of  this  necessary 
article.  After  this  Moses  sent  messengers  to  the 


192 


KADESII. 


KADESIi. 


king  of  Edom,  informing  liim  that  they  were  in 
Kadesh,  a city  in  the  uttermost  part  of  his  border, 
and  asking  leave  to  pass  through  his  country,,  so  as 
to  continue  their  course  round  Moab,  and  approach 
Palestine  from  the  East.  This  Edom  refused,  and 
the  Israelites  accordingly  marched  to  Mount  Hor, 
where  Aaron  died ; and  then  along  the  Arabah 
(desert  of  Zin)  to  the  Red  Sea  (Num.  xx.  14-29). 
The  name  of  Kadesh  again  occurs  in  describing 
the  southern  quarter  of  Judah,  the  line  defining 
which  is  drawn  ‘ from  the  shore  of  the  Salt  Sea, 
from  the  bay  that  looked  southward  ; and  it  went 
out  to  the  south  side  of  Akrabbim,  and  passed 
along  to  Zin,  and  ascended  up  on  the  south  side 
to  Kadesh- barnea’  (Josh.  xv.  1-3;  comp.  Num. 
xxxiv.  3,  4). 

From  these  intimations  the  map-makers,  who 
found  it  difficult  to  reconcile  them  with  the 
place  usually  assigned  to  Kadesh  (in  the  desert 
about  midway  between  the  Mediterranean  and 
Dead  Sea),  were  in  the  habit  of  placing  a 
second  Kadesh  nearer  the  Dead  Sea  and  the 
Wady  Arabah.  It  was  left  for  the  editor  of  the 
Pictorial  Bible  to  show  (Note  on  Num.  xx.  1) 
that  one  Kadesh  would  sufficiently  answer  all  the 
conditions  required,  by  being  placed  more  to  the 
south,  nearer  to  Mount  Hor,  on  the  west  border 
of  the  Wady  Arabah,  than  this  second  Kadesh. 
The  gist  of  the  argument  lies  in  the  following 
passage: — ‘We  conclude  that  there  is  but  one 
Kadesh  mentioned  in  Scripture,  and  that  the  diffi- 
culties which  have  seemed  to  require  that  there 
should  be  a second  or  even  a third  place  of  the 
name,  may  be  easily  and  effectually  obviated  by 
altering  the  position  commonly  assigned  to 
Kadesh-barnea,  that  is,  the  Kadesh  from  which 
the  spies  were  sent  in  the  fifteenth  chapter,  and 
from  which  the  wanderings  commenced.  We 
are  at  perfect  liberty  to  make  this  alteration,  be- 
cause nothing  whatever  is  distinctly  known  of 
such  a place,  and  its  position  has  been  entirely 
fixed  upon  conjectural  probabilities.  But  being 
once  fixed,  it  has  generally  been  received  and 
reasoned  upon  as  a truth,  and  it  has  been  thought 
better  to  create  another  Kadesh  to  meet  the  diffi- 
culties which  this  location  occasioned,  than  to 
disturb  old  maps  and  old  topographical  doctrines. 
Kadesh  is  usually  placed  within  or  close  upon  the 
southern  frontier  of  Palestine,  about  midway  be- 
tween the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean. 
This  location  would  seem  in  itself  improbable 
without  strong  counter-reasons  in  its  favour.  For 
we  do  not  find  that  a hostile  people,  when  not 
prepared  for  immediate  action,  confront  them- 
selves directly  with  their  enemies,  but  encamp  at 
some  considerable  distance  and  send  scouts  and 
spies  to  reconnoitre  the  country  ; nor  is  it  by  any 
means  likely  that  they  would  remain  so  long  at 
Kadesh  as  they  seem  to  have  done  at  their  first  visit, 
If  they  had  been  in  the  very  face  of  their  enemies, 
as  must  have  been  the  case  in  the  assigned  posi- 
tion. We  should,  therefore,  on  this  ground  alone, 
be  inclined  to  place  Kadesh  more  to  the  south  or 
south-east  than  this.  Besides,  if  this  were  Kadesh, 
now  could  Kadesh  be  on  the  borders  of  Edom, 
seeing  that  the  Edomites  did  not,  till  many  cen- 
turies later,  occupy  the  country  to  the  south  of 
Canaan,  and  weie  at  this  time  confined  to  the 
region  of  Se i r ? Moreover,  from  a Kadesh  so  far 
to  the  north  they  were  not  likely  to  send  to  the 
king  of  Edom  without  moving  down  towards  the 


place  where  they  hoped  to  obtain  permission  to 
cross  Mount  Seir,  particularly  as  by  so  moving 
they  would  at  the  same  time  be  making  jro- 
gress  towards  the  point  which  the  refusal  of 
the  Edomites  would  oblige  them  to  pass,  and 
which  they  actually  did  pass.  Therefore,  the 
stay  of  the  host  at  Kadesh,  waiting  for  the  king’s 
answer,  seems  to  imply  that  Kadesh  was  so  near 
as  not  to  make  it  worth  while  to  move,  till  they 
knew  the  result  of  their  application  to  him, 
Further,  we  read  in  ch.  xxxiii.,  xxxvi.,  after  an 
enumeration  of  distances  of  manifestly  no  great 
length,  that  in  the  present  instance  (the  second) 
the  move  to  Kadesh  was  Eziongeber,  at  the  head 
of  the  Gulf  of  Akabah,  the  distance  bet  ween  which 
and  the  Kadesh  of  the  maps  is  about  120  miles  ; 
and  this  is  the  consideration  which  has  chiefly 
influenced  those  who  have  determined  that  there 
must  have  been  two  places  of  the  name.  And  we 
must  confess  that  while  thinking  over  the  other 
reasons  which  have  been  stated  we  were,  for  a 
time,  inclined  to  consider  them  as  leading  to  that 
conclusion,  and  that  tire  second  Kadesh  must 
have  been  very  near  Mount  Hor.  And  this  im- 
pression ( as  to  Kadesh  being  near  Mount  Hor) 
was  confirmed  when,  happening  to  find  tliat 
Eusebius  describes  the  tomb  of  Miriam  (who  died 
at  Kadesh),  being  still  in  his  time  shown  at 
Kadesh,  near  Petra , the  capital  of  Arabia 
Petrcea , we  perceived  it  important  to  ascertain 
where  this  author  fixed  Petra,  since  one  account 
places  this  city  more  to  the  north  than  another ; 
and  we  found  that  he  places  Petra  near  Mount 
Hor,  on  which  Aaron  died  and  was  buried  ; and 
consequently  the  Kadesh  of  Num.  xx.  1,  where 
Miriam  died  and  was  buried,  must,  in  the  view 
of  Eusebius,  have  been  at  no  very  great  distance 
from  Mount  Hor.’ 

Other  arguments  are  adduced  to  show  that 
if  there  were  two  Kadeshes,  the  one  of  the 
second  journey  must  have  been  in  the  rx>- 
siiion  indicated,  and  that  one  in  this  positu/.. 
would  answer  all  the  demands  of  Scripture. 
According  to  these  views  Kad.esh  was  laid  down 
in  the  map  (in  the  Illuminated  Atlas ) prepared 
under  the  writer’s  direction,  in  the  same  line,  and 
not  far  from  the  place  which  lias  since  been 
assigned  to  it  from  actual  observation  by  Dr. 
Robinson.  This  concurrence  of  different  lines  ot 
research  in  the  same  result  is  curious  and  valu- 
able, and  the  position  of  Kadesh  will  be  regarded 
as  now  scarcely  open  to  dispute.  It  was  clear 
that  the  discovery  of  the  fountain  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  great  valley  would  go  far  to  fix  the 
question.  Robinson  accordingly  discovered  a 
fountain  called  Ain  el-Weibeb,  which  is  even  at 
this  day  the  most  frequented  watering-place  in 
all  the  Arabah,  and  he  was  struck  by  the  entire 
adaptedness  of  the  site  to  the  Scriptural  account 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Israelites  on  their  second 
arrival  at  Kadesh.  ‘ Over  against  us  lay  the 
land  of  Edom  ; we  were  in  its  uttermost  border  ; 
and  the  great  Wady  el-Ghuweir  afforded  a direct 
and  easy  passage  through  the  mountains  to  the 
table-land  above,  which  was  directly  before  us ; 
while  further  in  the  south  Mount  Hor  formed  a 
prominent  and  striking  object,  at  the  distance  oi 
two  good  days’  journey  for  such  a host’  {Bio. 
Researches , ii.  538).  Further  on  (p.  610)  he 
adds : ‘ There  the  Israelites  w'ould  have  Mount 
Hor  in  the  S.S.E.  towering  directly  before  tfietr 


KADMONITES. 


KALI. 


193 


....  in  the  N.W.  rises  the  mountain  by  which 
they  attempted  to  ascend  to  Palestine,  with  the 
pass  still  called  Sufah  (Zephath)  ; while  further 
north  we  find  also  Tell  Arad,  marking  the  site  of 
the  ancient  Arad.  To  all  this  comes  then  the 
vicinity  of  the  southern  bay  of  the  Dead  Sea,,  the 
line  of  cliffs  or  offset  separating  the  Ghor  from 
the  Arabah,  answering  to  the  ascent  of  Akrabbim  ; 
and  the  desert  of  Zin,  with  the  place  of  the  same 
name  between  Akrabbim  and  Kadesh,  not  im- 
probably at  the  water  of  Hash,  in  the  Arabah. 
In  this  way  all  becomes  easy  and  natural,  and 
the  Scriptural  account,  is  entirely  accordant  with 
the  character  of  the  country.’ 

KADMONITES  ; Sept.  K eS/mvouoi), 

one  of  the  nations  of  Canaan,  which  is  supposed 
to  have  dwelt  in  the  north-east  part  of  Palestine, 
under  Mount  Hermon,  at  the  time  that  Abraham 
sojourned  in  the  land  (Gen.  xv.  19).  As  the 
name  is  derived  from  Dip  kedem , which  means 
‘ east,’  it  is  supposed  by  Dr.  Wells  and  others  to 
denote  ‘ an  eastern  people,’  and  that  they  were 
situated  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  or  rather  that  it 
was  a term  applied  collectively,  like  ‘ Easterns,’  or 
‘ Orientals,’  to  all  the  people  living  in  the  coun- 
tries beyond  that  river.  To  this  opinion  we  in- 
cline, as  the  Kadmonites  are  not  elsewhere  men- 
tioned as  a distinct  nation  ; and  the  subsequent 
discontinuance  of  the  term,  in  the  assigned  ac- 
ceptation, may  be  easily  accounted  for,  by  the 
nations  beyond  the  river  having  afterwards  be- 
come more  distinctly  known,  so  as  to  be  men- 
tioned by  their  several  distinctive  names.  The 
reader  may  see  much  ingenious  trifling  respecting 
this  name  in  Bochart  ( Canaan , i.  19);  the  sub- 
stance of  which  is,  that  Cadmus,  the  founder  of 
Thebes,  in  Boeotia,  was  originally  a Kadmonite, 
and  that  the  name  of  his  wife  Hermione,  was 
derived  from  Mount  Hermon. 

KALI  (^p,  N'^p).  This  word  occurs  in 
several  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  all  of 
which,  in  the  Authorized  Version,  it  is  translated 
parched  corn.  The  correctness  of  this  translation 
has  not,  however,  been  assented  to  by  all  commen- 
tators. Thus,  as  Celsius  ( Hierobot . ii.  231)  says, 

‘ Syrus  interpres,  Onkelos,  et  Jonathan  Ebraea 
voce  utuntur,  Lev.  xxiii.  14;  1 Sam.  xvii.  17; 
xxv.  18;  2 Sam.  xvii.  28.’  Arias  Montanus 
and  others,  he  adds,  render  kali  by  the  word 
tostum,  considering  it  to  be  derived  from  il^p, 
which  in  the  Hebrew  signifies  torrere,  ‘ to  toast’ 

or ‘parch.’  So  in  the  Arabic  kali  signifies 

anything  cooked  in  a frying-pan,  and  is  applied 
to  the  common  Indian  dish  which  by  Euro- 
peans is  called  currie  or  curry.  kalee , and 

U!  kalla  signify  one  that  fries,  or  a cook. 
From  the  same  root  is  supposed  to  be  derived 
the  word  kali  or  al'kali , now  so  familiarly  known 
as  alkali,  which  is  obtained  from  the  ashes  of 
burnt  vegetables.  But  as,  in  the  various  passages 
of  Scripture  where  it  occurs,  kali  is  without  any 
adjunct,  different  opinions  have  been  entertained 
respecting  the  substance  which  is  to  be  understood 
as  having  been  toasted  or  parched.  By  some  it  is 
supposed  to  have  been  corn  in  general ; by  others, 
only  wheat.  Some  Hebrew  writers  maintain  that 

von.  ii.  44 


flour  or  meal,  and  others,  that,  parched  meal , is 
intended,  as  in  the  passage  of  Ruth  ii.  14,  where 
the  Septuagint  translates  kali  by  &\(pirov,  and  tne 
Vulgate  by  polenta.  A difficulty,  however,  occurs 
in  the  case  of  2 Sam.  xvii.  28,  where  the  word 
occurs  twice  in  the  same  verse.  We  are  told  that 
Shobi  and  others,  on  David’s  arrival  at  Mahanaim, 
in  the  further  limit  of  the  tribe  of  Gad,  ‘ brought 
beds,  and  basins,  and  earthen  vessels,  and  wheat, 
and  barley,  and  flour,  and  parched  corn  (kali,, 
and  beans,  and  lentils,  and  parched  pulse  (kali, 
and  honey,  and  butter,  and  sheep,  and  cheese  of 
kine,  for  David  and  for  the  people  that  were  with 
him  to  eat.’  This  is  a striking  representation  of 
what  may  be  seen  every  day  in  ihe  East : when 
a traveller  arrives  at  a village,  the  common  light 
beds  of  the  country  are  brought  him,  as  well  as 
earthen  pots,  with  food  of  different  kinds.  The 
meaning  of  the  above  passage  is  explained  by  the 
statement  of  Hebrew  writers,  that  there  are  two 
kinds  of  kali — one  made  of  parched  corn , the 
other  of  parched  pulse  ; or,  according  to  R.  Sa- 
lomon, ex  Avoda  Zarah , fol.  xxxviii.  2,  as  quoted 
by  Celsius  (ii.  233),  ‘ Dicunt  Rabbini  nostri, 
duas  diversas  species  kali  debere  hie  intelligi. 
Nam  duplicis  generis  schetitam  adduxerat  Bar- 
sillai  Davidi ; unum  e tritico,  et  alterum  e len- 
tibus,  sicut  (in  textu ) dicitur  : farinam  et  kali: 
et  haeo  f'lit  e tritico.  Fabas,  et  lentes,  et  kali: 
haec  fuit  e speciebus  leguminum,  quae  arefecerant 
in  fornace,  utpote  viridia  et  dulcia.  Postea  mo- 
lebant  ea,  et  faciebant  ex  illis  cibum,  quam 
vocabant  IVntSV 

There  is  no  doubt  that  in  the  East  a little 
meal,  either  parched  or  not,  mixed  with  a little 
water,  often  constitutes  the  dinner  of  the  natives, 
especially  of  those  engaged  in  laborious  occu- 
pations, as  boatmen  while  dragging  their  vessels 
up  rivers,  and  unable  to  make  any  long  delay. 
Another  principal  preparation,  much  and  con- 
stantly in  use  in  Western  Asia,  is  burgoul , that  is, 
corn  first,  boiled,  then  bruised  in  the  mill  to  take 
the  husk  off",  and  afterwards  dried  or  parched 
in  the  sun.  In  this  state  it  is  preserved  for  use, 
and  employed  for  the  same  purposes  as  rice.  The 
meal  of  parched  corn  is  also  much  used,  particu- 
larly* by  travellers,  who  mix  it  with  honey,  butter, 
and  spices,  and  so  eat  it;  or  else  mix  it  with 
water  only,  and  drink  it  as  a draught,  the  refri- 
gerating and  satisfying  qualities  of  which  they 
justly  extol  ( Pictorial  Bible , ii.  p.  537).  Parched 
grain  is  also,  no  doubt,  very  common.  Thus, 
in  the  bazaars  of  India  not  only  may  rice  be  ob- 
tained in  a parched  state,  but  also  the  seeds  of  the 
Nymph cea,  and  of  the  Nelumbsium  Speciosum,  or 
bean  of  Pythagoras,  and  most  abundantly  the 
pulse  called  gram  by  the  English,  on  whica 
their  cattle  are  chiefly  fed.  This  is  the  Cicer 
Arietinum  of  botanists,  or  chick-pea,  which  is 
common  even  in  Egypt  and  the  south  of  Europe, 
and  may  be  obtained  everywhere  in  India  in  a 
parched  state,  under  the  name  of  chebenne.  We 
know  not  whether  it  be  the  same  pulse  that  is 
mentioned  in  the  article  Dove’s  Dung,  a sort  of 
pulse  or  pea,  which  appears  to  have  been  very 
common  in  Judaea.  Belon  ( Observat . ii.  53) 
informs  us  that  large  quantities  of  it  are  parched 
and  dried,  and  stored  in  magazines  at  Cairo  and 
Damascus.  It  is  much  used  during  journeys, 
and  particularly  by  the  great  pilgrim  caravsn 
to  Mecca. 


194 


KANEH. 


KANEH, 


Considering  all  these  points,  it  does  not  appear 
to  us  by  any  means  certain  that  kali  is  correctly 
translated  ‘ parched  corn,’  in  all  the  passages  of 
Scripture.  Thus,  in  Lev.  xxiii.  14:  ‘Ye  shall 
eat  neither  bread,  nor  parched  corn  (kali),  nor 
green  ears,  until. . . So  in  Ruth  ii.  14,  ‘ And 
he  (Boaz)  reached  her  parched  corn  (kali),  and 
she  did  eat.’  1 Sam.  xvii.  17:  ‘ Take  now  for 
thy  brethren  an  ephah  of  parched  corn .’  And 
again,  xxv.  18,  where  five  measures  of  parched 
com  are  mentioned.  Bochart  says  ( Hieroz . part 
ii.  lib.  i.  c.  7)  ‘kali  ab  Hieronymo  redditur 
frixum  cicer ;’  and  to  show  that  it  was  the  prac- 
tice among  the  ancients  to  parch  the  cicer,  he 
quotes  Plautus  ( Bacch . iv.  5.  7) : ‘ Tam  frictum 
ego  ilium  reddam,  quam  frictum  est.  cicer ;’  also 
Horace  (De  Arte  Poetica,  l.  249)  and  others  : and 
shows  from  the  writings  of  the  Rabbins,  that  kali 
was  also  applied  to  some  kind  of  pulse.  ‘ Kali 
sunt  leguminum  species,  quae  adhuc  recentia 
in  furno  exsiccantur,  et  semper  manent  dulcia 
et  commoluntur,  et  fit  ex  iis  cibus  quern  vocant 
sethith  ’ (R.  Selomo).  The  name  kali  seems, 
moreover,  to  have  been  widely  spread  through 
Asiatic  countries.  Thus  in  Shakspeare’s  Hin- 

dee  Dictionary , i kalae , from  the  Sanscrit 


sfrSJZI 


translated  pulse  — leguminous 


seeds  in  general.  The  present  writer  found  it 
applied  in  the  Himalayas  to  the  common  field- 
pea,  and  has  thus  mentioned  it  elsewhere  :  *  lPisum 
arvense.  Cultivated  in  the  Himalayas,  also  in 
the  plains  of  north-west  India,  found  wild  in  the 
Kbadie  of  the  Jumna,  near  Delhi ; the  corra 
vnuttur  of  the  natives,  called  Kullae  in  the  hills’ 
(Must;  of  Himalayan  Botany , p.  200).  Hence 
we  are  disposed  to  consider  the  pea,  or  the  chick- 
pea, as  more  correct  than  parched  corn  in  some 
of  the  above  passages  of  Scripture. — J.  F.  R. 


KANEH  (ITJ|7)  occurs  in  several  places  of 
the  Old  Testament,  in  all  of  which,  in  the 
Authorized  Version,  it  is  translated  reed;  as  in 

1 Kings  xiv.  15  ; 2 Kings  xviii.  21  ; Job  xl.  21  ; 
Isa.  xix.  G ; xxxv.  7 ; xxxvi.  6 ; xlii.  3 ; Ezek. 
xxix.  6.  The  Hebrew  Kaneh  would  seem  to  be 
the  original  of  the  Greek  Kavva,  the  Latin  canna, 
and  the  modern  canna,  canne , cane,  &c.,  signi- 
fying a ‘ reed  ’ or  ‘ cane,’  also  a fence  or  mat 
made  of  reeds  or  rushes  : the  Latin  word  also 
denotes  the  sugar-cane,  a pipe,  &c.  Hence  the 
term  appears  to  have  been  used  in  a general  sense 
in  ancient  as  well  as  in  modern  times.  Thus  we 
find  in  Hakluyt,  * Then  they  pricke  him  (the 
elephant)  with  sharp  canes  ;’  Milton  (Par.  Lost. 
iii.  439)  describes  the  Tatars  as  driving — 

‘ With  sails  and  wind  their  cany  waggons  light ;’ 
Grainger  also,  when  referring  to  the  Indians,  as  de- 
scribed. by  Lucan,  says  ‘ That  sucke  sweete  liquor 
from  their  sugar-canes.’  In  later  times  the  term 
cane  has  been  applied  more  particularly  to  the 
stems  of  the  Calamus  Rotang,  and  other  specie* 
of  rattan  canes,  which  we  have  good  grounds  for 
believing  were  unknown  to  the  ancients,  notwith- 
stand  ng  the  opinion  of  Sprengel  (Hist.  Rei  Herb. 
i.  171),  ‘ Ctesias  duo  genera, Ka.Xay.ov  facit.,  mavem 
■ tine  medulla  et  feminam  eo  praeditam,  hanc  sine 
dubio  Calamum  Rotang , illam  Bambusam  rios- 
tram.  Repetit  ea  Plinius  (xvi.  36).’ 

The  Greek  word  Kakayos  appears  to  have  been 


considered  the  proper  equivalent  for  the  Hebrew 
Kaneh , being  the  term  used  by  St.  Matthew  xii. 
20),  when  quoting  the  words  of  Isaiah  (xlii.  3), 
‘ A bruised  reed  (Kaneh)  shall  he  not  oreak.’ 
The  Greek  word  Latinized  is  well  known  in  the 
forms  of  calamus  and  culmus.  Both  see.n  to 

have  been  derived  from  the  Arabic  kalm, 

signifying  a * reed  ’ or  ‘ pen,’  and  forming  nu- 
merous compounds,  with  the  latter  signification, 
in  the  languages  of  the  East.  It  also  denotes 
a weaver’s  reed,  and  even  cuttings  of  trees  for 
planting  or  grafting.  Or  they  may  all  be  derived 

from  the  Sanscrit  kalm,  having  the 

same  signification.  The  German  halm,  and  the 
English  haulm,  usually  applied  to  the  straw  or 
stems  of  grasses,  would  seem  to  have  the  same 
origin.  The  Greek  Kakayos.  and  the  Latin 
calamus,  were  used  with  as  wide  a signification 
as  the  Oriental  kalm,  and  denoted  a reed,  the 
stalk  or  stem  of  corn,  or  anything  made  there- 
from, as  a pen.  an  arrow,  a reed-pipe.  KoA ayos 
is  also  applied  to  any  plant  which  is  neithei 
shrub,  bush  (vkrj),  nor  tree  (SevSpou)  (vid.  Liddell 
and  Scott's  Greek  Lex.).  So  calamus  means  any 
twig,  sprig,  or  scion.  Thus  Pliny  (xvi.  14.  24), 
‘ ipsique  in  eo  medullae  calamum  imprimebant ;’ 
and  in  India  we  every  day  hear  the  expression 
‘ kalm  lugana,’  i.  e.  ‘ to  apply’  or  ‘fix’  a graft. 
Pliny  (xxiv.  14.  75),  speaking  of  the  Rubus,  or 
bramble,  says,  ‘ Rarioribus  calamis  innocentiori- 
busque,  sub  arborum  umbra  nascens.’ 

Such  references  to  the  meaning  of  these  words 
in  different  languages,  may  appear  to  have  little 
relation  to  our  present  subject ; but  Kakayos 
occurs  very  frequently  in  fhe  New  Testament, 
and  apparently  with  the  same  latitude  of  mean- 
ing : thus,  in  the  sense  of  a reed  or  culm  of  a 
grass,  Matt.  xi.  7 ; Luke  vii.  24,  ‘ A reed  shaken 
by  the  wind ;’  of  a pen,  in  3 John  13,  ‘ But  1 
will  not  with  pen  (Kakayos)  and  ink  write  unto 
thee;’  Matt,  xxvii.  29,  ‘Put  a reed’ in  his 
right  hand;’  ver.  30,  ‘ took  the  reed  and  smot< 
him  on  the  head;’  and  in  Mark  xv.  19,  it  ma; 
mean  a reed  or  twig  of  any  kind.  So  also  ii 
Matt,  xxvii.  48,  and  Mark  xv.  36,  where  P ii 
said  that  they  filled  a sponge  with  vinegar,  arr 
put  it  on  a reed,  while  in  the  parallel  , 

John  xix.  29,  it  is  said  that  they  filled  a * 

with  vinegar,  and  put  it  upon  hyssop , and  pi  c 
it  to  his  mourti.  From  which  it  is  pro'/pbte  that 
the  term  Kakayos  was  applied  by  both  tbs  Evan- 
gelists to  the  stem  of  the  plant  named  hyssop, 
whatever  this  may  have  been,  in  like  manner  as 
Pliny  applied  the  term  Calamus  to  the  stem  of  a 
bramble. 

In  most  of  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
the  word  Kaneh  seems  to  be  applied  strictly  to 
reeds  of  different  kinds  growing  in  water,  that  is, 
to  the  hollow  stems  or  culms  of  grasses,  which  are 
usually  weak,  easily  shaken  about  by  wind  or 
by  water,  fragile,  and  breaking  into  sharp-poinfed 
splinters.  Thus  in  1 Kings  xiv.  15,  ‘Asa  reed 
is  shaken  in  the  water;’  Job  xl.  21,  ‘ He  lieth  in 
the  covert  of  the  reed  (Kaneh)',  Isa.  xix.  6, 
‘ And  they  shall  turn  the  rivers  far  away  ; and 
the  reeds  and  flags  shall  wither.’  Also  in  oh, 
xxxv.  7 ; while  in  2 K'ugs  xviii.  21  : Isa 
xxxvi.  6 ; and  Ezek.  xxix.  7,  there  is  reference 
to  the  weak  and  fragile  nature  of  the  reed,  * La, 


KAN  Eli. 


KANEH  BOSEM. 


195 


Ihou  trus*est  in  the  staff  of  this  broken  reed,  on 
Egypt,  whereon  if  a man  lean,  it  will  go  into 

bin  hand,  and  pierce  it.’ 


In  order  to  determine  what  particular  kinds 
of  reed-like  plants  are  intended  in  these  several 
passages,  the  preferable  mode  is  probably  first  to 
ascertain  the  plants  to  which  the  above  names 
were  applied  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and 
particularly  those  which  are  indigenous  in  Syria 
and  Egypt.  Dioscorides  describes  the  different 
kinds  m his  chapter  irspl  KaXagov  (i.  1 14).  1.  Ka- 
Xagos  6 vaards,  or  the  Arundo  far  eta,  of  which 
arrows  are  made  (Arundo  arenariaf).  2.  The 
female,  of  which  reed  pipes  were  made  (A.  Do- 
nax?). 3.  Hollow,  with  frequent  knots,  fitted 
for  writing,  probably  a species  of  Saccharum. 

4.  Thick  and  hollow,  growing  in  rivers,  which  is 
called  donax , and  also  Cypria  (Arundo  Donax). 

5.  Phragmites  (Arundo  Phragmites ),  slender, 
light-coloured,  and  well-known.  6.  The  reed 
called  Phleos  (Arundo  ampelodesmos  Cyrillii). 
(Flora  Neapol.  t.  xii.).  These  are  all  described 
{l.  c.)  immediately  before  the  Papyrus,  while 
tdXagos  dfioDfj.aTi.K6s  is  described  in  a different 
part  of  the  book,  namely,  in  ch.  17,  along  with 
apices  and  perfumes.  The  Arabs  describe  the 

different  kinds  of  reed  under  the  head  of 

Kuso,  or  Kussub,  of  which  they  give  Kalamus, 
as  the  synonymous  Greek  term.  Under  the  head 
of  Kussub,  both  the  Bamboo  and  the  Arundo  are 
included  as  varieties,  while  Kusb-al-Sukr  is  the 
sugar-cane,  or  Saccharum  officinarum , and 
Kusb-el- Zurireh  appears  to  be  the  Calamus  aro- 


maticus  (Kaneh-bosem).  All  these  were,  ho 
doubt,  partially  known  to  the  ancients.  Pliny 
mentions  what  must  have  been  the  Bamboo,  as  to 
be  seen  of  a large  size  in  temples. 

From  the  context  of  the  several  passages  of 
Scripture  in  which  Ranch  is  mentioned,  it  is 
evident  that  it  was  a plant  growing  in  water ; 
and  we  have  seen  from  the  meaning  of  the  word 
in  other  languages  that  it  must  have  been  applied 
to  one  of  the  true  reeds;  as  for  instance,  Arundo 
JEgyptiaca  (perhaps  only  a variety  of  A.  Donax'), 
mentioned  by  M.  Bove  as  growing  on  the  banks 
of  the  Nile;  or  it  may  have  been  the  Arundo 
isiaca  of  Delile,  which  is  closely  allied  to  A. 
Phragmites,  the  Canna  and  Canne  of  the  south 
of  Europe,  which  has  been  already  mentioned 
under  Agmon. 

In  the  New  Testament  KaXagcs  seems  to  be 
applied  chiefly  to  plants  growing  in  dry  and 
even  barren  situations,  as  in  Luke  vii.  24 ; ‘What 
went  ye  into  the  wilderness  to  see?  a reed  shaken 
by  the  wind?’  To  such  passages,  some  of  the 
species  of  reed-like  grasses,  with  slender  stems  and 
light  flocculent  inflorescence,  formerly  referred  to 
Sacchdrum,  but  now  separated  as  distinct  genera, 
are  well  suited  ; as,  for  instance,  Imperata  cylin- 
drica  (Arundo  epigeios,  Forsk.),  the  hulfeh  of 
the  Arabs  ; which  is  found  in  such  situations,  as 
by  Desfontaines  in  the  north  of  Africa,  by  Delile 
in  Lower  Egypt,  by  Forskal  near  Cairo  and  Ro- 
setta. Bove  mentions  that  near  Mount.  Sinai, 

‘ Dans  les  deserfs  qui  environnent  ces  montagnes, 
j’ai  trouve  plusieurs  Saccharum,’  &c.  In  India, 
the  natives  employ  the  culm  of  different  species 
of  this  genus  for  making  their  reed-pens  and 
arrows. 

Hence,  as  has  already  been  suggested  by  Rosen- 
miiller,  the  noun  Kaneh  ought  to  be  restricted 
to  reeds,  or  reed-like  grasses,  while  Agmon  may 
indicate  the  more  slender  and  delicate  grasses  or 
sedges  growing  in  wet  situations,  but  which  are 
still  tough  enough  to  be  made  into  ropes. — J.  F.  R. 

KANEH  BOSEM  (Dtp  njp,  ‘reed  of  fra- 
grance’), and  Kaneh  Hattob  (HtSH  cala- 
mus bonus,  ‘ good’  or  ‘ fragrant  reed’),  appear 
to  have  reference  to  the  same  substance.  It  is 
mentioned  under  the  name  of  kaneh  bosem  in 
Exod.  xxx.  23,  and  under  that  of  kaneh  hattob 
in  Jer.  vi.  20.  It  is  probably  intended  also  by 
kaneh  (‘  reed  ’)  simply  in  Cant.  iv.  14  ; Isa.  xliii. 
24;  and  Ezek.  xxvii.  17;  as  it  is  enumerated 
with  other  fragrant  and  aromatic  substances. 
Kaneh,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  article, 
is  probably  the  original  of  canna , KaXagos  being 
the  Greek  equivalent  for  both.  Of  all  these  the 
primary  signification  seems  to  have  been  the 
hollow  stems  of  grasses.  They  were  applied 
afterwards  to  things  made  of  such  stems.  From 
the  passages  in  which  this  sweet  cane  or  calamus 
is  mentioned  we  learn  that  it  was  fragrant  and 
reed-like,  and  that,  it  was  brought  from  a far 
country  (Jer.  vi.  20  ; Ezek.  xxvii.  19)  : Dan  also 
and  Javan  going  to  and  fro  carried  bright  iron, 
cassia,  and  calamus  to  the  markets  of  Tyre. 

If  we  recur  to  the  method  which  we  have 
adopted  in  other  cases,  of  examining  rhe  writings 
of  ancient  heathen  authors,  to  ascertain  if  they 
describe  anything  like  the  substances  noticed  in 
the  sacred  writings,  we  shall  experience  no  diffi- 
culty in  identifying  the  ‘ sweet  cane,  or  reed,  from 


196 


KANEH  BOSEM. 


KANEH  BOSEM. 


a far  country.’  For  though  the  common  reeds  are 
described  by  Dioscorides,  in  book  i.  c.  114,  we 
find  in  a very  different  part  of  the  same  book, 
namely,  in  c.  17,  a uaka/xos  apcoyariKSs,  described 
among  the  aromata , immediately  after  SxoIVos. 


367.  tAndropogon  calamus  aromaticus.] 

It  is  stated  to  be  a produce  of  India,  of  a tawny 
colour,  much  jointed,  breaking  into  splinters, 
and  having  the  hollow  stem  filled  with  pith,  like 
the  web  of  a spider;  also  that  it  is  mixed  with 
ointments  and  fumigations  on  account  of  its 
odour.  Hippocrates  was  acquainted  with  appa- 
rently the  same  substance,  which  he  calls  Kaka- 
ixos  evaid-qs  and  axoiros  evoa/nos,  also  nakayos 
arxoTvos : though  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  the 
c rxoivos  of  Dioscorides,  or  schoenanthus,  is  not 
intended  by  some  of  these  names.  Theophrastus 
describes  both  the  calamus  and  schoenus  as 
natives  of  Syria,  or  more  precisely,  of  a valley 
between  Mount  Lebanon  and  a small  mountain, 
where  there  is  a plain  and  a lake,  in  parts  of 
which  there  is  a marsh,  where  they  are  produced, 
the  smell  being  perceived  by  any  one  entering 
the  place.  This  account  is  virtually  followed  by 
Pliny,  though  he  also  mentions  the  sweet  ca- 
lamus as  a produce  of  Arabia.  A writer  in  the 
Gardener  s Chronicle  (ii.  756)  has  adduced  a 
passage  from  Polybius  (v.  46),  as  elucidating  the 
foregoing  statement  of  Theophrastus : 1 From 
Laodicea  Antiochus  marched  with  all  his  army, 
and  having  passed  the  desert.,  entered  a close  and 
narrow  valley,  which  lies  between  the  Libanus 
and  Anti-Libanus,  and  is  called  the  Vale  of 
Marsyas.  The  narrowest  part  of  the  valley  is 
s covered  by  a lake  with  marshy  ground,  from 


whence  are  gathered  aromatic  reeds , Jy  i 
yvpetpiKbs  Kelperai  Kakajuos .’  A British  office; 
who  had  an  opportunity  of  examining  this  lo- 
cality writes  thus  from  Beyrout,  6th  Feb.  1842  . 
‘ Further  down,  about  twenty  miles,  the  vale  of 
Marsyas,  or  the  vale  of  Baalbec,  becomes  much 
narrower,  and  about  four  miles  south  of  Zachli 
the  ground  is  now  very  marshy,  and  intersected 
with  endless  ditches  to  draw  off*  the  water.  Here 
formerly  there  might  have  been  a large  lake. 
This  is  the  narrowest  part  of  the  valley,  and  is 
covered  with  reeds,  but  whether  aromatic  or  not 
I cannot  say.’  Among  the  ancient  authorities 
Strabo  ought  not  to  be  omitted.  He  mentions 
that  the  calamus  grows  in  the  country  of  the 
Sabaei  (xvi.  4) ; but  speaking  of  Coele-Syria 
and  its  mountains,  Libanus  and  Anti-Libanus, 
he  says  (xvi.  2),  ‘ It  is  intersected  by  rivers, 
irrigating  a rich  country,  abounding  in  all  things. 
It  also  contains  a lake,  which  produces  the 
aromatic  rush  (axoTros)  and  reed  (Kakayos). 
There  are  also  marshes.  The  lake  is  called 
Gennesaritis.  The  balsam  also  grows  here.’  But 
how  little  dependence  is  to  be  placed  upon  the 
statements  of  those  who  do  not  pay  special  at- 
tention to  the  localities  of  plant*,  might  be  made 
evident  by  quotations  from  several  modern  au- 
thors, who  often  mistake  the  last  place  of  export 
for  the  native  country  of  a plant,  and  sometimes 
even  place  in  the  Old  World  plants  which  are  only 
found  in  America.  Rauwolff  even,  who  was  so  good 
and  intelligent  an  observer,  on  leaving  Mount 
Libanus,  says,  ‘ I was  also  informed  of  others, 
viz.  of  the  costus  Syriacus,  which  they  still  know 
by  the  name  of  chaste  and  is  found  about  An- 
tiochia ; and  not  far  off  from  thence  is  also  found 
the  nux  vomica , as  some  esteem  them,  by  the  in- 
habitants called  cutsckula , which,  together  with  a 
great  many  other  famous  ones,  I might  have  ob- 
tained, if  I could  have  had  a true,  faithful,  and 
experienced  guide.’  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say 
that  no  guide  would  have  availed  him ; because 
both  the  substances  he  mentions  are  articles  of 
Indian  commerce,  about  which  there  can  be 
no  mistake,  as  he  has  given  us  their  Asiatic, 
in  addition  to  their  scientific  names;  for  chast  is 
no  doubt  the  hoot  or  koost  of  the  Arabs,  which 
has  been  traced  within  the  last  few  years  to  the 
mountains  which  surround  Cashmere,  while  the 
nux  vomica  is  the  produce  of  strychnes  nux 
vomica , a native  of  the  south  of  India,  and  there 
called  koochla.  A portion  of  the  confusion 
respecting  the  native  country  of  these  Indian 
drugs,  must  be  ascribed  partly  to  the  undue 
extension  of  the  name  Syria  in  ancient  times, 
and  partly  to  many  Indian  drugs  making  their 
way  into  Europe  by  the  route  of  the  caravans,  or 
by  the  Persian  Gulf  and  the  Euphrates,  across 
Syria,  to  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean. 

That  there  may  be  some  moderately  sweet- 
scented  grass,  or  rush-like  plant,  such  as  the 
Acomis  Cttlamus  of  botanists  (long  used  as  a sub- 
stitute for  the  true  calamus'),  in  the  flat  country 
between  Libanus  and  Anti-Libanus,  is  quite  pos- 
sible ; but  we  have  no  proof  of  the  fact.  Burck* 
hardt,  in  that  situation,  could  find  only  ordi- 
nary rushes  and  reeds.  Though  Theophrastus, 
Polybius,  and  Strabo  mention  this  locality  as 
that  producing  the  calamus,  yet  Strabo,  Dio- 
dorus Siculus  and  others,  even  including  Pliny, 
give  Arabia,  or  the  country  of  tre  Sabaean% 


KANEH  BOSEM. 


KARCOM. 


197 


as  that  which  produced  the  aromatic  reed;  while 
Dioscorides,  the  only  author  who  writes  ex- 
pressly of  the  drugs  known  to  the  ancients,  men- 
tions it  being  the  produce  of  India.  Bochart 
argues  against  India  being  the  sole  country  pro- 
ducing calamus,  because  he  supposes  that  it  could 
not  have  been  open  to  commerce  in  those  early 
times : ‘ Tamen  solum  in  India  crevisse  non 
concesserim,  cum  Mosis  aevo  Judaeis  jam  fuerit 
notus,  ejusque  adeo  mentio  fiat,  Exod.  xxx.  23. 
Indiam  enim  Judasis,  aut  vicinis  gentibus,  jam 
turn  fuisse  apertam,  mihi  non  fit  verisimile 1 
( Hieroz . pars  ii.  lib.  v.  c.  6).  Dr.  Vincent,  on  the 
contrary  ( Periplus  of  the  Erythraean  Sea,  ii.  365), 
says,  ‘ So  far  as  a private  opinion  is  of  weight,  I 
am  fully  persuaded  that  this  line  of  communica- 
tioi.  with  the  East  is  the  oldest  in  the  world — 
older  than  Moses  or  Abraham.’  Indeed  it  is  now 
generally  acknowledged  that  India  and  Egypt 
must  have  had  commercial  intercourse  during  the 
flourishing  state  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Pharaohs. 
For  in  this  way  only  can  we  account  for  numerous 
Indian  products  being  mentioned  in  the  Bible, 
and  for  their  being  known  to  the  early  Greek 
writers.  Many  of  these  substances  are  treated  of 
under  their  respective  heads  in  this  work. 

The  author  of  the  present  article,  in  his  Essay 
on  the  Antiquity  of  Hindoo  Medicine , p.  33, 
remarks,  ‘ With  this  (that  is,  the  true  Spikenard 
or  Nard)  has  often  been  confounded  another 
far-famed  aromatic  of  Eastern  climes,  that  is,  the 
true  calamus  aromaticus , ndha/xos  apw/iariKbs  of 
Dioscorides,  said  by  him  to  grow  in  India.  This 
he  describes  immediately  after  cr^oti/os,  trans- 
lated juncus  odoratus,  a produce  of  Africa  and 
Arabia,  and  generally  acknowledged  by  botanists 
to  be  the  andropogon  schcenanthus,  or  lemon-grass, 
a native  both  of  Arabia  and  India,  perhaps  also 
of  Africa.  The  calamus  aromaticus  immediately 
following  this,  stated  to  be  also  a native  of  India, 
and  among  other  uses  being  mixed  with  ointments 
on  account  of  its  odour,  appears  to  me  to  have 
been  a plant  allied  to  the  former.  There  is  no 
plant  which  more  closely  coincides  with  every 
thing  that  is  required,  that  is,  correspondence  in 
description,  analogy  to  trxoij/os,  the  possession  of 
remarkable  fragrance  and  stimulant  properties, 
being  costly,  and  the  produce  of  a far  country, 
than  the  plant  which  yields  the  fragrant  grass- 
oil  of  Namur  {Calcutta  Med.  Trans,  vol.  i.  p.  367). 
This  oil  has  been  already  described  by  Mr.Hatchett 
(On  the  Spikenard  of  the  Ancients ),  who  refers  it 
to  andropogon  Roaraucusa.  It  is  derived,  how- 
ever, as  appears  by  specimens  in  my  possession, 
from  a different  plant;  to  which,  believing  it  to 
be  a new  species,  I have  given  the  name  of  an- 
dropogon. calamus  aromaticus”  (p.  31).  ‘ This 

species  is  found  in  Central  India,  extends  north 
as  far  as  Delhi,  and  south  to  between  the  God- 
avery  and  Nagpore,  where,  according  to  Dr.  Mal- 
eolmson,  it  is  called  spear-grass.  The  specimens 
which  Mr.  H.  obtained  from  Mr.  Swinton,  I have 
nai  an  opportunity  of  examining  : they  are  iden- 
tical with  my  own  from  the  same  part  of  India  ’ 
(Royle,  Illust.  Himal.  Bot.  p.  425). 

As  this  plant  is  a true  grass,  it  has  necessarily 
reed-like  stems  (the  avpiyyia  of  Dioscorides). 
They  are  remarkable  for  their  agreeable  odour:  so 
are  the  leaves  when  bruised,  and  also  the  delight- 
fully fragrant  oil  distilled  from  them.  Hence  it 
appeals  more  fully  entitled  to  the  commendations 


which  the  calamus  aromaticus  or  sweet -cane 
has  received,  than  any  other  plant  that  has  been 
described,  even  the  attar  of  roses  hardly  excepted. 
That  a grass  similar  to  the  fragrant  andropogon, 
or  at  least  one  growing  in  the  same  kind  of  soil  and 
climate,  was  employed  by  the  ancients,  we  have 
evidence  in  the  fact  of  the  Phoenicians  who  ac- 
companied Alexander  in  his  march  across  the 
arid  country  of  Gedrosia  having  recognised  and 
loaded  their  cattle  with  it,  as  one  of  the  perfumes 
of  commerce.  It  is  in  a similar  country,  that  is, 
the  arid  plains  of  Central  India,  that  the  above 
andropogon  calamus  aromaticus  is  found,  and 
where  the  fragrant  essential  oil  is  distilled  from 
its  leaves,  culms,  and  roots  (Essay  on  Hindoo 
Medicine , p.  142). 

If  we  compare  the  foregoing  statement  with  the 
different  passages  of  Scripture,  we  shall  find  that 
this  fragrant  grass  answers  to  all  that  is  required. 
Thus  in  Exod.  xxx.  23,  the  fragrant  reed,  along 
with  the  principal,  spices,  such  as  myrrh,  sweet 
cinnamon,  and  cassia,  is  directed  to  be  made  into 
an  oil  of  holy  ointment.  So  the  calamus  aro- 
maticus may  be  found  mentioned  as  an  ingredient 
in  numerous  fragrant  oils  and  ointments,  from  the 
time  of  Theophrastus  to  that  of  the  Arabs.  Its 
essential  oil  is  now  sold  in  the  shops,  but  under 
the  erroneous  name  of  oil  of  spikenard,  which 
is  a very  different  substance  [Nard].  In  Cant, 
iv.  14  it  is  mentioned  along  with  spikenard, 
saffron,  cinnamon,  trees  of  frankincense,  myrrh, 
and  aloes.  Again,  its  value  is  indicated  in  Isa. 
(xliii.  24)  ‘ thou  hast  bought  me  no  sweet  cane 
with  money and  that  it  was  obtained  from  a dis- 
tant land  is  indicated  in  Jer.  vi.  20,  ‘ to  what  pur- 
pose cometh  there  to  me  incense  from  Sheba,  and 
the  sweet  cane  from  a far  country?’ — while  the 
route  of  the  commerce  is  pointed  out  in  Ezek. 
xxvii.  19,  ‘ Dan  also  and  Javan  going  to  and  fro 
occupied  in  thy  fairs:  bright  iron,  cassia,  and 
calamus  were  in  thy  market.’  To  the  Scripture 
notices,  then,  as  well  as  to  the  description  of 
Dioscorides,  the  tall  grass  which  yields  the  fra- 
grant grass- oil  of  Central  India  answers  in  every 
respect : the  author  of  this  article  consequently 
named  and  figuied  it  as  the  Kaneh  bosem  in  his 
Illustr.  & of  Himal.  Botany , p.  425,  t.  97.— 

J.  F.  R. 

KARCOM  (D3"}5  5 Sept,  upouos)  occurs  only 
once  in  the  Old  Testament,  viz.  in  Cant.  iv.  14, 
where  it  is  mentioned  along  with  several  fragrant 
and  stimulant  substances,  such  as  spikenard,  cala- 
mus, and  cinnamon,  trees  of  frankincense,  myrrh, 
and  aloes  (ahalim)  ; we  may,  therefore,  suppose 
that  it  was  some  substance  possessed  of  similar 
properties.  The1  name,  however,  is  so  similar 

to  the  Persian  V karkam , and  both  to  the 

Greek  Kpouos,  that  we  have  no  difficulty  in  trac- 
ing the  Hebrew  karcom  to  the  modern  crocus  or 
saffron ; but,  in  fact,  the  most  ancient  Greek 
translators  of  the  Old  Testament  considered 
Kp6tcos  as  the  synonyme  for  karcom.  It  is  also 
probable  that  all  three  names  had  one  common 
origin,  saffron  having  from  the  earliest  times 
been  cultivated  in  Asiatic  countries,  as  it  still  is 
in  Persia  and  Cashmere.  Crocus  is  mentioned 
by  Homer,  Hippocrates,  and  Theophrastus.  Dios- 
curi des  describes  the  different  kinds  cf  it,  and 
Pliny  states  that  the  benches  of  the  public  theatres 


198 


KARCOM. 


KARPAS. 


were  strewed  with  saffron : indeed  ‘ the  ancients 
frequently  made  use  of  this  flower  in  perfumes. 
Not  only  saloons,  theatres,  and  places  which  were 
to  be  tilled  with  a pleasant  fragrance  were  strewed 
with  this  substance,  but  all  sorts  of  vinous  tinc- 
tures retaining  the  scent  were  made  of  it.  and 
this  costly  perfume  was  poured  into  small  foun- 
tains, which  diffused  the  odour  which  was  so 
highly  esteemed.  Even  fruit  and  confitures  placed 
before  guests  and  the  ornaments  of  the  rooms 
were  spread  over  with  it.  It  was  used  for  the 
same  purposes  as  the  modern  pot-pourri  ’ (Rosen- 
miiller,  Bibl.  Bot.  p.  138).  In  the  present  day 
a very  high  price  is  given  in  India  for  saffron 
imported  from  Cashmere  ; native  dishes  are  often 
coloured  and  flavoured  with  it,  and  it  is  in  high 
esteem  as  a stimulant  medicine.  The  common 
name,  saffron,  is  no  doubt  derived  from  the 

Arabic  zafran , as  are  the  corresponding 

terms  in  most  of  the  languages  of  Europe. 


Nothing,  therefore,  was  more  likely  than  that 
saffron  should  be  associated  with  the  foregoing 
fragrant  substances  in  the  passage  of  Canticles, 
as  it  still  continues  to  be  esteemed  by  Asiatic 
nations,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  to  be  cultivated 
by  them.  Kassel quist  also,  in  reference  to  this 
Biblical  plant,  describes  the  ground  between 
Smyrna  and  Magnesia  as  in  some  places  covered 
with  saffron,  and  Rauwolf  mentions  gardens  and 
fields  of  crocus  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Aleppo, 
and  particularizes  a fragrant  variety  in  Syria. 

The  name  saffron , as  usually  applied,  does 
not  denote  the  whole  plant,  nor  even  the  whole 
flower  of  crocus  sativus,  but  only  the  stigmas, 
with  part  of  the  style,  which,  being  plucked  out, 
are  carefully  dried.  These,  when  prepared,  are 
dry,  narrow,  thread-like,  and  twisted  together,  of 
an  orange-yellow  colour,  having  a peculiar  aro- 
matic and  penetrating  odour,  with  a bitterish  and 
somewhat  aromatic  taste,  tinging  the  mouth  and 
saliva  of  a yellow  colour.  Sometimes  the  stigmas 
are  prepared  by  being  submitted  to  pressure,  and 
thus  made  into  what  is  called  cake  saffron,  a 
form  in  which  it  is  still  imported  from  Persia 
into  India.  Hay  saffron  is  obtained  in  this  country 


chiefly  from  France  and  Spain,  though  it  ia  also 
sometimes  prepared  from  the  native  crocus  culti- 
vated for  this  purpose.  Saffron  was  formerly 
highly  esteemed  as  a stimulant  medicine,  and 
still  enjoys  high  repute  in  Eastern  countries,  both 
as  a medicine  and  as  a condiment. — J.  F.  R. 


KARPAS  (DD~)5)  occurs  in  the  boon  of 
Esther  (i.  6),  in  the  description  of  the  hangings 
‘ in  the  court  of  the  garden  of  the  king’s  palace,’ 
at  the  time  of  the  great  feast  given  in  the  city 
Shushan,  or  Susan,  by  Ahasuerus,  who  ‘ reigned 
from  India  even  unto  Ethiopia.’  We  nre  told  that 
there  were  white,  green  ( karpas ),  and  blue  hang- 
ings fastened  with  cords  of  fine  linen  and  purple 
to  silver  rings  and  pillars  of  marble.  Karpas 
is  translated  green  in  our  version,  on  the  autho- 
rity, it  is  said,  ‘ of  the  Chaldee  paraphrase,’ 
where  it  is'interpreted  leek-green.  Rosenmuller 
and  others  derive  the  Hebrew  word  from  the 

Arabic  kurufs , which  signifies  ‘ garden- 


parsley,’  opium  petroselinum,  as  if  it  alluded  to 
the  green  colour  of  this  plant ; at  the  same  time 
arguing  that  as  ‘ the  word  karpas  is  placed  be- 
tween two  other  words  which  undoubtedly  denote 
colours,  viz.,  the  white  and  the  purple-blue , it 
probably  also  does  the  same.’  But  if  two  of  the 
words  denote  colours,  it  would  appear  a good  rea- 
son why  the  third  should  refer  to  the  substance 
which  was  coloured.  This,  there  is  little  doubt, 
is  what  was  intended.  If  we  consider  that  the 
Occurrences  related  took  place  at  the  Persian 
court  at  a time  when  it  held  sway  even  unto 
India,  and  that  the  account  is  by  some  supposed 
to  have  been  originally  written  in  the  ancient 
language  of  Persia,  we  may  suppose  that  some 
foreign  words  may  have  been  introduced  to  in- 
dicate even  an  already  well-known  substance  x 
but  more  especially  so  if  the  substance  itself  was 
then  first  made  known  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  Hebrew  karpas  is  very  similar  to  the 
Sanscrit  karpasum,  karpasa , or  karpase,  signi- 
fying the  cotton-plant.  Celsius  ( [Hierobot . i. 
159)  states  that  the  Arabs  and  Persians  have 
karphas  and  kirbas  as  names  for  cotton.  These 
must  no  doubt  be  derived  from  the  Sanscrit,  while 
the  word  kapas  is  now  applied  throughout  India 
to  cotton  witli  the  seed,  and  may  even  be  seen  in 
English  prices-current.  Kdp7ra<ros  occurs  in  the 
Periplus  of  Arrian,  who  states  that  the  region 
about  the  Gulf  of  Barygaze,  in  India,  was  pro- 
ductive ot  carpasus,  and  of  the  fine  Indian  mus- 
lins made  of  it.  The  word  is  no  doubt  derived 
from  the  Sanscrit  karpasa,  and  though  it  has  been 
translated  fine  muslin  by  Dr.  Vincent,  it  may 
mean  cotton  cloths,  or  calico  in  general.  Mr. 
Yates,  in  his  recently  published  and  valuable 
work,  Textriniim  Antiquorum , states  that  the 
earliest  notice  of  this  Oriental  name  in  any 
classical  author  which  he  has  met  with,  is  the  line 
‘ Carbasina,  molochina,  ampelina  ’ of  Caecilius 
Statius,  who  died  b.c.  169.  Mr.  Yates  infers  that  as 
this  poet  translated  from  the  Greek,  so  the  Greeks 
must  have  made  use  of  muslins  or  calicoes,  &c., 
which  were  brought  from  India  as  early  as  200 
years  b.c.  See  his  work,  as  well  as  that  of  Cel- 
sius, for  numerous  quotations  from  classical 
authors,  where  carbasus  occurs ; proving  that  not 
only  the  word,  but  the  substance  which  it  in- 
dicated, was  known  to  the  ancients  subsequent 


KEDAR. 


KEN1TES. 


199 


10  this  period.  It  might,  indeed  must,  have  been 
known  long  before  to  t lie  Persians,  as  constant 
communication  took  ulace  by  caravans  between 
the  north  of  India  and  Persia,  as  has  been  clearly 
shown  by  Heeren.  Cotton  was  known  to  Ctesias, 
who  lived  so  long  at  the  Persian  court. 

Nothing  can  he  more  suitable  than  cotton, 
white  and  blue,  in  the  above  passage  of  Esther, 
as  the  writer  of  this  article  long  since  (1837)  re- 
marked in  a note  in  his  Essay  on  the  Antiquity 
of  Hindoo  Medicine , p.  145  : ‘ Hanging  curtains 
made  with  calico,  usually  in  stripes  of  different 
colours  and  padded  with  cotton,  called  purdahs, 
are  employed  throughout  India  as  a substitute  for 
doors.’  They  may  Ire  seen  used  for  the  very  pur- 
poses mentioned  in  the  text  in  the  court  of  the 
King  of  Delhi’s  palace,  where,  on  a paved 
mosaic  terrace,  rows  of  slender  pillars  support  a 
light  roof,  from  which  hang  by  rings  immense 
padded  and  striped  curtains,  which  may  be  rolled 
up  or  removed  at  pleasure.  These  either  increase 
light  or  ventilation,  and  form,  in  fact,  a kind  of 
movable  wall  to  the  building,  which  is  used  as 
one  of  the  halls  of  audience.  This  kind  of 
structure  was  probably  introduced  by  the  Persian 
conquerors  of  India,  and  therefore  may  serve  to 
explain  the  object  of  the  colonnade  in  front  of 
the  palace  in  the  ruins  of  Persepolis  ["Cotton]. 

w J.  F.  R. 

KEDAR  (Tig,  black;  Sept.  KrjSap),  a son 
of  Ishmael,  and  the  name  of  the  tribe  of  which 
he  was  the  founder.  The  name  is  sometimes 
used  in  Scripture  as  that  of  the  Bedouins  gene- 
rally, probably  because  this  tribe  was  the  nearest 
to  them,  and  was  best  acquainted  with  them 
(Cant.  i.  5;  Isa.  xxi.  16,  17;  lx.  7).  A great 
body  of  speculation  founded  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  namely,  ‘ black,’  may  be  dis- 
missed as  wholly  useless.  The  Kedarenes  were  so 
called  from  Kedar,  and  not  because  they  lived 
in  ‘ black  ’ tents,  or  because  they  were  ‘ blackened’ 
by  the  hot  sun  of  Southern  Arabia ; neither  of 
which  ' circumstances  could,  even  if  true,  have 
been  foreseen  at  the  time  that  Kedar  received 
his  name. 

KEDEMOTH  (nb^jj ; Sept.  Ba^ycid),  a 
city  in  the  tribe  of  Reuben  (Josh.  xiii.  18),  near 
the  river  Arnon,  which  gave  its  name  to  the  wil- 
derness of  Kedemoth,  on  the  borders  of  that  river, 
from  whence  Moses  sent  messengers  of  peace  to 
Sihon,  king  of  Heshbon  (Deut.  ii.  26),  the  southern 
frontier  of  whose  kingdom,  and  the  boundary 
between  the  kingdom  of  the  Ammonites  and  the 
Moabites,  was  the  Arnon. 

KEDESH  (KHj?  ; Sept.  K abrjs).  There  were 
two  cities  of  this  name,  one  in  the  tribe  of  Judah 
(Josh.  xv.  23),  and  the  other  in  the  tribe  of 
Naphtali  (xix.  37).  This  last  was  the  more  con- 
siderable of  the  two:  it  was  a Levitical  city, 
and  one  of  the  six  cities  of  refuge.  As  the  Kedesh, 
whose  king  was  slain  by  Joshua,  is  mentioned 
among  the  cities  of  the  north  (xii.  22),  if  was 
doubtless  the  Kedesh  of  Naphtali,  of  which  also 
Barak  was  a native  (Judg.  iv.  6). 

KEDRON.  [Kidron. 

KEILAH  ; Sept.  Kei’Aa),  a city  of 

the  tribe  of  Judah  (Josh  xv.  44),  about  twenty 
miles  south-west  from  Jerusalem.  When  this 


city  was  besieged  by  the  Philistines,  David  was 
commissioned  by  God  to  relieve  it;  notwith- 
standing which,  if  he  had  not  made  his  escape, 
the  ungrateful  inhabitants  would  have  delivered 
him  into  the  hands  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  1-13). 
Keilah  was  a considerable  city  in  the  time  of 
Nehemiah  (Neh.  iii.  17,  18),  and  existed  in  the 
days  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  who  place  it  eight 
Roman  miles  from  Eleutheropolis  on  the  road  to 
Hebron. 

KEMUEL  assembly  of  God;.  Sept. 

Ka/j.ovf]?C),  third  son  of  Abraham’s  brother  Nahor, 
and  father  of  six  sons,  the  first  of  whom  is 
named  Aram,  and  the  last  Bethuel  (Gen.  xxii. 
21,  23).  All  these  are  unknown,  except  the  last, 
who  was  the  father  of  Laban  and  Rebekah  (Gen. 
xxiv.  15).  Aram  is  manifestly  no  other  than  a 
proper  name  which  Kemuel  gave  to  his  first- 
born ; but  as  it  is  also  the  Hebrew  name  of  Syria, 
some  commentators  have  most  strangely  conceived 
that  the  Syrians  were  descended  from  him.  This 
is  truly  surprising,  seeing  that  Syria  was  already 
peopled  ere  he  was  born,  and  that  Laban  (Gen. 
xxviii.  5)  and  Jacob  (Deut.  xxvi.  5)  are  both 
called  ‘ Syrians,’  although  neither  of  them  was 
descended  from  Kemuel’s  son  Aram.  The  mis- , 
conception  originated  with  the  Septuagint,  which 
too  often  undertakes  to  translate  proper  names, 
and  in  this  case  renders  'HX,  ‘ father  of 

Aram,’  by  tt arepa  v,  ‘ father  of  the  Syrians.’ 

KENAZ  (TJ(P.,  hunting ; Sept.  Kev4Q.  1.  A 
descendant  of  Esau;  also  a place  or  tract  of 
country  in  Arabia  Petraea,  named  after  him 
(Gen.  xxx vi.  11,  15,  42). 

2.  The  younger  brother  of  Caleb,  and  father 
of  Othniel,  who  married  Caleb’s  daughter  (Josh, 
xv.  17  ; Judg.  i.  13  ; 1 Chron.  iv.  13). 

3.  A grandson  of  Caleb  (1  Chron.  iv.  15). 

KENITES  (Wg;  Sept.  K ivaioi),  a tribe  of 
Midianities  dwelling  among  the  Amalekites 
(1  Sam.  xv.  6;  comp,  Num.  xxiv.  20,  21),  or 
occupying  in  semi-nomadic  life  the  same  region 
with  the  latter  people  in  Arabia  Petraea.  When 
Saul  was  sent  to  destroy  the  Amalekites,  the 
Kenites,  who  had  joined  them,  perhaps  upon  com- 
pulsion, were  ordered  to  depart  from  them  that 
they  might  not  share  their  fate  ; and  the  reason 
assigned  was,  that  they  ‘ shewed  kindness  to  the 
children  of  Israel  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt.’ 
This  kindness  is  supposed  to  have  been  that 
which  Jethro  and  his  family  showed  to  Moses, 
as  well  as  to  the  Israelites  themselves,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  whole  tribe  appears  to  have 
been  treated  with  consideration,  while  the  family 
of  Jethro  itself  accompanied  the  Israelites  into 
Palestine,  where  they  continued  to  lead  a nomade 
life,  occupying  there  a position  similar  to  that 
of  the  Tartar  tribes  in  Persia  at  the  nresent  day. 
To  this  family  belonged  Heber,  the  husband  of 
that  Jael  who  slew  Sisera,  and  who  is  hence  called 
‘ Heber  the  Kenite’  (Judg.  iv.  11).  At  a later 
age  other  families  of  Kenites  are  mentioned  as 
resident  in  Palestine,  among  whom  were  the 
Rechabites  (1  Chron.  ii.  55;  Jer.  xxxv.  2);  but 
it  is  not  clear  whether  these  were  subdivisions  of 
the  increasing  descendants  of  Jethro,  as  seems 
most  likely,  or  families  which  availed  themselves 
of  the  friendly  dispositions  of  the  Israelites  towards 
the  tribe  to  settle  in  the  country.  It  aonears 


200 


KENIZZITES. 


KETZACH. 


that,  whatever  was  the  general  condition  of  the 
Midianites,  the  tribe  of  the  Kenites  possessed  a 
knowledge  of  the  true  God  in  the  time  of  Jethro 
[Hobab]  ; and  that  those  families  which  settled  in 
Palestine  did  not  afterwards  lose  that  knowledge, 
but  increased  it,  is  clear  from  the  passages  which 
have  been  cited  [Midianites  ; Rechabites]. 

KEN1ZZ1TES  Sept.  KeveCcuoi),  a 

Canaanitish  tribe,  mentioned  in  Gen.  xv.  19,  along 
with  others,  over  which  it  was  promised  that 
the  seed  of  Abraham  should  have  dominion.  The 
notion  that  they  sprung  from  Kenaz,  the  grandson 
of  Edom,  and  had  their  dwelling  somewhere  in 
Idumaea,  cannot  be  entertained,  seeing  that  the 
tribe  is  named  long  before  Kenaz  had  existence. 
The  Kenizzites  of  Num.  xxxii.  12;  Josh.  xiv.  6, 
appear,  however,  to  be  a different  race,  the  origin 
of  which  may  without  improbability  be  ascribed 
to  Kenaz.  The  Kenizzites  are  not  named  among 
the  nations  whom  the  Israelites  eventually  sub- 
dued ; whence  it  may  be  supposed  that  they  had 
by  that  time  merged  into  some  of  the  other  na- 
tions which  Israel  overcame. 

KETURAH  (rn-lBi?,  incense ; Sept.  Xer- 
ovpa ),  the  second  wife,  or,  as  she  is  called  in  1 
Chron.  i.  32,  the  concubine  of  Abraham,  by  whom 
he  had  six  sons,  Zimran,  Jokshan,  Medan,  Midian, 
Ishbak,  and  Shuah,  whom  he  lived  to  see  grow 
to  man’s  estate,  and  whom  he  established  ‘ in 
die  East  country,’  that  they  might  not  interfere 
with  Isaac  (Gen.  xxv.  1-6).  As  Abraham  was 
100  years  old  when  Isaac  was  who  was 

given  to  him  by  the  special  bounty  of  Providence 
when  ‘ he  was  as  good  as  dead’  (Heb.  xi.  12), 
as  he  was  140  years  old  when  Sarah  died ; and 
as  he  himself  died  at  the  age  of  175  years, — it  has 
seemed  improbable  that  these  six  sons  should  have 
been  born  to  Abraham  by  one  woman  after  he 
was  140  years  old,  and  that  lie  should  have  seen 
them  all  grow  up  to  adult  age,  and  have  sent 
them  forth  to  form  independent  settlements  in 
that  last  and  feeble  period  of  his  life.  If  Isaac 
was  born  to  him  out  of  the  course  of  nature  when 
he  was  100  years  old,  how  could  six  sons  be 
born  to  him  in  the  course  of  nature  after  he  was 
140?  It  has  therefore  been  suggested  by  good 
commentators,  that  as  Keturah  is  called  Abra- 
ham’s ‘ concubine’  in  Chronicles,  and  as  she  and 
Hagar  are  probably  indicated  as  his  ‘ concubines’ 
in  Gen.  xxv.  6,  Keturah  had  in  fact  been  taken 
by  Abraham  as  his  secondary  or  concubine-wife 
before  the  death  of  Sarah,  although  the  historian 
relates  the  incident  after  that  event,  that  his  lead- 
ing narrative  might  not  be  interrupted.  Accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  morality  then  acknowledged, 
Abraham  might  quite  as  properly  have  taken 
Keturah  before  as  after  Sarah’s  death  ; nor  can 
any  reason  why  he  should  not  have  done  so,  or 
why  he  should  have  waited  till  then,  be  con- 
ceived. This  explanation  obviates  many  diffi- 
culties, and  does  not  itself  contain  any. 

KETZACH  (nV(2 ; Sept.  peXavdiov),  also 
written  Kezach  and  Ketsah,  occurs  only  in  Isa. 
xxviii.  25,  27,  and  is  translated  fitches , that  is, 
vetches , in  the  Authorized  Version.  It  is  no 
doubt  from  the  difficulty  of  proving  the  precise 
meaning  of  ketzach , that  different  plants  have 
been  assigned  as  its  representative.  But  if  we  refer 
to  the  context,  we  learn  some  particulars  which 


at  least  restrict  it  to  a certain  group,  namely,  t« 
such  as  are  cultivated.  Thus,  ver.  25,  ‘ When 
he  (the  ploughman)  hath  made  plain  the  face 
thereof,  doth  he  not  cast  abroad  the  fitches 
(ketzach)  V And  again,  ver.  27,  ‘ For  the  fitches 
are  not  threshed  with  a threshing  instrument, 
neither  is  a cart-wheel  turned  about  upon  the 
cummin;  but  fitches  are  beaten  out  with  a staff, 
and  the  cummin  with  a rod.’  From  which  we 
learn  that  the  grain  called  ketzach  was  easily 
separated  from  its  capsule,  and  therefore  beater, 
out  with  a stick. 


Although  ketzach , in  Chaldee  kizcha,  is  a’- 
ways  acknowledged  to  denote  some  seed,  y.-t 
interpreters  have  had  great  difficulty  in  deter- 
mining the  particular  kind  intended,  some  trans- 
lating it  peas,  others,  as  Luther  and  the  English 
Version,  vetches , but  without  any  proof.  Meiho- 
mius  considers  it  to  be  the  white  poppy,  and  others, 
a black  seed.  This  last  interpretation  has  the  most 
numerous,  as  well  as  the  oldest,  authorities  in  its 
support.  Of  these  a few  are  in  favour  of  the 
black  poppy-seed,  but  the  majority,  of  a black 
seed  common  in  Egypt,  &c.  (Celsius,  Ilierobot. 
ii.  70).  The  Sept,  translates  it  ixs\avQiov,  the 
Vulg.  git,  and  Tremellius  melanthium , while 
the  Arabic  has  shoonez.  All  these  mean  the 
same  thing,  namely,  a very  black-coloured  and 
aromatic  seed,  still  cultivated  and  in  daily 
employment  as  a condiment  in  the  East.  Thus 
Pliny  (xx.  17.  71),  ‘ Gith  ex  Graecis,  alii 
melanthion,  alii  melanspermon  vocant.  Opti- 
mum, quam  excitatissimi  odoris  ft  quam  niger- 
rimum.’  By  Dioscorides  (iii.  93),  or  the  ancient 
author  who  is  suppose  d to  have  added  the  syno- 
nymes,  we  are  informed  that  p.e\w6ioy  was  alsc 
called  the  ‘ wild  black  poppy,’  that  the  seed 
was  black,  acrid,  and  aromatic,  in d that  it  was 


KETZIOTH. 


KETZIOTH. 


20 


added  to  bread  or  cakes,  ^-rrep/ia  peXau,  8pi/j.v, 
evcodcs,  kot  aTrXaa  a 6 p.erov  elsixprovs.  Pliny  also 
says,  ‘ Melanthii,  vel  melanspermi  semen  gratis- 
sime  panes  condit.’  Melantliium  is  universally 
recognised  by  botanists  to  be  the  Nigella.  Thus 
Bauhin  Pinax,  4 Nigella,  a nigro  sexninis  colore 

communiter  dicta  fxe\avQiov  est.’  The 

shoonez,  of  the  Arabs  is,  moreover,  the  same  plant 
or  seed,  which  is  usually  called  ‘ black  cumin.’ 
So  one  kind  of  cumin  is  said  by  Dioscorides 
to  have  seeds  like  those  of  melanthion  or  nigella. 
It  was  commonly  cultivated  in  Egypt,  and 
P.  Alpinus  mentions  it  as  4 Suneg  ^Egyptiis.’ 
The  Arabs,  besides  shoonez,  also  call  it  hub-al- 
souda,  and  the  Persians  seah  dana,  both  words 
signifying  black  seed.  One  species,  named 
A.  Indica  by  Dr.  Roxburgh,  is  called  kalajeera 
in  India,  that  is,  black  zeera  or  cumin,  of  the 
family  of  Ranunculaceae.  * Nigella  sativa  is 
alone  cultivated  in  India,  as  in  most  eastern 
countries,  and  continues  in  the  present  day,  as  in 
the  most  ancient  times,  to  he  used  both  as  a con- 
diment and  as  a medicine’  ( Illust . Himal.  Bot ., 
p.  46).  If  we  consider  that  this  appears  to  have 
been  always  one  of  the  cultivated  grains  of  the 
East,  and  compare  the  character  of  nigella  with 
the  passages  in  which  ketzach  is  mentioned,  we 
shall  find  that  the  former  is  applicable  to  them 
all.  Indeed,  Rabbi  Obadias  de  Bartenora  states, 
that  the  barbarous  or  vulgar  name  of  the  kezach, 
was  nielle,  that  is,  nigella.  The  various  species 
of  nigella  are  herbaceous  (several  of  them  being 
indigenous  in  Europe,  others  cultivated  in  most 
parts  of  Asia),  with  their  leaves  deeply  cut  and 
linear,  their  flowers  terminal,  most  of  them  having 
under  the  calyx  leafy  involucres  which  often 
half  surround  the  flower.  The  fruit  is  composed 
of  five  or  six  capsules,  which  are  compressed,  ob- 
long, pointed,  sometimes  said  to  be  hornlike, 
united  below,  and  divided  into  several  cells,  and 
enclosing  numerous,  angular,  scabrous,  black- 
coloured  seeds.  From  the  nature  of  the  capsules, 
it  is  evident,  that  when  they  are  ripe,  the  seeds 
might  easily  be  shaken  out  by  moderate  blows  of 
a stick,  as  is  related  to  have  been  the  case  with 
the  ketzacli  of  the  text. — J.  F.  R. 

KETZIOTH  (ril^Vi?)  is  translated  Cassia  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  and  is  said  to  be  derived 
from  yVp,  to  cut  off:  it  therefore  denotes  ‘ pieces 
cut  off,’  or  4 fragments,’  and  hence  is  applicable  to 
cassia.  But  many  of  these  derivations  have  often 
been  traced  out  in  ignorance  of  the  names  and 
properties  of  the  various  substances  known  to  the 
nations  of  antiquity.  Cassia  is  mentioned  in 
three  places  (Exod.  xxx.  24;  Ezek.  xxvii.  19; 
and  in  Ps.  xlv.  8),  in  conjunction  with  myrrh, 
cinnamon,  sweet  calamus,  and  ahalim,  or  eagle- 
ivood.  All  these  are  aromatic  substances,  and, 
with  the  exception  of  myrrh,  which  is  obtained 
from  Africa,  are  products  of  India  and  its  islands. 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  ketzioth  is  of  a 
similar  nature,  and  obtained  from  the  same 
countries.  Both  cinnamon  [Kinnamon]  and 
cassia  [Kiddah]  were  no  doubt  known  to  the 
ancients,  and  this  is  one  step  of  the  investigation  ; 
but  to  prove  that  the  Hebrew  words  are  correctly 
translated  is  another,  which  must  be  proceeded 
with  before  we  can  infer  that  the  kiddah  of 
Exod.  xxx.  24  and  Ezek.  xxvii.  19,  and  the 


ketzioth  of  Ps.  xlv.  8,  both  signify  the  same 
thing.  This  has  not  been  the  opinion  of  several 
translators  and  commentators ; the  first  having 
been  variously  rendered  iris,  stacte,  costus , ginger, 
canna,  fistula,  amber,  ketziah,  and  cassia,  while 
ketzioth , or  ketziah,  has  been  rendered  cassia, 
acacia,  amber,  ginger,  and  aloes.  The  Arabic 
translator  has  considered  it  synonymous  with  the 
Arabic  name  salicha , which  is  no  doubt  applied 
to  cassia. 

Mr.  Harmer  has  already  remarked  that,  little 
copious  as  the  Hebrew  language  is,  there  are 
in  it  no  fewer  than  four  different  words,  at  least, 
which  have  been  rendered  ‘ linen,’  or  4 fine  linen,’ 
by  our  translators.  This  would  hardly  have  been 
the  case  had  there  not  been  different  kinds  of  linen. 
The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  cassia,  for  which 
we  have  seen  that  there  are  two  distinct  words 
in  the  Hebrew — Kiddah , which  will  be  treated 
of  in  a separate  article,  and  Ketzioth , to  which 
it  is  now  our  object  to  direct  attention.  It 
occurs  only  once,  in  Ps.  xlv.  8 : ‘ All  thy  gar- 
ments smell  of  myrrh,  and  aloes  (ahalim),  and 
cassia  (ketzioth).'  It  has  been  observed  with 
reference  to  this  passage  that  4 The  garments  ot 
princes  are  often  imbued  with  costly  perfumes, 
those  of  the  high-priests  were  anointed  with  holy 
ointment.’  We  have  seen  above  that  ketzioth  has 
been  variously  translated,  but  no  one  seems  to 
have  noticed  the  resemblance  of  this  word  to  the 
kooth  and  koost  of  the  Arabs,  of  which  Kooshta 
is  said  by  their  authors  to  be  the  Syriac  name, 
and  from  which  there  is  little  doubt  that  the 
k6(ttos  of  the  Greeks,  and  costus  of  the  Latins, 
are  derived. 

4 Costum  molle  date,  et  blande  mihi  turis 
odores, 

Ure  puer  costum  Assyrium  redolentibus  aris.’ 

KScttos  is  enumerated  by  Theophrastus  (Hist. 
PI.  ix.  7.)  among  the  fragrant  substances  em- 
ployed in  making  ointment.  Three  kinds  of 
it  are  described  by  Dioscorides,  among  his 
Aromata  (i.  15),  of  which  the  Arabian  is  said  to 
be  the  best,  the  Indian  to  hold  the  second  place, 
and  the  .Syrian  the  third.  Pliny  mentions  only 
two  kinds  (xv.  12),  4 Radix  et  folium  Indis  est 
maximo  pretio.  Radix  costi  gustu  fervens,  odore 
eximio,  frutice  alias  inutili.  Primo  statim  in- 
troitu  amnis  Indi  in  Patale  insula,  duo  sunt  ejus 
genera — nigrum,  et  quod  melius,  candicans.’ 
The  Persian  writers  on  Materia  Medica  in  use  in 
India,  in  giving  the  above  synonymes,  evidently 
refer  to  two  of  the  three  kinds  of  Costus  described 
by  Dioscorides,  one  being  called  Koost  Ilindee , 
and  the  other  Koost  Arabee.  The  writer  of  this 
article  obtained  both  these  kinds  in  the  bazaars  of 
India,  and  found,  moreover,  that  the  hoot  or  koost 
of  the  natives  was  often,  by  European  merchants, 
called  Indian  orris,  i.  e.  Iris  root,  the  odour  of 
which  it  somewhat  resembles.  Subsequently  he 
ascertained  that  this  article  was  known  in  Cal- 
cutta as  Puchuh , the  name  under  which  it  is 
exported  to  China.  The  identity  of  the  sub- 
stance indicated  by  these  various  names  was 
long  ago  ascertained,  though  not  then  known  to  the 
present  writer.  Thus  Garcias  ab  Horto,  4 Esr 
ergo  Costus  d ictus  Arabibus  Cost  aut  Cast:  — 

4 In  Malacca,  ubi  ejus  plurimus  est  usus,  Pucho . 
et  inde  vehitur  in  Sinarum  legionem.’  Having 
obtained  the  koost  in  the  north-western  provinces 
of  India,  the  writer  traced  it  afterwards  as  one 


302 


KIEEROTH. 


KIDRON. 


of  the  sabstances  brought  across  the  Indus  from 
Lahore  ( Illust . Himal.  Bot.  p.  360).  When 
Dr.  Falconer  proceeded  on  his  journey  to  Cash- 
mere, he  was  requested  to  make  inquiries  respect- 
ing this  substance,  and  he  discovered  that  it  was 
exported  from  that:  valley  in  large  quantities  into 
the  Punjab ; whence  it  finds  its  way  to  Bombay 
(as  in  the  time  of  Pliny  to  Patala)  and  Calcutta, 
for  export  to  China,  where  it  is  highly  valued  as 
one  of  the  ingredients  in  the  incense  which  the 
Chinese  burn  in  their  temples  and  private  houses. 
Finding  the  plant  to  belong  to  a new  genus,  he 
named  it  Aucklandia,  in  compliment  to  the 
Governor-General  of  India,  and  tiie  species 
Aucklandia  Costus  (Linn.  Trans,  xix.  23). 
Considering,  therefore,  that  costus  was  one  of  the 
articles  of  ancient  commerce  and  is  mentioned  by 
Theophrastus  as  employed  in  the  composition  of 
perfumed  unguents,  and  considering  the  similarity 
of  the  Syriac  kooshta,  and  the  Arabic  kccst,  to  the 
ketzioth  of  Scripture,  and  from  their  correspond- 
ence in  properties  and  uses,  the  latter  appears 
more  likely  to  be  the  costus  of  the  ancients, 
than  cassia , for  which  there  is  another  name 
[Kiddah].— J.  F.  R. 

KIBEROTH-  H ATTAVAH,  an  encampment 
of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  [Wandering]. 

KIDDAH  (ITlj?),  as  well  as  Ketzioth,  i3 
rendered  Cassia  in  our  Authorized  Version  ; but 
translators  do  not  uniformly  coincide  in,  though 
the  great  majority  are  in  favour  of,  this  interpreta- 
tion. It  is  well  known  that  the  Greeks  were  ac- 
quainted with  several  varieties  of  cassia  ; and  as 
one  of  these  was  called  kitto,  Kirrdo  (Dioscor.  i.  12), 
this  has  been  thought  to  be  the  same  word  as  the 

Hebrew  mp,  from  Tip,  in  Arabic  Jo,  to  split , 

hew,  or  tear  anything  lengthwise , as  must  be 
done  in  separating  cassia  bark  from  the  tree. 
But  it  does  not  follow  that  this  is  a correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  origin  of  the  name  of  an  Eastern 
product.  The  word  occurs  first  in  Exod.  xxx. 
24,  where  cassia  ( kiddah ) is  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  olive  oil,  pure  myrrh,  sweet  cinna- 
mon, and  sweet  calamus  ; secondly,  in  Ezek. 
xxviii.  19,  where  Dan  and  Javan  are  described 
as  bringing  bright  iron,  cassia  (kiddah),  and 
calamus  to  the  markets  of  Tyre.  There  is  no 
reason  why  the  substance  now  called  cassia 
might  not  have  been  imported  from  the  shores 
of  India  into  Egypt  and  Palestine.  Consi- 
derable confusion  has,  however,  been  created 
by  the  same  name  having  been  applied  by  bota- 
nists to  a genus  containing  the  plants  yielding 
senna,  and  to  others,  as  the  cassia  fistula , which 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  original  cassia. 
Cassia-buds,  again,  though  no  doubt  produced  by 
a plant  belonging  to  the  same,  or  to  some  genus 
allied  to  that  producing  cinnamon  and  cassia, 
were  probably  not  known  in  commerce  at  so 
early  a period  as  the  two  latter  substances.  There 
is  some  difficulty  also  in  determining  what  the 
ancient  cassia  was.  The  author  of  this  article, 
in  his  Antiquity  of  Hindoo  Medicine , p.  84,  has 
already  remarked,  ‘ The  cassia  of  the  ancients  it 
is  not  easy  to  determine ; that  of  commerce,  Mr. 
Marshall  says,  consists  of  only  the  inferior  kinds 
of  cinnamon.  Some  consider  cassia  to  be  distin- 
guished from  cinnamon  by  the  outer  cellular 
covering  of  the  bark  being  scraped  off  the  latter, 


but  allowed  to  remain  on  the  forme/.  This  is, 
however,  the  characteristic  of  the  (Cochii  Chinese) 
cinnamomum  aromaticum , as  we  are  informed 
by  Mr.  Crawford  (Embassy  to  Siam,  p 470)  that 
it  is  not  cured,  like  that  of  Ceylon,  by  freeing  it 
from  the  epidermis.’  There  is,  certainly,  no  doubt 
that  some  cassia  is  produced  on  the  coast  o i 
Malabar.  The  name  also  would  appear  to  be  of 
Eastern  origin,  as  kasse  koronde  is  one  kind  of 
cinnamon,  as  mentioned  by  Burmann  in  his  Flora 
Zeylonica ; but  it  will  be  preferable  to  treat  of 
the  whole  subject  in  connection  with  cinnamon 
[Kinnamon]. — J.  F.  R. 

KIDRON  (flTlp,  the  turbid : Sept.  KtSpuy), 
the  brook  or  winter  torrent  which  flows  through 
the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  (as  it  is  now  called)^ 
on  the  east  side  of  Jerusalem.  ‘ The  brook  Kidron' 
is  the  only  name  by  which  ‘ the  valley  ’ itself  is 
known  in  Scripture  ; for  it  is  by  no  means  certain, 
nor  even  probable,  that  the  name  ‘ valley  of  Je- 
hoshaphat’ in  Joel  (iii.  12)  was  intended  to  apply 
to  this  valley.  The  word  rendered * brook’  (2  Sam. 
xv.  23;  1 Kings  ii.  37,  &c.),  is  Wu  nachal, 
which  may  be  taken  as  equivalent  to  the  Arabic 
Wady , meaning  a stream  and  its  bed  or  valley, 
or  properly  the  valley  of  a stream,  even  when  the 
stream  is  dry.  The  Septuagint,  Josephus,  and 
the  Evangelists  (John  xviii.  1),  designate  it 
pappos,  a storm  brook,  or  winter  torrent. 

The  brook  Kidron  derives  all  its  importance 
from  its  vicinity  to  the  holy  city,  being  nothing 
more  than  the  dry  bed  of  a winter  torrent,  bearing 
marks  of  being  occasionally  swept  over  by  a large 
volume  of  water.  No  stream  flows  through  it, 
except  during  the  heavy  rains  of  winter,  when 
the  waters  descend  into  it  from  the  neighbouring 
hills.  But  even  in  winter  there  is  no  constant 
flow,  and  the  resident  missionaries  assured  Dr. 
Robinson  that  they  had  not  during  several  years 
seen  a stream  running  through  the  valley.  The 
ravine  in  which  the  stream  is  collected  takes  its 
origin  above  a mile  to  the  north-east  of  the  city. 
This  ravine  deepens  as  it  proceeds,  and  forms  an 
angle  opposite  the  temple.  It  then  takes  a south- 
east direction,  and,  passing  between  the  village  of 
Siloam  and  the  city,  runs  off  in  the  direction  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  through  a singularly  wild  gorge,  the 
course  of  which  few  travellers  have  traced  (Pic- 
torial Palestine,  Introd.  p.  cxciv.).  it.  is  in  this 
ravine  that  the  celebrated  monastery  of  Santa 
Saba  is  situated.  Mr.  Madden,  who  went  through 
the  valley  to  the  Dead  Sea,  thus  speaks  of  the 
character  which  it  assumes  as  it  approaches 
the  monastery  : — ‘ After  traversing  for  the  last 
hour  a wild  ravine,  formed  by  two  rugged  perpen- 
dicular mountains,  the  sides  of  which  contained 
innumerable  caverns,  which  once  formed  a sort 
of  troglodyte  city,  in  which  the  early  Christians 
resided,  the  sight  of  the  convent  in  this  desolate 
place  was  like  a glimpse  of  paradise.’  On  leav- 
ing the  convent  the  next  day  he  says  that  he 
‘ marched  through  the  bed  of  the  Kidron,  along 
the  horrible  ravine  which  he  entered  the  day  be- 
fore ;’  but  he  gives  no  account  of  its  outlet  into  the 
Dead  Sea.  This  defect  is  supplied  by  Dr.  Ro- 
binson (Biblical  Researches,  ii.  249),  who,  on 
passing  along  the  western  borders  of  the  lake, 
came  ‘ to  the  deep  and  almost  impassable  ravine 
of  the  Kidron,  running  down  by  Mar  Saba,  and 
thence  called  Wady-er-Rahib,  '*  Monk’s  Valley;*’ 


KIKAYON, 


KIKAYON. 


203 


Suit  here  also  bearing  the  name  of  Wady  en-Nar, 

« Fire  Valley.”  At  this  place  it  was  running 
E.S.E.,  in  a deep  narrow  channel,  between  per- 
pendicular walls  of  rock,  as  if  worn  away  by  the 
rushing  waters  between  these  desolate  chalky 
hi1  Is.  There  was,  however,  no  water  in  it  now  ; 
nor  had  there  apparently  been  any  for  a long  time.’ 

KIKAYON  occurs  only  in  Jonah  iv., 

where  it  is  several  times  mentioned,  as  in  ver.  6,  7, 
9,  10.  It  is  translated  gourd  in  our  Authorized 
Version,  probably  from  the  KoXonivQr)  of  the 
Septuagint,  often  rendered  cucurbita.  In  the 
margin  of  the  English  Bible,  Palm-Christ  is 
given.  In  the  Vulgate  kikayon  is  translated 
hedeva , ‘ ivy.’  Neither  the  gourd  nor  ivy  is  con- 
sidered by  modern  writers  to  indicate  the  plant 
intended;  which  is  remarkable  for  having  given 
rise  to  some  fierce  controversies  in  the 'early  ages  of 
the  Church.  The  difficulties  here,  however,  do  not 
appear  to  be  so  great  as  in  many  other  instances. 
But  before  considering  these,  it  is  desirable  to 
ascertain  what  are  the  characteristics  of  the  plant 
as  required  by  the  text.  We  are  told,  ‘ The  Lord 
God  prepared  a gourd  (kikayon),  and  made  it 
to  come  over  Jonah,  that  it  might  be  a shadow 
over  his  head,’  &c.  (ver.  6).  ‘ But  God  prepared 
a worm  when  the  morning  rose  the  next  day, 
and  it  smote  the  gourd  that  it  withered  ’ (ver.  7). 
And  in  ver.  10  it  is  said  of  the  gourd  that  it 
‘ came  up  in  a night,  and  perished  in  a night.’ 
Hence  it  appears  that  the  growth  of  the  kikayon 
was  miraculous,  but  that  it  was  probably  a plant 
•f  tire  country,  being  named  specifically  ; also 
tiiat  it  was  capable  of  affording  shade,  and  might 
be  easily  destroyed.  There  does  not  appear  any- 
thing in  this  account  to  warrant  us  in  considering 
it  to  be  the  ivy,  which  is  a plant  of  slow  growth, 
cannot  support  itself,  and  is,  moreover,  not  likely 
to  be  found  in  the  hot  and  arid  country  of  an- 
cient Nineveh,  though  we  have  ourselves  found 
it  in  more  southern  latitudes,  but  only  in  the 
temperate  climate  of  the  Himalayan  Mountains. 
The  ivy  was  adduced  probably  only  from  the 
resemblance  of  its  Greek  name,  KicraSs,  to  kika- 
yon. That  the  kikayon  was  thought  to  be  a 
gourd  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  kiki  of  the 

Egyptians  being  the  kherwa,  of  the  Arabs, 

often  incorrectly  written  keroa , that  is,  with- 
out the  aspirate,  which  makes  it  very  similar 

to  kura,  when  written  in  Roman  characters ; 

which  last  in  the  East  is  applied  to  the  gourd  or 
pumpkin  (Avicenna,  c.  622),  and  is  probably  the 
Lagcnaria  vulgaris.  Many  modern  authors  mis- 
take the  one  for  the  other.  To  this  plant,  no  doubt, 
the  following  passages  refer,  ‘ The  Christians  and 
Jews  of  Mosul  (Nineveh)  say  it  was  not  the  keroa 
whose  shadow  refreshed  Jonah,  but  a sort  of  gourd, 
el-kera , which  has  very  large  leaves,  very  large 
fruit,  and  lasts  but  about  four  months’  (Niebuhr, 
Arabia,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Harris).  So  Volney  : 
‘ Whoever  has  travelled  to  Cairo  or  Rosetta  knows 
that  the  species  of  gourd  called  kerra  will,  in 
twenty-four  hours,  send  out  shoots  near  four  inches 
’ong’  ( Trav.  i.  71). 

The  Hebrew  name  kikayon  is  so  similar  to 
ne  kiki  of  Dioscorides,  that  it  was  early  thought 
io  indicate  the  same  plant.  Dioscorides  (iv. 
164,  weol  k(k€<os)  states  that  the  kiki,  or  croton , 


is  called  wild  sesamum  by  some 4 Ricini 
aulem  nomen  accepit  a similitudine  quae  eet 
illius  semini  cum  rieino  animali.  Arbuscula 
est  parvae  ficus  altitudine,  foliis  platani,  trun- 
cis  ramisque  cavis  in  calami  modum,  semine 
in  uvis  asperis.  Ex  eo  oleum  kikinum  expri- 
mitur,  cibis  quidem  inepturn  ; sed  alias  et  ad 
lucernas  et  emplastra  utile.’  Thus  giving  in  a 
few  words  a graphic  description  of  Iiicinus  com - 
munis,  or  castor-oil  j^ant,  of  which  the  seeds  have 
some  resemblance  to  the  insect  commonly  called 
tick  in  English,  and  which  is  found  on  dogs  and 


other  animals.  It  has  also  been  called  Penia- 
dactylus  and  Palma  Christi,  from  the  palmate 
division  of  its  leaves.  It  was  known  at  much 
earlier  times,  as  Hippocrates  employed  it  in 
medicine ; and  Herodotus  mentions  it  by  the 
name  of  aiWiKvirpiov  (ii.  94)  when  speaking  of 
Egypt : — ‘ The  inhabitants  of  the  marshy  grounds 
make  use  of  an  oil  which  they  term  kiki,  ex- 
pressed from  the  Sillicyprian  plant.’  That  it 
has  been  known  there  from  the  earliest  times  is 
evident  from  Caillaud  having  found  castor-oil 
seeds  in  some  very  ancient  sarcophagi.  That  the 

Arabs  considered  their  kherwa  to  be  the 

same  plant,  is  evident  from  Avicenna  on  this 
article,  or  khirwaa  of  the  translation  of  Plempius 
(p.  301)  ‘ Plantum  hac  scribit  Dioscorides, 

quidam  crotona  appellant,  hoc  est  ricinum,  a 
similitudine  quae  est  illius  semini  cum  rieino 
animali.’  So  Serapion  (iii.  c.  79): — ‘ Cherva 
sive  kerua,  sicuti  ejus  oleum,  oleum  kichas .’ 
This  oil  was  not  only  employed  by  the  Greeks, 
but  also  by  the  Jews,  being  the  p'p  kik- 
oil  of  the  Talmudists,  prepared  from  the  seeds  ol 
the  ricinus  (Rosenm filler,  p.  127).  ‘ Oleum  (kik) 
est  quod  exit  ex  granis.’  Lady  (Walcott  states  that 
the  modem  Jews  of  London  use  this  oil,  by  the 
name  of  oil  of  kik,  for  their  Sabbath  lamps,  it 


204 


K1MOSH. 


KING. 


being  one  of  the  five  kinds  of  oil  which  their  tra- 
ditions allow  them  to  employ. 

Having  ascertained  that  the  kiki  of  the  Greeks 
is  what  is  now  called  Ricinus  communis , we  shall 
find  that  its  characters  correspond  with  everything 
that  is  required,  except  the  rapidity  of  growth, 
which  must  be  granted  was  miraculous.  Dr. 
Harris  indeed  states  that  the  passage  means,  ‘ Son 
of  tire  night  it  was,  and  as  a son  of  the  night  it 
died and  that,  therefore,  we  are  not  compelled 
to  believe  that  it  grew  in  a single  night,  but 
rather,  by  a strong  Oriental  figure,  that  it  was  of 
rapid  growth.  This,  (here  is  no  doubt,  it  is 
highly  susceptible  of  in  warm  countries  where 
there  is  some  moisture.  It  attains  a considerable 
size  in  one  season  ; and  though  in  Europe  it  is 
only  known  as  a herb,  in  India  it  frequently  may 
be  seen,  especially  at  the  margins  of  fields,  the 
size  of  a tree.  So  at  Busra  Niebuhr  saw  an 
el-keroa  which  had  the  form  and  appearance  of  a 
tree.  The  stems  are  erect,  round,  and  hollow ; 
the  leaves  broad,  palmate,  5 to  8 or  10  lobed, 
peltate,  supported  on  long  foot-stalks.  The  flowers 
in  terminal  panicles ; the  lower,  male ; the  upper, 
female.  Capsule  tricoccous,  covered  with  spines. 
The  seeds  are  oblong,  oval,  externally  of  a greyish 
colour,  but  mottled  with  darker-coloured  spols 
and  stripes.  From  the  erect  habit,  and  the  breadth 
of  its  foliage,  this  plant  throws  an  ample  shade, 
especially  when  young.  From  the  softness  and 
little  substance  of  its  stem,  it  may  easily  be  de- 
stroyed by  insects,  which  Rumphius  describes  as 
sometimes  being  the  case.  It  would  then  neces- 
sarily dry  up  rapidly.  As  it  is  well  suited  to  the 
country,  and  to  the  purpose  indicated  in  the  text, 
and  as  its  name  kiki  is  so  similar  to  kikayon , 
it  is  doubtless  the  plant  which  the  sacred  penman 
had  in  view. — J.  F.  R. 

KIMOSH  and  KIMSHON  and 

occur,  the  first  in  Isa.  xxxiv.  13,  and 
Hos.  ix.  6,  and  the  second  in  Prov.  xxiv.  31,  where 
it  is  mentioned  along  with  charul,  which  we  be- 
lieve to  indicate  charlock.  The  field  of  the  sloth- 
ful is  there  described  as  being  grown  over  with 
thorns  ( charullim ),  ‘and  nettles  ( kimshon ) had 
covered  the  face  thereof.’  In  Isaiah  it  is  said, 

‘ And  thorns  ( choach ) shall  come  up  in  the 
palaces,  nettles  ( kimosh ) and  brambles  in  the 
fortresses  thereof.’  Hos.  ix.  6,  ‘The  pleasant 
places  for  their  silver,  nettles  ( kimosh ) shall  pos- 
sess them ; thorns  ( choach ) shall  be  in  their 
tabernacles.’ 

Though  different  interpretations  have  been  given 
of  this  word,  as  thorns,  thistles,  wild  chamomile, 
&c.,  the  greatest  number  of  authors  have  united 
ir  adopting  nettles,  chiefly  in  consequence  of  the 
authority  of  Jewish  writers.  Thus,  Rosenmuller 
says,  Rabbi  Tanchum,  on  Hos.  ix.  6,  explains  ki- 
mosh by  the  common  nettle,  in  Pococke’s 

Comment,  on  Hosea.  So  R.  Ben  Melech,  as  quoted 
and  translated  by  Celsius  ( [Hierobot . ii.  p.  207)  ‘ ex 
antiquioribus  Ebraeis,  ad  Proverb,  xxiii.  13,  species 
est  spinarum , et  dicitur  vulgo  Urtica.’  Nettles 
no  doubt  spring  up  rapidly  in  deserted  as  in  in- 
habited places,  in  fields,  ditches,  and  road  sides, 
but  most  frequently  where  there  is  some  moisture 
in  the  soil  or  climate.  Though  they  are  found 
in  tropical  situations,  as  well  as  in  temperate 
cl'mes,  yet  the  springing  up  of  nettles  in  deserted 


places  is  rather  an  European  than  an  Oriental 
idea.  Though  kimosh  has  not  yet  been  proved 
to  indicate  the  nettle,  this  plant  has  been  received 
by  the  rabbins,  and  is  as  well  suited  to  the  pass- 
ages in  which  it  occurs  as  any  other  which  has 
hitherto  been  suggested. — J.  F.  R. 

KING,  a title  applied  in  the  Scriptures  to 
men  (Luke  xxii.  25  ; 1 Tim.  ii.  1,  2;  1 Pet.  ii. 
13-17),  to  God  (1  Tim.  i.  17;  vi.  15,  16),  and  to 
Christ  (Matt,  xxvii.  11;  Luke  xix.  38;  John  i. 
49;  vi.  15;  xviii.  32-37) — to  men,  as  invested 
with  regal  authority  by  their  fellows;  to  God,  as 
the  sole  proper  sovereign  and  ruler  of  the  universe ; 
and  to  Christ,  as  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God, 
the  King  of  the  Jews,  the  sole  Head  and  Governoi 
of  his  church.  The  kingdom  of  Christ,  in  Luke 
i.  32,  33,  is  declared  to  be  without  end  ; whereas, 
in  1 Cor.  xv.  28,  we  are  taught  that  it  will  have  a 
period,  when  God  shall  be  all  in  all.  The  con- 
tradiction is  only  in  form  and  appearance.  The 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  considered  as  a media- 
torial instrumentality  lor  effecting  the  salvation 
of  the  world,  will,  ol*  course,  terminate  when  the 
purposes  for  which  it  was  established  shall  have 
been  accomplished  ; while  the  reign  of  the  Son  of 
God,  associated  with  his  Father  in  the  empire  of 
the  world,  will  last  as  long  as  that  empire  itself, 
and  never  cease,  so  long  as  the  effects  endure 
which  the  redemption  of  the  world  shall  produce 
alike  in  its  remotest  as  in  its  nearer  consequences. 

Regal  authority  was  altogether  alien  to  the  in- 
stitutions of  Moses  in  their  original  and  unadul- 
terated form.  Their  fundamental  idea  was  tha: 
Jehovah  was  the  sole  king  of  the  nation  (1  Sam. 
viii.  7)  : to  use  the  emphatic  words  in  Isa.  xxxiii. 
22,  ‘ The  Lord  is  our  judge,  the  Lord  is  our  law- 
giver, the  Lord  is  our  king.’  This  important  fact, 
however,  does  not  rest  on  the  evidence  of  single 
texts,  but  is  implied  in  the  entire  Pentateuch,  not 
to  say  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Scriptural  statements  or  implications  are  as  fol- 
lows : — God  is  the  creator  of  the  world  ; he  saved  a 
remnant  from  the  flood  ; towards  the  descendants 
of  Noah  he  manifested  his  special  favour ; to  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob,  he  promised  a land  flowing 
with  milk  and  honey  ; in  the  fulness  of  time  he 
accomplished,  by  apparently  the  most  unlikely 
and  untoward  means,  the  oath  which  he  more 
than  once  sware  to  the  fathers  of  Israel ; so  that 
eventually,  having  furnished  his  people  with  a 
complete  code  of  laws,  he  put  them  in  posses- 
sion of  the  promised  territory,  assuming  the 
government,  and  setting  forth  sanctions  alike  of 
ample  good  and  terrible  ill,  in  order  to  keep  the 
people  loyal  to  himself  as  to  the  only  Creator  and 
God  of  the  universe,  and  specially  as  their  supreme 
sovereign. 

We  consider  it  as  a sign  of  that  self-confidence 
and  moral  enterprise  which  are  produced  in  great 
men  by  a consciousness  of  being  what  they  pro- 
fess, that  Moses  ventured,  with  his  half-civilized 
hordes,  on  the  bold  experiment  of  founding  a 
society  without  a king,  and  that  in  the  solicitude 
which  he  must  have  felt  for  the  success  of  his 
great  undertaking,  he  forewent  the  advantages 
which  a regal  government  would  have  afforded 
Nor  is  such  an  attempt  a little  singular  and  novel 
at  a period  and  in  a part  of  the  world  in  which 
royalty  was  not  only  general,  but  held  in  the 
greatest  respect,  and  sometimes  rose  to  the  very 
height  of  pure  despotism.  Its  novelty  is  an  e*  i 


KING. 

dleii^e  of  the  divine  original  to  whicli  Moses 
referred  all  his  polity.  Equally  honourable  is  the 
conduct  of  Moses  in  denying  to  his  lower  nature 
the  gratifications  which  a crown  would  have 
imparted — we  say  denying  himself,  because  it  is 
beyond  a question  that  the  man  who  rescued  the 
Jews  from  bondage  and  conducted  them  to  the 
land  of  Canaan,  might,  had  he  chosen,  have  kept 
the  dominion  in  his  own  hands,  and  transmitted 
a crown  to  his  posterity.  If  Washington,  at  this 
late  period  of  human  history,  after  the  accumu- 
lating experience  of  above  three  thousand  years, 
has  added  its  sanctions  to  the  great  law  of  dis- 
interested benevolence,  is  held  deserving  of  high 
honour  for  having  preferred  to  found  a republic 
rather  than  attempt  to  build  up  a throne,  surely 
very  unequal  justice  is  done  to  Moses,  if,  as  is  too 
generally  the  case,  we  pass  in  neglect  the  extra- 
ordinary fact  that,  with  supreme  power  in  his 
hands,  and,  to  all  appearance,  scarcely  any  hin- 
drance to  the  assumption  of  regal  splendour,  the 
great  Hebrew  patriot  and  legislator  was  content 
to  die  within  sight  of  the  land  of  promise,  a 
simple,  unrewarded,  unhonoured  individual,  con- 
tent to  do  God’s  work  regardless  of  self.  It  is 
equally  obvious  that  this  self-denial  on  the  part 
of  Moses,  this  omission  to  create  any  human 
kingship,  is  in  entire  accordance  with  the  import, 
aim,  and  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  as 
being  divine  in  their  origin,  and  designed  to 
accomplish  a special  work  of  Providence  for  man  ; 
and,  therefore,  affords,  by  its  consistency  with  the 
very  essence  of  the  system  of  which  it  forms  a 
part,  a very  forcible  argument  in  favour  of  the 
divine  legation  of  Moses. 

That  great  man,  however,  well  knew  what 
were  the  elements  with  which  he  had  to  deal  in 
framing  institutions  for  the  rescued  Israelites. 
Slaves  they  had  been,  and  the  spirit  of  slavery 
was  not  yet-  wholly  eradicated  from  their  souls. 
They  had,  too,  witnessed  in  Egypt  the  more  than 
ordinary  pomp  and  splendour  which  environ  a 
throne,  dazzling  the  eyes  and  captivating  the 
heart  of  the  uncultured.  Not  improbably  the 
prosperity  and  abundance  which  they  had  seen  in 
Egypt,  and  in  which  they  had  been,  in  a measure, 
allowed  to  partake,  might  have  been  ascribed  by 
them  to  the  regal  form  of  the  Egyptian  govern- 
ment. Moses  may  well,  therefore,  have  appre- 
hended a not  very  remote  departure  from  the  fun- 
damental type  of  his  institutions.  Accordingly 
he  makes  a special  provision  for  this  contingency 
(Dent.  xvii.  14),  and  labours,  by  anticipation,  to 
guard  against  the  abuses  of  royal  power.  Should 
a king  be  demanded  by  the  people,  then  he  was 
to  be  a native  Israelite  ; he  was  not  to  be  drawn 
away  by  the  love  of  show,  especially  by  a desire 
for  that  regal  display  in  which  horses  have  always 
borne  so  large  a part,  to  send  down  to  Egypt,  still 
less  to  cause  the  people  to  return  to  that  land ; 
he  was  to  avoid  the  corrupting  influence  of  a large 
harem,  so  common  among  Eastern  monarchs; 
he  was  to  abstain  from  amassing  silver  and  gold ; 
ne  was  to  have  a copy  of  the  law  made  ex- 
pressly for  his  own  study — a study  which  he  was 
never  to  intermit  till  the  end  of  his  days;  so 
that  his  heart  might  not  be  lifted  up  above  his 
brethren,  that  he  might  not  be  turned  aside  from 
the  living  God,  but  observing  the  divine  statutes, 
«tnd  thus  acknowledging  himself  to  be  no  more 
than  the  vicegerent  of  heaven,  he  might  enjoy 


KING.  ioa 

nappiness,  and  transmit  his  authority  to  his  de- 
scendants. 

This  passage  has,  indeed,  been  pronounced  to 
stand  apart  from  any  connection  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  to  betray  a much  later  hand  than  that 
of  Moses.  If  our  view  is  correct,  it  has  a very 
obvious  connection,  and  proceeds  from  the  He- 
brew legislator  himself.  Nor  can  it,  we  think, 
be  denied  that  the  reason  is  by  no  means  an  un- 
likely nor  insufficient  one,  by  which  we  have 
supposed  Moses  to  have  been  prompted  in  pro- 
mulgating the  provisional  and  contingent  arrange- 
ments which  are  found  in  the  passage  under 
consideration.  Most  emphatically  is  the  act  of 
taking  a king  ascribed  by  Moses  to  the  people 
themselves,  whom  he  represents  as  being  influenced 
by  considerations  not  dissimilar  to  those  which 
we  have  assigned  : ‘ When  thou,’  &c.,  ‘and  shalt 
say,  1 icill  set  a king  over  me,  like  as  all  the  na- 
tions that  are  about  me.'  Winer,  however,  from 
whom  ( JReal-toorterb .)  we  have  taken  this  objec- 
tion, argues  in  opposition  to  Staudlin  (Bertholdt’s 
Theol.  Joxirn.,  iii.  259,  361,  sq.),  that  if  Moses 
had  anticipated  a demand  for  a king,  he  would 
have  made  provision  for  such  a demand  at  an 
earlier  period — a remark  which  rests  on  no  evi- 
dence of  verisimilitude  whatever,  the  opposite  of 
the  supposed  course  being  just  as  probable.  Be- 
sides, it  may  be  affirmed,  without,  the  possibility 
of  receiving  any  contradiction  but  that  of  mere 
assertion,  that  he  made  the  provision  as  soon  as  he 
foresaw  the  probable  need.  Less  solid,  if  possible, 
is  Winer’s  other  argument,  namely,  that  in  the 
passage  (1  Sam.  viii.)  in  which  are  recorded  the 
people's  demand  of  a king  and  the  prophet  Sa- 
muel’s reply,  no  trace  is  found  of  a reference  to 
the  alleged  Mosaic  law  on  the  point.  A reference 
in  form  Winer  could  scarcely  expect,  a reference 
in  substance  we  see  very  clearly.  We  have  not 
room  to  go  into  particulars ; but  recommend  th 
reader  carefully  to  compare  the  two  passages. 

The  Jewish  polity,  then,  was  a sort  of  sacerdotal 
republic — we  say  sacerdotal,  because  of  the  great 
influence  which,  from  the  first,  the  priestly  order 
enjoyed,  having  no  human  head,  but  being  under 
the  special  supervision,  protection,  and  guidance 
of  the  Almighty.  The  nature  of  the  consequences, 
however,  of  that  divine  influence  avowedly  de- 
pended on  the  degree  of  obedience  and  the  general 
faithfulness  of  the  nation.  The  good,  therefore, 
of  such  a superintendence  in  its  immediate  results 
was  not  necessary,  but  contingent.  The  removal 
of  Moses  and  of  Joshua  by  death  soon  left  the 
people  to  the  natural  results  of  their  own  condi- 
tion and  character.  Anarchy  ensued.  Noble 
minds,  indeed,  and  stout  hearts  appeared  in  those 
who  were  termed  Judges;  but  the  state  of  the 
country  was  not  so  satisfactory  as  to  prevent  an 
unenlightened  people,  having  low  and  gross  affec- 
tions, from  preferring  the  glare  of  a crown  and 
the  apparent  protection  of  a sceptre,  to  the  invi- 
sible and,  therefore,  mostly  unrecognised  arm  of 
omnipotence.  A king  accordingly  is  requested. 
The  misconduct  of  Samuel’s  sons,  who  had  been 
made  judges,  was  the  immediate  occasion  of  the 
demand  being  put  forth.  The  request  came  with 
authority,  for  it  emanated  from  all  the  elders  of 
Israel,  who,  after  holding  a formal  conference, 
proceeded  to  Samuel,  in  order  to  make  him  ac- 
quainted with  their  wish.  Samuel  was  displeased ; 
but,  having  sought  in  prayer  to  learn  the  divine 


206 


KING. 


KING. 


will,  he  is  instructed  to  yield  to  the  demand  on  a 
ground  which  we  should  not  assuredly  have  found 
stated,  had  the  book  in  which  it  appears  have 
been  tampered  with  or  fabricated  for  any  courtly 
purposes  or  any  personal  ends,  whether  by  Samuel 
himself,  or  by  David,  or  any  of  his  successors — 
4 for  they  have  not  rejected  ihee  (Samuel),  but 
they  have  rejected  me,  that  I should  not  reign 
over  them  ’ (ver.  7,  see  also  ver.  8).  Samuel  is, 
moreover,  directed  to  ‘ protest  solemnly  unto  them, 
and  show  them  the  manner  of  the  king  that  shall 
reign  over  them.’  Faithfully  does  the  prophet  de- 
pict the  evils  which  a monarchy  would  inflict  on 
the  people.  In  vain  : they  said,  ‘ Nay,  but  we 
will  have  a king  over  us.1  Accordingly,  Saul 
the  son  of  Kish,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  was,  by 
divine  direction,  selected,  and  privately  anointed 
by  Samuel  ‘ to  be  captain  over  God's  inheritance:’ 
thus  he  was  to  hold  only  a delegated  and  subor- 
dinate authority.  Under  the  guidance  of  Samuel, 
Saul  is  subsequently  chosen  by  lot  from  among 
the  assembled  tribes ; and  though  his  personal 
appearance  had  no  influence  in  the  choice,  yet 
when  he  was  plainly  pointed  out  to  be  the  indivi- 
dual designed  for  the  sceptre,  Samuel  called 
attention  to  those  qualities  which  in  less  civilized 
nations  have  a preponderating  influence,  and  are 
never  without  effect,  at  least,  in  supporting  ‘the 
divinity  which  doth  hedge  a king  ‘ See  ye  him 
whom  (he  Lord  hath  chosen,  that  there  is  none 
like  him  among  all  the  people,1  for  he  was 
higher  than  any  of  the  people  from  his  shoulders 
and  upward ; ‘ and  all  the  people  shouted,  God 
save  the  king.1 

Emanating  as  the  royal  power  did  from  the 
demand  of  the  people  and  the  permission  of  a 
prophet,  it  was  not  likely  to  be  unlimited  in  its 
extent  or  arbitrary  in  its  exercise.  The  govern- 
ment of  God,  indeed,  remained,  being  rather  con- 
cealed and  complicated  than  disowned,  much  less 
superseded.  The  king  ruled  not  in  his  own 
right,  nor  in  virtue  of  the  choice  of  the  people,  but 
by  concession  from  on  high,  and  partly  as  the 
servant  and  partly  as  the  representative  of  the 
theocracy.  How  insecure,  indeed,  was  the  tenure 
of  the  kingly  power,  how  restricted  it  was  in  its 
authority,  appears  clear  from  the  comparative 
facility  with  which  the  crown  was  transferred 
from  Saul  to  David ; and  the  part  which  the  pro- 
phet Samuel  took  in  effecting  that  transference 
points  out  the  quarter  where  lay  the  power  which 
limited,  if  it  did  not  primarily,  at  least,  control 
the  royal  authority.  It  must,  however,  be  added, 
that  if  religion  narrowed  this  authority,  it  also 
invested  it  with  a sacredness  which  could  emanate 
from  no  other  source.  Liable  as  the  Israelite 
kings  were  to  interference  on  the  part  of  priest 
and  prophet,  they  were,  by  the  same  divine  power, 
shielded  from  the  unholy  hands  of  the  profane 
vulgar;  and  it  was  at  once  impiety  and  rebellion 
tc  do  injury  to  ‘ the  Lord's  anointed  1 (Ps.  ii.  6,  7, 
sq.).  Instances  are  not  wanting  to  corroborate 
and  extend  these  general  observations.  When 
Saul  was  in  an  extremity  before  (he  Philistines 
(1  Sam.  xxviii.),  he  resorted  to  the  usual  methods 
of  obtaining  counsel : £ Saul  inquired  of  the  Lord, 
the  Lord  answered  him  not,  neither  by  dreams, 
nor  by  Urim,  ncr  by  prophets.1  So  David,  when 
in  need  of  advice  in  war  (1  Sam.  xxx.  7),  resorted 
to  Abiathar  the  priest,  who,  by  means  of  the 
ephod,  inquired  of  the  Lord,  and  thereupon  urge  \ 


the  king  to  take  a certain  course,  which  proved 
successful  (see  also  2 Sam.  ii.  1).  Sometime* 
indeed,  as  appears  from  1 Sam.  xxviii.,  it  was  a 
prophet  who  acted  the  part  of  prime  minister,  or 
chief  counsellor,  to  the  king,  and  who,  as  bearing 
that  sacred  character,  must  have  possessed  very 
weighty  influence  in  the  royal  divan  (l  Kings 
xxii.  7,  sq.).  We  must  not,  however,' expect  to 
find  any  definite  and  permanent  distribution  of 
power,  any  legal  determination  of  the  royal  pre- 
rogatives as  discriminated  from  the  divine  autho- 
rity ; circumstances,  as  they  prompted  certain 
deeds,  restricted  or  enlarged  the  sphere  of  the  mo- 
narch's action.  Thus,  in  1 Sam.  xi.  4,  sq.,  we 
find  Saul,  in  an  emergency,  assuming,  without 
consultation  or  deliberation,  the  power  of  demand- 
ing something  like  a levy  en  masse , and  of  pro- 
claiming instant  war.  With  the  king  lay  the 
administration  of  justice  in  the  last  resort  (2  Sam. 
xv.  2;  1 Kings  iii.  16,  sq.).  He  also  possessed 
the  power  of  life  and  death  (2  Sam.  xiv.).  Tc 
provide  for  and  superintend  the  public  worship 
was  at  once  his  duty  and  his  highest  honour 
(1  Kings  viii. ; 2 Kings  xii.  4 ; xviii.  4 ; xxiii.  1). 
One  reason  why  the  people  requested  a king  was 
that  they  might  have  a recognised  leader  in  wai 
(1  Sam.  viii.  20).  The  Mosaic  law  offered  a 
powerful  hindrance  to  royal  despotism  (l  Sam. 
x.  25).  The  people  also,  by  means  of  their  elders, 
formed  an  express  compact,  by  which  they  stipu- 
lated for  their  rights  (1  K’ngs  xii.  4),  and  were 
from  time  to  time  appealed  to,  generally  in  cases 
of  ‘ great  pith  and  moment 1 (1  Chron.  xxix.  1 ; 
2 Kings  xi.  17 ; Joseph.,  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  1.  2). 
Nor  did  the  people  fail  to  interpose  their  will, 
where  they  thought  it  necessary,  in  opposition  to 
that  of  the  monarch  (1  Sam.  xiv.  45).  The  part 
which  Nathan  took  against  David  shows  how 
effective,  as  well  as  bold,  was  the  check  exerted 
by  the  prophets  ; indeed,  most  of  the  prophetic 
history  is  the  history  of  the  noblest,  opposition  ever 
made  to  the  vices  alike  of  royalty,  priesthood, 
and  people.  If  needful,  the  prophet  hesitated  not 
to  demand  an  audience  of  the  king,  nor  was  he 
dazzled  or  deterred  by  royal  power  and  pomp 
(1  Kings  xx.  22,  38  ; 2 Kings  i.  15).  As,  how- 
ever, the  monarch  held  the  sword,  the  instrument 
of  death  was  sometimes  made  to  prevail  over 
every  restraining  influence  (1  Sam.  xxii.  17). 

After  the  transfer  of  the  crown  from  Saul  to 
David,  the  royal  power  was  annexed  to  the  house 
of  the  latter,  passing  from  father  to  son,  with  pre- 
ference to  the  eldest  born,  though  he  might  be  a 
minor.  Jehoash  was  seven  years  old  when  he 
began  to  reign  (2  Kings  xi.  21),  This  rule  wa* 
not,  however,  rigidly  observed,  for  instances  are 
not  wanting  in  which  nomination  of  a younger  son 
gave  him  a preferable  title  to  the  crown  (1  Kings 
i.  17;  2 Cjiron.  xi.  21):  the  people,  too,  and 
even  foreign  powers,  at  a later  period,  interrupted 
the  regular  transmission  of  royal  authority  (2 
Kings  xxi.  24;  xxiii.  24,  30;  xxiv.  17).  The 
ceremony  of  anointing,  which  was  observed  at 
least  in  the  case  of  Saul,  David,  and  Solo- 
mon (1  Sam.  ix.  14;  x.  1 ; xv.  1;  xvi.  12 ; 
2 Sam.  ii.  4 ; v.  I ; 1 Kings  i.  34  ; xxxix.  5), 
and  m which  the  prophet  or  high-priest  who  per- 
formeu  the  rite  acted  as  the  representative  of  the 
theocracy  and  the  expounder  of  the  will  of  heaven, 
must  have  given  to  the  spiritual  power  very  con- 
siderable influence;  and  both  in  this  particular 


KING. 


KING. 


201 


*nd  in  the  very  nature  of  the  observance  directs 
the  mind  to  Egypt,  where  the  same  custom  pre- 
vailed, and  where  tlitj  power  of  the  priestly  caste 
was  immense  (Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egyptians , 
v.  279).  Indeed,  the  ceremony  seems  to  have 
been  essential  to  constitute  a legitimate  monarch 
(2  Kings  xi.  12;  xxiii.  30);  and  thus  the  autho- 
rities of  the  Jewish  church  held  in  their  hands, 
and  had  subject  to  theii  will,  a most  important 
power,  which  they  could  use  either  for  their  own 
purposes  or  the  common  good.  In  consequence 
of  the  general  observance  of  this  ceremony,  the 
term  4 anointed,’  ‘ the  Lord’s  anointed  ’ (1  Sam. 
ii.  10;  xvi.  6;  xxiv.  6;  2 Sam.  xix.  21;  Ps. 
ii.  2 ; Lam.  iv.  20),  came  to  be  employed  in 
rhetorical  and  poetical  diction  as  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  the  designation  king.  We  have  seen 
in  the  case  of  Saul  that  personal  and  even  ex- 
ternal qualities  had  their  influence  in  procuring 
ready  obedience  to  a sovereign ; and  further  evi- 
dence to  the  same  effect  may  be  found  in  Ps.  xlv. 
3;  Ezek.  xxviii.  12  : such  qualities  would  natu- 
rally excite  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people,  who 
appear  to  have  manifested  their  approval  by  accla- 
mations (1  Sam.  x.  24  ; 1 Kings  i.  25 ; 2 Kings 
ix.  13;  xi.  13;  2 Chron.  xxiii.  11  ; see  also  Jo- 
seph. I)e  Bell.  Jud .,  i.  33.  9).  Jubilant  music 
formed  a part  of  the  popular  rejoicings  (1  Kings 
i.  40)  ; thank-offerings  were  made  (1  Kings  i.  25) ; 
the  new  sovereign  rode  in  solemn  procession  on  the 
royal  mule  of  his  predecessor  (1  Kings  i.  38),  and 
took  possession  of  the  royal  harem — an  act  which 
seems  to  have  been  scarcely  less  essential  than 
other  observances  which  appear  to  us  to  wear  a 
higher  character  (1  Kings  ii.  13,  22;  2 Sam.  xvi. 
22).  A numerous  harem,  indeed,  was  among  the 
most  highly  estimated  of  the  royal  luxuries  (2  Sam. 
v.  1 3 ; 1 Kings  xi.  1 ; xx.  3).  It  was  under  the 
supervision  and  control  of  eunuchs,  and  passed 
from  one  monarch  to  another  as  a part  of  the 
crown  property  (2  Sam.  xii.  8).  The  law  (Deut. 
xvii.  17),  foreseeing  evils  such  as  that  by  which 
Solomon,  in  his  later  years,  was  turned  away  from 
his  fidelity  to  God,  had  strictly  forbidden  many 
wives  ; but  Eastern  passions  and  usages  were  too 
strong  for  a mere  written  prohibition,  and  a cor- 
rupted religion  became  a pander  to  royal  lust, 
interpreting  the  divine  command  as  sanctioning 
eighteen  as  the  minimum  of  wives  and  concubines. 
In  the  original  distribution  of  the  land  no  share, 
of  course,  was  reserved  for  a merely  possible 
monarch ; yet  the  kings  were  not  without  several 
sources  of  income.  In  the  earlier  periods  of  the 
monarchy  the  simple  manners  which  prevailed 
would  render  copious  revenues  unnecessary  ; and 
a throne  which  was  the  result  of  a spontaneous 
demand  on  the  part  of  the  people,  would  easily 
find  support  in  free  will  offerings,  especially  in 
a part  of  the  world  where  the  great  are  never 
approached  without  a present.  There  seems  also 
reason  to  conclude  that  the  amount  of  the  con- 
tributions made  by  the  people  for  the  sustenance 
of  the  monarch  depended,  in  a measure,  on  the 
degree  of  popularity  which,  in  any  particular 
case,  he  enjoyed,  or  the  degree  of  service  which 
he  obviously  rendered  to  the  state  (1  Sam.  x.  27  ; 
xvi.  20 ; 2 Sam.  viii.  11 ; 1 Kings  x.  1 1,  25,  sq.). 
That  presents  of  small  value  and  humble  nature 
were  not  despised  or  thought  unfit  for  the  accept- 
ance of  royalty,  may  be  learnt  from  that  which 
Jesse  sent  to  Saul  (1  Sam.  xvi.  20),  4 an  ass,  with 


bread  and  a bottle  of  wine,  and  a kid.’  Th# 
indirect  detail  4 of  the  substance  which  was  kinf 
David’s,’  found  in  1 Chron.  xxvii.  25,  sq.  (comp. 

1 Sam.  viii.  14  ; 2 Chron.  xxvi.  10,  sq.),  show* 
at  how  early  a period  the  Israelitish  throne  w*u 
in  possession  of  very  large  property,  both  per- 
sonal and  real.  The  royal  treasury  was  re- 
plenished by  confiscation,  as  in  the  case  of  Naboth 
(1  Kings  xxi.  16;  comp.  Ezek.  xlvi.  16,  sq.  ; 

2 Sam.  xvi.  4).  Nor  were  taxes  unknown. 
Samuel  had  predicted  (1  Sam.  viii.  15),  ‘ He 
will  take  the  tenth  of  your  seed  and  of  your  vine- 
yards,’ &c. ; and  so  in  other  passages  (1  Kings 
v.  13  ; ix.  21)  we  find  that  levies  both  of  men 
and  money  were  made  for  the  monarch’s  pur- 
poses ; and,  in  cases  of  special  need,  these  exac- 
tions were  large  and  rigorously  levied  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  35),  as  when  Jehoiakim  4 taxed  the  land  to 
give  the  money  according  to  the  commandment 
of  Pharaoh ; he  exacted  the  silver  and  the  gold  ol 
the  people  of  the  land,  of  every  one  according  to 
his  taxation.’  So  long,  however,  as  the  native 
vigour  of  a young  monarchy  made  victory  easy 
and  frequent,  large  revenues  came  to  the  king 
from  the  spoils  of  war  (2  Sam.  viii.  2,  sq.).  Com- 
merce also  supplied  abundant  resources  (1  Kings 
x.  15).  In  the.  14th  verse  of  the  chapter  last 
referred  to,  it  is  said  that  4 the  weight  of  gold  that 
came  to  Solomon  in  one  year  was  six  hundred 
three  score  and  six  talents  of  gold.’  In  the  same 
connection  we  find  particulars  which  give  a high 
idea  of  Solomon’s  oprdenceand  splendour  : 4 Two 
hundred  targets  of  beaten  gold,  each  of  six  hun- 
dred shekels;  three  hundred  shields  of  beaten 
gold,  of  three  pounds  of  gold  each  ; a great  throne 
of  ivory,  overlaid  with  the  best  gold  ; drinking- 
vessels  of  gold : silver  was  accounted  nothing  of 
in  Solomon’s  days.’  A navy  is  also  spoken  of, 
which  was  at  sea  with  the  navy  of  Hiram,  king  of 
Tyre  : this  navy  came  once  in  every  three  years, 
bringing  gold  and  silver,  ivory,  apes,  and  pea- 
cocks. 4 So  king  Solomon  exceeded  all  the  kings 
of  the  earth  for  riches.’ 

According  to  Oriental  custom,  much  ceremony 
and  outward  show  of  respect  were  observed.  Those 
who  were  intended  to  be  received  with  special 
honour  were  placed  on  the  king’s  right  hand 
(1  Kings  ii.  19).  The  most  profound  homage 
was  paid  to  the  monarch,  which  was  required  not 
merely  by  common  usage,  but  by  the  voice  of 
religious  wisdom  (Prov.  xxiv.  21)  — a requirement 
which  was  not  unnatural  in  regard  to  an  office 
that  was  accounted  of  divine  origin,  and  to  have 
a sort  of  vice-divine  authority.  Those  who  pre- 
sented themselves  before  the  royal  presence  fell 
with  their  face  towards  the  ground  till  their  fore- 
head touched  it  (1  Sam.  xxv.  23  ; 2 Sam.  ix. 
6 ; xix.  18),  thus  worshipping  or  doing  obeisance 
to  the  monarch,  a ceremony  from  which  even  the 
royal  spouse  was  not  exempted  (1  Kings  i.  16). 
A kiss  was  among  the  established  tokens  of  rever- 
ence (1  Sam.  x.  1 ; Ps.  ii.  12),  as  were  also  hyper- 
bolical wishes  of  good  (Dan.  ii.  4 ; iii.  9).  Serious 
offences  against  the  king  were  punished  with  death 
(1  Kings  xxi.  10). 

Deriving  their  power  originally  from  the  wishes 
of  the  people,  and  being  one  of  the  same  race,  the 
Hebrew  kings  were  naturally  less  despotic  than 
other  Oriental  sovereigns,  mingled  more  with  theii 
subjects,  and  were  by  no  means  difficult  of  access 
(2  Sam.  xix.  8 ; I Kings  xx.  39  ; Jer.  xxxviii.  7 ; 


208  KINGS,  BOOKS  OF. 

1 Kings  iii.  16;  2 Kings  vi.  26;  viii.  3).  After 
death  the  monarchs  were  interred  in  the  royal 
cemetery  in  Jerusalem  : ‘ So  David  slept  with  his 
fathers,  and  was  buried  in  the  city  of  David  ’ 
(1  Kings  ii.  10;  xi.  43;  xiv.  31).  But  bad 
kings  were  excluded  ‘ from  the  sepulchres  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  ’ (2  Chron.  xxviii.  27).  In 
1 Kings  iv.  will  be  found  an  enumeration  of  the 
high  officers  of  state  under  the  reign  of  Solomon 
(see  also  1 Kings  x.  5 ; xii.  18;  xviii.  3 ; 2 Kings 
viii.  16;  x.  22;  xviii.  18;  xix.  2;  1 Chron.  xxvii. 
25;  Isa.  xxii.  15;  Jer.  Iii.  25).  The  misdeeds 
of  the  Jewish  crown,  and  the  boldness  with  which 
they  were  reproved,  may  be  seen  exemplified  in 
Jer.  xxii. : ‘ Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Execute  judg- 
ment and  righteousness,  and  do  no  wrong ; do  no 
violence  to  the  stranger,  the  fatherless,  nor  the 
widow  ; neither  shed  innocent  blood.  But  if  ye 
will  not  hear  these  words,  this  house  shall  become 
a desolation,’  &c.  Reference  on  the  subject  here 
*reated  of  may  be  made  to  Schickard,  Jus  f?e- 
gium  Hebrceor.  Tubing.  1621  ; Carpzov,  Appar. 
Grit.  p.  52;  Michaelis,  Mos.  Recht , i.  298; 
Othon.  Lex.  Rabbin,  p.  575. — J.  R.  B. 

KINGS,  BOOKS  OF.  The  two  books  of 
Kings  formed  anciently  but  one  book  in  the 
Jewish  Scriptures.  The  present  division,  follow- 
ing the  Septuagint  and  Latin  versions,  has  been 
common  in  the  Hebrew  Bibles  since  the  Venetian 
editions  of  Bomberg.  That  the  book  was  origin- 
ally an  unbroken  treatise  is  affirmed  by  Origen 
and  Jerome,  Melito  of  Sardis,  and  Josephus, 
(Origen,  apud  Euseb.  Pracp.  Evang.  vi.  25, 
BacriXeiuv  rpirr],  TeraprTj,  ev  evi  OvappeXex 
Aaj8i5;  Hieronym.  Prolog.  Gal.;  Joseph.  Cont. 
Apion.  i.  8).  Great,  stress  cannot  always  be  laid 
on  the  Jewish  forms  of  the  sacred  books,  as  they 
were  arranged  so  as  to  correspond  with  the  letters 
of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  The  old  Jewish  name 
was  borrowed,  as  usual,  from  the  commencing 

words  of  the  book,  YH  Grecized  as  in  the 

above  quotation  from  Eusebius.  The  Septuagint 
and  Vulgate  now  number  them  as  the  third  and 
fourth  books  of  Kings,  reckoning  the  two  books  of 
Samuel  the  first  and  second.  Their  present  title, 

BcunAeiW,  Regum,  in  the  opinion  of 
Havernick,  has  respect  more  to  the  formal  than 
essential  character  of  the  composition  ( Einleitung , 
<5  168);  yet  under  such  forms  of  government  as 
those  of  Judah  and  Israel  the  royal  person  and 
name  are  intimately  associated  with  all  national 
6.cts  and  movements,  legal  decisions,  warlike 
preparations,  domestic  legislation,  and  foreign 
policy.  The  reign  of  an  Oriental  prince  is  iden- 
tified with  the  history  of  his  nation  during  the 
period  of  his  sovereignty.  More  especially  in  the 
theocratic  constitution  of  the  Jewish  realm  the 
character  of  the  monarch  was  an  important  ele- 
ment of  national  history,  and,  of  necessity,  it  had 
considerable  influence  on  the  fate  and  fortunes  of 
the  people. 

The  books  of  Kings  contain  the  brief  annals  of 
a long  period,  from  the  accession  of  Solomon  till 
the  dissolution  of  the  commonwealth.  The  first 
chapters  describe  the  reign  of  Solomon  over  the 
united  kingdom,  and  the  revolt  under  Rehoboam. 
The  history  of  the  rival  states  is  next  narrated  in 
parallel  sections  till  the  period  of  Israel's  down- 
fa.1.  i ui»  the  invasion  of  Shalmanezer.  Then  the 
remaining  years  of  the  principality  of  Judah  are 


KINGS,  BOOKS  OF. 

recorded  till  the  conquest  of  Nebuchadnezzar  an  J 
the  commencement  of  the  Babylonish  captivity. 
In  the  article  Israel,  the  period  comprised  has 
been  exhibited  under  the  name  and  reign  of  the 
kings  who  are  mentioned  in  these  books,  and 
there  also,  and  in  the  article  Judah,  the  chro- 
nology of  the  books  has  been  sufficiently  con- 
sidered. 

There  are  some  peculiarities  in  this  succinct 
history  worthy  of  attention.  It  is  very  brief,  but 
very  suggestive.  It  is  not  a biography  of  the 
sovereigns,  nor  a mere  record  of  political  occur- 
rences, nor  yet  an  ecclesiastical  register.  King, 
church,  and  state  are  all  comprised  in  their 
sacred  relations.  It  is  a theocratic  history,  a 
retrospective  survey  of  the  kingdoms  as  existing 
under  a theocratic  government.  The  character 
of  the  sovereign  is  tested  by  his  fidelity  to  the 
religious  obligations  of  his  office,  and  this  decision 
in  reference  to  his  conduct  is  generally  added  to 
the  notice  of  his  accession.  The  new  king's 
religious  character  is  generally  portrayed  by  its 
similarity  or  opposition  to  the  way  of  David,  of  his 
father,  or  of  Jeroboam,  son  of  Nebat,  ‘ who  made 
Israel  to  sin.’  Ecclesiastical  affairs  are  noticed 
with  a similar  purpose,  and  in  contrast  with  past 
or  prevalent  apostacy,  especially  as  manifested  in 
the  popular  superstitions,  whose  shrines  were  on 
the  ‘high  places.’  Political  or  national  incidents 
are  introduced  in  general  for  the  sake  of  illus- 
trating the  influence  of  religion  on  civic  pros- 
perity ; of  showing  how  the  theocracy  maintained 
a vigilant  and  vengeful  guardianship  over  its 
rights  and  privileges — adherence  to  its  principles 
securing  peace  and  plenty,  disobedience  to  them 
bringing  along  with  it  sudden  and  severe  retribu- 
tion. The  books  of  Kings  are  a verification  of 
the  Mosaic  warnings,  and  the  author  of  them  has 
kept  this  steadily  in  view.  He  has  given  a brief 
history  of  his  people,  arranged  under  the  various 
political  chiefs  in  such  a manner  as  to  show  that 
the  government  was  essentially  theocratic,  that  its 
spirit,  as  developed  in  the  Mosaic  writings,  was 
never  extinct,  however  modified  or  inactive  it 
might  sometimes  appear. 

Thus  the  books  of  Kings  appear  in  a religious 
costume,  quite  different  from  the  form  they  would 
have  assumed  either  as  a political  or  ecclesias- 
tical narrative.  In  the  one  case  legisle five  enact- 
ments, royal  edicts,  popular  movements,  would 
have  occupied  a prominent  place ; in  the  other, 
sacerdotal  arrangements,  Levitical  service,  music 
and  pageantry,  would  have  filled  the  leading 
sections  of  the  treatise.  In  either  view  the  points 
adduced  would  have  had  a restricted  reference  to 
the  palace  or  the  temple,  the  sovereign  or  the 
pontiff,  the  court  or  the  priesthood,  the  throne  or 
the  altar,  the  tribute  or  tithes,  the  nation  on  its 
farms,  or  the  tribes  in  the  courts  of  the  sacred 
edifice.  But  the  theocracy  conjoined  both  the 
political  and  religious  elements,  and  the  inspired 
annalist  unites  them  as  essential  to  his  design 
The  agency  of  divinity  is  constantly  recognised, 
the  hand  of  Jehovah  is  continually  acknowledged. 
The  chief  organ  of  theocratic  influence  enjoys 
peculiar  prominence.  We  refer  to  the  incessant 
agency  of  the  prophets,  their  great  power  and 
peculiar  modes  of  action  as  detailed  by  the  com- 
poser of  the  books  of  Kings.  They  interfered 
with  the  succession,  and  their  instrumentality 
was  apparent  in  the  schism.  They  roused  tlw 


KINGS,  BOOKS  OF. 

People,  and  they  braved  the  sovereign.  The 
balance  of  power  was  in  their  hands ; the  regal 
dignity  seemed  to  be  sometimes  at  their  disposal. 
In  times  of  emergency  they  dispensed  with  usual 
modes  of  procedure,  and  assumed  an  authority 
with  which  no  subject  in  an  ordinary  state  can 
safely  be  intrusted,  executing  the  law  with  a sum- 
mary promptness  which  rendered  opposition  im- 
possible, or  at.  least  unavailing.  They  felt  their 
divine  commission,  and  that  they  were  the  cus- 
todiers of  the  rights’ of  Jehovah.  At  the  same  time 
they  protected  the  interests  of  the  nation,  and, 
could  we  divest  the  term  of  its  association  with 
unprincipled  turbulence  and  sedition,  we  would, 
like  Winer,  style  them  the  demagogues  of  Israel 
(Winer,  Realwort.  art.  Prophet ).  The  divine 
prerogative  was  to  them  a vested  right,  guarded 
with  a sacred  jealousy  from  royal  usurpation  or 
popular  invasion  ; and  the  interests  of  the  people 
were  as  religiously  protected  against,  encroach- 
ments, too  easily  made  under  a form  of  govern- 
ment which  had  not  the  safeguard  of  popular 
representation  or  aristocratic  privilege.  The 
priesthood  was  in  many  instances,  though  there 
are  some  illustrious  exceptions,  merely  the  crea- 
ture of  the  crown,  and  therefore  it  became  the 
prophetenthum  to  assert,  its  dignity  and  stand 
forth  in  the  majestic  insignia  of  an  embassy  bom 
heaven. 

The  truth  of  these  sentiments,  as  to  the  method, 
design,  and  composition  of  the  books  of  Kings,  is 
confirmed  by  ample  evidence. 

1.  Large  space  is  occupied  wilh  the  building 
of  the  temple — the  palace  of  the  Divine  Protector 
— his  throne  in  it  being  above  the  mercy-seat  and 
between  the  cherubim  (ch.  v.-viii.).  Care  is 
taken  to  record  the  miraculous  phenomenon  of 
the  descent  of  the  Schekinah  (ch.  viii.  10).  The 
prayer  of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of  the  house 
is  full  of  theocratic  views  and  aspirations. 

2.  Reference  is  often  made  to  the  Mosaic  Law 
with  its  provisions;  and  allusions  to  the  earlier 
history  of  the  people  frequently  occur  (l  Kings 
ii.  3 ; iii.  14  ; vi.  II,  12;  viii.  58,  &c. ; 2 Kings 
x.  31  ; xiv.  6;  xvii.  13,  15,  37;  xviii.  4-6  ; xxi. 
1-8).  Allusions  to  the  Mosaic  code  are  found 
more  frequently  toward  the  end  of  the  second 
book,  when  the  kingdom  was  drawing  near  its 
termination,  as  if  to  account  for  its  decay  and 
approaching  fate. 

3.  Phrases  expressive  of  Divine  interference 
me  frequently  introduced  (1  Kings  xi.  31  ; xii. 
15;  xii:.  1,  2,  9;  and  xx.  13,  &c.). 

4.  Prophetic  interposition  is  a very  prominent 
theme  of  record.  It  fills  the  vivid  foreground  of 
the  historical  picture.  Nathan  was  occupied  in 
the  succession  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  i.  45) ; Ahijah 
was  concerned  in  the  revolt  (xi.  29-40).  She- 
maiah  disbanded  the  troops  which  Rehoboam  had 
mustered  (xii.  21).  Ahijah  predicted  the  ruin 
of  Jeroboam,  whose  elevation  he  had  promoted 
(xiv.  7).  Jehu,  the  prophet,  doomed  the  house  of 
Baasha  (xvi.  1).  The  reign  of  Ahab  and  Ahaziah 
is  marked  by  the  bold,  rapid,  mysterious  move- 
ments of  Elijah.  Under  Ahab  occurs  the  predic- 
tion of  Micaiah  (xxii.  8).  The  actions  and  oracles 
of  Elisha  form  the  marvellous  topics  of  narration 
under  several  reigns.  The  agency  of  Isaiah  is 
also  recognised  (2  Kings  xix.  20;  xx.  16).  Be- 
sides 1 Kings  xiii.  presents  another  instance  of 
prophetic  operation ; and  in  xx.  35,  the  oracle  of 

touix.  ta- 


kings, BOOKS  OF.  20S 

an  unknown  prophet  is  also  rehearsed.  Huldah, 
the  prophetess,  was  an  important  personage  under 
the  government,  of  Josiah  (2  Kings  xxii.  14). 
Care  is  also  taken  to  report  the  fulfilment  of  strik 
ing  prophecies,  in  the  usual  phrase,  ‘according  to 
the  word  of  the  Lord'  (T  Kings  xii  15  ; xv.  29  ; 
xvi.  12;  2 Kings  xxiii.  15- 18  ; ix.  36  ; xxiv.  2). 
So,  too,  the  Old  Syriac  version  prefixes,  ‘Here 
follows  the  book  of  the  kings  who  flourished  among 
the  ancient  people  ; and  in  this  is  also  exhibited 
the  history  of  the  prophets  who  flourished  during 
their  times.1 

5.  Theocratic  influence  is  recognised  both  in 
the  deposition  and  succession  of  kings  (l  Kings 
xiii.  33  ; xv.  4,  5,  29,  30;  2 Kings  xi.  17,  &c.). 
Compare  on  the  whole  of  this  view  Haveruick, 
Einleit.  § 168  ; Jahn,  Introduct.  § 46  ; Gesenius, 
Ueber  Jes.  vol.  i.  p.  934.  It  is  thus  apparent  that 
the  object  of  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings  was, 
to  describe  the  history  of  the  kingdoms,  especially 
in  connection  with  the  theocratic  element.  T’  is 
design  accounts  for  what  l)e  Welte  ( Einleit . 

6 185)  characteristically  terms  tier  strife  prophe- 
tische  pragmatismus,  and  for  the  frequent  myths 
which  this  writer  finds  in  these  books. 

The  authorship  and  age  of  this  historical  treatise 
may  admit  of  several  suppositions.  Whatever 
were  the  original  sources,  the  books  are  evidently 
the  composition  of  one  writer.  The  style  is 
generally  uniform  throughout.  The  same  forms 
of  expression  are  used  to  denote  the  same 
thing,  e.  g.  the  male  sex  (1  Kings  xiv.  10,  &c.) 
the  death  of  a king  (1  Kings  xi.  43,  &c.) ; modes, 
of  allusion  to  the  law  (1  Kings  xi.  i3);  fidelity 
to  Jehovah  (1  Kings  viii.  63,  &c. ; De  Wette, 
Einleit.  § 184,  a : Hiivernick,  Einleit.  § 171)., 
Similar  idioms  are  ever  recurring,  so  as  to  produce 
a uniformity  of  style  (Monotonie  der  Darstelhmg , 
Hiivernick,  l.  c.).  The  sources  whence  this  historic 
information  has  been  derived  have  been  variously 
named.  That  annals  contemporary  with  the 
events  which  they  describe  were  written  in  the 
early  period  of  the  Jewish  state,  may  be  at  once 
admitted.  Eichhorn  supposes  that  the  sources  of 
‘ Kings  1 were  private  historical  works-  (Einleit. 
§ 482).  De  Wette,  from  the  legends  related  in 
them,  cannot  believe  them  to  be  official  docu- 
ments. Bertboldt,  Hiivernick,  and  Movers  hold 
that  the  books  are  extracts  from  the  public  annals 
(comp.  Haveruick,  § 169).  The  inspired  historio- 
grapher refers  his  readers  to  these  sources  of  evi- 
dence in  such  frequent  phrases  as  '*731  "IIVV‘  the 
rest  of  the  acts.’  Such  a reference  is  made  espe- 
cially to  the  sources,  when  other  royal  acts  than 
those  narrated  in  the  1 looks  of  Kings  are  glanced 
at.  These  sources  are  styled  the  book*  of  the 
Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  or  Israel.  Si- 
milar phraseology  is  used  in  Esther  x.  2;  vi.  1, 
to  denote  the  official  annals  of  the  Persian  empire. 
Public  documents  are  spoken  of  in  the  same  way 
(Neh.  xii.  23).  There  is  little  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  book  referred  to  in  this  last  passage  is 
that  styled  Chronicles  in  our  copy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures (Movers,  Chronik,  § 234).  So  we  infer  that 
the  ‘ Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings,1  so  often, 
alluded  to,  was  an  authentic  document,  public 
and  official.  Once  indeed  mention  is  made  of  a 
work  entitled  ‘ The  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solo- 
mon 1 

That  the  prophets  themselves  were  employed* 
in  recording  contemporanepus  events,  is  evident 


210 


KINNAMON. 


KINGS,  BOOKS  OF. 


from  2 Chron.  xx.  31 ; 1 Chron.  xxix.  29.  In 
the  course  of  the  narrative  we  meet  with  many 
instances  of  description,  having  the  freshness  and 
form  of  nature,  and  which  are  apparently  direct 
quotations  from  some  journal,  written  by  one  who 
testified  what  he  had  seen  (1  Kings  xx.  10; 
2 Kings  xii.  15 ; xiv.  8).  Thus  the  credibility 
of  the  history  contained  in  these  books  rests  upon 
a sure  foundation.  What,  neologists  style  their 
mythical  character  or  colouring  furnishes  to 
every  believer  in  the  reality  of  the  theocratic 
government  established  by  Moses,  continued  evi- 
dence that  the  Jews  were  God's  peculiar  people — 
that  Jehovah  was  their  sovereign  (Havernick, 
§ 170  ; Hengstenberg,  Beitr.  ii.  169). 

As  to  what  has  been  termed  the  anti-Israelitish 
-spirit  of  the  work  (Bertholdt,  Einleit.  p.  919),  we 
do  not  perceive  it.  Truth  required  that  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  should  be  described  in  its  real 
character.  Idol-worship  was  connected  with  its 
foundation;  moscholatry  was  a state  provision; 
•fidelity  obliged  the  annalist  to  state  that  all  its 
kings  patronized  the  institutions  of  Bethel  and 
Dan,  while  eight,  at  least,  of  the  Jewish  sove- 
reigns adhered  to  the  true  religion,  and  that  the 
■majority  of  its  kings  perished  in  insurrection, 
while  those  of  Judah,  in  general,  were  exempted 
t from  seditious  tumults  and  assassination. 

Now,  the  compiler-  from  these  old  documents 
— he  who  shaped  them  into  the  form  they  have 
in  our  present  books  of  Kings — must  have  lived 
■ in  a late  age.  The  Second  Book  of  Kings  con- 
cludes with  an  account  of  the  liberation  of 
Jehoiachin,  king  of  Judah,  from  prison  in  Ba- 
> fcylon — an  event  which,  according  to  Jahn, 
happened  in  the  twenty-sixth,  or  according  to 
Prideaux,  in  the  twenty-eighth  year  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  Jahn  and  Hllvernick 
place  the  composition  of  ‘ Kings'  in  t he  reign 
of  Evil-merodach  ; and  l)e  Wette,  towards  the 

- end  of  the  Captivity.  Instances  of  later  phra- 
. seology  occurring  in  the  hooks  of  Kings  are 

given  by  De  Wette  (§  115.  6).  Jewish  tradition 
makes  Jeremiah  the  author  ( Baba-bathra , fol. 
15.  1).  Calmet  ascribes  the  authorship  to  Ezra. 
The  former  opinion,  adopted  by  Grotius,  and 

- lately  revindicated  by  Havernick,  certainly  ap- 
pears the  more  probable.  There  is  considerable 
linguistic  affinity  between  the  books  of  Kings 
and  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah. 

Kings.  Jeremiah. 

2 K.  xvii.  13  . • vii.  13. 

1X.-X.8  . . xxii.  8. 

2 K.  xxiv.-xxv.  . . lii. 

1 K.  xi.  4 ; viii.  25;  xxxiii.  17;  xiii.  13; 

ix.  5.  xvii.  25. 

2 K.  xxi.  12  . . xix.  3. 

In  the  absence  of  certain  evidence  this  opinion 
• may  be  deemed  the  most  likely,  and  is  a more 
simple  theory  than  that  of  Movers,  who  supposes 
that  Jeremiah  compiled  a more  ancient  production 
— a book  of  Kings — the  source  of  our  present  trea- 
tise. It  explains  the  close  similarity  of  the  books 
of  Kings  and  Jeremiah  in  spirit,  style,  and  ten- 
dency, more  easily  and  more  satisfactorily  than  the 
supposition  of  De  Wette,  or  any  other  conjecture 
of  like  nature.  Objections  against  this  opinion, 
Aom  the  hasty  way  in  which  J ere  mi  all  has  de- 
scribed his  own  times,  admit  of  an  easy  solution. 
Contemporaries  were  familiar  w»  a his  life  and 


times,  while  his  own  prophecy  contains  the  de- 
sired  information.  Another  objection,  that  Jere- 
miah  could  not  have  lived  longer  than  Evil- 
merodach,  is  noticed  and  refuted  by  HUvemick 
( Leber  Daniel,  p.  14).  The  age  of  the  Jewish 
tradition  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  books  of 
Kings,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  they 
are  placed  among  the  D'N'DL 

In  reference  to  apparent  contradictions  or 
anachronisms,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
text  of  these  books  is  not  in  a very  pure  state, 
and  that  in  nothing  do  copyists  blunder  more 
than  in  the  transcription  of  numerals.  [Cnuo- 
nicj.es.]  As  to  points  of  real  or  alleged  contra- 
diction, see  Davidson's  Sacred  Hermeneutics , 
p.  516.  It  has  been  sometimes  thought  that  the 
books  of  Samuel  were  the  production  of  the 
same  redactor  who  composed  the  books  of  Kings. 
Both  compositions  form  a history  almost  conti- 
nuous, though  2 Sam.  xvi.-xxiv.  is  evidently  an 
appendix.  That  i here  should  be  many  points  of 
similarity  in  two  works  of  history  on  kindred 
themes,  and  having  a similar  purpose  in  view, 
sui-prises  no  one.  The  close  philological  affinity 
on  which  Stahelin  insists  so  much  (see  Tholuck’s 
Literar.  Anzeig,  1S38,  p.  526).  may  thus  be 
easily  accounted  for;  yet  there  are  also  points  of 
dissimilarity.  The  language  of  ‘Samuel’  has 
few  maiks  of  later  usage;  the  style  has  more 
traces  of  an  early  age  about  it.  The  books  of 
Samuel  have  not  the  compactness  and  symmetry 
of  the  books  of  Kings.  The  greater  portion  of 
them  seems  to  he  an  original  work,  rather  than  a 
compilation. 

Toe  age  of  the  hooks  of  Kinjrs  may  be  inter- 
mediate between  the  early  work  of  Samuel  and 
the  later  treatise  of  Chronicles. 

The  ‘ Introductions  ’ referred  to  in  the  course  of 
this  article  may  he  consulted.  Modern  commen- 
tators upon  ‘ Kings’  are  scarce,  and  there  are  not 
many  old  ones : Seb.  Leonhard!  'TirofjLvqixara, 
in  Libb.  Beg.  Erf.  1606,  Lips.  1610-14;  Seb. 
Schmidii  Annot.  in  Libb.  Reg.  Strasb.  1687  ; and 
the  various  authors  in  the  Critici  Sacri. — J.  E. 

KINNAMON  (|1D3[7),  translated  ‘cinnamon,* 
occurs  i»i  tlireq  places  of  Scripture;  first,  about 
1600  years  before  the  Christian  era,  in  Exod. 
xxx.  23,  where  it  is  enumerated  as  one  of  the 
ingredients  employed  in  the  preparation  of  the 
holy  anointing  o-:l : ‘Take  thou  also  unto  thee 
powerful  spices,  myrrh,  and  of  sweet  cinnamon 
( kinnamon  besem)  half  as  much  (i.  e.  250 
shekels),  together  with  sweet  calamus  and  cassia.’ 
It  is  next  mentioned  in  Prov.  vii.  17,  ‘ I have  per- 
fumed my  bed  with  myrrh,  aloes  ( ahalim ),  and 
cinnamon.'  And  again  in  Cant.  iv.  14,  ‘Spike- 
nard and  saffron  ; calamus  and  cinnamon , with 
all  trees  of  frankincense;  myrrh  and  aloes  (aha- 
lim), with  all  the  chief  spices.  While  in  Rev. 
xxiii.  13,  among  the  merchandise  of  Babylon,  we 
have  ‘ cinnamon,  and  odours,  and  ointments,  and 
frankincense.’ 

In  the  earliest  notice,  it  is  called  kinnamon 
besem,  or  ‘ sweet  cinnamon.’  Dr.  Vincent  is  in- 
clined to  consider  khennali  besem  and  khinna • 
mon  besem  as  derived  from  the  same  root. 

Many  writers  have  doubted  whether  the  kin- 
namon of  the  Hebrews  is  the  same  article  that 
we  now  call  cinnamon.  Celsius  quotes  R.  Ben 
Melech  (ad  Cant.  iii.  14)  and  Saadius  (Kxod 


KINNAMON. 


KINNAMON. 


txx.)  as  considering  it  to  be  the  Lign  Aloe,  or 
Agalhchum.  Otters  have  doubted  whether  our 
cinnamon  was  at  all  known  to  the  ancients.  But 
the  same  thing  has  been  said  of  almost  every 
other  drug  which  is  noticed  by  them.  Jf*  we  were 
to  put  faith  in  all  these  doubts,  we  should  be  left 
without,  any  substances  possessed  of  sufficiently 
remarkable  properties  to  have  been  articles  of 
ancient  commerce.  The  word  Kivvaixccgou  occurs 
in  many  of  the  Greek  authors,  as  Herodotus,  Hip- 
pocrates, Theophrastus,  Dioscorides,  Galen,  &c. 
The  first,  of  these,  writing  400  years  before  the 
Christian  era,  describes  Arabia  as  the  last  inhabited 
country  towards  the  south,  and  as  the  only  region 
of  the  earth  which  produces  frankincense,  myrrh, 
cinnamon,  cassia,  and  ledanum.  Of  cinnamon  he 
says,  ‘ which  we,  as  instructed  by  the  Phoenicians, 
call  KivvdgiofAuv.'’  He  states,  moreover,  that  the 
Arabians  were  unacquainted  with  the  particular 
spot  in  which  it  was  produced,  but  that  some 
asserted  it  grew  in  the  region  where  Bacchus  was 
educated.  From  all  this  we  can  only  infer  that  it 
was  the  production  of  a distant  country,  probably 
India,  and  that  it  was  obtained  by  the  route  of  the 
Red  Sea.  Theophrastus  (ix.  5)  gives  a fuller  but 
still  fabulous  account  of  its  pioduction,  and  it  is 
not  until  the  time  of  Dioscorides,  Galen,  and  the 
Periplus  of  the  Erythraean  sea,  that  we  get  more 
definite  information.  Galen  says  that  cassia  and 
cinnamon  are  so  much  alike  that  it  is  not  an 
easy  matter  to  distinguish  the  one  from  the  other. 
This  is  a difficulty  that  still  continues  to  be  ex- 
perienced. Dioscorides  (i.  12)  says  that  cas- 
sia grows  in  Arabia,  and  that  there  are  several 
kinds  of  it;  and  of  cinnamon  he  states  also 
(i.  13)  that  there  are  several  species,  named 
from  the  different  places  where  it  is  procured. 
But  the  best  sort  is  that  which  is  like  the  cassia 
of  Mosylon,  and  is  itself  called  Mosyllitic,  or  as 
Pliny  says,  ‘ Portus  Mosyllites  quo  cinuamo- 
mum  devehitur'  (vi.  29).  Mr.  Cooley,  however, 
hi  his  edition  of  Larcher’s  Notes  to  Herodotus , ad- 
duces from  Bruce’s  Travels  (vol.  vii.  p.  329),  ‘ the 
bastard  kind  of  cinnamon,  called  by  the  Italians 
canella,  which,  notwithstanding  what  Bellonius 
says,  and  before  him  Pliny,  grows  plentifully 
among  the  incense  and  myrrh  at  Cape  Guardafui, 
the  Mosylon  promontorium  and  prorliontorvum 
aromaticum , and  here  only  the  distinction  obtains 
of  mountain  cassia  and  that  which  grows  on  the 
plain.’  Notwithstanding  this,  it  would  require 
the  testimony  of  a careful  and  well-qualified  bota- 
nist to  prove  that  the  cinnamon  plant  grows  in 
Africa  as  well  as  in  Ceylon.  Several  kinds  are 
described  by  Dioscorides,  and  no  fewer  than  ten 
kinds  in  the  Periplus  of  Arrian  (vid.  Vincent, 
Periplus,  ii.  p.  711),  and  among  these  the 
2n\ripoTepd,  from  the  Greek  OKXrjpSs,  ‘ hard,’ 
which  he  translates  ‘ xylocassia,’  or  ‘ wood  cin- 
namon,’ and  states  to  be  ‘ a term  which  occurs 
frequently,  and  perhaps  distinguishes  thfe  cassia 
lignea  (wood  cinnamon)  from  the  cassia  fistula 
( cannella , or  pipe  cinnamon).’  It  is  curious  that 
the  Persians  and  Arabians  denominate  cinnamon, 
for  which  they  give  akimona  as  the  Greek  name, 
dar-seeni,  evidently  derived  from  the  Hindoo 
dar-cheenee,  or  Chinese  wood,  as  if  it  had,  like 
the  cinnamon  of  the  Greeks,  been  originally  only 
tl  e small  branches  and  twigs,  and  not  the  separated 
lark,  as  in  modern  cinnamon  and  cassia.  It 
lias  been  \sked  * whether  the  foreign  element  ( kiv ) 


311 

in  the  Greek  name  Kiwdfxa>iiov , does  not  point  to 
the  Chinese  origin  of  the  production  so  named!* 
But  the  Cingalese  cacyn-nama  (dulce  lignum) 
and  the  Malayan  kairnanis  are  more  probable 
derivations. 

Cinnamon  of  the  best  quality  is  imported  in 
the  present  day  from  Ceylon,  and  also  from  the 
Malabar  coast,  in  consequence  of  the  cinnamon 
plant  ( Cinnamomum  Zeylanicum ) having  been 
introduced  there  from  Ceylon.  An  inferior  kind 
is  also  exported  from  the  peninsula  of  India,  the 
produce  of  other  species  of  cinnamomum , accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Wight.  From  these  countries  the  cin- 
namon and  cassia  of  the  ancients  must  most 
likely  have  been  obtained,  though  both  are  also 
produced  in  the  islands  of  Sumatra  and  Borneo, 
in  China,  and  in  Cochinchina.  Cinnamon  is  im- 
ported in  bales  and  chests — the  bundles  weighing 
about  1 lb.  each.  The  pieces  consist  of  com- 
pound quills,  are  about  three  feet  long,  slender, 
and  inclose  within  them  several  smaller  quills. 
These  are  thin,  smooth,  of  a brownish  colour,  of  a 
warm,  sweetish,  and  agreeable  taste,  and  fragrant 
odour;  but  several  kinds  are  known  in  modern 
markets,  as  they  were  in  ancient  times 


In  Ceylon  cinnamon  is  carefully  Qultivated, 
the  best  cinnamon  gardens  being  on  the  south- 
western coast,  where  the  soil  is  light  and  sandy, 
and  the  atmosphere  moist  from  the  prevalent 
southern  winds.  The  plants  begin  to  yield  cin- 
namon when  about  six  or  seven  years  old,  after 
which  the  shoots  may  be  cut  every  three  or  four 
years.  The  best  kinds  of  cinnamon  are  obtained 
from  twigs  and  shoots  ; less  than  half,  or  more 
than  two  or  three  inches  in  diameter,  are  not 
peeled.  ‘ The  peeling  is  effected  by  making  two 
opposite,  or  when  the  branch  is  thick,  three  or 
four  longitudinal  incisions,  and  then  elevating  the 
bark  by  introducing  the  peeling  knife  beneath  it. 
In  twenty-four  hours  the  epidermis  and  greenish 
pulpy  matter  are  carefully  scraped  off.  In  a 
few  hours  the  smaller  quills  are  introduced  into 
the  larger  ones,  and  in  this  way  congeries  of  quills 
are  formed,  often  measuring  forty  inches  in  length. 
The  bark  is  then  dried  in  the  sun,  and  afterwards 
made  info  bundles,  with  pieces  of  split  bamboo 
twigs’  (Percival's  Account  of  Ceylon).  Besides 
cinnamon,  an  oil  of  cinnamon  is  obtained  in 
Ceylon,  by  macerating  the  coarser  pieces  of  the 
bark,  after  being  reduced  to  a coarse  powder,  in  sea- 
water, for  two  days,  when  bolh  are  submitted  to 
distillation.  A fatty  substance  is  also  obtained  by 


kippod. 


SI  3 KINNAMON. 

bruising  and  boiling  the  riper  fruit,  when  an 
oily  body  tloats  on  the  surface,  which  on  cooling 
concretes  into  a dirty  whitish,  rather  hard,  fatty 
matter.  Some  camphor  may  be  procured  from 
the  roots.  Respecting  the  former,  it.  yields  a 
striking  confirmation  of  the  minute  knowledge 
which  *he  ancients  had  of  some  products  of 
India.  Thus,  as  we  have  elsewhere  mentioned 
( Essay  on  Antiquity  of  Hindoo  Medicine,  p. 
105),  Theophrastus  (ix.  7)  along  with  cinnamon 
and  cassia,  describes  two  kinds  ot  comacum , one  a 
fruit,  and  the  other  employed  for  mixin-g  with  the 
most  precious  ointments.  Bodaeus  a Stapel 
(p.  1009)  says,  ‘ Quale  fuerithoc  comacum,  quod 
unguentis  addebatur,  me  ignorare  fateor.  These 
6eem  to  me  to  be  substances  of  which  we  have 
only  in  recent  times  acquired  any  correct  know- 
ledge, namely,  the  fruit  of  the  cinnamon  plant, 
and  the  fatty  oil  extracted  from  it,  of  which  there 
are  specimens  in  the  (King  s)  College  Museum  ot 
Materia  Medica  (Essay,  p.  106). 


Cassia  bark,  as  we  have  seen,  was  distinguished 
with  difficulty  from  cinnamon  by  the  ancients. 
In  the  present  day  it  is  often  sold  for  cinnamon; 
indeed,  unless  a purchaser  specify  true  cinna- 
mon, he  will  probably  be  supplied  with  nothing 
but  cassia.  It  is  made  up  into  similar  bundles  with 
cinnamon,  has  the  same  general  appearance,  smell, 
and  taste ; but  its  substance  is  thicker  and  coarser, 
its  colour  darker,  its  flavour  much  less  sweet  and 
fine  than  that  of  Ceylon  cinnamon,  while  it  is  more 
pungent,  and  is  followed  by  a hitter  taste;  it  is 
also  less  closely  quilled,  and  breaks  shorter  than 
genuine  cinnamon.  Dr.  Pereira,  whose  descrip- 
tion we  have  adopted,  has  ascertained  that  cassia 
is  imported  into  the  London  market  from  Bombay 
(the  produce  of  the  Malabar  coast),  and  also  from 
the  Mauritius,  Calcutta,  Batavia,  Singapore,  the 
Philippine  Islands,  and  Canton.  Mr.  Reeves 
(Trans.  Med.  Bot.  Soc.  1828,  p.  26)  says,  ‘ Vast 
quai’.tities  both  of  cassia  seeds  (buds)  and  cassia 
ngnea  are  annually  brought  to  Canton  from  the 
province  of  Kwangse,  whose  principal  city 
( Kwtihin,  literally  ‘ cassia  forest’)  derives  its  name 
from  tne  forests  of  cassia  around  it.  The  Chinese 
themselves  use  a much  thicker  bark,  unfit  for  the 
European  market.’  The  Malabar  cassia  lignea 
thicker  an  1 coarser  that  that  of  China.  I rom 


the  various  sources,  independently  <f  the  different 
qualities,  it  is  evident,  as  in  the  case  ot  cinnamon, 
that  the  ancients  might  have  been,  as  no  doubt 
they  were,  acquainted  with  several  varieties  of 
cassia.  These,  we  have  no  doubt,  are  yielded  by 
more  than  one  species.  Mr.  Marshall,  from  in- 
formation obtained  while  tie  was  stall-surgeon  in 
Ceylon,  maintained  that  cassia,  or  at  least  a part 
of  it,  was  the  coarser  hark  of  fhe  true  cinnamon. 

Dr.  Wight  has  ascertained  that  more  than  one 
species  yields  the  cassia  of  Malabar,  often  called 
cinnamon.  The  Chinese  cassia  is  supposed  to  be 
produced  by  the  cinnamomum  aromaticum  of 
Nees  von  Esenbeck,  the  cinnamomum  cassia  of 
Blume,  which  Dr.  Christison  ascertained  is  culti 
vated  in  our  hot- houses,  and  confounded  with  the 
true  cinnamon.  It.  was  first  imported,  we  believe, 
by  the  Messrs.  Loddiges  from  China.  Besides 
cassia  bark,  there  is  also  a cassia  oil,  and  cassia 
buds,  supposed  to  be  produced  by  the  same  tree. 
There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  as  cinnamon 
and  cassi,a  were  known  to  the  Greeks,  that  they 
must  have  been  known  to  the  Hebrews  also,  as 
the  commerce  with  India  can  be  proved  to  have 
been  much  more  ancient  than  is  generally  .sup- 
posed 1 Kidd.vh].  - J.  F.  R. 

KIPPOD  (liSp).  This  name  occurs  but 
three  times  in  Scripture  (Isa.  xiv.  23 ; xxxiv.  11  ; 
and  Zeph.  ii.  14),  and  has  been  variously  inter- 
preted—owl,  osprey,  tortoise,  porcupine,  otter, 
and  in  the  Arabic,  bustard.  Bochart,  Shaw, 
Lowth,  and  other  great  authorities,  have  supported 
the  opinion  that  it  refers  to  the  porcupine.  The 
main  stress  of  their  argument  seems  to  depend 
upon  the  component  parts  of  the  original  word, 
of  which  the  first  syllable  is  said  to  be  derived 
from  mp  kana,  ‘spine;’  in  confirmation  of 
which  Bochart,  with  his  wonted  learning,  cites 
the  Chaldee,  Hebrew,  Arabic,  anti  Ethiopian 
names  of  the  porcupine  and  hedgehog,  which 
apparently  confirm  his  opinion ; but  although 
derivations,  when  they  are  supported  by  apparent 
identity  of  meaning  in  other  kindred  languages, 
may  satisfy  the  judgment  oi  mere  philologists, 
something  more  will  be  demanded  by  naturalists, 
who,  looking  for  more  positive  indications  than 
apparent  synonyma  and  inferential  derivation, 
have  recourse  mainly  to  the  context,  lor  the  real  ; 
conditions,  which  must  determine  the  meaning  of  ■ 
disputed  terms.  Now,  in  Isa.  xiv.  23,  ‘ I will 
make  it  a possession  for  the  kippod  (bittern),  and  , 
pools  of  water,’  &c.,  the  words  are  plain  and  < 
natural.  Marshes  and  pools  are  not  the  habi-  , 
tation  of  hedgehogs,  for  they  shun  water.  In  Isa, 
xxxiv.  11,  it  is  said,  ‘The  cormorant  (Sterna  ; 
caspia)  and  the  kippod  (bittern)  shall  possess  it, 
the  owl  also  and  the  raven  shall  dwell  in  it,.  &c.  > 
that  is,  in  the  ruins  of  Idumeea.  Here,  again,  the 
version  is  plain,  and  a hedgehog  most  surely  would 
be  out.  of  place.  Zeph.  ii.  14,  ‘ Botli  the  coi- 
morarit  ( Sterna  caspia)  and  the  kippod  (bittern) 
shall  lodge  in  the  upper  lintels  of  it;  and  their 
voice  shall  sing  in  the  windows,’  &c.  Surely  here 
kippod  cannot  mean  the  hedgehog,  a nocturnal, 
grovelling,  worm-eating  animal,  entirely  or  nearly 
mute,  and  incapable  of  climbing  up  walls  ; one  | 
that  does  not  haunt  ruins,  but  earthy  banks  in  i 
wooded  regions,  and  that  is  absolutely  solitaiy  in 
its  habits.  We  thus  see  that  the  arguments  respect- 
ing kippod,  supplied  by  kephud,  or  kephod  foi 
we  find  these  various  readings— are  all  mere  spec*  , 


KIR. 


KIR-MOAB. 


latnns,  producing  at  best  only  negative  results. 
Those  drawn  from  indications  of  manners,  such 
as  the  several  texts  contain,  are,  on  the  contrary, 
positive,  and  leave  no  doubt  that  the  animal 
meant  is  not  a hedgehog,  nor  even  a mammal, 
but  a bird.  Hence,  though  we  admit  the  assumed 
root  of  the  denomination,  still  it  must  bear  an 
interpretation  which  is  applicable  to  one  of  the 
feathered  tribes,  probably  to  certain  wading  species, 
which  have,  cliielly  on  the  neck,  long  pointed 
feathers,  more  or  less  speckled.  The  Arabian 
bustard,  Otis  houbara , might  be  selected,  if  it 
were  not  that  bustards  keep  always  in  dry 
deserts  and  uplands,  and  that  they  never  roost, 
their  feet  not  admitting  of  perching,  but  rest 
oti  the  ground.  We  think  the  term  most  ap- 
plicable to  the  heron  tribes,  whose  beaks  are 
formidable  spikes  that  often  kill  hawks;  a fact 
well  known  to  Eastern  hunters.  Of  these,  Nycti - 
corax  Europceus , or  common  night  heron,  with  its 
pencil  of  white  feathers  in  the  crest,  is  ac  species, 
not  uncommon  in  the  marshes  of  Western  Asia; 
and  of  several  species  of  bittern,  Arde.a  (botaurus ) 
stellaris  has  pointed  long  feathers  on  the  neck 
and  breast,  fieckled  with  black,  and  a strong 
pointed  bill.  After  the  breeding-season  it  mi- 
grates and  passes  the  winter  in  the  south,  fre- 
quenting' the  marshes  and  rivers  of  Asia  and 
Europe,  where  it  then  roosts  high  above  ground, 
uttering  a curious  note  before  and  alter  its  even- 
ing llight,  very  distinct  from  the  booming  sound 
produced  by  it  in  the  breeding-season,  and  while 
it  remains  in  the  marshes.  Though  not  building, 
like  the  stork,  on  the  tops  of  houses,  it  resorts, 
like  the  heron,  to  ruined  structures,  and  we  have 
been  informed  that  it  has  been  seen  on  the  sum- 
mit of  Tank  Kesra  at  Ctesiphon. — C.  H.  S. 

KIR  (Tj? ; Sept.  K vpios),  a people  and 
country  subject  to  the  Assyrian  empire,  to  which 
the  conquered  Damascenes  were  transplanted 
(2  Kings  xvi.  9;  Isa.  xxii.  6;  Amos  i.  5),  and 
whither  also  the  Aramaeans  in  the  east  of  Syria 
once  wandered  (Amos  ix.  7).  This  is  supposed 
by  Major  Rennel  to  be  the  same  country  which 
still  bears  the  name  of  .Kurdistan  or  ifotmlistan 
( Geog . of  Herodot.  391).  There  are,  however, 
objections  to  this  view,  which  do  not  apply  so 
strongly  to  the  notion  of  Rosenmiiller  and  others, 
that  it  was  a tract  on  the  river  Cyrus,  or  rattier 
Kuros  (K upos  and  Kvfipos),  in  Zend  Koro,  which 
rises  in  the  mountains  between  the  Euxine  and 
Caspian  Seas,  and  runs  into  the  latter  after  being 
joined  by  the  Araxes.  Gwrjistan,  or  Grusia 
(Grusiaria),  commonly  called  Georgia,  seems 
also  to  have  derived  its  name  from  this  river  Kur, 
which  flows  through  it. 

K1R-HARESH;  Kir- Hareseth  ; Kir- 
Hekes.  [Kir-Moab.] 

KIRJATH.  This  word  means  town  or  city , 
and  is  much  used  in  the  formation  of  names  of 
places,  like  our  own  town.  The  following  are  the 
principal  places  distinguished  by  this  term  : — 

1.  K1RJATHAIM  (D.rP*)p,  double  town; 
Sept.  KipLaOa'./j.),  one  of  the  most  ancient  towns 
#n  the  country  east  of  the  Jordan,  as  it  was  pos- 
sessed by  the  gigantic  Emim  (Gen.  xiv.  5),  who 
were  expelled  by  the  Moabites  (Deut.  ii.  9,  10), 
who  in  their  turn  were  dispossessed  by  the  Amo- 
rites,  from  whom  it  was  taken  by  the  Israelites. 
Kirjathaim  was  ther.  assigned  to  Reuben  (Num. 


213 

xxxii.  37;  Josh.  xiii.  19).  But  during  the 
Assyrian  exile,  the  Moabites  again  took  posses- 
sion of  this  and  other  towns  (Jer.  xlviii.  1-23; 
Ezek.  xxv.  9).  Eusebius  places  it  about  half 
an  hour  west  of  the  ruins  of  Medeba.  Burckhardt 
found  other  ruins,  called  El  Te.ym,  which  he 
conjectures  to  have  been  Kiria thaim,  the  last 
syllable  of  the  name  being  retained.  This  is 
somewhat  doubtful,  as  the  K apiaba.  (K upidda)  of 
Eusebius  is  placed  ten  miles  west  of  Medeba, 
whereas  El  Teym  is  but  two  miles.  There  was 
another  place  of  this  name  in  the  tribe  of  Naph- 
tali  (1  Cliron.  vi.  76). 

2.  KIRJATH- ARBA,  the  ancient  name  of 
Kebron,  but.  still  in  use  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah 
(vi.  26)  [Hebron]. 

3.  KIRJATH-BAAL  (city  of  Baal).  This 
city  is  more  usually  called  Kirjath-jearim. 

4.  KIRJATH  II UZOTH  (city  of  streets),  a 
town  in  Moab  (Num.  xxii.  39). 

5.  KIRJATH-JEAR1M  (Dn JP  city 

of  forests ; Sept.  KapiaOiaply),  one  of  the  towns 
tf  the  Gibeonites  (Josh.  ix.  17).  It  was  to 
this  place  that  the  ark  was  brought  from  Beth- 
shemesh,  after  it  had  been  removed  from  the 
land  of  the  Pi^istines,  and  where  it  remained 
till  removed  to  Jerusalem  by  David  (1  Sam. 
vii. ; 1 Chron.  xiii.).  This  was  one  of  tha 
ancient  sites  which  were  again  inhabited  after 
the  exile  (Ezra  ii.  25;  Neh.  vii.  29).  Euse- 
bius and  Jerome  speak  of  it  as  being  in  their 
day  a village  nine  or  ten  miles  from  Diospolis 
(Lydda),  on  the  road  to  Jerusalem.  Dr.  Robin- 
son thinks  it  possible  that  the  ancient  Kirjath- 
jearim  may  be  recognised  in  the  present  Kuryet- 
el-Enab.  The  first  part  of  the  name  (Kirjath, 
Kurvet,  signifying  city)  is  the  same  in  both,  and 
is  most,  probably  ancient,  being  found  in  Arabic 
proper  names  only  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  and 
not  very  frequently  even  there.  The  only  change 
has  been,  that  the  ancient  4 city  of  forests’  has, 
in  modern  times,  become  the  ‘ city  of  grapes.’  The 
site  is  also  about  three  hours,  or  nine  Roman 
miles  from  Lydda,  on  the  road  to  Jerusalem,  and 
not  very  remote  fiom  Giheon,  from  which  Kirjath- 
jearim  could  not  well  have  been  distant.  So  close 
a correspondence  of  name  and  position  seems  to 
warrant  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Robinson  in  favour 
of  Kuryet-el-Enab.  This  place  is  that  which 
ecclesiastical  tradition  has  identified  with  the 
Anathoth  of  Jeremiah,  which  Dr.  Robinson  refers 
to  Anata  [Anathoth].  It  is  now  a poor  vil- 
lage, its  principal  buildings  being  an  old  convent 
of  the  Minorites,  and  a Latin  church.  The 
latter  is  now  deserted,  but  not  in  ruins,  and  is 
said  to  be  one  of  the  largest  and  most  solidly 
constructed  churches  in  Palestine  (Robinson,  ii. 
109  ; 334-3371). 

6.  KIRJATH-SANNAH  (city  of  palms ; 
Josh.  xv.  49),  otherwise  Kirjath-sephkr  (city 
of  the  book ),  a city  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  called 
also  Debir,  which  see  (Josh.  xv.  15,  16 ; Judg. 
i.  11,  12). 

KIR-MOAB  (n^lEn'i?,  (the  ivall , strong- 
hold, or  citadel  of  Moab;  Sept,  r b ret^os  rijj 
Mwa£iVt5os;  Isa.  xv.  1);  called  also  Kir-hare- 
seth  and  Kiu-heres  (nD“iri”*l'p  and  D"UVT£\ 
brick-fortress ; Isa.  xvi.  7,  1 1 ; Jer.  xlviii.  31),  a 
fortified  city  in  the  territory  of  Moab.  Joram  king 
of  Israel  took  the  city,  and  destroyed  it,  except  the 


114 


KISH. 


KISHON. 


walls;  but  it  appears  from  t, he  passages  here  cited 
that  it  must  _iave  been  rebuilt  before  tire  time  of 
■Isaiah.  In  his  prophecy  (xv.  1),  the  Chaldee 
paraphrast  has  put  HX'l^TX'D'D  kerraka  Moab , 
‘castle  of  Moab;’  and  the  former  of  these  words, 
pronounced  in  Arabic  karak,  kerek , or  krak,  is 
the  name  it  bears  in  2 Macc.  xii.  17,  Xapa/ca : in 
Steph.Byzant.  it  is  called  XapaK/xcu^a,  in  Abull'eda 
(Tab.  Syr.  p.  89).  and  in  the  historians  of  the 
Crusades.  Abulfeda  describes  Karak  as  a small 
town,  with  a castle  on  a high  hill,  and  remarks 
that  it  is  so  strong  that  one  must  deny  himself 
even  the  wish  to  take  it  by  force.  In  the  time  of 
the  Crusades,  and  when  in  possession  of  the  Franks, 
it  was  invested  by  Saladin  ; but  after  lying  before 
it  a month  he  was  compelled  to  raise  the  siege 
(Bohaeddim,  Vita  Saladin.  p.  55).  The  first  person 
who  visited  the  place  in  modern  times  was  Seet- 
ten,  who  says,  ‘ Near  to  Karak  the  wide  plain 
terminates  which  extends  from  Rabbah,  and  is 
broken  only  by  low  and  detached  hills,  and  the 
country  now  becomes  mountainous.  Karak,  for- 
merly a city  and  bishop’s  see,  lies  on  the  top  of 
the  hill  near  the  end  of  a deep  valley,  and  is  sur- 
rounded on  all  sides  with  lofty  mountains.  The 
hill  is  very  steep,  and  in  many  places  the  sides 
are  quite  perpendicular.  The  walls  round  the 
town  are  for  the  most  part  destroyed,  and  Karak 
can  at  present  boast  of  little  more  than  being  a 
small  country  town.  The  castle,  which  is  unin- 
habited, and  in  a state  of  great  decay,  was  formerly 
one  of  the  strongest  in  these  countries.  The  inha- 
bitants of  the  town  consist  of  Mohammedans  and 
Greek  Christians.  The  present  bishop  of  Karak 
resides  at  Jerusalem.  From  this  place  one  enjoys, 
by  looking  down  the  Wady  Karak,  a fine  view  of 
part  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  even  Jerusalem  may  be 
distinctly  seen  in  clear  weather.  The  hill  on  which 
Karak  lies  is  composed  of  limestone  and  brittle 
marl,  with  many  beds  of  blue,  black,  and  grey 
flints.  In  the  neighbouring  rocks  there  are  a num- 
ber of  curious  grottoes  ; in  those  which  are  under 
ground  wheat  is  sometimes  preserved  for  a period 
of  ten  years’  (Zach’s  Monatliche  Correspond. 
xviii.  434).  A fuller  account  of  the  place  is  given 
by  Burckhardt  ( Travels  in  Syria,  pp.  379-387), 
by  whom  it  was  next  visited  ; and  another  descrip- 
tion is  furnished  by  Irby  and  Mangles  (Travels, 
pp.  361-370).  From  their  account  it  would  seem 
that  the  caverns  noticed  by  Seetzen  were  probably 
the  sepulchres  of  the  ancient,  town.  We  also  learn 
that  the  Christians  of  Karak  (which  they  and 
Burckhardt  call  Kerek),  are  nearly  as  numerous 
as  the  Turks,  and  boast  of  being  stronger  and 
braver.  They  were,  however,  on  good  terms  with 
die  Turks,  and  appeared  to  enjoy  equal  freedom 
with  them. 

KISH,  son  of  Ner,  and  father  of  King  Saul 
(1  Sam.  ix.  1). 

KISHON  ; Sept.  Kktuv),  a river  which, 

after  traversing  the  plain  of  Acre,  enters  the 
bay  of  the  same  name  at  its  south-east  corner. 
It  is  celebrated  in  Scripture  for  the  overthrow  of 
the  host  of  Sisera  in  its  overflowing  stream  (Judg. 
iv.  13 ; v.  21).  It  has  been  usual  to  trace  the 
source  of  this  river  to  Mount  Tabor ; but  Dr.  Shaw 
affirms  that  in  travelling  along  the  south-eastern 
brow  of  Mount  Carmel,  he  had  an  opportunity  of 
seeing  the  sources  of  the  liver  Kishon,  three  or  four 
of  which  lie  within  less  than  a furlong  of  each 


other,  and  are  called  Ras  el  Kishon,  or  the  bead 
of  the  Kishon.  These  alone,  without  the  lessei 
contributions  near  the  sea,  discharge  watei  enough 
to  form  a river  half  as  large  as  the  Isis.  During 
the  rainy  season  all  the  waters  which  fall  upon 
the  eastern  side  of  Carmel,  or  upon  the  rising 
grounds  to  the  southward,  empty  themselves  into 
it  in  a number  of  torrents,  at  which  time  it  over- 
flows its  banks,  acquires  a wonderful  rapidity,  and 
carries  all  before  it.  It  was  doubtless  in  such  a 
season  that  the  host  of  Sisera  was  swept  away,  in 
attempting  to  ford  it..  But  such  inundations  are 
only  occasional,  and  of  short  duration,  as  is  indeed 
implied  in  the  destruction  in  its  waters  of  the  fu- 
gitives, who  doubtless  expected  to  pass  it.  safely. 

The  course  of  the  stream,  as  estimated  from  the 
sources  thus  indicated,  is  not  more  than  seven 
miles.  It  runs  very  briskly  till  within  half  a 
league  of  the  sea  ; but  when  not  augmented  by 
rains,  it  never  falls  into  the  sea  in  a full  stream, 
but.  insensibly  percolates  through  a bank  of  sand, 
which  the  north  winds  have  thrown  up  at  its  mouth. 
It  was  in  this  state  that  Shaw  himself  found  it  in 
the  month  of  April,  1722,  when  it  was  crossed  by 
him. 

Notwithstanding  Shaw’s  contradiction,  the  as- 
sertion that  the  Kishon  derives  its  source  from 
Mount  Tabor  has  been  repeated  by  modern  tra- 
vellers as  confidently  as  by  their  ancient  prede- 
cessors. Buckingham's  statement,  being  made 
with  reference  to  the  view  from  Mount  Tabor  itself, 
deserves  attention.  He  says  that  near  the  foot  o< 
the  mountain  on  the  south-west  are  ‘ the  springs  ot 
the  Ain-es-Sherrar,  which  send  a perceptible  stream 
through  the  centre  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  and 
form  the  brook  Kishon  of  antiquity.’  Further  on, 
the  same  traveller,  on  reaching  the  hills  which 
divide  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  from  that  of  Acre, 
saw  the  pass  through  wh  the  river  makes  its  way 
from  the  one  plain  to  the  other  ( Travels  in  Palest. 
i.  168,  177).  We  have  had  opportunities  of  seeing 
much  of  streams  similarly  constituted;  and  it 
does  not  seem  to  us  diflicult  to  reconcile  the  seem- 
ingly conflicting  statements  with  reference  to  the 
Kishon.  On  further  inquiry,  and  more  extensive 
comparison  of  observations  made  at  different  times 
of  the  year,  it  will  probably  be  found  that  the 
remoter  source  of  the  river  is  really  in  Mount 
Tabor  ; but  that  the  supply  from  this  source  is  cut 
off  in  early  summer,  when  it  ceases  to  be  main- 
tained by  rains  or  contributory  torrents ; whereas 
the  copious  supply  from  the  nearer  springs  at  Ras 
el  Kishon,  with  other  springs  lower  down,  keep  it 
up  from  that  point,  as  a perennial  stream,  even 
during  the  drought  of  summer.  Thus  during 
one  part  of  the  year  the  source  of  the  river 
may  appear  to  be  in  Mount  Tabor,  while 
during  another  part  the  source  of  the  diminished 
stream  is  at.  Ras  el  Kishon.  In  this  view  of  the 
case  we  should  expect  that  travellers  crossing  the 
plain  in  or  shortly  after  the  season  of  rain,  would 
have  encountered  the  temporary  stream  from 
Mount  Tabor  before  the  point  where  it  meels  the 
perennial  stream!  from  Carmel.  The  fact  is, 
however,  that  the  route  has  been  little  travelled  in 
that  season ; but  the  required  evidence  is  by  no 
means  wanting.  Mariti  (ii.  112)  mentions  the  case 
of  the  English  dragoman  who  was  drowned,  and 
his  horse  with  him,  in  the  attempt  to  cross  such  a 
stream  in  February,  1761.  During  the  battle  of 
Mount  Tabor,  between  the  French  and  Arabs, 


KISHUIM. 


KISS. 


April  10,  1799,  many  of  the  latter  were  drowned 
in  their  attempt  to  cross  a stream,  coming  from 
Deburieh,  which  then  inundated  the  plain  (Buvck- 
hardf,  Syria,  p.  339).  Monro,  who  crossed  the 
river  early  m April  (in  its  lower  or  perennial  part), 
in  order  to  ascend  Mount  Carmel,  describes  it  as 
traversing  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  : which  he  could 
not  have  done  if  he  had  not  seen  a stream  flowing 
in  that'  direction  uniting  with  the  river  below 
Mount  Carmel.  The  river,  where  he  crossed  it, 
in  a boat,  was  then  thirty  yards  wide.  Afterwards, 
in  crossing  an  arm  of  it,  in  t he  plain  from  Solam  to 
Nazareth,  he  incidentally  furnishes  ground  for  his 
former  view  by  stating  that,  he  crossed  ‘a  consi- 
derable brook,  and  afterwards  some  others,  which 
flow  into  a small  lake  on  the  northern  side  of  the 
plain,  and  eventually  contribute  to  swell  the 
Kishon’  ( Ramble . i.  55,  2$1).  Dr.  Robinson 
says  that  this  account  corresponds  with  channels 
that  he  observed  (Hibl.  Researches,  iii.  230). 
Prokesch  also,  in  April,  1$29,  when  travelling 
directly  from  Ramleh  to  Nazareth,  entered  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon  at  or  near  Lejjun,  where  he 
came  upon  the  Kishon,  flowing  in  a deep  bed 
through  marshy  ground ; and  after  wandering 
about  for  some  time  to  find  his  way  through  the 
morass,  he  was  at  last  set  right  by  an  Arab,  who 
pointed  out  the  proper  ford  ( Reise  ins  II.  Land , 
p.  129). 

The  Scriptural  account  of  the  overthrow  of 
Sisera's  host  manifestly  shows  that  the  stream 
crossed  the  plain,  and  must  have  been  of  consider- 
able size.  The  above  arguments,  to  show  that  it  did 
bo,  and  still  does  so,  notwithstanding  Dr.  Shaw's 
account,  were,  in  substance,  given  several  years 
ago  in  the  Pictorial  History  of  Palestine  (Introd. 
p.  cxci.)  ; and  the  writer  has  had  the  satisfaction 
of  seeing  his  view  since  confirmed  by  Dr.  Robin- 
son, who  adds  that  ‘ not  improbably,  in  ancient 
times,  when  the  country  was  perhaps  more  wooded, 
there  may  have  been  permanent  streams  through- 
out the  whole  plain. 

The  transaction  of  the  prophet  Elijah,  who,  after 
his  sacrifice  on  Carmel,  commanded  the  priests  of 
Baal  to  be  slain  at  die  river  Kishon  (1  Kings 
xviii.  40),  requires  no  explanation,  seeing  that  it 
took  place  at  die  perennial  lower  stream.  This 
also  explains,  what  has  sometimes  been  asked, 
whence,  in  that  time  of  drought,  the  water  was 
obtained  with  which  the  prophet  inundated  his 
altar  and  sacrifice. 

KISHUIM  (D'S&’p)  is  translated  cucumbers 
in  our  Audi.  Vers.,  and  the  correctness  of  this 
rendering  has  been  almost  universally  admitted. 
It  first  occurs  in  Num.  xi.  5,  in  the  verse  already 
quoted  in  Abattachi m,  where  the  Israelites,  when 
ip  the  desert,  express  their  longings  for  the  melons 
and  the  kishuim  or  cucumbers  of  Egypt.  Reduced 
from  the  plural  form,  the  word  kisha  is  so  similar 

to  the  Arabic  hissa,  that  there  can  be  very 

liftle  doubt  of  their  botli  meaning  the  same  thing. 
Celsius  gives  keta,  hati,  and  kusaia,  as  different 
pronunciations  of  the  same  word  in  different  Ori- 
ental languages.  It  does  not  follow  that  these 
names  always  indicate  exactly  the  same  species  ; 
sKce  in  the  different  countries  they  would  probably 
be  appled  to  the  kinds  of  cucumber  most  com- 
mon, or  pei haps  to  those  which  were  most  esteemed 
in  particulai  Realities.  Thus  in  Egypt  the  name 


313 

kati  appears  to  he  applied  to  the  species  which  is 
called  Cucumis  chate  by  botanists,  and  ‘queen  of 
cucumbers  ’ by  Hasselquist,  who  describes  it  as  the 
most,  highly  esteemed  -of  all  those  cultivated  iu 
Egypt  [Abattachim].  In  India  the  name  kissa 


is  applied  by  the  Mohammedans  to  the  Ctictt' 
mis  utilissimus , or  the  common  kukree  of  tbs 
natives  ; while  in  Persia  and  Syria  the  same  name 
would  probably  be  applied  only  to  the  common 
cucumber,  or  Cucumis  sativus , as  the  two  preced- 
ing species  are  not  likely  to  be  much  known  in 
either  country.  All  travellers  in  the  East  notice 
the  extensive  cultivation  and  consumption  of  cu- 
cumbers and  other  herbs  of  the  same  tribe,  espe- 
cially where  there  is  any  moisture  of  soil,  or  the 
possibility  of  irrigation.  Thus  even  in  the  driest 
parts,  the  neighbourhood  of  a well  is  often  occu- 
pied by  a field  of  cucurbitaceous  plants,  generally 
w ith  a man  or  boy  set.  to  guard  it  from  plunder, 
perched  up  on  a temporary  scaffold ing,  with  a 
slight  protection  from  the  sun,  where  he  may 
himself  be  safe  from  the  attacks  of  the  more 
powerful  wild  animals.  That  such  plants  appear 
to  have  been  similarly  cultivated  among  the  He- 
brews is  evident  from  Isa.  i.  8,  ‘ The  daughter  of 
Zion  is  left  like  a cottage  in  a vineyard,  like  a 
lodge  in  a garden  of  cucumbers  as  well  as  from 
Baruch  vi.  70,  ‘ As  a scarecrow  in  a garden  of 
cucumbers  keepeth  nothing,  so  are  their  gods  of 
wood’  [Abattachim]. — J.  F.  R. 

KISS.  Originally  the  act  of  kissing  had  a 
symbolical  character,  and,  though  this  import  may 
now  be  lost  sight  of,  yet  it  must  be  recognised 
the  moment  we  attempt  to  understand  or  explain 
its  s;gnification.  Acts  speak  no  less,  sometime* 
far  more  forcibly,  than  words.  In  the  early  period 


116 


KISS. 


KISSOS 


of  society,  when  the  foundation  was  liid  of  most 
even  of  our  Western  customs,  action  constituted  a 
large  portion  of  what  we  may  term  human  lan- 
guage, or  the  means  of  intercommunication  be- 
tween man  and  man;  because  then  words  were 
less  numerous,  books  unknown,  the  entire  ma- 
chinery of  speaking,  being  in  its  rudimental  and 
elementary  state,  less  developed  and  called  into 
play  ; to  say  nothing  of  that  peculiarity  of  the 
Oriental  character  (if,  indeed,  it  be  not  a cha- 
racteristic of  all  nations  in  primitive  ages)  which 
inclined  men  to  general  taciturnity,  with  occa- 
sional outhreaks  of  fervid,  abrupt,  or  copious 
eloquence.  In  this  language  of  action,  a kiss, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  a bringing  into  contact  of 
parts  of  the  body  of  two  persons,  was  naturally 
the  expression  and  the  symbol  of  affection,  re- 
gard, respect,  and  reverence;  and  if  any  deeper 
source  of  its  origin  were  sought  for,  it  would, 
doubtless,  be  found  in  the  fondling  and  caresses 
with  which  the  mother  expresses  her  tenderness 
for  her  babe.  That  the  custom  is  of  very  early 
date  appears  from  Gen.  xxix.  13,  where  we 
read — ‘ When  Laban  heard  the  tidings  of  Jacob, 
his  sister’s  son,  he  ran  to  meet  him,  and  embraced 
him  and  kissed  him,  and  brought  him  to  his 
house  the  practice  was  even  then  established 
and  recognised  as  a matter  of  course.  In  Gen. 
xxvii.  26,  27,  a kiss  is  a sign  ofila flection  between 
a parent  and  child.  It  was  also,  as  with  some 
modern  nations,  a tonen  of  friendship  and  regard 
hestowed  when  friends  or  relations  met  or  sepa- 
rated (Tobit  vii.  6;  x.  12;  Luke  vii.  15;  xv. 
20;  Acts  xx.  37;  Matt.  xxvi.  48;  2 Sam.  xx. 
9).  The  church  of  Ephesus  wept  sore  at  Paul's 
departure,  and  fell  on  his  neck  and  kissed  him. 
When  Orpah  quitted  Naomi  and  Ruth  (Ruth  i. 
14),  after  the  three  had  lifted  tip  their  voice  and 
wept,  she  ‘ kissed  her  mother-in-law,  but  Ruth 
clave  unto  her.’  It  was  usual  lo  kiss  the  mouth 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  4 ; Exod.  iv.  27 ; xviii.  7 ; 1 Sam.  xx. 
41 ; Prov.  xxiv.  26)  or  the  beard,  which  was  then 
taken  hold  of  by  the  hand  (2  Sam.  xx.  9).  Kiss- 
ing ofthe  feet  was  an  expression  of  lowly  and  tender 
regard  (Luke  vii.  38).  Kissing  of  the  hand  of 
another  appears  to  be  a modern  practice  : the  pas- 
sage of  Job  xxxi.  27,  ‘ Or  my  mouth  hath  kissed 
my  hand,’  is  not  in  point,  and  refers  to  idolatrous 
usages,  namely,  the  adoration  of  the  heavenly 
bodies.  It  was  the  custom  to  throw  kisses  towards 
the  images  ofthe  gods,  and  towards  the  sun  and 
moon  (i  Kings  xix.  18;  Hosea  xiii.  2;  Miuuc. 
Felix,  ii.  5;  Tac.  Hist.  iii.  24.  3:  Lucian.  De 
Salt.  c.  17  ; PI  in.  Hist.  Nat.  xxvii  i.  5).  The  kiss- 
ing of  princes  was  a token  of  homage  (Ps.  ii.  12; 
1 Sam.  x.  1 ; Xenoph .Cyrop.  vii.  5.  32).  Xenophon 
says  ( Agesil . v.  4)  that  it  was  a national  cus- 
tom with  the  Persians  to  kiss  whomsoever  they 
honoured  ; and  a curious  passage  to  this  effect  may 
be  found  in  the  Cyropoedia  (i.  4.  27).  Kissing  the 
feet  of  princes  was  a token  of  subjection  and 
obedience;  which  was  sometimes  carried  so  far 
that  the  print  of  the  foot  received  the  kiss,  so  as  to 
give  the  impression  that  the  very  dust  had  become 
sacred  by  the  roval  tread,  or  that  the  subject  was 
not  worthy  to  salute  even  the  prince’s  foot,  but 
was  content  to  kiss  the  earth  itself  near  or  on 
which  he  trod  (Isa.  xlix.  23  ; Micah  vii.  17  ; Ps. 
lxxii.  9;  Dion  Cass.  lix.  27 ; Seneca,  De  Bene/. 
ii.  12).  The  Rabbins,  in  the  meddlesome,  scru- 
pulous, and  falsely  delicate  spirit  which  animated 


much  of  wnat  they  wrote,  die  not  permit  more 
than  three  kinds  of  kisses,  the  kiss  of  reverence 
of  reception,  and  of  dismissal  (Breseliith  ltabba 
on  Gen.  xxix.  11). 

The  peculiar  tendency  of  the  Christian  religion 
to  encourage  honour  towards  all  men,  as  men,  to 
foster  and  develop  the  softer  affections,  and,  in  the 
trying  condition  of  the  early  church,  to  make  its 
members  intimately  known  one  to  another,  and 
unite  them  in  the  closest  bonds,  led  to  the  observ- 
ance of  kissing  as  an  accompaniment  of  that  social 
worship  which  took  its  origin  in  the  very  cradle 
of  our  religion.  Hence  the  exhortation — ‘ Salute 
each  other  with  a holy  kiss’ (Rom.  xvi.  16;  see 
also  1 Cor.  xvi.  26;  2 Cor.  xiii.  12;  1 Thess.  v. 
26 ; in  1 Pet.  v.  1 1,  it  is  termed  ‘ a kiss  of 
charity  ).  The  observance  was  continued  in  later 
days,  and  lias  not  yet  wholly  disap peared,  though 
the  peculiar  circumstances  have  vanished  which 
gave  propriety  atid  emphasis  to  such  an  expres- 
sion of  brotherly  love  and  Christian  friendship. 

On  the  subject  of  this  article  consult  Planner, 
De  Osculis  Christianor.  Veter. ; M.  Ksmpius, 
De  Osculis , Francof  16°0 ; Jac.  Ilenenschmidius, 
Osculogia , Vitcb.  1630;  P.  Muller.  De  Osculo 
Sancto,  1674;  Boherg,  De  Osculis  Hebr  — J.  R.  B. 

KiSSOS  (Gr.  Kurcrds), i ivy,’  is  mentioned  only 
once,  and  that  in  the  Apocrypha  (2  Macc.  vi.7), 
where  the  Temple  is  described  as  being  desecrated 
by  the  Gentiles,  and  the  Jews  forced  to  depart 
from  the  laws  of  their  fathers:  ‘ And  when  the 
least  of  Bacchus  was  kept,  the  Jews  were  com- 
pelled to  go  in  procession  to  Bacchus,  carrying 


ivy.’  The  term  kicto-os  or  icittos  seems  to  have 
been  applied  by  the  Greeks  in  a general  sense,  ac 
to  have  included  many  plants,  and  among  them, 
some  climbers,  as  the  convolvulus , besides  the 


KOHATH. 


KOPHER. 


217 


common  ivy.  which  was  especially  dedicated  to 
Bacchus,  and  which  was  distinguished  by  the 
name  of  ‘ Hedera  poedca,  Diotivsia  aut  Bac- 
chica,  quod  ex  ea  poetarum  coronae  eonsuerentur.’ 
It  is  well  known  that  in  the  Dionysia,  or  festivals 
in  honour  of  Dionysus,  and  in  the  processions 
called  Oiacroi , with  which  they  were  celebrated, 
women  also  took  part,  in  the  disguise  of  Bacchae, 
Naiades,  Nymphae,  &c.,  adorned  with  garlauds  of 
ivy,  &c. : thus  Ovid  (Fasti,  iii.  766)  : — 

Cum  hedera  cincta  est?  hedera  est  gratissima 
Baccho 

Bacchus  is  generally  thought  to  have  been 
educated  in  India,  and  the  Indian  Baghes  has 
been  supposed  to  be  the  original  of  the  name.  The 
fact  of  B&ghes  being  a compound  of  two  words 
signifying  tiger  and  master  or  lord,  would  appear 
to  confirm  the  identity,  since  Bacchus  is  usually 
repiesenfed  as  drawn  in  his  chariot  by  a tiger 
and  a lion,  and  tigers,  & c.,  are  described  as  follow- 
ing him  in  his  Indian  journey.  As  the  ivy,  how- 
ever, is  not  a plant  of  India,  it  might  be  objected 
to  its  being  characteristic  of  an  Indian  god.  But 
in  the  mountains  which  bound  India  to  the  north, 
both  the  ivy  and  tire  vine  may  be  found,  and  the 
Greeks  were  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  Mount 
Mero  is  the  only  part  of  India  where  ivy  was  pro- 
duced. Indeed,  Alexander  and  his  companions 
are  said  to  have  crowned  themselves  with  ivy  in 
honour  of  Bacchus.  The  ivy,  Hedera  Helix , 
being  a native  of  most  parts  of  Europe,  is  too  well 
known  to  require  special  notice. — J.  F.  R. 
KITE.  [Gi.edb.] 

KNEAD  1NG-TROUGHS.  [Bread.] 

KOHATH  (H.ng,  assembly ; Sept.  Kaad),  son 
of  Levi,  and  father  of  Amram,  Izhar,  Hebron, 
and  Uzziel  (Gen.  xlvi.  11).  The  descendants  of 
Kohath  formed  one  of  the  three  great  divisions  of 
the  Levitical  tribe.  This  division  contained  the 
priestly  family  which  was  descended  from  Aaron, 
the  son  of  Amram.  In  the  service  of  the  taber- 
nacle, as  settled  in  the  wilderness,  the  Kohathites 
had  the  distinguished  charge  of  bearing  the  ark  and 
the  sacred  vessels  'vExod.  vi.  16;  Num.  iv.  4-6). 

KOPHER,  or  Copiier  (~l£D),  occurs  twice 
in  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  is  in  both  places 
translated  camphire  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
Thus  (i.  14),  ‘ My  beloved  is  unto  me  as  a 
cluster  o (camphire  ( kupher ) in  the  vineyards  of 
En-gedi and  in  iv.  13,  * Thy  plants  are  an 
orchard  of  pomegranates,  with  pleasant  fruits, 
camphire  (kopher),  with  spikenard.’  It.  has  been 
supposed  to  indicate  a bunch  of  grapes  ( Botrus 
kopher  ),  also  camphor.  The  word  camphire  is 
the  old  mode  of  spelling  camphor , but  this  sub- 
stance does  not  appear  to  have  been  known  to 
ancient  commerce ; at  least  we  cannot  adduce  any 
proof  that  it  was  so.  The  woid  Kopher  is  cer- 
tainly very  like  Kafoor,  the  Eastern  name  for 
camphor , but  it  also  closely  resembles  the  Greek 
Kvvpos,  or  Kupros , usually  written  Cypros.  In- 
deed, as  has  been  observed,  it  is  the  same  word, 
with  the  Greek  pronunciation  and  termination. 
The  Kvirpos  of  the  Greeks  is,  no  doubt,  the  Law- 
sonia  inermis  of  Irotanists,  and  is  described  by 
Dioscorides  (i.  125)  and  by  Pliny  (xii.  24)  : — 
‘ Cypros  in  Aigypto  est  arbor  ziziphi  (piece, 
Dioscor.)  foliis,  semine  coriandri,  floie  candido, 
ttdorato.  Coquitur  hoc  in  oRo,  premiturque  postea, 


quod  cyprinum  (Kbnpirov,  Dioscoi  i 65)  vocatur 
Optimum  habetur  e Canope,  in  ripis  Nili  nat.um  : 
secundum  Ascalone  Juda**:  tertium  Cypro  in- 
sula, odoris  suavitate  praecipuum.’  Sir  T.  Browne 
and  others  have  inferred  that  1 he  Kinrpos  of  the 
Greeks  was  the  kopher  of  the  Hebrews.  Marifi 
remarks,  that  ‘ the  shrub  known  in  the  Hebrew 
language  by  the  name  of  kopher  is  common  in 
the  island  of  Cyprus,  and  thence  had  its  Latin 
name  also,  that  ‘ the  Botrus  Cypri  has  been 
supposed  to  be  a kind  of  rare  and  exquisite 
grapes,  transplanted  from  Cyprus  to  Engaddi ; but 
the  Botrus  is  known  to  the  natives  of  Cyprus  as 
an  odoriferous  shrub  called  henna , or  alkanna.' 
So  R.  Ben  Melek  ( ad  Cant.  i.  14),  as  quoted 
and  translated  by  Celsius  (i.  223)  : — ‘ Botrus 
Copher  id  ipsum  est , (juod  Arabes  vocant  Al- 
Hinna*  Upon  this  Celsius  remarks  : — ‘ Hsec  in 
Talmude  ssepius  memoratur,  quod  in  Judaea  cres- 
ceret,  et  Judaeorum  legibus  subjecta  esset.’  If 
we  refer  to  the  works  of  the  Aral  is,  we  find  both 
in  Serapion  and  Avicenna,  reference  from  their 
Hinna  to  the  description  by  Dioscorides  and  Galen, 
of  Kupros  or  Cypros.  This  identity  is  now  uni- 
versally acknowledged  : the  Kupros , therefore, 
must  have  been  Lawsonia  inennis , as  the  Hinna 
of  the  Arabs  is  well  known  to  be.  If  we  exa- 
mine the  works  of  Oriental  travellers  and  natu- 
ralists, we  shall  find  that  this  plant  is  universally 
esteemed  in  Eastern  countries,  and  appears  to 
have  been  so  from  the  earliest  hmes,  both  on 
account  of  the  fragrance  of  its  flowers,  and  the 
colouring  properties  of  its  leaves. 


Thus  Rauwolff,  when  at  Tripoli  ( Travels , 
iv.),  ‘ found  there  another  tree,  not  unlike  unto 
our  privet,  by  the  Arabians  called  Alcana , or 
Henna , and  by  the  Grecians,  in  their  vulgar 
tongue,  Schenna,  which  they  have  from  Egypt, 
where,  but  above  all  in  Cayre.  they  grow  in 
abundance.  The  Turks  and  Moors  nurse  these 
up  with  great  care  and  diligence,  because  of  theii 
sweet-smelling  dowers.  They  also,  as  I am  in- 


219 


KORAH. 


KORAII. 


formed,  kejp  their  leaves  all  winter,  which  leaves 
they  powder  and  mix  with  the  juice  of  citrons, 
and  stain  therewith  against  great  holidays  the 
hair  and  nails  of  their  childien  of  a red 
colour,  which  colour  may  perhaps  be  seen  with 
us  on  the  manes  and  tails  of  Turkish  horses.’ 
So  Belon  (ii.  74),  when  leaving  Cairo ‘for  Jeru- 
salem, says  : — ‘ Nous  trouvasmes  un  petit  arbris- 
seau  nomme  Henne  ou  Alcanna,  qu’ils  taillent  et 
cultivent  diligemment,  et  font  d'iceluy  des  beaux 
petits  bois  taillis.  II  est  de  grand  revenu  en 
Egypte,  car  ils  deseichent  ses  feuilles  pour  mettre 
en  poudre,  a f.iire  tie  la  teinture  pour  teindre  en 
jaune ; les  femmes  de  tous  les  pays  de  Turqnie 
out  coustume  de  teindre  les  mains,  les  pietis,  et 
partie  des  cheveux  en  couleur  jaune  ou  rouge  ; et. 
les  hommes  se  teignent  les  ongles  en  rouge  avec  la 
susdicte  poudre’  ( Observ . p.  301).  This  custom 
of  dyeing  the  nails  and  the  palms  of  the  hands 
and  soles  of  the  feet,  of  an  iron-rust  colour,  with 
henna,  exists  throughout,  the  East,  from  the 
Mediterranean  to  the  Ganges,  as  well  as  in 
Northern  Africa.  In  some  parts  the  practice  is 
not  confined  to  women  and  children,  but.  is  also 
followed  by  men,  especially  in  Persia.  In 
dyeing  the  beard,  the  hair  is  turned  to  red  by 
this  application,  which  is  then  changed  to  black  by 
a preparation  of  indigo.  In  dyeing  the  hair  of 
children,  and  the  tails  and  manes  of  horses  and 
asses,  the  process  is  allowed  to  stop  at  the  red 
colour  which  the  henna  produces.  In  reference 
to  this  universal  practice  of  the  East,  Dr.  Harris 
observes  that  ‘ the  expression  in  Deut.  xxi.  12, 
pare  her  nails,”  may  perhaps  rather  mean  “ adorn 
her  nails, ’’  and  imply  the  antiquity  of  this  prac- 
tice. This  is  a universal  custom  in  Egypt,  and 
not  to  conform  to  it  would  be  considered  indecent. 
It  seems  to  have  been  practised  by  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  for  the  nails  of  the  mummies  are 
most  commonly  of  a reddish  hue.’  Seeing,  then, 
that  the  henna  is  so  universally  admired  in  the 
East,  both  on  account  of  the  fragrance  of  its 
flowers  and  the  dye  yielded  by  its  leaves,  and  as 
there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  nvirpos  of  the  Greeks, 
and  as  this  word  is  so  similar  to  the  kwpher  of  the 
Hebrews,  there  is  every  probability  of  this  last 
being  the  henna  of  the  Arabs,  Lawsonia  alba  of 
botanists. — J.  F.  R. 

KORAH  (nip,  ice ; Sept.  K ope),  a Levite, 
son  of  Izhar,  the  brother  of  Am  ram,  the  father 
of  Moses  and  Aaron,  who  were  therefore  cousins 
to  Korah  (Exod.  vi.  21).  From  this  near  relation- 
ship we  may,  with  tolerable  certainty,  conjecture, 
that  the  source  of  the  disco- tent  which  led  to  the 
steps  afterwards  taken  by  this  unhappy  man,  lay 
in  his  jealousy  that  the  high  honours  and  privi- 
leges of  the  priesthood,  to  which  he,  who  re- 
mained a simple  Levite,  might,  apart  from  the 
divine  appointment,  seem  to  have  had  as  good  a 
claim,  should  have  been  exclusively  appropriated 
to  the  family  of  Aaron.  When  to  this  was  added 
the  civil  authority  of  Moses,  the  whole  power  over 
the  nation  would  seem  to  him  to  have  been  en- 
grossed by  his  cousins,  the  sons  of  Amram.  Un- 
der the  influence  of  these  feelings  he  organized  a 
conspiracy,  for  the  purpose  of  redressing  what 
appeared  to  him  the  evil  and  injustice  of  this 
arrangement.  Dathan,  Abiram,  and  On,  the  chief 
persons  who  joined  him,  were  of  the  tribe  of 
Hpuben;  hut  he  was  also  supporfed  by  many 


more  from  other  tribes,  making  up  the  number  of 
250,  men  of  name,  rank,  and  influence,  all  who 
may  be  regarded  as  representing  the  families  of 
which  they  were  the  heads.  The  private  object 
of  Korah  was  apparently  his  own  aggrandize- 
ment, but  his  ostensible  object,  was  the  general 
good  of  the  people;  and  it  is  perhaps  from  want 
of  attention  to  this  distinction  that  the  transaction 
has  not  been  well  understood.  The  design  seems 
to  have  been  made  acceptable  to  a large  body  of 
the  nation,  on  the  ground  that  the  first-born  of 
Israel  had  been  deprived  of  their  sacerdotal  birth- 
right in  favour  of  the  Levites,  while  the  Levites 
themselves  announced  that  the  priesthood  had 
been  conferred  by  Moses  (as  they  considered)  on 
his  own  brother’s  family,  in  preference  to  those 
who  had  equal  claims ; and  it  is  easy  to  con- 
ceive that  the  Reubenites  may  have  considered 
the  opportunity  a favourable  one  for  the  recovery 
of  their  birthright. — the  double  portion  and  civil 
pre  eminence — which  had  been  foifeited  by  them 
and  given  to  Joseph.  These  are  the  explanations 
of  Aben-Ezra,  and  seem  as  reasonable  as  any 
which  have  been  offered. 

The  leading  conspirators  having  organized 
their  plans,  repaired  in  a body  to  Moses  and 
Aaron,  boldly  charged  them  with  their  usurpa- 
tions, and  requiied  them  to  lay  down  their  ill- 
gotten  power.  Moses  no  sooner  heard  this  than 
he  fell  on  his  face,  confounded  at.  the  enormity  of 
so  outrageous  a revolt,  against  a system  framed  so 
carefully  for  the  benefit;  of  the  nation.  He  left 
the  matter  in  the  Lord’s  hands,  and  desired  them 
to  come  cu  the  morrow,  provided  with  censers  for 
incense,  that  the  Lord  himself,  by  some  manifest 
token,  might,  make  known  his  will  in  this  great 
matter.  As  this  order  was  particularly  addressed 
to  the  rebellious  Levites,  the  Reubenites  left  the 
place,  and  when  afterwards  called  back  by  Moses, 
returned  a very  insolent  refusal,  charging  him 
with  having  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt 
under  false  pretences,  ‘to  kill  them  in  the  wil- 
derness.’ 

The  next  day  Korah  and  his  company  appeared 
before  the  tabernacle,  attended  by  a multitude 
of  people  cut  of  1 he  general  body  of  the  tribes. 
Then  the  Shekinah,  or  symbol  of  the  divine  pre- 
sence, which  abode  between  the  cherubim,  ad 
vanced  to  the  entrance  of  the  sacred  fabric,  and 
a voice  therefrom  commanded  Moses  and  Aaron  to 
stand  apart,  lest  they  should  share  in  the  destruction 
which  awaited  the  whole  congregation.  On  hear- 
ing these  awful  words  the  brothers  fell  on  their 
faces,  and.  by  strong  intercession,  moved  the  Lord 
to  confine  his  wrath  to  the  leaders  in  the  rebellion, 
and  spare  their  unhappy  dupes.  The  latter  were 
then  ordered  to  separate  themselves  from  their 
leaders  and  from  the  tents  in  which  they  dwelt. 
The  terrible  menace  involved  in  this  direction 
had  its  weight,  and  the  command  was  obeyed  ; 
and  after  Moses  had  appealed  to  what  was  to 
happen  as  a proof  of  the  authority  by  which  he 
acted,  the  earth  opened,  and  received  and  closed 
over  the  tents  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram. 
The  Reubenite  conspiiators  were  in  their  tents,  and 
perished  in  them  ; and  at  the  same  instant  Korah 
and  his  250,  who  were  offering  incense  at  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle,  were  destroyed  by  a fire  which 
‘ came  out  from  the  Lord  that  is,  most  probably, 
in  this  case,  from  out  of  the  cloud  in  which  hii 
presence  dwelt.  The  censers  which  they  had  used 


K.USSEMETII 


KUSSKMETII. 


219 


were  afterwards  made  into  plates,  to  form  an  outer 
covering  to  the  altar,  and  thus  became  a standing 
monument,  of  this  awful  transaction  (Num.  xvi.). 
On,  although  named  in  the  first  instance  along 
with  Dathan  and  Abiram,  does  not  further  appear 
either  in  the  rebellion  or  its  punishment.  It  is 
hence  supposed  that  he  repented  in  time : and 
Abendana  and  other  Rabbinical  writers  allege 
that  his  wife  prevailed  upon  him  to  abandon  the 
Cause. 

It  might  be  supposed  from  the  Scripture  narra- 
tive that  the  entire  families  of  the  conspirators 
perished  in  the  destruction  of  their  tents.  Doubt- 
less all  who  were  in  the  tents  perished  ; but  as  the 
descendants  ofKorah  afterwards  became  eminent 
in  the  Levitieal  service,  it  is  clear  that  his  sons 
were  spared.  They  were  probably  living  in  sepa- 
rate tents,  orwere  among  those  who  sundered  them- 
selves from  the  conspirators  at  the  command  of 
Moses.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
sons  of  Korah  were  children  when  their  father 
perished.  The  Korahites  were  appointed  by 
David  to  the  office  of  guarding  the  doors  of  the 
temple,  and  of  singing  praises.  They,  in  fact, 
occupied  a distinguished  place  in  the  choral 
service  of  the  temple,  and  several  of  the  Psalms 
(xlii.  xliv.  xlix.  lxxxiv.  lxxxv.  lxxxvii.  lxxxviii.) 
are  inscribed  to  them.  Hem  an,  the  master  of  song 
under  David,  was  of  this  family,  and  his  genea- 
logy is  traced  through  Korah  up  to  Levi  (1  Chron. 
vi.  31-38.) 

KOTZ.  [Tiiorn.] 

KR1NGN.  [Lii.y.] 

KUSSEMETH  (n£|>3)  occurs  in  three 
places  of  Scripture.  In  the  Authorized  Version 
it  is  translated  rye  in  Exod.  ix.  32 ; Isa.  xxviii. 
25,  and  Jitches  in  Ezek.  iv.  9;  but  its  true  mean- 
ing still  remains  uncertain.  It  was  one  of  the  cul- 
tivated grains  both  of  Egypt  and  of  Syria,  and  one 
of  those  employed  as  an  article  of  diet.  It  was 
also  sown  along  with  wheat,  or,  at  least,  its  crop 
was  in  the  same  state  of  forwardness  ; for  we  learn 
from  Exod.  ix.  32,  that  in  the  seventh  plague  the 
hail-storm  smote  the  barley  which  was  in  the  ear, 
and  the  flax  which  was  boiled ; but  that  tire 
wheat  and  the  kussemeth  were  not  smitten,  for 
they  were  not  grown  up.  Respecting  the  wheat 
and  the  barley,  we  know  that  they  are  often 
town  and  come  to  maturity  in  different  months. 
Thus  Forskal  says,  ‘ Hordeum  cum  mense 
Februario  maturatur,  triticum  ad  fiuem  Martii 
persistit’  ( Flora  TEgypt.,  p.  43).  The  events 
above  referred  to  probably  took  place  in  February 
(vid.  Piet.  Bible).  That  kussemeth  was  culti- 
vated in  Palestine  we  learn  from  Isa.  xxviii.  25, 
where  it  is  mentioned  along  with  ketzah  (nigella) 
and  cumin,  wheat,  and  barley ; and  sown,  ac- 
cording to  some  translators,  ‘ on  the  extreme 
border  of  the  fields,’  as  a kind  of  fence  for  other 
kinds  of  corn.  This  is  quite  an  Oriental  practice, 
and  may  be  seen  in  the  case  of  flax  and  other 
grains  in  India,  at  the  present  day.  The  rye  is 
a grain  of  cold  climates,  and  is  not  cultivated 
even  in  the  south  of  Europe.  Korte  declares 
( Travels , p.  lf>8)  that,  no  rye  grows  in  Egypt; 
and  Shaw  states  (p.  351)  that  rye  is  little  known 
iri  Barbaiy  and  Egypt  (Rosenmuller,  p.  76). 
That  the  kussemeth  was  employed  for  making 
bread  by  the  Hebrews  we  know  from  Ezek.  iv. 
9,  where  the  prophet  is  directed  to  ‘ take  wheat, 


and  barley,  and  beans,  and  lentiles,  and  millet, 
and  kussemeth,  and  put  them  in  a vessel,  and 
make  bread  thereof.’ 


Though  it  is  very  unlikely  that  kussemeth  can 
mean  rye,  it  is  not  easy  to  say  what  cultivated  grain 
it  denotes.  The  principal  kinds  of  grain,  it  is  to 
be  observed,  are  mentioned  in  the  same  passages 
with  the  kussemeth.  Celsius  has,  as  usual,  with 
great  labour  and  learning,  collected  together  the 
different  translations  which  have,  been  given  of 
this  difficult  word.  In  the  Arabic  translation  of 
Exod.  ix.  32,  it  is  rendered  julban  : ‘ cicercula,  non 
circula,  ut  perperam  legitur  in  versione  Latina.’ 
By  other  Arabian  writers  it  is  considered  to  mean 
peas,  and  also  beans.  Many  translate  it  vicia,  or 
vetches,  as  in  the  Authorized  Version  of  Exod.  ix. 
32;  for  according  to  Maimonides  (ad  Tr.  Shahb. 
xx.  3),  carschinin  is  a kind  of  legume,  which  in 
the  Arabic  is  called  kirsana,  but  in  the  sacred 
language  kussemeth.  Both  julban  and  kirsana 
mean  species  of  pulse,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  ascer- 
tain the  specific  kinds.  The  majority,  however, 
instead  of  a legume,  consider  kussemeth  to  indi- 
cate one  of  the  cereal  grains,  as  the  rye  ( sccale ), 
or  the  oat  (avena),  neither  of  which  is  it  likely  to 
have  been.  These  have  probably  been  selected 
because  commentators  usually  adduce  such  grains 
as  they  themselves  are  acquainted  with,  or  have 
heard  of  as  commonly  cultivated.  Celsius,  how- 
ever, informs  us  that  in  the  Syriac  and  Chaldee 
versions  kusseaneth  is  translated  kunta ; far  in 
the  Latin  Vulgate;  far  adoreum , Guisio,  Tract. 
Peak,  viii.  5,  and  Tract.  Chilaim,  i.  1 ; £ea  in 
the  Septu&gint,  Isa.  xxviii.  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
and  others  render  it  speita.  So  Ben  Melech, 
on  Exod.  ix.,  and  Ezekiel  iv.,  says  ‘ kyssemeth, 
vulgo  speita ,'  anil  the  Septuagint  has  vpa. 
Upon  which  Celsius  remarks:  ‘all  these — thatis, 
kunta,  far,  ador,  £ea,  speita,  and  ohvpa — are 
one  and  the  same  thing.’  This  he  proves  satis- 


220 


LA  AN  AH. 


LAANAH. 


factorily  hv  quotations  from  tlie  ancient  authors 
(l.  c.  ii.  100).  ])r.  Harris  states  that  the  word 

kussemeth  seems  to  be  derived  from  casam,  ‘ to 
have  long  lia.ii s and  that  hernie  a bearded  grain 
must  be  intended;  which  con  firms  the  probability 
of  spelt  being  t!  e true  meaning. 

Dioscoriiles  has  stated  (ii.  Ill),  that  there  are 
two  kinds  of  Zeia,  one  simple,  and  the  other 
called  dir.vccos.  JSprengel  concludes  that  this  is, 
without  doubt,  the  Triticum  Spelta  of  botanists; 
that  the  olyrci  was  a variety  which  Host  has  called 
Triticum  Zea  ; and  also  that,  the  simple  kind  is 
the  Triticum  monococcon  That,  these  grains  were 
cultivated  in  Egypt  and  Syria,  and  that  they 
were  esteemed  as  food  in  those  countries,  may 
also  be  satisfactorily  proved.  Thus  Herodotus 
states  that  the  Egyptians  employ  ulyra,  which 
others  call  zea , as  an  article  of  diet.  Pliny  (Hist. 
Nat.  xviii.  8)  mentions  it  as  found  both  in  Egypt 
and  in  Syria : ‘.Egypto  an  tern  ac  Syriae,  Cili- 
ciaeque  et  Asiae,  ac  Giaeciae  peculiares,  zea.  olyra, 
tiphe.’  So  in  more  modern  times  : • In  .Egvpto 
zeam  abunde  nasci  relert  Dapperus  descriptione 
Asiae  p.  loO.  Et  Monachos  circa  Jordanem, 
pane  d\vp'iTri  vesci,  scribit.  Johannes  Phocas  de 
Locis  Syr.  et  Palae^tinae  ]).  34’  (Cels.  1.  c.  100). 
That  it  was  highly  esteemed  by  ihe  ancients  is 
evident  from  Dioscoriiles  describing  it.  as  more 
nourishing  than  harlev,  and  grateful  in  taste. 
Pliny  also  (xviii.  11)  says:  ‘Ex  zea  pulcrius, 
quam  ex  tritico  lit  granum ;’  and  Salmasio  : ‘ quod 
lautior  panis  ex  zea  quam  ex  tritico  fieret.’  The 
goodness  of  this  grain  is  also  implied  from  the 
name  of  semen  having  been  especially  applied  to 
it  (C.  Bauhin,  Pinox , p.  22). 

Triticum  Spelta , or  Spelt,  is  in  many  respects 
so  closely  allied  to  the  common  wheats  as  to 
have  been  thought  by  some  old  authors  to  have 
been  the  original  stock  of  the  cultivated  kinds; 
but  for  this  there  is  no  foundation,  as  the  kind  culti- 
vated for  ages  in  Europe  does  not  differ  from  speci- 
8 mens  collected  in  a wild  state.  These  were  found  by 
a French  botanist,  Michaux,  in  Persia,  on  a moun- 
tain four  days’  journey  to  the  north  of  Hamadan. 
It  is  cultivated  in  many  parts  of  Germany,  in 
Switzerland,  in  the  south  of  France,  and  in  Italy. 
It  is  commonly  sown  in  spring,  and  collected  in 
July  and  August.  Though  some  circumstances 
seem  to  point  to  this  species  as  the  kussemeth  of 
Scripture,  the  subject  is  still  susceptible  of  further 
investigation,  anil  can  only  he  finally  determined 
by  first  ascertaining  the  modern  agriculture  of 
eastern  countries,  and  comparing  it  witli  the 
ancient  accounts  of  the  agriculture  of  Syria  and 

Egypt. — J.  F.  11. 

L. 

LAANAH  (H3yb),  translated  t cormwood, 
occurs  in  several  passages  of  Scripture,  in  most 
of  which  it  is  employed  in  a figurative  sense. 
Thus,  in  Deut.  xxix.  18,  ‘ Lest  there  be  among 
you  a root  that  beareth  gall  and  wormwood ,’  is 
applied  to  such  Israelites  as  should  worship  fo- 
reign gods.  Prov.  v.  4,  ‘ But  her  end  is  hitter  as 
wormwood.’  Jer.  ix.  15,  * Behold  I will  feed 
diem,  even  this  people,  with  wormwood,  and  give 
them  gall  to  drink.  So  in  Jer.  xxiii.  13,  and  in 
Lam.  iii.  15  and  19,  ‘Remember  mine  affliction 
and  my  misery,  the  wormwood  and  gall,’  where 


it  is  applied  to  public  and  private  calamities  i 
and  in  Amos  v.  7,  it  is  said  of  unrighteous  judges, 
‘ Ye  who  turn  judgment  to  wormwood  so  in 
verse  12,  but  here  t lie  word  laanah  is  translated 
hemlock.  That  laanah  was  a plant  of  an  extreme 
degree  of  bitterness,  is  evident  from  the  various 
passages  in  which  it  occurs;  and  it  has  hence,  a» 
Celsius  observes,  been  adopted  to  indicate  both 
the  sins  and  the  punishments  of  men.  Some 
translators,  as  the  Septuagint,  substitute  the  pro- 
per terms  which  they  conceive  the  plant  to 
denote  as  avaynr),  bHvvi),  iriKpia , and  S° 

the  Arab  translator  uses  words  signifying  do- 
lores,  adversa,  calamitates , aniaritudo.  The 
Hebrew  word  laanah  is  supposed  by  Lexico- 
graphers to  have  been  originally  derived  from 

the  same  root  as  the  Arabic  cr*1  laan , ‘ he  was  ac- 
cursed;’ from  which  comes  the  Arabic  laana , 

signifying  ‘ execration  ' or  ‘ malediction  and  as 
the  Hebrews  accounted  bitter  plants  as  pernicious 
and  poisonous,  so  they  typified  what  was  dis- 
agreeable or  calamitous  by  a bitter  plant.  Thus, 
as  Celsius  remarks,  Talmud ical  writers,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  blessings  and  maledictions  of  Moses, 
say,  ‘ Illae  mel,  liae  absinthium  erant.’  The 
Chaldee,  and  other  Oriental  translations,  as  the 
Syriac  and  Arabic,  in  Prov.  v.  4;  Lam.  iii.  19, 
with  the  Rabbins,  translate  laanah  by  words 
signifying  wormwood.  This  is  adopted  in  the 
Vulgate,  as  well  as  in  the  English  translation. 
In  Revelations  viii.  11,  we  have  the  Gieek  word 
Hif/wOos  employed ; ‘ And  the  name  of  the  star 
is  called  wormwood,  and  the  third  part  of  the 
waters  became  wormwood  (a\ptvOus),  and  many 
men  died  of  the  waters,  because  they  were  bitter.’ 
Some  other  plants  have  been  adduced,  as  the 
colocynth  and  the  oleander,  but  without,  anything 
to  support  them  ; while  different  kinds  of  arte- 
misia,  and  of  wormwood,  are  proverbial  for  their 
bitterness,  and  often  used  in  a figurative  sense 
by  ancient  authors  : — 

‘ Parce,  precor,  lacerare  tnum,  nec  amara  paternis 
Admiscere  velis,  ceu  melli  absinthia,  verbis.’ 
Paulin.  Ep.  ad  Ausonium. 
Celsius  has  no  doubt  that  a species  of  artemisia, 
or  wormwood,  is  intended  : ‘ Hanc  plantam  ama- 
ram  in  Judaea  et  Arabia  copiose  nascentem,  et 
interpretum  auctoritate  egregie  suflultam,  ipsam 
esse  Ebraeorum  pro  indubitato  habemus.’ 

That  species  of  artemisia  are  common  in  Syria 
and  Palestine  is  well  known,  as  all  travellers 
mention  their  abundance  in  particular  situations  ; 
hut  as  many  of  them  resemble  each  other  very 
closely  in  properties,  it  is  more  difficult  to  deter- 
mine what  particular  species  is  meant.  It  is  pro- 
bable, indeed,  that,  the  name  is  used  in  a generic 
rather  than  a specific  sense.  The  species  found  in 
Syria  have  already  been  mentioned  under  Ab- 
sinthium. The  species  most  celebrated  in 
Arabian  works  on  Materia  Medica  is  that  called 

sheeh,  which  is  conspicuous  for  its  bitter- 
ness, and  for  being  fatal  to  worms;  hence  it  has 
been  commonly  employed  as  an  anthelm.ntic  even 
to  our  own  times.  This  seems  to  be  the  same  species 
which  was  found  by  Rauwolff  in  Palestine,  and 
which  he  says  the  Arabs  call  scheha.  It  is  his 
‘ Absinthium  Sautouicum,  scheha  Arabum,  unde 
semen  lumbricorum  colligitur ;’  the  Absinthium 


LABAN. 


LABOUR. 


221 


Sanionicum  Judairum  of  Caspar  Bauhin,  in  his 
Pmax,  now  Artemisia  Judaica  ; though  it  is  pro- 
bable two  or  three  species  yield  the  Semoni  San- 
tonicum , or  wormwood  of  commerce,  which, 
instead  of  see  1,  consists  of  the  tops  of  the  plants, 
and  in  which  the  peduncles,  calyx  {lowers,  and 
young  seeds  are  intermixed.  Artemisia  Mari- 
tima  and  Judaica  are  two  of  the  plants  which 
yield  it. — J.  F.  R. 

LABAN,  son  of  Betlmel,  and  grandson  of 
Nahor,  brother  of  Rebekah,  and  lather  of  Jacob’s 
two  wives,  Leah  and  Rachel. 

LABOUR  is  that  steady  and  constant  effort  of 
the  bodily  frame  which  man  undertakes  for  his 
own  benefit,  and,  in  particular,  in  order  to  procure 
the  means  of  subsistence.  This  is  the  primary 
import  of  the  term  labour,  whence  are  derived 
its  applications  to  the  exertions  and  produc- 
tions of  the  mind,  and  even  to  the  affections,  the 
passions,  and  their  consequences.  In  Gen.  iii. 
19,  labour  is  set  forth  as  a part  of  the  primeval 
curse,  ‘ In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  thou  shalt  eat 
bread;’  and  doubtless  there  is  a view  of  labour 
which  exhibits  it  in  reality  as  a heavy,  sometimes 
a crushing  burden.  But  labour  is  by  no  means 
exclusively  An  evil,  nor  is  its  prosecution  a dis- 
honour. These  impressions,  false  though  they 
are,  have  wrought  a vast  and  complicated  amount 
of  harm  to  mail,  especially  to  the  industrious 
classes,  causing  these  classes,  that  is,  the  great 
majority  of  our  fellow-creatures,  to  be  regarded, 
and  consequently  to  be  treated,  even  in  Christian 
lands,  as  a pariah  caste,  as  hereditary  ‘ hewers 
of  wood  and  drawers  of  water,’  doomed  by 
Providence,  if  not  primarily  by  the  Creator 
himself,  to  a low  and  degrading  yoke,  and  ut- 
terly incapable  of  entertaining  lofty  sentiments, 
or  rising  to  a higher  position  ; to  be  restrained 
therefore  in  every  manifestation  of  impatience, 
lest  they  should  temporarily  gain  the  upper  hand, 
and  lay  waste  the  fair  fields  of  civilization  ; and 
to  be  kept  under  for  the  safety  of  society,  if  not 
for  their  own  safety,  by  social  burdens  and  the 
depressing  influences  of  disregard  and  contempt. 
A better  feeling,  however,  regarding  labour  and 
labourers,  is  beginning  to  prevail : these  notions, 
which  breathe  the  very  spirit  of  slavery  whence 
they  are  borrowed,  are  in  word  disowned,  while 
they  are  gradually  losing  their  hold  on  the  heart, 
and  their  influence  on  the  life.  Individuals 
rising  from  time  to  time  from  the  lowest  levels 
of  social  life  to  take,  occupy,  and  adorn  its  loftiest 
posts,  have  irresistibly  shown  that  there  is  no  de- 
pression in  society  which  the  favours  of  God  may 
not  reach.  Especially  has  a wider  and  more 
humane  spirit  begun  to  prevail  since  men  have 
learnt  more  accurately  to  know,  and  more  power- 
fully to  feel,  the  genius  and  spirit  of  the  Gospel, 
whose  originator  was  a carpenter's  son,  and  whose 
heralds  were  Galilean  fishermen.  Reason  and 
experience,  too,  in  this  as  in  all  cases,  have  come 
to  confirm  divinely  revealed  truth,  tending  for- 
cibly to  show  that  labour,  if  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances it  has  a curse  to  inflict,  has  also  many 
priceless  blessings  to  bestow. 

The  origin  of  the  view  of  labour  which  the 
passage  in  Genesis  (iii.  19)  presents,  may  be  found, 
as  has  been  intimated,  in  certain  unquestionable 
fa;ts  which  have  not  yet  passed  out  of  the  sphere 
of  reality.  That  labour  involves  pain  and  effort 
to  naan  appears  from  an  index  of  his  feelings. 


than  which  none  can  be  more  certain  ; for  labour 
is  often  used  as  synonymous  with  end  trance, 
trial,  and  grief  (Gen.  xxxv.  1 G) ; so  Virgil 
(AZn.  i.  597) 

‘ O sola  in  fund  03  Trojse  miserata  la  bores.’ 

These  not  unnatural  convictions  anti  feelings 
were  in  the  primitive  state  of  society  corroborated 
by  peculiar,  and  to  some  extent  local,  influences. 
Under  an  eastern  sky  hard  labour  is  an  almost 
intolerable  as  well  as  crushing  burden,  to  which, 
when  required,  hardly  any  but  slaves  will  submit. 
And  the  high-spirited,  free,  and  unrestrained  child 
of  the  desert,  as  well  as  the  more  tranquil,  gentle, 
but  not  less  free  shepherd  of  the  plains,  may  well, 
in  the  primeval  ages,  have  regarded  with  aversion 
and  stigmatised  with  opprobrium  the  hard,  and 
comparatively  constant,  toils  of  the  tillers  of  the 
ground. 

However,  what  is  even  a penalty  in  one  stage  of 
human  development  and  in  one  part  of  the  world, 
may,  in  the  progress  of  Divine  Providence,  be  con- 
verted into  a real  and  lasting  blessing — a blessing 
never  to  be  forfeited  unless  by  folly  and  sin. 
Certainly  the  rewards  of  labour  may  accumu- 
late so  plenfeously  around  human  beings  under 
certain  conditions,  that  they  may  come  to  have 
their  minds  more  frequently  struck,  and  so  more 
deeply  impressed,  by  the  advantages  than  by  the 
evils  and  inconveniences  of  labour.  Constituted 
as  the  frame  of  man  is,  labour  is  beneficial,  if  not 
necessary,  to  the  unfolding  of  his  physical  powers, 
and  when  well  apportioned  to  the  variable  degrees 
of  growing  strength,  powerfully  conduces,  with 
internal  impulses,  to  carry  the  body  to  its  state  of 
highest,  vigour  and  beauty,  imparting  meanwhile 
a sense  of  deep  and  pure  animal  enjoyment,  and 
making  food  as  grateful  as  it  is  nutritious,  the 
final  immediate  result  of  which  is  found  in  sound 
slumbers  and  healthful  feelings  : ‘the  sleep  of  a 
labouring  man  is  sweet’  (Eccl.  v.  12).  A fine 
passage,  which  confirms  these  views,  and  serves  to 
show  that  Scripture  in  process  of  time  regarded 
labour  otherwise  than  as  a curse,  may  be  found  in 
Ps.  ciii.  23,  21,  sq.,  in  which  both  labour  and  its 
fruits  are  placed  among  the  proofs  of  the  divine 
wisdom  and  bounty. 

Labour,  however,  like  every  other  divine  ap- 
pointment, may  be  perverted  by  misuse  into  an 
evil.  Excessive  labour  is  a curse.  Labour  apart 
from  certain  conditions,  whose  observance  is 
essential  to  our  physical  well-being,  entails  last- 
ing miseries.  Labour  which  is  both  severe,  long, 
broken  only  by  brief  intervals,  whether  of  riot  or 
of  sin,  is  an  infliction  as  hard  as  it  is  unjust— an 
evil  which  no  man  has  a right  to  impose  on  him- 
self, and  which  still  less  can  society  lie  justified 
in  compelling  or  leading  any  one  to  endure. 

If,  however,  excessive  labour  is  a crushing  load, 
the  absence  of  labour  is  a not  less  intolerable  bur- 
den. Of  all  conditions  in  society,  theirs  is  per- 
haps the  most  pitiab! e who,  possessing  some  degree 
of  mental  culture,  and  being  of  refined  and  per- 
haps morbid  sensibilities,  suffer  under  the  irre- 
mediable calamity  of  having  nothing  to  do;  no 
regular  pursuit,  that  is,  no  need  of  the  labour  of 
either  head  or  hands  for  the  sustenance  of  the 
body  or  the  upholding  of  their  social  state  ; who 
rise  in  the  morning  not  knowing  to  what  to  apply 
their  flagging  capabilities,  and  retire  to  rest  at 
night  wearied  and  jaded,  but  not  solaced  bv  the 
consciousness  of  having  gained  or  done  some  good. 


LABOUR. 


LAMECH. 


»2‘J 

Tliese  two  extremes — too  much  labour,  anil  too 
little  or  no  labour — are  among  the  greatest  of  the 
social  ills  under  which  English  society  is  at  pre- 
sent suffering.  They  are  ills  which  have  grown 
rapidly,  which  are  growing,  and  which  show  no 
signs  of  immediate  diminution.  They  are  under- 
mining the  foundations  of  religion,  which  is  in 
self-defence  required  to  raise  its  mighty  voice 
against  them.  A successful  effort  towards  the 
equalization  of  labour  would  be  a signal  blessing 
not  less  to  the*  rich  than  to  the  poor;  and  is  called 
for  as  much  by  the  divine  spirit  of  Christianity  as 
it.  is  by  considerations  drawn  from  the  interests  of 
individuals  and  the  welfare  of  society. 

If  enough  had  not  already  been  said  to  establish 
this  position,  we  could  refer  to  the  institution  at 
a very  early  stage  of  the  world's  history  of  the 
Sabbath,  by  which  one-seventh  of  man's  brief  life 
was  rescued  from  labour,  and  appropriated  to  rest 
of  body  and  to  that  improvement  of  the  mind 
which  tends  to  strengthen,  invigorate,  and  sustain 
the  entire  man.  To  the  same  effect,  was  the  divine 
appointment  of  those  numerous  holidays  under 
the  Mosaic  dispensation;  and  we  are  by  no 
means  sure  but  that  the  genius  of  the  Gospel  was, 
in  this  particular  at  least,  better  understood  and 
more  fully  honoured  in  those  days  and  under 
those  forms  of  Christian  faith  which  saved  for  the 
refreshment  and  recreation  of  the  labourer  many 
days  during  the  course  of  the  year,  than  it  is  now, 
when  we  appear  to  have  solved  the  unhappy 
problem  which  asks,  What  is  the  extreme  of  toil 
that  the  human  frame  can  bear,  without  regaid  to 
vigorous  sensations  or  length  of  days? 

In  regard  to  the  different  species  of  labour  in 
which  human  beings  have  been  engaged,  the 
Hebrews,  like  other  primitive  nations,  appear  to 
have  been  herdsmen  before  they  were  agricul- 
turists (Gen.  iv.  2,  12,  17,  22);  and  the  practice 
of  keeping  Hocks  and  herds  continued  in  high 
esteem  and  constant  observance  as  a regular 
employment  and  asocial  condition  (Judg.  i.  16; 
iv.  11;  Jer.  85;  Luke  ii.  8).  The  culture  of 
the  soil  came  in  course  of  t ime,  introducing  the 
discovery  and  exercise  of  the  practical  arts  of 
life,  which  eventually  led  to  those  refinements, 
both  as  to  processes  and  to  applications,  which 
precede,  if  they  do  not  create  the  fine  arts  (Gen. 
iv. ; xxvi.  12;  xxxiii.  19).  Agriculture,  indeed, 
became  the  chief  employment  of  the  Hebrew 
race  after  their  settlement  in  Canaan,  lay  at  the 
very  basis  of  the  constitution,  both  civil  and  re- 
ligious, which  Moses  gave  them,  was  held  in 
great  honour,  and  was  carried  on  by  the  high  as 
as  well  as  the  humble  in  position  (Judg.  vi.  11  ; 

1 Sam.  xi.  5;  1 Kings  xix.  19).  No  small  care 
was  bestowed  on  the  cultur  e of  the  vine,  which  grew 
•luxuriously  on  the  hills  of  Palestine  (Is.  v.  2,  5 ; 
Matt.  xxi.  33  ; Num.  xiii.  24).  The  vintage  was 
a season  of  jubilee  (Judg.  ix.  27;  Jer.  xxv.  30; 
Is.  xvi.  10).  The  hills  of  Palestine  were  also 
adorned  with  well  cultured  olive-gardens,  which 
produced  fruit  useful  for  food, for  anointing,  and  for 
medicine  (Is.  xvii.  6 ; xxiv.  13:  Dent.  xxiv.  2.0  ; 
Ezek.  xxvii.  17  ; 1 Kings  iv.  25  ; Hos.  xiv.  6,  7). 
Attention  was  also  given  to  the  culture  of  the  fig- 
tree  (2  Kings  xxi.  7 ; 1 Chron.  xxvii.  28),  as 
well  as  of  the  date-palm  (Lev.  xxiii.  40;  Judg. 
i.  16;  iv.  5;  xx.  33;  Dent,  xxxiv.  3),  and  also 
of  balsam  (Gen.  xliii.  11  ; Ezek.  xxvii.  17  ; 
txxvii.  25;  Jer.  via.  22).  For  the  rise  and 


progress  of  various  kinds  of  hand  labour  among 
the  people  of  Israel,  see  Handicraft. — J.  R.  B. 

LACHISH  (&^'?^  ; Sept.  A axis),  a city  in  the 
south  of  Judah,  in  the  plain  between  Adoraim 
and  Azekah  (Josh.  x.  3,  5,  31  ; xv.  39.)  It  wai 
rebuilt  and  fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi 
9),  and  seems  after  that  time  to  have  .been  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  strongest  fortresses  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  having  for  a time  braved  the 
assaults  ot  the  Assyrian  army  under  Sennacherib 
(2  Kings  xv i ii.  17  ; xix.  8 ;'  2 Chron.  xxxii.  9).. 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  place  it  seven  Roman 
miles  from  Eleulheropolis  towards  toe  south. 
There  has  not  been  any  more  recent  notice  cf 
the  place,  and  no  modern  vestige  of  the  name 
or  site  has  been  discovered. 

LAISH.  [Dan.] 

LAKES.  [Palestine.] 

LAMECH  ; Sept.  Ad/iey),  son  of 

Methusael,  and  father  of  Jabal,  Jubal,  Tubal- 
cain,  and  Naamah  (Gen.  iv.  18,  24,  &c.).  He 
is  recorded  to  have  taken  two  wives,  Adah  and 
Zillah ; and  there  appears  no  reason  why  the  fact 
should  have  been  mentioned,  unless  to  point  him 
out  as  the  author  of  the  evil  practice  of  polygamy. 
The  manner  in  which  the  sons  of  Lamech  distin- 
guished themselves  as  the  inventors  of  useful  arts, 
is  mentioned  under  their  several  names.  The 
most  remarkable  circumstance  in  connection  with 
Lamech  is  the  poetical  address  which  he  is  very 
abruptly  introduced  as  making  to  his  wives.  This 
is  not  only  remarkable  in  itself,  but  is  the  first  and 
most  ancient  piece  of  poetry  in  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures ; and,  indeed,  the  only  example  of  Antedi- 
luvian poetry  extant : — 

‘ Adah  anil  Zillah,  hear  my  voice  ! 

Wives  of  Lamech,  receive  my  speech! 

If  I slew  a man  to  my  wounding, 

And  a young  man — to  my  hurt : 

If  Cain  was  avenged  seven  times, 

Then  Lamech — seventy  times  seven." 

This  exhibits  the  parallelism  and  other  charac- 
teristics of  Hebrew  poetry,  the  development  of 
which  belongs  to  another  article  [Poetry],  It 
has- all  the  appearance  of  an  extract  from  an  old 
poem,  which  we  may  suppose  to  have  been  handed 
down  by  tradition  to  the  time  of  Moses.  It  is 
very  difficult  to  discover  to  what  it  refers,  and  the 
best  explanation  can  be  nothing  more  than  a con- 
jecture. The  Jewish  tradition,  or  rather  fiction, 
is  given  by  most  commentators,  and  is  too  absurd 
to  be  worth  relating.  The  speech,  so  far  as  we 
can  make  it  out,  would  seem  to  be,  as  Bishop 
Lowth  explains  ( Prcelect . iv.  91),  an  apology  foT 
committing  homicide,  in  his  own  defence,  upon 
some  man  who  had  violently  assaulted  him, 
and,  as  it  would  seem,  struck  and  wounded  him  ; 
and  he  opposes  a homicide  of  this  nature  to  the 
wilful  and  inexcusable  fratricide  of  Cain.  Under 
this  view  Lamech  would  appear  to  have  intended 
to  comfort  his  wives  by  the  assurance  that  he  was 
really  exposed  to  no  danger  from  this  act,  and  that 
any  attempt  upon  his  life  on  the  part  of  the 
friends  of  the  deceased  would  not  fail  t i bring  down 
upon  them  the  severest  vengeance  (comp.  Datke 
and  Rosenmiiller,  hi  loc.  ; see  also  Turner’s  Notes 
on  Genesis,  p.  209).  Another  view,  adopted  by 
Shuck  ford  in  his  Connection , supposes  that  the 
descendants  of  Cain  had  lived  for  a long  time  in 


LAMECH. 


LAMENTATIONS. 


223 


fear  of  vengeance  for  the  death  of  Abel  from  the 
familj  of  Adam  ; and  that  Larnech,  in  order  to 
persuade,  his  wives  of  the  groundlessness  of  such 
fears,  used  the  argument  in  (lie  text,  i.e.  if  any 
one  who  might  slay  Cain,  the  murderer  of  his 
brother,  was  threatened  with  sevenfold  vengeance, 
surely  they  must  expect  a far  sorer  punishment 
who  should  presume  to  kill  any  of  us  on  the  same 
account.’  This  explanation,  however,  is  less 
satisfactory  than  the  other;  for  although  both 
may  be  equally  conjectural,  this  requires  us  to 
assume  a greater  number  of  circumstances. 

2 LAMECH,  son  of  Methuselah,  and  father 
of  Noah  (Gen.  v.  28-31).  * 

LAMENTATIONS.  This  book  is  called  by 
the  Hebrews  ‘ how from  the  first  word  of 

the  book ; but  sometimes  they  call  it 
tears,  or  k lamentation,’  in  allusion  to  the 
mournful  character  of  the  work,  of  which  one 
would  conceive,  says  Bishop  Lovvth,  ‘ that  every 
letter  was  written  with  a tear,  every  word  the 
sound  of  a broken  heart.’  From  this,  or  rather 
from  the  translation  of  it  in  the  Septuagint 
(Qprjvoi),  conies  our  title  of  Lamentations. 

The  ascription  of  the  Lamentations  in  the  title 
is  of  no  authority  in  itself,  but  its  correctness  has 
never  been  doubted.  The  style  and  manner  of 
the  book  are  those  of  Jeremiah,  and  the  circum- 
stances alluded  to,  those  by  which  he  is  known  to 
have  been  surrounded.  This  reference  of  the 
Lamentations  to  Jeremiah  occurs  in  the  intro- 
ductory verse  which  is  found  in  the  Septuagint : — 
Kal  iyevero  pera  rb  al xpaXcaTiadrivai  Tbv’laparjA, 
real  'lepovcraAfyju.  iprjpwO’fjvai,  itcaQiaev  'lepepias 
KXalcav,  Kai  idp-fivri<re  rbv  Opr^vov  rovrov  eirl 
’Upova-aA-fi/x,  nal  elne.  ‘ And  it  came  to  pass, 
after  Israel  had  been  carried  away  captive,  and 
Jerusalem  was  become  desolate,  that  Jeremiah 
sat  weeping,  and  lamented  with  this  lamentation 
over  Jerusalem,  and  said.’  This  has  been  copied 
into  the  Arabic  and  Vulgate  versions;  but  as  it 
does  not  exist  in  the  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  or  Syriac, 
it  was  regarded  by  Jerome  as  spurious,  and  is 
not  admitted  into  his  version. 

It  is  disputed  whether  or  not  this  verse  existed 
in  the  Hebrew  copies  from  which  the  translation 
of  the  Seventy  was  made.  We  are  certainly  not 
bound  by  its  authority  if  disposed  to  question  the 
conclusion  which  it  supports.  But  it  at  least 
shows  the  opinion  which  prevailed  as  to  the 
author,  and  the  occasion  of  the  book,  at  the  time 
the  translation  was  made.  That  opinion,  as 
regards  the  author,  has  been  admitted  without 
dispute;  but  there  has  been  less  unanimity  re- 
specting the  subject-matter  of  the  Lamentations. 

Funeral  lamentations,  composed  by  Jeremiah 
upon  the  death  of  king  Josiah,  are  mentioned  in 
2 Cl  iron,  xxxv*  25,  and  are  there  said  to  have 
been  perpetuated  by  an  ordinance  in  Israel. 
That  the  Lamentations  thus  mentioned  are  those 
which  we  now  possess,  has  been  the  opinion  of 
many  scholars  of  great  eminence.  Josephus 
clearly  takes  this  view  (. Antiq . x.  5.  1),  as  do 
Jerome  ( Comment . in  Zech.  iii.  11),  Theodoret, 
and  others  of  the  fathers ; and  in  more  modern 
times,  Archbishop  Usher  (De  LXX.  Interpret .), 
Michaelis  (Note  on  Lowth's  Sac  Poet.  Hebr. 
Prajlect.  xxii.),  who  afterwards  changed  his  opi- 
oion,  Datne  ( Proph . Major,  ed.  1),  and  others. 
Oe  Wette  (Einleit.  § 273)  is  clearly  of  opinion 


that  the  passage  in  2 Chronicles  refers  to  the 
existing  hook  of  Lamentations,  and  that  the 
author  considered  the  death  of  Josiah  as  its  prin- 
cipal subject.  This  daring  writer  uses  so  little 
ceremony  with  the  author  of  the  book  of  Chro- 
nicles on  other  occasions,  that  his  own  opinion 
is  not  to  he  inferred  from  this  admission;  and 
we  are  not  surprised  to  find  from  what  follows, 
that  he  feels  at  liberty  to  take  a different  view 
from  the  one  which  he  believes  the  writer  of  Chro- 
nicles to  have  entertained. 

The  received  opinion,  namely,  that  in  accord- 
ance with  the  argument  prefixed  to  the  book  in  the 
Septuagint,  is  now  all  but  universally  acquiesced 
in.  It  is  adopted  by  nearly  all  commentators, 
who,  as  they  proceed  through  the  book,  find  that 
they  cannot  follow  out  the  details  on  any  other 
supposition.  Indeed,  but  for  the  reference  sug- 
gested by  the  passage  in  Chronicles,  no  one  would 
have  been  likely  to  imagine  that  such  expressions 
as  are  found  in  chap.  i.  1.2.  3,  7,  could  point  to 
any  other  circumstances  than  those  which  attended 
and  followed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Babylonians.  Besides,  the  prophet  throughout 
speaks  of  the  city  and  temple  of  Jerusalem  as 
ruined,  profaned,  and  desolated:  which  certainly 
was  not  the  case  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  or  at  his 
death.  We  may,  under  this  view,  regard  the  two 
first  chapters  as  occupied  chiefly  with  the  circum- 
stances of  the  siege,  and  those  immediately  fol- 
lowing that  event.  In  the  third  the  prophet 
deplores  the  calamities  and  persecutions  to  which 
he  had  himself  been  exposed  : the  fourth  refers  to 
the  ruin  and  desolation  of  the  city,  and  the  un- 
happy lot  of  Zedekiah;  and  the  fifth  and  last 
seems  to  be  a sort  of  prayer  in  the  name,  or  on 
behalf  of,  the  Jews  in  their  dispersion  and  cap- 
tivity. As  Jeremiah  himself  was  eventually 
compelled  to  withdraw  into  Egypt  much  against 
his  will  (Jer.  xliii.  6),  it  has  been  suggested  that 
the  last  chapter  was  possibly  written  there.  Pa- 
reau  refers  chap.  i.  to  Jer,  xxxvii.  5,  sqq. ; chap, 
iii.  to  Jer.  xxxviii.  2,  sqq.;  chap.  iv.  to  Jer. 
xxxix.  1,  sqq..  and  2 Kings  xxv.  1,  sqq.;  chap, 
ii.  to  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  temple; 
chap.  v.  is  admitted  to  he  the  latest,  and  to  refer 
to  the  time  after  that  event.  Evvald  says  that 
the  situation  is  the  same  throlighout,  and  only 
the  time  different.  In  chaps,  i.  and  ii.  we  find 
sorrow  without  consolation ; in  chap.  iii.  conso- 
lation for  the  poet  himself;  in  chap.  iv.  the 
lamentation  is  renewed  with  greater  violence; 
but  soon  the  whole  people,  as  if  urged  by  their 
own  spontaneous  impulse,  fall  to  weeping  and 
hoping’  (Die  Poctisclien  Bucher).  De  Wette 
describes  the  Lamentations  somewhat  curtly,  as 
‘ five  songs  relating  to  the  destruction  of  the  city 
of  Jerusalem  and  its  temple  (chaps,  i.  ii.  iv.  v.), 
and  to  the  unhappy  lot  of  the  poet  himself  (iii.). 
The  historical  relation  of  the  whole  cannot  be 
doubted  ; but  yet  there  seems  a gradual  ascent  in 
describing  the  condition  of  the  city  ’ ( Einleit . 
§ 273). 

Dr.  Blayney,  regarding  both  the  date  and 
occasion  of  the  Lamentations  as  established  by 
the  internal  evidence,  adds,  ‘ Nor  can  we  admire 
too  much  the  flow  of  that  full  and  graceful  pa- 
thetic eloquence,  in  which  the  author  pours  out 
the  effusions  of  a patriotic  heart,  and  piously 
weeps  over  the  ruins  of  his  venerable  country 
( Jeremiah , p.  370).  ‘ Never,’  says  an  uriquev 


LAMP. 


LAMP. 


%2i 

tionable  judge  of  these  matters,  * was  there  a 
more  rich  ami  elegant  variety  of  beautiful  images 
and  adjuncts,  arranged  together  within  so  small 
a compass,  nor  more  happily  chosen  and  applied 
(Lowth,  De  Sacra  Poesi  itebr.  Praeleot.  xxii.). 

Jarchi,  and  some  other  Jewish  commentators, 
fancy  that  the  book;  which,  alter  being  pub- 
licly read  by  Baruch,  was  cut  to  pieces  by  king 
Jehoiachiu.  and  cast  into  the  fire  (Jer.  xxxvi.  4,  5), 
was  composed  of  chaps,  i.  ii.  iv.  of  the  Lamenta- 
tions, to  which  chap.  v.  was  afterwards  added. 
But  this  notion  does  not.  require  confutation,  as 
there  is  not  a shadow  of  probability  in  its  favour. 

In  the  ancient  copies  this  book  is  supposed  to 
have  occupied  the  place  which  is  now  assigned 
to  it,  after  Jeremiah.  Indeed,  from  the  manner 
in  which  Josephus  reckons  up  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  ( Contra  Apion.  i.  $),  it  has  been 
supposed  that  Jeremiah  and  it  originally  formed 
but  one  book  (Piideaux,  Connection , i.  332). 
In  the  Bible  now  used  by  the  Jews,  however,  the 
book  of  Lamentations  stands  in  the  Hagiographa, 
and  among  the  live  Megilloth,  or  books  of  Ruth, 
Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Solomon's  Song.  They 
believe  that  it.  was  not  written  by  the  gift  of 
•rophecy,  but  by  the  spirit  of  God  (between 
which  they  make  a distinction),  and  give  this 
as  a reason  for  not  placing  it  among  the  prophets. 
»t  is  read  in  their  synagogues  on  the  ninth  of 
ne  month  Ab,  which  is  a fast  for  the  destruction 
*f  the  holy  city. 

LAMP  (TS^,  whence,  jierhaps,  Gr.  \apirds, 
*fie  p being  introduced  in  place  of  the  Hebrew 
Q,  Lat.  lampas , and  our  lamp).  Lamps  are  very 
often  mentioned  in  Scripture;  but  there  is 
nothing  to  give  any  notion  of  their  form.  Al- 
most the  only  fact  we  can  gather  is,  that  vegetable 
«ls  were  burnt  in  them,  and  especially,  if  not 
exclusively,  olive-oil.  This,  of  the  finest  quav 
.tty,  was  the  oil  used  in  the  seven  lamps  of  the 
Tabernacle  (Exod.  xxvii.  20).  It  is  somewhat, 
/emarkable,  that  while  the  golden  candlestick, 
or  rather  candelabrum,  is  so  minutely  described, 
Hot  a word  is  said  of  ihe  shape,  or  even  the  ma- 
terial, of  the  lamps  (Exod.  xxv.  37).  This  was, 
>ernaps,  because  they  were  to  be  of  the  common 


forms,  already  familiarly  known  to  the  Hebrews, 
wad  the  same  probably  which  were  used  in  Egypt. 


which  they  hard  just  quitted.  Ti.ey  were  in  this 
instance  doubtless  of  gold,  although  metal  is 
scarcely  the  best  substance  for  a lamp,  ^lie 
golden  candlestick  may  also  suggest,  that  lamps 
in  ordinary  use  were  placed  on  stands,  and  where 
more  than  one  was  required,  on  stands  with  two 
or  more  brandies.  The  modern  Orientals,  who 
are  satisfied  with  very  little  light  in  their  rooms, 
use  stands  of  brass  or  wood,  on  which  to  raise  the 
lamps  to  a sufficient,  height  above  the  lloor  on 
which  they  sit.  Such  stands  are  shaped  not  un- 
like a tall  candlestick,  spreading  out  at  the  top. 
Sometimes  the  lamps  are  placed  on  brackets 
against,  the  wall,  made  for  the  purpose,  and  often 
upon  stools.  Doubtless  the  same  contrivances 
were  employed  by  the  Hebrews. 

From  the  fact  that  lamps  were  carried  in  the 
pitchers  of  Gideon's  soldiers,  from  which,  at  the 
end  of  the  march,  they  were  taken  out,  and  borne 
in  the  hand  (Judg.  vii.  16,  2u),  we  may  with 
certainty  infer  that  they  were  not,  like  many  of 
the  classical  lamps,  entirely  open  at  top,  but  so 
shaped  that  the  oil  could  not  easily  be  spilled. 


This  was  remarkably  the  case  in  the  Egyptian 
specimens,  and  is  not  rare  in  the  classical.  Gi- 
deon’s lamps  must  also  have  had  handles;  but 
that  the  Hebrew  lamps  were  always  furnished 
with  handles  we  are  not.  bound  to  infer:  in  Egypt 
we  find  lamps  both  with  and  without  handles. 

Although  the  lamp-oils  of  the  Hebrews  were 
exclusively  vegetable,  it  is  probable  that  animal 
fat  was  used,  as  it  is  at  present,  by  the  Western 
Asiatics,  by  being  placed  in  a kind  of  lamp,  and 
burnt  by  means  of  a wick  inserted  in  it.  This 
we  have  often  witnessed  in  districts  where  oil- 
yielding  plants  are  not.  common. 

Cotton  wicks  are  now  used  throughout  Asia; 
but  the  Hebrews,  like  the  Egyptians,  probably 
employed  the  outer  and  coarser  fibre  of  flax 
(Pliny,  IHst.  Nat.  xix.  1);  and  perhaps  linen 
yarn,  if  the  Rabbins  are  correct,  in  alleging  that 
the  linen  dresses  of  the  priests  were  unravelled 
when  old,  to  furnish  wicks  for  the  sacred  lamps 
[Candlestick]. 

It  seems  that  the  Hebrews,  like  the  modern 
Orientals,  were  accustomed  to  burn  lamps  over 
night  in  their  chambers  ; and  this  practice  maj 
appear  to  give  point  to  the  expression  of  ‘ outer 
darkness,’ which  repeatedly  occurs  in  the  Net 


LAMPS. 


LAMPS.  324 


Testament  (Matt.  viii.  12 ; xxii.  13)  : the  force  is 
greater,  however,  when  the  contrast  implied  in  the 
term  outer  is  viewed  with  reference  to  the  effect 
produced  by  sudden  expulsion  into  the  darkness 
of  night  from  a chamber  highly  illuminated  for 
an  enter  tainment.  This  custom  of  burning  lamps 
at  night,  with  the  effect  produced  by  their  going 
out  or  being  extinguished,  supplies  various  figures 
to  the  sacred  writers  (2  Sam.  xxi.  17  ; Prov.  xiii. 
9 ; xx.  20).  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  keeping 
up  of  a lamp's  light  is  used  as  a symbol  of  en- 
during and  unbroken  succession  (1  Kings  xi.  36  ; 
xv.  4;  Ps.  cxxxii.  17). 

It  appears  from  Matt.  xxv.  1,  that  the  Jews  used 
tamps  and  torches  in  their  marriage-ceremonies, 
or  rather  when  the  bridegroom  came  to  conduct 
home  the  bride  by  night.  This  is  still  the  custom 
in  those  parts  of  the  East  where,  on  account  of 
the  heat  of  the  day,  the  bridal  procession  takes 
place  in  the  night  time.  The  connection  of  lamps 
and  torches  with  marriage-ceremonies  often  appears 
also  in  the  classical  poets  (Homer,  Iliad , vi. 
492;  Eurip.  Phceniss.  346;  Medea,  1027;  Virg. 
Eclog.  viii.  29);  and  indeed  Hymen,  the  god  of 
marriage,  was  figured  as  bearing  a torch.  The  same 
connection,  it  may  be  observed,  is  still  preserved  in 
Western  Asia,  even  where  it  is  no  longer  usual  to 
bring  home  the  bride  by  night.  During  two, or  three, 
or  more  nights  preceding  the  wedding,  the  street 
or  quarter  in  which  the  bridegroom  lives  is  illu- 
minated with  chandeliers  and  lanterns,  or  with  lan- 
terns and  small  lamps  suspended  from  cords  drawn 
across  from  the  bridegroom’s  and  several  other 


vol.  n.  IQ 


ned  and  green,  are  attached  to  other  cords  (Lane’a 
Mod.  Egypt,  i.  201).  A modern  lantern  much  used 
on  these  occasions,  with  lamps  hung  about  it  and 
suspended  from  it,  is  represented  in  the  preceding 
cut  (No.  379).  The  lamps  used  separately  on  such 
occasions  are  represented  in  the  following  cut  (No. 
380).  Figs.  1,  3,  and  5,  show  very  distinctly  the 


shape  of  these  lamps,  with  the  conical  receptacle 
of  wood  which  serves  to  protect  the  flame  from 
the  wind.  Lamps  of  this  kind  are  sometimes 
hung  over  doors.  The  shape  in  fig.  3 is  also  that 
of  a much-used  in-door  lamp.  It  is  a small 
vessel  of  glass,  having  a small  tube  at  the  bottom, 
in  which  is  stuck  a wick  formed  of  cotton  twisted 
round  a piece  of  straw  : some  water  is  poured  in 
first,  and  then  the  oil.  Lamps  very  nearly  of 
this  shape  appear  on  the  Egypfian  monuments, 
and  they  seem  also  to  be  of  glass  (Wilkinson’s 
Ancient  Egyptians , iii.  101  ; v.  376).  If  ilia 
Egyptians  had  lamps  of  glass,  there  is  no  reasor 
why  the  Jews  also  might  not  have  had  them,  espe- 
cially as  this  material  is  more  proper  for  lamps  in- 
tended to  be  hung  up,  and  therefore  to  cast  their 
light  down  from  above.  The  Jews  certainly  used 
lamps  in  other  festivals  besides  those  of  marriage. 
The  Roman  satirist  (Persius,  Sat.  v.  179)  ex- 
pressly describes  them  as  making  illuminations  at 
their  festivals  by  lamps  hung  up  and  arranged  in 
an  orderly  manner;  and  theScriptural  intimations, 
so  far  as  they  go,  agree  with  this  description.  If  this 
custom  had  not  been  so  general  in  the  ancient  and 
modern  East,  it  might  have  been  supposed  that  the 
Jews  adopted  it  from  the  Egyptians,  who,  accord- 
ing to  Herodotus  (ii.  62),  had  a ‘ Feast  of  Lamps,’ 
which  was  celebrated  at  Sais,  and,  indeed, 
throughout  the  country  at  a certain  season  of  the 
year.  The  description  which  the  historian  gives 
of  the  lamps  employed  on  this  occasion,  strictly 
applies  to  those  in  modern  use  already  described, 
and  the  concurrence  of  both  these  sources  of  illus- 
tration strengthens  the  probable  analogy  of  Jewish 
usage.  He  speaks  of  them  as  * small  vases  filled 
with  salt  and  olive-oil,  in  which  the  wick  floated, 
and  burnt  during  the  whole  night.’  It  does  not 
indeed  appear  of  what  materials  these  vases  were 
made ; but  we  may  reasonably  suppose  them  to 
have  been  of  glass. 

The  later  Jews  had  even  something  like  this 
feast  among  themselves.  A ‘ Feast,  of  Lamps’  was 
held  every  year  on  the  twenty-fifth  of  the  month 
Chisleu.  It  was  founded  by  Judas  Macca- 
baeus  in  celebration  of  the  restoration  of  the 
temple  worship  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  7.  7),  and 
nas  ever  since  been  observed  try  the  lighting  up 
of  lamps  or  candles  on  that  day  in  al1  riie  coun- 
tries of  their  dispersion  (Maimon.  T jsh.  Ilashl * 


226 


LANTERN 


LAODICEA. 


nah,  fol.  8).  Other  Orientals  have  at  this  day  a 
similar  feast,  of  which  the  ‘ Feast  of  Lanterns' 
among  the  Chinese  is,  perhaps,  the  best  known 
(Davis’s  Chinese , p.  13S). 

LANGUAGE.  [Tongues,  Confusi®n  of.] 

LANTERN  ( <pav6s ).  This  word  occurs  only 
in  John  xviii.  3,  where  the  party  of  men  which 
went  out  of  Jerusalem  to  apprehend  Jesus  in  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane  is  described  as  being  pro- 
vided ‘with  lanterns  and  torches.1  In  the  article 
Lamp  it  has  been  shown  that  the  Jewish  lantern, 
or,  if  we  may  so  call  it,  lamp-frame,  was  similar 
to  that  now  in  use  among  the  Orientals.  Another 
of  the  same  kind  is  represented  in  the  annexed 
engraving  (No.  381,  fig.  1). 


As  the  streets  of  Eastern  towns  are  not  lighted 
at  night,  and  never  were  so,  lanterns  are  used  to 
an  extent  not  known  among  us.  Such,  doubtless, 
was  also  formerly  the  case;  and  it  is  therefore 


remarkable  that  the  only  trace  of  a lantern  which 
the  Egyptian  monuments  offer,  is  that  contained 
in  the  present  engraving  (No.  382).  In  this  case 
it  seems  to  be  borne  by  he  night-watch,  or  civic 


guard,  and  is  shaped  like  those  in  common  um 
among  ourselves.  A similar  lantern  is  at  this 
day  used  in  Persia,  and  perhaps  does  i.ot  ma- 
terially differ  from  those  mentioned  in  Scripture. 
More  common  at  present,  in  Western  Asia  is  a 
large  folding  lantern  of  waxed  cloth  strained  over 
rings  of  wire,  with  a top  and  bottom  of  tinned 
copper  (No.  381,  figs.  2,  3).  It  is  usually  about 
two  feet  long  by  nine  inches  in  diameter,  and  is 
carried  by  servants  before  their  masters,  who  often 
pay  visits  to  their  friends  at  or  alter  supper -time. 
In  many  Eastern  towns  the  municipal  law  for- 
bids any  one  to  be  in  the  streets  after  nightfall 
without  a lantern. 

LAODICEA  (AaoSficeta).  There  were  four 
places  of  this  name,  which  it  may  be  well  to  dis- 
tinguish, in  order  to  prevent  them  from  being  con- 
founded with  one  another.  The  first  was  in  the 
western  part  of  Phrygia,  on  the  borders  of  Lydia  ; 
the  second,  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  same  country, 
denominated  Laodicea  Combusta ; the  third,  on 
the  coast  of  Syria,  called  Laodicea  ad  Mare,  and 
serving  as  the  port  of  Aleppo  ; and  the  fourth,  in 
the  same  country,  called  Laodicea  ad  Libanum, 
from  its  proximity  to  that  mountain.  The  third 
of  these,  that  on  the  coast  of  Syria,  was  destroyed 
by  the  great  earthquake  of  Aleppo  in  August, 
1822,  and  at  the  time  of  that  event  was  supposed 
by  many  to  be  the  Laodicea  of  Scripture,  al- 
though in  fact  not  less  than  four  hundred  miles 
from  it.  But  the  first  named,  lying  on  the  confines 
of  Phrygia  and  Lydia,  about  forty  miles  east  of 
Ephesus,  is  the  only  Laodicea  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  and  is  that  one  of  the  ‘ seven  churches 
in  Asia1  to  which  St.  John  was  commissioned  to 
deliver  the  awful  warning  contained  in  Rev.  iii. 
14-19.  The  fulfilment  of  this  warning  is  to  be 
sought,  as  we  take  it,  in  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  which  existed  in  that  city,  and  nol 
in  the  stone  and  mortar  of  the  city  itself;  for  it  is 
not  the  city,  but  ‘the  church  of  the  Laodiceans,* 
which  is  denounced.  It  is  true  that  the  city  is 
utterly  ruined ; but  this  is  the  case  with  innu- 
merable other  towns  in  Asia  Minor.  It  is  the 
precise  reference  to  the  seven  churches  as  such, 
without  any  other  reference  to  the  cities  than  as 
giving  them  a name,  which  imparts  a marked  dis- 
tinction to  the  Apocalyptic  prophecies.  But  this 
has  been  little  heeded  by  writers  on  the  subject, 
who  somewhat  unaccountably  seek,  in  the  actual 
and  material  condition  of  these  cities,  the  accom- 
plishment of  spiritual  warnings  and  denunciations. 
At  the  present  day,  would  an  authorized  denun- 
ciation of  ‘ the  church  in  London,1  as  in  danger  1 
of  being  cast  forth  for  its  lukewarmness,  be  un- 
derstood to  imply  that  London  itself  was  destined 
to  become  a heap  of  ruins,  with  its  bridges  broken 
down,  and  its  palaces  and  temples  overthrown? 

Laodicea  was  the  capital  of  Greater  Phrygia, 
and  a very  considerable  city  at  the  time  it  was 
named  in  Scripture  (Strabo,  p.  578)  ; but  the 
frequency  of  earthquakes,  to  which  this  district 
has  always  been  liable,  demolished,  some  ages 
after,  great  part  of  the  city,  destroyed  many  of 
the  inhabitants,  and  eventually  obliged  the  re- 
mainder to  abandon  the  spot  altogether.  Smiih, 
in  his  Journey  to  the  Seven  Churches  (1671),  was 
the  first  to  describe  the  site  of  Laodicea.  He  was 
followed  by  Chandler  and  Pococke ; and  the  lo- 
cality has,  within  the  present  century,  been  visited 
by  Mr.  Hartley,  Mr.  Arundel!,  and  Col.  Leake. 


LAPWING. 


LAPWING. 


227 


Ls/xlicaa  is  now  a deserted  place,  called  by  the 
Turks  Eski-hissar  (Old  Castle),  a Turkish  word 
equivalent  to  Paleo-kastrOj  which  the  Greeks  so 
frequently  apply  to  aucient  sites.  From  its  ruins, 
Laodicea  seems  to  have  been  situated  upon  six  or 
seven  hills,  taking  up  a large  extent  of  ground. 
To  the  north  and  north-east  runs  the  river  Lycus, 
about  a mile  and  a half  distant ; but  nearer  it 
is  watered  by  two  small  streams,  the  Asopus  and 
Caprus,  the  one  to  the  west,  and  the  other  to  the 
south-east,  both  passing  into  the  Lycus,  which 
last  flows  into  the  Maeander  (Smith,  p.  85). 

Laodicea  preserves  great  remains  of  its  import- 
ance as  the  residence  of  the  Roman  governors  of 
Asia  under  the  emperors;  namely,  a stadium,  in 


uncommon  preservation,  three  theatres,  one  cf 
which  is  450  feet  in  diameter,  and  the  ruins  of 
several  other  buildings  (Antiq.  of  Ionia,  pt.  ii. 
p.  32 ; Chandler’s  Asia  Minor,  c.  67).  Col.  Leake 
says:  ‘There  are  few  ancient  sites  more  likely 
than  Laodicea  to  preserve  many  curious  remains 
of  antiquity  beneath  the  surface  of  the  soil ; its 
opulence,  and  the  earthquakes  to  which  it  was 
subject,  rendering  it  probable  that  valuable  works 
of  art  were  often  there  buried  beneath  the  ruins 
of  the  public  and  private  edifices  (Cicero,  Epnst. 
ad  Amic.  ii.  17;  iii.  5;  v.  20;  Tacit.  Annal. 
xiv.  27).  And  a similar  remark,  though  in  a 
lesser  degree,  perhaps,  will  apply  to  the  other 
cities  of  the  vale  of  the  Maeander,  as  well  as  to 


383.  [Laodicea.] 


some  of  those  situated  to  the  north  of  Mount 
Tmolus ; for  Strabo  (pp.  579,  628,  630)  informs 
us  that  Philadelphia,  Sardis,  and  Magnesia  of 
Sipylus,  were,  not  less  than  Laodicea  and  the 
cities  of  the  Maeander  as  far  as  Apameia  at  the 
sources  of  that  river,  subject  to  the  same  dreadful 
calamity’  (Geography  of  Asia  Minor , p.  253). 

LAPWING,  in  our  version,  is  used  for 
riB'D-n  duhiphath,  a word  which,  occurring 
only  in  Lev.  xi.  19,  and  Deut.  jciv.  18,  affords 
no  internal  or  collateral  evidence  to  establish 
the  propriety  of  the  translation.  It  has  been 
surmised  to  mean  ‘ double-crest which  is  suf- 
ficiently correct  when  applied  to  the  hoopoe ; 
but.  less  so  when  applied  to  the  lapwing,  or  the 
cock  of  tlie  woods,  Tetrao  Urogallus  ; for  which 
bird  Bochart  produces  a more  direct  etymology  ; 
and  he  might  have  appealed  to  the  fact,  that  the 
Attagan  visits  Syria  in  winter,  exclusive  of  at 
least  two  species  of  Pterocles,  or  sand-grouse, 
which  probably  remain  all  the  year.  But  these 
names  were  anciently,  as  well  as  in  modern 
times,  so  often  confounded,  that  the  Greek  writers 
even  used  the  term  Gallinacea  to  denote  the  hoo- 


poe; for  Hesychius  explains  eiroij/  in  ASscnyim 
by  the  Greek  appellations  of  ‘ moor-cock’  and 
‘ mountain-cock  ’ (see  Bochart,  in  voce  Duki - 
phath) ; and  in  modern  languages  similar  mis- 
takes respecting  this  bird  are  abundant.  The 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate  agree  with  the  Arabian 
interpreters  in  translating  the  Hebrew  nS'lD'H  by 
€7 ro\f/,  and  upapa;  and  as  the  Syrian  name  li 
kikuphah,  and  the  Egyptian  kukuphah,  both 
apparently  of  the  same  origin  as  duhiphath,  the  1 
propriety  of  substituting  hoopoe  for  lapwing  m 
our  version  appears  sufficiently  established. 

The  hoopoe  is  not  uncommon  in  Palestine  at 
this  day,  and  was  from  remote  ages  a bird  of 
mystery.  The  summit  of  the  augural  rod  is  said 
to  have  been  carved  in  the  form  of  an  hoopoe’s 
head  ; and  one  of  the  kind  is  still  used  by  India** 
gosseins,  and  even  Armenian  bishops,  attention 
being  no  doubt  drawn  to  the  bird  by  its  pecu- 
liarly arranged  black  and  white  bars  upon  a de- 
licate vinous  fawn-colour,  and  further  embellished 
with  a beautiful  fan-shaped  crest  of  the  same 
colour,  tipped  with  white  and  black.  Its  appel» 
lations  in  all  languages  appear  to  be  either  imita- 
tions of  the  bird’s  voice,  or  indications  of  its  filthy 


LATIN  ISMS. 


LATINISMS. 


*28 

habits ; which,  however,  modern  ornithologists 
deny,  or  do  not  notice.  In  Egypt  these  birds  are 


numerous ; forming,  probably,  two  species,  the  one 
permanently  resident  about  human  habitations, 
the  other  migratory,  and  the  same  that  visits 
Europe.  The  latter  wades  in  the  mud  when  the 
Nile  has  subsided,  and  seeks  for  worms  and  in- 
sects ; and  the  former  is  known  to  rear  its  young 
so  much  immersed  in  the  shards  and  fragments  of 
beetles,  & c.  as  to  cause  a disagreeable  smell 
about  its  nest,  which  is  always  in  holes  or  in 
hollow  trees.  Though  an  unclean  bird  in  the 
Hebrew  law,  the  common  migratory  hoopoe  is 
eaten  in  Egypt,  and  sometimes  also  in  Italy; 
but  the  stationary  species  is  considered  inedible. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  give  further  description  of  a 
bird  so  well  known  as  the  hoopoe,  which,  though 
not  common,  is  nevertheless  an  annual  visitant 
of  England,  arriving  soon  after  the  cuckoo. — 

C.  H.  S. 

LATINISMS.  This  word,  which  properly 
signifies  idioms  or  phraseology  peculiar  to  the 
Latin  tongue,  is  extended  by  Biblical  critics  so  as 
to  include  also  the  Latin  words  occurring  in  the 
Greek  Testament.  It  is  but  reasonable  to  expect 
the  existence  of  Latinisms  in  the  language  of 
every  country  subdued  by  the  Romans.  The  in- 
troduction of  their  civil  and  military  officers,  of 
settlers,  and  merchants,  would  naturally  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  infusion  of  Roman  terms,  &c.,  into 
the  language  of  their  new  subjects'  There  would 
be  many  new  tilings  made  known  to  some  of  them, 
for  which  they  could  find  no  corresponding  word 
in  their  own  tongues.  The  circumstance  that  the 
proceedings  in  courts  of  law  were,  in  every  part  of 
the  Roman  empire,  conducted  in  the  Latin  lan- 
guage, would  necessarily  cause  the  introduction 
of  many  Roman  words  into  the  department  of 
law,  as  might  be  amply  illustrated  from  the  pre- 
sent state  of  the  juridical  language  in  every  coun- 
try once  subject  to  the  Romans,  and  among  others, 
our  own.  Valerius  Maximus  (ii.  2.  2),  indeed, 
records  the  tenacity  of  the  ancient  Romans  for 
their  language  in  their  intercourse  with  the  Greeks, 
ami  their  strenuous  endeavours  to  propagate  it 
through  all  their  dominions.  The  Latinisms  in 
the  New  Testament  are  of  three  kinds,  consisting 
(1)  of  Latin  words  Th  Greek  letters;  (2)  of  Latin 
senses  of  Greek  words ; and  (3)  of  those  forms  of 
speech  wnich  are  more  properly  called  Latinisms. 
The  following  may  suffice  as  examples  of  each 
of  these  : First,  Latin  words  in  Greek  characters  : 
icrcrdpioy,  ‘ farthing,’  from  the  Latin  assarius 
(Matt.  x.  2 9^.  This  word  is  used  likewise  by 


Plutarch,  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  and  Athe- 
naeus,  as  may  be  seen  in  Wetstein,  in  loc.  llnvaos, 
cetisus  (Matt.  xvii.  25):  KevTvplov,  centurio  (Mark 
xv.  39),  &c.  : Aeyetov,  legio,  ‘ legion’  (Matt,  xxvi 
53).  Polybius  (b.c.  150)  has  also  adopted  the 
Roman  military  terms  (vi.  17)  1616.  'S.irtKov- 
Aarajp,  speculator , ‘ a spy,’  from  specular,  ‘ to 
look  about or,  as  Wahl  and  Schleusner  think, 
from  spiculum , the  weapon  carried  by  the  specu- 
lator. The  word  describes  the  emperor’s  life- 
guards, who,  among  other  duties,  punished  the  con- 
demned ; hence  ‘ an  executioner  ’ (Mark  vi.  27), 
margin,  ‘ one  of  his  guard ;’  (comp.  Tacitus,  Hist. 
i.  25 ; Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33.  7 ; Seneca, 
De  Ira , i.  16).  Ma/ceAAov,  from  macellum , ‘ a mar- 
ket-place for  llesh*  (1  Cor.  x.  25).  As  Corinth 
was  now  a Roman  colony,  it  is  only  consistent  to 
find  that  the  inhabitants  had  adopted  this  name 
for  their  public  market,  and  that  Paul,  writing  to 
them,  should  employ  it.  MiAtov  (Matt.  v.  41). 
This  word  is  also  used  by  Polybius  (xxxiv.  11.8) 
and  Strabo  (v.  p.  332).  Secondly,  Latin  senses 
of  Greek  words  : as  Kapirds  (Rom.  xv.  28),  ‘ fruit,’ 
where  it  seems  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  emolu - 
mentum,  ‘ gain  upon  money  lent,’  &c. : eiraivos, 
‘praise,’  in  the  juridical  sense  of  elogium,  a tes- 
timonial either  of  honour  or  reproach  (1  Cor.  iv. 
5).  Thirdly,  those  forms  of  speech  which  are  pro- 
perly called  Latinisms : as  jiovAiipevos  rip  vx^V 
rb  iKavbv  -iroiriacu , ‘ willing  to  content  the  people' 
(Mark  xv.  15),  which  corresponds  to  the  phrase 
satisfacere  alicui:  AajSeiV  r b hcavbv  nrapd,  ‘ to  take 
security  of,’  satis  accipere  ab  (Acts  xvii.  9^) : 8b- 
epyacriav,  ‘ give  diligence,’  da  operam  (Luxe  xii 
58) ; the  phrase  remittei'e  ad  alium  judieem  iv 
retained  in  Luke  xxiii.  15  : erv  bxpei,  ‘ see  thou  to 
that,’  tu  videris  (Matt,  xxvii.  4)  (Aricler,  Ilerme- 
neut.  Biblica,\ ieunae,  1813,  p.  99;  Michaelis 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  by  Marsh. 
Cambridge,  1793,  vol.  i.  part  i.  p.  163,  sqq.). 
The  importance  of  the  Latinisms  in  the  Greek 
Testament,  consists  in  this,  that,  as  we  have  partly 
shown  (and  the  proof  might  be  much  extended) 
they  are  to  be  found  in  the  best  Greek  writers  of  the 
same  era.  Their  occurrence,  therefore,  in  the  New 
Testament  adds  one  thread  more  to  that  compli- 
cation of  probabilities  with  which  the  Christian 
history  is  attended.  Had  the  Greek  Testament 
been  free  from  them,  the  objection,  though  recon- 
dite, would  have  been  strong.  At  the  same  time 
the  subject  is  intricate,  and  admits  of  much  dis- 
cussion. Dr.  Marsh  disputes  some  of  the  instances 
adduced  by  Michaelis  ( ut  supra,  p.  431,  sqq.). 
Dresigius  even  contends  that  there  are  no  Latin- 
isms in  the  New  Testament.  ( De  Latinismis, 
Leipsig,  1726;  and  see  his  Vindicia-  Disscrta- 
tionis  de  Latinismis ).  Even  Aricler  allows  that 
some  instances  adduced  by  him  may  have  a 
purely  Greek  origin.  Truth,  as  usual,  lies  in  the 
middle,  and  there  are,  no  doubt,  many  irre- 
fragable instances  of  Latinisms,  which  will  amply 
repay  the  attention  of  the  student  (see  Georgii 
Ilierocrit.  de  Latinismis  Novi  Test.  Witteberg, 
1733;  Kypke,  Observ.  Sacr.  ii.  219,  Wratis. 
1755;  Pritii  Introductio  in  Lect.  Nov.  Test., 
p.  207.  sqq.  Leips.  1722.  Winer  refers  also  to 
Wernsdorf,  De  Christo  Latine  loquente,  p.  19; 
Jahn's  Archiv.  ii.  iv. ; Olearius,  De  Stylo  Nov. 
Test.  p.  368,  sqq.;  .Tnchofer,  Sacrte  Latinitatu 
llistoria,  Prag.  1742;  s eeBibl.  Real-  Worterbue\ 
art.  Rower , Romisches , &c.\ — J F.  D. 


LAVER. 


LAW. 


229 


LAVER  pY'?  and  TO  ; Sept.  \ovrP6v),  a 
basin  to  contain  the  water  used  by  the  priests  in 
their  ablutions  during  their  sacred  ministrations. 
There  was  one  of  brass  (fabricated  out  of 
the  metal  mirrors  which  the  women  brought 
from  Egypt,  Exod.  xxxviii.  8).  It  had  a ‘foot’ 
or  base,  which,  from  the  manner  in  which  1 the 
Iaver  and  its  foot’  are  mentioned,  must  have 
been  a conspicuous  feature,  and  was  perhaps  se- 
parable from  the  basin  itself  for  the  purpose  of 
removal.  We  are  not  informed  of  the  size  or 
shape  of  this  laver;  but  it  appears  to  have  been 
large.  It  stood  between  the  altar  of  burnt- 
offerings  and.  the  door  of.  the  tabernacle  (Exod. 
xxx.  18-21 ; xl.  30-32).  The  water  of  this  laver 
seems  to  have  served  the  double  purpose  of 
washing  the  parts  of  the  sacrifices,  and  the  hands 
and  feet  of  the  priests.  But  in  the  temple  of  Solo- 
mon, when  the  number  of  both  priests  and  victims 
had  greatly  increased,  ten  lavers  were  used  for 
the  sacrifices,  and  the  molten  sea  for  the  personal 
ablutions  of  the  priests  (2  Chron.  iv.  6).  These 
lavers  are  more  minutely  described  than  that  of 
the  tabernacle.  So  far  as  can  be  made  out  from 
the  description,  they  consisted  of  a square  base 
or  stand  mounted  upon  rollers  or  wheels,  and 
adorned  with  figures  of  palm-trees,  cherubim, 
lions,  and  oxen.  The  stand  doubtless  formed  a 
hollow  basin  for  receiving  the  water  which  fell 
from  the  laver  itself,  and  which  appears  to  have 
been  drawn  from  it  by  means  of  cocks  (1  Kings 
vii.  27-39).  The  form  of  the  lavers  is  not  men- 
tioned ; but  it  is  stated  that  each  of  them  con- 
tained forty  baths,  or,  according  to  the  usual 
computation,  about  300  English  gallons.  From 
the  manner  in  which  the  bases  of  the  lavers  are 
described,  it  is  evident  that  they  were  regarded 
as  admirable  works  of  art;  but  it  is  difficult  to 
follow  out  the  details  which  are  given.  This  is 
evinced  by  the  great  discrepancy  in  the  different 
figures,  drawn  from  the  descriptions  which  are 
given  by  Lamy,  Calmet,  and  Villalpandus. 

In  the  second  temple  there  appears  to  have 
been  only  one  laver.  Of  its  size  or  shape  we 
have  no  information,  but  it  was  probably  like 
those  of  Solomon's  temple. 

LAW  (TTTlPl ; Gr.  v6yos ) means  a rule  of  con- 
duct enforced  by  an  authority  superior  to  that  of  the 
moral  beings  to  whom  it  is  given.  The  word  law 
is  sometimes  also  employed  in  order  to  express 
iiot  only  the  moral  connection  between  free  agents 
of  an  inferior  and  others  of  a superior  power,  but 
also  in  order  to  express  the  nexus  causalis,  the 
connection  between  cause  and  effect  in  inanimate 
nature.  However,  the  expression  law  of  nature , 
lex  % atxirce,  is  improper  and  figurative.  The 
term  law  implies,  in  its  strict  sense,  spontaneity , 
or  the  power  of  deciding  between  right  and  wrong, 
and  of  choosing  between  good  and  evil,  as  well 
on  the  part  of  the  lawgiver,  as  on  the  part  of  those 
who  have  to  regulate  their  conduct  according  to 
his  dictates.  It  frequently  signifies  not  merely 

on  individual  rule  of  conduct,  as  H^iyn  mitt, 
the  law  of  burnt  offering  ; mWn  min  (Lev. 
xii.  2),  the  law  concerning  the  conduct  of 
wamen  after  childbirth ; jmiOH  min,  the 
law  concerning  the  conduct  :f  persons  afflicted 
with  leprosy  (Lev.  xiv.  2);  n“On  mm,  the 
description  of  a building  to  ;e  erected  by  an 


architect : — but  it  signifies  also  a whole  body  of 
legislation ; as  min  (1  Kings  ii.  3 : 

2 Kings  xxiii.  25;  Ezra  iii.  2),  the  laxo  given 
by  Moses,  which,  in  reference  to  its  divine  origin, 
is  called  m min,  the  law  of  Jehovah  (Ps. 
xix.  8;  xxxvii.  31;  Isa.  v.  21;  xxx.  9).  In 
the  latter  sense  it  is  called,  by  way  of  eminence, 
minn,  THE  law  (Deut.  i.  5;  iv.  8,  44;  xvii. 
18,  19;  xxvii.  3,  8).  If  not  the  substance  of 
legislation,  but  rather  the  external  written  code 
in  which  it  is  contained  i3  meant,  the  following 
terms  are  employed  : min  “1SD  (2  Kings 

xiv.  6 ; Isa.  viii!  31 ; xxiii.  6);  HliT  min  “HDD 

or  min  TDD  (.Tosh.  xxiv.  26). 

In  a wider  sense  the  word  v6yos,  ‘ law,’  is  em- 
ployed in  order  to  express  any  guiding  or  direct- 
ing power,  originating  from  the  nature  of  any- 
thing existing.  The  apostolic  use  of  the  word 
has  been  well  expressed  by  Claudius  Guilliaud 
in  his  work,  In  Omnes  Paruli  Epistolas  Col - 
latio , p.  21.  Law  is  a certain  power  restraining 
from  some,  and  impelling  to  other  things  oi 
actions.  Whatever  has  such  a power,  and  exer- 
cises any  sway  over  man,  may  be  called  law,  in 
a metaphorical  sense.  Thus  the  Apostle  (Rom. 
vii.  23)  calls  the  right  impulses  and  the  sanctified 
will  of  the  mind,  voyos  rov  voos,  the  law  of  the 
mind;  and  the  perverse  desire  to  sin  which  is 
inherent  in  our  members,  vhyos  iv  rois  yeXeax, 
the  laxo  in  the  xnembers.  In  the  same  manner 
he  calls  that  power  of  faith  which  certainly 
governs  the  whole  man,  since  the  actions  of  every 
man  are  swayed  by  his  convictions,  v6yos  tvic- 
recvs,  the  laxo  of  faith.  So,  the  power  and 
value  ascribed  to  ceremonies,  or  rather  to  all 
outward  acts,  he  designates  voyos  ruv  ivroXuv, 
the  law  of  px'ecepts. 

Similar  expressions  are,  v6yos  rrjs  ayaprias, 
the  law  of  sin  (Rom.  vii.  23)  ; viyos  t ov  tvvzv- 
yar os,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  (viii.  2) ; v6yos 
SiKaioavvys,  the  law  of  righteousness  (ix.  31) ; 
v6yos  rov  &vb pos,  the  authority  of  the  husband 
over  his  wife  (vii.  2);  voyos  iXevOepias  (James 
i.  25;  ii.  12),  the  holy  impulse  created  by  the 
sense  of  spiritual  liberty. 

If,  however,  the  word  v6yos  alone  is  used,  it  is  al- 
most invariably  equivalent.  to  6 vSyosMwaicL's:  and 
of  iv  t£  voytp  are  the  subjects  of  the  Mosaical 
theocracy,  viz.,  the  Jews,  who  practise  the  aveL- 
yvcacris  too  voyov,  the  reading  of  the  laxo  (Acts 
xiii.  15),  are  Z^Aorrcd  rov  v6yov  (xxi.  20),  rripeiv 
(xv.  5,  24),  or  <pv\d(T(reiv , tt oieiv  (Rom.  ii.  14), 
Trpacro-eiv  (ii.  25),  rbv  v6yov  (Acts  xxi.  24), 
zealots  for  the  observance  and  performance  of 
the  laxo , although  they  debate  often  irepl  ft rrj- 
ydrccv  rov  v6yov  avroiiv,  about  mere  legal  quib- 
bles ; so  that,  as  mere  hearers,  they  cannot  expect 
the  blessings  promised  to  the  doers  of  the  law. 

D'DETOl  D'pn  im’D  nny,  yaprbpta,  bitiat- 

ihyara,  ivroXoi,  icplyara , Kplaeis,  Trpocrrdyyara, 
are  the  various  precepts  contained  in  the  law, 
min,  v6yos. 

The  law  is  especially  embodied  in  the  last 
four  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  Exodus,  Le- 
viticus, and  Numbers,  there  is  perceptible  some 
arrangement  of  the  various  precepts,  although 
they  are  not  brought  into  a system.  In  Deuter- 
onomy the  law  or  legislation  contained  in  the 
three  preceding  books  is  repeated  with  slight 
modifications.  The  whole  legislation  has  for  its 


LAW. 


LAW. 


130 

manifest  object,  to  found  a theocratical  hierarchy. 
We  here  use  the  word  hierarchy  without  mean- 
ing to  express  that  the  Mosaical  legislation  was 
like  some  later  hierarchies  falsely  so-called,  in 
which  it  was  attempted  to  carry  into  effect 
selfish  and  wicked  plans,  by  passing  them  oil’ 
as  being  of  divine  appointment.  In  the  Mosaical 
hierarchy  the  aim  is  manifest,  viz.  to  make  that 
which  is  really  holy  (t b lepov')  prevail ; while  in 
the  false  hierarchies  of  later  times  the  profanest 
selfishness  has  been  rendered  practicable  by  giv- 
ing to  its  manifestations  an  appearance  of  holi- 
ness calculated  to  deceive  the  multitude. 

In  the  Mosaical  legislation  the  priests  certainly 
exercise  a considerable  authority  as  external 
ministers  of  holiness;  but  we  find  nothing  to  be 
compared  with  the  sale  of  indulgences  in*the 
Romish  church.  There  occur,  certainly,  instances 
of  gross  misdemeanour  on  the  part  of  the  priests, 
as,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  the  sons  of  Eli ; 
but  proceedings  originating  in  the  covetousness 
of  the  priests  were  never  authorized  or  sanctioned 
by  the  law.  In  the  Mosaical  legislation  almost, 
the  whole  amount  of  taxation  was  paid  in  the 
form  of  tithe,  which  was  employed  in  maintaining 
the  priests  and  Levites  as  the  hierarchical  office- 
bearers of  government,  in  supporting  the  poor, 
and  in  providing  those  things  which  were  used  in 
sacrifices  and  sacrificial  feasts. 

The  taxation  by  tithe,  exclusive  of  almost  all 
other  taxes,  is  certainly  the  most  lenient  and  most 
considerate  which  has  ever  anywhere  been  adopted 
or  proposed.  It  precludes  the  ]>ossibility  of  at- 
tempting to  extort  from  the  people  contributions 
beyond  their  power,  and  it  renders  the  taxation  of 
each  individual  proportionate  to  Ills  possessions  ; 
and  even  this  exceedingly  mild  taxation  was 
apparently  left  to  the  conscience  of  each  person. 
This  we  infer  from  there  never  occurring  in  the 
Bible  the  slightest  vestige  either  of  persons  having 
been  sued  or  goods  distrained  for  tithes,  and  only 
an  indication  of  curses  resting  upon  the  neglect 
of  paying  them.  Tithes  were  the  law  of  the  land, 
and  nevertheless  they  were  not  recovered  by  law, 
during  the  period  of  the  Tabernacle  and  of  the 
first  Temple.  It  is  only  during  the  period  of  the 
second  Temple,  when  a general  demoralization 
had  taken  place,  that  tithes  were  fanned  and  sold, 
and  levied  by  violent  proceedings,  in  which  re- 
fractory persons  were  slain  for  resisting  the  levy. 
But  no  recommendation  or  example  of  such  pro- 
ceedings occurs  in  the  Bible.  This  seems  to  indi- 
cate that  the  propriety  of  paying  these  lenient  and 
beneficial  taxes  was  generally  felt ; so  much  so, 
that  there  were  few,  or  perhaps  no  defaulters,  and 
that  it  was  considered  inexpedient  on  the  part  of 
the  recipients  to  harass  the  needy. 

Besides  the  tithes  there  was  a small  poll-tax, 
amounting  to  half  a shekel  for  each  adult  male. 
This  tax  was  paid  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
sanctuary.  In  addition  to  this,  the  first-fruits  and 
the  first-born  of  men  and  cattle  augmented  the 
revenue.  The  first-born  of  men  and  of  unclean 
beasts  were  to  be  redeemed  by  money.  To  this 
may  be  added  some  fines  paid  in  the  shape  of  sin- 
offerings,  and  also  the  vows  and  free-will  offerings. 

The  Mosaical  legislation  is  the  further  develop- 
ment of  the  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  Abra- 
ham. It  is  a politico-religious  institution  given 
to  a nation  of  freeholders.  The  fundamental 
laws  of  this  constitution  are,  I.  Jehovah  alone  is 


God,  and  the  invisible  King  of  the  nation  (comp 
Josephus,  Contra  Apionem,  ii.  16). 

II.  The  nation  is  the  peculiar  property  of 
Jehovah,  its  King;  and  it  is  therefore  bound  to 
avoid  all  uncleanness,  as  well  moral  as  phy- 
sical defilement,  which  must  result  from  inter- 
mixture with  foreign  nations  who  are  not  sub- 
jects of  the  theocracy.  A confederacy  with  these 
nations  is  accordingly  forbidden  (Exotl.  xxiii.  32, 
and  xxxiv.  12). 

III.  The  whole  territory  of  the  state  was  to  be  so 
distributed  that  each  family  should  have  a freehold, 
which  was  intended  to  remain  permanently  the  in- 
heritance of  this  family,  and  which, even  if  sold,  was 
to  return  at  stated  periods  to  Its  original  owners. 
Since  the  whole  population  consisted  of  families 
of  freeholders,  there  were,  strictly  speaking,  neither 
citizens,  nor  a profane  or  lay-nobility,  nor  lords 
temporal.  We  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  there 
were  persons  called  heads,  elders,  princes,  dukes, 
or  leaders  among  the  Israelites ; that  is,  persons 
who  by  their  intelligence,  character,  wealth,  and 
other  circumstances,  were  leading  men  among 
them,  and  from  whom  even  the  seventy  judges 
were  chosen,  who  assisted  Moses  in  administering 
justice  to  the  nation.  But.  we  have  no  proof 
that  there  was  a nobility  enjoying  similar  pre- 
rogatives like  those  which  are  connected  with 
birth  iu  several  countries  of  Europe,  sometimes  in 
spite  of  mental  and  moral  disqualifications.  We 
do  not  find  that,  according  to  the  Mosaical  con- 
stitution, there  were  hereditary  peers  temporal. 
Even  the  inhabitants  of  towns  were  freeholders, 
and  their  exercise  of  trades  seems  to  have  been 
combined  with,  or  subordinate  to,  agricultural 
pursuits.  The  only  nobility  was  that  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi,  and  all  the  lords  were  lords  spiritual, 
the  descendants  of  Aaron.  The  priests  and 
Levites  were  ministers  of  public  worship,  that 
is,  ministers  of  Jehovah  the  King ; and  as  such, 
ministers  of  state,  by  whose  instrumentality  the 
legislative  as  well  as  the  judicial  power  was 
exercised.  The  poor  were  mercifully  considered, 
but  beggars  are  never  mentioned.  Hence  it 
appears  that  as,  on  the  one  hand,  there  was  no  lay 
nobility,  so,  on  the  oilier,  there  was  no  mendicity. 

Such  is  a rapid  sketch  of  the  Mosaical  consti- 
tution, which,  however,  was  certainly  consider- 
ably modified  after  its  original  perfection  had 
been  sacrificed  to  the  popular  clamour  for  a 
visible  king. 

Owing  to  the  rebellious  spirit  of  the  Israelites, 
the  salutary  injunctions  of  their  law  were  so  fre- 
quently transgressed,  that  it  could  not  procure 
for  them  that  degree  of  prosperity  which  it  wai 
calculated  to  produce  among  a nation  of  faithfu. 
observers;  but  it  is  evident  that  the  Mosaical 
legislation,  if  truly  observed,  was  more  fitted  to 
promote  universal  happiness  and  tranquillity 
than  any  other  constitution,  either  ancient  or 
modern.  It  has  been  deemed  a defect  that  there 
were  no  laws  against  infanticide ; but  it  may  well 
be  observed,  as  a proof  of  national  prosperity,  that 
there  are  no  historical  traces  of  this  crime;  and 
it  would  certainly  have  been  preposterous  to  give 
laws  against  a crime  which  did  not  occur,  especi- 
ally as  the  general  law  against  murder,  ‘Thou 
shalt  not  kill,’  was  applicable  to  this  species  also. 
The  words  of  Josephus  {Contra  Apionem,  ii.  24), 
Kal  yvvai^Lv  airuTreu  prjr  apfiXovv  rb  ernapiv, 
prjre  8 lacpdelpeiy'  aWa  rjy  (payeiij,  Tcxrorfavi 


LAW. 


LAW. 


ki>  tf?]  rivx^y  a(pavi£ovcra  Kal  yevos  iXarrovaa, 
can  only  mean  that  the  crime  was  against  the 
spirit  of  the  Mosaical  law.  An  express  verbal 
prohibition  of  this  kind  is  not  extant.  There 
occur  also  no  laws  and  regulations  about  wills 
and  testamentary  dispositions,  although  there  are 
sufficient  historical  facts  to  prove  that  the  next  of 
kin  was  considered  the  lawful  heir,  that  primo- 
geniture was  deemed  of  the  highest  importance, 
aud  that  if  there  were  no  male  descendants,  fe- 
males inherited  the  freehold  property.  We  learn 
from  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews  (ix.  16, 
17),  that  the  Jews  disposed  of  property  by  wills; 
but  it  seems  that  in  the  times  of  Moses,  and  for 
6ome  period  after  him,  all  Israelites  died  intes- 
tate. However,  the  word  $La6r)Kr],  as  used  in 
Matthew,  Mark,  Acts,  Romans,  Corinthians, 
Galatians,  Ephesians,  and  repeatedly  in  the 
Hebrews,  implies  rather  a disposition,  arrange- 
ment, agreement  between  parties,  than  a will  in 
the  legal  acceptation  of  the  term. 

There  are  no  laws  concerning  guardians,  and 
none  against  luxurious  living.  The  inefficiency 
of  sumptuary  laws  is  now  generally  recognised, 
although  renowned  legislators  in  ancient  times, 
and  in  the  middle  ages,  displayed  on  this  subject 
their  wisdom  falsely  so  called.  Neither  are  there 
any  laws  against  suicide.  Hence  we  infer  that 
suicide  was  rare,  as  we  may  well  suppose  in  a 
nation  of  small  freeholders,  and  that  the  ineffi- 
ciency of  such  laws  was  understood. 

The  Mosaical  legislation  recognises  the  human 
dignity  of  women  and  of  slaves,  and  particularly 
enjoins  not  to  slander  the  deaf  nor  mislead  the 
blind. 

The  laws  of  Moses  against  crimes  are  severe, 
but  rtot  cruel.  The  agony  of  the  death  of  cri- 
minals was  never  artificially  protracted,  as  in 
some  instances  was  usual  in  various  countries 
of  Europe,  even  in  the  present  century  ; nor  was 
torture  employed  in  order  to  compel  criminals  to 
confess  their  crimes,  as  was  done  in  the  kingdom 
of  Hanover  as  late  as  1817,  under  the  reign  of 
George  III.,  and  where  the  law  of  torture  is  per- 
haps not  yet  abolished.  Forty  was  the  maximum 
number  of  stripes  to  be  inflicted.  This  maxi- 
mum was  adopted  for  the  reason  expressly  stated, 
that  the  appearance  of  the  person  punished  should 
not  become  horrible,  or,  as  J.  D.  Michael  is  ren- 
ders it,  burnt,  which  expresses  the  appearance  of 
a person  unmercifully  beaten ; while,  in  this 
Christian  country,  in 'the  present  year,  a guilty 
soldier  was  sentenced  to  suffer  120  stripes. 

Moses  expressly  enjoined  not  to  reap  the  corners 
of  fields,  in  consideration  of  the  poor,  of  persons 
of  broken  fortunes,  and  even  of  the  beasts  of 
the  field. 

Punishments  were  inflicted,  in  order  specially 
to  express  the  sacred  indignation  of  the  Divine 
Lawgiver  against  wilful  transgression  of  his 
commandments,  and  not  for  any  purposes  of  hu- 
man vengeance,  or  for  the  sake  of  frightening 
other  criminals. 

In  lawsuits  very  much  was  left  to  the  discre- 
tion: of  the  judges,  whose  position  greatly  re- 
sembled that  of  a permament  jury,  who  had  not 
merely  to  decide  whether  a person  was  guilty, 
but  who  frequently  had  also  to  award  the  amount 
of  punishment  to  be  inflicted. 

In  some  instances  the  people  at  large  were 
appealed  to,  in  order  to  inflict  summary  punish- 


231 

merit  by  stoning  the  criminal  to  death.  Thii 
was  in  fact  the  most  usual  mode  of  execution. 
Other  modes  of  execution,  also,  such  as  burning, 
were  always  public,  and  conducted  with  the  co- 
operation of  the  people.  Like  every  human 
proceeding,  this  was  liable  to  abuse,  but  not 
to  so  much  abuse  as  our  present  mode  of  con- 
ducting lawsuits,  which,  on  account  of  their  cost- 
liness, often  afford  but  little  protection  to  persons 
in  narrow  circumstances. 

In  the  Old  Testament  we  do  not  hear  of  a 
learned  profession  of  the  law.  Lawyers  ( vopuuol ) 
are  mentioned  only  after  the  decline  of  the  Mo- 
saical institutions  had  considerably  advanced. 
As,  however,  certain  laws  concerning  contagion 
and  purification  were  administered  by  the  priests, 
these  might  be  called  lawyers.  They,  however, 
did  not  derive  their  maintenance  from  the  ad- 
ministration of  these  laws,  but  were  supported 
by  glebe-lands,  tithes,  and  portions  of  the  sacri- 
ficial offerings.  It  is,  indeed,  very  remarkable, 
that  in  a nation  so  entirely  governed  by  law, 
there  were  no  lawyers  forming  a distinct  profes- 
sion, and  that  the  vopucoi  of  a later  age  were  not 
so  much  remarkable  for  enforcing  the  spirit  of  the 
law,  as  rather  for  ingeniously  evading  its  injunc- 
tions, by  leading  the  attention  of  the  people  from 
its  spirit  to  a most  minute  literal  fulfilment  of  its 
letter.  The  Jews  divide  the  whole  Mosaical  law 
into  613  precepts,  of  which  248  are  affirmative 
and  365  negative.  The  number  of  the  affirma- 
tive precepts  corresponds  to  the  248  members 
of  which,  according  to  Rabbinical  anatomy,  the 
whole  human  body  consists.  The  number  of  the 
negative  precepts  corresponds  to  the  365  days 
of  the  solar  year;  or,  according  to  the  Rabbinical 
work  Brandspiegel  (which  has  been  published  in 
Jewish  German  at  Cracow  and  in  other  places), 
the  negative  precepts  agree  in  number  with  the 
365  veins  which,  they  say,  are  found  in  the  hu- 
man body.  Hence  their  logic  concludes  that  if 
on  each  day  each  member  of  the  human  body 
keeps  one  affirmative  precept  and  abstains  from 
one  thing  forbidden,  the  whole  law,  and  not  the 
decalogue  alone,  is  kept.  The  whole  law  is  some- 
times called  by  Jewish  writers  Thering,  which 
word  is  formed  from  the  Hebrew  letters  that 
are  employed  to  express  the  number  613;  viz. 
400 =n  + 200  =U- 10  = 3=0.  Hence  613 
=i'“in  theriog.  Women  are  subject  to  the 
negative  precepts  or  prohibitions  only,  and  not  to 
the  affirmative  precepts  or  injunctions.  This 
exception  arises  partly  from  their  nature,  and 
partly  from  their  being  subject  to  the  authority 
of  husbands.  According  to  some  Rabbinical 
statements  women  are  subject  to  100  precepts 
only,  of  which  64  are  negative  and  36  affirmative. 
The  number  613  corresponds  also  to  the  num- 
ber of  letters  in  the  decalogue.  Others  are  in- 
clined to  find  that  there  are  620  precepts  accord- 
ing to  the  numerical  value  of  the  word  "IfD  = 
crown;  viz.,  400  = n+200=T+20  = 3 ; and 
others,  again,  observe  that  the  numerical  value 
of  the  letters  min,  law,  amounts  only  to  611. 
The  first  in  order  of  these  laws  is  found  in 
Gen.  i.  27,  *QT|  V”l!D,  be  fruitful  and  multipig. 
The  transgressor  of  this  law  is,  according  to  Rabbi 
Eliezer,  as  wicked  as  a murderer.  He  who  is 
still  unmarried  at  twenty  years  of  age  is  a trans- 
gressor ; and  the  law  is  binding  upon  every  man, 
according  to  Schamai,  until  he  has  two  sons  ; or 


232 


LAW. 


LAW. 


according  to  Ilillel,  one  son  and  one  daughter 
(compare  Juris  Hebrasorum  leges,  ductu  Rabbi 
Ijevi  Barzelonitae,  auctore  J.  Henrico  Hottinger). 

The  Jews  assert  that,  besides  the  written  laio , 
min,  vofjLos  eyypacpos,  which  may  be 
translated  into  other  languages,  and  which  is 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  there  was  com- 
municated to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai  an  oral 

law,  na  byzw  mm,  vSjxos  &ypacpos , which 
was  subsequently  written  down,  together  with 
many  Rabbinical  observations,  and  is  contained 
in  the  twelve  folio  volumes  which  now  consti- 
tute the  Talmud,  and  which  the  Jews  assert  can- 
not be,  or  at  least  ought  not  to  be,  translated 
[Talmud], 

The  present  article  is,  of  course,  closely  inter- 
woven with  the  contents  of  a number  of  others 
which  in  this  Cyclopaedia  have  preceded,  or  which 
follow  it  in  alphabetical  order,  such  as  Adultery, 
Blood-revenge,  Decalogue,  Deuteronomy,  Divorce, 
Exodus,  Gospel,  Leviticus,  Marriage,  Moses, 
Murder,  Pentateuch,  Retaliation,  Robbery,  Sab- 
bath, Slavery,  Theft,  &c.  &c.  It  is,  indeed,  both 
unnecessary  and  impracticable  to  exhaust  in  this 
place  all  that  might  with  propriety  be  brought 
under  the  head  of  Law.  We  therefore  make  no 
such  attempt,  but  refer  our  readers  to  the  cognate 
articles  for  further  information.  The  chief  point 
here  to  be  considered,  is  the  authority  ascribed  in 
the  Bible  itself  to  law  in  general,  and  to  Biblical 
law  in  particular.  The  misconceptions  on  this 
subject  prevalent  in  the  religious  world  are  the 
more  surprising,  since  many  distinguished  eccle- 
siastical teachers  of  various  periods,  and  among 
these  St.  Augustine  of  the  fourth  and  fifth,  and  the 
Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century,  have  stated 
file  Biblical  doctrine  respecting  the  law  with  par- 
ticular clearness. 

The  great  importance  ascribed  by  the  Reformers 
to  the  right  understanding  of  the  law  is  thus  tersely 
expressed  by  Philip  Melancthon  : ‘ Ilaec  demum 
Christiana  cognitio  est,  scire  quod  lex  poscat, 
unde  faciendae  legis  vim,  unde  peccati  gratiam 
petas,  quomodo  labascentem  animam  adversus 
daemonem,  carnem,  et  mundum  erigas,  quomodo 
adflictamconscientiam  consoleris.’  ‘This  alone  is 
Christian  knowledge,  to  be  acquainted  with  the 
demands  of  the  law,  to  know  whence  to  obtain 
the  power  requisite  for  fulfilling  the  law,  and 
whence  to  obtain  pardon  for  sins  committed ; to 
know  how  to  raise  up  the  drooping  soul  against 
the  devil,  the  fiesh,  and  the  world,  and  how  to 
comfort  the  afflicted  conscience.’ 

Christ  anil  the  Apostles  express  themselves 
respecting  the  authority  of  the  law  so  variously, 
that  in  order  to  reconcile  their  apparent  con- 
tradictions, the  divines  of  various  Christian  de- 
nominations have  usually  felt  themselves  com- 
pelled to  distinguish  between  different  portions  of 
the  law,  soms  of  which,  they  assert,  were  abo- 
lished by  Christ,  while  they  maintain  that 
others  were  established  by  him.  For  instance, 
when  Christ  says,  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount, 
that  he  was  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  but  to  fulfil  them,  it  has  usually  been 
asserted  that  he  meant  this  merely  in  reference 
to  the  moral  law,  but  that  he  nevertheless  abo- 
lished the  ceremonial  and  civil  law  of  the  Jews. 
And  again,  when  he  declines  to  enter  into  the 
debate  pending  between  the  Samaritans  and  the 


Jews,  concerning  the  proper  place  where  God 
ought  to  be  worshipped ; when  he  states  as  th« 
reason  for  not  entering  into  this  debate,  that  God 
is  a Spirit  and  that  his  true  worshippers  must  wor- 
ship him  in  spirit  and  in  truth ; when  be  pro- 
mises a Comforter,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  would 
lead  his  true  disciples  into  all  truth ; and  when 
he  indicates  that  this  would  be  the  period  up  to 
which  the  law  would  remain  in  force, -namely, 
until  all  things  are  fulfilled — divines  usually  say 
that  this  future  cessation  of  the  law  under  the 
authority  of  the  Spirit  could  never  apply  to  the 
moral,  but  only  to  the  ceremonial  and  the  civil 
law.  In  a similar  manner  the  abolition  of  the 
law,  most  clearly  set  forth  in  the  epistles  of  Paul 
to  the  Romans  and  the  Galatians,  where  the 
apostle  teaches  that  Christians  are  as  free  from  the 
authority  of  the  law  as  the  widow  is  free  from  the 
authority  of  her  deceased  husband,  and  as  the 
adult  is  free  from  the  authority  of  the  schoolmaster 
who  ruled  his  infancy,  is  said  to  apply  only  to 
the  ceremonial  and  civil,  but  not  to  the  moral 
law  ; while  the  latter  alone  is  held  to  be  referred 
to  when  the  Apostle,  in  apparent  contradiction  to 
the  general  tenor  of  his  epistles,  says  that  ‘ we 
establish  the  law  by  faith’  (Rom.  iii.  31). 

Against  this  convenient  mode  of  overcoming 
the  difficulty  the  following  observations  may  be 
adduced  : I.  Neither  Christ  nor  the  Apostles 
ever  distinguish  between  the-moral,  the  ceremonial, 
and  the  civil  law,  when  they  speak  of  its  esta- 
blishment or  its  abolition. 

II.  They  even  clearly  indicate  that  the  moral 
law  is  by  no  means  excepted  when  they  speak  o! 
the  abolition  of  the  law  in  general.  Thus,  for 
instance,  St.  Paul,  after  having  stated  that,  t he  law 
is  not  incumbent  upon  the  righteous,  guards  tut 
against  misunderstanding  him,  as  if  this  referred 
to  the  .ceremonial  law  alone ; for  he  specifies 
various  transgressors  to  whom  the  law  is  given, 
and  who  are  restrained  by  the  same.  The  trans- 
gressors mentioned  by  St.  Paul  are  not  those  of 
the  ceremonial,  but  of  the  moral  law.  ‘ But  we 
know  that  the  law  is  good,  if  a man  use  it  law- 
fully ; knowing  this,  that  the  law  is  not  made  for 
a righteous  man,  but  fo(  the  lawless  and  disobe- 
dient, for  the  ungodly  and  for  sinners,  for  un- 
holy and  profane,  for  murderers  of  fathers  and 
murderers  of  mothers,  for  man-slayers,  for  whore- 
mongers, for  them  that  defile  themselves  with 
mankind,  for  men-stealers,  for  liars,  for  perjured 
persons,  and  if  there  be  any  other  thing  that  is 
contrary  to  sound  doctrine  ’ (1  Tim.  i.  8-10).  If 
it  had  been  the  intention  of  the  Apostle  to  incul- 
cate that  the  righteous  or  the  Christian  believers 
were  exempt  from  the  observance  of  the  ceremonial 
law,  the  examples  taken  from  the  transgressors  of 
the  moral  law  would  not  have  illustrated,  but 
obscured  the  subject.  Whoever  mentions  mur- 
derers, whoremongers,  men-stealers,  liars,  and 
perjurers,  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  moral  rather 
than  to  the  ceremonial  law.  And  wh  iever  says 
that  the  law  against  the  crimes  alluded  to  has 
been  abolished,  cannot  be  supposed  to  speak  of  the 
ceremonial  law  only.  And  when  Christ,  in  his  first 
public  sermon,  declares  that  not  a tittle  of  the 
law  shall  perish  until  all  things  are  fulfilled,  he 
cannot  be  supposed  to  mean  that  two-thirds  of  the 
law,  viz.,  the  civil  and  the  ceremonial,  periahej 
eighteen  centuries  ago. 

The  foregoing  observations  are  intended  to  in1 


LAW. 


LAW. 


tluce  the  reader  not  hastily  to  reject  our  position, 
that  the  prevalent  doctrine  concerning  ihe  law  is 
not  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  nor  that  of  St.  Pa  A. 
Nor  is  it  that  of  St.  Augustine,  nor  of  Luther, 
Melancthon,  and  other  teachers  of  the  church, 
who  felt  no  interest  in  paring  truth  down  to 
meet  the  preconceived  notions  of  congregations, 
but  who  endeavoured  in  their  respective  ages  to 
receive  revealed  truth  faithfully  as  it  was  given, 
and  to  communicate  it  in  an  unadulterated 
manner,  in  words  as  clear  as  the  abstract  nature 
of  the  subject  will  allow. 

In  order  to  reconcile  the  apparent  contradic- 
tions between  the  various  dicta  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  authority  of  the  law, 
we  must  not  commence,  as  is  usually  done, 
namely,  by  distinguishing  the  matter  of  the 
law,  but  the  form  or  manner  in  which  it  is 
binding  or  obligatory.  He  who  said  that  not  a 
jot  or  a tittle  of  the  law  should  perish  until  all 
things  were  fulfilled,  certainly  could  not  mean 
that  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  law  were  abo- 
lished, but  intended  forcibly  to  express  the  idea 
that,  in  a certain  sense,  by  his  instrumentality, 
the  whole  law,  without  any  exception,  had  ob- 
tained an  increased  authority.  On  the  other 
hand,  when  the  Apostle  says,  A oyfopieQa  ovv 
Trt(TT€i  diKaiovaOai  ai/dpanrou,  xap'is  tpyaw  v6p.ov, 
Therefore  ice  conclude  that  a man  is  justified 
by  faith  icithout  ihe  deeds  of  the  law  (Rom.  iii. 
28),  he  cannot  mean  anything  else  but  that,  in 
a certain  sense,  the  whole  law,  without  any  ex- 
ception, is  not  binding  upon  the  faithful.  We, 
therefore,  conceive  that  in  order  to  reconcile  the 
apparent,  but  merely  apparent,  contradictions  of 
the  New  Testament,  we  must  distinguish  not  so 
much  the  various  materials,  ritual,  civil,  and 
moral,  of  which  the  law  is  composed,  as  the 
various  manners  in  which  its  modus  obligandi 
may  exist. 

The  authority  which  other  beings  may  exercise 
upon  us  is  two-fold : it  is  either  nomothetical  or 
didactical.  The  nomothetical  authority,  which 
a book,  or  the  living  voice  of  another  moral 
being  may  exercise  upon  us,  is  either  such  that  it 
precludes  the  exercise  of  our  own  judgment,  like 
that  which  Pythagoras  is  said  to  have  exercised 
upon  his  disciples,  who  were  in  tl  e habit  of 
settling  all  their  disputes,  as  by  a tinal  reason 
from  which  there  was  no  appeal,  by  auT^s  eepa,  he 
has  said  so  ; or  the  authority  is  such  as  to  excite 
the  faculties  of  the  listener,  so  that  he  perceives 
the  necessity  of  the  truth  communicated.  In  this 
last  case  the  authority  exercised  is  not  nomothe- 
tical, but  didactical.  The  college-tutor  who 
meets  the  question,  how  minus  multiplied  by 
minus  can  give  plus,  by  ‘Upon  my  honour,  gen- 
tlemen, it  is  so,’  endeavours  to  exercise  a nomo- 
thetial  authority  ; while  he  who  endeavours  to 
illustrate  the  internal  necessity  of  this,  to  the  un- 
initiated, startling  fact,  endeavours  to  exercise  a 
didactical  authority. 

Beginners  in  any  science,  either  mental  or 
morai,  are  obliged  for  some  time  to  submit  to 
nomothetical  authority.  If,  as  sometimes  happens, 
we  meet  with  adult  pupils  who,  instead  of  taking 
for  granted  our  grammatical  statements,  constantly 
endeavour  to  cavil  at  the  wording  of  those  gram- 
matical rules  which  we  give  them,  before  they  are 
enabled  to  judge  for  themselves,  we  invariably  find 
that  such  pupils  do  not  make  the  same  progress 


2a 

as  others  who  admit  without  dispute  what  their 
teacher  and  their  grammar  state,  until  they  have 
penetrated  so  far  into  the  genius  of  the  language 
to  be  acquired  as  to  investigate  for  themselves  the 
applicability  of  the  rules  communicated.  On 
the  other  hand,  students  of  a language  who  never 
learn  to  recognise  the  spirit  of  that  language  per- 
vading the  works  and  discourses  of  e]:;q„ein  men 
as  an  authority  above  the  rules  of  grammar  and 
of  grammarians,  remain  always  inferior  to  those 
who  have  raised  themselves  to  the  recognition  of 
that  higher  authority  which  may  enable  them 
to  surpass  their  instructors  who  formerly  exercised 
a nomothetical  authority  over  them.  The  same 
is  the  case  in  any  other  branch  of  knowledge  oi 
science,  viz.,  beginners  are  necessarily  under  the 
law  or  under  the  nomothetical  power  of  elemen 
tary  books  and  teachers  until  they  are  emancipated 
by  seizing  the  spirit  of  the  science  or  art ; after 
which  the  external  authority  of  books  and  teachers 
can  be  for  them  didactical  only,  and  subordinate 
to  that  spirit  the  life  of  which  can  never  be  fully 
embodied  in  words. 

So  it  was  also  with  the  human  race  at  large:  it 
was  necessary  that  the  law  of  Moses  should  exer- 
cise nomothetical  authority  by  ‘ Cursed  is  he 
who  does  not  continue  in  the  words  of  this  law.’ 
And  so  it  is  now  with  a great  portion  of  Christian 
religionists,  who  still  require  frightful  curses  and 
opposite  benedictions  somewhat  similar  to  those 
formerly  pronounced  on  the  mountains  Ebal  and 
Gerizim,  in  order  to  keep  them  in  the  right  di- 
rection. But  the  assertion  of  this  nomothetical 
authority  was  not  the  ultimate  aim  of  Christ. 
His  most  intimate  disciple,  whom  he  especially 
loved,  states  strikingly,  "Ort  6 v6gos  8ia  Maxrecus 
i860 rj  ’ 7)  x^Pls  Ka-i  V &A.7J deia  8ia  ’It ]crov  Xpiarov 
iyevzTo,  For  the  laic  was  given  by  Moses,  but 
grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ. 

In  reference  to  this  text,  the  Reformers  declared 
it  to  be  improper  to  call  Christ  a new  lawgiver. 
This  was  an  objection  which  drew  forth  againsi 
them  the  anathema  pronounced  in  the  sixth  ses- 
sion of  the  Council  of  Trent : ‘ Si  quis  dixerit 
Christum  Jesum  a Deo  hominibus  datum  fuisse 
ut  redemtorem,  cui  fidant ; non  etiam  utlegisla- 
torem  cui  obediant ; anathema  sit.’  ‘ If  any  man 
should  assert,  that  God  granted  Christ  Jesus  to 
mankind  only  as  a Redeemer  in  whom  they  should 
trust,  and  n-  t also  as  a lawgiver  whom  they 
should  obey,  let  him  be  accursed’  (Cone.  Trid. 
Sess.  iv.  Can.  21). 

It  is,  however,  a fact,  that  Christ  did  not  give 
new  laws,  but  only  new  motives  for  keeping  the 
moral  precepts  more  or  less  clearly  known  to  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  by  making  it  a prominent  doctrine, 
that  love  is  due  to  God  and  to  men  in  general, 
even  to  our  enemies,  and  that  intentions  are  of 
greater  moral  importance  than  outward  acts.  . 

The  characteristic  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
does  not  consist  in  new  laws  given,  but  rather  in 
the  forgiveness  ofi'ered  for  past  transgressions,  and 
in  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  promised  to 
his  true  disciples.  The  authority  of  this  Holy 
Spirit  is  described  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  superior  to  the  letter 
of  the  law.  Whosoever  is  filled  with  this  Spirit 
is  not  under  the  law,  although  he  fulfils  the  holy 
aim  and  intention  of  the  law.  The  true  disciple 
of  Christ,  if  asked,  Why  did  you  not  kill  such 
or  such  a person?  cannot  answer,  Because  it  is 


234 


LAW. 


LAW. 


written,  ‘Thou  sha.lt  do  no  murder.’  Christians 
feel  that  they  are  filled  with  a spirit  which  pre- 
vents them  from  desiring  the  commission  of 
crimes.  But  if  they  grieve  that  Spirit  by  for- 
saking his  guidance,  they  sink  again  under  the 
jH)v/er  of  the  written  law,  because  they  cease  to 
belong  to  the  bUaioi  ols  vo/xos  ov  jceirai,  whose 
actions  are  not  extorted  by  any  external  authority, 
but  who  follow  the  holy  impulses  of  their  sancti- 
fied mmd  as  a vSpos  i\evdepias,  and  thus  are 
enabled  to  act  more  in  harmony  with  the  supreme 
scope  of  the  law,  viz.,  holiness  unto  the  Lord,  than 
any  subjection  to  external  precepts  ever  could 
produce.  This  is  beautifully  illustrated  by  St. 
Augustine  : Augustinus,  libro  de  Spiritu  et  Litera; 
‘Per  legem  cognitio  peccati,  per  fidem  impetratio 
gratiae  contra  peccatum,  per  gratiam  sanatio 
animae  a vitio  peccati,  pet  animae  sanitatem  libertas 
arbitrii,  per  liberum  arbitrium  justitiae  dilectio, 
per  justitiae  dilectionem  legis  operatic.  Ac  per 
hoc  sicut  lex  non  evacuatur,  sed  firmatur  per 
fidem,  quia  tides  impetrat  gratiam,  qua  lex  im- 
pleatur;  ita  liberum  arbitrium  non  evacuatur 
per  gratiam,  sed  statuitur,  quia  gratia  sanat  volun- 
tatem  qua  justitia  libere  diligatur.  Omnia  liaec 
(quae  veluti  catenatim  connexui)  habent  voces  suas 
in  Scripturis  sanctis.  Lex  dicit,  non  concupisces. 
Fides  (licit  (Ps.  xl.),  “ Sana  animam  meam,  quia 
peccavi.”  Gratia  ait  ( Joannis  5), a Ecce  sanus  fac- 
tus  es,  jam  noli  peccare,  ne  tibi  deterius  contingat.” 
Sanitas  dicit  (Ps.  xxix.),  “ Domine  Deus  mens, 
exclamavi  ad  te,  sanasti  me.”  Liberum  arbitrium 
dicit  (Ps.  cxviii.),  “ Narraverunt  mihi  injusti  de- 
lectationes  suas,  sed  non  ut  lex  tua  Domine.” 
Ilaec  Augustinus.  Non  destruit.  legem  Paulus, 
qui  praedicat  factum,  quod  lex  promiserat ; 
eumque  nunciat  in  quern  ceu  scopum,  summa 
legis  spectabat.  Nam  Rom.  x.  finis  est  ct  per- 
fectio  legis  Christus,  ad  justitiam  omni  credenti, 
et  Christus  ait,  “ Non  veni  solvere  legem,  sed 
adimplere.”  Compare  In  omnes  Pauli  Epistolas 
Collatio,  per  Claudium  Guilliaudum.  Paris, 
1550,  p.  20.  It  is  very  surprising  that  the  clear 
perception  of  the  true  source  of  the  law,  which 
was  fulfilled  even  by  its  abrogation,  could  have 
been  so  effectually  obscured  as  is  done  by  the 
doctrine  current  in  the  religious  world  concerning 
the  abolition  of  its  civil  and  ceremonial,  and  the 
establishment  of  its  moral  precepts.  The  whole 
aim  and  scope  of  the  Mosaical  legis’ation  havebeen 
established  as  much  as  the  aim  ot  temporary  po- 
lice regulations,  enacted  in  order  to  meet  the 
emergencies  of  a commonwealth  during  a period 
of  rebellion,  is  established  and  fulfilled  by  him 
who  restores  perfect  peace  and  public  tranquillity, 
although  the  natural  consequence  of  this  peace  is, 
that  those  regulations  cease  to  be  in  force.  On 
the  other  hand,  although  the  Christian,  who  is 
under  the  guidance  of  a spirit  leading  him  into 
all  truth,  cannot  be  led  by  this  spirit  to  the  com- 
mission of  any  crime  contrary  to  the  moral  pre- 
cepts of  Moses,  it  cannot  be  said,  that  by  not  com- 
mitting murder  and  adultery,  he  obeys  the  Mo- 
saical law,  any  more  than  that  he  obeys  ihe  in- 
junctions of  the  Code  Najxoleon,  in  these  particular 
instances.  However,  the  didactic  authority  of  the 
whole  Mosaical  law  is  for  the  Christian  much 
greater  than  that  of  any  other  legislation.  This 
didactic  or  teaching  authority  is  expressed  even 
in  the  words  of  the  New  Testament.  The  law 
is  not  merely  called  tt aidaycoybs  Pis  "Kpiariu, 


( a schoolmaster’  (i.  e.  an  educational  guide)  ‘ft 
Christ'  (Gal.  iii.  24),  but  the  whole  Old  Testa- 
ment (tt acra  ypacpp)  is  said  to  be  useful  for 
teaching  (nphs  8i5curKa\lav),  for  convincing,  for 
directing,  for  educating  (irpbs  Traideiav)  in  right- 
eousness, so  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  fully 
perfect,  throughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works 
(2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17). 

It  was  the  didactic  authority  of  the  Mosaical 
legislation  to  which  Michaelis  referred  in  the  de- 
dication of  his  celebrated  Mosaisches  Recht  to 
Rabenius,  who  had  formerly  requested  him  to  in- 
struct him  in  select  points  of  Mosaic  jurispru- 
dence. ‘ Others  will  not  find  my  remarks  un- 
worthy of  their  attention:  but  you,  Sir,  will  re- 
gard them  with  the  eye  of  an  actual  legislator,  on 
whom  his  country  (Sweden)  has  devolved  the 
honourable  duty  of  examining  the  archives  of  the 
state  and  collecting  statutes  and  decisions;  in 
order,  thence,  and  from  the  laws  already  known, 
which  had  become  burdensome  by  their  multitude, 
to  prepare  a new  digest  of  national  law,  not 
merely  for  the  instruction  of  students,  but  ba- 
the use  of  the  courts,’  &c.  Of  course  neither 
Michaelis  nor  Rabenius  meant  to  change  the 
Swedish  monarchy  into  a Mosaical  theocracy,  by 
giving  to  the  Pentateuch  nomothetical  force,  as 
the  Anabaptists  in  Germany  and  other  fanatics 
partly  endeavoured  to  effect. 

Luther,  who  diligently  translated  and  ex- 
pounded the  Pentateuch,  and  particularly  the 
ten  commandments,  and  who  placed  the  deca- 
logue in  his  catechisms  as  one  of  the  five  articles 
chiefly  to  be  inculcated  in  popular  instruction, 
was  undoubtedly  convinced  of  its  didactic  autho- 
rity, and  he  expressed  himself  against  the  nomo- 
thetical authority  of  the  law  in  his  book  Untericht 
wie  sich  die  Christen  in  Mosen  schicken  sollen 
( Opera , ed.  Hal.  tom.  iii.).  ‘ The  law  belongs  to 
the  Jews,  and  binds  us  no  more.  From  the  text 
it  is  clear  that  the  ten  commandments  also  do 
not  belong  to  us,  because  he  has  not  led  us  out 
of  Egypt,  but  the  Jews  only.  Moses  we  will  take 
to  be  our  teacher,  but  not  as  our  lawgiver,  unless 
he  agrees  with  the  New  Testament  and  the  natural 
law.'  Many  even  more  startling  passages  of  the 
great  Reformer’s  writings  are  transcribed  in  the 
present  writer’s  work,  De  Legis  Mosaicce  Abroga- 
tiotie,  scripsit  C.  H.  F.  Bialloblotzky,  Gottingae, 
1824.  Compare  besides  Johann  David  Michaelis, 
Mosaisches  Recht,  translated  by  Alexander  Smith, 
under  the  title,  Commentaries  on  the  Laics  of 
Moses,  by  the  late  John  David  Michaelis,  London, 
1814;  Josephus,  Contra  Apionem , ii.  16,  sq.; 
Mosaicarum  et  Romanarum  legum  collatio,  re- 
ferred usually  to  the  fifth  century  ; Jos.  Priestley, 
Comparison  of  the  Law  of  Moses  with  those  of 
the  Hindoos , etc. ; Hugo  Grotius,  De  Jure  Belli 
et  Pads ; J.  H.  Hottinger,  Juris  Ilebreeorum 
leges  cclxi.,  ad  Judceorum  mentem  explicates, 
Tiguri,  1655  ; Selden,  De  Jure  naturali  et 
gentium  juxta  Hebrceorum  disciplinam,  libri  vii., 
Argentorati,  1665;  John  Spencer,  Dissertcitio  de 
Theocratia  Judaica ; Christoph.  Blechschmidii 
Dissert,  de  Theocratia  in  Populo  Sancto  insti* 
tuta  ; Salomonis  Devlingii  Exercitatio  de  Israeli 
Jehovce  Dominio ; Thomas  Goodwin,  Dissert,  dxs 
Theocratia  Israelitarum  ; Hen.  Hulsii  Dissert, 
de  Jehova  Deo  Rege  ac  Duce  militari  in  prisco 
Israele  ; Dissert,  de  Schechinah,  &c. ; Joh.  Conr 
Dannhaveri  Politica  Biblica ; Hermann i Con- 


LAWYER. 


LEAD. 


235 


ringii  Exsrcit.  de  Politia  sivc  de  Republic  a 
Hebrceorum ; Christ.  Bened.  Michaelis,  Dissert. 
Philoi.  de  Antiquitatibus  (Economice  Patri- 
archalis ; Wilhelmi  Schickardi  Jus  Recjium 
Hebrceorum  cum  animadversionibus  et  notis 
Jo.  Belied.  Carpzovii ; R.  Isaaei  Abarbanelis 
Dissert,  do  Statu  et  Jure  Reg  to ; Dissert,  de 
Judicum  et  Regum  differentia,  in  Blasii  Ugolini 
Thesaurus  Antiquit atum  Sacrarum , vol.  xxiv. ; 
I).  Hornsyli  De  principals  Legum  Mosaicarum , 
Hafniae,  1792;  Staudlini  Commentationes  II. 
de  Legum  Mosaicarum,  Gottingse,  1796  ; Pur- 
mann,  De  fontibus  et  ceconomia  Legum  Mosa- 
icarum, Francol'urti,  1789;  T.  G.  Erdmann, 
Leges  Mosis  prcestantiores  esse  legibus  Lycurgi 
et  Soionis,  Vitebergae,  1788 ; Hartmann,  Verbin- 
dung  des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testamentes  ; Hee- 
ren,  Ideen,  ii.  430,  sq.  Beilage  iv. ; Pastoret, 
Ilistoire  de  la  Legislation , Paris,  1817,  vols.  iii. 
et  iv. ; J.  Salvador,  Histoire  des  Institutions  de 
Mdise  et  du  Peuple  Hebreu,  Paris,  1828,  3 vols. ; 
Welker,  Die  Letzten  Griinde  von  Recht , p.  279, 
sq. ; Staudlin,  Geschichte  der  Sittenlehre  Jesu, 
i,  111,  sq. ; Holberg,  Geschichte  der  Sittenlehre 
Jesu,  ii.  331,  sq. ; De  Wette,  Sittenlehre,  ii.  21, 
sq.  On  the  abolition  of  the  law  see  several  dis- 
sertations and  programmata  of  the  elder  Witsch, 
published  in  Wittenberg,  and  De  Legis  Mosaic ce 
Abrogations,  scripsit  C.  II.  F.  Bialloblotzky, 
Gottingse,  1824. — C.  H.  F.  B. 

LAWYER  ( vop.iK.6s ).  This  word,  in  its  ge- 
neral sense,  denotes  one  skilled  in  the  law,  as  in 
Tit.  iii.  13.  When,  therefore,  one  is  called  a 
lawyer,  this  is  understood  with  reference  to  the 
laws  of  the  land  in  which  he  lived,  or  to  which 
:.e  belonged.  Hence  among  the  Jews  a lawyer 
was  one  versed  in  the  laws  of  Moses,  which  he 
taught  in  the  schools  and  synagogues  (Matt, 
xxviii.  35  ; Luke  x.  25).  The  same  person  who 
is  called  ‘ a lawyer’  in  these  texts,  is  in  the  pa- 
rallel passage  (Mark  xii.  28)  called  a scribe 
(7 papparevs) ; whence  it  has  been  inferred  that 
the" functions  of  the  lawyers  and  the  scribes  were 
identical.  The  individual  may  have  been  both  a 
lawyer  and  a scribe;  but  it  does  not  thence  follow 
that  all  lawyers  were  scribes.  Some  suppose, 
however,  that  the  ‘scribes’  were  the  public  ex- 
pounders of  the  law,  while  the  ‘ lawyers  ’ were  the 
private  expounders  and  teachers  of  it.  But  this 
is  a mere  conjecture  ; and  nothing  more  is  really 
known  than  that  the  ‘ lawyers  ’ were  expounders 
of  the  law,  whether  publicly  or  privately,  or  both. 

LAZARUS  (Ad Capos,  an  abridged  form  of  the 
Hebrew  name  Eleazer),  an  inhabitant  of  Bethany, 
brother  of  Mary  and  Martha,  who  was  honoured 
with  the  friendship  of  Jesus,  by  whom  he  was 
raised  from  the  dead  after  he  had  been  four  days 
in  the  tomb.  This  great  miracle  is  minutely 
described  in  John  xi.  The  credit  which  Christ 
obtained  among  the  people  by  this  illustrious  act, 
of  which  the  life  and  presence  of  Lazarus  afforded 
a standing  evidence,  induced  the  Sanhedrim, 
in  plotting  against  Jesus,  to  contemplate  the 
destruction  of  Lazarus  also  (John  xii.  10). 
Whether  they  accomplished  this  object  or  not,  we 
are  not  informed  : but  the  probability  seems  to 
be  that  when  they  had  satiated  their  malice  on 
Christ,  they  left  Lazarus  unmolested. 

The  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead  was  a 
tpork  of  Christ  beyond  measure  great,  and  of  all 
’£»c  miracles  he  had  hitherto  wrought  undoubtedly 


the  most  stupendous.  ‘ If  it  can  be  incontro- 
vertibly  shown  that  Christ  performed  one  such 
miraculous  act  as  this,’  says  Tholuck  (in  his 
Commentar  zum  Evang.  Johannis ),  ‘ much  will 
thereby  be  gained  to  the  cause  of  Christianity. 
One  point  so  peculiar  in  its  character,  if  irrefra* 
gably  established,  may  serve  to  develope  a belief 
in  the  entire  evangelical  record.’  The  sceptical 
Spinoza  was  fully  conscious  Gf  this,  as  is  related 
by  Bayle  {Diet.,  art.  ‘Spinoza’)  : ‘ On  m’a  assur6, 
qu’il  disait  a ses  amis,  que  s’il  efit  pu  se  per- 
suader la  resurrection  de  Lazare,  il  auroit.  brise 
en  pieces  tout  son  systeme,  il  auroit  embrass6 
sans  repugnance  la  foi  ordinaire  des  Chretiens.’ 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  enemies 
of  Christianity  have  used  their  utmost  exertions 
to  destroy  the  credibility  of  the  narrative.  The 
earlier  cavils  of  Woolston  and  his  followers  were, 
however,  satisfactorily  answered  by  Lardner  and 
others  ; and  the  more  recent  efforts  of  the  German 
neologists  have  been  ably  and  successfully  refuted 
by  Oertelius,  Langius,  and  Reinhard;  and  by 
Hiibner,  in  a work  entitled  Miraculorum  ab 
Evangelistis  narratorum  interpretat.  gramma- 
tico-historica , Wittenb.  1807 ; as  well  as  by 
others  of  still  more  recent  date,  whose  answers, 
with  the  objections  to  which  they  apply,  may  be 
seen  in  Kuinoel.  See  also  Flatt,  in  Mag.  f Hr 
Dogm.  und  Moral,  xiv.  91  ; Schott,  Opusc.  i. 
259 ; and  Ewald's  Lazarus  /Hr  Gebildete  Chris- 
tusverehrer,  Berl.  1790. 

LEAD  (D'nsV ; Sept.  MJA:j85os),  a well- 
known  metal,  the  first  Scriptural  notice  of  which 
occurs  in  the  triumphal  song  in  which  Moses 
celebrates  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh,  whose  host 
is  there  said  to  have  ‘ sunk  like  lead ’ in  the  waters 
of  the  Red  Sea  (Exod.  xv.  10). 

Before  the  use  of  quicksilver  was  known,  lead 
was  used  for  the  purpose  of  purifying  silver,  and 
separating  it  from  other  mineral  substances  (Plin. 
Hist.  Nat.  xxxii.  31).  To  this  Jeremiah  alludes 
where  he  figuratively  describes  the  corrupt  condi- 
tion of  the  people  : ‘ In  their  fire  the  lead  is  con- 
sumed (in  the  crucible)  ; the  smelting  is  in  vain, 
for  the  evil  is  not  separated’  (Jer.  vi.  29).  Ezekiel 
(xxii.  18-22)  refers  to  the  same  fact,  and  for  the 
same  purpose,  but  amplifies  it  with  greater  mi- 
nuteness of  detail.  Compare  also  Mai.  iii.  2,  3. 

Job  (xix.  23,  24)  expresses  a wish  that  his 
words  were  engraven  ‘ with  an  iron  pen  and  lead.’ 
These  words  are  commonly  supposed  to  refer  to 
engraving  on  a leaden  tablet ; and  it  is  unde- 
niable that  such  tablets  were  anciently  used  as  t 
writing  material  (Pausan.  ix.  31 ; Plin.  Ilist.  Nat 
xiii.  11).  But  our  authorized  translators,  by  ren- 
dering ‘ an  iron  pen  and  lead  in  the  rock  for  ever,’ 
seem  to  have  entertained  the  same  view  with 
Rosenmuller,  who  supposes  that  molten  lead  was 
to  be  poured  into  letters  sculptured  on  stone  with 
an  iron  chisel,  in  order  to  raise  the  inscription. 
The  translator  of  Rosenmuller  (in  Bib.  Cabinet , 
xxvii.  64)  thinks  that  the  poetical  force  of  the 
passage  has  been  overlooked  by  interpreters : 
‘ Job  seems  not  to  have  drawn  his  image  from 
any  thing  he  had  actually  seen  executed  : he 
only  wishes  to  express  in  the  strongest  possible 
language  the  durability  due  to  his  words  ; and 
accordingly  he  says,  “ May  the  pen  be  iron,  and 
the  ink  of  lead,  with  which  they  are  written  on 
au  everlasting  rock,”  i.  e.  Let  them  not  be  written 


230 


LEAH. 


LEAVEN. 


with  ordinary  perishable  materials.*  This  expla- 
nation seems  to  be  suggested  by  that  of  the  Septu- 
agint,  which  has  'Ev  y pacpetcp  aibypcp  teal  fxo\lfi5cp, 

iv  virpais  iyyAvcprivai,  i.  e.  ‘ that  they  were 
sculptured  by  an  iron  pen  and  lead,  or  hewn 
Into  rocks.’ 

Although  the  Hebrew  weights  were  usually  of 
stone,  and  are  indeed  called  ‘ stones,’  a leaden 
weight  denominated  w attach , which  is  the 
Arabic  word  for  lead,  occurs  in  Amos  vii.  7,  8. 
In  Acts  xxvii.  28,  a plummet  for  taking  sound- 
ings at  sea  is  mentioned,  and  this  was  of  course 
of  lead. 

The  ancient  uses  of  lead  in  the  East  seem  to 
have  been  very  few,  nor  are  they  now  numerous. 
One  may  travel  far  in  Western  Asia  without  dis- 
covering any  trace  of  this  metal  in  any  of  the 
numerous  useful  applications  which  it  is  made  to 
serve  in  Eyropean  countries. 

We  are  not  aware  that  any  trace  of  lead  has 
been  yet  found  within  the  limits  of  Palestine. 
But  ancient  lead-mines,  in  some  of  which  the 
ore  has  been  exhausted  by  working,  have  been  dis- 
covered by  Mr.  Burton  in  the  mountains  between 
the  Red  Sea  and  the  Nile;  aud  lead  is  also  said 
to  exist  at  a place  called  Shell',  near  Mount  Sinai. 

LEAH,  one  of  the  two  daughters  o.f  Laban 
who  became  the  wives  of  Jacob  [Jacob]. 

LEAVEN  AND  FERMENT.  The  organic 
chemists  define  the  process  of  fermentation,  and 
the  substance  which  excites  it,  as  follows : — 

‘ Fermentation  is  nothing  else  but  the  putrefac- 
tion of  a substance  containing  no  nitrogen. 
Ferment , or  yeast,  is  a substance  in  a state  of 
putrefaction,  the  atoms  of  which  are  in  a con- 
tinual motion’  (Turner’s  Chemistry , by  Liebig). 
This  definition  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
views  of  the  ancients,  and  gives  point  and  force 
to  many  passages  of  Sacred  Writ  (Ps.  lxxix.  21 ; 
Matt.  xvi.  G,  1 1,  12;  Markviii.  15;  Lukexii.l; 
xiii.  21 ; 1 Cor.  v.  5-8  ; Gal.  v.  9).  Leaven , and 
fermented  or  even  some  readily  fermentible  sub- 
stances (as  honey),  were  prohibited  in  many  of 
the  typical  institutions  both  of  the  Jews  and 
Gentiles.  The  Latin  writers  use  corruptus,  as 
signifying  fermented ; Tacitus  applies  the  word 
to  the  fermentation  of  wine.  Plutarch  (Rom. 
Qiuest.  cix.  6)  assigns  as  the  reason  why  the 
priest  of  Jupiter  was  not  allowed  to  touch  leaven , 

‘ that  it  comes  out  of  corruption,  and  corrupts  that 
with  which  it  is  mingled.’  See  also  Aul.  Gellius, 
viii.  15.  All  fermented  substances  were  prohibited 
in  the  Paschal  Feast  of  the  Jews  (Exod.  xii.  8, 19, 
20) ; also  during  the  succeeding  seven  days, 
usually  called  ‘ The  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,' 
though  bread  is  not  in  the  original.  God  forbade 
either  ferment  or  honey  to  be  offered  to  Him  in  his 
temple  (i.  e.  in  the  symbolical  rites),  while  they 
were  permitted  in  offerings  designed  to  be  con- 
sumed as  food  (Num,  xv.  20,  21).  On  Lev.  ii. 
11,  Dr.  Andrew  Willet  observes,  ‘ They  have  a 
spiritual  signification,  because  fermentum  cor - 
ruptionem  siynat,  as  St.  Paul  applyeth  (1  Cor.  v. 
8).  The  honey  is  also  forbidden  because  it  had 
fermentandi  vim , a leavening  force’  (Junius, 
Ilexapla,  1631).  On  the  same  principle  of 
symbolism,  God  prescribes  that  salt  shall  always 
constitute  a part  of  the  oblations  to  Him  (Lev.  ii. 
31).  Salt  prevents  corruption  or  decay,  and  pre- 
serves flesh.  Hence  it  is  used  as  a symbol  of 
uicorruption  and  perpetuity.  Thus  St.  Paul 


(comp.  Col.  iv.  6;  Eph.  iv.  29)  uses  ‘ salt’  as 
preservative  from  corruption,  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple which  leads  him  to  employ  that  which  is 
unfermented  (&£u/j.os)  as  an  emblem  of  purity 
and  uncorrupt edness. 

‘The  usual  leaven  in  the  East  is  dough  kept 
till  it  becomes  sour,  and  which  is  kept  from  one 
day  to  another  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  lea- 
ven in  readiness.  Thus,  if  there  should-  be  no 
leaven  in  all  the  country  for  any  length  of  time, 
as  much  as  might  be  required  could  easily  be 
produced  in  twenty-four  hours.  Sour  douyh , 
however,  is  not  exclusively  used  for  leaven  in  the 
East,  the  lees  of  wine  being  in  some  parts  em- 
ployed as  yeast’  (Pictorial  Bible, wol.  i.  p.  161). 

In  the  Hebrew  we  find  two  distinct  words, 
both  translated  leaven  in  the  common  version  of 
the  Bible.  This  is  unfortunate,  for  there  is  the 
same  distinction  between  seor , and 

khametz.  in  the  Hebrew,  as  between  leaven  and 
ferment  in  the  English.  The  Greek  (vp-rj  ap- 
pears to  comprehend  both  senses,  viz.  fermentation 
in  general,  whether  of  a mass  or  a liquid.  Che- 
mically speaking,  the  ‘ ferment’  or  ‘ yeast’  is  the 
same  substance  in  both  cases:  but  * leaven'  is 
more  correctly  applied  to  solids,  ‘ ferment’  botli 
to  liquids  aud  solids. 

seor.  This  word  occurs  only  five  times 
in  the  Scriptures,  in  four  of  which  it  is  rendered 
‘ leaven,’  and  in  the  fifth  ‘ leavened  bread.'  It 
seems  to  have  denoted  originally  the  remnant  of 
dough  left  on  the  preceding  baking,  which  had 
fermented  and  turned  acid.  Hence  (according 
to  the  Lexicon  of  Dr.  Avenarius,  1588)  the 
German  saner , English  sour.  Its  distinctive 
meaning  therefore  is,  fermented  or  leavened  mass. 
It  might,  in  this  way,  apply  to  the  murk  or  lees 
of  wine. 

}‘On  khametz ; Greek,  (vprj.  This  word  ought 
not  to  be  rendered  ‘ leaven,’  but  ferment.  It  is 
a more  general  term  than  the  former,  and  is  ap- 
plied, even  in  our  translation,  to  both  liquids  and 
solids.  It  would  be  an  obvious  impropriety 
to  speak  of  ‘leavened  wine;’  but  j‘On,  in 
Num.  vi.  3,  is  applied  to  wine  as  an  adjective. 
It  should  there  be  translated  ‘ fermented  wine.’ 
not.  ‘ vinegar  of  wine.’  In  fact,  as  ‘ vin  aigre ’ 
signifies  ‘ soured  wine,'  the  translation  is  equiva- 
lent to  saying,  ‘ sour-wine-wine !’  Professor  Lee 
defines  it,  comprehensively,  as  ‘ anything  fer 
mented .’  Castell,  and  the  best  and  oldest  lexico- 
graphers support  him,  applies  it  both  to  fermented 
mass  and  fermented  wine,  ‘ vinum  fermentatum.' 

In  this  last  sense  it  seems  to  correspond  to  the 
Greek  o|os,  a sort  of  acid  wine  in  very  common 
use  amongst  the  ancients,  called  by  the  Latins 
posca,  vinum  culpatum  (Adam’s  Rom.  Antiq. 

р.  393  ; Jahn,  Bib.  Antiq.  § 144).  This  species  of 
wine  (and  in  hot  countries  pure  wine  speedily 
passes  into  the  acetous  state)  [Drink,  Strong] 
is  spoken  of  by  the  Talmudists,  who  inform  us 
that  it  was  given  to  persons  about  to  be  executed, 
mingled  with  drugs,  in  order  to  stupify  them 
(Prov.  xxxi.  G;  Bab.  Tr.  Sanhedrin , fol.  43.  1. 

с.  6).  This  serves  to  explain  Matt,  xxvii.  34. 

A sour,  fermented  drink,  used  by  the  Tartar* 
(Koumiss),  appears  to  have  derived  its  name 
from  the  Hebrew  khametz.  is  formed 

from  HUD,  to  wring  or  press  out,  suck,  Sic.  j 
whence  also  HVD,  unleavened  (not  bread,  fo*  in 
several  passages  ‘ bread’  and  1 cakes’  are  c list  e» 


LEBBi®US, 


LEOPARD. 


231 


pressed)  In  Exod-  xiii.  7,  both  sc, or  and  kha- 
mets  occur  together,  and  are  evidently  distinct : — • 
‘ unleavened,  things  { .matzah ) shall  be  consumed 
during  the  seven  days,  and  there  shall  not  be 
seen  with  th ec  fermented  things,  and  there  shall 
not  be  seen  with  thee  leavened  mass  in  all  thy 
borders.’ — F.  R.  L. 

LEBANON.  [Libanus.] 

LEBBAEUS,  a surname  of  the  apostle  Jude 
[JuubJ. 

LEECH.  ( Aluicah.] 

LEEK.  [Chatzir.] 

LEES.  [Shemauim.] 

LEGION  (Aeyedv),  a division  of  the  Roman 
army.  It  always  comprised  a large  body  of  men  ; 


but  the  number  varied  so  much  at  different  times, 
that  there  is  considerable  discrepancy  in  the  state- 
ments with  reference  to  it.  The  legion  appears  to 
have  originally  contained  about  3000  men,  and  to 
Jjave  risen  gradually  to  twice  that  number,  or  even 
more.  In  and  about  the  time  of  Christ  it  seems 


x nave  consisted  of  6000  men  ; but  this  was  ex- 
ilutive  of  horsemen,  who  usually  formed  an  addi- 


tional body  amounting  to  one-tenth  of  the  infantry. 
As  all  the  divisions  of  the  Roman  army  arena* 
ticed  in  Scripture,  we  may  add  that  each  legion 
was  divided  into  ten  cohorts  or  regiments,  each 
cohort  into  three  maniples  or  bands,  and  each 
maniple  into  three  centuries  or  companies  of 
100  each.  This  smaller  division  into  centuries 
or  hundreds,  from  the  form  in  which  it  is  exhi- 
bited as  a constituent  of  the  larger  Lvisions, 
clearly  shows  that  6000  had  become  at  least  tire 
formal  number  of  a legion. 

The  word  legion  came  to  be  used  to  express  a 
great  number  or  multitude.  Thus,  the  unclean 
spirit  (Mark  v.  7),  when  asked  his  name,  an- 
swers, ‘ My  name  is  Legion,  for  we  are  many.’ 
Many  illustrations  of  this  use  of  the  word  might 
be  cited  from  the  Rabbinical  writers : who  even 
apply  it  to  inanimate  objects,  as  when  they  speak 
of  ‘ a legion  of  olives,*  &c. 

LENTIL.  [Adashim.] 

LEOPARD  ("1103  nimr  or  namer ; Cant.  iv. 
8 ; Isa.  xi.  6 ; Jer.  v.  6 ; xiii.  23  ; Hos.  xiii.  7 ; 
Hab.  i.  8;  Dan.  vii.  6;  Rev.  xiii.  2;  Ecclus. 
xxviii.  23).  Though  zoologists  differ  in  opinion 
respecting  the  identity  of  the  leopard  and  the 
panther,  and  dispute,  supposing  them  to  be  dis- 
tinct, how  these  names  should  be  respectively 
applied,  and  by  what  murks  the  animals  should 
be  distinguished,  nevertheless  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  nimr  of  the  Bible  is  that  grea 
spotted  feline  which  anciently  infested  the  Syrian 
mountains,  and  even  now  occurs  in  the  wooded 

ranges  of  Libanus  ; for  the  Arabs  still  use 


nimr , the  same  word  slightly  modified,  to  denote 
that,  animal.  The  Abyssinian  name  differs  scarcely 
from  either ; and  in  all  these  tongues  it  means 
spotted.  Pigikris,  according  to  Kirscher,  is  the 
Coptic  name ; and  in  English,  ‘ leopard  ’ has  been 
adopted  as  the  most  appropriate  to  represent 
both  the  Hebrew  word  and  the  Greek  TrdpSaAis, 
although  the  Latin  leopardus  is  not  found  in  any 
author  anterior  to  the  fourth  century,  and  is  de- 
rived from  a gross  mistake  in  natural  history. 
The  variety  of  leopard,  or  rather  panther,  of  Syria, 
is  considerably  below  the  stature  of  a lioness,  bu4 
very  heavy  in  proportion  to  its  bulk.  Its  general 
form  is  so  well  known  as  to  require  no  description 
beyond  stating,  that  the  spots  are  rather  more  irre- 
gular, and  the  colour  more  mixed  with  whitish, 
than  in  the  other  pantherine  felinee,  excepting  the 
Felis  Uncia,  or  Felis  Irbis,  of  High  Asia,  which 
is  shaggy  and  almost  white.  It  is  a nocturnal, 
cat-like  animal  in  habits,  dangerous  to  all  domestic 
cattle,  and  sometimes  even  to  man.  In  the  Scrip- 


LEPROSY. 


LEPROSY. 


239 


tures  it  is  constantly  placed  in  juxtaposition  with 
the  lion  or  the  wolf;  which  last,  if  the  hyaena  be 
intended,  forms  a natural  association.  There  is 
in  Asia  Minor  a species  or  variety  of  panther, 
much  larger  than  the  Syrian,  not  unfrequent  on 
the  borders  of  the  snowy  tracts  even  of  Mount 
Ida,  above  ancient  Troy ; and  the  group  of  these 
spotted  animals  is  spread  over  the  whole  of 
Southern  Asia  to  Africa.  From  several  names  of 
places,  it  appears  that,  in  the  earlier  ages  of 
Israelitish  dominion,  it  was  sufficiently  numerous 
in  Palestine.  Leopard  skins  were  worn  as  a part 
of  ceremonial  costume  by  the  superiors  of  the 
Egyptian  priesthood,  and  by  other  personages  in 
Nubia;  and  the  animal  itself  is  represented  in 
the  processions  of  tributary  nations. — C.  H.  S. 

LEPROSY.  Leprosy,  or  \iirpu,  which  is  de- 
rived from  \eirls,  a scale , is  a name  that  was 
given  by  the  Greek  physicians  to  a scaly  disease 
of  the  skin.  During  the  dark  ages  it  was  indis- 
criminately applied  to  all  chronic  diseases  of  the 
skin,  and  more  particularly  to  elephantiasis,  to 
which  latter,  however,  it  does  not  bear  the  slightest 
resemblance.  Hence  prevailed  the  greatest  dis- 
crepancy and  confusion  in  the  descriptions  that 
authors  gave  of  the  disease,  until  Dr.  Willan  re- 
stored to  the  term  lepra  its  original  signification. 
The  disease,  as  it  is  known  at  the  present  day, 
commences  by  an  eruption  of  small  reddish  spots 
slightly  raised  above  the  level  of  the  skin,  and 
grouped  in  a circle.  These  spots  are  soon  covered 
by  a very  thin,  semi-transparent  scale  or  epi- 
dermis, of  a whitish  colour,  and  very  smooth, 
which  in  a little  time  falls  off',  and  leaves  the 
skin  beneath  red  and  uneven.  As  the  circles  in- 
crease in  diameter  the  skin  recovers  its  healthy 
appearance  towards  the  centre;  fresh  scales  are 
formed,  which  are  now  thicker,  and  superimposed 
one  above  the  other,  especially  at  the  edges,  so 
that  the  centre  of  the  scale  appears  to  be  de- 
pressed. The  scales  are  of  a greyish  white  colour, 
and  have  something  of  a micaceous  or  pearly 
lustre.  The  circles  are  generally  of  the  size  of  a 
shilling  or  half-crown,  but  they  have  been  known 
to  attain  half  a foot  in  diameter.  The  disease 
generally  affects  the  knees  and  elbows,  but  some- 
times it  extends  over  the  whole  body;  in  which 
case  the  circles  become  confluent.  It  does  not 
at  all  affect  the  general  health,  and  the  only  in- 
convenience it  causes  the  patient  is  a slight  itch- 
ing when  the  skin  is  heated  ; or,  in  inveterate 
cases,  when  the  skin  about  the  joints  is  much 
thickened,  it  may  in  some  degree  impede  the  free 
motion  of  the  limbs.  It  is  common  to  both 
sexes,  to  almost  all  ages,  and  all  ranks  of  society. 
It.  is  not  in  the  least  infectious,  but  it  is  always 
difficult  to  be  cured,  and  in  old  persons,  when  it 
is  of  long  standing,  may  be  pronounced  incurable. 
It  is  commonly  met  with  in  this  country  and  in 
all  parts  of  Europe.  Its  systematic  name  is 
Lepra  vulgaris.  Dr.  Willan  has  described  another 
species,  which  he  observed  in  this  country,  under 
the  specific  name  of  nigricans  ; but  there  is  still 
some  doubt  as  to  its  existence,  and  at  any  rate  it 
must  be  of  very  rare  occurrence.  The  Greeks 
distinguished  three  species  of  Lepra,  the  specific 
names  of  which  were  a.\(pos,  \evicf},  and  pe\as. 
Now,  on  turning  to  the  Mosaic  account,  we  also 
find  three  species  mentioned,  which  were  all  in- 
cluded under  the  generic  term  of  mrQ  Baheret, 
x * bright  spot.’  The  first  is  called  pfQ  Bohaq , 


which  signifies  ‘ brightness,’  but  in  a subordinate 
degree.  This  species  did  not  render  a person  un- 
clean. The  second  was  called  run1?  mm, 
Bahdret  lebandhy  or  a bright  white  Bake  ret. 
The  third  was  PlDD  mm,  Baheret  kehah,  or 
dusky  Baheret,  spreading  in  the  skin.  These 
two  last  were  also  called  DjnY  Tsordat  (i.  e. 
properly,  ‘a  stroke,’ as  if  a chastisement),  and 
rendered  a person  unclean.  The  characteristic 
marks  of  the  Baheret  lebandh  mentioned  by 
Moses,  are  a glossy  white  and  spreading  scale 
upon  an  elevated  base,  the  elevation  depressed  in 
the  middle,  the  hair  on  the  patches  participating 
in  the  whiteness,  and  the  patches  themselves  per- 
petually increasing.  Dr.  Good  considers  the 
Bohaq  and  the  aA (p6s  of  the  Greeks  to  be  iden- 
tical with  the  Lepra  vulgaris,  the  Baheret  le- 
bandh with  the  Aewcrj,  and  the  kehah  and  pt\ as 
with  the  nigricans  of  Dr.  Willan  (Good's  Study 
of  Med.,  v.  590).  It  is  very  probable  that  the 
first  two  are  the  same,  and  it  is  also  probable  that 
he  is  correct  with  regard  to  the  second  two ; for 
Celsus  mentions  that  the  Aeu/oj  was  the  most  se- 
vere of  the  three,  that  the  patches  were  whiter 
than  in  a\(p6s,  and  that  the  hairs  on  the  patches 
become  white — in  eaque  albi  pili  sunt  et  lanu- 
gini  similes ; but  he  certainly  excludes  all  idea 
of  contagion  when  he  says  of  Vitiligo,  which  is 
the  generic  name  under  which  he  describes  the 
three  Greek  species,  quamvis  per  se  milium  peri- 
culum  affert , tamen  estfocda  et  ex  malo  corporis 
habitu  ft  (De  Re  Medica,  v.  28).  It  must, 
however,  be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  extremely 
difficult  to  determine,  even  in  our  day,  whether  an 
endemic  or  epidemic  disease  be  really  contagious; 
and  on  that  account  it  is  safer  to  suppose  that 
a nation  has  deceived  itself  in  believing  a disease 
to  be  contagious,  than  to  assume  without  further 
grounds  that  the  disease  has  changed  its  character. 
Less  can  be  said  respecting  the  identity  of  the  Ba * 
heret  kehah  of  Moses  and  the  yueA as  of  the  Greeks. 
It  may,  however,  be  remarked,  that  not  only  do 
their  names  correspond,  but  each  is  classed  with 
other  species  which  respectively  resemble  each 
other.  There  are  some  other  slight  affections 
mentioned  by  name  in  Leviticus,  which  the  priest 
was  required  to  distinguish  from  leprosy,  such  as 

DM?  Seet,  Shaphdl,  pm  Neteq,  |W 

Shechin , i.  e.  ‘ elevation,’  ‘ depressed,’  &c. ; and 
to  each  of  these  Dr.  Good  (/.  c.)  has  assigned  a 
modern  systematic  name.  But,  as  it  is  useless  to 
attempt  to  recognize  a disease  otherwise  than  by 
a description  of  its  symptoms,  we  can  have  no 
object  in  discussing  his  interpretation  of  these 
terms.  If  a person  had  any  of  the  above  diseases 
he  was  brought  before  the  priest  to  be  examined. 
If  the  priest  found  the  distinctive  signs  of  a 
Tsordat,  or  contagious  leprosy,  the  person  was 
immediately  declared  unclean.  If  the  priest 
had  any  doubt  on  the  subject,  the  person  was 
put  under  confinement  for  seven  days,  when  he 
was  examined  a second  time.  If  in  the  course 
of  the  preceding  week  the  eruption  had  made  no 
advance,  he  was  shut  up  for  another  seven  days  ; 
and  if  then  the  disease  was  still  stationary,  and 
had  none  of  the  distinctive  signs  above  noticed, 
he  was  declared  clean  (Lev.  xiii.). 

It  may  be  useful  here  to  subjoin  a description 
of  elephantiasis,  or  the  leprosy  of  the  middle 
ages,  as  this  is  the  disease  from  which  most  of  the 


LEPROSY. 


LEVIATHAN. 


239 


pievalsnt  notions  concerning  leprosy  have  been 
derived,  and  to  which  the  notices  of  lepers  con- 
tained in  modern  hooks  of  travels  exclusively  refer. 

Elephantiasis  first  of  all  make3  its  appearance 
by  spots  of  a reddish,  yellowish,  or  livid  hue, 
irregularly  disseminated  over  the  skin  and  slightly 
raised  above  its  surface.  These  spots  are  glossy, 
and  appear  oily,  or  as  if  they  were  covered  with 
varnish.  After  they  have  remained  in  this  way 
for  a longer  or  shorter  time,  they  are  succeeded 
by  an  eruption  of  tubercles.  These  are  soft, 
roundish  tumours,  varying  in  size  from  that  of  a 
pea  to  that  of  an  olive,  and  are  of  a reddish  or 
livid  colour.  They  are  principally  developed  on 
the  face  and  ea's,  but  in  the  course  of  years  ex- 
tend over  the  whole  body.  The  face  becomes 
frightfully  deformed ; the  forehead  is  traversed 
by  deep  lines  and  covered  with  numerous  tuber- 
cles; the  eyebrows  become  bald,  swelled,  fur- 
rowed by  oblique  lines,  and  covered  with  nipple- 
like elevations;  the  eyelashes  fall  out,  and  the 
eyes  assume  a fixed  and  staring  look ; the  lips 
arc  enormously  thickened  and  shining ; the  beard 
falls  out ; the  chin  and  ears  are  enlarged  and 
beset  with  tubercles ; the  lobe  and  alae  of  the  nose 
are  frightfully  enlarged  and  deformed  ; the  nos- 
trils irregularly  dilated,  internally  constricted, 
and  excoriated ; the  voice  is  hoarse  and  nasal, 
and  the  breath  intolerably  fetid.  After  some 
time,  generally  after  some  years,  many  of  the 
tubercles  ulcerate,  and  the  matter  which  exudes 
from  them  dries  to  crusts  of  a brownish  or 
blackish  colour;  but  this  process  seldom  termi- 
nates in  cicatrization.  The  extremities  are  affected 
in  the  same  way  as  the  face.  The  hollow  of  the 
foot  is  swelled  out,  so  that  the  sole  becomes  flat ; 
the  sensibility  of  the  skin  is  greatly  impaired, 
and,  in  the  hands  and  feet,  often  entirely  lost ; 
the  joints  of  the  toes  ulcerate  and  fall  off  one 
after  the  other ; insupportable  foetor  exhales  from 
the  whole  body.  The  patient's  general  health 
is  not  affected  for  a considerable  time,  and  his 
sufferings  are  not  always  of  the  same  intensity  as 
his  external  deformity.  Often,  however,  his 
nights  are  sleepless  or  disturbed  by  frightful 
dreams;  he  becomes  morose  and  melancholy; 
he  shuns  the  sight  of  the  healthy,  because  he  feels 
what  an  object  of  disgust  he  is  to  them,  and  life 
becomes  a loathsome  burden  to  him  ; or  he  falls 
into  a state  of  apathy,  and  after  many  years  of 
such  an  existence  he  sinks  either  from  exhaustion, 
or  from  the  supervention  of  internal  disease.  The 
Greeks  gave  the  name  of  elephantiasis  to  this  dis- 
ease, because  the  skin  of  the  person  affected  with 
it  was  thought  to  resemble  that  of  an  elephant, 
in  dark  colour,  ruggedness,  and  insensibility,  or, 
as  some  have  thought,  because  the  foot,  after  the 
loss  of  the  toes,  when  the  hollow  of  the  sole  is 
filled  up  and  the  ankle  enlarged,  resembles  the 

foot  of  an  elephant.  The  Arabs  called  it 

G'udham,  which  means  ‘mutilation,’  ‘amputa- 
tion,’ in  reference  to  the  loss  of  the  smaller  mem- 
bers. They  have,  however,  also  described  another 
disease,  and  a very  different  one  from  elephan- 
tiasis, to  which  they  gave  the  name  of 

Da*  l fll,  which  means  literally  morbus  elephas. 
The  disease  to  which  they  applied  this  name  is 
called  by  modern  writers  the  tumid  Barbadoes 
1*3,  and  consists  in  a thickening  of  the  skin  and 


subcutaneous  tissues  of  the  leg,  but  presents 
nothing  resembling  the  tubercles  of  elephantiasis*. 
Now  the  Latin  translators  from  (he  Arabic,  find- 
ing that  the  same  name  existed  both  in  the  Greek 
and  Arabic,  translated  Dal  fil  by  elephantiasis, 
and  thus  confounded  the  Barbadoes  leg  with  the 
Arabic  G'udham,  while  this  latter,  which  was  in 
reality  elephantiasis,  they  rendered  by  the  Greek 
term  lepra.  About  the  period  of  the  Crusades 
elephantiasis  spread  itself  like  an  epidemic  over 
all  Europe,  even  as  far  north  as  the  Faroe  Islands, 
and  henceforth,  owing  to  the  above-named  mis- 
takes, every  one  became  familiar  with  leprosy 
under  the  form  of  the  terrible  disease  that  has 
just  been  described.  Leper  or  lazar-houses 
abounded  everywhere  : as  many  as  2000  are  said 
to  have  existed  in  France  alone.  The  disease 
was  considered  to  be  contagious  possibly  only  on 
account  of  the  belief  that  was  entertained  respect- 
ing its  identity  with  Jewish  leprosy,  and  the 
strictest  regulations  were  enacted  for  secluding 
the  diseased  ’ from  society.  Towards  the  com- 
mencement of  the  seventeenth  century  the  disease 
gradually  disappeared  from  Europe,  and  is  now 
confined  to  intertropical  countries.  It  existed  in 
Faroe  as  late  as  1676,  and  in  the  Shetland  Islands 
in  1736,  long  after  it  had  ceased  in  the  southern 
parts  of  Great  Britain.  The  best  authors  of  the 
present  day  who  have  had  an  opportunity  of  ob- 
serving the  disease  do  not  consider  it  to  be  con- 
tagious. There  seems,  however,  to  be  little  doubt 
as  to  its  being  hereditary  (Good’s  Study  of  Med., 
iii.  421 ; Rayer,  Mai.  de  la  Peau,  ii.  296  ; Simp- 
son On  the  Lepers  and  Leper  Houses  of  Scotland 
and  England,  in  Edin.  Med.  and  Surg.  Journ., 
Jan.  1,  1842).— W.  A.  N. 

LEVI  0)!?,  a joining ; Sept.  Level),  the  third 
son  of  Jacob  and  Leah,  born  in  Mesopotamia 
B.c.  1750  (Gen.  xxix.  34).  No  circumstance  is 
recorded  of  him  save  the  part  which  he  and  his 
full  brother  Simeon  took  in  the  massacre  of  the 
Shechemites,  to  avenge  the  wrong  done  to  their 
sister  Dinah  (Gen.  xxxiv.  25,  26).  This  transac- 
tion was  to  his  last  hour  regarded  by  Jacob  with 
abhorrence,  and  he  failed  not  to  allude  to  it  in 
his  dying  declaration.  As  Simeon  and  Levi  were 
united  in  that  Jfct,  so  the  patriarch  couples  them 
in  his  prophecy  : ‘ Accursed  be  their  anger,  for  it 
was  fierce ; and  their  wrath,  for  it  was  cruel ! I 
will  divide  them  in  Jacob,  and  disperse  them  in 
Israel.’  And,  accordingly,  their  descendants  were 
afterwards,  in  different  ways,  dispersed  among 
the  other  tribes  ; although,  in  the  case  of  Levi, 
this  curse  was  eventually  turned  into  a benefit 
and  blessing. 

LEVIATHAN  (|JW,  Job  iii.  8 ; xli.  1 ; Ps. 
lxxiv.  14;  civ.  26;  Isa.  xxvii.  1)  [Behemoth, 
Crocodile,  Dragon].  Gesenins  very  justly 
remarks  that  this  word,  which  denotes  any  twisted 
animal,  is  especially  applicable  to  every  great 
tenant  of  the  waters,  such  as  the  great  marine 
serpents  and  crocodiles,  and,  it  may  be  added,  the 
colossal  serpents  and  great  monitors  of  the  desert. 
In  general  it  points  to  the  crocodile,  and  Job  xli, 
is  unequivocally  descriptive  of  that  Saurian.  Pro- 
bably the  Egyptian  crocodile  is  therein  depicted 
in  all  its  magnitude,  ferocity,  and  indolence, 
such  as  it  was  in  early  days,  when  as  yet  uncon- 
scious of  the  power  of  man,  and  only  uidividually 
tamed  for  the  purposes  of  an  imposture,  which  had 


240 


LEVITES. 


LEVITES. 


sufficient  authority  to  intimidate  the  public  and 
protect  the  species,  under  the  sanctified  pretext 
that  it  was  a type  of  pure  water,  and  an  emblem 
of  the  importance  of  irrigation  ; though  the  people 
in  general  seem  ever  to  have  been  disposed  to  con- 
sider it  a personification  of  the  destructive  prin- 
ciple. At  a later  p&riod  the  Egyptians,  probably 
of  such  places  as  Tentyris,  where  crocodiles  were 
not  held  in  veneration,  not  only  hunted  and  slew 
them,  but  it  appears  from  a statue  that  a sort,  of 
Bestiarii  c( uld  tame  them  sufficiently  to  perform 
certain  exhibitions  mounted  on  their  backs.  The 
intense  musky  odour  of  its  flesh  must  have  ren- 
dered the  crocodile,  at  all  times,  very  unpalatable 
food,  but  breast-armour  was  made  of  the  horny 
and  ridged  parts  of  its  back.  We  have  ourselves 
witnessed  a periodical  abstinence  in  the  great  Sau- 
rians,  and  have  known  negro  women,  while  bathing, 
play  with  young  alligators;  which,  they  asserted, 
they  could  da  without  danger,  unless  they  hurt 
them  and  thereby  attracted  the  vengeance  of  the 
mother;  but  the  impunity  most  likely  resulted 
from  the  period  of  inactivity  coinciding  with  the 
then  state  of  the  young  animals,  or  from  the 
negro  women  being  many  in  the  water  at  the  same 
lime.  The  occurrence  took  place  at  Old  Har- 
bour, Jamaica. 

Some  misstatements  and  much  irrelevant  learn- 
ing have  been  bestowed  upon  the  Leviathan. 
Viewed  as  the  crocodile  of  the  Thebaid,  it  is  not 
clear  that  it  symbolised  the  Pharaoh,  or  was  a 
type  of  Egypt,  any  more  than  of  several  Roman 
colonies  (even  where  it  was  not  indigenous,  as  at 
Nismes  in  Gaul,  on  the  ancient  coins  of  which 
the  figure  of  one  chained  occurs),  and  of  cities 
in  Phoenicia,  Egypt,  and  other  parts  of  the  coast 
of  Africa.  But  in  the  Prophets  and  Psalms 
there  are  passages  where  Pharaoh  is  evidently 
apostrophized  under  the  name  of  Leviathan, 
though  other  texts  more  naturally  apply  to  the 
whale,  notwithstanding  the  objections  that  have 
been  made  to  that  internretation  of  the  term 
| Whai.e].— C.  H.  S. 

LEVITES  Sept.  Aevlrat),  the  de- 

scendants of  Levi,  through  his  sons  Gershon, 
Kohath,  and  Merari,  whose  descendants  formed  so 
many  sub-tribes  or  great  families  of  the  general 
body.  In  a narrower  sense  the  lerm  Levites 
designates  the  great  body  of  the  tribe  employed  in 
the  subordinate  offices  of  the  hierarchy,  to  distin- 
guish them  from  that  one  family  of  their  body — 
the  family  of  Aaron — in  which  the  priestly  func- 
tions were  vested. 

While  the  Israelites  were  encamped  before 
Mount  Sinai,  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  which  Moses 
and  Aaron  belonged,  was,  by  special  ordinance 
from  the  Lord,  set  specially  apart  for  sacerdotal 
services,  in  the  place  of  the  first-born  of  the  dif- 
ferent tribes  and  families  to  whom  such  func- 
tions, according  to  ancient  usage,  belonged;  and 
which  indeed  had  already  been  set  apart  as  holy, 
in  commemoration  of  the  first-bom  of  the  Israel- 
ites having  being  spared  when  the  first-born  of  the 
Egyptians  were  destroyed  (Mum.  iii.  12,13, 40-5 1 ; 
Exod.  xiii.).  When  it  was  determined  to  set  apart 
a single  tribe  of  Levi  for  this  service,  the  numbers 
of  the  first-born  in  Israel  and  of  the  tribe  selected 
were  respectively  taken,  when  it  was  found  that 
the  former  amounted  to  22.273,  and  the  latter  to 
?2,000.  Those  of  the  first-bo  beyond  the  number 


of  the  Levites  were  then  redeemed  at  the  rate  o* 
five  shekels,  or  12s.  6d.,  each,  and  the  mone; 
assigned  to  the  priests.  At  tire  same  time  th 
cattle  which  the  Levites  then  happened  to  posses 
were  considered  as  equivalent  to  all  the  firstling 
of  the  cattle  which  the  Israelites  had  ; and,  ac 
cordingly,  the  firstlings  were  not  required  to  b< 
brought,  as  in  subsequent  years,  to  the  altar 
and  to  the  priesthood  (Num.  iii.  41-51).  • 

In  the  wilderness  the  office  of  the  Levites  was  U 
carry  the  Tabernacle  and  its  utensils  and  furni- 
ture from  place  to  place,  after  they  had  been 
packed  up  by  the  priests  (Num.  iv.  4- 15).  In 
this  service  each  ot  the  three  Levitical  families 
had  its  separate  department;  the Gershonites  car- 
ried the  hangings  and  cords  of  the  Tabernacle,  for 
which  they  were  allowed  two  wains,  each  drawn 
by  four  oxen  (Num.  iii.  25,  26;  iv.  24-28;  vii. 
7).  The  Kohathites  carried  the  ark,  the  table  ol 
shew-bread,  the  candlestick,  the  two  altars,  and 
such  of  the  hangings  us  belonged  to  the  sanctuary  : 
for  this  they  had  ro  wains  or  oxen,  the  whole 
being  carried  upon  their  shoulders  (Num.  iii.  31  ; 
iv.  4-15  ; vii.  9);  the  Merarites  had  charge  of  the 
substantial  parts  of  the  Tabernacle — the  boards, 
pillars,  bars,  bases,  &c.,  and  also  all  the  ordinary 
vessels  of  service,  for  which  they  were  allowed 
four  wains  and  eight  oxen  (Num.  iii.  36,  37  ; iv. 
31,  32  ; vii.  8).  In  this  manner  they  proceeded 
in  all  their  journeys  ; and  when  they  settled  in  a 
place,  and  had  erected  the  Tabernacle,  the  ditl'er- 
ent  families  pitched  their  tents  around  it  in  the 
following  manner:  the  Gershonites  behind  it  on 
the  west  (Num.  iii.  23),  the  Kohathites  on  the 
south  (iii.  29),  the  Merarites  on  the  nort  h (iii.  35), 
and  the  priests  on  the  east  (iii.  38).  Thev  all 
assisted  Aaron  and  his  sons  in  taking  care  of,  and 
attending  on,  the  Tabernacle,  when  it  was  pitched ; 
but  they  were  allowed  to  take  no  part  in  the  se;  - 
vices  of  the  altar  (xviii.  2-7). 

This  was  the  nature  of  their  service  iu  the 
desert:  but  when  they  entered  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, and  the  tabernacle  ceased  to  be  migratory, 
the  range  of  their  service  was  considerably  altered. 
While  part  attended  at  the  tabernacle,  the  rest 
were  distributed  through  the  country  in  the  several 
cities  which  were  allotted  to  them.  These  cities 
are  commonly  reckoned  forty-eight;  but  thirteen 
of  them  were  reserved  for  the  priests,  so  that  only 
thirty-five  belonged  to  the  Levites.  The  names 
of  these  cities,  and  the  tribes  in  which  they  were 
situated,  are  given  in  Josh.  xxi.  20-42 ; 1 Chron. 
vi.  61-81.  Of  the  forty-eight  cities  six  were 
cities  of  refuge  for  the  unintentional  homicide, 
of  which  one,  Hebron,  was  a priestly  city  (Deut. 
iv.  41-43  ; Josh.  xx.  2-9). 

In  the  time  of  David,  when  the  number  of  the 
priests  and  Levites  had  much  increased,  a third 
and  very  important  alteration  was  effected,  as 
much,  or  more,  with  reference  to  the  Temple,  for 
which  he  made  every  possible  preparation,  as  for 
the  existing  service  at  the  Tabernacle.  Whilt 
tire  priests  were  divided  into  twenty-four  courses, 
that  they  might  attend  the  Temple  in  rotatior 
weekly,  and  only  officiate  about  two  weeks  in  th* 
year,  the  Levites  were  also  divided  into  twenty-fou: 
courses.  In  the  book  of  Chronicles  we  have  four 
times  twenty- four  courses  of  Levites  mentioned 
but  all  their  employments  are  not  distinctly 
stated  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  7-23;  xxiv.  20-31;  xxv 
1 31  ; xxvi.  1-12).  The  most  conspicuous  clar 


LEVITES. 


LEVI1ES. 


24  i 


sification  13  that  of  twenty-four  courses  of  porters 
and  servitors,  and  twenty-four  of  musicians. 

The  courses  of  the  porters  and  servitors  are 
mentioned  in  1 Chron.  xxvi.  1-12;  their  different 
posts  are  stated  in  verses  13-16;  and  it  would  ap- 
pear from  1 Chron.  xxvi.  17-19,  that  the  guard  of 
Levites  for  each  day  was  twenty-four.  In  1 Chron. 
ix.  20-34  there  are  some  further  particulars  of  the 
articles  they  had  in  charge.  It  is  clear  from  all 
this  that  the  porters  were  quite  distinct  from  the 
singers. 

The  office  of  the  porters  was  to  open  and  shut 
the  doors  arid  gates  of  the  Temple-courts,  at  which 
they  also  attended  throughout  the  day  to  prevent 
the  entrance  of  any  harmful  or  unclean  person  or 
thkng  (1  Chron.  xxvi.  17,  18).  They  had  also 
the  charge  of  the  treasure-chambers  in  their  re- 
spective wai'ds  ; for  we  find  four  of  the  chief  porters 
holding  this  trust  in  1 Chron.  ix.  26,  and  t heir- 
names  and  the  articles  in  their  charge  are  given 
in  1 Chron.  xxvi.  20-29;  2 Chron.  xxxi.  12-14. 

Besides  acting  as  porters  and  servants  during 
the  day,  we  learn  that  they  were  also  the  guards  of 
the  Temple.  Minute  particulars  with  reference  to 
the  second  Temple  are  given  by  the  Rabbinical 
and  other  authors,  and  so  far  as  they  are  correct, 
which  they  seem  to  be  in  substance,  they  may  be 
supposed  to  apply  equally  well  to  the  first  Temple, 
from  which  they  must  have  been  in  the  main 
transmitted.  Without  enteving  into  specific  de- 
tails, it  may  be  remarked  that  the  whole  number 
of  guards  to  the  Temple,  at  night,  is  stated  to 
have  been  twenty-four,  of  whom  three  were  priests. 
These  are  described  as  having  been  under  an 
overseer,  called  ‘ the  man  of  the  mountain  of  the 
*ouse.-’  He  went  his  rounds  to  see  that  the  guards 
were  at  their  posts : if  he  found  any  one  seated 
♦vho  should  have  been  standing,  he  said  ‘ Peace 
be  unto  thee;’  but  if  he  found  any  one  asleep,  he 
6truck  him,  and  sometimes  set  fire  to  his  clothes 
(Maimon.  Beth  Hahech.  ch.  viii.).  This  has  been 
thought  to  throw  light  upon  Rev.  xvi.  15,  ‘ Be- 
hold I corne  as  a thief ; blessed  is  he  that  watcheth 
and  keepeth  his  garments,  lest  he  walk  naked,  and 
they  see  his  shame.’ 

Bishop  Lowth  (on  Isa.  lxii.  6)  supposes  that 
Ps.  cxxxiv.  furnishes  an  example  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  watchmen  of  the  Temple  acted  dur- 
ing the  night,  and  that  the  whole  Psalm  is  nothing 
more  than  the  alternate  cry  of  the  two  different 
divisions,  the  first  addressing  the  second,  remind- 
ing them  of  their  duty,  and  the  second  answering 
by  a solemn  blessing. 

First  chorus. — Come  on,  now,  bless  ye  Jehovah, 
all  ye  servants  of  Jehovah  ; ye  who  stand  in 
the  house  of  Jehovah  in  the  night ; 

Lift  up  your  hands  towards  the  holy  place,  and 
bless  ye  Jehovah. 

Second  chorus . — Jehovah  bless  thee  out  of  Zion, 
He  that  made  heaven  and  earth.’ 

The  bishop  further  supposes  that  the  address 
and  answer  constituted  a set  form  which  each 
division  proclaimed  at  stated  intervals  to  notify 
the  time  of  the  night ; and  he  illustrates  this 
view  by  reference  to  Isa.  lxii.  6 — 

‘ Upon  thy  walls,  O Jerusalem  ! have  I appointed 
watchmen, 

That  shall  never  be  silent  the  whole  day  nor  the 
whole  night.’ 

Here,  however,  the  allusion  is  obviously  to  the 
guard  of  the  city,  not  of  the  T'onrile ; although 


the  existence  of  trie  practice  in  the  city  may  sup 
ply  an  argument  for  its  existence  in  the  Temple. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  one  division  of  the  Le- 
vites was  employed  as  porters  during  the  day,  ana 
another  as  guards  during  the  night : a third  di- 
vision served  as  musicians.  A catalogue  of  these 
is  given  in  1 Chron.  xxi.  1-9,  according  to  their 
employments ; and  another,  according  to  their 
courses,  in  1 Chron.  xxi.  9-31.  We  shall  have  to 
speak  of  Music  under  that  head,  and  need  only 
here  state  that  on  grand  occasions,  when  a full 
band  was  formed,  the  family  of  Heman  sung  in  the 
middle  (L  Chron.  vi.  33-38),  the  family  of  Asaph 
on  the  right  hand  (vi.  39-43),  and  the  family  of 
Ethan  on  the  left.  The  ordinary  place  for  the 
musicians,  vocal  and  instrumental,  was  at  the 
east  end  of  the  court  of  the  priests,  between  the 
court  of  Israel  and  the  altar.  We  are  told,  how- 
ever, that  although  the  Levites  were  the  regular- 
ministers  of  sacred  song,  other  men  of  skill  and 
note,  of  the  commonalty,  especially  such  as  were 
connected  by  marriage  with  the  priesthood,  were 
occasionally  allowed  to  assist  in  the  instrumental 
department,  with  the  instruments  on  which  they 
excelled;  but  that  even  these  might  not,  on  any 
account,  join  in  the  vocal  department,  which  was 
considered  the  most  solemn-(7’.  Bah.  tit.  Eracldn, 
fol.  11;  Maimon.  Keh  Mikdash,  ch.  iii.).  This 
may  help  to  explain  or  illustrate  2 Sam.  vi.  5. 

It  seems  that  the  singers  could  never  be  under 
twelve,  because  that,  number  was  particularly  men- 
tioned at  their  first  appointment  (1  Chron  xxv. 
9);  but  there  was  no  objection  to  any  larger  num- 
ber (Erachin,  ut  supra).  The  young  sons  of  the 
Levites  were,  on  such  occasions  only,  allowed  to 
enter  the  court  of  the  priests  with  their  fathers,  that 
their  small  voices  might  relieve  the  deep  bass  of 
the  men  ( Gemar . tit.  Succah,  ch.  v.)  ; and  for  this 
authority  was  supposed  to  be  found  in  Ezra  iii.  9. 

The  Levites  were  not  at  liberty  to  exercise  any 
properly  sacerdotal  functions;  but  on  extraordi- 
nary occasions  they  were  permitted  to  assist  in 
preparing  the  sacrifices,  without,  however,  in  any 
way  concerning  themselves  with  the  blood  (2 
Chron.  xxix.  34;  xxx.  16,  17;  xxxv.  1). 

In  Num.  iv.  3 the  Levites  are  described  as  com- 
mencing their  actual  service  at  thirty  years  of  age ; 
but  in  Num.  viii.  24,  25,  twenty-five  is  the  age 
mentioned ; and  in  1 Chron.  xxiii.  24,  25,  and 
Ezra  iii.  8,  twenty.  The  reason  of  these  ap- 
parent discrepancies  is,  that  from  twenty. five  to 
thirty  they  were  in  the  state  of  probationers,  doing 
some  things,  but  excluded  from  others  (Aben  Ezra, 
on  Num.  viii.).  At  thirty  they  became  qualified 
for  every  part  of  the  Levitical  service.  This  was 
under  the  Tabernacle  ; but  when  the  Temple  was 
built,  and  bodily  strength  was  less  required,  the 
age  was  reduced  to  twenty.  After  fifty  they  were 
no  longer  called  upon  to  serve  as  a matter  of  obli- 
gation ; but  they  might  attend  if  they  thought 
proper,  and  perform  any  usual  service  which  was 
not  considered  burdensome.  Thus,  in  the  wilder- 
ness, they  ceased  at  that  age  to  carry  any  part  of 
the  burdens  when  the  ark  and  Tabernacle  were 
removed  (Num.  viii.  25,  26). 

When  the  Levitical  body  was  first  set  apart 
for  its  sacred  duties,  the  existing  members  were 
consecrated  in  the  manner  particularly  described 
in  Num.  viii.  6,  22.  They,  and  in  them  their 
descendants,  were  thus  inducted  into  their  par- 
ticular office ; and,  ill  later  times,  when  any  on« 


LEVITES. 


LEVITES. 


*4‘J 

became  of  age,  it  was  sufficient  for  his  admission 
to  prove  that  lie  belonged  to  a Levitical  family, 
and,  probably,  to  offer  some  trifling-  sacrifice.  It 
does  not  appear  that  the  Levites,  when  at  home, 
had  any  particular  dress  to  distinguish  them  from 
their  countrymen ; nor  is  there  any  positive  evi- 
dence that  they  had  any  distinctive  garb,  even 
when  on  actual  service  at  the  tabernacle  or 
temple.  Josephus  (Antiq.  xx.  9)  relates,  that 
only  six  years  before  the  destruction  of  the  Temple 
by  the  Romans,  the  Levites  were  allowed  by 
Agrippa  to  wear  a linen  tunic,  like  the  priests — 
an  innovation  with  which  the  latter  were  highly 
displeased.  This  shows  that  the  dress  of  the 
Levites,  even  when  on  duty,  had  not  previously 
been  in  any  respect  similar  to  that  of  the  priests. 

The  subsistence  of  the  Levites  was  provided  for 
in  a peculiar  manner.  It  consisted,  first,  of  a 
compensation  for  the  abandonment  of  their  right 
to  one-twelfth  of  the  land  of  Canaan ; and, 
secondly,  of  a remuneration  for  their  services  in 
their  official  capacity  as  devoted  to  the  services  of 
the  sanctuary.  The  territorial  compensation  lay 
in  the  48  cities  which  were  granted  to  the  whole 
tribe,  including  the  priests.  These  cities  were 
scattered  among  the  different  tribes,  as  centres  of 
instruction,  and  had  1000  square  cubits,  equal  to 
above  305  English  acres,  attached  to  each  of  them, 
to  serve  for  gardens,  vineyards,  and  pasturage. 
It  is  obvious,  however,  that  this  alone  could  not 
have  been  an  adequate  compensation  for  the  loss 
of  one-twelfth  of  the  soil,  seeing  that  the  produce 
of  305  acres  could  not  in  any  case  have  sufficed 
for  the  wants  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  cities. 
The  further  provision,  therefore,  which  was  made 
for  them  must  be  regarded  as  partly  in  compen- 
sation for  their  sacrifice  of  territory,  although  we 
are  disposed  to  look  upon  it  as  primarily  intended 
as  a remuneration  for  the  dedication  of  their 
'Services  to  the  public.  This  provision  consisted 
of  the  tithe,  or  tenth  of  the  produce  of  the  grounds 
allotted  to  the  other  tribes.  The  simplest  view  of 
this  payment  is  to  regard  it,  first,  as  the  pro- 
duce of  about  as  much  land  as  the  Levites 
would  have  been  entitled  to  if  placed  on  the  same 
footing  with  regard  to  territory  as  the  other  tribes  ; 
and  also  as  the  produce  of  so  much  more  land, 
which  the  other  tribes  enjoyed  in  consequence  of  its 
not  having  been  assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Levi.  In 
giving  the  produce  of  this  land  to  the  Levites  the 
Israelites  were  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  simply 
releasing  them  from  the  cares  of  agriculture,  to 
enable  them  to  devote  themselves  to  the  service  of 
the  sanctuary.  The  land  which  produced  the  tithe 
was  just  so  much  land  held  by  the  other  tribes 
in  their  behalf ; and  the  labour  of  cultivating 
this  land  was  the  salary  paid  to  the  Levites  for 
their  official  services.  The  tenth  was  paid  to  the 
whole  tribe  of  Levi;  but  as  the  Levites  had  to  give 
out  of  this  one-tenth  to  the  priests,  their  own  allow- 
ance was  only  nine-tenths  of  the  tenth.  A more 
particular  account  of  tithes  belongs  to  another 
head  [Tithes].  The  Levites  had  also  a certain 
interest  in  the  ‘second  tithe,’  being  the  portion 
which,  after  the  first  tithe  ha  1 been  paid,  the 
cultivator  set  apart  for  hospitable  feasts,  which 
were  held  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary  in  two 
out  of  three  years,  but  in  the  third  year  at  home. 
This  interest,  however,  extended  no  further  than 
that  the  offerer  was  particularly  enjoined  to  invite 
the  priests  and  Levites  to. such  feasts. 


The  earliest  notice  we  have  of  the  numbers  of 
the  Levites  occurs  at  their  first  separation  in  the 
desert,  when  there  were  22,300,  of  a month  old 
and  upwards ; of  whom  8580  were  fit  for  service, 
or  between  the  ages  of  30  and  50  (Ni  m.  iii.  22, 
28.  31;  iv.  2,  34-49).  Thirty-eight  years  after, 
just  before  the  Israelites  entered  Canaan,  they  had 
increased  to  23,000,  not  one  of  whom  had,  been 
born  at  the  time  of  the  former  enumeration 
(Num.  xxvi.  57,  62-65).  About  460  years 
after  the  entry  into  Canaan  (b.c.  1015)  they  were 
again  numbered  by  David,  a little  before  his 
death,  and  were  found  to  have  increased  to  38.000 
men  fit  for  Levitical  service — of  whom  24,000 
were  ‘ set  over  the  work  of  the  Lord,’  60(J0  were 
officers  and  judges,  4000  were  porters,  and  4000 
were  musicians  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  3,  4,  5).  If  the 
same  proportion  then  existed  between  those  come 
of  age  and  those  a month  old  which  existed  when 
the  tribe  quitted  Egypt,  the  entire  number  of  the 
Levitical  body,  in  the  time  of  David,  must  have 
been  96,433. 

After  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes,  those  of  the 
Levites  who  resided  in  the  territories  of  those 
tribes,  having  resisted  the  request  of  Jeroboam  to 
transfer  their  services  to  his  idolatrous  establish- 
ments at  Dan  and  Bethel,  were  obliged  to  abandon 
their  possessions  and  join  their  brethren  in  Judah 
and  Benjamin  (2  Chron.  xi.  12,  13,  14;  xiii.  9); 
and  this  concentration  of  the  Levitical  body  in 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  must  have  had  an  impor- 
tant influence  ujion  its  condition  and  history. 
That  kingdom  thus  actually  consisted  of  three 
tribes — Judah,  Benjamin,  and  Levi. — of  which 
one  was  devoted  to  sacerdotal  uses.  This  altered 
position  of  the  Levites — after  they  had  been  de- 
prived of  most  of  their  cities,  and  the  tithes  from 
ten  of  the  tribes  were  cut  off’ — presents  a subject 
for  much  interesting  investigation,  into  which  we 
cannot  enter.  Their  means  must  have  been  much 
reduced;  for  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Judah  and 
Benjamin  alone  were  able,  even  if  willing,  to  un- 
dertake the  support  of  the  whole  Levitical  body 
on  the  same  scale  as  when  the  dues  of  all  Israel 
flowed  into  its  treasuries.  In  the  subsequent  his- 
tory of  Judah  the  Levites  appear  less  frequently 
than  might  have  been  expected.  The  chief 
public  measure  in  which  they  were  engaged  was 
the  restoration  of  the  house  of  David  in  t he  person 
of  young  Joash  (2  Chron.  xxiii.  1-11);  which 
may  he  regarded  as  mainly  the  work  of  the  Le- 
vitical body,  including  the  priests. 

Under  the  edict  of  Cyrus,  only  341  Levites, 
according  to  Ezra  (ii.  40-42),  or  350,  according 
to  Nehemiah  (vii.  43-45),  returned  with  Zerub- 
babel  to  Jerusalem.  This  is  less  surprising  than 
might  at  first  sight  appear;  for  if,  before  the  cap- 
tivity, the  great  body  of  them  had  been  in  strait- 
ened circumstances  and  without  fixed  possessions 
in  Judah,  it  was  only  consistent  with  human  pru- 
dence that  those  who  had,  in  all  probability,  com- 
fortably settled  themselves  in  Babylon,  should 
not  be  anxious  to  return  in  such  numbers  to  Pa- 
lestine as  were  likely  to  produce  similar  effects. 
A few  more  are  mentioned  in  Neh  xii.  24  26. 
Those  who  did  return  seem  to  have  had  no  very 
correct  notion  of  their  obligations  and  duties;  for 
there  were  many  who  formed  matrimonial  alii* 
ances  with  the  idolaters  of  the  land,  and  thereby 
corrupted  both  their  moral?  and  genealogies.  But 
they  were  prevailed  upon  to  reform  this  abuse; 


LEVITES. 


LEVITICUS. 


243 


and,  as  a token  of  obedience,  signed  tbe  national 
covenant  with  Nehemiah,  and  abode  at  Jerusalem 
to  influence  others  by  their  authority  and  ex- 
ample (Neh.  x.  9-13;  xi.  15  19). 

The  Levites  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Apocry- 
phal books,  and  very  slightly  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (Luke  x.  32;  John  i.  19;  Acts  iv.  36)  ; 
but  the  ‘scribes’  and  the  ‘lawyers,’  so  often 
named  in  the  Gospels,  are  usually  supposed  to 
haxe  belonged  to  them. 

It  would  lie  taking  a very  narrow  view  of  the 
duties  of  the  Levirical  body  if  we  regarded  them 
as  limited  to  their  services  at  the  sanctuary.  On 
the  contrary,  we  see  in  their  establishment  a pro- 
vision for  the  religious  and  . moral  instruction  of 
the  great  body  of  the  people,  which  no  ancient 
lawgiver  except  Moses  ever  thought  of  attending  to. 
But  that  this  was  one  principal  object  for  which 
a twelfth  of  the  population — the  tribe  of  Levi 
— was  set  apart,  is  clearly  intimated  in  Deut. 
xxxii.  9,  10  : ‘They  shall  teach  Jacob  thy  judg- 
ments and  Israel  thy  law  ; they  shall  put  incense 
before  thee,  and  whole  burnt  sacrifice  upon  thine 
altar.’  They  were  to  read  the  volume  of  the  law 
publicly  every  seventh  year  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles (Deut.  xxxi.  10-13).  ‘This  public  and 
solemn  periodical  instruction,’  observes  Dean 
Graves  ( Lectures , p.  170),  ‘though  eminently 
useful,  was  certainly  not  the  entire  of  their  duty  ; 
they  were  bound  from  the  spirit  of  this  ordinance 
to  take  care  that  at  all  times  the  aged  should  be 
improved  and  the  children  instructed  in  the 
knowledge  and  fear  of  God,  the  adoration  of  his 
majesty,  and  the  observance  of  his  law  ; and  for 
this  purpose  the  peculiar  situation  and  privileges 
of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  as  regulated  by  the  divine 
appointment,  admirably  fitted  them.  Possessed 
of  no  landed  property,  and  supported  by  the  tithes 
and  offerings  which  they  received  in  kind,  they 
were  little  occupied  with  labour  or  secular  care ; 
deriving  their  maintenance  from  a source  which 
would  necessarily  fail  if  the  worship  of  God  were 
neglected,  they  were  deeply  interested  in  their 
support.  Their  cities  being  dispersed  through  all 
the  tribes,  and  their  families  permitted  to  inter- 
marry with  all,  they  were  everywhere  at  hand  to 
admonish  and  instruct;  exclusively  possessed  of 
the  high-priesthood,  as  well  as  of  all  other  reli- 
gious offices,  and  associated  with  the  high-priest 
and  judge  in  the  supreme  court  of  judicature,  and 
with  the  elders  of  every  city  in  the  inferior  tri- 
bunals, and  guardians  of  the  cities  of  refuge, 
where  those  who  were  guilty  of  homicide  fled  for 
an  asylum,  they  must  have  acquired  such  influ- 
ence and  reverence  among  the  people  as  were  ne- 
cessary to  secure  attention  to  their  instructions; 
and  they  were  led  to  study  the  rules  of  moral 
conduct,  the  principles  of  equity,  and,  above  all, 
the  Mosaic  code,  with  unceasing  attention  ; but 
they  vere  not  laid  under  any  vows  of  celibacy, 
or  monastic  austerity  and  retirement,  and  thus 
abstracted  from  the  intercourse  and  feelings  of 
social  life.  Thus  circumstanced,  they  were  as- 
suredly well  calculated  to  answer  the  purpose  of 
their  institution,  to  preserve  and  consolidate  the 
union  of  all  the  other  tribes,  and  to  instruct  and 
forward  the  poor  in  knowledge,  virtue,  and  piety  ’ 

( Lectures , pp.  169-171  ; Brown's  Antiquities , i. 
301-347  ; Godwyn's  Moses  and  Aaron,  i.  5 ; 
Wits ius,  Dissert.  II.  de  Theocrat.  Israelitar. 
add.  Goodwini  Moses  et  Aaron ; Jei:«nings,  An- 


tiquities, pp.  184-206;  Carpzov,  Apparat.  Cr,.. 
see  Index  ; Saubert,  Comm,  de  Sacerdot.  et  Sacris 
Hjebr.  personis,  Opp.  p.  283,  sqq.  ; Gramberg, 
dir  it.  Gesch.  der  Jleligionsideen  dcs  Alten  Test. 
vol.  i.  c.  3). 

LEVITICUS,  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  is  called 
and  is  the  third  book  of  Moses. 

Contents.  — Leviticus  contains  the  further 
statement  and  development  of  the  Sinaitic  legis- 
lation, the  beginnings  of  which  are  described  in 
Exodus.  It  exhibits  the  historical  progress  of 
this  legislation;  consequently  we  must  not  expect 
to  find  the  laws  detailed  in  it  in  a systematic 
form.  There  is,  nevertheless,  a certain  order 
observed,  which  arose  from  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  of  which  the  plan  may  easily  be  per- 
ceived. The  whole  is  intimately  connected  with 
the  contents  of  Exodus,  at  the  conclusion  of  which 
book  that  sanctuary  is  described  with  which  all 
external  worship  was  connected  (Exod.  xxxv.- 
xl.).  Leviticus  begins  by  describing  the  worship 
itself.  First  are  stated  the  laws  concerning  sacri- 
fices (ch.  i.-vii.).  In  this  section  is  first  described 
the  general  quality  of  the  sacrifices,  which  are 
divided  into  bloody  and  unbloody  ; secondly , 
their  aim  and  object,  according  to  which  they 
are  either  thank-offerings  or  sin-offerings; 
and  lastly , the  time,  place,  and  manner  in 
which  they  should  be  made. 

Then  follows  a description  of  the  manner  ii. 
which  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  consecrated  as 
priests,  and  how,  by  the  manifestation  of  the 
divine  glory,  they  were  ordained  to  be  mediators 
between  God  and  his  people  (ch.  viii.-ix.).  As 
formerly  the  ingratitude  of  the  people  had  been 
severely  punished  (Exod.  xxxii.  sq.),  so  now  the 
disobedience  of  Ihe  priests  was  visited  with  signal 
marks  of  the  divine  displeasure  (Lev.  x.).  On 
this  occasion  were  given  several  laws  concerning 
the  requisites  of  the  sacerdotal  office. 

The  theocratical  sanctity  of  the  nation  was 
intimately  connected  with  the  existence  of  the 
sanctuary.  Every  subject,  indeed,  connected 
with  the  sanctuary  was  intended  to  uphold  a strict 
separation  between  holy  and  unholy  things. 
The  whole  theocratical  life  was  based  on  a strict 
separation  of  things  unclean  from  things  clean, 
which  alone  were  offered  to  God  and  might  ap- 
proach the  sanctuary.  The  whole  creation,  and 
especially  all  animal  life,  should,  like  man  him- 
self, bear  testimony  to  the  defilement  resulting 
from  sin,  and  to  its  opposite,  viz.  the  holiness  of 
the  Lord  (ch.  xi.-xv.). 

The  great  feast  of  atonement  formed,  as  it 
were,  the  central  point  of  the  national  sanctity, 
this  feast  being  appointed  to  reconcile  the  whole 
people  to  God,  and  to  purify  the  sanctuary  itself. 
All  preceding  institutions,  all  sacrifices  and  puri- 
fications, receive  their  completion  in  the  great 
feast  of  Israel’s  atonement  (ch.  xvi.). 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  the  sanctuary  was 
made  the  positive  central  point  of  the  whole 
nation,  or  of  national  holiness ; but  it.  was  to  be 
inculcated  negatively  also,  that  ill  worship 
should  be  connected  with  the  sanctuary,  and  that 
no  sacrifices  should  be  offered  elsewhere,  lest  any 
pagan  abuses  should  thereby  strike  root  again 
(ch.  xvii.). 

The  danger  of  deserting  Jehovah  and  bis  woi- 
ship  would  be  increased  after  tbe  conauest  ol 


244 


LEVITICUS. 


LEVITICUS. 


Canaan,  when  the  Israelites  should  inhabit  a 
country  surrounded  by  pagans.  The  following 
chapters  (xviii.-xx.)  refer  to  the  very  important 
relation  in  which  Israel  stood  to  the  surrounding 
tribes,  and  the  positive  motive  for  separating 
them  from  all  other  nations  ; to  the  necessity  of 
extirpating  the  Canaanites  ; and  to  the  whole  posi- 
tion which  the  people  of  the  Lord  should  occupy 
with  reference  to  paganism.  Chapter  xviii.  begins 
with  the  description  of  those  crimes  into  which  the 
people  might  easily  be  misled  by  the  influence 
of  their  pagan  neighbours,  viz.  fornication,  con- 
tempt of  parents,  idolatry,  &c. 

The  priests  were  specially  appointed  to  lead 
the  nation  by  their  good  example  scrupulously 
to  avoid  every  thing  pagan  and  unclean,  and 
thus  to  testify  their  faithful  allegiance  to  Jehovah 
(ch.  xxi.-xxii.  16).  It  is  particularly  inculcated 
that  the  sacrifices  should  be  without  blemish ; 
and  this  is  made  a means  of  separating  the  Israel- 
ites from  all  pagan  associations  and  customs  (ch. 
xxii.  17-33).  But  the  strongest  bulwark  erected 
against  pagan  encroachments  was  the  appoint- 
ment of  solemn  religious  meetings,  in  which  the 
attention  of  the  people  was  directed  to  the  central 
point  of  national  religion,  and  which  theocra- 
tically  consecrated  their  whde  proceedings  to  the 
worship  of  God.  This  was  the  object  of  the  laws 
relating  to  fasts  (ch.  xxiii.).  These  laws  divided 
the  year  into  sacred  sections,  and  gave  to  agri- 
cultural life  its  bearing  upon  the  history  of  the 
works  of  God,  and  its  peculiarly  theocratic  cha- 
racter, in  contradistinction  to  all  pagan  worship, 
which  is  merely  bent  upon  the  symbolisation  of 
the  vital  powers  of  nature. 

In  ch.  xxiv.  1 -9  follows  the  law  concerning  the 
preparation  of  the  sacred  oil,  and  the  due  setting 
forth  of  the  shew-bread.  Although  this  is  in  con- 
nection with  ch.  xxii.  17,  sq.,  it  is  nevertheless 
judiciously  placed  after  ch.  xxiii.,  because  it 
refers  to  the  agricultural  relation  of  the  Israelites 
to  Jehovah  stated  in  that  chapter.  The  Mosaical 
legislation  is  throughout  illustrated  by  facts,  and 
its  power  and  significance  are  exhibited  in  the 
manner  in  which  it  subdues  all  subjective  arbi- 
trary opposition.  So  the  opposition  of  the  law  to 
paganism,  and  the  evil  consequences  of  every 
approach  to  pagans,  are  illustrated  by  the  history 
of  a man  who  sprang  from  a mixed  marriage, 
who  cursed  Jehovah,  and  was  stoned  as  Jehovah 
directed  (ch.  xxiv.  10-24). 

The  insertion  of  this  fact  in  its  chronological 
place  slightly  interrupts  the  order  of  the  legal  de- 
finitions. The  law  concerning  the  Sabbath  and 
t he  year  of  Jubilee,  which  follow  it,  are  intimately 
connected  with  the  laws  which  precede.  For  the 
Sabbatical  law  completes  the  declaration  that 
Jehovah  is  the  real  proprietor  and  landlord  of 
Canaan,  to  whom  belong  both  the  territory  and 
its  inhabitants ; and  whose  right  is  opposed  to  all 
occupation  of  the  country  by  heathens  (ch.  xxv.). 

This  section  is  concluded  with  the  fundamental 
position  of  the  law,  viz.  that  Jehovah,  the  only 
true  and  living  God,  will  bless  his  faithful  people 
who  heartily  keep  his  law ; and  will  curse  all  who 
despise  him  and  transgress  his  law  (ch.  xxvi.). 

After  it  has  thus,  been  explained  how  the 
people  might  be  considered  to  be  the  owners  of 
the  country,  there  appropriately  follows  the  law 
concerning  several  possessions  which  were  more 
exclusively  consecrated  to  Jehovah,  or  which,  like 


the  first-born,  belonged  to  him  without  being 
specially  offered.  The  whole  concludes  with  an 
appendix  embracing  the  law  concerning  vowi 
and  tithes,  with  a manifest  reference  to  the  pre- 
ceding parts  of  the  legislation  (ch.  xxvii.  17-24). 

Authenticity. — The  arguments  by  which 
the  unity  of  Leviticus  has  been  attacked  are  very 
feeble.  Some  critics,  however,  such  as  De  Wette, 
Gramberg,  Yatke,  and  others,  have  strenuously 
endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  laws  contained 
in  Leviticus  originated  in  a period  much  later 
than  is  usually  supposed.  But  the  following 
observations  sufficiently  support  their  Mosaical 
origin,  and  show  that  the  whole  of  Leviticus  is 
historically  genuine.  The  laws  in  ch.  i.-vii.  con- 
tain manifest  vestiges  of  the  Mosaical  period. 
Here,  as  well  as  in  Exodus,  when  the  priests 
are  mentioned,  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  named ; as, 
for  instance,  in  ch.  i.  4,  7,  8,  11,  &c.  The  taber- 
nacle is  the  sanctuary,  and  no  other  place  of  wor- 
ship is  mentioned  anywhere.  Expressions  like 
the  following  constantly  occur,  TyiD  '32^, 

before  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation , or 
njno  SnN‘  nns,  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  oj 
the  congregation  (ch.  i.  3;  iii.  8,  13,  &c.).  The 
Israelites  are  always  described  as  a congregation 
(ch.  iv.  13,  sq.),  under  the  command  of  the 
myn  '3pT,  elders  of  the  congregation  (ch.  iv. 
15),  or  of  a fcOEW,  ruler  (ch.  iv.  22).  Every  thing 
has  a reference  to  life  in  a camp,  and  that  camp 
commanded  by  Moses  (ch.  iv.  12,  21;  vi.  11  ; 
xiv.  8;  xvi.  26,  28).  A later  writer  could 
scarcely  have  placed  himself  so  entirely  in  the 
times,  and  so  completely  adopted  the  modes  of 
thinking  of  the  age,  of  Moses  : especially  if,  as 
has  been  asserted,  these  laws  gradually  sprung 
from  the  usages  of  the  people,  and  were  written 
down  at  a later  period  with  the  object  of  sanction- 
ing them  by  the  authority  of  Moses.  They  sc 
entirely  befit  the  Mosaical  age,  that,  in  order  tc 
adapt  them  to  the  requirements  of  any  later  pe- 
riod, they  must  have  undergone  some  modifica- 
tion, accommodation,  and  a peculiar  mode  of  in- 
terpretation. This  inconvenience  would  have  been 
avoided  by  a person  who  intended  to  forge  laws 
in  favour  of  the  later  modes  of  Levitical  worship. 
A forger  would  have  endeavoured  to  identify  the 
past  as  much  as  possible  with  the  present.. 

The  section  in  ch.  viii.-x.  is  said  to  have  a 
mythical  colouring.  This  assertion  is  grounded 
on  the  miracle  narrated  in  ch.  ix.  24.  But  what 
could  have  been  the  inducement  to  forge  thi3 
section?  It  is  said  that  the  priests  invented  it  in 
order  to  support  the  authority  of  the  sacerdotal 
caste  by  the  solemn  ceremony  of  Aaron’s  con- 
secration. But  to  such  an  intention  the  nar- 
ration of  the  crime  committed  by  Nadab  and 
Abihu  is  strikingly  opposed.  Even  Aaron  him- 
self here  appears  to  be  rather  remiss  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law  (comp.  x.  16,  sq.,  with  iv. 
22,  sq.).  Hence  it  would  seem  that  the  forgery 
arose  from  an  opposite  or  anti-hierarchical  ten- 
dency. The  fiction  would  thus  appear  to  have 
been  contrived  without  any  motive  which  could 
account  for  its  origin. 

In  ch.  xvii.  occurs  the  law  which  forbids  the 
slaughter  of  any  beast  except  at  the  sanctuary. 
This  law  could  not  be  strictly  xept  in  Palestine, 
and  had  therefore  to  undergo  some  modification 
(Deut.  xii.).  Our  opponents  cannot  show  any 


LIBANUS. 


LI  BAN  US. 


245 


rati  ana1,  inducement  for  contriving  such  a fiction. 
The  law  (ch.  xvii.  6,  7)  is  adapted  to  the  nation 
only  while  emigrating  from  Egypt.  It  was  the  ob- 
ject of  this  law  to  guard  the  Israelites  from  falling 
into  the  temptation  to  imitate  the  Egyptian  rites 
and  sacrifices  offered  to  lie-goats,  ; which 

word  signifies  also  demons  represented  under  the 
form  of  he-goats,  and  which  were  supposed  to 
inhabit  the  desert  (comp.  Jablonsky,  Pantheon 
AEgyptiacum,  i.  272,  sq.). 

The  laws  concerning  food  and  purifications  ap- 
pear especially  important  if  we  remember  that  the 
people  emigrated  from  Egypt.  The  fundamental 
principle  of  these  laws  is  undoubtedly  Mosaical, 
hut  in  the  individual  application  of  them  there 
is  much  which  strongly  reminds  us  of  Egypt. 
This  is  also  the  case  in  Lev.  xviii.  sq.,  where 
the  lawgiver  has  manifestly  in  view  the  two  op- 
posites, Canaan  and  Egypt.  That  the  lawgiver 
was  intimately  acquainted  with  Egypt,  is  proved 
by  such  remarks  as  those  about  the  Egyptiau  mar- 
riages with  sisters  (ch.  xviii.  3);  a custom  which 
6tands  as  an  exception  among  the  prevailing  habits 
of  antiquity  (Diodorus  Siculus,  i.  27  ; Pausa- 
nias,  Attica,  i.  7). 

The  book  of  Leviticus  has  a prophetical  cha- 
racter. The  lawgiver  represents  to  himself  the 
future  history  of  his  people.  This  prophetical 
character  is  especially  manifest  in  chs.  xxv.,  xxvi., 
where  the  law  appears  in  a truly  sublime  and  di- 
vine attitude,  and  when  its  predictions  refer  to  the 
whole  futurity  of  the  nation.  It  is  impossible  to 
say  that  these  were  vaticinia  ex  eventu,  unless  we 
would  assert  that  this  book  was  written  at  the  close 
of  Israelitish  history.  We  must  rather  grant  that 
passages  like  this  are  the  real  basis  on  which  the 
authority  of  later  prophets  is  chiefly  built.  Such 
passages  prove  also,  in  a striking  manner,  that  the 
lawgiver  had  not  merely  an  external  aim,  but  that 
his  law  had  a deeper  purpose,  which  was  clearly 
understood  by  Moses  himself.  That  purpose  was 
to  regulate  the  national  life  in  all  its  bearings,  and 
to  consecrate  the  whole  nation  to  God.  See  espe- 
cially ch.  xxv.  18,  sq. 

But  this  ideal  tendency  of  the  law  does  not 
preclude  its  applicability  to  matters  of  fact.  The 
law  bad  not  merely  an  ideal,  but  also  a real  cha- 
racter, evidenced  by  its  relation  to  the  faithlessness 
and  disobedience  of  the  nation.  The  whole  future 
history  of  the  covenant  people  was  regulated  by 
the  law,  which  has  manifested  its  eternal  power 
and  truth  in  the  history  of  the  people  of  Israel. 
Although  this  section  has  a general  bearing,  it  is 
nevertheless  manifest  that  it  originated  in  the 
times  of  Moses.  At  a later  period,  for  instance, 
it  would  have  been  impracticable  to  promulgate 
the  law  concerning  the  Sabbath  and  the  year  of 
Jubilee:  for  it  was  soon  sufficiently  proved  how 
far  the  nation  in  reality  remained  behind  the 
ideal  Israel  of  the  law.  The  sabbatical  law  bears 
the  impress  of  a time  when  the  whole  legislation, 
in  its  fulness  and  glory,  was  directly  communi- 
cated to  the  people,  in  such  a manner  as  to  attract, 
penetrate,  and  command. 

The  principal  works  to  be  consulted  with  re- 
ference to  Leviticus  will  be  found  under  the 
article  Pentateuch. — H.  A.  C.  H. 

LIBANUS,  or  LEBANON  (|13^ ; Sept. 
A l&avos),  the  Latin,  or  rather  the  Greek  name  of 
a long  chain  of  mountains  on  the  northern  border 


of  Palestine.  The  term  Libatius  is  more  con- 
venient in  use  than  the  Hebrew  form  Lebanon, 
as  enabling  us  to  distinguish  the  parallel  ranges 
of  Libanus  and  Anti-Lihanus,  which  have  no 
such  distinctive  names  in  connection  with  the 
Hebrew  designation.  Lebanon  seems  to  be  ap- 
plied in  Scripture  to  either  or  both  of  these  ranges ; 
and  we  shall  also  use  it  in  this  general  sense  : but 
Libanus  means  distinctively  the  westernmost  of 
those  ranges,  which  faces  the  Mediterranean,  and 
Anti-Libanus  the  eastern,  facing  the  plain  of  Da- 
mascus ; in  which  sense  these  names  will  be  used 
in  this  article.  The  present  inhabitants  of  the 
country  have  found  the  convenience  of  distin- 
guishing these  parallel  ranges ; and  give  to  Li- 
banus the  name  of  ‘ Western  Mountain’  (Jebel 
esh-Sharki),  and  to  Anti-Libanus  that  of  ‘Eastern 
Mountain  ’ (Jebel  el-Gharbi)  ; although  Jebel 
Libnstn  (the  same  name  in  fact  as  Lebanon) 
occurs  among  the  Arabs  with  special  reference 
to  the  eastern  range. 

These  two  great  ranges,  which  together  form 
the  Lebanon  of  Scripture,  commence  about  the 
parallel  of  Tripoli  (lat.  34°  28'),  run  in  a 
general  direction  from  N.£.  to  S.W.,  through, 
about  one  degree  of  latitude,  and  form,  at  their 
southern  termination,  the  natural  frontier  of 
Palestine.  These  parallel  ranges  enclose  be- 
tween them  a fertile  and  well-watered  valley, 
averaging  about  fifteen  miles  in  width,  which  is 
the  Ccele-Syria  (Hollow  Syria)  of  the  ancients, 
but  is  called  by  the  present  inhabitants,  by  way  of 
pre-eminence,  El-Bekaa,  or  ‘ the  Valley,’  whicli 
is  watered  through  the  greater  portion  of  its  length 
by  the  river  Litany,  the  ancient  Leontes. 

Nearly  opposite  Damascus  the  Anti-Libanus 
separates  into  two  ridges,  which  diverge  some- 
what, and  enclose  the  fertile  Wady  et-Teim. 
The  easternmost  of  these  two  ridges,  which  has 
already  been  pointed  out  as  the  Hermon  of  Scrip- 
ture [Hermon],  Jebel  esh-Sheikb,  continues  its 
S.W.  course,  and  is  the  proper  prolongation  of 
Anti-Libanus.  From  the  base  of  the  higher 
part  of  this  ridge,  a low  broad  spur  or  mountainous 
tract  runs  off  towards  the  south,  forming  the 
high  land  which  shuts  in  the  basin  and  Lake  of 
el-Huleh  on  the  east.  This  tract  is  called  Jebel 
Heish,  the  higher  poition  of  which  terminates  at 
Tel  el-Faras,  nearly  three  hours  north  of  Fiek. 
The  other  ridge  of  Anti-Libanus  takes  a more 
westerly  direction.  It  is  long,  low,  and  level ; 
and  continues  to  border  the  lower  part  of  the 
great  valley  of  Bekaa,  until  it  seems  to  unite 
with  the  higher  bluffs  and  spurs  of  Lebanon,  and 
thus  entirely  to  close  that  valley.  In  fact,  only  a 
narrow  gorge  is  here  left  between  precipices,  in 
some  places  of  great  height,  through  which  the 
Litany  finds  its  way  down  to  the  sea,  north  of 
Tyre.  The  chain  of  Lebanon,  or  at  least  its 
higher  ridges,  may  be  said  to  terminate  at  the 
point  where  it  is  thus  broken  through  by  the 
Litany.  But  a broad  and  lower  mountainous 
tract  continues  towards  the  south,  bordering  the 
basin  of  the  Huleh  on  the  west.  It  rises  to  its 
greatest  elevation  about  Safed  (Jebel  Safed); 
and  at  length  ends  abruptly  in  the  mountains  of 
Nazareth,  as  the  northern  wall  of  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon.  This  high  tract  may  very  properly 
be  regarded  as  a prolongation  of  Lebanon. 

The  mountains  of  Lebanon  are  of  limestone 
rock,  which  is  indeed  the  general A const i tuent  oi 


246 


LIBANUS. 


LIBERTINES. 


the  mountains  of  Syria.  In  Lebanon  it  has 
generally  a whitish  hue,  and  from  the  aspect 
which  the  range  thus  bears  in  the  distance,  in  its 
cl  id's  and  naked  parts,  the  name  of  Lebanon 
(which  signifies  ‘ white  ')  has  been  supposed  to  be 
derived  ; but  others  seek  its  origin  in  the  snows 
which  rest  long  upon  its  summits,  and  perpetu- 
al iy  upon  the  highest  of  them. 

Of  the  two  ranges,  that  of  Libanus  is  by  far  the 
highest.  Its  uppermost  ridge  is  marked  by  a 
line,  drawn  at  the  distance  of  about  two  hours’ 
journey  from  the  summit,  above  which  all  is 
barren  (Burckhardt,  p.  4) : but  the  slopes  and 
valleys  below  this  line  afford  pasturage,  and 
are  capable  of  cultivation,  by  reason  of  the  nume- 
rous springs  which  are  met  with  in  all  directions. 
Cultivation  is,  however,  chiefly  found  on  the  sea- 
ward slopes,  where  numerous  villages  flourish, 
and  every  inch  of  ground  is  turned  to  account  by 
the  industrious  natives,  who,  in  the  absence  of 
natural  levels,  construct  artificial  terraces  in 
order  to  prevent  the  earth  from  being  swept  away 
by  the  winter  rains,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
retain  the  water  requisite  for  the  irrigation  of  the 
crops  (Burckhardt,  pp.  19,  20,  23).  When  one 
looks  upward  from  below,  the  vegetation  on  these 
terraces  is  not  visible;  so  that  the  whole  moun- 
tain appears  as  if  composed  only  of  immense 
rugged  masses  of  naked  whitish  rock,  traversed  by 
deep  wild  ravines,  running  down  precipitously 
to  the  plain.  No  one  would  suspect  among 
these  rocks  the  existence  of  a vast  multitude  of 
thrifty  villages,  and  a numerous  population  of 
mountaineers,  hardy,  industrious,  and  brave 
(Robinson,  iii.  440).  Here,  amidst  the  crags  of 
the  rocks,  are  to  be  seen  the  remains  of  the  re- 
nowned cedars  ; but  a much  larger  proportion  of 
firs,  oaks,  brambles,  mulberry-trees,  fig-trees,  and 
vines  (Volney,  i.  272). 

Although  the  general  elevation  of  Anti-Libanus 
i3  inferior  to.  that  of  Libanus,  the  easternmost 
of  the  branches  into  which  it  divides  towards  its 
termination  (Jebel  esh-Sheikh)  rises  loftily,  and 
overtops  all  the  other  summits  of  Lebanon.  Our 
information  respecting  Anti-Libanus  is  less  dis- 
tinct than  that  concerning  the  opposite  range.  It 
appears,  however,  that  it  has  fewer  inhabitants, 
and  is  scarcely  in  any  part  cultivated.  It  is,  in- 
deed, not  equally  cultivable:  for  it  would  appear 
from  a comparison  of  the  dispersed  notices  in 
Burckhardt,  that  its  western  declivities,  towards 
the  great  enclosed  valley,  are  completely  barren, 
without  trees  or  pasture  ; but  on  the  summits  of 
the  eastern  side,  fronting  the  plain  of  Damascus, 
there  seem  to  be  parts,  at  least,  affording  good 
pasturage,  and  abounding  also  in  stunted  oak 
trees,  of  which  few  are  higher  than  12  or  15  feet. 
The  common  route  across  these  mountains,  from 
Baal  bee  to  Damascus,  at,  one  time  ascends  into 
the  region  of  snow  (in  the  month  of  March)  ; 
at  another  follows  the  direction  of  the  mountain 
rorrents,  between  parallel  lines  of  hills,  by  the 
side  of  aspens,  oaks,  and  numerous  willows  which 
grow  along  the  water-courses  (Burckhardt,  pp.  4, 
15;  Elliot,  ii.  276). 

None  of  the  summits  of  Libanus  or  Anti- 
Libanus  have  been  measured.  The  author  of  the 
Pictorial  History  of  Palestine  (Introduct.  p.  lv.), 
by  comparing  the  accounts  of  different  travellers 
as  to  the  continuance  of  snow  upon  the  higher 
summits,  and  adjusting  them  with  reference  to 


the  point  of  perpetual  congelation  in  ‘liat  latitude, 
forms  a rough  estimate,  which,  thougl  higher  than 
some  estimates  more  loosely  constructed,  and  lower 
than  others,  is  probably  not  far  from  the  truth.  Ac- 
cording to  this,  the  average  height  of  the  Libantu 
mountains,  from  the  top  of  which  the  snow  en- 
tirely disappears  in  summer,  must  be  consider- 
ably below  11,000  feet,  probably  about  10,000 
feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea.  But  the  higher 
points,  particularly  the  Sannin,  which  is  the 
highest,  of  all,  must  be  above  that  limit,  as  the 
snow  rests  on  them  all  the  year.  By  the  same 
rule  the  average  height  of  the  Anti-Libanus  range 
is  reckoned  as  not.  exceeding  9000  feet : but  its 
highest  point,  in  the  Jebel  es-Sheik,  or  Mount 
Hermon,  is  considered  to  be  somewhat  more  lofty 
than  the  Sannin,  the  highest  point  in  Libanus. 

In  Scripture  Lebanon  is  very  generally  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  the  cedar  trees  in 
which  it  abounded  [Erks}  ; but  its  wines  are  also 
noticed  (Hosea  xiv.  8);  and  in  Cant.  iv.  11; 
Hos.  xiv.  7,  it  is  celebrated  for  various  kinds  of 
fragrant  plants  (Robinson,  Biblical  Researches , 
iii.  344,  345,  439;  Kitto,  Pictorial  History  of 
Palestine , Introd.  pp.  xxxii.-xxxv.,  lv.;  Reland, 
PalcEstina , i.  311  ; Rosenm  filler,  Biblisch.  Alter - 
thum , ii.  236  ; Raumer,  Paldstina,  pp.  29-35  ; 
D’Arvieux,  Memoir  es,  ii.  250 ; Volney,  Voyage 
en  Syrie,  i.  243;  Seetzen,  in  Zach’s  Monatl. 
Corresp.,  June,  1806;  Burckhardt,  Travels  in 
Syria,  p.  1,  sq. ; Richter,  Wallfahrten,  p.  102, 
&c. ; Irby  and  Mangles,  Travels,  pp.  206-220; 
Buckingham,  Arab  Tribes,  p.  468,  sq. ; Fisk,  in 
Missionary  Herald,  1824;  Elliot,  Travels,  ii. 
276 ; Hogg,  Visit  to  Alexandria,  Jerusalem, 
&c. , i.  219,  sq.  ; ii.  81,  sq. ; Addison,  Palmyra 
and  Damascus,  ii.  43-82). 

LIBERTINES  (AiPeprli/oi).  ‘ Certain  of  the 
synagogue,  which  is  called  (the  synagogue)  o 
the  Libertines,  and  Cvrenians,  and  Alexandrians,’ 
&c.,  are  mentioned  in  Acts  vi.  9.  There  has 
been  much  diversity  in  the  interpretation  of 
this  word.  It  obviously  denotes  state  or  con- 
dition, not.  nature  (i.  e.  country) ; and  since 
Libertini  here  occurs  among  the  names  of  na- 
tions, and  Josephus  ( Antiq . xii.  1,  and  Cont. 
Apion.  ii.  4)  has  told  us  that  many  Jews  were 
removed  by  Ptolemy,  and  placed  in  the  cities  of 
Libya,  Beza,  Le  Clerc,  and  others  conclude  that 
the  word  must  have  been  AiBocrrioov,  i.  e.  ‘ sprung 
from  Libya.1  But  there  is  no  authority  of 
MSS.  or  versions  for  this  reading.  Others,  on 
the  same  premises,  conceive  that  the  word  Liber- 
tini denotes  the  inhabitants  of  some  town  called 
Libertus  in  Africa  Proper,  or  Carthage ; but  they 
fail  to  show  that  any  town  of  this  name  existed  in 
that  quarter.  The  most  probable  opinion,  and 
that  which  is  now  generally  entertained,  is,  that 
the  Libertini  were  Jews,  whom  the  Romans  had 
taken  in  war  and  conveyed  to  Rome,  but  after- 
wards freed ; and  that  this  synagogue  had  been 
built  at  their  expense.  Libertini  is,  therefore,  tc 
be  regarded  as  a word  of  Roman  origin,  and  to 
be  explained  with  reference  to  Roman  customs. 
This  view  is  further  confirmed  by  the  fact  that 
the  word  avvayoryys  does  not  occur  in  the 
middle  of  the  national  names,  but  stands  first, 
and  is  followed  by  t/js  Aeyopepys : whence  it 
clearly  appears  that  A ifieprirot  is  at  least  not  the 
name  of  a country  or  region.  Further,  we  know 
that  there  were  in  the  time  of  Tiberius  many 


LI  BN  AH. 


LIBNEII. 


241 


libertini,  or  ‘ freed -men,’  of  the  Jewish  religion 
at  Rome  (Tacit.  Annul,  ii.  85  ; com}).  Suet.  Tib. 
36  ; and  Philo,  p.  1014  ; see  Bloomfield,  Kuinoel, 
Werstein.,  &c.  on  Acts  vi.  9;  and  comp.-  Gerdes, 
De  Sy nag.  Liber tinorum,  Gron.  1736;  Scherer, 
L)e  Synag.  Libertin.  Argent.  1754). 

I J BN  AII  (nn^>;  Sept.  AejSra),  one  of  the 
royal  cities  of  the  Canaanites,  taken  by  Joshua 
immediately  after  Makkedah  (Josh.  x.  20,  30).  It 
lay  within  the  territory  assigned  to  Judah  (Josh, 
xv.  42).  and  became  one  of  the  Levitical  towns 
in  that  tribe  (Josh.  xxi.  13;  1 Chron.  vi.  57). 
It  was  a strongly  fortified  place.  The  Assyrian 
king  Sennacherib  was  detained  some  time  before 
it.  when  he  invaded  Judaea  in  the  time  of  Heze- 
kiah  ; and  it  was  before  it  that  he  sustained  that 
dreadful  stroke  which  constrained  him  to  with- 
draw to  his  own  country  (2  Kings  xix.  8 ; Isa. 
xxxvii.  8).  In  the  reign  of  King  Jehoram, 
Libnah  is  said  to  have  revolted  from  him 
(2  Kings  viii.  22;  2 Chron.  xxi.  10).  From  the 
circumstance  of  this  revolt  having  happened 
at  the  same  time  with  that  of  the  Edomites, 
it  has  been  supposed  by  some  to  have  reference 
to  another  town  of  the  same  name  situated  in 
that  country.  But  such  a conjecture  is  unne- 
cessary and  improbable.  Libnah  of  Judah  re- 
belled, because  it  refused  to  admit  the  idolatries 
of  Jehoram  ; and  it  is  not  said  in  either  of  the 
passages  in  which  this  act  is  recorded,  as  of 
Edom,  that  it  continued  in  revolt  ‘ unto  this 
day.’  It  may  be  inferred  either  that  it  was 
speedily  reduced  to  obedience,  or  that,  on  the  re- 
establishment of  the  true  worship,  it  spontaneously 
returned  to  its  allegiance.  Libnah  existed  as  a 
village  in  the  time  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  and 
is  placed  by  them  in  the  district  of  Eleuthe- 
ropolis. 

LIBNATH,  or,  more  fully,  Shihor-Libnath 
(nni>  ii w ; sept.  AaPavad),  a stream  near 
Carmel,  on  the  borders  of  Asher  (Josh.  xix.  26). 
Michaelis  conceives  this  to  be  the  ( glass-river  ’ 
(n^nV),  i.  e.  the  Belus,  from  whose  sands  the 
first  glass  was  made  by  the  Phoenicians. 

LIBNEH  (i“!3!2^)  occurs  in  Iwo  places  of 
Scripture,  viz.  Gen.  xxx.  37;  Hos.  iv.  13,  and  is 
supposed  to  indicate  either  the  while  poplar  or 
the  storax  tree.  The  arguments  in  support  of 
the  respective  claims  of  these  are  neatly  equally 
balanced,  although  those  in  favour  of  the  storax 
appear  to  us  to  preponderate.  The  libneh  is  first 
mentioned  in  Gen.  xxx.  37,  as  one  of  the  rods 
which  Jacob  placed  in  the  watering  troughs  of 
the  sheep;  the  lutz  (the  almond)  and  armon  (the 
oriental  plane)  being  the  two  others : he  ‘ pilled 
white  strakes  in  them,  and  made  the  white  appear 
which  was  in  the  rods/  In  Hos.  iv.  13  reference 
is  made  to  the  shade  of  trees  and  the  burning  of 
incense : — ‘ They  sacrifice  upon  the  top  of  the 
mountains,  and  burn  incense  upon  the  hills,  under 
oaks  gallon,  e terebinth  tree’)  and  poplars  ( libneh ), 
because  the  shadow  of  them  is  good/ 

Libneh,  in  the  passage  of  Hosea,  is  translated 
Aevtcr],  ‘ white  poplar,’  in  the  Septuagint,  and  this 
translation  is  adopted  by  the  majority  of  inter- 
preters. The  Hebrew  name  libneh,  being  sup- 
posed to  be  derived  from  ( album  esse),  has 
neen  considered  identical  with  the  Greek  AeuK-q, 


which  both  signifies  ( white,’  and  also  the  * white 
poplar,’  Populus  alba.  This  poplar  is  said  to  be 
called  rohite,  not  on  account  of  the  whiteness  of 
its  bark,  but  of  that  of  the  under  surface  of  its 
leaves.  It  may  perhaps  be  so  designated  from 
the  whiteness  of  its  hairy  seeds,  which  have  a re- 
markable appearance  when  the  seed  covering  first 
bursts.  The  poplar  is  certainly  common  in  the 
countries  where  the  scenes  are  laid  of  the  transac- 
tions related  in  the  above  passages  of  Scripture. 
Belon  ( Obs . ii.  106)  says,  ‘ Les  peupliers  blancs  et 
noirs,  et  arbres  fruictiers  font  que  la  plaine  de 
Damas  resemble  une  forest.’  Rauwolf  also  men- 
tions the  white  poplar  as  abundant  about  Aleppo 
and  Tripoli,  and  still  called  by  the  ancient  Arabic 

name  haur  or  hor  (j*s»-),  which  is  the  word  used 

in  the  Arabic  translation  of  Hosea.  That  poplars 
are  common  in  Syria  has  already  been  men- 
tioned under  the  head  of  Baca. 


388 


Others,  however,  have  been  of  opinion  tnat 
libneh  denotes  the  storax  tree  rather  than  the 
white  poplar.  Thus,  in  Gen.  xxx.  37,  the  Sep- 
tuagint has  pafibov  (TTvpaKivr]v,  ‘ a rod  of  styrax ;’ 
and  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  ac- 
cording to  Rosenmuller,  is  more  ancient  and  of  far 
greater  authority  than  that  of  Hosea.  So  R.  Jonah, 
as  translated  by  Celsius,  says  of  libneh , Dicitur 
lingua  Arabum  Lubna  ; and  in  the  Arabic  trans- 
lation of  Genesis  (^i«»S)  lubne  is  employed  as  the 

representative  of  the  Hebrew  libneh.  Lubne,  both 
in  Arabic  and  in  Persian,  is  the  name  of  a tree, 
and  of  the  fragrant  resin  employed  for  fumigating, 
which  exudes  from  it,  and  which  is  commonly 
known  by  the  name  of  Storax.  This  resin  was  well 
known  to  the  ancients,  and  is  mentioned  by  Hip- 
pocrates and  Theophrastus.  Dioscorides  describes 
several  kinds,  all  of  which  were  obtained  from  Asia 
Minor;  and  all  that,  is  now  imported  is  believed 
to  be  the  produce  of  that  country.  But.  the  tree 
is  cultivated  in  the  south  of  Europe,  though  it 
does  not  there  yield  any  storax.  It  is  found  in 
Greece,  and  is  supposed  to  be  a native  of  Asia 
Minor,  whence  it  extends  into  Syria,  and  pro- 
bably farther  south.  It  is  therefore  a native  of 
the  country  which  was  the  scene  of  the  transaction 
related  in  the  above  passage  of  Genesis. 

From  the  description  of  Dioscorides,  and  hit 


LIBYA. 


LICE. 


US 

comparing  the  leaves  of  the  styrax  to  those  of  the 
quince,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  same  tree  being 
intended  : especially  as  in  early  times,  as  at  the' 
present  day,  it  yielded  a highly  fragrant  balsamic 
substance  which  was  esteemed  as  a medicine, 
and  employed  in  fumigation.  From  the  simi- 
larity of  the  Hebrew  name  libneh  to  the  Arabic 
lubne,  and  from  the  Septuagint  having  in  Genesis 
translated  the  former  by  styrax , it  seems  most 
probable  that  this  was  the  tree  intended.  It  is 
capable  of  yielding  white  wands  as  well  as  the 
poplar  ; and  it  is  also  well  qualified  to  afford  com- 
plete shade  under  its  ample  foliage,  as  in  the 
passage  of  Hos.  iv.  13.  We  may  also  suppose 
it  to  have  been  more  particularly  alluded  to, 
from  its  being  a tree  yielding  incense.  ‘ They 
sacrifice  upon  the  tops  of  the  mountains,  and 
burn  incense  upon  the  hills,  under  the  terebinth 
and  the  storax  trees,  because  the  shadow  thereof 
is  good.’ — -J.  F.  R. 

LIBYA  (Aifiva,  AtjSihj).  This  name,  in  its 
largest  acceptation,  was  used  by  the  Greeks  to 
denote  the  whole  of  Africa.  But  Libya  Proper, 
which  is  the  Libya  of  the  New  Testament  and 
the  country  of  the  Lubim  in  the  Old,  was  a large 
tract,  lying  along  the  Mediterranean,  to  the  west 
of  Egypt.  It  is  called  Pentapolitana  Regio  by 
Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  5),  from  its  five  cities, 
Berenice,  Arsinoe,  Ptolemais,  Apollonia,  anti 
Cyrene;  and  Libya  Cyrenaica  by  Ptolemy 
[Geog.  iv.  5),  from  Cyrene,  its  capital. 

Libya  is  supposed  to  have  been  first  peopled 
by,  and  to  have  derived  its  name  from,  the 
Lehabim  or  Lubim  [Nations,  Dispersion  ok]. 
These,  its  earliest  inhabitants,  appear,  in  the  time 
of  the  Old  Testament,  to  have  consisted  of  wan- 
dering tribes,  who  were  sometimes  in  alliance 
witli  Egypt,  and  at  others  with  the  Ethiopians, 
as  they  are  said  to  have  assisted  both  Shishak, 
king  of  Egypt,  and  Zerah  the  Ethiopian  in  their 
expeditions  against  Judaea  (2  Chron.  xii.  4 ; xiv. 
8 ; xvi.  9).  They  were  eventually  subdued  by  the 
Carthaginians;  and  it  was  the  policy  of  that 
people  to  bring  the  nomade  tribes  of  Northern 
Africa  which  they  mastered  into  the  condition  of 
cultivators,  that  by  the  produce  of  their  industry 
they  might  be  able  to  raise  and  maintain  the 
numerous  armies  with  which  they  made  their 
foreign  conquests.  But  Herodotus  assures  us  that 
none  of  the  Libyans  beyond  the  Carthaginian  ter- 
ritory wure  tillers  of  the  ground  (Herod,  iv.  186, 
187;  comp.  Polybius,  i.  161,  167,  168,  177,  ed. 
Schweighaeuser).  Since  the  time  of  the  Car- 
thaginian supremacy  the  country,  with  the  rest 
of  the  East,  has  successively  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  Greeks,  Romans,  Saracens,  and  Turks. 
The  name  of  Libya  occurs  in  Acts  ii.  10,  where 
‘ the  dwellers  in  the  parts  of  Libya  about  Cy- 
rene 1 are  mentioned  among  the  stranger  Jews 
who  came  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Pen- 
tecost. 

LICE  (D33  and  D'SS)  occurs  in  Exod.  viii. 
.6,  17,  18  (Heb.  12,  13,  14);  Ps.  cv.  31;  Sept. 
axiicpes  or  (ravines',  Vulg.  cyniphes  and  scyniphes ; 
Wisd.  xix.  10;  Sept,  anvlira  (Alex.  Aid.  aKv[<pas ) ; 
Vulg.  mascas.  The  name  of  the  creature  em- 
ployed in  the  third  plague  upon  Egypt,  miracu- 
lously produced  from  the  dust  of  the  land.  Its 
exact  nature  has  been  much  disputed.  Those  who 
reason  from  the  root  of  the  word  in  the  Hebrew 


text, and  assume  it  to  be  derived  from  p3,  to  fix, 
settle, or  establish,  infer  lice  to  be  meant,  from  their 
fixing  themselves  on  mankind,  animals,  &c.  The 
meaning  of  the  root  is,  however,  too  general  to 
afford  by  itself  any  assistance  in  ascertaining  the 
particular  species  intended.  Dr.  A.  Clarke  has 
further  inferred  from  the  words  ‘ in  man  and  in 
beast,’  that  it  was  the  acarus  sanguisugus,  or 
‘ tick  ’ ( Comment . on  Exod.  viii.  16).  But  since 
it  is  spoken  of  as  an  Egyptian  insect,  the  name 
for  it  may  be  purely  Egyptian,  and  may  have 
no  connection  with  any  Hebrew  root  (Michaelis, 
Suppl.  ad  Lex.  n.  1174).  However  this  may 
be,  the  preposition  from  which  Dr.  Clarke  argues 
is  too  various  in  meaning  to  assist  his  hypothesis. 
Nor  is  it  certain  whether  the  word  is  singular  or 
plural.  The  variation,  both  in  letters  and  points, 
seems  to  betoken  uncertainty  somewhere,  though 
Gesenius  takes  D33  in  the  collective  sense.  Mi- 
chaelis also  remarks  that  if  it  be  a Hebrew  word 
for  lice,  it  is  strange  that  it  should  have  dis- 
appeared from  the  cognate  tongues,  the  Aramaic, 
Samaritan,  and  Ethiopic.  The  rendering  of  the 
Septuagint  seems  highly  valuable  when  it  is  con- 
sidered that  it  was  given  by  learned  Jews  resident 
in  Egypt,  that  it  occurs  in  the  most  ancient  and 
best  executed  portion  of  that  version,  and  that  it 
can  be  elucidated  by  the  writings  of  ancient 
Greek  naturalists,  &c.  Thus  Aristotle,  who  was 
nearly  contemporary  with  the  Septuagint  trans- 
lators of  Exodus,  mentions  the  xviires  (the  crxv'npe! 
of  the  Septuagint)  among  insects  able  to  distin- 
guish the  smell  of  honey  (Hist.  Animal,  iv.  8), 
and  refers  to  species  of  birds  which  he  calls 
i rxvnrocpdya , that  live  by  hunt.ng  axviires  (viii. 
6).  His  pupil  Theophrastus  says  : — iyyivovrai 
Be  KaX  xviires  iv  rial  twv  BevBpwv,  Hcrirep  iv  rtf 
Bpvl  Ka\  rfj  <tvxt}.  xa\  Boxovffiv  ix  rrjs  vyp6rr)ros 
avv'iaratrdai  tt}s  vi rb  rbv  (pAoibv  avvuxrap.evi]s. 
avTT)  Be  icTTi  yAvxela  yevopevois.  yivovrai  Be  xai 
iv  Aaxavois  rlaiv.  * The  Kv'nres  are  born  in  certain 
trees,  as  the  oak,  the  fig-tree,  and  they  seem  to 
subsist  upon  the  sweet  moisture  which  is  collated 
under  the  bark.  They  are  also  produced  on 
some  vegetables’  (Hist.  Plant,  iv.  17,  and  ii.  u It.). 
This  description  applies  to  aphides,  or  rather  to 
the  various  species  of  ‘ gall  flies  ’ (Cynips,  Linn.). 
Hesychius,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
explains  a/cviip,  (cook  %A wp6v  re  t 6t pain epov,  ‘ a 
green  four-winged  creature,’  and  quotes  Phry- 
nichus  as  applying  the  name  to  a sordid  wretch, 
and  adds,  airb  r ov  OrjpiBiov  rod  iv  rois  £u\ois, 
tov  Kara  fipaxv  avra  xaTeaOiovros,  ‘ from  the 
little  creature  among  trees,  which  speedily  de- 
vours them.’  Philo  (a.d.  40)  and  Origen  in  the 
second  century,  who  both  lived  in  Egypt,  describe 
it.  in  terms  suitable  to  the  gnat  or  mosquito 
(Philo,  Vita  Mosis , i.  97.  2,  ed.  Mangey  ; Origen, 
Homilia  tertia  in  Exod.)  ; as  does  also  Augustine 
in  the  third  or  fourth  century  (De  Convenientia. 
& c.).  But  Theodoret,  in  the  same  age,  distin- 
guishes between  a xviires  and  xaivcoires  ( Vita  Ja- 
cobi). Suldas  (a.d.  1100)  says,  crxv'nl/,  (cvok 
xuvwiribBes,  ‘ resembling  gnats,’  and  adds,  ecm 
yap  6 crxvhf/  (cvok  pnxpbv  ^vAorpayov,  ‘ a little 
creature  that  eats  wood.’  These  Christian  fathers, 
however,  give  no  authority  for  their  explanations ; 
and  Bochart  remarks  that  they  seem  to  be  speak- 
ing of  gnats  under  the  name  cxviires,  which  word, 
he  conjectures,  biassed  them  from  its  resemblance 
to  the  Hebrew.  Schleusner  adds  ( Glo*sema  w 


LICE. 


LIGHT. 


*49 


Octateuch.  oicviipes,  £c5a  piKpa  virb  robs  Kt&vcoiras , 
less  than  gnats,'  and  (Lex.  Cyrilli,  MS.  Brem.) 
<nev'i(pes  favcpia.  ianu  ioindra  K&vwtyiv,  ‘ very 
small  creatures  like  gnats.’  From  this  concur- 
rence of  testimony  it  would  appear  that,  not  lice, 
but  some  species  of  gnats  is  the  proper  rendering, 
though  the  ancients,  no  doubt,  included  other 
species  of  insects  under  the  name.  Mr.  Bryant, 
however,  gives  a curious  turn  to  the  evidence 
derived  from  ancient  naturalists.  He  quotes 
Theophrastus,  and  admits  that  a Greek  must  be 
the  best  judge  of  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word 
but  urges  that  the  Septuagint  translators  concealed 
the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word,  which  he 
labours  to  prove  is  lice,  under  the  word  they 
have  adopted,  for  fear  of  offending  the  Ptolemies, 
under  whose  inspection  they  translated,  and  the 
Egyptians  in  general,  whose  detestation  of  lice 
was  as  ancient  as  the  time  of  Herodotus  (ii. 
37),  (but  who  includes  rl  &A.A o pvaapov,  ‘ any 
other  foul  creature’),  and  whose  disgust,  he  thinks, 
would  have  been  too  much  excited  by  reading 
that  their  nation  once  swarmed  with  those  crea- 
tures through  the  instrumentality  of  the  servants 
of  the  God  of  the  Jews  (Plagues  of  Egypt , Lond. 
1794,  p.  56,  &c.).  This  suspicion,  if  admitted, 
upsets  all  the  previous  reasoning.  It  is  also  in- 
consistent with  Bryant’s  favourite  hypothesis,  that 
the  plagues  of  Egypt  were  so  adapted  as  to  afford 
a practical  mortification  of  the  prejudices  of  the 
Egyptians.  Nor  could  a plague  of  lice,  upon 
his  own  principles,  have  been  more  offensive  to 
them  than  the  plague  on  the  river  Nile,  and  the 
frogs,  &c.,  which  he  endeavours  to  show  were 
most  signally  opposed  to  their  religious  notions. 
Might  it  not  be  suggested  with  equal  probability 
that  the  Jews  in  later  ages  had  been  led  to  in- 
terpret the  word  lice  as  being  peculiarly  humi- 
liating to  the  Egyptians?  (see  Joseph,  ii.  14.  3, 
who,  however,  makes  the  Egyptians  afflicted  with 
phthiriasis .)  The  rendering  of  the  Vulgate  af- 
fords us  no  assistance,  being  evidently  formed 
from  that  of  the  Septuagint,  and  not  being  illus- 
trated by  any  Roman  naturalist,  but  found  only 
in  Christian  Latin  writers  (see  Facciolati,  in 
"oc.).  The  other  ancient  versions,  &c.,  are  of 
no  value  in  this  inquiry.  They  adopt  the  popular 
notion  of  the  times,  and  Bochart’s  reasonings 
upon  them  involve,  as  Rosenmuller  (apud  Boc- 
hart)  justly  complains,  many  unsafe  permuta- 
tions of  letters.  If,  then,  the  Septuagint  be  dis- 
carded, we  are  deprived  of  the  highest  source  of 
information.  Bochart  also  reasons  upon  the 
similarity  of  the  word  to  Kdrides,  the  word 

in  Aristotle  for  the  eggs  of  fleas,  lice,  bugs,  &c., 
whether  infesting  mankind  or  beasts  (vi.  26),  but 
which  is  not  more  like  it  than  Kwrcoires  ; and  an 
enthusiast  in  etymology  might  remark  that  koulSc s 
means  both  ‘ dust  ’ and  ‘ lice,’  which  Scaliger 
explains  lendes,  ‘ nits,’  ab  exiguitate  similes  pul- 
veri,  ‘ from  their  minuteness,  like  dust’  (p.  518). 
It  is  strange  that  it  did  not  occur  to  Bochart  that 
if  the  plague  had  been  lice,  it  would  have  been 
easily  imitated  by  the  magicians,  which  was 
attempted  by  them,  but  in  vain  (Exod.  viii.  18). 
Nor  is  the  objection  valid,  that  if  this  plague  were 
gnats,  &c.,  the  plague  of  flies  would  be  antici- 
pated, since  the  latter  most  likely  consisted  of 
one  particular  species  having  a different  desti- 
nation [Fly]  ; whereas  this  may  have  consisted 
df  not  only  mosquitoes  or  gnats,  but  of  some  other 


species  which  also  attack  domestic  cattle,  as  the 
oestrus,  or  tabanus,  or  zimb  (Bruce's  Travels , 
ii.  315,  8vo.)  ; on  which  supposition  these  two 
plagues  would  be  sufficiently  distinct. 

But  since  mosquitoes,  gnats,  &c.,  nave  ever 
been  one  of  the  evils  of  Egypt,  there  must  have 
been  some  peculiarity  attending  them  on  this 
occasion,  which  proved  the  plague  to  be  ‘ the 
finger  of  God.’  From  the  next  chapter,  verse  31, 
it  appears  that  the  flax  and  the  barley  were 
smitten  by  the  hail ; that  the  former  was  beginning 
to  grow,  and  that  the  latter  was  in  the  ear — which, 
according  to  Shaw,  takes  place  in  Egypt  in 
March.  Hence  the  would  be  sent  about 

February,  i.  e.  before  the  increase  of  the  Nile, 
which  takes  place  at  the  end  of  May,  or  beginning 
of  June.  Since,  then,  the  innumerable  swarms 
of  mosquitoes,  gnats,  &c.,  which  every  year  affect 
the  Egyptians  come,  according  to  Hasselquist, 
at  the  increase  of  the  Nile,  the  appearance  of 
them  in  February  would  be  as  much  a variation 
of  the  course  of  nature  as  the  appearance  of  the 
oestrus  in  January  would  be  in  England.  They 
were  also  probably  numerous  and  fierce  beyond 
example  on  this  occasion ; and  as  the  Egyptians 
would  be  utterly  unprepared  for  them  (for  it 
seems  that  this  plague  was  not  announced),  the 
effects  would  be  signally  distressing.  Bochart 
adduces  instances  in  which  both  mankind  and 
cattle,  and  even  wild  beasts,  have  been  driven  by 
gnats  from  their  localities.  It  may  be  added 
that  the  proper  Greek  name  for  the  gnat  is 
ignis,  and  that  probably  the  word  rcuivai}/, 
which  much  resembles  fcviif/,  is  appropriate  to 
the  mosquito.  Hardouin  obseft'es  that  the  ol 
Kuines  of  Aristotle  are  not  the  ipnides,  which 
latter  is  by  Pliny  always  rendered  culices , but 
which  word  he  employs  with  great  latitude 
[Gnat].  For  a description  of  the  evils  inflicted 
by  these  insects  upon  man,  see  Kirby  and  Spence, 
Introduction  to  Entomology,  Lond.  1828,  i.  115, 
&c. ; and  for  the  annoyance  they  cause  in  Egypt, 
Maillet,  Description  de  V Egypte  par  l'Abbe 
Mascrier,  Paris,  1755,  xc.  37;  Forskal,  Descript. 
Animal,  p.  85.  Michaelis  proposed  an  inquiry 
into  the  meaning  of  the  word  crKvi<pes  to  the 
Societe  des  Savants,  with  a full  description  of  the 
qualities  ascribed  to  them  by  Philo,  Origen,  anu 
Augustine  (Recueil,  &c.  Amst.,  1744).  Niebuhr 
inquired  after  it  of  the  Greek  patriarch,  and  also 
of  the  metropolitan  at  Cairo,  who  thought  it  to 
be  a species  of  gnat  found  in  great  quantities  in 
the  gardens  there,  and  whose  bite  was  extremely 
painful.  A merchant  who  was  present  at  the  in- 
quiry called  it  dubdb-el-keb,  or  the  dog-fly  (De- 
ception de  V Arabic,  Pref.  pp.  39,  40).  Besides 
the  references  already  made,  see  Rosenmuller, 
Scholia-  in  Exod. ; M i chael \s,.Bn ppl.  ad  Lex. 
Hebraic.,  p.  1203,  sq. ; Oedmann,  Verm.  Samml 
aus  der  Naturkunde,  i.  6.  74-9L;  Bakerus, 
Annotat.  in  Et.  M.  ii.  1090  ; Harenberg,  Ob- 
serv.  Crit.  de  Insectis  JEgyptum  infesiantibus, 
in  Miscell.  Lips.  Nov.,  ii.  4.  617-20;  Winer, 
Biblisches  Real-ivorterbuch,  art.  ‘ Miicken.’  — 

J.  F.  D. 

LIGHT  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  the 
immediate  result  and  offspring  of  a divine  com- 
mand (Gen.  i.  3).  The  earth  was  void  and  dark, 
when  God  said,  ‘ Let  light  be,  and  light  was.’ 
This  is  represented  as  having  preceded  the  placing 
of  ‘ lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven,  the  greater 


LIGHT. 


250 

light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule 
the  night. : he  made  the  stars  also  ’ (Gen.  i.  14,  sq.). 
W hatever  opinion  may  be  entertained  as  to  the 
facility  with  which  these  two  separate  acts  may  be 
reconciled,  it  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  origin 
of  light,  us  of  every  other  part  of  the  universe,  is 
thus  referred  to  the  exertion  of  the  divine  will : as 
little  can  it  be  denied  that  the  narrative  in  the 
original  is  so  simple,  yet  at  the  same  time  so 
majestic  and  impressive,  both  in  thought  and  dic- 
tion, as  to  till  the  heart  with  a lofty  and  plea- 
surable sentiment  of  awe  and  wonder. 

The  divine  origin  of  light  made  the  subject 
one  of  special  interest  to  the  Biblical  nations — the 
rather  because  light  in  the  East  has  a clearness, 
a brilliancy,  is  accompanied  by  an  intensity  of 
heat,  and  is  followed  in  its  influence  by  a large- 
ness of  good,  of  which  the  inhabitants  of  less 
genial  climes  can  have  no  conception.  Light 
easily  and  naturally  became,  in  consequence, 
with  Orientals,  a representative  of  the  highest 
human  good.  All  the  more  joyous  emotions  of 
the  mind,  all  the  pleasing  sensations  of  the  frame, 
all  the  happy  hours  of  domestic  intercourse,  were 
described  under  imagery  derived  from  light  (1 
Kings  xi.  36;  Isa.  lviii.  8;  Esther  viii.  .16;  Ps. 
xcvii.  1 1).  The  transition  was  natural  from  earthly 
to  heavenly,  from  corporeal  to  spiritual  things;  and 
so  light  came  to  typify  true  religion  and  the  feli- 
city which  it  imparts.  But  as  light  not  only 
came  from  God,  but  also  makes  man’s  way  clear 
before  him,  so  it  was  employed  to  signify  moral 
truth,  and  pre-eminently  that,  divine  system  of 
truth  which  is  set  forth  in  the  Bible,  from  its 
earliest  gleaming^  onward  to  the  perfect  day  of 
the  Great  Sun  of  Righteousness.  The  appli- 
cation of  the  term  to  religious  topics  had  the 
greater  propriety  because  the  light  in  the  world, 
being  accompanied  by  heat,  purities,  quickens, 
enriches;  which  efforts  it  is  the  peculiar  province 
of  true  religion  to  produce  in  the  human  soul 
(Isa.  viii.  20;  Matt.  iv.  16;  Ps.  cxix.  105; 
2 Pet.  i.  19 ; Eph.  v.  8 ; 2 Tim.  i.  10 ; 1 Pet. 
ii.  9). 

It  is  doubtless  owing  to  the  special  providence 
under  which  the  divine  lessons  of  the  Bible  were 
delivered,  that  the  views  which  the  Hebrews  took 
on  this  subject,  while  they  were  high  and  worthy, 
did  not  pass  into  superstition,  and  so  cease  to  be 
truly  religious.  Other  Eastern  nations  beheld 
the  sun  when  it  shined,  or  the  moon  walking  in 
brightness,  and  their  hearts  were  secretly  enticed, 
and  their  mouth  kissed  their  hand  in  token  of 
adoration  (Job  xxxi.  26,  27)  This  ‘ iniquity  ’ 
the  Hebrews  not  only  avoided,  but  when  they 
considered  the  heavens  they  recognised  the  work 
of  God's  fingers,  and  leamt  a lesson  of  humility 
as  well  as  of  reverence  (Ps.  viii.  3,  sq.).  On  the 
contrary,  the  entire  residue  of  the  East,  with 
scarcely  any  exception,  w'orshipped  the  sun  and 
the  light,  primarily  perhaps  as  symbols  of 
divine  power  and  goodness,  but,  in  a more 
degenerate  state,  as  themselves  divine;  whence, 
in  conjunction  with  darkness,  the  negation  of 
light,  arose  the  doctrine  of  dualism,  two  prin- 
ciples, the  one  of  light,  the  good  power,  the  other 
of  darkness,  the  evil  power;  a corruption  which 
rose  and  spread  the  more  easily  because' the  whole 
of  human  life,  being  a chequered  scene,  seems 
divided  a3  between  two  conflicting  agencies,  the 
bright  and  the  'lark,  the  joyous  and  the  sorrowful, 


LILY. 

what  is  called  prosperous  and  what  is  called 
adverse. 

When  the  tendency  to  corruption  to  which  we 
have  just  alluded  is  taken  into  account,  we  can 
not  but  feel  both  gratified  and  surprised  that, 
while  the  Hebiew  people  employed  the  boldest 
personifications  when  speaking  of  light,  they  in 
no  case,  nor  in  any  degree,  fell  into  the  almost 
universal  idolatry.  That  individuals  ’ among 
them,  and  even  large  portions  of  the  nation,  did 
from  time  to  time  down  to  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity forget  and  desert  the  living  God,  is  very 
certain;  hut  then  the  nation,  as  such,  was  not 
misled  and  corrupted  ; witnesses  to  the  truth 
never  failed  ; recovery  was  never  impossible  ; nay, 
was  more  than  once  effected,  till  at  last  affliction 
and  suffering  brought  a changed  heart,  which 
never  again  swerved  from  the  way  of  truth. 

Among  the  personifications  on  this  point  which 
Scripture  presents  we  may  specify,  1.  God.  The 
Apostle  James  (i.  17)  declares  that  ‘ every  good 
ami  perfect  gift  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of 
lights,  with  whom  is  no  variableness,  neither  sha- 
dow of  turning  obviously  referring  to  the  faith- 
fulness of  God  and  the  constancy  of  his  goodness, 
which  shine  on  undimmed  and  unshadowed.  So 
Paul  (1  Tim.  vi.  16) : ‘God  who  dvvelleth  in  the 
• light  which  no  man  can  approach  unto.’  Here 
the  idea  intended  by  the  imagery  is  the  incom- 
prehensibleness of  the  seH-existent  and  eternal 
God. 

2.  Light  is  also  applied  to  Christ:  1 The  peo- 
ple who  sat.  in  darkness  have  seen  a great  light1 
(Matt.  iv.  16;  Luke  ii.  32;  John  i.  4,  sq.).  ‘He 
was  the  true  light ;’  ‘ I am  the  light  of  the  world  ’ 
(John  viii.  12;  xii.  35,  36). 

3.  It  is  further  used  of  angels,  as  in  2 Cor. 
xi.  14  : ‘ Satan  himself  is  transformed  into  an 
angel  of  light.’  4.  Light  is  moreover  employed 
of  men:  John  the  Baptist  ‘was  a burning  and 
a shining  light’  (John  v.  35);  ‘ Ye  are  the  light 
of  the  world  ’ (Matt.  v.  14  ; »ee  also  Acts  xiii.  47  ; 
Eph.  v.  6).— J.  R.  B. 

LIGN  ALOES.  [Ahai.im.] 

LILY  (icpli/ov).  The  lily  is  frequently  men- 
tioned in  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  the  translation  of  sJioshun.  We  shall 
reserve  for  that  head  the  several  points  of  con- 
sideration which  are  connected  with  it,  and  con- 
fine our  attention  at  present  to  the  Icrinon,  or  lily, 
of  the  New  Testament.  This  plant  is  mentioned 
in  the  well-known  and  beautiful  passage  (Matt, 
vi.  26)  : ‘ Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field, -how  they 
grow;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin,  and 
yet  I say  unto  you,  that  even  Solomon,  in  all 
his  glory,  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these;’  so 
also  in  Luke  xii.  27.  Here  it  is  evident  that  the 
plant  alluded  to  must  have  been  indigenous  or 
grown  wild,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  sea  of  Galilee, 
must  have  been  of  an  ornamental  character,  and, 
from  the  Greek  term  Kplvov  being  applied  to  it,  of 
a liliaceous  nature.  The  name  Kpivov  occurs  in 
all  the  old  Greek  writers.  Theophrastus  first  uses 
it,  and  is  supposed  by  Sprengel  to  apply  it  to 
species  of  Narcissus  and  to  Lilium  candidum. 
Dioscorides  indicates  two  species,  but  very  imper- 
fectly : one  of  them  is  supposed  to  be  the  Lilium 
candidum , and  the  other,  with  a reddish  flower, 
may  be  L.  martagon,  or  L.  chalcedonicum.  He 
;i  i 1 udes  more  particularly  to  the  lilies  of  Syria  and 
of  Parnphylia  being  well  suited  for  making  the 


LILY. 


LION. 


251 


•nitment  of  lily.  Pliny  enumerates  three  kinds, 
a white,  a red,  and  a purple-coloured  lily.  Tra- 
vellers in  Palestine  mention  that  in  the  month  of 
January  the  fields  and  groves  everywhere  abound 
v tli  various  species  of  lily,  tulip,  and  narcissus. 


Benard  noticed,  near  Acre,  on  Jan.  18th,  and 
about  Jaffa,  on  the  23rd,  tulips,  white,  red, 
blue,  &c.  Gumpenberg  saw  the  meadow's  of 
Galilee  covered  with  the  same  flowers  on  the  31st. 
Tulips  figure  conspicuously  among  the  flowers  of 
Palestine,  varieties  probably  of  Tulipa  gesneriana 
(Kitto’s  Palestine , p.  ccxv.).  So  Pococke  says, 
‘ I saw  many  tulips  growing  wild  in  the  fields  (in 
March),  and  any  one  who  considers  how  beautiful 
those  flowers  are  to  the  eye,  would  be  apt  to  con- 
jecture that  these  are  the  lilies  to  which  Solomon 
in  all  his  glory  was  not  to  be  compared.’  This 
is  much  more  likely  to  be  the  plant  intended  than 
some  others  which  have  been  adduced,  as,  for 
instance,  the  scarlet  amaryllis , having  white 
flowers  with  bright  purple  streaks,  found  by  Salt 
at  Adowa.  Others  have  preferred  the  Crown 
imperial , which  is  a native  of  Persia  and  Cash- 
mere.  Most  authors  have  united  in  considering 
the  white  lily,  Lilium  candidum,  to  be  the  plant 
to  which  our  Saviour  referred;  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  it  has  ever  been  found  in  a wild  state  in 
Palestine.  Some,  indeed,  have  thought  it  to  be 
a native  of  the  new  world.  Dr.  Lindley,  however, 
in  the  Gardeners'  Chronicle  (ii.  744),  says,  4 This 
notion  cannot  be  sustained,  because  the  white  lily 
occurs  in  an  engraving  of  the  Annunciation, 
executed  somewhere  about  1480  by  Martin 
Schongauer;  and  the  first  voyage  of  Columbus 
did  not  take  place  till  1492.  In  this  very  rare 
print  the  lily  is  represented  as  growing  in  an 
ornamental  vase,  as  if  it  were  cultivated  as  a 
curious  object.’  This  opinion  is  confirmed  by  a 
correspondent  at  Aleppo  ( Gardeners'  Chronicle , 
iii.  429),  who  has  resided  long  in  Syria,  but  is 
acquainted  only  with  the  botany  of  Aleppo  and 
Antioch : ‘ I never  saw  the  white  lily  in  a wild 
state,  nor  have  I heard  of  its  being  so  in  Syria. 
It  is  cultivated  here  on  the  loofs  of  the  houses  in 
pots  as  an  exotic  bulb,  like  the  daffodil.’  In 
consequence  of  this  difficulty  the  late  Sir  J.  E. 
Smith  was  of  opinion  that  the  plant  alluded  to 


under  the  name  of  lily  was  the  Amaryllis  lulea 
(now  Oporanthus  luteus ),  ‘ whose  golden  liliaceous 
flowers  in  autumn  afford  one  of  the  most  brilliant 
and  gorgeous  objects  in  nature,  as  the  fields  of 
the  Levant  are  overrun  with  them;  to  them  the 
expression  of  Solomon,  in  all  his  glory,  not  being 
arrayed  like  one  of  them,  is  peculiarly  appro- 
priate.’ Dr.  Lindley  conceives  4 it  to  be  much 
more  probable  that  the  plant  intended  by  our 
Saviour  was  the  Ixiolirion  montanum , a plant 
allied  to  the  amaryllis , of  very  great  beauty, 
with  a slender  stem,  and  clusters  of  the  most 
delicate  violet  flowers,  abounding  in  Palestine, 
where  Col.  Chesney  found  it  in  the  most  brilliant 
profusion’  (l.  c.  p.  744).  In  reply  to  this  a 
correspondent  furnishes  an  extract  of  a letter  from 
Dr.  Bowring,  which  throws  a new  light  upon  the 
subject : ‘ I cannot  describe  to  you  with  botanical 
accuracy  the  lily  of  Palestine.  I heard  it  called 
by  the  title  of  Lilia  syriaca,  and  I imagine 
under  this  title  its  botanical  characteristics  may 
be  hunted  out.  Its  colour  is  a brilliant  red;  its 
size  about  half  that  of  the  common  tiger  lily. 
The  white  lily  I do  not  remember  to  have  seen 
in  any  part  of  Syria.  It  was  in  April  and  May 
that  I observed  my  flower,  and  it  was  most 
abundant  in  the  district  of  Galilee,  where  it  and 
the  Rhododendron  (which  grew  in  rich  abun- 
dance round  the  paths')  most  strongly  excited  my 
attention.’  On  this  Dr.  Lindley  observes,  ‘ It  is 
clear  that  neither  the  white  lily,  nor  the  Opo- 
ranthus luteus , nor  Ixiolirion , will  answer  to 
Dr.  Bowring’s  description,  which  seems  to  point 
to  the  Chalcedonian  or  scarlet  martagon  lily, 
formerly  called  the  lily  of  Byzantium,  found 
from  the  Adriatic  to  the  Levant,  and  which,  with 
its  scarlet  turban-like  flowers,  is  indeed  a most 
stately  and  striking  object’  ( Gardeners'  Chro- 
nicle, ii.  854).  As  this  lily  (the  Lilium  chalce- 
donicum  of  botanists)  is  in  flower  at.  the  season 
of  the  year  when  the  sermon  on  the  Mount  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  spoken,  is  indigenous  in  thf 
very  locality,  and  is  conspicuous,  even  in  the 
garden,  for  its  remarkable  showy  flowers,  there 
can  now  be  little  doubt  that  it  is  the  plant  alluded 
to  by  our  Saviour. — J.  F.  R. 

LINEN.  [Bad.] 

LINUS  (Afros),  one  of  the  Christians  at  Rome 
whose  salutations  Paul  sent  to  Timothy  (2  Tim. 
iv.  21).  He  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  bishou 
of  Rome  after  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul 
(Irenseus,  Adv.  Hceres.  iii.  3 ; Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles. 
iii.  2,  4 ; v.  6). 

LION  (n$  ari ; ITHN  arjeh ; Sept.  AeW), 
the  most  powerful,  daring,  and  impressive  of  all 
carnivorous  animals,  the  most  magnificent  in 
aspect  and  awful  in  voice.  Being  very  common  in 
Syria  in  early  times,  the  lion  naturally  supplied 
many  forcible  images  to  the  poetical  language  of 
Scripture,  and  not.  a few  historical  incidents  in 
its  narratives.  This  is  shown  by  the  great 
number  of  passages  where  this  animal,  in  all  the 
stages  of  existence — as  the  whelp,  the  young  adult, 
the  fully  mature,  the  lioness — occurs  under  dif- 
ferent names,  exhibiting  that  multiplicity  of  de- 
nominations which  always  results  when  some  great 
image  is  constantly  present  to  the  popular  mind. 
Thus  we  have,  1.  T|j  gor , a lion’s  whelp,  a very 
young  lion  (Gen.  xlix.  9 ; Deut.  xxxiii.  20  ; Jer. 
Ii.  38;  Ezek.  xix.  2;  Nahum  ii.  11,  12,  &oA 


LION. 


LION. 


232 


2.  chephir , a young  lion,  when  first  leaving 
the  protection  of  the  old  pair  to  hunt  independently 
(Ezek.  xix.  2,  3 ; Ps.  xci.  13  ; Prov.  xix.  12,  &c.). 

3.  HX  ari,  an  adult  and  vigorous  lion,  a lion 

having  paired,  vigilant  and  enterprisiug  in  search 
of  prey  (Nahum  ii.  12;  2 Sam.  xvii.  10  ; Num. 
xxiii.  24).  This  is  the  common  name  of  the 
animal.  4.  sachal,  a mature  lion  in  full 

strength  ; a black  lionV  (Job  iv.  10  ; x.  16  ; Ps. 
xci.  13;  Prov.  xxvi.  13;  Hosea  v.  14;  xiii.  7). 
This  denomination  may  very  possibly  refer  to  a 
distinct  variety  of  lion,  and  not  to  a black  species 
or  race,  because  neither  black  nor  white  lions  are 
recorded,  excepting  in  Oppian  {De  Venat.  iii.  43) ; 


but  the  term  may  be  safely  referred  to  the  colour 
of  the  skin,  not  of  the  fur  ; for  some  lions  have  the 
former  fair,  and  even  rosy,  while  iu  other  races  it  is 
perfectly  black.  An  Asiatic  lioness,  formerly  at 
Exeter  Change,  had  the  naked  part  of  the  nose,  the 
roof  of  the  mouth,  and  the  bare  soles  of  all  the  feet 
pure  black,  though  the  fur  itself  was  very  pale 
buff.  Yet  albinism  and  melanism  are  not  un- 
common in  the  felinae ; the  former  occurs  in 
tigers,  and  the  latter  is  frequent  in  leopards, 

panthers,  and  jaguars.  5.  lais/i,  a fierce  lion, 
one  in  a state  of  fury  (Job  iv.  11;  Prov.  xxx.  30  ; 

Isa.  xxx.  6).  6.  wib  labia , a lioness  (Job  iv.  11, 
where  the  lion’s  whelps  are  denominated  ‘ the 
sons  of  Labiah,’  or  of  the  lioness). 

The  lion  is  the  largest  and  most  formidably 
armed  of  all  carnassier  animals,  the  Indian  tiger 
alone  claiming  to  be  his  equal.  One  full  grown, 
of  Asiatic  race,  weighs  above  450  pounds,  and 
those  of  Africa  often  above  500  pounds.  The  fall 
of  a fore  paw  in  striking  has  been  estimated  to 
be  equal  to  twenty-five  pounds’  weight,  and  the 
grasp  of  the  claws,  cutting  four  inches  in  depth, 
is  sufficiently  powerful  to  break  the  vertebrae  of  an 
ox.  The  huge  laniary  teeth  and  jagged  molars 
worked  by  powerful  jaws,  and  the  tongue  entirely 
covered  with  homy  papillae,  hard  as  a rasp,  are 
all  subservient  to  an  immensely  strong,  muscular 
structure,  capable  of  prodigious  exertion,  and  mi- 
nister to  the  self-confidence  which  these  means  of 
attack  inspire.  In  Asia  the  lion  rarely  measures 
more  than  nine  feet  and  a half  from  the  nose  to 
the  end  of  the  tail,  though  a tiger-skin  of  which 
we  took  the  dimensions  wars  but  a trifle  less  than 
13  feet.  In  Africa  they  are  considerably  larger, 
and  supplied  with  a much  greater  quantity  of 
mane.  Both  tiger  and  lion  are  furnished  with 
a small  horny  apex  to  the  tail — a fact  noticed  by 
the  ancients*  fcut  only  verified  ;f  late  years,  be- 


cause this  object  lies  concealed  in  the  hart  of  tbs 
tip  and  is  very  liable  to  drop  elf.  AH  the 
varieties  of  the  lion  are  spotted  when  wlielps; 
but  they  become  gradually  buff  or  pale.  One 
African  variety,  very  large  in  size,  perhaps  a 
distinct  species,  has  a peculiar  and  most  fero- 
cious physiognomy,  a dense  black  mane  extend- 
ing half  way  down  the  back,  and  a black  fringe 
along  the  abdomen  and  tip  of  the  tail  ; while 
those  of  southern  Persia  and  the  Dekkan  are 
nearly  destitute  of  that  defensive  ornament.  The 
roaring  voice  of  the  species  is  notorious  to  a 
proverb,  but  the  warning  cry  of  attack  is  short, 
snappish,  and  sharp. 

If  lions  in  primitive  times  were  as  numerous  in 
Western  Asia  and  Africa  as  tigers  still  are  in 
some  parts  of  India,  they  must  have  been  a seri- 
ous impediment  to  the  extension  of  the  human 
race;  for  Colonel  Sykes  relates  that  in  less  than 
five  years,  in  the  Dekkan  alone,  during  his  resi- 
dence there,  above  1000  of  the  latter  were  shot. 
But  the  counterbalancing  distribution  of  endow- 
ments somewhat  modifies  the  dangerous  vicinity 
of  these  animals : like  all  the  felinae,  they  are 
more  or  less  nocturnal,  and  seldom  go  abroad  to 
pursue  their  prey  till  after  sunset.  When  not 
pressed  by  hunger,  they  are  naturally  indolent, 
and,  from  their  habits  of  uncontrolled  superiority, 
perhaps  capricious,  but  often  less  sanguinary  and 
vindictive  than  is  expected. 

Lions  are  monogamous,  the  male  living  con- 
stantly with  the  lioness,  both  hunting  together,  or 
for  each  other  when  there  is  a litter  of  whelps  ; and 
the  mutual  affection  and  care  for  their  offspring 
which  they  display  are  remarkable  in  animals  by 
nature  doomed  to  live  by  blood  and  slaughter. 
It  is  while  seeking  prey  for  their  young  that  they 
are  most  dangerous ; at  other  times  they  bear 
abstinence,  and  when  pressed  by  hunger  will 
sometimes  feed  on  carcasses  found  dead.  They 
live  to  more  than  fifty  years ; consequently, 
having  annual  litters  of  from  three  to  five  cubs, 
they  multiply  rapidly  when  not  seriously  opposed. 
After  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  the  Arabs  the 
lion  soon  spread  again  into  Lower  Egypt;  and 
Fidelio,  a European  traveller,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  eighth  century,  saw  one  slain  at  the  foot  of 
the  pyramids,  after  killing  eight  of  his  assailants. 
Lately  they  have  increased  again  on  the  Upper 
Nile ; and  in  ancient  times,  when  the  devastations 
of  Egyptian,  Persian,  Greek,  and  Roman  armies 
passed  over  Palestine,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  these  destroyers  made  their  appearance  in 
great  numbers.  The  fact,  indeed,  is  attested  by 
the  impression  which  their  increase  made  upon 
the  mixed  heathen  population  of  Samaria,  when 
Israel  was  carried  away  into  captivity  (2  Kings 
xvii.  25,  26). 

The  Scriptures  present  many  shaking  pictures 
of  lions,  touched  with  wonderful  force  and  fide- 
lity : even  where  the  animal  is  a direct  instrument 
of  the  Almighty,  while  true  to  his  mission,  he 
still  remains  so  to  his  nature.  Thus  nothing  can 
be  more  graphic  than  the  record  of  the  man  ol 
God  (1  Kings  xiii.  28),  disobedient  to  his  charge, 
struck  down  from  his  ass,  and  lying  dead,  while 
the  lion  stands  by  him,  without  touching  the  life- 
less body,  or  attacking  the  living  animal,  usu 
ally  a favourite  prey.  See  also  Gen.  xlix.  9 ; Job 
iv.  10,  11;  Nahum  ii.  11,  12.  Samson’s  ad- 
venture also  with  the  young  lien  (Judg.  xiv.  5,  S> 


LITTER. 


LITTER. 


255 


»nd  the  picture  of  the  young  lion  coming  up 
from  the  underwood  cover  on  the  banks  ot  the 
Jordan — all  attest  a perfect  knowledge  of  the 
animal  and  its  habits.  Finally,  the  lions  in  the 
den  with  Daniel,  miraculously  leaving  him  un- 
molested, still  retain,  in  all  other  respects,  the 
real  characteristics  of  their  nature. 

The  lion,  as  an  emblem  of  power,  was  symbol- 
ical of  tiie,  tribe  of  Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  9).  The 
type  recurs  in  the  prophetical  visions,  and  the 
figure  of  this  animal  .vas  among  the  few  which  the 
Hebrews  admitted  in  sculpture,  or  in  cast  metal, 
as  exemplified  in  the  throne  of  Solomon.  The 
heathen  assumed  the  lion  as  an  emblem  of  the 
sun,  of  the  god  of  war,  of  Ares,  Ariel,  Arioth,  Re, 
the  Indian  Seeva,of  dominion  in  general,  of  valour, 
‘fee.,  and  it  occurs  in  the  names  and  standards  of 
many  nations.  Lions,  in  remote  antiquity,  appear 
to  have  been  trained  for  the  chace,  and  are,  even 
now,  occasionally  domesticated  with  safety.  Pla- 
cability and  attachment  are  displayed  by  them 
even  to  the  degree  of  active  defence  of  their 
friends,  as  was  exemplified  at  Birr,  in  Ireland 
in  1839,  when  ‘ a keeper  of  wild  beasts,  being 
within  the  den,  had  fallen  accidentally  upon  a 
tiger,  who  immediately  caught  the  man  by  the 
thigh,  in  the  presence  of  numerous  spectators ; 
but  a lion,  being  in  the  same  compartment,  rose 
up,  and  seizing  the  tiger  by  the  neck,  compelled 
it  to  let  go,  and  the  man  was  saved.’  Numerous 
anecdotes  of  a similar  character  are  recorded 
both  by  ancient  and  modem  writers. 

Zoologists  consider  Africa  the  primitive  abode 
of  lions,  their  progress  towards  the  north  and 
west  having  at  one  time  extended  to  the  forests 
of  Macedonia  and  Greece;  but  in  Asia,  never 
to  the  south  of  the  Nerbudda,  nor  east  of  the 
lower  Ganges.  Since  the  invention  of  gunpowder, 
and  even  since  the  havoc  which  the  ostentatious 
barbarism  of  Roman  grandees  made  among  them, 
they  have  diminished  in  number  exceedingly, 
although  at  the  present  day  individuals  are  not 
(infrequently  seen  in  Barbary,  within  a short 
distance  of  Ceuta. — C.  H.  S. 

LITTER.  The  word  translated  litter,  in  Isa. 
Ixvi.  20,  is  tzab ; and  is  the  same  which, 
in  Num.  vii.  3,  denotes  the  wains  or  carts  drawn 
by  oxen,  in  which  the  materials  of  the  taber- 
nacle weie  removed  from  place  to  place.  The 
tzab  was  not,  therefore,  a litter,  which  is  not  drawn, 
but  carried.  This  is  the  only  place  in  which  the 
word  occurs  in  the  Authorized  translation.  We 
are  not,  however,  to  infer  ftom  this  that  the 
Hebrews  had  no  vehicles  of  the  kind.  Litters, 
or  palanquins,  were,  as  we  know,  in  use  among 
the  ancient  Egyptians.  They  were  borne  upon  the 
shoulders  of  men  (No.  391),  and  appear  to  have 
been  used  for  carrying  persons  of  consideration 
short  distances  on  visits,  like  the  sedan  chairs 
of  a former  day  in  England.  We  doubt  if  the 
Hebrews  had  this  kind  of  litter,  as  it  scarcely 
agrees  with  their  simple,  unluxurious  habits  ; but 
that,  they  had  litters  borne  by  beasts,  such  as  are 
still  common  in  Western  Asia,  seems  in  the 
highest  degree  probable. 

In  Cant.  iii.  9,  we  find  the  word  aj)hir- 

yon,  Sept,  nopeiou,  Vulg.  ferculum,  which  occurs 
nowhere  else  in  Scripture,  and  is  applied  to  a 
vehicle  used  by  king  Solomon.  This  word  is 
rendered  ‘ charict’  in  our  Authorized  version, 
although  unlike  any  other  word  so  rendered  in 


that  version.  It  literally  means  a moving  couch , 
and  is  usually  conceived  to  denote  a kind  of 


391. 


sedan,  litter,  or  rather  palanquin,  in  which  great 
personages  and  women  were  borne  from  place 
to  place.  Toe  name,  as  well  as  the  object,  im- 
mediately suggests  that  it  may  have  been  nearly 

the  same  thing  as  the  L takht-ravan, 

the  moving  throne , or  seat , of  the  Persians 


It  consists  of  a light  frame  fixed  on  two  strong 
poles,  like  those  of  our  sedan-chair.  The  frame  is 
generally  covered  with  cloth,  and  has  a door, 
sometimes  of  lattice  work,  at  each  side.  It  is 
carried  by  two  mules,  one  between  the  poles 
before,  the  other  behind.  These  conveyances  are 
used  by  great  persons,  when  disposed  for  retire- 
ment or  ease  during  a journey,  or  when  sick  or 
feeble  from  age.  But  they  are  chiefly  used  by 
ladies  of  consideration  in  their  journeys  (No.  392). 

The  popular  illustrators  of  Scripture  do  not 
appear  to  have  been  acquainted  with  this  and  the 
other  litters  of  Western  Asia;  and  have,  there- 
fore, resorted  to  India,  and  drawn  their  illustra- 
tions from  the  jialanquins  borne  by  men,  and  from 
the  howdahs  of  elephants.  This  is  unnecessary,  as 
Western  Asia  still  supplies  conveyances  of  this 
description,  more  suitable  and  more  likely  to  have 
been  anciently  in  use,  than  any  which  the  further 
east  can  produce.  If  the  one  already  described 
should  seem  too  humble,  there  are  other  takht- 
ravans  of  more  imposing  appearance.  Some 
readers  may  remember  the  ‘ litter  of  red  ploth, 
adorned  with  pearls  and  jewels,'  together  with 
ten  mules  (to  bear  it  by  turns),  which  king 
Zahr-Shah  prepared  for  the  journey  of  his 
daughter  (Lane’s  Arab.  Nights , i.  528).  This 
was,  doubtless,  of  the  kind  which  is  borne  by  foui 
mules,  two  behind  and  two  before.  In  Arabia, 
or  in  the  countries  where  Arabian  usages  prevail, 
two  camels  are  usually  employed  to  bear  the 
takht-ravan,  and  sometimes  two  horses.  When 
borne  by  camels,  the  head  of  the  hindmost  cf 
the  animals  is  bent  painfully  down  uader  tb* 


251 


LIVER. 


LIVER 


vehicle.  This  is  the  most  comfortable  kind  of 
litter,  and  two  light  persons  may  travel  in  it. 


The  shibrceyeh  is  another  kind  of  camel-litter, 
resembling  the  Indian  howdah , by  which  name 
(or  rather  hddaj ) it  is  sometimes  called.  It 
is  composed  of  a small  square  platform  with  a 
canopy  or  arched  covering.  It  accommodates 


but  one  person,  and  is  placed  upon  the  back  of  a 
camel,  and  rests  upon  two  square  camel-chests, 
one  on  each  side  of  the  animal.  It  is  very  evi- 
dent, not  only  from  the  text  in  view,  but  from 
others,  that  the  Hebrews  had  litters;  and  there 
is  little  reason  to  doubt  that  they  were  the  same 
as  those  now  employed  in  Palestine  and  the 
neighbouring  countries,  where  there  are  still  the 
same  circumstances  of  climate,  the  same  domestic 
animals,  and  essentially  the  same  habits  of  life, 
as  in  the  Biblical  period. 

LIVER  033)  occurs  in  Exod.  xxix.  13, 22  ; 
Lev.  iii.  4,  10,  15;  iv.  9;  vii.  4;  viii.  16,  25; 
ix.  10,  19;  Prov.  vii.  23;  Lam.  ii.  11;  Ezek. 
xxi.  21.  The  Hebrew  word  is  generally  derived 
from  12  V'  be  heavy,  in  reference  to  the  weight 
of  the  liver  ^s  the  heaviest  of  all  the  viscera,  just 
as  in  English  the  lungs  are  called  ‘ the  lights,’  from 
their  comparative  lightness.  Gesenius,  however, 

adduces  the  K;c  meaning,  probably, 

‘the  most  preciouo,  which,  indeed,  suits  the  notions 
of  the  ancient  Orientals,  who  esteemed  the  liver 
to  be  the  most  valuable  of  all  the  viscera,  because 
they  thought  it  most  concerned  in  the  formation 
of  the  blood,  and  held  that  ‘ in  the  blood  is  the 
life.’  In  all  the  instances  where  the  word  occurs 
in  the  Pentateuch,  it  forms  part  of  the  phrase 

TOn  by  mrvn,  or  12 nn  rnrv,  or  -nrsn-p, 

translated  in  the  Authorized  Version,  ‘ the  caul 
that  is  above  the  liver,’  but  which  Gesenius,  rea- 
soning from  the  root,  understands  to  be  the  great 
lobe  of  the  liver  itself,  rather  than  the  caul  over 
it;  which  latter  he  terms  omentum  minus  hepati- 
cogastricum,  and  which,  he  observes,  is  incon- 
siderable in  size,  and  has  but  little  fat.  Jahn 


thinks  the  smaller  lobe  to  be  meant.  The  jhrase 
is  also  rendered  in  the  Sept,  rbv  \of$bv  roi 
^iraros,  or  rbv  in\  rov,  &c.,  ‘ the  lobe  or  lower 
pendent  of  the  liver,’  the  chief  object  of  attention 
in  the  art  of  hepatoscopy,  or  divination  by  tne 
liver  among  the  ancients.  (Jerome  gives  reticulum 
jecoris,  4 the  net  of  the  liver,’  and  arvina,  4 the 
suet,’  and  adeps,  ‘ the  fat ;’  see  Bochart/iftcras. 
i.  498.)  It  appears  from  the  same  passages 
that  it  was  burnt  upon  the  altar,  and  not  eaten 
as  sacrificial  food  (Jahn,  Biblisches  Archaol. 
§ 378,  n.  7).  The  liver  was  supposed  by  the 
ancient  Jews,  Greeks,  and  Romans  to  be  the  seat 
of  the  passions,  pride,  love,  &c.  Thus,  Gen. 
xlix.  6,  4 with  their  assembly  let  not  (lite- 

rally, ‘my  liver’)  be  united;’  Sept.  rb  rjirara , 
see  also  Heb.  of  Ps.  xvi.  9;  lvii.  9;  cviii.  2; 
and  Anacreon,  Ode  iii.  fin.;  Theocritus,  Idyll. 
xi.  16  ; Horace,  Carm.  i.  13.  4 ; 25.  15  ; 
iv.  1.  12;  and  the  Notes  of  the  Delphin 
edition;  comp,  also  Persius,  Sat.  v.  129;  Ju- 
venal, Sat.  v,  647.  Wounds  in  the  liver  were 
supposed  to  be  mortal ; thus  the  expressions  in 
Prov.  vii.  23,  4 a dart  through  his  liver,’  and 
Lam.  ii.  11, 4 my  liver  is  poured  out  upon  the 
earth,’  are  each  of  them  a periphrasis  for  death 
itself.  So  also  ^Eschylus  uses  the  words  Ocyydvei 
tt pbs  rjirap  to  describe  a mortal  wound  (Aga- 
memnon, 1.  442).  The  passage  in  Ezekiel  con- 
tains an  interesting  reference  to  the  most  ancient, 
of  all  modes  of  divination,  by  the  inspection  of 
the  viscera  of  animals  and  even  of  mankind 
sacrificially  slaughtered  for  the  purpose.  It  is 
there  said  that,  the  king  of  Babylon,  among  other 
modes  of  divination  referred  to  in  the  same  verse, 

4 looked  upon  the  liver.’  The  Cambridge  manu- 
script of  the  Sept,  gives  fjirari  <TKoirr](ra(rdai ; other 
copies  use  the  precise  technical  term  rjiraroo-Ko- 
vTicraadai.  The  liver  was  always  considered  the 
most  important  organ  in  the  ancient  art  of 
Extispicium,  or  divination  by  the  entrails.  Phi- 
lostratus  felicitously  describes  it  as  ‘ the  prophe- 
sying tripod  of  all  divination’  (Lif e of  Apollo- 
nius, viii.  7.  5).  The  rules  by  which  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  judged  of  it  are  amply  detailed  in 
Adams’s  Roman  Antiquities , p.  261,  &c.,  Lond. 
1834  ; and  in  Potter’s  Archceologia  Grrrca, 
i.  316,  Lond.  1775.  It  is  an  interesting  inquiry 
how  this  regard  to  it  originated.  Vitruvius  sug- 
gests a plausible  theory  of  the  first  rise  of  hepa- 
toscopy. He  says  the  ancients  inspected  the 
livers  of  those  animals  which  frequented  the 
places  where  they  wished  to  settle ; and  if  they 
found  the  liver,  to  which  they  chiefly  ascribed 
the  process  of  sanguification,  was  injured,  they 
concluded  that  the  water  and  nourishment  col- 
lected in  such  localities  were  unwholesome 
(i.  4).  But  divination  is  coeval  and  co-exten- 
sive  with  a belief  in  the  divinity.  We  ac- 
cept the  argument  of  the  Stoics,  4 sunt  Di : ergo 
est  Divinatio .’  We  know  that  as  early  as  the 
days  of  Cain  and  Abel  there  were  certain  means 
of  communication  between  God  and  man,  and 
that  those  means  were  c-cnnected  with  the  sacri- 
fice of  animals  ; and  we  prefer  to  consider  those 
means  as  the  source  of  divination  in  later  ages, 
conceiving  that  when  the  real  tokens  of  the 
divine  interest  with  which  the  primitive  families 
of  man  were  favoured  ceased,  in  consequence  of 
the  multiplying  of  human  transgressions,  th*ii 
descendants  endeavoured  to  obtain  counsel 


LIZARD. 


LIZARD. 


2$> 


information  by  the  same  external  observances. 
We  believe  that  thus  only  will  the  minute  resem- 
blances be  accounted  for,  which  we  discover  be- 
tween the  clilfe rent  methods  of  divination,  utterly 
untraceable  to  reason,  but  which  have  prevailed 
from  unknown  antiquity  among  the  most  distant 
regions.  Cicero  ascribes  divination  by  this  and 
other  means  to  what  he  calls  ‘ the  heroic  ages,’ 
by  which  term  we  know  he  means  a period  ante- 
cedent to  all  historical  documents  (De  Divina- 
tione).  Prometheus,  in  the  play  of  that  title 
(1.  474,  &c.),  lays  claim  to  having  taught,  man- 
kind the  different,  kinds  of  divination,  and  that 
of  extispicy  among  the  rest. ; and  Prometheus, 
according  to  Servius  (ad  Virg.  Eel.  vi.  42),  in- 
structed the  Assyrians ; and  we  know  from  sacred 
record  that  Assyria  was  one  of  the  countries  first 
peopled.  It  is  further  important  to  remark  that 
the  first  recorded  instance  of  divination  is  that 
of  the  teraphim  of  Laban,  a native  of  Padan- 
aram,  a district  bordering  on  that  country 
(1  Sam.  xix.  13,  16),  but  by  which  teraphim 
both  the  Sept,  and  Josephus  understood  rjirap 
t&v  alywu  ‘th e liver  of  goats’  (Antiq.  vi.  11. 
4);  nor  does  Whiston,  perhaps,  in  his  note  on 
that  passage,  unreasonably  complain  that,  ‘ since 
the  modern  Jews  have  lost  the  signification  of 
the  word  T33,  and  since  this  rendering  of  the 
Sept..,  as  well  as  the  opiniou  of  Josephus,  are 
here  so  much  more  clear  and  probable,  it  is 
unaccountable  that  our  commentators  should  so 
much  hesitate  as  to  its  true  interpretation  ’ 
(Whiston’s  Josephus , p.  169,  note,  Edinb.  1828; 
Bochart,  i.  41,  De  Caprarum  Nominibus ; En- 
cyclopedia Metropolitana , art.  ‘ Divination  ; ’ 
Rosenmiiller's  Scholia  on  the  several  passages 
referred  to;  Perizonius,  ad  JElian.  ii.  31 ; Peucer, 
De  Prcecipuis  Divinationum  Generibus , &c., 
VVitteberg,  1560).— J.  F.  D. 

LIZARD  (3)j»  tzab , 113  coach , letaah, 

ana/cah,  thinsemeth,  EDIfl  chomet, 

semmamith ).  Under  this  denomination 
the  modern  zoologist  places  all  the  cold-blooded 
animals  that  have  the  conformation  of  serpents 
with  the  addition  of  four  feet.  Thus  viewed,  as 
one  great  family,  they  constitute  the  Saurians, 
Laeertinse,  and  Lacertidae  of  authors;  embracing 
numerous  generical  divisions,  which  commence 
with  the  largest,  that  is,  the  crocodile  group,  and 
pass  through  sundry  others,  a variety  of  species, 
formidable,  disgusting,  or  pleasing  in  appearance 
■ — some  equally  frequenting  the  land  and  water, 
others  absolutely  confined  to  the  earth  and  to  the 
most  arid  deserts ; and  though  in  general  harm- 
less, there  are  a few  with  disputed  properties,  some 
being  held  to  poison  or  corrode  by  means  of  the 
exudation  of  an  ichor,  and  others  extolled  as 
Aphrodisiacs,  or  of  medical  use  in  pharmacy  ; but 
these  properties  in  most,  if  not  in  all,  are  unde- 
termined or  illusory.  Of  some  genera,  such  as  the 
crocodile  and  chameleon,  we  have  already  made 
mention  [Chameleon;  Crocodile;  Dragon; 
Leviathan],  and  therefore  we  shall  confine  our 
present  remarks  to  the  lizards  that  are  inhabitants 
»f  Western  Asia  and  Egypt,  and  to  those  more 
particularly  noticed  in  the  Bible.  Of  these 
commentators  indicate  six  or  seven  species, 
whereof  some  indeed  may  be  misapprehended  ; but 
when  it  is  considered  that  the  regions  of  Syria, 
Arabia,  and  Egypt  are  overrun  with  animata  of 


this  family,  there  is  every  rensen  to  expect  al 
lusion  (o  more  tlvan  one  genus  in  the  Scriptures, 
where  so  many  observations  and  similes  are 
derived  from  the  natural  objects  which  wera 
familiar  to  the  various  writers.  Among  the 
names  enumerated  above,  Bochart  refers  3 If 
tzab  (Lev.  xi.  29)  to  one  of  the  group  of  Mo- 
nitors or  Varanus,  the  Nilotic  lizard,  Lacerta 
Nilotica , Varanus  Niloticus,  or  War  an  of  the 
Arabs.  Like  the  other  of  this  form,  it  is  possessed 
of  a tail  double  the  length  of  the  body,  but 
is  not  so  well  known  in  Palestine,  where  there 
is  only  one  real  river  (Jordan),  whiih  is  not 
tenanted  by  this  species.  We  have  already 
shown  that  the  true  crocodile  frequented  the 
shores  and  marshes  of  the  coast  down  to  a com- 
paratively late  period  ; and  therefore  it  may  well 
have  had  a more  specific  name  than  Leviathan — 
a word  apparently  best  suited  to  the  dignified 
and  lofty  diction  of  the  prophets,  and  clearly  of 
more  general  signification  than  the  more  collo- 
quial designation.  Jerome  was  of  this  opinion; 
and  it  is  thus  likely  that  tzab  was  applied 
to  both,  as  waran  is  now  considered  only  a 
variety  of,  or  a young,  crocodile.  There  is  a 
second  of  the  same  group,  Lacerta  Scincus  of 
Merrem  ( Varanus  Arenarius ),  Waran-el-hard, 
also  reaching  to  six  feet  in  length ; and  a third, 
no i as  yet  clearly  described,  which  appears  to  be 
larger  than  either,  growing  to  nine  feet,  and 
covered  with  bright  cupreous  scales.  This  last 
prefers  rocky  and  stony  situations.  It  is  in  this 
section  of  the  Saurians  that  most  of  the  gigantic 
fossil  species,  the  real  D^arp  ben-nephilim , 
‘childien  of  the  giants,’  are  found  to  be  located  ; 
and  of  the  existing  species  some  are  reported  to 
possess  great  strength.  One  of  the  last-mentioned 
pursues  its  prey  on  land  with  a rapid  bounding 
action,  feeds  on  the  larger  insects,  and  is  said  to 
attack  game  in  a body,  sometimes  destroying 
even  sheep.  The  Arabs,  in  agreement  with  the 
ancients,  assert  that  this  species  will  do  fierce  and 
victorious  battle  with  serpents. 

Considerations  like  these  induce  us  to  assign 
the  Hebrew  name  P13  coach  (a  designation  of 
strength)  to  the  species  of  the  desert ; and  if  the 
Nilotic  waran  be  the  tzab,  then  the  Arabian 
dhab,  as  Bruce  asserts,  will  be  Varanus  Arenarius, 
or  Waran-el-hard  of  the  present  familiar  lan- 
guage, and  chardaun,  the  larger  copper- 

coloured  species  above  noticed.  But  it  is  evident 
from  the  Arabic  authorities  quoted  by  Bochart,  and 
from  his  own  conclusions,  that  there  is  not  only 
confusion  among  the  species  of  lizard,  but  that 
the  ichneumon  of  Egypt  ( Iiorpestes  Pharaonii' 
is  mixed  up  with  the  history  of  these  Saurians. 


We  come  next  to  the  group  of  lizards  mors 
properly  so  called,  which  Hebrew  commentator* 


258  LIZARD. 

take  to  be  the  HNLI^  letnah , a name  having  some 
allusion  to  poison  and  adhesiveness.  The  word 
occurs  only  once  (Lev.  xi.  30),  where  Saurians 
alonw  appear  to  be  indicated.  If  the  Hebrew  root 
were  to  guide  the  decision,  letaah  would  be  another 
name  for  the  gecko  or  anaka , for  there  is  but  one 
specios  which  can  be  deemed  venomous  : and  with 
regard  to  the  quality  of  adhesiveness,  though  the 
geckos  possess  it  most,  numerous  common  lizards 
run  up  and  down  perpendicular  walls  with  great 
facility.  We,  therefore,  take  tDDin  chomct,  or 
«a.r«.l  lizard  of  Bochart,  to  be  the  true  lizard, 
sevtral  (probably  many)  species  existing  in  my- 
riads on  the  rocks  in  sandy  places,  and  in  ruins  in 
every  part  of  Palestine  and  the  adjacent  countries. 
There  is  one  species  particularly  abundant  and 
small,  well  known  in  Arabia  by  the  name  of  Sara- 
bandi.  We  now  come  to  the  Stelliones , which 
have  been  confounded  with  the  noxious  geckos 
and  others  from  the  time  of  Aldrovandus,  and 
thence  have  been  a source  of  inextricable  trouble 
to  commentators.  They  are  best  known  by  the 
bundles  of  starlike  spines  on  the  body.  Among 
tiiese  Lacerta  Stellio,  Stellio  Orientalis,  the  ttpo- 
nodeiAos  of  the  Greeks,  and  hardun  of  the  Arabs, 
is  abundant  in  the  east,  and  a great  frequenter  of 
ruinous  walls.  The  genus  Uromastix  offers  Stellio 
Spinipes  of  Daud.  or  Ur-Spinipes,  two  or  three 
feet  long,  of  a fine  green,  and  is  the  species  whicli 
is  believed  to  strike  with  the  tail ; hence  formerly 
denominated  Caudi  Verbera.  It  is  frequent  in 
the  deserts  around  Egypt,  and  is  probably  the 
Guard  of  the  Arabs.  Another  subgenus,  named 
Trcipelus  by  Cuvier,  is  exemplified  in  the  TV. 
ALgypticus  of  Geoff.,  with  a spinous  swelled  body, 
but  remarkable  for  the  faculty  of  changing 
colour  more  rapidly  than  the  chameleon. 

Next  we  place  the  Geckotians , among  which 
comes  HpIN  anakah,  in  our  versions  denominated 
ferret , but  whicli  is  with  more  propriety  trans- 
ferred to  the  noisy  and  venomous  abu-burs  of  the 
Arabs.  There  is  no  reason  for  admitting  the  verb 
PIN  anak,  to  groan,  to  cry  out , as  radical  for  the 
name  of  the  ferret,  an  animal  totally  unconnected 
with  the  preceding  and  succeeding  species  in  Lev. 
xi.  29,  30,  and  originally  found,  so  far  as  we  know, 
only  in  Western  Africa,  and  thence  conveyed  to 
Spain,  prowling  noiselessly,  and  beaten  to  death 
without  a groan,  though  capable  of  a feeble,  short 
scream  when  at  play,  or  when  suddenly  wounded. 
Taking  the  interpretation  ‘to  cry  out,’  so  little 
applicable  to  ferrets,  in  conjunction  with  the  whole 
verse,  we  find  the  gecko , like  all  the  species  of  this 
group  of  lizards,  remarkable  for  the  loud  grating 
noise  which  it  is  apt  to  utter  in  the  roofs  and 
walls  of  houses  all  the  night  through  : one,  indeed, 
is  sufficient  to  dispel  the  sleep  of  a whole  family. 
The  particular  species  most  probably  meant  is  the 
lacerta  gecko  of  Hasselquist,  the  gecko  lobatus  of 
Geotfroy,  distinguished  by  having  the  soles  of  the 
feet  dilated  and  striated  like  open  fans,  from 
w hence  a poisonous  ichor  is  said  to  exude,  in- 
flaming the  human  skin,  and  Infecting  food  that 
may  have  been  trod  upon  by  the  animal.  Hence 
the  Arabic  name  of  abu-burs,  or  ‘ father  leprosy,’ 
at  Cairo.  The  species  extends  northwards  in 
Syria;  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  gecko 
fascicularis , or  tarentola,  of  South-Eastern  Europe 
be  not  also  an  inhabitant  of  Palestine ; and  in 
that  case  the  fVftDSP  semmamiih  of  Bochart 
would  find  an  appropriate  location. 


LOAN. 

To  these  we  add  the  Chameleons , already  de- 
scribed [Chameleon]  ; and  then  follows  the 
Scincus  (in  antiquity  the  name  of  varanus 
arenarius ),  among  which  lacerta  scincus , Linn., 
or  scincus  officinalis,  is  the  el-adda  of  the  Arabs, 
figured  by  Bruce,  and  well  known  in  the  old 
pharmacy  of  Europe.  S.  cyprius , or  lacerta 
cyprius  scincoides,  a large  greenish  species, 
marked  with  a pale  line  on  each  flank,  occurs 
also  ; and  a third,  scincus  variegatus  or  ocillatus, 
often  noticed  on  account  of  its  round  black  spots, 
each  marked  with  a pale  streak,  and  commonly 
having  likewise  a stripe  on  each  flank,  of  a pale 
colour. 

Of  the  species  of  Scps,  that  is,  viviparous  ser- 
pent-lizards, having  the  body  of  snakes,  with  four 
weak  limbs,  a species  with  only  three  toes  on 
each  foot,  the  lacerta  ehalcides  of  Linn.,  appears 
to  extend  to  Syria. — C.  H.  S. 

LOAN.  The  Mosaic  laws  which  relate  to  the 
subject  of  borrowing,  lending,  and  repaying,  are  in 
substance  as  follows  : — If  an  Israelite  became  poor, 
what  he  desired  to  borrow  was  to  be  freely  lent  to 
him,  and  no  interest,  either  of  money  or  produce, 
could  be  exacted  from  him;  interest  might  be 
taken  of  a foreigner,  but  not  of  an  Israelite  by 
another  Israelite  (Exod.  xxii.  25;  Deut.  xxiii. 
19,  20;  Lev.  xxv.  35-38).  At  the  end  of  every 
seven  years  a remission  of  debts  was  ordained ; 
every  creditor  was  to  remit  what  he  had  lent : 
of  a foreigner  the  loan  might  be  exacted,  but  not 
of  a brother.  If  an  Israelite  wished  to  borrow,  he 
was  not  to  be  refused  because  the  year  of  remis- 
sion was  at  hand  (Deut.  xv.  1-11).  Pledges 
might  be  taken,  but  not  as  such  the  mill  or  the 
upper  millstone,  for  that  would  be  to  take  a man’s 
life  in  pledge.  If  the  pledge  was  raiment,  it  was 
to  be  given  back  before  sunset,  as  being  needful 
for  a covering  at  night.  The  widow’s  garment 
could  not  be  taken  in  pledge  (Exod.  xxii.  20, 
27  ; Deut.  xxiy.  6,  17).  A part  of  the  last  pass- 
age we  must  cite  entire,  as  showing  a most  ami- 
able and  considerate  spirit  on  the  part  of  Moses 
towards  the  poor  : ‘ When  thou  dost,  lend  thy 
brother  anything,  thou  shalt  not  go  into  his  house 
to  fetch  his  pledge  ; thou  shalt  stand  abroad,  and 
the  man  to  whom  thou  dost  lend  shall  bring  out 
the  pledge  abroad  unto  thee;  and  if  the  man  be 
poor  thou  shalt  not  sleep  with  his  pledge  : in  any 
case  thou  shalt  deliver  him  the  pledge  again  when 
the  sun  goeth  down,  that  he  may  sleep  in  his  own 
raiment,  and  bless  thee  ; and  it  shall  be  righteous- 
ness unto  thee  before  the  Lord  thy  God.’  The 
strong  and  impressive  manner  in  which  the  duty 
of  lending  is  enjoined,  is  worthy  of  being  exhibited 
in  the  words  of  Scripture  : ‘ If  there  be  among 
you  a poor  man  of  one  of  thy  brethren,  thou  shall 
not  harden  thy  heart  nor  shut  thine  hand  from 
thy  poor  brother,  but  thou  shalt  open  thine  hand 
wide  unto  him,  and  shalt  surely  lend  him  suffi- 
cient for  his  need.  Beware  that  there  be  not  a 
thought  in  thy  wicked  heart,  saying,  the  year  of 
release  is  at  hand,  and  thine  eye  be  evil  against 
thy  poor  brother,  and  thou  givest  him  nought, 
and  he  cry  unto  the  Lord  against  thee,  and  it  be 
sin  unto  thee  : thou  shalt  surely  give  him,  and 
thine  heart  shall  not  be  grieved  when  thou  givest 
unto  him  ; because  that  for  this  thing  the  Lord 
thy  God  shall  bless  thee  in  all  thy  works  and  in 
all  that  thou  puttest  thy  hand  unto.’ 

These  laws  relating  to  loans  may  wear  a stran§» 


LOAN 


LOAN. 


267 


and  somewhat  repulsive  aspect  to  toe  meie  mo- 
dern reader,  and  cannot  be  understood,  either  in 
their  bearing  or  their  sanctions,  unless  considered 
from  the  Biblical  point  of  view.  The  land  of 
Canaan  (as  the  entire  world)  belonged  to  its 
Creator,  but  was  given  of  God  to  the  descendants 
of  Abraham  under  certain  conditions,  of  which 
this  liberality  to  the  needy  was  one.  The  power 
of  getting  loans  therefore  was  a part  of  the  poor 
man’s  inheritance.  It  was  a lien  on  the  land  (the 
source  of  all  property  with  agricultural  people), 
which  was  as  valid  as  the  tenure  of  any  given 
portion  by  the  tribe  or  family  do  whose  lot  it  had 
fallen.  This  is  the  light  in  which  the  Mosaic 
polity  represents  the  matter,  and  in  this  light,  so 
long  as  that  polity  retained  its  force,  would  it,  as 
a matter  of  course,  lie  regarded  by  the  owners  of 
property.  Thus  the  execution  of  this  particular 
law  was  secured  by  the  entire  force  with  which 
the  constitution  itself  was  recommended  and  sus- 
tained. But  as  human  selfishness  might  in  time 
endanger  this  particular  set  of  laws,  so  Moses 
applied  special  support  to  the  possibly  weak  pait. 
Hence  the  emphasis  with  which  he  enjoins  the 
duty  of  lending  to  the  needy.  Of  this  emphasis 
the  very  essence  is  the  sanction  supplied  by  that 
special  providence  which  lay  at  the  very  basis 
of  the  Mosaic  commonwealth;  so  that  lending  to 
the  destitute  came  to  be  enforced  with  all  the 
power  derivable  from  the  express  v/ill  of  God,  of 
the  Almighty  Creator,  of  the  Redeemer  of  Israel, 
of  Him  whose  favour  was  life  and  whose  frown 
was  dismay  and  ruin. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  admire  the  benevolence 
which  runs  through  the  entire  of  this  piece  of 
legislation ; and  when  the  age  to  which  its  origin 
is  referred,  and  the  peculiar  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  produced,  are  considered,  our  ad- 
miration rises  to  a very  high  pitch,  and  we  feel 
that  it  is  most  insufficient  praise  to  say  that 
nothing  so  benign  in  spirit  had  been  previously 
conceived  : nothing  more  beneficent  and  humane 
has  been  carried  into  elfect,  even  since  Jesus  came 
to  seek  and  to  save  the  lost.  The  conduct  which 
‘he  Romans  observed  towards  the  debtor  affords  a 
striking  contrast  to  what  is  thus  required  by 
Moses.  Insolvent  debtors  might  be  compelled  to 
serve  their  creditors,  and  often  had  to  endure 
treatment  as  bad  as  that  of  slaves  (Liv.  ii.  23; 
A.  Gell.  xx.  1,  19;  Appian,  Ital.  p.  40).  In 
Athens  also  the  creditor  had  a claim  to  the  per- 
son of  the  debtor  (Plut.  Vit.  Sol.  15).  Moses 
himself  seems  to  have  admitted  some  restrictions 
to  his  benevolent  laws  ; for  from  Lev.  xxv.  39,  sq., 
it  appears  that  a poor  Israelite  might  be  sold  to 
one  possessed  of  substance : be  was,  however,  to 
serve,  not  as  a bond,  but  as  a hired  servant,  who 
at  tie  jubilee  was  restored  with  his  children  to 
entire  liberty,  so  that  he  might  return  unto  the 
jx)ssession  of  his  fathers, 

That  the  system  of  law  regardihg  loans  was 
carried  into  elfect.  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt.  It 
formed  an  essential  part  of  the  general  constitution, 
and  therefore  came  recommended  with  the  entire 
sanction  which  that  systfi  n had  on  its  own  be- 
half; nor  were  there  any  predominant,  antagonist 
principles  at  work  which  would  prevent  this  from 
proceeding  step  by  step,  in  its  proper  place  and 
dine,  with  the  residue  of  the  Mosaic  legislation. 
Nor  do  the  passages  of  Scripture  (Job  xxii.  6 ; 
Kxiv.  3;  Matt,  xviii.  28;  Prov.  xxviii.  8;  Ezek 

rou  18 


xviii.  8;  Ps.  xv.  5;  cix.  II)  which  give  ua 
reason  to  think  that  usury  was  practised  and  the 
poor  debtor  oppressed,  show  anything  but  those 
breaches  to  which  laws  are  always  liable,  espe- 
cially in  a period  when  morals  grow  corrupt  and 
institutions  in  consequence  decline;  on  the  con- 
trary, the  stern  reproofs  which  such  violations 
called  forth  forcibly  demonstrate  that  the  legis- 
lation in  question  had  taken  elfect,  and  had  also 
exerted  a powerful  influence  on  (he  national  cha- 
racter, and  on  the  spirit  with  which  the  misdeeds 
of  rich  oppressors  and  the  injuries  of  the  needy 
were  regarded. 

While,  however,  the  benign  tendency  of  the 
laws  in  question  is  admitted,  may  it  not  be  ques- 
tioned whether  they  were  strictly  just?  Such  a 
doubt  could  arise  only  in  a mind  which  viewed 
the  subject  from  the  position  of  our  actual  society. 
A modern  might  plead  that  he  had  a right  to  do 
what  he  pleased  with  his  own  ; that  his  property 
of  every  kind — laud,  food,  money — was  his  own  ; 
and  that  he  was  justified  to  turn  all  and  each  part 
to  account  for  his  own  benefit.  Apart  from  reli- 
gious considerations  this  position  is  impregnable. 
But  such  a view  of  property  finds  no  support  in 
the  Mosaic  institutions.  In  them  property  has  a 
divine  origin,  and  its  use  is  intrustol  to  man  on 
certain  conditions,  which  conditions  are  as  valid 
as  is  the  tenure  of  property  itself.  In  one  sense, 
indeed,  the  entire  land — all  property — was  a great 
loan,  a loan  lent  of  God  to  the  people  of  Israel, 
who  might  well  therefore  acquiesce  in  any  ar- 
rangement which  required  a portion — a small 
portion — of  this  loan  to  be  under  certain  circum- 
stances accessible  to  the  destitute.  This  view 
receives  confirmation  from  the  fact  that  interest 
might,  be  taken  of  persons  who  were  not  Hebrews, 
and  therefore  lay  beyond  the  sphere  embraced  by 
this  special  arrangement.  It  would  open  loo  wide 
a field  did  we  proceed  to  consider  bow  far  the 
Mosaic  system  might  be  applicable  in  the  world 
at  large ; but  this  is  very  clear  to  our  mind,  that 
the  theory  of  property  on  which  it  rests — that  1*3, 
making  property  to  be  divine  in  its  origin,  and 
therefore  tenable  only  on  the  fulfilment  of  such 
conditions  as  the  great  laws  of  religion  and  mo- 
rality enforce — is  more  true  and  more  philoso- 
phical (except  in  a college  of  atheists)  than  the 
narrow  and  baneful  ideas  which  ordinarily  prevail. 

Had  the  Hebrews  enjoyed  a free  intercourse 
with  other  nations,  the  permission  to  take  usury  of 
foreigners  might  have  had  the  effect  of  impover- 
ishing Palestine  by  affording  a strong  induce- 
ment for  employing  capital  abroad ; but,  under 
the  actual  restrictions  of  the  Mosaic  law,  this  evil 
was  impossible.  Some  not  inconsiderable  advan- 
tages must  have  ensued  from  the  observance  of 
these  laws.  The  entire  alienation  and  loss  of  the 
lent  property  were  prevented  by  that  peculiar  in- 
stitution which  restored  to  every  man  his  property 
at  the  great  year  of  release.  In  the  interval  be- 
tween the  jubilees  the  system  under  consideration 
would  tend  to  prevent  those  inequalities  of  social 
condition  which  always  arise  rapidly,  and  which 
have  not  seldom  brought,  disaster  and  ruin  on 
states.  The  affluent  were  required  to  part  with 
a portion  of  their  affluence  to  supply  the  wants 
of  the  needy,  without,  exacting  that  recompense 
which  would  only  make  the  rich  richer  and  the 
poor  more  needy ; thus  superinducing  a state  of 
tliiugs  scarcely  more  injurious  to  the  one  than  to* 


258 


LOCUST. 


LOCUST. 


the  other  of  these  two  parties.  There  was  also 
in  this  system  a strongly  conservative  influence. 
Agriculture  was  the  foundation  of  the  constitu- 
tion. Had  money-lending  been  a trade,  money- 
making would  also  have  been  eagerly  pursued. 
Capital  would  be  withdrawn  from  the  land;  the 
agriculturist  would  pass  into  the  usurer ; huge 
inequalities  would  arise;  commerce  would  as- 
sume predominance,  and  the  entire  commonwealth 
be  overturned — changes  and  evils  which  were  pre- 
vented, or,  if  not  so,  certainly  retarded  and  abated, 
by  the  code  of  laws  regarding  loans.  As  it  was, 
the  gradually  increasing  wealth  of  the  country  was 
in  the  main  laid  out  on  the  soil,  so  as  to  augment 
its  productiveness  and  distribute  its  bounties. 

These  views  may  prepare  the  reader  for  con- 
sidering the  doctrine  of  ‘ the  Great.  Teacher  ’ on 
the  subject  of  loans.  It  is  found  forcibly  ex- 
pressed in  Luke's  Gospel  (vi.  34,  35) : ‘ If  ye 
lend  to  them  of  whom  ye  hope  to  receive,  what 
thank  have  ye  ? for  sinners  also  lend  to  sinners,  to 
receive  as  much  again  : but  love  ye  your  enemies, 
and  do  good,  and  lend,  hoping  for  nothing  again; 
and  your  reward  shall  be  great,  and  ye  shall  be 
the  children  of  the  Highest;  for  he  is  kind  unto 
the  unthankful  and  to  the  evil.’  The  meaning 
of  the  passage  is  distinct  and  full,  unmistakeable, 
and  not  to  be  evaded.  He  commands  men  to 
lend,  not  as  Jews  to  Jews,  but  even  to  enemies, 
without  asking  or  receiving  any  return,  after  the 
manner  of  the  Great  Benefactor  of  the  Universe, 
who  sends  down  his  rains  and  bids  his  sun  to 
shine  on  the  fields  of  the  unjust  as  well  as  of  the 
just.  To  attempt  to  view  this  command  in  the 
light  of  reason  and  experience  would  require 
space  which  cannot  here  be  given ; but  we  must 
add,  that  any  attempt  to  explain  the  injunction 
•away  is  most  unworthy  on  the  part  of  professed 
disciples  of  Christ;  and  that,  not  impossibly  at 
least,  fidelity  to  the  behests  of  Him  whom  we 
call  Lord  and  Master  would  of  itself  answer 
all  doubts  and  remove  all  misgivings,  by  practi- 
cally showing  that  this,  as  every  other  doctrine 
that  fell  from  His  lips,  is  indeed  of  God  (John 
vii.  17).— J.  R.  B. 

LOAVES.  [Bread.] 

LOCUST  (order,  Hemiptera;  species,  Gryllus, 
Linn.).  There  are  ten  Hebrew  words  which  ap- 
pear to  signify  ‘ locust’  in  the  Old  Testament : 
1.  n2“]K  arbeh ; 2.  3*1  il  gob ; 3.  DT3  gazam ; 
4.  nan  chagab;  5.  chanamal ; 6.  ^pn 

ckasil ; 7.  hzyi  chargol ; 8.  yelek ; 9. 

■ salam ; 1 0.  Wy  tzelatzal.  It  has  been 

supposed,  however,  that  some  of  these  words 
denote  merely  the  different  states  through  which 
the  locust  passes  after  leaving  the  egg,  viz.  the 
larva,  the  pupa,  and  the  perfect  insect — all  which 
much  resemble  each  other,  except  that  the  larva 
has  no  wings,  and  that  the  pupa  possesses  only  the 
rudiments  of  those  members,  which  are  fully 
developed  only  in  the  adult  locust  (Michaelis, 
Supplem.  ad  Lex.  Hebr.  ii.  C67,  1080).  But 
this  supposition  is  manifestly  wrong  with  regard 
'to  the  first,  fourth,  seventh,  and  eighth,  because, 
in  Lev.  xi.  22,  the  word  ‘ after  his  kind,’ 

or  species,  is  add£d  after  each  of  them  (comp, 
ver.  14,  15,  16).  It.  is  most  probable,  there- 
fore, that  all  the  rest  are  also  the  names  of  species. 
But  the  problem  is  to  ascertain  the  particular 


species  intended  by  them  respectively.  Many 
writers  have  endeavoured  to  solve  it.  They  have 
first  examined  the  roots  of  these  names,  which  are 
nearly  all  the  resources  afforded  by  the  Hebrew, 
since  there  is  only  one  instance  in  which  any  de- 
scriptive epithet  is  applied  to  the  name  of  a 
locust  which  might  assist  in  identifying  the 
species  (Jer.  li.  27),  ‘ the  rough  caterpillar.’ 
Bochart  thus  states  the  principle  of  tlris  method 
of  investigation  ‘ Res  latet  in  verbis,  et  ex  nomi- 
nibus multa  eruunturquae  ad  horum  animal  ium 
naturam  pertinent.’ — * The  thing  signified  is 
couched  in  the  words,  and  out.  of  the  names  many 
things  are  deduced  which  relate  to  the  nature  of 
these  creatures’  ( Hierozoicon , a Rosenm idler,  1796, 
vol.  iii.  p.  251,  lib.  iv.  p.  ii.  c.  1).  But  as 
Hebrew  roots  alford  oidy  abstract  ideas,  these 
writers  next  endeavour  to  ascertain  the  particular 
species  intended,  by  considering  to  what  species 
of  locust  the  general  characteristic  especially 
applies.  This  would  be  a sufficiently  arduous 
task,  supposing  the  true  Hebrew  roots  to  be 
known  ; whereas  it  will  he  seen  that  several 
Hebrew  roots  often  compete  with  equal  claims  for 
the  place  of  etymon  to  the  same  word.  The  roots 
of  the  cognate  dialects,  to  which  these  writers 
resort  in  the  absence  of  any  in  Hebrew,  which  is 
frequently  the  case,  are  chargeable  with  the  same 
vagueness  and  incertitude.  The  next  resource 
would  seem  to  be  the  ancient  versions ; but  the 
Septuagint,  even  in  the  most  ancient  and  accurate 
portions  of  it,  seldom  gives  a definite  rendering. 
The  renderings  of  the  Vulgate,  though  nearly  an 
echo  of  the  Sept.,  are  valuable,  as  furnishing  all 
the  illustration  which  Jerome  could  give  in  the 
fifth  century.  Bochart  has  observed,  that  all  the 
other  ancient  versions,  Chaldaic,  Syriac,  and 
Arabic,  as  well  as  the  Targums  and  rabbins, 
afford  us  no  assistance  in  this  inquiry,  because 
‘ vel  retinent  voces  Hebraeas,  vel  alii3  utuntur 
nihilo  magis  notis’ — ‘ they  either  retain  the  He- 
brew words  or  use  others  no  better  understood.’ 
Our  only  materials,  then,  consist  of  reasonings 
from  the  Hebrew  roots,  the  Sept,  and  Vulg.,  and 
of  those  few  places  where  the  definite  renderings 
they  give  can  be  illustrated  from  ancient  Greek 
and  Roman  naturalists,  &c.  It  will  now  be 
attempted  to  lay  before  the  reader  the  results  of 
these  several  sources  of  investigation. 

1.  n3“lK  arbeh ; occurs  in  Exod.  x.  4,  Sept. 
cucplda  ttoWt] v (‘  a vast,  flight. of  locusts/  or  perhaps 
indicating  that  several  species  were  employed), 
Vulg.  locustam;  and,  in  ver.  12,  13, 14,  19,  cutpls 
and  locasta,  Eng.  locusts ; Lev.  xi.  22,  /3 povxov, 
bruchus,  locust;  Deut.  xxviii.  38,  unpis,  locustce, 
locust;  Judg.  vi.  5;  vii.  12,  axpis,  locuslarum, 
grasshoppers;  1 Kings  viii.  37,  fipovxos , locusta , 
locust;  2 Chron.  vi.  2S,  ax  pis,  locusta,  locusts; 
Job  xxxix.  20,  axpldes,  locustas,  grasshoppers : 
Ps.  lxxviii.  46,  dfcp/Si,  Symm.  ckcoXtiki,  locustce , 
locust;  Ps.  cv.  34,  axpls,  locusta,  locust;  Ps.  cix. 
23,  a Kpities,  locustce,  locust;  Prov.  xxx.  27,  axpls, 
locusta,  locust;  Jer.  xlvi.  23,  axplba,  locusta,  grass- 
hoppers ; Joel  i.  4;  ii.  25,  dxp'is,  locusta,  locust; 
Nahum  iii.  15,  fipovxos,  bruchus,  locusts,  ver.  17, 
arTeXafios,  locustce , locusts.  In  the  foregoing 
conspectus  the  word  !73")N,  in  Exod.  x.,  aa 
indeed  everywhere  else,  occurs  in  the  singular 
number  only,  though  it  is  there  associated  with 
verbs  both  in  the  singular  and  plural  (ver.  5,  6), 
as  are  the  corresponding  words  in  Sept,  and 


LOCUST. 


LOCUST. 

Vulg.  This  it  might  be,  as  a noun  of  multitude ; 
but  it  will  be  rendered  probable  that  four  species 
were  employed  in  the  plague  on  Egypt,  n3"lN> 

pV'  and  5?D3n  (Ps.  lxxviii.  46,  47 ; cv. 
31).  These  may  all  have  been  brought  into 
Egypt  from  Ethiopia  (which  has  ever  been  the 
cradle  of  all  kinds  of  locusts),  by  what  is  called 
in  Exodus,  ‘ the  east  wind,’  since  Bochart  proves 
that  the  word  which  properly  signifies  ‘ east* 
often  means  ‘south’  also.  The  word  may 

be  used  in  Lev.  xi.  22,  as  the  collective  name  for 
the  locust,  and  be  put  first  there  as  denoting  also 
the  most  numerous  species;  but  in  Joel  i.  4,  and 
Ps.  lxxviii.  46,  it  is  distinguished  from  the  other 
names  of  locusts,  and  is  mentioned  second,  as  if 
of  a different  species ; just,  perhaps,  as  we  use 
the  word  fly,  sometimes  as  a collective  name,  and 
at  others  for  a particular  species  of  insect,  as 
when  speaking  of  the  hop,  turnip,  meat  fly,  &c. 
When  the  Hebrew  word  is  used  in  reference  to  a 
particular  species,  it  has  been  supposed,  for  rea- 
sons which  will  be  given,  to  denote  the  gryllus 
gregarius  or  migratorius.  Moses,  therefore,  in 
Exodus,  refers  Pharaoh  to  the  visitation  of  the 
locusts,  as  well  known  in  Egypt;  but  the  plague 
would  seem  to  have  consisted  in  bringing  them 
into  that  country  in  unexampled  numbers,  con- 
sisting of  various  species  never  previously  seen 
there  (comp.  Exod.  x.  5,  6, 15).  The  Sept,  word 
@povx')S  (Lev.  xi.  22)  clearly  shows  that  the 
translator  uses  it  for  a winged  species  of  locust, 
contrary  to  the  Latin  fathers  (as  Jerome,  Augus- 
tine, Gregory,  &c.),  who  all  define  the  bruchus  to 
be  the  unfledged  young  or  larva  of  the  locust,  and 
who  call  it  at  tela  bus  when  its  wings  are  partially 
developed,  and  locusta  when  able  to  fly  ; although 
both  Sept,  and  Vulg.  ascribe  flight  to  the  bruchus 
here,  and  in  Nah.  iii.  17.  The  Greek  fathers,  on 
the  other  hand,  uniformly  ascribe  to  the  /3 poises 
both  wings  and  flight,  and  therein  agree  with  the 
descriptions  of  the  ancient  Greek  naturalists. 
Thus  Theophrastus,  the  pupil  of  Aristotle,  who, 
with  his  preceptor,  was  probably  contempora- 
ries with  the  Sept,  translators  of  the  Pentateuch, 
plainly  speaks  of  it  as  a distinct  species,  and  not 
a mere  state  : ^aAe7ral  giv  ovv  at  aupides,  xaAe7ra>- 
t epoi  Se  ol  arreXafioi,  Kal  tovtwv  gaKiora  ovs  Ka- 
\ov(Ti  fipovKOvs. — ‘ The  aKptdes  (the  best  ascer- 
tained general  Greek  word  for  the  locust)  are  inju- 
rious, the  arreXafloi  still  more  so,  and  those  most 
of  all  which  they  call  fipovKoi'  (T>e  Anim.').  The 
Sept,  seems  to  recognise  the  peculiar  destructive- 
ness of  the  j8 povxos  in  1 Kings  viii.  37  (but  has 
merged  it  in  the  parallel  passage,  2 Chron.),  and 
in  Nah.  iii.  15,  by  adopting  it  for  JT1TN.  In  these 
passages  the  Sept,  translators  may  have  understood 
the  G.  migratorius  or  gregarius  (Linn.),  which 
is  usually  considered  to  be  the  most  destructive 
species  (from  fipwaKO),  I devour ).  Yet.  in  Joel  i. 

4 ; ii.  25,  they  have  applied  it  to  the  which, 
however,  appears  there  as  engaged  in  the  work  of 
destruction.  Hesychius,  in  the  third  century, 
explains  the  (SpovKos  as  dupid <av  eYdos,  ‘ a species 
of  locust,’  though,  he  observes,  applied  in  his  time 
by  different  nations  to  different  species  of  locusts, 
and  by  some  to  the  drreKaBos.  May  not  his 
testimony  to  this  effect  illustrate  the  various  uses 
of  the  word  by  the  Sept,  in  the  minor  prophets  ? 
Our  translators  have  wrongly  adopted  the  word 
‘ grasshopper1  in  Judg.  and  Jer.  xlvi.  23,  where 


259 

‘ locusts’  would  certainly  have  better  illustrated 
the  idea  of  * innumerable  multitudes;1  and  here, 
as  elsewhere,  have  departed  from  their  professed 
rule,  ‘ not  to  vary  from  the  sense  of  that  which 
they  had  translated  before,  if  the  word  signified 
the  same  in  both  places’  (Translators  to  the  reader, 
ad  flnem).  The  Hebrew  word  in  question,  is 
usually  derived  from  PQ"),  ‘ to  multiply1  or  ‘ be 
numerous,’  because  the  locust  is  remarkably  pro- 
lific ; which,  as  a general  name,  is  certainly  not 
inapplicable  ; and  it  is  thence  also  inferred,  that 
it  denotes  the  G.  migratorius,  because  that  species 
often  appears  in  large  numbers.  However,  the 
largest  flight  of  locusts  upon  record,  calculated  to 
have  extended  over  500  miles,  and  which  darkened 
the  air  like  an  eclipse,  and  was  supposed  to  come 
from  Arabia,  did  not  consist  of  the  Q.  migratorius , 
but  of  a red  species  (Kirby  and  Spence,  Introd. 
to  Entomology,  i.  210);  and,  according  to  Forskal, 
the  species  which  now  chiefly  infests  Arabia,  and 
which  he  names  G.  gregarius , is  distinct  from 
the  G.  migratorius  of  Linn.  ( Ency . Brit.  art.  ‘ En- 
tomology,’ u.  193).  Others  derive  the  word  from 
,‘tolie  hid,1  or ‘in  ambush,’  because  the  newly 
hatched  locust  emerges  from  the  ground,  or  because 
the  locust  besieges  vegetables.  Elosenmuller 
justly  remarks  upon  such  etymologies,  and  the  in- 
ferences made  from  them,  ‘ Quam  infirmum  verb 
sit  hujusmodi  e solo  nominis  etymo  petitum 
argumentum,  unusquisque  intelliget  ipse.’  He 
adds,  ‘Nec  alia  est  ratio  reliquarum  specierurr/ 

( Schol . in  Joel  i.  4).  ‘ How  precarious  truly  the 

reasoning  is,  derived  in  this  manner  from  the 
mere  etymology  of  the  word,  every  body  may  un- 
derstand for  himself.  Nor  is  the  principle  other- 
wise in  regard  to  the  rest  of  the  species.1  He  also 
remarks  that  the  references  to  the  destructive-' 
ness  of  locusts,  which  are  often  derived  from  the 
roots,  simply  concur  in  this,  that  locusts  consume 
and  do  mischief.  Illustrations  of  the  propriety  of 
his  remarks  will  abound  as  we  proceed.  Still  it 
by  no  means  follows  from  a coincidence  of  the 
Hebrew  roots,  in  this  or  any  other  meaning,  that  the 
learned  among  the  ancient  Jews  did  not  recognise 
different  species  in  the  different  names  of  locusts. 
The  English  word  fly,  from  the  Saxon  fleon , the 
Heb.  and  its  representative  ‘fowl’  in  the 
Eng.  Version  (Gen.  i.  20,  &c.),  all  express  both 
a general  and  specific  idea.  Even  a modern 
entomologist  might  speak  of  ‘ the  flies’  in  a room, 
while  aware  that  from  50  to  100  different  spe- 
cies annually  visit  our  apartments.  The  scrip- 
tures use  popular  language : hence  ‘ the  mul- 
titude,1 ‘ the  devourer,’  or  ‘ the  darkener,'  may 
have  been  the  familiar  appellations  for  certain 
species  of  locusts.  The  common  Greek  words 
for  locusts  and  grasshoppers,  &c.,  are  of  them- 
selves equally  indefinite ; yet  they  also  served  for 
the  names  of  species,  as  aupts,  the  locust  generally, 
from  the  tops  of  vegetables,  on  which  the  locust 
feeds  ; but  it  is  also  used  as  the  proper  name  of  a 
particular  species,  as  the  grasshopper : rerpairrt- 
pvWts,  ‘ four-winged,’  is  applied  sometimes  to  the 
grasshopper ; Tp«£aAAls,  from  rpcoyu,  ‘ to  chew,’ 
sometimes  to  the  caterpillar.  Yet  the  Greeks  had 
also  distinct  names  restricted  to  particular  spe- 
cies, as  ovos,  goAovpis,  Kepuunn),  &c.  The  Hebrew 
names  may  also  have  served  similar  purposes. 

2.  313  gob,  Isa.  xxxiii.  4;  Sept.  aKptdas ; 
Vulg.  is  deficient;  Eng.  locusts;  Amos  v ii.  1 
im'yovi]  a Kpidwr ; Aquila,  fiopadow  (voratrices). 


LOCUST. 


LOCUST. 


locustae,  grasshoppers;  Nah.  iii.  17,  aTT&.efios, 
locustae,  grasshoppers.  Here  the  lexicographers, 
finding  no  Hebrew  root,  resort  to  the  Arabic. 
Bochart  derives  it  from  the  Arabic*  X33,  * to 
creep  out  ’ (of  the  ground),  as  the  locusts  do 
in  spring.  But  this  applies  to  the  young  of 
all  species  of  locusts,  and  his  quotations  from 
Aristotle  and  Pliny  occur  unfortunately  in  ge- 
neral descriptions  of  the  locust.  Castell  gives 

another  Arabic  root  (y_  3X3,  secxiit , ‘ to  cut’ 

or  ‘ tear,’  but  this  is  open  to  a similar  objection. 
Parkhurst  proposes  33,  anything  gibbous,  curved, 
or  arched,  and  gravely  adds,  ‘ the  locust  in  the 
caterpillar  state,  so  called  from  its  shape  in 
general,  or  from  its  continually  hunching  out  its 
back  in  moving.’  The  Sept,  word  in  Nahum, 
ctTT<s\efios,  has  already  been  shown  to  mean  a 
perfect  insect  and  species.  Accordingly,  Aris- 
totle speaks  of  its  parturition  and  eggs  (Hist. 
Anim.  v.  29  ; so  also  Plutarch,  De  Isid.  et  OsirQ. 
It  seems,  however,  not  unlikely  that  it  means  a 
wingless  species  of  locust,  genus  Podisma  of  La- 
treille.  Grasshoppers,  which  are  of  this  kind,  he  in- 
cludes under  the  genus  Tettix.  Hesychius  defines 
the  aTTeKefios  as  a.Kp\s  piKpa,  ‘ a small  locust;’ 
and  Pliny  mentions  it  as  ‘ locustarum  minimae, 
sine  penuis,  quas  attelabos  vocant’  (Hist.  Nat. 
Kxix.  5).  Accordingly  the  Sept,  ascribes  only 
leaping  to  it,  i^-f]\aro  ws  arreKefios.  In  Nahum 
we  have  the  construction  '313  313,  locusta 
locustarum,  which  the  lexicons  compare  with 
D'iJHp  and  explain  as  a vast  multitude  of 

locusts.  Archbishop  Newcome  suggests  that  ‘ the 
phrase  is  either  a double  reading  where  the  scribes 
had  a doubt  which  was  the  true  reading,  ora  mis- 
taken repetition  not  expunged.’  He  adds,  that  we 
may  suppose  '313  the  contracted  plural  for  D'313 
( Improved  Version  of  the  Minor  Prophets , 
Pontefr.  1809,  p.  188). 

* From  the  affinity  of  Arabic  to  Hebrew,  it 
might  have  been  hoped  that  from  inquiries  in 
Arabia  some  light  would  have  been  cast  upon 
the  Hebrew  names  of  locusts  by  the  traditional 
names  for  them  still  in  use  in  that  region.  But 
(he  modern  Arabic  names,  which  may  be  seen  in 
Bochart,  Tychsen,  Forskal,  Niebuhr,  Shaw,  &c., 
hear  no  resemblance  to  the  Hebrew.  The  word 
H31X  was  among  the  topics  of  inquiry  proposed 
to  Niebuhr  by  Michaelis  in  1774  ( Recued  de 
Questions  proposecs,  Sfc.  Quest,  xxx.).  Niebuhr 
replied,  ‘ Comme  la  philologie  n’est  point  mon 
fort,  je  dois  avertir  de  nouveau,  que  je  ne  saurois 
decider  si  l'explication  en  est  toujours  juste.  Je 
n ai  fait  que  l'ecrire  telle  que  je  l’ai  reque 
des  Juil's,  Chretiens,  ou  Mahometans  orientaux. 
n33X  sont  a Bagdad  et  a Maskat  les  sauterelles 
ile  passage,’  &c.  (Desa'ipt.  de  l Arabic,  1774, 
p.  33).  Dr.  Harris,  however,  makes  Niebuhr 
say,  ‘ Arbah  is  the  name  at  Bagdad  and  Maskat 
of  those  locusts,’  &c.  (Nat.  Hist,  of  the  Bible, 
London,  1825,  art  ‘Locust.’),  which  i3  evidently 
an  over-translation.  Indeed  Forskal,  who  went  in 
toe  same  expedition  with  Niebuhr,  expressly  says 
that  the  Arabs  every  where  call  what  he  names 

G.  gregarius  Djerdd,  and  that  the  Jews 

inhabiting  Yemen  (Arabia  Felix)  affirmed  that  it 
was  the  ri3“lX  ( Desci  iptiones  Animalium,  8$c. 
p.  81,  Hauniae,  1775,  and  Flora  JEgypt.,  p.  83). 


3.  DT3  gazam ; Joel  i.  4 ; ii.  25;  Alios  iv.  9; 
in  all  which  the  Sept,  reads  Kapirq,  the  Vulg.  eruea% 
and  the  English  palmcricorm.  Bochart  observes 
that  the  Jews  derive  the  word  from  T13  or  TT3,  ‘ to 
shear’  or  ‘ clip,’  (hough  he  prefers  DT3,  ‘ to  cut ;’ 
because,  he  observes,  the  locust  gnaws  the  tender 
branches  of  trees,  as  well  as  the  leaves.  Gese- 
nius  urges  that  the  Chaldaic  and  Syriac  explain 
it  as  the  young  unfledged  bruchus,  which  he 
considers  very  suitable  to  the  passage  in  Joel, 
where  the  DT3  begins  its  ravages  before  the  lo- 
custs ; but  Dr.  Lee  justly  remarks  that  there  is  no 
dependence  to  be  placed  on  this.  Gesenius  adds 
that  the  root  DT3  in  Arabic,  and  the  Talmud,  i:> 
kindred  with  DD3,  ‘ to  shear’ — a derivation  which, 
however,  applies  to  most  species  of  locusts. 
Michaelis  follows  the  Sept,  and  Vulgate,  where 
the  word  in  each  most  probably  means  the  cater- 
pillar, the  larvae  of  the  lepidopterous  tribes  of 
insects  (Suppl.  ad  Lex.,  p.  290,  compared  with 
Recueil  de  Quest , p.  63).  We  have,  indeed,  the 
authority  of  Columella,  that  the  creatures  which 
the  Latins  call  erucce,  are  by  the  Greeks  called 
Kap.Tr ox,  or  caterpillars  : — ‘ Animalia  quae  a nobis 
appellant ur  erucae,  gra*ee  autem  Kapirai  nomi- 
nantur’  (xi.  3)  ; which  he  also  describes  as  creep- 
ing upon  vegetables  and  devouring  them.  Never- 
theless, the  depredations  ascribed  to  the  DT3  in 
Amos,  better  agree  with  the  characteristics  of 
the  locust,  as,  according  to  Bochart,  it  was  un- 
derstood by  the  ancient,  versions.  The  English 
word  ‘ palmenvorm,’  in  our  old  authors,  means 
properly  a hairy  caterpillar,  which  wanders  like 
a palmer  or  pilgrim,  and  from  its  being  rough, 
called  also  ‘ beareworm  ’ (Mouffet,  Insectorum 
Theatrum,  p.  186). 

4.  33PI  chagab ; Lev.  xi.  22;  Num.  xiii.  33; 
Isa.  xl.  ’22 ; Eccles.  xii.  5 ; and  2 Chron 
vii.  13  ; in  all  which  the  Sept,  reads  dupis, 
Vulgate  locusta,  and  English  grasshopper,  except 
the  last,  where  the  English  has  i locusts . The  mani- 
fest. impropriety  of  translating  this  word  ‘ grass- 
hoppers’ in  Lev.  xi.  22,  according  to  the  English 
acceptation  of  t he  word,  has  already  been  shown 
[Grasshopper]  ; in  all  the  other  instances  it.  most 
probably  denotes  a species  of  locust.  Our  trans- 
lators have,  indeed,  properly  rendered  it.  ‘locust’ 
in  2 Chron. ; but  in  all  the  other  places  ‘ grass- 
hopper,’ probably  with  a view  to  heighten  the  con- 
trast. described  in  those  passages,  but  with  no  real 
advantage.’  Oedman  infers,  from  its  being  so 
often  used  for  this  purpose,  that  it  denotes  the 
smallest  species  of  locust;  but  in  the  passage  in 
Chronicles  voracity  seems  its  chief  characteristic. 
An  Arabic  root,  signifying  ‘ to  hide,’  is  usuall} 
adduced,  because  it  is  said  that  locusts  fly  in  such 
crowds  as  to  hide  the  sun ; but  others  say,  from 
their  hiding  the  ground  when  they  alight.  Even 
Parkhurst  demurs,  that  ‘to  veil  the  sun  and 
darken  the  air  is  not  peculiar  to  any  kind  ol 
locust ;’  and  with  no  better  success  proposes  to 
understand  the  cucullated,  or  hooded,  or  veiled 
species  of  locust.  Tychsen  suggests  the  G.  coro - 
natus.. 

5.  ?K33n  chanamal,  Ps.  lxxviii.  47  ; Sept. 
Trdxvri ; Aq.  iv  Kpvei ; Vulg.  in  pruina ; Eng. 

‘ frost.’  Notwithstanding  this  concurrence  ol 
Sept.,  Vulg.,  and  Aquila,  it  is  objected  that 
‘ frost.  ’ is  nowhere  mentioned  as  having  been 
employed  in  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  to  which 
the  Psalmist  evidently  alludes ; but  that,  it  hil 


locust: 


LOCUST. 


words  he  compared  with  Exod.  x.  5,  15,  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  locusts  succeeded  the  hail.  The 
Psalmist  observes  the  same  order,  putting  the 
devourer  after  the  hail  (comp.  Mai.  iii.  H). 
Hence  it  is  thought  to  be  another  term  for  the 
locust.  If  this  inference  be  correct,  and  assuming 
that  the  Psalmist  is  describing  facts,  this  would 
make  a fourth  species  of  locust  employed  against 

Egypt,  two  of  the  others,  the  and  ^DH, 

being  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse.  Pro- 
posed derivation,  to  settle , and  to  cut 

off,  because  where  locusts  settle  they  cut  otf 
leaves,  &c.,  or  as  denoting  some  non-migrating 
locust  which,  settles  in  a locality  (see  Bochart, 
in  voc.). 

6.  chasil;  Sept,  fipovxos,  epvatfir} ; Vulg. 
rubigo , bruchus,  cerugo  [Chasil]. 

7.  chargol ; Lev.  xi.  22;  ocpiopdxps, 
ophiomachus  [Chargol].  Since  that  article 
was  written  it  has  been  found  that  Becmann, 
reasoning  from  the  Sept,  and  Vulg.,  arrived 
at  a similar  conclusion;  viz.,  that  some  insect 
of  the  sphex  or  ichneumon  kind  was  meant 
(apud  Bochart,  a Rosenmiiller,  vol.  iii.  p.  264). 
The  genus  of  locusts  called  truxalis  answers  the 
description.  It  is  some  excuse  for  the  English 
rendering  ‘beetle’  in  this  place,  that  Pliny 
classes  one  species  of  gryllus,  the  house-cricket, 
G.  domesticus , under  the  scarabaei  (Hist.  Nat. 
xi.  8) 

8.  p?'  yelek  ; Ps.  cv.  34,  j Qpovxos,  bruchus,  cater- 
pillar ; Jer.  li.  14,  27,  aicpis,  brucus,  caterpillar; 
and  in  the  latter  passage  the  Vulg.  reads  brucus 
aculeatus,  and  some  copies  horripilantes ; Joel 
i.  4 ; ii.  25,  / Ipovxos , bruchus,  cankerworm  ; Nah. 
iii.  15,  16,  dicpis  and  fipovxos , cankerworm.  As- 
suming that  the  Psalmist  means  to  say  that  the 

was  really  another  species  employed  in  the 
plague  on  Egypt,  the  English  word  caterpillar  in 
the  common  acceptation  cannot  be  correct,  for  we 
can  hardly  imagine  that  the  larvae  of  the  Papi- 
lionidae  tribe  of  insects  could  be  carried  by 
‘ winds.’  Cankerworm  means  any  worm  that  preys 
on  fruit.  B povxos  could  hardly  be  understood 
by  the  Sept,  translators  of  the  minor  prophets  as 
an  unflddged  locust;  for  in  Nah.  iii.  16  they  give 
fipovxos  &pgi](T€  Kal  i^eireTdaO-r],  the  fipovx°s  flies 
away.  The  Arabic  p^',  to  be  white,  is  offered ; 
hence  the  white  locust  or  the  chafer-worm,  which 
is  white  (Michaelis,  Recueil  de  Quest,  p.  64  ; 

Sup.  ad  Lex.  II eh.  p.  1080).  Others  give  pp^>,  to 
lick  off,  as  Gesenius,  who  refers  to  Num.  xxii.  4, 
where  this  root  is  applied  to  the  ox  ‘ licking  ’ up 
his  pasturage,  and  which,  as  descriptive  of  celerity 
in  eating,  is  supposed  to  apply  to  the  p?1*.  Others 

suggest  the  Arabic  p^l,  to  hasten,  alluding  to  the 
quick  motions  of  locusts.  The  passage  in  Jer. 
li.  27  is  the  only  instance  where  an  epithet  is 

applied  to  the  locust,  and  there  we  find  p^>  1DD, 
* rough  caterpillars.’  As  a noun  the  word  means 
nails,’  ‘sharp-pointed  spikes.’  Hence  Michaelis 
refers  it  to  the  rough  sharp-pointed  feet  of  some 
species  of  chafer  (ut  supra).  Oedman  takes  it  for 
the  G.  cristatus  of  Linn.  Tychsen,  with  more  pro- 
bability, refers  it  to  some  rough  or  bristly  species  i,f 
locust,  as  the  G.  hcema'opus  of  Linn.,  whose  thighs 
are  ciliated  with  hail's.  Many  grylli  are  furnished 


MI 

with  spines  and  bristles  ; the  whole  species  acfieta, 
also  the  pupa  species  of  Linn.,  called  by  Degeer 
locusta  pupa  spinosa , which  is  thus  described  : — 
Thorax  ciliated  with  spines,  abdomen  tuberculous 
and  spinous,  posterior  thighs  armed  beneath  with 
four  spines  or  teeth  ; inhabits  Ethiopia.  The  al- 
lusion in  Jer.  is  to  the  ancient  accoutrement  of 
war-horses,  bristling  with  sheaves  of  arrows. 

9.  salam;  Lev.  xi.  22,  drrdi cy,  atthacus , 

‘ the  bald  locust.’  A Chaldee  root  is  given  by 
Bochart,  to  devour.  Another  has  been  pro- 

posed,  j/?D,  a rock  or  stone,  and  to  go  up. 

Hence  the  locust,  which  climbs  up  stones  or 
rocks ; but,  as  Bochart  observes,  no  locust  is 
known. answering  to  this  characteristic.  Others 
give  J/PD,  a stone,  and  DDy,  to  hide  under ; 
equally  futile.  Tychsen  thinks  the  G.  Eversor 
of  Asso  is  meant. 

10.  tzelatzal;  Deut.  xxviii.  42,  ipvaifiy, 
rubigo,  locust.  The  root  commonly  assigned  is 
to*  , to  sound  ; hence,  says  Gesenius,  a species  of 
locust  that  makes  a shrill  noise.  Dr.  Lee  says  a 
tree-cricket  that  does  so.  Tychsen  suggests  the 
G.  stridulus  of  Linn.  The  song  of  the  gryiio-talpa 
is  sweet  and  loud.  With  equal  certainty  we 
might  give  the  Chald.  to  pray,  and  thence 
infer  the  mantis  religiosa,  or  Prier  Dieu,  so  called 
from  its  singular  attitude,  and  which  is  found 
in  Palestine  (Kitto’s  Physical  History , p.  419j. 
The  words  in  the  Sept,  and  Vulg.  properly  mean 
the  mildew  on  corn,  &c.,  and  are  there  applied 
metaphorically  to  the  ravages  of  locusts.  This 
mildew  was  anciently  believed  by  the  heathens  to 
be  a divine  chastisement;  hence  their  religious 
ceremony  called  Rubigalia  (Pliny,  Hist.  Nat. 
xviii.  29).  The  general  references  to  locusts  in  the 
Scriptures  are  well  collected  by  Jahn  ( Biblisches 
Archdol.,  § 23).  Some  popular  errors  respecting 
them  are,  however,  diligently  retailed  by  others. 
It  is  well  known  that  locusts  live  in  a republic 
like  ants.  Mr.  Horne  says  ‘like  bees  and  ants.’ 
Agur,  the  son  of  Jakeh,  correctly  says,  ‘the  locusts 
have  no  king.’  But  Mr.  Horne  gives  them  one 
(Introduction,  &c.,  1839,  vol.  iii.  p.  76),  and  Dr. 
Harris, ‘a  leader  whose  motions  they  invariably 
observe  ’ (Nat.  Hist,  of  the  Bible,  Lond.  1825, 
art.  * Locust’).  See  this  notion  refuted  by  Kirby 
and  Spence  (vol.  ii.  p.  16),  and  even  by  Mouffet 
( Theat . Insect,  p.  122,  Lond.  1634).  It  is  also 
worthy  of  remark  that  no  Hebrew  root,  has  ever 
been  offered  favouring  this  idea.  Our  translation 
(Nah.  iii.  17)  represents  locusts,  ‘great  grasshop- 
pers,’ as  ‘ camping  in  the  hedges  in  the  cold  day, 
but  when  the  sun  ariseth  as  fleeing  away.’  Here 
the  locust,  *01!l,  is  undoubtedly  spoken  of  as  a 
perfect  insect,  able  to  fly,  and  as  it  is  well  known 
that  at  evening  the  locusts  descend  from  their 
flights  and  form  camps  for  the  night,  may  not  the 
cold  day  mean  the  cold  portion  of  the  day,  t.  e.  the 
night,  so  remarkable  for  its  coldness  in  the  East, 
the  word  DP  being  used  here,  as  it  often,  is,  in  a 
comprehensive  sense,  like  the  Gr.  rjpepa  and  Lat. 
diest  And  Gesenius  suggests  that  ]Y|"ni,  ‘ hedges,’ 
should  here  be  understood  like  the  Gr.  aipaaid, 
shrubs,  brushwood,  &c. 

As  the  result  of  the  whole  preceding  analysis  it 
would  seem  that  several,  if  not  all,  of  the  Hebrew 
words  denote  as  many  species  of  locusts  ; that  the 
roots  of  these  words  afford  no  safe  clue  in  any  in 


LOCUST. 


LOCUST. 


2*2 

stance  to  the  particular  species  intended  ; that  the 
Sept,  and  Vulg.  afford  us  assistance  only  where  the 
definite  renderings  1 hey  give  are  elucidated  by  other 
writers;  and  that  this  elucidation  goes  no  further 
than  to  render  it  probable  that  species  and  not 
states  of  the  locust  are  denoted  in  such  places. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  Sept,  word  ofpio/j.dxys  and 
the  corresponding  word  ophiomachus  in  the  Vulg. 
(Lev.  xi.  22),  which  is  one  of  the  few  instances 
of  a definite  rendering  in  either,  being  elucidated 
by  any  ancient  author,  and  compare  it  with  the 
references  made  by  Aristotle  (ix.  9)  and  by 
Pliny  (xi.  29),  to  locusts  fighting  with  serpents, 
as  the  Greek  word  would  indicate,  and  ‘ killing 
them,  biting  them  at  the  throat;’  and  even  with 
the  testimony  of  Simon  Majolus's  gardener 
( Colloq . viii.  123),  who  told  his  master  that  he 
had  seen  a locust  thus  occupied  with  a serpent ; 
and  ‘ to  speak  advisedly,’  we  must  confess  that  in 
the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  the  elucidation 
is  not  very  clear  or  satisfactory.  There  is  one 
instance  of  agreement  between  Moses  and  Aristotle 
not  unworthy  of  notice.  Moses  evidently  assigns 
but  ‘ four  feet  ’ to  locusts  (Lev.  vi.  22)  ; so  does 
Aristotle  in  the  first  instance,  but  afterwards  re- 
marks that  they  have  six,  if  the  parts  with  which 
they  leap  be  counted,  avv  rots  o.\tiko7s  poplois. 
Augustine  remarks  that  Moses  did  not  consider  these 
as  legs.  The  true  solution  appears  to  us  to  be, 
that  Moses,  and  Aristotle  also  in  the  first  instance, 
considers  the  two  fore  leg3  as  hands  and  arms, 
and  that  Aristotle  takes  in  the  parts  both  above 
and  below  in  the  hind  legs,  and  with  these  ‘ leap- 
ing parts'  makes  out  six  (see  also  Kirby  and 
Spence,  vol.  i.  p.  23).  Still  it  must  be  confessed 
with  Bochart,  that  we  know  not  sufficiently  how 
the  words  locusta , bruchus , attacus , and  ophio- 
machus differ  from  each  other,  and  much  less 
whether  these  words  in  Greek  and  Latin  accu- 
rately corresponded  to  the  Hebrew.  The  specific 
application  of  the  several  names  was  evidently  all 
but  lost  in  the  time  of  the  Septuagint  translators, 
since  they  make  no  distinctions,  and,  rather  from 
the  want  of  ability  than  inclination,  we  may  pre- 
sume, apply  aKpis  to  four  out  of  the  ten  names, 
Ppovxos  to  three,  citt  e\efios  to  two,  ipvari^n]  to 
two,  and  all  the  first  three  of  these  Greek  words 
to  nilN.  It  is  doubtful  whether  they  are  correct 
in  the  only  instance  in  which  they  observe  uni- 
formity of  rendering,  viz.,  udp-m).  Even  where 
they  have  given  definite  renderings,  how  know  we 
but  that  they  have  done  here  as  Jerome  says  they 
have  in  other,  places,  ‘ seemed  to  define  this  or 
that,  rather  because  they  would  say  something, 
than  because  they  were  sure  of  what  they  said  V 
(Hieron.  in  Ez.  c.  iii.)  But  Jerome  has  him- 
self followed  them  in  these  passages  for  a similar 
reason.  We  must,  then,  admit,  with  Rabbi 
Selomo  (apud  Bochart),  that  we  know  not  how  to 
distinguish  the  several  species.  Bochart  conjec- 
tures that  till  the  time  of  John  the  Jews  were  able 
to  do  so,  otherwise  the  Baptist,  he  urges,  would 
not  have  known  which  to  eat  (Matt.  iii.  4).  But 
surely  the  definition  alone  in  Lev.  xi.  21  must 
have  been  a sufficient  guide  to  him,  as  it  would 
be  now  to  a Jew.  It  is  a wild  speculation  of  the 
Jewish  doctors,  that  whenever  their  nation  shall 
be  restored  a prophet  will  be  directed  to  point 
out  by  inspiration  the  creatures  distinguished 
\y  the  different  names  in  their  law  ; it  is  a spe- 
culation, however,  originated  by  the  confessed 


impenetrable  obscurity  of  the  general  Subject.  I 
will  be  refreshing  to  the  reader  to  turn  from 
this  dry  and  unsatisfactory,  yet  useful  detail,  to 
some  proofs  that  locusts  are  not,  as  they  have 
been  commonly  represented,  wholly  an  evil ; not 
altogether  ‘ pestis  irae  Deorum,’  as  Pliny  calls  them 
(xi.  29).  When  directed,  indeed,  by  divine 
agency  in  enormous  numbers  and  various  species, 
as  in  the  case  of  Egypt,  their  depredations  might 
merit  Mr.  Horne’s  description  as  ‘one  of  the  most 
terrible  scourges  by  which  mankind  can  be 
afflicted  ’ ( Introd . vol.  iii.  p.  74,  Loud.  1839). 
With  regard  to  the  description  in  Joel,  it  is  con- 
sidered by  many  learned  writers  as  a figurative 
representation  of  the  ravages  of  an  invading 
‘army’  of  human  beings , as  in  Rev.  ix.  2-12, 
rather  than  a literal  account,  since  such  a devas- 
tation would  hardly,  they  think,  have  escaped 
notice  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
Accordingly  some  understand  by  the  four  species 
of  locusts  there  mentioned,  Salmaneser,  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, Antiochus,  and  the  Romans.  The- 
odoret  explains  them  as  the  four  Assyrian  kings, 
Tiglathpileser,  Salmaneser,  Sennacherib,  and  Ne- 
buchadnezzar ; and  Abarbanel,  of  the  four  king- 
doms inimical  to  the  Jews,  viz.  the  Babylonians. 
Persians,  Greeks,  and  Romans  (Pococke’s  Works, 
vol.  i.  p.  214,  &c.,  London,  1740;  Rosenmiiller, 
Scholia  in  Joel,  c.  i.).  Locusts,  like  many  other 
of  the  general  provisions  of  nature,  may  occasion 
incidental  and  partial  evil ; but  upon  the  whole 
they  are  an  immense  benefit  to  those  portions  of  the 
world  which  they  inhabit ; and  so  connected  is  the 
chain  of  being  that  we  may  safely  believe  that  the 
advantage  is  not  confined  to  those  regions.  ‘ They 
clear  the  way  for  the  renovation  of  vegetable  pro- 
ductions which  are  in  danger  of  being  destroyed 
by  the  exuberance  of  some  particular  species,  and 
are  thus  fulfilling  the  law  of  the  Creator,  that  of 
all  which  he  has  made  should  nothing  be  lost. 
A region  which  has  been  choked  up  by  shrubs 
and  perennial  plants  and  hard  half-withered  im- 
palatable  grasses,  after  having  been  laid  bare  by 
these  scourges,  soon  appears  in  a far  more  beau- 
tiful dress,  with  new  herbs,  superb  lilies,  fresh 
annual  grasses,  and  young  and  juicy  shrubs  of 
perennial  kinds,  affording  delicious  herbage  for 
the  wild  cattle  and  game  ’ (Sparman’s  Voyage^ 
vol.  i.  p.  367).  Meanwhile  their  excessive  mul- 
tiplication is  repressed  by  numerous  causes.  Con- 
trary to  the  order  of  nature  with  all  other  insects, 
the  males  are  far  more  numerous  than  the  females. 
It  is  believed  that  if  they  were  equal  in  number 
they  would  in  ten  years  annihilate  the  vegetable 
system.  Besides  all  the  creatures  that  feed  upon 
them,  rains  are  very  destructive  to  their  eggs,  to 
the  larvae,  pupae,  and  perfect  insect.  When  per- 
fect, they  always  fly  with  the  winds,  and  are  there- 
fore constantly  being  carried  out  to  sea,  and  often 
ignorantly  descend  upon  it  as  if  upon  land. 
Myriads  are  thus  lost  in  the  ocean  every  year,  and 
become  the  food  of  fishes.  On  land  they  afford 
in  all  their  several  states  sustenance  to  countless 
tribes  of  birds,  beasts,  reptiles,  &c. ; and  if  theii 
office  as  the  scavengers  of  nature,  commissioned  to 
remove  all  superfluous  productions  from  the  face 
of  the  earth,  sometimes  incidentally  and  as  the 
operation  of  a general  law,  interferes  with  the 
labours  of  man,  as  do  storms,  tempests,  &c.,  they 
have,  from  all  antiquity  to  the  present  hour, 
afforded  him  an  excellent  supply  fill  the  land 


LOCUST. 


LOGOS. 


263 


acquires  the  benefit  of  their  visitations,  by  yielding 
him  in  the  meantime  an  agreeable,  wholesome, 
and  nutritious  aliment.  They  are  eaten  as  meat, 
are  ground  into  Hour,  and  made  into  bread.  They 
are  even  an  extensive  article  of  commerce  (Spar- 
man’s  Voyage , vol.  i.  p.  367,  &c.).  Diodorus 
Siculus  mentions  a people  of  Ethiopia  who  were 
so  fond  of  eating  them  that  they  were  called 
Acridophagi,  ‘ eaters  of  locusts  ’ (xxiv.  3). 
Whole  armies  have  been  relieved  by  them  when 
in  danger  of  perishing  (Porphyrius,  De  Absti- 
nentia  Carnis).  We  learn  from  Aristophanes 
and  Aristotle  that  they  were  eaten  by  the  inha- 
bitants of  Greece  (Aristoph.  Acharnen.  1116, 
1117,  ed.  Bind.;  Aristot.  Hist.  Anim.  v.  30,  where 
he  speaks  of  them  as  delicacies).  Their  great 
flights  occur  only  every  fourth  or  fifth  season. 
Those  locusts  which  come  in  the  first  instance 
only  fix  on  trees,  and  do  not  destroy  grain  : it 
is  the  young  before  they  are  able  to  fly  which 
are  chiefly  injurious  to  the  crops.  Nor  do  all 
the  species  feed  upon  vegetables  ; one,  compre- 
hending many  varieties,  the  truxalis,  feeds  upon  in- 
sects. Latreille  says  the  house-cricket  will  do  so. 
4 Locusts,’  remarks  a very  sensible  tourist,  ‘ seem 
to  devour  not  so  much  from  a ravenous  appetite 
as  from  a rage  for  destroying.’  Destruction,  there- 
fore, and  nof,  food,  is  the  chief  impulse  of  their 
devastations,  and  in  this  consists  their  utility ; 
they  are  in  fact,  omnivorous.  The  most  poisonous 
plants  are  indifferent  to  them ; they  will  prey 
even  upon  the  crowfoot,  whose  causticity  burns 
tire  very  hides  of  beasts.  They  simply  con- 
sume everything  without  predilection,  vegetable 
matter,  linen,  woollen,  silk,  leather,  &c. ; and 
Pliny  does  not  exaggerate  when  he  says  ‘ fores 
quoque  tectorum/  ‘ and  even  the  doors  of  houses  ’ 
(xi.  29),  for  they  have  been  known  to  consume 
the  very  varnish  of  furniture.  They  reduce 
everything  indiscriminately  to  shreds,  which  be- 
come manure.  It  might  serve  to  mitigate  popular 
misapprehensions  on  the  subject  to  consider  what 
would  have  been  the  consequence  if  locusts  had 
been  carnivorous  like  wasps.  All  terrestrial 
beings,  in  such  a case,  not  excluding  man  himself, 
would  have  become  their  victims.  There  are,  no 
doubt,  many  things  respecting  them  yet  unknown 
to  us  which  would  still  further  justify  the  belief 
that  this,  like 4 every  ’ other  ‘ work  of  God  is  good  ’ 
— benevolent  upon  the  whole  (see  Dillon's  Travels 
in  Spain , p.  256,  &c.  4to.  Lond.  1780).  The  best 
account  of  their  cookery  and  domestic  uses  will 
be  found  in  Kitto's  Physical  History  of  Pales- 
tiney  p.  420  : for  the  species  whose  existence  in 
Palestine  is  ascertained , viz.,  G.  domesticus, 
nasutus,  gryllotalpa,  migratorius,  and  falcatus, 
and  for  some  beautiful  and  accurate  cuts  of  lo- 
custs, see  p.  419 ; and  for  an  account  of  the  locust- 
bird,  Smurmur,  which  the  Turks  believe  eats  a 
thousand  locusts  in  a day,  pp.  410,  411.  We 
subjoin  a list  of  the  principal  writers  on  the  Bibli- 
cal locusts,  of  whom  wemay  say  with  Bochart,‘Cre- 
dimus?  an  qui  amant:  ipsi  sibi  somnia  fingunt!’ 
Franciscus  Stancarus,  whom  Mouffet  records  to 
have  written  on  seven  of  the  Biblical  locusts; 
Faber,  De  Locustis  Biblicis,  4to.  Vitemb.  1710  ; 
Don  Ignacio  de  Asso  y Del  Rio,  Abhandlung  von 
den  Ileuschreken,  Rostock,  1787-8,  to  which  is 
added  sometimes  in  the  same  vol.  Tychsen,  Com- 
ment. de  Locustis , in  which  he  has  collected  all  the 
Chaldaic,  Syriac,  and  Arabic  names  for  locusts. 


p.  47,  &c. ; Ludolphus,  Dissert,  de  Locustisy 
Francof.  1694,  and  Luclol.  Hist.  AEthiop.  Frank- 
fort, ad  Maenum,  1691 ; and  ad  suam Hist.  APAhiop. 
Comment,  fol.  Frank.  1691.  He  maintains  that 
the  qxiails  (Num.  xi.)  were  locusts,  as  do  the 
Jewish  Arabs  to  this  day.  So  does  Patrick,  in 
his  Comment,  on  Numbers.  Oedman,  Vermischte 
Sammlxmgen,  fasc.  ii.  c.  vii. ; partie.  ii.  pp.  91, 
92.  Bochart’s  Hieroz.  a Rosenm idler.  For  general 
information,  Kirby  and  Spence,  Introduction  to 
Entomology , vol.  i.  p.  215,  &e.,  Lond.  1828; 
and  the  Travels  of  Russel,  Tavernier,  Hasselquist, 
Volney,  Burckhardt,  Clarke,  &c.  For  the  locusts 
of  St.  John,  see  Suicer,  Thesaurus  Ecclcsiasticus , 
tom.  i.  pp.  169,  179;  and  Gutherr,  De  Victu 
Johannis  Baptist,  in  Desertis,  Franc.  1785.  For 
the  symbolical  locusts  (Rev.  ix.),  Newton,  On 
the  Prophecies  ; and  Woodhouse,  On  the  Apo- 
calypse. Among  the  curiosities  in  this  depart- 
ment is  Norelii  Schediasma  de  Avibus  esu  licitis , 
Arbeh , So  lam,  Chargol,  et  Chagab  (Lev.  xi. 
22),  Upsal,  1746,  in  which  the  author  endeavours 
to  show  that  these  words  denote  birds  and  not 
locusts. — J.  F.  D. 

LOD.  [Lydda.] 

LOG.  [Weights  and  Measures.] 

LOGOS.  It  was  in  Egypt,  that  religion 
and  philosophy  came  once  more  into  the  presence 
of  each  other  after  the  lapse  of  so  many  ages; 
and  whence  they  were  once  more  to  go  forth  on 
their  divided,  yet  united,  mission  to  the  nations. 
We  speak  not  of  that  forced  union  of  doctrines 
and  principles  which  was  attempted  in  the 
Gnostic  heresy,  and  which  came  so  utterly  to 
nothing  that  our  knowledge  of  that  heresy  and 
its  leaders  is  derived  altogether  from  the  report  of 
its  opponents  ; but  of  that  real  and  sound  accord 
between  religion  and  philosophy,  between  the 
commands  of  God  and  the  reason  of  man,  which 
the  Christian  desires  to  make  more  and  more 
manifest,  even  to  the  coming  of  the  perfect  day. 
The  Gnostic  heresy  attempted  a union  between 
fanatical  feeling  and  ascetic  discipline — a union 
which  too  often  ends  in  licentiousness,  and  which 
never  can  attain  the  sound  principles  and  right 
practices  which  together  constitute  man’s  rea- 
sonable service.  On  the  other  hand,  the  opponents 
of  Gnosticism  have  toe  often  exhibited  an  unfair- 
ness, a rancour,  and  a alumny,  which  must  have 
had  the  worst  effects  upon  themselves,  as  it  has 
greatly  tended  to  prejudice  their  cause,  and  has  left 
us  the  example  of  a spirit  so  unchristian  that  we 
regret  to  see  it  associated  with  a purer  faith.  In 
spite  of  such  opponents  as  the  Gnostics — advocates 
of  an  unsound  religion  united  to  an  unsound 
philosophy — and  in  spite  also  of  supporters  who 
knew  not  what  spirit  they  were  of,  Christianity 
has  triumphed  so  completely  over  Gnosticism  as 
to  leave  of  that  great  heresy  little  more  than 
the  name.  Yet  are  the  few  and  scattered  me 
morials  of  Gnosticism  not  without  instruction, 
whether  we  examine  them  critically  in  all  fair- 
ness, for  the  purpose  of  separating  the  good  from 
the  evil,  or  whether  we  trace  them  historically 
to  their  sources,  or  onward  to  their  effects. 

In  our  article  on  Gnosticism,  of  which  this  is 
a sequel,  we  have  given  a brief  and  clear  account, 
in  the  words  of  Professor  Burton, — first,  of  the 
great  leading  doctrines  of  all  the  Gnostic  secrts; 
secondly,  of  the  three  principal  seurces  from 
which  Gnosticism  was  derived ; and  thirdly,  of 


364 


LOGOS. 


LOGOS. 


the  effects  produced  l>y  the  Gnostic  heresy  on  the 
progress  of  Christianity,  (luring  the  time  which 
elapsed  between  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul,  and 
his  first  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.  Before  we 
return  to  the  latter  subject,  which  will  be  found 
closely  connected  with  Professor  Burton’s  view  of 
the  Logos  in  St.  John’s  Gospel,  we  propose  to 
examine  a little  farther  into  the  merits  of  that 
philosophy  of  Plato,  which  he  considers  the  im- 
mediate, if  not  the  original,  cause  of  the  Gnostic 
heresy.  The  original  cause  of  that  heresy,  more 
ancient  even  than  the  theosophy  of  Babylon, 
must  be  sought  in  the  mixed  good  and  evil  prin- 
ciples of  human  nature,  which  have  so  often  led 
to  folly  in  opinion,  as  well  as  to  crime  in  con- 
duct. But  the  immediate  cause  of  Gnosticism 
may  certainly  be  traced  to  types  and  shadows  in 
the  philosophy  of  Plato ; and  we  consider  Pro- 
fessor Burton  to  have  done  a valuable  service  to 
the  cause  of  religion  and  philosophy,  in  directing 
the  attention  of  the  critic,  as  well  as  of  the  his- 
torian, to  this  source  of  information. 

It  would  appear  that  some  writers  have  a sort 
of  dread  of  the  philosophy  of  Plato,  and  labour 
rather  disingenuously  to  fix  upon  all  his  writings 
the  character  of  obscurity  and  mysticism,  front, 
which  many  of  them  are  altogether  free.  Others, 
on  the  contrary,  profess  great  admiration  of  his 
sublime  doctrines  and  pure  morality,  and  speak 
of  him  as  a sort  of  herald  of  Christianity  ; and, 
strange  to  say,  ground  their  admiration  of  him 
on  some  of  his  most  questionable  works.  It 
is  in  these  works  that  we  trace  the  immediate 
causes  of  the  corruption  which  the  Gnostic  heresy 
attempted  to  introduce  into  Christianity, — mysti- 
cism, asceticism,  and  licentiousness ; from  all 
which,  in  spite  of  that  attempt,  the  Christian 
religion  is  so  eminently  free.  Plato,  as  a writer, 
at  least  in  many  of  his  works,  cannot  be  spoken 
of  too  highly:  but  Plato,  as  a philosopher,  inde- 
pendently of  what  he  reports  of  the  conversation 
and  teaching  of  Socrates,  appears  to  us  to  have 
been  estimated  far  beyond  his  deserts.  The  un- 
soundness of  that  which  may  justly  be  considered 
the  philosophy  of  Plato,  may  be  tested  by  the 
downward  course  of  the  philosophical  schools 
and  religious  sects  which  proceeded  from  that  phi- 
losophy in  Alexandria.  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
the  study  of  Plato’s  philosophy  may  he  most 
profitable  to  the  critic  and  historian,  the  moralist 
and  divine;  and  by  which  the  contrast  between 
Gnosticism  and  Christianity,  in  principles  as  well 
as  in  effects,  may  be  made  most  manifest.  And 
in  our  estimate  of  Plato,  we  would  judge  him 
by  his  own  words,  before  we  presume  to  make 
him  answerable  for  the  mischievous  consequences 
into  which  his  disciples  followed  out  his  errors. 
In  like  manner,  we  would  not  judge  of  Gnos- 
ticism by  the  unjust  and  rancorous  reports  of 
some  of  its  opponents;  but  by  the  fairer  views  of 
the  lives  and  doctrines  of  its  professors,  which 
have  in  many  cases  been  established  by  the  keen 
and  searching  criticisms  of  Beausobre.  Indeed, 
it  is  hardly  possible  to  overrate  the  advantage  of 
having,  in  Professor  Burton,  a fair  arbiter  between 
the  parties — between  the  Gnostics  and  the  Fathers 
on  the  one  hand,  and  between  Plato  and  the 
Gnostics  on  the  other  hand. 

We  have  not  space  here  for  such  an  examina- 
tion of  the  philosophy  of  Plato  as  the  largeness  and 
complication  of  the  subject  demand.  This  is  the 


less  necessary,  nowever,  because  the  English  reader 
will  find  in  Dr.  Enfield’s  abridgment  of  Brucker’i 
Hist,  of  Philosophy , a very  sound,  learned,  ana 
intelligible  view  of  Plato's  opinions,  should  he 
wish  to  know  more  of  them  than  is  contained  in 
Professor  Burton’s  work.  But  if  we  were  re- 
quired to  bring  the  inquiry  to  a clear  issue,  and 
in  brief  space,  we  should  say  that  in  the  fifth 
book  of  the  Republic  of  Plato  may  be  seen  that 
unsound  union  of  religious  mysticism  with  moral 
licentiousness,  closely  connected  in  other  parts  of 
his  philosophy  with  opinions  tending  to  asceticism, 
which  the  Professor  has  shown  to  have  been 
strangely,  but  by  no  means  unnaturally,  united  ir. 
the  theory  and  practice  of  many  of  the  Gnostics, 
and  which  union  is  as  much  opposed  to  sound 
philosophy  as  to  sound  religion.  The  divine  and 
moralist  must  not  shrink  from  testing  Plato  # 
philosophy  (for  these  theories  are  in  manifest  dis- 
agreement with  the  practical  piety  and  sound 
morality  of  Socrates,  and  unquestionably  canno’. 
be  referred  to  him)  by  the  contents  of  this  cele- 
brated book,  in  which  a system  of  the  most  unre- 
strained indulgence  of  the  sensual  appetites  is  set 
forth  as  the  completion  of  politics  and  the  per  • 
fection  of  philosophy ; and  in  strange  connection 
with  this  immoral  plan  are  exhibited  pretensions 
to  a divine  knowledge  of  the  most  mystic  charac- 
ter, which,  both  in  this  book  and  in  other  works  of 
Plato,  is  set  forth  as  the  elevator  and  purifier  of 
human  nature,  just  as  the  gnosis  of  Gnosticism 
was  set  forth  at  a later  period.  Here  and  else- 
where Plato  speaks  of  matter  as  so  altogether  in- 
capable of  good,  from  its  weakness  rather  than  its 
malignity,  as  to  thwart  the  benevolent  intentions 
of  the  Deity  to  promote  human  virtue  and  human 
happiness;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  he1  sets  forth 
intellect  as  only  requiring  to  be  separated  from 
matter  in  order  to  be  perfect ; and  in  close  con- 
nection with  these  views  of  mind  and  body,  lie 
speaks  of  a mystic  knowledge  of  the  divine  nature 
able  to  purify  and  elevate  the  mind  by  its  intense 
contemplation,  and,  in  the  end,  to  free  it  from  its 
corporeal  prison-house.  It  is  in  the  first  part  of 
the  fifth  book  of  the  Republic  that  the  affections 
and  duties  of  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child, 
brothers  and  sisters,  are  sacrificed  to  a system  of 
concubinage,  as  absurd  in  the  arguments  by 
which  it  is  supported  as  it  would  be  ruinous  to 
domestic  happiness  and  national  character  in  its 
consequences ; and  it  is  at  the  close  of  this  very 
book  that  there  is  brought  forward  in  the  swelling 
language  of  mysticism  a secret,  and  sublime,  and  a 
scarcely  intelligible  gnosis,  which  is  to  purify  and 
elevate  the  intellect  whilst  the  body  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  placed  in  a moral  and  political  system  of 
wide  and  deep  sensualism.  These  are  the  deli- 
berate opinions  of  Plato,  put  forth  in  one  of  the 
latest,  most  highly  finished,  and  most  closely  com- 
pacted of  his  works,  and  again  deliberately  con 
firmed  in  a subsequent  work  of  still  higher  pre- 
tension. Now,  it  was  to  Plato,  the  mystical  prc»- 
pounder  of  a divine  gnosis,  that  the  Gnostic  sect* 
gave  ear;  and  whilst  some  devoted  themselves  to 
this  divine  contemplation,  even  to  the  maceration 
and  mortification  of  the  body,  others  were  not 
wanting  who  thought  such  ideal  and  spiritual 
purity  might  render  the  service  of  the  poor  and 
despised  body  altogether  unnecessary.  How  un- 
like is  all  this  to  the  sound  principles  and  strong 
sense,  tire  rational  piety  and  wholesome  self-corn- 


LOGOS. 


LOGOS. 


20$ 


tnand  of  Christianity ! It  is  the  boast  of  the 
Christian  religion  that  not  its  least  pure  worship 
is  by  the  lomestic  hearth,  and  that  marriage  is  the 
most  honoured  of  all  institutions  by  its  founder, 
from  Cana  of  Galilee,  where  the  sign  of  water 
turned  to  wine  teaches  that  a healthful  purity 
must  be  the  foundation  of  domestic  happiness, 
to  the  mystic  union  of  Christ  with  his  church, 
applying  'he  nearest  and  dearest  of  ties  to  express 
the  connection  between  man  and  his  master  and 
teacher  and  great  exemplar.  In  the  Christian 
commonwealth  woman  is  neither  the  poor  slave 
of  the  harem,  nor  the  spoilt  child  of  Feudalism, 
nor  yet  the  Aspasia  of  Plato's  Republic,  but  the 
help  meet  for  man,  appointed  to  aid  in  working  out 
the  highest  destinies  of  our  race,  beginning,  not  in 
the  gymnasia  or  syssitia  of  Plato,  but  in  the  home 
of  our  affections,  where  must  be  born,  bred,  and 
educated  a race  strong  in  body,  firm  in  mind,  and 
stedfast  in  principle.  It  is  plain  that  of  these 
great  domestic  and  national  objects  the  system  of 
Plato  would  be  utterly  destructive,  tending  to 
concubinage  instead  of  marriage,  fanaticism  in- 
stead of  piety,  and  asceticism  instead  of  self- 
command.  And  as  the  licentiousness  of  Plato, 
and  of  some  of  his  Gnostic  followers,  is  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  precepts  and  practice  of  Christ 
and  his  disciples,  so  there  is  not  a word  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  would  warrant  divine  contempla- 
tion being  substituted  for  holiness  of  life,  whether 
that  contemplation  consisted  in  endless  genealogies 
of  divine  emanations,  or  in  mystic  reveries  on  the 
divine  perfections;  even  though  these  were  ac- 
companied with  a voluntary  humility  in  the  wor- 
shipping of  angels,  or  in  fasting  and  prayer  more 
rigidly  ceremonial  than  those  of  the  Pharisee. 
Those  who  feel  themselves  in  danger  of  being 
mastered  by  some  strong  passion  will  do  well  to 
call  to  their  aid  such  means,  whether  of  prayer  or 
fasting,  as  may  enable  them  to  overcome  the 
temptation.  But  this  use  of  a sound  means  to  a 
good  end,  and  under  extraordinary  circumstances, 
of  which  the  individual  can  be  and  ought  to  be 
the  only  judge,  is  very  different  from  the  yoke  of 
an  ascetic  discipline,  whether  it  be  dictated  by  a 
fanaticism  which  aims  at  something  unsuited  to 
our  Tiature,  or  by  that  hard  task-master,  a spiritual 
tyranny.  If  the  mystical  ideas  of  Plato  are  fairly 
compared,  on  the  one  hand,  with  the  plain  Evi- 
dences of  the  Being,  Power,  Wisdom,  and  Good- 
ness of  God,  as  set  forth  by  Socrates  in  the  Memo- 
rabilia of  Xenophon,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  with 
the  clear  definitions.of  Species,  Genus,  Differentia, 
Property,  and  Accident,  as  laid  down  by  Aris- 
totle in  his  Works  on  Logical  Analysis , it  will  be 
seen  that  little  was  gained  to  religion  or  to  philo- 
sophy by  a theory,  which  certainly  diverted  men’s 
minds  from  the  right  direction  into  which  Socrates 
had  turned  them,  both  in  philosophy  and  religion. 
Socrates  had  ascended  step  by  step,  by  a process 
of  logical  reasoning,  from  matter  to  spirit,  from 
the  world  to  its  Creator;  and  had  arrived  by  that 
process  at  the  sound  conclusion,  that  such  unity 
of  design  demonstrates  the  oneness  of  the  de- 
signer. Plato,  on  the  other  hand,  descends,  as  it 
were,  in  the  theatrical  machine  of  the  Timceus , 
from  heaven  to  earth,  bringing  with  him  (he  fruits 
of  his  great  master’s  philosophy,  under  the  fanciful 
disguise  of  a mythological  mysticism.  This 
purely  imaginative  statement  of  Plato  might  be 
more  imposing  to  some  minds,  and  more  adapted 


to  the  perverted  tastes  of  some  periods,  than  tb* 
sound,  rational  statements  of  Socrates;  more  e w 
daily  when  these  dogmas  of  Plato  came  to  be 
exhibited  at  one  time  as  a political  remedy  in 
the  Republic , at  another  as  metaphysical  abstrac- 
tion in  the  Parmenides,  now  in  the  mythological 
form  of  the  Timceus , and  now  as  the  foundation 
of  asceticism  in  the  Pha-don.  The  sound  philo- 
sophical reasoning  of  Socrates  receives  a con- 
stantly increasing  evidence  from  every  fresh  dis- 
covery in  the  physical  and  moral  sciences;  whilst 
the  ideal  types  of  Plato  are  sickly  exotics  which 
cannot  be  revived — personified  ideas  in  religion, 
and  extracted  essences  in  philosophy. 

Professor  Burton’s  lectures,  to  which,  as  con- 
taining his  remarks  on  the  Logos  of  St.  John's 
Gospel,  and  on  its  connection  with  Gnosticism, 
we  must  now  return,  will  supply  many  texts 
from  the  New  Testament  clearly  directed  against 
the  religious  and  moral  errors  of  the  Gnostic 
sects,  and  which  cannot  be  rightly  understood, 
unless  this  is  constantly  borne  in  mind.  The 
following  passages  give  a summary  of  this  part  of 
the  Professor’s  work  : — 

‘ I pointed  out  in  my  first  lecture  the  import- 
ance of  the  fact,  that  nearly  fifteen  years  elapsed 
between  our  Saviour’s  death  and  St.  Paul’s  first 
apostolical  journey.  During  the  greater  part  of 
this  period,  Simon  Magus  and  his  followers  were 
spreading  their  doctrines;  and  I have  shown  that 
Christ,  as  one  of  the  AEons,  held  a conspicuous 
place  in  their  theological  system.  There  is  rea- 
son therefore  to  suppose  that  in  many  countries, 
before  they  were  visited  by  an  apostle,  the  name 
of  Christ  was  introduced  in  a corruption  of  the 
Platonic  doctrines.’  Applying  the  same  im- 
portant remark  to  the  later  period  when  St.  John  s 
Gospel  is  supposed  to  have  been  written,  Pro- 
fessor Burton  adds  ‘ St.  John  was  as  far  as  pos- 
sible from  being  the  first  to  apply  the  term  Logos 
to  Christ.  I suppose  him  to  have  found  it  so 
universally  applied,  that  lie  did  not  attempt  to 
stop  the  current  of  popular  language,  but  only 
kept  it  to  its  proper  channel,  and  guarded  it  from 
extraneous  corruptions.’  In  these  few  words  we 
have  a brief  statement  of  Professor  Burton's  theory 
respecting  the  first  use  of  the  term  Logos  by  the 
Christian  converts,  and  its  subsequent  adoption 
into  (he  Gospel  of  St.  John.  In  other  parts  of 
Professor  Burton’s  work  he  shows  how  often  the 
misuse  of  the  term  Logos,  amongst  other  Gnostic 
errors,  is  referred  to  in  the  Epistles,  and  how 
many  texts  in  the  New  Testament  have  a pri- 
mary reference  to  the  Gnostic  Heresy.  Professor 
Burton’s  theory  respecting  (fee  first  use  of  the 
term  Logos  is  supported  with  great  learning  and 
moderation,  and  appears  to  us  to  tend  equally  to 
truth,  faith,  and  charity.  Professor  Burton  con- 
siders the  term  Logos  to  have  been  borrowed  by  1 
the  first  Christian  converts  from  the  Gnostics,  and 
to  have  been  applied  by  them  to  Christ,  and  that 
it  is  one  of  the  peculiar  objects  of  St.  John’s 
Gospel  to  show  in  what  sense  the  term  Logos  can 
be  applied  properly  to  Christ.  As  the  latter  part 
of  the  inquiry  respects  some  of  the  chief  ends 
and  objects  of  Christianity,  in  so  far  as  Christ 
is  set  forth  by  St.  John  as  the  Wohd  of  God,  it  is 
our  intention  to  return  to  this  part  of  the  subject 
in  an  article  under  that  title. 

The  errors  of  the  Gnostics,  intellectual,  religious 
and  moral,  are  route  1 in  human  nature ; and  to 


266 


LOIS. 


LONGEVITY. 


guard  against  those  corruptions  is  to  guard  against 
the  evil  tendencies  of  our  own  natures.  But 
before  we  can  clearly  understand  the  application 
of  such  lessons  as  are  contained  in  the  Scriptures 
to  ourselves,  we  must  understand  clearly  their 
more  immediate  application  to  the  errors  against 
which  they  were  first  directed.  Doubtless  there 
is  an  absolute  meaning  in  each  of  the  texts 
quoted  by  Dr.  Burton,  which  is  as  true  now  as  it 
was  true  then ; but  in  order  to  get  at  this  abso- 
lute meaning,  we  must  attend  closely  to  the  rela- 
tive meaning  of  the  text,  as  it  applied  to  the 
opinions,  practices,  and  persons  against  whom  it 
was  primarily  directed.  The  truth  of  this  re- 
mark, when  fairly  stated  and  considered,  is 
equally  obvious  and  important ; yet  it  is  too 
commonly  neglected,  and  hence  great  mistakes, 
and,  we  may  add,  great  dangers  have  arisen,  not 
only  to  individual  Christians,  but  to  Christian 
societies,  and  to  Christianity  itself.  To  use  the 
strong  language  of  Scripture,  and  which  is  itself 
an  instance  of  the  importance  of  calling  in  his- 
tory to  aid  the  labour  of  criticism,  men  wrest  texts 
to  their  own  condemnation,  and  still  more  fre- 
quently to  the  condemnation  of  others,  the  force  of 
which  might  be  wisely  and  charitably  modified 
by  ascertaining  their  original  relative  application. 
Through  the  neglect  of  this  many  are  made  ene- 
mies, and  the  love  of  many  waxeth  cold.  Pro- 
fessor Burton  was  too  stanch  a Protestant  to  be 
suspected  of  any  leaning  towards  Rome ; but  he 
has  had  the  honest  boldness  to  show  that  some 
texts  have  been  applied  prophetically  to  the 
Romanist,  which  hail  a direct,  historical  applica- 
tion to  the  Gnostic,  and  could  only  be  applied  to 
the  Romanist  (and  then  as  a reproof,  and  not  as  a 
prophecy),  in  so  far  as  the  Romanist  of  that  day 
shared  in  the  errors  of  the  Gnostic  at  an  earlier 
period.  To  neglect  this  plain  and  obvious  cau- 
tion has  a tendency  to  fasten  upon  Christianity  a 
narrow,  harsh,  and  sectarian  spirit,  from  which 
it  is,  in  itself,  eminently  free ; and  also  tends 
more  than  any  other  thing  to  obscure  that  real 
accord  between  sound  religion  and  sound  phi- 
losophy, which,  as  we  have  before  said,  the  Chris- 
tian desires  to  make  more  and  more  manifest, 
even  to  the  coming  of  the  perfect  day. — J.  P.  P. 

LOIS  (A tils),  the  grandmother  of  Timothy,  not 
by  the  side  of  his  father,  who  was  a Greek,  but  by 
that  of  his  mother.  Hence  the  Syriac  has  ‘ thy 
mother’s  mother.’  She  is  commended  by  St.  Paul 
for  her  faith  (2  Tim.  i.  5)  ; for  although  she  might 
not  have  known  that  t lie  Christ  was  come,  and 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  lie,  she  yet  believed  in 
the  Messiah  to  come,  and  died  in  that  faith. 

LONGEVITY.  Longevity  is  a compound  of 
two  Latin  words,  and  signifies  prolongation  of 
life.  The  lengthened  ages  of  some  of  the  ante;  and 
post-diluvian  fathers,  as  given  by  Moses  in  the 
Hebrew  text,  are  as  follows  : — 


Adam 

. . Gen. 

v.  5 

Years, 

930 

Seth  .... 

8 

912 

Enos  .... 

11 

905 

Cainan 

• • 55 

14 

910 

Mahalaleel  . 

17 

895 

Jared  ... 

• ♦ „ 

20 

962 

Enoch 

• • 55 

23 

365 

Methuselah  . 

• • 55 

27 

969 

Lamech  . 

• * 55 

31 

777 

Noah 

• • >5 

ix.  29 

950 

Shem . 

. . . Gen. 

xi.  10,  11 

600 

Arphaxad 

• • • 55 

12,  13 

438 

Salah 

14,  15 

433 

Eber  . 

• • • «) 

16,  17 

464 

Pel  eg  . 

* • • 55 

18,  19 

239 

Reu  . 

• • • 55 

20.  21 

239 

Serug 

• . • • 55 

22,  23 

230 

Nah  or  . 

• • • 55 

24,  25 

148 

Terah  . 

32 

'205 

Abraham 

• • • 55  ; 

xxv.  7 

175 

Infidelity  has  not  failed,  in  various  ages,  to 
attack  revelation  on  the  score  of  the  supposed  ab- 
surdity of  assigning  to  any  class  of  men  this 
lengthened  term  of  existence.  In  reference  to 
this  Josephus  (Antiq.  lib.  iii.)  remarks : — ‘ Let  no 
one  upon  comparing  the  lives  of  the  ancients  with 
our  lives,  and  with  the  few  years  which  we  now 
live,  think  that  what  we  say  of  them  is  false;  or 
make  the  shortness  of  our  lives  at  present  an  argu- 
ment that  neither  did  they  attain  to  so  long  a 
duration  of  life.’  When  we  consider  the  com- 
pensating process  which  is  going  on,  the  marvel  is 
that  the  human  frame  should  not  last  longer  than 
it  does.  Some,  however,  have  supposed  that  the 
years  above  named  are  lunar , consisting  of  about 
thirty  days  ; but  this  supposition,  with  a view 
to  reduce  the  -lives  of  the  antediluvians  to  our 
standard,  is  replete  with  difficulties.  At  this  rate 
.the  whole  time,  from  the  creation  of  man  to  the 
Flood,  would  not  be  more  than  about  140  years; 
and  Methuselah  himself  would  not  have  attained 
to  the  age  which  many  even  now  do,  whilst  many 
must  have  had  children  when  mere  infants  ! Be- 
sides, if  we  compute  the  age  of  the  post-diluvians 
by  this  mode  of  calculation — and  why  should  we 
not?- — we  shall  find  that  Abraham,  who  is  said  to 
have  died  in  a good  old  age  (Gen.  xxv.  8)  could 
not  have  been  more  than  fifteen  years  old  ! Moses 
must  therefore  have  meant  solar , not  lunar  years 
— not,  however,  exactly  so  long  as  ours,  for  the 
ancients  generally  reckoned  twelve  months,  of 
thirty  days  each,  to  the  year.  ‘ Nor  is  there,’ 
observes  St.  Augustine  ( De  Civ.  Dei,  xv.  12), 
‘any  care  to  be  given  unto  those  who  think  that 
one  of  our  ordinary  years  would  make  ten  of  the 
years  of  these  times,  being  so  short ; and  there- 
fore, say  they,  900  years  of  theirs  are  90  of  ours — 
1 heir  10  is  our  1 and  their  100  our  10.  Thus 
think  they,  that  Adam  was  but  20  years  old  when 
he  begat  Seth,  and  he  but  20^  when  he  begat 
Enos,  whom  the  Scriptures  call  (the  Sept,  ver.) 
205  yeais.  For,  as  these  men  hold,  the  Scrip- 
ture divided  one  year  into  ten.  parts,  calling  each 
part  a year;  and  each  part  had  a six-fold  qua- 
drate, because  in  six  days  God  made  the  world. 
Now  6 times  6 is  36,  which  multiplied  by  10 
makes  360 — i.  e.  twelve  lunar  months.’  Abar- 
banel,  in  his  Comment,  on  Gen.  v.,  states  that 
some,  professing  Christianity,  had  fallen  into  the 
same  mistake,  viz.  that  Moses  meant  lunar , and 
not  solar  years.  Ecclesiastical  history  does  not 
inform  us  of  this  fact,  except  it  be  to  it  that 
Lactantius  refers  (ii.  12)  when  he  speaks  of  one 
Varro  : — ‘ The  life  of  man,  though  temporary, 
was  yet  extended  to  1000  years;  of  tins  Varro  is 
so  ignorant  that,  though  known  to  all  from  the 
sacred  writings,  he  would  argue  that  the  1000 
years  of  Moses  were,  according  to  the  Egyptian 
mode  of  calculation,  only  1000  months!’ 

That  the  ancients  computed  time  differently 
we  learn  from  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat  vii.),  and 


LONGEVITY. 


LONGEVITY 


267 


from  Scaliger  {Be  Emend.  Temporum , i.)  : still 
this  does  not  alter  the  case  as  above  stated  (see 
Heideggerus,  Be  Anno  Patriarcharuni). 

But  it  is  asked,  if  Moses  meant  solar  years, 
how  came  it  to  pass  that  the  patriarchs  did  not 
begin  to  beget  children  at  an  earlier  period  than 
they  are  reported  to  have  done?  Seth  was  105 
years  old,  on  the  lowest  calculation,  when  he 
begat  Enos;  and  Methuselah  187  when  La- 
meclx  was  born ! St.  Augustine  (i.  15)  explains 
tins  difficulty  in  a two-fold  manner,  by  supposing 
1.  Either  that  the  age  of  puberty  was  later  in 

firopoition  as  the  lives  of  the  ante-diluvians  were 
onger  than  ours ; or 

2.  That  Moses  does  not  record  the  first-born 
sons,  but  as  the  order  of  the  genealogy  required, 
his  object  being  to  trace  the  succession  from 
Adam,  through  Seth,  to  Abraham.  The  learned 
Heideggerus  ( Be  JEtate  Ante-Biluv.')  thus  con- 
firms this  latter  view : ‘ Consilium  fuit  Mosi, 
uti  cuilibet  confectu  proclive  est,  Nose  et  Abra- 
hami  genealogiam  pertexere,  turn  quia  illi  duo 
inter  cseteros  fide  et  pietate  eminebant  et  uterque 
divinit.ns  insigni  donatus  est  prserogativa.’ 

Whilst  the  Jews  have  never  questioned  the 
longevity  assigned  by  Moses  to  the  patriarchs,  they 
have  yet  disputed,  in  many  instances,  as  to  whe- 
ther it  was  common  to  all  men  who  lived  up  to 
the  period  when  human  life  was  contracted.  Mai- 
monides  ( More  Nevochim , ii.  47)  says — 

‘ Longaevitatem  hanc  non  fuisse  nisi  quorun- 
dam  singularium  commemoratorum  in  lege  ; reli- 
quosillorum  seculorum  annosattigisse  non  plures, 
quam  hodie  adhuc  communiter  fieri  solet.’ 

With  this  opinion  Abarbanel,  on  Gen.  v.,  agrees  ; 
Nachmanides,  however,  rejects  it,  and  shows  that 
the  life  of  the  descendants  of  Cain:  must  have 
been  quite  as  long  as  that  of  the  Sethites,  though 
not  noticed  by  Moses;  for  only  seven  indivi- 
duals of  the  former  filled  up  the  space  which  in- 
tervened between  the  death  of  Abel  and  the 
Flood,  whereas  ten  of  the  latter  are  enumerated. 
We  have  reason  then  to  conclude,  that  longevity 
was  not  confined  to  any  peculiar  tribe  of  the  ante 
or  post-diluvian  fathers,  but  was  vouchsafed,  in 
general,  to  all.  Irenseus  {Adversus  Hceret.  v.) 
informs  us  that  some  supposed  that  the  fact  of 
its  being  recorded  that  no  one  of  the  ante-dilu- 
vians  named  attained  the  age  of  1000  years,  was 
the  fulfilment  of  the  declaration  (Gen.  iii.),  ‘ in 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die;’ 
grounding  the  opinion,  or  rather  conceit,  upon 
Ps.  xc.  4,  namely,  that  God’s  day  is  1 000  years. 

As  to  the  probable  reasons  why  God  so  pro- 
longed the  life  of  man  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the 
world,  and  as  to  the  subordinate  means  by  which 
this  might  have  been  accomplished,  Josephus  says 
(Antiq.  i.  3)  : ‘ For  those  ancients  were  beloved  of 
God,  and  lately  made  by  God  himself ; and  be- 
cause their  food  was  then  fitter  for  the  prolongation 
of  life,  they  might,  well  live  so  great  a number  of 
years  : and  because  God  afforded  them  a longer 
time  of  life  on  account  of  their  virtue  and  the 
good  use  they  made  of  it  in  astronomical  and 
geometrical  discoveries,  which  would  not  have 
afforded  the  time  for  foretelling  the  periods  of  the 
stars  unless  they  had  lived  600  years ; for  the 
great  year  is  completed  in  that  interval.’  To 
this  he  adds  the  testimony  of  many  celebrated 
profane  historians  who  affirm  that  the  ancients 
lived  1000  years. 


In  the  above  passage  Josephus  enumerates  four 
causes  of  the  longevity  of  the  earlier  patriarchs. 
As  to  the  first,  viz.,  their  being  dearer  to  God  than 
other  men,  it  is  plain  that  it  cannot  be  maintained  ; 
for  the  profligate  descendants  of  Cain  were 
equally  long-lived,  as  mentioned  above,  with 
others.  Neither  can  we  agree  in  the  second  reason 
he  assigns;  because  we  find  that  Noah  and  others, 
though  born  so  long  subsequently  to  the  creation 
of  Adam,  yet  lived  to  as  great  an  age,  some  of 
them  to  a greater  age  than  he  did.  If,  again,  it 
were  right  to  attribute  longevity  to  the  superior 
quality  of  the  food  of  the  aute-diluvians,  then 
the  seasons,  on  which  this  depends,  must,  about 
Moses’s  time — for  it  was  then  that  the  term  of 
human  existence  was  reduced  to  its  present 
standard — have  assumed  a fixed  character.  But 
no  change  at  that  time  took  place  in  the  revolu- 
tion of  the  heavenly  bodies,  by  which  the  seasons 
of  heat,  cold,  &c.  are  regulated : hence  we  must 
not  assume  that  it  was  the  nature  of  the  fruits 
they  ate  which  caused  longevity.  IIow  far  the 
ante-diluvians  had  advanced  in  scientific  re- 
search generally,  and  in  astronomical  discovery 
particularly,  we  are  not  informed;  nor  can  we 
place  any  dependence  upon  what.  Josephus 
says  about  the  two  inscribed  pillars  which  re- 
mained from  the  old  world  (see  Antiq.  i.  2.  9). 
We  are  not,  therefore,  able  to  determine,  with 
any  confidence,  that  God  permitted  the  earlier 
generations  of  man  to  live  so  long,  in  order  that 
they  might  arrive  at  a high  degree  of  mental 
excellence.  From  the  brief  notices  which  the 
Scriptures  afford  of  the  character  and  habits  of 
the  ante-diluvians,  we  should  rather  infer  that 
they  had  not  advanced  very  far  in  discoveries  in 
natural  and  experimental  philosophy  (see  Ante- 
diluvians). W e must  suppose  that  they  did  not 
reduce  their  language  to  alphabetical  order ; nor 
was  it  necessary  to  do  so  at  a time  when  human  life 
was  so  prolonged,  that  the  tradition  of  the  creation 
passed  through  only  two  hands  to  Noah.  It  would 
seem  that  the  book  ascribed  to  Enoch  is  a work  of 
post-diluvian  origin  (see  Jurieu,  Crit.  Hist.,  i.  41). 
Possibly  a want  of  mental  employment,  together 
with  the  labour  they  endured  ere  (hey  were  able 
to  extract  from  the  earth  the  necessaries  of  life, 
might,  have  been  some  of  the  proximate  causes  of 
that  degeneracy  which  led  God  in  judgment  to 
destroy  the  old  world.  If  the  ante-diluvians 
began  to  bear  children  at  the  age  on  an  average 
of  100,  and  if  they  ceased  to  do  so  at  600  years 
(see  Shuckford’s  Connect .,  i.  36),  the  world  might 
then  have  been  far  more  densely  populated  than  it 
is  now.  ■ Supposing,  moreover,  that  the  earth  was 
no  more  productive  antecedently  than  it  was 
subsequently  to  the  flood;  and  that  the  ante- 
diluvian fathers  were  ignorant  of  those  mecha- 
nical arts  which  so  much  abridge  human  labour 
now,  we  can  easily  understand  how  difficult  they 
must  have  found  it  to  secure  for  themselves  the 
common  necessaries  of  life,  and  this  the  more  so 
if  animal  food  was  not  allowed  them.  The  pro- 
longed life,  then,  of  the  generations  before  the 
flood,  would,  seem  to  have  been  rather  an  evil 
than  a blessing,  leading  as  it  did  to  the  too  rapid 
peopling  of  the  earth.  We  can  readily  conceive 
how  this  might  conduce  to  that  awful  state  of 
things  expressed  in  the  words,  ‘ And  the  whole 
earth  was  filled  with  violence.’  In  the  absence  of 
any  well  regulated  system  of  government,  we  can 


268 


LORD. 


imagine  what  evils  must  have  arisen  : the  un- 
principled would  oppress  the  eak,  the  crafty 
would  outwit  the  unsuspecting,  and,  not  having 
the  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  destruction  and 
misery  would  be  in  their  ways.  Still  we  must 
admire  the  providence  of  God  in  the  longevity 
of  man  immediately  after  the  creation  and  the 
flood.  After  the  creation,  when  the  world  was  to 
be  peopled  by  one  man  and  one  woman,  the  age 
of  the  greatest  ] art  of  those  on  record  was  900 
and  upwards.  But  after  the  flood,  when  there 
were  tliwee  couples  to  re -people  the  earth,  none 
of  the  patriarchs,  except  Shem,  reached  the  age 
of  500  ; and  only  the  three  first  of  his  line,  viz., 
Arphaxad,  Selah,  and  Eber,  came  near  that  age, 
which  was  in  the  first  century  after  the  Flood. 
In  the  second  century  we  do  not  find  that  any 
attained  the  age  of  240  ; and  in  the  third  century 
(about  the  latter  end  of  which  Abraham  was 
born),  none,  except  Terah,  arrived  at  200 ; by 
which  time  the  world  was  so  well  peopled,  that 
they  had  built  cities,  and  were  formed  into  dis- 
tinct nations  under  their  respective  kings  (See 
Gen.  xv. ; see  also  Usher  and  Petavius  on  the 
increase  of  mankind  in  the  three  first  centuries 
after  the  flood). 

That  the  common  age  of  man  has  been  the 
same  in  all  times  since  the  world  was  peopled,  is 
manifest  from  profane  as  well  as  sacred  history. 
Plato  lived  to  the  age  of  81,  and  was  accounted 
an  old  man  ; and  those  whom  Pliny  reckons  up 
(vii.  48)  as  rare  examples  ot  long  life,  may,  for  the 
most  part,  be  equalled  in  modern  times.  We  can- 
not, tiien,  but  see  the  hand  of  God  in  the  propor- 
tion that  there  is  between  births  and  deaths;  for  by 
this  means  the  population  of  the  world  is  kept  up. 
If  the  fixed  standard  of  human  life  were  that  of 
Methuselah's  age.  or  even  that  of  Abraham’s,  the 
world  would  sooii  be  overstocked  ; or  if  the  age  of 
man  were  limited  to  that  of  divers  other  animals, 
to  10,  20,  or  30  years  only,  the  decay  of  mankind 
would  then  be  too  fast.  But  on  the  present  scale 
the  balance  is  nearly  even,  and  life  and  death  keep 
an  equal  pace  ! In  thus  maintaining  throughout 
all  ages  and  places  these  proportions  of  mankind, 
and  all  other  creatures,  God  declares  himself  to  be 
indeed  the  ruler  of  the  world.  We  may,  then, 
conclude  in  the  language  of  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  civ. 
29,  30),  ‘Thou  hidest  thy  face,  all  creatures  are 
troubled ; thou  takest  away  their  breath,  they  die 
and  return  to  their  dust.  Thou  sendest  forth  thy 
spirit,  they  are  created ; and  thou  renewest  the 
face  of  the  earth.’ — J.  W.  D. 

LOOKING-GLASSES  [Mirrors]. 

LORD,  a Saxon  word  signifying  ruler  or 
governor.  In  its  original  form  it  is  hlaford 
(hlajrojlb),  which,  by  dropping  the  aspiration,  be- 
came la  ford,  and  afterwards,  by  contraction,  lord. 
In  the  authorized  translation  of  the  Scriptures  it 
is  used  without  much  discrimination  for  all  the 
names  applied  to  God;  which  cannot  be  helped, 
as  our  language  does  not  afford  the  same  number 
of  distinguishing  titles  as  the  Hebrew.  When, 
however,  the  word  represents  the  dread  name  of 
Jehovah,  it  is  printed  in  small  capitals,  Lord, 
and  is  by  this  contrivance  made  a distinguishing 
term.  Having  already  explained  the  different 
names  of  God  which  the  term  Lord  is  made  to 
represent,  namely,  Adonai,  Elohim,  Jehovah  (see 
also  God),  no  further  statement  on  the  subject  is 
here  necessary.  It  also,  however,  represents  the 


LORD’S  DAY. 

Greek  K vpios,  which,  indeed,  is  used  in  much  tli* 
same  way  and  in  the  same  sense  as  Lord.  It  i* 
from  Kvpos,  authority, and  signifies  ‘ master’  or  ‘ pos- 
sessor.’ In  the  Septuagint  this,  like  Lord  in  our 
version,  is  invariably  used  for  ‘Jehovah’  and 
‘ Adonai •/  while  0eJs,  like  God  in  our  trans- 
lation, is  generally  reserved  to  represent  the  He- 
brew ‘Elohim.’  K vpios  in  the  original  of  tiie 
Greek  Testament,  and  Lord  in  our  version  ot 
it,  are  used  much  in  the  same  manner  as  in 
the  Septuagint ; and  so  also  is  the  correspond- 
ing title,  Dommtis , in  the  Latin  versions.  As 
the  Hebrew  name  Jehovah  is  one  never  used 
with  reference  to  any  but  the  Almighty,  it 
is  to  be  regretted  that  the  Septuagint,  imitated 
by  our  own  and  other  versions,  has  represented  it 
by  a word  which  is  also  used  for  the  Hebrew 
‘ Adonai/  which  is  applied  not  only  to  God,  but, 
like  our  ‘ Lord,’  to  creatures  also,  as  to  angels 
(Gen.  xix.  2;  Dan.  x.  16,  17),  to  men  in  au- 
thority (Gen.  xlii.  30,  33),  and  to  proprietors, 
owners,  masters  (Gen.  xlv.  8).  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament K vpios,  representing  * Adonai/  and  both 
represented  by  Lord,  the  last,  or  human  application 
of  the  term,  is  fiequent.  In  fact,  the  leading  idea 
of  the  Hebrew,  the  Greek,  and  the  English  words, 
is  that  of  an  owner  or  proprietor,  whether  God  or 
man ; and  it  occurs  in  the  inferior  application 
with  great  frequency  in  the  New  Testament..  This 
application  is  either  literal  or  complimentary  : 
literal , when  the  party  is  really  an  owner  or  master, 
as  in  Matt.  x.  24;  xx.  8;  xxi.  40;  Acts  xvi.  10, 
19;  Gal.  iv.  1,  &c. ; or  when  he  is  so  as  having 
absolute  authority  over  another  (Matt.  ix.  38; 
Luke  x.  2),  or  as  being  a supreme  lord  or  sove- 
reign (Acts  xxv.  26)  ; and  complimentary,  when 
used  as  a title  of  address,  especially  to  superiors, 
like  the  English  Master,  Sir ; the  French  Sieur, 
Monsieur ; the  German  Herr,  &c.,  as  in  Matt, 
xiii.  27;  xxi.  20  ; Mark  vii.  8;  Luke  ix.  54. 

It  cannot  but  be  deemed  desirable  that,  instead 
of  the  extensive  use  of  the  word  Lord  which  we 
have  described,  discriminating  terms  should  l>e 
adopted  in  translations.  Apart  from  the  Jewish 
superstitions  which  influenced  the  Seventy  in 
their  translation,  there  can  be  no  good  reason  why 
the  name  Jehovah  should  not  be  retained  wher- 
ever it  occurs  in  the  Hebrew.  Then  Loud  might 
represent  Adonai;  or  perhaps  Sir,  or  Master, 
might  be  used  when  that  word  is  applied  to 
creatures  ; and  God  would  very  properly  repre- 
sent Elohim. 

LORD’S  DAY.  The  expression  so  rendered 
in  the  Authorized  English  Version  (iv  Tij  Kvpiaufj 
rjpLepa)  occurs  only  once  in  the  New  Testament, 
viz.  in  Rev.  i.  10,  and  is  there  unaccompanied  by 
any  other  words  tending  to  explain  its  meaning. 
It  is,  however,  well  known  that  the  same  phrase 
was,  in  after  ages  of  the  Christian  church,  used 
to  signify  the  first  day  of  the  week,  on  which 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  commemorated. 
Hence  it  has  been  inferred  that  the  same  name 
was  given  to  that  day  during  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  and  was  in  the  present  instance  used 
by  St.  John  in  this  sense,  as  referring  to  an 
institution  well  known,  and  therefore  requiring 
no  explanation. 

Others,  however,  have  held  that  it  means  simply 
‘the  day  of  the  Lord,’  the  substantive  being 
merely  exchanged  for  the  adjective,  as  in  1 Ccr. 
xi.  20,  Kvpiaxdu  Seiirvav,  ‘ the  Lord's  Supj ei  ; 


LORD’S  DAY. 


269 


LORD’S  DAY. 

which  would  make  it  merely  synonymous  with 
if  Tjfiepa  Kvp'iov , ‘ the  day  of  the  Lord  (1  Thes. 
v.  2).  Such  a use  of  the  adjective  became  ex- 
tremely common  in  the  following  ages,  as  we 
have  repeatedly  in  the  fathers  the  corresponding 
expressions,  Dominicae  crucis,  ‘ the  Lord  s cross,’. 
Dominicae  nativitatis,  ‘the  Lords  nativity’  (Ter- 
tullian,  De  Idol.  5) ; hoyiwv  KvpiaKuv  (Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  9).  According  to  their  view 
the  passage  would  mean,  ‘ In  the  spirit  I was 
present  at  the  day  of  the  Lord,’  the  word  ‘ day  ’ 
being  used  for  any  signal  manifestation  (possibly 
in  allusion  to  Joel  ii.  31),  as  in  John  viii.  50, 

‘ Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day.’  And  the 
peculiar  use  of  the  word  ypipa,  as  referring  to  a 
jreriod  of  ascendancy,  appears  remarkably  in 
l Cor.  iv.  3,  where  avdpairivys  ypipas  is  rendered 
“ mans  judgment.’ 

But  upon  the  whole,  the  former  interpretation 
is  perhaps  the  most  probable.  Without,  however, 
here  pursuing  further  the  question  of  the  name  (to 
which  we  shall  afterwards  recur),  let  us  examine 
more  closely  the  evidence  for  the  actual  institu- 
tion. This,  as  far  as  tire  New  Testament  records 
go,  is,  in  fact,  very  scanty. 

We  must  class  with  very  visionary  interpreters 
those  who  can  see  anything  really  bearing  on  the 
question,  in  the  circumstance  of  our  Lord’s  re- 
appearance on  the  eighth  day  after  his  resurrec- 
tion (John  xx.  26),  or  in  the  disciples  being  then 
assembled,  when  we  know  that  they  were  all  along 
abiding  together  in  concealment  for  fear  of  the 
Jews.  Nor,  again,  will  their  being  in  like  manner 
together  (Acts  ii.  1)  on  the  Feast  of  Pentecost 
appear  remarkable,  on  the  same  grounds,  even 
supposing  the  computation  admitted  which  makes 
it  sail  on  a Sunday;  which  depends  on  whether 
the  fifty  days  were  reckoned  from  the  Sabbath  of 
the  Passover  inclusive  or  not,  on  which  difference 
of  opinion  has  existed.  Indeed,  on  any  ground 
we  could  hardly  look  for  any  settled  institution 
of  this  kind,  till  the  Christian  church  had  been 
ictually  in  some  degree  organized,  as  it  only  was 
after  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

We  find  that  immediately  after  that  great 
event,  the  disciples  met  together  daily  for  prayer 
and  communion  (Acts  ii.  46) ; and  this  practice 
lias  been  supposed  by  some  to  be  implied,  at  a 
later  period,  in  the  expressions  used  in  1 Cor. 
xi.  21. 

But  on  one  occasion  afterwards,  we  have  it 
specially  recorded,  that  they  ‘came  together  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week  to  break  bread’  (Acts 
xx.  7),  when  ‘Paul  preached  unto  them,  and 
continued  his  speech  till  midnight.’  It  has 
from  this  last  circumstance  been  inferred  by 
some  that  the  assembly  commenced  after  sunset 
on  the  Sabbath,  at  which  hour  the  first  day  of 
the  week  had  commenced,  according  to  the  Jewish 
reckoning  (Jahn’s  Bibl.  Antiq.  § 398),  which 
would  hardly  agree  with  the  idea  of  a commemo- 
ration of  the  resurrection. 

But  further,  the  words  of  this  passage,  ’Ey  he  rfj 
uia  rcov  aafifiareov,  avvyypivwv  ruv  paGyricv  rod 

tcAc 'urai  Aprov have  been  by  some  considered 

to  imply  that  such  a weekly  observance  was  then 
the  established  custom  ; yet  it  is  obvious  that,  the 
mode  of  expression  would  he  just  as  applicable 
if  they  had  been  in  the  practice  of  assembling 
daily. 

The  regulation  addressed  to  the  church  of 


Corinth  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2)  with  respect  to  charitable 
contributions  ‘ on  the  first  day  of  the  week,’  is 
not  connected  with  any  mention  of  public  wor- 
ship or  assemblies  on  that  day.  Yet  this  has  been 
inferred  : and  the  regulation  has  been  supposed  to 
have  a reference  to  the  tenets  of  the  Jewish  con- 
verts, who  considered  it  unlawful  to  touch  money 
on  the  Sabbath  (Vitringa,  De  SynagogA , trans- 
lated by  Bernard,  pp.75-1 67).  In  consideration  for 
them,  therefore,  the  apostle  directs  the  c Election 
to  be  made  on  the  following  day,  on  which  secular 
business  was  lawful ; or,  as  Cocceius  observes, 
they  regarded  the  day  4 non  ut  festum,  sed  ut 
ipyaaipov,'  ‘ not  as  a feast,  but  as  a working 
day’  (Vitringa,  p.  77).  Again,  the  phrase  pla 
rwv  aafifiarwv  is  generally  understood  to  be, 
according  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  naming  the 
days  of  the  week,  the  common  expression  for  the 
first  day.  Yet  it  has  been  differently  construed 
by  some,  who  render  it  4 upon  one  of  the  days  of 
the  week  ’ ( Tracts  for  the  limes,  ii.  1.  16), 

Thus  far,  then,  wa  cannot  say  that  the  evidence 
for  any  particular  observance  of  this  day  amounts 
to  much;  still  less  does  it  appear  what  purpose 
or  object  was  referred  to.  We  find  no  mention 
of  any  commemoration , whether  of  the  resurrec- 
tion or  any  other  event  in  the  Apostolic  records. 

On  these  points  we  have  no  distinct  testimony 
till  a later  period.  The  earliest,  or  apostolic 
fathers,  make  no  mention  whatever  of  such  an 
institution,  unless  we  except  one  passage  to  which 
we  shall  presently  refer,  but  which  is  at  most  a 
mere  allusion. 

The  well-known  letter  of  Pliny  to  Trajan 
(about  a.d.  100)  mentions  the  Christians  assem- 
bling together  for  worship  on  a stated  day : 4 Soliti 
stato  die  ante  lucem  convenire  carmenque  Christo 
quasi  Deo  dicere,’ — 4 They  are  accustomed  to  as- 
semble on  a stated  day  before  light,  and  sing  a 
hymn  to  Christ  as  a God’  (Epist.  x.  97). 

But  it  is  not  till  the  time  of  Justin  Mart.vr 
(a.d.  140)  that  we  find  a distinct  account  of  the 
observance.  His  statement  is  clear  and  circum- 
stantial, to  the  effect  that  the  Cln  istihns  were  in 
the  practice  of  assembling  for  public  worship  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  being  that  on  which 
the  work  of  Creation  was  commenced,  and  on 
which  Christ  rose  from  the  dead  : — T^y  de  rod 
y\iov  ypepav  Koivrj  rravres  ryv  avv(?\.evaiv  ttoiou- 
pe6a,  irreihy  irpwry  earl  v ripe  pa,  iv  ?;  u Qeos  rb 
CKoros,  Kal  ryv  v\yv  rpi'l/os  Koapov  inotyae,  Kal 
o lyaovs  Xpiaros  6 ypir epos  'Zwryp  rfj  avrfj  rfj 
ypipa  in  veKpuv  aviary — 4 On  Sunday  we  all 
assemble  in  common,  since  that  is  the  first  day, 
on  which  God,  having  changed  darkness  and 
chaos,  made  the  world,  and  on  the  same  day  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead’  (Justin 
Mart.  Apol.  i.  67). 

In  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  probably 
a forgery  of  the  second  century  [Barnabas!, 
the  first  day  of  the  week  is  spoken  of  as  observed 
with  rejoicing  in  memory  of  the  resurrection: — 
J Ay  opev  ryv  ypepav  ryv  oyd eg v els  eveppoavvyr 
iv  i j Kal  d ’ lyaovs  aviary  e/c  veicpuv  : — 4 We  keep 
the  eighth  day  with  joy,  on  which  also  Jesus  rose 
from  the  dead’  (Barnab.  Ep.  i.  15). 

The  earliest  authentic  instance  in  which  the 
name  of  4 the  Lord's  day’  is  applied  (after  tire 
passage  in  the  Apocalypse),  is  not  till  a.d.  200, 
when  Tertullian  speaks  of  it  as  4 die  Dominico 
resurrexionis'  (De  Orat.  1)  23);  again,  4 Domini- 


270 


LORD  S DAY. 


cum  diem*  (De  Idol.  14);  and  Dionysius  of 
Corinth  (probably  somewhat  later),  as  ‘ ypepav 
KvpiaK-f]v  (quoted  by  Kuseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  iv.  23). 

Thus  far,  also,  nothing  has  appeared  relative 
to  any  observance  of  the  day  beyond  that  of  hold- 
ing assemblies  for  religious  worship,  and  a festal 
commemoration  of  the  resurrection  and  the  be- 
ginning of  the  creation. 

But  in  these  last  cited  writers  we  trace  the 
commencement  of  a more  formal  observance. 
Thus  the  whole  passage  in  Tertullian  is  : — ‘ Solo 
die  Dominico  resurrexionis  non  ab  isto  tantum 
(genuflexione),  sed  enim  anxietatis  habitu  et 
officio  cavere  debemus,  differentes  etiarn  negotio 
ne  quern  diabolo  locum  demus,’ — ‘ On  the  day  of 
the  Lord's  resurrection  alone  we  ought  to  abstain 
not  only  from  kneeling,  but  from  all  devotion  to 
care  and  anxiety,  putting  off  even  business,  lest 
we  should  give  place  to  the  devil and  that  of 
Dionysius,  ‘ T ijv  aypepov  oZv  Kvpiaic^v  ayiav 
ppepav  Siyydyopev,' — ‘ We  keep  the  Lord's  day 
•roly;’  and  at  dates  later  than  this  we  find  in- 
creasing indications  of  the  same  spirit,  as  appears 
from  Clemens  Alexandriuus  (Strom,  vii.  p.  744), 
Hilary,  Augustine,  and  other  authorities,  of 
which  a large  number  will  be  found  in  Bishop 
Pearson  On  the  Creed , and  Notes  (vol.  ii.  p.  341, 
ed.  Oxford). 

But  we  must  here  notice  one  other  passage  of 
earlier  date  than  any  of  these,  which  has  often 
been  referred  to  as  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the 
Lord’s  day,  though  it  certainly  contains  no  men- 
tion of  it.  It  occurs  in  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius  to 
the  Magnesians  (about  a.d.  100).  The  whole 
passage  is  confessedly  obscure,  and  the  text  may 
oe  corrupt.  It  has,  however,  been  understood  in 
a totally  different  sense,  and  as  referring  to  a dis- 
tinct subject;  and  such  we  confess  appears  to  us 
to  be  the  most  obvious  and  natural  construction 
of  it. 

The  passage  is  as  follows  : — ‘ Et  ovv  o!  iv  na- 
KaioTs  TTpdrypacnv  dvaarpacpivres,  els  Kaivoryra 
4A.tt  id  os  jjAOov — prjKen  cra0fiarl(ovres,  aAAa  Kara, 
icvpiajc^v  (coyv  (covres — (iv  ical  rj  £a>?)  rjpcov 

averetAev  St’  avrov,  Kal  rov  Oavarov  avrov  [ov 
rives  dpvovvrc.i\,  Si  ov  pvarypiov  iAafiopev  .... 
&c.),  7 rws  rj/xeis  SvvycrdpeOa,  (rjaai  X^P^  avrov ; 
....,’  &c.  (Ignatius,  ad  Magnesios , § ix. ; 
Jacobson’s  Patres  Apost.  ii.  322.  Oxford,  1840). 

Now  many  commentators  assume  (on  what 
ground  does  not  appear),  that  after  uvpiaK^v  the 
word  Tj/xepav  is  to  be  understood.  On  this  hypo- 
thesis they  endeavour  to  make  the  rest  of  the  sen- 
tence accord  with  a reference  to  the  observance  of 
the  Lord’s  day,  by  further  supposing  iv  y to  refer 
to  ypepa  understood,  and  the  whole  to  be  put  in 
contrast  with  cafif3arl(ovres  in  the  former  clause. 
For  opinions  in  support  of  this  view,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  Notes  in  Jacobson’s  edition, 
p.  324. 

Dr.  Neander,  in  his  History  of  Christianity , 
translated  by  Mr.  Rose  (i.  336),  refers  to  this 
passage  adopting  this  supposition,  on  which  the 
translator  remarks  (in  a note)  very  truly,  though 
somewhat  laconically,  that  he  dan  only  find 
* something  of  the  kind  ’ in  the  passage.  The 
meaning  of  Neander ‘s  version  is  altogether  very 
confused,  but  seems  to  represent  the  Lord’s  day 
as  a sort  of  emblem  of  the  new  life  of  a Christian. 

Let  as  now  look  at.  the  passage  simply  as  it 
stands.  The  defect  of  the  sentence  is  the  want  of 


LORD’S  DAY. 

a substantive  to  which  avrov  can  refer.  This 
defect,  so  far  from  being  remedied,  is  rendered 
still  more  glaring  by  the  introduction  of  ypepa. 
Now  it  we  take  KvpiaKi)  (oof)  as  simply  * the  life 
of  the  Lord,’  having  a more  personal  meaning, 
it  certainly  goes  nearer  to  supplying  the  substan- 
tive to  avrov.  Again,  iv  jj  may  well  refer  to  (ayf), 
and  icvoiaKTj  (coy,  meaning  our  Lord’s  life,  as  em- 
phatically including  his  resurrection  (as' in  Rom. 
v.  10,  &c.),  presents  precisely  the  same  analogy 
to  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Christian  as  is  con- 
veyed both  in  Rom.  v. ; Coloss.  iii.  3,  4,  and 
many  other  passages.  Thus  upon  the  whole  the 
meaning  might  be  given  thus  : — 

‘ If  those  who  lived  under  the  old  dispensation 
have  come  to  the  newness  of  hope,  no  longer 
keeping  Sabbaths,  but  living  according  to  our 
Lord  s life  (in  which,  as  it  were,  our  life  has 
risen  again,  through  him,  and  his  death  [which 
some  deny],  through  whom  we  have  received  the 

mystery,  &c ),  how  shall  we  be  able  to 

live  without  him  ?’  .... 

In  this  way  (allowing  for  the  involved  style  of 
the  whole)  the  meaning  seems  to  us  simple,  con- 
sistent, and  grammatical,  without  any  gratuitous 
introduction  of  words  understood ; and  this  view 
has  been  followed  by  many,  though  it  is  a sub- 
ject on  which  considerable  controversy  has  ex- 
isted. On  this  view  the  passage  does  not  refer  at 
all  to  the  Lord’s  day ; but  even  on  the  opposite 
supposition  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  affording  any 
positive  evidence  to  the  early  use  of  the  term 
‘ Lord's  day’  (for  which  it  is  often  cited),  since 
the  material  word  ypepa  is  purely  conjectural. 
It  however  offers  an  instance  of  that  species  of 
contrast  which  the  early  fathers  were  so  fond  of 
drawing  between  the  Christian  and  Jewish  dis- 
pensations, and  between  the  new  life  of  the  Chris- 
tian and  the  ceremonial  spirit  of  the  law,  to 
which  the  Lord's  day  (if  it  be  imagined  to  be 
referred  to)  is  represented  as  opposed. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  nature  of  this  ob- 
servance in  the  Christian  church,  we  will  merely 
remark  that  though  in  later  times  we  find  con- 
siderable reference  to  a sort  of  consecration  of  th» 
day,  it  does  not  seem  at  any  period  of  the  ancient 
church  to  have  assumed  the  form  of  such  an  ob 
servance  as  some  modern  religious  communities 
have  contended  for.  Nor  do  these  writers  in  any 
instance  pretend  to  allege  any  divine  command, 
or  even  apostolic  practice,  in  support  of  it. 

In  the  laws  of  Constantine  (a.d.  300),  cessation 
from  ordinary  work  on  the  Lord’s  day  was  first 
enjoined,  but  with  an  express  exception  in  favour 
of  the  labours  of  agriculture.  (See  Jortin’s  Re- 
marks on  Eccles.  Hist.  iii.  236.) 

Chrysostom  (a.d.  360)  concludes  one  of  his 
Homilies  by  dismissing  his  audience  to  their  re- 
spective ordinary  occupations.  The  Council  of 
Laodicea  (a.d.  364),  however,  enjoined  Christians 
to  rest  (<rx°h-a(eiv)  on  the  Lord’s  day.  To  the  same 
effect  is  an  injunction  in  the  forgery  called  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions  (vii.  24),  and  various 
later  enactments  from  a.d.  600  to  a.d.  1100, 
though  by  no  means  extending  to  the  prohibition 
of  all  secular  business.  In  fact,  in  these  subse- 
quent ages  of  the  church  we  find  the  ceremonial 
spirit  rather  displaying  itself  in  the  multiplica- 
tion of  religious  festivals  and  solemnities,  than  in 
any  increasing  precision  in  the  observance  of  the 
Lord’s  day.  This  is  exemplified  in  the  practice 


LOT. 


LOT. 


271 


©1  the  unreformed  church  in  modern  times,  and 
retained  by  most  of  the  reformed,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  those  formed  on  the  puritanical  model, 
who  have  adopted  a peculiar  view  of  the  entire 
institution,  to  which  we  shall  refer  in  another 
"lace.  [Sabbath.]  We  may  add,  also,  that  as 
in  the  case  of  Constantine,  so  in  some  modern 
states,  where  a church  has  been  established  by 
law , the  same  policy  has  prevailed  of  passing 
temporal  enactments  for  the  cessation  of  business, 
and  even  public  amusements,  on  the  Lord’s  day, 
especially  in  move  recent  times. 

But  to  pursue  such  topics  would  be  beyond 
our  purpose.  Upon  the  whole  we  would  observe, 
that  on  questions  of  this  nature  it  is  peculiarly 
important  to  bear  in  mind  the  propriety  of  not 
advancing  to  gratuitous  inferences  beyond  what 
the  evidence  warrants.  We  can  have  no  proof 
of  the  existence  of  tenets  or  practices  in  the  first 
ages  beyond  the  testimony  of  the  writers  of  those 
ages ; and  there  was  always  in  operation  a power- 
ful tendency  to  an  increasing  formality  in  ex- 
ternal observances,  which  were  in  all  cases  in- 
troduced gradually  from  small  beginnings. 

To  those  Christians  who  look  to  the  written 
word  as  the  sole  authority  for  anything  claiming 
apostolic  or  divine  sanction,  it  becomes  peculiarly 
important  to  observe,  that  the  New  Testament 
evidence  of  the  observance  of  the  Lord’s  day 
amounts  merely  to  the  recorded  fact  that  the  dis- 
ciples did  assemble  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
and  the  'probable  application  of  the  designation 
‘ the  Lord's  day’  to  that  day. — B.  P. 

LOT  a covering  ; Sept.  A cor),  son  of 

Haran  and  nephew  of  Abraham,  who  by  the  early 
death  of  his  father  had  already  come  into  pos- 
session of  his  property  when  Abraham  went  into 
the  land  of  Canaan  (Gen.  xi.  31).  Their  united 
substance,  consisting  chiefly  in  cattle,  was  not 
then  too  large  to  prevent  them  from  living  toge- 
ther in  one  encampment.  Eventually,  however, 
their  possessions  were  so  greatly  increased,  that 
they  were  obliged  to  separate  ; and  Abraham  with 
rare  generosity  conceded  the  choice  of  pasture- 
grounds  to  his  nephew.  Lot  availed  himself  of 
this  liberality  of  his  uncle,  as  lie  deemed  most  for 
his  own  advantage,  by  fixing  his  abode  at  Sodom, 
that  his  flocks  might  pasture  in  and  around  that 
fertile  and  well-watered  neighbourhood  (Gen.  xiii. 
5-13).  He  iittd  soon  very  great  reason  to  regret 
this  choice;  for  although  his  flocks  fed  well,  his 
soul  was  starved  in  that  vile  place,  the  inhabitants 
of  which  were  sinners  before  the  Lord  exceedingly. 
There  i he  vexed  his  righteous  soul  from  day  to 
day  with  the  filthy  conversation  of  the  wicked’ 
(2  Pet.  ii.  7). 

About  eight  years  after,  his  separation  from 
Abraham  (b.c.  1913),  Lot  was  carried  away  pri- 
soner by  Chedorlaomer,  along  with  the  other  in- 
habitants of  Sodom,  and  was  rescued  and  brought 
back  by  Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.),  as  related  under 
other  heads  [Abraham  ; Chedorlaomer].  This 
exploit  procured  for  Abraham  much  celebrity  in 
Canaan ; and  it  ought  to  have  procured  for  Lot 
respect  and  gratitude  from  the  people  of  Sodom, 
who  had  been  delivered  from  hard  slavery  and 
restored  to  their  homes  on  his  account.  But  this 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  result. 

At  length  the  guilt  of  ‘ the  cities  of  the  plain9 
brought  down  the  signal  judgments  of  Heaven. 


The  avenging  angels,  after  having  been  enter- 
tained by  Abraham,  repaired  to  Sodom,  where 
they  were  received  and  entertained  by  Lot,  who 
was  sitting  in  the  gate  of  the  town  when  they 
arrived.  While  they  were  at  supper  the  house 
was  beset  by  a number  of  men,  who  demanded 
that  the  strangers  should  be  given  up  to  them,  for 
the  unnatural  purposes  which  have  given  a name 
of  infamy  to  Sodom  in  all  generations.  Lot  re- 
sisted this  demand,  and  was  loaded  with  abuse 
by  the  vile  fellows  outside  on  that  account.  They 
had  nearly  forced  the  door,  when  the  angels,  thus 
awfully  by  their  own  experience  convinced  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  doom  they  came  to  execute, 
smote  them  witli  instant  blindness,  by  which  their 
attempts  were  rendered  abortive,  and  they  were 
constrained  to  disperse.  Towards  morning  the 
angels  apprised  Lot  of  the  doom  which  hung  over 
the  place,  and  urged  him  to  hasten  thence  with 
his  family.  He  was  allowed  to  extend  the  benefit 
of  this  deliverance  to  the  families  of  his  daughters 
who  had  married  in  Sodom  ; but  the  warning 
was  received  by  those  families  with  incredulity 
and  insult,  and  he  therefore  left  Sodom  accom- 
panied only  by  his  wife  and  two  daughters.  As 
they  went,  being  hastened  by  the  angels,  the  wife, 
anxious  for  those  who  had  been  left  behind,  or 
reluctant  to  remove  from  the  place  which  had 
long  been  her  home,  and  where  much  valuable 
property  was  necessarily  left  behind,  lingered 
behind  the  rest,  and  was  suddenly  involved  in  the 
destruction,  by  which — smothered  and  stiffened  as 
she  stood  by  saline  incrustations — she  became  ‘ a 
pillar  of  salt.’ 

Lot  and  his  daughters  then  hastened  on  to  Zoar, 
the  smallest  of  the  five  cities  of  the  plain,  which  had 
been  spared  on  purpose  to  afford  him  a refuge : but, 
being  fearful,  after  what  had  passed,  to  remain 
among  a people  so  corrupted,  he  soon  retired  to  a 
cavern  in  the  neighbouring  mountains,  and  there 
abode.  After  some  stay  in  this  place,  the  daughters 
of  Lot  became  apprehensive  lest  the  family  of  their 
father  should  be  lost  for  want  of  descendants, 
than  which  no  greater  calamity  was  known  or 
apprehended  in  those  times  : and  in  the  belief 
that,  after  what  had  passed  in  Sodom,  there  was 
no  hope  of  their  obtaining  suitable  husbands,  they, 
by  a contrivance  which  has  in  it  the  taint  of 
Sodom,  in  which  they  were  brought  up,  made 
their  father  drunk  with  wine,  and  in  that,  state 
seduced  him  into  an  act  which,  as  they  well  knew, 
would  in  soberness  have  been  most  abhorrent  to 
him.  They  thus  became  the  mothers,  and  he  the 
fathen  of  two  sons,  named  Moab  and  Ammon, 
from  whom  sprung  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites, 
so  often  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  history  (Gen. 
xix.).  This  circumstance  is  the  last  which  the 
Scripture  records  of  the  history  of  Lot ; and  fche 
time  and  place  of  his  death  are  unknown. 

The  difficulties  which  the  narrative  that  we 
have  sketched  has  been  supposed  to  involve  may 
be  reduced  to  two — the  death  of  Lot’s  wife,  and 
the  conduct  of  his  daughters.  With  respect  to  the 
former  of  these,  whatever  difficulty  has  been  con- 
nected with  the  subject  has  arisen  from  the  ridi- 
culous notions  which  have  been  connected  with  it, 
for  which  no  authority  is  found  in  the  Scriptural 
narrative.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  woman 
was  literally  turned  into  a pillar  of  salt,  and  that 
this  pillar  stood  for  many  ages,  if  it  does  not  still 
exist,  as  a standing  monument  of  the  tvansactioa. 


172 


LOT. 


LOT. 


Indeed,  sundry  old  travellers  have  averred  that  they 
had  seen  it;  and  no  doubt  they  did  see  something 
which  they  supposed  to  be  the  pillar  into  which 
Lot’s  wife  was  turned,  or  were  told  to  be  such. 
This  notion  originated  with  the  author  of  the  Wis- 
dom of  Solomon,  which  was  regarded  by  the  Ro- 
man Catholics  as  Scriptural  authority  that  might 
not  be  disputed.  Therefore  old  pilgrims  and  tra- 
vellers sought  for  this  monument;  and  from  their 
example,  more  modern  travellers  have  done  the 
same  : although,  if  Protestants,  they  could  attach 
no  particular  weight  to  the  authority  which  alone 
justified  their  predecessors  in  their  hopes  of  finding 
it.  The  passage  referred  to  is  that  in  which  the 
author,  after  alluding  to  the  punishment  of  Sodom 
and  the  deliverance  of  Lot,  adverts  to  the  existing 
evidence  of  the  former,  and  then  adds,  somewhat, 
vaguely,  am<TTov(n)s  ipvxys  nvrjfieiov  karyKvia 
<rrr,\rj  a\os,  ‘ a standing  pillar  of  salt  is  a mo- 
nument of  an  unbelieving  soul.’  This  was  no 
doubt  the  authority  relied  upon  : indeed,  we  find 
it  expressly  quoted  by  some  old  travellers  as  the 
ground  of  their  expectation.  But  the  testimony  of 
Josephus  is  still  more  explicit,  and  with  us  would 
oe  quite  as  authoritative.  He  expressly  says  not 
inly  that  the  monument  existed,  but  that  he  had 
seen  it  ( Antiq . i.  11.  4).  His  contemporary,  Cle- 
ment of  Rome,  makes  a similar  statement  ( Epist . 
i.  § 11)  ; and  so,  in  the  next  century,  does  Irenseus 
(iv.  51,  64).  But  their  evidence  is  of  little  ori- 
ginal value  on  a point  like  this.  Josephus  and 
the  author  of  Wisdom  no  doubt  believed  what 
they  stated  : and  their  testimony  amounts  to  this, 
that  in  their  day  an  object  existed  which  was  said 
to  be  the  pillar  into  which  Lot's  wife  was  turned, 
and  which  they  believed  to  be  such.  But  in  the 
piesent  day,  when  the  sources  of  historical  evi- 
lence  are  more  carefully  investigated  than  in 
former  times,  we  regard  these  authorities,  2000 
years  after  the  event,  as  having  no  particular 
weight,  unless  so  far  as  they  may  be  supported  by 
anterior  probabilities  and  documents,  which  in 
this  case  do  not  exist.  Further,  it  is  all  but  im- 
possible that  if  so  strange  a monument  had  existed 
imi  the  borders  of  the  Dead  Sea,  it  should  not 
have  been  noticed  by  the  sacred  historians,  and 
alluded  to  by  the  poets:  and  we  may  be  almost 
certain  that  if  it  had  remained  when  the  hook  of 
Genesis  was  written,  the  frequent  formula,  that  it 
was  there  ‘ unto  ihis  day,’  would  not  have  been 
omitted.  Indeed  there  is  every  probability  that, 
if  such  a monument  had  then  existed,  the  Ca- 
naanites  would  have  made  it  one  of  their  idols. 
The  expression  of  our  Lord,  ‘ Remember  Lot's 
wife’  (Luke  xvii.  32),  appears  from  ihe  context 
to  be  solely  intended  as  an  illustration  of  the 
danger  of  going  back  or  delaying  in  the  day  of 
God’s  judgments.  From  this  text,  indeed,  it  would 
appear  as  if  Lot's  wife  had  gone  back,  or  had  tar- 
ried so  long  behind,  in  the  desire  of  saving  some 
of  their  property.  Then,  as  it  would  seem,  she  was 
struck  dead,  and  became  a stiffened  corpse,  fixed 
for  the  time  to  the  soil  by  saline  or  bituminous 
incrustations.  The  particle  of  similitude  must 
here,  as  in  many  other  passages  of  Scripture,  be 
understood — 11  like  a pillar  of  salt.’ 

With  respect  to  Lot’s  daughters,  Whiston  and 
others  are  unable  to  see  any  wicked  intention  in 
them.  lie  admits  that  the  incest  was  a horrid 
crime,  except  under  the  unavoidable  necessity 
which  apparently  rendered  it  the  only  means  of 


preserving  the  human  race  : and  this  justifying 
necessity  he  holds  to  have  existed  in  their  minds, 
as  they  appear  to  have  believed  that  all  the  inha- 
bitants of  the  land  had  been  destroyed  except 
their  father  and  themselves.  But.  it  is  incredible 
that  they  could  have  entertained  any  such  belief. 
The  city  of  Zoar  had  been  spared,  and  they  had 
been  there.  The  wine  also  with  which  they  made 
their  father  drunk  must  have  been  procured  from 
men,  as  we  cannot  suppose  they  had  brought  it 
with  them  from  Sodom.  The  fact  would  there- 
fore seem  to  be  that,  after  the  fate  of  their  sisters, 
who  had  married  men  of  Sodom  and  perished 
with  them,  they  became  alive  to  the  danger  and 
impropriety  of  marrying  with  the  natives  of  the 
laud,  and  of  the  importance  of  preserving  the 
family  connection.  The  force  of  this  consideration 
was  afterwards  seen  in  Abraham's  sending  to  the 
seat  of  his  family  iti  Mesopotamia  for  a wife  to 
Isaac.  But  Lot's  daughters  could  not  go  there 
to  seek  husbands;  and  the  only  branch  of  their 
own  family  within  many  hundred  miles  was  that 
of  Abraham,  whose  only  son,  Ishmael,  was  then  a 
child.  This,  therefore,  must  have  appeared  to 
them  the  only  practicable  mode  in  which  the 
house  of  their  father  could  be  preserved.  Their 
making  their  father  drunk,  and  their  solicitous 
concealment  of  what  they  did  from  him,  show 
that  they  despaired  of  persuading  him  to  an  act 
which,  under  any  circumstances,  and  with  every 
possible  extenuation,  must  have  been  very  dis- 
tressing to  so  good  a man.  That  he  was  a good 
man  is  evinced  by  his  deliverance  from  among 
the  guilty,  and  is  affirmed  by  St.  Peter  (2  Pet. 
ii.  7);  his  preservation  is  alluded  to  by  our  Sa- 
viour (Luke  xvii.  18,  &c.) ; and  in  Deut.  ii.  9, 
19,  and  Ps.  lxxxiii.  9,  his  name  is  used  to  de- 
signate the  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  his  de 
sceudants. 

LOT  (t^6,  sometimes  written  Ei1?)  is  men- 
tioned in  two  passages  of  Scripture,  in  both  of 
which  it  is  erroneously  translated  myrrh  in  the 
Authorized  Version.  In  Gen.  xxxvii.  25,  ‘ Behold, 
a company  of  Ishmeelites  came  from  Gilead  with 
their  camels  bearing  spicery  ( nccoth ),  and  balm 
{tzeri),  and  myrrh  ( lot ),  going  to  carry  it  down 
to  Egypt./  Again,  in  ch.  xliii.  1 1,  Jacob  directs 
his  sons  to  take  into  Egypt  1 of  the  best  fruits  in 
the  land  in  your  vessels,  and  carry  down  the  man 
a present,  a little  balm  ( tzeri ),  and  a little  honey, 
spices  ( necoth ),  and  myrrh  {lot),  nuts  ( botnim ), 
and  almonds  {shaJcadim).  In  this  enumeration, 
in  one  case,  of  merchandise,  and  in  the  other,  of 
several  articles  intended  for  a present,  and  both 
destined  for  Egypt,  at  that  time  a highly  civilized 
nation,  it  is  evident  that,  we  are  to  look  only  for 
such  lubstances  as  were  likely  to  he  acceptable 
in  that  country,  and  therefore  not  such  as  were 
produced  there,  or  as  were  more  easily  procuraU  i 
from  elsewhere  than  from  Syria,  as  was  the  case 
with  myrrh,  which  was  never  produced,  in  Syria, 
and  could  not  have  been  an  article  of  export  from 
thence.  This  difficulty  has  been  felt  by  others, 
and  various  translations  of  lot  have  been  pro- 
posed, as  lotus,  chesnuts,  mastiche,  stacte,  balsam, 
turpentine,  pistachio  nuts.  Junius  and  Tre- 
mellius  render  it  ladanum,  which  is  suitable., 
and  appears  to  be  correct. 

Ladanum,  or  yum  ladanum,  as  it  is  oftea 
called,  was  known  to  the  Greeks  as  early  as  the 


LOT. 


LOVE. 


times  of  Herodotus  and  Theophrastus,  and  bore 
the  names  of  ledon  and  ladanon,  which  are 
very  closely  allied  to  ladun , the  Arabic  name  of 
the  same  drug.  It  has  been  well  observed  by 


Rosenmiiller  that  the  proper  root  and  origin 
of  these  names  is  led , but  that  the  Hebrew  has 
the  hard  consonant  t instead  of  the  softer  d,  of 
which  letters  many  permutations  are  to  be  found 
in  these,  as  weJl  as  in  other  languages.  A He- 
brew author,  as  quoted  by  Celsius  ( Hierobot . i.  p. 
28l),  says,  ‘ Est  aroma,  ex  succo  arboris  cujusdam 
proveuiens.1  Ladanum  is  described  by  Herodotus 
us  particularly  fragrant,  though  gathered  from 
the  beards  of  goafs,  where  it  is  found  sticking. 
This  is  explained  by  referring  to  the  description  of 
Dioscorides,  from  which  we  learn  that  goats,  after 
browsing  upon  the  leaves  of  the  ladanum  plants, 
necessarily  have  this  viscid  substance  adhering  to 
their  hair  and  beards,  whence  it  is  afterwards 
scraped  off.  Tournefort,  in  modern  times,  has 
given  a detailed  description  of  the  mode  of  ob- 
taining ladanum , and  relates  that  it  is  now  ga- 
thered by  means  of  a kind  of  rake  with  whip-like 
thongs,  which  is  passed  over  the  plants.  When 
these  thongs  are  loaded  with  the  odoriferous  and 
sticky  resin,  they  are  scraped  with  a knife, 
and  the  substance  rolled  into  a mass,  in  which 
state  it  is  called  ladanum  or  labdanum.  It  con- 
sists of  resin  and  volatile  oil,  and  is  highly  fra- 
grant, and  stimulant  as  a medicine,  but  is  often 
adulterated  with  sand  in  commerce.  The  lada- 
num  which  is  used  iri  Europe  is  collected  chiefly 
in  the  Greek  isles,  and  also  in  continental  Greece. 
It;  is  yielded  by  species  of  the  genus  Cistus  (espe- 
cially by  C.  creticus ),  which  are  known  in  this 
country  by  the  name  of  ltock  Rose.  They  are 
natives  of  the  south  of  Europe,  the  Mediterranean 
islands,  and  the  north  of  Africa.  Species  are  also 
found  in  Judaea;  and  C.  creticus  in  some  parts 
of  Syria.  Some  authors  have  been  of  opinion 
that  one  species,  the  Cistus  roseus , is  more  likely 
than  any  other  to  be  the  Rose  of  Sharon,  as  it 
is  very  common  in  that  locality,  while  nothing 
like  a true  rose  is  to  be  found  there.  Ladanum 
seems  to  have  been  produced  in  Judaea,  according 
to  writers  in  the  Talmud  (Cels.  1.  c.  p.  286). 

VOL.  II  -i  q 


W* 

It  is  said  by  Pliny,  as  long  before  by  Herodotus, 
to  be  a produce  of  Arabia,  though  this  has  not 
been  proved  to  be  the  case  in  modern  times. 
Sufficient,  however,  has  been  adduced  to  show 
that  ladanum  was  known  to,  and  esteemed  by, 
the  ancients,  and  as  its  Greek  and  Arabic  names 
are  similar  to  the  Hebrew,  and  as  it  is  stated  to 
have  been  a produce  of  Syria,  it  was  very  likely 
to  have  been  sent  to  Egypt  both  as  a present  and 
as  merchandise. — J.  F.  R. 

LOTS,  FEAST  OF.  [Purim.] 

LOVE  may  be  regarded  either  as  the  interna* 
feeling  of  good  will  and  kindness  which  one  in- 
telligent being  bears  to  another,  or  the  expression 
of  that  benevolence  in  words  and  acts  which 
gratify  and  benefit  another;  but  in  its  full  and 
proper  sense,  love  is  the  union  of  these  two — of  the 
internal  emotion  with  the  outward  act : whence 
it  appears  that  neither  doing  good  nor  wishing 
good  to  another  can  in  strict  propriety  be  deno- 
minated love.  The  definition  also  shows  that 
love  is  restricted  to  intelligent  beings,  takes  place 
only  between  persons,  and  cannot  be  predicated 
of  things,  being  used  in  a merely  derivative  and 
secondary  sense  whenever  we  speak  of  loving 
aught  but  rational  beings.  It  also  appears  that 
the  emotion  implies  two  intelligent  existences; 
indeed,  reciprocity  seems  an  almost  essential  ele- 
ment in  the  idea  of  love.  Certainly  all  durable 
love  is  mutual ; and  if  love  implies  two,  then, 
prior  to  creation,  God,  however  good  he  might 
be,  could  hardly  be  said  to  love;  so  that  love  is 
a consequence  of  creation,  a result  of  the  rela- 
tions in  which  God  was  pleased  to  place  himself 
in  regard  to  man ; and  since  these  relations  are 
best  declared,  if  they  are  not  exclusively  made 
known,  by  the  sacred  Scriptures,  love  is  a doctrine- 
which  takes  its  source  in  revelation,  where  indeed^ 
considered  as  existing  between  God  and  man,.  it- 
finds  at  once  its  highest  sanctions  and  best  sup- 
ports. But  if  love,  as  between  God  and  man,  hap 
its  origin  and  its  sustentation  in  Scripture,,  then, 
without  revelation,  this  love  could  not  axisfy. 
though  it.  may  be  allowed  that  a certain  evanes- 
cent fluttering  of  the  heart  on  the  thought,  of  God 
might  be  excited  by  the  survey  of  the  majesty 
of  creation  and  the  bounty  of  the  seasons.  All 
pantheistic  notions  must  lie  hostile  to  the  forma-, 
tion  and  existence  of  love  in  man’s  breast — all 
mere  recognition  of  God  as  the  first  cause. of  life; 
and  whatever  tends  to  bring  God  before  the  mind 
in  a personal  character,  especially  as  the  moral 
governor  of  the  world,  must  powerfully  conduce 
to  make  the  human  heart  love  its  Creator;  for  in 
love  between  human  beings  it  is  the  personal 
and  moral  ^lenient  which  exerts  the  strongest,  the 
most  lasting,  and  the  most  worthy  influence. 
Now  it  is  in  a personal  character,  it  is  as  a moral . 
governor,  it  is  as  a Judge  as  well  as  a Maker,  a 
Guide  as  well  as  a Ruler,  above  all  as  a Father 
and  a Redeemer,  that  the  Scriptures,  from  first  to 
last,  with  some  variations  indeed,  hut  with  a 
unity  of  plan,  set  forth  God  for  our  minds  to 
apprehend  and  our  hearts  to  love;  thus  perform- 
ing a most  important  office  indhe  spiritual  edu- 
cation of  the  human  race,  and  presenting  a dis- 
tinction, as  between  this  view  and  the  view  of 
God  taken  by  schools  of  philosophy,  or  the  bare 
decisions  of  the  human  intellect,  which  is 
honourable  to  revelation  as . it  is  momentous  !/& 
moJCL 


274 


LOVE. 


LOVE. 


From  the  rect  or)  of  love,  in  which  God  in  Ins 
word  has  condescended  to  place  himself  in  regard 
to  man,  flow  all  human  duties,  hopes,  and  ex- 
pectations, which,  if  they  he  logically  deduced 
from  the  mother  idea,  must  he  no  less  true  than 
Scriptural,  because  necessary  inferences  from  the 
fundamental  conception  of  God  which  revelation 
presents.  Thus,  ‘we  love  God  because  lie  first 
loved  us;’  ‘if  God  hath  so  loved  us,  how  ought 
we  to  love  one  another ;’  ‘ he  that  loveth  is  born 
of  God;’  ‘if  a man  say  that  he  love  God,  and 
hate  his  brother,  the  truth  is  not  in  him  ‘ if  we 
love  one  another  his  love  is  perfected  in  us 
4 whoso  keepeth  his  word,  in  him  is  the  love  of 
God  perfected  : hereby  we  know  that  we  are  in 
him  ;’  ‘ behold  what  manner  of  love  the  Father 
hath  bestowed  on  us,  that  we  should  he  called  the 
sons  of  God;’  ‘now  are  we  sons  of  God,  and  it 
sloth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be,  but  we 
know  that  when  Christ  shall  appear  we  shall  be 
like  him,  for  we  shall  see  him  as  lie  is  — thus, 
and  in  more  minute  particulars,  does  the  Apostle 
John,  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  develope 
the  doctrine  according  to  godliness,  from  the  grand 
idea  of  the  love  of  God,  which  tilled  his  mind  and 
warmed  his  heart,  with  a dialectic  rigour  which  is 
no  less  remarkable  than  the  gentle  and  affec- 
tionate tone  that  pervades  the  whole.  How  truly 
■and  how  fully  John  comprehended  the  root-idea 
•of  the  Bible  may  be  seen  in  his  aphorism,  ‘ God 
h love’  (1  John  iv.  16):  thus  making  love  not 
jin  attribute  of  God,  nor  a mode  of  the  divine 
existence,  nor  a display  of  his  providence  to  man, 
but  the  very  essence  of  his  nature — the  depth 
which  enfolded  all  other  depths,  giving  its  own 
warm  colouring  to  each. 

The  New  Testament  speaks  in  its  great  bear- 
ings of  the  love  of  God  towards  Christ  and 
towards  man.  The  Sou  of  God,  as  the  most  per- 
fect. image  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  is  represented 
as  the  special  object  of  the  divine  love  ; as  a con- 
sequence of  which  affection  God  communicates 
■to  Christ  all  spiritual  gifts  needful  for  the  re- 
demption of  mankind  : * The  Father  loveth  the 
Son,  and  showeth  him  all  things  whatsoever  he 
doeth  ’ (John  v.  20)  ; ‘ therefore  doth  my  Father 
love  me,  because  I lay  down  my  life  that  I might 
take  it  again’  (John  x.  17);  ‘for  thou  lovedst 
me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ’ (John  xvii. 
21),  ‘God  so  loved  the  world,  that  lie  gave  «is 
.only- begotten  Son,  that  whoever  believeth  in  him 
•should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life’  (John 
iii.  16).  And  so,  ‘ He  that  spared  not  his  only 
Son,  but  freely  gave  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall 
he  not  with  him  also  freely  give  us  all  things?’ 
(Horn.  viii.  32):  accordingly  ‘ the  love  of  God 
is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  is  given  unto  us’  (Rom.  v.  5;  see  the 
following  verses).  The  following  passages  will 
aid  the  reader  in  pursuing  this  interesting  subject 
into  its  Scriptural  particulars,  which  want  of 
space  compels  us  to  be  content  with  pointing 
out; — namely,  Rom.  viii.  35;  2 Cor.  xiii.  11; 
Eph.  ii.  4;  2 Thess.  iii.  5 ; 1 John  iv. ; 1 Tim. 
i.  1,  2,  4 ; Ti;.  ii.  10;  John  xiii.  35;  comp.  xv. 
17  ; Mark  xii.  30. 

Love  to  Christ  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  a 
natural  consequeuce  of  C hrist's  love  to  man,  and 
as  a necessary  concomitant  of  the  love  of  God,  with 
which  it  is  kindred  in  nature,  causes,  operation, 
«nd  effects.  This  holy  affection  manifests  itself 


not.  in  i'dle  reveries  nor  warm  piotesfation>,but  in 
meek  and  lowly  obedience  to  Jesus  as  the  medi- 
ator between  God  and  man;  and  has  for  its 
highest  reward  the  love  which  God  displays  to- 
wards all  those  who  honour  his  son:  which  love, 
springing  from  God,  fills  and  sanctities  the  heart 
of  man  (John  viii.  40  ; xiv.  15,  21,  23,  28  ; xvi. 
27). 

Love  to  man  ensues  from  the  universal  love 
of  God,  as  the  one  Creator  and  Father  of  all 
men,  who,  in  consequent  stand  in  the  relation 
of  brothers  one  to  another,  and  are,  whatever 
earthly  differences  or  even  antipathies  they  may 
allow,  still,  in  the  sight  of  God  and  of  his  Son, 
neighbours;  and  as  brothers  ami  neigh  hours  they 
have  a claim  on  each  other  for  mutual  service — 
a claim  which  has  its  roots  and  sanctions  in  reli- 
gion, or  rather  in  the  Gospel,  considered  as  the 
completion  of  former  dispensations.  The  measuit 
and  test,  of  love  to  others  is  the  love  we  each  bear 
to  self  no  less  than  the  higher  and  perfect  model 
which  Jesus  has  given  in  his  own  life  and  death 
(Matt.  xxii.  39;  Mark  xii.  31;  John  xv.  12; 
comp.  xiii.  15;  l Peter  ii.  21;  1 John  ii.  6). 
This  general  good-will  and  active  beneficence 
may  he  enhanced  and  invigorated  by  those  nearer 
relations  which  take  place  between  kindred  minds, 
men  of  ‘like  precious  faith,’  whose  hearts  and 
aims  are  one,  and  who  have  alike  received  the 
gracious  and  all-prevailing  influences  of  God’s 
spiiit;  so  that  Christianity  not  only  places  man- 
kind in  immediate  connection  with  God,  and 
thas  renders  all  equal  and  all  worthy  of  each 
other's  love,  but  creates  a new,  peculiar,  and  very 
intimate  relation,  making  all  true  disciples  one 
with  each  other,  and  with  the  great  head  of  the 
church,  and  thus  one,  ultimately,  with  God 
(John  xiii.  34,  35;  xv.  12;  Rom.  xiii.  8,  10; 
1 Cor.  xiii.).  And  it  is  this  specific  Christian 
affection — the  love  of  man  as  a brother,  purified 
and  enlarged  by  the  consciousness  of  being  an 
object  of  divine  mercy  and  goodness,  so  as  to 
become  a properly  Christian  emotion — ivhich  is 
to  actuate  the  disciples  of  Christ,  in  their  bene- 
volent efforts  for  the  good  of  others,  and  speci- 
ally for  their  rescue  from  the  evil  that  is  in  the 
world  that  bringeth  death  (2  Cor.  v.  14,  19,  20, 
21 ; Acts  xx.  24). 

This  imperfect  and  incomplete  sketch  may 
serve  to  show  how  incomparably  superior  the 
view  is  which  the  Scriptures  give  of  the  relation 
in  which  God  stands  to  man  and  in  which  men 
stand  to  each  other,  to  any  view  whatever  that 
rests  upon  a mere  earthly  foundation  ; and  conse- 
quently how  much  of  the  highest  spiritual  good 
they  lose  who  take  as  their  guide  philosophy  in- 
stead of  the  Gospel. 

Perhaps  there  are  few  biblical  topics  of  con- 
templation more  fitted  than  the  one  before  us  to 
excite  in  the  mind  a just  and  therefore  a very 
high  estimate  of  the  value  of  revealed  religion  in 
contrast  with  the  view  which  the  highest  of 
heathen  civilization  put  forth  on  the  point.  The 
reader  has  seen  what  in  a measure  love  implies 
in  the  Bible.  VVliat  does  the  corresponding  term 
designate  in  Greek  and  Roman  writers?  This  is 
not  the  place  to  pursue  the  inquiry  ; we  must 
content  ourselves  with  having  pointed  to  it ; but 
we  may  add,  as  the  result  of  some  classical  read- 
ing, that  the  view  given  by  classic  civilization 
presents  a succession  of  disparities  so  decided  at 


LUCIFER. 


LUKE. 


to  suffice  of  itself  to  satisfy  the  unprejudiced 
mind  that  something  more  than  human  was  con- 
cerned in  the  promulgation  ot  Judaism  and 
Christianity  — J.  R.  B. 

LOVE  FEASTS.  [Agape.] 

LUBIM,  the  Libyans.  [Libya.] 

LUCIFER  Sept.  6 'Ew<r</>dpos),  a word 

that  occurs  once  in  the  English  Version  in  the 
lines — 

k How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven, 

Lucifer , son  of  the  morning  ! 

IIow  art  thou  felled  to  the  ground, 

That,  didst  weaken  the  nations!’ 

(Isa.  xiv.  12).  It  is  taken  from  the  Vulgate, 
which  understood  the  Hebrew  word  helel 

to  be  the  name  of  (he  morning  star,  and  therefore 
rendered  it  try  the  Latin  name  of  that  star.  Lu- 
cifer, i.  e.  ‘ light-bringing.’  This,  the  popular 
sense,  is  conveyed  in  the  note  in  Barker's  Bible: 
‘Thou  that  thoughtest  thyselfe  most  glorious,  and 
as  it  were  placed  in  the  heaven : for  the  morning 
starre  that  goeth  before  the  sunne  is  called  Lucifer, 
to  which  Nebuchadnezzar  is  compared.’ 

held , the  word  translated  ‘ Lucifer,’  how- 
ever, occurs  also  in  Ezek.  xxi.  12  (Heb.  17),  as 

the  imperative  of  yalal,  ‘ to  howl,’  ‘ to  lament,’ 
and  is  there  rendered  ‘ howl.’  Some  take  it  in 
the  same  acceptation  in  the  above  passage,  and 
would  translate,  ‘ Howl,  son  of  the  morning  !’ 
But  to  this  the  structure  of  the  verse  is  entirely 
opposed  ; for  the  parallelism  requires  the  second 
line  to  refer  entirely  to  the  condition  of  the  star 
before  it  had  fallen,  as  the  parallel  member,  the 
fourth  line,  does  to  the  state  of  the  tree  before  it 
was  cut  down.  This  necessity  is  apparent  even 
in  the  English  version,  where  the  word  ‘ lament,’ 
in  the  place  which  ‘ Lucifer’  occupies,  would  not 
agree  with  the  context,  nor  make  good  sense,  or 
indeed,  any  sense.  Any  imperative  interjected 
would  spoil  the  beauty  and  impair  the  force  of  the 
language.  It  is  from  this  consideration  that  we 
must  concur  with  those  who  refer  tire  source  of 

the  word  not  to  yalal , but  to  halal,  ‘ to 

shine,’  and  regard  it.  as  a verbal  noun  designed  to 
be  intensive  in  its  signification.  Hence  it  would 
mean  ‘ brilliant,’  * splendid,’  ‘ illustrious,’  or,  as 
in  the  Septuagint,  Vulgate,  the  Rabbinical  com- 
mentators, Luther,  and  others,4  brilliant  star;’  and 

if  ^Vf,  in  this  sense,  was  the  proper  name  among 
the  Hebrews  of  the  morning  star,  then  ‘ Lucifer’ 
is  not  only  a correct  but  beautiful  interpretation, 
both  as  regards  the  sense  and  the  application. 
And  that  it  was  such  is  probable  from  the  fact 
that  the  proper  name  of  the  morning  star  is 
formed  by  a word  or  words  expressive  of  bril- 
liance, in  the  Arabic  and  Syriac,  as  well  as  in 
the  Greek  and  Latin.  Tertullian  and  Gregory 
the  Great  understood  this  passage  of  Isaiah  in 
reference  to  the  fall  of  Satan  ; in  consequence 
of  which  the  name  Lucifer  has  since  been  ap- 
plied to  Satan  -,  and  this  is  now  the  usual  accepta- 
tion of  the  word.  But  Dr.  Henderson,  who  in 
his  Isaiah  renders  the  line,  ‘ Illustrious  son  of 
the  morning !’  justly  remarks  in  his  annotation: 
‘ The  application  of  this  passage  to  Satan,  and  to 
the  fall  of  the  apostate  angels,  is  one  of  those 
gross  perversions  of  Sacred  Writ  which  so  exten- 


275 

sively  obtain,  and  which  are  to  be  traced  to  a 
proneuess  to  seek  for  more  in  any  given  passag* 
than  it  really  contains,  a disposition  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  sound  rather  than  sense,  and  an  im- 
plicit. faith  in  received  interpretations.  “ Quum,” 
says  Calvin,  “ temere  arripiuntur  Scripturse  loci, 
nec  attcnditur  contextus,  hos  errores  passim  obo- 
riri  mirum  non  est”’  ( Comment . in  loc.J.  The 
scope  and  connection  show  that  none  but  the  king 
of  Babylon  is  meant.  In  the  figurative  language 
ot'  the  Hebrews  3D*D,  a star , signifies  an  illus- 
trious king  or  prince  (Num.  xxiv.  17  ; comp. 
Rev.  ii.  28  : xxii.  16).  The  monarch  here  referred 
to  having  surpassed  all  other  kings  in  royal 
splendour,  is  compared  to  the  harbinger  of  day, 
whose  brilliancy  surpasses  that  of  the  surrounding 
stars.  Falling  from  heaven  denotes  a sudden 
political  overthrow — a removal  from  the  position 
of  high  and  conspicuous  dignity  formerly  occu- 
pied (comp.  Rev.  vi.  13  ; viii.  10). 

LUCIUS  of  Cyrene  (A ovkios  6 Kvpyvaios),  a 
person  named  along  with  Barnabas,  Saul,  and 
others,  as  ‘ prophets  and  teachers  ’ in  the  church 
at  Antioch  (Acts  xiii.  1).  Lucius  was  probably 
one  of  ‘ the  synagogue  of  the  Cyrenians,’  and  was 
without  doubt  one  of  the  men  of  Cyrene,  who 
went  abroad  in  consequence  of  the  persecution 
raised  on  the  death  of  Stephen  (Acts  vi.  9 ; xi. 
20).  Some  suppose  that  he  was  one  of  the  seventy 
disciples;  and  the  tradition  is,  that  he  was  eventu- 
ally bishop  of  Cyrene.  This  is  probably  the 
same  Lucius  who  is  mentioned  in  Rom.  xvi.  21 
as  Paul  s kinsman ; and  he  has  been  supposed  by 
some  the  same  with  Luke  the  Evangelist. 

LUD,  fourth  son  of  Shem  (Gen.  x.  22).  For 
his  descendants,  see  Nations,  Dispersion  of. 

LUDIM,  the  descendants  of  (Gen.  x.  13),  con- 
cerning whom  see  Nations,  Dispersion  of. 

LUKE.  We  divide  this  article  into  the  three 
following  heads — Najie,  Person,  Writings 
of  Luke. 

The  name  A ovKas  is  a cont  raction  of  Aovnavds, 
Lueanus , and  indicates  that  Luke  was  descended 
from  heathen  ancestors,  and  that  he  was  either  a 
slave  or  a freedman,  liberties.  The  contraction 
of  the  final  syllable  av6s  into  as  occurs  repeat- 
edly in  names  given  to  slaves  (comp.  Lobeck,  De 
Substuntivis  in  as  exeuntibus,  in  Wolf’s  Ana- 
lecten,  iii.  49).  According  to  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition, the  author  of  the  Gospel  is  the  same  Luke 
who  is  mentioned  in  Paul’s  Epistles  (Philem.  24  ; 
2Tim.iv.  11;  Coloss.  iv.  14),  and  who  is  called, 
in  the  last-mentioned  passage,  6 larpos,  ‘ the  phy- 
sician.’ This  tradition  is  confirmed  by  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  according  to  which  the  author  of 
that  work  accompanied  the  Apostle  Paul  in  his 
journeys  (Acts  xvi.  10,  sq. ; xx.  5-13).  Luke 
accompanied  Paul  also  in  his  last  journeys  to 
Jerusalem  and  Rome  (Acts  xxi.  1-17  ; xxvii.  28). 
In  addition  to  this  we  may  observe  that  the 
account  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  in  1 Cor.  xi.  24,  and 
the  quotation  in  1 Tim.  v.  18,  agree  more  with 
Luke  than  with  Matt.  x.  10,  where  we  find  the 
word  rpoipri  instead  of  puoQ6s.  The  profession  of 
a physician  harmonises  also  with  the  condition  of 
a freedman,  indicated  by  the  form  of  the  name. 
The  higher  ranks  of  the  Romans  were  disinclined 
to  practise  medicine,  which  they  left  rather  to 
their  freedmen,  ‘ Medicinam  factitasse,  manu- 
missum’  (Quinctil.  Instit.  vii.  2.  27);  ‘ Mitt« 
prseterea  cum  eo  ex  fervis  meis  medicum  &c. 


276  LUKE. 

* Besides,  I send  with  him  a physician  from 
among  my  servants’  (Snet.  Cal.  8).  It  har- 
monises with  this  that  Paul  (Coloss.  iv.  14)  dis- 
tinguishes Luke  from  the  Christians  of  Jewish 
descent,  whom,  in  verses  II  and  12,  he  styles 
6vtcs  in  TrepiTOfj.r)s,  ‘ being  of  the  Circumcision.’ 
Eusebius  ( Rtst . Eccles.  iii.  4)  states  that  An- 
tioch in  Syria  was  the  native  city  of  Luke.  In 
this  city  there  was  at  an  early  period  a congre- 
gation of  Christians  converted  from  heathenism. 
Since  Luke  was  a physician,  we  must  suppose  that 
he  was  a man  of  education.  Only  such  slaves  as 
had  some  talent  were  taught  the  artes  ingenuee , 

* liberal  arts/  The  freedman  Antonius  Musa  hav- 
ing worked  a cure  upon  Augustus,  was  raised  to 
the  equestrian  order,  and  a statue  was  erected  in 
honour  of  him  in  the  temple  of  ^Esculapius. 
From  the  time  of  Antoninus  Pius,  and  perhaps 
earlier,  there  was  in  every  city  a collegium  archia - 
trorwn,  ‘ a college  of  physicians,’  to  whom  was 
entrusted  the  examination  of  medical  men,  and 
who  probably  required  of  them  some  knowledge  of 
the  writings  of  Hippocrates  (Galenus,  De  Theriac. 
ad  Pisonem , p.  456 ; Digest,  i.  tit.  1 8 ; De  Offic. 
Pr&s.,  vi.  7 ; Digest.  1.  tit.  4). 

To  those  sceptics  who  excuse  their  disbelief  of 
the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  by  the  as- 
sertion that  their  authors  were  ill-informed  Jews, 
greedy  of  the  marvellous,  it  must  appear  of 
some  importance  to  meet  in  Luke  a well-informed 
Greek,  skilled  even  in  the  medical  sciences.  The 
higher  degree  of  his  education  is  further  proved  by 
■he  classical  style  in  which  the  prooemium  to  his 
Gospel,  and  the  latter  portion  of  the  Acts,  are 
written ; and  also  by  the  explicit  and  learned  de- 
tails which  he  gives  in  the  Acts  on  various  anti- 
quarian,historical,  and  geographical  subjects.  The 
classical,  connected,  periodic,  and  sustained  style 
of  the  introduction  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke 
differs  so  strikingly  from  the  Hellenistic  Greek  of 
the  history  itself,  that  we  clearly  perceive  that  he 
made  use  of  written  documents.  The  same  differ- 
ence exists,  although  in  a less  striking  degree, 
between  the  portions  of  the  Acts  relating  to  trans- 
actions of  which  Luke  himself  was  not  an  eye- 
witness, and  in  which  he  bore  no  part,  and  those 
where  he  speaks  as  a companion  of  Paul.  He 
did  not,  however,  transcribe  verbatim  from  the 
documents  before  him,  nor  did  he  merely  write 
down  verbal  traditions ; for  we  find  the  same 
characteristic  phraseology  which  belongs  to  St. 
Luke’s  individual  style,  both  in  the  Gospel  and 
in  the  Acts.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  peculiar 
use  of  the  words  noil  avros,  Luke  i.  17,  22;  ii. 
28,  50;  iii.  23;  iv.  15,  51;  Acts  ii-  27 ; v 1, 
9,  51,  &c. — IkcivSs,  Luke  vii.  12;  viii.  27,  32; 
xx.  9;  Acts  v.  37  ; ix.  23,  43;  xi.  24,  &c. — 
irons  Oeov,  Luke  i.  54,  69;  Acts  iii.  13,  16;  iv. 
25,  27,  30,  &c. 

It  is  important  to  notice  what  he  himself  says, 
in  his  introduction,  of  the  relation  borne  by  his 
writings  to  those  of  others.  It  is  evident  that 
even  then  ttoAAo'i,  ‘many,’  had  attempted  to  com- 
pose a history  of  our  Lord  from  the  statements  of 
eye-witnesses  and  of  the  first  ministers  of  the  word 
of  God.  Luke  follows  the  example  of  these  au- 
thors, with  this  rtfxference,  that  he  writes  avcoQtv 
and  KaOe^T/s ; that  is,  starling  from  earlier  facts 
in  the  history  of  the  Baptist  and  of  the  infancy  of 
our  Lord,  and  continuing  the  narration  in  un- 
inter  *upted  succession.  Origen,  Credner,  and 


LUK  r. 

Olshausen  suppose  that  ihe  were  heretical 

authors;  but  this  is  unlikely,  since  Luke  does 
not  express  any  blame  of  them.  But  it  is  also 
unsatisfactory  to  refer  the  word  ttoWoi.  ‘ many,’ 
merely  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  as  Hug  and 
De  Wette  have  done,  especially  since  the  iroAAot 
are  distinguished  from  the  eye-witnesses.  We 
must  therefore  suppose  that  many  Christians 
wrote  brief  accounts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  although 
they  had  not  been  eye-witnesses.  It  is  possible 
that  Luke  made  use  of  such  writings 

It  appears  to  be  doubtful  whether  Luke  had  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  before  his  eyes,  since,  had 
that  been  the  case,  he  would  probably  have  been 
more  careful  to  avoid  apparent  contradictions,, 
especially  in  the  history  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  in 
which  he  seems  to  have  made  use  of  documents 
referring  to  the  family  of  Mary,  while  the  ac- 
counts given  by  Matthew  refer  more  to  the  family 
of  Joseph.  This  is  also  confirmed  by  the  apho- 
ristic mode  in  which  he  reports  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  We  can  scarcely  imagine  that,  he  would 
have  communicated  a relation  so  unusually  ab- 
rupt, if  he  had  seen  the  well-arranged  and  com- 
plete statements  of  Matthew. 

The  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  contains  exceedingly 
valuable  accounts,  not  extant  in  the  books  of  the 
other  evangelists ; for  instance,  those  concerning 
the  childhood  of  Jesus,  the  admirable  parables  in 
chapters  xv.  and  xvi.,  the  narration  respecting 
the  disciples  at  Emtnaus,  the  section  from  chap, 
ix.  51  to  xix.  27,  which  contains  particulars 
mostly  wanting  in  the  other  evangelists.  It  has 
been  usual,  since  the  days  of  Schleiennacher,  to 
consider  this  portion  as  the  report  of  a single 
journey  to  the  feast  at  Jerusalem;  but  it  is  evident 
that  it  contains  accounts  belonging  to  several 
journeys,  undertaken  at  different  periods. 

Some  critics  of  modern  times,  such  as  D. Schulz, 
Schleiermacher,  Sieffert,  and  Schneckenburger, 
were  in  the  habit  of  ascribing  to  the  reports  of 
Luke  a greater  historical  accuracy  than  to  those 
of  Matthew  ; but  of  late,  opinions  on  this  subject 
have  changed,  and  Strauss,  De  Wette,  and  Bruno 
Bauer  find  in  the  reports  of  St.  Matthew  more  of 
independent  and  original  information  than  in 
those  of  Lqke.  There  is  certainly  in  the  details 
of  the  historical  account  given  by  St.  Luke,  more 
clearness  ; but.  maiiy  discourses  of  our  Redeemer 
given  by  St.  Matthew  liave  more  of  the  impress  of 
historical  precision,  especially  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and  the  Discourse  against  the  Pharisees 
in  ch.  xxiii.  and  xxiv. ; although  it  seems  that 
Matthew  sometimes  brings  into  connection  simi- 
lar discourses,  held  at  various  periods,  concerning 
which  we  find  in  Luke  more  accurately  stated 
the  particular  circumstances  under  which  they 
were  delivered. 

The  statement  of  Luke  himself,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  Gospel,  must  dispose  us  favourably 
with  regard  to  its  historical  credibility.  He 
states  that  he  had  accurately  investigated  the 
truth  of  the  accounts  communicated,  and  that, 
following  the  example  of  the  noWoi,  he  had  made 
use  of  the  statements  of  eye-witnesses.  Luke  had 
frequent  opportunity  of  meeting  these  eye- 
witnesses when  he  travelled  with  Paul.  He 
himself  reports,  in  Acts  xxi.  15,  that  he  met 
James.  He  gives  also,  with  greater  accuracy 
than  the  other  evangelists,  some  chronological 
notices,  such  as  those  at  the  beginning  of  chapters 


LUKE. 


LUKE. 


an 


ii.  and  Hi.,  and  in  Acts  vii.  35,  &c.  Yet  th^ge 
very  dates  have  been  quoted  by  Strauss  and  De 
Wette  as  being  quite  incorrect,  and  as  proofs  that 
Luke  was  destitute  of  accurate  historical  inform- 
ation. 

This  daring  assertion  has  induced  some  modern 
apologet.ical  authors  to  examine  (he  matter  more 
closely,  who  have  triumphantly  vindicated  the 
historical  character  of  these  statements  of  Luke. 
(Compare  the  work  of  the  learned  jurist,  Huschke, 
Ueber  den  zur  Zeil  der  Geburt  Christi gehaltenen 
Census,  Breslau,  1810,  ‘ On  the  Census  taken  at 
die  Birth  of  Christ ;’  see  also  Wieseler,  Chronolo- 
i/ische  Synopse  der  tier  Evangelien , Ham- 
burg, 1843;  and  also  Tholuck,  Glaubiciirdigkeit 
der  cvangelischcn  Geschichte). 

As  to  the  statements  of  the  ancients  concerning 
the  date  or  time  when  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke 
was  written,  we  lind  in  Irenaeus  (Ado.  Hcer. 
lii.  1),  that  Mark  and  Luke  wrote  after  Matthew. 
According  to  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  28), 
Origen  stated  that  Luke  wrote  after  Matthew 
and  Mark  ; but  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  accord- 
ing to  the  same  writer  (Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  14), 
asserted  on  the  authority  of  the  napaSoais  rwv 
ayeuadev  TrpeafivTepcoy,  ‘ the  tradition  of  the 
earlier  elders/  that  the  Gospels  containing  the 
genealogies  were  written  before  the  others.  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  Mark  was  written  after 
Luke.  It  is  however  likely  that,  this  statement 
arose  from  a desire  to  explain  why  the  genealogies 
were  omitted  by  Mark  and  John.  Eusebius,  at 
least  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  21),  in  reference  to  the 
Gospel  of  John,  says : EIkotus  8'ovv  tt)V  ge v tt)s 
japiebs  tov  (Turripos  ygc by  yeyeaAoyiay,  are 
tdarda'icp  /cat  AovicS.  irpoypaipeiaav,  airoauairria'ai. 
rby  ’Iwawrjr. — ‘ John  properly  passed  over  in 
silence  the  genealogy  according  to  the  flesh  of 
our  Saviour,  which  was  detailed  by  Matthew 
ind  Luke.’ 

' Since  the  extreme  criticism  of  Strauss  and  De 
Wette  has  been  unable  to  produce  even  a plau- 
sible argument  against  the  authenticity  of  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  attempts  have  been  made  to  prove 
at  least  the  very  late  date  of  this  Gospel.  De 
Wette  (Introduction  to  the  New  Testament , 4th 
edition,  p.  176)  endeavours  to  infer  from  the 
definiteness  with  which  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem is  predicted,  and  from  the  circumstance 
that,  according  to  ch.  xxi.  25,  some  time  was  to 
intervene  between  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  that  this  Gospel 
was  written  some  time  after  the  destruction  of  the 
city  had  taken  idace,  and  after  it  had  become 
apparent  from  facts  that  the  second  advent  was 
not  to  be  immediately  consequent  upon  that  de- 
ttruction. 

We  do  not  here  enter  into  the  question  whether, 
according  to  St.  Matthew  xxiv.  29,  it  was  ex- 
pected that  the  second  advent  should  directly 
follow  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ; we  merely 
observe  that,  a petitio  principii  runs  through  the 
whole  train  of  this  argument,  since  it  sets  out 
with  assuming  the  impossibility  of  detailed  pre- 
dictions. 

From  the  circumstance  that  the  book  of  Acts 
leaves  St  Paul  a captive,  without  relating  the 
result,  of  his  captivity,  most  critics  have,  with 
considerable  probability,  inferred  that  Luke 
accompanied  St.  Paul  to  Rome,  that  he  em- 
ployed his  leisure  while  there  in  composing  the 


Acts,  and  that  he  left  off  writing  before  the  fata 
of  Paul  was  decided.  Now,  since  the  Gospel  of 
St..  Luke  was  written  before  the  Acts,  it  seeum 
to  follow  that  it  was  written  a considerable  time 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  De  Wette 
meets  this  argument  merely  by  his  petitio  prin- 
cipii, that  from  the  detailed  nature  of  the  pre- 
dictions on  that  head  in  the  Gospel,  it  would 
follow  that  they  were  written  after  the  events  to 
which  they  refer,  and  consequently  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem. 

It  is  likely  that  Luke,  during  Paul’s  captivity 
at.  Caesarea,  employed  his  leisure  in  collecting  the 
accounts  contained  in  his  Gospel  in  the  localities 
where  the  events  to  which  they  relate  happened. 
The  most  ancient  testimonies  in  behalf  of  Luke’s 
Gospel  are  those  of  Marcion,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century,  and  of  Irenaeus,  in  the  latter 
half  of  that  century. 

According  to  Meyer's  opinion,  Luke  terminates 
the  Acts  witli  Paul's  captivity,  because  the  later 
events  were  well  known  to  Theophilus,  to  whom 
the  Acts  are  dedicated.  We  do  not  know  who 
this  Theophilus  was.  Hug,  however,  infers,  from 
the  manner  in  which  Luke  mentions  Italian  lo- 
calities, that,  they  were  well  known  to  Theophilus, 
and  that  consequently  it  was  likely  he  resided  in 
Italy. 

A good  separate  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  is  still  a desideratum.  Kuinoel’s  Com- 
mentarius  in  Evangelium  Luces  (4th  ed.  1843)  is 
not  quite  satisfactory  ; nor  Bornemann’s  Scholia  in 
Lucam  (1830).  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  have 
recourse  to  the  best  commentaries  on  the  first 
three  Gospels,  and  on  the  New  Testament  in 
general. 

Besides  the  Gospel  which  bears  his  name,  Luke 
wrote  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  This  work  con- 
tains the  history  of  the  foundation  of  the  Christian 
church  in  two  great  sections  : the  first  embracing 
the  spread  of  Christianity  among  the  Jews,  chiefly 
by  the  instrumentality  of  Peter  (ch.  i.-xii.);  and 
the  second,  its  spread  among  the  heathen,  chiefly 
by  the  instrumentality  of  Paul  (ch.  xiii.-xxviii.). 

Schneckenburger  has  lately  endeavoured,  in  his 
work  Ueber  den  Ziceck  der  Apostelgeschichte , 
1841,  to  prove  that  the  Acts  had  an  apologetical 
tendency,  called  forth  by  the  particular  circum- 
stances of  the  times.  He  especially  appeals  to 
the  manner  in  which  Paul  refutes  all  objections 
of  the  Judaizers,  who  were  his  enemies. 

In  those  portions  of  the  Acts  in  which  Luke 
speaks  as  the  companion  of  Paul,  and,  conse- 
quently, as  an  eye-witness,  his  Greek  style  is 
more  classical  than  in  the  rest  of  the  work.  This 
circumstance  supports  the  opinion  that.  Luke  fol- 
lowed some  written  documents  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  Acts,  as  well  as  in  the  Gospel.  Compare 
Riehm.  De  fontibus  Actuum  Apostolorum,  Tra- 
jecti,  1825;  Mayerhoff,  Ueber  den  Ziceck,  die 
Qucllen  und  den  Verfasser  der  Apostelgeschichte 
(in  his  Einleitung  in  die  petrinischen  Schriften, 
pp.  1-30);  Kling,  Ueber  den  historischen  Cha- 
racter der  Apostelgeschichte  (in  the  Sludien  und 
Kritiken,  1837,  Heft  2). 

That  the  accounts  of  Luke  are  authentic  may 
be  perceived  more  especially  from  a close  exami- 
nation of  the  inserted  discourses  and  letters.  The 
characteristic  marks  of  authenticity  in  the  e~itio» 
of  the  Roman  lawyerTertullus.  in  ch.  xxiv., and  in 
the  official  letters  in  ch.  xxiii.  26,  sq. ; xv.  23,  sq« , 


278 


LUZ. 


LYCIA. 


can  scarcely  be  overlooked.  The  address  of  Paul 
to  the  elders  of  the  Ephesian  church  is  charac- 
teristically Pauline,  and  even  so  full  of  definite 
allusions  an  1 of  similarity  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  fiat  it  furnishes  a confirmation  of  the 
authenticity  of  that  letter,  which  has  lately  been 
questioned.  Respecting  these  allusions,  see  an 
essay  of  Tholuck  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken, 
IS39.  p.  306,  sq. 

Characteristic  also  are  the  discourses  of  Stephen 
(ch.  vii.),  and  those  of  Peter,  concerning-  which 
compare  Seyler’s  Abhandlungen  uber  die  Ileden 
des  Petrus , in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken , 1832, 
p.  53,  sq.  Even  De  Wef.te,  in  his  Introduction , 
§ 115  a,  admits  the  appropriateness  of  these 
discourses. 

It  is,  however,  difficult  to  reconcile  some  of 
Luke's  statements  with  the  chronological  notices 
in  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  Very  important  investi- 
gations on  this  subject  are  to  be  found  in  the 
work  of  Angar,  De  temporum  in  Adis  Aposto- 
lorum ratione.  As  for  the  testimonies  in  behalf 
of  the  authenticity  of  the  Acts,  they  are  the 
same  as  for  Luke  s Gospel.  Clemens  Alexan- 
drians, Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian,  expressly  men- 
tion the  Acts,  and  Eusebius  reckons  them  among 
the  Homologoumena.  However,  the  book  of 
Acts  was  not  read  and  quoted  so  often  in  the 
early  church  as  other  parts  of  Scripture.  Chry- 
sostom, in  his  first  homily  In  Actus  Apostolorum, 
says  that  many  Christians  in  Asia  knew  neither 
the  book  nor  its  author.  The  Manichees  rejected 
it  for  dogmatical  reasons  (Augustinus,  De  utili- 
tate  credendi,  ii.  7).  So  also  did  the  Severiani 
(Euseti.  Hist.  Eccles.  iv.  29).  Since  the  book  of 
Acts  was  not  much  read,  it  is  surprising  that  its 
text  is  particularly  corrupt.  Jt  does  not,  how- 
ever, by  any  means  appear  that  these  corruptions 
arose  from  intentional  alterations  made  for  dog- 
matical purposes  (comp.  Eichhorn’sv£tnfet^«i^r 
ins  Neue  Testament , ii.  154). 

The  most  complete  commentary  on  the  Acts  is 
that  of  Kuinoel,  2nd  ed.,  1827.  A student  of 
the  Acts  ought  also  to  consult  the  very  learned 
Dissertationes  in  Actus  Apostolorum , ab  Ema- 
nuele  VValch,  Jenae,  1756-61,  3 vols.  4to.  There 
are  also  some  valuable  manuals,  as  Meyer’s 
Commentary , 1S35,  and  that  of  De  Wette,  2nd 
ed.,  1841.-  A.  T. 

LUNATICS.  [Demoniacs.] 

LUZ,  the  ancient  name  of  Bethel  (Gen. 
xxviii.  19)  [Bethej.].  The  spot  to  which  the 
name  ot  Bethel  was  given  appears,  however,  to 
have  been  at  a little  distance  in  the  environs  of 
Luz,  and  they  are  accordingly  distinguished  in 
Josh.  xvi.  2,  although  the  name  of  Bethel  was 
eventually  extended  to  that  town.  A small  place 
of  the  same  name,  founded  by  an  inhabitant  of 
this  Luz,  is  mentioned  in  Judg.  i.  26. 

LUZ  (tA)  occurs  only  once  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, namely,  in  Gen.  xxx.  37  (a  passage  al- 
ready adduced  in  the  article  Libneh),  where  it 
indicates  one  of  the  kinds  of  rod  from  which 
Jacob  peeled  the  bark  and  which  he  placed  in 
the  water-troughs  of  the  cattle.  Luz  is  translated 
hazle  in  the  Authorized  Version,  as  well  as  in 
several  others  ; in  some  it  is  rendered  by  words 
equivalent  to  ‘ walnut,’  but  ‘ almond'  appears  to 
be  its  true  meaning.  For  in  the  Arabic  we  have 

lotiz,  which  is  indeed  the  same  word,  and  which 


denotes  the  almond.  Thus  Abu'l  Fadli,  as  quoted 
by  Celsius  ( llierobot . i.  254),  says,  4 Louz  esl 
arbor  nota,  et  magna,  foliis  mollibus.  Specie* 
dure,  hortensis  et  silvestris.  Hortensis  quoque 
duae  sunt  species,  dulcis  et  amara  where  refer- 
ence is  evidently  made  to  the  sweet  and  hitter 
almond.  Other  Arab  authors  also  describe  the 
almond  under  the  name  of  louz.  But  this  name 
was  well  known  to  the  Hebrews  as  indicating  the 
almond  ; for  R.  Saadias,  in  Ab.  Esra’s  Comment., 
as  quoted  by  Celsius  (p.  253),  remarks  : ‘ Lus  est 
amygdalus,  quia  ita  earn  appellant.  Arabes  ; nam 
hae  duae  linguae,  et  Syriaca,  ejusdem  sunt  familiae.' 
Almonds  have  been  always  produced  in  Syria 
and  Palestine,  and  extend  from  thence  into 
Afghanistan.  But  as  there  is  another  word  by 
which  the  almond  was  known  to  the  Hebrews,  we 
shall  reserve  our  further  remarks  for  that  head 
[Shakam]. — J.  F.  R. 

I.YCAONIA  (Ai iKao/ia),  a province  of  Asia 
Minor,  having  Cappadocia  on  the  east,  Galatia 
on  the  north,  Phrygia  on  the  west,  and  Isauria 
and  Cilicia  on  the  south.  It  extends  in  length 
about  twenty  geographical  miles  from  east  to 
west,  and  about  thirteen  in  breadth.  It  was  an 
undulating  plain,  involved  among  mountains, 
which  were  noted  for  the  concourse  of  wild-asses. 
The  soil  was  so  strongly  impregnated  with  salt 
that,  few  of  the  brooks  supplied  drinkable  water,  so 
that  good  water  was  sold  for  money.  But  sheep 
throve  on  the  pasturage,  and  were  reared  with 
great  advantage  (Strabo,  xii.  p.  56S  ; Pliny,  Ilist. 
Nat.  viii.  69).  It  was  a Roman  province  when 
visited  by  Paul  (Acts  xiv.6),  and  its  chief  towns 
were  Iconium,  Lystra,  and  Derbe,  of  which  the 
first,  was  the  capital.  ‘ The  speech  of  Lycaonia’ 
(Acts  xiv.  11)  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  been 
the  ancient  Assyrian  language,  also  spoken  by 
the  Cappadocians  (Jablonskv,  Disquis.  de  Lingua 
Lycaonica , Opusc.  iii.  3,  sqq.);  but  it.  is  more 
usually  conceived  to  have  been  a corrupt  Greek-, 
intermingled  with  many  Syiiac  words  (Guiding, 
Dissert,  de  Lingua  Lycaon.). 

LYCIA  (Awcia),  a province  in  the  south-west 
of  Asia  Minor,  having  Pamphylia  on  the  east, 
Phrygia  on  the  north,  Caria  on  the  west,  and  the 
Mediterranean  on  the  south.  Great  pait  of  the 
country,  however,  consists  of  a peninsula  project- 
ing south  into  the  Mediterranean.  It  is  moun- 
tainous, and  is  watered  by  numerous  small  rivers 
which  flow  from  the  mountains.  Its  inhabitants 
were  believed  to  be  descendants  of  Cretans,  who 
came  thither  under  Sarpedon,  brother  of  Minos. 
One  of  their  kings  was  Bellerophon,  celebrated  in 
mythology.  The  Lycians  were  a warlike  people, 
powerful  on  the  sea,  and  attached  to  their  inde- 
pendence, which  they  successfully  maintained 
against  Croesus,  king  of  Lydia,  and  were  after- 
wards allowed  by  the  Persians  to  retain  their  own 
kings  as  satraps.  Lycia  is  named  in  1 Macc. 
xv.  23,  as  one  of  the  countries  to  which  the  Ro- 
man senate  sent  its  missive  in  favour  of  the  Jews. 
The  victory  of  the  Romans  over  Antiochus  (b.c. 
189)  gave  Lycia  rank  as  a free  state,  which  it  re- 
tained till  the  time  of  Claudius,  when  it  waa 
made  a province  of  the  Roman  empire  (Suet. 
Claud.  25  ; Vespas.  8).  Lycia  contained  many 
towns,  two  of  which  are  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament;  Patara  (Acts  xxi.  1,  2)  ; Myra  (Acts 
xxvii.  5);  and  one,  Phaselis,  in  the  Apocrypha 
(1  Macc.  xv.  23). 


LYSANIAS. 


LYDDA. 

LYDDA  (A*i35a;  Ileb.  TlS),  a town  within 
tne  limits  of  the  trihe  of  Ephraim,  nine  miles 
east  of  Joppa,  on  the  road  between  that  port  and 
Jerusalem.  It  bore  in  Hebrew  the  name  of  Lod, 
and  appears  to  have  been  first  built  by  the  Ben- 
jamites,  although  it  lay  beyond  t lie  limits  of  their 
territory;  and  we  find  it  again  inhabited  by  Ben- 
jumites  after  the  Exile  (1  Clnon.  viii.  12;  Ezra 
ii.  33;  Neh.  xi.  35).  It  is  mentioned  in  the 
Apocrypha  (1  Macc.  xi.  31),  as  having  been  taken 
from  Samaria  and  annexed  to  Judaea  by  Deme- 
trius Nicator;  and  at.  a later  date  its  inhabitants 
are  named  among  those  who  were  sold  into  slavery 
by  Cassius,  when  he  inflicted  the  calamity  of  his 
presence  upon  Palestine  after  the  death  of  Julius 
Caesar  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  11.  2;  xii.  6).  In 
the  New  Testament  the  place  is  only  noticed, 
under  the  name  of  Lvdda,  as  the  scene  of  Peter  s 
miracle  in  healing  ASneas  (Acts  ix.  32,  35).  Some 
years  later  the  town  was  reduced  to  ashes  by 
Cestius  Gallus,  in  his  march  against  Jerusalem 
(Joseph.  De  Bell.  . hid.  ii.  19.  1);  but  it  must 
soon  have  revived,  for  not  long  after  we  find  it  at 
the  head  of  one  of  the  toparchies  of  the  later 
Judaea,  and  as  such  it  surrendered  to  Vespasian 
(Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jtid.  iii.  3,  5 ; iv.  8).  At  that 
time  it  is  described  by  Josephus  (Antiq.  xx.  6.  2) 
as  a village  equal  to  a city ; and  the  Rabbins 
have  much  to  say  of  it  as  a seat  of  Jewish  learn- 
ing, of  which  it  was  the  most  eminent  in  Judaea 
after  Jalmeh  and  Bet  her  (Light  foot,  Par  ergon , 
§ 8).  In  the  general  change  of  names  which 
took  place  under  the  Roman  dominion,  Lvdda  be- 
came Diospolis,  and  under  this  name  it  occurs  in 
coins  of  Severus  and  Caracal  la,  and  is  often  men- 
tioned by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  It  was  earl/ 
the  seat  of  a bishopric,  and  at  the  different  coun- 
cils the  bishops  are  found  to  have  subscribed  their 
names  variously,  as  of  Lydda  or  Diospolis : but 
in  the  later  ecclesiastical  records  the  name  of 
Lydda  predominates.  The  latest  bishop  distinctly 
mentioned  is  Apollonius,  in  a.d.  513.  Lydda 
early  became  connected  with  the  homage  paid  to 
‘;he  celebrated  saint  and  martyr  St.  George,  who 
was  not  less  renowned  in  the  east  than  afterwards 
in  the  west.  He  is  said  to  have  been  born  at 
Lydda,  and  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  at  Nico- 
rnedia  in  the  earliest  persecution  under  Diocletian 
and  Maximian,  at  the  end  of  the  third  century. 
His  remains  were  transferred  to  his  native  place, 
ami  a church  erected  in  honour  of  him,  by  the  Em- 
peror Justinian.  This  church,  which  stood  outside 
the  town,  had  just  been  levelled  to  the  ground  by 
the  Moslems  when  the  Crusaders  arrived  at 
Lydda;  but  it  was  soon  rebuilt  by  them,  and  they 
established  a bishopric  of  Lydda  and  Ramleh. 
Grea.t  honours  were  paid  by  them  to  St.  George, 
and  they  invested  him  with  the  dignity  of  their 
patron  : from  this  time  his  renown  spread  more 
widely  throughout  Europe,  and  he  became  the 
patron  saint  of  England  and  of  several  ether 
states  and  kingdoms.  The  church  was  destroyed 
by  Saladin  in  1191;  and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  it  was  ever  rebuilt,  although  there  was  in 
later  centuries  an  unfounded  impression  that  the 
church,  the  ruins  of  which  were  then  seen,  and 
which  still  exist,  had  been  built  by  our  king 
Richard.  From  that  time  there  has  been  little 
notice  of  Lydda  by  travellers.  It  now  exists, 
under  its  ancient  name  of  Lud,  as  a considerable 
rillage  of  small  houses,  with  nothing  to  distin- 


279 

guish  it  from  ordinary  Moslem  villages,  save  me 
ruins  of  the  celebrated  church  of  St.  George, 
which  are  situated  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  town. 
The  building  must  have  been  very  large.  The 
walls  of  the  eastern  end  are  standing  only  in  the 
parts  near  the  altar,  including  the  arch  over  the 
latter;  but  the  western  end  remains  more  perfect, 
and  has  been  built  into  a large  mosque,  the  lofty 
minaret  of  which  forms  the  landmark  of  Lud 
(Raumer’s  Pa/cish'»m,  20S ; Robinson's  Bib.  Re- 
searches. iii.  55;  Sandys.  Travailes ; Cotovicus, 
Itiner.  pp.  137,  138;  D Arvieux,  Memoires,  ii. 
28;  Pococke,  Description,  ii.  58  ; Volney,  Voy- 
age. i.  278). 

LYDIA  (A u5ta),  a province  in  the  west  of  Asia 
Minor,  supposed  to  have  derived  its  name  from 
Lud,  the  fourth  son  of  Shem  (Gen.  x.  22;  see 
Nations,  Dispeusion  of).  It  was  bounded  on 
the  east  by  Greater  Phrygia,  on  the  north  by 
.TEolis  or  Mysia,  on  the  west  by  Ionia  and  the 
.TEgean  Sea,  and  on  the  south  it  was  separated 
from  Caria  by  the  Maeander.  The  country  is  for 
the  most  part  level.  Among  the  mountains  that 
ofTmolus  was  celebrated  for  its  saffron  and  red 
wine.  In  the  palmy  days  of  Lydia  its  kings 
ruled  from  the  shores  of  the  ./Egean  to  the  river 
Halys ; and  Croesus,  who  was  its  king  in  the 
time  of  Solon  and  of  Cyrus,  was  reputed  the 
richest  monarch  in  the  world.  lie  was  able  to 
bring  into  the  field  an  army  of  420,000  foot  and 
60,000  horse  against  Cyrus,  by  whom,  however, 
he  was  defeated,  and  his  kingdom  annexed  to 
the  Persian  empire  (Herod,  i.  6).  Lydia  after- 
wards formed  part  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Seleu- 
cidm;  and  it  is  related  in  1 Macc.  viii.  3,  that 
Antiochus  the  Great  was  compelled  by  the  Ro- 
mans to  cede  Lydia  to  king  Eumenes.  In  the 
time  of  the  travels  of  the  Apostles  it  was  a pro- 
vince of  the  Roman  empire.  Its  chief  towns 
were  Sardis  (the  capital),  Thyatira,  and  Phila- 
delphia, all  of  which  are  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament,  although  the  name  of  the  province 
itself  does  not  occur.  The  manners  of  the 
Lydians  were  corrupt  even  to  a proverb  (Herod, 
i.  93). 

LYDIA,  a woman  of  Thyatira,  ‘a  seller  of 
purple,’  who  dwelt  in  the  city  of  Philippi  in 
Macedonia  (Acts  xvi.  11,  15).  The  commen- 
tators are  not  agreed  whether  ‘ Lydia’  should  be 
regarded  as  an  appellative,  or  a derivative  from 
the  country  to  which  the  woman  belonged,  Thy- 
atira, her  native  place,  being  in  Lydia.  There 
are  examples  of  this  latter  sense : but  the  pre- 
ceding word  ov6g.ari  seems  here  to  support  tire 
former,  and  the  name  was  a common  one.  Lydia 
was  not  by  birth  a Jewess,  but  a proselyte,  as  the 
phrase  ‘who  worshipped  God’  (crejSo/xeVrj  rbv 
©eoV)  imports.  She  was  converted  by  the  preach- 
ing of  Paul ; and  after  she  and  her  household  had 
been  baptised,  she  pressed  the  use  of  her  house  so 
earnestly  upon  him  and  his  associates,  that  they 
were  constrained  to  accept  the  invitation.  The 
Lydians  were  famous  for  the  art  of  dyeing  purple 
vests,  and  Lydia,  as  ‘a  seller  of  purple,1  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  a dealer  in  vests  so  dyed,  rather 
than  in  the  dye  itself  (see  Kuinoel  on  Acts  xiv.  14). 

LYSANIAS  (A vaai'ias),  tetrarch  of  Abilene, 
when  John  commenced  his  ministry  as  the  har- 
binger of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  1).  He  is  supposed 
to  have  been  son  or  grandson  of  another  Lysanias, 
known  in  history,  who  was  put  to  death  by  Mark 


280  LYSIAS. 

Antony,  and  part  of  his  territories  given  to  Cleo- 
patra [Abilene]. 

LYSIAS  ( Avcrias ),  or  Claudius  Lysias, 
chiliarch  and  commandant  of  the  Roman  troops 
who  kept  guard  at  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  by 
whom  Paul  was  secured  from  the  fury  of  the 
Jews,  and  sent  under  guard  to  the  procurator 
Felix  at  Caesarea  (Acts  xxi.  27;  xxiii.  31). 

LYSTRA  (A ixrrpa),  a city  of  Lycaonia  in 
Asia  Minor,  to  which  Paul  and  Barnabas  fled 
from  the  danger  which  threatened  them  at  Ico- 
nium  (Acts  xiv.  6).  Here,  Paul  having  mi- 
raculously cured  a cripple,  they  were  both  adored 
as  gods  ; but  afterwards,  at  the  instigation  of  the 
Jews,  Paul  was  stoned  and  left,  for  dead  (Acts 
xiv.  8-21).  Timothy  was  a native  of  Lystra  (Acts 
xvi.  12;  2 Tim.  iii,  11).  This  city  was  south  of 
Iconium,  but  its  precise  site  is  uncertain,  as  well 
as  that  of  Derbe,  which  is  mentioned  along  with 
it.  Col.  Leake  remaiks  that  the  sacred  text  ap- 
pears to  place  it  nearer  to  Derbe  than  to  Iconium  ; 
for  St.  Paul,  on  leaving  that  city,  proceeded  first  to 
Lystra,  and  from  thence  to  Derbe ; and  in  like 
manner  returned  to  Lystra,  to  Iconium,  and  to 
Antioch  of  Pisidia.  And  he  observes  that  this 
seems  to  agree  with  the  arrangement  of  Ptolemy, 
who  places  Lystra  in  Isauiia,  and  near  Isaura, 
which  seems  evidently  to  have  occupied  some 
)>art  of  the  valley  of  Sidy  Shehr,  or  Bey  Shehr. 
Under  the  Greek  Empire  Homonada,  Isaura,  and 
Lystra,  as  well  as  Derbe  and  Laranda.  were  all 
included  in  the  consular  province  of  Lycaonia, 
and  were  bishoprics  of  the  metropolitan  see  of 
Iconium.  Considering  all  the  circumstances,  Col. 
Leake  inclines  to  think  that  the  vestiges  of  Lystra 
may  be  sought  with  the  greatest  probability  of 
success  at  or  near  Wiran  Khatoun,  or  Khatoun 
Serai,  about,  thirty  miles  to  the  south  of  Iconium. 
‘Nothing,’  says  this  able  geographer,  ‘can  more 
strongly  show  the  little  progress  that  has  hitherto 
been  made  in  a knowledge  of  the  ancient  geo- 
graphy of  Asia  Minor,  than  that  of  the  cities 
which  the  journey  of  St.  Paul  has  made  so  inter- 
esting to  us,  the  site  of  one  only  (Iconium)  is 
yet  certainly  known.’  Mr.  Arundell  supposes 
that,'  should  the  ruins  of  Lystra  not  be  found  at 
the  place  indicated  by  Col.  Leake,  they  may 
possibly  be  found  in  the  remains  at  Kara-hissar, 
near  the  lake  Bey-shehr  (Leake,  Tour  and  Geog. 
of  Asia  Minor ; Arundell,  Discoveries  in  Asia 
Minor). 

M. 

MAACAH  (H^D  ; Sept.  MaaXa),  or  Maa- 
cath  (HlJjMP),  a city  and  region  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Ilermori,  not  far  from  Geshur,  a district 
of  Syria  (Josh.  xiii.  13  ; 2 Sam.  x.  6,  8 ; 1 Chron. 
xix.  7).  Hence  the  adjacent  portion  of  Syria  is 
called  Aram-Maacah,  or  Syria  of  Maachah  (1 
Chron.  xix.  6).  The  Israelites  seem  to  have  con- 
sidered this  territory  as  included  in  their  grant, 
but  were  never  aide  to  get  possession  of  it  (Josh, 
xiii.  13).  In  the  time  of  David  the  small  state 
had  a king  of  its  own,  who  contributed  1000  men 
to  the  grand  alliance  of  the  Syrian  nations  against 
the  Jewish  momrch  (2  Sam.  x.  6,  8).  The  lot  of 
the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh  beyond  the  Jordan  ex- 
*tided  to  this  country,  as  had  previously’  the  do- 


MACCABEES. 

minion  of  Og,  king  of  Bashan  (Dent.  iii.  14  ; JoeJv, 
xii.  5). . The  Gentile  name  is  'DDJJD  Maacathite, 
which  is  also  put  for  the  people  (Dent.  iii.  14, 
Josh.  xii.  5 ; xiii  11  ; 2 Kings  xxv.  23).  Near,  or 
within  the  ancient  limits  of  Maacah,  was  the  town 
called  for  that  reason  Abel  betli-Maacah  [Abrl]. 

> MAACAH,  or  Maachah,  is  also  the  name 
of  several  persons  in  the  Old  Testament,  male 
and  female,  who  may  be  mentioned  to  distin- 
guish them  from  one  another,  namely — 

1.  MAACAH,  the  father  of  Achish,  king  of 
Gath  (1  Kings  ii.  39). 

2.  MAACAH,  the  father  of  Hunan,  one  of 
David’s  worthies  (1  Chron.  xi.  43). 

3.  MAACAH,  the  father  of  Shephatiah,  the 
military  chief  of  the  Simeonites  in  the  time  of 
David  (1  Chron.  xxvii.  16). 

4.  MAACAH,  a person  whose  sex  does  not 
appear,  one  of  the  offspring  of  Nahor’s  concubine 
Reumah  (Gen.  xxii.  24). 

5.  MAACAH,  a concubine  of  Caleb  (1  Chron 
ii.  48). 

6.  MAACAH,  grand-daughter  of  Benjamin, 
who  was  married  to  Machir,  son  of  Manasseh 
(1  Chron.  vii.  16). 

7.  MAACAH,  daughter  of  Talmai,  king  of 
Geshur,  wife  of  David,  and  mother  of  Absalom 
(2  Sam.  iii.  3).  In  1 Sam.  xxvii.  8 we  read  of 
David's  invading  the  land  of  the  Geshurites,  and 
the  Jewish  commentators  allege  that  he  then  took 
the  daughter  of  the  king  captive,  and,  in  conse- 
quence of  her  great  beauty,  married  her,  after 
she  had  been  made  a proselyte  according  to  the 
law  in  Deut.  xxi.  But  this  is  a gross  mistake, 
for  the  Geshur  invaded  by  David  was  to  the  south 
of  Judah,  whereas  the  Geshur  over  which  Talmai 
ruled  was  to  the  north,  and  was  regarded  as  part 
of  Syria  (2  Sam.  xv.  8).  The  fact  appears  to 
be  that  David,  having  married  the  daughter  of 
this  king,  contracted  an  alliance  with  him,  in 
order  to  strengthen  his  interest  against  Ishboshefh 
in  those  parts. 

8.  MAACAH,  daughter  of  Abishalom,  wife 
of  Rehoboam,  and  mother  of  Abijam  (1  Kings 
xv.  1).  In  verse  10  we  read  that  Asa  s ‘ mother's 
name  was  Maacah,  the  daughter  of  Abishalom.’ 
It  is  evident  that  here  ‘mother’  is  used  in  a loose 
sense,  and  means  ‘ grandmother,’  which  the  Maa- 
cah named  in  verse  1 must  have  been  to  the  Asa 
of  verse  10.  It  therefore  appears  to  be  a great 
error  to  make  two  persons  of  them,  as»is  done  by 
Calrnet  and  others.  The  Abishalom  who  was 
the  father  of  this  Maacah  is  called  Absalom  in 
2 Chron.  xi.  20,  21,  and  is  generally  supposed  by 
the  Jews  to  have  been  Absalom  the  son  of  David  ; 
which  seems  not  improbable,  seeing  that  Reho- 
boam’s  other  two  wives  were  of  his  father’s  family 
(2  Chron.  xi.  18).  But  Josephus  says  that  she 
was  the  daughter  of  Tamar,  the  daughter  of  Ab- 
salom (Antiq.  viii.  10.  1),  and  consequently  his 
granddaughter.  This  seems  not  unlikely  [Am- 
jah].  It  would  appear  that  Asa’s  own  mother 
was  dead  before  he  began  to  reign;  for  Maacah 
bore  the  rank  and  state  of  queen-mother  (resem- 
bling that  of  the  Sultaness  Valide  among  the 
Turks),  the  powers  of  which  she  so  much  abused 
to  the  encouragement  of  idolatry,  that  Asa  com- 
menced his  reforms  by  ‘ removing  her  from  being 
queen,  because  she  had  made  an  idol  in  a grove  ‘ 
(1  Kings  xv.  13;  2 Chron.  xv.  16). 

MACCABEES.  The  etymology  of  this  word 


MACCABEES. 


MACCABEES. 


281 


is  too  uncertain  to  reword  I lie  inquiries  made  re- 
specting it.  As  a family,  the  Maccabees  com- 
menced their  career  of  patriotic  and  religious 
heroism  during  the  persecution  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  about  the  year  u.c.  167.  At  this  time 
the  aged  Mattathias,  a descendant  of  the  Asmo- 
nseans,  and  his  (ive  sons,  inhabited  the  town  of 
Modin,  to  which  place  Antiochus  sent  certain  of 
his  officers  with  instructions  to  erect  an  altar  for 
heathen  sacrifices,  and  to  engage  the  inhabitants 
in  the  celebration  of  the  most  idolatrous  and 
superstitious  rites.  The  venerable  Mattathias 
openly  declared  his  resoluti  n to  oppose  the 
orders  of  the  tyrant,  and  one  of  the  recreant  Jews 
approaching  the  altar  which  had  been  set  up,  lie 
rushed  upon  him,  and  slew  h'm  with  his  own 
hand.  H is  part  thus  boldly  taken,  he  called  his 
sons  and  his  friends  around  him,  and  immediately 
fled  to  the  mountains,  inviting  all  to  follow  him 
who  had  any  zeal  for  God  and  the  law.  A small 
band  of  resolute  and  devoted  men  was  thus 
formed,  and  the  governor  of  the  district  saw 
reason  to  fear  that  a general  insurrection  would 
be  the  consequence  of  their  proceeding.  By  a 
sudden  attack  directed  against  them  on  the  Sab- 
bath, when  he  knew  the  strictness  of  their  prin- 
ciples would  not  allow  them  to  take  measures  for 
their  defence,  he  threw  them  into  disorder,  and 
slew  about  a thousand  of  their  number,  consisting 
of  men,  women,  and  children. 

Warned  by  this  event,  and  yielding  to  the 
necessity  of  their  present  condition,  Mattathias 
and  his  sons  determined  that  for  the  future  they 
would  defend  themselves  on  the  Sabbath  in  the 
same  manner  as  on  other  days.  The  mountain- 
hold  of  the  little  band  was  now  guarded  more 
cautiously  than  before.  Fresh  adherents  to  the 
holy  cause  were  continually  flocking  in;  and  in 
a few  months  the  party  found  itself  sufficiently 
6trong  to  make  attacks  upon  (he  towns  and  vil- 
lages of  the  neighbourhood,  throwing  down  the 
heathen  altars,  and  punishing  the  reprobates  who 
had  taken  part  with  the  enemies  of  God. 

By  the  death  of  Mattathias,  the  leadership  of 
the  party  devolved  upon  his  son  Judas  Macca- 
beus, whose  worth  and  heroic  courage  pointed 
him  out  as  most  capable  of  carrying  on  the  enter- 
prise thus  nobly  begun.  Judas  lost  no  time  in 
attacking  the  enemy.  He  made  himself  master 
of  several  towns,  which  he  fortified  and  garrisoned. 
Apollonius,  general  of  the  army  in  Samaria, 
hastened  to  stop  the  progress  of  the  insurgents. 
Judas  met  him  on  the  way,  joined  battle  with 
him,  slew  him,  and  routed  his  army.  The 
same  success  attended  him  in  his  encounter  with 
Seron,  general  of  the  Syrians;  and  it  now  became 
evident  to  Antiochus  that  the  Jewish  nation 
would  soon  be  delivered  from  his  yoke,  unless 
he  proceeded  against  them  with  a more  formidable 
force.  While,  therefore,  he  himself  went  into 
Persia  to  recruit  his  treasures,  Lysias,  whom  he 
left,  as  regent  at  home,  sent  an  army  into  Judaea, 
composed  of  forty  thousand  foot  and  seven  thou- 
sand cavalry.  This  powerful  array  was  further 
increased  by  auxiliaries  from  the  provinces,  and 
by  bands  of  Jews,  who  dreaded  nothing  more  than 
the  triumph  of  those  virtuous  men  of  their  own 
nation,  who  were  struggling  to  save  it  from  repro- 
bation. So  unequal  did  the  forces  of  Judas 
appear  to  an  encounter  with  such  an  army,  that 
in  addressing  his  followers  he  urged  those  among 


them  who  had  any  especial  reason  to  love  the 
present  world  to  retire  at  once ; while  to  those 
who  remained  he  pointed  out  the  promises  of  God 
as  the  best  support  of  their  courage  and  lidelity 
By  a forced  march  lie  readied  a portion  of  the 
enemy  encamped  at  Emmaus,  while  utterly  un- 
prepared for  his  approach.  Complete  success 
attended  this  hold  proceeding,  The  several  parts 
of  the  hostile  army  were  successively  put  to  flight, 
a splendid  booty  was  secured,  and  Judas  gained 
a position  which  made  even  the  most  powerful  of 
his  opponents  tremble.  Another  and  more  nume- 
rous army  was  sent  against  him  the  following 
year,  but  with  no  better  success.  At.  the  head  of 
ten  thousand  determined  followers,  Judas  defeated 
ihe  army  of  Lysias,  consisting  of  sixty  thousand. 
A way  was  thereby  opened  for  his  progress  to 
Jerusalem,  whither  he  immediately  hastened,  with 
the  devout  purpose  of  purifying  the  temple  and 
restoring  it  to  its  former  glory.  The  solemn  reli- 
gious rites  having  been  performed  which  were 
necessary  to  the  cleansing  of  the  sacred  edifice, 
the  Festival  of  the  Purification  was  instituted, 
and  added  to  the  number  of  the  other  national 
festivals  of  more  ancient  date. 

Judas  had  full  occupation  for  his  courage  and 
ability  in  repelling  the  incursions  of  those  nume- 
rous foes  who  dreaded  the  restoration  of  order  and 
religion.  But.  every  day  added  to  his  successes. 
Having  overthrown  the  Syrian  commanders  sent 
against  him.  he  occupied  Samaria,  made  himself 
master  of  the  strong  city  of  Hebron,  of  Azotus,  and 
other  important  places,  taking  signal  vengeance  on 
the  people. of  Joppa  and  J amnia,  who  had  trea- 
cherously plotted  the  destruction  of  numerous 
faithful  Jews. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  succeeded  by  Anti- 
ochus Eupator.  At  first  this  prince  acled  towards 
the  Jews  with  moderation  and  tolerance.  But  he 
soon  afterwards  invaded  Judsea  with  a powerful 
army,  and  was  only  induced  to  make  peace  with 
Maccabieus  by  the  fears  which  he  entertained  of 
a rival  aspirant  to  the  throne.  His  caution  did 
not  save  him.  He  was  put  to  death  by  his  own 
uncle,  Demetrius,  who,  obtaining  the  throne  of 
Syria,  made  peace  with  Judas,  but  took  possession 
of  the  citadel  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  occupied 
by  bis  general,  Nicanor,  and  a body  of  troops. 
This  state  of  things  was  not  allowed  to  last  long. 
Demetrius  listened  to  the  reports  of  Nicanor’s 
enemies,  and  threatened  to  deprive  him  of  his 
command  unless  he  could  disprove  the  accusation 
that  he  had  entered  into  a league  with  Judas,  and 
was  betraying  the  interests  of  his  sovereign. 
Nicanor  immediately  took  measures  to  satisfy 
Demetrius,  and  Judas  saw  it  necessary  to  escape 
from  Jerusalem,  and  put.  himself  in  a posture  of 
defence.  A battle  took  place  in  which  he  de- 
feated his  enemy.  Another  was  soon  after  fought 
at  Beth-horon,  where  he  was  again  victorious. 
Nicanor  himself  fell  in  this  battle,  and  his  head 
and  right  hand  were  sent  among  the  spoils  to 
Jerusalem.  But  the  forces  of  Demetrius  were 
still  numerous.  Judas  had  retired  to  Laish  with 
about  three  thousand  followers.  He  was  there 
attacked  by  overwhelming  numbers.  Only  eight 
hundred  of  his  people  remained  faithful  to  him 
on  this  occasion.  Resolved  not  to  flee,  he  bravely 
encountered  tbe  enemy,  and  was  speedily  slain, 
regarding  his  life  as  a fitting  sacrifice  to  the  caus* 
in  which  he  was  engaged. 


282  MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF. 

Simon  and  Jonathan,  the  brothers  of  Judas, 
rallied  around  1 hem  t.l:e  bravest  of  their  com- 
panions, and  took  up  a strong  position  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  1 ekoa.  Jonathan  proved  him- 
self a worthy  successor  of  his  heroic  brother,  and 
skilfully  evaded  the  first  attack  of  Bacchides,  the 
Syrian  general.  For  two  years  after  this,  the 
brothers  were  left  in  tranquillity,  and  they  esta- 
blished themselves  in  a little  fortress  called  Beth- 
tasi,  situated  among  the  locks  near  Jericho.  The 
skill  and  resolution  witii  which  they  pursued 
their  measures  rendered  them  formidable  to  the 
enemy,  and  the  state  of  affairs  in  Syria  some 
time  after  obliged  Demetrius  to  make  Jonathan 
the  general  of  his  forces  in  Judaea,  and  to  invest 
him  with  the  authority  of  governor  of  Jerusalem. 
To  this  he  was  compelled  by  the  rivalry  of  Alex- 
ander Balas;  but  his  policy  was  too  lale  to 
secure  the  attachment  of  his  new  ally.  Jonathan 
received  offers  from  Alexander  to  support  his 
interests  among  the  Jews,  and  the  high-priesthood 
was  the  proffered  reward.  The  invitation  was 
accepted  ; and  Jonathan  became  the  first  of  the 
Asmonaean  line  tlaough  which  the  high-priesthood 
was  so  long  transmitted.  Alexander  Balas  left 
nothing  undone  which  might  tend  to  secure  the 
fidelity  of  Jonathan.  He  gave  him  a high  rank 
among  the  princes  of  his  kingdom,  anil  adorned 
him  with  a purple  rohe.  Jonathan  continued  to 
enjoy  his  prosperity  till  the  year  b.c.  113,  when 
he  fell  a victim  to  the  treaclury  of  Trypho,  who 
aspired  to  the  Syrian  throne.  He  was  succeeded 
by  his  brother  Simon,  who  confirmed  the  Jews  in 
their  temporary  independence;  and  in  the  year  b.c. 
141  they  jiassed  a decree  whereby  the  dignity  of 
the  high-priesthood  and  of  prince  of  the  Jews  was 
rendered  hereditary  in  t he  family  of  Simon.  He 
fell  a victim  to  the  treacheiy  of  his  son-in-law, 
Ptolemy,  governor  of  Jericho;  but  was  succeeded 
by  his  son,  the  celebrated  John  Hyrcanus,  who 
possessed  the  supreme  authority  above  thirty 
years,  and  at  his  death  left  it  to  lie  enjoyed  by 
his  son  Aristobulus,  who,  soon  after  his  accession 
to  power,  assumed  t he  title  of  king.  This  dignity 
continued  to  lie  enjoyed  by  descendants  of  the 
Asmonean  family  till  the  year  b.c.  34,  when  it 
ceased  with  the  downfall  of  Antigonus,  who,  con- 
quered by  Herod  and  the  Romans,  was  put  to 
death  by  the  common  executioner. — H.  S. 

MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF  [Apocrypha] 
(Gr.  MaKKafiaiot),  a name  usually  supposed  to 
have  been  cabbalistically  derived  from  '2313 
( Makkabi ),  the  initial  letters  of  •’■DfoD  'P 

ni.T  (‘who  among  the  gods  is  like  Jehovah?’), 
the  motto  on  the  Jewish  standard  in  the  war  witii 
the  Syrians.  The  hooks  of  Maccabees  are  the 
titles  of  certain  Jewish  histories  containing  prin- 
cipally the  details  of  the  heroic  exploits  referred 
to  in  the  preceding  article.  It  has  been,  how- 
ever, maintained  in  our  more  critical  age,  that 
according  to  the  etymology  here  assigned,  the 
name  ought  to  be  written  Maxafiaiot  with  a x • 
The  word  is  therefore  with  more  probability  sup- 
posed to  be  derived  from  '3pD,  ‘ a hammer’  or 
‘ mallet,’ a word  expressive  of  the  prowess  of  Judas 
Maccabaeus,  or  the  hammerer.  For  other  deri- 
vations of  this  word,  and  of  Asmonceans , see 
Hottinger's  Thesaurus  Philologicus , p.  516. 

There  were  in  all  four  hooks  (to  which  some 
add  a fifth)  known  to  the  ancients,  of  which  three 


MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF. 

are  still  read  in  the  eastern,  and  two  in  fbi 
western  church.  Of  these  the  third  is  the  first  in 
order  of  time.  We  shall,  however,  to  avoid  con- 
fusion, speak  of  them  in  the  order  in  which  they 
are  commonly  enumerated. 

The  First  Book  ok  Maccabees  contains  a 
lucid  and  authentic  history  of  the  undertakings 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  against  the  Jews,  from 
the  year  b.c.  175  to  the  death  of  Simon'  Macca- 
basus,  b.c.  135.  This  history  is  confessedly  ol 
great  value.  Although  its  brevity,  observes  De 
Wette  (see  1 Macc.  i.  6;  viii.  7 ; xii),  renders  it 
in  some  instances  unsatisfactory,  defective,  and 
uncritical,  and  occasionally  extravagant,  it  is 
upon  the  whole  entitled  to  credit;  chronologically 
accurate,  and  advantageously  distinguished  above 
all  other  historical  pioductions  of  this  period 
( Einlcitnng  in  die  Apokrgfe  Bucher , § 299). 
It  is  the  second  book  in  order  of  time. 

Language  of  the  First  Book. — There  is  little 
question  that  this  hook  was  written  in  Hebrew, 
although  the  original  is  now  lost.  The  Greek 
version  abounds  in  Hebraisms  and  errors  of 
translation.  Origen  ( a pud  Eusebium , Feel.  Hist. 
vi.  25)  gives  it  a Hebrew  title,  2ap/37?0  2 apfiave 

ca,  bx  ib  r\iry,  ‘ the  prince  of  the  temple, 
the  prince  of  the  sons  of  God,’  or  according  to 

others  '33"lD  ‘ the  scourge  of  the  rebels 

of  God.’  Jerome  ( Prolog . Ga/cat.)  says  that  lie 
had  seen  tl^e  Hebrew  original.  There  is  a Chal- 
dee work  still  extant,  published  by  Bartolocci 
(i.  383),  which  Hengstenberg  ( Beitr . 1)  main 
tains  to  he  the  work  referred  to  by  Origen 
and  Jerome.  Kennicott,  however  ( Diss . 2), 
observes  that  this  work  differs  materially  from 
the  present  Greek.  There  is  a Hebrew  version  ol 
the  Chaldee  extant,  which  is  also  published  by 
Bartolocci  (ut  supra),  wit h a Lalin  translation. 
This  work  is  said  by  Wolfius  (Bib.  Hist.)  to  be 
still  found  in  the  Jewish  ritual,  and  to  he  read 
by  the  Jews  at  the  least  of  Dedication.  Fabricius 
(Cod.  Apoc.)  has  reprinted  Bartolocci’s  Latin 
version.  Wagenseil  discovered  a copy  in  Mora- 
via, and  there  is  a MS.  Hebrew  roll  of  the  same 
in  the  library  of  St.  Sepulchre’s  in  Dublin. 

Author  and  Age. — Of  the  author  nothing  is 
known  ; but  he  must  have  been  a Palest  inian  Jew, 
who  wrote  some  considerable  time  after  the  death 
of  Simon  Maccabaeus,  and  even  of  Hyrcanus, 
and  made  use  of  seveial  written,  although  chiefly 
of  traditionary,  sources  of  information.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  author  was 
present  at  several  of  the  events  which  he  so  gra- 
phically describes. 

Versions. — The  Greek  text  of  the  Alexandrine 
version  is  the  original  of  all  the  others  now  extant. 
This  text  was  that  made  use  of  hv  Josephus. 
The  Latin  version  of  the  Vulgate  is  that  in  use 
before  the  time  of  Jerome,  who  did  not  translate 
the  book.  There  is  also  a Syrian  version,  which 
has  been  printed  in  the  Polyglotts. 

The  Second  Book  ok  Maccabees  (the  third 
in  order  of  time)  is  a work  of  very  inferior  cha- 
racter to  the  first.  It  is  an  abridgment  of  a more 
ancient  work,  written  by  a Jew  named  Jason,  who 
lived  atCyrene  in  Africa,  comprising  the  principal 
transactions  of  the  Jews  which  occurred  during 
the  reignj^of  Seleucns  IV.,  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
and  Antiochus  Eupator,  It  partly  goes  over  tin 


MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF. 

same  ground  with  the  first  book,  but  commences 
ten  or  twelve  years  earlier,  and  embraces  in  all  a 
period  of  fifteen  years.  It  does  not  appear  that 
the  author  of  either  saw  the  others  work,  lhc 
second  book  of  Maccabees  is  divided  into  two 
unconnected  parts.  It  commences  with  a letter 
from  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem  and  Judaea  to  the 
'Greek  Jews  in  Egypt,  written  b.c.  123  (which 
refers  to  a former  letter  written  to  the  same,  b.c. 
143,  acquainting  them  of  their  sufferings),  and 
informs  them  that  their  worship  was  now  restored, 
and  that  they  were  celebrating  the  Feast  ot  Dedi- 
cation. The  second  part  (ii.  18)  contains  a still 
more  ancient  letter,  written  b.c.  159,  to  the  priest 
Aristobulus,  the  tutor  of  King  Ptolemy,  recount- 
ing, besides  some  curious  matter,  the  death  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  The  third  part  contains  the 
preface,  in  which  the  author  states  that  he  is  about 
to  epitomise  the  five  books  of  Jason.  The  work 
commences  with  the  attack  of  Heliodorus  on  the 
temple,  and  closes  with  the  death  ot  Nicanor,  a 
period  of  fifteen  years.  The  history  supplies  some 
blanks  in  the  first  book  ; but  the  letters  prefixed 
to  it  contradict  some  of  the  facts  recorded  in  the 
body  of  the  work,  and  are  consequently  supposed 
to  have  been  added  by  another  hand.  Neither 
are  the  letters  themselves  considered  genuine,  and 
they  were  probably  written  long  alter  the  death  ot 
Nicanor,  and  even  of  John  Hyrcanus.  This  book 
gives  a different  account  of  the  place  and  manner 
of  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  from  that 
contained  in  the  first  book. 

The  narrative,  as  De  VVette  observes,  abounds  in 
miraculous  adventures  (iii.  25,  sq. ; v.  2;  xi.  8; 
xv.  12),  historical  and  chronological  errors  (x.  3, 
sq.  comp,  with  1 Macc.  iv.  52,  i.  20-29;  xi.  I 
comp,  with  1 Macc.  iv.  28,  sq. ; xiii.  21,  sq., 
comp,  with  1 Macc.  vi.  31,  sq.  ; iv.  13,  comp, 
with  1 Macc.  viii.),  extraordinary  and  arbitrary 
embellishments  (vi.  18,  sq. ; vi i.  27,  sq. ; ix.  19- 
27  ; xi.  16-38),  affected  descriptions  (iii.  14,  sq. ; 

v.  11,  sq.),  and  moralising  reflections  (v.  17,  sq. ; 

vi.  12,  sq. ; ix.  8,  sq.).  For  a solution  of  the 
chronological  discrepancy  between  it  and  the  first 
book  (comp.  1 Macc.  vi.  20,  with  2 Macc.  xiii. 
1),  see  Auctoritas  utriusque  Lib.  Macc.,  p.  129, 
&c. ; Jalm's  Antiq.  ii.  1.328;  Michaelis  on  1 
Macc.  x.  21  ; and  Bertholdt,  viii.  1079).  The 
embellisuments  are  those  of  the  epitomiser.  The 
letters  in  xi.  16,  &c.,  are  most  probably  genuine. 

Author  and  Age. — We  are  not  aware  when 
either  Jason  himself  or  his  epitomiser  lived.  S. 
G.  Hasse,  who  published  a berman  translation 
of  this  book,  at  Jena,  in  1786,  supposes  it  to  have 
been  written  b.c.  150,  by  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Wisdom.  Jahn  refers  the  age  of  the  epitomiser 
to  some  time  previous  to  the  middle  of  the  last 
century  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  De  VVette 
maintains  that  Jason  must  have  written  a consi- 
derable time  after  the  year  b.c.  161.  This  book 
is  supposed  to  be  that  referred  to  by  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  ( Stromata ) as  MaKKa^aiKwr  'Em- 
rog.’)].  The  mode  of  computation  differs  from 
that  in  the  first  book,  in  which  it  takes  place 
after  the  Jewish  manner. 

Language  and  Versions. — Jerome  ( Prolog . 
Galeat.)  observes  that  the  phraseology  of  this  book 
evinces  a Greek  original.  The  elegance  and  purity 
of  the  style  have  misled  some  persons  into  the 
supposition  that  its  author  was  Josephus.  The 
Latur  version  (which  is  ante-Hieronymian)  is  a 


MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF.  283 

free  translation  from  the  Greek.  The  Syriac  is  also 
from  the  Greek,  but  is  not  always  exact.  The 
Arabic  appears  to  be  a compilation  from  the 
Greek  hooks  of  Maccabees,  and  from  the  history 
appended  to  the  woiks  of  Josephus.  There  have 
been  two  books  of  Maccabees  found  among  the 
Chinese  Jews ; hut  whether  they  are  the  same  with 
ours  is  doubtful. 

In  the  celebrated  theses  of  the  Jesuit  Professors 
Less  and  Hamel i us,  which  were  condemned  by 
the  theological  faculties  of  Louvain  and  Douai 
in  1586,  and  which  consisted  in  denying  the 
necessity  of  universal  verbal  inspiration,  as  well 
as  the  immediate  inspiration  of  every  truth  or 
sentence  contained  in  Scripture,  it  is  worthy  of 
remark  that  this  hook  is  introduced  in  illustration 
of  the  third  thesis,  which  is  as  follows: — ‘Any 
book,  such  as  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees , 
written  by  human  industry,  without  the  aid  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  becomes  Holy  Scripture,  if  the 
Holy  Spirit  afterwards  testifies  to  its  containing 
nothing ’ false.1  The  truth  of  these  theses,  how- 
ever, was  advocated  by  Cornelius  a Lapide 
Suarez,  Bonfrere,  Bellarmine,  Huet,  Du  Pin 
Calmet,  and  Richard  Simon  (Henderson,  On  In- 
spiration, lect.  i.  p.  65). 

The  Thikd  Book  ok  Maccabees,  still 
read  in  the  Greek  church,  and  contained  in 
the  Alexandrian  and  Vatican  MSS.  (A.  & B.)  is, 
as  has  been  already  observed,  the  first  in  order  of 
time.  It  contains  an  account  of  the  persecution 
of  the  Egyptian  Jews  by  Ptolemy  Philopator, 
who  is  said  to  have  proceeded  to  Jerusalem  after 
his  victory  at  Raphia  over  Antiochus  the  Great, 
b.c.  217,  and  after  sacrificing  in  the  temple,  to 
have  attempted  to  force  his  way  into  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  when  he  was  prostrated  and  rendered 
motionless  by  an  invisible  hand.  Upon  his  re- 
turn to  Egypt,  he  revenged  himself  by  shutting 
up  the  Jews  in  the  Hippodrome,  and  exposing 
them  to  be  crushed  beneath  the  feet  of  elephants. 
This  book  contains  an  account  of  their  deliver- 
ance by  divine  interposition.  It  is  anterior  in 
point  of  date  to  the  Maccabsean  period,  and  has 
received  its  designation  from  a general  resem- 
blance to  the  two  first  hooks  in  the  heroic  cha- 
racter of  the  actions  which  it  describes.  Calmet 
(' Commentary ) observes  that  this  hook  is  rejected 
as  apocryphal  in  the  Latin  Church ; not,  however, 
as  not  containing  a true  history,  hut  as  not  being 
inspired,  as  lie  considers  the  first  two  books  to  be. 
It  is  nevertheless  regarded  by  De  VVette  as  a 
tasteless  fable,  and  notwithstanding  the  relation 
which  it  contains  of  an  annual  festival,  con- 
sidered by  him  as  most  probably  destitute  of  any 
historical  foundation.  Dr.  Milman  (Hist,  of  the 
Jews ) describes  it  as  a ‘ romantic  story.’  There 
is  a similar  relation  in  the  Latin  version  by  Ru- 
finus  of  the  Supplement  to  Josephus,  which  De 
Wette  considers,  although  a highly  improbable 
narration,  to  approach  nearer  to  the  truth  than 
the  third  hook  of  Maccabees.  Josephus’s  narra- 
tive is  placed  fifty  years  later,  not  under  Ptolemy 
Philometor,  but  under  Ptolemy  Physcun. 

Author , Age,  end  Versions. — The  author  is 
unknown.  Dr.  Ailix  ( Judgment  of  the  Jewish 
Church ) considers  it  to  have  been  written  b.c. 
200,  and  by  the  author  of  Ecclesiastic, is.  There 
is  a Syriac  version  in  the  Polyglotts,  but  no 
ancient  Latin  translation  has  come  down  ts 


2fH  MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF. 

us.  The  work  dot's  not  appear  either  in  the 
MSS.  or  early  prime.]  editions  of  the  Vulgate, 
and  is  find,  found  in  Latin  in  the  edition  of 
Frobenins  ( 1538).  There  was  an  English  ver- 
sion by  Walter  Lynne  (1550),  which  was  after- 
wards appended,  with  some  corrections,  to  Day's 
folio  Bible  (1551).  It  was  again  translated  by 
Whiston  (Authentic  Documents,  1719  and  1727) 
and  afterwards  by  Crutwell  (Bible,  1 7 Q5),  and 
again  by  Dr.  Cotton  (Five  Books  of  Maccabees , 
1832).  There  is  4 'French  translation  by  Calniet, 
appended  to  his  commentary.  The  version  of 
3 Maccabees  (and  of  3 and  4 Esdras),  which  is 
found  in  some  German  Bibles  since  Luther’s 
time,  was  by  Daniel  Cramer.  Luther  himself 
only  translated  the  first  two  books. 

The  Fouuth  Book  ok  Maccabees,  which  is 
also  found  in  the  Alexandrian  and  Vatican 
manuscripts,  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the  same 
with  the  Supremacy  of  Reason,  attributed  to 
Josephus,  with  which  it  for  the  most  part  accords. 
It  consists  of  an  inflated  amplification  of  the 
history  of  the  martyrdom  of  Eleazar,  and  of  the 
seven  brothers,  whose  torments  and  death,  with 
that  of  their  mother,  form  the  subject  of  2 
Macc.  ch  vi.  vii.  In  some  Greek  MSS.  it  is 
entitled  the  Supremacy  of  Reason , by  Josephus, 
or  the  Fourth  Book  of  Maccabees,  in  others  sim- 
ply the  Fourth  Book  of  Maccabees.  It  is  found 
in  the  Gree . Bibles  piinted  at  Basle  in  1545, 
and  at  Francfort  in  1597,  where  it  is  entitled 
The  Book  of  Jcsippos  (Josephus)  on  the  Macca- 
bees. It  bears  the  same  title  in  several  other 
MSS.  Philostratus  (Hist.  Eccles.),  Jerome  (De 
Script.  Ecclcs.  and  lib.  2 cont.  Relay.),  and 
Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii  10),  ascribe  this  work 
to  Josephus.  Eusebius  (l.  c.)  describes  it  as  a 
work  of  no  mean  execution,  entitled  the  Supre- 
i\acy  of  Reason,  and  by  some  Maccabaicum, 
because  it  contains  the  conflicts  of  those  Jews  who 
contended  manfully  for  the  true  religion,  as  is 
related  in  the  books  called  Maccabees.’  St. 
Gregory  Nazianzen  (Orat.  de  Maccab.),  St.  Am- 
brose ( De  Vita  Beat  a,  lib.  ii.  c.  10,  11,  12),  St. 
Chrysostom  llomil.  ii.  in  Sand.  Maccabceos ), 
and  even  St.  Jerome  (Epist.  100),  in  their  eulo- 
gies of  the  consistency  of  the  Maccabaean  mar- 
tyrs, have  evidently  drawn  their  descriptions  from 
th e fourth  book.  The  details  given  I iy  St.  Jerome 
of  their  sufferings,  such  as  the  breaking  of  their 
bodies  on  the  wheel,  the  history  of  which,  he 
adds,  is  read  throughout  the  churches  of  Christ, 
are  not  found  in  the  second  book. 

Cal  met  (Preface  to  the  Fourth  Book  of  Mac- 
cabees) has  pointed  out  several  contradictions 
between  this  and  the  second  bonk,  as  well  as  the 
books  of  Moses,  together  with  some  opinions  de- 
rived from  the  Stoics,  such  as  the  equality  of 
crimes;  which,  he  supposes,  together  with  its 
tedious  descriptions,  have  consigned  it  to  the  rank 
of  an  Apocryphal  book. 

The  fourth  book  was  printed  by  Dr.  Grabe 
from  the  Alexandrian  MS.  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum. There  is  a French  translation  by  Calmet 
(Commentary),  and  an  English  one  by  Dr.  Cotton 
(Five  Books  of  Maccabees,  1832). 

What  has  been  called  the  Fifth  book  of  Mac- 
cabees is  now  extant  only  in  the  Arabic  and 
Syriac  languages.  It  was  first  published,  as  the 


MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF. 

supposed  fourth  book,  in  the  Paris  Pol yglott,  with 
a Latin  version.  Before  this,  Sixtus  of  Sienna 
had  published  an  account  of  a Greek  MS. 
containing  the  history  of  the  jxmtificate  of  John 
Hy  realms,  which  lie  had  seen  in  the  library 
of  Sanctes  Pagnini  at  Lyons,  and  which  he 
persuaded  himself  and  others  to  be  the  long- 
lost  fourth  book  so  often  referred  to  in  the  an7 
cient  church.  This  unique  MS.,  however,  soon 
after  perished  in  the  flames  which  consumed  the 
library  of  Pagnini.  Josephus  remained  as  the 
sole  authority  for  the  history  of  these  times. 
The  Arabic  work,  however,  above  referred  1o, 
and  which  bad  the  appearance  of  being  h version 
from  the  Greek,  bore  such  ajesemblance  to  the 
lost.  MS.  of  Pagnini,  commencing  with  the 
same  words,  ‘ Alter  the  death  of  Simon,  his  son 
John  was  made  high-priest  in  his  place,’  that  Le 
Jay.  the  editor,  had  no  hesitation  in  printing  it 
as  the  Fourth  book  of  Maccabees.  Calmet,  how- 
ever, has  advanced  several  reasons  to  show  that 
this  was  not,  in  fact,  the  genuine  fourth  book. 
The  whole  Arabic  history  was  translated  into 
French  by  Bauhrun  in  bis  edition  of  the  Bible. 
Calmet  has  limited  himself  to  the  translation  of 
seven  chapters,  or  that  portion  which  accords 
with  what  had  been  taken  by  Sixtus  of  Sienna 
for  the  fourth  book  of  Maccabees.  This  is  pre- 
ceded in  the  Arabic  by  nineteen,  and  followed  by 
thirty-two  chapters. 

It  is  described  in  the  Paris  Polyglolt  as  being 
derived  from  a Hebiew  original,  in  which  cha- 
racter it  also  accords  with  the  Greek  MS.  or 
Pagnini.  From  the  Paris  Pol  yglott  it.  found  its 
way  into  the  London.  Dr.  Cotton  has  given  a 
translation  of  the  Latin  version  which  first  ap- 
peared in  the  Paris  Polyglott. 

Author,  Aye , and  Subject. — It  is  impossible  t« 
ascertain  the  author,  who  could  scarcely  hav« 
been  Josephus,  as  he  disagrees  in  many  things  with 
that  histoiian  (Calmet ’s  Preface).  Calmet  sup- 
poses that  the  original  Hebiew  may  have  consisted 
of  ancient  annals,  but  that  the  Greek  or  Arabic 
translator  must  have  lived  after  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  by  the  Romans  (see  5 Macc.  ix. ; 
xxi.).  To  Samaria  lie  gives  its  mere  modern 
name  of  Sebaste,  and  to  Sicliem  that  of  Neapolis. 

The  work  consists  of  a history  of  Jewish 
affairs,  commencing  with  the  attempt  on  the 
treasury  at  Jerusalem  by  Heliodorus,  and  ending 
with  the  tragic  fate  of  the  last,  of  the  Asmonaean 
princes,  and  with  the  inhuman  execution  by 
Herod  of  bis  noble  and  virtuous  wife  Mariamne, 
and  of  his  two  sons.  This  history  thus  fills  up 
the  chasm  to  the  birth  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Cotton  has  pointed  out,  among  the  ‘ re- 
markable peculiarities’  found  in  this  book  the 
phrases,  ‘ Peace  be  unto  thee,’  and  ‘ God  be 
merciful  to  them,’  showing  that  the  practice  of 
prayer  for  the  dead  was  at  this  time  prevalent. 
But  the  most  remarkable  passage  in  reference  to 
this  subject  is  2 Macc.  xii.  40-45,  where  Judas 
forwards  to  Jerusalem  2000.  or  according  to  the 
Syriac  3000,  and  according  to  the  Vulgate 
12,000,  drachmas  of  silver,  to  make  a sin-offering 
for  the  Jews  slain  in  action,  on  whose  persons 
were  found  things  consecrated  to  idols,  which 
they  had  sacrilegiously  plundered  in  violation  tl 
the  law  of  Moses  (Deut.  vii.  25,  26).  The  author 
of  the  book  remarks  that  it  was  a holy  and  good 
thought  to  pray  lor  the  dead,  which,  he  observes, 


MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF. 

would  nave  been  superfluous,  liad  there  been  no 
resurrection.  Grot  ins  {in  loc.)  supposes  that  this 
practice  commenced  after  the  exile,  when  the 
Jews  had  learned  from  the  prophets  Ezekiel  and 
Daniel  a distinct  notion  of  a future  state  (see 
Bartolocci’s  Biblioth.  Rabbin,  ii.  250 ; Basnage, 
Hist,  des  Juifs,  iii.  4.  32,  &c.).  Calmet  observes 
that,  according  to  the  notions  of  the  Jews  and 
some  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  the  pains  of  hell 
for  those  who  died  in  mortal  sin  (as  appears  to 
oave  been  the  case  of  these  Jews)  were  alleviated 
ty  the  prayers  and  alms  of  the  living  (Augustine, 
lie  Fide,  Spe,  et  Charitate,  ch.  110),  if  not  entirely 
removed ; and  cites  a passage  from  a very  an- 
cient Christian  Liturgy  to  the  same  effect.  This 
learned  commentator  supposes  that  the  ancient 
and  Catholic  practice  of  prayer  for  the  dead  had 
its  origin  in  this  usage  of  the  Jews,  although  he 
admits  it  to  be  a distinct  thjjng  from  the  doctrine 
of  purgatory  as  held  in  the  Roman  Church.  As, 
however,  it  is  intimated  in  ver.  45  that  this  mercy 
was  reserved  for  those  who  died  piously,  which 
could  not  be  predicated  of  persons  who  had  died 
in  mortal  sin,  he  conjectures  that  Judas  might 
have  charitably  presumed  that  they  had  repented 
before  death,  or  that  there  were  other  extenuating 
circumstances  unknown  to  us,  which  attended  the 
character  of  their  offence,  and  rendered  them  fit 
objects  for  the  divine  mercy. 

Church  Authority  of  Maccabees. — The  first, 
two  books  of  Maccabees  have  been  at  all  times 
treated  with  a very  high  degree  of.  respect  in  the 
Christian  Church.  Origen  ( apud  Eusebium ), 
professing  to  give  a catalogue  of  the  twenty-two 
canonical  books,  of  which,  however,  he  actually 
enumerates  only  twenty-one,  adds,  ‘ besides,  there 
are  the  Maccabees.’  This  has  given  rise  to  the 
notion  that  he  intended  to  include  these  books  in 
the  canon,  while  others  have  observed  that,  he  has 
omitted  the  minor  prophets  from  his  catalogue. 
In  his  preface  to  the  Psalms  he  excludes  the  two 
oooks  of  Maccabees  from  the  books  of  Holy 
Scripture,  but  in  his  Princip.  (ii.  i),  and  in  his 
Comment,  ad  Rom.  ch.  v.,  he  speaks  of  them  as 
inspired,  and  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  other 
books.  St.  Jerome  says  that  the  Church  does  not 
acknowledge  them  as  canonical,  although  he 
elsewhere  cites  them  as  Holy  Scripture  {Com.  ad 
Isa.  xxiii. ; ad  Eccl.  vii.,  ix. ; ad  Dan.  viii.). 
Bellarmine  (De  Verbo  Dei)  acknowledges  that 
these,  with  the  other  deutero-canonical  books,  are 
rejected  by  Jerome,  as  they  had  not  been  then  deter- 
mined by  any  general  council.  Vicenzi,  however 
( Introd . in  Scrip.  Deuterocan.),  maintains  that 
Jerome  only  hesitates  to  receive  them  {Sanctus 
dubitat).  St.  Augustine  {De  Civit.  Dei)  observes 
that  the  ‘ books  of  Maccabees  were  not  found  in 
the  canonical  Scriptures,  but  in  those  which  not 
the  Jews,  but  the  Church,  holds  for  canonical,  on 
account  of  the  passions  of  certain  martyrs.’  The 
first  councils  which  included  them  in  the  canon- 
ical Scriptures  were  those  of  Hippo  and  Car- 
thage ; the  first  council  professing  itself  to  be 
general,  which  is  said  to  have  adopted  then),  was 
that  of  Ferrara  or  Flo*ence  in  the  year  1439  ; but 
the  supposed  canon  of  this  council  which  contains 
them  is  by  others  said  to  be  a forgery  (see  Rainoldi 
Censura  Lib.  Apoc.,  1611,  and  Cosin  s History  of 
the  Canon,  ch.  xvi).  However  this  may  be,  we 
nave  already  seen  [Deuterocanonicai.]  that 
they  were  received  with  the  other  books  by  the 


MACCABEES,  BOOKS  OF.  *83 

Council  of  Trent.  Basnage,  cited  by  Lardner 
{Credibility),  thinks  that  the  word  ‘ Canon  teal  ’ 
may  be  supposed  to  be  used  here  [by  the  coun- 
cils of  Hippo  and  Carthage]  loosely,  so  as  to 
comprehend  not  only  those  books  which  are  ad- 
mitted as  a rule  of  faith,  but  those  which  are 
esteemed  useful,  and  may  be  publicly  read  for 
the  edification  of  the  people,  in  contradistinction 
to  such  books  as  were  entirely  rejected.  This  is 
also  the  opinion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Professor 
Jahn  {Introd.  6 29),  who  expresses  himself  in 
nearly  the  same  words.  Dr.  Lardner  conceives 
that  Augustine  also,  unless  he  would  contradict 
himself,  must  be  understood  to  have  used  the 
word  in  the  same  sense.  De  Wette  ( Einleitung , 

§ 25)  observes  that  as  the  Jewish  Scriptures  could 
only  be  read  in  the  Alexandrian  version,  th® 
early  Christian  writers  frequently  cite  the  apo- 
cryphal as  if  th  y were  canonical  writings,  to 
which  effect  he  furnishes  many  examples  ; and  his 
translator  adds  that  the  most  celebrated  teachers 

of  the  second  and  third  centuries regard 

them  with  the  same  esteem  as  the  canonical  writ- 
ings, of  which  he  observes  that  the  books  of  Mac- 
cabees are  among  those  most  often  appealed  to. 
De  Wette  {l.  c.)  supposes  that  at  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  the  word  ‘ canon  ’ included  the 
collateral  idea  of  an  ecclesiastical  decision.  It 
is  remarkable  that  the  ancient  writers  of  the 
Greek  church  uniformly  rejected  from  the  canon 
all  books  written  in  the  Greek  language,  in 
which  they  were  followed  in  the  west  by  Hilary 
and  Jerome,  while  others  continued  to  use  all 
the  books  contained  in  the  Alexandrian  version. 
Dr.  Cotton  is  astonished  that  6 a Roman  Catholic 
at.  least  should  not  have  bowed  with  implicit  de- 
ference to  the  recorded  judgment  of  St.  Jerome, 
to  whom  he  owns  himself  indebted  for  his  Bible 
not  recollecting  that  the  authority  of  St.  Augustine 
was  at  all  times  greater  in  the  Western  church 
than  that,  of  St.  Jerome. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  the  Egyptian 
Jews  had  a peculiar  canon  distinct  from  the 
Hebrew  ; but  the  utmost  that  can  be  said  is,  that 
the  latter  books  were  held  in  higher  esteem  among 
the  Hellenist  than  among  the  Palestinian  Jews. 
Bertholdt  thinks  that  the  apocryphal  books  were 
treated  by  the  Egyptian  Jews  rather  as  an  appen- 
dix to  the  canon  than  as  a part  of  it,  and  were 
therefore  placed,  not  in,  but  beside  the  canon  ; 
but  that  the  ancient  Christians,  not  being  ac- 
quainted with  Hebrew,  considered  all  the  books 
of  the  Alexandrian  codex  as  genuine  and  sacred, 
and  made  the  same  use  of  the  Apocrypha  and  of 
the  Hebrew  canon. 

The  ancient  Greek  catalogues  sometimes  enu- 
merate four,  sometimes  three,  and  at  other  times 
only  two  books  of  Maccabees.  There  are  three 
books  of  Maccabees  cited  in  the  84th  of  the 
apostolic  canons.  Theodoret  {in  Dan.  xi.  7) 
cites  the  third  book  as  Holy  Scripture.  The 
author  of  the  Synopsis  Scyipturce  enumerates 
four  books  of  Maccabees  among  the  antileg omena 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Nicephorus  cites  three 
only  in  the  same  class.  Eusebius  ( Chronicon ) 
merely  observes  that  the  third  book  is  placed  out 
of  its  chronological  order.  Philostorgius  {Eccles. 
Hist.)  a.d.  425,  highly  esteems  the  first  book  of 
Maccabees;  the  second  does  not  appear  to  him 
to  have  been  the  work  of  the  same  author.  Tbs 
third  he  calls  a ‘ monstrous  production,’  having 


186 


MACEDONIA. 


MAGI. 


nothing  similar  to  the  first  book.  There  are  four 
books  of  Maccabees  named  in  av.cient  catalogues 
gi\en  bv  Coblstius  as  among  lhe  books  not.  of 
the  Seventy.  Three  books  of  Maccabees  are 
received  with  equal  authority  in  the  Greek 
church. 

It  is  remarkable  that  although  the  Anglican 
church  has  received  the  canon  of  St.  Jerome 
(art.  vi.),  she  has  prescribed  no  lessons  to  be  read 
from  either  of  the  books  of  Maccabees  [Esther, 
EsdrAs,  Deutekocanonicae]  which  she  has 
appended  to  lhe  Old  Testament.  In  John  x.  22, 
there  is  a marginal  reference  in  the  authorized 
version  to  1 Macc.  iv.  09,  and  in  Heb.  xi.  30, 
36,  there  are  references  to  2 Macc.  vi.  18,  19; 
tv>  vii.  7,  &c , and  to  vii.  1-7. 

In  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  Codex  Alexan - 
drinus  [Deuterocanonicae],  the  reader  will 
observe  the  position  which  the  four  books  of  Mac- 
cabees occupy.  In  the  Vatican  Codex  Tobit 
and  Judith  are  placed  between  Nehemiah  and 
Esther;  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  follow  Can- 
ticles ; Baruch  and  Lamentations  are  placed 
after  Jeremiah,  and  the  four  books  of  Maccabees 
close  the  canon. — W.  VV. 

MACEDONIA  (MaiceSoida),  a country  lying 
to  the  north  of  Greece  Proper,  having  on  the  east 
Thrace  and  the^Egaean  Sea,  on  the  west  the  Adri- 
atic and  Illyria,  on  the  nort]i  Dardania  and  Ma;sia, 
and  on  the  south  Thessaly  and  Epirus.  The  country 
is  supposed  to  have  been  first  peopled  by  Chittim 
or  Kittim,  a son  of  Javan  (Gen.  x.  4)  [Nations, 
Dispersion  op]  ; and  in  that  case  it  is  probable 
that  the  Macedonians  are  sometimes  intended 
when  the  word  Chittim  occurs  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Macedonia  was  the  original  kingdom  of 
Philip  and  Alexander,  by  means  of  whose  vic- 
tories the  name  of  the  Macedonians  became  cele- 
brated throughout  the  East,  ami  is  often  used  for 
the  Greeks  in  Asia  generally  (Esth.  Apoc.  xviii. 
10,  14  ; 2 Macc.  viii.  20).  The  rise  of  the  great 
empire  formed  by  Alexander  is  described  by  the 
prophet  Daniel  under  the  emblem  of  a goat  with 
one  horn  (Dan.  viii.  3-8).  As  the  horn  was  a 
general  symbol  of  power,  and  as  the  oneness  of 
the  horn  Implies  merely  the  unity  of  that  power, 
we  are  not  prepared  to  go  the  lengths  of  some 
over-zealous  illustrators  of  Scripture,  who  argue 
that  if  a one-horned  goat  were  not  a recognised 
symbol  of  Macedonia  we  should  not  be  entitled 
to  conclude  that  Macedonia  was  intended.  We 
hold  that  ther£  could  be  no  mistake  in  the  mat- 
ter, whatever  may  have  been  the  usual  symbol 
of  Macedonia.  It.  is,  however,  curious  and  inter- 
esting to  know  that  Daniel  did  describe  Mace- 
donia under  its  usual  symbol,  as  coins  still  exist 
in  which  that  country  is  represented  under  the 
figure  of  a one-horned  goat.  There  has  been 
much  discussion  on  this  subject — more  curious 
than  valuable — but  the  kernel  of  it  lies  in  this 
fact.  The  particulars  may  be  seen  in  Murray's 
Truth  of  Revelation  Illustrated , and  in  the  article 
Macedonia. :,  in  Taylor's  Calmet. 

When  subdued  by  the  Romans  under  Paulus 
.ASmilius  (b.c.  168),  Macedonia  was  divided  into 
four  provinces  ; but  afterwards  (b.c.  142)  the 
whole  of  Greece  was  divided  into  two  great 
urovinces,  Macedonia  and  Acliaia  [Greece, 
Achaia].  Macedonia  therefore  constituted  a Ro- 
man province,  governed  by  a proconsul  ( provincia 


proconsulates  ; Tacit.  Annal.  i.  76  ; Suet.  Claud. 
26),  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

The  Apostle  Paul  being  summoned  in  a vision, 
while  at  Troas,  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  Macedonia, 
proceeded  thither,  and  founded  the  churches  ot 
Thessalonica  and  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  9),  a.d.  55. 
This  occasions  repeated  mention  of  the  name, 
either  alone  (Acts  xviii.  5 ; xix.  21  ; Rom.  xv.  26  ; 
2 Cor.  i.  16;  xi.  9 ; Phil.  iv.  15),  or  along  with 
Achaia  (2  Cor.  ix.  2 ; 1 Thess.  i.  8).  The  prin- 
cipal cities  of  Macedonia  were  Amphipolis,  Thes- 
salonica, Pella,  and  Pelagonia  (Liv.  xlv.  29); 
the  towns  of  the  province  named  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  noticed  in  the  present  work,  are 
Amphipolis,  Thessalonica,  Neapolis,  Apollonia, 
and  Beroea. 

MACHPELAH  (nSsHP,  twofold,  double , 
Sept.  SurAovs),  the  name  of  the  plot  of  ground 
containing  the  cave  which  Abraham  bought  of 
Eplnon  the  Hiltite  for  a family  sepulchre  (Gen. 
xxiii.  9,  17)  [Hebron]. 

MADAl  ('*112 ; Sept.  MaSot),  third  son  of 
Japhet  (Gen.  x.  2),  from  whom  the  Medes,  &c., 
are  supposed  to  have  descended  [Goo ; Nations, 
Dispersion  op]. 

MADMANNAH  (n3£H>2;  Sept.  MaS^vd), 
a city  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xv.  31),  very  far  south 
towards  Gaza  (1  Chron.  ii.  49),  which  in  the 
first  distribution  of  lands  had  been  assigned  to 
Judah.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  identify  it  with 
a town  of  their  time,  called  Menois,  near  the  city 
of  Gaza  ( Onomast.  p.  89). 

MADMENAH  (H3EHP ; Sept.  MaMW), 
a town  only  named  in  Isa.  x.  31,  where  it  is  ma- 
nifestly placed  between  Nob  and  Gibeah.  It 
is  generally  confounded  with  the  preceding,  which 
is  much  too  far  southward  to  suit  the  context. 

MAGDALA  (McrySaAd),  a town  mentioned 
in  Matt.  xv.  39,  and  the  probable  birthplace  of 
Mary  Magdalene,  i.  e.  Mary  of  Magdala.  It 
must  have  taken  its  name  from  a toicer  or  castle , 
as  the  name  signifies.  It  was  situated  on  the 
lake  Gennesareth,  but  it  has  usually  been  placed 
on  the  east  side  of  the  lake,  although  a careful 
consideration  of  the  route  of  Christ  before  lie 
came  to,  and  after  he  left,  Magdala,  would  show 
that  it  must  have  been  on  its  western  shore. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
(compiled  at  Tiberias),  which  several  times 
speaks  of  Magdala  as  being  adjacent  to  Tiberias 
and  Hamath,  or  the  hot-springs  (Lightf'oot,  Cho- 
rog.  Cent.  cap.  lxxvi.).  It  was  a seat  of  Jewish 
learning  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
the  Rabbins  of  Magdala  are  often  mentioned  in 
the  Talmud  (Lightfoot,  l.  c.).  A small  Moslem 
village,  bearing  the  name  of  Mejdel,  is  now  found 
on  the  shore  of  the  lake  about  three  miles  north 
by  west  of  Tiberias ; and  although  there  are  no 
ancient  ruins,  trie  name  and  situation  are  very 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  conclusion  that  it  repre- 
sents the  Magdala  of  Scripture.  This  was  pro- 
bably also  the  Migdal-el,  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali, 
mentioned  in  Josh.  xix.  38  (Burckhardt,  Syria, 
p.  559;  Seetzen  in  Monat.  Corresp.  xviii.  349; 
Fisk,  Life,\). 316;  Robinson, Researches,  iii.  279) 

MAGI.  The  Magi  were  originally  one  of  th* 
six  tribes  (Herod,  i.  lDl ; Piin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  29) 
into  which  the  nation  of  the  Medes  was  divided. 


MAUI. 


MAGI. 


287 


who,  like  the  Levit.es  under  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions, were  intrusted  with  the  care  of  religion  : an 
office  which  was  held  in  the  highest  honour,  gave 
the  greatest  influence,  and  which  they  probably 
acquired  for  themselves  only  after  a long  time,  as 
well  as  many  worthy  efforts  to  serve  their  country, 
and  when  they  had  proved  themselves  superior  to 
the  rest  of  their  brethren.  Power  oiiginallv  has 
always  excellence  of  some  kind  for  its  basis; 
and,  since  the  kind  of  power  exerted  by  the  Magi 
was  the  highest  on  earth,  as  being  concerned  with 
religion,  so  is  it  certain  that  1 hey''  surpassed  their 
fellow-countrymen  in  all  the  finer  and  loftier 
points  of  character.  As  among  other  ancient  na- 
tions, as  the  Egyptians,  and  Hebrews,  for  instance, 
so  among  the  Medes,  the  priestly  caste  had  not  only 
religion,  but  the  arts  and  all  the  higher  culture, 
’n  their  charge.  Their  name  points  immediately 
Io  their  sacerdotal  character  (from  Mag  or  Mog , 
which  in  the  Pehlvi  denotes  k priest'),  either  be- 
cause religion  was  the  chief  object  of  their  atten- 
tion, or  more  probably  because,  at  the  first,  reli- 
gion and  art  were  so  allied  as  to  be  scarcely  more 
than  different  expressions  of  the  same  idea. 

Little  in  detail  is  known  of  the  Magi  during 
the  independent  existence  of  the  Median  govern- 
ment ; they  appear  in  their  greatest  glory  after 
the  Medes  were  united  with  the  Persians.  This 
doubtless  is  owing  to  the  general  imperfection  of 
the  historical  materials  which  relate  to  the  earlier 
periods.  So  great,  however,  was  the  influence 
which  the  Magi  attained  under  the  united  empire, 
that  the  Medes  were  not  ill  compensated  for  their 
loss  of  national  independence.  Under  the  Medo- 
Persian  sway  the  Magi  formed  a sacred  caste  or 
college,  which  was  very  famous  in  the  ancient 
world  (Xenoph.  Cyrop.  viii.  1.  23;  Ammian.  Mar- 
vell. xxiii.  6;  Heeren,  Ideen , i.  45]  ; Schlosser, 
Universal  Uebers.  i.  278).  Porphyry  (Abst.  iv. 
16)  says,  ‘the  learned  men  who  are  engaged 
among  the  Persians  in  the  service  of  the  Deity 
are  called  Magi and  Saidas,  ! Among  the  Per- 
sians the  lovers  of  wisdom  (< piXoaocpoi ) and  the 
servants  of  God  are  called  Magi.’  In  the  earlier 
periods  of  the  world,  science,  being  built  alto- 
gether on  appearances,  comprised  and  sanctioned 
error  as  well  as  truth  ; and,  when  cultivated  in 
dose  connection  with  a corrupt  form  of  religion, 
could  hardly  fail  to  produce  a plentiful  crop  of 
lares : hence  divination,  astrology,  and  magic. 
How  completely  the  last,  is  to  be  traced  ulti- 
mately to  the  East  appears  from  the  word  itself, 
derived  as  it  is  from  Magi.  According  to  Strabo 
(tom.  ii.  p.  1084,  ed.  Falcon.)  the  Magi  practised 
different  sorts  of  divination — 1.  by  evoking  the 
dead;  2.  by  cups  or  dishes  (Josephs  divining 
cup,  Gen.  xliv.  5) ; 3.  by  means  of  water.  Py 
the  employment  of  these  means  the  Magi  af- 
fected to  disclose  the  future,  to  influence  the 
present,  and  to  call  the  past  to  their  aid.  Even 
the  visions  of  the  night  they  were  accustomed  to 
interpret,  not  empirically,  but.  according  to  such 
established  and  systematic  rules  as  a learned 
priesthood  might  be  expected  to  employ  (Strabo, 
xvi.  p.  762;  Cic.  De  Uivin.  i.  41;  ^Elian.  V.  II. 
ii,  17).  The  success,  however,  of  their  efforts  over 
the  invisible  world,  as  well  as  the  holy  office 
which  they  exercised,  demanded  in  themselves 
peculiar  cleanliness  of  body,  a due  regard  to 
which  and  to  the  general  principles  of  their  caste 
would  naturally  be  followed  by  professional 


prosperity,  which  in  its  turn  conspired  with  pre- 
vailing superstition  to  give  the  Magi  great  social 
consideration,  and  make  them  of  high  importance 
before  kings  and  princes  (Diog.  Laert.  ix.  7.2) — 
an  influence  which  they  appear  to  have  sometimes 
abused,  when,  descending  from  the  peculiar  duties 
of  their  high  office,  they  took  part  in  the  strife 
and  competitions  of  polit  ics,  and  found  themselves 
sufficiently  powerful  even  to  overturn  thrones 
(Herod,  iii.  (il,  sq.). 

Abuses  bring  reform  ; and  the  Magian  religion, 
which  had  lost  much  of  its  original  character, 
and  been  debased  by  some  of  the  lowest  elements 
of  earthly  passions,  loudly  called  for  a renovation, 
when  Zoroaster  appeared  to  bring  about  the  need- 
ful change.  As  to  the  time  of  Ids  appearance,  and 
in  general  the  particulars  of  his  history,  differ- 
ences of  opinion  prevail,  after  all  the  critical 
labour  that  has  been  expended  on  the  subject. 
Winer  ( Real-wort .)  says  he  lived  in  the  second 
half  of  the  seventh  century  before  Clnist.  He 
was  not  the  founder  of  a new  system,  but  the 
renovator  of  an  old  and  corrupt  one,  being,  as  he 
himself  intimates  (Zendavesta,  i.  43),  the  restorer 
of  the  word  which  Ormuzd  had  formerly  revealed, 
but  which  the  influence  of  Dews  had  degraded 
into  a false  and  deceptive  magic.  To  destroy 
this,  and  restore  the  pure  law  of  Ormuzd,  was 
Zoroaster’s  mission.  After  much  and  long-con- 
tinued opposition  on  the  part  of  the  adherents  and 
defenders  of  existing  corruptions,  he  succeeded 
in  his  virtuous  purposes,  and  caused  his  system 
eventually  to  prevail.  The  Magi,  as  a caste,  did 
not  escape  from  his  reforming  hand.  He  appears 
to  have  remodelled  their  institute,  dividing  it  into 
tfiree  great  classes: — I.  Herbeds,  or  learners; 
2.  Mobeds,  or  masters ; 3.  Destur  Mobeds,  or 
perfect  scholars  (Zendav.  ii.  171,  26]  ).  The  Magi 
alone  he  allowed  to  perform  the  religious  rites ; 
they  possessed  the  forms  of  prayer  and  worship; 
they  knew  the  cerernumes  which  availed  to  con- 
ciliate Ormuzd,  and  were  obligatory  in  the  pub- 
lic offerings  (Herod,  i.  132).  They  accordingly 
became  the  sole  medium  of  communication  be- 
tween the  Deity  and  his  creatures,  and  through 
them  alone  Ormuzd  made  his  will  known;  none 
but  them  could  see  into  the  future,  and  they  dis- 
closed their  knowledge  to  those  only  who  were  so 
fortunate  as  to  conciliate  their  good  will.  Hence 
the  power  which  the  Magian  priesthood  possessed. 
The  general  belief  in  the  trustworthiness  of  their 
predictions,  especially  when  founded  on  astro- 
logical calculations,  the  all  but  universal  custom 
of  consulting  the  will  of  the  divinity  before  en- 
tering on  any  important  undertaking,  and  the 
blind  faith  which  was  reposed  in  all  that  the 
Magi  did,  reported,  or  commanded,  combined  to 
create  for  that  sacerdotal  caste  a power,  bolh  in 
public  and  in  private  concerns,  which  has  pro- 
bably  never  been  exceeded.  Indeed  the  sooth- 
sayer was  a public  officer,  a member,  if  not  the 
president,  of  the  privy  council  in  the  Med/)-Per- 
sian  court,  demanded  alike  for  show,  in  uider  io 
influence  the  people,  and  for  use,  in  order  to 
guide  the  state.  Hence  the  person  of  the  monarch 
was  surrounded  by  priests,  who,  in  different  ranks, 
and  with  different  otiices,  conspired  to  sustain  the 
throne,  uphold  the  established  religion,  and  con- 
ciliate or  enforce  the  obedience  of  the  subject. 
The  litness  of  the  Magi  for,  and  their  usefulness 
to,  an  Oriental-court  were  not  a little  enhanced  bf 


£83 


MAGI. 


MAGI. 


the  pomp  of  their  dress,  the  splendouv  of  their 
ceremonial,  and  the  number  and  gradation  of  the 
sacred  associates.  Well  may  Cyrus,  in  uniting 
the  Medes  to  his  Persian  subjects,  have  adopted, 
in  all  its  magnificent  details,  a priesthood  which 
Mould  go  far  to  transfer  to  him  the  affections  of 
his  conquered  subjects,  and  promote,  more  than 
any  other  thing,  his  own  aggrandisement  and  that 
of  his  empire.  Neither  the  functions  nor  the  in- 
fluence of  this  sacred  caste  were  reserved  for  pecu- 
liar, rare,  and  extraordinary  occasions,  but  ran 
through  the  web  of  human  life.  At  the  break  of 
day  they  had  to  chant  the  divine  hymns.  This 
office  being  performed,  then  came  the  daily  sacri- 
fice to  be  offered,  not  indiscriminately,  but  lo  the 
divinities  whose  day  in  each  case  it  was — an 
office  therefore  which  none  but  the  initiated  could 
fulfil.  As  an  illustration  of  the  high  estimation 
in  which  the  Magi  were  held,  it  may  be  men- 
tioned that  it  was  consider  d a necessary  part 
of  a princely  education  to  h%ve  been  instructed 
in  the  peculiar  learning  of  their  sacred  order, 
which  was  an  honour  conceded  to  no  other  but 
royal  personages, except  in  very  rare  and  very  pecu- 
liar instances  (Cicero,  De  Divin.  i.  23  ; Plutarch, 
Themist. ).  This  Magian  learning  embraced 

everything  which  regarded  the  higher  culture  of 
the  nation,  being  known  in  lusfmy  under  the  de- 
signation of  the  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
It  comprised  the  knowledge  of  all  the  sacred  rites, 
customs,  usages,  and  observances,  which  related 
not  merely  to  the  worship  of  the  gods,  but  to  the 
ifchole  private  life  of  every  worshipper  of  Ormuzd 
— the  duties  which,  as  such,  he  had  to  observe, 
and  the  punishments  which  followed  the  neglect  of 
these  obligations ; whence  may  be  learnt  how 
necessary  the  act.  of  the  priest  on  all  occasions 
was.  Under  the  veil  of  religion  the  priest  had 
bound  himself  up  with  the  entire  of  public  and 
domestic  life.  The  judicial  office,  too,  appears  to 
have  been,  in  the  time  of  Cambyses,  in  the  hands 
of  the  Magi ; for  from  them  was  chosen  the  college 
or  bench  of  royal  judges,  which  makes  its  appear- 
ance in  the  history  of  that  monarch  (Herod,  iv. 
31 ; vii.  194  ; Esther  i.  13).  Men  who  held 
these  offices,  possessed  this  learning,  and  exerted 
this  influence  with  the  people,  may  have  proved 
a check  to  Oriental  despotism,  no  less  powerful 
than  constitutional,  though  they  were  sometimes 
unable  to  guarantee  their  own  lives  against  the 
wrath  of  the  monarch  (Herod,  vii.  194  ; Dan.  ii. 
12);  and  they  appear  to  have  been  well  versed  in 
those  courtly  arts  by  which  the  hand  that  bears 
the  sword  is  won  to  protect  instead  of  destroying. 
Thus  Cambyses,  wishing  to  marry  his  sister,  in- 
quired of  the  Magi  (like  our  Henry  VIII.)  if  the 
laws  permitted  sucli  an  union:  ‘We  'nave,1  they 
adroitly  answered,  ‘ no  law  to  that  effect;  but  a 
law  there  is  which  declares  that  the  king  of  the 
Persians  may  do  what  he  pleases 1 (Heeren,  Ideen, 
1;  Hyde,  Rel.  Vet.  Persarum ; Brisson,  Princip. 
Pers.). 

If  we  turn  to  the  books  of  Scripture  we  find 
the  import  of  what  has  been  said  confirmed  ; and 
hence  are  justified  in  holding  that  the  Scriptures 
have  an  historical  worth  which  learning  may 
illustrate,  but.  cannot,  even  when  guided  by  in- 
fidelity, invalidate,  much  less  destroy.  Let  the 
hook  of  Daniel  be  studied  on  this  point.  There 
the  great  influence  of  the  Magi  is  well  illustrated, 
and  it  is  seen  that  their  functions  were  not  only 


numerous,  but  held  in  the  highest  regard.  In 
the  1st  verse  of  the  2nd  chapter,  Nebuchadnezzar, 
being  troubled  by  a dream,  invokes  the  aid  of 
none  other  than  the  magicians,  and  the  astro- 
logers, and  the  sorcerers,  the  Chaldaeans,  and  the 
soothsayers  (ver.  27).  The  precise  import  of 
some  of  these  terms  it  may  not  be  easy  to  assign ; 
but  it  is  clear  that  there  were  various  kinds  of 
wise  men,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  above  were 
classes  belonging  to  one  great  order,  which  com- 
prised, under  the  general  name  of  Magi,  all  who 
were  engaged  in  the  serv  ice  of  religion  ; so  that  we 
find  here  an  ample  priesthood,  a sacred  college, 
graduated  in  rank  and  honour.  Indeed,  in  Jer. 
xxxix.  3,  we  find  this  order  or  caste  expressly  so 
denominated,  HQ  2*1.  which,  in  the  English  version, 
is  given  as  a proper  name,  Rab-mag,  which  de- 
notes the  chief  of  the  Magi,  Sunnnus  Pontifex, 
or  high  priest — an  office  to  which  Daniel  was  ele- 
vated in  consequence  of  his  skill  in  interpreting 
the  king’s  dream  after  the  established  authorities 
had  failed  (Dan.  ii.  4S).  The  acts  which  accom- 
panied this  appointment  serve  as  illustrations  of 
the  high  reverence  in  which  the  Magi  were  held  : 

‘ Then  the  king  Nebuchadnezzar  tell  upon  his 
face  and  worshipped  Daniel,  and  commanded 
that,  they  should  offer  an  oblation  and  sweet 
odours  unto  him1  (ver.  4G;  see  also  ver.  48). 
From  the  49th  verse  it  would  seem  not  unlikely 
that  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  last  resort 
belonged  to  this  priestly  oider,  as  we  know  it.  did 
to  the  hierarchy  of  northern  and  more  modern 
courts. 

The  Magi  were  not  confined  to  the  Medes  and 
Persians.  Since  they  are  mentioned  by  Herodotus 
as  one  of  the  original  tribes  of  the  Medes,  they 
may  have  been  primitively  a Median  priesthood. 
If  so,  they  extended  themselves  into  other  lands. 
Possibly  Magi  may  have  been  at  first  not  the 
name  of  a particular  tribe  or  priestly  caste,  but  a 
general  designation  for  priests  or  learned  men  ; as 
Pharaoh  denoted  not  an  individual,  but.  generally 
king  or  ruler.  However  this  may  be,  the  Chal- 
daeans  also  had  an  organised  order  of  Magi,  a 
caste  of  sacerdotal  scholars,  which  bore  the  name 
of  ‘wise  men1  (Jer.  1.  35) ; ‘the  wise  men  of 
Babylon1  (Dan.  ii.  12),  among  whom  Daniel  is 
classed  (ii.  IS,  24).  Among  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans they  were  known  under  the  name  of  Chal- 
daeans (Strabo,  xvi.  p.  7G2;  Diog.  Laert.  Procem. 
1),  and  also  of  Magi  (Diog.  Laert. ‘viii.  1.  o). 
They  lived  scattered  over  the  land  in  different 
places  (Dan.  ii.  14  ; Strabo,  xvi.  p.  739),  and  had 
possessions  of  their  own.  The  temple  of  Belus 
was  employed  by  them  for  astronomical  observa- 
tions ; but  their  astronomy  was  connected  with 
the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies  practised  by 
the  Babylonians  (Diod.  Sic.  ii.  31  ; Ephraem  Syr. 
Op.  ii.  488;  consult  Ideler,  in  the  Transactions 
of  the  Berlin  Academy  for  1S24-5),  and  was 
specially  directed  to  vain  attempts  to  foretell  the 
future,  predict  the  fate  of  individuals  or  of  com- 
munities, and  sway  the  present,  in  alliance  with 
augury,  incantation,  and  magic  (A.Gell.  iii.  10.  9; 
xiv.  1 ; Am.  Marcell,  xxiii.  6 ; p.  352,  ed.  Bipont; 
Diod.  Sic.  ii.  29  ; Isa.  xlvii.  9,  13  ; Dan.  ii.). 

It  is  easy  to  understand  how  the' lofty  science 
(so  called)  of  these  Magi — lofty  while  its  scholars 
surpassed  the  rest  of  the  world  in  knowledge,  and 
were  the  associates,  the  advisers,  the  friends,  and 
the  monitors  of  great  anti  flourishing  monarch*. 


MAGI. 


MALACHI. 


of  indeed  successively  the  rulers  of  the  world — 
might,  could  indeed  hardly  fail,  as  resting  on  uo 
basis  of  fact  or  reality,  in  process  of  time,  to  sink 
into  its  own  native  insignificance,  and  become 
either  a mere  bugbear  to  frighten  the  ignorant,  or  an 
instrument  to  aid  the  fraudulent : thus  hastening 
on  to  the  contempt  into  which  all  falsities  are 
sure  sooner  or  later  to  fall.  The  decline  was 
indeed  gradual ; ages  passed  ere  it  was  com- 
pleted ; but  as  soon  as  it  ceased  to  have  the  sup- 
port afforded  by  the  mighty  and  splendid  thrones 
of  Asia,  it  began  to  lose  its  authority,  which  the 
progress  of  knowledge  and  the  advent  of  Christ 
prevented  it  from  ever  regaining.  Yet  is  it  im- 
possible to  contemplate  this,  any  more  than  any 
other  powerful  system  of  religious  influence,  with- 
out emotions  that  are  akin  to  admiration.  Even 
in  the  latter  days  of  the  Roman  empire,  however, 
a remnant  of  the  Magian  system  was  found, 
though  in  a low  and  degenerate  condition.  The 
civilized  world  was  overrun  with  magician.®,  not 
very  much  more  respectable  than  our  modern 
conjurors,  who  managed  to  delude  the  ignorant 
vulgar,  and  sometimes  to  ‘ carry  captive  ’ the 
noble  and  the  rich,  or  even  to  sway  the  councils 
of  princes,  by  pretending  to  a knowledge  and  a 
power  over  the  occult  qualities  and  the  more 
mighty  agencies  of  earth,  heaven,  and  hell.  They 
could  interpret  the  language  of  the  stars ; they 
could  predict  the  future ; they  could  expound 
dreams;  they  could  cure  otherwise  incurable  dis- 
eases ; and  the  skill  which  an  individual  might 
be  so  happy  as  to  possess,  he,  having  derived  it 
from  some  predecessor,  who  had  again  had  it 
from  another,  himself  the  last  in  a long  line  of 
wise  nien,  could,  and  for  money  or  other  con- 
siderations did,  impart  to  others.  Egypt  and  the 
East  generally,  Solomon,  and  Pharaoh  were  ac- 
counted the  great  fountains  whence  this  much- 
esteemed  knowledge  and  these  dark  mysteries 
were  to  be  drawn  (Othon.  Lex.  Rabbin,  p.  104; 
Tacit.  Ann.  ii.  27  ; xii.  2.  32;  vi.  29  ; Joseph.  Be 
Bell.  Jud.  ii.  7.  3).  The  case  of  Simon  Magus 
(Acts  viii.  9;  see  also  Acts  xiii.  6,  sq.)  may  be 
taken  as  a specimen  of  these  wandering  im- 
postors; and  those  who  are  curious  to  trace  the 
Steps  by  which  the  Magi  declined  and  sunk  may 
see  the  same  Simon  in  conflict  with  Peter  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions.  The  estimation,  how- 
ever, in  which  Simon  is  evidently  held,  as  re- 
corded in  the  Acts  (‘some  great  one,’  &c.),  gives 
reason  to  think  that  Magianism  still  retained  a 
large  share  of  as  influence  at  the  commencement 
of  our  era.  It  seems,  indeed,  to  have  held  a sort 
of  middle  position,  half  way  between  its  ancient 
splendour  and  its  coming  degradation : whence 
•ve  may  understand  the  propriety  of  the  visit  paid 
by  the  Magi  to  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews 
(Matt,  ii., 4 star  in  the  East  ).  For  if  th&system 
had  been  then  sunk  so  low  as  to  correspond  in 
any  degree  with  our  conception  of  these  pretended 
arts,  it  is  difficult  to  assign,  at  least  to  the  un- 
iteliever,  a sufficient  reason  why  the  visit  was 
made,  or  at  any  rate  why  it  was  recorded  ; but  its 
credibility  is  materially  furthered  if  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  are  such  as  to  allow  us  to 
regard  that  visit  as  a homage  paid  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  highest  existing  influences  to  the 
rising  star  of  a new  day,  in  the  fuller  light  of 
which  they  were  speedily  to  vanish. — J.  R.  B. 
MAGICIANS.  [Magi] 


28  S 

MAGOG  (3130  ; Sept.  Mayciry)^  son  of  Japhet 
(Gen.  x.  2).  In  Ezekiel  (xxxviii.  2 ; xxxix.  6} 
it  occurs  as  the  name  of  a nation,  coupled  with 
Gog,  and  is  supposed  to  represent  certain  Scythian 
or  Tartar  tribes  descended  from  the  son  of  Japhet 
[Nations,  Dispersion  op]. 

MAHALATH,  the  title  of  Psalms  liii.  and 
lxxxviii.  [Psai.ms.] 

MAHANAIM  (DOPIO,  tioo  hosts;  Sept.  Ma 
voil/x),  a place  beyond  the  Jordan,  north  of  the  river 
Jabbok,  which  derived  its  name  from  Jacob’s 
having  been  there  met  by  the  angels  on  his  return 
from  Padan-aram  (Gen.  xxxii.  2).  The  name 
was  eventually  extended  to  the  town  which  then 
existed,  or  which  afterwards  arose  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood. This  town  was  in  the  territory  of  the 
tribe  of  Gad  (Josh.  xiii.  26,  30),  and  was  a city 
of  the  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  39).  It  was  in  this 
city  that  Ish-bosheth,  the  son  of  Saul,  reigned 
(2  Sam.  ii.  8),  probably  because  he  found  the  in- 
fluence of  David's  name  less  strong  on  the  east 
than  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan.  The  choice,  at 
least,  seems  to  show  that  Mahanaim  was  then  an 
important  and  strong  place.  Hence,  many  years 
after,  David  himself  repaired  to  Mahanaim  when 
he  sought  refuge  beyond  the  Jordan  from  his  son 
Absalom  (2  Sam.  xvii.  24,  27  ; l Kings  ii.  8). 
We  only  read  of  Mahanaim  again  as  the  station 
of  one  of  the  twelve  officers  who  had  charge,  in 
monthly  rotation,  of  raising  the  provisions  for  the 
royal  establishments  under  Solomon  (1  Kings 
iv.  14).  The  site  has  not  yet  been  identified.  In 
Dr.  Robinson's  Arabic  list  of  names  of  places  in 
Jebel  Ajlun  (Bib.  Researches,  vol.  iii.  Append,  xi. 
p.  166),  we  find  Mahneh , and  this  may  possibly 
prove  to  be  Mahanaim. 

MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ  frbf  *7»jD 
T?  ; Sept.  Tou  o£eo>s  tt povop^v  noiricrai  tr/co- 
Awj/),  words  prognostic  of  the  sudden  attack  of 
the  Assyrian  army  (‘he  hasteth  to  the  spoil'), 
which  the  prophet  Isaiah  was  first  commanded  to 
write  in  large  characters  upon  a tablet,  and  after- 
wards to  give  as  a symbolical  name  to  a son  that 
was  to  be  born  to  him  (Isa.  viii.  1,  3).  It  is,  as 
Dr.  Henderson  remarks,  the  longest  of  any  of  the 
Scripture  names,  but  has  its  parallels  in  this  re- 
spect in  other  languages,  especially  in  our  own 
during  the  time  of  the  Commonwealth. 

MAHLON,  one  of  the  two  sons  of  Elimelech 
and  Naomi,  and  first  husband  of  Ruth  the  Moab- 
itess  (Ruth  i.  2,  sq.).  [Ruth.] 

MAKKEDAH  (rnjpD ; Sept.  MaKrjda),  a 
royal  city  of  the  ancient  Canaanites  (Josh.  xii. 
16),  in  the  neighbourhood  of  which  was  the  cave 
in  which  the  five  kings  who  confederated  against 
Israel  took  refuge  after  their  defeat  (Josh.  x.  10- 
29).  It  afterwards  belonged  to  Judah  (Josh.  xv. 
41).  Makkedah  is  placed  by  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  8 Roman  miles  to  the  east  of  Eleuther- 
opolis  ( Onomast.  s.  v.  Maceda). 

MALACHI  ; Sept.  MaAaxlos;  Vulg. 

Malachias'),  the  last  of  the  minor  prophets,  and 
consequently  the  latest  writer  in  the  canon  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Ch.  iv.  4,  5,  6,  might  alone 
suggest  that  he  was  the  last  of  the  Hebrew  pro- 
phets till  John  the  Baptist  appeared.  Nothing  is 
known  of  his  person  or  history.  It  appears  that  he 
lived  after  Zechariah,  since  in  his  time  the  secona 


290 


MALACHI. 


MALACHI. 


temple  was  already  built  (cb.  iii.  10) ; and  it  is 
probable  that  he  was  contemporary  with  Nehe- 
miali  (comp.  ch.  ii.  11,  with  Neh.  xiii.  23  27,  and 
ch.  iii.  S,  with  Neh.  xiii.  10).  Tradition,  as  usual, 
has  not  failed  to  supply  the  lack  of  authentic 
information.  Malachi  is  reprrsen'ed  to  have 
been  of  the  tribe  of  Zebulon,  and  a native  of 
Sapha  (Saphir?);  to  have  died  young,  and  to 
have  been  buried  with  his  ancestors  at.  Sapha, 
after  having  assisted  as  a member  of  the  great 
Synagogue,  on  the  re-establishment  of  order  and 
prosperity  in  his  country  (Epiphanius,  De  Proph. 
Vita  et  Interitiiy  cap.  xxii. ; Isidor.  De  Vita  et 
Morte  Sand.  cap.  li.).  . 

The  name  Malachi  ('DlS/ft)  means,  as  some  un- 
derstand  it,  my  angel ; but  it  seems  more  correct  to 

regard  it  as  a contracted  form  of  angel 

of  Jehovah.  The  traditionists  already  cited  regard 
it  as  a proper  name,  given  to  the  prophet  on  account 
of  the  beauty  of  his  person  and  his  unblemished 
life.  The  word  translated  ‘ angel,’  however,  means 
also  a ‘ messenger,’  angels  being,  in  fact,  the 
messengers  of  God  ; and  as  the  prophets  are  often 
styled  angels  or  messengers  of  Jehovah,  it  is  sup- 
posed that  ‘ Malachi’  is  merely  a general  title  de- 
scriptive of  this  character,  and  not  a proper  name. 
It  has  been  very  generally  supposed  that  it  de- 
notes Ezra.  The  Chaldee  paraph r as t.  is  of  this 
opinion,  as  is  R.  Joshua  Den  Korcha  and  other 
Jewish  writers  ; but  Kimchi  resists  this,  alleging 
that  Ezra  is  never  called  a prophet,  but  a scribe, 
and  Malachi  never  a scribe,  but  a prophet.  R. 
.Nachman  supposes  Malachi  to  have  been  Mor- 
deeai,  and  that  he  was  so  called  because  he  was 
second  to  the  king;  the  force  of  which  reason  is  not 
very  apparent.  The  current  opinion  of  the  Jews 
is  that  of  the  Talmud,  in  which  this  question  is 
mooted,  and  which  decides,  it  seems  to  us  rightly, 
that  this  prophet  is  not  the  same  with  Mordecai, 
or  Ezra,  or  Zerubbabel,  or  Nehemiah,  whose 
claims  had  all  been  advocated  by  different  par- 
ties, but  a distinct  person  named  Malachi  ( F . 
Bab.  Megillah,  fol.  xv.  1).  Jerome,  however, 
supports  the  claim  of  Ezra  ( Comment . in  Mai. 
i.  1),  and  many  modern  commentators  have 
yielded  to  his  authority ; but  the  prevailing 
opinion  is  in  favour  of  the  separate  existence  of 
Malachi.  Some,  however,  have  been  content  to 
leave  the  authorship  unsettled,  and  to  suppose  that 
the  title  is  taken  from  the  promise  of  an  angel  or 
messenger  of  the  Lord,  in  ch.  iii.  1,  ‘ Behold,  I 
send  my  messenger ,’  &c.  wnere  the  word  ( 
malachi ) is  the  very  same  that  forms  the  title 
of  the  book.  Considering  the  peculiar  import- 
ance of  this  text,  which  was  fulfilled  in  John  the 
.Baptist,  the  harbinger  of  the  new  covenant,  it 
cannot  he  denied  that  there  is  much  force  in  this 
conjecture,  although  that  for  which  we  have 
intimated  a preference  seems  to  offer  still  stronger 
claims  in  its  favour.  By  some  the  word  malachi 
has  been  taken  very  literally  to  denote  an  incar- 
nate angel.  This  was  one  of  the  many  vagaries 
of  Origen,  and  it  has  been  , adopted  by  a good 
number  of  ancient,  and  modern  commentators, 
the  rather,  perhaps,  as  the  Septuagint  affords  it 
some  countenance  by  translating  the  first  verse, 
A r>piia  Koyov  nvplov  eVi  rbu  T <rpaf\  iv  XCi$ 
£yye\ ov  avrov — ‘ The  but  den  of  the  word  of  the 
Lord  to  Israel  by  the  hand  of  his  angel.' 

Although  there  has  been  * faint. disposition  to 


regard  Zecnariah  as  the  last  of  the  prophet* 
(Lactant.  De  Vera  Sapent.  iv.  5),  the  received 
opinion  decides  for  Malachi.  Accordingly  Aben 
Ezra  calls  him  ^ID,  ‘ the  end  of  the 

prophets;’  Kimcin,  ‘the  last  of 

them  and  not  seldom  he  is  distinguished  by 
the  Rabbins  as  DlYin,  ‘ the  seal  of 

the  prophets.’  But  although  it  is  well  agreed 
that  Malachi  was  the  last  of  the  prophets,  tne 
date  of  his  prophecy  has  been  variously  deter- 
mined. Usher  makes  him  contemporary  with 
Nehemiah,  in  bc.  416;  and  the  general  opinion 
that  this  prophet  was  contemporary  with, .or  imme- 
diately followed,  Nehemiah,  makes  most  of  the 
proposed  alternatives  range  within  a few  years  of 
that  date.  lie  censures  the  same  offences  which 
excited  the  indignation  of  Nehemiah,  and  which 
that  governor  had  not  been  able  entirely  to  reform. 
Speaking  of  God's  greater  kindness  to  the  Israelites 
than  to  the  Edomites,  he  begins  with  declaiming 
against  the  priests  for  their  profane  and  mer- 
cenary conduct,  and  against  the  people  for  their 
multiplied  divorces  and  intermarriages  with  idol- 
atrous nations ; he  threatens  them  with  punish- 
ment and  rejection,  declaring  that  God  would 
‘ make  his  name  great  among  the  Gentiles’  (ch. 
i.  11).  for  that  he  was  wearied  with  the  impiety 
of  Israel  (ch . i.  ii.).  From  this  the  prophet  takes 
occasion  solemnly  to  proclaim  that  the  Lord 
whom  they  sought  should  suddenly  come  to  his 
temple,  pi^ceded  by  that  messenger  who,  like  a 
harbinger,  should  prepare  his  way  ; that  the  Lord 
when  he  should  appear  would  purify  the  sons  of 
Levi  from  their  unrighteousness,  and  refine  them 
as  metal  from  the  dross  (ch.  iii.  1-3);  that  then 
‘ the  offering  of  Judah,*  the  spiritual  sacrifice  of 
the  heart,  ‘ should  he  pleasant  to  the  Lord,’  as 
was  that  of  the  patriarchs  and  their  uncorrupted 
ancestors  (ch.  iii.  4);  and  that  the  Lord  would 
quickly  exterminate  the  corruptions  and  adul- 
teries which  prevailed.  The  prophet  then  pro- 
ceeds with  an  earnest  exhortation  to  repentance ; 
promising  high  rewards  and  remembrance  to  the 
righteous  in  that  last  day  when  the  Lord  shall 
make  up  his  peculiar  treasures, and  finally  establish 
a distinction  of  doom  and  condition  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  (ch.  iii.  16-18).  Malachi 
then  concludes  with  an  impressive  assurance  of 
approaching  salvation  to  those  who  feared  God  s 
name  from  that  ‘ sun  of  righteousness,’  who 
should  arise  with  healing  in  his  wings,  and  render 
them  triumphant;  enjoining  in  the  solemn  close 
of  his  exhortation,  when  uttering  as  it  were  the 
last  admonition  of  the  Jewish  prophets,  an  ob- 
servance of  the  law  of  Moses,  till  the  advent  of 
Elijah  the  prophet  (ch.  iv.  5.  or  John  the  Baptist, 
who  came  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  Mark 
xi.  12;  Luke  i.  17),  who  before  the  corning  of 
that  ‘ great  and  dreadfnl  day  of  the  Lord,  should 
turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and 
the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  fathers'  (ch.  iv.). 
Thus  Malachi  sealed  up  the  volume  of  prophecy 
with  the  description  of  that  personage  at  whose 
appearance  the  evangelists  begin  their  gospel 
history. 

Ttie  claim  of  the  book  of  Malachi  to  its  place 
in  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  has  never 
been  disputed  ; and  its  authority  is  established 
by  the  references  to  it  in  the  New  Tes  tamer C 
(Matt.  xi.  10;  xvii.  12;  Mark  i.  2;  ix..  V 12, 
Luke  i.  17  ; Rom.  ix.  13). 


MALCHUS. 


MALLTjACH. 


291 


The  manner  of  Malachi  offers  few,  if  any,  dis- 
tinguishing characteristics.  The  style,  rhythm, 
and  imagery  of  his  writings  are  substantially 
those  of  the  old  prophets,  but  they  possess  no 
remarkable  vigour  or  beauty.  This  is  accounted 
for  by  his  living  during  that  decline  of  Hebrew 
poetry,  which  we  trace  more  or  less  in  all  the 
sacred  writings  posterior  to  the  Captivity. 

In  consequence  of  the  peculiar  questions  which 
arise  out  of  this  prophecy  and  its  authorship,  the 
literature  connected  with  Malachi  is  very  ample. 
Copious  notices  will  be  found  in  the  Latin,  Ger- 
man, and  English  Introductions  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  in  the  Prefatory  Dissertations  of  the  va- 
rious commentators.  The  principal  separate  works 
on  the  subject  are: — Chytraeus,  Explicat.  Malach. 
Prophet.  Rost.  1 56S ; G'rynaeus , Hypomnemata 
in  Malach.  Frcf.  1652 ; Stock,  Commentary  upon 
the  whole  Prophesye  of  Malachy , Loud.  1641 ; 
Schlater,  A Brief  and  Plain  Commentary  upon 
the  whole  Prophecie  of  Malachy,  Loud.  1650  ; 
Ursinus,  Comment,  in  Malach.  Frcf.  1652;  Sal. 
van  Til,  Malach . illm trains.  Lug.  Bat.  1701  ; 
Wesselius,  Malachias  enudeatus , Lubeck,  1729; 
Malachia  Propheta  c.  Tar  gum  Jonathis  et  Ra- 
daki  Raschii  ac  Aben-Esrce  Comment,  et  In- 
terpret. J.  C.  Hebenstreit,  Lips.  1746  ; X enema, 
Comment,  in  Malach.  Leovard.  1759;  Bahrdt, 
Comment,  in  Malachiam,  c.  examine  verss.  vett. 
et  lectt.  variant.  Houbigantii,  Lips.  1768  ; J.  M. 
Faber,  Comment,  in  Malachiam , Onold.  1779; 
J.  F.  Fischer,  Observatt.  Crit.  in  Malachiam , 
Lips.  1759  ; J.  M.  Faber,  Abweischungen  der 
alten  Uebersetzer  d.  Propheien  Malachias , in 
Kichhorn's  Report,  vi.  104-124. 

MALCHUS  (M aXxos),  the  servant  of  the  high- 
priest  Caiaphas,  whose  right  ear  was  cut  off  by 
Peter  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  (John  xviii. 
10).  The  name  of  Malchus  was  not  unlrequent 
among  the  Greeks  (see  Wetstein,  in  loc .) ; but  as 
it  was  usually  applied  to  persons  of  Oriental 
countries,  there  is  reason  to  suppose  it  derived 
from  the  Hebrew  melech,  and,  if  so,  it  ex- 
actly corresponds  to  our  title  ‘ King.’  Some, 
however,  compare  it  with  the  Hebrew 
mallauch,  ‘ counsellor.’ 

MALLUACH  (O^D)  occurs  only  once  in 
Scripture,  namely,  in  the  passage  where  Job  com- 
plains that  he  is  subjected  to  the  contumely  of 
the  meanest  people,  those  1 who  cut  up  mallows 
( malluach ) by  the  bushed — for  their  meat.’  (Job 
xxx.  4).  The  proper  meaning  of  the  word  mal- 
luach has  been  a subject  of  considerable  discussion 
among  authors,  in  consequence,  apparently,  of 
its  resemblance  to  the  Greek  pahaxn  ( malakhe ), 
signifying  ‘ mallow.’  and  also  to  maluch , which  is 
said  to  be  the  Syriac  name  of  a species  of  Orache , 
or  Atriplex.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  say 
which  is  the  more  correct  interpretation,  as  both 
appear  to  have  some  foundation  in  truth,  and 
seem  equally  adapted  to  the  sense  of  the  above- 
quoted  passage.  The  malakhe  of  the  Greeks  is 
distinguished  by  Dioscorides  into  two  kinds ; of 
which  he  states  that  the  cultivated  is  more  fit  for 
food  than  the  wild  kind.  Arab  authors  apply  the 
description  of  Dioscorides  to  khoob-bazee,  a name 
which  in  India  we  limnd  applied  both  to  species 
of  Malva  rotundifoUa  and  of  M.  sylvestris,  which 
extend  from  Europe  to  the  north  of  India,  and 


which  are  still  used  as  food  in  the  latter  country, 
as  they  formerly  were  in  Europe,  and  probably 
in  Syria.  That  some  kind  of  mallow  has  been 
so  used  in  Syria  we  have  evidence  in  the  Quota- 
tion made  by  Mr.  Harmer  from  Biddulph"  who 
says,  ‘ We  saw  many  poor  people  collecting 
mallows  and  three-leaved  grass,  and  asked  them 
what  they  did  with  it;  and  they  answered,  that 
it  was  all  their  food,  and  that  they  boiled  it,  and 
did  e?t  it.’  Dr.  Shaw,  in  his  Travels,  on  the  con- 
trary, observes  that  ‘ Mellon  keah,  or  mulookiah , 

K'nfe,  as  in  the  Arabic,  is  the  same  with 
the  melochia  or  corchorus,  being  a podded  species 
of  mallows,  whose  pods  are  rough,  of  a glutinous 
substance,  and  used  in  most  of  their  dishes. 
Mellou-keah  appears  to  be  little  different  in  name 
from  (Job  xxx.  4),  which  we  render  et  mal- 
lows;” though  some  other  plant,  of  a more  saltish: 
taste,  and  less  nourishing  quality,  may  be  rather 
intended.’  The  plant  alluded  to  is  Corchorus 
olitorius,  which  has  been  adopted  and  figured 
in  her  Scripture  Herbal  by  Lady  Calcotf,  who 
observes  that  this  plant,  called  Jews’  Mallow, 
appears  to  be  certainly  that  mentioned  by  the 
patriarch  Avicenna  calls  it  olus  Judaicum  ; and 
Rauwolf  aw  the  Jews  about  Aleppo  use  the 
leaves  as  potherbs ; * and  this  same  mallow  con- 
tinues to  be  eaten  in  Egypt  and  Arabia,  as  well 
as  Palestine.’  But  there  are  so  many  plants  cf 
a mild  mucilaginous  nature  which  are  used  as 
articles  of  diet  in  the  East,  that  it  is  hardly  pos- 
sible to  select  one  in  preference  to  another,  unless 
we  find  a similarity  in  the  name.  Thus  species 
of  Amaranthus,  of  Chenopodium , of  Portnlacca, 
as  well  as  the  above  Corchorus,  and  the  mallow , 
are  all  used  as  food,  and  might  be  adduced  as 
suitable  to  the  above  passages,  since  most  of  them 
are  found  growing  wild  in  many  parts  of  the 
countries  of  the  East. 

The  learned  Bochart,  however,  contends  {Hie- 
roz.  part  i.  t.  iii.  c.  16)  that  the  word  mal- 
luach denotes  a saltish  plant  called  a\iuos  by 
the  Greeks,  and  which  with  good  leason  is  sup- 
posed to  be  the  Atriplex  Halimus  of  botanists,  or 
tall  shrubby  Orache.  The  Septuagint,  indeed, 
first  ^ave  &\ipa  as  the  interpretation  of  malluach. 
Celsius  adopts  it,  and  many  others  consider  it  as 
the  most  correct.  A good  abstract  of  Bochart's 
arguments  is  given  by  Dr.  Harris.  In  the  first 
place  the  most  ancient  Greek  translator  inter- 
prets malluach.  by  halimos.  That  ihe  Jews  were 
in  the  habit  of  eating  a plant  called  by  the  former 
name,  is  evident  from  the  quotation  given  by 
Bochart  from  the  Talmudical  Tract  Kiddusin , 
(c.  iii.  66),  where  it  is  said  : ‘ Ivit  in  urbem  Co- 
chalith,  quae  est  in  deserto.  Et  invitatis  omnibus 
sapientibus  Israelis  dixit,  Patres  nostii  (prse 
inopia)  malluchim  comederunt  quo  tempore 
laborabant  in  eediticatione  Templi  sec  midi  : et 
nos  quoque  malluchim  comedimus  in  memoriam 
patrum  nostrorum.  Et  allati  sunt  malluchim 
super  mensas  aureas,  et  comedeiunt.’  By  Ibn 
Buetar,  malookh  is  given  as  the  synonyme  of  at 
kutvf  albuhuri,  i.  e.  the  sea-side  Kutuf  or  Orache, 
which  is  usually  considered  to  be  the  Atriplex 
marinum , now  A.  Halimus.  Bochart,  indeed,  re- 
marks : ‘ Dioscorides  libro  primo  halimum.  quod 
populus  Syiiae  vocat  maluch,  ait.  esse  arbnstum. 
ex  quo  hunt  sepes,  rhamno  simile,  nisi  quod  caret 
spinis,  et  folio  simili  oleae,  sed  latiori,  et  creacert 


293 


MAMMON. 


MAN. 


ad  litora  maris,  et  circa  sepes.’  This  notice  evi- 
dently refers  to  the  *AAip.os  of  Dioscorides  (Diosc. 
i.  121),  which,  as  above  stated,  is  supposed  to  be 
the  Atriplex  Halimus  of  botanists,  and  the  Kutuf 
buhuree  of  the  Arabs,  while  the  aTpd<pa£is  of  the 
same  author  (ii.  145)  is  their  kutuf  and  Atriplex 
hortensis,  Linn.  Bochart  quotes  Galen  as  describ- 
ing the  tops  of  the  former  as  being  used  for  food 
when  young.  Dioscorides  also  says  that  its  leaves 
are  employed  for  the  same  purpose.  What  the 
Arab  writers  state  as  to  the  tops  of  the  plants  being 
eaten,  corresponds  to  the  description  of  Job,  who 
states  that  those  to  whom  he  refers  cropped  upon 
the  shrub — which  by  some  is  supposed  to  indi- 
cate that  the  malluach  grew  near  hedges.  These, 
however,  do  not  exist  in  the  desert.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  species  of  Orache  were  used  as  articles 
of  diet  in  ancient  times,  and,  probably,  still  are 
so  in  the  countries  where  they  we  indigenous ; 
but  there  are  many  other  plants,  similar  in  na- 
ture, that  is,  soft  and  succulent,  and  usually  very 
saline,  such  as  the  Salsolas,  Salicornias , &c., 
which,  like  the  species  of  Atriplex,  belong  to  the 
same  natural  family  of  Chenopodece,  and  which 
from  their  saline  nature  have  received  their 
respective  names.  Many  of  these  are  wel1  known 
fyr  yielding  soda  by  incineration.  In  '•'"iformity 
with  this,  Mr.  Good  thinks  that  ‘ the  veal  plant 
is  a species  of  Salsola,  or  “ salt-wort and  that 
the  term  &\ipa,  employed  in  the  Greek  versions, 
gives  additional  countenance  to  this  conjecture.’ 
Some  of  these  are  shrubby,  but  most  of  them  are 
herbaceous,  and  extremely  common  in  all  the  dry, 
desert,  and  saline  soils  which  extend  from  the  south 
of  Europe  to  the  north  of  India.  Most  of  them 
are  saline  and  bitter,  but  some  are  milder  in  taste 
and  mucilaginous,  and  are  therefore  employed  as 
articles  of  diet,  as  spinach  is  in  Europe.  Salsola 
indica , for  instance,  which  is  common  on  the 
coasts  of  the  Peninsula  of  India,  Dr.  Roxburgh 
states,  saved  the  lives  of  many  thousands  of  the 
jioor  natives  of  India  during  the  famine  of  1791- 
2-3  ; for  while  the  plant  lasted,  most  of  the  poorer 
classes  who  lived  near  the  sea  had  little  else  to 
eat ; and  indeed  its  green  leaves  ordinarily  form 
an  essential  article  of  the  food  of  those  natives 
wiio  inhabit  the  maritime  districts. — J.  F.  R. 

MAMMON  (Ma/ian/as),  a Chaldee  word 
(fcOlDD),  signifying  ‘wealth’  or  ‘riches,’  and 
hearing  that  sense  in  Luke  xvi.  9,  11 ; but  also 
used  by  our  Saviour  (Matt.  vi.  24  ; Luke  xvi.  13) 
as  a personification  of  the  god  of  riches : ‘ Ye 
cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon.’  Gill,  on  Matt, 
vi.  24,  brings  a very  apt  quotation  from  the 
Talmud  Hieros.  ( Yoma,  fol.  38),  in  confirmation 
of  the  character  which  Christ  in  these  passages 
gives  of  the  Jews  in  hi3  day : ‘ We  know  that 
they  believed  in  the  law,  and  took  care  of  the 
commandments,  and  of  the  tithes,  and  that  their 
whole  conversation  was  good — only  that  thev 
PDDP.  DX  f'SmN,  loved  the  Mammon,  and 
hated  one  another  without  cause.’ 

MAMRE  (fcOipE) ; Sept.  M apfiprf),  the  name 
of  an  Amoritish  chief  who,  with  his  brothers  Aner 
and  Eshcol,  was  in  alliance  v/ith  Abraham  (Gen. 
xiv.  13,  24).  Hence,  in  the  Authorized  Version, 

‘ the  oaks  of  Mamre,’  ‘ plain  of  Mamie  ’ (Gen. 
xiii.  18;  xviii.  1),  or  simply  ‘Mamre’  (xxiii.  17, 
19  ; xxxv.  27),  a grove  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Hebron. 


1 . MAN.  Four  Hebrew  words  are  thus  translated 
in  the  English  Version  (D“IX,  "Dj?  )• 

They  are  used  with  as  much  precision  as  the  terms 
of  like  import  in  Greek  and  Roman  writers.  Not 
is  the  subject  merely  critical ; it  will  be  found 
connected  with  accurate  interpretation,  (a.)  DIM 
is  1.  the  proper  name  of  the  first  rnan,  though  Ge- 
senius  thinks  that  when  so  applied  it  lias  the  force 
rather  of  an  appellative,  and  that,  accoidingly, 
in  a translation,  it  would  be  better  to  render  it  the 
man.  It  seems,  however,  to  be  used  by  St.  Luke 
as  a proper  name  in  the  genealogy  (iii.  38) ; by 
St.  Paul  (Rom.  v.  14;  1 Tim.  ii.  13,  14);  and 
by  Jude  (14).  St.  Paul's  use  of  it  in  1 Cor.  xv. 
45  is  remarkably  clear:  6 irpwTos  dvOpooiros'  AZdp, 
* the  first  man,  Adam.’  It  is  so  employed  through- 
out the  Apocrypha  without  exception  (2  Esdras 
iii.  5,  10,  21,  26  ; iv.  30  ; vi.  54  ; vii.  11,  46,  48  ; 
Tobit  viii.  6 ; Ecclus.  xxxiii.  10  ; xl.  I ; xlix. 
16)  ; and  by  Josephus  (ut  infra).  Gesenius 
argues  that,  as  applied  to  the  first  man,  it  has  the 
article  almost  without  exception.  It  is  doubtless 
often  thus  used  as  an  appellative,  but  tne  ex- 
ceptions are  decisive : Gen.  iii.  17,  D“1N^,  ‘ to 
Adam  he  said/  and  see  Sept.,  Deut.  xxxii.  8, 
DIN  ‘ the  descendants  of  Adam  ;’  4 if  I co- 
vered my  transgressions  as  Adam’  (Job  xxxi.  33) ; 
‘ and  unto  Adam  he  said,’  &c.  (Job  xxviii.  28), 
which,  when  examined  by  the  context,  seems  to 
refer  to  a primeval  revelation  not  recorded  in 
Genesis  (see  also  Hos.  vi.  7,  Heb.  or  margin). 
Gesenius  further  argues  that  the  woman, 
has  an  appropriate  name,  iTU"!,  but  that  the  man 
has  none.  But  the  name  Eve  was  given  to  her 
by  Adam,  and,  as  it  would  seem,  under  a change 
of  circumstances ; and  though  the  divine  origin 
of  the  word  Adam,  as  a proper  name  of  the  first 
man,  is  not  recorded  in  the  history  of  the  creation, 
as  is  that  of  the  day,  night,  heaven,  earth,  seas,  & c. 
(Gen.  i.  5,  8,  10),  yet  its  divine  origin  as  an  ap- 
pellative is  recorded  (comp.  Heb.,  Gen.  i.  26 ; 
v.  1)  ; from  which  state  it  soon  became  a proper 
name,  Dr.  Lee  thinks  from  its  frequent  occur- 
rence, but  we  would  suggest,  from  its  peculiar 
appropriateness  to  ‘the  man,’  who  is  the  more  im- 
mediate image  and  glory  of  God’  (1  Cor.  xi.  7). 
Other  derivations  of  the  word  have  been  offered, 
as  ‘ to  be  red  ’ or  ‘ red-haired  and  hence 

some  of  the  Rabbins  have  inferred  that  the  first 
man  was  so.  This  derivation  is  as  old  as  Jo- 
sephus, who  says  that  ‘the  first  man  was  called 
(eK\T)Qri)  Adam,  because  he  was  formed  anb  rijj 
ivvfipas  77/s,  ‘ from  the  red  earth,’  and  adds,  roiavrr/ 
yap  iarlu  f]  napOevos  yrj  teal  d\r)Qivi].  ‘ for  the 
true  virgin  earth  is  of  this  colour’  (Antiq.  i.  1, 
§ 2).  But  is  this  true  ? and  when  man  is  turned 
again  to  his  earth,  is  that  red  ? The  truer  origin 
of  the  word  in  Gen.  i.  26,  v.  1,  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  viz.  Dl,  likeness,  because  man  was 
made  71)0*12,  in  the  likeness  of  God.  2.  It  is 
the  generic  name  of  the  human  race  as  originally 
created,  and  afterwards,  like  the  English  word 
man,  person,  whether  man  or  woman,  equivalent 
to  the  Latin  homo , and  Gr.  di/dpcoiros  (Gen.  i.  26, 
27  ; v.  2 ; viii.  21 ; Deut.  viii.  3 ; Matt.  v.  13,  16 ; 
1 Cor.  vii.  26),  and  even  without  regard  to  age 
(John  xvi.  21).  It  is  applied  to  women  only, 
bmn  D'lK  ^33),  ‘ the  human  persons  or 
women’  (Num.  xxxi.  35),  Sept,  dvBpd'Xter 

arri  r&v  yvvaiKuv.  Thus  p dsOpumos  means  t 


MAN. 


MAN. 


woman  (Herod,  i.  00),  and  especially  among  the 
orarors  (comp.  1 Macc.  ii.  38).  3.  It.  denotes 

man  in  opposition  to  woman  (Gen.  iii.  12;  Matt, 
xix.  10),  though,  more  properly,  the  husband 
in  opposition  to  the  wife  (comp.  1 Cor.  vii.  1). 
4.  It  is  used,  though  very  rarely,  for  those  who 
maintain  the  dignity  of  human  nature,  a man,  as 
we  say,  meaning  one  that  deserves  the  name,  like 
the  Latin  vir,  and  Greek  avr]p : ‘ One  man  in  a 
thousand  have  I found,  but  a woman,’  &c.  (Eccles. 
vii.  28).  Perhaps  the  word  here  glances  at  the 
original  uprightness  of  man.  5.  It  is  frequently 
used  to  denote  the  more  degenerate  and  wicked 
portion  of  mankind  : an  instance  of  which  occurs 
very  early,  ‘ The  sons,  or  worshippers,  of  God 
married  the  daughters  of  men,  or  the  irreligious  1 
(Gen.  vi.  2).  We  request  a careful  examination 
of  the  following  passages  by  their  respective  con- 
texts, Ps.  xi.  4 ; xii.  1,  2,  8 ; xiv.  2,  &c.  The 
atter  passage  is  often  adduced  to  prove  the  total 
depravity  of  the  whole  human  race , whereas  it 
applies  only  to  the  more  abandoned  Jews,  or  pos- 
sibly to  the  more  wicked  Gentile  adversaries  of 
Israel.  It  is  a description  of  ‘the  fool,’  or  wicked 
man  (ver.  T),  and  of  persons  of  the  same  class 
(ver.  1,  2),  ‘ the  workers  of  iniquity,  who  eat  up 
God's  people  like  bread,  and  called  not  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  ’ (ver.  4).  For  the  true  view  of 
St.  Paul’s  quotations  from  this  Psalm  (Rom.  iii. 
10),  see  M‘Knight,  in  loc.  : and  observe  the  use  of 
the  word  ‘ man  ’ in  Luke  v.  20  ; Matt.  x.  17.  It 
is  applied  to  the  Gentiles  (Matt,  xxvii.  22;  comp. 
Mark  x.  33,  and  Mark  ix.  31  ; Luke  xviii.  32; 
see  Mounteney,  ad  Demosth.  Phil.  i.  221).  6.  The 
word  is  used  to  denote  other  men,  in  opposition 
to  those  already  named,  as,  ‘ both  upon  Israel  and 
other  men  ’ (Jer.  xxxii.  20),  i.  e.  the  Egyptians. 
* Like  other  men  (Ps.  lxxiii.  5),  i.  e.  common  men, 
in  opposition  to  better  men  (Ps.  lxxxii.  7)  ; men 
of  inferior  rank,  as  opposed  to  {Jt'N,  men  of  higher 
rank  (see  Heb  , Is.  ii.  9 ; v.  15;  Ps.  xlix;  3 ; lxii. 
10  ; Prov.  viii.  4).  The  phrase  ‘ son  of  man,’  in 
the  Old  Testament,  denotes  man  as  frail  and  un- 
worthy (Num.  xxiii.  19  ; Job.  xxv.  6;  Ezek.  ii. 
1,  3);  as  applied  to  the  prophet,  so  often,  it  has 
the  force  of  ‘ oh  mortal !’  (5.)  &2'N  is  a man  in 
the  distinguished  sense,  like  the  Latin  vir,  and 
Greek  dvrjp.  It  is  used  in  all  the  several  senses 
of  the  Latin  vir,  and  denotes  a man  as  distin- 
guished from  a woman  (1  Sam.  xvii.  33  ; Matt, 
xiv.  21);  as  a husband  (Gen.  iii.  16;  Hos.  ii. 
16)„;  and  in  reference  to  excellent  mental  qua- 
lities. A beautiful  instance  of  the  latter  class 
occurs  in  Jer.  v.  1 : ‘ Run  ye  to  and  fro  through 
the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  and  see  now,  and  know, 
and  seek  in  the  broad  places  thereof,  if  ye  can 
lind  a man  [B^N],  if  there  be  any  that  executeth 
judgment,  that  seeketh  the  truth ; and  I will  par- 
don it.’  This  reminds  the  reader  of  the  philosopher 
who  went  through  the  streets  of  Athens  with  a 
lighted  lamp  in  his  hand,  and  being  asked  what 
he  sought,  said,  ‘ I am  seeking  to  find  a man’  (see 
Herodot.  ii.  120;  Horn.  II.  v.  529).  It  is  also  used 
to  designate  the  superior  classes  (Prov.  viii.  4 ; Ps. 
cxli.  4,  &c.),  a courtier  (Jer.  xxxviii.  7),  the  male 
of  animals  (Gen.  vii.  2).  Sometimes  it  means 
men  in  general  (Exod.  xvi.  29;  Mark  vi.  44). 

(c.)  P13N,  mortals,  fSporoi,  as  tiansienl,  perish- 
able, liable  to  sickness,  &c. : ‘ Let  no  man  [mar- 
gin, ‘ mortal  man’]  prevail  against  thee’  (2  Chron. 
xiv,  11).  ‘ Write  with  the  peB  f the  common 


293 

man’  PUN  tDIHl  (Isa.  viii.  1),  i.  e.  in  a com- 
mon, legible  character  (Job  xv.  14  ; Ps.  viii.  5 ; 
ix.  19,  20  ; Isa.  Ii.  7 ; Ps.  ciii.  15).  It  is  applied 
to  women  (Josh.  viii.  25).  ( d. ) "03,  vir , man,  in 
regard  to  strength,  &c.  All  etymologists  concur 
in  deriving  the  English  word  « man  ’ from  the 
superior  powers  and  faculties  with  which  man  is 
endowed  above  all  earthly  creatures;  so  the  Latin 
vir,  from  vis,  vires  ; anti  such  is  the  idea  con- 
veyed by  the  present  Hebrew  word.  It  is  applied 
to  man  as  distinguished  from  woman  : ‘ A man 
shall  not  put  on  a woman’s  garment’  (I)eut.  xxii. 
5),  like  dt/dpocTTos  in  Matt.  viii.  9 ; John  i.  6 ; to 
men  as  distinguished  from  children  (Exod.  xii. 
37);  to  a male  child,  in  opposition  to  a female 
(Job  iii.  3 ; Sept,  dpcrev).  It  is  much  used  in 
poetry  : ‘ Happy  is  the  man’  (Ps.  xxxiv.  9 ; xl.  5 ; 
Iii.  9 ; xciv.  12).  Sometimes  it  denotes  the  species 
at  large  (Job  iv.  17 ; xiv.  10,  14).  For  a complete 
exemplification  of  these  words,  see  the  lexicons  ol 
Gesenius  and  Schleusner,  &c.  Some  peculiar  uses 
of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament  remain  to  be 
noticed.  ‘ The  Son  of  Man,’  applied  to  Our  Lord 
only  by  himself  and  St.  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  56),  is 
the  Messiah  in  human  form.  Schleusner  thinks 
that  the  word  in  this  expression  always  means 
woman,  and  denotes  that  he  was  the  promised 
Messiah,  born  of  a virgin,  who  had  taken  upon 
him  our  nature  to  fulfil  the  great  decree  of  God, 
that  mankind  should  be  saved  by  one  in  their  own 
form.  ‘O  naAaids,  ‘ the  old  man,'  and  6 Kaivds,  ‘ the 
new  man’ — the  former  denoting  unsanctified  dis- 
position of  heart,  the  latter  the  new  disposition  cre- 
ated and  cherished  by  the  gospel ; 6 €<r<w  avtipcoiros, 
‘ the  inner  man  ;’  6 upvirTbs  rrjs  Kapd'ias  dvdpcoiros, 
‘ the  hidden  man  of  the  heart,’  as  opposed  to  the  i 
dvGpoonos, 6 the  external  visible  man.’  ‘ A man 
of  God,’  first  applied  to  Moses  (Deut.  xxxiii.  1). 
and  always  afterwards  to  a person  acting  under  a 
divine  commission  (1  Kings  xiii.  1 ; 1 Tim.  vi. 
11;  et  alibi).  6 dt/Opunos  rr)S  a/xaprlas,  that  im- 
pious man,  the  6 dvogos,  ‘ the  lawless  one’  (2 
Thess.  ii.  3),  Sept,  for  JIN  B”N  (Isa.  lv.  7) 
angels  are  styled  men  (Acts  i.  10). — J.  F.  D. 

2.  MAN  (}ft  ; Sept.  gawd),  or  Manna.  The 
name  given  to  the  miraculous  food  upon  which  the 
Israelites  were  fed  for  forty  years,  during  their 
wanderings  in  the  desert.  The  same  name  has  in 
later  ages  been  applied  to  some  natural  produc- 
tions, chiefly  found  in  warm  dry  countries,  but 
which  have  little  or  no  resemblance  to  the  original 
manna.  This  is  first  mentioned  in  Exod.  xvi.  It 
is  there  described  as  being  first  produced  after  the 
eighth  encampment  in  the  deseit  of  Sin,  as  white 
like  hoar  frost  (or  of  the  colour  of  bdellium , Num. 
xi.  7),  round,  and  of  the  bigness  of  coriander  seed 
{gad).  It  fell  with  the  dew  every  morning,  and 
when  the  dew  was  exhaled  by  the  heat  of  the  sun, 
the  manna  appeared  alone,  lying  upon  the  ground 
or  the  rocks  round  the  encampment  of  the  Israelites. 
‘ When  the  children  of  Israel  saw  it.  they  said  one 
to  another,  What  is  it?  for  they  knew  not  what  it 
was’  (Exod.  xvi.  15).  In  the  authorized,  and 
some  other  versions,  this  passage  is  inaccurately 
translated — which  indeed  is  apparent  from  the  two 
parts  of  the  sentence  contradicting  each  other. 
In  the  Septuagint  the  substance  is  almost  always 
called  manna  instead  o 1 man.  Josephus  {Antiq. 
iii.  1.  § 10),  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Harris,  says:  ‘The 
Hebrews  call  this  food  manna , for  the  particle 


man  In  our  language  is  the  asking  of  a question, 
Whit  is  this  ? (■ man-hit ).  Moses  answered  this 
question  hv  telling  them, k This  is  the  bread  which 
the  Lord  hath  given  you  to  eat.’  We  are  further 
informed  that  the  manna  fell  every  day,  except 
on  the  Sabbath.  Every  sixth  day,  that  is  on  Fri- 
day, there  fell  a double  quantity  of  it.  Every 
man  was  directed  to  gather  an  omer  (about 
three  English  quarts)  for  each  member  of  his 
family  ; and  the  whole  seems  afterwards  to  have 
been  measured  out  at  the  rate  of  an  omer  to  each 
person  : ‘ He  who  gathered  much  had  nothing 
over,  and  he  who  gathered  little  had  no  lack.’ 
That  which  remained  ungathered  dissolved  in  the 
heat  of  the  sun,  and  was  lost.  The  quantity  col- 
lected was  intended  for  the  food  of  the  current 
day  only;  for  if  any  were  kept  till  next  morning, 
it  corrupted  and  bred  worms.  Yet  it  was  di- 
rected that  a double  quantity  should  be  gathered 
on  the  sixth  day  for  consumption  on  the  Sabbath. 
And  it  was  found  that  the  manna  kept  for  the 
Sabbath  remained  sweet  and  whohsome,  not- 
withstanding that  it  corrupted  at  other  times,  if 
kept,  for  more  than  one  day.  In  the  same  manner 
as  they  would  have  treated  grain,  they  reduced 
it  to  meal,  kneaded  it  into  dough,  and  baked  it 
into  cakes,  and  the  taste  of  it  was  like  that  of 
wafers  made  with  honey,  or  of  fresh  oil.  In  Nura. 
xi.  6-9,  where  the  description  of  the  manna  is 
repeated,  an  omer  of  it  is  directed  to  be  pre- 
served as  a memorial  to  future  generations,  ‘ that 
they  may  see  the  bread  wherewith  I have  fed 
you  in  the  wilderness;’  and  in  Joshua  v.  12  we 
learn  that  after  the  Israelites  had  encamped  at 
(Algal,  and  ‘ did  eat  of  the  old  corn  of  the  land, 
the  manna  ceased  on  the  morrow  after,  neither 
had  the  children  of  Israel  manna  any  more.’ 


This  miracle  is  referred  to  in  Deuf.  viii.  3 ; 
Neh.  ix.  20;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  24;  John  vi.  31,  49, 
58  ; Hcb.  ix.  4.  Though  the  manna  of  Scripture 
was  so  evidently  miraculous,  both  in  the  mode  and 
in  the  quantities  in  which  it  was  produced,  and 
though  its  properties  were  so  different  from  any 
thing  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  yet,  because 
.ts  taste  is  in  Exodus  said  to  be  like  that  of  wafers 
made  with  honey,  many  writers  have  thought 
that  they  recognised  the  manna  of  Scripture  in  a 
sweetish  exudation  which  is  found  on  several 


plants  in  Arabia  and  Persia.  Toe  name  man , o: 
manna , is  applied  to  this  substance  by  the  Arat 
writers,  and  was  probably  so  applied  even  before 
their  time.  But  the  term  is  now  almost  en- 
tirely appropriated  to  the  sweetish  exudation  ot 
the  ashes  of  Sicily  and  Italy  ( Or  mis  Ettropesa 
and  Frazimis  rotxindifolia ).  These,  however, 
have  no  relation  to  the  supposed  manna  of  Scrip- 
ture. Of  this  one  kind  is  known  to  the  Arabs  by 
the  name  of  guzunjbeen , being  the  produce  ot  a 
plant  called guz, and  which  is  ascei tallied  to  bee 
species  of  tamarisk.  The  same  species  seems  also 
to  be  called  toorfa,  and  is  common  along  different 
parts  of  the  coast  of  Arabia.  It  is  also  found  iii 
the  neighbourhood  of  Mount  Sinai.  Burckhardt, 
while  in  the  valley  Wady  el-Sheik,  to  the  north 
of  Mount  Serbal,  says : ‘ In  many  parts  it  was 
thickly  overgrown  with  the  tamarisk  or  toorfa;  it 
is  the  only  valley  in  the  Peninsula  where  this 
tree  grows  at  present  in  any  quantity,  though 
some  small  bushes  are  here  and  there  met  with  hi 
other  parts.  It  is  from  the  tarfa  that  the  manna  is 
obtained  ; and  it  is  very  strange  that  the  fact 
should  have  remained  unknown  in  Europe  till 
M.  Seetzen  mentioned  it  in  a brief  notice  of  his 
‘ Tour  to  Sinai,’  published  in  the  Mines  de 
l'  Orient.  The  substance  is  called  by  the  Arabs 
mann.  In  the  month  of  June  it  drops  from  the 
thorns  of  the  tamarisk  upon  the  fallen  twigs,  leav  es 
and  thorns,  which  always  cover  the  ground  be- 
neath the  tree  in  the  natural  state.  The  Arabs 
use  it  as  they  do  honey,  to  pour  over  their  un- 
leavened bread,  or  to  dip  their  bread  into:  its 
taste  is  agreeable,  somewhat  aromatic,  and  as 
sweet  as  honey.  If  eaten  in  any  quantity  it  is 
said  to  be  highly  purgative.’  He  further  adds, 
‘ that  the  tamarisk  is  one  of  the  most  common 
trees  in  Nubia  and  throughout  the  whole  ol 
Arabia:  on  the  Euphrates,  on  the  Astaboras,  in 
all  the  valleys  of  the  Hedjaz  and  Bedja  it  grows 
in  great  quantities,  yet  nowhere  but  in  the  region 
of  Mount  Sinai  did  he  hear  of  its  producing 
manna.  Ehrenberg  has  examined  and  described 
this  species  of  tamarisk,  which  he  calls  T.  manni- 
fera,  but  which  is  considered  to  be  only  a variety 
of  T.  gallica.  The  manna  lie  considers  to  he 
produced  by  the  puncture  of  an  insect  which  he 
calls  Coccus  manniparus.  Others  have  been  of  the 
same  opinion.  When  Lieut.  Wellsted  visited 
this  place  in  the  month  of  September,  he  found  the 
extremities  of  the  twigs  and  branches  retaining 
the  peculiar  sweetness  and  flavour  which  cha- 
racterize the  manna.  The  Bedouins  collect  it 
early  in  the  morning,  and,  after  straining  it 
through  a cloth,  place  it  either  in  skins  or  gourds ; 
a considerable  quantity  is  consumed  by  them- 
selves; a portion  is  sent  to  Cairo;  and  some  is 
also  disposed  of  to  the  monks  at  Mount  Sinai. 
Tne  latter  retail  it  to  the  Russian  pilgrims.’  * The 
Bedouins  assured  me  that  the  whole  quantity 
collected  throughout  the  Peninsula,  in  the  most 
fruitful  season,  did  not  exceed  150  wogas  (about 
700  pounds) ; and  that  it  was  usually  disposed 
of  at  the  rate  of  60  dollars  the  woga  ’ ( Travels  in 
Arabia,  vol.  i.  p.  511). 

Another  kind  of  manna,  which  has  been 
supposed  to  be  that  of  Scripture,  is  yielded 
by  a thorny  plant  very  common  from  the  north 
of  India  to  Syria,  and  which,  by  the  Arabs, 
is  called  Al-haj ; whence  botanists  have  con- 
structed the  name  Alhagi.  The  two  species  have 


MAN. 


295 


MANASSEH. 


been  called  Alhcujt  maurm'vm  and  A.  dcserlo- 
rum.  Both  species  are  also,  by  the  Arabs,  called 
ooshter-khar,  or  ‘ camel’s-thoru  ; and  in  Mesopo- 
tamia agool,  accoiding  to  some  authorities,  while 
by  others  this  is  thought  to  be  the  name  of  another 
plant.  The  Alhagi  maurorum  is  remarkable  for 
the  exudation  of  a sweetish  juice,  which  concretes 
into  small  granular  masses,  and  which  is  usually 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Persian  manna. 
The  late  Professor  Don  was  so  confident,  that,  this 
was  the  same  substance  as  the  manna  of  Scrip- 
ture, that  he  proposed  calling  the  plant  itself 
Manna  hebraica.  The  climates  of  Persia  and 
Bokhara  seem  also  well  suited  to  the  secre- 
tion of  this  manna,  which  in  the  latter  country  is 
employed  as  a substitute  for  sugar,  and  is  imported 
into  India  for  medicinal  use  through  Caubul  and 
Kliorassan.  In  Arabian  and  Persian  works  on 
Materia  Medica  it  is  called  Tunmgbee){.  These 
two,  from  the  localities  in  which  they  are  pro- 
duced, have  alone  been  thought  to  be  the  manna  of 
Scripture.  But, besides  these,  there  are  several  other 
kinds  of  manna.  Burckhardt,  during  his  journey 
through  El-Cihor,  in  the  valley  ofvthe  Jordan,  heard 
of  the  Beiruk  honey.  This  is  described  as  a sub- 
stance obtained  from  the  leaves  and  branches  of  a 
tree  called  Gharb  or  Gcirrab.  of  the  size  of  an 
olive-tree,  and  with  leaves  like  those  of  the  poplar. 
When  fresh  this  greyish  coloured  exudation  is 
sweet  in  taste,  but  in  a few  days  it  becomes  sour. 
The  Arabs  eat  it.  like  honey.  One  kind,  called 
Sheer-khisht,  is  said  to  be  produced  in  the  country 
of  the  Uzbecs.  A Caubul  merchant  informed  the 
author  of  this  article,  that  it  was  produced  by  a 
tree  called  Gundeleh , which  grows  in  Candahar, 
and  is  about  twelve  feet  high,  with  jointed  stems. 
A fifth  kind  is  produced  on  Calotropis  procera,  or 
the  plant  called  Ashur.  The  sweet  exudation 
is  by  Arab  authors  ranked  with  sugars,  and 
called  Shukur-al-ashur.  It  is  described  under 
this  name  by  Avicenna,  and  in  the  Latin  trans- 
lation it  is  called  Zuccarum-al  husar.  A sixth 
kind,  called  Bed-khisht , is  described  in  Persian 
works  on  Materia  Medica,  as  being  produced  on 
a species  of  willow  in  Persian  Kliorassan.  An- 
other kind  would  appear  to  be  produced  on  a 
species  of  oak,  for  Niebuhr  says,  ‘At  Merdin, 
in  Mesopotamia,  it  appears  like  a kind  of  pollen, 
on  the  leaves  of  the  tree  called  Ballot  and  Afs 
(or,  according  to  the  Aleppo  pronunciation,  As ), 
which  I take  to  be  of  the  oak  family.  All  are 
agreed,  that  between  Merdin  and  Diarbekir 
manna  is  obtained,  and  principally  from  those 
trees  which  yield  gall-nuts.’  Besides  these, 
there  is  a sweetish  exudation  found  on  the  larch, 
which  is  called  Manna  brigantiaca,  as  there  is 
also  one  kind  found  on  the  cedar  of  Lebanon. 
Indeed  a sweetish  secretion  is  found  on  the  leaves 
of  many  other  plants,  produced  sometimes  by 
the  plant  itself,  at  others  by  the  punctures  of 
insects.  It  has  been  supposed,  also,  that  these 
sweetish  exudations  being  evaporated  during  the 
heat  of  the  day  in  still  weather,  may  afterwards 
become  deposited,  with  the  dew,  on  the  ground,  and 
on  the  leaves  of  plants  ; and  thus  explain  some  of 
the  phenomena  which  have  been  observed  by  tra- 
vellers and  others.  But  none  of  these  mannas  ex- 
plain, nor  can  it  be  expected  that  they  should  ex- 
plain, the  miracle  of  Scripture,  by  which  abund- 
ance is  s'rated  to  have  been  produced  for  millions, 
where  kindreds  cannot  now  be  subsisted. — J.  F.  R. 


MAN  OF  SIN.  [Anticiiuist.] 

MANAEN  (M ararjv),  a Christian  teacher  at 
Antioch,  who  had  been  foster-brother  of  Herod 
Antipas  (Acts  xiii.  I).  lie  is  supposed  to  have 
been  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  but  this  is  un- 
certain, as  no  particulars  of  his  life  are  known. 

MANASSEH,  TRIBE  OF.  When  the  tribe 
of  Manasseh  quitted  Egypt,  it  numbered  32,200 
adult  males  (Num.  i.  34,  35),  being  8300  less  than 
the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  the  younger  son  of  Joseph. 
This  wa?  the  lowest  number  of  adult  males  in 
any  tribe  at  that  period ; but  if  we  add  the  two 
together,  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  composed  of  these 
two  tribes,  reached  to  72,700,  which  was  more 
than  any  other  tribe  contained,  except  Judah. 
During  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  the  tribe  of 
Manasseh  rose  to  52,700  (Num.  xxvi  34),  being 
an  increase  of  20,500.  This  gave  it  rank  in  point 
of  population  as  the  sixth  of  the  tribes,  Judah, 
Issachar,  Zebulon,  Dan,  and  Asher  only  being 
more  numerous.  In  the  same  period  Ephraim  had 
declined  to  nearly  the  same  position  which  Ma- 
nasseh had  previously  occupied,  its  numbers  being 
reduced  to  32,500.  Yet  the  prophecy  of  Jacob 
was  fulfilled,  and,  when  settled  in  Canaan, 
Ephraim  became  superior  in  wealth,  power  and 
population,  not  only  to  Manasseh,  but  to  all  the 
tribes  except  Judah.  One  circumstance  tending 
to  weaken  Manasseh  may  have  been  the  divi- 
sion which  took  place  in  it.  on  entering  Palestine. 
The  pastoral  half  of  the  tribe  was  allowed  to 
establish  itself  with  Reuben  and  Gad,  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan,  where  it  occupied  the  northernmost 
portion,  consisting  of  Argob  and  Bashan,  from  the 
Jabbok  to  Mount  Hermon  (Num.  xxxii.  39: 
xxxiv.  14  ; Deut.  iii.  3:  Josh.  xii.  6;  xiii.  7 ; J 
Chron.  vi.  23),  while  the  other  half  was  provided 
for  with  the  rest  of  the  tribes  in  Canaan  proper, 
west  of  the  Jordan,  where  it  had  a fine  tract  of 
country  extending  from  that  river  to  the  Medi- 
terranean, with  the  kindred  tribe  of  Ephraim  on 
the  south,  and  Issachar  on  the  north  (Josh.  xvi.  9 ; 
xvii.  7-11).  The  half-tribe  west  of  the  river  was 
not,  however,  for  some  time  able  to  expel  the 
former  inhabitants  of  the  territory,  so  as  to  obtain 
the  exclusive  possession  of  it  (Josh.  xvii.  12; 
Judg.  i.  27).  The  tribe  of  Manasseh  makes  no 
figure  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrews. 

1.  MANASSEH  (figO£,  who  makes  forget , 
see  Gen.  xli.  51  ; Sept.  Mavacraris),  the  elder  of 
the  two  sons  of  Joseph,  born  in  Egypt  (Gen. 
xli.  51  ; xlvi.  20),  whom  Jacob  adopted  as 
his  own  (xlviii.  1) — by  which  act  each  became 
the  head  of  a tribe  in  Israel.  The  act.  of  adop- 
tion was  however  accompanied  by  a clear  intima- 
tion from  Jacob,- that  the  descendants  of  Manas- 
seh, although  the  elder,  would  be  far  less  numerous 
and  powerful  than  those  of  the  younger  Ephraim. 
The  result  corresponded  remarkably  with  this  in- 
timation. [Ephuaim.] 

2.  MANASSEH,  fourteenth  king  of  Judah,  son 
and  successor  of  Hezekiah,  who  began  to  reign  in 
h.c.  699.  at  the  early  age  of  twelve  years,  and 
reigned  fifty-five  years.  It  appears  that  the. 
secret  enemies  of  the  vigorous  reforms  of  Hezekiah 
re-appeared,  and  managed  to  gain  much  influence 
at  court  during  the  youth  of  Manasseh ; and  he 
was  prevailed  upon  to  re-establish  all  the  idola* 
tries  and  abominations  which  it  had  taken  hit 
excellen'  father  so  much  pains  to  subvert.  Tbi* 


296 


MANAGER. 

bent  having  be  n unhappily  given  to  the  mi.  i of 
one  old  enough  to  isten  to  evil  counsels,  but  too 
young  to  see  their  danger,  the  king  followed  it  with 
all  the  reckless  ardour  of  youth,  and  without  any 
of  the  prudent  reservations  which  older  sovereigns, 
more  discreet  in  evincing  the  same  inclinations, 
had  maintained.  Idolatry  in  its  worst  forms,  and 
all  the  abominations  connected  with  its  observances, 
were  practised  without  stint  and  without  shame, 
not  ouly  in  the  face  of  the  temple,  but  in  its  very 
courts,  where  altars  to  the  heavenly  bodies  were 
set  up,  and  rites  of  idolatrous  worship  performed. 
Under  this  altered  state  of  tilings,  the  Judahites, 
with  the  sanction  of  the  king’s  example,  rushed 
into  all  the  more  odious  observances  of  Syrian 
idolatry,  with  all  the  ardour  which  usually 
attends  the  outbreak  of  a restrained  propensity, 
till  they  became  far  ‘ worse  than  the  heathen, 
whom  the  Lord  destroyed  before  the  children  of 
Israel.’  In  vain  did  the  prophets  raise  their  voice 
against  these  iniquities,  and  threaten  Manasseh 
and  his  kingdom  with  awful  tokens  of  Divine 
indignation.  Instead  of  profiting  by  these  warn- 
ings, the  king  vented  his  rage  against  those  by 
whom  they  were  uttered,  and  in  this,  and  other 
ways,  filled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood  be- 
yond any  king  who  reigned  before  him  (1  Kings 
xxi.  1-16;  2 Cbron.  xxxiii.  1-10). 

At  length  the  wrath  of  God  burst  over  the 
guilty  king  and  nation.  At  this  time  there  was 
constant  war  between  Assyria  and  Egypt,  and  it 
would  seem  that  Manasseh  adhered  to  the  policy 
of  his  father  in  making  common  cause  with  the 
latter  power.  This,  or  some  other  cause  not  stated 
by  the  sacred  historian,  brought  into  Judaea  an 
Assyrian  army,  under  the  generals  of  Esar-had- 
don,  which  carried  all  before  it.  The  miserable 
king  attempted  flight,  but  was  discovered  in  a 
thorn-brake  in  which  he  had  hidden  himselfj 
was  laden  with  chains,  and  sent  away  as  a cap- 
tive to  Babylon,  which  was  then  subject  to  the  As- 
syrians, where  he  was  cast  into  prison  (b.c.  677). 
Here,  at  last,  Manasseh  had  ample  opportunity 
and  leisure  for  cool  reflection;  and  the  hard 
lessons  of  adversity  were  not  lost  upon  him.  He 
saw  and  deplored  the  evils  of  his  reign,  he  became 
as  a new  man,  he  humbly  besought  pardon  from 
God,  and  implored  that  he  might  be  enabled  to 
evince  the  sincerity  of  his  contrition,  by  being  re- 
stored to  a position  for  undoing  all  that  it  had 
been  the  business  of  his  life  to  effect.  His  prayer 
was  heard.  His  captivity  is  supposed  to  have 
lasted  a year,  and  he  was  then  restored  to  his 
kingdom  under  certain  obligations  of  tribute  and 
allegiance  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  which,  although 
not  expressed  in  the  account  of  this  transaction, 
are  alluded  to  in  the  history  of  his  successors  (2 
Chron.  xxxiii.  11-13). 

On  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  Manasseh  exerted 
himself  to  the  utmost  in  correcting  the  errors  of 
his  early  reign,  and  in  establishing  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  in  its  former  purity  and  splendour.  The 
good  conduct  of  his  latter  reign  was  rewarded 
with  such  prosperity  as  enabled  him  to  do  much 
for  the  improvement  and  strengthening  of  his 
capital  and  kingdom.  He  thoroughly  repaired 
the  old  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  jjdded  a new  wall 
on  the  wide  towards  Gihon ; he  surrounded  and 
fortified  by  a separate  wall  the  hill  or  ridge,  on 
!he  east  of  Zion,  which  bore  the  name  of 
Ophel,  « nA  he  strengthen  ?d,  garrisoned,  and  pro- 


MANASSES,  PRAYER  OF. 

visioned  ‘the  fenced  cities  of  Judah’  (2  Chron. 
xxxiii.  13-17).  He  died  in  peace  (b.c.  664),  at 
the  age  of  sixty-eight,  after  having  reigned  longer 
than  any  other  king  of  Judah,  and  was  buried  in 
a sepulchre  which  he  had  prepared  for  himself  in 
his  own  garden  (xxxiii.  20). 

MANASSES,  PRAYER  OF  [Apocrypha). 
This  pseudepigraphal  work  has  come  down  to  us 
in  the  MSS.  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  is  found 
in  the  early  printed  editions  of  that  version.  It 
is  erroneously  stated  in  the  preface  to  the  Antwerp 
edition,  that,  this  prayer  is  found  only  in  the  Latin 
language,  and  that  it  does  not  exist  either  in  the 
Greek  or  Hebrew ; and  the  same  is  repeated  by 
Du  Pin  (Prolegomena ; and  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, i.  1).  It  had,  however,  already  appeared 
in  Greek  and  Latin  in  Robert  Stephen’s  folic 
edition  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  Paris,  1540,  im- 
mediately after  the  second  hook  of  Chronicles 
(p.  159),  and  in  the  edition  of  the  same  printed 
in  1546,  while  in  his  quarto  edition  of  1545  and 
those  which  followed,  it  appears  in  Latin  only. 
Robert  Stephen  prefaces  the  first  Greek  impression 
of  this  prayer  by  observing:  * Graecam  banc 
Manassae  regis  Juda  orationem,  nunquam  ante- 
hac  excusatn,  peperit  tihi,  candide  lector,  bibli- 
otheca Victoriana,  quae  quam  dives  sit  veterum 
exemplarium  omnis  generis,  nemo  non  novit. 
Quid  multa?  Secundat  Deus  res  eorum,  qui 
omnibus  literarum  meliorum  studiosis  talem 
bibliothecam  quotidie  curant  et  instruunt.  magis 
ac  magis.’  It  was  next  published  by  Dauderstadt 
in  1628,  and  was  afterwards  found  in  the  Codex 
Alexandrians , among  the  hymns  which  follow 
the  book  of  Psalms,  and  was  inserted  by  Walton 
in  his  Polyglott , with  the  various  readings  of  this 
MS.  It  also  appears  among  the  hymns  in  the 
Ethiopic  Psalter,  as  published  by  Ludolf  in 
1701.  When  the  Apocryphal  writings  were  sepa- 
rated from  the  other  books  at  the  Reformation, 
the  Prayer  of  Manasses  was  placed  between  Bel 
and  the  Dragon  and  Maccabees. 

Du  Pin  (/.  c.)  asserts  that  the  Latin  fathers 
have  often  cited  this  prayer  ; but  the  earliest  refer- 
ence to  it  which  we  know  of  is  in  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  (§  12),  attributed  to  Clemens  Ro- 
manus,  but  which  are  generally  believed  to  be  a 
work  of  the  fourth  century.  In  this  work  (ii.  22) 
the  prayer  is  cited  as  if  it  were  an  integral  portion 
of  the  hook  of  Chronicles,  together  with  some  tra- 
dionary accounts  of  the  nature  of  his  imprison- 
ment in  shackles  of  iron,  and  of  his  miraculous 
release : which  are  also  alluded  to  in  the  Tar 
gum  on  Chronicles.  It  was  held  to  he  genuine 
by  the  author  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Pharisee 
and  Publican , in  the  works  of  Chrysostom  (i.  6)  ; 
by  Anthony  the  Monk  (ii.  94)  ; Theodore  Stu- 
dita  ( Serm . Catechet.  93);  Theophanes  Ceramaeus 
(Homil.  ii.  and  lvi.) ; Freculfus,  and  George  Syn 
cellus,  and  George  the  Sinner,  in  their  Chronicles , 
also  by  Suidas  ( Lexicon , s.  v.  Ma va<r<rrjs),  who 
cites  the  commencement,  Kvpte  irarTnicpaTwo, 
ic.  r.  A.,  and  by  Anastasius  Sinaita  (in  Psalm,  vi.). 
By  several  of  these  writers  it  is  called  a hymn. 
or  hymn  of  prayer  (■jrpoa'evxyy  rrjs  d5i)s),  which 
was  sung  in  the  churches- — a statement  corrobo- 
rated by  its  position  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus. 
The  modem  Greeks  still  place  it  in  their 
Psalter  along  with  the  other  hymns  (Leo  Allatius, 
De  lib.  Ecclesiast.  Grcecorum,  p.  62).  It  was 
printed  in  Greek  in  th <i  Apostolical  Constitutions 


MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL.  MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL.  297 

m 1563,  and  in  the  Apostolical  Fathers  of  Cofe-  (a.)  The  synagogue  rolls  contain  the  Penfa- 
levins  in  1672.  The  learned  Fabricius  reprinted  tench,  the  appointed  sections  of  the  prophets,  or 
it  at  Leipsic  in  1691,  together  with  the  books  of  the  book  of  Esther,  which  last  is  used  only  at  the 
Wisdom,  Sirach,  Judith,  and  Tobit.  He  also  Feast  of  Purim.  The  three  are  never  put  together ; 
published  metrical  versions  of  it  in  Greek  and  but  are  written  on  separate  rolls.  They  are  in  the 
Latin,  one  of  which  had  previously  appeared  in  Chaldee  or  square  Hebrew  character,  without 
l )98  ; and  there  had  been  a Latin  metrical  ver-  vowels  and  accents,  accompanied  with  the  puncia 
siou  published  by  Claudius  Espencaeus  at  Paris,  extraordinaria , and  having  she  unusual  forms  of 
in  1566.  It  appeared  in  the  Greek  Apocrypha,  certain  consonants.  The  parchment  is  prepared  in 
Frankfort,  1694,  and  homiletic  expositions  of  it  a particular  manner  by  the  hands  of  Jews  only, 
were  eiven  to  the  public  bv  John  Forster,  George  and  made  from  the  hides  of  clean  animals,  which 


Albert,  and  others.  (See  Fabricii  Biblioth.  Grcec. 
lib.  iii.  cap.  29,  p.  740,  or  Harles’s  edit.  cap.  xiv. 
vol.  3,  p.  732). 

It  is  entitled  ‘ The  Prayer  of  Manasses,  king 
of  Judah,  when  he  was  holden  captive  in  Ba- 
bylon,’ and  had  doubtless  its  origin  from  2 Chron. 
xxxiii.  12,  13:  ‘ And  when  he  was  in  Babylon 
in  affliction,  he  besought  the  Lord  his  God  . . . 
md  prayed  unto  him;’  and  verse  18,  ‘ Now  the 
;est  of  the  acts  of  Manasseh,  and  his  prayer  unto 
God  . . . behold,  they  are  written  in  the  book 
of  the  kings  of  Israel and  verse  19,  ‘ His  prayer 
also,  and  how  God  was  entreated  of  him  .... 

behold,  they  are  written  among  the 

sayings  of  the  seers.’ 

This  prayer,  however,  not  being  found  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  not  being  cited  by  the  more  eminent 
lathers,  nor  contained  in  any  of  the  catalogues  of 
ancient  councils,  has  not  been  received  in  the 
church  as  genuine  or  canonical.  It  is  classed  in 
the  Sixth  Article  of  the  Church  of  England, 
among  the  ‘ other  books  read  by  the  church  for 
example  of  life  and  instruction  of  manners  but 
the  church  of  Rome  classes  it  with  3rd  and  4th 
Esdras  [Esdras],  removing  it  to  the  end  of  the 
Bible,  and  rejecting  it  from  the  deutero-canonical, 
as  well  as  from  the  proto-canonical  books.  Dens 
( Theologia , vol.  ii.  p.  94,  Qusest.  vi.,  N.  61) 
states  that  the  church  places  these  books,  together 
with  3rd  and  4th  Maccabees,  among  the  Apo- 
crypha, as  she  did  not  find  a sufficiently  cer- 
tain tradition  respecting  them.  He  classifies  the 
Apocrypha  as  consisting  of  books  positively  Apo- 
cryphal, or  condemned,  and  negatively  Apocry- 
phal',  that,  is,  neither  approved  nor  rejected.  ‘ The 
latter  may  become  canonical  when  the  church’s 
doubts  are  removed,  as  was  the  case  of  the  deutero- 
canonical  books’  [Deutero-canonical].  ‘ A 
positively  Apocryphal  book  can  never  become 
canonical,  although  a canonical  book  may  be- 
come apocryphal.’ 

The  prayer  of  Manasses  abounds  in  pious  sen- 
timents. Mr.  Horne  ( Tntrod . vol.  ii.)  describes 
it  as  not  unworthy  of  the  occasion  on  which  it 
is  pretended  to  have  been  composed.  Du  Pin 
( ut  supra ) observes  that  though  not  very  eloquent, 
it  is  full  of  good  thoughts.  Bishop  Cosin  ( Scho- 
lastic Hist,  of  the  Canon')  cites  a passage  from 
it,  ‘ Repentance  is  not  for  the  just,  but  for  sin- 
ners,’ as  hearing  a resemblance  to  Matt.  ix.  13. 
MANDRAKE.  [Dudaim.] 

MAN  EH.  [Weights  & Measures.] 
MANNA.  [Man,  2.] 

MANOAH,  father  of  Samson  [Samson]. 

MANSLAYER.  [Bi.ood-Revenge.] 
MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL.  These  are 
either  Hebrew  or  Greek  : we  shall  treat  of  them 
separately.  1.  Jewish  MSS.  are  divided  into  («.) 
Synagogue  rolls  or  saeo  ed  copies  ; and  lb.)  Private 
w common  copies. 


when  duly  wrought,  are  joined  together  by  thongs 
made  out  of  the  same  material.  They  are  then 
divided  into  columns,  the  breadth  of  which  must 
not  exceed  half  their  length.  These  columns, 
whose  number  is  prescribed,  must  be  of  equal 
length  and  breadth  among  themselves,  and  con- 
tain a certain  number  of  lines,  each  line  having 
no  more  than  three  words.  The  Talmud  contains 
strict  rules  concerning  the  material,  the  colour, 
the  ink,  letters,  divisions,  writing-instrument,  &c., 
which  are  closely  followed,  especially  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch. These  rules  are  extracted  from  tire 
Talmud,  and  translated  in  Adler's  Judceorum 
Codicis  Sacri  rite  scribendi  leges  ad  recte  cesti- 
niandos  Codices  Manuscriptos  antiquos  perve- 
teres.  Ex  libello  Talmudico  in  Latinum  con- 
versas  et  adnotationibus  necessariis  explicates, 
eruditis  examinandas  tradit , &c.,  Hamburgh, 
1779,  8vo.  The  minuteness  of  such  regulations 
renders  it  a most  irksome  task  for  the  soplier  ox 
scribe  to  write  out  a synagogue  roll.  The  revi- 
sion of  the  Torah,  as  the  synagogue  roll  is  often 
called,  must  be  undertaken  within  thirty  days 
after  its  transcription,  else  it  is  unfit,  for  use. 
Three  mistakes  on  one  side  or  skin  are  allowable  ; 
but  should  there  be  four,  or  should  there  happen 
to  be  an  error  in  the  open  and  close  sections  of  the 
law;  in  the  position  of  the  songs  in  Exodus  ch. 
v.,  and  Deuteronomy  ch.  xxxii.,  which  are  the 
only  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  written  in  poetical 
lines,  then  the  whole  copy  is  worthless.  The  great 
beauty  of  penmanship  exhibited  in  these  syna- 
gogue copies  has  been  always  admired.  They 
are  taken  from  authentic  exemplars,  without  the 
slightest  deviation  or  correction.  They  seldom 
fall  into  the  hands  of  Christians,  since,  as  soon  as 
they  cease  to  be  employed  in  the  synagogue,  they 
are  either  buried  or  caiefully  laid  aside,  lest  they 
should  be  profaned  by  coming  into  the  possession 
of  Gentiles. 

(b.)  Private  MSS.  are  written  partly  in  the 
square  or  Chaldee  character,  partly  in  the  Rab- 
binical. They  are  held  in  far  less  esteem  than 
the  synagogue  rolls,  and  are  wont  to  be  denomi- 
nated profane  ( pesidim ).  Their  form  is  entirely 
arbitrary.  They  are  in  folio,  quarto,  octavo,  and 
duodecimo.  Of  those  written  in  the  square  cha- 
racter, the  greater  number  are  on  parchment,  some 
on  paper.  The  ink  of  the  letters  is  always  black, 
but  the  vowel  points  are  usually  written  with  ink 
of  a different  colour  from  that  of  the  consonants. 
Initial  words  and  letters  are  frequently  decorated 
with  gold  and  silver  colours.  The  prose  parts  are 
arranged  in  columns,  the  poetic  in  parallel  mem- 
bers. Some  copies  are  without  columns.  The 
columns  are  not  always  occupied  with  the  Hebrew 
text  alone;  for  a version  is  frequently  added,  which 
is  either  written  in  the  text  after  the  manner  of 
verses,  or  in  a column  by  itself,  or  in  the  margin 
in  a smaller  character.  The  number  of  lines  is 


298  MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL. 

not  prescribe  1 by  the  Talmud.  The  upper  and 
lower  margin  are  filled  with  ihe  Great  Masora, 
And  sometimes  with  a Rabbinical  commentary; 
as  also  with  prayers,  psalms,  ami  the  like.  The 
external  margin  is  for  corrections,  scholia,  vari- 
ations, notices  of  the  haphtaroth  (sections  from 
the  prophets), parashoth  (sections  from  the  law), 
the  commentaries  of  the  Rabbins,  &c.  &c.  The 
inner  margin,  or  that  between  the  columns,  is 
occupied  with  the  little  Masora.  The  single 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  separated  from 
one  another  by  spaces,  except  the  hooks  of  Samuel, 
Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  which 
are  written  continuously.  The  sections  of  the 
law  and  prophets  are  generally  marked.  In  the 
MSS.  of  different  countries  the  books  are  differ- 
ently arranged.  These  copies  generally  pass 
through  various  hands  before  they  are  finished. 
The  consonants  proceed  from  the  sopher  or  scribe. 
When  the  same  person  writes  both  consonants  and 
vowels,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  he  never  makes 
them  at  the  same  time;  the  former  are  finished 
before  lie  begins  to  append  the  latter.  The  K'ris 
in  the  margin  uniformly  proceed  from  the  vowel- 
writer.  It  is  probable  that  these  copies  were  in  no 
instance  made  by  Christians. 

Although  the  square  character  be  employed  in 
all  the  MSS.  of  which  we  have  spoken,  yet  it  has 
varieties.  The  Jews  themselves  distinguish  in  the 
synagogue  rolls,  1.  the  Tam  letter,  with  sharp  cor- 
ners and  perpendicular  coronulae,  used  among  the 
German  and  Polish  Jews;  2.  the  Velshe  letter, 
more  modern  than  the  Tam , and  rounder,  with 
coronulae,  particularly  found  in  the  sacred  copies 
of  the  Spanish  and  Oriental  Jews. 

The  age  of  Hebrew  MSS.  is  not  easily  deter- 
mined. It  is  true  that  they  often  contain  sub- 
scriptions giving  an  account  of  the  time  when 
they  were  written,  and  the  name  of  the  scribe,  or 
also  of  the  possessor.  But  these  accounts  are 
often  ambiguous,  and  occasionally  incorrect. 
Where  they  are  altogether  wanting,  it  is  still  more 
difficult  to  discover  the  age.  In  t lie  latter  case, 
the  character  of  the  writing,  the  colour  of  the  ink, 
the  quality  and  yellowness  of  the  parchment,  the 
absence  of  the  Masora,  of  the  vowel-points,  of  the 
unusual  letters,  &c.  have  been  chiefly  rested  upon. 
Still,  however,  such  particulars  are  uncertain 
marks  of  age. 

The  oldest  Hebrew  MS.  at  present  known  be- 
longs to  a.d.  1106  (No.  154  of  Kennicott).  It.  is 
true  lliat.  some  others  are  supposed  to  be  older, 
but.  simply  by  conjecture.  As  far  as  certainty  is 
concerned,  this  is  certainly  the  oldest.  Loehnis 
( Grundziige  der  Biblischen  Hermeneutik  und 
Kritik , Giessen,  1839)  affirms  that  some  reach 
as  far  back  as  the  eighth  century,  an  assertion 
grounded  merely  on  the  conjecture  of  De  Rossi 
and  Kennicott.  So  much  uncertainty  attaches  to 
the  internal  marks  adopted  by  these  two  Hebraists, 
that  the  ages  to  which  they  assign  several  Hebrew 
MSS.  are  quite  gratuitous.  No  Hebrew  MS. 
possessing  an  indubitably  accurate  register  of  its 
antiquity,  goes  farther  back  than  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury (see  the  third  section  of  Tvchsen’s  Tentamen 
de  va-riis  Codicum  Hebraicorum  Vet:  Test.  MSS. 
qeneribus , #c.,  Rostock,  1772,  8vo.,  in  which  the 
learned  writer  examines  the  marks  of  antiquity 
assumed  by  Simon,  Jablonski,  Wolf,  Houbigant, 
Kennicott,  and  Lilienthal,  and  shows  that  the 
Masora  alone  ir  a certain  index  for  determining 


MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLK  AL 

the  age  and  goodness  of  Hebrew  MSS. ; ihc  same 
writer’s  Beurthcilung  der  Jahrzahlen  in  den 
Ilebratisch- Biblischen  llandschrijten , Rostock. 
1786,  Rvo.,  in  which  the  mode  of  detet mining  the 
age  of  MSS.  adopted  by  Kennicott,  Bruns,  and 
De  Rossi,  is  rejected  ; and  Scbnurrer’s  Disser - 
tatio  Inaugurates  de  Codicum  Ilebrccorum  VeL 
'J'est.  estate  difficulter  determinandd , Tubingen, 
1772,  4to.,  and  reprinted  in  his  Dissertations 
1 *h ilologico- Criticee,  Gotha  and  Amsterdam,  179*', 
8vo). 

Private  MSS.  written  in  the  Rabbinical  cha- 
racter are  much  more  recent  than  the  preceding ; 
none  of  them  being  older  than  500  years.  They 
are  on  cotton  or  linen  paper,  in  a cursive  cha- 
racter, without  vowel-points  or  the  Masora,  and 
with  many  abbreviations. 

The  MSS.  found  among  the  Chinese  Jews  are 
partly  synagogue  rolls,  partly  private  copies, 
whose  text  does  not  differ  from  the  Masoretic. 
The  Pentateuch  of  the  Malabar  Jews  brought 
from  India  to  England  by  the  late  Dr.  Bu- 
chanan, and  described  by  Mr.  Yeates,  resembles 
on  the  whole  the  usual  synagogue  rolls  of  the 
Jews,  except  that  it  is  written  on  red  skins.  Its 
text  is  the  Masoretic,  with  a few  unimportant 
deviations. 

Eight  exemplars  are  celebrated  among  the 
Jews  for  their  correctness  and  value.  They  are 
now  lost,  but  extracts  from  them  are  still  pre- 
served. From  Jewish  writings,  and  from  the 
margin  of  some  MSS.,  where  a reference  is  made 
to  them,  we  learn  that  they  were  highly  prized 
for  their  singular  accuracy.  They  formed  the 
basis  of  subsequent  copies.  They  are — l.  The 
codex  of  Hillel;  2.  The  Babylonian  codex, 
3.  The  codex  of  Israel ; 4.  An  Egyptian  codex ; 
5.  Codex  Sinai ; 6.  The  Pentateuch  of  Jericho; 
7.  Codex  Sanbuki ; 8.  The  book  Taggin.  Foi 
a more  copious  account  of  Hebrew  MSS.  we  refer 
to  Eichhorn’s  Einleitung  (Introduction),  vol.  ii. : 
Kennicott’s  Dissertatio  generalis ; Walton's  Pro- 
legomena to  the  Polyglott , which  have  been  sepa 
lately  edited  by  Dathe  andWrangham;  Tycli- 
svn's  Tentamen ; De  Rossi’s  Varicc  Lectioncs 
Vet.  Test.  &c. ; and  his  Scholia  critica  in  V.  T. 
libros,’& c. ; De  Wette,  Lehrbuch  der  llistorisch- 
Kritischen  Einleitung ; and  Davidson’s  Lectures 
on  Biblical  Criticism,  in  which  last  the  best 
books  are  pointed  out. 

II.  We  have  now  to  refer  to  the  MSS.  of  the 
Greek  Testament.  Those  that  have  descended 
to  our  time  are  either  on  vellum  or  paper.  The 
oldest  material  was  the  Egyptian  papyrus  ; but 
even  so  early  as  the  fourth  century,  the  New 
Testament  was  written  on  the  skins  of  animals. 
This  writing  material  continued  in  use  till  the 
eleventh  century,  when  paper  began  to  be  em- 
ployed. Till  the  tenth  century,  MSS.  were 
usually  written  in  capital  or  uncial  letters  ; then 
the  cursive  character  came  into  use.  The  most 
ancient  copies  have  no  divisions  of  words,  being 
written  in  a continued  series  of  lines.  Accents, 
spirits,  and  iota  subscript,  are  also  wanting. 

The  whole  New  Testament  is  contained  in 
very  few  MSS.  Transcribers  generally  divided 
it  into  three  parts ; the  first  containing  the  four 
Gospels  ; the  second,  the  Act?  of  the  Apostles  and 
the  Epistles;  the  third,  the  Apocalypse  of  St- 
John.  The  greatest  number  of  MSS.  are  those 
which  have  the  four  Gospels,  because  they  were 


MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL. 

most  frequently  read  in  the  churches.  Those 
containing  the  Acts  and  epistles  are  also  nu- 
merous. Such  as  have  the  booV  of  Revelation 
alone  are  extremely  few,  because  it  was  seldom 
read  in  public. 

Greek  codices  are  not  often  complete  in  all 
their  parts.  They  have  many  chasms.  Again, 
some  contain  merely  detached  portions  of  the 
New  Testament,  or  sections  appointed  to  be  read 
on  certain  days  in  the  churches.  Hence  such 
codices  are  called  avayvdxreis  or  avay  vucr para  in 
Greek  ; and  in  Latin  lectionaria.  Those  con- 
taining lessons  from  the  Gospels  are  called  evan- 
pelistaria;  while  such  as  were  taken  from  the 
Acts  and  epistles  were  denominated  irpa^air6o'- 
toAoi. 

Several  MSS.  are  accompanied  with  a Latin 
translation  interlined , or  in  a parallel  column. 
Such  have  been  called  bilingues , or  Graeco- Latini. 

We  shall  now  advert  to  the  uncial  MSS.  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  and  to  those  usually  quoted  in 
the  examination  of  the  controverted  passage  1 
John  v.  7.  The  former  are  marked  with  the 
letters  of  the  alphabet  A,  B,  C,  &c. 

A.  Codex  Alexandrinus , presented  by  Cyril 
Lucar,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  afterwards 
of  Constantinople,  to  Charles  I.,  now  in  the 
British  Museum.  It  contains  the  whole  Bible, 
the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
three  folios,  and  the  New  Testament  in  one.  It 
has  various  chasms.  A fac-simile  of  the  New 
Testament  portion  was  published  by  Dr.  Woide, 
in  a folio  volume,  London,  1786.  Mr.  Baber 
of  the  British  Museum  executed  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  same  manner,  in  four  folio  volumes, 
London,  1819.  This  MS.  was  probably  written 
at  Alexandria,  and  belongs  to  the  fifth  century. 

B.  Codex  Vatic  antes,  1209,  in'  the  Vatican 
Library  at  Rome,  containing  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  It  is  defective  in  several  places ; 
and  portions  have  been  supplied  by  a modern 
hand.  Hug  has  proved  that  it  belongs  to  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century.  In  regard  to  the 
internal  value  of  its  readings,  it  is  probably 
superior  to  the  Codex  Alexandrinus. 

C.  Codex  regius,  or  Ephraemi.  This  is  a 
rescript  or  palimpsest  MS.,  i.  e.  the  ancient  writ- 
ing lias  been  erased  to  make  room  for  some  other. 
The  works  of  Ephrem  the  Syrian  were  over  the 
original.  In  endeavouring  to  ascertain  the  cha- 
racter of  what  was  first  written  on  the  parchment, 
and  washing  off  the  latter  letters,  it  was  found 
that  the  MS.  contained  originally  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  in  Greek.  In  many  places  it 
is  so  faded  as  to  be  illegible.  There  are  nume- 
rous chasms  in  it.  Several  forms  of  words  seem 
to  indicate  that  it  was  written  in  Egypt : it  pro- 
bably belongs  to  the  sixth  century,  and  is  now  in 
the  Royal  Library  at  Paris,  where  it  is  marked  9. 

D.  Codex  Cantabrigiensis,  or  Bezce.- — This 
MS.  was  presented,  in  1581,  to  the  University  of 
Cambridge,  by  Theodore  Beza.  It  is  a Greek  - 
Latin  MS.  of  the  four  Gospels,  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  with  a single  fragment  of  the  Catholic 
epistles.  Its  age  is  probably  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, though  many  have  assigned  it  to  the’ fifth. 
Xipling,  Hug,  and  Scholz  think  that  it  was 
written  in  Egypt;  but  Scholz  has  given  some 
reasons  for  assigning  it  to  the  south  of  France, 
which  are  not  without  weight.  Credner  assents  to 
the  latter  opinion,  as  far  as  the  MS.  is  concerned; 


MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL.  299 

while  he  thinks  that  the  text  is  of  Jewish-Chris- 
tian  origin,  and  attributes  it  to  Palestine.  Great 
diversity  of  opinion  has  prevailed  respecting  the 
quality  of  its  readings.  Bishop  Middleton,  at 
tire  end  of  his  work  on  the  Greek  article,  depre- 
ciated it.  Matthsei  had  done  so  before.  Both 
have  unduly  lessened  its  value.  Dr.  Kipling 
published  a fac-simile  of  it  at  Cambridge,  1793, 
2 vols.  folio. 

D.  Claromontanus,  or  Regius , 107,  a Greek- 
Latin  copy  of  Paul's  epistles,  marked  with  the 
same  letter  of  the  alpliabet  as  the  preceding,  but 
containing  a different,  part  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  at  present  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris  : it 
probably  belongs  to  the  eighth  century. 

E.  Codex  Basileensis. — This  MS.  has  many 
chasms,  and  several  parts  of  it  have  beetr  written 
by  a more  recent  hand  than  the  rest.  If  contains 
the  Gospels,  and  belongs  to  the  ninth  century. 

E.  Laudianus,  having  once  belonged  to  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  and  now  in  the  Bodleian  Library. 
It  contains  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  with  a Latin 
version,  and  wants  from  xxvi.  29  to  xxviii.  26. 
This  MS.  belongs  to  the  seventh  or  eighth  cen- 
tury, and  was  published  by  Thomas  Hearne  at 
Oxford  in  1715,  octavo. 

E.  Sangermanensis. — This  is  a Greek-Latin 
MS.  of  Paul's  epistles,  but  a copy  of  the  Claro- 
montanus , with  various  corrections.  It  belongs 
to  the  eleventh  century. 

F.  Codex  Boreeli,  containing  the  four  Gospels. 
It  has  been  collated  no  farther  than  Luke  x. 

F.  Coislinianus,  a MS.  containing  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  Acts  ix.  21,  25.  It  belongs 
to  the  seventh  century. 

F.  Augiensis. — This  is  a Greek-Latin  MS.  of 
Paul’s  epistles,  now  in  the  library  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge.  It  belongs  to  the  tenth 
century. 

G.  llarleianus , in  the  British  Museum.  This 
is  a MS.  of  the  four  Gospels,  but  with  many 
chasms.  It  belongs  to  the  eleventh  century. 

G.  Angelicus. — A MS.  containing  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  with  the  Pauline  and  Catholic  epis- 
tles, belonging  to  the  Angelican  Library  at  Rome. 
It  is  as  old  as  the  ninth  century.  In  the  Pauline 
epistles  it  is  marked  I. 

G.  Boernerianus,  a Greek  MS.  of  Paul's 
Epistles,  with  an  interlinear  Lalin  version,  now 
in  the  Electoral  Library  at  Dresden.  It  wants 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  probably  belongs 
to  the  ninth  century.  The  characters  show  an 
approach  to  the  cursive. 

H.  Wolfiiis,  a MS.  of  the  four  Gospels,  with 
many  chasms.  It  belongs  to  the  eleventh  century. 

H.  Mutinensis. — This  MS.  contains  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  written  in  the  ninth  century ; but 
chapters  i.  1 — v.  28,  were  added  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  and  xxvii.  1 to  the  end,  in  the  eleventh 
century.  With  the  Catholic  epistles,  it  contains 
the  Pauline,  written  in  cursive  letters  (179),  and 
belongs  to  the  twelfth  century. 

H.  Coislinianus. — This  MS.  contains  frag 
ments  of  the  Pauline  epistles,  which  have  been 
printed  by  Montfaucon  in  the  Bibliotheca  Cois 
liniana.  According  to  Hug  it  belongs  to  the 
sixth  century. 

J.  Cottonianus. — This  codex  contains  frag- 
ments of  Matthew  and  John's  Gospels.  It  be- 
longs to  the  seventh  or  eighth  century. 

K.  Codex  Cyprius , formerly  Colbertinus,  5149 


*50  MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL. 

now  Regius,  63,  a MS.  containing  the  Gospels. 
It  belongs  to  the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  probably 
the  latter,  and  has  been  i'ully  collated  and  de- 
scribed by  Scholz  at  the  end  of  his  Cures  Criticos , 
4to.,  Heidelberg.  1820.  See,  however,  Schulz  in 
the  prolegomena  to  Griesbach,  vol.  i. 

L.  Regius,  62. — This  MS.  contains  the  four 
Gospels,  with  several  mutilations.  It  is  of 
Egyptian  origin,  as  Griesbach  has  proved ; and 
belongs  to  the  ninth  century. 

M.  Regius,  48,  containing  the  Gospels,  and 
belonging  to  the  tenth  century. 

N.  Vindobonensis  Ccesareus. — This  fragmen- 
tary MS.  contains  only  Luke  xxiv.  13-21  and 
39-49.  It  belongs  to  the  seventh  century. 

O.  Monte falconii , a MS.  containing  Luke 
xviii. 

P.  Guclpherbytanus,  a codex  rescriptus , con- 
taining fragments  of  the  four  Gospels,  and  be- 
longing to  the  sixth  century. 

Q.  Guclpherbytanus , also  a rescript  MS.,  con- 
taining fragments  of  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and 
John,  and  belonging  to  the  sixth  century.  These 
two  MSS.  were  published  and  described  by 
Knittel  in  1763, 

R.  Tubingensis. — This  fragment,  containing 
John  i.  38-50,  has  been  published  by  Reuss.  It 
belongs  to  the  seventh  century. 

S.  Vaticanus , 354. — This  MS.  contains  the 
Gospels,  and  belongs  to  the  tenth  century. 

T.  The  Borgian  fragment,  part  of  a Coptic- 
Gieek  MS.  brought  from  Egypt.  It  contains 
John  vi.  28-67 ; vii.  6 — viii.  31.  It  was  printed 
by  George  in  1789,  and  belongs  to  the  fourth  or 
more  probably  the  fifth  century. 

U.  A MS.  of  the  Gospels  in  St.  Mark's  Library, 
Venice.  It  belongs  to  the  tenth  century. 

V.  Mosquemis,  a MS.  of  the  four  Gospels,  be- 
longing to  the  library  of  the  Holy  Synod  at 
Moscow.  It  wants  some  parts  of  Matthew,  and 
from  John  vii.  39  is  written  in  cursive  characters 
of  the  thirteenth  century  ; the  first  part  belongs  to 
the  ninth  century. 

W.  Regius,  a fragment  containing  Luke  ix. 
36-47  ; x 12-22;  and  belonging  to  the  eighth 
century. 

X.  Landshutensis. — This  MS.  contains  the 

four  Gospels,  but  with  numerous  chasms  and  some 
supplements.  It  belongs  most  probably  to  the 
tenth  century.  X 

Y.  Barber  inns , a fragment  in  the  library  of 
Cardinal  Barberini  at  Rome,  containing  John 
xvi.  4 — xix.  28.  It  belongs  to  the  ninth  century. 

Z.  Dublinensis,  a rescript,  exhibiting  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew,  but  in  a very  imperfect  state.  It 
was  published  in  fac-simile  by  Dr.  Barrett  (Dub- 
lin, 1801,  4to.),  and  belongs  to  the  sixth  cen- 
tury. 

T.  Vaticanus. — This  fragment  contains  Mat- 
thew xix.  6-13;  xx.  6-22;  xx.  29— xxi.  19.  It 
belongs  to  the  seventh  century. 

A.  Sangallensis. — This  is  a Greek -Latin  MS. 
of  the  Gospels,  made  by  the  monks  in  the  monas- 
tery of  St.  Galleu.  It  was  published  by  Retti- 
gius  at  Turin,  in  1836,  and  belongs  to  the  ninth 
century. 

Such  are  the  uncial  MSS.  hitherto  collated. 
Those  written  in  the  cursive  character  are  de- 
icribed  in  the  large  critical  editions  of  Wetsfein, 
Griesbach,  and  Scholz ; and  in  the  Introduction 
if  Michaelis,  up  to  the  period  when  it  was  pub- 


MANUSCRIPTS,  BIBLICAL. 

lished.  The  other  Introductions  contain  ilestrip 
tions  of  several,  but  not  all  the  MSS. 

Three  cursive  MSS.  deserve  mention,  frunr 
their  connection  with  the  much-disputed  passage 
1 John  v.  7,  which  they  are  usually  quoted  a.' 
containing.  As  they  are  written  in  ft ursive  letters 
they  are  not  older  than  the  tenth  century. 

1 . The  Codex  Montfortianus,  or  Dublinensis 
belonging  to  the  library  of  Trinity  College, 
Dublin.  It  was  quoted  by  Erasmus,  under  the 
title  of  Codex  Britannicus.  It  is  written  on 
paper  in  12mo.  size,  and  could  not  have  been 
made  earlier  than  the  fifteenth  century.  It  follows 
the  Vulgate  very  closely,  not.  only  in  the  insertion 
of  the  much-disputed  verse,  but  in  other  passages 
of  a remarkable  character. 

2.  The  Codex  Ravianus,  or  Berolinensis. — 
This  MS.  is  generally  supposed  to  be.  a forgery 
copied  in  the  greater  part  of  it  from  the  Greek 
text  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglott,  and  the  third 
edition  of  Stephens.  It  has  even  their  typogra- 
phical errors.  It  was  written  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  has  no  critical  value  (see  Pap- 
pel  ban  m's  Untersuchung  der  Ravischen  Griechi- 
schen  Handschrift  des  Neuen  Testaments , Berlin, 
1785,  8vo. ; and  his  subsequent  treatise,  enti- 
tled, Codicis  Manuscripti  N.  T.  Greed  Raviam 
in  Biblioth.  Reg.  Berol.  publica  asservati  examen , 
quo  ostenditur,  alteram  ejus  partem  majorem 
ex  editione  Complutensi,  alteram  minorem  ex 
editionc  Rob.  Stephani  tertia  esse  descriptam, 
Berlin,  1796,  8voh 

3.  Codex  Ottobonianus  (298),  preserved  in 
the  Vatican.  This  MS.  contains  the  Acts  and 
epistles,  with  a Latin  version.  Scholz  ascribes  it 
to  the  fifteenth  century.  It  has  no  critical  value, 
because  it.  has  been  altered  in  many  cases  to 
correspond  with  the  Vidgate.  In  it  the  disputed 
text  is  found  in  a different  form  from  the  com- 
mon reading.  Instead  of  in  heaven , it  has  from 
heaven ; and  instead  of  on  earthy  it.  has  from  tin 
earth. 

MSS.  are  generally  divided  by  the  moderr 
critics  of  Germany  into — 1.  Such  as  were  writter 
before  the  practice  of  stichometry,  a mode  o*. 
dividing  the  text  which  shall  be  explained  after 
wards.  2.  The  stichometrical.  3.  Those  written 
after  stichometry  had  ceased.  So  Hug  and  IX 
Wette  in  their  Introductions  to  the  New  Testa 
ment.  According  to  this  classification  A,  B,  and 
C belong  to  the  first  class;  D,  D,  &c.,  to  tho 
second ; and  by  far  the  greatest  number  to  the 
third.  We  have  alluded  to  them  under  the  two 
great  heads  of  uncial  and  cursive. 

In  examining  MSS.  and  comparing  then  cna- 
racteristic  readings,  it  is  not  easy  in  every  instance 
to  arrive  at  the  true  original  form  of  a passage. 
Many  circumstances  are  to  be  taken  into  account 
— many  cautions  must  be  observed.  They  aie 
more  useful  in  detecting  interpolated  passages 
than  in  restoring  the  correct  reading. 

The  reading  of  an  older  MS.  is  preferable 
ceteris  paribus. 

In  determining  the  age  of  a MS.  internal 
marks  have  been  chiefly  followed,  such  as  the 
form  of  the  letters,  the  divisions,  abbreviations, 
the  nature  of  the  lines,  the  presence  or  absence  of 
the  accents,  &c.  These  particulars,  however,  are 
not  safe  criteria. 

Age  alone  is  not  sufficient  to  ensure  the  value 
of  the  text  of  a MS,  The  copyist  may  have  been 


MAON. 


MARAH. 


0(1 


guilty  of  negligence  or  inattention.  Iti  proportion 
to  iiis  accuracy  or  carelessness  will  the  authority 
of  the  codex  be  greater  or  less. 

Again,  a document  certainly  copied  from  one 
which  is  very  ancient,  will  have  greater  authority 
than  an  earlier  taken  from  another  of  no  great 
antiquity.  Thus  a MS.  of  the  eighth  century 
may  have  been  directly  copied  from  one  of  the 
fifth,  and  consequently  the  former  will  be  en- 
titled to  greater  estimation  than  one  belonging  to 
the  seventh  century  transcribed  from  one  of  the 
sixth. 

In  determining  the  value  of  a codex,  it  is  usual 
to  refer  to  the  country  where  it  was  written. 
Griesbach  and  others  prefer  the  African  ; Scholz, 
the  Constantinopolitan.  With  respect  to  Hebrew 
MSS.,  it  is  admitted  by  all  that  the  Spanish  are 
the  best.  The  Italian,  again,  are  superior  to  the 
German.  The  reading  contained  in  the  greater 
number  of  MSS.  is  preferable  to  that  of  a less 
number.  Mere  majority , however,  is  not  a safe 
criterion.  A majority  arising  from  independent 
sources,  or,  in  other  words,  of  those  belonging  to 
different  recensions , can  alone  be  relied  on  a3 
decisive.  But  here  critics  are  not  agreed  as.  to 
the  number  of  recensions  belonging  to  Greek 
MSS.  Some  have  proposed  four,  some  three, 
others  two.  Besides,  the  same  MS.  may  belong 
to  a different  recension  in  different  parts  of  itself. 
In  others,  the  characteristic  readings  of  two  or 
three  recensions  are  mingled  together,  rendering 
it  difficult  to  determine  which  recension  or 
family  preponderates. 

Hebrew  MSS.  belong  to  one  and  the  same  re- 
cension. It  is  true  that  some  have  distinguished 
them  into  Masoretic  and  Ante-masoretic ; but 
the  existence  of  the  latter  is  a mere  fiction.  One 
great  family  alone,  viz.  the  Masoretic , can  be 
distinctly  traced. — S.  D. 

MAON  ; Sept.  Mawv),  a town  in  the 

tribe  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  55),  which  gave  name 
to  a wilderness  where  David  hid  himself  from 
Saul,  and  around  which  the  churlish  Nabal  had 
great  possessions  (I  Sam.  xxiii.  24,  25  ; xxv.  2). 
Jerome  places  it  to  the  east  of  Daroma  (Onomast. 
s.  v.  Maon).  The  name  does  not  occur  in  mo- 
dem times,  and  Dr.  Robinson  regards  it  as  one 
of  the  sites  first  identified  by  himself.  Irby  and 
Mangles  were  in  the  neighbourhood  in  1818,  but 
did  not  detect  this  and  other  ancient  names. 
Robinson  finds  it  in  the  present  Main,  which  is 
about  seven  miles  south  by  east  from  Hebron. 
Here  there  is  a conical  hill  about  200  feet 
high,  on  the  top  of  which  are  some  ruins  of  no 
great  extent,  consisting  of  foundations  of  hewn 
stone,  a square  enclosure,  the  remains  probably  of 
a tower  or  castle,  and  several  cisterns.  The  view 
from  the  summit  is  extensive.  This  is  Main. 
The  traveller  found  here  a band  of  peasants  keep- 
ing their  flocks,  and  dwelling  in  caves  amid  the 
ruins  (Bibl.  Researches,  ii.  190-196). 

MARAH  (rnD,  bitterness;  Sept.  M apu). 
The  Israelites,  in  departing  from  Egypt,  made 
some  stay  on  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea,  at  the 
place  where  it  had  been  crossed  by  them.  From 
this  spot  they  proceeded  southward  for  three  days 
without  finding  any  water,  and  then  came  to 
A well,  the  waters  of  which  were  so  bitter,  that, 
thirsty  as  they  were,  they  could  not  drink  them. 
The  well  was  called  Marah  from  the  quality  of 


its  waters.  This  name,  in  the  form  of  A marah, 
is  now  borne  by  the  barren  bed  of  a winter 
torrent,  a little  beyond  which  is  still  found  a 
well  called  Howara,  the  bitter  waters  of  which 
answer  to  this  description.  Camels  will  drink 
it ; but  the  thirsty  Arabs  never  partake  of  it 
themselves;  and  it  is  said  to  be  the  only  water 
on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea  which  they  cannot 
drink.  The  water  of  this  well,  when  first  taken 
into  the  mouth,  seems  insipid  rather  than  bitter, 
hut  when  held  in  the  mouth  a few  seconds  it  be- 
comes exceedingly  nauseous.  The  well  rises 
within  an  elevated  mound  surrounded  by  sand- 
hills, and  two  small  date-trees  grow  near  it. 

The  Hebrews,  unaccustomed  as  yet  to  the 
hardships  of  the  desert,  and  having  been  in  the 
habit  of  drinking  their  full  of  the  best,  water  in 
the  world,  were  much  distressed  by  its  scarcity 
in  the  region  wherein  they  now  wandered;  and  in 
their  disappointment  of  the  relief  expected  from 
this  well,  they  murmured  greatly  against  Moses 
for  having  brought  them  into  such  a dry  wilder- 
ness, and  asked  him,  ‘ What  shall  we  drink  T 
On  this  Mose3  cried  to  Jehovah,  who  indicated  to 
him  ‘a  certain  tree,’  on  throwing  the  branches  of 
which  into  the  well,  its  waters  became  sweet  and 
fit  for  use.  The  view  which  has  been  taken  of  this 
transaction  by  the  present  writer  in  another  work 
( Pictorial  Hist,  of  Palestine,  pp.  209,  210),  is 
here  introduced,  as  it  has  been  judged  satisfactory, 
and  as  no  new  information  on  the  subject  has 
since  heen  obtained. 

‘ The  question  connected  with  this  operation 
is — whether  the  effect  proceeded  from  the  in- 
herent virtue  of  the  tree  in  sweetening  bad  water  : 
or  that  it  had  no  such  virtue,  and  that  the  effect 
was  purely  miraculous.  In  support  of  the  former 
alternative,  it  may  be  asked  why  the  tree  should 
have  been  pointed  out  and  used  at  all,  unless  it 
had  a curative  virtue?  And  to  this  the  answer 
may  be  found  in  the  numerous  instances  in  which 
God  manifests  a purpose  of  working  even  his 
miracles  in  accordance  with  the  general  laws  by 
which  he  governs  the  world,  and  for  that  purpose 
disguising  the  naked  exhibition  of  supernatural 
power,  by  the  interposition  of  an  apparent  cause; 
while  yet  the  true  character  of  the  event  is  left 
indisputable,  by  the  utter  inadequacy  of  the 
apparent  cause  to  produce,  by  itself,  the  resulting 
effect.  This  tends  to  show  that  the  tree,  or  por- 
tion of  it,  need  not  be  supposed,  from  the  mere 
fact  of  its  being  employed,  to  have  had  an  in- 
herent curative  virtue.  It  had  not  necessarily 
any  such  virtue;  and  that  it  positively  had  not 
such  virtue  seems  to  follow,  or,  at  least,  to  be 
rendered  more  than  probable  by  the  consideration 
— that,  in  the  scanty  and  little  diversified  vege- 
tation of  this  district,  any  such  very  desirable 
virtues  in  a tree,  or  part  of  a tree,  could  scarcely 
have  been  undiscovered  before  the  time  of  the 
history,  and  if  they  had  been  discovered,  could 
not  but  have  been  known  to  Moses ; and  flic 
divine  indication  of  the  tree  would  not  have  heen 
needful.  And,  again,  if  the  corrective  qualities 
were  inherent,  but  were  at  this  time  first  made 
known,  it  is  incredible  that  so  valuable  a dis- 
covery would  ever  have  been  forgotten ; and  yet 
it  is  manifest  that  in  after-times  the  Hebrews  had 
not  the  knowledge  of  any  tree  which  could 
render  bad  water  drinkable  ; and  the  i habitants 
of  the  desert  have  not  only  not  preserved  the 


502 


MAR  AH 


MARESHAH. 


knowledge  of  a fact  which  would  have  been  so 
important  to  them.  but.  have  not  discovered  it  in 
the  thirty-five  centuries  which  have  since  passed. 
This  is  shown  by  the  inquiries  of  travellers,  some 
of  whom  were  actuated  by  the  wish  of  finding  a 
plant  which  might  supersede  the  miracle.  Burck- 
hardf  confesses  that,  after  numerous  inquiries,  he 
could  never  learn  that,  the  Arabs  were  acquainted 
with  any  plant  or  tree  possessing  such  qualities  ; 
but  lie  regrets  that  lie  omitted  to  make  this  in- 
quiry at  Marah  in  particular.  Lord  Lindsay, 
remembering  this  regret,  did  make  particular 
inquiries  at  that  place.  “ I asked  whether  they 
had  any  means  of  sweetening  bad  water,  and  he 
mentioned  the  mann , a gum  that  exudes  from 
the  tamarisk-free,  and  the  juice  of  the  homr  berry. 
The  homr  plant,  and  tarfah , or  tamarisk-tree, 
grow  in  great  abundance  in  Wady  Gharaudel. 
The  former  bears  small,  red,  juicy  berries,  which 
they  squeeze  into  water  : the  mann  has  a strong 
aromatic  taste,  like  turpentine.  One  of  our 
guides  had  a piece  of  it,  which  I tasted  ; they 
keep  it  in  casks,  melt  it  when  required,  and 
spread  it  on  their  bread  like  honey.  Some  have 
taken  it  for  the  miraculous  manna — too  absurd 
an  opinion  to  he  confuted.  Are  we  to  under- 
stand that  the  elTect  produced  on  the  bitter  waters 
of  Marah,  by  casting  in  the  tree,  shown  to  Moses 
by  the  Almighty  (or  ‘ something  of  a tree,’  as  the 
Arabic  version  runs),  was  also  miraculous?  If 
not,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  mann  or  the 
homr  juice  may  have  been  the  specific  employed. 
The  hoynr  is,  however,  a mere  shrub,  and  had  the 
whole  valley  for  miles  round  been  full  of  tarfah 
trees,  or  homr  bushes,  ihere  would  scarcely  have 
been  enough  to  sweeten  water  sufficient  for  such 
a host  as  that  of  Israel.  Moreover,  the  Israelites 
were  here  within  a month  after  the  institution  of 
the  Passover,  at  the  vernal  equinox,  whereas  the 
mann  harvest,  does  not  take  place  till  June.  This 
alone,  I think,  must  decide  the  question  in  favour 
of  the  miracle.”  This  traveller  goes  on  to  tell 
us  that  the  Hebrew  name  of  the  tree  in  question 
was  alvah , whence  he  is  led  to  conclude,  from  the 
analogy  of  the  names,  that,  it  might  be  identified 
with  the  species  of  acacia  to  which  the  Arabians 
give  the  name  of  elluf.  ' But  all  that  is  said  on 
this  point  gees  for  nothing,  as  it  happens  that  the 
tree  is  not  called  in  Hebrew  alvah,  nor  is  any 
name  given  to  it,  but  is  indicated  simply  as 
rv  etz , a tree.  His  concluding  observation  is 
more  correct : “Whatever  the  tree  was,  it  can 
have  had  no  more  inherent  virtue  in  sweetening 
the  bitter  well  of  Marah,  than  the  salt,  had,  which 
produced  the  same  effect,  when  thrown  by  Elisha 
into  the  well  of  Jericho  ” (Lindsay,  i.  263-5). 

‘ This  leaves  little  to  be  said.  As  Lord  Lind- 
say proposed  his  question  to  an  Arab,  who  could 
not  apprehend  his  precise  object,  tiirough  an  in- 
terpreter, who  probably  apprehended  it  as  little, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  answer  applies  to 
the  supposition  that  he  wanted  to  know  how  a 
cup  of  bad  water  might  have  its  unpalateableuess 
disguised,  so  as  to  be  made  drinkable ; and  it  is 
much  the  same,  in  effect,  as  might  be  given  in 
this  country  to  a similar  question,  “ Put  a little 
rngar,  or  a little  lemon-juice  into  it.”  Probably 
the  Bedouins  use  both  of  the  articles  mentioned — 
being  a sweet  and  an  acid — in  making  a kind  of 
sherbet.  It  will  not  d>  to  think  of  the  Hebrew 
as  equeezi  rg  the  juice  of  little  red  berres,  or  as 


mixing  up  a vegetable  gum  in  the  well  of  Marah, 
even  if  a sufficient  quantity  of  either  could  have 
been  procured  tc  sweeten  water  enough  for  tlte 
thousands  of  Israel.  This,  therefore,  being  the 
only  case  in  which  the  Arabs  of  Sinai  have  been 
brought  to  mention  the  oidy  articles  known  to 
them  as  used  for  the  indicated  purpose,  does  the 
more  abundantly  prove  that  they  know  no  tree 
answering  to  the  description  which,  without  the 
miracle,  it.  would  be  necessary  to  require  In 
this,  as  in  many  other  dealings  with  the  Scripture 
miracles,  it.  is  easier  to  understand  and  believe 
the  miracle  itself  than  the  best  explanation; 
which  have  been  given. 

‘ The  Jewish  writers,  generally,  are  so  far  from 
looking  for  any  inherent  virtues  in  the  “ tree,” 
that  they,  contrariwise,  affirm  that  its  natural 
quality  was  rather  to  make  that  bitter  which  was 
sweet,  than  to  sweeten  that  which  was  bitter. 
The  Targums  call  it.  the  bitter  tree  Ardiphne, 
which  most  of  the  Hebrew  interpreters  take  to 
signify  the  same  to  which  botanists  give  the  name 
of  Rhodo- daphne,  the  rose-laurel.’ 
MARANATHA.  [Anathema.] 
MARCHESHVAN  ; Josephus,  An- 

tiq.  i.  3.  3,  Maparouavrjs ; the  Macedonian  A?os) 
is  the  name  of  that  month  which  was  the  eighth 
of  the  sacred,  and  the  second  of  the  civil,  year  of 
the  Jews ; which  began  with  the  new  moon  ol 
our  November.  There  was  a fast  on  the  6th,  in 
memory  of  Zedekiah's  being  blinded,  after  he 
had  witnessed  the  slaughter  of  his  son3  (2  King3 
xx v.  7). 

This  month  is  always  spoken  of  in  the  Old 
Testament  by  its  numerical  designation ; except 

once,  when  it  is  called  Bui  (^-13,  1 Kings  vi.  38- 
Sept.  BactA).  According  to  Kimchi,  Bui  is  a 
shortened  form  of  the  Hebrew  ^13',  ‘ rain,’  frorr. 

^3\  The  signification  of  rain-month  is  exactly 
suitable  to  November  in  the  climate  of  Palestine. 

Others  derive  it  from  ^?3-  Benfey,  availing 
himself  of  the  fact,  that  the  Palmyrene  inscrip- 
tions express  the  name  of  the  god  Baal,  accord- 
ing to  their  dialect , by  ^13  (as  'AyXtfid- 

Aos),  has  ventured  to  suggest  that,  as  the  months 
are  often  called  after  the  deities,  Bui  may  have 
received  its  name  from  that  form  of  Baal  ( Monats - 
namen,  p.  182).  The  rendering  of  the  Sept,  might 
have  been  appealed  to  as  some  sanction  of  this 
view.  He  supposes  that  Marcheshv&n  is  a com- 
pound name,  of  which  the  syllable  mar  is  taken 
from  the  Zend  Ameretut,  or  its  later  Persian  form 
Morddd ; and  that  cheshvun  is  the  Persian  chezdn , 
‘ autumn  both  of  which  are  names  belonging  tc 
the  same  month  ( l . c.  p.  136.  sq.). — J.  N. 

MARESHAH  (M^ID  ; Sept.  Mapurct),  a town 
in  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  14),  re-built  and 
fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  8).  The 
Ethiopians  under  Zerah  were  defeated  by  Asa  in 
the  valley  near  Mareshah  (2  Chron.  xiv.  9-13). 
It  was  laid  desolate  by  Judas  Maccabseus,  on  his 
march  from  Hebron  to  Ashdod  (1  Macc.  v.  65- 
68;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  8.  6).  Josephus  men- 
tions it  among  the  towns  possessed  by  Alexander 
Jannaeus,  which  bad  been  in  the  hands  of  the 
Syrians  (Antiq.  xiii.  15.  4)  ; but  by  Pompey  it 
was  restored  to  the  former  inhabitants,  and  at« 
tached  to  the  province  of  Syiia  ( lb . xiv.  4.  4) 


MARK. 


MARK. 


903 


Ma-iesa  was  among  the  towns  rebuilt  by  Gabinius 
( lb . xiv.  5.  3),  but  was  again  destroyed  by  the 
Parthians  in  their  irruption  against  IIe?od  ( lb . 
xiv.  5.  3).  A place  so  often  mentioned  in  his- 
tory must  have  been  of  considerable  importance; 
but  it  does  not  appear  that  it  was  ever  again 
rebuilt.  The  site,  however,  is  set  down  by  Euse- 
bius and  Jerome  ( 0 nomast . s.  v.  Morasthi),  as 
within  two  miles  of  Eleut.heropolis,  but  the  direc- 
tion is  not  stated.  Dr.  Robinson  ( Bibl . Researches, 
ii.  422)  found,  at  a mile  and  a half  south  of  the 
site  of  Eleutheropolis,  a remarkable  tel , or  artificial 
hill,  with  foundations  of  some  buildings.  As 
there  are  no  other  ruins  in  the  vicinity,  and  as 
the  site  is  admirably  suited  for  a fortress,  this,  he 
supposes,  may  have  been  Mares  hah. 

MARK  Pekson  of  Makk. — According  to 
ecclesiastical  testimonies  the  evangelist  Mark  is 
the  same  person  who  in  the  Acts  is  called  by  the 
Jewish  name  John,  whose  Roman  surname  was 
Marcus  (Acts  xii.  12,  25).  This  person  is  some- 
times called  simply  John  (Actsxiii.  5,  13) ; and 
sometimes  Mark  (Acts  xv.  39). 

Mary,  Mark's  mother,  had  a house  at  Jerusa- 
lem, in  which  the  Apostles  were  wont  to  assemble 
(Acts  xii.  12).  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
(iv.  10,  11)  Mark  is  mentioned  among  the  assist- 
ants of  Paul,  and  as  being  one  of  the  converts  from 
Judaism.  From  this  passage  we  learn  also  that 
Mark  was  a cousin  of  Barnabas,  which  circum- 
stance confirms  the  opinion  that  he  was  of  Jfewish 
descent.  It  was  probably  Barnabas  who  first  in- 
troduced him  to  Paul.  He  accompanied  Paul 
and  Barnabas  on  their  travels  as  an  assistant 
(Acts  xii.  25  ; xiii.  5).  When  they  had  arrived 
in  Pamphylia,  Mark  left  them  and  returned  to 
Jerusalem,  from  which  city  they  had  set  out 
'Acts  xiii.  13).  On  this  account  Paul  refused  to 
ake  Mark  with  him  on  his  second  a.postolical 
ouruev, ‘ and  so  Barnabas  took  Mark,  and  sailed 
unto  Cyprus’  (Acts  xv.  37-39).  It  seems,  how- 
ever, that  Mark,  at  a later  period,  became  recon- 
ciled to  Paul,  since,  according  to  Coloss.  iv.  10, 
and  Philem.  24,  he  was  with  the  apostle  during 
his  first  captivity  at  Rome ; and  according  to 
2 Tim.  iv.  11,  he  was  also  with  him  during  his 
second  captivity.  The  passage  in  Colossians 
proves  also  that  he  was  about  to  undertake  for 
Paul  a journey  to  Colosse. 

There  is  a unanimous  ecclesiastical  tradition 
that  Mark  was  the  companion  and  kpp.i}vevTT)s 
of  Peter.  This  tradition  is  the  more  credible,  as 
the  New  Testament  does  not  contain  any  passage 
drat  could  have  led  to  its  invention.  Since,  ac- 
cording to  Acts  xii.  12,  Peter  was  in  the  habit  of 
visiting  as  a friend  at  the  house  of  Mark’s  mother, 
ne  may  perhaps  be  considered  as  the  spiritual 
father  of  Mark.  From  the  works  of  Papias  (Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39)  it  appears  that  Mark  could 
not  have  been  a direct  disciple  of  Christ.  Hence 
it  seems  to  follow  that  the  statement  of  Origen, 
that  Mark  was  one  of  the  seventy  disciples  of 
Christ,  is  incorrect  (see  Originis  Opera , edit.  De 
la  Rue,  tom.  i.  p.  807).  If  the  expression  in  1 Pet. 
v.  13,  7]  aweKXsKTT},  means  the  congregation  of 
Peter,  the  word  - vl6s  would  signify  a spiritual 
eon,  in  which  case  we  could  refer  this  teim  only 
to  the  evangelist  Mark  mentioned  in  the  Acta. 
This,  however,  is  doubtful,  because  we  should  in 
that  case  rather  expect  the  word  re-, tvov.  We 
learn  from  Luke  iv.  38,  and  1 Cor.  ix.  15,  that 


Peter  was  married,  and  from  Eusebius  (Hist. 
Ecclcs.  iii.  30)  that  he  had  children.  Hence  we 
may  well  refer  the  word  o-we/tAe/cT^  to  the  wifeoi 
the  Apostle,  and  understand  vt6s  to  mean  his  real 
son.  It  is  by  no  means  unlikely  that  alter  Paul 
had  quitted  the  scene,  Mark  should  have  united 
himself  to  Peter,  witli  whom  he  had  been  on 
friendly  terms  at  an  early  period  of  his  life.  In 
case  that  Paul  is  not  considered  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  may  say  that  Timothy 
also  attached  himself  to  another  teacher  after  the 
death  of  that  apostle  (see  the  Commentaries  on 
Heb.  xiii.  23).  The  testimony  in  favour  of  the 
connection  between  Mark  and  Peter  is  so  old  and 
respectable,  that  it  cannot  be  called  in  question. 
It  first  occurs  at  the  commencement  of  the  second 
century,  and  proceeds  from  the  presbyter  John 
(Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39);  it  afterwards  appears 
in  Irenseus  (Adv.  Hear.  iii.  1.  1,  and  x.  6) ; in  Ter- 
tullian  ( Contra  Mart.  iv.  5)  ; in  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  Jerome,  and  others.  The  question  arises, 
what  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  expression  eppn j- 
vevT^s  Tlezpov,  which  is  employed  even  by  the  pres- 
byter John.  It  was  formerly  supposed  that  Mark 
was  thereby  described  as  being  the  interpreter  of 
Peter,  who  was  said  to  be  unacquainted  with 
Greek.  This  opinion  was  entertained  by  Eich- 
horn,  Bertholdt,  and  KuinoeL  But  Fritsche,  in 
his  Commentarius  in  Marcum  xxvi.,  has  appealed 
to  the  testimonies  of  ancient  writers  in  order  to 
prove  that  Mark  was  called  epprjrevT'f}^,  because 
lie  wrote  down  what  Peter  taught  by  word  of 
mouth.  According  to  our  opinion,  Mark  was 
called  ep/j.rjvevT'hs  because  he  was  the  assistant 
of  Peter,  and  either  orally  or  in  writing  com- 
municated and  developed  what  Peter  taught. 
The  sense  in  which  the  ancients  employed  the 
word  interpres  may  be  clearly  understood  from 
the  passage  in  Jerome  ( Epistola  cxx.  ad  Iledi- 
biam.  cap.  xi.).  It.  is  there  stated  that  although 
Paul  had  the  gift  of  various  languages,  as 
may  be  seen  from  1 Cor.  xiv.  18,  he  was  still 
not  able  ‘divinorum  sensuum  majestatem  digno 
Graeci  eloquii  explicare  sermone  that  is,  ‘ to 
express  the  majesty  of  divine  truth  in  a sufficiently 
oratorical  Greek  style’  (comp.  Epistola  M,d  Aly- 
asiam,  quaest.  x.).  Jerome  adds,  ‘ Habebat  ergo 
Titum  interpretem  ; sicut  et  beatus  Petrus  Mar- 
cum, cujus  Evangelium  Petro  narrante,  et  illo 
scribente,  compositum  est.  Denique  et  duae 
epistolae  quae  leruntur  Petri,  stilo  intus  et  cha- 
ractere  discrepant,  structuraque  veiborum.  Ex 
quo  intelligimus  pro  necessitate  rerum,  diversis 
eurn  usum  interpretibus.’ — ‘ Therefore  he  had 
Titus  for  a secretary,  as  the  blessed  Peter  had 
Mark,  whose  Gospel  was  composed  by  him  after 
the  dictation  of  Peter.  The  two  Epistles  of 
Peter  which  are  in  circulation  differ  from  each 
other  in  character  and  style.  Hence  we  perceive 
that  he  was  compelled  by  circumstances  to  em- 
ploy different  secretaries.’ 

It  is  quite  evident  that  in  this  passage  interpres 
cannot  mean  an  ‘interpreter’  or  ‘translator,  but 
rather  the  person  who  develops  and  puts  into 
style  the  discourses  of  another.  From  the  following 
passage  we  learn  that  this  does  not  merely  refel 
to  wriiten  composition  : — p.€T a t^v  tovtocv  (Peter 
and  Paul)  e£o5oF  M dpicus  6 padrjT'qs  teal  kppr,- 
vev~)]S  n erpov,  noil  aurbs  t a in to  Tlerpov  Kripvrcr6- 
p.€i>a  i'yypdcpcos  ripiiv  i rapadedance  (Eusebius,  Hist. 
Eccles.  v.  8). — ‘Alter  the  departure  of  Pete.r  and 


304 


MARK. 


MARK. 


Paul,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  secretary  ( interjrrcs ) 
jf  Peter,  transmitted  to  us  in  writing  what  Peter 
had  preached.’  It  is  evident  that  Mark  is  here 
called  epfxyyevrr,s  without  reference  to  his  au- 
thorship. 

Eusebius  represents  {Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  15)  from 
the  later  life  of  Mark,  that  he  was  with  Peter  at 
Rome.  Epiphanius  and  others  inform  us  that 
he  introduced  the  Gospel  into  Egypt,  founded  the 
church  at  Alexandria,  and  that  he  died  in  the 
eighth  year  of  Nero's  reign. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark. — The  same  ancient 
authors  who  call  Mark  a nadyrys  (disciple)  and 
€pnr}vevrv,s  (secretary)  of  Peter,  state  also  that  he 
wrote  his  Gospel  according  to  the  discourses  of  that 
Apostle.  The  most  ancient  statement  of  this  fact 
is  that  of  the  presbyter  John  and  of  Papias,  which 
we  quote  verbatim  from  Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccles.  i ii. 
39)  as  follows : M apnos  per  epppyevr^s  Tlerpov 
yevopsvos,  oca  epvripdvevcrev,  aKpifiws  eypaij/ey,  ov 
pey  tol  ra£er  ra  vnb  t ov  Xpicrov  Aex^eVra 
vpaxOwTa’  our e yap  jjicovcre  rov  Kvptov , ovre 
■napi]Ko\ovQri<rev  avT<p  u<tt epou  8e,  dr  ecprjv,  rierpw, 
tis  irpbs  ras  xp€ias  eiroiciro  ras  diSaa-KO\ias,  a\\ ’ 
ot>x  &o"irep  crvyra^tv  tuv  KvptaKuy  iroiovpevos 
\oyuvy.  "flCTe  obSev  Vipapre  M apnos  ovrws  tvia 
ypd-pas  ws  careuyquovevaev.  ’Evbs  yap  (TroiTjcaro 
■/rpiuotav,  too  urjbev  uv  fjnovce  irapa\nre7v, 
yl/evcracdai  n iv  abrols. — ‘ Mark  having  become 
secretary  to  Peter,  whatever  he  put  into  style  he 
wrote  with  accuracy,  but  did  not  observe  the 
chronological  order  of  the  discourses  and  actions 
of  Curist,  because  he  was  neither  a hearer  nor  a 
follower  of  the  Lord  ; but  at  a later  period,  as  I 
have  said,  wrote  for  Peter  to  meet  the  requisites 
of  instruction,  but  by  no  means  witli  the  view  to 
furnish  a connected  digest  of  the  discourses  of 
our  Lord.  Consequently  Mark  was  not  in  fault 
when  he  wrote  down  circumstances  as  he  recol- 
lected them  ; for  he  had  otdy  the  intention  to  omit 
nothing  of  what  he  had  heard,  and  not  to  mis- 
represent anything.’  Critics  usually  ascribe  all 
these  words  to  the  presbyter.  Schmidt  especially 
observes,  in  his  Einleitung  ins  Neue  Testament 
Nachtriige  (p.  270),  that  he  himself  had  errone- 
ously quoted  this  testimony  as  the  words  of 
Papias ; but  it  seems  to  us  that  the  words  ds 
£rpT]y  do  not  allow  us  to  consider  all  this  passage 
as  belonging  to  the  presbyter.  Papias  had  not 
before  his  eyes  a book  of  the  presbyter,  and  he 
seems  to  have  alluded  to  that  passage  of  his  own 
work  to  which  Eusebius  refers  in  his  second  book 
(ch.  xv.),  in  which  work  Papias  had  given  some 
account  respecting  the  life  of  this  evangelist. 
According  to  this  view  it  seems  that,  with  the 
words  oijre  yap  tfnovcre,  there  begins  an  explana- 
tion of  the  words  of  the  presbyter. 

ft  has  been  observed  in  the  article  Gospel 
that  this  passage  has  been  made  use  of  in  order 
to  disprove  the  existence  of  an  orally  fixed  evan- 
gel ium-tradition,  since  it  is  here  stated  that  Peter 
preached  as  circumstances  required.  To  this  we 
replied  that  Papias  considers  the  Gospel  of  Mark 
io  be  the  reflex  of  the  discourses  of  Peter,  in 
which  character  they  are  described  by  t lie  pres- 
byter ; and  since  the  Gospel  of  Mark  really 
contains  a sketch  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  the  ac- 
count of  the  presbyter  does  not  imply  that  the 
discourses  of  Peter  could  not  likewise  have  con- 
tained a sketch  of  his  life.  The  presbyter  only 


says  that  Pt  ter  did  not  furnish  a complete  life 
of  Jesus,  embracing  a history  of  Ins  infancy, 
youth,  &c. ; and  that,  therefore,  the  account  oi 
Peter  was  in  some  respects  incomplete,  since  he, 
as  Papias  states,  omitted  various  circumstances. 
Schleiermacher,  anil  after  him  Strauss,  Imre 
turned  this  into  an  argument  against  the  Gospel 
of  Mark.  They  assert  that  this  Gospel  is  a 
cvyrd^ts,  which,  if  not  chronological,  is  at  least 
a concatenation  according  to  the  subjects.  Now 
the  presbyter  states  that  Mark  wrote  ov 
without  order.  By  this  expression  they  consider 
all  such  arrangement  excluded;  consequently 
they  infer  that  the  presbyter  John,  the  old  dis- 
ciple of  the  Lord,  spoke  of  another  Mark.  We 
learn,  however,  from  what  Papias  adds,  how 
Papias  himself  understood  the  words  of  the  pres- 
byter; and  we  perceive  that  he  explains  ov  rd^ei 
by  (via  ypa\pas,  writing  isolated  facts.  Hence 
it  appears  that  the  words  ov  ra^ei  signify  only 
incompleteness,  but  do  not  preclude  all  and 
every  sort  of  arrangement. 

It  would  be  arbitrary,  indeed,  to  suppose  that 
another  Mark  had  an  existence  in  the  earliest 
times  of  Christianity,  without  having  any  his- 
torical testimony  for  such  a supposition.  There  is 
no  indication  that  there  was  any  other  Mark  in 
the  early  times  of  Christianity  besides  the  Mark 
mentioned  in  the  Acts,  who  is  also  reported  to 
have  been  the  author  of  that  Gospel  which  bears 
his  name. 

We  have  mentioned  in  the  article  Luke  that, 
according  to  Irenaeus,  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and 
Luke  were  written  later  than  that  of  Matthew ; 
and  according  to  a tradition  preserved  by  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus,  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  preceded  that  of  Mark.  The  chronolo- 
gical order  of  the  Gospels  is,  according  to  Origen, 
the  same  in  which  they  follow  each  other  in  the 
codices.  Irenaeus  {Adversus  Hcercscs,  iii.  1) 
states  that  Mark  wrote  after  the  death  of  Peter 
and  Paul ; but,  according  to  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus {Hypotypos.  vi.)  and  Eusebius  {Hist. 
Eccles.  vi.  14),  he  wrote  at  Rome  while  Peter 
was  yet  living.  These  various  data  leave  us  in 
uncertainty. 

If  the  opinions  concerning  the  relation  of  Mark 
to  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  have  been  current 
since  the  days  of  Griesbacn,  were  correct,  we 
might  be  able  to  form  a true  idea  concerning  the 
chronological  succession  in  which  the  first  three 
Gospels  were  written.  Griesbach,  Saunier, 
Strauss,  and  many  others,  state  it  as  an  unques- 
tionable fact,  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  was  merely 
an  abridgment  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  De  Wette,  even  in  the  latest  edition  of 
his  Einleitung , 1842,  calls  this  opinion  erwiesen , 

4 demonstrated’  (see  pp.  130  and  157).  The  value 
of  such  demonstrations  may  be  learned  from  what 
appears  to  De  Wette  the  most  certain  proof  of  the 
alleged  fact,  viz.  that  the  statements  of  Mark 
concerning  the  temptation  of  Christ  are  merely  a* 
abridgment  of  other  sources.  But  we  do  not 
perceive  why  it  should  be  impossible  to  furnish  a 
condensed  statement  from  oral  communications. 

Weisse,  Wolke,  and  Bauer,  on  the  other  hand, 
have,  in  recent  times,  asserted  that  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  was  the  most  ancient  of  all  the  Gospels, 
that  Luke  amplified  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  awd 
that  Matthew  made  additions  to  both.  Weiss* 
and  Wolke  emphrv  some  very  artificial  exp<* 


MARK 


MARRIAGE. 


306 


Rents  in  order  to  explain  how  it  happened  that, 
if  Luke  and  Matthew  transcribed  Mark,  there 
thould  have  arisen  a considerable  ditierence 
both  in  words  and  contents.  VVolke  especially 
accuses  Luke  and  Matthew  of  intentional  mis- 
representations. Tire  author  of  Kritik  der  Evan- 
gelischen  Geschichte  der  Synoptiker,  Leipzig, 
18ilj  goes  still  further. 

The  following  examples  will  explain  the  fore- 
going observation.  If  Mark,  in  ch.  i.  21-28, 
abridged  Luke,  ch.  iv.  31-37,  what  could  have 
induced  him,  although  usually  retaining  the 
same  sentences,  nevertheless,  for  lozOrjkOcv  to 
substitute  elcnropeuovTcu ; for  piipar,  cirapd^av ; 
for  eycuero  dapfios,  idapfivS^aav ; and  for 
\ vo/|,  & c. ? Rut  if  Mark’s  Gospel  was  earlier 
than  that  of  Luke,  what  could  have  induced  the 
latter  to  change  these  words  in  copying  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  former '2  According  to  VVolke,  in  his 
book  entitled  Der  Urevangelist,  1838,  p.  584,  sq., 
Luke  has,  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  changed  a 
collection  of  proverbial  sayings  into  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  and  inserted  Mark  iii.  Id;  while 
Matthew  again  has  amplified  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  of  Luke  (p.  6c5,  sq.)  ! 

Wolke  has  left  his  readers  in  doubt  how  much 
fhese  evangelists  took  from  historical  documents; 
but  Bauer  has  distinctly  asserted  that  Mark  pro- 
duced the  contents  of  his  book  from  his  imagina- 
tion, and  that  his  fictitious  narrative  was  extended 
and  spun  out  by  the  other  evangelists.  Such 
assertions  are  so  utterly  groundless  that  they  do 
not  require  to  be  formally  refuted. 

In  the  article  Gosuei.s  we  have  stated  our  opi- 
nion concerning  the  relative  position  in  which  the 
evangelists  stand  to  each  other.  We  do  not  see 
any  reason  to  contradict  the  unanimous  tradition 
of  antiquity  concerning  the  dependence  of  Mark 
upon  Peter.  We  deern  it  possible,  and  even  pro- 
bable, that  Luke  r^ad  Mark,  and  that  he  also 
alludes  to  him  by  reckoning  him  among  the 
7tJaAoi,  the  many , who  had  written  gospel  history 
before  him.  This  supposition,  however  is  by  no 
means  necessary  or  certain  ; and  it  is  still  possible 
that  Mark  wrote  after  Luke.  Some  of  the  ancient 
testimonies  which  we  have  quoted,  namely,  those 
of  IreiiBeus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Jerome,  and 
others,  state  that  Mark’s  Gospel  was  written  at 
Rome.  In  favour  of  this  opinion  there  have  been 
urged  some  so-called  Latinisms ; for  instance, 
in  ch.  xv.  15,  tw  ux'y  ixav'bv  Troirttrai,  and 
ch.  v.  23,  i< rxdroDS  extl*  These  expressions  are, 
however,  rather  Grsecisms  man  Latinisms.  Others 
appeal  to  words  which  have  a Latin  origin,  such 
as  o'TrexouhdTcop,  xevTvpleov,  i-earris,  (ppayeWoco ; 
but  these  are  military  terms  which  the  Greeks 
adopted  from  the  Romans.  The  words  £eaTr]s 
and  (ppayeWdco  occur  in  other  Greek  authors. 
The  use  of  the  word  Keurvplccv  is  rather  sur- 
prising, since  in  the  other  New  Testament  writers 
we  find  eKardvrapxos  and  kKaTOvrdpXPs.  In  our 
opinion  these  Latinisms  cannot  prove  much  re- 
specting the  locality  in  which  Mark's  Gospel  was 
written ; but  it  is  certain  that  it  was  written  for 
Gentile  Christians.  This  appears  from  the  expla- 
nation of  Jewish  customs  (ch.  vii.  2.  11 ; xii.  18; 
xiii.  3;  xiv.  12;  xv.  6,  42).  The  same  view  is 
confirmed  by  the  scarcity  of  quotations  from  the 
Old  Testament,  perhaps  also  by  the  absence  of 
the  genealogy  of  Christ,  and  by  the  omission  of 
tee  Sermon  til  the  Mount,  which  explains  the 
vo i,.  u.  <2j 


relation  of  Christ  to  the  Old  Testament  dispen- 
sation, and  which  was,  therefore,  of  the  greatest 
importance  to  Matthew. 

The  characteristic  peculiarity  of  Mark  as  an 
author  is  particularly  manifest  in  two  points: 

1.  He  reports  rather  the  works  than  the  dis- 
courses ot  our  Saviour;  2.  lie  gives  details  more 
minutely  and  graphically  than  Matthew  and 
Luke;  for  instance,  lie  describes  the  cures  effected 
by  Jesus  more  exactly  (iv  31,  41;  vi.  5,  13; 
vii.  33  ; viii.  23).  He  is  also  more  particular  in 
stating  definite  numbers  (v.  13,  42  ; vi.  7,  14,  30,), 
and  furnishes  mine  exact  dates  and  times  (i.  32, 
35;  ii.  1,  26  ; iv.  26,  35;  vi.  2;  xi.  11,  19,  20,  &c.) 

It  may  he  that  these  characteristics  of  Mark 
originated  from  his  connection  with  Peter.  With 
more  certainty  we  may  ascribe  to  Mark  him 
self  certain  peculiarities  of  diction  and  phrase- 
ology ; for  instance,  the  frequent  use  of  the  word 
evdeas,  and  his  predilection  for  diminutives  (v 
23,  39,  40,  41,  42 ; vi.  22.  28  ; vii.  25,  28). 

Most  of  the  materials  of  Mark's  narrative  occur 
also  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  He  has.  however, 
sections  exclusively  belonging  to  himself,  viz. 
iii.  21,  31,  sq. ; vi.  17,  sq. ; xi.  11  ; xii.  28,  sq. 
These  peculiar  statements  of  Mark  have  an  en- 
tirely historical  character  : consequently  we  deem 
it  unjustifiable  in  Strauss  and  De  Wette  to  endea- 
vour to  depreciate  them  by  calling  them  arbitrary 
additions. 

We  mention  the  conclusion  of  Mark’s  Gospel 
separately,  since  its  genuineness  may  be  called  in 
question. 

Among  the  Codices  Mctjusculi  the  Codex  B. 
omits  ch.  xvi.  9-20  altogether,  and  several  of  the 
Codices  Minusculi  mark  this  section  with  asterisks 
as  doubtful.  Several  ancient  Fathers  and  authors 
of  Scholia  state  that,  it  was  wanting  in  some  ma- 
nuscripts. We  cannot,  however,  suppose  that  it 
was  arbitrarily  added  by  a copyist,  since  at 
present  all  codices,  except  B.,  and  all  ancient 
versions  contain  it,  and  the  Fathers  in  general 
quote  it.  We  may  also  say  that  Mark  could  not 
have  concluded  his  Gospel  witli  ver.  8,  unless  he 
had  been  accidentally  prevented  from  finishing 
it.  Hence  Miehuelis  and  Hug  have  inferred 
that  the  addition  was  made  by  the  evangelist  at 
a later  period,  in  a similar  manner  as  John  made 
an  addition  in  ch.  xxi.  of  his  Gospel.  Perhaps  also 
an  intimate  friend,  or  an  amanuensis,  supplied  the 
defect.  If  either  of  these  two  hypotheses  is  well 
founded,  it  may  he  understood  why  several  codices 
were  formerly  without  this  conclusion,  and  why, 
nevertheless,  it.  was  found  in  most  of  them. 

Among  the  various  commentaries  on  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,  which  have  been  published  in  modern 
times,  the  following  deserves  to  he  specially  men- 
tioned : Evangelium  Marci  recensuit,  et  cum 
Conimentariis  perp etuis  edidit,  C.  F.  A.  Fritsche, 
Lipsiae,  1830.  This  author  does  not  enter  much 
into  the  explanation  of  Biblical  thoughts  and 
truths,  hut  he  has  furnished  very  valuable  contri- 
butions for  the  critical  study  of  the  language. — 

A.  T. 

MARRIAGE. — The  Levirate  Law. — The 
divine  origin  of  marriage,  and  the  primitive  stare 
of  the  institution,  are  clearly  recorded  in  the  in- 
stance of  the  first  human  uair  (Gen.  ii.  18~261t, 
whence  it  appears  that  woman  was  made  after 
man  to  he  ‘ a helper  suited  to  him.’  The  narrative- 
is  calculated  to  convey  exalted  ideas  of  the  iustl- 


m 


MARRIAGE. 


MARRIAGE. 


rution.  It  Is  introduced  by  a declaration  of  the 
Lord  God,  that  ‘ it  is  not  good  that  the  man  should 
be  alone’  (ver.  18);  of  the  truth  of  which  Adam  had 
necome  convinced  by  experience.  In  order  still 
further  to  enliven  his  sense  of  h is  deficiency,  the 
various  species  of  creatures  are  made  to  pass  in 
review  before  him,  ‘ to  see  what  he  would  call 
them  on  which  occasion  he  could  behold  each 
species  accompanied  by  its  appropriate  helper,  and 
upon  concluding  his  task  would  become  still 
more  aii’ectingly  aware,  that  amid  all  animated 
nature  ‘ Ihere  was  not  found  au  help  meet  for 
himself.5  It  was  at  this  juncture,  when  bis  heart 
was  thus  thoroughly  prepared  to  appreciate  the 
intended  blessing,  that  a divine  slumber  (Sept. 
tKCTTarris ),  or  trance,  fell  upon  him — a state  in 
which,  as  in  after  ages,  the  exercise  of  the  external 
senses  being  suspended,  the  mental  powers  are 
peculiarly  prepared  to  receive  revelations  from 
God  (Gen.  xv.  12;  Acts  x.  10;  xxvii.^  17;  2 
Cor.  xii.  2).  His  exclamation  when  Eve  was 
brought  to  him  shows  that  he  had  been  fully  con- 
scious of  the  circumstances  of  her  creation,  and 
had  been  instructed  by  them  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  relation  which  would  thenceforth  subsist  be- 
tween them.  ‘ The  man  said,  this  time,  it  is  bone 
of  my  bone,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  ; this  shall  be 
called  woman,  for  out  of  man  was  this  taken  ’ 
(New  Translation  by  the  Rev.  D.  A.  De  Sola,  &c. 
Loud.  ]).  8).  The  remaining  words,  ‘ for  this 
•cause  shall  a man  leave  bis  lather  and  mother, 
•and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife,  and  they  (two) 
shall  be  one  flesh,’  which  might  otherwise  seem  a 
proleptical  announcement  by  the  historian  of  the 
•social  obligations  of  marriage,  are  by  our  Lord 
■ascribed  to  the  Divine  agent  concerned  in  the 
■transaction,  either  uttered  by  him  personally, 
•or  by  the  mouth  of  Adam  while  in  a state  of 
inspiration.  ‘ Have  ye  not.  read  that  he  that 
■made  them  at  the  beginning,  made  them  male 
and  female,  and  said,  for  this  cause/  &c. 
(Matt.  xix.  4,  5).  It  is  a highly  important 
circumstance  in  this  transaction,  that  God  cie- 
ated  only  one  female  lor  one  man,  and  united 
them — a circumstance  which  is  the  very  basis  of 
•our  Lord's  reasoning  in  the  passage  against 
divorce  and  re-marriage;  hut  which  basis  is  lost, 
and  his  reasoning  consequently  rendered  incon- 
clusive, by  the  inattention  of  cur  translators  to  the 
absence  of  the  article,  ‘ he  made  them  'ipaev  xal 
0/jA.u,’  a male  and  a female,  ‘ and  said,  they  shall 
become  one  flesh ; so  that  they  are  no  more  two, 
But  one  flesh.  What,  therefore,  God  hath  joined 
together,  let  no  man  put  asunder.’  ‘ The  weight 
of  our  Lord’s  argument,’  says  Campbell,  ‘ lay  in 
this  circumstance,  that  God  at.  first  created  no 
more  than  a single  pair,  one  of  each  sex,  whom 
lie  united  in  the  bond  of  marriage,  and,  in  so 
doing,  exhibited  a standard  of  that  union  to 
all  generations.’  ‘The  word  Svo / he  observes, 

* has  indeed  no  word  answering  lo  it  in  the 
present  Masoretic  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
but  it  is  found  in  the  Samaritan,  Septuagint, 
Vulgate,  Syriac,  and  Arabic  versions  efthe  Old 
Testament,  and  in  all  the  quotations  of  the  pas- 
sage in  the  New  Testament  (Matt.  xix.  5 ; Mark 
x.  8;  I Cor.  vi.  16 ; Ephes.  v.  31),  and  it  may  be 
reasonably  concluded  that  the  ancient  reading  in 
the  Old  Testament  was  the  same  with  that  in  the 
New’  {The Four  Gospels , &c.,  vol.  ii.p. 427, Loud. 
1787).  The  apostacy  introduced  a new  feature 


into  the  institution.,  namely,  the  subjection  of  th* 
wifes  will  to  that  of  her  husband  (Gen.  iii.  IS ; 
comp.  Num.  xxx.  6-16).  The  primitive  model 
was  adhered  to  even  by  Cain,  who  seems  to  have 
had  but  one  wife  (Gen.  iv.  17).  Polygamy,  one 
of  the  earliest  developments  of  human  degeneracy, 
was  introduced  by  Lamed),  who  ‘ took  unto  him 
two  wives’  (Gen.  iv.  19;  circa  3871  b.c.).  The 
intermarriage  of  ‘ the  Sons  of  God,’  i.  c.  the  wor- 
shippers of  the  true  God,  with  ‘ the  daughters  of 
men/  i.e.  the  irreligious  (b.c.  2168),  is  the  next 
incident  in  the  history  of  marriage.  They  in- 
dulged in  unrestrained  polygamy,  ‘ they  took 
them  wives  of  all  that  they  chose.’  From  this 
event  may  he  dateil  that  headlong  degeneracy  of 
mankind  at  this  period,  which  ultimately  brought 
on  them  extirpation  by  a deluge  (Gen.  vi.  3-7). 
At  the  time  of  that  catastrophe  Noah  had  but  one 
wife  (Gen.  vii.  7),  and  so  each  of  his  sons  (ver. 
13).  The  remaining  part  of  the  investigation 
will  be  pursued  according  to  Townsend  s chrono- 
logical arrangement  as  affording  a means  of 
tracing  the  development  of  the  subject  in  succeed- 
ing times,  though  differences  of  opinion  may  be 
entertained  respecting  the  true  chronological 
order  of  some  of  the  hooks  or  passages.  Accord- 
ing to  that  arrangement,  Job  next  appears  (b.c. 
2130)  as  the  husband  of  one  wife  (Job  ii.  9 ; 
xix.  17)^  Reference  is  made  to  the  adulterer, 
who  is  represented  as  in  terror  and  accursed  (xxiv. 
15-18).  The  wicked  man  is  represented  as  leav- 
ing ‘ widows'  behind  him;  whence  his  polygamy 
may  be  inferred  (xxvii.  15).  Job  expresses  his 
abhorrence  of  fornication  (xxxi.  1),  and  of  adultery 
(ver.  9),  which  appears  in  his  time  to  have  been 
punished  by  the  judges  (ver.  11).  Following  the 
same  arrangement.,  we  find  Abraham  and  Nahor 
introduced  as  having  each  one  wife  (Gen.  xi.  29). 
From  the  narrative  of  Abraham’s  first  equivoca- 
tion concerning  Sarah,  it  may  be  gathered  that 
marriage  was  held  sacred  in  Egypt.  Abraham 
fears  that  the  Egyptians  would  sooner  rid  them- 
selves of  him  by  murder  than  infringe  by  adultery 
the  relation  of  his  wife  to  an  obscure  stranger. 
The  reproof  of  Pharaoh,  ‘ Why  didst  thou  say, 
She  is  my  sister?  so  I might  have  taken  her  to 
me  to  wife:  now  therefore  behold  thy  wife,  take 
her,  and  go  thy  way’  (Gen.  xii.  11-19),  affords 
a most  honourable  testimony  to  the  views  of  mar- 
riage entertained  by  Pharaoh  at  that  period,  and 
most  likely  by  his  court  and  nation.  It  seems 
that  Sarah  was  Abraham'*,  naif- sister.  Such  mar- 
riages wore  permitted  till  ihe  giving  of  the  law 
(Lev.  xviii.  9).  Thus  Amram,  the  father  of  Moses 
and  Aaron,  married  his  father’s  sister  (Exod  vi. 
20),  a union  forbidden  in  Lev.  xviii.  12. 

The  first  mention  of  concubinage,  or  the  con- 
dition of  a legal  though  subordinate  wife,  occurs 
in  the  case  of  Hagar,  Sarah’s  Egyptian  handmaid, 
whom  Sarah,  still  childless,  after  a residence  of 
ten  years  in  Canaan,  prevailed  on  Abraham,  appa- 
rently against  his  will,  to  receive  into  that  rela- 
tion (Gen.  xvi.  1),  which  was  however  considered 
inviolable  (Gen.  xlix.  4;  Lev.  xviii.  8;  2 Sam. 
iii.  8,  16,  21,  22  ; 1 Chron.  v.  1).  The  vehe- 
ment desire  for  offspring,  common  to  women  in 
the  East,  as  appears  from  the  histories  of  Rebecca 
(Gen;  xxv.  21),  of  Rachel  (xxx.  1),  of  Leah 
(ver.  5),  and  of  Hannah  (1  Sam.  i.  6,  7),  seems  to 
have  been  Sarah’s  motive  for  adopting  a procedure 
practised  in  such  cases  in  that  region  in  all  ag*a 


MARRIAGE. 


MARRIAGE. 


The  miseries  naturally  consequent  upon  it  are 
amply  portrayed  in  the  history  of  the  Patriarchs 
(Gen.  xvi.  4-10;  xxx.  1,3,  15). 

Lot  does  not  appear  to  have  exceeded  one 
wife  (Gen.  xix.  15).  The  second  equivocation 
of  the  same  kind  by  Abraham  respecting  Sarah 
elicits  equally  honourable  sentiments  concern- 
ing marriage,  on  the  part  of  Abimelech,  king 
of  Gerar  (Gen.  xx.  5,  6,  9,  10,  &c.),  who,  it  ap- 
pears, had  but  one  proper  wife  (ver.  17;  see 
also  ch.  xxvi.  7-11).  Perhaps  Abraham  relied 
on  the  ancient  custom,  which  will  shortly  be 
adverted  to,  of  the  consent  of  the  ‘ brother’  being 
requisite  to  the  sister  s marriage,  and  thus  hoped 
to  secure  his  wife's  safety  ami  his  own.  In  an- 
cient times  the  parents  chose  wives  for  their 
children  (Gen.  xxi.  21  ; xxxviii.  5 ; Deut.  xxii. 
16)  ; or  the  man  who  wished  a particular  female 
asked  his  father  to  obtain  her  from  her  father,  as 
in  the  case  of  Shechem  (b.c.  1732;  Gen.  xxxiv. 
4-6  ; comp.  Judges  xiv.  2,  3).  The  consent  of  her 
brothers  seems  to  have  been  necessary  (ver.  5,  8, 
11,  13,  14;  comp.  Gen.  xxiv.  50;  2 Sam.  xiii. 
20-29).  A dowry  was  given  by  the  suitor  to  the 
father  and  brethren  of  the  female  (ver.  11,  12; 
comp.  1 Sam.  xviii.  25;  Hos.  iii.  2).  This,  in  a 
common  case,  amounted  to  from  30  to  50  shekels, 
according  to  the  law  of  Moses  (comp.  Exod.  xxii. 
16;  Deut.  xxii.  29).  Pausanias  considers  it  so  re- 
markable for  a man  to  part  with  his  daughter  with- 
out receiving  a marriage-portion  with  her,  that  he 
takes  pains,  in  a case  he  mentions,  to  explain  the 
reason  ( Lacon . iii.  12.  2).  In  later  times  we  meet 
with  an  exception  (Tobitviii.  23).  It  is  most  likely 
that:  from  some  time  before  the  last-named  period 
the  Abrahamidas  restricted  their  marriages  to  cir- 
cumcised persons  (Gen.  xxviii.  8;  comp.  Judg.  iii. 
6 ; 1 Kings  xi.  8,  1 1,  16  ; Joseph.  Antiq.  xi.  8.  2; 
xii.  4.  6 ; xviii.  9.  5).  The  marriage  of  Isaac 
developes  additional  particulars ; for  beside  Abra- 
ham’s unwillingness  that  his  son  should  marry  a 
Canaanitess  (Gen.  xxiv.  3;  comp.  xxvi.  34  ; xxvii. 
46  ; Exod.  xxxiv.  16  ; Josh,  xxiii.  12;  Ezra  ix.  2; 
x.  3,  10,  11),  costly  jewels  are  given  to  the  bride 
at  the  betrothal  (ver.  22),  and  ‘ precious  things  to 
Iter  mother  and  brother  ’ (ver.  53)  ; a customary 
period  between  espousals  and  nuptials  is  referred 
to  (ver.  55);  and  the  blessing  of  an  abundant 
offspring  invoked  upon  the  bride  by  her  relatives 
(ver.  60) — which  most  likely  was  the  only  mar- 
i iage  ceremony  then  and  for  ages  afterwards 
(comp.  Ruth  iv.  11-13  ; Ps.  xlv.  lb,  17)  ; but  in 
Vobit  vii.  3,  the  father  places  his  daughter's  right 
hand  in  the  hand  of  Tobias  before  he  invokes  this 
blessing.  It  is  remarkable  that  no  representation 
lias  been  found  of  a marriage  ceremony  among 
the  tombs  of  Egypt  (Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egypt. 
vol.  ii.,  Loud.  1837).  The  Rabbins  say  that 
among  the  Jews  it  consisted  of  a kiss  (Gant.  i.  2). 
It  is  probable  that,  the  marriage  covenant  was 
committed  to  writing  (Prov.  ii.  17  ; Mai.  ii.  14  ; 
Tobit  vii.  13,  14)  ; perhaps,  also,  confirmed  with 
an  oath  (Ezra  xvi.  8).  It  seems  to  have  been  the 
custom  with  the  patriarchs  and  ancient  Jews  to 
bury  their  wives  in  their  own  graves,  but  not  their 
concubines  (Gen.  xlix.  31).  Tn  Gen.  xxv.  1, 
Abraham,  after  the  death  of  Sarah,  marries  a 
second  wife.  Esau’s  polygamy  is  mentioned  Gen. 
xxviii.  9 ; xxxvi.  2-13  (b.c.  1760).  Jacob  serves 
seven  years  to  obtain  Rachel  in  marriage  (Gen. 
xxix,  18-20);  and  has  a marriage  feast,  to  which 


the  men  of  the  place  are  invited  (ver.  22 ; comp. 
Cant.  v.  1 ; vi ii.  33).  Samson's  marriage  feast 
lasts  a week  (Judg.  xiv.  10-12 ; b.c.  1136;  comp, 
John  ii.  1,  &c.) ; in  later  times  it  lasted  longer 
(Tobit  viii.  19).  The  persons  invited  to  Samson  s 
marriage  are  young  men  (Judg.  xiv.  10);  called 
‘ sons  of  the  bridal-chamber,’  Matt.  ix.  15.  Fe- 
males were  invited  to  marriages  (Ps.  xlv.  14),  and 
attended  the  bride  and  bridegroom  to  their  abode 
(1  Macc.  ix.  37);  and  in  the  time  of  Christ,  if  it 
was  evening,  with  lamps  and  flambeaux  (Matt, 
xxv.  1-10).  In  later  ages  the  guests  were  sum- 
moned when  the  banquet  was  ready  (Matt.  xxii.  3), 
and  furnished  with  a marriage  garment  (ver.  11). 
The  father  of  the  bride  conducted  her  at  night  to 
her  husband  (Gen.  xxix.  23;  Tobit  viii.  1). 
The  bride  and  bridegroom  were  richly  ornamented 
(Isa.  lxi.  10).  In  Mesopotamia,  and  the  East 
generally,  it  was  the  custom  to  marry  the  eldest 
sister  first  (Gen.  xxix.  26).  By  the  deception 
practised  upon  Jacob  in  that  country,  he  marries 
two  wives,  and,  apparently,  without  any  one 
objecting  (ver.  31).  Laban  obtains  a promise 
from  Jacob  not  to  marry  any  more  wives  than 
Rachel  and  Leah  (Gen.  xxxi.  50).  The  wives 
and  concubines  of  Jacob  and  their  children  travel 
together  (Gen.  xxxii.  22,  23) ; but  a distinction 
is  made  between  them  in  the  hour  of  danger 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  1,  2 ; comp.  Gen.  xxv.  6).  Fol- 
lowing the  arrangement  we  have  adopted,  we 
now  meet  with  the  first  reference  to  the  Leviraie 
Laic.  Judah,  Jacob’s  son  by  Leah,  had  married 
a Canaanitisli  woman  (Gen.  xxxviii.  2).  His 
first-born  son  was^Er  (ver.  3).  Judah  took  a wife 
for  him  (ver.  6).  Er  soon  after  died  (ver.  7),  and 
Judah  said  to  Onan,  ‘ Go  in  unto  thy  brother’s  wife, 
Tamar,  and  marry  her,  and  raise  up  seed  to  thy 
brother.’  ‘ Onan  knew  that  the  offspring  would 
not  be  his.’  All  these  circumstances  bespeak  a 
pre-established  and  well  known  law,  and  lie 
evaded  the  purpose  of  it,  and  thereby,  it  is  said, 
incurred  the  wrath  of  God  (ver.  10).  It  seems, 
from  the  same  account,  to  have  been  well 
understood,  that  upon  his  death  the  duty  de- 
volved upon  the  next  surviving  brother.  Judah 
interfered  to  prevent  him  from  fulfilling  it,  and 
this  two-fold  denial  suggested  to  Tamar  the  stra- 
tagem related  of  her  in  Gen.  xxxviii.  13-26.  No 
change  is  recorded  in  this  law  till  just  before  the 
entrance  of  Israel  into  Canaan  (b.c.  1451),  at 
which  time  Moses  modified  it  by  new  regulations 
to  this  effect : — ‘ If  brethren  dwell  together  (i.  e. 
in  the  same  locality),  and  one  of  them  die,  and 
leave  no  child,  the  wife  of  the  dead  must  not 
marry  out  of  the  family,  but  her  husband's  brother 
or  his  next  kinsman  must  take  her  to  wife,  and 
perform  the  duty  of  a husband's  brother,  and  the 
first-born  of  this  union  shall  succeed  in  the  name 
of  his  deceased  father,  that  his  name  may  be 
extant  in  Israel ;’  not  literally  bear  bis  name,  for 
Ruth  allowed  her  son  by  Boaz  to  be  called  Obed, 
and  not  Mahlon,  the  name  of  her  first  husband 
(Ruth  iv.  17,  yet  see  Josephus,  Antiq.,  iv.  8,  23). 
In  case  the  man  declined  the  office,  the  woman 
was  to  bring  him  before  the  elders,  loose  his  shoe 
from  off  his  foot,  and  spit  in,  or,  as  some  render  it, 
before  his  face,  by  way  of  contempt.  (Deut.  xxv. .9, 
10  : Josephus  understands  in  the  face,  Antiq.  v.  9. 
4),  and  shall  say,  4 So  shall  it  be  done  unto  the 
man  that  will  not  build  up  his  brother’s  house; 
and  his  name  shall  be  called  in  Israel,  the  house  of 


JO  8 


MARRIAGE. 


MARRIAGE. 


him  that  hath  his  shoe  loosed,’  quasi  Baresole  ! Il 
does  not  appear  that  the  original  law  was  binding 
on  the  brother,  if  already  married;  anil  we  may 
well  believe  that.  Moses,  who  wished  to  mitigate 
it,  allowed  of  that  exception.  The  instance  of 
Ruth(B.c.  1245),  who  married  Boaz,  her  husband's 
relation,  exhibits  the  practice  of  the  law  under 
the  Judges.  Boaz  was  neither  the  father  of,  nor 
the  nearest  relation  to,  Klimelech,  father-in-law  to 
Ruth,  the  wife  of  Mahlon,  and  yet  he  married 
her  after  the  refusal  of  him  who  was  the  nearest 
relation  (Ruth  ii.  20  : iii.,  iv.).  These  facts  serve 
to  exonerate  the  stratagem  of  Tamar,  Judah’s 
daughter,  already  alluded  to  (Gen.  xxxviii. 
13-26),  which  was  dictated  by  a wish  to  fulfil  the 
Levirate  Law  as  near  as  possible.  Accordingly, 
when  Judah  discovered  it  lie  justified  her  conduct, 
6aying:  ‘She  hath  been  more  righteous  than  1,’ 
i.  e.  has  more  adhered  to  the  law,  ‘ because  I gave 
her  not  to  Slielah  my  son’  (ver.  26  ; comp.  ver.  11). 
Hence,  then,  the  children  of  Judah,  by  Tamar, 
inherited  as  his  sons  legally  as  well  as  naturally, 
and  are  reckoned  to  him  in  the  genealogy  in  1 
Citron,  ii.  4 : ‘And  Tamar,  his  daughter-in-law, 
hare  him  Pharez  and  Zerah’  (comp.  Num.  xxvi. 
20).  The  legitimacy  of  her  offspring  is  an  im- 
portant question  ; for  the  pedigree  of  David,  Solo- 
mon, and  all  the  kings  of  Judah,  and  even  of 
Christ  himself,  is  derived  from  Pharez,  the  son  of 
Judah,  by  Tamar  (comp.  Ruth  iv.  18-22,  and 
Matt.  i.  3-16).  It  must,  nevertheless,  be  con- 
fessed that  the  Levirate  Law  was  attended  with 
many  inconveniences,  not  the  least  of  which  was 
the  inducement  which  it  afforded  to  females  to  in- 
trigue and  indelicacy,  a3  in  the  cases  of  Tamar 
and  Ruth.  A subtle  objection  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection,  proposed  to  our  Lord  by  the  Sad- 
ducees,  was  grounded  upon  a real  or  supposed  case 
of  compliance  with  it  running  through  a family 
of  seven  brethren  (Matt.  xxii.  23,  See.).  The  mar- 
riage of  Herod  with  Herodias,  his  brother  Philip's 
wife  (Mark  vi.  17,  18),  did  not  come  under  the 
Levirate  Law;  for  Josephus  states  that  Herodias 
bad  a daughter  by  her  husband,  and  that  the 
marriage  with  Herod  was  contracted  in  the  life- 
time of  her  husband  ( Antiq . xviii.  5.  4).  Resem- 
blances to  this  law  have  been  traced  in  India 
(. Asiatic  Researches,  iii.  35) ; among  the  Athe- 
nians (Terence,  Phorm.,  act  i.  sc.  ii.  75,  6)  ; 
among  the  ancient  Germans  (Tacitus,  Germ.  8); 
and  among  the  modern  Egyptians  (Niebuhr, 
Description  de  V Arabic,  p.  61  ; Volney,  Voyage 
en  Syrie,  tom.  ii.  p.  74). 

To  return  from  this  digression.  It  should  seem, 
from  the  instance  of  Potiphar’s  wife,  that  mono- 
gamy was  practised  in  Egypt  (Gen.  xxxix.  7). 
Pharaoh  gave  to  Joseph  one  wife  (Gen.  xli.  45). 
The  Israelites,  while  in  Egypt,  seem  to  have  re- 
stricted themselves  to  one.  One  case  is  recorded 
of  an  Israelite  who  had  married  an  Egyptian 
woman  (Lev.  xxiv.  10).  The  giving  of  the  law 
(b.c.  1491)  acquaints  us  with  many  regulations 
concerning  marriage,  which  were  different  from 
the  practices  of  the  Jews  while  in  Egypt,  and 
from  those  of  the  Canaanites,  to  whose  land  they 
were  approaching  (Lev.  xviii.  3).  There  we  find 
laws  for  regulating  the  marriages  of  bondmen 
(Exed.  xxi.  3,  4),  and  of  a bondmaid  (ver.  7-12). 
The  prohibition  against  marriages  with  the  Ca- 
o&anites  is  established  by  a positive  law  (Exod. 
ejziv  16).  Marriage  is  prohibited  with  any  one 


near  of  kin,  1 of  the  remainder  of  his  flesh’  (Lev, 
xviii.  6-19).  A priest  is  prohibited  from  mar- 
rying one  that  had  been  a harlot,  or  divorced 
(Lev.  xxi.  7).  The  high-priest  was  also  excluded 
lrom  marrying  a widow,  and  restricted  to  one 
wife  (ver.  13,  14).  Daughters  who,  through 
want  of  brothers,  were  heiresses  to  an  estate, 
were  required  to  marry  into  their  own  tribe,  and, 
if  possible,  a kinsman,  to  prevent  the  estate  pass- 
ing into  another  family  (Num.  xxvii.  1-11; 
xxxvi.  1-12).  The  husband  had  power  to  annul 
his  wife’s  vow,  if  lie  heard  it,  anil  interfered  at 
the  time  (Num.  xxx.  6-16).  If  a man  had  be- 
trothed a wife,  he  was  exempt  from  the  wars,  &c. 
(Deut.  xx.  7 ; xxiv.  5).  It  was  allowed  to  marry 
a beautiful  captive  in  war,  whose  husband  pro- 
bably had  been  killed  (Deut.  xxi.  1ft  14,  &c.). 
Abundance  of  offspring  was  one  of  the  bless- 
ings promised  to  obedience,  during  the  miracu- 
lous providence  which  superintended  the  Theo- 
cracy (Lev.  xxvi.  9;  Deut.  vii.  13,  14;  xxviii. 
11  ; Ps.  cxxvii.  3;  cxxviii.  3);  and  disappoint- 
ment. in  marriage  was  one  of  the  curses  (Deut. 
xxviii.  18,  30:  comp.  Ps.  xlvii.  9;  Jer.  viii.  10). 
A daughter  of  a distinguished  person  was  offered 
in  marriage  as  a reward  for  perilous  services  (Josh, 
xv.  16,  17  ; 1 Sam.  xvii.  25).  Concubinage  ap- 
pears in  Israel  (b.c.  1413,  Judg.  xix.  1-4).  The 
violation  of  a concubine  is  avenged  (Judg.  xx. 
5 10).  Polygamy  (Judg.  viii.  30).  The  state 
of  marriage  among  the  Philistines  may  be  in- 
ferred, in  the  time  of  Samson,  from  the  sudden 
divorce  from  him  of  his  wife  by  her  father,  and 
her  being  given  to  his  friend  (Judg.  xiv.20),  and 
from  the  father  offering  him  a younger  sister  in- 
stead (Judg.  xv.  2).  David’s  numerous  wives  (2 
Sam.  iii.  3-5).  In  Ps.  xlv.,  which  is  referred  to 
this  period  by  the  best  harmonists,  there  is  a de- 
scription of  a royal  marriage  upon  a most,  mag- 
nificent scale.  The  marriage  of  Solomon  to  Pha- 
raoh’s daughter  is  recorded  in  1 Kings  iii.  1 ; to 
which  the  Song  of  Solomon  probably  relates,  and 
from  which  it  appears  that  his  mother  ‘crowned 
him  with  a crown  on  the  day  of  his  espousals’ 
(ver.  3,  11  ; and  see  Sept,  and  Vulg.  of  Is.  lxi. 
10).  It  would  appear  that  in  his  time  females 
were  married  young  (Prov.  ii.  17;  comp.  Joel  i. 
8);  also  males  (Prov.  v.  18).  An  admirable 
description  of  a good  wife  is  given  in  Prov. 
xxxi.  10-31.  The  excessive  multiplication  of 
wives  and  concubines  was  the  cause  and  effect 
of  Solomon’s  apostacy  in  his  old  age  (1  Kings 
xi.  1-8).  He  confesses  his  error  in  Ecclesiastes, 
where  he  eulogizes  monogamy  (viii.  9 ; vii.  29). 
Rehoboam  took  a plurality  of  wives  (2  Chron. 
xi.  18-21);  and  so  Abijah  (2  Chron.  xiii.21),  and 
Ahab  (1  Kings  xx.  3),  and  Belshazzar,  king  of 
Babylon  (Dan.  v.  2).  It  would  seem  that  the  out- 
ward manners  of  the  Jews,  about  the  time  of  our 
Lord’s  advent,  had  become  improved,  since  there 
is  no  case  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  of 
polygamy  or  concubinage  among  them.  Oui 
Lord  excludes  all  causes  of  divorce,  except 
whoredom  (jrctpeicTbs  A 6yov  iropvelas,  Matt.  v. 
32),  and  ascribes  the  origin  of  the  Mosaic  law  to 
the  hardness  of  their  hearts.  The  same  doctrine 
concerning  divorce  had  been  taught  by  the  pro 
phets  (Jer.  iii.  1;  Micah  ii.  9 ; Mai.  ii.  11-16). 
The  apostles  inculcate  it  likewise  ^Rom.  vii.  3; 
1 Cor.  vii.  4,  10,  11,  39)  ; yet  St.  Paul  considers 
obstinate  desertion  by  an  unbel  eving  party  as  a 


MARTHA. 


MARTHA. 


309 


release  (1  Cor  vii.  15).  Our  Lord  does  not  re- 
prehend celibacy  for  the  sake  ot  religion,  ‘those 
who  make  themselves  eunuchs  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven's  sake’  (Matt.  xix.  12;  comp.  1 Cor. 
vii.  32,  3G).  Second  marriages  not  condemned 
in  case  of  death  (Rom.  vii.  12).  Mixed  mar- 
riages disapproved  (1  Cor.  vii.  39;  2 Cor.  vi 
14).  Early  marriage  not  recommended  (1  Cor. 
vii.  3G).  Marriage  affords  the  means  of  copious 
illustrations  to  the  writers  of  Scripture.  The 
prophets  employ  it  to  represent  the  relation  of  the 
Jewish  church  to  Jehovah,  and  the  apostles  that, 
of  the  Christian  church  to  Christ.  The  applica- 
tions they  make  of  the  idea  constitute  some  of  the 
boldest  and  most  touching  figures  in  the  Scrip- 
ture. The  striking  similarity  between  modern 
and  ancient  Oriental  customs,  in  regard  to  mar- 
riage, may  be  seen  in  the  travels  of  Arvieux,  Rus- 
sell, Bruce,  Buckingham,  &o. ; and  see  Selden, 
Uxor  Ebraica,  seu  de  Nuptiis  et  Divor.,  Londini, 
1 6 16 ; Selden,  De  Sticcessionibus , c.  14;  De 
Nuptiis  Boazi  et  Rulhcc,  Lond.,  1631  ; Peri- 
zonius.  Dissert,  de  Constitut.  Div.  super  ducenda 
de  fundi  wain’s  uxore.  Lugd.  Batav.  1740. — 

J.  F.  D. 

MARS’  HILL.  [Areopagus.] 

MARTHA  (M dpOa),  sister  of  Lazarus  and 
Mary,  who  resided  in  the  same  house  with  them 
at.  Bethany  [Lazarus].  From  the  house  at 
Bethany  being  called  ‘ her  house,’  in  Luke  x. 
33,  and  from  the  leading  part,  which  Martha  is 
always  seen  to  take  in  domestic  matters,  it  has 
seemed  to  some  that  she  was  a widow,  to  whom 
the  house  at  Bethany  belonged,  and  with  whom 
her  brother  and  sister  lodged ; but  this  is  uncer- 
tain, and  the  common  opinion,  that  the  sisters 
managed  the  household  of  their  brother,  is  more 
probable.  Luke  probably  calls  it  her  house  lie- 
cause  lie  had  no  occasion  to  mention,  and  does 
not  mention,  Lazarus;  and  when  we  speak  of  a 
house  which  is  occupied  by  different  persons,  we 
avoid  circumlocution  by  calling  it  the  house  of 
the  individual  who  happens  to  be  the  subject,  of  our 
discourse.  Jesus  was  intimate  with  this  family, 
and  their  house  was  often  his  home  when  at  Jeru- 
salem, being  accustomed  to  retire  thither  in  the 
evening,  after  having  spent  the  day  in  the  city. 
The  point  which  the  Evangelists  bring  out  most 
distinctly  with  respect  to  Martha,  lies  in  the  con- 
trariety of  disposition  between  her  and  her  sister 
Mary.  The  first  notice  of  Christ’s  visiting  this 
family  occurs  in  Luke  x.  38-42.  He  was  received 
with  great  attention  by  the  sisters;  and  Maltha 
soon  hastened  to  provide  suitable  entertainment 
for  the  Lord  an  l his  followers,  while  Mary  re- 
mained in  his  presence,  sitting  at  his  feet,  and 
drinking  in  the  sacred  words  that  fell  from  his  lips. 
The  active,  bustling  soliciiude  of  Martha,  anxious 
that  the  best  things  in  the  house  should  he  made 
subservient  to  the  Master’s  use  and  solace,  and 
the  quiet  earnestness  of  Mary,  more  desirous  to 
profit  by  the  golden  opportunity  of  hearing  his 
instructions,  than  to  minister  to  his  personal  wants, 
Strong!  y mark  the  points  of  contrast  in  the  cha- 
racters of  the  two  sisters.  ‘ There  was,’  says 
Bishop  Hall,  ‘more  solicitude  in  Martha's  active 
part,  more  piety  in  MaTv’s  sedentary  attendance: 
l know  not  in  whether  more  zeal.  Good  Martha 
was  desirous  to  express  her  joy  and  thankfulness 
for  the  presence  of  so  blessed  a guest,  by  the  ac- 
tions of  her  careful  and  plent  eous  entertainment. 


I know  not  how  to  censure  the  holy  woman  for 
her  excess  of  care  to  welcome  our  Savioui. 
Sure,  she  herself  thought  she  did  well;  ami  out 
of  that  confidence  feared  not  to  complain  to 
Christ  of  her  sister.’  This  she  did  in  the  words, 

‘ Lord,  carest  lliou  not  that  my  sister  leavetb  rna 
to  serve  alone?’  Out  of  respect  to  Jesus,  she  pre- 
sumed not  to  call  her  sister  privately  away  with- 
out his  leave.  Her  words,  however,  seem  to  convey 
a gentle  reproach  to  Christ  for  not  having  suffi- 
cient regard  to  her  exertions  ; and  in  this  she  was 
wrong,  as  well  as  in  measuring  her  sister's  conduct 
by  her  own.  Apprehending  her  own  act  to  he 
good,  she  supposed  her  sister's  wrong,  because  it 
was  not  the  same ; ‘ whereas  goodness,’  as  the 
bishop  remarks,  ‘ hath  much  latitude.  Ill  is  op- 
posed to  good,  not  good  to  good.  Mary  might 
hear,  Martha  might  serve,  and  both  do  well.’ 
Martha  no  doubt  expected  that  Jesus  would 
commend  her  active  zeal,  and  send  away  Mary 
with  a slight,  reproof.  Great,  therefore,  was  her 
surprise  to  hear  him  say,  ‘ Martha,  Martha,  thou 
art  careful  and  troubled  about  many  things ; 
but  one  thing  is  needful  : and  Mary  hath  chosen 
that  good  part,  which  shall  not  he  taken  away 
from  her.’  Tills  has  been  variously  explained  j 
but  the  obvious  reference  is  to  the  value  of  the 
soul  as  compared  with  that  of  the  body,  and  to 
the  eternal  welfare  of  the  one  as  compared  with 
the  temporary  interests  of  die  other. 

The  part  taken  by  the  sisters  in  the  transactions 
connected  with  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Lazarus,  is  entirely  arid  beautifully  in  accord- 
ance with  their  previous  history.  Martha  is 
still  more  engrossed  with  outward  things,  while 
Mary  surrenders  herself  move  to  her  feelings,  and 
to  inward  meditation.  When  they  heard  that 
Jesus  was  approaching,  Martha  hastened  beyond 
the  village  to  meet  him,  ‘ but  Mary  sat  still  in 
in  the  house’  (John  xi.  20,  22).  When  she  saw 
Jesus  actually  appear,  whose  presence  had  been  so 
anxiously  desired,  she  exhibits  a strong  degree  of 
faith,  and  hesitates  not  to  express  a confident 
hope  that,  he,  to  whom  all  things  were  possible, 
would  even  yet  afford  relief.  But,  as  is  usual 
with  persons  of  her  lively  character,  when  Christ 
answered,  with  what  seemed  to  her  the  vague  in- 
timation, ‘Thy  brother  shall  rise  again,'  she  was 
instantly  cast  down  from  her  height  of  confidence, 
the  reply  being  less  direct  than  she  expected  : 
she  referied  this  saying  to  the  general  resurrection 
at  t be  last  day,  and  thereon  relapsed  into  despond- 
ency atid  grief.  This  feeling  Jesus  reproved,  by 
directing  her  attention,  before  all  other  things,  to 
that  inwaid,  eternal,  and  divine  life,  which  con- 
sists in  union  with  him,  and  which  is  raised  far 
above  the  power  even  of  the  grave.  This  he  did 
in  the  magnificent  words,  ‘ 1 am  the  resurrection, 
and  the  life:  he  that  helieveth  in  me,  though  he 
were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live  : and  whosoever 
liveth  and  helieveth  in  me  shall  never  die. 
Be’ievest  thou  this?’  Sorrow  and  shame  per- 
mitted the  troubled  Martha,  in  whose  heart  the 
feeling  of  an  unconditional  and  entire  surrender  to 
his  will  was  re-awakened,  to  make  only  the  gene- 
ral confession  that  he  was  actually  the  promised 
Messiah  ; in  which  confession  she,  however,  com- 
prised an  acknowledgment  of  his  power  and 
greatness.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  she  found 
nothing  in  this  discourse  with  Christ,  to  encourags 
her  first  expectation  of  relief.  With  the  usual 


310 


MARTYR. 


MARY. 


rapid  change  in  persons  of  lively  susceptibilities, 
she  had  now  as  completely  abandoned  all  hope 
of  rescue  for  her  brother,  as  she  had  before  been 
sanguine  of  his  restoration  to  life.  Tlius,  when 
Jesus  directed  the  stone  to  be  rolled  away  from 
the  sepulchre,  she  gathered  from  this  no  ground 
of  hope ; but  rather  objected  to  its  being  done, 
because  the  body,  which  had  been  four  days  in  the 
tomb,  must  already  have  become  disagreeable. 
The  reproof  of  Christ,  ‘ Said  I not  unto  thee, 
that,  if  thou  wouldest  believe,  thou  shouldest  see 
the  glory  of  God  V suggests  that  more  discourse 
had  passed  between  them  than  the  evangelist 
has  recorded,  seeing  that  no  such  assurance  is 
contained  in  the  previous  narrative  (John  xi. 
39,  40). 

Nothing  more  is  recorded  of  Martha,  save  that 
some  time  after,  at  a supper  given  to  Christ  and 
his  disciples  at  Bethany,  site,  as  usual,  busied 
herself  in  the  external  service.  Lazarus,  so  marvel* 
lously  restored  from  the  grave,  sat  with  her  guests 
at  table.  ‘ Martha  served,’  and  Mary  occupied 
her  favourite  station  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  which  she 
bathed  with  her  tears,  and  anointed  wdth  costly 
ointment  (John  xii.  1,2).  [Lazarus;  Mary.] 

There  are  few  characters  in  the  New  Testament, 
end  certainly  no  female  character,  so  strongly 
Drought  out  in  its  natural  points  as  that  of  Martha ; 
and  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  Luke  and  John, 
although  relating  different  transactions  in  which 
she  was  concerned,  perfectly  agree  in  the  traits  of 
character  which  they  assign  to  her.  Tholuck  has 
skilfully  followed  out  its  development  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  eleventh  chapter  of  St.  John. 
See  also  Niemeyer,  Charakt.  i.  (56;  and  Hall's 
Contemplations , vol.  iii.,  b.  4,  Contemp.,  17, 
23,  24. 

MARTYR  (^apTus).  This  word  moans 
properly  a loitncss , and  is  applied  in  the  New 
Testament — 1.  To  judicial  witnesses  (Matt, 
xviii.  16;  xxvi.  65  ; Mark  xiv.  63  ; Acts  vi.  13; 
vii.  58;  2 Cor.  xiii.  1 ; 1 Tim.  v.  19;  He’b.  x. 
28).  The  Septuagint  also  uses  it  for  the  Hebrew 
ID  ed,  in  Deut.  xvii.  16  ; Prov.  xxiv.  28. — 2.  To 
one  who  has  testified,  or  can  testify  to  the  truth  of 
what  he  has  seen,  heard,  or  known.  This  is  a fre- 
quent sense  in  the  New  Testament : as  in  Luke 
xxiv.  48  ; Acts  i.  8,  22;  Rom.  i.  9 ; 2 Cor.  i.  23  ; 

1 Thes.  ii.  5,  10;  1 Tim.  vi.  12;  2 Tim.  ii.  2; 

1 Pet.  v.  1 ; Rev.  i.  5 ; iii.  14  ; xi.  3,  and  else- 
where.— 3.  The  meaning  of  the  word  which  has 
now  become  the  most  usual,  is  that  in  which  it 
occurs  most  rarely  in  the  Scripture,  *.  <?.,  one 
who  by  his  death  hears  witness  to  the  truth. 
In  this  sense  we  only  find  it  in  Acts  xxii.  20; 
Rev.  ii.  13;  xvii.  6.  This  now  exclusive  sense 
of  the  word  was  brought  into  general  use  by 
the  early  ecclesiastical  writers,  who  applied  it,  to 
every  one  who  suffered  death  in  the  Christian 
cause  (see  Suicer,  Thesaurus  Eccles.  sub  voc.). 
Stephen  was  in  this  sense  the  first  martyr 
| Stephen]  ; and  the  spiritual  honours  of  his  death 
tended  in  no  small  degree  to  raise  to  the  most 
extravagant  estimation,  in  the  early  church,  the 
value  of  the  testimony  of  blood.  Eventually  a 
martyr's  death  was  supposed,  on  the  alleged  au- 
thority of  the  under-named  texts,  to  cancel  all  the 
sins  of  the  past  life  (Luke  xii.  50  ; Mark  x.  39) ; 
to  supply  the  place  of  baptism  (Matt.  x.  39)  ; and 
at  once  to  secure  admittance  to  the  presence  of  the 
Lufd  in  Paradise  (Matt„  v.  10-12).  In  imita- 


tion of  the  family  custom  of  annually  comnie 
morating  at.  the  grave  the  death  of  deceased  mem* 
hers,  the  churches  celebrated  the  deaths  of  their 
martyrs  by  prayer  at  their  graves,  and  by  love- 
feasts.  From  this  high  estimation  of  the  martyrs, 
Christians  were  sometimes  led  to  deliver  themselves 
up  voluntarily  to  the  public  authorities — thus  jus- 
tifying the  charge  of  fanaticism  brought,  against 
them  by  the  heathen.  For  the  most  part,  however, 
this  practice  was  discountenanced,  the  words  of 
Christ  himself  being  brought  against  it  (Matt.  x. 
23;  see  Gieseler,  Eccles.  Hist.  i.  109,  110). 

1.  MARY  (Mapla  or  Mapiap ; Hell.  D^")P  .1/ i- 
riam ),  ‘the  Mother  of  Jesus  ’ (Acts  i.  14),  and 
‘ Mary  his  Mother’  (Matt.  ii.  11),  are  the  appella- 
tions of  one  who  has  in  later  times  been  generally 
called  the  ‘ Virgin  Mary,’  but  who  is  never  so 
designated  in  Scripture. 

Little  is  known  of  this  ‘highly  favoured’  in- 
dividual, in  whom  was  fulfilled  the  first  prophecy 
made  to  man,  that  ‘ the  seed  of  the  woman  should 
bruise  the  serpent's  head’  (Gen.  iii.  15).  As  her 
history  was  of  no  consequence  to  Christianity,  it 
is  not  given  at  large.  Her  genealogy  is  recorded 
by  St.  Luke  (ch.  iii.),  in  order  to  prove  the  truth 
of  the  predictions  which  had  foretold  the  descent 
of  the  Messiah  from  Adam  through  Abraham  and 
David,  witli  the  design  evidently  of  showing  that 
Christ  was  of  that  royal  house  and  lineage  (comp. 
Davidson's  Sacred  Hermeneutics , p.  589,  If.). 

Eusebius,  the  early  ecclesiastical  historian, 
although  unusually  lengthy  upon  ‘the  name 
Jesus,’  and  the  genealogies  in  Matthew  and 
Luke's  Gospels,  throws  no  new  light  upon  Mary’s 
birth  and  parentage.  The  legends  respecting 
Anne,  who  is  said  to  have  been  her  mother,  are 
pure  fables  without  the  slightest  evidence. 

The  earliest  event  in  her  history,  of  which  we 
have  any  notice,  was  the  annunciation  to  her  by 
the  angel  Gabriel  that  she  was  destined,  whilst 
yet  a pure  virgin,  to  become  the  mother  of  the 
Messiah — an  event  which  was  a literal  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecy  given  centuries  before  by  Isaiah, 
that  ‘ a virgin  should  conceive,  and  bear  a son, 
and  should  call  his  name  Immanuel,’  which 
being  interpreted,  is  ‘ God  with  us’  (Isa.  vii.  14  ; 
Matt.  i.  23).  On  this  occasion  she  was  expli- 
citly informed  that  she  should  conceive  by  the 
miraculous  power  of  God,  and  that  her  child 
should  be  ‘ Holy,’  and  be  called  ‘ the  Son  of 
God.’  As  a confirmation  of  her  faith  in  this 
announcement  she  was  also  told  by  the  angel 
that  her  cousin  Elizabeth,  who  was  the  wife  of 
one  of  the  chief  priests,  and  who  was  now  far 
.advanced  in  years,  had  conceived  a sou,  and  that 
the  time  was  not  far  off'  when  her  reproach  among 
women  should  cease  (Luke  i.  36). 

Almost  immediately  on  receiving  this  an- 
nouncement Mary  hastened  from  Nazareth,  where 
she  was  when  the  angel  visited  her,  to  the  house 
of  her  cousin,  who  was  then  residing  in  the  hilly 
district  in  ‘ a city  of  Judah.’  This  ‘ city’  some 
have  supposed  to  be  Hebron  ; whilst  others,  read- 
ing T ovTra  for  T ovSa,  translate  the  clause  ‘ the 
city  Juttah,’  and  identify  the  place  of  Elizabeth's 
residence  with  the  town  of  that  name  mentioned 
in  Josh.  xv.  55;  xxi.  16  (Kuinoel,  in  loc. ; Ols- 
hausen,  Bib.  Comment,  in  loc. ; Reland,  Palaes- 
tina,  p.  870).  The  meeting  of  these  two  pious 
females,  on  whom  such  unexpected  privileges  had 


MARY. 


MARY. 


Sil 


*jecn  conferred,  was  one  of  mutual  congratu- 
lations, and  united  thanksgiving  to  the  author  of 
their  blessings.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that 
Mary  uttered  the  Magnificat — that  splendid 
burst  of  grateful  adoration  which  Christians  of 
all  parties  have  from  the  earliest  times  delighted 
to  adopt  as  expressive  of  the  best  feelings  of  the 
pious  heart  towards  God  (Luke  i.  39-56).  After 
spending  three  months  with  her  relative,  Mary 
returned  to  Nazareth,  where  a severe  trial  awaited 
her,  arising  out  of  the  condition  in  which  it 
had  now  become  apparent  she  was.  Betrothed 
(perhaps  in  early  life)  to  a person  of  the  name  of 
Joseph,  an  artificer  of  some  sort  (reT-rco v,  Matt, 
xiii.  55,  probably,  as  our  translators  suppose,  a 
carpenter),  the  Jewish  law  held  her  exposed  to 
the  same  penalties  which  awaited  the  married 
wife  who  should  be  found  unfaithful  to  the 
spousal  vow.  Joseph,  however,  being  a right- 
hearted  man  (bitccuos  — one  who  feels  and  acts  as 
a man  ought  to  do  in  the  circumstances  in  which 
he  i3  placed),  was  unwilling  to  subject  her  to  the 
evils  of  a public  exposure  of  what  he  deemed 
her  infidelity;  and  accordingly  was  turning  in 
his  mind  how  he  might  privately  dissolve  his 
connection  with  her,  when  an  angel  was  sent  to 
nim  also  to  inform  him  in  a dream  of  the  true 
state  of  the  case,  and  enjoin  upon  him  to  com- 
plete his  engagement  with  her  by  taking  her  as 
his  wife.  This  injunction  he  obeyed,  and  hence 
came  to  be  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  the  father  of 
Jesus  (Matt.  i.  18-25). 

Summoned  by  an  edict  of  Augustus,  which 
commanded  that  a census  ( airoypaty) ?)  of  the 
population  of  the  whole  Roman  empire  should 
be  taken,  and  that  each  person  should  be  enrolled 
in  the  chief  city  of  his  family  or  tribe,  Mary  and 
her  husband  weut.  up  to  Bethlehem,  the  city  of 
the  Davidic  family ; and  whilst  there  the  child 
Jesus  was  born.  After  this  event  the  only  cir- 
cumstances in  her  history  mentioned  by  the 
sacred  historians  are  her  appearance  and  offerings 
in  the  temple  according  to  the  law  of  Moses 
(Luke  i.  22,  If.) ; her  return  with  her  husband  to 
Nazareth  (Luke  ii.  39)  ; their  habit  of  annually 
visiting  Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of  the  Passover 
(ver.  41);  the  appearance  of  the-  Magi,  which 
seems  to  have  occurred  at  one  of  these  periodic 
visits  (Matt.  ii.  1-12);  the  flight  of  the  holy 
family  into  Egypt,  and  their  return,  after  the 
death  of  Herod,  to  Nazareth  (ver.  13-23);  the 
scene  which  occurred  on  another  of  those  periodic 
visits,  when,  after  having  proceeded  two  days’ 
journey  on  her  way  homeward,  she  discovered 
that  her  son  was  not  in  the  company,  and,  on 
returning  to  Jerusalem,  found  him  sitting  in  the 
temple  with  the  doctors  of  the  law,  ‘ both  hearing 
them  and  asking  them  questions’  (Luke  ii.  42- 
52) ; her  appearance  and  conduct  at  the  mar- 
riage-feast in  Cana  of  Galilee  (John  ii.  1,  ff.)  ; 
her  attempt  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  to 
induce  Jesus  to  desist  from  teaching  (Matt.  xii. 
46,  ft'.)  ; her  accompanying  of  her  son  when  he 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  immediately  before  his 
crucifixion;  her  following  him  to  Calvary;  her 
being  consigned  by  him  while  hanging  on  the 
cross  to  the  care  of  his  beloved  apostle  John,  who 
from  that  time  took  her  to  reside  in  his  house 
(John  xix.  25,  ff.);  and  her  associating  with  the 
disciples  at  Jerusalem  after  his  ascension  (Acts 

i.  H). 


The  traditions  respecting  the  death  jf  Mary 
differ  materially  from  each  other.  There  is  a 
letter  of  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus  in  fhe 
fifth  century,  which  slates  that  she  lived  at 
Ephesus  with  St.  John,  and  there  died  and  was 
buried.  Another  epistle  of  the  same  age  says 
she  died  at  Jerusalem,  and  was  buried  in  Geth- 
semane.  The  legend  tells  that  three  days  after 
her  interment,  when  the  grave  was  opened  (that 
Thomas  the  Apostle  might  pay  reverence  to  her 
remains),  her  body  was  not  to  be  found,  ‘ but  only 
an  exceeding  fragrance,’  whereupon  it  was  con- 
cluded that  it  had  been  taken  up  to  heaven.  The 
translations  of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  and  the  ascen- 
sion of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  took  place  while 
they  were  alive,  and  the  facts  are  recorded  by  the 
inspiration  of  God ; but  when  the  dead  body  of 
Mary  was  conveyed  through  the  earth,  and  re- 
moved thence,  there  were  no  witnesses,  and  no 
revelation  was  ever  made  of  the  extraordinary  and 
novel  incident,  which  certainly  has  no  parallel 
in  Scripture.  This  miraculous  event  is  appro- 
priately called  ‘ the  Assumption.’ 

It  is  said  that  Mary  died  in  a d.  63.  The  Canon 
of  Scripture  was  closed  in  a.d.  96,  thirty-three 
years  after  her  decease  ; which,  however,  is  never 
alluded  to  by  any  of  the  apostles  in  their  writings, 
nor  by  St.  John,  to  whose  care  she  was  entrusted. 

In  the  Romish  Church  many  facts  are  believed 
and  doctrines  asserted  concerning  the  Virgin 
Mary,  which  not  only  are  without  any  authority 
from  Scripture,  but  many  of  which  are  diame- 
trically opposed  to  its  declarations.  Such,  be- 
sides that  just  mentioned,  viz.  the  Assumption, 
are  the  following  : — 

1.  ‘ The  immaculate  conception  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin.’  The  Council  of  Trent,  treating  upon 
‘ Original  Sin,’  decreed  that  ‘ the  blessed  and 
immaculate  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God,’  is 
‘ exempt  from  all  sin,  actual  and  original  ’ 
(Sess.  5).  This  dogma  is  utterly  destitute  of 
any  Scriptural  evidence,  and  is  plainly  contra- 
dictory to  the  unqualified  and  repeated  assertions 
of  the  sacred  writers  respecting  the  universal 
depravity  of  mankind  (comp,  especially  Rom. 
iii.  10,  23;  Gal.  iii.  22).  St.  Paul,  the  inspired 
author  of  these  passages,  lived  after  the  death  of 
Mary,  and  must  have  known  the  singular  fact  of 
her  immaculate  and  sinless  nature,  if  such  had 
been  the  case;  hut  he  makes  no  exception  in 
her  favour,  and  never  alludes  to  her  in  any  way. 
St.  John  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  her 
alleged  perfection,  and  yet  he,  writing  about 
a.d.  90,  declares,  ‘ If  we  say  that  we  have  not 
sinned,  we  make  him  a liar,  and  his  word  is 
not  in  us’  (1  John  i.  10). 

2.  ‘ The  perpetual  virginity*  of  Mary.  As  to 
this  point  we  possess  no  direct  testimony  from 
Scripture  on  either  side;  but  from  the  very  pre- 
cise language  and  phraseology  of  the  Bible  on 
primogeniture,  and  from  the  application  of  this 
language  in  the  case  of  Mary,  there  are  grounds 
for  concluding  that  she  had  several  children 
after  the  birth  of  Christ. 

Matthew  (i.  25)  and  Luke  (ii.  7)  both  state 
that  ‘ she  brought  forth  her  first-born  son.’  The 
term  £ first-born’  signifies  the  eluest  of  a family, 
or  first  in  order  of  nativity:  in  ail  tongues  and 
countries  the  epithet  is  used  in  this  sense,  and 
in  no  other;  and  never,  in  any  instance,  sig- 
nifies an  only  child.  This  analogy  holds  in  ell 


312 


MARY. 


MARY  MAGDALENE. 


-uses.  ‘Fust-fruits’  (Lev.  xxiii.  10)  relate  to  the 
maturity  and  beginning  of  a series  of  similar 
productions,  and  not  to  one  solitary  thing.  ; The 
first-fruits  of  every  creature*  (Col.  i.  15)  can- 
not imply  one  detached  unsucceeded  person. 
The  ‘ first-born  from  the  dead’  (Col.  i.  18)  does 
not  mean  that  Chiist  alone  should  rise  from  the 
dead,  for  it  is  written,  ‘ all  shall  rise  in  him.’ 

The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  repeatedly  called 
‘ the  only-begotten  Son  of  God*  (John  iii.  16, 
18),  but  never  the  only  son  of  Mary.  The  evange- 
lists say  he  was  the  ‘ first-born  son* — an  expres- 
sion which  necessarily  involves  the  inference  that 
there  was  at  least  a second.  Neither  Samson,  nor 
the  son  of  the  Shunamite,  who  were  only  children, 
is  ever  styled  ‘ Jirst  born ; yet,  when  there  are 
hut  two  children  in  a family,  the  order  of  their 
birth  is  always  regularly  noted  as  a thing  of 
much  importance.  Esau,  i . claiming  his  supe- 
rior right,  says, ‘ 1 am  thy  first-born’  (Gen.  xxvii. 
32).  Joseph  says  of  Manasseh,  ‘ This  is  the  first- 
born’ (Gen.  xlviii.  18).  Very  peculiar  stress  is 
laid  upon  this  point,  which  is  always  carefully 
observed  in  Scripture;  but  nowhere  can  it  be  seen 
that  the  words  * first-born*  are  ever  attached  to  an 
only  child.  We  abstain,  however,  from  pressing 
into  the  argument  the  repeated  mention  of  ‘ the 
brethren  of  the  Lord,'  and  ‘ James,  the  Lord's 
brother ,*  on  account  of  the  latitude  of  interpre- 
tation which  the  word  ‘ brother*  admits  ill  Scrip- 
ture, as  explained  in  other  articles  [Buotueu  ; 
James;  Joses;  Jude]. 

As  the  Gospels  were  not  written  till  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  there  could  be  no  mistake  upon 
the  subject. 

No  Christian  discredits  or  disbelieves  the  fact 
of  Christ  having  been  born,  according  to  the  pro- 
phecy, of  a pure  virgin;  but  the  perpetual  vir- 
ginity of  Mary  is  merely  traditional,  unsupported 
by  any  evidence,  and  opposed  by  the  whole  tenor 
of  Jewish  and  Scriptural  language. 

3.  ‘ The  worship  of  the  Virgin.’  At  the  an- 
nunciation the  angel  said  to  Mary,  ‘ Blessed  art 
thou  among  women  * (Luke  i.  28).  In  the  Scrip- 
tures this  is  a usual  mode  of  salutation.  In  the 
Song  of  Deborah  (Judg.  v.  24 ) it  is  said.  ‘ Jael 
is  blessed  above  women.’  Such  was  the  Hebrew 
form  of  expressing  great  joy  or  congratulation  ; 
and  although  Mary  was  ‘highly  favoured’  in 
being  the  mother  of  Jesus,  yet  as  Jael  receives  a 
similar  acknowledgment  of  her  superior  station 
and  happiness,  for  having  slain  with  her  own  hand 
the  enemy  of  her  country,  t he  phrase  must  certainly 
be  taken  in  both  cases  with  some  limitation;  for 
in  neither  of  them  could  it.  mean,  that  the  party 
was  to  be  reverenced  with  any  species  of  worship. 
In  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  there  are  many 
persons  who  are  both  individually  and  collec- 
tively blessed.  God  said  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xii. 
3),  ‘ I will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse 
him  that  curseth  thee ; and  in  thee  shall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  he  hlessed.’  Again,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Chiist  extends  his  blessing  to  an  in- 
definite number,  saying,  ‘ Blessed  are  they  that 
mourn — the  meek — the  merciful,1  ‘ for  they  shall 
•ee  God’ — * theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven’ 
(Matt.  v.).  The  words  of  Christ  are  much 
Stronger,  and  contain  greater  promises  to  his 
faith fi  1 followers,  than  thoseof  th e angel  to  Mary. 
There  is  no  instance  of  peculiar  honour,  or  of 
&i  y kind  of  worship,  having  been  paid  to  Mary 


earlier  than  the  ^fth  century,  and  it  was  not 
until  the  sixth  that  her  festivals  (under  the  pa- 
tronage of  Augustine)  began  to  be  generally 
observed. 

4.  ‘ The  mediation  and  intercession  of  Mary.’ 
This  is  not  supported  by  a single  passage  of  Holy 
Writ.  The  Lord  seems  to  have  had  little  or  no 
communication  with  her  after  he  entered  upon 
his  public  ministry.  Mary  and  Martha,  Mary 
Magdalene,  and  ‘ other  women,*  aie  frequently 
mentioned  as  being  in  his  c m pan y,  but  on  one 
occasion  we  read  that  k while  Cmist  talked  to 
the  people  his  mother  stood  without,  desiring  to 
speak  with  him  : and  one  said,  Thy  mother  stands 
without , desiiing  to  speak  to  thee.  But  he  an- 
swered and  said,  who  is  my  mother?  And  he 
stretched  forth  his  hand  towards  his  disciples, 
and  said,  Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren , 
for  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother , and 
sister,  and  mother'  (Matt.  xii.  46  to  56^-  No- 
thing can  be  more  conclusive  than  this  passage  in 
showing  that  those  who  were  his  kindred  according 
to  the  flesh  were  of  no  importance  to  him  merely 
on  that  account,  hut  that  the  righteous  were  alone 
regarded  by  him  in  the  neatest  degrees  of  rela- 
tionship. 

At  tiie  marriage  in  Cana  of  Galilee  (John  ii.), 
Mary,  after  desiring  the  -servants  to  do  whatever 
he  commanded,  ‘ saith  unto  him,  they  have  no 
wine.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Woman,  what  have 
I to  do  with  thee?*  If  Jesus  declined  receiving 
any  information  from  her  upon  a point  of  no  con- 
sequence in  vvoildly  matters,  it  is  impossible  to 
believe  that  ‘He  who  doeth  all  things  after  his 
oion  good  pleasure’  has  permitted  her  to  obtain  any 
pre-eminence,  or  allows  any  interference  by  her  in 
heaven.  We  have  besides  the  explicit  assurance 
that  ■ there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  man  Chiist  Jesus’  (1  Tim. 
ii.  5).  k We  have  an  advocate  with  the  leather, 
Jesus  Christ’  (1  John  ii.  1). 

It  does  not  appear  that  Mary  ever  saw  Christ 
after  the  resurrection  ; for  she  was  not  one  of  the 
‘ chosen  witnesses*  specilied  in  Scripture,  as  Mary 
Magdalene  was. — S.  P. 

2.  MARY  MAGDALENE  (Mapla  y Mayda • 
Xyvi])  was  probably  so  called  from  Magdala  in 
Galilee,  the  town  where  she  may  have  dwelt. 
According  to  the  Talmudists,  Magdalene  signi 
lies  ‘ a plaiter  of  hair.’ 

Mucli  wrong  has  been  done  to  this  individual 
from  imagining  that  she  was  the  person  spoken 
of  by  St.  Lake  in  ch.  vii.  39  ; but  there  is  no 
evidence  to  support  this  opinion.  There  were 
two  occasions  on  which  Christ  was  anointed. 
The  first  is  thus  recorded  in  John  xii.  1,  3 : — ‘Six 
days  before  the  Passover  Jesns  came  to  Bethany, 
where  Lazarus  was  which  had  been  dead,  whom 
he  raised  from  the  dead.  There  they  made  him 
a supper;  and  Martha  served.  Then  took  Mary  a 
pound  of*  ointment  of  spikenard,  very  costly,  and 
anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped  His  feet 
with  her  hair.'  This  Mary  was  certainly  the 
sister  of  Martha.  The  second  instance  occurred 
in  the  house  of  Simon.  ‘ And,  behold,  a woman 
in  the  city,  which  was  a sinner,  when  she  knew 
that  Jesus  sat  at.  meat  in  the  Pharisee's  house, 
brought  an  alabaster  box  of  ointment,  and  stood 
at  his  feet  behind  him  weeping,  and  began  to 
wash  his  feet  with  ’‘ears,  and  did  wi4<e  (hern  wito 


MARY  MAGDALENE. 


MARY. 


313 


the  hairs  >f  lier  head,  and  kissed  his  feet,  and 
tnointed  them  with  (lie  ointment.'  (Luke  vii.  37). 
How  Mary  Magdalene  came  to  be  identified 
with  the  person  here  mentioned,  it  is  difficult  to 
lay ; but  such  is  the  case:  and  accordingly  she 
is  generally  regarded  as  having  been  a woman  of 
depraved  character.  For  such  an  inference,  how- 
ever, there  appears  to  be  no  just  ground  whatever. 

The  earliest  notice  of  Mary  Magdalene  is  in 
St.  Luke's  Gospel  (viii.  2),  where  it  is  recorded 
that  out  of  her  ‘ had  gone  seven  devils,’  and 
that  she  was  4 with  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Herod’s 
steward,  and  Susanna,  and  many  others,  which 
ministered  unto  Christ^of  their,  substance.’ 

This  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  she  had  not 
been  known  as  a person  of  bad  character  ; and 
it  also  implies  that  she  was  not  poor,  or  amongst 
the  lower  classes,  when  she  was  the  companion  of 
one  whose  husband  held  an  important  office  in  the 
king’s  household. 

It  is  as  unjust  to  say  that  she  who  had  been  so 
physically  wretched  as  to  be  possessed  by  seven 
devils,  was  dissolute,  as  to  affirm  that  an  insane 
person  is  necessarily  depraved  ; and  as  there  is 
no  evidence  to  prove  that  Mary  Magdalene  was 
‘ the  sinner’  referred  to  in  the  passage  quoted 
above,  the  ignominy  which  has  been  attached  to 
her  name  ought  to  be  removed. 

In  the  Saviour’s  last  hours,  and  at  his  death 
and  resurrection,  Mary  Magdalene  was  a chief 
and  important  witness.  There  had  followed  him 
from  Galilee  many  women  (Matt,  xxvii.  55,  56), 
and  there  slood  by  the  cross  several,  of  whom 
Mary  Magdalene  was  one;  and,  after  his  death, 
she  ‘ and  Mary  the  mother  of  Joses  beheld 
where' the  body  was  laid’  (Mark  xv.  47;  Luke 
xxiii.  55,  56);  4 and  they  returned  and  prepared 
spices  and  ointments.’  ‘ The  first  day  of  the 
week  comelh  Mary  Magdalene  early,  when  it  was 
yet  dark,  unto  the  sepulchre,  and  seeth  the  stone 
taken  away  from  the  sepulchre’  (John  xx.  1). 

Then  she  returned  to  tell  Peter  and  John  that 
the  stone  was  removed.  Peter  immediately  ran  to 
the  place  with  the  other  disciple,  when  they  saw 
only  the  napkin  and  linen  clothes  lying;  and.  * the 
disciples  went  away  again  unto  their  own  homes  ’ 
(John  xx.  2-11).  But  she  ‘who  was  last  at  the 
cross  and  first  at  the  tomb  ’ 4 stood  at  the  sepulchre 
weeping,’  and  saw  two  angels,  who  said  to  her, 

‘ Woman,  why  weepest  thou?  She  saith,  because 
they  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I know  not 
where  they  have  laid  him.’  Her  patient  waiting 
was  rewarded,  for  she  had  scarcely  ceased  speak- 
ing when  Jesu3  himself  asked  her  the  same  ques- 
tion, and  as  soon  as  he  said  ‘ Mary,’  she  turned  her- 
self, and  then,  seeing  who  if.  was,  said  unto  him, 

‘ Rabboni,’  and  at  once  acknowledged  his  risen 
person;  when  he  not  only  assured  her  of  his 
resurrection,  but  also  announced  his  intended 
ascension  (John  xx.  17).  Mary  Magdalene 
then  returned  and  told  these  things  to  the  Apostles 
(Luke  xxiv.  10,  11),  4 and  her  words  seemed  to 
them  as  idle  tales.’  4 and  they,  when  they  had 
heard  that  He  was  alive,  and  had  been  seen  of  her, 
believed  her  not  ’ (Mark  xvi.  10).  On  every 
occasion^Chrst  selected  the  most  fit  and  proper 
persons,  ami  on  this,  his  first  appearance  from 
the  dead,  he  chose  Mary  Magdalene  to  be  the 
only  witness  of  his  resurrection  ; and  to  other 
women  had  been  also  vouchsafed  the  vision  of 
angels  (Luke  xxiv.  10).  These  persons,  with 


the  acute  perception  of  their  sex,  receiving 
distinct  evidence  without  captious  disbelief,  at 
once  saw,  believed,  and  ‘worshipped’  their 
risen  Lord  (Matt,  xxviii.  9):  whilst  the  men 
who  had  been  his  daily  companions  during 
t lie  whole  time  of  his  public  ministry,  and  had 
heard  4 the  gracious  words  which  fell  from  his 
lips,’  entirely  refused  the  testimony  of  eye-wit- 
nesses, to  whom,  4 by  infallible  proofs,  He  had 
shown  himself  alive,'  and  remained  unconvinced 
until  4 Jesus  stood  in  the  midst,  of  them,’  and 
4 showed  them  his  hands  and  Iris  feet.’  (Luke 
xxiv.  36,  40) ; and  even  then  4 they  believed  not 
for  joy.’ 

But.  the  failh  of  Mary  Magdalene  is  4 in  ever- 
lasting remembrance,’  inasmuch  as,  when  others 
were  4 fools  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe,’  she,  with 
less  evidence  than  1 hey  possessed,  at  once  acknow- 
ledged that  ‘Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead,  and  is 
become  the  first-fruits  of  them  that  slept,’  and  to 
her  was  granted  the  honour  of  being  the  first 
witness  of  that  great  event,  the  Resurrection, 
without  which  Christ  would  have  died  in  vain 
(1  Cor.  xv.).— S.  P. 

3.  MARY,  wife  of  Cleoplms  or  Alpbaeus,  and 
sister  of  the  Lord's  mother  (Matt,  xxvii.  56  ; Mark 
xv.  40;  John  xix.  25).  This  Mary  was  one  of 
those  holy  women  who  followed  Christ,  and  was 
present  at  the  crucifixion;  and  she  is  that  4 other 
Mary’  who,  with  Mary  Magdalene,  attended  the 
body  of  Christ  to  the  sepulchre  when  taken  down 
from  the  cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  61  ; Mark  xv.  47  ; 
Luke  xxiii.  55).  Sh#  was  also  among  these  who 
went  on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week 
to  the  sepulchre  to  anoint  the  body,  and  who  be- 
came the  first  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  (Matt, 
xxviii.  1 ; Mark  xvi.  1 ; Luke  xxiv.  1).  James, 
Joses,  Jude,  and  Simon,  who  are  called  the  Lord’s 
brethren  [see  the  names;  also  Aj.ph^eus  ; Bro- 
ther], are  very  generally  supposed  to  have  been 
the  sons  of  this  Mary,  and  therefore  cousins  of 
Jesus,  the  term  brother  having  been  used  with 
great  latitude  among  the  Hebrews.  This  is  the 
usual  alternative  of  those  who  deny  that,  these 
persons  were  sons  of  our  Lord’s  mother  by  her 
husband  Joseph ; although  some  imagine  that 
they  may  have  been  sons  of  Joseph  by  a former 
wife.  The  fact  seems  to  he  this  : Christ  had  four 
4 brethren  ’ called  James,  Joses,  Simon,  and  Jude ; 
he  had  also  three  apostles  called  James,  Simon, 
and  Jude,  who  were  his  cousins,  being  sons  of 
Alpbaeus  and  this  Mary  : and  it  is  certainly  very 
difficult  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  the  three 
cousins  arid  apostles  are  to  he  regarded  as  the 
same  with  those  three  of  the  four  4 brethren’  who 
bore  the  same  names. 

4.  MARY,  sister  of  Lazarus  and  Martha.  The 
friendship  of  our  Lord  for  this  family  has  been 
explained  in  other  articles  [Lazarus;  Martha]. 
The  points  of  interest  in  connection  with  Mary 
individually  arise  from  the  contrast  of  character 
between  her  and  her  sister  Martha,  and  from  the 
incidents  by  which  that  contrast  was  evinced. 
As  these  points  of  contrast  have  already  been 
produced  under  Martha,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
go  over  the  same  ground  in  the  present  article. 
Apart  from  this  view,  the  most  signal  incident  in 
Ihe  history  of  Mary  is  her  conduct  at  the  supper 
which  was  given  to  Jesus  in  Bethany,  when  he 
came  thither  after  having  raised  Lazarus  from 
the  dead.  The  intense  love  which  distinguished 


311 


MATTHEW. 


MATTHEW. 


her  character  then  glowed  with  the  highest  fer- 
vour, manifesting  the  depth  of  her  emotion  and 
gratitude  for  the  deliverance  from  the  cold  terrors 
of  the  grave  of  that  brother  who  now  sat  alive 
and  cheerful  with  the  guests  at  table.  She  took 
the  station  she  best  loved,  at  the  feet  of  Jesus. 
Among  the  ancients  it  was  usual  to  wash  the  feet 
of  guests  before  an  entertainment,  and  with  this  the 
anointing  of  the  feet  was  frequently  connected 
[Anointing].  Mary  possessed  a large  quantity 
of  very  costly  ointment ; and  in  order  to  testify 
her  gratitude  she  sacrificed  it.  all  by  anoint- 
ing with  it  the  feet  of  Jesus.  We  are  told  that 
the  disciplps  murmured  at  the  extravagance  of 
this  act,  deeming  that  it  would  have  been  much 
wiser,  if  she  had  sold  the  ointment  and  given  the 
money  to  the  poor.  But  Jesus,  looking  beyond 
the  mere  external  act  to  the  disposition  which 
gave  birth  to  it — a disposition  which  marked  the 
intensity  of  her  gratitude— vindicated  her  deed. 
Always  meditating  upon  his  departure,  and  more 
especially  at  that,  moment,  when  it  was  so  near  at 
baud,  he  attributed  to  this  act  a still  higher  sense 
— as  having  reference  to  his  approaching  death. 
The  dead  were  embalmed  : and  so,  lie  said,  have 
I received,  by  anticipation,  the  consecration  of 
death  (John  xii.  1-8;  Matt.  xxvi.  G-13;  Mark 
xiv.  3-9). 

MASCHIL,  a title  of  some  of  the  Psalms 
[Psalms], 

MASSA,  an  encampment  of  the  Israelites 
[ Wandering]. 

MATTHEW  (Mar0a?os)»  1.  The  Person  of 
Matthew. — According  to  Mark  ii.  14,  Matthew 
was  a son  of  Alpliaeus.  It  is  generally  supposed 
that  Jacobus,  or  James,  the  sou  of  Alphaeus,  was  a 
son  of  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleophas,  who  was  a sister 
of  the  mother  of  Jesus  (John  xix.  25).  If  this 
opinion  is  correct,  Matthew  was  one  of  the  rela- 
tives of  Jesus.  Matthew  was  a portitor,  or  in- 
ferior collector  of  customs  at  Capernaum,  on  the 
Sea  of  Galilee.  He  was  not  a publicanas,  or 
general  farmer  of  customs.  We  may  suppose 
either  that  he  held  his  appointment  at  the  port  of 
Capernaum,  or  that  he  collected  the  customs  on 
the  high  road  to  Damascus,  which  went  through 
what  is  now  called  Khan  Minyeh,  which  place,  as 
Robinson  lias  shown,  is  the  ancient  Capernaum 
( Bibl . lies,  in  Palestine , vol.  iii.  pp.  288-295). 
Thus  we  see  that  Matthew  belonged  to  the  lower 
class  of  people. 

In  Mark  ii.  14,  and  Luke  v.  27,  lie  is  called 
Levi.  We  lienee  conclude  that  he  had  two  names. 
This  circumstance  is  not  mentioned  in  the  list  of 
the  apostles  (Matt.  x.  and  Luke  vi.) ; but  the  omis- 
sion does  not  prove  the  contrary,  as  we  may 
infer  from  the  fact  that  Lebbaeus  is  also  called 
Judas  in  Luke  vi.  16,  in  which  verse  the  name 
Lebbaeus  is  omitted.  In  Matt.  ix.  9 is  re- 
lated how  Matthew  was  called  to  be  an  apostle. 
We  must,  however,  suppose  that  he  was  previously 
acquainted  with  Jesus,  since  we  read  in  Luke 
vi.  13,  that  when  Jesus,  before  delivering  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  selected  twelve  disciples, 
who  were  to  form  the  circle  of  his  more  intimate 
associates,  Matthew  was  one  of  them.  After  this 
Matthew  returned  to  his  usual  occupation ; from 
which  Jesus,  on  leaving  Capernaum,  called  him 
away.  On  this  occasion  Matthew  gave  a parting 
entertainment  to  his  friends.  After  this  event  lie 
is  n.entnned  only  in  Acts  i.  13. 


According  to  a statement  in  Clemens  Alexan* 
drinus  ( Pcedagog . ii.  !),  Matthew  abstained  from 
animal  food.  Hence  some  writers  have  rather 
hastily  concluded  that  he  belonged  to  the  sect  of 
the  Essenes.  It  is  true  that  the  Essenes  practised 
abstinence  in  a high  degree;  but  it  is  not  true  that 
they  rejected  animal  food  altogether.  Admitting 
the  account  in  Clemens  Alexandrinus  to  be  cor- 
rect, it  proves  only  a certain  ascetic  strictness,  of 
which  there  occur  vestiges  in  the  habits  of  other 
Jews  (comp.  Joseph.  Vila,  cap.  ii.  & iii.).  Some 
interpreters  find  aho  in  Rom.  xiv.  an  allusion  to 
Jews  of  ascetic  principles. 

According  to  another  account,  which  is  as  old 
as  the  first  century,  and* which  occurs  in  the 
Kr/puy/ua  Tlerpou  in  Clemens  Alex.  (Strom,  vi. 
15),  Matthew,  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  remained 
about  fifteen  years  in  Jerusalem.  This  agrees  with 
the  statement  in  Eusebius  (Hist.  Ecclcs.  iii.  24), 
that  Matthew  preached  to  his  own  nation  before  he 
went  to  foreign  countries.  Rutiims  (Hist.  Eccles. 
x.  9)  and  Socrates  ( H ist.  Eccles.  i.  19)  state  that 
he  afterwards  went  into  Ethiopia ; and  other 
authors  mention  other  countries.  There  also  he 
probably  preached  specially  to  the  Jews.  Ac- 
cording to  Heracleon  (about  a.d.  150)  and  Cle- 
mens Alex.  (Strom,  iv.  9),  Matthew  was  one  of 
those  apostles  who  did  not.  suffer  martyrdom. 

2.  The  Gospel  ok  St.  Matthew. — The 
genuineness  of  this  Gospel  has  been  more  strongly 
attacked  than  that  of  any  of  the  three  others,  as 
well  by  external  as  by  internal  arguments. 

We  vv  ill  first  consider  the  external  arguments. 
The  most  ancient,  testimony  concerning  Matthew's 
Gospel  is  that  of  Papias.  who,  according  to  Euse- 
bius (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39),  wrote  as  follows: 
MaT0a?os  p\v  our  'Eflpdidi  SiaXeKTcp  ra  A 6yia 
(Tvveypa\f/aTo.  'H p/j.i)reuo'e  S’  aura,  us  eSvmro 
cicao-ros  (var.  lect.  us  itv  bvuaros  eKaaros). — 

‘ Matthew  wrote  the  sayings  in  the  Hebrew 
tongue,  but  every  body  interpreted  them  accord- 
ing to  his  ability.’  Doubts  of  three  different 
kinds  have  been  raised  whether  this  testimony 
could  refer  to  our  Greek  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew. 

1st.  Papias,  the  most  ancient  witness,  who  was 
a disciple  of  John,  speaks  only  about  the  \6yia  of 
Christ,  which  were  apparently  a collection  of  the 
remarkable  sayings  of  our  Lord. 

2dly.  lie  speaks  about  a work  written  in  the 
Hebrew,  which  here  means  probably  the  Aramaean 
or  Chaldee  tongue. 

3dly.  Ilis  statement  seems  to  imply  that  there 
was  no  translation  of  this  work. 

These  doubts  were  particularly  brought  forward 
by  Schleiermacher  in  the  Studien  und  Kritikcn , 
1832,  Heft  4.  The  opinion  of  Schleiermachei 
was  adopted  by  Sehneckenburger,  Lachmann,  and 
many  others.  According  to  these  critics,  the 
apostle  wrote  only  a collection  of  the  remarkable 
sayings  of  Jesus;  which  collection  was  put  into 
an  historical  form  by  a Greek  translator.  Papias 
is  said  to  ini  end  by  r,pn'hvev<J€,  the  explanation  of 
the  sayings  of  Christ  by  means  of  the  addition 
of  the  historical  facts.  Most  critics,  however,  have 
either  never  adopted,  or  have  subsequently  re- 
jected, the  above  interpretation  of  the  words  \6yia 
and  fjpfj.'l)veu(re.  It  was  first  objected  by  Dr. 
Liioke,  that  Papias,  in  his  report,  followed  tl  e 
statements  of  Johannes  Presbyter,  who  said  tha' 
Peter  furnished  a avura^is  ruv  Kvpiatcuv  Ao^iuy, 

‘ a collection  of  the  sayings  of  our  Lord,’  and  that 


MATTHEW. 


MATTHEW. 


313 


Mark  stated  vdiat  he  had  heard  from  Peter,  and 
that  Papias  nevertheless  adds  that  Mark  wrote 
ret  uirb  rod  Xptffrov  fj  Ae%0evT a r\  i rpax^eura,  ‘ as 
well  the  sayings  as  the  doings  of  Christ.’  Hence 
it  follows,  according  to  Dr.  Liicke,  that  \6yia  is  a 
term  a parte  potiori,  which  comprehends  the  history 
also.  In  addition  to  this,  Dr.  Liicke  observes, 
that  Papias  himself  wrote  a work  under  the  title  of 
‘ Aoyluu  Kvpianoov  P/qyqffis,'  and  that  the  extracts 
from  this  work  which  Eusebius  has  furnished 
prove  that  its  contents  were  partly  historical.  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  the  testimony  of  Papias 
may  be  considered  as  referring  to  our  Gospel  of 
St.  Matthew  ; but  the  force  of  the  two  other  objec- 
tions remains  still  unimpared. 

It  has  been  observed  by  those  who  deny  the 
genuineness  of  this  Gospel,  that  in  none  of  the 
Fathers  before  Jerome  do  we  find  any  statement 
from  which  we  could  infer  that  they  had  seen  the 
Hebrew  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew ; and  that  conse- 
quently we  may  consider  as  a mere  conjecture 
the  opinion  of  the  Fathers,  that  our  Gospel  is  a 
Greek  translation  of  a Hebrew  original. 

Jerome,  in  his  Catalogus  de  viris  illustribus 
(cap.  iii.),  reports  that  the  Hebrew  gospel  of  St. 
Matthew  was  preserved  in  the  library  at  Caesarea, 
and  that  he  took  a copy  of  it.  In  his  commen- 
tary on  Matt.  xii.  13,  he  says  that  he  translated 
this  Hebrew  Gospel  into  Greek.  In  the  same  pass- 
age, and  in  his  book  Contra  Pelagianos  (iii.  2), 
Jerome  states  that  this  Hebrew  copy  was  con- 
sidered ‘ by  most  people’  (a  plerisque)  to  be  the 
original  text  of  St.  Matthew.  The  cautious  ex- 
pression ‘ a plerisque'  is  considered  by  many  cri- 
tics as  an  indication  that  Jerome’s  statement 
Cannot  -be  depended  upon.  Indeed  it  appears 
that  the  Hebrew  copy  of  St.  Matthew  was  not  the 
mere  original  of  our  Gospel,  for  what  motive, 
in  that  case,  could  Jerome  have  had  to  translate 
it  into  Greek  ? 

The  whole  difficulty  is  cleared  up  if,  like  most 
modern  critics,  we  suppose  that  the  Evangelium 
secundum  Hebrceos,  about  which  Jerome  speaks, 
was  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  corrupted  by 
apocryphal  additions.  This  conjecture  is  con- 
firmed by  the  fragments  of  it  which  have  been 
preserved. 

Hence  many  critics  are  led  to  suppose  that  the 
strictly  Juddizing  Christians  made  a translation 
of  St.  Matthew,  which  they  endeavoured  to  bring 
into  harmony  with  their  own  opinions  and  legends. 
As  a proof  that  this  Evangelium  secundum  Ile- 
brceos  was  not  an  original  work,  but  merely  a 
translation,  it  has  been  urged  that  the  name 
BupaPPas  wa3  not  rendered  K3K  "13,  but  "13 
}.n3"l  ,Jilius  magistri  eorvm. 

Nevertheless  Jerome's  statement  respecting  the 
Evangelium  secundum,  Hebrceos  may  be  taken  as 
a confirmation  of  the  account  of  Papias,  that 
Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew.  If  this 
be  the  fact,  the  question  must  arise  whether  our 
Greek  Matthew  is  a correct  translation  of  the 
Hebrew.  The  words  of  Papias  seem  to  imply 
that  in  his  days  there  was  no  Greek  translation  in 
existence.  This  has  induced  many  critics  to 
question  his  account,  and  to  suppose  that  the 
original  text  was  Greek.  Such  is  the  opinion  of 
Erasmus,  CEcolampadius,  Calvin,  Beza,  Lardner, 
Guerike,  Harless,  and  others. 

The  authority  of  Papias  has  been  deemed  to  be 
overthrown  by  the  character  given  of  him  by 


Eusebius,  according  to  whose  statement  he  w« i 
ccpSdpa  cr/juicpbs  rbv  vovv,  ‘of  a very  little  mind.’ 
Guerike  considers  also  as  rather  incredible  the 
addition,  that  everybody  interpreted  that  gospel 
according  to  his  ability,  ypp'qvevce  Vavra  us  fiv 
Swards  eicaaros. 

Papias,  indeed,  proves  himself  very  credulous, 
by  reporting,  according  to  Eusebius,  iroA\& 
[AvOiKurepa,  ‘ many  rather  fabulous  things;’  but 
this  does  not  authorize  us  to  reject  his  testimony 
in  a mere  matter  of  fact,  for  the  perception  of 
which  no  extraordinary  abilities  were  required, 
especially  as  his  account  of  this  fact  agrees  with 
the  statements  of  Jerome. 

It  is  by  no  means  improbable,  that  after  several 
inaccurate  and  imperfect  translations  of  the 
Aramsean  original  came  into  circulation,  Mat- 
thew himself  was  prompted  by  this  circumstance 
to  publish  a Greek  translation,  or  to  have  his 
Gospel  translated  under  his  own  supervision.  It 
is  very  likely  that  this  Greek  translation  did  not 
soon  come  into  general  circulation,  so  that  Papias 
may  have  remained  ignorant  of  its  existence.  It 
may  also  be,  and  nothing  prevents  us  from  sup- 
posing, that  Papias,  being  acquainted  with  our 
Greek  Gospel,  spoke,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  of 
those  events  only  which  came  to  pass  soon  after 
the  publication  of  the  Aramaean  original.  We,  at. 
least,  rather  prefer  to  confess  ourselves  unable  to 
solve  the  objection,  than  to  question  the  direct 
testimony  of  Papias;  especially  since  that  testi- 
mony is  supported  by  other  ancient  authorities : 

1st.  By  Otigen  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  25). 
2dly.  By  the  Alexandrian  Catechist  Pantaenus, 
who,  according  to  Eusebius  ( Hist . Eccles.  v.  10), 
having,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century, 
gone  on  a missionary  expedition  to  India,  found 
there  some  Christians  who  possessed  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Matthew  in  Hebrew.  3dly.  By  Irenaeus  ( Adv . 
liter.  iii.  1)  and  Eusebius  ( Hist . Eccles.  v.  8). 

To  this  it.  has  been  objected,  that  Origen  and 
Irenaeus  probably  only  repeated  the  statement  of 
Papias  ; but  it  is  unlikely  that  a man  of  so  much 
learning  as  Origen  should  have  had  no  other  au- 
thority for  his  account;  and  the  statement  of 
Pantaenus,  at  least,  is  quite  independent  of  that  of 
Papias.  It  ought  also  to  be  considered  that 
Matthew  was  not  so  much  known  in  ecclesiastical 
antiquity,  that  any  partizanship  could  have 
prompted  writers  to  forge  books  in  his  name. 

On  summing  up  what  we  have  stated,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  external  testimonies  clearly  prove 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew. 
The  authenticity  indeed  of  this  Gospel  is  as  well 
supported  as  that  of  any  work  of  classical  anti- 
quity. It  can  also  be  proved  that  it.  was  early  in 
use  among  Christians,  and  that  the  apostolical 
Fathers,  at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  ascribed  to 
it  a canonical  authority  (see  Polycarp,  Epist.  c. 
ii.  7 ; Ignatius,  Ad  Smyrn.  c.  vi.;  Ad  Rom.  c.  vi. ; 
Clemens  Romanus,  Epist.  i.  c.  xlvi. ; Barnabas, 
Epist.  c.  iv. 

But  the  EXTERNAL  arguments  against  the  au- 
thenticity of  this  Gospel  are  less  important  than 
the  doubts  which  have  been  started  from  a con- 
sideration of  its  internal  qualities. 

1st.  The  representations  of  Matthew  (it  is  said) 
have  not  that  vivid  clearness  which  characterizes 
the  narration  of  an  eye-witness,  and  which  we 
find,  for  instance,  in  the  Gospel  of  John.  Even 
Mark  and  Luke  surpass  Matthew  in  this  respect 


316 


MATTHEW. 


MATTHEW. 


Compare,  for  example,  Matt.  iv.  18  with  Luxe 
v.  t,  sq. ; Matt.  viii.  5 sq.  with  Luke  vii.  1,  sq. 
This  is  most  striking  in  the  history  of  his  own 
call,  where  we  should  expect  a clearer  repre- 
sentation. 

2nd.  He  omits  s <me  facts  which  every  apostle 
certainly  knew.  For  instance,  he  mentions  only 
one  journey  of  Christ  to  the  passnver  at  Jerusa- 
lem, namely,  the  last ; and  seems  to  be  acquainted 
only  with  one  sphere  of  Christ's  activity,  namely, 
Galilee.  He  even  relates  t lie  instances  of  Christ's 
appearing  alter  his  resurrection  in  such  a manner, 
that  it  might  be  understood  as  if  he  showed  him- 
self only  to  the  women  in  Jerusalem,  and  to  his 
disciples  nowhere  hut  in  Galilee  (Matt.  xxvi.  32 
and  xxviii.  7). 

3rd.  He  lelates  unchrouologically,  and  trans- 
poses events  to  times  in  which  they  did  not  hap- 
pen ; for  instance,  the  event  mentioned  in  Luke 
iv.  14-39  must  have  happened  at  the  commence- 
ment of  Christ’s  public  career,  but  Matthew 
relates  it  as  late  as  eh.  xiii.  53,  sq. 

4th.  He  embodies  in  one  discourse  several 
sayings  of  Clnist.  which,  according  to  Luke,  were 
pronounced  at  different  times  (comp.  Matt.  v.-vii., 
and  xxiii.). 

5th.  He  falls,  it  is  asserted,  into  positive  errors. 
In  ch.  i.  and  ii.  he  seems  not  to  know  that,  the 
real  dwelling-place  of  the  parents  of  Jesus  was  at 
Nazareth,  and  that  their  abode  at  Bethlehem  was 
only  temporary  (comp.  Matt.  ii.  1,  22,  23.  with 
Luke  ii.  4,  39).  According  to  Maik  xi.  20,  21, 
the  fig-tree  withered  on  the  day  after  it  was 
cursed, but  according  to  Matt.  xxi.  19.  it  withered 
immediately.  According  to  Matt.  xxi.  12, 
Christ  purified  the  Temple  immediately  after  his 
entrance  info  Jerusalem  ; hut  according  to  Mark 
he  on  that  day  went  out  to  Bethany,  and  purified 
the  Temple  on  the  day  following  (Mark  xi.  11-15). 
Matthew  says  (xxi.  7)  that  Christ  rode  on  a she- 
ass  and  on  a colt,  which  is  impossible.  The  other 
Gospels  speak  only  of  a she-ass. 

These  circumstances  have  led  Strauss  and 
others  to  consider  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  as 
an  unapostolical  composition,  originating  perhaps 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  first  century  ; while  some 
consider  it  a reproduction  of  the  Aramaean  Mat- 
thew, augmented  by  some  additions;  others  call 
it  an  historical  commentary  of  a later  period, 
made  to  illustrate  the  collection  of  the  sayings  of 
Christ  which  Matthew  had  furnished  (comp. 
Siefl'ert,  Ueber  die  Aechtheit  und  den  Ursprung  des 
ersten  Evangel  ii,  1832;  Schnecken  burger,  Ueber 
den  Ursprung  des  ersten  Evangelii.  1834;  Schott, 
Ueber  die  Authenticitat  des  Ev.  Matth.  1S37. 

To  these  oljecfions  we  may  reply  as  follows: — 

1st.  The  gilt  of  narrating  luminously  is  a per- 
sonal qualification  of  which  even  an  apostle 
might  be  destitute,  and  which  is  rarely  found 
among  the  lower  orders  of  people  ; this  argument 
therefore  has  recently  been  given  up  altogether. 
In  the  history  of  his  call  to  he  an  apostle,  Mat- 
thew has  this  advantage  over  Mark  and  Luke, 
that  he  relates  the  discourse  of  Christ  (ix.  13) 
with  greater  completeness  than  these  evangelists. 
Luke  relates  that  Matthew  prepared  a great 
banquet  in  Lis  house,  while  Matthew  simply 
mentions  that  an  entertainment  took  place,  be- 
cause the  apostle  could  not  well  write  that  he 
himself  prepared  a great  banquet. 

2nd.  An  argumentum  a silentio  must  not  be 


urged  against  the  evangelists.  The  raising  of 
Lazarus  is  narrated  only  liy  John ; and  th« 
raising  of  the  youth  at  Nain  only  by  Luke; 
the  appearance  of  five  hundred  brethren  after  the 
resurrection,  which,  according  to  ihe  testimony 
of  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.  (i),  was  a fact  generally 
known,  is  not  recorded  by  any  of  the  evangelists. 
The  apparent  restriction  of  Christ's  sphere  of 
activity  to  Galilee,  we  find  also  in  Mark  and 
Luke.  This  peculiarity  arose  perhaps  from  the 
circumstance  that  the  apostles  first  taught  in 
Jerusalem,  where  it  \yas  unnecessary  to  relate 
what  hail  happened  there,  hut  where  the  events 
which  had  taken  place  in  Calilee  were  unknown, 
and  required  to  he  narrated  : thus  the  sphere  of 
narration  may  have  gradually  become  fixed.  At 
least  it  is  generally  granted  that  hitherto  no  satis- 
factory explanat  ion  of  this  fact  has  been  discovered. 
The  expressions  in  Matt.  xxvi.  32,  and  xxviii.  7, 
perhaps  only  indicate  that  the  Lord  appeared 
more  frequently,  and  for  a longer  period,  in  Ga- 
lilee than  elsewhere.  In  Matt,  xxviii.  16,  we 
are  told  that  the  disciples  in  Galilee  went  up  to 
a mountain,  whither  Christ  had  appointed  them 
to  come ; and  since  it  is  not  previously  mentioned 
that  any  such  appointment  had  been  made,  the 
narrative  of  Matthew  himself  here  leads  us  to 
conclude  that  Christ  appeared  to  his  disciples  in 
Jerusalem  after  his  resurrection. 

3rd.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
evangelists  intended  to  write  a chronological 
biography.  On  the  contrary,  we  learn  from 
Luke  i.  4,  and  John  xx.  31,  that  their  object  \va3 
of  a more  practical  and  apologetical  tendency. 
With  the  exception  of  John,  the  evangelists  have 
grouped  their  communications  more  according  to 
the  subjects  than  according  to  chronological  suc- 
cession. This  fact  is  now  generally  admitted. 
The  principal  groups  of  facts  recoided  by  St. 
Matthew  are: — 1.  The  preparation  of  Jesus,  nar- 
rated in  ch.  i. — iv.  16.  2.  The  public  ministry 
of  Jesus,  narrated  in  ch.  iv.  17 — xvi.  20.  3.  The 
conclusion  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  narrated  in  ch. 
xvi.  21— xxviii. 

The  second  of  these  groups  is  subdivided  into 
minor  groups.  If  we  consider  that  Matthew,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Jews,  describes  Christ  as  being 
the  promised  Messiah  of  the  old  covenant,  it  must 
appear  perfectly  appropriate  in  him  fo  narrate  tho 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  before  the  calling  of  his 
disciples.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  shows  the 
relation  in  which  the  Redeemer  stood  to  the  old 
covenant.  In  ch.  viii.  and  ix.  are  given  ex- 
amples of  the  power  which  Jesus  possessed  of  per- 
forming miracles;  after  which,  in  ch.  ix.  36,  is 
stated  the  need  of  ‘labourers’  to  instruct  the 
people.  Then  naturally  follows,  in  ch.  x.,  the 
admonition  delivered  to  the  apostles  before  they 
are  sent  out  on  their  mission.  In  ch.  xii.  is  re- 
corded how  Jesus  entered  into  conflict  with  the 
dominant  party,  &c.  (comp.  Kern’s  Abhandlung 
iiber  den  Ursprung  des  Evangelii  Matthcei,  p. 
51,  sq. ; Koster,  Ueber  die  Composition  des  Ev, 
Matth.  in  Pelt's  Mitarbeiten,  Heft  i. ; Kulir^ 
Leben  Jesu , t..  i.,  Beilage. 

But  our  adversaries  further  asserl,  that  the 
evangelist  not  only  groups  together  events  belong- 
ing to  different  times,  but  that  some  of  his  date* 
are  incorrect : for  instance,  the  date  in  Matt.  xiii. 
53  cannot  be  correct  if  Luke,  ch.  iv.,  has  placed 
the  event  rightly.  If,  however,  we  carefully 


MATTHEW. 


MEDEBA. 


317 


•sonsider  the  matter,  we  shall  find  that  Matthew 
has  placed  this  fact,  more  chronologically  than 
Luke.  Jt  is  true  that  the  question  in  Matt.  xiii. 
54,  and  the  annunciation  in  Luke  iv.  18-21,  seem 
to  synchronize  best  with  the  first  public  appearance 
of  Jesus.  But.  even  Schleiermacher,  who,  in  his 
work  on  Luke,  generally  gives  the  preference  to 
the  arrangement  of  that  evangelist,  nevertheless 
observes  in.  63)  that  Luke  iv.  23  leads  us  to  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  abode  for  a longer  period  in  Ca- 
pernaum (comp.  the  words  /card  rb  eiwdbs  avry  in 
ver.  16). 

4th.  If  the  Evangelist  arranges  his  statements 
according  to  subjects,  and  not  chronologically, 
we  must  not  lie  surprised  that  he  connects  similar 
sayings  of  Christ,  inserting  them  in  the  longer 
discourses  after  analogous  topics  had  been  men- 
tioned. These  discourses  are  not  compiled  by 
the  Evangelist,  but  always  form  the  fundamental 
framework  to  which  sometimes  analogous  subjects 
are  attached.  But  even  this  is  not,  the  case  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount;  and  in  ch.  xiii.  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  the  parables  were  spoken  at  dif- 
ferent times.  In  the  discourses  recorded  in  ch.  x. 
and  xxiii.,  it  can  be  proved  that  several  sayings 
are  more  correctly  placed  by  Matthew  than  by 
Luke  (comp,  especially  Matt,  xxiii,  37-39  with 
Luke  xiii.  34,  35). 

5th.  It  depends  entirely  upon  the  mode  of 
interpretation,  whether  such  positive  errors  as  are 
alleged  to  exist  are  really  chargeable  on  the 
evangelist.  Tiie  difference,  for  instance,  be- 
tween the  narrative  of  the  birth  of  Christ,  as 
severally  recorded  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  may 
easily  be  solved  without  questioning  the  correct- 
ness of  either,  if  we  suppose  that  each  of  them 
narrates  what  he  knows  from  his  individual 
sources  of  information.  The  history  of  Christ’s 
childhood  given  in  Luke,  leads  us  to  conclude 
that  it  was  derived  from  the  acquaintances  of 
Mar)’’,  while  the  statements  in  Matthew  seem  to 
he  derived  from  the  friends  of  Joseph.  As  to 
the  transaction  recorded  in  Matt.  xxi.  18-22,  and 
Mark  xi.  11,  15,  20,  21,  it  appears  that  Mark 
describes  what  occurred  most  accurately ; and 
we  must  grant  that  we  should  scarcely  have 
expected  from  an  eye-witnes3  the  inaccuracy 
which  is  observable  in  Matthew.  But  we  find 
that  there  are  characters  of  such  individuality 
that,  being  bent  exclusively  upon  their  main 
subject,  they  seem  to  have  no  perception  for 
llates  and  localities. 

If  these  arguments  should  still  appear  unsatis- 
factory, they  may  be  supported  by  adding  the 
positive  internal  proofs  which  exist  in  favour  of 
the  apostolical  origin  of  this  Gospel.  1 . The  nature 
of  the  book  agrees  entirely  with  the  statements  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  church,  from  whom  we  learn  that 
it  was  written  for  Jewish  readers.  None  of  the 
other  Evangelists  quotes  the  Old  Testament  so 
often  as  Matthew,  who,  moreover,  doe3  not  ex- 
plain the  Jewish  rites  and  expressions,  which 
are  explained  by  Maik  and  John.  2.  If  there  is 
a want  of  precision  in  the  narration  of  facts, 
there  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a peculiar  accuracy 
and  richness  in  the  reports  given  of  the  discourses 
of  Jesus ; so  that  we  may  easily  conceive  why 
Papias,  a parte  potiori,  styled  the  Gospel  of  Mat- 
!hew  *6yia  ico  Kvpiov,  the  sayings  of  the  Lord. 

Some  of  the  most  beautiful  and  most,  important 
sayings  of  our  Lord,  the  historical  credibility  of 


which  no  sceptic  can  attack,  have  been  preserved 
by  Matthew  alone  (Mat),  xi.  28-30;  xvi.  16-19; 
xxviii.  20;  comp,  also  xi.  2-21  ; xi i.  3-6,25-29; 
xvii.  12,  25,  26  ; xxvi.  13).  Above  all,  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  must  here  be  considered.  Even 
negative  criticism  giants  that.  Luke’s  account  is 
defective  as  compared  with  Matthew's;  and  that 
Luke  gives  as  isolated  sentences  what  in  Matthew 
appears  in  beautiful  connection.  In  short,  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  according  to  Matthew, 
forms  the  most  beautiful  and  the  best  arranged 
whole  of  all  the  evangelical  discourses.  It.  may 
also  be  proved  that  in  many  particulars  the  re- 
ports of  several  discourses  in  Matthew  are  more 
exact  than  in  the  other  evangelists ; as  may  be 
seen  by  comparing  Matt,  xxiii.  with  the  various 
parallel  passages  in  Luke.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  surprising  that  the  genuineness  of 
this  gospel  has  not  yet  met.  with  more  distin- 
guished advocates.  The  most,  important  work  in 
defence  of  the  genuineness  of  Matthew  is  that 
of  Kern,  Ueber  den  Ursprung  des  Evangelii 
Matthcei , Tubingen,  1834.  Next  in  value  are 
Olshausen’s  Drei  Programme ; 1835,  and  the  two 
Lucubrationes  of  Harless,  1840  and  1843.  Even 
He  Wette,  in  the  fourth  edition  of  his  Introduc- 
tion. p.  170,  has  ascribed  only  a qualified  value 
to  the  doubts  on  this  head. 

With  regard  to  the  date  of  this  gospel,  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  and  Origen  state  that  it  was  written 
before  the  others.  Irenseus  (Adv.  Hcer.  iii.  1) 
agrees  with  them,  but  places  its  origin  rather  late 
— namely,  at  the  time  when  Peter  and  Paul 
were  at.  Rome.  Even  De  Wefle  grants  ( Einleitung , 
§ 97)  that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  In  proof  of  this  we  may  also  quote 
ch.  xxvii.  8. 

Among  all  the  German  commentaries  on  the 
first  three  Gospels,  the  best  spirit  pervades  that  of 
Olshausen,  3rd  edit.  1837.  The  commentary  on 
St.  Matthew  by  De  Wette,  2nd  edit.  1838,  is 
pervaded  by  the  scepticism  of  Strauss. — A.  T. 

MATTHIAS  (Mar0:as,  equivalent  to  Mccrtfcuos, 
Matthew),  one  of  the  seventy  disciples  who  was 
chosen  by  lot,  in  preference  to  Joseph  Barsabas, 
into  the  number  of  the  apostles,  to  supply  the  de- 
ficiency caused  by  the  treachery  and  suicide  of 
Judas  (Acts  i.  23-26).  Nothing  is  known  of  his 
subsequent,  career. 

MAZZAROTH  (Job  xxxviii.  32).  [Astro- 
nomy.] 

MEASURES.  [Weights  and  Measures.] 

MEDAD  and  ELDAD,  two  of  the  seventy 
elders  who  were  nominated  to  assist  Moses  in  the 
government  of  the  people,  but  who  remained  in 
the  camp,  probably  as  modestly  deeming  them- 
selves unfit  for  the  office,  when  the  others  presented 
themselves  at  the  Tabernacle.  The  Divine  spirit*, 
however,  rested  on  them  even  there,  ‘and  they 
prophesied  in  the  camp'  (Num.  xi.  24-29).  The 
Targum  of  Jonathan  alleges  that  these  two  men 
were  brothers  of  Moses  and  Aaron  by  the  mother’s 
side. 

MEDAN  or  Mad  an  (j*1p  ; M adtap),  son  oi 
Abraham,  by  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  2).  He  and 
his  brother  Midian  are  supposed  to  have  peopled 
the  country  of  Midian,  east  of  the  Dead  Sea. 

MEDEBA  ; Sept.  Maida/Bay),  a town 

east  of  the  Jordan,  in  the  tribe  of  Reuben  (Josh, 
xiii.  9,  16),  before  which  was  fought  the  great 


31$ 


MEDES. 


MEDES. 


battle  in  which  J cab  defeated  the  Ammonites  and 
their  allies  (1  Chron.  xix.  7).  It  originally  be- 
longed to  the  Moabites  (Nnm.  xxi.  30) ; and 
after  the  captivity  of  the  tribes  beyond  the  Jordan, 
they  again  took  possession  of  it  (Da.  xv.  2). 
The  Onomasiicon  places  it  near  Heshbon ; and 
it  was  once  the  seat  of  one  of  the  thirty-five 
bishoprics  of  Arabia  (Reland,  Palastina , pp.  217, 
223,  226).  Medeba,  now  in  ruins,  still  retains 
its  ancient  name,  and  is  situated  upon  a round 
hill  seven  miles  south  of  Heshbon.  The  ruins 
are  about  a mile  and  a half  in  circuit,  but  not  a 
single  edifice  remains  perfect  (Seetzen,  in  Zach's 
Manat.  Corresp.,  xviii.  431  ; Burckhardt,  Syria , 
p.  625  : Legh.  p.  245). 

MEDES,  the  inhabitants  in  ancient  times  of  one 
of  the  most  fruitful  and  populous  countries  of  Asia, 
called  Media,  the  precise  boundaries  of  which  it 
is  not  easy,  if  indeed  it  is  now  possible,  to  ascer- 
tain. \V  iner,  in  bis  Realwarterb.,  defines  it  as  the 
country  which  lies  westward  and  southward  from 
the  Caspian  Sea,  between  353  and  40°  of  N.  lat. 
Nature  has  divided  Media  into  three  great  divi- 
sions. On  the  north  is  a fiat,  moist,  and  insalu- 
brious district,  stretching  along  the  Caspian  Sea, 
vliich  is  made  a separate  portion  by  a chain  of 
dlls  connected  with  Anti-Taurus.  In  this  plain 
*nd  on  these  mountains  there  live  uncultivated 
und  independent  tribes.  The  country  is  now 
known  under  the  names  of  Masanderan  and  Gilun 
(see  Knight’s  Illuminated  Atlas , last  Slap). 
South  of  this  mountain  range  lies  the  country 
which  the  ancients  denominated  Atropatene 
(’ ArpoTraTTivf]),  being  separated  on  the  west  from 
Armenia  by  Mount  Caspius,  which  springs  from 
Ararat;  and  on  the  south  and  south-east  by  the 
Orontes  range  of  hills,  which  runs  through  Media. 
South  and  south-east  of  the  Oronteg  is  a third 
district,  formerly  termed  Great  Media,  which 
Mount  Zagros  separates  from  Assyria  on  the 
west,  and  from  Persia  on  the  south  : on  the  east 
it  is  bordered  by  deserts,  and  connected  on  the 
north  east  with  Parthia  and  Ilyrcania  by  means 
of  Mount  Caspius,  being  now  called  Irak-Ajemi. 
This  for  the  most  part  is  a high  hilly  country,  yet 
not  without,  rich  and  fruitful  valleys,  and  even 
plains.  The  sky  is  clear  and  bright,  and  the 
climate  healthy  (Winer,  ut  supra ; Ker  Porter, 
i.  216).  Media  Atropatene,  which  corresponds 
pretty  nearly  with  the  modern  Azerbijari,  contains 
fruitful  and  well-peopled  valleys  and  plains.  The 
northern  mountainous  region  is  cold  and  un- 
fruitful. In  Great  Media  lay  the  metropolis  of 
the  country,  Ecbatana  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  vi.  17), 
as  well  as  the  province  of  Rhagiana  and  the  city 
Rhagae,  with  the  plain  of  Nisacum,  celebrated  in 
tlie  time  of  the  Persian  empire  for  it3  horses  and 
horse-races  (Herod.,  iii.  106;  Arrian,  vii.  13; 
Heeren,  Ideen,  i.  1.  305).  This  plain  was  near  the 
city  Nisaea,  around  which  were  fine  pasture  lands 
producing  excellent  clover  (/ Ierba  Medico).  The 
horses  were  entirely  white,  and  of  extraordinary 
height  and  beauty,  as  well  as  speed.  They  con- 
stituted a part  of  the  luxury  of  the  great,  and  a 
tribute  in  kind  was  paid  from  them  to  the 
monarch,  who,  like  all  Eastern  sovereigns,  used  to 
delight  in  equestrian  display.  Some  idea  of  the 
opulence  of  the  country  may  be  had  when  it  is 
known  that,  independently  of  imposts  rendered 
in  money,  Media  paid  a yearly  tribute  of  not 
le.33  than  3000  horses,  4000  mules,  and  nearly 


100,000  sheep.  The  races,  once  celebrated 
through  the  world,  .appear  to  exist  no  more  ; but 
Ker  Porter  saw  the  Shah  ride  on  festival  occasions 
a splendid  horse  of  pure  white.  Cattle  abounded, 
as  did  the  richest  fruits,  as  pines,  citrons,  oranges, 
all  of  peculiar  excellence,  growing  as  in  their 
native  land.  Here  also  was  found  the  Silphium 
(probably  assafoetida),  which  formed  a consider- 
able article  in  the  commerce  of  the  ancients,  and 
was  accounted  worth  its  weight  in  gold.  The 
Median  dress  was  proverbially  splendid;  the 
dress,  that  is,  of  the  highest  class,  which  seems  to 
have  gained  a sort  of  classical  authority,  and  to 
have  been  at  a later  period  worn  at  the  Persian 
court,  probably  in  part  from  its  antiquity.  This 
dress  the  Persian  monarclis  used  to  present  to 
those  whom  they  wished  to  honour,  and  no  others 
were  permitted  to  wear  it.  It.  consisted  of  a long 
white  loose  robe,  or  gown,  flowing  down  to  the 
feet,  and  enclosing  the  entire  body,  specimens  of 
which,  as  now  used  in  those  countries,  may  be 
seen  in  plates  given  in  Perkin's  Residence  in 
Persia,  New  York,  1843.  The  nature  and  the 
celebrity  of  this  dress  combine  with  the  natural 
richness  of  the  country  to  assure  us  that  the  an- 
cient Medians  had  made  no  mean  progress  in  the 
arts;  indeed,  the  colours  of  the  Persian  textures 
are  known  to  have  been  accounted  second  only 
to  those  of  India.  If  these  regal  dresses  were  of 
silk,  then  was  there  an  early  commerce  between 
Media  and  India;  if  not,  weaving,  as  well  as 
dyeing,  must  have  been  practised  and  carried  to 
a high  degree  of  perfection  in  the  former  country 
(Ammian.  Marcell.  xxiv.  6,  p.  353,  ed.  Bip. ; 
Xenoph.  Cyrop.  i.  3.  2;  Atben.  xii.  pp.  512,  514, 
sq. ; Heeren,  Ideen,  i.  205,  307  ; Herod,  vi.  112; 
Strabo,  xi.  p.  525;  Dan.  iii.  21). 

The  religion  of  the  Modes  consisted  in  the 
worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  more  particularly 
the  sun  and  moon,  and  the  planets  Jupiter,  Venus, 
Saturn,  Mercury,  and  Mars  (Strabo,  xv.  p.  732; 
Rhode,  Ileil.  So  ye  de  Baktr.  Medcr  unci  Perser , 
]>.  820;  Abbildungen  aits  der  Mythol.  der  Alten 
l Veit;  Pcrs.  Med.,  tafel  10,  11  ; where  also  may 
be  seen  the  famous  Median  dress,  comprising  the 
mitre,  as  well  as  the  flowing  robe).  The  priestly 
caste  were  denominated  magi ; they  were  a sepa- 
rate tribe,  and  bad  the  ttiarge  not  only  of  reli- 
gion, but.  of  all  the  higher  culture. 

The  language  of  the  ancient  Medes  was  not 
connected  with  the  Shemitic,  but  the  Indian; 
and  divided  itself  into  two  chief  branches,  the 
Zend,  spoken  in  North  Media,  and  the  Pelilvi, 
spoken  in  Lower  Media  and  Parthia;  which  last 
was  the  dominant  tongue  among  the  Parthians 
(Adelung,  Mithridates,  i.  256,  sq. ; Eichhonj, 
Gcsch.  der  Lit.,  v.  1,  294,  sq.). 

The  Medes  originally  consisted  of  six  tribes,  of 
which  the  Magi  (Mayot)  were  one  (Herod.,  i. 
101).  Being  overcome  by  Ninus,  they  formed  a 
part  of  the  great  Assyrian  empire,  which,  how- 
ever, lost  in  course  of  time  the  primitive  simpli- 
city of  manners  to  which  its  dominion  was  owing, 
and  fell  into  luxury  and  consequent  weakness ; 
when  Arbaces,  who  governed  the  country  as  a 
satrap  for  Sardanapalus,  taking  advantage  of  the 
effeminacy  of  that  monarch,  threw  off  his  yoke, 
destroyed  his  capital,  Nineveh,  and  became  him- 
self sovereign  of  the  Medes,  in  the  ninth  century 
before  the  Christian  era  (Diod.  Sic.,  ii.  1,  2,  24, 
32).  According  to  Diodorus,  this  empire  ex* 


MEDES. 


MEDES. 


319 


tended  through  nine  monarchs,  enduring  310 
years,  until  Astyages,  son  ot‘  Cyaxares,  was  de- 
throned by  Cyrus  in  the  year  of  the  world  3495, 
when  Media  became  a part  of  the  Persian  empire, 
sinking  from  the  same  inevitable  causes  as  those 
which  enabled  it  to  gain  over  the  Assyrian  power 
the  dominion  of  Asia.  The  account  given  by 
Herodotus  varies  from  that  now  set  forth.  We 
do  not  propose  to  subject  the  diversities  to  a cri- 
tical investigation,  believing  that  little,  if  any, 
good  could  result,  at  least  within  our  narrow 
space.  Dates,  names,  and  dynasties  may  be 
more  or  less  uncertain,  but  the  facts  we  have 
given  are  unimueaehed.  The  magnitude  of  the 
Median  empire  is  another  important  fact  equally 
well  ascertained.  Being  in  their  time  the  most 
valorous,  as  well  as  the  most  powerful  nation  of 
Asia,  the  Medes  extended  their  power  towards  the 
east  and  the  west  beyond  any  strictly  definable 
limits,  though,  like  dominion  generally  in  Ori- 
ental countries,  it  was  of  a vague,  variable,  and 
unstable  kind.  That,  ihey  regarded  the  Tigris  as 
their  western  boundary  appears  from  the  fact  that 
they  erected  on  i:s  banks  strongholds,  such  as 
Mespila  and  Larissa  (Xenoph.,  Anab.  iii.  4.  10); 
but  that  they  carried  their  victorious  arms  still 
farther  westward,  appears  from  both  Herodotus 
(i.  134)  and  Isaiah  (xiii.  17,  18).  The  eastern 
limits  of  the  empire  seem  to  have  been  different  at 
different  periods.  Heeren  inclines  to  the  opinion 
that  it  may  have  reached  as  far  as  the  Oxus,  and 
even  the  Indus  (Ideen,  i.  142).  Many,  how- 
ever, were  the  nations  and  tribes  which  were 
under  the  sway  of  its  sovereigns.  The  govern- 
ment was  a succession  of  satrapies,  over  all  of 
which  the  Medes  were  paramount ; but  the  dif- 
ferent nations  exerted  a secondary  dominion  over 
each  other,  diminishing  with  ihe  increase  of  dis- 
tance from  the  centre  of  royal  power  (Herod.,  i. 
1341,  to  which  ultimately  the  tribute  paid  by 
each  dependent  to  his  superior  eventually  and 
securely  came.  Not  only  were  the  Medes  a 
powerful,  but  also  a wealthy  and  cultivated 
people ; indeed,  before  they  sank,  in  consequence 
of  their  degeneracy,  into  the  Persian  empire,  they 
were  during  their  time  the  foremost  people  of 
Asia,  owing  their  celebrity  not  only  to  their 
valour,  but  also  to  the  position  of  their  country, 
which  was  the  great  commercial  highway  of 
Asia.  The  sovereigns  exerted  absolute  and  un- 
limited dominion,  exacted  a rigid  court-ceremo- 
nial, and  displayed  a great  love  of  pomp  (Heeien, 
Jdeen , 1 43).  Under  the  Persian  monarchs  Me- 
dia formed  a province,  or  satrapy,  by  itself, 
whose  limits  did  not  correspond  with  independent 
Media,  but  cannot  be  accurately  defined.  To 
Media  belonged  another  country,  namely,  Aria, 
which,  Heeren  says,  took  its  name  from  the  river 
Alius  (now  Heri),  but  which  appears  to  contain 
the  elements  of  the  name  in  the  Zend  language, 
which  was  common  to  the  two,  if  not  to  other 
Eastern  nations,  who  were  denominated  Indians 
by  Alexander  the  Great,  as  dwellers  in  or  near 
the  Indus,  which  he  also  misnamed,  but  who 
were  known  in  their  own  tongue  as  Arians  (Alii, 
Aria,  Ariana,  also  the  name  of  Persia,  Iran  ; see 
Ritter,  Erdkunde,  v.  458 ; Manu,  22 ; x.  45 ; 
Herod.,  vii.  62,  who  declares  that  the  Medes  were 
of  old  universally  called  Arii,  ’'A pioi).  Subse- 
quently, however,  from  whatever  couse,  the  Arians 
were  separated  from  the  Medes.  forming  a dis- 


tinct satrapy  in  the  Persian  empire.  Thus  the 
name  of  a clan,  or  gens,  became  the  name  of  a 
nation,  and  then  of  an  individual  tribe  (Strabo, 
quoted  by  Heeren,  Ideen,  i.  190).  It  may  be 
added  that  Schlosser  ( Alton  Welt , i.  243)  holds 
it  as  a fundamental  fact,  that  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians formed  in  reality  one  kingdom,  only  that 
now  one,  now  another,  of  the  two  elements  gained 
predominance  : whence  he  thinks  himself  enabled 
to  explain  the  discrepancies  which  the  ancients 
present  as  to  the  names  an d^  succession  of  rao- 
liarchs.  Supported  by  Tychsen  ( Observ . Hist. 
Crit.  de  Zoroast.,  in  the  first  part  of  the  Gottingen 
Comment . Societ.  Beg.'),  Schlosser  supposes  that, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Magian  religion,  theie 
was  a setting  up  of  the  Median  kingdom  by  Cy- 
axares, whence  Zoroaster  is  referred  to  this  period  ; 
and  a renewal  of  the  old  Median  rule,  accom- 
panied by  reforms,  under  Darius  Hystaspis, 
whence  also  other  authorities  place  Zoroaster  in 
the  days  of  that  monarch. 

The  Medes  are  not  mentioned  in  sacred  Scrip- 
ture till  the  days  of  Hoshea,  king  of  Israel,  about 
740  e.c.,  when  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria., 
brought  that  monarch  under  his  yoke,  and  in  the 
ninth  year  of  his  reign  took  Samaria,  and  carried 
Israel  away  into  Assyria,  placing  them  in  Hal  ah 
and  in  Habor,  by  the  river  of  Gozan,  and  in  the 
cities  of  the  Medes.  Here  the  Medes  a] ‘.pear  as 
a part  of  the  Assyrian  empire  ; but  at  a later  period 
Scripture  exhibits  them  as  an  independent  and 
sovereign  people  (Isa.  xiii.  17  ; Jer.  xxv.  25;  li. 
11,  28).  In  the  last  passage  their  kings  are  ex- 
pressly  named  : ‘ The  Lord  hath  raised  up  Ihe 
kings  of  the  Medes;  for  his  device  is  against 
Babylon  to  destroy  it.’  ‘ Prepare  against  her 
(Babylon)  the  kings  of  the  Medes,  the  captains 
thereof,  and  all  the  rulers  thereof.’  It  has  been 
conjectured  that  soon  after  the  time  of  Arbaces 
they  again  fell  under  the  dominion  of  the  Assy- 
rians ; but  availing  themselves  of  the  opportunity 
afforded  by  the  distant  expeditions  which  Sen- 
nacherib undertook,  they  gained  their  freedom, 
and  founded  a new  line  of  kings  under  Dejoces 
(W iner,  BeahoorL).  Indeed,  so  sudden  and  rapid 
are  the  changes  of  government,  even  to  the  present 
day,  in  Oriental  monarchies,  that  we  need  not  be 
surprised  at  any  difficulties  which  may  occur  in 
arranging  the  dynasties  or  the  succession  of  kings, 
scarcely  in  any  ancient  history,  certainly  least  of 
all  iri  the  fragmentary  notices  preserved  regarding 
the  kings  of  Media  and  other  neighbouring  em- 
pires. According,  however,  to  other  historical 
testimony,  we  find  the  Medes  and  Persians  united 
as  one  people  in  holy  writ.  (Dan.  v.  28  ; vi.  15  ; 
viii.  20;  Estli.  i.  3,  18;  x.  2),  in  the  days  of 
Cyrus,  who  destroyed  the  separate  sovereignty  of 
the  former.  To  the  united  kingdom  Babylon 
was  added  as  a province.  After  the  lapse  of 
about  200  years,  Media,  in  junction  with  the 
entire  Persian  monarchy,  fell  under  the  yoke  of 
Alexander  the  Great  (u  c.  330) ; but  after  the 
death  of  Alexander  it  became,  under  Seleueus 
Nicator,  the  Macedonian  governor  of  Media  and 
Babylonia,  a portion  of  the  new  Syrian  king- 
dom (1  Macc.  vi.  56),  and,  after  many  variar 
tions  of  warlike  fortune,  passed  over  to  the 
Parthian  monarchy  (1  Macc.  xiv.  2;  Strabo, 
xvi.  p.  715). 

The  ancient.  Medes  were  a warlike  people,  asd 
much  feared  for  their  skill  in  archery  (Herod.,  ^iL 


MEDIATOR. 


MEDIATOR. 


WO 

6 J . Strabo,  xi.  p.  525).  They  appear  armed  with 
the  bow  in  the  army  of  the  Persians,  who  bor- 
rowed the  use  of  that  weapon  from  them  (Herod., 
ut  supra).  Those  who  remained  in  the  more 
mountainous  districts  did  not  lose  their  valour ; 
but  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities  and  towns  which 
covered  the  plains,  in  becoming  commercial  lost 
their  former  hardy  habits, ♦together  with  their 
bravery,  and,  giving  way  to  luxury,  became  in 
process  of  time  an  easy  prey  to  new  aspirants  to 
martial  fame  and  civil  dominion.- — J.  R.  B. 

MEDIATOR.  1.  M€<rtT7js,  ‘ mediator,’  is  a 
word  peculiar  to  the  Scriptures  (see  Beza,  Annot. 
in  Gr.  Test.),  and  is  used.  ir.  an  accommodated 
sense,  by  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  to  denote 
one  who  intervenes  between  two  dispensations. 
Hence  it  is  applied  to  John  the  Baptist,  because 
he  came,  as  it  were,  between  the  Mosaic  and 
Christian  dispensations.  Thus  Greg.  Nazianzenus 
( Orat . xxxix.  p.  633)  calls  him  6 iraAaias  ual 
vias  peaiTTjs.  Theophylact,  commenting  on 
Matt,  iii.,  gives  him  the  same  denomination. 

2.  Again,  it  signifies,  in  its  more  proper  sense, 
an  internuncius,  or  ambassador,  one  who  stands  as 
the  channel  of  communication  between  two  con- 
tracting parties.  Some  commentators  think  that 
tire  Apostle  Paul,  in  Gal.  iii.  19,  calls  Moses 
mediator,  because  he  conveyed  the  expression  of 
God’s  will  to  the  people,  and  reported  to  God  their 
wants,  wishes,  and  determinations.  In  reference 
to  this  passage  of  Scripture,  Basil  {De  Spiritu 
SanctOy  cap.  xiv.)  says,  * Mosen  figuram  repre- 
sentasse  quando  inter  Deum  et.  populum  inter- 
medius  extiterit.’  Many  ancient,  and  modern 
divines,  however,  are  of  opinion  that  Christ  him- 
self, and  not  Moses,  is  here  meant  l>y  the  inspired 
Apostle,  and  this  view  would  seem  to  be  con- 
firmed by  comparing  Deut.  xxxiii.  2 with  Acts 
vii.  38-52.  Christ  it  was  who,  surrounded  by 
angelic  spirits,  communicated  with  Moses  on 
Mount  Sinai.  On  this  point,  the  words  of  the 
learned  and  pious  Chrysostom,  on  Gal.  iii.  are 
very  express : ‘ Here,’  says  he,  ‘ Paul  calls  Christ 
Mediator,  declaring  thereby  that  He  existed  before 
the  law,  and  that  by  Him  the  law  was  revealed.’ 
This  application  of  the  passage  will  be  the  more 
evident  if  we  consider  the  scope  of  the  Apostle’s 
argument,  which  evidently  is,  to  point  out  the 
dignity  of  the  law.  How  could  he  present  a 
clearer  demonstration  of  this  than  by  showing 
that  it.  was  the  second  person  of  the  ever- blessed 
Trinity  who  stood  forth  on  the  mount  to  com- 
municate between  God  the  Father  and  his  crea- 
ture man  ! Moreover,  to  contradistinguish  Christ's 
mediation  from  that  of  Moses,  the  former  is  em- 
phatically styled  pealrgs  upeiTTovos  hiaQiiK'qs 
(Heb.  viii.  6). 

3.  Christ  is  called  Mediator  by  virtue  of  the 
reconciliation  He  has  effected  between  a justly 
offended  God  and  his  rebellious  creature  man 
(see  Grotius,  De  Satisfactio)ie  Chrislt,  cap.  viii.). 
In  this  sense  of  the  term  Moses  was,  on  many 
occasions,  an  eminent  type  of  Christ.  The  latter, 
however,  was  not  Mediator , merely  by  reason 
of  his  coming  between  God  and  his  creatures, 
as  certain  heretics  would  affirm  (see  Cyril  Alex. 
Dial.  I.  de  Sancta  Trinitate , p.  410);  but  because 
he  appeased  his  wrath,  and  made  reconciliation 
for  iniquity.  ‘ Christ  is  the  mediator,’  observes 
Theophylact,  commenting  on  Gal.  iii.,  ‘ of  two, 
C e.  of  Go  l and  man.  He  exercises  this  office 


between  both  by  making  peace,  and  putting  a 
stop  to  that  spiritual  war  which  man  wages  against 
Gcd.  To  accomplish  this  He  assumed  our  na- 
ture, joining  in  a marvellous  manner  the  human, 
by  reason  of  sin  unfriendly,  to  the  divine  na- 
ture.’ ‘ Hence,’  he  adds,  ‘ he  made  reconcilia- 
tion.’ Oecunumius  expresses  similar  sentiments  on 
the  same  passage  of  Scripture.  Again,  Cyril,  in 
his  work  before  quoted,  remarks  : ‘He  is  esteemed 
mediator  because  the  divine  and  human  nature 
being  disjointed  by  sin,  he  has  shown  them  united 
in  his  own  person ; and  in  this  manner  he  reunites 
us  to  God  the  Father.’ 

If,  in  addition  to  the  above  general  remarks, 
confirmed  by  many  of  the  most  .ancient,  and  or- 
thodox fathers  of  the  church,  we  consider  the 
three  great  offices  which  holy  Scripture  assigns  to 
Christ  as  Saviour  of  the  world,  viz.,  those  of  pro- 
phet, priest,  and  king,  a further  and  more  ample 
illustration  will  be  afforded  of  his  Mediatorship. 

One  of  the  first  and  most  palpable  predictions 
which  we  have  of  the  prophetic  character  of  Christ, 
is  that  of  Moses  ^Deut,  xviii.  15):  ‘ The  Lord  thy 
God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a prophet  from  the 
midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  imlo  me  ; unto 
him  ye  shall  hearken.’  That  this  refers  to  Christ 
w'e  are  assured  by  the  inspired  apostle  Peter 
(Acts  iii.  22). 

Again,  in  Isaiah  lxi.  1,  3,  Christ’s  consecration 
to  the  prophetic  office,  together  with  its  sacred 
and  gracious  functions,  is  emphatically  set  forth  : 
(see  Luke  iv.  1(5  21,  where  Christ  applies  this 
passage  to  himself).  In  order,  then,  to  sustain  this 
part  of  his  mediatorial  office,  and  thus  work  out 
the  redemption  of  the  world,  we  may  see  the 
necessity  there  was  that  Messiah  should  be  both 
God  and  man.  It  belongs  to  a prophet  to  ex- 
pound the  law,  declare  the  will  of  God,  and 
foretell  things  to  come  : all  this  was  done,  and 
that,  in  a singular  and  eminent  manner,  by  Christ, 
our  prophet  (Matt.  v.  21,  &c. ; John  i.  8).  All 
light  comes  from  this  prophet.  The  Apostle  shows 
that  all  ministers  ate  but  stars  which  shine  by  a 
borrowed  light  (2  Cor.  iii.  6,  7).  AH  the  prophets 
of  the  Old,  and  all  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  the 
New  Testament,  lighted  their  tapers  at  this  torch! 
(Luke  xxi.  15.)  It  was  Christ  who  preached  by 
Noah  (1  Pet.  iii.  19),  taught  the  Isra  lifes  in  the 
wilderness  (Acts  vii  37),  and  still  teaches  by  his 
ministers  (Eph.  iv.  11,  12).  On  this  subject 
Bishop  Butler  ( Analogy , part  ii.  eh.  v.)  says  : ‘ He 
was,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  prophet,  “ the  pro* 
phet  that  should  come  into  the  world  ” (John  vi. 
14)  to  declare  the  divine  will.  He  published  anew 
the  law  of  nature,  which  men  had  corrupted,  and 
the  very  knowledge  of  which,  to  some  degree,  was 
lost  amongst  them.  He  taught  mankind,  taught 
us  authoritatively,  to  live  soberly,  righteously,  and 
godly  in  this  present  world,  in  expectation  of  the 
future  judgment  of  God.  He  confirmed  the  truth 
of  this  moral  system  of  nature,  and  gave  us  addi- 
tional evidence  of  it,  the  evidence  of  testimony. 
He  distinctly  revealed  the  manner  in  which  God 
would  be  worshipped,  the  efficacy  of  repentance, 
and  the  rewards  and  punishments  of  a future  life. 
Thus  he  was  a prophet  in  a sense  in  which  no  othei 
ever  was.’  Hence  the  force  of  the  term  6 A 6yo% 
by  which  St.  John  designates  Christ. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  had  the  second  person 
of  the  Trinity  come  to  us  in  all  the  majesty  of 
his  divine  nature,  we  could  not  have  approached 


MEDIATOR. 


MEGIDDO. 


him  as  our  instructor.  The  Israelites,  terrified  at 
the  exhibitions  of  Deity,  cried  out  that  the  Lord 
might  not  so  treat  with  them  again  ; it  was  then 
tnat  lie,  in  gracious  condescension  to  their  feel- 
ings, promised  to  communicate  with  them  in 
future  through  a prophet  like  unto  Moses.  The 
son  of  God,  in  assuming  the  form  of  an  humble 
man,  became  accessible  to  all.  Thus  we  perceive 
the  connection  of  Christ’s  prophetic  office — he 
being  both  God  and  man — with  the  salvation  of 
man.  On  this  subject  Chrysostom  ( Homil . cxxxiv. 
tom.  v.  p.  860)  remarks:  ‘A  mediator,  utdess  he 
has  a union  and  communion  with  the  parties  for 
whom  he  mediates,  possesses  not  the  essential 
qualities  of  a mediator.  When  Christ,  therefore, 
became  mediator  between  God  and  man  (I  Tim. 
ii.  &c,),  it  was  indispensable  that  he  should  be 
both  God  and  man.’ 

Macarius  also  (Homil.  vi.  97),  on  this  question 
more  pointedly  observes  : ‘ The  Lord  came  and 
took  his  body  from  the  virgin  ; for  if  he  had  ap- 
peared among  us  in  his  naked  divinity,  who  could 
hear  the  sight?  But  he  spoke  as  man  to  us  men.’ 

Again,  the  Redeemer  was  not  only  to  propound, 
explain,  and  enforce  God's  law,  but  it  was  needful 
that  he  should  give  a practical  proof  of  obedience 
to  it  in  his  own  person.  Now,  if  he  had  not  been 
man , he  could  not  have  been  subject  to  the  law ; 
hence  if  is  said,  Gal.  iv.  4,  ‘ When  the  fulness  of 
the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  son,  made 
of  a woman,  made  under  the  law and  if  he  had 
not  been  God,  he  could  not,  by  keeping  the  law, 
have  merited  forgiveness  for  us,  for  he  had  done 
but  what  was  required  of  him.  It  was  the  fact 
of  his  being  very  God  and  very  man  which  con- 
stituted the  merit  of  Christ’s  obedience. 

Moreover,  in  working  out  the  mighty  scheme 
of  redemption  the  mediator  must  assume  the 
office  of  priest. 

To  this  office  he  was  solemnly  appointed  by 
God  (Ps.  cx.  4 ; Heb.  v.  10),  qualified  for  it  by 
his  incarnation  (Heb.  x.  6,  7),  and  accomplished 
all  the  ends  thereof  by  his  sacrificial  death  (Heb. 
ix.  11,  12);  as  ha  sustaining  his  prophetic  cha- 
racter, bo  in  this,  his  Deity  and  humanity  will  be 
seen.  According  to  the  exhibition  of  type  and 
declaration  of  prophecy,  the  mediator  must  die, 
and  thus  rescue  us  sinners  from  death  by  destroy- 
ing him  who  had  the  power  of  death.  * But  we 
see  Jesus,’  says  the  Apostle  (Heb.  ii.  9),  ‘who 
was  made  a little  lower  than  the  angels  for  the 
suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honour, 
that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death 
for  every  man.  Forasmuch,  then,  as  the  children 
are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself 
likewise  took  part  of  the  same,  that  through  death 
he  might  destroy  him  who  had  the  power  of  death, 
that  is,  the  Devil.’  On  the  other  hand,  had  he 
not  been  God  he  could  not  have  raised  himself 
from  the  dead.  ‘ I lay  down  my  life  (saith  he, 
John  x.  17,  18),  and  take  it  up  again.’  He  had 
not  had  a life  to  lay  down  if  he  had  not.  been 
man,  for  the  Godhead  could  not  die ; and  if  he  had 
not  been  God,  he  could  not  have  acquired  merit 
by  laying  it  down  : it  must  be  his  own,  and  not 
in  the  power  of  another,  else  his  voluntarily  sur- 
rendering himself  unto  death — as  he  did  on  the 
charge  that  he,  being  only  man,  made  himself 
equal  with  God — was  an  act  of  suicide , and 
consequently  an  act  of  blasphemy  against  God  ! 
It  was,  then  the  mysterious  union  of  both  natures 

YPL.  u.  22 


31 

in  the  one  person  of  Christ,  which  constituted 
the  essential  glory  of  his  vicarious  obedience  arid 
death. 

Nor  are  the  two  natures  of  Christ  more  apparent 
in  his  death  than  they  are  in  the  intercession 
which  he  ever  liveth  to  make  in  behalf  of  all  who 
come  unto  God  by  him  (Heb.  vii.  25).  The 
author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  teaches  us 
(chaps,  vii.,  ix.)  how  the  high-priest,  under  the 
Levitical  dispensation,  typified  Christ  in  his  in- 
tercessory character : as  the  high-priest  entered 
alone  within  the  holiest  place  of  the.  tabernacle 
once  a-year  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  in  his 
hands,  and  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  upon 
his  heart,  so  Christ,  having  offered.  up  himself  as 
a lamb  without  spot  unto  God,  has  gone  into 
glory  bearing  oil  his  heart  the  names  of  his  re- 
deemed. We  may,  then,  ask,  with  the  Apostle 
(Rom.  viii.  33),  ‘Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the 
charge  of  God's  elect?  It  is  God  that  justifieth, 
who  is  he  that  condemneth  ? It  is  Christ  that 
died,  yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  inter- 
cession for  us.’  In  this  part  of  his  mediatorial 
work  God’s  incommunicable  attributes  of  omni- 
science, omnipresence , and  omnipotence  are  seen. 
He  must  therefore  have  been  God,  and  on  the 
ground  of  his  being  able,  from  personal  experi- 
ence, to  sympathise  with  the  suffering  members  of 
his  mystical  body,  he  must  have  been  man  ; being 
perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  he  is,  then,  a perfect 
intercessor. 

We  come,  lastly,  to  notice  Christ's  mediatorial 
character  as  king.  The  limits  of  this  article  will 
not  admit  of  our  even  alluding  to  the  varied  and 
multiplied  passages  of  Scripture  which  delineate 
Christ  as  ‘ Head  over  all  things  to  the  church  ’ 
(see  Ps.  ii.  6 ; lxx. ; Isaiah  xxxii.  1 ; Dan.  ix. 
25  ; Col.  i.  17,  18,  &c.).  Suffice  it  here  to  say 
that  Christ  could  not,  without  the  concurrence  of 
his  divine  nature,  gather  and  govern  the  church, 
protect  and  defend  it  against  all  assailants  open 
and  secret,  and  impart  to  it  his  Holy  Spirit,  to 
enlighten  and  renew  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men 
and  subdue  Satan — all  these  are  acts  of  his  kingly 
office. 

Such,  then,  is  the  work  of  Christ’s  mediatorship 
— salvation  revealed  by  him  as  prophet,  procured 
by  him  as  priest,  and  applied  by  him  as  king— ■ 
the  work  of  the  whole  person  wherein  both  natures 
are  engaged.  Hence  it  is  that  some  of  the  ancients 
speaking  f it,  designate  it  OeavbpiKT)  iyepyela,  ‘a 
divine-human  operation  ’ (see  Dionys.  Areopag. 
Epist.  IV.  ad  Caiam.  Damascenus , iii.  19).  For 
a more  ample  view  of  this  important  subject  see 
Flavel,  Panstratia  of  Shamier,  vol.  iii.  fob 
Genev.  vii.  1,  in  which  the  views  of  the  Romish 
church  are  ably  controverted.  See  also  Brinsley 
(John),  Christ’s  Mediation , 8vo.  Lond.  1657. — 

J.  W.  D. 

MEGIDDO  (nap ; in  Zech.  xii.  11  fVttD; 
Sept.  MayeSSe,  MccyeSSai),  a town  belonging  to 
Manasseh,  although  within  the  boundaries  of 
Issachar  (Josh.  xvii.  11).  It  had  been  originally 
one  of  the  royal  cities  of  the  Canaanites  (Josh.  xii. 
2H,  and  was  one  of  those  of  which  the  Israelites 
were  unable  for  a long  time  to  gain  actual  pos- 
session. Megiddo  was  rebuilt  and  fortified  by 
Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  15),  and  thither  Ahaziah 
king  of  Judah  fled  when  wounded  by  Jehu,  and 


322 


MELCHIZKDEK. 


MELCHIZKDEK. 


died  t'nere  (2  Kings  ix.  27).  It  was  in  the  battle 
near  this  place  that  Josiah  was  slain  by  Pharaoh- 
Nechu  (2  Kings  xxiii.  29,  30;  2 Chron.  xxxv. 
20-25).  From  the  great  mourning  held  for  his 
loss,  it  became  proverbial  to  compare  any  grievous 
mourning  as  being  ‘ like  the  mourning  of  Hadail- 
rimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddon’  (Zech.  xii. 
11).  ‘The  waters  of  Megiddo’  'ft)  are 

mentioned  in  Judges  v.  19;  and  are  probably 
those  formed  by  the  river  Kishon.  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  do  not  attempt  to  mark  the  situation  of 
the  place,  ami  it  appears  that  the  name  Megiddo 
was  in  their  time  already  lost.  They  often  men- 
tion a town  called  Legio,  which  must,  in  then- 
day  have  been  an  important  and  well-known 
place,  as  they  assume  it  as  a central  point  from 
which  to  mark  the  position  of  several  other  places 
in  this  quarter.  This  has  been  identified  with 
the  village  now  called  Lejjun,  which  is  situated 
upon  the  western  border  of  the  great  plain  of 
Esdraelon,  where  it  begins  to  rise  gently  towards 
the  low  range  of  wooded  hills  that  connect 
Carmel  with  the  mountains  of  Samaria.  This 
place  was  visited  by  Maundrell,  who  speaks  of  it 
. is  an  old  village  near  a brook,  with  a khan  then 
m good  repair  ( Journey , March  22).  This  khan 
was  for  the  accommodation  of  the  caravan  on  the 
route  between  Egypt  and  Damascus,  which  passes 
here.  Having  already  identified  the  present  vil- 
lage of  Taannuk  with  the  ancient  Taanach,  the 
vicinity  of  this  to  Lejjun  induced  Dr.  Robinson 
to  conceive  that  the  latter  might  be  the  ancient 
Megiddo,  seeing  that  Taanach  and  Megiddo  are 
constantly  named  together  in  Scripture;  and  to 
this  a writer  in  a German  review  adds  the  further 
consideration  that  the  name  of  Legio  was  latterly 
applied  to  the  plain,  crlo.v  valley  along  the  Kishon, 
us  that  of  Megiddo  had  been  in  more  ancient 
times.  If  this  explanation  be  accepted,  and  it  is 
certainly  probable,  though  not  certain,  it  only 
remains  to  conclude  that  the  ancient  Legio  was 
not.  founded  by  the  Romans,  but  that  this  was  a 
new  name  imposed  upon  a still  older  place, 
which,  like  the  names  Neapolis  (now  Nabulus) 
andSebaste  (now  Sebustieh),  has  maintained  itself 
in  the  mouths  of  the  native  population,  while  the 
earlier  name  lias  perished. 

MELCHIZKDEK  (pTi  '!?Vft,  King  of  right- 
eousness ; Sept.  MeAx«reSe/c),  ‘ priest  of  the  most, 
high  God,’  and  king  of  Salem,  who  went  forth  to 
meet  Abraham  on  his  return  from  the  pursuit  of 
Chedorlaomer  and  his  allies,  who  had  carried 
Lot  away  captive.  He  brought  refreshment,  de- 
scribed in  the  general  terms  of  ‘ bread  and  wine/ 
for  the  fatigued  warriors,  and  bestowed  his  bless- 
ing upon  their  leader,,  who,  in  return,  gave  to 
Ihe  royal  priest  a tenth  of  all  the  spoil  which 
had  been  acquired  in  his  expedition  (Gen.  xiv. 
18,  20). 

This  statement  seems  sufficiently  plain,  and 
to  offer  nothing  very  extraordinary;  yet  it  has 
formed  the  basis  of  much  speculation  and  con- 
troversy. In  particular,  the  fact  that  Abraham 
gave  a tithe  to  Mef  chizedek  attracted  much  at- 
tention among  the  later  Jews.  In  one  of  the 
Messianic  Psalms  (cx.  4),  it  is  foretold  that  the 
Messiah  should  be  ‘ a priest  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle  tc 
the  Hebrews  (vi.  20)  cites  as  showing  that  Mel- 
chizedek was  a type  of  Christ,  and  the  Jews 


themselves,  certainly,  on  the  authority  o.  this 
passage  of  the  Psalms,  regarded  Melchizedek  at 
a type  of  the  regal-priesthood,  higher  than  that 
of  Aaron,  to  which  the  Messiah  should  belong. 
The  bread  and  wine  which  were  set  forth  on  the 
table  of  shew-bread,  was  also  supposed  to  tie  repre- 
sented by  the  bread  and  wine  which  the  king  of 
Salem  brought  forth  to  Abraham  (Schottgen,  llat . 
11  eb.  ii.  645).  A mysterious  supremacy  came  also 
to  he  assigned  to  Melchizedek,  by  reason  of  his 
having  received  tithes  from  the  Hebrew  patriarch  ; 
and  on  this  point  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
(vii.  1-10)  expatiates  strongly,  as  showing  the 
inferiority  of  the  priesthood  represented,  to  that 
of  Melchizedek.  to  which  the  Messiah  belonged. 
‘ Consider  how  great  this  man  was,  unto  whom 
even  the  patriarch  Abraham  gave  a tenth  of  the 
spoils ;’  and  he  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  Aaronic 
priesthood,  who  themselves  received  tithes  of  the 
Jews,  actually  paid  tithes  to  Melchizedek  in  the 
person  of  their  great  ancestor.  This  superiority 

is.  as  we  take  it,  inherent  in  his  typical  rather 
than  his  personal  character.  Rut  the  Jews,  in 
admitting  this  official  or  personal  superiority  of 
Melchizedek  to  Abraham,  sought  to  account  for 
it  by  alleging  that  the  royal  priest  was  no  other 
than  Shem,  the  most  pious  of  Noah’s  sons,  who, 
according  to  the  shorter  chronology,  might  have 
Jived  to  the  time  of  Abraham  (Bochart, *Phalegy 
ii.  1).  Christian  writers  have  not.  failed  to  entei 
into  the  same  unprofitable  researches,  and  would 
make  Melchizedek  lo  have  been  either  Shem, 
or  Mizraim  or  Canaan,  the  sons  of  Ham,  or  Ham 
himself,  or  even  Enoch -(Deyling,  Observat.  Soar. 
ii.  71,  sqq. ; Clayton,  Chronolog.  of  the  IJeb. 
Bible,  p.  100).  The  last-named  conjectures 
seem  to  require  no  notice;  but  the  one  which 
holds  Melchizedek  to  have  been  Shem,  and  which 
we  find  in  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  and  also  that  ot 
Jonathan,  requires  an  explanation  of  how  his  name 
came  to  lie  changed,  how  he  is  found  reigning  in 
a country  inhabited  by  the  descendants  of  Ilarn, 
how  he  came  forth  to  congratulate  Abraham  on 
the  defeat  of  one  of  his  own  descendants,  as  was 
Chedorlaomer,  and  how  lie  could  he  said  to  have 
been  without  recorded  parentage  (Heb.  vii.  3), 
since  the  pedigree  of  Shem  must  have  been  no- 
torious. In  that,  case  also  the  difference  of  the 
priesthoods  of  Melchizedek  and  Levi  would  not 
be  so  distinct  as  to  hear  the  argument  which  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  founds  upon  it. . Rejecting 
oil  such  grounds  this  opinion,  others,  in  their 
anxiety  to  vindicate  the  dignity  of  Abraham 
from  marks  of  spiritual  submission  to  any  mortal 
man,  have  held  that  Melchizedek  was  no  orher 
than  the  Son  of  God  himself.  But  in  this  case 

it.  would  hardly  have  been  said  that  he  was  made 
‘ like  unto  the  Son  of  God’  (Heb.  vii.  3),  or  that 
Christ  was  constituted  ‘ a priest  ’ after  the  order 
of  Melchizedek  (Heb.  vi.  20),  or,  in  other  words, 
was  a type  of  himself.  Some  who  do  not  go  so 
far  as  this,  take  him  to  have  been  an  angel; 
and  this  was  one  of  the  wild  notions  of  Origen 
and  several  of  his  school.  The  best  founded 
opinion  seems  to  be  that  of  Carpzov  ( Apparat . 
Antiq.  Sacr.  Cod.  c.  iv.  p.  52)  and  most  judicious 
moderns,  who,  after  Josephus  (De  Bell.  Jud.  vi. 
10),  allege  that  he  was  a principal  person  among 
the  Canaanites  and  posterity  of  Noah,  and  eminent 
for  holiness  and  justice,  and  therefore  discharged 
the  priestly  as  well  as  regal  functions  amonj 


MELITA. 


MELITA. 


323 


the  people  : and  we  may  conclude  that  his  twc 
fold  capac.ty  of  king  and  piiest  (characters  very 
commonly  united  in  the  remote  ages)  afforded 
Abraham  an  opportunity  of  testifying  his  thank- 
fulness to  God  in  the  manner  usual  in  those 
times,  by  offering  a tenth  of  all  the  spoil.  This 
combination  of  characters  happens  for  the  first 
time  in  Scripture  to  be  exhibited  in  his  . person, 
which,  with  the  abrupt  manner  in  which  he  is 
introduced,  and  (he  natute  of  the  intercourse 
between  him  and  Abraham,  render  him  in 
various  respects  an  appropriate  and  obvious  type 
of  the  Messiah  in  his  united  regal  and  priestly 
character. 

Salem,  of  which  Melchizedek  was  king,  is 
usually  supposed  to  have  been  the  original  of 
Jerusalem  (Joseph.  Antiq.  i.  10.  2;  Jerome, 
Queest.  in  Genes.).  But  in  another  place  {ad 
Evagrium,  iii.  lbl.  13)  Jerome  mentions  a town 
near  Scytliopolis,  which  in  his  time  bore  the  name 
of  Salem,  and  where  was  shown  the  palace  of 
Melchizedek,  which  from  the  extent  of  the  ruins 


must  have  been  very  magnificent.  This  he  takes’ 
to  have  been  the  Shalem  of  Gen.  xxxiii.  18  ; and 
the  Salim,  near  to  which  John  was  baptizing 
(John  iii.  23).  The  fact  stated  by  Jerome  shows 
that  the  place  was  in  his  time  regarded  as  the 
Salem  of  Melchizedek ; but  the  rabbinical  tra- 
dition involved  in  this  intimation  is  too  late  to 
be  of  much  value;  and  as  Jerusalem  is  called 
Salem  in  Ps.  lxxvi.  2,  the  site  of  the  Salem  in 
question  must  be  determined  by  the  intimations 
of  the  context,  which  are  more  in  agreement  with 
Jerusalem  than  with  any  site  near  Bethshan. 
Besides  the  cited  authorities,  see  Heidegger,  Hist. 
Patriarch,  ii.  n.  2;  Borger,  Hist.  Crit.  Melchi- 
sedegi;  Fabrici,  Cod.  Pseudepigr.  i.  311;  Het- 
tinger, Enneas  Dissertatt.  p.  159,  sqq. ; Ursini, 
Analect.  Sacr.  i.  349. 

MELITA  (MeA irrj),  an  island  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean, on  which  the  ship  which  was  conveying 
St.  Paul  as  a prisoner  to  Rome  was  wrecked,  and 
which  was  the  scene  of  the  interesting  circum- 
stances recorded  in  Acts  xxvii.  28 


398.  [Malta.] 


Melita  was  the  ancient  name  of  Malta,  and 
also  of  a small  island  in  the  Adriatic,  now  called 
Meleda,  and  each  of  these  has  found  warm  advo- 
cates for  its  identification  with  the  Melita  of 
Scripture.  The  received  and  long-established 
opinion  is  undoubtedly  in  favour  of  Malta ; and 
those  who  uphold  the  claims  of  Meleda  are  to  be 
regarded  as  dissenting  from  the  general  conclu- 
sion. This  dissent  proceeds  chiefly  upon  the 
ground  that  the  ship  of  St.  Paul  was ‘driven 
about  in  (the  sea  oH  Adria,’  when  wrecked  on 
Melita.  The  conclusions  deducible  from  this 
strong  position  are  vigorously  stated  by  P.  Abate 
D.  Ignazio  Giorgi,  in  his  Inspezione  Anticritiche , 
published  at  Venice  in  1730,  and  which  then  at- 
rracted  consideral  le  attention.  There  is  a curious 
account  of  the  controversy  (o  which  this  gave  rise 
in  Ciantar's  edit,  of  Abela'sA/aZfo  Illustrata,  i.609, 
6qq.  The  view  thus  advocated  was  in  this  country 


taken  up  by  the  learned  Bryant,  and  more  lately 
by  Dr.  Falconer,  in  his  clever  Dissertation  on 
St.  Paul's  Voyage , 1817.  These  writers  do  not, 
however,  seem  to  be  aware  of  the  very  solid  answers 
to  this  notion,  and  the  arguments  in  support,  of  the 
received  conclusions,  which  were  produced  at  the 
time.  There  was  nothing  to  answer  but  this  one 
objection;  for  if  that  could  be  obviated,  the  his- 
torical and  other  probabilities  in  favour  of  Malta 
remained  in  their  former  force,  although  they 
could  have  no  countervailing  weight  if  the  limit- 
ation of  the  name  Adria  to  the  gulf  of  Venice 
could  be  established.  The  course  taken  was, 
therefore,  to  show  from  ancient  writers  that  the 
name  Adria  was  not,  in  its  ancient,  acceptation, 
limited  to  the  present  Adriatic  Sea,  but  compre- 
hended the  seas  of  Greece  and  Sicily,  and  ex- 
tended even  to  Africa.  This  seems  to  have  beeH 
established  beyond  dispute,  and  every  one  e*’- 


m 


MELITA. 


MELITA. 


quainted  with  the  mass  of  evidence  brought  to 
bear  on  this  point,  must  regard  the  only  strong 
argument  in  favour  of  Meleda  as  having  been  en- 
tirely overthrown.  Those  who  have  any  curiosity 
or  doubt  in  the  matter  may  find  this  evidence 
copiously  produced  in  Ciantar’s  edition  of  Abela’s 
work,  and  also  in  Wetstein.  Abela,  after  dis- 
posing of  tins  part  of  his  subject,  very  properly 
calls  attention  to  the  ample  memorials  of  St. 
Paul’s  visit  which  exist  in  Malta,  and  the  utter 
absence  of  any  such  in  Meleda : — ‘ Finalmente 
in  Meleda  non  vi  fu  ma  vestigio,  o memoria  di 
S.  Paolo,  non  che  Tempio  ad  onor  di  lui  edifi- 
cato ; ma  sibbene  nella  nostra  isola  vene  sono 
molte  memorie  : anzi  non  v’  e luogo,  in  cui  non 
si  celebri  il  glorioso  nome  dell’  Appostolo  ( Malta 
Illustrata,  i.  608).  He  goes  on  to  enumerate 
particulars,  which  we  will  spare  the  reader,  al- 
though the  present  writer’s  personal  acquaintance 
with  the  island  would  enable  him  greatly  to 
extend  Abela's  list  of  the  Pauline  associations 
which  it  contains.  There  is,  perhaps,  no  piece 
of  land  of  the  same  extent,  in  the  world  which 
is  made  to  contain  reference  so  diversified  and  so 
numerous  to  any  one  person,  as  the  island  of 
Malta  to  St.  Paul,  who  is,  in  fact,  the  tutelary 
saint  of  the  island.  These  appropriations  of 
Pauline  memorials  may  in  detail  be  open  to  dis- 
pute, or  may  possibly  all  be  erroneous ; but  they 
serve  in  the  mass  to  indicate  a current  of  opinion 
which  may  be  traced  back  to  a remote  source  in 
ancient  times. 

The  name  of  St.  Paul’s  Bay  has  been  given  to 
the  place  where  the  shipwreck  is  supposed  to  have 
taken  place.  This,  the  sacred  historian  says,  was 
at  ‘a  certain  creek  with  ashore,’  i.  e.  a seemingly 
practicable  shore,  on  which  they  purposed,  if  pos- 
sible, to  strand  the  vessel,  as  their  only  apparent 
chance  to  escape  being  broken  on  the  rocks.  In 
attempting  this  the  ship  seems  to  have  struck  and 
gone  to  pieces  on  the  rocky  headland  at  the  en- 
trance of  the  creek.  This  agrees  very  well  with 
St.  Paul's  Bay,  more  so  than  with  any  other  creek 
of  the  island.  This  bay  is  a deep  inlet  on  the 
north  side  of  the  island,  being  the  last  indentation 
of  the  coast  but  one  from  the  western  extremity 
of  the  island.  It  is  about  two  miles  deep,  by 
one  mile  broad.  The  harbour  which  it  forms  is 
very  unsafe  at  some  distance  from  the  shore,  al- 
though there  is  good  anchorage  in  the  middle  for 
light  vessels.  The  most  dangerous  part  is  the 
western  headland  at  the  entrance  of  the  bay,  par- 
ticularly as  there  is  close  to  it  a small  island 
(Salamone),  and  a still  smaller  islet  (Salamo- 
netta),  the  currents  and  shoals  around  which  are 
particularly  dangerous  in  stormy  weather.  It  is 
usually  supposed  that  the  vessel  struck  at  this 
point.  From  this  place  the  ancient  capital  of 
Malta  (now  Citta  Vecchia,  Old  City)  is  dis- 
tinctly seen  at  the  distance  of  about  five  miles; 
and  on  looking  towards  the  bay  from  the  top  of  the 
church  on  the  summit  of  the  hill  whereon  the  city 
stands,  it  occurred  to  the  present  writer  that  the 
people  of  the  town  might  easily  from  this  spot 
have  perceived  in  the  morning  that  a wreck  had 
taken  place ; and  this  is  a circumstance  which 
throws  a fresh  light  on  some  of  the  circumstances 
of  the  deeply  interesting  transactions  which  en- 
sued. 

The  sacred  historian  calls  the  inhabitants  fiap- 
Qapot,  ‘ barbarians  : ’ — ‘ the  barbarous  people 


showed  us  no  small  kindness.’  This  i>  far  fna 
implying  that  they  were  savages  or  uncivilised 
men  : it  merely  intimates  that  they  were  not  of 
Greek  or  Roman  origin.  This  description  applies 
to  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Malta  most  accu- 
rately ; and  as  it  could  not  apply  to  the  inhaoitants 
of  Melida,  who  were  Greeks,  this  is  another  argu- 
ment to  show  that  not  Melida  but  Malta  is  the 
Melita  of  Scripture. 

The  island  of  Malta  lies  in  the  Mediterranean, 
about  sixty  miles  south  from  Cape  Passaro  in 
Sicily.  It  is  sixty  miles  in  circumference,  twenty 
in  length,  and  twelve  in  breadth.  Near  it,  on  the 
west,  is  a smaller  island,  called  Gozo,  about 
thirty  miles  in  circumference.  Malta  has  no 
mountains  or  high  hills,  and  makes  no  figure  from 
the  sea.  It  is  naturally  a barren  rock,’ but  has 
been  made  in  parts  abundantly  fertile  by  the 
industry  and  toil  of  man.  The  island  was  first, 
colonized  by  the  Phoenicians,  from  whom  it  was 
taken  by  the  Greek  colonists  in  Sicily,  about 
B.c.  736  ; but  the  Carthaginians  began  to  dis- 
pute its  possession  about  b.c.  528,  and  eventually 
became  entire  masters  of  it.  From  their  hands  it 
passed  into  those  of  the  Romans,  b.c.  242,  who 
treated  the  inhabitants  well,  making  Melita  a 
municipium,  and  allowing  the  people  to  be  go- 
verned by  their  own  laws.  The  government  was 
administered  by  a propraetor,  who  depended  upon 
the  praetor  of  Sicily ; and  this  office  appears  to 
have  been  held  by  Publius  when  Paul  was  on 
the  island  (Acts  xxviii.  7).  On  the  division 
of  the  Roman  empire,  Melita  belonged  to  the 
western  portion;  but  having,  in  a.d.  553,  been 
recovered  from  the  Vandals  by  Belisarius,  it  was 
afterwards  attached  to  the  empire  of  the  East. 
About  the  end  of  the  ninth  century  the  island  was 
taken  from  the  Greeks  by  the  Arabs,  who  made 
it  a dependency  upon  Sicily,  which  was  also  in 
their  possession.  The  Arabs  have  left  the  impress 
of  their  aspect,  language,  and  many  of  their  cus- 
toms, upon  the  present  inhabitants,  whose  dialect, 
is  to  this  day  perfectly  intelligible  to  the  Ara- 
bians, and  to  the  Moors  of  Africa.  Malta  was 
taken  from  the  Arabs  by  the  Normans  in  a.d. 
1090,  and  afterwards  underwent  othei  changes  till 
a.d.  1530,  when  Charles  V.,  who  had  annexed  it 
to  his  empire,  transferred  it  to  the  Knights  of  St. 
John  of  Jerusalem,  whom  the  Turks  had  recently 
dispossessed  of  Rhodes.  Under  the  knights  it 
became. a flourishing  state,  and  was  the  scene  of 
their  greatest  glory  and  most  signal  exploits. 
The  institution  having  become  unsuited  to  modern 
times,  the  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  com- 
monly called  Knights  of  Malta,  gradually  fell 
into  decay,  and  the  island  was  surrendered  to  the 
French  under  Buonaparte  when  on  his  way  to 
Egypt  in  1798.  From  them  it.  was  retaken  by 
the  English  with  the  concurrence  and  assistance  of 
the  natives ; and  it  was  to  have  been  restored  to 
the  Knights  of  Malta  by  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaty  of  Amiens;  but  as  no  sufficient  security 
for  the  independence  of  the  Order  (composed 
mostly  of  Frenchmen)  could  be  obtained,  the 
English  retained  it  in  their  hands;  which  neces- 
sary infraction  of  the  treaty  was  the  ostensible 
ground  of  the  war  which  only  ended  with  the  battle 
of  Waterloo.  The  island  is  still  in  the  hands  oi 
the  English,  who  have  lately  remodelled  the  go- 
vernment to  meet  the  wishes  of  the  numerous  in- 
habitants. It  has  lately  become  me  actual  seat 


MEMPHIS. 


MEMPHIS. 


335 


sf  an  Ang\ican  bishopric,  which  however  takes  its 
*itle  from  Gibraltar  out  of  deference  to  the  exist- 
ing Catholic  bishopric  of  Malta — a deference  not 
paid  to  the  Oriental  churches  ir.  icently  esta- 
blishing the  Anglican  bishopric  of  Jerusalem. 
F.  Wandalin,  Dissert,  de  Melita  Pauli , Havn. 
1707;  P.  Carlo,  Origine  della  Fede  in  Malta, 
Milan,  1759;  Ciantar,  Critica  de'  Critici  Mo- 
derni  sub  Controversa  Naufragio  di  San  Paolo, 
Yenez.  1703;  Boisgelin,  History  of  Malta,  1804  ; 
and  the  works  cited  in  the  course  of  this  article. 

MELON.  [Abbatachim.] 

MEMPHIS,  a very  ancient  city,  the  capital  of 
Lower  Egypt,  standing  at  the  apex  of  the  Delta, 
ruins  of  which  are  still  found  not  far  from  its 
successor  and  modern  representative,  Cairo.  Its 
Egyptian  name,  in  the  hieroglyphics , is  Meno- 
fri;  in  Coptic,  Memfi,  Manfi,  Membe,  Panoufi  or 
Mefi,  being  probably  corrupted  from  Man-nofri, 
‘the abode,’  or,  as  Plutarch  terms  it,  tippos  ayadaiv 
' Isid . et  Osir.  c.  20),  ‘the  haven  of  good  men.’  It 
was  called*  also  Pthah-ei,  the  abode  of  Pthah 
(Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  iii.  278).  In  Hebrew 
the  city  bears  the  name  of  P|0  (Hos.  ix.  6),  or 
Pp  (Isa.  xix.  13).  These  several  names  are  obvi- 
ously variations  of  one,  of  which  Meph  seems  to 
contain  the  essential  sounds.  Whether  we  may 
hence  derive  support  to  the  statement  that  the 
place  was  founded  by  Menes,  the  first  human 
king  of  Egypt,  or  whether  we  have  here  a very 
early  instance  of  the  custom  which  prevailed  so 
extensively  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  of 
inventing  founders  for  cities,  having  names  cor- 
respondent with  the  names  of  the  places  they  were 
said  to  have  built,  it  is  impossible,  with  the  ma- 
terials we  possess,  to  determine  with  any  fair  ap- 
proach to  certainty.  Menes,  however,  is  univer- 
sally reputed  to  have  founded  not  only  Memphis 
but  Thebes;  the  addition  of  the  latter  may  seem 
to  invalidate  his  claim  to  the  former,  making  us 
suspect  that  here,  too,  we  have  a case  of  that  cus- 
tom of  referring  to  some  one  distinguished  name 
great  events  which  happened,  in  truth,  at  different 
and  far  distant  eras.  If,  as  is  probable,  Thebes 
as  well  as  Memphis  was,  at  any  early  period, 
the  seat  of  a distinct  dynasty,  the  cradle  and  the 
throne  of  a line  of  independent  sovereigns,  they 
could  scarcely  have  had  one  founder. 

The  statement,  however,  is,  that  having  diverted 
the  course  of  the  Nile,  which  had  washed  the  foot 
of  the  sandy  mountains  of  the  Libyan  chain, 
Menes  obliged  it  to  run  in  the  centre  of  the  val- 
h y,  and  built  the  city  Memphis  in  the  bed  of  the 
a icient  channel.  This  change  was  effected  by 
o instructing  a dyke  about  a hundred  stadia  above 
the  site  of  the  projected  city,  whose  lofty  mounds 
and  strong  embankments  turned  the  water  to  the 
Last  and  confined  the  river  to  its  new  bed.  The 
iyke  was  carefully  kept  in  repair  by  succeeding 
kings,  and  even  as  late  as  the  Persian  invasion, 
a guard  was  always  maintained  there  to  overlook 
the  necessary  repairs ; for,  as  Herodotus  asserts, 
if  the  river  were  to  break  through  the  dyke,  the 
whole  of  Memphis  would  be  in  danger  of  being 
Overwhelmed  wiflu  water,  especially  at  the  period 
if  the  inundation.  Subsequently,  however,  when 
the  increased  deposit  of  the  alluvial  soil  had 
raised  the  circumjacent  plains,  the  precautions 
became  unnecessary  ; and  though  the  spot  where 
the  diversion  of  the  Nile  was  made  may  still  be 
traced,  owing  to  the  great  bend  it  takes  about 


fourteen  miles  above  ancient  Memphis,  the  lofty 
mounds  once  raised  there  are  no  longer  visible. 
The  accumulated  deposit  of  the  river  has  elevated, 
the  bank  about  Kafr-el-Iyat  to  a level  with  the 
summit  of  these  mounds ; and  a large  canal  runs, 
during  the  inundation,  close  to  the  villages  of 
Saggara  and  Metrahenny,  which  occupy  part  of 
the  old  city,  without  endangering  their  security. 
And  it  is  the  opinion  of  Wilkinson,  that  consider- 
ing the  great  height  of  several  mounds  still  exist- 
ing at  Memphis,  the  city  could  not  have  been 
overwhelmed  at  any  period  by  the  rising  Nile, 
thoughmuch  damagemight  have  been  done  to  some 
of  the  portions  of  it  which  may  have  stood  on  less 
elevated  ground  (Herod,  ii.  99  ; Wilkinson,  Anc 
Egypt,  i.  91).  The  site  of  Memphis  was  first  ac 
curately  fixed  by  Pococke,  at  the  village  of  Metra- 
henny. According  to  the  reports  of  the  French, 
the  heaps  which  mark  the  site  of  the  ancient 
buildings  have  three  leagues  of  circumference; 
but  this  is  less  than  its  extent  in  early  times, 
since  Diodorus  gives  it  150  stadia,  or  six  leagues 
and  a quarter.  Memphis  declined  after  the 
foundation  of  Alexandria,  and  it's  materials  were 
carried  off  to  build  Cairo  (Kenrick,  Egypt  of 
Herodotus,  p.  129;  Reunell,  ii.  115;  Champoli. 
Egypte  et  les  Ph.  i.  336). 

The  kingdom  of  which  Memphis  was  the  capi- 
tal, was  most  probably  the  Egypt  of  the  patriarchs, 
in  which  Abraham,  Jacob,  and  the  Israelites  re- 
sided. Psammetichus,  in  becoming  sole  monarch 
of  all  Egypt,  raised  Memphis  to  the  dignity  of  the 
one  metropolis  of  the  entire  land  (arx  AEgypti 
regum , PI  in.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  9),  after  which  Mem- 
phis grew  in  the  degree  in  which  Thebes  declined. 
It  became  distinguished  for  a multitude  of  splen- 
did edifices,  among  which  may  be  mentioned  a 
large  and  magnificent  temple  to  Vulcan,  who  was 
called  by  the  Egyptians  Phthah,  the  demiurgos, 
or  creative  power  (Wilkinson,  i.  96;  Herod,  ii. 
136,  154 : Strabo,  xvii.  p.  807 ; Plin.  Hist.  Nat. 
viii.  71;  Diod.Sic.  i.57,  67).  Under  the  dominion 
of  the  Persians,  as  well  as  of  the  Ptolemies,  Mem- 
phis retained  its  pre-eminence  as  the  capital,  though 
even  in  the  time  of  the  former  it  began  to  part 
wilh  its  splendour  ; and  when  the  latter  bestowed 
their  favour  on  Alexandria,  it  suffered  a material 
change  for  the  worse,  from  which  the  place  never 
recovered.  In  the  days  of  Strabo  many  of  its 
fine  buildings  lay  in  ruins,  though  the  city  was 
still  large  and  populous.  The  final  blow  was 
given  to  the  prosperity  of  Memphis  in  the  time  of 
Abdollatif,  by  the  erection  of  the  Arabian  city  of 
Cairo. 

That  the  arts  were  carried  to  a great  degree  of 
excellence  at  Memphis  is  proved  by  the  most 
abundant  evidence.  Its  manufactures  of  glass 
were  famed  for  the  superior  quality  of  their  work- 
manship, with  which  Rome  continued  to  be  sup- 
plied long  after  Egypt  became  a province  of  the 
empire.  The  environs  of  Memphis  presented  cul- 
tivated groves  of  the  acacia  tree,  of  whose  wood 
were  made  the  planks  and  masts  of  boats,  the 
handles  of  offensive  weapons  of  war,  and  various 
articles  of  furniture  (Wilkinson,  iii.  92,  168). 
Memphis  was  also  distinguished  as  being  the 
place  where  Apis  was  kept,  and  where  his  worship 
received  special  honour.  Under  the  form  of  this 
sacred  bull  was  Osiris  worshipped.  Psammeti- 
chus erected  here  in  his  honour  a grand  court 
ornamented  with  figures  in  lieu  of  columns,  twelvt 


MEN  AIIEM. 


MENE. 


m 

cubits  in  height,  forming  a peristyle  around  it,  in 
which  the  god  was  kept  when  exhibited  in  public. 
The  festival  held  in  his  honour  lasted  seven  days, 
and  brought  a large  concourse  of  people  to  Mem- 
phis. The  priests  then  led  the  sacred  bull  in  solemn 
procession,  every  one  coming  forward  from  their 
houses  to  welcome  him  as  lie  passed;  and  Pliny 
affirms  that  children  who  smelt  his  breath  were 
thought  to  be  thereby  gifted  with  the  power  of 
predicting  future  events  (Wilkinson,  ii.  351). — 

J.  R.  B. 

MENAHEM  (DPtiB,  consoler ; Sept.  Ma- 
vagpi),  sixteenth  king  of  Israel,  who  began  to 
reign  n.c.  772,  and  reigned  ten  years.  Menahem 
appears  to  have  been  one  of  the  generals  of  king 
Zachariah.  When  he  heard  the  news  of  the 
murder  of  that  prince,  and  the  usurpation  of 
Shallum,  he  was  at  Tirzah,  but  immediately 
marched  to  Samaria,  where  Shallum  had  shut 
himself  up,  and  slew  him  in  that  city.  He  then 
usurped  the  throne  in  his  turn;  and  forthwith 
marched  to  Tiphsah,  which  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge his  rule.  Having  taken  this  place  after  a 
siege,  he  treated  the  inhabitants  with  a degree  of 
savage  barbarity,  which,  as  Josephus  remarks 
(Antiq.  ix.  11.  1),  would  not  have  been  pardon- 
able even  to  foreigners.  He  adhered  to  the  sin  of 
Jeroboam,  like  the  other  kings  of  Israel.  In  his 
time  the  Assyrians,  under  their  king  Pul,  made 
their  first  appearance  on  the  borders  of  Palestine; 
and  Menahem  was  only  able  to  save  himself  from 
this  great  invading  power  at  the  heavy  price  of 
1000  talents  of  silver,  which  he  raised  by  a tax  of 
50  shekels  from  every  man  of  substance  in  Israel. 
This  was  probably  the  only  choice  left  to  him  ; 
and  he  is  not  therefore  to  be  blamed,  as  he  had 
not  that  resource  in  the  treasures  of  the  temple  of 
which  the  kings  of  Judah  availed  themselves  in 
similar  emergencies.  Menahem  died  in  b.c. 
701,  leaving  the  throne  to  his  son  Pekahiah  (2 
Kings  xv.  14-22. 

MENE,  MENE,  TEKEL,  UPIIARSIN 

(|>P'7S;I,  tOp,  fcPP  ; Sept.  Manj,  0e/ce A, 

4>apes;  Vulg.  Mane , Thecel,  P hares'),  the  inscrip- 
tion supernaturally  written  ‘upon  the  plaster  of 
t he  wall  ’ in  Belshazzar’s  palace  at  Babylon  (Dan. 
v.  5 25).;  which  ‘ the  astrologers,  the  Chaldaeans, 
and  the  sooth sayers’ could  neither  read  nor  interpret, 
but  which  Daniel  first  read,  and  then  interpreted. 
Yet  the  words,  as  they  are  found  in  Daniel,  are  pure 
Chaldee,  and  if  they  appeared  in  the  Chaldee 
character,  could  have  been  read,  at  least,  by  any 
person  present  on  the  occasion  who  understood  the 
alphabet  of  his  own  language.  To  account  for 
their  inability  to  decipher  this  inscription,  it  has 
been  supposed  that  it  consisted  of  those  Chaldee 
words  written  in  another  character.  Dr.  Hales 
tli  inks  that  it  may  have  been  written  in  the  pri- 
mitive Hebrew  character,  from  which  the  Sama- 
ritan was  formed,  and  that,  in  order  to  show  on 
this  occasion  that,  the  writer  of  the  inscription  was 
the  offended  (rod  of  Israel,  whose  authority  was 
being  at  that  moment  peculiarly  despised  (ver.  2, 
3,  4).  he  adopted  his  own  .sacred  character,  in 
which  he  had  originally  written  the  decalogue,  in 
which  Moses  could  transcribe  it  into  the  law,  and 
whose  autograph  copy  was  found  in  Josiah's  days, 
and  was  most  probably  brought  to  Babylon  in  the 
care  of  Daniel,  who  could  therefore  understand  the 


character  without  inspiration,  but  which  woul  l b* 
unknown  to  ‘ the  wise  men  of  Babylon’  (New  Ana* 
lysis  of  Chronology,  vol.  i.  p.  505,  Load.  1811) 
This  theory  has  the  recommendation,  that  it  in- 
volves as  little  as  possible  of  miraculous  agency. 
Josephus  makes  Daniel  discourse  to  Belshazzar  as 
if  the  inscription  had  been  in  Greek.  The  pass- 
age is  certainly  curious  : ’ESfjAou  5t  ra  ytypap.- 
pdva  raSe.  MANH.  tovto  S’  tAeyev  'EAAuSi 
yAcoTTTj  err)  patron'  av  apidgos’  wairep  rrjs  £ai >rjs  crov 
toctoutov  x?^vov  K°d  tt)s  hpxns  rjpiOpgKev  6 Oeds, 
kcu  tr epicraeveiv  4ir\  <rol  fipaxvv  XP^V0V'  ®EKEA. 
crgpaivei  tovto  (yra.Qp.dv.  (TT^aas  olv  crov  Aeyei 
rbv  xpdvov  rrjs  fiaaiAeias  d 6eds.  f/Srj  KaTacpepopiwqv 
StjAo/.  4>APE2.  /cal  tooto  kAolc pa  StjAo?  wa-rct 
'EAAaSa  yAdorrav.  kA<L(Tsi  roiyapovv  aov  rrjv  &acn- 
A dav,  Kal  Mr/Sots  avrjjv  /cal  IlepcraiS  Siavep.e'i.  ‘ He 
(Daniel)  explained  the  writing  thus : MANH. 
“ this,”  said  he,“t»  the  Greek  language,  may  mean 
a number ; thus  God  hath  numbered  so  long  a 
time  for  thy  life  and  for  thy  government,  and 
ttiat,  there  remains  a short  time  for  thee.”  0EKEA. 
This  signifies  iceight ; hence  he  says,  “ God  having 
weighed  in  a balance  the  time  of  thy  kingdom, 
finds  it  already  going  down.”  4>APE2.  This 
also,  according  to  the  Greek  language , denotes 
a fragment;  hence  “he  will  break  in  pieces 
thy  kingdom,  and  divide  it  .among  the  Medes 
and  Persians’”  (Antiq,  x.  11.  3).  There  is 
some  doubt  whether  the  reading  eAeytv  be  ge- 
nuine, but  Josephus  evidently  represents  the 
whole  passage  as  addressed  by  Daniel  to  the 
king,  and  makes  him  speak  as  if  the  inscription 
had  been  in  Greek.  Still  Josephus,  for  some 
cause  or  other,  represents  Daniel  as  speaking 
doubtfully  (‘  may  mean’)  in  the  former  part  of  the 
passage,  and  scarcely  less  so  in  the  latter.  It  has 
been  supposed  by  some,  that  ‘ the  wise  men’  were 
not  so  much  at  fault  to  read  the  inscription,  as  to 
explain  its  meaning,  which,  it  is  said,  they  might 
sufficiently  understand  to  see  its  boding  import  1o 
the  monarch,  and  be  unwilling  to  consider  fur- 
ther— like  the  disciples  in  regard  to  the  predictions 
of  our  Lord's  death  (Luke  ix.  45),  where  it  is  said, 
‘this  saying  was  hid  from  them,  they  perceived  it 
not,  and  they  feared  to  ask  him  of  that  saying.’ 
And  certainly  it  is  said  throughout  our  narrative 
that  ‘ the  wise  men  could  not  read  the  writing, 
nor  make  known  the  interpretation  of  it,’  phrases 
which  would  seem  to  mean  one  and  the  same 
thing;  since,  if  they  mean  different  things,  the  order 
of  ideas  would  be  that  they  could  not  interpret 
nor  even  read  it,  and  Wintle  accordingly  trans- 
lates, ‘could  not  read  so  as  to  interpret  it’  (Im- 
proved Version  of  Daniel,  Loud.  1807).  At  all 
events  the  meaning  of  the  inscription  by  itself 
would  be  extremely  enigmatical  and  obscure. 
To  determine  the  application,  and  to  give  the  full 
sense,  of  an  isolated  device  which  amounted  to  ne 
more  than  ‘ he  or  it  is  numbered,  he  or  it  is  num- 
bered, he  or  it  is  weighed,  they  are  divided  ’ (and 
there  is  even  a riddle  or  paranomasia  on  the  last 
word  D"IS ; comp.  Susannah,  ver.  54,  55  and  58, 
59,  Greek,  and  Jer.  i.  11,  12,  Hebrew  ; which  may. 
either  mean  ‘they  divide,’  or  ‘the  Persians,’  accord- 
ing as  it  is  pronounced),  must  surely  have  required 
a supernatural  endowment  on  the  part  of  Daniel — 
a conclusion  wdiich  is  confirmed  by  the  exact  coin- 
cidence of  the  event  with  the  prediction,  which 
he  propounded  with  so  much  fortitude  (ver. 
30,  31).— J.  F.  D. 


MENI. 


MERAB. 


$27 


MEN  I ('2p  , it  is  doubtful  whether  the  Sept, 
renders  it  by  or  by  SaipSuiou)  is  mentioned 

in  Is.  lxv.  11,  together  with  Gad,  as  receiving  an 
ottering  of  mixed  wine.  As  derived  from  fOD, 

! to  distribute,’  * to  number,1  the  word  is  either 
taken,  by  those  namely  who  consider  Gad  in  that 
passage  to  mean  troop,  to  signify  a multitude , a 
number  ; or,  by  those  who  suppose  the  whole  verse 
to  refer  to  idolatrous  worship,  to  be  the  name  of  a 
god,  and  to  mean  destiny.  To  this  sense  the  first 
clause  of  the  next  verse  appears  to  allude  : ‘ But, 

I destine  you  to  the  sword.’  The  signification  of 
destiny  is  very  naturally  evolved  from  the  primi- 
tive notion  of  distributing',  apportioning  : as  in 

the  Greek  poipa,  and  in  the  Arabic  manan, 

fate , from  the  same  root  as  Meni.  Pocock  has, 
moreover,  pointed  out  the  resemblance  between 
Meni  and  Manat,  an  idol  of  the  ancient  Arabs, 
which  is  mentioned  in  the  Quran,  Sur.  liii.  20 
( Specim . p.  94).  The  fact  of  Meni  being  a Baby- 
lonian god  renders  it  probable  that  some  planet 
was  worshipped  under  this  name : but  there  is 
much  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  particular 
planet  to  which  the  designation  of  destiny 
would  be  most  applicable.  Miiuter  considers  it 
to  be  Venus,  as  the  lesser  star  of  good  fortune ; 
Ewald  takes  it  to  be  Saturn,  the  chief  dispenser 
of  evil  influences;  and  Movers  has  returned  to  an 
old  opinion,  that  Meni  is  the  moon,  which  was 
also  supposed  to  be  an  arbitress  of  fortune:  the 
nest  arguments  for  which  last  view  are  collected 
by  Yitringa  {ad  loc.').  It  also  deserves  notice  that 
there  are  some,  among  whom  is  Hitzig,  who  con- 
sider Gad  and  Meni  to  be  names  for  one  and  the 
same  god,  and  who  chiefly  differ  as  to  whether 
the  sun  or  the  moon  is  the  god  intended. — J.  N. 

MEPHIBOSHETH  (flfca  'Dp,  extermina- 
tion of  idols  ; Sept.  M epcpL^oaQe  ; also  in  1 Chron. 
ix.  40,  Merib-Baal),  son  of  Jonathan  and  nephew 
of  Saul  (2  Sam.  iv.  4).  He  was  only  five  years  of 
age  when  his  father  and  grandfather  were  slain  in 
Mount  Gilboa:  and  on  the  news  of  this  cata- 
strophe, the  woman  who  had  charge  of  the  child, 
apprehending  that  David  would  exterminate  the 
whole  house  of  Saul,  fled  away  with  him  ; but  in 
her  hasty  flight  she  stumbled  with  the  child,  and 
lamed  him  for  life  (b.c.  1055).  Under  this  ca- 
lamity, which  was  very  incapacitating  in  times 
when  agility  and  strength  were  of  prime  import- 
ance, Mephibosheth  was  unable  to  take  any  part 
in  the  stirring  political  events  of  his  early  life. 
According  to  our  notions,  he  should  have  been  the 
heir  of  the  house  of  Saul  ; bu.1  in  those  times  a 
younger  son  of  an  actual  king  was  considered  to 
have  at  least  as  good  a claim  as  the  son  of  an  heir 
apparent  who  had  never  reigned,  and  even  a 
better  claim  if  the  latter  were  a minor.  This, 
with  his  lameness,  prevented  Mephibosheth  from 
ever  appearing  as  the  opponent  or  rival  of  his 
uncle  Ishbosheth  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  David  on 
the  other  (2  Sam.  ix).  He  thus  grew  up  in  quiet 
obscurity  in  the  house  of  Machir,  one  of  the  great 
men  of  the  country  beyond  the  Jordan  (2  Sam. 
ix.  4 ; xvii.  27);  and  his  very  existence  was  un- 
known to  David  till  that  monarch,  when  firmly 
settled  in  his  kingdom,  inquired  whether  any  of 
the  family  of  Jonathan  survived,  to  whom  he 
might  show  kindness  for  his  father’s  sake.  Hear- 
ing then  of  Mephibosheth  from  Ziba,  who  had 


been  the  royal  steward  under  Saul,  he  invited  him 
to  Jerusalem,  assigned  him  a place  at  his  own 
table,  and  bestowed  upon  him  lands,  which  were 
managed  for  him  by  Ziba,  and  which  enabled 
him  to  support  an  establishment  suited  to  his 
rank.  He  lived  in  this  manner  till  the  revolt  of 
Absalom,  and  then  David,  in  his  flight,  having 
noticed  the  absence  of  Mephibosheth,  inquired  for 
him  of  Ziba,  and  being  informed  that  he  had  re- 
mained behind  in  the  hope  of  being  restored  to  his 
father’s  throne,  instantly  and  very  hastily  revoked 
the  grant  of  land,  and  bestowed  it  on  Ziba  (2  Sam. 
xvi.  1-4).  Afterwards,  on  his  return  to  Jeru- 
salem, he  was  met  with  sincere  congratulations 
by  Mephibosheth,  who  explained  that  being  lame 
he  had  been  unable  to  follow  the  king  on  foot,  and 
that  Ziba  had  purposely  prevented  his  beast  from 
being  made  ready  to  carry  him  : and  he  declared 
that  so  far  from  having  joined  in  heart,  or  even 
appearance,  the  enemies  of  the  king,  he  had  re- 
mained as  a mourner,  and,  as  his  appearance  de- 
clared, had  not  changed  his  clothes,  or  trimmed 
his  beard,  or  even  dressed  his  feef,  from  the  day 
that  the  king  departed  to  that  on  which  he  re- 
turned. David  could  not  but  have  been  sensible 
that  he  had  acted  wrong,  and  ought  to  have  been 
touched  by  the  devotedness  of  his  friend’s  son,  and 
angry  at  the  imposition  of  Ziba;  but  to  cover  one 
fault  by  another,  or  from  indifference,  or  from 
reluctance  to  offend  Ziba,  who  had  adhered  to  him 
when  so  many  old  friends  forsook  him,  he  an 
swered  coarsely,  ‘ Why  speakest  thou  any  more 
of  thy  matters?  I have  said,  thou  and  Zd)a divide 
the  land.1  The  answer  of  Mephibosheth  was 
worthy  of  the  son  of  the  generous  Jonathan  : — 
‘ Yea.  let  him  take  all  ; forasmuch  as  my  lord 
the  king  is  come  again  in  peace  unto  his  own 
house1  (2 Sam.  xix.  21-30).  Undoubtedly  David 
does  not  shine  in  this  part  of  his  conduct,  to  Me- 
phibosheth ; but  some  of  the  German  writers,  in 
their  eagerness  to  impugn  the  character  and  mo- 
tives of  ‘ the  man  after  God’s  own  heart,1  have 
handled  the  matter  much  more  severely  than  a 
due  consideration  of  the  difficult  circumstances 
in  which  the  king  was  placed  will  be  found  to 
justify. 

We  hear  no  more  of  Mephibosheth,  except  that 
David  was  careful  that  he  should  not  be  included 
in  the  savage  vengeance  which  the  Gideonites 
were  suffered  to  execute  upon  the  house  of  Saul 
for  the  great  wrong  they  had  sustained  during  his 
leign  (2  Sam.  xxi.  7).  Another  Mephibosheth, 
a son  of  Saul  by  his  concubine  Rizpah,  was,  how- 
ever, among  those  who  suffered  on  that  occasion 
(ver.  8,  9). 

MERAB  increase ; Sept.  MepJ/3),  eldest 

daughter  of  king  Saul,  who  was  promised  in 
marriage  to  David ; but  when  the  time  fixed 
for  their  union  approached,  she  was,  to  the  sur- 
prise of  all  Israel,  bestowed  in  marriage  upon  an 
unknown  personage  named  Adriel  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
49:  xviii.  17-19).  By  him  she  had  six  sons,  who 
were  among  those  of  the  house  of  Saul  that  were 
given  up  to  the  Gibeonites,  who  put  them  to  death 
in  expiation  for  the  wrongs  they  had  sustained 
from  their  grandfather.  By  an  error  of  some 
copyist,  the  name  of  Michal — the  younger  sister, 
who  was  afterwards  given  to  David — has  found 
its  way  into  the  text  which  records  this  transac- 
tion (2  Sam.  xxi.  8),  in  place  of  that  of  Merab, 


338 


MERARI. 


MERODACH. 


which  rentiers  the  account  unintelligible.  The 
context,  however,  sufficiently  indicates  the  proper 
correction. 

MERARI  bitter ; Sept.  Meoapi ), 

youngest  son  of  Levi,  born  in  Canaan  (Gen.  xlvi. 
11;  Exod.  vi.  16;  Num.  iii.  17;  1 Chron.  vi. 
1).  He  is  only  known  from  his  name  having  been 
given  to  one  of  the  three  great  divisions  of  the 
Levitical  tribe. 

MERCURY  [Hermes]. 

MERCY-SEAT  (n*YS3  ; Sept.  IXaarlipiov ; 
Vulg.  propiiiatorium ; Luth.  gnadenstuhl).  The 
Hebrew  name  literally  denotes  a cover , and,  in 
fact,  describes  the  lid  of  the  ark  with  cherubim, 
over  which  appeared  ‘ the  glory  of  God  ’ (Exod. 
xxvi.  17,  sq. ; xxx.  8;  xxxi.  7,  and  elsewhere). 
[Ark.]  Compare  1 Chron.  xxviii.  11,  where  the 
holy  of  holies  is  called  the  rnSDH  JV2,  ‘ house 
of  the  mercy-seat.’  The  idea  involved  in  these 
translations  seems  to  be  founded  upon  the  meta- 
phorical application  of  the  word  copher 

(perhaps  the  origin  of  the  very  word  cover  which 
translates  it),  thus  making  ‘ to  cover  sin  ’ mean 
to  forgive  or  expiate  it.  Whether  this  be  the 
literal  application  of  the  word  to  the  material 
covering  of  the  ark,  or  a latent  reference  to  this 
symbolical  meaning  of  the  term  might  have  been 
doubted,  had  not  the  New  Testament  (Heb.  ix.  5) 
followed  the  example  of  the  Septuagint  in  as- 
signing it  the  latter  sense — which,  therefore,  all 
translators  have  felt  bound  to  follow.  The 
word  used  in  the  Septuagint  and  New  Testament 
to  translate  the  term,  which  in  Hebrew  means 
simply  ‘ a cover,1  is  lXa<rTT]piov,  the  ‘expiatory  1 or 
‘ propitiatory,1  in  allusion  to  that  application  of  the 
Hebrew  word  which  we  have  noted  : which  appli- 
cation is  in  this  instance  justified  and  explained 
by  reference  to  the  custom  of  the  high-priest  once 
a-year  entering  the  most  holy  place,  and  sprinkling 
the  lid  of  the  ark  with  the  blood  of  an  expiatory 
victim,  whereby  ‘ he  made  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  the  people.’  As  this  was  the  most  solemn  and 
significant  act  of  the  Hebrew  ritual,  it  is  natural 
that  a reference  to  it  should  be  involved  in  the 
name  which  the  covering  of  the  ark  acquired.  By 
a comparison  of  the  texts  in  which  the  word  occurs, 
it  will  be  seen  that  there  would,  in  fact,  have  been 
little  occasion  to  name  the  cover  of  the  ark  sepa- 
rately from  the  ark  itself,  but  for  this  important 
ceremonial.  From  this  it  will  be  seen  that 
‘ mercy-seat*  is  not  a good  or  correct  translation 
of  the  idea  involved  in  the  metaphorical  sense  of 
the  original  Hebrew,  and  still  less  of  the  Greek 
iXacriipiov.  It  carries  the  idea  a stage  further 
from  the  original.  The  lid  of  the  ark  was  no 
doubt  the  ‘ seat  of  mercy,1  but  it  was  mercy  con- 
ferred through  the  act  of  expiation,  and  therefore 
a name  bringing  the  sense  nearer  to  the  idea  of 
expiation  or  of  propitiation  would  be  more  exact. 
The  term  ‘ mercie-seat 1 occurs  in  Barker’s  Bible, 
but  is  explained  there  by  ‘ or  covering,  or  pro- 
pitiatorie and  the  notion  which  led  the  English 
translators  to  call  it  * mercie-seate,1  is  expressed  in 
the  note — ‘ There  God  appeared  mercifully  unto 
them  : and  this  was  a figure  of  Christ.1  In  the 
same  Bible  a figure  >f  the  covering  of  the  ark  is 
given  separately,  and  the  explanatory  description 
is,  ‘ The  propitiatorie,  or  mercie-seate,  which  is 
the  covering  of  the  arke  of  the  testimonie.1 


MERI-BAAL,  or  MERIB-BAAL  , 

Sept.  M epifiadx),  a name  given  to  Mephibosheth, 
son  of  Jonathan,  in  1 Chron.  viii.  34 ; ix.  40 
[Mephibosheth].  Of  the  two  the  latter  seems 
the  more  correct  form.  It  means  ‘ contender 
against  Baal.1  Some  think  that  tne  difference 
has  arisen  from  some  corruption  of  the  text;  but, 
from  the  analogy  of  Ishbosheth,  whose  original 
name  was  Esh-baal,  it  seems  more  like  a de- 
signed alteration,  arising  probably  from  the  re- 
luctance of  the  Israelites  to  nronounce  the  name 
of  Baal  [Ishbosheth]  . 

1.  MERIBAH  (nnHp,  quarrel , strife ),  one 
of  the  names  given  by  Moses  to  the  fountain  in 
the  desert  of  Sin,  on  the  western  gulf  of  the  Red 
Sea,  which  issued  from  the  rock  which  he  smote 
by  the  divine  command  (Exod.  xvii.  1-17).  He 
called  the  place,  indeed,  Massa  (temptation)  and 
Meribah,  and  the  reason  is  assigned  ‘ because  of 
the  chiding  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  because 
they  did  there  tempt  the  Lord.1  [Wandering.] 

2.  MERIBAH.  Another  fountain  produced 
in  the  same  manner,  and  under  similar  circum- 
stances, in  the  desert,  of  Zin  (Wady  Arabah),  near 
Kadesh  ; and  to  which  the  name  was  given  with 
a similar  reference  to  the  previous  misconduct  of 
the  Israelites  (Num.  xx.  13,24;  Deut.  xxxiii.  8). 
In  the  last  text,  which  is  the  only  one  where  the 
two  places  are  mentioned  together,  the  former  is 
called  Massah  only,  to  prevent  the  confusion  of 
the  two  Meribahs,  ‘ Whom  thou  didst  prove  at 
Massah,  and  with  whom  thou  didst  strive  at  the 
waters  of  Meribah.’  Indeed  this  latter  Meribah 
is  almost  always  indicated  by  the  addition  of 
‘ waters,1  i.  e.  ‘ waters  of  Meribah 1 (PQ'HD  'D),  as 
if  further  to  distinguish  it  from  the  other  (Pa. 
Ixxxi.  8 ; cvi.  32) ; and  still  more  distinctly 
‘waters  of  Meribah  in  Kadesh1  (Num.  xxvii. 
14;  Deut.  xxxii.  51;  Ezek.  xlvii.  19).  Only 
once  is  this  place  called  simply  Meribah  (Ps. 
xcv.  8).  It  is  strange,  that  with  all  this  carefulness 
of  distinction  in  Scripture,  the  two  places  should 
rarely  have  been  properly  discriminated.  The 
distance  of  place  from  the  former  Meribah,  the 
distance  of  time,  and  the  difference  of  the  people 
in  a new  generation,  are  circumstances  which, 
when  the  positive  conditions  of  the  two  wells  were 
so  equal,  explain  why  Moses  might  give  the  same 
name  to  two  places.  The  necessity  for  a diver- 
sified nomenclature  was  not  at  all  felt  in  those 
ancient  times  : hence  the  number  of  places  which 
in  Scripture  are  found  bearing  the  same  names ; 
which,  however,  are  not  perhaps  greater,  nor  in- 
deed so  great  as  the  repetitions  of  the  same  names 
which  occur  at  this  day  in  our  own  and  other 
European  countries. 

MERODACH  CqTllt?  ; Sept.  Vat.  Mcupa>bhx) 
occurs  in  Jer.  1.  2,  in  such  connection  with  idols 
as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  name  of  a 
Babylonian  god.  In  conformity  with  the  gene- 
ral character  of  Babylonian  idolatry  Merodach  is 
supposed  to  be  the  name  of  a planet ; and,  as  the 
Tsabian  and  Arabic  names  for  Mars  are  Nerig 
and  Mirrich,  ‘ arrow1  (the  latter  of  which  Gesenius 
thinks  may  be  for  Mirdich,  which  is  very  nearly 
the  same  as  Merodach),  there  is  some  presump  - 
tion  that  it  may  be  Mars.  As  for  etymologies  of 
the  word,  Gesenius  has  suggested  that  it  is  the 
Persian  marda/c.  the  diminutive  of  mard.  ‘ map, 1 


MERQM. 


MESH  A. 


329 


used  a*  a fern,  of  endearment ; or,  rather,  that  it 
is  from  the  Persian  and  Indo-Germanic  morel,  or 
mort  (which  means  death,  and  is  so  far  in  har- 
mony with  the  conception  of  Mars,  as  the  lesser 
star  of  evil  omen),  and  the  affix  och,  which  is 
found  in  many  Assyrian  names,  as  Nisroch,  &c. 
The  bloody  rites  with  which  Mars  was  worshipped 
by  the  ancient  Arabs  are  described  in  Nor  berg's 
Onomast.  Codicis  Nasar.  p.  107. — J.  N. 

MEROM.  ‘ The  waters  of  Merom,’  of  Josh, 
ix.  5,  are  doubtless  the  lake  Samechonitis,  now 
called  Huleh,  the  upper  or  highest  lake  of  the 
Jordan  [Palestine]. 

MERORIM  (D'YID)  occurs  in  two  places  in 
Scripture,  and  is  in  both  translated  bitter  herbs 
in  our  Authorized  Version,  as  well  as  in  several 
others.  In  Exod.  xii.  8,  Moses  commanded  the 
Jews  to  Oat  the  lamb  of  the  Passover  ‘ with  unlea- 
vened bread,  and  with  bitter  herbs  ( merorim ) 
they  shall  eat  it.’  So  at  the  institution  of  the 
second  Passover,  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai 
(Num.  ix.  1 1),  ‘ The  fourteenth  day  of  the  second 
month  at  even  they  shall  keep  it,  and  eat  it  with 
unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs.’  The  word 
merorim , which  is  here  translated  ‘ bitter  herbs,’  is 
universally  acknowledged  to  signify  bitter , and 
the  word  herbs  has  been  supplied  to  complete 
the  sense.  By  the  Sept,  it  has  been  translated 
iirl  mKpiduv,  and  by  St.  Jerome,  * cum  lactucis 
agrestibus.’  Several  interpreters,  however,  render 
it  simply  amara  ; which  Celsius  adopts,  and  con- 
siders that  merorim  has  reference  to  the  e/x- 
Pa/x/xa  which  was  eaten  with  the  paschal  lamb, 
and  that  it  signifies  ‘ cum  amaritudinibus,  vel 
rebus  amaris.’  In  the  Arabic  a word  similar  to 
the  Hebrew  has  also  reference  to  bitterness,  and, 
like  the  Greek  word  nriKpos,  came  to  be  applied 
to  a bitter  plant.  Thus  the  Arabic  murr,  ‘ bitter,’ 
pi.  viurar,  signifies  a species  of  bitter  tree  or  plant ; 
as  does  maru,  a fragrant  herb  which  has  always 
some  degree  of  bitterness.  Murooa  is  in  India 
applied  both  to  the  bitter  Artemisia,  or  wormwood, 
and  to  the  fragrant  Ocyniim  pilosum,  a species  of 
Basil ; in  Arabia,  to  the  bitter  Centaury,  accord- 
ing to  Forskal.  It  is  extremely  probable  that  a 
bitter  herb  of  some  kind  is  intended,  but  whether 
a particular  species  or  any  bitter  herb,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  say.  The  Jews,  as  we  learn  from  the 
Mishna  (Tract.  Pesachim,  cap.  ii.  § 6,  as  quoted  by 
Bochart,  Hieroz.  i.  1.  ii.  c.  50),  used  five  kinds  of 
bitter  herbs,  thus  given  by  Dr.  Harris  : ‘ 1.  C/ta- 
z'areth,  taken  for  lettuce;  2.  TJlsin,  supposed  to 
be  endive,  or  succory  ; 3.  Tamca,  probably  tansy  ; 
4.  Charubbinim,  which  Bochart  thought  might 
be  the  nettle,  but  Scheuchzer  shows  to  be  the 
camomile ; 5.  Meror,  the  sow-thistle,  or  dent-de- 
'ion,  or  wild  lettuce.’  All  these  translations  be- 
any their  European  origin.  To  interpret  them 
with  any  thing  like  accuracy,  it  is  requisite  in  the 
first  place  to  have  a complete  Flora  of  the  coun- 
tries, from  Egypt  to  Syria,  with  the  Arabic  names 
of  the  usefal  plants,  accompanied  by  a notice  of 
.heir  properties.  Science  is  as  yet  far  from  having 
my  thing  of  the  kind.  We  have  seen  that  the 
succory  or  endive  was  early  selected  as  being  the 
bitter  herb  especially  intended;  and  Dr.  Geddes 
justly  remarks,  that  ‘ the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  who 
translated  the  Pentateuch,  could  not  be  ignorant 
what  herbs  were  eaten  with  the  paschal  lamb  in 
their  days.’  Jerome  understood  it  in  the  same 


manner ; and  Pseudo-Jonathan  expressly  men- 
tions horehound  and  lettuces.  Forskal  informs 
us  that  the  Jews  at  Sana  and  in  Egypt  eat  the 
lettuce  with  the  paschal  lamb.  Lady  Calcott 
inquires  whether  mint  was  originally  one  of  the 
bitter  herbs  with  which  the  Israelites  ate  the 
paschal,  as  -our  use  of  it  with  roast  lamb,  parti- 
cularly about  Easter  time,  inclined  her  to  sup- 
pose it  was.  Aben  Ezra,  as  quoted  by  Rosen- 
miiller,  states  that  the  Egyptians  used  bitter  herbs 
in  every  meal : so  in  India  some  of  the  bitter  Cu- 
curbitacece,  as  kurella,  are  constantly  employed 
as  food  [Pakyoth].  It  is  curious  that  the  two 
sets  of  plants  which  appear  to  have  the  greatest 
number  of  points  in  their  favour,  are  the  endive  or 
succory,  and  one  of  the  fragrant  and  usually  also 
bitter  labiate  plants ; because  we  find  that  the 
term  marooa  is  in  the  East  applied  even  in  the 
present  day  both  to  the  bitter  wormwood  and  the 
fragrant  Ocymum.  Moreover  the  Chaldee  trans- 
lator, Jonathan,  expressly  mentions  lettuce  and 
horehound , or  marrubium,  which  is  also  one  of  the 
Labiatse.  It  is  important  to  observe  that  the 
Artemisia,  and  some  of  these  fragrant  labiatae, 
are  found  in  many  parts  of  Arabia  and  Syria ; 
that  is,  in  warm,  dry,  barren  regions.  The  endive 
is  also  found  in  similar  situations,  but  requires, 
upon  the  whole,  a greater  degree  of  moisture. 
Thus  it  is  evident  that  the  Israelites  would  be 
able  to  obtain  suitable  plants  during  their  long 
wanderings  in  the  Desert,  though  it  is  difficult 
for  us  to  select  any  one  out  of  the  several  which 
might  have  been  employed  by  them. — J.  F.  R. 

MEROZ  (TV"1 1?  ; Sept.  M ypcAQ,  a place  in 
the  northern  part  of  Palestine,  the  inhabitants 
of  which  are  severely  reprehended  in  Judg.  v.  23, 
for  not  having  taken  the  field  with  Barak  against 
Sisera.  It  would  seem  as  if  they  had  had  an 
opportunity  of  rendering  some  particular  and  im- 
portant service  to  the  public  cause  which  they 
neglected.  The  site  is  not  known  : Eusebius  and 
Jerome  ( Onomast . s.  v.  ‘Merus’)  fix  it  twelve 
Roman  miles  from  Sebaste,  on  the  road  to 
Dothaim  ; but  this  position  would  place  it  south 
of  the  field  of  battle,  and  therefore  scarcely  agrees 
with  the  history. 

MESECH;  MESHECH  [Nations,  Dis- 
persion of]. 

1 . MESH  A (X&^D ; Sept.  Macroy'),  a place 
mentioned  in  describing  that  part  of  Arabia  in- 
habited by  the  descendants  of  Joktan  (Gen.  x. 
30).  [See  Nations,  Dispersion  of.] 

2.  MESHA  (WV,  deliverance;  Sept.  M curd), 
a king  of  Moab,  who  possessed  an  immense 
number  of  flocks  and  herds,  and  appears  to  have 
derived  his  chief  wealth  from  them.  In  the  time 
of  Ahab,  he  being  then  under  tribute,  ‘ rendered 
unto  the  king  of  Israel  100,000  lambs  and 
100,000  rams,  with  the  wool  (2  Kings  iii.  4). 
These  numbers  may  seem  exaggerated  if  under- 
stood as  the  amount  of  yearly  tribute.  It  is, 
therefore,  more  probable  that  the  greedy  and  im- 
placable Ahab  had  at  some  one  time  levied  this 
enormous  impost  upon  the  Moabites ; and  it  is 
likely  that  it  was  in  the  apprehension  of  a recur- 
rence of  such  ruinous  exactions,  < hat  they  seized  the 
opportunity  for  revolt,  which  the  death  of  Ahab 
seemed  to  offer  (2  Kings  i.  1 ; iii.  5).  The  short 
reign  of  Ahaziah  afforded  no  opportunity  for 


MESSIAH. 


MESSIAH. 


*30 

reducing  them  to  obedience;  but  after  liis  death 
his  brother  and  successor,  Jehoram,  made  prepa- 
rations for  war;  anil  induced  Jehoshaphat  to 
join  him  in  this  expedition.  The  result,  with  the 
'part  taken  by  Elisha  the  prophet,  has  been  re- 
lated under  other  heads  [Ei.isha;  Jehoram; 
Jkhoshaphat].  King  Mesha  was  at.  length 
driven  to  shut  himself  up,  with  the  remnant  of 
his  force,  in  Areopolis,  his  capital.  He  was  there 
besieged  so  closely,  that,  having  been  foiled  in 
an  attempt  to  break  tnrough  the  camp  of  the 
Edomites  (who  were  present  as  vassals  of  Judah), 
he  was  reduced  to  extremities,  and  it)  the  mad- 
ness of  his  despair,  sought  to  propitiate  his  angry 
gods  by  offering  up  his  own  son,  the  heir  of  his 
crown,  as  a sacrilice,  upon  the  wall  of  the  city. 
On  beholding  this  fearful  sight,  the  besiegers  with- 
drew in  horror,  lest  some  portion  of  the  monstrous 
crime  might  attach  to  their  own  souls.  By  this 
withdrawal  they,  however,  afforded  the  king  the 
relief  he  desireu,  and  this  was,  no  doubt,  attri- 
buted by  him  to  the  efficacy  of  his  offering,  and 
to  the  satisfaction  of  his  gods  therewith.  The 
invaders,  however,  ravaged  the  country  as  they 
withdrew,  and  returned  with  much  spoil  to  their 
own  land  [Moabites]. 

MESOPOTAMIA.  [Aram.] 

MESSIAH  (H'^'P  5 Sept.  XpiaTiis).  In  both 
languages  this  word  signifies  the  same  thing,  viz. 
anointed.  Hence  Sept.  6 Upevs  6 xpl<TT^s  f°r 
rmpn  jnlsn,  the  high  priest  (Lev.  iv.  3,  5,  16). 
In  order  to  have  an  accurate  idea  of  the  Scrip- 
tural application  of  the  term,  we  must  consider 
the  custom  of  anointing  which  obtained  amongst 
the  Jews.  That  which  was  sjiecilically  set  apart 
for  God’s  service  was  anointed,  whether  persons 
or  things  [Anointing].  Thus  we  read  that 
Jacob  poured  oil  upon  the  pillar  (Gen.  xxviii. 
IS,  22).  The  tabernacle  also  and  its  utensils 
were  anointed  (Lev.  viii.  It)),  being  thereby  ap- 
propriated to  God's  service. 

But  this  ceremony  had,  moreover,  relation  to 
persons.  Thus  priests , as  Aaron  and  his  sous, 
were  anointed,  that  they  might  minister  unto  God 
(Exod.  xl.  13,  15).  We  are  informed  by  Jewish 
writers  (see  Maimon.  II.  Melach  ; Abarhanel,  on 
Exod.  xxx.  33)  that  the  high-priest,  was  anointed, 
but  not  the  inferior  priests ; the  high-priesthood 
not  devolving,  as  a matter  of  course,  on  the  eldest 
son.  the  person  who  succeeded  his  father  must 
needs  be  thus  consecrated  to  God  (Buxtorf,  Lex. 
Rabbin,  s.  v.  PP^D). 

Kings  were  anointed.  Hence  it  is  that  a 
king  is  designated  the  Lord's  anointed  (Heb. 
ni.T  rPi^’P'TlXi  ; Sept.  6 xpxrr&y  too  K vplov). 
Saul  and  David  were,  according  to  the  divine 
appointment,  anointed  by  Samuel  (1  Sam.  x.  I ; 
xv.  1 ; xvi.  3,  13).  Zadok  anointed  Solomon, 
that  there  might  be  no  dispute  who  should  suc- 
ceed David  (1  Kings  i.  39). 

We  cannot  speak  with  confidence  as  to  whether 
the  prophets  were  actually  anointed  witli  the 
material  oil.  We  have  neither  an  express  law 
nor  practice  to  this  effect  on  record.  True  it  is 
that  Elijah  is  commanded  to  anoint  Elisha  to  be 
piophet  in  his  room  (1  Kings  xix.  16);  but,  no 
more  may  be  meant  by  this  expression  than  that 
he  should  constitute  him  his  successor  in  the 
prophetic  office;  for  all  that  he  did,  in  executing 


his  divine  commission,  was  to  ca*t  his  owi  ga> 
ment  upon  Elisha  (1  Kings  xix.  19  ) ; upon  whici* 
he  arose  and  ministered  unto  him  (ver.  21), 
For  kings  and  priests  the  precept  and  practice 
are  unquestionable.  It  is  in  this  extended,  fignra 
tive,  sense  of  the  expression  that  we  are  to  under- 
stand the  passages  in  Ps.  cv.  15  and  Isa.  xlv.  1, 
wherein  the  Israelites  and  Cyrus  are  called  the 
Lord's  anointed — they  being  expressly  raised  up 
lor  the  accomplishment  of  the  divine  purposes. 

But  the  name  Messiah  is,  par  excellence , ap- 
plied to  the  Redeemer  of  man  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (Dan.  ix.  16;  Ps.  ii.  2).  The  words  of 
Hannah,  the  mother  of  Samuel,  at  the  close  of 
her  divine  song,  are  very  remarkable  (1  Sam. 
ii.  10):  ‘The  adversaries  of  the  Lord  shall  lie 
broken  in  pieces  ; out  of  heaven  shall  He  thunder 
upon  them:  the  Lord  shall  judge  tire  ends  of 
the  earth ; and  he  shall  give  strength  unto  his 
king,  and  exalt  the  horn  of  his  Messiah.'  The 
Hebrews  as  yet  had  no  king;  hence  the  passage 
may  lie  taken  as  a striking  prophecy  of  the  pro- 
mised deliverer.  In  various  parts  of  the  New 
Testament  is  this  epithet  applied  to  Jesus.  St. 
Peter  (Acts  x.  36,  38)  informs  Cornelius  the 
centurion  that  God  had  anointed  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth to  he  the  Christ , and  our  Lord  himself 
acknowledges  to  the  woman  of  Samaria  that,  he 
is  the  expected  Messiah  (John  iv.  25).  This 
term,  however,  as  applied  to  Jesus,  is  less  a name 
than  the  expression  of  his  office;  thus  Laetantius 
says,  ‘ Christus  non  proprium  liomen  est,  sed 
nuncupatio  potestatis  et.  regni’  ( Institut . iv.  7). 

Thus  the  Jews  had  in  type,  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  what  we  have  in  substance  under 
the  Christian  system.  The  prophets,  priests,  and 
kings  of  the  former  economy  were  types  of  Him 
who  sustains  these  offices  as  the  head  of  his  mys- 
tical body,  the  Church  [Mediator].  As  the 
priests  and  kings  of  old  were  set  apart  for  their 
offices  and  dignities  by  a certain  form  prescribed 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  so  was  the  blessed  Saviour 
by  a better  anointing  (of  which  the  former  was 
hut  a shadow),  even  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thus 
the  apostle  tells  us  that  God  anointed  Jesus  of 
Nazaieth  witli  the  Iloly  Ghost,  and  with  power 
(Acts  x.  38).  He  was  anointed: — 

First,  at  his  conception : the  angel  tells  Mary, 
4 The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest,  shall  overshadow  thee : 
therefore  that,  holy  thing  which  shall  he  born  of 
tbee  shall  he  called  the  Sun  of  God"  (Luke  i.  35). 

Second,  at  his  baptism  at  the  river  Jordan 
(Matt.  iii.  13;  Mark  i.  9,  10,  11,  12).  St.  Luke, 
moreover,  records  (Luke  iv.  17,  21)  that  our 
Lord  being  at  Nazareth,  he  had  given  unto  him 
the  book  of  the  prophet  Isaiah ; and  ini  reading 
from  ch.  lxi.  1,  4 The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon 
me,’  &c.,  he  said  to  his  hearers,  4 This  day  is  this 
Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears.’ 

On  this  subject  Chrysostom  ( Ilomil . i.  in 
Epist.  ad  Romanos , p.  6)  says,  4 He,  the  Saviour, 
is  called  Christ,  because,  as  to  the  flesh,  he  was 
anointed  : and  wherewith  was  he  anointed?  With 
nothing  truly  hut  the  Spirit.’  Commenting  on 
Ps.  xlv.  the  same  father  observes,  4 Christ  was 
anointed  when  the  Spirit  descended  upon  him  in 
the  form  of  a dove.’  Theophylact,  on  Matt,  i., 
writes,  4 The  Lord  is  called  Christ  as  king,  be- 
cause He  rules  over  sin,  and  as  priest  because 
He  offered  himself  a sacrifice  for  us.  He  \va* 


MESSIAH. 


MESSIAH. 


331 


anointed  by  the  proper  oil,  even  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.’  Such  are  the  views  taken  of  this  subject 
by  many  other  most  celebrated  fathers  of  the 
Church.  Bitt  as  the  Jews  will  not  acknowledge 
ihe  right  of  either  Jesus,  or  his  apostles,  to  apply 
(he  prophetic  passages  which  point  to  the  Messiah 
to  himself,  it  now  remains  for  us  to  show — 

First,  That  the  promised  Messiah  has  already 
come. 

Second,  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  unquestion- 
ably he. 

To  prove  our  first  assertion,  we  shall  confine 
our  remarks  to  three  prophecies.  The  first  occurs 
in  Gen.  xlix.  8,  10,  where  Jacob  is  giving  his 
sons  his  parting  benediction,  &c.  When  he  comes 
to  Judah  he  says  : ‘ The  sceptre  shall  not  de- 
part from  Judah,  nor  a lawgiver  from  between 
his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come;  and  unto  him  shall 
tiie  gathering  of  the  people  be.’  It  is  evident 
that  by  Judah  is  here  meant,  not  the  person  but 
the  tribe;  for  Judah  died  in  Egypt,  without  any 
pre-eminence.  By  sceptre  and  lawgiver  are  ob- 
viously intended  the  legislative  and  ruling  power, 
which  did,  in  the  course  of  time,  commence  in 
David,  and  which,  for  centuries  afterwards,  was 
continued  in  his  descendants.  Whatever  variety 
*the  form  of  government — whether  monarchical 
or  atistocratical — might  have  assumed,  the  law 
and  polity  icere  still  the  same.  This  prediction 
all  the  ancient  Jews  referred  to  the  Messiah.  Ben 
Uzziel  renders  it,  ‘Until  the  time  when  the  king 
Messiah  shall  come.’  The  Targum  of  Onkelos 
speaks  to  the  same  effect,  and  that  of  Jerusalem 
paraphrases  it  thus:  ‘Kings  shall  not  cease  from 
the  house  of  Judah,  nor  doctors  that  teach  the 
law  from  his  children,  until  that  the  king  Messiah 
do  come,  whose  the  kingdom  is;  and  all  nations 
of  the  earth  shall  be  subject  unto  him.'  Now, 
that  the  sceptre  has  departed  from  Judah,  and, 
consequently,  that  the  Messiah  has  come,  we  argue 
from  the  acknowledgments  of  some  most  learned 
Jews  themselves.  Kimchi  thus  comments  on 
Hosea:  ‘ These  are  the  days  of  our  captivity, 
wherein  we  have  neither  king  nor  prince  in  Israel ; 
but  we  are  in  the  power  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
under  their  kings  and  princes.’  Again,  Abar- 
banel,  commenting  on  Isa.  c.  liii.,  says  that  it  is 
a great  part  of  their  misery  in  their  captivity,  that 
they  have  neither  kingdom  nor  rule,  nor  a sceptre 
of  judgment!  The  precise  time  when  all  autho- 
rity departed  from  Judah  is  disputed.  Some  date 
its  departure  from  the  time  when  Herod,  an  Idu- 
maean,  set  aside  the  Maccabees  and  Sanhedrim. 
Whereupon  the  Jews  are  said  to  have  shaved 
their  heads,  put.  on  sackcloth,  and  cried,  ‘ Woe 
to  us,  because  the  sceptre  is  departed  from  Judah, 
and  a lawgiver  from  beneath  his  feet!’  Others 
think  that  it  rvas  when  Vespasian  and  Titus  de- 
stroyed Jerusalem  and  the  Temple,  that  the  Jews 
lost  the  last  vestige  of  authority.  If,  therefore, 
the  sceptre  has  departed  from  Judah — and  who 
can  question  it  who  looks  at  the  broken-up,  scat 
tered,  and  lost  state  of  that  tribe  for  ages? — the 
conclusion  is  clearly  irresistible,  that  the  Messiah 
must  have  long  since  come  ! To  avoid  the  force 
of  this  conclusion  the  Jews  now  soy,  that  the 

shebet,  which  we  render  sceptre,  may  be 

translated  rod , and  metaphorically  signifies,  in 
the  above  passage,  affliction.  That  the  word 
cannot  bear  this  meaning  here , is  evident,  because 


for  a long  while  after  the  prophecy  was  uttered, 
especially  in  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon, 
the  tribe  of  Judah  was  in  a most  prosperous  state 

The  next  proof  that  the  Messiah  has  long  since 
come,  we  adduce  from  Dan.  ix.  25,  26,  27.  It 
is  evident  that  the  true  Messiah  is  here  spoken  of. 
He  is  twice  designated  by  the  very  name.  And  i. 
we  consider  what  the  work  is  which  he  is  here  said 
to  accomplish,  we  shall  have  a full  confirm  at  io» 
of  this.  Who  but  He  could  finish  and  takeaway 
transgression,  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity, 
bring  in  everlasting  righteousness,  seal  up  the 
vision  and  prophecy,  confirm  the  covenants  with 
many,  and  cause  to  cease  the  sacrifice  and  obla- 
tion? Indeed  there  is  a saying  extant  in  the 
Talmud,  as  the  tradition  of  former  times,  ‘ In 
Daniel  is  delivered  to  us  the  end  of  the  Messiah,’ 
i.  e.  the  term  wherein  he  ought  to  come,  as  it  is 
explained  by  Jarchi.  Grotius  (De  Veritat.  v.) 
speaks  of  a Jew,  R.  Berachia,  who  lived  fifty  years 
before  our  Lord,  and  who  declared  that  the  time 
fixed  by  Daniel  could  not  go  beyond  fifty  years ! 
If  then  it  be  the  true  Messiah  who  is  described  in 
the  above  prophecy,  it  remains  for  us  to  see  how 
the  time  predicted  for  his  coming  has  long  since 
transpired.  This  is  expressly  said  to  be  seventy 
weeks  from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment 
to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem.  That  by  seventy 
weeks  are  to  be  understood  seventy  sevens  of 
years,  a day  being  put  for  a year,  and  a week  for 
seven  years,  making  up  400  years,  is  allowed  by 
Kimchi,  Jarchi,  Rabbi  Saadias,  and  other  learned 
Jews,  as  well  as  by  many  Christian  commenta- 
tors. It  is  clear  that  these  seventy  weeks  cannot 
consist  of  weeks  of  days,  for  all  put  together  make 
but  one  year,  four  months,  and  odd  days — a 
space  of  time  too  short  to  crowd  so  many  various 
events  into  as  are  here  specified ; nor  can  any 
such  time  be  assigned  between  the  two  captivities, 
wherein  like  events  did  happen  (see  Prideaux, 
Connect,  lib.  v.,  part  1).  This  period  of  time 
then  must  have  long  since  elapsed,  whether  we 
date  its  commencement  from  the  first  decree  of 
Cyrus  (Ezra  i.  1,  2),  the  second  of  Darius 
Hystaspes  (ch.  vi.  15),  or  that  of  Artaxerxes 
(ch.  viii.  11).  See  Grotius  De  Veritat.  v. ; 
Josephus,  De  Hcll.Jud.  vii.  12,  13. 

We  can  only  barely  allude  to  one  remarkable 
prediction  more,  which  fixes  the  time  of  the 
Messiah’s  advent,  viz.,  Hag.  ii.  7-9 : ‘ I will 
shake  all  nations,  and  the  desire  of  all  nations 
shall  come  : amt  I will  till  this  house  with  glory, 
saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  The  silver  is  mine,  and 
the  gold  is  mine,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  The 
glory  of  this  latter  house  shall  be  greater  than  of 
the  former,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts.’  The  glory 
here_ spoken  of  must  be  in  reference  to  the  Mes- 
siah, or  on  some  oilier  account.  It  could  not 
have  been  said  that  the  second  Temple  exceeded 
in  gloiy  the  former  one  ; for  in  many  particulars, 
according  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Jews 
themselves,  it  was  far  inferior  both  as  a building 
(Ezra  iii.  3,  12),  and  in  respect  of  the  symbols 
and  tokens  of  God  s special  favour  being  wanting 
(see  Kimchi  and  R.  Salomon  on  Hag.  i.  8). 
The  promised  glory,  therefore,  must  refer  to  the 
coming  and  presence  of  him  who  was  promised 
to  the  world  before  there  was  any  nation  of  the 
Jews;  and  who  is  aptly  called  the  ‘ Desire  of  all 
nations.'  This  view  is  amply  confirmed  by  the 
prophet  Malachi  (ch.  iii.  1).  Since  then  the 


332 


MESSIAH. 


very  Temple  into  which  the  Saviour  was  to  enter, 
has  for  ages  been  destroyed,  He  must,  if  the 
integrity  of  this  prophecy  be  preserved,  have  come. 
That  there  was,  at  the  time  of  our  Lord’s  birth, 
a great  expectation  of  the  Messiah,  both  amongst 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  may  be  seen  from  three  cele- 
brated historians,  as  well  as  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  Tacitus  {Hist.  c.  13)  says:  ‘ Plu- 
ribus  persuasio  inerat,  anliquis  sacerdotum  lite- 
ris  conlineri,  eo  ipso  tempore  fore  ut  valesceret 
Oriens,  profectique  Judaea  rerum  potirentur.’ 
Again,  Suetonius  (in  Vespas.  4)  says  : ‘ Percre- 
bruerat  Oriente  toto  vetus  et  constans  opinio, 
esse  in  fatis  ut  eo  tempore  Judaei  profecti  rerum 
potirentur.’  Josephus  not  being  able  to  find  any 
calculation  by  which  to  protract  the  general  ex- 
pectation of  the  Messiah,  applies  it  in  the  follow- 
ing words  to  Vespasian  (De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  31)  : 
‘ That  which  chiefly  excited  the  Jews  to  war  was 
an  ambiguous  prophecy,  which  was  also  found 
in  the  sacred  books,  that  at  that  time  some  one 
within  their  country  should  arise,  that  should 
obtain  the  empire  of  the  whole  world.’  We  are, 
moreover,  informed  again  by  Suetonius  ( Octav . 
94),  that,  upon  the  conception  of  Augustus,  it  was 
generally  thought  that  Nature  was  then  in  labour 
to  bring  forth  a king  that  should  rule  the  Romans ! 
Some  suppose  that  the  words  of  Virgil  ( Eclog . iv.), 
point  at  our  Saviour ; hut  they  were  intended 
by  him  to  apply  to  the  son  of  Pollio.  We  may 
just  add,  that  as  there  was  a general  expectation 
of  the  Messiah  at  this  time,  so  there  were  many 
impostors  who  drew  after  them  many  followers 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  xx.  2.  6;  De  Bell.  ,hid.  lvii. 
31).  See  also  a full  account  of  the  false 
Christs  who  appeared  by  John  a Lent  Schediasm , 
c.  2 ; Maimon.  Ep.  ad  Judceos  Marsilienses ; 
Christ  prophesies  of  such  persons  (Matt.  xxiv. 
21,  29). 

The  limits  of  this  article  will  admit  of  our 
only  touching  upon  the  proofs  that  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  and  none  other,  is  the  very  Messiah  who 
was  to  come.  What  was  predicted  of  the  Mes- 
siah was  fulfilled  in  Jesus.  Was  the  Messiah  to  be 
of  the  seed  of  the  woman  (Gen.  iii.  15),  and  this 
woman  a virgin?  (Isa.  vii.  14).  So  we  are  told 
(Gal.  iv.  4 ; Matt.  i.  1 8,  and  22,  23)  that  Jesus  was 
made  of  a woman,  and  born  of  a virgin.  Was  it 
predicted  that  he  (Messiah)  should  be  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah,  of  the  family  of  Jesse,  and  of  the  house 
of  David  ? (Mic.  v.  2;  Gen.  xlix.  10;  Isa.  xi. 
10;  Jer.  xxiii.  5).  This  was  fulfilled  in  Jesus 
(Luke  i.  27,69;  Matt.  i.  1)  [Geneai.ogy]. 

2.  I.f  die  Messiah  was  to  be  a prophet  like  unto 
Mos^s,  so  was  Jesus  also  (Isa.  xviii. ; John  vi.  14). 
1 f the  Messiah  was  to  appear  in  the  second  Temple, 
so  did  Jesus  (Hag.  ii.  7,  9 ; John  xviii.  20). 

3.  Was  Messiah  to  work  miracles?  (Isa.  xxxv. 
5,  6 ; comp.  Matt.  xi.  4,  5). 

4.  If  the  Messiah  was  to  suffer  and  die  (Isa.  liii.), 
we  find  that  Jesus  died  in  the  same  manner,  at 
the  very  time,  and  under  the  identical  circum- 
stances, which  were  predicted  of  him.  The  very 
man  who  betrayed  him,  the  price  for  which  he  was 
sold,  the  indignities  he  was  to  receive  in  his  last 
moments,  the  parting  of  his  garments,  and  his  last 
words,  &e.,  were  all  foretold  of  the  Messiah,  and 
accomplished  in  Jesus! 

5.  Was  the  Messiah  to  rise  from  the  dead?  So 
did  Jesus ! How  stupendous  and  adorable  is  the 
Providence  of  God,  who,  through  so  many  ap- 


METALS. 

parent  contingencies,  brought  such  things  t« 
pass  ! — J.  W.  D. 

METALS.  The  principal  metals  are  in  this 
work  considered  separately  under  their  several 
names;  and  a few  general  observations  alone 
are  necessary  in  this  place. 

The  mountains  of  Palestine  contained  metals, 
nor  were  the  Hebrews  ignorant  of  the  fact  (Deut. 
viii.  9) ; but  they  do  not  appear  to  have  understood 
the  art  of  mining.  They  therefore  obtained  from 
others  the  superior  as  well  as  the  inferior  metals, 
and  worked  them  up.  They  received  also  metal 
utensils  ready  made,  or  metal  in  plates  (Jer.  x.  9), 
from  neighbouring  and  distant  countries  of  Asia 
and  Europe.  The  metals  named  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament are  ‘PT-Q  barzely  iron  (steel,  Jer.  xv.  12); 
nCTIJ  nechusheth , copper,  or  copper  ore  ; 
ccscph,  silver;  2HT  zahab,  gold  ; TTIDy  ophereth, 
lead  ; and  b'^12  bedil , tin.  The  trade  in  these 
metals  was  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  the  Phoenicians 
(Ezek.  xxvii.  7),  who  obtained  them  from  their 
colonies,  principally  those  in  Spain  (Jer.  x.  9 ; 
Ezek.  xxvii.  12).  Some  also  came  from  Arabia 
(Ezek.  xxvii.  19),  and  some  apparently  from  the 
countries  of  the  Caucasus  (Ezek.  xxvii.  13). 
composition  of  several  metals  is  expressed  by 
the  Hebrew  word  chasmil  (which  see). 

In  general  the  ancients  had  a variety  of  metallic 
compositions,  and  that  which  the  word  chasmil 
describes  appears  to  have  been  very  valuable. 
Whether  it  was  the  same  as  that  precious  com- 
pound known  among  the  ancients  as  Corinthian 
brass  is  uncertain,  but  it  is  likely  that  in  later 
times  the  Jews  possessed  splendid  vessels  of  the 
costly  compound  known  by  that  name.  Indeed 
this  is  distinctly  affirmed  by  Josephus  ( Vita,  13). 

The  vast  quantity  of  silver  and  gold  used  in 
the  temple  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  which 
was  otherwise  possessed  by  the  Jews  during  the 
flourishing  time  of  the  nation,  is  very  remarkable, 
under  whatever  interpretation  we  regard  such  texts 
as  1 Chron.  xxii.  14  ; xxix.  4,  &c.  In  like  manner, 
we  find  among  other  ancient  Asiatic  nations,  and 
also  among  the  Romans,  extraordinary  wealth  in 
gold  and  silver  vessels  and  ornaments  of  jewellery. 
As  all  the  accounts,  received  from  sources  so  va- 
rious, cannot  be  founded  on  exaggeration,  we  may 
rest  assured  that  the  precious  metals  were  in  those 
ancient  times  obtained  abundantly  from  mines — 
gold  from  Africa,  India,  and  perhaps  even  then 
from  Northern  Asia;  and  silver  principally  from 
Spain. 

The  following  are  the  metallic  manufactures 
named  in  the  Old  Testament : — Of  iron , axes 
(Deut.  xix.  5-2  ; 2 Kings  vi.  5) ; saws  (2  Sam. 
xii.  31);  stone-cuttera’  tools  (Deut.  xxvii.  5); 
sauce-pans  (Ezek.  iv.  3)  ; bolts,  chains,  knives, 
&c.,  but  especially  weapons  of  war  (1  Sam.  xvii. 
7 ; 1 Macc.  vi.  35).  Bedsteads  were  even  some- 
times made  of  iron  (Deut.  iii.  11);  ‘ chariots  of 
iron,’  i.  e.  war-chariots,  are  noticed  elsewhere 
[Chariots].  Of  cojjper  we  find  vessels  of  all 
kinds  (Lev.  vi.  28  ; Num.  xvi.  39 ; 2 Chron.  iv. 
16;  Ezek.  viii.  27) ; and  also  weapons  of  war, 
principally  helmets,  cuirasses,  shields,  spear* 
(1  Sam.  xvii.  5 ; vi.  38 ; 2 Sam.  xxi.  16)  ; alsa 
chains  (Judg.  xvi.  21);  and  even  mirrors  (Exod. 
xxxviii.  8)  [Copper].  Gold  and  silver  furnished 
articles  of  ornament,  also  vessels,  such  as  ;upg 
goblets,  &c.  The  holy  vessels  of  the  temple  ^er* 


METHUSAEL. 

mostly  of  gold  (Ezra  v.  14).  Idolaters  had  idols 
and  other  sacred  objects  of  silver  (Exod.  xx.  20 ; 
Isa.  ii.  20;  Acts  xvii.  29;  xix.  24).  Lead  is 
mentioned  as  being  used  for  weights,  and  for 
plumb-lines  in  measuring  (Amos  vii.  7 ; Zech. 
v.  8).  Some  of  the  tools  of  workers  in  metal  are 
also  mentioned  : Dy.Q  paam,  anvil  (Isa.  xli.  7) ; 
mpO  mdkkabdh  (Isa.  xliv.  12)  ; pattish, 

hammer  (Isa.  xli.  7)  ; DTip  mal  kachirn , 
pincers;  and  HSD  mappuach,  bellows  (Jer.  vi. 
29)  ; matzreph , crucible  (Prov.  xvii.  3)  ; 

*VD  cur,  melting- furnace  (Ezek.  xxii.  18j. 

There  are  also  allusions  to  various  operations 
connected  with  the  preparation  of  metals.  1.  The 
smelting  of  metal  was  not  only  for  the  purpose  of 
rendering  it  fluid,  but  in  order  to  separate  and 
purify  the  richer  metal  when  mixed  with  baser 
minerals,  as  silver  from  lead,  &c.  (Isa.  i.  25; 
comp.  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xxxvii.  47  ; Ezek.  xxii. 
18-20).  The  dross  separated  by  this  process  is 
called  D'PD  sigim,  although  this  word  also  ap- 
plies to  metal  not  yet  purified  from  its  dross.  For 
the  actual  or  chemical  separation  other  materials 
were  mixed  in  the  smelting,  such  as  alkaline  salts, 
TQ  bor  (Isa.  i.  25)  ; and  lead  (Jer.  vi.  29  ; comp. 
Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xxxiii.  31).  2.  The  casting  of 

images  (Exod.  xxv.  12;  xxvi.  37  ; Isa.  xl.  19); 
which  are  always  of  gold,  silver,  or  copper.  The 
casting  of  iron  is  not  mentioned,  and  was  perhaps 
unknown  to  I he  ancients  (Hausmann,  in  Com - 
mentatt.  Soc.  Goett.  iv.  53,  sqq. ; Muller,  Archaol. 
p.  371).  3.  The  hammering  of  metal,  and  making 
it  into  broad  sheets  (Num.  xvi.  38 ; Isa.  xliv.  12 ; 
Jer.  x.).  4.  Soldering  and  welting  parts  of  metal 
together  (Isa.  xli  7).  5.  Smoothing  and  polish- 
ing metals  (1  Kings  vii.  45).  6.  Overlaying 

with  plates  of  gold  and  silver  and  copper  (Exod. 
xxv.  11-24;  1 Kings  vi.  20;  2 Chron.  iii.  5; 
comp.  Isa.  xl.  19).  The  execution  of  these  dif- 
ferent metallurgic  operations  appears  to  have 
farmed  three  distinct  branches  of  handicraft  be- 
fore the  Exile;  for  we  read  of  the  blacksmith,  by 
the  name  of  the  ‘ worker  in  iron  ’ ((?nn  wn, 
Isa.  xliv.  12);  the  brass-founder  (1  Kings  vii. 
14);  and  the  gold  and  silversmith  (Judg.  xvii. 
4 ; Mai.  iii.  2). 

Tbe  invention  of  the  metallurgic  arts  is  in 
Scripture  ascribed  toTubal-cain  (Gen.  iv.  22).  In 
later  times  the  manufacture  of  useful  utensils  and 
implements  in  metals  seems  to  have  been  carried 
on  to  a considerable  extent  among  the  Israelites, 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  frequent  allusions  to 
them  by  the  poets  and  prophets.  But  it  does  not 
appear  that,  in  the  finer  and  more  elaborate 
branches  of  this  great  art,  they  made  much,  if 
any  progress,  during  the  flourishing  times  of  their 
commonwealth  ; and  it  will  be  remembered  that 
Solomon  was  obliged  to  obtain  assistance  from  the 
Phoenicians  in  executing  the  metal  work  of  the 
temple  (1  Kings  vii.  13). 

The  Hebrew  workers  in  iron,  and  especially 
such  as  made  arms,  were  frequently  carried  away 
by  the  different  conquerors  of  the  Israelites  (1  Sam. 
xiii.  19;  2 Kings  xxiv.  14,  15;  Jer.  xxiv.  1; 
xxix.  2)  ; which  is  one  circumstance  among  others 
to  show  the  high  estimation  in  which  this  branch 
of  handicraft  was  anciently  held. 

METHUSAEL  (*?NK«inp,  man  of  God ; 
Sept  MatfoueraAa),  son  of  Mehujael,  of  the  race  of 
Cain  (G;n.  iv.  18). 


MIC  AH.  331 

METHUSELAH  (nfe-inp,  man  of  the  lust; 
Sept.  MaOovaaKa),  son  of  Enoch,  and  remarkable 
as  being  the  oldest  of  those  antediluvian  patriarchs 
whose  great  ages  are  recorded  (Gen.  v.  21,  22). 
At  the  age  of  187  years  he  begat  Lamech  (the 
father  of  Noah);  after  which  he  lived  782  years, 
making  altogether  9G9  years  [Longevity]. 

MEZUZOTH  (niUP).  This  word  is  found 
in  Exod.  xii.  17,  22  ; Dent.  vi.  9 ; and  in  other 
places,  in  all  of  which  it  signifies  ‘ door-posts.’ 
It  has  no  other  meaning  in  Scripture.  In  the 
texts  now  referred  to,  the  word  occurs  in  the  in- 
junction, ‘Thou  shalt  never  forget  the  laws  of 
the  Lord  thy  God ; but  shalt  write  them  on  the 
posts  of  thy  house,  and  on  thy  gates.’  This, 
contrary  to  most  Christian  interpreters,  the  Jews 
understand  in  the  literal  sense ; and  in  this 
sense  it  might  have  been  followed  in  the  East, 
where  it  is  at  this  day  not  unusual  for  the 
Moslems  to  inscribe  on  or  over  the  gates,  and  on 
other  parts  of  buildings,  passages  from  their  sacred 
book,  the  Koran.  If  therefore  the  Jews,  before  their 
dispersion,  interpreted  this  precept  literally,  they 
probably  applied  it  in  the  same  manner.  But 
when  they  came  into  western  countries,  where 
such  was  not  the  custom,  and  where  ofttimes  it 
might  have  proved  inconvenient  thus  to  point  out 
their  houses  as  those  belonging  to  Jews,  they 
adopted  the  custom  of  writing  the  precepts  on 
scrolls  of  parchment,  which  they  enclosed  in  a case 
and  attached  to  the  doors  of  their  houses  and 
chambers.  To  the  scrolls  thus  enclosed  the  name 
of  mezuzoth  is,  not  very  properly,  given. 

The  mezuzah  (singular)  then  is  a piece  of 
parchment,  prepared  for  the  purpose  according  to 
the  rules  laid  down  by  the  rabbins,  on 
which,  with  ink  prepared  with  the  same 
care,  are  written  the  words  containing  the 
precept,  namely,  Deut.  vi.  4-9  ; xi.  13- 
30.  The  parchment  is  then  rolled  up, 
with  the  ends  of  the  lines  inward;  the 
Hebrew  word  Shaddai,  ‘ Almighty,’ 
is  then  inscribed  on  the  outside,  and 
the  roll  is  put  into  a cane,  or  a cylin- 
drical tube  of  lead,  in  which  a hole  is 
cut  that,  the  word  may  appear.  This 
tub®  is  fastened  to  the  door-post  by  a nail 
at  each  end.  The  fixing  of  it  is  accom- 
panied by  the  prayer,  ‘ Blessed  art  thou, 

O Lord  our  God,  King  of  the  Universe, 
who  hast  commanded  us  to  fix  the  Me- 
zuzah !’  The  injunction  in  the  law  being 
in  the  plural  number,  ‘ upon  the  posts 
of  thy  house  and  of  thy  gates/  it  is  con- 
cluded that  Mezuzoth  ought  to  be  fixed 
on  all  the  doors  of  dwelling-houses, 
whether  palaces,  bed-rooms,  kitchens,  or 
cellars,  on  the  doors  of  barns  or  storehouses,  or 
on  the  gates  of  cities  or  towns.  The  Mezuzah  is 
generally  placed  on  the  right  side  of  the  entrance, 
and  those  who  are  deemed  the  most  devout 
Israelites  often  touch  and  kiss  it  as  they  pass. 
The  synagogue  being  a house  of  prayer,  and  not 
of  residence,  requires  no  Mezuzoth.  Talm.  Bah. 
tit.  Sabbat.  10;  Buxtorf,  Synag.  Jud.  pp.  4S2- 
487  ; Leo  Modena,  Rites  a?id  Customs , pt.  i 
ch.  ii.  § iii. ; Allen’s  Modern  Judaism , pp.  327- 
329. 

MIC  AH  (np'p  ; Sept.  Mixalas),  one  of  th* 
twelve  Minor  Prophets  who,  according  to  th«  la- 


A 


@ 


334 


MIC  ATI. 


MIC  AH. 


•cviptivtnof  the  look,  prophesiel  during  the  reigns 
of  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah  (b.c.  759-699), 
and  was  consequently  contemporary  with  Isaiah. 
It  is  however  doubtful  whether  any  accurate  sepa- 
ration  of  the  particular  prophecies  of  Micah  can 
be  ascertained.  He  was  a native  of  Moresheth  of 
Gath  (i.  14,  15),  so  called  to  distinguish  it  from 
another  town  of  the  same  name,  in  the  tribe  of 
Judah  (Josh.  xv.  44;  2 Chron.  xiv.  9,  10). 
Micah  is  to  be  distinguished  from  a former  pro- 
phet of  the  same  name,  called  also  Micaiah,  men- 
tioned in  1 Kings  xxii.  8 (b.c.  897).  The  allu- 
sions to  idolatry  (vii.  13)  and  to  Babylon  (iv. 10) 
have  induced  Berthold  to  refer  the  prophecy  of 
Micah  to  the  time  of  the  captivity : but.  De 
M'ette  truly  observes  that  this  supposition  is  un- 
necessary, as  idolatry  existed  under  Hezekiah 
(2  Kings  xxiii.),  and  Babylon  equally  belonged 
to  the  kingdom  of  Assyria.  Hartmann’s  attempt 
to  regard  the  passage  respecting  Babylon  as  an  in- 
terpolation (see  Micah  neu  ubersetzt')  De  Wette 
regards  as  even  still  more  venturesome  ; nor  had 
this  writer  the  slightest  authority  for  supposing 
that  some  only  of  the  prophecies  are  Micah  s,  and 
that  the  work  was  compiled  during  the  exile. 
In  fact,  the  period  of  Micah's  predictions  is  fully 
attested  by  Jeremiah  (xxvi.  18,  19),  where  it  is 
stated  that  Micah  the  Morasthite  foretold  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah. 
It  is  a matter  of  dispute  whether  the  passage 
in  ch.  iv.  13  is  borrowed  from  Isaiah,  ii.  2,  4,  or 
whether  the  passage  in  Micah  is  the  original, 
if,  indeed,  both  may  not  be  derived  from  a com- 
mon and  more  ancient  source.  Ilengstenberg 
( Ckristology ) strongly  maintains  the  originality 
of  this  passage  in  Micah.  De  Wette  ( Einleitung ) 
observes  that  we  have  the  best  reason  for  regarding 
the  last  years  of  Ahaz  as  the  period  of  Micah’s 
prophetic  glory. 

The  contents  of  Micah’s  prophecy  may  be 
briefly  summed  up.  It  consists  of  two  parts,  the 
first  of  which  terminates  with  chapter  v.  He 
commences  with  a majestic  exordium  (i.  2-4),  in 
which  is  introduced  a sublime  theophany,  the 
Lord  descending  from  his  dwelling-place  to  judge 
the  nations  of  the  earth,  who  are  approaching  to 
receive  judgment.  There  is  then  a sudden  trans- 
ition to  the  judgment  of  Israel,  whose  captivity 
is  predicted  (chaps,  i.  and  ii.).  That  of  Judah 
follows,  when  the  complete  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem is  foretold,  with  the  expatriation  of  the 
Jews  to  Babylon,  their  future  return,  the  glories 
of  Sion,  and  the  celebrity  of  its  temple  (iv.  1,  8,  9, 
12),  with  the  chastisement  prepared  for  the  op- 
pressors of  the  Jews  (ver.  13).  After  this,  glorious 
wars  are  seen  in  perspective,  attended  with 
great  slaughter  (ch.  v.) ; after  many  calamities 
a ruler  is  seen  to  arise  from  Bethlehem.  An  in- 
vasion of  the  Assyrians  is  predicted,  to  oppose 
which  there  will  be  no  want  of  able  leaders  (v. 
4-8).  A new  monarchy  is  beheld,  attended  with 
wars  and  destruction. 

The  second  part,  from  this  to  the  end,  consists 
of  an  elegant  dialogue  or-' contestation  between 
the  Lord  and  his  people,  in  which  the  corruption 
of  their  morals  is  reproved,  and  their  chastise- 
ment threatened ; but  they  are  consoled  by  the 
promise  of  a return  from  their  captivity. 

Jahn  ( Introd .)  points  out  the  following  pre- 
dictions as  contained  in  the  prophet  Micah. 
1.  The  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 


which  was  impending  when  the  prophecy  wai 
delivered,  and  which  was  fulfilled  in  the  taking 
of  Samaria  bv  Shalmaneser,  in  the  sixth  year  of 
Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xvii.),  and  then  that  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  with  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem (iii.  12;  vii.  13).  2.  The  Babylonian 

captivity  (iv.  10,  11  : vii.  7,  8,  13).  These  pre- 
dictions were  delivered  150  years  before  the  event, 
when  the  Chaldaeans,  by  whom  they  were  accom- 
plished. were  scarcely  known  as  a people.  3.  The 
return  from  the  exile,  with  its  happy  effects,  and 
the  tranquillity  enjoyed  by  the  Jews  under  the 
Persian  and  Grecian  monarchies,  which  referred 
to  events  from  200  to  500  years  distant  (iv.  18; 
vii.  11;  xiv.  12).  4.  The  heroic  deeds  of  the 

Maccabees,  and  their  victories  over  the  Syrians  or 
Syro- Macedonians,  called  Assyrians  in  Micah  v., 
as  well  as  Zechariah  x.  11  (iv.  13).  5.  The  esta- 
blishment of  the  royal  residence  in  Sion  (iv.  8). 
6.  The  birth  and  reign  of  the  Messiah  (v.  2). 
The  three  last  prophecies,  observes  this  learned 
writer,  are  more  obscure  than  the  others,  by  rea- 
son of  the  remote  distance,  in  point  of  time,  of 
their  accomplishment,  from  the  period  of  their 
being  delivered. 

There  is  no  prophecy  in  Micah  so  interesting  to 
the  Christian  as  that  in  which  the  native  place  of 
the  Messiah  is  announced.  ‘ But  thou,  Bethlehem 
Ephratah,  [though]  thou  be  little  among  the  thou- 
sands of  Judah,  [yetj  out  of  thee  shall  he  come 
forth  unto  me,  [that  is]  to  be  ruler  in  Israel’  (Eng. 
Authorized  Version).  It  is  thus  translated  by 
the  Sept  : Kal  av  Brj6Aee/J.  dittos  rod  ’E <ppa6a, 
oAiyoarbs  el  tow  eivai  iv  xiAicunv  TooSa’  etc  trod 
fioi  e^eAevaerat  gyov/xevos  tov  eivai  els  &pxovra 
iv  t $ ’IaparjA  : — ‘And  thou,  Bethlehem,  house  of 
Ephratah,  although  thou  be  least  among  the  thou- 
sands of  Judah,  out  of  thee  shall  come  unto  me 
one  that  shall  be  a ruler  of  Israel.’  The  citation 
of  this  passage  by  the  Evangelist  differs  both  from 
the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint : Kal  av  BrjdAeeju 
yrj  ’I ovSa,  ovSajucos  iAaxiarr}  el  iv  rots  r\yep.6aiv 
’IooSa-  itt  aov  yap  i^eAevaerai  riyov/ievos,  octis 
noi/aave?  t bv  Aa6v  fxou  rbv  ’ lapaiiA  : — ‘ And  thou, 
Bethlehem,  [in]  the  land  of  Judah,  art  not  the 
least  among  the  princes  of  Judah:  for  out  of  thee 
shall  come  a governor,  that  shall  rule  [Gr.  feed] 
my  people  Israel 1 (Matt.  ii.  6).  The  difference, 
however,  is  but  verbal.  Some  suppose  that  the 
negative  (oySa/usDs)  originally  belonged  to  the 
Hebrew,  and  others  to  the  Greek,  while  many 
read  the  Hebrew  interrogatively,  ‘ art  thou  little,’ 
&c.  ? Eichhorn  supposes  that  the  Greek  trans- 
lator of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel  interchanged 
thousands , with  rulers. 

Of  more  importance  is  the  application  of  the 
prophecy.  It  is  evident  that  the  Jews  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  interpreted  this  passage  of  the  birth-place 
of  the  Messiah  (Matt.  ii.  5;  John  vii.  41,  42). 
The  later  Rabbinical  writers,  however,  such  as 
Kimchi,  Aben  Ezra,  Abarbanel,  &c.,  have  main- 
tained that  it  had  only  an  indirect  reference  to 
the  birth-place  of  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  be  a 
descendant  of  David,  a Bethlehemite,  but  not  of 
necessity  himself  born  in  Bethlehem.  Others, 
however,  as  David  Ganz  (B.  Zemach  David), 
expressly  mention  Bethlehem  as  the  birth-place 
of  the  Messiah.  The  interpretation  which  con- 
sidered this  prophecy  as  intimating  only  that  the 


MIC  AH. 


MICHAEL. 


335 


Messiah  was  to  be  a descendant  of  David,  was 
that  current  among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of 
Theodoret,  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Euthy- 
miu8  Zigabeuus,  from  whom  we  learn  that  it  was 
maintained  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  Zerubbabel, 
the  leader  of  the  Jews  on  their  return  from  Ba- 
bylon, of  which,  and  not  of  Bethlehem,  he  was  a 
native.  This  interpretation  was  held  among 
Christians  by  the  celebrated  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia  (as  we  learn  from  his  condemnation  by 
the  council  at  Rome  under  Pope  Vigil ius),  and 
afterwards  by  Grotius  ( Comment .),  who,  however, 
regarded  Zerubbabel  as  a type  of  Christ,  and 
considered  Christ's  birth-place  at  Bethlehem  as 
an  outward  representation  of  his  descent  from  the 
family  of  David.  ‘ Natus  ex  Bethlehemo  Zoro- 
babel  recte  dicitur,  quod  ex  Davidis  familia  esset, 
quae  orta  Betldehemi.'  Many  of  the  moderns 
have  been  attached  to  this  interpretation  of  the 
prophecy,  referring  :t  *o  "he  general  idea  of  the 
Messiah  rarher  than  to  Zerubbabel,  while  some 
among  them  have,  after  the  example  of  some 
Jews,  ventured  to  assert  that  the  account  of  the 
birth  of  Christ  at  Bethlehem  was  not  to  be  de- 
pended on.  Some  have  asserted  after  Jerome 
(Comm,  in  Mic.),  that  the  citation  in  Matt.  ii.  6 
is  that  of  the  Sanhedrim  only,  not  of  the  Evan- 
gelist (Hengstenberg's  Christology).  Jahn  ( Ap- 
pend. Hermeneut.)  observes  that  it  is  evident  that 
the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  expected  the  Mes- 
siah's birth  to  take  place  at  Bethlehem ; and 
although  he  admits  that  the  prophecy  may  be 
understood  tropically  in  the  sense  applied  to  it  by 
Grotius,  he  contends  that  the  conlext  will  not 
admit  of  its  applicability  either  to  Hezekiah  or 
any  other  monarch  than  the  Messiah  ; nor  is  it 
possible  to  apply  the  prophecy  fully  and  literally 
to  any  but  Him  who  was  not  only  of  the  house 
and  lineage  of  David,  but  was  actually  born  at 
Bethlehem,  according  to  the  direct  testimony  of 
both  St.  Matthew’s  and  St.  Luke’s  Gospels. 

The  style  of  Micah  is  sublime  and  vehement, 
in  which  respects  he  exceeds  Amos  and  Hosea. 
De  Wette  observes  that  he  has  more  roundness, 
fulness,  and  clearness  in  his  style  and  rhythm 
than  the  latter  prophet.  He  abounds  in  rapid 
transitions  and  elegant  tropes,  and  piquant  plays 
upon  words.  He  is  successful  in  the  use  of 
the  dialogue,  and  his  prophecies  are  penetrated 
by  the  purest  spirit  of  morality  and  piety  (see 
especially  ch.  vi.  6-8;  and  vii.  1-10.) 

Micah  is  the  third  of  the  minor  prophets  accord- 
ing to  the  arrangement  of  the  Septuagint,  the  sixth 
according  to  the  Hebrew,  and  the  fifth  according 
to  the  date  of  his  prophecies. 

See,  besides  the  works  on  the  minor  prophecies 
collectively  in  De  Wette's  Introd.,  Pococke's 
Commentary  on  Micah  ; Groseschopf 's  Micah 
Uebersetzt ; and  Jahns  and  Eichhorn’s  Intro- 
ductions.— W.  W. 

2.  MICAH.  An  Ephraimite,  apparently  con- 
temporary with  the  elders  who  outlived  Joshua, 
lie  secretly  appropriated  1 100  shekels  of  silver 
which  his  mother  had  saved  ; but  being  alarmed 
at  her  imprecations  on  the  author  of  her  loss,  he 
confessed  the  matter  to  her,  and  restored  the 
money.  She  then  forgave  him,  and  returned  him 
tire  sliver,  to  be  applied  to  the  use  for  which  it 
had  been  accumulated.  Two  hundred  shekels  of 
the  amount  were  given  to  the  founder,  as  the  co9t  or 
material  of  two  teraphim,  tire  one  molten  and  the 


other  graven  ; and  the  rest  of  th  money  served  to 
cover  the  other  expenses  of  the  semi-idolatrous 
establishment  which  was  formed  in  the  house  of 
Micah,  of  which  a wandering  Levite  became  the 
priest,  at  a yearly  stipend  ; till  the  Danite  army, 
oti  their  journey  to  settle  northward  in  Laish,  took 
away  both  the  establishment  and  the  priest,  which 
they  afterwards  maintained  in  their  new  settle- 
ment (Judg.  xvii.  18)  [Dan  ; Jonathan  2J. 
The  establishments  of  this  kind,  of  which  there 
are  other  instances — as  that  of  Gideon  at  Ophrah 
— were,  although  most  mistakenly,  formed  in 
honour  of  Jehovah,  whom  they  thus  sought  to 
serve  by  means  of  a local  worship,  in  imitation  of 
that  at  Shiloh.  This  was  in  direct  contravention 
of  the  law,  which  allowed  but  one  place  of  sacri- 
fice and  ceremonial  service ; and  was  something 
of  the  same  kind,  although  different  in  extent  and 
degree,  as  the  service  of  tire  golden  calves,  which 
Jeroboam  set  up,  and  his  successors  maintained, 
in  Dan  and  Bethel.  The  previous  existence  of 
Micah’s  establishment  in  the  former  city  no  doubt 
pointed  it  out  to  Jeroboam  as  a suitable  place  for 
one  of  his  golden  calves. 

MICAIAH  (IT^P,  who  as  Jehovah  ? Sept. 
Mi^cdor;),  a prophet  of  the  time  of  Ahab.  Pie 
was  absent  from  the  mob  of  false  prophets  who 
incited  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  to  march 
against  the  Syrians  in  Ramoth-gilead  ; for  Ahab, 
having  been  offended  by  his  sincerity  and  bold- 
ness, had  not  called  for  him  on  this  occasion. 
But  he  was  sent  for  at  the  special  desire  of  Jeho- 
shaphat ; and  as  he  declared  against  the  enterprise, 
which  the  other  prophets  encouraged,  Ahab  com- 
manded him  to  be  imprisoned,  and  allowed  only 
‘bread  and  water  of  affliction’ till  he  returned 
from  the  wars  in  peace.  To  which  the  prophet 
ominously  answered,  ‘ If  thou  return  at  all  in 
peace,  then  the  Lord  hath  not  spoken  by  me’ 
(1  Kings  xxii.  8-28).  The  event  corresponded 
with  this  intimation  [Ahab]  ; but  we  have  no 
further  information  concerning  the  prophet. 

2.  MICAIAH.  One  of  the  princes  whom 
Jehoshaphat  sent  to  ‘ teach  in  the  cities  of  Judah 
(2  Chron.  xviii.  7). 

3.  MICHAIAH,  son  of  Gemariah,  who,  after 
having  heard  Baruch  read  the  terrible  predictions 
of  Jeremiah  in  his  father’s  hall,  went,  apparently 
with  good  intentions,  to  report  to  the  king’s  officers 
what  he  had  heard  (Jer.  xxxvi.  11-13). 

MICHAEL  who  as  God?  Sept. 

Mixar}\),  the  name  given  to  one  of  the  chief 
angels,  who,  in  Dan.  x.  13-21,  is  described  as 
having  special  charge  of  the  Israelites  as  a nation  ; 
and  in  Jude  9,  as  disputing  with  Satan  about  the 
body  of  Moses,  in  which  dispute,  instead  of  bring- 
ing against  the  arch-enemy  any  railing  accusation, 
he  only  said,  ‘ The  Lord  rebuke  thee,  O Satan  !’ 
Again,  in  Rev.  xii.  7-9,  Michael  and  his  angels 
are  represented  as  warring  with  Satan  and  his 
angels  in  the  upper  regions  (iv  rip  ovpai/w),  from 
which  the  latter  are  cast  down  upon  the  earth. 
This  is  all  the  reference  to  Michael  which  we  find 
in  the  Bible. 

On  the  authority  of  the  first  of  these  texts  the 
Jews  have  made  Michael  not  only  one  of  the 
‘ seven  ’ archangels,  but  the  chief  of  them  ; and 
on  the  authority  of  all  three  the  Christian  church 
has  been  disposed  to  concur  in  this  impression. 


336 


MICHAL. 


MIDIANITES. 


The  Jews  regard  the  archangels  as  being  such, 
not  simply  as  a class  by  themselves,  but  as 
respectively  the  chiefs  of  the  several  classes  into 
which  they  suppose  the  angels  to  be  divided ; 
and  of  these  classes  Michael  is  the  head  of  the 
lirst,  and  therefore  chief  of  all  the  archangels 
(Sepher  Othioth,  fob  16). 

The  passages  in  Daniel  and  Revelations  must 
be  taken  as  symbolical,  and  in  that  view  offer 
little  difficulty.  The  allusion  in  Jude  9 is  more 
difficult  to  understand,  unless,  with  Vitringa, 
Lardner,  Macknight,  and  others,  we  regard  it  also 
as  symbolical ; in  which  case  the  dispute  referred 
to  is  that  indicated  in  Zech.  iii.  1 ; and  ‘ the  body 
of  Moses  ’ as  a symbolical  phrase  for  the  Mosaical 
law  and  institutions  [Jude].  A comparison  of 
Jude  9 with  Zech.  iii.  1 gives  much  force  and 
probability  to  this  conjecture. 

MICHAL  (^'0,  who  as  Godf  Sept.  Me\- 
youngest  daughter  of  king  Saul  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
49).  She  became  attached  to  David,  and  made  no 
secret  of  her  love  ; so  that  Saul,  after  he  had  dis- 
appointed David  of  the  elder  daughter  [Merab], 
deemed  it  prudent  to  bestow  Michal  in  marriage 
upon  him  (T  Sam.  xviii.  20-28).  Saul  had  hoped 
to  make  her  the  instrument  of  his  designs  against 
David,  but  was  foiled  in  his  attempt  through  the 
devoted  attachment  of  the  wife  to  her  husband.  Of 
this  a most  memorable  instance  is  given  in  1 Sam. 
xix.  11-17.  When  David  escaped  the  javelin 
of  Saul  he  retired  to  his  own  house,  upon  which 
die  king  set  a guard  over-night,  with  the  inten- 
tion to  slay  him  in  the  morning.  This  being  dis- 
covered by  Michal,  she  assisted  him  to  make 
his  escape  by  a window,  and  afterwards  amused 
the  intended  assassins  under  various  pretences,  in 
order  to  retard  the  pursuit.  * She  took  an  image 
( tsraph ),  and  laid  it  in  the  bed,  and  put  a pillow 
of  goats'  hair  for  a bolster,  and  covered  it  with  a 
cloth.’  This  she  pretended  was  David,  sick  in 
bed ; and  it  was  not  until  Saul  had  commanded 
him  to  be  brought  forth  even  in  t hat  state,  that  the 
deception  was  discovered.  Michal  then  pretended 
to  her  father  that  David  had  threatened  her  with 
death  if  she  did  not  assist  his  escape.  Saul  pro- 
bably did  not  believe  this ; but  he  took  advantage 
of  it  by  cancelling  the  marriage,  and  bestowing 
her  upon  a person  named  Phalli  (2  Sam.  xxv.  44). 
David,  however,  as  the  divorce  had  been  without 
his  consent,  felt  that  the  law  (Deut.  xxiv.  4) 
against  a husband  taking  back  a divorced  wife 
could  not  apply  in  this  case  : he  therefore  formally 
reclaimed  her  of  Ish-bosheth,  who  employed  no  less 
a personage  than  Abner  to  take  her  from  Phalti, 
and  conduct  her  with  all  honour  to  David.  It 
was  under  cover  of  this  mission  that  Abner 
sounded  the  elders  of  Israel  respecting  their  ac- 
ceptance of  David  for  king,  and  conferred  with 
David  himself  on  the  same  subject  at  Hebron 
(2  Sam.  iii.  12-21).  As  this  demand  was  not 
made  by  David  until  Abner  had  contrived  to 
intimate  his  design,  it  has  been  supposed  by  some 
that  it  was  contrived  between  them  solely  to 
afford  Abner  an  ostensible  errand  in  goiv.g  to 
Hebron  ; but  it  is  more  pleasant  to  suppose  that, 
although  the  matter  happened  to  be  so  timed  as  to 
give  a colour  to  this  suspicion,  the  demand  really 
arose  from  David's  revived  affection  for  his  first 
wife  and  earliest  love. 

The  re-union  was  less  happy  than  might  have 


been  hoped.  On  that  great  day  when  the  ark 
was  brought  to  Jerusalem,  Michal  viewed  the 
procession  from  a window,  anil  the  royal  notions 
she  had  imbibed  were  so  shocked  at  the  sight  of 
the  king  not  only  taking  part  in,  but  leading, 
the  holy  transports  of  his  people,  that  she  met  him 
on  his  return  home  with  a keen  sarcasm  on  his 
undignified  and  unkingly  behaviour.  This  ill- 
timed  sneer,  and  the  unsympathising  state  of 
feeling  which  it  manifested,  drew  from  David  a 
severe  but  not  unmerited  retort ; and  the  Great 
King,  in  whose  honour  David  incurred  this  con- 
tumely, seems  to  have  punished  the  wrong  done 
to  him,  for  we  are  told  that  ‘ therefore  Michal, 
the  daughter  of  Saul,  had  no  chijd  to  the  day  of 
her  death’  (2  Sam  vi.  16-23).  It  was  thus,  per- 
haps, as  Abarbanel  remarks,  ordered  by  Pro- 
vidence that  the  race  of  Saul  and  David  should 
not  be  mixed,  and  that  no  one  deriving  any  ap- 
. parent  right  from  Saul  should  succeed  to  the 
throne. 

_ MICHMAS,  or  Michmash  (DEOp,  PODO, 

5 Sept.  Ma^ay),  a town  of  Benjamin 
(Ezra  ii.  27;  Neh.  xi.  31;  comp.  vii.  31),  east 
of  Beth-aven  (1  Sam.  xiii.  5),  and  south  from 
Migron,  on  the  road  to  Jerusalem  (Isa.  x.  28). 
The  words  of  1 Sam.  xiii.  2,  xiv.  4,  and  Isa.  x.  29, 
show  that  at  Michmas  was  a pass  where  the  pro- 
gress of  a military  body  might  be  impeded  or 
opposed.  It  was  perhaps  for  this  reason  that 
Jonathan  Maccabaeus  fixed  his  abode  at  Mich- 
mas (1  Macc.  ix.  73) ; and  it  is  from  the 
chivalrous  exploit  of  another  hero  of  the  same 
name,  the  son  of  Saul,  that  the  place  is  chiefly 
celebrated  (1  Sam.  xiii,  xiv.,  4-16).  Eusebius 
describes  Michmas  as  a large  village  nine  R. 
miles  from  Jerusalem,  on  the  road  to  Ramah 
( Onomast.  s.  v.  Ma^juo).  Travellers  have  usually 
identified  it  with  Bir  or  El-Bireh  ; but  Dr. 
Robinson  ( Researches , ii.  117)  recognises  it  in 
a place  still  bearing  the  name  of  Mukhmas,  at 
a distance  and  position  which  correspond  well 
with  these  intimations.  This  is  a village  situated 
upon  a slope  to  the  north  of  a valley  called  Wady 
es-Suweinit.  It  is  small,  and  almost  desolate, 
but  bears  marks  of  having  been  once  a place 
of  strength  and  importance.  There  are  many 
foundations  of  hewn  stones,  and  some  columns 
lie  among  them.  The  valley  es-Suweinit,  steep 
and  precipitous,  is  probably  the  ‘passage  of  Mich- 
mash’ mentioned  in  Scripture.  In  it,  says  Dr. 
Robinson,  ‘just  at  the  left  of  where  we  crossed, 
are  two  hills  of  a conical,  or  rather  spherical, 
form,  having  steep  rocky  sides,  with  small  wadys 
running  up  between  each  so  as  almost  to  isolate 
them.  One  of  them  is  on  the  side  towards  Jeba 
(Gibeah),  and  the  other  towards  Mukhmas. 
These  would  seem  to  be  the  two  rocks  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  Jonathan’s  adventure 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  4,  5).  They  are  not,  indeed,  so 
“sharp"  as  the  language  of  Scripture  would  seem 
to  imply  ; but  they  are  the  only  rocks  of  the 
kind  in  this  vicinity.  The  northern  one  is  con- 
nected towards  the  west  with  an  eminence  still 
more  distinctly  isolated.’ 

MIDIAN,  fourth  son  of  Abraham  by  Keturab, 
and  progenitor  of  the  Midianites  (Gen.  xxv.  2). 

MIDIANITES  (DW&;  Sept.  MaS.waVcu, 
MaSirivaloi),  a tribe  of  people  descended  froa 


MIDIANITES. 


MIGRON. 


337 


Abiaham’s  son  Midian.  His  descendants  must 
aave  settled  in  Arabia,  and  engaged  in  trade  at 
an  early  period,  if  we  identify  them  with  those 
who  in  the  time  of  Jacob  appear,  along  witli  the 
Ishmaelites,  as  merchants  travelling  from  Gilead 
to  Egypt,  and  who,  having  in  their  way  bought 
Joseph  from  his  brethren,  sold  him  in  the  latter 
country  (Gen.xxxvii.  28,  36).  It  is,  however,  very 
difficult  to  conceive  that  the  descendants  of  a son 
of  Abraham,  born  so  many  years  after  Isaac,  had 
become  a tribe  of  people  at  the  time  when  the 
descendants  of  Isaac  himself  were  so  few.  One 
is  therefore  much  inclined  to  suppose  that  these 
Midianites  were  different  and  distinct  from  those 
descended  from  Abraham’s  son ; and  there  ap- 
pears the  more  ground  for  this  when  at  a later 
jjeriotl  we  find  two  tribes  of  Midianites,  different 
in  locality  and  character,  and  different  in  their 
feelings  towards  the  Israelites.  If  this  distinction 
be  admitted,  then  it  would  be  necessary  to  seek 
the  earlier  Midianites  in  those  dwelling  about 
the  eastern  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  among  whom 
Moses  found  refuge  when  ‘he  fled  from  Egypt,’ 
and  whose  priest  or  sheikh  was  Jethro,  who  be- 
came the  father-in-law  of  the  future  lawgiver 
(Exod.  iii.  1 ; xviii.  5;  Num.  x.  29).  These, 
if  not  of  Hebrew,  would  appear  to  have  been  of 
Cushite  origin,  and  descended  from  Midian  the 
son  of  Cush.  It  is  certain  that  some  Cushite  tribes 
did  settle  in  and  on  the  outskirts  of  Arabia, 
which  was  therefore  called  Cush,  in  common 
with  other  districts  occupied  by  Cushite  tribes  ; 
and,  under  this  view,  it  is  observable  that  the  wife 
of  Moses  is  called  a Cushite  (Num.  xii.  1),  and 
that,  in  Hab.  iii.  7,  the  Midianites  are  named 
with  the  Cushites  ; for  these  are  undoubtedly  the 
Midianites  who  trembled  for  fear  when  they  lieam 
that  the  Israelites  had  passed  through  the  Red 
Sea.  We  do  not  again  meet  witn  these  Midian- 
ites in  the  Jewish  history,  but  they  appear  to  have 
remained  for  a long  time  settled  in  the  same 
quarter,  where  indeed  is  the  seat  ot  trie  only 
Midianites  known  to  Oriental  authors.  The 
Arabian  geographers  of  the  middle  age  (Edrisi, 
Ibn  el  Ward:,  and  Abulfeda)  speak  of  the  ruins 
of  an  ancient  town  called  Madian  on  the  eastern 
side  of  the  Red  Sea,  where  was  still  to  be  seen 
the  well  at  which  Moses  watered  the  flocks  of 
Shoaib,  or  Jethro.  This  was  doubtless  the  same 
as  Modiana,  a town  in  the  same  district,  men- 
tioned by  Ptolemy  (Geoff.  \.  19);  and  Niebuhr 
conjectures  that  the  site  is  now  occupied  by 
Moiiah,  a small  town  or  village  on  the  Red  Sea, 
on  the  Hadj  road  from  Egypt  (Descript.  Arab. 
[>.  377)  ; but,  as  Rosenmuller  remarks  (Bibl. 
Geoff,  iii.  224),  this  place  is  too  far  south  to  be 
identified  with  the  Midian  of  Jethro. 

The  other  Midianites,  undoubtedly  descended 
from  Abraham  and  Ketuuah,  occupied  the  coun- 
try east  and  south-east  of  the  Moaoites,  who  were 
seated  on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea ; or  rather, 
perhaps,  we  should  say  that,  as  tney  appear  to 
oave  been  a semi-nomade  people,  they  pastured 
their  focks  in  the  unsettled  country  beyond  the 
Moabites,  with  whom,  as  a kindred,  although 
more  settled  tribe,  they  seem  to  have  been  on 
the  most  friendly  terms,  and  on  whose  borders 
were  situated  those  ‘ cities  and  goodly  castles 
which  they  possessed’  (Num.  xxxi.  10).  It  will, 
in  fact,  much  contribute  to  the  better  understand- 
ing of  the  passages  in  which  the  Midianites  ap- 
von.  ii.  23 


pear,  if  it  be  understood  that  they  were  still  in  a 
great  degree  a nomade  people,  extending  their 
wanderings  far  beyond  any  limits  to  which  we 
might  confine  their  territorial  possessions.  These 
Midianites,  like  the  other  tribes  and  nations  who 
had  a common  origin  with  them,  were  highly 
hostile  to  the  Israelites.  In  conjunction  with  the 
Moabites,  they  designedly  enticed  them  to  idol- 
atry as  they  approached  Canaan  (Num.  xxxi.  2, 
5;  xxv.  6,  14-18);  on  which  account  Moses  at- 
tacked them  with  a strong  force,  killed  all  their 
fighting  men,  including  their  five  princes  or  emirs, 
and  made  the  women  and  children  captives 
(Num.  xxxi.).  The  account  of  the  spoil  con- 
firms the  view  which  we  have  taken  of  the  semi- 
nomade  position  of  the  Midianites — namely, 

675.000  sheep,  72,000  beeves,  61,000  asses, 

32.000  persons.  This  was  only  the  ‘prey,’  or 
live  stock  ; but  besides  this  there  was  a great 
quantity  of  ‘ barbaric  pearl  and  gold,’  in  the 
shape  of  ‘jewels  of  gold,  chains,  and  bracelets, 
lings,  ear-rings,  and  tablets.’ 

Some  time  after  the  Israelites  obtained  pos- 
session of  Canaan,  the  Midianites  bad  become  so 
numerous  and  powerful,  that,  for  seven  successive 
years,  they  made  inroads  into  the  Hebrew  territory 
in  the  time  of  harvest,  carrying  off  the  fruits  and 
cattle,  and  desolating  the  land.  At  length  Gi- 
deon was  raised  up  as  the  deliverer  of  his  country, 
and  his  triumph  was  so  complete  that  the  Israel- 
ites were  never  mure  molested  by  them  (Judg. 
vi.  1-7  ; vii.  ; viii.).  Their  mode  of  invasion  ii 
a vast  horde  for  this  purpose,  and  at  the  time  ot 
in-gathering,  corroborates  the  view  we  have  taken 
of  the  essentially  nomade  character  of  these  Mi- 
dianites ; and,  in  the  account  of  the  spoil,  we  have 
an  indication  of  ‘camels,’  which  were  alone  ne- 
cessary in  addition  to  the  former  list,  to  stamp 
their  character  (Judg.  viii.  26  ; comp.  Isa.  lx.  6), 
Here  also  there  is  the  same  display  of  personal 
ornament  which  was  noticed  on  the  former  oc- 
casion : — : Golden  ear-lings,  ornaments,  collars,, 
purple  raiment  that  was  on  the  kings  of  Midian, 
and  chains  that;  were  about  their  camels’  necks.’ 
To  this  victory  there  are  subsequent  allusions  in 
the  sacred  writings  (Ps.  lxxxiii.  10,  12;  Isa.  ix. 
4 ; x.  6)  ; but  the  Midianites  do  not  again  appear 
in  sacred  or  profane  history. 

MIGDGL  (L/n?P  ; Sept.  McryCwAos,  MaySwr- 
\6v),  a place  between  which  and  the  Hed  Sea  the 
Israelites  were  commanded  to  encamp  on  leaving 
Egypt  (Exod.  xiv.  2;  Num.  xxxiii.  7)  [Exo- 
dus]. The  name,  which  means  a tower,  appears 
to  indicate  a fortified  place.  In  Jer.  xliv.  1 
xlvi.  14,  it  occurs  as  a city  of  Egypt,  and  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  the  last  town  on  the 
Egyptian  frontier,  in  the  direction  of  the  Red  Sea  : 
hence  ‘ fromMigdol  to  Syene,’  in  Ezek.  xxix.  10  ; 
xxx.  6, 

MIGRON  (fn3D ; Sept.  M aydciv),  a town 
which,  from  the  historical  indications,  must  have 
been  south  or  south-west  of  Ai,  and  north  of  Mich- 
mas  (Isa.  x„  28).  From  Michmas  northward  a 
narrow  valley  extends  out  of  and  at  right  angles 
with  that  which  has  been  identified  as  the  pass  of 
Michmas  [Michmas].  The  town  of  Migran  seems 
to  have  been  upon  and  to  have  commanded  the  pass 
through  this  valley,  but  its  precise  situation  has 
not  been  determined.  Saul  was  stationed  at  the 
further  side  of  Gibeah,  ‘ under  a pomegranaie-tree 


338 


MILK. 


MILK. 


which  is  by  Migron  ’ (1  Sam.  xiv.  2),  when  Jo- 
nathan performed  his  great  exploit  at  Michmas; 
and  this  is  to  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that 
Migron  was  on  the  border,  towards  Michmas,  of 
the  district  to  which  Gibeah  gave  its  name. 
MILCOM.  [Moi.och.] 

MILE  (fiiAtov).  This  word  is  only  mentioned 
in  Matt.  v.  41,  where  Christ  says,  ‘ If  any  one 
compel  thee  to  go  with  him  one  mile,  go  with  him 
two.’  The  mile  was  originally  (as  its  derivation 
from  mille,  ‘a  thousand,’  implies)  a Roman  mea- 
sure of  1000  geometrical  paces  ( passus ) of  5 
feet  each,  and  was  therefore  equal  to  5000  Roman 
feet.  Taking  the  Roman  foot  at  11  6496  English 
inches,  the  Roman  mile  would  be  1 6 1 S English 
yards,  or  142  yards  less  than  the  English  statute 
mile.  By  another  calculation,  in  which  the  foot 
is  taken  at  11-62  inches,  the  mile  would  be  little 
more  than  1614  yards.  The  number  of  Roman 
miles  in  a degree  of  a large  circleof  the  earth  is  very 
little  more  than  75.  The  most  common  Latin  term 
for  the  mile  is  mille  passuum,  or  only  the  initials 
M.P. ; sometimes  the  word  passutim  is  omitted. 
The  Roman  mile  contained  8 Greek  stadia  (see 
Smith’s  Diet,  of  Greek  and  Rom.  Antiq.,  art. 

‘ Milliare  ’).  The  Greek  stade  hence  bore  the 
same  relation  to  the  Roman  mile  which  the  Eng- 
lish furlong  does  to  the  English  mile  : and  it  is 
indeed  usual  with  the  earlier  writers  on  Biblical 
geography  to  translate  the  Greek  ‘ stade  ’ into  the 
English  ‘ furlong,’  in  stating  the  measurements  of 
Eusebius  and  Jerome.  As  the  measurements  of 
these  writers  are  often  cited  in  the  present  work, 
it  is  necessary  to  remember  that  their  mile  is 
always  the  Roman  mile. 

MILETUS  (yii\T]Tos),  a city  and  seaport  of 
Ionia  in  Asia  Minor,  about  thirty-six  miles  south 
of  Ephesus.  St.  Paul  touched  at  this  port  on  his 
voyage  from  Greece  to  Syria,  and  delivered  to  the 
elders  of  Ephesus,  who  had  come  to  meet  him 
there,  a remarkable  and  affecting  address  (Acts 
xx.  15-38).  Miletus  was  a place  of  considerable 
note,  and  the  ancient  capital  of  Ionia  and  Caria. 

It  was  the  birth-place  of  several  men  of  renown — 
Thales,  Timotheus,  Anaximander,  Anaximenes, 
Democritus  (Pomp. Mela,  i.  17;  Diog.  Luert.  Vit. 
Philosoph.  pp.  15,  88,  89, 650).  Ptolemy  ( Geog r. 
v.  2)  places  Miletus  in  Caria  by  the  sea,  and  it 
is  stated  to  have  had  four  havens,  one  of  which 
was  capable  of  holding  a fleet.  It  was  noted 
for  a famous  temple  of  Apollo,  the  oracle  of  which 
is  known  to  have  been  consulted  so  late  as  the 
fourth  century  (Apollodorus,  De  Orig.  Deor.  iii. 
130).  There  was,  however,  a Christian  church  in 
the  place;  and  in  the  fifth,  seventh,  and  eighth 
centuries  we  read  of  bishops  of  Miletus,  who  were 
present  at  several  councils  (Magdeburg,  Hist. 
Eccles.  ii.  192;  iv.  86;  v.  3 ; vii.  254;  viii.  4). 
The  city  fell  to  decay  after  its  conquest  by  the 
Saracens,  and  is  now  in  ruins,  not  far  from  the 
spot  where  the  Meander  falls  into  the  sea.  The 
site  bears,  among  the  Turks,  the  name  of  Melas. 

Some  take  the  Miletus  where  Paul  left  Trophi- 
mus sick  (2  Tim.  iv.  20)  to  have  been  in  Crete, 
and  therefore  different  from  the  above ; but  there 
seems  no  need  for  this  conclusion. 

MILK.  The  Hebrew  word  for  milk,  2 
ehalab,  is  from  the  same  root  as  cheleb, 

* fatness,’  and  is  properly  restricted  to  new  milk, 
nnere  beipg  a distinct  term,  ilNDn  chemah,  for 


milk  when  curdled.  Milk,  and  the  preparations 
from  it,  butter  and  cheese,  are  often  mentioned  in 
Scripture.  Milk,  in  its  fresh  state,  appears  to 
have  been  used  very  largely  among  the  Hebrews, 
as  is  usual  among  people  who  have  much  cattle, 
and  yet  make  but  sparing  use  of  their  flesh  for 
food.  Tire  proportion  which  fresh  milk  held 
in  the  dietary  of  the  Hebrews,  must  not,  however, 
be  measured  by  the  comparative  frequency  with 
which  the  word  occurs;  because,  in  the  greater 
number  of  examples,  it  is  employed  figuratively, 
to  denote  great  abundance,  and  in  many  instances 
it  is  used  as  a general  term  for  all  or  any  of  the 
preparations  from  it. 

In  its  figurative  use,  the  word  occurs  some- 
times simply  as  the  sign  of  abundance  (Gen. 
xlix.  12;  Ezek.  xxv.  4;  Joel  iii.  18,  &c.) ; but 
more  fiequently  in  combination  with  honey — 
‘milk  and  honey’  being  a phrase  which  occurs 
about  twenty  times  in  Scripture.  Thus  a rich  and 
fertile  soil  is  described  as  a ‘land  flowing  with 
milk  and  honey  which,  although  usually  said  of 
Palestine,  is  also  applied  to  other  fruitful  coun- 
tries, as  Egypt  (Num.  xvi.  13).  This  figure  is 
by  no  means  peculiar  to  the  Hebrews,  but  is 
frequently  met  with  in  classical  writers.  A 
beautiful  example  occurs  in  Euripides  ( Bacch . 

1 42).  Hence  its  use  to  denote  the  food  of  children. 
Milk  is  also  constantly  employed  as  a symbol  of 
the  elementary  parts  or  rudiments  of  doctrine  (1 
Cor.  iii.  2;  Heb.  v.  12,  13);  and  from  its  purity 
and  simplicity,  it  is  also  made  to  symbolize  the 
unadulterated  word  of  God  (1  Pet.  ii.  2;  comp 
Isa.  Iv.  1). 

In  reading  of  milk  in  Scripture,  the  milk  of 
cows  naturally  presents  itself  to  the  mind  of  the 
European  reader;  but  in  Western  Asia,  and  es- 
pecially among  the  pastoral  and  semi-pastoral 
people,  not  only  cows,  but.  goats,  sheep,  and  camels, 
are  made  to  give  their  milk  for  the  sustenance  o! 
man.  That  this  was  also  the  case  among  the 
Hebrews,  may  be  clearly  inferred  even  from  the 
slight  intimations  which  the  Scriptures  afford. 
Thus  we  read  of  ‘ butter  of  kine,  and  milk  of 
sheep’  (Deut.  xxxii.  14);  and  in  Prov.  xxvii.  27, 
the  emphatic  intimation,  ‘Thou  shalt  have  goats’ 
milk  for  food,’  seems  to  imply  that  this  was  con- 
sidered the  best  for  use  in  the  simple  state. 

‘ Thirty  milch  camels’  were  among  the  cattle 
which  Jacob  presented  to  his  brother  Esau  (Gen. 
xxxii.  15),  implying  the  use  of  camels’  milk. 

The  word  for  curdled  milk  (HXDn)  is  always 
translated  ‘butter’  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
It,  seems  to  mean  both  butter  and  curdled  milk, 
but  most  generally  the  latter ; and  the  context 
will,  in  most  cases,  suggest  the  distinction,  which 
has  been  neglected  by  our  translators.  It  was 
this  curdled  milk,  highly  esteemed  as  a re- 
freshment in  the  East,  that  Abraham  set  before 
the  angels  (Gen.  xviii.  8),  and  which  Jael  gave 
to  Sisera,  instead  of  the  water  which  ne  asked 
(Judg.  v.  25).  In  this  state  milk  acquires  a 
slightly  inebriating  power,  if  kept  long  enough., 
Isaiah  vii.  22,  where  it  is  rendered  ‘butter,’  is  the 
only  text  in  which  the  word  is  coupled  with 
‘ honey,’  and  there  it  is  a sign  of  scarcity,  not  of 
plenty,  as  when  honey  is  coupled  with  fresh  milk. 
It  means  that  there  being  no  fruit  or  grain,  the 
remnant  would  have  to  live  on  milk  and  honey;, 
and,  perhaps,  that  milk  itself  would  be  so  scarce, 
that  it  would  be  needful  to  use  it  with  economy ; 


MI  LK. 


MILK 


and  hence  to  curdle  it,  as  fresh  milk  cannot  be 
preserved  for  chary  use.  Although,  however,  this 
word  properly  denotes  curdled  milk,  it  seems  also 
to  be  sometimes  used  for  milk  in  general  (Deut. 
xxxii.  14;  Job  xx.  15;  Isa.  vii.  15). 

The  most  striking  Scriptural  allusion  to  milk 
is  that  which  forbids  a kid  to  be  seethed  in  its 
mother’s  milk,  and  its  importance  is  attested  by 
its  being  thrice  repeated  (Exod.  xxiii.  19;  xxx^v. 
26;  Deut.  xiv.  21).  There  is,  perhaps,  no  pre- 
cept of  Scripture  which  has  been  more  variously 
interpreted  than  this,  and  we  may  state  the  most 
remarkable  views  respecting  it  : — 1.  That  it 
prohibits  the  eating  of  the  foetus  of  the  goat  as 
a delicacy  : but  there  is  not  the  least  evidence  that 
the  Jews  were  ever  attached  to  this  disgusting 
luxury.  2.  That  it  prevents  the  kid  to  be  killed 
till  it  is  eight  days  old,  when,  it  is  said,  it  might 
subsist  without  the  milk  of  its  mother.  3.  This 
ground  is  admitted  by  those  who  deduce  a further 
reason  from  the  fact,  that  a kid  was  not,  until  the 
eighth  day,  fit  for  sacrifice.  But  there  appears 
no  good  reason  why  a kid  should  be  described  as 
‘ in  its  mother’s  milk,’  in  those  days,  more  than 
in  any  other  days  of  the  period  during  which  it  is 
suckled.  4.  Others,  therefore,  maintain  that  the  eat- 
ing of  a sucking  kid  is  altogether  and  absolutely 
prohibited.  But  a goat  suckles  its  kid  for  three 
months,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Jews  were 
so  long  forbidden  the  use  of  it  for  food.  No 
food  is  forbidden  but  as  unclean,  and  a kid 
ceased  to  be  unclean  on  the  eighth  day,  when  it 
was  fit  for  sacrifice ; and  what  was  fit  for  sacri- 
fice could  not  be  unfit  for  food.  5.  That  the 
prohibition  was  meant  to  prevent  the  dam  and 
kid  from  being  slain  at  the  same  time.  But  this 
is  forbidden  with  reference  to  the  goat  and  other 
animals  in  express  terms,  and  there  seems  no 
reason  why  it  should  be  repeated  in  this  remarkable 
form  with  reference  to  the  goat  only.  6.  Others 
understand  it  literally,  as  a precept  designed  to 
encourage  humane  feelings.  But,  as  Michaelis 
asks,  how  came  the  Israelites  to  hit  upon  the 
strange  whim  of  boiling  a kid  in  milk,  and  just 
in  the  milk  of  its  own  mother1?  7.  Still,  under- 
standing the  text  literally,  it  is  possible  that  this 
was  not  a common  act  of  cookery,  but  an  idola- 
trous or  magical  rite.  Maimonides,  in  his  More 
Nevochim , urges  this  opinion.  He  says,  i Flesh 
eaten  with  milk,  or  in  milk,  appears  to  me  to  have 
been  prohibited,  not  only  because  it  affords  gross 
nourishment,  but  because  it  savoured  of  idolatry, 
some  of  the  idolaters  probably  doing  it  in  their 
worship,  or  at  their  festivals;  and  I am  the  more 
inclined  to  this  opinion  from  observing  that  the 
law,  in  noticing  this  practice,  does  so  twice,  im- 
mediately after  having  spoken  of  the  three  great 
annual  feasts  (Exod.  xxiii.  17,  19;  xxxiv.  23, 
26).  “ Three  times  in  the  year  all  thy  males 

shall  appear  before  the  Lord  God Thou 

shalt  not  seethe  a kid  in  its  mother’s  milk.’’  As  if 
it  had  been  said,  “ When  ye  appear  before  me  in 
your  feasts,  ye  shall  not  cook  your  food  after  the 
manner  of  the  idolaters,  who  are  accustomed  to 
this  practice.”  This  reason  appears  to  me  of  great 
weight,  although  I have  not  yet  been  able  to  find 
it  in  the  Zabian  books.’  This  is  confirmed  by 
an  extract  which  Cudworth  ( Discourses  concern- 
ing the  True  Notion  of  the  Lord's  Supper , 
p.  30)  gives  from  an  an  dent  Karaite  commentary 
#n  the  Pentateuch.  ‘ It  was  a custom  of  the 


,139 

ancient  heathen,  when  they  had  gathered  in  all 
their  fruits,  to  take  a kid,  and  boil  it  in  the 
dam’s  milk,  and  then  in  a magical  way  to  go 
about  and  besprinkle  with  it  all  their  frees,  and 
fields,  and  gardens,  and  orchards,  thinking  that 
by  this  means  they  should  make  them  fructify, 
and  bring  forth  more  abundantly  the  following 
year.’  Some  such  rite  as  this  is  supposed  to  be 
the  one  interdicted  by  the  prohibition.  This 
opinion  is  supported  by  Spencer  (JDe  Legibus 
Hebr.  ii.  9,  sec.  2),  and  has  been  advocated  by 
Le  Clerc,  Dathe,  and  other  able  writers.  It  is 
also  corroborated  by  the  addition  in  the  Samaritan 
copy,  and  in  some  degree  by  the  Targum.  The 
former  has  ‘ For  he  who  doth  this  is  like  a man 
who  sacrificeth  an  abomination,  and  it  is  a tres- 
pass against  the  God  of  Jacob  :’  and  the  latter, 

‘ O my  people,  house  of  Israel,  it  is  not  lawful 
for  you  to  boil  or  eat  flesh  and  milk  mixed 
.together,  lest  my  wrath  be  enkindled,  and  I boil 
your  products,  corn  and  straw,  together-’  8. 
Michaelis,  however,  advances  a quite  new  opinion 

of  his  own.  He  takes  it  for  granted  that 
rendered  ‘ seethe,’  may  signify  to  roast  as  well  as 
to  boil,  which  is  hardly  disputable;  that  the  kid's 
mother  is  not  here  limited  to  the  real  mother,  but 
applies  to  any  goat  that  has  kidded ; that  here 
denotes  not  milk  but  butter ; and  that  the  precept 
is  not  restricted  to  kids,  but  extends  not  only  to 
lambs  (which  is  generally  granted),  but  to  all 
other  not  forbidden  animals.  Having  erected 
these  props,  Michaelis  builds  upon  them  the  con- 
jecture, that  the  motive  of  the  precept  was  to  en- 
dear to  the  Israelites  the  land  of  Canaan,  which 
abounded  in  oil,  and  to  make  them  forget  their 
Egyptian  butter.  Moses,  therefore,  to  prevent 
their  having  any  longing  desire  to  return  to  that 
country,  enjoins  them  to  use  oil  in  cooking  their 
victuals,  as  well  as  in  seasoning  their  sacrifices 
( Mosaisches  Recht,  pt.  iv.  p.  210).  This  is  in- 
genious, but  it  is  open  to  objection.  The  postu- 
lates cannot  readily  be  granted ; and  if  granted, 
the  conclusion  deduced  from  them  is  scarcely 
just,  seeing  that,  as  Geddes  remarks,  ‘there  was 
no  need  nor  temptation  for  the  Israelites  to  return 
to  Egypt  on  account  of  its  butter,  when  they 
possessed  a country  that  flowed  with  milk  .and 
honey’  ( Critical  Remarks , p.  257). 

Butter  is  not  often  mentioned  in  Scripture,  and 
even  less  frequently  than  our  version  would  sug- 
gest; for,  as  already  intimated,  the  word  ilKDri 
chemah,  must  sometimes  be  understood  of  curdled 
milk.  Indeed,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it  de- 
notes butter  in  any  place  besides  Deut.  xxxii. 
1 4,  ‘ butter  of  kine,’  and  Prov.  xxx.  33,  ‘ the 
churning  of  milk  bringeth  forth  butter,’  as  all 
the  other  texts  will  apply  better  to  curdled  milk 
than  to  butter.  Butter  was,  however,  doubtless, 
much  in  use  among  the  Hebrews,  and  we  may  be 
sure  that  it  was  prepared  in  the  same  manner  as 
at  this  day  among  the  Arabs  and  Syrians.  The 
milk  is  put  into  a large  copper  pan  over  a slow 
fire,  and  a little  leben  or  sour  milk  (the  same  a« 
the  curdled  milk  mentioned  above),  or  a portion 
of  the  dried  entrails  of  a lamb,  is  thrown  into  it. 
The  milk  then  separates,  and  is  put  into  a goat- 
skin bag,  which  is  tied  to  one  of  the  tent  poles, 
and  constantly  moved  backwards  and  forwards 
for  two  hours.  The  buttery  substance  then  coagu- 
lates, the  water  is  pressed  out,  and  the  butter  put 


340 


MILL. 


MILLENNIUM. 


into  another  skin.  In  two  days  the  butter  is  again 
placed  over  the  fire,  with  the  addition  of  a quan- 
tify of  burgoul  (wheat  boiled  with  leaven,  and  dried 
in  the  sun),  and  allowed  to  boil  for  some  time, 
during  which  it  is  carefully  skimmed.  It  is 
then  found  that  the  burgoul  has  precipitated  all 
the  foreign  substances,  and  that  the  butter  remains 
quite  clear  at  the  top.  This  is  the  process  used 
by  the  Bedouins,  and  it  is  also  the  one  employed 
by  the  settled  people  of  Syria  and  Arabia.  The 
chief  difference  is,  that  in  making  butter  and 
cheese  the  townspeople  employ  the  milk  of  cows 
and  buffaloes,  whereas  the  Bedouins,  who  do  not 
keep  these  animals,  use  that  of  sheep  and  goats. 
The  butter  is  generally  white,  of  the  colour  and 
consistence  of  lard,  and  is  not  much  relished  by 
English  travellers.  It  is  eaten  with  bread  in 
large  quantities  by  those  who  can  adord  it,  not 
spread  out  thinly  over  the  surface,  as  with  us, 
Out.  taken  in  mass  with  the  separate  morsels  of 
bread. 

Cheese  has  been  noticed  under  its  proper  head. 

MILL  (n^>5  i Sept.  ijlvAij).  The  mill  for 
grinding  corn  had  not  wholly  superseded  the 
mortar  for  pounding  it  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
The  mortar  and  the  mill  are  named  together 
in  Num.  xi.  8.  But  fine  meal,  that  is,  meal 
ground  or  pounded  fine,  is  mentioned  so  early  as 
the  time  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xviii.  C) : hence 
mills  and  mortal's  must  have  been  previously 
known.  The  mill  common  among  the  Hebrews 
differed  little  from  that  which  is  :n  use  to  this 
day  throughout  Western  Asia  and  Northern 


400. 


Africa.  It  consisted  of  two  circular  stones  two 
feet  in  diameter,  and  half  a foot  thick.  The  lower 

is  called  the  ‘ nether  millstone,’  nTUin 
Job  xli.  16  (24),  and  the  upper  the  ‘rider/ 
(Judg.  ix.  53  ; 2 Sam.  xi.  21).  The  former 
was  usually  fixed  to  the  floor,  and  had  a slight 
elevation  in  the  centre,  or  in  other  words,  was 
slightly  convex  in  the  upper  surface.  The  upper 


stone  had  a concavity  in  its  under  surface  fitting 
to,  or  receiving,  the  convexity  of  the  lower  stone. 
There  was  a hole  in  the  top,  through  which  the 
corn  was  introduced  by  handfuls  at  a time. 
The  upper  stone  had  an  upright  stick  fixed  in  it 
as  a handle,  by  which  it  was  made  to  turn  upon 
the  lower  stone,  and  by  this  action  the  com  was 
ground,  and  came  out  at  the  edges.  As  there 
were  neither  public  mills  nor  bakers,  except  the 
king's  (Gen.  xl.  2 ; IIos.  vii.  4-8),  each  family 
possessed  a mill;  and  as  it  was  in  daily  use,  it 
was  made  an  infringement  of  the  law  for  a person 
to  take  another's  mill  or  mill-stone  in  pledge 
(Dent.  xxiv.  6).  On  the  second  day,  in  warm 
climates,  bread  becomes  dry  and  insipid ; hence 
the  necessity  of  baking  every  day,  and  hence  also 
the  daily  grinding  at  the  mills  early  in  the 
morning.  The  operation  occasions  considerable 
noise,  and  its  simultaneous  performance  in  a 
great  number  of  houses  or  tents  forms  one  of  the 
sounds  as  indicative  of  an  active  population  in 
the  East,  as  the  sound  of  wheel  carriages  is  in  the 
cities  of  the  West.  This  sound  is  alluded  to  in 
Scripture  (Jer.  xxv.  10  ; Rev.  xviii.  22,  23). 
The  mill  was,  as  now,  commonly  turned  by  two 
persons,  usually  women,  and  these,  the  work 
being  laborious,  the  lowest  maid-servants  in  the 
house.  They  sat.  opposite  each  other.  One  took 
hold  of  the  mill-handle,  and  impelled  it  halfway 
round ; the  other  then  seized  it,  and  completed 
the  revolution  (Exod.  xi.  5;  Job  xxxi.  10,  11; 
Isa.  xlvii.  2;  Matt.  xxiv.  41).  As  the  labour 
was  severe  and  menial,  enemies  taken  in  war 
were  often  condemned  to  perform  it  (Judg.  xvi. 
21  ; Lam.  v.  12).  (Jalm,  Biblischcs  Archceol. 
ix.  139.)  It  will  be  seen  that  this  millstone  does 
not  materially  differ  from  the  Highland  quern  ; 
and  is,  indeed,  an  obvious  resource  in  those 
remote  quavers,  where  a population  is  too  thin 
or  too  scattered  to  afford  remunerative  employ- 
ment to  a miller  by  trade.  In  the  East  this  trade 
is  still  unknown,  the  hand-mill  being  in  general 
and  exclusive  use  among  the  corn-consuming, 
and  the  mortar  among  the  rice-consuming,  nations. 
[Bread.] 

MILLENNIUM.  This  word  is  not  found  in 
Scripture ; hut  as  it  refers  to  ideas  supposed  to 
be  founded  in  Scripture,  a slight  notice  of  it  is 
required.  The  word  denotes  the  term  of  a thousand 
yeais,  and.  in  a theological  sense,  that  thousand 
yeais  mentioned  in  Rev.  xx.  2,  3,  4,  6;  dining 
which  Satan  is  there  described  as  being  bound, 
Christ  as  reigning  triumphant,  and  the  saints  as 
living  and  reigning  with  l im.  The  doctrine  in- 
volved in  this  view  is  usually  called  Millehnarian- 
ism,  but  in  ecclesiastical  history  more  usually 
Chiliasm, from  the  Greek  word  x'i^L01’  ‘ a thousand.’ 
As  the  world  was  made  in  six  days,  and  as.  ac- 
cording to  Ps.  xc.  4,  ‘a  thousand  years  are  as  one 
day’  in  the  sight  of  God,  so  it  was  thought  the 
world  would  continue  in  the  condition  in  which 
it  had  hitherto  been  for  6000  years ; and  as  the 
Sabbath  is  a day  of  rest,  so  will  the  seventh 
period  of  a thousand  years  consist  of  this  mil- 
lennial kingdom,  as  the  close  of  the  whole  ear; hi y 
state. 

The  Jews  supposed  that  the  Messiah  at  his 
coming  would  reign  as  king  upon  the  earth,  and' 
would  reside  at  Jerusalem,  the  ancient  royal 
city.  The  period  of  his  reign  they  thought 
would  be  very  long,  and  it  was  therefore  put 


MILLENNIUM. 


MILLENNIUM. 


341 


down  as  a thousand  years,  which  was  at  first 
understood  only  as  a round  number.  This  period 
was  conceived  by  the  Jews  as  a sort  of  golden 
age  to  the  earth,  and  every  one  formed  such  a 
picture  of  it  as  agreed  with  his  own  disposition, 
and  with  the  views  concerning  the  highest  felicity 
which  were  dictated  by  the  degree  of  intellectual 
and  moral  culture  to  which  he  had  attained. 
With  many  these  views  were  very  low,  being  con- 
fined to  sensual  delights,  while  others  entertained 
better  and  more  pure  conceptions  of  that  happy 
time  (Wetstein,  Comment,  in  Rev.  xxii.  2; 
Knapp,  Christ.  Theolog .,  translated  by  Leonard 
Woods,  Jun.  D.D.,  § 154). 

This  notion  was  taken  up  by  many  of  the 
Judaizing  Christians  : Jesus  had  not  yet  appeared 
as  an  earthly  king,  and  these  persons  were  un- 
willing to  abandon  an  expectation  which  seemed 
to  them  so  important.  They  therefore  allowed 
themselves  to  hope  for  a second  advent  of  Christ 
to  establish  an  earthly  kingdom,  and  to  this  they 
transferred  most  if  not  all  of  that  which  in  their 
unconverted  state  they  had  expected  of  the  first. 
The  apostles  generally  seem  to  have  entertained 
this  notion  till  after  the  ascension  of  Christ  and 
the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whereby  they 
were  instructed  in  the  higher  verities  and  myste- 
ries of  the  Gos{>el : but  that  they  then  abandoned 
it,  and  expected  no  other  coming  of  Christ  than 
that  at  the  judgment  of  the  world,  appears  clear 
from  1 Cor.  xv.  and  other  passages.  The  fact 
that  these  Jewish  notions  had  taken  deep  root  in 
the  minds  of  many  Christians,  even  in  the  aposto- 
lical age,  is  however  manifest  from  1 Thess.  iv.  13, 
sq.  v.,  and  2 Thess.  ii. 

From  this  explanation,  Eusebius  must  be  un- 
derstood with  some  limitation,  when  he  alleges 
that  the  doctrine  ‘ took  its  rise  from  Papias  (a 
disciple  of  St.  John),  a man  of  slender  judg- 
ment ; but  the  antiquity  of  the  man  prevailed 
with  many  to  be  of  that  opinion,  particularly 
with  Irenaeus’  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39).  This  seems 
to  mean,  not  that  Papias  was  the, first  to  entertain 
the  opinion,  but  the  first  to  advance  and  advo- 
cate it  in  writing.  It,  however,  occurs  in  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  (ch.  xv.),  which,  whatever 
view  be  formed  of  its  genuineness,  is  evidence 
for  the  opinions  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written.  In  the  second  century  the  opinion  seems 
to  have  been  all  but  universally  received  in  the 
wthodox  cluarches,  and  i3  as  plainly  produced  in 
i:he  writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  and  Ter- 
tulliari,  as  afterwards  in  those  of  Cyprian  and 
Lactan  tius. 

Perhaps  the  most  satisfactory  view  of  the 
opinions  on  this  subject  which  many  sincere, 
pious,  and  eyen  well-instructed  early  Christians 
deemed  themselves  warranted  in  entertaining,  is 
that  which  Semisch  has  collected  out  of  the 
writings  of  Justin  Martyr.  After  the  lapse  of 
the  appointed  time,  which  the  prophet  Daniel 
had  foretold,  Justin  expected  the  visible  return  of 
Christ  to  earth.  The  prophets,  he  affirms,  fore- 
told two  advents  (w apovaiat).  One  had  al- 
ready taken  place.  Iti  that  Christ  appeared  as 
ft  sufferer,  in  a mean  and  despised  firm,  dis- 
honoured, and  at  last  crucified.  It  will  be 
otherwise  at  his  second  appearing.  Christ  will 
then  visit  the  earth  in  splendour  and  glory,  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  and  s irrounded  by  the  angelic 
costs,  as  the  judge  of  mankind.  In  the  very 


place  where  he  was  crucified,  his  murderers  will 
recognise  him  whom  they  pierced,  and  all  the 
tribes  shall  mourn,  tribe  by  tribe,  the  men  apart, 
and  the  women  apart  ( Apol . i.  52.  p.  74  ; Dial 
c.  Tryph.  xxxi.  p.  128  : xl.  p.  137).  But  before  tk;a 
advent  takes  place  Elias  will  come  (Dial.  c. 
Tryph.  xlix.  p.  145),  agreeably  to  the  prophecy  in 
Mai.  iv.  5 ; also  the  man  of  apostacy  and  iniquity, 
who  will  utter  blasphemies  against  the  Most  High, 
and  commit  outrages  against,  the  Christians,  must 
precede  the  re-appearance  of  the  Son  of  Man. 
Th is  will  soon  happen,  for  already  the  adversary 
is  at  the  door-(D*aZ.  c.  Tr.  xxxii.  p.  129).  The 
immediate  object  of  this  return  of  Christ  is  the 
erection  of  the  Millennial  kingdom  (Dial.  li.  147). 
Christ,  Justin  says,  will  come  again,  in  order  to 
make  a new  heaven  and  new  earth,  to  reign  as 
king  over  Salem,  and  to  shine  in  Jerusalem  as  an 
unchangeable  light.  The  fallen  city  will  be 
restored,  changed,  and  beautified  ; all  the  saints, 
that  is,  believing  Christians,  will  rise  from  the 
dead,  and  be  assembled  in  Jerusalem  and  the 
Holy  Land,  in  order  to  take  possession  of  it, 
there  to  receive  the  eternal  and  unchangeable 
blessings  promised  to  them,  and  to  rejoice  in 
communion  with  Christ.  Justin  dwells  with 
deep  emotion  on  this  hope.  It  was  in  his  esteem 
a sacred  fire,  at  which  he  kindled  afresh  his 
Christian  faith  and  practice.  That  this  ho)**  (in 
its  pure  millennarian  character  and  extent)  might 
possibly  be  vain,  never  entered  his  thoughts.  He 
believed  that  it  was  supported  by  Scripture.  He 
expressly  appealed  to  the  New  Testament  Apoca- 
lypse, and  from  such  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  Isa.  lxv.  22  (in  connection  with  Gen.  ii. 
17,  and  v.  5,  and  Ps.  xc.  4),  he  deduced  the  mil- 
lennial period  (Dial,  lxxxi.  178  sq.\  How  could 
he  doubt  it  ? As  to  the  specific  mode  in  which 
he  conceived  that  hope,  he  held  the  mean  between 
the  gross  materialism  with  which  the  Ebionites 
(Jerome,  Comment . in  Jes.  lxv.  20;  lxvi.  20;  in 
Zech.  xiv.  9),  Papias  (Adv.  Hceres.  v.  33 ; Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39),  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Hceres.  v. 
53),  and  Laclantius  (Instit.  Divin.  vii.  14)  ex- 
plained it ; and  the  spiritualizing  in  which  Bar- 
nabas (Epist.  c.  15)  and  Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc. 
iii.  24)  indulged.  He  certainly  expected  physical 
enjoyments,  and  believed  that  Christ  would  eat 
and  drink  with  the  members  of  his  kingdom 
(Dial.  c.  Tr.  li.  147).  But  he  denied  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  sexual  functions,  being  assured 
from  Luke  xx.  34,  that  those  who  rose  again 
would  ‘ neither  marry  nor  be  given  in  marriage, 
but  be  as  the  angels’  (Dial.  li.  p.  157);  and  de- 
picted the  state  of  the  elect  under  the  personal  reign 
of  Christ  as  one  of  blissful  unchangeableness,  re- 
pose, and  exemption  from  pain.  Thus  he  says,  i At 
his  glorious  advent  Christ  will  in  every  way  con- 
found those  who  have  hated  him  and  unrighteously 
apostatized  from  him  ; but  his  own  people  he  will 
bring  to  enjoy  repose,  and  fulfil  all  their  expecta- 
tions’ (Dial.  exxi.  p.  214).  And  in  another 
passage,  ‘ Whoever  is  faithful  to  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  him  will  Christ  raise  from  the  dead  at  his 
second  advent,  and  make  him  immortal,  un- 
changeable, and  free  from  all  sorrow’  (Dial.  lxix. 
p.  168).  At  the  close  of  the  thousand  years  of 
the  personal  reign,  to  enjoy  which  the  saints  only 
were  to  be  raised,  Justin  expected  that  the  general 
and  final  resurrection  of  all  the  dead  would  take 
place ; but  this  being  the  term  of  the  millennial 


342 


MILLENNIUM. 


MILLENNIUM. 


period  we  need  not  proceed  with  him  further 
(Semisch,  Justin  Martyr , his  Life,  Writings, 
and  Opinions,  translated  by  J.  E.  Ryland,  Edinb. 
1843,  ii.  370-37 6). 

This  millennial  doctrine  may  be  regarded  as 
generally  prevalent  in  the  second  century.  Origen, 
in  the  third  century,  was  the  first  who  wrote  in 
opposition  to  it,  and  who  gave  a different  and 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  texts  of  Scripture 
on  which  the  Chiliasts  rested  their  opinion.  The 
anti-materialism  of  the  Alexandrian  school  neces- 
sarily led  to  this  opposition.  Clement  does  not 
once  allude  to  it,  anil  Origen  strenuously  opposed 
it.  And  this  opposition  was  effectual ; for  Ori- 
gen s pupil,  Dionysius  (a.d.  223-248),  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  may  be  regarded  as  having  com- 
pletely put  down  in  the  Eastern  church,  by  per- 
sonal argument  and  by  his  work  irepi  iirayytAicbv, 
the  doctrine  which  his  master  had  attacked. 
(Knapp,  Christ.  Theolog.  § 154,  2;  Gieseler, 
Eccles.  Hist.,  ch.  iii.  § 61,  62,  64). 

The  blow  thus  given  was  followed  up  in  the 
Latin  churches  by  Augustine,  Jerome,  and  others. 
Dionysius  had  been  answered  by  Apollonaicus, 
and  the  answer  so  far  satisfied  the  Latin  churches, 
that  it  was  still  the  prevailing  opinion  in  them 
when  Jerome  wrote.  This  great  man  opposed 
the  Chiliasts  with  characteristic  energy.  ‘ If,’ 
says  he,  ‘ we  understand  the  revelation  lite- 
rally, we  must  Judaize;  if  spiritually,  as  it  is 
written,  we  shall  seem  to  contradict  many  of 
the  ancients,  particularly  the  Latin,  Tertullian, 
Victorious,  Lactantius,  and  the  Greeks,  espe- 
cially Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  against  whom 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  the  church  of  Alexandria, 
wrote  a curious  piece  deriding  the  fable  of  a 
thousand  years,  the  terrestrial  Jerusalem  adorned 
with  gold  and  precious  stones,  rebuilding  the 
temple,  bloody  sacrifices,  sabbatical  sect,  circum- 
cision, marriages,  lyings-in,  nursing  of  children, 
dainty  feasts,  and  servitude  of  the  nations  : and, 
again,  after  this,  wars,  armies,  triumphs,  and 
slaughters  of  conquered  enemies,  and  the  death 
"»f  the  sinner  a hundred  years  old.  Him  Apol- 
.onarius  answered  in  two  volumes,  whom  not  only 
men  of  his  own  sect,  but  most  of  our  own  people 
likewise , follow  in  this  point.  So  it  is  no  hard 
matter  to  foresee  what  a multitude  of  persons  T 
am  like  to  displease’  (Hieron.  In  Es.  ii.  18;  In 
Proem.,  pp.  477,  478). 

The  outward  prosperity  which  the  church  at* 
tained  under  Constantine  and  his  successors 
seems  to  have  done  quite  as  mucli  as  the  argu- 
ments of  these  fathers,  in  putting  down  a doc- 
trine which  had  been  cherished  as  a source  of 
consolation  to  a suffering  and  martyr  church  ; 
and  during  the  invasions  of  the  northern  nations, 
and  the  deluge  of  disasters  which  flowed  in  upon 
the  empire,  speculation  was  overborne,  and  the 
minds  of  Christians  were  absorbed  by  the  com- 
motion of  the  times,  and  the  evils  endured  by 
them  or  impending  over  them.  In  the  age  of 
darkness  which  succeeded,  scarcely  a vestige  of 
millennarian  doctrine  is  to  be  traced  ; but  in  the 
ferment  produced  in  men’s  minds  by  the  Re- 
formation, it  was  turned  up  in  Germany  by 
Miincer  and  his  followers,  who  wished  to  esta- 
blish the  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ  by  fire  and 
sword.  Hence  Luther  and  Melancthon  set  them- 
selves against  the  doctrine  with  great  zeal  and 
earnest!  ess  (vide  Augsb.  Confess.,  art.  18).  Rut 


it  was  afterwards  reproduced  in  England  by  ths 
Fifth  Monarchy  men,  who  'were  disposed  to  carry 
their  notions  to  the  like  extremities  of  infatuation. 
The  writings  of  the  learned  Joseph  Mede,  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  contributed  much  to  revive 
the  ancient  doctrine  as  a speculative  opinion ; 
and  individual  writers  have,  from  that  time  to 
this,  sent  forth  their  speculations,  advocating  sub- 
stantially the  same  views.  More  especially,  within 
the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years,  the  subject  has  ac- 
quired anew  a considerable  degree  of  prominence, 
and  has  given  rise  in  England  to  an  animated 
controversy,  which  is  at  this  day  dividing  the 
ranks  of  biblical  scholars  and  theologians. 

Dionysius,  the  ancient  opponent  of  the  mil- 
lennial doctrine,  perceiving  that  his  antagonists 
derived  their  chief  arguments  and  illustrations 
from  the  Apocalypse,  took  upon  him  to  deny  that 
that  book  was  written  by  St.  John. 

The  modern  opponents  of  the  opinion  seldom 
take  this  ground  ; but  allege  that  the  Apocalypse 
(xx.  1-8)  does  not  speak  of  Christ  as  reigning 
visibly  and  bodily  upon  the  earth,  but  of  his 
spiritual  dominion,  resulting  from  the  spread  of 
Christianity,  when  it  shall  at  length  be  univer- 
sally diffused  throughout  the  earth — a kingdom 
which  shall  last  a thousand  years,  here  used  as  a 
round  number  to  denote  many  centuries,  or  a long 
period.  A modified  expectation  and  hope,  founded 
substantially  on  this  latter  view,  sometimes  ex- 
hibits itself  in  high-toned  feeling  and  flowing  lan- 
guage, which  might  be  taken  for  downright  chili- 
asm,  and  which  has,  indeed,  caused  many  ancient 
writers  to  be  set  down  as  millennarians,  who  cer- 
tainly would  have  refused  the  designation.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  progress  of  this  doctrine  is 
not  to  be  estimated  by  the  number  of  those 
who  adopt  the  name  as  a distinctive  title. 
Believers  in  the  doctrine,  and  advocates  of  it, 
have  been,  and  are  still,  found  among  all  deno- 
minations ; and  the  number  of  the  gifted  and 
holy  men  by  whom  it  has  been  entertained,  and 
to  whom  it  has  been  a well-spring  of  hope  and 
comfort,  entitles  it  to  the  respectful  consi- 
deration even  of  those  who  deem  it  erroneous 
as  a speculative  opinion.  When  soberly  en- 
tertained, there  is  nothing  in  it  contrary  to 
Christian  grace;  and  it  may  safely  be  placed 
among  the  notions  on  which  Christians  may  al- 
lowably differ.  Neander,  in  his  account  of  this 
doctrine  ( Kirchengesch .,  b.  i.,  abth.  3,  sec.  1090), 
suggests  the  important  caution,  that  we  should 
not  allow  ourselves,  through  disgust  at  the  extra- 
vagant visions  of  enthusiasts  about  the  millennium, 
to  decide  against  that  which  we  are  really  justified 
in  hoping  and  expecting  as  to  the  future  exten- 
sion of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  As  the  Old  Tes- 
tament contains  an  intimation  of  the  things  in  the 
New,  so  Christianity  contains  an  intimation  of  a 
higher  order  of  things  hereafter,  which  it  will  be  the 
means  of  introducing  ; but  faith  must  necessarily 
come  before  sight.  The  divine  revelations  enable 
us  to  see  a little  now'  and  then  of  this  higher  order, 
but  not  enough  to  form  a complete  picture.  As 
prophecy  is  always  obscure  until  its  fulfilment, 
so  must  be  the  last  predictions  of  Christ  re- 
specting the  destiny  of  his  church,  until  the  en- 
trance of  this  higher  order. 

The  doctrine  is  entertained  with  shades  of 
difference  so  numerous,  that  it  is  difficult  to  define 
its  characteristics  beyond  the  great  leading  poin: 


MILLO. 


MINGHA. 


34 1 


- — that  Christ  shall  again  come  in  person  to  live 
tnd  reign  witn  his  saints  a thousand  years  upon 
the  earth.  The  formal  tenets  of  the  millennarians, 
as  a sect,  do  not  materially  differ  from  the  no- 
tions already  defined  from  Justin  Martyr.  In  the 
most  recent  account  of  these  tenets  (Rupp’s  His- 
tory of  the  Religious  Denominations  of  the 
United  States , 1844),  in  which  the  articles  are 
written  by  members  of  the  bodies  described,  an 
expectation  of  the  restoration  of  antediluvian 
longevity  during  the  millennial  period,  is  deduced 
from  Isa.  lxv.  20,  ‘The  child  shall  die  a hundred 
years  old,’  coupled  with  ver.  23,  ‘ As  the  days 
of  a tree,  are  the  days  of  my  people ‘ which,’ 
says  the  writer,  ‘ according  to  the  best  testimony, 
is  from  800  to  1000  years  in  Palestine,’  as  if  the 
ages  of  trees  did  not  vary  with  the  species,  and 
as  if  trees  of  the  same  species  were  not  of  the 
same  age  in  Palestine  as  in  other  countries.  The 
same  writer  is  certainly  in  error,  in  alleging  that 
millennarianism  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers 
and  their  successors,  till  Whitby  ‘ introduced  into 
the  Protestant  church  a system  of  spiritualizing 
the  prophecies  to  such  an  extent,  as  to  leave  little 
to  be  anticipated  in  relation  to  the  personal  reign 
of  David’s  greater  son  on  the  throne  of  his  fathei 
David,  as  king  of  Zion.’ 

On  a topic  so  fruitful  of  controversy,  it  is  im- 
possible to  enumerate  all  the  writers  upon  it. 
The  following  are  among  <hose  which  have  fallen 
under  our  notice: — Tibbechon,  Hist.  Cluliasmi , 
1667  ; Mede,  Works,  p.  603,  sqq.  ; Whitby, 
Treat,  on  the  True  Millenium  ; Dauhez,  Perpct. 
Comment,  on  Revel.,  1720;  Gill,  Serm.  on  the 
Glory  of  the  Church , 1752  ; Corrodi,  Krit. 
Gescli.  d.  Chiliasmus,  1781-1783  ; Gregoire, 
Hist,  des  Sectes  Relig.,  ii.  333,  sqq. ; Bogue, 
Disc,  on  the  Millenium;  Noel  (Gerard),  En- 
quiry into  the  Prospects  of  the  Christian 
Church;  Auderson,  Apolog.  for  Millen.  Doct., 
Glasg.  1830 ; Irving,  Led.  on  the  Revelat., 
1831 ; Greswell,  Exposition  of  the  Parables, 
1834-5;  Pigou,  The  Millennium,  1837;  Millen- 
iarism  Unscriptural,  1838;  Jefferson,  The  Millen- 
nium, 1840;  Bush,  The  Millenium,  Salem  (N.S.), 
1842.  Several  American  writers  on  the  subject, 
little  known  in  this  country,  are  enumerated  in 
Rupp’s  Relig.  Denominations,  p.  519. 

MILLET.  [Dochan.] 

MILLO  (K-I^JO  ; Sept,  dupd).  This  word  de- 
notes ‘ fulness,’  and  is  applied  to  a mound  or  ram- 
part, probably  as  being  filled  up  with  stones  or 
earth.  Hence  it  is  the  name  given  to 

1.  Part  of  the  citadel  of  Jerusalem,  probably 
the  rampart  (2  Sam.  v.  9 ; 1 Kings  ix.  15,  24  ; 
xi.  27  ; 1 Chron.  xi.  8 ; 2 Chron.  xxxii.  5).  In 
the  last  of  these  texts,  where  David  is  said  to  have 
restored  or  fortified  Millo  ‘ of’  (not ‘ in  ’)  the  city 
of  David,  the  Sept,  has  rb  ai'd\gpg.a  rrjs  irSXeus, 
‘ the  fortification  of  the  city  of  David.’ 

2.  The  fortress  in  Shechem.  ‘ All  the  men  of 
Shechem,  and  all  that  dwelt  in  the  house  of  Millo ;’ 
that  js,  in  the  castle  or  citadel  (Judg.  ix.  6,  20). 

MINISTER,  one  who  acts  as  the  less  (from 
minus  or  minor ) or  inferior  agent,  in  obedience 
or  subservience  to  another,  or  who  serves,  officiates, 
&c.,  as  distinguished  from  the  master,  magister 
(from  magis),  or  superior.  The  words  so  trans- 
lated in  the  Old  Testament  are  and  n^>3 


(Chald.),  and  in  the  New,  biaicosos,  \enovpy6s, 
and  {nrrip(Tris . 1.  ‘ Moses  and  his  mi- 

nister Joshua’  (Exod.  xxiv.  13);  Sept,  napeir * 
rrjKcljs  avTip  ; Aquila  and  Symm.  6 \eirovpy6s 
avroO;  comp.  Exod.  xxxiii.  11  (Sept.  Qepdirwv 
'lycrovs) ; Num.  xi.  28  ; Josh.  i.  1 (Sept,  virovpybs 
M cavag  ; Alex.  A irovpyds).  This  Hebrew  word 
is  clearly  distinguished  from  13^,  which  is  the 
more  comprehensive  term  for  servant  (1  Kings 
x.  5),  ‘ Solomon's  servants  and  ministers,’  where 
the  Sept,  reads  Traldccu  for  the  former,  and  Aei- 
rovpyuv  for  the  latter.  It  is  applied  to  Elisha  as 
minister  to  Elijah,  2 Kings  vi.  15  (Sept.  Xeirovp- 
y 6s)',  comp.  2 Kings  iii.  11;  1 Kings  xix.  21. 
Persons  thus  designated  sometimes  succeeded  to 
the  office  of  their  principal,  as  did  Joshua  and 
Elisha.  The  word  is  applied  to  the  angels, 
Ps.  ciii.  21  (Aeirovpyol) ; comp.  Ps.  civ.  4;  Heb. 
i.  7 ; and  see  Stuart’s  Comment,  in  loc.  Both 
the  Hebrew  and  Sept,  words  are  applied  to  the 
Jews  in  their  capacity  as  a sacred  nation,  ‘ Men 
shall  call  you  the  ministers  of  our  God’  (Isa.  lxi. 
6)  ; to  the  priests  (Jer.  xxxiii.  21 ; Ezek.  xliv.  11 ; 
xlv.  4 ; Joel  i.  9).  The  Greek  word  is  continued 
in  the  same  sense  in  Luke  i.  23,  and  applied  to 
Christian  teachers,  Acts  xiii.  2;  Rom.  xv.  16; 
and  to  Christ,  Heb.  viii.  2 ; to  the  collectors  of 
the  Roman  tribute,  in  consequence  of  the  divine 
authority  of  political  government,  ‘ they  are  God's 
ministers  ’ (A eiTovpyoi).  It  was  applied  by  the 
Athenians  to  those  who  administered  the  public 
offices  (A eiTovpyiai)  at  their  own  expense  (Boeckh, 
Staatshaush.  der  Athencr.  i.  480  ; ii.  62  ; Potter’s 
Gr.Ant.  i.  85.  2.  (Chald.),  Ezra  vii.  24, 

‘ ministers  ’ of  religion,  Aenovpydis  (comp. 
ver.  19),  though  he  uses  the  word  in  the 

same  sense,  ch.  viii.  17.  3.  The  word  biduoyos , 

4 minister,’  is  applied  to  Christian  teachers,  1 Cor. 
iii.  5;  2 Cor.  iii.  6 ; vi.  4;  xi.  23;  1 Thess.  iii. 
2;  to  false  teachers,  2 Cor.  xi.  15;  to  Christ, 
Rom.  xv.  8,  16  ; Gal.  ii.  17;  to  heathen  magis- 
trates, Rom.  xiii.  4;  in  all  which  passages  it  has 
the  sense  of  a minister,  assistant,  or  servant  in 
general,  as  in  Matt.  xx.  26  ; but  it  means  a par- 
ticular sort  of  minister,  ‘ a deacon,’  in  Philip,  i.  1 ; 
1 Tim.  iii.  8,  12.  The  term  SiaKovoi  denotes 
among  the  Greeks  a higher  class  of  servants  than 
the  SovAot  (Athen.  x.  192;  13.  comp.  Xen.  1.  c. 
Buttm.  Lexic.  i.  220;  comp.  Matt.  xxii.  13,  and 
Sept,  for  m^D,  Esth.  i.  10  ; ii.  2 ; vi.  3).  4.  iSthj- 

per-ps  is  applied  to  Christian  ministers,  Luke  i.  2 ; 
Acts  xxvi.  16  ; 2 Cor.  iv.  1.  Josephus  calls  Moses 
t'ov  vTT7]perriv  &eov,  Antiq.  iii.  1.  4.  Kings  are 
so  called  in  Wisd.  vi.  4.  The  word  denotes,  in 
Luke  iv.  20,  the  attendant  in  a synagogue  who 
handed  the  volume  to  the  reader,  and  returned  it 
to  its  place.  In  Acts  xiii.  5 it  is  applied  to 
‘John  whose  surname  was  Mark,’  in  his  capa- 
city as  an  attendant  or  assistant  on  Barnabas 
and  Saul.  It  primarily  signifies  an  under- 
rower on  board  a galley,  of  the  class  who  used 
the  longest  oars,  and  consequently  performed  the 
severest  duty,  as  distinguished  from  the  Qpav'nr)s, 
the  rower  upon  the  upper  bench  of  the  three, 
and  from  the  ol  vavrai,  sailors,  or  the  iirifidrai, 
marines  (Dem.  1209.  11.  14;  comp,  also  1208. 
20:  1214.  23;  1216.  13;  Pol.  i.  25.3):  hmce 
in  general  a hand,  agent,  minister,  attendant,  &c. 

J.  F.  D 

MINCHA,  the  Hebrew  name  of  the  bloodless 


344 


MINN1TH. 


MIRACLES. 


effeiings  (meal,  cakes,  &c.)  presented  in  the 
Temple  [Offerings]. 

M1NNI.  [Armenia.] 

MINNITIi  (JV3D),  a town  in  the  country  of 
the  Ammonites  (Judg.  xi.  33),  celebrated  for  the 
excellence  of  its  wheat,  which  was  exported  to  the 
markets  of  Tyre  (Ezek.  xxvii.  17).  It.  still  existed 
in  the  age  of  Eusebius,  four  R.  miles  from  Hesh- 
bon,  on  the  road  to  Philadelphia  (Onomast.  in 
Maavid).  The  Sept,  seem  to  have  found  difficulty 
in  this  name.  In  Judg.  xi.  33  they  substitute  the 
name  of  the  Anion,  and  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  17  they 
render  it  by  ixvpov , ‘ mvrrh/ 

MINT.  [Hkduosmon.] 

MIRACLES.  God  sees  fit  to  carry  on  his 
common  operations  on  established  and  uniform 
principles.  These  principles,  whether  relating  to 
the  phvsical  or  moral  world,  are  called  the  laws 
of  nature.  And  by  the  laws  of  nature  the  most 
enlightened  philosophers  and  divines  have under- 
stood the  uniform  j jlan  according  to  which,  or 
the  uniform  manner  in  lohich,  God  exercises  his 
cower  throughout  the  created  universe.  Or  it 
may  be  said,  the  laws  of  nature  are  the  uniform 
method  in  which  the  powers  or  active  principles, 
which  God  has  imparted  to  created  things,  called 
second  or  secondary  causes,  operate  anil  produce 
their  effects.  Or,  according  to  the  language  of 
some,  the  laws  of  nature  are  the  uniform  manner 
In  which  events  come  to  pass,  or,  in  which  action 
and  the  results  of  action  among  created  beings 
take  place.  It  is  evident  that  various  powers  and 
properties  belong  to  the  things  which  are  made, 
and  are  inherent  in  them,  and  that  nothing  in 
the  creation,  whether  material  or  spiritual,  would 
lie  what  it  is  without  those  powers  and  properties. 
But  we  know  that  the  existence  of  things,  with 
their  several  powers  and  properties,  was,  at  first, 
owing  to  the  operation  of  divine  power,  and  that 
their  continued  existence  is  owing  to  the  same 
cause. 

The  above-mentioned  uniform  method  of  di- 
vine operation  is  evidently  conducive  to  the  most 
important  ends.  It  manifests  the  immutable 
wisdom  and  goodness  ot  God,  and,  in  ways  too 
many  to  be  here  specified,  promotes  the  welfare 
of  his  creatures.  Without  the  influence  of  this 
uniformity, rational  beings  would  have  no  effectual 
motive  to  effort,  and  the  affairs  of  the  universe, 
intelligent,  and  unintelligent,  would  be  in  a state 
of  tolal  confusion.  And  this  general  fact  may 
be  considered  as  a sufficient  reason  why  God,  in 
the  common  course  of  his  providence,  has  adopted 
a uniform  method  of  operation  in  preference  to 
any  other. 

But  if,  in  conducting  the  affairs  of  his  great 
empire,  God  sees,  in  any  particular  case,  as  good 
a reason  fov  a deviation  from  this  uniform  order, 
as  there  is  generally  for  uniformity,  that  is,  if 
the  glory  of  his  attributes  and  the  good  of  his 
creatures  require  it — and  no  one  can  say  that 
such  a case  may  not  occur— then,  unquestionably, 
the  unchangeable  God  will  cause  such  a devia- 
tion; in  other  words,  will  work  miracles: 
miracles  being  effects  which  are  produced,  or 
events  which  take  place,  in  a manner  not  con- 
formed to  the  common  laws  of  nature,  and  which 
cannot  be  accounted  for  according  to  those  laws. 
In  the  case  supposed,  if  God  should  not  depart 
tom  his  ’sual  course,  and  work  miracles,  he 


would  not  show  the  same  regard  as  he  ordinarily 
does  to  his  own  glory  and  the  good  of  his  crea- 
tures. On  the  condition,  then,  here  supposed, 
there  is  a strong  and  decided  presumption  in 
favour  of  miraculous  operations ; and  it  would 
contradict  our  best  views  of  the  immutable  per- 
fection of  God,  to  suppose  that  they  will  not  take 
place. 

It  is  admitted  that  no  man,  apart  from  the 
knowledge  of  facts,  could  ever,  by  mere  reason- 
ing, have  arrived  at  a confident  belief,  that  the 
conjuncture  supposed  would  certainly  occur. 
But  to  us,  who  know  that  mankind  are  so  de- 
praved and  wretched,  and  that  the  efforts  of 
human  wisdom  to  obtain  relief  have  been  in  vain, 
the  importance  of  a special  divine  interposition 
is  very  apparent.  And  being  informed  what  the 
plan  is,  which  a merdml  God  has  adopted  for 
our  recovery  to  holiness  and  happiness,  and  being 
satisfied  that  this  plan,  so  perfectly  suited  to  the 
end  in  view,  could  never  have  been  discovered 
by  man,  and  never  executed,  except  by  a divine 
dispensation  involving  miracles,  we  conclude, 
that  the  introduction  of  a new  and  miraculous 
dispensation  was  in  the  highest  degree  an  honour 
to  God  and  a blessing  to  the  world.  It  is  clear 
that  man  could  not  have  been  saved  without  it.  The 
divine  government  proceeding  according  to  the 
original  law  of  justice,  would  have  left  no  luq* 
for  transgressors.  If  man  is  to  be  saved,  there 
must  be  a departure  from  the  original  laws  of  a 
moral  government.  There  must  be  a new  dis- 
sipation, and  that  new  dispensation  must  be 
made  known  to  man;  because,  without  knowing 
it,  man  could  not  enjoy  its  benefits.  The  work 
of  saving  a lost  world  cannot  be  accomplished 
while  the  world  remains  wholly  ignorant,  of  the 
grace  which  saves.  But.  the  requisite  knowledge 
can  never  be  reached  by  any  of  our  natural 
faculties,  and  never  communicated  to  us  by  any 
thing  in  creation.  It.  must  come  from  God,  and 
that  in  an  extraordinary  manner.  Now  God  is 
able,  if  he  please,  by  a supernatural  influence,  to 
impart  the  requisite  knowledge  directly  to  every 
human  being.  But  this  mode  of  imparting  know- 
ledge would  itself  be  miraculous,  as  it  would  be 
entirely  beyond  what  any  human  mind  would  be 
capable  of  in  the  use  of  ordinary  means.  But  it 
is  manifest  that  such  a mode  of  imparting  know- 
ledge is  not  in  fact  the  mode  which  God  has 
chosen,  and  that  it  would  not  be  well  suited  to 
the  ends  of  divine  wisdom.  The  method  of 
divine  appointment,  as  set  forth  in  the  sacred 
volume,  is  that  of  making  a revelation  to  a num- 
ber of  individuals,  who  are  to  write  and  publish 
it  for  the  benefit  of  the  world.  This  revelation  to 
individuals  is  made  in  such  a manner  as  renders 
it  certain  to  their  minds,  that  the  revelation  i9 
from  God.  But.  how  can  that  revelation  be  made 
available  to  others?  It  will  not  answer  the  pur- 
pose for  those  who  receive  it  merely  to  declare 
that  God  has  made  such  a revelation  to  them,  and 
authorized  them  to  proclaim  it  to  their  fellow 
creatures.  For  how  shall  we  know  that  they  are 
not  deceivers?  Or  if  their  character  is  such  as 
to  repel  any  suspicion  of  this  kind,  how  shall  we 
know  that  they  are  not  themselves  deceived, — as 
it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  a man,  even  a good 
man,  to  be  misled  by  enthusiastic  impressions,  or 
in  some  other  way  ? How  shall  we  come  to  fee! 
entire  confidence  in  the  truth  ari  l divine  au- 


MIRACLES. 


MIRACLES. 


343 


tkority  of  what  individuals  say  has  been  revealed 
to  them  from  God?  Have  we  not  a light,  nay, 
are  we  not  bound  in  duty,  to  ask  for  evidence? 
But  what  evidence  will  suffice?  The  reply  is 
obvious.  The  revelation,  in  order  to  be  of  use  to 
us,  as  it  is  to  those  who  receive  it  directly  from 
God,  must  not  only  be  declared  by  them  to  us, 
but  must  have  a divine  attestation.  In  other 
words,  those  who  declare  it  to  us  must  show, 
by  some  incontestable  proof,  that  it  is  from  God. 
Such  proof  is  found  in  a miracle.  If  an  event 
takes  place  which  we  know  to  be  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  nature,  we  at  once  recognise  it  as  the 
special  act.  of  him  who  is  the  God  of  nature,  and 
who  alone  can  suspend  its  laws,  and  produce 
effects  in  another  way.  The  evidence  of  a direct 
interposition  of  God  given  in  this  way  is  irresist- 
ible. No  man,  no  inlidel,  could  witness  an  ob- 
vious miracle,  without  being  struck  with  awe, 
and  recognising  the  finger  of  God.  What  would 
become  of  the  scepticism  of  a Hume  or  a Voltaire, 
should  he  go  to  the  grave  where  a father  or  brother 
had  been  buried  for  years,  and  see  him  wake  up 
to  life  and  come  forth  at  the  word  of  a divine 
messenger?  What  will  become  of  his  scepticism, 
when  he  himself,  after  having  slept  in  death 
thousands  of  years,  shall  rise  from  the  dead,  and 
t shall  see  others  rise  around  him?  In  a miracle, 
God  works,  and  shows  us  his  hand,  speaks,  and 
causes  us  to  hear  his  voice,  as  plainly  as  if  he 
should  instantly,  before  our  astonished  eyes, 
create  a new  sun  in  the  expanse  of  heaven,  or  in 
a voice  as  loud  as  thunder  should  speak  distinct 
and  intelligible  words  in  our  ears. 

In  respect  to  the  subject  before  us,  there  is  a 
manifest  and  wide  difference  between  a miracle 
and  any  event  which  is  referable  to  the  laws  of 
nature.  Let  a man  come  to  us  and  say,  that 
such  a doctrine  has  been  made  known  to  him  by 
special  revelation.  It  may  properly  be  our  first 
inquiry,  whether  the  doctrine  referred  to,  for  ex- 
ample, the  deity  of  Christ,  or  the  truth  of  the 
Newtonian  philosophy,  is  supported  by  other 
evidence.  If  so,  we  receive  it  on  the  ground  of 
that  other  evidence,  not  because  he  tells  us  that  it 
was  revealed  to  him.  But  suppose  that  there  is 
no  other  evidence,  and  that  if  we  receive  if,  we 
must  receive  it  on  the  ground  of  his  declaration. 
We  look  then  for  evidence  that  his  declaration  is 
true.  We  say  to  him,  prove  that  you  are  a pro- 
phet sent  from  God,  and  that  this  doctrine  has 
been  revealed  to  you  from  above.  He  under- 
takes to  give  the  proof  required,  and  he  says,  the 
Hudson  river,  or  the  Danube,  which  is  now  liquid, 
shall,  to  a considerable  depth,  become  a solid 
mass,  before  the  end  of  January  ; and  thus  my 
claim  to  a special  revelation  shall  be  confirmed. 
We  reply  to  him, — why  not  make  it  a solid  mass 
now  in  the  midst  of  summer?  And  why  not 
freeze  up  a river  in  the  torrid  zone?  A man  who 
has  had  no  revelation  can  do  all  that  you  under*- 
take.  He  may  say,  he  will  bring  about  a total 
eclipse  of  the  sun  at  such  a time  (having  found 
out  the  right  time).  We  tell  him  to  bring  about 
such  an  eclipse  in  the  old  of  the  moon , and  we 
will  yield  to  his  pretensions. 

It  is  clear  that  no  event,  which  can  be  ac- 
counted for  on  natural  principles,  can  prove  a 
supernatural  interposition,  or  contain  a diviue 
attestation  to  the  truth  of  a prophet’s  claim.  But 
when  we  look  at  an  event  which  cannot  be  traced 


to  the  laws  of  nature,  and  is  clearly  above  them, 
such  as  the  burning  of  the  wood  upon  the  altar 
in  the  case  of  Elijah's  controversy  with  the  false 
prophets,  or  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  we 
cannot  avoid  the  conviction,  that  the  Lord  o* 
heaven  and  earth  does,  by  such  a miracle,  give 
his  testimony,  that  Elijah  is  his  prophet,  and  that 
Jesus  is  the  Messiah.  The  evidence  arising  from 
miracles  is  so  striking  and  conclusive,  that  there 
is  no  way  for  an  infidel  to  evade  it,  but  to  deny 
the  existence  of  miracles,  and  to  hold  that  all  the 
events  called  miraculous  may  be  accounted  for 
according  to  the  laws  of  nature. 

Hume  arrays  uniform  experience  against  the 
credibility  of  miracles.  But,  the  shallow  sophistry 
of  his  argument  has  been  fully  exposed  by  Camp- 
bell, Paley,  and  many  others.  We  inquire  what, 
and  how  much  he  means  by  uniform  experience. 
Does  he  mean  his  own  experience?  But  because 
he  has  never  witnessed  a miracle,  does  it  follow 
that  others  have  not?  Does  he  mean  the  unifoim 
experience  of  the  greater  part  of  mankind?  But 
how  does  he  know  that  the  experience  of  a smaller 
part  has  not  been  different  from  that  of  the 
greater  part?  Does  he  mean,  then,  the  uniform 
experience  of  all  mankind  in  all  ages?  How 
then  does  his  argument  stand?  He  undertakes 
to  piove  that  no  man  has  ever  witnessed  or  ex- 
perienced a miracle,  and  his  real  argument  is, 
that  no  one  has  ever  witnessed  or  experienced  it. 
In  other  words,  to  prove  that  there  has  never  been 
a miracle,  he  asserts  that  there  never  has  been  a 
miracle.  This  is  the  nature  of  his  argument — 
an  instance  of  petitio  principii , which  a man 
of  Hume’s  logical  powers  would  never  have 
resoited  to,  had  it  not  been  for  his  enmity  to 
religion. 

If  it  is  said  that  the  ordinary  experience  of 
mankind  in  general  contradicts  the  idea  of  a 
miracle,  it  is  said  without  due  consideration. 
The  experience  or  testimony  of  any  number  of 
men  cannot,  be  regarded  as  contradictory  to  the 
experience  or  testimony  of  other  men,  unless  the 
experience  or  testimony  of  both  parties  relate  to 
the  same  event,  and  to  the  same  place  and  time 
of  its  occurrence.  Ten  thousand  Romans  might 
have  said  that  no  such  thing  as  the  murder  of 
Julius  Caesar  had  ever  taken  place  within  their 
observation  or  experience,  and  their  testimony 
might,  have  been  true  ; but  how  would  their  tes- 
timony have  contradicted  the  testimony  of  those 
who  witnessed  the  fatal  deed  of  his  murderers? 
There  is  no  contradiction  between  two  witnesses, 
or  two  sets  of  witnesses,  if  the  testimony  of  both 
may  be  true.  Suppose  two  men  testify  before  a 
court  of  justice,  that,  at  such  a time,  naming  the 
hour  and  the  minute,  and  in  such  a room,  naming 
the  very  part  of  the  room,  they  saw  a man  murder 
his  father  by  stabbing  him.  Now  let  three  other 
men  come  forward  and  testify  that  they  often  saw 
ihe  father  and  son  together,  but  never  witnessed 
any  act  of  violence  on  the  part  of  the  son.  Here 
is  no  contradiction  of  testimonies;  for  both  may 
lie  true.  But  let  the  three  witnesses  testify  that 
they  were  present  at  the  very  time  and  place  re- 
ferred to ; that  they  saw  the  father  and  son  to- 
gether in  the  room,  and  the  part  of  the  room  men- 
tioned by  the  two  witnesses  ; that  the  son  had  no 
instrument  in  his  hand  ; and  that  the  father  was 
attacked  suddenly  with  apoplexy,  and  died  in 
the  arms  of  his  son.  Here  you  have  contradic* 


346 


MIRACLES. 


MIRACLES. 


tory  testimonies,  and  both  cannot  be  true.  The 
testimony  of  al.  generations  antecedent  to  the  time 
cf  Christ,  that  they  had  never  seen  a man  who 
had  been  dead  and  buried  for  some  days,  raised 
to  life  by  a word  of  command;  and  the  testi- 
mony of  the  greater  part  of  the  Jewish  nation  at 
that  time,  that  they  had  seen  no  such  thing  as  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus,  would  not  have  contra- 
dicted the  testimony  of  the  few  who  declared  that 
they  were  present  and  witnessed  his  resurrection. 
The  truth  of  the  former  testimonies  would  not 
have  disproved  the  truth  of  the  last.  So  much 
for  the  argument  of  Hume.  After  all,  he  seems 
to  admit  that  a miracle  may  be  credible,  if  it  is 
not  tor  ought  in  favour  of  religion  ; whereas  it 
would  have  been  much  nearer  the  truth,  had  he 
said,  a miracle  is  credible,  if  it  it  wrought  in 
favour  of  religion. 

The  miraculous  events  recorded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, particularly  those  which  took  place  in  the 
times  of  Moses  and  Christ,  have  all  the  marks 
which  are  necessary  to  prove  them  to  have  been 
matters  of  fact,  and  worthy  of  full  credit,  and  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  feats  of  jugglers  and 
impostors.  This  has  been  shown  very  satisfac- 
torily by  Leslie,  Paley,  Douglas,  and  many 
others.  These  miracles  took  place  in  the  most 
public  manner,  and  in  the  presence  of  many  wit- 
nesses ; so  that  there  was  opportunity  to  subject 
them  to  the  most  searching  scrutiny.  Good  men 
and  bad  men  were  able  and  disposed  to  examine 
them  thoroughly,  and  to  prove  them  to  have  been 
impostures,  if  they  had  been  so.  Why  did  not 
the  scribes  and  pharisees  and  rulers,  who  were  so 
full  of  zeal  against  the  religion  of  Jesus,  adopt 
the  most  natural  and  effectual  means  of  prevent- 
ing its  growing  influence?  Why  did  they  not 
bring  Jesus  and  his  disciples  to  a fair  trial  before 
a proper  tribunal,  and  prove  them  to  be  de- 
ceivers ? 

A large  number  of  men,  of  unquestionable 
honesty  and  intelligence,  constantly  affirmed  that 
the  miracles  took  place  before  their  eyes.  And 
some  of  these  original  witnesses  wrote  and  pub- 
lished histories  of  the  facts,  in  the  places  where 
they  were  alleged  to  have  occurred,  and  near  the 
time  of  their  occurrence.  In  these  histories  it 
was  openly  asserted  that  the  miracles,  as  de- 
scribed, were  publicly  known  and  acknowledged 
to  have  taken  place;  and  this  no  one  took  upon 
him  to  contradict,  or  to  question.  Moreover, 
many  persons  who  stood  forth  as  witnesses  of 
these  miracles  passed  their  lives  in  labours,  dan- 
gers, and  sufferings,  in  attestation  of  the  accounts 
they  delivered,  aird  solely  in  consequence  of  then- 
belief  of  the  truth  of  those  accounts ; and,  from 
the  same  motive,  they  voluntarily  submitted  to 
uew  rules  of  conduct;  while  nothing  like  this  is 
true  respecting  any  other  pretended  miracles  (see 
Paley ’s  Evidences ).  Paley  attaches  great  im- 
portance, and  that  very  justly,  to  these  positions  ; 
and  he  says  lie  should  believe  in  the  reality  of 
miracles  in  any  other  case,  if  attended  with  the 
circumstances  which  distinguished  the  miracles 
of  Christ.  And  if  any  one  calls  assent  to  such 
evidence  credulity,  it  is  incumbent  on  him  to 
produce  examples  in  which  the  same  evidence 
tias  turned  out  to  be  fallacious. 

In  comparing  the  evidence  for  Christian  mi- 
racles with  that  which  can  be  offered  in  favour 
of  any  other  miracles,  it  is  proper,  as  the  same 


author  shows,  to  lay  out  of  the  case  such  accounts 
as  the  following  : — 

1.  It  is  proper  to  lay  out  of  the  case  such 
accounts  of  supernatural  events  as  are  written  a 
long  time  after  their  alleged  occurrence.  On 
this  principle,  we  may  at  once  set  aside  the 
miraculous  story  of  Pythagoras,  the  fables  of  the 
heroic  ages,  a great  part  of  the  accounts  of 
Popish  saints,  and  the  miracles  of  Apollonius 
Tyanaeus.  And  this  circumstance  is  shown  to  be 
of  special  value  in  regard  to  the  history  of  Ig- 
natius Loyola.  His  life,  written  by  a companion 
of  his,  who  was  one  of  the  order  of  the  Jesuits, 
was  published  about  fifteen  years  after  his  death 
The  author  of  this  biography,  so  far  from  ascrib- 
ing miracles  to  Ignatius,  states  the  reasons  why 
he  was  not  invested  with  any  such  power.  Aboil 
sixty  years  after,  the  Jesuits,  wishing  to  exalt  the 
character  of  their  founder,  began  to  attribute  to 
him  a catalogue  of  miracles,  which  could  not 
then  be  distinctly  disproved,  and  which  those  who 
ruled  in  the  church  were  disposed  to  admit  upon 
the  slightest  evidence. 

2.  ‘ We  may  lay  out  of  the  case  accounts  pub- 
lished in  one  country  of  what  passed  in  a distant 
country,  without  any  proof  that  such  accounts 
were  received  or  known  at  home.’  It  is  greatly 
in  favour  of  Christianity  that  the  history  of 
Christ  was  first  published,  and  his  church  first 
planted  in  the  place  where  he  lived,  and  wrought 
miracles,  and  died.  But  most  of  the  miracles  of 
Apollonius  Tyanaeus  are  related  to  have  been  per- 
formed in  India;  while  we  have  no  evidence  that 
the  history  of  those  miracles  was  ever  published, 
or  that  the  miracles  were  ever  heard  of,  in  India. 
This  matter  is  satisfactorily  treated  by  Douglas 
in  his  Criterion. 

3.  We  ought  to  lay  out  of  the  case  transient 
rumours.  On  the  first  publication  of  any  story, 
unless  we  are  personally  acquainted  with  the  fact 
referred  to,  we  cannot  know  whether  it.  is  true  or 
false.  We  look  for  its  confirmation,  its  increas- 
ing notoriety,  and  its  permanency,  and  for  subse- 
quent accounts  in  different,  forms,  to  give  it  sup- 
port. In  ibis  respect  the  miracles  recorded  in 
Scripture  are  presented  before  us  in  the  most 
favourable  light. 

4.  We  lay  out  of  the  case  what  may  be  called 
naked  history , — history  found  merely  in  a book, 
unattended  with  any  evidence  that  the  accounts 
given  in  the  book  were  credited  and  acted  upon 
at  the  time  when  the  events  are  said  to  have  oc- 
curred, and  unsupported  by  any  collateral  or 
subsequent  testimony,  or  by  any  important  vi- 
sible effects.  We  see  here  what  singular' advan- 
tage attends  the  history  of  the  miracles  of  Christ. 
That  history  is  combined  with  permanent.  Chris- 
tian institutions ; with  the  time  and  place,  and 
circumstances  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the 
Christian  religion,  as  collected  from  other  history ; 
with  its  prevalence  to  the  present,  day;  with  the 
fact  of  our  present  books  having  been  received  by 
the  advocates  of  Christianity  from  the  first;  with 
a great  variety  of  subsequent  books  referring  tc 
the  transactions  recorded  in  the  four  Gospels,  and 
containing  accounts  of  the  effects  which  flowed 
from  the  belief  of  those  transactions — those  subse- 
quent books  having  been  written  with  very  differ- 
ent views,  ‘ so  disagreeing  as  to  repel  the  suspicion 
of  confederacy,  and  yet  so  agreeing  as  to  show 
that  they  were  founded  in  a common  origin.’ 


MIRACLES. 


MIRACLES. 


34? 


5.  We  lay  out  of  the  case  stories  of  super- 
natural events  upon  which  nothing  depends,  and 
in  which  no  interest  is  involved — stories  which 
require  only  an  indolent  assent,  and  which  pass 
from  one  to  another  without  examination.  How 
different  are  the  accounts  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ!  Those  accounts,  if  true,  decided  the 
most  momentous  questions  upon  which  the  im- 
mortal mind  can  fix.  Who  could  be  indifferent 
and  careless  in  such  a case  as  this?  Whoever 
entertained  the  account  of  these  miracles,  whether 
Jew  or  Gentile,  could  not  avoid  the  following 
reflection : ‘ If  these  things  be  true,  I must  sur- 
render the  principles  in  which  I have  been  brought 
up,  the  religion  in  which  my  fathers  lived  and 
died.’  And  who  would  do  this  ? Who  would 
give  up  his  most  favourite  opinions,  and  his  for- 
mer way  of  life,  and  adopt  new  rules,  and  new 
habits,  and  a new  course  of  conduct,  and  en- 
counter the  severest  sufferings,  upon  a mere  idle 
report,  or,  indeed,  without  the  most  serious  con- 
sideration, and  the  fullest  conviction  of  the  truth 
of  the  history  in  which  he  confided  ? 

6.  We  lay  aside  all  those  events  which  can  be 
accounted  for  by  a heated  imagination,  false  per- 
ception, momentary  insanity,  or  any  other  natural 
principle.  Now,  although  we  may,  in  some 
cases,  be  in  doubt,  whether  the  events  which  take 
place  can  be  resolved  into  the  common  powers 
of  nature,  no  doubt  can  remain  as  to  the  princi- 
pal miracles  of  Christ.  If  a person  born  blind 
is,  by  a word,  restored  to  sight,  or  a man  un- 
questionably dead  restored  to  life,  or  if  a con- 
version takes  place,  with  the  accompanying  cir- 
cumstances and  the  permanent  consequences  of 
that  of  Paul,  we  are  sure  that  the  event  must  be 
ascribed  to  a supernatural  cause. 

It  appears,  then,  that  after  the  various  classes 
of  events  above-mentioned  have  been  excluded, 
the  miracles  recorded  in  Scripture  remain,  with 
all  the  characteristics  of  supernatural  events, 
showing  the  special  presence  and  extraordinary 
agency  of  God,  and  containing  his  direct  testi- 
mony in  favour  of  the  doctrines  to  which  they 
refer.  Hence  we  see  the  propriety  and  the  per- 
fect conclusiveness  of  the  appeal  which  Jesus 
often  made  to  his  works  as  proof  of  his  Messiah- 
ship  : ‘ The  works  that  I do  in  my  Father's  name, 
they  bear  witness  of  me again,  ‘ The  works 
that  I do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the  Father  has 
sent  me.’  These  miraculous  works  were  as  really 
a divine  attestation  to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
as  that  voice  which  God  uttered  from  heaven, 
' This  is  my  beloved  Son,  hear  ye  him.’ 

It  has  been  a long  agitated  question,  whether 
miracles  have  ever  been  wrought,  or  can  be  con- 
sistently supposed  to  be  wrought,  by  apostate 
spirits . 

It  is  sufficient  to  say  here,  that  it  would  be 
evidently  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God 
to  empower  or  to  suffer  wicked  beings  to  work  mi- 
racles in  support  of  falsehood.  Miracles,  sup- 
posing them  not  to  be  wrought  at  random,  but  to 
contain  a divine  attestation,  must  go  to  support 
the  truth.  Neither  wicked  beings  nor  good 
beings  can  overwork  them  in  such  a manner  that 
they  shall  avail  to  give  countenance  to  error, 
and  thus  nullify  the  clearest  and  most  striking 
evidence  which  can  be  given  in  support  of  the 
truth  of  a special  divine  communication.  Ba- 
laam was  a real  prophet ; that  is,  he  was  endued 


with  supernatural  knowledge,  and  enabled  to  pre- 
dict the  good  which  was  to  come  upon  the  people 
of  God.  His  supernatural  foresight  availed  to 
make  known  the  truth — as  really  so  as  though  he 
had  been  a good  man.  Yea,  the  divine  testi- 
mony in  that  case  was  attended  with  one  peculiar 
advantage,  namely,  that  Balaam  was  constrained 
by  divine  influence  to  pronounce  a blessing  upon 
Israel  against  both  his  interest  and  his  inclina- 
tion. And  if  wicked  spirits  in  the  time  of  Christ 
had  power  to  produce  preternatural  effects  upon 
the  minds  or  bodies  of  men,  and  if  those  effects 
are  to  be  ranked  among  real  miracles  (which, 
however,  we  do  not  affirm),  still  the  end  of  mi- 
racles is  not  contravened.  For  those  very  opera- 
tions of  evil  spirits  were  under  the  control  of 
divine  providence,  and  were  made  in  two  ways 
to  subserve  the  cause  of  Christ.  First ; they  fur- 
nished an  occasion,  as  doubtless  they  were  de- 
signed to  do,  for  Christ  to  show  his  power  over 
evil  spirits,  and,  by  his  superior  miracles,  to  give 
a new  proof  of  his  Messiahship.  Secondly ; the 
evil  spirits  themselves  were  constrained  to  give 
their  testimony,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel — a very  different  matter  from 
wliat  it  would  have  been  if  they  had  declared  that 
Jesus  was  an  impostor,  and  had  undertaken  to 
support  their  declaration  by  supernatural  works. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  attempting  to  prove  ab- 
solutely, as  some  writers  have  dene,  ‘that  evil 
spirits  have  never  had  power,  and  never  been  per- 
mitted, in  any  case,  to  do  supernatural  works, 
we  shall  content  ourselves  with  saying,  that  God 
has  never  given  them  power,  and  never  per- 
mitted them  to  do  such  works  in  such  circum- 
stances, and  in  such  a manner , as  to  support  error, 
or  in  any  way  to  discredit  divine  truth.  This 
being  the  case,  it  will  not  detract  at  all  from  the 
weight  of  the  testimony  which  God  gives  by  mi- 
racles to  the  truth  of  any  supernatural  revelation, 
if.  in  some  instances,  he  should  see  fit  to  empower 
evil  spirits  to  do  miraculous  works  for  the  same 
holy  ends — thus  making  use  of  the  agency  oi 
evil  spirits,  as  well  as  of  good  men,  to  promote  the 
cause  of  righteousness  and  truth. 

As  to  the  time  when  the  miraculous  dispensa- 
tion ceased,  we  can  only  remark,  that  the  power 
of  working  miracles,  which  belonged  pre-emi- 
nently to  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and,  in  inferior 
degrees,  to  many  other  Christians  in  the  aposto- 
lic age,  subsided  gradually.  After  the  great 
object  of  supernatural  works  was  accomplished 
in  the  establishment  of  the  Christian  religion, 
with  all  its  sacred  truths,  and  its  divinely  ap- 
pointed institutions,  during  the  life  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  there  appears  to  have  been  no  farther 
occasion  for  miracles,  and  no  satisfactory  evidence 
that  they  actually  occurred. 

If  the  inquiry  is  made,  whether  in  the  future 
advancement  of  Christ’s  kingdom  and  the  con- 
version of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  miraculous  inter- 
positions are  to  be  expected,  our  reply  is,  that  this 
must  be  referred  entirely  to  the  sovereign  wisdom 
of  God.  It  does,  indeed,  seem  quite  evident, 
that  the  grand  design  and  appropriate  influence 
of  miracles  have  been  already  realized  in  the 
confirmation  of  the  truth  and  authority  of  the 
Christian  religion.  And  it  has  become  more  and 
more  evident,  that  the  Gospel  may  be  propagated, 
and  men  in  all  circumstances  converted,  by  the 
power  of  divine  truth,  and  the  renewing  of  the 


349 


MIRIAM. 


M1TYLENE. 


Holy  Spirit,  without  any  resort  to  miracles. 
From  these  and  other  considerations  we  very  na- 
turally infer,  that  the  recurrence  of  a miraculous 
dispensation  is  not  required  in  order  to  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Saviour’s  work  ; still  it  is  not  for 
us  to  decide  this  point.  As  Christians,  we  ought 
to  keep  in  remembrance  that  God’s  ways  are  not 
as  our  ways,  and  to  cherish  such  a state  of  mind, 
that  if  God  should  at  any  time  see  lit,  for  the  glory 
of  his  name  and  the  salvation  of  men,  to  repeat 
the  wonderful  works  which  he  wrought  in  former 
days,  or  to  perform  any  other  unquestionable 
miracles,  we  may  not  turn. away  from  them  in 
sullen  unbelief,  but  may  hail  them  as  precious 
tokens  of  God  s special  favour,  and  evidences  of 
ois  gracious  design  to  give  new  success  to  the 
Gospel,  and  an  enlargement  and  prosperity  never 
before  experienced  to  the  kingdom  of  righteous- 
ness and  peace. — L.  VV. 

MIRIAM  (DHD,  bitterness;  Sept.  M apiay, 
Josephus.  Mapia/xi/f]'),  sister  of  Moses  and  Aaron, 
and  supposed  to  be  the  same  that  watched  her 
infant  brother  when  exposed  on  the  Nile ; in  which 
case  she  was  probably  ten  or  twelve  years  old  at 
the  time  (Exod.  ii.  4,  sq.).  When  the  Israelites 
left  Egypt,  Miriam  naturally  became  the  leading 
woman  among  them.  She  is  called  ‘ a prophetess’ 
(Exod.  xv.  20).  After  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea, 
she  led  the  music,  dance,  and  song,  with  which 
the  women  celebrated  their  deliverance  (Exod.  xv. 
20-22).  The  arrival  of  Moses’  wife  in  the  camp 
seems  to  have  created  in  her  an  unseemly  dread 
of  losing  her  influence  and  position,  and  led  her 
into  complaints  of  and  dangerous  reflections  upon 
Moses,  in  which  Aaron  joined.  For  this  she  was 
smitten  with  leprosy,  anil,  although  healed  at  the 
intercession  of  Moses,  was  excluded  for  seven 
days  from  the  camp  (Num.  xii. ; Deut.  xxiv.  9). 
Her  death  took  place  in  the  first  month  of  the 
fortieth  year  after  the  Exodus,  at  the  encampment 
of  Kadesh-barnea  (Num.  xx.  1),  where  her 
sepulchre  was  still  to  be  seen  in  the  time  of 
Eusebius. 

MIRROR  (HSOD,  Exod.  xxxviii.  8;  'iO, 
Job  xxxii.  8).  In  the  first  of  these  passages  the 
mirrors  in  the  possession  of  the  women  of  the 


Israelites,  when  they  quitted  Egypt,  are  described 
as  being  of  brass ; for  k the  laver  of  brass,  and  the 
foot  of  it,’  are  made  from  them.  In  the  second, 
the  firmament  is  comj»ared  to  ‘ a molten  mirror.' 
In  fact,  all  the  mirrors  used  in  ancient  times  were 
of  metal ; and  as  those  of  the  Hebrew  women 
in  the  wilderness  were  brought  out  of  Egypt,  they 
were  doubtless  of  the  same  kind  as  those  which 
have  been  found  in  the  tombs  of  that  country, 
and  many  of  which  now  exist  in  our  museums 
and  collections  of  Egyptian  antiquities.  These 
are  of  mixed  metals,  chiefly  copper,  most  care- 
fully wrought  and  highly  polished;  and  so  ad- 
mirably did  the  skill  of  the  Egyptians  succeed 
in  the  composition  of  metals,  that  this  substitute 
for  our  modern  looking-glass  was  susceptible  of  a 
lustre  which  has  even  been  partially  revived  at 
the  present  day  in  some  of  those  discovered  at 
Thebes,  though  buried  in  the  earth  for  so  many 
centuries.  The  mirror  itself  was  nearly  round, 
and  was  inserted  in  a handle  of  wood,  stone,  or 
metal,  the  form  of  which  varied  according  to 
the  taste  of  the  owner  (see  Wilkinson’s  Ancient 
Egyptians,  iii.  384-386). 

MISHAEL,  one  of  the  three  companions  of 
Daniel,  who  were  cast  into  the  burning  furnace 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  were  miraculously  de- 
livered from  it  (Dan.  iii.  13-30).  The  Chald»an 
name  was  Mesheeh  (Dan.  i.  7). 

MISIIPAT,  a fountain  in  Kadesh  [see  Ka- 
dksii]. 

M1SHNAH.  [Talmud.] 
MISREPHOTH-MAIM  (IT»  n hElWQ  , 

Sept.  M aaeped  Me/xipco/xaf/x),  a place  or  district 
near  Sidou  (Josh.  xi.  8 ; xiii.  6).  The  name  means 
‘ burnings  of  water,’  which  Kimchi  understands 
of  warm  baths ; hut  more  probably  it  means 
burnings  by  or  beside  the  water — either  lime 
kilns  or  smelting  furnaces  situated  near  water 
(Gesenius). 

MITE  (\eirTov),  a small  piece  of  money,  two 
of  which  made  a Kotipdvrrjs,  a quadrans — four  ol 


the  latter  being  equal  to  the  Roman  as.  The  as 
was  of  less  weight  and  value  in  later  than  in  early 
times.  Its  original  value  was  3*4  farthings,  and 
afterwards  2\  farthings.  The  latter  wa3  its 
value  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  the  mite  being 
one-eighth  of  that  sum,  was  little  more  than  one- 
fourth  of  an  English  farthing.  It  was  the  smallest 
coin  known  to  the  Hebrews  (Luke  xii.  59). 

MITHCAH,  one  of  the  encampments  of  the 
Israelites  [Wandering]. 

MITYLENE  (Mn-oA^j/rj),  the  capital  of  the 
isle  of  Lesbos,  in  the  xEgean  Sea,  about  seven  miles 
and  a half  from  the  opposite  point  on  the  coast  ol 
Asia  Minor.  It  was  a well-built  town,  but  un- 
wholesomely  situated  (Vitruv.  De  Architect,  i.  6), 
It  was  the  native  place  of  Pittacus,  Theophaneis 


MIZPAH. 


MOABITES. 


348 


Thsophrastus,  Sappho,  Alcseus,  and  Diophanes. 
St.  Pau1  touched  at  Mitylene  in  his  v ovage  from 
Corinth  to  Judtea  (Acts  xx.  14).  It  toes  not  ap- 
pear that  any  Christian  church  was  established  at 
this  place  in  tha  apostolic  age.  No  mention  is 
made  of  it  in  ecclesiastical  history  until  a late 
period  ; and  in  the  second  century  heathenism  was 
so  rife  in  Mitylene  that  a man  was  annually  sacri- 
ficed to  Dionysus.  In  the  fifth,  sixth,  seventh, 
and  eighth  centuries,  we,  however,  find  bishops  ot 
Mitylene  present  at  several  councils  (Magdeburg, 
Hist.  Eccles.  Cent.  ii.  195;  v.  6;  vi.  6;  vii.  4, 
253,  254  ; viii.  6).  Mitylene  still  exists,  and  has 
given  its  name,  in  the  form  of  Mytilni,  to  the 
whole  island ; but  it  is  now  a place  of  no  import- 
ance. 

MIZPAH  (HID VP  5 Sept.  Ma<rirr)<pd).  The  word 
signifies  a xoatch-tower,  and  is  the  name  of  several 
towns  and  places  in  lofty  situations  whether  fur- 
nished with  a watch-tower  or  not. 

1.  MIZPAH,  atown  or  city  in  Gilead  (Judg. 
x.  17  ; xi.  11,  34  ; Hos.  v.  1).  The  place  origi- 
nated in  the  heap  of  stones  set  up  by  Laban,  and 
to  which  he  gave  his  name  (Gen.  xxxi.  49). 
Some  confound  this  with  the  Mizpeh  of  Gilead  in 
Judg.  xi.  29  ; but  it  is  better  to  distinguish  them 
[Mizpkh  3]. 

2.  MIZPAH,  a city  of  Benjamin,  where  the 
jieople  were  wont  to  convene  (Josh,  xviii.  26  ; 
Judg.  xx.  1,  3;  xxi.  1;  1 Sam.  vii.  5-16;  x. 

1 7,  sq.).  It  was  afterwards  fortified  by  Asa,  to 
protect  the  borders  against  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
^1  Kings xv.  22 ; 2 Chron.  xvi.  6).  Inlatertimes 
il  became  the. residence  of  the  governor  under  the 
Chaldaeans  (Jer.  xl.  6,  sq. ; comp.  Nell.  iii.  7, 
15,  19).  In  one  place  the  name  occurs  witli  e, 
Mizpeh  (HBVP).  Its  position  is  nowhere  men- 
tioned in  Scripture  or  by  Josephus;  but  it  could 
uot  have  been  far  from  Ramah,  since  king  Asa 
fortified  it  with  materials  taken  from  that  place; 
and  that  it  was  situated  on  an  elevated  spot  is 
clear  from  its  name.  There  are  two  such  high 
points,  which  in  these  respects  might  correspond 
with  the  site  of  Mizpah.  One  is  Tell  el-Ful 
(Bean-hill),  lying  about  an  hour’s  journey  south 
of  Er-Ram  (Ramah),  towards  Jerusalem.  It  is 
high,  and  overlooks  the  eastern  slope  of  the  moun- 
tains, and  has  upon  it  the  remains  of  a large 
square  tower ; but  there  is  no  trace  of  a former 
city  upon  or  even  around  the  hill.  The  other 
point  is  at  the  present  village  of  Neby  Samv.il 

Prophet  Samuel),  which,  although  somewhat 

istant  from  Er-Ram,  is  a higher  and  more  import- 
ant station  than  the  other.  On  these  grounds  Dr. 
Robinson  ( Researches , ii.  144)  inclines  to  regard 
this  as  the  probable  site  of  Mizpah,  especially  as 
in  1 Macc.  iii.  46  it  is  described  as  ‘ over  against 
Jerusalem,’  implying  that  it  was  visible  from  that 
city,  which  is  true  of  Neby  Samwil,  but  not  of 
Tell  el-Ful.  This  Neby  Samwil  is  the  place 
which  it  has  been  usual  to  identify  with  Ramah  ; 
but  this  on  sufficient  probability  has  been  removed 
to  Er-Ram,  leaving  Neby  Samwil  vacant  for  the 
present  appropriation.  This  last  place  is  now  a 
poor  village,  seated  upon  the  summit  of  an  ele- 
vated ridge.  It  contains  a mosque,  now  in  a state 
of  decay,  which,  on  the  ground  of  the  apparently 
erroneous  identification  with  Ramah,  is  regarded 
by  Jews,  Christians,  and  Moslems,  as  the  tomb  of 
riamutl.  This  mosque  was  once  a Latin  church 


built  in  the  form  of  a cross,  upon  older  founda- 
tions, and  probably  of  the  time  of  the  Crusaders. 
There  are  few  houses  now  inhabited,  but  many 
traces  of  former  dwellings.  By  the  map  of  Dr. 
Robinson  this  place  is  about  four  miles  and  a half 
N.N.W.  from  Jerusalem. 

MIZPEH  (nay*?).  This  name  has  the  same 
meaning  and  application  as  Mizpah,  and  is  borne 
by  several  nlaoes  mentioned  in  Scripture. 

1.  MIZPEH,  a town  in  the  plains  of  Judah 
(Josh.  xv.  38).  Eusebius  and  Jerome  identify  it 
with  a place  which,  in  their  time,  bore  the  name 
of  Mapha,  on  the  borders  of  Eleutherdpolis  south- 
ward, on  the  road  to  JElia  or  Jerusalem. 

2.  MIZPEH,  the  place  more  usually  called 
Mizpah,  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  is  once  called 
Mizpeh  (Josh,  xviii.  26)  [Mizpah  2]. 

3.  MIZPEH  OF  GILEAD,  through  or  by 
which  Jephthali  passed  in  his  pursuit  of  the  Am- 
monites (Judg.  xi.  29).  Some  think  it  the  same 
with  Mizpah  1 ; and  it  is  possibly  the  same  with 
the  Ramath-mizpeh  of  Josh.  xiii.  26. 

4.  MIZPEH,  a valley  in  the  region  of  Leba- 
non (Josh.  xi.  8;  comp.  xi.  3). 

MIZRAIM  (DT.V9  ; Sept.  MetrpcuV),  or  land 
of  Mizraim,  the  name  by  which,  in  Scripture, 
Egypt  is  generally  designated,  apparently  from 
its  having  been  peopled  by  Mizraim,  the  son 
of  Ham  (Gen.  x.).  This  ancient  title  is  still 
preserved  in  Misr,  the  existing  Arabic  name  of 
the  country  [Egypt], 

MNASON  (MpaoW),  an  ‘ old  disciple,’  with 
whom  St.  Paul  lodged  when  at  Jerusalem  in 
a.d.  58  (Acts  xxi.  16).  He  seems  to  have  been 
a native  of  Cyprus,  * ut  an  inhabitant  of  Jem 
salem,  like  Joses  and  Barnabas.  Some  think 
that  he  was  converted  by  Paul  and  Barnabas 
while  at  Cyprus  (Acts  xiii.  9);  but  the  designs 
tion  ‘ an  old  disciple,'  has  move  generally  in- 
duced the  conclusion  that  he  was  converted  by 
Jesus  himself,  and  was  perhaps  one  of  the  seventy. 

MOAB  (3N*1?D,  semen  patris ; Sept.  M&>a/3), 
son  of  Lot  and  his  eldest,  daughter  (Gen.  xix. 
30-38).  He  was  born  about  the  same  time  with 
Isaac,  and  became  the  founder  of  the  Moabites. 

MOABITES,  a tribe  descended  from  Moab 
the  son  of  Lot,  and  consequently  related  to  the 
Hebrews  (Gen.  xix.  37).  Previous  to  the  exodus 
of  the  latter  from  Egypt,  the  former,  after  ex- 
pelling the  original  inhabitants,  called  D'P'N 
Emims  (Gen.  xiv.  5 ; Deut.  ii.  11),  had  possessed 
themselves  of  the  region  on  the  east  of  the  Dead 
Sea  and  the  Jordan,  as  far  north  as  the  river 
Jabbok.  But  the  northern,  and  indeed  the  finest 
and  best,  portion  of  the  territory,  viz.  that  ex- 
tending from  the  Jabbok  to  the  Arnon,  had  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  Amorites,  who  founded  there 
one  of  their  kingdoms,  witli  Heshbon  for  its  ca- 
pital (Num.  xxi.  26).  Og  had  established  an- 
other at  Bashan.  Hence  at  the  time  of  the 
exodus  the  valley  and  river  Arnon  constituted 
the  northern  boundary  of  Moab  (Num.  xxi.  13; 
Judg.  xi.  18;  Joseph.  Antiq.  iv.  5.  i).  As  the 
Hebrews  advanced  in  order  to  take  possession  ot 
Canaan,  they  did  not  enter  the  proper  territory 
of  the  Moabites  (Deut..  ii.  9;  Judg.  xi.  18),  but 
conquered  the  kingdom  of  the  Amorites  (a  Ca- 
naanitish  tribe),  which  had  formerly  belonged  to 
Moab ; whence  the  western  part,  lying  along  the 


550 


MOABITES. 


MOABITES. 


Joidan,  t frequently  occurs  under  the  name  of 
21^10  ni3~iy,  * plains  of  Moab’  (Dent.  i.  5 ; xxix. 
1).  The  Moabites,  fearing  the  numbers  that  were 
inarching  around  them,  showed  them  at  least  no 
kindness  (Deut.  xxiii.  3)  ; and  their  king  (Balak) 
hired  Balaam  to  utter  prophetic  curses,  which, 
however,  were  converted  into  blessings  in  his 
mouth  (Num.  xii.  sq.).  The  Gadites  now  took 
possession  of  the  northern  portion  of  this  territory, 
which  the  Amorites  had  wrested  from  the  Moabites, 
and  established  themselves  there;  while  the  Reu- 
benites  settled  in  the  southern  part  (Num.  xxxii. 
31 ; comp.  Josh,  xiii.,  which,  however, differs  some- 
what. in  the  designation  of  particular  towns). 

We  see  the  first  hostilities  breaking  out  in  the 
beginning  of  the  period.of  the  Judges,  when  the 
Hebrews  hail  been  for  a long  time  tributary  to  the 
Moabites,  but  threw  off  their  yoke  under  Ehud 
(Judg.  iii.  12-30).'  Towards  the  end  of  this  period, 
however,  peace  and  friendship  were  restored,  mu- 
tual honours  were  reciprocated  (as  the  history  of 
Ruth  shows),  and  Moab  appears  often  to  have 
afforded  a place  of  refuge  to  outcasts  and  emi- 
grant Hebrews  (Ruth  i.  1;  comp.  1 Sam.  xxii. 

3,  4 ; Jer.  xl.  11;  Isa.  xvi.  2).  After  Saul  had 
waged  successful  war  against  them  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
47),  David  made  them  tributary  (2  Sam.  viii. 
2,  12;  xxiii.  20).  The  right  to  levy  this  tribute 
seems  to  have  been  transferred  to  Israel  after  the 
division  of  the  kingdom;  for  upon  the  death  of 
Aliab  (about  b c.  89j6),  they  refused  to  pay  the 
customary  tribute  of  100,000  lambs  and  as  many 
rams  (2  Kings  i.  I ; iii.  4;  comp.  Isa.  xvi.  1). 
Jehoram  (b.c.  896),  in  alliance  with  Judah  and 
Kdom,  sought  indeed  to  bring  them  back  to  their 
subjection.  The  invading  army,  after  having 
been  preserved  from  perishing  by  thirst  through 
the  intervention  of  Elisha,  defeated  the  Moabites 
and  ravaged  the  country ; but,  through  the  strange 
conduct  of  the  king,  in  offering  up  in  sacrifice  his 
sou  [Mesha],  were  induced  to  retire  without  com- 
pleting the  object  of  the  expedition.  The  Moabites 
deeply  resented  the  part  which  the  king  of  Judah 
took  in  this  invasion,  and  formed  a powerful  con- 
federacy with  the  Ammonites,  Edomites,  and 
others,  who  marched  in  great  force  into  Judaea, 
and  formed  their  camp  at  Engedi,  where  they  fell 
out  among  themselves  and  destroyed  each  other 
through  the  special  interposition  of  Providence,  in 
favour  of  Jehoshaphat  and  his  people  (2  Kings  iii. 

4,  sq. ; comp.  2 Chron.  xx.  1-30)  [Elisha;  Je- 
HoiiAM  ; Jehoshaphat],  Under  Jehoash  (n.c. 
849)  we  see  them  undertake  incursions  into  the 
kingdom  of  Israel,  and  carry  on  offensive  war 
against  it  (2  Kings  xiii.  20). 

Though  the  subsequent  history  of  Israel  often 
mentions  the  Moabites,  yet  it  is  silent  respecting 
a circumstance  which,  in  relation  to  one  passage, 
is  of  the  greatest  importance,  namely,  the  re- 
conquest of  the  territory  between  the  Arnon  and 
the  Jabbok,  which  was  wrested  from  the  Moabites 
by  the  Amorites,  and  afterwards  of  the  territory 
possessed,  by  the  tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad.  This 
territory  in  general  we  see,  according  to  Isa.  xvi., 
In  the  possession  of  the  Moabites  again.  Even  Selah, 
the  ancient  capital  of  the  Edomites,  seems  like- 
vf'-ge,  from  Isa.  xvi.  1,  to  have  belonged  to  them, 
at  least  for  a time.  The  most  natural  supposition 
ia  that  of  Reland  ( Palcestina , p.  720),  Paulus 
( Clavisf  p.  110),  and  Rosenmiilhr  (in  loc .),  that, 
after  the  carrying  away  of  those  tribes  into  cap- 


tivity, the  Moabites  occupied  their  territory ; as  i» 
is  expressly  stated  (Jer.  xlix.  1-5)  that  the  Amorites 
intruded  themselves  into  the  territory  of  the  cap- 
tive Gadites,  as  the  Edomites  did  in  respect  to  the 
Jews  at.  a later  period  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jnd.  v. 
79).  The  tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad  were  not, 
however,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  first  carried 
away  after  the  destruction  of  Samaria  (b.c.  722) 
by  Shalmaneser  (2  Kings  xviii.  9, 10),  but,  accord- 
ing to  l Chron.  v.  26,  by  Pul  and  Tiglathpileser 
certainly,  and  perhaps  (for  the  account  is  some- 
what indefinite)  in  the  earliest  campaign  against 
Menahem,  b.c.  774  (2  Kings  xv.  19),  and  Pekah, 
b.c.  741  (2  Kings  xv.  29).  Nevertheless  the  sin- 
gular fact  remains,  that  here,  where  we  should 
have  expected  every  wrong  done  to  the  Israelites 
by  Moab  to  be  made  prominent,  this  usurpation 
of  their  territory  is  not  noticed.  Hence  we 
cannot  wholly  resist  the  conjecture  that  it  was 
with  that  tevritoty  as  with  the  territory  of  the 
Philistines,  Tyrians,  and  Sidonians,  t.  e.  it,  was 
never  permanently  possessed  by  the  Hebrew 
tribes,  and  the  division  of  this  region  into 
many  parts  in  the  book  of  Joshua  remained 
ideal  (an  assignment  in  partibus  infidelium ), 
without  being  generally  realised  in  history. 
Perhaps  also  many  of  these  cities  were  as 
little  inhabited  by  the  Hebrews  as  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  which  are  likewise  assigned  them  in  the 
book  of  Joshua.  In  like  manner  it  may  be  ex« 
plained  why  many  cities  (Num.  xxxii.  34,  sq.) 
were  apportioned  to  the  tribe  of  Reuben,  which 
are  afterwards  ascribed  (Josh,  xiii.)  to  Gad,  and 
vice  versd  (Reland,  Palcestina,  pp.  582,  720, 
735). 

Still  later,  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  see  the 
Moabites  acting  as  the  auxiliaries  of  the  Chal- 
daeans  (2  Kings  xxiv.  2),  and  beholding  with 
malicious  satisfaction  the  destruction  of  a 
kindred  people  (Ezek.  xxv.  S-l  1) ; yet,  accord- 
ing to  an  account  in  Jogephus  (Antiq.  x.  9.  7), 
Nebuchadnezzar,  when  on  his  way  to  Egypt,  made 
war  upon  them,  and  subdued  them,  together  with 
the  Ammonites,  five  years  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no 
authority  in  any  one  ancient  account  for  that 
which  modern  historians  have  repeatedly  copied 
from  one  another,  viz.  that  Moab  was  carried  into 
exile  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  restored  with  the 
Hebrews  under  Cyrus. 

That  continual  wars  and  contentions  must  have 
created  a feeling  of  national  hostility  between  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Moabites,  may  be  readily  con- 
ceived. This  feeling  manifested  itself  on  the  part 
of  the  Hebrews,  sometimes  in  bittcv  proverbs 
sometimes  in  the  denunciations  of  the  prophets ; 
on  the  part  of  the  Moabites  in  proud  boastings 
and  expressions  of  contempt  (Isa.  xvi.  6). 

Among  the  prophecies,  however,  that  of  Balaam 
(Num.  xxii.-xxiv.)  is  above  all  remarkable,  in 
which  this  ancient  prophet  (who  withal  was  not  an 
Israelite),  hired  by  Moab  to  curse,  is  impelled  by 
the  Divine  Spirit  to  bless  Israel,  and  to  announce 
the  future  destruction  of  Moab  by  a mighty  here 
in  Israel  (Num.  xxiv.  17).  It  is  a genuine  epic 
representation  worthy  of  the  greatest  poet  of  any 
age.  Nor  should  we  overlook  the  song  of  triumph 
and  scorn  respecting  Moab,  suggested  by  Hesh- 
bon,  and  obscure  only  as  to  its  origin  (Num.  xxi. 
17-30).  Among  the  later  prophets,  Amos  (ii.  1-3) 
predicts  their  destruction  in  consequence  of  then 


MOABITES. 


MOABITES. 


cruelty  to  the  king  of  Edom  ; probably  with  re- 
ference to  the  war  recorded  in  2 Kings  iii.,  when 
the  Edomites  were  confederate  with  the  Hebrews; 
although  the  particular  instance  of  cruelty  is  not 
there  specified.  Zephaniah  (ii.  8-10)  condemns 
them  to  punishment  for  their  scorn  and  contempt 
of  Israel.  Jeremiah  repeats  the  denunciation  of 
evil,  for  the  most  part  in  the  words  of  Numbers 
and  Isaiah  (Jer.  xlviii. ; comp,  also  ix.  26  ; xxv. 
21) ; and  Ezekiel  threatens  them  with  punish- 
ment for  their  malicious  joy  at  the  overthrow  of 
Judaea  (xxv.  6-11).  Moreover,  the  subjection  of 
Moab  finds  a place  in  every  ideal  description  of 
6plendid  wars  and  golden  ages  predicted  for  Israel 
(Isa.  xi.  14;  xxv.  10;  Ps.  lx  8),  ‘Moab  is  my 
wash-pot  ’ (Ps.  lxxxiii.  6). 

After  the  exile,  an  intimate  connection  between 
the  two  nations  had  found  place  by  means  of 
intermarriages  (Ezra  ix.  1,  sq.  ; Neh.  xiii.  I), 
which,  however,  were  dissolved  by  the  theocratic 
zeal  of  Ezra.  The  last  (chronologically)  notice 
of  the  Moabites  which  occurs  in  Scripture  is  in 
Dan.  xi.  41,  which  contains  an  obscure  intimation 
of  the  escape  of  the  Moabites  from  the  overthrow 
with  which  neighbouring  countries  would  be 
visited  : but  Josephus,  in  the  history  of  Alexander 
Jannaeus,  mentions  the  cities  between  Arnon  and 
Jabbok  under  the  title  of  cities  of  Moab  (. Antiq . 
xiii.  15).  Thenceforth  their  name  is  lost  under  that 
of  the  Arabians,  as  was  also  the  case  with  Ammon 
and  Edom.  At  the  time  of  Abulfeda,  Moab 
Proper,  south  of  the  Arnon,  bore  the  name  of 
Karak,  from  the  city  so  called  ; and  the  territory 
north  of  the  Arnon,  that  of  Belka,  which  in- 
cludes also  the  Ammonites.  Since  that  time, 
the  accounts  of  that  region  are  uncommonly 
meagre  ; for  through  fear  of  the  predatory  and 
mischievous  Arabs  that  people  it,  few  of  the 
numerous  travellers  in  Palestine  have  ventured 
to  explore  it.  For  scanty  accounts,  see  Biis- 
ching’s  Asia,  pp.  507,  508.  Seetzen,  who  in 
February  and  March,  1806,  not  without  dan- 
ger of  losing  his  life,  undertook  a tour  from  Da- 
mascus down  to  the  south  of  the  Jordan  and  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  thence  to  Jerusalem,  was  the  first 
to  shed  a new,  and  altogether  unexpected  light 
upon  the  topography  of  this  region.  He  found  a 
multitude  of  places,  or  at  least  of  ruins  of  places, 
still  bearing  the  old  names  ; and  thus  has  set 
hounds  to  the  perfectly  arbitrary  designations  of 
them  on  the  old  charts.  Seetzen’s  wish,  that 
some  other  traveller  might  acquaint  the  public 
with  the  remarkable  ruins  of  this  region,  espe- 
cially those  of  Gerasa  and  Amman,  and  then 
advance  to  the  splendid  ruins  of  Petra  at  W ady 
Mousa,  is  already  partly  accomplished,  and  will 
soon  be  completely  so.  From  June  to  September, 
1812,  Burckhardt  made  the  same  tour  from  Da- 
mascus beyond  the  Jordan  down  to  Karak; 
whence  he  advanced  over  Wady  Mousa,  or  the 
ancient  Petra  (which  he  was  the  first  Euro- 
pean traveller  to  visit),  to  the  bay  ot  Aila, 
and  thence  went  to  Cairo.  The  accurate  de- 
tails of  this  tour,  which  are  contained  in  his 
Travels  in  Syria  and  the  Holy  Land , 1822, 
chrew  much  light  upon  the  ancient  topography 
and  present  condition  of  the  lands  of  Moab  and 
Edom.  The  accounts  of  Seetzen  and  Burck- 
hardt give  the  substance  of  all  the  information 
which  we  even  yet  possess  concerning  the  land  of 
Moab  in  particular,  although  of  Edom,  or  rather 


35: 

of  Petra,  fuller,  if  not  more  exact  accounts,  have 
been  since  obtained.  Most  of  the  travellers  who 
visited  Petra  after  Burckhardt,  passed  also 
through  the  land  of  Moab;  but  it  afterwards  be- 
came usual  to  pass  from  Petra  direct  to  Hebron ; 
whence  this  country  has  escaped  the  researches  of 
many  travellers  whose  observations  have  of  late 
years  enriched  the  topography  of  this  region.  A 
party  of  English  gentlemen,  Captains  Irby  and 
Mangles,  Mr.  Bankes  and  Mr.  Legh,  passed 
through  the  land  of  Moab  in  returning  from  Petra 
in  1818;  and  their  observations  published  in 
their  Travels  by  Irby  and  Mangles,  and  by  Legh 
in  a Supplement  to  Dr.  Macmichael’s  Journey 
from  Moscow  to  Constantinople , 1819,  furnish 
the  most  valuable  additions  which  have  as  yet 
been  obtained  to  the  information  of  Seetzen  and 
Burckhardt.  The  northern  parts  of  the  country 
were  visited  by  Mr.  Buckingham,  and  more 
lately  by  Mr.  George  Robinson  and  by  Lord 
Lindsay,  but  very  little  additions  have  been 
made  by  these  travellers  to  our  previous  know- 
ledge. The  plates  to  Laborde’s  new  work,  Voyage 
en  Orient , show  that  he  also  visited  the  land  of 
Moab  ; but  the  particulars  of  his  journey  have 
not  yet  been  published. 

From  these  sources  we  learn  that  in  the  land 
of  Moab,  which  lay  to  the  east  and  south-east 
of  Judaea,  and  which  bordered  on  the  east,  north- 
east, and  partly  on  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
the  soil  is  rather  more  diversified  than  that  of 
Ammon  ; and,  where  the  desert  and  plains  of 
salt  have  not  encroached  upon  its  borders,  of 
equal  fertility.  There  are  manifest  and  abun- 
dant signs  of  its  ancient  importance.  ‘ The  whole 
of  the  plains  are  covered  with  the  sites  of  towns 
on  every  eminence  or  spot  convenient  for  the  con- 
struction of  one  ; and  as  the  land  is  capable  of 
rich  cultivation,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
country,  now  so  deserted,  once  presented  a con- 
tinued picture  of  plenty  and  fertility’  (Irby  and 
Mangles,  p.  378).  The  form  of  fields  is  still 
visible,  and  there  are  remains  of  Roman  highways 
which  are  in  some  places  completely  paved,  ‘ and 
on  which  there  are  milestones  of  the  times  of 
Trajan,  Marcus  Aurelius,  and  Severus,  with  the 
numbers  of  the  miles  legible  upon  them.  Wher- 
ever any  spot  is  cultivated  the  com  is  luxuriant ; 
and  the  frequency  and  almost,  in  many  instances, 
the  close  vicinity  of  the  sites  of  ancient  towns, 
prove  that  the  population  of  the  country  was  for- 
merly proportioned  to  its  fertility  (Irby  and  Man- 
gles, pp.  377,  378,  456,460).  It  was  in  its  state 
of  highest  prosperity  that  the  prophets  foretold  that 
the  cities  of  Moab  should  become  desolate,  with- 
out any  to  dwell  in  them  ; and  accordingly  we 
find,  that  although  the  sites,  ruins,  and  names  of 
many  ancient  cities  of  Moab  can  be  traced,  not 
one  of  them  exists  at  the  present  day  as  tenanted 
by  man.  The  argument  for  the  inspiration  of 
the  sacred  records  deducible  from  this,  among 
other  facts  of  the  same  kind,  is  produced  with 
considerable  force  by  Dr.  Keith  in  his  work  on 
Prophecy.  Gesenius,  Comment,  on  Isa.  xv.  xvi. 
Introduct.  translated  by  W.  S.  Tyler,  with  Notes 
by  Moses  Stuart,  in  Biblical  Repos,  for  1836, 
vol.  vii.  pp.  107-124;  Keith’s  Evidence  from 
Prophecy,  pp.  153-165;  and  Land  of  Israel, 
279-295  ; Pictorial  Bible,  Notes  to  Deut.  ii.  2 ; 
Isa.  xvi.  xvii. ; Jer.  xliii.  See  also  the  travels 
and  other  works  cited  in  this  article. 


MOLOCH 


&>2  m6le. 

MOLE,  *-6n  dialed:  Arabic,  khuld  (Lev. 
xi.  29,  in  our  version  ‘ weasel  ’),  Although  the 
similarity  of  sound  in  names  is  an  unsafe  ground 
to  depend  upon  when  it  is  applied  to  specific 
animals,  still,  the  Hebrew  and  Syriac  appearing 
likewise  to  imply  creeping  into,  creeping  under- 
neath by  burrowing — characteristics  most  obvious 
in  moles — and  the  Arabic  denomination  being  un- 
doubted, dialed  may  be  assumed  to  indicate  the 
above  animal,  in  preference  to  chmsemeth,  which, 
io  conformity  with  the  opinion  of  Bochart,  is  re- 
ferred to  the  chamceleon.  This  conclusion  is  the 
more  to  be  relied  on  as  the  animal  is  rather  com- 
mon in  Syria,  and  in  some  places  abundant. 
Zoologists  have  considered  the  particular  species 
to  be  the  Talpa  Europcea , which,  under  the  name 
of  the  common  mole,  is  so  well  known  as  not  to 
require  a more  particular  description.  The  an- 
cients represented  the  mole  to  have  no  eyes  : which 
assertion  later  scientific  writers  believed  they  had 
disproved  by  showing  our  species  to  be  possessed  of 
these  organs,  though  exceedingly  small.  Neverthe- 
less, recent  observations  have  proved  that  a species, 
in  other  respects  scarcely,  if  at.  all,  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  common,  is  totally  destitute  of 
eyes,  and  consequently  has  received  the  name  of 
Talpa  cceca.  It  is  to  be  found  in  Italy,  and  pro* 
bably  extends  to  the  East,  instead  of  the  Europcea. 
Moles  must  not,  however,  be  considered  as  forming 
a part  of  the  Rodent  order,  whereof  all  the  families 
and  genera  are  provided  with  strong  incisor  teeth, 
like  rats  and  squirrels,  and  therefore  intended  for 
subsisting  chiefiy  on  grain  and  nuts : they  are  on 
the  contrary  supplied  with  a great  number  of  small 
teeth,  to  the  extent  of  twenty-two  in  each  jaw — 
indicating  a partial  regimen;  for  they  feed  on 
worms,  larvae,  and  under-ground  insects,  as  well  as 
on  roots,  and  thus  belong  to  the  insectivorous 
order  : which  brings  the  application  of  the  name 
somewhat  nearer  to  carnivora  and  its  received 
interpretation  ‘ weasel.’ 

With  regard  to  the  words  TV)")*}  “I5PI  Jchaphar 
phiroth,  wliich  have  exercised  the  ingenuity  of 
Gesenius  and  others,  there  does  not  appear  suffi- 
cient evidence  to  prove  that  any,  or  a particular, 
animal  is  meant ; and  consequently,  that  the  Spa- 
lax  microsthalmus , or  blind  rat,  may  be  intended, 
is  very  doubtful;  nor  is  eseth,  ‘an  embryo,’ 

‘an  abortion,’ more  applicable  to  this  spalax , which 
makes  galleries  and  hills  like  the  common  mole, 
and,  most  likely,  was  confounded  with  it  by  the 
ancient  Hebrews : unless  it  was  designated  by 
rV'IQ'lD,  which  should,  perhaps,  be  read  as  one 
word,  and  gives  great  force  to  Isa.ii.20. — C.  H.  S. 

MOLOCH,  or  rather  Molech  al- 

ways with  the  article,  except  in  1 Kings  xi.  7). 
The  Septuagint  most  frequently  render  it  as  an 
appellative,  by  6 &.px<*>v,  or  a<ri\evs but  they 
also  write  Mo\6x,  as  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and 
Theodotion,  appear  to  have  generally  done. 
Whatever  reasons  there  may  be  for  doubting 
whether  Malchum  is  a name  of  this  god,  or  is 
merely  ‘ their  king,’  in  a civil  sense,  in  Am.  i. 
i5;  Zeph.  i.  5 (on  which  see  the  notes  of  Hitzig, 
Dilute.  j\ temcn  Propheten),  yet  the  context,  in 
Jer.  xlix.  1,  seems  to  require  that  it  should  there 
denote  this  god,  as  indeed  the  Septuagint  and 
Syriac  versions  have  expressed  it.  But  Milchom 
— which  Movers  considers  to  be  an  Aramaic  pro- 
nunciation of  Malcham , i.  e.  to  be  an  appella 


tive,  ‘ their  king,’  in  a theocratical  sense  (Dee 
Phmizier,  i.  358) — is  evidently  a name  of  this 
god  (comp.  1 Kings  xi.  5 and  7). 

Molech  is  chiefiy  found  in  the  Old  Testament 
as  the  national  god  of  toe  Ammonites,  to  whom 
children  were  sacrificed  by  fire.  There  is  some 
difficulty  in  ascertaining  at  whet  period  the 
Israelites  became  acquainted  with  this  idolatry  ; 
yet  three  reasons  render  it  probable  that  it  was 
before  the  time  of  Solomon,  the  date  usually  as- 
signed for  its  introduction.  First,  Molech  ap- 
pears— if  not  under  that  name,  yet.  under  the 
notion  that  we  attach  to  it — to  have  been  a prin- 
cipal god  of  the  Phoenicians  and  Canaanites, 
whose  other  idolatries  the  Israelites  confessedly 
adopted  very  early.  Secondly,  there  are  some 
arguments  which  tend  to  connect  Molech  with 
Baal,  and,  if  they  be  tenable,  the  worship  ot 
Molech  might  be  essentially  as  old  as  that  of  the 
latter.  Thirdly  ; if  we  assume,  as  there  is  much 
apparent  ground  for  doing,  that,  wherever  huma» 
sacrifices  are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament, 
we  are  to  understand  them  to  be  offered  to  Mo- 
lech — the  apparent  exception  of  the  gods  of  Se 
pharvaim  being  only  a strong  evidence  of  thev 
identity  with  him — then  the  remarkable  passage 
in  Ezek.  xx.  26  (cf.  v.  31)  clearly  shows  that  the 
Israelites  sacrificed  their  first-born  by  fire,  when 
they  were  in  the  wilderness .*  Moreover,  those 
who  ascribe  the  Pentateuch  to  Moses  will  recog 
nise  both  the  early  existence  of  the  worship  of  this 
god,  and  the  apprehension  of  its  contagion,  in 
that  express  prohibition  of  his  bloody  rites  wliich 
is  found  in  Lev.  xx.  1-5.  Nevertheless,  it  is  for 
the  first  lime  directly  stated  that  Solomon  erected 
a high-place  for  Molech  on  the  Mount  of  Olives 
(l  Kings  xi.  7) ; and  from  that  period  his  wor- 
ship continued  uninterruptedly  there,  or  in  To- 
phet,  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  until  Josiah  defiled 
both  places  (2  Kings  xxiii.  10,  13).  Jehoana^ 
however,  the  son  and  successor  of  Josiah,  again 
‘ did  what  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,  ac- 
cording to  all  that  his  fathers  had  done’  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  32).  The  same  broad  condemnation  is 
made  against  the  succeeding  kings,  Jehoiakim, 
Jehoiachin,  and  Zedekiah  ; and  Ezekiel,  writing 
during  the  captivity,  says,  ‘ Do  you,  by  offering 
your  gifts,  and  by  making  your  sons  pass  through 
the  fire,  pollute  yourselves  with  all  your  idols 
zmtil  this  day,  and  shall  1 be  enquired  of  by 
you?’  (xx.  31).  After  the  restoration,  all  traces 
of  this  idolatry  disappear. 

It  has  been  attempted  to  explain  the  terms  in 
which  the  act  of  sacrificing  children  is  described 
in  the  Old  Testament  so  as  to  make  them  mean 
a mere  passing  between  two  fires,  without  any 
risk  of  life,  for  the  purpose  of  purification.  This 
theory — which  owes  its  origin  to  a desire  in  some 
Rabbins  to  lessen  the  mass  of  evidence  which 
their  own  history  offers  of  the  perverse  icV.i  Kew 
of  the  Jews— is  effectually  declared  untenable  by 
such  passages  as  Ps.  cvi.  38;  Jer.  vii.  31  ; Ezek. 
xvi.  20 ; xxiii.  37 ; the  last  two  of  \v4iich  may 


* The  words  in  Amos  v.  20,  as  rendered  by  the 
Septuagint,  and  as  cited  from  that  version  in 
Acts  vii.  43,  might  also  be  adduced  here.  But 
it  is  not  clear  that  Molech  is  intended  by  the 
‘ your  king’  of  the  original  text ; and  Jarchi 
refers  the  whole  verse  to  the  future,  instead  of  the 
past,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Ewald 


MONEY. 


MONEY. 


Also  be  adduced  to  show  that  the  victims  were 
slaughtered  befoie  they  were  burnt. 

As  the  accounts  of  this  idol  and  Ins  worship 
bund  in  the  Old  Testament  are  very  scanty,  the 
more  detailed  notices  which  Greek  and  Latin 
writers  give  of  the  bloody  rites  of  the  Phoenician 
colonies  acquire  peculiar  value.  M (inter  has 

collected  these  testimonies  with  great  complete- 
ness, in  his  Religion  der  Kartkager.  Many  of 
these  notices,  however,  only  describe  late  develop- 
ments of  the  primitive  rites.  Thus  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  image  of  Molech  as  a brazen  statue, 
which  was  heated  red  hot,  and  in  the  outstretched 
arms  of  which  the  child  was  laid,  so  that  it  fell 
down  into  the  flaming  furnace  beneath — an  ac- 
count which  is  first  found  in  Diodorus  Siculus, 
as  referring  to  the  Carthaginian  K p6vos,  but 
which  was  subsequently  adopted  by  Jarchi  and 
others — is  not  admiited  by  Movers  to  apply  to 
the  Molech  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  connection  between  Molech  and  Baal — the 
very  names,  as  meaning  1 king*  and  ‘ lord,’  being 
almost  synonymous — is  seen  in  comparing  Jer. 
xxxii.  35  with  xix.  5,  in  which  both  names  are 
used  as  if  they  were  interchangeable,  and  in 
which  human  sacrifices  are  ascribed  to  both. 
Another  argument  might  be  drawn  from  Jer.  iii. 
24,  in  which  Ilesbboshetk,  ‘ shame,’  is  said  to  have 
devoured  their  flocks  and  herds,  their  sons  and 
daughters.  Now,  as  Bosheth  is  found,  in  the 
names  Ish-bosheth  and  Jerubbesheth.  to  alternate 
with  Baal,  as  if  it  was  only  a contemptuous  per- 
version of  it.,  it  would  appear  that  human  sacri- 
fices are  here  again  ascribed  to  Baal.  Further, 
whereas  Baal  is  the  chief  name  under  which  we 
find  the  principal  god  of  the  Phoenicians  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  whereas  only  the  two  above 
cited  passages  mention  the  human  victims  of 
Baa./,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  Greek  and  Latin 
authors  give  abundant  testimony  to  the  human 
sacrifices  which  the  Phoenicians  and  their  colo- 
nies offered  to  their  principal  god,  in  whom  the 
classical  writers  have  almost  always  recognised 
their  own  K p6vos  and  Saturn.  Thus  we  are  again 
nrougtit  to  the  difficulty,  alluded  to  above 
’Baal],  of  reconciling  Molech  as  Saturn  with 
Baal  as  the  sun  and  Jupiter.  In  reality,  how- 
ever, this  difficulty  is  in  part  created  by  our  as- 
sociation of  classical  with  Semitic  mythology. 
When  regarded  apart  from  such  foreign  affini- 
ties, Molech  and  Baal  may  appear  as  the  per- 
sonifications of  the  two  powers  which  give  and 
destroy  life,  which  early  religions  regarded  as 
not  incompatible  phases  of  the  same  one  God  of 
nature. — J.  N. 

MONEY.  This  term  is  used  to  denote  what- 
ever commodity  the  inhabitants  of  any  country 
may  have  agreed  or  are  compelled  to  receive  as 
an  equivalent  for  their  labour,  and  in  exchange 
for  other  commodities.  Etymologists  differ  re- 
specting its  derivation.  Bouteroue  contends  that 
it  is  derived  from  monere,  because  the  stamp 
impressed  on  ttie  coin  indicates  its  weight  and 
fineness  (■ Recherches  stir  les  Monnoyes  de  Franca ) ; 
and  Suidas  (s.  v.  M ovrjra),  that  it  originated  in 
the  circumstance  of  silver  having  been  first  coined 
at  Rome  in  the  temple  of  Juno  Moncta. 

Different  commodities  have  been  used  as 
money  in  the  primitive  state  of  society  in  all 
countries.  Those  nations  which  subsist  by  the 
chase,  such  as  the  ancient  Russians  and  the 

TOL.  II.  24 


m 

greater  part  of  the  No>-‘h  American  Indians, use  the 
skins  of  the  animals  killed  in  hunting  as  money 
(Storch,  Traite  d’  Economic  Politique , tome  i.). 
In  a pastoral  state  of  society  cattle  are  chiefly 
used  as  money.  Thus,  according  to  Ilomer,  the 
armour  of  Diomede  cost  nine  oxen,  and  that  of 
Glaucus  one  hundred  (Iliad,  vi.  235).  The 
etymology  of  the  Latin  word  pecunia,  signifying 
money,  and  of  all  its  derivatives,  affords  suf- 
ficient evidence  that,  cattle  (peons)  were  the  first 
money  of  the  Romans.  They  were  also  used  as 
money  by  the  Germans,  whose  laws  fix  the 
amount  of  penalties  for  particular  offences  to  be 
paid  in  cattle  (Storch,  l.  c.).  In  agricultural  coun- 
tries corn  would  be  used  in  remote  ages  as  money, 
and  even  at  the  present  day  it  is  not  unusual  to 
stipulate  for  corn  rents  and  wages.  Various 
commodities  have  been  and  are  still  used  in 
different  countries.  Smith  mentions  salt  as  the 
common  money  of  Abyssinia  (Wealth  of  Na- 
tions, i.  4).  A species  of  eyprcea  called  the  cotcree, 
gathered  on  the  shores  of  the  Maidive  Islands, 
and  of  which  G400  constitute  a rupee,  is  used  in 
making  small  payments  throughout  India,  and 
is  the  only  money  of  certain  districts  in  Africa. 
Dried  fish  forms  the  money  of  Iceland  and  New- 
foundland ; sugar  of  some  of  the  West  India 
Islands;  and  among  the  first  settlers  in  America 
corn  and  tobacco  were  used  as  money  (Holmes's 
American  Annals ).  Smith  mentions  that,  at 
the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  Wealth  of 
Nations,  there  was  a village  in  Scotland  where  it 
was  customary  for  a workman  to  carry  nails  as 
money  to  the  baker  s shop  or  the  alehouse  (i.  4). 

A long  period  of  time  must  have  intervened 
between  the  first  introduction  of  the  precious 
metals  into  commerce,  and  their  becoming  gene- 
rally used  as  money.  The  peculiar  qualities: 
which  so  eminently  fit  them  for  this  purpose 
would  only  be  gradually  discovered.  They 
would  probably  be  first  introduced  in  their  gross- 
and  unpurified  state.  A sheep,  an  ox,  a certain 
quantity  of  corn,  or  any  other  article,  would, 
afterwards  be  bartered  or  exchanged  for  } .eces.  of 
gold  or  silver  in  bars  or  ingots,  in  the  same  way 
as  they  would  formerly  have  been  exchanged  for 
iron,  copper,  cloth,  or  anything  else.  The  mer- 
chants would  soon  begin  to  estimate  their  proper 
value,  and,  in  effecting  exchanges,  would  first 
agree  upon  the  quality  of  the  metal  to  be  given, 
and  then  the  quantity  which  its  possessor  had 
become  bound  to  pay  would  be  ascertained  by 
weight.  This,  according  to  Aristotle  and  Pliny,, 
was  the  manner  in  which  the  precious  metals, 
were  originally  exchanged  in  Greece  and  Italy. 
The  same  practice  is  still  observed  in  different 
countries.  In  many  parts  of  China  and  Abys- 
sinia the  value  of  gold  and  silver  is  always 
ascertained  by  weight  (Goguet,  De  l Origine  dea 
Loix,  &o.).  Iron  was  the  first  money  of  the 
Lacedsemonians,  and  copper  of  the  Romans. 

In  the  sacred  writings  there  is  frequent  mention 
of  gold,  silver,  and  brass,  sums  of  money,  pur- 
chases made  with  money,  current  money,  anu 
money  of  a certain  weight.  Indeed,  the  money 
of  Scripture  is  all  estimated  by  weight.  ‘Abra- 
ham weighed  to  Ephron  the  silver  which  lie  haa 
named  in  the  audience  of  the  sons  of  Heth,  four 
hundred  shekels  of  silver,  current  money  with  the 
merchant’  (Gen.  xxiii.  19).  The  brethren  or 
Joseph  carried  back  into  Egypt  the  money  * Lc 


MONEY. 


MONEY. 


full  weight’  which  they  had  found  in  their  sacks 
(Gen.  xliii.  21).  The  golden  earring  presented 
by  Abraham's  steward  to  liebekah  weighed  half 
a shekel,  and  the  tvs  bracelets  for  her  hands  were 
‘ten  shekels  weight  of  gold’  (Gen.  xxiv.  22). 
In  paying  for  the  lield  of  Hanameel,  Jeremiah 
weighed  him  the  money,  even  seventeen  shekels 
of  silver’  (Jer.  xxxii.  9).  Amos  represents  the 
merchants  of  Israel  as  ‘ falsifying  the  balances  by 
deceit’  (viii.  5).  The  shekel  and  the  talent  do 
not  appear  to  have  been  originally  fixed  and 
stamped  pieces  of  money,  but  simply  weights 
used  in  traffic.  Hence.  ‘ thou  shalt  not  have  in 
thy  bag  divers  weights,  a great  and  a small’ 
(Deut.  xxv.  13).  It  was  customary  for  the  Jews 
to  have  scales  attached  to  their  girdles  for 
weighing  the  gold  and  silver  they  received;  but 
the  Canaanites  carried  them  in  their  hands. 

There  is  no  direct  allusion  in  the  sacred 
writings  to  coined  money  as  belonging  to  the 
Jewish  nation.  In  Gen.  xxxiii.  19,  Jacob  is  said 
to  have  bought  a part  of  a field  ‘ for  an  hundred 
pieces  of  money;’  and  the  friends  of  Job  are  said 
to  have  given  him  each  ‘ a piece  of  money  ’ (Job 
xlii.  11 ).  The  term  in  the  original  is  kesitoth,  and 
is  by  some  thought  to  denote  ‘sheep’  or  ‘ lamb;’ 
by  others  a kind  of  money  having  the  impression 
of  a sheep  or  lamb;  and  by  others  again  a purse 
of  money.  The  most  correct,  translation  may  be 
presumed  to  be  that  which  favours  the  idea  of  a 
piece  of  money  bearing  some  stamp  or  mark 
indicating  that  it  was  of  the  value  of  a sheep  or 
lamb.  The  name  shekel,  first  used  to  indicate  a 
weight,  might  afterwards  be  applied  to  a piece  of 
money.  According  to  Arbntlniot,  3000  of  these 
shekels  were  equal  to  a talent.  Some  allegorical 
device  would  naturally  suggest  itself  as  the  most 
appropriate  for  being  impressed  upon  pieces  of 
gold  or  silver  of  a given  weight  and  fineness; 
and  as  in  the  patriarchal  ages  property  consisted 
chiefly  of  flocks  and  herds,  no  better  emblem 
could  be  used  than  that  of  a lamb,  with  which  it 
is  imagined  the  pieces  of  money  alluded  to  may 
have  been  impressed.  Maurice,  in  his  Antiquities 
of  India  (vol.  vii.),  bears  testimony  to  the  fact  that 
the  earliest  coins  were  stamped  with  the  figure  of 
an  ox  or  sheep.  In  the  British  Museum  there  is  a 
specimen  of  the  original  Roman  As,  the  surface 
of  which  is  nearly  the  size  of  a brick,  with  the 
figure  of  a bull  impressed  upon  it.  Other  devices 


would  suggest  themselves  to  different  nations  as 
arising  out  of,  or  connected  with,  particular  places 
or  circumstances,  as  the  Babylonish  lion,  ./Egina's 
tortoise,  Boeotia’s  shield,  the  lyre  of  Mytilene, 
the  wheat  of  Metapontum.  On  some  of  the 
reverses  cf  the  Roman  large  brass  may  be  de- 
tipr.ered,  * Valour  standing  full  armed  : Honour 


robed  and  chapleted  : Happiness  crowned  with 
obliviscent  poppies  : Concord  with  extended  hand, 
and  the  horn  of  plenty  in  her  bosom  : Hope 
tripping  lightly,  and  smiling  on  a flower-bud: 
Peace  offering  the  olive-branch  : Fortune  resting 
on  a rudder:  Military  Faith  stretching  forth  his 
consecrated  standard  : Abundance  emptying  her 
cornucopia  : Security  leaning  on  a column  : 
Modesty  veiled  and  sitting  ; Piety  taking  her 
gift  to  the  altar:  Fruitfulness  in  the  midst  of  her 
nurselings:  Equity  adjusting  her  scales  : Victory 
with  wings  and  coronal  and  trumpet : Eternity 
holding  the  globe  and  risen  phoenix ; or  better, 
seated  on  a starry  sphere:  Liberty  with  cap  and 
staff:  National  Prosperity  sailing  as  a good  ship 
before  the  favouring  gale : and  Public  Faith 
with  joined  hands  clasping  between  them  the 
palms  of  success,  and  the  caduceus  of  health’ 
( Quarterly  Review , vol.  lxxii.  p.  358).  Religion 
would  also  at  an  early  period  claim  to  be  distin- 
guished, and  accordingly  the  effigies  of  Juno, 
Diana,  Ceres,  Jove,  Hercules,  AjhiIIo,  Bacchus, 
Pluto,  Neptune,  ami  many  other  of  the  heathen 
deities  are  found  impressed  upon  the  early  coins. 
The  Jews,  however,  were  the  worshippers  of  the 
one  only  true  God  ; idolatry  was  strictly  for- 
bidden in  their  law  ; and  therefore  their  shekel 
never  bore  a bead,  but  was  impressed  simply  with 
the  almond  rod  and  the  pot  of  manna. 


The  first  Roman  coinage  took  place,  according 
to  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  xxxiii.  3),  in  the  reign  of 
Servius  Tullius,  about  550  years  before  Christ ; 
but  it  was  not.  until  Alexander  of  Macedon  had 
subdued  the  Persian  monarchy,  and  Julius  Caesar 
had  consolidated  the  Roman  empire,  that  the 
image  of  a living  ruler  was  permitted  to  be 
stamped  upon  the  coins.  Previous  to  that  period 
heroes  and  deities  alone  gave  currency  to  the 
money  of  imperial  Rome. 

Antiochus  Sidetes,  king  of  Syria,  is  represented 
to  have  granted  to  Simon  Maccahaeus  the  pri- 
vilege of  coining-  money  in  Judaea  (1  Macc.  xv.6). 
This  is  considered  to  he  the  first  mention  of 
Hebrew  money,  properly  so  called.  It  consisted 
of  shekels  and  demi -shekels,  the  third  part  of  a 
shekel,  and  the  quarter  of  a shekel,  of  silver. 

From  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar,  who  first 
struck  a living  portrait  on  his  coins,  the  Roman 
coins  run  in  a continued  succession  of  so-called 
Caesars,  their  queens  and  crown-princes,  from 
about  n.c.  48  down  to  Romulus  Augustulus,  em- 
peror of  the  West,  who  was  dethroned  by  Odoaee* 
about  a.d.  475  (Quarterly  Review , ut  supra). 

After  its  subjugation  by  Rome  much  foreign 
money  found  its  way  into  the  land  of  Judaea. 
The  piece  of  tribute  money,  or  coin  mentioned  in 
Luke  xx.  24,  as  presented  to  our  Saviour,  bore 
the  image  and  superscription  of  the  Roman 
emperor,  and  it  is  reasorable  to  suppose  that  • 


MONEY  CHANGERS. 


MONTHS. 


355 


large  quantity  of  Roman  coins  was  at  that  time 
jn  circulation  throughout  Judaea. — G.  M.  13. 

MONEY  CHANGERS.  It  is  mentioned  by 
Volney  that  in  Syria,  Egypt,  and  Turkey,  when 
any  considerable  payments  are  to  be  made,  an 
agent  of  exchange  is  sent  for,  who  counts  paras  by 
thousands,  rejects  pieces  of  false  money,  and 
weighs  all  the  sequins  either  separately  or  together. 
It  has  hence  been  suggested  that  the  ‘current 
money  with  the  merchant,’  mentioned  in  Scripture 
(Gen.  xxiii.  J6),  might  have  been  such  as  was 
approved  of  by  competent  judges  whose  business 
it  was  to  detect  fraudulent  money  if  offered  in 
payment.  The  Hebrew  word  "lfTiD  soeher,  sig- 
nifies one  who  goes  about  from  place  to  place, 
and  is  supposed  to  answer  to  the  native  exchange- 
agent  or  money-broker  of  the  East,  now  called 
shroff.  It  appears  that  there  were  bankers  or 
money-changers  in  Judaea,  who  made  a trade  of 
receiving  money  in  deposit  and  paying  interest 
for  it  (Matt.  xxv.  27).  Some  of  them  had  even 
established  themselves  within  the  precincts  of  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  (xxi.  12),  where  they  were 
in  the  practice  of  exchanging  one  species  of  money 
for  another.  Persons  who  came  from  a distance 
to  worship  at  Jerusalem  would  naturally  bring 
with  them  the  money  current  in  their  respective 
districts,  and  it  might  therefore  be  a matter  of 
convenience  for  them  to  get  this  money  exchanged 
at  the  door  of  the  temple  for  that  which  was  cur- 
rent in  Jerusalem,  and  upon  their  departure  to 
receive  again  that  species  of  money  which  circu- 
lated in  the  districts  to  which  they  were  journey- 
ing. These  money-changers  would,  of  course, 
charge  a commission  upon  all  their  transactions, 
but  from  the  observation  of  our  Saviour,  when  he 
overthrew  the  tables  of  those  in  the  temple,  it  may 
be  inferred  that  they  were  not  distinguished  for 
honesty  and  fair  dealing:  ‘It  is  written,  my 
house  shall  be  called  the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye 
have  made  it  a den  of  thieves  ’ (ver.  13). 

In  the  Life  of  Aratus,  by  Plutarch,  there  is 
mention  of  a hanker  of  Sicyon,  a city  of  Pelopon- 
nesus, who  lived  240  years  before  Christ,  and 
whose  whole  business  consisted  in  exchanging  one 
species  of  money  for  another. — G.  M.  B. 

MONTHS.  It  is  proposed  to  comprise,  under 
(his  head,  some  observations  which  may  be  con- 
sidered supplementary  to  the  articles  on  the  sepa- 
rate months,  and  subordinate  to  that  on  the  year. 
For  this  end  it  is  expedient  to  distinguish  three 
periods  in  the  Jewish  mode  of  denoting  dates  by 
months:  the 'first  extending  until  the  Babylonian 
captivity ; the  second  until  one  or  two  centuries 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  ; 
and  the  third  from  the  adoption  of  the  calendar 
of  Rabbi  Hill  el  the  younger  (i.  e.  from  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  of  our  era)  until  the 
present  time. 

In  the  first  period  the  months  are,  as  a rule, 
mentioned  by  their  numerical  designation  only — 
as  ‘ the  first  month,’  ‘ the  second,1  &c.*  We  have 

* The  only  exception  to  this  rule  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, occurs  in  the  terms,  ‘ in  the  month  of 
Abib,1  which  are  found  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
This  is,  however,  only  an  apparent  exception,  since 
Abib  is  not  the  proper  name  of  the  month,  but 
means  ears  of  corn,  and  distinguishes  that  month, 
which  is  elsewhere  called  4 the  first,’  as  the  month 


no  explicit  indication  of  the  number  of  days  in  a 
month,  nor  of  ihe  number  of  months  in  a year: 
the  27th  day  and  the  11th  month  being  re- 
spectively the  highest  mentioned  (Gen.  viii.  14; 
Beut.  i.  3);  unless  1 Kings  iv.  7 be  considered 
to  prove  that  the  year  had  12  months.*  Never 
the!  ess,  as  the  two  Hebrew  terms  for  month — 
BHri,  literally  new  moon,  thence  month,  from  a 
root  signifying  to  be  new ; and  PIT,  moon,  and 
< lienee  month — afford  some  proof  that  the  months 
were  measured  by  the  moon  (comp.  Ps.  civ.  19); 
and,  as  the  festivals  of  the  Mosaic  law  bore  a 
fixed  relation  to  certain  epochs  of  the  agricul- 
tural year,  which  were  fixed  by  nature,  there 
is  much  reason  to  conclude  that  the  year  had 
twelve  lunar  months,  and  that  it  must  have  been 
kept  parallel  with  (he  sun  by  some  mode  of  inter- 
calation adequate  to,  if  not  identical  with,  the  one 
afterwards  employed. 

In  the  second  period,  we  find,  in  part,  a conti- 
nuation of  the  previous  method,  with  somewhat 
more  definite  statements  (for  instance,  1 Chron. 
xxvii.  clearly  proves  that  the  year  had  twelve 
months),  and,  in  part,  the  adoption  of  new  names 
for  the  months  : but  the  co-existence  of  both 
these  systems  is  not  easily  explained.  For, 
whereas  Zechariah,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther, 
introduce  the  seven  new  names — Shebat,  Chislev, 
Adar,  Nisan,  Elul,  Tebeth,  and  Si  van — all  the 
other  canonical  books  written  after  the  restoration 
do  nothing  more  than  enumerate  the  months, 
without  any  name,  in  the  order  of  their  succession. 
There  is,  moreover,  another  discrepancy  in  the 
usage  of  the  writers  of  the  former  class,  inasmuch 
as,  while  they  all  generally  give  the  name  of  the 
month  together  with  its  ordinal  adjective,  Nehe- 
miah gives  the  naked  names  alone.  It  is  on  these 
discrepancies  that  Benfey  and  Stern,  who  also 
give  a minute  statement  of  the  particular  devia- 
tions, rest  one  external  support  of  their  theory, 
that  these  names  of  the  months  are  not  Aramaic,  as 
is  commonly  supposed,  but  Persian,  and  adopted 
during  the  Captivity — for  which  it  may  suffice  to 
refer  to  their  Monatsnamen  einiger  alter  Vblker, 
Beilin,  183(3.  Although  only  the  above-mentioned 
seven  names  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  yel 
there  is  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  Jews  at  ilie 


of  ears,  in  reference  to  the  ripeness  of  the  corn 
(Sept,  /irjv  t lav  vtwv\  Vulg.  mensis  novarmn 
frugum ).  The  only  remaining  exceptions  in  the 
other  hooks  of  this  period  occur  exclusively  in 
1 Kings  vi.  and  viii.,  where  we  find  the  second, 
eighth,  and  seventh  months  called  Ziv,  Bui,  ami 
Ethanim.  In  this  case,  two  circumstances  mili- 
tate against  the  hypothesis  that  these  names  were 
in  the  current  use  of  the  people : the  one  being, 
that  this  is  the  only  instance  of  their  use;  (lift 
other,  that  the  writer  has,  at  the  same  time  de- 
scribed the  three  by  the  order  of  their  succession 
(as  ‘ in  the  month  Ziv,  which  is  the  second 
month,’  &c.)  just  as  the  writers  of  the  second 
period  do  with  the  confessedly  foreign  names, 
Nisan,  &c. 

* Some  have  attempted  to  show,  from  the  sum 
of  days  assigned  to  the  flood  (Gen.  vii.  11 ; viii 
4,  14),  that  the  ancient  Hebrew  months  bad 
30  days  each,  and  that  the  antediluvian  year 
was  a solar  year  of  365  days,  like  that  of  (he 
Egyptians.  (See  Yon  Bohlen,  Die  Gened*, 
p.  107> 


356 


MONTHS. 


MOON. 


same  time  adopted  the  entire  twelve  names,  of 
which  the  following  is  a table: 

Nisan,  Tishri, 

Iyar,  Marcheshvan, 

Sivan,  Chislev, 

Tammuz,  Tebeth, 

Ab,  Sliebat, 

Elul.  Adar. 

In  the  same  manner  as  the  Old  Testament  con- 
tains no  indication  of  the  mode  of  intercalation, 
when  yet  it  is  certain  that  some  mode  must  have 
been  used,  so  also  it  does  not  mention  by  what 
method  the  commencement  and  conclusion  of 
every  month  were  ascertained  in  either  of  these 
periods.  According  to  the  Talmud,  however,  it 
is  certain  that,  in  the  second  period,  the  com- 
mencement of  the  month  was  dated  from  the 
time  when  the  earliest  visible  appearance  of  the 
new  moon  was  announced  to  the  Sanhedrim  ; that, 
if  this  happened  on  the  30th  day  of  the  current 
month,  that  month  was  considered  to  have  ended 
■on  toe  preceding  29th  day,  and  was  called  defi- 
cient (“1DH)  ; but,  if  no  announcement  was  made 
on  the  30th  day,  that  day  was  reckoned  to  the 
current  month,  which  was  in  that  case  called  full 
(*&»),  and  the  ensuing  day  was  at  once  consi- 
dered to  be  the  first  of  the  next  month.  Further, 
as  the  cloudy  state  of  the  weather  sometimes  hin- 
dered the  actual  sight  of  the  new  moon,  it  was  an 
established  rule  that  no  year  should  contain  less 
than  four,  and  more  than  eight,  full  months.  It 
is  generally  assumed,  although  without  express 
warrant,  that  the  commencement  of  the  month 
was  determined  in  the  same  way  in  the  first  period : 
but  it  is  very  probable,  and  the  Mosaic  festivals 
of  the  new  moon  seem  to  be  some  evidence  for  it. 

This  is  a fit  occasion  for  discussing  a question 
which  equally  concerns  both  periods : — with 
which  of  our  months,  namely,  did  the  first  month, 
‘the  month  of  ears,’ or  Nisan,  most  neatly  coin- 
cide? We  are  indebted  to  J.  I).  Michael  is  for 
discovering  the  true  sta’e  of  this  case,  after  the 
rabbinical  writers  had  so  universally  established 
an  erroneous  opinion  that  it  has  not  even  yet  dis- 
appeared from  our  popular  books.  His  disserta- 
tion ‘ De  Mensibus  Hebraeorum’  (in  his  Commen- 
tationes  per  annos  1763-1768  oblatce,  Bremen, 
1769,  p.  16)  proceeds  on  the  following  chief  argu- 
ments : — That,  if  the  first  month  began  with  the 
new  moon  of  March , as  was  commonly  asserted, 
the  climate  of  Palestine  would  not  in  that 
month  permit  the  oblation  of  the  sheaf  of  barley, 
which  is  ordered  on  the  second  day  of  the  Paschal 
Feast ; nor  could  the  harvest  lie  finished  before  the 
Feast  of  Weeks,  which  would  then  fall  in  May  ; 
nor  could  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  was 
after  the  gathering  of  all  fruits,  accord  with  the 
month  of  September,  because  all  these  feasts  de- 
pend on  certain  stages  in  the  agricultural  year, 
which,  as  he  shows  from  the  observations  of  tra- 
vellers, solely  coincide  with  the  states  of  vegeta- 
tion which  are  found,  in  that  climate,  in  the 
months  of  April,  June,  and  October.  Secondly, 
that  the  Syrian  calendar,  which  has  essentially 
toe  same  names  for  the  months,  makes  its  Nisan 
absolutely  parallel  with  our  April.  And,  lastly, 
that  Josephus,  in  one  place,  makes  Nisan  equi- 
valent to  the  Macedonian  month  Xanthicus ; and, 

La  another,  mentions  that,  on  the  14th  of  Nisan, 
fo*  sun  was  in  the  sign  of  the  Ran — whUh  cou.’d 


not  be  on  that  day,  except  in  April  ( Antiq . ii, 
14.6;  iii.  10.5).  Michaelis  concludes  that  till 
later  Jews  fell  into  this  departure  from  their  an- 
cient order,  either  through  some  mistake  in  the 
intercalation,  or  because  they  wished  to  imitate 
the  Romans,  whose  year  began  in  March.  Ideler 
says,  ‘So  much  is  certain,  that,  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  the  month  of  ears  cannot  have  com- 
menced before  the  first  days  of  our  April,  which 
was  then  the  period  of  the  vernal  equinox  ( Hand - 
bitch  dcr  Chronologic,  i.  490).  As  Nisan  then 
began  with  the  new  muon  of  April,  *we  have  a 
scale  for  fixing  the  commencement  of  all  the 
other  months  with  reference  to  our  calendar  ; and 
we  must  accordingly  date  their  commencement 
one  whole  month  later  than  is  commonly  done: 
allowing,  of  course,  for  the  circumstance  that,  as 
the  new  moon  varies  its  place  in  our  solar  mouths, 
the  Jewish  months  will  almost  invariably  consist 
of  portions  of  two  of  ours. 

With  regard  to  the  third  period,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  say  more  here  than  that,  as  the  dispersion' 
of  the  Jews  rendered  it  impossible  to  communi- 
cate the  intelligence  of  the  visible  appearance  of 
the  new  moon,  they  were  obliged  to  devise  a 
systematic  calculation  of  the  duration  of  their 
months ; but  that,  they  retained  the  above-men- 
tioned names  for  the  months,  which  are  still  lunar 
months,  of  the  mean  duration  of  29  days,  12 
hours,  44  seconds;  and  that  when  they  were  no 
longer  able  to  regulate  the  epochs  of  their  festivals 
by  the  agricultural  year  of  Palestine,  they  came, 
for  some  such  reasons  as  those  assigned  by  Mi- 
chaelis, to  place  every  month  earlier  by  one  luna- 
tion than  it.  had  been  in  the  first  two  periods,  so 
that  their  Nisan  now  most  nearly  coincided  with 
March.  The  rabbinical  writers,  therefore,  who 
maintained  that  the  ancient  Nisan  likewise  began 
with  the  new  moon  of  March,  were  mainly  led 
into  that  opinion  by  the  practice  existing  in  their 
own  time. — J.  N. 

MOON.  The  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
was  among  the  earliest  corruptions  of  religion, 
which  would  naturally  take  its  rise  in  the  eastern 
parts  of  the  world,  where  the  atmosphere  is  pure 
and  transparent,  and  the  heavens  as  bright  as  they 
are  glowing.  In  these  countries  the  moon  is  of 
exceeding  beauty.  If  the  sun  ‘rules  the  day,’ 
the  moon  has  the  throne  of  night,  which,  if  loss 
gorgeous  than  that  of  the  sun,  is  more  attractive, 
because  of  a less  oppressively  brilliant  light, 
while  her  retinue  of  surrounding  stars  seems  to 
give  a sort  of  truth  to  her  regal  state,  and  certainly 
adds  not  inconsiderably  to  her  beauty.  The  moon 
was  therefore  worshipped  as  a goddess  in  the  Eask 
at  a very  early  period  ; in  India  under  the  name 
ofMaja;  among  the  Assyrians  as  Mylitta ; with 
the  Phoenicians  she  was  termed  Astaite  or  Ash- 
tcroth,  who  was  also  denominated  the  Syrian 
mother.  The  Greeks  and  Romans  worshipped 
her  as  Artemis  and  Diana.  Job  (xxxi.  26)  al- 
ludes to  the  power  of  the  moon  over  the  lmmai 
soul  : * If  I beheld  the  sun  when  it  shined,  or  the 
moon  walking  in  brightness,  and  my  heart  hath 
been  secretly  enticed,  or  my  mouth  hath  kissed 
my  hand  : this  also  were  an  iniquity,  for  I should 
have  denied  the  God  that  is  above.'  There  is  tc 
the  same  effect  a remarkable  passage  in  Julian 
( Orat . in  Salem,  p.  90)  : ‘ From  my  childhood  I 
was  filled  with  a wonderful  love  for  the  rays  o* 
that  goddess ; and  when,  in  my  boyhood,  I di« 


MOON. 


MOON. 


357 


reefed  my  eyes  to  her  aetherial  light,  I was  quite 
beside  myself.  By  night  especially,  when  1 found 
myself  under  a wide,  pure,  cloudless  sky,  I forgot 
everything  else  under  her  influence,  and  was  absorb- 
ed in  the  beauties  of  heaven,  so  that  I did  not  hear 
if  addressed,  nor  was  aware  of  what  I did.  1 ap- 
peared solely  to  be  engaged  with  this  divinity,  so 
that  even  when  a beardless  boy  I might  have  been 
taken  for  a stargazer.’ 

The  moon,  as  being  mistress  of  the  night,  may 
well  have  been  considered  as  the  lesser  of  the  two 
great  lights  of  heaven  (Gen.  i.  16).  It  was  accord- 
ingly regarded  in  the  old  Syrian  superstition  as 
subject  to  the  sun's  influence,  which  was  worship- 
ped as  the  active  and  generative  power  of  nature, 
while  the  moon  was  reverenced  as  the  passive  and 
producing  power.  The  moon,  accordingly,  was 
ooked  upon  as  feminine.  Herein  Oriental  usage 
agrees  with  our  own.  But  this  usage  was  by  no 
means  universal.  The  gender  of  mond  in  German 
is  an  exception  in  modern  days,  which  may  jus- 
tify the  inference  that  even  among  the  northern 
nations  the  moon  had  masculine  qualities  ascribed 
to  it.  The  Egyptians  represented  their  moon  as 
a male  deity,  Ihoth  ; and  Wilkinson  ( Anc . Egypt. 
v.  5)  remarks  that  ‘ the  same  custom  of  calling  it 
male  is  retained  in  the  East  to  the  present  day, 
while  the  sun  is  considered  feminine,  as  in  the 
language  of  the  Germans.  Ihoth,  in  the  charac- 
ter of  Lunus,  the  moon,  has  sometimes  a man's 
face,  with  the  crescent  of  the  moon  upon  his  head 
supporting  a disk.  Plutarch  says  the  Egyptians 
‘ call  the  moon  the  mother  of  the  world,  and  hold 
it  to  be  of  both  sexes  : female,  as  it  receives  the 
influence  of  the  sun  ; male,  as  it  scatters  and  dis- 
perses through  the  air  the  principles  of  fecundity.’ 
In  other  countries  also  the  moon  was  held  to  be 
hermaphrodite.  Another  pair  of  dissimilar  qua- 
lities was  ascribed  to  the  moon — the  destructive 
and  the  generative  faculty — whence  it  was  wor- 
shipped as  a bad  as  well  as  a good  power. 

The  epithet  ‘ queen  of  heaven1  (Horace,  siderum 
regina)  appears  to  have  been  very  common.  Nor 
was  it,  any  more  than  the  worship  of  the  moon, 
unknown  to  the  Jews,  as  may  be  seen  in  a remark- 
able passage  in  Jeremiah  (xliv.  17),  where  the 
Israelites  (men  and  women,  the  latter  exert  most 
influence)  appear  given  over  to  this  species  of 
idolatry:  ‘We  will  certainly  burn  incense  to 
the  queen  of  heaven , and  pour  out  drink-oflerings 
unto  her,  as  we  have  done,  we  and  our  fathers ; 
for  then  had  we  plenty  of  victuals,  and  were  well, 
and  saw  no  evil.  But  since  we  left  off  to  burn 
incense  to  the  queen  of  heaven,  we  have  wanted 
all  things.'  The  last  verse  of  the  passage  adds  to 
the  burnt- offerings  and  drink-offerings,  ‘cakes 
to  worship  her.’  Vows  were  also  made  by  the 
Jews  to  the  moon,  which  superstition  required  to 
be  fulfilled  (ver.  25).  The  appeal  made  in  this 
passage  to  the  alleged  authority  of  the  ancient 
Israelites  can  have  no  other  ground  than  such  as 
these  idolaters  made  or  found  by  referring  to  the 
religious  observances  in  the  Jewish  church  con- 
nected with  the  full  moon.  In  all  probability, 
however,  their  consciences  misgave  them  while 
they  put  forth  this  plea,  though  they  may  to  some 
extent  have  confounded  the  new  moon  ceremonies 
with  their  loved  idolatrous  rites.  Whence  arises 
ii  justificat  ion  of  the  conduct  of  Moses  in  separat- 
ing, in  the  most  sharp  and  rigid  manner,  the  cus- 
toms, usages  »nd  laws  of  his  people  from  those  of 


the  idolaters  by  whom  they  were  surrounded  : had 
he  not  done  so,  the  flesh-pots  of  Egypt  would  nav£ 
had  an  irresistible  attraction  for  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  a nation  of  monotheists  would  not 
have  been  produced,  to  become  the  great  spiritual 
instructors  of  the  world. 

The  baneful  influence  of  the  moon  still  finds 
credence  in  the  East.  Moonlight  is  held  to  be  detri- 
mental to  the  eyes.  In  Ps.  exxi.  6 we  read,  ‘ The 
sun  shall  not  smite  thee  by  day,  nor  the  moon  by 
night;1  so  that  the  impression  that,  the  moon  may 
do  injury  to  man  is  neither  partial  nor  va^ue. 
Rosenmuller  ( Morgenland . iv.  108)  refers  this  to 
the  cold  of  night,  which,  he  says,  is  very  great  and 
sensible  in  the  East,  owing,  partly,  to  the  great 
heat  of  the  day.  If  this  extreme  (comparative? 
cold  is  considered  in  connection  with  the  Oriental 
custom  of  sleeping  sub  divo,  out  of  doors,  a la 
belle  etoile , on  the  flat  roofs  of  houses,  or  even  on 
the  ground,  without  in  all  cases  sufficient  precau- 
tionary measures  for  protecting  the  frame,  we 
see  no  difficulty  in  understanding  whence  arose 
the  evil  influence  ascribed  to  the  moon.  In  the 
East  Indies  similar  effects  result  from  similar 
self-exposure.  Sbakspere,  who  knew  everything 
that  the  eye  and  the  heart  could  feach,  makes  re- 
ference in  two  passages  to  this  evil  influence  : — 

‘ the  moon,  the  governess  of  floods, 

Pale  in  her  anger,  washes  all  the  air, 

That  rheumatic  diseases  do  abound.’ 

Mids.  N.  D.  ii.  2. 

‘It  is  the  very  error  of  the  moon; 

She  comes  more  nearer  earth  than  she  was 
wont, 

And  makes  men  mad.’ — Othello,  v.  2. 

Unquestionably,  great  is  the  operation  of  the 
moou  on  all  the  higher  animals,  as  well  as  man. 
The  usages  of  language  attest  this,  pointing  also 
to  her  malign  effects ; thus  ‘ moon-stricken,1  ‘lu- 
natic.’ Darkness  seems  essential  to  sound  repose ; 
accordingly  men  sleep  uneasily  under  moonshine ; 
sometimes  they  awake  to  a half  or  dreamy  con- 
sciousness; or  never  sink  into  that  entire  self- 
oblivion  which  is  necessary  to  sweet  and  refreshing 
slumber.  By  her  very  changes,  too,  the  moon 
would  rouse  and  stimulate  the  minds  of  men  ; 
the  regularity  of  these  changes  would  suggest,  and 
supply  the  earliest,  measuie  of  time;  the  coinci- 
dence of  certain  events  with  certain  states  of  the 
planet,  would  make  the  first  be  regarded  as  the  con- 
sequence of  the  last ; lienee  watchful  observation, 
which  would  lead  to  honourable  observance,  and 
this  feeling  is  worship  begun.  Even  at  the  present 
hour,  how  much  are  the  changes  of  the  weather 
held  by  the  vulgar  weather-wise  to  depend  on 
changes  of  the  moon.  The  new  moon  is  regarded 
as  specially  auspicious,  not  only  to  bring  serene 
skies,  but  to  give  success.  And,  as  of  old  the 
interlunar  space  was  a time  of  terror  ( iracunda 
Diana , Horat.  Ars  Poet.  v.  454),  when  the  queen 
of  heaven  had  sunk  into  Proserpine,  ‘mistress  ol 
hell,1  so  still  the  darkness  which  intervenes  from 
the  disappearance  of  the  old  to  the  return  of  the 
new  moon,  causes  the  latter  to  be  hailed  with 
pleasurable  feelings,  and  to  be  regarded  as  the 
bright  harbinger  of  various  kinds  of  good  (Hone, 
Every-Day  Book,  i.  1509).  Birth  and  growth 
induce  grateful  and  cheerlul  emotions  ; waning, 
vanishing,  and  darkness  give  sorrow  and  pain  ; no 
wonder,  therefore,  that  the  moon  became  aa  ohjact 


$58 


MOR. 


MOR. 


of  intense  interest  to  man.  In  some  respects 
its  claims  were  superior  to  those  of  the  sun, 
since  the  moon,  by  its  proximity,  by  its  variations, 
by  its  soft  light,  and  less  oppressive  beauty,  seems 
to  be  more  suited  to  the  mind,  the  disposition, 
and  the  lot  of  mortal  man,  and  may  well  have 
easily  won  its  way  to  his  heart  as  a friend  taking 
part  in  the  fluctuations  and  diversities  of  our  hu- 
man condition.  Whence  it  came  to  pass  that  in 
days  of  ignorance  and  superstition  the  agency  of 
the  moon  was  sought  in  love  potions  and  other 
remedies  for  human  ills.  Dido  is  represented  by 
^ h’gil  (sEn.  iv.  512)  to  have  chosen  moonlight  for 
getting  the  herbs  requisite  to  recover  for  her  the 
affection  of  tineas  : — 

‘ad  lunam  quaeruntur 
Pubentes  herbae.’ 

On  the  influence  of  tire  moon  on  man,  see  Ilayn, 
De  Planetar,  in  Corp.  hum.  Influxu ; and 
Kretschmar,  De  Astror.  in  Corp.  hum.  Imperio , 
Jena,  1820;  also  Came,  Lcb.  und  Sitten  im 
Morgenl.  i.  73. — J.  R.  B. 

MOON,  NEW.  [Festivals.] 

MOR  (TID),  sometimes  written  Mur,  is  tire 
well  known  substance  myrrh,  which  the  ^Eolians 
called  poppa,  and  the  other  Greeks  apbpva.  The 
Greek  poppa  and  the  Latin  myrrha  are  no  doubt 

derived  from  the  Hebrew  mor , or  Arabic  yc 

.nur,  though  some  of  the  ancients  traced  them  to 
the  mythological  Myrrha,  daughter  of  Ciuyras, 
king  of  Cyprus,  who  fled  to  Arabia,  and  was 
changed  into  this  tree — ‘dominae  nomina  gutta 
tenet  ’ (Ov.  Art.  Am.  i.  28S).  Myrrh  is  the  exu- 
dation of  a little  known  tree  found  in  Arabia, 
but  much  more  extensively  in  Abyssinia.  It 
formed  an  article  of  the  earliest  commerce,  was 
highly  esteemed  by  the  Egyptians  and  Jews,  as 
well  as  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  as  it  still  is  both 
in  the  East  and  in  Europe.  The  earliest  notice 
of  it  occurs  in  Exod.  xxx.  23,  ‘Take  thou  also 
unto  thee  principal  spices,  of  pure  myrrh  (mor- 
dei'or)  500  shekels.’  It  is  afterwards  mentioned 
in  Esther  ii.  12,  as  employed  in  the  purification 
of  women  ; in  Ps  xlv.  8,  as  a perfume,  ‘All  thy 
garments  smell  of  myrrh,  and  aloes,  and  cassia;’ 
also  in  several  passages  of  the  Song  of  Solomon, 
‘ I will  get  me  to  the  mountain  of  myrrh,  and 
to  the  hill  of  frankincense  ’ (iv.  6)  ; ‘ My  hands 
dropped  with  myrrh,  and  my  fingers  with  sicect 
smelling  myrrh’  (v.  5);  so  in  ver.  13,  in  both 
which  passages  Rosenmiiller  states  that  in  the 
original  it  is  stilicidious  or  profluent  myrrh . 
Under  its  Greek  name,  apbpva.  we  find  it  men- 
tioned in  Matt.  ii.  11,  among  the  gifts  presented 
by  the  wise  men  of  the  East  to  the  infant  Jesus — 
‘ gold,  and  frankincense,  and  myrrh.’  It  may 
be  remarked  as  worthy  of  notice,  that  myrrh  and 
frankincense  are  frequently  mentioned  together. 
In  Mark  xv.  23,  we  learn  that  the  Roman  soldiers 
‘ gave  him  (Jesus)  to  drink  wine  mingled  with 
myrrh ; but  he  received  it  not.’  The  Apostle 
John  (xix.  39)  says,  ‘ Then  came  also  Nico- 
demus,  and  brought  a mixture  of  myrrh  and  aloes 
[Ahai.im],  about  an  hundred  pound  weight,’ 
for  the  purpose  of  embalming  the  body  of  our 
Saviour. 

Though  myrrh  seems  to  have  been  known  from 
the  earliest  times,  and  must  consequently  have 
been  one  of  the  most  ancient  articles  of  com- 


merce, the  country  producing  it  long  remained 
unknown.  Herodotus  mentions  Arabia  as  the 
last  inhabited  country  towards  the  south  which 
produced  frankincense,  myrrh,  &c. ; Hippocrates 
employed  it  as  a medicine ; Theophrastus  de- 
scribes it  as  being  produced  .n  Southern  Arabia, 
about  Saba  and  Adramyt.ta;  so  Pliny,  ‘Myrrha 
tlmris  avboribus  permixta  in  Sabaeorum  sylvis 
nascitur ;’  so  also  Dioscorides  and  several  other 
Greek  authors.  But  others  have  not  so  limited 
its  production.  Celsius  ( Ilierobot . i.  523)  says, 
‘ Gigni  perhibent  in  Syria,  Gedrosia  (Arrian,  Ex- 
ped.  Al.  vi.  ]).  421),  India,  ^Ethiopia,  Troglody- 
tica,  et  ./Egypt  o ; ubi  /3aA  dictam  fuisse  refert 
Plutarchus  de  Iside  et  Osiride,  p.  383  (Klrcher, 
Prod.  Copt.  p.  175).’  The  fact  of  myrrh  being 
called  bal  among  the  Egyptians  is  extremely 
curious,  for  bol  is  the  name  by  which  it  is  uni- 
versally known  throughout  India  in  the  present 
day.  The  writer  learns  from  Professor  \V  ilson 
that  the  Sanscrit  name  is  bola,  which  occurs  in 
the  Ameera  Cosha,  that  is,  at  least  before  the 
Christian  era,  with  several  other  names  showing 
that  it  was  well  known.  But  from  the  time  of  the 
ancients  until  that  of  Belou  we  were  without  any 
positive  information  respecting  the  tree  yielding 
myrrh  : he  supposed  it  to  be  produced  in  Syria, 
and  says,  that  near  Rama  he  met  with  a thorny 
shrub  witli  leaves  resembling  acacia,  which  lie 
believed  to  be  that  producing  myrrh  (Mimosa 
agrcstis,  Spr.).  Similar  to  this  is  the  information 
of  the  Arabian  author  Abu’l  Fadli,  quoted  by 
Celsius,  who  says,  that  mur  is  the  Arabic  name 
of  a thorny  tree  resembling  the  acacia,  from  which 
flows  a white  juice,  which  thickens  and  becomes 
a gum.  The  Persian  authors  referred  to  under 
Abattaciiim  state  that  myrrh  is  the  gum  of  a 
tree  common  in  the  Mughrub,  that,  is,  the  West 
or  Africa,  in  Room  (a  general  name  for  the 
Turkish  empire),  and  in  Socotra.  The  Arabian 
and  Persian  authors  probably  only  knew  it  as 
an  article  of  commerce:  it  certainly  is  not  pro- 
duced in  Socotra,  but  has  undoubtedly  long  been 
exported  from  Africa  into  Arabia.  We  were  in- 
formed by  the  captain  of  a vessel  trading  with  the 
Red  Sea,  that  myrrh  is  always  to  be  obtained 
cheap  and  abundant  on  the  Soumalee  coast. 
Bruce  had  indeed  long  previously  stated  that 
myrrh  is  produced  in  the  country  behind  Azab, 
Mr.  Johnson,  in  his  recently  published  Travels  in 
Abyssinia  (i.  249),  mentions  that  ‘ Myrrh  and 
mimosa  trees  abounded  in  this  place'  (Koranhe- 
dudah  in  Adal).  The  former  he  describes  as 
being  ‘ a low,  thorny,  ragged-looking  tree,  with 
bright-green  trifoliolate  leaves;  the  gum  exudes 
from  cracksr'in  the  bark  of  the  trunk  near  the 
root,  and  flows  freely  upon  the  stones  immediately 
underneath.  Artificially  it  is  obtained  by  bruises 
made  with  stones.  The  natives  collect  it  prin- 
cipally in  the  hot  months  of  July  and  August, 
but  it  is  to  be  found,  though  in  very  small  quan- 
tities, at  other  times  of  the  year.  It  is  collected 
in  small  kid-skins,  and  taken  to  Errur,  whence 
the  Hurrah  merchants,  on  their  way  from  Slioa, 
convey  it  to  the  great  annual  market  at  Ber- 
berah,  from  whence  great  quantities  are  shipped 
for  India  and  Arabia.’  When  the  Portuguese 
first  entered  these  seas,  gold  dust,  ivory,  myrrh, 
and  slaves  formed  the  staple  commerce  of  Adal. 
So  early  as  the  time  of  Arrian,  in  his  Periplui 
of  the  Erythraean  Sea,  we  find  myrrh  ( apbp **) 


MOR. 


MORDECAI. 


35f 


sue  of  the  articles  of  export,  with  \lfiavos,  or 
frankincense,  from  the  coast  of  Adal,  styled 
Barbaria. 

The  Peri  pins  mentions  the  myrrh  of  this  coast 
as  the  finest  ot  its  kind,  and  specifies  the  means  of 
conveying  it  to  Yemen,  .or  Sabea.  There  the  first 
Greek  navigators  found  it,  and  through  their 
hands  it  was  conveyed  into  Europe  under  the 
name  of Sabean  myrrh.  Though  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  largest  quantity  of  myrrh  has  always  been 
obtained  from  Africa — ‘ omnium  prima  est  quae 
Troglodytica  appellator  ’ — yet  it  is  equally  cer- 
tain that  some  is  also  procured  in  Arabia. 
This  seems  to  be  proved  by  Ehrenberg  and 
Iiemprich,  who  found  a small  tree  in  Arabia 
near  Gison,  on  the  borders  of  Arabia  Felix,  off 
which  they  collected  pieces  of  myrrh,  which,  when 
brought  home  and  analysed,  was  acknowledged 
to  be  genuine.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the 
specimens  of  the  mvrrh-plant  brought  by  Mr. 
Johnson  from  the  confines  of  Abyssinia  seem  to  be 
of  the  same  species.  This  is  the  Bcilsamodendron 
Myrrha  of  botanists,  and  which  we  here  figure 


from  Nees  von  Esenbech’s  plate  of  Ehrenberg’s 
plant.  By  some  it  is  supposed  to  be  produced 
by  another  species  of  Bcilsamodendron,  the 
Amyris  katctf  of  Forskal,  which  differs  little 
from  A.  kufal. 

Several  kinds  of  myrrh  were  known  to  the 
ancients,  and  are  described  by  Dioscorides  under 
the  name  of  Stacie,  Gabirea , Troglodytica,  Kau- 
kalis , Aminasa , Ergasima.  So  the  Arab  authors 
mention  several  varieties,  as  1.  mur  saf,  2.  mur 
fortarukh,  3.  mur  jushee ; and  in  modern  com- 
merce we  have  Turkish  and  East.  Indian  myrrh, 
and  different  names  used  to  be.  and  are  still 
applied  to  it,  as  red  and  fatty  myrrh,  myrrh  in 
tears,  in  sorts,  and  myrrh  in  grains.  In  the 
Bible  also  several  kinds  of  myrrh  are  enume- 
rated, respecting  which  various  opinions  have 
been  entertained.  Thus,  in  Exod.  xxx.  23,  the 
words  mor-deror  have  been  variously  translated 
myrrha  prima,  electa , ingenua,  exceilens,  & c. 


dhcror , in  Arabic,  according  to  Celsius, 

means  an  aromatic  powder,  and  mur  dherorce , in 
Arabic,  like  mor  deror  in  Hebrew,  signifies 
myrrheus  pulvis.  This  may  be  the  correct  mean- 
ing, but  it  is  curious  that  the  Arabians  should 
apply  the  term  Kusb-al-zurire  to  another  famed 
aromatic,  the  sweet  cane  of  Scripture.  Hence 
there  may  be  a connection  between  these  similarly 
sounding  terms.  Rosenmuller  says,  ‘ Luther 
correctly  translates  the  Hebrew  expression,  which 
properly  denotes  spontaneously  -pro fluent  myrrh.' 
The  same  kind  of  myrrh  is  in  the  Song  of  Solo- 
mon (ch.  v.  13)  called  stilicidious  or  profluent 
myrrh  (mor  obor).  usually  translated  myrrham 
electam  et  prcestantissimam , transeuntem,  &c. 
(Cels.  1.  c.  p.  528)  Another  kind  of  myrrh  is 
said  to  be  indicated  by  the  word  Nataf,  translated 
stacte,  which  occurs  in  Exod.  xxx.  24  ; but  on 
this  opinions  have  differed  [Nataf]. 

Myrrh,  it.  is  well  known,  w'as  celebrated  in  the 
most  ancient  times  as  a perfume,  and  a fumi- 
gator,  as  well  as  for  its  uses  in  medicine.  As 
several  kinds  were  included  under  the  name  of 
myrrh,  it  is  probable  that  some  may  have  pos- 
sessed more  aromatic  properties  than  others  : but 
the  tastes  and  the  customs  of  nations  vary  so 
much  in  different  ages  of  the  world,  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  us  to  estimate  correctly  what  was 
most  agreeable  to  the  nations  of  antiquity.  Myrrh 
was  burned  in  their  temples,  and  employed  in 
embalming  the  bodies  of  the  dead.  Herodotus, 
speaking  of  the  practice  of  embalming  among  the 
Egyptians,  says,  ‘They  then  fill  the  body  with 
powder  of  pure  myrrh,  cassia,  and  other  perfumes, 
except  frankincense"  (ii.  86).  It  was  offered  in 
presents,  as  natural  products  commonly  were  in 
those  days,  because  such  as  were  procured  from 
distant  countries  were  very  rare.  In  the  same 
way  we  often  hear  of  a rare  animal  or  bird  being 
presented  to  royalty  even  in  the  present  day. 
The  ancients  prepared  a wine  of  myrrh,  and  also 
an  oil  of  myrrh,  and  it  formed  an  ingredient  in 
many  of  the  most  celebrated  compound  medi- 
cines, as  the  Theriaca,  the  Mithridata,  Manus 
Dei,  & c.  Even  in  Europe  it  continued  to  recent 
times  to  enjoy  the  highest  medicinal  reputation, 
as  it  does  in  the  East  in  the  present  day.  It  is 
no  doubt  useful  as  a moderately  stimulant  medi- 
cine ; but  Von  Helmont  was  extravagant  enough 
to  state  that  it  is  calculated  to  render  man  im- 
mortal, if  we  had  any  means  of  perfectly  dissolving 
it  in  the  juices  of  the  body.  From  the  sensible 
properties  of  this  drug,  and  from  the  virtues  which 
were  ascribed  to  it,  we  may  satisfactorily  account 
for  the  mention  of  it.  in  the  several  passages  of 
Scripture  which  have  been  quoted. — J.  F.  R. 

MORDECAI  ('5"™,  supposed  to  come  from 

the  Persian  little  man,  mannikin  ; or, 

according  to  others,  from  the  idol  “Tip  Mero- 
dach,  thus  signifying  a votary  of  Merodach. 
The  last,  supposition  is  not  unlikely,  seeing  that 
Daniel  had  the  Chaldaean  name  of  Belshazzar  ; 
Sept.  MapSoxaros).  son  of  ./air,  of  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  descended  from  one  of  the  captives 
transported  to  Babylon  with  Jehoiachin  (Esth.  ii. 
5).  He  was  resident  at  Susa,  then  the  metropolis 
of  the  Persian  empire,  and  had  under  hi*  care 
his  niece  Hadessa,  otherwise  Esther,  at  the  tins* 


MO 


MORDECAI. 


MOSES. 


when  tl  e fairest  damsels  of  the  land  were  gathered 
together,  that  from  among  them  a fitting  suc- 
cessor to  queen  Vashti  might  be  selected  for  king 
Ahasuerus.  Among  them  was  Esther,  and  on  her 
the  choice  fell ; while,  by  what,  management  we 
<m>w  not.  her  relationship  to  Mordecai,  and  her 
Jewish  descent,  remained  unknown  at  the  palace. 
The  uncle  lost  none  of  his  influence  over  the 
niece  hy  her  elevation,  although  the  seclusion  of 
the  royal  harem  excluded  him  from  direct  inter- 
course with  her.  He  seems  to  have  held  some 
office  about  file  court;  for  we  find  him  in  daily 
attendance  there,  and  it  appears  to  have  been 
through  this  employment  that  lie  became  privy  to 
a plot  of  two  of  the  chamberlains  against  the  life 
of  the  king,  which  through  Esther  he  made 
known  to  the  monarch.  This  great  service  was 
however  suffered  to  pass  without  reward  at  the 
'time.  On  the  rise  of  Hainan  to  power  at  court, 
Mordecai  alone,  of  all  the  nobles  and  officers  who 
crowded  the  royal  gates,  refused  to  manifest  the 
customary  signs  of  homage  to  the  royal  favourite. 
It  would  be  too  much  to  attribute  this  to  an  in- 
dependence of  spirit,  which,  however  usual  in 
Europe,  is  unknown  in  Eastern  courts.  Hainan 
was  an  Amalekile;  and  Mordecai  brooked  not  to 
liow  himself  down  before  one  of  a nation  which 
from  the  earliest  times  had  been  the  most,  devoted 
enemies  of  the  Jewish  people.  The  Orientals  are 
tenacious  of  the  outward  marks  of  respect,  which 
they  hold  to  be  due  to  the  position  fliey  occupy; 
and  the  erect  mien  of  Mordecai  among  the  bending 
courtiers  escaped  not  the  keen  eye  of  Hainan.  He 
noticed  it,  and  brooded  over  it  from  day  to  day  : 
he  knew  well  the  class  of  feelings  in  whicir  it 
originated,  and — remembering  the  eternal  enmity 
vowed  by  the  Israelites  against  his  people,  and 
how  often  their  conquering  sword  had  all  but 
swept  bis  nation  fiom  the  face  of  the  earth — he 
vowed  by  one  great  stroke  to  exterminate  the 
Hebrew  nation,  the  fate  of  which  he  believed  to 
Ire  in  his  hands.  The  temptation  was  great.,  and 
to  his  ill-regulated  mind  irresistible.  He  there- 
fore procured  the  well-known  and  bloody  decree 
fiom  the  king  for  the  massacre  of  all  the  Israel- 
ites in  the  empire  in  one  day.  When  this  decree 
became  known  to  Mordecai,  he  covered  himself 
with  sackcloth  and  ashes,  and  rent  the  air  with 
his  cries.  This  being  made  known  to  Esther 
through  the  servants  of  the  harem,  who  now  knew 
of  their  relationship,  she  sent.  Hatach,  one  of  the 
royal  eunuchs,  to  demand  the  cause  of  his  grief: 
through  that  faithful  servant  he  made  the  facts 
known  to  her,  urged  upon  her  the  duty  of  deliver- 
ing her  people,  and  encouraged  her  to  risk  the 
consequences  of  the  attempt.  She  was  found 
equal  to  the  occasion.  She  risked  her  life  by  en- 
tering the  royal  presence  uncalled,  and  having 
by  discreet  management  procured  a favourable 
opportunity,  accused  Harnan  to  the  king  of 
plotting  to  destroy  her  and  her  people.  His 
doom  was  sealed  on  this  occasion  by  the  means 
which  in  his  agitation  he  took  to  avert  it:  and 
when  one  of  the  eunuchs  present  intimated  that 
this  man  had  prepared  a gallows  fifty  cubits  high 
on  which  to  hang  Mordecai,  the  king  at.  once  said, 

4 Hang  him  thereon.’  This  was,  in  fact,  a great 
aggravation  ol  his  offence,  for  the  previous  night, 
the  king,  being  unable  to  sleep,  nad  commanded 
the  records  of  his  reign  to  be  read  to  him ; and 
the  reader  hid  providentially  turned  to  the  part  re- 


cording the  conspiracy  which  had  been  frustrated 
through  Mordecai.  The  king  asked  what  had 
been  the  reward  of  this  mighty  service,  and  being 
answered  4 nothing,’  he  commanded  that  any  one 
who  happened  to  be  in  attendance  without,  should 
be  called.  Haman  was  there,  having  come  for  the 
very  purpose  of  asking  the  king's  leave  to  hang 
Mordecai  upon  the  gallows  lie  had  prepared,  and 
was  asked  what  should  he  done  to  the  man  whom 
the  king  delighted  to  honour  ? Thinking  that,  the 
king  could  delight,  to  honour  no  one  but  himself, 
he  named  the  highest  and  most  public  honours  lie 
could  conceive,  and  received  from  the  monarch 
the  astounding  answer,  ‘Make  haste,  and  do  even 
so  to  Mordecai  that  sitteth  in  ! lie  king’s  gate ! ’ 
Then  was  Haman  constrained,  without  a word,  and 
with  seeming  cheerfulness,  to  repair  to  the  man 
whom  he  hated  beyond  all  the  world,  to  dnvest 
him  with  the  royal  robes,  and  to  conduct  him  in 
magnificent  cavalcft.de  through  the  city,  pro- 
claiming, 4 Thus  shall  it  be  done  to  the  man 
whom  the  king  delighteth  to  honour.’  After  this 
we  may  well  believe  that  the  sense  of  poetical 
justice  decided  the  perhaps  till  then  doubtful 
course  of  the  king,  when  he  heard  of  the  gallows 
which  Haman  had  prepared  for  the  man  by  whom 
his  own  life  had  been  preserved. 

Mordecai  was  invested  with  power  greater 
than  that  which  Haman  had  lost,  and  the  first 
use  he  made  of  it  was,  as  far  as  possible,  to 
neutralize  or  counteract  the  decree  obtained  by 
Hainan.  It  could  not  be  recalled,  as  the  kings 
of  Persia  had  no  power  to  rescind  a decree  once 
issued ; but  us  the  altered  wish  of  the  court 
was  known,  and  as  the  Jews  were  permitted  to 
stand  on  their  defence,  they  were  preserved  from 
tiie  intended  destruction,  although  much  blood 
was,  on  the  appointed  day,  shed  even  in  the  royal 
city.  The  Feast  of  Purim  was  instituted  in  me- 
mory of  this  deliverance,  and  is  celebrated  to  this 
day  (Eslli.  ii.  5;  x.)  [Purim]. 

A Mordecai,  who  returned  from  the  exile  with 
Zerubbabel,  is  mentioned  in  Ezra  ii.  2 and  Neb. 
vii.  7 ; but  this  cannot  well  have  been  the  Mor- 
decai of  Esther,  as  some  have  supposed. 

MORIAH  (rP'lto  ; Sept.  ’A/^o >pla),  one  of  the 
hills  of  Jerusalem,  on  which  the  temple  was 
built  by  Solomon  (2  Chron.  iii.  1).  The  name 
seldom  occurs,  being  usually  included  in  that  of 
Zion,  to  the  north  east  of  which  it  lay,  and  from 
which  it  was  separated  by  the  valley  of  Tyropoeon 
(Joseph.  Ant'iq.  viii.  3-9)  [Jerusalem].  Thb 
Land  or  Moriah,  whither  Abraham  went  to 
offer  up  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii.  2),  is  generally  sup- 
posed to  denote  the  same  place,  and  may  at  least 
be  conceived  to  describe  the  surrounding  district. 
The  Jews  themselves  believe  that  the  altar  of 
burnt-offerings  ir;  the  temple  stood  upon  the  very 
site  of  the  altar  on  which  the  patriarch  purposed 
to  sacrifice  his  son. 

MOSERAH,  MOSEROTH,  a station  of  the 
Israelites  near  Mount  Hor  (Num.  xxxiii.  30) 
[Wandering]. 

MOSES  Mo ><n}s),  the  law- 

giver of  Israel,  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and 
was  a son  of  Amram  and  Jochebed  (Exod.  vi. 
20).  According  to  Exod.  ii.  10,  the  name 
means  drawn  out  of  water.  Even  ancient  writers 
knew  that  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation 


MOSES. 


MOSES. 


331 


*o; lid  be  proved  by  a reference  to  the  Egyptian 
language  (comp.  Joseph.  Antiq.  ii.  9.  6;  contra 
Apioncm , i.  31;  Philo,  ii.  83,  &c.  e(l.  Mang.). 
The  name  contains  also  an  allusion  to  the  verb 

H^D,  extraxit,  he  extracted,  pulled  out.  Hence 
it  appears  that  is  a significant  memorial 

of  the  marvellous  preservation  of  Moses  when  an 
infant,  in  spite  of  those  Pharaonic  edicts  which 
were  promulgated  in  order  to  lessen  the  number 
of  the  Israelites.  It  was  the  intention  of  divine 
providence  that  the  great  and  wonderful  destiny 
of  the  child  should  be  from  the  lirst  apparent : 
and  what  the  Lord  had  done  for  Moses  he  in- 
tended also  to  accomplish  for  the  whole  nation  of 
Israel. 

It  was  an  important  event  that  the  infant  Moses, 
having  been  exposed  near  the  banks  of  the  Nile, 
was  found  there  by  an  Egyptian  princess ; and 
that,  having  been  adopted  by  her,  he  thus  ob- 
tained an  education  at  the  royal  court  (Exod. 
ii.  1-10).  Having  been  taught,  all  the  wisdom 
of  the  Egyptians  (Acts  vii.  22;  comp.  Joseph. 
Antiq.  ii.  9.  7),  the  natural  gifts  of  Moses  were 
fully  developed,  and  he  thus  became  in  many 
respects  better  prepared  for  his  future  vocation. 

After  Moses  had  grown  up,  he  returned  to  his 
brethren,  and,  in  spite  of  the  degraded  state  of  his 
people,  manifested  a sincere  attachment,  to  them. 
He  felt  deep  compassion  for  their  sufferings,  and 
showed  his  indignation  against  their  oppressors  by 
slaying  an  Egyptian  whom  he  saw  ill  treating  an 
Israelite.  This  doubtful  act  became  by  Divine 
Providence  a means  of  advancing  him  further  in 
his  preparation  for  his  future  vocation,  by  in- 
ducing him  to  escape  into  the  Arabian  desert, 
where  he  abode  for  a considerable  period  with  the 
Midianitlsh  prince,  Jethro,  whose  daughter  Zip- 
porah  he  married  (Exod.  ii.  11,  sq.).  Here,  in 
the  solitude  of  pastoral  life,  he  was  appointed  to 
ripen  gradually  for  his  high  calling,  before  he 
was  unexpectedly  and  suddenly  sent  back  among 
his  people,  in  order  to  achieve  their  deliverance 
from  Egyptian  bondage. 

His  entry  upon  this  vocation  was  not  in  conse- 
quence of  a mere  natural  resolution  of  Moses,  whose 
constitutional  timidity  and  want  of  courage  ren- 
dered him  disinclined  for  such  an  undertaking. 
An  extraordinary  divine  operation  was  required  to 
overcome  his  disinclination.  On  Mount  Iloreb 
he  saw  a burning  thorn-bush,  in  the  flame  of 
which  he  recognised  a sign  of  the  immediate  pre- 
sence of  Deity,  and  a divine  admonition  induced 
him  to  resolve  upon  the  deliverance  of  his  people. 
He  returned  into  Egypt,  where  neither  the  dispi- 
rited state  of  the  Israelites,  nor  the  obstinate  op- 
position and  threatenings  of  Pharaoh,  were  now 
able  to  shake  the  man  of  God. 

Supported  by  his  brother  Aaron,  and  commis- 
sioned by  God  as  his  chosen  instrument,  proving, 
by  a series  of  marvellous  deeds,  in  the  midst  of 
heathenism,  the  God  of  Israel  to  be  the  only  true 
God,  Moses  at  last,  overcame  the  opposition  of 
the  Egyptians.  According  to  a divine  decree, 
the  people  of  the  Lord  were  to  quit  Egypt,  under 
the  command  of  Moses,  in  a triumphant  manner. 
The  punishments  of  God  were  poured  down  upon 
the  hostile  people  in  an  increasing  ratio,  termi- 
nating in  the  death  of  the  firstborn,  as  a sign  that 
ttll  had  deserved  death.  The  formidable  power  of 
paganism,  in  its  ’onfiict  with  the  theocracy,  was 


obliged  to  bow  before  the  apparently  weak  people 
of  the  Lord.  The  Egyptians  paid  tribute  to  the 
emigrating  Israelites  (Exod.  xii.  35),  who  set  out 
laden  with  the  spoils  of  victory. 

The  enraged  king  vainly  endeavoured  to  de- 
stroy the  emigrants.  Moses,  firmly  relying  upon 
miraculous  help  from  the  Lord,  led  his  people 
through  the  Red  Sea  into  Arabia,  while  the  host 
of  Pharaoh  perished  in  its  waves  (Exod.  xii.- 
xv.). 

Atter  this  began  the  most  important  functions  of 
Moses  as  thelavvgiverof  the  Israelites,  who  were  des- 
tined to  enter  into  Canaan  aslhe  people  of  promise 
upon  whom  rested  t he  ancient  blessings  of  the  pa- 
triarchs. By  the  instrumentality  of  Moses  they 
were  appointed  to  enter  into  intimate  communion 
with  God  through  a sacied  covenant,  and  to  he 
firmly  bound  to  him  hy  a new  legislation.  .Moses, 
having  victoriously  repulsed  the  attack  of  the 
Amalekites,  marched  to  Mount  Sinai,  where  he 
signally  punished  the  detection  of  his  people, 
and  gave  them  the  law  as  a testimony  of  divine 
justice  and  mercy.  From  Muunt  Sinai  they 
proceeded  northward  to  the  desert  of  Paran,  anil 
sent  spies  to  explore  the  Land  of  Canaan  (Num. 
x.-xiii.).  On  this  occasion  broke  out  a violent 
rebellion  against  the  lawgiver,  which  he,  how- 
ever, by  divine  assistance,  energetically  repressed 
(Num.  xiv.-xvi.). 

The  Israelites  frequently  murmured,  and  were 
disobedient  during  about  forty  years.  In  a part 
of  the  desert  of  Kadesh,  which  was  called  Zin, 
near  the  boundaries  of  the  Edomites,  after  the 
sister  of  Moses  had  died,  and  after  even  the  new 
generation  had,  like  their  fathers,  proved  to  be 
obstinate  and  desponding.  Moses  fell  into  sin,  and 
was  on  that  account  deprived  of  the  privilege  of 
introducing  the  people  into  Canaan.  He  was 
appointed  to  lead  them  only  to  the  boundary  of 
their  country,  to  prepare  all  that  was  requisite 
for  their  entry  into  the  land  of  promise,  to  ad- 
monish them  impressively,  and  to  bless  them. 

It.  was  according  to  God’s  appointment  that 
the  new  generation  also,  to  whom  the  occupation 
of  the  country  had  been  promised,  should  arrive 
at  their  goal  only  after  having  vanquished  many 
obstacles.  Even  before  they  had  reached  the  real 
boundaries  of  Canaan  they  were  to  be  subjected 
to  a heavy  and  purifying  trial.  It  was  important 
that  a man  like  Moses  was  at  the  head  of  Israel 
during  all  these  providential  dispensations.  His 
authority  was  a powerful  preservative  against 
despondency  under  heavy  trials. 

Having  in  vain  attempted  to  pass  through  the 
territory  of  the  Edomites,  the  people  marched 
round  its  boundaries  by  a circuitous  and  tedious 
route.  Twopowerful  kings  of  the  Amorites,  Sihon 
and  Og,  were  vanquished.  Moses  led  the  people 
into  the  fields  of  Moab  over  against  Jericho,  to 
the  very  threshold  of  Canaan  (Num.  xx.,  xxi.). 
The  oracles  of  Balaam  became,  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  Moses,  blessings  to  Ins  people,  be- 
cause by  them  they  were  rendered  conscious  of 
the  great  importance  of  having  the  Lord  on  then 
side. 

Moses  happily  averted  the  danger  which 
threatened  the  Israelites  on  the  part  of  Midvm 
(Num.  xxv.-xxxi.).  Hence  he  was  enabled  to 
grant  to  some  of  the  tribes  permanent  dwellings 
in  a considerable  tract  of  country  situated  to  '".he 
east  of  the  river  Jordan  ("Nunn-  xxxii ),  and  to 


262 


MOTH. 


MOTH. 


give  to  1 is  people  a foretaste  of  that  well-being 
which  was  in  store  for  them. 

Moses  made  excellent  preparations  for  the  con- 
quest and  distribution  of  the  whole  country, 
and  took  leave  of  his  people  with  powerful  ad- 
monitions and  impressive  benedictions,  transfer- 
ring his  government  to  the  hands  of  Joshua,  who 
was  not  unworthy  to  become  the  successor  of  so 
great  a man.  YVith  a longing  but  gratified  look, 
be  surveyed,  from  the  elevated  ground  on  the 
border  of  the  Dead  Sea,  the  beautiful  country 
destined  for  his  people. 

Moses  died  in  a retired  spot  at  the  age  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years.  He  remained  vi- 
gorous in  mind  and  body  to  the  last.  His  body 
was  not  buried  in  the  promised  land,  and  his 
grave  remained  unknown,  lest  it  should  become 
an  object  of  superstitious  and  idolatrous  worship. 
This  honour  was  due,  not  to  him,  but  to  the 
Lord,  who  had  manifested  himself  through  the 
whole  life  of  Moses.  Not  the  body,  but  the  word, 
of  Moses  was  permanently  to  abide  in  Israel. 
The  people  of  God  produced  no  prophet  greater 
than  Moses,  because  by  none  was  tbe  Lord  more 
glorified.  Among  all  the  men  of  God  recorded 
in  the  Old  Testament,  Moses  presents  the  most 
wonderful  and  imposing  aspect. 

The  Pentateuch  is  the  greatest,  monument  of 
Moses  as  an  author.  The  ninetieth  psalm  also 
seems  to  be  correctly  ascribed  to  him.  Some 
learned  men  have  endeavoured  to  prove  that  he 
was  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job,  but  their 
arguments  are  inconclusive  [Job]. 

Numerous  traditions,  as  might  have  been  ex- 
]>ected,  have  been  current  respecting  so  cele- 
brated a personage.  Some  of  these  were  known 
to  the  ancient  Jews,  hut  most  of  them  occur  in 
later  rabbinical  writers  (comp.  Philo,  De  Vita 
Mosis,  c.  iii  ; Joseph.  Antiq.  ii.  9,  sq.  ; Barto- 
locci,  Bibliotheca  Babbinica.  iv.  115,  sq.). 

The  name  of  Moses  is  celebrated  among  the 
Arabs  also,  and  is  1 lie  nucleus  of  a mass  of  le- 
gends (com]).  Hottinger.  Historia  Orientalis,  p.  80, 
sq.).  Tbe  Greek  and  Roman  classics  repeatedly 
mention  Moses,  but.  their  accounts  contain  the 
authentic  Biblical  history  in  a greatly  distorted 
form  (vid.  the  collection  of  Meier , Judaica,  seu 
vcterum  Scriptorum  profanorum  de  Rebus  Judai- 
cis  Fragrnenta , Jena?,  1832). 

Concerning  the  life  of  Moses,  compare  also 
Warburton,  On  the  Divine  Legation  of  Moses  ; 
Hess,  Geschichte  Mosis,  Zurich,  1778,  2 vols. ; 
Niemeyer,  Charaktcristik  der  Bibel,  3rd  vol. 

H.  A.  C.  H. 

MOTH  '(&%)  occurs  in  Job  iv.  19;  xiii.  23; 
xxvii.  18;  Isa.  1.  9;  li.  8;  Hosea  v.  12;  Matt, 
vi.  19,  20;  Luke  xii.  33;  Ecclus.  xix.  3; 
xlii.  13  : in  all  which  places  the  Sept,  and 
Greek  Testament  read  c^s,  and  the  Vulg. 
tinea.  In  P.$.  xxxix.  11.  W]),  Sept.  apdxvn], 
Vulg.  aranea.  The  same  Hebrew  word  occurs 
in  the  phrase  ‘ moth-eaten,’  Job  xiii.  28;  Sept. 
arjTSPpaiTov,  comeditur  a tineis ; James  v. 
2,  a f]T<i!3pci}Ta,  a tineis  comesta.  The  word 
DD  occurs  once  in  Isa.  li.  8;  Sept.  or)s,  Vulg. 
tinea.  There  is  no  biblical  insect  whose  identity 
is  better  ascertained.  The  following  is  the  chain 
of  evidence  through  which  it  is  traced.  The 
word  c rtfs,  adopted  by  the  Sept.,  unquestionably 
caean3  ‘ ruoth  1 in  the  writings  of  Aristotle  (who 


was  contemporary  with  the  translators  of  th* 
earliest  ami  best,  rendered  portions  of  the  Sept); 
for  when  treating  of  the  generation  of  insects  he 
says  : rivercu  de  Kai  aAAa  fobapta,  ra  p.ev  Iv 
iplois,  Kal  oaa  e£  ipiwv  ioriv,  oiov  ol  arjre s, 
ol  ipcpvovrai  paAAov  orav  Koviopawbi]  ?7  va  epia. 

‘ Other  small  creatures  are  generated,  some  in 
wool,  and  in  such  substances  as  are  formed  from 
wool,  as  for  instance,  moths,  or  moth  worms, 
which  are  principally  produced  in  dusty  woollen 
substances anti,  again,  speaking  of  the  same 
insect,  ylverai  be  iv  xiT&vl  o aK(l>Ari£  outos,  ‘this 
worm  or  insect  is  produced  in  garments.’  To 
the  same  effect,  Aristotle’s  pupil,  Theophrastus, 
speaking  of  the  herb  ttoAIov,  says,  tovto  be  Kal 
T-pbs  robs  ariras  rubs  iv  'ro7s  ipaTlois  ayadbv — 
‘this  is  good  against  the  moths  in  clothes’  ( Hist . 
Plant,  i.  16).  Menander,  educated  under  Theo- 
phrastus. speaking  of  things  which  consume,  says, 
rb  b’  luanov  ol  ar}res,  * moths  consume  clothes.’ 
Then  with  regard  to  the  word  tinea , adopted  by 
the  Vulg.,  Pliny  uses  it  in  translating  our  first 
quotation  from  Aristotle  '(‘pul vis  in  lanis  et  veste 
tineas  creat,’  Hist.  Nat.  xi.  41,  edit.  Harduin), 
and  elsewhere,  for  the  moth,  though  he  also  applies 
the  word  to  other  insects,  &c. ; and  from  the  time 
of  Pliny  to  Aldrovandus,  this,  and  almost  all  the 
other  names  in  natural  history,  remained  the  same, 
and  were  retained  as  much  as  possible  by  YVil- 
lughby  and  Linnaeus.  The  latter,  under  the  order 
Lepidoptera,  genus  Phalaena,  gives  the  species  of 
moths,  Tinea  tapetzella,  T.  pel/ionella , and 
T.  recurvaria  sarcdella , as  peculiarly  destruc- 
tive to  woollen  clothes,  furs,  &c.  The  following 
allusions  to  the  moth  occur  in  Scripture; — to  its 
being  produced  in  clothes:  ‘for  from  garments 
cometh  a moth’’ (Ecclus.  xiii.  13);  to  its  well- 
known  fragility  : ‘mortal  men  are  crushed  before 
the  moth’  (Job  iv.  19),  literally  ‘before  the  face 
of  the  moth,’  hut  which  words  really  mean  ‘ like  as 

the  moth  is  crushed.’  The  Hebrew  word 
here  translated  ‘before,’  occurs  in  tbe  sense  of  ns 
or  like  in  1 Sam.  i.  16  : ‘count  not  thine  handmaid 

(W?nvn  vsb)  as  a daughter  of  Belial lite- 
rally, 4 before,  or  ‘ as  the  face  of:’  and  so  the  Sept, 
understood  our  passage,  arjTbs  Tpbrrov.  The 
Latin  phrase  ad  faciem  occurs  in  the  same  sense 
in  Plautus  ( Cistell . i.  1. 73):  ‘ ad  istani  faciem  est 
morbus  qui  me  macerat.’  Olliers  take  this  allu- 
sion to  the  moth  in  an  active  sense,  thus — ‘as  a 
garment  is  consumed  by  the  moth  ;'  so  the  Vulg. 
a tinea.  The  allusion  to  ‘the  house  of  the  moth’ 
(Job  xx\ii.  18)  seems  to  refer  plainly  to  the 
silky  spindle-shaped  case,  covered  with  detached 
hairs  and  particles  of  wool,  made  and  inhabited 
by  the  larva  of  the  Tinea  sarcitclla ; or  to  the 
felted  case  or  tunnel  formed  by  the  larva  of  the 
Tinea  pellionella ; or  to  the  arched  gallery  formed 
by  eating  through  wool  by  the  larva  of  the  Tinea 
tapetzella.  References  occur  to  the  destructive- 
ness of  the  clothes-moth  : ‘ as  a garment  that  is 
moth-eaten’  (Job  xiii.  28);  ‘the  moth  shall  eat 
them  up’  (Isa.  1.  9);  ‘ lhe  moth  shall  eat  them 
up  like  a garment’  (li.  8) ; ‘1  will  he  to  Ephraim 
as  a moth,’  i.  e.  will  secretly  consume  him  (Hos. 
v.  12);  comp.  Matt.  vi.  19,  20;  Luke  xii.  33; 
James  v.  2,  metaphorically:  and  Ecclus.  xix.  3 — 
‘Moths  and  worms  shall  have  him  that  cleave tla 
to  harlots,’  but  the  better  reading  is  arjirr),  ‘ rotten- 
ness.’ Since  the  ‘ treasures  ’ oi  the  Orientals,  in 


MOTHER. 


MOUNTAINS. 


363 


ancitnt  times,  consisted  partly  of  4 garments, 
both  view  and  old’  (Matt.  xiii.  52 ; and  comp. 
Josh.  vii.  21.  ; Judges  xiv.  12),  the  ravages  of 
*-lie  clothes-moth  afforded  them  a lively  emblem  of 
destruction.  Their  treasures  also  consisted  partly 
of  com  laid  up  in  bains,  &c.  (Luke  xii.  18,  24; ; 
and  it  nas  been  supposed  that  the  fipwarts,  trans- 
lated ‘rust,’  joined  with  the  0-175  in  Matt.  vi.  19, 
20,  refers  also  to  some  species  of  moth,  &c., 
irobably  in  the  larva  state,  which  destroys  corn. 
Cuinoel  says  the  ‘ curculio,  or  kormvurm,’  the 
larva  of  the  Tinea  granella , is  injurious  to  corn. 
Compare  the  common  Roman  phrase  blatta  et 
tinea.  Aquila  gives  fipuens  for  Jer*  1-  9 ; 

and  those  words,  ‘ Gods  which  cannot  save  tliem- 
selves  from  moths,’  ^peegarwu,  Ep.  of  Jer.  xii., 
maybe  another  instance.  Comp.  Mai.  iii.  11, 
Sept,  and  MS.  B.  in  margin,  and  Symmachus  in 
Isa.  v.  9.  The  word  DD  occurs,  as  well  as  the  word 
in  Isa.  li.  8 : • the  W])  shall  eat  them  up  like 
a garment,  and  the  DD  shall  eat  them  like  wool ,’ 
Sept.  wy  e pia  fipcndrjaeTcu  virb  arjrSs  (comp,  the 
first  quotation  from  Aristotle),  where  the  similarity 
between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  word  is  striking. 
If  two  species  of  moth  be  here  alluded  to,  may  not 
the  DD  be  the  distinctive  name  for  the  Tinea 
iapetzella , which  is  peculiarly  destructive  to 
‘ wool?’  The  Sept,  also  gives  cr^s  for  2pT,  Prov. 
xiv.  30,  and  for  pin,  Micah  vii.  4.  Moths,  like 
(leas,  &c.,  amid  other  more  immediate  pur- 
poses of  their  existence,  incidentally  serve  as  a 
stimulus  to  human  industry  and  cleanliness; 
for,  by  a remarkable  discrimination  in  her  in- 
stinct, the  parent  moth  never  deposits  her  eggs  in 
garments  frequently  overlooked  or  kept  clean. 
Indeed  the  most  remarkable  of  all  proofs  of 
animal  intelligence,  is  to  be  found  in  the  larvae  of 
the  water-moth,  which  get  into  straws,  and  adjust 
the  weight  of  their  case  so  that  it  can  always  float : 
when  too  heavy  they  add  a piece  of  straw  or  wood, 
and  when  too  light  a bit  of  gravel  ( Transactions 
of  the  Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh,  vol.  i. 
p.  42).— J.  F.  D. 

MOTHER.  The  Hebrew  word  for  mother 
is  D&  am,  and  is  regarded  by  the  lexicographers 
as  a primitive,  imitating  the  earliest  lisping  of 
an  infant : they  compare  it  with  the  Greek 
/.idyga.  p.d/xp.r],  ycua  ; Sanscrit,  mu,  ambu  ; Copt., 
man ; English,  and  French,  mama ; German, 
amine  (nurse),  &c. 

The  ordinary  applications  of  the  word  require 
no  illustration ; but  the  following  points  of  He- 
brew usage  may  be  noticed.  When  the  father  had 
more  than  one  wife,  the  son  seems  to  have  con- 
fined the  title  of  ‘ mother’  to  his  real  mother,  by 
which  he  distinguished  her  from  the  other  wives 
of  his  father.  Hence  the  source  of  Joseph’s  pecu- 
liar interest  in  Benjamin  is  indicated  in  Gen. 
xliii.  29,  by  his  being  * his  mother's  sun.’  The 
other  brethren  were  the  sons  of  his  father  by  other 
wives.  Nevertheless,  when  this  precision  was  not 
necessary,  the  step-mother  was  sometimes  styled 
mother.  Tims  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxvii.  10)  speaks  of 
Leah  as  Joseph's  mother,  for  his  real  mother  had 
long  been  dead.  The  step-mother  was  however  more 
properly  distinguished  from  the  womb-mother  by 
the  name  of  ‘ father's  wife’  (Dfc$  HD’^).  The 
word  ‘mother’  was  also,  like  father,  brother, 
sister,  employed  by  the  Hebrews  in  a somewhat 
wider  sense  than  is  usual  with  us.  It  is  used  of 


a grandmother  (1  Kings  xv.  10),  and  even  of  any 
female  ancestor  (Gen.  iii.  20);  of  a benefactress 
(Judg.  v.  7),  and  as  expressing  intimate  relation- 
ship (Job  xvii.  1 1).  In  Hebrew,  as  in  English, 
a nation  is  considered  as  a mother,  and  indivi- 
duals as  her  children  (La.  1.  1 ; Jer.  1.  12;  Ezek, 

xix.  2 : Hos.  ii.  4 ; iv.  5)  ; so  our  ‘ mother-coun- 
try,’ which  is  quite  as  good  as  ‘ father-land,’ 
which  we  seem  beginning  to  copy  from  the  Ger- 
mans. Large  and  important  cities  are  also 
called  mothers,  i.  e.  ‘ mother-cities,’  with  refer- 
ence to  the  dependent  towns  and  villages (2  Sam. 

xx.  19),  or  even  to  the  inhabitants,  who  are  called 
her  children  (Isa.  iii.  12;  xlix.  23).  ‘The 
parting  of  the  way,  at  the  head  of  two  ways’ 
(Ezek.  xi.  21)  is  in  the  Hebrew  ‘ the  mother  of 
ihe  way,’  because  out  of  it  the  two  ways  arise  as 
daughters.  In  Job  i.  21,  the  earth  is  indicated 
as  the  common  ‘ mother  to  whose  bosom  all  man- 
kind must  return.’  So  Chaucer — 

‘ And  on  the  ground,  which  is  my  modres  gate, 

I knocke  with  my  staf  erlich  and  late, 

And  say  to  hire,  “ Leve,  mother,  let  me  in.”  ’ 

The  particulars  relating  to  the  position  which 
a mother  occupied  among  the  Jews,  are  involved 
in  other  relations,  which  are  referred  to  the  ge- 
neral head  Woman. 

MOUNTAINS.  The  mountains  mentioned 
in  Scripture  are  noticed  under  their  different 
names,  and  a general  statement  with  reference  to 
the  mountains  of  Palestine  is  given  under  that 
head.  We  have  therefore  in  this  place  only  to 
notice  more  fully  some  remarkable  symbolical  or 
figurative  uses  of  the  word  in  the  Bible. 

In  Scripture  the  governing  pari  of  the  body 
politic  appears  under  symbols  of  different  kinds. 
If  the  allegory  or  figurative  repiesentation  is 
taken  from  the  heavens,  the  luminaries  denote  the 
governing  body  ; if  from  an  animal,  the  head  or 
horns;  if  from  the  earth,  a mountain  or  fortress  ; 
and  in  this  case  the  capital  city  or  residence  of  the 
governor  is  taken  for  the  supreme  power.  These 
mutually  illustrate  each  other.  For  a capital 
city  is  the  head  of  the  political  body:  the  head 
of  an  ox  is  the  fortress  of  the  animal ; mountains 
are  the  natural  fortresses  of  the  earth  ; and  there- 
fore a fortress  or  capital  city,  though  seated  in  a 
plain,  may  be  called  a mountain.  Thus  the  words 
head,  mountain,  bill,  city,  horn,  and  king,  are  used 
in  a manner  as  synonymous  terms  to  signify  a 
kingdom,  monarchy,  or  republic,  united  under  one 
government, only  with  this  difference,  that  it  is  to 
be  understood  in  different  respects;  for  the  term 
head  represents  it  in  respect  of  the  capital  city; 
mountain  or  hill  in  respect  of  the  strength  of  the 
metropolis,  which  gives  law  to,  or  is  above,  and 
commands  the  adjacent  territory.  W hen  David 
says,  ‘ Lord,  by  tnv  favour  thou  Last  made  my 
mountain  to  stand  strong  " (Ps.  xxx.  7),  he  means 
to  express  the  stability  of  his  kingdom. 

It  is  according  fu  these  ideas  that  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah  is  described  under  the  figure  of  a 
mountain  (Isa.  ii.  2 ; xi.  9 ; Dan.  ii.  35),  and  its 
universality  by  its  being  the  resort  of  all  nations, 
and  by  its  filling  die  whole  earth.  The  mystic 
mountains  in  the  Apocalypse  denote  kingdoms 
and  states  subverted  to  make  room  for  the  Mes- 
siah’s kingdom  (Rev.  vi.  14  ; x\i.  20). 

The  Chaldaean  monarchy  is  described  as  a 
mountain  in  Jer.  li.  25;  Zech.  iv.  7 ; and  the 
Targum  illustrates  the  idea  by  substituting  the 


364 


MOURNING. 


MOURNING. 


word  ‘fortress’  in  the  former  text..  In  this  view, 
then,  a mountain  is  the  symbol  of  a kingdom, 
or  of  a capital  city  with  its  domains,  or  of  a king, 
which  is  the  same. 

Mountains  are  frequently  used  to  signify  places 
of  strength,  of  what  kind  soever,  and  to  whatsoever 
use  applied  (Jer.  iii.  23). 

Eminences  were  very  commonly  chosen  for  the 
sites  of  Pagan  temples : these  became  places  of 
asylum,  and  were  looked  upon  as  the  fortresses 
and  defenders  of  the  worshippers,  by  reason  of 
the  presence  of  the  false  deities  in  them.  On 
*:his  account  mountains  were  the  strongholds  of 
Paganism,  and  therefore  in  several  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture they  signify  idolatrous  temples  and  places  of 
worship  (Jer.  ii.  23  ; Ezek.  vi.  2-6;  Mic.  iv.  1 ; 
comp.  Deut.  xii.  2;  Jer.  ii.  20;  iii.  16;  Ezek. 
vi.  3).  See  VVemyss’s  Clavis  Symbolica , pp. 
309  316. 

MOURNING.  This  head  embraces  both  the 
outward  expressions  of  sorrow  for  the  dead,  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Scriptures,  and  those  expressions 
which  were  intended  to  exhibit  repentance,  &c. 
These  subjects  will  be  pursued  according  te 
Townsend’s  chronological  arrangement,  and  sinco 
they  nearly  approximate,  will  be  pursued  together. 
Assuming  the  propriety  of  this  arrangement,  the 
earliest  reference  to  any  kind  of  mourning  is  that 
of  Job  (b.c.  2130),  who  being  informed  of  the  de- 
struction of  his  children  as  the  climax  of  his 
calamities,  ‘arose,  rent  his  mantle,  shaved  his 
head,  and  fell  down  upon  the  ground  and  wor- 
shipped’ (Job  i.  20),  uttered  sentiments  of  sub- 
mission (ver.  21),  and  sat  down  among  the  ashes 
(ch.  ii.  8).  His  friends  came  to  him  by  an  ap- 
pointment among  themselves  to  mourn  with  him 
and  comfort  him  (ver.  i 1 );  they  lift  up  their  voices 
and  wept  upon  a view  of  his  altered  appearance ; 
they  rent  every  man  his  mantle  and  sprinkled 
dust  upon  their  heads  towards  heaven  (ver.  12), 
and  sat  down  with  him  on  the  ground  seven  days 
anti  seven  nights,  waiting  till  his  grief  should 
subside  before  they  commenced  their  office  as 
mourners.  Job  then  bewails  aloud  his  unhappy 
condition  (ch.  iii.).  In  ch.  xvi.  15,  16,  reference 
is  made  to  the  customs  of  sewing  sackcloth  upon 
the  skin,  deliling  the  head  with  dust,  and  suffer- 
ing the  face  to  be  begrimed  with  weeping.  Cla- 
mour in  grief  is  referred  to  (xix.  7 ; xx.  2S)  : 
it  is  considered  a wicked  man  s portion  that  his 
-widows  shall  not  weepr  at  his  death  (xxvii.  15). 
Upon  Job's  recovery  from  his  afflictions  all  his 
relatives  and  acquaintances  bemoan  and  comfort 
him  concerning  his  past  sufferings ; which  seems 
to  have  been  a kind  of  congratulatory  mourning, 
indulged  in  order  to  heighten  the  pleasures  of 
prosperity  by  recalling  associations  of  adversity 
(ch.  xlii.  11).  Indeed,  the  expressions  of  affec- 
tionate joy  and  grief  near!  w coincide.  Joseph  fell 
upon  his  brother  Benjamin  s neck  and  wept  (Gen. 
xiv.  1 1 ; comp.  Acts  xx.  37,  38,  and  Gen.  1.  1). 
However  it  is  to  be  accounted  for,  in  the  course 
cf  the  book  of  lob  nearly  all  the  chief  character- 
istics of  eastern  mourning  are  introduced.  This 
will  appear  as  we  proceed.  The  next  instance  is 
that  of  Abraham,  who  came  to  mourn  and  weep 
for  Sarah  (b.c.  1871),  words  which  denote  a formal 
mourning  (Gen.  xxiii.  2).  Days  of  mourning 
are  referred  to  in  regard  to  the  expected  death  of 
Isaac  (Gen.  xxvii.  41 ).  These  appear  generally  to 
hare  consisted  of  seven,  as  for  Saul  (l  Sam.  xxxi. 


13;  for  Judith  xvi.  24;  comp.  Ecclus.  xxii.  15). 
Weeping  appears  (b.c.  1729),  either  as  one  ohie/ 
expression  of  mourning,  or  as  the  general  name 
for  it.  Hence  when  Deborah,  Rebecca’s  nurse, 
was  buried  at  Bethel  under  an  oak,  at  this  period, 
the  tree  was  called  Allon-bachuth,  the  oak  of 
weeping  (Gen.  xxxv.  8).  The  children  of  Israel 
were  heard  to  weep  by  Moses  throughout  their 
families,  every  man  in  the  door  of  his  tent  (Num. 
xi.  10;  comp.  xiv.  1 ; xxv.  6).  So  numerous  are 
the  references  to  tears  in  the  Scriptures  as  to  give 
the  impression  that  the  Orientals  had  them  nearly 
at  command  (comp.  Ps.  vi.  6).  The  woman 
washed  our  Lord's  feet  with  tears  (Luke  vii.  .38  ; 
comp.  Ecclus.  xxviii.  17).  Weeping,  with  lifting 
up  of  the  voice,  occurs  in  Ruth  i.  9 ; 1 Sam.  ii. 
4 ; 2 Sam.  iii.  31 ; xiii.  36).  Their  exciteable- 
ness  appears  otherwise;  they  shout  for  joy  and 
howl  for  grief,  even  the  ministers  of  the  altar 
(Joel  i.  13  ; Micah  i.  8,  &c.).  Reuben  rent,  his 
clothes  upon  finding  Joseph  gone  (Gen.  xxxvii. 
29),  and  uttered  lamentations  (ver.  30).  Jacob 
rends  his  clothes  and  puts  sackcloth  upon  his 
loins,  and  mourns  for  his  son  many  days;  his  sons 
and  his  daughters  rise  up  to  comfort  him,  and  he 
gives  utterance  to  his  grief ; ‘ thus  his  father  wept 
for  him’  (Gen.  xxxvii.  34,  35).  Joseph's  brothers 
rend  their  clothes  (Gen.  xliv.  13);  and  this  act, 
as  expressive  of  grief  or  horror,  occurs  in  multi- 
tudes of  passages  dow-n  to  the  last  age  of  the 
Jewish  empire  (Acts  xiv.  14).  Scarcely  less 
numerous  are  the  references  to  sackcloth  on  the 
loins  as  an  expression  of  mourning;  we  have  even 
lying  in  sackcloth  (1  Kings  xxi.  27),  and  sack- 
cloth upon  both  man  and  beast  at  Nineveh 
(Jonah  iii.  8).  Joseph's  brethren  fell  to  the 
ground  before  him  in  token  of  grief  (Gen.  xliv. 
14);  and  this,  or  lying,  or  sitting  on  the  ground, 
was  a common  token  of  mourning  (comp.  Ps. 
xxxv.  14;  1 Sam.  xxv.  24;  Isa.  iii.  26;  xlvii.  1; 
Ezek.  xxvi.  10,  &c.).  The  next  incident  in  the 
history  of  the  subject  is  the  mourning  for  Jacob 
by  the  Egyptians,  which  was  conducted,  no  doubt, 
by  professional  mourners  during  threescore  and 
ten  days  (Gen.  1.  *3),  called  the  days  of  mourn- 
ing (ver.  4),  though  most  likely  that  computation 
includes  the  process  of  embalming  (Wilkinson’s 
Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians, 
v.  451,  459).  . It  seems  to  have  amounted  to  \ 
royal  mourning,  doubtless  out  of  regard  to  Jo- 
seph/ Herodotus  states  that  the  Egyptians 
mourned  for  a king  seventy-two  days.  The 
mourning  for  Joseph’s  father  was  renewed  by  Jo- 
seph's command,  with  a very  great  and  sore 
lamentation,  upon  the  funeral  cavalcade  having 
arrived  in  Canaan,  and  continued  seven  days 
(ver.  10).  The  vehemency  of  that  mourning 
seems  to  have  surprised  even  the  Canaanites,  who 
in  consequence  named  the  place  where  it  was 
held  Abel-mizraim,  or  the  mourning  of  the 
Egyptians  (ver.  11).  We  learn  from  Diodorus 
that  at  the  death  of  a king  the  Egyptian  people  tore 
their  garments,  every  temple  was  closed,  sacrifices 
were  forbidden,  and  no  festivals  celebrated.  A 
procession  of  two  or  three  hundred  persons  wan- 
dered through  the  streets,  throwing  dust  and  mud 
upon  their  heads,  and  twice  every  day  sung  a 
funeral  dirge  in  honour  of  the  deceased.  In  the 
mean  time  the  people  abstained  from  baths,  oint- 
ments, every  luxury,  and  e^  en  wheaten  bread 
(i.  72,  91).  Tie  Egyptians  have  ever  been  n- 


MOURNING. 


MOURNING. 

nowned  for  the  vociferation  of  their  grief;  ‘there 
was  a great  cry  in  Egypt  at  the  death  of  tue  first  ■ 
born*  (Exod.  xii.  30).  When  the  children  of 
Israel  (r.c.  1491)  mourned  under  the  threat  of  the 
divine  displeasure,  they  did  not  put  on  their  orna- 
ments (Exod.  xxxiii.  4 ; comp,  duel  ii.  16  ; Ezek. 
xxiv.  17).  At  the  giving  of  the  law  the  modes 
of  mourning  were  regulated  by  several  enact- 
ments. It  was  forbidden  the  Jews  to  make  cut- 
tings in  their  flesh  for  the  dead  (Lev.  xix.  28). 
The  ancient  Egyptians,  according  to  Herodotus, 
did  not  cut  themselves  (ii.  61);  it  was  a Syrian 
custom,  as  appears  from  the  votaries  of  Baal 
(l  Kings  xviii.  28);  nor  were  the  Jews  allowed 
to  make  any  baldness  between  their  eyes  for  the 
dead  (Dent.  xiv.  1).  The  priests  were  forbidden 
to  uncover  the  head  in  mourning  (Lev.  x.  6),  or 
to  rend  the'ir  clothes,  or  to  contract  the  ceremonial 
defilement  involved  in  mourning  except  for  their 
nearest  kindred  (Lev.  xxi.  1,  4);  but  the  high- 
priest  was  entirely  forbidden  to  do  so  even  for  his 
father  or  his  mother  (ver.  11),  and  so  was  the  Na- 
zarite  (Num.  vi.  7).  These  prohibitions  respecting 
the  head  and  the  beard  (Lev.  xix.  27)  seem  to  have 
been  restricted  to  funeral  occasions,  as  the  customs 
referred  to  were  lawfully  practised  on  other  sor- 
rowful events  (comp.  Ezra  ix.  3;  Job  i.  20;  Isa. 
xxii.  12;  Jer.  vii.  29;  Micah  i.  16).  Even  the 
food  eaten  by  mourners  was  considered  unclean 
(comp.  Deut.  xxvi.  14,  with  Hos.  ix.  4 ; Ezek. 
xxiv.  17).  The  Jews  were  commanded  to  afflict 
their  souls  on  the  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  xxiii. 
27),  and  at  the  Feast  of  Trumpets  (Num.  xxix.  7). 
All  the  house  of  Israel  mourned  for  Aaron  thirty 
days  (Num.  xx.  29).  The  beautiful  captive, 
whom  the  law  permitted  to  marry,  was  l-equired 
first  to  bewail  her  father  and  mother  a full  month, 
and  the  requisitions  that  she  should  shave  her 
head  and  pare  her  nails  have  been  by  some  con- 
sidered signs  of  mourning  (Deut.  xxi.  11,  13). 
The  Israelites  wept  for  Moses  thirty  days,  called 
the  days  of  weeping  and  mourning  for  Moses 
(Deut.  xxxiv.  8 ; b.c.  1451).  Joshua  and  the 
elders  of  Israel  put  dust  upon  their  heads  at  the 
defeat  of  Ai,  and  fasted  (Josh.  vii.  6),  as  did  the 
eleven  tribes  after  the  defeat  at  Gibeah,  and  wept 
(Judg.  xx.  26),  as  did  all  the  Israelites  at  the 
command  of  Joshua,  on  which  occasion  it  is  said 
‘they  drew  water  and  poured  it  out  before  the 
Lord’  (1  Sam.  vii.  6;  comp.  Ps.  xxii.  14).  The 
prophet.  Joel  commanded  a fast  as  part  of  a na- 
tional, mourning.  A fast  is  proclaimed  to  all  the 
inhabitants  or  visitors  at  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxxvi.  9 ; 
comp.  Zech.  vii.  5).  Fasting  is  practised  at 
Nineveh  as  part  of  a public  humiliation  (Jonah 
iii.  5).  In  our  Lord's  language,  ‘ to  fast’  and 
‘to  mourn’  are  the  same  thing  (Matt.  ix.  15). 
Public  humiliations  attended  with  religious  as- 
semblies and  prayers  (Joel  ii.  16,  17) ; with  fasts 
(Isa.  lviii.  3)  ; see  all  these  united  (l  Macc.  iii. 
44,  47,  48).  The  first  complete  description  of 
mourning  for  the  dead  occurs  in  2 Sam.  iii.  31,  35, 
where  David  commands  Joab  and  all  the  people 
that  were  with  him  to  rend  their  clothes,  gird 
themselves  with  sackcloth,  and  mourn  for  Abner ; 
and  David  himself  followed  the  bier,  and  they 
buried  Abner  in  Hebron;  and  the  king  lifted  up 
jiis  voice  and  wept  at  the  grave  ot  Abner,  and 
all  the  people  wept,  and  David  fasted  two  days, 
and  wrote  a lam  rotation  for  the  deceased.  Ele- 
gie*  urere  composed  by  the  prophets  on  several 


365 

disastrous  occasions  (Ezek  xxvi.  1-18;  xxvii. 
1-36;  Amos  v.  1,  &e.).  The  incident  at 
Jephlhah’s  daughter  (h.c.  1187)  is  too  uncertain 
to  afford  any  index  to  the  modes  of  mourning  at 
that  era.  It  appears  that  she  was  allowed  two 
months  to  bewail  her  virginity,  with  her  compa- 
nions, and  that  the  Jewish  women  of  that  country 
went  some  where  yearly  to  lament  or  celebrate 
her  (Judg.  xi.  37-40)  [Jephthah].  In  Ps. 
xxxv.,  which  is  ascribed  to  David,  there  is  a 
description  of  the  humiliations  practised  by  the 
friends  of  the  sick,  in  order  1o  procure  their  reco- 
very : ‘ When  they  were  sick  my  clothing  was 
sackcloth;  I humbled  my  soul  with  lasting;  I 
behaved  as  if  it,  had  been  a friend  or  a brother;  I 
bowed  down  heavily,  as  one  that  mourneth  for  his 
mother  ;’  where  different  modes  of  mourning seerr. 
adverted  to  for  different  occasions.  Samuel  1 
honoured  with  a public  mourning  by  the  Israel- 
ites (1  Sam.  xxv.  1),  B.c.  1058.  Upon  the  death 
of  Saul,  David  wrote  an  elegy  (2  Sam.  i.  17-27). 
This,  like  that  upon  the  death  of  Aimer,  seems  tr 
be  a poetical  description  of  the  character  of  the 
departed,  like  the  dirge  for  an  Egyptian  king 


Lifting  up  the  hands  seems  1o  have  been  an  ex- 
pression of  grief  (Ps.  cxli.  2;  Lam.  i.  17;  Ezra 
ix.  5).  Messengers  were  sent  to  condole  with  sur- 
vivors ; thus  David  sent  such  to  Hanun,  king  of 
Ammon,  upon  the  death  of  his  father  (2  Sam.  x.  1, 
2)  ; ‘ Many  of  the  Jews  came  to  comfort  Martha 
and  Mary  ’ (John  xi.  19)  ; ‘A  great  company  of 
women  attended  our  Lord  to  the  cross,  bewailing 
and  lamenting  him’ (Luke  xxiii.  27);  ‘Much 
people  1 were  with  the  widow  of  Nain  (Luke  vii. 
12).  Indeed,  if  persons  met  a funeral  procession 
they  were  expected  to  join  it — a custom  which  is 
thought  to  illustrate  St.  Paul's  words,  ‘Weep 
with  them  that  weep'  (Rom.  xii.  15).  Herodotus 
relates  that  when  Cambyses  bewailed  his  calami- 
ties, the  Persians  tore  their  garments  and  expressed 
their  grief  aloud  (iii.  66).  The  next  incident  in 
historical  order  is  die  mourning  of  Bathsheba  for 
Uriah  (2  Sam.  xi.  26).  David,  in  deprecation 
of  the  death  of  his  son  by  her,  prayed  to  God  for 
the  child,  fasted,  and  lay  all  night  upon  the  earth. 
Ashes  were  often  laid  on  the  head  in  token  of 
mourning ; thus  ‘ Tamar  put  ashes  on  her  head 


MOURNING. 


MOURNING. 


3*86 


rent  her  garme  nt,  and  laid  her  hand  upon  her 
nead,  and  went  on  crying'  (2  Sam.  xiii.  19,  20; 
com]).  Isa.  lxi.  d ; 2 Esdras  ix.  08).  They  even 
wallowed  in  ashes  (Ezek.  xxvii.  30).  Mourning 
apparel  is  first  mentioned  in  2 Sam.  xiv.  2,  where 
it  appears  that  the  wearer  did  not  anoint  himself 
with  oil  (com]).  Matt.  vi.  17).  In  Egypt  the 
common  people  allowed  their  beards  to  grow  when 
mourning  (Herod,  ii.  36  ; comp.  2 Sam.  xix.  24). 
The  first  reference  to  hired  mourners  occurs  in 
Eccles.  xii.  5,  ‘ The  mourners  D'“721Dn  go  about 
the  streets.'  (The  root  of  this  word,  observes  Gese- 
nius,  signifies  ‘ a mournful  noise,’  and  he  adduces 
Mi  call  i.  8;  Jer.  xxii.  18;  xxxiv.  5).  They  are 
certainly  alluded  to  in  Jer.  ix.  17-20,  ‘ the  mourn- 
ing women  ’ (probably  widows,  comp.  Ps.  lxxviii. 
64;  Acts  ix.  39),  answering  to  the  Praeficae  of 
the  Romans  (comp.  Ilor.  Ars  Poet.  429).  Ano- 
ther reference  to  them  occurs  in  2 Chron.  xxxv. 
25;  comp.  Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  9.  5.  The 
greater  number  of  the  mourners  in  ancient  Egypt 
were  women,  as  in  the  modern  East.  In  the  fol- 
lowing cut  (No.  407)  mourners,  all  females,  are 


shown  casting  dust  upon  their  heads  before  the 
mummy  of  a man.  Mourning  for  the  dead  was 
conducted  in  a tumultuous  manner;  they  also 
wept  and  wailed  greatly  (Mark  v.  38).  Even 
devout  men  made  great  lamentations  (Acts  viii. 
2).  When  any  one  died  in  ancient  Egypt  the 
females  of  his  family  covered  their  faces  with 
mud,  ran  through  the  streets  with  their  bosoms 
exposed,  striking  themselves,  and  uttering  loud 
lamentations;  they  were  joined  as  they  went 
by  neighbours  and  friends,  and,  if  the  deceased 
was  of  consequence,  by  strangers  also.  The  men, 
girding  their  dress  below  their  waist,  ran  through 
the  town,  smiting  their  breast,  and  throwing  mud 
upon  their  heads  (Herod,  ii.  85  ; Diod.  Sic.  i.  9i). 
The  modern  lamentations  in  Cairo  seem  to  resem- 
ble the  ancient.  The  mourners  are  said  to  parade 
the  streets,  crying  ‘ Oh,  my  misfortune  !’  ‘ Oh,  my 
brother!’  ‘ 01),  my  master!’  ‘Oh,  lord  of  the 
house!’  &c.  The  similarity  is  striking  between 
such  exclamations  and  the  following:  Jephthah’s 
‘Alas,  my  daughter!’  David's  ‘Oh,  Absalom, 
my  sou  ; my  son  Absalom  !’  (2  Sam.  xviii.  33.) 
‘ Alas,  my  brother!’  (1  Kings  xiii.  30).  ‘Ah,  my 
brother!  ah,  my  sister!  ah,  Lord,  or  ah,  his  glory’ 
(Jer.  xxii.  18).  See  Lane’s  Modern  Egyptians , 
ii.  286. 

A nong  other  signs  of  mourning  they  shaved 
the  bead,  and  even  tore  off  the  hair  (Amos  viii. 
10;  Micah  i.  16;  Isa.  xv.  2;  xxii.  12;  Jer.  vii. 
29)  Ezra  plucked  off  the  hair  of  his  head  and  of 


his  beard  (Ezra  ix.  3 ; Joseph.  Antiq.  xvi.  7.  &)- 
The  Jews  went  up  to  the  house-tops  to  mourn 
(Isa.  xv.  2,  3 ; xxii.  1);  and  so  did  the  Moabites 


(Jer.  xl viii.  37,  38;  Judith  viii.  5).  They  also 
made  cuttings  in  their  hands  (Jer.  xlviii.  37,  38); 
they  smote  upon  the  thigh  (Jer.  xxxi.  19  ; Ezek. 
xxi.  12)  ; on  the  breast  (Nahum  ii.  7 ; Luke  xviii. 
lo  ; xxiii.  48 ; they  smote  both  hands  together 
(N  um.  xxiv.  10),  stamped  with  the  foot  (Ezek. 
vi.  11),  bowed  down  the  head  (Lam.  ii.  10), 
covered  the  lips  (Micah  iii.  7),  the  face  (2  Sam. 
xix.  4),  and  the  head  (2  Sam.  xv.  3d),  and  went 
barefoot  (2  Sam.  xv.  30).  Neighbours  and  friends 
provided  food  for  the  mourners  (2  Sam.  iii.  35 ; 
Jer.  xvi.  7;  comp.  Ezek.  xxiv.  17);  this  was 
called  4 the  bread  of  bitterness,’  ‘ the  cup  of  con- 
solation.’ In  later  times  the  Jews  had  a custom  of 
giving  bread  to  the  poor,  at  funerals,  and  leaving 
it  for  their  use  at  tombs,  graves,  &c.,  which 
resembles  the  Roman  visceratio  (Tobit  iv.  17  ; 
Ecclus.  xxx.  8).  Women  went  to  tombs  to 
indulge  their  grief  (John  xi.  31);  anniversary 
mournings  (l  Esdras  i.  22).  The  extravagance 
of  mourning  among  the  Greeks  is  ridiculed  by 


[409.  Mourning  the  Dead — Etruscan.] 

Lucian  (De  Lucta ),  who  describes  tiiem  as  expos- 
tulating with  the  dead  for  leaving  them,  &c.,  and 
other  particulars  similar  to  an  Irish  wake.  It  is 
difficult  to  ascertain  the  philosophy  of  mourning. 
Potter  thinks  that  it  consisted  in  receding  as  much 
as  possible  from  ordinary  customs  and  manners, 
in  token  that  an  extraordinary  event  had  hap- 
pened, and  observes  that  such  is  the  diversity  of 
human  customs  that  the  signs  of  mourning  in 
some  nations  coincide  with  those  of  joy  in  others 
( Archceologia  Grceca,  ii.  194,  195,  Lond.  1775). 
Although,  no  doubt,  man’'  modes  of  mourning 
are  conventional,  and  or.ginated  in  caprice,  yet 
there  would  seem  to  be  physical  reasons  for  cer- 
tain forms  which  have  so  widely  and  permanently 
prevailed.  Shaving  the  head  may  be  a dictate  of 
nature  to  relieve  the  excited  brain.  Plucking  the 
hair  is  well  calculated  to  assuage  the  action  of 
some  particular  organs,  to  which  the  sensations  of 
the  individual  may  be  a sufficient  guide.  Beat* 


MOUSE. 


MUSIC. 


567 


ing  the  breast  may  relieve  the  heart,  oppressed 
with  a tumultuous  circulation.  Cutting  may  be 
the  effect  of  nat  ure's  indication  of  bleeding.  Cry- 
ing aloud  certainly  diverts  the  attention  from 
anguish  of  mind  or  body.  Tearing  and  rending 
seem  to  palliate  nervous  irritation,  &c.  (Carpzov, 
De  cinerurn  ap.  Ilebr.  usu  matrons  atque  luctus , 
Rostock  ; Kivchmann,  De  Funer.  Roman. ; J.  Q. 
Hedenus,  De  Scissione  Vest.  Ebreeis  ac  Gentibus 
usitata , Jen.  1665;  or  in  Ugolini,  Thesaurus, 
29;  Wichmannshausen,  De  Laceratione  Vestium 
ap.  Ilebr.  Viteb. ; also  in  Ugolini,  Thesaurus , 
3‘df  Wichmannshausen,  De  Corpore  Scissuris 
ftgurisque  non  cruentando,  Viteb. ; J.  G.  Mi- 
chael is,  De  Incisura  super  mortuos,  in  Observatt. 
tfacr. — J.  F.  D. 


MOUSE  (“lSpy  achbar ; perhaps  generically 
including  aliarbai  or  jerboa , or  parah  of 

the  Arabs).  The  word  occurs  where,  it  seems, 
the  nomenclature  in  modern  zoology  would  point 
out  two  species  of  distinct  genera  (Lev.  xi. 
29;  1 Sam.  vi.  4,  5,  11,  18;  Isa.  lxvi.  17). 
The  radical  meaning  of  the  name,  according  to 
Bochart,  designates  a field  ravager,  one  that 
devours  the  produce  of  agriculture,  and  there- 
fore is  applicable  to  several  genera  of  Rodentia, 
&c.,  notwithstanding  that  the  learned  etymo- 
logist would  confine  it  to  the  jerboa  or  jump- 
ing-mouse of  Syria  and  Egypt,  although  that 
animal  is  not  abundant  in  the  first- mentioned  re- 
gion, and  even  in  the  second  is  restricted  almost 
exclusively  to  the  desert,  as  it  can  live  without 
water.  Bochart,  it  is  true,  cites  examples  of  the 
ravages  committed  by  murine  animals  in  divers 
localities;  but  among  them  several  are  pointed  out 
where  the  jerboa  is  rare,  or  not  found  at  all ; con- 
sequently they  apply  not  to  that  species,  but  to 
seme  other  Rodent.  It  is  likely  that  the  Hebrews 
extended  the  acceptation  of  the  word  achbar,  in 
the  same  manner  as  was  the  familiar  custom  of 
the  Greeks,  and  still  more  of  the  Romans,  who 
included  within  their  term  mus,  insectivora  of 
the  genus  sorex,  that  is  ‘shrews;’  carnivora, 
among  which  was  the  Mustela  erminea,  ‘stoat’  or 
‘ermine,’  their  Mus  ponticus  ; and  in  the  syste- 
matic order  Rodentia,  the  muridee  contain  Myoxus 
ylis  or  fat  dormouse;  Dipus  jaculus  or  Egyptian 
jerboa;  Mas,  rats  and  mice  properly  so  called, 
constituting  several  modern  genera ; and  cricetus 
or  hamster,  which  includes  the  marmot  or  Roman 
Mus  Alpinus.  This  was  a natural  result  of  the 
imperfect  state  of  zoological  science,  where  a 
somewhat  similar  external  appearance  was  often 
held  sufficient,  for  bestowing  a general  name  which, 
when  more  remarkable  particulars  required  fur- 
ther distinction,  received  some  trivial  addition  of 
quality  or  native  country,  or  a second  local  desig- 
nation, as  in  the  present  case ; for,  according  to 
some  Biblical  critics,  the  jerboa  may  have  been 
Known  also  by  the  name  of  shaphan.  In 
the  above  texts,  all  in  1 Sam.  vi.  apparently  refer 
to  the  short-tailed  field-mouse,  which  is  still  the 
most  destructive  animal  to  the  harvests  of  Syria, 
and  is  most  likely  the  species  noticed  in  antiquity 
and  during  the  crusades;  for,  had  they  been  jerboas 
in  shape  and  resembled  miniature  kangaroos,  we 
would  expect  W illiam  of  Tyre  to  have  mentioned 
the  peculiar  form  of  the  destroyers,  which  was 
then  unknown  to  Western  Europe;  whereas,  they 


being  of  species  or  appearance  common  to  the 
Latin  nations,  no  particulars  were  required.  But 
in  Leviticus  and  Isaiah,  where  the  mouse  is  de- 
clared an  unclean  animal,  the  species  most  ac- 
cessible and  likely  to  invite  the  appetite  of 
nations  who,  like  the  Arabs,  were  apt  to  covet  all 
kinds  of  animals,  even  when  expressly  forbidden, 
were,  no  doubt,  the  hamster  and  the  dormouse  ; 
and  both  are  still  eaten  in  common  with  the 
jerboa,  by  the  Bedoueeiis,  who  are  but  too  often 
driven  to  extremity  by  actual  want  of  food. — 

C.  II.  S. 

MOUTH  (HD).  The  ordinary  applications 
of  this  word,  common  to  all  languages,  require  no 
explanation;  but  the  following  somewhat  pecu- 
liar uses  may  be  noted  : ‘ Heavy-mouthed,’  that 
is,  slow  of  speech,  and  so  translated  in  Exod.  iv. 
10;  ‘smooth  mouth’  (Ps.  xxvi.  28),  that  is,  a 
flattering  mouth;  so  also  ‘a  mouth  of  deceit’ 
(Ps.  cix.  2).  The  following  are  also  remarkable 
phrases:  ‘To  speak  with  one  mouth  to  mouth,’ 
that  is,  in  person,  without  the  intervention  of  an 
interpreter  (Num.  xii.  8 ; comp.  1 Kings  viii.  15 ; 
Jer.  xxxii.  4).  ‘With  one  mouth,’  that  is,  with 
one  voice  or  consent  (Josh.  ix.  2;  1 Kings  xxii. 
13  ; 2 Chron.  xviii.  12).  ‘ With  the  whole  mouth,’ 
that  is,  with  the  utmost  strength  of  voice  (Job 
xix.  16;  Ps.  lxvi.  17).  ‘ To  put  words  into  one's 

mouth,’  that  is,  to  suggest  what  one  shall  say 
(Exod.  iv.  15  ; Num.  xxii.  38  ; xxiii.  5,  12  ; 

2 Sam.  xiv.  19,  &c.).  ‘ To  be  in  one’s  mouth,’ 

is  to  be  often  spoken  of,  as  a law,  & c.  (Exod.  xiii. 

9 ; comp.  Ps.  v.  10  ; xxxviii.  15).  The  Hebrew 
also  says,  ‘ upon  the  mouth,’  where  we  say,  and 
indeed  our  translation  says,  in  or  into  the  mouth 
(e.  g.  Nah.  iii.  12)  ; that  which  is  spoken  is  also 
said  to  be  ‘ upon  the  mouth,’  where  we  should 
say,  ‘ upon  the  lips’  (as  in  2 Sam.  xiii.  32).  ‘ To 
lay  the  hand  upon  the  mouth  ’ is  to  be  silent 
(Judg.  xviii.  19  ; Job  xxi.  5 ; xl.  4 ; comp.  Prov. 
xxx.  32),  just  as  we  lay  the  finger  on  the  mouth 
to  eujoin  silence.  ‘ To  write  from  the  mouth  of 
anyone’  is  to  do  so  from  his  dictation  (Jer- 
xxxvi.  4,  27,  32;  xlv.  1). 

The  mouth,  as  the  organ  of  speech,  also  sig- 
nifies the  words  that,  proceed  out  of  it,  which  in 
the  sacred  style  are  the  same  as  commands  and 
actions,  because  they  imply  the  effects  of  the 
thoughts;  words  and  commands  being  the  means 
used  to  communicate  decrees  to  those  who  are 
to  execute  them.  Instances  of  this  abound  in 
Scripture,  in  various  shades  of  application,  but 
few  of  them  are  preserved  in  translation.  Thus 
(Gen.  xlv.  12),  ‘according  to  the  commandment 
of  Pharaoh,’  is  in  the  original,  ‘ according  to  the 
mouth  of  Pharaoh  ’ (comp.,  among  numerous 
other  examples,  Num.  iii.  16  ; Job  xxxix.  27  ; 
Eccles.  viii.  2).  Hence,  for  a person  or  thing  to 
come  out  of  the  mouth  of  another  is  to  be  con- 
stituted or  commanded  to  become  an  agent  or 
minister  under  a superior  power  : this  is  frequent 
in  the  Revelations  (Rev.  xvi.  13,  14;  i.  16;  xi. 
4,5;  xii.  15;  ix.  19).  The  term  mouth  is  not 
only  applied  to  a speech  or  words,  but  to  the 
speaker  (Exod.  iv.  16  ; Jer.  xv.  19),  in  which 
sense  it  has  a near  equivalent  in  our  expression 
‘ mouth  piece.’ 

MULBERRY-TREE.  [Baca.] 

MUSIC.  It  seems  probable  that  music  is  the 
oldest  of  all  the  tine  arts.  It  is  more  than  any  otbar 


3GS 


MUSIC. 


MUSIC. 


an  immediate  work  of  nature.  Hence  we  find  it 
among  all  nations,  even  those  which  are  totally 
ignorant  of  every  other  art.  Some  instruments 
of  music  are  in  Scripture  named  even  before 
the  deluge,  as  being  invented  by  Jubal,  one  of 
Cain’s  descendants  (Gen.  iv.  21) ; and  some 
will  regard  this  as  continued  by  the  common 
opinion  of  the  Orientals.  Chardin  relates  that 
the  Persians  and  Arabians  call  musicians  and 
singers  Kayne , or  ‘ descendants  from  Cain.’  The 
instruments  invented  hy  Jubal  seem  to  have  re- 
mained in  use  after  the  flood,  or  at  least,  the 
names  were  still  in  use,  and  occur  in  the  latest 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Music,  in  practical 
use,  is  almost  constantly  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  song  and  the  dance  (Gen.  xxxi.27  ; Exod. 
xv.  20),  and  was  doubtless  employed  to  elevate 
the  former  and  regulate  the  latter.  Women  es- 
pecially are  seen  io  have  employed  it  in  this  con- 
nection from  the  earliest  times  (Exod.  xv.  20 ; 
Judg.  xi.  34  ; 1 Sam.  xviii.  6).  At  a later 
period  we  trace  the  appearance  of  foreign  girls  in 
Palestine,  as  in  Greece  and  Italy,  who  visited 
the  towns  like  t he  Bayaderes  of  the  present  day 
(Isa.  xxiii.  16).  Music  was  also  through  all 
Deriods  used  in  social  meetings,  and  in  public 
rejoicings  (1  Kings  i.  40  ; Isa.  v.  12;  xiv.  11; 
xxiv.  8;  Amos  vi.  5 ; Hag.  v.  14;  1 Macc.  ix. 
39;  Judith  iii.  8).  By  David  music  was  vari- 
ously and  conspicuously  connected  with  the 
temple  worship  ( I Chron.  xxv.  1);  in  ptrticular, 
the  Levites,  in  their  several  choirs,  performed  their 
music  divided  into  different.  classes  at  the  great 
sacrifices  (2  Chron.  xxix.  25  ; xxx.  21  ; xxxv. 
15).  The  prophets  also  appear  to  have  regarded 
music  as  necessary  to  their  services  (1  Sam  x. 
5)  ; and  they  used  it  sometimes  for  the  purpose, 
apparently,  of  bringing  their  minds  into  the 
frame  suited  for  prophetic  inspirations  (2  Kings 
iii.  15).  In  the  case  of  David  playing  before 
Saul,  we  have  marked  and  interesting  evidence 
x mt  the  effect  of  music  in  soothing  t lie  perturba- 
sions  of  a disordered  intellect,  was  well  known 
among  the  Hebrews  (1  Sam.  xvi.  Id). 

It  would  be  truly  interesting  to  know  to  what 
extent  the  Israelites,  during  their  sojourn  in 
Egypt,  where  they  became  a nation,  profited  by 
the  musical  science  and  instruments  of  that  coun- 
try. It  is  impossible  but  the  patriarchs  had  some 
kind  of  music  and  musical  instruments  before 
they  journeyed  thither;  hut  the  presence  of  music 
among  the  Israelites  is  not  positively  indicated 
till  after  the  exoue.  If  we  could  rely  on  the 
assumption  that  the  celebrated  painting  at  Beni- 
Hassan  really  represents  tne  arrival  of  the  Israel- 
ites in  Egypt,  we  should  r lienee  learn  that  they 
were  in  possession  of  a lyre  peculiar  to  themselves, 
or  more  probably  adopted  from  the  Canaanites. 
Whatever  instruments  they  had  before  they  went 
down  to  Egypt  they  doubtless  retained,  although 
they  may  have  added  to  their  musical  science  and 
their  instruments  while  in  that  country.  One 
people  adopts  the  musical  instruments  of  another, 
without  also  adopting  its  music.  If  we  find 
this  to  be  the  case  now,  how  much  more  so  in 
those  ancient  times,  when  the  absence  of  musical 
notation  made  every  air  a matter  of  tradition — 
since  the  traditions  of  one  people  are  not  usually 
imparted  to  foreigners,  or  sought  after  by  a foreign 
people.  Hence,  although  we  have  no  doubt  that 
the  musical  instruments  which  we  read  of  in 


Scripture  may  find  their  types  in  the  Egyptian 
monuments,  we  are  unable  even  to  conjecture  hoi 
much  they  were  indebted  to  the  music  of  tha 
people,  of  which  indeed  we  know  almost  as  little 
as  of  that  of  the  Hebrews,  although  we  know  more 
of  their  instruments. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  mus.c  and  song 
were  cultivated  in  the  region  from  which  the 
Israelites  first  came  (Gen.  xxxi.  27\  and  that 
there  must  have  been  in  the  party  which  Abraham 
brought  from  Aram,  and  in  (he  larger  party  which 
Jacob  took  into  Egypt,  many  persons  by  whom  this 
native  music  was  practised,  and  to  whom  it  was 
dear ; and  they  were  almost  certain  to  preserve  and 
transmit  it  to  their  children.  In  Egypt  they  were 
in  the  midst  of  a people  infinitely  their  superiors  in 
all  the  arts  of  civilization,  in  consequence  of  which 
they  were  kept  more  apart,  anti  likely  to  adopt 
less  from  them  than  if  the  resemblance  had  been 
greater.  Their  condition  was  also  soon  changed 
into  one  of  intolerable  bondage — a state  in  the 
highest  degree  unfavourable  to  the  cultivation  of 
music  and  its  kindred  arts,  although  there  were 
doubtless  among  the  Israelites  many  individuals 
who  were  led  by  circumstances  or  inclination 
to  cultivate  the  learning  and  the  arts  of  Egypt, 
among  which  music  was  not  likely  to  be  forgotten. 
The  conclusion  we  should  he  disposed  to  deduce 
from  this  is,  that  the  native  music  of  the  Israelites 
was  much  of  the  same  kind  which  exists  in  Syria 
and  Western  Asia  to  this  day,  and  that  the  instru- 
ments resembled  the  most  simple  of  those  in  pre- 
sent use,  while  we  must  be  content  to  remain  in 
ignorance  respecting  the  measure  of  that  im- 
provement in  musical  science  which  they  may 
be  supposed  to  have  derived  from  the  Egyptians  ; 
although  with  respect  to  the  instruments  much 
information  may  he  collected  from  the  monu- 
ments of  that  ancient  people. 

With  respect  to  the  nat me  of  the  Hebrew  music, 
it  was  doubtless  of  the  same  essential  character  as 
that  of  other  ancient  nations,  and  of  all  the  present 
Oriental  nations;  consisting  not  so  much  in  har- 
mony (in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term)  as  in 
unison  or  melody.  This  is  the  music  of  nature, 
and  for  a long  time  after  the  more  ancient  period 
was  common  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 
From  the  Hebrews  themselves  we  have  no  definite 
accounts  in  reference  to  this  subject;  but  *be 
history  of  the  art  among  other  nations  must  r.ere 
also  serve  as  our  guide.  It  was  not  the  har- 
mony of  differing  or  dissonant  sounds,  hut  the 
voice  formed  after  the  tones  of  the  lyre,  that  con- 
stituted the  beauty  of  the  ancient  music. 

‘ Tu  calamos  inflate  leves,  ego  dicere  versus,’ 
was  the  general  rule  followed  in  the  musical 
rhapsodies  of  the  ancients,  and  which  so  enrap- 
tured the  Arabian  servant  of  Niebuhr,  that  he 
cried  out,  in  contempt  of  European  music,  ‘ By 
Allah,  that  is  fine!  God  bless  you! ' ( Reisebeschreib . 
nach  Arabien , p.  176).  The  whole  of  antiquity 
is  full  of  stories  in  praise  of  this  music.  By  its 
means  battles  were  won,  cities  conquered,  mutinies 
quelled,  diseases  cured  (Plutarch,  De  Music  a'). 
Effects  similar  to  these  occur  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  have  already  been  indicated.  Why  are 
these  effects  so  seldom  produced  by  our  music? 
Are  they  among  the  things  in  music  yet  to  be 
restored?  The  different  parts  which  we  now  have 
are  the  invention  of  modern  times.  Respecting 
the  base,  treble,  &c.,  very  few  discriminating  re- 


MUSIC. 

marks  had  then  been  made.  Tlte  old,  the  young, 
maidens,  &c.,  appear  to  have  sung  one  part.  The 
heauiy  of  their  music  consisted  altogether  in  me- 
lody. The  instruments  by  which,  in  singing,  this 
melody  was  accompanied,  occupied  the  part  of  a 
sustained  baseband,  if  we  are  disposed  to  apply 
in  this  case  what  Niebuhr  has  told  us,  ihe  beauty 
of  the  concerts  consisted  in  this — that  other  persons 
repeated  the  mu'sic  which  had  just  been  sung, 
three,  four,  or  five  notes,  lower  or  higher.  *Such, 
for  instance,  was  the  concert  which  Miriam  held 
■with  her  musical  fellows,  and  to  which  the  ‘ topli, 
or  tahret,  furnished  the  continued  base  ;- just,  as 
Niebuhr  has  also  remarked  of  the  Arabian  women 
of  the  present-day,  ‘ that  when  they  dance  or  sing 
in  their  harem,  they  always  beat  the  correspond- 
ing time  upon  this  drum  ( Reiseb . i.  181).  To 
this  mode  of  performance  belongs  the  24th  Psalm, 
which'  rests  altogether  upon  the  varied  representa- 
tion ; in  like  manner,  also,  the  20th  and  21st 
Psalms.  This  was  all  the  change  it  admitted; 
^.nd  although  it  is  very  possible  that  this  mono- 
^mous,  or  rather  unisonous  music,  might  not  be 
Interesting  to  ears-  tuned  to  musical  progressions, 
sr.odulations,  and  cadences,  there  is  something  m 
5:  with  which,  the  Orientals  are  well  pleased. 
They  love  it  for  the  very  reason  that  it  h mono- 
tonous or  unisonous,  and  from  Morocco  to  China 
we  meet  with  no  other.  Even  the  cultivated 
Chinese,  whose  civilization  oilers  so  many  points 
of  resemblance  to,  that  of  the  ancient  Egyptians, 
like,  their  own  ipusic,  which  consists  wholly  of 
Melody,  better  than  curs,  although  it  is  not 
fiifSiolly  despised  by  them  (Du  Halde  s China,  iii. 
$16). 

A music  of  . this  description  could  easily  dis- 
pense with  the  compositions  which  mark  the  time 
by  Holes ; and  the  Hebrews  do  not  ap$>ear  to  have 
known  anything- of  musical  notation;  for  that  the 
accents  served  that  purpose  is  a position  which  yet 
remains  to  he  prpved.  At  the  best  the  accent  must 
have  been  a very  imperfect  instrument  for  this 
purpose,  however  high  ir^  antiquity.  Europeans 
nad  not  yet  attained  to  musical  notes  in  the  11th 
century  ; and  the  Orientals  do  not  profess  to  ha^e 
Known  them  till  the  17th.  On  the  other  hand, 

the  word  r&D  sclak,  whicbcccurs  in  the  P/alms 

and  Habakkuk,  may  very  possibly  be  a mark  for 
the  change  of  time,  or.  lor  repeating  the  melody 
a few  tones  higher,  or,  as  some  think,  for  an  ac- 
companiment or  after-piece  of  entirely  instru- 
EH'ental  music.  - 

The  Hebrew  music  is  judged  to  have  been  of  a 
slaill  character;  for  this  would  result  from  the 
nature  of  the  instruments  — harps,  flutes,  ami 
cymbals — which  were  employed  in  the  temple 
service. 

The  manner  of  singing  single  songs  was,  it 
seems,  ruled  by  that  of  others  in  the  same  mea- 
sure, and  it  is  usually  supposed  that  many  of  the 
titles  of  fee  Psalms  are  intended  to  indicate  the 
names  of  other  songs  according  to  which  these 
were  to  be  sung  [Psaj.ms]. 

There  is  a notion  somewhat  widely  diffused, 
that  in  their  sacred  services  the  Hebrews  drs- 
jiensed  with  reul  melody,  and  contented  them- 
selves v/ifh  such  cantillation  as  they  now  use  in 
their  synagogues.  This  seems  very  doubtful. 
On  Such  a subject  it  is  -not.  safe  to  argue  from  the 
practice  of  the  mpclew  Jews ; and  as  singing  b 

VQJW2.  25 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS.  3GZ 

something  so  exceedingly  simple  and  natural,  i» 
is  difiiciilt.  to  believr  that  in  tbe  solemn  services 
of  their  religion  they  stopped  at  the  point  of  can- 
tillation. 

The  allusions  to  music  in  the  Scriptures  are  to 
incidental  and  concise,  that  it  will  never  tie  pos- 
sible to  forth  out  of  them  a complete  or  connected 
view  of  tbe  stale  of  musical  science  among  the 
ancient  Hebiews.  The  little  knowledge  which 
has  beeir  realized*  on  the  subject  has  been  ob- 
tained chiefly  through  the  patient  labours  and 
minute  investigations  of  the  authors  named  at  the 
end  of  the  next  article. 

MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS.  It  is  less 
difficult  to  determine  the  general  character  of  the 
Hebrew  instruments  of  music,  than  to  identify  tbe 
particular  instruments  which  are  named  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  We  see  certain  instruments 
different  from  our  own  in  use  among  the  modern 
Orientals,  and  we  infer  that  the  Hebrew  instru- 
ments were  probably  not  unlike  these,  because 
the  Orientals  change  but  little,  and  we  recognise 
in  them  the  peoples,  and  among  them  the  habits 
and  the  manners  described  in  the  Bible.  We  see 
other  instruments  represented  in  great  variety  in 
thjf  sculptures  and  mural  tablets  of  the  Egyptians ; 
and  we  conclude  that  the  Hebrews  had  something 
similar,  on  account  of  their  long  sojourn  among 
.that  people.  We  find  also  many  instruments 
presented  in  the  sculptures  of  Greece  and  Rome, 
and  we  need  not  ret  use  to  draw  infeiences  Iron* 
them,  for  they  derived  their  origin  from  the 
East,  and  the  Romans  distinctly  refer'  them 
to  Syria  (Juv.  Sat*  iii.;  Liv.  Ih&t.  xxxix.  5). 
When,  however,  we  endeavour  to  identify  witii 
these  a particular  instrument  named  by  the  He- 
brews, our  difficulty  begins  ; because  the  Hebrew 
names  are  seldom  to  he  recognised  in  those  whidE 
they  notv  bear,  and  because  the  Scripture  afiorus 
us  little  information  respecting  the  form  of  the  in- 
struments which  it  mentions.  There  are  some  eluea^ 
however,  it  is  likely  that  the  Gieek3  and  Ro- 
mans retained  the  names  of  the  instruments  they 
derived  from  Syria,  and  these  names  have  been 
preserved.  The  Orientals  also  have  for  the  most 
part  retained  the  original  names  of  things  really 
old  ; and  by  comparing  these  names  with  tbe 
Hebrew,  and  then  examining  the  instruments  to 
which  they  ajqiear  to  belong,  we  shall  throw  some 
glimmerings  of  light  on  the  subject. 

The  matter  naturally  arranges  itself  under  the- 
following  heads — 

I.  Stringed  Instruments. 

II.  Wind  Instruments. 

III.  Instruments  of  Percussion. 

I. — I.  ,At  tl|e  head  off  the  Strinokd  Instru- 
ments we-must  place  the  “1133  kinnor , which  is 
rendered  ‘harp’  in  the  Authorized  Version.  The 
invention  and  first  use  of  this  instrument  are  as-' 
cribed  to  Jubal  (Gen.  iv.  21)  ; and  Laban  names 
it  among  the  instruments  which  should  havfe  cele- 
brated the  departure  of  his  son-in-law  (Gen.  xxxi. 
27;  In  the  first  ages  the  kinnor  was  consecrated 
to  jovRiid  exultation hence  the  frequency  of  its 
usevby  David  and  others  in  praise  of  the  Divine 
Majesty.  It  is  thought  probable  that  the  instru- 
ment received  some  improvements  from  David 
(comp.  Amos  vi.  5).  In  bringing  back  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  (1  Chron.  xvi.  5),  as  well  as 
afterwards,  at  the  consecration  of  the  temple,  the 


37 0 MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 

kinncr  was  assigned  to  players  of  known  emi- 
nence, chiefly  of  the  family  of  Jeduthuu  (1  Chron, 
xxv.  3).  Isaiah  mentions  it  as  used  at  festivals, 
along  with  the  nebel  ; he  also  describes  it  as  carried 
round  by  Bayaderes  from  town  to  town  (xxiii.  1 6). 
and  as  increasing  by  its  presence  the  joy  of  vin- 
tage (xxiv.  8).  When  Jehoshaphat  obtained  his 
great  victory  over  the  Moabites,  the  triumphal 
entry  into  Jerusalem  was  accompanied  by  the 
nebel  and  the  kinnor  (2  Chrmi.  xx.  27,  23). 
The  sorrowing  Jews  of  the  captivity,  far  re- 
moved from  their  own  land  and  the  shadow  of  the 
smctuary,  hung  their  kinnors  upon  tire  willows 
by  the  waters- of  Babylon,  and  refused  to  sing  the 
tongs  of  Zion  in  a strange  land  (Ps.  cxxxvii.  2). 
Many  other  passages  of  similar  purport  might  be 
adduced  in  order  to  fix  the  uses  of  an  instrument, 
the  name  of  which  occurs  so  often  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  They  mostly  indicate  occasions  of  joy, 
such  a9  jubilees  and  festivals.  Of  the  instrument 
itself  the  Scripture  affords  us  little  further  in- 
formation than  that  it  was  composed  of  the  sound- 
ing part3  of  good  wood,  and  furnished  with  strings. 
David  made  it  of  the  berosh  wood  f Bbhosh]  ; 
Solomon  of  the  more  costly  algum  (2  Sam.  vi. 
5;  2 Kings  x.  12);  and  Josephus  mentions 
emne  composed  of  the  mixed  metal  called  elec- 
trum.  He  also  asserts  that  it  was  furnished  with 
ten  strings,  and  played  with  a plectrum  (Antiq. 
vii.  12.  3);  which  however  19  not  understood  to 
imply  that  it  never  had  any  other  number  of 
strings,  or  was  always  played  with  the  plectrum. 
David  certainly  played  it  with  the  hand  (1  Sam. 
xvi.  23 ; xviii.  10 ; six.  9),  and  it  wa3  probably 
used  in  both  ways,  according  to  its  size. 

That  th;»  instrument  was  really  a harp,  is  now 
i -very  generally  denied;  and  Pfeiffer,  Winer,  and 
| other  writers  on  the  subject,  conclude  that  it  was 
i a kind  of  guitar.  This  is  entirely  grounded  on 
somewhat  uncertain  etymological  derivations. 
Thus  T!3D  is  in  the  Septuagint  translated  by 
i uOapa  and  Kivvpa ; and  by  Aquila.  Symmachus, 
end  Theodotion  always  by  itiOupa.  Now  the 
Greek  cithara,  it  is  argued,  was  a kind  of  guitar, 

• from  which  the  modern  instrument  so  called,  and 
its  very  name,  gittare,  guitar , is  derived.  The 
testimony  of  the  Arabic  is  also  adduced ; for  the 
name  among  the  Arabians  for  instruments  of  the 
guitar  kind  is  tambura.  and  it  happens  that  this 
is  the'  very  term  by  which  the  word  ki'inor  is 
rendered  in  the  Arabic  version.  When  this  kind 
of  argument  was  used  by  PfeifFer  apd  others,  it 
was  not  well  known  that  the  guitar  was  in  fact  an 
ancient  Egyptian,  as  it  is  also  a modem  Oriental, 
instrument.  It  is  frequently  figured  in  the  mo- 
numents. Tliere  is  therefore  little  ptfjm  tq  doubt 
that  the  guitar  was  known  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
probably  in  U6e  among  them.  Notwithstanding 
this  kind  of  evidence,  the  editor  of  the  Pictorial 
Bible  {on  Ps.  xliii.  4)  ventured  to  suggest  the 
greater  nrohability  that  the  lyn,  in  some  of  its 
various  kinds,  was  denoted  by  the  word  kinnor ; 
and  subsequent  inquiry  has  tended  to  establish 
{Iris  conclusion  as  firmly  perhaps  as  the  nature 
of  the  subject  admits.  It  is  shown,  first,  that 
the  cithara , which  the  Greek  translators  appear  to 
have  had  in  view,  was  in  fact  originally  the  same 
&s  the  lyre  ; in  other  words,  the  name  Xvpa,  lyra, 
rarely  occurs  in  the  early  Greek  writers,  that  of 
being  far  more  common*.  But,  about  the 
sioaa  of  Pindar,  certain  innovations  were  intro- 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 

diieed,  in  consequence  of  which  the  lyre  end 
cithara  came  to  be  used  as  distinctive  words  : the 
lyre  denoting  the  instrument  which  exhibited  the 
strings  free  on  both  sides,  and  the  cithara  that,  with 
the  strings  partly  drawn  over  the  sounding  body. 
This  latter  instrument,  preserving  the  shape  oi 
the  lyre,  and  wholly  distinct  in  form  and  ar- 
rangement from  the  guitar,  resembling  it  only  in 
this  one  point,  should  surely  not  be  confounded 
with  it,  especially  a3  antiquity  had  another  .in- 
strument which  more  obviously  belongs  to  the 
guitar  species.  If  those  who  allege  .that  the  kin- 
nor was  a kind  of  guitar,  mean  merely  that  it  was 
a species  of  lyre  which  in  one  point  resembled 
a guitar,  we  do  not  differ  from  thorn  ; hut  if  they 
allege  that  it  bad  any  general  resemblance  to  the 
modern  instrument,  they  remove  it  from  the  lyre 
class  of  instruments,  which  the  authorities  on 
which  they  rely  will  not  allow.  If  therefore  the 
word  tciQdpa  denoted,  when  the  Greek  translators 
of  the  Bible  lived,  a species  of  lyre,  which  was 
the  only  lyre  when  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were 
written,  it  follows,  that  in  using  this  word  for 
the  Hebrew  kinnor , they  understood  and  in- 
tended to  convey  that  a lyre  was  signified.  They 
also  could  not  but  know  that  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  lyra  and  cithara  was  of  recent  origin ; 
and  as  the  latter  word  had  originally  been  a 
general  term  for  die  lyre,  they  must  have  felt  it 
to  be  more  strictly  equivalent  than  lyra  to  the 
Hebrew  kinnor.  It  may  also  be  observed  that 
all  the  usga  of  the  kinnor,  as  described  in  Scrip- 
ture, were  such  as  were  applicable  to  the  lyre,1 
and  to  the  lyre  only,  of  all  the  ancient  instru-j’ 
merits  of  music:  most  of  them  being  egre- 
giously  inapplicable  to  the  harp,  and  not  very 
suitable  to  the  guitar.  And  it  must  not  be  over- 
looked that  it  i9  morally  certain  the  Hebrews  hat! 
the  lyre,  seeing  that  it  was  common  among  all 
their  neighbours;  and  yet  there  is  no  other  of  their 
instruments  but  the  kinnor  with  which  it  can 
possibly  be  identified.  The  frequency  of  its 


Hebrew  lyre  ) 

occurrence  in  Scripture  also  corresponds  with 
preference  given  to  it  in  most  ancient  writers 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS.  37S 


We  are  moreover  inclined  to  place  some  reliance 
upon  the  Egyptian  painting  supposed  to  represent 
the  arrival  of  Joseph’s  brethren  in  Egypt  (No.  410, 
fig.  4).  Here  one  of  the  men  is  playing  on  a lyre  of 
somewhat  peculiar  shape;  and  if  he  be  a Hebrew 
the  instrument  is  undoubtedly  a kinnor,  as  no  other 
stringed  instrument  is  mentioned  till  the  time  of 
David.  This  instrument  has  seven  strings  (the 
usual  number  of  the  lyre),  which  are  partly 
drawn  over  the  sounding  body  : this  is  the  cha- 
racteristic of  that  more  ancient  species  of  lyre 
called  the  cithara.  The  engravings  410  and  41 1 
will  give  some  idea  of  the  varieties  in  form  and 
strings  which  the  lyre  assumed  among  the  Egyp- 
tians. There  were  probably  similar  differences 
among  the  Hebrews ; for  in  concluding  the  kinnor 
to  be  the  lyre,  we  have  no  wish  to  restrict  it  to  any 
tme  particular  instrument : we  father  apprehend 
that  it  was  a general  term  for  all  instruments  of 
tiie  lyre  kiud.  If  there  was  one  instrument  more 


41 J.  . (Egyptian  Lyres.  1,  in  the  Leyden  collection; 
. !i,  in  the  Berlin  collection. J 


than  another  on  which  the  Hebrews  were  likely 
to  pride  themselves,  and  which  should  be  re- 
garded as  their  national  instrument,  it  is  the 
kinnor;  and  if  they  gave  the  figure  of  an  in- 
strument on  any  coin  as  a type  of  their  nation, 
as  the  harp  of  Ireland,  it  would  be  this.  Now 
the  instrument  which  we  do  find  on  some  coins 
ascribed  to  Simon  Maccabseus  is  no  other  than 
a lyre  (No.  415,  (ig.  3j,  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  was  intended  to  represent  the  instru- 
ment known  among  the  Hebrews  by  the  name  of 
kinnor.  An  instrument  resembling  the  ancient 
lyre  is  also  in  use  among  the  Arabians,  bearing  the 
name  of  kussir  ''derived  perhaps  from  kitfiara). 
There  is  a figure  of  it  in  Niebuhr,  and  he  saw 
no  other  instrument  in  the  East  which  lie  felt 
disposed  to  identify  with  ‘the  harp  of  David’ 
( Reisebesch.  i.  179). 

, 2.  nebel , is  the  next  instrument  which 

requires  attention.  The  Greek  vafiAiov  (vafiAa, 
vd[}\Th  vavAa.  or  t'd.^Aas)  and  the  Latin  nab- 
limn , nab  him  (or  nabla ) are  obviously  con- 
nected with  or  derived  from  the  same  source  as 
the  Hebrew  word,  and  may  afford  some  help  in 
our  search  after  the  instrument.  The  word  is 
rendered  * psaltery*  in  the  Authorized  Version,  in 
imitation  of  the  Sept,  translation  of  the  Psalms 
and  Nehemiah,  which  renders  it  liy  tyaAriipiov 
ith^the  exception  of  tf/uA/uos  in  Ps.  lxxi.  22, 
and  'niOdpa  in  Ps.  Ixxxi.  2.  The  Sepfuagint  in 
the  other  hooks  in  which  the  word  occurs,  renders 
it  by  rdfiAa,  q*  with  a different  ending  va£hw, 


As  to  when  this  instrument  was  invented,  and 
when  it  came  into  use  among  the  Hebrews,  no- 
thing can  be  determined  with  certainly.  The 
first  mention  of  it  is  in  the  reign  of  Saul  (1  Sam. 
x.  5),  and  from  that  time  forward  we  continue  ti> 
meet  with  it  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  how- 
ever not  found  in  the  2nd  chapter  of  Daniel, 
where  mention  is  made  of  so  many  instruments ; 
whence  we  may  infer  either  that  it  did  not  exist 
among  the  Babylonians,  or  was  known  among 
them  by  another  name.  Indeed,  among  the 
Greeks  and  Latins  the  word  nablium  is  not  of 
frequent  occurrence,  and  is  only  employed  by  the 
poets,  who  are  generally  fond  of  borrowing  foreign 
names.  The  use  of  the  instrument  prevailed  par- 
ticularly in  the* public  worship  of  God.  David's 
own  instrument  was  the  kinnor^ ; but  he  neglected 
not  the  nebel.  It  wa3  played  upon  by  several 
persons  in  the  grand  procession  at  the  removal  of 
the  ark  (1  Chron.  xv.  16;  xvi.  5);  and  in  the 
final  organization  of  the  temple  music  it  was 
entrusted  to  'he  families  of  Asaph,  Heman,  and 
Jednthun  (1  Chron.  xxv.  1-7) ; Asaph,  how- 
ever, was  only  the  overseer  of  the  nebel  ists,  as 

be  himself  played  on  the  metziltaim . 

Out  of  the  worship  of  God,  it  was  employed  at 
festivals  and  for  luxurious  purposes  (Amos  vi.  5). 
In  the  manufacture  of  this  instrument  a con- 
stant increase  of  splendour  was  exhibited.  The 
first  we  meet  with  were  made  simply  of  the  wood 
of  the  berosk  (2  Sam.  vi.  5 ; 1 Chron.  xiii.  S)» 
others  of  the  rarer  algum  tree  (1  Kings  x.  12; 
2 Chron.  ix.  11);  and  some  perhaps  of  metal 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  i.  8.  3),  unless  the  last  is  to  be1 
understood  of  particular  parts  of  the  instrument. 

Conjectures  respecting  the  probable  form  of 
this  instrument  have  been  exceedingly  various. 
Passing  by  the  eccentric  notion  that  the  nebel 
was  a kind  of  bagpipe,  we  may  assume  from 
the  evident  tendency  of  the  Scriptural  intima- 
tions, ami  from  the  general  bearing  of  other 
authorities,  that  it  was  composed  of  strings 
stretched  over  a wooden  frame.  This  being  as- 
sumed or  granted,  we  must  proceed  to  seek  soma 
hint  concerning  its  shape;  and  we  find  nothing 
more  tangible  than  the  concurrent  testimony  of 
Jerome,  Isidurus,  and  Cassiodorus,  that  it  wag 
like  the  Greek  letter  A inverted  v.  The  only  in* 


412,  (Egyptian  triangular  instruments.} 


strument  of  this  shape  known  to/  the  older  writers 
on  the  subject  was  the  harp  ; wnich  some  of  them 
(as  Calmet)  on  this  insufficient  ground  inferred  ta 
be  the  instrument  intended,  But  since  then,  vast 


*72  MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 

additions  to  our  knowledge  of  ancient  musical  in* 
etrumenfs  have  been  found  in  the  tombs  of  Egypt 
and  the  buried  cities  of  Herculaneum  and  Pompeii. 
From  these  we  learn  two  things — that  the  ancient 
harp  was  not  shaped  like  the  Greek  A inverted; 
And  that  there  were  stringed  instruments,  some- 
thing between  the  harp  and  the  lyre,  which  in  their 
various  forma  bore  a remarkable  resemblance  to 
that  letter  (No.  412).  We  feel  assured  that  among 
these  forms  may  be  found  the  instrument  which  the 
fathers  hLl  in  view,  for  they  lived  while  they  were 
or  ill  in  use.  They  held  it  to  be  the  same  as  the 
Hebrew  nebel ; anil  as  we  can,  through  the  Egyp- 
tian monuments,  trace  the  instrument  up  to  early 
Scriptural  times,  this  view  certainly  deserves  con- 
siderable attention. 

We  are,  however,  far  from  thinking  that  the 
fiebel  was  always  of  this  shape.  It  appears  to  us  to 
l>e  a general  name  for  various  of  the  larger  stringed 
instruments  of  the  harp  kind,  and  also  to  denote,  in 
a more  special  sense,  one  particular  sort : in  other 
words,  that  the  nebel  was  an  instrument  of  a prin- 
cipal species,  the  name  of  which  was  applied  to 
the  whole  ^enus.  In  fact  we  have  the  names  of 
*ev.eral  instruments  which  are  generally  conceived 
to  be  different  varieties  of  the  nebel.  Before  pro- 
ceeding to  these,  we  must  express  an  opinion  that 
one  of  these  "kinds,  if-not  the  principal  kind,  qt 
the  one  most  frequently  denoted  by  the  word,  was 
the  ancient  harp,  agreeing  more  or  )es9  with 
that  represented  in  the  Egyptian  'monument^. 
Whether  the  nebel  or  not,  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  Hebrews  bad  such  an  instrument, 
although  we  may  be  unable  to  point  out  the  pre- 
cise word  by  which  they  described  it.  It  is  mo- 
rally impossible  that  an  instrument  so  common 
in  Egypt,  and  of  which  the  powers  must  have 
much  exceeded  that  of  any  other  instrument 
kuown  to  them,  could  have  been  neglected  by  a 
people  whose  stringed  instruments  of  music  were 
so  various  as  those  of  the  Hebrews.  It  may  fur- 
ther be  observed,  that  the  use  of  this  instrument 
as  shown  in  the  Egyptian  paintings,  agrees  in  all 
respects  with  that  which  the  Scriptures  refer  to 


the  nebel,  so  far  as  we  can  gather  any  indications 
from  them;  and  it  is  somewhat  reprarjjable  that 
the  two  great  harps,  in  what  ie  called  Bruce's 
tomb,  Lave  respectively , .eleven  and  thirteen 
strings,  being  only  one  gnore  and  one  less  than 
the  twelve  assigned  by  Josephus  to  the  nebel. 
These  liarp9  are  shown  in  No  413,  and  other 
varieties  of  the  same  instrument  are  figured  in 
No.  414. 

One  of  the  classical  traditions  respecting  the 
Origin  o / the  lyre  refers  it  to  an  observation  made 
upen  the  resonance  of  the  gut-strings  iu  the  shell 


MUSICAL  INSTRt  MENTS. 

of  a dried-up  tortoise ; anotherto  a similar  obser- 
vation upon  the  twanging  of  a bow-string.  Thegp 
traditions  have  been  deemed  contradictory,  from 


being  supposed  to  refer  to  one  and  the  same  instru- 
ment; but  they  are  perfectly  reconcilable  when 
referred  to  two.  The  lyre,  which  we  have  already 
sought  to  connect  with  the  Hebrew  kinnor,  might 
have  had  the  tortoise  origin,  and  the  histrument  we 
have  now  in  view  might  as  obviously  be  referred  to 
' the  how  and  it3  string.  That  the  latter  has  only 
lately  become  known  to  us  through  the  Egyptian 
monuments  sufficiently  accounts  for  this  con- 
fusion, and  explains  why  no  attempt  has  hitherto 
been  made  (except  in  the  Pictorial  Bible , nore 
on  Ps.  cxxxviii.  2),  to  place  the  Egyptian  harp 
among  the  musical  instruments  of  the  Hebrews. 
’We  have  no  desire  to  insist  on  its  identity  witli 
the  nebel  in  particular:  but  it  is  remarkable 
that,  whereas  the  nebel  is  in  Scripture  mentioned 
so  as  to  show  that  it  always  or  generally  formed 
part  of  a band  of  instruments,  so  the  Egyptian 
harp  is  usually  seen  to  be  played  in  concert  with 
other  instruments.  Sometimes,  however,  it  was 
played  alone,  or  as  an  accompaniment  to  the 
voice,  anj4  a band  of  seven  or  more  choristers 
frequently  sung  to  it  a favourite  ay,  beating  timg 
with  their  hands  between  each  stanza  (Wilkinson* 
Anc.  Egypt,  ii.  239).  The  principle  of  the  bow 
was  among  the  Egyptians  extended  to  other  in- 
struments, which,  from  their  smaller  size  ami 
manner  of  being  played,  might  be  classed  anjoig 
lyres  ^No.  416).  It  is  more  than  probable  that 
these  simple  instruments  were  known  to  the  He- 
brews, although  we  are  unable  to  discover  the 
name  by  which  they  were  called. 

" 3.  TW  asor>  occurs  as  an  instrument  in 
only,  a few  places,  and  never  but  in  connection 
with* the  nebel.  This  has  given  rise  to  the  con- 
jecture that  the  two  instruments  may  have  dif- 
fered from  each  other  only  in  the  number  of 
their  strings,  or  the  openings  at  the  bottom. 
Hence  we  meet  with  the  Sept,  translation  iy 
8(Kax6pb(j>t  and  in  the  Chaldee,  Syriac;  and 
Arabic,  words  expressing  an  instrument  of  ten 
strings,  which  is  also  followed  in  the  Authorised 
Version  (Ps.  xxxiii.  2;  cxliv.*  1).  We  see  nc 
reason  to  dissent  from  this  conclusion.  Pfeffei 
was  inclined  to  thjuk  that  the  aeor  may  have 
been  the  quadrangular  lyre  which  is  represented 
in  different  varieties  in  ancient  monuments,  and 
yvhich  has  usually  ten-  strings,  though  sometimes 
more  (No.  415,  8ga,  1,  2> 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


41».  [Miscellaneous  stringed  instruments.] 


4.  Fl'Fl|  gittith , a word  which  occurs  in  rhe 
titles  to  Ps.  viii.,  Ixxxi..  lxxxiv.,  and  is  generally 
•opposed  to  denote  a musical  instrument.  From 
tlje  name  it  has  been  supposed  to  be  an  instru- 
ment which  David  brought  from  Gath  •,  and  it 
l as  been  inferred  from  Iso.  xvi.  10.  that  it  was  in 
(articular  use  at  the  vintage  season,  if  an  in- 
itrument  of  emusic,  it  is  remavkable  that  it  does 
i ot  occur  in  the  list  of  the  instruments  assigned 
ly  David  to  the  temple  musicians;  nor  even 
mi  that  list  which  appears  in  versps  1 and  2 of 
Ps.  Ixxxi.,  in  the  title  of  which  it  is  found.  The 
eupposition  of  Gesenius,  that  it  is  a general  name 
h r a stringed  instrument , obviates  this  difficulty. 
The  Septuagint  renders  the  title  by  o-rrep  rwv 
Xr.v&v,  * upon  the  winepress.’  and  Carpzov, 
P (eider  and  others,  follow  this,  in  taking  the 
word  to  denote  a song  composed  for  the  vintage, 
or  for  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Carpzov,  Observ. 

Philcl.  super  Psalmos  Tres  Helmst. 

1758  ; Pfeiffer,  vber  die  Musik,  p.  32). 

5.  D'lD  vninnim , which  occurs  in  Ps.  xlv.  8 
and  cl.  4,  is  supposed  by  some  to  denote  a stringed 
instrument,  but  it  seems  merely  a poetical  allu- 
sion to  the  strings  of  any  instrument.  Thus  in 
Ps.  xlv.  8 we  would  read  * Out  of  the  ivory  pa- 
laces the  strings  («.  e.  concerts  of  music)  have 
made  thee  glad and  so  in  Ps.  cl.  4,  * Praise  him 
with  strings  (stringed  instruments)  and  ugabs .' 

6.  &OSK*  or  &OSD,  sabeca,  an  instrument 
rendered  ‘sackbut,’  amf  which  occurs  only  in  Dan. 
iii.  5,  7,  10,  15.  It  is  doubtless  the  same  as  the 
stringed  instrument  of  music  denominated  by  the 
Greeks  <rap.&vK7},  o'a^i^vicps,  <rd/x/3u£,  £aju/Strc?j,  and 
by  the  Latins  sambuca.  It  seems  to  have  been  a 
species  of  harp  or  lyre,  and,  ar  some  think,  was 
only  a species  of  the  • nebel , distinguished  by  the 
number  of  its  strings.  The  able  tvriter  of  the 
musical  articles  in  Smith’s  Classical  Dictionary 
thinks  the  sambuca  was  the  same  as  the  Egyptian 
aarp,  which  we  have  already  conjectured  to  be  the 
particular  instrument  designated  by  the  name 
nebel , or  one  of  the  instruments  of  the  class  so 
denominated.  We  saould  have  no  objection  to 
regard  this  harp  as  being  represented  by  the  sabeca 
as  a species  of  the  nebel ; but  we  cannot  see  that 
any  jjsoof  of  the  conjecture  is  adduced,  and  as  the 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS.  373 

word  only  occurs  in  a list  of  Babylonian  instnj» 
merits,  and  never  among  those  of  the  Hebrews 
the  identification  would  goto  show  that  the  lanes 
had  not  the  harp,  for  which  conclusion  we  are  by 
no  means  p reflated . 

As  tbe  intimations  which  can  he  collected  re- 
specting the  sambuca  amount  to  this,  that  it  was 
a large  stringed  instrument  of  a somewhat  trr 
angular  shape,  it  may  possibly  have  home  some 
resemblance  to  figs.  4 and  5,  No.  415,  which  ait; 
copied  from  old  writers  on  the  subject,  and  which 
bear  much* resemblance  to  instruments,  such  as  the 
khanoon  and  tchenk , which  continue  to  be  com- 
mon and  popular  in  Syria,  Arabia,  Egypt,  and 
Persia,  ami  which  correspond  to  both  these  con- 
ditions. 


410.  (Bow  shaped  Egyptian  instruments.] 


7.  I’TFODS  or  ]'"lt£)3D!p,  pesanterin , the  tf/cA- 
vijpiov  or  psaltery  of  the  Greeks:  it  occurs  only 
in  Dan.  iii.  7, 10,  15.  where  it  is  supposed  to  repre- 
sent the  Hebrew  nebel.  The  word  ibaXr'fipiov  is, 
however,  applied  by  the  Greek  translators  so  arbi- 
trarily to  instruments  which  have  different  names 
in  Hebrew,  that  nothing  can  be  built  upon  its  use; 
still  less  are  we  disposed  to  accept  the  conclusion  of 
Gesenius,  that  the  Chaldee  word  is  in  this  instance 
formed  from  the  Greek.  The  Chaldee  name,  and 
perhaps  the  instrument  represented  by  it,  may  jbe 

recognised  in  the  modern  santeer,  which 

is  of  the  cl-is3  already  referred  to  as  represented  by . 
figs.  3,  4,  No.  415).  < 

8.  machalath , which  occurs  in  the 
titles  of  Ps.  liii.  and  Ixxxviii.,  is  supposed  by 
Gesenius  and  others  to  denote  a kind  of  lute  or 
guitar,  which  instrument  others  find  in  the 
minnim  above  noticed.  We  should  not  like  to 
affirm  that  instruments  of  this  kind  are  repre- 
sented by  either  of  these  words — not  that  we  doutii 
whether  the  Hebrews  had  such  instruments,  but 
because  we  are  not  satisfied  that  these  are  the  pre- 
cise wdrds  by  which  they  were  denoted.  The  fire, 
valence  in  the  East  of  instruments  of  this  sort 
would  alone  suggest  the  probability  that  the  Jews 
were  not  without  them ; and  this  probability  ia 
greatly  increased  by  the  evidence  which  the  Egyp- 
tian paintings  offer,  that  they  were  equally  pre- 
valent in  ancient  times  in  neighbouring  nations. 
Before  this  evidence  was  obtained  it  was  usual  to 
offer  figs.  I and  3-  in  the  subjoined  cut  (No. 
417),  as  affording  probable  examples  of  Hehrev/ 
instruments  of  this  class;  and  fig.  3,  from  Nie- 
buhr’s Travels,  as  a modern  Arabian  'example. 
Objections  were  tsrged  to  these  figures,  which  is 
would,  until  lately,  have  been  difficult  to  answer. 
But  now  we  find  their  prototypes  among  the 
ancient  Egyptians,  This  will  seen  from  ilia 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


3T4  MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


*utj  vined  engravings,  a very  cursory  inspection 
of  which  will  -show  the  geueral  resemblance  of 


Si®.  [1.  A kind  of  guitar;  2.  Ancient  lute.  3.  Arabian 
tajibur.] 


the  above  to  the  instruments  represented  in  at 
least  figs.  1,  3 (No.  418),  or  in  other  words, 
to  instruments  of  the  lute  and  guitar  class. 


<18.  (Egyptian  stringed  instruments  with  necks.} 


The  Egyptian  guitar  consisted  of  two  parts,  a 
long  flat  neck  or  handle,  and  a hollow  oval  body, 
composed  wholly  of  wood,  or  covered  with  leather, 
tvhose  upper  surface  was  perforated  with  several 
holes  to  allow  the  sound  to  esdipe ; over  this  body, 
and  the  whole  length  of  the  handle,  extended 
three  strings  of  catgut  secured  at  the  upper  ex- 
tremity. The  length  of  the  handle  was  some- 
fcimes*twice,  sometimes  thrice  that  of  the  body, 


4 19.  (Egyptian  stringed  instruments  with  necks.) 

and  the  whole  instrument  seems  to  have  measured 
three  or  four  feet.  It  was  struck  with  a plectrum, 
and  the  performers  usually  stood  as  they  played. 
Both  men  and  women  used  the  guitar;  some 
danced  while  they  touched  its  strings  (No.  418,  • 


fig.  2),  supporting  it  on  the  right  arm ; and  in 
one  instance  (fig.  3)  it  is  seen  slung  by  a hand 
round  the  neck,  like  the  modem  Spanish  guitar. 
The  others  (No.  419)  are  variations  of  these  in- 
struments ; in  fig.  3 making  a near  approach  to 
the  lute.  They  are  from  actual  and  somewhat 
decayed  specimens,  and  therefore  do  not  exhibit 
the  wires  and  other  minute  parts. 

With  all  this  evidence  before  us,  we  need  not 
hesitate  to  conclude  that  the  Heh-ews  were  iu 
possession  of  instruments  of  this  kind,  although 
we  may  not  venture  to  affirm  by  what  name  they 
were  called. 

II.  Wind  Insthuments. — There  is,  happily, 
less  difficulty  with  respect  to  instruments  of  this 
class  than  with  respect  to  stringed  instruments. 
The  most  ordinary  division  of  these  is  into  trum- 
pets and  pipes,  of  which  the  Hebrews  had  both, 
and  of.various  kinds. 

1.  pj5  keren , ‘ horn/  sometimes,  hut  not  often, 
occurs  as  the  name  of  a musical  instrument  (Josh, 
vi.  5 ; 1 Chron.  xxv.  5;  Dan.  iii.  5,  7,  10,  15). 
Of  natural  horns,  and  of  instruments  in  the  shape 
of  horns,  the  antiquity  and  general  use  are  evinced 
by  every  extensive  collection  of  antiquities.  It  is 
admitted  that  natural  horns  were  at  first  used,  and 
’that  they  at  length  came  to  he  imitated  in  metal, 
but  were  still  called  horns.  This  use  and  ap- 
plication of  the  word  are  illustrated  in  our  ‘cor- 
net.’ It  is  generally  conceived  that  rams’  horn* 
were  the  instruments  used  by  the  early  Hebrews; 
and  these  are,  indeed,  expressly, named  in  our  own 
and  many  other  versions,  as  the  instruments  used 
at  the  noted  siege  of  Jericho  (Josh.  vi.  5) ; and  the 
horns  are  those  of  the  ram,  which  Josephus  assigns 
to  the  soldiers  of  Gideon  (Antig.  v.  6.  5 ; comp. 
Judg.  vii.  16). 

Tiie  former  of  these  passages  requires  some 
remark.  The  text  is  pp,  keren  jobel,  or 
jobel- horn.  It  is  admitted  that  jobel  means  the 
jubilee,  and  in  that  case  it  would  be  jubilee-horn  ; 
and  in  th®  other  verses  of  the  chapter  where 
trdmpets  are  mentioned,  with  the  epithet  jobelim. 
affixed,  to  denote  ‘jubilee-trumpets.’  But  tliep 
the  translation  ‘rams’  horn’  ia- verse  5 is  sought 
to  be  justified  on  the  ground  that  the  jubilee  itself 
took  its  name  from  the  instruments  with  which  it 
was  .proclaimed,  and  as  these  instruments  are  be- 
lieved to  have  been  rams'  horns,  the  term  has  sc 
been  rendered  in  this  text.  In  other  words  the 
argument  stands  thus  1.  The  jubilee  w_as  named 
from  the  instruments  by  which  it  wa3  proclaimed. 
2.  These  instruments  were  rams'  horns.  3.  There- 
fore jobel  means  a ram.  It  is,  however,  ad- 
mitted that  a ram  is  never  called  jobel  in 
Hebrew  :■  and  an  anecdote  of  R.  AkiTa  implies 
that  it  was  derived  from  an  Arabian  source.* 
‘ When  I was  in  Arabia,’  he  says,  ‘ 1 heard  them 
call  a ram  jobel ; and  the  trumpet  itself  is  called 
jobel.  because  made  of  rams’  horn  ’ It  would 
be  better,  however,  to  translate  it  ‘jubilee-horn ’ 
(see  below,  sect.  4).  The  text  is  not  necessary 
to  show  that  rams’  horns  were  in  use ; the  genera] 
belief  of  the  Jews  on  the  subject,  and  the  exist- 
ence of  sculptured  figures  of  ancient  instru- 
ments imitated  from  the  horns  of  rams,  if  not 
actually  rams'  horns,  bring  good  evidence  in 
favour  of  this  opinion.  Bocbart  and  a few  others 
contest  tills  conclusion  on  the  ground  that  rams’ 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS.  37S 


noma  are  not  suited  to  the  purpose,  and  that  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  used  the  horns  of  neat  cattle. 
Neither  of  the3e  positions  is  tenable  or  of  much 
weight,  and  the  probability  seems  to  be  that  kercn 
e/as  first,  in  its  widest  acceptation,  the  general 
name  for  instruments  of  the  horn  kind,  and 
also  the  particular  name  for  rams’  horns,  or  the 
more  crooked  kind  of  horns,  and  were  thu3  dis- 
tinguished from  the 

2.  shophar , which  is  a far  more  common 

word  than  Aere/t, and  is  rendered  1 trumpet*  in  the 
Authorized  Version.  This  word  seems,  first,  to 


4-'0.  (I,  2.  !f,  4.  Ancient  horns  and  curved  trumpets ; 
5 straight  trumpet-;  6.  pipe.J 


denote  horns  of  the  sfraighter  kind,  including,  pro- 
bably, those  of  neat  cattle,  and  all  the  instruments 
which  were  eventually  made  in  imitation  of  and 
in  improvement  upon  such  horns.  It  is,  however, 
difficult  to  draw  a distinction  between  it  and  the 
keren,  seeing  that  the  words  are  sometimes  used 
synonymously.  Thus  that  which  is  called  *a 
Jobel-hora  ’ in  Josh.  vi.  5,  is  in  the  same  chapter 
(ver.  4,  6,  8,  13),  called  ‘a  jobel-liom  trumpet* 
(shophar).  Upon  the  whole,  we  may  take  the 
shophar , however  distinguished  from  the  keren , to 
have  been  that  kind  of  horn  or  horn-shaped  trumpet 
which  was  best  known  to  the  Hebrews.  The  name 
shophar  means  bright  or  clear , and  the  int^ument 
may  be  conceived  to  have  been  so  called^rom  its 
clear  and  shrill  sound,  just  as  we  call  an  instrument 
a ‘clarion,’  and  speak  of  a musical  tone  as  ‘brilliant* 
or  ‘clear.’  In  the  service  of  God  thi3  shophar  or 
trumpet  was  only  employed  in  making  announce- 
ments, and  for  calling  the  people  together  in  the 
time  of  the  holy  solemnities,  of  war,  of  rebellion, 
or  of  any  other  great  occasion  (Exod.  xix.  *.3 ; 
Num.  x.  10;  Judg.  iii.  7;  1 Sam.  xiii.  3;  xv. 
20;  2 Chron.  xv.  14;  Isa.  xviii.  3).  The  strong 
sound  of  the  instrument  would  have  confounded 
a choir  of  singers,  rather  than  have  elevated  their 
music.  At  feasts,  and  exhibitions  of  joy,  horns 
and  trumpets  were  not  forgotten  (2  Sam,  vi.  15  ; 
1 Chron.  xvi.  42).  There  is  no  reason  to  conclude 
tliat_the  trumpet  was  an  instrument  peculiar  to  the 
Levi  tea,  as  some  have  supposed.  If  that  were  the 
ca9e  we  should  be  unable  to  account  for  the  300 
trumpets  with  which  Gideon’s  men  were  furnished 
(Judg.  vii.  8),  and  for  the  use  of  trumpets  in 
making  signals  by  watchmen,  who  were  not  always 
Levites.  In  Matt.  vi.  2,  we  read  * When  thou 
does!  thine  alms,  do  not  sound  a trumpet  before 
thee  as  the  hypocrites  do  in  the  synagogues,  and 


in  the  streets,  that  they  may  have  glory  of  men.1' 
This  verse  has  excited  some  speculation,  and  many 
have  sought  to  illustrate  it  by  reference  to  the  cus- 
tom of  Eastern  beggars  of  attracting  attention  by 
mean3  of  a musical  instrument — a usage  which, 
indeed,  exists  in  England.  But  here  it  is  the 
donor  and  not  the  beggar  who  is  enjoined  not  to 
pound  a trumpet;  and  Lightfoot,  after  examining; 
the  matter  with  his  usual  care,  confesses  that  he 
can  find  no  trace  in  the  whole  range  of  Hebrew  lite- 
rature, of  a trumpet  being  sounded  in  connection 
with  public  or  private  almsgiving  ( Hor.Rebr.oTt 
Matt.  vi.  2).  It  is  therefore  safest  to  suppose  the 
expression  derived  by  an  easy  metaphor  from  the 
practice  of  using  the  trumpet  to  proclaim  what- 
ever was  about  to  be  done,  in  order  to  call  atten- 
tion to  it  and  make  it  extensively  known. 

3.  rTOOT  chatzozerah.  This  was  the  straight! 
trumpet,  different  from  the  shophar „ which  was 
more  or  less  bent  like  a horn.  There  has  been 
various  speculation  on  the  name;  but  we  are  dis- 
posed to  assent  to  the  conclusion  of  Gesenius,  that 
it  is  an  onomatopoetic  word,  imitating  the  brokers 
pulse-like  sound  of  the  trumpet,  like  the  Latiit 
tgratantara , which  this  word  would  more  re- 
semble if  pronounced  as  in  Arabic,  kaddderafr „ 
Among  the  Israelites  these  trumpets  were  a di- 
vine regulation,  Moses  having  been  expressly- 
directed  how  to  make  them  (Num.  x.  27® 
They  were  of  pure  beaten  silver,  but  the  par- 
ticular form  does  not  appear  in  Scripture.  The 
words  'plpl  nra^m,  ‘withcAateofeero*& 

and  voice  of  the  shophar'  (Ps.  xcviii.  6),  brings 
together  names  which  most  translators  confound 
under  that  of  ‘trumpet,’  and  obliges  them  for 
once,  at  least,  to  draw  a distinction  between  the  two. 


The  Auth.  Vers,  here  ha3  ‘with trumpets  and  the 
sound  of  the  cornet,’  which  clearly  intimates  that 
the  translator  considered  the  shophar  a kind  of 
hom,  though  usually  called  a trumpet.  The  Sept, 
draws  the  distinction  very  nice’y — iv  ad\.Tny^i s* 
iAarais.  kcli  <pwvfj  odXiriyyos  Keparlvns , ‘with 
ductile  trumpets,  and  the  sound  of  horn-trumpets.' 
which  i3  closely  copied  by  the  Vulgate,  ‘in  tubia 
ductilibus,  et  voce  tubas  comes.’  The  idea  con- 
veyed of  the  chatzotzerah  in  these  translations  is, 
that  these  trumpets  were  of  wrought  or  ductile 
silver,  and  drawn  out  in  length ; with  this  some 
combine  a reference  to  the  signification  of  the  word 
WPQ  mihshah , applied  to  these  trumpets  in  the 


376  MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


original  description  in  Num.  x.  2,  which  they  under- 
stand to  mean  ‘turned  ' or  ‘rounded,’  and  hencfe 
infer  that  they  were  not  merely  drawn  out  in  length 
but  turned  back  upon  themselves,  like  a trombone. 
Some  German  writers,  indeed,  directly  call  the 
instrument  a trombone,  as  De  Wette,  who,  in  his 
translation  of  the  Psalms,  renders  the  line  under 
notice  * Mit  trompeten,  mit  pusaunen-klaug,’  that 
is.  * with  trumpets,  with  tromboue-sound.*  And 
Pfeiffer,  pressing  upon  this  signification,  gives  the 
figure  of  an  Oriental  instrument  of  this  kind  called 
the  sumara,  as  . a possible  representative  of  the 
ckatzotzerah.  We  assign  little  weight  to  all  this. 
It  seems  clear  that  these  instruments  were  long 
trumpets  of  solid  wrought  silver ; and  as  it  appears 
that  these  are  the  only  musical  instruments  un- 
doubted representations  of  which  are  preserved, 
there  ought  to  lie  no  question  on  the  subject.  These 
silver  trumpets  are  figured  on  the  arch  of  Titus, 
among  the  other  spoils  of  the  Jewish  Temple  (Fig.  5, 
No.  420),  and  they  correspond  with  the  descrip- 
tion which  Josephus,  who.  as  a priest,  could  not 
in  this  matter  be  mistaken,  has  given  r ‘ Moses,’ 
he  says,  % invented  a kind  of  trumpet  of  silver ; in 
length  it  was  little  less  than  a cubit.,  and  it  was 
somewhat  thicker  than  a pipe;  its  opening  was 
oblong,  so  as  to  permit  blowing  on  it  with  the 
mouth;  at  the  lower  end  it  had  the  form  of  a bell, 
like  the  horn,*  era Kiri-yl-  ( Anttq . iii.  2).  Moses 
was  commanded  to  make  only  two  of  these  trum- 
pets, because  there  were  then  but  two  priests,  the 
two  sons  of  Aaron.  Afterwards  far  more  of  thetn 
were  made ; and  Josephus  ventures  to  say  that 
Solomon  made  200,000  of  them,  according  to  the 
command  of  Moses  ( Antiq  viii.4).  When,  how- 
ever, riches  departed  from  Palestine,  trumpets 'of 
baser  metal  were  used  (2  Kings  xii.  13),  although 
probably  a certain  number  of  silver  were  still  pre- 
served They  were  used  in  calling  the  congrega- 
tion together  for  sacrifices,  and  in  battle  (Hos.  v. 
S).  “The  tone  of  this  trumpet,  or  rather  the  noise 
made  by  blowing  on  it,  was  very  variable,  and  is 
distinguished  by  different  terms  in  Scripture. 

4.  ' Jobel . There  has  been  much  speculation 
concerning  this  term,  which  the  reader  may  find 
in  ample  abundance  in  Bochart  ( Hieroz . i.  43:>). 
It  seems  now  to  be  agreed  that  the  word  due*  not 
denote  u separate  instrument,  but  is  an  epithet 
applied  to  the  trumpets  with  which  the  jubilees 
were  proclaimed^  i.  e.  the  * jubilee- trumpet and 
as  the  same  trumpets*  were  used  for  signals  and 
alarms,  * the  alarm -trumpet,  ■ the  alarm-horn  * 
This  name  for  the  sound  of  music  is  supposed  to 
he  derived  from  Jubal,  the  inventor  of  instru- 
ments of  music. 

Wind  instruments  of  softer  sound  next  require 
attention.  The  first  and  principal  of  these  is  the. 

5.  b'hn  chalil,  the  meaning  of  which  is  bored 
through,  and  denotes  a pipe,  perforated  and  fur- 
nished with  holes.  The  Sept,  always  renders  it 
by  au\Ss,  a pipe  or  flute  There  are  but  five 
places  where  it  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament 
(l  Sam.  x.  5;  i Kings  i.  40;  Isa.  v.  12;  xxx. 
29;  Jer.  x‘viii.-3G);  but  the  Greek  av\6s  occurs 
in  the  New  Testamei  t (Matt.  :x.  23),  and  in  the 
Apocryphal  books  (1  Mace.  iv.  51;  ix.  39; 
Judith  iii.  S).  It  would  seem  to  have  come 
rather  late  into  use  among  the  Hebrews,  and  pro- 
bably had  a foreign  origin.  The  passages  to  which 


we  have  referred  will  indicate  the  use  of  this  in- 
strument or  class  of  instruments ; but  of  the  form 


422.  [Egyptian  reed-pipea.] 

we  can  only  guess  by  reference  to  those  of  the  at 
cienr  Egyptians,  which  are  very  similar  to  thus* 
still  in  use  in  Western  Asia.  The  pipe  is,  how- 
ever, rarely  introduced  in  the  Egyptian  sculptures, 
and  does  not  seem  to  have  been  held  in  much  es- 
timation. The  principal  are  the  sing le  ami  double 
pipes.  The  single  pipe  of  the  Greeks  is  allowed 
to  have  been  introduced  from  Egypt  (J.  Pollux, 
Onom.  iv,  10;  Atbenaeus,  Deipnos . iv.),  from, 
which  the  Jews  probably  hud  their?’-  It.  was  a 
straight  tube,  without  any  increase  at  the  mouth, 
and  when  played  was  held  with  both  hands.  It 
was  usually  of  moderate  length,  about  eighteen 
inches,  but  occasionally  less,  and  sometimes  so 
exceedingly  long  and  the  holes  so  low  that  the 
player  was  obliged  to  extend  his  agins  to  the  ut- 
most. Some  had  three  holes,  others  four,  and 
actual  specimens  madeof  common  reed  have  been 
found  (Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians , ii.  i5U9). 


The  double  pipe  was  formed  with  two  of  such 
tidies,  of  equal  or  unequal  lengths,  having  a com- 
mon mouth-piece,  and  each  played  with  the  corre- 
spundinirhand.  They  were  distinguished  as  the 
right  anjQefr  pipes,  and  the  latter,  having  but  lew 
holes  and  Emitting  a deep  sound;  served  as  a base; 
the  othec  had  more  holes  apd  gave, a sfi^trp  sound 
(Plin.  Hist^Ndi.  xvi.  36).  This  pipe  is  still  used 
in  Palestine.  The  Scottish  missionary  deputation 
overtook,  among  the  hills  of  Judah,  • an  Arab 
playing  with  all  his  might  upon  a shepherd's  pipe, 
made  of  two  reeds.  This  was  the  first  time  we 
had  seen  any  marks  of  joy  in  the  land  * (Narra- 
tive, p.  118). 

From  the  references,  which  have  oeen  given  it 
will  he  seen  that  the  pipe  was,  among  the  Jews, 
chiefly  consecrated  to  joy  and  pleasure.  So  much 
was  this  the  case  that  in  the  time  of  Judas  Mac- 
cabaeus  the  Jews  complained  ‘that  jov  was  taken 
from  Jacob,  and  the  pipe  with  the  harp  (tudapa) 
ceased*  (l  Macc.  iii.  45).  It  was  particularly 
used  to  enliven  the  periodical  journeys  to  Jeru- 
salem to  attend  the  great  festivals  (Isa.  xxx.  29); 
and  this  custom  of  accompanying  travelling  in 
companies  with  music  is  common. in  the  East  at 
this  day  (Harmer,  Observatt.  ii,  197 ; to  whjcb 
add  Tournefort,  Voyage  dm  Levant,  iii.  189). 
Athenasus  (iv,  174)  tella  us  of  a plaintive  pipe 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 

which  was  in  me  among  the  Phoenicians.  This 
serves  to  illustrate  Matt.  is.  23,  where  our  Saviour, 
finding  the  flute-players  with  the  dead  daughter 
of  the  ruler,  orders  them  away,  because  the  damsel 
was  not  dead ; and  in  this  we  also  recognise  the 
regulation  of  the  Jews,  that  every  one,  how- 
ever poor  he  might  be,  should  have  at  least 

two  pipes  (D>W?n)  at  the  death  of  his  wife 
( Lightfoot,  Hor.  Hebr.  ad  Matt.  ix.  23).  [ Mourn- 
ing. J 

43.  NrP|fn?^P  mishrokiika.  This  word  occurs 
four  time3  in  Daniel  (ch.  iii.  5,  7,  10,  15),  but 
aiowhere  else,  and  appears  to  be  the  Chaidcean 
name  for  the  flute  with  two  reeds,  of  which  we 
have  already  spoken.  'If  that  double  pipe  be 
t.ot  comprehended  under  the  Hebrew  chalil,  then 
we  may  consider  that  we  have  it  here.  The  Sept, 
and  Tneodotion  render  it  by  <?vpiy£,  syrinx,  which 
is  the  name  of  the  Pandaeau  pipe.  This  would 
imply  that  it  had  at  least  more  than  one  reed ; and 
if  it  really  denotes  the  Pandaeau  pipe  itself,  the 
word  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  Chaldaean  name  of  the 
instrument  called  by  the  Hebrews  ugab, 

which  was  undoubtedly  the  syrinx.  This  is  the 
mure  probable  from  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew 
translator  actually  renders  mishrokitha  by  ugab. 

It  may,  however,  have  differed  from  the  com- 
mon ugab  ; and  some  writers  on  the  subject  have 
been  disposed  .to  regard  it  as  similar  to  the  instru- 
ment represented  in  the  annexed  cut  (No;  424 
lig.  1).  This  is  constructed  somewhat  on  the 
principle  of  an  organ,  being  composed  of  pipes  of 
•various  sizes,  fitted  into  a kind  of  modern  chest, 
open  at  top,  and  stopped  at  the  bottom  with  wood 
covered  by  a shin  ; wind  was  conveyed  to  it  frtftn 
tlte  lips  by  means  of  a pipe  fixed  to  the  chest ; the 
pipes  were  of  lengths  musically  proportioned  to 
each  other,  and  the  melody  was  varied  at  plea- 
sure, by  stopping  or  unstopping  the  apertures  at 
the  upper  extremity.  We  are  not  however  satis- 
fied with  the  evidence  which  makes  this  instru- 
ment, or  the  modification  of  it  in  fig.  2,  to  have 
been  known  to  either  iho  ancient  Hebrews  or  the 
Babylonians. 


naepts  whoso  invention  is  ascribed  to  Jubal  (Gen, 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS.  377 

iv.  21)j  and  higher  antiquity  cannot  therefore  tx> 
claimed  for  any  instrument.  There  are  only  three 
other  places  in  which  it  is  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament:  two  in  the  book  of  Job  (xxi.  12, 
Scxx.  31),  and  one  in  the  Psalms  (cl.  4).  The 
Targum  renders  the  word  simply  by  &QO&,  « 
pipe ; the  Septuagint  varies;  it  has  KiOdpa  in 
Genesis,  ipaApos  in  Job,  and  ftpyavov  in  the 
Psalms.  The  last  is  the  sense  which  the  Ara- 
bic, Syriac,  Latin,  English,  and  most  other  ver- 
sions have  adopted.  The  organon  simply  denotes 
a double  or  manifold  pipe;  and  hence  in  particular 
the  Patvdasan  or  shepherd’s  pipe,  which  is  at  this 
day  called  a ‘moutl  -organ’  among  ourselves.  For- 
merly it  was  called  simply  * organ/  and  ‘mouth.*’ 
has  been  added  to  distinguish  it  from  the  compara- 
tively modern  instrument  which  has  usurped  the 
more  simple  designat  ion  of  * organ/  Our  trans- 
lators are  thus  not  chargeable  with  the  obscurity 
which  has  since  arisen,  for  they,  by  the  word 
‘organ/  interfiled  to  indicate  no  other  instrument 
than  this,  -.We  thus  find  a tolerably  fair  concur- 
rence on  the.su  bjeot  among  the  translations  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  respect.  The  grounds  of 
their  conclusion  are  to  he  sought  in  the  etymology 
of  the  Hebrew  word ; and,  so  Stir  aa  these  go,  which 
is  not  very  far,  they  tend  to  support  if.  To  these 
probabilities  the  known  antiquity  of  the  Syrian 
syrinx  (avpiyt)  or  Pandean  pipe  may  be  added* 
The  instrument  is  in  fact  so  old  that  the  profane 
writers  do  not  know  fo  whom  to  ascribe  it.  Some 
refer  it  to  Pan  (Virgil,  Eel.  ii.),  others  to  Mercury 
(Pind.  Oil.  xii.  de  Palladd),  others  to  Marsyaa 
and  Silenus  (Atheuaeus,  iv.  182).  This  antiquity 
corresponds  with  the  Scriptural  intimation  con- 
cerning the  ugab , and  justifies  us  in  seeking  lor  the 
syrinx  among  the  more  ancient  instruments  of 
the  Orientals,  especially  as  it  is  still  common  in 
Western  Asia.  Niebuhr  saw  it  in  the  hands  of  a 
peasant  at  Cairo  (Reisebeschr.  i.  181);  and  Rus- 
sell, in  his  Nat.  Hist,  of  Aleppo  (t.  155,  156), 
says  that  ‘ the  syrinx  or  Pan's  pipe  is  still  a festi- 
val instrument  in  Syria  ; it  is  known  also  in  the 
city,  but  very  few  performers  can  sound  it  tolerably 
well.  The  higher  notes  are.  clear  anil  pleasing, 
but  the  longer  reeds  are  apt,  like  the  devvise  flute, 
to  make  a hissing  sound,  though  blown  by  a good 
player.  The  number  of  reeds  of  which  the  syrinx 
is  composed,  varies  in  different  instruments  from 
five  to  twenty-three.’  The  classical  syrinx  is 
usually  said  to  have  had  seven  reeds  (Virg.  EeL 
ii.) ; but  we  find  some  in  the  monuments  with  a 
greater  number,  and  the  shepherd  of  Theocritus 
(/id.  viii.)  had  one  of  nine  reeds. 

III.  Instruments  of  Percussion, — or  such 
as  give  forth  their  sounds  on  being  struck  or 
shaken. 

1.  fjh  toph,  seems  to  have  denoted  primarily  tha 
tambourine,  and  generally  all  instruments  of  the 
drum  kind  which  were  in  use  among  the  Israel- 
ites. There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  about  this 
instrument.  All  the  translations  and  lexicons 
agree  in  this  one  point;  and  we  have,  besides,  the 
actual  evidence  of  existing  instruments  of  this 
kind  among  the  Arabians,  bearing  the  same  name 
in  the  forms  of  doff  and  adufe.  The  toph  was 
known  to  the  Jews  before  they  quitted  Syria  (Gen. 
jixxi.  27) ; it  is  also  mentioned  by  Job  (xxi  12), 
and  it  is  the  first  instrument  named  after  the  exode, 
being  that  with  which  Miriam  led  the  dances* 
with  w’.aic*  the  daughters  gf  Israel  celebrated  the 


379  MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


overthrow  of  Pharaoh  (Exotl.  xv.  20).  It  was 
employed  by  David  in  all  the  festivities  of  religion 
(2  Sam.  vi.  5).  Isaiah  adduces  it  as  the  instru- 
ment of  voluptuaries,  but  left  in  silence  amid 
wars  and  desolations  (Isa.  xxiv.  8).  The  occa- 
sions on  which  it  was  used  were  mostly  joyful, 
and  those  who  played  upon  it  were  generally 
females  (Ps.  lxviii.  25),  as  was  the  case  among 
most  ancient  nations,  and  is  so  at  the  present  day 
ir  the  East.  It  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  connec- 
tion with  battles  or  warlike  transactions.  The 
usages  of  the  modern  East  might  adequately  illus- 
trate all  the  Scriptural  allusions  to  this  instrument, 
but  happily  we  have  more  ancient  and  very  valu- 
able illustration  from  the  monuments  of  Egypt.  In 
these  we  find  that  the  tambourine  was  a favourite 
instrument,  both  on  sacred  and  festive  occasions. 
There  were  three  kinds,  differing,  no  doubt,  in 
sound  as  well  as  form  ; one  was  circular,  another 
square  or  oblong,  and  the  third  consisted  of  two 
squares  separated  by  a bar.  They  were  all  beaten  by 
the  hand,  and  often  used  as  an  accompaniment  ito 
the  harp  and  other  instruments.  The  tambourine 


485.  [Tambourines.  1.  angular;  2.  circular.) 

mas  usually  played  by  females,  who  are  represented 
as  dancing  to  its  soqnd  without  the  accompaniment 
of  any  other  instrument.  The  imperfect  manner 
of  representation  does  not  allow  us  to  see  whether 
the  Egyptian  tambourine  had  the  same  moveable 
pieces  of  metal  let  into  the  wooden  frame  which 
we  find  in  the  tambourines  of  ihe  present  day. 
Their  presence  may,  however,  be  inferred  from  the 
manner  in  which  the  tambourine  is  held  up  after 
being  struck  ; and  we  know  that  the  Greek  instru- 
ments were  furnished  with  balls  of  metal  attached 
by  short  thongs  to  the  circular  rim  (Wilkinson, 
Ancient  Egyptians,  ii.  314). 

At  mournings  for  the  dead  the  tamboarine  was 
sometimes  introduced  among  the  Egyptians,  and 
the  ‘mournful  song’  was  accompanied  by  its  mo- 
notonous sound.  This  is  still  a custom  of  the  East, 
and  probably  existed  among  the  Jews 

Whether  the  Israelites  had  drums  or  not  does 
not  clearly  appear,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence 
pro  or  con  it  is  useless  to  speculate  on  the  subject. 
If  they  had,  they  musITrbe  included  under  the  gene- 
ral name  of  toph.  The  ancient  Egyptians  had  a 
long  drum,  very  similar  to  the  tom-toms  of  India 
(No.  426,  figs.  1,  3).  It  wa3  about  two  feet  or  two 
feet  and  a half  in  length,  and  was  beaten  with  the 
hand.  The  case  was  of  wood  or  copper,  covered 
at  both  ends  with  parchment  or  leather,  and 
braced  with  cords  extended  diagonally  over  the 


exterior  of  the  cylinder.  It  was  used  chiefly  » 
war.  There  was  another  larger  drum,  less  unlikf 


our  own  ; it  was  about  two  feet  and  a halflong 
by  about  two  feet  broad,  and  was  shaped  much 
like  a sugar-cask  (No.  427,  fig  3).  It  was  formed 
of  copper,  anti  covered  at  the  ends  with  red 
leather,  braced  by  catgut  strings  passing  through 
6mall  holes  in  its  broad  margin.  This  kind  of 
drum  was  beaten  with  sticks  (fig.  5).  It  does  not 
appear  on  the  monuments,  but  an  actual  specimen 
was  found  in  the  excavations  made  by  D'Atha- 
nasi,  in  1823,  and  is  now  in  the  museum  at  Paris. 

Another  species  of  drum  is  represented  in  the 
Egyptian  paintings,  and  is  of  the  same  kind 
which  is  still  in  use  in  Egypt  and  Arabia,  under 
the  naihe  of  the  darabooka  drum.  It  is  made  of 
parchment  stretched  over  thetop  of  a funnel-shaped 
case  of  metal,  wood,  or  pottery  (No.  427,  figs.  1,2, 
4).  It  is  beaten  with  the  hand,  and  when  re- 
laxed, the  parchment  is  braced  by  exposing  it  for 
a few  moments  to  the  sun,  or  the  warmth  of  a 
fire.  This  kind  of  drum  claims  particular  atten- 
tion from  its  being  supposed  to  be  represented  on 
one  of  the  coins  ascribed  to  Simon  Maccabaeus 
(No.  429,  fig.  5).  When  closely  examined,  this 


instrument  will  appear  to  be  the  same  in  prin- 
ciple with  our  kettle-drum,  which,  indeed,  has 
been  confessedly  derived  from  the  East,  where 
other  instruments  on  the  same  principle  are  not 
wanting.  One  of  them  (No.  429,  fig.  4)  is  just 
the  same  as  the  instrument  we  have  derived  from, 
it : others  are  smaller  in  various  degrees,  are  of 
different,  forms,  and  are  tapped  lightly  with  the 
fingers.-  Such  drurn-tabrets  were  not  unknown  to 
the  ancient  Egyptians,  as  may  be  perceived  by 
fig.  2,  No.  425. 

The  Rabbins  speak  obscurely  of  a sort  of  drum 
which  may  have  been  of  this  kind.  It  stood,  they 
say,  in  the  temple  court,  and  was  used  to  call 
the  priests  to  prayer,  the  Levites  to  singing,  and 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 

leprous'persons  to  their  purification.  They  ven- 
ture to  add  that  its  sound  could  betynird  from 
Jerusalem  to  Jericho  ( BuxxOif,  Lex.  Rabbin . s.  v. 

fisnao). 

2.  phaamon.  This  name  nowhere  oc- 
curs but  with  reference  to  the  small  golden  append- 
ices to  the  robe  of  the  high-priest  (Exod.  ^xviii. 
33;  xxxix.  25),  which  all  versions  agree  in  ren- 
dering * bells,'  or  ‘ little  bells.'  These  bells  were 
attached  to  the  hem  of  the  garment,  and  were 
separated  from  each  other  by  golden  knobs,  Shaped 
like  pomegranates.  They  obviously  produced 
their  tinkling  sound  by  striking  against  the 
golden  knobs  which  were  appended  near  them. 
There  ts  no  trace  of  bells  among  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  or  in  classical  antiquity,  and  we  call 
these  such  for  want  of  a hetter  term  to  describe 
sonorous  pieces  of  metal  used  in  thi3  manner.  \ 

3.  tzeitzelim , D&VP  metzilloih , 

0?r6^p  metzilthaim.  These  words  are  trans- 
lated cymbals  in  most  versions,  except  in  Zech. 
xiv.  20,  where  they  are  rendered  ‘bells’ — the 
* bells  of  the  horses.’  If  the  words,  however,  de- 
note cymbals  in  other  places,  they  cannot  well 
denote  a different  thing  here.  It  is  true  that 
ramels,  and  sometimes  horses,  wear  bells  in  the 
East  g,t  present;  and  it  is  probable  that  the  He- 
brews had  something  similar  in  the  shape  of  small 
cymbal-shaped  pieces  of  cnotal.  suspended  under 
the  necks  of  the  animals,  and  which  struck  against 
each  other  with  the  motions  of  the  animal.  The 
"Romans  attached  metallic  pendants  of  this  kind, 
called  ph.alarea.  To  their  war-horses,  in  Older  to 
produce  a Terrific  effect  when  shaken  by  the  rapid 
motions  of  the  animals.  These  were  certainly  not 
bells,  but  might  without  any  violent  impropriety 
be  called  cymbals,  From  the  manner  in  which  they 
Btruck  against  each  other.  This  is  the  single  doubt- 
ful text;  in  all  the  other  texts  we  may  conclude 
with  reasonable  certainty  that  cymbals,  and  some- 
times castagnets  (which  are  small  cymbals),  are  in- 
tended. There  is  an  important  passage  (Ps.  cl.  5), 
‘Praise  him  with  the  clear  cymbal,  praise  him 
v/ith  The  resounding  cymbal,’  which  clearly 
points  To  two  instruments  under  the  same  name, 
und  leaves  us  to  conclude  that  the  Hebrews  had 
both  hand-cymbals  and  finger-cymbals  (or  cas- 
tagnets),  although  it  may  not  in  all  cases  be 
easy  to  say  which  of  the  two  is  intended  in 
particular  texts.  Cymbals  figure  in  the  grand 
procession  at  the  removal  of  the  ark  (1  Chron. 
Kiii.  8)  : other  instances  occur  of  their  being 
used  in  the  worship  of  God  (Neh.  xii.  27 ; Ps. 
cl.  5;  1 Chron.  xv.  2);  and  the  illustrious 

Asaph  was  himself  a player  on  the  cymbal  (1 
Chron.  xvi.  5).  The  sound  of  these  instruments 
is  very  sharp  and  piercing,  but  it  does  not  belong 
To  fine,  speaking,  expressive  music.  Hence  Paul 
could  describe  it  by  the  word  &kukd(ov.  ‘ clanging’ 
(1  Cor  xiii.  1).  The  Hebrew  instruments  were 
probably  similar  to  those  of  the  Egyptians.  These 
were  of  mixed  metal,  apparently  brass,  or  a com- 
pound of  brass  and  silver,  and  of  a form  exactly 
resembling  those  of  modern  times,  though  smaller, 
being  only  seven  inches  or  five  inches  and  a half 
in  diameter.  The  handle  has  disappeared  from  the 
existing  specimens,  but  is  supposed  to  have  been  of' 
the  same  material,  bound  with  leather  or  string, 
and  being  inser  :ed  in  a small  bole  at  the  sum- 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS.  37ft 

mit,  to  nave  been  secured  by  bending  back  the  two 
ends  (No.  428,  fig.  3).  The  same  kind  of  instru- 
ment is  still  used  by  the  modem  inhabitants  of 


Egypt,  and  from  them,  says  Wilkinson,  * have 
been  borrowed  the  very  small  cymbals  played 
with  the  finger  and  thumb,  which  supply  the 
place  of  castagnets  in  the  abneh  dunce  * ( Ancient 
Egypt,  iii.  255).  In  thus  calling  instruments 
used  as  castagnets  ‘small  cymbals,’  this  author 
incidentally  supports  the  view  we  have  taken. 
The  modern  castagnef,  introduced  into  Spain 
by  the  Moors,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  same 
source. 


429.  (Instruments  o!  Percussion*.  1 mallet  used  in  strik- 
in'; suspended  boards ; 2.  cast.ignets ; 3.  tabret- 

drum,  struck  by  attached  balls;  4-  Oriental  kettle- 
drum; 5.  supposed  ancieut  Jewish  coin  representing 
drums.  J 

4.  shalishim.  This  word  occurs  but 

once,  viz.  in  1 Sam.  xviii.  6,  and  is  there  uncer- 
tainly rendeied,  in  the  Authorized  Version,  • in- 
struments of  music,’  and  in  the  margin  ‘three- 
stringed  instruments.’  The  word  is  plural,  and 
means  ‘threes.’  Most  writers,  proceeding  upon 
this  interpretation,  identify  it  with  the  triangle, 
which  At.henaeus  (iv.  23)  alleges  to  have  been  a 
Syrian  invention.  We  have  no  Egyptian  repie-s 
6entation  of  it,  but  that  people  had  instruments 
which  are  not  figured  on  the  existing  monuments., 
As  this  was  the  instrument  with  which  the  dam-: 
sels  of  Israel  came  forth  to  meet  the  victorious; 
David,  the  ancient  translators  have  usually  ren-> 
dered  the  word  by  cymbals  or  castagnets,  which; 
seemed  to  them  more  proper  to  women.  But  jhe 
triangle  may  not  the  less  have  been  suited  to  a 
military  triumph,  and  as  an  accompaniment  to) 
the  other  instruments  used  on  that  occasion.  Je- 
rome has  sistra,  an  idea  which  has  received  little, 
attention  from  commentators ; but  if  we  had  uo& 
preferred  to  tied  the  sistrum  unde?  another  word 


830  MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


MYSTERY. 


we  would  not  hesitate  to  accept  this  conclusion, 
founded,  as  it  manifestly  is,  on  the  three  Irans verse 
raoveible  bars  with  which  the  sistra  are  usually 
furnished.  In  Barker’s  Bible  (1595),  the  word  is 
rendered  by  ‘rebecke.' 

5.  D'i’jyiD  menaaneim.  This  is  another  word 
which  occurs  but  once  in  Scripture  (2  Sam.  vi. 
5),  where  our  version  translates  it  by  * cymbals.’ 


430.  (Instrumt-tits  of  Percussion,  t,  3,  6.  Triangular 
and  ether  rods  of  metal  charged  with  rings ; 2.  a sup. 
osed.  Hebrew  instrument,  regarded  by  some  as  the 
Jenaaneim;  4 a kind  of  Eastern  cymbals  ■,  5.  a pan 
of  sounding  metal.) 

although  it  has  appropriated  another  word  to 
that  instrument.  It  is  now  more  generally 
tiiougbt  to  denote  the  sistrum,  and  appears  to  be 
derived  from  nua,  ‘to  shake  ’ or  ‘to  vibrate,’ 
corresponding  to  the  etymology  of  the  sistrum 
(auarpov),  from  aelu.  An  objection  has  indeed 
been  urged,  that  the  sistrum  was  not  sufficiently 
ancient ; but  this  has  been  6et  at  rest  by  the 
recent  discoveries  in  Egyptian  antiquities,  which 
liave  revealed  sistra  belonging  to  the  most  ancient 
period.  The  sistrum  was  generally  from  eight 


80  si steen  or  eighteen  inches  in  length,  and  en- 
tirely of.  bronze  or  brae&  Jt  was  sometimes  iur 


laid  with  silver,  gilt,  or  otherwise  ornamented,  and 
being  held  upright  was  shaken,  tlie  rings  moving 
to  and  fro  upon  the  bars.  The  lust  were  fre- 
quently made.to  imitate  snakes,  or  simply  bent  at 
each  end  to  secure  them  from  slipping  through  the 
holes.  Several  actual  specimens  of  these  instru- 
ments have  been  found,  and  are  deposited  in  the 
British,  Berlin,  and  other  museums.  They  are 
mostly  furnished  with  sacred  symbols,  and  were 
chiefly  used  by  the  priests  and  priestesses  in  the 
ceremonies  of  religion,  particularly  in  those  con- 
nected with  the  worship  of  Isis  (Plut.  de  Isid.  c. 
63  ; Juven.  xiii.  93;  Jablonsky,  Opusc.  i.  306). 
See  Burney  « and  Hawkins’s  Histories  of  Music  ; 
Forkel,  Geschichte  der  Musik ; Cal  met,  Dissert. 
6ur  la  Musique  des  Hebreux,  annexed  to  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms ; Pfeiffer,  Ueber  die  Musik 
der  Alten  Hebr.  1779  ; Saalohutz,  Form  der  Hebr . 
Poesie  ; Gesch.  und  Wiirdigung  d.  Musik  bei  den 
Hebr.  1 829  ; H are n berg,  Cdmtn.  de  Re  Musica 
Vetus.  in  Miscell.  Lips.  ix.  218,  sq. ; Winer,, 
Biolisckes  Real-ioorterbuch,  arts.  ‘Musik/  ‘Mu- 
6ikalische  lustrumente/  * Becken,'  ‘ Harfe,* 
‘Tambourine/  &c.  $ Jalin,  Biblisches  Archd 
ologie ; Reland,  De  Spoliis  Temp.  Hieros. ; Ver- 
euch,  Die  Meloche  zt.  Harmonic  der  Alt.  Hebr. 
Shiite  Haggiborim , in  Ugolini  Thesaur.  tom. 
xxxii. ; Con.-tant,  Traite  sur  la  Poesie  et  la 
Musique  des  Hebreux ; De  Wette,  Commentar. 
iiber  die  Psalmen  ; Rosellinij  Monumenti  del P 
Egitto  ; Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egyptians  ; Villoteau, 
Sur  la  Musique  des  Orientaux,  in  Descript,  de 
l Egypte ; Lady  M.  W.  Montague's  Letters „•  Vol- 
ney,  Voyage  en  Syrie;  Tournefort,  Voyage  an  Le- 
vant; Niebuhr,  Reisebesckreibung  ; Russell’s  Nat. 
Hist,  of  Aleppo  ,•  Lane’s  Modern  Egyptians. 
MUSTARD-TREE.  [Sinapib.] 

MYRA  (Mvpa\  one  of  the  chief  towns  of 
Lycia,  in  Asia  Minor.  It  lav  about  a league 
from  the  sea  (in  N.  lat.  36°  18'^E.  long.  30°),  upon 
a rising  ground,  at  the  foot  of  which  flowed  a navi- 
gable river  with  an  excellent  harbour  at  its  mouth 
(Strabo,  xiv.  p.  665  ; Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  xxxii.  8). 
The  town  now  lies  desolate.  When  Paul  was  on 
his  voyage  from  Caesarea  to  Rome,  he  and  the 
ether  prisoners  were  landed  here,  and  were  re- 
embarked in  a ship  of  Alexandria  bound  to 
Rome  (Acta  xxvii.  5). 

MYRRH.  [Mon.] 

MYRTLE.  [IIadab.] 

MYSIA  (M eola\  a province  occupying  the 
north-west  angle  of  Asia.  Minor,  and  sejiarafed 
ffom  Europe  only  by  the  Propontis  and  Helles- 
pont; on  the  eouth  it  joined  iEolis,  and  was 
oepamted  on  the  east  from  Bithynia  by  the  river 
^Fisopus.  Latterly  i^Eolis  was  included  in  Mysia*: 
which  was  then  separated  frpm  Lydia  and  Ionia  by 
the  river  Hcrmus,  now  Sarabad  orDjedis  (Strabo, 
xii.  562,  xiii.  628 ; Pliny,  Hist  Nat.  v.  32 ; Ptol. 
Geog.  v.  2).  In  ancient  times  the  province  of 
Mysia  was  celebrated  for  its  fertility  in  corn  and 
wine,  and  although  now  but  j>oorly  tilled  it  is  still 
one  of  the  finest,  tracts  in  Asia  Minor,  Paul 
passed  through  this  province  and  embarked  at.  it 
chief  port,  Troas,  on  bis  first  voyage  to  Europe 
(Acts  xvi.  7,  8 ; Rosenmuller.  Bill.  Geog.  iii. 
32$  Winer,  Bill.  Reahcorterb.  s.  v.  Mysia / 
Richter,  Wallfahrten , p.  466). 

MYSTERY  (pvfrrfipiw).  The  etymology  ct 
this  Greek  word,  which  seems  to  be  th®  simplest  and 


MYSTERY. 


MYSTERY. 


3ft 


most  illustrative  of  its  meaning,  is  that  from  “inD, 
\o  ‘hide  >v  ‘conceal,’  whence  "VinDD  or  "inDO.  a 
covert  01  secret  place,  a secret.  A most  unsorip- 
tural  an«l  dangerous  sense  is  hut  too  often  put  upon 
the  word,  as  if  it  meant  something  absolutely 
unintelligible  and  incomprehensible;  whereas, 
in  everv  instance  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Sept, 
or  New  Testament,  it  is  applied  to  something 
which  is  revealed,  declared,  explained,  spoken,  or 
which  may  be  known  or-  understood  This  fact 
will  appear  from  the  following  elucidation  of  the 
passages  in  which  it  is  found.  Fust,  it  is  some- 
runes  used  to  denote  the  meaning  of  a symbolical 
representation,  whether  addressed  to  the  mind  by 
a parable,  allegory,  Ike...  or  to  the  eye,  by  a vision, 
&c.  Thus  our  Lord,  having  delivered  to  the 
multitude  the  parable  of  the  sower  (Matt.  xiii. 

when  the  disciples  asked-hini  (vev.  10)  why 
spoke  to  them  in  parables,  replied,  ‘Unto  you 
it  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
uf  heaven,  but  unto  them  which  are  without  it  is 
not  given’  (Mark  iv.  11);  ‘Therefore  I speak  to 
them  in  parables’  (Matt.  xiii.  13);  ‘But  your 
eyes  see,  and  your,  ears  understand  ’ (ver.  10); 
w here  our  Lord  applies  tire  term  * mysteries  ' to 
the  moral  truths  couched  under  that  parable,  that 
is,  to  its  figurative  meaning.  His  words,  taken 
in  their  general  sense,  are  thus  paraphrased  hy  Dr. 
MacknLght  : ‘ 1 may  explain  to  yon  the  nature 
of  tire  Messiah’s  kingdom,  and  the  other  difficult 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  because  you  are  able  to 
bear  them,  but  1 may  not  deal  so  with  the  multi- 
tude, who  are  obstinate  to  such  a degree,  that  they 
will  not  hear  anything  contrary  to  their  prejudices 
and  passions’  {Harmony  of  the  Gospels , & 49). 
Again,  the  mystery  or  symbolical  vision  of  the 
* seven  stars  and  of  the  seven  golden  candlesticks’ 
(Rev.  i.  12,  lfi),  is  explained  to  mean  ‘ the  angels 
of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  and  the  seven 
churches  themselves  (ver.  20).  Again.  4 the  mys- 
tery or  symbolical  representation  'of  the  woman 
upon  a scarlet-coloured  beast  ’ (Rev.  xvii.  3-6),  is 
also  explained,  ‘1  will  tell  thee  the  mysteiy 
of  the  woman,’  &c.  (xvii.  7).  When  St.  Paul, 
speaking  of  marriage,  says  ‘this  is  a great  mys- 
tery ’ (Eph.  v.  32),  lie  evidently  neats  the  original 
institution  of  marriage,  as  affording  a figurative 
representation  of  the  union  betwixt  Christ  and  the 
church  (Campbell,  Dissertation,  p.  10,  part  iii.  § 
9)  The  word  is  a*lso  used  to  denote  anything 
whatever  v/hich  is  hidden  or  concealed,  fill  it  is 
explained.  The  Sept,  uses  it  to  express  V7,  a 
secret  (Dan.  li.  l«,  19,  27,  28,  29,  30,  47  ; n . 6), 
in  relation  to  Nebuchadnezzar’s  dream,  which  was 
a secret  till  Daniel  explained  it,  and  even  from 
the  king  himself,  for  he  had  totally  forgotten  it 
( ver.  5,  9).  Thus  the  word  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament  to  denote  those  dociines  of  Christi- 
anity, general  or  particular,  which  the  Jews  and 
the  world  at  large  did  not  understand,  till  they 
were  revealed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  ‘Great 
is  the  mystery  of  godliness,’  i.  e.  the  Christian  re- 
ligion ( 1 Tim.  iii  16),  the  chief  parts  of  which  the 
apostle  instantly  proceeds  to  adduce, — ‘God  was 
manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  by  the  Spirit,  seen 
of  angels,  &c. — facts  which  bad  not  entered  into 
the  heart  of  man  (l  Cor.  ii.  9)  until  God  visibly 
accom '.dished  them,  and  revealed  them  to  the 
apostles  by  inspiration  (ver.  10).  The  apostle  is 
generally  thought  here  to  compare  the  Gospel  with 
tire  greater  Eleusinian  mysteries ; for  which  see 


Diod.  Sic.  iv.  25  ; Dem.  xxix.  ult.  Xen.  H.  G.. 
i.  4,  14  ; or  Leland  s Advantage  and  Necessity 
of  the  Christian  Iievelatwn , part  i.  ch.  8,  9 ; of 
Macknight’s  Preface  to  the  Ephesians,  § 7 
Thus  also  the  Gospel  in  general  is  called  1 the 
mystery  of  the  faith,  which  it  was  requisite  the 
deacons  should  1 hold  with  a pure  conscience’  (1 
Tim.  iii.  9 ),  and  ‘the  mystery  which  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world  had  been  bid  with  God, 
but  which  was  now  made  known  through  mean* 
of  the  church’  (Eph.  iii.  9);  the  mystery  of  the 
Gospel  which  St.  Paul  desired  ‘to  make  known  * 
(Epl).  vi.  19);  ‘the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the 
Father,  and  of  Christ,’  to  the  full  apprehension  or 
understanding  of  which  (rather  than  * the  acknow- 
ledgment’)  he  piaved  that  the  Colossians  might 
come  (Col.  ii.  2 ; comp,  the  use  of  tire  word 
inly  inverts,  I Tim.  ii.  4;  2 Tim.  iii.  7);  which  he 
desired  the  Colossians  to  pray  that  God  would  en- 
able himself  and  his  fellow  apostles  ‘to  speak  anil 
to  make  manifest  * (Col.  iv.  3,  4)  ; which  he  calls 
‘the  revelation  of  the  mystery  which  was  kept 
secret  since  the  world  began,  but  now  is  made 
manifest  and  knowfi  to  all  nations  ’ (Rom.  xvi. 
2-5);  which,  he  say?, 4 we  speak  ’ (1  Cor.  ii.  7),  and 
•of  which  the  apostles  were  4 stewards  ( ) Cor.  iv. 
1).  The  same  word  is  used  respecting  certain 
particular  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as,  for  instance^ 

4 the  partial  and  temporary  blindness  of  Israel,’  of 
which  mystery  ‘the  apostle  would  not  have 
Christians’  ignorant  (Rom.  xi.  25),  and  which  he 
explains  (ver.  25-32).  He  styles  the  calling  of 
the  Gentiles  ‘a  mystery  which,  in  other  ages, was 
not  made  known  unto  the  sons  of  men  as  it  is  now 
revpaled  unto  the  holy  apostles  and  prophets  by 
the  Spirit  ’ (Eph.  iii.  4-6;  comp.  i.  9,  10,  &c.)„ 
To  this  class  we  refer  the  well-known  phrase, 

‘ Behold  I show  you  a mystery  (1  Cor.  xv  51); 
we  shall  all  he  changed;’  and  then  follows  an 
explanation  of  the  change  (ver.  51-55).  Even  in 
the  case  of  a man  speak  ing  in  an  unknown  tongue, 
in  the  absence  of  an  interpreter,  and  when,  there- 
fore, no  man  understood  him,  although  ‘by  the 
Spirit  he  was  speaking  mysteries,’  yet  th’e  Apostle 
supposes  that  the  man  so  doing  understood  what 
himself  said  (1  Cor.  xiv.  2-1).  And  in  the  pro- 
phetic jmrtion  of  his  writings  ‘ concerning  the 
mystery  of  iniquity  ’ (2  Thess.  ii.  7),  he  speaks  of 
it  as  being  ultimately  ‘revealed’  (ver.  8).  Jose- 
phus applies  nearly  the  same  phrase,  pvariipiov 
Kcoclas , fi  mystery  of  wickedness,  to  Antipater  s 
crafty  conduct  to  ensnare  and  destroy  his  brother 
Alexander  ( De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  24.  1) ; and  to  com- 
plete the  proof  that  the  word  ‘mystery’  is  used  in 
the  sens*’  of  knowable  secrets,  we  add  the  words 
‘Though  1 understand  all  mysteries'  (1  Cor. 
xiii.  2).  The  Greeks  used  the  word  in  the  same 
way  Thus  Menander,  pvar'fjpiov  aov  jul)  trctT e;- 
7ttjs  rw  <pi\ev,  4 Tell  not  your  secret  to  a friend’ 
(p.  274,  line  671,  ed.  Clerici).  Even  when  they 
apply  the  term  to  the  greater  arid  lesser  Eleusinian 
mysteries,  they  are  still  mysteiies  into  which  a 
person  might  be  initiated,  when,  they  would,  of 
course,  cease  to  be  mysteries  to  him.  The  word 
is  used  in  the  same  8ense  throughout  the  Apocrypha 
as  in  the  Sept,  and  New  Testament  (Tohit  xii  7; 
Judith  ii.  2;  Kcclus.  xxii.  22 ; xxvii  16,17,21; 
2 Macc.  xiii  21 ) ; it  is  applied  to  divine  or  sacred 
mysteries  (Wisd.  ii.  22;  vi.  2*2),  and  to  the  ce- 
remonies of  false  religions  (Wisd.  xiv.  15,  23  \ 

J.  F.  ft 


NAAMAH. 


NAAMAN. 


N. 

1.  N A AM  AH  pleasant ; Sept.  Noe/m), 

daughter  of  Lamech  und  Zillah,  and  sister  of 
Tubal -cam  (Gen.  iv.  22).  The  family  was  one 
of  inventors : and  as  few  women  are  named,  the 
Jewish  commentators  ascribe  suitable  inventions 
to  each  of  them.  Naamah  is  affirmed  by  them  to 
nave  invented  the  spuming  of  wool  and  making  of 
cloth.  But  the  book  of  Genesis  does  not  say  this, 
and  they  could  have  no  other  source  of  informa- 
tion. 

2.  NAAMAH,  an  Ammonitess,  one  of  the 
wives  of  Solomon,  and  mother  of  Reboboam 
(1  Kings  xiv.  21). 

NAAMAN  pleasantness i Sept.  Nmjtdv), 

commander  of  the  armies  of  Damascene  Syria,  in 
the  time  of  Joram,  king  of  Israel.  Through  his 
valour  and  abilities  Naamati  held  a high  place  in 
the  esteem  of  his  king  Benhadad  ; and  although 
he  was  afflicted  with  leprosy,  it  would  seem  that 
this  did  not,  as  among  the  Hebrews,  operate  as  a 
disqualification  for  public  employment.  Never- 
theless the  condition  of  a leper  could  not  hut  have 
been  in  his  high  place  both  afflicting  anti  pain- 
ful : and  when  it  was  heard  that  a little  Hebrew 
slave-girl,  who  waited  upon  Nuaman’s  wife,  had 
spoken  of  a prophet  in  Samaria  who  could  cure 
her  master  of  his  leprosy,  the  faint  and  uncertain 
hope  thus  offered  was  eagerly  seized;  and  the 
general  obtained  permission  to  visit  the  place 
where  this  relief  was  to  be  sought.  Benhadad 
even  furnished  him  with  a letter  to  his  old  enemy 
king  Juram;  hut  as  this  letter  merely  stated  that 
Naaman  had  been  sent  for  him  to  cure,  the  king 
of  Israel  rent  his  clothes  in  astonishment  and 
anger,  suspecting  that  a request  so  impossible  to 
yrrant,  involved  a studied  insult  or  an  intention  to 
Ii.\  a ouarrel  upon  him  with  a view  to  future 
aggressions.  When  tidings  of  this  affair  reached 
the  prophet  Elisha,  he  desired  that  the  stranger 
might  be  sent  to  him.  Naaman  accordingly 
went,  and  his  splendid  train  of  chariots,  horses, 
and  laden  camels  tilled  the  street  before  the  pro- 
phet's house.  As  a leper,  Naaman  could  not  be 
admitted  into  the  house ; and  Elisha  did  not  come 
out  to  him  as  he  expected,  arid  as  he  thought  civi- 
lity required ; but  he  sent  out  his  servant  to  tell  him 
in  go  and  dip  himself  seven  times  in  the  Jordan, 
and  that  his  leprosy  would  then  pass  from  him.  He 
was,  however,  by  this  time  so  much  chafed  and  dis- 
gus'ed  by  rhe  apparent  neglect  and  incivility  with 
which  he  had  been  treated,  that  if  his  attendants 
bad  not  prevailed  upon  him  to  obey  the  directions 
of  rhe  prophet,  he  ivo  ild  have  returned  home  still 
a leper.  But  he  went  to  the  Jordan,  and  having 
bent  himself  seven-times  beneath  its  waters,  rose 
from  them  clear  from  all  leprous  stain.  His 
gratitude  was  now  proportioned  to  his  previous 
wrath,  and  he  drove  back  to  vent  the  feelings 
of  his  full  heart  to  the  prophet  of  Israel.  He 
avowed  to  him  his  conviction  that  the  God  of 
Israel,  through  whom  this  marvellous  deed  had 
been  wrought,  was  great  beyond  all  gods ; and  he 
declared  that  henceforth  he  would  worship  Him 
only,  and  to  that  end  he  proposed  to  take  with  him 
mules’  load  of  the  soil  of  Israel  wherewith 


to  set  up  in  Damascus  an  altar  to  Jehovah. 
This  shows  he  had  heard  that  an  altar  of  earth 
was  necessary  (Exod.  xx.  24)  ; ami  the  imperfect 
notions  which  he  entertained  of  the  duties  which 
his  desire  to  serve  Jehovah  involved,  v/ere natural 
in  an  uuiustiucted  foreigner.  He  had  also  heard 
that  Jehovah  was  a very  jealous  God,  and  had 
forbidden  any  of  his  servants  to  bow  themselves 
down  before  idols ; and  therefore  he  expressed  to 
Elisha  a hope  that  he  should  be  forgiven  if,  when 
his  public  duty  required  him  to  attend  his  king 
to  the  temple  of  Ilimmon,  he  bowed  with  bis 
master.  The  grateful  Syrian  would  gladly  have 
pressed  upon  Elisha  gifts  of  high  value,  but  the 
holy  man  resolutely  refused  to  take  anything1lest 
the  glory  redounding  to  God  from  this  great  act 
should  in  any  degree  be  obscured.  His  servant, 
Gehazi,  was  less  scrupulous,  and  hastened  with  a 
lie  in  his  mouth  to  ask  in  his  master’s  name 
for  a portion  of  that  which  Elisha  had  refused. 
The  illustrious  Syrian  no  sooner  saw  the  man 
running  after  his  chariot,  than  he  alighted  to  meet 
him,  and  happy  to  relieve  himself  in  some  degree 
under  the  sense  of  overwhelming  obligation,  he 
sent  him  back  with  more  than  he  had  ventured  to 
ask  (2  Kings  v.).  Nothing  more  is  known  of 
Naaman  ; and  what  betel  Gehazi  is  related  under 
another  head  [Gehazi]. 

The  only  points  of  difficulty  in  this  narrative 
are  those  connected  with  the  requests  made  by 
Naaman  to  Elisha,  aad  which  the  prophet,  seems 
not  to  have  refused.  The  request,  for  two  mules’ 
load  of  eurth  with  which  to  build  an  altar  to 
Jehovah  in  Damascus,  appears  to  have  arisen  from 
the  notion,  that  the  soil  of  the  land  was  proper  to 
the  God  of  the  land,  whom  he  proposed  henceforth 
to  worship.  Jehovah’s  claim  to  be  the  universal 
God  was  unknown  to,  or  misunderstood  bv,  the 
neighbouring  nations ; and  the  only  question 
that  ever  came  before  them  was  whether  Jehovah, 
the  God  whom  the  Hebrews  worshipped,  was 
more  or  less  powerful  than  the  gods  they  wor- 
shipped. That  he  was  infinitely  more  powerful, 
was,  as  we  take  it,  the  point  at  which  this  man  s 
faith  rested.  He  was  convinced  not  that  Jeho- 
vah was  the  rniveisal  God,  but  that  ‘there  was 
no  God  in  all  the  earth  save  only  in  the  land  of 
Israel  ’ — and,  therefore,  he  desired  to  worship  at 
an  altar  formed  of  the  eoil  which  was  thus 
eminently  honoured.  It  is  not  clear  u telhec 
he  intended  to  say  absolutely  that  there  was  no 
God  in  the  world  save  in  the  land  of  . Israel,  os 
used  the  phrase  as  a strong  expression  of  his  belief 
that  the  gods  of  other  lands  were  nought  as  com- 
pared with  Him.  The  explanation  applies  ir> 
either  sense.  Naaman’a  other  request  for  per- 
mission to  bow  in  the  house  of  Rim.mon  seems  to 
have  amounted  to  this.  He  had  acknowledged 
indirectly  that  Rimmon  was  no  god,  or  else  a god 
too  powerless  to  be  henceforth  the  object  of  his 
worship.  Yet,  as  a great  officer  of  state,  his  duty 
required  him  to  attend  the  king  to  the  temple  of  this 
idol,  and,  as  the  king  leaned  upon  his  arm,  to  how 
when  the  monarch  bowed.  To  refuse  this  would 
bring  disgrace  ujjon  him,  and  constrain  him  to 
relinquish  his  high  place,  if  not  his  country ; and 
for  this  he  was  not  prepared.  Of  the  views 
under  jvhich  Elisha  consented  to  this  request,  we 
are  less  able  to  judge.  But  indeed  it  is  not  clear 
that  he  did  consent,  or  expressed  any  distinct 
opinion  in  the  matter.  His  words  of  dismissal, 


NAAZUZ. 

Go  in  peace,’  do  not  necessary  convey  his  ap- 
iroval  of  all  that  Naaman  had  asked,  although 
Ui  ten  ieruess  to  one  so  well  intentiorjed,  and 
e^hom  there  vva3  no  opportunity  of  instructing 
further,  he  may  have  abstained  from  urging  upon 
the  Syrian  .those  obligations  which  would  have 
Seen  indispensable  to  a subject  ol  the  Mosaical 
covenant 

NAAZUZ,  or  Na'atzutz  (f^\V;3),  occurs  only 
sn  two  passages  of  Isaiah,  in  both  of  which  it  is 
translated  ‘ thorn’  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
Thus  (ch.  vii.  18,  19),  ‘Jehovah  shall  hiss  for 
the  fly  that  is  in  the  uttermost  part  of  the 
rivers  of  Egypt,  and  for  the  bee  that  is  in  the 
land  of  Assyria  : and  they  shall  come,  and  shall 
rest  all  of  them,  in  fh.°  desolate  valleys,  and 
in  the  holes  of  the  rc*;ks,  and  upon  all  the 
thorjis'  ( naaznzim ).  By  some  this  has  been 
translated  crevices : but  that  it  is  a plant  of 
some  kind  is  evident  from  ch.  lv.  13 — ‘ Instead 
of  the  thorn  ( nciazuz ) shall  come  up  the  fir-tree, 
auid  instead  of  the  briar  shall  come  up  the  mvrtle- 
Sree.’  Some  have  translated  it  generally,  as  in  the 
■English  version,  by  thorn,  shrub,  timing  shrub, 
or  small  tree.  Others  have  attempted  to  define 
it  specifically,  rendering  it  bramble,  white-thorn, 
&c.  (Cels.  Hierobot.  ii.  p.  190);  but  nothing 
certain  has  been  determined  respecting  it.  Cel- 
sius endeavours  to  trace  it  to  the  same  origin 

as  the  Arabic  word  naaz,  which  he 

states  to  be  the  name  of  a plant,  of  which  the  bark 
is  employed  in  tanning  leather.  The  meaning  of 
the  term  he  continues,  in  Chaldee,  is  mfgere,  defi- 
gzre,  ‘to  stick  into’  or  ‘fix,’  and  it  is  therefore 
supposed  to  refer  to  a.  pricldy  or  thorny  plant. 
R.  Ben  Melech  says  that  commentators  explain 
naazuz  by  the  Arabic  word  sidr,  which  is  the 
name  of  a well  known  thorny  bush  of  Eastern 
countries,  a species  of  Zizyphus.  This,  Sprengel 
says,  is  the  Z.  vulgaris , found  in  many  parts  of 
Palestine,  as  well  as  in  many  of  the  uncultivated 
tracts  of  Eastern  countries  Others  suppose  the 
6pecies  to  lie  the  nabak  of  the  Arabs,  which  is  the 
Zizyphus  Lotus , and  considered  to  be  the  Lotus  of 
the  ancients.  But  from  the  context  it  would  appear 
that  the  plant,  if  a zizyphus,  must  have  been  a less 
highly  esteemed  variety  or  species.  But  in  a wild 
state  these  are  very  abundant,  bushy,  prickly,  and 
of  little  value.  Belon  says,  * Les  haves,  pour  la 
plus  part,  sont  de  tamarisques,  tEiioplia  (i.  e. 
zizvphi.  species)  et  rhamiies.'  In  Frey  tag's  Arabic 
lexicon  the  above  Arabic  word  naaz  is  said  to 
be  the  name  of  a thorny  tree,  common  in  the 
Hedjaz,  the  bark  of  which  is  used  in  tanning 
liides,  and  from  whose  wood  a dentifrice  is  pre- 
pared. This  might  be  a species  of  acacia,  of 
which  many  species  are  well  known  to  be  abun- 
dant in  the  dry  and  barren  parts  of  Syria,  Arabia, 
and  Egypt.—  J.  F.  R.  , 

NABAL'  (vd3,  stupid,  foolish  ; Sept.  Na/3aA), 
a descendant  of  Caleb,  dwelling  at  Maon,  and 
having  large  possessions  near  Carmel  of  Judah,  in 
the  same  neighbourhood.  He  hud  abundant 
wealth,  being  the  possessor  of  3000  sheep  and  1000 
goats,  but  his  churlish  and  harsh  character  had 
i it  been  softened  by  the  prosperity  with  which 
Je  had  been  favoured.  He  was  holding  a great 
sheep-shearing  of  his  numerous  flocks  at  Carmel 
— wliich  was  a season  of  great  festivity  among 


NABOTH.  £83 

the  sheep-masters  of  Israel — when  David  sent 
some  of  his  young  men  to  request  a small  supply 
of  provisions,  of  which  his  troop  was  in  great 
need.  He  was  warranted  in  asking  this,  as,  white 
Nabal’s  flocks  were  out  in  the  desert,  the  presence 
of  David  and  his  men  in  the  neighbourhood  had 
effectually  protected  them  from  the  depredations 
of  the  Arabs.  But  Nabal  refused  this  applica- 
tion, with  harsh  words,  reflecting  coarsely  upon 
David  and  his  troop  as  a set  of  worthless  runa- 
gates. On  learning  this,  David  was  highly  in- 
censed, and  set  out  with  his  band  to  avenge  die 
insult.  But  his  intention  was  anticipated  and 
averted  by  Nabal  s wife  Abigail,  who  met  him  on 
the  road  with  a most  acceptable  supply  of  provi- 
sions,' and  by  her  consummate  tact  and  good 
sense,  mollified  his  anger,  arid  indeed,  caused 
him  in  the  end  to  feel  thankful  that  he  had  been 
prevented  from  the  bloodshed  which  would  have 
ensued.  When  Nabal,  after  recovering  from  the 
drunkenness  of  the  feast,  was  informed  of  these 
circumstances,  he  was  struck  with  such  intense 
terror  at  the  danger  to  which  he  had  been  ex- 
posed, that  * his  heart  died  within  him.  and  he 
became  as  a stone;*  which  seems  to  have  been 
the  exciting  cause  of  a malady  that  carried  him 
off  about  ten  days  after.  David,  not  lung  after, 
evinced  the  favourable  impression  wliich  the  good 
sense  and  comeliness  of  Abigail  had  made  upon 
him,  hv  making  her  his  wife,  b.c.  1061  (1  Sam. 
xxv.)  [Abigaii.]. 

NABATH jEANS.'  [Nksaxoth.] 

NABOTH  (lli33,  fruit,  produce ; Sept. 
NaPovOal),  an  inhabitant  of  Jezreel,  who  was  the 
possessor  of  a patrimonial  vineyard  adjoining 
the  garden  of  the  palace  which  the  kings  of 
Israel  had  there.  King  Ahab  had  conceived  a 
desire  to  add  this  vineyard  to  his  ground,  to 
make  of  it  ‘a  garden  of  herbs,’  but  found  that 
Naboth  could  not,  on  any  conaideration,  be 
induced  to  alienate  a property  which  he  had 
derived  from  his  fathers.  This  gave  the  king  so 
much  concer.n,  that  he  took  tu  his  bed  and  le- 
fused  his  food  ; but  when  his  wife,  the  notorious 
Jezebel,  understood  the  cause  of  his  trouble,  she 
bade  him  be  of  good  cheer,  for  she  would  procure 
him  the  vineyard.  Some  time  after  Naboth  was, 
at  a public  feast,  accused  of  blasphemy,  by  an 
order  from  her  under  the  royal  seal,  and,  being  con- 
demned through  the  testimony  of  false  witnesses, 
was  stoned  to  death,  according  to  the  law,  outside 
the  town  (Lev.  xxiv.  16;  Num.  xv.  30).  Co- 
querel  (in  the  Biographic  Sacree ) thinks  that  tl.*e 
children  of  Naboth  perished  with  him,  being 
perhaps  put  to  death  by  the  creatures  of  Jezebel  ; 
and  his  reason  is,  that  otherwise  the  crim’e  would 
have  been  useless,  as  the  children  would  still  have 
been  entitled  to  the  father's  heritage.  But  we 
know  not  that  Naboth  had  any  sons;  and  if  oe 
had  sons,  and  they  had  been  taken  oil’,  the  estate 
might  not  have  wanted  an  heir.  It  therefore  rather 
seems  that  a usage  had  crqit  in  for  the  property 
of  persons  convicted  of  treason  (and  blasphemy 
was  treason  in  Israel)  to  be  estreated  to  the  crown. 
There  are  other  indications  of  this  usage.  If  it 
did  not  exist,  the  estate  of  Naboth  could  not  have 
lapsed  to  the  crown,  even  if  his  children  had 
shared  his  fate ; and  if  it  did  exist  it  was  not  ne» 
cessary  that  the  children  should  he  slain  to  se- 
cure the  estate  to  the  king. 


SS4  NACHON. 

When  Ahab  heard  of  the  death  of  Naboth— 
and  be  must  have  known  how  that  death  had  been 
accomplisheu,  or  he  would  not  have  supposed 
himself  a gainer  by  the  event — he  hastened  to 
take  possession.  But  he  was  speedily  taught  that 
this  horrid  crime  had  not  passed  without  notice 
by  the  all-seeing  God,  and  would  not  remain  un- 
punished by  his  justice.  The  only  tribunal  to 
which  he  remained  accountable,  pronounced  his 
doom  through  the  prophet  Elijah,  who  met  him  on 
the  spot,  * In  the  place  where  dogs  licked  the  blood 
of  Naboth,  shall  dogs  lick  thy  blood,  even  thine* 
(1  Kings  xxi.). 

NACHON  (|ta3;  Sept.  NaXc5p).  The  floor 
of  Nachon  is  the  name  given  to  the  threshing-floor 
near  which  Uzzah  was  slain,  for  laying  his  hand 
npou  the  ark  (2  Sam.  vc6).  It  is  doubted  whether 
this  be  a proper  name,  denoting  the  owner  of  the 
floor,  or  merely  an  epithet  applied  to  it.  t.  e.  ‘ the 

? repared  floor.*  which  in  that  case  it  would  signify. 

'his  floor  could  not  have  been  far  from  Jerusalem, 
and  must  have  nearly  adjoined  the  house  of  Obed- 
cdom,  in  which  the  ,arlc  was  deposited.  In  the 
parallel  text  (1  Chron.  xiii.  9)  the  place  is  called 
the  floor  of  Chidon,  pTO,  showing  that  the  owner 
or  the  place  had  two  names,  which  last  is  the 
alternative  adopted  by  the  Hebrew  writers  (7*. 
j Bab.  tit.  Sotak , iii.  fnl.  35). 

NACHOR.  [Nahoh.] 

1.  NADAB  (213,  liberal ; Sept.  NaSJ.6), 
eldest  son  of  Aaron,  who.  with  his  brother  Abihu, 
was  slain  for  oifering  strange  fire  to  the  Lord 
[Abihu]. 

2.  NADAB,  con  of  Jeroboam,  and  oecor.d 
king  of  Israel.  He  ascended  the  throne  upon  the 
death  of  his  father  (b.c.  954),  whose  deep-laid, 
but  criminal  and  dangerous  policy,  he  followed. 
He  was  engaged  in  the  siege  of  Gibbethon,  a city 
of  the  Levites  (of  which  the  Philistines  had  ob- 
tained possession),  when  he  wa3  slain  in  the  camp 
in  a conspiracy  formed  against  him  by  Baasha, 
one  of  his  officers,  who  mounted  the  throne  in  his 
Btead.  He  reigned  two  years  (1  Kings  xiv.  20; 
xv.  25-28). 

NaHALAL  (<^n£;  Sept.  NajScsciA),  a town 
in  the  tribe  of  Zebiilun  (Jo3b.  xix.  15),  which  wa3 
assigned  to  the  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  35).  hut.  of 
which  Zebulun  was  slow  iu  -dispossessing  the  Ca- 
naahites  (Judg.  i.  30). 

NAHALIKL,  an  encampment  of  the  Israelites 
in  the  Wilderness  [Wandering], 

1.  NAHASH  (BTI3,  a serpent ; Sept.  Ndcss), 
a person  named  only  in  2 Sam.  xvii.  25 : and  as 
he  is  there  described  as  the  father  of  Abigail  and 
Zerniah,  who  are  elsewhere  called  the  sisters  of 
David,  this  must  have  been  either  another  name 
for  Jesse,  or.  as  some  suppose,  of  a former  husband 
of  David’s  mother. 

2.  NAHASH,  king  of  the  Ammonites,  noted 
for  the  harhamus  terms  of  canifillation  which  he 
offered  to  the  town  of  Jahesh-Gilead,  and  for  his 
eubspquent  defeat  by  Saul  Uabesh].  It  was  na- 
tural that  the  enemy  of  Saul  should  be  friendly 
to  David ; and  we  find  that  he  did  render  to  the 
latter,  during  his  persecutions,  some  acts  ofkind- 
ness,  which  the  monarch  did  not  forget  when  he  as- 
cended the  throne  of  Israel  (1  Sam.  x.  2 ; 1 Chron. 
aix.  2).  These  act3  are  not  specified,  but  he  pro- 


NASUM. 

hably  offered  the  fugitive  hero  an  asylum  in  bts 
dominions. 

1.  NAHOR  (I'lTO,  snorting;  Sept.  NaXcvp), 
or  rather  Nachor,  as  iti  Luke  iii.  34,  son  of  Serug, 
and  father  of  Terab,  the  father  of  Abraham  (Geu. 
xi.  22-25). 

2.  NAHOR,  grandson  of  the  preceding,  being 
one  of  the  sons  of  Terah,  and  brother  of  Abraham. 
Nahor  espoused  Milcah  his  niece,  daughter  of 
his  eldest  brother  Haran  (Gen.  xi.  27-29).  Nahor 
did  not  quit  his  native  place,  • Ur  of  the  Chal 
dees,’  when  the  rest  of  the  family  removed  to 
Haran  (Gen.  xi.  30) ; but  it  would  appear  that 
he  went  thither  afterwards,  as  we  eventually  find 
his  son  Bethuel.  and  his  grandson  Laban,  esta- 
blished there  (Gen.  xxvii.  43  ; xxix.  5). 

NAHSHON  (]Vu?n3,  enchanter ; Sept.  Nacscr- 
cchv,  from  which  he  is  called  Naason  in  the  gene- 
alogies of  Christ  in  Matt.  i.  4;,  Luke  iii.  32), 
son  of  Aminadah,  and  prince  or  chief  of  the  tribs 
of  Judah,  at  the  time  of  the  exode  (Num.  i.  7 ; 

ii.  3).  The  chiefs  of  tribes,  of  which  Nahshou 
was  one0  took  an  important  and  leading  part  in 
the  aflairs  of  the  Israelites,  as  described  in  the 
article  Tribes. 

NAHUM  (Dins,  consolation ; Sept.  Naou/i), 
the  seventh  of  the  minor  prophets,  according  to  the 
arrangement  of  both  the  Greek  and  Hebrew,  but 
the  sixth  in  point  of  date,  was  a native  of  Elkosb, 
a village  of  Gal’ilee  (Jerome’s  Pref.  to  his  Com- 
ment.). He  prophesied  in  Judah  after  the  deporta- 
tion of  the  ten  tribes,  and  soon  after  the  unsuccess- 
ful irruption  of  Sennacherib  (ch.  i.  11-13;  ii.  I, 
1 4).  consequently  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of 
Hezelciah.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  fix  the 
date  with  precision,  from  the  allusion  to  the  de- 
struction of  No- Ammon  or  Thebes  in  Egypt  (ch. 

iii.  8) ; but  as  it  is  uncertain  when  this  event  took 
place,  Eichhom  and  others  have  conjectured  that 
h was  near  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiah,  or  about  b.c.  720,  as  about  this  time  Sargon, 
king  of  Assyria,  waged  an  unsuccessful  war  for 
three  years  against  Egypt  (Isa.  xx.). 

The  contents  of  the  prophecy  of  Nahum  are  as 
follows: — Chap.  i.  2-7.  The  destruction  of  Ni- 
neveh and  of  the  Assyrian  monarchy  is  depicted 
in  the  liveliest  colours,  together  with  the  relief 
of  Judah  from  oppression.  The  destruction  of 
Nineveh  is  detailed  with  still  greater  particu- 
larity in  the  third  chapter;  which  has  induced 
some  to  suppose  that  the  prophet  refers  Jo  two 
difl'erent  events — the  sack  of  Nineveh  by  the 
Medes,  b.c.  867,  in  the  reign  of  SardanapaJus, 
and  its  second  and  final  destruction,  under  Cliy- 
niladan,  by  Cyaxares  the  First  and  Nabopolassar, 
b.c.  625.  Those  who  suppose  that  fcwo.event$  are 
here  alluded  to,  conclude  that  Nalnun  must  have 
prophesied  before  the  first  destruction  of  Nineveh, 
or  about  b.c.  877.  It  is,  however,  observer!  hy 
Jahn  ( Jntrod .)  that  it  i3  evident  froor-eh,  L 9-1 1, 
14;  ii.  1,  14,  where  the  Hebrews  are  represented 
as  oppressed  by  the  Assyrians,  and  the  irruption 
of  Sennacherib  is  mentioned  as  having  already 
taken  place,  that  there  is  but  one  event  referred 
to,  namely,  the  last  destruction  of  Nineveh. 
De  Wette  remarks  that  Nahum  could  not  have 
alluded  to  the  historical  circumstances  under 
which  Nineveh  was  taken  by  Cyaxares  and  Na- 
bopolassar (b.c.  625,  603,  or  .600),  a3  at  that  lime 


NAIL 


NAKED. 


385 


Babylon,  not  Assyria,  was  formidable  to  the  Jews ; 
but  that  perhaps  he  was  led  to  prophesy  by  the 
liberation  of  the  Medes  (from  (he  Assyrians),  and 
their  election  of  a king,  in  the  person  of  Dejoces. 

The  beauty  of  the  style  of  Nahum  lias  been 
universally  felt.  It  is  classic,  observes  l)e  Wette, 
in  all  respects.  It  is  marked  by  clearness,  by  its 
finished  elegance, as  well  as  by  tire,  richness,  and 
originality.  The  rhythm  is  regular  and  lively. 
The  whole  book  remaikably  coherent,  and  the 
author  only  holds  his  breath,  as  it  were,  in  the 
last  chapter.  Jalin  observes  thut  the  language  is 
pure,  with  a single  exception  (Q*HDDt3,  ch.  iii. 
17),  that  the  style  is  ornate,  and  the  tropes  bold 
and  elegant  (rendering  it,  however,  necessary  for 
•lit*  reader  to  supply  some  omissions;  see  li.  8; 
*x.  3,  lb);  anil  that  the  descriptions  of  the 
Jiwne  omnipotence,  and  of  the  destruction  of 
Nineveh,  are  resplendent  with  all  the  per- 
fection of  oratory.  No  one,  however,  has  en- 
tered, more  fully  into  the  beauties  of  the  prophet 
Nahum  than  the  accomplished  Eichhorn,  who 
:oticeives  that  the  most  striking  characteiistic  of 
his  style  is  the  power  of  representing  several 
phases  of  an  idea  in  the  briefest  sentences,  as  in 
tiis  description  of  God,  the  conquest  of  Nineveh, 
And  the  destruction  of  No-Ammon.  ‘ The  va- 
fiety  in  his  manner  of  presenting  ideas  discovers 
much  poetic  talent  in  the  prophet.  The  reader 
of  taste  and  sensibility  will  be  affected  by  the 
entire  structnre  of  the  poem,  by  the  agreeable 
manner  in  which  the  ideas  are  brought  forward, 
by  the  flexibility’  of  the  expressions,  the  roundness 
of  his  turns,  the  delicate  outline  of  his  figures, 
by  the  strength  and  delicacy,  and  the  expression 
of  sympathy  and  greatness,  which  diffuse  them- 
selves over  the  whole  subject.  He  does  not  come 
upon  you  roaring  and  violent,  nor  yet  softly  and 
'ightly.  Here  there  is  something  sonorous  in  his 
language,  there  something  murmuring;  ard  with 
both  there  alternates  somewhat  that  is  soft,  deli- 
cate, and  melting,  as  the  subject  demands.  This 
is  not  possible  for  a poet  of  art,  but  only  for 
She  poet  of  nature*  (De  Wette's  Introd .,  Eng- 
lish transl.).  "I  he  following  works  on  this  pro- 
phet are  enumerated  by  l)e  VVetie: — liibliander, . 
Proph.  Nahum,  1531;  Ursini  lltjpomnemata  in 
Obad.  et  Nahum,  1652;  Ilattenretl'eri  Comm,  in 
Nah.  et  Habac.  1663  ; Abarbanel,  Comment. 
Itabbinicus  in  Nahum,  a.  Sprechero,  1703;  Von 
Hoke,  On  the  Six  last  Minor  Prophets,  1709, 
1710;  Kalinsky.  Vaticc.  Habac.  et  Nahum,  %c., 
1748;  Agrell,  Vaticc.  Nahum , Observ.  Hist. 
Phil,  lllustr  1788;  Gieve,  Nah.  et  Habac.  In- 
tirp.  ed.  Metrica , 1793;  Svanhorg,  A ahum, 
Latine  Vers.  be.  1806;  Frahn,  Cur.  Exeg.  Cnt. 
1806;  Ki  penen,  Nahum  Vatic.  Phil,  et  Crit. 
Expos.  1808.— W.  W. 

NAIL.  There  are  two  Hebrew  words  thus 
translated  in  the  Auth.  Vers.,  which  it  may  be 
well  to  distinguish. 

1-  .717'  tjalhed , which  usually  denotes  a peg, 
i5‘",  or  nail,  as  driven  info  a wall  (Ezek.  xv.  3 ; Isa. 
xxii.  20);  and  more  especially  a tent  pin  driven 
into  the  earth  to  fasten  the  tent(Exod.  xxvii.  19; 
xxxv.  18;  xxxviii.  31  ; Judg.  iv.  21,  22;  Isa.  1 
xxxiii.  20;  liv.  2j.  Hence,  to  drive  a pin,  or  to 
fasten  a nail,  presents  among  the  Hebrews  an 
image  of  a fixed  dwelling,  a firm  and  stable  abode 
(Isa.  xxii.  23).  And  this  image  is  still  frequent 
among  rhe  Arabs,  as  shown  by  several  quotations 

vOL.  IJ. 


produced  by  Gesenioa,  in  his  Thesaurus,  unde? 
this  word.  A pm  or  nail  13  also,  by  a further 
application  of  the  metaphor,  applied  to  a prince, 
on  whom  the  care  and  welfare  of  the  stare  de- 
pends (Zech.  x.  4),  where  the  term  1733,  corner 
6 tone,  is  applied  to  the  same  person  denoted  by 
the  word  4 nail.'  All  these  allusions  will  seem 
very  plain,  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  leading  sensa 
of  the  word,  as  referring  to  those  large  nails,  or 
pins,  or  cramps,  vised  in  applications  requiring* 
great  strength,  being  driven,  into  walls,  or  into 
the  gfound. 

2.  1717DDD  mismeroth , which,  with  some 
variations  of  form,  is  applied  to  ordinary  and 
Ornamental  nails.  It  always  pectus  in  the  plural,' 
and  is  the  word,  which  we  tind’iu  l Chron.  xxii.  3 5 
2 Chron.  iii.  9 ; Jsa.  xli.  7;  Jer.  oc.  4 ; Eccles.  xii. 
1 1.  The  last  of  these  texts  involves  a very  signi- 
ficant proverbial  application — * The  words  of  the 
wise  are  as  nails  infixed,’  &c.,  that  is,  ‘ they  sink 
deep  info  the  heart  of  man.’  The  golden  nails  of 
the  temple  are  denoted  by  this  word. 

NAIN  (NatV),  a town  of  Palestine,  mentioned! 
only  in  the  New  Testament,  as;  the  place  where 
Jesus  raised  the  widow's  son  to  life  (Luke  vii.1 
1 1-17).  > Eqsebius  and  Jerome  QOtiomast,  s.  v.i 
Naim)  describe  if  as  not  far  from  Endor.  As  its 
name  bas  always  been  preserved,  if  was  recognised; 
by  the  crusaders,  autp4pis  been  often  noticed  by 
travellers  up  to  the  pd'sent  day.  It  has  now 
dwindled  to  a small  hamlet 'called  Nein , which 
is  situated  about  three  miles  by  W.  from] 
Mount  Tabor. 

NAIOTH  (rn3  : Sept.  NctudS),  a place  in  or 
near  Itamab,  where  Samuel  abode  with  his  dis- 
ciples (1  Sam.  xix.  18,  19,  2%  23;  xx.  I)J 
Nuioth  does  not  appear  to  have,  been  a distinct 
town  or  village ; and  we  are  ivilling  to  accept tha 
explanation  of  li.  Isaiah  and  other  Jewish  com- 
mentators, who  state  that.  Iiamah  was  che  name  of 
a hill,  and  Naioth  of  the  place  upon  it.  In  that 
case  Naioth  must  be  fixed  on  the  same  grounds 
which  determine  the  site  of  Ramah.  , 

NAKED.  The  word  0*17^  dram,  rendered 
‘naked’  in  our  Bibles,  doe9  not  in  many  places 
mean  absolute  nakedness.  It  ha3  this  meaning 
in  such  passages  as  Job  i»  21 ; Eccles.  v.  15  ; 
Mic.  i.  8;  Amos  ii.  16.  But  in  mother  places  it 
means  one  who  is  ragged  or  poorly  clad  (1  Joloi 
xxi.  7;  Isa.  lviii.  7),  in  the  - same  sense  a» 
yvpvos  in  James  ii.  15;  which  does  not  indeed 
differ  from  a familiar  application  of  the  word 
‘naked’  among  ourselves.  A more  peculiar  anti 
Oriental  sense  of  the  word  is  that  in  which  it 
is  applied  to  oue  who  has  laid  aside  his  looso 
outer  garment,  and  goes  about  in  his  tunic. 
When,  therefore,  Saul  is  described  as  having  lain 
down  ‘ naked  ’ (1  Sam.  xix.  24),  we  are  to  under- 
slantl  that  lie  had  laid  aside  his  (lowing  outer  ^obe, 
by  which  his  rank  was  most  indicated,  and  was 
therefore  a king  ‘naked’  or  undressed;  and  ic 
was  thus  that  Isaiah  went  * naked  ’ anti  barefoot 
(Isa.  xx.  2 ; comp.  John  xxi.  7).  The  point  of  tho 
expression  may  be  the  better  apprehended  when  we 
mention  that  persons  in  their  own  houses  freely 
lay  aside  their  outer  garment,  and  appear  in  their 
tunic  and  girdle ; but  this  is  undress,  and  they/ 
would  count  it  improper  to  apjjear  abroad,  or  fa 
eee  company  ip  their  own  house,  without  the  outst 


&B6  NAMES,  PROPER. 

rotw*.  Tn  fact.  our  use  of  the  word  ‘ undress  * to 
denote  not  nakedness,  sis  it  would  literally  imply, 
but  a dress  less  than  that  which  we  consider  full 
and  complete,  corresponds  very  exactly  to  this 
signification  of  the  word. 

- The  metaphorical  uses  of  the  word  in  Scriptuie 
are  too  obvious  to  require  explanation. 

- NAMES,  PROPER,  chiefly  of  the  Old  Testa- 
meet.  It  is  so  interesting,  as  well  as  useful, 
*0  know  the  original  signification  of  proper  names, 
tha.t  a careful  investigation  of  their  nature  has 
many  advantages.  The  chief  use,  however,  -which 
accrues  from  an  accurate  knowledge  of  them  is, 
that  we  are  by  their  means,  enabled  to  at  tain  a 
more  lively  apprehension  of  the  truth  of  ancient  . 
bistory. 

• Without  doubt  many  parts  of,  this  subject  are 
very  obscure,  as  proper  names  are  so  often  only 
the  scattered  and  decayed  ruins  of  a distant  age.  < 
But  as  soon  as  we  take  a more  animated  view  of 
all  the  relics  that  have  been  preserved  to  us,  and 
compare  them  more  cautiously  with  the  customs 
of  other  nations,  we  are  able  to  discern  their  more 
general  and  important  features  at  least,  with 
reasonable  certainty. 

There  are  two  chief  classes  of  projier  names, 
those  of  men,  and  those  of  every  thing  besides  « 
man,  as  beasts,  places,  and  festivals.  Those  of 
the  latter  class  are  much  more  durable  in  their 
form,  as  man  alone  is  always  changing;  they  are 
also  important  for  history,  and  it  is  desirable  to 
ascertain,  as  far  a9  possible,  their  original  signifi- 
cation. But  the  proper  names  of  the  changeable 
races  of  men  are  in  a much  higher  degree  those 
in  which  history  reflects  itself  in  its  ^vicissitudes ; 
they  also  constitute  the  more  numerous  class. 
For  these  reasous,  we  confine  ourselves  at  present 
to  the  proper  names  of  men,  as  it  is  beyond  our 
present  scope  to  treat  the  entire  subject. 

The  first-fact,  that  strikes  us,  on  a generril  view 
of  them  all,  is,  that  the  ancient  Hebrews’  always 
retained  the  greatest  simplicity  in  the  use  of 
names.  In  reality,  there  is  always  only  one 
single  name  which  distinguishes  a person.  Where 
it  is  necessary,  the  name  of  the  father  is  added  ; 
sometimes  that  of  the  mother  instead,  in  case  she 
(happens  to>  be  more -celebrated  ;*  or  the  line  of 
descent  is  traced  farther  back,  often  to  the  fourth 
generation,  or  even  farther.  Mere  epitjiets.  like 
4 David  the  king,’  ‘Isaiah  the  prophet/  always 
■express  the  actual  and  significant  dignify  of  a 
mian.'  The  instances  in  which  a person  receives 
•two  names  alternately,  as  Jacob-lsrael,  Gideon- 
•Jerubbaal  (Judg.  vi.-ix.),  are  casual  and  rare, 
•and  are  not.  to  be  ascribed  to  a general  custom 
of  the  people.  On  comparing  the  mode  in  which 
-•the  Arabs  use  proper  names  we  discover  a striking 
•difference.  With  them)  every  man  of  any  im- 
portance always  receives,  besides  his  proper  name 
•and  perhaps  nickname,  a praenomen  ( Kwije ), 
-which  might  be  most  fittingly  called  the  name  of 
-compliment,  or  domestic  name,  as  it  denotes  the 
Jinan  under  the  special  relation  of  father,  as  Abu 
.Zaid,  * father  of  Zaid  and,  iri  addition  to  these, - 
a name  of  honour  for  the  world — which  at  least 
‘has  prevailed  generally  since  the  time  of  the  Ab- 


* Tfio.  three  heroic  brothers,  Joab,  Abishai, 
and  Asael.  are  always  called  after  their  mother 
Zeruja  (l  Clirun.  ii.  16), 


NAMES,  PROPER. 

bassides,  and  which  usually  exalts,  m pompous 
terms,  the  person  in  relation  to  religion  (as  Snlah- 
eddin,  ‘ the  welfare  of  rrligiou  or  to  the  state 
(as  Saif  edd aula,  * the  sword  of  the  state’).  In 
this  the  A mbs  a* e absolutely  a modern  jieople, 
and  overvalue  externals  as  much  asllie  Europeans 
ol  the  present,  day.  How  much  more  simple 
were  the  Hebrews  during  the  most  flourishing 
period  of  their  history  ! For,  in  this  respect,  also, 
the  usage  ol  names  is  only  an  evidence  of  the  pre- 
dominant customs  and  views  of  whole  periods. 

When  we,  then,  consider  proper  n.lrnes  wiilr 
reference  to  the  grand  distinction  of  »imes,  we 
are  able  to  discover  in  their  varying  use  ueuily 
the  same  three  periods  as  those  which  mark  the 
history  of  this  people  in  all  other  respects.  These 
are  the  three,  periods  which  are  most  simply  de- 
fined by  the  three  different  names  of  the  nation 
which  prevailed  in  each : the  Hebrews \ as  they 
were  called  iti  early  times,  gradually  adopted 
the  name  ol  Israelites  in  t he  middle  period,  ami 
exchanged  this  name,  in  ihe  third,  for  that  of 
Je\os.  It  is  a remarkable,  bur.  nevertheless  true,- 
coincidence  that,  just  as  the  name  of  the  nation 
varies  in  these  three  periods,  the  colour  of  the 
names  of  individuals  changes  in  like  manner, 
according  to  the  different  tendencies  character- 
izing the  times.  ; 

I.  In  the  first  period,  which,  for  reasons  ad- 
duced below,  we  here  limit  by  the-  commence- 
ment of  the  Mosaic  religion,  we; are.  able  to  see 
the  whole  process  according  "to  which  names  are 
formed  among  this  people  :>  the  distinct  character 
of  the  formation  of  names  which  was  established 
in  this  primitive  time,  continues  essentially  the 
same  in  the  succeeding  period,  while  the  elements 
of  which  names  are  formed  -undergo  a partial 
change.  For  tlsis  reason*  we  may  explain  the 
laws  of  this  formation  in-terms  of  merely  general 
application. — Now  names  aie  either  simple  or 
compound  words,  or  also  words  which  arise  from 
either  of  these  kinds  by  derivation. 

1.  The  simple  names  exist  in  great  abundance  ; 
and  their  signification,  as  to  the  mere  word  itself 
i3  generally  evident : as*fn,  ‘judge;’  1'P',  the 
Latin  dextei',  an  ancient  name,  according  t<» 

Gen.  xlvi.  10,  1 Chron.  ti.  27;  ‘desired/ 

’ also  an  ancienT  name  according  to  Gen.  xlvi.  lit, 
cf.  xxxvi.  37;  “153,  ‘hero/  1 Kings  iv.  19„ 
Thus  most  of  them  express  an  honourable  sense  ; 
although  examples  are  not  wanting  of  the  direct 
contrary,  as  * crooked/  2 Sum.  xxiii.  26. 

With  what  ease  also  feminine  words  become 
names  for  men,  is  shown  by  cases  like  * vul- 
ture/ 2 Sum.  iii.  7,  xxi.  8 ; cf.  Geii.  xxxvi.  21  ; 
n3i',  ‘ dove/  which  are  just  as  applicable  to 
men  as  the  masculine  * fox/  1 Citron,  vii. 

36.  Diminutives,  which  are  so  frequently  used 
as  proper  names  by  the  Arabs,  | are  rare  among 
the  Hebrews  ; but  are  by  no  rdeaus  wanting, 

is  proved  by  pb-OJ  or  {VlUT,  the  name  of  the 
son  of  Jacob,  and  pirVlTiy  or  fin'”!',,  the  name  o# 
the  singer  of  David.  ,AU  those  names  which 
are  formed  with  a prefixed  jod  are  to  tie  consi- 
dered as  especially  ancient,  because  this  nominal' 
formation  became  entirely  obsolete  in  the  la^i- 
guage,  and  recurs  almost;  only  in  proper  names* 


NAMES,  PROPER. 

as  is  shown  not  only  by  the  well-known  najnea, 
Spy',  P|DP,  min».  pns\  but  also  by  a u umber 
'of  less  common  ones,  as  3-15^,  Num.  xxvi.  24  ; 
^T.  E 'Chron.  iv.  21;  ^1?!,  »v.  34;  \3]}l 
a.  *13;  inV^,  Kxod.  vj.  18;  *7n3\  2 Sain- 
v.  15 ; ngDl’,  Num.  xiii.  6,  1 Chron.  vii.  38; 
BmT,  i Sarn.'U  1.  1 Chron.  viii.  27;  and  others. 
There  is  an  ancient  adjective-ending,  that  in  dm 
>ur  6m,  winch  has  fixed  itself  most  firmly  in 
proper  names,  as  QJHK,  1 Chron.  iv.  6 ; D-JJ, 
Ezra  ii.  48;  the  sister  of  Moses,  and 

CiDhl  his  son;  DTO3,  2 Sam.  xix.  38.  which 
aiot  only  exists  also  in  the  form  OITO?,  Jer.  xlii. 
17,  but  in  IHD3,  2 Sam.  xix.  41,  according  to 
customary  changes.  We  are  anxious  not  to 
fatigue  the  reader  by  such  philological  observa- 
tions, but  we  can  assure  him  that  a deeper  in- 
vestigation into  these  apparently  dead  subjects 
will  lead  to  the  discovery  of  much  that  illus- 
trates the  ancient  language  and  customs  of  the 
.people.  ' ■■?>«: . 

2.  The  compound  names,  however,  are  more 
important  for  history;  (b1ecause  they  express  more 
complete  and  distinct 1 ideas  than  the  simple 
names.  Some  of  thetid  qxe  altogether  isolated,  aa 
DrO'Sl,  properly  ‘serpent's  mouth,’  the  grandson 
of  Aaron;  the  son  of  Jacob;  Oholiab \ 

t ; r 

Exod.  xxxi.  6,  * fathers  tent,’  a name  resembling 
she  Greek  Pafrocles.  But  most  of  them  bear  a 
general  resemblance  to  each  other,  and  follow  in 
enoals  certain  dominant  opinions  and  customs; 
and  these  last  are  what  we  must  particularly 
consider  here.  , 1 

A great  number  of  them  owe  their  origin  to  the 
relations  of  the  house,  as  the  sense  of  the  first 
word  of  the  compound  shows.  Most  of  these  have 
f.he  word  ahi,  4 father,’  for  their  first  member,  as 
Abiezer , Abital , Abigail The  prevalent  opinion 
sitnnng  modern  scholars  f resjjecting  this  class 
is  that  they  are  really  epithets,  which  have  after- 
wards, as  it  were  casually,  become  proper  names ; 
that  Abigail , for  example,  is  literally  4 father 
Eif  joy/  or  4 whose  father  is  jo  / that  this  means 
cheerful , and  thus  became  a proper  name ; and 
in  proof  they  appeal  to  the  Arabic  language,  in 
which  such  periphrases  with  a&i  are  common.  In 
reality,  however,  this  assumption  is  extremely  un- 
certain and  erroneous.  The  Arabic  undoubtedly 
possesses  a vast  number  of  such  names,  as  Abul- 
Ma’ali,  4 the  father  of  dignities/  i.  e.  the  vene- 
rable; Abul-busni,  * the  father  of  beauty/  t.  c.  the 
peacock ; Abul-hussaini, 4 the  father  of  the  little 
fortress/  i.  e.  the  fox,  who  lives  in  holes;  Abu- 
Aijuba, 4 the  father  of  Job/  i . e.  the  camel,  be- 
cause it  is-  as  patient  as  Job.  But  6uch  names, 
which  may  be  formed  ad  libitum , by  hundreds, 

This  dbi  was,  without  doubt,  gradually 
shortened  to  ab,  as  is  proved  by  heside 

1 Sam.  xiv.  50,  2 Sam.  ii.  8,  and  by 
many  other  examples.  The  further  softening  o t 
this  ab  to  eb  is  only  .possible  when  a j follows  it, 
as  1^,  1 Sam.  xxii.  20;  SjDhSiS,  1 Chron. 

8,  22,  beside  the  older  form  Exoch 

m.  24. 

i For  instance,  Gesenius  in  bis  Thesaurus, 


NAMES,  PROPER.  33? 

belong  in  Arabic  rather  to  the  artificial,  often  to 
the  sportive,  and  generally  also  to  the  later,  lan- 
guage, and  were  not  possible  until  the  Arabs  had 
adopted  the  custom  of  always  using  a pracnomen, 
or  domestic  name — the  above-mentioned  Kunjc — 
in  addition  to  the  chief  name.  As  soon  as  ever 
it  became  customary  to  give  a man  a double 
designation — his  real  name,  and  the  more  fami- 
liar, often  sportive,  domestic  name — this  custom 
was  gradually  transferred  to  other  subjects,  and 
then  these  in  themselves  extraordinary  circum- 
locutory names  arose. * But  such  domestic 

names  were  never  in  use  among  the  Hebrew# 
— nay,  more,  such  periphrastic  names  with  all 
do  not  even  occur  in  their  poetic  diction  as 
the  only  passage  which  could  be  adduced  in 
favour  of  it  (Job  xvii.  14)  is  not,  when  taken  in 
its  true  sense,  at  all  an  instance  in  point.  1 o 
call  the  came!  4 father  of  Job’  is  undeniably  a 
kind  of  sportive  name:  and  are  we  to  assume 
that  this  jesting  custom  prevailed  among  the 
primitive  Hebrews?  Thus  we  have  here  another 
striking  example  of  the  danger  attending  super- 
ficial comparisons  of  Arabic  with  Hebrew;  for 
this  view  never  could  have  been  formed  by  those 
who  were  intimately  acquainted  with  the  trea- 
sures of  Arabic  literature.f  I believe,  on  the 
contrary,  that  the  first  member  of  such  com- 
pounds did  indeed,  in  the  early  times  in  which 
they  were  first  formed,  really  denote  nothing  but 
ilia  father  of  the  son  who  is  named  in  the  second 
member;  but  that  subsequently,  for  a particular 
reason,  they  were  employed  only  to  denote  a kind 
of  dignity.  If  we  compare  the  numerous  genea- 
logical registers  in  the  books  of  Chronicles, 
which,  dry  as  they  are,  yet  contain  much  that  ia 
instructive,  we  find  that  a man  is  often  called 
the  father,  that  is,  the  lord , of  a town  or  village, 
as  * Ashchur  the  father  of  Teqoa/  1 Chron.  ii. 
29;  ‘ Mesha,  the  father  of  Zif/  ver.  42;  4 Meou, 
the  father  of  Beth-zur/  ver.  45 ; 4 Shobal,  th<» 
father  of  Qirjathjearim/  ver.  5i>,  &c.  In  these 
cases  the  meaning  cannot  be  doubtful,  as  the 
second  member  always  signifies  a place;  but  this 
is  at  the  6ame  time  a genuine  Hebrew  custom, 
which  will  hardly  be  found  among  the  other 
Semitic  nations.  As  soon,  then,  as  it  had  become 
customary  to  use  the  word  * father’  to  denote  a 
kind  of  dignity  in  the  family  and  in  the  nation, 
it  was  easy  to  prefix  this  short  word,  as  a mere 
term  of  honour,  to  any  name  by  way  of  distin- 
guishing the  eldest  or  the  favourite  son.  Several 
cogent  arguments  favour  this  view.  First,  it  can 
almost  always  be  proved,  even  from  our  present 
scanty  documents,  that  the  second  member  of 
such  compound  names  was  also  used,  by  itself, 

® See  a learned  article  on  the  Kunje , by  Kose- 
garten,  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  das  Morgenland , 
i.  297,  sq. ; in  which  he  has  only  neglected  to 
insist  sufficiently  on  the  fact,  that  abu  originally 
denoted  the  actual  father  of  the  son  mentioned 
,iu  the  second  member. 

| We  could  more  easily  admit  such  a me! a 
phorical  sense  in  the  compounds  with  son,  sine* 
is  really  often  used  in  a highly  metaphorical 
sense,  Bathsheba*  is  certainly  not  the  daughter 
of  a man  named  Sheba’,  2 Sam.  xi.  3.  Such 
compound  names  with  son5  however,  are,  on  the 
whole,  rare,  and  are  only  found  in  gome  frequency 
in  I Kings  iv,  7,  eq» 


SS8  NAMES,  PROPER. 

as  a proper  name,  as  Dun  beside  AfoYMn^Num. 
Lit;  Ezer,  I Chron.  vii.  21,  Neh  iii.  19,  beside 
Abiezcr  ; Asaph  beside  Abiasaph  or  Ebjasaph  ; 
Nadab,  Exod.  vi.  23,  beside  Abinadab  ; Noam 
or  Noam,  1 Chron.  iv.  15,  beside  Abinoam  ; 
Jathar  or  Jether,  a very  common  name,  beside 
Ebjatkar ; nay,  they  are  even  found  in  the  same 
family,  as  Abiner  or  Abner,  the  son  of  Ner, 

1 Sam.  xiv.  50,  2 Sam.  ii.  8.  Moreover,  this 
explains  how  other  words  of  relationship  are  pre- 
fixed in  the  same  way  ; the  latter  member  i3 
always  a word  which  was  originally  a proper 
name,  which  is  only  multiplied  by  means  of 
these  1 it: le  prefixes,  and  in  tfhich  we  indeed  no 
longer  discern  why  father  is  the  word  pretixed  in 
one  instance,  and  brother  that  in  another.  Achi, 
t.  6.  ‘ brother,’  is  often  prefixed  in  this  manner; 
thus,  the  one  was  called  Ram,  1 Chron.  ii.  9, 
xj{v.  27,  Ruth  iv.  19;  the  other  Abirdm,  Num. 

xvi.  I ; and  the  third  Achirdm , Num.  xxvi.  38. 
Achinoam , Achiezer , and  others  of  this  sort,  are 
easily  accounted  for.*  Chamu,  i.  e.  4 brother  in 
law,’  is  rarely  so  used  ; a3  Chamutal  or  Chamital, 

2 Kings  xxiv.  18.  Jer.  Iii.  1 ; beside  Abital, 
2 Sam.  iii.  4.  Under  this  class  we  may  also 
include*  4 man,’  with  which  several  names 
are  comyxvanded.  As  the  Hebrews  had  a simple 
name,  liud  or  Hod,  i.  e.  4 splendour,’  (cf.  Jehu- 
dah ),  1 Chron.  vii.  37,  and  an  Abihnd , 1 Chron. 
viii.  3,  and  Achihud,  Num.  xxriv.  27,  so  also 
they  formed  an  IsheMd,  1 Chron.  vii.  18;  as 
they  had  an  Abitub  and  Ackitob,  so  also  an 
Ishtob,  2 Sara.  x.  6 ; and  as  there  was  an  ancient . 
name  Chur , 4 free,’  who  is  mentioned  in  Exod. 

xvii.  10  as  a friend  of  Moses,  so  Ash-chur  * ap- 
pears us  a relative  of  the  family  of  Chur,  1 Chron. 
iv.  5,  comp.  ver.  1. 

Another,  but  a smallei,  class  consists  of  names 
comf)ounded  with  D>?,  * people,’  resembling  the 
many  Greek  compositions  with  Aa«is  and  5 rjpos ; 
and  just  as  in  Greek  Sg/ios  is  placed  first  or  last 
(Demosthenes,  Aristodemos),  so  also  DV  is  at  one 
time  found  in  the  first,  and  at  another  in  the 
last  place ; only  that,  according  to  the  laws  of 
the  Semitic  language,  the  sense  of  one  of  these 
positions  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  the  other.  It 
is  important.,  however,  to  remark  lieie  that  in 
this,  just  as  in  the  former  .class,  one  member  is 
generally  a word  which  is  used  by  itself  as  a 
primer  name  ; that  liere,  therefore,  instead  of  a 
reference  to  the  mere  family,  a wider  regard  to 

* There  is  no  doubt  that  this  ash,  as  also  rsh , 
in  l Chron.  viii.  33,  is  an  abbreviation 

of  ish.  No  words  are  more  liable  to  such  gradual 
shortenings  then  proper  names, (esj)ecially  those  of 
longer  compass.  Even  Abi,  above  explained,  1ms 
been  sometimes  shortened  to  f,  in  consequence 
of  its  frequent  use,  as  is  shown  by  comparing 
which  occurs  twice  in  Num.  xxvi.  30, 
with  the  Abiezer  of  Josh.  xvii.  2,  Jndg.  vi.  11  ; 
and  we  must  explain  the  few  other  names  of  this 
kind  in  the  same  way,  such  as  *1Z0rPN,  Exod. 
vi.  22;  1 Kings  xvi.  31;  and 

1 Sam.  iv.  21.  In  the  last  passage  there  i3  an 
allusion  to  the  sense  without,  which  'K  considered 
per  se  may  express;  but  the  only  conclusion 
^rom  this  is,  that  this  sound  had  already,  in  some 
eames  suffered  that  change  constantly. ' 


NAMES,  PROPER. 

the  whole  people  prevails,  and  an  individual  is 
considered  with  relation  to  his  nation.  Thus  ths 
common  name  Exod.  vi.  23,  the  Ger- 

man Edelvolk,  i.  e.  owe  who  belongs  to  the  noble 
people,  so  that  it  answers  to  the  Greek  Arisro- 
Uemos  ; “IhTTSy,  Glanzvolk,  also  a favourite 
name,  which  would  be  Phaidrodeinos  in  Greek  ; 
on  the  contrary,  Q^nJV,  2 Sam.  iii.  5,  perhaps 
the  German  Volkhart , the  Greek  Demosthenes  , 
Volkbreit ; Volhgrun,  which 

occurs  in  l Chron.  ii.  44  as  the  name  of  a place, 
but  which  must  originally  have  been  the  name 
of  the  founder  of  that  place.  As  all  these  com- 
pounds must  be  conceived  to  be  in  the  state 
construct,  so  likewise  we  are  probably  to  take  the 
names  properly  4 people's  increaser,’  a 

suitable  name  for  a prince,  and  4 people's 

turner’  or  4 leader;’  for,  as  was  observed  above, 
the  simple  names  are  often  formed  with  a pre- 
fixed jod ; and  we  actually  find  as  a 

simple  name,  in  Num.  xxvi.  29,  1 Chron.  vii.  I. 

Most  of  the  compound  names,  however,  rathex 
endeavour  to  express  a religious  sense,  and  there- 
fore often  contain  the  divine  name.  And  here 
we  at  the  same  time  find  a new  law  of  formation  : 
as  these  compounds  are  intended  to  express  z 
complete  thought,  such  as  the  religious  sentiment 
requires,  a name  may  consist  of  an  entire  pro- 
position with  a verb,  but  of  course  in  as  brief  a 
compass  as  possible ; and  indeed  shorter  com- 
pounds are  made  with  a verb  than  with  a passive 

participle,  as  ^>K3n3  (in  the  New  Test.  fla6avai]\ 
properly  4 God-gave,’  t.  e.  whom  God  gave,  given 
by  God,  GfSSoros  or  0e<S8cvpos)  sounds  shorter 
than  ^&'3-in3  with  the  participle,  which  would 
certainly  express  the  same  sense.  But  as  the 
finite  verb,  as  also  any  other  predicate,  can  just 
as  well  precede  as  follow,  accordingly  a great 
freedom  in  the  position  of  the  divine  name  lias 
prevailed  in  this  class;  and  this  peculiarity  is 
preserved,  in  the  same  case,  in  the  following 
period  : but  indeed  the  Greeks  use  AupoQeSs  as 
well  as  0e68wpos ■ Thus,  ^{$3113,  1 Chron.  ii.  14, 
or  Jer.  xxxvi.  12.  The  two  names  are 

then  generally  assigned  to  two  different  persons  ; 
nevertheless,  both  combinations  may  form  names 
for  the  same  person,  as  1 Chron.  iii.  5, 

and  2 Sam.  xi.  3,  belong  to  the  same 

individual.  Now,  as  compound  names  evidently 
became  very  general,  it  is  not  surprising  that,  its 
the  infinite  multiplication  of  names  to  corre- 
spond with  the  infinite 'multitude  of  persons,  some* 
proper  names  were  at  length  formed  which  solely 
consist  of  two  names  of  God  himself,  expressing-* 
as  it  were,  the  ineffably  holy  name  to  which  tha 
person  dedicates  himself,*  as  Abiel  and  Eliabm 
nay,  even  Eliel,  1 Chron.  v.  21,  viii.  20,  2 Chron. 


* Names  of  this  sort  are  found  among  -sit 
nations.  We  may  briefly  mention  that  there  are 
persons  with  the  Latin  name'  Salvator , with  the 
German  ones,  Heiland,  Herrgott,  and  that  a well 
known  Dutch  orientalist  was  called  Louio  do 
Dieu.  The  impious  Seleucid®  took  the  nairas 
Thcos  for  a different  reason. 


NAMES,  PROPER, 

8xxi.  13  A very  important  question,  however, 
still  remains:  what,  divine  names  were  thus  used 
ir  the  earliest  times  until  Moses?  VVe  find  that 
El  was  then  the  commonest,  and  Shaddai  less 
frequent;  the  latter  is  mly  found  in 
* rock  of  the  Almighty.  Num.  i.  G,  ii.  12,*  ami 
‘ people  of  the  Almighty,’  ver.  12;  still 
more  rarely  is  'Vl'tf, 4 ru-k,'  itself  used  as  a divine 
name,  as  “MVITID.  Num.  i.  10,  which  is  almost 
equivalent  to  4 God  redeems.’  If  we 

now  consider  that,  according  to  the  ancient  testi- 
mony in  Exod.  vi.  3,  the  name  Jahve  (Jehovah) 
tvas  not  known  then,  hut  that  the  only  other  name 
of  God  which  existed,  beside  the  common  El  and 
Elohim,  was  the  rarer  and  more  awful  Shaddai, 
these  historical  traces  which  are  discovered  in 
proper  names,  accord  most  perfectly  with  that 
statement,  and  furnish  a very  welcome  confirma- 
tion of  it. 

On  reviewing  this  whole  system  of  forming 
compound  names,  it  is  evident  that  they  at  length 
became  very  common,  as  if  their  sounding  pomp 
was^  considered  more  dignified  and  attractive ; 
nevertheless,  their  chief  tendency  was  to  express 
the  three  great  and  most  comprehensive  relations 
in  which  a man  can  stand,  namely,  Home, 
People,  and  God.  The  original  luxuriance  of 
all  language  again  gathered  itself  together . in 
names,  as  in  a fruitful  soil;  and  accordingly  there 
kvere  times,  even  within  the  historical  period,  in 
which  the  primitive  energies  of  all  language  were 
eo  busily  active  even  in  this  apparently  barren 
province,  that  (since  all  possible  combinations 
xvere  attempted  in  order  to  make  an  infinitude  of 
names  for  the  infinite  number  of  persons)  such 
names  Also  were  devised  as,  at  first  hearing,  were 
Burpri3ing,  as  feS-lfTON,  properly  4 sqlf-f'ather,’ 
* self-god,’  avroOc-ds,  a name  which  may 
be  old,  although  it  is  only  now  found  in  the  book 
nf  Job  And  if  we  compare  this  Hebrew  mode 
t>r  forming  compound  names  with  that  of  the 
Greeks  and  Arabs,  as  the  more  familiar  examples, 
«e  find  this  remarkable  result,  although  it  har- 
monises with  many  other  phenomena;  namely, 
that  it  is  essentially  more  like  the  Greek  than 
the  Arab  mode ; only  that  the  Greeks  allude 
more  frequently,  in  their  names,  to  the  people , 
which  is  characteristic  of  the  whole  of  Greek  life ; 
ivliile  the  Arabs,  who  always  had  families  only, 
but  never  were  a nation,  never  allude  to  the 
people,  and  do  not,  in  composition,  possess  so 
great  freedom  in  the  position  and  juncture  of 
words. 

3.  Lastly,  many  proper  names  have  assumed 
the  derivative  syllable  -?,  or  ai  (which  appears  to 

* That  13,  * who  seeks  protection  in  the  Al- 
mighty,’ like  &ioKpu.T7js.  it  is  desirable  to  con- 
fine the  force  of  the-?4,  as  much  as  possible,  to 
that  of  a mere  vowel  of  union,  because  the  uni- 
formity of  the  other  structures  of  names  requires 
it.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  in  later 
times,  as  this  union- vowel  became  lost  to  the 
common  lar  guage,  it  was  taken  as  the  sufiix 
of  the  first  person,  as  is  shown  by  the  newly- 
coined  poetical  name,  4 With-me-is-God,’ 

Prov.  ^xx.  L But  this  is  not  the  force  of  it 
originally. 


NAMES,  PROPER. 

be  only  dialectically  different  from  -l,  and  5s 
chiefly  frequent  in  the  later  periods);  and  w» 
must  certainly  consider  that,  in  some  cases,  this 
syllable  may  possibly  form  mere  adjectives,  and 
therewith  simple  names,  as  ‘ trueman,’ 

from  n£N,  4 truth,’  and  Barzillai  4 Iron,'  vs 
c Ironman,’  the  name  of  a celebrated  Gileadite 
family,  Ezra  ii.  61  ; 2 Sam.  xvii.  27;  or  that  is 
is  derived  from  a place,  as  Hos.  i.  1 ; 

l Chron  vii.  36,  4 be  of  the  well,'  or,  he  of  a 
place  known  as  the  well.  But  it  undoubtedly 
very  often  also  expresses  a genealogical  relation, 
like  the  Greek  ending  -i8ys,  and  presupposes  a 
previous  proper  name  from  which  it  is  derived ; 
thus  the  name  'Tin,  1 Chron.  v.  14,  as  surely  pre- 
supposes the  above- mentioned  Chur,  as  the  GreeS 
Philippides  does  Philippos,  and  as  Ketubai , & 
Chron.  ii.  9,  one  of  the  descendants  of*  Judah,  is 
connected  with  the  Ketub  in  iv.  1 1.* 

Among  the  names  of  women,  thefoldest  as  well 
as  the  simplest  which  are  found/  are  actually 
only  suited  for  women,  as  Rachel,  4 Ewe;’  De- 
borah, ‘Bee;’  Tamar , ‘ Palm-tree;’  Hannah , 

4 Favour,’  the  mother  of  Samuel.  Those  which 
express  such  a delicate  and  endearing  sense  as 
Qeren  Happuk , 4 box  of  eye-ointment,’  Job  xlii. 
14,  and  fQ’Vipn,  4 my  delight  is  in  her,’  2 
Kings  xxi.  1,  betray  that  they  were  formed  in 
much  later  times  ; for,  although  the  first  occurs 
in  the  book  of  Job,  which  sedulously  refaius  al" 
archaisms,  it  nevertheless  belongs  to  the  same 
date  as  the  latter.  It  appears  indeed  to  have 
been  customary,  at  an  early  period,  to  form 
names  for  women  from  those  of  men,  by  means 
of  the  feminine  termination  : as  JT|n.  2 SatS5, 

iii.  4,  beside  *20,  Num.  xxvi.  15;  Til&piXi.e. 
Pia,  2 Kings  xxi.  19,  beside  dWd,  Pius,  § 
Chron.  v.  13,  viii.  17,  and  T\vchu,  Friedcnke, 
Num.  xxiv.  11,  beside  ilb^,  Friedcrich . But 
we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that,  all  these  are 
instances  of  simple  names  :f  no  single  example 
occurs  from  a compound  man’s  name.  As  the 
same  compound  names,  however,  are  sometimes 
used  both  for  men  and  women,  and  as  even  those 
very  names  are  applied  to  women,  which  could 
not  originally  have  been  applicable  to  any  hue 
men,  as  Abigail,  Achinoam,  accordingly,  we 
must  assume  that  the  plastic  power  of  the  lan- 
guage had  already  exhausted  itself  in  this  remote 
province,  and  that,  for  that  reason,  the  distinction 
of  the  feminine  was  omitted  ; almost  in  the  same 
way  as  Sanscrit  and  Greek  adjectives  of  the  foiua 

* It  is  remarkable  that  the  genealogical  rela- 
tion appears  to  be  sometimes  expressed  by  the 
mere  ST  of  motion,  as  fQpJP*  l Chron.  iv.  S&, 
which"  would  be  equivalently  expressed  by  a 
German  name  Zu- Jacob;  De  Israel9 

1 Chron.  xxv.  14,  cf.  ver.  2;  and  most  distinctly 
in  rms^n,  4 reckoned  to  Dan,’  Neh.  viii.  4 j 
cf.  in  1 Chron.  xxv.  4. 

f Or  of  those  also  in  which  the  masculine  haa 
already  dropped  the  second  member:  forChanaid 
and  Zabdi,  as  is  shown  below,  are  shortened  fro® 
Chananjabj  Zabdijah 


$9®  NAMES,  PROPER. 

nvfcai)  uttf,  tvrvxfts,  are  not  able  to  distinguish  the 
feminine  in  form. 

II.  Tliis  is  the  whole  principle  which  regulates 
the  formation  of  Hebrew  names,  both  as  it  mani- 
fests itself  in  the  earliest  times,  and  as  it  extends 
into  the  succeeding  periods,  in  which  it  receives 
new  impulses,  and  undergoes  moditi cations  of 
colour  but  not  of  substance. 

For  if  we  inquire  what  new  element  the  Mosaic 
period  introduced  into  names,  we  find  that,  on 
the  whole,  it  is  only  the  influence  of  the  new 
religion  which  manifests  itself  in  the  strongest 
characters,  and  causes  extraordinary  innovations. 
It  is  not  in  the  Psalms  only  and  other  l>ooks  that 
we  discover  how  deeply  this  religion  affected 
men ; we  may  also  infer  it  from  the  names  which 
Became  current  in  that  period.  Nay,  it  is  only 
these  words  of  common  life  which  render  it 
evident  to  our  senses  with  what  a power-  this 
religion  penetrated  all  the  depths  of  the  national 
tnind,  and  how  zealously  every  man  in  Israel 
endeavoured  \ to  glory  in  tits  name  of  Jahve/ 
according  to  the  words  of  the  prophet,  Isa.  xliv. 
& ; cf.  Ps.  cv.  3. 

As  tlte  whole  national  life  wa3  renovated  by  so 
influential  a new  religion,  the  mode  of  giving 
names  returned  to  its  primitive  state,  since  not 
only  were  new  names  created,  but  entire  sen- 
tences, of  the  shortest  compass,  expressing  the 
mighty  thoughts  which  agitated  the  times,  were 
also  applied  as  names.*  Thus,  especially  in  the 
times  in  which  the  Mosaic  religion  exercised  a 
more  vivid  influence,  names  were  formed  of  entire 
sentences,  in  which  some  of  its  most  affecting 
truths  are  expressed,  os  *lpp  3^-1\  * mercy-is- 
recompensed,*  I Chron.  iii.  20 ; * to- 

Jahve-are- mine-eyes’  (as  if  it  were  derived  from 
hymns  like  Ps.  cxxiii.),  1 Chron.  iv.  36,  vii.  8, 
riii.  20  if '"Kara  x.  22,  27;  Nehem.  xii.  41; 
?min,  ‘ praise-ye-Jah’  (from  well-known  pas- 
sages of  the  Psalms),  1 Chron.  iii.  24,  Ezra  ii. 
40 ; J as  a name  of  a woman,  ‘ Give- 

shadow-thou'-that-seest-me*  (God),  1 Chron.  iv.  3. 
But  we  seem  to  have  the  words  of  a great  prophet 
distributed  in  names  of  several  relations,  when 
we’ find  the  words— 

nixnqp  *rriin 

i.  e*  ‘ I have  given  great  and  exalted  aid, 

Have  spoken  oracles  in  abundance  * 
(which  evidently  contain  a verse  such  as  an 
ancient  prophecy  might  begin  with),  applied  to 
the  five  musical  sous  of  Heman — Giddalti  (ezer), 
Romamtiezery  Malloti , Rothin ■,  Machaziotky  1 

* Similar  instances*  occurred  in  England  in 
the  seventeenth  century.  . 

f In  this ‘place  we  find  '3JT;?N,  which  the 
Masoretes  point  Elienai ; but  this  would  not 
produce  any  sense,  and  a 1 has  evidently  been 
emitted.^  The  Sept,  reads  ’Ehicova'i,  which  is  right. 

£ 'The'  heavier  pronunciation  Hoddvjah  seems 
So  be  designedly  preferred  to  Hod'jah,  because 
H^dujah  would  easily  pass  over  into  Hodijjah, 
%4»ich  would  give  a different  sense.  There  is 
Only  one  other  similar  example,  1 Chron.' 

th  46,  the  meaning  of  which  is  obscure. 


NAMES,  PROPER. 

Chron.  xxr.  4,  cf.  ver.  26,  2S-31.  This  is  Midi** 1 
a remarkable  example.  We  also  once  find,  in 
Isa.  vii.,  a particular  representation  of  the  moda 
in  which  such  names  as  Eheurjashub  and  Im- 
manuel arose  in  real  life. 

But  it  was  chiefly  only  the  name  of  God  fa 
this  religion,  Jahve,  which  was  employed  in  the 
formation  of  names  (in  the  same  way  as  the 
earlier  divine  names  were);  and  it  is  shortened, 
when  it  constitutes  the  last,  member  of  the  name, 
to  jd/iu,  or,  still  more,  to  -jah,  and,  when  it  is 
the  first  member,  to  Jeh6 or.  Jo-.  In  this  usage 
it  occurs  with  infinite  frequency  (the  older  name 
Shaddai  becoming  obsolete,  and  El  alone  con-, 
turning  in  usej,  while  the  other  member  of  the 
name  often  retains  the  same  form  as  in  the  pri- 
mitive times,  e.g.  nj23,  like  *13,  and  The 

mother  of  Moses,  Jokebed , Exod.  vi.  20,  is,  ac- 
cording to  all  traces,  the  first  whose  name  bears 
evidence  of  the  worship  of  this  God  (which  is  ura 
exceedingly  important  test  runny  to  the  truth  of 
the  whole  history,  but  we  cannot  pursue  the 
subject  farther  here) ; and  it  is  a beautiful’ in- 
cident that  Moses,  with. his  own  mouth,  changed 
the  name  of  his  most  valiant  wairior  Hoshea, 
i.  e.  c Help!’  into  Jehoshd'z,  i.  e.  ‘Godbelp;’  as 
Muharomed,  in  like  manner,  gave  some  iff  lna 
followers  names  conformable  to  his  new  religion.** 
The  frequency  of  such  compositions  with  the 
name  of  Jahve  may  lie  estimated  by  the  abbre- 
viations whicll  sometimes  become  customary  iia> 
such  names.  Thus  or  BTO'D  (aa  it  ia 

occasionally  pointed),  is  not  only  shortened  to 
iTD'D.  but  to  H3'P,  Judg.  xvii.  5,  9-13,  cf.  ver. 
1,  4;  2 Chron.  xviji.  14,  cf.  ver.  7-13;  in  which 
manner  we  are  also  to  explain  the  name  of  the 
well-known  minor  prophet.  Thus  also  the  com- 
mon name  for  men  and  women,  Abijahu  or  Abijd » 
is  once  shortened  to  Abi,  2 Kings  xviji.  2.f- 
Tliere  are,  however,  two  cases  which  are  not  to  be 
confounded  with  these  casual  and  gradual  abbre- 
viations. First,  namely,  we  find  the  rave  in- 
stance that  a name  which  has  been  preserved  un- 
changed, is  nevertheless  occasionally  formed  by' 
dropping  the  syllable  Jo-  or  -jah : as  it  is  evident 
that  jri3  has  been  shortened  from ' iT3ri3  txt 
jn3*P;  as  likewise  JfiD.  2 Kings  xi«  18,  fronv* 
rnrip;  and  *DT,  1 Chron.  viii..31,  from  nn2?p, 
because  names  which  mean  ‘ gave,* 4 gift,’  ‘ me-; 
mory,’  do  not  by  themselves  produce  a suitable 
sense,  and  because  they  never  are  found  withj 
Abi-y  Achi-y  and  such  additions,  nor  can  bet 
traced  back  into  the  primitive  times.*  r.  We  aie 
therefore  obliged,  in  this  case,  to  assume  that 
these  names  have  been  designedly  shortened,  fa 
the  effort  to  make  as  many  different  names  as 
possible;  and,  a3  it  is  not  uncommon  for  two* 
brothers  to  receive  similar  names,  this  may  be  the! 
immediate  cause  for  the  formation  of  a name 
Nathan  beside  Nethanjah.\  Secondly,  when.-* 

* * Weit,  ;n  his  Leben  Muhammeds  (Stuttgardf^ 
1843,  p.  344),  treaf3  this  subject  too  briefly.  Kl-\ 
navavi  discusses  it.  more  at  length  in  the  preface 
to  his  Tahdsib  elasmdiy  ed.  Wiistenfeld,  p.  15. 

; -j*~  In  like  manner,  1 Sam.  xxv.  14, 

-an  abbreviation  of  2 Sam.  iii. -15.  j 

l This  ca.se  occurs  in  the  same  way  among 


NAOMI. 


NARCISSUS. 


391 


ever  a derivat.ve  in  -t  13  formed,  the  addition 
•jak,  or  even  Jo-  at  the  beginning,  disappears  ; 
and  in  this, case  also  we  find  ’’SSH  (although  it  is 
equivalent  to'J.he  patronymic  Cfiananiad.es ),  be- 
side nearly 'a»  the  name  of  his  brother,  1 Chron. 
xxv.  4,  23,  25. 

III.  'fhi$  is  the  type  and  fashion  of  the  names 
as  late  as  the  times  alter  the  first  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Tlie  influence  of  the  dispersion 
among  foreign  nations  may,  indeed,  be  imme- 
diately traced  in  the  new  names  which  allude  to 
the  captivity,  as  the  name  of  Zeruhbabel  himself, 
which  is  a contraction  of  -IT means  1 scat- 
tered to  Babylon ' Yet  this  foreign  influence  is 
l>4jt  transient;  and  in  the  centuries  immediately 
succeeding  the  Exile,  in  which  the  last  books  of 
{lie  Old  Testament  weie  wtitteii,  we  find,  on  the 
contrary,  tliat  the  ancient  mode  of  giving  names 
is  preserved  almost  unchanged. 

in  tlias  inspect,  however,  there  is  a tntal  differ- 
ence in  the  times  between  the  close  of  the  Old 
and  the  beginning  of  tire  New  Testament.  For 
alter  a purely  learned  study  of  the  Old  T^sta-. 
tr.enf.  liad  sprung  up,  and  tlie  whole  nation  only 
continued  to  exist  in  its  sacred  books,  they  de- 
lighted to  give  their  children  the  ancient  Scrip- 
tural names;  nay,  they  sought  out  such  names 
as  had  only  Ixeen  common  in  fire  times  before 
Rioses,  and  liad  become  obsolete  in  the  long  in- 
terval : names  like  Jacoby  Joseph , Maria.  But 
while  these  dead  names  were  revived  and  zea- 
lously sought  out,  the  capability  for  forming  new 
names  became  gradually  weaker.  And,  as  the 
love  of  novelty  still  operated,  and  as  the  jieople 
lost  iheis  'independence  more  and  more,  many 
foreign  names  became  favourites,  and  were  used 
equally  with  tlie  old  Biblical  names.  In  this 
manner  the  form  of  names  had,  by  the  time  of 
the  New  Testament,. reached  a state  of  develop- 
ment which  nearly  resembles  tliat  prevalent 
among  ourselves. 

Lastly,  with  regard  to  the  Biblical  nantes’of 
Individuals  belonging  to  the  less  eminent  nations 
with  which  tlie  Israelites  were  surrounded,  such 
as  die  Edomites,  Phoenicians,  Damascenes,  &c., 
thdir  formation  indeed  is  generally  very  like  that 
of  tire  Hebrew  names,  inasmuch  as  all  these 
nations  spoke  a Semitic  language;  but  the  ma- 
terials of  which  they  are  formed  are  so  different, 
that  one  cart  almost  recognise  these  foreign  na- 
tions by  tlieir  mere  names.  Thus  names  like 
Jladad. , Ben-hadad,  Hadad-eter , ate  quite  strange 
to  tire  Israelites, and  refer, to  the  tribes  to  the  E .'st 
of  Palestine,  where  a god  natoed/  Hadad  was 
worshipped,— H.  v.  E. 

NAOMI,  wife  of  Elimelech  of  Bethlehem, 
anil  mother-in-law  of  Ruth,  in  whose  history  hers 
<>  involved  [Roth]. 

NAPHTALI  (^9513,  my  ivrestliny ; Sept. 
NeepduAzlp),  the  sixth  son  of  Jacob,  and  his  second 

the  Arabs  (of  which  Hasan  and  Husain , the  sons 
of  Alt,  are  the  readiest  example)  as  among  thp 
Hebrews  (cf.  Geschichte  des  Volks  Israel , i.  321). 
Instances  like  Uzziel  and  IJzzi,  1 Chlon.  vii.  7, 
belong  altogether1  tcj  this  rule;  as  also  Jishvah 
and  Jishvi  (with  '.he-'  derivative  syllable),  G^n. 
jrivi.  17.  Father  and  eon  also,  for  the  same 
season,  bear  names  of  similar  sound. 


by  Bilhah,  Rachel’s  handmaid,  born  r.c.  1747, 
in  Padan- Aram.  Nothing  of  his  peisonal  history 
is  recorded.  In  the  testamentary  blessing  of  Jacob 

Naphtali  is  described  as  |niin  nn-iV 
"IBS?  (Gen.  xlix.  21),  translated  in  the 

Audi.  iV era.  *a  bind  let  loose,  he  giveth  goodly 
words.!  This  sense  is  certainly  that  conveyed  by 
the  pointed  Hebrew  text  as  it  now^stands,  and  it  is 
substantially  preserved  in  the  Oriental  ami  Lath* 
versions,  and  in  theTargum  of  Jonathan.  Gesenina 
renders  it,  * Naphtali  est  cerva  pvocera,  eden* 
veiba  pulchra,’  i.  c.  pleasant,  or  persuasive  words, 
referring,  he  thinks,  to  some  poetic  or  oratorical 
talent,  of  this  tribe,  otherwise  unknown.  He  vin- 
dicates this,  which  is  essentially  the  current  ver- 
sion, from  the  common  objection, — How  can  words 
lie  ascribed  to  a hind?  — by  observing  that  the 
* giving  foitli  ’ applies  not  to  the  hind  but  to  Naph- 
tali. The  Sept,  translators,  however,  must  have 
found  the  words  rendered  ‘hind’  and  ‘words’ 
different,  for  they  render  the  verse,  Ne^CcAel^ 
ct*A txos  arei/j-irot/  imdi&ovs  Iv  tw  yevrjfxare 
&dAAor;  and  as  this  reading  merely  requires  a 
difference  of  points  in  the  two  Hebrew  words  ire 
question,  tlie  idea  here  conveyed  has  been  adopted 
by  tlie  great  Iwdy  of  modern  interpreters,  Boehart’s 
version  of  it  being  generally  followed: — *Neph- 
tali  tercbinthus  patula,  edens  ratnos  pulchrus.* 
According  to  this  leading  the  veise  might  be  ren- 
dered, ‘ Naphtali  is  a goodly  tree  [tthebinth  or 
oak]  that  puts  forth  lovely  branches.’  We  cer- 
tainly incline  to  this  view  of  the  text;  the  me- 
taphor which  it  involves  being  well  adapted  to  the 
residence  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  which  was  a 
beautiful  woodland  c#untry,  extending  to  Mount 
Lebanon,  and  producing  fruits  of  every  sort. 
With  this  interpretation,  better  than  with  dh{} 
other,  agrees  the  blessing  of  Moses  upon  th&  same 
frihe  : ‘>0  Naphtali,  satislied  with  favour,  and 
full  with  the  blessing  of  the  Lord,  possess  thou  the 
west  ami  the  south’  (Deut.  xxxiii.  23). 

When  the  Israelites  quitted  Egypt,  the  tribe  of 
Naphtali  numbered  53,400  adult  males  (Num. 
i.  43),  which  made  it  the  sixth  in  population 
among  the  tribes;  but  at  the  census  taken  in  the 
plains-  of  Moab  it  counted  only  45,400  (Num. 
xxvi.  50),  being  a decrease  of  8000  in  one  gene- 
ration, whereby  it  became  the  seventh  in  point 
of  numbers.  The  limits  of  the  territory  assigned 
to  this  ti i be  are  stated  in  Josh.  xix.  32-39,  which 
show  .that  it.  possessed  one  iff  the  finest  and  most 
fertile  'districts  of  Upper  Galilee,  extending- mure 
the  Lake  Gennesaieth  and  the  border  of  Zebulun, 
on  tlie  south,  to  tlie  sources  of  the  Jordan  and  the 
spurs  of  Lebanon  on  the  north,  and  from  the 
Jordan,  on  the  east,  to  the  borders  of  Asher  ore 
the  west.  But  it  was  someyvhat  slow  in  acquiring 
possession  of  the  assigned  territory  (Judg.  i.  33;. 
The  chief  towns  of  the  tribe  were  Kedesh,  Hazor» 
Harosheth,  and  Chinnereth,  which  last  was  alsre 
the  name  of  the  great  lake  afterwards  called 
Gennesaieth..  In  the  Hebrew  history  Naphtali 
is  distinguished  for  the  alacrity  with  which  it 
obeyed  the  call  to  arms  against  the  oppressors  of 
Israel  when  many  other  tribes  held  back  (Judg. 
iv.  10;  v.  18;  vi.  35;  vii.  23).  In  the  time  of 
David  the  tribe  had  on1  its  rolls  37,000  men  titt 
for  military  service,  armed  with  shields  and  spears* 
under  a Thousand  officers  (1  Chron.  xii.  34). 
NARCISSUS  (Nd/McurtfoTl,  a person  of  Uomcs, 


NATAF. 


392 

apparently 'of  9ome  consequence.  tQ  the  tiel  levers 
of  whose  household  St.  Paul  sent  his  greetings 
(Rom.  xvi.  11).  Many  commentators  have  sup- 
jwsed  tliis  person  the  sinie  Narcissus  who  was 
*he  freed  man  and  favourite  of  the  Emperor  Clau- 
dius (Suet.  Claud.  28;  Tacit  Annul,  xii.  I7)t 
NATAF  (►jOp  occurs  only  once  in  Scripture, 
and  is  translated  ‘stacte*  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion (Exnd.  xxx.  34).  ‘And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Take  unto  thee  sweet  spices,  sacte  (junta/), 
and  onycha,  and  galhanum  ; these  sweet  spices 
ivith  pure  i rank  incense.’  ‘Thou  shalt  make  it  a 
perfume  after  the  art.  of  the  apothecary  ' (ver.  35). 
2>ataf  has  been  variously  translated — balsam , 
liquid  sty  rax,  benzoin,  costus,  ma  stick,  bdellium. 
Celsius  is  of  opinion  that  it  means  the  purest 
kind  of  myrrh,  called  stacte  by  the  Greeks  [Mou], 
He  adduces  Pliny  as  saying  of  the  myrrh-trees, 
‘•Sudant  sponte  sfacten  dictam,’  and  remaiks, 

* Ehraris  ^03  Nathaf  est  stillare  ’ — adding,  as  an 
argument,  that  if  you  do  not  translate  it  myrrh 
in  this  place,  you  will  exclude  myrrh  altogether 
from  the  sacred  perfume.  But  Rosenmuller  says, 

* This,  however,  would  not  be  s*iited  for. the  pre- 
paration of  the  perfume,  and  it  also  has  another 
Hebrew  name,  for  it  is  called  mcr  deror.  But  the 
Gre.-ks  also  called  stakte  a species  of  Storax  gum, 
which  Dioscorides  describes  as  transparent  like  a 
tear  and  resembling  mvrrli.  This  agrees  well 
with  the  Hebrew  name.*  But  Storax  does  hot 
appear  to  us  to  be  more  satisfactorily  proved 
to  be  nataf  than  the  former.  The  Arabs  apply 

the  term  tsj&bU  to  a sweetmeat  composed  of  suga?,, 

flour,  and  butter,  in  equal  parts,  with  the  addition 
of  aromatics.  We  have  no  meanqof  determining 
the  question  more  accurately. — J.  F.  R. 

NATHAN  (jm,  given  ; Sept.  Natfct*),  a pro- 
phet of  the  time  of  David.  When  that  monarch 
conceived  the  idea  of  building  a temple  to  Jehovah, 
the  design  and  motives  seemed  to  Nathan  so  good 
that  he  ventured  to  approve  of  it  without  the  Di- 
vine authority  ; but  the  night  following  he  received 
the  Divine  command,  which  prevented  rlie  king 
from  executing  this  great  work  (2  Sam.  vii.  2,  sq. ; 
i Citron.  xvii.).  Nathan  does  not  again  appear 
in  the  sacred  history,  till  he  comes  forward  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  to  reprove  David,  and  to  de- 
nounce dire  punishment  for  his  frightful  crime 
in  the  matter  of  Uriah  and  Bathsheba.  This  he 
does  by  exciting  the  king’s  indignation,  and  lead- 
ing him  to  condemn  himself,  by  recitjng  to  him 
the  very  striking  pa»able  of  the  traveller  and  the 
lamb.  Then,  changing  the  voice  of  a suppliant 
for  that,  of  a judge  and  a Commissioned  prophet, 
be  exclaims,  * Thou  art  the  man!’  aini  pro- 
ceeds to  announce  the  evils  which  were  to  cm- 
Litter  the  remainder  of  his  reign  (2  Sam.  xii.  1, 
sq. ; comp.  Ps.  li.).  The  lamentations  of  the 
repentant  king  drew  forth  some  mitigation  of 
punishment;  but  the  troubled  history  of  the  re- 
mainder of  his  reign  shows  how  completely  God’s 
righteous  doom  was  fulfilled.  The  child  con- 
ceived ill  adultery  died;  but  when  Batlisheba's 
6econ.d  son  was  bom,  the  prophet  gave  him  the 
name  of  Jedidiah  (beloved  uf  Jehovah),  although 
Ire  is  better  known  by  that  of  Solomon  (2  Sam. 
«ii..  24,  25).  He  recognised  in  this  young  prince 
tht  successor  of  David  ; and  it  was  in  a great 
measure  through  his  interposition  that  the  design, 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

O t Adonijah  to  seize  the  crown  was  unsuccessful 
(1  Kings  i.  8,  sq.).  Nathan  probably  died  soon 
after  the  accession  of  Solomon,  for  bis  name  does 
not  again  historically  occur.  It  is  generally  sup- 
posed that  Solomon  was  brought  up  under  his 
care.  His  sons  occupied  high  places  in  this 
king’s  court  (1  Kings  iv.  5).  He  assisted  David 
by  his  counsels  when  he  re-organized  the  public 
worship  (2  Cbroo.  xxix.  25);  and  he  composed 
annals  of  the  times  in  which  be  lived  i I Chron. 
xxix.  29;  2 Chron.  ix.  2fU;  but  these  have  not 
been  preserved  to  us»  In  Zechariah  (xii.  12)  tho 
name  of  Nathan  occurs  a9  representing  t lie  great 
family  of  the  prophets. 

NATHANAEL  given  of  God;  Neve 

Test.  Na6avari\),  a person  of  Cana*  in  Galilee, 
tv  ho,  when  informed  by  Philip  that  the  Messiah 
had  appeared  in  the  jx’rson  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
asked, ‘Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  4* 
But  lie  nevertheless  accented  Philip’s  laconic  in- 
vitation, ‘ Come  and  see  ! W hen  Jesus  saw  him 
corning  lie  said,  ‘ Behold  an  Israelite  indeed,  in 
whom  is  no  guile.’  Astonished,  to  hear  this  fiom 
a man  to  whom  he  supposed  himself  altogether 
unknown,  he  asked,  * Whence  know  est  thou  niefC 
And  the  answer,  ‘ Before  that  Philip  called  thee, 
when  thou  wast  under  the  fig-tree,  1 saw  thee,’ 
wrought  such  conviction  on  his  rnind  that  he  at 
once  exclaimed,  ‘ Rabbi,  thou  art  the  son  of  God  ; 
thou  art  the  king  of  Israel  ’ (John  i.  *45-51).  It 
is  clear, -from  the  etl'cct,  that  Nathanael  knew  by 
this  that  Jesus  was  snpernaturally  acquainted 
with  his  disposition  and  character,  as  the  answer 
had  reference  to  the  private  acts  of  devotion,  or  to 
the  meditations  which  tilled  his  mind,  wlietPpnder 
the  fig-tree  in  his  garden.  It  is  questioned  whether 
Jesus  had  actually  seen  Nathanael  or  not  with 
his  bodily  eyes.  It  matters  not  to  the  result  ; but 
the  form  of  the  words  employed  seems  to  suggest 
that  he  had  actually  noticed  him  when  under  the 
fig-tree,  and  had  then  cast  a look  through  his 
inward  being.  Passages  from  the  rabbinical 
liooks  might  Ire  multiplied  to  show  that  the  Jews 
were  in  the  habit  of  studying  the  law  and  medi- 
tating on  religious,  subjects  under  shady  trees 
(comp.  Tholuck,  Commentar  zum  Johan,  i.  49)i 
It.  is  believed  that  Nathanael  is  the  same  as  the 
apostle  Bartholomew.  AH  the  disciples  of  Julia 
the  Baptist  named  in  the  first  chapter  of  St.  John 
became  apostles;  and  St.John  does  not  name 
Bartholomew,  nor  the  other  evangelists  Nathanael 
in  the  lists  of  the  apostles  (Matt.  x.  3;  Mark  ii»„ 
18;  Luke  vi.  14):  besides,  the  name  of  Bartho- 
lomew always  follows  that  of  Philip;  anil  it 
would  Xippear  that  Bartholomew  (son  of  Thohnai) 
is  no  mine  than  a surname  [Bautholomkw]. 

NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF.  Many 
obvious  reasons  incline  us  to  suppose  that  the 
small  number  of.  mankind  which  divine  mercy 
spared  from  the  extirpation  of  the  Deluge,  eight 
persons,  forming  at  the  utmost  five  families,  would 
continue  to  dwell  hear  each  other  as  long  as  the 
utmost,  stretch  of  convenience  would  permit  them. 
The  undutiful  conduct  of  Ham  and  his  fourth 
son  cannot  well  fie  assigned  to  a point  of  tithe 
earlier  than  twenty  or  thirty  years  after  the  Flood. 
So  long,  at  least,  family  affection  and  mutual 
interests  would  urge  the  children  of  Noah  not  to 
break  up  their  society.  The  dread  of  dangers, 
ktuwu  and  unknown,  and  every  day’s  experiem* 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

of  the  benefits  derived  from  mutual  aid,  would 
strengthen  other  motives.  It  is  evident  from 
Gen.  xi.  lU-16,  that  about  100  years,  according1 
to  the  Hebrew  text,  were  spent  in  this  state  of 
family,  propinquity,  yet  with  a considerable 
degree  of)  proximate  diffusion,  which  necessity 
would  ur£e ; but  the  date3  of  the  Septuagint, 
without  including  the  generation  of  the  post- 
diluvian Cainan  [see  that  article],  give  400. 
The  well  weighed  computation  of  Proiessor  Robert 
Wallace,  not  yet.  published,  mjakesthe  period  531 
years.  The  Hebrew  period  can  scarcely  be  ad- 
mitted'.' but  even  that,  much  more  the  others, 
will  afford  a sufficient  time  for  such  an  increase 
of  mankind  as  would  render  an  extensive  out- 
spread highly  expedient.  A crowded  population 
would  be"  likely  to  furnish  means  and  incentives 
to  turbulence,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  some  form 
of  tyranny  on-  the  oilier.  Many  of  the  unoc- 
cupied districts  would  become  dangerously  un- 
wholesome, by  stagnating  waters  and  the  accu- 
mulation of  vegetable  ami  animal  putrescence. 
The  products  of  cultivation,  and  of  other  arts, 
*vould  have  been  acquired  so  slowly,  as  to  have  re- 
tarded human  improvement  and  comfort.  Tardy 
.expansion3  would  have  failed  to  reach  distant 
regions,  till  many  hundreds  or  thousands  of  years 
- bad-run  out.  The  noxious  animals  would  have 
multiplied  immoderately.  The  religious  obedi- 
ence associated,  by  the  Divine  commapd,  with 
the  possession  and  use  of  the  earth,  would  have 
been  checked  ami  perverted  to  a greater  degree 
than  the  world’s  bitter  experience  proves  that  it 
actually  has  been.  Thus,  it  may  appear  with 
pretty  strong  evidence,  that  a dispersion  of  man- 
kind was  highly  desirable  to  be  in  a more  prompt 
and  active  style  than  would  haye  been  effected 
by  the  impulses  of  mere  conyenience  and  vague 
inclination.. 

i*  That  this  dictate  of  reasonable  conjecture  was 
realized  in  fact,  is  determined  by  the  Mosaic 
writings.  Of  the  elder  sou  of  Eber,  the  narrative 
says,  his  * name  was  Peleg,  because  in  his  days 
the  earth  was  divided’  (Gen.  x.  18);  and  this  is 
repeated;  evidently  as  a literal  transcript,  in  1 
Chron.  i.  19.  If  we  might  coin  a 'word  to  imitate 
the  Hebrew,- we  might  show  the  paronomasia  by 
saying,  * the  earth  wa3  pelegged.'  Some  are  of 
opinion  that,  the  event  took  place  ahout  the  time  of 
Jtis  birth,  and  that  his  birth-name  was  given  to  him 
as  a memorial  of  the  transaction.  But  it  was 
the  practice  of  probably  all  nations  in  the  early 
times,  that  j>ersons  assumed  to  themselves,  or  im-. 
posed  upon  their  children  and  other  connections, 
new  names  at  different  epochs  of  their  lives,  de- 
rived from  coincident  events  in  all  the  variety  of 
associated  ideas.  Of  ihatVpractice  many  ex- 
amples occur  in  the  Scriptures.  The  conjecture 
;ts  more  probable  that,  in  this  instance,  the  name 
was  applied  in  the  individual’s  maturer  age,  and 
on.  account  of  some  personal  concern  which  he 
had  in  the  commencement  or  progress  of  the  se- 
paration. But  the  signification  usually  given  is 
oy  no  means  a matter  of  indubitable  certainty. 
The  verb  octurs  only  in  the  two  passages  men- 
tioned (strictly  but  one),  and  in  Fs.  Iv.  9, 

* divide ' their  tongues,’  and  Job  xxxviii.  25, 

‘ who  hath  divided  a channel  for  the  torrent  ’ (pro- 
duced by  a heavy  thunder-shower)  ? Respectable 
philologists  have- disputed  whether  it  refers  at  all 
io  a separation  of  mankind;  and  think  that  tho 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF.  39 Z 

event  which  singularly  marked  Peleg  s life  was 
an  occurrence  in  physical  geography,  an  earth- 
quake, which  produced  a vast  chasm,  separating 
two  considerable  parts  of  the  earth,  in  or  near  !ne 
district  inhabited  by  men.  That  earthquakes  and 
dislocations  of  land  have  taken  place  in  and 
around  that  region,  at  various  times  before 
the  historical  period,  the  present  very  different! 
levels,  and  other  results  of  volcanic  agency, 
afford  ample  proofs.  The  possibility , therefore, 
of.some  geological  convulsion  cannot  be  denied  jj 
or  that  it  might  have  been  upon  a great  scale, 
and  followed  by  important  effects  upon  the  con* 
dition  of  mankind. 

But  neither  the  affirming  nor  the  rejecting  of 
this  interpretation  of  * the  earth’s  being  divided,® 
can  affect  the  question  upon  the  primeval  separa- 
tion and  migratory  distributions  of  men.  Th<? 
reasons  which  we  have  mentioned  render  it  cer» 
tain,  that  some  such  event,  and  successive  events, 
have  taken  place  : and,  without  urging  the  pass- 
age of  disputed  interpretation,  it  is  evident  that! 
the  chapters  of  Genesis  x.  and  xi.  assume  the 
fact,  and  may  be  considered  as  rather  a summary 
recognition  of  it  than  as  a detailed  account.  Two 
sentences  are  decisive  (ch.  ix.  19),  ‘These  are 
the  three  sons  of  Noah,  and  from  these  all  the 
earth  (fl^M)  was  scattered  over.'  This  is  the- 
closest  translation  we  can  give.  Gesenius  assigns 
to  the  verb  a reilexive  signification  ; and  thus  if 
would  be  well  expressed  in  French  by  la  terra 
siest  repandue  or  s'est  distribuee . The  other  is 
ch.  x.  32,  ‘These  are  the  families  of  the  sons  of 
Noah,  [according]  to  their  generations,  in  their 
nations;  and  from  these  the  nations  (^T^SJ)  were, 
dispersed  in  the  earth,  after  the  Flood.’  Here 
another  verb  is  used,  often  occurring  ::s  the  Old 
Testament,  and  the  meaning  of  which  admits  of 
no  doubt.  We  find  it  also  at  verse  5— ‘ From 
these  the  isles  of  the  nations  were  dispersed , ira 
their  lands,  each  [according]  to  its  language, 
[according]  to  their  families,  in  their  nations.® 
We  have  an  idiom  perfectly  similar  in  our  mo- 
dern language,  when  we  say,  the  field  is  soim}  lb? 
the  seed  is  sown  in  the  field. 

In  the.  latest  composition  of  Moses  is  another 
passage  which,  in  this  inquiry,  must  not  be  neg- 
lected (Deut.  xxxii.  8,  9) — * In  the  Most  High’s 
assigning  abodes  to  the  nations,  in  his  dispersing1 
the  sons  of  Adam,  he  fixed  boundaries  to  the 
peoples  according  to  the  number  (1SDD,  more 
exactly,  numeration ) of  the  sous  of  Israel  : lbs 
the  assigned  portion  of  Jehovah  is  his  people; 
Jacob,  the  iot  of  his  inheritance.’  Of  this  8th 
verse  the  Septuagint  translhtiun  is  remarkable ; 
and  it  thus '"became  the  source  of  extraordinary 
interpretations:  ‘ When  the  Most  High -appor- 
tioned nations,  when  he  scattered  abroad  the  sons 
of  Adam,  he  fixed  boundaries  of  nations  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  the  angels  of  God.’  Tlieie 
might  be  a reading  (£7  or  E/ohim,  instead  of 
Israel ),  which  would  yield  that  meaning  lYo«i( 
comparison  with  Job  i.6;  ii.  1 j xxxviii.  7.  Abo  the 
Alexandrine  translators  might  welcome  a Colour- 
able reason  for  the  rendering,  that  it  might  haply 
serve ' as  a protection  from  the  danger  of  the 
Macedonico-Egyptian  government,  taking  up  the 
idea  that  the  Jews  claimed  a divine  right  of  su- 
premacy over  all  other  nations.  This  heading, 
however,  gave  occasion  to  the  -Greek  Fathers 
(Justin  Martyr,  Grigen,  Eusebius,  &c.\ to  maiij. 


094  NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

tain  the  doctrine  of  a later  Jewish  origin,  that 
the  grandsons  of  Noah  being  seventy,  each  was 
the  ancestor  of  a nation ; each  nation  having  its 
own  language,  derive  1 from  the  confusion  of 
Babel ; and  each  also  its  guardian-angel,  set  over 
if  by  the  Creator ; excepting  the  nation  of  Israel, 
of  which  Jehovah  himself  was  the  Tutelary  Deity. 
In  this  notion  a reader  who  is  versed  in  the  Bible' 
sees  the  mixture  of  a little  truth  with  great  error. 
That  error  of  ancient  heathen  priest*  and  their 
followers,  of  the  Gnostics  in  the  second  anil  third 
centuries,  and  of  some  tnodern  anti-superna- 
turalists, involves  that  the  God  of  Israel,  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  an  imaginary 
being,  a part  of  the  national  mythological  ma- 
chinery, and  not  the  Ai.i.-Peiikect  Supreme. 

The  accessory  perplexities  in  this  passage  are 
thus  satisfactorily  unravelled.  The  only  leal 
difficulty  lies  in  its  seeming  to  assert  that  the 
nascent  population  was  distributed  info  group? 
with  the  express  design  of  effecting* a numerical 
correspondence  with  the  Israelitish  family  eight 
hundred  years  after.  The  names  assigned  to  the 
third  degree,  that  is  the  sons  (rather  tribes  or 
nations)  of, Noah’s  three  sons,  are,  Japhet  four- 
teen, Ham  thirty-one,  Shem  twenty-five,  making 
■seventy ; and  the  whole  family  of  Jacob,  when 
it  came  to  be  domiciliated  in  Egypt,  was  seventy 
(Gen.  xlvi,  26;  Exod.  i.  5 ; Deut.  x.  22).  Some 
have  also  fancied  a parallel  in  the  seventy  eldere 
(Exod.  xxiv.  1,  9;  Num.  xi.  16.  24,  25;  see  also 
Pictorial  Palestine , Civil  Histoiy,  Index,  article 
Elders').  These  puerilities  might  have  been  pre- 
vented had  men  considered  that  "12DD  does  not 
signify  merely  an  arithmetical  amount,  but  is 
used  to  denote  an  exact  narration  (Judg.  vii.  15). 
The  passage  is  in  the  highly  poetical  style  of  the 
magnificent  ode  in  which  it  occurs,  and,  reduced* 
to  plain  terms;  might  be  thus  represented  : * The 
Almighty  and  Omniscient  Jehovah  has  decreed, 
and  disjjosed  all  beings  and  events,  *iu  all  time 
and  every  place,  upon  a perfect  system  of  mutual 
relationship,  every  part  of  which  corresponds  to 
every  other  : therefore,  by  his  provident  wisdom, 
and  power,  he  directed  the  movements  ajid  settle- 
ments of  all  the  tribes  of  men  in  such  a manner 
as  would,  after  the  lapse  of  a thousand  years, 
combine  every  agent  and  instrument,  for  putting 
the  Israelites  into  possession  of  tire  country  pro- 
mised to  their  ancestors,  and  thereby  demon- 
strating them  to  be  the  peculiarly  favoured  people 
of  God.’'  , ' ( ’ 

We  now  come  to  the  immediate  subject  of  this, 
article,  the  Dispersion  of  Nations . ■ 

Under  this  or  some  similar,  designation,  it  has 
been  the  prevalent  opinion  that  the  outspreading , 
which  is  the  entire  subject  of  Genesis,  ch.  £.,  and 
the  scattering  narrated  in  ch.  Xi.  1-9,  refer  to  the 
same  event,  the  latter  being  included  in  the  for- 
mer description,  and  being  a statement  of  the 
ananner  in  which  the  separation  was  effected. 
From  this  opinion,  however,  we  dissent ; and  our 
conviction  was  formed  solely  from  the  perusal. 
,of  the  Scriptural  narrative,  before  we  were  aware 
(or  in  total  forgetfulness)  that  Mr.  Jacob  Bryant 
had  long  ago  maintained  the  same  opinion 
{Ancient  Mythology , vol.  iv.,  3rd  ed.,  pp.  23-44, 
92).  An  unbiassed  reading  of  the  text  appears 
most  plain/y  to  mark  the  distinctness,  in  time  and 
character,  of  the  two  narratives.  The  first  was 
universal,  regulated,  orderly,  quiet,  end  progrees- 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF* 

ive  : the  second,  local,  embracing  only  a part  of 
mankind,  sudden,  turbulent,  and  attended  wiiu' 
marks  of  the  Divine  displeasure. 

The  former  is  introduced  and  entitled  m these1 
words  : — ‘Shem,  and  Ham,  and  Japheth; — these' 
are  the  three  sons  of  Noah  ; and  from  them  waV 
the  whole  earth  overspread.’  After  the  mentior* 
of  the  sons  of  Japheth,  it  is  added,  ‘From  thest 
the  isles  of  the  nations  were  dispersed,  in  their, 
lands,  each  to  its  language,  to  their  families,  us 
their  nations.’  A formula  somewhat  differing 
is  annexed  to  the  descendants  of  Ham  : f These 
are  the  sons  of  Ham,  [according]  to  their  families; 
to  their  tongues,  in  their  lands,  in  their  nations.* 
The  same  phrase  follows  the  enumeration  of  the 
house  of  $hern  : and  the  whole  concludes  with. 
‘These  are  the  families  of  the  sons  of  Noah, 
[according]  to  their  generations,  in  their  nations  ; 
and  from  these  the  nations  were  dispersed  in  the 
earth  after  the  Flood’  (Gen.  ix.  19;  5,  29, 

31,32). 

The  second  relation  begins  in  the  manner  which 
often,  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  introduces  a nn\y 
subject.  We  shall  present  it  in  a literality  even 
servile,  that  the  reader  may  gain  '.he  most  prompt 
apprehension  of  the  meaning.  4 And  it  was  [co/j 
ha-aretz]  all.  the  earih  (but  with  perfect  pro-" 
priety  it  miglit.  be  rendered  the-  whole  land * 
country , region , or  district ) : lip  one  and  words 
one  [t.  e.  the  same,  similar].'  And  it  was  in 
their  going  forwards  that  they  discovered  a plain 
in  the  country  Shinar;  and  they  fixed  [their 
abode)  there.’  Then  comes  the  narrative  of  their 
resolving  to  build  a lofty  tower  which'  should 
serve  a9  a signal-point  for  their  rallying*and  le- 
maining  united.  The  defeating  of  this  purpose 
is  expressed  in  the  anthropomorphism,  which  is 
characteristic  of  the  earliest  Scriptures,  and  wag 
adapted  to  the  infantile  condition  of  mankiudj 
‘And  Jehovah  scattered  them  from  thence  upon' 
the  face  of  the  whole  earth  [or  land],  and, they' 
ceased  to  build  the  city'  (ch.  xi.  2-9;  Anthro- 
pomorphism, Babei.,  in  this0work  ; also  J.  Fyo 
Smith’s  Scnpture  and  Geology , lent,  vii.^  where 
this  characteristic  of  primeval  style  is  largely  in- 
vestigated). We  shall  here  quote  so  much  from 
Mr.  Bryant  as  appears  to  us  supported  by  direct 
evidence,  or  a high  degree  of  probability. 

Of  Noah— ‘ We  may  suppose  that  his  sons 
showed  him  always  great  reverence;  and,  after 
they  were  separated,  and  when  he  was  no  more, 
that  they  still  behaved  in  conformity  to  the  rules 
Which  he  established.  But  there  was  one  family 
* which  seems  to  have  acted  a Contrary  part.  The 
sons  of  Cush  would  not  submit  to  the  Divine  dis- 
pensation [in  the  dispersion  of  the  families]  : andi 
Nimrod’,  who  first  took  upon  himself  regal  state, 
drove  Ashur  from  his  demesnes,  and  forced  himr 
to  take  shelter  in  the  higher  .parts  of  Mesopotamia- 
The  sacred  historian,  after  this,  mentions  another 
act  of  a rebellious  purpose,  which  consisted  in’ 
building  a lofty  tower  with  a very  evil  intent. 
Most  writers  have  .described  this  and  the  former 
event  (Nimrod’s  usurping  conduct),  as  antecedent 
to  the  migration  of  mankind : but  it  will  be  my 
endeavour  to  show  that  the  general  migration  was* 
-not  only  prior,  but  from  another  part  of  the  world. 

I think  that  we  may  (from  Gen.  x.  and  x>-)  oK, 
serve  two  different  occurrences  which  are  gene-' 
rally  blended  together.  First,  that  there  was  a 
formal  migration  of  families  to  the  several  re.- 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

sfions  appointed  for  them,  according  . to  the  deter- 
mination of  theC  Almighty : secondly,  that  there 
was  a dissipation  of  others,  who  would  not  ac- 
quiesce in  the  Divine  dispensation.  It  is  gene- 
rally thought  that  the  whole,  of  mankind  is  in- 
cluded in  this  description  (Gen.  xi.  I,  2).  Hut 
J am  not  certain  that  these  words  a fiord  any 
proof  to  this  opinion.  The  passage,  when  truly 
translated,  does  not  by  any  means  refer  to  the 
whole  of  mankind.  According  to  the  original, 
at  is  said  indeterminately  that,  “ in  the  journey- 
ing of  people  from  the  East,  they  found  a plain, 
9n  the  land  of  Shinar.”  The  purport  of  the  whole 
jxissage  amounts  only  to  this,  that  before  there 
v/as  any  alteration  in  the  language  of  mankind, .3 
Jmdy  of  people  came  .from  the  East  fo  the  place 
above  specified.  So  that  I am  far  from  being 
satisfied  that  the  whole  of  mankind  was  engaged 
an  this  expedition  from  the  East.  The  Scripture 
does  not. seem  to  say  so;  nor  can  there  be  any. 
reason  assigned  why  they  should  travel  so  far 
anerely  to  be  dissipated  afterwards.  _ We  have 
s eason  to  think  that,  soon  after  .the  descent  from 
tftie  ark,  the  patriarch  found  himself  in  a tine  and 
fruitful  country  (as  described  by  all  the  ancient 
and  modern  authorities).  Here  I imagine  that 
3 he  patriarch  resided.  The  sacked  writings  men- 
fiiors  seemingly  his  taking  up  his  abode  for  a long 
Jime  upon  the  spot.  Indeed  they  do  not  afford 
us  any  reason  to  infer  that  he  ever  departed  from 
it.  The  Very  plantation  of  the  vine  seems  to  im- 
|)ly  a. purpose  of  residence.  Not  a word  is  said 
<t)f  the  patriarch’s  ever  quitting^  the  place;  nor  of 
any  of  his  sons  departing  from  it  till  the  general 
migration J When  mankind  had  ‘become  very 
riumerous,  it  pleased  God  to  allot  to  the  various 
families  different  regions  to  which  they  were  to 
retire : and  they  accordingly,  in  the  days  of 
Veleg,  did  remove  and  betake  themselves  to  their 
different  departments.  But  the  sons  of  Cush 
would  not  obey.  They  went  oft'  under  ’the  con- 
duct of  the  arch-rebel  Nimrod,  and  seem  to  have 
ibeeii  fora  long  time  in  a roving  state;  but  at 
last  they  arrived  at  the  plains  of  Shinar.  These 
they  found  occupied  by  Ashur  (ch.  x.  11)  and 
iris  sons  ; for  he  had  been  placed  there  by  divine 
appointment.  But  they  ejected  him,  and  sejzed 
upon  his  dominions.  Their  leader  is  often  men- 
tioned by  the  Gentile  writers,  who  call  him 
Balus’  [Be/,  Baal ; ‘not  a name  oft  any  particu- 
lar person,  but  a title  assumed  by  many,  and  of 
different  nations;’  Anc.  Mythol.  vol.  vi.  p.  260]. 
* In  the  beginning  of  this  history  it  ir  said  that 
they  journeyed  from  the  East  when  they  came  to 
the  land  of  Shinar.  This  was  the  latter  part  of 
iheir  route ; and  the  reason  of  their  coming  in 
Shis  direction  may,  I think,  be  plainly  shown. 
The  ark,  according  to  the  best  accounts,  both 
sacred  and  profane,  rested  upon  a mountain  of 
Armenia,  called  Minyas,  Baris,  Lubar,  and 
^rarat.’  [See  in  this  work  Ararat,  especially 
j).  200,  ana  Ark  ] .*  Many  families  of  the  emi- 
grants went  probably  directly  east  or  west , in 
co'usequence  of  the  situation  to  which  they  were 
appointed.  But  those  who  were  destined  to  the 
southern  par*s  of  the  great  continents  which  they 
were  to  inhabit,  could  not  so  easily  and  uniformly 
proceed;  there  being  but  few  outlets  to  their 
place  of  destination.  For  the  high  Tauric  ridge 
and  the  Gordyaean  mountains  came  between  and 
intercepted  their  due  course,’  [Mr,  Bryant  ia- 


NATION&,  DISPERSION  OF/  395 

v . 

traduces  evidence  of  the  next  to  insurmountable 
character  of  those  mountains,  which  must  have 
been  far  more  impassable  in  those  early  times  than 
now.]  ‘i  should  therefore  think  that  mankind  must 
necessarily,  for  some  ages,  have  remained  near  the 
place  of  descent,  from  which  they  did  not  depart 
till  the  time  of  the  general  migration.  Armenia 
is.  in  great  measure  bounded  either  by  the  Pontic 
Sea  or  by  mountains  : and  it  seems  to  have  beet* 
the  purpose  of  Providence  to  confine  the  sons  of 
men  to  this  particular  region,  to  prevent  their 
roving  too  soon.  Otherwise  they  might  hav« 
gone  dll’ in  small  parties  before  the  great  families 
were  constituted.  Many  families  were  obliged 
to  travel  more  or  less  eastward^wha  wanted  Uj 
come  down  to  the  remoter  parts  of  Asia.  The 
Cushites  [Culhites,  Bryant,  p.  246],  who  seem 
to  have  been  a good  while  in  a roving  state,  migliJ 
possibly  travel  to  the  Pylse*  Caspisa  before  they 
found  an  outlet,  ju  consequence  of  tin®  the 
latter  part  of  their  route  must  liave  beers  a 
“journeying  from  the  East.”  I was  surprised, 
after  1 had  formed  this  opinion  from  the  natural 
history  of  the  country,  to  find  it  verified  -by  that 
ancient  historian  Berosus/  [The  Chaldsean  his- 
torian, contemporary  with  Alexander,  a write® 
apparently  of  fidelity  and  judgment,  considering 
his  circumstances.  Ql  his  work  a few  fragments 
only  are  preserved  by  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and 
other  ancient  writers.  See  a considerable  num- 
ber of  these  passages  translated  by  Mr.  Bryant^ 
vol.  iv.  p.  123-137.]  ‘ He  mentions  the  route  0$ 

his  countrymen  from  Ararat  after  the  Deluge, 
and  says  that  it  vvu3  not  in  a straight  line;  bu§ 
the  people  had  been  instructed  to  take  a circuit \ 
and  so  descend  to  the  regions  of  Babylonia.  Ira 
this  manner  the  sons  of  Cush  came  to  the  plains 
of  Shinar,  of  which  Babylonia  was  a part-,  and 
from  hence  they  ejected  Ashur,  and  afterwards 
trespassed  upon  Elam  in  tire  region  beyond  the 
Tigris’  (Anc.  Mythol.  vol.  iv.  p.  21-34). 

Mr.  Bryant  adduces  reasons  for  believing  that' 
the  confusion  of  speech  Was  a miraculously-iii-i 
fiicted  failure  of  the  physical  organs,  producing 
unintelligible  pronunciation  of  one  and  the  same 
language;  that  it  affected  only  the  house  of  Cusls 
and  their  adherents ; and  that  it  was  temporary, 
ceasing  upon  their  separation.  He  proceeds 
* They  seem  to  have  been  a very  numtrons  body  *' 
and,  in  consequence  of  this  calamity,  they  ffeil 
away  ; not  to  any  particular  place  of  destination,’ 
but  were  scattered  abroad  upon  the  face  of  the 
whole,  earth.”  They  had  many  associates,  pro- 
bably out  of  every  family;  apostates  from  the 
truth,  who  had  left  the  stock  of  their  fathers  and 
the  religion  of  the  true  God.  For  when  Babe? 
was  deserted  we  find  among  the  Cushites  of 
ChaTdaea  some  of  the  line  of  Shem  (ch.  xi.  28, 
31),  whom  we  could  scarcely  have  expected  t» 
have  met  in  such  a society.  And  we  may  well 
imagine  that  many  of  the  branches  of  Ham  were 
associated  in  the  same  manner  in  confederacy 
with  the  rebels : and  some  perhaps  of  every  great 
division  into  which  mankind  was  separated’  (Ibi 
pp.  3S-45). 

Having  thus  removed,  as  we  trust,  the  obstruc- 
tions and  obscurities,  our  .course  will  be  plain  and 
brief  in  the  consideration  of  our  chief  subject,  the 
first  and  properly  so-called  Dispersion  of  fa- 
milies and  tribes  destined  to  form  the  cations  of 
the  earth. 


336  NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

‘The  most  ancient  history  of  the  human  race, 
and  the  oldest  composition  perhaps  in  the  world, 
is  a work  in  Hebrew ;’  of  which  the  initial  por- 
tions (Gen.  i.,  ii.)  are  4 a preface  to  die  oldest  civil 
history  now  extant ; we  see  the  truth  of  them  con- 
firmed by  antecedent  reasoning,  and  byevidence  in 
part  highly  probable,  and  in  part  certain  ; but  the 
connection  of  the  Mosaic  history  with  that  of  the 
Gospel,  by  a chain  of  sublime  predictions  unques- 
tionably ancient,  and  apparently  fulfilled,  must 
" iduce  us  to  think  the  Hebrew  narrative  more  than 
iiuman  in  its  origin,  and  consequently  true  in 
every  substantial  part  of  it ; though  possibly 
expressed  in  figurative  language  [referring  to  the 
accounts  of  the  creation  and  the  fall].  It  is  no 
longer  probable  only,  but  it  is  absolutely  certain, 
thal  the  whole  race  of  man  proceeded  from  Iran 
[the  proper  and  native  name  of  Persia  and  some 
connected  regions],  as  from  a centre,  whence  they 
migrated  at  first  in  three  great  colonies  ; and  that 
those  three  branches  grew  from  a common  stock, 
which  had  been  miraculously  preserved  in  a gene- 
ral convulsion  and  inundation  of  this  glohe  ’ (Sir 
William  Jones,  On  the  Origin  and  Families  of 
Nations,  Works,  ed.  by  Lord  Teignmouth.  8Vo. 
iii.  191- 196). 

(From  the  study  of  this  interesting  fragment  of 
antiquity,  the  following  observations  have  pre- 
sented themselves. 

1.  The  enumeration  comprises  only  nations  ex- 
isting in  the  age  of  Moses,  and  probably  of  them 
only  the  most  conspicuous,  as  more  or  less  con- 
nected with  the  history  of  the  Israelites.  Many 
nations  have  been  formed  in  subsequent  times, 
and  indeed  are  still  forming,  by  separation 
and  by  combination  ; these  can  be  considered 
Duly  as  included  on  the  ground  of  long  subse- 
quent derivation.  Such  are  the  populations  of 
Eastern  Asia,  Medial  and  South  Africa,  America, 
and  Australasia. 

2.  It  cannot  be  affirmed  with  certainty  that  we 
ore  here  presented  with  a complete-  Table  of  Na- 
tions, even  as  existing  in  the  time  of  Mdses.  Of 
t-’ach  of  the  sons  of  Noah,  it  gives  the  sons  : but  of 
flieir  sons  (Noairs  great-grandsons)  it  is  manifest 
that  all  are  not  mentioned,  and  we  have  no  pos- 
sible means  of  ascertaining  how  many  are  omitted. 
Thus,  of  the  soii3  of  Japheth.  the  line  is  pursued 
only  of  Gomer  and  Javan ; Magog,  Madai,  Tubal, 
Slesltech,  and  Tiras,  are  dropped  without  any 
mention  of  their  issue.;  yet  we  have  evidence  that 
nations  cf  great  importance  in  the  history  of  man- 
kind have  descended  from  them.  Ham  had  four 
sons : of  three  cf  them  the  sons,  or  rather  clannish 
nr  national  descendants,  are  specified;  but  to  - 
frMmt,  the  fourth,  no  posterity  is  assigned.  Shem 
bad  five  sons,  but  the  descendants  of  only  two  of 
fhem  are  recorded.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that 
f.hose  whose  sequence  is  thus  cut  off,  died  without 
children;  for,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  nations 
of  great  historical  interest  may  be  traced  up  to 
them.  V \ 

3.  The  immediate  descendants  of  Japheth, 
Ham,  and  Shem  are,  except  in  the  instance  of 
Nimrod  and  a few  more,  some  of  which  are  doubt- 
ful, given  by  names  not  personal,  but  designative 
of  tribes  or  nations,  or  their  countries.  Thus,  all 
those  terminating  in  the  plural  im , arid  those  spe- 
cified by  the'  Gentilitian  adjective,  the  Jebusite, 
Hie  Hivite.  &c. 

4.  lu  attaching  the  names  of  nations  to  those 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

here  given,  there  is  Sometimes  a deep  uncertainty. 
Resemblances  in  orthographical  appearanc  e,  or  in, 
similarity  of  sound,  are  not  to  be  relied  on  alone 
there  must  be  accessory  and  confirmatory  evidence 
Oriental  names  possess  a distinguished  character  of 
unchangeableness ; a circumstance  of  which  Dr- 
Robinson  has  made  important  use  in  his  Biblical 
Researches  in  Palestine . On  this  ground,  in- 
ferences are  pretty  safe.  But  it  is  far  otherwise 
with  names  Known  to  us  only  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  Greeks  and  Romans;  for  they  were 
in  the  habit  of  altering  proper  names,  often  with 
wide  licence,  to  a conformity  with  their  own 
tongues.  For  the  investigation  before  us  we  have 
an  aid,  invaluable  both  for  its  ample  comprehen- 
sion and  its  divine  authority,  in  the  account  of 
the  traffic  of  Tyre  (Ezek.  xxvii.). 

5.  We  are  not  warranted  to  suppose  that  the 
families,  or  clans,  or  tribes, or  however  the  groups 
might  ha”e  been  formed,  migrated  immediately 
to  their  respective  seats,  by  any  sort  of  generul 
breaking  up.  This  would  presuppose  some  kind 
of  compulsory  enforcement,  which  neither  the 
nature  of  the  case,  nor  any  intimation -in  the  nar- 
rative, warrants  us  to  assume.  We  may  rather 
conceive  that  a diversity  of  movements  took  place* 
excited  by  general  conviction  of  duty  and  utility** 
guided  in  a great  measure  hy  patriarchal  direc- 
tions, and  strengthened  by  circumstances  which 
would  inevitably  occur;  such,  on  the  one  hand, 
as  earthquakes,  volcanic  eruptions,  local  inunda- 
tions, land-slips,  proof  of  utiwliolesomeness  in 
marshy  districts,  the  annoyance  of  winged  insects 
or  other  noxious  animals — urging  to  depart  from 
disagreeable  or  dangerous  places;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  attractive  peculiarities, new  and  more 
convenient  situations  for  pasturage,  better  soils  for 
the  various  kinds  of  agriculture,  more  pleasing 
sites  for  dwellings,  the  formation  of  towns,  and  the 
security  of  their  inhabitants.  It  is  also  too  pro- 
bable that  there  were  turbulent  men,  or  those  who 
bad  perpetrated  crimes  or  occasioned  offences, 
who,  with  their  families  and  adherents,  would  quit 
hastily  and  travel  as  rapidly  and  as  far  as  they 
could. 

6.  The  acts  of  separation  and  journeying  would 
have  specific  differences  of  im  pulse  ^and  perform- 
aivce;  they  would  affect  one  party  and  another* 
more  or  less,  a3  to  time,  numbers,  and  rapidity  of 
movement. 

7.  Did  this  great  measure,  so  important  in  its 
influence  upon  the  whole  history  of  mankind* 
originate  in  a pxvine  command,  given  hy  mira- 
culous revelatiou  ? Or,  was  it  brought  to  pass 
solely  in  the  way  of  God’s  universal  providence* 
to.  which  nothing  is  great,  nothing  is  small- 
operating  by  natural  means  upon  the  judgments* 
wills,  and  actions  of  men  as  rational  agents? 
We  think  that  we  have  not  decisive  reasons  fo£ 
adopting  either  side  of  this  alternative.  In  fa- 
vour of  the  former  may  be  urged  the  necessity  of 
a supernatural  authority  to  induce  universal  obe- 
dience, the  motive  arising  from  the  assurance  oi 
Divine  guidance  and  protection,  and  the  analogy 
of  the  fact  which  took  place  660  years  after  (cor- 
rected chronology,  but,  according  to  the  presen' 
Hebrew  text,  only  176);  f The.  Lfird  had  said 
unto  Abram,  Get  thee  outjjf  thy  country,  unto  ft 
land  which  I will  show  thee’  (Gen.  xii.  1),  Oa 
behalf  of  the  latter  supposition  it  is  to  be  reco? 
lected,  that  all  events  are  <?4uai]y  providential. 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

fft&a't  ©6(1  rules  by  his  unseen  and  too  often  tin* 
acknowledged  influence  upon  the  free  actions  of 
his  creatines,  no  less  than  by  any  supernatural 
disclosure  of  his  will ; that,  in  this  case,  the  in- 
spired record  is  silent  upon  such  a disclosure ; 
that  the  ordinary  plan  of  the  Divine  government 
is ’fully  adequate  to  all  the  effects  ; and  that  the 
language  upon  which  we  have  before  commented, 
(Dent,  xxxis.  8)  is  completely  applicable  to  that 
ordinary  .course  of  events  by  which  * the  Most 
High  God  ruleth  in  the  kingdom  of  men,’  and 

wurketh  all  things  according  to  the  counsel  of 
his  otm  will'  (Dan.  v.  21 ; Ephes.  i 11). 

We  have  now  only  to  place  the  enumeration 
of  nations  before  our  readers,  having  availed  our- 
selves of  the  labours  of  Bocliavf,  J.  D.  Michaelis,' 
tl»e  younger  RosenmUller,  Gesenius,  Robinson, 
and  Baunigarten. 

1.  Sous  of  Japheth,  the  lapetus  of  the  Greeks. 

1.  Gomer.  This  name  is  traced  in  the  Kim- 
nierii  of  Homer  and  Herodotus;  the  Gomares 
{Top-aptis,  Josephus,  Antiq.  i.  6),  whence  Kelts, 
Gauls,  Galatians;  the  Kymry;  all  the  Celtic 
and  Iberian  tribes,  Welsh,  Gaelic,  Irish,  Breton ; 
$i?e  Cimmerian  Bosphorus,  Crimea. 

Sons  of  Gomer:— 

!.  Ashkenaz.  Axeni,  inhabifatits  of  the  south- 
ern coasts  of  the^Euxine  Sea,  where  we  find  a 
country  Askania,  and  a river  Askauius,  and  a 
large  part  of  Armenia ; the  Basques  in  the  north 
of  Spain  ; the  Saxons,  as  the  Jews  interpret  Ash- 
kenaz, in  Jer.  li.  27,  to  be  Germany. 

2.  Riphath  (Biphath,  1 Chron.  i.  6,  a permu- 
tation of  D and  R.  not  unexampled).  RhTou, 
east  of  the  Euxine ; Tobata  and  other  parts  of 
Paphlagonia ; Croatia ; the  Riphsean  mountains, 
a very  obscure  name  in  ancient  geography  (Strabo, 
Virgil,  Pliny,  Mela),  referring  probably  to  thj 
great  chains  of  mountains  from  the  north  of  Asia 
tyestwards  (Hyperboreeaus,  Steph.  Byzant.),  and 
therefore  including  vague  knowledge  ©f  the 
Uralian,  Hartz,  and  Alpine  regions. 

3.  Xogarmali.  Peoples  of  Armenia  and  other 
parts  of  the  Caucasian  region.  The  Armenian 
traditions  assign  as  their  ancestor  Haiki  the  son 
of  Torgom  and  grandson  of  Noah. 

si.  Magog.  In  Ezekiel  this  seems  to  be  «3ed 
■a'SAthe  name  of  a country,  and  Gog  that  of  it3 
chieftain.  The  Mongoles,  Moguls;  the  great 
Tartar  nation. 

■iii.  Madah  The  Medes;  people  of  Iran,  to 
whom  the  Sanscrit  language  belonged ; primeval 
inhabitants  of  Hindustan. 

iv.  Javan.  The  Greek 3}  Asiatic  and  Euro- 
pean. laones  (Horn.  Z/.-xui;  685). 

Sons  of  Javan : — 

1.  Elisha.  Greeks' especially  of  the  Pelopon- 
ti&iif;  Hellas  ; Elis',  in  which  is  Alisium  (’AAef- 
o'iOVi  II.  ii.  617). 

2.  Tarshish.  The  east  coast  of  Spain,  where 
the  Phoenician  Cahaaiiite3  afterwards  planted 
their  colony. 

3.  Kittim.  Inhabitants  of  the  isles  and  many 
of  the  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean,,  particularly 
She  .Macedonians  and  the  Romans,  and  those  far** 
\het  toihe  west: 

4.  Dodaisim  (Rhodanim,  1 Chron.  i.  7),  Do- 
doma, a colony  from  which  probably  settled  at 
the  months  of  the  Rhone,  Rhodanus. 

To  this  Javanian  (Ionian)  branch  is  attributed 
the  peopling  of  * the  jsle3  of  the  nations’  % 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF.  597 

ft  frequent  Hebrew  denomination  of  llie  westera 
countries  to  which  the  Israelites,  Tyrians,  Egyp- 
tians, &c.,  bad  access  by  sea. 

11.  Sons  of  Ham.  The  word  signifies  heat  or 
hoty  alluding  to  the  climes  which  the  most  of  his 
posterity  were  to  occupy  : it  was  also  an  indi- 
genous nam*  of  Egypt. 

i.  Cush.  The  Ethiopians,  first  on  the  Arabian, 
side  of  the  Red  Sea,  then  colonizing  the  African 
side,  and  subsequently  extending  indefinitely  to 
the  west,  so  that  Cushite  (Jer.  xiii.  23)  became 
the  appellative  of  a negro. 

Sons  of  Cush  : — • 

1.  Seba  Joined  with  Mizraim  and  Cush  (Isa. 
xliii.  3),  evidently  denoting  contiguity  and  affi- 
nity. This  tribe  or  class  is  probably  referred  to 
Siiba,  a native  name  of  Meroe  upon  the  Nile,  in 
the  farthest  south  of  Egypt,  or  the  beginning  of 
Ethiopia. 

2.  Havilah.  Of  this  word  vestiges  are  found 
in  various  names  of  places  in  Western  Arabia, 
and  the  adjacent  parts  of  Africa.  It  is  quite 
distinct  from  the  Havilah  (cb.  ii.  11)  in  or  near 
Armenia,  and  probably  from  another  (v.er.  29)  in 
Arabia,  unless  we  suppose  a union  of  tribes,  or 
one  succeeded  by  the  other. 

3.  Sabtah.  Sabota  or  Sabbatha  is  the  name 
of  an  ancient  trading  town  of  Arabia. 

4.  Raamah,  flDlH,  Sept.  Rhegma  (Alex.  Rhe~ 
gehmd),  which,  changing  e into??,  is  the  name  of 
a port  which  the  vEgypto- Greek  geographer  Clau- 
dius Ptolemy  (who  flourished  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  second  century)  places  on  the  Arabian  coasc 
of  the  Persian  Gulf.  To  this  place  Dr.  Baum- 
garten  (Kiel,  1843)  refers  the  name  : others  take 
it  to  be  Reams,  a town  of  considerable  importance 
in  the  south-western  part  of  Arabia  the  Happy* 
whose  inhabitants  are  remarkably  black ; men- 
tioned along  with  Sheba  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  22,  as  as 
•place  of  rich  Oriental  traffic. 

Two  sons  of  this  Raamah  are  mentioned,  Sheba 
ami  Dedan.  We  find  these  in  the  subsequent 
Scriptures  distinguished  for  trade  and  opulence^ 
(Ps.  Ixxii.  10,  23;.  1 King3  x.  2;  Isa.  Ix.  d; 
Ezek.  xxvii.  15,  20,22).  They  both  He  in  the 
western  part  of  Arabia.  The  queen  of  Sheba 
came  to  the  court  of  Solomon.  Dedan  is  not 
improbably  considered  as  the  origin  of  Aden, 
that  very  ancient  sea-port  and  island  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Arabian  Gulf  of  Red  Sea.  which  has  very 
recently  risen  into  new  importance. 

5.  Nimrod,  an  individual  [Nim^odT.  He 

built,  besides  Babel,  his  metropolis,  three  cities 
or  towns  in  the  great  plain  of  Sliiuar— Erecl\ 
Accad,  and  Cal  neb.  These  were  probably 
_Aracca  or  Arecha  on  the  Tigris  (some  think 
;Edessa) ; Sacada,  near  the  continence  of  the  Ly- 
cos and  the  Tigris ; and  the  third  (Calno,  Isa. 
x.  9)  Chalonitis  of  the  Greeks,  afterwards  called 
Ctesiphon:  but  much  obscurity  lies  upon  these1 
conjectures.  ’ f 

ii.  Mizraim,  literally  tne  ‘tivo  Egypts , the 
upper  and  the  lower  : each  was  called  Misr , a 
word  even  now  vernacular  in  that  country.  Of 
liis  descendants  seven  are  specified , under  plural 
national  name?,  some  of  which  are  well  ascer- 
tained. 

1.  Ludim.  Ludites,  celebrated  as  soldier? 
pnd  archers  (Isa.  Ixvi.  19;  Jer.  xlvi.  9 ; Ezek. 
xxvii.  10  ; xxx.  5),  and  in  those  passages  con® 
ijected  with  other  peoples  known  t©  be  African. 


NATIONS.  DISPERSION  OF. 


o23  NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

The  Ludim  probably  lay  towards  Ethiopia. 
They  must  nut  be  confounded  with  the  Lydians 
of  Asia  Minor  (vcr.  22).  Mr.  William  John 
Hamilton,  in  his  recent  very  valuable  Researches 

Asia  Minor , Pontus,  and  Armenia , annexes 
the  following  paragraph  to  liis  account  of  the  few 
remaining  ruins  of  Sardis,4  the  ancient  capital  of 
Lydia  : — 

‘ It  was  my  intention  to  have  added  some 
observations  on  the  early  traditional  history  of 
Lydia,  and,  following  the  plan  of  an  interesting 
work  by  the  Abbe  Guerin  du  Roelier,  on  the 
fabulous  history  of  Egypt,  to  show  how  that  of 
Lydia  might  also  he  divested  of  many  of  the  in- 
consistent fables  with  which  it  has  been  clothed 
by  Herodotus  and  other  ancient  historians.  I 
wished  to  have  shown  that  Manes,  the  first  king 
pf  Lydia,  was  no  other  than  Noah  ; that  Lydus, 
flie  grandson  of  Manes,  was  Lud,  the  grandson 
of  Noah;  and.  particularly  with  regard  to  the  j 
touch  involved  question  of  the  Tyrrhenian  emi- 
gration of  the  Lydians,  that  the  whole  account  is 
a confused  and  perverted  narrative,  founded  on 
the  real  emigration  of  another  Tyrrhenus,.  viz, 
Abraham  the  son  of  Terah,  with  the  account  of 
which,  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  chapters  of 
Genesis,  the  Lydian  emigration  coincides  in  every 
imjiortant  respect.  I have  found,  however,  that 
the  development  of  this  view  would  extend  to  a 
greater  length  than  1 had  anticipated ; and  I am 
therefore  compelled  to  defer  the  consideration  of 
it  to  a future  opportunity’  (vol.  ii.  p.  383).  - 

2.  Ananim.  Very  uncertain.  Bochart  sup- 

poses them  to  have  been  wandering  tribes  about 
the  temple  of  Jupiter  Ammon,  where  was  an  an- 
cient people  calletf  Nasamones.  ' 

3.  Lehabim.  Perhaps  inhabitants  of  a coast- 
district  immediately  west  of  Egypt.  Probably 
Jhe  Luhim  (2  Chron.  xii.  3 ; Nahum  iii.  9). 

.4.  Pathrusinu.  The  people  of  the  Thebaid 
(Patliros)  in  Upper  Egypt.  ■ > • ■ • * 

- 5.  ‘ Casluhim,  out  of  whom  came  Phimtim.* 
A people  on  the  north-east  coast' of  Egypt,  of 
whom  the  Philistines,  were  a colony,  probably  , 
Combined  with  some  ot  the  Caphtorirn. 

6.  Caphtyrim.  Inhabitants  of  the  island  Cy- 

#rV.8;  '•  *.  '..-A* 

iii.  Phut.  This  word  occurs  in  two  or  three 
jjpassages  besides,  always  in  connection  with  Africa. 
Josephus  and  Pliny  mention  an  African  river, 
Phutes.'  The  great  modem  archajologist  geo- 
grapher, Ritter,  says  that  hordes  of  peoples  have 
been  poured  out  of  Futa,  in  the  interior  of  Africa. 

* iv.  Canaan.  .His  descendants  came  out  of 
Arabia,' planted  colonies  in  Palestine,  and  gra- 
dually possessed  themselves  of  the  whole  country. 

His  children  or  posterity  : — 

1.  Sidon,  his  first-born,  founded  the  city  of 
Jhat  name.  v 

2.  Heth,  the  ancestor  of  the  Hittites.  The  re-, 
mairiing  nine  are  well  known,  ami  are  here  laid 
down  in  the  singular  of  the  patronymic,  or  patrial 
adjective — the  Jebusite,  the  Emorite  (Amorite), 
.the  Girgashite,  the  Hivite,  the  Arkite,  the  Sinite, 
ihe  Arvadite,  the  Zemarite,  and  the  Hamathite. 
All  are  assigned  to  Palestine,  and  the  boundaries 
pf  the  country  are  precisely  laid  down.  , 

III.  Shew,  though  here  introduced  last,  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  eldest  of  the  three  brothers.  The 
reason  of  this  order  evidently  is  the  design  of  the 
.historian  to.  pursue  the  line  of  the  favoured 


people  which  the  Divine  Sovereign  would  raifrf 
up  in  the  posterity  of  Shein,  and  in  which,  * when 
the  fulness  of  the  time  should  come,*  * dl  th« 
families  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.* 

Children  of  Shem  : — ^ 

i.  Elam.  The  ancestor  of  the  Elamites  or 
Elymaeans,  who  possessed  Elymais,  a region  be- 
tween Susiana  and  Media,  now  called  Khusistan. 
The  Japlietian  Persians  afterwards  entered  that 
region  and  gained  the  ascendancy,  and  subse- 
quently they  were  comprehended  under  the  uame 
of  Elam. 

ii.  Ashur,  the  ancestor  of  the  Assyrians. 

iii.  Arphaxad,  a personal  name  in  the  Ahra- 
hamic  line.  The  word,  a remarkable  compound, 
probably  denotes  Neighbouring  to  the  Chasdim, 
i.  e.  ChaldEeans.  The  name  appears  in  Arrha • 
pachitis , a province  in  Northern  Assyria,  the 
primitive  seat  of* the  Chasdim,  and  near  to  which, 
or  in  it,  Abraham  was  born. 

--  Children  of  Arphaxad  : — 

These  are  chiefly  personal,  and  contribute  to 
form  the  sacred  pedigree  which  leads  to  the  Mes- 
siah.' In  this  line  are  mentioned  two  grandsons, 
Peleg,  of  whom  we  have  treated  before,  and 
■,  - Eber.  The  only  circumstance  that  we  can 
attach  to  him  is  the  very  important  one  (which 
seems  therefore  to  imply  something  extraordinary 
in  his  personal  history)  of  being  the  origin  of  the 
name  Kbrew,  or  as  it  is  commonly  written,  on 
account  of  the  y,  Hebrew , the  ‘ancient  and  uni-? 
versal  name*  of  the  nation,  including  Abraham 
himself  (see  Ewald’s  IJebr.  Gramm.,  translated 
by  i)r.  Nicholson,  p.  2,  and  our  article  Her  eh). 

Joktan.  Universally  acknowledged  to  be  the 
father  of  the  numerous  tribes  of  Arabs  in  Yemen , 
Arabia  the  Happy,  60  called  on  account  of  it* 
spices  and  other  rich  products,  and  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  Rocky  and  the  Desert;  Of  the  foun- 
ders of  those  tribes  thirteen  are  specified.  The 
first  i3  evidently  Modad , with  the  Arabic  article; 
the  second  is  Shaleph ; and  Ptolemy  mentions  a 
people  of  interior  Arabia,  the  Salapeni..  Ilatzar - 
maveth  is  a fruitful  district  on  the  6outh  coast, 
which  still  bears  exactly  the  same  name.  That 
name  signifies  the  Enclosure,  Gate,  or  Court  of 
Death,  on  account  of  its  insalubrity,  arising  from 
the  great  abundance  and  mixture  of  powerful 
odours.  Jerach  signifies  the  moon ; and  on  the  west 
of  this  region  i3  a gold-producing  tract,  in  which 
are  the  Mountains  of  the  Moon,  which  yet  must  he 
distinguished  from  a group  in  East  Africa,  very 
imperfectly  known,  and  called  also  by  Orientals 
the  Backbone  of  the  World.  Hadoram,  the  Adra- 
mites  of  Ptolemy  and  Pliny,  on  the  south  coast. 
Uzal,  mentioned  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  19,  which  should 
be  translated  ‘ Yedan  and  Javan  [perhaps  Ye- 
men ?]  from  Uzal.'  The  ancient  name  of  a prin- 
cipal city  of  Yemen,  now  Sanaha.  Obal  (Ebal 
in  1 Chron.  i.  22),  unknown.  Abimael,  unknown; 
the  meaning  is,  my  father  Mael , and  Bochart 
adduces  the  Mali  of  Theophrastus  and  the  Minaei 
of  Strain),  a tribe  or  tribes  in  Arabia,  as  possibly 
intended.  Sheba,  probably  indicating  an  inva- 
sion of  this  tribe  upon  the  Cushite  Sheba  and 
Dedan,  Gen.  x.  7,  and  6ee  xxv.  3.  From  such 
mixtures  much  embarrassment  often  arises  in 
ethnography.  • Sheba  and  Seba  (x.  7)  are  often 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  as  seats  of  great 
riches  and  traffic.  Ophir,  undoubtedly  referring 
to  the  sea-port  in  South  Arabia,  eg  celebrated  fu 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF. 

■Its  tralrir.  in  gold,  jewellery,  and  fine  woods. 
The  same  name  was  probably  given  to  places  in 
India  and  East  Africa,  to  which  the  mercantile 
chips  of  this  Arabian  Ophir  resorted.  A part  of 
the  south  coast  of  Arabia  is  called  Oman,  and  in 
it  is  a town  cal  led  El-Ophir,  with  the  article. 
Ilnvilah : perhaps  the  Cushite  settlers  were  in- 
vaded by  this  Joktanite  tribe.  Jobab  : Ptolemy 
/mentions  a people,  Iobaritcs , on  the  esst  coast  of  , 
Arabia.  The  r may  be  a mistake,  or  a,  dialectic 
.variety,  for  b.  ° 

These  tliirteen  tribes  seem  to  have  formed  the 
confederacy  of  the  independent  and  unconquer- 
able Arabs,  whose  peninsular,  desert,  and  moun- 
tainous country  defended  them  from  invasion : 
Isliniael  and  his  descendants  were  united  with 
them.  U 

Our  text  concludes  with  describing  a boundary 
line  for  the  country  of  these  tribes  ‘from  Mesha 
to  Sephar."  The  former  is  probably  the  country 
iWaishou  or  Mesene,  at  the  north-west  head  of  the  i 
Persian  Gulf;  and  the  latter,  on  the  south-west 
coast  of  Arabia,  where  is  found  a Mount  Sabber. 

iv.  Lud.  From  him  the  Lydians  in  Asia 
Minor  derived  their  name. 

v.  Aram.  From  him  the  inhabitants  of  Syria," 
Chalonitis,  and  a considerable  part  of  Mesopo-. 
tamia. 

Children  or  posterity  of  Aram  : — 

1.  Uz.  In  the  northern  part  of  Arabia,  border- 
ing upon  Chaldaea  : the  land  of  Job. 

2.  Hul.  The  large  flat  district  in  the  north  of 
Palestine,  through  which  lies  the  initial  course  of 
the  Jordan,  even  now  called  the  Land  of  Huleb, 
and  in  which  is  the. Lake  Hfileh,  anciently  Me*- 
Torn,  amply  .illustrated  by  Dr.  Robinson,  Re- 
searches, iii.  339-357. 

3.  Getber.  East  of  Armenia ; Carthara  was  a 
•city  on  the  Tigris. 

4.  Mash.  A mountain  region  branching  east- 
wards from  tlie  great  Taurus  ridge  : the  Masian 
.mountains  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 

These  are  the  results  of  our  own  endeavours  in 
the  study  of  this  intricate  and  frequently  obscure 
subject.  But  we  are  bound,  in  concluding,  to 
state  that  Sir  William  Jones,  whom  all  will  ad- 
mit to  have  been  a scholar  of  the  highest,  order, 
sind  mme  comjietent  than  most  men  to  vanquish 
the  difficulties  of  this  investigation,  proposed  a 
theory  very  dill'erenf,  chiefly  with  respect  to  the 
(family  of  Ham.  He  has  himself  given  a lumi- 
nous summary  of  his  views,  and  we  cannot  do 
Letter  than  transcribe  it. 

‘ It  seems  to  follow,  that  the  only  human  family 
after  the  flood  established  themselves  in  the  north- 
ern parts  of  Iran;  that,  as  they  multiplied,  they 
were  divided  into  three  distinct  branches,  each 
(retaining  little  at  first,  and  losing  the  whole  by 
degrees,  of  their  common  piimary  language,  but 
agreeing  severally  on  new  expressions  fpr  new 
ideas  ; that  the  branch  of  Y^ket  was  enlarged  in 
many  scatfeied  shoots  over  the  north  of  Europe 
and  Asia,  d'iFusing  themselves  as  far  as  the 
western  and  eastern  seas,  and  at  length,"  in  the 
infancy  of  navigation,  beyond- them  both  ; that 
they  cultivated  no  liberal  arts,  and  had  no  use  of* 
Jeffers,  but  formed  a variety  of  dialects,  as  their 
tribi*a  were  variously  ramified;  that,  secondly,, 
toe  children  of  Ham,  who  founded  in  Irin  itself 
the  monarchy  of  the  first  Chaldeans,  invented 
tetters,  ol  served  and  named  the  luminaries  of  the 


NATIONS,  DISPERSION  OF.  393 

firmament,  calculated  the  known  Indian  period 
of  432,000  years,  or  120  repetitions  of  the  saros, 
and  contrived  the  old  system  of  mythology, 
partly  allegorical  and  partly  grounded  on  idola- 
trous veneration  for  their  sages' and  lawgivers; 
that  they  were  dispersed,  at  various  intervals  and 
in  various  colonies,  over  land  and  ocean ; that 
the  tribes  of  Misr,  Cush,  and  Rama  settled  in 
Africa  and  India,  while  some  of  them,  having 
improved  the  art  of  sailing,  passed  from  Egypt, 
Phoenice,  and  Phrygia,  into  Italy  and  Greece; 
which  they  found  thinly  peopled  by  formee 
emigrants  [Japhefians ?],  of  whom  they  sup-; 
planted  some  tribes  and  united  themselves  wit 
others  ; whilst  a swarm  from  the  same  hive  moved, 
by  a northerly  course  into  Scandinavia,  and  an- 
other, by  the  head  of  the  Oxus  and  through  the 
passes  of  the  Imaus,  into  Cashgar  and.  Eighor, 
Khata  and  Khofen,  as  far  as  the  territories  of 
Chin  and  Tanciit  [an  ancient  division  of  China j, 
where  letters  have  been  used  and  arts,  immemu- 
rially  cultivated  ; nor  is  it  unreasoiiable  to  believe 
that  some  of  them  found  their  way  from  the 
eastern  isles  info  Mexico  and  Peru,  where  traces 
were  discovered  of  rude  literature  and  mythology 
analogous  to  those  of  Egypt  and  India  ;*  tltar, 
thirdly,  the  old  Chaldean  empire  being  over- 
thrown by  the  Assyrians  under  Cayumers,  othps 
migrations  took  place,  especially  into  India, 
while  the  rest  of  Shem  s progeny,  some^of  whotrs 
had  before  settled  on  the  Red  Sea,  peopled  the 
whole  Arabian  peninsula,  pressing  close  on  the 
nations  of  Syria  and  Phtenice;  that,  lastly,  from 
all  the  three  families  were  detached  many  boh! 
adventurers  of  an  ardent  spirit  and  a roving  dis- 
position, who  disdained  subordination,  and  wan- 
dered in  separate  clans  till  they  settled  in  distant 
isles  or  in  deserts  and  mountainous  regi ot is  : that, 
on  the  whole,  some  colonies  might  have  migrated 
before  the  death  of  their  venerable  progenitor, 
but.  that  states  and  etnpiies  could  6carce  have 
assumed  a Tegular  form  till  1509  or  1600  year® 
before  the  Christian  epoch  ;f  and  that,  for  the 
first  thousand  years  of  that  period,  we  have  no 
history  unmixed  with  fable,  except  that  of  the 
turbulent  and  variable,  but  eminently  distin- 
guished, nation  descended  from  Abraham.’ — Dis- 
course on  the  Origin  and  Families  of  Nations  r 
Works,  iii.  201.  ' 

Dr.  Charles  Von  Rolfeck,  Professor  bf  Juris- 
prudence in  the  University  of  Frieburg,  published 
in  1826,  the  ninth  and  last  volume  of  A Genera^. 
History  of  the  World.  This  work  hasibeen  ye- 
ceived  in  Germany  with  great  favour.  It  cer- 
tainly contains  proofs  of  extensive  reading  atlil;’ 
eminent  talents  ; but  we  think  also  of  a preclpi-; 
tate  judgment  and  dashing  boldness,  an  aiming- 
at  pungency  which  often  creates  afl'ectatiun,  and 
a watchful  habit,  like  that  of  Hume  and  Voltaire, 
of  aiming  a sly  stab  at  revealed  religion.  Book®- 

* How  would  Sir  William  Jones  have  beets, 
delighted,  and  have  felt  hi3  argument  strength- 
ened, had  he  known  of  the  massive  ruins  lately 
brought  to  our  knowledge,  by  Stephens  and 
Qthers,  in  Central  America ! 

The  recent  disclosures  of  paintings  and  uten- 
sils in  the  Egyptian  tombs  and  temples  reqdire  a 
much  higher  assignment  of  established  govern- 
ments, mechanical  arts,  and  great  bombinatiousi 
yf  science  and  power. 


400  NAZARENE.  ’ 

having  tliese  qualities,  especially  if  they  possess 
®ome  unquestionable  excellences  and  an  attrac- 
tive style,  as  Rotteck's  do,  are  sure  to  find  readers 
and  approvers.  It  is  manifest  that  he  is  far 
better  acquainted  with  the  Greek  and  Roman 
writers,  and  theatfairs  to  winch  they  depose,  than 
with  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  Scriptures,  the 
doctrines  which  they  teach,  and  the  information 
which  they  afford.  In  one  word,  he  is  a disbe- 
liever in  any  revelation  of  fact,  truth,  or  duty, 
jnjsitively  from  God,  or  in  any  other  way  than  by 
the  reason  and  genius  of  man.  He  maintains  it 
to  be  a character  of  4 the  scientific  inquirer,’  that 
‘he  rejects  every  theory  of  the  population  of  the 
earth,  which  is  confined  to  the  sons  of  Noah  ; and 
he  knows  that,  in  the  time  of  those  sons,  or  their 
nearest  descendants,  according  to  Moses’s  repre- 
sentation, already  nations  ami  kingdoms  actually 
existed  in  Asia  and  Africa,  which  therefore 
originated  not  from  the  posterity  z*  Nouh:V 
and  he  adds,  ‘these  last  may  indeed  have  sent 
colonies  among  those  nations,  perhaps,  also,  have 
occasioned  the  foundation  of  some  new  states; 
but  they  were  not  the  only  founders  of  them  * 
•(Gen.  Hist.  i.  63.  Eng.  transl.).  Further,  Von, 
Rotteck  intimates  more  than  an  inclination  to 
reject  the  belief  of  the  descent  of  mankind  from 
any  one  common  ancestor ; founding  that  rejection 
‘especially  upon  the  striking  generic  difference 
of  the  principal  race3  of  our  species ; and  that  in 
particular  the  attention  of  the  thinker  is  claimed 
with  perfect  justice  by  the  doctrine  of  three  such 
principal  races,  viz.,  1,  the  Europaeo-Arabian  or 
Caucasian;  2,  the  Mongolian;  3, the  ./Ethiopian 
or  Negro  tribe’  (p.  65). 

Thus,  as  is  the  manner  of  the  infidel  school, 
assuming  what  he  ought,  to  have  proved,  but  of 
which  he  brings  no  proof,  this  author  seeks  to  fix 
his  insinuated  conclusion  in  the- unwary  mind. 

Jin  the  alienee  therefore  of  counter-evidence, 
v/eadhere  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  whole  human 
population  has  descended  from  Noali  a second 
ancestor,  as  is  plainly  affirmed  in  the  pristine 
records  to  which  we  believe  ourselves  warranted 
to  attribute  a divine  authority.  For  ihe  phy- 
siological part  of  the  argument,  we  appeal  to  the 
researches  of  the  late  venerable  Blumenbach,  Dr. 
Prichard  in  his  elaborate  volumes  on  this  subject, 
the  notes  in  J.  Pye  Smith's  Scripture  and  Geo- 
logy, and  a dissertation  by  Samuel  Forrey,  M.  D., 
entitled,  The  Mosaic  Account  of  the  Unity  of  the 
Human  Race  confirmed  by  the  Natural  History 
*f  the  American  Aborigines , in  the  American 
JSiblical  Repository , Julv,  1843. — J.  P.  S. 

NAVIGATION.  [Ship.] 

NAZARENE.  an  epithet  constituting  a part 
uf  one  of  the  names  given  to  our  Lord.  There  are 
two  nearly  similar  Greek  words  connected  with 
this  designation — N a£apriv6s  and  NaCvpaTos — both 
derived  from  Nafaped,  Nazareth,  the  place  of 
the  Saviour’s  childhood  and  education.  These 
two  Greek  words  occur  in  the  New  Testament 
19  times;  out  of  these  instances  two  only  are 
rendered  Nazarene  (Matt.  ii.  23 ; Acts  xxiv.  5); 
the  rest  are  represented  by  the  words  ‘of  Naza- 
reth thus,  ‘ Jesus  of  Nazareth’  (Matt.  xxi.  .11; 
Luke  iv.  34  *,  John  xviii.  5 ; Acts  ii.  22).  From 
ihe  number  of  times  that  the  epithet  is  employed 
it  appears  that  it  became  at  the  very  first  an 
(appellation  of  our  Lord,  and  was  hence  applied 
W designate  hia  followers.  Considering  that  the 


NAZARITE. 

name  was  derived  from  the  place  where  Jesua 
resided  during  the  greater  part  of  his  life,  we  sea 
no  reason  to  think  that  at  first  it  bore  with  it,  in  iis 
application  to  him  or  his  followers,  anything  ot 
' an  offensive  nature.  Such  a designation  was  in 
this  case  natural  and  proper.  In  process  of  time, 
. however,  other  influences  came  into  operation. 
Nazareth  was  in  Galilee,  a part  of  Palestine 
which  was  held  iridisesteem  for  several  reasons  : — 
its  was  a provincial  dialect.;  lying  remote  from 
the  capital,  its  inhabitants  spoke  a strange 
tongue,  which  was  rough,  harsh,  and  uncouth,  hav- 
. ing  peculiar  combinations  of  words,  and  words 
also  peculiar  to  themselves  (Buxtorf,  Lez.  Tal - 
\ mud i Mark  xiv.  70)  ; its  population  was  im- 
pure, being  made  up  not  unly  of  provincial 
, Jews,  but  also  of  heathens  of  several  sorts,  Egyp- 
tians, Arabians,  Phoenicians  (Strabo,  Geog.  xvi. 
523);  its  people  were  in  an  especial  manner  given 
to  lie  seditious,  which  quality  of  character  they 
not  rarely  displayed  io  the  capital  itself  on  occa- 
fsiouof  the  public  festivals  (Josephus,  Wetstem, 
as  cited  in  Schleusner,  s.  v.  ra\t\dios)  ; whence 
may  be  seen  the  point  of  the  accusation  made 
against  Paul,  as  * ringleader  of  the  sect  of  Na- 
zarenes’  (Acts  xxiv.  5).  As  Galilee  was  a despised 
part  of  Palestine,  so  was  Nazareth  a despised 
s part  of  Galilee,  being  a small,  obscure,  if  not 
mean  place.  Accordingly  Us  inhabitants  were 
held  in  little  consideration  by  other  Galileans, 
and,  of  course,  bv  those  Jews  who  dwelt  in  Judaea. 
Hence  the  name  Nazarene  came  to  bear  with  it  a 
bad  odour,  and  wap  nearly  synonymous  with  a 
low,  ignorant,  and  uncultured,  if  not  un-JewisJ» 
person  (Kuinoeljin  Matt.  ii.  23).  It  became  ac 
cordiugly  a contemptuous  designation  and  a term 
of  reproach  (Wetsfeiu,  in  Matt.  ii.  23,  26,  71), 
and  as  such,  as  well  as  a mere  epithet  of  descr ijj- 
tion,  it  is  used  ip  the  New  Testament. — J.  R.  B. 

NAZARITE.  .This  word  is  derived  from  the 
Hebrew  "1T3,  which,,  signifies  to  ‘separate  one's- 
self;’  and  as  such  separation  from  ordinary  ]if& 
to  religious  puqioses  must  he  by  abstinence  of 
some  kind,  so  it  denotes  ‘ to  refrain  from  anything/ 
Hence  the  import  of  the  term  Nazarite — one,  that 
is,  w.ho,  by  certain  acts  of  self-denial,  consecrated 
himself  in  a peculiar  manner  to  the  service,  wor- 
ship, and  honour  of  God. 

We  are  here,  it  is  clear,  in  the  midst  of  a sphere 
of  ideas  totally  dissimilar  to  the  genius  of  the 
Christian  system  ; a sphere  of  ideas  in  which  the 
outward  predominates,  in  which  self-mortification 
is  held  pleasing  to  God,  and  in  which  man's 
highest  service  is  not  enjoyment  with  gratitude, 
but  privation  with  pain. 

It  may  be  questioned,  if  at  least  so  much  of 
this  set  of  notions  a3  supposes  the  Deity  to  he. 
gratified  and  conciliated  by  the  privations  of  his 
creatures,  is  in  harmony  with  the  idea3  of  God 
which  the  books  of  Moses  exhibit,  or  had  their 
origin  in  the  law  he  promulgated.  The  manner 
in  which  bespeaks  on  the  subject  (Num.  vi.  1-21 ) 
would  seem  to  imply  that  he  was  not  introducing 
a new  lav/,  but  regulating  an  old  custom  ; for  his 
words  take  for  granted,  that  the  subject  was  gene- 
rally and  well  known,  and  that  all  that  was  needed 
was  such  directions  as  should  bring  existing  ob- 
servances into  accordance  with  the  Mosaic  ritual, 
W iner,  indeed,  sees,  ip  the  minuteness  and  particu- 
larity of  the  Mosaso  regulations,  a proof  that  the 


NAZARITE. 


NAZARI1E. 


40 1 


Nazarite  vow  was  of  home  origin  in  Mosaism ; an 
argument  whose  force  we  cannot  discern,  for  a 
foreign  practice,  once  introduced,  must  of  neces- 
sity he  conformed  to  its  new  abode. 

It  is  not  least  among  the  merits  of  Judaism  that 
in  general  it  is  eminently  of  a practical  character. 
Though  admitting  a multitude  of  observances, 
some  of  which,  being  of  a very  minute  kind,  and 
relating  to  every-day  life,  must  have  been  trouble- 
some, if  not  vexatious,  yet  the  ordinary  current 
of  existence  was  allowed  to  run  on  unimpeded ; 
energy  was  not  directed  from  its  proper  channel ; 
and  life  was  spent  in  the  active  discharge  of 
timse  offices  which  human  wants  require,  and  by 
which  human  happiness  may  be  best,  advanced. 
Tier-,  was  no  Indian  self-renunciation;  there  was 
no  monkish  isolation  ; yet  the  vow  of  the  Nazarite 
shews  that  personal  privations  were  not  unknown 
in  the  Mosaic  polity.  This  vow  we  regard  as  an 
instance  and  an  exemplification  of  that  asceti- 
cism which,  wherever  human  nature  is  left  free 
to  develope  itself,  will  always  manifest  its  ten- 
dencies and  put  forth  its  effects.  No  age,  no 
nation,  no  religion  has  been  without  asceticism. 
Self-mortification  is,  with  some  minds,  as  natural 
as  self-enjoyment  with  others.  The  proneness  to 
ascetic  practices  is  a sort  of  disorder  of  tempera- 
ment. It  is  in  part  a question  of  original  con- 
stitution. As  some  individuals  are  inclined  to 
melancholy,  to  brood  over  their  own  states  of 
mind,  so  they  tend  to  become  morbid  in  their 
feelings,  intensely  self-dissatisfied,  over-thought- 
ful, full  of  personal  solicitudes;  then  gloomy; 
then  still  more  dissatisfied  with  themselves,  till, 
at  length  they  are  led  to  think  that  nothing  but 
severe  mortifications  and  self-inflicted  penalties 
can  atone  for  their  guilt,  and  placate  a justly 
offended  God.  This  general  tendency  of  a cer- 
tain physical  temperament  may  tie  checked  or 
encouraged  by  religious  opinions  or  social  insti- 
tutions, as  well  as  by  the  peculiar  hue  which  the 
fortune  of  an  age  or  a country  may  bear.  The 
disease,  however,  is  eminently  contagious ; and, 
if,  owing  to  unknown  circumstances,  there  was  in 
the  days  of  Moses  a tendency,  whether  borrowed 
from  Egypt  or  merely  strengthened  by  Egyptian 
practices,  which  threatened,  in  its  excess,  to  be- 
come in  any  degree  epidemic,  it  was  wise  and 
patriotic  in  that  lawgiver  to  take  the  subject  into 
his  own  remedial  hands,  and  to  restrain  and  limit 
to  individuals  that  which  might  otherwise  infect 
large  classes,  if  not  reach  and  so  weaken  the 
national  mind. 

The  law  of  the  Nazarite,  which  may  he  found 
in  Nuin.  vi.,  is,  in  effect,  as  follows  : — male  and 
female  might  assume  the  vow ; on  doing  so  a 
person  was  understood  to  separate  himself  unto 
the  Lord  ; this  separation  consisted  in  abstinence 
from  wine  and  all  intoxicating  liquors,  and  from 
everything  made  therefrom  : ‘ From  vinegar  oi 
wine,  and  vinegar  of  strong  drink;  neither  shall 
he  drink  any  liquor  of  grapes,  nor  eat  moist 
grapes  or  dried ;’  he  was  to  ‘ eat  nothing  of  the 
vine-tree,  from  the  kernels  even  to  the  husks.’ 
Nor  was  a razor  to  come  upon  his  head  all  the 
time  of  his  vow  ; he  was  to  ‘ be  holy,  and  let  the 
locks  of  the  hair  of  his  head  grow.’  With  special 
-care  was  he  to  avoid  touching  any  dead  body 
whatever.  Being  holy  unto  the  Lord,  he  was  not. 
to  make  himself  unclean  by  touching  the  corpse 
even  of  a relative.  Should  he  happen  to  do  so, 

toi.  ir.  27 


ne  was  then  to  shave  his  head  and  offer  a sin- 
offering  and  a burnt-offering ; thus  making  an 
atonement  for  himself,  ‘ for  that  he  sinned  by 
the  dead.’  A lamb  also,  of  the  first  year,  was  to 
be  offered  as  a trespass-offering.  The  days  too 
that  had  gone  before  his  defilement  were  to  he 
lost,  not.  reckoned  in  the  number  of  those  during 
which  his  vow  wras  to  last.  On  the  termination 
of  the  period  of  the  vow  the  Nazarite  himself  was 
brought  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  there  to  offer  a burnt-offering,  a sin- 
offering,  a peace-offering,  and  a meat  and  a drink- 
offering.  The  Nazarite  also  shaved  his  head  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  and  put  the  hair 
grown  during  the  time  of  separation  into  the  fire 
which  was  under  the  sacrifice  of  the  peace-offer- 
ings. ‘ And  the  priest  shall  take  the  sodden 
shoulder  of  the  ram  and  one  unleavened  cake  out 
of  the  basket,  and  one  unleavened  wafer,  and 
shall  put  them  in  the  hands  of  the  Nazarite  after 
the  hair  of  his  separation  is  shaven  ; and  the  priest 
shall  wave  them  for  a wave-offering.’  ‘After 
that  the  Nazarite  may  drink  wine.’ 

There  are  not  wanting  individual  instances 
which  serve  to  illustrate  this  vow,  and  to  show  that 
the  law  in  the  case  went  into  operation.  Hannah, 
Samson’s  mother,  became  a Nazarite  that  she 
might  have  a son.  Samson  himself  was  a Naza- 
rite from  the  time  of  his  birth  (Judg.  xiii.). 
In  his  history  is  found  a fact  which  seems  to 
present  the  reason  wrhy  cutting  the  hair  was  for- 
bidden to  the  Nazarite.  The  hair  was  considered 
the  source  of  strength ; it  is,  in  fact,  often  con- 
nected with  unusual  strength  of  body,  for  the 
male  has  it  in  greater  abundance  than  the  female. 
Delilah  urged  Samson  to  tell  her  where  his  strength 
lay.  After  a time,  ‘He  told  her  all  his  heart, 
and  said  unto  her,  There  hath  not  come  a razoi 
upon  mine  head,  for  I have  been  a Nazarite  unto 
God  from  my  mother’s  womb : if  I be  shaven, 
then  my  strength  will  go  from  me,  and  1 shall 
become  weak,  and  be  like  any  other  man’  (Judg. 
xvi.  15  sq.).  The  secret  w as  revealed;  Samson 
was  shorn,  and  accordingly  lost  his  strength  and 
his  life. 

This  conception  led  to  the  prohibition  in  ques- 
tion ; for  as  the  Nazarite  was  separated  to  the 
Lord,  so  was  it  proper  that  he  should  be  in  full 
vigour  of  body  (secured  by  the  presence  of  his 
hair)  and  of  mind  (secured  by  abstinence  from 
strong  drink).  As  animals  offered  in  sacrifice 
were  to  be  faultless  and  spotless,  so  a man  or  a 
woman  set  apart  to  God  was  to  be  in  full  pos- 
session of  their  faculties. 

From  the  language  employed  by  Samson,  as 
well  as  from  the  tenor  of  the  law  in  this  case,  the 
retention  of  the  hair  seems  to  have  been  one  essen- 
tial feature  in  the  vow.  It  is,  therefore,  some- 
what. singular  that  any  case  should  have  been 
considered  as  the  Nazaritic  vow  in  which  the 
shaving  of  the  head  is  put.  forth  as  the  chief  par- 
ticular. St.  Paul  is  supposed  to  have  been  unde? 
this  vow,  when  (Acts  xviii.  18)  he  is  said  t& 
have  ‘ shorn  his  head  in  Cenchrea,  for  he  had  * 
vow’  (see  also  Acts  xxi.  24).  The  head  was  not 
shaven  till  the  vow  was  performed,  when  a person 
had  not  a vow. 

Carpzov,  Appar.  p.  151  sq.  p.  799  sq. ; Reland. 
Antiq.  Sacr.  ii.  19;  Meinhard,  De  Nasiraais, 
Jen.,  1676  ; Zorn,  in  Miscell.  Lips.  Nov,  iv- 
426  sq. ; Spencer,  De  Leg.  Eeb.  Rit.r  iii.  ‘5 


NAZARETH. 


NAZARETH. 


493 

Donglaei  Analect.,  i.  37  ; Lucian,  De  Dea.  Syr., 
c.  60 ; Mishna,  Nasir. — J.  R.  B. 

NAZARETH  (N a£ape0,  Na(aper),  a town  in 
Galilee,  in  which  the  parents  of  Jesus  were  resi- 
dent, and  where  in  consequence  he  lived  till  the 
commencement  of  his  ministry.  It  derives  all 
its  historical  importance  from  this  circumstance, 
for  it  is  not  even  named  in  the  Old  Testament  or 
by  Josephus  : which  suffices  to  show  that  it  could 
not  have  been  a place  of  any  consideration,  and 
was  probably  no  more  than  a village.  Light  foot 
indeed  starts  the  question  whether  the  name  may 
not  l-e  recognised  in  that  of  the  tower  of  Nozarim 
in  2 Kings  xvii.  9 ( Hor . Hebr.  on  Luke  i.  26); 
but  there  is  here  nothing  to  go  upon  but  the  faint 
analogy  of  name.  The  expression  of  Nathanael, 
‘ Can  there  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Naza- 
reth V (John  i.  46)  might  imply  a certain  degree 


of  evil  notoriety  in  the  place.  There  appears  no 
reason  for  this,  however;  and  as  the  speaker  vai 
himself  of  Galilee,  the  expression  could  not  hare 
been  intended  to  apply  to  it  merely  as  a Galilean 
town;  it  seems  therefore  likely  that  Nathanael’s 
meaning  was,  4 Is  it  possible  that  so  great  a good 
should  come  from  so  obscure  a place  as  Naza- 
reth,  which  is  never  mentioned  by  the  prophets.’ 
Nazareth  is  situated  about  six  miles  W.N.W. 
from  Mount  Tabor,  on  the  western  side  of  a nar- 
row oblong  basin,  or  depressed  valley,  about,  a 
mile  long  by  a quarter  of  a mile  broad.  The 
buildings  stand  on  the  lower  part  of  the  slope  of 
the  western  hill,  which  rises  steep  and  high  above 
them.  It  is  now  a small,  but  more  than  usually 
well-built  place,  containing  about  three  thousand 
inhabitants,  of  whom  two-thirds  are  Christians. 
The  flat- roofed  houses  are  built  of  stone,  and  are 


432.  [Nazareth.] 


mostly  two  stories  high.  The  environs  are  planted 
with  luxuriantly-growing  fig-trees,  olive-trees, 
and  vines,  and  the  crops  of  com  are  scarcely 
equalled  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
Canaan.  All  the  3]>ots  which  could  be  supposed 
to  be  in  any  way  connected  with  the  history  of 
Christ  are,  of  course,  pointed  out  by  the  monks 
and  local  guides,  but  on  authority  too  piecarious 
to  deserve  any  credit,  and  with  circumstances 
too  puerile  for  reverence.  It  is  enough  to  know 
that  the  Lord  dwelt  here ; that  for  thirty  years 
/te  trod  this  spot  of  earth,  and  that  his  eyes  were 
familiar  with  the  objects  spread  around.  In  the 
south-west  part  of  the  town  is  a small  Maronite 
church,  under  a precipice  of  the  hill,  which  here 
breaks  off  in  a perpendicular  wall  forty  or  fifty  feet 
in  height.  Dr.  Robinson  noticed  several  such  pre- 
cipices in  the  western  hill  around  the  village,  and 
with  very  good  reason  concludes  that  one  of  .these, 
probably  the  one  just  indicated,  may  well  have 


been  the  spot  whither  the  Jews  leu  Jesus,  4 unto  the 
brow  of  the  hill  whereon  the  city  was  built,  that  they 
might  cast  him  down  headlong’  (Luke  iv.  28-30)  ; 
and  not  the  precipice,  two  miles  from  the  village, 
overlooking  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  which  monk- 
ish tradition  indicates  to  the  traveller  as  the 
4 Mount  of  Precipitation.’  He  denounces  this  as 
the  most  clumsy  of  all  the  local  legends  of  the 
Holy  Land  ; and  indeed  its  intrinsic  unsuitable- 
ness  is  so  manifest,  that  the  present  monks  of 
Nazareth  can  only  surmount  the  difficulty  by 
alleging  that  the  ancient  Nazarefb  was  nearer 
than  the  modern  to  this  mountain,  forgetting. that 
this  hypothesis  destroys  the  identity  and  credit,  of 
the  holy  places  which  they  show  in  the  present 
town.  It  appears  to  have  been  originally  selected 
as  a striking  object  to  travellers  approaching  from 
the  plain  of  Esdraelon  (Robinson’s  Researches, 
iii.  183-200;  comp.  Burokhardf,  Syria,  p.  337, 
Richter,  Wallfahrten.  p.  37  ; Schubert’s  Morgen 


NEAPOLIS. 


NEBAIOTH. 


403 


find,  iii.  168 ; Clarke’s  Travels , iv.  vol.  i.  p.  537  ; 
Narrative  of  Scottish  Deputation,  pp.  305,  306). 

NEAPOLIS  (NediroXis),  a maritime  city  of 
Macedonia,  near  the  borders  ot  Thrace,  now 
called  Napoli.  Paul  landed  here  on  his  first 
journey  into  Europe  (Acts  xvi.  11). 

NEBAIOTH,  or  Nebajoth  (lYPlJ),  called 

by  the  Arabs  or  the  first-born  son 

of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  13 ; 1 Chron.  i.  29),  and 
the  prince  or  sheikh  (fcOKO,  rendered  by  Jerome 
<pv\apxos')  of  one  of  the  twelve  Ishmaelitish  tribes, 
which,  as  well  as  the  territory  they  occupied, 
continued  to  bear  his  name  in  after  times  (Gen. 
xxv.  16;  comp.  ch.  xvii.  20).  One  of  Esau's 
wives,  Mahalath,  otherwise  called  Bashemath,  is 
expressly  designated  as  ‘ the  sister  of  Nebaioth’ 
(Gen.  xxviii.  9;  xxxvi.  3);  and  by  a singular 
coincidence  the  land  of  Esau,  or  Edom,  was  ulti- 
mately possessed  by  the  posterity  of  Nebaioth. 
In  common  with  the  other  Ishmaelites,  they  first 
settled  in  the  wilderness  ‘before’  (i.  e.  to  the 
east  of)  their  brethren,  the  other  descendants  of 
Abraham  ; by  which  we  are  probably  to  under- 
stand the  great  desert  lying  to  the  east  and  south- 
east of  Palestine  (Gen.  xxv.  18 ; xxi.  21  ; xvi. 
12;  and  see  the  article  Arabia).  In  Gen.  xxv. 
16,  the  English  Version  speaks  of  the  Ishmaelitish 
* towns  and  castles,’  but  the  former  word  in  the 
original  signifies  ‘ a moveable  village  of  tents  ’ 
(the  horde  of  the  Tartars),  and  the  latter  seems  to 
denote  pens  or  folds  for  cattle  and  sheep.  Both 
expressions  thus  point  to  the  nomadic  life  of  shep- 
herds, which  the  tribe  of  Nebaioth  seem  to  have 
followed  for  ages  afterwards,  inasmuch  as  in  the 
days  of  Isaiah  the  ‘ rams  of  Nebaioth  ’ are  men- 
tioned (Isa.  lx.  7)  as  among  the  most  precious 
gifts  which  the  Bedawees,  or  ‘ Men  of  the  Desert’ 
would  consecrate  to  the  service  of  Jehovah.  Arab 
writers  mention  the  tribe  of  Nabat  as  successful 
cultivators  in  Babylonian  Irak ; but  the  name 

is  written  with  a tha.  (D'Herbelot,  Bib. 
Orient,  under  ‘ Nabat Pocock’s  Spec.  Hist. 
Arab.  pp.  46,  268). 

The  successful  invasion  of  Western  Asia,  first 
by  the  Assyrians  and  afterwards  by  the  Clial- 
daeans,  could  not  but  affect  the  condition  of  the 
tribes  in  Northern  Arabia,  though  we  possess  no 
record  of  the  special  results.  The  prophet  Isaiah, 
after  his  obscure  oracle  regarding  Dumah  (ch.  xxi. 
11,  12),  introduces  a ‘judgment  upon  Arabia,’ 
i.  e.  Desert  Arabia,  which  some  suppose  to  have 
been  fulfilled  by  Sennacherib,  while  others  think 
it  refers  to  the  later  events  that  are  foretold  by 
Jeremiah  (ch.  xlix.  28-33)  as  befalling  ‘ Kedar 
and  the  kingdoms  of  Hazor  ’ in  consequence  of  the 
ravages  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
we  know  that  when  the  latter  carried  the  Jews 
captive  to  Babylon,  the  Edomites  made  them- 
selves masters  of  a great  part  of  the  south  of  Pales- 
tine [Idumjea],  while  either  then  or  at  a later 
period  they  themselves  were  supplanted  in  the 
southern  part  of  their  own  territory  by  a people 
called  by  Greek  writers  Nafiarcuoi,  and  by  the 
Romans  Nabatcei — a name  clearly  traceable  to  the 
Nebaioth  of  the  Hebrews.  It  were  an  error,  how- 
ever, to  suppose  that  they  consisted  only  of  his 
descendants  to  the  exclusion  of  other  Ishmaelites. 
The  Arabfi  are  frequently  described  in  Scripture 


as  ‘ a mingled  people  ’ (Jer.  xxv.  24)  ; and  as  we 
find  in  the  days  both  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxvii.  27, 
28,  36)  and  Gideon  (Judg.  viii.  22,  24)  the  name 
of  ‘Ishmaelites  ’ used  interchangeably  for  that  of 
‘ Midianites  ’ (the  descendants  of  another  son  of 
Abraham);  so  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Na- 
bathaeans included  a variety  of  Arab  races  who 
took  their  common  name  from  (he  progenitor  of 
the  largest  or  most  influential  tribe,  Nebaioth,  the 
first-born  of  Ishmael.  While  the  greater  number 
of  their  countrymen  followed  the  occupation  of 
shepherds,  others  applied  themselves  to  commerce, 
which  we  find  them  prosecuting  so  early  as  the 
days  of  Joseph  (Gen.  xxxvii.  27,  36).  They 
appear  to  have  originated  the  transit  trade  carried 
on  by  caravans  across  the  desert  towards  Palestine 
and  Egypt,  and  probably  their  chief  motive  in  at 
length  locating  themselves  in  Idumaea  was  that 
they  might  command  the  great  commercial  route 
from  the  Red  Sea  northward  through  the  con- 
tinuous valley  of  El-Araba  and  El-Ghor. 

The  territory  occupied  by  the  Nabathaeans  is 
called  by  Greek  writers  Na/Santtrfj  (by  Epipha- 
nius  NajSoTea  and  Na/JaTTts),  and  by  Latin  writers 
Nabathcea  or  Nabathena.  In  its  widest  sense 
this  included  the  whole  of  Northern  Arabia  from 
the  Euphrates  to  the  Elanitic  Gulf  of  the  Red 
Sea  ; but  more  strictly  taken  it  denoted  (at  least 
in  later  times)  only  a portion  of  the  southern  part 
of  that  vast  region  (Josephus,  Antiq.  i.  12.4; 
St.  Jerome,  Qucest.  on  Isa.  xxv.  13 : Ammianus 
Marcellinus,  xiv.  8).  We  first  hear  of  the  Na- 
bathaeans in  history  in  the  reign  of  Antigonus, 
who  succeeded  Alexander  the  Great  in  Babylon, 
and  died  in  the  year  b.c.  301.  He  sent  two  ex- 
peditions against  them;  the  first  under  Athenians, 
who  found  most  of  the  men  absent  at  a certain 
emporium  or  mart,  having'  left  their  families, 
says  Diodorus  Siculus  (xix.  95-98)  exi  Tiros 
Tlerpas,  i.  e.  upon  a certain  rock,  or,  perhaps, 
rather  ‘ in  a certain  place  called  Petra,’  thus 
pointing  to  their  famous  metropolis,  the  Selah  or 
Joktheel  of  the  Hebrews  [Petra].  Taking  this 
stronghold  by  surprise,  he  found  in  it  a large  store 
of  frankincense  and  myrrh,  and  five  hundred 
talents  of  silver,  all  which  he  seized  and  car- 
ried off.  But  the  Nabathaeans  having  quickly 
rallied  their  forces  pursued  him  and  destroyed  a 
great  part  of  his  army.  Antigonus,  after  certain 
deceitful  negociations,  sent  against  them  another 
expedition  under  his  son  Demetrius ; but  having 
had  intelligence  of  his  approach,  they  drove  their 
flocks  into  the  surrounding  deserts  and  deposited 
their  wealth  in  Petra,  to  which,  says  the  historian, 
‘ there  was  but  a single  approach,  and  that  xeiP°~ 
rrolriros,1  i.  e.  made  by  hand — an  expression  strik- 
ingly descriptive  of  the  passage  of  El  Syk  at  Wady 
Musa.  Demetrius,  thus  baflied,  had  to  retire  with 
his  troops.  It  appears  from  these  accounts  that 
the  Nabathaeans  were  as  yet  essentially  a pastoral 
people,  though  they  were  likewise  engaged  in 
commerce,  which  they  afterwards  prosecuted  to  a 
great  extent,  and  thereby  acquired  great  riches 
and  renown.  It  was  in  this  way  that  they  gra- 
dually became  more  fixed  in  their  habits  ; and 
living  in  towns  and  villages  they  were  at  length 
united  under  a regular  monarchical  government, 
constituting  the  kingdom  of  Arabia,  or  more 
strictly,  Arabia  Petrcea , the  name  being  derived 
not,  as  some  suppose,  from  the  rocky  nature  of  the 
country,  but  from  the  chief  city,  Petra.  Accord- 


404 


NEBAIOTH. 


NEBO. 


ing  to  Ptolemy  this  kingdom  was  bounded  on  the 
east  by  the  desert,  on  the  west  by  Egypt,  on  the 
north  by  Palestine  and  part  of  the  Roman  pro- 
vince of  Syria,  and  it  extended  southward  to  the 
Elanitic  Gulf.  It  was  thus  rather  limited  in  ex- 
tent, not  materially  exceeding  (except  on  the 
west)  the  size  of  the  territory  which  had  been 
possessed  by  Edom. 

The  common  name  of  the  kings  of  Arabia 
Petraea  was  either  Aretas  or  Obodas.  Even  in 
the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (about  b.c.  166), 
we  read  in  2 Macc.  v.  8,  of  an  Aretas,  king  of  the 
Arabians ; and  from  that  period  downwards  they 
came  frequently  into  contact  both  with  the  Jews 
and  Romans,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  books  of  the 
Maccabees  and  the  writings  of  Josephus.  When 
Judas  Maccabaeus  and  his  brother  Jonathan  had 
crossed  the  Jordan,  they  reached  after  a three 
days'  march  the  country  of  the  Nabathaeans,  who 
gave  them  a very  friendly  reception  (l  Macc.  v. 
21,  25;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  8.  3 ; comp.  xiii.  13. 
5.  15,  and  De  Bell.  Jud.,  i.  4.  4.  7).  Long  before 
the  kingdom  of  Arabia  was  actually  conquered  by 
the  Romans,  its  sovereigns  were  dependent  on  the 
Roman  power.  An  expedition  was  sent  thither 
by  Augustus,  under  jElius  Gallus,  governor  of 
Egypt,  and  a personal  friend  of  the  geographer 
Strabo,  who  has  left  us  an  account  of  it.  After 
various  obstacles,  he  at  last  reached  A svkt)  K wgg, 
or  Albus  Pagus,  the  emporium  of  the  Nabathaeans, 
and  the  port  of  Petra,  which  was  probably  at  or 
near  Elath  (Strabo,  xvi.  4,  22,  24  ; Dion  Cassius, 
liii.  27;  Arrian,  Periplus  Maris  Eryth .).  Another 
friend  of  Strabo,  the  Stoic  philosopher  Athenodorus, 
had  spent  some  time  in  Petra,  and  related  to  him 
with  admiration  how  the  inhabitants  lived  in 
entire  harmony  and  union  under  excellent  laws. 
The  kingdom  was  hereditary  ; or  at  least  the  king 
was  always  one  of  the  royal  family,  and  had  a prime 
minister  or  vizier,  iTrfopoiros,  who  was  styled  the 
king's  brother.  Pliny  also  repeatedly  speaks  of 
the  Nabathaeans  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  1 1 ; vi.  28;  xii.  27) ; 
and  classes  along  with  them  the  Cedrei,  exactly 
as  Kedar  and  Nebaioth  are  placed  together  in 
Isa.  lx.  7.  Another  Arabian  king  of  the  name  of 
Aretas  is  the  one  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  (2  Cor. 
ii.  32;  comp.  Acts  vii.  24,  25;  Joseph.  Antiq. 
xviii.  5.  1).  We  find  that  a former  Aretas  had 
been  invited  to  assume  the  sovereignty  by  the 
inliabitants  of  Damascus  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud., 
i.  4,  7 ; Antiq.  xiii.  15.  1) ; and  now,  during  the 
weak  reign  of  Caligula,  the  same  city  is  seized 
by  another  Aretas,  and  governed  through  an 
ethnarch , as  related  by  Paul.  The  kingdom  of 
Arabia  Petraea  maintained  its  nominal  inde- 
pendence till  about  a.d.  105,  in  the  reign  of 
the  Emperor  Trajan,  when  it  was  subdued  by  Cor- 
nelius Palma,  governor  of  Syria,  and  annexed  to 
the  vast  empire  of  Rome. 

The  Nabathaeans  had,  as  we  have  seen,  early 
applied  themselves  to  commerce,  especially  as 
carriers  of  the  products  of  Arabia,  India,  and  the 
far-distant  East,  which,  as  we  learn  from  Strabo, 
were  transported  on  camels  from  the  above-men- 
tioned Leuke  Rome  to  Petra,  and  thence  to 
Rninocoloura  (El  ’Arish)  and  elsewhere.  ‘ But 
under  the  Roman  dominion  the  trade  of  these 
regions  appears  to  have  widely  extended  itself, 
and  to  have  flourished  in  still  greater  prosperity  ; 
probably  from  the  circumstance  that  the  lawless 
Sfttoacitv  of  the  adjacent  nomadic  hordes  was 


now  kept  in  check  by  the  Roman  power,  ami 
particularly  by  the  garrisons  winch  were  every 
where  established  for  this  specific  purpose.  T'n« 
country,  too,  was  now  rendered  more  accessible, 
and  the  passage  of  merchants  and  caravans  more 
practicable,  by  military  ways.  From  Elath,  oi 
Ailah,  one  great  road  had  its  direction  nortnwardi 
to  the  rich  and  central  Petra ; thence  it  divided 
and  led  on  one  side  to  Jerusalem,  Gaza,  and  othei 
ports  on  the  Mediterranean ; and  on  the  other  side 
to  Damascus.  Another  road  appears  to  have  led 
directly  from  Ailah  along  the  Giior  to  Jerusalem. 
Traces  of  these  routes  are  still  visible  in  many 
parts.  These  facts  are  derived  not  from  the  testi- 
mony of  historians,  but  from  the  specifications  ol 
the  celebrated  Tabula  Theodosiana,  or  Peutin- 
geriana,  compiled  in  the  fourth  century.  Ac- 
cording to  this,  a line  of  small  fortresses  was 
drawn  along  the  eastern  frontier  of  Arabia  Petraea, 
towards  the  desert,  some  of  which  became  the  sites 
of  towns  and  cities,  whose  names  are  still  extant. 
But  as  the  power  of  Rome  fell  into  decay,  the 
Arabs  of  the  desert  would  seem  again  to  have 
acquired  the  ascendancy.  They  plundered  the 
cities,  but  did  not  destroy  them  ; and  hence  those 
regions  are  still  full  of  uninhabited,  yet.  stately 
and  often  splendid  ruins,  of  ancient  wealth,  and 
taste,  and  greatness.  Even  Petra,  the  rich  and 
impregnable  metropolis,  was  subjected  to  the  same 
fate  -.  and  now  exists,  in  its  almost  inaccessible 
loneliness,  only  to  excite  the  curiosity  of  the 
scholar,  and  the  wonder  of  the  traveller,  by  the 
singularity  of  its  site,  its  ruins,  and  its  fortunes.’ 

In  the  course  of  the  fourth  century  this  region 
came  to  be  included  under  the  general  name  of 
‘ Palestinej'  and  it  then  received  the  special  de- 
signation of  Palcestina  Tertia , or  Salutaris.  It 
became  the  diocese  of  a metropolitan,  whose  seat 
was  at  Petra,  and  who  was  afterwards  placed 
under  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  With  the 
Mohammedan  conquest  in  the  seventh  century 
its  commercial  prosperity  disappeared.  Lying 
between  the  three  rival  empires  of  Arabia,  Egypt, 
and  Syria,  it  lost  its  ancient  independence ; the 
course  of  trade  was  diverted  into  new  channels  ; 
its  great  routes  were  abandoned  ; and  at  length 
the  entire  country  was  quietly  yielded  up  to  the 
Bedawees  of  the  surrounding  wilderness,  whose 
descendants  still  claim  it  as  their  domain. 
During  the  twelfth  century  it  was  partially  oc- 
cupied by  the  Crusaders,  who  gave  it  the  name 
of  Arabia  Tertia , or  Syria  Sobal.  From  that 
period  it  remained  unvisited  by  Europeans,  and 
had  almost  disappeared  from  their  maps,  until  it 
was  partially  explored,  first  by  Seetzen  in  1S07, 
and  more  fully  by  Bnrckhardt,  in  1812;  and  now 
the  wonders  of  the  Wady  Musa  are  familiarly 
known  to  all.  (See  Reland's  Palcestina  lllustr.  ; 
Vincents  Commerce  of  the  Ancients;  Ritter’s 
Gesch.  d.  Petr.  Arabiens , in  the  ‘ Trans,  of  the 
Berlin  Acad.’,  1824;  Forster's  Mohammedanism 
Unveiled,  and  Geography  of  Arabia;  Robinson’s 
Sketches  of  Idumced,  in  ‘ Amer.  Bib.  Repos.’, 
1833;  and  Bibl.  Researches,  vol.  ii.) — N.  AI. 

1.  NEBO  (’ll?  ; Sept.  NctjBsS),  a Chaldaean  idol 
mentioned  in  Isa.  xlvi.  1,  and  suppose  ! to  have 
been  the  symbol  of  the  planet  Mercury,  the  celestial 
scribe  and  interpreter  of  the  gods,  answering  tc 
the  Hermes  and  Anubis  of  the  Egyptians.  IIs 
was  likewise  worshipped-  ly  the  Sabiara  ift 


NEBO. 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


405 


Arabia  (Ncrberj,  Onomast.  p.  95  . Gesenius 
traces  the  name  in  prophet,  an  interpreter 

of  the  Divine  will.  The  divine  worship  paid  to 
this  idol  by  the  Chaldseans  and  Assyrians  is  at- 
tested by  many  compound  proper  names  of  which 
it  forms  part,  as  ATjfotchaclnezzar,  Are£wzaradan, 
A^efodiashban ; besides  others  mentioned  in  clas- 
sical writers, — iVaionedus,  Na&onassar,  Nabu- 
rianus,  Na&onabus,  Afa&opolassar.  (See  Gesenius 
and  Henderson  on  Isa.  xlvi.  1). 

2.  NEBO,  the  name  of  a mountain  on  the  con- 
fines of  Moab  (Deut.  xxxii.  49  ; xxxiv.  1),  and  of  a 
town  near  it  (Num.  xxxii.  3,  38;  Isa.  xv.  2).  Since 
the  time  of  Seetzen  and  Burckhardt,  Mount  Nebo 
has  been  usually  identified  with  Mount  Attarus, 
east  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Dr.  Robinson  has  weakened 
this  conclusion  without  substituting  any  other. 
He  says,  ‘ During  the  whole  time  we  were  on  the 
coast  of  the  Dead  Sea,  on  the  Jordan,  and  in  or 
near  the  plains  of  Jericho,  we  were  much  inter- 
ested in  looking  out  among  the  eastern  mountains 
for  Mount  Nebo,  so  celebrated  in  the  history  of 
the  great  Hebrew  legislator,  where  he  was  per- 
mitted to  behold  with  his  eyes  the  Land  of  Pro- 
mise, and  then  yielded  up  the  ghost.  But  our 
search  was  in  vain  ; for  although  we  passed  in 
such  a direction  as  to  see  the  mountains  over 
against  Jericho  from  every  quarter,  yet  there 
seems  to  be  none  standing  so  out  from  the  rest, 
or  so  marked,  as  to  be  recognised  as  the  Nebo  of 
the  Scriptures.  There  is  no  peak  or  point  per- 
ceptibly higher  than  the  rest,  but  all  is  apparently 
one  level  line  of  summit,  without  peaks  or  gaps. 
The  highest  point  in  all  the  eastern  mountains  is 
Jebel  el- Jil'ad,  or  es-Salt,  near  the  city  of  that 
name,  rising  about  3000  feet  above  the  Ghor ; 
but  this  is  much  too  far  north  to  be  Mount  Nebo, 
to  which  Moses  ascended  from  the  plains  of  Moab 
over  against  Jericho.  Possibly,  on  travelling  into 
these  mountains,  some  isolated  point  or  summit 
might  be  found  answering  to  the  position  and 
character  of  Nebo.  Indeed,  Seetzen,  Burckhardt, 
and  also  Irby  and  Mangles,  have  all  found 
Mount  Nebo  in  Jebel  ’Attarus,  a high  mountain 
south  of  the  Turka  Ma’-in.  This,  however,  as 
the  latter  travellers  remark,  is  “ far  from  op- 
posite Jericho,”  and  would  be  almost  as  distant, 
and  as  little  convenient  to  tbe  plains  of  Moab, 
as  is  Jebel  es-Salt.  It  may  perhaps  be  sufficient 
to  assume,  that  Moses  merely  went  up  from  these 
plains  to  seme  high  part  of  the  adjacent  moun- 
tains, from  which  he  would  every  where  have  an 
extensive  view  over  the  Jordan  valley,  and  the 
mountainous  tract  of  Judah  and  Ephraim  towards 
the  western  sea.  The  Mediterranean  itself  could 
never  well  be  visible  from  any  point  east  of  the 
Jordan.’ 

3.  NEBO,  a town  in  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Ezra 
ii.  29)  ; or  more  fully,  in  order  to  distinguish  it 
from  the  preceding,  “Ifltf  ill3,  ‘ the  other  Nebo  ’ 
(Nell.  vii.  33).  The  name  may  have,  as  in  the 
preceding  instance,  been  derived  from  that  of  the 
idol  Nebo  ; but  more  probably  from  HSL  ‘ to  be 
high.’ 

NEBUCHADNEZZAR  pS&TO-UJ,  Kings, 
Chronicles,  and  Daniel;  Jer.  xxvii.;  xxviii. ; 
xxxiv.  1 ; xxxix.  I ; Ezek.  xxvi.  7 ; and  Ezra  v. 
12;  written  also  Nebuchadrezzar,  ge- 

nerally in  Jeremiah,  anil  in  Ezek.  xxx.  18)  was  the 
name  of  the  Chaldsean  monarch  of  Babylon  by 


whom  Judah  was  conquered,  and  the  Jews  Jed 
into  their  seventy  years’  captivity.  In  the  Sep 
tuagint  version  he  is  called  NafiouxoBordaop-,  by 
Berosus  (ap.  Joseph um),  'Na{}ovxo8ov6<ropos ; by 
Abydenus  (ap.  Eusebium,  Prcep.  Evang .),  Ni/jSou- 
5 pdcropos;  and  by  Strabo,  the  only  writer  among 
the  Greeks  by  whom  he  is  named  (xv.  687)  Nav- 
Kooicodp6cropos.  This  name,  Nabuchodonosor,  has 
passed  from  the  Septuagint  into  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate, and  into  the  authorized  English  version  of 
the  books  of  Judith  and  Tobit.  Nabu  or  Nebo 
(Isa.  xlvi.  1)  was  the  name  of  a Chaldsean 
deity,  supposed  to  be  Mercury,  and  enters  fre 
quently  into  the  composition  of  Cbaldaean  proper 
names,  as  Nabopolassar  (Can.  Ptol.) ; Nabuzar- 
adan  (2  Kings  xxv.  8.  &c.)  ; Sam  gar-neb  u 
and  Nebushasban  (Jer.  xxix.  3.  13).  The 
name  Nebuchadnezzar  has  been  commonly  ex- 
plained to  signify  the  treasure  of  Nebo , but, 
according  to  Lorsbach  ( Archiv . f.  Morgenl. 
Literatur ),  it  signifies  Nebo,  the  prince  of  gods  ; 


Pers.^«J^A>-  ; see  also  Norberg’s  Onomas- 


ticon  Cod.  Nasar.  p.  95,  sq.  and  Gesenius  in 
Isai.  iv.  344,  366. 

The  only  notices  which  we  have  of  this  monarch 
in  the  canonical  writings  are  found  in  the  books 
of  Kings,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  and  Ezra,  and  in  the 
allusions  of  the  prophets  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 

From  2 Kings  xxiii.  29,  and  2 Chron.  xxxv.  20, 
we  gather  that  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  (b.c.  610), 
Pharaoh-Necho,  king  of  Egypt,  having  approached 
by  sea  the  coast  of  Syria,  made  a friendly  appli- 
cation to  King  Josiah  to  be  allowed  a passage 
through  his  territories  to  the  dominions  of  the  As- 
syrian monarch,  with  whom  he  was  then  at  war. 
‘ I come  not  against  thee  this  day,  but  against  the 
house  wherewith  I have  war ; for  God  (Elohim) 
commanded  me  to  make  haste,’  &c.  (2  Chron. 
xxxv.  20,  21).  The  design  of  Pharaoh-Necho 
was  to  seize  upon  Carehemish  (Circesium  or  Cer- 
cusium),  a strong  post  on  the  Euphrates;  but 
Josiah,  who  was  tributary  to  the  Babylonian  mo- 
narch, opposed  hia  progress  at  Megiddo,  where  he 
was  defeated  and  mortally  wounded  [Josiah]. 
Neclio  marched  upon  Jerusalem,  when  the  Jews 
became  tributary  to  the  king  of  Egypt.  Upon 
this,  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon  (2  Kings 
xxiv.  1 ; 2 Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  where  this  mo- 
narch’s name  is  for  the  first  time  introduced), 
invaded  Judah,  retook  Carehemish,  with  the  terri- 
tory which  had  been  wrested  from  him  by  Neclio, 
seized  upon  Jelioiakim,  the  vassal  of  Pharaoh- 
Necho,  and  reduced  him  to  submission  (b.c. 
607).  This  invasion  took  place,  according  to 
Jer.  xxvi.  I ; xlvi.  1,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jelioia- 
chim,  but  according  to  Daniel  i.  12,  in  the  third. 
In  order  to  reconcile  this  apparent  contradiction,  it. 
has  been  generally  maintained  that  the  first  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  fell  partly  in  the  third  and  partly 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  [Captivities, 
Daniej,].  Jehoiachim  was  at  first  loaded  with 
chains,  in  order  to  be  led  captive  to  Babylon,  but 
was  eventually  restored  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  his 
throne,  on  condition  of  paying  an  annual  tribute. 
Nebuchadnezzar  carried  off  part  of  the  ornaments 
of  the  Temple,  together  with  several  hostages  ot 
distinguished  rank,  among  whom  were  the  youths 
Daniel  and  his  three  friends  Hananiah,  Azariah, 
and  Mishael  (Dan.  i.).  These  were  educated  at 
court  in  the  language  and  sciences  of  the  Chal- 


406  NEBUCHADNEZZAR.  NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


dneans,  where  they  subsequently  filled  offices  of 
distinction.  The  sacred  vessels  were  transferred 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  his  temple  at  Babylon 
(Isa.  xxxix. ; 2 Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  7) ; [Babylon]. 

After  the  conquest  of  Judaea,  Nebuchadnezzar 
turned  his  attention  towards  the  Egyptians,  whom 
be  drove  out  of  Syria,  taking  possession  of  all  the 
land  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  river  (2 
Kings  xxiv.  7) : which  some  suppose  to  mean  the 
Nile,  but  others  a small  river  in  the  desert,  which 
was  reckoned  the  boundary  between  Palestine  and 
Egypt  (Prideaux's  Connection ). 

The  fate  of  Jerusalem  was  now  rapidly  ap- 
proaching its  consummation.  After  three  years 
of  fidelity,  Jehoiachim  renounced  his  allegiance 
to  Babylon,  and  renewed  his  alliance  with  Necho, 
when  Nebuchadnezzar  frent  incursions  of  Ammon- 
ites, Moabites  and  Syrians,  together  with  Chal- 
daeans,  to  harass  him.  At  length,  in  the  eleventh 
year  of  his  reign,  he  was  made  prisoner,  and 
slain  (Jer.  xxii.)  [Jehoiakim].  lie  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  Jehoiachin,  who,  after  three 
months’  reign,  surrendered  himself  with  his  family 
to  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  had  come  in  person  to 
besiege  Jerusalem,  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign 
(2  Kings  xxiv.  10 — 12)  [Jehoiachin].  Upon 
this  occasion  all  the  most  distinguished  inha- 
bitants, including  the  artificers,  were  led  cap- 
tive [Captivities].  Among  the  captives,  who 
amounted  to  no  less  than  50,000,  were  Ezekiel 
(Ezek.  i.  1)  and  Mordecai  [Esther].  The 
golden  vessels  of  Solomon  were  now  removed,  with 
the  royal  treasures,  and  Mattaniah,  the  brother  of 
Jehoiachin,  placed  on  the  throne  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, who  gave  him  the  name  of  Zedekiah,  and 
bound  him  by  an  oath  not  to  enter  into  an  alliance 
with  Egypt.  Zedekiah,  however,  in  the  ninth 
year  of  his  reign,  formed  an  alliance  with  Pharaoh- 
Hophra,  the  successor  of  Necho.  Hophra,  coming 
to  the  assistance  of  Zedekiah,  was  driven  back 
into  Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  finally  cap- 
tured Jerusalem  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Zedexiah’s 
reign  (b.c.  588)  [Zedekiah].  The  Temple,  and 
the  whole  city,  with  its  towers  and  walls,  were  all 
razed  to  the  ground  by  Nebuzaradan,  Nebuchad- 
nezzar’s lieutenant,  and  the  principal  remaining 
inhabitants  put  to  death  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at 
'Riblah.  Jeremiah  was,  however,  spared,  and  Ge- 
daliah  appointed  governor.  He  was  shortly  alter 
murdered  by  Ishmael,  a member  of  the  royal 
family,  who  was  himself  soon  obliged  to  take 
refuge  among  the  Ammonites.  Many  of  the  re- 
maining Jews  fled  into  Egypt,  accompanied  by 
Jeremiah;  those  who  remained  were  soon  after 
expatriated  by  Nebucnadnezzar,  who  depopulated 
the  whole  country. 

He  next  undertook  the  siege  of  Tyre  [Tyre], 
and  after  its  destruction  proceeded  to  Egypt,  now 
distracted  by  internal  commotions,  and  devastated 
or  made  himself  master  of  the  whole  country  from 
Migdol  to  Syene  (according  to  the  reading  of  the 
Seventy,  Ezek.  xxix.  10;  xxx.  6),  transferring 
many  of  the  inhabitants  to  the  territory  beyond 
the  Euphrates. 

We  have  referred  to  the  captivity  of  the 
prophet  Daniel,  and  have  to  turn  to  the  book 
which  bears  his  name  for  the  history  of  this  pro- 
phet, who,  from  an  exile,  was  destined  to  become 
the  great  protector  of  his  nation.  In  the  second 
year  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Daniel, 
who  was  found  superior  in  wisdom  to  the  Chal- 


dsean  magi,  was  enabled  not  only  to  interpret,  bi  t 
to  reveal  a dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar’s,  /he  very 
subject  of  which  that  monarch  had  forgotten 
[Dreams].  This  was  the  dream  of  the  statue 
consisting  of  four  different  metals,  which  Daniel 
interpreted  of  four  successive  monarchies,  the  last 
of  which  was  to  be  the  reign  of  the  Messiah.  Daniel 
was  elevaled  to  be  first  minister  of  state,  and  his 
three  friends  were  made  governors  of  provinces. 
The  history  of  these  events  (Dan.  ii.  4,  8,  9)  is 
written  in  the  Chaldee  language,  together  with  the 
narrative  which  immediately  follows  (ch.  iii.),  of 
the  golden  statue  erected  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the 
plain  of  Dura,  for  refusing  to  worship  which,  Da- 
niels three  friends  were  thrown  into  a furnace,  but 
miraculously  preserved.  The  fourth  chapter,  also 
written  in  Chaldee,  contains  the  singular  history 
of  the  judgment  inflicted  on  Nebuchadneczar  as 
a punishment  for  his  pride,  and  which  is  narrated 
in  the  form  of  a royal  proclamation  from  the  mo- 
narch himself,  giving  an  account  to  his  people  of 
his  affliction  and  recovery.  This  affliction  had 
been,  by  the  monarch’s  account,  predicted  by 
Daniel  a year  before,  in  the  interpretation  of  his 
fearful  dream  of  the  tree  in  the  midst  of  the  earth. 
While  walking  in  his  palace,  and  admiring  his 
magnificent  works,  he  uttered,  in  the  plenitude  of 
his  pride,  the  remarkable  words  recorded  in  ver. 
30,  ‘ Is  not  this  great  Babylon  that  I have  built 
for  the  house  of  the  kingdom,  by  the  might  of 
my  power,  and  for  the  honour  or  my  majesty ‘ft 
He  had  scarce  uttered  the  words,  when  a voice 
from  heaven  proclaimed  to  him  that  his  kingdom 
was  departed  from  him;  that  he  should  be  for 
seven  times  (generally  supposed  to  mean  years, 
although  some  reduce  the  period  to  fourteen 
months ; Jahn,  Introd.)  driven  from  the  habita- 
tions of  men  to  dwell  among  the  beasts  of  the  field, 
and  made  to  eat  grass  as  an  ox,  until  he  learned 
‘that  the  Most  High  ruleth  in  the  kingdom  of 
men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever  he  will.’  The 
sentence  was  immediately  fulfilled,  and  Nebu- 
chadnezzar continued  in  this  melancholy  state 
during  the  predicted  period,  at  the  end  of  which 
he  was  restored  to  the  use  of  his  understanding 
(ver.  36).  We  have  no  account  in  Scripture  of 
any  of  the  actions  of  this  monarch’s  life  after  the 
period  of  his  recovery,  but  the  first  year  of  the 
reign  of  his  successor  Evil-merodach  is  repre- 
sented as  having  taken  place  in  the  thirty-seventh 
year  of  Jehoiachin,  answering  to  b.c.  562  (2  Kings 
xxv.  27). 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  light  which  pro- 
fane history  has  thrown  on  the  events  of  these 
times. 

The  canon  of  Ptolemy  the  mathematician,  who 
flourished  about  the  commencement  of  the  Chris 
tian  era,  consists  of  a catalogue,  arranged  in 
chronological  order,  of  the  kings  of  Babylon, 
commencing  with  Nabonassar,  who  reigned  b.c 
747,  and  ending  with  Nabonned,  b.c.  556.  Ac- 
cording to  this  catalogue,  Nabopolassar  (Na/8ov- 
7 roXacrapos),  who  died  b.c.  625,  was  succeeded  by 
Nabocolassar  (Na6o/coAa<rapos),  b.c.  605.  This 
Nabocolassar  is  therefore  presumed  to  be  the  Ne- 
buchadnezzar of  Scripture  (for  the  canon  of  Pto- 
lemy, see  Table  Chronologifjue  des  Reynes,  &c. 
par  l'Abbe  Halmy,  Paris,  1819).  Nabopolassar, 
the  father  of  Nabocolassar,  is  supposed  to  have 
been  the  first  Chaldaean  monarch  of  Babylon,  and 
to  have  disunited  it  from  the  Assyrian  empire,  o! 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


which  it  had  hitherto  formed  a part  (Jahn’s  He- 
brew Commomvealth).  According  to  a fragment 
of  Alexander  Polyhistor,  reported  by  Syncellus 
in  t is  Chronographia,  it  was  this  sovereign  who 
destroyed  the  city  of  Nineveh,  b.c.  612,  which, 
according  to  Eusebius  ( Chron . p.  46),  he  effected 
in  conjunction  with  Astyages,  the  eldest  son  of 
Cyaxares,  king  of  the  Medes  (see  also  Tobit  xiv. 
15,  where  the  latter  is  named  Assuerus).  The 
following  extract,  preserved  by  Josephus,  from 
the  lost  Chaldsean  history  of  Berosus,  priest  of  the 
temple  of  Bel  (b.c.  268),  will  be  found  to  throw 
considerable  light  on  the  Scripture  narrative: 
4 When  his  father  Nabuchodonosor  heard  that  the 
governor  whom  he  had  set  over  Egypt  and  the 
•jlaces  about  Coele-Syria and  Phoenicia  had  revolted 
from  him,  while  he  was  not  himself  able  any 
longer  to  undergo  hardships,  he  committed  to  his 
son  Nabuchodonosor,  who  was  still  but  a youth, 
some  parts  of  his  army,  and  sent  them  against 
them.  So  when  Nabuchodonosor  had  given  him 
battle,  and  fought  with  the  rebel,  he  overcame 
him,  and  reduced  the  country  from  under  his  sub- 
jection and  made  it  a branch  of  his  own  kingdom. 
But  about  that  time  it  happened  that  his  father 
Nabuchodonosor  fell  ill,  and  ended  his  life  in  the 
city  of  Babylon,  when  he  had  reigned  twenty-one 
years ; and  when  he  was  made  sensible  that  his 
father  Nabuchodonosor  was  dead — having  settled 
the  affairs  of  Egypt  and  the  other  countries,  and 
also  those  that  concerned  the  captive  Jews,  and 
the  Phoenicians,  Syrians  and  Egyptians,  and  hav- 
ing committed  the  conveyance  of  them  to  Baby- 
lon to  certain  of  his  friends — he  hastily  crossed  the 
desert,  with  a few  companions,  into  Babylon.  So 
he  toqk  upon  him  the  management  of  public  af- 
fairs, and  of  the  kingdom  which  had  been  kept  for 
him  by  one  of  the  chief  Chaldseans,  and  he  received 
the  entire  dominions  of  his  father,  and  appointed, 
that  when  the  captives  came,  they  should  be  placed 
in  colonies  in  the  most  proper  places  of  Baby- 
lonia’ (Antiq.  x.  11). 

It  will  be  observed  that  both  Nebuchadnezzar 
(styled  by  some  the  Great ) and  his  father  are 
here  equally  named  Nabuchodonosor,  but,  in 
the  citation  of  the  same  narrative  from  Berosus 
by  Josephus  ( Cont . Apion .,  i.  19),  the  father 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  Nabolassar  (Na/3o- 
Adaorapos),  corresponding  nearly  with  the  Nabo- 
polassar  of  Ptolemy:  which  has  induced  some 
to  suppose  the  name  Nabuchodonosor  in  the 
former  citation  to  be  an  error  of  transcription. 
We  have  already  noticed  the  opinion  of  those 
who  consider  the  Nabuchodonosor  of  Judith  to 
be  the  same  with  the  Saosduchin  of  Ptolemy, 
who  was  contemporary  with  Manasseh  [Judith]. 
Some  foundation  has  thus  been  afforded  for  con- 
sidering Nebuchadnezzar  as  a general  name  for 
Babylonian  sovereigns  (Prideaux,  Connect.) ; 
this,  however,  is  considered  by  Whiston  as  a 
groundless  mistake  (Whiston’s  Josephus , note 
on  ch.  xi.).  It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that 
the  similarity  of  the  two  names  may  have  led  to 
their  being  sometimes  confounded.  The  conqueror 
of  Nineveh  is  also  called  by  the  name  of  Nebu- 
chodonosor  in  Tobit  xiv.  15  (in  the  Greek,  for 
the  Latin  ends  with  ver.  14),  and  is  on  this  ac- 
count styled  by  some,  Nebuchadnezzar  the  First , 
a designation  first  applied  to  him  by  Rabbi  David 
Ganz,  under  the  age  of  the  world,  3285.  Alber 
considers  ( Inst . Herm.  V.  T.  vol.  ii.  ch.  xv.)  that 


407 

the  Nabuchodonosor  of  Judith  was  not  one  of  the 
legitimate  sovereigns  who  flourished  before  the 
Persian  domination,  but  that  both  he  and  Ar- 
phaxad  were  governors  of  provinces,  who  had 
rebelled  against  the  Persians,  and  assumed  those 
names,  and  that  the  pretended  Nebuchadnezzar, 
or  Nebuchadnezzar  the  Third , was  reduced  to 
order  upon  the  failure  of  his  expedition  under 
Holofernes.  By  this  rather  hazardous  conjecture, 
whereby  he  further  maintains,  in  contradiction  to 
Bellarmine(De  Verb.  Dei),  that  the  book  of  Judith 
refers  to  a period  posterior  to  the  exile,  he  endea- 
vours to  prove  that  the  history  of  Judith  is  his- 
torically true,  in  opposition  to  Jahn,  who  regards 
it  as  a fiction  [Judith]. 

According  to  Ptolemy's  canon,  the  reign  of 
Nabocolasar  is  made  to  commence  two  years  later 
than  that  of  the  Nebuchadnezzar  of  Scriplure. 
Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  reconcile  this 
discrepancy,  but  the  solution  generally  received 
assumes  that  the  first  capture  of  Jerusalem  (Dan. 
i.  1)  took  place  during  the  last  years  of  the  reign 
of  Nabopolassar,  in  the  expedition  mentioned  by 
Berosus  (ut  supra),  and  that  the  canon  of  Pto- 
lemy dates  the  commencement  of  his  reign  from 
the  death  of  his  father,  when  he  became  sole  king 
of  Babylon  (De  Wette’s  Introd.  § 253,  note). 

Although  Herodotus  does  not  name  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, he  is  supposed  by  some  to  allude  to  the 
expedition  of  Pharaoh-Necho  against  Babylon, 
when  he  observes  that  ‘ Necho,  after  an  engagement 
at  Magdolos  in  Egypt,  took  Kadytis,  a great 
city  of  Syria.’  It  is  conjectured  that  he  may 
have  confounded  Migdol,  in  Egypt,  with  Me- 
giddo,  and  that  Kadytis  was  the  same  with  Jeru- 
salem (El  Kaddosh,  ‘ the  holy  city’).  (Jahn’s  He- 
brew Commonwealth.) 

We  learn  from  a continuation  of  the  extract 
from  Berosus  already  cited,  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
almost  rebuilt  the  city  of  Babylon  with  the  spoils 
of  his  expedition,  and  magnificently  adorned  the 
temple  of  Bel,  together  with  other  temples,  and 
built  a splendid  palace,  which  he  beautified  with 
wooded  terraces,  and  those  hanging  gardens  which 
were  considered  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  world 
[Babylon].  To  him  are  also  attributed  those 
stupendous  canals  described  by  Herodotus,  who 
himself  visited  Babylon  about  b.c.  430,  and 
whose  descriptions  are  fully  corroborated  by  the 
statements  of  Philostratus,  Quintus  Curtius, 
Arrian,  and  Diodorus  Siculus,  by  none  of  whom, 
however,  is  this  monarch  mentioned.  Josephus 
adds,  that  Magasthenes,  in  his  fourth  book,  refers 
to  the  same  subject,  and  thereby  endeavours  to 
show  that  he  exceeded  Hercules,  and  conquered 
a great  part  of  Africa  and  Spain.  Strabo  adds, 
that  ‘Sesostris,  king  of  Egypt,  and  Tearcon,  king 
of  Ethiopia,  extended  their  expedition  as  far  as 
Europe,  but  that  Navokodrosor,  who  is  venerated 
by  the  Cbaldaeans  more  than  Hercules  by  the 

Greeks marched  through  Spain  to  Greece 

and  Pontus.’  According  to  the  canon  of  Ptolemy 
(with  which  Josephus  agrees,  c.  Apion.  i.  20,, 
Nebuchadnezzar  reigned  forty-three  years,  when 
he  was  succeeded  by  llouaroudamos,  the  Evil- 
Merodach  of  Scripture. 

The  difficulties  attending  the  nature  of  the 
disease  and  recovery  of  Nebuchadnezzar  have 
not  escaped  the  notice  of  commentators  in  ancient 
as  well  as  modern  times.  The  impression  made 
by  them  on  the  acute  mind  of  Origen,  that  fatftei 


40  S 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


thus  expresses  : ‘ How  is  it  possible  to  suppose  a 
man  metamorphosed  into  a beast?  This  sounds 
well  cnougli  in  the  poets,  who  speak  of  the  com- 
panions of  Ulysses  and  of  Diomede  as  transformed 
into  birds  and  wolves,  fables  which  existed  in  the 
jwet's  imagination  only.  But  how  could  a prince 
like  Nebuchadnezzar,  reared  in  delicacy  and 
pleasure,  be  able  to  live  naked  for  seven  years, 
exposed  to  the  inclemency  of  the  weather,  and 
having  no  nourishment  but  grass  and  wild  fruits? 
How  could  he  resist  the  violence  of  wild  beasts? 
Who  governed  the  empire  of  Chaldaea  in  his 
absence  ? How,  at  the  end  of  seven  years,  was 
he  received  again  by  his  people,  resuming  his 
throne  as  after  the  absence  of  a night?  Finally, 
could  an  event  so  singular  and  so  memorable  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  profane  historians,  who  relate 
so  many  other  things  regarding  the  same  prince, 
much  less  curious,  and  less  worthy  of  attention 
than  this?’  (ap.  Hieron.  in  Dan.)  It  must,  how- 
ever, be  borne  in  mind  that  Origen's  passion  for 
allegorizing  frequently  led  him  to  overstate  the 
difficulties  of  Scripture,  and  his  own  solution  of 
those  which  he  enumerates,  viz.,  that  the  account 
of  Nebuchadnezzar's  metamorphosis  was  merely 
a representation  of  the  fall  of  Lucifer,  is  not  likely 
to  meet  with  many  supporters.  Besides  Origen’s, 
there  have  been  no  less  than  five  different  opinions 
in  reference  to  this  subject.  Bodin  (in  Demonol.) 
maintains  that  Nebuchadnezzar  underwent  an 
actual  metamorphosis  of  soul  and  body,  a similar 
instance  of  which  is  given  by  Cluvier  (Append, 
ad  Epitom.  Hist.)  on  the  testimony  of  an  eye-wit- 
ness. Tertullian  (De  Pcenit.)  confines  the  trans- 
formation to  the  body  only,  but  without  loss  of 
reason,  of  which  kind  of  metamorphosis  St.  Au- 
gustine (De  Civ.  Dei,  xviii.  18)  reports  some  in- 
stances said  to  have  taken  place  in  Italy,  to  which 
he  himself  attaches  little  credit;  but  Gaspard 
Peucer  asserts  that  the  transformation  of  mm  info 
wolves  was  very  common  in  Livonia.  Some 
Jewish  Rabbins  have  asserted  that  the  soul  of  Ne- 
buchadnezzar, by  a real  transmigration,  changed 
places  with  that  of  an  ox  (Medina,  De  redd  in 
Deuyn  fid.) ; while  others  have  supposed  not  a 
real,  but  an  apparent  or  docetic  change,  of  which 
there  is  a case  recorded  in  the  life  of  St.  Ma- 
carius, the  parents  of  a young  woman  having 
been  persuaded  that  their  daughter  had  been 
transformed  into  a mare.  The  most  generally 
received  opinion,  however,  is,  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar laboured  under  that  species  of  hypochon- 
driacal monomania  which  leads  the  patient  to 
fancy  himself  changed  into  an  animal  or  other 
substance,  the  habits  of  which  he  adopts.  Jerome 
probably  leaned  to  this  opinion.  ‘ Who  does  not 
see,’ he  observes,  ‘ that  madmen  live  like  brute 
beasts  in  the  fields  and  woods,  and  in  what  is  it 
wonderful  that  this  punishment  should  be  in- 
flicted by  God’s  judgment  to  show  the  power  of 
God,  and  to  humble  the  pride  of  kings?  Greek 
and  Roman  histories  relate  much  more  incredible 
things,  as  of  men  changed  into  Scyila,  the  Chi- 
maera,  and  the  Centaurs,  into  birds  and  beasts, 
flowers,  trees,  stars,  and  stones  ?’  (in  Dan.  iv.  4). 
To  this  disease  of  the  imagination  physicians  have 
given  the  name  of  Lycanthropy,  Zoanthropy,  or 
Insania  Oanina  [Diseases  ok  the  Jews].  In 
Dan.  iv.  15  (iv.  12,  according  to  the  Latin)  there 
aeems  an  allusion  to  some  species  of  insanity  in  the 
expression,  1 even  with  a band  of  iron  and  brass  ’ 


(alligetur  vinculo  ferreo  et  areo,  Vulg.);  and  the 
loss  and  return  of  reason  is  very  clearly  intimated 
in  ver.  34,  ‘ mine  understanding  returned  to  mq 
and  I blessed  the  Most  High.*  Virgil  (Eclog.  6) 
refers  to  this  kind  of  madness  in  the  case  of  the 
daughters  of  Proetus,  who  fancied  themselves 
oxen,  and  made  the  plains  resound  with  their 
bellowings  : 

Implerunt  falsis  mugitibus  agros. 

And  a somewhat  similar  kind  of  insanity  is 
described  bv  Mr.  Drummond  Hay  (Western 
Barbary,  1844,  p.  65)  as  produced  by  the  use 
of  an  intoxicating  herb  among  the'Gisowys,  or 
Moorish  fanatics.  (See  Heinroth,  Seelenstor.  i. 
65  ; Ader,  De  cegrotis  in  Evang.  p.  31,  &c. ; 
Meade,  Med.  Sac. ; and  Muller,  De  Nebuchad- 
nezz.  perapop^doaei). 

The  idea  of  an  allegory  has  been  revived  in 
modern  times,  especially  by  De  Wette  ( Enlei - 
tying,  p.  257),  who  considers  the  accounts  in 
Daniel  too  improbable,  if  literally  understood, 
although  he  admits  that  they  may  have  been 
founded  on  historical  traditions.  lie  considers 
the  whole  of  the  narrative  in  Daniel  as  referring 
to  Antioclms  Epiphanes,  who  he  asserts  is  also 
signified  by  Belshazzar.  In  reference  to  the  sub- 
ject before  us  his  translator  adds,  that  ‘ Antiochu3 
Epiphanes  was  called  with  perfect  propriety 
Epimanes,  or,  the  mad,  which  may  have  given 
the  author  a hint  to  represent  the  old  and  ideal- 
ized monarch  of  his  nation  as  bereft  of  reason, 
and  reduced  to  the  form  and  character  of  a beast. 
Here  the  historical  fact  is  idealized,  and  an  ex- 
quisite piece  of  sarcasm  on  the  folly  and  brutality 
of  Antiochus  is  produced’  (Dan.  iv.  14,  22-24,  29, 
31, 32,  34).  But  the  truth  of  this  inference,  how- 
ever ingenious  the  arguments  in  its  favour,  depends 
altogether  on  the  alleged  spuriousness  of  the  book 
of  Daniel,  whose  genuineness  is  attested  by  the 
citations  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  and  by 
the  author  of  the  1st  book  of  Maccabees,  who  was 
acquainted  with  the  book  of  Daniel,  even  in  the 
version  of  the  Sept.  (Macc.  i.  54,  comp,  with 
Dan.  ii.  27 ; and  ii.  59  with  Dan.  iii.  and  vi.). 
[Daniel.]  De  Wette  can  only  avoid  the  force 
of  this  evidence  by  denying  the  authority  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  in  a case  of  the  kind.  lie 
adds  that  it  is  a biassed  assumption  of  Heugsten- 
berg  to  maintain  that  I Macc.  was  originally 
written  in  Greek  (allein  dass  es  iirspriinglich 
griechisch  . . . sei,ist  eine partciiscke  Annahrne'. 
not  Hebrew,  as  De  Wette's  English  translator  has 
it,  and  in  the  time  of  John  Hyrcanus  (b.c. 
134 — 105),  as  according  to  him  (De  Wette)  it 
appears  from  l Macc.  xvi.  23,  21,  to  have  been 
written  much  later  [Maccabees]. 

Some  have  fancied  that  there  was  an  allusion 
to  the  disease  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  passage  of 
Berosus  quoted  by  Josephus  (Cunt.  Apion.  i.  20). 
’Sa^ovxobovdaopos  pev  olv  pera  rb  &p£ct(r0ai  tow 
irpoeipypevov  relxous,  ipnecibu  els  ufipcoarlav, 
peryWa^aro  t by  (3 iov.  * Nabuchodonosor,  after 
he  had  commenced  the  aforesaid  wall,  falling 
into  a sickness,  died.'  There  is  another  remark- 
able passage  respecting  him  in  Abydenus  (ap. 
Eusebium,  Prcepar.  Evang.  ix.  41),  where,  hav- 
ing cited  the  passage  from  Megasthenes  already 
referred  to,  he  adds,  upon  the  authority  of  the 
same  writer,  a speech  of  Nabuchodonosor,  where- 
in, having  been  struck  by  some  god,  lie  foie- 
told  the  destruction  of  Babylon  by  a ‘Persian 


NECHO. 


409 


NEBITSHASBAN. 

BM.lt1,’  assisted  by  a Mede,  the  former  boast  of 
Assyria,  after  which  he  instantly  vanished.  A 
reference  has  been  supposed  to  exist  in  these  words 
to  Nebuchadnezzar's  madness  and  consequent  dis- 
appearance, but  there  is  at  most,  as  De  VVett.e 
observes,  only  a traditional  connection  between 
them.  Jahu  ( Hebrew  Commonwealth)  conceives 
the  while  to  be  a tradition  made  up  from  his 
prophetic  dreams,  his  insanity  ....  and  from 
Daniel’s  explanation  of  the  well-known  hand- 
writing in  the  banqueting-hall  of  Belshazzar. 

Objections  have  been  made  by  Sir  Thomas 
Browne  and  others  to  the  proportions  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's golden  statue  (Dan.  iii.),  said  to  have 
been  60  cubits,  or  90  feet  high,  and  only  6 cubits 
in  breadth  ; for  it  is  evident  that  the  statue  of  a 
man  ten  times  higher  than  its  breadth  exceeds  all 
natural  symmetry.  Jahn  ( Introd .)  supposes  that 
this  form  might  have  a mere  august  appearance, 
or  have  been  retained  from  a rude  antiquity. 
Some  consider  that  the  height  of  90  feet  included 

the  pedestal.  Hengstenberg  supposes  that  dW 
mpy  mean  an  obelisk , as  well  as  a statue,  in 
which  case  the  proportions  would  be  symmetrical. 
Diodorus  Siculus  (lib.  ii.)  informs  us  that  one  of 
the  images  of  massy  gold  found  by  Xerxes  in  the 
Temple  of  Bel,  measured  40  feet  in  height,  which 
would  have  been  fairly  proportioned  to  a breadth 
of  6 feet,  measured  at  the  shoulders.  Prideaux 
supposes  that  this  may  have  been  the  identical 
statue  erected  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  which,  however, 
Jahn  conceives  was  more  probably  only  gilt,  as  a 
statue  of  gold  could  scarcely  have  been  safe  from 
robbers  in  the  plain  of  Dura  ; but  this  conjecture 
of  Jaliu's  seems  by  no  means  necessary. — W.W. 

NEBUSHASBAN  (}njB«a5  ; Sept.  Naflou- 
<re0av,  Jer.  xxxix.  13),  a follower  of  Nebu. 

Pel's.  ’ the  name  of  one  of  the  Baby-. 

V*V  • v V* 

Ionian  officers  sent  by  Nebuzar-adan  to  take  Jere- 
miah out  of  prison. — W.  W. 

NEBUZAR-ADAN  ; Sept.  N«0ov- 

fapdav,  1 Kings  xxv.  8 ; Jer.  xxxix.  9 ; xl.  1 ; 
lii.  12,  &c.).  ‘Nebu  is  the  Lord,'  according  to 
the  Hebrew  ; or,  according  to  the  Persian,  ‘ Nebu 

is  wise  ’ (comp.  Pers.  J).  The  name  of  the 

captain  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  guard,  by  whom  (lie 
ruin  of  Jerusalem  was  completed. — W.W. 

NECHO  (iD3 ; Sept.  ; Herodotus, 

Ne/cws),  an  Egyptian  king,  son  and  successor 
(according  to  Herodotus,  ii.  158)  of  Fsamme- 
ticlius,  and  contemporary  of  the  Jewish  king 
Josias  (b.c.  610).  The  wars  and  success  of 
Necho,  in  Syria,  are  recorded  by  sacred  as 
well  as  profane  writers,  affording  an  instance  of 
agreement  between  them  which  the  historical, 
and  especially  the  Biblical  student,  would  be 
glad  to  find  of  more  frequent  occurrence.  Stu- 
dious of  military  renown,  and  the  furtherance  of 
commerce,  Necho,  on  ascending  the  throne  of 
Egypt,  applied  himself  to  re-organize  the  army, 
and  to  equip  a powerful  fleet.  In  order  to  pro- 
mote his  purposes,  he  courted  the  Greeks,  to  whose 
troops  he  gave  a post  next  to  his  Egyptians.  He 
fitted  out  a fleet  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  another 
in  the  Red  Sea  Having  engaged  some  expert 
Phoenician  sailors,  he  sent  them  on  a voyage  of 


discovery  along  the  coast  of  Africa.  ‘ They  were 
ordered  (says  Herod.,  iv.  42,  3)  to  start  from  the 
Arabian  Gulf,  and  come  round  through  the  pillars 
of  Hercules  (the  straits  of  Gibraltar)  into  the 
North  Sea,  and  so  return  to  Egypt.  Sailing, 
therefore,  down  the  gulf,  they  passed  into  the 
Southern  Ocean,  and  when  autumn  arrived,  they 
laid  up  their  ships  and  sowed  the  land.  Here 
they  remained  till  harvest  time,  when,  having 
reaped  the  corn,  they  continued  their  voyage. 
In  this  manner  they  occupied  two  years,  and  the 
third  having  brought  them  by  the  pillars  of  Pler- 
cules  to  Egypt,  they  related  what  to  me  appears 
incredible,  that  they  had  the  sun  on*  their  light 
hand  ; and  by  this  means  was  the  form  of  Africa 
first  known.’  Similar  expeditions  round  Africa 
were  performed  by  other  people  (Herod.,  ut  supra  ; 
Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  n.  67  ; Arrian,  Rcr.  Ind.  ad  fin.). 
The  honour,  however,  of  being  the  first  to  equip 
an  expedition  for  the  purpose  of  circumnavigating 
Africa  belongs  to  Pharaoh- Necho,  who  thereby 
ascertained  the  peninsular  form  of  that  continent, 
twenty-one  centuries  before  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope  was  seen  by  Diaz,  or  doubled  by  Vasco  de 
Gama.  The  assertion  by  Herodotus,  that  the 
suri  (when  rising)  was  on  the  right  hand  of  these 
Egyptian  navigators,  though  incredible  to  him, 
is  satisfactory  to  his  modern  readers,  who  are  in- 
debted to  his  doubts  for  proof  of  a fact  which  might 
otherwise  have  been  called  in  question. 

Before  entering  on  this  voyage  of  discovery, 
Necho  had  commenced  re-opening  the  canal  from 
the  Nile  to  the  Red  Sea,  which  had  been  cut 
many  years  before  by  Sesostris  or  Rameses  the 
Great.  The  work,  however,  if  we  may  believe 
Herodotus,  was  abandoned,  an  oracle  warning  the 
Egyptian  monarch  that  he  was  labouring  for  the 
barbarian  (Herod,  ii.  158). 

Necho  also  turned  his  attention  to  the  Egyptian 
conquests  already  made  in  Asia ; and,  fearing 
lest  the  growing  power  of  the  Babylonians  should 
endanger  the  territories  acquired  by  the  arms  of 
his  victorious  predecessors,  he  determined  to  check 
their  progress,  and  to  attack  the  enemy  on  his  own 
frontier.  With  this  view  he  collected  a powerful 
army,  and  entering  Palestine,  followed  the  route 
along  the  sea-coast  of  Judaea,  intending  to  besiege 
the  town  of  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates.  But 
Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  offended  at  the  passage  of 
the  Egyptian  army  through  his  territories,  resolved 
to  impede,  if  unable  to  prevent,  their  march. 
Necho  sent  messengers  to  induce  him  to  desist, 
assuring  him  that  he  had  no  hostile  intentions 
against  Judaea,  ‘ but  against  the  house  wherewith 
I have  war ; for  God  commanded  me  to  make 
haste.’  This  conciliatory  message  was  of  no  avail. 
Josiah  posted  himself  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo, 
and  prepared  to  oppose  the  Egyptians.  Megiddo 
was  a city  in  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  between  forty 
and  fifty  miles  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem,  and 
within  three  hours  of  the  coast.  It  is  called  by 
Herodotus  Magdolus.  In  this  valley  the  feeble 
forces  of  the  Jewish  king,  having  attacked  Necho, 
were  routed  with  great  slaughter.  Josiati  being 
wounded  in  the  neck  with  an  arrow,  ordered  his 
attendants  to  take  him  from  the  field.  Escaping 
from  the  heavy  shower  of  arrows  with  which  their 
broken  ranks  were  overwhelmed,  they  removed 
him  from  the  chariot  in  which  he  had  been 
wounded,  and  placing  hint  in  a ‘ second  one  that 
he  had,’  they  conveyed  him  to  Jerusalem,  where 


*10  NECOTH. 

he  died  (2  Kings  xxiii.  29  sq. ; 2 Chron.  xxxv. 
20  sq.). 

Intent  upon  his  original  project,  Necho  did  not 
stop  to  revenge  himself  upon  the  Jews,  but  con- 
tinued his  march  to  the  Euphrates.  Three  mouths 
had  scarcely  elapsed,  when,  returning  from  the 
capture  of  Carchemish  and  the  defeat  of  the  Chal- 
daeans,  he  learned  that,  though  Josiah  had  left  an 
elder  son,  Jehoahaz  had  caused  himself  to  be 
proclaimed  king  on  the  death  of  his  father,  with- 
out soliciting  Necho  to  sanction  his  taking  the 
crown.  Incensed  at  this,  he  ordered  Jehoahaz  to 
meet  him  ‘ at  Riblah,  in  the  land  of  Hamath 
and  having  deposed  him,  and  condemned  the  land 
to  pay  a heavy  tribute,  lie  carried  him  a prisoner 
to  Jerusalem.  On  arriving  there,  Necho  made 
Eliakim,  the  eldest  son,  king,  changing  his  name 
to  Jehoiakim ; and  taking  the  silver  and  gold 
which  had  been  levied  upon  the  Jewish  nation,  he 
returned  to  Egypt  with  the  captive  Jehoahaz,  who 
there  terminated  his  short  and  unfortunate  career. 
Herodotus  says  that  Necho,  after  having  routed 
the  Syrians  (the  Jews)  at  Magdolus,  took  Ca- 
dytis,  a large  city  of  Syria,  in  Palestine,  which, 
he  adds,  is  very  little  less  than  Sardis  (ii.  159, 
iii.  5).  By  Cadytis  there  is  scarcely  a doubt  he 
meant  Jerusalem ; the  word  is  only  a Greek  form 
of  the  ancient,  as  well  as  the  modern,  name  of 
that  city.  It  is,  however,  to  be  regretted  that  the 
mural  sculptures  of  Egypt  present  no  commemo- 
ration of  these  triumphs  on  the  part  of  Necho  ; the 
sole  record  of  him  which  they  give  being  the  name 
of  Necho,  found  among  the  hieroglyphics  in  the 
great  hall  of  Karnak.  II is  oval  also  occurs  on 
vases,  and  some  small  objects  of  Egyptian  art. 

Pleased  with  his  success,  the  Egyptian  monarch 
dedicated  the  dress  he  wore  to  the  Deity  who 
was  supposed  to  have  given  him  the  victory.  lie 
did  not  long  enjoy  the  advantages  he  had  ob- 
tained. In  the  fourth  year  after  his  expedition, 
being  alarmed  at  the  increasing  power  of  the 
Babylonians,  he  again  marched  into  Syria,  and 
advanced  to  the  Euphrates.  The  Babylonians 
were  prepared  for  his  approach.  Nebuchadnezzar 
completely  routed  his  army,  recovered  the  town 
of  Carchemish,  and,  pushing  his  conquests  through 
Palestine,  took  from  Necho  all  the  territory  be- 
longing to  the  Pharaohs,  from  the  Euphrates  to 
the  southern  extremity  of  Syria  (2  Kings  xxiv. 
7;  Jer.  xlvi.  2;  2 Chron.  xxxvi.  9;  2 Kings 
xxiv.  8).  Nebuchadnezzar  deposed  Jehoiachin, 
who  had  succeeded  his  father,  and  carried  the 
warriors  and  treasures  away  to  Babylon ; a short 
time  previous  to  which  Necho  died,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Psammetichus  II.  (Wilkinson's  Anc. 
Egyptians,  vol.  i.  157  sq.) 

According  to  Manetho  (Euseb.  Chron.  Armen., 
i.  219),  Necho  was  the  sixth  king  in  the  twenty- 
sixth  dynasty,  successor  of  Psammetichus,  and 
as  there  had  been  another  of  the  same  name,  he 
was  properly  Necho  the  Second.  The  period  of 
his  reign  was,  according  to  Manetho,  six,  accord- 
ing to  Herodotus  sixteen,  years  (Consult  Gese- 
nius,  Isaiah,  i.  596). — J.  R.  B. 

NECOTH  (fi&03).  This  word  occurs  twice 
In  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  no  doubt  indicates 
a product  of  Syria,  for  in  one  case  we  find  it 
carried  into  Egypt  as  an  article  of  commerce, 
and  in  another  sent  as  a present  into  the  same 
country.  It  occurs  in  the  same  passages  as  lada- 


NECOTH. 

num,  which  is  translated  myrrh  in  the  Autluv 
rized  Version.  Many  of  the  same  general  ob» 
ser  vat  ions  will  therefore  apply  to  both  [Lcru] 
Necoth  has  unfortunately  been  rendered  spicery. 
This  it  is  not  likely  to  have  meant,  at  least  in  the 
present  sense  of  the  term,  for  such  commodities 
were  not  likely  to  be  transported  into  Egypt  from 
Gilead,  though  many  Eastern  products  were,  no 
doubt,  carried  north  by  caravans  into  Asia  Minor, 
up  the  Euphrates,  and  by  Palmyra  into  Syria.  In 
the  present  case,  however,  all  the  articles  men- 
tioned, seem  to  be  products  indigenous  in  Syria. 
But  it  is  necessary  to  attend  strictly  to  the  original 
names,  for  we  are  apt  to  be  misled  by  the  English 
translation.  Thus,  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  25,  we  read, 
‘ Behold,  a company  of  Ishmaelites  came  from 
Gilead  with  their  camels,  bearing  spiccry  (necoth), 
and  balm  (tzeri),  and  myrrh  (loth ),  going  to  carry 
it  down  to  Egypt.’  To  these  men  Joseph  was  sold 
by  his  brethren,  when  they  were  feeding  their  Hocks 
at  Dothan,  supposed  to  be  a few  miles  to  the  north 
of  Sebaste,  or  Samaria.  It  is  curious  that 
Jacob,  when  desiring  a present  to  be  taken  to  the 
ruler  of  Egypt,  enumerates  nearly  the  same  ar- 
ticles (Gen.  xliii.  11),  ‘Carry  down  the  man  a 
present,  a little  balm  (tzeri),  and  a little  honey 
(debash),  spices  (necoth)  and  myrrh  (loth) ; or, 

‘ Sumite  de  laudatissimis  lnijus  terrae  fructibus  in 
vasis  vestris,’  as  Bochart  translates  it.  (See  the 
several  words.) 

Bochart  ( llierozoicon , ii.  lib.  iv.  c.  12)  en- 
ters into  a learned  exposition  of  the  meaning 
of  necoth , of  which  Dr.  Harris  has  given  an 
abridged  view  in  his  article  on  spices.  Bochart 
shows  that  t lie  true  import  of  necoth  has  always 
been  considered  uncertain,  for  it  is  rendered  wax 
by  the  paraphrast  Join  than,  in  the  Arabic  version 
of  Erpenius,  and  hi  Beresith  Rabba  (sect.  91,  near 
the  end).  Others  interpret  n very  differently.  The 
Septuagint  renders  it  Svyiaya,  perfume,  Aquila 
storax,  the  Syrian  version  resin,  the  Samaritan 
balsam,  one  Arabic  version  k/nirnoob  or  caroib , 
another  sumugha  (or  gum),  Kimclii  a desirable 
thing , Rabbi  Selomo  a collection  of  several  aro- 
tnatics.  Bochart  himself  considers  it  to  mean 
storax,  and  gives  six  reasons  in  support  of  his 
opinion,  but  none  of  them  appears  of  much  weight. 
Storax,  no  doubt,  was  a natural  product  of  Syria, 
and  an  indigenous  product  seems  to  be  implied; 
and  Jerome  (Gen.  xliii.  11)  follows  Aquila  in 
rendering  it  styrax.  Rosenm  Idler,  in  his  Bibl. 
Bot.  p.  165,  Eng.  transl.,  adopts  tragacanth  as 
the  meaning  of  necoth,  without  expressing  any 
doubt  on  the  subject ; stating  that  ‘ The  Arabic 

word  (l>j  or  neka  or  nekat ) which  is 

analogous  to  the  Hebrew,  denotes  that  gum 
which  is  obtained  from  the  tragacanth,  or,  as  it 
is  commonly  called,  by  way  of  contraction,  tra- 
ganth  shrub,  and  which  grows  on  Mount  Lebanon, 
in  t lie  Isle  of  Candia,  and  also  in  southern  Eu- 
rope.’ We  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  word 
similar  to  necoth , indicating  the  tragacanth, 
which,  in  our  own  MS.  Materia  Medica,  is  given 
under  the  Arabic  name  of  kitad,  sometimes  pro- 
nounced AiYAacJ  / and,  indeed,  it  may  be  fount! 
under  the  same  name  in  Avicenna  and  other 
Arabic  authors.  Tragacanth  is  an  exudation  from 
several  species  of  the  genus  Astragalus,  and  sub- 
division tragacantha , which  is  produced  in  Crete^ 
but  chiefly  in  Northern  Persia  and  in  Koordisfaiu 


NEHEMIAH. 


NEHEMIAH. 


41! 


In  the  latter  province,  Dr.  Dickson,  of  Tripoli,  saw 
large  quantities  of  it  collected  from  plants,  of  which 
he  preserved  specimens,  and  gave  them  to  Mr. 
Brant,  British  consul  at  Erzeroum,  by  whom  they 
were  sent  to  Dr.  Lindley.  One  of  these,  yielding 
the  best  tragacanth,  proved  to  be  A.  gummifer  of 
Labillardiere.  It  was  found  by  him  on  Mount 
Lebanon,  where  he  ascertained  that  tragacanth  was 
collected  by  the  shepherds.  It  might  therefore 
have  been  conveyed  by  Ishmaelites  from  Gilead  to 
Egypt.  It  has  in  its  favour,  that  it  is  a produce  of 
the  remote  parts  of  Syria,  is  described  by  ancient 
authors,  as  Theophrastus,  Dioscorides,  &c.,  and  has 
.always  been  highly  esteemed  as  a gum  in  Eastern 
countries : it  was,  therefore,  very  likely  to  be  an 
article  of  commerce  to  Egypt  in  ancient  times. 


In  Richardson’s  Arabic  Dictionary  we 


find  Slaj 


nakat , translated  as  meaning  the  best  part  of 
com  (or  dates)  when  sifted  or  cleaned ; also  nu- 
kayet,  the  choicest  part  of  anything  cleaned,  but 
sometimes  also  the  refuse. — J.  F.  R. 


NEGINIOTH,  a word  which  occurs  in  the 
titles  of  several  Psalms  [Psalms]. 

NEHEMIAH  (PlJDIp,  comforted  of  Jehovah; 
Sept.  N ee/ilas).  Three  persons  of  this  name  occur 
in  Scripture;  one,  the  son  of  Azbuk  (Neh.iii.  16), 
respecting  whom  no  more  is  known  than  that  he 
was  ruler  in  Beth-zur,  and  took  a prominent  part 
in  repairing  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  [Beth-zur], 
Another  is  mentioned  (Ezra  ii.  2;  Nell.  vii.  7) 
among  those  who  accompanied  Zerubbabel  on  the 
first  return  from  captivity.  Nothing  further  is 
known  of  this  man,  though  some  writers  (see 
Carpzov,  Introd.  ad  Lib.  Bib.  Vet.  Testament i, 
P.  i.  340,  sq.)  hold  him,  without  valid  reasons, 
fo  be  the  same  with  the  well-known  Jewish  patriot, 

Nehemiah,  whose  genealogy  is  unknown,  ex- 
cept that  he  was  the  son  of  Hachaliah  (Neh.  i.  1), 
and  brother  of  Hanani  (Neh.  vii.  2).  Some  think 
he  was  of  priestly  descent,  because  his  name  ap- 
pears at  the  head  of  a list  of  priests  in  Neh.  x.  1-8  ; 
but  it  is  obvious,  from  Neh.  ix.  38,  that  he  stands 
there  as  a prince,  and  not  as  a priest — that  he 
heads  the  list  because  he  was  head  of  the  nation. 
The  Vulgate,  in  2 Macc.  i.  21,  calls  him  ‘sacerdos 
Nehemias  but  this  is  a false  version  of  the  Greek, 
which  has  e/ce Aewre  rovs  iepeis  Neejuias,  and  not  S 
Iepeu9,  which  the  Latin  would  require.  The  Syriac 
agrees  with  the  Greek.  Others  with  some  proba- 
bility infer,  from  his  station  at  the  Persian  court  and 
the  high  commission  he  received,  that  he  was,  like 
Zerubbabel,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  and  of  the  house 
of  David  (Carpzov,  Introduction  & c.,  P.  i.  339). 

While  Nehemiah  was  cupbearer  in  the  royal 
palace  at  Shushan,  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Avta- 
xerxes  Longimanus,  or  444  years  b.c.  [Arta- 
xerxes],  he  learned  the  mournful  and  desolate 
condition  of  the  returned  colony  in  Judaea. 
This  filled  him  with  such  deep  and  prayerful 
concern  for  his  country,  that  his  sad  countenance 
revealed  to  the  king  his  ‘ sorrow  of  heart;’  which 
induced  the  monarch  to  ascertain  the  cause,  and 
also  to  vouchsafe  the  remedy,  by  sending  him, 
with  full  powers,  to  rebuild  the  wall  of  Jerusalem, 
and  ‘ to  seek  the  welfare  of  the  children  of  Israel.’ 
Being  furnished  with  this  high  commission,  and 
enjoying  the  protection  of  a military  escort  (ch. 
ii.  9),  Nehemiah  reached  Jerusalem  in  the  year 
b.c.  444,  and  remained  there  till  b.c.  432,  being 


actively  engaged  for  twelve  years  in  promoting 
the  public  good  (ch.  v.  14).  The  principal  wor* 
which  he  then  accomplished  was  the  rebuilding, 
or  rather  the  repairing,  of  the  city  wall,  which  was 
done  ‘ in  fifty  and  two  days  ’ (ch.  vi.  15),  notwith 
standing  many  discouragements  and  difficulties, 
caused  chiefly  by  Sanballat,  a Moabite  of  Ho- 
ronaim,  and  Tobiah,  an  Ammonite,  who  were 
leading  men  in  the  rival  and  unfriendly  colony 
of  Samaria  (ch.  iv.  1-3).  These  men,  with  their 
allies  among  the  Arabians,  Ammonites,  ami  Ash- 
dodites  (ch.  iv.7),  sought  to  hinder  the  re-fortify- 
ing of  Jerusalem,  first  by  scoffing  at  the  attempt ; 
then  by  threatening  to  attack  the  workmen — which 
Nehemiah  averted  by  i setting  a watch  against 
them  day  and  uight,’  and  arming  the  whole  people, 
so  that  ‘ every  one  with  one  of  his  hands  wrought 
in  the  work,  and  with  the  other  hand  held  a wea- 
pon ’ (ch.  iv.  7-18)  ; and  finally,  when  scoffs  and 
threats  had  failed,  by  using  various  stratagems  to 
weaken  Nehemiah 's  authority,  and  even  to  take 
his  life  (ch.  vi.  1-14).  But  in  the  midst  of  these 
dangers  from  without,  our  patriot  encountered 
troubles  and  hiuderances  from  his  own  people, 
arising  out  of  the  general  distress,  which  was  ag- 
gravated by  the  cruel  exactions  and  oppression  of 
their  nobles  and  rulers  (ch.  v.  1-5).  These  popular 
grievances  were  promptly  redressed  on  the  earnest 
and  solemn  remonstrance  of  Nehemiah,  who  had 
himself  set  a striking  example  of  retrenchment 
and  generosity  in  his  high  office  (ch.  v.  6-19).  It 
appears  also  (ch.  vi.  17-19)  that  some  of  the  chief 
men  in  Jerusalem  were  at  that  time  in  conspiracy 
with  Tobiah  against  Nehemiah.  The  wall  was 
thus  built  in  £ troublous  times'  (Dan.  ix.  25)  ; and 
its  completion  was  most  joyously  celebrated  by  a 
solemn  dedication  under  Nehemiah's  direction 
(ch.  xii.  27-43). 

Having  succeeded  in  fortifying  the  city,  our 
reformer  turned  his  attention  to  other  measures  in 
order  to  secure  its  good  government  and  prosperity. 
He  appointed  some  necessary  officers  (ch.  vii  .1-3  ; 
also  ch.  xii.  44-47),  and  excited  among  the  people 
more  interest  and  zeal  in  religion  by  the  public 
reading  and  exposition  of  the  law  (ch.  viii.  1-12), 
by  the  unequalled  celebration  of  the  Feast  of  Ta- 
bernacles (ch.  viii.  13-18),  and  by  the  observance 
of  a national  fast,  when  the  sins  of  the  people  and 
the  iniquities  of  their  fathers  were  publicly  and 
most  strikingly  confessed  (ch.  ix.),  and  when 
also  a solemn  covenant  was  made  by  all  ranks 
and  classes  { to  walk  in  God's  law,’  by  avoiding 
intermarriages  with  the  heathen,  by  strictly  ob- 
serving the  Sabbath,  and  by  contributing  to  the 
support  of  the  temple  service  (ch.  x.).  But  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  were  as  yet  too  few  to  de- 
fend it  and  to  ensure  its  prosperity  ; and  hence 
Nehemiah  brought,  one  out  of  every  ten  in  the 
country  to  take  up  his  abode  in  the  ancient  capital, 
which  then  presented  so  few  inducements  to  the 
settler,  that  ‘ the  people  blessed  all  the  men  that 
willingly  offered  themselves  to  dwell  at  Jerusalem  ’ 
(ch.  vii.  4;  also  ch.  xi.  1-19). 

In  these  important,  public  proceedings,  which 
appear  all  to  have  happened  in  the  first  year  of 
his  government,  Nehemiah  enjoyed  the  assistance 
of  Ezra,  who  is  named  on  several  occasions  as 
taking  a prominent  part  in  conducting  affairs 
(ch.  viii.  1,  9,  13;  xii.  36).  Ezra  had  gone  up 
to  Jerusalem  thirteen  years  before  according  to 
some,  or  thirty-three  years  according  to  others ; 


412 


NEHEMIAH. 


NEHEMIAH. 


but  on  either  reckoning,  without  supposing  un- 
usual longevity,  he  might  well  have  lived  to  be  Ne- 
hemiah’s  fellow-labourer  [Ezra].  These  contem- 
poraries are  alike  eminent  among  the  benefactors 
of  the  Jewish  people — alike  patriotic  and  zealous, 
though  not  uniform  in  character,  or  the  same  in 
operation.  In  the  character  of  Ezra  we  find  no 
indication  of  the  self-complacency  which  forms 
a marked  feature  in  that  of  Nehemiah.  The 
former,  in  accordance  with  his  priestly  calling, 
laboured  chiefly  in  promoting  the  interests  of  re- 
ligion, but  the  latter  had  most  to  do  with  the 
general  affairs  of  government ; the  one  was  in 
charge  of  the  temple,  the  other  of  the  state. 

Nehemiah,  at  the  close  of  his  successful  admi- 
nistration, ‘ from  the  twentieth  year  even  to  the 
thirty- second  year  of  ATtaxerxes  the  king’  (ch.  v. 
14),  returned  to  Babylon  in  the  year  b.c.  432, 
and  resumed,  as  some  think,  his  duties  as  royal 
cupbearer. 

He  returned,  however,  after  a while,  to  Jeru- 
salem, where  his  services  became  again  requisite,  in 
consequence  of  abuses  that  had  crept  in  during  his 
absence.  His  stay  at  the  court  of  Artaxerxes  was 
not  very  long  (certainly  not  above  nine  years)  ; 
‘ for  after  certain  days  he  obtained  leave  of  the 
king  and  came  to  Jerusalem’  (ch.  xiii.  6,  7). 

The  phrase  ‘ after  certain  days  ’ 

the  end  of  days ) is  indeed  quite  vague,  and 
hence  many  take  it,  as  in  our  common  bibli- 
cal chronology,  for  the  space  of  one  year,  while 
others,  on  the  contrary,  reckon  it  a period  of 
about  twenty  years,  and  so  consider  the  return 
to  have  happened  about  b.c.  410  (Prideaux,  i. 
520 ; Jahn,  Einleitung  ins  A.  Test.  ii.  288 ; 
W iner,  Real-io'arterbach ).  But  the  former  reckon- 
ing appears  too  short,  for  it  is  exceedingly  impro- 
bable that  affairs  could  fall  into  such  confusion 
had  Nehemiah  been  absent  only  one  year ; and 
the  latter,  though  it  has  much  in  its  favour,  is  too 
long,  for  it  makes  Nehemiah  return  after  the  death 
of  the  very  king  from  whom  he  obtained  leave  to 
depart.  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  died  in  b.c.  423, 
having  reigned  forty-one  years  ; and  hence  Nehe- 
miah’s  return  to  Jerusalem  cannot  be  dated  later 
than  b.c.  423,  which  allows  only  nine  years  for 
his  stay  at  Babylon.  If,  then,  we  date  his  return 
about,  b.c.  424,  we  at  once  bring  it  within  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes,  and  allow  time  enough  for 
abuses  to  creep  in  during  his  absence,  or  at  least 
for  the  particular  abuse  which  is  expressly  named 
(ch.  xiii.  4-9)  as  having  actually  arisen  (Hiiver- 
nick,  Einleitung  ins  A.  Test.  ii.  324). 

After  his  return  to  the  government  of  Judsea, 
Nehemiah  enforced  the  separation  of  all  the 
mixed  multitude  from  Israel  (ch.  xiii.  1-3);  and 
accordingly  expelled  Tobiah  the  Ammonite  from 
the  chamber  which  the  high-priest.,  Eliashib,  had 
prepared  for  him  in  the  temple  (ch.  xiii.  4-9). 
Better  arrangements  were  also  made  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  temple  service  (ch.  xiii.  10-14),  and 
for  the  rigid  observance  of  the  Sabbath  (ch.  xiii. 
15-22).  One  of  the  last  acts  of  his  government 
was  an  effort  to  put  an  end  to  mixed  marriages, 
which  led  him  to  ‘ chase  ’ away  a son  of  Joiada 
the  high-priest,  because  he  was  son-in-law  to  Sau- 
ballat  the  Horonite  (ch.  xiii.  23-29).  The  dura- 
tion of  this  second  administration  cannot  be  de- 
termined : only  it  is  evident  that  Joiada  was  high- 
priest  during  that  period.  Now  Joiada,  according 


to  some  chronologists,  succeeded  his  father  Eli» 
shib  in  the  year  b.c.  413;  and  hence  we  may 
gather  that  Nehemiah’s  second  rule  lasted  at  leas* 
ten  years,  namely,  from  b.c.  424  to  413.  It  is 
not  unlikely  that  he  remained  at  his  post  till 
about  the  year  b.c.  405,  towards  the  close  of  the 
reign  of  Darius  Notlius,  who  is  mentioned  in 
ch.  xii.  22  [Darius].  At  this  time  Nehemiah 
would  be  between  sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  if 
we  suppose  him  (as  most  do)  to  have  been  only 
between  twenty  and  thirty  when  he  first  went  to 
Jerusalem.  That  lie  lived  to  be  an  old  mau  is 
thus  quite  probable  from  the  sacred  history  ; 
and  this  is  expressly  declared  by  Josephus,  who 
( Antiq . xi.  5,  6)  states  that  he  died  at  an  ad- 
vanced age  ( e Is  yrjpas  a (piKdjuevos).  Of  the  place 
and  year  of  his  death  nothing  is  known. 

Besides  the  account  in  Josephus,  there  are 
some  notices  of  Nehemiah  in  the  Apocrypha. 
The  Son  of  Sirach  (ch.  xlix.  13)  mentions  him 
with  great  honour  as  the  rebuilder  of  the  city 
walls;  and  in  2 Macc.  i.  19-36,  he  is  said  to 
have  discovered  the  holy  fire  that  had  been  con- 
cealed by  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  at  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  which  is  clearly  a mere  legend. 
In  2 Macc.  ii.  13,  he  is  said  to  have  formed  a 
library,  and  collected  the  books  of  the  kings  and 
prophets,  and  of  David;  and  hence  some  think  it 
probable  that  he  was  concerned  in  forming  the 
canon  of  Hebrew  Scriptures — which  is  quite 
credible  [Cats on]. 

Two  titles  are  given  to  Nehemiah,  expressive 
of  his  office.  One  is  nflS  (ch.  xii.  26),  which 
is  translated  ‘ governor.’  It  is  considered  a 
Persian  word,  meaning  friend  or  assistant  of  a 
king,  and  of  the  same  origin  as  pasha , still  used 
for  the  governor  of  a Turkish  province.  The 
other  is  tirshatha.,  in  ch.  viii.  9,  which 

might  also  be  translated  ‘ governor,’  as  it  comes 
probably  from  a Persian  word,  meaning  severe 
or  stern,  and  hence  applicable  to  a ruler.  But 
in  Nell.  vii.  65,  70,  this  title  denotes  not  Nehe- 
miah, but  Zerubbabel,  as  is  evident  from  Ezra 
ii.  63-70. 

The  Book  or  Nehemiah,  which  bears  the 
title  rOlOriJ  Nehemiah’s  Words , was  an- 

ciently connected  with  Ezra,  as  if  it  formed  part  of 
the  same  work  (Eichhorn,  Einleitung , ii.  627) 
This  connection  is  still  indicated  by  its  first  word, 
*m,  ‘ And  it  came  to  pass.’  It  arose,  doubtless, 
from  the  fact  that  Nehemiah  is  a sort  of  continu- 
ation of  Ezra  [Ezra].  From  this  circumstance 
some  ancient  writers  were  led  to  call  this  book  the 
2nd  book  of  Ezra,  and  even  to  regard  that  learned 
scribe  as  the  author  of  it,  (Carpzov,  Introductio. 

c.  p.  336).  There  can,  however,  be  no  reason- 
able doubt  that  it  proceeded  from  Nehemiah,  for 
its  style  and  spirit,  except  in  one  portion,  are 
wholly  unlike  Ezra’s.  Here  we  find  no  Chaldee 
documents,  as  in  Ezra,  though  we  might  expect 
some  from  ch.  ii.  7,  8,  9,  and  ch.  vi.  5 ; and 
here  also  the  writer  discovers  a species  of  egotism 
never  manifested  by  Ezra  (Neh.  v.  14-19,  Eich- 
horn, Einleitung  ins  A.  Test.  ii.  619). 

The  canonical  character  of  Nehemiah's  work  is 
established  by  very  ancient  testimony.  It  should 
be  noticed,  however,  that  this  book  is  not  expressly 
named  by  Melito  of  Sardis  [a.d.  170]  in  his 
account  of  the  sacred  writings ; but  this  creates 
no  difficulty,  since  he  does  mention  Ezra,  of 


NEHEMIAH. 


NERD. 


418 


which  Nehemiah  was  then  considered  but  a part 
(Eichhorn,  Einleitung , ii.  627). 

The  contents  of  the  book  have  been  specified 
above  in  the  biography  of  the  author.  The  work 
can  scarcely  be  called  a history  of  Nehemiah  and 
his  times.  It  is  rather  a collection  of  notices  of 
some  important  transactions  that  happened  during 
the  first  year  of  his  government,  with  a few  scraps 
from  his  later  history.  The  contents  appear  to 
be  arranged  in  chronological  order,  with  the  ex- 
ception perhaps  of  ch.  xii.  27-43,  where  the  ac- 
count of  the  dedication  of  the  wall  seems  out  of 
its  proper  place  : we  might  expect  it  rather  after 
ch.  vii.  1-4,  where  the  completion  of  the  wall  is 
mentioned. 

As  to  the  date  of  the  book,  it  is  not  likely  that 
it  came  from  Nehemiah’s  hand  till  near  the  close 
of  his  life.  Certainly  it  could  not  have  been  all 
written  before  the  expulsion  of  the  priest,  recorded 
in  ch.  xiii.  23-29,  which  took  place  about  the 
year  b.c.  413. 

While  the  book  as  a whole  is  considered  to 
have  come  from  Nehemiah,  it  consists  in  part  of 
compilation.  He  doubtless  wrote  the  greater  part 
himself,  but  some  portions  he  evidently  took  from 
other  works.  It  is  allowed  by  all  that  he  is,  in 
the  strictest,  sense,  the  author  of  the  narrative 
from  ch.  i.  to  ch.  vii.  5 (Havernick,  Einleitung , 
ii.  304).  The  account  in  ch.  vii.  6-73  is  avow- 
edly compiled,  for  he  says  in  ver.  5,  ‘ I found  a 
register,’  &c.  This  register  we  actually  find  also 
in  Ezra  ii.  1-70 : hence  it  might  be  thought  that 
our  author  borrowed  this  part  from  Ezra;  but  it 
is  more  likely  that  they  both  copied  from  public 
documents,  such  as  ‘the  book  of  the  chronicles’ 
(D^rt  l'"D*l),  mentioned  in  Nell.  xii.  23.  Had 
Nehemiah  taken  his  list  from  Ezra,  we  might 
expect  agreement,  if  not  identity,  in  the  contents  ; 
whereas  the  two  registers  present  an  amazing 
number  of  palpable  discrepancies,  which  can 
scarcely  be  accounted  for  without  supposing  that 
they  were  taken  from  public  records  that  were 
discordant.  It  is,  however,  barely  possible  that 
the  discrepancies  arose  from  the  errors  of  tran- 
scribers. 

Chapters  viii.-x.  were  probably  not  written  by 
Nehemiah,  since  the  narrative  respecting  him  is  in 
the  third  person  (ch.  viii.  9 ; x.  1),  and  not  in  the 
first,  as  usual  (ch.  ii.  9-20).  Havernick,  indeed, 
(Einleitung,  ii.  305-308)  makes  it  appear,  from 
the  contents  and  style,  that  Ezra  was  the  writer 
of  this  portion.  The  remaining  chapters  (xi.-xiii.) 
also  exhibit  some  marks  of  compilation  (ch.  xii. 
26,  47) ; but  there  are,  on  the  contrary,  clear 
proofs  of  Nehemiah’s  own  authorship  in  ch.  xii. 
27-43,  and  in  ch.  xiii.  6-31 ; and  hence  Haver- 
nick thinks  he  wrote  the  whole  except  ch.  xii. 
1-26,  which  he  took  from  ‘the  book  of  the  chro- 
nicles,’ mentioned  in  ver.  23  {Einleitung , ii.  315- 
319). 

The  mention  of  Jaddua  as  a high-priest,  in 
ch.  xii.  11,  22,  has  occasioned  much  perplexity. 
This  Jaddua  appears  to  have  been  in  office  in 
B.c.  332,  when  Alexander  the  Great  came  to 
Jerusalem  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xi.  8)  : how  then  could 
he  be  named  by  Nehemiah  ? The  common,  and 
perhaps  the  readiest,  escape  from  this  difficulty 
is  to  regard  the  naming  of  Jaddua  as  an  addition 
by  a later  hand.  Yet  it  is  just  credible  that 
Nehemiah  wrote  it,  if  we  bear  h*  mind  that  he 
lived  to  be  an  old  man,  so  as  possibly  to  see  the 


year  b.c.  370 ; and  if  we  further  suppose  that 
Jaddua  had  at  that  time  entered  on  his  office,  so 
that  he  filled  it  for  about  foity  years,  i.  e.  till 
b.c.  332.  In  supjjort  of  this  conjecture,  see  espe- 
cially Hiivernick  s Einleitung,  ii.  320-324. 

The  exegetical  helps  for  the  explanation  of  this 
book  are  chiefly,  Poli  Synopsis;  Jo.  Clerici 
Comm,  in  Lib.  Historicos  V.  T.,  Amst.  1708; 
Maurer,  Comment.  Crit.  Grammat.  in  V.  T.,  vol.  i. 
Lips.  1833;  Strigelii  Scholia  in  Nehem.,  Lips. 
1575  ; and  Ram  bach,  Annotations  in  Librum 
Nehemice. — B.  D. 

NEHILOTH,  a word  which  occurs  in  the  title 
of  the  fifth  Psalm  [Psai.ms]. 

NEHUSHTA  (NM?n|,  brass;  Sept.  NeVfc*), 
the  mother  of  king  Jehoiachin  (2  Kings  xxiv.  8). 

NER  p2,  a light ; Sept.  N yp),  grandfather  of 
kingSaul  (1  Sam.  xiv.  50,  51  ; xxvi.5;  1 Chron. 
viii.  33). 

NERD  or  Nard  0*1?.)  is  mentioned  in  three 
places  in  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  by  Mark  and 
John  in  the  New  Testament,  under  the  name  of 
vdpdos.  Both  are  translated  in  the  Authorized 
Version  by  the  word  spikenard,  •which  indicates 
a far-famed  perfume  of  the  East,  that  has  often 
engaged  the  attention  of  critics,  but  the  plant 
which  yields  it  has  only  been  ascertained  in  very- 
recent  times.  That  the  nerd  of  Scripture  was  a 


433.  [Nardostachys  Jatamansi.] 

perfume  is  evident  from  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs.  Cant.  i.  12  : ‘ While  the  king  sitteth  at 
his  table,  my  spikenard  (nard)  sendeth  forth 
the  smell  thereof.’  So  in  Cant.  iv.  14  : ‘Spike- 
nard and  saffron,  calamus  and  cinnamon,  with 
all  trees  of  frankincense,  myrrh  and  aloes,  with 
all  the  chief  spices.’  Here  we  find  it  men 


NERD. 


NERD. 


41 4 


tioned  along  with  many  of  the  most  valued  aro- 
matics which  were  known  to  the  ancients,  and  all 
of  which,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  saffron, 
must  have  been  obtained  by  foreign  commerce 
from  distant  countries,  as  Persia,  the  east  coast  of 
Africa,  Ceylon,  the  north-west  and  the  south-east 
of  India,  and  in  the  present  instance  even  from 
the  remote  Himalayan  mountains.  Such  sub- 
■ stances  must  necessarily  have  been  costly  when 
the  means  of  communication  were  defective,  and 
! the  gains  of  the  successful  merchant  propor- 
tionally great.  That  the  nard  or  nardus  was  of 
great  value  we  learn  from  the  New  Testament 
(Mark  xiv.  3).  When  our  Saviour  sat  at  meat 
in  Bethany,  ‘ there  came  a woman  having  an 
alabaster  box  of  ointment  of  (vapSov)  spikenard 
very  precious ; and  she  brake  the  box,  and  poured 
it  on  his  head.’  So  in  John  xii.  3 : ‘Then  took 
Mary  a pound  of  ointment  of  spikenard  (iivpov 
vapdov),  very  costly,  and  anointed  the  feet  of 
Jesus,  and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair ; and  the 
house  was  filled  with  the  odour  of  the  ointment.’ 
On  this  Judas,  who  afterwards  betrayed  our 
Saviour,  said  (ver.  5),  ‘ Why  was  not.  this  oint- 
ment sold  for  three  hundred  pence,  and  given  to 
the  poor?’ 

Before  proceeding  to  identify  the  plant  yielding 
nard,  we  may  refer  to  the  knowledge  which  the 
ancients  had  of  this  ointment.  Horace,  at  a 
neriod  nearly  contemporary,  ‘promises  td  Virgil 
a whole  cadus  (about  thirty-six  quarts)  of  wine, 
for  a small  onyx-box  full  of  spikenard’  (Rosen- 
on  filler,  p.  168), 

Nardo  vina  mere  here. 

Nardi  parvus  onyx  eliciet  cadum. 

The  composition  of  this  ointment  is  given  by 
Dioscorides,  in  lib.  i.  c.  77,  ir ep\  vapd'ivov  pvpov, 
where  it  is  described  as  being  made  with  nut  oil, 
and  having  as  ingredients  malabathrum,  schoenus, 
costus,  amomum,  nardus,  myrrha,  and  balsa- 
mum  ; that  is,  almost  all  the  most  valued  per- 
fumes of  antiquity. 


43^.  [Spikenard  from  a druggist’s  in  London.] 

Tbe  nard,  vapdos,  was  known  in  very  early 
times,  and  is  noticed  by  Theophrastus,  and  by 
Hip^>crates.  Dioscorides,  indeed,  describes  three 


kinds  of  naid.  Of  the  first,  called  vapdos  ( nar - 
dos)  simply,  there  were  two  varieties,  the  one 
Syrian,  the  other  Indian.  The  former  is  sc 
called,  not  because  it  is  produced  in  Syria,  but 
because  the  mountains  in  which  it  is  produced 
extend  on  one  side  towards  Syria,  and  on  the 
other  towards  India.  This  may  refer  to  the 
Hindoo  Khoosh,  and  to  the  extensive  signification 
of  the  name  Syria  in  ancient  times,  or  to  so  many 
Indian  products  finding  their  way  in  those  ages 
into  Europe  across  Syria.  These  were  brought 
there  either  by  the  caravan  route  from  north-west 
India,  or  up  the  Persian  Gulf  and  Euphrates. 
It  is  evident,  from  the  passages  quoted,  that  nard 
could  not  have  been  a produce  of  Syria,  or  its 
value  would  nothave  been  so  greateither  among  the 
Romans  or  the  Jews.  The  other  variety  is  called 
Gangitis,  from  the  Ganges,  being  found  on  a 
mountain  round  which  it  flows.  It  is  described 
as  having  many  spikes  from  one  root.  Hence  it,  no 
doubt,  came  to  be  called  vapd6<TTax,vs ; and  from 
the  word  stachys  being  rendered  by  the  word 
spike , it  has  been  translated  spikenard.  The 
second  kind  is  by  Dioscorides,  called  Celtic 
Nard  (vapdos  /ceA/nfcnj),  and  the  third  kind  moun- 
tain nard  (vapdos  bpeivfj).  If  we  consult  the 
authors  subsequent  to  Dioscorides,  as  Galen, 
Pliny,  Oribasius,  .^Etius,  and  Paulus  .^Egineta, 
we  shall  easily  be  able  to  trace  these  different 
kinds  to  the  time  of  the  Arabs.  As  the  author 
of  this  article  has  already  said  ( v.  infra),  on 
consulting  Avicenna,  we  are  referred  from  nar • 
den  to  sunbul , pronounced  sumbul , and  in  the 
Latin  translation  from  nardum  to  spica,  under 
which  the  Roman,  the  mountain,  the  Indian, 
and  Syrian  kinds  are  mentioned.  So  in  Per- 
sian works  on  Materia  Medica,  chiefly  trans- 
lations from  the  Arabic,  we  have  the  different 
kinds  of  swibnl  mentioned;  as — 1.  Sunbul 
hindee.  2.  Sunbul  roomie , called  also  sunbul 
ukletee  and  narden  ukletee , evidently  the  above 
Celtic  nard,  said  also  to  be  called  sunbul 
italion , that  is,  the  nard  which  grows  in  Italy. 
3.  Sunbul  jibullee,  or  mountain  nard.  The  first, 
however,  is  the  only  one  with  which  we  are  at 
present  concerned.  The  synonymes  given  to  it  in 
these  Persian  works  are, — Arabic,  sunbul  al  teeb , 
or  fragrant  nard ; Greek,  narden ; Latin,  nar- 
doom;  and  Hindee,  balchur  and  jatamansee. 

Sir  William  Jones  ( Asiat . Res.  ii.  416,  8vo.) 
was  the  first  to  ascertain  that  the  above  Hindee 
and  Sanscrit  synonymes  referred  to  the  true  spike- 
nard, and  that  the  Arabs  described  it  as  being 
like  the  tail  of  an  ermine.  The  next  step  was 
of  course  to  attempt  to  get  the  plant  which  pro- 
duced the  drug.  This  he  was  not  successful  in 
doing,  because  he  had  not  access  to  the  Hima- 
layan mountains,  and  a wrong  plant  was  sent 
him,  which  is  that  figured  and  described  by  Dr. 
Roxburgh  (Asiat.  Res.  iv.  97,  438).  The  author 
of  this  article,  when  in  charge  of  the  East  India 
Company’s  botanic  garden  at  Seharunpore,  in 
30°  of  N.  latitude,  about  30  miles  from  the  foot 
of  the  Himalayan  mountains,  being  favourably 
situated  for  the  purpose,  made  inquiries  on  the 
subject.  He  there  learnt  that  jatamansi,  better 
known  in  India  by  the  name  balchur , was  yearly 
brought  down  in  considerable  quantities,  as  an 
article  of  commerce,  to  the  plains  of  India,  from 
such  mountains  as  Shalma,  Kedar  Kanta,  and 
others,  at  the  foot  of  which  flow  the  Ganges  and 


NERGAL. 


NET. 


419 


Jumna  rivers.  Having  obtained  some  of  the 
fresh  brought  down  roo.’s,  he  planted  them,  both  In 
the  botanic  garden  at  Seharunpore  and  in  a nursery 
at  Mussooree,  in  the  Himalaya,  attached  to  the 
garden.  The  plants  produced  are  figured  in  his 
Illustrations  of  Himalayan  Botany , t.  54,  and 
a reduced  figure  is  given  in  the  accompanying 
wood-cut  (No.  433).  The  plant  produced  was 
found  to  belong  to  the  natural  family  of  Vale- 
rianece , and  has  been  named  nardostachys  jata- 
mansi  by  De  Candolle,  and  formerly  patrinia 
jaiamansi,  by  Mr.  Dow,  from  plants  sent  home 
by  Dr.  Wallich  from  Gossamtham,  a mountain 
of  Nepal  ( Penny  Cyclopedia,  art.  Spikenard ; 
and  Royle,  Illust.  Himal.  Botany,  p.  242). 

Hence  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  jata- 
mansi  of  the  Hindoos  is  the  sunbicl  hindee  of 
the  Arabs,  which  they  compare  to  the  tail  of  an 
ermine.  This  would  almost  be  sufficient  to  iden- 
tify the  drug : the  appearance  to  which  it  refers 
may  be  seen  even  in  the  wood-cut  (434,  fig.  1),  but 
very  conspicuously  in  the  specimens  of  the  drug 
which  the  author  has  deposited  in  the  Museum  of 
Materia  Medica  in  King’s  College.  This  is  pro- 
duced in  consequence  of  the  woody  fibres  of  the 
leaf  and  its  footstalk  not  being  decomposed  in 
the  cold  and  comparatively  dry  climate  where 
they  are  produced,  but  remain  and  form  a pro- 
tection to  the  plant  from  the  severity  of  the  cold. 
There  can  be  as  little  doubt  that  the  Arabs  refer 
to  the  descriptions  of  Dioscorides,  and  both  they, 
and  the  Christian  physicians  who  assisted  them  in 
making  translations,  had  ample  opportunities,  Irom 
their  profession  and  their  local  situation,  of  becom- 
ing well  acquainted  with  tilings  as  well' as  words. 
There  is  as  little  reason  to  doubt  that  the  vdpbos 
of  Dioscorides  is  that  of  the  other  Greek  authors, 
and  this  will  carry  us  into  ancient  times.  As 
many  Indian  products  found  their  way  into  Egypt 
and  Palestine,  and  are  mentioned  in  Scripture, 
indeed  in  the  very  passage  with  nard  we  have 
calamus,  cinnamon,  and  aloes  (ahalim),  there  is 
no  reason  why  spikenard  from  the  Himalayas 
could  not  as  easily  have  been  procured.  The 
only  difficulty  appears  to  arise  from  the  term 
yapdos  having  occasionally  been  used  in  a ge- 
neral sense,  and  therefore  there  is  sometimes  con- 
fusion between  the  nard  and  the  sweet  cane 
[Kankh  bosem],  another  Indian  product.  Some 
difference  of  opinion  exists  respecting  the  fra- 
grance of  the  jatamansi : it  may  be  sufficient  to 
state  that  it  continues  to  be  highly  esteemed  in 
Eastern  countries  in  the  present  day,  where  fra- 
grant essences  are  still  procured  from  it,  as  the 
unyuentum  nardinum  was  of  old. — J.  F.  R. 

NERGAL  (Vrj3;  Sept.  ’EpyeX),  an  idol  of 
the  Cuthites  (2  Kings  xvii.  30).  The  Rabbinical 
commentators  believe  that-  this  idol  was  in  the 
form  of  a cock ; founding  their  not  very  happy 
conjecture  apparently  upon  the  fact  that  in  the 

Talmud  the  similar  word,  tarnegol,  means 

a cock.  The  more  measured  researches  of  Nor- 
berg,  Gesenius,  and  other  inquirers  into  the 
astroiatry  of  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldaeans,  lead 

to  the  conclusion  that  ^“13  is  the  same  as  the 
Za'oian  which  was  the  name  for  the  planet 

Mars.  This  name  of  the  planet,  both  among  the 
Zal'ians  and  Arabians,  means  ill-luck,  misfortune ; 


and  it  was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  the  mythology 
of  the  West  to  make  it  the  symbol  of  bloodshed 
and  war.  Among  the  people  first  named,  the 
planet  Mars  was  typified  under  the  figure  of  a 
man  holding  in  one  hand  a drawn  sword,  and  in 
the  other  a human  head  just/jut  off;  and  his  gar- 
ments were  also  red,  which,  as  well  as  the  other 
ideas  attached  to  this  idol,  were  no  doubt  founded 
on  the  reddish  hue  which  the  body  of  the  planet 
presents  to  the  eye.  Among  the  southern  Arabs 
his  temple  was  painted  red  ; and  they  offered  to 
him  garments  stained  with  blood,  and  also  a war- 
rior (probably  a prisoner),  who  was  cast  into  apool. 
It  is  related,  of  the  khalif  Hakeem  that  in  the 
last  night  of  his  life,  as  he  observed  the  stars, 
and  saw  the  planet  Mars  rise  above  the  horizon, 
he  murmured  between  his  lips,  ‘ Dost  thou  ascend, 
thou  accursed  shedder  of  blood  ? then  is  my  hour 
come;’  and  at  that  moment  the  assassins  sprang 
upon  him  from  their  hiding-place  ’ (Mohammed 
Abu  Taleb,  a]).  Norberg,  Onomast.  p.  105;  Bar- 
Hebrceus,  p.  220).  Von  Bohlen  would  rather 
derive  the  name  from  the  Sanscrit  Nrigal,  ‘ man- 
devourer,’  spoken  of  a fierce  warrior,  and  corre- 
sponding to  Merodach  (Gesenius,  Thesaxcr.  p.  913, 
and  Comment.  zu  Jesa,  ii.  p.  344). 

NERGAL-SH AREZER  ; Pers. 

Her  gal,  prince  of  fire  ; Sept.  TStepiyMeradp).  1 . A 
military  chieftain  under  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer. 
xxxix.  3).  2.  The  chief  of  the  magi  (Rab-mag) 

under  the  same  king,  and  present  in  the  same 
expedition  (Jer.  xxxix.  3,  13). 

NESER.  [Eagle.] 

NET.  There  are  in  Scripture  several  words 
denoting  different  kinds  of  nets,  and  this,  with  the 
frequency  of  images  derived  from  them,  shows  that 
nets  were  much  in  use  among  the  Hebrews  for 
fishing,  hunting,  and  fowling.  Indeed,  for  the  two 
latter  purposes, nets  were  formerly  used  to  an  extent 
of  which  now,  since  the  invention  of  fire-arms,  a 
notion  can  scarcely  be  formed.  1.  D“IH  cherem , 
which  denotes  a net  for  either  fishing  or  fowling. 
It  is  derived  from  a word  signifying  ‘to  shut  up;’ 
and  the  idea  is,  therefore,  founded  on  its  shutting 
in  the  prey.  It  occurs  in  Hab.  i.  16,  17  ; Ezek. 
xxvi.  5,  14;  xlvii.  10;  Zech.  xiv.  11,  &c.  In 
Eccles.  vii.  26,  it  is  applied  by  an  apt  metaphor 
to  female  entanglements.  2.  miitmor  or 

machmor,  which  occurs  only  in  Ps.  cxli.  10,  Isa. 
li.  20,  where  it  denotes  a hunter’s  net;  but  a 
longer  word,  from  the  same  source,  DTODD  mik- 
moreth , denotes  the  net  of  fishermen  in  the  only 
passages  in  which  it  is  found  (Isa.  xix.  8 ; Hab. 
i.  15,  16).  In  these  cases  we  find,  by  tracing  the 
words  to  their  source,  that  the  idea  is  founded 
upon  the  plaiting,  braiding,  or  interweaving  of  the 
net-work.  3.  sebaka,  which  designates  an 

actual  hunting  net  in  Job  xviii.  6 ‘ but  elsewhere 
it  is  applied  to  net-work  or  lattice-work,  especially 
around  the  capitals  of  columns  (1  Kings  vii.  18, 
20,  41,  42;  2 Kings  xxvi.  17;  2 Chron.  iv.  12, 
13  ; Jer.  lii.  22, 23)  ; and  also  before  a window  or 
balcony  (2  Kings  i.  2).  In  the  New  Testament  nc 
other  net  than  that  for  fishing  alone  is  mentioned. 
The  word  which  describes  it  (Mktvov)  is  usually 
confined  to  fishing  nets  by  classical  writers,  al- 
though sometimes  applied  to  the  nets  of  hunters, 
Another  word  to  describe  a net,  dpcpifiApo-rpoUj 
occurs  in  Matt.  iv.  18;  Mark  i.  16,  which,  like 


416 


NET. 


NETER. 


c kerem  above,  is  founded  on  the  idea  of  enfolding 
or  shutting  in  the  prey. 

We  have  no  positive  information  concerning 
the  nets  of  the  Hebrews,  and  can  only  suppose 
that  they  were  not  materially  different  from  those 
of  the  ancient  Egyptians,  concerning  which  we 
now  possess  very  good  information.  Indeed,  the 
nets  of  Egypt,  the  fishers  who  used  them,  and  the 
fish  caught  by  them,  are  more  than  once  mentioned 
in  Scripture  (Isa  xix.  8).  The  usual  fishing  net 
among  this  people  was  of  a long  form,  like  the 
common  drag-net,  with  wooden  floats  on  the  upper, 
and  leads  on  the  lower  side.  It  was  sometimes  let 
down  from  a boat,  but  those  who  pulled  it  usually 
stood  on  the  shove,  and  landed  the  fish  on  a 
shelving  bank.  This  mode,  however,  was  more 


adapted  to  river  than  to  lake  fishing;  and  hence, 
in  all  the  detailed  examples  of  fishing  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  net  is  cast  from  and  drawn  into 
boats,  excepting  in  one  case  where,  the  draft 
being  too  great  to  take  into  the  boat,  the  fishers 
dragged  the  net  after  their  boats  to  the  shore  (John 
xxi.  6,  8).  Sometimes  use  was  made  of  a smaller 
net  for  catching  fish  in  shallow  water,  furnished 
with  a pole  on  either  side,  to  which  it  was  attached ; 
and  the  fisherman,  holding  one  of  the  poles  in 
either  hand,  thrust  it  below  the  surface  of  the 
water,  and  awaited  the  moment  when  a shoal  of 
fish  passed  over  it. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  fishermen  in 
the  boat,  excepting  the  master  (No.  435),  are  almost 


naked,  as  are  also  those  who  have  occasion  to 
wade  in  the  water  in  hauling  the  net  to  the  shore 
(No.  436).  Such  seems  also  to  have  been  the  prac- 
tice among  his  Hebrew  fishermen  ; for  Peter, 
when  he  left  the  boat  to  hasten  on  shore  to  his 
risen  Lord,  1 girt  his  fisher's  coat  unto  him,  for  he 
was  naked’  (John  xxi.  7)  ; although,  in  this  case, 
the  word  4 naked’  must  be  understood  with  some 
latitude  [Naked]. 

Nets  were  also  used  in  taking  birds,  to  an  ex- 
tent of  which  we  can  scarcely  form  an  adequate 
conception.  A clap  net  was  usually  employed. 
This  was  of  different  kinds,  that  shown  in  the 
cut  (No.  438),  being  the  most  common.  It  con- 
sisted of  two  sides  or  frames,  over  which  the  net 
woik  was  spread;  at  one  end  wa3  a short  net. 


whiwh  they  fastened  to  a bush,  or  a cluster  of 
reeds,  and  at  the  other  was  one  of  considerable 
length,  which,  as  soon  as  the  birds  weie  seen  feed- 
ing in  the  area  within,  was  pulled  by  the  fowlers, 
causing  the  instantaneous  collapse  of  the  two 
sides  (No.  437).  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson  (Ancient 
Egyptians , iii.  45)  says  the  nets  are  very  similar 


437. 


to  those  used  in  Europe  at  the  present  day,  but 
probably  larger,  and  requiring  a greater  number 
of  persons  to  manage  them,  than  our  own  ; which, 
however,  may  be  ascribed  to  an  imperfection  in 
the  contrivance  for  closing  them. 

In  hunting,  a space  of  considerable  size  was 
sometimes  enclosed  with  nets,  into  which  the 
animals  were  driven  by  beaters.  The  spots  thus 
enclosed  were  usually  in  the  vicinity  of  the  water 
brooks  to  which  they  were  in  the  habit  of  repairing 
in  the  morning  and  evening  ; and  having  awaited 


the  time  when  they  went  to  drink,  the  hunters 
disposed  their  nets,  occupied  proper  positions  for 
observing  them  unseen,  and  gradually  closed  in 
upon  them.  The  usages  of  the  Egyptians,  and, 
so  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  of  other  Oriental 
nations,  in  this  respect,  correspond  with  the  in- 
timations of  Julius  Pollux  (Onomast.  v.  4),  who 
states  that  two  kinds  of  nets  were  employed  in 
this  mode  of  hunting.  One,  a long  net,  called 
by  the  Greeks  Micros,  was  furnished  with  several 
ropes,  and  was  supported  on  forked  poles,  varying 
in  length  to  correspond  with  the  inequalities  ol 
the  ground  over  which  it  extended.  The  otners 
were  smaller  nets,  called  eV35ja,for  stopping  gaps, 
These  practices  are  obviously  alluded  to  in  such 
passages  as  Job  xix.  6 ; Ps.  cxl.  5 ; Isa.  li.  20. 

NETER  (*iri3  ; Sept,  and  Symmachus,  vlrpov’ 
Yulg.  nitrum;  English  version  ‘ nitre’)  occurs  1.. 
Prov.  xxv.  20  ; Jer.  ii.  22;  where  the  substance  in 
question  is  described  as  effervescing  with  vinegar, 
and  as  being  used  in  washing;  neither  of  which 
particulars  applies  to  what  is  now,  by  a misappro- 
priation of  this  ancient  name,  called  ‘ nitre,’  and 
which  in  modern  usage  means  the  saltpetre  of 
commerce,  but  thej  both  apply  to  the  natron , o» 
true  nitrum  of  the  ancients.  The  similarity  of 
the  names  which  is  observable  in  this  case  is 
considered  by  Gesenius  of  great  weight  in  a pro- 
duction of  the  East,  the  name  of  which  usually 
passed  with  the  article  itself  into  Greece.  Both 
Greek  and  Roman  writers  describe  natron  by  the 
Words  given  in  the  Sept,  and  Vulgate.  Jerome, 
in  his  note  on  Prov.  xxv.  20,  considers  this  to  h* 


NETHINIM. 


NICODEMUS. 


417 


flu*  substance  Intended.  Natron,  though  found 
hi  many  parts  of  the  East,  has  ever  been  one 
of  the  distinguishing  natural  productions  of 
.Egypt.  Strabo  mentions  two  places  in  that 
country,  beyond  Momemphis,  where  it  was  found 
in  great  abundance,  and  says  that  those  districts 
were  in  consequence  called  the  nitritic  nomes 
or  provinces  ( Geog . xvii.  p.  1139,  Oxon.  1807), 
to  which  Pliny  refers  by  the  name  Nitritis  (Hist. 
Nat.  v.  9),  and  describes  the  natural  and  ma- 
nufactured nitrum  of  Egypt  (xxxi.  10).  This 
substance,  according  to  Herodotus,  was  used 
by  the  Egyptians  in  the  process  of  embalm- 
ing (ii.  76,  77).  The  principal  natron  lakes 
now  found  in  Egypt,  six  in  number,  are  situate 
n a barren  valley  about  thirty  miles  westward 
■>f  the  Delta,  where  it  both  floats  as  a whitish 
scum  upon  the  water,  and  is  found  deposited  at 
the  bottom  in  a thick  incrustation,  after  the  water 
is  evaporated  by  the  heat  of  summer.  It  is  a 
natural  mineral  alkali,  composed  of  the  car- 
bonate, sulphate,  and  muriate  of  soda,  derived 
from  the  soil  of  that  region.  Forskal  says  that  it 

is  known  by  the  name  ^ atrun,  or 

natrun , that  it  effervesces  with  vinegar,  and  is 
used  as  soap  in  washing  linen,  and  by  the  bakers 
as  yeast,  and  in  cookery  to  assist  in  boiling  meat, 
&c.  (j Flora  JEgyptiaco-Arabica,  Hauniae,  1775, 
pp.  45,  46).  Combined  with  oil  it  makes  a harder 
and  firmer  soap  than  the  vegetable  alkali  [Bo- 
rith].  The  application  of  the  name  nitre  to 
saltpetre  seems  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the 
knowledge  of  natron,  the  true  nitre,  was  lost  for 
many  centuries  in  this  country,  till  revived  by  the 
Hon.  R.  Boyle,  who  says  he  ‘ had  had  some  of  it 
brought  to  him  from  Egypt’  ( Memoirs  for  a 
History  of  Mineral  Waters,  Lond.  1681-5,  p.  86). 
See  an  interesting  paper  in  which  this  is  stated,  in 
the  Philosophical  Transactions,  abridged,  1809, 
vol.  xiii.  p.  216,  &c. ; and  for  a full  description  of 
the  modern  merchandise,  uses,  &c.,  of  the  natron 
of  Egypt,  see  Oonini’s  Travels,  Paris,  vol.  i.  ch. 
xix. ; Andr6ossi’s  Memoire  sur  la  Vallee  des  Lacs 
de  Natron  Decade  Egyptienne , No.  iv.,  vol.  ii. ; 
Beckmann's  Beytrdge  zur  Geschickte  der  Er fin- 
dung  en^  th.  iv.  p.  15,  flf.  ; J.  D.  Michaelis,  De 
Nitro  Hebrceor.  in  Comment.  Societ.  Regal. 
Prcclect.  pt.  i.  p.  166  ; and  Supplem.  ad  Lex. 
Hebraic,  p.  1704  ; Shaw’s  Travels,  2nded.  p.  479. 

J.  F.  D. 

NETHINIM  ; Sept.  N aQivip).  This 

Aame,  which  means  ‘ the  given  ’ or  ‘ the  devoted,’ 
was  applied  to  the  servants  of  the  temple,  or  temple 
slaves,  who  were  under  the  Levites  in  the  ministry 
»f  the  tabernacle  and  temple.  Gesenius  ( Jewish 
Antiq .,  p.  289)  is  wrong  in  alleging  that  there  is 
no  trace  of  the  name  till  the  time  of  David.  On 
the  contrary,  it  was  attached  in  the  first  instance 
vo  the  Levites  themselves.  Thus  God  says,  ‘ I have 
ywen  the  Levites  as  a gift  (Heb.  nethinim ) to 
Aaron  and  to  his  sons  from  among  the  children 
of  Israel,  to  do  the  service  of  the  children  of 
Israel  in  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation’  (Num. 
viii.  19).  This,  in  fact,  explains  the  origin  of 
the  name.  The  term  ‘Levites,’  however,  was  at 
first  sufficiently  distinctive  as  a title;  but  when 
subordinate  helpers  were  eventually  given  to  these, 
tne  latter  took  the  name  of  Nethinim.  The  first 
servants  whom  the  Levites  obtained  we.e  the 
28 


Gibeonites,  on  whom  devolved  the  very  laborious 
services  of  fetching  water  and  collecting  wood 
(Josh.  ix.  3-27).  The  number  of  such  servants 
appears  to  have  been  increased  by  David ; and  it 
seems  to  have  been  then,  jvhen  these  servants  ceased 
to  be  wholly  Gibeonit.ies,  that  Nethinim  came 
into  use  as  a proper  name  for  the  whole  class  (Ezra 
viii.  20).  From  that  time  forward,  they  appear 
to  have  been  no  longer  regarded  or  treated  as 
slaves,  but  as  the  lowest  order  of  the  servants  of  the 
sanctuary  ; who,  although  in  their  origin  foreigners 
and  heathen,  had  doubtless  embraced  the  Jewish 
religion.  These  did  not  all  forget  their  relation- 
ship to  the  sanctuary  during  the  Captivity.  Some 
of  them  returned  to  their  duties  under  the  decree 
of  Cyrus,  and  were  placed  in  cities  with  the  Le- 
vites (Nell.  xi.  3;  Ezra  ii.  70;  1 Cbron.  ix.  27. 
It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  many  of  them 
would  return  to  this  humble  station  in  Palestine, 
but  220  accompanied  Ezra  (Ezra  viii.  20),  and 
392  Zerubbabel  (ii.  5-8).  The  voluntary  de- 
votedness which  was  thus  manifested  by  these 
persons  considerably  raised  (he  station  of  the 
Nethinim,  which  was  thenceforth  regarded  ralher 
as  honourable  than  degrading.  Their  number 
was,  however,  insufficient  for  the  service  of  the 
temple  ; whence,  as  Josephus  tells  us  ( De  Bell. 
Jud.  ii.  17,  6),  a festival,  called  'Eu\o(popia, 
Xylophoria,  was  established,  in  which  the  people, 
to  supply  the  deficiency,  were  obliged  to  bring  a 
certain  quantity  of  wood  to  the  temple  for  the  use 
of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering, 

NETOPHAH  (HSb}  ; Sept.  Ner^d),  a place 
not  far  from  Bethlehem  in  Judaea  (Ezra  ii.  22 ; 
Neh.  vii.  26).  Hence  the  Gentile  name  Netophite 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.  28,  29;  2 Kings  xxv.  23). 
NETTLE  [Thorn]. 

NETZ.  [Hawk.] 

NEW  MOON  [Festivals  ; Moon]. 

NEW  YEAR  [Year]. 

NIBHAZ  (THI13  ; Sept.  ’E/3Aa£rp),  an  idol  of 
the  Avites  (2  Kings  xvii.  31).  The  Jewish  inter- 
preters, knowing  nothing  of  this  idol,  sought  to 
deduce  some  idea  of  it  from  the  etymology  of  the 
name.  Deriving  it  from  |”Q3,  ‘to  bark,’  they 
have  assigned  the  idol  the  figure  of  a dog ; although 
there  are  no  traces  of  any  idol  of  this  figure  wor- 
shipped in  ancient  Syria.  In  the  Zabian  books  the 
corresponding  name,  is  that  of  an  evil 

demon,  who  sits  on  a throne  upon  the  eartn,  while 
his  feet  rest  on  the  bottom  of  Tartarus  ; but  it  is 
doubtful  whether  this  should  be  identified  with 
the  Avite  Nibhaz.  Iken , Dissert,  de  Idola N ibchazj 
1743;  Norberg,  Onomast.  Cod.  Nasar. ; GeseCL 
Thesaur.  an  TfOL 

NICODEMUS  (Ni/fJory/ios),  a Pharisee  and 
member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  who  was  impressed  by 
what  he  had  heard  concerning  Jesus  ; but  being 
unwilling,  on  account  of  his  station,  to  commit 
himself  without  greater  surety  than  he  possessed, 
repaired  by  night  to  the  house  in  which  Christ 
dwelt,  and  held  with  him  that  important  discourse 
which  occupies  the  third  chapter  of  John’s 
Gospel.  The  effect  which  was  then  produced 
upon  his  mind  may  be  collected  from  the  fact 
that  subsequently,  at  one  of  the  sittings  of  the 
venerable  body  to  which  he  belonged,  he  ven- 
tured to  let  fall  a few  words  in  favour  of  Jesus, 


VOL.  II. 


il  s jNICOLAITANS. 

whose  proceedings  were  then  in  question  (John 
vii.  d»>) ; and  that  he  took  part  with  his  col- 
league, Joseph  of  Arimalhea,  in  rendering  the  last 
honours  to  the  body  of  the  crucified  Redeemer 
(John  xix.  39).  Nothing  further  is  known  of  Nico- 
demas  from  Scripture.  Tradition,  however,  adds 
that  after  he  had  thus  openly  declared  himself  a fol- 
lower of  Jesus,  and  had  been  baptised  by  Peter,  he 
was  displaced  from  his  office,  and  expelled  from 
Jerusalem  (Phot.  Cod.  p.  171).  It  is  added  that 
he  found  refuge  in  a country  house  of  his  cousin 
Gamaliel,  and  remained  there  till  his  death. 
Modern  writers  have  been  disposed  to  identify 
Nicodemus  with  a rich  and  pious  person  of  the 
same  name  (but  also  called  Bonai),  mentioned 
in  the  Talmud,  whose  family  eventually  sank 
into  great  poverty  (Otho.  Lex.  Habbin .,  p.  459). 
All  this  is,  however,  very  uncertain,  and  what  is 
stated  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  is 
unsafe,  and  in  some  parts  manifestly  untrue.  Too 
strong  an  appreciation  of  the  world’s  good  opinion 
seems  to  have  been  the  failing  of  Nicodemus, 
although  Niemeyer  ( Charakt . i.  113)  has  lately 
made  a strong  effort  to  clear  him  from  this  impu- 
tation. We  do  not  lay  much  stress  upon  what 
he  ventured  to  say  in  the  Sanhedrim ; for  he 
suffered  himself  to  Ire  easily  put  down,  and  did 
not  come  forward  with  any  bold  avowal  of  his 
belief.  Winer  calls  attention  to  the  fact,  that 
although  he  took  part  in  the  sepulchral  rites  of 
Jesus,  he  did  not  join  Joseph  in  his  application  to 
Pilate  for  the  body  of  his  crucified  Lord ; and 
justly  remarks  that  such  characters  usually  re- 
quire a strong  external  impulse  to  bring  them 
boldly  forward,  which  impulse  was  probably  in 
this  case  supplied  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

NICOLAITANS  (NjKoAa'rraf).  This  word 
occurs  twice  in  the  New  Testament  (Rev.  ii.  6, 
15).  In  the  former  passage  the  conduct  of  the 
Nicolaitans,  ra  epya  ru v NiKoAaiT«j/,  is  con- 
demned ; in  the  latter,  the  angel  of  the  church  in 
Pergamus  is  censured  because  certain  members 
of  his  church  held  their  doctrine,  ttjv  5iduxbv  t&v 
HitioXairuv.  Irenaeus,  the  earliest  Christian 
author  who  mentions  them,  says  simply  ( Con- 
tra IJceres.,  i.  26),  ‘ It  very  clearly  appears, 
from  the  Apocalypse,  that  the  Nicolaitans  held 
fornication,  and  the  eating  of  idol  sacrifices,  to 
be  things  , indifferent,  and  therefore  permitted  to 
Christians.’  In  short,  Irenaeus  evidently  knew 
nothing  of  the  Nicolaitans,  except  what  he 
gathered  from  the  text  of  the  Apocalypse  ; as,  in- 
deed, the  concluding  words  of  his  short  notice 
suggest : ‘ Quapropter  dixit  et  de  iis  sermo : Sed 
hoc  babes  quod  odisti  opera  Nicolaitarum,  quae  et 
ego.odi unless  it  be  his  statement  that  Nicolas, 
one  of  the  seven  deacons  (Acts  v.),  was  the  founder 
of  the  -sect.  The  practices  of  these  heretics  were 
the anore  reprehensible,  as  being  not  only  opposed 
to  :the  whole  spirit  and  morality  of  the  Gospel, 
but  a violation  of  an  express  decree  of  the  Apos- 
tles .and  Elders,  issued  in  relation  to  this  matter 
(Acts  xv.).  As  time  rolled  on,  however,  the  in- 
formation regarding  Nicolas  and  his  proceedings 
seems  continually  to  have  increased,  till  Epipha- 
niua  at  length,  furnishes  us  with  a full-blown 
ace-»i»t  tff  the  manner  in  which  the  proselyte  of 
Arr'-’.r-sh  founded  the  sect  which  was  supposed  to 
bea"  bis  name.  Nicolas,  such  is  the  story  of 
Epiwhaniu'S  (Advers.  Hceres.  i.  25,  p.  70,  edit. 
P?tav.),  vhad  a beautiful  .wife, ...and,  following 


NICOLAITANS. 

the  counsels  of  perfection,  lie  sejiarated  himself 
from  her;  but  not  being  able  to  persevere  in  his 
resolution,  he  returned  to  her  again  (as  a dog 
to  his  vomit,  us  kvuv  eVl  rby  iSioy  ZjueTor) ; and 
not.  only  so,  but  justified  bis  conduct  by  licen- 
tious principles,  which  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
sect  of  the  Nicolaitans. 

Against  this  account  (in  which  Tertullian, 
Hilary,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  several  other 
fathers,  substantially  concur)  we  may  object — (1) 
That  the  custom  of  men  putting  away  their  wives 
for  the  attainment  of  a supposed  higher  sanctity 
evidently  belongs  to  a later  period,  when  the 
monastic  ideas  produced  these  and  similar  prac- 
tices. Such  an  occurrence  was  natural  enough 
in  the  age  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  of  Ter- 
tullian— that  is,  towards  the  conclusion  of  the 
second  century ; but  we  cannot  believe  it  could 
have  happened  in  the  Apostolic  age.  (2)  It  is  not 
conceivable  that  his  taking  back  his  wife,  even  if 
he  had,  on  those  grounds,  separated  himself  from 
her,  would  then  be  regarded  as  an  immorality, 
much  less  as  an  enormous  crime,  especially  con- 
sidering what  St.  Paul  had  said  on  the  subject 
(1  Cor.  vii.  3-6).  (3)  Epiphanius,  after  stating 

that  Nicolas  lapsed  into  the  greatest  enormities, 
informs  us  that  all  the  Gnostics  derived  their 
origin  from  him ; a statement  which  throws  au 
air  of  ridicule  over  all  he  has  told  us  on  this 
subject,  and  proves  how  little  his  authority  in 
the  matter  is  worth. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  has  preserved  a dif- 
ferent version  of  the  story  (Strom,  iii.  4,  p. 
522,  edit.  Potter),  which  Eusebius  copies  from 
him  (Hist.  Eccles.,  iii.  29),  and  which  is  repeated 
by  Augustine  and  other  ancient  writers.  ‘The 
apostles,’ they  say,  ‘reprehended  Nicolas  for  jea- 
lousy of  his  wife,  who  was  beautiful  ; where- 
upon Nicolas  produced  her,  and  said,  Any  one 
might  marry  her  who  pleased.  In  this  affair  the 
deacon  let  fall  the  expression,  ’6tl  napaxpiicaaSai 
rij  vapid  5e?,  “ that  we  should  abuse  the  flesh 
which,  though  employed  in  a good  sense  by  him, 
was  perverted  to  a bad  one  by  those  who  would 
gain  to  their  licentiousness  the  sanction  of  a re- 
spectable name,  and  who  from  hence  styled  them- 
selves Nicolatains.’  Who  can  believe  that  a sect 
should  take  its  rise  and  its  name  from  a casual 
expression  by  a man  whose  obvious  sense  and 
whose  conduct  were  opposed  to  the  peculiarities  of 
the  sect?  Neither  can  we  think  the  conjecture 
of  Grotius  (Annot.  in  Apocalyps .,  ii.  6)  at  all 
probable  : ‘ Mihi  veterum  testimonia  conferenti, 
media  placet  sententia,  quae  haecest:  Nicolaum 
accusatum  £r)\oTvrr'ias.  quod,  uxorem  pulchram 
habens,  usitata  ilia  inter  Christ ianos  utriusque 
sexus  pacis  oscula  non  satis  ferret,  in  contrarium 
cucurrisse,  et  exemplo  Laconum  ac  Catonis  uxoris 
suae  usuram  permisisse  aliis,  plane  quasi  in  eo 
quod  marito  et  uxore  volentibus  fieret  non  pecca- 
retur,  &c/  For  it  is  bard  to  conceive  that  a 
custom  which  was  universal  could  excite  any 
jealousy  ; and  yet  more  so  that  a man  imbued 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  as  Nicolas  was, 
should  seek  to  turn  aside  their  displeasure  by 
imitating  the  matrimonial  enormities  of  Spartans 
or  of  Cato. 

It  is  evident  from  the  fathers,  that  the  Nicolai- 
tans with  whom  they  were  acquainted  were 
Gnostics;  since  they  impute  to  them  the  distinctive 
tenets  and  practices  of  the  Gnostics.  But  in  tne 


NICOLAS. 


NIMROD. 


419 


short  allusion  in  Hev.  ii.  6,  15,  there  is  nothing 
to  identify  the  tenets  or  conduct  alluded  to  with 
Gnosticism,  even  supposing  that  Gnosticism,  pro- 
perly so  called,  existed  in  the  Apostolic  age,  which, 
.o  say  the  least,  has  not  been  proved  to  be  the  case. 
So  that  the  conjecture  mentioned  by  Mosheim, 
and  which  Tertullian  appears  to  favour,  may  be 
regarded  as  probable,  that  the  Nicolaitans  men- 
tioned in  Revelation  had  erroneously  been  con- 
founded with  a party  of  Gnostics  formed  at  a later 
period  by  one  Nicolas. 

The  ingenious  conjecture  of  Michaelis  is  worthy 
of  consideration,  who  supposes  that  by  Nicolai- 
tans (Rev.  ii.  6,  15)  the  same  class  of  persons  is 
intended  whom  St.  Peter  (2  Ep.  ii.  15)  describes 
as  ££a,KoAou6r](TavTes  rfj  6 5$  rov  BaAadp,followers 
of  the  way  of  Balaam ; and  that  their  name, 
Nicolaitans,  is  merely  a Greek  translation  of 
their  Hebrew  designation,  the  noun  Nt/cJAaos\irom 
KLKa<t)  and  Aa<is)  being  a literal  version  of  Djta, 
that  is,  ny  yhi.  The  custom  of  translating 
names,  which  prevailed  so  extensively  in  modern 
Europe,  was  undoubtedly  practised  also  among 
the  Jews,  as  the  example  in  Acts  ix.  36  (to  which 
others  might  be  added)  shows.  Accordingly,  the 
Arabic  version,  published  by  Erpenius,  renders 
the  words  ra  epya  roov  Nucohairuv,  the  works 
of  the  Shuaibites,  the  Arabic  Shuaib  being  ap- 
parently the  name  for  Balaam.  The  only  ob- 
jection which  occurs  to  us  against  this  very 
ingenious  and  probable  supposition,  arises  from 
the  circumstance  that,  in  the  passage,  Rev.  ii.  14, 
15,  both  ‘ they  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  Balaam,’ 
and  ‘ the  Nicolaitans,’  are  specified,  and  are 
distinguished  from  each  other:  ‘So  hast  thou 
also,’  ovrcos  e%eis  /cat  crv,  the  Nicolaitans,  as 
well  as  the  Balaamites,  mentioned  in  the  previous 
verse.  So  that  whatever  general  agreement  there 
might  be  between  those  two  classes  of  heretics — 
and  their  collocation  in  the  passage  before  us 
seems  to  imply  that  there  was  such  agreement — 
it  appears  equally  evident  that  some  distinction 
also  must  have  separated  them  the  one  from  the 
other. — R.  L. 

NICOLAS  (Ni/oiAaos),  a proselyte  of  Antioch, 
and  one  of  the  seven  deacons  (Acts  vi.  5).  No- 
thing further  is  known  of  him  ;'  but  a large  body 
of  unsafe  tradition  has  been  connected  with  his 
name,  under  the  supposition  that  he  was  the 
founder  of  the  heresy  of  the  Nicolaitans,  stigma- 
tised in  Rev.  ii.  6,  15.  (See  the  preceding  article.) 

NICOPOLIS  (N/zeebroAis),  a city  of  Thrace, 
now  Nicopi,  on  the  river  Nessus,  now  Karasou, 
which  was  here  the  boundary  between  Thrace  and 
Macedonia ; and  hence  the  city  is  sometimes 
reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  latter.  In  Titus  iii. 
15,  Paul  expresses  an  intention  to  winter  at  Ni- 
copolis,  and  invites  Titus,  then  in  Crete,  to  join 
him  there. 

NIGER  [Simon]. 

NIGHT.  The  general  division  of  the  night 
among  the  Hebrews  has  been  described  under 
Day  ; and  it  only  remains  to  indicate  a few 
marked  applications  of  the  word.  The  term  of 
human  life  is  usually  called  a day  in  Scripture; 
but  in  one  passage  it  is  called  night , to  be  followed 
soon  by  day,  ‘the  day  is  at  hand’  (Rom.  viii. 
12).  Being  a time  of  darkness,  the  image  and 
shadow  of  death,  in  which  the  beasts  of  prey  go 
forih  to  devour,  it  was  made  a symbol  of  a season 


of  adversity  and  trouble,  in  which  men  prey  upon 
each  other,  and  the  stroirg  tyrannize  over  the  weak 
(Isa.  xxi.  12;  Zech.  xiv.  6,  7 ; comp.  Rev.  xxi. 
23  ; xxii.  5).  Hence  continued  day,  or  the  ab- 
sence of  night,  implies  a constant  state  of  quiet 
and  happiness,  undisturbed  by  the  vicissitudes  of 
peace  and  war.  Night  is  also  put,  as  in  our  own 
language,  for  a time  of  ignorance  and  helplessness 
(Mic.  iii.  6).  In  John  ix.  4 night  represents 
death,  a necessary  result  of  the  correlative  usage 
which  makes  life  a day. 

NIGHTHAWK.  [Tachmas.] 

NILE  [Egypt]. 

NIMRA  [Beth-Nimra]. 

NIMROD  : Sept.  NeySpwS ; Josephus 

Nej3pw57js),  a son  of  Cush,  the  eldest  son  of  Ham 
(Gen.  x.  8-10).  Five  sons  of  Cush  are  enume- 
rated in  verse  7 in  the  more  usual  manner  of  this 
chapter ; but  a change  of  phrase  introduces 
Nimrod.  This  difference  may  indicate  that 
while,  in  relation  to  the  other  five,  the  names 
have  a national  and  geographical  reference,  this 
appellation  is  exclusively  personal.  It  is  strictly 
an  abstract  noun,  signifying  contempt , rebellion , 
apostacy , impiety : but  ‘ it  is  not  to  be  thought 
surprising,  and  it  is  a thing  which,  takes  place  in 
all  languages,  that  a noun  which  in  respect  of 
its  form,  is  properly  an  abstract , becomes  in  the 
use  of  speech  a concrete ; and  conversely’  (Ge- 
senius,  Lehrgebaude,  p.  483).  But  such  con- 
cretes usually  carry  a strengthened  idea  of  the 
abstract,  a kind  of  impersonation  of  the  quality. 
Therefore  Nimrod  denotes  intensively,  the  ex- 
tremely impious  rebel.  Hence  we  conceive  that 
it  was  not  his  original  proper  name,  but  was 
affixed,  to  him  afterwards,  perhaps  even  after  his 
death,  as  a characteristic  appellative. 

No  other  persons  connected  with  this  work 
must  be  considered  as  answerable  for  the  opi- 
nion which  the  writer  of  this  article  thinks  to 
rest  tipon  probable  grounds,  that  the  earlier  part 
of  the  book  of  Genesis  consists  of  several  in- 
dependent and  complete  compositions,  of  the 
highest  antiquity  and  authority,  marked  by  some 
differences  of  style,  and  having  clear  indications 
of  commencement  in  each  , instance.  If  this 
supposition  be  admitted,  a reason  presents  itself 
for  the  citation  of  a proverbial  phrase  in  eh.  x.  i). 
The  single  instance  of  minute  circumstantiality, 
in  so  brief  a i elation,  seems  to  imply  that  the 
writer  lived  near  the  age  of  Nimrod,  while  his 
history  was  still  a matter  of  traditional  noto- 
riety, and  the  comparison  of  any  hero  with  him 
was  a familiar  form  of  speech.  It  is  also  sup- 
posed that  those,  not  fragments,  but  complete, 
though  short  and  separate  compositions  (of  which 
eight  or  more  are  hypothetically  enumerated  in 
J.  Pye  Smith’s  Scripture  and  Geology , p.  202), 
were,  under  Divine  authority,  prefixed  by  Moses 
to  his  own  history.  Their  series  has  a continuity 
generally,  but  not  rigorously  exact.  If  we  place 
ourselves  in  such  a point  of  time,  suppose  the  age 
succeeding  Nimrod,  which  might  be  the  third 
century  after  the  Deluge,  we  may  see  how  na- 
turally the  origination  of  a common  phrase  would 
rise  in  the  writer’s  mind;  and  that  a motive  of 
usefulness  would  be  suggested  with  it.  But  both 
these  ideas  involve  that  of  nearness  to  the  time ; 
a period  in  which  the  country  traditions  were 
yet  fresh,  and  an  elucidation  of  them  would  be 
acceptable  and  consonant  to  general  feeling.  An 


42® 


NIMROD. 


NIMROD 


apparently  just  reason  thus  accrues  for  the  inser- 
tion of  this  little  and  insulated  portion  of  personal 
history  in  the  midst  of  a tablet  of  the  descent  of 
nations.  A close  translation  of  the  whole  passage 
is  this  : ‘ And  Cush  bpgat  Nimrod  : he  began 

[^nn  opened  a course  of  action,  led  the  way]  to 

being  a hero  in  the  earth  [or  in  the  land]  : he 
was  a hero  at  the  chase  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah  ; 
on  which  account  the  saying  is,  Like  Nimrod, 
the  hero  of  the  chase,  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah. 
And  the  chief  [city]  of  his  dominion  was  Babel ; 
and  [he  founded]  Ezek  and  Akkad,  and  Kalneh, 
in  the  land  of  Shinar.’ 

The  common  rendering,  ‘ a mighty  hunter,’  is 
doubtless  equivalent  to  this  literal  translation. 
The  adjunct,  ‘ in  the  presence  of  Jehovah,’  occurs 
many  times  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  it 
generally  conveys  the  idea  of  favour  and  appro- 
bation, as  we  in  our  language  employ  the  word 
countenance.  Hence  some  have  supposed  that 
here  the  expression  is  used  in  a good  sense,  and 
denotes  that,  by  the  special  aid  and  blessing  of 
God's  providence,  the  bravery  and  skill  of  this 
hero  were  remarkably  successful,  in  attacking  and 
destroying  the  ferocious  animals  which  had 
greatly  multiplied.  The  Jewish  commentator 
Abarbanel,  with  other  Rabbinical  writers,  ‘ in- 
terpret those  words  favourably,  saying  that 
Nimrod  was  qualified  by  a peculiar  dexterity 
and  strength  for  the  chace,  and  that  he  offered  to 
God  [portions]  of  the  prey  that  he  took ; and 
several  of  the  moderns  are  of  opinion  that  this 
passage  is  not  to  be  understood  of  his  tyrannical 
oppressions,  or  of  hunting  of  men,  but  of  beasts  ’ 
( Ancient  Univ.  Hist.,  vol.  i.  p.  276,  oct.  ed.). 
Hence  they  have  contended  that  we  have  no 
reason  for  regarding  Nimrod  as  any  other  than  a 
benefactor  to  his  country,  and,  in  that  view,  a 
man  acceptable  and  well-pleasing  to  Jehovah. 

But  the  general  opinion  is,  that  no  moral  ap- 
probation is  implied,  but  only  that,  by  his  ex- 
traordinary possession  of  prowess,  the  gift  of  God, 
as  is  every  natural  talent,  he  became  thus  distin- 
guished in  clearing  the  country  of  wild  beasts ; 
and  that,  these  exploits  led  him  to  make  aggressions 
upon  men.  Interpreters,  with  scarcely  an  excep- 
tion, from  the  Septuagint  and  the  Targums  down 
to  our  own  times,  understand  the  whole  case  thus  : 
that  Nimrod  was  a man  of  vast  bodily  strength, 
and  eminent  for  courage  and  skill  in  the  arts  of 
hunting  down  and  capturing  or  killing  the 
dangerous  animals,  which  probably  were  both 
very  numerous,  and  frequently  of  enormous  size ; 
that,  by  these  recommendations,  he  made  himself 
the  favourite  of  bold  and  enterprising  young  men, 
who  readily  joined  his  hunting-expeditions  ; that 
hence  he  took  encouragement  to  break  the  pa- 
triarchal union  of  venerable  and  peaceful  subor- 
dination, to  set  himself  up  as  a military  chieftain, 
assailing  and  subduing  men,  training  his  ad- 
herents into  formidable  troops,  by  their  aid  sub- 
duing the  inhabitants  of  Shinar  and  its  neigh- 
bouring districts ; and  that,  for  consolidating  and 
retaining  his  power,  now  become  a despotism,  he 
employed  his  subjects  in  building  forts,  which 
became  towns  and  cities,  that  which  was  after- 
wards called  Babel  being  the  principal.  Com- 
bining this  with  the  contents  of  chapter  xi.,  we 
infer  that  Nimrod  cither  was  an  original  party  in 
toe  daring  impiety  of  building  the  tower,  or  sub- 


sequently joined  himself  to  those  who  had  begun 
it.  The  former  fact  is  positively  affirmed  bj 
Josephus ; but  it  is  not  probable  that  he  could 
have  any  other  evidence  than  that  of  the  general 
interpretation  of  his  countrymen.  The  late  Mr. 
Rich,  not  thirty  years  ago,  in  the  extensive  plain 
where  lie  buried  the  ruins  of  Babylon,  discovered 
the  very  remarkable  mound  with  remains  of  build- 
ings on  its  summit  (of  which  see  the  figure  in  the 
article  Babel,  vol.  i.  p.  267,  of  this  work),  which 
even  now  bears  the  name  of  Birs  Nimrod : and  this 
may  well  be  regarded  as  some  confirmation  of  the 
common  opinion.  The  precise  meaning  of  the 
word  Birs  is  said  to  be  unknown ; which  seems  to 
be  a proof  of  high  antiquity.  There  is  only  one 
other  passage  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which 
Nimrod  is  mentioned,  Micah  v.  6,  ‘ the  land  of 
Nimrod.’  But  it  is  not  quite  indubitable  that 
these  words  refer  to  Babylon,  though  they  may 
very  properly  be  so  construed ; for  it  is  possible, 
and  agreeable  to  frequent  usage,  to  take  them  as 
put  in  apposition  with  the  preceding  object  of  the 
action,  ‘ the  land  of  Assyria.’  The  repetition  of 
the  demonstrative  particle  JIN  adds  something  to 
the  former  of  the  two  constructions,  yet  not  de- 
cisively. 

The  two  different  translations  of  verse  1 1 have 
been  stated  and  explained  in  the  article  Assyria, 
vol.  i.  p.  246.  The  translation  there  preferred,  and 
which  Bochart  and  many  other  high  authorities 
have  sanctioned,  is,  ‘ From  that  land  he  [Nimrod] 
went  forth  to  Asshur,  and  builded  Nineveh  and 
Rehoboth  city,  and  Calah,  and  Resen  between 
Nineveh  and  Calah,  that  the  great  city.’  As 
of  the  three  last-named  places  we  can  find 
scarcely  a vestige,  or  rather  none  at  all,  in  the 
Scriptures  or  in  profane  authors,  we  seem  to  have 
here  a proof  of  an  antiquity  far  higher  than  the 
age  of  Moses — thus  strengthening  the  idea  of  a 
collection,  above  mentioned.  The  annexed  clause, 
‘ That  [or  this]  the  great  city  ’ (we  decline  sup- 
plying the  verb  is  or  teas,  as  we  can  have  m 
authority  for  determining  the  tense)  is  most 
evidently,  according  to  the  use  of  the  pronoun,  to 
be  referred  to  Resen,  and  not,  as  some  have  sup- 
posed, to  the  remoter  object,  Nineveh. 

The  writer  of  this  article  must  acknowledge 
that  he  thinks  the  other  rendering,  taking  Asshur 
for  the  name  of  the  son  of  Shem  (verse  22),  is 
the  more  probable.  His  reasons  are,  (1.)  The 
internal  probability  as  arising  from  a remark 
made  in  the.  beginning  of  this  article,  that  the 
whole  chapter  carries  in  itself  moral  evidence  of 
having  been  written  while  many  of  the  facts  re- 
mained in  the  traditional  memory  of  tribes  and 
nations : thus  this  passage  would  give  authentic 
confirmation  to  a matter  of  current  belief. 
(2.)  Had  Asshur  not  been  the  nominative  to  the 
verb,  but  the  name  of  the  country,  propriety 
would  have  required  a preposition  separate  or 
prefixed,  or  the  H directive  or  local  to  be  sub- 
joined ; as  we  find  it  in  ch.  xxv.  18 — ‘ in  the 
going  [l  e.  on  the  road]  to  Asshur,’  Asshurak 
(see  ample  and  elucidatory  proof  of  this  usage  in 
Ewald’s  Gram.,  Nicholson’s  transl.,  6 420,  and  in 
Nordheimer’s  Gram.  vol.  i.  § 642).  We  are  aware 
of  the  objection,  that  this  He  directive  is  sometimes 
omitted ; but,  we  reply,  such  omission  is  uncom- 
mon, and  an  instance  cannot  be  found  easily,  if 
at  all,  of  the  omission  when  any  importance 
attaches  to  the  idea  oflocal  direction  (spe  abund- 


NIMROD. 


NIMROD. 


«nt  examples  in  Noldius's  Particul.  Hebr.  p. 
117).  (3.)  The  translation  for  which  we  plead 

is  the  plain  and  natural  one,  the  most  obvious  to 
both  writer  and  reader;  whereas  the  other  is 
artificial  and  obscure  : which  would  not  therefore 
?>e  likely  to  be  adopted  by  a writer,  such  as  this 
is,  of  extreme  simplicity  and  straightforwardness. 
(4.)  All  the  ancient  versions,  except  the  Targum 
of  Onkelos  (to  which  unquestionably  great  defer- 
ence is  due),  adopt  this  construction. 

The  objections  to  this  are,  (1.)  That  it  is  out 
of  place,  and  unnatural,  to  bring  in  any  mention 
of  another  family,  and  that  a circumstance  which 
would  have  found  its  proper  position  in  verse  22. 
To  this  objection  we  reply,  that  there  are  two 
links  of  association  which  would  dictate  the  an- 
ticipative  mention,  the  idea  of  building  towns, 
which  has  this  only  place  in  the  whole  enumera- 
tion of  descents  from  Noah’s  sons ; and  the  fact 
that  a son  of  Shem,  having  for  some  reason 
(probable,  though  we  can  only  conjecture  it), 
settled  with  his  tribe  among  the  Hamites,  was, 
either  by  prospects  of  superior  advantage,  or  by 
the  jealousy  and  annoyance  of  Nimrod,  induced 
to  colonise  another  district.  (2.)  That,  thus 
taken,  the  proposition  comes  naturally  as  the 
correlate  of  verse  10  ; the  one  laying  down  the 
commencement  and  chief  seat  of  Nimrod's  domi- 
nion, namely,  Babel  and  its  dependencies,  and 
the  other  subjoining  a secondary  and  subordinate 
annexation.  To  this  we  reply,  that  it  is  quite 
hypothetical,  and  that  the  flow  of  thought  and 
connection  is  plain  and  natural  upon  the  other 
interpretation.  (3.)  That,  in  Micah  v.  6,  Assyria 
is  called  4 the  land  of  Nimrod.’  The  doubtful- 
ness of  this  interpretation  we  have  already  shown. 
(4.)  The  learned  Mr.  Bochart  even  claims  sup- 
port from  the  lost  writings  of  Ctesias,  as  cited  by 
Diodorus  the  Sicilian  ; and  he  might  have  added 
Justin’s  Epitome  of  Trogus.  Ctesias  lived  later 
than  b.c.  400,  and  wrote  histories  of  Assyria  and 
Persia,  of  which  some  fragments,  or  rather  ab- 
stracts, are  in  the  collections  of  Photius.  He  pro- 
fessed to  have  derived  his  materials  from  ancient 
authorities  in  the  respective  countries  ; but  he  is 
ieclared  by  his  contempoi-ary  Aristotle  to  be  un- 
worthy of  any  credit,  by  Plutarch  to  be  fre- 
quently a liar,  by  AulusGellius  to  be  a dealer  in 
fables ; and  he  is  characterised  by  Joseph  Sca- 
liger  as  a petty  and  absurd  writer,  full  of  errors 
and  direct  falsehoods,  and  utterly  worthless  as  an 
Historical  authority.  Yet  the  utmost  that  can  be 
derived  from  Ctesias  is,  that  Ninus  was  the  first 
King  of  the  Assyrians,  that  he  built  Nineveh, 
calling  it  after  his  own  name  [suppose  Nin 
Navah,  4 town  of  Nin  ’],  and  that,  after  his  death, 
his  widow,  Semiramis,  founded,  anti  carried  to 
a great  extent  of  magnificence,  the  city  of  Ba- 
bylon. How  precarious  these  premises  are  to 
support  the  conclusion,  the  studious  reader  will 
judge. 

Mr.  Bryant  has  discussed  this  question  at  large, 
and  he  gives  the  result  thus  : 4 The  chief  objec- 
tion made  by  these  writers  [Bochart,  and  Hyde  in 
his  De  Relig.  Veterum  Persarum , &c.]  to  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  pussage  arises  from 
this,  that  Asshur,  they  say,  is  here  mentioned  out 
of  his  place,  which  is  the  most  frivolous  and  ill- 
grounded  allegation  that  could  be  thought  of. 
^othix:g  is  more  common  with  the  sacred  writers, 
m fiving  a list  of  people,  than  to  introduce  some 


421 

little  history  of  particular  persons,  as  they  merw 
tion  them.  The  person  here  spoken  of  is  Nimrod, 
of  the  line  of  Ham,  who  is  mentioned  as  an  ex- 
traordinary character.  As  he  trespassed  upon 
Asshur,  and  forced  him  to  leave  the  land  of  Shina&i, 
his  history  is  so  blended  with  that  of  Asshur,  that 
one  could  not  be  mentioned  without  the  other. 
What  is  said  is  so  far  from  being  introduced  out 
of  its  place,  that  nothing  could  come  in  more 
naturally,  or  with  greater  propriety.  It  was  im- 
possible to  omit  it  without  rendering  the  history 
defective.  Nimrod  was  a bold  and  powerful 
man.  He  seized  upon  Babylon,  and  forced  Asshur 
to  leave  that  country  ; who  went  out  of  the  land, 
and  built  Nineveh  and  other  cities.  This  is  the 
amount  of  it : and  what  can  be  more  natural  and 
proper?’  (Anc.  Mythol.  vi.  192). 

Concerning  the  subsequent  life  of  Nimrod,  the 
Scriptures  give  not  the  slightest  information,  nor 
even  ground  for  conjecture.  But,  after  seventeen 
or  more  centuries,  a dubious  and  supposititious 
narrative  got  into  credit,  of  which  the  earliest 
promoter  that  we  know  was  Ctesias,  but  which, 
variously  amplified,  has  been  repeated  by  many 
compilers  of  ancient  history  down  to  our  own 
times.  Rollin,  Shuck  ford,  and  Prideaux,  seem 
to  have  given  it  a measure  of  credit.  It  is  briefly 
to  this  effect: — Some  make  Nimrod  to  be  Belus, 
and  consider  Nin  (for  os  and  us  are  only  the 
Greek  and  Latin  grammatical r terminations)  to 
have  been  his  son:  others  identify  Nimrod  and 
Ninus.  It  is  further  narrated  that  Ninus,  in  con- 
federacy with  Aric,  an  Arabian  sovereign,  in 
seventeen  years,  spread  his  conquests  over  Meso- 
potamia, Media,  and  a large  part  of  Armenia 
and  other  countries ; that  he  married  Semiramis, 
a warlike  companion  and  continuatrix  of  his  con- 
quests, and  the  builder  of  Babylon ; that  their 
son  Ninyas  succeeded,  and  was  followed  by  more 
than  thirty  sovereigns  of  the  same  family,  he  and 
all  the  rest  being  effeminate  voluptuaries ; that 
their  indolent,  and  licentious  characters  trans- 
mitted nothing  to  posterity ; that  the  crown 
descended  in  this  unworthy  line  one  thousand 
three  hundred  and  sixty  years;  that  the  last  king 
of  Assyria  was  Sardanapalus,  proverbial  for  his 
luxury  and  dissipation;  that  his  Median  viceroy, 
Arbaces,  with  Belesis,  a priest  of  Babylon,  re- 
belled against  him,  took  his  capital  Nineveh  and 
destroyed  it,  according  to  the  horrid  practice  of 
ancient  conquerors,  those  pests  of  the  earth,  while 
the  miserable  Sardanapalus  perished  with  his 
attendants  by  setting  fire  to  his  palace,  in  the 
ninth  century  before  the  Christian  era. 

That  some  portion  of  true  history  lies  inter- 
mingled with  error  or  fable  in  this  legend,  espe- 
cially the  concluding  part  of  it,  is  probable.  Mr. 
Bryant  is  of  opinion  that  there  are  a few  scattered 
notices  of  the  Assyrians  and  their  confederates 
and  opponents  in  Eupolemus  and  other  authors, 
of  whom  fragments  are  preserved  by  Eusebius ; 
and  in  an  obscure  passage  of  Diodorus.  To  a 
part  of  this  series,  presenting  a previous  subjuga- 
tion of  some  Canaanitish,  of  course  Hamite 
nations,  to  the  Assyrians,  a revolt,  and  a reduc- 
tion to  the  former  vassalage,  Mr.  Bryant  thinks 
that  the  very  remarkable  passage,  Gen.  xiv.  1-10, 
refers;  and  he  supports  his  argument  in  an  able 
manner  by  a variety  of  ethnological  coincidences 
(Anc.  Mythol.,  vol.  vi.  pp.  195-208).  But  what- 
ever we  know  with  certainty  of  an  Assyrian 


NINEVEH. 


NINEVEH. 


m 

monarchy  commences  with  Pul,  about  b.c.  760; 
and  we  have  then  the  succession  in  Tiglath- 
tuleser,  Shalmaneser,  Sennacherib,  and  Esar- 
haddon.  Under  this  last  it  is  probable  that  the 
Assyrian  kingdom  was  absorbed  by  the  Chaldaeo- 
Baby  onian. 

As  a great  part  of  the  ancient  mythology  and 
idolatry  arose  from  the  histories  of  chiefs  and 
sages,  decorated  with  allegorical  fables,  it  is  by 
no  means  improbable  that  the  life  and  actions  of 
Nimrod  gave  occasion  to  stories  of  this  kind. 
Hence,  some  have  supposed  him  to  have  been 
signified  by  the  Indian  Bacchus,  deriving  that 
name  from  Bar-Chus , ‘ son  of  Cush and,  it  is  pro- 
bable, by  the  Persian  giant  Gibber  (answering  to 
the  Hebrew  Gibbor,  ‘mighty  man,’  ‘hero,’  in  Gen. 
x.  8,  9)  : and  by  the  Greek  Orion,  whose  fame 
as  a ‘ mighty  hunter’  is  celebrated  by  Homer,  in 
the  Odyssey,  xi.  571-4.  The  Persian  and  the 
Grecian  fables  are  both  represented  by  the  well- 
known  and  magnificent  constellation. — J.  P.  S. 

NINEVEH,  meaning  the  dwelling  of  Ninus  ; 
a famous  city  of  the  ancient  world,  capital  of  the 
great  Assyrian  empire,  which  stood  on  the  eastern 
bank  of  the  river  Tigris,  opposite  to  the  present. 
Mosul ; its  actual  site  being  most  probably  the 
same  with  that  of  Nunia  and  the  tomb  of  Jonah, 
about,  three- fourths  of  a mile  from  the  river,  in  the 
midst  of  ruins,  N.  Lat.  36°  20'  17";  E.  L.  43° 
10'  17".  The  name  in  Hebrew  is  H1PJ  ; in  the 
Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  Nivei/i,  Nn/eibj ; in  ordi- 
nary Greek,  Nij/os;  Latin,  Ninus  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
i.  6.  4 ; ix.  11.  3).  The  Bible  makes  the  city  a 
sort  of  colony  from  Babylon  or  Babel.  Shinar  [see 
Bab  kb],  stating  (Gen.  x.  11),  ‘out  of  that  land 
(Babel,  &c.,  in  the  land  of  Shinar)  went  forth 
Asshur  and  builded  Nineveh.’  After  this  simple 
statement  the  sacred  record  is  for  a long  time  en- 
tirely silent  respecting  Nineveh,  which,  we  may 
therefore  presume,  remained  inconsiderable  for 
many  generations.  At  length,  some  fifteen  hundred 
years  after  the  first  mention  of  the  place,  in  the 
days  of  Jeroboam  II.,  king  of  Israel  (b.c.  825), 
Nineveh  again  enters  by  name  on  the  biblical 
record,  having  meanwhile  grown  into  a mighty 
power.  This  re-appearance  of  Nineveh  is  acci- 
dental, and  shows  that  the  Bible  does  not  profess 
fo  give  any  orderly  and  systematic  history  of  the 
world.  Other  countries  come  on  the  scene  and 
disappear,  just  as  the  course  of  events  in  the  king- 
doms of  Judah  and  Israel  seems  to  require  or 
may  chance  to  occasion.  Nineveh  is  described 
in  the  book  of  Jonah  as  ‘ that  great,  city,’  ‘ an 
exceeding  great  city  of  three  days'  journey,’  pro- 
bably in  a straight  line  through  the  place,  as  the 
large  cities  of  Asia  stood  on  a great  extent  of 
country,  having  gardens,  and  even  fields,  in  the 
midst  of  them  ; and  Jonah  is  said  to  ‘ enter  into 
tiie  city  a day’s  journey  ’ (clr.  iii.  4)  before  he 
began  to  foretell  its  overthrow  ; that  is,  as  is  most 
likely,  he  penetrated  into  the  heart  of  the  place, 
as  being  that  which  was  most  suitable  for  deliver- 
ing his  burden.  The  magnitude  of  the  place  may 
also  be  gathered  from  what  is  said  in  the  last  verse 
of  the  book  : ‘ That  great  city,  wherein  are  more 
than  six  score  thousand  persons  that  cannot  dis- 
cern between  their  right  hand  and  their  left  hand, 
and  also  much  cattle  ’ (grazing).  The  population 
of  a place  must  have  been  immense  in  which  there 
were  no  fewer  than  120,000  children  — young 


children  the  language  employed  seerns  to  denote,, 
It  also  appears  from  the  same  book  that  the  state 
of  society  was  highly  complex,  organized  in  divers 
ranks  from  the  king  and  the  noble  to  the  peasant ; 
and,  if  we  may  argue  from  the  exactness  with 
which  the  number  of  children  is  given,  we  should 
be  justified  in  asserting  that  the  people  were  in  an 
advanced  stage  of  civilization,  seeing  that  theii 
social  statistics  were  well  attended  to  and  care- 
fully preserved.  Civilization,  however,  had  brought 
luxury,  and  luxury  corruption  of  morals,  for  ‘ their 
wickedness  had  gone  up  before  God  ’ (ch.  i.  2). 
Yet  was  not  their  iniquity  of  the  lowest  kind,  for 
the  Ninevites  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah. 
In  contemplating  the  dim  shade  of  this  immense 
city  and  powerful  empire,  and  being  made  sen- 
sible that  our  sole  means  of  acquiring  the  little  we 
know  about  it  is  furnished  by  a few  pages  con- 
nected with  a seer  of  the  insignificant  kingdom  of 
Israel,  we  cannot  fail  to  be  surprised,  nor  to  ask 
how  it  is  that  the  records  of  Nineveh  itself  have 
perished,  and  that  almost  its  only  memorial  is 
found  among  a petty  and  despised  people  ? If  the 
memorials  of  those  great  empires  of  ancient  days 
have  perished,  and  we  owe  our  knowledge  of  them 
mainly  to  the  Hebrew  race,  why  did  not  these 
Hebrew  records  perish  too?  That  which  pre- 
served them  must  have  been  an  influence  no  less 
potent  than  peculiar.  The  sacred  writings  of  the 
Hebrews  were  carefully  preserved.  This  answer 
is  not  sufficient.  What  nation,  having  record? 
did  not.  keep  them  with  care?  A special  value 
must  have  been  attached  to  the  Hebrew  memorials, 
otherwise  so  special  and  effectual  a care  would  riot 
have  been  bestowed  on  them.  But  a special  value 
implies  a special  worth ; and  we  are  thus  led  to 
recognise  the  peculiar  character  of  these  writter 
documents,  namely,  that  they  were  true  and 
divine. 

A tew  years  later  we  find  the  prophet  Nahum 
entrusted  with  ‘the  burden  of  Nineveh.’  From 
this  book  it  would  appear  that  the  repentance  of 
the  city,  if  sincere,  was  not  durable.  Therefore 
was  the  anger  of  Jehovah  about  to  fall  upon  it 
and  make  it  a perpetual  waste.  Expressions  that 
are  employed  tend  to  give  a high  idea  of  the  size 
and  splendour  of  the  place  : it  had  many  strong 
holds,  and  many  gMes  with  bars,  probably  of  brass; 
its  inhabitants  were  ‘ many  as  the  locust it  had 
multiplied  its  merchants  above  the  stars  of  heaven  ; 
its  crowned  (princes)  were  as  the  locusts,  and  its 
captains  as  the  great  grasshoppers  (ch.  iii.  12-17). 
So  her  wealth  was  prodigious  : ‘ There  is  none  end 
of  the  store  and  glory  out  of  all  the  pleasant  fur- 
niture.’ The  reason  assigned  for  the  destruction 
of  the  city  shows  how  great  was  its  wickedness  : 

‘ Out  of  the  house  of  thy  gods  will  I cut,  off’  the 
graven  image  and  the  molten  image  ; I will 
make  thy  grave;  for  thou  art  vile’  (ch.  i.  14). 
‘Woe  to  the  bloody  city  ! It  is  all  full  of  lies 
and  robbery  ' (ch.  iii.  1).  Shortly  after  (b.c.  713) 
the  delivery  of  this  prophecy  Sennacherib,  king  ot 
Assyria,  having  invaded  Judaea,  suffered  a signal 
defeat  by  the  special  act  of  God  : ‘ So  Sennacherib 
departed,  and  went  and  returned  and  dwelt  at 
Nineveh  ’ (2  Kings  xix.  36).  Very  brief,  however, 
was  his  dwelling  there,  for  as  he  was  worshipping 
in  the  house  of  Nisroch  his  god,  Adrammeleoh 
and  Sharezer,  his  sons,  smote  him  with  the  sword  ; 
and  Esarhaddon,  his  son,  reigned  in  his  stead 
(2  Kings  xix.  37).  The  predicted  punishment  <ai 


NINEVEH. 


NINEVEH. 


the  city  was  row  approaching.  Zeplianiah  also 
gave  his  authority  that  it  would  come  (oh.  ii.  13). 
See  also  Isa.  xiv,  24,  sq. : ‘The  Lord  will  stretch 
out  his  hand  against  the  north  and  destroy  Assyria, 
and  will  make  Nineveh  a desolation,  and  dry  like 
a wilderness.’  The  language  which  immediately 
ensues  goes  to  confirm  the  view  which  has  been 
given  of  the  commercial  greatness  (it  was  the 
entrepot  for  the  trade  of  Eastern  and  Western  Asia), 
the  surpassing  opulence,  the  high  culture,  the 
immense  population,  and  the  deep  criminality  of 
the  city  of  Nineveh.  For  the  account  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  city  we  must  look  beyond  the 
Bible  documents ; but  a description  of  what  the 
ulace  was  before  its  overthrow,  conceived  in  the 


43» 

finest  style  of  Eastern  poetry,  and  adorned  with 
the  most  splendid  imagery — a description  which 
exhibits  in  the  most  striking  and  interesting  man- 
ner the  greatness  of  its  dominion  and  the  grandeur 
of  its  state — may  be  found  in  Ezekiel  xxxi. 

The  scattered  notices  of  Nineveh  found  in  pro- 
fane authors  agree  substantially  with  the  Scrip- 
tural account.  The  phrase,  ‘ that  great  city  ’ 
(Jonah  i.  2),  which  seems  in  the  Bible  to  be  em- 
ployed as  its  customary  appellation,  is  found 
applied  to  Nineveh  (N?i/os  yeyaAri)  in  a poetic 
fragment  preserved  by  Diodorus  Sic.  (ii.  23)  ; so 
that  the  epithet  would  appear  to  be  one  by  which 
the  city  was  ordinarily  and  generally  charac- 
terized. Its  greatness  was  such  that  it  was  deno- 


439.  [Nineveh,] 


minated  ‘ the  Great.’  What,  however,  is  most 
important  and  interesting  is  the  agreement  in  so 
minute  a particular  of  the  sacred  and  the  profane 
authorities.  From  Strabo  (xvi.  p.  737),  the  place 
appears  to  have  been  much  greater  than  even 
Babylon;  and  from  Diodorus  Sic.  (ii.  3),  that  it 
measured  480  stadia  in  circumference,  having  very 
high  and  broad  walls,  which,  aided  by  the  river, 
rendered  it  impregnable.  This  safety  was,  however, 
merely  imaginary.  Sardanapalus,  who  had  a full 
share  of  the  vices  of  his  subjects,  endured  in  the 
eighth  century  before  Christ  a siege  of  three  years’ 
duration  at  the  hands  of  the  Medes,  under  Arbaces, 
which  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the  city  (Diod.  Sic. 
ii.  26).  But  so  large  and  so  powerful  a capital 
was  not  easily  destroyed.  Nineveh  was  the  seat  of 
an  Assyrian  kingdom  till  the  year  b.c.  625,  when 
it  was  taken  by  Nabopolassar  of  Babylon,  and 
Cyaxares,  king  of  the  Medes,  which  led  to  the 
destruction  of  the  Assyrian  kingdom  (Herod,  i. 
106).  Nineveh  flourished  no  more.  Strabo  (xvi. 
p.  737)  represents  it  is  lying  waste  ; though  in  the 
times  of  the  Roman  'mperors  some  remains  of  it 
seem  to  have  survived,  as  a Nineveh  bn  the  Tigris 


is  mentioned  in  Tacitus  ( Annal . xii.  13),  and 
is  characterized  as  a castellum , or  fort,  probably 
some  small  fortification  raised  out  of  the  ruins  of 
the  city  for  predatory  purposes.  Something  of  the 
kind  was  found  there  at  a later  period,  for  in  the 
thirteenth  century  Abulfaragius  (Hist.  Dynast. 
p.  404  ; Barhebrseus,  Chron.  p.  464)  makes  men- 
tion of  a castellum  there. 

The  tradition  given  by  Herodotus  (i.  185),  that 
its  founder’s  name  was  Ninus,  disagrees  with  the 
Biblical  statement,  which  is  that  the  city  was 
built  by  Asshur,  and  may  be  nothing  more  than 
a repetition  of  the  practice  so  common  with  the 
Greeks  and  Latins,  of  making  founders  for  cities 
from  the  names  which  the  places  bear. 

The  present  remains  comprise  a rampart  and 
foss,  four  miles  in  circuit,  with  a moss-covered 
wall  about  twenty  feet  in  height.  The  ruins  at 
first  sight  present  a range  of  hills.  From  these 
hills  large  stones  are  constantly  dug  out,  from 
which  probably  a bridge  over  the  Tigris  has  been 
built. 

Jonah’s  connection  with  the  city  is  still  pre- 
served in  a tomb  which  bears  his  name;  but  how 


424 


NISAN. 


NOAH. 


far  back  in  antiquity  tins  building  runs,  it  is  now 
impossible  to  say.  The  tomb  stands  on  a hill, 
and  is  covered  by  a mosque  which  is  held  in  great 
"veneration.  Bricks,  partly  whole,  partly  in  frag- 
ments, and  pieces  of  gypsum  with  inscriptions  in 
the  arrow-head  character,  are  found  from  time  to 
time.  Landseer,  in  his  Sabeean  Researches,  gives 
an  engraving  of  cylinders  dug  up  at  Nineveh, 
which  he  states  to  be  numerous  in  the  East,  and 
supposes  to  have  been  employed  as  signets  : they 
are  of  jasper,  chalcedony,  and  jade,  and  bear  astro- 
nomical emblems,  the  graving  of  which,  especially 
considering  the  hardness  of  the  materials,  shows  a 
high  state  of  art. 

Mosul,  with  which  Nineveh  is  commonly  iden- 
tified, stands  on  the  opposite,  or  western  bank  of 
the  Tigris,  and  lies  so  near  the  river  that  its  streets 
are  often  flooded — a circumstance  which  calls  to 
mind  some  of  the  terms  employed  by  the  pro- 
phetic writers  before  referred  to.  This  place,  like 
its  great  prototype,  carries  on  a trade  (though  to 
a small  extent)  between  the  East  and  the  West. 
The  climate  is  stated  to  be  very  healthy ; the 
average  temperature  of  summer  not  exceeding 
66°  Fahr.  ; but  in  spring,  during  the  floods, 
epidemics  are  common,  though  not  fatal. 

See  Niebuhr,  Reiseb.  ii.  353,  368 ; Ives,  Voyage , 
p.  327,  seq.  ; Rosenmiiller,  Alterth.  i.  2,116; 
Bruns,  Erdbeschreibung , ii.  1, 199,  sq. ; Mannert, 
v.  440,  sq.  ; Kinneir's  Persia,  256-9  ; Olivier, 
Voyage  en  Turquie , iv.  265 ; Ainsworth's  Assyria, 
p.  256.— J.  R.  B. 

NISAN  (|p'3),  the  first  month  of  the  Hebrew 
civil  year.  The  name,  if  Semitic,  might  be 
traced  to  netz,  ‘ a flower,’  and  would  hence 
mean  ‘ flower-month,’  like  the  Floreal  of  repub- 
lican France.  As,  however,  this  is  a later  name, 
posterior  to  the  Captivity  (Nell.  ii.  1 ; Esther  iii.  7), 
of  the  month  which  was  originally  called  TUN 
Abib,  Gesenius  is  inclined  to  follow  Benfey  in  seek- 
ing a Persian  origin  for  the  word,  and  finds  it  in  the 
Zend Navagan,  ‘new  day,’  made  up  of  nay,  ‘new,’ 
and  agan,  equivalent  to  the  Sanscrit  ahan,  ‘ day.’ 
Abib,  by  which  name  this  month  is  called  in  the 
Pentateuch  (Exod.  xiii.  4;  xxiii.  15  ; Deut.  xvi.  1), 
means  an  ear  of  grain,  a green  ear ; and  hence 
‘ the  month  Abib,’  is  * the  month  of  green  ears.’ 
It  thus  denoted  the  condition  of  the  barley  in  the 
climate  of  Egypt  and  Palestine  in  this  month. 
Nisan,  otherwise  Abib,  began  with  the  new  moon 
of  April,  or  according  to  the  Rabbins,  of  March 
[Month]. 

NISROCH  0pD3  ; Sept.  Maaapix),  an  idol 
of  the  Ninevites  (2  Kings  xix.  37  ; Isa.  xxxvii. 
38).  The  word  is  now  usually  supposed  to  mean 

< great  eagle, ’'from  “1T3,  Arab^*J,  eagle,  and  the 

syllable  och,  ach,  which  in  Persian  is  intensitive. 
This  bird  was  held  in  peculiar  veneration  by  the 
ancient  Persians;  and  was  likewise  worshipped 
by  the  Arabs  before  the  time  of  Mohammed. 
(Jurieu,  Hist,  des  Dogmes,  iv.  4,  ch.  11;  Creuzer, 
Symbolik,  i.  723 ; Gesen.  Thesaur.  p.  892,  where 
also  may  be  seep  several  derivations  proposed  by 
Bolden  from  the  Sanscrit  apd  Zend). 

NITRE.  [Neter.] 

NO,  or  NO-AMMON  [Thebes]. 

NOAH,  the  second  father  of  the  human  race, 
ww  the  sop  of  the  second  Lamech,  the  grandson  of 


Methuselah,  and  the  tenth  in  descent  from  Adam. 
Methuselah,  who  died  at  the  age  of  969,  was  the 
longest  lived  of  the  patriarchs,  and  probably  of 
all  mankind.  The  genealogy  is  in  the  line  ot 
Seth,  who  is  distinguished  in  the  history  (Gen.  iv. 
26)  by  an  interposed  observation,  that  in  or  about 
his  105th  year  ‘a  beginning  was  made  for  calling 
by  the  name  of  Jehovah:*  or  ‘a  beginning  was 
made  for  calling  upon  the  name  of  Jehovah ;’  or 
‘ profanation  was  committed  for  calling  the  name 
of  Jehovah,’  i.  e.  applying  the  divine  name  to 
other  objects.  This  diversity  of  renderings  may 
seem  very  extraordinary;  but  it  is  to  be  consi- 
dered— (1),  that  the  parenthetic  character  of  the 
sentence  and  its  extreme  brevity  preclude  our 
receiving  aid,  except  inferentially,  from  the  con- 
nection ; (2),  that  the  verb  ^?n  appears  not  merely 
to  diverge  from  one  primary  meaning  into  several 
significations,  differing  from  each  other,  yet  ca- 
pable of  being  derived,  in  different  lines  of  asso- 
ciated thought,  from  the  primary  (which  is  very 
much  the  case  in  the  Hebrew  and  its  allied  lan- 
guages); but  that  it  belongs  to  the  class  of  words, 
instance's  of  which  are  probably  to  be  found  in 
all  languages,  alike  in  sound  or  in  spelling,  oi 
even  in  both,  but  most  widely  different  in  mean- 
ing, and  often  in  derivation,  and  therefore  each 
entitled  to  be  considered  as  a separate  verb, 
having  grown  from  a different  radical,  probably 
lost.  Dr.  Julius  Ffirst,  in  his  very  judicious  and 
philosophical  Lexicography , incorporated  in  his 
edition  of  Buxtorf’s  Concordance  (Leipzig,  1840), 
makes  of  7^>n  four  independent  verbs,  having  the 
several  meanings  of — to  pierce , to  turn  an  object 
from  a holy  use  to  something  wicked,  to  begin , 
and  to  whirl  round.  The  question  here  lies  be- 
tween the  second  and  the  third  of  these  senses. 
(3)  That  the  frequent  Hebrew  phrase  to  call , 
connected  by  a preposition,  especially  ^ for  ^N, 
with  the  noun  for  name , sometimes  signifies  to 
apply  a name  to  an  object  merely,  and  sometimes 
to  do  so  as  an  act  of  religious  homage. 

Thus  the  English  reader  sees  the  grounds  of 
the  difficulty  ; and  so  great  is  that  difficulty  on 
every  side  as  to  have  compelled  the  illustrious 
Hebraist  John  Drusius  to  say,  ‘ Long  has  this 
passage  kept  me  on  the  rack,  and  so  it  does  still ;’ 
and,  after  an  able  investigation,  he  concludes,  yet 
not  confidently,  in  favour  of  that  sense  which  we 
have  put.  the  second.  The  earliest  interpretation, 
that  of  the  Septuagint,  seems  to  have  been  formed 
upon  a wrong  reading,  anil  few  or  none  regard  it. 
as  entitled  to  acceptance.  The  next  in  antiquity 
is  the  Targum  (Chaldee  Paraphrase)  of  Onkelos, 
attributed  to  the  first  century  of  the  Christian 
era;  it  gives  ihe  passage,  ‘ Thus,  in  his  days,  the 
sons  of  men  set  aside  earnest  supplication  in  the 
name  of  Jeja.’  The  Syriac  has,  ‘ Then  he  began 
to  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord.’  The  Latin 
of  Jerome  is  the  same,  both  making  Enos  the  agent 
of  the  verb.  But  St.  Jerome,  in  his  Qucestiones 
in  Genesim,  gives  this  translation  and  remark  : 
‘ “ Then  was  the  beginning  of  calling  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord yet  many  of  the  Hebrews 
prefer  a different  meaning — that  then  first  idols 
were  fabricated  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  and  in 
his  likeness.’ 

Of  these  interpretations  we  own  that  the  first 
rflost  commends  itself  to  our  judgment;  yielding 
the  sense  that,  in  consequence  of  the  awful  in* 


NOAH. 


NOAH. 


42ft 


crease  of  wickedness,  the  true  worshippers  of  God 
then  begun  to  be  distinguished  by  the  appellation 
sons  of  God.  Thus  the  clause  stands  in  an 
illustrative  connection  with  its  proper  sequel, 
Gen.  vi.  1 ; for  ch.  v.  is  an  insulated  part,  which, 
in  the  modern  way  of  composition,  would  be  a 
genealogical  table.  This  was  the  interpretation 
of  Aquila  in  the  second  century  ; it  is  intimated 
in  the  margin  of  our  common  version,  and  is 
adopted  by  Piscator  in  both  his  Latin  and  bis 
German  versions ; by  Diodati  in  his  Italian,  by 
Ilackspan,  by  Leclerc  (1696),  by  Bishop  Patrick, 
by  Wells  (1724),  by  Dereser  (in  Brentano’s 
Bible,  1S20),  by  Romanus  Teller  (1749),  by 
Boothroyd,  by  Leander  van  Ess,  and  no  doubt 
by  many  others.  Dereser’s  note  deserves  to  be 
cited  : ‘ Some  pious  families  began  to  call  them- 
selves sons  (in  the  Hebrew  idiom  equivalent  to 
disciples,  learners)  of  God,  in  order  to  distinguish 
themselves  from  the  sons  of  men,  those  who  dis- 
regarded the  instructions  of  divine  authority,  and 
gave  themselves  up  to  wickedness.’  Wells’s 
paraphrase  is  also  excellent.  Shuckford  gives 
his  sanction  to  this  interpretation.  Yet  the  second 
has  great  weight  of  both  reason  and  authority  in 
its  favour,  and  probably  the  majority  of  expositors 
have  sanctioned  it.  None  have  expressed  it  better 
than  Bishop  Alleigh,  in  the  Bishops  Bible  (1568) : 
‘ Then  began  men  to  make  invocation  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.’  It  possesses  a strong  recommenda- 
tion in  that  the  most  usual  signification  of  to  call 
upon  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, is  to  perform  a solemn  act  of  worship. 
‘ Moses  is  presenting  to  us  the  piety  of  one  family 
which  worshipped  God  in  purity  and  holiness 
when  religion  was  almost  universally  corrupted 
and  collapsed  ’ (Calvin).  ‘ Religious  worship  be- 
gan to  be  celebrated  with  greater  life  and  energy, 
and  more  publicly,  than  had  before  been  ’ (Jas. 
Cappell,  Willett,  &c.). 

The  third  interpretation,  first  found  in  Onkelos, 
and  apparently  implied  in  the  Antiquities  of 
Josephus,  was  maintained  by  Maimonides,  Jarchi, 
and  other  Jewish  interpreters,  and  adopted  by 
our  illustrious  Selden,  and  by  Antony  van  Dale. 
But  it  can  .scarcely  be  made  to  harmonize  with 
the  prefix  p before  the  second  verb,  which,  it  is 
observed  by  Theodore  Hackspan  (whose  eminence 
in  the  niceties  of  Hebrew  and  all  other  Shemitic 
literature  was  considered  as  without  a parallel  in 
the  former  half  of  the  seventeenth  century),  de- 
termines the  sense  of  the  antecedent  verb  to  the 
idea  of  beginning. 

The  father  of  Noah  must  not  be  confounded 
with  the  Lamech  who  was  the  fourth  in  descent 
from  Cain.  There  is  another  instance  of  the 
same  name  in  each  line,  Enoch  ; but  the  periods 
of  each  of  the  two  couples  must  have  been  very 
different,  though  we  cannot  exactly  compare 
them,  for  the  history  does  not  give  the  years  of 
life  in  the  line  of  Cain.  The  two  Lamechs,  how- 
ever, have  one  remarkable  circumstance  in  com- 
tnon ; to  each  of  them  a fragment  of  inartificial 
poetry  is  attached  as  his  own  composition.  That 
of  the  Cainitic  Lamech  is  in  Gen.  iv.  23,  24. 
That  of  the  Sethite  now  comes  before  ns  in  ch.  v. 
28,  29  : — £ Lamech  lived  182  years,  and  then 
begat  a son,  and  he  called  his  name  Noah, 
saying, 

This  shall  comfort  us 

From  our  labour, 


And  from  the  sorrowful  toils  of  our  hands. 
From  the  ground, 

Which  Jehovah  hath  cursed.’ 

The  allusion  is  undoubtedly  to  the  penal  conse- 
quences of  the  fall  in  earthly  toils  and  sufferings, 
and  to  the  hope  of  a Deliverer  excited  by  the 
promise  made  to  Eve.  That  this  expectation  was 
grounded  upon  a divine  communication  we  infer 
from  the  importance  attached  to  it,  and  the  con- 
fidence of  its  expression.  See  this  subject  well 
argued  in  Bishop  Sherlock's  Use  and  Intent  oj 
Prophecy , Disc.  iv. 

That  the  conduct  of  Noah  corresponded  to  the 
faith  and  hope  of  his  father  we  have  no  reason  to 
doubt.  The  brevity  of  the  history  satisfies  not 
human  curiosity.  He  was  born  six  hundred  years 
before  the  Deluge.  We  may  reasonably  suppose 
that  through  that  period  he  maintained  the  cha- 
racter given  of  him  : — £ Noah  foond  favour  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Lord.  Noah  was  a just  man,  and 
perfect  in  his  generations.  Noah  walked  with 
God  ’ (ch.  vi.  8,  9).  These  words  declare  his 
piety,  sincerity,  and  integrity,  that  he  maintained 
habitual  communion  with  the  Father  of  Mercies, 
by  the  exercises  of  devotion,  and  that  he  was  an 
inspired  instrument  of  conveying  the  will  of  God 
to  mankind.  The  wickedness  of  the  human  race 
had  long  called  upon  the  wisdom  and  justice 
of  God  for  some  signal  display  of  his  displeasure, 
as  a measure  of  righteous  government  and  an 
example  to  future  ages.  For  a long  time,  pro- 
bably many  centuries,  the  better  part  of  men,  the 
descendants  of  Seth,  had  kept  themselves  from 
society  with  the  families  of  the  Cainite  race. 
The  former  class  had  become  designated  as  4 the 
sons  of  God,’  faithful  and  obedient : the  latter 
were  called  by  a term  evidently  designed  to  form 
an  appellation  of  the  contrary  import, £ daughters 
of  men,’  of  impious  and  licentious  men.  These 
women  possessed  beauty  and  blandishments,  by 
which  they  won  the  affections  of  unwary  men, 
and  intermarriages  upon  a great  scale  took  place. 
As  is  usual  in  such  alliances,  the  worse  part 
gained  the  ascendancy.  The  offspring  became 
more  depraved  than  the  parents,  and  a universal 
corruption  of  minds  and  morals  took  place. 
Many  of  them  became  £ giants,  the  mighty  men 

of  old,  men  of  renown  ’ (D'/S3  nephilim ) 
apostates  (as  the  word  implies),  heroes,  warriors, 
plunderers,  ‘filling  the  earth  with  violence.’  God 
mercifully  afforded  a respite  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty  years  (ch.  vi.  3 ; 1 Pet.  iii.  20 ; 2 Pet.  ii. 
5),  (luring  which  Noah  sought  to  work  salutary 
impressions  upon  their  minds,  and  to  bring  them 
to  repentance.  Thus  he  was  ‘ a preacher  of 
righteousness,’  exercising  faith  in  the  testimony 
of  God,  moved  with  holy  reverence,  obeying  the 
divine  commands,  and,  by  the  contrast  of  his 
conduct,  condemning  the  world  (Heb.  xi.  7) : 
and  probably  he  had  during,  a long  previous 
period  laboured  in  that  benevolent  and  pious 
work. 

At  last  the  threatening  was  fulfilled.  All 
human  kind  perished  in  the  waters,  except,  this 
eminently  favoured  and  righteous  man,  with  his 
three  sons  (bom  about  a hundred  years  before) 
and  the  four  wives  [Deluge]. 

At  the  appoinred  time  this  terrible  state  of  the 
earth  ceased,  and  a new  surface  was  disclosed  foi 
the  occupation  and  industry  of  the  deliver 


426 


NOAH. 


NOAH. 


family.  In  seme  places  that  surface  would  be 
washed  bare  to  the  naked  rock,  in  others  sand 
would  he  deposited,  which  would  be  long  uncul- 
tivable ; but  by  far  the  larger  portion  would  be 
covered  with  rich  soil.  With  agriculture  and  its 
allied  arts  the  antediluvians  must  have  been  well 
acquainted  [Adam].  The  four  men,  in  the  vigour 
of  their  mental  faculties  and  bodily  strength,  ac- 
cording to  the  then  existing  scale  of  human  life, 
would  be  at  no  loss  for  the  profitable  application 
of  their  powers.  Immediately  after  the  desolating 
judgment  the  merciful  Jehovah  gave  intimations 
of  his  acceptance  of  the  sacrifice  and  thanks- 
givings of  Noah  and  his  family,  and  of  his  gra- 
cious purposes  revealed  in  the  form  of  a solemn 
covenant  for  the  continual  benefit  of  them  and 
their  posterity.  The  beautiful  phenomenon  of 
the  rainbow  was  put  to  a new  and  significant  use. 
As  infallibly  certain  as  is  the  production  of  a 
rainbow  under  certain  conditions  of  the  atmo- 
sphere, so  certain  and  sure  of  fulfilment  are  the 
promises  of  Jehovah.  The  act  of  grace  is  an- 
nounced in  the  condescending  language  which 
was  best  adapted  to  the  earliest  condition  of 
human  thought  [Anthropomorphism] . ‘The 
Lord  smelled  a sweet  odour ; and  the  Lord  said 
to  his  heart,  I will  not  add  to  inllict  a malediction 
further  upon  the  ground  on  account,  of  man’  (Gen. 
viii.  21).  ‘That old  curse,’  says  Bishop  Sherlock, 
‘was  fully  executed  and  accomplished  in  the 
flood.  In  consequence  of  which  discharge  from 
the  curse  a new  blessing  is  immediately  pro- 
nounced upon  the  earth'  ( Use  and  Int.  p.  89). 
Noah  and  his  children  would  labour  the  more 
assiduously  from  the  consolation  and  hope  thus 
inspired.  Accordingly,  in  a subsequent  part  of 
the  narrative,  we  read,  ‘ And  Noali  began,  a man 
of  the  ground’  (ch.  ix.  20),  i.e.  set  diligently  to 
his  welcome  labour,  the  sorrow  being  mitigated, 
the  prospect  encouraging,  and  the  assurance  of 
success  given  by  divine  promise.  The  simple 
phrase  comprehends  the  continuity  of  action,  the 
formation  and  prosecution  of  habit.  It  is  added, 
‘ And  he  planted  a vineyard.’  Dr.  Dereser  thinks 
that  the  two  members  of  the  sentence  should  be 
connected,  producing  this  translation,  ‘ And  Noah, 
in  his  field-work,  commenced  the  planting  of  a 
\ ineyard.’  The  narrative  makes  it  evident  that 
the  occurrence  next  mentioned,  the  invention  of 
Anne-making,  must  have  been  some  years  after 
the  cessation  of  the  flood  ; for  not  Ham  himself, 
but  Canaan  his  son,  is  the  first  and  emphatic  ob- 
ject of  the  prophetic  curse.  We  cannot  with 
reason  assume  less  than  fifteen  or  eighteen  years. 
We  are  thus  led  to  the  idea  that  agricultural 
processes  were  improved,  and  produce  augmented 
in  variety  and  in  quality.  The  vine  had  existed 
before  the  flood,  and  Noah  could  not  be  unac- 
quainted with  it ; but  not  till  now  had  grapes 
been  grown  of  such  size,  sweetness,  anu  abun- 
dance of  juice,  as  to  strike  out  the  thought  of 
expressing  that  juice,  and  reserving  it  in  a vessel 
for  future  use.  Noah,  we  think  it  probable,  knew 
not  that,  in  a few  days,  it  would  ferment  and  ac- 
quire new  and  surprising  properties.  Innocently 
and  without  suspicion  he  drank  of  the  alluring 
beverage,  as  if  it  had  been  water  from  the  spring. 
The  consequence  is  recorded  in  the  characteristic 
simplicity  of  style  which  affirms  neither  censure 
nor  apology.  W e regard  that  consequence  as 
not  a sinful  intoxication,  both  from  what  was 


probably  the  occasional  cause,  and  from  the  im- 
mediate agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  communi- 
cating prophecy.  The  latter,  indeed,  is  not  an 
impregnable  ground  ; for  bad  men  might  receive 
gifts  of  inspiration,  as  Balaam  and  Judas;  but 
Noah  was  eminently  a righteous  and  perfect 
man,  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  a miraculous 
influence  of  God  should  be  granted  in  immediate 
contiguity  with  a sinful  action. 

That  prophetic  denunciation  is  the  last  recorded 
fact  of  the  life  of  Noali,  though  he  lived  through 
the  subsequent  period  of  350  years.  It  is  a pro- 
phecy of  the  most  remarkable  character,  having 
been  delivered  in  the  infancy  of  mankind;  in  its 
undeniable  fulfilment  reaching  through  more 
than  4000  years  down  to  our  own  time  ; and 
being  even  now  in  a visible  course  of  fulfilment. 
It  seems  more  strictly  correct  in  philology,  and 
more  in  accordance  with  fact,  to  render  it  as  a 
prophecy,  than  as  precatory  of  malediction  and 
blessing.  We  give  it  in  the  closest  version. 

‘ Accursed  Canaan ! 

A slave  of  slaves  he  will  be  to  his  brethren. 

Blessed  Jehovah,  God  of  Sliem  ! 

And  Canaan  will  be  slave  to  him, 

God  will  make  Japheth  to  spread  abroad, 

And  he  will  inhabit  the  tents  of  Shem, 

And  Canaan  will  be  slave  to  him.’ 

The  first  part  of  this  prediction  implies  that,  in 
some  way,  the  conduct  of  Canaan  was  more  of- 
fensive than  even  that  of  his  father  Ham.  The 
English  reader  will  perceive  the  peculiar  allusion 
or  alliteration  of  the  third  member,  when  he  is  in- 
formed that  the  name  Japheth  comes  from  a verb, 
the  radical  idea  of  which  is  opening , widening , 
expansion.  In  two  ways  one  might  imitate  it;  by 
translating  both  the  words,  or  by  coining  a verb  ; 
thus,  1,  God  will  enlarge  the  enlarger;  or,  2, 
God  will  japhethize  Japheth.  The  whole  para- 
graph, short  as  it  is,  contains  a germ  which,  like 
the  acorn  to  the  oak,  comprehends  the  spirit  of 
the  respective  histories  of  the  three  great  branches 
of  mankind.  The  next  chapter  presents  to  us 
the  incipient,  unfolding  of  the  prophecy.  See  the 
article  Nations,  Dispersion  ok. 

‘Godwill  give  xo  Japheth  an  abundant  pos- 
terity, which  will  spread  itself  into  different  re- 
gions, and  will  dwell  among  the  posterity  of 
Shem  ; and  Canaan's  posterity  will  be  compelled 
to  be  slaves  to  that  of  Japheth.  The  following 
chapter  shows  how  this  prophecy  has  been  fulfilled.. 
The  descendants  of  Japheth  peopled  Europe,  the 
northern  parts  of  Asia,  Asia  Minor,  Media,  Iberia, 
Armenia,  the  countries  between  the  Black  Sea 
and  the  Caspian,  Great  Tartary,  India,  China, 
the  European  settlements  in  America,  and  pro- 
bably America  itself.  They  also  inhabit  in  part 
the  more  southerly  parts  of  Asia,  mingling  freely 
with  the  posterity  of  Shem,  who  chiefly  peopled 
those  regions.  On  the  other  hand,  Africa,  which 
was  peopled  by  the  descendants  of  Canaan  and 
[other  sons  of]  Ham,  was  conquered  and  brought, 
under  the  yoke  by  the  Romans,  descendants  ot 
Japheth.’  [This  applies  only- to  the  Carthaginians 
and  settlers  in  other  districts  along  the  north 
coast  of  Africa,  which  had  been  peopled  by  the 
Phoenicians  and  other  G'anaanitish  tribes.  We 
have  not  the  shadow  of  authority  for  deriving  the 
negro  tribes,  or  any  of  the  nations  of  Medial  and 
South  Africa,  from  Canaan.]  ‘Down  to  our  dwa 


NOAH. 


NOBLEMAN. 


times  Africa  has  been  to  all  other  nations  the 
source  of  the  supply  of  slaves’  (Dereser,  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  Germ.  TransL  of  the  Bible , by 
him,  Brentano,  and  Scholz,  17  vols.  Francf. 
1820-1833)  : an  excellent  version,  made  from 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek. 

It  is  an  old  tradition  of  the  Rabbinical  Jews, 
on  which  they  lay  great  stress,  that  at  this  junc- 
ture* Noah  delivered  to  his  children  seven  pre- 
cepts, to  be  enjoined  upon  all  their  descendants. 
These  prohibit,  1,  idolatry;  2,  irreverence  to  the 
Deity;  3,  homicide;  4,  unchastity ; 5,  fraud  and 
plundering;  the  6th  enjoins  government  and  obe- 
dience; and  the  7th  forbids  to  eat  any  part  of  an 
animal  still  living.  Mr.  Selden  has  largely 
illustrated  these  precepts,  and  regards  them  as  a 
concise  tablet  of  the  Law  of  Nature  (De  Jure 
Nat.  et  Gent,  juxta  Disciplin.  Ebrceorum ),  which 
excellent  work  of  900  pages  is  taken  up  in  com- 
menting upon  them.  Though  we  have  no  posi- 
tive evidence  of  their  having  been  formally 
enjoined  by  the  great  patriarch,  we  can  have  no 
great  reason  for  rejecting  such  an  hypothesis. 

After  this  event,  we  have  in  the  Scriptures  no 
further  account  of  Noah,  than  that  ‘all  his  days 
were  nine  hundred  and  fifty  years  ; and  he  died.’ 
That  he  had  no  more  children  is  evident  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  notwithstanding  the  antedilu- 
vian longevity,  from  the  impossibility  of  his  hav- 
ing a second  wife  without  horrid  incest,  which 
surely  no  man  of  sound  mind  can  impute  to  him, 
and  from  the  absence  of  the  constant  clause  of  ch. 
v..  which  would  naturally  have  come  after  the 
28th  verse  of  ch.  ix.,  ‘and  begat  sons  and  daugh- 
ters.’ Mr.  Shuekford  regards  this  absence  of  any 
mention  of  Noah,  as  ‘a  strong  intimation  that  he 
neither  came  with  the  travellers  to  Shinaar,  nor 
was  settled  in  Armenia  or  Mesopotamia,  or  any 
of  the  adjacent  countries.  He  was  alive  a great 
while  after  the  confusion  of  Babel,  for  he  lived  350 
years  after  the  flood;  and  surely,  if  he  had  come 
to  Babel,  or  lived  in  any  of  the  nations  into  which 
mankind  were  dispersed  from  thence,  a person  of 
such  eminence  could  not  at  once  sink  to  nothing, 
and  be  no  more  mentioned  than  if  he  had  not  been 
at  all  ’ ( Connect . i.  99)  But  it  must  be  confessed 
that  the  argument  from  silence,  however  strong  it 
may  appear  in  this  case,  is  not  decisive.  The 
narratives  of  the  Bible  are  not  to  be  judged  of  by 
the  common  and  just  rules  of*  writing  history. 
Those  narratives  are  not,  properly  speaking,  a 
history,  but  are  a collection  of  such  anecdotes  and 
detached  facts  as  the  Spirit  of  holiness  and  wisdom 
determined  to  be  the  most  practically  proper  for 
the  religious  and  moral  instruction  of  all  sorts  of 
men.  The  Bible  was  written  for  children  and 
poor  peasants,  as  well  as  for  scholars  and  philoso- 
phers. That  learned  and  judicious  author  sup- 
poses that  Noah  migrated  far  into  the  East,  and 
that  the  Chinese  mean  no  other  than  him  when 
their  traditions  assign  Fohi  as  their  first  king, 
laving  no  father,  i.  e.  none  recorded  in  their 
legends  ; to  whom  also  they  attribute  several  ac- 
tions and  circumstances  which  appear  to  be  derived 
by  disguisement  from  the  real  facts  recorded  in 
our  sacred  book  of  Genesis.  One  in  particular 
is  in  connection  with  a universal  deluge ; and 
this  is  mentioned  also  by  Sir  William  Jones,  who 
says,  ‘ the  great  progenitor  of  the  Chinese  is  named 
by  them  Fohi,’  and  that  ‘the  earth’s  being  wholly 
c<rer$d  with  water  just  preceded  the  appearance 


of  Fohi  on  the  mountains  of  Chin’  (Works,  iii. 
151-5).  It  may  be  very  rationally  conceived  that 
Noah  remained  long  in  the  neighbourhood  of  his 
descent  from  the  ark ; and  that,  at  last,  weighty 
reasons  might  induce  him,  with  a sufficient  num- 
ber of  associates,  grandchildren  and  great-grand- 
children, who  would  be  born  in  some  80  or  100 
years,  to  migrate  far  to  the  East. 

Sir  William  Jones,  also,  is  evidently  inclined 
to  think  the  seventh  Menu  of  the  Hindoos,  con- 
nected in  their  ancient  books  with  a universal 
deluge,  to  be  no  other  than  a legendary  represent- 
ation of  Noah.  The  very  name  is,  indeed,  iden- 
tical, Me  Nuh , the  M being  a common  Oriental 
prefix,  and  Nth  is  Noah  without  the  points. 

As  the  flood  affected  equally  the  common  an- 
cestry of  mankind,  all  nations  that  have  not  sunk 
into  the  lowest  barbarism  would  be  likely  to  pre- 
serve  the  memory  of  the  chief  person  connected 
with  it;  and  it  would  be  a natural  fallacy  that 
every  people  should  attach  to  itself  a principal 
interest  in  that  catastrophe,  and  regard  that  chief 
person  as  the  founder  of  their  own  nation  and  be- 
longing to  their  own  locality.  Hence  we  can 
well  account  for  the  traditions  of  so  many  peoples 
upon  this  capital  fact  of  ancient  history,  and  the 
chief  person  in  it ; — the  Xisuthrus  of  the  Chal- 
daeans,  with  whom  is  associated  a remarkable  num- 
ber of  precise  circumstances,  corresponding  to  the 
Mosaic  narrative  (Alex.  Polyhist.  in  the  Chronicle 
of  Eusebius,  so  happily  recovered  by  Mr.  Zohrab, 
in  the  Armenian  version,  and  published  by  him 
in  1818);  the  Phrygian  Noe  of  the  celebrated 
Apamean  medal,  which,  besides  Noah  and  his 
wife  with  an  ark,  presents  a raven,  and  a dove  with 
an  olive-branch  in  its  mouth  (figured  in  Bryant's 
Anc.  Myth.  vol.  iii.)  ; the  Manes  of  the  Lydians 
(Mr.  W.  J.  Hamilton’s  Asia  Min.  iii.  383,  [Na- 
tions, Dispersion  of]  ; the  Deucalion  of  the  Sy- 
rians and  the  Greeks,  of  whose  deluge  the  account 
given  by  Lucian  is  a copy  almost  exactly  circum- 
stantial of  that  in  the  book  of  Genesis  (Dea  Syria  ; 
Luciani  Opp.  iii.  457,  ed.  Reitz;  Bryant,  iii.  28); 
the  many  coincidences  in  the  Greek  mythology 
in  respect  of  Saturn,  Janus,  and  Bacchus;  the 
traditions  of  the  aboriginal  Americans,  as  stated 
by  Clavigero,  in  his  History  of  Mexico ; and 
many  others. — J.  P.  S. 

NOB  (2i)  ; Sept.  No/i/3a),  a city  of  Benjamin, 
in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  belonging  to  the 
priests,  and  where  the  tabernacle  was  stationed  in 
the  time  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xxi.  2;  xxii.  9,  11,  19; 
Neh.  xi.  32;  Isa.  x.  32.  From  the  last  of  these 
texts  it  would  appear  that  Jerusalem  was  visible 
from  Nob,  which,  therefore,  must  have  been  situ- 
ated somewhere  upon  the  ridge  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  north-east  of  the  city.  Dr.  Robinson  states 
that  he  diligently  sought  along  the  ridge  for 
some  traces  of  an  ancient  site,  which  might  be 
regarded  as  that  of  Nob,  but  without  the  slightest 
success  ( Bibl . Researches , ii.  150). 

NOBLEMAN.  The  word  so  rendered  in 
John  iv.  46  is  fiao  i\Ik6s,  which  is  somewhat 
various  in  signification.  It  may  mean:  1.  A 
rege  oriundus,  descended  from  a king.  2. 
viryperys  rod  fiatn^ews,  one  belonging  to  the 
court.  3.  arpanwrys  fiatriXews,  a soldier  of  the 
king,  in  which  latter  sense  it  often  occurs  in 
Josephus.  The  second  signification  seems,  how- 
ever, to  be  the  prevalent  one ; and  the  Greek  in- 
terpreters are  also  favourably  inclined  towards  it. 


428 


NOD. 


NORTH. 


M (inter  found  it  likewise  in  inscriptions.  The 
Svriac  has  here,  4 a royal  servant the  Ethiopic, 

‘ a royal  house-servant.’  This  person  was,  there- 
fore, probably  of  the  court  of  Herod  Antipas,  who 
reigned  over  Galilee  and  Peraea  (Tholuck,  Com- 
mentar  znm  Johan,  iv.  46). 

NOD  (TO;  Sept.  Na(8),  the  land  to  which 
Cain  withdrew,  and  in  which  he  appears  to  have 
settled  (Gen.  iv.  16).  While  the  site  of  Paradise 
itself  remains  undetermined,  it  is  useless  to  seek  for 
that  of  the  land  of  Nod.  This  land,  wherever  it 
was,  could  not  have  had  a name  till  Cain  went  to 
it ; and  it  was  doubtless  called  Nod  (which 
signifies  flight , wandering),  from  the  circum- 
stance that  Cain  fled  to  it. 

NOPH  [Memphis]. 

NOPHECH  Cn»}i)),  a precious  stone,  named 
in  Exod.  xxviii.  18;  xxxix.  11  ; Ezek.  xxvii.  16; 
xxviii.  13;  in  all  which  places  it  is  rendered 
‘Emerald’  in  the  Authorised  Version.  The 
Sept,  and  Josephus  render  it  by  &i/a6pa or  car- 
buncle. This  name,  denoting  a live  coal,  the 
ancients  gave  to  several  glowing  red  stones  re- 
sembling live  coals  (a  similitudine  ignium  ap- 
pellati,  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xxxii.  25;  comp.  Theo- 
phrast.  De  Lapid.  18),  particularly  rubies  and 
garnets.  The  most  valued  of  the  carbuncles  seems, 
however,  to  have  been  the  Oriental  garnet,  a trans- 
parent red  stone,  with  a violet  shade,  and  strong 
vitreous  lustre.  It  was  engraved  upon  (Tlieo- 
phrast.,  31),  and  was  probably  not  so  hard  as  the 
ruby,  which,  indeed,  is  the  most  beautiful  and 
costly  of  the  precious  stones  of  a red  colour,  but 
is  so  hard  that  it  cannot  easily  be  subjected  to  the 
graving-tool.  The  Hebrew  nophech , in  the  breast- 
plate of  the  high-priest,  was  certainly  an  engraved 
stone;  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  ancients 
could  engrave  the  ruby,  although  this  has  in  mo- 
dern times  been  accomplished.  Upon  the  whole, 
the  particular  kind  of  stone  denoted  by  the  Hebrew 
word  must  be  regarded  as  uncertain  (Rosen- 
miiller,  Biblical  Mineralogy , pp.  32,  33;  Winer’s 
Real-worterbuch,  art.  ‘ Edelsteine  ;’  Braunius, 
De  Vest.  Sacerdot.  p.  523 ; Bellermann,  Ueber 
die  Urim , u.  Thummim , p.  43). 

NORTH  (fiaV;  Sept,  floras;  Vulg.  Sep- 
tentrio , &c.).  The  Shemite,  in  speaking  of  the 
quarters  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth,  supposes 
his  face  turned  towards  the  east,  so  that  the  east 
is  before  him,  the  west  behind,  the  south  on  the 
right  hand,  and  the  north  on  the  left.  Hence  the 
words  which  signify  east,  west,  north,  and  south, 
signify  also  that  which  is  before,  behind,  on  the 
right  hand,  and  on  the  left.  Thus  Aquila  renders 
the  words,  ‘ the  north  and  the  south'  (Ps.  lxxxix. 
12),  fioppai/  KaX  8e£tai/,  the ‘north  and  the  right 
hand.’  The  Hebrew  word,  translated  north,  occurs 
in  the  five  following  senses : 1 . It  denotes  a quarter 
of  the  heavens ; 2.  of  the  earth  ; 3.  a north  aspect 
or  direction;  4.  it  is  the  conventional  name  for 
certain  countries  irrespectively  of  their  true  geo- 
graphical situation  ; and,  5.  it  indicates  the  north 
wind.  1.  It  denotes  a particular  quarter  of  the 
heavens ; thus,  ‘ fair  weather  cometh  out  of  the 
north’  (Job  xxxvii.  22);  literally,  ‘gold  cometh,’ 
which  Gesenius  understands  figuratively,  as 
meaning  the  golden  splendour  (of  the  firmament), 
and  compares  Zech.  iv.  12,  ‘gold-coloured  oil.’ 
The  Sept,  somewhat  favours  this  idea — <*7r o fioppa 
vityH  Xf'y(ravy°vyTa>  ‘ the  'doud  having  the  lustre 


of  gold,’  which  perhaps  corresponds  with  the 
Xpvawirbs  alO-tjp , the  gilded  aether,  or  sky  of  an  old 
Greek  tragedian,  quoted  by  Grotius.  The  same 
Hebrew  word  seems  used  poetically  for  the  whole 
heaven  in  the  following  passage  : ‘ He  stretcheth 
out  the  north  (literally  the  concealed,  dark  pk>ce), 
(like  -jrpbs  v,  in  Homer)  over  the  empty  place’ 
(Job  xxvi.  7 ; Sept..  eV  ooSeV).  Hence  the  mean- 
ing, probably  is,  that  the  north  wind  clears  the 
sky  of  clouds ; which  agrees  with  the  fact  in  Pales- 
tine, to  which  Solomon  thus  alludes,  ‘The  north 
wind  driveth  away  rain’  (Prov.  xxv.  23).  Homer 
styles  it  aidprjyeveTgs,  ‘ producing  clear  weather  ' 
(II.  xv.  171  ; Od.  v.  296).  Josephus  calls 
it  atdpuvTaros,  ‘ that  wind  which  most  produces 
clear  weather’  ( Antiq . xv.  9.  6) ; and  Hesychius, 
iiri8<l£ios,  or  ‘auspicious’;  and-see  the  remarkable 
rendering  of  the  Sept,  in  Prov.  xxvii.  16.  In  the 
words,  ‘ cold  weather  cometh  out  of  the  north  ’ 
(Job  xxxvii.  9),  the  word  rendered  ‘ north  ’ i? 
DHTD  mezarim,  which  Gesenius  understands  to 
mean  literally  ‘ the  scattering,’  and  to  be  a 
poetical  term  for  the  north  winds,  which  scatter 
the  clouds  and  bring  severe  cold.  He,  therefore, 
with  Cocceius  and  Schultens,  approves  of  Kim- 
chi’s  rendering  of  the  phrase  by  ‘ venti  tlantes  et 
dispergentes.’  By  some  a northern  star  is  here 
understood  : the  Vulgate  has  arctxtrus  ; the  Sept. 
anpurripia  (perhaps  to  be  read  apKT&a  or  apKr 
oupos) ; while  others,  as  Aben-Ezra,  and  after 
him  Michaelis,  regard  Mezarim  in  this  text  as  the 
same  with  the  coustellation  denoted  elsewhere  by 
mazzaroth  (Job  xxxviii.  22),  and  mazzaloih 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  5). 

The  word  occurs  also  in  the  same  sense  in 
the  following  passages:  ‘ the  wind  turneth  about 
to  the  north’  (Eccles.  i.  6);  ‘a  whirlwind,  ou 
of  the  north’  (Ezek.  i.  4).  2.  It  means  a quart* 
of  the  earth  (Ps.  evii.  3 ; Isa.  xliii.  6 ; Ezek.  xf 
47 ; xxxii.  30  ; comp.  Luke  xiii.  29).  3.  I 

occurs  in  the  sense  of  a northern  aspect  or  dire® 
tion,  &c. ; thus,  ‘ looking  north’  (1  Kings  7ii.  25  , 
1 Cliron.  ix.  24;  Num.  xxxiv.  7);  on  ‘ the  nort^ 
side’  (Ps.  xlviii.  2;  Ezek.  viii.  14  ; xl.  44  ; comp 
Rev.  xxi.  13).  4.  It  seems  used  as  the  conven- 

tional name  for  certain  coun'riee,  irrespectively 
of  their  true  geographical  situation,  namely,  Baby- 
lonia, Chaldsea,  Assyria,  and  Media,  which  are 
constantly  represented  as  being  to  the  north  of 
Judaea,  though  some  of  them  lay  rather  to  the  east 
of  Palestine.  Thus  Assyria  is  called  the  north 
(Zeph.  ii.  13),  and  Babylonia  (Jer.  i.  14  ; xlvi.  6, 
10,  20,  24  ; Ezek.  xxvi.  7 ; Judith  xvi.  4).  The 
origin  of  this  use  of  the  word  is  supposed  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  kings  of  most  of  these 
countries,  avoiding  the  deserts,  used  to  invade 
Judaea  cliiefly  on  the  north  side,  by  way  of  Da- 
mascus and  Syria.  Thus  also,  the  kings  of  the 
north  that  were  ‘ near,’  may  mean  the  kings  of 
Syria,  and  ‘ those  that  are  afar  off,’  the  Hyrcaniaus 
and  Bactrians,  &c.,  who  are  reckoned  by  Xeno- 
phon among  the  peoples  that  were  subjected  or 
oppressed  by  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  perl\a}'S 
others  besides  of  the  neighbouring  nations  that 
were  compelled  to  submit  to  the  Babylonish  yoke 
(Jer.  xxv.  26).  By  ‘ the  princes  of  the  north’ 
(Ezek.  xxxii.  30),  some  understand  the  Tyrians 
and  their  allies  (ch.  xxvi.  16),  joined  here  with 
the  Zidonians,  their  neighbours.  ‘The  families  of 
the  north’  (Jer.  i.  15)  are  inferior  kings,  who  were 
allies  or  tributaries  to  the  Babylonian  empire 


NOVICE. 


NUMBERS. 


<*29 


(comp,  xxxiv.  1 ; 1.  41  ; li.  27).  ‘The  families 
of  the  north*  (Jer.  xxv.  9)  may  mean  a still  in- 
ferior class  of  people,  or  nations  dependent  on 
Babylon.  5.  The  Hebrew  word  is  applied  to  the 
north  wind.  In  Prov.  xxvii.  16,  the  impossibility 
of  concealing  the  qualities  of  a contentions  wife, 
is  illustrated  by  comparing  it  to  an  attempt  to 
bind  the  north  wind,  nVY{£3¥.  The  invocation 
of  Solomon  (Cant.  iv.  16),  ‘Awake,  oh  north,  and 
come,  thou  south,  blow  upon  my  garden  that  the 
spices  may  How  out,’  and  which  has  occasioned 
much  perplexity  to  il.ustrators,  seems  well  ex- 
plained by  Rosenmiiller,  as  simply  alluding  to 
the  effect  of  winds  from  opposite  quarters,  in  dis- 
persing the  fragrance  of  aromatic  shrubs  (ver.  13, 
1 4)  far  and  wide,  in  all  directions.  A fine  de- 
scription of  the  effects  of  the  north  wind,  in  winter, 
occurs  in  Ecclus.  xliii.  20  ; which  truly  agrees 
with  the  ‘ horfifer  Boreas’  of  Ovid  (Met.  i.  65), 
and  in  which  reference  is  made  to  the  coincident 
effects  of  the  north  wind  and  of  fire  (v.  21  ; comp, 
v.  3,  4),  like  the  ‘ Borese  penetrabile  frigus  admit’ 
of  Virgil  (Georg,  i.  93)  ; or  Milton’s  description, 

‘ The  parching  air 

Burns  fierce,  and  cold  performs  the  effects  of  fire.’ 
Paradise  Lost,  ii.  595. 
Josephus  states  that  the  north  wind  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Joppa  was  called  by  those  who  sailed 
there  MeXag^Speios,  ‘ the  black  north  wind,’  and 
certainly  his  description  of  its  effects,  on  one 
occasion,  off  that  coast,  is  appalling  ( De  Bell. 
Jud.  iii.  9.  3).— J.  F.  D. 

NOSE-JEWEL  [Women]. 

NOVICE,  or  Neophyte  (N e6(pvros),  one 
newly  converted  (literally  newly  planted ),  not 
yet  matured  in  Christian  experience  (1  Tim.  iii.  6). 
The  ancient  Greek  interpreters  explain  it  by  ‘ new- 
baptised,’  veofidTrTiffTos,  ‘ proselyte,’  tt pocryAvros, 
&c.  The  word  continued  to  be  in  use  in  the  early 
church  ; but  it  gradually  acquired  a meaning 
somewhat  different  from  that  which  it  bore  under 
the  Apostles,  when  ‘newly  converted' and  ‘newly 
baptised’  described,  in  fact,  the  same  condition, 
the  converted  being  at  once  baptised.  For  when, 
in  subsequent  years,  the  church  felt  it  prudent  to 
put  converts  under  a course  of  instruction  before 
admitting  them  to  baptism  and  the  full  privi- 
leges of  Christian  brotherhood,  the  term  N e6<pvroi, 
Novitii , Novices,  was  sometimes  applied  to  them, 
although  more  uStially  distinguished  by  the  ge- 
neral term  of  Catechumens. 

NUMBERS  is  the  appellation  given  to  the 
fourth  book  of  Moses,  which  in  the  Septuagint 
is  called  'Apid/xoi,  and  in  the  Hebrew  canon 
be-midbar,  ‘ in  the  desert.* 

Contents. — This  book  embraces  more  espe- 
cially the  continuation  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation, 
the  march  through  the  wilderness,  the  rejection  of  a 
whole  generation,  and  the  commencement  of  the 
conquest  of  Canaan.  Thus  we  see  that  it  treats 
on  very  different  subjects,  and  on  this  account  it 
has  frequently  been  attempted  to  resolve  it  into 
separate  fragments  and  documents,  and  to  repre- 
sent it  as  being  composed  of  the  most  heterogene- 
ous materials.  We  will  endeavour  to  refute  this 
opinion,  by  furnishing  an  accurate  survey  of  its 
contents,  and  by  describing  the  internal  connec- 
tion of  its  component  parts,  so  that  the  organisa- 
tion of  the  book  may  be  clearly  understood. 

The  sum  and  substance  of  the  law  having  been 
stated  in  the  preceding  books,  that  of  Numbers 


commences  with  the  arrangements  requisite  for 
preserving  good  order  in  the  camp  of  the  Israelites. 
The  people  are  numbered  for  the  express  purpose 
of  separating  the  Levites  from  those  Israelites  who 
had  to  bear  arms,  and  of  thus  introducing  into 
practice  the  law  concerning  the  first-born,  for 
whom  the  tribe  of  Levi  became  a substitute. 
For  this  reason  the  people  are  not  merely 
numbered,  but  also  classed  according  to  their 
descent;  the  order  which  each  tribe  should 
occupy  in  the  camp  is  defined ; and  the  Levites 
are  introduced  into  their  respective  functions 
(ch.  i.-iv.). 

The  camp,  having  been  consecrated,  was  to  be 
kept  pure  according  to  the  law  of  Levitical 
cleansings ; consequently  all  persons  were  ex- 
cluded from  it  who  were  afflicted  with  leprosy, 
who  had  become  unclean  by  a flux,  and  who  had 
touched  a corpse  (ch.  v.  14). 

Thus,  after  civil  and  sacerdotal  life  bad  been 
brought  into  a definite  form,  other  laws  based  upon 
this  form  came  into  force,  especially  those  laws 
which  regulated  the  authority  of  the  priests  in 
civil  affairs  (ch.  v.  5 ; vi.  27).  These  regulations 
conclude  with  the  beautiful  form  of  benediction 
which  indicates  the  blessing  to  be  expected  from 
the  true  observance  of  the  preceding  directions. 
The  people  are  impressed  with  this  fact ; the  hearts 
of  the  Israelites  are  willing  to  offer  the  required 
gifts,  and  to  entrust  them  to  the  Levites. 

Jehovah  is  faithful  to  his  promise,  and  glori- 
ously reveals  himself  to  his  people  (ch.  vii.). 
Before  the  Levites  enter  upon  the  discharge  of 
their  sacred  functions,  the  law  concerning  th# 
lamps  to  be  lighted  in  the  sanctuary  is  signifi 
cantly  repeated  (ch.  viii.).  These  lamps  sym 
bolize  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spiri' 
and  bring  to  the  recollection  of  the  nation  th 
blessings  of  theocracy  to  be  derived  from  setting 
apart  the  tribe  of  Levi,  which  had  recently  been 
separated  from  the  rest  of  the  people. 

Then  follows  a description  of  the  celebration 
of  the  Passover,  preparatory  to  the  departure  of 
the  people  from  Mount  Sinai  (ch.  ix.  1-14). 
Some  regulations  are  connected  with  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Passover,  and  the  whole  miraculous 
guidance  of  the  people  is  described  (ch.  ix.  15-x.). 

Thus  the  entrance  of  Israel  into  the  Holy  Land 
seemed  to  be  fully  prepared ; and  it  was  of  great 
importance  to  show  how  they  were  prevented 
from  entering  it.  Accurate  details  are  therefore 
given  of  the  spirit  which  pervaded  the  nation  ; 
a spirit  which,  in  spite  of  the  forbearance  of  God, 
manifested  itself  in  daring  rebellions  against  (he 
divine  authority  (ch.  xi.  and  xii.). 

Now  comes  the  turning  point  of  the  history. 
Everything  seems  externally  prepared  for  the 
conquest  of  the  country,  when  it  appears  that  the 
nation  are  not  yet  internally  ripe  for  the  perform- 
ance of  so  important  an  act  (ch.  xiii.,  xiv.). 

In  immediate  connection  with  this  are  some 
laws  which  were  given  in  the  desert;  the  in- 
tention of  which  was  to  recal  to  the  recollection  of 
the  rejected  race,  which  had  been  justly  con- 
demned to  suffer  severe  punishment,  that  never- 
theless they  had  not  ceased  to  be  the  people  of  the 
covenant,  and  the  depositary  of  divine  revelation 
(comp.  ch.  xv.  2,  13-16,  22,  23,  37,  sq.).  In 
this  respect  the  facts  mentioned  in  ch.  xv.  32-36 
and  ch.  xvi.  are  also  of  great  importance.  They 
show,  on  the  one  hand,  the  continuance  of  an  evil 


430 


NUMBERS. 


NUMBERS. 


disposit.on  in  the  people,  and,  on  the  other,  the 
majesty  of  God  watching  over  his  holy  law. 

The  content*  of  ch.  xv.-xix.  are  of  a similar 
character.  The  facts  there  recorded  relate  to  a 
period  of  thirty-eight  years.  The  conciseness 
with  which  they  are  stated  significantly  indicates 
the  strictly  legal  and  theocratical  principles  of 
the  Mosaical  legislation.  The  period  of  Israel’s 
rejection  is  characterized  by  the  circumstance, 
that  the  historian  is  almost  silent  respecting  it, 
as  being  a period  not  strictly  belonging  to  theo- 
cratical history.  During  this  period  the  striking 
deeds  of  God,  his  miracles  and  signs,  the  more 
prominent  operations  of  his  grace,  and  his  pe- 
culiar blessings,  cease.  The  rejection  of  the 
nation  consisted  in  this  suspension  of  the  divine 
operations.  During  this  period  God,  as  it  were, 
ignored  his  people.  Consequently,  the  historian 
also  almost  ignores  the  rebellious  race.  But  the 
period  in  which  the  divine  promises  were  to  be 
fulfilled  again  forms  a prominent  portion  of  the 
history.  The  termination  of  the  penal  period 
is  the  commencement  of  the  most  important 
era  in  the  Mosaical  history.  It  brings  the 
legislation  to  a splendid  conclusion.  The  most 
glorious  facts  here  follow  each  other  in  close 
succession ; facts  which  were  intended  clearly  to 
demonstrate  that  the  chosen  people  entered  into 
the  land  of  promise,  not  by  their  own  power  and 
might,  but  that  this  land  was  given  into  their 
hands  by  the  God  of  promise. 

Miriam  was  already  dead ; and  the  forty  years 
of  wandering  in  the  wilderness  were  accom- 
plished. Israel  was  again  in  sight  of  the  Holy 
Land  on  the  borders  of  Edom.  Then  Moses  and 
Aaron  also  sinned ; soon  after,  Aaron  died,  and 
was  succeeded  by  Eleazar.  Israel  sent  ambas- 
sadors to  the  king  of  Edom  to  obtain  permis- 
sion to  pass  through  his  territory,  but  was  haugh- 
tily refused  (ch.  xx.).  Everything  seemed  to 
be  prepared  by  preceding  events  already  re- 
corded. The  dying  off  of  the  real  emigrants 
from  Egypt  might  be  expected,  after  the  divine 
decree  that  this  should  come  to  pass,  had  been 
mentioned  ; the  unbelief  of  Moses  arose  from 
the  protracted  duration  of  the  time  of  punish- 
ment, which  at  length  broke  his  courage;  the 
spirit  of  Edom  arose  in  overbearing  animosity, 
because  it  seemed  that  Jehovah  had  forsaken  his 
people.  It  was  appointed  that  Israel  should  un- 
dergo all  this  in  order  that  they  might  grow  strong 
in  the  Lord.  Their  strength  was  soon  proved 
• against  Arad.  They  vowed  to  devote  all  the 
cities  of  the  Canaanites  to  Jehovah,  who  gave 
them  the  victory.  They  were  directed  to  avoid 
the  boundaries  of  Edom,  and  to  have  Canaan 
alone  in  view.  The  people  murmured,  and  the 
significant  symbol  of  the  serpent  was  erected 
before  them,  reminding  them  of  their  ancient 
sin,  and  how  it  had  been  healed  and  over- 
come by  Jehovah.  In  all  this  Israel  is  con- 
stantly directed  to  Canaan.  They  march  cou- 
rageously to  the  boundaries  of  the  Amorites, 
singing  praises  to  Jehovah,  and,  by  the  power 
of  the  Lord,  defeat  the  kings  of  Heshbon  and 
Bashan  (ch.  xxi.). 

In  the  plains  of  Moab  still  greater  glory 
awaits  the  chosen  people.  The  pagan  prophet 
of  Mesopotamia,  being  hired  by  the  king  of  the 
Moabites,  is  overpowered  by  Jehovah,  so  that  he 
is  compelled  to  bless  Israel  instead  of  cursing 


them ; and  also  directs  them  to  the  ancient  hies*' 
ings  granted  to  the  patriarchs.  The  bitterest 
enemies  of  the  theocracy  are  here  most  deeply 
humbled,  being  themselves  compelled  to  con- 
tribute to  the  glory  of  Jehovah  (ch.  xxii.-xxiv.). 
Not  the  God,  but  the  people  of  Israel,  were  dis- 
honoured through  the  devices  of  Balaam. 

The  subsequent  account  concerning  the  idolatry 
into  which  the  people  were  led,  forms  a striking 
contrast  with  the  preceding  chapters,  and  evinces 
the  impotence  of  the  Israelites,  whose  first  attack, 
therefore,  was  to  be  directed  against  their  seducers. 
This  was  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  which  was  essentially  a combat  against 
idolatry,  and  the  victory  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
over  paganism.  The  conquered  country  was 
granted  to  separate  tribes,  and  for  this  purpose  the 
people  were  once  more  numbered,  and  Joshua 
appointed  their  leader. 

Jehovah  reserves  his  own  rights  in  the  distri 
bution  of  the  country,  and  Israel  is  directed  not 
to  forget  the  sacrifices  to  the  Lord,  the  sabbaths, 
festivals,  and  vows:  the  ordinances  concerning 
which  are  here  briefly  repeated,  inculcated,  and 
completed. 

The  people  shall  certainly  gain  the  victory, 
but  only  in  strict  communion  with  Jehovah. 
Thus  begins  the  combat  against  Midian,  accord- 
ing to  the  directions  of  the  law,  and  forming  as 
it.  were  a prototype  of  the  later  combats  of  Israel 
against  pagan  powers  (ch.  xxv.-xxxi.). 

This  was  the  last  external  work  of  Moses. 
Henceforth  his  eye  is  directed  only  to  the  internal 
affairs  of  his  people.  An  entrance  has  been 
effected  into  the  country,  and  the  conquered  ter- 
ritory is  divided  among  two  tribes  and  a . half- 
tribe (ch.  xxxii.). 

Moses  reminds  the  people  of  Jehovah’s  guid- 
ance in  the  wilderness,  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  whole  land  was  to  be  conquered.  He 
commands  the  destruction  of  the  Canaanites  and 
of  their  idolatry.  He  appoints  to  what  extent 
the  land  is  to  be  conquered,  and  in  what  manner 
it  should  be  divided  ; also  the  towns  to  be  granted 
to  the  Levites,  and  the  cities  of  refuge.  He 
establishes  also  the  statute,  which  was  of  great 
importance  for  the  preservation  of  landed  pro- 
perty, that  an  heiress  should  marry  otdy  within 
her  own  tribe  (ch.  xxxiii.-xxxvi.). 

There  have  frequently  been  raised  strong 
doubts  against,  the  historical  credibility  of  the 
book  of  Numbers,  although  it  is  impressed  with 
indubitable  marks  of  the  age  to  which  it  refers, 
and  of  perfect  authenticity.  The  numerical 
statements  in  ch.  i.-iv.  are  such  that  they  repel 
every  suspicion  of  forgery.  There  could  appa- 
rently be  no  motive  for  any  fabrication  of  this 
description.  The  numbering  of  the  people  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  Exod.  xxxviii.  26.  The 
amount  is  here  stated  in  round  numbers,  because 
a general  survey  only  was  required.  When 
requisite,  the  more  exact  numbers  are  also  added 
(ch.  iii.  39,  43.)  A later  falsarius,  or  forger, 
would  certainly  have  affected  to  possess  the  most 
exact  knowledge  of  those  circumstances,  and  con- 
sequently would  have  given,  not  round,  but  par- 
ticularly definite  numbers. 

The  account  of  the  setting  apart  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi  lias  been  especially  urged  as  bearing  the 
marks  of  fiction  ; but  this  account  is  strongly 
confirmed  by  the  distribution  of  the  cities  of  the 


NUMBERS. 


NUMBERS. 


431 


Leviles  (Num.  xxxv.  ; Jos.  xxi.).  This  distri- 
bution is  an  undeniable  fact,  and  the  existence  of 
these  Levitical  towns  may  be  appealed  to  as  a 
document  proving  that  the  Levites  were  really 
set  apart.  Our  opponents  have  vainly  endea- 
voured to  find  contradictions,  for  instance,  in  the 
system  of  tithing  (Num.  xviii.),  which,  they  say, 
is  not  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy,  where  the 
tithes  are  applied  to  different  purposes  (Deut. 

xii.  6,  7,  17-19;  xiv.  22,  seep;  xxvi.  12-15). 
But  there  were  two  sorts  of  tithes  ; one  ap- 
pointed for  the  maintenance  of  the  Levites,  and 
the  other  t > defray  the  expenses  of  public  ban- 
quets, of  which  the  Levites  also  partook  on  ac- 
count of  their  position  in  society  (comp.  Neh. 

xiii.  10 ; Tobit  i.  7). 

It  has  also  been  asserted  that  the  book  of 
Numbers  contradicts  itself  in  ch.  iv.  2,  3,  and 
ch.  viii.  24,  with  respect  to  the  proper  age 
of  Levites  for  doing  duty.  But  the  first  of  these 
passages  speaks  about  canning  the  tabernacle, 
and  the  second  about  performing  sacred  functions 
in  the  tabernacle.  To  carry  the  tabernacle  was 
heavier  work,  and  required  an  age  of  thirty  years. 
The  functions  within  the  tabernacle  were  com- 
paratively easy,  for  which  an  age  of  twenty-five 
years  was  deemed  sufficient. 

The  opinions  of  those  writers  who  deem  that 
the  book  of  Numbers  had  a mythical  character, 
are  in  contradiction  with  passages  like  x.  26,  sq., 
wdiere  Chobab  is  requested  by  Moses  to  aid  the 
march  through  the  wilderness.  Such  passages 
were  written  by  a conscientious  reporter,  whose 
object  was  to  state  facts,  who  did  not  con- 
fine himself  merely  to  the  relation  of  miracles, 
and  who  does  not  conceal  the  natural  occurrences 
which  preceded  the  marvellous  eveuts  in  ch.  xi.  sq. 
How  are  our  opponents  able  to  reconcile  these 
facts?  Here  again  they  require  the  aid  of  a 
new  hypothesis,  and  speak  of  fragments  loosely 
connected. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Numbers  proves 
himself  to  be  intimately  acquainted  with  Egypt. 
The  productions  mentioned  in  ch.  xi.  5 are, 
according  to  the  most  accurate  investigations, 
really  those  which  in  that  country  chiefly  served 
for  food. 

In  ch.  xiii.,  xxii.,  we  find  a notice  concerning 
Zoan  (Tanis),  which  indicates  an  exact  know- 
ledge of  Egyptian  history,  as  well  in  the  author 
as  in  his  readers.  In  ch.  xvii.  2,  where  the 
writing  of  a name  on  a stick  is  mentioned,  we 
find  an  allusion  characteristic  of  Egyptian  cuss 
toms  (compare  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Cus- 
toms of  the  Ancient  Egyptians , i.  p.  388. 

The  history  of  the  rebellion  of  the  sons  of 
Korah  (xvi.  17)  has  certainly  some  colouring  of 
the  marvellous,  but  it  nevertheless  bears  the  stamp 
of  truth  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  a poet  who 
wrote  ch.  xvii.  6,  sq.,  in  order  to  magnify  the 
priestly  dignity,  should  have  represented  the  Le- 
vites themselves  as  the  chief  authors  of  these  cri- 
minal proceedings.  This  circumstance  is  the 
more  important,  because  the  descendants  of  Korah 
(Num.  xxvi.  11)  became  afterwards  one  of  the 
most,  distinguished  Levitical  families.  In  this 
position  we  find  them  as  early  as  the  times  of 
David ; so  that  it  is  inconceivable  how  any  body 
should  have  entertained  the  idea  of  inventing  a 
crime  to  be  charged  upon  one  of  the  ancestors  of 
this  illustrious  family. 


Many  vestiges  of  antiquity  are  found  in  ch.  xxi. 
The  whole  chapter,  indeed,  bears  a charactf  risti- 
cally  antique  impress,  which  manifests  itself  in 
all  those  ancient  poems  which  are  here  commu- 
nicated only  in  fragments,  so  far  as  was  required 
for  the  illustration  of  the  narrative.  Even  such 
critical  sceptics  as  I)e  Wette  consider  these 
poems  to  be  relics  of  the  Mosaical  period.  But 
they  are  so  closely  connected  with  Instory,  as  to 
be  unintelligible  without  a knowledge  of  the  facts 
to  which  they  refer. 

Narratives  like  the  history  of  Balaam  (xxii., 
xxiv.)  furnish  also  numerous  proofs  of  their 
high  antiquity.  These  confirmations  are  of  the 
greatest  importance,  on  account  of  the  many  mar- 
vellous and  enigmatical  points  of  the  narrative. 
Compare,  for  instance,  the  geographical  state- 
ments, which  are  uncommonly  accurate,  in 
ch.  xxii.  1,  36,  39;  xxiii.  14,  15,  27,  28.  See 
Hengstenberg’s  Geschichte  Bi  team's,  Berlin, 
1842,  p.  221,  sq. 

The  nations  particularly  mentioned  in  Ba- 
laam’s prophecy,  the  Amalekites,  Edomites, 
Moabites,  and  Kenites,  belong  to  the  Mosaical 
period.  In  ch.  xxiv.  7,  it  is  stated  that  the  king 
of  Israel  would  be  greater  than  Agag;  and  it  can 
be  proved  that  Agag  was  a standing  title  of  the 
Amalekite  princes,  and  that,  consequently,  there 
is  no  necessity  to  refer  this  declaration  to 
that  king  Agag  whom  Saul  vanquished.  The 
Kenites,  at  a later  period,  disappeared  entirely 
was  from  history.  A prophet  from  Mesopotamia 
likely  to  make  particular  mention  of  Assur  (ch. 
xxiv.  22).  There  is  also  a remarkable  prediction, 
that  persons  sailing  from  the  coast  of  Chittim 
should  subdue  Assur  and  Eber  (ch.  xxiv.  23). 
The  inhabitants  of  the  west  should  vanquish 
the  dwellers  in  the  east.  The  writers  who 
consider  the  predictions  of  Balaam  to  be  vati- 
cinia  post  eventum,  bring  us  down  to  so  late  a 
period  as  the  Grecian  age,  in  which  the  whole 
passage  could  have  been  inserted  only  under 
the  supposition  of  most  arbitrary  dealings  with 
history.  The  truth  of  the  biblical  narrative  here 
asserts  its  power.  There  occur  similar  accounts, 
in  which  it  is  strikingly  evident  that  they  pro- 
ceeded from  the  hands  of  an  author  contemporary 
with  the  events  ; for  instance,  ch.  xxxii.,  in 
which  the  distribution  of  the  trans-Jordanic.  ter- 
ritory is  recorded,  even  the  account,  which  has 
so  frequently  been  attacked,  concerning  the  Ha- 
voth-jair,  the  small  towns,  or  rather  tent  villages 
of  Jair  (xxxii.  41,  42;  compare  Judg.  x.  4,  and 
Deut.  iii.  14).  Even  this  account,  we  say,  is 
fully  justified  by  a closer  examination. 

The  list  of  stations  in  ch.  xxxiii.  is  an  im- 
portant document,  which  could  not  have  originated 
in  a poetical  imagination.  This  list  contains 
a survey  of  the  whole  route  of  the  Israelites,  and 
mentions  individual  places  only  in  case  the 
Israelites  abode  there  for  a considerable  period. 
It  is  not  the  production  of  a diligent  compiler, 
but  rather  the  original  work  of  an  author  well 
versed  in  the  circumstances  of  that  period.  A 
later  author  would  certainly  have  avoided  the 
appearance  of  some  contradictions,  such  as  that  in 
Num.  xxxiii.  30,  31,  comp,  with  Deut.  x.  6.  This 
contradiction  may  best  be  removed,  by  observing 
that  the  book  of  Numbers  speaks  of  the  expedi- 
tion of  the  Israelites  in  the  second  year  of  their 
wanderings,  and  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  of 


432 


NUN. 


OATH. 


their  expedition  in  the  fortieth  year.  The  list  of 
stations  contains  also  important  historical  notices ; 
those,  for  instance,  in  ch.  xxxiii.  4,  9,  14,  38. 
These  notices  demonstrate  the  accurate  historical 
information  of  the  author. 

We  still  dwell  for  a moment  on  the  consi- 
deration  of  the  great  fact,  which  ’is  the  basis  of 
the  narrative  of  the  whole  book--namely,  the 
sojourn  of  the  Israelites  during  forty  years  in 
the  wilderness.  The  manner  in  which  the  nar- 
rator states  this  fact,  we  have  mentioned  above. 
A view  so  strictly  theocratical,  and  a description 
so  purely  objective,  are  most  befitting  the  law-giver 
himself.  Modern  criticism  has  chiefly  taken 
offence  at  the  statement  that  Jehovah  had  an- 
nounced all  this  as  a punishment  to  be  inflicted 
upon  the  people.  This,  they  say,  is  incompre- 
hensible. However,  the  fact  stands  firm,  that  the 
Israelites  really  abode  forty  years  in  the  wilder- 
ness. This  fact  is  proved  in  the  Scriptures  by 
many  other  testimonies.  Hence  arises  the  ques- 
tion, how  this  protracted  abode  was  occasioned, 
and  what  induced  Moses  to  postpone  or  give  up 
the  conquest  of  Canaan.  De  Wette  says  that 
such  l'esignation,  in  giving  up  a plan  to  which 
one  has  devoted  the  full  half  of  a life,  is  not 
human.  Gothe  asserted,  that  by  such  a representa- 
tion the  picture  of  Moses  is  entirely  disfigured. 
All  this  renders  the  problem  of  our  opponents 
the  more  difficult.  De  Wette  says,  ‘ Who  knows 
what  happened  in  that  long  period?’  This  ques- 
tion would  amount  to  a confession  of  our  entire 
ignorance  concerning  what  was  most  important, 
and  what  is  the  real  turning  point  of  the  history 
of  Israel,  and  would  make  an  enormous  and 
most  striking  gap  in  universal  history.  It  is  in- 
credible that  no  tradition  should  have  been  pre- 
served, in  which  was  told  to  posterity  what  was 
here  most  important,  even  if  it  should  only  have 
been  in  a very  disfigured  form.  It.  is  incredible 
that  what  was  most  important  should  have  been 
passed  by,  and  that  there  should  have  been  com- 
municated only  what  was  comparatively  insigni- 
ficant. If  this  were  the  case,  the  traditions  of 
Israel  would  form  a perfectly  isolated  pheno- 
menon. Thus  the  history  of  Israel  itself  would 
be  something  incomprehensible.  Either  the  history 
is  inconceivable,  or  the  astounding  fact  is,  indeed, 
a truth.  And  so  it  is.  The  resignation  of  Moses, 
and  the  sojourn  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness, 
can  be  explained  only  by  assuming  an  extraordi- 
nary divine  intervention.  A merely  natural  inter- 
pretation is  here  completely  futile.  The  problem 
can  only  be  solved  by  assuming  that  the  whole 
proceeded  from  the  command  of  God,  which  is 
unconditionally  obeyed  by  his  servant,  and  to 
which  even  the  rebellious  people  must  bow, 
because  they  have  amply  experienced  that  without 
God  they  can  do  nothing. 

For  the  works  relative  to  Numbers,  see  the 
article  Pentateuch. — H.  A.  C.  H. 

NUN  (j-U  ; in  Syr.  and  Arab.,  a fish),  the 
father  of  Joshua,  who  is  hence  constantly  called 
Joshua  ben-Nun,  ‘ Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.’ 
Nothing  is  known  of  the  person  who  bore  this 
name.  The  Sept,  constantly  uses  the  form  it  Nat/77, 
which  appears  to  have  arisen  from  an  error  of  an 
earlier  copyist  (NATH  for  NAYN).  From  the 
forms  Nc'/3t7  and  NajSt,  found  in  some  MSS., 
it  would  seem  that  later  transcribers  sup- 
pose! this  Nawj  to  be  the  pronunciation  of  the 


Hebrew  (023.  It  is  from  this  error  of  the  Sept 
that  some  of  our  old  versions  have  * Joshua  ih* 
son  of  N aue.’ 


o. 

OAK  [Ali.on]. 

OATH  (ny-nf  and  flfo),  an  appeal  to  God 
in  attestation  of  the  truth  of  what  you  say,  or  in 
confirmation  of  what  you  promise  or  undertake. 
The  Latin  term  is  juyurandum,  or  jur amentum. 
Cicero  (De  Officiis , iii.  29)  correctly  terms  an 
oath  a religious  affirmation ; that  is,  an  affirma- 
tion with  a religious  sanction.  This  appears  from 
the  words  which  he  proceeds  to  employ  : ‘ Quod 
autem  affirmate,  quasi  Deo  teste,  promiseris,  id 
teneudum  est.  Jam  enim  non  ad  iram  deorum, 
quae  nulla  est,  sed  ad  justitiam  et  ad  fidem  per- 
tinet which  in  effect  means  that  an  oath  is  an 
appeal  to  God,  as  the  source  and  the  vindicator 
of  justice  and  fidelity.  Hence  it  appears  that 
there  are  two  essential  elements  in  an  oath  : first, 
the  human,  a declared  intention  of  speaking  the 
truth,  or  performing  the  action  ir\  a given  case ; 
secondly,  the  divine,  an  appeal  to  God,  as  a Being 
who  knows  all  things  and  will  punish  guilt. 
According  to  usage,  however,  there  is  a third 
element  in  the  idea  which  ‘ oath’  commonly  con- 
veys, namely,  that  the  oath  is  taken  only  on 
solemn,  or,  more  specifically,  on  juridical  occa- 
sions. The  canon  law  gives  all  three  elements 
when  it  represents  judicium , vcritas,  jtistitia,  as 
entering  into  the  constitution  of  an  aoth— judicium, 
judgment  or  trial  on  the  part  of  society ; veritas, 
truth  on  the  part  of  the  oath-taker  ‘,justitia,  justice 
on  the  part  of  God.  An  oath  is  accordingly  a re- 
ligious undertaking  either  to  say  ( juramentum  as- 
scrtorium),  or  to  do  ( juramentum  promissorium) 
something  entered  into  voluntarily  with  the  cus- 
tomary forms.  Being  a religious  undertaking, 
the  appeal  will  vary  according  to  the  religious 
opinions  of  the  country  in  which  the  oath  is  taken. 
In  some  instances  it  will  be  an  appeal  imme- 
diately to  God;  in  others,  to  objects  supposed  to 
have  divine  power;  and  by  a natural  declension, 
when  men  have  left  the  only  true  God,  they  may 
appeal  in  their  oaths  even  to  stocks  and  stones. 
Accordingly  the  Romans  swore,  ‘ per  caput  suum 
vel  suorum  filiorum,’  or  ‘ per  genium  principis  ;* 
that  is,  by  their  own  head  or  that  of  their  children, 
or  by  the  genius  of  the  emperor.  We  shall  have 
by  and  by  to  notice  similar  errors  and  abuses 
among  the  Jews. 

The  essence  of  an  oath  lies  obviously  in  the 
appeal  which  is  thereby  made  to  God,  or  to 
divine  knowledge  and  power.  The  customary 
form  establishes  this,  ‘ So  help  me  God.’  The 
Latin  words  (known  to  have  been  used  as  early 
as  the  sixth  century),  whence  our  English  form  is 
taken,  run  thus  : 1 Sic  me  Deus  adjuvet  et  ha?c 
san eta  Evangel ia ;’  so  may  God  and  these  holy 
Gospels  help  me  ; that  is,  ‘ as  I say  the  truth.’ 
The  present  custom  of  kissing  a book  containing 
the  Gospels  has  in  England  taken  place  of  the 
latter  clause  in  the  Latin  formula. 

If,  then,  an  appeal  to  God  is  the  essence  of  an 
oath,  oath-taking  is  a practice  wl>ich  cannot  be 
justified.  Such  an  appeal  is  wrong,  because  it 


OATH. 


OATH. 


433 


a mere  act  of  a creature’s  will,  being  unrequired 
and  unsanctioned  by  God,  in  a case  in  which 
God  is  made  a party  to  a certain  course,  which 
course  may  or  may  not  he  agreeable  to  his  mind 
(because  a wisn  on  the  part  of  the  oath-taker  for 
punishment,  should  he  fail  in  his  undertaking,  or 
any  part  of  the  same,  is  an  act  unbecoming  a 
frail  man,  unseemly  in  its  very  nature,  and  awful 
to  think  of  when  man’s  sinfulness  and  God’s  power 
are  rightly  apprehended ; because  it  relaxes  the 
general  bonds  of  religion,  and  morality,  and  truth  ; 
( for  in  establishing  an  occasion  when  justice  must 
be  done,  it  authorizes  the  idea  that  its  observance 
is  not  imnerative  on  other  occasions)  ; and  because 
it  is  founded  on  an  essentially  false  view  of  reli- 
gious obligation;  for  as  God  sees,  knows,  and 
governsall  things,  and  as  all  things  so  each  thing, 
so  man  is  bound  universally  to  speak  the  truth  and 
perform  what  he  undertakes,  bound  as  much  in 
each  and  in  all  the  actions  of  his  life,  as  his  de- 
pendence and  God’s  sovereignty  can  bind  a ra- 
tional and  accountable  being ; so  that  it  is  radi- 
cally false  to  suppose  that  there  is  or  can  be  any 
thing  special  in  the  obligation  of  an  oath ; the 
iendency  of  which  falsity  is  not  to  raise,  but  to 
degrade  the  character,  to  reduce  the  general 
standard  of  truth  and  rectitude,  to  weaken  the 
moral  sense,  by  encouraging  the  idea  that  on  spe- 
cial occasions,  and  of  course  on  special  occasions 
only , truth  is  to  be  spoken  and  promises  per 
formed. 

It  is  one  among  those  numerous  small  accord- 
ances comparatively  with  the  dictates  of  right 
reason  which  will  be  found  to  prevail  in  the 
Bible  the  more  minutely  it  is  investigated,  and 
which,  though  now,  after  a revelation  has  en- 
lightened the  mind,  are  discoverable  by  the  mind, 
are  yet  so  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  mind  when 
left  to  its  own  resources,  that  the  practice  of  anti- 
quity bears  in  an  opposite  direction — it  is  one  of 
those  very  important  accordances  with  truth,  that 
the  Mosaic  legislation  is  not  answerable  for  the 
practice  of  taking  oaths,  which  existed  before  the 
time  of  Moses.  It  is  found  as  early  as  the  days 
of  Abraham,  who  made  the  oldest  servant  of  his 
family  swear  he  would  select  for  Isaac  a wife  of 
his  own  kindred  (Gen.  xxiv.  2,  3,  37).  It  is  here 
observable  that  the  oath  is  a private,  not  a judicial 
one  ; only  that  the  rectoral  authority  of  Abraham, 
as  patriarch,  must  be  taken  into  account.  The 
form  observed  is  found  in  these  words  : 4 Put, 
1 pray  thee,  thy  hand  under  my  thigh  ; and  I 
will  make  thee  swear  by  the  Lord,  the  God  of 
heaven  and  the  God  of  earth,  that,’  &c.  An  oath 
was  sometimes  a public  and  general  bond,  obliging 
the  parties  who  took  it  to  a certain  course — a case 
in  which  it  appears  to  have  been  spontaneous  and 
voluntary;  as  when,  in  Judges  xxi.,  the  men  of 
Israel  swore,  saying,  there  shall  not  any  of  us  give 
his  daughter  unto  Benjamin  to  wife  (comp.  ver.  5). 
From  1 Kings  xviii.  10,  it  appears  to  have  been 
customary  to  require  on  occasions  of  great  concern 
a public  oath,  embracing  even  an  entire  4 king- 
dom and  nation  but  whether  taken  individually 
Or  by  some  representative,  we  have  no  means  of 
ascertaining.  Such  a custom,  however,  implying, 
as  it  does,  a doubt  of  the  public  faith  of  a people, 
would  hardly  be  submitted  to,  unless  on  the  part 
of  an  inferior. 

Oatns  did  not  take  their  origin  in  any  divine 
command.  They  were  a part  of  that  consuetudi- 
vol.  ii  29 


nary  law  which  Moses  found  prevalent,  and  was 
bound  to  respect,  since  no  small  portion  of  the 
force  of  law  lies  in  custom,  and  a legislator  can 
neither  abrogate  nor  institute  a binding  law  of  his 
own  mere  will.  Accordingly,  Moses  made  use  of 
the  sanction  which  an  oath  gave,  but  in  that  ge- 
neral manner,  and  apart  from  minute  directions 
arid  express  words  of  approval ; which  shows  that 
he  merely  used,  without  intending  to  sanction,  an 
instrument  that  he  found  in  existence  and  could 
not  safely  dispense  with.  Examples  are  found  in 
Exod.  xxii.  11,  where  an  oath  is  ordered  to  be 
applied  in  the  case  of  lost  property  ; and  here  we 
first,  meet  with  what  may  strictly  be  called  a 
judicial  oath  (Lev.  vi.  3-5). 

The  forms  of  adjuration  found  in  the  Scriptures 
are  numerous.  Saul  sware  unto  Jonathan,  4 As 
the  Lord  liveth  ’ (1  Sam.  xix.  6).  4 A heap  and 

a pillar’  were  for  a witness  between  Laban  and 
Jacob,  with  the  ensuing  for  a sanction,  ‘ The  God 
of  Abraham  and  the  God  of  Nahor,  the  God  of 
their  father,  judge  betwixt  us.  And  Jacob  sware 
by  the  fear  of  his  father  Isaac  ’ (Gen.  xxxi.  52, 
sq.).  A common  formula  is,  ‘ The  Lord  do  so  to 
me  and  more  also’  (Ruth  i.  17  ; 1 Sam.  iv.  44), 
which  approaches  nearly  to  our  modern  form, 
4 So  help  me  God,’  and  is  obviously  elliptical. 
Reference  appears  to  be  had  to  the  ancient  custom 
of  slaying  some  animal  in  confirmation  of  a treaty 
or  agreement.  The  animal  thus  slain  and  offered 
in  a burnt  offering  to  God  became  an  image  or 
type,  betokening  the  fate  which  would  attend  that 
one  of  the  two  contracting  parties  who  failed  in 
his  engagement ; and  the  words  just  cited  were 
intended  to  be  a voluntary  assumption  of  the 
liability  thus  foreshadowed  on  the  side  of  those 
who  joined  in  the  covenant : subsequently  the 
sacrifice  was  in  ordinary  cases  omitted,  and  the 
form  came  in  itself  to  have  the  force  of  a solemn 
asseveration. 

An  oath,  making  an  appeal  to  the  divine  justice 
and  power,  is  a recognition  of  the  divinity  of  the 
being  to  whom  the  appeal  is  made.  Hence  to 
swear  by  an  idol  is  to  be  convicted  of  idolatry. 
Such  an  act  is  accordingly  given  in  Scripture 
as  a proof  of  idolatry  and  a reason  for  condign 
punishment.  4 How  shall  I pardon  thee  for  this  ? 
Thy  children  have  forsaken  me,  and  sworn  l./ 
them  that  are  no  gods’  (Jer.  v.  7 ; xii.  16  ; Amos 
viii.  14 ; Zeph.  i.  5). 

Other  beings  besides  God  are  sometimes  added 
in  the  form  of  an  oath  : Elijah  said  to  Elisha, 
4 As  the  Lord  liveth,  and  as  thy  soul  liveth  ’ 
(2  Kings  ii.  2;  1 Sam.  xx.  3).  The  party  ad- 
dressed is  frequently  sworn  by,  especially  if  a 
prince  : 4 As  thy  soul  liveth,  my  lord,  I am  the 
woman/  &c.  (I  Sam.  i.  26 ; xvii.  55  ; xxv.  26  ; 
2 Sam.  xi.  11).  The  Hebrews,  as  well  as  the 
Egyptians,  swore  also  by  the  head  or  the  life  of  an 
absent  as  well  as  a present  prince  : 4 By  the  life 
of  Pharaoh’  (Gen.  xlii.  15).  Hanway  says  that 
the  most  sacred  oath  among  the  Persians  is  4 by 
the  king’s  head.’  Aben  Ezra  asserts  that  in  hia 
time  (a.d.  1170)  this  oath  was  common  in  Egypt 
under  the  caliphs  : death  was  the  penalty  of  per- 
jury. Selden,  in  his  Titles  of  Honour  (p.  45j, 
ascribes  the  practice  to  the  custom  of  applying 
the  name  god  to  princes  (Rosen m.  Morgenl.  i. 
200,  sq.  ; comp.  Strabo,  xii.  p.  557 ; Herod,  iy. 
68 Tertull.  Apol.  c.  52). 

The  oath-taker  swore  sometimes  by  his  own 


OATH. 


OATH. 


434 

bead  (Matt.  v.  36 ; see  Virg.  JEn.  ix.  300 ; Ovid, 
Trist.  iv.  4.  45;  J liven,  vi.  17);  or  by  some  pre- 
cious part  of  his  body,  as  the  eyes  (Ovid,  Amor. 
iii.  3.  13;  Tibull.  iii.  6.  47);  sometimes,  but 
only  in  the  case  of  the  later  Jews,  by  the  earth, 
the  heaven,  and  the  sun  (Matt.  v.  34,  35 ; Eurip. 
Hippol.  1029;  Virg.  JEn.  xii.  176);  as  well  as 
by  angels  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  16.  4)  ; by  the 
temple  (Matt,  xxiii.  16  ; comp.  Lightfoot,  p.  280); 
and  even  by  parts  of  the  temple  (Matt,  xxiii.  16  ; 
Wetstein).  They  also  swore  by  Jerusalem,  as  the 
holy  city  (Matt.  v.  35  ; Lightfoot,  p.  281).  The 
Rabbinical  writers  indulge. in  much  prolixity  on 
the  subject  of  oaths,  entering  into  nice  distinctions, 
and  showing  themselves  exquisite  casuists.  A 
• brief  view  of  their  disquisitions  may  be  seen  in 
Othou.  Lex.  p.  347,  sq.  Some  oaths  they  declared 
invalid  : ‘ If  any  one  swear  by  heaven,  earth,  the 
sun,  and  such  things,  although  there  may  be  in 
his  mind  while  using  these  words  a reference  to 
Him  who  created  them,  yet  this  is  not  an  oath  ; 
or  if  any  one  swear  by  one  of  the  prophets,  or  by 
some  book  of  Scripture,  having  reference  to  Him 
who  sent  the  prophet  and  gave  the  book,  neverthe- 
less this  is  not  an  oath’  (Maimon.  Hal.  Schebhuoth , 
c.  12).  So  the  Mishna  ( Schebhuoth , c.  4) : 4 ii' 
any  one  adjures  another  by  heaven  or  earth,  he  is 
not  held  bound  by  this.’  It  is  easy  to  see  that 
oaths  of  this  nature,  with  authoritative  interpreta-| 
tions  and  glosses  so  lax,  could  hardly  fail  to 
loosen  moral  obligation,  and  to  lead  to  much 
practical  perjury  and  impiety.  Minute  casuistical 
distinctions  undermine  the  moral  sense.  When 
a man  may  swear  and  yet  not^wear,  by  the  same 
formula  appear  to  bind  himself  and  yet  be  free, 
contract  with  his  associates  an  obligation  from 
which  he  may  be  released  by  religious  authorities, 
the  basis  of  private  virtue  and  the  grounds  of 
public  confidence  are  at  once  endangered.  Besides, 
the  practice  of  unauthorized  and  spontaneous  oath- 
taking, which  seems  even  in  the  earlier  periods  of 
Jewish  history  to  have  been  too  common,  became 
about  the  time  of  our  Lord  of  great  frequency, 
and  must  have  tended  to  lower  the  religious,  as 
well  as  weaken  the  moral  character.  Peter’s  con- 
duct is  a striking  case  in  point,  who  4 began  to  curse 
and  to  swear,  saying,  I know  not  the  man’  (Matt, 
xxv i.  74).  An  open  falsehood,  thus  asserted  and 
maintained  by  oaths  and  imprecations,  shows  how 
little  regard  there  was  at  that  time  paid  to  such 
means  of  substantiating  truth.  The  degree  of 
guilt  implied  in  such  lamentable  practices  is  not 
lessened  by  the  emphasis  with  which  the  Mosaic 
law  guarded  the  sanctity  of  the  divine  name,  and 
prohibited  the  crime  of  perjury  and  profanation 
(Lev.  xix.  12;  Exod.  xx.  7;  Deut.  v.  Ill; 
Matt.  v.  33). 

These  remarks,  tending  to  exhibit  the  state  of 
mind  and  the  manner  of  conduct  prevalent  in 
our  Lord's  time,  show  with  what  propriety  he  in- 
terposed his  authority  on  the  point,  and  not  only 
disallowed  the  vain  distinctions  of  the  Pharisees 
(Matt,  xxiii.  16),  but  also  forbad  swearing  entirely 
(Matt.  v.  33).  Before,  however,  we  submit  his 
doctrine  on  this  matter  to  some  remarks,  there  are 
yet  a few  words  to  be  added,  in  order  to  complete 
our  statement  touching  the  ceremonial  observed  in 
connection  with  an  oath. 

We  have  already  intimated  that  it  wa3  usual  to 
imt  the  hand  under  the  thigh  (Gen.  xxiv.  2 ; xlvii. 
%9\  On  this  practice  Aben  Ezra  observes  : 4 It 


appears  probable  to  me  that  the  meaning  of  this 
custom  was  as  if  the  superior  sat'd,  with  the  con* 
sent,  of  his  slave,  If  thou  art  under  my  power, 
and  therefore  prepared  to  execute  my  commands, 
put  thy  hand,  as  a token,  under  my  thigh/ 
Winer,  however,  thinks  that  as  it  was  usual  to 
swear  by  the  more  important  parts  of  the  human 
frame,  so  this  was  a reference  to  the  generative 
powers  of  man.  But  see  on  this  interpretation, 
as  well  as  on  the  general  question  of  swearing 
by  parts  of  the  body,  Meiner's  Geschichte  der 
llelig.  ii.  286,  sq.  It  is,  however,  certain  that  it 
was  usual  to  touch  that  by  which  a person  swore : 

4 Tange  precor  mensam,  tangunt  quo  more 
precantes.’ 

Other  instances  may  be  seen  in  Niedek,  De  Po- 
pulor.  Adorat.  p.  21 3,  sq.  At  p.  2 1 8 of  this  work, 
with  the  plate  relating  to  it,  an  instance  may  be 
found  which  cannot  be  mentioned,  but  which  goes 
immediately  to  confirm  the  idea  advanced  by 
W iner. 

The  more  usual  employment  of  the  hand  was 
to  raise  it  towards  heaven  ; designed,  probably,  to 
excite  attention,  to  point  out  the  oath-taker,  and 
to  give  solemnity  to  the  act  (Gen.  xiv.  22,  23). 
In  the  strongly  anthropomorphitic  language  of 
parts  of  the  Scripture,  even  God  is  introduced 
saying,  4 I lift  up  my  hand  to  heaven,  and  say,  L 
live  for  ever’  (Deut.  xxxii.  40).  It  can  only  be 
by  the  employment  of  a similar  licence  that  the 
Almighty  is  represented  as  in  any  way  coming 
under  the  obligation  of  an  oath  (Exod.  vi.  8 ; 
Ezek.  xx.  5).  Instead  of  the  head,  the  phylactery 
was  sometimes  touched  by  the  Jews  on  taking  an 
oath  (Maimon.  Schebhuoth,  c.  xi.).  Even  the 
Deity  is  sometimes  introduced  as  swearing  by  phy- 
lacteries (7 'anch,  fob  vi,  3;  Othon.  Lex.  p.  757). 
In  cases  where  a civil  authority  adjured  a party, 
that  is,  put  a person  to  an  oath,  the  answer  was 
given  by  TDK,  av  cliras,  4 thou  hast  said  ’ (1  Kings 
xxii.  16;  Num.  v.  19;  Matt.  xxvi.  63;  Sche- 
bhzioth,  c.  i. ; Misch.  ii.).  Women  and  slaves 
were  not  permitted  to  take  an  oath  (Maimou. 
Hilch.  Schebh.  9,  10,  11). 

The  levity  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  regard  to 
oaths,  though  reproved  by  some  of  their  doctors 
(Othon.  Lex.  p.  351  ; Philo,  ii.  194),  was  noto- 
rious; and  when  we  find  it  entering  as  an  element 
into  popular  poetry  (Martial,  xi.  9),  we  cannot 
ascribe  the  imputation  to  the  known  injustice  of 
heathen  writers  towards  the  Israelites.  This  na- 
tional vice,  doubtless,  had  an  influence  with  the 
Essenes  [Essenes],  in  placing  the  prohibition  of 
oaths  among  the  rules  of  their  reformatory  order. 
Certainly,  4 the  Great  Teacher’  forbade  oaths  alto- 
gether. The  language  is  most  express  (Matt.  v. 
34-37  ; James  v.  12).  Equally  decided  was  the 
interpretation  put  on  this  language  by  the  ancient 
church.  Justin,  Irenaeus,  Basil,  Chrysostom, 
Augustine,  held  oaths  to  be  unchristian  (De  W etto, 
Sitlenlehre,  iii.  143).  Even  modern  philosophy  has 
given  its  vote  against  the  practice  (see  Benlham’s 
4 Swear  not  at  all’).  That  no  case  has  been  made 
out  by  Christian  commentators  in  favour  of  judi- 
cial swearing  we  do  not  affirm;  but  we  must  be 
excused  if  we  add  that  the  case  is  a very  weak  one, 
wears  a casuistical  appearance,  and  as  if  neces- 
sitated in  order  to  excuse  existing  usages,  and 
guard  against  errors  imputed  to  unpopular  sects, 
such  as  the  Quakers  and  Mennonites.  If  in- 


OBADIAH. 


OBADIAH. 


434 


ferential  and  me;«ly  probable  conclusions,  sucli 
as  the  case  consists  of,  may  be  allowed  to  prevail 
against  the  explicit  language  of  Jesus  and  James, 
Scripture  is  robbed  of  its  certainty,  and  prohibi- 
tions the  most  express  lose  their  force.  For  in- 
stance, it  has  been  alleged  that  our  Lord  himself 
took  part  in  an  oath  when,  being  adjured  by  the 
high-priest,  he  answered  * Thou  hast  said  ’ (Matt, 
xxvi.  63-4).  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  his 
own  doctrine  on  the  point  ? Placed  at  the  bar  of 
judgment,  Jesus  was  a criminal,  not  a teacher, 
bound  by  the  laws  of  his  country,  which  it  was  a 
part  of  his  plan  never  unnecessarily  to  disregard, 
to  give  an  answer  to  the  question  judicially  put  to 
him,  and  bound  equally  by  a regard  to  the  great 
interests  which  he  had  come  into  the  world  to 
serve.  Jesus  did  not  swear,  but  was  sworn.  The 
putting  the  oath  he  could  not  prevent.  His  sole 
question  was,  Should  he  answer  the  interrogatory  ? 
— a question  which  depended  on  considerations  of 
the  highest  moment,  and  which  he  who  alone 
could  judge  decided  in  the  affirmative.  That 
question  in  effect  was,  ‘Art  thou  the  Messiah?’ 
His  reply  was  a simple  affirmative.  The  employ- 
ment of  the  adjuration  was  the  act  of  the  ma- 
gistrate : to  have  objected  to  which  would  have 
brought  on  Jesus  the  charge  of  equivocation,  if  not 
>f  evasipn,  or  even  the  denial  of  his  ‘ high  calling.’ 

The  general  tendency  of  this  article  is  to  show 
how  desirable  it  is  that  the  practice  of  oath-taking 
of  all  -kinds,  judicial  as  well  as  others,  should  at 
least  he  diminished,  till  at  the  proper  time  it  is 
totally  abolished;  for  whatsoever  is  more  than  a 
simple  affirmation  cometh  from  the  Evil  One, 
in  rod  novTjpod  (Matt.  v.  37),  and  equally  leadeth 
to  evil. 

On  the -subject  of  this  article  the  reader  may 
consult:  Lydii  Diss.  de  Juramento ; Nicolai 
De  Juram.  Ilebrceoricm,  Gr&corum,  Romanorum 
aliorumque  populorum ; Seldeni  Diss.  de  Jura- 
mentis ; Molembecii  De  Juramento  per  Genium 
principis ; Spenceri  Diss.  de  Juramento  jier 
Anchialum  ; — all  of  which  may  be  found  in  the 
‘26th  volume  of  Ugolino's  Thesaurus  Antiq.  Sacr , 
bee  also  Hansen,  De  Jurament.  Vett.  in  Graev. 
Thesaurus.  A more  recent  authority  may  be 
found  in  Staudlin,  Geschichte  der  Vorstell. , v. 
Eide  ; Tyler,  Oaths  ; their  Origin , &c. — J.  R.  B. 

OBADIAH  Cinnny  and  servant  of 

Jehovah;  Sept.  *A/35et<is),  the  name  of  several 
persons  mentioned  in  Scripture. 

1.  OBADIAH,  the  fourth  of  the  minor  pro- 
phets according  to  the  Hebrew,  the  fifth  accord- 
ing to  the  Greek,  and  the  eighth  according  to 
chronological  arrangement,  is  supposed  to  have 
prophesied  about  the  year  b.c.  599  (Jahn’s  In- 
trod.').  We  have,  however,  but  a small  fragment 
of  his  prophecies,  and  it  is  impossible  to  determine 
anything  with  certainty  respecting  himself  or  his 
history.  Several  persons  of  this  name  occur  about 
the  same  period,  one  of  whom  presided  at  the  restor- 
ation of  the  temple  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  b.c.  624, 
and  is  considered  by  many  to  have  been  the 
author  of  the  prophecy.  Another,  who  v/as  go- 
vernor of  the  house  of  Aliab,  was  regarded  by 
the  ancient  Jews  as  the  author  of  the  book  : 
which  opinion  is  followed  by  Jerome  (Hieron. 
Comm,  in  Abdiam  ; Sixtus  Senens.  Bib.  Sanct.). 
Others  place  the  author  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  b.c. 
128*699;  while  some  think  him  to  have  been  a 


contemporary  of  Hosea,  who  prophesied  b.c. 
722.  But,  as  is  observed  by  Jahn,  Newcome, 
and  others,  it  is  evident  from  ver.  20  that  lie  pro 
phesied  while  Jerusalem  was  subjected  to  tluj 
yoke  of  the  Chaldaeans,  and  after  the  expatriation 
of  several  of  the  citizens — which  refers  him  to  the 
period  after  the  seventh  year  of  the  captivity, 
b.c.  599.  Jahn  maintains,  from  the  warnings  to 
the  Edomites,  ver.  12-14,  that  Obadiah  prophe- 
sied before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
Nebuchadnezzar;  while  De  Wette  infers  from 
the  mention  of  the  ‘captivity  of  the  children  ol 
Israel,’  and  the  ‘captivity  of  Jerusalem’  in 
ver.  20,  that  the  composition  of  the  book  must  be 
placed  after  the  destruction  of  that  city.  From  o. 
comparison  of  Obad.  ver.  1-4,  with  Jer.  xlix.  14-. 
16;  Obad.  ver.  6,  with  Jer.  xlix.  9,  10;  and 
Obad.  ver.  8,  with  Jer.  xlix.  7,  it  is  evident  that 
one  of  these  prophets  had  read  the  other’s  work. 
It  is  not  easy,  observes  Calmet,  to  decide  which 
of  the  two  copied  from  the  other ; but  from  the 
fact  that  Jeremiah  had  made  use  of  the  writings 
of  other  prophets  also,  it  has  been  generally  con- 
cluded ■‘that  Obadiah  was  the  original  writer 
(See  Eichhorn's  Introd.  6 512:  RosenmulJers 
Scholia,  and  Jiiger,  Ueb.die  Zeit  Obadjah).  That 
Jeremiah  was  the  original  writer  has  been  main- 
tained by  Bertholdt,  Credner,  De  Wette,  and 
others.  De  Wette  supposes  ( Introd . § 235)  that 
Obadiah  made  use  of  Jeremiah  from  recollection. 

His  prophecies  are  directed  against  the  Edom- 
ites, and  in  this  respect  correspond  with  Amos  i.  1 1, 
Jer.  xlix.  22,  Ezek.  xxv.  12-14,  and  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7 
(Jahn's  Introd .).„  He  menaces  Edom  with  de- 
struction for  their  hostile  feeling  towards  Judah, 
and  their  insulting  conduct  towards  the  Hebrews 
when  Jerusalem  was  taken  (ver.  11,  12);  but 
consoles  the  Jews  with  a promise  of  restoration 
from  their  captivity,  when  the  Hebrews  and  the 
Ten  Tribes  (Jahn's  Litrod.)  shall  repossess  both 
their  land  and  that  of  Edom  and  Philistia — a 
prophecy  which  was  fulfilled  in  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees,  under  John  Hyrcanus,  b.c.  125 
(Jahn,  l.  c.). 

The  language  of  Obadiah  is  pure ; but  Jahn 
and  others  have  observed  that  he  is  inferior  to  the 
more  ancient  prophets  in  its  too  great  addiction  to 
the  interrogatory  form  of  expression  (see  ver.  8). 
His  sentiments  are  noble,  and  his  figures  bold 
and  striking  (De  Wette ’s  Introd .,  Eng.  transl.). 
De  Wette's  translator  observes  that  his  hatred 
towards  other  nations  is  not  so  deep  and  deadly 
as  that  of  some  of  his  younger  contemporaries. 

See  Leusden’s  Obadiah ; Pfeiffer,  Comm,  in 
Obad. ; Scbroer,  Der  Prophet  Obad.,  &c. ; Ve- 
nema,  Lectt.  in  Obad.,  with  the  additions  of 
Verschuirand  Lohze;  Kohler,  Anmerkk. ; Schnur- 
rer's  Dissert.  Philol. ; Hendewerth,  Obadjce  Pro- 
phetce  Oraculum  in  Idumceos . These  are  the 
works  referred  to  in  De  Wette’s  Introduction. — 

W.  W. 

2.  OBADIAH,  the  governor  of  King  Aliab  s 
household,  and  high  in  the  confidence  of  his 
master,  notwithstanding  his  aversion  to  the  idola- 
tries which  the  court  patronized.  In  the  persecu* 
tion  raised  by  Jezebel,  Obadiah  hid  one  hundred 
of  the  Lord’s  prophets  in  caves,  and  supplied 
them  secretly  with  nourishment  during  the  famine, 
It  was  this  person,  when  sent  out  to  explore  the 
country  in  the  vain  search  of  pasture  unconsumed 
by  the  drought,  whom  Elijah  encountered  when 


436 


OBADIAH. 


OFFERING. 


about  to  show  himself  to  Ahab,  and  who  was  re- 
luctantly prevailed  upon  to  conduct  the  prophet 
to  his  master  (1  Kings  xviii.  4-16).  b.c.  906. 

3.  OBADIAH,  one  of  the  heroes  of  the  tribe  of 
Gad,  who  joined  David  at  Ziklag  (1  Chron.  xii.  9). 

4.  OBADIAH,  one  of  the  nobles  whom  Je- 
hoshaphat  sent  to  teach  in  the  cities  of  Judah  (2 
Chron.  xvii.  7). 

5.  OBADIAH,  one  of  the  Levites  who  pre- 
sided over  the  restoration  of  the  temple  under 
Josiah  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  12). 

6.  OBADIAH,  the  head  of  a party,  consisting 
of  218  males,  with  females  and  children  in  pro- 
portion, who  returned  with  Ezra  from  Babylon 
(Ezra  viii.  9). 

7.  OBADIAH,  one  of  the  priests,  who  sealed 
the  written  covenant  which  Nehemiah  caused  the 
people  to  enter  into  (Neh.  x.  5). 

Other  persons  of  this  name  occur  in  1 Chron. 
iii.  21  ; vii.  3;  viii.  38;  ix.  16,  41;  xxvii.  19. 

OBED  (*T3iy,  serving;  Sept.  ’ {207/8),  son  of 
Boaz  and  Ruth,  and  father  of  Jesse  the  father  of 
David,  according  to  the  apparently  incomplete 
genealogical  list  (Ruth  iv.  17  ; 1 Chron.  ii.  12). 
The  name  occui-s  in  the  genealogies  of  Matthew 
(i-  5)  and  Luke  (iii.  32). 

OBED-EDOM  (D“I^  Tltf,  serving  Edom  ; 
Sept.  'A0e58 apa),  a Levite  in  whose  premises,  and 
under  whose  care,  the  ark  was  deposited,  when 
the  death  of  Uzzah  caused  David  to  apprehend 
danger  in  taking  it  farther.  It  remained  here 
three  months,  during  which  the  family  of  Obed- 
edom  so  signally  prospered,  that  the  king  was  en- 
couraged to  resume  his  first  intention,  which  he 
then  happily  carried  into  effect.  (2  Sam.  vi.  10- 
12).  We  learn  from  l Chron.  xvi.  38,  that  Obed- 
edom’s  connection  with  the  ark  did  not  then  ter- 
minate, lie  and  his  brethren  having  charge  of  the 
doors  of  the  sanctuary  (1  Chron.  xv.  18,  24). 

OBIL  (W'lK,  chief  of  the  camels  ; Sept. 
’Aj6 las),  an  Ishmaelite,  or  Arab,  doubtless  of  the 
nomade  tribes,  who  had  charge  of  the  royal 
camels  in  the  time  of  David — an  exceedingly  fit 
employment  for  an  Arab  (1  Chron.  xxvii.  30). 
As  Obil  means  in  Arabic  ‘ a keeper  of  camels’ 
Hieron.  (ii.  2),  reasonably  infers  that  the  person 
had  his  name  from  his  office,  which  has  always 
been  a very  common  circumstance  in  the  East. 

OBLATION  I Offering]. 

OBOTH,  a station  of  the  Israelites  [Wan- 
dering], 

1.  ODED  (TTpy,  erecting;  Sept.  ’{25^5),  the 
prophet  who  remonstrated  against  the  detention 
as  captives  of  the  persons  whom  the  army  of  King 
Pekah  had  brought  prisoners  from  Judah,  and 
at  whose  suggestion  they  were  handsomely  treated, 
and  conducted  back  with  all  tenderness  and  care 
to  their  own  country  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  9). 

2.  ODED,  father  of  Azariah  the  prophet,  who 
was  commissioned  to  meet  and  encourage  Asa 
on  his  return  from  defeating  the  Ethiopians  (2 
Chron.  xv.  1-8).  It  curiously  happens  that  the 
address  which,  at  the  commencement,  is  ascribed 
to  Azariah,  the  son  of  Oded,  is  at  the  end  ascribed 
to  Oded  himself  (xv.  8).  But  this  is  supposed 
to  have  been  a slip  of  copyists,  and  the  versions 
read  the  latter  verse  like  the  former. 

ODEM  (D"!X  ; Sept.  aapbiov),  one  of  the  pre- 
cious stones  in  the  breastplate  of  the  high- priest 


(Exod.  xxviii.  17  ; xxxix.  1 7),  and  also  mentioned 
in  Ezek.  xxviii.  13.  In  all  these  places  it  ia  < 
rendered  ‘ sardius'  in  the  Authorized  Version,  fol-  *5 
lowing  the  Septnagint  and  Josephus  (Do  Bell,  a 
Jud.,  v.  5,  7),  who,  however,  in  Antiq.  iii.  7.  6, 
makes  it  the  sardonyx  (<rapb6vv^).  The  sardius  « 
is  the  stone  now  called  the  camelian,  from  its  co-  ■ 
lour  (a  came),  which  resembles  that  of  raw 
flesh.  The  Hebrew  name  is  derived  from  a root 
which  signifies  being  red.  The  sardius  or  car-  >1 
nelian  is  of  the  flint  family,  and  is  a kind  of 
chalcedony.  The  more  vivid  the  red  in  this 
stone,  the  higher  is  the  estimation  in  which  it  is  v 
held.  It  was  anciently,  as  now,  more  frequently  ] 
engraved  on  than  any  other  stone.  The  ancients  $ 
called  it  sardius,  because  Sardis  in  Lydia  was  ■ 
the  place  where  they  first  became  acquainted  with  1 
it;  but  the  sardius  of  Babylon  was  considered  of  ^ 
greater  value  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xxxvii.  7).  The 
Hebrews  probably  obtained  the  carnelian  from  ^ 
Arabia.  In  Yemen  there  is  found  a very  fine  / 
dark-red  carnelian,  which  is  called  el-Akik  (Nie- 
buhr, Beschreib.,  p.  142).  The  Arabs  wear  it  on 
the  finger,  on  the  arm  above  the  elbow,  and  in 
the  belt  before  the  abdomen.  It  is  supposed  to 
stop  hemorrhage  when  laid  on  a fresh  w’ound. 

OFFERING  (the  general  name  for  which  in 
Hebrew  is  T2nj7)  is  anything  presented  to  God  as 
a means  of  conciliating  his  favour  : which  being 
in  the  Jewish,  as  well  as  in  all  other  religions,  con- 
sidered as  the  one  thing  needful,  offerings  accord- 
ingly have  always  constituted  an  essential  part  of 
public  worship  and  private  piety. 

Offerings  have  been  divided  into  three  kinds  ; 

1.  Impelratoria ; 2.  Eucharistica ; 3.  Piacu- 
laria : the  first  denoting  those  which  are  de- 
signed to  procure  some  favour  or  benefit ; the 
second,  those  which  are  expressive  of  gratitude 
for  bounties  or  mercies  received  ; the  third,  those 
which  are  meant  to  atone  for  sins  and  pro- 
pitiate the  Deity.  Porphyry  also  gives  three  r 
reasons  for  making  offerings  to  the  gods  (Absti--''  < 
nentia,  ii.  24), — in  order  to  do  them  honour,  to  » 
acknowledge  a favour,  or  to  procure  a supply  for 
human  needs.  Among  the  Hebrews  we  find  a 
complex  and  multiform  system  of  offerings  ex-  j 
tending  through  the  entire  circle  of  divine  worship.  ; J 
and  prescribing  the  minutest  details.  A leading 
distinction  separates  their  offerings  into  unbloody  f 
(DiriDlD,  7r poaipopat,  Supa)  and  bloody  (D'llIlT,  t 
6v(riai).  Used  in  its  widest  sense  the  term  offering,  'I 
or  oblation,  indicates  in  the  Hebrew  ritual  a very  ^ 
great  number  of  things — as  the  firstlings  of  the  J 
flock,  first-fruits,  tithes, .incense,  the  shew-bread,  1 
the  wood  for  burning  in  the  temple  (Neh.  x.  1 
34).  The  objects  offered  were  salt,  meal,  baked  1 
and  roasted  grain,  olive-oil,  clean  animals,  such  m 
as  oxen,  goats,  doves,  but  not  fish.  The  animals  9 
were  required  to  be  spotless  (Lev.  xxii.  20  ; Mai.  9 
i.  8),  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  doves,  not  i 
under  eight  days  old  (Lev.  xxii.  27),  younger  j 
animals  being  tasteless  and  innutritious.  The  j 
smaller  beasts,  such  as  sheep,  goats,  and  calves,  j 
were  commonly  one  year  old  (Exod.  xxix.  38 ; ] 
Lev.  ix.  3 ; xii.  6 ; xiv.  10  ; Num.  xv.  27 ; | 
xxviii.  9,  sq.).  Oxen  were  offered  at  three  years  \ 
of  age;  in  Judges  (vi.  26)  one  is  offered  which  \ 
is  seven  years  old.  As  to  sex,  an  option  was 
sometimes  left  to  the  offerer,  as  in  peace  and  sin-'  ] 
offerings  (Lev.  iii.  1,  6 ; xii.  5,  6)  ; at  other  tin  es 


OFFERING. 


OFFERING. 


437 


males  were  required,  as  in  burnt  sacrifices,  for, 
contrary  t\;  classical  usage,  the  male  was  consi- 
dered the  more  perfect  In  burnt-offerings  and 
in'  thank-offerings  the  kind  of  animal  was  left  to 
the  choice  of  the  worshipper  (Lev.  i.  3),  but  in 
trespass  and  sin-offerings  it  was  regulated  by  law 
(Lev.  iv.  5).  If  the  desire  of  the  worshipper  was 
to  express  his  gratitude,  he  offered  a peace  or 
thank-offering  ; if  to  obtain  forgiveness,  he  offered 
a trespass  or  sin-offering.  Burnt-offerings  were 
of  a general  kind  (Num.  xv.  3 ; Deut.  xii.  6 ; 
Jer.  xvii.  26).  Hecatombs  or  large  numbers  of 
, cattle  were  sacrificed  on  special  occasions.  In 
1 Kings  viii.  5,  63,  Solomon  is  said  to  have 
‘sacrificed  sheep  and  oxen  that  could  not  be  told 
or  numbered  for  multitude,’  ‘two  and  twenty 
thousand  oxen  and  an  hundred  and  twenty  thou- 
sand sheep’  (see  also  2 Chron.  xxix.  32,  sq.  ; 
xxx.  24;  xxxv.  7,  sq.  ; comp.  Herod,  vii.  43; 
Xenoph.  Hellen.  vi.  4 ; Sueton.  Calig.  14).  Offer- 
ings were  also  either  public  or  private,  prescribed 
or  free-will.  Sometimes  they  were  presented  by  an 
individual,  sometimes  by  a family ; once,  or  at 
regular  and  periodic  intervals  (1  Sam.  i.  24  ; 
Job  i.  5 ; 2 Macc.  iii.  32).  Foreigners  were  per- 
mitted to  make  offerings  on  the  national  altar 
(Num.  xv.  14  ; 2 Macc.  iii.  35  ; xiii.  23;  Philo, 
Legat.  p.  1014 ; Joseph,  c.  Apion.  ii.  5).  Offerings 
i were  made  by  Jews  for  heathen  princes  (1  Macc. 

vii.  33  ; Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  2.  5).  In  the  case 
of  bloody-offerings  the  possessor,  after  he  had 
sanctified  himself  (1  Sam.  xvi.  5),  brought  the 
victim,  in  case  of  thank-offerings,  with  his  horns 
gilded  and  with  garlands,  &c.  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xiii.  8.  2;  Winer,  Real-w'drterb.  ii.  212,  note  5) 
to  the  altar  (Lev.  iii.  1 ; xii.  4 ; xiv.  17),  where, 
laying  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  animal  (Lev. 
i.  4 ; iii.  2 ; iv.  4),  he  thus,  in  a clear  and  pointed 
way,  devoted  it  to  God.  Having  so  done  he  pro- 
ceeded to  slay  the  victim  himself  (Lev.  iii.  2 ; 
iv.  4)  ; which  act  might  be,  and  in  later  times 
was,  done  by  the  priests  (2  Chron.  xxix.  24),  and 
probably  by  the  Levites  (Hottinger,  De  Func- 
tionibus  Sacerdot.  circa  victimam,  Marb.  1706). 

| The  blood  was  taken,  and,  according  to  the  kind 
I of  offering,  sprinkled  upon  the  altar,  or  brought 
into  the  temple  and  there  shed  upon  the  ark  of 
I the  covenant  and  smeared  upon  the  horns  of  the 
j altar  of  incense,  and  then  the  remainder  poured 
forth  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings. 
Having  slain  the  animal,  the  offerer  struck  oft'  its 
I head  (Lev.  i.  6),  which  when  not  burnt  (Lev.  iv. 
i bl)  belonged  either  to  the  priest  (Lev.  vii.  8),  or 
! to  the  offerer  (comp.  Mishna,  Lebach.  xii.  2). 
The  victim  was  then  cut  into  pieces  (Lev.  i.  6 ; 

viii.  20),  which  were  either  all,  or  only  the  best 
and  most  tasty,  set  on  fire  on  the  altar  by  the 
priests  or  the  offerer,  or  must  be  burnt  without 
the  precincts  of  the  holy  city.  The  treatment 
of  doves  may  be  seen  in  Lev.  i.  14,  sq. ; v.  8 
(see  Hottinger,  De  Sacrificiis  Avium , Marb. 
1706).  In  some  sacrifices  heaving  (ntDlSn)  and 
waving  (fDVIin)  were  usual  either  before  or  after 
the  slaying. 

The  annual  expense  of  offerings,  including 
those  made  by  individuals  as  well  as  the  nation, 
must  have  been  considerable.  It  may,  however, 
• be  said  that  the  country  produced  on  all  sides  in 
great  abundance  most  of  the  required  objects,  and 
| that  uoere  were  numerous  forests  whence  wood  for 
use  m sacrifice  was  procured.  At  later  periods 


of  the  nation  foreign  princes,  desirous  of  con- 
ciliating the  goodwill  of  the  Jews,  made  large 
contributions  both  of  natural  objects  and  of 
money  towards  the  support  of  the  ceremonial  ol 
public  worship  (Ezra  vi.  9 ; 1 Macc.  x.  39 ; 
2 Macc.  iii.  3;  ix.  16  ; Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  3.  3). 
The  place  where  offerings  were  exclusively  to  be 
presented  was  the  outer  court  of  the  national 
sanctuary,  at  first  the  Tabernacle,  afterwards  the 
Temple.  Every  offering  made  elsewhere  was 
forbidden  under  penalty  of  death  (Lev.  xvii.  4, 
sq. ; Deut.  xii.  5,  sq. ; comp.  1 Kings  xii.  27). 
The  precise  spot  is  laid  down  in  Lev.  i.  3 ; iii.  2, 
‘ at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation 
before  the  Lord.’  According  to  the  Mischna 
( Sebach . c.  5),  offerings  were  to  be  slain  partly  on 
the  north  side  of  the  altar,  and,  if  they  were  in- 
considerable, at  any  part  of  the  outer  court.  The 
object  of  these  regulations  was  to  prevent  any 
secret  idolatrous  rites  from  taking  place  under 
the  mask  of  the  national  ritual ; and  a common 
place  of  worship  must  have  tended  considerably 
to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  people,  whose  constant 
disagreements  required  precautions  of  a special 
kind  (1  Kings  xii.  27).  The  oneness,  however, 
of  the  place  of  sacrifice  was  not  strictly  preserved 
in  the  troubled  period  of  the  Judges,  nor  indeed 
till  the  time  of  David  (1  Kings  iii.  2,  3).  Offer- 
ings were  made  in  other  places  besides  the  door 
of  the  Tabernacle  (1  Sam.  vii.  17  ; Judg.  ii.  5). 
High  places,  which  had  long  been  used  by  the 
Canaanites,  retained  a certain  sanctity,  and  were 
honoured  with  offerings  (Judg.  vi.  26  ; xiii.  19). 
Even  the  loyal  Samuel  followed  this  practice  (1 
Sam.),  and  David  endured  it  (I  Kings  iii.  2). 
After  Solomon  these  offerings  on  high  places  still 
continued.  In  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  cut  off  as 
its  subjects  were  from  the  holy  city,  the  national 
temple  was  neglected. 

Offerings  being  regarded  as  an  expression  of  gra- 
titude and  piety,  and  required  as  a necessary  part 
of  ordinary  private  life,  were  diligently  and  abun- 
dantly presented,  failure  in  this  point  being  held  as 
a sign  ofirreligion  (Ps.  lxvi.  15 ; cx.  3 ; Jer.  xxxviii. 
11  ; Matt.  viii.  4;  Acts  xxi.  26;  Isa.  xliii.  23). 
Offerings  were  sworn  by,  as  being  something  in 
themselves  holy,  from  the  purpose  to  which  they 
were  consecrated  (Matt,  xxiii.  18).  And  in  the 
glowing  pictures  of  religious  happiness  and  na- 
tional prosperity  which  the  poets  drew,  there  is 
found  an  ideal  perfection  of  this  essential  element 
of  Israelitish  worship  (Isa.  xix.21 ; lvi.  7;  lx.  7 ; 
Zech.  xiv.  21 ; Jer.  xvii.  26  ; xxxiii.  18);  and 
deprivation  of  this  privilege  was  among  the  cala- 
mities of  the  period  of  exile  (Hos.  iii.  4). 

Under  the  load  and  the  multiplicity  of  these  out- 
ward oblations,  however,  the  Hebrews  forgot  the 
substance,  lost  the  thought  in  the  symbol,  the  thing 
signified  in  the  sign;  and,  failing  in  those  devo- 
tional sentiments  and  that  practical  obedience 
which  offerings  were  intended  to  prefigure  and 
cultivate,  sank  into  the  practice  of  mere  dead 
works.  Hereupon  began  the  prophets  to  utter 
their  admonitory  lessons-,  to  which  the  world  is 
indebted  for  so  many  graphic  descriptions  of  the 
real  nature  of  religion  and  the  only  true  worship 
of  Almighty  God  (Isa.  i.  11;  Jer.  vi.  20;  vii. 
21,  sq.  ; Hos.  vi.  6 ; Amos  v.  22 ; Micah  vi.  6, 
sq.  ; comp.  Ps.  xl.  6;  li.  17,  sq. ; Prov.  xxi.  3). 
Thus  the  failures  of  one  church  prepared  the  way 
for  the  higher  privileges  of  ancrther,  and  the  law 


438 


OG. 

proved  a schoolmaster  to  bring  ns  to  Christ 
(Matt.  v.  23 ; Gal.  iii.  24).  Even  before  the 
advent  of  our  Lord  pious  and  reflecting  men,  like 
the  Essenes,  discovered  the  lamentable  abuses  of 
the  national  ritual,  and  were  led  to  abstain  alto- 
gether from  the  customary  forms  of  a mere  out- 
ward worship  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  5).  The 
59th  Psalm  must  have  had  great  influence  in 
preparing  the  minds  of  thinking  men  for  a pure 
and  spiritual  form  of  worship,  the  rather  because 
some  of  its  principles  strike  at  the  very  root  of  all 
offerings  of  a mere  outward  kind  : thus,  ‘ I will 
take  no  bullock  out  of  thy  house,  nor  he-goats 
out  of  thy  folds ; for  every  beast  of  the  forest  is 
mine,  and  the  cattle  upon  a thousand  hills.  I f I 
were  hungry  I would  not  tell  thee ; for  the  world 
is  mine,  and  the  fulness  thereof.  Will  I eat  the 
flesh  of  bulls  or  drink  the  blood  of  goats  ? Offer 
unto  God  thanksgiving.’  Indeed  the  conception 
and  composition  of  such  a noble  piece  show 
what  great  progress  the  best  cultivated  minds  had 
made  from  the  rudimental  notions  of  primitive 
times,  and  may  serve  of  themselves  to  prove  that 
with  all  the  abuses  which  had  ensued,  the  Mosaic 
ritual  and  institutions  were  admirably  fitted  to 
carry  forward  the  education  of  the  mind  of  the 
people.  Tims  wras  the  Hebrew  nation,  and 
through  them  the  world,  led  on  so  as  to  be  in 
some  measure  prepared  for  receiving  the  Gospel 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  which  all  outward  offerings 
are  done  away,  the  one  great  offering  being  made, 
and  all  those  who  are  members  of  the  church  are 
required  to  offer  themselves,  body,  soul  and  spirit, 
a holy  offering  to  the  Lord  (Heb.  x. ; Rom.  xii.). 
‘ By  Him  therefore  let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise 
to  God  continually,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  our  lips, 
giving  thanks  to  his  name.  But  to  do  good  and 
to  communicate  forget  not ; for  with  such  sacri- 
fices God  is  well  pleased’  (Heb.  xiii.  15,  16; 
Matt.  ix.  13  ; xii.  7 ; Rom.  xv.  16  ; Phil.  ii.  17  ; 
2 Tim.  iv.  6). 

Lightfoot’s  work,  De  Ministerio  Templi,  is 
especially  to  be  recommended  on  this  subject; 
see  also  Outram,  De  Sacrif. ; lleland,  Antiq. 
Sacr.  iii.  1 ; Bauer,  Gottesd.  Verfass.  i.  SO,  sq. ; 
Rosenmiiller,  Excurs.  I.  ad  Lev.  The  Jewish 
doctrines  on  offerings  may  be  found  in  the  trea- 
tises Sebachim,  Menachoth , and  Temura  ; a se- 
lection from  which,  as  well  as  from  the  Rabbins, 
is  given  in  that  useful  little  work,  Othon.  Lex. 
Talmud,  p.  621,  sq. ; see  Ugolin.  Thesaur.  tom. 
xix.— J.  R.  B. 

OG  (!fiy,  giant ; Sept.  "Hy),  an  Amoritish 
king  of  Bashan  (Num.  xxi.  33  ; xxxii.  33  ; Deut. 

iv.  47;  xxxi.  4).  In  form  he  was  a giant,  so 
that  his  bedstead  was  preserved  as  a memorial  of 
his  huge  stature  (Deut.  iii.  11;  Josh.  xiii.  12) 
[Bed].  He  was  defeated  by  the  Israelites  under 
Moses  (Num.  xxi.  33;  Deut.  i.  4;  iii.  3);  and 
his  country,  which  contained  many  walled  cities 
(Deut.  iii.  4-10),  was  assigned  to  the  tribe  of 
Manasseh  (Deut.  iii.  13;  Josh.  xiii.  30)  [Amo- 
kites;  Bashan;  Giant]. 

OIL  Sept.  iXaiov ) was  far  more  exten- 

sively used  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  than  in 
our  northern  climate.  The  use  of  oil  is  equally 
general  throughout  Western  Asia  at  the  present 
time,  as  it  was  in  primitive  ages.  Oil  was  much 
used  instead  of  butter  and  animal  fat,  at  meals 
Attd  in  various  preparations  of  food  (see  Food  and 


OLIVES,  MOUNT  OF. 

comp.  Ezek.  xvi.  13).  In  such  uses  oil,  whe* 
fresh  and  sweet,  is  more  agreeable  than  animat  fat. 
The  Orientals  think  so ; and  Europeans  soon  ao 
quire  the  same  preference.  Oil  was  also  in  many 
cases  taken  as  a meat-offering  (Lev.  v.  11 ; Num. 

v.  15);  and  it  was  then  mixed  withjhe  meal  of 
oblation  (Exod.  xxix.  40  ; Lev.  ii.  4;  vi.  21 ; vii. 
12;  Num.  vi.  15)  [Offering].  The  rite  of 
sprinkling  with  oil,  as  a libation,  does  not  occur 
in  the  law,  but  seems  to  be  alluded  to  in  Micah 

vi.  7. 

The  application  of  oil  to  the  person  has  been  de- 
scribed in  the  article  Anointing.  Whether  for 
luxury  or  ceremony,  the  head  and  beard  were 
the  parts  usually  anointed  (Deut.  xxviii.  40  ; 
2 Sam.  xiv.  2 : Ps.  xxiii.  5 ; xcii.  11  ; civ.  15  ; 
Luke  vii.  46);  and  this  use  of  oil  became  at 
length  proverbially  common  among  the  Israelites 
(Piov.  xxi.  17). 

The  employment  of  oil  for  burning  has  been 
illustrated  in  the  article  Lamps.  It  is  only  neces- 
sary to  add,  that  for  this,  and  indeed  for  most 
other  purposes,  olive-oil  was  considered  the  best, 
and  was  therefore  used  in  the  lamps  of  the  taber- 
nacle. The  custom  of  anointing  the  diseased 
and  the  dead  has  been  noticed  in  the  article 
Anointing  ; aud  for  the  use  and  composition  of 
fragrant  oils  and  ointments,  see  Perfumes. 

The  numerous  olive-plantations  in  Palestine 
made  olive-oil  one  of  the  chief,  and  one  of  the 
most  lucrative  products  of  the  country  ; it  sup- 
plied an  article  of  extensive  and  profitable  traffic 
with  the  Tyrians  (Ezek.  xxvii.  17  ; comp.  1 Kings 

v.  11);  and  presents  of  the  finer  sorts  of  olive-oil 
were  deemed  suitable  for  kings.  There  is  in  fact 
no  other  kind  of  oil  distinctly  mentioned  in 
Scripture ; and  the  best,  middling,  and  inferior  oils 
appear  to  have  been  merely  different  qualities  of 
olive-oil.  The  berries  of  the  olive-tree  were  some- 
times plucked,  or  carefully  shaken  off  by  the  hand, 
before  they  were  ripe  (Deut.  xxiv.  20;  Isa.  xvii. 
6 ; xxiv.  13).  If  while  they  were  yet  green,  in- 
stead of  being  thrown  into  the  press,  they  were 
only  beaten  or  squeezed,  they  yielded  the  best 
kind  of  oil.  It  was  called  Ophacinum , or  the 
oil  of  unripe  olives,  and  also  ‘beaten’ or  ‘fresh 
oil’  (Exod.  xxvii.  20).  There  were  presses  of  a 
peculiar  kind  for  preparing  oil  called  113, 
gath-shemen  (whence  the  name  Gethsemane,  or 
‘ oil-press,’  Matt.  xxvi.  36 ; John  xviii.  1),  in 
which  the  oil  was  trodden  out  by  the  feet  (Micah 

vi.  15).  The  first  expression  of  the  oil  was  better 
than  the  second,  and  the  second  than  the  third. 
Ripe  olives  yielded  the  least  valuable  kind  of  oil, 
but  the  quantity  was  more  abundant.  The  best 
sort  of  oil  was  prepared  with  fragrant  spices,  and 
was  used  in  anointing:  the  inferior  sorts  were 
used  with  food  and  for  lamps. 

OLIVE-TREE.  [Zayit.] 

OLIVES,  MOUNT  OF,  a mountain  or  ridge 
now  called  by  the  Arabs  Jebel  et-Tur,  lying  to 
the  east  of  Jerusalem,  from  which  it  is  separated 
only  by  the  narrow  valley  of  Jehoshaphat.  To- 
wards the  south  it  sinks  down  into  a lower  ridge, 
over  against  the  so-called  ‘ well  of  Nehemiah,’ 
now  called  by  Franks  the  Mount  of  Offence,  in 
allusion  to  the  idolatrous  worship  established  by 
Solomon  ‘on  the  hill  that  is  before,’  that  is 
eastward  of  ‘Jerusalem.’  In  this  direction  lies 
the  usual  road  to  Bethany,  so  often  trodden  by 
our  Saviour.  About  a mile  towards  the  north  is 


OLYMPAS. 

another  summit,  nearly  or  quite  as  high  as  the 
middle  one.  The  ridge  between  the  two  bends 
slightly  eastward,  leaving  room  for  the  valley  below 
to  expand  somewhat  in  that  part.  The  view  of 
the  Holy  City  and  of  the  Dead  Sea,  from  the 
southern  summit,  is  described  in  the  article 
Jerusalem  ; that  from  the  northern  summit  does 
not  embrace  the  Dead  Sea.  The  elevation  of  the 
central  peak  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  stated  by 
Schubert  ( lieise , ii.  311)  at  2556  Paris  feet,  or  416 
Paris  feet  above  tne  valley  of  Jehoshaphat;  and 
hence  it  appears  to  be  175  Paris  feet  above  the 
highest  part  of  Mount  Zion.  Beyond  the  northern 
summit  the  ridge  sweeps  round  towards  the  west, 
and  spreads  out  into  the  high  level  tract  north  of 
the  city,  which  is  skirted  on  the  west  and  south 
by  the  upper  part  of  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat 
(Uobinson’s  Researches , ii.  405-407  ; Olin’s 
Travels , ii.  127).  This  inconsiderable  ridge  de- 
rives all  its  importance  from  its  connection  with 
Jerusalem,  and  from  the  sacred  associations  which 
hence  became  connected  with  it.  To  the  mount 
whose  ascent  David  ‘ went  up,  weeping  and  bare- 
foot,’ to  which  our  Saviour  ofttimes  withdrew  with 
his  disciples,  over  which  lie  often  passed,  and  from 
which  he  eventually  ascended  into  heaven,  be- 
longs a higher  degree  of  sacred  and  moral  interest 
than  is  to  be  found  in  mere  physical  magnitude, 
or  than  the  record  connects  even  with  Lebanon, 
Tabor,  or  Ararat, 

OLYMPAS  (' OXv/xiras),  a Christian  at  Rome, 
whom  Paul  salutes  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
(Rom.  xvi.  15). 

OMEGA  (fl),  the  last  letter  of  the  Greek 
alphabet,  proverbially  applied  to  express  the  end, 
as  Alpha  (A),  the  first  letter,  the  beginning  of  any 
thing  [Ai.pha]. 

OMER  [Weights  and  Measures]. 

OMRI  C'ypil, God-taught ; Sept.  'A/xfipl),  sixth 
king  of  Israel,  who  began  to  reign  in  b.c.  929,  and 
reigned  twelve  years.  He  was  raised  to  the  throne 
by  the  army,  while  it  was  engaged  in  the  siege  of 
Gibbethon,  a Levitical  city  in  Dan,  of  which  the 
Philistines  had  gained  possession,  when  the  news 
came  to  the  camp  of  the  death  of  Elah,  and  the 
usurpation  of  Zimri.  On  this,  the  army  pro- 
claimed their  general,  Omri,  king  of  Israel.  He 
then  lost  not  a moment,  but  leaving  Gibbethon  in 
the  power  of  the  infidels,  went  and  besieged  his 
competitor  in  Tirzah.  But  he  was  no  sooner  de- 
livered of  this  rival  [Zimri],  than  another  ap- 
peared in  the  person  of  Tibni,  whom  a part  of 
the  people  had  raised  to  the  throne,  probably  from 
unwillingness  to  submit  to  military  dictation. 
This  occasioned  a civil  war,  which  lasted  six 
years,  and  left  Omri  undisputed  master  of  the 
throne,  b.c.  925.  His  reign  lasted  six  years 
more,  and  its  chief  event  was  the  foundation  of 
Samaria,  which  thenceforth  became  the  capital 
city  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (l  Kings  xvi.  15- 
28).  [Samaria.] 

ON  strength;  Sept.  ’A  vv),  a chief  of  the 
tribe  of  Reuben,  who  was  one  of  the  accomplices 
of  Korah  in  the  revolt  against  the  authority  of 
Moses  and  Aaron.  He  is  mentionel  among  the 
leaders  of  this  conspiracy  in  the  first  instance 
(Num.  xvi.  17),  but  does  not  appear  in  any  of 
the  subsequent  transactions,  and  is  not  by  name 
included  in  the  final  punishment.  The  Rab- 


ON.  433 

binical  tradition  is,  that  the  wife  of  On  persuaded 
her  husband  to  abandon  the  enterprise. 

ON  (}iX  ; Sept.  'HAroihroAts),  one  of  the  oldest 
cities  in  the  world,  situated  in  Lower  Egypt, 
about  two  hours  N.N.E.  from  Cairo.  The  Sep- 
tuagint  translates  the  name  On  by  Heliopolis, 
which  signifies  ‘city  of  the  sun  and  in  Jer.  xliii. 
13,  it  bears  a name,  Beth-shemesh  (oppidum  solis, 
Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  v.  1 1),  of  equivalent  import.  On 
is  a Coptic  and  ancient  Egyptian  word,  signifying 
light  and  the  sun  (Ritter,  Erdk.  i 822).  The 
site  is  now  marked  by  low  mounds,  enclosing  a 
space  about  three^uarters  of  a mile  in  length  by 
half  a mile  in  breadth,  which  was  once  occupied 
by  houses  and  by  the  celebrated  Temple' of  the 
Sun.  This  area  is  at  present  a ploughed  field, 
a garden  of  herbs  ; and  the  solitary  obelisk  which 
still  rises  in  the  midst  of  it  is  the  sole  remnant  of  the 
former  splendours  of  the  place.  In  the  days  of 
Edrisi  and  Abdallatif  the  place  bore  the  name  of 
Ain  Shems ; and  in  the  neighbouring  village, 
Matariyeh,  is  still  shown  an  ancient  well  bearing 
the  same  name.  Near  by  it  is  a very  old  sycamore, 
its  trunk  straggling  and  gnarled,  under  which  le- 
gendary tradition  relates  that  the  holy  family 
once  rested  (Robinson’s  Biblical  Researches , i.  36), 
Heliopolis  was  the  capital  of  a district  or  nomos 
bearing  the  same  name  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  9; 
Ptolem.  iv.  5). 


The  place  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  xli.  45,  where 
it  is  said  that  Pharaoh  gave  to  Joseph  a wife, 
Asenath,  the  daughter  of  Poti-pherah,  priest  of 
On  (ver.  50).  From  the  passage  in  Jeremiah  ( ut 
supra ),  it  may  be  inferred  that:  it  was  distin- 
guished for  idolatrous  worship  : ‘ He  shall  break 
also  the  images  of  Beth-shemesh  that  is  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  the  houses  of  the  gods  of  the 
Egyptians  shall  he  burn  with  fire.’  The  names, 
‘ City  of  the  Sun,’  ‘ Temples  of  the  Sun,’  connected 
with  the  place,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the 
words  just  cited  from  the  prophet,  seem  to  refer 
the  mind  to  the  purer  form  of  worship  which  pre- 
vailed at  a very  early  period  in  Egypt,  namely. 


440 


ONAN. 


OPHEL. 


the  worship  of  tl  e heavenly  bodies,  and  thence  to 
carry  the  thought  to  the  deteriorations  which  it 
afterwards  underwent  in  sinking  to  the  adoration 
of  images  and  animals. 

Tiie  traces  of  this  city  which  are  found  in 
classic  authors  correspond  with  the  little  of  it 
that  we  know  from  the  brief  intimations  of  Holy 
Writ.  According  to  Herodotus  (ii.  59),  Heliopolis 
was  one  of  the  four  great  cities  that  were  rendered 
famous  in  Egypt  by  being  the  centres  of  solemn 
rel  igious  festivals,  which  were  attended  by  splendid 
processions  and  homage  to  the  gocre.  In  Heliopolis 
the  observance  was  held  in  honour  of  the  sun. 
The  majesty  of  these  sacred  visits  may  be  best 
learned  now  by  a careful  study  of  the  temples  (in 
their  ruins)  in  which  the  rites  were  performed 
(Wilkinson’s  Anc.  Egyptians ).  Heliopolis  had  its 
priesthood,  a numerous  and  learned  body,  cele- 
brated before  other  Egyptians  for  their  historical 
and  antiquarian  lore;  it  long  continued  the  uni- 
versity of  the  Egyptians,  the  chief  seat  of  their 
science  (Kenrick’s  Herod,  ii.  3 ; Wilkinson) ; 
the  priests  dwelt  as  a holy  community  in  a spa- 
cious structure  appropriated  to  their  use.  In 
Strabo’s  time  the  halls  were  to  be  seen  in  which 
Eudoxus  and  Plato  had  studied  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  priests  of  Heliopolis.  A detailed  de- 
scription of  the  temple,  with  its  long  alleys  of 
sphinxes,  obelisks,  &c.,  may  be  found  in  Strabo 
(xvii. ; Joseph,  c.  Apion.  ii.  2),  who  says  that  the 
mural  sculpture  in  it  was  very  similar  to  the  old 
Etruscan  and  Grecian  works.  In  the  temple  a 
bullock  was  fed — a symbol  of  the  god  Mnevis. 
The  city  suffered  heavily  by  the  Persian  invasion. 
From  the  time  of  Shaw  and  Pococke,  the  place 
has  been  described  by  many  travellers.  At  an 
early  period  remains  of  the  famous  temple  were 
found.  Abdallatif  (a.d.  1200)  saw  many  colossal 
sphinxes,  partly  prostrate,  partly  standing.  He 
also  saw  the  gates  or  propylgea  of  the  temple  co- 
vered with  inscriptions  ; he  describes  two  immense 
obelisks  whose  summits  were  covered  with  massive 
brass,  around  which  were  others  one-half  or  one- 
third  the  size  of  the  first,  placed  in  so  thick  a mass 
that  they  could  scarcely  be  counted ; most  of  them 
thrown  down.  An  obelisk  which  the  Emperor 
Augustus  caused  to  be  carried  to  Rome,  and 
placed  in  the  Campus  Martius,  is  held  by  Zoega 
( De  Orig.  et  Usu  Obelisci ) to  have  been  brought 
from  Heliopolis,  and  to  have  owed  its  origin  to 
Sesostris.  This  city  furnished  works  of  art  to 
Augustus  for  adorning  Rome,  and  to  Constantine 
for  adorning  Constantinople.  Ritter  ( Erdkunde , 
i.  823)  says  that  the  sole  remaining  obelisk  is 
from  (50  to  70  feet  high,  of  a block  of  red  granite, 
bearing  hieroglyphics  which  remind  the  beholder 
of  what  Strabo  terms  the  Etruscan  style.  ‘ Tire 
figure  of  the  cross  which  it  bears  ( crux  ansata') 
has  attracted  the  special  notice  of  Christian  anti- 
quaries ’ (Ritter). — J.  R.  B. 

ONAN  (fllifcS,  strong , stout;  Sept.  A vuau), 
second  sou  of  Judah,  who,  being  constrained  by 
the  obligations  of  the  ancient  Levirafe  law  to 
espouse  Tamar,  his  elder  brother's  widow,  took 
means  to  frustrate  the  intention  of  this  usage,  which 
was  to  provide  heirs  for  a brother  who  had  died 
childless.  This  crime,  rendered  without  excuse  by 
the  allowance  of  polygamy,  and  the  seriousness  of 
which  can  scarcely  be  appreciated  but  in  respect 
*o  the  usages  of  the  times  in  which  it  was  com- 


mitted, was  punished  by  premature  deuth  (Gen 
xxxviii.  4,  sq.). 

ONESIMUS  {'Oirqa-i/xos,  profitable ),  a slave 
belonging  to  Philemon  of  Colossse,  who  fled  from 
his  master,  and  proceeded  to  Rome,  where  he  was 
converted  by  St.  Paul,  who  sent  him  back  to  his 
master,  a friend  and  convert  of  the  apostle,  with 
an  eloquent  letter,  the  purport  of  which  is  de- 
scribed in  the  article  Philemon.  Onesimus, 
accompanied  by  Tychicus,  left  Rome  with  not 
only  this  epistle,  but  with  those  to  the  Ephesians 
and  Colossians  (Col.  iv.  9).  It  is  believed  (hat 
Onesimus,  anxious  to  justify  the  confidence  which 
Paul  reposed  in  him,  by  appearing  speedily  before 
his  master,  left  Tychicus  to  take  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  ; and  hastened  to  Colossae,  where 
he  doubtless  received  the  forgiveness  which  Paul 
had  so  touchingly  implored  for  him  as  ‘a  brother 
beloved  * {Canon.  Apost.  73).  An  uncertain 
tradition  makes  Onesimus  to  have  been  bishop 
of  Beraea,  where  he  is  said  to  have  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom {Const.  Apostol  vii.  4G).  The  part 
which  Paul  took  in  this  difficult  and  trying  case 
is  highly  honourable  to  him  ; while  for  Onesimus 
himself,  the  highest  praise  is,  that  he  obtained  the 
friendship  and  confidence  of  the  apostle. 

ONESIPHORUS  ('Oi/?7ai0opos,prq/s(-6nw7er), 

a believer  of  Ephesus,  who  came  to  Rome  during 
the  second  captivity  of  St.  Paul  in  that  city  ; and 
having  found  out  the  apostle,  who  was  in  custody 
of  a soldier,  to  whose  arm  his  own  was  chained, 
was  ‘not  ashamed  of  his  chain,’  but  attended  him 
frequently,  and  rendered  him  all  the  services  in 
his  power.  This  faithful  attachment,  at  a time  of 
calamity  and  desertion,  was  fully  appreciated 
and  well  remembered  by  the  apostle,  who,  in  his 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  carefully  records  the  circum- 
stance ; and,  after  charging  him  to  salute  in  his 
name  ‘ the  household  of  Onesiphorus,’  expresses 
the  most  earnest  and  grateful  wishes  for  his  spi- 
ritual welfare  (1  Tim.  ii.  16-18).  It  would  ap- 
pear from  this  that  Onesiphorus  had  then  quitted 
Rome. 

ONION.  [Betzal.] 

ONYX.  [Yahalom.] 

OPHEL  (^eyn  ; Sept.  ’ftycU),  a place  or 
quarter  of  Jerusalem  near  the  walls  (2  Chron. 
xxvii.  3 ; xxxiii.  44),  on  the  east  side  (Neh.  iii. 
26 ; xi.  21).  Ophel,  or,  as  he  calls  it,  Oplda 
{'0<p\a.  'OcpAas),  is  often  mentioned  by  Josephus 
as  adjoining  the  valley  of  the  Kidron  and  the 
temple  mount  {De  Bell.  Jud.  v.  6.  1 ; vi.  6.  3). 
He  explains  himself  more  precisely  in  v.  4.  2, 
where  he  makes  the  first  wall  of  the  city  to  ex- 
tend from  the  tower  of  the  Essenes  over  Siloam 
and  the  pools  of  Solomon  to  Ophel.  From  these 
intimations  Winer  collects  that  Ophel  was  a 
high  or  ascending  place,  built  over  (in  the  an- 
cient city)  with  houses.  This  view  is  confirmed 
by  Dr.  Robinson,  who  identifies  it  with  the  low 
ridge  which  extends  southward  from  the  temple 
mount  to  Mount  Zion,  between  the  exterior  valley 
of  Jehoshaphat  and  the  interior  valley  of  Tyro- 
poeon.  The  top  of  this  ridge  is  flat,  descending 
rapidly  towards  the  south,  sometimes  by  offsets  of 
rocks;  and  the  ground  is  now  tilled  and  planted 
with  olive  and  other  fruit  trees.  This  ridge  is 
considerably  below  the  level  of  Mount  Moriah ; 
its  length  is  1550  feet,  and  its  breadth  in  the 


OPHER, 


OPHIR. 


441 


middle  part,  fron  brow  to  brow,  290  feet  (Winer, 
t.  v . ‘ Opbel ;'  Robinson,  ii.  349)  [Jerusai.em]. 

OPHER  (1SV;  Arabic  algophro ),  in 

the  Song  of  Solomon  (ch  iv.  5),  denotes  the  calf 
or  fawn  of  a stag  {ail)  ; it  occurs  in  no  other  book 
of  Scripture,  is  unknown  in  the  Syriac  and 
Chaldee,  and  appears  to  be  only  a poetical  ap- 
plication of  a term  more  strictly  belonging  to 
fawn-like  animals ; for  in  the  above  passage 
it  is  applied  to  couples  feeding  in  a bed  of 
lilies — indications  hot  descriptive  of  young  goats 
or  stags,  but  quite  applicable  to  the  Antilo- 
pine  groups  which  are  characterized  in  Griffith’s 
Cuvier,  in  subgenus  X.  Cephalophus,  and  XI. 
Neotragus ; both  furnishing  species  of  exceed- 
ing delicacy  and  graceful  diminutive  struc- 
tures, several  of  which  habitually  feed  in  pairs 
among  shrubs  and  geraniums  on  the  hilly  plains 
of  Africa;  and  as  they  have  always  been  and 
still  are  in  request  among  the  wealthy  in  warm 
climates  for  domestication,  we  may  conjecture 
that  a species  designated  by  the  name  of  Opher 
("IBJJ,  perhaps  alluding  to  Ophir,  or  even 

Africa),  was  to  be  found  in  the  parks  or  royal 
gardens  of  a sovereign  so  interested  in  natural  his- 
tory as  Solomon  was,  and  from  the  sovereign’s 
own  observation  became  alluded  to  in  the  truly 
apposite  imagery  of  his  poetical  diction  (Cant, 
iv.  12).  Among  the  species  in  question,  in  which 
both  male  and  female  are  exceedingly  similar,  and 
which  might  have  reached  him  by  sea  or  by  caravan, 
we  may  reckon  Cephalophus  Grimmia,  C.  Per- 
pusilla,  C:  Philantomba,  all  marked  by  a small 
black  tuft  of  hair  between  their  very  short  horns, 
as  also  the  Neotragus  Pygmea,  or  Guevei,  the 
smallest  of  cloven-footed  animals,  and  the  Madoka, 
with  speckled  legs  ; all  these  species  being  natives 
of  Central  Africa,  and  from  time  immemorial 
brought  by  caravans  from  the  interior,  for  sale  or 
presents.- — C.  H.  S. 

OPHIR  occurs  first,  as  the  proper  name  of  one 
of  the  thirteen  sons  of  Joktan,  the  son  of  Eber,  a 
great-grandson  of  Shem,  in  Gen.  x.  26-29  ; 

Sept.  O xxpe'ip ; Vulg.  Ophir).  Many  Arabian 
countries  are  believed  to  have  been  peopled  by 
these  persons,  and  to  have  been  called  after  their 
respective  names,  as  Sheba,  &c.,  and  among 
others  Ophir  (Bochart,  Phaleg , iii.  15).  Ophir 
occurs  also  as  the  name  of  a place,  country,  or 
region,  famous  for  its  gold,  which  Solomon’s  ships 
visited  in  company  with  the  Phoenician  O'S'lfcS  ; 
Sept.  Ovcplp  ; Alex.  Ov<pdp  : 2 ov<p(p , 2 ovtpeip , 
Scacplp,  2 axpipd  ; Alex.  2 a<papa  and  2co<^>t?/oc£  ; 
Aid.  2,a,TT<pe(p ; Cam.  ’07r</>eip ; Alex,  and  Cam. 

; Vulg.  Ophir).  The  difficulty  is  to  as- 
certain where  Ophir  was  situated.  Some  writers, 
reasoning  from  the  etymology  of  the  word,  which 
is  supposed  to  mean  dust,  &c.,  have  inferred 
almost  every  place  where  gold  dust  is  procured 
m abundance.  Others  have  rested  their  con- 
clusions upon  the  similarity  of  the  name  in 
Hebrew  to  that  of  other  countries,  as  for  instance 
Aphar,  a port  of  Arabia  mentioned  by  Arrian  in 
his  Periplus  of  the  Erythraean  Sea ; or  upon  the 
similarity  of  the  name  in  the  Sept.,  2 wcpipa-, 
hence  Sofala,  &c.  : and  others,  by  a transposition 
of  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  word,  have,  among 
other  conjectures,  even  made  out  Peru ! By  such 
methods  of  investigation  the  following  countries, 


among  others,  have  been  proposed  : Melindah  on 
the  coast  of  Africa,  Angola,  Carthage,  St.  Do- 
mingo, Mexico,  New  Guinea,  Urphe  an  island 
in  the  Red  Sea,  and  Ormuz  in  the  Persian  Gulf. 
Bochart  thinks  that  the  Ophir  from  which  David 
obtained  gold  (1  Chron.  xxix.  4)  was  the  Cas- 
sanitis  of  Ptolemy  and  Stephanus,  on  the  coast  of 
Arabia ; while  that  visited  by  the  fleet  of  Solomon 
was  Taprobane,  now  called  Ceylon  ( Geogr . Sacra , 
ii.  27).  Pegu  is  the  place  selected  by  Mafiaei 
(Hist.  Ind.  lib.  i.).  Others  decide  in  favour  of 
the  peninsula  of  Malacca,  which  abounds  in 
precious  ores,  apes,  and  peacocks  : others  prefer 
Sumatra,  for  the  same  reason.  Lipenius,  relying 
on  the  authority  of  Josephus,  Theodoret,  and 
Procopius,  who  call  Ophir  c the  golden  land,’ { the 
golden  chersonese,’  says  that  the  children  of  Jok- 
tan peopled  all  the  countries  bounded  by  the 
eastern  seas,  and  that  Ophir  includes  not  only 
Sumatra  or  Malacca,  but  every  coast  and  island 
from  Ceylon  to  the  Indian  Archipelago.  We 
shall  now  lay  before  the  readers  what  we  conceive 
to  be  the  exact  amount  of  our  information  re- 
specting Ophir,  and  show  how  far  it  applies  to 
what  appear  to  us  to  be  the  three  most  probable 
theories  respecting  its  situation,  namely,  Arabia, 
Africa,  and  India.  Ophir  is  mentioned  in  the 
following  thirteen  passages  : Gen.  x.  29  ; 1 Chron. 

i.  23  ; 1 Kings  ix.  28  ; 2 Chron.  viii.  18;  ix.  10  ; 
1 Kings  x.  11 ; xxii.  48;  1 Chron.  xxix.  4 ; Job 
xxii.  24;  xxviii.  16;  Ps.  xlv.  9;  Isa.  xiii.  12; 
Ecclus.  vii.  18.  Only  seven  of  these  passages 
afford  even  the  slightest  clue  to  its  position, 
and  these  are  reduced  to  three  when  the  pa- 
rallel passages  and  texts  in  which  Ophir  is  not 
a local  name  have  been  withdrawn.  We  further 
think  that  the  situation  of  Tarshish  is  not  in  any 
way  connected  with  this  inquiry.  It  is  indeed 
said,  in  reference  to  the  voyage  to  Ophir,  that 
‘ Solomon  had  at  sea  a navy  of  Tarshish,  and 
that  once  in  three  years  came  the  navy  of  Tar- 
shish’ (1  Kings  x.  22);  and  that  ‘Jehoshaphat 
made  ships  of  Tarshish  to  go  to  Ophir  for  gold  ’ 
(1  Kings  xxii.  48) ; but  the  word  may  denote 
large  merchant  ships  bound  on  long  voyages, 
perhaps  distinguished  by  their  construction  from 
the  common  Phoenician  ships,  even  though  they 
were  sent  to  other  countries  instead  of  Tarshish 
(compare  the  English  naval  phraSfe,  an  Indiaman, 
and  see  Isa.  xxiii.  1 ; lx.  9 ; Ps.  xlviii.  7 ; Isa. 

ii.  16)  ; and  although  the  Tarshish  ships  which 
went  to  Ophir  (1  Kings  xxii.  48,  &c.)  are  ex- 
pressly said  by  the  writer  of  Chronicles  to  have 
gone  to  Tarshish  (2  Chron.  ix.  21 ; xx.  36,  37), 
yet  in  the  interval  between  the  composition  of 
the  books  of  Kings  and  that  of  Chronicles  the 
name  was  most  probably  transferred  to  denote 
any  distant  country  [Tarshish].  The  utmost 
that  can  be  said  is,  that  Solomon  sent  ships  to 
Tarshish  as  well  as  to  Ophir,  but  it  cannot  be 
proved  that  the  same  ships  are  meant,  or  that  they 
went  to  both  places  in  the  same  voyage.  It  seems 
to  us  most  probable  that  Solomon  sent  direct  to 
Ophir  for  gold,  wherever  it  might  be  ; and  that, 
whereas  it  had  been  hitherto  procured  from  thence 
by  David,  &c.  by  foreignanerchants,  Solomon  fitted 
out  a fleet  to  obtain  it  at  first  hand.  Neither  do 
we  think  that  the  time  occupied  by  the  voyage  to 
Ophir  is  precisely  determinable  from  the  words 
‘ once  in  three  years  came  the  navy’  (1  Kings  x, 
22).  Upon  the  whole  then  our  information  ap 


*42 


OPHIR. 


OPHIR. 


pears  to  amount  to  this,  that  King  Solomon  made 
a navy  of  ships  in  Ezion-geber,  which  is  beside 
Eloth,  on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  in  the  land 
of  Edom,  and  that  his  Phoenician  neighbour  and 
ally,  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  sent  in  this  navy  his 
servants,  shipmen  that  had  knowledge  of  the  sea, 
with  the  servants  of  Solomon,  and  that  they  came 
to  Ophir,  and  fetched  from  thence  gold,  and 
brought  it  to  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  26-29),  and 
that  they  brought  in  the  same  voyage  algum  or 
almug-trees  and  precious  stones  (1  Kings  x.  11), 
silver,  ivory,  apes,  or  rather  monkeys,  and  pea- 
cocks, or,  according  to  some,  pheasants,  and  to 
others,  parrots ; and  that  gold  in  great  abundance 
and  of  the  purest  quality  was  procured  from 
Ophir  (1  Chron.  xxix.  4;  Job  xxviii.  16),  ren- 
dered by  Symmachus  xpvabs  7rpo>Te?oy,  (Ps.  xlv. 
9 ; Isa.  xiii.  12);  Vulg.  tnundo  obrizo,  (Ecclus. 
vii.  18).  The  first  theory  which  appears  to  be 
attended  with  some  degree  of  evidence  not  purely 
fanciful  is  that  Ophir  was  situate  in  Arabia.  In 
Gen.  x.  29,  Ophir  stands  in  the  midst  of  other 
Arabian  countries.  Still,  as  Gesenius  observes, 
it  is  possibly  mentioned  in  that  connection  only 
on  account  of  its  being  an  Arabian  colony  planted 
abroad.  Though  gold  is  not  now  found  in  Arabia 
(Niebuhr,  Description  de  V Arabie , Copenhague, 
1773,  p.  124),  yet  the  ancients  ascribe  it  to  the 
inhabitants  in  great  plenty  (Judg.  viii.  24,  26; 
2 Chron.  i. ; 1 Kings  x.  1,  2;  Ps.  lxxii.  15). 
This  gold,  Dr.  Lee  thinks,  was  no  other  than  the 
gold  of  Havilah  (Gen.  ii.  11),  which  he  supposes 
to  have  been  situate  somewhere  in  Arabia,  and 
refers  to  Gen.  x.  7,  29  ; xxv.  18  ; 1 Sam.  xv.  7 ; 
1 Chron.  i.  9 ( Translation  of  the  Book  Job , 8$c., 
Lond.  1837,  p.  55).  But  Diodorus  Siculus 
ascribes  gold  mines  to  Arabia  : MeTaAA. everai  Se 
nal  Kara  ryv  ’Apafiiav  ical  6 n tpoaayopevopevos 
&.irvpos  XPV<T^S  (comp.  Gen.  ii.  12),  ovx  Ihaivep 
irapa  t o7s  aAAois  iK  ipTjyfiaTow  Kadexl/operos,  aAA’ 
opifTTopevos  evpiaKerat  (ii.  50).  lie  also 
testifies  to  the  abundance  of  ‘ precious  stones  ’ 
in  Arabia  (ii.  54),  especially  among  the  in- 
habitants of  Sabas  (iii.  46  ; comp.  Gen.  ii. 
12;  2 Chron.  ix.  1 ; 1 Kings  x.  1,  2).  Pliny 
also  speaks  of  the  ‘Sabaei  ditissimi  auri  metallis' 
{Hist.  Nat.  vi.  32).  Again,  ‘ Littus  Ham- 
maeum,  ubi  auri  metalla  ’ (ib.).  Others  suppose 
that  though  Ophir  was  situate  somewhere  on  the 
coast  of  Arabia,  it  was  rather  an  emporium,  at 
which  the  Hebrews  and  Tyrians  obtained  gold, 
silver,  ivory,  apes,  almug-trees,  &c.,  brought 
thither  from  India  and  Africa  by  the  Arabian 
merchants,  and  even  from  Ethiopia,  to  which 
Herodotus  (iii.  114)  ascribes  gold  in  great  quan- 
tities, elephants’  teeth,  and  trees  and  shrubs  of 
every  kind.  Apes,  properly  speaking,  are  also 
ascribed  to  it  by  Pliny  (viii.  19);  who  speaks 
also  of  the  confluence  of  merchandize  in  Arabia: 

‘ Sabaei  mirumque  dictu,  ex  innumeris  populis 
pars  aequa  in  commerciis  aut  latrociniis  degit : 
in  universum  gentes  ditissimae,  ut  apud  quas 
maximae  opes  Roraanorum  Parthorumque  sub- 
sistant,  vendentibus  quae  e mari  aut  sylvis 
capiunt  ’ (ut  supra).  A little  before  he  speaks 
of  the  Arabian  emporiums  : ‘ Insulae  multae  : em- 
porium eorum  Acila,  ex  quo  in  Indiam  navi- 
gatur.’  Again:  ‘ Thimaneos. . . Areni : oppidum 
in  quo  omnis  negotiatio  convenit’  (comp.  Strabo, 
ivi. ; 2 Chron.  ix. ; Ezek.  xxvii.  21,  22;  and 
Diod.  Sic.  ii.  54).  In  behalf  of  the  supposi- 


tion that  Ophir  was  the  Arabian  port  Aphar, 
already  referred  to,  it  may  be  remarked  that  th« 
name  has  undergone  similar  changes  to  that  of 
the  Sept,  of  Ophir;  for  it  is  called  by  Arriar 
Aphar,  by  Pliny  Saphar,  by  Ptolemy  Sapphera, 
and  by  Stephanus  Saphirini.  Grotius  thinks  his 
to  be  Ophir.  The  very  name  El  Ophir  has  been 
lately  pointed  out  as  a city  of  Oman,  in  former 
times  the  centre  of  a very  active  Arabian  com- 
merce (Seetzen,  in  Zachs.  Monatl.  Correspond. 

xix.  331,  If.).  In  the  article  Ophir  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Londinensis,  great  stress  is  laid 
upon  the  objection  that  if  Ophir  had  been  any- 
where in  Arabia  or  Asia,  Solomon  could  have 
conveyed  the  commodities  he  procured  from  it 
by  caravans  : but  surely  a water-carriage  was 
more  convenient,  at  least  for  the  algum-trees, 
which  he  procured  from  Ophir,  and  of  which  he 
made  pillars  for  the  house  of  the  Lord  and  for 
the  king's  house  (2  Chron.  ix.  10,  11)  [Aj.gum], 
and  which  it.  is  highly  improbable  he  had  the 
means  of  conveying  by  land.  In  favour  of  the 
theory  which  places  Ophir  in  Africa,  it  lias  been 
suggested  that  we  have  the  very  name  in  “PDIR 
ofri,  Africa,  the  Roman  termination,  Africa  terra, 
and  that  Tarshish  was  some  city  or  country  in 
Africa;  that  the  Chald.  Targumist  on  1 Kings 
xxii.  48  so  understood  it,  where  he  renders 

by  np'HDX.  He  probably  inferred  from  2 Chron. 

xx.  36,  that  to  go  to  Ophir  and  to  Tarshish  was 
one  and  the  same  thing,  and  that  Tarshish  there 
meant  the  name  of  a place.  Origen  also  says,  on 
Job.  xxii.  24,  that  some  of  the  interpreters  under- 
stood Ophir  to  be  Africa.  Michaelis  supposes 
that  Solomon's  fieet,  coming  down  the  Red  Sea 
from  Ezion-geber,  coasted  along  the  shore  yf 
Africa,  doubling  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and 
came  to  Tarshish,  which  he,  with  many  others, 
supposes  to  have  been  Tartessus  in  Spain,  anil 
thence  back  again  the  same  way ; that  this  con- 
jecture accounts  foivtheir  three  years’  voyage  out 
and  home ; and  that  Spain  and  the  coasts  of  Africa 
furnished  all  t lie  commodities  which  they  brought 
back  (&2>iciley.  Gcogr.  Ilebr.  Exterce.  p.  98). 
Strabo  indeed  says  that  Spain  abounded  in  gold, 
and  immensely  more  so  in  silver  (see  i Mac.  viii.  3). 
Others  have  not  hesitated  to  carry  Solomon’s  fleet 
round  from  Spain  up  the  Mediterranean  to  Joppa. 
The  chief  support  for  this  supposition  is  the  very  re- 
markable statement  of  Herodotus,  that  Necho,  king 
of  Egypt,  the  Pharaoh-Necho  of  Scripture,  whose 
enterprising  disposition  appears  from  his  project  to 
unite  the  Nile  and  the  Red  Sea  by  a canal,  ‘ dis- 
patched some  vessels,  under  the  conduct  of  Phoe- 
nicians, with  directions  to  pass  by  the  columns  of 
Hercules,  now  called  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar,  and 
after  penetrating  the  Northern  Ocean  to  return 
to  Egypt ; that  these  Phoenicians,  taking  their 
course  from  the  Red  Sea,  entered  into  the  Southern 
Ocean,  and  on  the  approach  of  autumn  landed  in 
Libya,  and  planted  some  corn  in  the  place  where 
they  happened  to  find  themselves;  tiiat  when  this 
was  ripe  they  cut  it  down  and  departed.  Having 
thus  consumed  two  years,  they  in  the  third  year 
doubled  the  columns  of  Hercules,  and  returned 
to  Egypt.’  He  adds,  ‘This  relation  may  obtain 
attention  from  others,  but  to  me  it  seems  incre- 
dible, for  they  affirmed  that,  having  sailed  round 
Libya,  they  had  the  sun  on  their  right  hand. 
Thus,  he  observes,  ‘was  Libya  for  the  first  time 
known  ’ (iv.  42).  It  seems  certain  that  this 


OPHIR. 


OREB. 


445 


royage  was  accomplished,  for  the  mariners  would 
have  the  sun  on  tneir  right  lnnd  after  passing  the 
line,  a fact  which  never  could  have  been  imagined 
in  that  age,  when  astronomy  was  in  its  infancy; 
jmd  it  has  been  supposed  that  this  was  the  voyage 
made  ‘once  in  three  years’  by  Solomon’s  fleet, 
under  the  conduct  also  of  Phoenician  mariners. 
But,  assuming  this  to  have  been  the  case,  it  seems 
strange  that  the  knowledge  and  record  of  it  should 
have  been  so  completely  lost  in  the  time  of 
Pharaoh- Necho,  only  two  centuries  after  Solomon, 
as  that  Herodotus,  whose  information  and  accu- 
racy appear  from  this  very  account,  should  say 
that  Libya,  evidently  meaning  the  circuit  of  it 
by  the  sea,  was  thus  for  the  first  time  known. 
Heeren  finds  an  answer  in  the  desolating  ravages 
of  the  Babylonian  conquerors,  and  indeed  in  the 
protracted  siege  of  Tyre  itself  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, which  followed  shortly  after  the  time  of 
Solomon.  It  seems  likely  indeed  that  Necho 
had  heard  of  such  a passage,  and  believed  that 
the  Phoenicians  knew  how  to  find  it ; and  that  it 
was  not  much  frequented  during  many  subse- 
quent ages  appears  from  the  notice  taken  by 
Pliny  of  the  few  who  had  accomplished  it  (Hist. 
Nat.  ii.  67) ; and  it  was,  we  know,  after  his 
time  unused  and  forgotten  till  recovered  by 
the  Spaniards,  a.d.  1497.  It  must  be  allowed 
that,  if  Solomon’s  fleet  actually  pursued  this 
course,  then  Qphir  as  Africa,  and  Tartessus  in 
Spain,  as  Tarshish,  seem  on  many  accounts  very 
plausible  suppositions.  In  behalf  of  the  con- 
jecture that  Ophir  was  in  India,  the  following 
arguments  are  alleged : that  it  is  most  natural  to 
understand  from  the  narrative  that  all  the  pro- 
ductions said  to  have  been  brought  from  Ophir 
came  from  one  and  the  same  country,  and  that 
they  were  all  procurable  only  from  India.  The 
Sept,  translators  also  appear  to  have  understood  it 
to  be  India,  from  rendering  the  word  'Soxpip,  ~Sov<pip, 
2w(pipd,  which  is  the  Egyptian  name  for  that 
country.  Champollion  says,  that,  in  the  Coptic  vo- 
cabularies India  bears  the  name  Cctf/fp  (L’Egypte 

sous  les  Pharaons,  Paris,  1814,  tom.  i.  p.  98 ; 
Jablonskii  Opuscula , Lug.  Bat.,  1804,  tom.  i. 
p.  336,  &c.).  Josephus  also  gives  to  the  sous  of 
Joktan  the  locality  from  Cophen,  an  Indian  river; 
and  in  part  of  Asia  adjoining  it  (Antiq.  i.  6.  4). 
He  also  expressly  and  unhesitatingly  affirms  that 
the  land  to  which  Solomon  sent  for  gold  was 
‘ anciently  called  Ophir,  but  now  the  Aurea 
Chersonesus,  which  belongs  to  India’  (Antiq.  viii. 
G.  4).  The  Vulgate  renders  the  words  ‘ the  gold 
of  Ophir’  (Job  xxviii.  16)  by  ‘ tinctis  Indiae  color- 
ibus.’  Hesychius  thus  defines  X^Pa > *v 

p ot  TroXvripoi  \iQoi , xa\  6 xpooSs,  eV  ’I vbiq  ; and 
Suidas,  2,ov<peip,  x^Pa  *v  ; and  see  Eusebii 
Onomast.  p.  148,  ed.  Clerici.  There  are  several 
places  comprised  in  that  region  which  was  ac- 
tually known  as  India  to  the  ancients  [India], 
any  of  which  would  have  supplied  the  cargo  of 
Solomon’s  fleet : for  instance,  the  coast  of  Mala- 
har,  where  the  natives  still  call  the  peacock  togei, 
wnicn  is  supposed  to  resemble  the  Hebrew 
Perhaps  the  most  probable  of  all  is  Malacca, 
which  is  known  to  be  the  Aurea  Chersonesus  of 
the  ancients.  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that 
the  natives  of  Malacca  still  call  their  gold-mines 
opkirs.  De  P.  Poivre  says,  ‘ Les  iles  malaises 
produissent  beaucoup  de  bois  de  teinture  surtout 


du  sapan,  qui  est  le  meme  que  le  bois  de  Bresil. 
On  y trouve  plusieurs  mines  d’or,  qui  les  ha- 
bitans  de  Malaca  et  de  Sumatra  nemment  ophirs, 
et  dont  quelques-unes,  surtout  celles  que  renfermd 
la  cote  orientale  de  Celebes,  et  les  iles  adjacentes, 
sont  plus  riches  que  toutes  celles  du  Perou  et  du 
Bresil  ’ (Voyage  d'un  Philosophe,  (Euvres  Com- 
pletes, Paris,  1797,  p.  123).  On  the  other  hand, 
some  writers  give  a wider  extent  to  the  country 
in  question.  Heeren  observes  that  4 Ophir,  like 
the  name  of  all  other  very  distant  places  or  re- 
gions of  antiquity,  like  Thule,  Tartessus,  and 
others,  denotes  no  particular  spot,  but  only  a 
certain  region  or  part  of  the  world,  such  as  the 
East  or  West  Indies  in  modern  geography. 
Hence  Ophir  was  the  general  name  for  the  rich 
countries  of  the  south  lying  on  the  African,  Ara- 
bian, or  Indian  coasts,  as  far  as  at  that  time 
known  ’ (Historical  Researches , translated  from 
the  German , Oxford,  1833,  vol.  ii.  pp.  73,  74). 
It  remains  to  be  observed,  that  in  Jer.  x.  9 we 
have  ‘ the  gold  from  Uphaz,’  ; and  in  Dan. 
x.  5,  £the  fine  gold  of  Uphaz;’  and  see  the  Heb. 
of  1 Kings  x.  18.  In  these  instances  Uphaz  is, 
by  a slight  change  of  pronunciation,  put  for 
Ophir.  The  words  of  Daniel  are  quoted  and 
paraphrased  in  Rev.  i.  13,  in  a manner  which  shows 
this  to  be  the  true  explanation  of  the  difference. 
If  the  words  1 the  gold  of  Parvaim  ’ (EP'HQ, 
2 Chron.  iii.  6)  be  really,  as  Bochart  conjectures, 
the  same  with  “Y’fi'li'?,  the  name  had  undergone  a 
still  wider  alteration.  It  was  by  taking  this  for 
granted,  and  arguing  from  the  similarity,  that 
the  wild  conjecture  that  Ophir  was  Peru  was  ob- 
tained. The  alterations  suffered  by  the  Septuagint 
words  are  before  the  reader.  Among  other  works 
on  this  controversy  not  before  referred  to,  see 
Wahner,  De  Regione  Ophir ; Tychsen,  De  Com - 
mere.  Hebr.  in  Comnnentt.  Gott.  xvi.  164,  &c. ; 
Huetii  Commentatio  de  Navigations  Salomonis ; 
Reland,  Dissertt.  Miscell.  i.  172;  or  in  Ugolini 
Thesaurus,  vii. — J.  F.  D. 

1.  OPHRAH  (fTlSy  ; Sept.  ’Etypada),  a town 
of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii.  23),  seemingly  in  the 
north-east  of  that  tribe's  domain  (1  Sam.  xiii.  17). 
Accordingly  it  is  placed  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
(Onomast.  s.  v.  Apbia)  five  Roman  miles  east 
of  Bethel.  This  corresponds  with  the  position  of 
a place  called  et-Taiyibeb,  which  was  visited  by 
Dr.  Robinson  in  his  excursion  to  Bethel  (Bibl. 
Researches,  ii.  120-123).  It  is  now  a small 
village,  curiously  situated  upon  a conical  hill, 
on  the  summit  of  which  is  an  old  tower,  whence 
is  commanded  a splendid  view  of  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan,  the  Dead  Sea,  and  the  eastern  mountains. 

2.  OPHRAH,  a town  in  the  tribe  of  Manas- 
seh,  to  which  Gideon  belonged,  and  where  he 
continued  to  reside  after  he  had  delivered  Israel 
from  the  Midianites,  establishing  there  his  ephod, 
which  became  a snare  to  Israel  (Judg.  vi.  11-24  ; 
viii.  27).  Josephus  calls  the  place  Ephra  (An- 
tiq. v.  6.  5).  It  cannot  be  positively  determined 
from  the  narrative,  whether  this  Ophrah  was  in 
the  territory  of  Manasseh  east  or  west  of  the  Jor- 
dan ; and  no  satisfactory  attempt  to  fix  the  site 
has  yet  been  made. 

OREB  and  ZEEB  (1KJ1  3*#;  Sept.  ’O 
Kal  Z77/3),  the  remarkable  names  (raven  and 
wolf ) of  two  emirs  of  the  Midianites,  who  were 
made  prisoners  by  the  Ephraimites  in  attempting 


444 


OREB. 


OREN. 


<0  recross  the  Jordan  after  the  victory  of  Gideon. 
They  were  put  to  death  by  the  captors,  and  their 
heads  carried  as  a trophy  to  the  conqueror,  who  was 
then  on  the  other  side  the  Jordan  (Judg.  vii.  25  ; 
viii.  3).  The  first  of  these  princes  met  his  death 
near  a rock,  which  thenceforth  bore  his  name  (Isa. 
X.  26) ; the  other  seems  to  have  at  first  sought 
refuge  in  one  of  those  excavations  in  which  wines 
were  preserved,  and  which  was  thenceforth  called 
the  winepress  of  Zeeb  (Judg.  vii.  25). 

OREB,  or  Orebim  (!TT}tf  or  written 

also  Arab  and  Arabim,  occurs  in  several  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  in  all  of  which  it  is  translated 
willoio  in  the  Authorized,  and  most  other  modem 
versions.  This  sense  has  been  inferred  from  the 

similarity  of  the  word  arab  to  the  Arabic  <- 

gharb , and  from  the  most  ancient  Greek  trans- 
lators adopting  nea  as  the  synonyme  of  the 
Hebrew  arab . But  it  is  also  similar  to  ano- 
ther Arabic  word,  ghurab,  signifying  crows  ; 
whence  probably  some  of  the  early  translators 
have  adopted  this  as  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word.  Thus  the  Arabic  translator  has,  in  Jobxl. 

17,  adopted  corvos , as  the  interpretation 

of  arabim.  So  also  the  Septuagint,  in  Isa.  xv. 
7,  gives  the  same  interpretation  to  this  word, 
and  has  thus  been  the  cause  of  error  and  con- 
fusion. Moreover,  in  Lev.  xxiii.  40,  after  irea s 
it  adds  without  authority  &yvou  K\aSovs,  ramu- 
los  agni,  and  has  adopted  Ixyuov  in  Job  xl.  17 
(Cels.  Hierobot.  i.  304).  ''Ayvos  is  intended, 
no  doubt,  for  the  plant  which  by  botanists  is  now 
called  Vitex  agnus  castus,  and  was  at  one  time 
called  Salix  amerina. 

There  is,  however,  little  doubt  of ‘ willow’  being 
the  correct  interpretation,  from  its  suitableness  to 
all  the  passages.  Thus  in  Job  xl.  22,  referring  to  be- 
hemoth it  is  said,  ‘ The  shady  trees  cover  him  with 
their  shadow  ; the  icillows  ( orabim ) of  the  brook 
compass  him  about.’  So  the  Jews  when  in  cap- 
tivity sing,  ‘ By  the  rivers  of  Babylon,  there  we 
sat  down  ; we  hanged  our  harps  upon  the  willows 
( orebim ) in  the  midst  thereof’  (Ps.  cxxxvii.) 
And  again,  in  Isa.  xliv.  4,  ‘ And  they  shall  spring 
up  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  ( orebim ) of 
the  water-courses.’  The  willow  is  as  applicable 
as  any  other  plant  to  the  other  passages,  quoted 
above,  in  which  orebim  is  mentioned. 

The  word  gharb  is  in  the  present  day  applied 
in  many  parts  of  the  East  to  the  poplar  (which 
one  of  the  Latin  versions  gives  for  the  Heb.  oreb, 
Cels. ; 304),  a genus  closely  allied  to  the  willow, 
and  forming  with  it  the  group  of  Salicineae  in 
modern  botany.  The  words  arab  and  gharb  do 
not  differ  so  much  in  the  Arabic  as  they  appear 
to  do  in  the  English  dress ; for  the  initial  letters 
are  ain  and  ghain,  between  which  mutual  inter- 
changes frequently  take  place. 

That  willows  grow  in  moist  situations,  and  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  both  still  and  running  water, 
is  sufficiently  well  known.  That  they  are  common 
in  Judaea  is  evident  from  what  Reland  says : ‘Sa- 
lices,  tamarisci,  agnus  castus,  et  cannae  ingentes, 
quae  usum  hastarum  praebent,  crescunt  ad  ripam 
Jordanis,  uti  referunt  aWnvTai'  So  also  on 
the  banks  of  the  Nile,  to  which  we  may  sup- 
pose Job  alludes  when  he  speaks  of  the  behemoth 
being  covered  by  the  willows  of  the  brook,  sa- 


lices  torrentis  of  the  Latin  version.  In  reference 
to  this,  Celsius  quotes:  ‘ Teiram  istam  Nilus 
alluit  ab  oriente  ad  occidentein,  ibique  ad  ripaa 
ipsius  nascuntur  arundines  Indicae,  arbores  Ebeni, 

atque  buxi,  item  salicum  et  tamarisci, 

arborumque  similium  sylvae  latissimaB’  (Geog. 
Nubiensis,  Clim.  i.  p.  1).  It  hardly  required  to 
be  proved  that  willows  were  found  in  Judaea  and 
on  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  but  still  less  does  it 
require  to  be  shown  that  the  willow  is  common 
on  the  rivers  of  Babylon,  for  we  have  a species 
which  is  called  Salix  Babylonica,  commonly 
known  by  the  name  of  weeping  willow,  and  which 
Celsius  considers  to  be  peculiarly  the  willow  01 
the  brook.  Bochart  says  of  the  channels  of  the 
Euphrates,  ‘ Quorum  ripae  tarn  multis  salicibus 
erant  consitae,  ut  Babylonia  ideo  vocetur,  vail  is 
salicum.’  In  all  points,  therefore,  the  willow 
seem  well  suited  to  the  passages  in  which  orebim 
occurs,  though  it  is  probable  that  this  may  have 
been  used,  like  willow,  in  a generic  rather  than 
in  a specific  sense;  but  there  is  another  word, 
which  is  also  supposed  to  denote  one  of  tliest 
willows  [Zaphzaphah]. — J.  F.  R. 

OREN  (}'i&)  occurs  only  once  in  Scripture, 
and  is  variously  translated  ; but  from  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  introduced,  it  is  impossible  to  de- 
termine whether  any  of  the  translations  are  cor- 
rect. The  oren  is  mentioned  with  other  trees,  of 
whose  timber  idols  were  made,  in  Isa.  xliv.  14  : 
‘ He  heweth  him  down  cedars  ( eres ) and  taketh 
the  cypress  { tirsah ),  and  the  oak  (allon),  which 
he  st.rengtheneth  for  himself  among  the  trees  of 
the  forest ; he  planteth  an  ash  {oren),  and  the 
rain  doth  nourish  it.’  Though  the  English  ver- 
sion renders  it  ash , others  consider  pine-tree  to 
be  the  correct  translation  ; but  for  neither  does 
there  appear  to  be  any  decisive  proof,  nor  for  the 
rubus  or  bramble,  adopted  for  oren  in  the  fable 
of  the  Cedar  and  Rubus,  translated  from  the  He- 
brew of  R.  Berechia  Hannakdan,  by  Celsius 
{Hierobot.,  i.  186); 

Oren  is  translated  pine- tree  both  in  the  Greek 
Septuagint  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  this 
has  been  acquiesced  in  by  several  of  the  most 
learned  critics,  and  among  them  by  Calvin  and 
Bochart.  Celsius  {l.  c.  p.  191)  states,  moreover, 
that  some  of  the  Rabbins  also  consider  oren  to  be 
the  same  as  the  Arabic  sanober  (which  is  no 
doubt  a pine),  and  that  they  often  join  together, 
arasim,  aranim , and  beroschim,  as  trees  of  the 
same  nature.  Luther  and  the  Portuguese  version 
read  cedar.  Rosenmuller  contends  that  it  is  not 
the  common  wild  pine  {pinus  sylvestris')  which 
is  intended,  but  what  the  ancients  called  the  do- 
mestic pine,  which  was  raised  in  gardens  on  ac- 
count of  its  elegant  shape  and  the  pleasant  fruit 
it  yields,  the  Pignole  nuts  of  the  Italians  {Pinus 
pinea  of  Linnaeus),  and  quotes  Virgil  as  saying 
‘ Fraxinus  in  sylvis  pulcherrima,  pinus  in  hortis.* 

The  English  version  instead  of  pine  gives  ash 
as  the  translation  of  oren ; in  consequence  pro- 
bably of  ornus  having  been  adopted  by  several 
translators,  apparently  only  because  the  elementary 
letters  of  the  Hebrew  are  found  also  in  the  Latin 
word.  Celsius  objects  to  this  as  an  insufficient 
reason  for  supposing  that  the  ash  was  intended ; 
and  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  proo£ 
Ornus  europcea , or  manna  ash,  does,  however 


OROR. 


OROTH. 


445 


grow  in  Syria,  but  being  a cultivated  plant,  it  may 
aave  been  introduced.  Celsius  quotes  from  the 
Arab  author,  ’Abu  1 Fadli,  the  description  of  a tree 

called  aran,  which  appears  well  suited 

to  the  passage,  though  it  has  not  yet  been  ascer- 
tained what  tree  is  intended.  The  aran  is  said 
to  be  a tree  of  Arabia  Petrsea,  of  a thorny  nature, 
inhabiting  the  valleys,  but  found  also  in  the 
mountains,  where  it  is  however  less  thorny.  The 
wood  is  said  to  be  mutfh  valued  for  cleaning  the 
teeth.  The  fruit  is  in  bunches  like  small  grapes. 
The  berry  is  noxious  while  green,  and  bitter  like 
galls;  as  it  ripens  it  becomes  red,  then  black 
and  somewhat  sweetish,  and  when  eaten  is  grate- 
ful to  the  stomach,  &c.,  and  seems  to  act  as  a 
stimulant  medicine.  Sprengel  supposes  this  to  he 
the  caper  plant,  Capparis  spinosa  of  Linnaeus. 
Faber  thought  it  to  he  the  Rhamnus  siculus  pen - 
taphyllus  of  Shaw.  Link  identifies  it  with  Fla - 
courtia  sepiaria  of  Roxburgh,  a tree,  however, 
which  has  not  been  found  in  Syria.  To  us  it 
appears  to  agree  in  some  respects  with  Salvadora 
persica,  but  not  in  all  points,  and  therefore  it  is 
preferable  to  leave  it  as  one  of  those  still  requiring 
investigation  by  some  traveller  in  Syria  conversant 
both  with  plants  and  their  oriental  names  and 
uses. — J.  F.  R. 

ORION.  [Astronomy.] 

OROR,  or  Arar  (“Ijnj/)  occurs  in  two  or 
three  places  of  Scripture,  and  has  been  vari- 
ously translated,  as  myrica , tamarisk;  tamarin , 
which  is  an  Indian  tree,  the  tamarind  ; re- 
tama , that  is,  the  broom  ; and  also,  as  in  the 
French  and  English  versions,  bruiere , heath, 
which  is  perhaps  the  most  incorrect  of  all,  though 
Hasselquist  mentions  finding  heath  near  Jericho, 
in  Syria.  As  far  as  the  context  is  concerned,  some 
of  these  plants,  as  the  retam  and  tamarisk , 
would  answer  very  well ; but  the  Arabic  name, 

arar , is  applied  to  a totally  different  plant, 

a species  of  juniper,  as  has  been  clearly  shown  by 
Celsius  ( Hierobot . p.  ii.  p.  195),  who  states  that 
Arias  Montanus  is  the  only  one  who  has  so  trans- 
lated the  Hebrew  arar  or  oror  (Jer.  xvii.  6)  : 
‘ For  he  shall  be  like  the  heath  ( oror ) in  the 
desert,  and  shall  not  see  when  good  cometh,  but 
shall  inhabit  the  parched  places  in  the  wilder- 
ness, in  a salt  land,  and  not  inhabited.’  The 
word  arar,  in  all  the  old  Arabic  authors,  signi- 
fies a kind  of  juniper. 

Several  species  of  juniper  are  no  doubt  found 
in  Syria  and  Palestine,  as  has  already  been 
mentioned  under  the  head  of  Eres.  Robinson 
met  with  some  in  proceeding  from  Hebron  to 
Wady  Musa,  near  the  romantic  pass  of  Nemela  : 
4 On  the  rocks  above  we  found  the  juniper 
tree,  Arabic  ar'ar  ; its  berries  have  the  appear- 
ance and  taste  of  the  common  juniper,  except 
that  there  is  more  of  the  aroma  of  the  pine. 
These  trees  were  ten  or  fifteen  feet  in  height,  and 
hung  upon  the  rocks  even  to  the  summits  of  the 
cliffs  and  needles.’  In  a note  the  author  says  : 
‘ This  is  doubtless  the  Hebrew  aroer  (Jer. 

xlvii.  6) ; whence  both  the  English  version  and 
Luther  read  incorrectly  heath.  The  juniper  of  the 
same  translation  is  tlie  retem  * (Bibl.  Researches, 
ii.5Q6).  In  proceeding  S.E.  he  states:  ‘Large 
trees  of  the  juniper  become  quite  common  in  the 


Wadys  and  on  the  rocks.’  It  is  mentioned  in 
the  same  situations  by  other  travellers,  and  is  no 
doubt  common  enough,  particularly  in  wild,  un- 
cultivated, and  often  inaccessible  situations,  and 
is  thus  suitable  to  Jer.  xlviii.  6 : ‘ Flee,  save 
your  lives,  and  be  like  the  heath  (oror)  in  the 
wilderness.’  In  this  passage,  some  authors  pro- 
pose reading  orud  instead  of  oror  as  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Septuagint  seem  to  have  done,  for 
they  render  oror  by  ovos  aypios,  wild  ass.  ‘ Be 
like  the  wild  ass  in  the  wilderness,’  which  is  con- 
sideied  as  agreeing  well  with  the  flight  recom- 
mended. Mr.  Taylor,  in  Scripture  Rlustratcd, 
inquires  whether  the  orud , wild  ass,  may  not  be 
the  subject  of  both  passages?  This  can  only  be 
settled  by  Hebrew  scholars;  we  have  shown  that 
the  juniper,  from  growing  in  wild  and  inacces- 
sible places,  is  also  suitable  to  the  sense  of  both 
passages. — J.  F.  R. 

OROTH  (nnitf)  occurs  in  two  passages  of 
Scripture,  where  it  is  translated  herb  in  the  Autho- 
rised Version  : it  is  generally  supposed  to  indicate 
such  plants  as  are  employed  for  food.  The  most 
ancient  translators  seem,  however,  to  have  been 
at  a loss  for  its  meaning.  Thus  the  Septuagint 
in  one  passage  (2  Kings  iv.  39)  has  only  the 
Hebrew  word  in  Greek  characters,  api&Q,  and  in 
the  other  (Isa.  xxvi.  19),  ‘ ia/xa,  sanationem,  v. 
medicinam,  vel  herbas  medicinales.’  The  Latin 
Vulgate,  and  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac  versions, 
translate  oroth  in  the  latter  passage  by  lucem,  in 
consequence  of  confounding  one  Hebrew  word 
with  another,  according  to  Celsius  ( Hierobot . vol.  i. 
p.  459).  But  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  translators 

give  the  names  for  mallows , the  Arabic 
khabeeza,  in  Lower  Egypt  called  habeeza. 

With  respect  to  the  meaning  of  oroth,  Rosen- 
muller  says  that  it  occurs  in  its  original  and  ge 
neral  signification  in  Isa.  xxvi.  19,  viz.  green  herbs 
The  future  restoration  of  the  Hebrew  people  is 
there  announced  under  the  type  and  figure  of  a 
revival  of  the  dead.  ‘ Thy  dew  is  a dew  of  green 
herbs,'  says  the  prophet,  i.  e.  as  by  the  dew,  green 
herbs  are  revived,  so  shalt  thou,  being  revived  by 
God’s  strengthening  power,  flourish  again.  The 
passage,  however,  appears  an  obscure  one,  with 
respect  to  the  meaning  of  oroth.  Celsius  has, 
with  his  usual  learning,  shown  that  mallows  were 
much  employed  as  food  in  ancient  times.  Of 
tin’s  there  can  be  no  doubt,  but  there  is  no  proof 
adduced  that  oroth  means  mallows.  It  might  or 
it  might  not,  because  there  are  many  other  plants 
which  were  and  still  are  employed  as  articles  of 
diet  in  the  East,  as  purslane,  goosefoot,  chen- 
podiums,  lettuce,  endive,  &c.  Some  have  trans- 
lated oroth  in  2 Kings  iv.  39,  by  the  word  eruca, 
which  is  usually  applied  to  a species  of  brassica. 

But  it  appears  to  us  that  oroth  should  be  con- 
sidered only  in  conjunction  with  pakyoth;  for  we 
find  in  2 Kings  iv.  that  when  Elisha  came  again 
to  Gilgal,  and  there  was  a dearth  in  the  land,  he 
said  unto  his  servant,  ‘ Set  on  the  great  pot,  and 
seethe  pottage  for  the  sons  of  the  prophets  (ver 
39)  ; and  one  went  out  into  the  field  to  gathet 
herbs  (oroth),  and  found  a wild  vine,#  and  ga- 
thered thereof  wild  gourds  (pakyoth)  his  lap  full, 
and  came  and  shred  them  into  the  pot  of  pottage, 
for  they  knew  them  not  ’ From  this  it  would  ap- 
pear that  pakyoth  had  been  mistaken  for  oroth  ; 
and  as  the  former  is  universally  acknowledged  to 


416 


ORPAH. 


OSTRICH. 


be  the  fruit  of  one  of  the  gourd  tribe,  so  it  is  not 
unreasonable  to  conclude  that  oroth  also  was 
the  fruit  of  some  plant,  for  which  the  pakyoth 
had  been  mistaken.  This  is  nothing  more  than 
conjecture,  but  it  appears  to  be  justified  by  the 
context,  and  may  be  admitted,  as  nothing  better 
than  conjecture  has  been  adduced  in  support  of 
other  interpretations,  and  as  there  are  fruits,  sugh 
as  that  of  the  egg  plant,  which  are  used  as  articles 
of  diet,  and  for  which  the  fruit  of  the  pakyoth, 
or  wild  gourd,  might  have  been  mistaken  by  an 
ignorant  person  [Pakyoth]. — J.  F.  R. 

ORPAH  fawn;  Sept.  ’O p<pa),  daugh- 

ter-in-law of  Naomi,  who  remained  behind  among 
her  kindred  in  Moab,  when  Ruth  returned  with 
Naomi  to  Bethlehem  (Ruth  i.  4-14)  [Ruth]. 

OSPRAY.  [Azaniaii.] 

OSSIFRAGK.  [Peres.] 

OSTRICH  (T\^_yaanah,  poetically  ilVD 
bath-hci-ryaanah  ; also  Jobxxxix.  13).  In 

Arabic,  nea-mah,  thar-ecls  jammel , i.  e.  ‘ camel- 
bird  ;’  the  same  as  the  Persian  sutur  morgh ; in 
Western  Arabic,  ernmim  ; and  in  Greek,  arpov66s , 
and  (TTpovOoKctfirikos  ; from  which  the  Latin  stru- 
thio  camelus  is  formed. 

The\  ostrich  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  in  terms  of  great  beauty  and  precision  ; 
which,  commentators,  perhaps  more  conversant 
with  the  exploded  misstatements  of  the  ancients 
than  with  the  true  physiological  history  of  the 
bird  in  question,  have  not  been  happy  in  explain- 
ing, sometimes  referring  it  to  wrong  species,  such 
as  the  peacock,  or  mistaking  it  for  the  stork,  the 
eagle,  or  the  bustard  (Lev.  xi.  19  ; Deut.  xiv.  15  ; 
Job  xxx.  29 ; xxxix.  13 ; Isa.  xiii.  21  ; xxxiv.  13  ; 
xliii.  20  ; Jer.  x..  39;  Lam.  iv.  3;  Micah  i.  8). 
In  several  of  these  passages  ‘ owls  ’ has  been  used 
in  our  version  for  yaanah , now  generally  admitted 
to  mean  ‘ostriches;’  for  the  passages  where  the 
word  occurs  relate  to  the  deserts  and  the  presence 
of  serpents— certainly  more  applicable  to  the  latter 
than  the  former;  for  although  the  owl  and  the 
serpent  are  found  in  certain  localities  in  the  desert, 
nevertheless  neither  of  them  retires  far  into  the  ab- 
solute barren  waste,  as  the  ostrich  constantly  is 
observed  to  do.  Both  joneh  and  rinonim , as 
Pococke  well  observes,  appear  to  be  derived  from 
the.  power  of  uttering  loud-sounding  cries;  and 
the  third  name,  bath-ha-yaanah , ‘ the  daughter  of 
.■ociferation,’  or  ‘loud  moaning,’  i3  in  conformity 
with  the  others,  and  an  Oriental  figurative  mode 
of  expressing  the  same  faculty  (which  exists  not, 
we  think,  in  the  females  alone,  but  in  the  whole 
species) ; for  the  ostrich  has  an  awful  voice,  which, 
when  heard  on  the  desert,  is  sometimes  mistaken 
in  the  night,  even  by  natives,  for  the  roar  of  a lion. 
It  is  uttered  most  likely  as  a warning  to  the 
family,  and  as  a threat  to  some  nightly  prowler, 
stealing  towards  the  nest,  and  coming  within  ken 
of  their  watchful  organs. 

There  are  two  varieties,  if  not  two  species,  of  the 
ostrich  ; one  never  attaining  seven  feet  in  height, 
and  covered  chiefly  with  grey  and  dingy  feathers; 
the  other  sometimes  growing  to  more  than  ten 
<eet,  and  of  a glossy  black  plumage ; the  males  in 
both  having  the  great  feathers  of  the  wings  and 
tail  white,  but  the  females  the  tail  only  of  that 
colour.  Their  dimensions  render  them  both  the 
largest  animals  <*C  the  feathered  creation  now 


existing.  They  appear  promiscuously  in  Asia 
and  Africa,  but  the  troops  or  coveys  of  -each  are 
always  separate  ; the  grey  is  more  common  in  the 
south,  while  the  black,  which  grows  largest  in 
Caffraria,  predominates  to  the  north  of  the  equator. 
One  of  the  last  mentioned,  taken  on  board  a 
French  prize,  and  wounded  in  the  capture,  we 
remember  to  have  seen  in  London,  where  it  was 
able  to  peck  its  food  from  a cross-beam  eleven  feet 
from  the  ground.  The  enormous  bird  afterwards 
shown  in  Bullock’s  museum  was  said  to  be  the 
same.  The  common-sized  ostrich  weighs  about 
eighty  pounds;  whence  it  may  be  judged  that  the 
individual  here  mentioned  may  have  been  at  least 
forty  pounds  heavier. 


The  head  of  the  ostrich  is  small,  and  not  com- 
posed of  strong  bones ; the  bill,  in  form  somewhat 
like  that  of  a duck,  is  flat,  with  a nail  at  the  apex, 
and  broad  at  the  gape ; the  eyes,  hazel-coloured, 
have  a clear  and  distinct  vision  of  objects  to  a 
great  distance,  although  when  seen  obliquely  they 
have  an  opalescent  appearance ; the  auditory  ap- 
paratus is  large  and  open,  notwithstanding  that  in 
the  pairing  season  ostriches  are  said  to  be  very  deaf ; 
the  neck,  long  and  slender,  is,  together  with  the 
head,  but  scantily  clothed  with  whitish  shining 
hairs,  and  in  the  pairing  season  becomes  for  a time 
pink  or  rosy  red ; towards  the  base  it  assumes  the 
general  polour  of  the  plumage,  which,  with  the 
quill  and  tail  plumes,  is  entirely  composed  ofloose 
downy-webbed  feathers,  only  differing  in  size  and 
colour ; the  wings,  each  from  three  to  four  feet 
long,  exclusive  of  feathers,  are  entirely  naked  on 
the  inner  side,  and  are  supplied  towards  the  end 
of  the  pinion  bone  on  each  side  with  two  sharp 
pointed  quills  resembling  those  of  a porcupine, 
and  no  doubt  serving  for  defence : the  thighs, 
nearly  bare  of  plumage,  and  of  a deep  flesh-colour, 
are  as  full  and  muscular  as  those  of  a strong 
man,  and  the  tarsi  or  legs,  of  corresponding  length 
with  the  proportions  of  the  neck,  are  covered  with 
broad  horny  scales,  and  terminate  in  two  toes ; the 
inner,  being  the  longest,  is  armed  with  a broad 
strong  claw  ; and  that  on  the  outside,  only  half  the 
length  of  the  other,  is  without  any.  The  great 
feathers,  so  much  prized  in  commerce,  are  twenty 


OSTRICH. 


OTHNIEL. 


HI 


W Mirth  wing,  those  of  the  tail  being  nearly  always 
useless,  broken,  and  worn.  The  cloven  feet,  long 
neck,  and  vaulted  back  of  these  birds  are  in  them- 
selves quite  sufficient  to  suggest  to  the  imagination 
an  animal  of  the  camel  kind:  but  these  external 
appearances  are  not  the  only  points  of  resem- 
blance ; the  stomach  is  so  formed  as  to  appear 
possessed  of  a third  ventricle,  and  there  are  other 
structural  particulars,  such  as  a sternum,  not  keel- 
shaped, as  in  birds,  but  in  the  form  of  a round 
buckler,  to  protect  the  chest,  which,  with  the  fact 
that  they  are  without  the  muscular  conformation 
to  render  them  capable  of  flying,  altogether  ap- 
proximate these  birds  to  quadrupeds,  and  particu- 
larly to  the  order  of  Ruminant  ia. 

Ostriches  are  gregarious — from  families  cons'st- 
ing  of  a male  with  one  or  several  female  birds,  and 
perhaps  a brood  or  two  of  young,  up  to  troops  of 
near  a hundred.  They  keep  aloof  from  the  presence 
of  water  in  the  wild  and  arid  desert,  mixing  with- 
out hesitation  among  herds  of  gnu,  wild  asses, 
quaggas,  and  other  striped  Equidae,  and  the  larger 
Species  of  Antilopidae.  From  the  nature  of  their 
food,  which  consists  of  seeds  and  vegetables,  al- 
though seldom  or  never  in  want  of  drink,  it  is 
evident  that  they  must  often  approach  more  pro- 
ductive regions,  which,  by  means  of  the  great 
rapidity  of  motion  they  possess,  is  easily  accom- 
plished; and  they  are  consequently  known  to  be 
very  destructive  to  cultivated  fields.  As  the 
ttrgan  of  taste  is  very  obtuse  in  these  birds,  they 
swallow  with  little  or  no  discrimination  all  kinds 
of  substances,  and  among  others  stones  ; it  is  also 
probable  that,  like  poultry,  they  devour  lizards, 
snakes,  and  the  young  of  birds  that  fall  in  their 
way.  We  have  had  our  own  sketch-book  snapped 
out  of  our  hand  by  an  ostrich,  attracted  to  it 
by  the  sight  of  the  white  paper.  It  is  not  yet 
finally  decided  whether  the  two  species  are  poly- 
gamous, though  concurrent  testimony  seems  to 
leave  no  doubt  of  the  fact:  there  is,  however, 
no  uncertainty  respecting  the  nest,  which  is 
merely  a circular  basin  scraped  out  of  the  soil, 
with  a slight  elevation  at  the  border,  and  suf- 
ficiently large  to  contain  a great  number  of  eggs  ; 
for  from  twelve  to  about  sixty  have  been  found 
in  them,  exclusive  of  a certain  number,  always 
observed  to  be  outlying,  or  placed  beyond  the 
raised  border  of  the  nest,  and  amounting  appa- 
rently to  nearly  one-third  of  the  whole.  These 
iue  supposed  to  feed  the  young  brood  when  first 
hatched,  either  in  their  fresh  state,  or  in  a cor- 
rupted form,  when  the  substance  in  them  has 
produced  worms.  These  eggs  are  of  different 
periods  of  laying,  like  those  within,  and  the  birds 
hatched,  form  only  a part  of  the  contents  of  a 
nest,  until  the  breeding  season  closes.  The  eggs 
are  of  different  sizes,  some  attaining  to  seven 
inches  in  their  longer  diameter,  and  others  less, 
having  a dirty  white  shell,  finely  speckled  with 
lust,  colour ; and  their  weight  borders  on  three 
pounds.  Within  the  tropics  they  are  kept  suf- 
ficiently warm  in  the  day-time  not  to  require  in- 
cubation, but  beyond  these  one  or  more  females 
sit  constantly,  and  the  male  bird  takes  that  duty 
himself  after  the  sun  is  set.  It  is  then  that  the 
short  roar  may  be  heard  during  darkness  ; and  at 
other  times  different  sounds  are  uttered,  likened 
to  tne  cooing  of  pigeons,  the  cry  of  a hoarse  child, 
and  the  hissing  of  a goose;  no  doubt  expressive  of 
different  emotions ; but  that  the  roar  is  expressive  of 


the  feeling  of  anger  may  be  inferred  from  the  as- 
sertion that  jackals  and  foxes  ( Canis  Megaloti* 
Caama  ?)  have  been  found  close  to  the  nests  of 
these  birds,  kicked  to  death.  This  fact  is  the  more 
credible,  as  the  last  mentioned  animal  is  a dex- 
terous purloiner  of  their  eggs  ; and  it  may  be  here 
added,  in  proof  of  the  organ  of  smelling  not  being 
quite  so  obtuse  in  the  ostrich  as  is  asserted,  that 
Caffres  and  Hottentots,  when  they  daily  rob  a 
nest  for  their  own  convenience,  always  withdraw 
the  eggs  by  means  of  a stick,  in  order  to  prevent 
the  female  finding  out  the  larceny  by  means  1/ 
the  scent  which  human  hands  would  leave  behind  ; 
for  then  they  will  not  continue  to  lay,  but  forsake 
the  abode  altogether.  This  circumstance  may 
account  for  the  small  number  of  eggs  often  found 
in  their  nests. 

Although  possessed  of  strength  sufficient  to 
carry  with  velocity  two  adult  human  beings,  and 
although  readily  tamed,  even  when  taken  in  a 
state  of  maturity,  nay  easily  rendered  familiar 
and  docile,  and  although  they  are  by  no  means 
the  stupid  creatures  they  have  been  believed,  still 
their  voracity,  leading  to  the  destruction  of  young 
poultry,  and  (he  impracticability  of  guiding  their 
powers,  will  ever  render  them  unsafe  and  unpro- 
fitable domestics.  Though  at  first  sight  useless, 
we  may  be  assured  that.  Providence  has  not  ap- 
pointed their  abode  in  the  desert  in  vain  ; and  they 
still  continue  to  exist,  not  only  in  Africa,  but  in 
the  region  of  Arabia,  east  and  south  of  Palestine 
beyond  the  Euphrates ; but  it  may  be  a question 
whether  they  extend  so  far  to  the  eastward  as  Gca, 
although  that  limit  is  assigned  them  by  late 
French  ornithologists. 

The  flesh  of  a young  ostrich  is  said  to  he  not 
unpalatable  ; but  its  being  declared  unclean  in 
Mosaic  legislation  may  be  ascribed  to  a two-fold 
cause.  The  first  is  sufficiently  obvious  from  its 
indiscriminate  voracity  already  mentioned,  and 
the  other  may  have  been  an  intention  to  lay  a re- 
striction upon  the  Israelites  in  order  to  wean  them 
from  the  love  of  a nomade  life,  which  hunting  in 
the  desert  would  have  fostered  ; for  ostriches  must 
be  sought  on  the  barren  plains,  where  they  are 
not  accessible  on  foot,  except  by  stratagem.  When 
pursued,  they  cast  stones  and  gravel  behind  them 
with  great  force;  and  though  it  requires  long 
endurance  and  skill,  their  natural  mode  of  flee- 
ing in  a circular  form  enables  well  mounted 
Arabs  to  overtake  and  slay  them.  It  may  be 
questioned  whether  among  the  Hebrew  names 
referred  to  ‘ ostrich’  in  our  versions,  one  in  par- 
ticular, nesseh,  be  not  the  Arabian  bustard, 
Otis  Arabs , a bird  of  great  size,  abundantly 
clad  with  feathers,  endowed  with  the  habit  of 
half  raising  its  wings,  and  keeping  them  in  tre- 
mulous motion,  particularly  when  preparing  to 
run;  for  this  species  always  preludes  with  a 
rapid  course  before  it  can  rise  on  the  wing.  It 
occurs  iu  Arabia  and  the  desert  of  Syria,  and 
we  take  it  to  be  the  species  represented  by  Sir 
J.  G.  Wilkinson,  where  an  Egyptian  leads  by  a 
rope  about  its  neck  a bird  with  three  toed  feet, 
which  that  interesting  writer  takes,  we  believe  by 
inadvertence,  to  be  a young  ostrich. — C.  H.  S. 

OTHNIEL  lion  of  God ; Sepfc 

ToQovifa),  first  judge  of  Israel,  son  of  Kenaz,  tha 
younger  brother  of  Caleb,  whose  daughter  Achsah 
he  obtained  in  marriage  by  his  daring  valour  si 


448 


OWL. 


OWL. 


the  siege  of  Debir  (Josh.  xv.  17 ; Judg.  i.  13  ; 1 
Chron.  iv.  13).  Rendered  famous  among  his 
countrymen  by  this  exploit,  and  connected  by  a 
twofold  tie  with  one  of  the  only  two  Israelites  of 
the  former  generation  who  had  not  died  in  the 
desert,  we  are  prepared  for  the  fact  that  on  him 
devolved  the  mission  to  deliver  Israel  from  the 
Mesopotamian  oppression  under  which,  in  punish- 
ment for  their  sins,  they  fell  after  the  death  of 
Joshua  and  of  the  elders  who  outlived  him  (Judg. 
iii.  9).  This  victory  secured  to  Israel  a peace  of 
forty  years.  For  the  chronology,  &c.,  of  this 
period  see  Judges. 

OWL  (DID  cos;  lilith ).  Two  other 

Hebrew  names  have  been  likewise  assigned  in  our 
versions  to  presumed  species  of  owls ; namely, 
yansuph,  which,  although  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  in  common  Hebrew  it  indicates  the 
owl,  we  have  endeavoured  to  show  is  applied  more 
particularly  to  the  night-heron,  Ardea  nicticorax 
[Ibis],  and  TlDp  kiphoz,  either  the  same  or  con- 
founded, as  it  appears,  with  YlDp  kephod,  which 
has  led  to  much  controversy,  and  caused  one  or 
the  other  to  be  referred  to  six  or  seven  animals, 
all  widely  different,  for  they  include  owl,  osprey, 
bittern,  hedgehog  or  porcupine  (TGp),  otter  (1), 
and  tortoise.  Our  reasons  for  applying  kephod  to 
the  bittern  will  be  found  in  Kephod.  TIDp 
kippoz , we  have  already  noticed.  Bochart,  though 
admitting  that  it  may  designate  a kind  of  owl,  was 
inclined  to  refer  the  more  specific  appellation  to 
the  jaciilus , or  darting  serpent ; and  it  may  be 
asked  whether  the  Arab  kebsch,  the  wild  mountain 
sheep,  or  Arabian  nmsmon,  deriving  its  name 
likewise  from  darting  or  plunging  down  preci- 
pices, does  not  deserve  consideration  “?  If  these 
names  are  in  part  mistakes,  and  the  admitted  not 
free  from  objections,  several  others  adopted  by 
translators  for  owl  are  proved  to  be  quite  wrong, 
such  as  Luther’s  and  the  Vulgate.  B''^  iyim, 
which  is  more  applicable  to  howling  quadrupeds 
[Shuai.].  DlDnn  tachmas , night-hawk  or  goat- 
sucker, has  been  taken  for  Strix  otus,  or  ear-pwl ; 
which  bird  others  again  find  in  the  fjlDY  yan- 
suph, one  that  dwells  beneath  ruins,  and  to  which 
is  imputed  the  very  questionable  habit  mentioned 
by  the  Arabs  of  entering  open  windows  at  night 
and  tearing  the  faces  of  unguarded  infants.  Be 
it  observed  that  this  unlikely  tale  is  related  as  oc- 
curring in  a country  where  the  inhabitants,  nearly 
all  the  year  round,  sleep  in  tents  or  on  the  house- 
tops; but  as  the  imputation  evidently  means  to 
point  out  an  existing  species  pre-eminently  an 
object  of  superstitious  fear,  we  would  take  it  to 

be  the  lilith,  which  name  appears  again 

to  include  both  the  goat-sucker  and  the  owl.  It 
is  not  unlikely,  in  the  indefinite  form  which  zoolo- 
gical nomenclature  maintained  in  Scripture,  as 
repeatedly  pointed  out  in  preceding  articles,  that 
yansuph  was  used  more  or  less  generically  for 
night-birds,  and  thus  was  often  taken  for  the  owl, 
because  the  family  of  Strigidce  constituting  all, 
or  with  few  exceptions,  ‘ birds  of  darkness,’  it  was 
most  present  in  the  public  mind ; was  connected, 
as  it  still  is,  with  superstitious  notions,  and  por- 
tended evil  to  the  vulgar. 

There  are  noticed  in  Egypt  and  Syria  three 
well-known  species  of  the  genus  Strix,  or  owl  : — 
Strix  bubo,  ‘ the  great-eared  owl Strix  fiam- 
mea,  the  common  barn  owl ; and  Strix  passe 


rina,  the  little  owl.  In  this  list  Strix  otus,  th* 
long-eared  owl,  Strix  brachyotus  or  ultila,  the 
short-eared  owl,  known  nearly  over  the  whole  earth, 
and  Strix  orietitalis  of  Ilasselquist,  are  not  in- 
cluded, and  several  other  species  of  these  wan- 
dering birds,  both  of  Africa  and  Asiatic  regions, 
occur  in  Palestine.  DID  cos  or  chos  (Lev.  xi. 
17;  Dent.  xiv.  16;  Ps.  cii.  6),  rendered  ‘little 
owl’  and  ‘ owl  of  the  desert,’  is  most  applicable 
to  the  white  or  barn  owl,  Strix  flammen.  Bo- 
chart referred  this  name  to  the  pelican,  on  account 
of  the  assumed  signification  of  cos,  ‘ cup,’  by  him 
fancied  to  point  out  the  pouch  beneath  the  bill ; 
whereas  it  is  more  probably  an  indication  of  the 
disproportionate  bulk  and  flatness  of  the  head 
compared  with  the  body,  of  which  it  measures  to 
the  eye  full  half  of  the  whole  bird,  when  1 he  fea- 
thers are  raised  in  their  usual  appearance.  ‘ Cos’ 
is  only  a variation  of  ‘cup’  and  ‘ cap,’  which, 
with  some  inflexions,  additional  or  terminal  par- 
ticles, is  common  to  all  the  great  languages  of 
the  old  continent.  The  barn  owl  is  still  sacred 
in  Northern  Asia. 


The  eagle-owl,  or  great-eared  owl,  Strix  bubo , 
we  do  not  find  in  ornithological  works  as  an  inha- 
bitant of  Syria,  though  no  doubt  it  is  an  occasional 
winter  visitant;  and  the  smaller  species,  Bubo 
Atheniensis  of  Gmelin,  which  may  be  a rare  but 
permanent,  resident,  probably  also  visiting  Egypt. 
It  is  not,  however,  we  believe,  that  species,  but 
the  Otus  ascalaphus  of  Cuvier,  which  is  common 
in  Egypt,  and  which  in  all  probability  is  the  type 
of  the  innumerable  representations  of  an  eared 
owl  in  hieroglyphical  inscriptions.  This  may  b* 
the  species  noticed  under  the  indefinite  name  of 
TIDp  kippoz,  for  it  is  fairly  applicable  to  Isa. 
xxxiv.  15. 

Next  we  have  Strix  xdida,  Strix  brachyotus, 
or  short-eared  owl,  likewise  found  in  Egypt  and 
Arabia,  as  well  as  to  the  north  of  Syria,  a bold, 
pugnacious  bird,  residing  in  ruined  buildings, 
mistaken  by  commentators  for  the  screech-owl, 

Strix  stridida,  and  most  probably  the 
lilith  of  the  Bible  (Isa.  xxxiv.  1 4).  The  spectral 
species,  again,  confounded  with  t.be  goat-sucker, 
is,  we  believe,  Strix coromanda  [Night-Hawk] 
and  the  same  as  Strix  orientalis  of  Ilasselquist 
who  makes  it  synonymous  with  massasa  and 
with  the  Syrian  bana,  but  apparently  only  upon 
the  evidence  of  the  vulgar,  who  believe  in  the 
‘ spectral  lady’  appearance  of  the  lilith  and  bana, 
and  in  its  propensity  to  lacerate  infants,  of  whicb 


ox. 


PAKYOTH. 


44 # 


thia  bird,  together  with  the  Strix  ulula  and  bubo 
of  antiquity,  is  accused.  The  original  version  of 
the  story,  however,  refers,  not  to  an  owl  or  goat- 
sucker, but  to  the  poetical  Strix  of  the  ancients,  a 
Lamia  with  breasts,  that  is,  a harpy  or  a vampire, 
being  a blood-sucking  species  of  the  bat  family 
(Ovid,  Fast.,  vi.  139,  and  the  fables  of  C.  Titinius, 
quoted  by  Gesner,  De  Strige,  p.  738)  [Bat]. 

The  little  owl  of  Egypt  is  not  likely  to  be  the 
Passerine  species  of  Europe,  and  probably  does  not 
occur  under  a distinct  name  in  Biblical  Hebrew': 
but  that  the  owls  which  inhabited  Palestine  were 
numerous  may  be  inferred  with  tolerable  certainty 
from  the  abundance  of  mice,  rats,  and  other  ver- 
min, occasioned  by  the  offal  and  offerings  at 
the  numerous  sacrifices,  and  consequently  the 
number  of  nocturnal  birds  of  prey  that  subsisted 
upon  them,  and  were  tolerated  for  that  purpose. — 

C.  H.  S. 

OX  Op3  balcar , in  a collective  sense,  ‘cattle,’ 
treat  cattle’).  Having  already  noticed  the  do- 
mestic beeves  under  Bum.  and  Calk  (to  which  we 
refer),  the  few  words  added  here  will  apply  to 
the  breeds  of  Western  Asia  and  the  manner  of 
treating  them.  The  earliest  pastoral  tribes  appear 
to  have  had  domesticated  cattle  in  the  herd ; and 
judging  from  the  manners  of  South  Africa,  where 
we  find  nations  still  retaining  in  many  respects 
primeval  usages,  it  is  likely  that  the  patriarchal 
families,  or  at.  least  their  moveables,  were  trans- 
ported on  the  backs  of  oxen  in  the  manner  which 
the  Caffres  still  practise,  as  alsc  the  Gwallahs  and 
grain-merchants  in  India,  wno  come  down  from 
the  interior  with  whole  droves  nearing  burthens. 
But  as  the  Hebrews  did  not  castrate  their  bulls, 
it  is  plain  some  other  method  of  enervation  ( bis - 
tournure?')  was  necessary  in  order  to  render  their 
violent  and  brutal  indocility  sufficiently  tract- 
able to  permit  the  use  of  a metal  ring  or  twisted 
rope  passed  through  the  nostrils,  and  to  ensure 
something  like  safety  and  command  to  their 
owners.  In  Egypt,  emasculation,  no  doubt,  was 
resorted  to,  for  no  ring  is  observable  in  the  nume- 
rous representations  of  cattle,  while  many  of  these 
indicate  even  more  entire  docility  in  these  animals 
than  ^ now  attained. 

The  breeds  of  Egypt  were  various,  differing  in 
the  length  and  flexures  of  the  horns.  Tiiere  were 
gome  with  long  horns,  otheis  with  short,  and  even 
none,  while  a hunched  race  of  Nubia  reveals  an 
Indian  origin,  and  indicates  that  at  least  one  of 
the  nations  on  the  Upper  Nile  had  come  from  the 
valleys  of  the  Ganges;  for  it  is  to  the  east  of 
the  Indus  alone  that  that  species  is  to  be  found 
whose  original  stock  appears  to  be  the  moun- 
tain yak  (Bos  grunniens ).  It  is  born  with  two 
teeth  in  the  mouth,  has  a groaning  voice,  and 
is  possessed  of  other  distinctive  characters.  Fi- 
gures of  this  species  or  variety  bear  the  signi- 
ficant lotus  flower  suspended  from  the  neck,  and, 
as  is  still  practised  in  India,  they  are  harnessed 
to  the  cars  of  princesses  of  Nubia.  These,  as 
well  as  the  straight-backed  cattle  of  Egypt,  are 
all  figuied  with  evident  indication  of  beauty  in 
their  form,  and  they  are  in  general  painted  white 
with  black,  01  rufous  clouds,  or  entirely  red, 
speckled,  or  yrandinated , that  is,  black  with 
numerous  small  white  specks  ; and  there  are  also 
oeeves  witn  white  and  black  oi/casionally  marked 
in  a peculiar  manner,  seemingly  the  kind  of  to- 

vol.  u.  30 


kens  by  which  the  priesthood  pretended  to  recog- 
nise their  sacred  individuals.  The  cattle  of 
Egypt  continued  to  be  remarkable  fur  beauty  for 
some  ages  after  the  Moslem  conquest ; for  Abdol- 
latiph,  the  historian,  extols  their  bulk  and  propor- 
tions, and  in  particular  mentions  the  Al-chisiah 
breed  for  the  abundance  of  milk  it  furnished  and 
for  the  beauty  of  its  curved  horns. 

The  domestic  buffalo  was  unknown  to  Western 
Asia  and  Eg*pt  till  alter  the  Arabian  conquest  : 
it  is  now  common  in  the  last-mentioned  region 
and  far  to  the  south,  but  not  beyond  the  equator; 
and  from  structural  differences  it  may  be  sur- 
mised that  there  was  in  early  ages  a domesticated 
distinct  species  of  this  animal  in  Africa.  In 
Syria  and  Egypt  the  present  races  of  domestic 
cattle  are  somewhat  less  than  the  large  breeds  of 
Europe,  and  those  of  Palestine  appear  to  be  of  at 
least  two  forms,  both  with  short  horns  and  both 
used  to  the  plough,  one  being  tall  and  lanky,  the 
other  more  compact;  and  we  possess  figures  of  the 
present  Egyptian  cattle  with  long  hums  bent 
down  and  forwards.  From  Egyptian  pictures  it 
is  to  be  inferred  that  large  droves  of  fine  cattle 
were  imported  from  Abyssinia,  and  that  in  the 
valley  of  the  Nile  they  were  in  general  stall- 
fed,  used  exclusively  for  the  plough,  and  treated 
with  humanity.  In  Palestine  the  Mosaic  law 
provided  with  care  for  the  kind  treatment  of 
cattle;  for  in  treading  out  corn — the  Oriental 
mode  of  separating  the  grain  from  the  straw — it 
was  enjoined  that  the  ox  should  not  be  muzzled 
(Deut.  xxv.  4),  and  old  cattle  that  had  long 
served  in  tillage  were  often  suffered  to  wander 
at  large  till  their  death — a practice  still  in  vogue, 
though  from  a different  motive,  in  India.  Bui 
the  Hebrews  and  other  nations  of  Syria  grazed 
their  domestic  stock,  particularly  those  tribes 
which,  residing  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  had  fertile 
districts  for  that  purpose.  Keie,  of  course,  the 
droves  became  shy  and  wild  ; and  though  we  are 
inclined  to  apply  the  passage  in  Ps.  xxii.  12,  to 
wild  species,  yet  old  bulls,  roaming  at  large  in  a 
land  where  the  lion  still  abounded,  no  doubt 
became  fierce  ; and  as  they  would  obtain  cowf 
from  the  pastures,  there  must  have  been  lerp' 
breeds  in  the  woods,  as  fierce  and  resolute  as  real 
wild  Uri — which  ancient  name  may  be  a mere 
modification  of  Reem  [Reem]. — C.  H.S. 


P. 


PADAN-ARAM.  TAram.  ] 

PAKYOTH  (my i?a)  and  Pekaim  (D'yp&> 
It  is  related  in  2 Kings  iv.  3S-40,  that  Elisha 
having  come  again  to  Gilgal,  when  there  was  a 
famine  in  the  land,  and  many  sons  of  the  prophets 
were  assembled  there,  he  ordered  his  servant  to 
prepare  for  them  a dish  of  vegetables  : ‘ One  went 
out  into  the  field  to  gather  herbs  (oroih),  and 
found  a wild  vine,  and  gathered  thereof  wild 
gourds  ( pakyoth  sadeh)  his  lap-full,  and  came 
and  shred  them  into  the  pot  of  pottage,  for  they 
knew  them  not.’  ‘So  they  poured  out  for  the 
men  to  eat:  but  as  they  were  eating  of  the  pot- 
tage, they  cried  out,  O thou  man  of  God,  there  i* 
death  in  the  pot;  and  they  could  noteat  thereof.' 


^50  PAKYOTH. 

From  this  it  appears  that  the  servant  mistook 
the  fruic  cf  one  plant,  pakyoth,  for  something 
else,  called  oroih , and  that  the  former  was  vine- 
like,  that  is,  with  long,  weak,  slender  stems,  and 
that  the  fruit  had  some  remarkable  taste,  by 
which  the  mistake  was  discovered  whenever 
the  pottage  was  tasted.  Though  a few  other 
plants  have  been  indicated,  the  pakyoth  has 
almost  universally  been  supposed  to  be  one  of  the 
family  of  the  gourd  or  cucumber-like  plants, 
several  of  which  are  conspicuous  for  their  bitter- 
ness, and  a few  poisonous,  while  others,  it  is  well 
known,  are  edible.  Therefore  one  of  the  former 
may  have  been  mistaken  for  one  of  the  latter,  or 
the  oroth  may  have  been  some  similar-shaped 
fruit,  as,  for  instance,  the  egg-plant,  used  as  a 
vegetable.  The  reasons  why  pakyoth  has  been 
supposed  to  be  one  of  the  gourd  tribe,  usually  the 
• Colocynth , are  given  in  detail  by  Celsius  ( Iliero - 
■bot.  vol.  i.  p.  393).  1.  The  name  is  supposed  to 

be  derived  from  paka,  ‘ to  crush,’  or  ‘ to 
burst;’  and  this  is  the  characteristic  of  the 
species  called  the  wild  cucumber  by  the  ancients. 
Thus  Pliny  says  : ‘ Semen  exilit,  oculorum  etiam 
periculo.’  This  is  the  kind  called  Spring  gurken 
by  the  Germans,  and  Squirting  cucumber  in 
England.  2.  The  form  of  the  fruit  appears  to 
have  been  ovoid,  as  t he  pekaim  of  1 Kings  vi.  18 
are  supposed  to  be  the  same  fruit  as  pakyoth  ; 

‘ And  the  cedar  of  the  house  within  was  carved 
with  knops  ' (pekaim).  So  in  vii.  24  : ‘ And 
under  the  brim  of  it  round  about  there  were  knops 
(pekaim)  compassing  it:  the  knops  (pekaim) 
were  cast  in  two  rows,  when  it  was  cast.’  Kimchi 
distinctly  says  these  were  called  pekaimt  4 quia 
figurutn  haberent  rwv  pakyoth  -agrestium.’  That 
the  form  of  these  was  ovoid  would  appear  from 
the  more  free  exposition  of  the  Chaldaic  version 
of  Jonathan,  to  whom  the  form  of  the  fruit  could 
not  have  been  unknown  : ‘ Et  ligurae  ovorutn 
subter  labium  ejus ' (pul.  Cels.  1.  c.  p.  397). 

3.  The  seeds  of  the  pakyoth , moreover,  yielded 
oil,  as  appears  from  the  tract  Shabbath  (ii.  § 2): 
■*  Non  accenduut  resina,  propter  honorem  sabbati. 
At  sapientes  permittuut  omnia  olea  sequentia : 
oleum  sesatnorum,  oleum  liucum,  oleum  rapha- 
norum,  oleum  piscium,  oleum  pakyoth.'  So 
Kimchi:  ‘ Faciunt.  e seminibus  eorum  oleum, 

•qurnl  vocant  Rabbini  nostri  pise  mem.  oleum 
pakyoth.'  The  seeds  of  the  different  gourd  and 
cucumber-like  plants  are  well  known  to  yield  oil, 
which  was  employed  by  the  ancients,  and  still  is 
in  the  East,  both  as  medicine  and  in  the  arts. 

4.  The  bitterness  which  was  probably  perceived 
on  eating  of  the  pottage,  and  which  disappeared 
on  the  addition  of  meal,  is  found  in  many  of  the 
cucumber  tribe,  and  conspicuously  in  the  species 
which  have  been  usually  selected  as  the  pakyoth , 
that  is,  the  Colocynth  (Cucumis  Colocynthis),  the 
Squinting  Cucumber  (Momordica  Elatcrium ), 
and  Cucumis  prophetarum : all  of  which  are 
found  in  Syria,  as  related  by  various  travellers. 
The  Coloquintida  is  essentially  a desert  plant. 
Mr.  Kitto  says,  ‘ In  the  desert  parts  of  Syria, 
Egypt,  and  Arabia,  and  on  the  banks  of  the  rivers 
Tigris  and  Euphrates,  it3  tendrils  run  over  vast 
tracts  of  ground,  offering  a prodigious  number  of 
gourds,  which  are  crushed  under  foot  by  camels, 
horses,  and  men.  In  winter  we  have  seen  the 
extent  of  many  miles  covered  with  the  connecting 
Wndrils  and  dry  gourds  of  the  preceding  season, 


PALACE. 

the  latter  exhibiting  precisely  the  same  appear 
ance  as  in  our  shops,  and  when  crushed,  with  a 
crack  ing  noise,  n n<*;.th  the  feet,  discharging, 
in  the  form  of  a light,  powder,  the  valuable  drug 
which  it  contains.’  In  tne  Arabic  version, 
htinzal  (which  is  the  Coiocynth)  is  used  as  the 
synonyme  for  pakyoth  in  2 Kings  iv.  39.  The 
Globe  Cucumber,  Mr.  Kitto  continues,  ‘ derives 
its  specific  name  ( Cucumis  prophetarum)  from 
the  notion  that  it  afforded  the  gourd  which  “ the 
sons  of  the  prophets’’  shred  by  mistake  into  their 
pottage,  and  which  made  them  declare,  when  they 
came  to  taste  it,  that  there  was  “ death  in  the  pot.” 
This  plant  is  smaller  in  every  part  than  the  com- 
mon melon,  and  has  a nauseous  odour,  while  its 
fruit  is  to  the  full  as  bitter  as  the  Coloquintida. 
The  fruit  has  a rather  singular  appearance,  from 
the  manner  in  which  its  surface  is  armed  with 
prickles,  which  are,  however,  soft  and  harm- 
less’ ( Pictorial  Palestine;  Physical  Geog.  p. 
cclxxxix.).  Rut  this  plant,  though  it  is  nauseous 
and  bitter  as  the  Colocynth , yet  the  fruit  not  being 
bigger  than  a cherry,  does  not  appear  likely  to 
have  been  that  which  was  shred  into  the  pot. 
Celsius,  however,  was  of  opinion  that  the  Cucu- 
mis agrestis  of  the  Ancients,  and  which  was 
found  by  Eelon  in  descending  from  Mount  a 
Sinai,  was  the  plant.  This,  he  says,  is  the  Olc-ra 
asini  of  the  Hebrews,  the  Chate  al  hemar  of  the 
Arabs,  and  (lie  Cucumis  asininus  of  the  drug- 
gists of  his  day.  This  plant  is  now  called  Mo - 
mordica  elaterium , or  Squirting  Cucumber,  and 
is  a well  known  drastic  purgative,  violent  enough 
in  its  action  to  be  considered  even  a poison.  Its 
fruit  is  ovate,  obtuse,  and  scabrous.  But  it  is  not 
easy  to  say  whether  this  or  the  Colocynth  is  most 
likely  to  have  been  the  plant  mistaken  for  oroth  / 
but  the  fruit  of  this  species  might  certainly  be 
mistaken  for  young  gherkins.  Both  are  bitter  and 
poisonous. — J.  F.  R. 

PALACE,  in  Scripture,  denotes  what  is  con- 
tained within  the  outer  enclosure  of  the  royal  re- 
sidence, including  all  the  buildings,  courts,  and 
gardens  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  19  ; comp.  Ps.  xlviii.  4 ; 
exxii.  7;  exxii.  7;  Prov.  ix.  3;  xviii.  19;  Isa. 
xxiii.  13;  xxv.  2;  Jer.  xxii.  14;  Amos  i,  7,  12, 

11 ; Nah.  ii.  G).  In  the  New  Testament  the  term 
palace  (auArj)  is  applied  to  the  residence  of  a 
man  of  rank  (Matt’,  xxvi.  3;  Mark  xiv.  66; 
Luke  xi.  21  ; John  xviii.  15).  The  specific 
allusions  are  to  the  palace  built  by  Herod,  which 
was  afterwards  occupied  by  the  Roman  governors, 
and  was  the  prsetorium.  or  hall,  which  formed  the 
abode  of  Pilate  when  Christ  was  brought  before 
him  (Mark  xv.  16)  : the  other  passages  above 
cited,  except  Luke  xi.  21,  refer  to  the  residence 
of  the  high-priest. 

The  particulars  which  have  been  given  under 
the  head  House,  require  only  to  be  aggrandized  to 
convey  a suitable  idea  of  a palace;  for  the  general 
arrangements  and  distribution  of  parts  are  the  same 
in  the  palace  as  in  the  house,  save  that  the  courts 
are  more  numerous,  and  with  more  distinct 
appropriations,  the  buildings  more  extensive,  and 
the  materials  more  costly.  The  palace  of  the 
kings  of  Judah  in  Jerusalem  was  that  built  by 
Solomon,  called  ‘ the  house  of  the  forest  of  Leba- 
non,’ of  which  some  particulars  an  given  ia 
1 Kings  vii.  1-12  ; and  if  read  along  with  the  de- 
scription which  Josephus  gives  of  the  same  pile 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


Ml 


443. 


(Antiq.  v.  5),  a faint  idea  may  be  formed  of  it, 
as  a magnificent  collection  of  buildings  in  ad- 
joining courts,  connected  with  and  surrounded  by 
galleries  and  colonnades.  The  details  of  the 
Jewish  historian  are  not.  to  be  contemned  ; for  he 
was  necessarily  better  able  than  we  are  to  appre- 
hend the  particulars  in  the  Scriptural  account,  on 
which  his  own  description  is  based.  To  him  we 
are  also  indebted  for  an  account  of  Herod’s 
palace,  his  description  of  which,  from  personal 
knowledge,  may  be  found  in  De  Bell.  Jud.  v. 
i.  4. 

PALESTINE.  This  name,  usually  applied  to 
the  country  formerly  inhabited  by  the  Israelites, 
does  not  occur  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  It  is,  however, 

derived  from  Philistia  (HS^D),  or  the  country 
of  the  Philistines,  which  comprised  the  southern 
part  of  t'iie  coast  plain  of  Canaan  along  the 
Mediterranean.  The  word  Philistia  occurs  in 
Exod.  xiii.  17;  Ps.  lx.  8;  lxxxiii.  7;  lxxxvii. 
4;  cviii.  9;  Isa.  xiv.  29,  31.  From  this  arose 
the  name  Palestine  (UahaiaTiur]),  which  was  ap- 
plied by  most  ancient  writers,  and  even  by  Jo- 
sephus {Antiq.  i.  6.  2 ; ii.  15.  2;  viii.  10.  3), 
to  the  whole  land  of  the  Israelites  (see  Reland’s 
Palcestina,  p.  38,  scp). 

Names. — The  other  names  of  the  country  may 
be  given  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence  in  Scrip- 
ture. 

1.  Canaan  (|J?D2),  from  Canaan,  the  fourth 
son  of  Ham,  from  whom  the  first  inhabitants 
were  descended.  It  is  the  most  ancient  name  of 
the  country,  and  is  first  found  as  such  in  Gen. 
xi.  31.  This  denomination  was  confined  to  the 
country  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Jor- 
dan; for  Exod.  xvi.  35  (comp.  Josh.  v.  11,  12) 
shows  that  the  Jordan  was  the  eastern  boundary 
of  Canaan.  This  is  also  seen  in  Num.  xxxiii. 
51  ; xxxiv.  11,  12;  comp.  Exod.  xv.  15.  When 
the  name  Canaan  was  thus  used  with  reference 
So  the  country  vest  of  the  Jordan,  the  region 


ea*t  of  that  river  was  called  the  Land  of  Gilead 
(Dent,  xxxiv.  1 ; Josh.  xxii.  9,  1 1).  In  later  time* 
the  term  Canaan  was  understood  to  include 
Phoenicia  (Isa.  xxiii.  11  ; Matt.  xv.  21-22),  and 
also  the  land  of  the  Philistines. 

2.  Land  of  Israel.  This  name  was  given  to 
the  whole  country  as  distributed  among  and  oc- 
cupied by  the  tribes  of  Israel.  Those  recent 
writers  have  therefore  fallen  into  error,  who  ima- 
gine that  it  ever  comprehended  the  utmost  extent 
of  dominion  promised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  or 
actually  possessed  by  David  and  Solomon.  The 
designation,  Land  of  Israel,  was  never  applied 
but  to  the  aggregate  possessions  of  the  tribes  as 
defined  by  the  limits  laid  down  when  the  distri- 
bution was  made  in  the  time  of  Joshua  (Judg. 
xix.  29;  1 Sam.  xiii.  19;  Ezek.vii.  2;  Matt.  il. 
20,  21,  yrj  TtrpenjA).  In  Ezek.  xxvii.  17,  and 
other  places,  the  land  of  Israel  is  considered  as 
the  territory  of  the  ten  tribes,  forming  the  se- 
parate kingdom  of  Israel,  as  distinct  from  that  of 
Judah. 

3.  Land  of  Promise.  So  called  as  the  land 
which  God  promised  to  the  patriarchal  fathers 
to  bestow  on  their  descendants.  This  name  was 
applied  to  it  chieffy  before  the  country  was  actually 
possessed  (Gen.  xv.  18  ; 1.  24;  Num.  xxxii.  1 ; 
comp.  Heb.  xi.  9). 

4.  Land  of  Jehovah.  So  called  as  being  in 
a special  and  peculiar  sense  the  property  of 
Jehovah,  who,  as  the  sovereign  proprietor  of  the 
soil,  granted  it  to  the  Hebrews  (Lev.  xxv.  2^; 
Ps.  Ixxxv.  1 ; Isa.  viii.  8). 

5.  The  Holy  Land.  This  name  only  occurs 
in  Zech.  ii.  12,  ‘The  Lord  shall  inherit  Judah, 
his  portion  in  the  Holy  Land.’  It  was,  however, 
probably  without  any  particular  reference  to  the 
present  text  that  this  became  from  frequent  use  a 
proper  name  for  Palestine.  The  land  is  here 
called  ‘ Holy,’  as  being  the  Lord's  property,  and 
sanctified  by  his  temple  and  worship  : but  Chris- 
tians, in  applying  to  it  the  same  title,  probably 
regard  it  more  as  the  scene  of  the  life,  the  travels, 
and  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 

5.  Judah , Judcea.  This  name  belonged  at 
first  to  the  territory  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  alone. 
After  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms,  one  of 
them  took  the  name  of  Judah,  which  contained 
the  territories  both  of  that  tribe  and  of  Benjamin. 
After  the  Captivity,  down  to  and  after  the  time 
of  Christ,  Judsea  was  used  in  a loose  way  as  a 
general  name  for  the  whole  country  of  Palestine ; 
but  in  more  precise  language,  and  with  reference 
to  internal  distribution,  it  denoted  nearly  the 
territories  of  the  ancient  kingdom,  as  distinguished 
from  Samaria  and  Galilee  on  the  west  of  the  Jor- 
dan, and  Peraea  on  the  east. 

Divisions. — The  divisions  of  Palestine  were 
different  in  different  ages. 

1.  In  the  time  of  the  Patriarchs , the  country 
was  divided  among  the  tribes  or  nations  de- 
scended from  the  sons  of  Canaan.  The  precise 
locality  of  each  nation  is  not,  in  every  case,  dis- 
tinctly known;  but  our  map  exhibits  the  most 
probable  arrangement.  Here  it  is  sufficient  to 
mention  that  the  Kenites,  the  Kenizzites,  ami 
the  Kadmonites  lived  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan 
(Gen.  xv.  18-21)  ; and  that,  on  the  west  of  that 
river,  or  in  Palestine  Proper,  the  Hittites,  the 
Perizzites,  the  Jebusites,  and  the  Amorites,  abode 


452 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


in  the  hill  country  cf  the  south  (afterwards  be- 
longing to  Judah);  the  Canaanites — properly  so 
called — in  the  middle,  across  the  country,  from 
the  sea-coast  to  the  river  Jordan  ; the  Girgashites, 
along  the  eastern  border  of  the  lake  of  Genne- 
sareth ; and  the  Hivites  in  the  north,  among  the 
southern  branches  of  the  Lebanon  mountains. 
The  southern  part  of  the  coast  was  occupied  by 
the  Philistines,  and  the  northern  part  by  the 
Phoenicians. 

In  the  time  of  Moses,  when  the  Israelites  were 
preparing  to  enter  Canaan,  the  distribution  of  the 
nations  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan  had  undergone 
very  little  change ; but,  on  the  east  of  that  river, 
we  find  the  three  principal  territories  to  have  been 
Bashan,  in  the  north, — that  is  to  say,  east  and 
north-east  of  the  lake  Gennesareth ; Gilead,  in 
the  middle;  and.  in  the  south,  on  the  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  the  Land  of  Moab. 

3.  After  the  Conquest , the  land  was  distri- 
buted by  lot  among  the  tribes.  The  particulars 
of  this  distribution  will  be  best  seen  by  reference 
to  the  map.  Judah,  Benjamin,  Simeon,  and  Dan 
occupied  the  south  ; Ephraim,  half  of  Manasseh, 
and  Issachar,  the  middle ; and  Zebidon,  Naph- 
tali,  and  Asher,  the  north.  Reuben,  Gad,  and  the 
other  half  of  Manasseh  were  settled  beyond  the 
Jordan,  in  Bashan  and  Gilead.  This  distribu- 
tion was  in  no  way  affected  by  the  division  of 
the  country  into  two  kingdoms,  which  took  place 
after  the  death  of  Solomon.  The  boundary  line 
between  them  was  the  northern  limit  of  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin. 

4.  After  the  Captivity,  we  hear  very  little  of 
the  territories  of  the  tribes,  for  ten  of  them  never 
returned  to  occupy  their  ancient  domains. 

5.  In  the  time  of  Christ , the  country  on  the 
west  of  the  Jordan  wa3  divided  into  the  provinces 
of  Galilee,  Samaria,  and  Judaea.  Galilee  is  a 
name  which  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  book  of 
Joshua  (xxi.  32);  and  very  often  in  the  later 
history.  It  was  applied  to  that  part  of  Palestine 
north  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  or  Jezreel.  This 
province  was  divided  into  Lower  or  Southern, 
and  Upper  or  Northern  Galilee.  The  latter  sec- 
tion was  also  denominated  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles 
(Matt.  iv.  15).  Samaria  occupied  nearly  the 
middle  of  Palestine;  but,  although  it  extended 
across  the  country,  it  did  not  come  down  to  the 
sea'-shore.  Judaja,  as  a province,  corresponded 
ta  the  northern  and  western  parts  of  the  ancient 
kingdom  of  that  name;  but  the  south-eastern  por- 
tion formed  the  territory  of  Idumaea.  On  the 
other  side  of  the  Jordan  the  divisions  were,  at 
this  time,  more  numerous  and  less  distinct.  The 
whole  country,  generally,  was  called  Peraea, 
and  was  divided  into  eight  districts  or  cantons, 
namely: — 1.  Pcrcea,  in  the  more  limited  sense, 
which  was  the  southernmost  canton,  extend- 
ing from  the  river  Arnon  to  the  river  Jabbok. 
2.  Gilead , north  of  the  Jabbok,  and  highly  po- 
«>*slous.  3.  lfecapolis,  or  the  district  of  ten 
cities,  which  were  Scythopolis  or  Bethslmn  (on 
the  west  side  of  the  Jordan),  Hippos,  Gadara, 
Pella,  Philadelphia  (formerly  Rabbath),  Diurn, 
Canatha,  Gerasa,  Raphana,  and,  perhaps,  Da- 
mascus : but  there  is  not  much  certainty  with 
regard  to  the  ten  cities  from  which  the  region  hail 
its  name.  4.  Gaulonitis,  extending  to  the  north- 
east of  the  Upper  Jordan  and  of  the  lake  of  Gen- 
nesareth.  5.  Ba'afwa,  tlie  ancient  Bashan,  but 


less  cxten^e,  east  of  the  lake  of  Gennesareth, 
0.  Auranitis,  also  called  Itura-a,  a ad  known  to 
this  day  by  the  old  name  of  Hainan  (Ezek.  xlvii. 
16-18),  to  the  north  of  Batansea  and  the  east  of 
Gaulonitis.  7.  Trachonitis,  extending  to  the  north 
of  Gaulonitis,  and  east  from  Paneas  (Caesarea 
Philippi)  and  the  sources  of  the  Jordan,  where 
it  was  separated  from  Galilee  (Luke  iii.  1). 
8.  Abilene,  in  the  extreme  north,  among  the 
mountains  of  Anti-Libanus,  between  Baalbec 
and  Damascus.  The  more  important  of  these 
names  have  been  noticed  under  their  several 
heads. 


Situation  and  Boundaries. — Syria  lies  at 
the  easternmost  extremity  of  tlie  Mediterranean 
Sea,  upon  a line  of  coast  which,  if  prolonged 
northward,  might  have  been  conterminous  with  the 
eastern  extremity  of  the  Black  Sea,  did  not  the 
peninsula  of  Asia  Minor  intervene.  It  forms 
part  of  the  western  coast  of  Asia,  and  ha3  Asia 
Minor  aif*  Mesopotamia  on  the  north,  Arabia  on 
the  east  ai.d  south  east,  Egypt  on  the  south-west, 
and  the  Mediterranean  on  the  west.  Of  this  re- 
gion Palestine  is  the  south-western  part,  extend- 
ing from  the  mountains  of  Lebanon  to  the  borders 
of  Egypt.  It  lies  about  midway  between  the 
equator  and  the  polar  circle,  to  which  happy  po- 
sition it  owes  the  fine  medium  climate  which  it 
possesses.  Its  length  is  embraced  between  30-*  40' 
and  33°  32' of  N.  latitude,  and  between  33°  45' of 
E.  longitude  in  the  south-west,  and  35°  48'  in  the 
north-east.  The  line  of  coast  from  north  to  south 
trends  westward,  which  causes  the  country  be- 
tween the  coast  and  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  to  he 
much  wider  in  the  south  than  in  tlie  north.  But 
where  the  country  was  narrowest  there  were  pos- 
sessions on  the  east  of  the  river,  and  where  widest, 
there  were  none  beyond  the  line  of  the  river,  so 
that  the  actual  breadth  of  territory  was  in  some 
degree  equalized  throughout ; and  may  he  taken 
at  an  average  of  sixty-five  miles,  tlie  extreme 
breadth  being  about  100  miles.  The  length,  from 
Mount  Ilermon  in  the  north,  to  which  the  ter- 
ritory of  Manasseh  beyond  the  Jordan  extended 
(Josh.  xiii.  11),  to  Kadesh-harnea  in  the  south, 
to  which  the  territory  of  Judah  reached,  was  180 
miles.  The  above  measurement  is  considerably 
greater  than  that  which  is  usually  given.  This 
is  because  the  usual  measurement  is  founded 
upon  the  authority  of  the  popular  scriptural 
phrase  ‘ from  Dan  to  Beersheba.’  But  that  phrase 
was  only  used  to  designate  the  length  of  the 
country  west  of  the  river;  for  it.  is  clear  that  the 
territory  beyond  the  line  of  the  Jordan  reached 
far  more  to  the  north,  even  to  Mount  Hermon 
(now  Jebel-es-Sheikh),  while  on  the  south  we 
now  know  that  Kadesh-harnea,  on  the  borders 
of  the  great  Arabah,  or  valley  south  of  tlie  Dead 
Sea,  was  on  a parallel  considerably  to  the  south 
of  Beersheba.  Even  in  making  the  measure- 
ment from  Dan  to  Beersheba  only,  the  extent 
would  be  greater  than  has  usually  been  given, 
seeing  that  Beersheba  is  now  ascertained  to  be 
considerably  to  the  south  of  the  position  formerly 
assigned  to  it.  In  fixing  tlie  limits  a3  from  Dan 
to  Beersheba,  it  lias  been  forgotten  that  the  popu- 
lar usage  merely  described  two  well-known  points 
towards  the  opposite  extremities  of  the  land,  and 
does  not  imply  that  there  was  no  territory  north- 
ward of  Dan  or  southyardof  Beersheba.  The  usags 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE, 


45* 


ra  the  same  that  according  to  which  it  was  for- 
merly customary  to  describe  the  length  of  England 
by  the  phrase,  from  London  to  York,  although 
there  is  much  country  north  of  York  and  south  of 
London  Dan  was  the  northernmost  and  Beer- 
aheba  t e southernmost  great  and  well-known 
towns  of  tiie  land.  Dan  was  also  near  the  northern 
frontier  of  the  western  territory;  but  although 
in  the  tract  beyond  Beersheba  southward,  there 
were  few  inhabited  sites,  it  is  not  mere  desert, 
as  was  formerly  supposed;  but,  as  some  years 
since  conjectured  ( Pictorial  Bible , on  Josh,  xiii.), 
and  since  proved  by  Dr.  Robinson  (Bib.  Re- 
searches, i.  281-30<)),  consists  of  good  pasture 
grounds,  into  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  settled 
country  sent,  their  flocks  to  graze. 

Under  this  more  extended  view,  Palestine  may 
be  regarded  as  embracing  an  area  of  almost  1 1 ,000 
square  miles,  which  iy  somewhat  more  than  is 
usually  given  to  it.  Having  arrived  at  this  re- 
sult, we  are  enabled  to  give  some  suggestive  com- 
parisons of  its  extent,  as  contrasted  witli  that  of 
other  countries,  and  find  that  ‘ this  does  not  give 
a superficial  extent  equal  to  one-fourth  of  Eng- 
land and  Wales,  nor  more  than  two-filths  of  Scot- 
land, Ireland,  or  Portugal.  Bavaria  and  Sar- 
dinia offer  an  area  about  twice  as  large;  that  of 
Denmark  is  about  one-third  larger,  but  according 
to  the  estimate  we  have  made,  the  area  of  Pales- 
tine is  nearly  double  that  of  Wales,  Wirtemberg, 
or  Tuscany.  Thus,  as  to  mere  extent,  the  coun- 
try can  only  be  compared  to  some  of  the  smaller 
European  states,  of  which  Hanover,  Belgium, 
Switzerland,  and  the  Papal  States,  appear  to  offer 
the  nearest  approximations.  But  the  real  surface 
is  much  'greater  than  this  estimate  and  these  com- 
parisons would  imply  ; for  Palestine  being  essen- 
tially a hilly  country,  the  sides  of  the  mountains 
and  the  slopes  of  the  hills  enlarge  the  available 
surface  to  an  extent  which  does  not  admit  of  cal- 
culation’ (Physical  Geog.,  p.  xxviii.,  in  Kittos 
Pictorial  Hist,  of  Palestine).  Still,  with  all 
allowances,  Palestine  is  an  exceedingly  smfall 
country  in  proportion  to  the  interest  which  has 
been  concentrated  on  it;  and  this  fact,  as  com- 
pared with  the  large  claims  to  attention  advanced 
by  and  for  the  ancient  inhabitants,  has  given 
occasion  for  ancient  unbelievers  and  modern 
infidels  to  blaspheme.  Cicero  could  infer  the 
littleness  of  the  Hebrew  god  from  the  smallness 
of  the  territory  he  had  given  to  his  people ; and 
the  poor  blasphemies  of  such  men  as  Voltaire 
and  Rhegellini  are  more  lamentable,  as  uttered 
against  the  light  of  history,  which  shows  that  the 
true  interest  and  importance  of  a country  arise, 
not  from  its  territorial  extent,  but  from  the  men 
who  form  its  living  soul ; from  its  institutions, 
bearing  the  impress  of  mind  and  spirit;  ami  from 
the  events  which  grow  out  of  the  character  and 
condition  of  its  inhabitants.  It  is  thus  that  the 
histories  of  such  small  countries  as  Phoenicia, 
Greece,  early  Rome,  Venice,  Holland,  England, 
possess  an  interest  and  importance  to  which  ihose 
of  countries  of  ten  times  their  extent  cannot  pre- 
sent the  slightest  claim. 

After  this  general  statement,  we  may  examine 
the  lines  of  boundary  with  somewhat  more  atten- 
tion. The  clearest  description  of  them  is  that  con- 
tained in  Num.  xxxiv.  In  going  through  that 
chapter  on  a former  occasion  ( Pictorial  Bible  ), 
die  present  w liter  had  an  opportunity  of  stating 


nis  views  on  the  subject  at  greater  length  than 
can  be  afforded  in  this  general  summary.  Sub- 
sequent  inquiry  has  only  confirmed  the  concliv 
sions  at  which  he  then  arrived,  and  which  may 
nere  be  summarily  stated. 

The  Soitth  Boundary.  The  text  (N urn.  xxxiv. 
3,  5)  we  read  thus  : ‘ Your  south  border  shall  be 
at  the  wilderness  of  Zin  adjoining  to  Edom,  and 
your  south  border  shall  be  at  the  utmost  point  of 
the  great  sea  southward.’  There  is  here  a general 
description  of  the  line,  namely,  that  it  extends 
from  the  desert  of  Zin  (Wady  Arabah),  at  a 
point  not  stated,  to  the  Mediterranean,  at  a point 
also  not  stated.  Then  in  the  following  verses  the 
Writer  returns  to  state  the  particulars  of  this  same 
boundary  line : * Your  south  border  shall  wind 
by  the  ascent  of  Akrabbim  (at  the  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea),  and  pass  on  (down  the  Arabah)  to 
Zin  ; and  thence  extending  (still  southward  down 
the  Arabah),  to  the  south  of  Kadesh-barnea , it 
shall  go  on  to  Hazar-addar,  and  pass  on  to  Az- 
mon.  And  from  Azmon  the  boundary  shall  wind 
about  to  the  river  of  Egypt,  and  its  teimination 
shall  be  at  the  sea.’  What  is  here  said  respecting 
Hazar-addar  and  Azmon  we  do  not  understand, 
as  the  sites  have  not  been  determined;  but  with- 
out this,  it  is  clear  that  the  writer,  after  prolonging 
the  eastern  boundary  line  from  the  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea  down  the  edge  of  the  Arabah,  to  a 
point  somewhere  south  of  Kadesh-barnea,  then 
turns  off  westward  to  form  the  southern  line, 
which  he  extends  to  the  Mediterranean,  at  a 
point  where  ‘ the  river  of  Egypt’  falls  into  the 
sea.  This  river  of  Egypt  is  usually,  and  on 
very  adequate  grounds,  supposed  to  be  the  stream 
which  falls  info  the  sea  near  El-Arish.  In  for- 
merly considering  this  matter,  we  had  to  prove 
the  position  of  Kadesh-barnea  by  argument.;  but 
Dr.  Robinson  has  relieved  us  from  the  necessity 
of  reproducing  this  argument,  by  having  actually 
identified  the  site  at  a point  very  near  to  that  in 
which  we  had  placed  it.  This  conclusion  obliged 
us  to  draw  the  southern  boundary  line  much  to 
the  south  of  Beersheba  (which,  it  will  be  observed, 
is  not.  named  in  these  verses),  and  thus  to  assign 
to  Palestine  a large  and  important  tract  of  coun- 
try which  had  not  formerly  been  ascribed  to 
Israel.  The  determination  of  the  site  of  Kadesh- 
barnea  makes  all  the  rest  clear;  for  it  is  certain 
that  the  boundary  was  drawn  south  of  that  place, 
which  is  on  a parallel  32  minutes  south  of  that  of 
Beersheba. 

The  H'est  Border,  In  the  6th  verse  of  the 
same  chapter  (Num.  xxxiv.)  the  western  border 
is  stated  as  defined  by  the  Mediterranean  coast. 
This  was  the  boundary  of  Palestine;  but  the 
Hebrews  never  possessed  the  whole  of  it.  The 
northern  part  of  the  coast  from  Sidon  to  Akko 
(Acre)  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Phoenicians,  and 
the  southern  part,  from  Azof  us  to  Gaza,  was  re- 
tained by  the  Philistines,  except  at.  intervals,  in 
and  after  the  time  of  David,  when  they  were  sub- 
ject to  the  Hebrew  sceptre  [Phii.istines]  ; and 
a central  portion,  about  one-third  of  the  whole, 
from  Mount  Carmel  to  Jabneh  (Jamnia)  was 
alone  permanently  open  to  the  Israelites.  The  rea- 
son for  the  non-possession  of  the  Philistine  territory 
has  been  stated:  and  the  reason  for  their  not  occu- 
pying the  coast,  from  the  border  of  Sidon  to  Cannel 
we  take  to  be  this.  At  the  time  of  the  conquest  tire 
southernmost  Phoenician  town  was  Sidon,  to  the 


t&4 


PALESTINE, 


PALESTINE 


very  border  of  which  the  coast  assigned  to  Israel 
extended  (Josh.  xix.  21);  but  as  the  Hebrews 
neglected  to  appropriate  this  territory,  the  Phoe- 
nicians did  so,  and  founded  thereon  Tyre  and 
other  settlements.  Tyre  is  admitted  to  have  l>een 
‘the  daughter  of  Sidon’  (Isa.  xxii.  12),  and  there 
are  no  traces  of  its  existence  in  the  time  of  Joshua. 
The  friendly  relations  which  afterwards  grew  up 
prevented  the  Hebrews  from  urging  their  claim  to 
the  narrow  slip  of  coast  south  of  Sidon,  which  the 
Phoenicians  had  appropriated,  and  which  indeed 
the  Hebrews,  as  an  agricultural  people,  did  not 
feel  the  want  of,  though  it  was  invaluable  to  the 
Phoenicians.  This  sufficiently  accounts  for  the 
exception. 

The  North  Border  is  as  difficult  to  define  as 
the  south.  The  verses  in  which  it  is  described  we 
read  thus  : ‘ This  shall  be  your  north  boundary  ; 
from  the  great  sea  ye  shall  draw  a line  to  the 
great  mountain  [Lebanon]  ; from  the  great  moun- 
tain ye  shall  draw  your  border  to  the  entering  in 
of  Hamath ; and  the  boundary  shall  pass  on  to 
Zedad,  and  the  boundary  shall  go  on  to  Ziph- 
ron,  and  its  termination  shall  be  at  Hazarenan  ’ 
(Nutn.  xxxiv.  7-9).  This  only  refers  to  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  western  territory,  or 
Canaan  Proper,  and  we  may  therefore  extend  it 
in  the  same  direction  to  Mount  Hermon,  for  the 
purpose  of  completing  the  northern  boundary. 
The  Authorized  Version  of  this  text  has  created 
some  confusion  by  translating  "liimn  hor 
ha-hor  by  ‘ Mount  Hor;’  but  the  phrase,  which 
literally  means  ‘ mountain  of  the  mountain,’  that 
is,  ‘the  great  mountain,’  obviously  denotes  Le- 
banon. W e think  that  we  cannot  be  mistakeu  in 
understanding  that  the  line  commenced  at  the 
sea  somewhere  not  far  to  the  south  of  Sidon, 
whence  it  was  extended  to  Lebanon,  and  crossing 
the  narrow  valley  (here  called  ‘ the  entering  in  of 
Hamath  ’),  which  leads,  into  the  great  plain  en- 
closed between  Libanus  and  Anti-Libanus,  ter- 
minated at  Mount  Hermon,  in  the  latter  range. 
This  arrangement  of  the  northern  line  of  boundary 
seems  to  us  to  meet  all  the  difficulties  arising  from 
deficient  knowledge,  which  have  hung  like  a 
dense  mist  over  the  northern  boundary  of  Pales- 
tine. 

The  Eastern  Boundary,  as  respects  Canaan 
Proper,  was  defined  by  the  Jordan  and  its  lakes; 
bat  as  respects  the  whole  country,  including  the 
portion  beyond  the  Jordan,  it  is  not  so  easily  deter- 
mined ; yet  it  may  be  made  out  with  close  atten- 
tion. Salchah  was  a town  on  the  eastern  limits 
of  Bashan,  and  also,  therefore,  of  the  Hebrew 
territory  (Deut.  iii.  10 ; Josh.  xii.  o).  There  is  a 
town  in  the  Hauran  of  the  name  of  Salkhad, 
visited  by  Burckhardt  ( Syria , p.  99),  who  calls  it 
Szalkhat,  and  which  Gesenius  is  disposed  to 
identify  with  Salchah.  This  place  is  more  to 
the  east  than  the  territory  usually  assigned  to  the 
Israelites;  and  if  the  identification  is  to  be  relied 
upon,  the  line  drawn  to  this  place  from  Hermon 
must  have  included  a considerable  breadth  of 
country.  From  this  point,  however,  the  line 
must  have  inclined  somewhat  sharply  to  the 
south-west,  and  it  would  be  best,  to  bring  it  to  the 
point  where  the  Wady-ed-Deir  en'ers  the  Zerlca, 
and  thence  extend  it  almost  due  south  to  the 
Anion,  which  was  the  southern  limit  of  the 
eastern  territory.  The  necessity  of  bringing  the 
eastern  boundary  line  so  far  west  as  Wady-ed- 


Deir,  arises  from  tne  obligation  of  excluding  the 
site  of  Amman,  as  that  city  certainly  did  not 
belong  to  the  Israelites. 

Mineralogy. — Under  this  head  we  know  not 
that  we  can  do  better  than  introduce  the  observ- 
ations of  Professor  Schubert  in  his  Reise  nach 
deni  Morgenlande : — ‘ As  regards  the  mineralogy 
of  the  Jerusalem  neighbourhood,  and,  if  I may 
form  a judgment  from  the  districts  through 
which  I passed,  of  the  Holy  Land  generally,  I 
should  say  that  the  mountains  on  the  west  ol 
the  Jordan  consist  chiefly  of  chalk,  on  which 
basalt  begins  to  occur  beyond  Cana  (northward), 
as  is  manifestly  exhibited  in  the  heights  of  Hat- 
tin,  and  in  the  western  descent  to  the  lake  of 
Tiberias,  in  such  large  quantity  and  great  ex- 
tent as  I have  never  Wfore  observed.  That 
the  so-called  white  limestone,  which  is  met 
with  around  Jerusalem  and  thence  to  Jericho, 
which  covers  the  summit  and  forms  the  declivi- 
ties of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  which  is  also 
found  at  Mount  Tabor  and  around  Nazareth,  is 
a kind  of  chalk,  is  obvious  to  any  one  but 
slightly  acquainted  with  mineralogy.’  By  this 
we  suppose  Schubert  means  that  it  is  a chalk 
considerably  Indurated,  and  approaching  to  whit- 
ish compact  limestone,  such  as  may  be  seen  in 
Normandy,  on  the  high  road  bordering  the  Seine, 
between  Havre  and  Rouen.  ‘ Layers  and  de- 
tached masses  of  flint,’  Schubert  continues,  ‘ are 
very  commonly  seen  in  it ; and  these  mountains 
preserve  the  character  of  their  formation,  as  well 
in  their  more  solid  condition,  resembling  Alpine 
limestone  and  Schniirl-limestone,  as  in  their 
softer  organization,  which  has  a likeness  to  chalk- 
mail.  Besides  this  indurated  chalk,  a stone  is 
found  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Jerusalem, 
chiefly  towards  the  north,  as  well  as  towards  Safet, 
and  in  other  parts  of  the  country,  which,  together 
with  the  dolomite  formation  occasionally  met 
with,  I could  not  but  consider  to  be  of  what 
in  Germany  is  called  the  Jura  formation.  1 
am  supported  in  this  conclusion  by  the  opinion 
of  a professional  gentleman,  M.  Ilussegger,  the 
distinguished  geologist,  who  travelled  in  Pales- 
tine at  a later  period.  He  also  describes  the 
stone  of  which  I am  Speaking  as  “ a formation 
which,  according  to  all  external  and  internal  w; 
marks,  is  to  be  classed  with  the  upper  Jura 
formation,  the  oolite,  and  the  Jura-dolomite.” 
Among  the  Jura-chalk,  containing  dolomite,  of 
Jerusalem,  Russegger  found  limestones  contain- 
ing much  iron,  but  no  dolomite ; and  this  forma- 
tion he  was  disposed  to  class  with  the  inferior 
oolites.’  After  mentioning  that  an  unfortunate 
accident,  which  deprived  him  of  the  use  of  the 
extensive  geological  collections  made  by  him  in 
Arabia  Petraea,  &c.,  prevented  him  from  at  pre- 
sent. entering  into  the  subject  so  largely  as  he 
wished,  he  subjoins  : ‘ This  one  observation  on  the 
mineralogy  of  Palestine  may,  however  be  added, 
that  it  deserves  to  be  most  emphatically  called 
the  country  of  salt,  which  is  produced  in  vast 
abundance,  chiefly  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  which  deserves  to  be  regarded  as  one 
of  the  great  natural  salt-works  of  the  world.’  - 

Under  this  head  it  may  be  noted  that  the  fine 
impalpable  desert-sand,  which  proves  so  menacing 
to  travellers,  and  even  to  inhabitants,  is  scarcely 
found  in  Palestine  Proper ; but  it  occurs  beyond 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 

Lebanon,  near  Beirut,  and  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Damascus. 

Palestine  is  eminently  a country  of  caverns, 
to  which  there  is  frequent  allusion  in  Scripture 
i Caves],  and  which  are  hardly  so  numerous  in 
any  country  of  the  same  extent.  Many  of  tiiem 
were  enlarged  by  the  inhabitants,  and  even  arti- 
ficial grottoes  were  formed  by  manual  labour. 
In  these  the  inhabitants  still  like  to  reside  ; as  in 
summer  they  afford  protection  from  the  heat,  and 
in  winter  from  cold  and  rain.  Even  now,  in 
many  places,  houses  are  observed  built  so  near  to 
rock's,  that  their  cavities  may  be  used  for  rooms 
or  sheds  suited  to  the  condition  of  the  seasons. 
Though  the  country  is  not  unfrequently  visited 
by  earthquakes,  they  leave  behind  no  such  fright- 
ful traces  as  those  of  Asia  Minor  ; as  the  vaults 
of  limestone  offer  more  effectual  resistance  than 
the  sandstone  of  the  latter  country.  While  the 
great  earthquake  of  January  1,  1837,  precipitated 
many  buildings  to  the  ground  in  and  around 
Nazareth,  not  one  of  the  grottoes  dedicated  to  de- 
votion was  in  the  slightest  degree  injured,  or  their 
contents  disturbed. 

We  are  glad  to  see  so  competent  a witness  as 
Schubert  bear  his  testimony  to  the  natural  re- 
sources of  the  soil,  which  superficial  observers, 
judging  only  from  present  appearance,  have  so 
often  questioned.  He  says, ‘The  ridge  of  chalk 
mountains,  chiefly  those  containing  marl,  is  in 
most  places  so  irrigated  by  water,  and  so  acted 
upon  by  the  sun,  as  to  be  remarkable  for  the 
luxuriant  growth  of  the  great  variety  of  plants 
with  which  they  are  adorned.  The  basalt  moun- 
tains give  birth  to  numerous  springs.  No  soil 
could  be  naturally  more  fruitful  and  fit  for  cul- 
tivation than  that  of  Palestine,  if  man  had  not 
destroyed  the  source  of  fertility  by  annihilating 
the  former  green  covering  of  the  hills  and  slopes, 
and  thereby  destroying  the  regular  circulation 
of  sweet  water,  which  ascends  as  vapour  frojn  the 
sea  to  be  cooled  in  the  higher  regions,  and  then 
descends  to  form  the  springs  and  rivers,  for  it  is 
well  known  that  the  vegetable  kingdom  performs 
in  this  circulation  the  function  of  capillary 
tubes.  But  although  the  natives,  from  exas- 
peration against  their  foreign  conquerors  and 
rulers  (Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  xii.  54),  and  the  in- 
vaders who  have  so  often  overruled  this  scene  of 
ancient  blessings,  have  greatly  reduced  its  pros- 
perity, still  I cannot  comprehend  how  not  only 
scoffers  like  Voltaire,  but  early  travellers,  who 
doubtless  intended  to  declare  the  truth,  represent 
Palestine  as  a natural  desert,  whose  soil  never 
could  have  been  fit  for  pr  ifitable  cultivation. 
Y Vlioever  saw  the  exhaustless  abundance  of  plants 
on  Carmel  and  the  border  of  the  desert,  the  grassy 
carpet  of  Esdraelon,  the  lawns  adjoining  the 
Jordan,  and  the  rich  foliage  of  the  forests  of 
Mount  Tabor ; whoever  saw  the  borders  of  the 
lakes  of  Merom  and  Gennesareth,  wanting  only 
the  cultivator  to  entrust  to  the  soil  his  seed 
and  plants,  may  state  what  other  country  on 
earth,  devastated  by  two  thousand  years  of  warfare 
and  spoliation,  could  be  more  fit  for  being  again 
taken  into  cultivation.  The  bountiful  hand  of 
the  Most  High,  which  formerly  showered  abund- 
ance upon  this  renowned  land,  continues  to  be 
still  open  to  those  desirous  of  his  blessings.’ 

There  are  some  very  excellent  remarks  on  this 
subject  in  Dr.  Olin’s  Travels  (ii.  235-240),  to 


456 

which  we  must  be  content  to  refer  the  reader, 
being  prevented  by  wan*  c f room  from  intro- 
ducing them  in  tins  place 

Levels. — Annexed  to  the  additions  to  his 
Palastina , which  Raumer  has  lately  published, 
under  the  title  of  Bettriige  zur  Biblischen  Geo- 
graphic, 1813,  there  is  an  engraved  scale  of  levels 
in  Palestine.  This  document  is  curious  and  valu- 
able, and  embodies  the  observations  of  Schubert, 
Ruppell,  Russegger,  and  others,  whose  scientific 
observations  are  more  important  than  the  rough 
guesses  of  ordinary  travellers.  We  shall  copy 
the  results  in  the  subjoined  table,  and  then  offer 
some  remarks  upon  them.  The  measurements 
are  in  Paris  feet,  above  and  below  the  level  of  the 
Dead  Sea. 

Above. 

Great  Hermon 10,000 

Mount  St.  Catherine  (in  Sinai)  8063 

Jebel  Mousa  (in  Sinai)  . . 7033 

Jehel  et-Tyli  (in  Sinai)  . . 4300 

Jebel  er-Ramali  ....  3000 

Kanneytra 2850 

Hebron  ......  2700 

Mount  of  Olives  ....  2536 

Sinjil 2520 


Safet 2500 

Mount  Gerizim  ....  2400 

Semua  .......  2225 

t Damascus 2186 

Kidron  (brook)  ....  2140 

Nabulus 1751 

Mount  Tabor 1748 

Pass  of  Zephath  ....  1437 

Desert  of  et-Tyh  ....  1400 

Nazareth 821 

Zerin 515 

Plain  of  Esdraelon  . . . 459 

Below. 

Lake  of  Tiberias  ....  84  * 

The  Arahah  at  Kadesh  . . 91 

Dead  Sea 1337* 


Some  of  these  results  are  so  extraordinary,  that 
one  might  occupy  whole  pages  in  discussing  them. 
The  most  important  of  them  will  be  considered 
under  their  proper  heads;  and  it.  is  here  only  ne- 
cessary to  indicate  a few  of  the  more  marked 
results.  First,  here  is  the  remarkable  fact,  that 
the  Mount  of  Olives  and  the  Kidron,  and  conse- 
quently Jerusalem,  stand  700  feet  higher  than 
the  top  of  Mount  Tabor,  and  about  2500  feet 
above  the  level  of  the  Mediterranean.  More  to 
the  south,  Hebron  stands  on  still  higher  ground  ; 
and  while  it.  is  2700  feet  above  the  sea  on  the 
one  band,  the  Asphaltic  Lake  lies  4000  feet  below 
it  on  the  other.  This  fact  has  no  known  parallel 
in  any  other  region,  and  within  so  short  a distance 
of  the  sea : and  the  extraordinary  depression  of 
the  lake  (1337  feet  below  the  sea  level)  adequately 
accounts  for  the  very  peculiar  climate  which  its 
remarkable  basin  exhibits.  The  points  at  Tiberias 
to  the  north,  and  Kadesh  to  the  south  of  the  Dead 

* These  measurements  are  in  English  feet,  ami 
give  the  results  of  the  lines  of  altitude  carried 
from  the  Mediterranean  to  the  Dead  Sea  and  the 
Lake  of  Tiberias,  by  the  British  engineers  left  in 
Syria  to  make  a military  survey  of  the  country, 
when  the  fleet  was  withdrawn  from  the  coast  in 
1841. 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


4 66 

8ea,  are  both,  and  nearly  equally,  below  tlie 
Mediterranean  level,  and,  taken  together,  they 
show  the  great,  slope  both  from  the  north  and  from 
the  south  towards  the  Dead  Sea,  confirming  the 
discovery  of  Dr.  Robinson,  that  the  water-shed  to 
tire  south  of  the  Asphaltic  Lake  is  towards  its 
basin,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Jordan  could  not 
at  any  time,  as  the  country  is  at  present  consti- 
tuted, have  flowed  on  southward  to  the  Elanitic 
Gulf,  as  was  formerly  supposed  On  the  effects 
resulting  from  this  greal  inequality  of  surface,  we 
cannot  do  better  than  cite  the  observations  of 
Schubert  ( Reise , iii.  104),  which  are  of  somewhat 
general  application,  although  suggested  by  the 
extraordinary  elevation  of  the  site  of  Jerusalem.  . . 
4 Apart  from  the  grandeur  of  this  country's  his- 
tory, nature  lias  stamped  on  its  surface  such  dis- 
tinguishing and  peculiar  features  as  hardly  any 
other  portion  of  the  world  exhibits.  This  ob- 
servation applies  in  particular  to  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Jerusalem.  W ithout  taking  into  account 

the  girdle  of  heights  in  its  immediate  neighbour- 
hood, the  ascent  on  all  sides  to  this  high-seated 
town  is  very  considerable.  It  is  nearly  2500 
feet  above  the'  sea,  which  is  an  elevation  belong- 
ing to  few  cities  of  the  Eastern  hemisphere  equally 
near  the  sea.  The  ascent  is,  however,  most  strik- 
ing from  the  east,  from  the  vicinity  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  and  the  Jordan.  Science  has  in  our  time 
made  such  progress.,  that  the  question  may  be 
fairly  raised  : — is  there  any  place  on  earth  wlrere 
extraordinary  elevations  and  depressions  co-exist 
•o  near  eacli  other  as  they  do  here,  where  in  the 
distance  of  seven  hours'  slow  travel  we  find  a de- 
pression of  at  least  GOO  feet,  and  an  elevation  of 
more  than  four  times  that  amount  below  and 
above  the  level  of  the  sea?  The  difference  of 
elevation  between  Jerusalem  and  the  plain  of 
Jericho  (near  ihe  village  so  called)  is  upwards  of 
3000  feet.  Now  it  is  supposed  that.  100  metres 
of  this  difference  occasion  a difference  of  climate 
equal  to  that  which  would  tie  produced  by  a 
degree  of  latitude:  and  consequently  the  tem- 
perature of  points  so  near  to  each  other  must  be 
equal  to  the  difference  between  places  so  remote 
in  latitude  as  Rome  and  London.  While  the 
climate  in  t he  plain  of  the  Jordan  and  Dead  Sea 
is  similar  to  that  of  Southern  Arabia  and  the 
Delta  of  the  Nile,  that  of  Jerusalem  exhibits  a 
temperature  similar  to  that  of  the  isle  of  Lemnos 
and  the  ancient  Troy,  or  that  of  the  vale  of 
Tempe  and  the  midtile  districts  of  Sardinia. 
Anil  if,  from  the  observations  of  a few  weeks  only 
(but  made  in  April  when  the  temperature  is 
nearly  at  the  average  of  the  year),  an  inference 
may  he  drawn,  it  will  probably  be  near  the 
mark  to  estimate  the  average  heat  of  the  summer 
at  84  or  85  degrees  of  Fahrenheit. 

Mountains. — As  all  the  principal  mountains 
of  Palestine  are  noticed  in  this  work  under  their 
respective  names,  a few  general  observations  are 
all  that  here  seem  necessary.  Schubert's  remarks, 
given  in  this  article  under  the  heads  Mineralogy 
and  Levels,  still  further  limit  the  scope  of  the  ob- 
servations to  he  offered,  which  will  consist  of  a 
bird’s-eye  view  over  the  country  from  north  to 
couth. 

To  Lebanon,  which  forms  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  land  [Lebanon],  succeeds  the  high  table- 
land of  Gab  lee,  which  extents  to  the  plain  of 


Esdraelon,  and  the  general  height  of  which  above 
the  sea  may,  by  a comparison  of  levels,  be  esti- 
mated at  between  900  and  1000  feet.  The  elevated 
situation  of  this  region  is  evinced  by  the  gradual 
declivity  which  it  exhibits  on  all  sides  but  tl>e  north, 
— sloping  on  the  East  towards  the  Jordan  and  its 
upper  lakes,  on  the  west  to  the  plain  of  the  Acre, 
and  on  the  south  to  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  Tra- 
vellers express  surprise  at  the  deep  descent  from  the 
comparatively  level  plains  of  Galilee  to  the  lake 
of  Tiberias,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  905  Paris 
feet  below  the  level  of  Nazareth.  This  table-land 
is  not  without  its  eminences.  The  chief  of  these 
is  Jebel  Safet,  which  is  seen  to  tower  conspicuously 
and  isolated,  from  every  point  except  the  north. 
This  is  one  of  the  highest  summits  in  Palestine 
(2500  Paris  feet),  although  being  merely  a peak  of 
the  high  table-land  from  which  it.  rises,  it  does  not 
seem  to  exceed  elevations  rising  from  lower  levels, 
which  are  scarcely  inferior.  Still  it  is  very  high, 
even  in  apparent  altitude.  Toe  summit  of  this 
lofty  and  steep  mountain  is  crowned  by  a castle, 
and  a little  below  the  summit  there  is  a city.  This 
city  is  supposed  to  he  that  which  our  Saviour  had 
in  view,  as  ‘ a city  set  on  a hill,’  in  his  sermon 
on  the  Mount  (Matt.  v.  4):  but  it  is  doubtful  if 
any  city  existed  there  so  early,  although  modem 
ecclesiastical  tradition  has  been  disposed  to  regard 
this  as  the  Bethulia  of  Judith  [Bktuulia].  The 
mountain  itself  is  not  named  in  Scripture,  unless, 
as  is  probable,  it  he  the  ‘ mountain  of  Naphtali,’ 
mentioned  in  Josh.  xx.  9.  Among  the  swells  of 
this  table-land  are  the  Khurun  Hattin  (Homs 
of  IJaltin).  This  is  a ridge  about  a quarter  of 
a mile  in  length,  and  thirty  or  forty  feet  high, 
terminating  at  eacli  end  in  an  elevated  peak, 
which  gives  the  ridge  the  shape  of  a saddle.  This 
is  alleged  to  have  been  the  place  from  which  our 
Lord  delivered  his  famous  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
to  the  multitude  standing  in  the  adjacent  plain. 
The  authority  for  this  is  very  doubtful;  and  in 
the  neighbourhood,  towards  Tiberias,  there  are  at 
least  a dozen  other  eminences  which  would  just 
as  well  .answer  to  the  circumstances  of  the  history. 
One  of  these,  nearly  three  miles  south-east  of  this, 
is  by  similarly  uncertain  tradition  alleged  to  lie 
the  spot  where  the  five  thousand  were  fed  with  five 
loaves,  although  that,  miracle  probably  took  place 
on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  of  Tiberias  (Matt., 
xiv.  13-21). 

If  we  consider  the  difference  of  elevation  l>e- 
tween  the  highland  of  Galilee  and  the  low  plain 
of  Esdraelon,  we  shall  see  reason  to  regard  the 
mountains  and  ridges  of  the  border  between  them, 
and  which  form  as  it  were  the  boundaries  of  the 
low  plain,  as  merely  detached  or  connected 
recesses,  or  peaks  of  the  highland.  The  moun- 
tains of  Gilboa  and  Hermon,  which  bound  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon  on  the  East,  are  certainly  no 
other  than  portions  of  this  high  land,  though  they 
become  mountains  from  the  lower  level  of  the  great 
plain.  Tabor  itself  seems  but  as  one  advanced 
peak  or  promontory  of  the  high  lands  of  Galilee 
[TabokJ.  On  the  west  the  Great  Plain  it 
bounded  by  Carmel,  which  may  be  either  regard- 
ed as  a detached  ridge,  or  as  connected  with  the 
mountains  of  Samaria,  which  rise  beyond  the  plain 
on  the  south  [Cakmej.]. 

Southward  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  through 
out  to  the  borders  of  the  southern  desert,  is  an 
almost  unbroken  mountainous  country,  or  ridge  of 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


457 


mountains,  extending  north  and  south.  It  offers 
few  conspicuous  {joints,  but  its  general  elevation 
in  the  centre  may  be  determined  by  that  of 
Geriziin  in  the  north  (2100  Paris  feet),  of  Olivet 
in  the  centre  (2536  P.  feet.),  and  of  Hebron  in  the 
south  (2700  P.  feet).  The  ascent  to  the  higher 
and  central  region  from  the  plain  of  the  coast  on 
the  west  is  gradual,  by  a succession  ol  natural 
terraces;  but  eastward,  in  the  direction  ot  the 
Jordan  and  Dead  Sea,  t he  descents  are  compara- 
tively abrupt  and  precipitous. 

There  is  no  distinct  natural  boundary  between 
the  mountains  of  Samaria  and  Judaea.  1 he  hills 
of  Samaria  exhibit  scenery  very  different  lrom 
those  of  Galilee.  They  are  often  beautifully 
wooded,  and  the  region  is  more  populous  and 
better  cultivated  than  any  other  part  of  Palestine. 
Among  numerous  venerable  olive-woods  towns 
and  villages  are  scattered  in  every  direction, 
and  some  of  the  views  rival  those  of  Switzer- 
land. Tf.e  principal  mountains  of  Samaria  are 
those  of  Ebal  and  Gerizim,  which  have  been  de- 
scribed under  the  proper  heads  (Morison,  ii.  10  ; 
Buckingham,  Palestine,  ch.  xcii. ; Elliot,  ii.  3S0; 
Olin,  ii.  354). 

The  mountains  of  Judaea,  although  of  greater 
historical  celebrity,  are  now  less  attractive  than 
those  of  Samaria,  but  apparently  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  their  cultivation  has  been  more 
neglected.  The  hills  are  generally  separated  from 
each  other  by  valleys  and  torrents,  and  are  for  the 
most  part  of  moderate  height,  uneven,  and  seldom 
of  any  regular  figure.  The  rock  of  which  they 
are  composed  is  easily  converted  into  mould, 
which,  being  arrested  by  terraces  when  washed 
down  by  the  rains,  renders  the  hills  cultivable,  in 
a series  of  long  narrow  gardens,  formed  by  these 
terraces,  from  the  base  upwards.  Thus  the  hills 
were  clad  in  former  time  most  abundantly,  and 
enriched  and  beautified  with  the  fig-tree,  the  olive, 
and  the  vine;  and  it  is  in  this  way  that  the 
limited  cultivation  which  survives  is  still  carried 
on.  But  when  the  inhabitants  were  thinned  out, 
and  cultivation  abandoned,  the  terraces  fell  to 
decay,  and  the  soil  which  had  collected  on  them 
was  washed  down  into  the  valleys,  leaving  only  the 
arid  rock,  bare  and  desolate.  This  is  the  general 
character  of  the  hills  of  J udaea ; but  in  some  parts 
they  are  beautifully  wooded,  and  in  others  the 
application  of  the  ancient  mode  of  culture  suggests 
to  the  traveller  how  productive  the  country  once 
was,  and  how  fair  the  aspect  which  it  offered 
(Kitto’s  Palestine;  Phys.  Geog.  p.  xxxix. ; comp. 
Mariti,  ii.  362;  Elliot,  ii.  407,  408 ; Olin,  ii. ; 
Raumer,  Palastina,  p.  47,  sq.). 

The  characteristics  of  desolation  which  have 
been  indicated,  apply  with  peculiar  force  to 
the  northern  part  of  Judaea,  forming  the  ancient 
territory  of  Benjamin.  Its  most  favourably-situ- 
ated mountains  are  wholly  uncultivated;  and 
perhaps  in  no  other  country  is  such  a mass  of 
rock  exhibited  without  an  atom  of  soil.  In 
the  East,  towards  the  plain  of  Jericho,  it  takes 
a naturally  stern  and  grand  character,  such  as 
no  other  part  of  Palestine  offers.  It  is  through 
this  wild  and  melancholy  region  that  the  roads 
from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  and  (by  way  of  Wady 
Saba)  to  the  Dead  Sea  lie.  It  has  hence,  by  the 
former  route,  often  been  passed  by  travellers  in 
their  pilgrimages  to  the  Jordan  ; and  they  unite  in 
depicting  it  in  the  most  gloomy  hues.  ‘ The  road,’ 


says  Dr.  Olin,  ‘runs  along  fhe  edge  of  steep  pre- 
cipices and  yawning  gulfs,  and  in  a few  places  is 
overhung  with  the  crags  of  the  mountain.  The 
aspect  of  the  whole  region  is  peculiarly  savage  and 
dreary,  vying  in  these  respects,  though  not  in  over- 
powering grandeur,  with  the  wilds  of  Sinai.  The 
mountains  seem  to  have  been  loosened  from  their 
foundations,  and  rent  in  pieces  by  some  terrible 
convulsion,  and  there  left  to  he  scathed  by  the 
burning  rays  of  the  sun,  which  scorches  the  land 
with  consuming  heat'  ( Travels , ii.  197).  These 
characteristics  became  more  manifest  on  approach 
•ing  the  Jordan  ; and  the  wild  region  exteudiugnorth 
of  the  road  is  believed,  with  sufficient  probability 
to  form  ‘the  wilderness1  where,  after  his  baptism 
Jesus  ‘was  led  up  of  the  Spirit,  to  be  tempted  ol 
the  devil,’  and  where  ‘be  lasted  forty  days  am. 
forty  nights1  (Matt.  iv.  1,  2).  The  lofty  ridge 
which  extends  north  of  the  road,  and  fronts  the 
plain  of  Jericho,  is  called  Quarantana,  with  refer- 
ence to  this  event,  and  the  particular  summit  front 
which  Satan  is  supposed  to  have  displayed  to  the 
Saviour  ‘ the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the  glory 
of  them,’  is  crowned  by  a chapel,  still  occasionally 
resorted  to  by  the  devouter  pilgrims,  while  the 
eastern  face  which  overhangs  the  plain  is  much 
occupied  with  grots  and  cells,  once  the  favourite 
abode  of  pious  anchorites.  The  Quarantana  forms, 
apparently,  the  highest  summit  of  the  whole  im- 
mense pile,  and  is  distinguished  for  its  sere  and 
desolate  aspect,  even  in  this  gloomy  region  of 
savage  ami  dreary  sights.  It  has  not,  that  we 
know,  been  measured,  but  Dr.  Olin  computes 
its  height  at  nearly  2000  feet  in  perpendicular 
height  ( Travels , ii.  119;  Kitto’s  Palest.;  Phys. 
Geog.  p.  xxxix.;  Robinson,  ii.  289;  Hasselquist, 
p.  128;  Maundrell,  p.  79;  Morison,  p.  523; 
Nau,  p.  403). 

In  the  southern  region,  usually  called  in  Scrip- 
ture ‘the  hill  country  of  Judah1  (Matt.  iii.  1), 
there  are  few  mountains  of  a marked  character  ; 
the  peaks  of  the  general  ridge  being  of  little  appa- 
rent elevation,  although  actually  much  elevated 
above  the  sea-level.  The  most  remarkable  of  the 
whole  of  this  wild  region  seems  to  have  been  dis- 
tinguished as  ‘ the  wilderness  of  Judah1  (Luke 
i.  39,  65),  while  ‘ the  mountains  of  Judah,’  or 
‘ the  hill  country  of  Judaea,1  applies  to  the  moun- 
tainous region  south  of  Jerusalem  towards  Hebron 
(Josh.  xi.  21;  2 Clnon.  xxvii.  4,  &o.).  To  this 
district  belongs  the  wilderness  of  Tekoa  (2  Citron, 
xx.  20),  and  beyond  it  eastward,  ‘ the  wilder- 
ness of  Engeddi  ’ (l  Sam.  xxiv.  2),  Maon  (1  Sam. 
xxiii.  24,  25),  ami  Ziph  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  14,  15), 
names  made  familiar  to  us  by  the  history  of  David. 
Here  also  is  the  Frank  Mountain  near  Tekoa, 
which  has  already  been  described  [Bkthui.ia], 
as  well  as  the  Carmel  mentioned  in  the  history 
of  Nabal  (Josh.  xv.  55  ; 1 Sam.  xxv.).  It  would 
seem  that  the  hills  of  southernmost  Judaea  were, 
before  the  conquest  of  the  country  by  the  Hebrews, 
called  ‘the  mountains  of  the  Amovites’  (Deut.  i. 
7, 19,  20,  43,  44).  This  tract  has  only  of  late  been 
explored  by  travellers  on  the  new  route  from  Petra 
to  Hebron,  except  by  Seetzen,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
piesent  century.  To  obtain  a clear  notion  of  it,  we 
should  view  it  from  the  great  Arabah,  beyond  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  whence  it  was 
surveyed  by  the  Israelites,  when  they  contemplated 
entering  the  Promised  Land  from  the  south-east. 
The  two  terraces  which,  towards  the  south  end  of 


459 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


the  Dead  Sea  on  the  east  side  form  the  descent  to 
its  deep  basin  from  the  high-lands  of  Judaea, 
stretch  off  to  the  south-west,  and  the  ascents  from 
the  plain  to  the  first,  and  from  the  plateau  of  the 
first  to  the  top  of  the  second,  which  forms  the 
general  level  of  Judaea,  present  to  him  who  ap- 
proaches from  the  lower  region  of  the  Arabah, 
nigh  mountain  barriers,  which  he  has  to  ascend 
by  gorges  or  passes  of  more  or  less  difficult  ascent. 
After  ascending  from  the  great  valley  the  traveller 
passes  over  a wild  district  covered  with  rocky  hills, 
till  he  comes  to  the  frontier  wall  of  the  first  terrace 
or  step,  and  which  was  probably  pre-eminently  '■the 
mountain  of  the  Amorites.’  There  are  in  this  three 
orincipal  passes  ; the  southernmost  being  that  of 
Nubeh-es-Sufah,  the  Zephath  of  Scripture,  called 
also  Hormah,  which  we  know  to  have  been  the  pass 
by  which  the  Israelites  attempted  to  enter  Palestine 
from  Kadesh,  when  they  were  driven  back  (Dent, 
i.  44;  Num.  xiv.  45;  Judg.  i.  17).  The  top  of  this 
pass  is  given  in  the  table  of  Levels,  on  the  authority 
of  Schubert,  as  14  44  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea. 
A particular  description  of  this  ‘vast  inclined 
plane  of  rock’  may  be  seen  in  Robinson’s  Re- 
searches (ii.  590).  On  reaching  the  top  a journey 
of  three  hours  among  hills  of  chalky  limestone 
brings  the  traveller  to  the  second  great  ascent  to 
the  general  level  of  the  hill  country  of  eastern 
Judaea.  This  second  ascent  is  similar  to  the  first, 
but  not  more  than  half  as  high.  This  statement 
will  convey  some  idea  of  that  difficulty  of  mili- 
tary access  to  the  country  in  this  direction  which 
eventually  induced  the  invading  Hebrews  to  take 
another  and  more  circuitous  route. 

In  the  direct  south  of  Judah  the  approach  is 
marked  by  an  ascent  more  gradual,  over  a suc- 
cession of  less  elevated  plateaus,  from  the  desert 
legions  of  sand  and  rock  to  the  hills  of  Judah. 
Recent  discoveries  in  that  quarter,  chiefly  those  of 
I)r.  Robinson,  have  shown  that  much  of  the  south 
border  country,  which  was  formerly  regarded  as 
desert,  is  in  fact  a variegated  region  affording  good 
pastures,  into  which  the  sheep-masters  of  Judah 
doubtless  sent  their  flocks  of  old.  On  the  moun- 
tains of  Palestine  generally,  see  Raumer’s  Paliis- 
tina , pp.  29-84  ; Winer’s  Real-icorterb .,  art. 
‘ Gebirge  Kitto's  Palest .,  ‘ Phys.  Geog.'  ch.  ii. 

Plains  and  Valleys. — The  two  preceding 
sections  will  have  given  an  idea  of  the  general 
arrangement,  of  the  plains  and  valleys  of  Pales- 
tine; and  it  is  therefore  here  only  necessary  to 
indicate  those  which  are  separately  the  most  im- 
portant or  the  most  distinguished.  These  are 
those  of  Lebanon,  of  the  Jordan,  of  Jericho,  of 
Esdraelon,  and  of  the  Coast. 

The  Plain  of  Lebanon  may  be  described  as 
the  valley  which  is  enclosed  between  the  parallel 
mountain  ranges  of  Libiinus  and  Anti-Libanus. 
Although  the  greater  part  of  it  must  have  been  with- 
in Solomon's  dominion,  it  can  scarcely  be  deemed 
to  belong  to  Palestine  Proper;  but  its  geographical 
and  historical  connection  with  that  country  re- 
quires its  introduction.  This  enclosed  plain  is 
the  Ccele-Syria  of  the  ancients,  and  now  hears 
the  name  of  El-Bekka  (the  Valley).  It  is  about 
ninety  miles  in  length,  from  north  to  south,  by 
eleven  miles  in  breadth,  nearly  equal  throughout, 
except  that  it  widens  at  the  northern  end  anil 
narrows  at  the  southern.  This  plain  is,  pel  haps, 
the  most  rich  and  beautif  il  part  of  Syria.  The 


soil  is  good,  and  the  water  abundant  fron  the 
numerous  mountain  springs  on  each  side ; but 
the  concentration  of  the  sun's  rays  renders  the 
summer  heat  excessive.  These  are  the  sources  of 
that  fertility  for  which  the  valley  has,  in  all  ages, 
been  renowned  ; but  oidy  a small  portion  is  now 
cultivated,  the  rest  being  left  in  pasture  to  the 
Arab  tribes.  (La  Roque,  i.  115-120;  Volney,  i. 
271 ; Burckhardt,  pp.  4-18,  31  ; Addison,  ii,  48- 
50;  Modern  Syrians,  p.  124). 

The  Plain  of  the  Jordan.  By  this  name  we 
understand  the  margin  of  the  lakes,  as  well  as 
the  valley  watered  by  the  river.  Here  the  heat 
is  still  greater  than  in  the  valley  of  Lebanon, 
and.  in  consequence,  palm-trees  and  the  fruits  of 
more  southern  climes  than  Palestine,  will  grow 
freely  wherever  there  are  soil  and  water.  But  the 
latter  is  usually  wanting,  and,  therefore,  except 
on  the  immediate  borders  of  the  river,  of  the  lake 
of  Gennesareth,  and  of  the  lesser  streams,  the 
whole  plain  is  barren  and  desolate:  for  the  in • 
tense  heat  which  causes  exuberant  fertility  wher- 
ever there  is  water,  consumes  the  plain  wherever 
it  is  wanting. 

The  Plain  of  Jericho  is  hut  an  opening  or 
expansion  in  the  plain  of  the  Jordan,  towards  the 
Dead  Sea.  The  whole  expansion  takes  in  the 
plains  of  Moab  on  the  east  side  of  the  river,  and 
the  plains  of  Jericho  on  the  west,  the  breadth 
across  being  from  ten  to  twelve  miles.  In  fact, 
the  plain  of  the  Jordan  is  in  no  other  part  so  wide. 
The  large  plain  of  Jericho  is  partly  desert,  but, 
from  the  abundance  of  water  and  the  heat  of  the 
climate,  it  might  lie  rendered  highly  productive; 
indeed,  the  fertility  of  this  plain  has  been  cele- 
brated in  every  age.  Josephus  describes  it  as  the 
most  fertile  tract  of  Judaea,  and  calls  it.  a ‘ divine 
region.’  He  speaks  also  of  its  beautiful  gardens, 
and  its  groves  of  palm-trees  ; and  his  description 
is  borne  out  by  Scripture,  in  which  Jericho  is 
described  as  ‘ The  city  of  palm-trees’  (Deut. 
xxxiv.  3;  Judg.  i.  16).  This  region  also  pro- 
duced honey,  opobalsam,  the  cypress-tree  (or  ei 
henna),  and  tnyrobalanum,  as  well  as  the  com- 
mon fruits  of  the  earth  in  prolific  abundance 
The  Scripture  adds  the  sycamore-tree  to  the  num- 
ber of  its  products  (Luke  xix.  4).  Of  all  these 
productions  which  so  distinguished  the  climate  of 
Jericho,  and  the  greater  par  t of  which  it  enjoyed 
in Tommon  with  Egypt,  very  few  now  remain. 
Only  one  solitary  palm  tree  lingers  in  the  plain  ; 
the  sycamores  have  altogether  disappeared;  the 
celebrated  opobalsam  is  not  known  ; and  the  my. 
robalanutn  alone  appears  to  thrive,  being  probably 
the  thorny  shrub,  growing  wild  in  the  plain,  tj 
which  the  name  of  zukkum  is  given  by  the  present 
inhabitants — the  modern  ‘ Balsam  of  Jericho’  is 
an  oil,  extracted  from  the  kernels  of  the  green  nut 
which  it  hears.  (Nau,  p.  349  ; Morison,  p.  507  ; 
Surius,  p.  491  ; Marit.i,  ii.  301 ; Robinson,  ii. 
281,  sqq. ; Olin,  ii.  220). 

The  Plain  of  Esdraelon  is  often  mentioned  in 
sacred  history  (Judg.  iv.  13,  15,  16;  v.  19;  2 
Kings  xxiii.  29;  Zech.  xii.  11  ; Judith  i.  8), 
as  the  great  battle-field  of  the  Jewish  and  othei 
nations,  under  the  names  of  the  Valley  of  Megiddo 
and  the  Valley  of  Jezreel;  and  by  Josephus  at 
the  Great  Plain.  The  convenience  of  its  extent 
and  situation  for  military  action  and  display  has, 
from  the  earliest  periods  of  history  down  to  oiu 
own  day,  caused  its  surface',  at  certain  interval^ 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


459 


to  be  moistened  with  the  blood,  and  covered  with 
die  bodies,  of  conflicting  warriors  of  almost  every 
nation  under  heaven.  .This  extensive  plain,  ex- 
clusive of  three  great  arms  which  stretch  eastward 
towards  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  may  be  said 
to  be  in  the  form  of  an  acute  triangle,  having  the 
measure  of  thirteen  or  fourteen  miles  on  the  north, 
aoout,  eighteen  on  the  east,  and  above  twenty 
on  the  south-west.  In  the  western  portion  it 
seems  perfectly  level,  with  a general  declivity 
towards  the  Mediterranean  ; but  in  the  east  it  is 
somewhat  undulated  by  slight  spurs  and  swells 
from  the  roots  of  the  mountains  : from  the  eastern 
side  three  great  valleys  go  off  to  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan.  These  valleys  are  separated  by  the  ridges 
of  Gilboa  and  Little  Hermon,  and  the  space 
which  lies  between  these  two  ridges,  is  the  proper 
valley  of  Jezreel,  which  name  seems  to  be  some- 
times given  to  the  whole  plain  of  Esdraelon. 
The  valley  of  Jezreel  is  a deep  plain,  and  about 
three  mile3  across.  Before  the  verdure  of  spring 
and  early  summer  has  been  parched  up  by  the 
heat  and  drought  of  the  late  summer  and  autumn, 
the  view  of  the  Great  Plain  is,  from  its  fertility 
and  beauty,  very  delightful.  In  June,  yellow 
fields  of  grain,  with  green  patches  of  millet  and 
cotton  interspersed,  chequer  the  landscape  like  a 
carpet.  The  plain  itself  is  almost  without  vil- 
lages, but  there  are  several  on  the  slopes  of  the 
enclosing  hills,  especially  on  the  side  of  Mount 
Carmel.  (Robinson,  ii.  160-162;  Olin,  ii.  376; 
Schubert,  iii.  163;  Clarke,  iv.  356-360;  Jowett, 
ii.  192;  Stephens,  ii.  307;  Elliot,  ii.  360.) 

The  Plain  of  the  Coast  is  that  tract  of  land 
which  extends  along  the  coast,  between  the  sea 
and  the  mountains.  In  some  places,  where  the 
mountains  approach  the  sea,  this  tract  is  inter- 
rupted by  promontories  and  rising  grounds ; but, 
taken  generally,  the  whole  coast  of  Palestine  may 
be  described  as  an  extensive  plain  of  various 
breadth.  Sometimes  it  expands  into  broad  plains, 
at  others  it  is  contracted  into  narrow  valleys. 
With  the  exception  of  some  sandy  tracts  the  soil 
is  throughout  rich,  and  exceedingly  productive. 
The  climate  is  everywhere  very  warm,  and  is 
considered  rather  insalubrious  as  compared  with 
the  upland  country.  It  is  not  mentioned  by  any 
one  collective  name  in  Scripture.  The  part 
fronting  Samaria,  and  between  Mount  Carmel 
and  Jaffa,  near  a rich  pasture-ground,  was  called 
the  Valley  of  Sharon ; and  the  continuation 
southward,  between  Jaffa  and  Gaza,  was  called 
The  Plain , as  distinguished  from  the  hill-country 
of  Judah.  A minute  description  of  this  plain 
throughout  its  extent  is  given  in  Kitto’s  Palestine , 
Phys.  Geog.  p.  c.-cv. 

Rivers. — The  Jordan  is  the  only  river  of  any 
note  in  Palestine,  and  besides  it  there  are  only 
two  or  three  perennial  streams.  The  greater 
number  of  the  streams  which  figure  in  the  history, 
and  find  a place  in  the  maps,  are  merely  torrents 
or  water-courses,  which  carry  off’  the  waters  in 
the  season  of  rain,  or  if  they  have  their  origin  in 
springs,  are  spent,  in  t^e  season  of  drought,  soon 
after  they  quit  their  sources. 

The  Jordan.  We  should  like  to  consider  this 
river  simply  as  the  stream  issuing  from  the  reser- 
voir of  the  lake  Huieh,  but  custom  requires  its 
source  to  be  traced  to  some  one  or  more  of  the 
streams  which  form  that  reservoir.  The  two 


largest  streams,  w/iich  enter  the  lake  on  the 
north,  are  each  formed  by  the  junction  of  two 
others.  It  is  usual  to  refer  the  origin  of  a river 
to  its  remotest  sources ; but  in  this  case  the  larg- 
est and  longest,  being  the  most  easterly  of  the  two 
streams,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  at,  any  time 
identified  with  the  Jordan — that  honour  having  for 
ages  been  ascribed  to  the  western  stream ; this 
river  has  distinct,  sources,  at  Banias  and  at  Tel- 
el-Kadi.  At.  Banias  (anciently  Paneas , from 
the  worship  of  Pan)  a stream  issues  from  a spa- 
cious cavern,  under  a wall  of  rock,  at  the  base  of 
the  Ileish  mountains.  Directly  over  the  cavern, 
and  in  other  parts,  in  the  face  of  the  perpendicu- 
lar rock,  niches  have  been  cut  to  receive  statues. 
Here  Herod  built  a temple  in  honour  of  Augus- 
tus ; and  there  was  a town  somewhat  below, 
traces  of  which  still  remain.  This  is,  undoubt- 
edly, that  place  and  cavern,  at  the  foot  of  a 
mountain,  which  Josephus  describes  as  the  main 
source  of  the  Jordan  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xv.  10.  3; 
De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  21.  3).  Yet,  in  another  place 
{De  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  10.  7),  this  writer  refers  the 
source  to  a remoter  quarter.  He  relates  that  the 
Tetrarch  Philip  cast  some  chafl'  into  the  lake 
Phiala,  and  as  it  came  out  at  the  Paneas  cavern, 
the  lake  was  deemed  the  true  source  of  the  river. 
This  lake  lay  120  stadia  eastward,  and  was  deep 
and  round,  like  a bowl  or  cup — whence  its  name 
Phiala.  Such  a lake,  about  a mile  in  circum- 
ference and  perfectly  round,  was  discovered  by 
Captains  Irby  and  Mangles,  as  they  journeyed 
from  Damascus  to  Banias,  not  more  than  twelve 
miles  from  the  latter  place. 

A second  source  of  the  Jordan,  as  described  by 
ancient  writers,  is  at  the  place  now  called  Tel-el- 
Kadi,  which  is  about  three  miles  to  the  west  of 
the  cavern  at  Banias.  The  Tell  (hill)  is  a small 
elevation  in  the  plain,  with  a flat  space  on  the 
top : here  are  two  springs,  one  of  which  is  very 
large.  The  united  waters  immediately  form  a 
stream,  twelve  or  fifteen  yards  across,  which 
rushes  rapidly  over  a stony  bed  into  a lower  plain. 
After  a course  of  about  four  miles  the  stream 
unites  with  that  from  Banias,  forming  the  reputed 
Jordan,  which  then  continues  its  course  to  the 
lake. 

The  true  Jordan — the  stream  that  quits  this 
lake — passes  rapidly  along  the  narrow  valley, 
and  between  well-shaded  banks,  to  the  lake  of 
Gennesareth : the  distance  is  about  nine  miles. 
Nearly  two  miles  below  the  lake  is  a bridge, 
called  Jacob’s  bridge;  and  here  the  river  is  about 
eighty  feet  wide,  and  four  feet  deep.  It  is  said 
that,  in  passing  through,  the  Jordan  does  not 
mingle  its  waters  with  those  of  the  lake  of  Gen- 
nesareth : the  same  thing  is  reported  of  other  rivers 
that  pass  through  lakes.  It  is  certain  that  the 
course  of  the  river  may  be  traced  through  the 
middle  of  the  lake  by  a line  of  smoother  water. 

On  leaving  the  lake  of  Gennesareth  the  river 
enters  a very  broad  valley,  or  Ghor,  by  which 
name  the  natives  designate  a depressed  tract  or 
plain  between  mountains.  This  name  is  applied 
to  the  plain  of  the  Jordan,  not  only  between  the 
lake  of  Gennesareth  and  the  Dead  Sea,  but  quite 
across  the  Dead  Sea,  and  to  some  distance  beyond. 
The  valley  varies  in  width  from  five  to  ten  miles 
between  the  mountains  on  each  side.  The  river 
does  not  make  its  way  straight  through  the  midst 
of  the  Ghor  ; it  flows  first  near  the  western  hills^ 


4S9 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


then  near  ihe  eastern,  hut  advances  to  the  Dead 
Sea  through  the  middle  of  the  valley.  Within 
this  valley  there  is  a lower  one.  and  within  that, 
in  some  parts,  another  still  lower,  through  which 
the  river  flows;  the  inner  valley  is  about  half  a 
mile  wide,  and  is  generally  green  and  beautiful, 
covered  with  trees  and  hushes,  whereas  the  upper  or 
large  vallev  is,  for  the  most  part,  sandy  or  barren. 
The  distance  between  the  two  lakes,  in  a direct 
line,  is  about  sixty  miles.  In  the  first  part  of  its 
course  the  stream  is  clear,  but  it  becomes  turbid 
as  it  advances  to  the  Dead  Sea,  probably  from 
passing  over  beds  of  sandy  clay.  The  water  is 
very  wholesome,  always  cool,  and  nearly  taste- 
less The  breadth  and  depth  of  the  river  varies 
much  in  different  places  and  at  different  times 
of  the  year.  Dr.  Shaw  calculates  the  average 
breadth  at  thirty  yards,  and  the  depth  at  nine 
feet.  In  the  season  of  flood,  in  April  and  early 


in  May,  the  river  is  full,  and  sometimes  over- 
flows  its  lower  banks,  to  which  fact  there  are 
several  allusions  in  Scripture  (Josh.  iii.  15;  1 
Ohron.  xii.  15;  Jer.  xii.  5:  xlix.  19;  1.  44; 
Ecclus.  xxiv.  26).  (Nan,  p.  272;  Shaw,  ii.  156  ; 
Paxton,  p.  158;  Stephens,  ii.  361-363;  Burck- 
hardt,  pp.  39-43;  314.  315,  514;  Irby  and 
Mangles,  pp.  283-290;  304,326;  Buckingham, 
Arab  Tribes,  pp.  401-106  ; Palestine , i.  90,  93  ; 
Robinson,  ii.  255-267  ; iii.  309-312;  347,  355; 
Olin,  ii.  229-334  ; Schubert,  iii.  80-84  ; Pococke, 
ii.  71  ; Richardson,  ii.  425,  445,  416  ; Lindsav, 
ii.  65,  91  ; Elliot,  i.  71-77.) 

The  Kishon , that  ‘ ancient  river,’  by  whose 
wide  and  rapid  stream  the  hosts  of  Sisera  were 
swept  away  (Judg.  iv.  13;  v.  21),  has  been  no 
ticed  under  the  proper  head  [Kishon]. 

The  Belus , now  called  Nahr  Kardanus,  enters 
the  bay  of  Acre  higher  up  than  the  Kishon.  It 


444.  [Ford  of  the  Jordan-] 


u t 6mall  stream,  fordable  even  at  its  mouth  in 
summer.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  and 
is  chiefly  celebrated  for  the  tradition,  that  the 
accidental  vit refaction  of  its  sands  taught  man 
the  art  jf  making  glass. 

The  other  streams  of  note  enter  ihe  Jordan 
from  the  east;  these  are  the  Jarmuth,  the  Jabbok, 
and  the  Arnon,  of  which  the  last  two  have  been 
noticed  under  iheir  proper  heads.  The  Jarmuth, 
called  also  Sheriat~el-Mandhour , anciently  Ilie- 
romax , joins  the  Jordan  five  miles  below  the  lake 
of  Gennesareth.  Its  source  is  ascribed  to  a small 
lake,  almost  a mile  in  circumference,  at  Mezareib, 
which  is  thirty  miles  east,  of  the  Jordan.  It  is  a 
beautiful  stream,  and  yields  a considerable  body 
of  water  to  the  Jordan  [Arnon  ; Jabbok]. 

Lakes. — The  river  Jordan  in  its  course  forms 
three  remarkable  lakes,  in  the  last  of  which, 
called  the  Dead  .c’ea,  it  is  lost : — 

The  Lake  Merom  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xi.  5,  7), 
or  Samoe.honilis  (Antiq.  v.  5,  1),  now  called 
Suleh,  the  first  of  these,  serves  as  a kind  of  reser- 


voir to  collect  the  waters  which  form  the  Joidan, 
and  again  to  send  them  forth  in  a single  stream. 
In  the  spring,  when  the  waters  are  highest,  the 
lake  is  seven  miles  long  and  three  and  a half 
broad  ; but  in  summer  it  becomes  a mere  marsh. 
In  some  parts  it  is  sown  with  rice,  and  its  reeds 
and  rushes  afford  shelter  to  wild  hogs.  (Pococke, 
ii.  71;  Burckhardt,  p.  316;  Irby  and  Mangles 
p.  2h0 ; Buckingham,  Arab  Tribes,  p.  309 , 
Richardson,  ii.  450,  451  ; Robinson,  ii.  339-342.) 

The  Lake  of  Gennesareth,  called  also  the  Sea 
of  Galilee , and  the  Lake  of  Tiberias.  After 
quitting  the  lake  Merom,  the  river  Jordan  proceeds 
for  about  thirteen  miles  southward,  and  then  enters 
the  great  lake  of  Gennesareth.  This  lake  lies  very 
deep,  among  fruitful  hills  and  mountains,  from 
which,  in  the  rainy  season,  many  rivulets  descend,* 
its  shape  will  be  seen  from  the  map.  Its  extent  has 
been  greatly  over-rated  : Professor  Robinson  con- 
siders that  its  length,  in  a straight  line,  does  not 
exceed  eleven  or  twelve  geographical  miles,  and 
that  its  breadth  is  from  five  to  six  miles.  From 
numerous  indications,  it  is  judged  that  the  beUot 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


461 


tills  lake  was  formed  by  some  ancient  volcanic 
eruption,  which  history  has  not  recorded.  Its 
waters  are  very  clear  and  sweet,  and  contain  vari- 
ou»  Kinds  of  excellent  fish  in  great  abundance. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  several  of  the  apostles 
were  fishermen  of  this  lake,  and  that  it  was  also 
the  scene  of  several  transactions  in  the  life  of 
Christ : it  is  thus  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  very  rarely  in  the  Old,  where 
it  is  called  the  Sea  of  Cinnereth,  of  which  Gen- 
nesareth  is  a corruption.  The  borders  of  the 
lake  were  in  the  time  of  Christ  well  peopled, 
being  covered  with  numerous  towns  and  villages; 
but  how  they  are  almost,  desolate,  and  the  fish  and 
water-fowl  are  but  little  disturbed.  (Robinson, 
iii.  253,  264,  312,  314  ; Schubert,  iii.  235-243; 
Olin,  ii.  406-408  ; D’Arvieux,  ii.  176,  177  ; 
Clarke,  iv.  119-225;  Burckhardt,  p.  332;  Buck- 
ingham, Palest . ch.  xxv. ; Irby  and  Mangles, 
p.  295  ; Jowett,  pp.  172-176;  Hardy,  pp.  237- 
241  ; Elliot,  ii.  342-350.) 

The  Bead  Sea,  called  also  the  Salt  Sea,  the 
Sea  of  Sodom,  and  the  Asphaltic  Lake  ( Lacus 
Asphaltites ),  is  from  its  size  the  most  important, 
and  from  its  history  and  qualities  the  most  re- 
markable, of  all  the  lakes  of  Palestine.  It.  was 
long  assumed  that  this  lake  did  not  exist  before 
vhe  destruction  of  Sodom  and  the  other  ‘cities  of 
the  plain  ' (Gen.  xix.) ; and  that  before  that  time 
the  present  bed  of  the  lake  was  a fertile  plain,  in 
which  these  cities  stood.  It  was  also  concluded 
that  the  river  Jordan  then  flowed  through  this 
plain,  and  afterwards  pursued  its  course,  through 
the  great  valley  of  Arabah,  to  the  eastern  arm  of 
the  Red  Sea.  The  careful  observations  of  Pro- 
fessor Robinson  have  now,  however,  rendered  it 
more  probable  that  a lake  which,  as  now,  received 
Jhe  river  Jordan,  existed  here  before  Sodom  was 
destroyed ; but  that  an  encroachment  of  the 
vaters,  southward,  then  took  place,  overwhelming 
» beautiful  arid  well-watered  plain  which  lay  on 
Hie  southern  border  of  the  lake,  and  on  which 
Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah,  Zeboim,  and  Zoar 
were  situated.  The  promontory,  or  rather  penin- 
sula,* towards  the  south,  which  is  so  distinct  a 
Mature  of  this  lake,  probably  marks  the  original 
boundary  of  the  lake  in  that  direction,  and  shows 
the  point  through  which  the  waters  broke  into  the 
plain  beyond. 

The  Dead  Sea  is  about  thiity-nine  or  forty  geo- 
graphical miles  long  from  north  to  south,  and  nine 
or  ten  miles  wide  from  east  to  west;  and  it  lies 
embedded  very  deep  between  lofty  cliffs  on  the 
western  side,  which  are  about,  1500  feet  high,  and 
mountains  on  the  eastern  shore,  the  highest  ridges 
of  which  are  reckoned  to  be  from  2030  to  2500 
feet  above  the  water.  The  water  of  the  lake  is 
much  sal  ter  than  that  of  the  sea.  From  the  quantity 
of  salt  which  the  water  holds  in  solution  it  is  thick 
and  heavy,  and  no  fish  can  live,  or  marine  plants 
grow  in  it.  The  old  stories  about  the  pestiferous 
qualities  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  its  wafers  are  mere 
fables  or  delusions ; and  actual  appearances  are 
the  natural  av  d obvious  effects  of  the  confined  and 
deep  situation,  *ha  intense  heat,  and  the  uncom- 
mon saltness  cf  the  waters.  Lying  in  its  deep 
cauldron,  surroanded  by  lofty  cliffs  of  naked 
limestone  rock,  exposed  for  seven  or  eight  months 
in  the  year  to  the  unclouded  beams  of  a burning 


sun,  nothing  but  sterility  and  solitude  can  b« 
looked  for  upon  its  shores;  and  nothing  else  is 
actually  found,  except  in  those  parts  where  there 
are  fountains  or  streams  of  fresh  water ; in  all  which 
places  there  is  a fertile  soil  and  abundant  vege- 
tation. Birds  also  abound,  and  they  are  observed 
to  flyover  and  across  the  sea  without  being,  as  old 
stories  tell,  injured  or  killed  by  its  exhalations. 
Professor  Robinson  was  five  days  in  the  vicinity 
of  its  shores,  without  being  able  to  perceive  that 
any  noisome  smell  or  noxious  vapour  arose  from 
the  bosom  of  the  lake.  Its  coasts  have  always 
been  inhabited,  and  are  so  now  ; and  although  the 
inhabitants  suffer  from  fevers  in  summer,  this  is 
not  more  than  might,  be  expected  from  the  concen- 
trated beat,  of  the  climate  in  connection  with  the 
marshes.  The  same  effects  might  be  experienced 
were  there  no  lake,  or  were  the  waters  fresh  instead 
of  salt. 

On  the  borders  of  this  lake  is  found  much 
sulphur,  in  pieces  as  large  as  walnuts,  and  even 
larger.  There  is  also  a black  shining  stone,  which 
will  partly  burn  in  the  fire,  and  which  then  emits 
a bituminous  smell : this  h the  ‘ stink-stone  ’ of 
Burckhardt.  At  Jerusalem  it  is  made  into  rosaries 
and  toys,  of  which  great  quantities  are  sold  to  the 
pilgrims  who  visit  the  sacred  places.  Another 
remarkable  production  found  here,  from  which,  in- 
deed, the  lake  takes  one  of  its  names,  is  asphallum, 
or  bitumen.  Josephus  says,  that  ‘ the  sea  in 
many  places  sends  up  black  masses  of  asphaitum, 
which  float  upon  the  surface,  having  the  size  and 
shape  of  headless  oxen  ’ ( Be  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  8,  4). 
From  recent  information  it  appears  that  large 
masses  are  rarely  found,  and  then  generally  after 
earthquakes.  The  substance  is  doubtless  produced 
from  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  in  which  it  coagulates, 
and  rises  to  the  surface ; or  possibly  the  coagu- 
lation may  have  been  ancient,  and  the  substance 
adheres  to  the  bottom  until  detached  by  earth- 
quakes and  other  convulsions,  when  its  buoyancy 
brings  it  to  the  surface.  We  know  that  ‘ the  vale 
of  Siddim  ’ (Gen.  xiv.  10)  was  anciently  ‘full  of 
slime  pits  ’ or  sources  of  bitumen  ; and  these,  now 
under  the  water,  probably  supply  the  asphaitum 
which  is  found  on  such  occasions  (Nau,  pp.  577, 
578;  Morison,  ch.  xxx. ; Shaw,  ii.  157,  158; 
Hasselquisr,  pp.  130,  131,284;  Irby  and  Mangles, 
pp.  351-356,  346-359  ; Hardy,  pp.  201  204  ; 
Monro,  i.  145-148;  Elliott,  ii.  479  486  ; Wilde, 
ii.  ; Lindsay,  ii.  64-66;  Stephens,  ii.  ch.  15; 
Paxton,  pp.  159-163;  Robinson,  ii.  204-239 
601  -60S ; 661-677  ; Schubert,  iii.  84-92;  Olin, 
ii.  234-245). 

Ci.imatr  and  Seasons. — The  variations  of 
Sunshine  and  rain  which,  with  us,  extend  through- 
out the  year,  are  in  Palestine  confined  chiefly  to 
the  latter  part  of  autumn  and  the  winter.  During 
all  the  rest  of  the  year  the  sky  is  almost  uninter- 
ruptedly cloudless,  and  rain  very  rarely  falls. 

The  autumnal  rains  usually  commence  at  the 
latter  end  of  October,  or  beginning  of  November, 
not  suddenly,  but  by  degrees;  which  gives  oppor- 
tunity to  the  husbandman  to  sow  his  wheat  and 
barley.  The  rains  come  mostly  from  the  west 
(Luke  xii.  54)  and  south-west,  and  continue  for 
two  or  three  days  at  a dme,  falling  chiefly  in  the 
night*,  the  wind  then  changes  to  the  nortn  or  east, 
end  several  days  of  flue  weather  succeed.  During 
the  months  of  November  and  Decemi.fr  the  raiuc 


* See  the  figure  of  the  Dead  Sea  in  ths  map. 


4 62 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


continue  to  fall  heavily;  afterwards  they  return 
at  longer  intervals,  and  are  not  so  heavy  ; but  at 
no  peviod  during  the  winter  do  they  entirely  cease 
to  occur.  Rain  continues  to  fall  more  or  less 
during  the  month  of  March,  but  is  afterwards  very 
rare.  Morning  mists  occur  as  late  as  May,  but 
rain  almost  never.  Rain  in  the  time  of  harvest 
was  as  incomprehensible  to  an  ancient  Jew  as  snow 
in  summer  (Prov.  xxvi.  1 ; 1 Sam.  xii.  17  ; Amos 
iv.  7).  The  ‘ early  ’ and  the  ‘ latter  ’ rains,  for 
which  tire  Jewish  husbandmen  awaite  l with  long- 
ing (Prov.  xvi.  15;  James  v.  7),  seem  to  have 
been  the  first  showers  of  autumn,  which  revived 
the  parched  and  thirsty  soil,  and  prepared  it  for 
the  seed  ; and  the  later  showers  of  spring,  which 
continued  to  refresh  and  forward  the  ripening 
crops  and  the  vernal  products  of  the  fields. 

The  cold  of  winter  is  not  severe,  and  the  ground 
is  never  frozen.  Snow  falls  more  or  less.  In  the 
low-lying  plains  but  little  falls,  and  it  disappears 
early  in  the  day ; in  the  higher  lands,  as  at  Jeru- 
salem, it  often  falls,  chiefly  in  January  and  Fe- 
bruary, to  the  depth  of  a foot  or  more ; but  even 
there  it  does  not  lie  long  on  the  ground.  Thunder 
and  lightning  are  frequent  in  the  winter. 

In  the  plains  and  valleys  the  heat  of  summer  is 
oppressive,  but  not  in  the  more  elevated  tracts,  as 
at  Jerusalem,  except  when  the  south  wind  ( Sirocco ) 
blows  (Luke  xii.  55).  In  such  high  grounds  the 
nights  are  cool,  often  with  heavy  dew.  The  total 
absence  of  rain  in  summer  soon  destroys  the  ver- 
dure of  the  fields,  and  gives  to  the  general  land- 
scape, even  in  the  high  country,  an  aspect  of 
drought  and  barrenness.  No  green  tiling  remains 
but  the  foliage  of  the  scattered  fruit-trees,  and  oc- 
casional vineyards  and  Helds  of  millet.  In  autumn 
the  whole  land  becomes  dry  and  parched  ; the 
cisterns  are  nearly  empty,  and  all  nature,  animate 
and  inanimate,  looks  forward  with  longing  for  the 
return  of  the  rainy  season. 

In  the  lull-country  the  season  of  harvest  is  later 
than  in  the  plains  of  the  Jordan  and  of  the  sea- 
coast.  The  barley-harvest  is  about  a fortnight 
earlier  than  that  of  wheat.  In  the  plain  of  the 
Jordan  the  wheat-harvest  is  early  in  May;  in  the 
plains  of  the  Coast  and  of  Esdraelon  it  is  towards 
the  latter  end  of  that  month  ; and  in  the  hills,  not 
until  June.  The  general  vintage  is  in  September, 
but  the  first  grapes  ripen  in  July,  and  from  that 
time  the  towns  are  well  supplied  with  this  fruit. 

In  the  Biblical  narrative  only  two  seasons  of 
the  year,  summer  and  winter,  are  directly  men- 
tioned. Among  many  Oriental  nations,  as  the 
Hindoos  and  Arabians,  the  year  has  six  seasons. 
The  Talmud  ( Bava  Mezia,  p.  106.  2)  exhibits  a 
similar  arrangement,  which  in  this  case  appears  to 
have  been  founded  on  Gen.  viii.  22,  ‘While  the 
earth  remain^th,  seedtime  and  harvest,  and  cold 
and  heat,  and  summer  and  winter,  shall  not  cease.’ 
This  is  the  only  passage  of  Scripture  which  can  be 
construed  to  have  reference  to  any  such  division  of 
the  seasons,  and  in  this  it  is  not  very  clear.  But 
if  such  a distribution  of  the  seasons  ever  existed, 
the  following  would  seem  to  have  been  its  arrange- 
ment : 

1.  nt  Seedtime ; 15th  October  to  1 5th  De- 
cember. 

2.  nyi  Winter ; 15th  December  to  15th  Fe- 
bruary. # 

3.  ")Vp,  Cold;  15th  February  to  15th  April. 


4.  Harvest ; 15th  April  to  15th  June. 

5.  Dh,  Heat ; 15th  June  to  15th  August. 

6.  Summer ; 15th  August  to  15th  Oo 
tober. 

The  climate  of  Palestine  has  always  been  con- 
sidered healthy,  and  the  inhabitants  have  for  the 
most  part  lived  to  a good  old  age  (Tacit.  Hist 
v.  6).  Jerusalem,  in  particular,  from  its  great 
elevation,  clear  sky  and  invigorating  atmosphere, 
should  be  a healthy  place,  and  so  it  is  generally 
esteemed;  but  the  plague  frequently  appears 
among  its  ill-fed  and  uncleanly  population;  and 
bilious  fevers,  the  result  of  great  and  sudden  vicis- 
situdes of  temperature,  are  more  common  than 
might  be  expected  in  such  a situation.  (Schubert, 
Morgenland,  iii.  106;  Olin,  ii.  333;  Robinson, 
ii.  9.6-100 ; Kalthotf,  Hebr.  Alterthum , pp.  42- 
46  ; Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Feb.  1844,  pp.  221-224.) 

Inhabitants. — Under  this  nead  we  present  the 
reader  with  the  following  observations  of  Dr. 
Olin  ('Travels,  ii.  438,  439): — ‘The  inhabitants 
of  Palestine  are  Arabs ; that  is,  they  speak  the 
Arabic,  though,  with  slight  exceptions,  they  are 
probably  all  descendants  of  the  old  inhabitant? 
of  Syria.  They  are  a fine,  spirited  race  of  men, 
and  have  given  Mohammed  Ali  much  trouble  in 
subduing  them,  and  still  more  in  retaining  them 
in  subjection.  They  are  said  to  be  industrious 
for  Orientals,  and  to  have  the  right  elements  foi 
becoming,  under  better  auspices,  a civilized  in- 
tellectual nation.  I believe,  however,  it  will  be 
found  impracticable  to  raise  any  people  to  a 
respectable  social  and  moral  state  under  a Turkish 
or  Egyptian,  or  any  other  Mohammedan  govern- 
ment. The  inherent  vices  oT  the  religious  system 
enter,  and,  from  their  unavoidable  connections, 
must  enter,  so  deeply  into  the  political  adminis- 
tration, that  any  reform  in  government  or  im- 
provement. in  the  people,  beyond  temporary  alle- 
viations of  evils  too  pressing  to  be  endured, 
cannot  reasonably  be  expected.  The  Turks  and 
Syrians  are  about  at  the  maximum  of  the  civiliza- 
tion possible  to  Mohammedans  of  the  present 
time.  The  mercantile  class  is  said  to  be  little 
respected,  and  generally  to  lack  integrity.  Vera- 
city is  held  very  lightly  by  all  classes.  The 
people  are  commonly  temperate  and  frugal,  which 
may  be  denominated  Oriental  virtues.  Their 
situation,  with  regard  to  the  physical  means  of 
comfort  and  subsistence,  is,  in  many  respects, 
favourable,  and  under  a tolerable  government 
would  be  almost  unequalled.  As  it  is,  tlie  Syrian 
peasant  and  his  family  fare  much  better  than 
the  labouring  classes  of  Europe.  The  mildness 
of  the  climate,  the  abundance  of  land  and  its 
fertility,  with  the  free  and  luxuriant  pasturage 
that  covers  the  mountains  and  the  plains,  render 
it  nearly  impossible  that,  the  peasant  should  not 
be  well  supplied  with  bread,  fruit,  meat,  and 
milk.  The  people  almost  always  appear  well 
clothed.  Their  houses,  too,  though  often  of  f 
slight  construction  and  mean  appearance,  must 
be  pronounced  commodious  when  compared  with 
the  dark,  crowded  apartments  usually  occupied 
by  the  corresponding  classes  in  Europe.  Agri- 
cultural wages  vary  a good  deal  in  different  part* 
of  the  country,  but  I had  reason  to  conclude  that 
the  average  was  not  less  than  three  or  four  piaster* 
per  day.’  With  all  these  advantages  population 


PALESTINE 


PALESTINE. 


403 


'ji  on  the  decline,  arising  from  polygamy,  military 
conscription,  unequal  anil  oppressive  taxation, 
forced  labour,  general  insecurity  of  property,  the 
iiscouragement  of  industry,  and  the  plague. 

Natural  History.— As  all  the  objects  of 
natural  history,  mentioned  in  Scripture,  are  in 
the  present  work  examined  under  the  proper 
heads  with  unexampled  care  and  completeness, 
by  writers  eminent  in  their  several  departments, 
it  is  unnecessary  in  this  place  to  go  over  the 
ground  which  has  been  so  advantageously  pre- 
occupied. All  that  is  here  wanted  is  an  account  of 
the  'actual  natural  history  of  the  country.  In  the 
Physical  Geography,  attached  to  the  present 
writer's  Pictorial  History  of  Palestine,  a large 
body  of  information  on  this  subject,  derived  from 
a great  number  of  travellers,  lias  been  brought 
together.  Since  then  Schubert  bas  published  his 
Reise  in  das  Morgenland , Erlangen,  1840  ; the 
third  volume  of  which  contains  several  pages 
(pp.  104-123)  devoted  to  the  natural  history  of 
Palestine.  Schubert  was  a most  competent  ob- 
server, and  one  of  the  very  few  real  naturalists 
who  have  visited  the  country  since  Hasselquist; 
and  we  consider  that  his  account  forms  the  most 
valuable  contribution  to  the  natural  history  of  the 
country  which  any  single  traveller  has  yet  offered. 
His  observations  on  the  mineralogy  of  Palestine 
have  already  been  introduced,  and  we  shall 
further  enrich  this  article  with  the  remainder  of 
his  important  and  interesting  notice. 

Botany.  In  the  present  work,  that  which  is 
called  Biblical  Botany  is  largely  considered 
under  the  names  of  the  several  products  ; and  for 
the  actual  Flora  of  the  country  the  most,  copious 
account  which  has  hitherto  been  furnished,  will 
be  found  in  the  writer’s  above  named  work  on 
Palestine.  The  ample  materials  there  brought 
together  are  not  however  so  well  suited  to  the  ob- 
ject of  this  sketch,  as  the  short  account  given  by 
Schubert  of  the  principal  products.  He  states 
that  a more  detailed  account  is  reserved  for  an- 
other work,  and  for  the  present  is  content  to  lead 
his  reader  along  one  footpath  of  the  great  garden. 

In  the  Koran  of  Mohammed  God  is  introduced 
as  swearing  by  the  fig  and  by  the  olive,  which  the 
Moslem  commentators  say,  mean  Damascus  and 
Jerusalem.  The  olive  certainly  was,  and  still 
continues  to  be,  the  chief  of  all  the  trees  of  Pales- 
tine, which  seems  to  be  its  natural  home.  ‘ Never,’ 
says  Schubert,  4 have  I any  where  beheld  such 
ancient  olive-trees  as  here.  But  the  plantations 
might  be  more  extensive,  and  the  produce  more 
profitable,  were  they  tended  by  such  careful  and 
diligent  hands  as  those  of  Provence.  Excellent 
oil  is  obtained  from  the  fruit.  But  although 
the  pre-eminence  among  the  trees  of  Palestine 
must  be  assigned  to  the  oli xe,  fig-trees  also  occur 
in  great  numbers,  and  the  plantations  sometimes 
cover  large  tracts  which  the  eye  can  scarcely 
unbrace.  This  sight  is  most  common  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Jabrut,  in  the  hills  between 
Bir  and  Sinjil.  The  fruit  has  a peculiarly 
pleasant  flavour,  and  an  aromatic  sweetness,  but 
is  generally  smaller  than  that  of  Smyrna.  As 
to  the  vine,  which  is  now  only  found,  in  some 
districts  of  Palestine,  it  is  not  surpassed  by  any 
an  earth  for  the  strength  of  its  juice,  and: — at 
least  in  the  southern  mountains — for  the  size  and 
abundance  of  the  grapes.  In  the  neighbourhood 


of  Lebanon  I drank  wine,  which  seemed  to  m* 
unequalled  by  any  I hail  ever  tasted  for  strength 
and  flavour.  As  the  Moslems  do  not  openly 
drink  wine,  though  they  are  beginning  to  relish 
the  forbidden  enjoyment,  they  avail  themselves  of 
such  of  the  abundance  of  grapes  which  the  coun- 
try yields,  as  they  do  not  eat,  or  sell  to  Christians 
and  Jews,  who  press  them  for  wine,  in  preparing 
raisins,  but  more  in  making  an  unrivalled  syrup 
called  dibs,  which  is  exported  chiefly  to  Egypt. 
From  the  large  quantities  exported  the  great 
abundance  of  the  produce  is  apparent;  and  Dr. 
Shaw  states  that,  in  his  time  not  less  than  2000 
cwts.  were  annually  exported  from  Hebron  alone. 
In  the  environs  of  Jerusalem  and  Hebron  the 
grapes  are  ripe,  and  are  gathered  in  September ; 
only  in  Lebanon  do  the  people  trouble  them- 
selves to  cherish  and  preserve  the  wine ; but 
generally  drink  the  produce  of  the  year  from  one 
vintage  to  another. 

The  first  tree  whose  blossoms  appear  prior- to  the 
period  of  the  latter  rains,  and  open  in  the  very  deep 
valleys  before  the  cold  days  of  February  set  in,  is 
the  Luz  or  almond-tree.  We  found  the  environs 
of  Hebron,  in  March,  adorned  with  fruit-trees  in 
blossom,  among  which  were  the  apricot,  the 
apple,  and  the  pear ; in  April  the  purple  of  the 
pomegranate  flowers  combines  with  the  white  of 
the  myrtle  blossoms ; and  at  the  same  period  the 
roses  of  the  country,  and  the  variegated  ladanes 
(Cistus);  the  zukkim-tree  (Elseagnus  angusti- 
folius),  the  storax-tree,  whose  flowers  resemble  those 
of  theGerman  jasmine  (Philadelplms  coronarius), 
emit  their  fragrant  odours.* 

Together  with  the  victorious  strength  of  the 
country,  the  palm-tree,  the  symbol  of  victory,  has 
been  removed  from  its  place;  and  of  the  famous 
palm  groves  of  Jericho  very  few  traces  now  re- 
main. But  how  well  this  excellent  tree  thrives 
in  the  low-lands,  we  witnessed  at  Acre,  and  in  the 
environs  of  Caipha,  under  Carmel. 

The  tall  cypress  only  exists  in  Palestine,  as 
cultivated  by  man,  in  gardens,  and  in  cemeteries, 
and  other  open  places  of  towns.  But  as  the  spon- 
taneous growth  of  the  country,  we  find  upon  the 
heights  and  swelling  hills  the  azarole  (Cratae- 
gus azarolus),  the  walnut-tree,  the  strawberry- 
tree,  the  laurel-nee,  the  laurestinus,  species  of 
the  pistachio  and  terebinth  trees,  of  evergreen  oaks, 
and  of  the  rhamnus  of  the  size  of  trees  and  shrubs, 
the  cedrine  juniper-tree,  and  some  sorts  of  thy- 
melaeus  ; while  on  the  formerly  wooded  heights 
various  kinds  of  pine-trees,  large  and  small,  still 
maintain  their  ground.  The  sycamore,  the  carob 
trees,  and  the  opuntia  fig  trees,  are  only  found  us 
objects  of  cultivation  in  or  near  towns;  and 
orchards  of  orange  and  lemon  trees  occur  chiefly 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Nabulus  (Sbechem). 

The  various  kinds  of  cqrn  grow  spontaneously 
in  great  plenty  in  many  districts,  cliiefly  in  the 
plains  of  Jezreel  and  the  heights  of  Galilee,  being 
the  wild  progeny  of  formerly  cultivated  fields,  and 
bearing  testimony  by  their  presence  to  the  fitness  of 
the  soil  for  the  production  of  grain.  In  addition 
to  wheat  and  barley,  among  this  wild  growth,  the 
common  rye  was  often  seen.  The  present  course 


* A very  full  account  of  the  state  of  the  vege- 
table products  of  Palestine,  from  month  to  month, 
throughout  the  year,  is  given  in  the  Physical 
Geography  of  Palestine  above  referred  to. 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


461 


of  agriculture,  which  is  hut  carelessly  practised, 
comprises  nearly  the  same  kinds  of  grain  which 
are  grown  in  Egypt.  Fields  are  seen  covered 
with  summer  dhurah  ( dhurah  gaydi ),  the  com- 
mon dhurah  ( dhurah  sayfeh ),  anil  the  autumnal 
dhurah  ( dhurah  dimiri ),  all  of  which  are  varie- 
ties of  the  Hole  us  sonrhum.  Maize  ( knmh ),  spelt, 
and  barley  ( schayir ),  thrive  everywhere;  and 
r>ce  ( aruz ) is  produced  on  the  Upper  Jordan  and 
the  marshy  borders  of  the  lake  Meroin.  Upon  the 
Jordan,  near  Jacob's  bridge,  may  be  seen  fine 
tall  specimens  of  the  papyrus  reed.  Of  pulse  the 
inhabitants  grow  the  hommos  or  chick  pea(Cicer 
arietanum),  the  fool  or  Egyptian  bean  (Vicia 
faba),  the  gishrungayga  (Phase-Jus  Mungo),  the 
gilban  (Lathyrus  sativus),  together  with  the  ads 
or  lentil,  and  the  bisdlch  or  peas  (Pisutn  arvense). 
Of  esculent  vegetables,  the  produce  of  the  various 
species  of  hibiscus  are  much  liked  and  cultivated, 
particularly  the  batnia  towileh  (Hibiscus  escu- 
ientus),  the  bamia  beledi,  or  wayka  (Hibiscus 
prajeox).  In  some  places  the  Christian  inha- 
bitants or  Franks  are  endeavouring  to  introduce 
the  potato  which  the  natives  call  kolkas  Franschi. 
In  the  garden  of  the  monasteries  the  kharschuf 
or  artichoke  is  very  common,  as  is  also  the  khus 
or  salad  : in  most,  districts,  as  about  Nabulus 
(Sbechem)  the  water-melon  ( batik/i ) and  cucum- 
ber ( khiar ) are  common.  Hemp  (bust)  is  more 
commonly  grown  in  Palestine  than  flax  ( kettan ) ; 
and  in  favourable  localities  cotton  ( kotn ) is  cul- 
tivated, and  also  madder  ( fuah , ltubia  tincto- 
rum)  for  dyeing. 

* My  report,"  pursues  Schubert,  ‘ would  become 
a volume  were  I to  enumerate  the  plants  and 
flowers  which  the  season  exhibited  to  our  view; 
for  whoever  follows  the  comparatively  short  course 
of  the  Jordan  from  the  Dead  Sea  northward, 
along  the  borders  of  the  lakes  of  Gennesareth  and 
Merom,  and  onward  to  the  utmost,  springs  iit 
Anti-Libanus,  traverses  in  a few  days  climates, 
zones,  and  observes  varieties  of  plants  which  are  in 
other  countries  separated  by  hundreds  of  miles. 
The  blood-immortefl^  (Gnaphilium  sanguineum) 
is  a small  plant  which  the  pilgrims  commonly 
gather  in  the  Mount  of  Olives ; while  from  Carmel 
und  Lebanon  they  pluck  the  great.  Oriental  im- 
mortelle (Gnaph.  orientale)  as  a memorial  of  their 
pilgrimage.  The  fruits  of  the  mandrake  of  Pa- 
lestine (Mandragora  autumnalis)  are  sought  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Oriental 
Christians,  as  well  as  by  the  Moslems,  because 
they  are  considered  to  possess  peculiar  powers  : 
but  the  plant,  is  in  that  quarter  very  rare,  though 
of  frequent  occurrence  on  the  south  of  Hebron, 
and  in  Mounts  Tabor  and  Carmel.  Whoever 
desires  views  really  extensive  and  beautiful  of 
lilies,  tulips,  hyacinths,  and  narcissuses,  must  in 
the  spring  season  visit  the  districts  through  which 
we  passed ; where  also  the  garlic  assumes  a size 
and  beauty  which  might  render  it  worthy  of  be- 
coming an  ornamental  plant  in  our  gardens.’ 

Animai.s. — Herds  of  black  cattle  are  now  but 
rarely  seen  in  Palestine.  The  ox  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Jerusalem  is  small  and  unsightly, 
and  beef  or  veal  is  but  rarely  eaten.  But  on 
the  Upper  Jordan,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  Tabor 
and  Nazareth,  and  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  on 
the  way  from  Jacob’s  bridge  to  Damascus,  the  ox 
thrives  better  and  is  more  frequently  seen.  The 


buffalo  thrives  upon  the  coast,  and  is  there  equal 
in  size  and  strength'  to  the  buffalo  of  Egypt. 
The  rearing  of  black  cattle  seems  to  have  been 
checked  by  the  exactions  of  the  government,  from 
whose  notice  wealth,  in  the  shape  of  animals  so 
bulky,  could  not  be  easily  withdrawn  or  con- 
cealed. The  absence  of  fences  also  renders  it 
difficult  to  put  them  to  graze,  as  they  could  hardly 
be  prevented  from  trespassing  in  the  corn-fields, 
ami  of  treading  down  ten  times  more  than  they 
would  eat..  King  Solomon  required  daily  for  his 
table  ten  fattened  and  twenty  grass-fed  oxen  (1 
Kings  iv.  23);  but  were  another  Solomon  now  to 
ascend  the  throne  of  Israel,  he  would  have  to  be 
contented  with  the  flesh  of  sheep  and  goats.  These 
animals  are  still  seen  in  great,  numbers  in  all 
parts  of  the  country  : their  flesh  and  milk  serve 
for  daily  food,  and  their  wool  and  hair  for 
clothing.  The  common  sort  of  sheep  in  Palestine 
manifest  the  tendency  to  form  a fat  and  largo 
tail.  The  long-eared  Syrian  goat  is  furnished 
with  hair  of  considerable  fineness,  but  seemingly 
not  so  fine  as  that  of  the  same  species  of  goat  in 
Asia  Minor.  Of  animals  of  the  deer  kind, 
Schubert  saw  only  the  female  of  the  fallow-deer, 
and  this  was  in  the  same  district  in  which  Hassel- 
quist  also  met  with  fallow-deer,  namely,  on 
Mount  Tabor.  On  another  occasion  he  thought 
that  he  discovered  animals  of  (he  deer  kind  upon 
the  mountain  top ; but,  on  a closer  view,  deemed 
it  more  probable  that  they  were  the  native  brown 
antelojte  (A.  hinnuleus );  for  of  the  antelopes 
several  species  are  met  with  in  the  country. 

Camels  are  not.  reared  in  Palestine  to  any  ex- 
tent worth  mentioning,  at  least  on  the  west  of 
the  Jordan;  but  several  herds  of  these  animals 
were  noticed  near  Baalbec,  in  the  great  valley  be- 
tween Libanus  and  Anti-Li  bairns.  Palestine 

cannot  boast  of  its  native  breed  of  horses,  although 
fine  animals  of  beautiful  shape,  and  apparently 
of  high  Arabian  race,  are  not.  unfrequently  seen. 
The  ass  of  the  country  scarcely  lakes  higher  rela- 
tive rank  than  the  horse;  asses  and  mules  are 
still,  however,  much  used  for  riding,  as  they 
afford  a means  of  locomotion  well  suited  to  the 
difficult  mountain  paths  of  the  country.  Boars 
(khanzie)  are  very  often  observed  upon  Mount 
Tabor  and.  the  Lesser  Hermon,  as  well  as  on  the 
woody  slopes  of  Mount  Carmel  ; and  from  these 
habitats  they  often  descend  into  the  plains  of 
Acre  and  Esdraelon.  Of  the  waber  or  Hyrax 
Syriacus,  to  which,  in  Arabia  Petrsea,  so  much 
attention  has  lately  been  drawn,  no  trace  has 
been  found  in  Palestine  or  Syria,  although 
it  has  been  named  from  the  latter  country. 
Onr  traveller  was  informed  by  the  guides 
who  conducted  his  party  from  Jerusalem  to 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  afterwards  to  Damascus,  to 
the  neighbourhood  of  which  they  belonged,  that 
the  lion  was  among  the  most  dangerous  animals 
of  the  country ; ‘ but,’  he  adds,  ‘ I could  not 
credit  them,  on  account  of  their  general  ignorance, 
which  they  evinced  by  naming  several  animals 
after  which  I inquired  by  the  general  term  hywan, 
i.  e.  “animal or  at  best,  wakcsch , *'.  e.  “ wild- 
animal.”  If  the  lion  should  really  have  been  in 
modern  times  seen  in  Palestine,  it  can  scarcely 
have  been  indigenous,  but  must  in  all  probability 
have  wandered  from  the  more  eastern  region  to- 
wards the  Euphrates,  where  it  certainly  exists.’ 
Among  indigenous  animals  of  the  genus  felis , we 


PALESTINE. 


PALESTINE. 


465 


may  however  name  the  common  panther  (nimr) 
which  is  found  among  the  mountains  of  central 
Palestine ; and  in  the  genus  canis  there  is  the 
Bmall  Abul  Hhosseyn,  or  Canis  famelicus,  and  a 
kind  of  large  fox  (Canis  Syriacus),  which  our 
traveller  did  not  himself  see,  but  supposed  to  be 
denoted  l y the  word  taleb.  In  addition  to  these 
is  the  ja^  ^al  ( dibb ),  which  is  very  injurious  to  the 
flocks.  The  hyaena  (zabue)  is  found  chiefly  in  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan,  and  in  the  mountains  around 
the  lake  of  Tiberias,  but  is  also  occasionally  seen  in 
other  districts  of  Palestine.  Of  bears  our  traveller 
&aw  none,  but  he  met  with  hides  cut  up  and 
hanging  from  the  saddles  of  some  mules,  to  whose 
aiders  they  furnished  a comfortable  seat.  The 
animals  to  which  the  hides  belonged  were  said  to 
have  been  killed  in  the  Anti-Libanus,  not  far  from 
Damascus.  The  hides  had  more  resemblance  to 
vhat  of  the  common  brown  bear  than  to  that  of 
the  bear  described  by  Ehrenberg  under  the  name 
©f  Ursus  Syriacus.  A hedgehog  was  procured 
near  Bethlehem,  which  was  found  to  resemble  the 
common  European  animal,  and  not  to  be  the 
long-eared  Egyptian  species.  The  native  arneb 
or  hare  is  the  same  as  the  Arabian.  The  porcu- 
pine is  frequently  found  in  the  clefts  of  the  rocks 
in  Palestine,  and  is  called  kanfeds , though  the 
common  people  also  give  it  the  same  name  with 
the  hedgehog. 

Among  the  larger  birds  of  prey  Schubert  often 
saw  the  common  cathartes  or  vulture  (C.  perc- 
nopterus),  and  the  hedy  or  kite.  Thenutive  wild 
dove,  called  qimri,  differs  not  perceptibly  from 
our  own  species,  which  is  also  the  case  with  the 
shrikes,  crows,  rollers,  and  other  species  found  in 
Palestine. 

Schubert  had  no  opportunity  of  ascertaining 
whether  the  large  animal  called  by  the  Arabs 
temsah, . and  said  to  be  found  in  a river  or 
small  lake  to  the  west  of  Shechem,  really  was 
the  crocodile,  as  the  name  implies.  The  tortoise, 
observed  near  Bethlehem  and  Nazareth,  was  the 
Testudo  Grseca,  which  is  found  also  in  Italy  and 
Greece.  Serpents  are  rare,  and  none  of  those 
which  have  been  observed  are  poisonous.  Our 
traveller  noticed  them  only  in  the  environs  of 
Nazareth,  and  on  the  route  from  Cana  to  the  lake 
of  Tiberias.  For  observations  on  the  fresh-water 
snakes  of  Palestine,  we  are  referred  for  informa- 
\ion  to  an  intended  work  of  Schubert’s  fellow- 
traveller,  Dr.  Roth,  which  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  yet  published.  Near  Beirut  was  noticed 
the  Janthina  fragilis,  which  yields  the  common 
purple  dye.  Among  the  insects  the  bee  is  the 
most  conspicuous.  Mosquitoes  are  somewhat 
troublesome,  but  not  at  the  time  of  the  year  in 
which  Schubert  travelled.  Beetles  are  abundant, 
and  of  various  species,  which  our  traveller  does 
not  enumerate,  but  which  are  figured  and  de- 
scribed in  Ehrenberg ’s  Symbolic  Physicee. 

Of  the  numerous  works  on  Palestine  it  is 
impossible  to  offer  a complete  list  in  this  place. 
A copious  list  of  such  works  was  given  in  the 
Pictorial  History  of  Palestine  ; and  since  then 
one,  not  materially  different,  has  also  been  pre- 
sented in  Dr.  Robinson’s  Biblical  Researches. 
A very  excellent  list  is  also  prefixed  to  Raumer’s 
Paldstina.  Nearly  all  the  works  in  these  lists 
are  in  the  writer's  possession,  or  have  been  ex- 
amined by  him  ; but  his  object  in  drawing  up  the 

l?'v-*ig  summary  is  simply  to  supply  the  titles 

vo h,  n,  31 


of  the  works  which,  for  brevity,  are  referred  to  in 
the  preceding  article  only  by  the  names  of  t he 
writers,  and  to  indicate  such  others  as  appear  to 
him  the  most,  trustworthy  and  useful.  Works 
merely  curious  or  entertaining  are  purposely 
omitted.  We  have  adopted  a chronological  ar- 
rangement. The  dates  are  those  of  publication ; 
but  the  order  is  that  of  travel  : — 

Eusebi*  et  Hieronymii  Onomasticon  Locorum 
et  Urbiam , 1631, 1639;  Itinerarium  B.  An  ton  ini 
Martyris,  1610  ; Adamnanus,  De  Locis  Sanctis , 
1619;  Benjamin  Tudelensis,  Itinerarium , 1633, 
Beilin,  1840  ; Will.  Tyrensis,  Historia  Belli 
Sacri,  1519;  Jacobi  de  Vitriaco,  Historia  Hie- 
rosolymitana,  1597;  Brocardi  Locorum  Terras 
Sanctar  Description  1513  ; Abulfedae  Tabula 
Syrice  (Arab,  and  Latin),  1766 ; Sachem,  Von 
dem  Gelohten  Land , 1477  ; Gumpenberg,  Meer - 
farth  In  das  Heilige  Land,  1561  ; Tucher, 
Reyssbeschreibung , 1482  ; Breydenbach,  Itiner. 
Hieros.  ac  in  T.  Sanctum,  1486;  Fabri,  Eigent- 
liche  Beschreybung  der  Hin.  und  Wiederfarih  zu 
dem  H.  Land,  1556  ; La  Huen,  La  Grant  Voyage 
de  Hierusalem,  1516;  Baumgarten,  Peregrinatio, 
1594;  Belon,  Observations,  1553;  Furer,  Itine- 
rarium, 1620;  Rauwolf,  Aigenliche  Beischrei- 
bung,  fyc.,  1581,  translated  in  Ray's  Collection , 
1696;  Radzivil,  J erosolymitana  Peregrinatio, 
1601 ; Zuallart,  II  Devotissimo  Fiaggio  di  Gieru- 
salemme , 1587  ; Cotovicus,  Itiner ar.  Ilierosoly - 
mitanum  et  Syria  cum,  1619  ; Rochetta,  Peregri- 
natione  di  Terra  Santa,  1630  ; Sandys’  Travailes , 
1615  ; Qnaresmius,  Historica,  theologica,  et 
moralis  Terrce  Sanctce  Elucidatio , 1639 ; Cas- 
tillo, El  Devoto  Peregrino  y Viage  de  Tierra 
Santa,  1656:  Surius,  Le  Pieux  Pelerin,  1666; 
Monconys,  Journal  des  Voyages , t$c , 1665  ; 
Doubdan,  Le  Voyage  de  la  Terre  Sainte,  1657; 
Thevenot,  Voyage  au  Levant,  1665  ; D'Arvieux, 
Voyage  dans  la  Palestine,  1717;  Von  Troilo, 
Orientalische  Reiscbeschreibung , 1676 ; De  Bruyn 
(Le  Brun),  Reyzen  door  den  Levant,  1699; 
Nau,  Voyage  Nouveau  de  la  Terre  Sainte,  1679  ; 
De  la  Roque,  Voyage  de  Syrie  et  du  Mont 
Leban,  1722;  Maundrell,  Journey  from  Aleppo 
to  Jerusalem , 1697 ; Morison,  Relation  d'un 
Voyage  au  Mont  Sinai  et  a Jerusalem,  1704; 
Van  Egmond  en  Heyman,  Reizen  door  een  Ge- 
deelte  van  Europa . . . Syria,  §c.,  1757,  1758 — 
English,  1759;  Shaw,  Travels  in  Barbary  and  the 
Levant , 1738  ; Korten,  Reise  nach  dem  Gelobten 
Lande,  1741  ; Pococke,  Description  of  the 
East,  1743-1748;  Hasselquist,  Iter  Palcestinum, 
1757 — English,  1766;  Schulz,  Leitungen,  Hi c., 
1771-75  ; Mariti,  Viaggiper  le  Soria  e Palestine , 
1769-71  ; Niebuhr,  Beschreibung  von  Arabien, 
1773;  Reisbeschreibung  nach  Arabien,  1774-78 
— the  volume  relating  to  the  Holy  Land  was  not 
published  till  1837  ; Volney,  Voyage  en  Syrie , 
1787;  Clarke,  Travels,  1811  ; Ali  Bey,  Travels , 
1816;  Seetzen  — his  valuable  observations  are  scat- 
tered through  many  volumes  of  Zach’s  Monatliche 
Correspond enz ; a small  portion  was  translated 
and  published  in  1812  by  the  ‘Palestine  Society,’ 
under  the  title  of  A Brief  Account  of  the  Coun- 
tries adjoining  the  Lake  of  Tiberias,  the  Jordan, 
and  the  Dead  Sea.  Burckhardt,  Travels  in  Syria 
and  the  Holy  Land,  1822;  Turner,  Journal  of 
a Tour  in  the  Levant,  1820;  Richter,  H all- 
fa  nr  ten  im  Morgenlande,  1822 ; Buckingham, 
Travels  in  Palestine  1821;  Travels  among  the 


466  PAMPHYLIA. 

Arab  Tribes , 1825  ; Richardson,  Travels  along 
the  Mediterranean , 1822;  Joliffe,  Letters  from 
Palestine,  1819;  Irby  and  Mangles,  Travels  in 
Egypt,  Nubia,  Syria,  Sfc.,  1822;  Jowett,  Chris- 
tian Researches  in  Syria  and  the  Holy  Land, 
1 825 ; Riippell,  Reisen  in  Nuhien,  Kordofan, 
und  den  Petraischen  Arabien,  1829  ; Hogg,  Visit 
to  Alexandria,  Daniascus,  and  Jerusalem,  1825; 
Hardy,  Notices  of  the  Holy  Land,  18^;  Monro, 
A Summer  Ramble  in  Syria,  1835  ; Stephens, 
Incidents  of  Travel,  1837;  Elliot,  Travels, 
1838:  Wilde,  Narrative  of  a Voyage , 1840  ; 
Paxton,  Letters  on  Palestine  and  Egypt,  1 839 ; 
Lord  Lindsay,  Letters  on  Egypt,  Edom,  and  the 
Holy  Land , 1839;  Schubert,  Reise  nach  dem 
Morgenlande,  1838-40  ; Robinson,  Biblical  Re- 
searches in  Palestine,  1841 ; Bowring,  Report 
on  the  Commercial  Statistics  of  Syria,  1 840 ; 
Olin,  Travels  in  the  East,  1843  ; Narrative  of 
a Mission  of  Inquiry  to  the  Jews  from  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  1842 : Herschell,  Visit  to 
My  Father-Land,  1844;  Eothen , 1844;  Modern 
Syrians,  1844  ; Russegger,  Reisen  in  Europa, 
Asien,  und  Afrika,  1844,  in  course  of  publication. 

Extensive  as  is  the  above  list,  it  is  but  a selec- 
tion from  books  numerous  enough  to  fill  a library. 
Besides  these,  there  are  numerous  works  on  the 
geography  of  Palestine,  of  which  the  following 
are  the  principal : — Adrichomius,  Thcatrum 
Terrce  Sanctce,  1590 ; Bochart,  Geographia 
Sacra,  1646;  Sanson,  Geographia  Sacra,  1665; 
Fuller,  Pisgah  Sight  of  Palestine,  1650 ; Dapper, 
Syrie  en  Palastyn  of  Heilige  Lant,  1677 ; 
Wells,  Historical  Geography  of  the  New  Test., 
1712;  Historical  Geography  of  the  Old  Test, 
1712  ; Reland,  Palcestina  ex  Monumentis  vete- 
ribus  Illustrata,  1714;  Bachiene,  Heilige  Geo- 
graphic, 1758-68;  Busching’s  Erdbeschreibung, 
1785;  Hamelsveldf,  Biblische  Geographic,  1793; 
Mannert,  Geographic  der  Griesclien  und  Romer, 
1799  (Arabia,  Palestine,  and  Syria,  in  vol.  vi. 
pt.  1);  Ritter,  Die  Erdekunde,  1818  (Western 
Asia  in  vol.  ii.)  ; Rosenmiiller,  Biblische  Geo- 
graphic, 1823-1828;  Raumer,  Paldstina,  1835 
and  1838;  Supplement,  1843;  Kitto's  Pictorial 
History  and  Physical  Geography  of  Palestine, 
1841. 

PALM.  [Weights  and  Measures  ] 

PALM-TREE.  [Tamar.] 

PALSY.  [Diseases.] 

PAMPHYLIA  (nap<pv\ia),  a province  in  the 
southern  part  of  Asia  Minor,  having  the  Medi- 
terranean on  the  south,  Cilicia  on  the  east,  Pisidia 
on  the  north,  and  Lycia  on  the  west.  It  was 
nearly  opposite  the  island  of  Cyprus;  and  the  sea 
between  the  coast  and  the  island  is  called  in  Acts 
the  sea  of  Pamphylia.  The  chief  cities  of  this 
province  were  Perga  and  Attalia.  Christianity 
was  probably  first  preached  in  this  country  by 
some  of  the  Jewish  proselytes  who  were  converted 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  10,  15,  38).  It 
was  afterwards  visited  by  Paul  and  Barnabas 
(Acts  xiii.  13). 

PANNAG  (i|S)  occurs  only  once  in  Scrip- 
ture, but  so  much  uncertainty  exists  respecting 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  that  in  many  transla- 
tions, as,  for  instance,  in  the  Authorized  English 
Version,  the  original  is  retained.  Thus  in  the 
account  of  the  commerce  of  Tyre,  it  is  stated  in 
V.zek.  xxvii.  17,  ‘ Judah  and  tire  laud  of  Israel, 


pannagT. 

they  were  thy  merchants ; trey  traded  in  thy 
markets  wheat  of  Minnith,  and  Pannag,  and  oil, 
and  honey,  and  balm'  (tzcri,  translated  also 
rosin  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible).  From 
the  context  it  is  evident  that  wheat,  oil,  and 
honey,  were  conveyed  by  Judah  and  Israel,  that 
is,  the  products  of  their  country  as  an  agricultural 
people,  as  articles  of  traffic  to  the  merchants  and 
manufacturers  of  Tyre,  who,  it  is  certain,  must, 
from  their  insular  position,  have  obtained  theii 
chief  articles  of  diet  from  the  neighbouring  land 
of  Syria.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  pannag 
and  tzeri,  whatever  they  may  have  been,  were 
the  produce  of  Palestine,  or  at  least  of  Syria. 
Some  have  considered  pannag  to  indicate  balsam, 
others  cassia,  ami  some  again  sweetmeats.  1 Chal- 
daeus  kolija  Grseca  voce,  quam  interpretatur 
Hesychius  rpocyaXia,  bellaria  ex  melle.’  Some 
of  the  Rabbins  have  also  thought  that  it  was  a 
district  of  Judaea,  which,  like  Minnith,  yielded 
the  best  wheat ; others,  as  Junius  and  Tremellius, 
from  the  similarity  in  the  name,  have  thought  it 
might  be  the  original  of  the  name  of  Phoenicia. 
But  Hiller  (Hierophytica,  ii.  p.  51)  says,  ‘ Nullus 
horum,  ut  opinor,  recte  divinavit.  Nec  enim  est 
casia,  narn  casiae  suum  nomen  est;  neque  bal- 
samum,  quia  in  hortis  regiis  plantatus  balsami 
frutex,  nihil  plebi  ad  mercatum  reliquerat,  et 
generali  nomine  opobalsamum  notatum ; 

nec  bellaria  ex  melle,  merces  vulgatissima,  quam 
Tyrii  et  Graeci  mercatores  domi  parare  poterant ; 
nec  denique  Phoeniciam  Pannag  significaverit, 
quod  insciti  Ezechiel  scriberet  Israelitas  triticum 
Phoenicia  in  Phoeniciam  ad  nundinas  soil.  Ty- 
rias  attulisse.’  He,  however,  continues,  4 Pannag, 
nisi  magnopere  fallor,  est  Panax  vel  Panaces,  vox 
Graecae  vel  Syriacae  originis  ad  Graecam  etymo- 
logiam  aptata,  quo  videatur  ipso  nomine  omnium 
morborum  remedia  promittere.’  The  name  panax 
occurs  as  early  as  the  time  of  Theophrastus  (ix.  10), 
and  several  kinds  are  described  by  him,  as  well 
as  by  Dioscorides ; one  kind  is  called  especially 
Syrian  panax.  Of  one  of  these  plants,  now  sup- 
posed to  be  species  of  Ferula  laserpitium  of  Hera- 
cleum,  tire  juice  was  called  opopanax.  This  was  in 
great  repute  among  the  ancients,  and  still  holds 
its  place  as  a medicine,  though  not.  possessed  of  any 
remarkable  properties ; but  its  name  is  the  origin  of 
our  panacea,  from  tt avaicela, 4 an  universal  remedy.’ 
It  is  curious,  however,  that  the  plant  yielding  the 
opopanax  of  commerce  is  still  unknown,  as  well 
as  the  exact  locality  where  it  is  produced,  whether 
in  Syria,  or  in  some  part  of  the  Persian  empire. 
By  the  Arabs  it  is  called  jmoasheer.  Lady 
Calcott  has  supposed  the  panax  of  the  ancients  to 
refer  to  Panax  quinquefolium , or  ginsing  of  the 
Chinese,  which  they  also  suppose  to  be  a uni- 
versal remedy,  though  not.  possessed  of  any  active 
properties.  But  filename  panax  was  not  applied 
to  this  plant  until  the  time  of  Linnaeus,  and  there 
is  no  proof,  nor  indeed  is  it  probable,  that  it 
found  i!s  way  from  China  at  any  such  early 
period  : at  all  events  the  Israelites  were  not  likely 
to  convey  it  to  Tyre.  The  Syrian  version,  however, 
translates  pannag  by  the  word  dokhon , which,  we 
have  already  seen  (vol.  i.  p.  570),  signifies  ‘ millet,’ 
or  Panicum  miliaceum.  Bishop  Newcome,  there- 
fore, translates  pannag  by  the  word  panis,  signi- 
fying the  species  of  millet  which  was  employed  by 
the  ancients  as  an  article  of  diet,  and  which  still  is 
so  by  the  natives  of  the  East.  Dr.  Harris  quote* 


PAPIIOS. 

Caesav,  as  stating  that  the  Massilienses,  w jen  be- 
sieged, ‘ panico  vetere  omnes  alebantur.’  From 
the  context  it  would  seem  most  likely  that  this 
pannag  was  a produce  of  the  country,  and  pro- 
bably an  article  of  diet.  One  objection  to  its 
being  the  millet  is,  that  this  grain  has  a name, 
dokhon , which  is  used  by  the  same  prophet  in 
Ezek.  iv.  9.  Notwithstanding  the  authority  of 
Hiller,  there  does  not  appear  sufficient  proof  in 
support  of  his  opinion,  that  the  juice  of  the  panax 
or  opopanax  was  the  article  intended,  and  there- 
fore pannag  must  still  be  considered  undeter- 
mined.— J.  F.  R. 

PAPER,  PAPYRUS.  [Writing.] 
PAPHOS  (Tlacpos),  a city  of  Cyprus,  at  the 
western  extremity  of  the  island,  and  the  seat  of 
the  Roman  governor.  That  officer,  when  Paul 
visited  the  place,  was  named  Sergius  Paulus, 
who  was  converted  through  the  preaching  of  the 
apostle  and  the  miracle  performed  on  Elymas 
(Acts  xiii.  6-11).  Paphos  was  celebrated  for  a 
temple  of  Venus,  whose  infamous  rites  were  still 
practised  here  400  years  afterwards,  notwithstand- 
ing the  success  of  Paul,  Barnabas,  and  others,  in 
preaching  the  Gospel.  Paphos  is  now  a poor  and 
inconsiderable  place,  but  gives  its  name  to  a 
Greek  bishopric. 

PARABLE.  The  word  parable  is  derived 
from  7r apa^oXg,  which  comes  from  irapafiaWeiv, 
to  compare , to  collate.  In  the  New  Testament  it 
is  employed  by  our  translators  as  the  rendering  of 

irapa&oAtj ; in  the  Old  it  answers  to  [Pro- 
verbs]. 1.  It  denotes  an  obscure  or  enigmatical 
saying,  e.g.  Ps.  xlix.  4, 

‘ I will  incline  mine  ear  to  & parable  ; 

I will  open  my  dark  saying  upon  the  harp.’ 
And  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2, 

‘ I will  open  my  mouth  in  a parable , 

I will  utter  dark  sayings  of  old.’ 

2.  It  denotes  a fictitious  narrative,  invented 
for  the  purpose  of  conveying  truth  in  a less  offen- 
sive or  more  engaging  form  than  that  of  direct 
assertion.  Of  this  sort  is  the  parable  by  which 
Nathan  reproved  David  (2  Sam.  xii.  2,  3),  that 
in  which  Jotham  exposed  the  folly  of  the  She- 
chemites  (Judg.  ix.  7-15),  and  that  addressed 
by  Jehoash  to  Amaziah  (2  Kings  xiv.  9,  10).  To 
this  class  also  belong  the  parables  of  Christ. 
3.  Any  discourse  expressed  in  figurative,  poetical, 
or  highly  ornamented  diction  is  called  a parable. 
Thus  it.  is  said,  ‘ Balaam  took  up  his  parable ’ 
(Num.  xxiii.  7)  ; and,  ‘ Job  continued  his  parable’ 
(Job  xxvii.  1).  Under  this  general  and  wider 
signification  the  two  former  classes  may  not  im- 
properly be  included. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  word  seems  to  have 
a more  restricted  signification,  being  generally 
employed  in  the  second  sense  mentioned  above, 
viz.,  to  denote  a fictitious  narrative,  under  which 
is  veiled  some  important  truth.  It  has  been  sup- 
posed, indeed,  that  some  of  the  parables  uttered 
by  our  Saviour  narrate  real  and  not  fictitious 
events  ; but  whether  this  was  the  case  or  not  is  a 
point  of  no  consequence.  Each  of  his  parables 
was  essentially  true ; it  was  true  to  human  na- 
ture, and  nothing  more  was  necessary.  Another 
meaning  which  the  word  occasionally  bears  in  the 
New  Testament  is  that  of  a type  or  emblem , as  in 
Heb.  ix.  9,  where  rrapa^uX-p  is  rendered  in  our 
veroirn  figure . [According  to  Maclcnight,  the 


PARABLE.  467 

word  in  Keb.  xi.  19  has  the  same  meaning,  but 
this  is  probably  incorrect.] 

Parables  or  fables  are  found  in  the  literature 
of  all  nations.  They  were  called  by  the  Greek* 
afoot,  and  by  the  Romans  fabulce.  It  has  been 
usual  to  consider  the  parable  as  composed  of  two 
parts:  viz.,  the  prrotasis,  conveying  merely  the 
literal  sense;  and  the  apodosis,  containing  the 
mystical  or  figurative  sense.  It  is  not  necessary, 
however,  that  this  second  part  should  be  always 
expressed.  It  is  frequently  omitted  in  the  pa- 
rables of  our  Lord,  when  the  truth  illustrated  was 
such  as  his  disciples  were  unable  at  the  time  fully 
to  comprehend,  or  when  it  was  his  design  to  re- 
veal to  them  something  which  was  to  be  hidden 
from  the  unbelieving  Jews  (comp.  Matt.  xiii-. 
11-13). 

The  excellence  of  a parable  depends  on  the 
propriety  and  force  of  the  comparison  on  which 
it  is  founded  ; on  the  general  fitness  and  harmony 
of  its  parts;  on  the  obviousness  of  its  main  scope 
or  design ; on  the  beauty  and  conciseness  of  the 
style  in  which  it  is  expressed ; and  on  its  adapta- 
tion to  the  circumstances  and  capacities  of  the 
hearers.  If  the  illustration  is  drawn  from  an 
object  obscure  or  little  known,  it  will  throw  no 
light  on  the  point  to  be  illustrated.  If  the  resem- 
blance is  forced  and  inobvious,  the  mind  is  per- 
plexed and  disappointed  in  seeking  for  it.  We 
must  be  careful,  however,  not  to  insist  on  too 
minute  a correspondence  of  the  objects  compared. 
It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  resemblance  will 
hold  good  in  every  particular ; non  enim  res  tota 
rei  toti  necesse  est  similis  sit,  says  Cicero ; but 
it  is  sufficient  if  the  agreement  exists  in  those 
points  on  which  the  main  scope  of  the  parable 
depends. 

The  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins,  for  example, 
is  designed  to  teach  the  importance  and  necessity 
of  being  always  prepared  for  the  coming  of  the 
Lord  ; and  therefore  no  inference  can  be  drawn  as 
to  the  number  of  those  finally  saved,  from  the 
circumstance  that  five  of  the  virgins  were  wise 
and  five  of  them  were  foolish.  Nor  does  the 
parable  of  the  Householder  teach  that  there  will 
be  no  difference  in  the  rewards  of  the  righteous 
hereafter,  because  each  of  the  labourers  received 
a penny.  The  design  of  the  parable  as  expressed 
in  the  words  ‘ Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what 
I will  with  mine  own  V is  to  set  forth  the  perfect 
sovereignty  of  God  in  the  dispensation  of  Iris 
rewards,  the  truth  that  all  reward  is  of  grace , 
and  that  it  is  consistent  with  the  strictest  justice 
for  him  to  treat  some  better  than  they  deserve, 
since  none  are  treated  tcorse. 

If  we  test  the  parables  of  the  Old  Testament, 
by  the  rules  above  laid  down,  we  shall  not  find 
them  wanting  in  any  excellence  belonging  to  this 
species  of  composition.  What,  can  be  more 
forcible,  more  persuasive,  and  more  beautiful 
than  the  parables  of  Jotham  (Judg.  ix.  7-15),  of 
Nathan  (2  Sam.  xii.  1-14),  of  Isaiah  (v.  1-5), 
and  of  Ezekiel  (xix.  1-9)  ? 

But  the  parables  uttered  by  our  Saviour  claim 
pre-eminence  over  all  others  on  account  of  their 
number,  variety,  appositeness,  and  beauty.  In- 
deed it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a mode  of 
instiuction  better  fitted  to  engage  the  attention, 
interest  the  feelings,  and  impress  the  conscience, 
than  that  which  our  Lord  adopted.  Among  its 
advantages  may  be  mentioned  the  following  : — 


408 


PARABLE. 


PARACLETUS. 


1.  It  secured  the  attention  of  multitudes  who 
would  not.  have  listened  to  truth  conveyed  in  the 
form  of  abstract  propositions.  It  did  so  in  virtue 
»f  two  principles  of  human  nature,  viz.,  that  out- 
ward and  sensible  objects  make  a more  vivid 
impression  than  inward  notions  or  ideas  ; and  that 
the  particular  and  the  concrete  affect  the  mind 
more  than  the  general  and  the  abstract.  Thus  a 
virtue  or  vice  may  be  held  up  for  abhorrence  or 
admiration  far  more  successfully  by  exhibiting 
its  effects  on  the  character  of  an  individual  than 
by  eulogizing  or  declaiming  against  it  in  the  ab- 
stract. How  could  a disquisition  have  exhibited 
the  contrast  between  humility  and  self-confidence 
so  vividly  as  does  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee 
and  the  publican?  Or  how  could  so  effectual  a 
sermon  have  been  preached  against  worldliness 
as  by  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  who  said  to  his 
soul,  4 Eat,  drink,  and  be  merry.’ 

2.  This  mode  of  teaching  was  one  with  which 
the  Jews  were  familiar,  and  for  which  they  enter- 
tained a preference.  They  had  been  accustomed 
to  it  in  the  writings  of  their  prophets,  and,  like 
other  eastern  nations,  listened  with  pleasure  to 
truths  thus  wrapped  in  the  veil  of  allegory. 

3.  Some  truths  which,  if  openly  stated,  would 
nave  been  opposed  by  a barrier  of  prejudice,  were 
m this  way  insinuated,  as  it  .were,  into  men’s 
minds,  and  secured  their  assent  unawares.  When- 
ever ancient  prejudices  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
reception  of  truth,  it  is  important  that  the  teacher 
should  adopt  such  a circuitous  mode  of  approach 
as  may  for  a time  conceal  his  design,  and  secure 
for  his  instructions  an  impartial  hearing. 

4.  The  parabolic  style  was  well  adapted  to 
conceal  Christ’s  meaning  from  those  who,  througn 
obstinacy  and  perverseness,  were  indisposed  to  re- 
ceive it.  This  is  the  meaning  of  Isaiah  in  the  pas- 
sage quoted  in  Matt.  xiii.  13.  Not  that  the  truth 
was  ever  hidden  from  those  who  sincerely  sought 
to  know  it;  but  it  was  wrapped  in  just  enough  of 
obscurity  to  veil  it  from  those  who  ‘ had  pleasure 
in  unrighteousness,’  and  who  would  4 not  come  to 
the  light  lest  their  deeds  should  be  reproved.’  In 
accordance  with  strict  justice,  such  were  4 given 
up  to  strong  delusions,  that  they  might  believe  a 
lie.’  4 With  the  upright  man  thou  icilt  show 
thyself  upright;  with  the  froioard  thou  wilt 
show  thyself  froioard.' 

The  scope  or  design  of  Christ's  parables  is 
sometimes  to  he  gathered  from  his  own  express 
declaration,  as  in  Luke  xii.  16-20,  xiv.  11,  xvi.  9. 
In  other  cases  it  must  be  sought  by  considering 
the  context,  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was 
spoken,  and  the  features  of  the  narrative  itself, 
i.  e.  the  literal  sense.  For  the  right  understand- 
ing of  this,  an  acquaintance  with  the  customs  of 
the  people,  with  the  productions  of  their  country, 
and  with  the  events  of  their  history,  is  often  de- 
sirable. Most  of  our  Lord's  parables,  however, 
admit  of  no  doubt  as  to  their  main  scope,  and  are 
so  simple  and  perspicuous  that  4 he  who  runs  may 
read,’  4 if  there  be  first  a willing  mind.’  To 
those  moredifficult  of  comprehension  more  thought 
and  study  should  be  given,  agreeably  to  the  ad- 
monition prefixed  to  some  of  them  by  our  Lord 
himself,  4 Whoso  heareth,  let  him  understand.’ — 
The  following  are  among  the  principal  works  on 
the  parables : — Gray,  Delineation  of  the  Pa- 
rables, 1 777 ; Bulkley,  Discourses  on  the  Pa- 
rables, 1771 ; Collyer,  Discourses  on  the  Parablest 


1815;  Kromm,  Iiomilien  uber  die  I xrabeln 
Jesu , 1823;  Unger,  De  Parabolis  Jesu,  1828; 
Bailey,  Expos  tion  of  the  Parables , 1 829 ; 
Schultze,  De  Parabolis  Jesu  Christi,  1827  ; 
Lisco,  Die  Parabeln  Jesu,  1832. — L.  P.  H. 

PARACLETUS  (napd/c\r]Tof).  This  word 
is  applied  to  Christ  in  1 John  ii.  1.  Indeed, 
in  that  famous  passage  in  which  Christ  promises 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a paraclete  to  his  sorrowing 
disciples,  he  takes  the  title  himself:  ‘I  will  send 
you  another  paraclete’  (John  xiv.  16),  implying 
that  he  was  himself  one,  and  that  on  his  de- 
parture he  would  send  another.  The  question 
then  is.  In  what  sense  does  Christ  denominate 
himself  and  the  Spirit  sent  from  him  and  the 
Father,  napaKkrjTos,  paraclete?  The  answer  to 
this  is  not  to  be  found  without  some  difficulty, 
and  it  becomes  the  more  difficult  from  the  fact 
that  in  genuine  Greek  the  verb  irapaKakflv  lias  a 
variety  of  significations  : — 1.  To  call  to  a place; 
to  call  to  aid.  2.  To  admonish;  to  persuade; 
to  incite.  3.  To  entreat;  to  pray.  To  which 
may  be  added  the  Hellenistic  signification,  4 to 
console  4 to  soothe  ;’  4 to  encourage.’  Finally, 
the  Rabbins  also  in  their  language  use  the  word 

peraklita;  a circumstance  which  must 
also  be  taken  into  consideration.  In  the  explana- 
tion of  the  word  the  leading  circumstance  to  guide 
us  must  be  to  take  that  signification  which  is 
applicable  to  the  different  passages  in  which  it 
occurs.  For  we  may  distinguish  three  explana- 
tions : — 1.  Origen  explains  it  where  it  is  applied 
to  the  Holy  Spirit  by  4 Consolator’  (irapapvOrjr^s). 
while  in  1 John  ii.  1 he  adopts  the  signification  of 
4 Deprecator.’  This  is  the  course  taken  by  most 
of  the  Greek  commentators  (Suicer,  Thesaur.  s. 
v.),  and  which  has  been  followed  by  Erasmus, 
Luther,  and  others.  But  to  this  Tholuck  ami 
others  object  that,  not  to  insist  that  the  significa- 
tion cannot  be  grammatically  established  (for  no 
admissible  instance  can  be  adduced  where  the 
passive  TrapaKhpros  is  used  in  an  active  sense  for 
napaKkrjTcop),  it  is  suitable  to  but  a very  few 
passages  only,  while  to  others  it  is  either  too  cir- 
cumscribed or  altogether  inappropriate.  2.  Aware 
of  this,  others,  after  the  example  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  sanctioned  by  Mede,  Ernesti,  and 
others,  would  translate  it  teacher.  But  neither  does 
this  sense  seem  adapted  to  all  the  passages.  It 
would  also  be  difficult  to  deduce  it  from  the 
usages  of  the  language ; for — not  to  mention  that 
in  this  case  also  the  active  signification  would  be 
assumed  for  the  passive  form — we  are  pressed 
with  the  question,  whether  the  verb  tt apanakeiv  can 
anywhere  in  the  New  Testament  be  found  in  the 
sense  of  4 to  teach,’  as  this  hypothesis  assumes.  It 
is  at  least  very  certain  that  this  sense  never  was 
transferred  to  the  Rabbinical  ; and 

since  the  word  occurs  here  also,  this  must  neces- 
sarily be  taken  into  account  in  determining  the 
signification.  3.  The  considerations  which  tell 
against  these  views  incline  the  balance  in  favour 
of  a third  sense,  which  is  that  of  4 assistant,’ 

4 helper,’  4 advocate  ’ (intercessor).  Demosthenes 
uses  it  with  this  force  in  a judicial  sense  (see  Index, 
ed.  Reiske)  ; and  it  occurs  in  the  same  sense  in 
Philo  (see  Loesner,  Observatt .),  and  in  the  Rab- 
binical dialect.  It  is  supported  by  Rom.  viii. 
26,  and,  which  is  still  more  to  the  purpose,  is 
appropriate  .o  all  the  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 


PARADISE. 


PARADISE. 


4G9 


went  where  the  word  occurs.  After  the  example 
5f  the  early  Latin  fathers,  Calvin,  Beza,  Lampe, 
Bengel,  Knapp,  Kuinoel,  Tittmann,  and  many 
others,  have  adopted  this  sense.  Tertullian  and 
Augustine  have  advocate.  The  Authorized  Ver- 
sion renders  the  word  by  ‘ advocate’  in  1 John 
ii.  1,  but  in  other  places  (John  xiv.  16,  26;  xv. 
26  : xvi.  7)  by  ‘ comforter.’  How  much  better, 
however,  the  more  extensive  term  ‘helper’ (in. 
eluding  teacher,  monitor,  advocate)  agrees  with 
these  passages  than  the  narrow  term  ‘ comforter,’ 
may  be  shown  by  a single  instance.  Jesus  says 
to  his  disciples,  ‘ I will  send  you  another  para- 
clete’ (John  xiv.  16),  implying  that  he  himself 
had  been  such  to  them.  But  he  had  not  been  in 
any  distinguishing  sense  a ‘ comforter’  or  ‘ con- 
soler,’ because,  having  Him  present  with  them, 
they  had  not  mourned  (Matt.  ix.  15).  But  he 
had  been  eminently  a helper,  in  the  extensive 
sense  which  has  been  indicated ; and  such  as  he 
had  been  to  them — to  teach,  to  guide,  and  to  up- 
hold— the  Holy  Spirit  would  become  to  them 
after  his  removal  (see  the  Commentators  above 
named,  particularly  Tholuck  and  Tittmann  on 
John  xiv.  16;  also  Knapp,  De  Sp.  S.  et  Christi 
Paracletis,  Halle,  1790). 

PARADISE,  the  term  wnich  by  long  and  ex- 
tensive use  has  been  employed  to  designate  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  the  first  dwelling-place  of  hu- 
man beings.  Of  this  word  (tt apafienros')  the  earliest 
instance  that  we  have  is  in  the  Cyropcedia  and 
other  writings  of  Xenophon,  nearly  400  years  be- 
fore Christ ; but  his  use  of  it  has  that  appearance  of 
ease  and  familiarity  which  leads  us  to  suppose  that 
it  was  current  among  his  countrymen.  We  find 
it  also  used  by  Plutarch,  who  lived  in  the  first  and 
second  century  of  our  era.  It  was  by  those  au- 
thors evidently  employed  to  signify  an  extensive 
plot  of  ground,  enclosed  with  a strong  fence  or 
wall,  abounding  in  trees,  shrubs,  plants,  and  gar- 
den culture,  and  in  which  choice  animals  were 
kept  in  different  ways  of  restraint  or  freedom,  ac- 
cording as  they  were  ferocious  or  peaceable  ; thus 
answering  very  closely  to  our  English  word  park, 
with  the  addition  of  gardens , a menagerie,  and 
an  aviary. 

The  circumstance  which  has  given  to  this  term 
its  extensive  and  popular  use,  is  its  having  been 
taken  by  the  Greek  translators  of  the  Pentateuch, 
in  the  third  century  b.c.,  and,  following  them,  in 
the  ancient  Syriac  version,  and  by  Jerome  in  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  as  the  translation  of  the  garden 
(p  gun}  which  the  benignant  providence  of  the 
Creator  prepared  for  the  abode  of  innocent  and 
happy  man.  Those  translators  also  use  it,  not 
only  in  the  twelve  places  of  Gen.  ii.  and  iii.,  but 
in  eight  others,  and  two  in  which  the  feminine 
form  ( gannah ) occurs ; whereas,  in  other  in- 
stances of  those  two  words,  they  employ  Kr\iros, 
the  usual  Greek  word  for  a garden  or  an  enclo- 
sure of  fruit-trees.  But  there  are  three  places  in 
which  the  Hebrew  text  itself  has  the  very  word, 
giving  it  the  form  DTlS  pa/'dees.  These  are, 
‘the  keeper  of  the  king’s  forest,  that  he  may  give 
me  timber'  (Neh.  ii.  8);  ‘ orchards'  (Eccles.  ii. 
6)  ; ‘an  orchard  of  pomegranates’  (Song  of  Solo- 
mon. iv.  13).  Evidently  the  word  is  not  proper 
Hebrew,  but  is  an  exotic,  imported  from  a more 
eastern  tongue,  probably  the  Persian,  from  which 
source  also  Xenophon  derived  it.  But  the  best 


authorities  carry  the  derivation  farther  back. 
‘ The  word  is  regarded  by  most  learned  men  as 
Persian,  of  the  same  signification  as  the  Hebrew 
gan.  Certainly  it  was  used  by  the  Persians  in 
this  sense,  corresponding  to  their  darchen ; tut 
that  it  is  an  Armenian  word  is  shown  both  from 
its  constant  use  in  that  language,  and  from  its 
formation,  it  being  compounded  of  two  Arme- 
nian simple  words,  part  and  ses,  meaning  neces- 
sary grains  or  edible  herbs.  The  Armenians 
apply  this  word,  pardes,  to  denote  a garden  ad- 
joining to  the  dwelling,  and  replenished  with  the 
different  sorts  of  grain,  herbs,  and  flowers  for  use 
and  ornament’  (Schroederi  Thesaur.  Ling.  Armen. 
Dissert.,  p.  56,  Amst.  1711).  With  this  E.  F.  C. 
Rosenmiiller  accords  ( Bibl . Alterthumsk.  vol.  i., 
part  i.,  p.  174).  ‘ It  corresponds  to  the  Greek 

7T apdfieiaos,  a word  appropriated  to  the  pleasure- 
gardens  and  parks  with  wild  animals  around  the 
palace  of  the  Persian  monarchs.  The  origin  of 
the  word,  however,  is  to  be  sought  with  neither 
the  Greeks  nor  the  Hebrews,  but  in  the  languages 
of  Eastern  Asia.  We. find  it  in  Sanscrit para- 
deesha,  a region  of  surpassing  beauty ; and  the 
Armenian  pardes,  a park  or  garden  adjoining  to 
the  Irouse,  planted  with  trees  for  use  and  orna- 
ment’ (Gesenius  and  Robinson,  combining  the 
Leipzig  and  the  American  editions  of  the  Hcbr. 
Lex.').  ‘ A paradise,  i.  e.  an  orchard,  an  arbo- 

retum, particularly  of  pomegranates,  a park,  a 
fruit-garden  ; a name  common  to  several  Oriental 
languages,  and  especially  current  among  the  Per- 
sians, as  we  learn  from  Xenophon  and  Julius 
Pollux.  Sanscrit,  pardeesha ; Armenian,  par- 
dez  ; Arabic,  firdaus ; Syriac,  fardaiso  ; Chaldee 
of  the  Targums,  pardeesa'  (Fiirst,  Concord.  V.  T. 
p.  920,  Leipzig,  1840). 

In  the  apocryphal  book  of  Susanna  (a  moral 
tale  or  little  novel,  possibly  founded  on  some 
genuine  tradition),  the  word  paradise  is  con- 
stantly used  for  the  garden.  It  occurs  also  in 
three  passages  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  the  first  of 
which  is  in  the  description  of  Wisdom  : * I came 
forth  as  a canal  dug  from  a river,  and  as  a water- 
pipe  into  a paradise'  (ch.  xxiv.  30).  In  the 
other  two,  it  is  the  objective  term  of  comparisons  : 
‘ kindness  is  as  a paradise  in  blessings,  and  mer- 
cifulness abideth  for  ever — the  fear  of  the  Lord 
is  as  & paradise  of  blessing,  and  it  adorns  above 
all  pomp'  (ch.  xl.  17,  27).  Josephus  calls  the 
gardens  of  Solomon,  in  the  plural  number,  ‘ pa- 
radises’ ( Antiq . viii.  7.  3).  Berosus  (cent.  iv. 
b.c.),  quote . ny  Josephus  (e.  Apion.  i.  20),  says 
that,  the  lofty  garden-platforms,  erected  at  Baby  Ion 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  were  called  the  Suspended 
Paradise. 

The  term,  having  thus  become  a metaphor  foi 
the  abstract  idea  of  exquisite  delight,  was  trans- 
ferred still  higher  to  denote  the  happiness  of  the 
righteous  in  the  future  state.  The  origin  of  this 
application  must  be  assigned  to  the  Jews  of  the 
middle  period  between  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament.  In  the  Chaldee  Targums,  ‘ the  gar- 
den of  Eden’  is  put  as  the  exposition  of  heavenly 
blessedness  (Ps.  xc.  17,  and  other  places).  The 
Talmudical  writings,  cited  by  the  elder  Buxtorf 
{Lex.  Chald.  et  Talm.,  p.  1802),  and  John  James 
Wetstein  ( N . T.  Gr.  vol.  i.  p.  819),  contain  fre- 
quent references  to  Paradise  as  the  immortal 
heaven,  to  which  the  spirits  of  the  just,  are  ad- 
mitted immediately  upon  the  liberation  from  the 


470 


PARADISE. 


PARADISE. 


body.  The  book  Sohar  speaks  of  an  earthly  and 
a heavenly  Paradise,  of  which  the  latter  excels 
the  former  4 as  much  as  darkness  does  light.’ 
(Schoetgen.  Hor.  Hebr.  vol.  i.  p.  1096). 

Hence  we  see  that  it  was  in  the  acceptation  of 
the  current  Jewish  phraseology  that  the  expres- 
sion was  used  by  our  Lord  and  the  apostles  : 
‘To-day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  Paradise  ;’  4 He 
was  caught  up  into  Paradise 4 The  tree  of  life, 
which  is  in  the  Paradise  of  my  God'  (Luke  xxiii. 
43 ; 2 Cor.  xii.  4 ; Rev.  ii.  7). 

Eden  is  the  most  ancient  and  venerable  name 
in  geography,  the  name  of  the  first  district  of  the 
earth’s  surface  of  which  human  beings  could  have 
any  knowledge.  The  word  is  found  in  the  Arabic 
as  well  as  in  the  Hebrew  language.  It  is  ex- 
plained by  Firuzabadi,  in  his  celebrated  Arabic 
Lexicon  (Kamus),  as  signifying  delight,  tender- 
ness, loveliness  (see  Morren,  in  Edinb.  Biblical 
Cabinet,  vol.  xi.  pp.  2,  48,  49).  Major  Wilford 
and  Professor  Wilson  find  its  elements  in  the 
Sanscrit.  The  Greek  T]bovt]  is  next  to  identical 
with  it  in  both  sound  and  sense.  It  occurs  in 
three  places  (Isa.  xxxvii.  12  ; Ezek.  xxvii.  23  ; 
Amos  i.  5)  as  the  name  of  some  eminently 
pleasant  districts,  but  not  the  Eden  of  this  article. 
Of  them  we  have  no  certain  knowledge,  except 
that  the  latter  instance  points  to  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Damascus.  In  these  cases  it  is  pointed 
with  both  syllables  short;  but,  when  it  is  applied 
to  the  primitive  seat  of  man,  the  first  syllable  is 
long.  Those  passages,  in  addition  to  Gen.  ii. 
iii.  iv.  16,  are  the  lew  following,  of  which  we 
transcribe  the  chief,  because  they  cast  light  upon 
the  primeval  term  : ‘ He  will  make  her  wilder- 
ness like  Eden  and  her  desert  like  the  garden  of 
Jehovah.’  ‘Thou  hast  been  in  Eden,  the  garden 
of  God.’  ‘ All  the  trees  of  Eden,  that  were  in  the 
garden  of  God,  envied  him.’  ‘ This  land  which 
was  desolate  is  become  like  the  garden  of  Eden’ 
(Isa.  Ii.  3;  Ezek.  xxviii.  13;  xxxi.  9,  16,  18; 
xxxvi.  35  ; Joel  ii.  3). 

All  this  evidence  goes  to  show  that  Eden  was 
a tract  of  country ; and  that  in  the  most  eligible 
part  of  it  was  the  Paradise,  the  garden  of  all 
delights,  in  which  the  Creator  was  pleased  to  place 
his  new  and  pre-eminent  creature,  with  the  inferior 
beings  for  his  sustenance  and  solace. 

W e now  present  the  passage  from  the  Hebrew 
Archives  to  which  this  disquisition  belongs  : — 

Genesis  ii.  8 — 4 And  Jehovah  Elohim  planted 
a garden  in  Eden,  on  the  east ; and  placed  there  the 
man  whom  he  had  formed.  And  J ehovah  Elohim 
caused  to  grow  out  of  the  ground  there  every  tree 
agreeable  to  the  sight,  and  good  for  eating  ; and 
the  tree  of  life  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  and  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  And  a 
river  proceeded  from  Eden,  for  the  watering  of 
the  9F&.*den  ; and  from  thence  it  was  divided,  and 
became  into  four  heads.  The  name  of  the  first, 
Pishon ; it  surroundeth  the  whole  country  of 
Havilah,  where  is  the  gold,  and  gold  of  that  land 
is  good ; there  is  the  bedolach  and  the  stone  sho- 
har.  And  the  name  of  the  second  river,  Gihon  ; 
it.  surroundeth  the  whole  country  of  Cu3h.  And 
the  name  of  the  third  river,  Hiddekel ; it  is  that 
which  goetli  easterly  to  Assyria.  And  the  fourth 
river,  it  is  the  Phrat.’ 

Upon  this  description,  we  shall  offer  our  senti- 
ments in  the  shortest  manner  that  we  can. 

I.  It  is  given  in  that  simple,  artless,  childlike 


style  which  characterizes  the  whole  of  the  \ rime- 
val  Hebrew  Scriptures.  This  is  the  style  which 
was  alone  adapted  to  the  early  stages  of  th« 
human  history.  Our  whole  race  had  to  pass 
through  a long  succession  of  trying  and  training 
circumstances,  which  formed  truly  the  collective 
education  of  mankind.  The  communications  o< 
knowledge  must  have  been  made  and  recorded 
in  such  terms  and  phrases  as  the  men  of  the  age 
could  at  the  first  understand ; and  which  yet 
should  possess  a suggestive  and  attractive  cha- 
racter, which  would  gradually  capacitate  for 
higher  and  more  spiritual  disclosures.  (See  the 
observations  on  the  modes  of  divine  manifestation 
to  the  first  human  beings,  in  the  article  Adam, 
vol.  i.  p.  60.)  If  it  were  objected,  that  thus  ‘ the 
revelation  would  be  clothed  in  the  imagery  of 
gross  and  sensible  objects,  with  the  imperfections 
and  misconceptions  under  which  those  objects  ap* 
peared  to  men  possessing  only  the  rude  idejrs  of 
primeval  state  of  society,’  and  this  would  of  ne- 
cessity produce  a rude  and  imperfect  language 
[Anthropomorphism],  we  reply,  that  the  spirit 
of  the  objection  would  require  ‘ that  the  terms 
and  style  of  the  revelation  should  have  been  in 
the  most  pure  and  abstract  kind  of  phrase  that 
human  diction  could  afford,  the  most  nearly 
approaching  to  the  spirituality  of  the  Divine  na- 
ture and  the  majesty  of  eternal  things  ; and  this 
would  be  equivalent  to  saying,  that  it  ought  to 
liave  anticipated  by  many  centuries  the  progress 
of  man  as  an  intellectual  and  social  being ; that 
it  ought  to  have  been  written,  not  in  the  language 
of  shepherds  and  herdsmen,  but  in  that  of  moral 
philosophers  and  rhetoricians;  not  in  Hebrew, 
but  in  Greek  or  English.  It  would  also  follow, 
that  a revelation  so  expressed  would  have  been 
unintelligible  to  the  ages  and  generations  of  pri- 
mitive time,  and  to  the  generality  of  mankind  in 
all  times’  (Pye  Smith,  On  Scripture  and  Ge 
ology,  p.  242). 

Upon  this  principle  wre  understand  the  ex- 
pression, ‘ the  Lord  God  planted,'  caused  to  grow, 
placed ; he,  the  supreme  and  omnipotent  cause, 
produced  those  effects,  in  ways,  immediate  ot 
mediate,  the  most  worthy  of  his  perfections. 

II.  The  situation  of  Eden  : though  DHplD  is 
literally  from  the  east,  it  answers  to  our  phrase 
on  the  east  or  eastwards , precisely  as  the  Latin 
ab  occasu.  The  supposed  station-point  we  cannot 
suppose  to  be  any  other  than  Palestine.  In  every 
country,  the  region  of  the  rising  sun  must  always 
be  pre-eminent,  on  account  of  the  beauty  and 
majesty  of  the  sky ; and  hence  it  is  a natural 
representative  of  excellence  : and  this  most  in- 
teresting of  regions,  the  birthplace  of  mankind, 
did  lie  eastward  from  the  land  of  the  Israelites. 
Also,  the  earliest  traditions  of  human  and  divine 
knowledge  were  associated  with  the  splendours  of 
the  east. 

Upon  the  question  of  its  exact  geographical 
position  dissertations  innumerable  have  been 
written.  Many  authors  have  given  descriptive 
lists  of  them,  with  arguments  for  and  against 
each.  The  most  convenient  presentation  of  then- 
respective  outlines  has  been  reduced  to  a tabu- 
lated form,  with  ample  illustrations,  by  the  Rev. 
N.  Morren,  annexed  to  his  Translation  of  the 
younger  Rosenmiiller’s  Biblical  Geography  of 
Central  Asia , pp.  91 — 98,  Edinb.  1836.  He 
reduces  them  to  nine  principal  theories.  But  the 


PARADISE. 


PARADISE. 


(act  is  that  not  one  of  them  answers  to  all  the 
conditions  of  the  problem.  We  more  than  douht 
the  possibility  of  finding  any  locality  that,  will 
do  so.  That  Phrat  is  the  Euphrates,  and  Hid- 
dekel the  Tigris,  is  agreed,  with  scarcely  an  ex- 
ception ; but  in  determining  the  two  other  rivers, 
great  diversity  of  opinion  exists ; and,  to  our  ap- 
prehension, satisfaction  is  and  must  remain  un- 
attainable, from  the  impossibility  of  making  the 
evidence  to  cohere  in  all  its  parts.  It  has  been 
remarked  that  this  difficulty  might  have  been 
expected,  and  is  obviously  probable,  from  the 
geological  changes  that  may  have  taken  place, 
and  especially  in  connection  with  the  deluge. 
This  remark  would  not  be  applicable,  to  the  ex- 
tent that  is  necessary  for  the  argument,  except 
upon  the  supposition  before  mentioned,  that  the 
earlier  parts  of  the  book  of  Genesis  consist  of  pri- 
meval documents,  even  antediluvian,  and  that 
this  is  one  of  them.  There  is  reason  to  think 
that  since  the  deluge  the  face  of  the  country  can- 
not have  undergone  any  change  approaching  to 
what  the  hypothesis  of  a postdiluvian  composition 
would  require.  But  we  think  it  highly  probable 
that  the  principal  of  the  immediate  causes  of  the 
deluge,  the  1 breaking  up  of  the  fountains  of  the 
great  deep,’  was  a subsidence  of  a large  part  or 
parts  of  the  land  between  the  inhabited  tract 
(which  we  humbly  venture  to  place  in  E.  long, 
from  Greenwich,  30°  to  90°,  and  N.  lat.  25°  to 
40°)  and  the  sea  which  lay  to  the  south ; or 
an  elevation  of  the  bed  of  that  sea  [Deluge]. 
Either  of  these  occurrences,  produced  by  volcanic 
causes,  or  both  of  them  conjointly  or  successively, 
would  be  adequate  to  the  production  of  the  awful 
deluge,  and  the  return  of  the  waters  would  be 
effected  by  an  elevation  of  some  part  of  the  dis- 
trict which  had  been  submerged;  and  that  part 
could  scarcely  fail  to  be  charged  with  animal 
remains.  Now  the  recent  geological  researches 
of  Dr.  Falconer  and  Capt.  Cautley  have  brought 
m to  light  bones,  more  or  less  mineralized,  of  the 
giraffe  ( Camelopardalis ,)  in  the  Sewalik  range  of 
hills,  which  seems  to  be  a branch  of  the  Hima- 
laya, westward  of  the  river  Jumna.  But  the 
giraffe  is  not  an  animal  that  can  live  in  a moun- 
tainous region,  or  even  on  the  skirts  of  such  a 
region  ; its  subsistence  and  its  safety  require  ‘ an 
open  country  and  broad  plains  to  roam  over.’ 
(Falconer  and  Cautley,  in  Proceed.  Geol.  Soc ., 
Nov.  15,  1843).  The  present  position,  therefore, 
of  these  fossil  remains  ( — ‘ of  almost  every  large 
pachydermatous  genus,  such  as  the  elephant, 
mastodon,  rhinoceros,  hippopotamus,  sus  (swine), 
horse,  & c.’  ib .,  also  deer  and  oxen) — lodged  in 
ravines  and  vales  among  the  peaks,  at  vast  eleva- 
tions, leads  to  the  supposition  of  a late  elevation 
of  extensive  plains. 

Thus  we  seem,  to  have  a middle  course  pointed 
out  between  the  two  extremes ; the  one,  that  by 
the  deluge,  the  ocean  and  the  land  were  made  to 
exchange  places  for  permanency  ; the  other,  that 
very  little  alteration  was  produced  in  the  con- 
figuration of  the  earth’s  surface.  Indeed,  such 
alteration  might  not  be  considerable  in  places 
very  distant  from  the  focus  of  elevation;  but 
near  that  central  district  it  could  not  but  be  very 
great.  An  alteration  of  level,  five  hundred  times 
less  than  that  effected  by  the  uptlnow  of  the  Hi- 
malayas, would  change  the  beds  of  many  rivers, 
fcnd  quite  obliterate  others. 


We  therefore  decline  to  enter  into  disquisitions, 
interminable  and  surely  disappointing,  upon  the 
rivers  Pishon  and  Gihon,  and  the  countries  of 
Havilah  and  Cush.  Etymological  similarities 
afford  no  sate  ground  for  conclusions;  for  many 
names  of  close  resemblance  are  to  be  found  in 
the  Asiatic  languages,  but  of  which  the  natural 
history  and  collateral  circumstances  are  incom- 
patible with  other  parts  of  this  (as  we  think)  ante- 
diluvian fragment  of  topography.  Also  Gihon 
certainly,  and  probably  Pishon,  were  used  in  the 
ancient  Oriental  languages  as  appellatives,  sepa- 
rate or  prefixed,  signifying  a stream  in  general ; 
as  the  old  British  Avon,  which  has  the  same 
meaning,  has  become  the  proper  name  of  several 
rivers  in  England,  Wales,  and  Scotland. 

III.  We  venture  to  give  a summary  of  this  de- 
scription. It  was  a tract  of  country,  the  finest  ima- 
ginable, lying  probably  between  the  33rd  and  the 
37th  degree  of  N.  latitude,  of  such  moderate  ele- 
vation, and  so  adjusted,  with  respect  to  mountain 
ranges  and  water-sheds  and  forests,  as  to  preserve 
the  most  agreeable  and  salubrious  conditions  of 
temperature  and  all  atmospheric  changes.  Its 
surface  must  therefore  have  been  constantly  di- 
versified by  hill  and  plain.  From  its  hill-sides, 
between  the  croppings  out  of  their  strata,  springs 
trickled  out,  whose  streamlets,  joining  in  their 
courses,  formed  at  the  bottom  small  rivers,  which 
again  receiving  other  streams  (which  had  in  the 
same  way  flowed  down  from  the  higher  grounds), 
became,  in  the  bottom  of  every  valley,  a more 
considerable  river.  These  valleys  inosculated, 
as  must  consequently  their  contained  streams ; 
wider  valleys  or  larger  plains  appeared  ; the  river 
of  each  united  itself  with  that  of  its  next  neigh- 
bour ; others  contributed  their  waters  as  the  aug- 
menting stream  proceeded  ; and  finally  it  quitted 
the  land  of  Eden,  to  continue  its  course  to  some 
sea,  or  to  lose  its  waters  by  the  evaporation  of  the 
atmosphere  or  the  absorption  of  the  sandy  desert. 
In  the  finest  part  of  this  land  of  Eden,  the  Cre- 
ator had  formed  an  enclosure,  probably  by  rocks 
and  forests  and  rivers,  and  had  filled  it  with  every 
product  of  nature  conducive  to  use  and  happi- 
ness. Due  moisture,  of  both  the  ground  and  the 
air,  was  preserved  by  the  streamlets  from  the 
nearest  hills,  and  the  rivulets  from  the  more  dis- 
tant ; and  such  streamlets  and  rivulets,  collected 
according  to  the  levels  of  the  surrounding  coun- 
try (‘  it  proceeded  from  Eden’)  flowed  off  after- 
wards in  four  larger  streams,  each  of  which 
thus  became  the  source  of  a great  river. 

This  metaphrase  deviates  from  what  is  com- 
monly thought  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  original, 
but  not,  we  think,  from  its  true  signification  and 
intention. 

1.  It  is  a metonymy  occurring  probably, 
though  not  very  frequently,  in  all  languages,  that 
a collective  noun  is  sometimes  used  when  the 
idea  is  compound  and  distributive.  The  usage 
is  recognised  in  the  Hebrew  language,  by  Geseniua 
in  his  Lehrgebdude,  p.  525;  Ewald,  Gramm. 
§ 346  ; and  Nordheimer,  Gramm.  § 738 — 750. 
This  kind  of  synthesis  would  be  likely  to  find 
place  in  a primitive  and  consequently  very  simple 
language.  The  multitude  of  droppings  and 
tricklings,  rills  and  streamlets,  having  one  bene- 
ficial design,  and  ever  tending  to  confluence^ 
would,  in  the  mind  of  a primeval  writer,  readily 
coalesce  into  a singular  term,  a rivei  We  hav« 


472 


PARADISE. 


PARADISE. 


*n  appropriate  example  in  Ps.  lxv.  10,  where  the 
aggregate  of  showers  is  called  ‘ the  river  of  God, 
full  of  water.’  The  principle  applies  equally  to 

iV-D  and  THl  It  is  therefore  no  unwarrantable 

liberty  to  understand  by  the  ‘ river’  a number  of 
rills  and  rivulets  dispersed  throughout  .he  ground, 
and  flowing  into  one  channel  about  the  issue  into 
the  external  country.  If  the  water  entered  the 
garden  as  a river  properly,  that  is  in  one  body, 
it  could  not  ‘ water  the  garden*  without  artificial 
appliances;  and  it  would  have  divided  the  gar- 
den, making  one  part  inaccessible  from  the  other, 
without  a boat  or  a bridge. 

2.  That  a river  should  be  ‘ divided  into  four 
heads,’  or  sources  of  new  rivers,  is  naturally  im- 
possible. If  to  a running  stream,  small  or  large, 
two  or  more  channels  be  presented,  it  will  not 
divide  itself  distributivelv,  but  will  pour  its 
whole  mass  of  water  into  the  deepest  channel : it 
will  ever  seek  the  lowest  bottom.  We  must 
therefore  understand  the  passage  as  saying  that, 
from  four  different  collections  of  rills,  which  had 
flowed  down  different  declivities  in  the  same 
neighbourhood,  the  sources  were  formed  of  four 
rivers  which  in  their  progress  became  great  and 
celebrated.  To  controvert  this  reasoning  it  would 
not  be  sufficient  to  adduce  the  division  of  a great 
river  into  branches  as  it  approaches  the  sea,  and 
meets  an  extensive  swamp  or  flat  shore,  as  in 
the  deltas  of  the  Rhine  (forming,  with  many  in- 
ferior streams,  the  Leek  and  the  W aal),  the  Po, 
the  Nile,  the  Ganges,  and  many  others.  The 
soft  and  almost  horizontal  level  causes  the  watei 
to  cease  flowing,  or  nearly  so, .and  the  vast  extent 
of  mud  or  sand  permits  branches  of  the  stream  to 
take  place  when  some  small  change  of  the  surface 
gives  occasion.  But  the  rivers  of  Paradise  must 
have  been  in  high  ground,  and  have  had  a con- 
siderable fall.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  rocky 
obstacles  might  exist,  connected  backwards  with 
a mountainous  country,  presenting  their  heads 
against,  the  stream,  and  thus  separating  it,  as  islets 
are  formed  in  the  higher  course  of  the  Rhine. 
But  the  conditions  necessary  to  derive  four  great 
rivers  out  of  one,  in  this  way,  are  scarcely  con- 
ceivable as  occurring  in  one  place.  The  origin 
of  two  or  more  rivers  from  different  fountains  in 
the  same  locality  of  high  ground,  but  on  different 
levels,  and  then  pursuing  different  courses,  is  not 
an  unexampled  phenomenon.  The  Rhine  and  the 
Rhone  rise  but  about  eight  English  miles  from 
each  other;  and,  which  applies  to  the  case  directly 
before  us,  the  sources  of  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Tdgris , on  the  eastern  frontier  of  Armenia,  so  far 
as  they  can  be  followed  up,  are  ou\y  fifteen  miles 
apart. 

Here,  then,  in  the  south  of  Armenia,  after  the 
explication  we  have  given,  it.  may  seem  the  most 
suitable  to  look  for  the  object  of  our  exploration, 
the  site  of  Paradise.  From  this  opinion  few, 
we  think,  will  dissent. 

But  the  stringent  difficulty  is  to  find  any  two 
rivers  that  will  reasonably  answer  to  the  predi- 
cates of  the  Pishon  and  the  Gihon  ; and  any 
countries  which  can  be  collocated  as  Havilah 
and  Cush.  The  latter  name,  indeed,  was  given 
by  the  Hebrews  and  other  Orientals  to  several  ex- 
tensive countries,  and  those  very  distant  both 
from  Armenia  and  from  each  other.  As  for  Ha- 
vilah, we  have  the  name  again  in  the  account  of 


the  Dispersion  of  the  Descendants  of  Noah  (ch. 
x.  29),  but  whether  that  was  the  same  as  this 
Havilah,  and  in  what  part  of  Asia  it  was,  we 
despair  of  ascertaining.  Relaud  and  others,  the 
best  writers  upon  this  question,  have  felt  them- 
selves compelled  to  give  to  thest4names  a compre- 
hension which  destroys  all  preciseness.  So,  like- 
wise, the  meaning  of  the  two  names  of  natural 
products  can  be  little  more  than  matter  of  con- 
jecture ; the  bedolach  and  the  stone  shoham.  The 
former  word  occurs  only  here  and  in  Num.  xi.  7. 
The  Septuagint,  our  oldest,  and  best  authority 
with  regard  to  terms  of  natural  history,  renders 
it,  in  our  passage,  by  anthrax,  meaning  probably 
the  ruby,  or  possibly  the  topaz;  and  in  Numbers 
by  crystallos,  which  the  Greeks  applied  no: 
merely  to  rock-crystal,  but  to  any  finely  trans- 
parent mineral.  Any  of  the  several  kinds  of 
odoriferous  gum,  which  many  ancient  and  mo- 
dern authorities  have  maintained,  is  not  likely  ; 
for  it  could  not  be  in  value  comparable  to  gold. 
The  pearl  is  possible,  but  not  quite  probable  ; for 
it  is  an  animal  product,  and  the  connection  seems 
rather  to  confine  us  U.  minerals ; and  pearls, 
.though  translucent,  are  not  transparent  as  good, 
crystal  is.  Would  not  the  diamond  be  an  ad- 
missible conjecture?  The  shoham  occurs  in  ten 
other  places,  chiefly  in  the  book  of  Exodus,  and 
in  all  those  instances  our  version  says  onyx;  but 
the  Septuagint  varies,  taking  onyx,  sardius,  sar- 
donyx, beryl,  prase-stone,  sapphire,  and  smarag- 
dus,  which  is  a green-tinctured  rock-crystal.  The 
preponderance  seems  to  be  in  favour  of  onyx,  one 
of  the  many  varieties  of  banded  agate;  but  the 
idea  of  value  leads  us  to  think  that  the  emerald 
is  the  most  probable.  There  are  two  remarkable 
inventories  of  precious  stones  in  Exod.  xxxix.  10- 
13,  and  Ezek.  xxviii.  13  ; which  may  be  profit- 
ably studied,  comparing  the  Septuagint  with  the 
Hebrew. 

A nearer  approach  to  the  solution  of  our  pro- 
blem, we  cannot  hope  to  make. 

A gentleman  to  whom  high  respect  is  due,  the 
late  Mr.  Granville  Penn,  proposes  to  sweep  away 
the  difficulties  by  denying  the  authenticity  of  the 
passage,  verses  11  to  14  (Comparative  Estimate 
of  the  Mineral  and  Mosaical  Geologies , p.  418). 
We  think  the  reply  sufficient,  that  the  passage 
cannot  he  regarded  as  an  interpolation  without 
violating  all  the  principles  of  just  criticism. 

The  numerous  attempts  of  modern  German 
writers  to  resolve  this  part  and  all  the  rest  of  the 
Mosaic  Archaeology  into  what  they  call  a Mythic. 
Philosopheme  (an  allegory  made  up  of  tradition 
and  fancy),  would  require  a large  space  to  detail 
and  examine  them.  They  are  full  of  arbitrary 
assumptions  and  inconsistencies;  their  tendency 
and  design  are  to  undermine  all  the  facts  of  su- 
pernatural revelation,  to  destroy  the  authority  of 
the  Mosaic  and  the  prophetical  Scriptures,  and 
consequently  of  the  Christian,  and  thus  event- 
ually to  supersede  all  religion  that  rests  upon  any 
other  ground  than  egotistical  reasonings  and  ro- 
mantic fancies.  They  form  a great  part  of  a 
multifarious  scheme  of  infidelity  and  pantheism, 
which  requires  to  be  met  by  the  proofs  of  the 
existence  of  a personal,  intelligent,  and  efficient 
God,  and  the  evidences  that  he  has  bestowed 
upon  man  a positive  manifestation  of  his  author 
rity  and  his  love. 

A learned  and  apparently  pious  writer,  in 


PARADISE. 


PARAN. 


473 


Ine  first,  volume  of  a Theological  Commentary 
upon  the  OLl  Testament  (Kiel,  1S43,  the  only 
part  yet  published),  Dr.  M.  Baumgarten,  has 
proposed  to  eliminate  the  perplexities  in  a new 
way.  Admitting  the  impossibility  of  finding 
any  place,  in  the  present  condition  of  the  earth, 
that  will  answer  to  the  description,  yet  believing 
that  it  was  realized  at  the  time,  he  conceives  that 
it  pleased  the  Author  of  revelation  to  combine 
with  the  historical  fact,  a symbolical  and  pro- 
phetical intention.  We  shall  conclude  this  article 
by  citing  a passage  from  that  work  : — 

‘ Amidst  all  this  litigation  of  contending  and 
contradictory  opinions,  it  has  been  altogether 
overlooked,  that  we  ought  to  inquire  for  what 
reason  this  remarkably  circumstantial  description 
was  given  : for  it  is  not  the  manner  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  communicate  minute  particulars 
for  the  gratification  of  useless  curiosity.  The 
word  of  tJod  never  loses  sight  of  its  chief  object ; 
and  it  puts  all  its  minor  parts  into  connection 
with  that.  The  question  then  is,  What  connection 
does  the  description  of  Paradise  hold  with  the 
rest  of  the  history  ? That  the  mention  of  the 
river,  flowing  out  of  Eden,  hath  its  proper  and 
important  place,  is  plain  from  the  purpose  ascribed 
to  it — the  watering  of  the  garden , the  impartaticn 
of  life  and  fertility,  that  it  might  be  sufficiently 
adapted  for  the  abode  of  the  first  human  crea- 
tures. But  what  now  must  be  the  design  of  the 
branches  of  the  river,  which  are  expressly  pointed 
out  as  not  belonging  to  the  garden?  It  evidently 
must  be  the  same  as  in  the  first  case,  the  watering 
of  some  ground ; and  that  ground  can  be  no 
other  than  the  countries  through  which  those 
derived  streams  are  declared  to  flow.  Here  then 
we  are  met  with  the  particulars  stated  concerning 
Havilah  and  the  other  geographical  names.  The 
four  branches  go  out  into  the  country  of  gold,  of 
precious  stones,  and  of  aromatics  : they  go  out 
into  the  countries  in  which  men  first  formed  com- 
munities and  founded  mighty  kingdoms,  the  lands 
of  Cush,  Assyria,  and  Babylon.  Thus  the  great 
river  which  comes  from  the  east,  and  has  its  rise 
. in  Eden,  and  thence  immediately  waters  the  gar- 
den, is  that  which  pours  its  waters  into  the  prin- 
cipal countries  of  the  world,  as  the  streams  of  life 
to  the  nations.  The  number  also  of  both  the 
streams  and  the  countries  claims  consideration  ; 
it  is  four.  Bahr  (in  his  work  on  Symbols , vol.i. 
p.  155-174)  has  shown  that  this  number  was  the 
symbolical  sign  of  proportion  and  order ; and 
was  consequently  regarded  as  a designation  of 
the  world,  considered  as  a work  of  order  and 
proportional  arrangement — the  proper  idea  of 
the  Greek  kSct/aos.  At  a later  period,  we  find 
the  Scripture  assigning  foxir  as  the  number  of 
the  great  monarchies  of  the  world  (Dan.  vii.). 
The  description  must  therefore  be  understood  as 
directing  us  far  forward  into  the  future,  and  as 
giving  a prophetic  intimation  of  its  own  meaning. 
The  life  of  the  human  race  began  in  Paradise; 
but  from  thence  it.  was  to  diffuse  itself  into  all 
other  regions,  and  bring  the  morning-beam  of 
divine  light,  which  enlightened  man  in  the  gar- 
den, to  be  enjoyed  over  the  whole  earth.  And 
indeed  those  countries  are  the  most  immediately 
pointed  out,  winch  held  ready  their  fulness  and 
power,  and  as  it  were  kept  in  their  view  the  com- 
ing of  their  Lord,  in  order  to  do  him  homage 
fMa tt.  ’i,  1 1).  But  now,  with  respect  to  the  geo- 


graphical question,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that, 
between  the  commencement  of  history  and  our 
times,  there  lies  a great  revolution,  the  Deluge. 
It  cannot  be  supposed  that  such  a mighty  shock 
of  the  whole  terrestrial  globe  could  do  otherwise 
than  greatly  disfigure  the  earth’s  surface.  It  might 
indeed  be  thought  that  this  consideration  would 
justify  an  entire  relinquishment  of  attempts  to 
collate  the  description  with  now  existing  locali- 
ties. But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  con- 
sidered that  the  Deluge  did  not  take  away  the 
identity  of  the  earth  : and  that  the  special  names, 
as  Phrat  and  Assur,  without  doubt  have  theii 
reference  to  the  earth’s  subsequent  condition. 
The  two  names  Phrat  and  Hiddekel  appear  to 
determine  explicitly  the  tract  of  country  through 
which  they  flow  ; and  consequently  we  may  be  led 
to  conceive  of  the  whole  matter  thus:  that  from 
the  region  of  Armenia  a river  flowed,  and  then 
divided  itself  into  four  branches,  of  which  the  two 
eastern  corresponded  to  the  rivers  afterwards  de- 
nominated the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  and  the 
two  western  had  their  course  through  Arabia;  but 
that  country  (Arabia),  in  some  following  age,  was 
elevated  (by  volcanic  action)  above  the  original 
river-bed.  Prof.  Ritter  (of  the  University  of 
Berlin,  the  father  of  what  may  be  called  a new 
science,  Comparative  Geography , and  which  he 
has  happily  combined  with  Ethnography)  has 
remarked  that,  even  within  the  modern  period, 
the  Euphrates  has  not  inconsiderably  changed  its 
course.  (See  his  Geography  in  relation  to  Nature 
and  the  History  of  Mankind , vol.  ii.  p.  121,  1st. 
ed.)  In  the  following  times  of  history,  we  have 
seen  how  the  river  of  mankind  from  the  moun- 
tains of  Armenia  poured  itself  into  the  plains  of 
the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates.  The  tribes  of  men 
went  forth  into  the  regions  of  the  streams  of  Para- 
dise, acquired  power  and  gathered  riches.  But 
of  gold  they  made  gods,  decked  them  with  jewels, 
and  brought  incense  to  the  things  which  have 
noses  and  smell  not.  Their  power  rebelled  against 
Ggd  and  his  people,  and  by  the  rivers  of  Baby- 
lon the  children  of  Israel  sat  down  and  wept. 
Thus,  in  the  world’s  history,  has  the  track  of  the 
four  branch  rivers  maintained  itself,  but,  by  the 
intrusion  of  sin,  the  glorious  future  of  the  pri- 
meval Paradise  has  been  changed  into  a mourn- 
ful present.’  Theolog.  Comment,  zum  A.  Testam. 
vol.  i.  p.  39). 

We  have  thought  it  but  fair  to  put  our  readers 
into  possession  of  this  interpretation,  presenting 
the  passage  as,  though  literally  true,  yet  having 
an  allegorical  and  prophetic  intention.  It  is  in- 
genious and  striking  ; but  what  we  want  is  some 
solid  ground  of  evidence. — J.  P.  S. 

PARAN  (f“)&$!3  ; Sept.  &apar),  a name  which 
seems  to  be  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  whole  of 
the  desert  region  extending  from  the  frontiers  of 
Judah  to  the  borders  of  Sinai.  At  least,  as  we 
find  it  in  the  south  of  this  region,  bordering  Sinai 
(Num.  x.  12),  and  in  the  north  bordering  on 
Kadesh  (Num.  xiii.  26,  and  elsewhere),  it  seems 
easier  to  suppose  that  Paran  was  the  name  of  the 
whole  region  marked  by  these  limits,  than  that 
there  were  two  opposite  districts  bearing  the  same 
name.  Under  this  view  the  difficulty  of  rightly 
appropriating  the  name  is  obviated,  seeing  that 
all  the  separate  allocations  which  different 
writers  have  sought  for  it  meet  in  the  somewhat 


474 


PARMENAS. 


PARTRIDGE. 


extensive  district  which  we  suppose  it  to  nave 
embraced.  The  name  is  still  preserved  in  that 
of  Wady  Feiran , a valley  of  the  lower  Sinai, 
through  which  lay  the  road  which  appears  to  have 
l>een  taken  by  the  Israelites  in  their  march  to  the 
upper  region.  In  this  valley  there  are  ruins  of  a 
town,  and  indeed  of  more  than  one,  with  towers, 
aqueducts,  and  sepulchral  excavations ; and  here 
Ruppell  found  the  remains  of  a church,  which  he 
assigns  to  the  fifth  century  ( Reise  in  Nubien, 
p.  263;  Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  616).  This  was 
the  Pharan  or  Faran  which  had  a Christian  po- 
pulation, and  was  the  seat  of  a bishopric  so  early 
as  a.d.  400  (Oriens  Christ,  col.  735;  Reland, 
Palcest.  pp.  219,  220,  22S).  The  city  is  described, 
under  the  name  of  Feiran,  by  the  Arabian  his- 
torian Edrisi,  about  a.d.  1150,  and  by  Makriri 
about  ad.  1400.  The  description  of  the  latter 
is  copied  by  Burckhardt.  He  mentions  it  as 
having  been  a city  of  the  Amalekites ; and  the 
history  of  the  Hebrew  pilgrimage  renders  it  ex- 
tremely probable  that,  the  Amalekites  were  ac- 
tually stationed  in  this  valley,  from  which  they 
came  forth  to  attack  the  Israelites,  when  encamped 
near  it  at  Rephedim  (Exod.  xvii.  8).  We  thus 
perceive  the  ground  on  which  Jerome  proceeded 
in  stating  that  the  desert  of  Paran  joined  on 
Horeb  (O no  mast.  s.  v.  $apav,  Faran;  Xuprif}, 
Choreb).  Wady  Feiran  does  actually  join  upon 
Mount  Serbal  ; and  hence  it  might  seem  that 
Jerome  regarded  this  as  the  Horeb  of  Scripture. 

PARCHMENT.  [Writing.] 

PARLOUR.  [House.] 

PARMENAS  (Tlapyevds),  one  of  the  seven  first 
deacons  of  the  church  formed  at  Jerusalem  (Acts 
vi.  5).  Nothing  more  is  known  of  him  ; but  the 
Roman  martyrologies  allege  that  he  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom under  Trajan. 

PARTHIA  (llapO'ia,  Ptol.,  Tlapdvala,  Strabo 
and  Arrian),  the  country  of  the  Parthians  (ndp- 
6oi ),  mentioned  in  Acts  ii.  9,  as  being  with  their 
neighbours,  the  Medes  and  Elamites,  present  at 
Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  persons 
referred  to  were  Jews  from  Parthia,  and  the  pas- 
sage is  a strong  evidence  showing  how  widely 
spread  were  members  of  the  Hebrew  family  in  the 
first  century  of  our  era.  The  term  originally  re- 
ferred to  a small  mountainous  district  lying  to 
the  north-east  of  Media.  Afterwards  it  came  to 
be  applied  to  the  great  Parthian  kingdom,  into 
which  this  province  expanded.  Parthia  Proper, 
or  Ancient  Parthia,  lying  between  Aria  and  Hyr- 
cania,  the  residence  of  a rude  and  poor  tribe,  and 
traversed  by  bare  mountains,  woods,  and  sandy 
steppes,  formed  a part  of  the  great  Persian  mo- 
narchy, being  a dependency  on  the  satrapy  of  Hyr- 
cania.  Its  inhabitants  were  of  Scythian  origin. 
They  formed  a part  of  the  army  of  Xerxes,  and 
were  found  in  (hat  of  the  last  Darius.  In  the 
breaking  up  of  the  kingdom  of  Alexander  the 
Parthians  took  sides  with  Eumenes,  and  became 
subject  to  Antigonus  and  the  Seleucidse,  About 
256  years  before  Christ  Arsaces  rose  against,  the 
Syro-Macedonian  power,  and  commenced  a new 
dynasty  in  his  own  person,  designated  by  the  title 
of  Arsacidse.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the 
great  Parthian  empire,  which  extended  itself  in 
the  early  days  of  Christianity  over  all  the  pro- 
vinces of  what  had  been  the  Persian  kingdom, 
having  the  Euphrates  for  its  western  boundary, 


by  which  it  was  separated  from  the  dominions  ot 
Rome.  It  was  divided  into  eighteen  provinces 
Now  at  peace,  now  in  bitter  hostilities  with  Rome, 
now  the  victor  and  now  the  vanquished,  tlie 
Parthians  were  never  subjugated  by  the  Romans. 


At  length  Artaxerxes  founded  a new  dynasty. 
Representing  himself  as  a descendant  of  the  an- 
cient Persian  kings,  and  calling  upon  the  Per- 
sians to  recover  their  independence,  he  raised  a 
large  army,  defeated  the  Parthians  in  a great 
battle,  succeeded  to  all  the  dominions  of  the 
Parthian  kings,  and  founded  the  new  Persian 
empire,  to  the  rulers  of  which  is  commonly  given 
the  name  of  the  Sassatiidae.  The  government  of 
Parthia  was  monarchical;  but  as  there  was  no 
settled  and  recognised  line  of  succession,  rival 
aspirants  were  constantly  presenting  themselves, 
which  weakened  the  country  with  internal  broils, 
especially  as  the  Romans  saw  it  to  be  their  inte- 
rest to  foster  dissensions  and  encourage  rivalries, 
and  led  eventually  to  the  overthrow  of  the  dynasty 
in  the  case  of  the  successful  aspirant  Artaxerxes 
During  the  Syro-Macedonian  period  the  Parthian 
and  Jewish  history  kept  apart  in  separate  spheres, 
but  under  the  Romans  the  Parthians  defended 
the  party  of  Antigonus  against  Hyrcanus,  and 
even  took  and  plundered  Jerusalem  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xiv.  13.  3 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  13).  The  geography 
of  Parthia  may  be  studied,  besides  the  ancient 
authorities,  in  Cellar.  Notit.  ii.  700;  Mannert,  v. 
102.-  J.  R.  B. 

PARTRIDGE  (Nip,  hr  a,  kora,  kora;  1 
Sam.  xxvi.  20  ; Jer.  xvii.  11  ; Sept.  irepSif ; Yulg. 
perdiz,  Ecclus.  xi.  31).  Late  commentators  state 
that  there  are  four  species  of  the  tetrao  (grouse)  of 
Linnaeus  abundant  in  Palestine ; the  francolin 
(T.  framolinus),  thekatta  (7!  alchata ),  the  red- 
legged  or  Barbary  partridge  ( T.  petrosus),  and 
the  Greek  partridge  ( T.  saxatilis).  In  this  now 
obsolete  classification  there  are  included  not  less 
than  three  genera,  according  to  the  more  correct 
systems  of  recent  writers,  and  not  one  strictly  a 
grouse  occurs  in  the  number,  though  the  real  T. 
Ur  off  alius,  or  cock  of  the  woods,  is  reported  to  fre- 
quent Asia  Minor  in  winter,  and  in  that  case  is 
probably  no  stranger  in  Libanus.  There  is,  how- 
ever, the  genus  Pteroc/esy  of  which  the  P.  alchata 
is  the  katta,_ganga,  cata,  and  pin-tailed  grouse  of 
authors,  a species  very  common  in  Palestine,  and 
innumerable  in  Arabia;  but  it  is  not  the  only  one, 
for  the  sand* grouse  of  Latham  (P.  arenarim ) 
occurs  in  France,  Spain,  Barbary,  Arabia,  Persia, 
and  on  the  north  side  of  the  Mediterranean,  or  all 
round  Palestine.  P.  Arabicus , and  prd  bably  ^ 


PARTRIDGE. 


PASIIUR. 


*75 


pxustus,  or  the  Arabian  and  singed  gangas,  occur 
equally  in  the  open  districts  of  the  south,  peopling 
the  desert  along  with  the  ostrich.  All  are  distin- 
guished from  other  genera  of  Tetraonida  by  their 
long  and  powerful  wings,  enabling  them  to  reach 
water,  which  they  delight  to  drink  in  abundance; 
and  by  this  propensity  they  often  indicate  to  the 
thirsty  caravan  in  what  direction  to  find  relief. 
They  feed  more  on  insects,  larvae,  and  worms  than 
on  seeds,  and  none  of  the  species  having  a perfect 
hind  toe  that  reaches  the  ground,  they  run  fast : 
these  characteristics  are  of  some  importance  in 
determining  whether  they  were  held  to  be  really 
clean  birds,  and  consequently  could  be  the  selav 
of  the  Israelites,  which  our  versions  have  rendered 
‘quail*  [Quail;  Unclean  Birds], 

The  Francolin  forms  a second  genus,  whereof 
F.  vulgaris , or  the  common  tree-partridge,  is  the 
Syrian  species  best  known,  though  most  likely 
not  the  only  one  of  that  country.  It  is  larger  than 
the  ganga;  the  male  is  always  provided  with  one 
pair  of  spurs  (though  others  of  the  genus  have  two), 
and  has  the  tail  longer  than  true  partridges. 
This  spe'.ies  is  valued  for  the  table,  is  of  handsome 
pli/*»/,ge,  and  common  from  Spain  and  France, 
on  brfi i sides  of  the  Mediterranean,  eastward  to 


446.  'Partridge  of  Syria.  Francolinus  Vulgaris.] 

The  partridge  is  a third  genus,  reckoning  in 
Syria  the  two  species  before  named,  both  red- 
legged  and  furnished  with  orange  and  black  cres- 
cents on  the  sides;  but  the  other  markings  differ, 


and  the  Barbary  species  is  smaller  than  the  Greek. 
They  are  inferior  in  delicacy  to  the  common  par- 


tridge, and  it  is  probable  that  Perdix  rufa,  and 
the  Caspian  partridge,  both  resemlling  the  former 
in  many  particulars,  are  no  strangers  in  Syria. 

The  expostulation  of  David  with  Saul,  where 
he  says,  ‘ The  king  of  Israel  is  come  out  to  seek  a 
flea,  as  when  one  doth  hunt  a partridge  on  the 
mountains,’  is  perfectly  natural ; for  the  red-legged 
partridges  are  partial  to  upland  brushwood,  which 
is  not  an  uncommon  character  of  the  hills  and 
mountains  of  Palestine ; and  the  koria  sitting  on 
her  eggs  and  not  hatching  them  (Jerem.  xvii.  11), 
we  take  to  allude  to  the  liability  of  the  nest  being 
trodden  under  foot,  or  robbed  by  carnivorous  ani- 
mals, notwithstanding  all  the  care  and  interesting 
manoeuvres  of  the  parent  birds  to  save  it  or  the 
brood  ; for  this  genus  is  monogamous,  nestles  on 
the  ground,  and  both  male  and  female  sit  and 
anxiously  watch  over  the  safety  of  their  young. 
This  explanation  renders  it  unnecessary  to  advert 
to  exploded  notions  drawn  from  the  ancients. 
The  little  regard  paid  to  specific  and  generic 
identity  by  the  Rabbinical  and  Arabian  writers  is 
exposed  in  Bochart’s  comment,  and  is  manifested 
constantly  in  the#  colloquial  terminology  of  the 
East,  where  cognate  languages  express  very  differ- 
ent objects  by  words  really  or  apparently  the  same. 

mp  kore , is,  we  think,  derived  from  the  voice 
of  a bird,  and  more  than  one  species  of  bustard  h 
thereby  indicated  in  various  tongues  to  the  extre- 
mity of  Africa  and  of  India ; among  which  Otis 
cory  and  Otis  Arabs  are  so  called  at  this  day, 
although  the  first  mentioned  resides  on  the  plains 
of  Western  India,  the  second  in  Arabia.  We  take 
both  these,  however,  to  be  the  same  species.  ‘ Cory’ 
is  likewise  applied  in  Caflfrariatoa  bustard,  which 
from  an  indigenous  word  has  been  converted 
by  the  Dutch  into  knorhaan.  Notwithstanding 
the  pretended  etymology  of  the  word,  by  which  it 
is  made  to  indicate  a long  beak,  none  of  the  genus, 
not  even  Otis  Denhami  (a  large  bird  of  Northern 
Africa),  has  it  long,  it,  being,  in  fact,  middle-sized 
in  all.  Thus  it  would  appear  that  the  type  of  the 
name  belongs  to  Otis,  and  it  might  be  maintained 
that  species  of  that  genus  were  known  to  the  He- 
brews, by  their  name  fcOp  kora  or  koria,  were  it 
not  for  the  fact  that  birds  bearing  this  name  were 
hunted  by  the  Hebrews,  which  could  not  well  have 
been  the  case  had  they  not  included  other  genera  ; 
for  bustards,  being  without  a hind  toe,  were  con- 
sidered unclean,  while  partridges,  having  it,  were 
clean.  The  ganga  or  katta,  being  provided  with 
a small  incomplete  one,  may  have  offered  an  in- 
stance where  the  judgment  of  the  priesthood  must 
have  decided.  We  give  figures  of  both  Franco- 
linus vulgaris  and  Pteroclcs  alchata. — C.  H.  S. 

PARVAIM  (D^V)Q  ; Sept.  apovl/n' ),  a region 
producing  the  finest  gold  (2  Chron.  iff.  6).  There 
is  very  strong  reason  to  conclude,  with  Bochart, 
that  it  is  the  same  with  Ophir.  Castell,  however, 
identifies  it  with  Barbatia  on  the  Tigris,  which  is 
named  by  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.v i.  32);  and  Gese* 
nius,  seeking  the  root  of  the  name  in  the  Sanskrit 
ptirva,  ‘ before,’  i.  e.  ‘ eastern,*  concludes  it  to  bt 
a general  term,  corresponding  to  our  Levant, 
meaning  east  country  ; so  that  ‘ gold  of  Parvaim’ 
means  Eastern  gold. 

1.  PASHUR  ("Vin^ip  ; Sept.  $aurovp,  4>a<r- 
<rov£),  son  of  Immer,  a priest,  and  chief  overseer 
of  the  Temple,  who  smote  Jeremiah  and  put  him 
in  the  stocks  for  his  prophecies  of  captivit)  and 


476 


PASHUR. 


PASSOVER. 


ruin ; on  which  the  prophet  was  commissioned  to 
declare  that  he  should  be  one  of  those  to  go  into 
exile,  and  that  he  and  all  his  friends  should  die 
in  Babylon,  and  be  buried  there  (Jer.  xx.  1-6). 

2.  PASHUR,  son  of  Melchiah,  a high  officer 
of  king  Zedekiah,  and  one  of  those  at  whose  in- 
stance Jeremiah  was  cast  into  prison  (Jer.  xxi.  1 ; 
xxxviii.  1-6).  A descendant  of  his  is  mentioned 
among  the  new  colonists  of  Jerusalem  after  the 
captivity  (Neh.  xi.  12). 

PASSOVER  (nDS  ; ndaxa  ; pascha,  a pass- 
ing over,  sparing , or  protection ).  The  Passover, 
like  the  sabbath  and  other  institutions,  had  a 
two- fold  reference — historical  and  typical.  As  a 
commemorative  institution  it  was  designed  to 
preserve  amongst  the  Hebrews  a grateful  sense  of 
their  redemption  from  Egyptian  bondage,  and  of 
the  protection  granted  to  their  first-born  on  the 
night  when  all  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians 
were  destroyed  (Exod.  xii.  27) ; as  a typical 
institute  its  object  was  to  shadow  forth  the  great 
facts  and  consequences  of  the  Christian  Sacrifice 
(1  Cor.  v.  7).  That  the  ancient  Jews  understood 
this  institution  to  prefigure  the  sufferings  of  the 
Christ  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  from  the  Mishna,  where,  among  the 
five  things  said  to  be  contained  in  the  great  Hal- 
lel  (a  hymn  composed  of  several  psalms,  and 
sung  after  the  paschal  supper),  one  is,  the  suffer- 
ings of  Messiah,  for  which  they  refer  to  Ps.  cxvi. 
(Pesachini,  f.  119). 

The  word  Passover  has  three  general  accept- 
ations in  Scripture.  1st.  It  denotes  the  yearly 
solemnity  celebrated  on  the  14th  day  of  Nisan  or 
A bib,  which  was  strictly  the  Passover  of  the 
Lamb , for  on  that  day  the  Israelites  were  com- 
manded to  roast  the  lamb  and  eat  it  in  their  own 
houses ; 2nd.  It  signifies  that  yearly  festivity, 
celebrated  on  the  15th  of  Nisan,  which  may  be 
called  the  Feast  of  the  Passover  (Deut.  ;«.vi.  2; 
Num.  xxviii.  16,  17);  3rd.  It  denotes  the  whole 
solemnity,  commencing  on  the  1 4th,  and  ending 
on  the  21st  day  of  Nisan  (Luke  xxri.  1),  though, 
in  strictness  of  speech,  the  Passover  and  the 
nr^n  sn,  feast  of  unfermented  things,  are 
distinct  institutions.  The  Passover  was  to  be 
kept  on  the  eve  of  the  14th  of  the  first  month 
(Abib),  in  which,  although  unfermented  things 
were  enjoined  to  be  eaten  with  the  lamb,  yet  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread  did  not  commence  until 
the  following  morning,  continuing  seven  clays,  of 
which  the  first  and  last  only  were  sabbaths  (Lev 
xxiii.  5-8),  the  first  probably  in  commemoration 
of  the  commencement  of  their  march  out  of 
Egypt,  the  last  of  their  passage  through  the  Red 
Sea  [Festivals].  The  paschal  lamb,  in  the 
age  following  the  first  institution  of  the  Pass- 
over  in  Egypt,  and  after  the  settlement  of  the 
Hebrews  in  Palestine,  could  only  be  killed  by 
the  priests  in  the  court  of  the  temple  (Deut.  xvi. 
5-7;  2 Chron.  xxxv.  1-11;  Lev.  xvii.  3-6), 
whence  the  owner  of  the  lamb  received  it  from 
the  priests  and  ‘ brought  it  to  his  house  in  Jem - 
Salem,  and  roasted  it,  and  ate  it  in  the  evening  ’ 
(Maimonides,  Corban  Pesach,  c.  i.  § 6) ; and  it 
was  thus  that  Christ  kept  the  Passover,  eating  it 
in  a chamber  within  Jerusalem  (Luke  xxii.  7- 
11)  ; but  the  feast  of  unfermented  things  (JYlVO, 
Exod.  xii.  15)  the  Jews  thought  themselves  bound 
to  keen  in  every  place  in  which  they  might  dwell. 


if  they  could  not  visit  Jerusalem  ; ‘ the  eating  of 
it,’  says  Maimonides,  * depended  not.  upon  the 
Passover,  for  it  was  a commandment  by  itself’ 
( Chometz  Vematzah,  § 6).  As,  however,  from 
the  evening  of  the  14th  to  the  21st  day  of  Abib 
or  Nisan  (April),  all  ferment  was  banished  from 
the  habitations  of  the  Hebrews,  both  institutions 
thus  received  a common  name  (1  Cor.  v 5,  7,  8, 
13).*  Hence  the  14th  of  Abib  may  with  pro- 
priety, as  it  is  in  some  passages,  be  called  the 
first  day  of  unfermented  things,  since  the  ferment 
was  removed  on  the  14th  before  evening.  Thus, 
while  Deut.  xvi.  8 mentions  only  six  days  of 
unfermented  bread,  Josephus  once,  assigns  eight 
( Antiq . ii.  15.  1),  and  in  other  places  seven 
(Antig  iii.  10.  5;  ix.  13.  3).  Comp.  Num. 
xxviii.  16-18;  Matt.  xxvi.  17. 

On  the  10th  of  the  month  Abib,  the  master  of 
a family  separated  a ram  or  a goat  of  a year  eld, 
without  blemish  (Exod.  xii.  1-6;  1 Pet.  i.  19), 
which  was  slain  on  the  14th  day,  between  the  two 
evenings , before  the  altar  (Deut.  xvi. 

2,  5,  6).f  Originally  the  blood  was  sprinkled 


* The  Rabbins  enumerate  four  degrees  of  pre- 
paration for  the  feast  of  unfermented  things.  ( 1.) 
Expurgatio  fermenti,  the  cleansing  of  all  their 
household  utensils,  lest  any  taint  of  ferment  might 
be  attached  to  them,  which  process  of  purification 
was  effected  two  or  three  days  before  the  Passover. 
(2.)  Inquisitio  fermenti , the  searching  after  fer- 
ment or  leaven  throughout,  all  their  houses,  even 
to  the  mouse-holes,  the  Mishna  expressly  enjoin- 
ing the  cellar  to  be  searched.  This  search  was 
made  with  a wax  candle  on  the  night  preceding 
the  Passover.  (3.)  Conflagratio  fermenti , or 
burning  of  the  ferment,  which  took  place  about 
noon.  (4.)  Then  followed  the  last  degree, Execratio 

fermenti,  jtftn  the  cursing  or  annulling  of 

the  ferment  in  this  form  : ‘ All  manner  of  fer- 
ment, or  whatsoever  fermented  thing  is  in  my 
possession,  whether  seen  of  me  or  not  seen,  cleansed 
of  me  or  not  cleansed,  let  it  all  be  scattered, 
annulled,  and  accounted  as  the  dust  of  the  earth  ’ 
(Vide  Chometz  Vematzah,  ii.  2;  Buxtorf,  Synag. 
Jud.  p.  12;  Scaliger,  De  Emend.  Temp . ; Prole - 
gom  ; Fagius,  in  Exod.  xii.). 

f The  Jewish  day  had  twelve  hours  (John  xi. 
9),  counting  from  sunrise,  about  six  of  the  clock 
of  our  time.  The  ninth  hour  for  three  in  the 
afternoon)  was  the  hour  of  prayer,  when  they 
went  into  the  temple,  at.  the  daily  evening  sacri- 
fice (Acts  iii.  1).  This  was  the  ordinary  time 
for  the  Passover,  as  appears  from  the  Babylonian 
Talmud.  ‘ The  daily  evening  sacrifice  was  killed 
at  the  eighth  hour  and  a-half,  and  it  was  offered 
up  at.  the  ninth  hour  and  a-half.  In  the  evening  of 
the  Passover  it  was  killed  at.  the  seventh  hour  and 
a-half,  and  offered  at.  the  eighth  hour  and  a-half’ 
( Pesachim , c.  5).  The  reason  of  this  obviously  is, 
because  the  priests  had  first  to  kill  the  daily 
sacrifice,  and  then  to  slay  the  Passover  and  eat 
it ; and  also  to  rest  on  the  evening  prior  to  the 
sabbath.  Thus  in  the  evening  of  times  (Heb.  i. 
2;  1 Pet.  i.  19-20),  or  last  days,  about  the  same 
hour  of  the  day  when  the  paschal  lamb  was  of- 
fered in  the  temple,  did  Christ  die  on  Calvary, 
so  that  the  substance  and  the  shadow  corresponded 
(Mark  xv.  25-33).  Calmet,  in  a very  elaborate 
dissertation,  contends,  with  many  of  the  ancient* 


PASSOVER. 


PASSOVER. 


477 


in  the  posts  of  the  door  (Exod.  xii.  7),  but  after- 
wai ds  the  priests  sprinkled  the  blood  upon  the 
bottom  of  the  altar  (comp.  Deut.  vi.  9 ; 1 Pet. 
i.  2;  Heb.  viii.  10;  ix.  13,  14).  The  ram  or 
kid  was  roasted  in  an  oven  (D’TD)  whole,  with 
two  spits  made  of  pomegranate  wood  thrust  through 
it,  the  one  lengthwise,  the  other  transversely 
(crossing  the  longitudinal  one  near  the  tore-legs), 
tlius  forming  a cross  ( Pesachim , c.  3).  This  mode 
of  roasting  is  expressed  in  Arabic  by  the  verb 

.La;  ‘ to  crucify’  (Jahn’s  Bib.  Antiq.  § 1 42). 

Thus  roasted  with  tire,  as  an  emblem  of  purifica- 
tion, it  was  served  up  with  a bitter  salad  [Me- 
KOiiiivi]  unpickled,  indicative  of  the  bitterness 
of  their  bondage  in  Egypt,  and  with  the  flesh  of 
the  other  sacrifices  (Deut.  xvi.  2-6).  What  of 
the  flesh  remained  uneaten  was  to  be  consumed 
with  fire,  lest  it  should  see  corruption  (comp. 
Exod.  xii.  10;  Ps.  xvi.  10;  Acts  ii.  27).  Not 
fewer  than  ten,  nor  more  than  twenty  persons, 
were  admitted  to  this  sacred  solemnity.  At  its 
first  observance  the  Hebrews  ate  the  Passover  with 
loins  girt  about,  sandals  on  their  feet,  staves  in 
their  hands,  and  in  haste,  like  travellers  equipped 
and  prepared  for  immediate  departure  (Exod.  xii. 
11);  but  subsequently  the  usual  mode  of  re- 
clining was  adopted,  in  token  of  rest  and  secu- 
rity (John  xiii.  23).  Several  of  these  rites  are 
therefore  omitted  by  Moses  in  repeating  the  laws 
of  the  Passover  (Lev.  xxiii.  5-8  ; Num.  ix.  2-11; 
xxviii.  16,  17  ; Deut.  xvi.).  The  Rabbins  enu- 
merate the  following  particulars  as  peculiar  to  its 
original  observance  : — l.  The  eating  of  it  in  their 
houses  dispersed  in  Egypt;  2.  The  taking  up  of 
the  paschal  lamb  from  the  tenth  day;  3.  The 
charge  to  strike  the  blood  on  the  door-posts ; 4. 
The  eating  of  it  in  haste  (Bab. Talmud,  Pesachim , 
c.  9 ; Maim.  Corban  Pesach.  c.  10,  § 15).  But 
the  command  not  to  break  a bone  of  tire  offering 
was  always  observed  (John  xix.  36). 

Considering  the  condition  of  the  Hebrews  in 
Egypt,  and  that  the  country  was  not  celebrated 
for  its  wines,  though  it  had  its  vineyards  (Ps. 
lxxviii.  47;  cv.  33;  Gen.  xl.  11).  it  seems  pro- 
bable that  water  was  the  general  drink  at  the 
original  institution,  though  some  of  the  more 
wealthy  might  have  wine.  In  this  case,  we  ap- 
prehend, it  would  be  such  as  Pharaoh  is  repre- 
sented as  drinking  (Gen.  xl.  11),  which  is 
called  by  Herodotus  (ii.  37)  oivos  agireXiva, 
and  which,  in  Exod.  xxii.  29;  xxix.  40,  under 
the  names  of  tears , and  wine,  is  ap- 

pointed amongst  the  offerings.  As  wine,  then, 
afterwards  formed  part  of  their  oblations,  and 
was  consumed  in  their  sacred  feasts,  it  would 
thus  naturally  become  introduced  into  that  of  the 
Passover.  The  wine  used  would  of  course  be 
unfermented,  but  it  is  not  certain  that  it  was 
always  the  fresh  expressed  juice  or  ‘ pure  blood 
of  the  grape1  (Deut.  xxxii.  14);  for  the  Mishna 
states  that  the  Jews  were  in  the  habit,  of  using 
boiled  wine.  1 They  do  not  boil  the  wine  of  the 
heave-oftering,  because  it  diminishes  it,'  and 
consequently  thickens  it,  thus  rendering  the 
mingling  of  water  with  it  when  drunk  necessary  ; 
but  it  is  immediately  added,  * Rabbi  Yehudah 

that  our  Saviour  did  not  celebrate  the  Passover 
the  last  year  of  his  life,  or,  at  least,  that  the  Jews 
telebrated  it  on  Fnday,  the  day  of  Christ’s  death. 


permits  this,  because  it  improves  it'  ( Teroomoth 
Perek , c.  xi.).  Independent  of  this,  however,  we 
may  consider  it  certain,  that  on  the  special  occa- 
sion of  the  Passover,  when  all  fermented  things 
were  so  cautiously  banished,  this  practice  of  boil- 
ing the  wine  would  be  often  resorted  to  as  a well- 
known  means  of  destroying  the  fermenting  prin- 
ciple, and  securing  the  purity  of  the  wine  [W  ink]. 
Though  the  Rabbins  have  made  many  burden- 
some and  unauthorized  additions  to  the  simple 
laws  of  the  Bible,  their  writings  still  illustrate 
our  subject  to  a very  great  extent,  and,  with 
reference  to  some  of  the  chief  ceremonies  of  the 
Passover,  demonstrate  that  our  Lord's  practice 
corresponded  with  theirs.*  One  of  the  ordinances 
of  the  Hilchoth  Chometz  (whereby  are  typified 
the  four  blessings  expressed  in  Exod.  vi.  6,  7)  is, 
that  ‘ all  persons,  whether  men  or  women,  are 
bound  on  this  night  to  drink  four  cups  of  wine, 
and  this  number  is  not  to  be  diminished  1 (c  vii.). 
Besides  these  four  cups,  wine  was  also  drunk 
during  the  supper.  Such  a quantity  of  wine  of 
the  modern  kind  (about  two  and  a half  pints 
English),  exclusive  of  water,  drunk  by  each 
person  present,  would  have  transformed  this 
sacred  festival  into  a sad  scene  of  revelry  and 
drunkenness,  which,  considering  the  grave  and 
temperate  habits  of  the  ancient  Jews,  is  a sup- 
position we  are  not  warranted  to  make.  Fer- 
mented wine  was  in  fact  excluded  by  a general 
law  [Leaven],  which  appears  to  ha,ye  been  well 
understood.  This  is  evident  from  many  facts. 
The  Mishna  enumerates  three  species  of  drink, 
the  use  of  which  would  violate  the  Passover  : 
viz.  ‘ the  cutach  of  Babylon,  the  shekar  of  the 
Medes,  and  the  chometz  of  Idumsea  ’ ( Pes . c.  iii.). 
Maimonides  and  Bartenora,  in  their  comments, 
say  that  water  and  the  juices  of  fruits  were  al- 
lowed to  be  drunk  at  the  Passover  by  the  ancient 
Jews,  who  held  an  hypothesis  that  the  water  of 
fruits  did  not  ferment ! The  former  says,  ‘ The 
juice  of  fruits  does  not  leaven,  but  putrefies  : and 
the  liquor  of  fruits  are  wine,  and  milk,  and 
honey,  and  oil-olive,  and  the  juice  of  apples  and 
pomegranates,  and  such  like.  But  if  any  water 
be  mixed  with  them  they  do  ferment 1 ( Chometz 
Vematzah,  c.  v.  § 1).  Again  : * Paste  that  is 
kneaded  in  the  liquor  of  fruits,  if  they  boil  it  in 
the  liquor  of  fruits,  or  fry  it  in  a pan  in  oil,  it 
is  lawful,  for  the  liquor  of  fruits  ferments  not 1 
(ibid.).  These  statements  serve  to  prove  that,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  ancient  Jews,  both  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  law  extended  to  the  prohibition 
of  everything  known  to  be  fermented.  The  later 
Jews,  as  well  as  some  of  the  earlier,  may  have 
held  erroneous  chemical  hypotheses  on  this  sub- 
ject, but  one  thing  is  certain,  that  our  Lord , in 
observing  the  law,  did  not  err  in  its  application 
He  employed  the  : fruit  of  the  vine,’  'TS, 

'yevv^ga  rrjs  ayireXuv.  The  oral  law,  however, 
clearly  indicates  the  kind  of  wine  used  by  the 
Jews  on  this  occasion  : ‘ Whosoever  has  not  got 
wine  transgresses  an  injunction  of  the  Rabbins, 

* The  Jewish  writings  of  course  vary  much  in 
value,  according  as  they  approach  to,  or  recede 
from,  the  primitive  ages.  The  Mishnical  doctors 
must  be  distinguished  from  their  more  modern 
commentators,  the  Gemarists,  who,  like  anno* 
tators  in  general,  often  obscure  a subject,  as  well 
as  sometimes  explain  one. 


478 


PASSOVER. 


PASSOVER. 


for  they  have  said  that  there  is  to  be  no  diminu- 
tion from  the  four  cups.  And,  if  necessary,  he 
must  sell  what  he  has,  in  order  to  keep  the  in- 
junction of  the  wise  men.  He  is  not  to  depend 
upon  the  broad,  for  if  he  fulfil  the  command 
concerning  one  cup,  he  has  not  fulfilled  that  con- 
cerning the  three.  Therefore  let  him  sell  what 
he  has,  and  furnish  the  expense,  until  he  pro- 
cure (D'plDV  IX  |")  wine  or  raisins  ’ (Arbah 
Turim.  Orach  Chayim , p.  483).  This  accords 
with  the  practice  of  the  modern  Jews.  ‘They  are 
forbidden  to  drink  any  liquor  made  from  grain  ’ 
(clearly  because  such  drinks  are  always  fer- 
mented), ‘ or  that  lias  passed  through  the  process 
of  fermentation.  Their  drink  is  either  pure  water, 
or  raisin-wine  prepared  by  themselves  ’ (Allen's 
Modern  Judaism , p.  394,  1830).  Hyam  Isaacs 
says,  ‘ Their  drink  during  the  time  of  the  feast 
is  either  fair  water  or  raisin-tome  prepared  by 
themselves,  but  no  kind  of  leaven  must  be  mixed’ 
(' Ceremonies , §c.  of  the  Jews,  p.  98).* 

The  Ceremonies  practised  at  the  eating  of  the 
Paschal  Supper,  as  described  in  the  Jewish  ritual 

FIDD  by  man  TDD,  and  other  books,  will  illus- 
trate many  circumstances  alluded  to  by  the 
Evangelists  in  their  account  of  the  last  Passover 
kept  by  tbe  Saviour.  Since  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  the  Jews  can  sacrifice  no  paschal 
lamb,  and  only  observe  the  parts  of  the  feast  which 
relate  to  the  bread,  herbs,  and  wine.  Assuming 
that  the  Mishna  pretty  correctly  details  the  cus- 
toms of  the  Hebrews  in  the  days  of  Christ,  the 
following  summary  will  exhibit  such  parts  of  the 
ceremonies  observed  by  the  ancient  Jew’s  as  ap- 
pear to  throw  light  upon  the  Gospel  narratives. 

* Professor  Moses  Stuart  has  the  following  in- 
teresting remarks  on  the  subject  of  the  Passover- 
wine : ‘ Perhaps,  however,  the  usage  which  was 
carried  so  far  by  the  Jews,  arose  mainly  from 
strict  regard  to  the  supposed  real  meaning  of  the 
command  in  Exod.  xii.  15;  xiii.  3,  7,  al.,  which 

is  not  expressed  by  bread  (fTDn  D!"6),  but  by 
declaring  that  they  should  not  eat  f’DI"!,  i.  e.  any- 
thing fermented.  Now  as  the  word  trans- 

lated eating , is,  in  cases  without  number,  em- 
ployed to  include  a partaking  of  all  refreshments 
at  a meal,  that  is,  of  the  drinks  as  well  as  tbe 
food,  tjie  Rabbins,  it  would  seem,  interpreted  the 
command  just  cited  as  extending  to  the  wine , as 
well  as  the  bread , of  the  Passover.’  ‘ The  Rab- 
bins, therefore,  in  order  to  exclude  every  kind 
of  fermentation  from  the  Passover,  taught  the 
Jews  to  make  a wine  from  raisins  or  dried  grapes 
expressly  for  that  occasion,  and  this  was  to  be 
drunk  before  it  had  time  to  ferment.’  ‘ When 
the  Jewish  custom  began  of  excluding  fermented 
wine  from  the  Passover- feast  is  not  known.  That 
the  custom  is  very  ancient,  that  it  is  even  now 
almost  universal,  and  that  it  has  been  so  for  time 
whereof  tbe  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the 
contrary,  I take  to  be  facts  that  cannot  be  fairly 
controverted.’  ‘ I cannot  doubt  that  in  its 

widest  sense,  was  excluded  from  the  Jewish  Pass- 
over,  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  first  instituted; 
for  I am  not  able  to  find  evidence  to  make  me 
doubt  that  the  custom  among  the  Jews  of  ex- 
cluding fermented  wine  as  well  as  bread  is  older 
than  the  Christian  era’  (Dr.  Robinson’s  Biblio- 
theca Sacra,  pp.  507,  508,  New  York,  1843). 


After  the  Paschal  Supper  had  been  prepared, 
and  the  washings  or  purifications  usual  at  feast! 
performed,  the  master  of  tbe  family  (or  most 
eminent  guest)  proceeded  to  tbe  giving  of  thanks. 
Sitting  down  with  the  company,  he  took  a cup- 
ful of  wine  in  his  right  hand,  with  which  be 
began  tbe  consecration,  saying,  ‘ Blessed  be  Thou, 
O Lord  our  God,  tbe  King  of  the  universe,  who 
hast  created  the  frttit  of  the  vine'  (|D3n  HD).  H* 
then  drank  the  first  cup  of  wine,  and  his  example 
was  followed  by  each  person  present.  Tnis 
thanksgiving  was  called  {"H  HDT3,  the  blessing 
of  the  u-ine  (Luke  xxii.  17).  He  then  blessed 
for  the  washing  of  hands,  and  washed.  A table 
was  next  brought  in  furnished,  having  upon  it 
bitter  herbs,  unleavened  bread,  and  the  sauce 
called  nonn  charoseth  (or  rather  a sort  of  wine 
or  fruit  cake  composed  of  raisins,  dates,  figs,  &c., 
stamped  or  pressed  together,  a species  of  J71¥D, 
so  as  to  resemble  clay,  the  Rabbins  deeming  it  a 
memorial  of  the  Jews  having  wrought  therein), 
also  the  body  of  the  paschal  lamb,  and  tbe  flesh 
of  the  chagigah,  or  feast-  offering,  which  is  for  the 
14th  day  of  N isan  (Deut.  xvi.  2).  Then  he  began 
t.o  bless  God  who  created  the  fruit  of  the  earth , 
taking  an  herb  and  first  dipping  it  in  tbe  sauce 
or  paste,  eating  it,  with  all  who  lay  at  the  table 
around  him,  none  eating  less  than  the  size  of  an 
olive.  The  table  was  now  removed  from  before 
him  only  who  made  the  declaration  nTjn  hag- 
gadah,  or  showing  forth  (1  Cor.  xi.  26)  of  their 
deliverance  out  of  Egypt,  as  commanded  m 
Exod.  xii.  17 ; xiii.  8.  Then  the  second  cup  of 
wine  was  filled,  and  the  son  or  other  young  per- 
son asked,  according  to  Exod.  xii.  26,  ‘ What 
mean  ye  by  this  service1?’  He  who  presided 
would  then  respond,  according  to  a prescribed 
fotm  or  liturgy,  ‘ How  different  is  this  rtigbt  from 
all  other  nights!  For  all  other  nights  we  wash 
but  once,  but  this  night  twice.  All  other  nights 
we  eat  leavened  bread,  or  unleavened,  but  these 
nights  unfermented  only.  All  other  nights  we 
eat  flesh,  roasted,  baked,  or  boiled,  but  this  night 
roasted  only.  All  other  nights  we  eat  of  any 
other  herbs,  but  this  night  only  bitter  herbs.  All 
other  nights  we  eat  either  sitting  or  lying,  but  this 
night  lying  only.’  Then  the  table  was  again 
placed  before  him,  and  he  said,  ‘ This  Passover 
which  we  eat  is  in  respect  that  the  Lord  passed 
over  the  houses  of  our  fathers  in  Egypt.’  Then, 
holding  up  the  bitter  herbs,  he  would  say,  ‘ These 
bitter  herbs  that  we  eat  are  in  respect  that  the 
Egyptians  made  the  lives  of  our  fathers  bitter  in 
Egypt.’  Then,  holding  up  the  unleavened  bread 
in  his  hand,  he  saith,  ‘ This  unleavened  bread 
which  we  eat  is  in  respect  that  the  dough  of  our 
fathers  had  not  time  to  be  leavened,  when  the 
Lord  appeared  unto  them  and  redeemed  them 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  enemy  ; and  they  baked 
unleavened  cakes  of  the  dough  which  they  brought 
out  of  Egypt  ’ (Exod.  xii.  39).  Then  he  said, 
‘ Therefore  are  we  bound  to  confess,  to  praise,  to 
laud,  to  glorify,  to  honour,  to  extol,  to  magnify, 
and  to  ascribe  victory  to  Him  who  did  unto  our 
fathers  and  unto  us  all  these  signs,  and  who 
brought  us  forth  from  servitude  to  freedom,  from 
sorrow  to  joy,  from  darkness  to  marvellous  light, 
and  we  say  before  Him,  Halleluyah  ! &c.’  Psalms 
cxiii.  and  cxiv.  were  then  repeated.  Then  they 
blessed  the  Lord  who  had  redeemed  them  and 
their  fathers  out  of  Egypt,  and  preserved  them 


PASTURAGE. 


PATARA. 


47$ 


snto  that  night,  to  eat  unleavened  bread  and 
bitter  herbs.  The  second  cup  of  wine,  after  the 
usual  blessing,  was  then  drunk.  He  next  blessed 
for  the  washing  of  hands,  and  washed  a second 
time  (John  xiii.  4,  5,  12).  Then  he  took  two 
cakes,  and  he  < brake’  one  of  them,  using  both 
hands,  and  pronouncing  the  consecration  in  these 
words,  ‘ Blessed  be  Thou,  O Lord  our  God,  the 
King  of  the  universe,  wh  bringest  forth  food  out 
of  the  earth’  (Psalm  civ.  14).  This  was  called 

Dr6n  i"D“Q,  the  blessing  of  the  bread ; and  he 
who  pronounced  the  blessing  the  breaker 

(Luke  xxii.  19).  He  then  distributed  a piece  of 
the  bread  to  each  person  around  him,  blessing 
God  who  commanded  to  eat  unleavened  bread 
and  bitter  herbs,  and  saying,  ‘ This  is  the  bread 
of  affliction  which  our  fathers  did  eat  in  the  land 
of  Egypt.’  [This  form  of  speech  was  followed  by 
the  Saviour  (Luke  xxii.  19),  when  he  gave  to  the 
bread  a new  reference,  saying,  ‘ This  is  my  body,’ 
i.  e.  a sign  of  it.]  Then  all  ate,  such  of  them  as 
chose  dipping  their  portion  into  the  charoseth 
(John  xiii.  26).  The  master  next  blessed  God 
who  commanded  the  eating  of  the  sacrifice,  and 
he  ate  of  the  flesh  of  the  feast-offering : then  he 
blessed  God  who  commanded  the  eating  of  the 
Passover,  and  he  ate  of  the  body  of  the  paschal 
lamb.  After  this  the  company  sat  long  at  supper, 
each  person  eating  and  drinking  as  much  as  he 
required,  religious  discourse  being  generally  car- 
ried on  during  the  meal.  Afterwards  they  ate  of 
the  flesh  of  the  Passover,  if  only  a piece  the  size 
of  an  olive,  but  tasted  no  other  food  afterwards,  so 
that  it  might  be  the  end  of  their  supper,  and  the 
taste  of.  it  remain  in  the  mouth.  After  this,  he 
lifted  up  his  hands,  and  blessed  the  third  cup  of 
wine  in  the  usual  form,  and  the  wine  was  drunk, 
each  person,  in  these  ceremonies,  repeating  the 
words  of  the  master,  and  following  his  example 
in  eating  and  drinking.  This  cup  was  pro- 
perly the  cup  of  benediction,  HDlin  D'D  (Matt, 
xxvi.  27  ; 1 Cor.  x.  16),  with  which  the  Saviour 
commended  the  mysteries  of  his  blood  to  his 
disciples.  After  this  third  cup  was  drunk,  thanks- 
giving was  continued  for  the  food  of  which  they 
had  partaken,  for  the  deliverance  of  their  fathers 
from  Egyptian  servitude,  for  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  for  the  law  given  to  Moses.  Hence 
the  propriety  of  the  Saviour  selecting  this  cup  as 
the  sign  of  ‘the  new  covenant  in  his  blood’ 
(Luke  xxii.  20).  A fourth  cup  was  then  filled, 
the  praise  of  the  song  pronounced,  which  is,  ‘ All 
thy  works  praise  thee,  O Lord,  &c.’  (Psalm 
cxlv.  10),  and  the  usual  blessing  on  the  wine. 
After  the  fourth  cup  the  Jews  tasted  nothing  that 
light,  save  water,  unless  they  chose  to  fill  a fifth 
cup,  for  ^vaich  they  must  say  the  Great  Hallel 
(Psalm  cxxxvi.),  ‘ Confess  ye  to  the  Lord,  for  he 
is  good,  for  his  mercy  endureth  for  ever  ; and 
other  hymns.  No  fourth  cup  seems  to  have  been 
drunk  by  our  Lord  or  his  disciples,  though  hymns 
were  sung  at  the  close  of  the  repast  (Matt.  xxvi. 
30  ; Mark  xiv.  26).— F.  R.  L. 

PASTURAGE.  In  the  first  period  of  their 
history  the  Hebrews  led  an  unsettled  pastoral  life, 
?uch  as  we  still  find  among  many  Oriental  tribes. 
One  great  object  of  the  Mosaical  polity  was  to 
turn  them  from  this  condition  into  that  of  fixed 
cultivators  of  the  soil.  Pasturage  was,  however. 


only  discouraged  as  a condition  life  unfriendly 
to  settled  habits  and  institutions,  and  not  as  a 
pursuit  connected  with  agriculture.  Hence,  al- 
though in  later  times  the  principal  attention  of 
the  Hebrews  was  given  to  agriculture,  the  tending 
of  sheep  and  cattle  was  not  at  any  time  neglected. 

The  shepherds  who  move  about  with  their  flocks 
from  one  pasture-ground  to  another,  according  to 
the  demands  of  the  season,  the  state  of  the  herbage, 
and  the  supply  of  water,  are  called  nomades — that 
is,  not  merely  shepherds,  but  xcandering  shep- 
herds. They  feed  their  flocks  on  the  ‘ commons,’ 
or  the  deserts  and  wildernesses,  which  no  settled 
or  cultivating  people  have  appropriated.  At 
first,  no  pastoral  tribe  can  have  any  particular 
property  in  such  tracts  ground  in  preference  to 
another  tribe  ; but,  in  the  end,  a particular  tract 
becomes  appropriated  to  some  one  tribe,  or  section 
of  a tribe,  either  from  long  occupation,  or  from 
digging  wells  therein.  According  to  the  ideas  of 
the  East,  the  digging  of  a well  is  so  meritorious 
an  act,  that  he  who  performs  it  acquires  a property 
in  the  waste-lands  around.  In  the  time  of  the 
patriarchs,  Palestine  was  but  thinly  peopled  by 
the  Canaanites,  and  offered  many  such  tracts  of 
unappropriated  grounds  fit  for  pasturage.  In 
these  they  fed  their  flocks,  without  establishing 
any  exclusive  claims  to  the  soil,  until  they  pro- 
ceeded to  dig  wells,  which,  being  considered  as  an 
act  of  appropriation,  was  opposed  by  some  of  the 
inhabitants  (Gen.  xxi.  25,  26).  After  the  con- 
quest of  Canaan,  those  Israelites  who  possessed 
large  flocks  and  herds  sent  them  out,  under  the 
care  of  shepherds,  into  the  ‘ wildernesses,’  or  com- 
mons, of  the  east  and  south,  where  there  are  rich 
and  juicy  pasturages  during  the  moist  seasons  of 
the  year  (1  Sam.  xvii.  28  ; xxv.  4-15 ; 1 Chron. 
xxvii.  29-31;  Isa.  Ixv.  10;  Jer.  1.  39).  The 
nomads  occupy,  successively,  the  same  stations 
in  the  deserts  every  year.  In  summer,  when  the 
plains  are  parched  with  drought,  and  every  green 
herb  is  dried  up,  they  proceed  northwards,  or  into 
the  mountains,  or  to  the  banks  of  rivers ; and  ir. 
winter  and  spring,  when  the  rains  have  re-clothed 
the  plains  with  verdure,  and  filled  the  water- 
courses, they  return.  When  these  pastors  remove, 
they  strike  their  tents,  pack  them  up,  and  convey 
them  on  camels  to  the  next  station.  Neaijly  all 
the  pastoral  usages  were  the  same,  anciently,  as 
now.  The  sheep  were  constantly  kept  in  the 
open  air,  and  guarded  by  hired  servants,  and  by 
the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  owners.  Even  the 
daughters  of  emirs,  or  chiefs,  did  not  disdain  to 
tend  the  sheep  (Gen.  xxiv.  17-20  ; xxix.  9 ; Exod. 

11.  16).  The  principal  shepherd  was  responsible 
for  the  sheep  intrusted  to  his  care,  and  if  any  were 
lost  he  had  to  make  them  good,  except  in  certain 
cases  (Gen.  xxxi.  39-;  Exod.  xxii.  12;  Amos  iii. 

12. )  Their  services  were  often  paid  by  a certain 
proportion  of  the  young  of  the  flock  (Gen.  xxx. 
30).  On  the  more  dangerous  stations,  towers 
were  erected,  from  which  the  approach  of  enemies 
might  be  discovered.  These  were  called  the 
Towers  of  the  Flock  (Gen.  xxv.  21 ; 2 Chron. 
xxvi.  10 ; Micah  iv.  8.) 

PATARA  (riarapa),  a port  of  Lycia  in  Asia 
Minor,  where  Paul,  on  his  voyage  to  Jerusalem, 
changed  his  ship  for  one  bound  to  Phoenicia  (Acta 
xxi.  1,  2).  Patara  was  at  the  mouth  of  the  river 
Xanthus,  and  had  a famous  temple  and  oracle  of 


480 


PATHROS. 


PATHOS. 


Apollo  (Strabo,  xiv.  665  ; Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  28  J 
Mela,  i.  15;  Herod,  i.  182). 

PATHROS,  a, name  given  to  Egypt,  particu- 
larly Upper  Egypt,  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel  (ch. 
xxix.  14:  xxx.  14)  [Egypt]. 

PATHOS  (nctT/ios),  a rocky  and  bare  island 
of  the  j'Egean  Sea,  about  fifteen  miles  in  cir- 
cumference, ami  reckoned  as  one  of  the  Sporades 
(Plin  Hist.  Nat.  iv.  23;  Strabo,  x.  480).  On 
account  of  its  stern  and  desolate  character,  the 
island  was  used,  under  the  Roman  empire,  as  a 
place  of  banishment,  which  accounts  for  the  exile 
of  John  thither  ‘for  the  testimony  of  Jesus’  (Rev. 
i.  9)  [John].  He  was  here  favoured  with  those 
visions  which  are  contained  in  the  Apocalypse, 
and  to  which  the  place  owes  its  Scriptural  in- 
terest. The  external  aspect  oi  the  island,  as 
viewed  from  the  sea,  and  the  associations  con- 


nected with  it,  are  neatly  indicated  by  the  Scot- 
tish Deputation  ( Narrative , p.  326): — ‘ We  saw 
the  peuks  of  its  two  prominent  hills,  but  oui 
course  did  not  lie  very  near  it.  Still  it  was  in- 
tensely interesting  to  get  even  a glance  of  that 
memorable  spot,  where  the  beloved  disciple  saw 
the  visions  of  God ; the  spot,  too,  where  the 
Saviour  was  seen,  and  his  voice  heard,  for  the 
last  time  till  he  comes  again.  John's  eye  often 
rested  on  the  mountains  and  the  islands  among 
which  we  were  passing,  and  on  the  shores  and 
waves  of  this  great  sea;  and  often,  after  the  vision 
was  passed,  these  natural  features  of  his  place  of 
exile  would  refresh  his  spirit,  recalling  to  his 
min  i how  ‘ he  stood  on  the  sand  of  the  sea’  (Re*, 
xiii.  1),  and  how  he  had  seen  that  ‘every  island 
fled  away,  ami  the  mountains  were  not  found 1 
(Rev.  xv i.  29). 


448.  [Patmos.] 


On  approaching  the  island  the  coast  is  found 
to  be  high,  and  to  consist  of  a succession  of  capes, 
which  form  so  many  ports,  some  of  which  are 
excellent.  The  only  one  in  use  is,  however,  a 
deep  bay,  sheltered  by  high  mountains  on  every 
side  but  one,  where  it  is  protected  by  a projecting 
cape.  The  town  attached  to  this  port  is  situated 
upon  a high  rocky  mountain,  rising  immediately 
from  the  sea ; and  this,  with  the  Scala  below 
upon  the  shore,  consisting  of  some  shops  and 
houses,  forms  the  only  inhabited  site  of  the  island. 
The  best  and  most  recent  account  of  this  island  is 
that  of  Schubert  in  his  Jleise  nach  Morganland, 
iii.  424-442. 

Patmos  is  deficient  of  trees,  but  abounds  in 
flowering  plants  and  shrubs.  Walnuts  and  other 
fruit  trees  are  grown  in  the  orchards;  and  the 
wine  of  Patmos  is  the  strongest  and  best  fla- 
voured of  any  in  the  Greek  islands.  Maize 
and  barley  are  cultivated,  but  not  in  a quantity 
sufficient  for  the  use  cf  the  innabitants,  and  for 


the  supply  of  their  own  vessels  and  others  which 
often  put  in  at  the  great  harbour  for  provisions. 
The  island  now  bears  the  names  of  Patino  and 
Palmoaa,  and  the  inhabitants  do  not  exceed  4000 
or  5000,  many  of  whom  are  emigrants  from  the 
neighbouring  continent.  About  half  way  on 
which,  whereon  the  town  is  built,  is  shown  a 
natural  grotto  in  the  rock,  where  St.  John  is 
supposed  to  have  seen  his  visions,  and  to  have 
written  the  Revelation.  In  and  around  it  is  a 
small  church,  connected  with  which  is  a school 
or  college,  where  the  ancient  Greek  literature  is 
said  to  be  well  taught  and  understood.  On 
the  top  of  the  mountain,  and  consequently  in  the 
middle  of  the  town,  is  a monastery,  which,  from 
its  situation,  has  a very  majestic  appearance. 
It  was  built  by  Alexius  Comnenus,  and  in  the 
library  are  a great  many  printed  books  and 
manuscripts.  The  latter  have  been  examined 
and  described  by  Dr.  Clarke  and  Professor  Car- 
lifle.  See  also  Turner,  Journal  of  a Tour,  iii. 


481 


PAUL. 

98*101,  and  Schubert,  Jleise  ins  Morgenland , iii. 
424-434. 

PAVEMENT.  [Gabbatha.] 

PAVILION.  lTknt.] 

PAUL  (riauAffr),  originally  Saul 
'S.avXos,  asked  for),  was  a native  of  Tarsus,  a city 
of  Cilicia  (Acts  xxii.  3,  &c.),  and  was  of  Jewish 
descent,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (Phil.  iii.  5). 
From  his  father  he  inherited  the  rights  of  Roman 
citizenship,  which  had  probably  been  earned  by 
some  of  his  ancestry  through  services  rendered  to 
the  Roman  state  (Lardver,  Works . i.  228.  ed. 
1788,  8vo;  Grotius,  ad  Act.  xxii.  28).  The  sup- 
position that  he  enjoyed  them  in  virtue  of  being  a 
native  of  Tarsus  is  not  well  founded ; for  though 
that  city  had  been  created  by  Augustus  an  urbs 
Wbera  (Dion.  Chrysost.  ii.  36,  ed.  Reiske;  Plin. 
Hist.  Nat.  v.  27),  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that 
all  its  natives  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  Roman 
citizenship  ; and  besides,  from  Acts  xxi.  39,  com- 
pared with  xxii.  24,  27,  it  may  be  inferred  that, 
as  the  chief  captain  knew  Paul  to  be  a native  of 
Tarsus  and  yet  was  not  aware  of  his  Roman 
citizenship,  the  latter  of  these  was  not  necessarily 
associated  with  the  former.  From  his  receiving 
the  name  Saul  it  has  been  supposed  that  he  was 
the  first-born  son  of  his  parents,  and  that  they  had 
long  desired  and  often  asked  for  such  a favour 
from  God  ; that  he  was  not  their  only  child,  how- 
ever, appears  from  the  mention  made  (Acts  xxiii. 
16)  of  his  ‘sister's  son.1  Whether  Andronicus, 
Junia,  and  Herodion,  whom  he  terms,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xvi.  7,  1 1),  a'vyyeueis  p.ov, 
were  of  the  number  of  his  blood  relations,  or  only 
belongeddo  the  same  tribe  with  him,  is  a question 
an  which  learned  men  have  taken  different  sides 
(comp.  Lardner,  Works,  vi.  235;  Estius,  Comm, 
in  loc.). 

At  that  time  Tarsus  was  the  rival  of  Athens  and 
Alexandria  as  a place  of  learning  and  philoso- 
phical research  (Strabo,  xiv.  5)  ; but  to  what 
extent  the  future  ‘ Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  1 enjoyed 
tl^e  advantage  of  its  schools  we  have  no  means  of 
accurately  determining.  Attempts  have  been  made 
to  show  from  his  writings  that  he  was  familiar 
with  Greek  literature,  and  Dr.  Bentley  has  not  he- 
sitated to  affirm  that  ‘as  Moses  was  learned  in  ail 
the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  so  it  is  manifest 
from  this  chapter  alone  (Acts  xxvii.),  if  nothing 
else  had  been  now  extant,  that  St.  Paul  was  a great 
master  in  all  the  learning  of  the  Greeks  ’ ( Boyle 
Lectures , Serm.  iii.  sub.  init.).  An  authority  like 
that  of  Bentley  in  a question  of  Greek  literature 
is  not  to  be  lightly  set  aside ; yet  on  referring  to  the 
evidence  which  has  been  furnished  both  by  himself 
and  others  in  support  of  the  opinion  to  which  he 
has  lent  his  sanction,  it  will  not  be  found,  we 
mink,  such  as  to  justify  the  strong  and  decided 
language  he  has  employed.  This  evidence  consists, 
(1)  of  a few  supposed  references,  in  the  discourse 
alluded  to  by  Dr.  Bentley,  to  certain  dogmas  of 
the  Greek  philosophers ; but  even  supposing  the 
Apostle  to  have  had  these  in  his  eye,  it  will  not 
follow  that  he  must  have  studied  the  writings  in 
which  these  dogmas  were  unfolded  and  defended, 
because  he  might  have  learned  enough  of  them  to 
guide  him  to  such  references,  as  by  the  supposition 
he  makes  in  that  discourse,  from  those  controver- 
sial encounters  with  ‘ the  philosophers  of  the  Epi- 
cureans and  of  the  Stoics,’  which  we  are  told  he 
VOL.  11.  32 


PAUL. 

had  in  the  market-place  of  Athens,  previous  to  the 
delivering  of  his  oration  on  the  Areopagus  ; (2)  of 
three  quotations  made  by  him  from  Greek  poets, 
one  from  the  Phaenomena  (ver.  5)  of  his  country- 
man Aratus  (Acts  xvii.  28),  one  from  a lost  play 
of  Menander  (1  Cor.  xv.  33),  and  one  from  Epi- 
menides  (Tit.  i.  12),  all  of  which,  however,  bear 
the  general  character  of  gnomes  or  proverbs,  and 
might  consequently  find  their  way  to  the  Apostle 
merely  as  part  of  the  current  coin  of  popular  con- 
versation, without  his  having  once  visited  the 
treasury  .whence  they  were  originally  drawn  ; and 
(3)  of  certain  similarities  of  idea  and  expression 
between  some  passages  of  the  Apostle  and  some 
that  are  found  in  classic  authors  (Horne's  Intro- 
duction, iv.  343);  but  none  of  which  are  of  such 
a nature  as  to  necessitate  the  conclusion  that 
the  coincidence  is  more  than  purely  accidental. 
It  must  be  allowed,  however,  that  the  mere  cir- 
cumstance of  having  spent  his  early  years  in  such 
a city  as  Tarsus  could  not  but  exert  a very  power- 
ful influence  on  the  mind  of  such  a man  as  Paul, 
in  the  way  of  sharpening  his  faculties,  refining  his 
tastes,  and  enlarging  the  circle  of  his  sympathies 
and  affections.  ‘ If,  even  to  the  meanest  citizen,1 
as  Eichhorn  remarks,  ‘ such  a circumstance  af- 
fords— unless  he  be  by  nature  utterly  unobservant 
— much  information  which  otherwise  he  could 
not  have  obtained,  and  in  consequence  of  this  a 
certain  activity  of  mind,  how  much  greater  may 
not  its  effect  be  supposed  to  have  been  on  a great 
mind  like  that  of  Paul.  To  his  birth  and  early 
residence  in  Tarsus  may  be  traced  the  urbanity 
which  the  Apostle  at  no  time  laid  aside,  and  of 
which  he  was  frequently  a perfect  model,  many 
insinuating  turns  which  he  gives  to  his  epistles, 
and  a more  skilful  use  of  the  Greek  tongue  than 
a Jew  bom  and  educated  in  Palestine  could  well 
have  attained’  ( Einleit . ins  N.  T.  iii.  5). 

But  whatever  uncertainty  may  hang  over  the 
early  studies  of  the  Apostle  in  the  department  of 
Greek  learning,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  being 
the  son  of  a Pharisee,  and  destined,  in  all  proba- 
bility, from  his  infancy  to  the  pursuits  of  a doctor 
of  Jewish  law,  he  would  be  carefully  instructed 
from  his  earliest  years  in  the  elements  of  Rabbi- 
nical lore.  It  is  probable  also  that  at  this  time 
he  acquired  his  skill  in  that  handicraft  trade  by 
which  in  later  years  he  frequently  supported  him- 
self (Acts  xvii.  3 ; l Cor.  iv.  12,  &c.)  ; for  it  was 
a maxim  among  the  Jews,  that  ‘ he  who  does  not 
teach  his  son  a trade,  teaches  him  to  steal.’  This 
trade  is  described  by  Luke  as  that  of  a au^voivoios, 
a word  regarding  the  meaning  of  which  there  has 
been  no  small  difference  of  opinion.  Luther 
makes  it  ‘ carpet-maker  ;’  Morns  (in  Act.  xviii. 
3)  and  others,  ‘ maker  of  mats  or  mattresses 
Michaelis  ( Einl . ins  N.  T.  § 216)  and  Ilaenlein 
( Einl . ins  N.  T.  iii.  301),  4 tool-maker;’  Chrysos- 
tom and  others,  ‘ worker  in  leather  ’ ( = ctkvto- 
t6/xos );  Hug  (Introd.  p.  505,  Fosdick.'s  Trans.) 
and  Eichhorn  (Einl.  ins  N.  T.  iii.  8),  ‘ maker  of 
tent-cloth  ;’  but  most  critics  agree  with  our  trans- 
lators in  rendering  it  ‘ tent-maker  ’ (comp.  Kui- 
noel,  Dindorf,  Ilosenmuller,  Olsiiausen,  in  loc. ; 
Winer,  Realworterb.  Art.  ‘Paulus;’  Schleusner, 
in  voc.). 

At  the  proper  age  (supposed  to  be  after  he  was 
fourteen  years  old),  the  Apostle  proceeded  io 
Jerusalem,  to  prosecute  his  studies  in  the  learning 
of  the  Jews.  Here  he  became  a student  under 


PAUL. 


PAUL. 


482 

Gamaliel,  a distinguished  teacher  of  the  law,  and 
who  is  supposed  to  be  the  person  of  that  name  who 
is  celebrated  in  the  writings  of  the  Talmudists  as 
one  of  the  seven  teachers  to  whom  the  title  ‘ Rab- 
ban  ’ was  given  (Lightfoot,  Horcc  Uebr.  in  Act. 
v.  34  ; Neander,  Apostol.  Zeitalter , u.  s.  w.  s.  62  ; 
Otlio,  Lex.  Rabbinico-Phil.s.v.  ‘Rabbi’).  Besides 
acquaintance  with  the  Jewish  law,  and  a sincere 
conviction  of  the  supreme  excellence  of  Judaism, 
Gamaliel  appears  to  have  possessed  a singularly 
calm  and  judicious  mind,  and  to  have  exercised 
a freedom  of  thought  as  well  as  pursued  a range 
of  study  very  unlike  what  was  common  among 
the  party  to  which  he  belonged  (Acts  v.  34 — 39 ; 
comp.  Neander,  loc.  cit.).  How  much  the  in- 
structions and  the  example  of  such  a teacher  may 
have  influenced  the  mind  of  Paul  in  a direction 
favourable  to  the  course  he  was  subsequently 
called  to  pursue,  it  is  easy  for  us  to  imagine, 
though  from  the  absence  of  all  testimony  on  the 
subject  it  is  not  competent  for  us  to  affirm. 

We  now  approach  the  period  in  Paul's  history 
when  he  becomes  a prominent  figure  on  the  page 
of  the  sacred  historian,  and  when,  consequently, 
the  facts  of  his  life  can  be  more  confidently  nar- 
rated. The  points  about  which  differences  of 
opinion  chiefly  exist  relate  to  the  chronology  of 
the  events  recorded  concerning  him.  On  such 
questions  our  limited  space  forbids  us  to  enter,  and 
therefore,  contenting  ourselves  with  a general  re- 
ference to  the  article  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in 
this  work,  where  the  reader  will  find  the  dates 
assigned  to  each  event  of  prominent  importance  in 
the  Apostle’s  life,  by  Ussher,  Pearson.  Michaelis, 
Hug,  Haenlein,  Greswell,  and  Anger,  respec- 
tively, we  shall  proceed  to  narrate  briefly  the 
Apostle's  history,  without  any  attempt  to  ascer- 
tain the  year  either  of  his  own  life  or  of  the 
Christian  era  when  each  event  occurred. 

He  is  introduced  to  our  notice  by  the  sacred 
historian  for  the  first  time  in  connection  with  the 
martyrdom  of  Stephen,  in  which  transaction  he 
was,  if  not  an  assistant,  something  more  than  a 
mere  spectator.  He  is  described  as  at  this  time 
‘ a young  man  ’ (pec mas)  ; but  this  term  was 
employed  with  so  much  latitude  by  the  Greeks, 
that  it  is  impossible  from  the  mere  use  of  it,  to 
determine  whether  the  party  to  whom  it  was  ap- 
plied, was  under  thirty,  or  between  that  and  forty. 
The  probability  is,  that  Paul  must  have  reached 
the  age  of  thirty  at  least;  for,  otherwise,  it  is  not 
likely  that  he  would  have  shared  the  counsels  of 
the  chief  priests,  or  been  intrusted  by  them  with 
the  entire  responsibility  of  executing  their  designs 
against  the  followers  of  Jesus,  as  we  know  was 
the  case  (Acts  xxvi.  10,  12).  For  such  a task 
he  showed  a painful  aptitude,  and  discharged  it 
with  a zeal  which  spared  neither  age  nor  sex 
(Acts  viii.  1-3;  xxvi.  10,  11).  But  whilst  thus, 
in  his  ignorance  and  unbelief,  he  was  seeking  to 
be  ‘ injurious’  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  the  great 
Author  of  Christianity  was  about  to  make  him  a 
distinguished  trophy  of  its  power,  and  one  of  the 
most  devoted  and  successful  of  its  advocates. 
Whilst  journeying  to  Damascus,  with  a commis- 
sion from  the  high  priest,  to  arrest  and  bring  back 
as  prisoners  to  Jerusalem  the  Christians  who  had 
escaped  thither  from  the  fury  of  their  persecutors, 
and  when  he  had  almost  completed  his  journey, 
he  was  suddenly  arrested  by  a miraculous  vision 
of  Christ,  who  addressing  him  from  heaven,  de- 


manded the  reason  of  his  furious  zeal,  in  tne 
remarkable  words,  ‘ Saul,  Saul,  why  pereecuresc 
thou  me?’  Struck  to  the  ground  by  the  sudden- 
ness and  overwhelming  splendour  of  the  vision, 
and  able  only  to  ask  by  whom  it  was  he  was  thus 
addressed,  he  received  for  answer,  ‘ I am  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  whom  thou  persecutest ; but  arise,  and 
go  into  the  city,  and  it  shall  be  told  thee  what  to 
do.’  This  command  the  confounded  and  now 
humble  zealot  immediately  rose  to  obey,  but  as 
the  brilliancy  of  the  light  which  had  shone 
around  him  had  dazzled  him  to  blindness,  he  had 
to  be  led  into  the  city  by  his  attendants.  Here 
he  remained  for  three  days  and  nights  in  a state 
of  deep  mental  conflict  and  dejection,  tasting 
neither  meat  nor  drink,  until  a person  of  the 
name  of  Ananias  appeared  at  the  command  of 
Christ  to  relieve  his  distress,  and  to  admit  him 
into  the  Christian  fraternity  by  baptizing  him 
into  the  name  of  the  Lord  (Acts  ix.  1-18). 

Respecting  the  character  of  this  transaction 
different  opinions  have  been  entertained;  some 
regarding  the  whole  narrative  as  a mere  myth  ; 
others  maintaining  that  the  events  may  be  ex- 
plained on  natural  principles  (such  as  a severe 
storm  of  thunder  and  lightning,  by  which  Saul 
was  blinded  and  terrified,  and  which  he,  ‘accord- 
ing to  the  faith  of  the  ancients,  viewed  as  an 
omen  whereby  lie  was  warned  to  desist  from  tne 
persecuting  design  with  which  he  had  com- 
menced his  journey  to  Damascus’  (Eichhorn, 
Einleit.  iii.  12);  whilst  others  regard  the  whole 
as  having  been  a mere  vision  which  passed  before 
‘ the  inner  consciousness ' of  Saul.  Such  su]>- 
positions,  however,  are  utterly  irreconcilable  with 
the  authenticity  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
with  the  references  to  this  period  of  his  life  by 
the  Apostle  himself  in  his  Epistles  (comp.  1 Cor. 
xv.  8 ; ix.  1 ; Gal.  i.  1 ; Neander,  Apostol. 
Zeitalter.  s.  Ill  If.;  Olshausen,  on  Acts  ix. 
1-19;  Lyttleton’s  Observations  on  the  Conver- 
sion and  Apostleship  of  St.  Paul). 

Immediately  on  his  conversion  to  Christianity 
Saul  seems  to  have  gone  into  Arabia,  where  he 
remained  three  years  (Gal.  i.  11-17);  and  where 
he,  in  all  probability,  was  chiefly  occupied,  by 
meditation  and  study,  in  preparing  himself  for 
the  great  work  to  which  he  had  been  called. 
Here  also  we  may  venture  to  suppose  he  received 
that  Gospel  which  afterwards  he  preached  ‘ by 
revelation’  from  Christ  (Gal.  i.  12).  Neander 
(l.  c.  s.  121)  and  Anger  (JDe  Tempp.  in  Actis 
App.  Ttatione , p.  123)  have  endeavoured  to  show 
that  Paul  went  into  Arabia  to  preach  the  Gospel ; 
but  the  reasons  they  adduce  have  little  weight, 
(comp.  Olshausen,  on  Acts  ix.  20-25). 

Returning  from  Arabia  to  Damascus  the  Apostle 
commenced  his  public  efforts  in  the  service  of 
Christ,  by  boldly  advocating  in  the  synagogues 
of  the  Jews  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  be  venerated  as 
the  Son  of  God.  At  first  astonished,  the  Jews 
were  afterwards  furiously  incensed  at  this  change 
in  the  opinions  and  conduct  of  Saul,  and  in  con- 
sequence of  their  attempts  upon  his  liberty  and 
life,  he  was  obliged  to  make  his  escape  from 
Damascus.  This  he  effected  with  difficulty  by 
the  aid  of  the  Christians,  some  of  whom  let  him 
down  in  a basket  from  the  window  of  a dwell- 
ing erected  upon  the  outer  wall  of  the  city 
(Acts  ix.  21,  & c. ; 2 Cor.  xi.  32).  After  thif 
he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  (for  tne  first  time  afte* 


PAUL. 


PAUL. 


463 


bis  conversion),  where,  on  the  testimony  of  Bar- 
baras, he  was  acknowledged  as  a Christian 
brother,  and  admitted  by  the  Appstles  to  that 
place  in  their  fraternity  which  had  been  assigned 
to  him  by  Christ.  From  Jerusalem  he  was  soon 
driven  by  the  hostility  of  the  Jews ; when,  after 
visiting  Caesarea,  he  went  to  his  native  town 
Tarsus,  where  he  abode  several  years  (Acts  ix. 
26-30).  From  this  retreat  he  was  summoned  by 
Barnabas,  who,  having  been  appointed  by  the 
Apostles  at  Jerusalem  to  visit  the  church  at 
Antioch,  where  accessions  had  been  made  to  the 
number  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  from  among  the 
Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews,  and  finding  the 
need  of  counsel  and  co-operation  in  his  work, 
went  to  Tarsus  to  procure  the  assistance  of  Saul 
(Acts  xi.  22-25),  After  residing  and  labouring 
for  a year  in  Antioch,  these  two  distinguished 
servants  of  Christ  were  sent  up  to  Jerusalem  with 
certain  contributions  which  had  been  made 
among  the  Christians  at  Antioch,  on  behalf  of 
their  brethren  in  Judea,  who  were  suffering  from 
the  effects  of  a dearth  (Acts  xi.  27-30).  This,  as 
commonly  received,  was  the  Apostle’s  second 
visit  to  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion. 

Having  discharged  this  commission  they  re- 
turned to  Antioch,  accompanied  by  John  Mark, 
the  nephew  of  Barnabas,  and  were  shortly  after- 
wards despatched  by  that  church,  in  obedience  to 
an  injunction  from  heaven,  on  a general  mis- 
sionary tour.  In  the  course  of  this  tour,  during 
the  earlier  part  only  of  which  they  were  accom- 
panied by  Mark,  in  consequence  cf  his  shrinking 
from  the  toils  and  dangers  of  the  journey  and 
eturning  to  Jerusalem,  they  visited  Seleucia, 
Cyprus,  Perga  in  Pamphylia,  Antioch  in  Pisidia, 
Iconium,  Lystra  and  Derbe,  cities  of  Lycaonia 
(in  the  former  of  which  the  fickle  populace, 
though  at  first  they  had  with  difficulty  been  pre- 
vented from  offering  them  divine  honours,  were 
almost  immediately  afterwards,  at  the  instigation 
of  the  Jews,  led  to  stone  the  Apostle  until  he  was 
left  for  dead)  ; and  then  they  returned  by  way  of 
Attalia,  a city  of  Pamphylia,  by  sea  to  Antioch, 
where  they  rehearsed  to  the  church  all  that  God 
had  done  by  them  (Acts  xiii.-xiv.).  This  formed 
the  Apostle’s  first  great  missionary  tour. 

In  the  narrative  of  this  journey,  given  by  Luke, 
the  historian,  without  assigning  any  reason  for  so 
doing,  drops  the  name  Saul  and.  adopts  that 
of  Paul,  in  designating  the  Apostle.  It  is  pro- 
bable from  this,  that  it  was  during  this  journey 
that  the  Apostle’s  change  of  name  actually  took 
place.  What  led  to  that  change  we  can  only 
conjecture  ; and  of  conjectures  on  this  point  there 
has  been  no  lack.  Jerome  and  Augustine,  whom, 
among  recent  writers,  Olshausen  follows,  ascribe 
the  change  to  the  conversion  of  Sergius  Paulus, 
whose  name  the  Apostle  assumed  in  commemora- 
tion of  so  important  an  event.  Chrysostom,  fol- 
lowed by  Theophylact  and  Theodoret,  imputes  it 
to  the  Apostle’s  determination  that,  as  Peter  had 
two  names,  he  would  not,  even  in  this  respect, 

‘ be  behind  the  chiefest  of  the  apostles.’  Nice- 
phorus  ( Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  37)  thinks  he  received  the 
name  as  a sort  of  nickname  from  the  Romans,  on 
account  of  his  diminutive  stature  ; Paulus , quasi 
Pusillus.  Lightfoot,  Hammond,  and  others,  sup- 
pose that  from  his  birth  the  Apostle  had  the  two 
names,  the  one  in  virtue  of  his  Hebrew  descent, 
the  other  in  virtue  of  his  Roman  citizenship,  and 


that  r.e  used  the  one  among  the  Jews,  but  adopted 
the  otner  when  he  came  to  labour  cfiiefiy  among 
Gentiles.  But  the  most  probable  opinion  is  that 
of  Beza,  Grotius,  Doddridge,  Kui'noel,  &c.,  that 
as  the  Romans  and  Greeks  were  in  the  habit  of 
softening  the  Hebrew  names  in  pronunciation, 
and  accommodating  their  form  to  that  of  the 
Latin  or  Greek  (comp.  Jason  for  Jesus,  Silvanus 
for  Silas,  Pollio  for  Hillel,  &c.),  they  substituted 

Paulus  for  and  the  Apostle  henceforward 

adopted  the  substituted  name  as  his  usual  desig- 
nation. 

Not  long  after  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  returned 
to  Antioch,  they  were  deputed  by  the  church 
there  again  to  visit  Jerusalem,  to  consult  the 
Apostles  and  elders  upon  the  question,  which 
certain  members  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  had 
raised  in  that  at  Antioch,  whether  converts  from 
heathenism  required  to  be  circumcised,  and  so 
become  Jews  before  they  could  be  saved?  The 
Apostle  on  this  occasion  visited  Jerusalem  for  the 
third  time  after  his  conversion;  and  after  the 
question  had  been  settled  by  the  parties  in  that 
city  with  whom  the  power  to  do  so  lay,  he 
and  his  companion  returned  to  Antioch.  After 
restoring  peace  to  the  church  there  Paul  proposed 
to  Barnabas  to  undertake  another  missionary  tour, 
to  which  the  latter  cordially  assented ; but,  un- 
happily, on  the  very  eve  of  their  departure,  a con- 
tention arose  between  them,  in  consequence  of 
Barnabas  being  determined  to  take  with  them  his 
nephew  John  Mark,  and  Paul  being  equally  de- 
termined that  one,  who  had  on  a former  occasion 
ingloriously  deserted  them,  should  not  again  be 
employed  in  the  work.  Unable  to  come  to  an 
agreement  on  this  point  they  separated,  and  Paul, 
accompanied  by  Silas,  commenced  his  second 
missionary  journey,  in  the  course  of  which,  after 
passing  through  Syria  and  Cilicia,  he  revisited 
Lystra  and  Derbe.  At  the  former  of  these  places 
he  found  Timothy,  whom  he  associated  with 
Silas,  as  the  companion  of  his  further  travels,  after 
he  had  been  ordained  by  the  Apostle  and  the 
presbytery  of  the  church  of  which  he  was  a 
member  (1  Tim.  iv.  14).  Paul  then  passed 
through  the  regions  of  Phrygia  and  Galatia,  and, 
avoiding  Asia  strictly  so  called,  and  Bithynia, 
he  came  with  his  companions  by  way  of  Mysia 
to  Troas,  on  the  borders  of  the  Hellespont.  Hence 
they  crossed  to  Samothracia,  and  thence  to 
Neapolis,  and  so  to  Philippi,  whither  he  had 
been  summoned  in  a vision  by  a man  of  Mace- 
donia saying,  ‘ Come  over  and  help  us.’  After 
some  time  spent  in  this  city  they  passed  through 
Amphipolis  and  Apollonia,  cities  of  Macedonia, 
and  came  to  Thessalonica,  where,  though  they 
abode  only  a short  time,  they  preached  the  Gospel 
with  no  small  success.  Driven  from  that  city 
by  the  malice  of  the  Jews,  they  came  by  night  to 
Berea,  another  city  of  Macedonia,  where  at  first 
they  were  favourably  received  by  the  Jews,  until 
a party  from  Thessalonica,  which  had  followed 
them,  incited  the  Bereans  against  them.  Paul, 
as  especially  obnoxious  to  the  Jews,  deemed  it 
prudent  to  leave  the  place,  and  accordingly  re- 
tired to  Athens,  where  he  determined  to  await 
the  arrival  of  Silas  and  Timothy.  Whilst  resid- 
ing in  this  city,  and  observing  the  manners  and 
religious  customs  of  its  inhabitants,  his  spirit  was 
stirred  within  him,  when  he  saw  how  entirely  ther 


184 


PAUL 


PAUI 


were  immersed  in  idolatry ; and  unable  to  refrain, 
he  commenced  in  the  synagogues  of  the  Jews,  and 
in  tne  market-place,  to  hold  discussions  with  all 
whom  he  encountered.  This  led  to  his  being 
taken  to  the  Areopagus,  where,  surrounded  by 
perhaps  the  shrewdest,  most  polished,  most  acute, 
most  witty,  and  most  scornful  assemblage  that 
ever  surrounded  a preacher  of  Christianity,  he, 
with  exquisite  tact  and  ability,  exposed  the  folly 
of  their  superstitions,  and  unfolded  the  character 
and  claims  of  the  living  and  true  God.  For  the 
purpose  of  more  effectually  arresting  the  attention 
of  his  audience,  he  commenced  by  referring  to  an 
altar  in  their  city,  on  which  he  had  read  the 
inscription  ayvwrrcp  0ey,  to  an  unknown  God; 
and,  applying  this  to  Jehovah,  he  proposed  to 
declare  to  them  that  Deity,  whom  thus,  without 
knowing  him  (ayyoovyres),  they  were  worshipping. 
Considerable  difficulty  has  been  found  by  many 
interpreters  to  reconcile  this  with  the  fact,  that  no 
mention  is  made  by  the  classic  authors  of  any 
altar  in  Athens  bearing  this  inscription,  whilst  we 
are  informed  by  Pausanias  (Attic,  i.  4;  Eliac. 

v.  14)  and  Philostratus  ( Vit.  Apollonii  Tyan., 

vi.  3),  that  there  were  several  altars  inscribed 
ayvaxrrois  Oeoiis,  in  the  plural ; and  different 
suppositions  have  been  made  to  account  for  the 
Apostle's  language  (Kuinoel,  in  Act.  xvii.  23). 
But  why  should  we  not  receive  the  Apostle's  own 
testimony  on  this  subject,  as  reported  by  the  in- 
spired historian?  It  is  certain  that  no  one  is  in 
circumstances  to  affirm  that  no  altar  existed 
in  Athens  bearing  such  an  inscription  at  the 
time  Paul  visited  that  city  ; and  when,  there- 
fore, Paul,  publicly  addressing  the  Athenians, 
says  he  saw  such  an  altar,  why  should  we  hesi- 
tate for  a moment  to  take  his  words  for  what  they 
literally  mean?  Besides,  there  is  nothing  in 
what  Pausanias  and  Philostratus  affirm  that 
appears  incompatible  with  Paul’s  assertion.  It 
is  to  be  observed  that  neither  of  them  says  there 
were  altars,  on  each  of  which  the  inscription  was 
in  the  plural  number,  but  only  there  were  ‘altars 
of  gods  called  unknown  ’ (fSupol  Oewu  ovopa- 
^Ofxevoiv  ayvcl'OTcov) ; so  that  for  aught  that 
appears  to  the  contrary,  each  altar  might  bear 
the  inscription  which  Paul  says  he  saw  upon  one. 

On  being  rejoined  by  Timothy  (1  Thess.  iii.  1 ), 
and  perhaps  also  by  Silas  (comp.  GreswelPs 
Dissertations , ii.  pp.  31,  32),  tine  Apostle  sent 
them  both  back  to  Macedonia,  and  went  alone  to 
visit  Corinth,  whither  they  soon  after  followed 
him  (Acts  xviii.  5).  Here  he  abode  for  a year  and 
a half  preaching  the  Gospel,  and  support  ing  him- 
self by  his  trade  as  a tent-maker,  in  which  he  was 
joined  by  a converted  Jew  of  the  name  of  Aquila, 
who,  with  his  wife  Priscilla,  had  been  expelled 
from  Rome  by  an  edict  of  the  emperor,  forbidding 
Jews  to  remain  in  that  city.  Driven  from 
Corinth  by  the  enmity  of  the  Jews,  he,  along  with 
Aquila  and  Priscilla,  betook  himself  to  Ephesus, 
whence,  after  a residence  of  only  a few  days,  he 
went  up  to  Jerusalem,  being  commanded  by  God 
to  visit  that  city,  at  the  time  of  the  approaching 
passover.  His  visit  on  this  occasion — the  fourth 
since  his  conversion — was  very  brief ; and  at  the 
close  of  it  he  went  down  to  Antioch,  thereby  com- 
pleting his  second  great  apostolic  tour. 

At  Antioch  he  abode  for  some  time,  and  then, 
accompanied,  as  is  supposed,  by  Titus,  he  com- 
menced another  extensive  tour,  in  the  course  of 


which,  after  passing  through  Phrygia  and  Ga- 
latia, he  visi.ed  Ephesus.  The  importance  of 
this  city,  in  relation  to  the  region  of  Hither  Asia, 
determined  him  to  remain  in  it  for  a considerable 
time ; and  he  accordingly  continued  preaching 
the  Gospel  there  for  three  years,  with  occasional 
brief  periods  of  absence,  for  the  purpose  of  visiting 
places  in  the  vicinity.  With  such  success  were 
his  efforts  crowned,  that  the  gains  of  those  who 
were  interested  in  supporting  the  worship  of 
Diana,  the  tutelar  goddess  of  the  city,  began  to  be 
seriously  affected;  and  at  the  instigation  of  one  of 
these,  by  name  Demetrius,  a silversmith,  who  had 
enjoyed  a lucrative  traffic  by  the  manufacture  of 
what  appear  to  have  been  miniature  representa- 
tions of  the  famous  temple  of  Diana  (vaovs  apyv 
povs  ’Ap-re/iiSoy,  comp.  Kuinoel,  in  Act.  xix.  24  ; 
Neander,  Apost.  Zeit.  s.  350),  a.  popular  tumult 
was  excited  against  the  Apostle,  from  the  fury  of 
which  he  was  with  difficulty  rescued  by  the 
sagacity  and  tact  of  the  town-clerk,  aided  by 
others  of  the  chief  men  of  the  place,  who  appear 
to  have  been  friendly  towards  Paul.  By  thi3 
occurrence  the  Apostle’s  removal  from  Ephesus, 
on  which,  however,  he  had  already  determined 
(Acts  xix.  21),  was  in  all  probability  expedited; 
and,  accordingly,  he  very  soon  after  the  tumult 
went  by  way  of  Tioas  to  Philippi,  where  he 
appears  to  have  resided  some  time,  and  from 
which,  as  his  head  quarters,  he  made  extensive 
excursions  into  the  surrounding  districts,  pene- 
trating even  to  Illyricum,  on  the  eastern  shore  of 
the  Adriatic  (Rom.  xv.  19).  From  Philippi  he 
went  to  Corinth,  where  he  resided  three  months, 
and  then  returned  to  Philippi,  having  been  frus- 
trated in  his  design  of  proceeding  through  Syria 
to  Jerusalem  by  the  malice  of  the  Jews.  Sailing 
-from  Philippi,  he  came  to  Troas,  where  he  abode 
seven  days ; thence  he  journeyed  on  foot  to  Assos , 
thence  he  proceeded  by  sea  to  Miletus,  where  ho 
had  an  affecting  interview  with  the  elders  of  the 
church  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xx.  17,  ff‘.)  ; thence  he 
sailed  for  Syria,  and,  after  visiting  several  inter- 
mediate ports,  landed  at  Tyre  ; and  thence,  aftei 
a residence  of  seven  days,  he  travelled  by  way  ol 
Ptolemais  and  Caesarea  to  Jerusalem.  This  con 
stituted  his  fifth  visit  to  that  city  after  his  con 
version. 

On  his  arrival  at  Jerusalem  he  had  the  morti- 
fication to  find  that,  whilst  the  malice  of  hi* 
enemies  the  Jews  was  unabated,  the  minds 
many  of  his  brother  Christians  were  alienated 
from  him  on  account  of  what  they  deemed  his  too 
lax  and  liberal  notions  of  the  obligations  of  the 
Mosaic  ritual.  Tfo  obviate  these  feelings  on  their 
part,  he,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Apostle  James, 
joined  himself  to  four  persons  who  had  taken  on 
them  the  vows  of  a Nazarite,  and  engaged  to  pay 
the  cost  of  the  sacrifices  by  which  the  Mosaic 
ritual  required  that  such  should  be  absolved 
from  their  vows.  With  what  success  this  some- 
what questionable  act  of  the  Apostle  was  attended, 
as  respects  the  minds  of  his  brethren,  we  are  not 
informed,  but  it  had  no  effect  whatever  in  se- 
curing for  him  any  mitigation  of  the  hatred  with 
which  he  was  regarded  by  the  unconverted  Jews; 
on  the  contrary,  his  appearance  in  the  temple  so 
much  exasperated  them,  that,  before  his  vow  wax 
accomplished,  they  seized  him,  and  would  have 
put  him  to  death  had  not  Lysias,  the  commander 
of  the  Roman  cohort  in  the  adjoining  citadel, 


PAUL. 


PAUL. 


485 


brought  sellers  to  his  rescue.  Undei  the  protec- 
tion of  Lysias,  the  Apostle  addressed  the  angry 
mob,  setting  forth  the  main  circumstances  of  his 
life,  and  especially  his  conversion  to  Christianity, 
and  his  appointment  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the 
Gentiles:  Up  to  this  point  they  heard  him  pa- 

tiently ; but  no  sooner  had  he  insinuated  that  the 
Gentiles  were  viewed  by  him  as  placed  on  a par 
with  the  Jews,  than  all  their  feelings  of  national 
bigotry  burst  forth  in  a tempest  of  execration  and 
fury  against  the  Apostle.  Lysias,  ignorant  of  what 
Paul  had  been  saying,  from  his  having  addressed 
the  people  in  Hebrew,  and  suspecting  from  these 
vehement  demonstrations  of  the  detestation  in 
which  he  was  held  by  the  Jews  that  something 
flagrantly  vicious  must  have  been  committed  by 
him,  gave  orders  that  he  should  be  examined,  and 
forced  by  scourging  to  confess  his  crime.  From 
this  indignity  Paul  delivered  himself  by  asserting 
his  privileges  as  a Roman  citizen,  whom  it  was 
not  lawful  to  bind  or  scourge.  Next  day,  in  the 
presence  of  the  Sanhedrim,  he  entered  into  a de- 
fence of  his  conduct,  in  the  course  of  which, 
having  avowed  himself  a believer  in  the  doctrine 
of  a bodily  resurrection,  he  awakened  so  fierce  a 
controversy  on  this  point  between  the  Pharisees 
and  the  Sadducees  in  the  council,  that  Lysias, 
fearing  he  might  be  torn  to  pieces  among  them, 
gave  orders  to  remove  him  into  the  fort.  From  a 
conspiracy  into  which  above  forty  of  the  Jews  had 
entered  to  assassinate  him  he  was  delivered  by  the 
timely  interposition  of  his  nephew,  who,  having 
acquired  intelligence  of  the  plot,  intimated  it  first 
to  Paul,  and  then  to  Lysias.  Alarmed  at  the 
serious  appearance  which  the  matter  was  assuming, 
Lysias  determined  to  send  Paul  to  Caesarea,  where 
Felix  the  procurator  was  residing,  and  to  leave 
the  affair  to  his  decision.  At  Caesarea  Paul  and 
his  accusers  were  heard  by  Felix  ; but  though  the 
Apostle’s  defence  was  unanswerable,  the  procu- 
rator, fearful  of  giving  the  Jews  offence,  declined 
pronouncing  any  decision,  and  still  retained  Paul 
in  bonds.  Some  time  after  he  was  again  sum- 
moned to  appear  before  Felix,  who,  along  with  his 
wife  Drusilla,  expressed  a desire  to  hear  him  ‘ con- 
cerning the  faith  in  Christ;’  and  on  this  occasion 
the  faithful  and  fearless  Apostle  discoursed  so 
pointedly  on  certain  branches  of  good  morals,  in 
which  the  parties  he  was  addressing  were  noto- 
riously deficient,  that  Felix  trembled,  and  hastily 
sent  him  from  his  presence.  Shortly  after  this 
Felix  was  succeeded  in  his  government  by  Porcius 
Festus,  before  whom  the  Jews  again  brought  their 
charges  against  Paul ; and  who,  when  the  cause 
came  to  be  heard,  showed  so  much  of  a disposition 
to  favour  the  Jews,  that  the  Apostle  felt  himself 
constrained  to  appeal  to  Caesar.  To  gratify  King 
Agrippa  and  his  wife  Bernice,  who  had  come  to 
Caesarea  to  visit  Festus,  and  whose  curiosity  was 
excited  by  what  they  had  heard  of  Paul,  he  was 
again  called  before  the  governor  and  £ permitted 
to  speak  for  himself.’  On  this  occasion  he  reca- 
pitulated the  leading  points  of  his  history,  and 
gave  such  an  account  of  his  views  and  designs, 
that  a deep  impression  was  made  on  the  mind  of 
Agrippa  favourable  to  Christianity  and  to  the 
Apostle ; so  much  so  that,  but  for  his  having  ap- 
pealed to  Caesar,  it  is  probable  he  would  have 
been  set  at  liberty.  His  cause,  however,  having 
by  that  appeal  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
»m*^ror,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  go  to 


Rome,  and  thither  accordingly  Festus  sent  him. 
His  voyage  was  long  and  disastrous.  leaving 
Caesarea  when  the  season  was  already  considerably 
advanced,  they  coasted  along  Syria  as  far  as  Sidor:, 
and  then  crossed  to  Myra,  a port  of  Lycia  ; thence 
they  sailed  slowly  to  Cnidus;  and  thence,  in  con- 
sequence of  unfavourable  winds,  they  struck  across 
to  Crete,  and  with  difficulty  reached  a port  on  the 
southern  part  of  that  island  called  ‘ The  Fair 
Haven,’  near  the  town  of  Lasea.  There  Paul 
urged  the  centurion,  under  whose  charge  he  and 
his  fellow- prisoners  had  been  placed,  to  winter ; 
but  the  place  not  being  very  suitable  for  this  pur- 
pose, and  the  weather  promising  favourably,  this 
advice  was  not  followed,  and  they  again  set  sail, 
intending  to  reach  Phcenice,  a port  in  the  same 
island,  and  there  to  winter.  Scarcely  had  they 
set  sail,  however,  when  a tempest  arose,  at  the 
mercy  of  which  they  were  driven  for  fourteen 
days  in  a westerly  direction,  until  they  were  cast 
upon  the  coast  of  Malta,  where  they  suffered  ship- 
wreck, but  without  any  loss  of  life.  Hospitably 
received  by  the  natives,  they  abode  there  three 
months,  during  which  time  Paul  had  a favourable 
opportunity  of  preaching  the  Gospel,  and  of  show- 
ing the  power  with  which  he  was  endued  for  the 
authentication  of  his  message  by  performing  many 
miracles  for  the  advantage  of  the  people.  On  the 
approach  of  spring  they  availed  themselves  of  a 
ship  of  Alexandria  which  had  wintered  in  the 
island,  and  set  sail  for  Syracuse,  where  they  re- 
mained three  days  ; thence  they  crossed  to  Rbe- 
ginm,  in  Italy;  and  thence  toPuteoli,  from  which 
place  Paul  and  his  companions  journeyed  to 
Rome.  Here  he  was  delivered  by  the  centurion 
to  the  captain  of  the  guard,  who  permitted  him 
to  dwell  in  his  own  hired  house  under  the  sur- 
veillance of  a soldier.  And  thus  he  continued  for 
two  years,  ‘ receiving  all  that  came  to  him,  preach- 
ing the  kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching  those  things 
which  concern  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  all 
confidence,  no  man  forbidding  him  ’ (Acts  xxi.  17  ; 
xxviii.  31). 

At  this  point  the  evangelist  abruptly  closes  his 
narrative,  leaving  us  to  glean  our  information 
regarding  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Apostle 
from  less  certain  sources.  Tradition  stedfastly 
affirms  that  he  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome,  anil 
that  the  manner  of  his  death  was  by  beheading 
(Tillemont,  Memoires , i.  p.  324) ; but  whether 
this  took  place  at  the  close  of  the  imprisonment 
mentioned  by  Luke,  or  after  a second  imprison- 
ment incurred  subsequent  to  an  intervening  period 
of  freedom  and  active  exertion  in  the  cause  of 
Christianity,  has  been  much  discussed  by  modern 
writers.  The  latter  hypothesis  rests  chiefly  on 
some  statements  in  Paul's  second  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  which  it  is  deemed  impossible  to  recon- 
cile with  the  former  hypothesis.  The  consideration 
of  these  belongs  properly  to  the  literary  history  of 
that  Epistle  [Second  Epistle  to  Timothy], 
and  we  shall  not  therefore  enter  upon  them  here. 
Suffice  it  to  remark  that,  though  the  whole  sub- 
ject is  involved  in  much  obscurity,  the  prepon- 
derance of  evidence  seems  to  be  in  favour  of  the 
supposition  of  a second  imprisonment  of  the 
Apostle.  The  testimonies  of  some  of  the  later 
fathers  in  support  of  this  supposition  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  allowed  much  weight,  for  they  all  rest 
upon  Eusebius,  and  he  rests  upon  a mere  ‘rumour1 
(his  words  are  \6yos  e^et,  Hist.  Eccles . ii.  2%\ 


483 


PAUL. 


PAUL. 


and  upon  the  Apostle’s  expressions  in  the  second 
Epistle  to  Timothy.  More  weight  is  due  to  the 
testimony  of  Clemens  Romanus,  because  of  his 
proximity  in  time  to  the  Apostle,  and  of  his  resi- 
dence at  Rome ; but  all  the  information  he  fur- 
nishes bearing  on  this  question  is  that'  Paul, 
‘ after  having  proclaimed  the  Gospel  both  in  the 
east  and  in  the  west and  taught  righteous- 

ness to  the  whole  world,  and  having  come  to  the 
boundary  of  the  west  (rep/xa  rfjs  Svtrecos),  and 
having  testified  before  the  rulers  (or  having  suffered 
martyrdom  by  order  of  the  rulers,  fxaprvprjcras 
iirl  t uv  fiyovlu4v ojj/),  thus  left  the  world  and  went 
to  the  holy  place  ’ (Ep.  i.  ad  Cor.  c.  5).  By  ‘ the 
boundary  of  the  west 1 it  is  affirmed,  on  the  part 
of  the  advocates  of  a second  imprisonment  of  the 
Apostle,  that  Clement  means  Spain,  or  perhaps 
the  extreme  west  part  of  Spain ; and  as  Paul 
never  visited  this  during  the  portion  of  his  life  of 
which  we  have  record  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
is  inferred  that  he  must  have  done  so  at  a subse- 
quent period  after  being  liberated  from  imprison- 
ment. But  this  is  not  very  cogent  reasoning;  for 
it  is  still  open  to  question  whether  by  rb  rep/xa 
rijs  dvcrecas  Clement  really  intended  to  designate 
Spain.  We  may  give  up  at  once  the  opinion  of 
Hemsen,  that  the  place  referred  to  is  Ulyricum, 
as  fanciful  and  untenable ; nor  do  we  feel  in- 
clined to  contend  strenuously  for  Rome  a3  the 
place  intended,  though  this  is  not  altogether  im- 
probable ; but  it  is  not  so  easy  to  get  over  the 
suggestion  that  Clement  means  nothing  more  by 
the  phrase  than  simply  the  western  part  of  the 
Roman  empire,  without  intending  to  specify  any 
one  place  in  particular.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
his  language  is,  through  the  whole  sentence,  vague 
and  exaggerated,  as  when,  for  instance,  he  affirms 
that  Paul  ‘ had  taught  righteousness  to  the  whole 
world ;’  and,  in  such  a case,  it  is  attributing  too 
much  to  his  assertion  to  insist  upon  understanding 
it  of  some  definite  locality.  Besides,  the  use  of 
i\du)v  by  Clement  would  seem  to  intimate  that  he 
was  himself  residing  at  the  place  or  in  the  region 
which  was  present  to  his  mind  while  writing  as 
the  terminus  ad  quem  of  the  Apostle’s  journey- 
ings  ; and,  moreover,  if  by  the  succeeding  clause 
we  understand  him  as  alluding  to  Paul’s  having 
suffered  martyrdom  by  order  of  the  emperor 
(which  is  the  rendering  usually  given  by  those  who 
adduce  the  passage  as  favouring  the  hypothesis  of- 
a second  imprisonment),  does  it  not  appear  to 
follow  that  the  rep/xa  rrjs  5 vaews  was  the  place 
where  that  occurred?  Both  these  suggestions  are 
in  favour  of  Rome,  or  of  the  West  generally,  as 
the  place  referred  to  by  Clement ; and  adopting 
this  interpretation  of  his  words,  the  inferential 
evidence  tfyey  have  been  supposed  to  yield  in 
favour  of  the  hypothesis  that  the  Apostle  enjoyed 
a period  of  labour,  and  suffered  a second  impri- 
sonment subsequent  to  that  mentioned  by  Luke, 
is  of  course  destroyed. 

If,  on  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  allusions 
in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  we  adopt  the 
supposition  above  stated,  it  will  follow  that  Paul, 
during  the  interval  between  his  first  and  second 
imprisonments,  undertook  an  extensive  apostolic 
tour,  in  the  course  of  which  he  visited  his  former 
scenes  of  labour  in  Asia  and  Greece,  and  perhaps 
also  fulfilled  his  purpose  of  going  into  Spain  (Rom. 
xv.  24-28).  He  probably  also  visited  Crete  and 
Dalmatia  (comp.  Greswell,  vol.  ii.  pp.  78-100). 


In  the  apostle's  own  writings  one  or  two  inci- 
dents of  his  life  are  alluded  to  of  which  no  notice 
has  been  taken  in  the  preceding  sketch  of  his 
history,  in  consequence  of  the  obscurity  in  which 
they  are  involved,  in  some  cases  as  to  the  time 
when  they  occurred,  and  in  others  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  event  itself.  These  are  his  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
mentioned  Gal.  ii.  1 ; his  rapture  into  the  third 
heavens  (2  Cor.  xii.  1-4)  ; the  thorn  in  the  flesa 
with  which  he  was  afflicted  after  that  even» 
(ver.  7);  and  his  fighting  with  wild  beasts  at 
Ephesus,  mentioned  in  1 Cor.  xv.  32.  As  to  the 
first  of  these  it  does  not  readily  synchronize  witn 
any  visit  of  the  apostle  to  Jerusalem  noticed 
by  Luke.  That  it  was  anterior  to  the  visit  men- 
tioned in  Acts  xv.  is  evidenced  by  the  entire  dis- 
crepancy of  the  two  narratives  (comp.  Tate’s 
Continuous  History  of  St.  Paul,  p.  141);  and 
that  it  was  the  same  as  the  visit  mentioned  in 
Acts  xi.  30,  is  rendered  doubtful  by  the  circum- 
stance that  on  the  occasion  referred  to  by  the 
apostle,  Titus  accompanied  him  and  Barnabas  to 
Jerusalem,  whereas  it  would  appear  from  the  nar- 
rative of  Luke  as  if  Paul  and  Barnabas  were 
without  any  companion  when  they  went  up  with 
the  alms  for  the  poor  saints  (comp.  Acts  xi.  30, 
and  xii.  25).  We  are  strongly  inclined,  there- 
fore, to  suppose  that  during  the  interval  whicn 
elapsed  between  what  are  commonly  reckoned  as 
the  apostle’s  second  and  third  visits  to  Jerusalem 
(an  interval  of  about,  five  years),  a short  visit  was 
paid  by  him  and  Barnabas,  along  with  Titus,  of 
a private  nature,  and  probably  with  a view  of 
consulting  the  apostles  resident  at  Jerusalem,  as 
to  the  proper  treatment  of  Gentile  converts  (Gal. 
ii.  2-10). 

As  respects  the  rapture  into  the  third  heavens, 
one  tiling  appears  very  certain,  viz.,  that  those  are 
mistaken  who  attempt  to  identify  this  with  the 
vision  on  the  road  to  Damascus  which  led  to  tne 
apostle’s  conversion.  The  design,  character,  and 
consequences  of  the  one  are  so  different  from  those 
of  the  other,  that  it  is  surprising  any  should  have 
imagined  the  two  events  were  the  same  (Neander, 
Apostol.  Zeitalter,  i.  115).  It  is  not  improbable 
that  the  oirraaia  of  which  Paul  writes  to  the  Corin- 
thians was  the  same  as  the  eKaracris  referred  to  by 
him  in  the  recapitulation  of  the  events  of  his  life 
in  his  address  to  the  Jews  as  recorded  in  Acts  xxii. 
17.  When  in  an  ecstasy  or  trance  an  individual 
might  be  well  described  as  dp-irayeis,  for  all  out- 
ward perception  was  suspended,  and  the  whole 
mind  was  wrapt  in  contemplation  of  the  objects 
presented  in  the  vision.  'The  date,  moreover, 
which  the  apostle  assigns  to  the  event,  mentioned 
in  the  Epistle  to  tl?e  Corinthians,  agrees  very 
closely  with  that  of  the  event  mentioned  in  the 
Acts.  The  latter,  Paul  says,  occurred  when  he 
was  in  Jerusalem  for  the  first  time  after  his  con- 
version : the  former,  he  says,  took  place  ‘ about 
fourteen  years’  before  the  time  of  his  writing  the 
Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  Now,  ac- 
cording to  almost  all  the  chronologers,  a space  of 
fourteen  years  intervened  between  the  apostle’s 
first  visit  to  Jerusalem  and  his  writing  that 
epistle;  so  that  it  is  highly  probable  that  the 
vision  referred  to  in  the  two  narratives  is  the  same. 

What  ‘ the  thorn  in  the  flesh’  was  with  which 
the  apostle  was  visited  after  his  vision,  has  proved 
indeed  a qucestio  vexata  to  interpreters  (Cf.  Poli 
Synops.  Crit.  in  loc.).  The  conclusion  to  wh;cb 


PEACOCK. 


PEACOCK. 


48? 


Neander  has  come  on  this  subject  appears  to  tns 
much  the  most  judicious.  ‘ We  must  regard  it 
as  something  entirely  personal,  affecting  him  not 
as  an  apostle,  but  as  Paul ; though,  in  the  absence 
of  any  information  as  to  its  characteristics,  it 
would  be  foolish  to  decide  more  precisely  what 
it  was’  ( Apostol . Zeit.  i.  228). 

Respecting  the  apostle’s  fighting  with  wild 
beasts  at  Ephesus,  the  question  is  whether  this 
should  be  understood  literally  of  an  actual  expo- 
sure in  the  theatre  to  the  assault  of  savage  beasts, 
or  figuratively  of  dangers  to  which  he  was  exposed 
from  the  attacks  of  savage  men.  It  is  no  objec- 
tion to  the  literal  interpretation  that  Luke  has  not 
noticed  any  such  event  in  his  narrative;  for  from 
Rom.  xvi,  4,  we  find  that  the  apostle  must  have 
encountered  many  deadly  perils  at  Ephesus  of 
which  no  notice  is  taken  by  Luke.  As  little 
force  is  there  in  the  objection  that  Paul,  as  a 
Roman  citizen,  could  not  legally  be  subjected  Jo 
such  a punishment ; for  however  his  privileges  in 
this  respect  may  have  availed  him  on  some  occa- 
sions, we  know  that  they  did  not  on  all,  else  he 
would  not  have  endured  the  indignity  of  being 
scourged,  as  he  was  at  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  23), 
and,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  often  besides 
(2  Cor.  xi.  24,  25).  Tradition  is  in  favour  of  the 
literal  interpretation  (Nicephori  Hist.  Ecclcs. 
ii.  6.  25) ; and  no  exegesis  of  the  whole  clause 
seems  better  than  that  of  Theodoret : Kara  avQpw- 
iriuov  Xo'yicry.'bv  Qyp'aav  iyero/J-rju  fiopd,  aXXa  irapa- 
SSgcos  ecwOrjv;  for  it  is  far  from  improbable  that 
the  furious  mob  might  have  raised  the  cry  ‘Ad 
leones'  against  the  apostle,  and  that  some  unex- 
pected interposition  had  saved  him  from  the  fear- 
ful doom.  To  interpret  this  statement  of  his  treat- 
ment at  the  hands  of  Demetrius,  is  absurdly  to 
make  him  refer  to  an  event  which  at  the  time  he 
was  writing  had  not  occurred. 

On  the  writings  of  the  apostle  Paul,  see  the 
articles  in  this  work  under  the  titles  of  his  dif- 
ferent epistles. 

Pearson,  Annales  Paulini,  4to.  Lond.  1688, 
translated  by  J.  M.  Williams,  12mo.  Cambridge, 
1 826 ; J.  Lange,  Comment.  Hist.  Hermeneut. 
de  Vita  et  Epistolis  Ap.  Pauli , 4to.  Halae,  1718 ; 
Macknight,  Translation  of  the  Apostolical  Epis- 
tles,, vol.  vi.  8vo.,  vol.  iv.  4to. ; Lardner,  TVoi’hs, 
vol.  vi.  8vo.,  vol.  iii.  4to;  More,  Essay  on  St. 
Paid,  2 vols. ; 1 ate,  Continuous  History  of  St. 
Paul  (prefixed  to  a new  edition  of  Paley’s  Horae 
Paulinas ),  8vo.  Lond.  1840;  Schrader,  Her  Ap. 
Paulus,  3 th,  8vo.  Leip.  1830 ; Hemsen,  Her 
Ap.Paulus,  8vo.  G6t,t.  1830;  Tholuck,  Vermischte 
Schriften , bd.  ii.  (translated  in  the  Edinburgh 
Biblical  Cabinet , vol.  xxviii.). — W.  L.  A. 

PEACOCK.  It  is  a question,  perhaps,  more 
of  geographical  and  historical  than  of  Biblical 
interest  to  decide  whether  thukyim  (1  Kings 

x.  22)  and  thukyim  (2  Chron.  ix.  21) 

denote  peacocks  strictly  so  called,  or  some  other 
species  of  animal  or  bird  ; for  on  the  solution  of 
the  question  in  the  affirmative  depends  the  real 
direction  of  Solomon’s  fleet;  that  is,  whether-, 
after  passing  the  straits  of  Bab-el-Mandeb,  it 
proceeded  along  the  east  coast  of  Africa  towards 
Sofala,  or  whether  it  turned  eastward,  ranging 
along  the  Arabian  and  Peisian  shores  to  the 
Peninsula  of  India,  and  perhaps  went  onwards  to 
Ceylon,  and  penetrated  to  the  great  Australian, 
w;  ev«n  to  the  Spice  Islands.  Bochart,  unable  to 


discover  a Hebrew  root  in  Thukyim,  r*.ther 
arbitrarily  proposes  a transposition  of  letters  by 
which  he  converts  the  word  into  Cuthyim,  de- 
noting, as  lie  supposes,  the  country  of  the  Cutheiy 
which,- in  an  extended  sense,  is  applied,  in  con- 
formity with  various  writers  of  antiquity,  to  Media 
and  Persia;  and  Greek  authorities  are  cited  to 
show  that  peacocks  abounded  in  Babylonia,  &c. 
This  mode  of  proceeding  to  determine  the  species 
and  the  native  country  of  the  bird  is  altogether 
inadmissible,  since  Greek  writers  speak  of  Persian 
peacocks  at  a much  later  period  than  tire  age  of 
Solomon ; and  it  is  well  known  that  they  were  suc- 
cessively carried  westward  till  they  passed  from 
the  Greek  islands  into  Europe,  and  that,  as  Juno’s 
birds,  the  Romans  gradually  spread  them  to  Gaul 
and  Spain,  where,  however,  they  were  not  common 
until  after  the  tenth  century.  But  even  if  pea- 
cocks had  been  numerous  in  Media  and  northern 
Persia  at  the  time  in  question,  how  were  they  to 
be  furnished  to  a fleet  which  was  navigating 
the  Indian  Ocean,  many  degrees  to  the  south  of 
the  colder  region  of  High  Asia  ? and  as  for 
the  land  of  the  Cuthei,  or  of  Cush,  when  it 
serves  their  purpose,  writers  remove  it  to  Africa 
along  with  the  migrations  of  the  Cushites.  The 
Thukyim  have  been  presumed  to  derive  their  ap- 
pellation from  an  exotic  word  implying  ‘ tufted  ’ 
or  ‘ crested,’  which,  though  true  of  the  peacock,  is 
not  so  obvious  a character  as  that  afforded  by  its 
splendid  tail ; and  therefore  a crested  parrot  has 
been  supposed  to  be  meant.  Parrots,  though  many 
species  are  indigenous  in  Africa,  do  not  appear 
on  the  monuments  of  Egypt ; they  were  un- 
known till  the  time  of  Alexander,  and  then  both 
Greeks  and  Romans  were  acquainted  only  with 
species  from  Ceylon,  destitute  of  crests,  such  as 
Psittacus  Alexandri ; and  the  Romans  fora  long 
time  received  these  only  by  way  of  Alexandria, 
though  in  the  time  of  Pliny  others  became 
known.  Again,  the  pheasant  has  been  proposed 
as  the  bird  intended;  but  Phas.  Colchicus, 
the  only  species  known  in  antiquity,  is  likewise 
without  a prominent  crest,  and  is  a bird  of 
the  colder  regions  of  the  central  range  of  Asiatic 
mountains.  Following  a line  of  latitude,  it  gra- 
dually reached  westward  to  High  Armenia  and 
Colchis,  whence  it  was  first  brought  to  Europe  by 
Greek  merchants,  who  frequented  the  early  empo- 
rium on  the  Phasis.  The  centre  of  existence  of 
the  genus,  rich  in  splendid  species,  is  in  the  woody 
region  beneath  the  snowy  peaks  of  the  Himalayas, 
reaching  also  eastward  to  northern  China,  where 
the  common  pheasant  is  abundant  but  not,  we 
believe,  any  where  naturally  in  a low  latitude. 
Thus  it  appears  that  pheasants  wert  not  the  birds 
intended  by  the  Hebrew  Thukyim , although  all 
versions  and  comments  agree  that  after  the  Cebi, 
or  apes  (probably  Cercopithecus  Entellus,  one  of 
the  sacred  species  of  India),  some  kind  of  remark- 
able bird  is  meant ; and  none  are  more  obviously 
entitled  to  the  application  of  the  name  than  the 
peacock,  since  it  is  abundant  in  the  jungles  of 
India,  and  would  be  met  with  both  wild  and  do- 
mesticated, by  navigators  to  the  coasts  from  Gam- 
boge to  Ceylon,  and  would  better  than  any  of  the 
others  bear  a long  sea  voyage  in  the  crowded  ships 
of  antiquity.  Moreover,  we  find  it  still  deno- 
minated Togei  in  the  Malabaric  dialects  of  the 
country,  which  may  be  the  source  of  Thuki,  as 
well  as  of  the  Arabic  Tawas  and  Armenian  Taut. 


488 


PEACOCK. 


PEGANON. 


With  regal  d to  the  objection,  that  the  long  ccel- 
iat«d  feathers  of  the  rump,  and  not  those  of  the 
tail,  as  is  commonly  believed,  are  the  most  con- 
spicuous object  offered  by  this  bird,  it  may  be  an- 
swered, that  if  the  name  Togei  be  the  original,  it 
may  not  refer  to  a tuft,  or  may  express  both  the 
erectile  feathers  on  the  head  of  a bird  and  those 
about  the  rump  or  the  tail ; and  that  those  of  the 
peacock  have  at  all  times  been  sought  to  form  arti- 
ficial crests  for  human  ornaments.  One  other 
point  remains  to  be  considered;  namely,  whether 
the  fleet  went  to  the  East,  or  proceeded  southward 
along  the  African  shore?  No  doubt,  had  the  Phoe- 
nician trade  guided  the  Hebrews  in  the  lust  men- 
tioned direction,  gold  and  apes  might  have  been 
obtained  on  the  east  coast  of  Africa,  and  even  some 
kinds  of  spices  in  the  ports  of  Abyssinia;  for  all 
that  region,  as  far  as  the  Strait  of  Madagascar,  was 
at  that  early  period  in  a state  of  comparative  afflu- 
ence and  civilization.  But  in  that  case  a great 
part  of  the  commercial  produce  would  have  been 
obtained  within  the  bovders  of  the  Red  Sea,  and 
beyond  the  Straits ; the  distance  to  be  traversed, 
therefore,  being  but  partially  affected  by  the  mon- 
soons, never  could  have  required  a period  of  three 
years  for  its  accomplishment ; and  a prolonged 
voyage  round  the  Cape  to  the  Guinea  and  Gold 
Coast  is  an  assumption  so  wild,  that  it  does  not 
merit  serious  consideration  ; but  intending  to  pro- 
ceed to  India,  the  fleet  had  to  reach  the  Straits  of 
Bab-el-Mandeb  in  time  to  take  advantage  of  the 
western  monsoon ; be  in  port,  perhaps  at  or  near 
Bombay,  before  the  change;  and  after  the  storms 
accompanying  the  change,  it  had  to  proceed  during 
the  eastern  monsoon  under  the  lee  of  the  land  to 
Coodramalli,  or  the  port  of  Palesimundus  in  Ta- 
probana,  on  the  east  coast  of  Ceylon  ; thence  to  the 
Coromandel  shore,  perhaps  to  the  site  of  the  present 
mins  of  Mahabalipuram  ; while  the  return  voyage 
would  again  occupy  one  year  and  a half.  The  ports 
of  India  and  Ceylon  could  furnish  gold,  precious 
6tones,  eastern  spices,  and  even  Chinese  wares ; 
for  the  last  fact  is  fully  established  by  disco- 
veries in  very  ancient  Egyptian  tombs.  Silks, 
which  are  first  mentioned  in  Proverbs  xxxi.  22, 
could  not  have  come  from  Africa,  and  many 
articles  of  advanced  and  refined  social  life,  not 
the  produce  of  Egypt,  could  alone  have  been 
derived  from  India  [Ophiu]. 

Though  in  this  short  abstract  of  the  arguments 
respecting  the  direction  of  Solomon's  fleet,  there 
may  be  errors,  none,  we  believe,  are  of  sufficient 
weight  to  impugn  the  general  conclusion,  which 
supports  the  usual  rendering  of  Thukyim  by 
‘peacocks;’  although  the  increase  of  species  in 
the  west  does  not  appear  to  have  been  remarkable 
till  some  ages  after  the  reign  of  the  great  Hebrew 
monarch,  when  the  bird  was  dedicated  to  Juno,  and 
reared  at  first,  in  her  temple  at  Samos.  There  are 
only  two  species  of  true  peacocks,  viz.,  that  under 
consideration,  which  is  the  Pavo  cristatus  of  Linn.; 
and  another,  Pavo  Muticus,  more  recently  dis- 
covered, which  differs  in  some  particulars,  and  ori- 
ginally belongs  to  Japan  and  China.  Peacocks  bear 
the  cold  of  the  Himalayas : they  run  with  great 
swiftness,  and  where  they  are,  serpents  do  not 
abound,  as  they  devour  the  young  with  great 
avidity,  and,  it  is  said,  attack  with  spirit  even  the 
Cobra  di  Capsllo  when  giown  to  considerable  size, 
arresting  its  progress  and  confusing  if  by  the  ra- 
bidity and  variety  of  their  evolutions  around  it, 


till  exhausted  with  fatigue  it  is  struck  on  the  head 
and  dispatched. 

A detailed  description  of  a species  so  well 
known,  we  deem  superfluous. — C.  H.  S. 

PEARLS.  It  is  doubtful  that  pearls  are  men- 
tioned in  fhe  Old  Testament.  The  word  5^23* 
gabish,  rendered  ‘pearl’  in  Joh  xxviii.  18,  ap- 
pears to  mean  crystal ; and  the  word  D'O’ODi 
peninim,  which  our  version  translates  by  ‘rubies,' 
is  now  supposed  to  mean  coral  [Coral],  But  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  pearls  (/xapyap'iTrjs)  ate 
repeatedly  mentioned.  In  Matt.  xiii.  45,  46,  a 
merchant  (travelling  jeweller)  seeking  goodly 
pearls , finds  one  pearl  of  great  price,  and  to  he 
able  to  purchase  it,  sells  all  that  he  has — all  the 
jewels  he  had  previously  secured.  In  1 Tim.  ii. 
9,  and  Rev.  xvii.  4,  pearls  are  mentioned  as  the 
ornaments  of  females;  in  Rev.  xviii.  12-16, 
among  costly  merchandize ; and  Rev.  xxi.  12, 
the  twelve  gates  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  are 
‘twelve  pearls.’  These  intimations  seem  to  in- 
dicate that  pearls  were  in  more  common  use 
among  the  Jews  after  than  before  the  captivity, 
while  they  evince  the  estimation  in  which  they 
were  in  later  times  held  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  ix.  54; 
xii.  41;  Gillian,  Anim.  x.  13;  comp.  Ritter, 
Erdkunde , ii.  164).  The  island  of  Tylos  (Bah- 
rein) was  especially  renowned  for  its  fishery  of 
pearls  (Plin.  vi.  32;  comp.  Strabo,  xvi.  p.  767; 
Athen.  iii.  93);  the  Indian  ocean  was  also  known 
to  produce  pearls  (Arrian,  Indica,  p.  194  ; Plin. 
ix.  54;  xxxiv.  48  ; Strabo,  xv.  p.  717).  Heertn 
feels  assured  that  this  indication  must  be  under- 
stood to  refer  to  the  strait  between  Taprobana,  or 
Ceylon,  and  the  southernmost  point  of  the  main- 
land of  India,  Cape  Comorin,  whence  Europeans, 
even  at  present,  derive  their  principal  supplies  of 
these  costly  natural  productions.  This  writer 
adds,  ‘ Pearls  have  at  all  times  been  esteemed  one 
of  the  most  valuable  commodities  of  the  East. 
Their  modest  splendour  and  simple  beauty  appear 
to  have  captivated  the  Orientals,  even  more  than 
the  dazzling  brilliancy  of  the  diamond,  and  have 
made  them  at  all  times  the  favourite  ornament 
of  despotic  princes.  In  the  West,  the  passion  for 
this  elegant  luxury  was  at  its  height  about  the 
period  of  the  extinction  of  Roman  freedom,  and 
they  were  valued  in  Rome  and  Alexandria  as 
highly  as  precious  stones.  In  Asia  this  taste  was 
of  more  ancient  date,  and  may  be  traced  to  a 
period  anterior  to  the  Persian  dynasty  ; nor  has  it 
ever  declined.  A string  of  pearls  of  the  largest 
size  is  an  indispensable  part  of  the  decorations  of 
an  Eastern  monarch.  It  was  thus  that  Tippoo 
was  adorned  when  he  fell  before  the  gates  of  his 
capital ; and  it  is  thus  that  the  present  ruler  of 
the  Persians  is  usually  decorated  (. Ideen , i.  2- 
224). 

PEGANON  (- nriyavov ).  The  word  rue  occurs 
only  in  Luke  xi.  42.  ‘ But  woe  unto  you,  Phari- 
sees ! for  ye  tithe  mint  and  rue  and  all  manner  of 
herbs,  and  pass  over  judgment,’  &c.  In  the  pa- 
rallel passage,  Matt,  xxiii.  23,  dill  (aurjdov),  trans- 
lated anise  in  the  English  Version,  is  mentioned 
instead  of  rue.  Both  dill  and  rue  were  cultivated 
in  the  gardens  of  Eastern  countries  in  ancient 
times  as  they  are  at  the  present  day.  Dioscorides 
describes  two  kinds,  Trriyavov  opeivov,  Ruta  mon- 
tana , and  nryyavov  Kyirevror,  Ruta  hortensis. 
‘ Ex  hortensi  autem  esui  magis  idonea,  quae  juxta 


PEKAH, 


PELICAN. 


489 


8 wkj  pi  ivenit.’  These  are  considered  by  botanists 
to  be  distinct  species,  and  are  called  respectively, 
the  first,  Ruta  montana , which  is  common  in  the 
south  of  Europe  and  the  north  of  Africa  ; the  other 
is  usually  called  Rata  graveolens,  and  by  some 
R.  hortensis , which  is  found  in  the  south  of 
Europe,  and  is  the  kind  commonly  cultivated  in 
gardens.  Rue  was  highly  est  eemed  as  a medi- 
. cine,  even  as  early  as  the  time  of  Hippocrates. 
Pliny  says,  ‘ Rue  is  an  herbe  as  medicinable  as 
the  best.  That  of  the  garden  hath  a broader  leafe, 
and  brauucheth  more  than  the  wild,  which  is 
more  hotte,  vehement,  and  rigorous  in  all  opera- 
tions ; also  that  is  it  sowed  usually  in  Februarie, 
when  the  western  wind,  Favonius,  bloweth. 
Certes  we  find,  that  in  old  time  rue  was  in  some 
great  account,  and  especiall  reckoning  above 
other  hearbs : for  I read  in  auncient  histories,  That 
Cornelius  Cethegus,  at  what  time  as  he  was  chosen 
Consull  with  Quintius  Flaminius,  presently 
upon  the  said  election,  gave  a largesse  to  the 
people  of  new  wine,  aromatized  with  rue.  The 
fig-tree  and  rue  are  in  a great,  league  and  amitie, 
insomuch  as  this  herb,  sow  and  set  it  where  you 
will,  in  no  place  prospered)  better  than  under  that 
tree;  for  planted  it  may  be  of  a slip  in  spring’ 
(Hollands  Pliny,  xix.  c.  viii.).  That  it  was  em- 
ployed as  an  ingredient  in  diet,  and  as  a condi- 
ment, is  abundantly  evident  from  Apicius,  as 
noticed  by  Celsius,  and  is  not  more  extraordinary 
than  the  fondness  of  some  Eastern  nations  were 
of  assafoetida  as  a seasoning  to  food.  That  one 
kind  was  cultivated  by  the  Israelites,  is  evident 
from  its  being  mentioned  as  one  of  the  articles  of 
which  the  Pharisees  paid  their  tithes,  though  they 
neglected  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law.  Ro- 
senmiiller  states  that  in  the  Talmud  ( Tract  She - 
biith,  cap.  ix.,  6 1)  the  rue  is  indeed  mentioned 
amongst  kitchen  herbs  ( asparagus  portulacce  et 
coriandro)  ; but,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  there  ex- 
pressly stated,  that  it  is  tithe  free,  it  being  one  of 
those  herbs  which  are  not  cultivated  in  gardens, 
according  to  the  general  rule  established  in  ihe 
Talmud.’  Celsius  long  previously  observed  with 
reference  to  this  fact:  1 Cum  autem  dicunt  ibi- 
dem, rutam  a decimatior.e  immunem  esse,  osten- 
dunt,  quantum  recesserint  a consuetudine  ma- 
jorum,  quos  decimas  ex  ruta  separasse,  ipsum 
affirmat  os  veritatis’  (Hierobot.  ii.  p.  253)  — 

J.  F.  R. 

PEKAH  open-eyed;  Sept.  4>a/cee),  the 

officer  who  slew  Pekahiah  and  mounted  the  throne 
in  his  stead  (b.c.  758),  becoming  the  eighteenth 
king  of  Israel.  He  reigned  twenty  years.  Towards 
the  close  of  his  life  (but  not  before  the  seventeenth 
year  of  his  reign)  he  entered  into  a league  with 
Rezin,  king  of  Damascene-Syria,  against  Judah  ; 
and  the  success  which  attended  their  operations 
induced  Ahaz  to  tender  to  Tiglath-pileser,  king  of 
Assyria,  his  homage  and  tribute,  as  the  price  of  his 
aid  and  protection.  The  result  was  that  the  kings 
of  Syria  and  Israel  were  soon  obliged  to  abandon 
their  designs  against  Judah  in  order  to  attend  to 
their  own  dominions,  of  which  considerable  parts 
were  seized  and  retained  by  the  Assyrians.  Israel 
lost  all  the  territory  ea$t  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  two 
and  a half  tribes  which  inhabited  it  were  sent  into 
exile.  These  disasters  seem  to  have  created  such 
popular  discontent  as  to  give  the  sanction  of  public 
opinion  to  ihe  conspiracy  headed  by  Hoshea,  in 


which  the  king  lost  his  life  (2  Kings  xv.  25,  «$. ; 
xvi.  5,  sq. ; Isa.  vii. ; viii.  1-9;  xvii.  1-Ii). 

PEKAHIAH  (?Tni2D,  Jehovah  has  opened  hi* 
eyes;  Sept.  Qaicealas,  ^aiceias),  son  and  successor 
of  Menahem,  king  of  Israel,  who  began  to  reign 
in  b.c.  760.  He  patronized  and  supported  the 
idolatry  of  the  golden  calves ; and  after  an  un- 
distinguished reign  of  two  years,  Pekah,  one  (/his 
generals,  conspired  against  him,  and  with  the  aid 
of  Argob  and  Arish,  and  fifty  Gileadites,  slew  him 
in  the  haram  of  his  own  palace  (2  Kings  xv. 
22-25). 

PELEG,  son  of  Eber,  and  fourth  in  descent 
from  Shem.  His  name,  means  division , and  is 
said  to  have  been  given  him  ‘ because  in  li is  days 
the  earth  was  divided’  (Gen.  x.  25  ; xi.  16)  ; con- 
cerning which  see  Nations,  Dispersion  ok. 

PELICAN.  kaath;  Syriac,  Jcaha ; 

Arabic  and  Talmuds,  huh  and  kill. 

The  name  kaath  is  supposed  to  be  derived 
from  the  action  of  throwing  up  food,  which  the 
bird  really  effects  when  discharging  the  contents 
of  the  bag  beneath  its  bill.  But  it  may  be  sug- 
gested, as  not  unlikely,  that  all  the  above  names 
are  imitative  of  the  voice  of  the  pelican,  which, 
although  seldom  heard  in  captivity,  is  uttered 
frequently  at  the  periods  of  migration,  and  is 
compared  to  the  braying  of  an  ass.  It  may  be 
likewise  that  this  characteristic  has  influenced 
several  translators  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  substi- 
tuting on  some,  or  on  all  occasions,  where  kaath 
occurs,  bittern  for  pelican,  but  we  think  without 
sufficient  reason  [Kephod  ; Bittern].  Kaath 
is  found  in  Lev.  xi.  18;  Deut.  xiv.  17  ; Ps.  cii.  6 ; 
Isa.  xxxiv.  11 ; Zeph.  ii.  14. 

Pelicans  are  chiefly  tropical  birds,  equal  or 
superior  in  bulk  to  the  common  swan  : they  have 
powerful  wings ; fly  at  a great  elevation  ; are  par- 
tially gregarious ; and  though  some  always  remain 
in  their  favourite  subsolar  regions,  most  of  them 
migrate  in  our  hemisphere  with  the  northern  spring, 
occupy  Syria,  the  lakes  and  rivers  of  temperate 
Asia,  and  extend  westward  into  Europe  up  the 


Danube  into  Hungary,  and  northward  to  some 
rivers  of  southern  Russia.  They  likewise  frequent 
salt-water  marshes,  and  tne  shallows  of  harbours, 
but  seldom  alight  on  the  ope'h  sea,  though  they 
are  said  to  dart  down  upon  fish  from  a consider- 
able height. 

The  face  of  the  pelican  is  naked ; the  bill  long, 


490 


PENIEL. 


PENTATEUCH. 


broad,  and  flat,  is  terminated  by  a strong  crooked 
and  crimson-coloured  nail,  which,  when  fish  is 
pressed  out  of  the  pouch,  and  the  bird  is  at  rest, 
is  seen  reposing  upon  the  crop,  and  then  may  be 
fancied  to  represent  an  ensanguined  spot.  This 
may  have  occasioned  the  fabulous  tale  which  repre- 
sents the  bird  as  wounding  her  own  bared  breast  to 
revive  its  young  brood ; for  that  part  of  the  bag 
which  is  visible  then  appears  like  a naked  breast, 
all  the  feathers  of  the  body  being  white  or  slightly 
tinged  with  rose  colour,  except  the  great  quills, 
which  are  black.  The  feet  have  all  the  toes 
united  by  broad  membranes,  and  are  of  a nearly 
orange  colour.  Pelicanus  o?iocrotalus , the  species 
here  noticed,  is  the  most  widely-spread  of  the 
genus,  being  supposed  to  be  identical  at  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  and  in  India,  as  well  as  in  western 
Asia.  It  is  very  distinctly  represented  in  ancient 
Egyptian  paintings,  where  the  birds  are  seen  in 
numbers  congregated  among  reeds,  and  the  natives 
collecting  basketfuls  of  their  eggs.  They  still 
frequent  the  marshes  of  the  Delta  of  the  Nile,  and 
the  islands  of  the  river  high  up  the  country,  and 
resort  to  the  lakes  of  Palestine,  excepting  the 
Dead  Sea.  With  regard  to  the  words  ‘ of  the 
wilderness  or  desert/  often  added  to  the  pelican’s 
name  in  consequence  of  their  occurrence  in  Ps.  cii. 
6,  there  is  not  sufficient  ground  to  infer  from  them 
any  peculiar  capability  in  the  genus  to  occupy  re- 
mote solitudes  ; for  they  live  on  fish,  and  generally 
nestle  in  reedy  abodes;  and  man,  in  all  re- 
gions, equally  desirous  to  possess  food,  water,  and 
verdure,  occupies  the  same  localities  for  the  same 
reasons.  We  think  the  Psalmist  refers  to  one 
isolated  by  circumstances  from  the  usual  haunts 
of  these  birds,  and  casually  nestling  among  rocks, 
where  water,  and  consequently  food,  begins  to 
fail  in  the  dry  season,  as  is  commonly  the  case 
eastward  of  the  Jordan — such  a supposition  offering 
an  image  of  misery  and  desolation  forcibly  appli- 
cable to  the  context. — C.  H.  S. 

PELITHITES.  [Cherethites  and  Peli- 

THITES.] 

PEN.  [Writing.] 

PENIEL  (i?X'J3,/ace  of  God ; Sept.  E?5o$ 
©eou),  or  Penuel,  a place  beyond  the  Jordan, 
where  Jacob  wrestled  with  the  angel,  and  ‘called 
the  name  of  the  place  Peniel ; for  I have  seen 
God  face  to  face,  and  my  life  is  preserved  ’ (Gen. 
xxxii.  30).  There  was  in  after-times  a fortified 
town  in  this  place,  the  inhabitants  of  which  ex- 
posed themselves  to  the  resentment  of  Gideon, 
for  refusing  succour  to  his  troops  when  pursuing 
the  Midianites  (Judg.  viii.  8).  The  site  is  not 
known  ; but  it  must  have  been  at  some  point 
on  or  not  far  from  the  north  bank  of  the  Jabbok. 
Men  of  this  name  occur  in  1 Chron.  iv.  4 ; viii. 
25. 

PENINNAH  (H3J3,  coral ; Sept.  $evvdva), 
one  of  the  two  wives  of  Elkanah,  the  father  of 
Samuel  (1  Sam.  i.  2). 

PENNY.  [Drachma;  Denarius.] 

PENTATEUCH  is  the  title  given  to  the 
five  books  of  Moses.  The  Jews  usually  call  the 
Pentateuch  iTTirin,  the  law ; or,  more  fully, 
mjnn  win  r\mn,  the  five-fifths  of  the  law. 
This  title  again  has  been  abbreviated  into 
for  the  whole,  and  for  a single  book  of 

Pentateuch.  In  Greek  its  usual  appellations 


are  b v6/j.os,  and  n eyrdreoxos-  The  word  rcOx0* 
occurs  in  the  later  Alexandrian  writers  in  the 
signification  of  volumen.  The  division  into  five 
books  is  alluded  to  in  the  works  of  Josephus  and 
Philo.  _ It  seems  that  this  division  was  first  made 
by  the  Alexandrian  critics.  In  Jewish  writers 
are  found  statements  indicating  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  formerly  divided  into  seven  portions 
(comp.  Jarclii,  ad  Proverb,  ix.  1 ; ibique  Breit- 
haupt). 

In  the  Jewish  canon  the  Pentateuch  is  kept 
somewliat.  distinct  from  the  other  sacred  books  ot 
the  Old  Testament,  because,  considered  with  re- 
ference to  its  contents,  it  is  the  book  of  books  ot 
the  ancient  covenant.  It  is  the  basis  of  the  reli- 
gion of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the  whole 
theocratical  life.  The  term  law  characterizes  the 
principal  substance  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  its  real 
kernel  and  cential  point  is  the  foundation  of  the 
Jewish  theocracy,  the  historical  demonstration  ot 
that  peculiar  communion  into  which  the  God  of 
heaven  and  earth  entered  with  one  chosen  people, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  Moses ; the  pre- 
paration for,  and  the  development  of,  that  com- 
munion ; the  covenant  relation  of  Jehovah  and 
Israel,  from  its  first  rise  down  to  its  complete  ter- 
mination. In  considering  the  Pentateuch,  the  first 
question  which  arises  is — Who  was  its  author  ? 
It  is  of  great  importance  to  hear  first,  what  the 
book  itself  says  on  this  subject.  The  Pentateuch 
does  not  present  itself  as  an  anonymous  produc- 
tion. It  is  manifestly  intended  and  destined  to 
be  a public  muniment  for  the  whole  people,  anil 
it  does  net  veil  its  origin  in  a mysterious  ob- 
scurity ; on  the  contrary  the  book  speaks  most 
clearly  on  this  subject. 

According  to  Exod.  xvii.  14,  Moses  was  com- 
manded by  God  to  write  the  victory  over  the 
Amalekites  in  the  book  (“I3D3).  This  passage 
shows  that  the  account  to  be  inserted  wa3  in- 
tended to  form  a portion  of  a more  extensive  work, 
with  which  the  reader  is  supposed  to  be  acquaint- 
ed. It.  also  proves  that  Moses,  at  an  early  period 
of  his  public  career,  was  filled  with  the  idea  oi 
leaving  to  his  people  a written  memorial  of  the 
Divine  guidance,  and  that  he  fully  understood 
the  close  and  necessary  connection  of  an  authori- 
tative law  with  a written  code,  or  It  is, 

therefore,  by  no  means  surprising  that  the  observ- 
ation repeatedly  occurs,  that  Moses  wrote  down 
the  account  of  certain  events  (Exod.  xxiv.  4,  7 ; 
xxxiv.  27,  28;  Num.  xxxiii.  2).  Especially 
important  are  fine  statements  in  Deut.  i.  5 ; 
xxviii.  58.  In  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24  (30)  the  whole 
work  is  expressly  ascribed  to  Moses  as  the  author, 
including  the  poem  in  Deut.  xxxii.  It  may  be 
made  a question  whether  the  hand  of  a later  writer, 
who  finished  the  Pentateuch,  is  perceptible  from 
ch.  xxxi.  24  (comp,  xxxiii.  1,  and  xxxiv.),  or 
whether  the  words  in  xxxi.  24-30  are  still  the 
words  of  Moses.  In  the  former  case  we  have  two 
witnesses,  viz.  Moses  himself,  and  the  continuator 
of  the  Pentateuch  ; in  the  latter  case,  which  seems 
to  us  the  more  likely,  we  have  the  testimony  ot 
Moses  alone. 

Modern  criticism  has  raised  many  objections 
against  these  statements  of  the  Pentateuch  rela- 
tive to  its  own  origin.  Many  critics  suppose 
that  they  can  discover  in  the  Pentateuch  indica* 
tions  that  the  author  intended  to  make  himself 
known  as  a person  different  from  Moses.  The 


PENTATEUCH. 


PENTATEUCH. 


491 


most  important  objection  is  the  following  : that 
the  Pentateuch,  speaking  of  Moses,  always  uses 
the  third  person,  bestows  praise  upon  him,  and 
uses  concerning  him  expressions  of  respect.  The 
Pentateuch  even  exhibits  Moses  quite  objectively 
in  the  Messing  recorded  in  Dent,  xxxiii.  4,  5. 

To  this  objection  we  reply,  that  the  use  of  the 
third  person  proves  nothing.  The  later  Hebrew 
writers  also  speak  of  themselves  in  the  third  per- 
son. We  might  adduce  similar  instances  from 
the  classical  authors,  as  Caesar,  Xenophon,  and 
others.  The  use  of  the  third  person,  instead  of  the 
first,  prevails  also  among  Oriental  authors.  In 
addition  to  this  we  should  observe,  that  the  na- 
ture of  the  book  itself  demands  the  use  of  the 
third  person,  in  reference  to  Moses,  throughout 
the  Pentateuch.  This  usage  entirely  corresponds 
with  the  character  both  of  the  history  and  of  the 
law  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  By  the  use  of 
the  word  I,  the  objective  character  of  this  history 
would  have  been  destroyed,  and  the  law  of  Jehovah 
would  have  been  brought  down  to  the  sphere  of 
human  subjectivity  and  option.  If  we  consider 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  destined  to  be  a book  of 
divine  revelation,  in  which  God  exhibited  to  his 
people  the  exemplification  of  his  providential 
guidance,  we -cannot  expect  that  Moses,  by  whom 
the  Lord  had  communicated  his  latest  revelations, 
should  be  spoken  of  otherwise  than  in  the  third  per- 
son. In  the  poetry  contained  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  4, 
Moses  speaks  in  the  name  of  the  people,  which  he 
personifies  and  introduces  as  speaking.  The  ex- 
pressions in  Exod.  xi.  3,  and  Num.  xii.  3 and  7, 
belong  entirely  to  the  context  of  history,  and  to 
its  faithful  and  complete  relation  ; consequently 
b is  by  no  means  vain  boasting  that  is  there  ex- 
pressed, but  admiration  of  the  divine  mercy  glori- 
fied in  the  people  of  God.  In  considering  these 
passages  we  must  also  bear  in  mind  the  far  greater 
number  of  other  passages  which  speak  of  the 
feebleness  and  the  sins  of  Moses. 

It  is  certain  that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch 
asserts  himself  to  be  Moses.  The  question  then 
arises,  whether  it  is  possible  to  consider  this  asser- 
tion to  be  true — whether  Moses  can  be  admitted 
to  be  the  author?  In  this  question  is  contained 
another,  viz.  whether  the  Pentateuch  forms  such  a 
continuous  whole  that  it  is  possible  to  ascribe  it 
to  one  author  ? This  question  has  been  principally 
discussed  in  modern  criticism.  In  various  man- 
ners it  has  been  tried  to  destroy  the  unity  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  to  resolve  its  constituent  parts 
into  a number  of  documents  and  fragments  (comp, 
here  especially  the  article  Genesis).  Eichhorn 
and  his  followers  assert  that  Genesis  only  is  com- 
posed of  several  ancient  documents.  This  assertion 
is  still  reconcileable  with  the  Mosaical  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch.  But  Vater  and  others  allege  that 
the  whole  Pentateuch  is  composed  of  fragments ; 
from  which  it  necessarily  follows  that  Moses  was 
not  the  author  of  the  whole.  Modern  critics  are, 
however,  by  no  means  unanimous  in  their  opinions. 
The  latest  writer  on  this  subject,  Ewald,  in  his 
history  of  the  people  of  Israel  ( Geschichte  des  Volkes 
Israel,  vol.  i.  Gottingen,  1843),  asserts  that  there 
were  seven  different  authors  concerned  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch. On  the  other  hand,  the  internal  unity  of 
the  Pentateuch  has  been  demonstrated  in  many 
able  essays.  The  attempts  at  division  are  espe- 
cially supported  by  an  appeal  to  the  prevailing  use 
of  the  different  names  of  God  in  various  por- 


tions of  the  work ; but  the  arguments  derived 
from  this  circumstance  have  been  found  insuffi- 
cient to  prove  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by 
different  authors  (comp,  again  the  articles  Ge- 
nesis, Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deu- 
teronomy). 

The  inquiry  concerning  the  unity  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch is  intimately  connected  with  its  histo- 
rical character.  If  there  are  in  the  Penta- 
teuch decided  contradictions,  or  different  con- 
tradictory statements  of  one  and  the  same  fact, 
not  only  its  unity  but  also  its  historical  truth 
would  be  negatived.  On  the*  other  hand,  if 
the  work  is  to  be  considered  as  written  by  Moses, 
the  whole  style  and  internal  veracity  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch must  correspond  with  the  character  of 
Moses.  Considerate  critics,  who  are  not  under 
the  sway  of  dogmatic  prejudices,  find  that  the 
passages  which  are  produced  in  order  to  prove 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  after  the  time  of 
Moses,  by  no  means  support  such  a conclusion, 
and  that  a more  accurate  examination  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  separate  portions  discovers  many  ves- 
tiges demonstrating  that  the  work  originated  in 
the  age  of  Moses  (compare  here  again  the  articles 
on  the  separate  books). 

The  general  arguments  for  and  against  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  Pentateuch,  which  are  here  still 
to  be  considered  separately,  are  the  following : — 

The  history  of  the  art  of  writing  among  the 
Hebrews  has  often  been  appealed  to  in  order  to 
disprove  the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch.  It 
is  true  that  in  our  days  no  critic  of  good  repute 
for  learning,  ventures  any  longer  to  assert  that  the 
art  of  writing  was  invented  subsequent  to  the 
Mosaical  age  (Ewald’s  Geschichte  des  Volkes 
Israel,  p.  64,  sq.) ; but  it  is  questioned  whether 
the  Hebrews  were  acquainted  with  that  art.  Such 
a doubt  proceeds  from  erroneous  ideas  concerning 
the  condition  of  this  people,  and  concerning  the 
civilization  necessarily  imparted  to  them  in  Egypt. 
The  reality  of  this  civilization  is  proved  by  indu- 
bitable testimony.  It  is  said  that  a work  of  such 
extent  as  the  Pentateuch  was  beyond  the  means 
of  the  primitive  modes  of  writing  then  existing. 
But  various  testimonies,  not  merely  in  the  Penta- 
teuch itself,  but  also  derived  from  other  sources, 
from  the  period  immediately  subsequent  to  that  of 
Moses,  prove  that  a knowledge  of  the  art  of  writing 
was  widely  diffused  among  the  Hebrews  (comp. 
Judges  viii.  14).  And  if  there  was  any  knowledge 
of  this  art,  its  application  would  entirely  depend 
upon  the  particular  circumstances  of  a given  pe- 
riod. Some  writers  seem  to  entertain  the  opinion 
that  the  materials  for  writing  were  yet,  in  the  days 
of  Moses,  too  clumsy  for  the  execution  of  larger 
works.  This  opinion  is  refuted  by  the  fact,  that  the 
Hebrews  became  acquainted,  just  in  the  Mosaical 
period,  with  the  use  of  very  good  materials  for 
writing,  such  as  papyrus,  byssus,  parchment,  &c. 
(comp.  Herodotus,  v.  58).  There  are,  indeed, 
mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch  some  more  solid 
materials  for  writing,  such  as  tables  of  stone 
(Exod.  xxiv.  12,  xxxi.  18,  xxxiv.  1,  &c.)  ; but 
this  does  not  prove  that  in  those  days  nothing  was 
written  except  upon  stone.  Stone  was  employed, 
on  account  of  its  durability,  for  specific  purposes. 

The  language  of  the  Pentateuch  has  also  been 
the  subject  of  many  discussions.  It  has  frequently 
been  urged  that  it  differs  less  from  that  of  the  later 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  than  might  have  been 


492 


PENTATEUCH. 


PENTATEUCH. 


expected  if  this  work  proceeded  from  Moses.  In 
this  objection  the  characteristic  stability  of  the 
Oriental  languages  has  been  overlooked.  The 
Oriental  languages  are  not,  in  the  same  degree  as 
the  Occidental,  in  a state  of  development  anti  con- 
stant change.  It  is  also  overlooked  that  the  Penta- 
teuch itgelf,  by  its  high  authority,  exerted  a con- 
stant influence  upon  the  whole  subsequent  religi- 
ous literature  of  the  Hebrews.  And  we  do  not 
know  any  other  literature  of  the  ancient  Hebrews 
except  the  religious.  In  addition  to  this  we  must 
observe  that,  nev  ertheless,  the  style  of  the  Penta- 
teuch has  its  distinctive  features  of  antiquity. 

The  Pentateuch  contains  a number  of  charac- 
teristic GRAMMATICAL  FORMATIONS*,  Such  are, 
for  instance,  the  use  of  the  pronoun  fcOH  as  a 
feminine  also,  the  form  for  ; DflJ ; 

the  forms  of  the  imperatives  in  Gen.  iv.  23,  Exod. 
ii.  20,  the  word  *“|JD  as  a feminine  for  mjD. 

The  Pentateuch  contains  also  words  which  do 
not  occur  in  the  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
such  as  |'D,  species ; to  curse , for  ; 

3BO,  lamb,  for  ^23  ; KDH  and  85^1  in  the  sig- 
nification of  property. 

There  occur  also  characteristic  phrases,  as, 
their  shade  (D^¥)  is  departed  from  them ; 
i.e.  they  are  defenceless  (Num.  xiv.  9) ; he 
teas  gathered  to  his  people,  VDJJ;  the  agree- 
able odour,  or  sioeet  savour,  of  the  sacrifice, 
nrron  nn ; to  cover  the  eye  of  the  earth, 
|'V  (Exod.  x.  5,  15;  Num.  xxii.  5,  11, 

&cA 

Others  have  vainly  endeavoured  to  find  in  the 
Pentateuch,  and  especially  in  Deuteronomy, 
vestiges  of  a later  style.  The  instances  produced 
by  the  opponents  of  the  Mosaical  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  do  not  stand  examination,  and  are, 
therefore,  unable  to  counterbalance  the  weight  of 
argirnent  deducible  from  the  antique  expressions 
in  the  Mosaical  writings. 

Lastly,  the  historical  contents  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  of  very  great  importance  in  our  present  inquiry, 
because  they  constantly  bear  testimony  in  favour 
of  its  age  and  authenticity,  and  lead  to  the  follow- 
ing important  results.  We  find,  in  later  times, 
no  period  which  we  could  deem  capable  of  pro- 
ducing the  Pentateuch  as  a whole:  for  this  rea- 
son, the  opponents  of  its  authenticity  are  obliged 
to  ascribe  the  different,  portions  of  the  work  to 
widely  different  periods.  If  we  allow  that  the 
apostles  were  such  persons  as  they  assert  them- 
selves to  be,  we  must  admit  also  that  the  very 
frequent  apostolical  allusions  to  the  Pentateuch 
are  a high  sanction  to  the  work ; and  we  cannot 
overlook  the  fact,  that  every  opinion  which,  wit  h 
greater  or  less  decision,  finds  in  the  Pentateuch 
a work  of  fraud,  enters  into  an  unavoidable  con- 
flict with  the  New  Testament  itself. 

In  the  remote  times  of  Jewish  and  Christian 
antiquity,  we  find  no  vestiges  of  doubt  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  Mosaical  books.  The  Gnostics, 
indeed,  opposed  the  Pentateuch,  but  attacked  it 
merely  on  account  of  their  dogmatical  opinions 
concerning  the  Law,  and  Judaism  in  general; 
consequently  they  did  not  impugn  the  authenti- 
city, but  merely  the  divine  authority,  of  the  Law. 
Heathen  authors  alone,  as  Celsus  and  Julian, 
represented  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch  as 
being  mythological,  and  paralleled  them  with 
Pagan  mythology. 


In  the  middle  ages,  but  not  earlier,  we  find 
some  very  concealed  critical  doubts  in  the  works 
of  some  Jews — as  Isaac  Ben  Jasos,  who  lived 
in  the  eleventh  century,  and  Aben  Ezra.  After 
the  reformation,  it  was  sometimes  attempted  to 
demonstrate  the  later  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Such  attempts  were  made  by  Spinoza,  Richard 
Simon,  Le  Clerc,  and  Van  Dale  ; but  these  critics 
were  not  unanimous  in  their  results.  Against 
them  wrote  Heidegger  ( Exercitationes  Biblicce, 
i.  246,  sq.) ; Witsius  ( Miscellanea  Sacra,  i 
103,  sq.)  ; and  Carpzov  ( Introductio , i.  38,  sq.). 

In  the  period  of  English,  French,  and  German 
deism,  the  Pentateuch  was  attacked  rather  by 
jests  than  by  arguments.  Attacks  of  a more 
scientific  nature  were  made  about  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  But  Ihese  were  met  by  such 
critics  as  John  David  Michaelis  and  Eichhom, 
who  energetically  and  effectually  defended  the 
genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  These  critics, 
however,  on  account  of  their  own  false  position, 
did  as  much  harm  as  good  to  the  cause  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

A new  epoch  of  criticism  commences  about 
the  year  1805.  This  was  produced  by  Yater’s 
Commentary  and  De  Wette’s  Beitrdge  zur  Ein - 
leitung  in  das  alte  Testament.  Vater  embodied 
all  the  arguments  which  had  been  adduced 
against  the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
applied  to  the  criticism  of  the  sacred  books  the 
principles  which  Wolf  had  employed  with  re- 
ference to  the  Homeric  poems.  lie  divided  the 
Pentateuch  into  fragments,  to  each  of  which  he 
assigned  its  own  period,  but  referred  the  whole 
generally  to  the  age  of  the  Assyrian  or  Babylo- 
nian exile.  Since  the  days  of  Vater,  a series  of 
the  most  different  hypotheses  has  been  produced 
by  German  critics  about  the  age  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  that  of  its  constituent  sections.  No 
one  critic  seems  fully  to  agree  with  any  other; 
and  frequently  it  is  quite  evident  that  the  opinions 
advanced  are  destitute  of  any  sure  foundation — 
that  they  are  quite  arbitrary,  and  produced  by 
merely  subjective  motives.  We  will  illustrate 
this  by  a few  examples  relative  to  the  Pentateuch 
as  a whole. 

Schumann  makes  Ezra  the  author  of  the  law. 
According  to  A.  T.  Hartmann  the  separate  por- 
tions of  the  law  sprang  up  gradually,  some  of 
them  as  late  as  the  exile ; but  he  does  not  show 
by  what  circumstances  they  were  combined  into 
a whole.  According  to  Dr.  Ammon,  the  Penta- 
teuch was  planned  by  Moses ; was  gradually 
continued  down  to  the  times  of  Solomon;  was 
entirely  forgotten  during  the  period  of  idolatry  ; 
was  rediscovered  under  the  reign  of  Josiah  ; and 
was  then  retouched,  and  edited  under  the  name  of 
Moses.  Von  Bohlen  urges  the  fact  mentioned  in 
the  second  Book  of  Kings  (ch.  xxii.),  as  if  it 
were  explanatory  of  the  origin  of  Deuteronony; 
but  he  considers  some  portions  to  be  of  a much 
later  origin.  He  asserts  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
partly  written  after  the  exile,  that  it  was  gradually 
developed,  and  was  brought  to  a conclusion  in  the 
age  of  Christ.  According  to  the  latest  statements 
of  De  Wette,  in  his  Einleitung  in  das  alte  Tes- 
tament, § 157,  sq.,  the  Elohim  portions  were 
written  in  the  age  of  Samuel  and  Saul,  the  Je- 
hovah portions  nearly  about  the  same  period,  but 
Deuteronomy  much  later,  under  Josiah.  Ewald 
assigns  seven  authors  to  the  Pentateuch,  wno,  how- 


PENTECOST. 


PERES. 


ever,  wrote  in  very  different  periods.  The  first, 
he  supposes,  wrote  in  the  days  of  Samson  ; the 
second  in  the  reign  of  Solomon  ; the  third  in  the 
reign  of  Elijah,  &c. 

The  critical  doubts  respecting  the  authenticity 
of  the  Pentateuch  have  produced  in  modern  times 
several  works  in  defence  of  its  genuineness ; such 
as  Kanne's  Biblischer  Untersuchungen,  2 vols., 
1820;  the  observations  by  Jahn,  Rosenmuller,  and 
Bleek  ; Ranke's  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Pen- 
tateuch, 2 vols. ; Hengstenberg's  Beitrdge  zur 
Einleitung,  vols.  2 and  3 ; Havemick’s  Ein- 
leitung in  das  alte  Testament , vol.  1 ; Drechsler, 
Ueber  die  Einheit  und  Authentic  der  Genesis  ; 
Konig’s  Alt-testamentliche  Studien,  2d  number ; 
Sack's  Apolegetik,  &c. 

The  most  important  commentaries  and  exege- 
iical  aids  for  the  explanation  of  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch, and  its  constituent  parts,  are  the  follow- 
ing: — Calvini  Bonfrerii  Pentateuchus  Commen- 
tario  hrustratus,  1625;  Marckii  Commentarius 
in  prcecipuas  quasdam  Pentateuchi  partes,  1721 ; 
Clerici  Commentarius,  1710;  Gerhardi  Com- 
mentarius in  Genes  in,  1693  ; Mexcevi  Commen- 
tarius in  Genesin,  1593;  Vater,  Commentar 
iiber  den  Pentateuch,  1802,  sq.,  3 vols.;  Ro- 
senmulleri  Scholia,  3d  ed.,  1821,  sq.  : Schu- 
mann, Pentateuchus  IJebraice  ct  Graece,  tom.  1, 
1829;  Von  Bolden,  Die  Genesis  ubersetzt  und, 
erklart,  Konigsberg,  1825  ; Tiele,  Das  erste 
Buck  Mosis,  l$c.,  1st  vol.,  1836;  Tucb,  Com- 
mentar iiber  die  Genesis,  1838,  &c.  The  follow- 
ing are  the  principal  English  works  on  the  Penta- 
teuch : — Ainsworth,  Annotations  on  the  Five 
Books  of  Moses,  1699  ; Kidder,  Commentary 
on  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  1713;  Parker, 
Bibliotheca  Bibiica,  1720,  1735  ; Jamieson,  Cri- 
tical and  Practical  Exposition  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, 1748;  Robertson,  Clavis  Pentateuchi , 
1770;  Graves,  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch,  1815. 

— H.  A.  C.  H. 

PENTECOST  (net'-nj/cocTT^),  the  name  (signi- 
fying fiftieth)  given  in  the  New  Testament  to  the 
Feast  of  Weeivs,  or  of  Ingathering,  which  was 
celebrated  on  the  fiftieth  day  from  the  festival  of 
unleavened  bread,  or  the  Passover ; or  seven 
weeks  from  the  16th  day  of  Nisan.  It  was  a 
festival  of  thanks  for  the  harvest,  and  com- 
menced immediately  after  the  Passover  [Fes- 
tivals]. It  was  one  of  the  three  great  yearly 
festivals,  in  which  all  the  males  were  required  to 
appear  before  God  at  the  place  of  his  sanctuary. 
Josephus  states  that  in  his  time  great  numbers  of 
Jews  resorted  from  every  quarter  to  Jerusalem  to 
keep  this  festival  (Antiq.  xiv.  13,  4;  xvii.  10,  2; 
De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  3,  1).  This  testimony  affords 
interesting  corroboration  of  Acts  ii.  1,  9-11  ; xx. 
16  ; 1 Cor.  xvi.  8,  in  which  the  same  fact  appears. 
The  commencement  of  the  Christian  church  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  preceded  as  it  was  by  our 
Lord's  ascension,  attached  a peculiar  interest  to 
this  season,  and  eventually  led  to  its  being  set 
apart  for  the  commemoration  of  these  great  events. 
It  was  not,  however,  established  as  one  of  the 
great  festivals  until  tire  fourth  century.  The  com- 
bination of  two  events  (the  Ascension  and 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost)  in  one  festival 
has  a parallel  in  the  original  Jewish  feast,  which 
is  held  to  have  included  the  feast  of  first-fruits, 
and  of  the  delivering  of  the  law  (Exod.  xxiii.  16  ; 
Lev  xxiii.  14-21;  Num.  xxviii.  26).  Indeed, 


493 

this  festival  in  some  respects  beats  a close  analogy 
to  the  Jewish  one;  and  is  evidently  little  more 
than  a modification  of  it.  The  convert  s of  that  day, 
on  which  the  Holy  Ghost  descended,  were  the 
first  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  Jerome  (Ad  Tabiol, 
§ 7)  elegantly  contrasts  this  with  the  giving  of 
the  law  on  Mount  Sinai  : £ Utraque  facta  est 
quinquagessimo  die,  a Paschate ; illo,  inSina; 
luEC,  in  Sion.  Ibi  tense  motu  ccntremuit  mons  ; 
hie,  domus  apostolorum.  Ibi,  inter  fiammas  ig- 
nium  et  micantia  fulgura,  turbo  ventorum,  et 
fragor  tonitruorum  personuit; ; hie,  cum  igne- 
arum  visione  linguarum  sonitus  pariter  de  ccelo, 
tanquam  spiritus  vehementis  adversit.  Ibi,  clangor 
buccinae,  legis  verba  perstrepuit ; hie,  tuba  evan- 
gelica  apostolorum  ore  intonuit.’  This  festival 
became  one  of  the  three  baptismal  seasons  (Tertull. 
De  Baptis.  c.  19  ; Hieron.,  in  Zach.  xiv.  8)  ; and 
it  derives  its  name  of  Whitsunday,  or  white- 
Sunday,  from  so  many  being  clad  in  white  on 
this  the  day  of  their  baptism. 

1.  PEOR  (“liyS  ; Sept,  keycap),  a mountain 
in  the  land  of  Moab  (Num.  xxiii.  28).  Eusebius 
places  it  between  Livias  and  Esbus,  over  against 
Jericho;  which  shows  that  it  was  not  supposed  to 
be  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  as  usually  stated  ( Ono - 
mast.  s.  v.  ’ApafiwO  Mcoct/3).  It  has  not  in  modem 
times  been  recognised. 

2.  PEOR,  an  idol  [Baal-Peor]. 

PERES  (DAS,  in  our  versions  £ ossifrage  ’ 

Lev.  xi.  13 ; Deut.  xiv.  12).  Although  Neser 
is  unquestionably  the  Hebrew  name  of  the  eagle, 
a genus  so  conspicuous,  and  to  this  moment  so 
common  in  Palestine,  probably  possessed  more 
than  one  designation  in  the  national  dialects  of  the 
country,  and  un<£er  the  term  ossifrage  it  would 
indicate  the  great  sea  eagle.  But  Peres  is  by 
other  translators  referred  to  a hawk,  which  they 
denominate  Accipiter,  although  before  scientific 
ornithology  had  defined  it  to  mark  a particular 
species,  it  had,  as  in  antiquity,  been  generalized 
and  understood  to  mean  any  predaceous  bird, 
vElian  notices  Accipitres  equal  in  size  to  eagles, 
and  these  included  both  the  ospray  and  ossifrage. 
But  these  names  have  received  specific  determi- 
nations only  since  ornithologists  have  more  strictly 
distinguished  genera  and  species ; for  originally 
they  were  identical;  our  ospray  being  derived 
from  the  French  Orfrai,  which  is  itself  a mere 
euphonious  pronunciation  of  ossifrage,  introduced 
during  the  polishing  of  Gallo-Frankish  into  the 
modern  idiom.  Their  scientific  application,  how- 
ever, has  been  referred  to  two  birds  ; osprey  being 
the  Pandion  Halia'etus,  ‘ the  fishing  hawk,’  and 
ossifrage  the  Aquila  Ossifraga  of  Brisson,  or  ‘ great 
sea  eagle’ of  Pennant;  authors  having  even  pre- 
tended that  fragments  of  bones  have  been  found  in 
the  stomach  of  the  last  mentioned.  If  this  fact  were 
proved,  it  would  justify  the  denomination  of  ossi- 
frage, or  ‘ bone- breaker;’  but  the  dispensation  of 
faculties  in  nature  always  indicates  a purpose, 
which  in  the  case  of  the  Pandion , living  as  it  does 
exclusively  upon  fish,  appears  inapplicable ; for 
theirs  are  not  the  bones  understood  by  the  name, 
and  such  as  the  bird  accidentally  swallows  are 
small  and  without  nutriment.  With  regard  to  the 
sea  eagle,  which  subsists  mostly  on  the  same  diet, 
or  on  carrion,  and  only  by  chance  on  birds,  whose 
bones  in  all  genera  are  very  hard,  destitute  of  mar- 
row, and  likewise  without  nutritious  matter,  the 


494 


PERES. 


PERFUMES. 


case  is  nearly  the  same.  Finally,  breaking  the 
bones  must  be  effected  by  the  beak,  which  is  strong 
indeed,  but  only  formed  to  strike,  tear,  or  hold,  not 
to  masticate ; and  if  the  bones  are  broken  for  that 
purpose,  where  are  they  to  be  found  ? in  the  crop, 
the  succentorial  ventricle,  or  in  the  gizzard? — 
organs  in  birds  of  prey  far  from  vigorous,  or  so 
well  defined  as  they  are  in  other  orders  of  the 
class,  part icularly  in  Gallinacese.  Thus,  there  is  in 
nature  no  such  bird  as  one  that  breaks  the  bones  of 
warm-blooded  animals  in  order  to  swallow  them  ; 
consequently,  no  identification  can  he  made  with 
any  of  the  sea  eagles.  But  when  we  place  toge- 
ther Peres,  a name  derived  from  a root  denoting 
‘ to  crush  ’ or  ‘ break,’  and  find  that  by  tire  Greek 
name  (prjirq  (Phene'),  the  Hellenic  nations  called 
the  Dimmer  Gey er  of  the  Swiss,  which  Savigny 
( Oiseaux  d'Egypte  et  de  Syrie)  has  proved  to 
be  the  ossifrage  of  the  Romans ; then  it  becomes 
an  immediate  question,  why  such  a denomination 
should  have  been  bestowed.  The  answer  is,  we 
think,  satisfactory  ; for  constituting  the  largest 
flying  bird  of  the  old  continent,  and  being  a 
tenant  of  the  highest  ranges  of  mountains  in 
Europe,  western  Asia,  and  Africa,  though  some- 
times feeding  on  carrion,  and  not  appearing  to 
take  up  prey  like  eagles  in  the  talons,  it  pursues 
the  chamois,  young  ibex,  mountain  deer,  or  mar- 
mot, among  precipices,  until  it  drives,  or  by  a 
rush  of  its  wings,  forces  the  game  over  the  brink, 
to  be  dashed  to  pieces  below,  and  thus  deservedly 
obtained  the  name  of  bone-breaker. 

The  species  in  Europe  is  little  if  at  all  inferior  in 
size  to  tne  Condor  of  South  America,  measuring 
Jrom  the  point  of  the  bill  to  the  end  of  the  tail  four 
feet  two  or  three  inches,  and  sometimes  ten  feet  in 
ihe  expanse  of  wing;  the  head  and  neck  are  not, 
like  those  of  vultures,  naked,  but  covered  with 
whitish  narrow  feathers  ; and  there  is  a beard  of 
bristly  hair  under  the  lower  mandible : the  rest 
of  the  plumage  is  nearly  black  and  brown,  with 


450.  [Gj-paetos  Barbatus.] 


some  whitish  streaks  on  the  shoulders,  and  an 
abundance  of  pale  rust  colour  on  the  back  of  the 
neck,  the  thighs,  vent,  and  legs ; the  toes  are  short, 
and  bluish,  and  t ae  claws  strong.  In  the  young  the 
nead  and  neck  are  black,  and  the  species  or  variety 
of  Abyssinia  appears  to  be  rusty  and  yellowish  on 
vne  neck  and  stomach.  It  is  the  griffon  of  Cuvier, 


Gypaetos  barbatus  of  nomenclators,  and  y pinp  at 
the  Seventy.  The  Arabs,  according  to  Bruce, 
use  the  names  Abou-Duch’n  and  Nisser-Werk, 
which  is  a proof  that  they  consider  it  a kind  of 
eagle,  and  perhaps  confound  this  species  with  the 
great  sea  eagle,  which  has  likewise  a few  bristles 
under  the  throat ; and  commentators,  who  have 
often  represented  Peres  to  be  the  black  vulture, 
or  a great  vulture,  were  only  viewing  the  Gypaetos 
as  forming  one  of  the  order  Accipitres , according 
to  the  Linnaean  arrangement,  where  Vultur  bar - 
bat  us  ( Syst . Nat.)  is  the  last  of  that  genus,  al- 
though in  the  13th  edition  (by  Grnelin),  we  find 
the  name  changed  to  Falco  barbatus,  and  located 
immediately  before  F.  Albicilla,  or  the  sea  eagle, 
showing  that  until  a still  more  accurate  classifi- 
cation placed  the  species  in  a separate  genus, 
ornithologists  had  no  determined  idea  of  the  true 
place  it  should  occupy,  and  consequently  by 
what  generical  appellation  it  was  to  be  distin- 
guished.— C.  H.  S. 

PEREZ-UZZAH,  a place  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Jerusalem,  which  obtained  this  name 
(meaning  c breach  of  Uzzah’)  from  the  judgment 
indicted  upon  Uzzah  for  rashly  handling  the  ark 
(2  Sam.  vi.  8 ; 1 Chron.  xiii.  11). 

PERFUMES.  In  the  article  Anointing  we 
have  noticed  the  use  of  perfumes  in  Eastern  coun- 
tries ; and  in  the  botanical  articles  all  the  aro- 
matic substances  mentioned  in  Scripture  are 
carefully  examined.  Here,  therefore,  we  have 
only  to  add  a few  remarks,  which  the  scope  oi 
those  articles  does  not  embrace. 

The  practice  of  producing  an  agreeable  odour 
by  fumigation,  or  burning  incense,  as  well  as  tha. 
of  anointing  the  person  with  odoriferous  oils  and 
ointments,  and  of  sprinkling  the  dress  with  fra 
grant  waters,  originated  in,  and  is  confined  to, 
warm  climates.  In  such  climates  perspiration  is 
profuse,  and  much  care  is  needful  to  prevent  the 
effects  of  it  from  being  offensive.  It  is  in  this  ne- 
cessity we  may  find  the  reason  for  the  use  of  per- 
fumes, particularly  at  weddings  and  feasts,  and 
on  visits  to  persons  of  rank  ; and  in  fact  on  most 
of  the  occasions  which  bring  people  together  with 
the  intention  of  being  agreeable  to  one  another. 

The  ointments  and.  oils  used  by  the  Israelites 
were  rarely  simple,  but  were  compound  of  various 
ingredients  (Job  xli.  22;  comp.  Plin.  Hist.  Nat. 
xxix.  8).  Olive  oil,  the  valued  product  of  Pa- 
lestine (Deut.  xxviii.  40 ; Mic.  vi.  15),  was 
combined  with  sundry  aromatics,  chiefly  foreign 
(1  Kings  x.  10;  Ezek.  xxvii.  22),  particularly 
bosem,  myrrh,  and  nard  [see  these  words].  Such 
ointments  were  for  the  most  part  costly  (Amos 
vi.  6),  and  formed  a much-coveted  luxury.  The 
ingredients,  and  often  the  prepared  oils  and  resins 
in  a state  fit  for  use,  were  obtained  chiefly  in 
traffic  from  the  Phoenicians,  who  imported  them 
in  small  alabaster  boxes  [Alabaster],  in 
which  the  delicious  aroma  was  best  preserved. 
A description  of  the  more  costly  unguents  is 
given  by  Pliny  (j Hist.  Nat.  xiii.  2).  The  pre- 
paration of  these  required  peculiar  skill,  and 
therefore  formed  a particular  profession.  The 
Cmp“l  rokechim  of  Exod.  xxx.  25,  35 ; Neh. 
iii.  8 ; Eccles.  x.  1,  called  ‘ Apothecary’  in  the 
Auth.  Vers.,  was  no  other  than  a maker  of  per- 
fumes. So  strong  were  the  better  kinds  of  oint- 
ments, and  60  perfectly  were  the  different  com- 
ponent substances  amalgamated,  that  they  have 


PERFUMES. 


PERGAMOS. 


495 


Wra  known  to  retain  their  scent  several  hundred 
yet^s.  Out  of  the  alabaster  vases  in  the  museum 
at  dTTnwick  Castle  contains  some  of  the  ancient 
Egyt4ian  ointment,  between  two  and  three  thou- 
sand years  old,  and  yet  its  odour  remains  (Wil- 
kinson, Anc.  Egyptians,  ii.  314). 

The  ‘ holy  anointing  oih’employed  in  the 
sacerdotal  unction,  was  composed  of  two  parts 
‘ myrrh’  [Mur],  two  parts  ‘ cassia’  [Kiddah], 
one  part  ‘ cinnamon’  [KinnamonJ,  one  part 
‘ sweet  calamus’  [Kaneh  Bosem],  compounded 
4 according  to  the  art  of  the  perfumer,’  with  a suffi- 
cient quantity  of  the  purest  olive  oil  to  give  it  the 
proper  consistence  (Exod.  xxx.  23,  25).  It  was 
strictly  forbidden  that  any  perfume  like  this,  that 
is,  composed  of  the  same  ingredients,  should  be 
used  for  common  purposes,  or  indeed  made  at  all 
(xxx.  32,  33);  and  we  cannot  but  admire  the 
course  adopted  in  order  to  secure  the  object  con- 
templated by  the  law.  The  composition  was  not 
preserved  as  a secret,  but  was  public  y declared 
and  described,  with  a plain  prohibitii  . to  make 
any  like  it.  Maimonides  says  that  dc  ,btless  the 
cause  of  this  prohibition  was,  that  there  might  be 
no  such  perfume  found  elsewhere,  and  conse- 
quently that  a greater  attachment  might  be  in- 
duced to  the  sanctuary ; and  also,  to  prevent  the 
great  evils  which  might  arise  from  men  esteeming 
themselves  more  excellent  than  others,  if  allowed 
to  anoint  themselves  with  a similar  oil  ( More 
Nevochim , ch.  xx.).  The  reasons  for  attaching 
such  distinction  to  objects  consecrated  by  their 
holy  appropriations,  are  too  obvious  to  need 
much  elucidation. 

The  prodigious  quantity  of  this  holy  ointment 
made  on  the  occasion  which  the  text  describes, 
being  no  less  than  750  ounces  of  solids  com- 
pounded with  five  quarts  of  oil,  may  give  some 
idea  of  the  profuse  use  of  perfumes  among  the 
Hebrews.  We  are,  indeed,  told  by  the  Psalmist 
(cxxxiii.  2),  that  when  the  holy  anointing  oil 
was  poured  upon  the  head  of  Aaron,  it  flowed 
down  over  his  beard  and  dress,  even  to  the  skirts 
of  his  garments.  This  circumstance  may  give 
some  interest  to  the  following  anecdote,  which 
we  translate  from  Chardin  ( Voyages , iv.  43,  edit. 
Langles).  After  remarking  how  prodigal  the 
eastern  females  are  of  perfumes,  he  gives  this 
instance  : * I remember  that,  at  the  solemnization 
of  the  nuptials  of  the  three  princesses  royal  of 
Golconda,  whom  the  king,  their  father,  who  had 
no  other  children,  married  in  one  day,  in  the 
year  1679,  perfumes  were  lavished  on  every  in- 
vited guest  as  he  arrived.  They  sprinkled  them 
upon  those  who  were  clad  in  white ; but  gave 
them  into  the  hands  of  those  who  wore  coloured 
raiment,  because  their  garments  would  have  been 
spoiled  by  throwing  it  over  them,  which  was  done 
in  the  following  manner.  They  threw  over  the 
body  a bottle  of  rose-water,  containing  about  half 
a pint,  and  then  a larger  bot  tle  of  water  tinted  with 
saffron,  in  such  a manner  that  the  clothes  would 
have  been  stained  with  it.  After  this,  they  rubbed 
die  arms  and  the  body  with  a liquid  perfume 
of  Jadanum  and  ambergris,  and  they  put  round 
the  throat  a thick  cord  of  jasmine.  I was  thus 
perfumed  with  saffron  in  many  great  houses  of 
this  country,  and  in  other  places.  This  attention 
and  honour  is  a universal  custom  among  the 
women  who  have  the  means  of  obtaining  this 
Suxury.’ 


PERGA  (II epyri'),  a town  of  Pampliylia,  in 
Asia  Minor,  situated  upon  the  river  Cestrus,  sixty 
stades  from  its  estuary.  On  a hill  near  the  town 
9tood  a celebrated  temple  of  Artemis,  at  which 
the  inhabitants  of  the  surrounding  country  held, 
a yearly  festival  in  honour  of  the  goddess.  Perga 
was  originally  the  capital  of  Pampliylia;  but 
when  that  province  was  divided  into  two,  Side 
became  the  chief  town  of  the  first,  and  Perga  of 
the  second  Pampliylia  (Strabo,  xiv.  p.  667  ^ 
Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  v.  28;  Pomp.  Mela,  i.  14; 
Cic.  Very’,  i.  30).  The  apostle  Paul  was  twice 
at  this  place  (Acts  xi ii.  13;  xiv.  25).  In  the 
first  instance  he  seem3  to  have  landed  at  Perga, 
and  the  Cestrus  was  then,  in  fact,  navigable  to 
the  town,  although  the  entrance  to  the  river  is  now 
impassable,  having  long  been  closed  by  a bar. 
The  site  has  been  established  by  Col.  Leake,  a3 
that  where  extensive  remains  of  vaulted  and 
ruined  buildings  were  observed  by  General 
Kohler  on  the  Cestrus,  west  of  Stavros.  It  i3 
called  by  the  Turks  Eski-kalesi. 

PERGAMOS  (Tlepyayos),  or  Pergamum,  a 
town  of  the  Great  Mysia,  the  capital  of  a king- 
dom of  the  same  name,  and  afterwards  of  the 
Roman  province  of  Asia  Propria.  The  river 
Caicus,  which  is  formed  by  the  union  of 
branches  meeting  thirty  or  forty  miles  above  i 
m'oulli,  waters  an  extensive  valley  not  exceeded 
in  natural  beauty  and  fertility  by  any  in  the 
world.  In  this  valley,  in  N.  lat.  39°  4',  E.  long. 
27°  12',  stood  Pergamos,  at  the  distance  of  about 
twenty  miles  from  the  sea.  It  lay  on  the  north 
bank  of  the  Caicus,  at  the  base  and  on  the  de- 
clivity of  two  high  and  steep  mountains,  on  one 
of  which  now  stands  a dilapidated  castle.  About 
two  centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  Pergamos 
became  the  residence  of  the  celebrated  kings  of 
the  family  of  Attains,  and  a seat  of  literature 
and  the  arts.  King  Eumenes,  the  second  of  the 
name,  greatly  beautified  the  town,  and  increased 
the  library  of  Pergamos  so  considerably  that  the 
number  of  volumes  amounted  to  200,000.  As 
the  papyrus  shrub  had  not  yet  begun  to  be  ex- 
ported from  Egypt,  sheep  and  goat  skins,  cleaned 
and  prepared  for  the  purpose,  were  used  for 
manuscripts  ; and  as  the  art  of  preparing  them 
was  brought  to  perfection  at  Pergamos,  they,  from 
that  circumstance,  obtained  the  name  of  perga- 
mena,  or  parchment.  The  library  remained  at 
Pergamos  after  the  kingdom  of  the  Attali  had 
lost  its  independence,  until  Antony  removed  it 
to  Egypt,  and  presented  it  to  Queen  Cleopatra. 
(Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  iii.  2 ; Plutarch,  Antonf). 
The  valuable  tapestries,  called  in  Latin  aulaea, 
from  having  adorned  the  hall  of  King  Attalus, 
were  also  wrought  in  this  town.  The  last  king  of 
Pergamos  bequeathed  his  treasures  to  the  Romans, 
who  took  possession  of  the  kingdom  also,  and 
erected  it  into  a province  under  the  name  of  Asia 
Propria  (Martial,  Epig.  ix.  17).  Pergamos  re- 
tained under  the  Romans  that  authority  over  the 
cities  of  Asia,  which  it  had  acquired  under 
the  successors  of  Attalus,  and  it  still  preserves 
many  vestiges  of  its  ancient  magnificence.  Re- 
mains of  the  Asclepium  and  of  some  other  tem- 
ples, of  the  theatre,  stadium,  amphitheatre,  and 
several  other  buildings,  are  still  to  be  seen.  Even 
now,  Pergamos,  under  the  name  of  Bergamo,  is  a 
place  of  considerable  importance,  containing-  3 


196 


PERGAMOS. 

population  estimated  at  14,000,  of  whom  about 
3000  are  Greeks,  300  Armenians,  and  the  rest 
Turks  (Macfarlane’s  Visit).  The  writer  just 
cited  says,  ‘ The  approach  to  this  ancient  and 
decayed  city  was  as  impressive  as  well  might 
be.  After  crossing  the  Caicus,  I saw,  looking 
over  three  vast  tumuli,  or  sepulchral  barrows, 
similar  to  those  of  the  plains  of  Troy,  the  Turkish 
city  of  Pergamos,  with  its  tall  minarets  and  taller 
cypresses,  situated  ou  the  lower  declivities  and 


PERSIANS 

at  the  foot  of  the  Acropolis,  whose  bold  gray  brow 
was  crowned  by  the  rugged  walls  of  a barbarous 
castle,  the  usurper  of  the  site  of  a magnificent 
Greek  temple.'  The  town  consists  for  the  most 
part  of  small  and  mean  wooden  houses,  among 
which  appear  the  remains  of  early  Christian 
churches,  showing  ‘like  vast  fortresses  amid  vast 
barracks  of  wood.’  None  of  these  churches  have 
any  Scriptural  or  Apocalyptic  interest  connected 
with  them,  having  been  erected  ‘ several  centuries 


401.  [Pergamos.] 


after  the  ministry  of  the  apostles,  and  when 
Christianity  was  not  a humble  and  despised 
creed,  but  the  adopted  religion  of  a vast  empire.’ 
The  Pagan  temples  have  fared  worse  that  these 
Christian  churches.  ‘The  fanes  of  Jupiter  and 
Diana,  of  vEsculapius  and  Venus,  are  prostrate  in 
t lie  dust;  and  where  they  have  not  been  carried 
away  by  the  Turks,  to  cut.  up  into  tombstones  or 
to  pound  into  mortar,  the  Corinthian  and  Ionic 
columns,  the  splendid  capitals,  the  cornices^ and 
pediments,  all  in  the  highest  ornament,  are  thrown 
into  unsightly  heaps.’ 

In  Pergamos  was  one  of  ‘ the  seven  churches 
,of  Asia,’  to  which  the  Apocalypse  is  addressed. 
This  church  is  commended  for  its  fidelity  and 
firmness  in  the  midst  of  persecutions,  and  in  a 
city  so  eminently  addicted  to  idolatry.  ‘ I know,’ 
it  is  said,  ‘ thy  works,  and  where  thou  (liveliest, 
even  whtre  Satan's  seat  is  ’ (Rev,  ii.  13).  Now 
there  was  at  Pergamos  a celebrated  and  much 
frequented  temple  of  ./Esculapius,  who  probably 
there,  as  in  other  places,  was  worshipped  in  the 
form  of  a living  serpent,  fed  in  the  temple,  and 
considered  as  its  divinity.  Hence  ^Esculapius 
was  called  the  god  of  Pergamos,  and  on  the  coins 
struck  by  the  town,  vEsculapius  appears  with  a rod 
encircled  by  a serpent  (Berger,  Thesaur.,  i.  492). 
As  the  sacred  writer  mentions  (Rev.  xii.  9)  the 
great  dragon  a&d  the  old  serpent,  there  is  reason 


to  conclude  that  when  he  says  in  the  above  pas- 
sage, that  the  church  of"  Pergamos  dwelt  ‘ where 
Satan's  seat  is,’  he  alludes  to  the  worship  of  the 
serpent,  which  was  there  practised  (Rosenmuller, 
Bib.  Geog.  iii.  13-17  ; Macfarhme,  Visit  to  the 
Seven  Apocalyptic  Churches,  1 S32 : Arundell’s 
Asia  Minor,  ii.  302-7;  Leake's  Geog.  of  Asia 
Minor,  pp.  265,  266  ; Richter,  Wallfahrten,  p. 
4SS,  sq. ; Schubert,  Rcisc  ins  Morgenland ; Mis - 
sionary  Herald  for  1839,  pp.  22S-30). 

PERIZZITE  0-nQ  ; Sept,  tepefcos),  a Ca- 
naanitish  tribe  inhabiting  the  mountainous  region 
which  they  eventually  yielded  to  Ephraim  and 
Judah  (Josh.  xi.  3;  xvii.  15;  Judg.  i.  4,  5). 
They  were  kindred  to  the  Cariaanites  strictly 
so  called  (Exod.  xxiii.  23;  Judg.  i.  45): 
sometimes  Canaanites  and  Perizzites  are  put  for 
all  the  other  tribes  of  Canaan  • (Gen.  xiii.  7; 
xxxiv.  30);  while  in  other  [daces  the  Perizzites 
are  enumerated  with  various  other  tribes  of  the 
same  stock  (Gen.  xv.  20;  Exod.  iii.  S,  17  ; Dent, 
vii.  1,  &c.).  A residue  of  the  Perizzites  still 
remained  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  were  by 
him  subjected  to  bond-service  (1  Kings  ix.  20). 

PERSIANS,  the  name  of  a people  and  nation 
which  occurs  only  in  the  later  periods  of  th« 
biblical  history,  and  then  for  the  most  part  is 
conjunction  with  the  Medes  [Mhues"] — a con 


PERSIANS. 


PERSIANS. 


490 


function  which  tends  to  con  firm  the  truth  of  the 
•acred  records,  since  the  most  respectable  histo- 
rical authorities  have  found  reason  to  conclude 
that  the  Medes  and  Persians  were  in  truth  but 
one  nation,  only  that  at  an  earlier  period  the 
Medes,  at  a later  period  the  Persians,  gained  the 
upper  hand  and  bore  sway.  This  ascendancy,  in 
the  case  of  the  Persians,  as  generally  in  the  an- 
cient Asiatic  governments,  was  owing  to  the  cor- 
rupting and  enervating  influence  of  supreme  and 
despotic  power  on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other 
to  the  retention  on  the  part  of  mountaineers,  or  of 
tribes  seated  remotely  from  the  centre  of  the  em- 
pire, of  primitive  simulicity, — in  laborious  lives, 
hard  fare,  and  constant  exposure,  which  create  pa- 
tient endurance,  athletic  strength,  manly  courage, 
independence  : qualities  which  in  their  turn  refuse 
or  throw  off  a yoke,  and  convert  a subject  into  a 
conquering  and  ruling  nation.  At  what  precise 
time  this  great  change  was  brought  about  in  re- 
gard to  the  Medes  and  Persians,  we  are  not  in  a 
condition  to  determine  historically.  With  Cyrus 
the  elder,  however,  begins  (bc.  558)  the  domina- 
tion of  the  Persian  dynasty  which  held  rule  over 
Media  as  well  as  Persia.  Whether  Cyrus  came 
to  the  throne  by  inheritance,  as  the  son-in-law  of 
Cambyses  II.,  according  to  Xenophon,  or  whether 
he  won  the  throne  by  vanquishing  Astyages,  the 
last  Median  king,  agreeably  to  the  statements  of 
Herodotus,  is  one  of  those  many  points  connected 
with  early  eastern  history,  which,  for  want  of  do- 
cuments, anil  in  the  midst  of  historical  discre- 
pancies, must  remain  probably  for  ever  uncertain. 
Meanwhile  the  existence  of  Cyrus  and  the  great 
tenor  of  his  influence  remain  the  same,  though  on 
this  and  on  other  points  historians  give  irrecon- 
cilable statements ; — a remark  which  we  make  the 
rather  because  a certain  school  of  modem  theology 
has  attempted  to  destroy  the  general  historical 
credibility  of  the  Gospels,  on  the  ground  that  the 
several  narrators  are  found  to  disagree. 

The  most  interesting  event  to  the  theologian  in 
the  history  of  Cyrus,  is  the  permission  which  he 
gave  (b.c.  536)  to  the  captive  Jews  to  return  to 
their  native  land.  After  a prosperous  reign  of  the 
unusual  length  in  Asiatic  monarchies  of  thirty 
years,  Cyrus  was  gathered  to  his  fathers  (b.c.  529). 
He  was  succeeded  by  Cambyses  (b.c.  529),  who, 
according  to  Herodotus,  reigned  seven  years  and 
five  months.  Then  came  (b.c.  522)  Smerdis, 
nominally  brother  of  Cambyses,  but  in  reality  a 
Magian  ; and  as  the  Magi  were  of  Median  blood, 
this  circumstance  shows  that,  though  the  Medes 
had  lost  the  sovereignty,  they  were  not  without 
great  power.  Smerdis  being  assassinated  (b.c. 
521),  Darius  Hystaspis  was  elected  king.  He 
favoured  the  Jews,  and  permitted  them  to  resume 
and  complete  the  building  of  their  temple,  which 
had  been  broken  off  by  reason  of  jealousy  on  the 
part  of  the  heterogeneous  populations  of  Samaria 
(Ezra  iv.  2;  2 Kings  xvii.  24),  and  the  influence 
which  they  exerted  at  the  Persian  court  (Ezra 
iv.  11).  The  last  monarch  had  for  successor 
Xerxes  (b.c.  485),  who  is  probably  the  Ahasuerus 
of  Esther  and  Morel ecai.  Alter  a reign  of  twenty 
years,  Xerxes  was  murdered  by  Artabanus,  who, 
however,  enjoyed  his  booty  only  for  the  short  pe- 
riod of  seven  months.  The  next  in  order  was 
Artaxerxes  (I.)  Longimanus  (b.c.  465),  who  en- 
joyed his  power  for  the  surprisingly  long  period  of 
forty  years,  and  then  quietly  handed  the  sceptre 
voi.n.  33 


over  to  his  son  Xerxes  II.  (b.c.  424),  who  reigned 
but  two  months.  He  was  followed  by  his  step- 
brother Sogdianus  (b.c.  424),  whose  rule  came  to 
an  end  in  seven  months;  thus  making  way  for 
Darius  Nothus,  whose  reign  lasted  nineteen  years. 
Artaxerxes  (11.)  Mnemon  next  *ook  the  throne 
(b.c.  404),  and  is  reported  to  have  reigned  forty 
or  forty-three  years  (J)iod.  Sicul.  xiii.  108;  xv. 
93).  His  successor  was  Artaxerxes  Ochus  (b.c. 
304),  who  occupied  the  throne  for  twenty-six  years. 
Then  came  Arses  (b.c.  338),  reigning  three  years. 
At  last  Darius  Codomannus  (b.c.  335)  ascended 
the  throne.  Rut  the  valour,  hardihood,  and  dis- 
cipline which  had  gained  the  dominion,  and  which, 
as  the  length  of  several  reigns  in  the  succession 
shows,  had  sustained  it  with  a firm  and  effectual 
hand,  were  almost  at  an  end,  having  been  suc- 
ceeded by  the  effeminacy,  the  luxuriousness,  and 
the  vices  which  had  caused  the  dissolution  of 
earlier  Asiatic  dynasties,  and  among  them  that 
of  the  Medes,  which  the  Persians  had  set  aside. 
When  this  relaxation  of  morals  has  once  taken 
place,  a dynasty  or  a nation  only  waits  for  a 
conqueror.  In  this  case  one  soon  appeared  in  the 
person  of  Alexander,  misnamed  the  Great,  who 
assailing  Darius  on  several  occasions,  finally  over- 
came him  at  Arhela  (b.c.  330),  and  so  put  a period 
to  the  Persian  monarchy  alter  it  had  existed  for 
219  years.  On  this  the  country  shared  the  fate 
that  befell  the  other  parts  of  the  world  which  the 
Macedonian  madman  had  overrun  ; but,  more 
fortunate  than  that  of  other  eastern  nations,  the 
name  of  Persia  and  of  Persians  has  been  pre- 
served even  to  the  present  day,  as  the  representa 
tive  of  a people  and  a government. 

The  event's  which  transpired  during  this  sue: 
cession  of  Persian  kings,  so  far  as  they  are  con- 
nected with  the  biblical  history,  may  be  thus, 
briefly  narrated  : — Cyrus,  having  conquered  Ba- 
bylon, permitted  the  Jews  to  quit  their  captivity, 
and  return  into  Palestine,  affording  them  aid  for, 
the  reconstruction  of  their  national  house  of  wor- 
ship. Under  Cambyses,  who  invaded  Egypt  and. 
became  master  of  the  land,  adversaries  of  the  Jews 
tried  to  render  them  objects  of  suspicion  at  the 
court;  which  intrigues,  however,  had  full  effect- 
only  in  the  reign  of  his  successor,  Smerdis,  who. 
issued  a decree  expressly  commanding  the  build- 
ing of  the  temple  to  cease  (Ezra  iv.  21)  ; in  which,, 
prohibition  Smerdis,  as  he  was  of  the  Magian  tribe,, 
and  therefore  of  the  priestly  caste,  may  have  been 
influenced  by  religious  considerations.  A milder 
and  more  liberal  policy  ensued.  Darius,  having 
by  search  in  the  national  records  ascertained  wbar- 
Cyrus  had  done  towards  the  Jews,  took  off'  the 
prohibition,  and  promoted  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple.  Darius  Hystaspis  was  distinguished  for 
great  enterprises,  as  well  as  liberal  ideas.  He 
carried  the  renown  of  the  Persian  arms  to  India, 
Libya,  and  Europe,  and  began  the  Persian  attempt 
to  subjugate  Greece.  What  Xerxes  undertook, 
and  what  success  he  had  in  his  warlike  under- 
takings against  Greece,  is  known  to  all.  His 
conduct  towards  the  Jews,  as  well  as  his  own 
despotism  and  luxuriousness,  are  exhibited  in  the 
book  of  Esther  with  great  force  as  well  as  truth. 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus  led  an  army  hito  Egypt,, 
which  had  rebelled  against  its  Persian  masters. 
He  was  compelled  to  makepeace  with  the  Greeks. 
Palestine  must  have  suffered  much  by  the  passage 
of  troops  through  its  borders,  on  their  way  from 

2* 


4 93 


PERSIANS. 


PERSIANS. 


Persia  to  Egypt ; the  new  colony  at  Jerusalem 
began  to  sink,  when  the  monarch  permitted  Nehe- 
miah  to  proceed  with  lull  powers  to  the  Jewish 
capital,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  his 
brethren.  Darius  Nothus  had  to  tight  on  all  sides 
of  his  kingdom,  and  made  Phoenicia  the  scene  of 
a war  against  the  combined  forces  of  Egypt  and 
Arabia.  Even  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  though  long 
busied  with  his  arms  in  other  parts,  did  not  lose 
sight  of  Egypt,  which  hail  thrown  off  his  yoke, 
and  sent  new  Persian  armies  into  the  vicinity  of 
Palestine.  In  consequence,  the  Jews  had  much 
to  endure  from  the  insolence  of  a Persian  general, 
namely,  Bagoses,  who  polluted  the  temple,  and 
1 punished  the  Jews  seven  years’  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xi.  7,  1).  Ochus  followed  the  plan  of  his  father, 
subdued  the  revolted  Phoenicians,  and  again  fell 
upon  Egypt.  The  remaining  period  of  the  Persian 
dominion  over  the  Jews  passed  away  peaceably 
(Winer,  Real-lVort.  ; Joseph.  Antiq.,  lib.  xi.  ; 
Jahn,  Archiiol.  ii.  1,  231-312;  Schlosser,  Alten 
Welt , i.  242,  sq. ; J.  G.  Eichhorn,  Geschichte 
Der  Alt.  Welt,  i.  80,  sq.). 


The  biblical  books,  Daniel,  Esther,  Nehemiah, 
and  Ezra,  combine  to  present  a true  as  well  as 
high  idea  of  the  Persian  court  and  government. 
We  will  give  a few  particulars  from  Esther,  a 
book  of  deep  and  vivid  interest,  not  only  in  its 
etory,  but  also,  and  by  no  means  less,  in  the 
indirect  history  (as  it  may  lie  termed)  which  it 
contains  regarding  the  (perhaps)  most  splendid  do- 
minion that  ever  existed  upon  earth.  The  extent 
.of  the  government  was  from  India  to  Ethiopia, 
including  127  provinces.  The  empire  was  under 
the  control  of  vassal  princes  and  nobles,  ‘ the 
power  of  Persia  and  Media,'  under  whom  were 
governors  of  various  ranks,  and  officers  for  every 
sjjecies  of  duty.  It  was  specially  the  duty  of 
seven  ministers  of  state  (‘  chamberlains’)  to  serve 
in  the  immediate  presence  of  the  monarch.  Other 
officers,  however  high  in  rank,  were  admitted  to 
the  royal  person  only  through  the  barriers  of  a 
strict! y-obser.eil  ceremonial.  Even  the  prime 
minister  himself,  and  the  favoured  concubine  who 
was  honoured  with  the  title  of  queen,  durst  come 
no  nearer  than  the  outer  court,  unless,  on  making 
*!<eii  appearance,  the  king  extended  towards  them 
his  sceptre  of  gold.  The  gorgeousness  of  the  court 
dazzles  the  mind,  and  surpasses  imagination. 
When  the  king  sat  upon  his  throne,  his  chief 
vizier  and  his  beloved  queen  on  either  side,  with 
rows  of  princes  and  nobles,  like  lessening  stars, 
running  in  a line  of  fire-points  from  the  monarch, 
the  sun  in  whose  light  they  shone,  and  in  whose 
warm  smile  they  were  happy,  feasting  a hundred 
and  fourscore  days  with  his  great  men,  in  a hall 
and  a palace  of  which  the  praise  is  too  little  to 


say  that  they  were  not  unworthy  the  grandeur  of 
the  monarch  on  an  occasion  when  ‘ he  shewed  the 
riches  of  his  glorious  kingdom,  and  the  honour  of 
his  excellent  majesty  — or  when  the  stately  auto- 
crat, relaxing  in  a measure  the  rigour  of  his  great- 
ness, and  descending  from  his  god-like  throne  to 
a nearer  level  with  ordinary  mortals,  ‘ made  a 
feast  unto  the  people,  both  unto  great  and  small, 
seven  days  in  the  court  of  the  garden  of  the 
palace,’  where  were  white,  green,  and  blue  pavi- 
lions, fastened  with  cords  of  line  linen  and  purple 
to  silver  rings  and  pillars  of  marble;  couches, 
gold  and  silver,  upon  a tesselated  pavement  of  red 
and  blue,  white  and  black  marble ; and  drink 
was  served  all  around  in  golden  vessels  of  curious 
fabric  and  divers  shapes;  and  wine  in  abundance, 
whose  worth  had  gained  for  it  the  name  of  Royal, 
of  which  each  person  by  express  ordinance  drank 
what  he  pleased ; — or  when,  at  the  end  of  these 
seven  days  of  popular  enjoyment,  the  king  feasted 
with  Vasliti,  the  queen,  at  a banquet  for  the  women 
in  her  own  palace,  when  the  monarch  commanded 
his  seven  high  officers  of  state  to  bring  Vashti  the 
queen  before  the  king  with  the  crown  royal,  to 
show  the  people  and  the  princes  her  beauty,  for 
she  was  fair  to  look  on  ; — or,  finally,  when  a fa- 
vourite servant,  being  clothed  in  the  royal  apparel, 
and  set  upon  the  horse  that  the  king  rode  upon, 
with  the  crown  royal  upon  his  head,  was  con- 
ducted by  the  hand  of  one  of  the  king’s  most 
noble  princes  through  the  highways  of  the  glitter- 
ing city,  while  heralds  proclaimed  before  the  re- 
splendent retinue,  ‘Tims  shall  it  be  done  to  the 
man  whom  the  king  delighteth  to  honour  ;’ — then 
blazed  forth  the  glory  of  the  Persian  greatness,  in 
pomp  and  splendour  correspondent  with  the  bril- 
liancy of  the  heavens  and  the  luxuriance  of  the 
earth  under  which  and  on  which  these  luminaries 
shone.  Nor,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  outward 
pomp,  were  there  wanting  internal  regulations 
fitted  to  sustain  and  give  effect  to  the  will  of  the 
monarch  and  his  council.  A body  of  law  was 
in  existence,  to  which  additions  were  constantly 
made  by  omnipotent  decrees  issued  by  the  king. 
These  rescripts  were  made  out  by  officials,  a 
body  of  men  who  are  designated  royal  scribes  or 
secretaries  ; and  being  drawn  up  in  the  pre- 
scribed form,  were  copied  and  translated  for 
‘ every  people  after  their  language.’  Being  then 
‘sealed  with  the  king's  ring,’  the  letters  were  sent 
‘ by  post,’  ‘on  horseback  and  on  mules,  cameb 
and  young  dromedaries,’  to  the  king’s  lieutenants, 
and  to  the  governors  over  every  province,  and  to 
the  rulers  of  every  people  of  every  one  of  the  127 
provinces.  History,  a?  well  as  law,  received  dili- 
gent and  systematic  attention.  ‘A  book  of  records 
of  the  chronicles’  was  kept,  in  which  the  events  of 
each  reign  were  entered,  probably  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  learned  caste,  the  Magi.  This  book 
the  monarch  used  to  consult  on  occasions  of  im- 
portance and  perplexity,  partly  for  instruction, 
partly  for  guidance;  so  that  the  present  was  mo- 
delled after  the  past,  and  the  legislation  and  the 
conduct  of  the  king  formed  one  entire  and,  to  some 
extent,  consistent  whole.  Whence  it  appears  that 
though  the  monarch  was  despotic,  he  was  not 
strictly  arbitrary.  Aided  by  a council,  controlled 
by  a priesthood,  guided  by  the  past  as  well  as  in- 
fluenced by  the  present,  the  king,  much  as  he  may 
have  been  given  up  to  his  personal  pleasures,  must 
yet  have  had  a difficult  office  to  fill,  and  heavy 


PERSIANS. 


PERSIANS. 


499 


duties  to  discharge.  Rulers  are  generally  insecure 
in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  their  despotism  ; and 
80  we  find,  from  the  plot  against  the  life  of  Aha- 
suerus  (Xerxes,  b.c.  485-465),  which  Mordecai 
discovered  and  made  known,  that  even  the  re- 
cesses of  a palace  did  not  protect  the  kings  of 
Persia  from  the  attempts  of  the  assassin.  In  the 
punishment,  however,  which  fell  upon  the  wicked 
Haman,  we  see  the  summary  means  which  the 
Persian  monarchs  employed  for  avenging  or  de- 
fending themselves,  as  well  as  the  unshared  and 
unqualified  power  which  they  held  over  the  life 
of  their  subjects  even  in  the  highest  grades.  In- 
deed it  is  not  possible  to  read  the  book  of  Esther 
without  fancying  more  than  once  that  you  are  in 
the  midst  of  the  court  of  the  Grand  Seignior.  Not 
least  among  the  causes  of  this  illusion  is  what  is 
narrated  in  regard  to  the  harem  of  Xerxes.  The 
women,  it  seems,  had  a palace  of  their  own,  and 
dwelt  there  apart  from  the  king,  who  piid  them 
visits  of  ceremony.  This  their  abode,  and  they 
themselves,  were  under  the  care  of  a royal  cham- 
berlain, whose  power  in  the  harem  was  supreme, 
and  who  had  abundance  of  resources  for  increas- 
ing the  state  and  promoting  the  comfort  of  those 
who  pleased  him  ; nor  may  he  have  been  without 
an  influence  in  determining  the  king  in  his  choice 
of  his  favourite  mistress.  To  supply  the  harem, 
officers  were  appointed  in  the  several  provinces, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  find  out  and  procure  for  the 
monarch  the  fairest  maidens  in  the  world.  Each 
of  these,  after  she  had  been  in  the  women’s  house 
a twelvemonth,  and  had  gone  through  a certain 
course  of  preparation,  visited  the  king-  for  one 
night  in  turn  ; but  she  came  in  unto  the  king  no 
more  except  the  king  delighted  in  her,  and  that 
she  were  called  by  name,  in  which  case  she  be- 
came queen.  ‘ And  the  king  loved  Esther  above 
all  the  woman,  and  die  obtained  grace  and  favour 
in  his  sight  more  than  all  the  virgins ; so  that  he 
set  the  royal  crown  upon  her  head,  and  made  her 
queen  instead  of  Vashti.’ 


453.  [Ancient  Persian  guards.] 

The  greatness  of  the  power  of  the  chief  viziers 
of  the  Persian  monarchy  is  illustrated  in  t)ie  re- 
corded acts  of  Haman  and  Mordecai.  The  mode 
of  delegating  power  was  by  presenting  to  the  en- 
trusted person  the  royal  signet,  which  appears  to 
have  licensed  him  to  do  what  he  would,  by  such 
means  as  he  pleased. 

The  great  influence  which  Esther  and  Mordecai 
possessed  with  Xerxes  is  attributable  to  the  noble 
qualities,  both  of  mind  and  body,  for  which  the 
Hebrew  race  were,  and  still  are,  conspicuous. 
These  qualities  won  the  heart  and  gained  the 


favour  of  the  king,  and  thereby  proved  instru* 
mental  in  saving  the  Jews  scattered  throughout 
the  empire  from  the  bloody  slaughter  which  Ha- 
man had  designed  should  take  place  every  where 
on  the  same  day.  Nor  is  it  improbable  that  to 
influences  connected  with  the  same  high  qualities 
the  decree  may  have  been  owing  by  which  Cyrus 
set  the  people  of  the  captivity  free,  that  they  might 
return  home  and  build  again  the  walls  of  Jeru- 
salem. Cyrus,  it  is  true,  may  have  bad  some 
regard  to  justice;  he  may  have  thought  it  prudent 
to  send  away  from  his  country  at  least  the  best  of 
these  highly-endowed  men  ; he  may  not  have  been 
unwilling  to  see  Jerusalem  rise  again  into  power, 
and  prove  a friendly  barrier  against  Egypt;  but. 
the  munificent  manner  in  which  the  Jews  were 
dismissed  seems  to  betoken  the  agency  of  some 
personal  influence,  if  not  of  some  personal  affec- 
tion. Nehemiab  (xiii.  6 ; comp.  ii.  1,  sq.) 
speaks  expressly  of  a favour  which  he  obtained 
of  Artaxerxes  (Longimanus,  b.c.  465),  or  Xerxes 
II.  (b.c.  421),  after  an  interview  of  several  days. 
By  no  means  inconsistent  with  this  personal  fa- 
vour, nor  improbable  in  themselves,  are  the 
religious  considerations  by  which  the  Scriptural 
writers  represent  Cyrus  as  being  actuated  in 
setting  the  Jews  at  liberty.  The  religion  of  the 
Persians  was  in  its  essential  and  primitive  form  mo- 
notheistic, and  must  therefore  have  been  anything 
but  alien,  in  spirit  at  least,  to  that  of  ‘die  Hebrews. 
Nor  is  there  anything  extravagant  in  assuming 
that,  so  great  a prince  as  Cyrus,  who  covdd  scarcely 
have  yielded  to  the  luxurious  eft'eminacy  in  which 
his  successors  indulged,  and  whose  mind  must 
have  been  elevated  as  well  as  powerful,  under- 
stood in  a measure,  and  highly  appreciated,  the, 
excellences  of  the  Mosaic  religion;  while  the 
same  general  feeling  which  directed  the  storm  of 
the  Persians  against  the  polytheistic  temples  of 
Greece,  may  have  prompted  an  earlier  and  better 
sovereign  to  liberate  the  Jews,  and  bring  about 
the  restoration  of  the  monotheistic  worship  on 
Mount  Zion.  Certainly  the  terms  are  distinct 
and  emphatic  in  which  Cyrus  is  made  to  speak 
in  our  sacred  books ; nor  do  we  see  any  reason  to 
suppose  that  a Jewish  colouring  has  been  given 
to  these  passages,  or  to  question  that  we  have  in 
them  a faithful  translation  of  the  original  state 
documents  (Ezra  i.  1-4;  i.  7-11  ; vii.  23;  viii. 
22).  The  two  last  passages  here  referred  to  would 
seem  1o  justify  the  inference  that  the  favour  of 
the  Persian  government  was  owing  not  merely  to 
general  religious1  influences,  but  also  to  specific 
instances  of  good  and  ill  connected  with  the  will 
of  the  Almighty  ; probably  national  reverses, 
more  or  less  directly  and  believingly  ascribed  to 
God,  may  have  been  in  operation  to  aid  the 
restoration  of  the  temple  worship. 

A general  impression  prevails  that,  to  use  the 
words  of  Winer  ( Real-Worterb . s.  v.  ‘ Persien  ’), 
‘ no  edict  published  bearing  the  king’s  signature 
could  be  revoked,7  so  that  the  ‘ laws  of  the  Medcs 
and  Persians 7 altered  not  in  the  sense  of  being  di- 
minished or  reformed.  Winer  refers,  as  an  autho- 
rity, to  Esth.  i.  19  ; yet  this  book  contains  a strik 
ing  fact  which  proves  the  contrary  ; for  the  decree 
which  Haman  had  got  promulgated  for  the  de- 
struction of  the  Jews  was  superseded  by  another 
procured  by  the  influence  of  Esther  and  Mor- 
aecai,  and  this  other  of  so  decided  a character  as 
to  give  the  Jews  in  all  the  provinces  of  the  empira 


200 


PERSIANS. 


PERSIANS. 


tbe  power  of  assaulting  and  slaying  their  enemies. 
In  truth,  the  words  ‘that  it  be  not  altered  ’ seem, 
at  least.  in  the  period  to  which  the  biblical  records 
refer,  to  signify  little  more  than  the  general  sta- 
bility of  the  law,  and  the  certainty  of  its  penalties. 

The  extraordinary  power  entrusted  to  the  Jews 
serves  to  show  that  the  social  constitution  of  the 
Persian  empire  was  open  to  the  greatest  abuses. 
What  could  be  worse  than  for  the  government 
itself  to  let  loose  on  society  a scattered  horde  of 
people,  trembling  for  their  lives,  yet  united  in  the 
strong  bonds  of  religious  fellowship?  They  would 
want  no  encouragement,  if  only  relieved  of  the 
penalties  commanded  by  the  decree  of  Hainan, 
to  do  all  they  could  privately  ‘ to  be  ready  to 
avenge  themselves  on  their  enemies'  (Estli.  viii. 
-3) ; but  when  couriers  came  riding  post  into  all 
parts  where  they  were,  bearing  the  royal  behests 
to  the  effect  that,  on  the  very  day  on  which  they 
themselves  expected  unsparing  slaughter,  they 
were  allowed  not  only  * to  stand  for  their  life,’ 
but  ‘to  destroy,  to  slay,  and  to  cause  to  perish  all 
the  jiower  of  the  people  and  province  that  would 
assault  them,  both  little  ones  and  women,  anil  to 
take  the  spoil  of  them  for  a prey’  (Esth.  viii.  11), 
then,  we  may  well  believe,  a dreadful  vengeance 
would  be  taken,  and  frightful  disorder  caused, 
the  possibility  of  which  in  any  social  condition  is 
a proof  that  the  first  principles  of  justice  are  not 
understood  ; and  the  actual  existence  of  which 
shows  that,  whenever  occasion  required,  they  were 
recklessly  set  at.  nought. 

On  the  religion  of  the  ancient  Persians  we  refer 
to  the  articles  Medes  and  Magi,  from  whom  the 
Persians  received  their  religion,  as  well  as  the 
constitution  of  their  social  state.  If,  indeed,  the 
Persians,  as  a separate  tribe  in  the  general  govern- 
ment of  the  Medes,  succeeded  in  getting  the  upper 
hand  of  their  effeminate  masters,  and  wresting  the 
sceptre  from  their  enfeebled  hands,  the  Medes  were 
not  without  a recompense  in  that  they  perpetuated, 
eyen  by  the  instrumentality  of  their  conquerors, 
most  of  the  higher  appliances  and  effects  of  civi- 
lization to  which  in  the  course  of  ages  they  had 
given  birth,  and  which  have  in  all  ages  consti- 
tuted the  true  honour  of  men  and  the  best  treasure 
of  states.  In  truth,  in  this  matter  the  relation  into 
which  the  Persians  entered  with  the  Medes  is  that 
which  must  exist  where  the  rough,  untamed  energy 
of  a half- barbarous  race  comes  down  on  the  culti- 
vated plains  of  a high  but  decaying  civilization  ; 
and  that  which,  in  its  chief  features,  may  be  seen 
in  the  relation  which  the  Romans  bore  to  the 
Greeks,  and  which  the  Northmen  in  their  turn 
bore  to  the  Romans  : 

^Greecia  capta  ferum  victorem  cepit,  et  artes 

Intulit  agresti  Latio.’ 

The  oldest  Persians  were,  however,  fire-wor- 
shippers— a species  of  idolatry  which  is  least 
removed  from  monotheism,  and  also  least  unpar- 
donable in  such  a clime  as  that  of  Persia.  That 
such  a worship  is  not  incompatible  with  the 
esoteric  recognition  of  one  intelligent  Creator  is 
obvious,  for  the  fire  may  have  been  regarded,  and 
doubtless  by  the  wise  and  philosophic  was  re- 
garded, as  merely  symbolical  of  the  Great  Power 
which,  as  imaged  in  the  sun,  quickens,  vivifies, 
and  blesses  all  things.  But  even  so  pure  and  lofty 
a form  of  symbolical  worship  tended  to  corruption; 
arid  though  we  are  unable  to  t *ace  the  steps  of  the 


progress,  yet  we  know  that,  it  did  gradually,  in  the 
case  of  the  Persians,  lead  first  to  dualism,  and  then 
to  gross  idolatry  (Bauei  Symbol,  u.  My t hoi.  i. 
323,  sq.). 

The  name  ‘Persia’  is  not  found  in  the  oldet 
records  of  the  Bible,  but  after  the  Babylonish 

period  it  (DIQ)  occurs  frequently  (2Chron.  xxxvi. 

20,  22;  Ezra  iv.  5,  sq. ; vi.  14,  sq, ; Esth.  i.  3; 
viii.  10;  1 Macc.  i.  1),  meaning  the  great  Persian 
kingdom  founded  by  Cyrus,  which  in  the  period 
of  its  highest  glory  comprised  all  Asiatic  coun- 
tries from  the  Mediterranean  to  the  Indus,  from 
the  Black  and  Caspian  Sea  to  Arabia  and  the 
Indian  Ocean.  This  vast  empire  was  divided  into 
many  provinces  or  satrapies,  one  of  which  was 
Persia  (properly  so  called),  or  Persis  (Farsistan), 
which  on  the  north  was  separated  from  Media  by 
the  range  of  mountains  denominated  Parchratras, 
on  the  west  bordered  on  Susiana  (Khusistan),  on 
the  south  reached  to  the  Persian  Gulf,  and  on  the 
east,  was  bordered  by  Carmania  (Kirman).  The 
country  that  lies  along  the  sea  is  a sandy  plain, 
which  the  heat  and  Ast:.,»us  winds  render  unfit 
for  human  abodes  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xii.  20).  The 
interior  is  crossed  by  rocky  mountains,  whose  sum- 
mits are  covered  with  snow  the  greater  part,  of  the 
year.  This  mountain  chain  renders  the  north  of  the 
country  rough  and  unfruitful,  so  that  herdsmen 
and  nomads  alone  dwell  there.  In  the  inter- 
mediate parts,  however,  are  found  many  well- 
watered  valleys  and  plains,  which  yield  to  few 
in  fruitfulness  and  mildness  of  climate  (Strain), 
xv.  p.727  ; Ptolem.  vi.  4 ; Mannert,  Geog.  ii.  497). 
The  inhabitants  of  this  province  of  Persis  were 
connected  by  blood  with  the  Medes,  and  were 
divided  into  many  tribes  and  clans  (Herod,  i. 
125),  three  of  which  were  noble,  the  Pasargadae, 
the  Maraphii,  and  the  Maspii.  The  Pasargadai 
held  the  pre-eminence;  of  which  tribe  was  Cyrus, 
a circumstance  to  which  he  in  part  owed  his  power 
and  influence. 

The  Persian  language  was  diverse  from  the 
Shemitic,  and  connected  with  the  Indo-Germanic 
tongues,  of  which  the  Sanscrit  may  he  considered 
as  the  eldest  branch  (Adelung,  Mithridat.  i.  255, 
sq.  ; O.  Frank,  De  Persidis  Lingua  et  Genio , 
Norim b.,  1809  ; Wahl,  Gesch.  d.  Morgenliind 
Sprache  u.  Literatur , p.  129,  sq.). 

The  residences  of  the  monarchs  of  the  immense 
country  denominated  Persia  were  various.  Pasar- 
gada,  with  its  royal  tombs,  was  most  ancient. 
Persepolis  rose  not  very  far  from  it,  and  became 
a treasure-city.  After  the  overthrow  of  the  Baby- 
lonian kingdom,  Cyrus,  while  preserving  a regard 
for  the  more  ancient  cities  of  the  empire,  seems  to 
have  thought  Babylon  a more  suitable  place  for 
the  metropolis  of  Asia ; but  as  it  might  not  be 
politic,  if  it  were  possible,  to  make  a s’ range  place 
the  centre  of  his  kingdom,  he  founded  a new  city, 
Susa,  where  he  was  still  on  Persian  ground,  and 
yet.  not  far  distant  from  Babylon.  There  was  also 
Ecbatana,  the  Median  capital.  These  several 
royal  abodes  seem  to  have  been  occupied  by  the 
later  monarchs,  according  as  the  season  of  the 
year  called  for  a colder,  warmer,  or  milder 
climate. 

We  have  before  seen  that  the  Persian  monarchy 
had  its  chronicles.  These  may  have  been  con- 
sulted by  our  classical  authorities,  but  are  wholly 
lost  to  us.  We  are  therefore  thrown  on  two  foreign 


PESTILENCE. 

sources  of  information  regarding  the  Persian  his- 
tory : I.  Tlie  Jewish,  to  lie  elicited  chiefly  from 
the  books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  of 
which  something  has  been  said.  2.  Grecian 
writers.  Of  these,  Ctesias  availed  himself  of  the 
Persian  annals,  but  we  have  only  extracts  from 
his  work  in  Photius.  Herodotus  appears  also  to 
have  consulted  the  native  sources  of  Persian  his- 
tory. Xenophon  presents  us  with  the  fullest  ma- 
terials, namely,  in  his  Anabasis,  his  llellenica , 
and  especially  in  his  Cyropeedia , which  is  an 
imaginary  picture  of  a perfect  prince,  according 
to  Oriental  conceptions,  drawn  in  the  person  of 
Cyrus  the  elder.  Some  of  the  points  in  which  the 
classical  authorities  disagree  may  be  found  set 
forth  in  Eichhorn's  Gesch.  der  A.  Welt , i.  82,  83. 
A representation  of  the  Persian  history,  according 
to  Oriental  authorities,  may  be  found  in  the  Hal- 
lische  Ailgemeine  Weltgeschichte,  th.  iv.  Avery 
diligent  compilation  is  that  of  Brissonius,  De 
Regno  Persarum , 1591.  Consult  especially 
Heeren’s  Ideen , i.  1 ; and  his  Handbuc/i  der  G. 
d.  S.  Allerth .,  i.  102.  A full  and  valuable  list 
of  the  older  authorities  in  Persian  affairs  may  be 
seen  in  the  Bibliotheca  Historica  of  Meusellius, 
vol.  i.,  pt.  ii.,  p.  28,  sq. — J.  R.  B. 

PESTILENCE.  The  terms  pestilence  and 
plague  are  used  with  much  laxity  in  our  Auth. 
Version.  The  latter,  however,  which  generally 
represents  the  Hebrew  is  by  far  the  wider 
term,  as  we  read  of  ‘ plagues  of  leprosy,’  ‘ of  hail,’ 
and  of  many  other  visitations.  Pestilence  is  em- 
ployed to  denote  a deadly  epidemic,  and  is  the 
word  by  which  "CH  (Sept.  Odvaros,  and  occa- 
sionally A oi.fjt6s)  is  translated.  In  our  time,  how- 
ever, both  these  terms  are  nearly  synonymous  ; 
hut  plague  is,  by  medical  writers  at  least,  restricted 
to  mean  the  glandular  plague  of  the  East.  There 
is  indeed  no  description  of  any  pestilence  in  the 
Bible,  which  would  enable  us  to  form  an  adequate 
idea  of.  its  specific  character.  Severe  epidemics 
are  the  common  accompaniments  of  dense  crowd- 
ing in  cities,  and  of  famine  ; and  we  accordingly 
often  find  them  mentioned  in  connection  (Lev. 
xxvi.  25  ; Jer.  xiv.  12;  xxix.  18;  Matt.  xxiv.  7 ; 
Luke  xxi.  11).  But  there  is  no  better  argument 
for  believing  that  ‘ pestilence  ’ in  these  instances 
means  the  glandular  plague,  than  the  fact  of  its 
being  at  present  a prevalent  epidemic  of  the  East. 
It  is  also  remarkable  that  the  Mosaic  law,  which 
contains  such  strict  rules  for  the  seclusion  of  lepers, 
should  have  allowed  a disease  to  pass  unnoticed, 
which  is  above  all  others  the  most  deadly,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  the  most  easily  checked  by  sanatory 
regulations  of  the  same  kind.*  The  destruction 
of  Sennacherib's  army  (2  Kings  xix.  35)  has  also 
been  ascribed  to  the  plague.  But — nor  to  insist 
on  the  circumstance  that  this  awfully  sudden 
annihilation  of  185,000  men  is  not  ascribed  to 
any  disease,  but  to  the  agency  of  an  angel  (since 

* Michaelis  endeavours  to  explain  why  the  Law 
contained  no  ordinances  about  the  plague,  by 
irguirig  that,  on  account  of  the  sudden  appearance 
and  brief  duration  of  the  disease,  no  permanent 
enactments  could  have  been  efficient,  in  mode- 
'ating  its  ravages,  but  only  such  preventive  mea- 
frires  as  varied  according  to  the  ever-varying  cir- 
cumstances of  the  origin  and  course  of  its  visita- 
tions (Mos.  Recht.  iv.  290). 


PESTILENCE.  401 

such  passages  as  2 Sam.  xxiv.  15,  16,  weaken  this 
objection,  and  even  Josephus  understood  the  cause 
to  be  a pestilence,  Aniiq.  x.  1.  5) — it  is  impossible 
that  such  a mortality  could  have  been  produced, 
in  one  night,  by  a disease  which  spread  itself  by 
contagion,  like  the  Oriental  plague ; and  the  same 
remark  applies,  though  in  a less  degree,  to  the 
three  days’  pestilence  in  the  reign  of  David  (2  Sam. 
xxiv.  13).  Those  who  entertain  the  common  opi- 
nion about  the  means  by  which  the  destruction  of 
Sennacherib's  army  was  effected,  regard  the  illness 
of  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xx.  1-11)  as  connected, 
both  as  to  time  and  cause,  with  that  event;  and 
consider  his  ‘ boil  ’ especially  to  afford  direct  evi- 
dence that  he  suffered  from  the  plague.  The  boil 
would  have  certainly  been  a most  characteristic 
symptom,  if  we  had  the  least  indication  that  his 
disease  was  pestilential  ; but  we  have  no  evidence 
whatever  that,  any  epidemic  prevailed  at  that  time 
at  Jerusalem. 

The  glandular  plague,  like  the  small-pox,  is  in 
eruptive  fever,  and  is  the  most  virulent  and  most 
contagious  disease  with  which  we  are  acquainte  K 
The  eruption  consists  of  buboes,  carbuncles,  ar  j 
petechiae.  Buboes  are  inflamed  and  swollen 
glands  ; and  the  glands  so  affected  are  generally 
those  of  the  groin,  axilla,  neck,  and  the  parotid 
glands.  More  frequently  there  are  two,  three,  or 
even  four,  such  tumours.  They  sometimes  sub- 
side of  themselves ; or,  what  is  more  commonly 
the  case,  they  suppurate : and  as  this  process  sel- 
dom commences  before  the  disease  has  taken  a 
favourable  turn,  it  is  regarded  as  the  cause,  bul 
more  correctly  as  a sign,  of  approaching  recovery 
A carbuncle  is  an  inflammation  of  the  skin, 
giving  rise  to  a hard  tumour,  with  pustules  (X 
vesicles  upon  it.  It  resembles  a common  boil, 
but  differs  from  it  in  this  important  respect.  The 
carbuncle  becomes  gangrenous  throughout  its 
whole  extent,  so  that  when  the  eschar  separates 
a large  deep  ulcer  is  left.  Under  the  term 
petechiae  are  included  evanescent  spots  and  streaks 
of  various  hues,  from  a pale  blue  to  a deep  purple, 
which  give  a marbled  appearance  to  the  skin. 
When  such  livid  streaks  occur  in  the  face,  they 
disfigure  the  countenance  so  much  that  a patient 
can  haidly  be  recognised  by  his  friends.  The 
disease  varies  so  considerably  in  its  symptoms  and 
course,  that  it  is  impossible  to  give  one  description 
that  will  suit  even  the  majority  of  cases.  Some- 
times the  eruption  does  not  appear  at  all,  and 
even  the  general  symptoms  are  not  of  that  violence 
to  lead  an  ignorant  person  to  suspect  the  least 
danger.  The  patient,  is  suddenly  attacked  with  a 
loss  of  strength,  a sense  of  confusion,  weight  in  the 
head,  oppression  at  the  heart,  and  extreme  dejec- 
tion of  spirits.  Such  cases  sometimes  teiminate 
fatally  within  twenty -four  hours,  and  occasionally 
on  the  second  or  third  day.  Generally,  however, 
the  patient  is  attacked  with  shivering  or  coldness, 
which  is  soon  followed  by  fever,  giddiness,  pain 
in  the  head,  occasionally  also  by  vomiting. 
Buboes  and  carbuncles  in  most  cases  make  their 
appearance  on  the  first  day  : and  successive  erup- 
tions of  them  are  not  unusually  observed  during 
the  course  of  the  disease.  There  is  a peculiar 
and  characteristic  muddiness  of  the  eye,  which 
has  been  described  by  Dr.  Russell  as  a muddiness 
and  lustre  slrangely  blended  together.  The  fever 
remits  every  morning,  and  increases  during  the 
day  and  night.  The  vomiting  then  increases  j 


502 


PESTILENCE. 


PETER. 


ttie  tumours  become  painful  ; and  the  patient 
wanders,  and  is  inclined  to  stupor.  On  the  morn- 
ing of  the  third  day,  in  favourable  cases,  a sweat 
breaks  out,  which  produces  great  relief,  and  some- 
times even  proves  critical.  The  exacerbation  on 
the  fourth  day  is  more  severe  than  on  the  pre- 
ceding ones,  and  continues  intense  until  it  is  ter- 
minated by  the  sweat  on  the  morning  of  the  fifth 
day,  which  leaves  the  patient  weak,  but  in  every 
respect  relieved.  After  this,  the  exacerbations 
become  slighter  and  slighter  ; and  the  buboes  ad- 
vancing favourably  to  suppuration,  little  or  no 
fever  remains  after  the  beginning  of  the  second 
week.  In  other  cases,  again,  the  symptoms  are 
far  more  urgent.  Besides  vomiting,  giddiness, 
and  headache,  there  is  also  diarrhoea  at  the  out- 
break of  the  fever.  During  the  night  the  patient 
becomes  delirious  or  comatose.  The  pulse  is  full 
and  strong  ; and  though  the  tongue  is  not  dry, 
the  thirst  is  excessive.  The  fever  abates  some- 
what on  the  succeeding  morning,  but  the  pulse  is 
frequent,  the  skin  hot  and  dry,  and  the  patient 
dejected.  As  the  second  day  advances,  the  vomit- 
ing and  diarrhoea  become  urgent,  the  eyes  are 
muddy,  expression  of  countenance  confused,  the 
pulse  quick,  and  sometimes  low  and  fluttering, 
external  heat  moderately  feverish,  or  occasionally 
intense  in  irregular  flushings.  There  is  pain  at 
the  heart,  burning  pain  at  the  pit  of  the  slomach, 
and  incessant  restlessness.  When  to  these  symp- 
toms are  joined  faltering  of  the  tongue,  or  loss  of 
speech,  and  the  surface  of  the  body  becomes  cold 
or  covered  with  clammy  sweats,  death  is  inevi- 
table, although  it  may  still  be  at  some  distance. 
When  the  patient  has  been  much  weakened  by 
the  vomiting,  diarrhoea,  or  haemorrhage,  the  third 
day  proves  fatal ; but  more  commonly  the  disease 
is  prolonged  two  or  three  days  longer.  In  this 
form  of  plague,  buboes  appear  on  the  second  or 
third  day,  and  sometimes  later;  but  whether  they 
advance  towards  suppuration,  or  not,  they  seem  to 
have  no  effect  in  hastening  or  retarding  the  ter- 
mination of  the  disease.  Lastly,  in  some  cases, 
the  eruption  of  buboes  and  carbuncles  constitute 
the  principal  symptoms  of  the  disease  ; and  pa- 
tients are  so  little  indisposed,  that  they  are  able 
to  go  about  the  streets,  or  attend  to  their  usual 
avocations,  if  not  prevented  by  the  inflammation 
of  inguinal  tumours. 

Respecting  the  causes  and  origin  of  plague 
nothing  is  known.  There  cannot  be  the  slightest 
doubt  that  it  is  propagated  by  absolute  contact 
with,  or  a very  near  approach  to,  the  bodies  or 
clothes  of  persons  infected  ; but  we  are  entirely  at 
a loss  to  know  how  it  is  generated  afresli*  Ex- 
tremes of  temperature  have  a decided  effect  in 
putting  a stop  to  it ; but  Dr.  Russell  observed 
that,  in  the  year  1761,  the  plague  at  Aleppo 
was  mild,  in  1762  it  was  severer,  and  in  1763 
it  was  very  fatal ; and  yet  there  was  no  appre- 
ciable difference  in  the  respective  seasons  of 
these  years.  In  Egypt,  the  plague  commences 
in  autumn,  and  is  regularly  put  an  end  to  by 
the  heats  of  summer ; and  it  is  even  asserted 
that  contaminated  goods  are  also  disinfected  at 
this  time. 

In  Europe,  the  plague  disappeared  during  the 
winter.  This  was  remarked  in  all  the  epidemics, 
♦aicept  that  from  1636  to  1648,  called  the  Great 
Plague,  on  account  of  its  long  duration ; but  even 
ia  this  instance  it  abated  considerably  (luring  the 


winter.  It  was  a common  superstition  that  the 
plague  abated  on  St.  John’s  day. 

The  most  fatal,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most 
general  epidemic,  was  that  which  ravaged  Asia, 
Africa,  and  the  whole  of  Europe,  in  the  fourteenth 
century.  It  was  called  by  the  northern  European 
nations  £ the  Black  Death,’  and  by  the  Italians 
‘ la  Mortilega  Grande,’  or  the  great  mortality. 
According  to  Dr.  Hecker,  not  less  than  twenty-five 
millions  perished  by  it  in  the  short  space  of  three 
years,  from  1347  to  1350.  Since  the  commence- 
ment of  this  century,  Europe  has  been  free  from 
the  plague,  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three 
instances.  It  occurred  at  Noja,  in  the  kingdom 
of  Naples,  in  1815  and  1816  ; at  the  Lazaretto  of 
Venice,  in  1818  ; in  Greiffenberg,  in  Silesia,  in 
1S19.  It  has  not  been  seen  in  Great  Britain  since 
the  great  epidemic  of  1665,  which  is  stated  to 
have  carried  oil' eight  thousand  in  one  week.  Qua- 
rantine was  first  performed  in  one  of  the  islands 
near  Venice,  in  1485.  Persons  who  had  been 
cured  of  plague  in  the  Lazaretto  on  one  of  the 
adjoining  islands  were  sent  there,  and  all  those 
with  whom  they  had  had  intercourse,  where  they 
were  detained  forty  days.  This  period  was  pro- 
bably fixed  upon  on  account  of  some  medical 
hypothesis.  The  fortieth  day  was  regarded  as  the 
last  day  of  ardent  diseases,  and  that  which  sepa- 
rated them  from  chronic.  Forty  days  constituted 
the  philosophical  month  of  alchymists.  Theolo- 
gical, and  even  legal  derivations,  have  been  also 
given.  The  forty  days  of  the  flood;  Moses’ so- 
journ on  Mount  Sinai ; our  Lord’s  fast ; and, 
lastly,  what  is  called  the  ‘ Saxon  term  ’ (Sachsische 
Frist), >vvhich  also  lasts  forty  days.  Bills  of  health 
were  probably  first  established  in  1507,  by  a coun- 
cil of  health  established  at  Venice  during  a fatal 
plague  that  visited  Italy  for  five  years  ; but  they 
were  not  generally  used  until  1665.  It  is  to  these 
great  measures  that  Europe  is  indebted  for  its 
present  immunity  from  this  terrible  scourge ; ami 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that,  but  for  the  callous  in- 
difference of  the  Orientals  (whicli  proceeds  from 
their  fatalism,  love  of  gain,  and  ignorance),  the 
same  measures  would  be  adopted  in  the  East,  with 
the  same  success.  ( Hecker ’s  Ilist.  of  the  Epi- 
demics of  the  Middle  Ages  ; Dr.  Brown,  art. 
‘ Plague,’  in  Cyclop,  of  Pract.  Med.  ; Dr.  Rus- 
sell, Hist,  of  Aleppo.) — W.  A.  N. 

PETER  (n erpos  ; Aram.,  ; originally 
Simkon  or  Simon,  heard)  was  a native 

of  Bethsaida,  in  Galilee,  and  was  the  son  of  a 
certain  Jonas,  or  John  ; whence  he  is  named  on 
one  occasion  in  the  Gospel  history  Simon  Bar- 
jona,  that  is,  son  of  Jona  (Matt.  xvi.  17).  Along 
with  his  brother  Andrew,  he  followed  the  occu- 
pation of  a fisherman  on  the  sea  of  Galilee.  It 
is  probable  that,  before  they  became  known  to 
Christ,  they  were  both  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist. 
That  Andrew  was  so  we  are  expressly  informed 
by  the  evangelist  John  ; and  as  his  brother  seems 
to  have  been  much  of  the  same  mind  with  him 
on  religious  matters,  it  is  extremely  likely  that 
he  was  so  likewise.  Their  becoming  known  to 
Christ  was  owing  to  John’s  pointing  him  out  on 
the  day  after  his  baptism  to  Andrew  and  another 
disciple  (probably  the  evangelist  John),  %s  i the 
Lamb  of  God;’  on  which  they  immediately  fol- 
lowed Christ,  and  spent  some  time  in  receiving 
his  .instructions.  Shortly  after  this,  Andrew  find 


PETER. 


PETER. 


003 


mg  Simon,  carried  him  to  Christ,  who,  or.  re- 
ceiving him  as  his  disciple,  bestowed  upon  him 
that  surname  by  which  he  has  since  that  time 
been  most  commonly  designated  : ‘ When  Jesus 
beheld  him  he  said,  Thou  art.  Simon  the  son  of 
Jona;  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas,  which  is  by 
interpretation  a stone  (7rerpos).’  After  this  inter- 
view the  two  brothers  seem  to  have  returned  to 
their  usual  occupation  for  a season,  as  we  have  an 
account  in  Matthew  (iv.  18-20)  of  their  being 
summoned  from  that  occupation  by  Christ  on  a 
subsequent  occasion,  posterior  to  his  temptation 
in  the  wilderness,  and  to  the  commencement  of 
his  public  ministry  as  a religious  teacher.  From 
this  time  forward  they  were  his  devoted  and  ad- 
miring followers.  In  the  course  of  the  evangelical 
history  several  anecdotes  of  Peter  are  incidentally 
recorded,  for  the  purpose,  doubtless,  principally 
of  illustrating  the  character  and  teaching  of  our 
Lord,  but  which  tend  also  to  throw  light  upon  the 
history  and  character  of  hjs  attached  disciple. 
Such  are  the  accounts  furnished  by  the  evangelists 
of  his  walking  upon  the  agitated  waters  of  the  sea 
of  Galilee  to  meet  his  master  (Matt.  xiv.  22,  ff. ; 
Mark  vi.  45,  ff.) ; of  his  bold  and  intelligent 
avowals  of  the  undoubted  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
notwithstanding  the  difficulties  which  he,  along 
with  the  rest  of  the  disciples,  felt  in  reconciling 
what  they  saw  in  him  with  what  they  had  fondly 
expected  the  Christ  to  be  (Matt.  xvi.  13-20);  of 
his  rash  but  affectionate  rebuke  of  bis  Lord  for 
speaking  of  suffering  and  death  as  in  prospect  for 
him,  and  as  forming  a necessary  part  of  his  me- 
diatorial work  (Matt.  xvi.  21-23);  of  his  conduct 
in  first  rejecting,  with  an  earnestness  bordering  on 
norror,  the  offer  of  Christ  to  wash  bis  feet,  and 
then,  when  the  symbolical  nature  of  that  act  had 
been  explained  to  him,  his  over-ardent  zeal  that 
not  his  feet  only,  but  also  bis  hands  and  his  head, 
might  be  washed  (John  xiii.  4,  ff.) ; of  his  bold 
and  somewhat  vaunting  avowal  of  attachment  to 
his  Master,  and  his  determination  never  to  forsake 
him,  followed  by  his  disgraceful  denial  of  Jesus  in 
the  hour  of  trial  (John  xiii.  36,  37 ; Mark  xiv. 
29,  &c.);  of  his  deep  and  poignant  contrition  for 
this  sin  (Matt.  xxvi.  75)  ; and  of  his  Lord’s  ample 
forgiveness  of  his  offence,  after  he  had  received 
from  him  a profession  of  attachment  as  strong 
and  as  frequently  repeated  as  his  former  denial  of 
him  (John  xxi.  15-18).  From  these  notices  it  is 
easy  to  gather  a tolerably  correct  conception  of  the 
predominating  features  of  the  apostle’s  character 
up  to  this  period.  He  seems  to  have  been  a man 
of  undoubled  piety,  of  ardent  attachment  to  his 
Master,  and  of  great  zeal  for  what  he  deemed  his 
Master’s  honour ; but,  at  the  same  time,  with  a 
mind  rather  quick  than  accurate  in  its  apprehen- 
sions, and  with  feelings  rather  hasty  in  their  im- 
pulse than  determined  and  continuous  in  their 
exercise.  Hence  his  readiness  in  avowing  his 
opinions,  and  his  rashness  in  forming  them  ; and 
lienee  also  the  tendency  which  beset  his  honest 
openness  to  degenerate  into  bravado,  and  Lis  de- 
terminations of  valour  to  evaporate  into  cowardice 
at  appalling  forms  of  danger.  His  fall,  however, 
and  his  subsequent  restoration,  connected  as  these 
were  with  the  mysterious  events  of  his  Master's 
crucifixion  and  resurrection,  and  with  the  new 
light  which  had  by  them  been  cast  around  his 
character  and  work,  produced  a powerful  change 
for  the  better  upon  the  apostle's  mind.  From  this 


time  forward  he  comes  before  us  under  a new 
aspect.  A sober  dignity  and  firmness  of  purpose 
have  displaced  his  former  hasty  zeal ; sagacity 
and  prudei  ce  characterize  Lis  conduct ; and  whilst 
his  love  to  his  Master  shows  no  symptom  of  abate- 
ment, it  displays  itself  rather  in  active  labour  and 
much-enduring  patience  in  his  service,  than  in 
loud  protestations  or  extravagant  exhibitions  of 
attainment.  In  the  subsequent  Scripture  history 
he  is  presented  to  us  as  the  courageous  herald  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  by  whose  mouth  the  first 
public  declaration  of  salvation  through  the  cru- 
cified Jesus  was  made  to  die  people  ; by  whose 
advice  and  counsel  the  early  churches  were  planted 
and  governed;  and  by  whom  the  prejudices  of 
Judaism  were  first  fairly  surmounted,  and  the 
Gospel  preached  in  all  its  universal  freeness  to 
the  Gentile  world.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  con- 
tain recitals  of  many  interesting  incidents  which 
befell  him  whilst  engaged  in  those  efforts.  Of 
these,  the  chief  are  his  imprisonment  and  trial 
before  the  Sanhedrim  for  preaching  Christ,  and 
his  bold  avowal  of  his  determination  to  persist  in 
that  work  (Acts  iv.  1-22):  his  miraculously  in- 
dicting the  punishment,  of  death  on  the  infatuated 
couple  who  had  dared  to  try  an  experiment  upon 
the  omniscience  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (v.  1-11);  his 
visit  to  Samaria,  and  rebuke  of  Simon  Magus, 
who  deemed  that.  the  miracles  of  the  apostle  were 
the  result  of  some  deep  magic  spell  of  which  he 
had  not  yet  become  possessed,  and  which,  conse- 
quently, be  was  desirous  of  purchasing  from  Peter 
(viii.  14-24);  the  vision  by  which  he  was  taught 
that  the  ancient  ritual  distinctions  between  clean 
and  unclean  bad  been  abolished,  and  thereby  pre- 
pared to  attend  on  the  summons  of  Cornelius,  to 
whom  he  preached  the  Gospel  (x.  1-  48) ; his  ap- 
prehension by  Herod  Agrippa.  and  his  deliverance 
by  tlie  interposition  of  an  angel,  who  opened  for 
him  the  doors  of  his  prison,  and  set  him  free 
(xii.  3-19)  ; and  his  address  to  the  council  at 
Jerusalem,  on  the  occasion  of  a request  for  advice 
and  direction  being  sent  to  the  church  there  by 
the  church  in  Antioch,  in  which  he  advocated  the 
exemption  of  Gentile  converts  from  the  ceremonial  1 
institutes  of  the  law  of  Moses  fxv.  6-11).  In  all 
these  incidents  we  trace  the  evidences  of  his  mind 
huviug  undergone  an  entire  change,  both  as  to  its 
views  of  truth  and  impressions  of  duty,  from  what 
is  displayed  by  the  earlief  events  of  his  history. 
On  one  occasion  only  do  we  detect  something  of 
his  former  weakness,  and  that,  strangely  enough, 
in  regard  to  a matter  in  which  he  had  been  the 
first  of  the  apostles  to  perceive,  and  the  first  to 
recommend  and  follow,  a correct  course  of  pro- 
cedure. The  occasion  referred  to  was  his  with- 
drawing, through  dread  of  the  censures  of  his 
Jewish  brethren,  from  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch, 
after  having  lived  in  free  and  friendly  intercourse 
with  them,  and  Lis  timidly  dissembling  his  con- 
victions as  to  the  religious  equality  of  Jew  and 
Gentile.  For  this  Paul  withstood  him  to  the  face, 
and  rebuked  him  sharply,  because  of  tlie  injury 
which  his  conduct  was  calculated  to  produce  to 
the  cause  of  Christianity.  With  this  single  ex- 
ception, however,  his  conduct  seems  to  have  been 
in  full  accordance  with  the  name  which  his 
Master  had  prophetically  bestowed  on  him  when 
he  called  him  Simon  the  Rock,  and  with  the 
position  which  Paul  himself  assigns  to  him,  at 
the  very  time  that  he  recounts  his  tempore ry 


504  rETER. 

dereliction,  as  one  of  ‘ the  Pillars  of  the  Church’ 
(Gal.  ii.  9,  14). 

Thus  far  we  are  enabled,  from  the  inspired  do- 
tumerits,  to  trace  the  history  of  this  apostle  ; but 
for  what  remains  we  must  be  indebted  to  evidence 
of  a less  explicit  and  certain  character.  Eccle- 
siastical tradition  asserts  that  he  performed  an 
extensive  missionary  tour  throughout  those  dis- 
tricts, to  the  converts  in  which  his  epistles  are 
addressed.  ‘ Peter,’  say*  Origen,  ‘ appears  to  have 
preached  to  the  Jews  in  the  dispersion,  in  Pontus, 
Galatia,  Bithynia,  Cappadocia,  and  Asia’  (In 
Genesin,  tom.  iii. ; Euseb.  Hist.  Eccies.  iii.  1,4). 
This  tradition,  however,  though  deriving  some 
countenance  from  1 Pet.  v.  13,  is  very  uncer- 
tain ; even  Origen,  in  adducing  it.  speaks  doubt- 
ingly  (/re/c7?/>uxe;'ai  eoncev).  The  fact  that  no 
allusion  appears  in  his  epistles  to  any  personal 
acquaintance  on  the  part  of  the  apostle  with  those 
to  whom  they  are  addressed,  militates  strongly 
against  its  authenticity.  Another  tradition  re- 

{lorts  the  apostle  as  having  towards  the  close  of 
iis  life  visited  Rome,  become  bishop  of  the 
church  in  that  city,  and  suffered  martyrdom  in 
the  persecution  raised  against  the  Christians  by 
Nero.  The  importance  of  these  points  in  con- 
nection with  the  claims  urged  by  the  Catholics 
on  behalf  of  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  has  led 
to  a careful  and  sifting  examination  of  the  accu- 
racy of  this  tradition ; the  result  of  which  seems 
to  be,  that  whilst  it  is  admitted  as  certain  that 
Peter  suffered  martyrdom,  in  all  probability  by 
crucifixion  (Tertullian,  De  Prcescript.,  38;  Lac- 
tantius,  De  Mortibus  Persecutorum , c.  ii.),  and 
as  probable  that  this  took  place  at  Rome,  it.  has, 
nevertheless,  been  made  pretty  clear  that  he  never 
was  for  any  length  of  time  resident  in  that  city, 
and  morally  certain  that  he  never  was  bishop  of 
the  church  there  (Barrow,  On  the  Pope's  Supre- 
macy ; Works , vii.  207,  ff , Loud.  1S31  ; Cave’s 
Life  of  St.  Peter , 6 11;  Campbell,  Eccies.  Hist. 
lect.  xii. ; Neander,  Gesch.  d.  Pflanz.  tmd  Leit. 
u.s.w.,ii.  474;  Winer,  Real-  Worterb., in  ‘Petrus,’ 
&c.).  By  some  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  ob- 
tain the  support  of  the  apostle’s  own  testimony  in 
favour  of  his  having  at  one  period  resided  at  Rome, 
by  interpreting  the  words,  ‘ the  church  that  is  at 
Babylon,'  the  salutations  of  which  he  sends  to 
those  to  whom  he  wrote  his  first  epistle,  as  apply- 
ing to  the  church  at  Rome;  an  attempt  which 
Dr.  Campbell  justly  stigmatizes  as  ‘ poor,  not  to 
call  it  ridiculous.’  Even  if  we  admit  that  at  the 
time  when  this  epistle  was  written  it  was  under- 
stood amongst  the  Christians  that  Babylon  wa3 
the  prophetical  name  for  Rome — an  admission, 
however,  which  is  entirely  unsupported  by  evi- 
dence—it  would  remain  unexplained  why  the 
apostle,  i#>  such  a mere  matter-of-fact  affair  as 
the  communication  of  the  friendly  salutations  of 
one  church  to  another,  should  have  employed  the 
obscure  and  symbolical  language  of  prophecy, 
when  his  meaning  could  have  been  so  much  more 
distinctly  conveyed  by  a simple  statement.  This 
would  be  the  more  inexplicable,  that  the  style 
of  Peter  is  remarkably  plain  and  perspicuous 
throughout  the  entire  epistle.  It  seems  much 
more  consistent,  therefore,  with  rational  principles 
}f  interpretation,  to  understand  the  statement,  lite- 
rally of  the  Assyrian  Babylon,  >n  which  city,  as 
we  learn  from  Josephus,  there  was  a great  multi- 
tude of  Jews  (*i/6a  aal  irXridos  i)v  'lovbaiuu, 


PETER. 

Antiq.  xv.  2.  2;  see  also  c.  3.  1),  and  to  whicht 
consequently,  it  is  probable  that,  at  some  period 
of  his  life  ‘the  apostle  of  the  circumcision’  (Gal. 
ii.  8)  must  have  paid  a visit.  Some  have  sug- 
gested that  Babylon  in  Egypt  is  probably  in- 
tended ; but  this  is  set  aside  by  the  fact,  that  at 
this  time  the  Egyptian  Babylon  was  nothing 
more  than  a Roman  fort  (Strabo,  xvii.  1). 

The  assertion  that  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome 
is  connected  with  another,  by  which  the  claims  of 
the  papacy  are  sought  to  be  established,  namely, 
that  to  him  was  conceded  a right  of  supremacy 
over  the  other  apostles.  In  support  of  this,  an 
appeal  is  made  to  those  passages  in  the  Gospels, 
where  declarations  supposed  to  imply  the  bestowal 
of  peculiar  honour  and  distinction  on  Peter  are 
recorded  as  having  been  addressed  to  him  by  our 
Lord.  The  most  important  of  these  are  : ‘ Thou 
art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  will  I build  my  church  ’ 
(Matt.  xvi.  18);  and,  ‘Unto  thee  will  I give  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,’  &c.  (Matt.  xvi. 
19).  At  first  sight  these  passages  would  seem  to 
bear  out  the  assumption  founded  on  them  ; but, 
upon  a more  careful  investigation,  it  will  be  seen 
that  this  is  rather  in  appearance  than  in  reality. 
The  force  of  both  is  greatly  impaired  for  the  pur- 
pose for  which  Catholics  produce  them,  by  the 
circumstance,  that  whatever  of  power  or  authority 
they  may  be  supposed  to  confer  upon  Peter,  must 
be  regarded  as  shared  by  him  with  the  other 
apostles,  inasmuch  as  to  them  also  are  ascribed 
in  other  passages  the  same  qualities  and  powers 
which  are  promised  to  Peter  in  those  under  con- 
sideration. If  by  the  former  of  these  passages  we 
are  to  understand  that  the  church  is  built  upou 
Peter,  the  apostle  Paul  informs  us  that  it  is  not 
on  him  alone  that  it  is  built,  but  upon  all  the 
apostles  (Ephes.  ii.  20);  and  in  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation we  are  told,  that  on  the  twelve  foundations 
of  the  New  Jerusalem  (the  Christian  church)  are 
inscribed  ‘ the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the 
Lamb  ’ (xxi.  14).  As  for  the  declaration  in  the 
latter  of  these  passages,  it  was  in  all  its  essential 
parts  repeated  by  our  Lord  to  the  other  disciples 
immediately  before  his  passion,  as  announcing  a 
privilege  which,  as  his  apostles,  they  were  to  posi 
sess  in  common  (Matt,  xviii.  IS;  John  xx.  23) 
It  is,  moreover,  uncertain  in  what  sense  our  Lord 
used  the  language  in  question.  In  both  cases  his 
words  are  metaphorical ; and  nothing  can  be  more 
unsafe  than  to  build  a theological  dogma  upon 
language  of  which  the  meaning  is  not  clear,  and 
to  which,  from  the  earliest  ages,  different  inter- 
pretations have  been  affixed.  And,  finally,  even 
granting  the  correctness  of  that  interpretation 
which  Catholics  put.  upon  these  verses,  it  will  not 
bear  out  the  conclusion  they  would  deduce  from 
them,  inasmuch  as  the  judicial  supremacy  of 
Peter  over  the  other  apostles  does  not  necessarily 
follow  from  his  possessing  authority  over  the 
church.  On  the  other  side,  it  is  certain  that  there 
is  no  instance  on  record  of  the  apostle’s  having 
ever  claimed  or  exercised  this  supposed  power ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  he  is  oftener  than  once  repre- 
sented as  submitting  to  an  exercise  of  power  upon 
the  part  of  others,  as  when,  for  instance,  he  went 
forth  as  a messenger  from  the  apostles  assembled 
in  Jerusalem  to  the  Christians  in  Samaria  (Acts 
viii.  14),  and  when  he  received  a rebuke  from 
Paul,  as  already  noticed.  This  circumstance  is 
so  Altai,  indeed,  to  the  pretensions  which  have 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 

be«ti  Urged  in  favour  of  his  supremacy  over  the 
otaer  apostles,  that  from  a very  early  age  attempts 
lave  been  made  to  set  aside  its  force,  by  the 
hypothesis  that  it  is  not  of  Peter  the  apostle, 
but  of  another  person  of  the  same  name,  that  Paul 
speaks  in  the  passage  referred  to  (Euseb.  Hist. 
Eccles.  i.  13).  This  hypothesis,  however,  is  so 
plainly  contradicted  by  the  words  of  Paul,  who 
explicitly  ascribes  apostleship  to  the  Peter  of 
whom  he  writes,  that  it  is  astonishing  how  it  could 
have  been  admitted  even  by  the  most  blinded 
zealot  (vers.  8,  9).  Whilst,  however,  it  is  pretty 
well  established  that  Peter  enjoyed  no  judicial 
supremacy  over  the  other  apostles,  it  would,  per- 
haps, be  going  too  tar  to  aflirm  that  no  dignity  or 
primacy  whatsoever  was  conceded  to  him  on  the 
part  of  his  brethren.  His  superiority , in  point  of 
age,  his  distinguished  personal  excellence,  his  re- 
putation and  success  as  a teacher  of  Christianity, 
and  the  prominent  part  which  lie  had  ever  taken 
in  his  Master  s affairs,  both  before  his  death  and 
after  his  ascension,  furnished  sufficient  grounds 
for  his  being  raised  to  a position  of  respect,  and  of 
moral  influence  in  the  chinch  and  amongst  his 
brother  apostles.  To  this  some  countenance  is 
given  by  the  circumstances  that  lie  is  called  ‘ the 
first’  (- Trpuros ) by  Matthew  (x.  2),  and  this  ap- 
parently not  merely  as  a numerical,  but  as  an 
honorary  distinction  ; that  when 'the  apostles  are 
mentioned  as  a body,  it  is  frequently  by  the  phrase, 
‘ Peter  and  the  eleven,’  or,  ‘ Peter  and  the  rest  of 
the  apostles,’  or  something  similar  ; and  that  when 
Paul  went  up  to  Jerusalem  by  divine  revelation, 
it  was  to  Peter  particularly  that  the  visit  was  paid. 
These  circumstances,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
prevalent  voice  of  Christian  antiquity,  would  seem 
to  authorize  the  opinion  that  Petei  occupied  some 
such  position  as  that  of  npoecrTcbs,  or  president  in 
the  apostolical  college,  but  without  any  power  or 
authority  of  a judicial  kind  over  his  brother 
apostles  (Campbell,  Eccles  Hist.,  lect.  v.  and  xii. ; 
Barrow,  ubi  sup.,  &c. ; Eichhorn,  Einleit.  iii. 
599;  Hug,  Introd.  p.  635,  Fordick’str. ; Horne, 
Introd.,  iv.  432;  Lardner,  Works,  vols.  iv.  v. 
vi.,  ed.  1788;  Cave,  Antiquitates  Apostoliccc, 
&c.).— W.  L.  A. 

PETER,  EPISTLES  OF.  Of  the  seven 
Catholic  Epistles,  there  are  two  ascribed  to  St. 
Peter.  The  first  of  these  is  one  of  the  o/jloXo- 
yov/ieva,  or  those  universally  received  in  the  early 
church.  The  second  ranks  among  the  avTite- 
y6peva,  or  controverted  [Antii.egomena]. 

Genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle. — The  ex- 
ternal evidence  in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of 
this  Epistle  is  complete.  ‘ One  Epistle  of  Peter,’ 
says  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  3),  ‘ called  the 
first,  is  universally  received;’  and  Origen  had 
before  this  time  observed,  that  ‘Peter  . . . has 
left  one  Epistle  acknowledged  to  be  his.’  It  is 
cited  by  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Ilcer  iv.  9,  2):  ‘ Peter 
says  in  bis  Epistle,  In  whom , though  now  ye  see 
him  not,  yet  believing,  ye  rejoice  with  joy  un- 
speakable axid  fidl  of  glory  ’ (i.  8.  And  again 
he  cites  1 Pet.  ii.  16)  ; also,  fry  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  (Strom,  i.  3)  : ‘ Peter  in  the  Epistle  says,’ 
&c. ; and  by  Tertullian  (Scorp.  c.  12),  ‘ Peter  says 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Pontus’  (comp.  1 Pet.  ii.  20). 
Dr.  Lardner  observes  (Hist.  Apost.  c.  ix.)  that 
‘ it  seems  to  be  referred  to  by  Clement  of  Rome 
in  his  first  Epistle.’  Eusebius  notices  its  citation 
by  Polycarp  (comp.  Polycarp,  c.  i.  with  1 Pet. 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF.  SGt 

i.  8)  ; and  also  by  Papias  ; ( IJist.  Eccles.  iii.  33). 

‘ In  fact,’  says  l)e  Wette  ( ' Einleitung,  § 1 73),  ‘ if 
we  except  its  omission  in  the  ancient  catalogue 
in  Muratori,  and  its  rejection  by  t lie  Paulicians 
it  has  been  never  called  in  question.’  l)e  Wette 
himself,  who  never  omits  an  opportunity  of  raising 
a doubt,  contents  himself  with  observing  that  ‘as 
its  contents  are  really  apostolic,  any  doubts 
arising  from  the  absence  of  any  known  personal 
relationship  between  the  author  and  those  to  whom 
the  Epistle  was  addressed,  or  any  peculiarity  of 
doctrinal  phraseology,  find  no  favour  or  recog- 
nition.’ He  adds  that  the  second  Epistle,  even 
though  not  genuine,  bears  testimony  (iii.  1)  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  first. 

The  internal  evidence  is  equally  complete. 
The  author  calls  himself  the  Apostle  Peter  (ch. 
i.  1),  and  the  whole  character  of  the  Epistle  shows 
that  it  proceeds  from  a writer  who  possessed  great 
authority  among  those  whom  he  addresses,  who 
were  most  probably  composed  chiefly  of  Jewish 
Christians.  The  writer  describes  himself  as  ‘an 
elder,’  and  ‘a  witness  of  Clnist’s  sufferings’  (v. 
1).  The  vehemence  and  energy  of  the  style  are 
altogether  appropriate  to  the  warmth  and  zeal  of 
Peter’s  character,  and  every  succeeding  critic, 
who  has  entered  into  its  spirit,  has  felt  impressed 
with  the  truth  of  the  observation  of  Erasmus,, 
‘that  this  Epistle  is  full  of  apostolical  dignity 
and  authority,  and  worthy  of  the  prince  of  the 
apostles.’ 

The  only  indication  as  to  the  place  from  whence 
this  letter  was  addressed  to  the  five  provinces,  is 
contained  in  ch.  v.  ver.  13:  ‘She  in  Babylon, 
elected  with  you  (y  iv  BafUvXuvi  owe/cAe/CT^),  sa- 
luteth  you.’  For  whether  ‘ she  in  Babylon’  refers 
to  the  church  or  to  an  individual  (in  which  latter 
case  Peter’s  wife  is  the  person  generally  believed 
to  be  referred  to),  the  letter  must  have  been 
written  in,  or  at  least  in  the  neighbourhood  of, 
Babylon.  But  where  Babylon  was,  or  whether  it 
was  the  celebrated  city  of  that  name  on  the 
Euphrates,  as  has  been  maintained  by  Beza, 
Lightfoot,  Basnage,  De  Wette,  Neander,  and  a 
host  of  learned  men,  is  a question  wliich  has 
never  been,  and  probably  never  will  be,  decided. 
It  has  been  maintained,  as  an  objection  to  the 
supposition  that  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates  was 
meant,  that,  there  were  no  Jews  residing  there  at 
the  date  of  this  Epistle,  inasmuch  as  they  had  all 
been  expelled  from  that,  city  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  reign  of  Caligula,  with  the  exception  of  such 
as  were  permitted  to  remain  on  account  of  con- 
nection, or  other  special  reasons  (Hug’s  Introduc- 
tion')', while  those  in  Seleucia,  or  New  Babylon, 
were  soon  after  massacred,  or  fled  to  Ctesiphon,  on 
the  other  side  of  the  river.  Hug,  who  still  main- 
tains that  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates  is  intended, 
conceives  that  the  crefiSpevoi,  or  ‘ pious,’  were  the 
persons  to  whom  the  apostle’s  injunctions  were 
addressed,  and  who  -'ere  numerous  in  the  East. 
There  is  certainly  no  authority  from  ecclesiastical 
history  for  supposing  that  Peter  was  ever  at  Ba- 
bylon ; but  this  silence  proves  nothing,  for  there 
are  fourteen  years  of  the  apostle's  life  concerning 
which  we  have  no  information.  But  this  mention 
of  Babylon  by  St.  Peter  has  led  to  the  belief  that 
he  may  have  paid  a visit  to  the  Parthians  (De 
Wette,  l.  c .),  of  which,  however,  there  is  no  other 
indication  among  the  ancients. 

Babylon  in  Egypt,  near  Memphis,  has  be«n  com- 


506 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 


jectured  by  Pearson,  Le  Clerc,  and  others,  to  have 
been  the  scene  of  Peter’s  labours ; but  neither  for 
this  is  there  any  evidence,  and  it  seems  to  have 
been  a very  insignificant  place,  for  Strabo  de- 
icribes  it  only  as  a frontier  garrison,  occupied  by 
one  of  tire  Roman  legions  quartered  in  Egypt. 

Although  the  ancient  Syrian  writers  conceived 
the  Babylon  mentioned  by  St.  Peter  to  have  been 
a city  in  the  East,  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers 
Held  the  uame  of  Babylon  here  to  have  been,  as 
in  the  Apocalypse,  a metonymy  for  Rome.  This 
was  the  prevailing  opinion  in  the  time  of  Eusebius, 
who  observes  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  15)  that  Peter  ‘is 
said  to  have  composed  his  first  Epistle  at  Rome, 
which  he  indicates  in  calling  it  figuratively  Ba- 
bylon.’ This  opinion  is  repeated  by  Jerome  (De 
Vir.  Jllustr.  cap.  \ iii.)  CEcumenius  (ii.  p.  256), 
and  Bede  (Expos.  1 Pet.  v.  It).  It  has  been,  as 
is  observed  by  Lardner  and  Michaelis,  received 
by  most  members  of  the  church  of  Rome,  but 
certainly  not,  as  Mr.  Horne  supposes  (Introd.  vol. 

ii.  c.  iv.  6 3),  after  Macknight  (On  the  Epistles ), 
by  all  the  learned  of  that  communion  ; for,  among 
others,  Erasmus  (Comment.),  Du  Pin  (Canotiof 
Scripture),  and  Hug  (In  rod.),  contend  against 
Rome  in  favour  of  Babylon  in  Mesopotamia. 
That  Rome  was  meant  has  been  maintained  also 
by  Grotius,  Whitby,  Macknight,  and  Lardner. 
Perhaps  the  strongest  objection  to  this  hypothesis 
arises  from  the  consideration  that  the  use  of  a 
mystical  name  is  unsuited  to  the  character  of  an 
epistolary  writing,  although  adapted  to  the  sym- 
bolical and  poetical  style  of  the  apocalypse.  It 
is,  however,  certain  that  arcana  nomina  were 
sometimes  used  by  the  early  Christians.  Louis 
Capell  favours  the  idea  of  a mystical  name,  but 
he  stands  alone  in  considering  Jerusalem  to  be 
the  place  indicated.  It  may  be  added  that  there 
is  independent  authority  for  believing  that  Peter 
was  at  Rome,  but  none  that  he  was  ever  either  in 
Assyria  or  Egypt. 

Age  of  the  Epistle. — The  Epistle  must  have  been 
written  before  a.d.  67-68,  the  year  of  St.  Peter’s 
martyrdom.  Lardner  places  the  date  in  a.d.  63  or 
61,  chiefly  from  the  fact  that  an  earlier  date  than 
a.d.  63  cannot  Ire  assigned  for  his  arrival  at  Rome. 
Hug  and  De  Wette  (Introductions),  and  Neamler 
(Hist,  of  the  Planting  of  the  Christian  Church ), 
find  an  indication  of  the  true  date  in  the  Neronic 
persecution,  to  which  the  Epistle  manifestly  re- 
fers. The  Christians  were  now  suffering  perse- 
cutions as  Christians , and  according  to  the 
popular  belief,  of  which  Tacitus  informs  us  Nero 
took  advantage,  they  were  punished  as  evildoers 
(tnalefci,  Tacitus;  kcucottoioi,  1 Pet.  ii.  12). 

Hug  fixes  the  date  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Nero’s 
reign,  or  a.d.  65,  a year  after  t be  conflagration  of 
the  city,  and  five  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. Lardner  supposes  that  Peter’s  first  Epistle 
could  not  have  been  written  from  Rome  before 
the  death  of  St.  Paul,  a.d.  66,  as  it  is  difficult  to 
’account  for  St.  Paul’s  silence  respecting  him  if 
Peter  was  at  Rome  at  the  date  of  any  of  his 
epistles  from  that  city.  Others,  however,  as 
Bishop  Sherlock,  consider  that  the  first  Epistle 
was  written  about;  a.d.  60.  It  is  at  the  same 
time  certain  that  Peter  had  read  several  of  St. 
Paul’s  Epistles,  as  he  adopts  expressions,  and 
gometimes  whole  phrases,  from  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Galatians,  Thes- 
salonians,  1 Corinthians,  and  1 Timothy  (comp. 


especially,  1 Pet.  ii.  13,  with  1 Tiir.  ii.  2*4;  ii. 
IS,  with  Eph.  vi.  5;  1 Pet.  i.  1,  with  Eph.  i.  4-7  , 

i.  3,  witli  Eph.  i.  3 ; i.  14,  with  Rom.  xii.  2;  ii. 

1,  with  Col.  iii.  8,  and  Rom.  xii.  1 ; ii.  6-10, 
with  Rom.  ix  32;  ii.  13,  with  Rom.  xiii.  1-4. 

ii.  16,  with  Gal.  v.  13;  ii.  IS,  with  Eph.  vi.  5, 

iii.  1,  with  Eph.  v.  22;  iii.  9,  with  Rom.  xii.  17 ; 

iv.  9,  with  Philipp,  ii.  14  ; iv.  10,  with  Rom.  xii. 
6,  &c. ; v.  1,  with  Rom.  viii.  18;  v.  5,  with 
Eph.  v.  21  ; v.  8,  with  1 Thess.  v.  6;  v.  14,  with 
1 Cor.  xvi.  20).  There  is,  observes  Hi:g(/«£i'od.)f 
evidence  of  more  than  accidental  relationship  even 
in  the  deviation  of  expression,  in  which,  however, 
there  is  no  essential  difference.  The  similarity 
in  thought  and  expression,  and  even  in  their  verj 
plan  (Hug,  l.  c.),  are  indeed  most  striking,  and 
this  circumstance  has  been  well  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  Peter  had  not  himself  visited  the 
Asiatic  provinces,  and  had,  therefore,  reference 
to  the  Epistles  of  his  esteemed  colleague  for  the 
general  condition  of  the  inhabitants,  their  manner 
of  life,  their  virtues  and  their  failings,  and  their 
civil  and  domestic  relations.  There  are  also 
some  passages  identical  with  those  in  the  Epistle 
of  St.  James  (comp.  1 Pet.  i.  6,  7,  with  Jatne3  i. 

2,  3 ; i.  21,  with  James  i.  10  ; ii.  1,  with  James 
i.  21  ; iv.  8,  with  James  v.  20;  and  v.  5,  with 
Jaimes  iv.  6).  This  latter  passage  is,  indeed, 
a citation  from  Prov.  iii.  34  ; but  the  iden- 
tity of  the  conclusions  drawn  by  each  renders  it 
improbable  that  Jiere  was  a merely  accidental 
coincidence.  It  is  also  remarkable  that  in  1 Pet. 
iv.  8,  and  James  v.  20,  there  occurs  (in  each)  the 
same  citation  from  Prov.  x.  12.  These  resem- 
blances, however,  involve  important  consequences. 
If  the  Epistle  of  James  was  the  first  in  order  of 
time  [James],  its  right  to  a place  in  the  canon 
is  providentially  confirmed  by  the  high  and  un- 
exceptionable authority  of  St.  Peter. 

Object  and  Contents  of  Peter  s First  Epistle. 
— To  afford  consolation  to  the  persecuted  appears 
to  have  been  the  main  object  of  this  Epistle.  To 
this  the  moral  instructions  are ’subsidiary  (Hug’s 
Introd.).  The  exhortations  to  a pure  conscience, 
to  rebut,  the  calumnies  of  the  time  by  their  inno- 
cence, to  abstain  from  violent  disputes,  to  pay 
respect  to  the  existing  authorities,  to  exercise  in- 
creasing love  and  fidelity,  were  exhortations  all 
given  with  a view  to  alleviate  their  fate,  or  enable 
them  to  bear  it.  The  repeated  leferences  to  the 
example  of  Jesus  in  his  death  and  sufferings,  are 
designed  to  strengthen  them  for  the  endurance  of 
calamities.  The  exhortation  to  the  slaves,  too, 
has  reference  to  the  unhappy  days,  in  which,  for 
real  or  imaginary  wrongs  and  hardships,  they 
frequently  became  the  accusers  and  betrayers  of 
their  masters.  The  following  is  a summary  of 
the  contents : — 

The  salutation  and  introduction,  in  which 
the  inhabitants  of  the  five  provinces  who  were 
purchased  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  are  exhorted 
to  prepare  themselves  for  a reward  higher  than  the 
enjoyments  of  this  fleeting  life  (i.1-13).  They  are, 
therefore,  recommended  to  lay  aside  anything 
which  could  render  them  unworthy  of  Christ,  the 
centre  of  their  hopes,  their  pattern  and  their 
Saviour,  and.so  to  reuulate  their  conduct  to  thei.< 
superiors  that  none  should  be  able  to  reproach 
them  as  ‘ evildoers.’  These  precepts  were  to  ex* 
tend  to  slaves,  to  whom  the  meek  and  suffering 
Jesus  should  be  an  example.  Women,  too,  wer* 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 

to  render  their  submissive  noiseless  virtue  their 
chiefest  ornament,  and  men  should  cherish  and 
honour  them.  All  should  be  full  of  sympathy 
and  love,  and  'mutual  indulgence.  Their  inno- 
cence should  be  so  marked  as  to  shame  the 
calumniator,  and  they  should  make  preparation 
fur  the  approaching  catastrophe,  when  they  should 
have  an  opportunity  of  imitating  Jesus  in  their 
sufferings : hoping  for  them  all  to  have  no  other 
reproach  than  that  of  being  his  disciples.  The 
presbyters  are  enjoined  to  watch  over  their  flocks, 
and  the  subordinate  to  pay  them  respect,  and  all 
should  be  on  the  watch,  and  lay  aside  their 
worldly  cares.  All  these  exhortations  are  enforced 
by  the  example  of  Christ,  and  by  the- punishment 
of  the  disobedient  in  the  days  of  Noah,  those  spirits 
in  prison  to  wdiom  Christ  went  and  preached  (iii. 
19,  20). 

The  Second  Epistle  ok  St.  Peter  [Anti- 
legomena]  has  been  the  subject  of  more  discus- 
sion than  any  other  book  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  its  genuineness  has  been  contested  by  not  a few 
of  the  ablest  critics.  Our  space  will  not  allow 
us  to  notice  in  detail  all  the  objections  which 
have  been  raised  against  it,  but  it  will  be  our 
duty  to  state  the  most  important.  Its  genuine- 
ness, the  date  of  its  composition,  and  its  cha- 
racteristics, are  so  Ultimately  connected,  that  we 
3hall  pursue  a different  method  in  treating  of  this 
Epistle  from  that  which  we  have  adopted  in  regard 
to  other  books. 

The  author  of  the  first  epistle  refers  (1  Pet.  v. 
12)  to  a former  letter,  now  no  longer  extant,  which 
has  been  generally  concluded  to  be  a private  com- 
munication, as  the  present  is  expressly  called  the 
Second  Epistle  (2  Pet.  iii.  1).  The  first  writer 
who  has  expressly  named  it  is  Origen  ( Homily 
on  Joshua ),  who  speaks  of  the  two  Epistles  of 
Peter.  lie  also  cites  the  second  epistle  in  his 
fourth  homily  on  Leviticus,  ‘ Petrus  dicit,  con- 
sortes , inquit,  facti  estis  divince  natures''  (2  Pet. 
i.  4),  anti  gives  it  the  name  of  Scripture  (‘as  the 
Scripture  says  in  a certain  place,  the  dumb  ass , 
replying  with  a human  voice , reproved  the  mad- 
ness of  the  Prophet,'  alluding  to  2 Pet.  ii.  16  ; 
Opp.  ii.  p.  321).  At  the  same  time  he  observes 
{ap.  Euseb.  vi.  25)  that  ‘ Peter  has  left  one  acknow- 
ledged Epistle,  and  perhaps  a second,  for  this  is 
contested.’  Firmilian,  Bishop  of  Cappadocia,  also 
(Ep.  ad  Cyprian.')  speaks  of  Peter's  epistles  in  a 
passage  referring  evidently  to  the  second.  Earlier 
allusions  have  been  supposed  to  exist  in  the  Shep- 
herd of  Hennas  ( Vision  iii.  7),  ‘ reliquerunt  viam 
suam  veram’  (2  Pet.  ii.  15).  and  Vision  iv.  3,  ‘ ef- 
fugistis.  saeculum  hoc’  (2  Pet.  ii.  20).  Clemens 
Romanus  has  also  been  thought  by  some  to  have 
referred  to  this  epistle,  in  the  passages,  ‘ saved 
Noah,  the  eighth  preacher  of  righteousness’  (see 
2 Pet.  ii.  6).  and  ‘ by  hospitality  and  piety  Lot  was 
delivered  from  Sodom,  when  the  whole  region  was 
destroyed  by  lire  and  brimstone,  the  Lord  thereby 
making  it  manifest  that  he  does  not  forsake  those 
who  trust  in  him,  but  those  that  turn  aside  he 
appoints  to  punishment  and  torment’  (2  Pet.  ii. 
6,  7,  9). 

Irenseus  (a.d.  178)  is  supposed  by  some  to 
allude  to  2 Pet.  iii.  8,  ‘The  day  of  the  Lord  is 
as  a thousand  years;’  as  is  also  Justin  Martyr, 
who  cites  the  same  passage  in  an  earlier  part  of 
iii©  same  century.  But  others  have  supposed  that 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF.  507 

the  allusion  here  is  to  Ps.  xc.  4.  Eusebius  observes 
(Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  14)  that  ‘Clement,  of  Alex- 
andria (a.d.  192-217)  wrote,  in  his  'Hirorv-naffeis 
(‘Adumbrations "),  commentaries  on  the  canonical 
epistles,  and  also  on  the  antilegomena,  that  is. 
Jude  and  the  other  Catholic  epistles,  together 
with  that  of  Barnabas,  and  the  so-called  Revela- 
tion of  Peter.’  Cassiodorus,  however,  who  pub- 
lished a Latin  translation  of  the  Adumbrations 
( De  Insiit.  div.  leg.  c.  8),  seems  to  confine  the 
explications  of  Clement  to  1 Peter,  1 and  2 John, 
and  James. 

Although  we  do  not  know  by  whom  the  col 
lection  of  Catholic  Epistles,  as  distinct  from  the 
Pauline,  was  made,  yet  there  can  he  no  reason- 
able doubt  that  such  collection,  including  all  the 
Antilegomena,  existed  before  the  close  of  the 
second  century.  It  was  well  known  in  the  time 
of  Origen,  and  is  referred  to  by  Eusebius  as  gene- 
rally received  in  his  time  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  23),  for 
he  expressly  calls  St.  James’s  ‘ the  first  of  the  seven 
Catholic  epistles.’  Eusebius  at  the  same  time 
informs  us  of  the  doubts  which  had  been  raised 
before  his  time  in  regard  to  our  epistle: — ‘That 
called  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  as  we  have 
been  informed,  has  not  been  received  as  a part  ol 
the  New  Testament.  Nevertheless,  appearing  to 
many  to  be  useful,  it  has  been  carefully  studied 
with  the  other  Scriptures’  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  3). 
Tiie  next  writers  who  refer  to  the  doubt**  respect- 
ing our  epistle,  are  Didymus,  the  blind  teacher 
of  Alexandria,  in  the  fourth  century,  and  his 
pupil  St.  Jerome.  The  former  acquaints  U3 
(Comment.)  that  ‘ it  should  not  be  concealed 
that  the  present  epistle  was  considered  spurious 
(falsatam  esse),  and  that  although  published,  it 
was  not  in  the  Canon.’  And  Jerome  observes 
(De  vir.  illustr.),  that  ‘ Peter  wrote  two  epistles 
called  Catholic,  the  second  of  which  had  been 
denied  by  many  (or  most,  plerique)  to  be  his, 
because  of  the  difference  of  style.’  And  again, 
‘ Paul  had  for  his  interpreter  Titus,  and  Peter 
had  Mark,  ....  the  two  epistles  attributed  to 
Peter  differ  in  both  style  and  character,  and  the 
structure  of  their  language  ; from  which  we  must 
of  necessity  suppose  that  he  made  use  of  two  dif- 
ferent interpreters.’  It  may  be  here  observed  that 
the  Fathers  supposed  that  such  of  the  sacred 
writers  as  did  not  understand  Greek  (among 
whom  they  reckoned  St.  Peter)  dictated  in  their 
native  language  to  an  amanuensis,  who  wrote 
down  in  Greek  what  they  had  uttered  in  Hebrew. 
Silas,  or  Silvanus,  has  been  conjectured  to  have 
acted  in  this  capacity  to  St.  Peter  in  the  writing 
of  his  first  epistle  (1  Pet.  v.  2).  Finally,  St. 
Gregory  the  Great  observes,  towards  the  close 
of  the  sixth  century,  that  there  were  some  who 
asserted  that  ‘Peter’s  second  epistle,  in  which 
Paul’s  epistles  were  commended,  was  not  his.’ 
‘ Before  the  fourth  century,’  observes  the  Roman 
Catholic  Professor  Hug,  ‘ Christian  writers  with 
perfect  freedom  advocated  or  denied  the  autho- 
rity of  certain  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
according  as  their  judgment  dictated.’  We  find, 
however,  that  before  the  close  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury the  doubts  had  subsided,  and  this  epistle 
was  received  as  genuine  by  St.  Athanasius,  St. 
Cyril,  St.  Epiphanius,  S'.  Jerome,  and  St.  Au- 
gustine, and  by  Rufinus.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
alone  considers  it  doubtful  whether  three  or  seven 
Catholic  epistles  ought  to  be  used.  The  only 


508 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 


dissentient  voicea,  after  this  period,  were  pro- 
bably Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Cosmas  lu- 
dicopleustes  [Antii.kgomkna  j,  the  latter  on 
dogmatical  rather  than  critical  grounds,  as  the 
destruction  of  the  world  by  (ire  clashed  with  his 
jpinions.  It  is  enumerated  in  the  canon  of  Lao- 
dicea  (a.d.  360  ?),  and  in  the  85th  apostolical  ca- 
non, and  was  final ly  adopted  bv  the  councils  of 
Hippo  anil  Carthage,  which  included  among  the 
canonical  books  all  those  which  are  now  com- 
monly received,  making  no  distinction,  however, 
between  the  acknowledged  and  controverted  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  or  between  the  canonical 
and  deuterocanonical  of  the  Old. 

Although  before  this  period  certain  books  were 
rejected  from  the  defect  of  historical  evidence,  or 
from  internal  grounds  of  suspicion,  an  undevi- 
ating uniformity  now  took  place,  and  no  contro- 
versy was  raised  resjiectiug  any  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  until  the  inquiring  age  which 
ushered  in  the  Reformation.  We  now  find  Eras- 
mus denying  the  genuineness  of  our  epistle.  Al- 
though Luther  does  not  appear  to  have  had  any 
doubts  of  its  genuineness,  he  revived  the  ancient 
distinction  in  regard  to  the  books  both  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament, — separating  the  apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  canonical, 
and  in  the  enumeration  of  the  books  leaving  the 
antilegomena  of  the  New  without  any  numbers 
attached  to  them  ; and  in  the  Lunenberg  edition  of 
Luther's  Bible,  published  in  1614  (68  years  alter 
Luther’s  death),  these  hooks  are  headed  by  the 
words,  ‘Apocrypha  of  the  New  Testament  ’ [An- 
r i i.ego m kn a] . Our  epistle  was  called  in  question 
by  Calvin  (Comm,  in  Ep.  Cath.),  who  observes, 
that  ‘ notwithstanding  some  affinity  in  style,  the 
discrepancies  between  it  and  the  former  are  such 
as  to  indicate  that  they  had  not  the  same  author.’ 
It  was,  however,  received  by  all  the  Reformed 
Confessions,  as  well  as  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 
It  lias  been  since  that  period  rejected  by  Grotius 
(. Annot .),  Scaliger  ( Scaligeriana , ii.  p.  '22},  Sal- 
masius  (De  Episc.  ,p.  145),  Semler  ( Praf. ), 
Eichhorn  ( Einleit .),  Schmidt  ( Einleit .),  Walker 
( Clavis ),  Schott  ([sag.).  Guericke  ( Beitrage , p. 
176,  note).  Credncr  (Einleit.),  J)e  Wette  (Ein- 
leit.), Ullmann,  to  some  extent  (Der  2 Brief  Pet.), 
and  Neander  (Hist,  of  the  Planting,  #<?.).  Among 
its  numerous  defenders  it  will  he  sufficient  to  men- 
tion the  names  of  Michaelis  (Marsh’s  transl.,  vol. 
vi.),  Lardner  ( l.c .)  Pott.  (Proleg.),  Augusti  (Ein- 
leit.), Flatt  (Progr.),  Dalil  (Dissert.),  Bertholilt 
(Einleit.  vol.  vi.),  who.  however,  rejects  the  second 
chapter;  Nietzche  (Dissert.)  and  Olshausen 
(Opusc.  Academ .),  with  the  learned  Roman 
Catholics  Hug  ( Introd.)  and  Feilmoser : the  latter, 
however,  fluctuates  in  his  opinion  (Einleit.  p.  527). 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  the  grounds  for 
and  against  the  rejection  of  this  epistle,  it  may  be 
useful  to  inquire  into  its  internal  structure  and 
contents. 

The  writer  designates  himself  here  as  the  apostle 
Peter  (Simon,  or,  according  to  some  MSS.,  Symeon 
Peter,  2 Pet.  i.  1 ; comp.  Acts  xv.  14  ; John’s 
Gospel,  passim ) more  clearly  than  in  the  first 
epistle;  as  personally  known  to  Jesus  (i.  14);  as 
a beloved  brother  of  Paul  (iii.  15)  ; and  as  the  au- 
thor of  the  first  epistle  (iii.  1).  It  is  addressed  to 
the  same  persons  with  the  first,  whom  he  presup- 
poses to  be  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  St.  Paul 
(iii.  15 ; comp.  Rom.  ii.  41.  Neander  (Planting  of 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 

the  Church ) asserts  that  the  readers  apjieai  to  have 
been  personally  instructed  by  the  a|*>stle,  whiok 
implies  a relationship  in  which  the  utitWir  did  not 
stand  to  the  readers  of  the  first  epistle.  He  refers 
to  his  approaching  death  (i.  14).  The  main  object 
is  the  refutat  ion  of  erroneous  teachers.  He,  there- 
fore, as  an  eye-witness  of  the  acting  and  teaching 
of  Jesus,  is  enabled  to  give  them  more  accurate 
instruction  than  those  who  would  mislead  them. 
He  exhorts  them  to  advance  in  the  knowledge  and 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  by  addin*  to  their  faith  forti- 
tude (aperr )v),  and  every  other  excellent  quality. 
He  denounces  (ch.  ii.)  punishment  against  false 
teachers,  by  examples  drawn  from  the  disobedient 
angels,  the  world  before  the  Hood,  and  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah.  He  inveighs  against  those  teachers 
for  resigning  themselves  to  impurity,  and  speak- 
ing evil  of  God  and  angels,  whereas  angels  have 
not  ventured  to  do  this  even  of  Satan.  He  com- 
pares them  to  the  false  prophet  Balaam,  and  to 
clouds  filled  with  wind.  lie  rebukes  those 
mockers  who  doubted  of  the  coming  of  Christ, 
which  was  only  delayed  in  mercy,  but  predicts 
the  dissolution  of  tiie  world  by  fire,  and  warns 
them  to  keep  themselves  in  readiness  for  the  new 
heavens  and  the  new  earth. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  main  reasons 
which  induced  many  of  the  ancients  to  reject  this 
epistle  arose  from  the  difference  in  style  and 
structure  between  the  first  and  second  epistle. 
The  ancients  have,  however,  not  entered  info 
detail  in  the  examination  of  this  subject,  a task 
which  has  been  left  to  their  more  critical  suc- 
cessors. It  is  said,  for  instance,  to  he  distin- 
guished by  a different  usus  loqucndi,  as  by  the. 
word  coot rjp,  frequently  applied  to  our  Lord, 
-trapouaia,  day  of  the  Lord,  or  of  judgment;  and 
instead  of  ‘revelation,’  knowledge  (yvucris  and 
ixiyvuais)  is  said  to  be  enforced  with  peculiar 
prominence.  The  Christian  religion  is  called  ‘ the 
way  of  truth,  and  of  righteousness’  (ii.  2,  21). 
It  contains  a surprising  multitude  of  a-jral-  A eyo- 
yeua,  instead  of  the  very  few  found  in  the  firs*, 
epistle.  A remarkable  difference  has  been  ob- 
served in  respect  to  the  appellations  of  our  Sa- 
viour, who  is  in  the  first  epistle  generally  •called 
simply  Christ  or  Jesus  Christ;  but  the  word 
Kvplos,  which  in  the  first  epistle  often  occurs,  and 
is  always  applied  (with  one  exception  only,  i.  3) 
to  God  the  Father,  is  applied  in  the  second  in 
almost  every  place  to  Christ.  Its  application  in 
all  other  passages  in  the  first  epistle  is  confined 
also  to  citations  from  the  Old  Testament,  except 
in  ii.  13,  where  the  Vulgate  reads  Deum.  It 
is  peculiar  to  the  first  epistle  to  subjoin  to  the 
terms  God,  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
epithets  designed  to  exalt  the  glory  of  the  divi- 
nity. The  second  epistle  has  no  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament, — in  which  the  first  abounds, 
and  is  remarkable  for  clothing  its  sentiments  in 
the  language  of  the  Old  Testament.  I)e  Wette 
furnishes  as  instances  of  repetition,  indicating  a 
carelessness  of  style  in  the  author  of  the  second 
epistle,  2 Pet.  i.  3,  4,  where  occur  SeS uprpxeros, 
and  SeSwprjTdL,  and  Sia  is  several  times  repeated  ; 
2 Pet.  ii.  1-3,  in  which  diru'Aeia  occurs  three 
times  ; 2 Pet.  ii.  7,  8,  in  which  8i/caios  occurs  as 
many  times;  and  2 Pet.  iii.  12-14,  in  which 
there  is  a similar  repetition  of  moaSdKeiv.  The 
first  epistle  is  also  said  to  be  .emurkable  for  a 
frequent  and  peculiar  use  of  the  particle  &>$,  of 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 

which  the  second  furnishes  but,  one  example  (i. 
19).  Olshausen  adds,  that  in  the  second  epistle 
the  subjects  proceed  in  regular  order,  and  uninter- 
ruptedly, while  the  first  is  remarkable  for  detached 
and  independent  sentences  (see  1 Pet.  i.  3-12). 

But  in  compensation  for  these  differences,  the 
resemblances,  are  remarkably  striking.  One  of 
the  most  obvious  of  these  is  the  reference  in  both 
to  the  deluge,  and  the  number  of  persons  saved, 
the  first  epistle  mentioning  eight  persons  (1  Pet. 
iii.  20),  and  the  second  speaking  of  Noah  the 
eighth , oySoov  Nwe  biKaLocrvyrjs  K7}pvKa  (2  Pet. 

ii.  5).  Some,  however,  here  connect  Noah  with 
the  following  words,  via.,  Noah,  the  eighth 
preacher  of  righteousness , com  paring  it  with  the 
parallel  passage  in  Jude,  ‘Enoch,  the  seventh  from 
Adam,’  the  Jews  having  various  ways  of  enume- 
rating the  good  men  who  lived  before  Abraham 
iXllmann,  Der  zioeite  Brief  P.). 

There  are  some  words  used  in  a peculiar 
reuse  by  the  author  of  each  epistle,  as  diroQtais 
(1  Pet.  iii.  21  ; 2 Pet.  i.  14)  ; aperg  (1  Pet.  ii. 
0;  2 Pet.  i.  3);  a warptyeodai  (1  Pet.  i.  17); 
aua(Trpo(pg  (1  Pet.  i.  15;  ii.  12;  iii.  1.  17); 
dfiatgos  and  acrmXos  (1  Pet.  i.  19;  2 Pet.  ii. 
13);  7 ropeveadcu  (l  Pet.  iv.  3;  2 Pet.  ii.  10; 

iii.  3);  emdopia  (1  Pet.  i.  14;  2 Pet.  ii.  10; 
iii.  3);  6 Kaheoas  (1  Pet.  i.  15;  ii.  9,  21); 
and  15'tos  (l  Pet.  ii-i.  1,5;  2 Pet.  i.  20  ; ii.  16, 
22;  iii.  16).  Some  critics  have,  indeed,  vindi- 
cated the  genuineness  of  the  epistle  principally 
on  the  ground  of  resemblance  in  both  sentiment 
and  diction.  Of  these  it  will  be  sufficient  for  our 
purpose  to  refer  to  Hug  and  Michaelis.  The 
former  of  these  observes  that  the  resemblance 
between  the  two  is  ‘ so  thorough  as  to  denote  an 
identity  of  authorship’  (Fosdick’s  transl.) ; and 
Michaelis  had  before  this  asserted  (/.  c.)  that  the 
agreement  between  them  appeared  to  him  to  be 
such,  ‘ that  if  the  second  was  ntft  written  by  St.  Pe- 
ter, the  person  who  forged  it  not  only  possessed  the 
power  of  imitation  in  a very  unusual  degree,  but 
understood  likewise  the  design  of  the  first  epistle, 
with  which  the  ancients  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  acquainted.’  The  principal  difference  of 
style,  however,  is  found  in  the  second  chapter,  the 
character  of  which  is  totally  unlike  anything 
contained  in  the  first  epistle.  The  resemblance, 
indeed,  between  this  chapter  and  the  short  epistle 
jf  St.  Jude  is  so  striking,  that  it  has  been  at  all 
lines  perceived  that  one  must  have  at  least  read, 
If  not  copied  from  the  other. 

All  those  theologians  who  have  disputed  the 
genuineness  of  Peter’s  second  epistle,  have  main- 
tained that  its  writer  adopted  the  sentiments  and 
language  of  Jude,  and  this  opinion  is  favoured  even 
by  many  of  the  modern  advocates  of  its  genuine- 
ness, including  Olshausen  and  Hug.  But  which  of 
the  two  wrote  first  is,  notwithstanding,  a question 
impossible  to  decide.  ‘ St.  Jude’s  Epistle  is  so 
like  the  second  chapter  of  St.  Peter’s  Second 
Epistle,’  says  Bishop  Sherlock,  * the  figures  and 
images  in  both  are  so  much  the  same,  .... 
that  it  ha3  been  commoidy  thought  that  St.  Jude 
copied  after  St.  Peter’s  Epistle.’  This  was  the  more 
generally  received  opinion,  and  was  held  among 
the  ancients  by  CEcumenius  (ii.  p.  633),  and 
maintained  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  by 
Luther,  who  observes,  in  his  Preface,  that  ‘ no  one 
can  deny  that  Jude's  Epistle  is  an  extract  or 
copy  flora  St  Peter’s  Second  Epistle,  as  the  very 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF.  509 

words  are  nearly  the  same  ....  and  allegeth 
stories  which  have  no  place  in  Scripture’  [Enoch  ; 
Jude]  ; see  also  Edinburgh  Reviciv,  Oct.  1834, 
and  the  extract  from  it  in  Mr.  Ward’s  Ideal  of  a 
Christian  Church , 1814,  p.  175,  where  Luther  is 
reproached  for  maintaining  this  opinion.  It  wa3, 
however,  adopted  by  Mill  ( Proleg .).  Michaelis 
(Introd.)*  Storr  (Opuse.),  Haenlein  ( Einleit.), 
Dahl  (De  avdevTia  Ep.  Petr,  poster,  et  Jud.), 
Wetstein  (Test.  Nov.),  and  among  the  Roman 
Catholics  by  Du  Pin  and  Calmet.  One  set  of 
critics  have  supposed  that,  one  of  the  writers  of 
these  epistles  had  intended  to  illustrate  at  large 
what  the  other  had  briefly  stated  ; others,  that  one 
sought  to  abridge  what  the  other  had  stated  dif- 
fusely. The  former  of  these  views  is  maintained 
by  Hug  and  Olshausen.  The  latter  writer  founds 
his  view  on  the  fact  that  Peter  does  not  give  the 
minute  statements  found  in  Jude,  especially  in 
regard  to  the  history  of  angels ; in  which  pas 
sages  Jude  alone  goes  into  details,  while  Peter 
advances  a general  historical  fact, — which  he  con- 
ceives to  be  characteristic  of  a later  composition. 

Dr.  Sherlock,  bishop  of  London,  adopted  • 
middle  course.  Perceiving  that  the  argument 
from  the  style  affected  only  the  second  chapter, 
which  ‘abounds  in  pompous  words  and  expres- 
sions,’ and  that  the  style  of  this  chapter  differed 
as  much  from  the  rest  of  the  second  epistle  as  it 
does  from  the  first,  he  conceived  that  neitner 
writer  borrowed  from  the  other,  but  that  each 
made  use  of  a common  document.  The  expla- 
nation of  St.  Jerome,  that  Peter  used  two  different 
interpreters,  the  bishop  entirely  rejects,  as,  if  this 
were  the  case,  the  diffeteiice  of  style  would  have 
appeared  in  the  whole  epistle,  and  not  in  the 
second  chapter  only.  The  bishop  conceives  that 
notwithstanding  the  remarkable  resemblance  be- 
tween both,  there  is  sufficient  variation  to  prove 
that  the  one  was  not  a mere  transcriber  of  the  other’s 
thoughts  or  language.  ‘ St.  Peter  has  an  instance 
not  to  be  found  in  Jude  ; and  St.  Jiule  has  an  in- 
stance not  to  be  found  in  Peter  : St.  Jude  quotes 
the  prophecy  of  Enoch,  of  which  St.  Peter  says  no- 
thing ; St.  Peter  refers  to  the  preaching  of  Noah,  of 
which  St.  Jude  says  nothing,  although  both  relate 
to  one  and  the  same  thing,  the  destruction  of  the 
old  world.’  The  circumstance  that  each  quotes 
from  a common  Hebrew  document  will,  in  his 
lordship's  judgment,  account  not  only  for  the 
difference  in  style  between  Peter's  two  epistles, 
but  for  that  which  exists  between  the  second 
chapter  and  the  first  and  third  of  Peter’s  second 
epistle.  The  bishop  at  the  same  time  admits 
that  there  are  some  instances  of  agreement  which 
cannot  possibly  be  drawn  from  any  Jewish  book 
(as  2 Pet.  ii.  1-13,  comp,  with  Jude  4-12;  and 
2 Pet.  iii.  2,  3,  with  Jude  17,  18).  He  therefore 
supposes  that  Jude  had  both  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Peter  and  the  old  Jewish  book  before  him. 
Herder  supposes  tins  lost  book  to  have  been  the 
Zendavesta  of  Zoroaster.  The  strongest  objection 
to  Bishop  Sherlock’s  ingenious  conjecture  will  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  resemblance  to  the 
epistle  of  St.  Jude  is  not  confined  to  the  second 
chapter  of  Peter's  Second  Epistle,  but  will  be 
found  equally  str.king  in  the  third  chapter, 
amounting,  in  the  originals,  although  not  in  the 
English  authorized  version,  nearly  to  identity  of 
expression  (comp.  2 Pet.  iii.  2,  3,  pvriodrjvai  r£> 
irpoeipr]p.4vuv  fafiarwy  ti  rb  riv  ayicay  vootpip 


5.0 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 


ko2  T7/S  T Q}V  d^O(TT<i\CO^  Tjfl WV  ivToXrjs  TOV  KVp'tOV 

xal  (rooTTjpos’  tovto  irpurov  yivaxrKovres,  on  iXev- 
aovrai  eV  eVxarcov  twi/  ppepwv  iv  ip.TraiyiJ.ovfj 
epiraiKTat  Kara,  ras  Iblas  iiriOoplas  avrcov,  &c., 
with  Jude  17,  IS,  pvfi<r9r)T€  rwv  fr^pdrcnv  rwv 
Trpoeip7\/j.evcav  inrb  twv  diroaroX^v  tov  Kvpiov 
Tjpwv  'lr}(rov  Xpurrov,  oti  eXeyov  vpiv  '6ri,  eV’  ecr- 
X&Tov  xp&vov  iXevffovrat  ipiraiKTai  Kara  ras 
eavrcov  ijriQvpias . &c.  A late  eminent  critic, 
perceiving  that  the  opponents  of  thg  epistle  were 
induced  by  this  resemblance  of  the  second 
epistle  to  St.  Jude  to  deny  its  genuineness,  main- 
tained that  this  resemblance  was  accidental,  and 
has  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  secopd  chapter 
i3  an  interpolation,  and  that  without  it  there  is  a 
closer  connection  between  the  first  and  third 
chapters  (Bertholdt,  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften 
des  A.  wul  N.  Test.).  But  it  has  been  satisfac- 
torily shown  in  reply,  that  though  the  second 
chapter  has  no  necessary  connection  with  either 
the  first  or  third,  yet  there  are  references  in 
the  third  chapter  to  matters  propounded  iri  the 
second.  Bertholdt  conceives  that  the  argument 
against  the  epistle,  founded  on  the  difference  of 
style,  is  met  by  adopting  his  view,  as  the  first 
and  third  chapters  agree  in  style  with  the  first 
epistle.  Olshausen  maintains,  in  reply  to  this, 
that  the  circumstance  of  Peter's  having  appro- 
priated a great  part  of  Jude's  epistle,  will  of  itself 
account  for  the  difference  of  style  in  the  second 
chapter  ; and  that  there  is  no  discrepancy  between 
the  style  of  the  first  and  second  epistles  of  Peter, 
which  is  not  common  to  every  part  of  the  second 
epistle,  or  strikingly  peculiar  to  the  first  and  third 
chapters.  The  hypothesis  of  Bertholdt,  even  if 
true,  would  not  remove  the  difficulties,  as  many 
of  the  circumstances  which  have  been  supposed 
to  militate  against  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle 
are  found  in  the  first,  and  still  more  in  the  third 
chapter.  It  would  be  doing  an  unnecessary  vio- 
lence to  our  epistle,  in  direct  opposition  to  all 
external  testimony. 

Ullmann  proceeded  one  step  farther.  ‘ Not  long 
since,’  says  Hug,  ‘ the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter 
met  with  an  opponent,  who  menaced  its  dismem- 
berment, and  maintained  his  right  to  do  this 
violence  with  learning  and  acuteness.’  He  sepa- 
rates it  into  three  distinct  portions,  which  happen 
to  correspond  with  the  present  division  into  chap- 
ters. The  first  chapter  he  ascribes  to  Peter,  and 
considers  it  to  be  one  of  his  epistles,  the  conclusion 
of  which  was  early  lost.  To  this  precious  relic 
some  unknown  person,  to  effect  a well-meant 
purpose,  has  added  the  two  next  chapters,  for 
which  the  Epistle  of  Jude  afforded  him  mate- 
rials. The  object  of  this  writer,  as  well  as  of 
Bertholdt,  is  to  vindicate  the  genuineness  of  part 
of  the  epistle,  by  rejecting  those  parts  which  are 
beset  with  greatest  difficulties. 

But  while  Ullmann,  the  divine  alluded  to 
(Der  zxceite  Brief  Pet.  krit.  untersucht , 1821), 
clearly  shows  that  Bertholdt's  hypothesis  merely 
lessens,  without  removing  the  difficulty,  his  own 
solution  of  the  remaining  objections,  which  con- 
sists simply  in  cutting  the  knot,  has  not  been  such 
as  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind.  He  argues 
from  a resemblance  in  style  between  St.  Peter's 
first  epistle,  and  the  first  chapter  of  the  second, 
and  particularly  from  the  use  in  each  of  certain 
word#  in  a peculiar  sense,  a3  aperij,  airiQems, 
&c , that  these  portions  emanated  from  the 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 

same  writer,  ana  further  maintains  that  then 
is  no  coherence  between  the  first  chapiter  and  the 
remaining  portions  of  the  epistle.  But  it  has 
been  shown  that  this  incoherence  exists  only  in 
the  fancy  of  the  learned  German,  as  the  first 
chapter  (4,  16,  17)  is  but  a preface  to  the  re- 
futation of  erroneous  opinions  in  the  second 
(Hug's  Tntrod.)‘,  and,  further,  from  a comparison 
of -the  first  with  the  third  chapter,  that  there  a-e 
sufficient  resemblances  of  expression  to  show  that 
the  whole  epistle  had  an  identical  origin  (Olshau- 
sen, De  Integritate  et  authent.  post.  Pet.  ep.). 

But  although  neither  these  resemblances  be- 
tween the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  Jude,  nor  the 
difference  in  style  between  the  First  and  Second 
Epistles  of  St.  Peter,  are  of  themselves  sufficient 
to  destroy  tire  genuineness  of  St.  Peter's  enistle 
vet  they  would  doubtless  have  some  weight  in 
affecting  it,  if  supported  by  other  internal  marks 
of  spuriousness.  We  shall  therefore  now  consider 
whether  such  marks  actually  exist,  and  shall 
mention  the  principal  indications  which  have 
had  weight  in  the  minds  of  some  learned  men 
against  the  authority  of  our  epistle.  In  the  first, 
place,  anachronisms  have  been  pretended  to  be 
discovered  which  remove  the  epistle  from  the 
apostolic  age  and  place  it  in  the  second  century. 
The  first,  who  imagined  that  he  discovered  an 
indication  of  this  nature  was  the  illustrious  Gro- 
tius,  who,  conceiving  that,  the  errors  of  the  Car- 
pocuatians,  a sect  which  originated  in  the  second 
century,  were  those  against  which  the  second  and 
third  chapters  were  directed,  ascribed  the  author- 
ship of  the  epistle,  not  to  Simon  or  Simeon  Peter, 
but  to  Simeon,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  the  successor 
of  St.  James.  This  opinion,  however,  whicn 
assumes  upon  mere  conjecture  that  the  name 
Peter  (i.  1),  the  words  our  beloved  brother  (iii. 
15),  and  the  16th,  17th,  and  18th  verses  of  the 
first  chapter,  were  interpolated  by  those  who 
wished  to  have  the  epistle  pass  for  Peter's, 
has  been  long  exploded  (see  especially  Nietzch, 
Epist.  Petri  posterior  auctori  suo  imprimis 
cont.  Grotium  vindicata , Leips.  1785),  and  Bert- 
hold,  Einleitung , vol.  vi.  p.  310,  sq.).  Nietzch 
has  shown  that  the  representation  of  the  heretics 
described  by  Peter  does  not  accord  with  the  Car- 
pocratians.  It  is  as  probable  that  the  Gnostics 
were  the  heretics  aimed  at,  the  seeds  of  whose 
heresies  were  doubtless  sown  in  the  apostolic  age. 
‘This  second  Epistle’  (iii.  1),  in  the  opinion  of 
Grotius, refers  to  the  third  chapter  only,  the  two  for- 
mer chapters  forming  a distinctand  previous  letter. 

The  doubts  respecting  the  coming  of  Christ, 
expressed  in  2 Pet.  iii.  4,  have  also  been  consi- 
dered as  indicating  a later  age  than  the  apostolic, 
and  it  has  been  asserted  by  the  opponents  of  the 
genuineness  of  our  epistle,  that  sufficient  time 
had  not  elapsed  during  St.  Peter’s  lifetime  for  the 
application* of  the  expression  ‘our  fathers  have 
slept.’  This  passage  is  also  one  of  those  adduced 
by  Ullmann  ( l . c .)  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
third  chapter.  Olshausen  has  replied  to  this  ob- 
jection by  maintaining  that  the  scoffers  referred 
to  were  not  believers,  but  gnostic  heretics,  who 
ridiculed  the  faith  of  true  Christians  in  relation  to 
the  return  of  Christ. 

But  a still  more  remarkable  anachronism  ha* 
been  pretended  to  be  discovered  in  2 Pet.  iii.  15, 
16,  where  Paul  is  said  ‘ in  all  his  epistles  . . 
which  the  unlearned  aj/J  unstable  de  wrest  as  they 


511 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 

do  the  other  Scriptures'  ( ras  honras  ypa<pds),  &c. 
— thus  both  attributing  a collection  of  the  Pauline 
epistles  to  a period  within  the  lifetime  of  their 
author,  and  applying  the  term  Scriptures,  which 
is  exclusively  applied  by  the  New  Testament 
writers  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  to 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Now  it  is  well  known 
that  there  was  no  collection  of  St.  Paul's  epistles 
completed  before  the  second  century,  and  that  to 
no  part  of  the  New  Testament,  was  the  term  Scrip- 
tures applied  until  near  its  close  [Scripture, 
Holy].  In  respect,  to  the  former  part,  of  this  objec- 
tion, however,  it  has  been  well  shown  by  August! 
( Commentar  iiber  die  Cathol.  Brief.)  that  Peter 
loes  not  here  refer  to  all  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  but 
that  the  word  all  is  to  be  taken  relatively,  and  re- 
ferred to  the  more  important  epistles,  which  were 
most  probably  widely  diffused  in  the  lifetime  of 
the  apostle.  To  the  reasoning  derived  from  the 
phrase  1 the  other  Scriptures ,’  wherein  the  word 
Xonrds  with  the  article  is  said  by  Ullmann  to  indi- 
cate things  of  a like  nature,  more  than  one  reply 
has  been  given.  It  has  been  shown  that  things  of 
a different  nature  are  sometimes  referred  to  by  this 
phrase  (comp.  Luke  xviii.  9 ; Acts  v.  13 ; Ephes.  ii. 
3 ; and  iv.  17,  if  (lie  reading  be  correct).  Another 
interpretation  of  the  words  has  therefore  been  pro- 
posed, viz.,  that  the  word  ‘scriptures  ’ here  has  no 
reference  to  the  sacred  writings,  but  to  books  in 
general,  or  such  writings  as  were  used  by  the  parties 
referred  to.  Olshausen,  however,  has  given  an  in- 
terpretation, by  which  he  conceives  the  serious  diffi- 
culties by  which  this  passage  is  beset  may  be  wholly 
removed.  He  supposes  that  the  words,  ‘ in  which 
are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,’  relate  to 
the  epistles  which  Paul  had  sent  to  the  readers  of 
Peter's  epistle,  and  that,  the  other  scriptures  are 
the  other  eptstles  of  St.  Paul,  just  before  named, 
iraaai  imaToXal  (all  his  epistles).  This  expla- 
nation seems  much  more  satisfactory  than  that 
of  Storr  (De  Cath.  Epist.  Occas.  et  Consil.), 
who  conceives  that  "other  scriptures’  mean  other 
passages  in  the  same  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  as 
ypeuprf  signifies  a passage  in  Mark  xv.  28,  Luke 
iv.  21,  where,  however,  it  means  a particular  pas- 
sage, but  not  any  passage  indiscriminately. 

An  objection  of  quite  a different  character  has 
been  derived  from  2 Pet.  iii.  2,  already  referred 
to ; in  our  English  Version,  ‘ the  commandment 
of  us  the  apostles  of  the  Lord.’  But  the  order 
of  the  words  in  our  Greek  copies  will  not  bear 
his  rendering  : to  answer  our  Version,  we  must 
ead  pfjLwv  t&v  ’ Arcoarihoov.  These  words,  there- 
fore, ‘ our  apostles,’  as  the  words  must  be 
translated,  would  seem  to  separate  the  writers 
from  the  apostles.  Bishop  Sherlock  proposes  that 
the  sentence  be  transposed,  and  that  the  word 
rux&v  be  placed  after  Kvplou,  as  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  Jude  17,  when  the  whole  sentence 
would  run  thus,  ual  rrjs  roiv  'AttocttoAcjov  eyroXrjs 
tou  uvpiov  r\pS>v  Kal  (Ttorripos,  ‘ the  command- 
ment of  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour;’ 
a reading  supported  by  the  yEthiopic,  and  which 
Olshausen  also  favours,  observing  that  ‘ there  are 
as  many  genitives  as  there  are  words,  and 
these  not  following  each  other  in  proper  order.’ 
But  there  is  no  necessity  for  having  recourse'  t6! 
conjecture,  if  we  adopt  the  reading  of  the  Alex- 
andrine, the  Vatican,  the  Ephrem,  and  other 
manuscripts,  which  instead  of  rjpwu  have  vpwy. 
According  to  this  reading  there  is  no  further  dif- 


PETER,  EPISTLES  OF. 

ficulty,  and  the  sentence  will  stand  thus:  ‘the 
word  spoken  by  the  holy  prophets  and  your 
apostles,  the  commandment  of  ths  Lord  and 
Saviour.’  This  reading  is  also  confirmed  by  the 
Vulgate,  which  has  ‘et.  apostolormn  veslrorum, 
praeceptorum  Domini  et  Salvatoris.’  The  Syriac 
also  reads,  ‘the  commandment  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  which  through  the  apostles,’ 

On  another  alleged  anachronism,  brought  for- 
ward by  Neamler  {Hist,  of  the  Planting , §c.), 
founded  on  ihe  phrase  ‘ the  holy  mount’  (2  Pet.  i. 
18),  we  shall  merely  observe  that  this  might  with 
as  much  force  fie  adduced  as  an  argument  against, 
our  epistle  being  a work  of  the  second  century. 

An  objection  has  been  also  taken  from  Peter's 
referring  to  the  aqueous  origin  of  the  earth  and 
its  destruction  by  tire,  which  Ullmann  and  others 
consider  mythical  in  their  character.  But.  so 
far  from  this  being  the  case  in  regard  to  the  origin 
of  the  earth,  it  completely  coincides  with  the 
Mosaic  cosmogony  ; and  as  to  the  destruction  of 
the  world  by  fire,  although  nowhere  else  alluded 
to  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  not  only  intimated 
by  the  prophets,  but  is  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  physiological  conclusions  of  the  science  of 
modem  geology.  If  Wetstein's  interpretation  be 
well  founded,  and  if  the  writer  made  use  of  these 
strong  figures  to  indicate  the  Roman  v^ar,  and  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  state  and  city,  instead  of 
forming  an  objection,  they  will  furnish  an  addi- 
tional and  powerful  argument  in  favour  of  the 
early  date,  and  consequently  of  the  genuineness 
of  our  epistle. 

It  is  fully  conceded  that  there  is  no  other  book 
in  the  New  Testament  against  whose  authority  so 
many  arguments  can  be  adduced  as  against  this 
epistle.  One  of  the  most  impartial  as  well  as 
ablest  critics  of  modem  times,  after  weighing 
them  all,  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  neither  its 
genuineness  nor  its  spuriousness  can  be  demon- 
strated by  undoubted  arguments;  but,  while  he 
admits  that  unfriendly  critics  will  see  occasion 
for  doubt,  yet,  relying  on  subjective  grounds,  he 
is  persuaded  of  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle, 
and  that  the  arguments  which  go  to  disprove 
its  genuineness  are  not  of  sufficient  weight  to 
establish  its  spuriousness,  or  cause  it  to  be 
‘ stricken  from  the  number  of  inspired  books/ 
This  is  in  accordance  with  the  decision  which 
he  has  formed  of  the  sacred  books,  and  whifjh 
consists  (1 ) of  those  whose  genuineness  and  author- 
ship can  be  determined  ; (2)  of  those  whose  spuri- 
ousness can  be  shown,  of  which  there  are  none; 
(3)  of  those  whose  author  is  uncertain,  but  whose 
authenticity  is  clear,  viz.,  Hebrews,  James,  2 and  3 
John,  and  Jude  ; and  (4),  those  whose  authenticity 
or  spuriousness  cannot  be  positively  ascertained. 
These  are,  in  his  estimation,  1 and  2 Timothy, 
Titus,  and  2 Peter.  To  these  he  adds  the  Apo- 
calypse, as  being  a work  of  a peculiar  kind,  but 
of  whose  genuineness  he  entertains  no  doubt 
(Olshausen,  ut  supra ) . 

The  authorship  of  other  portions  of  the  sacred 
writings  may  indeed  be  rendered  uncertain,  without 
throwing  any  doubts  on  their  right  to  a place  in  the 
canon,  as  in  the  instance  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews. No  one  contesls  the  right,  of  the  Epistles  of 
Jude  or  of  James  to  their  present,  position  in  the 
canon,  although  it  is  uncertain  whether  their  au 
thors  were  the  apostles  of  those  names  or  the  br« 
thren  of  our  Lord.  But  it  is  La  otherwise  with  tb« 


51* 


PETRA. 


PHARISEES. 


Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  As  Calvin  lias  observed, 

‘ If  it  is  to  be  received  as  canonical,  Peter  must 

have  been  its  author ; for  any  other  one  to 

have  personated  the  apostle  would  have  been  a 
deception  unworthy  the  Christian  name.1  It  has 
been  indeed  maintained  that  some  well-meaning 
individual  may  have  personated  Peter,  either  to 
intimate  that  a reconciliation  had  taken  place 
between  him  and  St.  Paul,  to  strengthen  the 
minds  of  the  Gentiles  who  doubted  the  coming 
of  Christ,  or  the  more  easily  to  gain  advantage 
over  the  heretics.  But  although  it  may  be  true 
that  some  writers  have  through  modesty  (see 
Lee's  Dissertation  upon  2 Esdras ; Laurence’s 
Ascensio  Vatis  Isaice,  p.  178;  and  the  Rev.  W. 
Mascall’s  Preface  to  the  Ancient  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  1844)  used  another’s  name 
and  prefixed  it  to  their  work,  we  are  convinced, 
with  Olshausen,  from  the  internal  structure  of  our 
epistle,  that  it  would  not  have  been  possible  to 
have  found  a pious  man  the  bold  and  unblushing 
inventor  of  a literary  artifice  so  manifest  as  the 
author  in  question  must  have  been  if  lie  had  dis- 
honestly assumed  the  character  of  Peter.  We 
must  also  bear  in  mind  how  cautious  and  discri- 
minating were  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  who 
first  admitted  this  book  into  the  cation.  Nor 
were  they  strangers  to  the  application  of  the 
higher  criticism,  while  they  had  opportunities  of 
adducing  external  evidence,  which  is  not  within 
our  reach.  ‘Higher  criticism,1  says  Hug,  ‘is 
still  open  to  us,  and  I even  entertain  the  hope  of 
drawing  from  it  manifest  proofs  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  some  of  these  epistles,  particularly  those 
of  James  and  Jmle,  and  the  Second  of  St.  Peter.1 
Its  apostolical  character  is  confessed.  ‘ In  the 
two  epistles  of  Peter,’  says  Priest  ley,  ‘ many  atten- 
tive readers  have  observed  that there  is  a 

peculiar  dignity  and  energy,  exceeding  any  thing 
in  the  writings  of  Paul,  and  worthy  of  the  prince 
of  the  apostles'  {Hist,  of  Christian  Church,  i.  141; 
see  also  Wright’s  Seiler,  p.  513). 

By  those  who  acknowledge  its  genuineness 
its  date  is  generally  fixed  about  the  year  a.d.  65, 
or  not  long  before  Peter’s  death,  which  they  deduce 
from  2 Pef.  i.  14.  W etstein  concludes  from  2 Pet. 
iii.  that  it  must  have  been  written  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  in  which  case  none  will 
allege  that  any  hut.  Peter  could  have  been  its 
author.  If  it  were  proved  that  Peter  had  Jude’s 
epistle  before  him,  this  must  have  been  written  not 
long  before  the  same  period,  which  agrees  with 
the  time  assigned  by  l)r.  Lardner,  between  64 
and  66  [Jude].  But  if  Jude  certainly  quoted 
the  hook  of  Enoch,  and  if  the  result  of  the  inves- 
tigation of  Liicke,  who  concludes  that  this  book 
was  written  in  the  first  century,  at  the  time  of 
the  Jewish  war,  and  probably  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  be  correct,  this  circumstance  would 
of  itself,  cccteris  paribus,  settle  the  question  in 
favour  of  the  priority  of  St.  Peter's  second  epistle 
[Jude].  Bishop  Sherlock  maintains  that  there 
are  no  less  than  five  years  intervening  between 
the  date  of  the  two  epistles  of  Peter  (see  Dissert- 
ation oi'  the  Authority  of  the  Second  Epistle  of 
fit.  Peter  ).—W.  W. 

PETRA  (called  by  the  earlier  Greek  writers 
flerpa  or  7)  n erpa,  but  by  the  later  at  Tier  pat) 
was  the  capital  of  the  Nabathaean  Arabs  in  the 
land  of  Edom,  and  seems  to  have  given  name  to 
the  kingdom  and  region  of  Arabia  Petrcea.  As 


there  is  mention  in  the  Old  Testament  of  a 
stronghold  which  successively  belonged  to  the 
Amorites  (Judg.  i.  36),  tbe  Edomites  (2  Kings 
xiv.  7)  and  the  Moabites  (Isa.  xvi.  1,  comp,  in 
Heb.  eli.  xlii.  11),  and  bore  in  Hebrew  the  name 

of  Selah,  which  lias  the  same  meaning  as 
Petra  in  Greek,  viz.,  ‘a  rock,1  that  circumstance 
lias  led  to  the  conjecture  that  the  Petra  of  the 
Nabatliaeans  had  been  the  Selah  of  Edom.  But 
the  consideration  of  that  point  in  a work  of  this 
nature  falls  more  naturally  under  the  Bible  liead 
of  Sei.ah,  to  which  article  accordingly  the 
reader  is  referred;  and  there  likewise  the  question 
will  lie  disposed  of  as  to  whether  (on  the  suppo- 
sition of  Petra  being  the  Selah  of  Scripture)  its 
site  is  to  be  identified  with  that  of  the  modern 
Kerek,  or  with  the  locality  of  the  far-famed  Wady 
Musa  [Arabia;  Idumaea;  Ne3aiotii]. — N.M. 

PHARAOH  (riina  t Sept.  Zapata),  the  ge- 
neral title  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  found  only  there  and  in  the 
writers  who  have  drawn  from  that  source.  It 
often  stands  simply  like  a proper  name  (Gen.  xii. 
15;  xxxvii.  36;  xl.  2,  sq. ; xliv.  1,  sq. ; and  so 
generally  throughout  the  Pentateuch,  and  also  in 
Cant.  i.  9;  Isa.  xix.  11;  xxx.  2).  ‘King  of 
Egypt1  is  sometimes  subjoined  to  it.  (1  Kings 
iii.  1;  2 Kings  xvii.  7;  xviii.  2l);  and  some- 
times also  the  more  specific  designation,  or  real 
proper  name  of  the  monarch  is  indicated,  as  Pha- 
raoh Neclio  (2  Kings  xxiii.  33),  Pharaoh  Hophra 
(Jer.  xliv.  30).  Josephus  intimates  that  the  word 
signifies  ‘the  king1  in  the  Egyptian  language 
{Antiq.  viii.  6.  2),  This  is  apparently  confirmed 
by  our  finding  the  word  ‘ king1  written  in  the 
dialect  of  Memphis,  O'Y'JOO  ouro,  and  with  the 
masculine  article  TIO'PpO  piouro  (Jablonsky, 
Opusc.  i.  374;  Peyron,  Lex.  Copt.,  p.  150).  The 
idea  has,  however,  been  more  recently  started  that 
Pharaoh  corresponds  to  the  Egyptian  C|j-J0hf 
phra,  ‘ the  sun,1  which  is  written  as  an  hierogly- 
phic symbol  over  the  titles  of  kings  (Rosellini, 
Monument.  Storici.  i.  117;  Lipsius,  Lettre  d 
Rosellini , p.  25  ; Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egyptians,  iv. 
287).  It.  seems  to  us  that  this  explanation  might 
be  admitted  without,  contradicting  the  other,  see- 
ing that  it  is  not.  only  possible,  but  highly  pro- 
bable, that  the  Egyptians  should  make  the  name 
of  the  suu  a royal  title,  and  that,  at  length  custom 
rendered  it  equivalent  to  ‘ king.1  The  practice 
of  ancient,  and,  indeed,  modern  Oriental  kings,  of 
associating  (lie  idea  of  their  own  dignity  wi(4i  the 
glory  of  the  sun,  is  well-known. 

PHARAOH-HOPHRA.  [IIophra.] 

PH  ARAOH-N  ECHO.  TN  echo.] 

PHARISEES  (in  the  Talmud  The 

name  denotes  those  who  are  separated,  i.e.  from 
ordinary  persons,  of  course,  by  the  correctness  of 
their  opinions  and  the  holiness  of  their  lives.  They 
were  a Jewish  sect  who  had  the  dominant  influ- 
ence in  the  t ime  of  our  Lord,  to  whose  faults  the 
overthrow  of  the  state  may  be  attributed,  and  wh« 
have  to  bear  the  awful  burden  of  having  crucified 
the  Lord  and  giver  of  life. 

A full  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Pharisees 
is  even  more  important  to  the  reader  of  the  New 
Testament  than  of  the  two  other  leading  philo- 
sophical schools,  because  our  Lord’s  doctrine  has 
an  immediate  reference  to  their  several  opinions* 


PHARISEES. 


PHARISEES. 


because  these  opinions  constituted  the  source  of  the 
power  which  was  arrayed  against  him,  and  because, 
absurdly  enough,  it  has  been  asserted  (as  what 
paradox  has  not?)  that  Jesus  did  but  borrow  from 
these  schools  what  suited  his  purpose,  so  that  his 
system  is  nothing  more  than  an  heterogeneous 
compound  of  old  Jewish  doctrines,  dressed  up 
anew  in  order  to  serve  a new  purpose  (Hennell’s 
Enquiry  concerning  the  Origin  of  Christianity ; 
London,  183S). 

The  force  of  character  which  Moses  possessed, 
the  wisdom  he  displayed,  and  the  excellence  of  his 
institutions  in  general,  are  seen  in  the  fact  that 
for  many  centuries  after  his  death  no  sect  arose 
among  the  Jews.  Such  was  the  deep  impression 
which  he  made  on  the  Hebrew  nation  that,  they 
ever  after  retained  it,  and  only  under  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances allowed  any  disturbing  and  effacing 
influences  to  affect  it.  So  long  as  the  culture  of 
the  nation  flowed  on  in  its  own  original  and  proper 
channel,  the  Jewish  religion  was  free  from  even  a 
trace  of  sectism.  But  when  foreign  influences 
came  into  immediate  contact  and  entered  into 
close  union  with  Mosaism,  then  the  grounds  were 
laid  for  diversities  of  opinion,  and  ere  long,  as  a 
natural  consequence  of  diverse  currents  of  impulse, 
there  came  into  existence  different  parties,  agree- 
ing in  scarcely  more  than  one  thing,  namely, 
they  were  all  of  a religious  description. 

The  precise  period  when  the  Pharisees  appeared 
as  a sect,  history  does  not  supply  us  with  the  means 
of  determining.  That  they,  however,  as  well  as 
their  natural  opponents,  the  Sadducees,  existed  in 
the  priesthood  of  Jonathan,  in  the  interval,  that  is, 
between  159  and  144  before  Christ,  is  known  from 
Josephus,  who  ( Antiq . xiii.  5)  makes  mention  of 
them  as  well  as  of  the  sect  of  the  Essenes.  The 
terms  he  employs  warrant  the  conviction  that  they 
were  then  no  novelties,  but  well  known,  well  de- 
fined, and  two  established  religious  parties.  But 
from  the  time  of  Jonathan  to  that  of  Ezra  (about 
460  b.c.),  there  had  taken  place  no  great  forma- 
tive event  such  as  could  of  itself  cause  so  great  a 
change  in  the  Hebrew  system  as  was  the  rise  of 
these  sects ; whereas  the  influences  to  which  the 
Israelites  had  been  subject  in  the  Medo- Persian 
dominions,  and  the  necessarily  somewhat  new 
direction  which  things  took  on  the  rebuilding  of 
the  Temple  and  the  restoration  of  the  civil  and 
religious  polity,  could  hardly  fail,  considering  the 
distance  from  Moses  at  which  these  changes  tap- 
per >d,  arid  the  great  extent  to  which  the  people 
had  lost  even  the  knowledge  of  the  institutions  and 
language  of  their  forefathers,  to  lead  to  diversities 
of  views,  interests,  and  aims,  whence  sects  would 
spring  as  a natural  if  not  inevitable  result.  There  is, 
therefore,  good  reason  to  refer  the  origin  of  the  Phari- 
sees to  the  time  of  the  return  from  tire  Babylonish 
capt’vity,  a period  which  constitutes  a marked 
epoch,  as  dividing  the  Hebraism  of  the  older  and 
purer  age  from  the  Judaism  of  the  later  and  more 
corrupt  times.  Nor,  did  our  space  allow, should  we 
find  it  difficult  to  trace  the  leading  featuies  of  the 
Pharisaic  character  back  to  those  peculiar  opinions 
and  usages  wdth  which  the  old  Israelitish  type  of 
mind  had  been  made  familiar,  and  at  the  same  time 
corrupt,  in  the  Persian  empire.  Nor  are  we  aware 
that  any  solid  objection  can  be  taken  to  this  refer- 
ence of  the  rise  of  the  Pharisees,  provided  it  is  un- 
derstood that  we  do  not  suppose  that  they  sprang 
forth,  as  Minerva  in  the  legend,  complete  at  once. 

VOL.  8X«  34 


M3 

These  sects  lay  in  embryo  among  the  Jews  while 
scattered  over  the  provinces  of  Persia,  were  brougat 
forth  at  the  rebuilding- of  the  Temple,  and  grew 
continually  in  strength  till  the  days  of  Christ  and 
the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem — division  in  this,  as  in 
all  other  cases,  proving  weakness,  and  issuing  in 
ruin.  The  Mosaic  institutions  were  in  themselves 
sharply  defined  and  strongly  sanctioned,  nor  could 
there  well  originate  in  them  any  important  differ- 
ences, still  less  any  sects.  But  in  Persia  the  scat 
tered  Jews  were  subjected  to  new  and  impure  cur- 
rents of  opinion,  which  would  do  something  to  over- 
flow and  overlay  the  primitive  doctrines  and  usages. 
Here,  then,  was  at  once  a soil  for  sectism.  Puri- 
tans would  spring  up  wishing  to  preserve  or  restore 
the  original  form  of  doctrine  and  worship.  They 
naturally  called  forth  defenders  of  things  as  they 
were.  But  in  the  disputes  which  would  hence  arise, 
appeal  must  be  made  to  reason,  for  the  voice  of  pro- 
phecy was  extinct,  the  divine  oracles  were  silent; 
there  remained  only  the  Scriptures  and  the  inter- 
pretation of  them  by  meansof  tradition — aquestion- 
ed  instrument — and  reason,  to  which  all  were,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  compelled  to  appeal.  But 
when  there  is  a general  appeal  1o  reason  in  reli- 
gious questions,  then  philosophy  is  born  in  the 
church,  and  may  be  expected  to  take  the  several 
directions  into  which  the  diversities  of  formation 
and  complexion  urge  the  mind  of  man  to  run. 
Accordingly  it  is  the  name  philosophy  which 
Josephus  gives  to  the  three  leading  sects — ‘the  Jews 
had  three  sects  of  philosophy  ’ (Antiq.  xviii.  1,2; 
De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  12).  This  philosophical  tendency 
would,  in  process  of  time,  be  strengthened  by 
the  influence  of  the  Western  world,  whose  phi- 
losophy was  cultivated  and  spread  in  the  East, 
and  particularly  at  Alexandria.  Unlike  the 
philosophy  of  the  Greeks,  however,  which  had 
scarcely  anything  but  a human  ground  on  which 
to  stand  and  labour,  the  Jewish  sects  made  « 
divine  revelation  the  object  of  their  philosophical 
research,  and  so  were  saved  from  the  grosser  errors 
and  absurd  wanderings  into  which  the  Gieek 
schools  were  led  while  in  pursuit  of  the  airy 
visions  of  their  own  heated  brain. 

There  is  a tendency  in  all  institutions  to  grow 
in  process  of  time.  Perhaps  the  tendency  to  grow 
corrupt  is  not  less  certain.  In  the  rich  and  teenr 
ing  soil  of  Persia,  Hebraism  could  do  no  other  thar 
become  rank.  Accretions  woidd  also  be  made 
and  those  in  great  number.  But  every  accretion 
would,  of  course,  have  the  sanction  which  belonged 
to  the  primitive  form.  There  never  could  be  any 
corruption  of  religion,  did  not  each  new  opinion  oi 
practice  contrive  to  get  to  its  behalf  the  sanction 
of  the  old  and  recognised  type.  Corruptions  dc 
not  come  as  corruptions.  Accretions  fasten  lliem- 
selves  on  to  an  ancient  institution,  and  are  then 
defended  as  old  ; or  they  spring  out  of  the  body 
of  the  institution  itself,  and  then  appear  a natural 
offshoot.  Any  way  the  old  sanctions  and  perpe- 
tuates the  new. 

Thus  the  very  soil  in  which  Hebraism  lay 
during  the  captivity,  was  fitted  to  produce  the  phi- 
losophy of  the  Pharisees,  which  was  essentially 
conservative  and  aggregative.  It,  in  all  times 
and  cases,  kept  the  old,  howsoever  abundant  it 
became,  and  did  not  reject  the  new,  provided  its 
nature  and  tendency  were  to  add  anil  not  to  take 
away.  Hence  theirs  was  a system  of  positive  be- 
liefs, distinguished  rather  by  its  exuberance  than 


514 


PHARISEES. 


PHARISEES. 


its  purity,  retentive  of  what  was  established,  vene- 
rating past  ages,  decrying  novelties  though  having 
its  very  essence  in  novelties,  and  excluding  all 
reform  as  hostile  alike  to  God  and  man.  This 
tendency  to  aggregation  on  the  part  of  the  Phari- 
sees is  well  described  by  Tertullian  (De  Prtescrip. 
c.  45) : ‘ Pharisaeos  qui  additamenta  quaedam 
legi  adstruendoa  Judaeisdivisi  sunt,' — making  the 
very  ground  of  their  separation  and  the  reason  of 
their  name  to  lie  in  the  additions  which  they 
made  to  the  ancient  law.  This  same  characteristic 
is  found  recognised  by  Josephus,  when  he  ascribes 
to  them  the  preservation,  if  not  the  invention,  of 
tradition. 

But  as  we  think  it  more  for  tne  reader’s  in- 
struction to  lay  before  him  the  very  words  in 
which  this  sect  is  described,  than  to  give  a philo- 
sophical account  of  the  rise  and  connection  of  their 
principles,  to  which  of  necessity  our  own  views 
would  impart  a colouring,  we  shall  proceed  to 
transcribe  a nearly  literal  translation  of  the  most 
important  passages  in  question. 

‘ The  Pharisees  have  delivered  to  the  people  a 
great  many  observances  by  succession  from  their 
fathers,  which  are  not  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  for  that  reason  it  is  that  the  Sadducees  reject 
them,  and  say  that  we  are  to  esteem  those  observ- 
ances to  be  obligatory  which  are  in  the  written 
word,  but  are  not  to  observe  what  are  derived  from 
the  tradition  of  our  forefathers.  Hence  great  dis- 
putes. The  Sadducees  are  able  to  persuade  none 
but  the  rich,  and  have  not  the  populace  obsequi- 
ous to  them,  but  the  Pharisees  have  the  multitude 
on  their  side.’  ‘ The  Pharisees  are  not  apt  to  be 
severe  in  punishments’  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  10. 
5 and  6 ; Epiphan.  Heer.  15). 

‘The  Pharisees  live  meanly  and  despise  deli- 
cacies in  diet;  and  they  follow  the  conduct  of 
reason,  and  what  that  prescribes  to  them  as  good 
they  do.  They  also  pay  respect  to  such  as  are 
in  years;  nor  are  they  so  bold  as  to  contradict 
them  in  anything  which  they  have  introduced  ; 
and  when  they  determine  that  all  things  are  done 
by  fate,  they  do  not  take  away  from  men  the 
freedom  of  acting  as  they  think  fit,  since  their  no- 
tion is  that  it  hath  pleased  God  to  make  a consti- 
tution of  things  whereby  what  he  wills  is  done, 
but  so  that  the  will  of  man  can  act  virtuously  or 
viciously.  They  also  believe  that  souls  have  an 
immortal  vigour  in  them,  and  that  under  the 
earth  there  will  be  rewards  or  punishments,  accord- 
ing as  men  have#  lived  virtuously  or  viciously  in 
this  life.  The  latter  are  to  be  detained  in  an  ever- 
lasting prison ; but  the  former  shall  have  power  to 
revive  and  live  again  : on  account  of  which  doc- 
trine they  are  able  greatly  to  persuade  the  body 
of  the  people : and  whatsoever  is  done  about  divine 
worship,  prayers,  and  sacrifices,  is  performed  ac- 
cording to  their  directions,  insomuch  that  the  cities 
gave  great  attestations  to  them  on  account  of  their 
entire  virtuous  conduct’  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  1. 
3> 

‘ The  Pharisees  are  those  who  are  esteemed  most 
skilful  in  the  exact  interpretation  of  the  laws. 
They  ascribe  all  to  Fate  (or  Providence)  and  to 
God,  and  yet  allow  that  to  act  what  is  right  or  the 
contrary  is  for  the  most  part  in  the  power  of  man. 
They  say  that  all  souls  are  incorruptible,  but  that 
the  souls  of  good  men  only  are  removed  intoother 
bodies,  and  that  the  souls  of  bad  men  are  subject 
eternal  punishment.  Moreover,  the  Pharisees  are 


friendly  to  one  another,  and  are  for  tue  exercise 
of  concord  and  regard  for  the  public  ’ (Joseph, 
De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8.  14). 

‘ The  Pharisees  are  a sect  of  Jews  which  appear 
to  be  more  pious  than  others,  and  to  expound  the 
laws  more  accurately.  These  Pharisees  artfully 
insinuated  themselves  into  her  (Queen  Alexan- 
dra’s) favour  by  little  and  little,  and  became  the 
real  administrators  of  public  affairs  ; they  banish  - 
ed  and  restored  whom  they  pleased  ; they  bound 
and  loosed  at  their  pleasure ; they  had  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  royal  authority,  whilst  the  expenses 
and  the  difficulties  of  it  belonged  to  Alexandra. 
She  was  a sagacious  woman  in  the  management  ot 
great  affairs,  and  became  not  only  very  powerful 
at.  home,  but  terrible  also  to  foreign  potentates ; 
while  she  governed  other  people,  the  Pharisees  go- 
verned her.  She  was  so  superstitious  as  to  comply 
with  their  desires,  and  accordingly  they  slew  whom 
they  pleased’  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  5.  2,  3). 

‘ There  was  a certain  sect  that  were  Jews,  who 
valued  themselves  highly  upon  the  exact  skill 
they  had  in  the  law  of  their  fathers,  and  made  men 
believe  they  were  highly  favoured  by  God,  by 
whom  this  set  of  women  were  inveigled.  These 
are  those  that  are  called  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees, 
who  were  able  to  make  great  opposition  to  kings  ; a 
cunning  sect  they  were,  and  soon  elevated  to  a 
pitch  of  open  fighting  and  doing  mischief.  Ac- 
cordingly, when  all  the  people  of  the  Jews  gave 
assurance  of  their  good  will  to  Caesar  and  to  the 
king’s  government,  these  men  did  not  swear,  being 
about  6000 ; and  when  the  king  imposed  a fine 
upon  them,  Plneroras’  wife  paid  it.  In  order  tc 
requite  this  kindness,  since  they  were  believed  tc 
have  a foreknowledge  of  things  to  come  by  divine 
inspiration,  they  foretold  how  God  had  decreed 
that  Herod’s  government  should  cease,  and  that 
th'e  kingdom  should  come  to  her  and  Plneroras,  and 
to  their  children  ; so  the  king  Herod  slew  such  of 
the  Pharisees  as  were  principally  accused,  and  all 
who  had  consented  to  what  the  Pharisees  had  fore- 
told’ (Joseph.  Antiq.  xvii.  2.  4). 

‘ The  Pharisees  say  that  some  actions,  but  not 
all,  are  the  work  of  fate  (el/j.ap/xevT]') ; that  some  of 
them  are  in  our  own  power,  and  that  they  are 
liable  to  fate,  but  are  not  caused  by  fate  ’ (Joseph. 
Antiq . xiii.  5.  9). 

‘ The  sect  of  the  Pharisees  are  supposed  to  excel 
others  in  the  accurate  knowledge  of  the  laws  of 
their  country  ’ (Joseph.  Vita,  § 38). 

‘ The  Pharisees  have  so  great  a power  over  the 
multitude  that  when  they  say  anything  against 
the  king  or  against  the  high-priest,  they  are  gene- 
rally believed’  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  10.  5). 

‘ The  bodies  of  all  men  are  mortal,  and  are  cre- 
ated out  of  corruptible  matter ; but  the  soul  is  ever 
immortal,  and  is  a portion  of  the  divinity  that  in- 
habits our  bodies  ’ ( De  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  8.  5). 

‘ Being  now  nineteen  years  old,  I began  to 
conduct  myself  according  to  the  rule  of  the  sect 
of  the  Pharisees,  which  is  of  kin  to  the  sect  of 
Stoics,  as  the  Greeks  call  them’  (Joseph.  Vita , 

As  Josephus  himself  was  a Pharisee,  many  par- 
ticulars respecting  them  may  be  gathered  in  his 
works  on  occasions  when  he  is  speaking  in  his 
own  person  or  avowedly  delivering  an  opinion.  A 
remarkable  instance  presents  itself  in  the  Jewish 
War  (iii.  8.  5),  being  an  address  delivered  to  his 
soldiers,  when  in  extremities,  against  self-destrue- 


PHARISEES. 


PHARISEES. 


513 


nrn.  We  shall  transcribe  only  such  parts  as  bear 
on  our  subject : ‘ He  is  equally  a coward  who  will 
not  die  when  he  is  obliged  to  die,  and  he  who  will 
die  when  he  is  not  obliged  so  to  do.’  ‘ Self-murder 
is  a crime  most  remote  from  the  common  nature 
of  all  animals,  and  an  instance  of  impiety  against 
God  our  Creator.’  ‘ The  bodies  of  all  men  are 
mortal,  and  are  created  out  of  corruptible  matter ; 
but  the  soul  is  ever  immortal,  and  is  a portion  of 
the  divinity  that  inhabits  our  bodies.  If  any  one 
destroys  or  abuses  a trust  he  hath  received  from  a 
mere  man,  he  is  esteemed  wicked  and  perfidious; 
but  then  if  any  one  cast  out  of  his  body  this  divine 
depositum,  can  we  imagine  that  He  who  is  thereby 
affronted  will  not  take  cognizance  of  it?’  ‘ Do 
not  you  know  that  those  who  depart  out  of  this 
life  according  to  the  law  of  nature,  and  pay 
that  debt  when  he  that  lent  life  is  pleased  to  re- 
quire it  back  again,  enjoy  eternal  fame?  that 
their  souls  are  pure  and  obedient,  and  obtain  a 
most  holy  place  in  heaven,  from  whence  in  the 
revolution  of  ages  they  are  again  sent  into  pure 
bodies,  while  the  souls  of  those  whose  hands  have 
acted  madly  against  themselves  are  received  by  the 
darkest  place  in  Hades  ?’  In  the  third  section  of 
the  same  chapter  Josephus  claims  for  himself  skill 
in  the  interpretation  of  dreams  as  being  means  by 
which  God  presignified  events.  This  power,  and  his 
acquaintance  with  the  prophecies  contained  in  the 
sacred  books,  prompted  and  enabled  him  to  address 
‘ a secret  prayer  to  God  ’ for  aid  and  support : he 
thus  gives  other  reasons  for  so  doing,  ‘as  being  a 
priest  himself,  and  of  the  posterity  of  the  priests  ; 
and  just  then  was  he  in  an  ecstasy  and  set  before 
himself  the  tremendous  images  of  the  dreams 
he  had  lately  had.’  His  liability  to,  and  belief  in, 
dreams  are  exemplified  by  a passage  in  his  life 
(§  42)  : ‘Wonderful  it  was  what  a dream  I saw 
that  very  night ; for  when  I had  betaken  myself 
to  my  bed,  grieved  and  disturbed  at  the  news  that 
had  been  written  to  me,  a certain  person  seemed  to 
stand  by  me,  who  said,’  &c. 

Josephus  held  worthy  opinions  on  religious 
liberty.  Having  prevented  Jews  from  compelling 
some  heathens  to  submit  to  be  circumcised,  he 
adds,  ‘ Every  one  ought  to  worship  God  according 
to  his  own  inclinations,  and  not  to  be  constrained 
by  force ; and  these  men,  who  have  fled  to  us  for 
protection,  must  not  be  so  treated  as  to  repent  of 
their  coming  hither  ’ ( Vita,  § 23). 

There  is  another  source  of  our  knowledge  of  the 
Pharisees — the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
light  in  which  they  here  appear  varies,  of  course, 
with  the  circumstances  to  which  its  origin  is  due. 
The  reader  has  just  had  before  him  the  account,  of 
a friend  and  an  adherent,  an  account  which,  there- 
fore, we  may  believe,  is  conceived  and  set  forth  in 
the  most  favourable  manner.  The  Gospels  present 
the  character  of  the  Pharisees  in  a darker  hue,  in- 
asmuch as  here  a higher  standard  is  brought  into 
use,  a loftier  morality  is  the  judge.  To  pass  on 
to  < lie  views  given  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
high  repute  in  which  the  Pharisees  were  held,  as 
expositors  of  the  national  laws,  whether  civil  or 
religious,  may  be  seen  in  John  vii.  48  ; Acts  xxii. 
3 ; the  casuistry  which  they  employed  in  expound- 
ing the  Scriptures,  in  Matt.  ix.  34 ; xv.  5 ; 
xxiii.  16  ; Mark  vii.  7,  sq. ; their  excessive  zeal 
in  proselytism,  Matt,  xxiii.  15  ; yet  their  conceal- 
ment of  light  and  hindrance  of  progress,  Matt, 
xxiii.  13;  their  inordinate  regard  for  externals, 


and  oppressive  but  self-sparing  rule,  Matt,  xxiii. 
3,  sq.,  25 ; their  affectation  of  grandeur  and 
distinction,  Matt,  xxiii.  5,  sq. ; their  shocking 
hypocrisy,  Matt,  xxiii.  14,  27,  sq. ; their  stand- 
ing on  inconsiderable  points,  while  they  neglected 
such  as  were  of  consequence,  preferring  ceremo- 
nial rites  to  justice  and  charity,  Matt,  xxiii.  24  ; 
xii.  2-7;  Luke  vi.  7;  John  ix.  16,  sq. ; Mark 
vii.  1 ; the  display  which  they  affected  even  in 
works  of  religion,  Matt.  vi.  1,  sq. ; xxiii.  0; 
their  pride  and  self-gratulation  as  assuredly,  and 
before  others,  religious  men,  Luke  xviii.  9,  sq.  ; 
their  regard  to  tradition,  Matt.  xv.  2 ; Mark  vii. 
3 ; they  formed  schools,  which  had  masters  and 
disciples,  Matt.  xxii.  16;  Luke  v.  33;  agreeably 
with  their  general  doctrines,  they  regarded  the  act 
rather  than  the  motive,  Luke  xi.  39;  xviii.  11, 
sq. ; and  were  given  to  fasts,  prayers,  washing, 
paying  of  tithes,  alms,  &c.,  Matt.  ix.  14;  xxiii. 
15,  23;  Luke  xi.  39,  sq. ; xviii.  12;  exhibiting 
themselves  t®  the  people,  in  order  to  gain  their 
favour,  as  self-denying,  holy  men,  zealous  for 
God  and  the  law,  a kind  of  Jewish  stoics,  Matt, 
ix.  11 ; Luke  v.  30  ; vi.  2;  Matt,  xxiii.  5,  15,  29  : 
while  in  reality  they  were  fond  of  the  pleasures 
of  sense,  and  were  men  of  lax  morals,  Matt.  v.  20  ; 
xv.  4,  8;  xxiii.  3,  14,  23,  25;  John  viii.  7.  At 
an  early  period  they  determined  in  the  Sanhe- 
drim to  withstand  and  destroy  Jesus,  instigated 
doubtless  by  the  boldness  with  which  he  taught 
the  necessity  of  personal  righteousness  and  pure 
worship  (Matt.  xii.  14). 

In  regard  to  the  opinions  of  the  Pharisees,  the 
New  Testament  affords  only  fragments  of  inform- 
ation, which  are,  however,  in  accordance  with  the 
fuller  particulars  furnished  by  Josephus.  From 
Acts  xxiii.  6,  8,  we  learn  that  they  believed  in 
the  existence  of  higher  created  beings  than  man, 
doubtless  the  good  and  bad  spirits  of  the  Chaldee 
philosophy.  The  same  places  also  instruct  us 
that  they  held  a resurrection  of  the  dead'  (comp. 
Matt.  xxii.  24,  sq.). 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Pharisees  were  in  ge- 
neral a powerful  religious  party,  or  rather  the 
predominant  influence,  in  the  Jewish  state,  who 
aspired  to  the  control  of  the  civil  and  religious 
institutions,  affected  popularity  among  the  peo- 
ple, exerted  influence  in  the  councils  of  kings, 
queens,  and  people  of  rank  ; were  the  recognised 
teachers  and  guides  of  the  national  mind,  proud 
of  their  orthodoxy,  pluming  themselves  on  their 
superior  sanctity,  practising  austerities  outwardly, 
but  inwardly  indulging  their  passions,  and  de- 
scending to  unworthy  and  shameful  acts;  and 
withal  of  narrow  spirit,  contracted  views,  seeking 
rather  their  own  aggrandisement  than  the  public 
good,  of  which  they  used  the  name  merely  as  a 
pretext  and  a cover. 

In  order  to  draw  a full  and  complete  picture 
we  ought  to  combine  and  blend  together  the  ac- 
counts contained  in  Josephus  and  those  contained 
in  the  New  Testament,  which,  it  is  important  to 
observe,  so  entirely  agree  that  they  supplement 
and  illustrate  each  other,  these  making  up  for  the 
defects  of  those,  or  unfolding  more  fully  features 
of  which  the  first  give  a bare  outline  or  only  a 
single  feature ; so  that,  while  there  is  no  contra- 
diction, no  incompatibility  between  the  two,  they 
appear  obviously  to  have  been  taken  from  the 
same  subject  and  from  actual  life ; whence,  we 
conceive,  arises  a very  strong  corroboration  of  the 


516 


PHARISEES. 


PHARISEES. 


Historic  credibility  of  the  New  Testament  nar- 
ratives. A difference  of  colouring  is  indeed  ob- 
servable between  the  picture  given  in  Josephus 
and  that  found  in  the  Evangelists  : yet  the  reader 
will  hardly  need  any  aid  to  enable  him  to  see 
Dow  the  qualities  spoken  of  by  the  first  passed 
and  degenerated  into  those,  so  many  of  which 
were  strongly  condemned  by  our  Lord.  ‘ Many 
circumstances  concurred  to  bring  about  this  cor- 
ruption. The  Pharisees  held  anxiously  to  the 
decisions  of  the  holy  writings  and  the  older  Jew- 
ish teachers.  Thus  their  whole  system  was  built 
upon  authority,  and  their  morality  was  changed 
into  a casuistry,  like  that  of  the  Jesuits.  To 
every  event  that  happened  they  knew  how  to 
apply  either  a passage  of  the  sacred  books  or  an 
explanation  of  the  same,  or  a corollary,  an  in- 
ference, an  arbitrary  extension  or  restriction.  On 
this  account  nothing  is  more  pitiable  or  more 
ridiculous  than  their  exegetical  theology,  whence 
their  system  of  morality  became  uncertain  and 
unconnected,  without  general  principles,  life,  and 
spirit.  Tims  arbitrariness  ami  ingenuity,  instead 
of  reason  and  solidity,  were  applied  to  morals; 
and  to  a party  which  assumed,  and  by  its  nature 
must  assume,  dominion  over  the  minds  of  men, 
the  temptation  was  often  too  great  to  accommo- 
date their  principles  to  the  passions  of  men,  and 
to  use  for  the  same  purpose  their  casuistry,  de- 
pendent on  authority,  which  so  easily  lent  itself 
to  this  end.  The  persecutions  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  the  opposition  of  the  Sadducees,  bound 
them  only  the  morfi  to  their  old  precepts  and 
method  of  teaching,  and  filled  them  with  an 
ever-living  opposition  to  every  Gentile  doctrine 
and  custom.  They  considered  themselves  the 
more  as  the  only  genuine  and  pure  Israel itish 
teachers  of  religion  ; they  preserved  the  reverence 
for  the  holy  books,  which  had  been  of  old  widely 
spread  among  the  people ; and,  aided  by  their 
principles,  which  were  in  fact  very  rigid,  they 
could  not  fail  to  gain  with  the  people  a repu- 
tation for  superior  holiness.  The  greater  this 
reputation  became,  the  greater  was  the  temptation 
to  hypocrisy.  The  more  rigorous  were  their  prin- 
ciples, the  more  difficult  was  it  to  act  entirely 
up  to  them,  and  the  easier  were  they  led  to  ob- 
serve that  with  a holy  appearance  they  could 
attain  the  power  of  imposing  on  the  mass  of  the 
people  and  of  ruling  over  them.  This  dominion 
of  the  Pharisees  over  the  minds  of  the  people  was 
nourishment  for  their  pride,  and  incent  ive  enough 
to  use  it  for  selfish  purposes.  Like  cunning 
priests  and  Jesuits,  they  played  with  forms  and 
phrases,  they  seized  a place  in  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men,  corrupted  them  even  by 
means  of  pious  instruction,  led  them  whither  they 
would  have  them  go,  acquired  many  a fair  prize, 
and  became  rulers  of  an  earthly  kingdom  of 
darkness’  (Staudlin,  Sittenlekre , i.  431). 

Even  were  there  discrepancies,  however  marked, 
on  minor  points  between  our  Lord  and  Josephus, 
yet  the  general  type  and  the  leading  features  of 
the  character  are  in  so  striking  a manner  the 
same,  that  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  if 
Josephus  is  true  the  Gospel- history  cannot  be 
false;  a consideration  which  acquires  strength, 
and  reaches  to  a moral  certainty,  when  the  subject 
is  considered  to  which  their  accounts  relate,  the 
admitted  independence  of  the  authorities,  and 
especially  the  incidental  and  implicatory  m nner 


in  which  most  of  the  information  in  the  New 
Testament  presents  itself,  and  some  of  that  which 
is  found  in  Josephus.  The  line  of  argument 
might  be  still  further  extended  did  our  space 
allow  us  to  trace  the  development  of  the  Pharisaic 
influence  on  through  the  primitive  Christian  age 
down  to  later  periods,  as  it  would  appear  that 
Rabbinism  was  but  an  unfolding  of  Pharisaism, 
the  full  and  swelling  stream  of  corrupt  doctrines, 
views,  and  practices,  of  which  the  rivulets  run  up 
to  the  days  of  Christ,  and  stretch  back  to  those  of 
Ezra,  till  they  are  lost  in  the  fountain-head — the 
.eligious  philosophy  of  a debased  Zoroasterrsm. 
And  from  the  contrast  which  presents  itself  be- 
tween this  gross  earthly  system — a system  imbued 
throughout,  with  selfishness — and  the  pure,  benign, 
heavenly  doctrine  and  life  of  Christ,  there  arises 
(to  our  mind)  an  irresistible  proof  not  only  that 
our  Lord  did  not  and  could  not  derive  anything 
from  the  Pharisees,  but  that  no  less  clearly  is  his 
spirit  from  above  than  is  theirs  from  beneath — in 
all  which  no  credit  is  taken  for  the  bold,  manly, 
noble,  and  self-forgetful  manner  in  which  he  un- 
masked their  hypocrisy,  laid  open  their  hollow- 
ness, condemned  their  pretensions,  and  withstood 
and  strove  to  nullify  their  influence.  It  is  to  unite 
the  hawk  and  the  dove,  to  bring  into  one  darkness 
anil  light,  to  expect  figs  from  thistles,  if  we  will 
persist  in  maintaining  that  Jesus  and  the  Phari- 
sees had  any  essential  and  peculiar  features  in 
common — we  say  essential  and  peculiar  features, 
because  such  only  are  of  any  value  in  the  argu- 
ment, since  even  the  Pharisees,  aS  men  and 
monotheists,  doubtless  bad  some  good  traits,  and 
possessed  some  scattered  rays  of  truth. 

Indeed  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  there  were 
no  individuals  in  the  body  free  from  its  prevail- 
ing vices.  There  did  not  fail  to  he  upright  and 
pure-minded  men,  who  united  inward  piety  to 
outward  correctness  of  conduct,  and  were  indeed 
superior  to  the  principles  of  their  sect;  such  was 
Nicodemus  (John  iii.  1);  such  also  Gamaliel 
may  have  been  (Acts  v.  34;  comp.  Berach.  xiii.  2; 
Sofa,  xx.  3 ; Babyl.  Sota , xxii.  2).  Of  men  of 
this  kind  many  were  led  to  embrace  the  Gospel 
(Acts  xv.  5). 

In  general,  however,  their  power  was  all  di- 
rected against  Jesus  and  his  work.  With  what 
force  they  must  have  acted  appears  obvious  from 
the  preceding  remarks.  Nor  is  the  reader  to 
imagine  that  they  were  merely  a few  learned 
men,  congregated  together  in  the  capital,  engaged 
in  learned  pursuits  or  religious  practices,  and  in 
consequence  leaving  our  Lord  at  liberty  to  pur- 
sue his  ordinary  duties  up  and  down  the  land. 
The  capital  was  doubtless  their  head-quarters, 
hut  they  pervaded  the  entire  country  in  consider- 
able numbers  (six  thousand  are  referred  to  above), 
and  were  therefore  present  in  all  parts  to  with- 
stand the  publication  of  the  Gospel  of  that  king- 
dom every  feature  of  which  they  hated  (Luke  v. 
17);  and  as  they  constituted  a large  portion  of 
the  Sanhedrim  Acts  v.  3 f ; xxiii.  6,  sq.),  and  had 
an  almost  unlimited  influence  with  the  people, 
great  indeed  was  the  power  which  they  wielded 
in  their  conflict  with  the  infant  church.  Perhaps 
there  never  was  an  instance  in  any  social  con- 
dition in  which  the  elements  of  power  supplied 
by  religion,  politics,  high  life,  and  bumble  con- 
dition were  move  thoroughly  or  more  densely 
combined  in  order  to  oppose  and  destroy  th« 


PHARISEES. 


PHILADELPHIA. 


51J 


y«mg  power  of  new  ideas  and  lofty  aims.  The 
victory,  however,  was  for  man,  because  it  was 
also  of  God.  Darkness,  indeed,  prevailed  for 
three  days,  covering1  the  land,  and  casting  a thick 
shadow  over  the  world.  But  the  sun  of  righteous- 
ness arose,  and  still  shines. 

Pharisaism,  how  compact  soever  might  be  its 
appearance  outwardly,  and  as  against  a common 
enemy,  had  its  own  internal  dissensions.  The 
question  of  more  or  less  of  moderate  or  extreme 
views,  of  what  on  one  side  would  be  called  tem- 
porising and  on  the  other  consistency,  agitated 
this  school  as  it  has  agitated  most  others.  In  the 
age  of  our  Lord  there  were  two  leading  parties, 
that  of  Hillel  and  that  of  Schainmai,  the  former 
representing  a moderate  Pharisaism,  the  latter 
•'  the  straitest  sect,’  to  which  Paul  had  probably 
belonged. 

Those  who  may  wish,  to  prosecute  the  study  of 
the  subject  now  treated  of  with  more  minuteness 
and  particularity,  will  do  well  to  consult,  Triwn 
Scriptorum  Illust.  de  tribus  Judceorum  Seeds 
Syntagma,  in  quo  7?.  Serarii , J.  Drusii , J.  Sca- 
ligeri  opuscula  cum  aliis  exhibehtur ; J.  Iri- 
glandius,  Diatrib.  de  Secta  Kara; ovum  adj., 
Delphis,  1703;  Buddei  Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  074,  sq. ; 
Flatf,  Ueber  die  Lehre  der  Pharisaen  in  Paidus 
Memorab.  ii.  157,  sq. ; Paidus,  Meletemata  De 
Rep.  Mortuor.,  Jenae,  1796.  The  valuable  piece 
before  referred  to,  namely,  Trium  Seri]) tor.,  &c., 
may  be  found  in  Ugolini’s  Thesaurus , vol.  xxii. 
In  the  same  work  (vol.  xxii.)  may  also  be  found 
other  sources  of  information,  namely,  Carpzov, 
Appar.  p.  173,  sq.  ; the  treatises  by  J.  Schmid, 
H.  O.pitz,  and  others.  Much  solid  information 
may  be  found  in  Sfaudlin’s  Sittenlehre  Jesu, 
i.  417,  sq.  See  also  Beer,  Gesch.  Lehren  in 
Meinung.  alter  relig.  Sect,  der  Juden , Briinn, 
1822.  Some  of  the  extracts  from  Josephus  show 


clearly  that  the  Greek  philosophy  had  an  influ- 
ence on  the  doctrines  of  the  Pharisees.  Consult 
Tholuck,  Comm,  deviquam  Grceca  Philosop/iia 
in  Theologiam  turn  Muhamedanor.  turn  Judceor. 
exercuerit , Hamb.  1835-7. — J.  R.  B. 

PHARPAR,  one  of  the  rivers  of  Damascus 
[Abana.  and  Pharpar]. 

PHEBE.  [Phckbe.] 

PHENICE  (4>oiVi£),  a city  on  the  south-east 
of  Crete,  with  a harbour,  in  the  attempt  to  reach 
which  the  ship  in  which  Paul  voyaged  as  a 
prisoner  to  Rome,  was  driven  out  of  its  course, 
and  eventually  wrecked  (Acts  xxvii.  12). 

PHICOL  mouth  of  all , i.  e.  all-com- 

manding'), the  proper,  or  more  probably,  the  titu- 
lar name  of  the  commander  of  the  troops  of 
Abimelech,  the  Philistine  king  of  Gerar.  If  the 
Abimelech  of  the  time  of  Isaac  was  the  son  of  the 
Abimelech  of  the  time  of  Abraham,  we  may  con- 
clude that  the  Phicol  who  attended  on  the  second 
Abimelech  was  the  successor  of  the  one  who  was 
'present  with  the  first  at  the  interview  with  Abra- 
ham (Gen.  xxi.  22 ; xxvi.  26).  But  the  whole 
subject  of  these  interviews  is  beset  with  diffi- 
culties [Abimelech  ; Abraham;  Isaac]. 

PHILADELPHIA  (<f>iAa5eA<£eta),  a city  of 
Lesser  Asia,  and  one  of  the  seven  containing  the 
Christian  churches  to  which  the  Apocalyptic  ad- 
monitions were  addressed.  The  town  stood  about 
twenty-five  miles  south-east  from  Sardis,  in  N. 
lat.  32 J 28',  E.  long.  28°  30',  in  the  plain  of 
Hermus,  about  midway  between  the  river  of  that 
name  and  the  termination  of  Mouut  Tmolus. 
It  was  the  second  In  Lydia  (Ptolem.  v.  2;  Plin. 
Hist.  Nat.  v.  30),  and  was  built  by  King  Attains 
Philadelphia,  from  whom  it  took  its  name.  Is, 
b c.  133  the  place  passed,  with  the  dominion  in 
which  it  lay,  to  the  Romans.  The  site  is  re- 


[Pfnladelptiia.  i 


918  PHILEMON,  EPISTLE  TO. 

puted  by  Strabo  (xiii.  p.  628)  to  have  been 
very  liable  to  earthquakes ; but  it  continued  a 
place  of  importance  and  of  strength  down  to  the 
Byzantine  age ; and  of  all  the  towns  in  Asia 
Minor  it  withstood  the  Turks  the  longest.  It 
v/as  taken  by  Bajazet  I.  in  a.d.  1392. 

Philadelphia  still  exists  as  a Turkish  town, 
under  the  name  of  Allah  Shehr,  ‘ city  of  God,’ 
i.  e.  High-town.  It  covers  a considerable  ex- 
tent of  ground,  running  up  the  slopes  of  four 
hills,  or  rather  of  one  hill  with  four  flat  summits. 
The  country,  as  viewed  from  these  hills,  is  ex- 
tremely magnificent — gardens  and  vineyards  lying 
at  the  back  and  sides  of  the  town,  and  before  it 
one  of  the  most  extensive  and  beautiful  plains 
of  Asia.  The  town  itself,  although  spacious,  is 
miserably  built  and  kept,  the  dwellings  being 
remarkably  mean,  and  the  streets  exceedingly 
filthy.  Across  the  summits  of  the  hill  behind 
the  town  and  the  small  valleys  between  them 
runs  the  town  wall,  strengthened  by  circular  and 
square  towers,  and  forming  also  an  extensive  and 
long  quadrangle  in  the  plain  below.  The  mis- 
sionaries Fisk  and  Parsons,  in  1822,  were  in- 
formed by  the  Greek  bishop  that  tire  town  con- 
tained 3U00  houses,  of  which  he  assigned  250  to 
the  Greeks,  and  the  rest  to  the  Turks.  On  the 
same  authority  it  is  stated  that  there  are  five 
churches  in  the  town,  besides  twenty  others  which 
were  too  old  or  too  small  for  use.  Six  minarets, 
indicating  as  many  mosques,  are  seen  in  the 
town;  and  one  of  these  mosques  is  believed  by 
the  native  Christians  to  have  been  the  church  in 
which  assembled  the  primitive  Christians  ad- 
dressed in  the  Apocalypse.  There  are  few  ruins ; 
but  in  one  part  there  are  still  found  four  strong 
marble  pillars,  which  supported  the  dome  of  a 
church.  The  dome  itself  has  fallen  down,  but 
its  remains  may  be  observed,  and  it  is  seen  that 
the  arch  was  of  brick.  On  the  sides  of  the  pil- 
lars are  inscriptions,  and  some  architectural  or- 
naments in  the  form  of  the  figures  of  saints.  One 
solitary  pillar  of  high  antiquity  has  been  often 
noticed,  as  reminding  beholders  of  the  remark- 
able words  in  the  Apocalyptic  message  to  the 
Philadelphian  church  : — * Him  that  overcometh 
will  I make  a pillar  in  the  temple  of  my  God ; 
and  he  shall  go  no  more  out’  (Rev.  iii.  12)  (Smith, 
Sept.  Ecclesiarum  A sice,  p.  13S;  Arundel  1, 
Seven  Churches  ; Richter,  Wahlfahrten,  p.  518  ; 
Schubert,  Morgenlcinde , i.  353-357  ; Missionary 
Herald , 1821,  p.  253  ; 1839,  pp.  210-212). 

PHILEMON,  EPISTLE  TO.  That  this 
epistle  was  written  by  the  apostle  Paul  is  the 
constant  tradition  of  the  ancient  Church.  It.  is 
expressly  cited  as  such  by  Origen  ( Homil . XIX. 
in  Jerem.,  tom.  i.  p.  185,  ed.  Huet..);  it  is  re- 
ferred to  as  such  by  Tertullian  (Nov.  Marc. 
v.  21);  and  both  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii. 
25)  and  Jerome  (Proem,  in  Ep.  ad  PJiilem.  tom. 
iv.  p.  442)  attest  its  universal  reception  as  such 
in  the  Christian  world.  The  latter,  indeed,  in- 
forms us  that  some  in  his  day  deemed  it  unworthy 
of  a place  in  the  canon,  in  consequence  of  its 
being  occupied  with  subjects  which,  in  their  esti- 
mation, i:  did  not  become  an  apostle  to  write 
about,  save  as  a mere  private  individual ; but 
this  he,  at  the  same  time,  shows  to  be  a mistake, 
and  repudiates  the  legitimacy  of  such  a standard 
for  estimating  the  genuineness  or. authority  of  any 
aook.  It  was  a.so  admitted  as  canonical  by 


PHILEMON,  EPISTLE  TO. 

Marcion  (Hieronvm.  1.  c.).  That  this  epi»,l« 
should  not.  have  been  quoted  by  several  of  the 
Fathers  who  have  quoted  largely  from  the  other 
Pauline  epistles  (e.  y.  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, and  Cyprian),  may  be  accounted  for 
partly  by  the  brevity  of  the  epistle,  and  partly  by 
their  not  having  occasion  to  refer  to  the  subjects 
of  which  it  treats.  Paley  has  adduced  the  un- 
designed coincidences  between  this  epistle  and 
that  to  the  Colossians  with  great  force,  as  evincing 
the  authenticity  of  both  (Horce  Paulina , c.  14); 
and  Eich horn  has  ingeniously  shown  how  a person 
attempting,  with  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians 
before  him,  to  forge  such  an  epistle  as  this  in  the 
name  of  Paul,  would  have  been  naturally  led  to 
a very  different  arrangement  of  the  historical  cir- 
cumstances and  persons  from  what  we  find  in  the 
epistle  which  is  extant  (Einleit.  ins  N.  T.  iii. 
3D2). 

This  epistle  was  evidently  written  during  the 
apostle's  imprisonment  (ver.  9,  10),  and,  as  we 
have  already  endeavoured  to  show  [Colossians, 
Epistle  to  the],  during  his  two  years’  impri 
sonment  at  Rome.  It  was  occasioned  by  his 
sending  back  to  Philemon  his  runaway  slave 
Onesimus,  who,  having  found  his  way  to  Rome, 
was  there,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
apostle,  converted  to  Christianity  ; and,  after 
serving  Paul  for  a season,  was  by  him  restored  to 
his  former  master,  without  whose  consent  the 
apostle  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  retain  him. 
The  epistle  commences  with  the  apostle’s  usual 
salutation  to  those  to  whom  he  wrote;  after  whicti 
he  affectionately  alludes  to  the  good  reputation 
which  Philemon,  as  a Christian,  enjoyed,  and  to 
the  joy  which  the  knowledge  of  this  afforded  him 
(ver.  1-7).  He  then  gently  and  gracefully  intro- 
duces the  main  subject  of  his  epistle  by  a refer- 
ence to  the  spiritual  obligations  under  which 
Philemon  lay  to  him,  and  on  the  ground  of  which 
he  might  utter  as  a command  what,  he  preferred 
urging  as  a request.  Onesimus  is  then  intro 
duced  ; the  change  of  mind  and  character  he  had 
experienced  is  stated  ; his  offence  in  deserting  his 
master  is  not  palliated;  his  increased  worth  and 
usefulness  are  dwelt  upon,  and  his  former  master 
is  intreated  to  receive  him  back,  not.  only  without 
severity,  but  with  the  feeling  due  from  one 
Christian  to  another  (ver.  8-16).  The  apostle 
then  delicately  refers  to  the  matter  of  compensa- 
tion for  any  loss  which  Philemon  might  have 
sustained  either  through  the  dishonesty  of  Onesi- 
mus, or  simply  ' through  the  want  of  his  service  ; 
and  though  he  reminds  his  friend  that,  he  might 
justly  hold  the  latter  his  debtor  for  a much  larger 
amount  (seeing  he  owed  to  the  apostle  his  own 
self),  he  pledges  himself,  under  his  own  hand,  to 
make  good  that  loss  (ver.  17-19).  The  epistle 
concludes  with  some  additional  expressions  of 
friendly  solicitude ; a request  that  Philemon  would 
prepare  the  apostle  a lodging,  as  he  trusted  soon 
to  visit  him ; and  the  salutations  of  the  apostle 
and  some  of  the  Christians  by  whom  he  was  sur- 
rounded at  the  time  (ver.  20-25). 

This  epistle  has  been  universally  admired  as  a 
model  of  graceful,  delicate,  and  manly  writing. 
‘ It  is  a voucher,’  says  Eichhorn,  ‘ for  the  apostle’s 
urbanity,  politeness,  and  knowledge  of  the  world. 
His  advocacy  of  Onesimus  is  of  the  most  ir.sinu* 
ating  and  persuasive  character,  and  yet  without 
the  slightest  perversion  or  concealment  of  any 


PIIXLETUS. 


PHILIP. 


519 


fact.  The  errors  of  Onesimu3  are  admitted,  as 
was  necessary,  lest  the  just  indignation  of  his 
master  against  him  should  be  roused  anew  ; but 
they  are  alluded  to  in  the  most  admirable  man- 
ner : the  good  side  of  Onesimus  is  brought  to 
view,  but  in  such  a way  as  to  facilitate  the 
friendly  reception  of  him  by  his  master,  as  a con- 
sequence of  Christianity,  to  which  he  had,  during 
his  absence,  been  converted ; and  his  future 
fidelity  is  vouched  for  by  the  noble  principles  of 
Christianity  to  which  he  had  been  converted. 
The  apostle  addresses  Philemon  on  the  softest 
side:  who  would  wilfully  refuse  to  an  aged,  a 
suffering,  and  an  unjustly  imprisoned  friend  a 
request  ? And  such  was  he  who  thus  pleaded  for 
Onesimus.  The  person  recommended  is  a Chris- 
tian, a dear  friend  of  the  apostle’s,  and  one  who 
had  personally  served  him : if  Philemon  will 
receive  him  kindly,  it  will  afford  the  apostle  a 
proof  of  his  love,  and  yield  him  joy.  What  need, 
then,  for  long  urgency  ? The  apostle  is  certain 
that  Philemon  will,  of  his  own  accord,  do  even 
more  than  he  is  asked.  More  cogently  and  more 
courteously  no  man  could  plead  ’ ( Einleit . ins 
N.  T.,  iii.  300). 

Of  separate  commentaries  on  this  Epistle,  the 
following  is  nearly  a complete  list:  — Henr. 
Hummel,  Explanatio  Ep.  Ap.  Pauli  ad  Philem., 
Tiguri,  1670,  fob;  Lebr.  Ch.  Gottlieb.  Schmid, 
Pauli  Ap.  ad  Philem.  Ep.  Gr.  et  Eat.  Illustr.  et 
ut  Exemplum  Humanitatis  Pauli  Proposita, 
Lips.  1786,  8vo. ; Konrad  Rudolf  Hagenbaeh, 
Pauli  Ep.  ad  Philem.  Interpretatus  est,  Basil, 
1829,  4to. ; W.  Attersol,  Commentary  upon  the 
Ep.  to  Philem .,  Lond.  1633,  4to. ; Bp.  Smal- 
ridge,  Saint  Paul's  Ep.  to  Philemon  Explained 
{Sermons,  Oxf.  1724,  fol.,  Serm.  39).— W.  L.  A. 

PHILETIJS,  an  apostate  Christian,  mentioned 
by  Paul,  in  connection  with  Hymenseus,  2 Tim. 
ii.  17  [HymehjEUs]. 

1.  PHILIP  (4>iAt7r7ros),  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles.  He  was  of  Bethsaida,  ‘ the  city  of 
Andrew  and  Peter’  (John  i.  44).  He  became  one 
of  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  was  in  the 
neighbourhood  where  John  was  baptizing,  at  the 
time  of  our  Lord’s  baptism.  Andrew  and  John, 
who  were  also  disciples  of  the  Baptist,  heard  the 
testimony  concerning  Jesus  which  the  latter  gave, 
and  thenceforth  attached  themselves  to  him  as 
the  promised  Messiah.  Through  Andrew  his 
brother,  Simon  (Peter)  was  brought  to  Christ ; and 
as  on  the  next  (lay  Philip  unhesitatingly  accom- 
panied Jesus  when  called  to  follow  him,  it  is  pro- 
bable that  his  townsmen  had  previously  spoken  to 
him  of  Jesus  as  the  long-expected  Saviour  (John 
i.  35-44).  Philip  was  thus  the  fourth  of  the 
Rpostles  who  attached  themselves  to  the  person  of 
Jesus — of  those  ‘who  left  all  and  followed  him.' 
The  first  act  of  Philip  was  to  bring  to  the  Lord 
Nathanael,  who  is  supposed  to  have  also  become 
an  apostle  under  the  name  of  Bartholomew  (John 
i.  45-51),  Little  more  is  recorded  of  Philip 
in  the  Scriptures;  but  it  is  remarkable  that 
when  Christ  beheld  the  five  thousand  people 
whom  he  afterwards  fed  witli  five  loaves  and  two 
fishes,  he  singled  out  Philip  for  the  question, 
* Whence  shall  we  buy  bread  that  these  may 
eat  V It  is  added,  ‘ This  he  said  to  prove  him,  for 
he  himself  knew  what  he  would  do.’  Bengel  and 
others  suppose  that  this  was  because  the  charge  of 
providing  food  had  been  committed  to  Philip, 


while  Chrysostom  and  Theodore  of  Mopsueatia 
rather  suppose  it  was  because  this  apos  le  was  weak 
in  faith.  The  answer  of  Philip  agrees  veil  enough 
with  either  supposition,  ‘Two  hundred  penny- 
worth of  bread  is  not  sufficient  for  them,  lhat  every 
one  of  them  may  take  a little’ (John  vi.  1-7).  But 
it  is  well  to  compare  this  with  John  xiv.  8,  where 
the  inappropriate  remark  of  Philip,  ‘ Lord,  show 
us  the  Father,  and  it  sufficed)  us,’  evinces  that  he 
experienced  in  a degree  beyond  his  brother  apostles, 
the  difficulty  which  they  generally  felt  in  raising 
themselves  above  the  things  of  sense. 

Intermediately,  we  find  recorded  the  applica- 
tion to  Philip  of  certain  ‘ Greeks’  (proselytes  of 
the  gate)  at  Jerusalem,  who  wished  to  be  in- 
troduced to  Jesus,  of  whom  they  had  heard  so 
much.  Knowing  that  his  master  was  not  for- 
ward to  gratify  mere  curiosity,  Philip  was  un- 
certain whether  to  comply  with  their  wish  or  not, 
but  first  consulted  Andrew,  who  went  with  him 
to  mention  the  circumstance  to  Jesus  (John  xii. 
21,  22).  This  incident,  although  slight,  is  indi- 
cative of  character,  as  we  feel  sure  that  some  of  the 
other  apostles,  Peter  for  instance,  would  at  once 
have  complied  with  or  declined  this  applica- 
tion on  their  own  responsibility.  The  sacred  his- 
tory only  adds  to  these  facts,  that  Philip  was 
present  with  the  other  apostles  at  the  religious  as- 
sembly following  the  Lord’s  resurrection  (Acta 
i.  13). 

The  ancient  commentators  attribute  to  Philip 
the  request  of  ‘ one  of  the  disciples  ’ to  Christ, 
‘ Suffer  me  first  to  go  and  bury  my  father’  (Matt, 
viii.  21  ; Luke  ix.  59);  but  there  seems  no  war- 
rant for  this;  and  it  is  not  likely  that  it  would 
have  been  overlooked  by  John  in  his  account  of 
Philip’s  call  to  the  apostleship. 

The  later  traditions  concerning  this  apostle  are 
vague  and  uncertain ; but  there  is  nothing  im- 
probable in  the  statement  that  he  preached  the  Gos- 
pel in  Phrygia  (Theodoret,  in  Ps.  cxvi.;  Niceph. 
Hist.  Eecles.  ii.  39),  and  that  he  met  his  death  at 
Hierapolis  in  Syria  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  31  ; 
v.  24).  The  further  statement,  that  Philip  was 
married  and  had  daughters  (Euseb.  u.  s. ; Clem. 
Alex.  Strom,  iii.  192 ; Niceph.  ii.  44),  very  pro- 
bably arose  from  confounding  him  with  Philip 
the  Evangelist  (Acts  xxi.  8). 

2.  PHILIP,  one  of  the  seven  first  deacons 
(Acts  vi.  5)  ; also  called  an  ‘ Evangelist’  (xxi.  8), 
which  denotes  one  of  those  ministers  of  the  pri- 
mitive church,  who,  without  being  attached  to 
any  particular  congregation,  preached  the  Gospel 
from  place  to  place  (Eph.  iv.  11  ; 2 Tim.  iv.  5). 
Being  compelled  to  leave  Jerusalem  by  the  per- 
secution which  ensued  on  Stephen's  death,  Philip 
was  induced  to  take  refuge  in  Samaria.  He 
there  came  to  a city  where  Simon  Magus  was 
held  in  high  reverence  through  the  wonders  which 
he  wrought.  But  the  substantial  and  beneficent 
miracles  which  were  performed  by  Philip  in  the 
name  <3f  Jesus,  drew  away  their  attention  from 
the  impostor,  and  prepared  their  minds  for  the  re- 
ception of  the  Gospel.  Simon  himself  seems  to 
have  regarded  him  as  in  league  with  some  super- 
human being,  and  looking  upon  baptism  as  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  of  a compact  through  which  he  might 
obtain  the  same  powers,  lie  solicited  and  obtained 
baptism  from  the  Evangelist  [Simon  Magus]. 
After  Peter  and  John  had  come  to  Samaria  to 
complete  and  carry  on  the  work  which  Philip  had 


320 


PHILIP. 


been  the  means  of  commencing,  the  Evangelist 
himself  was  directed  by  a divine  impulse  to  pro- 
ceed towards  Gaza,  where  he  met  the  treasurer  of 
Candace,  queen  of  Ethiopia  [Candace  ; Ethi- 
opia], by  whose  conversion  and  liaptism  he  be- 
came the  instrument  of  planting  the  first  seeds 
of  the  Gospel  in  Ethiopia  (Acts  viii.  1-39).  Phil  ip 
then  retraced  his  steps,  and  after  pausing  at 
Azof  us,  preached  the  Gospel  from  town  to  town 
till  lie  came  to  Caesarea  (ver.  40).  At  this  place 
he  seems  to  have  settled ; for  when  Paul  was  on 
his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  he  and  his  party 
were  entertained  in  the  house  of  Philip,  on  which 
occasion  it  is  mentioned  that  he  had  ‘ four 
daughters,  virgins,  who  did  prophesy*  (Acts  xxi. 
9),  or,  who  were  endued  with  the  faculty  of  speak- 
ing under  divine  inspiration,  and  of  predicting 
future  events,  together  with  other  supernatural 
gifts  vouchsafed  to  the  primitive  Christians,  in 
accordance  with  the  prophecy  hi  Acts  ii.  18. 
With  this  fact  the  Scriptural  history  of  Philip 
closes,  and  the  traditions  which  refer  to  his  sub- 
sequent proceedings  are  uncertain  and  conflict- 
ing. The  Greek  martyrologies  make  him  to  have 
been  bishop  of  Tralles,  in  Lydia;  but  the  Latins 
make  him  end  his  days  in  Caesarea  ( Acta  Sand. 
ad  6 Juni);  but  in  all  old  accounts  Philip  the 
Apostle  and  Philip  the  Evangelist  are  much  con- 
founded. 

3.  PHILIP,  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  and 
te! rarch  of  Batanaea,  Trachonitis,  and  Auranitis 
(Luke  iii.  1)  [Heuodian  Family]. 

•1.  PHILIP,  called  by  Josephus  Herod,  son 
of  Herod  the  Great,  and  first' husband  of  Herodias 
[Heuodian  Family]. 

PIIILIPPI  ($'i\nriroi),  a city  of  the  procon- 
s lar  Macedonia,  situated  eastward  of  Amphi- 
polis,  Within  the  limits  of  ancient  Thrace  (Acts 
xvi.  12  ; xx.  6 ; Phil.  i.  1).  It  was  anciently 
called  Kprjvtfies,  from  its  many  fountains;  but 
having  been  taken  and  fortified  by  Philip  of 
Macedon,  he  named  it,  after  himself,  Philippi. 
In  the  vicinity  were  mines  of  gold  and  silver; 
and  the  spot  eventually  became  celebrated  for  the 
battle  in  which  Brutus  and  Cassius  were  de- 
feated. Paul  made  some  stay  in  this  place  on 
his  first  arrival  in  Greece,  and  here  founded  the 
church  to  which  he  afterwards  addressed  one  of 
bis  epistles.  It  was  here  that  the  interesting  cir- 
cumstances related  in  Acts  xvi.  occurred ; and 
the  city  was  again  visited  by  the  Apostle  on  his 
departure  from  Greece  (Acts  xx.  fij.  In  the 
former  pissage  (xvi.  12)  Philippi  is  called  a 
colony  (koAcouui),  ami  this  character  it  had  in 
fact,  acquired  through  many  of  fhe  followers  of 
Antony  having  been  colonized  thither  by  Au- 
gustus (Dion.  Cass,  xlvii.  432).  The  fact  that 
Philippi  was  a colony  was  formerly  disputed  ; 
but  its  complete  verification  has  strongly  attested 
the  minute  accuracy  of  the  sacred  narrative. 
Jt  is  there  also  said  to  have  been  TTpccrij  rrjs 
aepfios  t rjs  MaKebovias  tt6\i9,  ‘ a chief  city  of 
this  part  of  Macedonia  ’ — not  the  capital,  for  that 
was  Amphipolis  (Livy,  xlv.  29).  Others  explain 
the  word  irpcirri  with  reference  to  geographi- 
cal position,  i.  e.  the  first  city  as  one  comes 
from  the  East ; but  it  has  been  well  objected  that 
Paul  had  just  landed  at  Neapolis,  which  is  still 
further  to  the  East  (comp.  Diod.  Sic.  xvi.  8 ; 
Strabo,  vii.  p.  511 ; also  Rosenmiiller,  Bibl.  Geog. 
iii.  393).  The  site  has  not  been  much  visited  by 


PHILIPPI ANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 

travellers ; but  an  interesting  account  of  it  may 
be  found  in  the  American  Missionary  Herald \ 
by  the  missionaries  Dwight  and  SchautHer,  who 
were  there  in  1834.  The  plain  in  which  the  ruins 
of  Philippi  stand  is  embraced  by  the  parallel 
arms  of  mountains  extended  from  the  Necrokop, 
which  pour  into  the  plain  many  small  streams, 
by  which  it  is  abundantly  watered  and  fertilized. 
The  acropolis  is  upon  a mount  standing  out  into 
the  plain  from  the  north-east,  and  the  city  seeme 
to  have  extended  from  the  base  of  it  to  the  south 
and  south-west.  The  remains  of  the  fortress  upon 
the  top  consist  of  three  ruined  towers  and  con- 
siderable portions  of  walls,  of  stone,  brick,  and 
very  hard  mortar.  The  plain  below  does  not 
now  exhibit  anything  but  ruins — heaps  of  stone 
and  rubbish,  overgrown  with  thorns  and  briars; 
but  nothing  of  the  innumerable  busts  and  statues, 
thousauds  of  columns,  and  vast  masses  of  classic 
ruins,  of  which  the  elder  travellers  speak.  Ruins 
of  private  dwellings  are  still  visible ; also  some- 
thing of  a semi-circular  shape,  probably  a forum 
or  market-place,  4 perhaps  the  one  where  Paul 
and  Silas  received  their  undeserved  stripes.’  The 
most  prominent  of  the  existing  remains  is  the 
remainder  of  a palatial  edifice,  the  architecture 
of  which  is  grand,  and  the  materials  costly.  The 
pilasters,  chapiters,  & c.,  are  of  the  finest  white 
marble,  and  the  walls  were  formerly  encased 
with  the  same  stone.  These  marble  blocks  are 
gradually  knocked  down  by  the  Turks,  and 
‘ wrought  into  their  silly  grave-stones.’  The  tra- 
vellers were  informed  that  many  of  the  ruins  are 
now  covered  by  stagnant  water,  at  the  bottom  of 
which  they  may  be  seen  ; but  they  did  not  visit 
this  spot. 

PII I LIPPI  ANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE.  01 

this  part  of  the  Apostle  Paul’s  writings  the 
authenticity  has  never  been  questioned.  Pro- 
fessing to  be  written  by  that  distinguished  servant 
of  Christ,  it  bears  on  every  part  of  it  the  impress 
of  his  peculiar  style,  manner  of  thought,  and  form 
of  doctrine;  and  the  internal  evidence  of  authen- 
ticity arising  from  the  incidental  allusions  in  it 
to  persons  and  circumstances  is  very  strong 
( Ilorce  Paulince , c.  7).  It  is  referred  to  formally 
and  expressly  by  Polycavp,  in  hi?  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians  (§  3,  § II),  besides  being  repeatedly 
quoted  by  him.  It.  is  quoted  by  the  churches  at 
Vienne  and  Lyons,  in  their  letter  to  the  churches 
in  Asia  and  Phrygia,  preserved  by  Eusebius 
(Hist.  Eccles.,  v.  2;  by  Irenseus  (Cont.  Ilcer.,  iv. 
18,  § 4)  ; by  Clement,  of  Alexandria  (Pcedag.  lib. 
i.  ]>.  107  ; Strom  , iv.  p.  511  ; Admon.  ad  Gentes , 
p.  56);  by  Tertullian  { De  Resur.  Carnis , c.  23); 
by  Origen  (Cont.  Cels .,  lib.  iii.  p.  122,  ed.  Spen- 
cer; et  scepiss.)  ; by  Cyprian  (Lib.  Testim.,  iii. 
39),  and  by  many  of  the  later  Fathers. 

From  allusions  in  the  epistle  itself,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  it  was  written  at  Rome  during  the 
period  of  the  apostle’s  two  years  imprisonment  in 
that  city,  and  in  all  probability  towards  the  close 
of  that  period  (i.  13,  14,  23,  26;  ii.  18,  25).  It. 
seems  to  have  been  composed  on  the  occasion  of 
the  return  to  Philippi  of  Epaphroditus,  a member 
of  the  church  in  that  place,  who  had  been  de- 
puted to  Rome  with  a pecuniary  contribution 
from  the  churcn  in  aid  of  the  apostle.  Full  of 
gratitude  for  this  work  of  friendly  remembrance 
and  regard,  Paul  addressed  to  the  church  in 
Philippi  this  epistle,  in  which,  besides  expressing 


521 


PHILIPPIANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 

nis  thanks  for  their  kindness,  he  pours  out  a flood 
af  eloquence  and  pathetic  exhortation,  suggested 
partly  by  his  own  circumstances,  and  partly  by 
what  li*i  had  learned  of  their  state  as  a church. 
That  state  appears  to  have  been  on  the  whole  very 
prosperous,  as  there  is  much  commendation  ot  the 
Philippians  in  the  epistle,  and  no  censure  is  ex- 
pressed in  any  part  of  it  either  of  the  church  as  a 
whole,  or  of  any  individuals  connected  with  it. 
At  the  same  lime  the  apostle  deemed  it  necessary 
to  put  them  on  their  guard  against  the  evil  in- 
fluences to  which  they  were  exposed  from  Juda- 
izirig  teachers,  and  false  professors  of  Christianity. 
These  cautions  he  interposes  between  the  exhort- 
ations suggested  by  his  own  state  and  by  the 
news  he  had  received  concerning  the  Philippians, 
with  which  his  epistle  commences  and  with  which 
it  closes.  We  may  thus  divide  the  epistle  into 
three  parts.  In  the  first  of  these  (i.,  ii.),  aftei 
the  usual  salutation  and  an  outpouring  of  warm- 
hearted aflectiou  towards  the  Philippian  church 
(i.  1-11),  the  apostle  refers  to  his  own  condition 
as  a prisoner  at  Rome;  and  lest  they  should  be 
cast  down  at  the  thought  of  the  unmerited  indig- 
nities he  had  been  called  upon  to  sutler,  he  assures 
them  that  these  had  turned  out  rather  to  the 
furtherance  of  that  great  cause  on  which  his 
heart  was  set  and  for  which  he  was  willing  to  live 
and  labour,  though,  as  respected  his  personal 
feelings,  he  would  rather  depart  and  be  with 
Christ,  which  he  deemed  to  be  ‘ far  better’ 
(12-24).  He  then  passes  by  an  easy  transition  to 
a hortatory  address  to  the  Philippians,  calling 
upon  them  to  maintain  steadfastly  their  profes- 
sion, to  cultivate  humanity  and  brotherly  love, 
to  work  out  their  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling,  and  concluding  by  an  appeal  to  their 
regard  for  his  reputation  as  an  apostle,  which 
could  not  but  be  affected  by  their  conduct,  and 
a reference  to  his  reason  for  sending  to  them 
Epaphroditus  instead  of  Timothy,  as  he  had  ori- 
ginally designed  (i.  25  ; ii.  30).  In  part,  second 
he  strenuously  cautions  them,  as  already  observed, 
against  Judaizing  teachers,  whom  he  stigmatizes 
as  ‘dogs'  (in  reference  probably  to  their  im- 
pudent, snarling,  and  quarrelsome  habits),  ‘ evil- 
workers/  and  ‘ the  concision by  which  latter 
term  he  means  to  intimate,  as  Theophylact  re- 
marks (in  loc.),  that  the  circumcision  in  which 
the  Jews  so  much  gloried  had  now  ceased  to 
possess  any  spiritual  significance,  and  was  there- 
fore no  better  than  a useless  mutilation  of  the 
person.  On  this  theme  he  enlarges,  making  re- 
ference to  his  own  standing  as  a Jew,  and  inti- 
mating, that  if  under  the  Christian  dispensation 
Jewish  descent  and  Jewish  privileges  were  to  go 
for  anything,  no  one  could  have  stronger  claims 
on  this  ground  than  he;  but  at  the  same  time 
declaring,  that  however  he  had  once  valued  these, 
he  now  counted  them  4 all  but  lost  for  the  excel- 
lency of  the  knowledge  of  Christ’  (iii.  1-12).  A 
eference  to  his  own  sanctified  ambition  to  ad- 
vance in  the  service  of  Christ  leads  him  to  exhort 
the  Philippians  to  a similar  spirit;  from  this  he 
passes  to  caution  them  against  unnecessary  con- 
tention, and  against  those  who  walk  disorderly, 
concluding  by  reminding  them  of  the  glorious 
hopes  which,  as  Christians,  they  entertained  (ver. 
13-21).  In  the  third  part  we  have  a series  of 
admonitions  to  individual  members  uf  the  church 
*t  Philippi  (iv.  1-3),  followed  by  some  general 


PHILISTINES. 

exhortations  to  cheerfulness,  moderation,  prayer, 
and  good  conduct  (ver.  4-9) ; after  which  come  a 
series  of  allusions  to  the  apostle's  circumstances 
and  feelings,  his  thanks  to  the  Philippians  foi 
their  seasonable  aid,  and  his  concluding  bene« 
dictions  and  salutations  (ver.  10-23). 

Heinrichs  has  advanced  the  opinion,  that  of 
these  three  parts  of  this  epistle  the  first  belongs  to 
a different  composition  from  tire  other  two  (Nov. 
Test.  Koppan.  vol.  vii.  pt.  ii.  p.  31).  It  is  not 
worth  while  to  recapitulate  his  reasonings  in 
support  of  this  notion  ; they  have  been  fully  exa- 
mined and  sufficiently  refuted  by  Krause  (An 
Epist.  Pauli  ad  Phil,  in  duas  Epistolas  .... 
dispescenda  sit ? Dis.  crit.  exeget.  llegiom. 
1811),  and  Schott.  (Isagoge  in  N.  T.  § 70). 

This  epistle  is  written  throughout  in  a very 
animated  and  elevated  style.  It  is  full  of  the 
most  sublime  thoughts  and  the  most  affectionate 
exhortations.  It  resembles  more  the  production 
of  a father  addressing  his  children,  than  that  of 
an  apostle  laying  down  authoritatively  what,  is 
to  he  received  and  followed.  The  whole  of  it 
shows,  as  Theophylact  observes,  how  very  much 
he  loved  and  estimated  those  to  whom  it  was 
addressed,  £>v  evtKcv  aTravrcov  <r<p6fipa  (piXiav 
avrovs  teal  Tip.Gov  cpalverai  (Proem,  in  Ep.  ad 
Phil.). 

Uf  separate  commentaries  upon  this  epistle,  a 
considerable  number  lias  appeared,  especially  on 
the  continent.  Of  these  the  chief  are  the  follow- 
ing : M.  H.  Schotanus,  Analys.  et  Comment,  in 
Ep.  Pauli  ad  Phil.,  cum  observationibus  et  earum 
usibus,  Franc.  1637,  4to.  ; J.  Gottfried  Am 
Elide,  Pauli  Ep.  ad  Phil.  Gr.  ex  recens.  Gries- 
bachii  ; Nova  vers.  Lat.  et  annot.  perpet.  Must., 
Yitemb.  1798,  8vo.  ; (7.  F.  H.  Rheinwald,  Com- 
mentar.  vb.  d.  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Philipp., 
Berlin,  1827,  Svo.  ; Konrad  Steph.  Matthies, 
Erlddrung  cl.  Brief es  Pauli  an  d.  Phil.,  Greifs- 
wold,  1835,  8vo. ; Hermann  Gustav.  Holemann, 
Comment,  in  Ep.  ad  Phil.,  Lips.  1839;  Wessel 
Alb  von  Hengel,  Comment,  perpetuus  in  ep. 
Pauli  ad  Phil.,  Amstel,  1839;  A.  Rilliet,  Com- 
mentaire  sur  VEpitre  de  l' Apotre  Paid  aux 
Phil.,  Geneva,  1841,  8vo.  In  English  the  works 
of  Pearce  and  Ferguson  may  be  mentioned. — 

W.  L.  A. 

PHILISTINES  ; Sept.  urnelp, 

and  3A\\6(f)v\oi ; Joseph.  UaXurrlvoi,  Antiq.  v.  1. 
18),  a tribe  which  gave  its  name  to  the  country 
known  as  Palestine,  though  it  occupied  only  a 
portion  of  the  southern  coast,  namely,  that  which 
was  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  hill  country  of 
Ephraim  and  Judah,  and  on  the  south  extended 
from  Joppa  to  the  borders  of"  Egypt,  thus  touching 
on  the  Israelite  tribes  Dan,  Simeon,  and  Judah. 
Indeed  the  portions  of  Simeon  and  Dan  covered 
a large  part  of  Philistia,  but  its  possession  by  the 
Israelites  was  disputed,  and  was  never  entirely 
achieved.  This  country  was  originally  held  by 
the  Avims,  who  were  destroyed  and  their  land 
seized  by  the  Caphtoiims,  coining  forth  out  of 
Caphtor  (Deut.  ii.  23).  In  Jer.  xlvii.  4 the  Phi- 
listines are  denominated  4 the  remnant  of  the 
country  (or  isle)  of  Caphtor.’  In  Amos  ix.  7, 
the  Divine  Being  asks,  4 Have  I not  brought  the 
Philistines  from  Caphtor?’  The  Caphtorim  and 
the  Philistim  are  also  associated  together  as  kin- 
dred tribes  in  the  genealogical  list  of  nation* 


522 


PHILISTINES. 


PHILISTINES. 


given  in  Gen.  x.  11,  both  being  des  endunts  of 
Mizruira.  This  last  passage  would  be  more 
strictly  in  agreement  with  the  others  if  the  words 
* out  of  whom  came  Philistim  ’ were  placed  im- 
mediately after  Caphtorim.  Where  then  is  Caph- 
tor  ? Where  are  we  to  look  for  the  Caphtorim  ? 
There,  wherever  it  was,  are  the  Philistines  to  be 
originally  found.  Caphtor  has  been  thought  to 
be  Cappadocia;  so  is  it  rendered  by  the  Targums, 
as  well  as  by  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  translations 
(‘  Palaesthinos  reliquias  insulae  Cappadociae  ’). 
Bertheau,  however,  decides  that  Caphtor  is  Crete, 
on  several  grounds  (Bertheau,  Znr  Geschichte 
der  Isrcieliten,  1842;  see  also  Die  Phonizier,  von 
Movers,  1841 ; anti  Kan  dan,  von  C.  von  Lengerke, 
1844).  In  Jer.  xlvii.  4,  Caphtor  is  named  : 
the  word  may  indicate  a coast,  but  leads  the 
mind  most  forcibly  to  think  of  an  island.  The 
Philistines,  in  1 Sam.  xxx.  14,  16,  are  termed 
Cherethites  (Ezek.  xxv.  16  ; Zeph.  ii.  5),  THD, 
an  adjective,  which  itself  might  be  put  into  the 
English  letters  Cretans,  and  is  derived  from  the 
proper  name  n~0,  or  Crete.  Since  the  appear- 
ance of  Lakemacher's  Observat.  Philol.  (ii.  11, 
sq.),  and  Calmet's  Biblical  Researches,  the  word 
Kreti  has  been  considered  to  prove  that  the  Phi- 
listines were  wanderers  from  Crete,  which  recent 
scholars  have  confirmed.  Thus  Hitzig  ( Die  12 
Klcinen  Propheten ) says,  on  Zeph.  ii.  5,  the  Phi- 
listines were  offsprings  of  Barbarians,  who  dwelt 
of  old  in  Crete  (Herod,  i.  173),  and  thence 
passed  to  different  parfs  of  the  continent  (Amos 
ix.  7 ; comp.  Tuch’s  Commentar  zur  Genesis , 
p.  243). 

Greeks  and  Romans  support  this  view.  Tacitus 
(Hist.  v.  2)  relates  that  inhabitants  of  Palestine 
came  thither  from  Crete.  He  uses  indeed  the 
name  Jews ; but  as  the  Philistines  gave  their 
name  to  Palestine,  the  heathen  historian  was  not 
likely  to  make  any  exact  distinction  in  the  case, 
and  may  be  understood  to  mean  the  Philis- 
tines, as  inhabitants  of  Palaestina  or  Philistia. 
Stephen  of  Byzantium,  under  the  word  rd£a, 
states  that  this  city,  Gaza,  was  properly  called 
Minoa,  from  Minos,  king  of  Crete,  who  came  to 
Gaza  with  his  brothers  Acakos  and  Rhadaman- 
thus,  and  named  the  place  after  himself  (comp. 
Kreta,  von  Karl  Hoeck,  ii.  368).  Sfephanus 
Byzant.  adds  that  the  Cretan  Jupiter  (Zeus  Kpr]- 
Tayevrjs)  was  honoured  in  Gaza.  From  other 
writers  it  appears  that  the  Cretan  Jupiter  bore  the 
name  of  Marna  in  this  Philistine  city,  where  he 
was  chief  of  eight  principal  gods,  and  had  a 
splendid  temple  consecrated  to  his  service.  The 
authorities  for  this  statement  may  be  found  in 
Movers’  Die  Phonizier,  p.  662.  Marna  seems 
only  another  name  for  Malchan,  Baalan,  or 
Baalti,  denoting  the  protecting  deity  of  the  city. 

The  Philistines  are  represented  in  the  Old 
Testament  as  foreign  immigrants.  The  ordinary 
translation  of  their  name  in  the  Septuagint  is 
A.Kh6(pv\oi,  men  of  another  tribe.  The  root 

, whence  Philistine,  denotes  a wanderer,  one 

from  a foreign  land,  and  was  probably  given  by 
the  Hebrews  to  the  foreign  immigrants  who  called 
themselves  Cretans.  If  so,  the  Philistines  did  not 
belong  to  any  of  the  aboriginal  stems.  That  they 
were  not  a portion  of  the  Hebrew  race  appears 
from  the  fact  that  they  were  uncircumcised.  In 
1 Sam.  xvii,  26,  Goliath  of  Gath  is  derisively 


denominated  ‘ this  uncircumcised  Philistine 
(comp.  2 Sam.  i.  20).  Yet  tl*>  Philistines  be. 
longed  to  the  Shemitic  family.  The  names  oi 
their  cities  and  their  proper  names  are  of  Shemitic 
origin.  In  their  intercourse  with  the  Israelites 
there  are  many  intimations  that  the  two  used  a 
common  language.  How  is  this,  if  they  were 
immigrants  in  Palestine?  This  difficulty  is  re- 
moved by  supposing  that  originally  they  were  in 
Palestine,  being  a part  of  the  great  Shemitic 
family,  went  westward,  under  pressure  from  the 
wave  of  population  which  came  down  from  the 
higher  country  to  the  sea-coast,  but  afterwards 
returned  eastward,  back  from  Crete  to  Palestine ; 
so  that  in  Amos  ix.  7 it  is  to  be  understood  that 
God  brought  them  up  to  Palestine,  as  he  brought 
the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt — back  to  their  home. 
This  view  the  passage  undoubtedly  admits ; but 
we  cannot  agree  witli  Movers  in  holding  that  it 
gives  direct  evidence  in  its  favour,  though  his 
general  position  is  probably  correct,  that  the  Phi- 
listines first  quitted  the  mainland  for  the  neigh- 
bouring islands  of  the  Mediterranean  sea,  and 
then,  after  a time,  returned  to  their  original  home 
(Movers,  pp.  19,  29, 35).  Gieek  writers,  however, 
give  evidence  of  a wide  diffusion  of  the  Shemitic 
race  over  the  islands  of  the  Mediterranean.  Thu- 
cydides says  (i.  8)  that  most  of  the  islands  were 
inhabited  by  Carians  and  Phoenicians.  Of  Crete 
Herodotus  (i.  173)  declares  that  Barbarians  had, 
before  Minos,  formed  the  population  of  the  island. 
There  is  evidence  in  Homer  to  the  same  effect 
(Od.  ix.  174;  comp.  Strabo,  p.  475).  Many  proofs 
offer  themselves  that,  before  the  spread  of  the 
Hellenes,  these  islands  were  inhabited  by  Shemi- 
tic races.  The  worship  observed  in  them  at  this 
time  shows  a Shemitic  origin.  The  Shemitics 
gave  place  to  the  Hellenics — a change  which 
dates  from  the  time  of  Minos,  who  drove  them 
out  of  the  islands,  giving  the  dominion  to  his  son. 
The  expelled  population  settled  on  the  Asiatic 
coast.  This  evidence,  derived  from  heathen 
sources,  gives  a representation  which  agrees  with 
the  Scriptural  account  of  the  origin,  the  westerly 
wandering,  and  return  eastwards  of  the  Philistines. 
But  chronology  creates  a difficulty.  Minos  lived 
probably  about  the  year  b.c.  1300.  According  to 
the  Old  Testament  the  Philistines  were  found  in 
Palestine  at  an  earlier  period.  In  Gen.  xx.  2 ; xxvi. 
1 ; we  find  a Philistine  king  of  Gerar.  But  this 
king  (and  others)  may  have  been  so  termed,  not 
because  he  was  of  Philistine  blood,  but  because 
he  dwelt  in  the  land  which  was  afterwards  called 
Philistia.  And  there  are  other  considerations 
which  seem  to  show  that  Philistines  did  not  oc- 
cupy this  country  in  the  days  of  Abraham  (con 
suit  Bertheau,  p.  196).  It  is,  however,  certain 
that  the  Philistines  existed  in  Palestine  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  as  a brave  and  warlike  people  (Exod. 
xiii.  17) — a fact  which  places  them  on  the  Asiatic 
continent  long  before  Minos.  This  difficulty 
does  not  appear  considerable  to  us.  There  may 
have  been  a return  eastwards  before  the  time  of 
Minos,  as  well  as  one  in  his  time;  or  he  may 
have  merely  put  the  finishing  stroke  to  a return 
commenced  from  some  cause  or  other — war,  over- 
population, &c. — at  a much  earlier  period.  The 
information  found  in  the  Bible  is  easily  under 
stood  on  the  showing,  that  in  the  earliest  ages 
tribes  of  the  Shemitic  race  spread  themselves 
over  the  west,  and,  becoming  inhabitants  of  the 


PHILISTINES. 


PHILISTINES. 


523 


islands,  gave  themselves  to  navigation.  To  these 
tribes  the  Philistines  appear  to  have  belonged, 
who,  for  what  reason  we  know  not,  left  Crete,  and 
settled  on  the  coast  of  Palestine.  But  in  Gen.  x. 
13,  14,  the  Philistines  are  derived  from  Mizraiin, 
that  is,  from  Egypt..,  Hov/  is  this  ? Movers  holds 
that  Phoenician  invaders  were  the  Hyksos  of 
Egyptian  hietory,  whence  the  Philistines  would, 
in  relation  to  their  stay  and  dominion  in  Egypt, 
be  spoken  of  as  of  Egyptian  origin.  Bertheau, 
however,  condemns  this  view  as  too  complicated, 
and  states  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  Philistines, 
as  dwellers  in  Crete,  were  reckoned  as  belonging 
to  Egypt  (see  also  Ewald,  Geschichte , i.  289; 
Lengerke,  Kandan,  p.  195,  sq.). 

If  now  we  follow  the  Biblical  accounts  we  find 
the  history  of  the  Philistines  to  be  in  brief  as  fol- 
lows. They  had  established  themselves  in  their 
land  as  early  as  the  time  of  Abraham,  when  they 
had  founded  a kingdom  at  Gerar  (Gen.  xxi.  32; 
xx vi.  1).  When  the  Israelites  left  Egypt  they 
were  deterred  by  fear  of  the  power  of  the  Philis- 
tines from  returning  by  the  shortest  road — that 
which  the  caravans  still  take — because  it  lay 
through  the  country  of  the  Philistines  (Exod. 
xiii.  17).  In  the  time  of  Joshua  (xiii,  3)  the 
Philistines  appear  in  a league  of  five  princes 
(D'OID,  which  may  be  a Philistine  corruption 
from  governors  of  so  many  tribes  or  petty 

states — ‘ all  the  borders  of  the  Philistines  from 
Sihor  which  is  before  Egypt  even  unto  the  bor- 
ders of  Ekron  northward  counted  to  the  Catiaan- 
ites.’  Joshua  appears  to  have  thought  it  prudent 
to  attempt  nothing  for  the  dispossession  of  the 
Philistines,  and  he  therefore  had  no  hostile  re- 
lations with  them ; for  the  division  of  Philistia 
among  the  tribes  was  nothing  more  than  a pro- 
spective but  unfulfilled  arrangement  (Josh.  xv. 
45;  xix.  43).  The  days  of  the  Judges,  however, 
brought  conflicts  between  the  Israelites  and  the 
Philistines,  who  dwelt  wide  over  the  land,  and 
even  exercised  dominion  over  their  Hebrew  neigh- 
bours (Judg.  iii.  31;  x.  7;  xiii.  1;  xiv.  2,  4,  5 ; 
xv.  11). 

In  the  time  of  Eli  the  Philistines  succeeded  in 
getting  the  ark  into  their  possession  (1  Sam.  iv.); 
but  a defeat  which  they  suffered  under  Samuel 
put  an  end  to  their  dominion,  after  it  had  lasted 
forty  years  (1  Sam.  vii.).  This  subjection  of  the 
Israelites  began  after  the  death  of  Jair,  and  con- 
tinued to  the  termination  of  the  period  embraced 
in  the  book  of  Judges.  Within  this  space  of  time 
fall  the  life  and  the  heroic  actions  of  Samson. 
Notwithstanding  the  total  defeat  which  the  Phi- 
listines had  undergone,  and  the  actual  termination 
of  their  political  supremacy,  they  continued  to  be 
troublesome  neighbours.  ‘ There  was  sore  war 
against  the  Philistines  all  the  days  of  Saul’  (1 
Sam.  xiv.  52)  ; a conflict  which  was  carried  on 
with  various  success,  and  in  which  the  king  found 
great  support  in  the  prudent  bravery  of  his  son 
Jonathan  and  the  high  courage  of  David  (1  Sam. 
xiii.  4 ; xiv. ; xvii.  18  ; xix.  8 ; xxiii.  28).  Even 
after  his  separation  from  Saul  David  inflicted 
many  blows  on  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  xxiii.), 
but  soon  saw  himself  obliged  to  seek  refuge  in 
Gath  (1  Sam.  xxvii.),  and  was  in  consequence 
near  making  common  cause  with  them  against 
Saul  (1  Sam.  xxix.),  who  met  with  his  death  at 
their  hands  while  engaged  in  battle  (1  Sam.  xxxi.). 
They  also  raised  their  arms  against  David,  when 


he  had  become  king  of  all  Israel,  but  were  several 
times  beaten  by  that  brave  monarch  (2  Sam  v. 
17,  sq. ; viii.  1).  ‘ Mighty  men,’  performing 

valorous  deeds  in  imitation  of  David’s  rencontre 
with  Goliath,  gave  the  king  their,  support  against 
this  brave  and  persevering  enemy  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
8,  sq.).  Solomon  appears  to  have  been  undis- 
turbed  by  the  Philistines,  but  they  had  settle- 
ments in  the  land  of  Israel  under  the  early 
Ephraimitic  kings  (1  Kings  xv.  27 ; xvi.  15). 
To  Jehoshaphat  they  became  tributary  (2  Chron. 
xvii.  11).  Untftr  Jehoram,  however,  they,  in 
union  with  the  Arabians,  fell  on  Jerusalem,  and 
carried  off  the  king's  substance,  as  well  as  his 
wives  and  children  (2  Chron.  xxi.  16).  On 
the  other  hand,  in  the  reign  of  king  Jehoash, 
their  city  Gath  was  taken  by  Hazael,  king  of 
Syria,  who  also  threatened  Jerusalem  (2  Kings 
xii.  17).  But  in  the  time  of  Ahaz  they  revolted, 
and  carried  with  them  a part  of  western  Judah, 
having  ‘ invaded  the  cities  of  the  low  country 
and  of  the  south  of  Judah,  and  taken  Beth- 
shemesh  and  Ajalon,’ &c.  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  18; 
comp.  Isa.  xiv.  29).  Hezekiah  in  the  first  years 
of  his  reign  obtained  some  advantages  over  them 
(2  Kings  xviii.  8).  Soon,  however,  Assyrian 
armies  went  against  Philistia,  and,  with  a view 
to  an  invasion  of  Egypt,  got  into  their  power  the 
strong  frontier-fortress  of  Ashdod  (Isa.  xx.  1), 
which  at  a later  time  Psammetichus  took  from 
them,  after  a siege  of  twenty-nine  years  (Herod, 
ii.  157).  In  consequence  of  the  hostile  relations 
between  Assyria  and  Egypt,  Philistia  suffered 
for  a long  period,  as  the  troops  of  the  former 
power  took  their  way  through  that  land,  and 
Pharaoh-Necho  captured  the  stronghold  Gaza 
(Isa.  xlvii.  1).  The  same  was  done  by  Alexander 
the  Great  in  his  expedition  to  Egypt.  On  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  state,  the  Philistines, 
like  other  neighbouring  peoples,  acted  ill  towards 
the  Jews,  having  ‘taken  vengeance  with  a de- 
spiteful heart’  (Ezek.  xxv.  15).  Many  of  those 
who  returned  from  the  captivity  ‘had  married 
wives  of  Ashdod,  and  their  speech  spoke  half  in 
the  speech  of  Ashdod’  (Neh.  xiii.  23,  sq.)4  In 
the  Maccabaean  period  the  Philistines  were  Syrian 
subjects,  and  had  at  times  to  suffer  at  the  hands 
of  the  Jews  (1  Macc.  x.  86;  xi.  60,  sq.).  King 
Alexander  (Balas)  gave  Jonathan  a part  of  their 
territory,  Accaron,  with  the  borders  thereof  in 
possession  (1  Macc.  x.  89).  The  Jewish  monarch 
Alexander  Janmeus  overcame  and  destroyed  Gaza 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  3.  3;  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  4.  2). 
By  Pompey  Azotus,  Jamnia,  and  Gaza  were  united 
to  the  Roman  province  of  Syria  {Antiq.  xiv.  4.  4)  ; 
but  Gaza  was  given  by  Augustus  to  King  Herod 
{Antiq.  xv.  7.  3). 

The  Philistine  cities  were  greatly  distinguished. 
Along  the  whole  coast  from  north  to  south  there 
ran  a line  of  towns — in  the  north  the  Phoenician, 
in  the  south  the  Philistine — which  were  powerful, 
rich,  and  well-peopled.  The  chief  cities  of  the 
Philistines  were  five — Gaza,  Ashdod,  Askalon, 
Gath,  and  Ekron  (Josh.  xiii.  3;  Judg.  iii,  3). 
Several  of  these  Palestinian  cities  flourished  at 
the  same  time;  and  though  now  these,  now  those 
cities  gained  at  different  periods  pre-eminence  in 
power,  wealth,  and  population,  aud  though  some  did 
not  vise  till  others  had  declined  or  perished,  yet  is 
it  true  that  from  the  earliest  times  till  the  century 
after  Christ  a number  of  important  towns  esistsd 


PIliLOLOGUS. 


524 

on  the  narrow  strip  of  land  which  borders  the 
Mediterranean  sea,  such  as  was  never  seen  in  any 
other  part  of  the  world,  the  Ionian  coast  of  Asia 
Minor  not  excepted. 

The  greatness  of  these  cities  was  mainly  owing 
to  commerce,  for  the  coast  of  Palestine  was  in 
t.ie  earliest  ages  exclusively  in  possession  of  the 
trade  \r  hich  was  carried  on  between  Europe  and 
Asia,  besides  a great  transit  trade,  they  had 
internal  sources  of  wealth,  being  given  to  agri- 
culture (Judg.  xv.  5).  In  the  time  of  Saul  they 
were  evidently  superior  in  the  aits  of  life  to  the 
Israelites;  for  we  read  (1  Sam.  xiii.  20)  that  the 
latter  were  indebted  to  the  former  for  the  utensils 
of  ordinary  life.  Their  religion  was  not  essen- 
tially different  from  that  of  the  Phoenicians.  The 
idol  which  they  most  reverenced  was  Astarte, 
the  Assyrian  Semiramis,  or  Derketo,  who  was 
also  honoured  as  Dagon,  in  a very  ancient  temple 
at  Askalon  and  at  Gaza,  also  at  Ashdod  (Movers, 
p.  5S9,  sq. ; Lengerke,  Kanaan,  p.  200  ; Herod 
i.  105  ; Judg.  xvi.  23  ; l Sam.  v.  1,  sq. ; 1 Mace, 
x.  83).  This  was  a species  of  tish- worship,  a 
remnant  of  which  may  still  be  found  in  the 
special  care  taken  of  certain  holy  fish  in  some 
parts  of  Syria  (Niebuhr,  Reise,  ii.  167  ; Burck- 
hardt,  i.  278,  521).  In  Ekron  Baal-zebub  had 
liis  chief  seat.  Priests  and  soothsayers  were 
numerous  (1  Sam.  vi.  2).  Their  magicians  were 
in  repute  (Isa.  ii.  6),  and  the  oracle  of  Baal- 
zebub  was  consulted  by  foreigners  (2  Kings  i.  2). 
They  had  the  custom  of  carrying  witli  them  in 
war  the  images  of  their  gods  (2  Sam.  v.  21). 
Tradition  makes  the  Philistines  the  inventors  of 
the  bow  and  arrow. — J.  R.  B. 

PHILOLOGUS  (in\6\oyos),  one  of  the  Chris- 
tians at  Rome  to  whom  Paul  sent  his  salutations 
(Rom.  xvi.  15).  Dorotheus  makes  him  one  of  the 
seventy  disciples,  and  alleges  that  he  was  placed 
by  the  apostle  Andrew  as  bishop  of  Sinope,  in 
Pontus.  But  tins  seems  altogether  improbable. 

PHILOSOPHY,  GREEK.  It  cannot  be  ex- 
acted, that  within  the  limits  of  a brief  article, 
in  a work  of  this  nature,  and  of  the  size  to 
which  it  is  limited,  we  should  enter  into  an  histo- 
rical, critical,  or  even  popular  account  of  Greek 
philosophy ; nor  that  the  subject,  however  in- 
teresting in  itself,  should  be  introduced  at  all, 
farther  tlvan  will  minister  to  the  right  understand- 
ing and  reception  of  Scriptural  truth.  In  the 
articles  Gnosticism  and  Logos  we  have  shown 
that  a knowledge  of  Greek  philosophy  throws 
light  on  one  of  the  most  recondite  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  bringing  us  acquainted  witli  expres- 
sions and  opinions  current  throughout,  the  civilized 
world  during  the  rise  anil  progress  of  Christianity, 
and  showing  how  these  modes  of  expression  came 
to  be  adopted  by  the  first  converts  to  Christianity, 
and  afterwards  to  be  employed  by  St.  John  in 
his  Gospel.  Indeed,  if  a knowledge  of  the  sacri- 
ficial language  of  tire  Jews  throws  light  upon 
Christ's  mission,  in  so  far  as  its  object  was  to  put 
an  end  to  the  numerous  sacrifices  and  ceremonial 
ministrations  of  the  Jewish  priesthood,  it  is  jiot 
iess  evident  that  a knowledge  of  the  philosophical 
language  of  the  -Greeks  will  throw  light  upon  the 
first  use  amongst  the  Christian  converts,  and 
upon  the  subsequent  adoption  by  St.  John  into 
hi*  Gospel,  and  by  St.  Paul  into  his  Epistles,  of 
the  remarkable  language  employed  to  describe  the 
suasion  and  the  nature  of  Christ,  But  not  only 


PHILOSOPHY,  GREEK. 

may  a knowledge  of  ancient  learning,  and  mor* 
especially  of  ancient  philosophy,  supply  valuablt 
assistance  for  the  better  understanding  of  Christian 
doctrines ; but  we  may  derive  from  such  know- 
ledge the  fullest  and  clearest  proofs  of  the  benefi*, 
conferred  by  Christianity  on  tjie  progress  of  prin* 
ciple  and  civilization  : and  we  may  add,  that  we 
have  a direct  warrant  from  St.  Paul  to  employ 
ancient  learning,  and  more  especially  Greek  phi- 
losophy, in  rendering  to  the  Christian  religion  the 
services  we  have  specified. 

Perhaps  there  does  not  occur  in  the  Christian 
record  a more  striking  and  important  passage 
than  that  whioh  we  shall  quote  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  : that  Epistle  which;  for  its  general 
and  paramount  interest  (being  equally  addressed 
to  Gentile,  Jew,  and  Christian),  has  been  placed 
first  of  the  Epistles.  Indeed,  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  proves,  by  the  plainest  facts,  that  Christi- 
anity was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  removal  of 
the  most  intolerable  evils  that  ever  oppressed  the 
world.  The  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  having  in 
the  opening  chapter  given  a fearful  picture  of  the 
vices  and  crimes  of  Rome,  the  truth  of  which  is 
fully  established  by  the  writings  of  Tacitus  and 
Suetonius,  Martial  ami  the  Roman  satirists 
(and  in  the  next  chapter,  ii.  17,  he  charges  the 
same  neglect  of  moral  duty,  under  pretence  of 
a sounder  faith,  upon  the  Jews),  proceeds  to 
address  Gentile  and  Jew  in  a strain  of  manly  and 
noble  eloquence,  which,  if  we  estimate  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  interests,  individual  and  domestic, 
private  and  public,  religious,  moral,  and  political, 
which  then  depended  and  still  depends  on  the 
understanding  and  reception  of  Christianity  in 
its  truth  and  power,  must  be  allowed  to  leave 
every  other  example  of  reasoning  and  eloquence 
far  behind  if.  The  words  of  St.  Paul,  following 
his  exposure  of  the  wickedness  of  Rome  (of 
heathen  vices  as  the  direct  consequences  of  heathen 
superstitions)  are  contained  in  Rum.  i.  21,  24-26, 
28.  29,  &c. 

The  Christian  minister  has  in  his  spiritual 
armoury  no  weapon  of  keener  edge  or  of  finer 
temper,  whether  for  laving  bare  the  hidden  secrets 
of  the  heart,  or  for  unfolding  the  mystery  of  salva- 
tion in  Jesus  Christ.  VVhat  man,  however  igno- 
rant, careless,  or  vicious  he  may  be,  does  not  find 
bis  inmost  conscience  respond  to  the  words,  ‘and 
thinkest  thou  this,  O man,  that  judgest  them  which 
do  such  things  and  doest.  the  same,  that  thou  shalt 
escape  the  judgment  of  God1?’  What  resister  of 
the  truth,  whether  by  open  scoffing  or  secret  disobe- 
dience, does  not  find  himself  pricked  to  the  heart 
by  the  words,  ‘ them  that  are  contentious,  and  do  not 
obey  the  truth?’  What  sanctimonious  hypocrite, 
rigid  dogmatist,  or  fierce  persecutor,  does  not  find 
the  hollowness  and  perilousness  of  his  pretence  in 
the  words,  1 not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just 
before  God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  jus- 
tified?’ What  catholic-minded,  sincere-hearted, 
rightly-conducted  Christian  does  not  find  comfort 
in  the  words,  ‘ but  glory,  honour,  and  peace,  to 
every  man  that  worketh  good.’  What  man  faint- 
ing by  the  way  will  not  take  courage  from  the 
words,  * to  those  who  by  patient  continuance  in 
well  doing  seek  for  glory,  and  honour,  and  im- 
mortality, eternal  life.’  What  Antinomian  pro- 
fessor of  faith,  as  an  excuse  for  disobedience,  does 
not  feel  his  hepe  fail  him  as  he  reads  the  words, 
‘ not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  jast  before  God 


PHILOSOPHY,  GREEK. 

but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified,’ — or 
should  he  attempt  to  escape  the  plain  meaning  of 
the  passage  by  the  plea  that  he  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Gentile,  how  will  he  escape  from  words  addressed 
in  the  same  spirit  of  making  obedience  the  test  of 
faith — ‘ What  shall  we  say  then?  Shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  grace  may  abound?  God  forbid 
— Know  ye  not  that  to  whom  ye  yield  yourselves 
servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom  ye 
obey,  whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience 
unto  righteousness?’  Lastly,  who  does  not  feel 
his  faith,  hope,  and  charity  enlarged,  as  he  reads 
the  following  catholic  extension  of  justice,  and 
mercy,  and  truth,  published  by  the  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles — ‘ Glory,  and  honour,  and  peace,  to 
every  man  that  worketh  good,  of  the  Jew  first,  and 
also  of  the  Gentile.1 

The  Protestant  will  not  fail  to  remark  that  the 
preaching  of  St.  Paul  exhibits  a far  more  catholic 
spirit  than  the  narrower  and  more  sectarian  views 
of  St.  Peter.  Indeed,  the  word  Catholic  might 
with  much  greater  fitness  be  applied  to  the  teach- 
ing of  the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  than  to 
the  teaching  of  the  apostle  whose  Judaizing  spirit 
sought  to  narrow  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  impose 
the  yoke  of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  to  keep  up 
the  power  of  the  priesthood.  And  if  any  one  of 
the  apostles  is  to  be  selected  as  the  patron  saint 
of  the  whole  catholic  church,  surely  that  apostle 
should  be  the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  Or, 
if  the  Church  of  Rome  claims  to  be  the  Catholic 
Church,  there  seems  an  especial  reason  for  her 
adopting  the  really  catholic  views  of  Christi- 
anity which  were  addressed  by  St.  Paul  to  the 
Romans. 

We  have  found  it  impossible  to  refer  to  the 
above  striking  and  important  passage  from  St. 
Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans  without  being  led 
into  a few  remarks  upon  its  general  scope  and  mean- 
ing. But  the  view  on  which  we  would  especially 
insist,  as  the  subject  of  our  present  article,  is,  that 
theologians  have  in  this  passage,  as  they  have  in 
many  other  passages  closely  connected  with  it,  a 
warrant  for  bringing  ancient  history,  literature, 
and  philosophy,  and  especially  the  philosophy  of 
Greece,  to  bear  upon  the  rise  and  progress,  the 
object  and  end  of  Christianity.  For  assuredly 
every  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which 
relates  to  the  superstition  of  the  Gentiles,  the 
immoralities  of  the  Gentiles,  the  opinions  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Gentiles,  must 
derive  evidence  and  explanation  from  Gentile 
history,  literature,  and  philosophy;  just  as  pas- 
sages which  have  reference  to  the  Jews  must 
derive  evidence  and  explanation  from  Jewish  his- 
tory, literature,  and  philosophy.  The  latter  is 
more  especially  the  case  with  passages  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  relate  to  the  termination  of 
sacrifice  and  the  priesthood ; whilst,  the  former 
applies  more  especially  to  passages  which  relate 
to  the  word  of  God  and  the  Christian  ministry. 
It  might,  indeed,  be  supposed  from  the  opinions 
and  conduct  of  some  Christians  in  all  ages  (who 
have  all  but.  adduced  their  ignorance  in  proof  of 
the  soundness  of  their  faith),  that  the  oft-quoted 
words  of  the  learned,  as  well  as  pious,  Apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  ‘after  that,  in  the  wisdom  of  God, 
the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  it  pleased 
God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them 
that  believe’  (1  Cor.  i.  12),  contained  a warrant, 
on  the  we  hand,  for  preaching  without  knowledge, 


PHILOSOPHY,  GREEK.  525 

and  on  the  oilier  hand,  for  faith  without  obedi* 
ence.  If  we  inquire  into  the  real  meaning  of 
those  remarkable  words,  we  shall  find  it  closely 
connected  with  our  present  subject,  and  directly 
opposed  to  the  unlearned  and  unwise  meaning 
which  has  been  deduced  from  it,  by  what,  may  bo 
called  the  pride  of  ignorance,  as  a warrant  for 
presumption.  Indeed,  it  is  not  a little  remark- 
able, that  few  passages  require  more  real  learning 
and  true  wisdom  for  their  sound  interpretation, 
than  that  which  has  been  so  often  and  so  hastily 
quoted  as  a warrant  for  a contempt  of  all  learning. 
Let  us  endeavour  to  understand  the  real  meaning 
of  the  passage  : and,  in  order  to  do  so,  let  us 
return  to  our  former  quotation. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  the  necessity  of  a great  religious  change, 
preparatory  to  a great  moral  change — a change  of 
faith  and  worship,  preparatory  to  a change  ir. 
principles  and  conduct — is  fully  and  plainly  made 
out.  The  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  was  about  to 
build  upon  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  but,  for  the 
edification  of  the  whole  world,  a purer  faith  and 
a more  reasonable  service  than  Jew  or  Gentile 
had  yet  known.  The  moral  ruin  of  the  Jewish 
temple  had  already  taken  place — ‘ Behold,  thou 
art  called  a Jew,  and  restest  in  the  law,  and 
makest  thy  boast  of  God  ; and  knowest  his  will, 
and  approvest  the  things  that  are  more  excellent, 
being  instructed  out  of  the  law  ; and  art  con- 
fident that  thou  thyself  art*  a guide  to  the  blind,  a 
light  of  them  which  are  in  darkness,  an  instructor 
of  the  foolish,  a teacher  of  babes;  which  hast  the 
form  of  knowledge  and  of  the  truth  in  the  law  ; — 
Thou,  therefore,  which  teachest  another,  teach est 
thou  not  thyself?  Thou  that  preachest,  A man 
should  not  steal,  dost  thou  steal  ? Thou  that 
sayest,  A man  should  not  commit  adultery,  dost 
thou  commit  adultery?,  Thou  that  abhorrest 
idols,  dost  thou  commit  sacrilege  ? Thou  that 
makest  thy  boast  of  the  law,  through  breaking 
the  law  dishonourest  thou  God’  (Rom.  ii.  21)? 
On  the  other  hand,  the  ruins  of  Gentile  temples, 
Egyptian,  Greek,  and  Roman,  still  witness  the 
truth  of  St.  Paul’s  words  to  the  same  effect — 
‘ When  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him  not  as 
God,  but  became  vain  in  their  imaginations,  and 
their  foolish  heart  was  darkened.  Professing 
themselves  to  be  wise,  they  became  fools,  and 
changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into 
an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  and  to 
birds,  and  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things. 
Wherefore  God  also  gave  them  up  to  uncleau- 
ness.’ 

It  is  impossible  to  over-estimate  the  importance 
of  this  lesson,  or  the  plainness  of  the  evidence; 
the  lesson , that  corruption  of  religion  implies  cor- 
ruption of  morals;  the  evidence,  the  phenomena 
of  the  civilized  world  at  that,  great  period  of 
history.  Respecting  the  religious  and  moral 
corruptions  of  ibe  Jews  at  that  period,  our  present 
argument  does  not  require  us  to  say  more.  Lei 
us  then  turn  to  the  corruptions  of  the  heathens. 
Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  progressively- 
increasing  profligacy  of  the  heathen  world,  as  ex- 
hibited in  Greek  and  Roman  history  and  literature, 
are  aware  that  the  picture  drawn  by  St.  Paul  is 
fully  borne  out  by  facts.  The  sanctity  and  purity 
of  the  domestic  hearth  were  undei mined;  the 
roof-tree  virtues,  which  are  a nation’s  strength, 
had  given  way  ; and  the  vast  edifice  of  Greek 


526  PHILOSOPHY,  GREEK. 

science  and  Roman  power  was  tottering  to  its 
fall.  That  this  is  no  exaggerated  statement,  we 
appeal  to  Plato,  Aristophanes,  and  Lucian,  to 
Tacitus,  Martial,  Ovid,  and  the  Roman  satirists. 
Indeed,  the  summary  given  by  the  Roman  His- 
torian of  a somewhat  earlier  period,  points  to  the 
same  conclusion  : — ‘ Labante  deinde  paulatim 
disciplina,  velut  desidentes,  primo  mores  sequatur 
animo ; deinde  ut  magis  magisque  lapsi  sint,  turn 
ire  cceperint  praecipites  : donee  ad  haec  tempora, 
quibus  nec  vitia  nostra  nec  remedia  pati  possumus, 
perventum  est  ’ (Liv.  Preef.').  In  that  state  of 
unprinciple  and  indiscipline,  Roman  civilization 
was  unable  to  resist  the  attacks  which  her  vices 
had  provoked.  The  close  connection  between  licen- 
tiousness and  blood-guiltiness  was  never  so 
strikingly  manifested  as  in  the  frightful  exhibi- 
tions which  formed  ‘a  Roman  holiday’  in  the 
amphitheatre.  Woman  must  have  lost  all  the 
best  attributes  of  her  nature  and  her  character 
before  she  could  sit  and  applaud  at  such  a scene. 
If,  casting  from  us  every  poor  and  petty  jealousy, 
sexual,  and  sectarian,  and  philosophical,  we  con- 
trast that  scene  of  woman’s  debasement  with 
those  happier  scenes  where  thousands  of  our 
countrywomen  have  met  in  hall  and  temple, 
and  even  in  the  open  air,  to  give  freedom  to 
the  slave,  and  remember  that  these  are  as  cer- 
tainly direct  consequences  of  Christianity,  as 
those  were  direct  consequences  of  heathen  super- 
stition (unless,  indee^,  St.  Paul’s  unanswerable 
argument,  and  the  concurrent  testimony  of  ancient 
and  modern  history,  are  false  instead  of  true), 
assuredly  we  have  before  us  proofs  of  a great 
religious  and  moral  and  political  advance  in  the 
situation  and  character  of  women  ; and  the  cause, 
as  well  as  the  effect,  is  plainly  before  us. 

W e speak  of  a great  and  notorious  fact,  when 
we  say  that  there  was  not  a hope  that  sanctity, 
and  purity,  and  love,  would  be  restored  to  the 
character  of  woman,  and  by  her  means  to  the 
domestic  hearth, — and  by  the  domestic  hearth  to 
the  councils  of  legislators,  and  the  acts  of  nations, 
— that  there  was  not  a hope  that  woman  would 
resume,  or  rather,  would  assume,  her  true  position 
in  society,  till  heathen  superstitions  and  heathen 
rites  were  superseded  by  a holier  faith  and  a purer 
worship.  Nor  is  the  fact  less  notorious  or  less 
important,  that  it  was  the  religion  of  Christ 
which,  by  superseding  those  heathen  superstitions 
and  heathen  rites  by  a holier  faith  and  a purer 
worship,  did,  at  the  same  time,  and  as  a direct 
consequence,  raise  woman  to  her  true  position  in 
society.  It  is,  we  repeat,  matter  of  fact  that  the 
religion  of  Christ  restored  sanctity,  and  purity, 
and  love  to  the  domestic  hearth,  making  those 
three  Christian  graces,  if  we  may  be  allowed  that 
expression,  the  best  ornaments  of  the  female  cha- 
racter, and  giving  Christian  love  and  Christian 
charity  an  influence  which  has  at  once  softened 
and  purified  the  heart.  And,  were  it  possible  that 
the  ill-directed  ingenuity  which  has  laboured  for 
the  downfall  of  religion  on  the  continent,  should 
get  footing  in  this  country,  we  persuade  ourselves 
that  it  would  be  resisted  effectually  by  our 
countrywomen,  who  might  plead  that  the  best 
graces  of  their  character, — graces  which  have 
made  them  eminent  amongst  the  women  of  Europe, 
need  we  add,  of  the  world, — their  sanctity,  their 
purity,  and  their  affection,  have  been  inspired, 
wd  disciplined,  and  directed  by  the  religion  of 


PHILOSOPHY,  GREEK. 

Christ.  Now,  as  there  cannot  be  a greater  ^ ii 
to  society  than  the  corruption  of  women,  nor  a 
greater  good  than  female  virtue,  so  there  cannot 
be  a more  important  evidence  respecting  the  value 
of  Christianity  in  the  progress  of  civilization, 
than  this  proof  which  ancient  history  and  lite- 
rature supply  ; first,  of  the  moral  degradation 
produced  by  heathen  superstition ; and,  secondly, 
of  the  moral  cure  wrought  by  Christianity. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  it  is  the  object  of 
St.  Paul  to  prove,  both  to  Jew  and  Gentile,  that 
the  moral  world,  though  it  had  the  law  of  Moses 
and  the  philosophy  of  Greece,  was  so  sunk  in 
superstition,  sin,  and  crime,  that  the  whole  body 
of  society  was  corrupt,  and  that  there  was  nut  a 
hope  of  cure  till  the  sources  of  corruption,  whether 
in  the  pharisaical  observances  of  the  Jew,  or  in 
the  profligate  superstitions  of  the  Gentile,  were 
sujierseded  by  a purer  faitli  and  a sounder  worship. 
St.  Paul  contends  that  neither  the  law  of  Moses, 
nor  the  philosophy  of  Greece,  was  able  to  raise 
Jew  or  Gentile  from  the  bondage  of  sin  and 
death  ; and  he  challenges  the  religious  and  the 
moral,  and,  we  may  add,  the  political  facts  of 
those  times,  to  prove  the  truth  of  his  assertion. 
His  object  was  not  to  depreciate  either  the  Mosaic 
law  or  the  Greek  philosophy,  the  authority  of  the 
one,  or  the  morality  of  the  other,  but  to  show  that  so 
long  as  the  pharisaical  observances  of  the  Jew,  and 
the  profligate  superstitions  of  the  Gentile,  remained 
in  force,  neither  religion  nor  philosophy  could  pre- 
vent the  world  from  sinking  deeper  and  deeper  into 
pollution.  The  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  allows 
that  ‘ they  knew  God,’  but  he  contends  that 
‘they  glorified  Him  not  as  God  ;’  and,  therefore,  he 
asserts,  ‘ God  gave  them  up  to  lasciviousness  he 
allows,  ‘ that  some  amongst  them,  though  they 
had  not  the  law,  did  by  nature  the  things  con- 
tained in  the  law,’  but  he  contends  that  the  prin- 
ciples and  conduct  of  such  men  were  but  an  oasis 
in  the  midst  of  a howling  wilderness,  for  that  the 
mass  of  men  were  given  up  ‘ to  vile  affections.’ 

It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  in  the  Greek  phi- 
losophy we  find  the  rise  and  progress  of  a specu- 
lative knowledge  of  God  of  no  common  character 
or  measure ; but  it  is  just  as  impossible  to  deny 
that  though  the  nations,  amongst  which  a few 
such  burning  and  shining  lights  had  arisen,  might 
be  said  ‘ to  know  God,’  it  was  notorious  that 
‘ they  glorified  Him  not  as  God.’  It  is  by 
following  out  St.  Paul’s  argument,  and  by  ex- 
amining the  truth  of  his  statements,  that  we  feel 
all  the  necessity  of  an  abolition  of  heathen  super- 
stitions, and  the  establishing  of  a better  faith, 
before  sound  principles  and  right  conduct  could 
be  understood  and  practised  by  the  mass  ol 
mankind,  though  they  had  been  conceived  by  a 
few  philosophers. 

If  to  this  evidence  of  the  necessity  of  a change 
of  faith  and  worship  for  the  salvation  of  the 
ancient  world,  proving  that  without  such  change 
the  religious,  and  moral,  and  political  reforma- 
tions which  were  required,  were  quite  unattain- 
able,— if,  to  this  evidence,  we  add  proofs  of  the 
religious,  moral,  and  political  reformation  which 
Christianity  actually  introduced, — and  if,  to  this 
two-fold  evidence  respecting  the  necessity  of  a 
change  of  faith,  and  the  efficacy  of  the  change  to 
Christianity,  we  add  the  evidence  of  the  actual 
effects  of  Christianity  in  our  own  times,  freedom 
to  the  slave,  knowledge  to  the  ignorant,  and  civi- 


PHINEHAS. 

ligation  to  the  heathen  (for  though  these  benefits 
have  been  wrought  by  politicians,  it  has  been  in 
compliance  with  a motive  and  a zeal  which  as- 
suredly were  not  supplied  by  worldly  wisdom  or 
worldly  justice), — and  if,  to  this  three-fold  evi- 
dence, we  add  present  indications,  that  still 
higher  religious,  and  moral,  and  political  effects 
will  be  wrought  out  by  Christianity — we  have  in 
this  four-fold  evidence  a body  of  proof  respecting 
the  usefulness  of  Christianity  exactly  fitted  for 
the  wants  of  the  time. — J.  P.  P. 

PHINEHAS  (DHPS,  mouth  of  brass  ; Sept, 
son  of  Eleazar  and  grandson  of  Aaron 
the  high  priest.  An  incident  which  illustrates 
the  zealous  and  somewhat  passionate  character  of 
Phinehas,  occurred  before  the  Israelites  entered 
the  Promised  Land.  The  Israelites  we’-e  en- 
camped in  the  plains  of  Moab,  and  were  lament- 
ing the  sin  into  which  they  had  been  seduced  by 
the  Midianites,  when  a prince  of  Judah  named 
Zimri  was  beheld  conducting  a woman  ofMidian 
named  Cozbi  to  his  tent.  The  licentious  effron- 
tery of  this  act  kindled  the  wrath  of  Phinehas, 
who  hastened  after  them  into  the  tent,  and  trans- 
fixed them  both  with  his  javelin  (Num.  xxv.  7, 
sq.)  This  bold  act  pointed  out  Phinehas  to 
Moses  as  a proper  person  to  accompany  as  priest 
the  expedition  which  was  immediately  after  sent 
forth,  under  the  command  of  Joshua,  against  the 
Midianites,  and  by  which  the  cause  of  the  de- 
luded Israelites  was  abundantly  avenged  (Num. 
xxxi.  6,  sq.)  After  the  conquest  of  the  Promised 
Land,  when  the  warriors  of  the  two  and  half 
tribes  beyond  the  Jordan  were  permitted  to  return 
to  their  homes,  Phinehas  was  at  the  head  of  the 
deputation  sent  after  them  to  inquire  and  remon 
strate  concerning  the  altar  which,  on  their  way, 
they  had  set  up  on  the  bank  of  the  Jordan  ; and 
it  was  he  doubtless  who  pronounced  the  forcible 
address  to  the  supposed  offenders.  He  was  cer- 
tainly the  first  to  express  his  satisfaction  and  joy 
at  the  explanation  which  was  given,  and  which, 
with  a lightened  heart,  he  bore  back  to  the  tribes 
assembled  at  Shiloh  (Josh.  xxii.  5,  sq.). 

It  appears  that  while  his  father  lived  Phinehas 
filled  the  post  of  superintendent  or  chief  of  the 
«.«Levites,  probably  after  Eleazar  became  high  priest 
(Num.  iii.  32;  1 Chron.  ix.  20).  At  the  death 
of  his  father,  he  succeeded  to  the  pontificate 
(Josh.  xxiv.  33) ; but  the  only  case  in  which  he 
appears  officially  in  the  Bible,  is  in  connection 
with  the  unhappy  circumstances  recorded  at  the 
end  of  the  book  of  Judges,  in  which  he  comes 
forward  as  high  priest  to  consult  Jehovah.  This 
mention  of  his  name  enables  us  to  conclude  that 
the  chronological  place  of  these  occurrences  would 
be  rather  towards  the  beginning  than  at  the  latter 
end  of  the  book  in  which  they  are  found  [Judges  ; 
Priest]. 

2.  PHINEHAS,  son  of  Eli  the  high  priest,  and 
brother  of  Hophni  [Ei.i  ; Hophni;  Samuel]. 

PHLEGON  ($\eya>v),  one  of  the  Christians 
of  Rome  to  whom  Paul  sent  his  salutations  (Rom. 
xvi.  14).  The  legend  ( op . Dorotheas)  makes 
him  to  have  been  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  and 
bishop  of  Marathon. 

PHCEBE  (4*01/377),  a deaconess  of  the  church 
at  Cenchreae,  recommended  to  the  kind  atten- 
tion of  the  church  of  Rome  by  St.  Paul,  who  had 
received  liospitable  treatment  from  her  (Rom. 


PHOENICIA.  527 

xvi.  1).  It  is  probable  that  she  was  the  bearer  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

PHOENICIA,  and  the  PHOENICIANS.  The 
Greeks  called  those  merchants  who  came  from 
that  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  which  runs 
parallel  with  Mount  Lebanon,  Golvuccs.  This 
name  probably  arose  from  the  circumstance  that 
the  chief  article  of  the  commerce  of  these  mer- 
chants was  <\>oiv6s, purple.  The  word  <poiv6s  means 
bloodied,  and  is  probably  related  to  tySros,  mur 
der . This  derivation  of  the  name  is  alluded  to 
by  Strabo  (i.  p.  42),  Strabo,  however,  maintains 
that  the  Phoenicians  were  called  QoIvikos,  because 
they  resided  originally  on  the  coasts  of  the  Red 
Sea.  Reland,  in  his  Palccstina  ex  Monument  is 
Veteribus  Ilhistrata,  derives  the  name  from 
<polvi£,  palm-tree.  Bocliart,  in  his  Canaan  (i. 
1),  derives  it  from  the  Hebrew  pjy  sons  of 
Anakm 

The  country  inhabited  by  the  Phoenicians  was 
called  by  the  Greeks  QoivIki 7,  and  by  the  Romans 
Phoenice.  In  Cicero  (De  Fin.  iv.  20)  there  oc- 
curs the  doubtful  reading  Phoenicia.  (Compare 
the  Vulgate  in  Num.  xxxiii.  51.)  However,  this 
latter  form  of  the  name  has  come  into  general 
use.  (Compare  Gesenii  Monumenta  Phoenicia , 
Lips.  1837,  p.  338;  Forbiger,  Ha?idbuch  der 
alien  Geographie,  Lips.  1842-44,  p.  659,  sq.) 

This  name  was  used  by  the  ancients  sometimes 
in  a wider,  sometimes  in  a narrower  sense.  Phoe- 
nicia, in  its  widest  signification,  embraces  the 
whole  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  situated  between 
the  river  Orontes  and  Pelusium.  (Compare 
Strabo,  xvi.  p.  754,  sq.)  When  Ptolemaeus  and 
Strabo  speak  of  Phoenicia  in  a more  restricted 
sense,  they  mention  the  river  Eleutheros  as  its 
northern  boundary  ; and  Ptolemaius  states  also 
that  Dora,  situated  to  the  south  of  the  promon- 
tory Carmel,  and  north  of  the  river  Chorseus, 
was  the  most  southern  of  the  maritime  towns  ol 
Phoenicia.  The  accounts  contained  in  the  Old 
Testament  agree  with  these  statements,  since  the} 
mention  the  town  of  Aradus  ("IVIN),  situated  a 
short  distance  north  of  the  river  Eleutheros,  as 
being  the  most  northern  town  of  those  maritime 
colonies  which  had  proceeded  from  Sidon,  and 
Dor  as  being  the  most  southern  maritime  town 
belonging  to  the  Canaanites,  which  the  Israelites 
had  not  been  able  to  conquer.  (Compare  Gen.  x. 
18;  Jos.  xvii.  12,13.)  However,  it  appears  that 
at  a later  period  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  was  in 
possession  of  this  town.  (Compare  1 Kings  iv. 
11;  1 Chron.  vii.  29).  The  towns  Dor  and  Acco 
(Ptolemais)  were  mercantile  places  of  less  im- 
portance than  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  are  conse- 
quently not  often  mentioned.  Hence  arises  the 
fact  that  the  territory  of  Sidon  is  sometimes  spoken 
of  as  if  it  were  the  most  southern  part  of  Phoe- 
nicia. For  this  reason  we,  also,  in  speaking  of 
Phoenicia,  mean  only  that  slip  of  the  coast  which 
is  bounded  towards  the  east  by  Mount  Lebanon, 
which  is  about  twelve  miles  wide,  and  extends 
about  one  hundred  miles  from  north  to  south,  be- 
tween the  river  Eleutheros  and  the  promontory 
Carmel.  The  Israelites  called  this  slip  J.V33,  the 
netherlands,  or  loivlands , in  contradistinction  to 
the  neighbouring  mountains.  (Compare  Forbiger, 
Handbuch  der  alten  Geographie , Lips.  1842-44, 
vol.  ii.  p.  659,  sq.) 

Phoenicia  is  situated  between  about  lat.  33® 
and  35°  N.,  and  under  long.  33°  E,  The  whol« 


528 


PHOENICIA. 


PHOENICIA, 


of  Phoenicia  is  situated  at  the  western  declivity  of 
Mount  Lebanon.  Compare  the  article  Libanus 

Phoenicia  was  distinguished  by  the  variety  of  its 
vegetable  productions.  This  variety  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  great  diversity  of  climate  produced 
by  the  diversity  in  the  elevation  of  the  soil.  The 
Lebanon  is  said  to  bear  winter  on  its  head, 
spring  on  its  shoulders,  autumn  in  its  lap,  and  tc 
have  summer  at  its  feet.  The  fertility  of  Phoe- 
nicia is  increased  by  the  numerous  streams  whose 
springs  are  in  Mount  Lebanon.  Even  in  the 
■Song  of  Solomon  we  read  the  praises  of  the  spr  ing 
of  living  waters  which  flows  down  from  Lebanon. 
The  dense  population  assembled  in  the  great,  mer- 
cantile towns  greatly  contributed  to  augment  by 
artificial  means  the  natural  fertility  of  the  soil. 
The  population  of  the  country  is  at  present  very 
much  reduced,  but  there  are  still  found  aqueducts 
and  artificial  vineyards  formed  of  mould  carried 
up  to  the  terraces  of  the  naked  rock.  Ammianus 
Marcellinus  says,  Phoenice  regio  plena  gra- 
tiarum  et  venustatis,  urbibus  decorata  magnis  et 
pulchris — Phoenicia  is  a charming  and  beau- 
tiful country,  adorned  with  large  and  elegant 
cities.  Even  now  this  country  is  among  the  most 
fertile  in  Western  Asia.  It  produces  wheat,  rye, 
and  barley,  and,  besides  the  more  ordinary  fruits, 
also  apricots,  peaches,  pomegranates,  almonds, 
citrons,  oranges,  figs,  dates,  sugar-cane,  and  grapes, 
which  furnish  an  excellent  wine.  In  addition  to 
these  products,  it  yields  cotton,  silk,  and  tobacco. 
The  country  is  also  adorned  by  the  variegated 
flowers  of  oleander  and  cactus.  The  higher  re- 
gions are  distinguished  from  the  bare  mountains 
of  Palestine  by  being  covered  with  oaks,  pines, 
cypress-trees,  acacias,  and  tamarisks ; and  above 
all  by  majestic  cedars,  of  which  there  are  still  a 
few  very  old  trees,  whose  stems  measure  from 
thirty  to  forty  feet  in  circumference.  The  inha- 
bitants of  Sur  still  carry  on  a profitable  traffic 
with  the  produce  of  Mount  Lebanon,  namely, 
wood  and  charcoal.  Phoenicia  produces  also 
flocks  of  sheep  and  goats;  and  innumerable 
swarms  of  bees  supply  excellent  honey.  In  the 
forests  there  are  bears,  wolves,  panthers,  and 
jackals.  The  sea  furnishes  great  quantities  of 
fish,  so  that  Sidon,  the  most  ancient  among  the 
Phoenician  towns,  derived  its  name  from  fishing. 
Concerning  the  natural  geography  of  Phoenicia, 
compare  especially  the  works  ol'Forbiger,  Raumer, 
and  Robinson;  also  Winer,  vol.  ii.  p.  30. 

The  inhabitants  of  Phoenicia  might  at  the  first 
view  appear  to  have  derived  their  origin  from  the 
same  source  (pre-Abrahamite)  as  the  Hebrews; 
for  they  spoke  the  same  language.  The  Plue- 
nician  proper  names  of  persons  and  places  occur- 
ring in  the  Old  Testam<*ct  may  be  explained 

from  the  Hebrew.  For  instance,  Mel- 

chizedek,  king  of  righteousness  (Gen.  xiv.  18); 

'UK,  Abimelech,/a<Aer  of  the  king  (Gen. 
xx.  2) ; “)¥,  rock,  the  Hebrew  name  for  Tyre. 
The  Phoenician  inscriptions  on  monuments  and 
coins  exhibit  also  the  characteristics  of  the  Hebrew 
dialect  in  contradistinction  to  the  Aramaean  and 
Arabic.  There  are  slight  deviations  from  the  an- 
cient classical  Hebrew,  which  may  easily  be  ex- 
plained from  the  circumstance  that  the  most 
ancient  Phoenician  inscriptions  now  extant  are 
Dot  older  than  the  fourth  century  before  Christ. 
The  most  ancient  Phoenician  inscriptions  are 


those  on  the  Cilician  coins.  (Compare  Gesenh.a, 
Geschichtc  der  Hebriiischen  Sprache  tend  Sc/in  ft, 
Leipz.  1815,  p.  16,  sq.  ; and  Gesenii  Monu - 
menta  Phoenicia , p.  335,  sq.) 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  Phoenicians  and 
Canaanites  are,  however,  described  as  descending, 
not  from  Shem,  but  from  Ham.  Herodotus,  also, 
on  the  authority  of  some  Persian  historians,  states 
that  the  Phoenicians  came  as  colonists  to  1 he  Syrian 
coasts  from  the  Erythraean  Sea.  He  even  appeals 
to  the  statement  of  the  Phoenicians  themselves 
(vii.  89).  from  which  it  appears  that  they  resided 
originally  on  the  shores  of  the  Erythraean  Sea; 
which  sea,  in  its  larger  signification,  extended  from 
the  eastern  shores  of  Egypt  to  the  western  shores  of 
India.  Strabo  relates  in  his  sixteenth  book  (p.  766), 
that  in  the  Persian  Gulf  were  two  islands;  one 
of  which  was  called  Tyros  or  Tylos,  and  the  other 
Aradus,  on  which  were  found  temples  similar  to 
those  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  inhabitants,  who 
stated  that,  the  Phoenicians  went  out  from  them 
as  colonists.  An  island,  south  of  the  Bahrein 
Islands,  st  ill  bears  the  name  of  Arad.  (Compare 
Niebuhr’s  Beschreibung  von  Arabien.)  Jus 
tinus  also  (xvi.  3)  furnishes  a similar  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  Phoenicians.  These  are  the 
authorities  by  which  most  antiquarians  have  been 
induced  to  consider  the  Phoenicians  as  colonists 
from  the  Persian  Gulf.  Hamaker,  however,  in 
his  Miscellanea  Phoenicia  (Lugduni  Batavorum, 
1828,  p.  172,  sq.),  asserts  that  the  Phoenicians 
came  from  the  Arabian  Gulf ; and  Hengstenberg 
( De  Jlebtis  Tyriomm,  Berolini,  1S32,  p.  93) 
maintains  that  the  Phoenicians  came  into  their 
country  immediately  after  the  dispersion  of  man- 
kind. However,  they  are  not  mentioned  in 
Genesis  among  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine. 

The  first  Phoenician  colony  was  Sidon,  which  is 
therefore  called  in  Genesis  (x.  15)  the  first-born 
of  Canaan.  But  soon  other  colonies  arose,  like 
Arka  (Gen.  x.  17),  Aradus,  and  Smyrna  (Gen. 
x.  18),  &c.,  whose  power  extended  beyond  the 
Jordan,  and  who  drove  out  before  them  the  earlier 
inhabitants  of  Palestine.  Hence  it  arose  that  the 
appellation,  ‘the  land  of  Canaan,’  was  transferred 
to  the  whole  of  Palestine,  although  it  is  by  no 
means  a country  of  a low  level,  but  is  full  of 
high  elevations.  However,  the  Canaanites,  in  t 
stricter  sense,  were  the  people  who  resided  in  the; 
lower  regions  along  the  coast,  and  on  the  bank* 
of'  the  Jordan. 

When  the  Israelites  conquered  the  country,  the 
Canaanites  on  the  Phoenician  coast,  who  resided 
in  powerful  maritime  towns,  preserved  their  inde- 
pendence, and  were  called  Canaanites  in  parti- 
cular. Thus  we  read,  in  Isa.  xxiii.  11, 
Canaan,  in  the  signification  of  Phoenicia.  The 
same  word  has  also  this  meaning  in  the  inscrip- 
tions on  the  Phoenician  coins.  In  the  Septuagint 
the  Hebrew  is  frequently  translated  (poll'll 

In  Job  xl.  30,  A.  V.  xli.  6,  the  word  '3^32  mean 
a merchant , because  the  Phoenicians  were  the 
most  important  of  all  mercantile  nations. 

The  Carthaginians,  as  Phoenician  colonists, 
maintained,  even  in  the  days  of  St.  Augustine, 
that  they  were  Canaanites.  In  Greek  writers  also 
occurs  the  natne  f°r  Phoenicia  (comp.  Gesenii 
Thesaurus  Linfuae  Hebraicee,  Lipsiae,  1839,  tom 
ii.  p.  696,  and  Gesenii  Monumenta  Phoenicia , 
p.  270,  sq.).  The  d^ilect  of  the  Israelites  perhaps 
resembled  more  the  Aramaean,  and  that  of  tiy 


PHOENICIA. 


PHOENICIA. 


529 


Pbosnicians  more  the  Arabic  ; but  this  difference 
was  nearly  effaced  when  both  nations  resided  in 
the  same  country,  and  had  frequent  intercourse 
with  each  other.  Concerning  the  original  country 
of  the  Phoenicians  and  their  immigration  into  Ca- 
naan, compare  especially  Bertheau,  Zur  Geschickte 
der  Israeliten,  pp.  152-1 S6,  Gottingen,  1810; 
and  Leugerke’s  Iianaan , Volks  und  Religions - 
geschichte  Israels,  vol.  i.  p.  182,  sq.,  Konigsberg, 
1844. 

During  the  period  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan 
by  the  Israelites,  the  Phoenicians  possessed  the 
following  towns,  which  we  will  enumerate  suc- 
cessively, in  the  direction  from  south  to  north  : — 
Dora  OH,  Josh.  xi.  2 ; xvii.  11,  sq.)  ; Plolemais 
()yj,  Judg.  i.  33);  Ecdippa '(I'DX,  Josh.  xix. 
29)  ; Tyre  ("11  ¥,  J°sh-  29)  ; Sarepta  (flSHl?, 

1 Kings  xvii.  9,  sq. ; Luke  iv.  26)  ; Sidon  (}1T¥, 
Gen.  x.  15);  Berytus  (iUVnill,  Ezek.  xlvii.  16; 

2 Sam.  viii.  8);  Byblus  Josh.  xiii.  5); 

Tripolis,  Simyra  ('"ID^H,  Gen.  x.  18);  Arka 
Cpiyn,  Gen.  x.  17);  Simna  ('D'Dil,  Gen.  x. 
16);  Aradus  (Hn^H,  Gen.  x.  18).  Compare 
the  respective  articles  on  these  towns.  Sidon  is 
the  only  Phoenician,  town  mentioned  in  Homer 
(see  Iliad,  vi.  239  ; xxiii.  743  ; Odyss.  xv.  415  ; 
xvii.  424). 

The  Phoenicians  in  general  are  sometimes  called 
vSidonians  (comp.  Gesenii  Monumenta  Phoenicia, 
ii.  267,  sq. ; Thesaurus  Lingua  Ilebraica,  under 
the  word  jIT*^).  Justinus  (xviii.  3)  alludes  to 
the  etymology  of  this  name  : ‘ Condita  urbe  quam 
a piscium  ubertate  Sidona  appellaverunt ; nam 
piscem  Phoenices  Sidon  vocabant,’ — a city  being 
built  which  they  called  Sidon,  from  the  abundance 
erf  fishes  ; for  the  Phoenicians  call  a fish  sidon. 
This  statement,  is  not  quite  correct.  But  the  root 
T)Y,  which  in  Hebrew  means  only  to  catch  beasts 
and  birds,  can  also  be  employed  in  Arabic  when 
the  catching  of  fishes  is  spoken  of.  This  root 
occurs  also  in  the  Aramaic,  in  the  signification  of 
both  hunting  and  fishing  (compare  the  article 
Zidon). 

Heeren,  in  his  work,  On  the  Commerce  and 
Politics  of  the  Ancients,  vol.  i.  part  ii.  p.  9,  Got- 
tingen, 1824,  justly  observes  that  the  numerous 
towns  whicli  were  crowded  together  in  the  narrow 
space  of  Phoenicia  covered  almost  the  entire  coast, 
and,  together  with  their  harbours  and  fleets,  must 
have  presented  an  aspect  which  has  scarcely  ever 
been  equalled,  and  which  was  calculated  to  im- 
press every  stranger  on  his  arrival  with  the  ideas 
of  wealth,  power,  and  enterprise. 

We  have  no  continuous  history  of  the  Phoeni- 
cians. The  sources  of  such  a history,  as  well  as 
the  works  proceeding  from  them,  have  been  lost. 
Josephus  states  that  there  were  kept  in  various 
Phoenician  towns,  collections  of  public  docu- 
ments and  annals.  Menander  of  Ephesus  derived 
his  information  from  such  annals  when  he  wrote, 
in  Greek,  a history  of  Tyre  (compare  Josephus, 
Contra  Ap.  1.  17, 18).  Dias,  also,  a native  Phoe- 
nician, wrote,  in  Greek,  a history  of  Tyre.  Of 
these  two  works,  only  a few  fragments  have  been 
preserved  (compare  Joseph.  Antiq.,  viii.  5.  3 ; xiii. 
1 , sq. ; ix.  14.  2 ; Cont.  Ap.  i.  77,  sq. ; Theophil. 
Ad  Autol.  iii.  22;  Sync.  Chron.  p.  182).  Philo 
of  Byblus  translated  and  re-modelled,  during 
the  reign  of  Hadrian,  a history  of  Phoenicia  and 
Egypt,  said  to  be  composed  by  Sanchoniathon, 

VOX-  X*. 


b.c . 1250.  From  this  woiit  Porpliyiius,  in  lhe 
fourth  century  after  Christ,  borrowed  come  co»- 
mogonical  arguments,  which  have  been  preserved 
in  Eusebii  Preparatio  Evangelica  (i.  10).  The 
nature  of  these  fragments  is  such,  that  they  cannot 
throw  much  light  upon  Phoenician  history.  Theo- 
dotus,  Hesycrates,  and  Moschos,  are  mentioned 
as  authors  on  Phoenicia,  by  Tatianus  (Cont. 
Graces,  § 37)  : their  works  are  likewise  lost. 
Gesenius  mentions,  in  his  Monumenta  Phoenicia 
(p.  363,  sq.),  some  later  Phoenician  authors,  who 
do  not  touch  upon  historical  subjects.  Our 
knowledge  of  Phoenician  history  is  . consequently 
confined  to  occasional  notices  in  the  Hebrew  ami 
classical  authors  of  antiquity.  This  deficiency 
of  historical  information  arises  also  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  facts  of  Phoenician  history 
were  less  connected  than  the  events  in  the  history 
of  other  nations.  The  Phoenicians  never  formed 
one  compact  body  politic,  and  consequently  did 
not  always  gradually  advance  in  their  political 
constitution  and  in  the  extent  of  their  power. 
Every  town  endeavoured  to  advance  its  commerce 
in  its  own  way.  Thus  there  constantly  entered 
into  the  life  of  the  Phoenicians  new  elements, 
which  disturbed  a gradual  historical  progress 
Phoenicia  was  a country  favourable  to  the  growth 
of  maritime  towns,  but  did  not  afford  room  for 
great  political  events.  The  history  of  the  Phoe 
nicians  is  that  of  their  external  commerce. 

A mercantile  nation  cannot  bear  despotic 
government,  because  the  greatest  external  liberty 
is  requisite  in  order  constantly  to  discover  new 
sources  of  gain,  and  to  enlarge  the  roads  of  com- 
merce. The  whole  of  Phoenicia  consisted  of  the 
territories  belonging  to  the  various  towns.  Each 
of  these  territories  had  its  own  constitution,  and 
in  most  of  them  a king  exercised  supreme  power. 
We  hear  of  kings  of  Sidon,  Tyre,  Aradus,  and 
Byblus.  It  seems  that  alter  Nebuchadnezzar  hail 
besieged  Tyre  in  vain,  the  royal  dignity  ceased 
for  some  time,  and  that  there  existed  a kind  of  re- 
publican administration,  under  sujfetes  or  judges. 
The  regal  power  was  always  limited  by  the  ma- 
gistracy and  the  priesthood.  The  independent 
Phoenician  states  seem  to  have  formed  a con- 
federation, at  the  head  of  which  stood  for  some 
time  Sidon,  and  at  a later  period  Tyre.  Tripoli i 
was  built  conjointly  by  the  various  states  in  order 
to  form  the  seat,  of  their  congress.  The  smaller 
states  were  sometimes  so  much  oppressed  by 
Tyre,  that  they  preferred  rather  to  submit  to  ex- 
ternal enemies  (compare  Heeren’s  Ideen , & c.,  p. 
1 5,  sq.  ; Beck’s  Anleitung  zur  yenaueren 
Kenntniss  der  Welt-  und  V biker- Geschichte,  p. 
252,  sq.,  and  581,  sq.). 

The  position  of  Phoenicia  was  most  favourable 
for  the  exchange  of  the  produce  of  the  East  and 
West.  The  Libanus  furnished  excellent  timber 
for  ships.  Corn  was  imported  from  Palestine. 
Persians,  Lydians,  and  Lycians,  frequently  served 
as  mercenaries  in  the  Phoenician  armies  (Ezek. 
xxvii.  10,  11).  Phoenicia  exported  wine  to 
Egypt  (Herod,  iii.  5,  6).  Purple  garments  were 
best  manufactured  in  Tyre  (Amat.i,  Be  Resti- 
tutione  Purpurarum , 3d  edit.,  Casenae,  1784). 
Glass  was  made  in  Sidon  and  Sarepta  (compare 
Heeren,  p.  86,  sq. ; Beck,  p.  593,  sq.).  In  Phoe- 
nicia was  exchanged  the  produce  of  all  known 
countries.  After  David  had  vanquished  the 
Edomites  and  conquered  the  coasts  of  the  Reel 


530 


PHOENICIA. 


PHOENICIA. 


Sea,  King  Hiram  of  Tyre  entered  into  a con- 
federacy with  Solomon,  by  which  he  ensured  for 
his  people  the  right  of  navigation  to  India.  The 
combined  fleet  of  the  Israelites  and  Phoenicians 
sailed  from  the  seaports  of  Ezion-geber  and  Elath. 
These  ports  were  situated  on  the  eastern  branch 
of  the  Red  Sea,  the  Sinus  jElaniticus,  or  Gulf 
of  Akaba.  Israelitish-Phcenician  mercantile  ex- 
peditious proceeded  to  Ophir,  perhaps  Abhira, 
situated  at  Ihe  mouth  of  the  Indus  (compare 
Lassen’s  Indische  A Iterthumskunde,  i.  537,  sq., 
Bonn,  1844).  It  seems,  however,  that  the  Indian 
coasts  in  general  were  also  called  Ophir.  Three 
years  were  required  in  order  to  accomplish  a mer- 
cantile expedition  to  Ophir  and  to  return  with 
cargoes  of  gold,  algum-wood,  ivory,  silver,  mon- 
keys, peacocks,  and  other  Indian  produce.  Some 
names  of  these  products  are  Indian  transferred 

into  Hebrew,  as  almuggim ; Sanscrit 

valgu , or,  according  to  the  Decanic  pronuncia- 
tion, valgum  ; D'OrTfC*  shen-habbim  (ivory)  ; 
Sanscrit  ibha  ; ?]lp,  koph  (fape)  ; Sanscrit  kapi  ; 

tukkiyim  (peacock);  Sanscrit  cilchi,  ac- 
cording to  the  Decanic  pronunciation  (compare  1 
Kings  ix.  27  ; x.  11,  22)  [Commerce  ; Ophir]. 

It  seems,  however,  that  these  mercantile  expe- 
ditions to  India  were  soon  given  up,  probably  on 
account  of  the  great  difficulty  of  navigating  the 
Red  Sea.  King  Jehoshaphat  endeavoured  to 
recommence  these  expeditions,  but  his  fleet  was 
wrecked  at  Ezion-geber  (1  Kings  xxii.  49). 
Abcut  b c.  616  or  601,  Phoenician  seamen  un- 
dertook, at  the  command  of  Pharaoh-Necho,  a 
voyage  of  discovery,  proceeding  from  the  Red 
Sea  round  Africa,  and  returning  after  two  years 
through  the  columns  of  Hercules  to  Egypt  (Herod, 
iv.  42).  The  27th  chapter  of  Ezekiel  mentions 
the  commerce  by  land  between  India  and  Phoe- 
nicia. The  names  of  mercantile  establishments 
on  the  coasts  of  Arabia  along  the  Persian  Gulf 
have  partly  been  preserved  to  the  present  day. 
In  these  places  the  Phoenicians  exchanged  the 
produce  of  the  west  for  that  of  India,  Arabia,  and 
Ethiopia.  Arabia  especially  furnished  incense, 
gold,  and  precious  stones.  The  Midianites  (Gen. 
xxxvii.  28)  and  the  Edomites  (Ezek.  xxvii.  16) 
effected  the  transit  by  their  caravans.  The  forti- 
fied Idumaean  town  Petra  contained  probably  the 
storehouses  in  which  the  produce  of  southern 
countries  was  collected.  From  Egypt  the  Phoe- 
nicians exported  especially  byssus  (Ezek.  xxvii.  7) 
for  wine.  According  to  an  ancient  tradition,  the 
■tyrant  of  Thebes,  Busiris,  having  soiled  his  hands 
with  the  blood  of  all  foreigners,  was  killed  by  the 
Tyrian  Hercules.  This  indicates  that  Phoenician 
colonists  established  themselves  and  their  civiliza- 
tion successfully  in  Upper  Egypt,  where  all 
strangers  usually  had  been  persecuted. 

At  a later  period  Memphis  was  the  place  where 
most  of  the  Phoenicians  in  Egypt  were  established. 
Phoenician  inscriptions  found  in  Egypt  prove 
that  even  under  the  Ptolemies  the  intimate  con- 
nection between  Phoenicia  and  Egypt  still  existed 
(compare  Gesenii  Monumenta  Phoenicia , xiii. 
224,  sq.). 

From  Palestine  the  Phoenicians  imported,  be- 
sides wheat,  especially  from  Judsea,  ivory,  oil, 
and  balm ; also  wool,  principally  from  the  neigh- 
bouring nomadic  Arabs.  Damascus  furnished 
wine  (Ezek.  xxvii.  5,  6,  17,  18,  21),  and  the 


mountains  of  Syria  wood.  The  tribes  about 
the  shores  of  the  Caspian  Sea  furnished  slaves 

and  iron ; for  instance,  the  Tibaraeans  (^OlT. 
Tubal),  and  Moschi  (^D  Meshech).  Horse- 
men, horses,  and  mules,  came  from  the  Armenians 
(nD“)3n  Togarmah).  See  Heeren,  pp.  86-130. 

The  treasures  of  the  East  were  exported  from 
Phoenicia  by  ships  which  sailed  first  to  Cyprus, 
the  mountains  of  which  are  visible  from  the 
Phoenician  coast.  Citium  was  a Phoenician  co- 
lony in  Cyprus,  the  name  of  which  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  whole  of  Cyprus,  and  even  to  some 
neighbouring  islands  and  coasts  called 
(Gen.  x.  4 ; Isa.  xxiii.  1, 12).  Hence  also  DTlil., 
the  name  of  a Canaanitish  or  Phoenician  tribe 
(Gesen.  Mon.  Phcen.,  p.  153).  Cyprus  was  subject 
to  Tyre  up  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
There  are  still  found  Phoenician  inscriptions 
which  prove  the  connection  of  Cyprus  with  Tyre. 
At  Rhodes  (D'OTl)  also  are  found  vestiges  of 
Phoenician  influencev.  From  Rhodes  the  moun- 
tains of  Crete  are  visible.  This  was  of  great 
importance  for  the  direction  of  navigators,  before 
the  discovery  of  the  compass.  In  Crete,  and  also 
in  the  Cycladic  and  Sporadic  Isles,  are  vestiges  of 
Phoenician  settlements.  On  the  Isle  of  Thasos, 
on  the  southern  coast  of  Thrace,  the  Phoenicians 
had  gold  mines  ; and  even  on  the  southern  shores 
of  the  Black  Sea,  they  had  factories.  However, 
when  the  Greeks  became  more  powerful,  the  Phoe- 
nicians sailed  more  in  other  directions.  They 
occupied  also  Sicily  and  the  neighbouring  islands, 
but  were,  after  the  Greek  colonization,  confined 
to  a few  towns,  Motya,  Soloes,  Panormus  (Thuc. 
vi.  2).  The  Phoenician  mercantile  establishments 
in  Sardinia  and  the  Balearic  Isles  could  scarcely 
be  called  colonies. 

Carthage  was  a Phoenician  colony,  which  pro- 
bably soon  became  important  by  commerce  with 
the  interior  of  Africa,  and  remained  connected 
with  Tyre  by  means  of  a common  sanctuary. 
After  Phoenicia  had  been  vanquished  by  the 
Assyrians,  Babylonians,  and  Persians,  the  settle- 
ments in  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  Spain  came  into 
the  power  of  Carthage.  The  Phoenicians  had  for 
a long  period  exported  from  Spain  gold,  silver, 
tin,  iron,  lead  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  13),  fruit,  wine,  oil, 
wax,  fish,  and  wool.  Their  chief  settlement  was 
Tarshish,  subjection , from  the  root 

he  vanquished , subjected.  The  Aramaeans  pro- 
nounced it  I^mn  ; hence  the  Greek  Tartessos. 
Teis  was  probably  only  the  name  of  a town  situ- 
ated to  the  west  of  the  pillars  of  Hercules  (Calpe 
and  Abyla,  now  Gibraltar  and  Ceuta),  and  even 
more  west  than  Gades,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Baetis 
(Herod,  iv.  62 ; Scymnus  Chius,  v.  161,  sq.). 
This  river  was  also  called  Tartessus  (Arist.  Me- 
teor. i.  13;  Paus.  vi.  19,  3;  Strabo,  iii.  p.  148). 
At  a later  period  the  town  of  Tartessus  obtained 
likewise  the  Phoenician  name  Carteja,  from  H*lp, 
toion  (Strabo,  iii.  p.  151). 

There  are  other  names  of  towns  in  Snain  which 
have  a Phoenician  derivation ; Gades,  Til,  septum , 
fence  (comp.  Gesen.  Mon.  Phcen.  p.  304,  sq.  349); 

Malaga,  rbl2,  on  account  of  much  salt-fish  thence 
exported ; or,  according  to  Gesenius  {Mon.  Phoen. 

p.  3 12,  sq.,  and  353),  from  officina 

fabrorum , iron-works,  pr  manufactory  of  other 
metals,  on  account  of  the  mines  to  be  found  there  ; 


PHOENICIA. 

Belon,  rkvx  civitas , city  (Gesen.  Mon.  Phoen. 
p.  311,  sq.,  aiul  348), 

The  voyage  to  Tarshish  was  the  most  import- 
ant of  those  undertaken  by  the  Phoenicians. 
Hence  it  was  that  'their  largest  vessels  were  all 
called  ships  of  Tarshish,  although  they  sailed 
iu  other  directions  (1  Kings  x.  22). 

It  appears,  also,  that  the  Phoenicians  exported 
tin  from  the  British  Isles,  and  amber  from 
the  coasts  of  Prussia.  Their  voyages  on  the 
western  coasts  of  Africa  seem  to  have  been  merely 
voyages  of  discovery,  without  permanent  results. 
The  Spanish  colonies  were,  probably,  the  prin- 
cipal sources  of  Phoenician  wealth,  and  were 
founded  at  a very  remote  period.  The  migration 
of  the  Phoenician,  Cadmus,  into  Boeotia,  like- 
wise belongs  to  the  earlier  period  of  Phoenician 
colonization.  Homer  seems  to  know  little  of  the 
Sidonian  commerce ; which  fact  may  be  explained 
by  supposing  that  the  Phoenicians  ayoided  all  col- 
lision and  competition  with  the  increasing  power 
of  the  Greeks,  and  preferred  to  direct  their  voyages 
into  countries  where  such  competition  seemed  to 
be  improbable. 

Phoenicia  flourished  most  in  the  period  from 
David  to  Cyrus,  b.c.  1050-550.  In  this  period 
were  founded  the  African  colonies,  Carthage, 
Utica,  and  Leptis.  These  colonies  kept  up  a 
frequent  intercourse  with  the  mother  country,  but 
'were  not  politically  dependent.  This  preserved 
Phoenicia  from  the  usual  stagnation  of  Oriental 
states.  The  civilization  of  the  Phoenicians  had  a 
great  influence  upon  other  nations.  Their  voyages 
are  described  in  Greek  mythology  as  the  expedi- 
tions of  the  Tyrian  Hercules.  The  course  of  the 
Tyrian  Hercules  was  not  marked  like  that  of 
other  conquerors — viz.  Medes  and  Assyrians — by 
ruined  cities,  and  devastated  countries,  but  by 
flourishing  colonies,  by  agriculture,  and  the  arts 
of  peace  (comp.  Heeren,  pp.  24-80,  and  Movers, 
Die  Phcenieier,  i.  pp.  12-55.) 

According  to  the  Phoenician  religion,  the  special 
object  of  worship  was  the  vital  power  in  nature, 
which  is  either  producing  or  destroying.  The  pro- 
ductive power  of  nature,  again,  is  either  procreative, 
masculine , or  receptive,  feminine.  These  funda- 
mental ideas  are  represented  by  the  Phoenician 
gods,  who  appear  under  a great  variety  of  names, 
because  these  leading  ideas  may  be  represented 
in  ©any  different  ways.  Compare  Movers,  U li- 
ter suchungen  iiber  die  Religion  und  die  Gott- 
heiten  der  Pheenicier,  Bonn,  1841  ; Stahr,  Die 
Religions  systeme  der  Ileidnischen  Vol/cer  des 
Orients,  Berlin,  1836,  pp.  376-448;  Selden, 
De  Diis  Syris. 

We  need  not  here  enter  into  details  concerning 
the  Phoenician  gods,  as  the  principal  of  them  have 
been  noticed  under  their  names  [Baal,  Ashto- 
retk].  It  suffices  to  state  generally,  that  the 
procreative  principle  was  worshipped  as  Baal, 

lord,  and  as  the  sun.  The  rays  of  the  sun 
are,  however,  not  only  procreative,  but  destruc- 
tive; and  this  destructive  power  is  especially  re- 
presented in  the  Ammonitish  fire-god  Moloch. 
Thus  Baal  represented  both  the  generative  and 
destructive  principles  of  nature;  in  which  latter 
capacity  the  Hebrews  worshipped  him  by  human 
sacrifice  (±  Kings  xviii.  28  ; Jer.  xix.  5).  He  was 
the  tutelary  god  of  Tyre,  and  hence  had  the  name 

Melkar,  lYlp^O,  equivalent  to  Melech-kereth 


PHYLACTERY  531 

mp  “J^D,  ‘ king  of  the  city,’  whom  the  Greeks 
called  the  Tyrian  Hercules. 

Of  Baaltis,  or  Astarte,  which  are  usually  iden- 
tified, although  they  seem  to  have  been  originally 
different,  we  shall  here  add  nothing  to  what  has 
been  already  stated  under  Ashtoketh. 

Besides  these  principal  deities,  the  Phoenicians 
worshipped  seven  kabirim,  Q'TOD,  mighty  ones, 
whose  numbers  corresponded  with  the  seven 
planets.  These  kabirim  were  considered  as  pro- 
tectors of  men  in  using  the  powers  of  nature, 
especially  navigation.  With  these  seven  kabirim 
was  associated  Esmun  the 

eighth ),  representing  the  sky  full  of  fixed  stars, 
surrounding  the  seven  planets,  the  refreshing  air 
and  the  warmth  of  life.  Esmun  was  called  by 
the  Greeks  5 AcrKhipTrios . Many  Phoenician  names 
are  compounded  with  Esmun.  Hence  we  infer 
that  he  was  frequently  worshipped  (comp.  Gesen. 
Mon.  Phoen.  p.  136,  sq.).— G.  B. 

PHRAT.  [Euphrates.] 

PHRYGIA  ($pvyia),  an  inland  province  of 
Asia  Minor,  bounded  on  the  north  by  Bithynia 
and  Galatia,  on  the  east  by  Cappadocia  and  Ly- 
caonia,  on  the  south  by  Lycia,  Pisidia,  and 
Isauria,  and  on  the  west  by  Caria,  Lydia,  and 
Mysia.  In  early  times  Phrygia  seems  tc  have 
comprehended  the  greater  part  of  the  peninsula 
of  Asia  Minor.  It  was  subsequently  divided 
into  Phrygia  Major  on  the  south,  and  Phrygia 
Minor  or  Epictetus  ( acquired ) on  the  north-west. 
The  Romans  divided  the  province  into  three  dis- 
tricts : Phrygia  Salutaris  on  the  east,  Phrygia 
Pacatiana  on  the  west,  and  Phrygia  Katakekau- 
mene  (the  burnt ) in  the  middle.  The  country, 
as  defined  by  the  specified  limits,  is  for  the  most 
part  level,  and  very  abundant  in  corn,  fruit,  and 
wine.  It  had  a peculiar  and  celebrated  breed  of 
cattle,  and  the  fine  raven  black  wool  of  the  sheep 
around  Laodicea  on  the  Lycus  was  in  high  re- 
pute. The  Maeander  and  the  Hermus  were  its 
chief  rivers.  The  Phrygians  were  a very  ancient 
people,  and  are  supposed  to  have  formed,  along 
with  the  Pelasgi,  the  aborigines  of  Asia  Minor. 
Jews  from  Phrygia  were  present  in  Jerusalem  at 
the  Feast  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  10),  and  the  pro- 
vince was  afterwards  twice  traversed  by  St.  Paul 
in  his  missionary  journeys  (Acts  xvi.  6;  xviii. 
23).  The  cities  of  Laodicea,  Hierapolis,  and 
Colossae,  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  be- 
longed to  Phrygia,  and  Antioch  *in  Pisidia  was 
also  within  its  limits  (see  the  names).  Rosen- 
miiller,  Bibl.  Geog.  iii.  43-45;  Winer,  Real-wcr- 
terbuch;  Leake,  Geog.  of  Asia  Minor. 

PHUL.  [Pul.] 

PHUT  (D-1S ; Sept.  4>oo 5),  a son  of  Ham  (Gen. 
x.  6),  progenitor  of  an  African  people  of  the  same 
name,  sometimes  rendered  ( Libya  ’ (Jer.  xlvi.  9 ; 
Ezek.  xxvii.  10  ; xxx.  5 ; xxxviii.  5;  Nah.  iii.  9) 
[Nations,  Dispersion  op]. 

PHYLACTERY  (< pvAaKTripia , called  in 
Rabbinical  Hebrew  tephelin ),  strips  of 

parchment  inscribed  with  particular  passages  of 
Scripture  (Deut.  vi.  4-9;  xi.  13-21;  Exod.  xiii. 
1-10,  11-16).  They  were  folded  up  and  en- 
closed in  a small  leather  box,  and  worn  upon  the 
forehead  nearly  between  the  eyes,  or  upon  the  left 
arm  near  to  the  heart,  being  attached  by  straps 
of  leather  (Joseph.  Antiq.  iv.  8,  13 ; Hieron.  in 
Ezek.  xxiv.  17).  They  were  considered  as  thus 


PHYSIC,  PHYSICIANS. 


&32 


reminding  Ihe  wearers  to  fulfil  the  law  with  the 
bead  and  heart  (comp.  Rosenm  uller  in  Exod. 


xiii.  9) ; and  they  were  also  regarded  as  amulets, 
protecting  the  wearer  from  the  powers  of  evil, 
especially  demons  (Targ.  in  Cant.  via.  3).  On 
this  notion  was  founded  the  Greek  name  of  cpv- 
\a.KTT)piov,  which  means  a ‘ safeguard.’  These  ap- 
pendages were  used  during  the  stated  prayers,  and 
only  by  men.  The  whole  observance  is  founded 
on  the  authority  of  the  texts  which  are  written 
on  the  strips  of  parchment,  as  Exod.  xiii.  16  : 
‘ It  shall  be  for  a token  upon  thine  hand,  and 
for  frontlets  (lYlDDlD,  bands,  fillets)  between 
thine  eyes;’  which,  although  in  all  probability 
only  figurative  expressions,  have  been  literally 
understood,  and  acted  upon  by  the  Jews  since 
the  Exile.  In  existing  usage  the  skin  employed 
in  making  the  phylacteries  is  prepared  with  much 
care,  and  the  writing  traced  with  minute  accu- 
racy and  neatness.  The  Hebrew  ritualists  give 
very  exact  and  numerous  directions  on  this  sub- 
ject, which  are  required  to  be  closely  observed. 
The  case  itself  is  composed  of  several  layers  of 
parchment  or  of  black  calf-skin.  The  phylac- 
teries for  the  head  have  four  cavities,  in  each 
of  which  is  put  one  of  the  four  texts  to  which 
we  have  referred ; but  the  phylacteries  for  the  arm 
have  only  one  cavity,  containing  the  same  texts 
all  written  on  one  slip  of  parchment.  Lightfoot 
thinks  it  not  unlikely  that  our  Saviour  himself 
wore  the  Jewish  tephelin  or  phylacteries,  as  well 
as  the  zizith  or  fringes,  according  to  the  custom 
of  his  nation ; and  that  in  Matt,  xxiii.  5,  our 
Lord  condemns  not  the  wearing  of  them,  but  the 
pride  and  hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees  in  making 
them  broad  and  visible,  to  obtain  respect  and  re- 
putation for  wisdom  and  piety  (7/or.  IIeb.  ad 
Matt,  xxiii.  5).  Maimonides,  Yad  Hacash.  pp. 
2,  3 ; Carpzov,  Apparat.  p.  190,  sq. ; Beck, 
Dissert,  de  usu  Phylacterior. ; Ugolino,  De  Phy - 
lacter.  Hebrceor.,  in  Thesaurus , tom.  xxi. ; Bux- 
torf.  Synag.  p.  179,  sq. ; Townley,  Reasons  for 
the  Laws  of  Moses,  p.  350). 

PHYSIC;  PHYSICIANS.  There  can  be 
no  question  that  the  Israelites  brought  some 
knowledge  of  medicine  with  them  from  Egypt, 
whose  physicians  were  celebrated  in  all  antiquity. 
To  the  state  of  medical  knowledge  in  that  country 
there  are  indeed  some  allusions  in  Scripture,  as 
contained  in  the  notice  of  the  corps  of  physicians 
in  the  service  of  Joseph  (Gen.  1.  2)  ; of  the  use 
of  artificial  help  and  practised  midwives  in  child 


PHYSIC,  PHYSICIANS. 

birth  (Exod.  i.  16);  and  of  the  copious  materia 
medica,  the  ‘ many  medicines,’  which  their  me* 
dical  practice  had  brought  into  use  (Jer.  lxvi.  1 1). 
On  the  strength  tf  these  notices,  and  in  the  ab- 
sence of  equally  detailed  information  respecting 
the  state  of  medicine  amohg  the  Hebrews,  it 
has  become  usual  to  bring  under  the  present 
head  all  that  Wilkinson  and  others  tell  us  re- 
specting the  medical  service  of  the  Egyptians  • 
but,  in  truth,  all  this  has  little  connection  with 
the  Hebrews,  and  tends  nothing  to  the  illustra- 
tion of  Scripture,  except  in  the  particular  in- 
stances to  which  we  have  referred  ; for  nothing 
can  be  more  manifest  than  that  the  state  of  me- 
dicine was  very  different  among  the  Egyptians 
from  what  it  was  among  the  Hebrews.  It  is, 
therefore,  better  to  bring  together  the  few  facts 
which  are  really  available,  than  to  occupy  our 
space  with  irrelevant  matter.  This  will  embrace 
so  much  of  the  Egyptian  matter  as  is  properly 
applicable  to  the  subject. 

In  Gen.  1.  2,  it  is  said  that  Joseph  ‘commanded 
his  servants,  the  physicians,  to  embalm'  his 
father;  and  the  physicians  embalmed  Irsael.' 
By  this  we  are  not  to  understand  that  all  the 
physicians  of  Joseph  took  part  in  the  operation. 
The  command  must  be  considered  as  addressed 
to  those  among  them  to  whom  this  business  be- 
longed. It  seems  rather  remarkable  to  find  in 
the  household  of  Joseph  a considerable  number  of 
physicians.  Warburton  ( Divine  Legation , b. 
iv.  3 - 83)  compares  with  this  account  what 
Herodotus  (ii.  84)  says  of  the  Egyptian  phy- 
sician : ‘ The  medicine  practice  is  divided  among 
them  as  follows:  each  physician  is  for  one  kind 
of  sickness,  and  no  more;  and  all  places  are 
crowded  with  physicians : for  there  are  physi- 
cians for  the  eyes,  physicians  for  the  head,  phy- 
sicians for  the  teeth,  physicians  for  the  stomach, 
and  for  internal  diseases.’  Therefore,  remarks  War* 
burton*  it  ought  not  to  appear  strange  that  Joseph 
had  a considerable  number  of  family  physicians 
‘ Every  great  family,  as  well  as  every  city,  must 
needs,  as  Herodotus  expresses  it,  swarm  with  the 
faculty.  A multitude  of  these  domestics  would 
now  appear  an  extravagant  piece  of  state  even  in 
a first  minister,  but  we  see  it  could  not  be  other- 
wise, when  each  distemper  had  its  proper  phy- 
sician.’. The  renown  of  the  Egyptian  physicians, 
in  ancient  times,  may  be  sufficiently  illustrated 
by  the  fact  that  Cyrus  had  a physician  sent  him 
from  Egypt,  and  Darius  always  had  Egyptian 
physicians  at  his  court  (Herodot.  iii.  1.  129). 
On  this  subject  see  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  vii.  57 ; xxvi. 
3;  xxix.  30;  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egyptians , iii. 
390-394 ; Hengstenberg,  D.  Bucher  Moses  u. 
Aefyyten,  pp.  70,  71 ; Sprengel,  Gescht.  d.  Alte 
Welt.,  i.  62. 

In  the  early  stage  of  medical  practice  atten- 
tion was  confined  among  all  nations  to  surgical 
aid  and  external  applications:  even  down  to  a 
comparatively  late  period  outward  maladies 
appear  to  have  been  the  chief  subjects  of  medical 
treatment  among  the  Hebrews  (Isa.  i.  6;  Ezek. 
xxx.  21  ; 2 Kings  viii.  29;  ix.  15);  and  although 
they  were  not  altogether  without  remedies  for  in- 
ternal or  even  mental  disorders  (2  Chron.  xvi. 
12;  1 Sam.  xvi.  16),  they  seem  to  have  made 
but  little  progress  in  this  branch  of  the  healing 
art.  The  employment  of  the  physician  was, 
however,  very  general  both  before  and  after  tbs 


PI-BESETH. 


PHYSIC,  PHYSICIANS. 

exile  (2  Chron.  xvi.  12;  Jpr.  viii.  22;  Siraoh 
xxxviii.  1 ; Mark  v.  26  ; comp.  Luke  iv.  23;  v. 
31 ; viii.  43). 

The  medicines  most  in  use  were  salves,  par- 
ticularly balms  (Jer.  viii.  21;  xlvi.  11;  comp. 
Prosper  Alpinus,  Med.  AEgypt.,  p.  118),  plas- 
ters or  poultices  (2  Kings  xx.  7 ; comp.  Plin. 
xxiii.  63),  oil-baths  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  i. 
33.5;  ii.  21.  6;  T.  Bab.  tit.  Berachoth,  i.  2), 
mineral  baths  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xvii.  6, 5 ; Vita, 
16;  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33.  5;  ii.  21.  6;  comp. 
John  v.  2,  sq.),  river  bathing  (2  Kings  v.  10). 
Of  remedies  for  internal  complaints,  some  notion 
may  be  formed  from  the  Talmudical  intimations 
of  things  lawful  and  unlawful  to  be  done  on  the 
Sabbath  day.  They  were  mostly  very  simple, 
such  as  our  old  herbalists  would  have  been  dis- 
posed to  recommend.  For  instance  : — ‘ It  is  un- 
lawful to  eat  Greek  hyssop  on  the  Sabbath, 
because  it  is  not  food  tit  for  healthy  people ; 
but  man  may  eat  wild  rosemary,  and  drink 
Him  DlDltf  (“  bloom  of  the  herbs  some  plant 
regarded  as  an  antidote  against  pernicious  li- 
quids) ; a man  may  eat  of  any  kind  of  food  as 
medicine,  and  drink  any  kind  of  herbage,  except 

water  of  dekalim  ( i . e.  “ water  of  trees,” 

that  is,  from  a spring  between  two  trees,  the  first 
draught  of  which  was  believed  to  promote  diges- 
tion, the  second  to  be  laxative,  and  the  third  an 
emetic);  arid  of  D'TpJJ  DID  cos  ikkarim  (a 
mucilage  or  ointment  of  pulverized  herbs  and 
gum  in  wine),  as  these  are  only  remedies  for  the 
jaundice ; but  a man  may  drink  the  water  of 
dekalim  for  thirst,  and  may  anoint  himself  with 
the  oil  • of  ikkarim , but  not  as  a remedy.  He 
who  has  the  toothaclre  must  not  rinse  his  teeth 
with  vinegar,  but  he  may  wash  them  as  usual 
(i.  e.  dip  something  in  vinegar,  and  rub  them), 
and  if  he  gets  cured,  he  does  get  cured.  He  who 
has  pains  in  his  loins  must  not  rub  them  with 
wine  or  vinegar ; he  may,  however,  anoint  them 
with  any  kind  of  oil,  except  rose-oil.  Princes 
may  anoint  (dress)  their  wounds  with  rose-oil,  as 
they  are  in  the  habit  of  anointing  themselves  on 
other  days  ’ ( T.  Bab.  tit.  Sabbath,  fol.  110;  comp. 
Lightfoot,  Hor.  blebr.  in  Matt.  v.  26). 

Amulets  were  also  much  in  use  among  the 
Jews  ; the  character  of  which  may  be  shown  from 
the  same  source  : — ‘ It  is  permitted  [even  on  the 
Sabbath]  to  go  out  with  the  egg  of  a grasshopper, 
or  the  tooth  of  a fox,  or  the  nail  of  one  who  has 
been  hanged,  as  medical  remedies’  (T.  Bab.  tit. 
Sabbath,  fol.  4.  2).  Strict  persons,  however,  dis- 
countenanced such  practices  as  belonging  to  ‘ the 
ways  of  the  Amorites.’  Enchantments  were  also 
employed  by  those  who  professed  the  healing  art, 
especially  in  diseases  of  the  mind;  and  they  were 
much  in  the  habit  of  laying  their  hands  upon  the 
patient  (2  Kings  v.  11;  Joseph.  Antiq.  ii.  5). 

The  part  taken  by  the  priest  in  the  judgment 
on  leprosy,  &c.,  has  led  to  an  impression,  that  the 
medical  art  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Levitical 
body.  This  may  in  some  iegree  be  true ; not 
because  they  were  Levites,  but  because  they,  more 
than  any  other  Hebrews,  had  leisure,  and  some- 
times inclination  for  learned  pursuits.  The  acts 
prescribed  for  the  priest  by  the  law  do  not,  how- 
ever, of  themselves,  prove  anything  on  this  point, 
its  the  inspection  of  leprosy  belonged  rather  to 
sanitary  police  than  to  medicine — although  it 


533 

was  certainly  necessary  that  the  inspecting  priest 
should  be  able  to  discriminate,  according  to  the 
rules  laid  down  in  the  law,  the  diagnosis  of  the 
disease  placed  under  his  control  (Lev.  xii.  13; 
xiv.  15).  The  priests  themselves  were  apt  tc 
take  colds,  &c.,  from  being  obliged  to  minister 
at  all  times  of  the  year  with  naked  feet;  whence 
there  was  in  latter  times  a medical  inspector 
attached  to  the  temple  to  attend  to  their  com- 
plaints (Kail,  De  Morbis  Sacerdot.  V.  T.;  Light- 
foot,  p.  781). 

Of  anatomical  knowledge  some  faint  traces 
may  be  discerned  in  such  passages  as  Job  ix.  8,  sq. 
It  does  not  appear  that  the  Hebrews  were  in  the 
habit  of  opening  dead  bodies  to  ascertain  the 
causes  of  death.  We  know  that  the  Egyptians 
were  so,  and  their  practice  of  embalmment  must 
have  given  them  much  anatomical  knowledge 
(Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  iii.  392).  But  to  the 
acquisition  of  such  knowledge  there  were  great 
obstacles  among  a people  to  whom  simple  con- 
tact with  a corpse  conveyed  pollution.  Besides 
the  authorities  cited,  see  F.  Bonier,  Dissert,  de 
Statu  Medicines  ap.  Vett.  Ebr.,  1755  ; Sprengel, 
De  Medicina  Ebrceor.,  1789  ; Mead,  Medica 
Sacra,  1755;  Schmidt,  Bibl.  Medic.;  Norberg, 
De  Medicina  Arabum,  in  Opusc.  Acad,  iii,  404, 
sq. ; see  also  Diseases  of  the  Jews,  and  the 
names  of  diseases  in  the  present  work. 

PI-BESETH  (HDD  '13  ; Sept.  BobBaaros ),  a 
city  of  Egypt,  named  with  several  others  in  Ezek. 
xxx.  17.  According  to  the  Septuagint.,  which  is 
followed  by  the  Vulgate,  it  is  the  same  with  Bu- 
bastus,  which  was  the  principal  town  of  the  Nomos 
Bubastites  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  9 ; Ptol.  iv.  5). 
Bubastus  itself  is  evidently  a corruption  of  Pi-bast, 
Pi  being  the  Egyptian  article ; and  Pi-beseth 
seems  also  to  be  manifestly  no  other  than  a corrupt 
reading  of  the  same  Egyptian  name  (Wilkinson’s 
Modern  Egypt,  i.  427).  That  name  was  derived 
from  the  goddess  Bubastis  (Copt.  Pascht ),  whom 
the  Greeks  identified  with  their  Artemis.  A great 
festive  pilgrimage  was  yearly  made  to  her  temple 
in  this  place  by  great  numbers  of  people  (Herod, 
ii.  5-9).  Bubastus  is  described  with  unusual  mi- 
nuteness by  Herodotus  (ii.  137,  138);  and  Wil- 
kinson assures  us  that  the  outlines  of  his  account 
may  still  be  verified.  The  city  was  taken  by 
the  Persians,  who  destroyed  the  walls  (Diod.  Sic. 
xvi.  51) ; but  it  was  still  a place  of  some  con- 
sideration under  the  Romans,  It  was  near  Bu- 
bastus that  the  canal  leading  to  Arsinoe  (Suez) 
opened  to  the  Nile  (Herod,  ii.  138) ; and  although 
the  mouth  was  afterwards  often  changed  and  taken 
more  southward,  it  has  now  returned  to  its  first 
locality,  as  the  present  canal  of  Tel-el-Wadee 
commences  in  the  vicinity  of  Tel  Basta.  This  Tel 
Basta,  which  undoubtedly  represents  Bubastus, 
is  in  N.  lat.  30°  36';  E.  long.  31°  33.  The  site 
is  occupied  by  mounds  of  great  extent,  which 
consist  of  the  crude  brick  houses  of  the  town,  with 
the  usual  heaps  of  broken  pottery.  The  temple, 
of  which  Herodotus  states  that,  although  others  in 
Egypt  were  larger  and  more  magnificent,  none 
were  more  beautiful,  is  entirely  destroyed ; but 
the  remaining  stones,  being  of  the  finest  red  gra- 
nite, confirm  the  historian's  testimony  (Wilkinson, 
Modern  Egypt „ i.  300,  427-429;  Ritter,  Erd- 
ku7idet  i.  825). 

PIGEON.  [Dove;  Tuktle*Dovk.| 


5 H PI-HAHIROTH. 

PI-14 AHIROTH  (n'"l,’nn  *3),  a place  near 
the  northern  end  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  east  of  Baal- 
xephon  (Exod.  xiv.  2,  9 ; Num.  xxxiii.  7).  The 
Hebrew  signification  of  the  words  would  be  equi- 
valent to  ‘ mouth  of  the  caverns  but  it  is  doubt- 
less an  Egyptian  name,  and  as  such  would  signify 
a ‘ place  where  grass  or  sedge  grows.’  Jablonsky, 
Opusc.  i.  447 ; ii.  159,  comp.  Gesen.  Thesaur. 
s.  v.  [Exodus]. 

PILATE,  PONTIUS,  was  the  sixth  Roman 
Procurator  of  Judaea  (Matt,  xxvii.  2 ; Mark  xv.  1 ; 
Luke  iii.  1 ; John  xviii.-xix.),  under  whom  our 
Lord  taught,  suffered,  and  died  (Acts  iii.  13  ; iv. 
27;  xiii.  28  ; 1 Tim.  vi.  13;  Tacit.  Annal.  xv. 
44).  The  testimony  of  Tacitus  on  this  point  is 
no  less  clear  than  it  is  important ; for  it  fixes  be- 
yond a doubt  the  time  when  the  foundations  of 
our  religion  were  laid.  The  words  of  the  great 
historian  are : Auctor  nominis  ejus  Christus,  Ti- 
berio  imperitante,  per  Procuratorem  Pontium  Pi- 
latum  supplieio  aflectus  est. — ‘ The  author  of  that 
name  (Christian)  or  sect  was  Christ,  who  was  ca- 
pitally punished  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  by  Pon- 
tius Pilate.’ 

Pilate  was  the  successor  of  Valerius  Gratus, 
and  governed  Judaea,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the 
reign  of  Tiberius.  He  held  his  office  for  a period 
of  ten  years.  The  agreement  on  this  point  between 
the  accounts  in  the  New  Testameut  and  those 
supplied  by  Josephus,  is  entire  and  satisfactory. 
It  has  been  exhibited  in  detail  by  the  learned,  ac- 
curate, and  candid  Lardner  (vol.  i.  150-389, 
Lond.  1827). 

Pilate's  conduct  in  his  office  was  in  many  re- 
spects highly  culpable.  Josephus  has  recorded 
two  instances  in  which  Pilate  acted  very  tyran- 
nically (Antiq.  xviii.  3.  1 ; comp.  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii. 
9.  2,  sq.)  in  regard  to  the  Jews.  ‘ But  now  Pilate, 
the  Procurator  of  Judaea,  removed  the  army  from 
Caesarea  to  Jerusalem,  to  take  their  winter  quarters 
there,  in  order  to  abolish  the  Jewish  laws.  So  he 
introduced  Caesar's  effigies,  which  were  upon  the 
ensigns,  and  brought  them  into  the  city  ; whereas 
our  law  forbids  us  the  very  making  of  images  ; 
on  which  account  the  former  procurators  were 
wont  to  make  their  entry  into  the  city  with  such 
ensigns  as  had  not  those  ornaments.  Pilate  was 
the  first  who  brought  those  images  to  Jerusalem, 
and  set  them  up  there : which  was  done  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  people,  because  it  was  done 
in  the  night-time;  but,  as  soon  as  they  knew  it, 
they  came  in  multitudes  to  Caesarea,  and  inter- 
ceded with  Pilate  many  days,  that  he  would  re- 
move the  images ; and  when  he  would  not  grant 
their  requests,  because  this  would  tend  to  the  in- 
jury of  Caesar,  while  they  yet  persevered  in  their 
request,  on  the  sixth  day  he  ordered  his  soldiers  to 
have  their  weapons  privately,  while  he  came  and 
sat  upon  his  judgment-seat ; which  seat  was  so 
orcpared  in  the  open  place  of  the  city,  that  it  con- 
cealed the  army  that  lay  ready  to  oppress  them  : 
and,  when  the  Jews  petitioned  him  again,  he  gave 
a signal  to  the  soldiers  to  encompass  them  round, 
and  threatened  that  their  punishment  should  be 
no  less  than  immediate  death,  unless  they  would 
leave  off  disturbing  him,  and  go  their  ways  home. 
But  they  threw  themselves  on  the  ground,  and 
laid  their  necks  bare,  and  said  they  would  take 
their  death  very  willingly,  rather  than  the  wisdom 
of  their  laws  should  be  transgressed ; upon  which 


PILATE,  PONTIUS. 

Pilate  was  deeply  qffected  with  their  resolution 
to  keep  their  laws  inviolable,  and  presently  com- 
manded the  images  to  be  carried  back  from  Je- 
rusalem to  Caesarea.’ 

‘ But  Pilate  undertook  to  bring  a current  of 
water  to  Jerusalem,  and  did  it  with  the  sacreo 
money,  and  derived  the  origin  of  the  stream  from 
a distance  of  200  furlongs.  However,  the  Jews 
were  not  pleased  with  what  had  been  done  about 
this  water  ; and  many  ten  thousands  of  the  people 
got  together,  and  made  a clamour  against  him, 
and  insisted  that  he  should  leave  off  that  design. 
Some  of  them  also  used  reproaches,  and  abused 
the  man,  as  crowds  of  such  people  usually  do. 
So  he  habited  a great  number  of  his  soldiers  in 
their  Habit,  who  carried  daggers  under  their  gar- 
ments, and  sent  them  to  a place  where  they  might 
surround  them.  He  bid  the  Jews  himself  go 
away  ; but  they  boldly  casting  reproaches  upon 
him,  he  gave  the  soldiers  that  signal  which  had 
been  beforehand  agreed  on,  who  laid  upon  them 
much  greater  blows  than  Pilate  had  commanded 
them,  and  equally  punished  those  that  were  tu- 
multuous and  those  that  were  not ; nor  did  they 
spare  them  in  the  least;  and  since  the  people 
were  unarmed,  and  were  caught  by  men  prepared 
for  what  they  were  about,  there  were  a great  num- 
ber of  them  slain  by  this  means,  and  others  of 
them  ran  away  wounded.  And  thus  an  end  was 
put  to  this  sedition.’ 

‘ We  have,’  says  Lardner,  ‘another  attempt  of 
Pilate’s  of  the  same  nature,  mentioned  in  the 
letter  which  Agrippa  the  Elder  sent  to  Caligula, 
as  this  letter  is  given  us  by  Philo.  In  some 
particulars  it  has  a great  resemblance  with  the  story 
Josephus  has  told  of  Pilate's  bringing  the  en- 
signs into  Jerusalem,  and  in  others  it  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  it ; which  has  given  occasion  to  some 
learned  men  to  suppose  that  Philo  lias  been  mis- 
taken. For  my  own  part,  as  I make  no  doubt 
but  Josephus’s  account  of  the  ensigns  is  true,  so 
I think  that  Philo  may  also  be  relied  on  for  the 
truth  of  a fact  he  has  mentioned,  as  happening  in 
his  own  time  in  Judaea,  and,  consequently,  I 
judge  them  to  be  two  different  facts.’ 

Agrippa,  reckoning  up  to  Caligula  the  several 
favours  conferred  on  the  Jews  by  the  Imperial 
family,  says  : 1 Pilate  was  procurator  of  Judaea. 
He,  not  so  much  out  of  respect  to  Tiberius  as  a 
malicious  intention  to  vex  the  people,  dedicates 
gilt  shields,  and  places  them  in  Herod’s  palace 
within  the  holy  city.  There  was  no  figure  upon 
them,  nor  any  thing  else  which  is  forbidden,  ex- 
cept an  inscription,  which  ex  preyed  these  two 
things — the  name  of  the  person  who  dedicated 
them,  and  of  him  to  whom  they  were  dedicated. 
When  the  people  perceived  what  had  been  done, 
they  desired  that  this  innovation  of  the  shields 
might  be  rectified ; that  their  ancient  customs, 
which  had  been  preserved  through  so  many  ages; 
and  had  hitherto  been  untouched  by  kings  and 
emperors,  might  not  now  be  violated.  He  re- 
fused their  demands  with  roughness,  such  was  his 
temper,  fierce  and  untractable.  They  then  cried 
out,  Do  not  you  raise  a sedition  yourself ; do  not 
you  disturb  the  peace  by  your  illegal  practices. 
It  is  not  Tiberius’s  pleasure  that  any  of  our  laws 
should  be  broken  in  upon.  If  you  have  received 
any  edict,  or  letter  from  the  emperor  to  this  pur- 
pose, produce  it,  that  we  may  leave  you,  and  de- 
pute an  embassy  to  him,  and  entreat  him  to  »► 


PILATE,  PONTIUS. 


535 


voke  his  orders.  This  put  him  out  of  all  temper ; 
for  he  wus  afraid  that  if  they  should  send  an  em- 
bassy, they  might  discover  the  many  maladmi- 
nistrations of  his  government,  his  extortions,  his 
unjust  decrees,  his  inhuman  cruelties.  This  re- 
duced him  to  the  utmost  perplexity.  On  the  one 
hand  he  was  afraid  to  remove  things  that,  had 
been  once  dedicated,  and  was  also  unwilling  to 
do  a favour  to  men  that  were  his  subjects  ; and, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  knew  very  well  the  inflexible 
severity  of  Tiberius,  The  chief  men  of  the  na- 
tion observing  this,  and  perceiving  that  he  re- 
pented of  what  he  had  done,  though  he  endea- 
voured to  conceal  if,  wrote  a most  humble  and 
submissive  letter  to  Tiberius.  It  is  needless  to 
say  how  he  was  provoked  when  he  read  the  ac- 
count of  Pilate’s  speeches  and  threatenings,  the 
event  showing  it  sufficiently.  For  he  soon  sent  a 
letter  to  Pilate,  reprimanding  him  for  so  audacious 
a proceeding;  requiring,  also,  that  the  shields 
should  be  removed.  And,  accordingly,  they  were 
carried,  from  the  metropolis  to  Caesarea  by  the  sea- 
side, called  Sebaste,  from  your  great  grandfather, 
that  they  might  be  placed  in  the  temple  there  con- 
secrated to  him,  and  there  they  were  reposited.’ 

To  the  Samaritans,  also,  Pilate  conducted  him- 
self unjustly  and  cruelly.  His  own  misconduct 
led  the  Samaritans  to  take  a step  which  in  itself 
does  not  appear  seditious  or  revolutionary,  when 
Pilate  seized  the  opportunity  to  slay  many  of  the 
people,  not  only  in  the  fight  which  ensued,  but 
also  in  cold  blood  after  they  had  given  themselves 
up.  ‘ But  when  this  tumult  was  appeased,  the 
Samaritan  Senate  sent  an  embassy  to  Vitellius, 
now  President  of  Syria,  and  accused  Pilate  of  the 
murder  of  those  who  had  been  slain.  So  Vitellius 
sent  Marcellus,  a friend  of  his,  to  take  care  of  the 
affairs  of  Judaea,  and  ordered  Pilate  to  go  to 
Rome  to  answer  before  the  emperor  to  the  accusa- 
tions of  the  Jews.  Pilate,  when  he  had  tarried 
ten  years  in  Judaea,  made  haste  to  Rome,  and 
this  in  obedience  to  the  orders  of  Vitellius,  which 
he  durst  not  contradict*;  but  before  he  could  get 
to  Rome,  Tiberius  was  dead  ’ (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xviii.  4.  2).  This  removal  took  place  before  the 
Passover,  in  a.d.  36,  probably  about  September 
or  October,  a.d.  35 ; Pilate  must,  therefore,  as 
he  spent  ten  years  in  Judaea,  have  entered  on 
his  government  about  October,  a.d.  25,  or  at  least 
before  the  Passover,  a.d.  26,  in  the  twelfth  year  of 
Tiberius’s  sole  empire  (Compare  Lardner,  i. 
391,  sq. ; Winer,  Real-ivorterb.). 

To  be  put  out  of  his  government  by  Vitellius, 
on  the  complaints  of  the  people  of  his  province, 
must  have  been  a very  grievous  mortification  to 
Pilate;  and  though  the  emperor  was  dead  before 
he  reached  Rome,  he  did  not  long  enjoy  such  im- 
punity as  guilt  permits  ; for,  as  Eusebius  ( Chron . 
p.  78)  states,  he  shortly  afterwards  made  away 
with  himself  out  of  vexation  for  his  many  mis- 
fortunes ( TTouciXais  Trepitrecruv  <rv/x(p6pais). 

It  is  a matter  of  considerable  importance  in  re- 
gard to  the  exposition  of  the  New  Testament,  to 
define  accurately  what  relation  the  Jews  stood  in 
during  the  ministry  of  Christ  in  particular  to  their 
Roman  masters.  Lardner  has  discussed  the  ques- 
tion with  a learning  and  ability  which  have  ex- 
hausted the  subject,  and  he  concludes  that  the 
Jews,  while  they  retained  for  the  most  part  their 
laws  and  customs,  both  civil  and  religious,  un- 
touched, did  not  tossess  the  power  of  life  and 


PILATE,  PONT -US. 

death,  which  was  in  the  hands  of  tne  Roman 
Governor,  and  was  specifically  held  by  Pilate. 
Pilate,  indeed,  bore  the  title  of  Procurator,  and 
the  Procurator,  as  being  a fiscal  officer,  had  not 
generally  the  power  of  life  and  death.  ' But,’ 
says  Lardner  (i.  comp.pp.  83-164),  ‘Pilate, though 
he  had  the  title  of  Procurator,  had  the  power  of  a 
President.  The  Evangelists  usually  give  Pilate, 
Felix,  and  Festus,  the  title  of  Governor,  a general 
word,  and  very  proper,  according  to  the  usage  of 
the  best  writers,  and  of  Josephus  in  particular,  in 
many  places.’  According  to  the  Evangelists,  the 
Jewish  council  having,  as  they  pretended,  con- 
victed Jesus  of  blasphemy,  and  judged  him  guilty 
of  death,  led  him  away  to  Pilate,  and  seem  to 
have  expected  that  he  should  confirm  their  sen- 
tence, and  sign  an  order  that  Jesus  should  be  pu- 
nished accordingly.  Indeed,  the  accounts  found 
in  the  Gospels  and  in  other  authorities,  touching 
the  civil  condition  of  the  Jews  at  this  time,  are  in 
strict  agreement.  We  proceed  to  mention  an- 
other instance  of  accordance,  which  is  still  more 
forcible,  as  being  on  a very  minute  point. 

From  Matt,  xxvii.  19,  it  appears  that  Pilate 
had  his  wife  (named  probably  Procla,  or  Claudia 
Procula)  with  him.  A partial  knowledge  of  Ro- 
man history  might  lead  the  reader  to  question  the 
historic  credibility  of  Matthew  in  this  particular. 
In  the  earlier  periods,  and,  indeed,  so  long  as  the 
Commonwealth  subsisted,  it  was  very  unusual  for 
the  governors  of  provinces  to  take  their  wives  with 
them  (Senec.  De  Controv.  25),  and  in  the  strict 
regulations  which  Augustus  introduced  he  did  not 
allow  the  favour,  except  in  peculiar  and  specified 
circumstances  (Sueton.  Aug.  24).  The  practice, 
however,  grew  to  be  more  and  more  prevalent, 
and  was  (says  Winer,  Real-wort,  in  ‘ Pilate’) 
customary  in  Pilate's  time.  It  is  evident  from 
Tacitus,  that  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Augustus, 
Germanicus  had  his  wife  Agrippina  with  him  in 
Germany  ( Annal . i.  40,  41  ; comp.  iii.  33-59; 
Joseph.  Antiq.  xx.  10.  1 ; Ulpian,  iv.  2).  In- 
deed, in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius, 
Germanicus  took  his  wife  with  him  into  the  East. 
Piso,  the  Prefect  of  Syria,  tobk  his  wife  also  along 
with  him  at  the  same  time  (Tacit.  Annal.  ii.  54, 
55).  ‘ But,’  says  Lardner  ( i.  152),  ‘nothing  can 

render  this  (the  practice  in  question)  more  ap- 
parent than  a motion  made  in  the  Roman  Senate 
by  Severus  Caesina,  in  the  fourth  consulship  of 
Tiberius,  and  second  of  Drusus  Caesar  (a.d.  21), 
that  no. magistrate  to  whom  any  province  was  as- 
signed, should  be  accompanied  by  his  wife,  ex- 
cept the  Senate’s  rejecting  it,  and  that  with  some 
indignation’  (Tacit.  Annal.  iii.  33,  34).  The  fact 
mentioned  incidentally,  or  rather  implied,  in  Mat- 
thew, being  thus  confirmed  by  full  and  unques- 
tionable evidence,  cannot  fail  to  serve  as  a cor- 
roboration of  the  evangelical  history. 

Owing  to  the  atrocity  of  the  deed  in  which 
Pilate  took  a principal  part,  and  to  the  wounded 
feelings  of  piety  with  which  that  deed  has  been 
naturally  regarded  by  Christians,  a very  dark  idea 
has  been  formed  of  the  character  of  this  Roman 
governor.  That  character  was  undoubtedly  bad; 
but  moral  depravity  has  its  degrees,  and  the  cause 
of  religion  is  too  sacred  to  admit  any  spurious  aid 
from  exaggeration.  It  is  therefore  desirable  to 
form  a just  conception  of  the  character  of  Pilate, 
and  to  learn  specifically  what  were  the  vices 
under  which  he  laboured.  For  this  purpose  a 


536  PILATE,  PONTIUS. 

bvief  outl  ine  of  the  evangelical  account  seems 
necessary.  The  narratives  on  which  the  follow- 
ing statement  is  founded  may  be  found  in  John 
xviii.,  xix. ; Matt,  xxvii. ; Mark  xv. ; Luke 
xxiii. 

Jesus  having  been  betrayed,  apprehended,  and 
found  guilty  of  blasphemy  by  the  Jewish  Sau- 
nedrim,  is  delivered  to  Pilate  in  order  to  undergo 
the  punishment  of  death,  according  to  the  law  in 
that  case  provided.  This  tradition  of  Jesus  to 
Pilate  was  rendered  necessary  by  the  fact  that  the 
Jews  did  not  at  that  time  possess  on  their  own 
authority  the  power  of  life  and  death.  Pilate 
could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  Jesus  and  his  pre- 
tensions. . He  might,  had  he  chosen,  have  imme- 
diately ordered  Jesus  to  be  executed,  for  he  had 
been  tried  and  condemned  to  death  by  the  laws 
of  the  land ; but  he  had  an  alternative.  As  the 
execution  of  the  laws,  in  the  case  at  least  of  ca- 
pital punishments,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Roman 
Procurator,  so  without  any  violent  straining 
might  his  tribunal  be  converted  into  a court  of 
appeal  in  the  last  instance.  At  any  rate,  remon- 
strance against  an  unjust  verdict  was  easy  and 
proper  on  the  part  of  a high  officer,  who,  as  having 
to  inflict  the  punishment,  was  in  a measure  re- 
sponsible for  its  character.  And  remonstrance 
might  easily  lead  to  a revision  of  the  grounds  on 
which  the  verdict  had  been  given,  and  thus  a 
cause  might  virtually  be  brought,  denovo,  before 
the  Procurator  : this  took  place  in  the  case  of  our 
Lord.  Pilate  gave  hkn  the  benefit  of  a new 
trial,  and  pronounced  him  innocent. 

This  review  of  the  case  was  the  alternative  that 
lay  before  Pilate,  the  adoption  of  which  speaks 
undoubtedly  in  his  favour,  and  may  justify  us  in 
declaring  that  his  guilt,  was  not  of  the  deepest  dye. 

That  the  conduct  of  Pilate  was,  however,  highly 
criminal  cannot  be  denied.  But  his  guilt  was 
light  in  comparison  of  the  criminal  depravity 
of  the  Jews,  especially  the  priests.  His  was 
the  guilt  of  weakness  and  fear,  theirs  the  guilt  of 
settled  and  deliberate  malice.  His  state  of  mind 
prompted  him  to  attempt  the  release  of  an  ac- 
cused person  in  opposition  to  the  clamours  of  a 
misguided  mob;  theirs  urged  them  to  compass 
the  ruin  of  an  acquitted  person  by  instigating  the 
populace,  calumniating  the  prisoner,  and  terrify- 
ing the  judge.  If  Pilate  yielded  against  his 
judgment  under  the  fear  of  personal  danger,  and 
so  took  part  in  an  act  of  unparalleled  injustice,  the 
priests  and  their  ready  tools  originated  the  false 
accusation,  sustained  it  by  subornation  of  ppr- 
jury,  and  when  it  was  declared  invalid,  enforced 
their  own  unfounded  sentence  by  appealing  to 
the  lowest  passions.  Pilate,  it  is  clear,  was  ut- 
terly destitute  of  principle.  He  was  willing,  in- 
deed, to  do  right,  if  he  could  do  right  without 
jersonal  disadvantage.  Of  gratuitous  wickedness 
le  was  perhaps  incapable,  certainly  in  the  con- 
demnation of  Jesus  he  has  the  merit  of  being  for 
a time  on  the  side  of  innocence.  But  he  yielded 
to  violence,  and  so  committed  an  awful  crime. 
In  his  hands  was  the  life  of  the  prisoner.  Con- 
vinced of  his  innocence  he  ought  to  have  set  him 
at  liberty,  thus  doing  right  regardless  of  conse- 
quences. But  this  is  an  act  of  high  virtue  which 
we  hardly  require  at  the  hands  of  a Roman 
governor  of  Judaea ; and  though  Pilate  must 
bear  the  reproach  of  acting  contrary  to  his  own 
declared  convictions,  yet  he  may  equally  claim 


PILATE,  PONTIUS. 

some  credit  for  the  apparently  sincere  efforts  which 
he  made  in  order  to  defeat  the  malice  of  the  Jews 
anti  procure  the  liberation  of  Jesus. 

If  now  we  wish  to  form  a judgment  of  Pilate’s 
character,  we  easily  see  that  he  was  one  of  that  large 
class  of  men  who  aspire  to  public  offices,  not  from 
a pure  and  lofty  desire  of  benefiting  the  public 
and  advancing  the  good  of  the  world,  but  from 
selfish  and  personal  considerations,  from  a love 
of  distinction,  from  a love  of  power,  from  a love 
of  self-indulgence;  being  destitute  of  any  fixed 
principles,  and  having  no  aim  but  office  and  in- 
fluence, they  act  right  only  by  chance  and  when 
convenient,  and  are  wholly  incapable  of  pursuing 
a consistent  course,  or  of  acting  with  firmness  and 
self-denial  in  cases  in  which  the  preservation  of 
integrity  requires  the  exercise  of  these  qualities. 
Pilate  was  obviously  a man  of  weak,  and  there 
fore,  with  his  temptations,  of  corrupt  character. 
The  view  given  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions 
(v.  14),  where  unmanliness  (avai'dpta)  is  ascribed 
to  him,  we  take  to  be  correct.  This  want  of 
strength  will  readily  account  for  his  failing  1o 
rescue  Jesus  from  the  rage  of  his  enemies,  and  also 
for  the  acts  of  injustice  and  cruelty  which  lie  prac- 
tised in  his  government — acts  which,  considered 
in  themselves,  wear  a deeper  dye  than  does  the 
conduct  which  he  observed  in  surrendering  Jesus 
to  the  malice  of  the  Jews.  And  this  same  weak- 
ness may  serve  to  explain  to  the  reader  how  much 
influence  would  be  exerted  on  this  unjust  judge, 
not  only  by  the  stern  bigotry  and  persecuting 
wrath  of  the  Jewish  priesthood,  but  specially  by 
the  not  concealed  intimations  which  they  threw 
out  against  Pilate,  that,  if  he  liberated  Jesus,  he 
was  no  friend  of  Tiberius,  and  must  expect  to 
have  to  give  an  account  of  his  conduct  at  Rome. 
And  that  this  was  no  idle  threat,  nothing  beyond 
the  limits  of  probability,  Pilate’s  subsequent 
deposition  by  Vitellius  shows  very  plainly;  nor 
could  the  procurator  have  been  ignorant  either  of 
the  stern  determination  of  the  Jewish  character, 
or  of  the  offence  he  had  by  his  acts  given  to  the 
heads  of  the  nation,  or  of  the  insecurity,  at  that 
very  hour,  when  the  contest  between  him  and  the 
priests  was  proceeding  regarding  the  innocent 
victim  whom  they  lusted  to  destroy,  of  his  own 
position  in  the  office  which  he  held,  and  which, 
of  course,  he  desired  to  retain.  On  the  whole, 
then,  viewing  the  entire  conduct  of  Pilate,  his 
previous  iniquities  as  well  as  his  b’earing  on  the 
condemnation  of  Jesus — viewing  his  own  actual 
position  and  the  malignity  of  the  Jews,  we  cannot, 
we  confess,  give  our  vote  with  those  who  have 
passed  the  severest  condemnation  on  this  weak 
and  guilty  governor. 

That  Pilate  made  an  official  report  to  Tiberius 
of  the  condemnation  and  punishment  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  likely  in  itself ; and  becomes  the  more 
likely,  if  the  view  we  have  given  of  Pilate's  cha- 
racter is  substantially  correct,  for  then  the  go- 
vernor did  not  regard  the  case  of  Jesus  as  an 
ordinary,  and  therefore  inconsiderable  one,  but 
must  have  felt  its  importance  alike  in  connection 
with  the  administration  of  justice,  the  civil  and 
religious  character  of  the  Jews,  and  therefore  with 
the  tenure  of  the  Roman  power.  The  voice  of 
antiquity  intimates  that  Pilate  did  make  such  a 
report ; the  words  of  Justin  Martyr  are  : ‘ That 
these  things  were  so  done  you  may  know  from  the 
Acts  made  in  the  time  of  Pontius  Pi-ate  ’ (AgcL 


537 


PILATE,  PONTIUS. 

L76).  A similar  passage  is  found  a little  further 
on  in  the  same  work.  Now,  when  it  is  considered 
that  Justin’s  Apology  was  a set  defence  of  Chris- 
tianity, in  the  shape  of  an  appeal  to  the  heathen 
world  .hrough  the  persons  of  its  highest  func- 
^"xavries,  it  must  seem  very  unlikely  that  the 
words  would  have  been  used  had  no  such  docu- 
ments existed ; and  nearly  as  improbable  that 
tnose  Acts  would  have  been  referred  to  had  they 
not  been  genuine.  Tertullian  also  uses  language 
equally  decisive  ( Apol . v.  21).  Eusebius  gives  a 
still  fuller  account  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  2).  These 
important  passages  may  be  found  in  Lardner  (vi. 
606,  seq.^.  See  also  Old’s  Acta  Pilati , or  Pi- 
late's report  (vii.  4),  long  circulated  in  the  early 
church,  being  received  without  a suspicion 
(Chrysost.  Horn.  viii.  in  Pasch. ; Epiphan.  Hoer. 
1.  1 ; Euseb.  i.  9 and  11 ; 9,  5,  and  7).  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  documents  were  genuine 
(Hencke,  Opusc.  Acad.  p.  201,  sq.).  Such  is  the 
opinion  of  Winer  (Real-worterb.).  Lardner,  who 
has  fully  discussed  the  subject,  decides  that  ‘ it 
must,  be  allowed  by  all  that  Pontius  Pilate  com- 
posed some  memoirs  concerning  our  Saviour,  and 
sent  them  to  the  emperor  ’ (vi.  610).  Winer  adds, 

‘ What  we  now  have  in  Greek  under  this  title 
(Pilate’s  Report ),  see  Fabricii  Apocr.  i.  237,  239 ; 
iii.  456,  as  well  as  the  two  letters  of  Pilate  to 
Tiberius,  are  fabrications  of  a later  age.’  So 
Gardner  : c The  Acts  of  Pontius  Pilate,  and  his 
letter  to  Tiberius,  which  we  now  have,  are  not 
genuine,  but  manifestly  spurious.’  We  have  not 
space  here  to  review  the  arguments  which  have 
been  adduced  in  favour  of  and  against  these  docu- 
ments ; but  we  must  add  that  we  attach  some 
importance  to  them,  thinking  it  by  no  means 
unlikely  that,  if  they  are  fabrications,  they  are 
fabricated  in  some  keeping  with  the  genuine 
jieces,  which  were  in  some  way  lost,  and  the 
.oss  of  which  the  composers  of  our  actual  pieces 
sought  as  well  as  they  could  to  repair.  If  this 
view  can  be  sustained,  then  the  doctfments  we 
have  may  serve  to  help  us  in  the  use  of  discretion 
to  the  substance  of  the  original  Acts.  At  all 
events,  it  seems  certain  that  an  official  report 
was  made  by  Pilate ; and  thus  we  gain  another 
proof  that  e these  things  were  not  done  in  a 
corner.’  Those  who  wish  to  enter  into  this  sub- 
ject should  first  consult  Lardner  (nt  supra),  and 
tire  valuable  references  he  gives.  See  also  J.  Gr. 
Altman,  De  Epist.  Pil.  ad  Tiber.  Bern.  1755; 
Van  Dale,  De  Orac.  p.  609,  sq. ; Schmidt, 
Einleitung  ins  N.  T.,  ii.  219,  sq.  Of  especial 
value  is  Hermansson,  De  Pontio  Pilat.,  Upsal, 
1624  ; also  Burger,  De  Pontio  Pilat.,  Misen.  1782. 

On  the  general  subject  of  this  article,  the  reader 
may  refer  to  Germar,  Docetur  ad  loca  P.  Pilati 
facinora,  ccet.,  Thorun,  1785 ; J.  M.  Muller, 
De  P.  Christum  servandi  Studio , Hamb.  1751  ; 
Niemeyer,  Charakt.  i.  129,  sq. ; Paul  us,  Com- 
ment. iii.  697,  sq. ; Liicke,  On  John  XIX. ; 
Gutter,  De  Con  jug  is  Pilati  Somnio,  Jen.  1704; 
Kluge,  De  Somnio  Uxoris  Pilati,  Hal.  1720  ; 
Herbart,  Exatnen  Somnii  Ux.  Pil.,  Oldenb.  1735; 
Schuster’s  Urtheil  iib.  Pilatus,  in  Eichhorn’s 
Biblioth.  d.  Bibl.  Liter,  x.  823,  sq.  ; Olshausen, 
Comment,  ii.  453,  sq.  ; Mounier,  De  Pilati  in 
Causa  Servat.  agendi  ratione,  1825.  Hase,  in 
his  Leoen  Jesu , p.  245,  affords  valuable  literary 
references  on  this,  as  on  so  many  other  New  Tes- 
tament subjects. — J.  R.  B. 


PINNACLE. 

PINE  TREE.  [Oren.] 

PINNACLE.  In  the  account  of  our  Lord’t 
temptation  (Matt.  iv.  5),  it  is  stated  that  the  devil 
took  him  to  Jerusalem,  ‘ and  set  him  on  a pinnacle 
of  the  temple  ’ (eVl  rb  TTTepvyiov  rov  Upov).  The 
part  of  the  temple  denoted  by  this  term  has  been 
much  questioned  by  different  commentators,  and 
the  only  certain  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  it 
cannot  be  understood  in  the  sense  usually  at- 
tached to  the  word  (i.  e.  the  point  of  a spiral  orna- 
ment), as  in  that  case  the  article  would  not  have 
been  prefixed.  Grotius,  Hammond,  Doddridge, 
and  others,  take  it  in  the  sense  of  balustrade  or  pin- 
nated battlement.  But  it  is  now  more  generally 
supposed  to  denote  what  was  called  the  king's 
portico,  which  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Antiq. 
xv.  11.  5),  and  is  the  same  which  is  called  in 
Scripture  ‘ Solomon's  porch.’  Of  this  opinion 
are  Wetstein,  Kuinoel,  Parkhurst,  Rosenmiiller, 
and  others  [Tempee].  Krebs,  Schleusner,  and 
some  others,  however,  fancy  that  the  word  signi- 
fies the  ridge  of  the  roof  of  the  temple;  and  Jo- 
sephus (Antiq.  xv.  11.5)  is  cited  in  proof  of  this 
notion.  But  we  know  that  iron  spikes  were  fixed 
all  over  the  roof  of  the  temple,  to  prevent  the  holy 
edifice  from  being  defiled  by  birds ; and  the  pre- 
sence of  these  spikes  creates  an  objection,  although 
the  difficulty  is  perhaps  not  insuperable,  as  we 
are  told  that  the  priests  sometimes  went  to  the  top 
of  the  temple  (Middoth.  ch.  4 ; T.  Bab.  tit.  Taa - 
nith,  fol.  29).  Dr.  Bloomfield  asks  : ‘ May  it 
not  have  been  a lofty  spiral  turret,  placed  some- 
where about  the  centre  of  the  building,  like  the 
spire  in  some  cathedrals,  to  the  topmost  look-out 
of  which  the  devil  might  take  Jesus  V (Recens. 
Synopt.  in  Matt.  iv.  5).  We  answer,  no  : steeples 
do  not  belong  to  ancient  or  to  Oriental  architec- 
ture, and  it  is  somewhat  hazardous  to  provide  oi)6 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  meeting  the  supposed  oc- 
casion of  this  text. 

Lightfoot,  whose  opinion  on  this  point  is  enti- 
tled to  much  respect,  declares  his  inability  to 
judge,  whether  the  part  denoted  should  be  con- 
sidered as  belonging  to  the  holy  fabric  itself,  or  to 
some  building  within  the  holy  circuit.  If  the 
former,  he  can  find  no  place  so  fitting  as  t'he  top 
of  the  or  porch  of  the  temple;  but  if  the 

latter,  the  royal  porch  or  gallery  (<rroa  /3 acnAmi )) 
is  the  part  he  would  prefer.  He  adds  that  above 
all  other  parts  of  the  temple,  the  porch  thereof, 
and  indeed  the  whole  pronaos,  might  not  unfitly 
be  called  rb  7 Trepvyiov  rod  iepov,  the  wing  (for 
that  is  the  literal  meaning)  of  the  temple , ‘ be- 
cause like  wings  it  exfended  itself  in  breadth  on 
each  side,  far  beyond  the  breadth  of  the  temple. 
If  therefore  the  devil  had  placed  Christ  on  the 
very  precipice  of  this  part  of  the  temple,  he  may 
well  be  said  to  have  placed  him  “ upon  the  wing 
of  the  temple;”  both  because  this  part  was  like  a 
wing  to  the  temple  itself,  and  because  that  preci- 
pice was  the  wing  of  this  part’  (Hor.  Hebr.  ad 
Matt.  iv.  5).  With  regard  to  the  other  alterna- 
tive, it  is  only  necessary  to  cite  the  description  of 
Josephus  to  show  that  the  situation  was  at  least 
not  inappropriate  to  Satan’s  object : ‘ On  the 
south  part  (of  the  court  of  the  Gentiles)  was  the 
(TToa  fiacriKucfi,  iC  the  royal  gallery,”  that  may  be 
mentioned  among  the  most  magnificent  things 
under  the  sun ; for  above  the  profoundest  depth 
of  the  valley,  Herod  constructed  a gallery  of  a 


PIRATHON. 


53 S 

vast  height,  from  the  top  of  wliicn  if  any  one 
looked  down,  onoTotiiviav  ovk  e^iKovp'unjs  rr\s 
fyews  els  ageTpyrov  rbv  fiuQov,  “he  would  become 
dizzy,  his  eyes  being  unable  to  reach  so  vast  a 
depth.” 1 

PINON.  [Punon.] 

PIPE.  [Musical  Instruments.] 

PIRATHON  (fmjns  ; Sept.,  Josephus,  and 
1 Macc.  ix.  50,  $apa6d>v),  a town  in  the  land  of 
Ephraim,  to  which  Ahdon,  judge  of  Israel,  be- 
longed, and  in  which  he  was  buried  (Judg.  xii. 
13.  15).  Josephus  names  it  twice  ( Antiq . v.  7, 
13;  xiii.  1.3);  and  in  the  last  instance  coincides 
with  1 Macc.  ix.  50,  in  ranking  it  among  the 
towns  whose  ruined  fortifications  were  restored  by 
Bacchides,  in  his  campaign  against  the  Jews. 

PISGAH  (HSpS  ; Sept.  <£a<ryd),  a mountain 
ridge  in  the  land  of  Moab,  on  the  southern  border 
of  the  kingdom  of  Sihon  (Num.  xxi.  20  ; xxiii. 
14  ; Deut.  iii.  27  ; Josh.  xii.  3).  In  it  was  Mount 
Nebo,  from  which  Moses  viewed  the  Promised 
Land  before  he  died  (Deut.  xxxiv.  1)  [Nebo]. 

PISHTAH.  Reference  was  made  to  this  article 
from  Flax  ; but,  as  it  is  desirable  to  consider  it  in 
connection  with  Shesh,  both  substances  will  be 
treated  of  under  that  head. 

PISIDIA  (ilnriSia),  a district  of  Asia  Minor, 
lying  mostly  on  Mount  Taurus,  between  Pam- 
pliylia,  Phrygia,  and  Lycaonia.  Its  chief  city 
was  Antioch,  usually  called  Antioch  in  Pisidia, 
to  distinguish  it  from  the  metropolitan  city  of  the 
same  name  [Antioch,  2]. 

PITCH.  [Asphaltum.] 

PITDAH  (rnpp  ; Sept.  roirdCiov),  a pre- 
cious stone ; one  of  those  which  were  in  the  breast- 
plate of  the  high-priest  (Exod.  xxviii.  17),  and 
the  origin  of  which  is  referred  to  Cush  (Job 
xxviii.  19).  It  is,  according  to  most  ancient 
versions,  the  topaz  (totvol(iov,  Joseph.  T6ira(os), 
which  most  of  the  ancient  Greek  writers  describe 
as  being  of  a golden  yellow  colour  (Strabo,  xvi. 
p.  770);  Diod.  Sic.  iii.  39),  while  Pliny  (Hist. 
Nat.,  xxxvii.  32)  states  its  colour  to  be  green. 
Relying  on  this  last  authority,  several  modern 
authors  have  asserted  that  the  ancient  gem  thus 
named  was  no  other  than  the  modern  crysolite. 
But  this  notion  has  been  confuted  by  Bellarmann 
(Urim  and  Thummim , p.  39),  who  shows  that 
the  hues  ascribed  by  the  ancients  to  the  topaz,  are 
found  in  the  gem  toVvhich  the  moderns  have  ap- 
plied that  name.  This  is  a precious  stone,  hav- 
ing a strong  glass  lustre.  Its  prevailing  colour 
is  wine-yellow  of  every  degree  of  shade.  The 
dark  shade  of  this  colour  passes  over  into  carna- 
tion red,  aid  sometimes,  although  rarely,  into 
lilac ; the  pale  shade  of  the  wine-yellow  passes 
into  greyish;  and  from  yellowish  - white  into 
greenish- white  and  pale  green,  tincal  and  cela- 
don-green. It  may  thus  be  difficult  to  determine 
whether  the  pitdah  in  the  high-priest’s  breast- 
plate was  the  yellow  topaz ; but  that  it  was  a 
topaz  there  is  little  reason  to  doubt. 

It  is  clear  that  the  stone  was  highly  prized  by 
the  Hebrews.  Job  declares  that  wisdom  was 
more  precious  than  the  pitdah  of  Cush  (Job 
xxviii.  19);  and  as  the  name  Cush  includes 
Southern  Arabia,  and  the  Arabian  Gulf,  the  in- 
timation coincides  with  the  statement  of  Pliny 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

and  others,  that  the  topazes  known  to  them  i am* 
from  the  Topaz  island  in  the  Red  Sea  (Pliny, 
Hist.  Nat.  xxxvii.  8 ; comp.  vi.  29  ; Diod.  Sic. 
iii.  30  ; Strabo,  xvi.  p.  770),  whence  it  was  pro- 
bably brought,  by  the  Phoenicians.  In  Ezek. 
xxviii.  13,  the  pitdah  is  named  among  the  pre- 
cious stones  with  which  the  king  of  Tyre  was 
decked. 

If  may  be  added  that  Bolden  seeks  the  origin 
of  the  Hebrew  word  in  the  Sanscrit  language, 
in  which  pita  means  ‘ yellowish,’  ‘ pale ;’  and,  as 
Gesenius  remarks,  the  Greek  rond^ior  itself  might 
seem  to  come  from  the  Hebrew  mtDS,  by  trans- 
position into  mSD  (see  Thesaurus,  p.  1 101  ; 
Braunius,  DeVestitu,  p.  508 ; Hofmann,  Mineral., 
i.  337  ; Pareau,  Comment,  on  Job,  p.  333 ; Ritter, 
Erdkunde , ii.  675). 

PI  THOM  (DhS)  ; Sept.  UeiQdop),  one  of  the 
‘ treasure-cities  ’ which  the  Israelites  built  in  the 
land  of  Goshen  ‘lor  Pharaoh’  (Exod.  i.  11) 
[Egypt  ; Goshen].  The  site  is  by  general  con- 
sent identified  with  that  of  the  Patumos  (ndTou- 
pos)  of  Herodotus  (ii.  158).  Speaking  of  the 
canal  which  connected  the  Nile  with  the  Red 
Sea,  this  author  says,  ‘ The  water  was  admitted 
into  it  from  the  Nile.  It  began  a little  above 
the  city  Bubastis  [Pi-beseth],  near  the  Arabian 
city  Patumos,  but  it  discharged  itself  into  the 
Reel  Sea.’  According  to  this,  Patumos  was  si- 
tuated on  the  east  side  of  the  Pelusiac  arm  of  the 
Nile,  not  far  from  the  canal  which  unites  the 
Nile  with  the  Red  Sea,  in  the  Arabian  part  of 
Egypt.  The  Itinerarium  of  Antoninus  furnishes 
a further  limitation.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
the  Thum  (Qovp)  which  is  there  mentioned  is 
identical  with  Patumos  and  Pi  thorn.  The  Pi  is 
merely  the  Egyptian  article.  Now  this  Thum 
was  twelve  Roman  miles  distant  from  Heroopolis, 
the  ruins  of  which  are  found  in  the  region  of  the 
present  Abu-Keisheid.  All  these  designations 
are  appropriate  if,  with  the  scholars  who  accom- 
panied the  French  expedition,  we  place  Pithom 
on  the  site  of  the  present  Abhaseh,  at  the  entrance 
of  the  Wady  Fumilat,  where  there  was  at  all 
times  a strong  military  post.  (Hengstenberg,  Die 
Bucher  Moses  und  Aegypten ; Du  Bois  Ayme, 
in  Dcscript.  dc  VEgypte,  xi.  377 ; xviii.  1,  372; 
Champollion,  VEgypte  sous  les  Pharaons , i. 
172;  ii.  58). 

PLANE-TREE.  [Armon.] 

PLAGUE.  [Pestilence.] 

PLEDGE.  [Loan.] 

PLOUGH.  [Agriculture.] 

POETRY,  HEBREW ; the  poetry  which  is 
found  in  the  Bible,  and  which,  rich  and  multi- 
farious as  it  is,  appears  to  be  only  a remnant  of  a 
still  wider  and  fuller  sphere  of  Shemitic  literature. 
The  New  Testament  is  intended  to  be  comprised 
in  our  definition,  for,  besides  scattered  portions, 
disjecti  membra  poetae,  which,  under  a prosaic 
form,  convey  a poetic  thought,  the  entire  book  of 
the  Apocalypse  abounds  in  poetry. 

The  term  ‘ Biblical  poetry  ’ may  find  little 
acceptance  in  the  ears  of  those  who  have  identified 
poetry  with  fiction,  fable,  and  profane  delights, 
under  the  impression  that  as  such  things  are  of 
the  earth  earthy,  so  religion  is  too  high  in  its 
character,  and  too  truthful  in  its  spirit,  to  admit 
into  its  province  mere  creations  of  the  hrnruui 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

fancy.  B it  whatever  opinion  may  he  entertained 
of  the  character  and  tendency  of  poetry  in  gene- 
ral, the  pretry  of  the  Hebrews  is,  as  we  shall 
presently  remark  more  at  length,  both  deeply 
truthful,  and  earnestly  religious ; nor  are  we 
without  a hope,  that  by  the  time  the  reader  has 
arrived  at  the  end  of  this  article,  he  will  then, 
if  he  is  not  before,  be  of  the  opinion  that  the 
poetry  which  we  are  about  to  consider  was,  and 
is,  an  eminently  worthy  channel  for  expressing 
and  conveying  the  loftiest  and  holiest  feelings  of 
the  human  heart.  Meanwhile  we  direct  attention 
to  a fact — there  is  poetry  in  the  Bible.  In  one 
sense  the  Bible  is  full  of  poetry  ; for  very  much  of 
its  contents  which  is  merely  prosaic  in  form,  rises, 
by  force  of  the  noble  sentiments  which  it  enun- 
ciates, and  the  striking  or  splendid  imagery  with 
which  these  sentiments  are  adorned,  into  the 
sphere  of  real  poetry.  Independently  of  this 
poetic  prose,  there  is  in  the  Bible  much  writing 
which  has  all  the  ordinary  characteristics  id’ 
poetry.  This  statement  the  present  article  will 
abundantly  establish.  But  even  the  unlearned 
reader,  when  once  his  mind  has  been  turned  to 
the  subject,  can  hardly  fail  to  recognise  at  once 
the  essence,  if  not  somewhat  of  the  form,  of  poetry 
in  various  parts  of  the  Bible.  And  it  is  no  slight 
attestation  to  the  essentially  poetic  character  of 
Hebrew  poetry  that  its  poetical  qualities  shine 
through  the  distorting  coverings  of  a prose  trans- 
lation. If,  however,  the  reader  would  at  once 
satisfy  himself  that  there  is  poetry  in  the  Bible, 
let  him  turn  to  the  book  of  Job,  and  after  having 
examined  its  prose  introduction,  begin  to  read 
the  poetry  itself,  as  it  commences  at  the  third 
verse  of  the  third  chapter. 

Much  of  the  Biblical  poetry  is,  indeed,  hidden 
from  the  ordinary  reader  by  its  prose  accompani- 
ments, standing,  as  it  does,  undistinguished  in 
the  midst  of  historical  narrations.  This  is  the 
case  with  some  of  the  earliest  specimens  of  He- 
brew poetry.  Snatches  of  poetry  are  discovered  in 
the  oldest  prose  compositions.  Even  in  Gen.  iv. 
23,  sq.,  are  found  a few  lines  of  poetry,  which 
Herder  incorrectly  terms  ‘ the  song  of  the  sword,’ 
thinking  it  commemorative  of  the  first  formation 
of  that  weapon.  To  us  it  appears  to  be  a frag- 
ment of  a longer  poem,  uttered  in  lamentation  for 
a homicide  committed  by  Lamech,  probably  in 
self-defence.  It  has  been  already  cited  in  this 
work  [Lamech].  Herder  finds  in  this  piece  all 
the  characteristics  of  Hebrew  poetry.  It  is,  he 
thinks,  lyrical,  has  a proportion  between  its  several 
lines,  and  even  assonance ; in  the  original  the 
first  four  lines  terminate  with  the  same  letter, 
making  a single  or  semi-rhyme. 

Another  poetic  scrap  is  found  in  Exod.  xxxii. 
18.  Being  told  by  Joshua,  on  occasion  of  descend- 
ing from  the  mount,  when  the  people  had  made 
the  golden  calf,  and  were,  tumultuously  offering 
it  their  worship  — 

‘ The  sound  ol  war  is  in  the  camp 
Moses  said 

‘Not  the  sound  of  a shout  for  victory, 

Nor  the  sound  of  a shout  for  falling; 

The  sound  of  a shout  for  rejoicing’ 

Jo  I hear. 

The  correspondence  in  form  in  the  original 
is  here  very  exact  and  striking,  so  that  it  is 
difficult  to  deny  that  the  piece  is  poetic.  If  so. 


POETRY,  HEBREW.  539 

are  we  to  conclude  that  the  temperament  of  the 
Israelites  was  so  deeply  poetic  that  Moses  and 
Joshua  should  find  the  excitement  of  this  occasion 
sufficient  to  strike  improvisatore  verses  from  their 
lips  ? Or  have  we  here  a quotation  from  some 
still  older  song,  which  occurred  to  the  minds  of 
the  speakers  by  the  force  of  resemblance?  Other 
instances  of  scattered  poetic  pieces  may  be  found 
in  Num.  xxi.  14,  15;  also  v.  18;  and  v.  27  ; 
in  which  passages  evidence  may  be  found  that 
we  are  not  in  possession  of  the  entire  mass  of 
Hebrew,  or,  at  least,  Shemitic  literature.  Fur- 
ther specimens  of  very  early  poetry  are  found  in 
Num.  xxiii.  7,  sq. ; xviii.  sq.  ; xxiv.  3,  15. 

The  preceding  will  suffice  to  satisfy  the  reader 
that  there  is  poetry  in  the  Bible.  With  this  as  a 
fact  it  is  the  business  of  the  theologian  to  deal, 
whether  the  fact  be  or  be  not  in  accordance  with 
any  preconceived  ideas  of  fitness  and  propriety. 
We  must  take  the  Bible  as  we  find  it;  and  so 
taking  it,  endeavour  to  understand  its  claims, 
and  form  a just  appreciation  of  its  merits. 

The  ordinary  train  of  thought  and  feeling  pre- 
sented in  Hebrew  poetry  is  entirely  of  a moral  or 
religious  kind  ; but  there  are  occasions  when  other 
topics  are  introduced.  The  entire  Song  of  Solo- 
mon the  present  writer  is  disposed  to  regard,  on 
high  authority,  as  purely  an  erotic  idyll,  and  con- 
sidered as  such  it  possesses  excellences  of  a very 
high  description.  In  Amos  vi.  3,  sq.  may  be  seen 
a fine  passage  of  satire  in  a denunciation  of  the 
luxurious  and  oppressive  aristocracy  of  Israel. 
Subjects  of  a similar  secular  kind  may  be  found 
treated,  yet  never  without  a moral  or  religious 
aim,  in  Isa.  ix.  3;  Jer.  xxv.  10;  xlviii.  33; 
Rev.  xviii.  22,  sq.  But,  independently  of  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  the  most  worldly  ode  is  perhaps 
the  forty-fifth  Psalm,  which  Herder  and  Ewald 
consider  an  epithalamium.  The  latter  critic,  in 
the  account  which  he  gives  of  it,  states  that  it 
was  sung  during  the  time  when  the  new  queen 
was  led  in  pomp  to  take  her  seat  in  her  husband's 
palace. 

The  literature  of  the  Bible,  as  such,  is  by  no 
means  adequately  appreciated  in  the  minds  of 
many.  Owing,  in  part,  to  the  higher  claims 
of  inspiration,  its  literary  merits  have  not  re- 
ceived generally  the  attention  which  they  deserve, 
while  the  critical  world,  whose  office  it  is  to  take 
cognizance  of  literary  productions,  have  nearly 
confined  their  attention  to  works  of  profane 
authors,  and  left  the  Biblical  writings  to  the 
exclusive  possession  of  the  religious  public.  This 
severance  of  interests  is  to  be  regretted  as  much 
for  the  sake  of  literature  as  of  religion.  The  Bible 
is  a book — a literary  production — as  well  as  a re- 
ligious repository  and  charter  ; and  ought,  in  con- 
sequence, to  be  regarded  in  its  literary  as  well  as 
in  its  religious  bearings,  alike  by  those  who  cul- 
tivate literature  and  by  those  who  study  religion. 
And  when  men  regard  and  contemplate  it  as  it 
is,  rather  than  as  fancy  or  ignorance  makes  it, 
then  will  it  be  found  to  present  the  loftiest  and 
most  precious  truths  enshrined  in  the  noblest 
language.  Its  poetry  is  one  continued  illustra- 
tion of  this  fact.  Indeed,  but  for  the  vicious 
education  which  the  first  and  most  influential 
minds  in  this  country  receive,  Biblical  literature 
would  long  ere  now  have  held  the  rank  to  which  it 
is  entitled.  What  is  the  course  of  reading  through 
which  oar  divines,  our  lawyers,  our  statesmen,  ouv 


540  POETRY,  HEBREW. 

philosophers,  are  conducted  ? From  early  you'.k 
up  to  manhood  it  is  almost  entirely  of  a heathen 
complexion.  Greek  and  Latin,  not  Hebrew,  engage 
die  attention ; Homer  and  Horace,  not  Moses  and 
Isaiah,  are  oar  class-books,  skill  in  understanding 
which  is  made  the  passport  to  wealth  and  dis- 
tinction. Hence  Hebrew  literature  is  little  known, 
and  falls  into  a secondary  position.  Nor  can  a 
due  appreciation  of  this  priceless  book  become 
prevalent  until,  with  a revival  and  general  spread 
of  Hebrew  studies,  the  Bible  shall  become  to  us, 
what  it  was  originally  among  the  Israelites,  a 
literary  treasure,  as  well  as  a religious  guide. 
Nor,  in  our  belief,  can  a higher  service  be  ren- 
dered either  to  literature  or  religion  than  to 
make  the  literary  claims  of  the  Bible  understood 
at  the  same  time  that  its  religious  worth  is  duly 
and  impressively  set  forth.  The  union  of  litera- 
ture and  religion  is  found  in  the  Bible,  and  has, 
therefore,  a divine  origin  and  sanction.  Those 
who  love  the  Bible  as  a source  of  religious  truth, 
should  manifest  their  regard  both  towards  the 
book  and  towards  Him  whose  name  and  impress 
it  bears,  by  carefully  preserving  that  union,  and 
causing  its  nature,  requirements,  and  applications 
to  be  generally  understood.  No  better  instrument 
can  be  chosen  for  this  purpose  than  its  rich,  varied, 
and  lofty  poetry. 

There  is  no  poetic  cyclus  that  can  be  put  into 
comparison  with  that  of  the  Hebrews  but  the  cyclus 
of  the  two  classic  nations,  Greece  and  Rome,  and 
that  of  India.  In  form  and  variety  we  grant  that 
the  poetry  of  these  nations  surpasses  that  of  the 
Hebrews.  Epic  poetry  and  the  d'rama,  the  two 
highest  styles  so  far  as  mere  art  is  concerned,  were 
cultivated  successfully  by  them,  whilst  among  the 
Israelites  we  find  only  their  germs  and  first  rudi- 
ments. So  in  execution  we  may  also  admit  that, 
in  the  higher  qualities  of  style,  the  Hebrew  litera- 
ture is  somewhat  inferior.  But  the  thought  is  more 
than  the  expression  ; the  kernel  than  the  shell ; and 
in  substance,  the  Hebrew  poetry  far  surpasses  every 
other.  In  truth,  it  dwells  in  a region  to  which  other 
ancient  literatures  did  not,  and  could  not,  attain, 
a pure,  serene,  moral,  and  religious  atmosphere — 
thus  dealing  with  man  in  his  highest  relations, 
first  anticipating,  and  then  leading  onwards,  mere 
civilization.  This,  as  we  shall  presently  see  more 
fully,  is  the  great  characteristic  of  Hebrew  poetry  ; 
it  is  also  the  highest  merit  of  any  literature,  a 
merit  in  which  that  of  the  Hebrews  is  unap- 
proached. To  this  high  quality  it  is  owing  that 
the  poetry  of  the  Bible  has  exerted  on  the  loftiest 
interests  and  productions  of  the  human  mind,  for 
now  above  two  thousand  years,  the  most  decided 
and  the  most  beneficial  influence.  Moral  and 
religious  truth  is  deathless  and  undecaying ; and 
so  the  griefs  and  the  joys  of  David,  or  the  far- 
seeing  warnings  and  brilliant  pourtrayings  of 
Isaiah,  repeat  themselves  in  the  heart  of  each 
successive  generation,  and  become  coexistent  with 
the  race  of  man.  Thus  of  all  moral  treasuries 
the  Bible  is  incomparably  the  richest.  Even  for 
forms  of  poetry,  in  which  it  is  defective,  or  al- 
together fails,  it  presents  the  richest  materials. 
Moses  has  not,  as  some  have  dreamed,  left  us  an 
epic  poem,  but  he  has  supplied  the  materials  out 
of  which  the  Paradise  Lost  was  created.  The 
sternly  sublime  drama  of  Samson  Agonistes 
constructed  from  a few  materials  found  in  a 
chapter  or  tv/o  which  relate  to  the  least  cultivated 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

period  of  the  Hebrew  republic.  Indeed,  m.ist  of 
the  great  poets,  even  of  modern  days,  from  Tas*o 
down  to  Byron,  all  the  great  musicians,  and  nearly 
all  the  great  painters,  have  drawn  their  best  and 
highest  inspiration  from  the  Bible.  This  is  a fact 
as  creditable  to  religion  as  it  is  important  to 
literature,  of  which  he  who  is  fully  aware,  will 
not  easily  be  turned  aside  from  faith  to  infidelity 
by  the  shallow  sarcasms  of  a Voltaire,  or  the  low 
ribaldry  of  a Paine.  That  book  which  has  led 
civilization,  and  formed  the  noblest  minds  of  our 
race,  is  not  destined  to  be  disowned  for  a few  real 
or  apparent  chronological  inaccuracies  ; or  be- 
cause it  presents  states  of  society  and  modes  of 
thought,  the  very  existence  of  which,  however  half- 
witted unbelief  may  object,  is  the  best  pledge  of 
its  reality  and  truth.  The  complete  establish- 
ment of  the  moral  and  spiritual  pre-eminence  of 
the  Bible,  considered  merely  as  a book,  would 
require  a volume,  so  abundant  are  the  materials. 

It  may  have  struck  the  reader  as  somewhat 
curious  that  the  poetical  pieces  of  which  we 
spoke  above  should,  in  the  common  version  of  the 
Bible,  be  scarcely,  if  at  all,  distinguishable  from 
prose.  We  do  not  know  whether  there  is  any- 
thing extraordinary  in  this.  Much  of  classical 
poetry,  if  turned  into  English  prose,  would  lose 
most  of  its  poetic  characteristics  ; but,  in  general, 
the  Hebrew  poetry  suffers  less  than  perhaps  any 
other  by  transfusion  into  a prosaic  element : to 
which  fact  it.  is  owing  that  the  Book  of  Psalms, 
in  the  English  version,  is,  notwithstanding  its 
form,  eminently  poetic.  There  are,  however, 
cases  in  which  only  the  experienced  eye  can  trace 
the  poetic  in  and  under  the  prosaic  attire  in 
which  it  appears  in  the  vulgar  translation.  Nor, 
until  the  subject  of  Hebrew  poetry  had  been  long 
and  well  studied,  did  the  learned  succeed  in  de- 
tecting many  a poetic  gem  contained  in  the  Bible. 
In  truth,  poetry  and  prose,  from  their  very  nature, 
stand  near  to  each  other,  and,  in  the  earlier  stages 
of  their  existence,  are  discriminated  only  by  faint 
and  vanishing  lines.  If  we  regard  the  thought, 
prose  sometimes  even  now  rises  to  the  loftiness 
of  poetry.  If  we  regard  the  clothing,  the  simpler 
form  of  poetry  is  scarcely  more  than  prose  ; and 
rhetorical  or  measured  prose  passes  into  the  do- 
main of  poetry.  A sonnet  of  Wordsworth  could 
be  converted  into  prose  with  a very  few  changes  ; 
a fable  of  Krummacher  requires  only  to  be  dis- 
tributed into  lines  in  order  to  make  blank  verse, 
which  might  be  compared  even  with  that  of 
Milton.  Now  in  translations,  the  form  is  for  the 
most  part  lost ; there  remains  only  the  substance, 
anil  poetic  sentiment  ranges  from  fhe  humblest 
to  the  loftiest  topics.  So  with  the  Hebrew  poetry 
in  its  original  and  native  state.  Whether  in  •ts 
case  poetry  sprang  from  prose,  or  prose  lio*  ' 
poetry,  they  are  both  branches  of  one  tree,  a iu 
bear  in  their  earlier  stages  a very  close  resem- 
blance. The  similarity  is  the  greater  in  the  lite- 
rature of  the  Hebrews,  because  their  poetic  forms 
are  less  determinate  than  those  of  some  other  na- 
tions : they  had,  indeed,  a rhythm ; but  so  had  their 
prose,  and  their  poetic  rhythm  was  more  like  that 
of  our  blank  verse  than  of  our  rhymed  metre,  Of 
poetical  feet  they  appear  to  have  known  nothing, 
and,  in  consequence,  their  verse  must  be  lest 
measured  and  less  strict.  Its  melody  was  rather 
that  of  thought  than  of  art  and  skill — spontaneous* 
like  their  religious  feelings,  and  therefore  deep  and 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

impressive,  but,  less  subject  to  law,  and  escaping1 
from  the  hard  limits  of  exact  definition.  Rhyme, 

?ropevly  so  called,  is  disowned  as  well  as  metre 
ret  hebrew  verse,  as  it  had  a kind  of  measured 
tread,  so  had  it  a jingle  in  its  feet,  for  several 
lines  are  sometimes  found  terminating  with  the 
*ame  letter.  In  the  main,  however,  it3  essential 
form  was  in  the  thought.  Ideas  are  made  to 
recur  under  such  relations  that  the  substance 
itself  marks  the  form,  and'the  two  are  so  blended 
into  one  that  their  union  is  essential  to  constitute 
poetry.  It  is,  indeed,  incorrect  to  say  that  ‘the 
Hebrew  poetry  is  characterized  by  the  recurrence 
of  similar  ideas  ’ (Latham’s  English  Language, 
p.  372),  if  by  this  it  is  intended  to  intimate  that 
such  a peculiarity  is  the  sole  characteristic  of 
Hebrew  poetry.  One,  and  that  the  chief,  charac- 
teristic of  that  poetry,  such  recurrence  is;  but 
there  are  also  characteristics  in  form  as  well  as  in 
thought.  Of  these  it  may  be  sufficient  to  mention 
the  following  : — (1)  There  is  a verbal  rhythm,  in 
which  a harmony  is  found  beyond  what  prose 
ordinarily  presents ; but  as  the  true  pronunciation 
of  the  Hebrew  has  been  long  lost,  this  quality 
can  be  oidy  imperfectly  appreciated.  (2)  There 
is  a correspondence  of  words,  i.  e.  the  words  in  one 
verse,  or  member,  answer  to  the  words  in  another  ; 
for  as  the  sense  in  the  one  echoes  the  sense  in  the 
other,  so  also  form  corresponds  with  form,  and 
word  with  word.  This  correspondence  in  form 
will  fully  appear  when  we  give  instances  of  the 
parallelism  in  sentiment.;  meanwhile,  an  idea  of 
it  may  be  formed  from  these  specimens  : 

‘ Why  art  thou  cast  down,  O my  soul? 

And  why  art  thou  disquieted  in  me  ?’ 

Ps.  xliii.  5. 

‘ The  memory  of  the  just  is  a blessing  ; 

But  the  name  of  the  wicked  shall  rot.’ 

Prov.  x.  7. 

‘ He  turneth  rivers  into  a desert, 

And  water-springs  into  dry  ground.’ 

Ps.  cvii.  33. 

In  the  original  this  similarity  in  construction  is 
more  exact  and  more  apparent.  At  the  same 
time  it  is  a free,  and  not  a strict  correspondence 
that  prevails  ; a correspondence  to  be  caught  and 
recognised  by  the  ear  in  the  general  progress  of 
the  poem,  or  the  general  structure  of  a couplet  or 
a triplet,  but  which  is  not  of  a nature  to  be  exactly 
measured  or  set  forth  by  such  aids  as  counting 
with  the  fingers  will  afford.  ,(3)  Inversion  holds 
a distinguished  place  in  the  structure  of  Hebrew 
poetry,  as  in  that  of  every  other;  yet  here  again 
the  remark  already  made  holds  good ; it  is  only 
a modified  inversion  that  prevails,  by  no  means 
(in  general)  equalling  that  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  in  boldness,  decision,  and  prevalence. 
Every  one  will,  however,  recognise  this  inversion 
in  the  following  instances,  as  distinguishing  the 
passages  from  ordinary  prose  : 

4 Amid  thought  in  visions  of  the  night, 

When  deep  sleep  falleth  upon  men, 

Fear  and  horror  came  upon  me.’  Job  iv.  13. 

* To  me  men  gave  ear  and  waited, 

To  my  words  they  made  no  reply.’ 

Job  xxix.  21. 

’ For  three  transgressions  of  Damascus,  * 

And  for  four  will  I not  turn  away  its  punish- 
ment ’ Amos  i.  3. 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

* His  grave  was  appointed  with  the  wicked, 

And  with  the  rich  man  was  his  sepulchre.’ 

Isa.  liii.  9. 

(4)  The  last  verbal  peculiarity  of  Hebrew  poetry 
which  we  notice  is,  that  its  language  betrays  an 
archaical  character,  a licence,  and,  in  general,  a 
poetic  hue  and  colouring  which  cannot  be  con- 
founded with  the  simple,  lowly,  and  unrhyth- 
mical diction  of  prose.  The  formation  of  a poetic 
diction  is,  in  any  nation,  dependent  on  the  posses- 
sion, by  that  nation,  of  a poetical  temperament, 
as  much  as  of  a poetical  history.  Wherever  these 
two  elements  are  found,  the  birth  of  poetry  and 
the  formation  of  a poetical  language  are  certain. 
Great  events  give  rise  to  strong  passions,  and 
strong  passions  are  the  parents  of  noble  truths; 
which,  when  they  spring  from  and  nestle  in  a 
poetic  temperament,  cannot  fail  to  create  for 
themselves  an  appropriate  phraseology,  in  which 
the  tame  and  quiet  march  of  prose  is  avoided, 
and  all  the  loftier  figures  of  speech  are  put  into 
requisition.  For  a time,  indeed,  the  line  of  de- 
markation  between  the  diction  of  prose  and  that 
of  poetry  will  not  be  very  strongly  marked  ; for 
poetry  will  predominate,  as  in  men’s  deeds  so  in 
their  words,  and,  if  they  as  yet  have  any,  in  their 
literature.  Soon,  however,  the  passions  grow  cool, 
enthusiasm  wanes, 'a  great  gulf  opens  between  the 
actual  and  the  ideal — the  ideal  having  ceased  to 
be  actual  in  ceasing  to  be  possible, — and  a sepa- 
rate style  of  language  for  prose  and  poetry  be- 
comes as  inevitable  as  the  diversity  of  attire  in 
which  holy  and  ordinary  days  have  their  respective 
duties  discharged. 

In  no  nation  was  the  unkn  of  the  two  requisites 
of  which  we  have  spoken  found  in  fuller  measure 
than  among  the  Hebrews.  Theirs  was  eminently 
a poetic  temperament ; .their  earliest  history  was 
an  heroic  without  ceasing  to  be  an  historic  age, 
whilst  the  loftiest  of  all  truths  circulated  in  their 
souls,  and  glowed  on  and  started  from  their  lips. 
Hence  their  language,  in  its  earliest  stages,  is 
surpassingly  poetic.  Let  the  reader  peruse,  even 
in  our  translation,  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis,  or 
parts  of  the  Book  of  Job,  and  he  cannot  but  per- 
ceive the  poetic  element  in  which  these  noble 
compositions  have  almost  their  essence.  And 
hence  the  difficulty  of  determining,  with  accuracy, 
the  time  when  a poetic  diction,  strictly  so  termed, 
began  to  make  its  appearance.  Partially,  such  a 
diction  must  be  recognised  in  the  earliest  speci- 
mens we  have  of  Hebrew  poetry,  nor  is  it  hard  to 
trace,  if  not  in  words,  yet  in  colouring  and  man- 
ner, signs  of  this  imaginative  dress ; but  the  pro- 
cess was  not  completed,  the  diction  was  not 
thoroughly  formed,  until  the  Hebrew  bard  had 
produced  his  highest  strains,  and  tried  his  powers 
on  various  species  of  composition.  The  period 
when  this  excellence  was  reached  was  the  age  of 
Solomon,  when  the  rest,  peace,  opulence,  and 
culture  which  were  the  fruits  of  the  lofty  mind 
and  proud  achievements  of  David,  had  had  time 
to  bring  their  best  fruits  to  maturity — a ripeness 
to  which  the  Israelite  history  had  in  various  ways 
contributed  during  many  successive  generations. 

The  chief  characteristics,  however,  of  Hebrew 
poetry  are  found  in  the  peculiar  form  in  which  it 
gives  utterance  to  its  ideas.  This  form  has  received 
the  name  of  ‘parallelism.’  Ewald  justly  pre- 
fers the  term  ‘thought-rhythm,’  since  the  rhythm, 
the  music,  the  peculiar  flow  and  harmony  of  tiie 


542  POETRY,  HEBREW.  POETRY,  HEBREW. 


verse  and  of  the  poem,  lie  in  the  distribution  of 
the  sentiment  in  such  a manner  that  the  full  im- 
port does  not  come  out  in  less  than  a distich.  It 
is  to  this  peculiarity,  which  is  obviously  in  the 
substance  and  not  the  mere  form  of  the  poetry, 
that  the  translation  of  the  Psalms  in  our  Bibleg 
owes  much  of  its  remarkable  character,  and  is 
distinguished  from  prose  by  terms  clearly  and 
decidedly  poetic ; and  many  though  the  im- 
perfections are  which  attach,  some  almost  neces- 
sarily, to  that  version,  still  it  retains  so  much  of 
the  form  and  substance,  of  the  simple  beauty,  and 
tine  harmony  of  the  original  Hebrew,  that  we  giye 
it  a preference  over  most  poetic  translations,  and 
always  feel  disposed  to  warn  away  from  this 
holy  ground  the  rash  hands  that  often  attempt, 
with  no  fit  preparation,  to  touch  the  sacred  harp 
of  Zion. 

Those  who  wish  to  enter  thoroughly  into  the 
subject  of  Hebrew  rhythm,  are  referred  to  the 
most  recent  and  best,  work  on  the  subject,  by  the 

earned  Hebrew  scholar,  Ewald,  who  has  trans- 
lated into  German  all  the  poetical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  (D/e  Poet.  Pitcher  des  Alten 
Bundes , 1835-9,  4 vols.  8vo.,  vol.  i.  pp.  57 — 92). 
A shorter  and  more  simple  account  will  better 
suit  these  pages ; which  we  take  in  substance 
from  Gesenius  ( Ilebraischcs  Lesebuch , 1 7th  edit., 
by  De  Wette,  Leipzig,  1844).  The  leading  prin- 
ciple is,  that  a simple  verse  or  distich  consists, 
both  in  regard  to  form  and  substance,  of  two  cor- 
responding members  : this  has  been  teamed  He- 
brew rhythm  or  Parallelismus  membrorum. 
Three  kinds  may  be  specified.  There  is  first  the 
synonymous  parallel  is  yi ; which  consists  in  this, 
that  the  two  members  express  the  same  thought  in 
different  words,  so  that  sometimes  word  answers  to 
word  : for  example — 

‘ What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him, 
And  the  son  of  man  that  thou  carest  for  him  !’ 
Ps.  viii.  4. 

There  is  in  some  cases  an  inversion  in  the  second 
line — 

‘ The  heavens  relate  the  glory  of  God, 

And  the  work  of  his  hands  the  firmament  de- 
clares.’ Ps.  xix.  2. 

1 He  maketh  big  messengers  the  winds, 

His  ministers  the  flaming  lightning.’  Ps.  civ.  4. 

Very  often  the  second  member  x-epeats  only  a part 
of  the  first — . 

‘ Woe  to  them  that  join  house  to  house, 

That  field  to  field  unite.’  Is.  v.  8. 

Sometimes  the  verb  which  stands  in  the  first  mem 
ber  is  omitted  in  the  second — 

‘ O God,  thy  justice  give  the  king, 

Axxd  thy  righteousness  to  the  king’s  son.’ 

Ps.  lxxii.  1. 

Or  the  verb  may  be  in  the  second  member — 

‘ With  the  jawbone  of  an  ass  heaps  upon  heaps, 
With  the  jawbone  of  an  ass  have  I slain  a 
thousand  men.’  Judg.  xv.  16. 

The  second  member  may  contain  an  expansion  of 
me  first — 

i Give  to  Jehovah,  ye  sons  of  God, 

Give  to  Jehovah  glory  and  praise.’  Ps.  xxix.  1. 
Indeed  foe  varieties  are  numerous,  since  the  syno- 
nymous parallelism  is  very  frequent. 


The  second  kind  is  the  antithetic , in  which  the 
first  member  is  illustrated  by  some  opposition  cf 
thought  contained  in  the  second.  This  less  cus- 
tomary kind  of  parallelism  is  found  mostly  in 
the  Proverbs — 

i The  full  man  treadeth  the  honeycomb  undei 
foot. 

To  the  hungry  every  bitter  thing  is  sweet.’ 

Prov.  xxvii.  7. 

Under  this  head  comes  the  following,  with  other 
similar  examples — 

‘ Day  to  day  uttereth  instruction, 

And  night  to  night  sheweth  knowledge.’ 

The  third  kind  is  denominated  the  synthetic: 
probably  the  term  epithetic  would  be  more  appro- 
priate, since  the  secoiid  member  not  being  a mere 
echo  of  the  first,  subjoins  something  new  to  it, 
while  the  same  structure  of  the  verse  is  preserved ; 
thus — 

‘ He  appointed  the  moon  for  seasons ; 

The  sun  knoweth  his  going  down.’  Ps.  civ.  19. 

‘ The  law  of  Jehovah  is  perfect,  reviving  the  soul ; 
The  precepts  of  Jehovah  are  sure,  instructing 
the  simple.’  Ps.  xix.  7. 

This  correspondence  of  thought  is  occasionally 
found  in  Greek  and  Latin  poetry,  particularly  in 
the  interlocutions  of  the  eclogues  of  Theocritus 
and  Virgil.  The  two  following  distichs  are  spe- 
cimens of  the  antithetic  parallelism  : 

i Datn.  Triste  lupus  stabulis,  maturis  frugibus 
imber, 

Arboribus  venti ; nobis  Amaryllidis  irae. 

Men.  Dulce  satis  humor,  depulsis  arbutus 
hsedis, 

Lenta  salix  foeto  pecori ; mild  solus 
Amyntas.’ 

Pope's  writings  present  specimens  which  may  be 
compared  with  the  antithetical  parallelism.  In 
his  Rape  of  the  Lock , passages  of  the  kind  abound. 
We  opened  his  Essay  on  Criticism,  and  the  first 
lines  our  eye  fell  on  were  these — 

‘ A little  learning  is  a dang’rous  thing  : 

Drink  deep,  or  taste  not  the  Pierian  spring  : 
There  shallow  draughts  intoxicate  the  brain 
And  drinking  largely  sobers  us  again.’ 

So  in  his  Messiah , where  he  was  likely  to  copy 
the  form  in  imitating  the  spirit  of  the  original — 
‘ The  lambs  with  wolves  shall  graze  the  verdant 
mead, 

And  hoys  in  fiow’ry  bands  the  tiger  lead  ; 

The  steer  and  lion  at  one  crib  shall  meet, 

And  harmless  serpents  lick  the  pilgrim’s  feet.’ 

This  correspondence  in  thought  is  not,  however,  of 
universal  occurrence.  We  find  a merely  rhyth- 
mical parallelism  in  which  the  thought  is  not  re- 
peated, but  goes  forward,  throughout  the  verse, 
which  is  divided  midway  into  two  halves  or  a 
distich — 

i The  word  is  not  upon  the  tongue, 

Jehovah  thou  knowest  it  altogether.’ 

Ps.  cxxxviii.  4. 

‘ Gird  as  a man  thy  loins, 

I will^sk  thee;  inform  thou  me.’  Jobxxxix.  3. 
Here  poetry  distinguishes  itself  from  prose  chiefly 
by  the  division  into  two  short  equal  parts.  This 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

peculiarity  of  poetic  diction  is  expressed  by  the 
word  ^DT,  which  properly  denotes  dividing  the 
matter,  and  so  speaking  or  singing  in  separated 
portions.  Among  the  Arabians,  who,  however, 
have  syllabic  measure,  each  verse  is  divided  into 
two  lremistichs  by  a caesura  in  the  middle. 
What  is  termed  ‘ service  metre’  in  English  versi- 
fication, is  not  unlike  this  in  the  main  : it  is  the 
‘ common  metre’  of  the  Psalm-versions,  and  of  or- 
dinary hymn  books,  though  in  the  latter  it  is  ar- 
ranged in  four  lines — 

4 But  one  request  I make  to  him  | that  sits  the 
skies  above, 

That  I were  fairly  out  of  debt  | as  I were  out 
of  love.’  Suckling. 

The  simple  two-membered  rhythm  hitherto  de- 
scribed prevails,  especially  in  the  book  of  Job, 
the  Proverbs,  and  a portion  of  the  Psalms  ; but 
in  the  last,  and  still  more  in  the  Prophets,  there  are 
numerous  verses  with  three,  lour,  or  yet  more 
members. 

In  verses  consisting  of  three  members  (tristicha) 
sometimes  all  three  are  parallel — 

< Happy  the  man  who  walketh  not  in  the  paths 
of  the  unrighteous, 

Nor  standeth  in  the  way  of  sinners, 

Nor  sitteth  in  the  seat  of  scoffers.’  Ps.  i,  1. 

Sometimes  two  of  the  members  stand,  opposed  to 
the  third — 

4 To  all  the  world  goes  forth  their  sound, 

To  the  end  of  the  world  their  words; 

For  the  sun  he  places  a tabernacle  in  them.’ 

Ps.  xix.  4. 

Verses  of  four  members  contain  either  two  simple 
parallels — 

‘ With  righteousness  shall  he  judge  the  poor, 
And  decide  with  equity  for  the  afflicted  of  the 
people ; 

He  shall  smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of  his 
mouth ; 

With  the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  the 
wicked.’  Isa.  xi.  4. 

Or  the  first  and  third  answer  to  each  other ; also 
the  second  and  fourth — 

4 That  smote  the  people  in  anger 
With  a continual  stroke  ; 

That  lorded  it  over  the  nations  in  wrath 
With  unremitted  oppression.’  Isa.  xiv.  6. 

If  the  members  are  more  numerous  or  dispropor- 
tionate (Isa.  xi.  11),  or  if  the  parallelism  is  imper- 
fect or  irregular,  the  diction  of  poetry  is  lost  and 
prose  ensues;  as  is  the  case  in  Isa.  v.  1-6,  and 
frequently  in  the  later  prophets,  as  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  each  poem  consists 
exclusively  of  one  sort  of  verse ; for  though  this 
feature  does  present  itself,  yet  frequently  several 
kinds  are  found  together  in  one  composition,  so 
as  to  give  great  ease,  freedom,  and  capability  to 
the  style.  We  select  the  following  beautiful 
specimen,  because  a chorus  is  introduced — 

david’s  lament  over  saul  and  Jonathan. 

The  Gazelle,  O Israel,  has  been  cut  down  cn 
thy  heights ! 

Chorus.  How  are  the  mighty  fallen! 


POETRY,  HEBREW.  543 

Tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish  it  not  in  the  streets 
of  Ascalon, 

Lest  the  daughters  of  the  Philistines  rejoice, 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  uncircumcised  exult, 

PI  ills  of  Gilboa,  no  dew  nor  rain  come  upon 
you,  devoted  fields ! 

For  there  is  stained  the  heroes’  bow, 

Saul’s  bow,  never  anointed  with  oil. 

From  the  blood  of  the  slain,  from  the  fat  of  the 
mighty, 

The  bow  of  Jonathan  turned  not  back, 

And  the  sword  of  Saul  came  not  idly  home. 

Saul  and  Jonathan  ! lovely  and  pleasant  in  life  ! 
And  in  death  ye  were  not  divided  ; 

Swifter  than  eagles,  stronger  than  lions! 

Ye  daughters  of  Israel ! Weep  for  Saul ; 

He  clothed  you  delicately  in  purple, 

He  put  ornaments  of  gold  on  your  apparel. 
Chorus.  How  are  the  mighty  fallen  in  the  midst 
of  the  battle ! 

O Jonathan,  slain  in  thy  high  places ! 

I am  distressed  for  thee,  brother  Jonathan, 

Very  pleasant  wast  thou  to  me, 

Wonderful  was  thy  love,  more  than  the  love 
of  woman. 

Chorus.  How  are  the  mighty  fallen, 

And  the  weapons  of  war  perished ! 

We  have  chosen  this  ode  not  only  for  its  sin- 
gular beauty,  but  also  because  it  presents  another 
quality  of  Hebrew  poetry — the  strophe.  In  this 
poem  there  are  three  strophes  marked  by  the  re- 
currence three  times  of  the  dirge  sung  by  the 
chorus.  The  chorus  appears  to  have  consisted  of 
three  parts,  corresponding  with  the  parties  more 
immediately  addressed  in  the  three  several  por- 
tions of  the  poem.  The  first  choral  song  is  sung 
by  the  entire  body  of  singers,  representing  Israel ; 
the  second  is  sung  by  a chorus  of  maidens ; the 
third,  by  first  a chorus  of  youths  in  a soft  and 
mournful  strain,  and  then  by  all  the  choir  in  full 
and  swelling  chorus.  But  in  order  to  the  readeris 
fully  understanding  with  what  noble  effect  these 
4 songs  of  Zion’  came  on  the  souls  of  their  hearers, 
an  accurate  idea  must  be  formed  of  the  music  of 
the  Hebrews  [Music].  Referring  to  the  articles 
which  bear  on  the  subject,  we  merely  remark  that 
both  music  and  dancing  were  connected  with 
sacred  song  in  its  earliest  manifestations,  though 
it  was  only  at  a comparatively  late  period,  when 
David  and  Solomon  had  given  their  master-powers 
to  the  grand  performances  of  the  temple-service, 
that  poetry  came  forth  in'  all  its  excellence,  and 
music  lent  its  full  aid  to  its  solemn  and  sublime 
sentiments. 

Lyrical  poetry  so  abounds  in  the  Bible,  that 
we  almost  forget  that  it  contains  any  other  spe- 
cies. Doubtless  lyrical  poetry  is  the  earliest,  no 
less  than  the  most  varied  and  most  abundant. 
Yet  the  lyrical  poetry  of  the  Israelites  contains 
tokens  of  proceeding  from  an  earlier  kind.  It 
is  eminently  sententious — brief,  pithy,  and  strik- 
ing in  the  forms  of  language,  and  invariably 
moral  or  religious  in  its  tone.  Whence  we 
infer  that  it  had  its  rise  in  a species  of  poetry 
analogous  to  that  which  we  find  in  the  book 
of  Proverbs.  Read  the  few  lines  addressed  by 
Lamech  to  his  wives  : do  they  not  bear  a corre- 
spondence with  the  general  tone  of  the  Proverbs? 


644  POETRY,  HEBREW. 

We  do  not  by  this  intend  to  intimate  that  the 
book  so  called  was  the  earliest  poetic  production 
of  the  Hebrew  muse.  In  its  actual  form  it  is  of 
a much  later  origin  than  many  of  the  odes.  Yet 
the  elements  out  of  which  it  was  formed  may 
have  existed  at  a very  early  day.  Indeed  the  Ori- 
ental genius  turns  naturally  to  proverbs  and  sen- 
tentious speeches.  In  its  earliest,  its  most  purely 
native  state,  the  poetry  of  the  Easterns  is  a string 
of  pearls.  Every  word  has  life ; every  propo- 
sition is  condensed  wisdom ; every  thought  is 
striking  and  epigrammatic.  The  book  of  Pro- 
verbs argues  the  influence  of  philosophy.  Early 
jwetry  is  too  spontaneous  to  speak  in  this  long 
retinue  of  glittering  thoughts.  But  Eastern  ima- 
ginations may  at  first  have  poured  forth  their 
creations,  not  in  a continued  strain,  but  in  showers 
of  broken  light,  on  which  the  lyrist  would  seize 
to  be  worked  as  sparkling  gems  into  his  odes.  It 
is  however  certain  that  a general  name  for  poetic 

language,  signifies  also  a saying,  a proverb, 

a comparison,  a similitude.  The  last  is  indeed 
the  primary  signification,  showing  that  Hebrew 
poetry  in  its  origin  was  a painting  to  the  eye;  in 
other  words,  a parable,  a teaching  by  likenesses, 
discovered  by  the  popular  mind,  expressed  by 
the  popular  tongue,  and  adopted  and  polished  by 
the  national  poet.  And  as  a sententious  form 
of  speech  may  even  by  its  very  condensation  be- 
come dark,  so  that  the  wisdom  which  it  contains 
may  have  to  be  patiently  and  carefully  sought 

for,  what  was#^S^?D  may  become  hidden  know- 
ledge, and  pass  into  HYTI,  a secret  or  a riddle ; 
which,  as  being  intended  to  baffle  and  so  to  de- 
ride, may  in  its  turn  be  appropriately  termed 
riS'ta,  deri  sion,  satire,  or  irony. 

Lyrical  poetry  embraced  a great  variety  of 
topics,  from  the  shortest  and  most  fleeting  effusion, 
as  found  in  specimens  already  given,  and  in  Ps. 
xv.,  cxxxi.,  cxxxiii.,  to  the  loftiest  subjects  treated 
in  a full  and  detailed  manner ; for  instance,  De- 
borah’s song  (Judg.  v.),  and  Ps.  xviii.  and  lxviii. 
It  ran  equally  through  all  the  moods  of  the  human 
soul,  nothing  being  too  lowly,  too  deep,  or  too  high 
for  the  Hebrew  lyre.  It  told  how  the  horse  and  his 
Egyptian  rider  were  sunk  in  the  depths  of  the  Sea ; 
it  softly  and  sweetly  sang  of  the  benign  effects  of 
brotherly  love.  It  uttered  its  wail  over  the  corpse 
of  a friend,  and  threw  its  graceful  imagery  around 
the  royal  nuptial  couch.  Song  was  its  essence. 
Whatever  its  subject,  it  forewent  neither  the  lyre 
nor.the  voice.  Indeed  its  most  general  nair.e, 
signifies  ‘song;’  song  and  poetry  were  the 
same.  Another  name  for  lyrical  poetry  is  “VtfDfD, 
which  the  Seventy  render  ^aA.^ios,  ‘psalm,’  and 
which  from  its  etymology  seems  to  have  a refer- 
ence not  so  much  to  song  as  to  the  numbers  into 
which  the  poet  by  his  art  wrought  his  thoughts 
and  emotions.  The  latter  word  describes  the 
making  of  an  ode,  the  former  its  performance  on 
the  lyre.  Another  general  name  for  lyrical  poetry 

is  which  is  applied  to  poems  of  a certain 

kind(Ps.  xxxii.,  xlii.,  xlv.,lii.,  lv.,  Ixxiv.,  lxxviii., 
lxxxviii.,  cxlii.),  and  appears  to  denote  an  ode 
lofty  in  its  sentiments  and  exquisite  in  its  execu- 
tion. Under  these  general  heads  there  were  seve- 
ral species,  whose  specific  differences  it  is  not  easy 
to  determine. 


POETRY,  HEBREW 

1.  nVnn,  ‘a  hymn,’  or  ‘ psalm  of  ][  raise." 
The  word  is  used  as  a title  only  to  one  •psalm 
(cxlv.),  but  really . describes  the  character  of 
many,  as  may  naturally  be  expected  when  we 
consider  the  origin  of  the  ode  as  springing  from 
victory,  deliverance,  the  reception  of  bounties, 
and  generally  those  events  and  occasions  which 
excited  joy  and  gladness  in  the  soul,  and  were 
celebrated  with  music,  often  accompanied  by 
dancing  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  people, 
or  after  a more  sacred  manner,  in  the  solemn 
courts  of  the  temple.  To  this  class  of  joyous 
compositions  belong  the  lofty  hymns  which  com- 
memorated great  national  events,  such  as  the  de- 
liverance from  Pharaoh  (Exod.  xv.,  Judg.  v.,  Ps. 
xviii.,  lxviii.),  which  were  appointed  for  set  holy- 
day  seasons, . and  became  a part  at  once  of  the 
national  worship  and  of  the  best  national  property. 
Other  songs  of  this  kind  were  used  on  less  distin- 
guished occasions,  and  by  individuals  on  present- 
ing their  tbank-otferings,  and  were  pitched  at  a 
lower  key,  being  expressive  rather  of  personal 
than  general  emotions  (Ps.  xxx.,  xxxii.,  xli., 
cxxxviii.  ; Isa.  xxxviii.).  There  are  occasionally 
briefer  songs  of  victory,  sung  by  the  general  con- 
gregation in  the  temple,  as  Ps.  xlvi.  and  xlviii. 

2.  HPp,  Qpr)pos,  ‘ a dirge,’  or  ‘ song  of  sorrow,’ 

companied  by  exclamations  of  grief,  as  16$,  'IX, 
or  very  often  by  O how  ! and  distinguished 

from  songs  of  joy  by  mournful  strains  of  music, 
The  Hebrew  heart  was  as  much  open  to  sorrow 
as  to  joy,  tender  and  full  as  were  its  emotions, 
and  simple  as  was  the  ordinary  mode  of  life, 
Adversity  and  bereavement  were  therefore  keenly 
felt,  and  as  warmly  and  strikingly  expressed. 
Indeed  so  great  was  the  regard  held  due  to  the 
dead,  that  mourners  did  not  consider  their  own 
sorrow  sufficient,  but  used  to  engage  others  to 
mourn  for  their  lost  friends,  so  that  in  process 
of  time  there  arbse  a profession  whose  business 
it  was  to  bewail  the  departed.  In  Amos  v.  16. 
these  persons  are  named  as  'fD  'ITD',  those  wh<j 
are  skilful  in  wailing  (Jer.  ix.  17).  Distin- 
guished heroes,  and  persons  who  were  tenderly 
beloved,  found  in  the  sorrowful  accents  of  the 
Hebrew  muse,  the  finest  and  most  lasting  memo- 
rial (2  Sam.  i.  17 -"2S  ; iii.  33,  34).  From  1 Sam. 
i.  18,  it  appears  that  these  dirges  ( neniec ) were 
taught  to  the  children  of  Israel  ad  perpetuam  rei 
memoriam ; and  so  heroic  deeds  lived  through 
successive  generations  on  the  lips  of  the  people, 
whose  hearts  were  thus  warmed  with  emulation, 
while  they  were  softened  with  gentleness  and  love. 
In  this  class  of  lamentations  may  be  ranked  the 
songs  of  sorrow  over  the  misfortunes  of  Israel, 
such  as  Ps.  xliv.,  lx.,  lxxiii.,  which  seem  to  have 
borne  the  general  name  of  4 a weeping  and  wail- 
ing ’ (Jer.  vii.  29;  ix.  9).  In  the  same  class 
stand  lamentations  poured  forth  on  The  desecration 
or  destruction  of  the  holy  city  (Jer.  ix.  xix.;Ezek. 
xxvii.  xxxii. ; Isa.  i.  xxi.).  Jeremiah  has  put  toge- 
ther and  united  in  one  book,  executed  with  great 
skill  and  presenting  an  altogether  unique  speci- 
men of  writing,  which  indeed  could  have  had  its 
birth  nowhere  but  in  a Hebrew  soul,  all  possible 
lamentations  and  wailings  on  the  ruin  and  fall 
of  Jerusalem. 

3.  jPUfc?  is  found  only  as  the  title  of  a poem 
(Ps.  vii.),  and  once  in  the  plural  (Hab.  iii.  1),  as 
a description  of  this  species  of  poetry  in  general. 
The  word  is  not  easy  to  understand.  The  Sej> 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

tuagint  render  it  by  a general  term  which 

seems^to  betray  their  own  ignorance.  It  had 
doubtless  a specific  meaning.  The  root  de- 
notes bewilderment,  so  that  the  term  may  indicate 
a sort  of  ‘litbyrambic  poetry — poetry  in  which 
the  emotions  are  put  forth  in  wild  confusion  be- 
tokening an  agitated,  confused,  and  worried  state 
of  mind.  This  description  corresponds  with  the 
character  of  the  two  compositions  to  which  the 
epithet  is  applied  in  Ps.  vii.  and  Hab.  iii.  That 
the  melody  employed  in  singing  these  pieces  an- 
swered, in  wild  hurrying  confusion,  to  the  train  of 
the  thought  may  be  conjectured  naturally,  and 
inferred  with  good  reason,  from  the  heading  of 
Habakkuk  iii. 

4.  rtefl,  ‘prayer,’  is  the  name  of  certain  odes 
in  the  titles  given  to  Ps.  xvii.,  lxxxvi.,  xc.,  cii., 
cxlii. ; Hab.  iii.  In  Psalm  cii.  and  in  Hab. 
iii.  it  seems  not  to  denote  the  ode  so  much  as 
the  general  tendency  of  the  sentiment  of  the 
poet,  and  in  the  other  headings  it  may  import 
merely  the  use  to  which  these  compositions  may 
be  applied.  It  is  not  therefore  so  much  a term 
of  art  as  a term  of  religion.  Yet  may  it  be  ap- 
plied to  compositions  in  general,  designed  for  use 
in  divine  worship  whatever  their  form  or  strain, 
inasmuch  as  it  regards  in  a general  way  the  re- 
ligious element,  which  constituted  their  essence; 
and  accordingly  it  is  found  in  Ps.  lxxii.  20  ap- 
plied as  a general  name  to  an  entire  collection 
of  the  poems  of  David — ‘ the  prayers  of  David, 
the  son  of  Jesse,  are  ended.’ 

In  these  four  classes  we  have  not  pretended  to 
exhaust  all  the  species  and  forms  which  lyric 

gietry  took,  but  merely  to  present  the  chief  facts. 

especting  other  kinds,  little  need  be  said,  as  the 
lyrical  comprehends  the  greatest  and  best,  part  of 
Hebrew  poetry,  nor  are  learned  men  so  much  of 
one  mind  regarding  the  compositions  to  which  we 
allude. 

Dramatic  poetry  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
phrase  is  applicable  to  productions  such  as  those 
of  Euripides,  Shakspeare,  or  Schiller,  had  no 
place  in  the  literature  of  the  Hebrews.  This  de- 
fect may  be  owing  to  a want  of  the  requisite  lite- 
rary cultivation.  Yet  we  are  not  willing  to  as- 
sign this  as  the  cause,  when  we  call  to  mind  the 
high  intellectual  culture  which  the  Hebrews 
evinced  in  lyric  and  didactic  poetry,  out  of  which 
the  drama  seems  naturally  to  spring.  We  rather 
look  for  the  cause  of  this  in  the  earnest  nature  of 
the  Hebrews,  and  in  the  solemnity  of  the  subjects 
with  which  they  had  to  do  in  their  literary  pro- 
ductions. Nor  is  it.  any  objection  to  this  hypo- 
thesis that  the  drama  of  modem  times  had  its 
birth  in  the  religious  mysteries  of  ths  middle 
iges,  since  those  ages  were  only  secondary  in  re- 
gard to  religious  truth,  stood  at  a distance  from 
the  great  realities  which  they  believed  and  dra- 
matized ; whereas  the  objects  of  faith  with  the 
Israelites  were  held  in  all  the  fresh  vividness  of 
primitive  facts  and  newly-recognised  truths.  Ele- 
ments however  for  dramatic  poetry  and  first  rudi- 
mental  efforts  are  found  in  Hebrew  ; as  in  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  in  which  several  dramatis  per- 
sonae will  be  discovered  speaking  aiid  acting,  by 
the  diligent  and  unprejudiced  reader.  Evvald 
asserts  that  the  poem  is  divisible  into  four  acts. 
In  the  book  of  Job,  however,  the  dramatic  element 
of  the  Hebrew  muse  i?  developed  in  a more 
vol.  u.  36 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

marked  form,  and  a more  decided  degree.  Her* 
the  machinery  and  contrivances  of  the  -drama, 
even  to  the  plot  and  the  Deus  Vindex,  lie  paten; 
to  a reader  of  ordinary  attention.  For  epic  poetry 
the  constituent  elements  do  not  appear  to  have 
existed  during  (lie  classic  period  of  the  Hebrew 
muse,  since  epic  poetry  requires  an  heroic  age, 
an  age,  that  is,  of  fabulous  wonders  and  falsely 
so  called  divine  interpositions.  But  among  the 
Israelites  the  patriarchal,  which  might  have  been 
the  heroic  age,  was  an  age  of  truth  and  reality  ; 
and  it  much  raises  the  religious  and  historical 
value  of  the  biblical  literature,  that  neither  the 
singular  events  of  the  age  of  the  patriarchs,  nor 
the  wonderful  events  of  the  age  of  Moses,  nor  the 
confused  and  somewhat  legendary  events  of  the 
age  of  the  Judges,  ever  degenerated  into  mytho- 
logy, nor  passed  from  the  reality  which  was  their 
essence,  into  the  noble  fictions  into  which  the 
imagination,  if  unchastened  and  unchecked  by 
religion,  might  have  wrought  them;  but  they  re- 
tained through  all  periods  their  own  essential 
character  of  earnest,  lofty,  and  impressive  realities. 
At  a later  period,  when  the  religion  of  Moses  had, 
during  the  Babylonish  captivity, iteen  lowered  by 
the  corruptions  of  the  religion  of  Zoroaster,  and  an 
entirely  new  world  of  thought  introduced,  based 
not  on  reality  but  fancy,  emanating  not  from  the 
pure  light  of  heaven  but  from  the  mingled  lights 
and  shadows  of  primitive  tradition  and  human 
speculation, — then  there  came  into  existence 
among  the  Jews  the  elements  necessary  for  epic 
poetry ; but  the  days  were  gone  in  which  the 
mind  of  the  nation  had  the  requisite  strength  and 
culture  to  fashion  them  into  a great,  uniform,  and 
noble  structure;  and  if  we  can  allow  that  the 
Hebrews  possessed  the  rudimental  outlines  of  the 
epic,  we  must  seek  for  them  not  in  the  canonical 
hut  the  apocrynhal  books ; and  while  we  deny 
with  emphasis  that  the  term  Epos  can  be  applied, 
as  some  German  critics  have  applied  it,  to  the 
Pentateuch;  we  can  find  only  in  the  book  of 
Judith,  and  with  rather  more  reason  in  that,  of 
Tobit,  anything  which  approaches  to  epic  poetry. 
Indeed  fiction,  which  if  it  is  not  the  essence,  enters 
for  a very  large  share  into  both  epic  and  dramatic 
poetry,  was  wholly  alien  from  the  genius  of  the 
Hebrew  muse,  whose  high  and  noble  function  was 
not  to  invent  but  to  celebrate  the  goodness  o4 
God,  not  to  indulge  the  fancy  but  to  express  the 
deepest  feelings  of  the  soul,  not  to  play  with 
words  and  feign  emotions,  but  to  utter  profound 
truth  and  commemorate  real  events,  and  pour 
forth  living  sentiments. 

These  remarks  imply  that  art,  though  subordi- 
nate, was  not  neglected,  as  indeed  is  proved  by 
the  noble  lyrics  which  have  come  down  to  us,  and 
in  which  the  art  is  only  relatively  small  and  low, 
that  is,  the  art.  is  inconsiderable  and  secondary, 
merely  because  the  topics  are  so  august,  the  sen- 
timents so  grand,  the  religious  impression  so  pro- 
found and  sacred.  At  later  periods,  when  the 
first  fresh  gushing  of  the  muse  had  ceased,  art  in 
Hebrew,  as  is  the  case  in  all  other  poetry,  began 
to  claim  a larger  share  of  attention,  and  stands 
in  the  poems  for  a greater  portion  of  their  merit. 
Then  the  play  of  the  imagination  grew  predomi- 
nant over  the  spontaneous  outpourings  of  the  soul, 
and  among  other  creations  of  the  fancy  alphabets* 
cal  poems  were  produced,  in  which  the  matter  ia 
artistically  distributed  sometimes  under  two-and 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

twenty  heads  or  divisions,  corresponding  with  the 
number  of  the  Hebrew  letters.  This  is  of  course 
• peculiarity  which  cannot  be  preserved  in  any 
ordinary  prose  translation;  but  it  is  indicated  in 
Psalm  c\ix.,  as  found  in  the  common  bibles ; 
and  other  specimens  may  be  seen  in  Ps.  ix.,  x., 
xxv.,  xxxiv.,  xxxvii.,  cxi.,  cxii. 

If,  now,  from  these  details  we  consider  for  a 
moment  what  are  the  essential  peculiarities  of 
Hebrew  poetry,  we  find  we  have  to  offer  to  the 
reader's  attention  the  following  observations. 

The  source  of  all  true  poetry  is  in  the  human 
mind.  Even  where  there  is  a divine  inspiration, 
this  higher  element  must  enter  into  the  soul  of 
man,  and,  blending  with  its  workings,  conform 
also  to  its  laws.  But  every  thought  is  not  poetical. 
Thought  and  emotion  become  poetical  only  when 
they  rise  to  the  ideal . Poetry,  in  its  source,  Is 
thought  which  ascends  to  a high  if  not  perfect  (rela- 
tively) conception  of  moral  and  spiritual  realities. 
Mere  intensity  is  not  poetry,  any  more  than 
strength  of  muscle  is  beauty.  Still  less  is  passion 
either  poetry  or  eloquence,  as  Blair  teaches. 
Passion  is  of  a suspicious  origin,  and  represents 
the  soul  as  being  mastered  ; whereas  in  all  true 
poetry  the  soul  is  a sovereign.  There  may  be  in- 
tensity in  poetry,  however,  and  the  soul,  when  in 
a poetic  state,  may  be  impassioned;  but  these 
are  only  accidents — results,  not  causes,  ensuing 
(sometimes)  ffom  the  ideal  conceptions  which  for 
the  time  being  constitute  the  soul,  and  make  up 
consciousness.  Hence  all  true  poetry  is  religious  ; 
for  religion  is  the  contemplation  of  the  highest 
perfection  as  at  once  holy,  lovely,  honourable, 
formative  and  guiding,  the  object,  of  adoration,  the 
fountain  of  law,  the  source  of  obligation.  But  in  the 
Hebrew  poetry,  the  religion  which  constituted  its 
essence  had  attributes  of  truth  and  reality  such  as 
■no  other  poetry  ever  did  or  could  possess.  The 
intimate  relation  in  which  the  nation  of  Israel,  and 
the  still  more  intimate  relation  in  which  distin- 
guished individuals  of  that  nation,  stood  to  the 
Deity,  made  the  religious  the  predominant  ele- 
ment, and  gave  to  that  element  a living  and 
quickening  fire  as  from  heaven,  which  burnt  from 
the  first  with  the  true  vestal  purity,  and  on  to  the 
last  with  more  than  vestal  constancy  and  dura- 
tion. A divine  and  imperishable  power  was  thus 
the  chief  constituent  of  Hebrew  poetry:  divine 
truth,  divine  energy,  divine  life,  are  all  found  in 
the  earliest  productions  of  Hebrew  song.  Its 
chief  characteristic — that  by  which,  more  than 
any  other  thing,  it  is  contradistinguished  from  the 
poetry  of  all  other  nations — is  its  pure  and  rich 
■religious  element. 

But  this  divine  power  lay  not  merely  in  the 
truths  conveyed  nor  in  the  facts  commemorated 
by  the  songs  of  Zion,  but  equally  in  the  strong, 
deep,  and  overflowing  emotions  with  which  the 
Hebrew  harp  thrilled  sometimes  to  ecstasy.  The 
origin  of  this  religious  sensibility  is  to  be  chiefly 
looked  for  in  the  Hebrew  temperament,  which  was 
and  is  peculiarly  rich  in  all  the  sentiments  of  the 
heart,  so  that  devotion  was  as  natural — as  much 
a necessity  of  the  character  of  the  Israelites — as 
domestic  affection.  It  is  in  the  main  owing  to  the 
religious  and  devotional  qualities  of  Hebrew  poetry 
that  the  Book  of  Psalms,  still,  after  the  lapse  of  so 
many  centuries,  and  the  rise  and  fall  of  so  many 
modes  of  thought,  and  forms  of  social  life,  holds 
an  empire  over  the  heart  of  man,  far  wider,  deeper, 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 

and  moie  influential  than  what  any  other  influ- 
ence has  possessed,  save  only  that  which  is  anc 
will  ever  be  exercised  by  ‘ David's  greater  son.' 

Nor  is  the  wonder  at  all  diminished  when  we 
learn  that  the  Hebrew  was  an  essentially  national 
muse.  There  is  no  poetry  which  bears  a deeper 
or  broader  stamp  of  the  peculiar  influences  under 
which  it  was  produced.  It  never  ceases  to  be 
Hebrew  in  order  to  become  universal,  and  yet  it 
is  universal  while  it  is  Hebrew.  The  country,  the 
clime,  the  institutions,  the  very  peculiar  religious 
institutions,  rites  and  observances,  the  very  sin- 
gular religious  history  of  the  Israelites,  are  all 
faithfully  and  vividly  reflected  in  the  Hebrew 
muse,  so  that  no  one  song  can  ever  be  mistaken 
for  a poem  of  any  other  people.  Still  it  remains 
true  that,  the  heart  of  man,  at  least  the  heart  of  all 
the  most  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  has  been 
moved  and  swayed,  and  is  still  pleasingly  and 
most  beneficially  moved  and  swayed  by  the  strains 
ot  Biblical  poesy.  Others  may,  but  we  cannot, 
account  for  this  indubitable  fact,  without  ad- 
mitting that  some  specially  divine  influence  was 
in  operation  amidst  the  Jews. 

Its  originality  is  also  a marked  cnaracferistic  of 
Hebrew  poetry.  Homer  had  his  teachers,  but 
who  taught  Moses  ? Yet  ‘ the  divine  spng  of 
Troy  ’ is  less  divine  than  the  ode  of  triumph  over 
Pharaoh.  The  Hebrew  poetry  is  original  in  this 
sense,  that  it  is  self-educed  and  self  developed. 
It  is  an  indigenous  plant  in  Palestine.  Like 
Melchizedek,  it  is,  in  regard  to  an  earlier  culture, 
dirarcop,  apL^rcnp,  ay  ev  ea\6yr}T  os ; and  if  we  can- 
not s;^y  that  it  has  strictly  p.j)re  apx)]v  7]p.epciv, 
there  is  no  danger  in  predicting-  of  it,  fx-pre  far/s 
t4\os  yueVet  tepevs  els  rb  dir/ve/ces  (Heir, 

vii.  3). 

Connected  with  its  originality,  as,  in  part,  its 
cause,  is  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  Muse  stood 
nearer  than  any  other  to  the  first  days  and  the 
earliest  aspects  of  creation,  ‘ when  the  morning 
stars  sang  together,  and  all  the  sons  of  God 
shouted  for  joy  ’ (Job  xxxviii.  7).  Those  stars 
that  Muse  saw  in  the  maiden  purity  of  their  ear- 
liest radiance ; that  song  thesame  Muse  heard  when 
first  it  struck  the  canopy  of  heaven  and  was  rever- 
berated to  earth.  The  rose  of  Sharon  blushed  with 
its  first  loveliness  on  her  glad  sight,  and  the  dews 
of  Hermon  were  first  disturbed  by  her  unsandalled, 
feet.  Tims  there  is  a freshness  as  of  morn  about 
all  her  imagery.  In  her  best  days  there  were  no 
stock  figures  of  speech,  no  loci  communes , nor 
universal  recipes  lor  forming  poetry.  Not  even 
at  second  hand  did  she  receive  her  stores,  but  she 
took  what  she  had  out  of  the  great  treasure-house 
of  nature,  and  out  of  the  fulness  of  her  own  heart. 
To  be  a master,  therefore,  to  other  poesies  is  the 
divine  right  and  peculiar  function  of  the  Hebrew 
muse,  Other  hards  may  borrow  and  imitate ; the 
poetry  of  the  Bible  copies  nature  and  creates. 

Hence  there  is  a spontaneousness  in  its  poetry. 
Open  the  Psalter  at  anyplace;  you  find  streams 
pouring  forth  like  the  brooks  and  waterfalls  that 
trickle  and  gush  down  the  hills  of  Palestine  after 
the  latter  rain.  Nature  you  behold  at  work.  All 
therefore  is  ease,  and,  as  ease,  so  grace.  There  is 
no  constraint,  no  effort,  no  affectation.  The  heart 
itself  speaks,  and  it  speaks  because  it  is  full  and 
overflowing. 

If  we  add  that  simplicity  is  another  marked 
character  of  Hebrew  poetry,  we  do  little  more  thaw 


547 


POETRY,  HEBREW. 


POL. 


state  that  which  is  already  implied.  But  such  is 
its  simplicity  that  it  seems  never  to  have  known, 
in  its  age  of  purity,  anything  of  the  artificial 
distinctions  by  which  critics  and  rhetoricians  have 
mapped  out  the  domain  of  poesy  and  endea 
voured  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  fancy  by  the 
laborious  efforts  of  varied  culture.  Hebrew 
poetry  was  the  voice  of  man  communing  with 
God,  and  thought  as  little  of  the  one  as  of  the 
other  of  the  two  purposes  which  Horace  ascribes  to 


artistic  poets — 

‘Aut  prodesse  volunt  ant  delectare  poetae.’ 

It  was,  indeed,  wholly  unconscious  of  anything 
but  the  satisfaction  of  a high  and  urgent  want, 
which  made  worship  a necessity,  and  devotion  a 
delight.  A striking  confirmation  of  these  facts  is 
found  in  the  circumstance  that  among  the  earliest 
of  the  ‘ sweet  singers  of  Israel,’  women  are  found. 
The  great  event  which  Moses,  in  his  sublime  tri- 
umphal ode,  had  celebrated,  was  forthwith  taken  up 
by  Miriam,  whose  poetic  skill  could  not  be  sin- 
gular, as  she  is  described  by  a general  name,  and 
was  supported  by  other  females ; ‘ And  Miriam 
the  prophetess,  the  sister  of  Aaron  ’ (a  remarkable 
family  was  that  of  Amram,  ‘Aaron,  and  Moses, 
and  Miriam  their  sister,’  Num.  xxvi.  59),  ‘took 
a timbrel  in  her  hand;  and  all  the  women  went 
out  after  her  with  timbrels,  and  with  dances,  and 
Miriam  answered  them,  Sing  ye  to  the  Lord,’  &c. 
(Exod.  xv.  20,  sq. ; see  also  Judg.  v.  1 ; xi.  34  ; 
xxi.  21  ; 1 Sam.  xviii.  7 ; Ps.  lxviii.  25Y 

Were  it  a matter  to  be  determined  by  autho- 
rity, we  could  easily  prove  that  the  Hebrew  poetry 
is  written  in  hexameters  and  pentameters.  Jose- 
phus more  than  once  asserts  that  the  triumphal 
ode  of  Moses  was  written  in  hexameter  verse 
(Antiq.' ii.  16.  4.;  iv.  8.  44);  and  in  Antiq.  vii. 
12.  3,  he  expressly  says,  ‘And  now  David,  being 
freed  from  wars  and  dangers,  composed  songs  and 
hymns  to  God,  of  several  sorts  of  metre ; some  of 
those  which  he  made  were  trimeters  and  some 
were  pentameters ;’  in  which  statement  he  is  as 
much  in  error  in  regard  to  the  verse  as  he  is  in 
regard  to  his  implication  that  David  wrote  his 
Psalms  at  some  one  set  period  of  his  life.  Not 
improbably  Josephus  was  influenced  in  this  repre- 
sentation regarding  the  alleged  metres  by  his  Grae- 
cising  propensities,  by  which  he  was  led  to  assi- 
milate the  Hebrew  laws  and  institutions  to  Gre- 
cian models,  with  a false  view  of  thus  gaining 
honour  to  his  country,  and  by  reflection,  to  him- 
self as  well.  Even  in  his  day  the  true  pronun- 
ciation of  the  Hebrew  was  lost,  so  that  it  was  easy 
to  make  this  or  that  assertion  on  the  subject  of  its 
versification.  Certainly  all  the  attempts  to  whieli 
these  misstatements  of  Josephus  (see  also  Euseb. 
Prcep.  Ev.  xi ; Hieron.  Prcef.  ad  Chron. ; Eu- 
seb. p.  1 ; Isidor.  Orig.  i.  38)  chiefly  led,  have 
utterly  failed  ; and  whatever  the  fact  may  be, 
whether  or  not  these  poems  were  written  in  stricter 
measure  than  the  doctrine  of  this  article  supposes, 
we  are  little  likely  to  form  an  exact  idea  of  the 
Hebrew  measures  unless  we  could  raise  David 
from  the  sleep  of  centuries;  and  at  a time  when, 
like  the  present,  it  is  beginning  to  be  felt  that  there 
has  been  far  too  much  dogmatizing  about  even  the 
classical  versification,  and  that  speculation  and 
fancy  have  outstripped  knowledge,  we  do  not  ex- 
pect to  find  old  attempts  to  discover  the  Hebrew 
hexameters  and  pentameters  revived.  Those  who 
may  wish  to  pursue  the  suty  set  in  its  details  are 


referred  to  the  following  works  : Carpzov,  Tntrod, 
in  V.  T.  ii.  England  has  the  credit  of  opening 
a new  path  in  this  branch  by  the  publication  of 
Bishop  Lowth's  elegant  and  learned  Preelectionea 
de  Sacra  Poesi  Ilebrceorum,  Oxon.  1753 ; which 
may  be  found  also  in  Ugolini,  Thesaur.  xxxi. ; 
the  editions  having  Michaeliss  Notes  et  Epimctra 
are  to  be  preferred ; that  of  Oxon.  1810,  i3  good  : the 
work  was  translated  into  English  by  Gregory.  On 
the  didactic  poetry  of  the  Hebrews  the  reader  may 
consult  Umbreit,  Sprache  Sal.  Einleitung  ; Rhode, 
De  Vet.  Poetar.  Sapientia  Gnom.  Ilebr  ceor.  imp. 
et  Grcecor.  Havn.  1800;  Unger,  De  Parabolar. 
Jesu  natura,  &c.  Leips.  1828.  Le  Clerc,  in  his 
Biblioth.  Univers.  ix.  226,  sq.,  has  given  what  is 
worth  attention  ; see  also  I list.  Abregee  de  la 
poesie  chez  les  Ilebr.  in  the  History  of  the  Aca- 
demy of  Inscriptions,  tom.  xxiii.  92,  sq.  But  the 
work  which  has,  next  to  that  of  Lowth,  exerted  the 
greatest  influence,  is  a posthumous  and  unfinished 
piece  of  the  celebrated  Herder,  who  has  treated  the 
subject  with  extraordinary  eloquence  and  learn- 
ing : Von  Geist  der  Ebriiischen  Poesie , 1782,  to 
be  found  in  his  collected  writings ; also  Tiibing. 
1805;  and  Carlsrube,  1826  ; see  also  Giigler,  Die 
IJeil  Kunst  der  Ilebr  aery  Landshut,  1814;  and 
B.  F.  Guttenstein,  Die  Poet.  Literar.  alten  Isra- 
eli.t.y  Mannh.  1835.  The  subject  of  metre  has 
been  skilfully  handled  by  Bellermann,  Versuch 
iiber  d.  Metrik  der  Hebrder.  Berl.  1813.  Much 
useful  information  may  be  found  in  De  Wette’s 
Einleitung  in  d.  A.  Test.,  Berlin,  1840,  translated 
into  English  by  Theodore  Parker,  Boston  (U.  8.), 
1843.  In  Wellbeloved’s  Bible  translations  of 
the  poetical  portions  may  be  found,  in  which 
regard  is  paid  to  rhythm  and  poetical  form;  a 
very  valuable  guide  in  Hebrew  poetry,  both  for 
form  and  substance,  may  be  found  in  Noyes's 
Translation  of  Job,  Cambridge  (U.  S.),  1827  ; 
of  the  Psalms,  Boston  (U.  S),  1831 ; and  of  the 
Prophets,  Boston  (U.  S.),  1833;  but  the  best, 
fullest,  and  most  satisfactory  work  on  the  subject 
is  by  Ewahl,  Die  Poet.  Bucher  des  Alten  Bundes, 
4 vols.  8vo.  Gottingen,  1835-9. — J.  R.  B. 

POL  (^IS)  occurs  twice  in  Scripture,  and  no 
doubt  signifies  ‘ beans,’  as  translated  in  the  Auth. 
Version.  The  first  occasion  is  in  2 Sam.  xvii. 
28,  where  beans  are  described  as  being  brought 
to  David,  as  well  as  wheat,  barley,  lentils,  &c., 
as  is  the  custom  at  the  present  day  in  many  parts 
of  the  East  when  a traveller  arrives  at  a vil- 
lage. So  in  Ezekiel  iv.  9,  the  prophet  is  directed 
to  take  wheat,  barley,  beans,  lentils,  &c.,  and 
make  bread  thereof.  This  meaning  of  pol  is  con- 
firmed by  the  Arabic  ^ fool , which  is  the  same 

word  (there  being  no  pe  in  Arabic),  and  is  applied 
to  the  bean  in  modern  times,  as  ascertained  by 
Forskal  in  Egypt,  and  as  we  find  in  old  Arabic 
works.  The  common  bean,  or  at  least  one  of  its 
varieties,  has  been  employed  as  an  article  of  diet 
from  the  most  ancient  times,  since,  besides  the 
mention  of  it  in  Scripture,  we  find  it  noticed  by 
Hippocrates  and  Theophrastus,  under  the  names 
of  Kvapos  eWrivucSs,  to  distinguish  it  from  Kvapoa 
atyvirrios,  the  Egyptian  bean,  or  bean  of  Pytha- 
goras, which  was  no  doubt  the  large  farinaceous 
seed  of  Nelumbium  speciosum.  Beans  were 
employed  as  articles  of  diet  by  the  ancients,  as 
they  are  by  the  moderns ; and  are  considered  to  give 


548 


PONTUS. 


POTSHERD. 


rise  to  flatulence,  but  otherwise  to  be  wholesome 
and  nutritious.  ‘ Melangee  a la  quantite  d’une 
livre  sur  dix  douze  de  larine  de  froment.,  elle 
fournit  un  assez  bon  pain,  et  donne  de  la  con- 
sistance  a la  pate  lorsqu’elle  est  trop  molle.’  So 
Pliny  : ‘ Inter  legumina  maximus  honos  fab* : 
quippe  ex  qua  tentatus  etiam  sit  panis.  Frumento 
etiam  miscetur  apud  plerasque  gentes.’  Beans 
are  cultivated  over  a great  part  of  the  old  world, 
from  the  north  of  Europe  to  the  south  of  India; 
in  the  latter,  however,  forming  the  cold-weather 
cultivation,  with  wheat,  peas,  &c.  They  are  ex- 
tensively cultivated  in  Egypt  and  Arabia.  Mr. 
Kitto  states  that  the  extent  of  their  cultivation  in 
Palestine  he  had  no  means  of  knowing.  In  Egypt 
they  are  sown  in  November,  and  reaped  in  the 
middle  of  February  (three  and  a half  months  in 
the  ground) ; but  that  in  Syria  they  may  be  had 
throughout  the  spring.  The  stalks  are  cut  down 
with  the  scythe ; and  these  are  afterwards  cut  and 
crushed,  to  fit  them  for  the  food  of  camels,  oxen, 
and  goats.  The  beans  themselves,  when  sent  to  a 
market,  are  often  deprived  of  their  skins.  Basnage 
reports  it  as  the  sentiment  of  some  of  the  Rabbins, 
that  beans  were  not  lawful  to  the  priests,  on  ac- 
count of  their  being  considered  the  appropriate 
food  of  mourning  and  affliction ; but  he  does 
not  refer  to  the  authority ; and  neither  in  the 
sacred  books  nor  in  theMishna  can  be  found  any 
traces  of  the  notion  to  which  he  alludes.  So  far 
from  attaching  any  sort  of  impurity  to  this  legume, 
it  is  described  as  among  the  first-fruit  offerings ; 
and  several  other  articles  in  the  latter  collection 
prove  that  the  Hebrews  had  beans  largely  in  use, 
after  they  had  passed  them  through  the  mill 
(Phys.  Hist,  of  Palestine,  cccxix.). — J.  F.  R. 
POLLUX.  [Castor  and  Poij.ux.] 
POLYGAMY.  [Marriage.] 
POLYGLOTT.  [Versions.] 
POMEGRANATE.  [Rimmon.J 
PONTIUS  PILATE.  [Pii.ate.] 

PONTUS  (FIoetos),  the  north-eastern  province 
of  Asia  Minor,  which  took  its  name  from  the  sea 
[Pontus  Euxinus]  that  formed  its  northern  fron- 
tier. On  the  east  it  was  bounded  by  Colchis,  on 
the  south  by  Cappadocia  and  part  of  Armenia, 
and  on  the  west  by  Paphlagonia  and  Galatia. 
Ptolemy  ( Geog.  v.  5)  and  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat. 
vi.  4)  regard  Pontus  and  Cappadocia  as  one  pro- 
vince ; but  Strabo  (Gcoy.  xii.  p.  541)  rightly  dis- 
tinguishes them,  seeing  that  each  formed  a dis- 
tinct government  with  its  own  ruler  or  prince. 
The  family  of  Mithridates  reigned  in  Ponlus, 
and  that  of  Ariarathes  in  Cappadocia.  The  two 
countries  were  also  separated  naturally  from  each 
other  by  the  Lithrus  and  Ophlimus  mountains. 
The  kingdom  of  Pontus  became  celebrated  under 
Mithridates  the  Great,  who  waged  a long  war  with 
the  Romans,  in  which  he  was  at  length  defeated, 
and  his  kingdom  annexed  to  the  Roman  empire 
by  Pompey  (Appian,  Mithrid.  p.  121).  That 
Jews  had  settled  in  Pontus,  previous  to  the  time 
of  Christ,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  strangers 
from  Pontus  were  among  those  assembled  at 
Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  9). 
Christianity  also  became  early  known  in  this 
country,  as  the  strangers  ‘ in  Pontus  * are  among 
those  to  whom  Peter  addressed  his  first  epistle 
(l  Pet.  i.  1).  Of  this  province  Paul’s  friend, 
Aquila,  was  a native  (Acts  xviii.  2).  The  prin- 
cipal towns  of  Pontus  were  Amasia,  the  ancient 


metropolis,  and  the  birth  place  of  the  geographer 
Strabo,  Themiscyra,  Cerasus,  and  Trapezus ; 
which  last  is  still  an  important  town  under  the 
name  of  Trebizond  (Cellarius,  Notit.  ii.  287; 
Mannert.  vi.  350 ; Rosenmiiller,  Biol.  Geog. 
iii.  5-9;  Encyclop.  Method.  Sect.  Geog.  Ancienne, 
art.  ‘ Pontos  ’). 

POPLAR.  [Libneh.] 

PORCIUS  FESTUS.  [Festus.] 
POSSESSION.  [Demoniacs.] 

POTIPHAR  pat?1Q,  contract,  of  JT0 
Potipherah,  which  see  ; Sept,  Tlerecppris),  an  officer 
of  Pharaoh,  probably  the  chief  of  his  body-guard 
(Gen.  xxxix.  1).  Of  the  Midianitish  merchants 
he  purchased  Joseph,  whose  treatment  by  him  is 
described  under  that  head.  The  keeper  of  the 
prison  into  which  the  son  of  Jacob  was  eventually 
cast  treated  him  with  kindness,  and  confided  to 
him  the  management  of  the  prison ; and  this 
confidence  was  afterwards  sanctioned  by  the  ‘cap- 
tain of  the  guard*  himself,  as  the  officer  respon- 
sible for  the  safe  custody  of  prisoners  of  slate. 
It  is  sometimes  denied,  but  more  usually  main- 
tained, that  this  ‘ captain  of  the  guard  ’ was  the 
same  with  the  Potiphar  who  is  before  designated 
by  the  same  title.  We  believe  that  this  ‘captain 
of  the  guard  ’ and  Joseph's  master  were  the  same 
person.  It  would  be  in  accordance  with  Oriental 
usage  that  offenders  against  the  court,  and  the 
officers  of  the  court,  should  be  in  custody  of 
the  captain  of  the  guard ; and  that  Potiphar 
should  have  treated  Joseph  well  after  having  cast 
him  into  prison,  is  not  irreconcilable  with  the 
facts  of  the  case.  After  having  imprisoned 
Joseph  in  the  first  transport  of  Ids  choler,  he 
might  possibly  discover  circumstances  which 
led  him  to  doubt  his  guilt,  if  not  to  be  convinced 
of  his  innocence.  The  mantle  left  in  the  hands 
of  his  mistress,  and  so  triumphantly  produced 
against  him,  would,  when  calmly  considered, 
seem  a stronger  proof  of  guilk  against  her  than 
against  him  : yet  still,  to  avoid  bringing  dishonour 
upon  his  wife,  and  exposing  her  to  new  tempta- 
tion, he  may  have  deemed  it  more  prudent  to  be- 
stow upon  his  slavefhe  command  of  the  state  pri- 
son, than  to  restore  him  to  his  former  employment. 

POTIPHERAH  (jn?  n?i3),-  the  priest  of 
On,  or  Heliopolis,  whose  daughter  Azer  ath  be- 
came the  wife  of  Joseph  [Azenath].  The  name 
is  Egyptian,  and  is  in  the  Sepfuagint  accommo- 
dated to  the  analogy  of  the  Egyptian  language, 
being  in  the  Cod.  Vatican.  Tlerecppri : Alex,  rier- 
T€(pprj,  al.  nevT6<t>p}),  UevTctypi ; which  corresponds 

to  the  Egyptian  TTCTG-ti^pK  , qui  Solis  est, 
i.  e.  Soli  proprius  (Cham  poll  ion,  Precis , Tabl. 
General,  p.  23).  The  name  is  found  written  in 
various  forms  on  the  monuments,  which  are  copied 
by  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus , p.  1094,  from 
Rosellini,  Monum.  Storici,  i.  117. 

POTSHERD.  Potsherd  is  figuratively  used 
in  Scripture  to  denote  a thing  worthless  and  in- 
significant (Ps.  xxii.  15  ; Prov.  xxvi.  23;  Isa. 
xlv.  9).  It  may  illustrate  some  of  these  allusions 
to  remind  the  reader  of  the  fact,  that  the  sites 
of  ancient  towns  are  often  covered  at  the  surface 
with  great  quantities  of  broken  pottery.  The  {ire- 
sent  writer  has  usually  found  this  pottery  to  be 
of  coarse  texture,  but  coated  and  protected  witn 
a strong  and  bright-coloured  glaze,  mostly  bluish 


POTTER. 


PRIEST. 


549 


green,  and  sometimes  yellow.  Tiese  fragments 
give  to  some  of  the  most  venerable  sites  in  the 
world,  the  appearance  of  a deserted  pottery  rather 
than  of  a town.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  they 
occur  only  upon  the  sites  of  towns  which  were 
built  with  crude  brick  ; and  this  suggests  that 
the  heaps  of  ruin  into  which  these  had  fallen 
being  disintegrated,  and  worn  at  the  surface  by 
the  action  of  the  weather,  bring  to  view  and 
leave  exposed  the  broken  pottery,  which  is  not 
liable  to  be  thus  dissolved  and  washed  away. 
This  explanation  was  suggested  by  the  actual 
survey  of  such  ruins ; and  we  know  not  that  a 
b-rder  has  yet  been  offered  in  any  other  quarter. 
It  is  certainly  remarkable  that  of  the  more  mighty 
cities  of  old  time,  nothing  but  potsherds  now  re- 
mains visible  at  the  surface  of  the  ground. 

Towns  built  with  stone,  or  kiln-burnt  bricks, 
do  not  exhibit  this  form  of  ruin,  which  is,  there- 
fore, not  usually  met  with  in  Palestine. 

POTTER.  The  potter,  and  the  produce  of 
his  labours,  are  often  alluded  to  in  the  Scriptures. 
The  fragility  of  his  wares,  and  the  ease  with 
which  they  are  destroyed,  supply  apt  emblems  of 
the  facility  with  which  human  life  and  power 
may  be  broken  and  destroyed.  Jt  is  in  this 
figurative  use  that  the  potter’s  vessels  are  most 
frequently  noticed  in  Scripture  (Ps.  ii.  9 : Isa.  xxx. 
>4  Jer.  xix.  1 1 ; Rev.  ii.  27).  In  one  place,  the 


power  of  the  potter  to  form  with  his  clay,  by  the 
impulse  of  his  will  and  hand,  vessels  either  for 
honourable  or  for  mean  uses,  is  employed  with 
great  force  by  the  apostle  to  illustrate  the  abso- 
lute power  of  God  in  moulding  the  destinies  of 
men  according  to  his  pleasure  (Rom.  ix.  21). 
The  first  distinct  mention  of  earthenware  vessels 
is  in  the  case  of  the  pitchers  in  which  Gideon's 
men  concealed  their  lamps,  and  which  they  broke 
in  pieces  when  they  withdrew  their  lamps  from 
them  (Judg.  vii.  Iff,  19).  Pitchers  and  bottles 
are  indeed  mentioned  earlier;  but  the  ‘bottle’ 
which  contained  Hagar’s  water  (Gen.  xxi.  14, 
15)  was  undoubtedly  of  skin ; and  although 
Rebekah’s  pitcher  was  possibly  of  earthenware 
(Gen.  xxiv.  14,  15),  we  cannot  be  certain  that  it 
was  so. 

The  potter’s  wheel  is  mentioned  only  once  in 
the  Bible  (Jer.  xviii.  2)  ; but  it  must  have  been 
in  use  among  the  Hebrews  long  before  the  time  of 
that  allusion  j for  w<  now  know  that  it  existed  in 


Egypt  before  the  Israelites  took  refuge  in  that 
country  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egijpt.  iii.  165).  The 
processes  employed  by  the  Hebrews  were  pro- 
bably not  in  any  way  dissimilar  to  those  of  the 
Egyptians,  fiom  whom  the  use  of  the  wheel  may 
be  supposed  to  have  been  adopted.  There  is  the 
greater  probability  in  this,  as  the  materials,  forms, 
and  manufacture  of  earthenware  vessels  are  still 
very  similar  throughout  Western  Asia — and  are 
also  the  same  which  were  anciently  in  use.  This 
we  know  from  the  comparison  of  ancient  paint- 
ings and  sculptures  with  modem  manufactures,  as 
well  as  from  the  vast  quantit  ies  of  broken  pottery 
which  are  found  upon  the  sites  of  ancient  cities. 
The  ancient  potters  ‘ frequently  kneaded  the  clay 
with  their  feet,  and  after  it  had  been  properly 
worked  up,  they  formed  it  into  a mass  of  con- 
venient size  with  the  hand,  and  placed  it  on  the 
wheel,  which,  to  judge  from  that  represented  in 
the  paintings,  was  of  very  simple  construction, 
and  turned  with  the  hand.  The  various  forms 
of  the  vases  were  made  out  by  the  finger  during 
the  revolution ; the  bandies,  if  they  had  any, 
were  afterwards  affixed  to  them  ; and  the  devices 
and  other  ornamental  parts  were  traced  with  a 
wooden  or  metal  instrument,  previously  to  their 
being  baked.  They  were  then  suffered  to  dry, 
and  for  this  purpose  were  placed  on  planks  of 
wood  ; they  were  afterwards  arranged  with  great 
care  on  trays,  and  carried,  by  means  of  the 
usual  yoke,  borne  on  men’s  shoulders,  to  the 
oven’  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egyptians , iii.  163-167). 

POTTER'S-FIELD.  [Aceldama.] 

FRjETORIUM  (Tlpaircapiop).  This  word  de- 
notes the  general’s  tent  in  the  field,  and  also  the 
house  or  palace  of  the  governor  of  a province, 
whether  a praetor  or  not.  In  the  Gospels  it  is  ap- 
plied to  the  palace  built  by  Herod  the  Great,  at 
Jerusalem,  and  which  eventually  became  the 
residence  of  the  Roman  governors  in  that  city 
(Matt,  xxvii.  27 ; Mark  xv.  16  ; John  xviii. 
28,  38  ; xix.  9).  In  the  two  first  of  these  texts 
it  may,  however,  denote  the  court  in  front  of 
the  palace,  where  the  procurator’s  guards  were 
stationed  [Jerusalem].  Herod  built  another 
palace  at  Caesarea,  and  this  also  is  called  the  Prae- 
torium  iu  Acts  xxiii.  35,  probably  because  it  had, 
in  like  manner,  become  the  residence  of  the 
Roman  governor,  whose  head-quarters  were  at 
Caesarea.  In  Philipp,  i 13,  the  word  denotes  the 
Praetorian  camp  at  Rome,  i.  e.  the  camp  or 
quarters  of  the  Praetorian  cohort  at  Rome. 

PRIEST,  HIGH  PRIEST,  &c.  priest ; 
Sept.  Tepeus;  Vulg.  sacerclos ).  The  English 

word  is  generally  derived  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment term  presbyter  [elder],  the  meaning  of 
which,  is,  however,  essentially  different  from  that 
which  was  intended  by  the  ancient  terms.  It. 
would  come  nearer,  if  derived  from  irpo'Lcrrppi  or 
ir  poiar  apou,  ‘ to  preside,’  &c.  It  would  then  cor- 
respond to  Aristotle's  definition  of  a priest,  reap 
nphs  robs  Oeovs  icvpios , ‘ presiding  over  things  re- 
lating to  the  gods’  (Polit.  iii.  14),  and  with  the 
very  similar  one  in  Heb.  v.  1 ; ‘ every  high-priest 
taken  from  among  men,  is  constituted  on  the  be- 
half of  men,  witli  respect  to  their  concerns  with 
God  T«  irpbs  rbv  ®e6v),  that  he  may  present 
both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins.’  It.  would  then 
adequately  represent  the  kpevs  (d  if  pa  ftefav)  off 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST. 


950 

the  Greeks,  and  the  sacerdos  ( a sacris  faciundis ) 
of  the  Latins.  The  primitive  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  word  is  not  easily  determined,  because 
the  verb,  in  its  radical  form,  nowhere  occurs. 
Gesenius  observes  : ‘ In  Arabic  it  denotes  to  pro- 
phesy, to  foretel  as  a soothsayer,  and  among  the 
heathen  Arabs  tl  e substantive  bore  the  latter  sig- 
nification; also  that  of  a mediator  or  middle 
person , who  intevposed  in  any  business,  which 
seems  to  be  its  radical  meaning,  as  prophets  and 
priests  were  regarded  as  mediators  between  men 
and  the  Deity.  In  the  earliest  families  of  the 
race  of  Shem,  the  offices  of  priest  and  prophet 
were  undoubtedly  united ; so  that  the  word  ori- 
ginally denoted  both,  and  at  last  the  Hebrew 
idiom  kept  one  part  of  the  idea,  and  the  Arabic 
another  ’ ( Hebraisches  und  Chaldaiseh.es  Hand- 
zoorterbuch,  Leipz.,  1823).  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  all  the  persons  who  are  recorded  in  Scrip- 
ture as  having  legally  performed  priestly  acts, 
but  who  were  not  strictly  sacerdotal,  come  under 
the  definition  of  a prophet,  viz.,  persons  who  re- 
ceived supernatural  communications  of  know- 
ledge generally,  as  Adam,  Abraham  (Gen.  xx. 
7),  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses,  Job,  Samuel,  Elijah 
(comp.  Luke  i.  70).  The  primary  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew  word  is  regarded  by  Kimchi, 
Castell,  Giggeius,  Ernesti,  Simonis,  Tittmann, 
and  Eichhorn,  to  be,  the  rendering  of  honourable 
and  dignified  service,  like  that  of  ministers  of 
state  to  their  sovereign.  Nearly  similar  is  the 
idea  adopted  by  Cocceius  and  Schultens,  viz., 
drawing  near,  as  to  a king  or  any  supreme  au- 
thority. The  following  definition  of  a priest  may 
be  found  sufficiently  comprehensive : — A man  who 
officiates  or  transacts  with  God  on  behalf  of  others, 
statedly,  or  for  the  occasion. 

It  will  now  be  attempted  to  trace  the  Biblical 
origin  and  development  of  the  subject,  for  which 
purpose  the  inquiry  will  be  pursued  upon  the 
plan  of  Townsend’s  Historical  and  Chronological 
Arrangement  of  the  Scriptures,  London,  1827, 
notwithstanding  the  doubts  which  may  be  enter- 
tained respecting  the  true  chronological  order  of 
certain  books  and  passages.  We  accede  to  the 
Jewish  opinion,  that  Adam  teas  the  first  priest. 
The  divine  institution  of  sacrifices,  immediately 
after  the  fall,  seems  connected  with  the  event,  that 
‘ the  Lord  God  made  coats  of  skins  to  Adam  and 
his  wife,  and  clothed  them  ’ (Gen.  iii.  21),  that  is, 
with  the  skins  of  animals  which  had  been  offered  in 
sacrifice  (for  the  permission  to  eat  animal  food  was 
not  given  till  after  the  Deluge  (comp.  Gen.  i.  29  ; 
ix.  3),  expressive  of  their  faith  in  the  promise  of  the 
victorious  yet  suffering  ‘seed  of  the  woman’ 
(ver.  15) : and  judging  from  the  known  custom 
of  his  immediate  descendants,  we  infer  that 
Adam,  now  also  become  the  head  and  ruler  of  the 
woman  (ver.  16),  officiated  in  offering  the  sacri- 
fice as  well  on  her  behalf  as  his  own.  Judging 
from  the  same  analogy,  it  seems  further  probable, 
that  Adam  acted  in  the  same  capacity  on  behalf 
of  his  sons,  Cain  and  Abel  (and  possibly  of  their 
children),  who  are  each  said  to  have  ‘ brought’  his 
respective  offering,  but  not  to  have  personally 
presented  it  (iv.  3-5).  The  place  evidently 
thus  indicated,  would  seem  to  have  been  the 
situation  of  ‘ the  cherubim,’  at  the  east  of  the 
garden  of  Eden  (iii.  24),  called  ‘ the  face’  (iv. 
14),  and  ‘ the  presence  of  the  Lord  ’ (ver.  1 6 ; 
4omp.  Hebrew  of  Exod.  xxxiv.  24 ; Lev.  ix.  5),  and 


from  which  Jehovah  conferred  with  Cain  (ver.  9)  t 
circumstances  which,  together  with  the  name  of 
their  oflering,  Hn^D,  which,  sometimes  at  least,  in« 
eluded  bloody  sacrifices  in  after  times  (1  Sam.  ii. 
17 ; xxvi.  19;  Mai.  i.  13, 14),  and  the  appropriation 
of  the  skins  to  the  offerer  (comp.  Lev.  vii.  8),  would 
seem  like  the  rudiments  of  the  future  tabernacle 
and  its  services,  and  when  viewed  in  connection 
with  many  circumstances  incidentally  disclosed 
in  the  brief  fragmentary  account  of  things  before 
the  Exodus,  such  as  the  Sabbath  (Gen.  ii.  2,  3),  the 
distinction  observed  by  Noah,  and  his  burnt-offer- 
ings upon  the  altar  of  clean  and  unclean  beasts 
(viii.  20),  the  prohibition  of  blood  (ix.  4),  tithes 
(xiv.  20),  priestly  blessing  (ver.  19),  consecra- 
tion with  oil,  and  vows  (xxviii.  18-22),  the  Levi- 
rate  law  (xxxviii.  8),  weeks  (xxix.  27),  distinc- 
tion of  the  Hebrews  by  their  families  (Exod.ii.l), 
the  office  of  elder  during  the  bondage  in  Egypt 
(iii.  16),  and  a place  of  meeting  with  Jehovah 
(v.  22;  comp.  xxv.  22) — would  favour  the  sup- 
position that  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  as  it  is 
called,  was  but  an  authoritative  re-arrangement 
of  a patriarchal  church  instituted  at  the  fall.  The 
fact  that  Noah  officiated  as  the  priest  of  his  family, 
upon  the  cessation  of  the  Deluge  (b.c.  2347)  is 
clearly  recorded  (Gen.  wiii.  20),  where  we  have 
an  altar  built,  the  cererrronial  distinctions  in  the 
offerings  already  mentioned,  and  their  propitiatory 
effect,  ‘ the  sweet  savour,’  all  described  in  the  words 
of  Leviticus  (comp.  i.  9;  xi.  47).  These  acts  of 
Noah,  which  seem  like  the  resumption  rather  than 
the  institution  of  an  ordinance,  were  doubtless 
continued  by  his  sons  and  their  descendants,  as 
heads  of  their  respective  families.  Following 
our  arrangement,  the  next  glimpse  of  the  subject 
is  afforded  by  the  instance  of  Job  (b.c.  2130),  who 
‘rent  and  sanctified  his  children’  after  a feast 

they  had  held,  and  offered  burnt-offerings,  nby, 
‘ according  to  the  number  of  them  all,’  and  ‘ who 
did  this  continually,’  either  constantly,  or  after 
every  feast  (i.  5).  A direct  reference,  possibly 
to  priests,  is  lost  in  our  translation  of  xii.  19,  ‘he 
leadeth  princes  away  spoiled,’  D’OPD ; Sept. 
tepeTs  ; Vulg.  sacer dotes ; a sense  adopted  in  Dr. 
Lee’s  Translation , Loud.  1837.  May  not  the 
difficult  passage,  xxxiii.  23,  contain  an  allu- 
sion to  priestly  duties  ? A case  is  there  supposed 
of  a person  divinely  chastised  in  order  to  im- 
prove him  (xix.  22)  : ‘ If  then  there  be  a mes- 
senger with  him,’  which  means  priest 

(Eccles.  v.  6 ; Mai.  ii.  7),  ‘ an  interpreter,’ 
or  mediator  generally  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  31 ; Isa. 
xliii.  27) ; ‘ one  among  a thousand,’  or  of  a family 
(Judg.  vi.  15),  ‘ my  family,’  literally  ‘my  thou- 
sand’ (comp.  Nuno.  i.  16),  ‘ to  show  to  man  his 
uprightness,’  or  rather  ‘ duty’  (Prov.  xiv.  2),  part 
-of  the  priest’s  office  in  such  a case  (Mai.  ii.  7 ; 
comp.  Deut.  xxiv.  8),  then,  such  an  individual 
‘ is  gracious,’  or  rather  will  supplicate  for  him, 
and  saith,  ‘ Deliver  him  from  going  down  into 
the  pit,’  or  grave,  for  ‘ I have  found  a ransom,’  a 
cause  or  ground  in  him  for  favourable  treatment, 
namely,  the  penitence  of  the  sufferer,  who  conse- 
quently recovers  (xxv.  29).  The  case  of  Abra- 
ham and  Abimelech  is  very  similar  (Gen.  xx. 
3-17),  as  also  that  of  Job  himself,  and  his  three 
misjudging  friends,  whom  the  Lord  commands  to 
avert  chastisement  from  themselves,  by  taking  to 
him  bullocks  and  rams,  which  he  was  to  offer  fat 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST, 


651 


them  as  a burnt-offering,  and  to  pray  for  them 
(xlii.  8).  The  instance  of  Abram  occurs  next  in 
historical  order,  who,  upon  his  first  entrance  into 
Canaan,  attended  by  his  family  (b.c.  1921),  ‘built 
an  altar,  and  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  ’ 
(Gen.  xii.  7,  8).  Upon  returning  victorious  from 
tie  battle  of  the  kings,  he  is  congratulated  by 
Melchizedek,  the  Canaanitish  king  of  Salem,  and 
‘priest  of  the  most  High  God’  (xiv.  IS).  For 
the  ancient  union  of  the  royal  and  sacerdotal 
offices,  in  Egypt  and  other  countries,  see  Wilkin- 
son’s Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient 
Egyptians,  Loud.  1842,  i.  245.  Abram  next 
appears  entering  into  covenant  with  God  as  the 
head  and  representative  of  his  seed  ; on  which  oc- 
casion those  creatures  only  are  slain  which  were 
appointed  for  sacrifice  under  the  law  (xv.  9-21). 
Isaac  builds  an  altar  (b.c.  1804),  evidently  as  the 
head  of  his  family  (Gen.  xxvi.  25)  ; his  younger 
son  Jacob  offers  a sacrifice,  J"QT  (xxxi.-54),  and 
‘ calls  his  brethren  to  eat  of  it’  (comp.  Lev.  vii. 
15);  builds  an  altar  at  Shalern  (xxxiii.  20), 
makes  another  by  divine  command , and  evidently 
as  the  bead  of  his  household,  at  Bethel  (xxxv.  1-7), 
and  pours  a drink-offeriiig,  TD3  (comp.  Num.  xv. 
7,  &c.),  upon  a pillar  (ver.  14).  Such  was  the 
state  of  the  institution  we  are  considering  during 
the  patriarchal  times.  It  henceforth  becomes  con- 
• nected  with  Egypt,  and  materially  modified  in 
consequence,  'lire  marriage  of  Joseph  (b.c.  1715) 
incidentally  discloses  the  existence  of  priests  in 
that  country ; for  it  is  recorded  that  ‘ Pharaoh  gave 
Joseph  to  wife  a daughter  of  Potipherah,  priest  of 
On  ’ (xli.  45).  The  priests  of  Egypt  had  evidently 
been  endowed  with  lands  by  the  Egyptian  kings  ; 
for  when  the  reigning  Pharaoh,  by  the  advice  of 
Joseph,  took  all  the  land  of  the  Egyptians  in  lieu 
of  corn  (xlvii.  20),  the  priests  were  not  compelled 
to  make  the  same  sacrifice  of  theirs  (ver.  22) ; 
nor  was  the  tax  of  the  fifth  part  of  the  produce 
entailed  upon  it  (ver.  26).  as  on  that  of  the  other 
people  (ver.  24).  They  seem  also  to  have  had  a 
public  maintenance  besides  (ver.  22 ; Herod,  ii. 
37).  It  may  be  serviceable,  in  the  sequel,  if  we 
advert  at  this  point  to  some  of  the  numerous  and 
truly  important  points  of  resemblance  between 
the  Egyptian  and  Jewish  priests,  vrz.,  that  the 
sacerdotal  order  constituted  one  of  the  four  prin- 
cipal castes,  of  the  highest  rank,  next  to  the  king, 
and  from  whom  were  chosen  his  confidential  and 
responsible  advisers  (comp.  2 Sam.  viii.  18; 
1 Chron.  xviii.  17;  Isa.  xix.  11;  Diodorus,  i. 
73)  ; they  associated  with  the  monarch,  whom 
they  assisted  in  the  performance  of  his  public 
duties,  to  whom  they  explained  from  the  sacred 
books  those  lessons  which  were  laid  down  for  his 
conduct.  Each  deity  had  several  priests,  and  a 
high-priest  (Herod,  ii.  37);  the  latter,  of  what- 
ever deity,  held  the  first  and  most  honourable 
station.  The  minor  priests  were  divided  into 
various  grades,  having  distinct  offices,  as  well  as 
the  scribes  and  priests  of  the  kings.  The  same 
office  usually  descended  from  father  to  son,  but 
was  sometimes  changed.  They  enjoyed  important 
privileges,  which  extended  to  their  whole  family. 
They  were  exempt  from  taxes.  Wine  was  allowed 
to  them  only  in  the  strictest  moderation,  and  entire 
abstinence  from  it  was  required  during  the  fasts, 
which  were  frequent  (Plut.  Be  Isid.  § 6).  Each 
grade  of  the  priests  was  distinguished  by  its  pecu- 
liar costume.  The  high-priests,  who,  among  other 


official  Udies,  anointed  the  king,  wore  a mantV 
made  of  an  entire  leopard-skin  ; as  did  the  king, 
when  engaged  in  priestly  duties.  The  under- 
dresses of  priests,  of  all  orders,  were  made  of 
linen,  and  they  were  not  allowed  to  wear  woollen 
in  a temple  (Herod,  ii.  81).  The  undeniable 
similarity  between  the  dresses  of  the  Egyptian  and 
Jewish  priests  will  be  hereafter  illustrated.  Be- 
sides their  religious  duties,  the  priests  fulfilled 
the  offices  of  judges,  legislators,  and  counsellors 
of  the  king,  and  the  laws  forming  part  of  their 
sacred  books  could  only  be  administered  by  mem- 
bers of  that  order  (Wilkinson,  i.  237,  257-282). 

In  returning  to  the  biblical  history,  we  next 
find  Jethro,  priest  of  Midian,  the  father-in-law 
of  Moses,  possibly  a priest  of  the  true  God  (Exod. 
iii.  1),  and  probably  his  father  in  the  same 
capacity  (ii.  16).  In  Exod.  v.  1,  3,  the  whole 
nation  of  the  Israelites  is  represented  as  wishing 
to  sacrifice  and  to  hold  a feast  to  the  Lord.  The 
first  step,  though  very  remote,  towards  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  system  of  priesthood,  was  the 
consecration  of  the  first-born,  in  memory  of  the 
destruction  of  the  first-born  of  Egypt  (xiii.  2,  14- 
16)  ; for,  instead  of  these,  God  afterwards  took  the 
Levites  to  attend  upon  him  (Num.  iii.  12).  As 
to  the  popular  idea,  both  among  Jews  and  Christ- 
ians, that  the  right  of  priesthood  was  thus  trans- 
ferred from  the  first-born  generally  to  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  or  rather  to  one  family  of  that  tribe,  we 
consider,  with  Patrick,  that  it  is  utterly  ground- 
less ( Commentary  on  Exod.  xix.  22;  Num.  iii, 
12;  see  Campeg.  Vitringa,  Qbserv.  Sacra?,  ii. 
33  ; Outram,  Be  Sacrificiis,  i.  4).  The  substance 
of  the  objections  is,  that  Aaron  and  his  sons  were 
consecrated  before  the  exchange  of  the  Levites 
for  the  first-born,  that  the  Levites  were  after- 
wards given  to  minister  unto  them,  but  had  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  priesthood,  and  that  the  pecu- 
liar right  of  God  in  the  first-born  originated  in 
the  Exodus.  The  last  altar,  before  the  giving  of 
the  law,  was  built  by  Moses,  probably  for  a me- 
morial purpose  only  (xvii.  15  ; comp.  Josh.  xxii. 
26,  27).  At  this  period,  the  office  of  priest  was 
so  well  understood,  and  so  highly  valued,  that 
Jehovah  promises  as  an  inducement  to  the  Israel- 
ites to  keep  his  covenant,  that  they  should  be  to 
him  ‘ a kingdom  of  priests’  (xix.  6),  which,  among 
other  honourable  appellations  and  distinctions 
originally  belonging  to  the  Jews,  is  transferred  to 
Christians  (1  Pet.  ii.  9).  The  first  introduction  of 
the  word  priests,  in  this  part  of  the  history,  is 
truly  remarkable.  It  occurs  just  previous  to 
the  giving  of  the  law  (b.c.  1491),  when,  as  part  of 
the  cautions  against  the  too  eager  curiosity  of  the 
people,  lest  they  should  ‘break  through  unto  the 
Lord  and  gaze  ’ (Exod.  xix.  21),  it  is  added,  ‘ and 
let  the  priests  which  come  near  unto  the  Lord 
sanctify  themselves,  lest  the  Lord  break  through 
upon  them  ’ (ver.  22).  Here,  then,  priests  are 
incontestably  spoken  of  as  an  already  existing 
order,  which  was  now  about  to  be  remodified. 
Nor  is  this  the  last  reference  to  these  ante-Sinaitic 
priests.  Selden  observes  that  the  phrases  ‘ the 
priests  the  Levites  ’ (Deut.  xvii.  9),  and  ‘ the 
priests  the  sons  of  Levi  ’ (xxi.  5),  and  ever> 
the  phrase,  ‘the  Levites  alone’  ^xviii.  6,  comp. 
1),  are  used  to  include  all  others  who  had  been 
priests  before  God  took  the  sons  of  Aaron  pecu- 
liarly to  serve  him  in  this  office  {Be  Synedr.  ii. 
8,  pp.  2,  3).  Aaron  is  summoned  at  this  junc 


552 


PRIES'!. 


PRIEST. 


tcrc  to  go  up  with  Moses  unto  the  Lord  on  Mount 
Sinai  (Exod.  xix.  21).  Another  remarkable  cir- 
cumstance is  then  recorded.  Moses,  now  acting  as 
‘ mediator/  and  endued  with  an  extraordinary 
commission,  builds  an  altar  under  the  hill,  and 
semis  ‘ young  men  of  the  children  of  Israel,  who 
ottered  burnt-offerings,  and  sacrificed  peace-offer- 
ings of  oxen  unto  the  Lord’  (xxiv.  5).  Various  in- 
terpretations are  given  to  the  phrase  ‘ young  men 
but,  upon  a view  of  all  the  circumstances,  we  in- 
cline to  think  that  they  were  yoang  laymen,  pur- 
posely selected  by  Moses  for  this  act,  in  order  to 
form  a complete  break  between  the  former  priest- 
hood and  the  new,  and  that  the  recommencement 
and  re-arrangement  of  the  priesthood  under  divine 
authority  might  be  made  more  palpably  distinct. 
In  the  same  light  we  consider  the  many  priestly 
acts  performed  by  Moses  himself,  at  this  parti- 
cular time,  as  in  ch.  xxix.  25;  xl.  25,  27,  29; 
like  those  of  Gideon,  Judg.  vi.  25-27  ; of  Samuel, 
1 Sam.  vii.  9 ; of  David,  1 Chron.  xxi.  26.  Yet 
these  especial  permissions,  upon  emergencies  and 
extraordinary  occasions,  had  their  limits,  as  may 
l»e  seen  in  the  fate  of  ‘ the  men  of  Bethshemesh/ 
1 Sam.  vi.  19  ; and  of  Uzzah,  2 Sam.  vi.  7. 

The  designation  and  call  of  Aaron  and  his  sons 
to  the  priesthood  are  commanded  in  Exod.  xxviii. 
1 ; and  holy  garments  to  be  made  for  Aaron,  ‘ for 
glory  and  for  beauty’  (ver.  2),  and  for  his  sons  (ver. 
40),  by  persons  originally  skilful,  and  now  also  in- 
spired for  the  purpose  (ver.  3),  the  chief  of  whom 
were  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab  (xxxi.  2-6).  As 
there  were  some  garments  common  both  to  the 
priests  and  the  high-priest,  we  shall  begin  with 
those  of  the  former,  taking  them  in  the  order  in 
which  they  would  be  put  on.  1.  The  first  was 
‘ linen-breeches/  or  drawers  (xxviii. 
42;  Sept.  Trepi(TKe\rj  \Lva\  Vul g.femmalia  linea). 
These  were  to  be  of  fine  twined  linen,  and  to 
reach  from  the  loins  to  the  middle  of  the  thighs. 
According  to  Josephus,  whose  testimony,  however, 
of  course,  relates  only  to  his  own  time,  they  reached 
cnly  to  the  middle  of  the  thigh,  where  they  were 
tied  fast  ( Antiq . iii.  7.  1).  Such  drawers  were 
worn  universally  in  Egypt.  In  the  sculptures  and 


paintings  of  that  country,  the  figures  of  workmen 
and  servants  have  no  other  dress  than  a short  kilt 
st  apron,  sometimes  simply  bound  about  the  loins 


and  lapping  over  in  front  • other  figures  have 
short  loose  drawers;  while  a third  variety  of  this 
article,  fitting  closely  and  extending  to  the  knees, 
appears  in  the  figures  of  some  idols,  as  in  No.  457 
This  last  sort  of  drawers  seems  to  have  been  pe- 
culiar in  Egypt  to  the  gods,  and  to  the  priests, 
whose  attire  was  often  adapted  to  that  of  the  idols 
on  which  they  attended.  The  priests,  in  common 
with  other  persons  of  the  upper  classes,  wore  1 he 
drawers  under  other  robes.  No  mention  occurs 
of  the  use  of  drawn  s by  any  other  class  of  persons 
in  Israel  except  the  priests,  on  whom  it  was  en- 
joined for  the  sake  of  decency.  2.  The  coat  ol 
fine  linen  or  cotton,  fOrD  (Exod.  xxxix.  27). 
tunica  byssina.  This  was  worn  by  men  in  ge- 
neral (Gen.  xxxvii.  3) ; also  by  women  (2  Sam. 
xiii.  18;  Cant.,  v.  3),  next  to  the  skin.  It  was 
to  be  of  woven  work.  Josephus  states  that  it 
reached  down  to  the  feet,  and  sat  close  to  the 
body  ; and  had  sleeves,  which  were  tied  fast  to  the 
arms ; and  was  girded  to  the  breast  a little  above 
the  elbows  by  a girdle.  It  had  a narrow  aperture 
about  the  neck,  and  was  tied  with  certain  strings 
hanging  down  from  the  edge  over  the  breast  and 
back,  and  was  fastened  above  each  shoulder 
(Antiq.  iii.  7.  2).  But  this  garment,  in  the  case 
of  the  priests  and  high-priest,  was  to  be  broidered 
(xxviii.  4),  r»3rD,  4 a broidered  coat,' 

by  which  Gesenius  understands  a coat  of  cloth 
worked  in  checkers  or  cells.  Braunius  compares 
it  to  the  reticulum  in  the  stomach  of  rumi- 
nant animals  (De  Vestitu,  i.  17).  The  Sept, 
gives  xL'TU>v  icoa-vyfiurii,  which  seems  to  refer  to 
the  tassels  or  strings;  Vulg.  tinea  stricta,  which 
seems  to  refer  to  its  close  fitting.  3.  The  girdle, 
(xxviii.  40);  Sept,  (dovrj ; Vulg.  baltetis. 
This  was  also  worn  by  magistrates  (Isa.  xxii.21). 
The  girdle  for  the  priests  was  to  be  made  of  fine 
twined  linen,  and  blue,  and  purple,  and  scarlet, 
of  needlework  (xxxix.  29).  Josephus  describes 
it  as  often  going  round,  four  fingers  broad,  but  so 
loosely  woven  that  it  might  be  taken  for  the  skin 
of  a serpent;  and  that  it  was  embroidered  with 
flowers  of  scarlet,  and  purple,  and  blue,  but  that 
the  warp  was  nothing  but  linen.  The  beginning  of 
its  circumvolution  was  at  the  breast ; and  when 
it  had  gone  often  round,  it  was  there  tied,  and 
hung  loosely  down  to  the  ancles  while  the  priest 
was  not  engaged  in  any  laborious  service,  for 
in  that  position  it  appeared  in  the  most  agree- 
able manner  to  the  spectators ; but  when  he  was 
obliged  to  assist  at  the  offering  of  sacrifices,  and 
to  do  the  appointed  service,  in  order  that  he  might 
not  he  hindered  in  his  operations  by  its  motion, 
he  threw  it  to  the  left  hand,  and  bore  it  on  his 
right  shoulder  (Antiq.  iii.  7.  2).  The  mode  of  its 
hanging  down  is  illustrated  by  the  cut  No.  460, 
where  the  girdle  is  also  richly  embroidered  ; while 
the  imbricated  appearance  of  the  girdle,  Dp" 
may  be  seen  very  plainly  in  No.  457.  The 
next  cut,  No.  458,  of  a priestly  scribe  of  ancient 
Egypt,  offers  an  interesting  specimen  of  both  tunic 
and  girdle.  Other  Egyptian  girdles  may  be  seen 
under  Abnf.t.  4.  The  bonnet,  cap,  or  turban, 
HJQllD  (xxviii.  40);  Sept.  KibapLs;  Vulg.  tiara. 
The  bonnet  was  to  be  of  fine  linen  (xxxix.  28). 
In  the  time  of  Josephus  it  was  circular,  covering 
about  half  the  head,  something  like  a crown 
made  of  thick  linen  swathes  doubled  round  many 
times,  and  sewed  together,  surrounded  by  a linen 
cover  to  hide  the  seams  of  the  swathes,  and  sat  so 


553 


PRIEST. 

close  that  it  would  not  fall  off  when  the  body  was 
bent  down  {Antiq.  iii.  7.  3).  The  dress  of  the 
high-priest  was  precisely  the  same  with  that  of 
the  common  priests  in  all  the  foregoing  particukirs; 

in  addition  to  which  he  had  (1)  a robe, 
(xxviii.  4),  iroS^pyj,  tunica.  This  was  not  a 
mantle,  but  a second  and  larger  coat  without 
aleeves ; a kind  of  surtout  worn  by  the  laity, 


especially  persons  of  distinction  (Job  i.  20;  ii. 
12,  by  kings;  1 Sam.  xv.  27  ; xviii.  4;  xxiv. 
5,  12).  . This  garment,  when  intended  for  the 
high-priest,  and  then  called 
4 the  robe  of  the  ephod/  was  to  be  of  one  entire 
piece  of  woven  work,  all  of  blue,  with  an  aperture 
for  the  neck  in  the  middle  of  the  upper  part, 
having  its  rim  strengthened  and  adorned  with  a 
border.  The  hem  had  a kind  of  fringe,  composed 
of  tassels,  made  of  blue,  purple,  and  scarlet,  in 
the  form  of  pomegranates ; and  between  every  two 
pomegranates  there  was  a small  golden  bell,  so 


that  there  was  a bell  and  a pomegranate  alter- 
nately all  round  (xxviii.  31-35).  The  use  of 
these  bells  may  have  parfly  been,  that  by  the 


PRIEST. 

high-priest  shaking  his  garment  at  the  time  of 
his  offering  incense  on  the  great  day  of  expiation, 
See.,  the  people  without  might  be  apprised  of  it, 
and  unite  their  prayers  with  it  (comp.  Ecclus. 
xlv.  9 ; Luke  i.  10  ; Acts  x.  4 ; Rev.  viii.  3f  4), 
Josephus  describes  this  robe  of  the  ephod  as 
reaching  to  the  feet,  and  consisting  of  one  entire 
piece  of  woven-work,  and  parted  where  the  lrands 
came  out  (John  xix.  23).  He  also  states  that  it 
was  tied  round  with  a girdle,  embroidered  with 
the  same  colours  as  the  former,  with  a mixture  of 
gold  interwoven  (Antiq.  iii.  7.  4).  It  is  highly 
probable  that  this  garment  was  also  derived  from 
Egyptian  usage.  There  are  instances  at  Thebes 
of  priests  wearing  over  the  coat  a loose  sleeveless 
robe,  and  which  exposes  the  sleeves  of  the  inner 
tunic.  The  fringe  of  bells  and  pomegranates 
seems  to  have  been  the  priestly  substitute  for  the 
fringe  bound  with  a blue  riband,  which  all  the 
Israelites  were  commanded  to  wear.  Many  traces 
of  this  fringe  occur  in  the  Egyptian  remains. 
The  use  assigned  to  it,  4 that,  looking  on  this 
fringe  they  should  remember  the  Lord’s  com- 
mandments/ seems  best  explicable  by  the  sup- 
position that  the  Egyptians  had  connected  some 
superstitious  ideas  with  it  (Num.  xv.  37-40). 
(2.)  The  ephod,  eircapis,  superhumerale 

(Exod.  xxviii.  4).  This  was  a short  cloak  covering 
the  shoulders  and  breast.  It  is  said  to  have  beeu 


460.  [Ephod  and  girdle.j 

worn  by  Samuel  while  a youth  ministering  before 
the  Lord  (1  Sam.  ii.  18);  by  David,  while  en- 
gaged in  religious  service  (2  Sam.  vi.  14);  and 
by  inferior  priests  (1  Sam.  xxii.  18).  But  in  all 
these  instances  it  is  distinguished  as  a linen  ephod, 
and  was  not  a sacred  but  honorary  vestment,  as 
the  Sept,  understands  it  in  2 Sam.  vi.  14,  (TToXrji 
e|ctAA.oy  ; but  the  ephod  of  the  high-priest  was 
to  be  made  of  gold,  of  blue,  of  purple,  of  scarlet, 
and  fine  twined  linen,  with  cunning  work, 
Though  it  probably  consisted  of  one  piece,  woven 
throughout,  it  had  a back  part  and  a front  part, 
united  by  shoulder-pieces.  It  had  also  a girdle : 
or  rather  strings  went  out  from  each  side  and  tied 
it  to  the  body.  On  the  top  of  each  shoulder  was 
to  be  an  onyx  stone,  set  in  sockets  of  gold,  each 
having  engraven  upon  it  six  of  the  names  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  according  to  the  precedence  of 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST. 


'64 


birth,  to  memorialize  the  Lord  of  the  promise?  made 
to  them  (Exod.  xxviii.  6-12,  29).  Josephu3  gives 
sleeves  to  the  ephod  ( Aniiq . iii.  7.  5).  It  may  be 
considered  as  a substitute  for  the  leopard-skin  worn 
by  the  Egyptian  high-priests  in  their  most  sacred 
duties,  as  in  No.  460,  where  the  ephod  appears  no 
less  plainly.  In  other  figures  of  Egyptian  priests, 
the  shoulder-pieces  are  equally  apparent.  They 
are  even  perceptible  in  No.  457.  The  Egyptian 
ephod  is,  however,  highly  charged  with  all  sorts 
of  idolatrous  figures  and  emblems,  and  even  with 
scenes  of  human  sacrifices.  The  Sept,  rendering 
of  D5?n,  * cunning  work,’  is  tpyou  vcpavrbv  irot- 
k<Atou,  ‘woven-wcrk  of  the  embroiderer,’  a word 
which  especially  denotes  a manufacturer  of  tissues 
adorned  with  figures  of  animals  (Strabo,  xvii. 
p.  5»74,  Sieb.).  Then  came  (3)  the  breastplate, 
jfcJTI,  7r epuTTiffQiov ; Vulg.  rationale  ; a gorget,  ten 
inches  square,  made  of  the  same  sort  of  cloth  as 
the  ephod,  and  doubled  so  as  to  form  a kind  of 
pouch  or  bag  (Exod.  xxxix.  9),  in  which  was  to 
be  put  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  which  are 
also  mentioned  as  if  already  known  (xxviii.  30). 
The  external  part  of  this  gorget  was  set  with  four 
rows  of  precious  stones ; the  first  row,  a sardius,  a 
topaz,  and  a carbuncle ; the  second,  an  emerald, 
a sapphire,  and  a diamond  ; the  third,  a ligure, 
an  agate,  and  an  amethyst ; and  the  fourth,  a 
beryl,  an  onyx,  and  a jasper, — set  in  a golden 
socket.  Upon  each  of  these  stones  was  to  be  en- 
graven the  name  of  one  of  the  sons  of  Jacob.  In 
the  ephod,  in  which  there  was  a space  left  open 
sufficiently  large  for  the  admission  of  this  pec- 
toral, were  four  rings  of  gold,  to  which  four  others 
at.  the  four  corners  of  the  breastplate  corresponded  ; 
die  two  lower  rings  of  the  latter  being  fixed  inside. 
It  was  confined  to  the  ephod  by  means  of  dark 
blue  ribands,  which  passed  through  these  rings; 
and  it  was  also  suspended  from  the  onyx  stones  on 
the  shoulder  by  chains  of  gold,  or  rather  cords  of 
twisted  gold  threads,  which  were  fastened  at  one 
end  to  two  other  larger  rings  fixed  in  the  upper 
comers  of  the  pectoral,  and  by  the  other  end 
going  round  the  onyx  stones  on  the  shoulders, 
and  returning  and  being  fixed  in  the  larger  ring. 
The  breastplate  was  further  kept  in  its  place  by 
a girdle,  made  of  the  same  stuff,  which  Josephus 


asys  was  sewed  to  the  breastplate,  and  which, 
when  it  had  gone  once  round  wus  ned  again 


upon  the  seam  and  hung  down.  It  appear*  i* 
No.  463.  Here  is  another  adaptation  and  correction 
ot  the  costume  of  the  higher  Egyptian  priests, 
who  wore  a large  splendid  ornament  upon  the 
breast,  often  a winged  scarabams,  the  emblem  of 
the  sun,  as  in  the  cut  No.  461,  which  exhibits 
the  connecting  ring  and  chain  to  fasten  it  to  the 
girdle.  4.  The  remaining  portion  of  dress  pecu- 
liar to  the  high-priest  was  the  mitre,  DQ3VO, 
KiSapis,  cidaris  (xxviii.  4).  The  Bible  says 
nothing  of  the  difference  between  this  and 
the  turban  of  the  common  priests.  It  is,  however, 
called  by  a different  name.  It  was  to  be  of  fine 
linen  (ver.  39).  Josephus  says  Jt  was  the  same 
in  construction  and  figure  with  that  of  the 
common  priest,  but  that  above  it  there  was 
another,  with  swathes  of  blue,  embroidered,  and 
round  it  was  a golden  crown,  polished,  of  three 
rows,  one  above  another,  out  of  which  rose  a cup 
of  gold,  which  resembled  the  calyx  of  the  herb 
called  by  Greek  botanists,  hyoscyatnus.  lie  ends 
a most  laboured  description  by  comparing  the 
shape  of  it  to  a poppy  (iii.  7.6).  Upon  comparing 
his  account  of  the  bonnet  of  the  priests  with  the 
mitre  of  the  high  -priests,  it  would  appear  that  the 
latter  was  conical.  The  cut,  No.  462,  presents 
the  principal  forms  of  the  mitres  worn  by  the 


ancient  priests  of  Egypt,  and  affords  a substantial 
resemblance  of  that  prescribed  to  the  Jews, 
divested  of  idolatrous  symbols,  but  which  were 
displaced  to  make  way  for  a simple  plate  of 
gold,  bearing  the  inscription,  ‘Holiuess  to  Je- 
hovah.’ This  pV,  TrzTaXov,  lamina,  extended 
from  one  ear  to  the  other,  being  bound  to  the 
forehead  by  strings  tied  behind,  and  further 
secured  in  its  position  by  a blue  riband  attached 
!o  the  mitre  (Exod.  xxviii.  36-39;  xxxix.  30; 
Lev.  viii.  9).  Josephus  says  this  plate  was  pre- 
served tohis  own  day  (Antiq.  viii.  3-8;  see  Reland, 
De  Spot.  Templi,  p.  132).  Such  was  the  dress  ot 
the  high-priest. : see  a description  of  its  magnifi- 
cence in  corresponding  terms  in  Eccles.  1.  5-16 
Josephus  had  an  idea  of  the  symbolical  import 
of  the  several  parts  of  it.  He  says,  that  being 
made  of  linen  signified  the  earth;  the  blue  de 
noted  the  sky,  being  like  lightning  in  its  pome- 
gvanatec,  and  in  the  noise  of  its  bells  resembling 
thunde1*.  The  ephod  showed  that  God  had  made 
the  universe  of  four  elements,  the  gold  relating  tc 
the  splendour  by  which  aii  tilings  are  enlightened 
The  breast-pl&le  in  the  middle  of  the  ephod  re- 
sembled the  earth,  which  has  the  middle  plac* 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST. 


555 


rf  the  world.  The  girdle  signified  the  sea,  which 
goes  round  tne  world.  The  sardonyxes  declare 
the  sun  and  moon.  The  twelve  stones  are  the 
twelve  months  or  signs  of  the  zodiac.  The  mitre 
is  heaven,  because  blue  (iii.  7.  7).  He  appears, 
however,  to  have  had  two  explanations  of  some 
things,  one  for  the  Gentiles,  and  another  for  the 
Jews.  Thus  in  this  section,  he  tells  his  Gentile 
readers  that  the  seven  lamps  upon  the  golden 
candlesticks  referred  to  the  seven  planets ; but  to 
the  Jews  he  represents  them  as  an  emblem  of  the 
seven  days  of  the  weelc  (De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  5.  5 ; 
Whiston’s  notes  in  loc.).  The  magnificent  dress 
of  the  high-priest  was  not  always  worn  by  him. 
It  was  exchanged  for  one  wholly  of  linen,  and 
therefore  white,  though  of  similar  construction, 
when  on  the  day  of  expiation  he  entered  into  the 
Holy  of  Holies  (Lev.  xvi.  4,  23)  ; and  neither  he 
nor  the  common  priests  wore  their  appropriate 
dress,  except  when  officiating.  It  was  for  this 
reason,  according  to  some,  that  Paul,  who  had 
been  long  absent  from  Jerusalem,  did  not  know 
that  Ananias  was  the  high-priest  (Acts  xxiii.  5). 
In  Ezek.  xlii.  14;  xliv.  17-19,  there  are  direc- 
tions that  the  priests  should  take  off  their  garments 
when  they  had  ministered,  and  lay  them  up  in 
the  holy  chambers,  and  put  on  other  garments ; 
but  these  directions  occur  in  a visionary  repre- 
sentation of  a temple,  which  all  agree  has  never 
been  realized,  the  particulars  of  which,  though 
sometimes  derived  from  known  customs,  yet  at 
other  times  differ  from  them  widely.  The  gar- 
ments of  the  inferior  priests  appear  to  have  been 
kept  in  the  sacred  treasury  (Ezra  ii.  69  ; Neh. 
vii.  70). 

The  next  incident  in  the  history  is,  that 
Moses  receives  a command  to  consecrate  Aaron 
and  his  sons  to  the  priests’  office  (Exod.  xxviii. 
41),  with  the  following  ceremonies.  They  were 
to  be  washed  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation  (xxix.  4),  where  the  altar  of 
burnt  offering  stood  (xl.  6,  29).  Aaron  was  then 
robed  in  his  pontifical  garments  (vers.  4-6),  and 
anointed  with  a profusion  of  oil  (ver.  7)  ; whence 
he  was  called  ‘ the  priest  that  is  anointed’  (Lev. 
iv.  3,  &c.  ; Ps.  cxxxiii.  2).  This  last  act  was 
the  peculiar  and  only  distinguishing  part  of 
Aaron’s  consecration ; for  the  anointing  of  his 
sons  (xxx.  30)  relates  only  to  the  unction 
(xxix.  31),  by  a mixture  made  of  the  blood  of 
the  sacrifice  and  of  the  anointing  oil,  which  was 
sprinkled  upon  both  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  upon 
their  garments,  as  part  of  their  consecration. 
Hence  then  Aaron  received  two  unctions'.  In 
after-times  the  high-priest  took  an  oath  (Heb. 
vii.  23)  to  bind  him,  as  the  Jews  say,  to  a strict 
adherence  to  established  customs  (Mishna,  tit. 
Yoma , i.  5).  The  other  details  of  this  ceremony 
of  consecration  are  all  contained  in  one  chapter 
(Exod.  xxix.),  to  which  we  must  be  content  to 
refer  the  reader.  The  entire  ceremony  lasted  seven 
days,  on  each  of  which,  all  the  sacrifices  were  re- 
peated (Lev.  viii.  33),  to  which  a promise  was 
added,  that  God  would  sanctify  Aaron  and  his 
sons,  that  is,  declare  them  to  be  sanctified,  which 
be  did,  by  the  appearance  of  his  glory  at  their 
first  sacrifice,  and  by  the  fire  which  descended 
and  consumed  their  burnt-offerings  (Lev.  ix.  23, 
24).  Thus  were  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  their 
descendants  separated  for  ever,  to  the  iffice  of  the 
priesthood,  from  all  other  Israelites.  There  was 


consequently  no  need  of  any  further  consecration 
for  them  or  their  descendants.  The  first-born 
son  of  Aaron  succeeded  him  in  the  office,  and  the 
elder  son  among  all  his  descendants;  a rule 
which,  though  deviated  from  in  after  times,  was 
ultimately  resumed.  The  next  successor  was  to 
be  anointed  and  consecrated  in  his  father’s  holy 
garments  (ver.  29),  which  he  must  wear  seven 
days  when  he  went  into  the  tabernacle  of  the 


463.  [High-priest.] 

congregation  to  minister  (ver.  30  ; comp.  Num.xx. 
26-28 ; xxxv.  25),  and  make  an  atonement  for 
all  things  and  persons  (Lev.  xvi.  32-34),  and  for 
himself  (comp.  ver.  11),  besides  the  offering  (vi. 
20-22).  The  common  priests  were  required  to 
prove  their  descent  from  Aaron.  No  age  was 
prescribed  for  their  entrance  on  their  ministry,  or 
retirement  from  it. 

We  shall  now  give  a summary  of  the  duties 
and  emoluments  of  the  high-priest  and  common 
priests  respectively.  Besides  his  lineal  descent 
from  Aaron,  the  high-priest  was  required  to  be 
free  from  every  bodily  blemish  or  defect  (Lev. 
xxi.  16-23);  but  though  thus  incapacitated,  yet, 
his  other  qualifications  being  sufficient,  he  might 
eat  of  the  food  appropriated  to  the  priests  (ver.  22). 
He  must  not  marry  a widow,  nor  a divorced 
woman,  or  profane,  or  that  had  been  a harlot,  but 
a virgin  Israelitess  (ver.  14).  In  Ezekiel's  vision  a 
general  permission  is  given  to  the  priests  to  marry 
a priest’s  widow  (xliv.  22).  The  high-priest  might 
not  observe  the  external  signs  of  mourning  for  any 
person,  or  leave  the  sanctuary  upon  receiving  in- 
telligence of  the  death  of  even  father  or  mother 
(ver.  10-12;  comp.  x.  7).  Public  calamities 
seem  to  have  been  an  exception,  for  Joacim  the 
high-priest,  and  the  priests,  in  such  circumstances 
ministered  in  sackcloth  with  ashes  on  their 
mitres  (Judith  iv.  14,  15  ; comp.  Joel  i.  13). 
He  must  not  eat  auything  that  died  of  itself,  or 
was  torn  of  beasts  (Lev.  xxii.  8)  ; must  wash 
his  hands  and  feet  when  he  went  into  the  taber* 
nacle  of  the  congregation,  and  when  he  cam* 
near  to  the  altar  to  minister  (Exod.  xxx.  19-21) 


ft56 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST. 


At  first  Aaion  was  to  burn  incense  on  the  golden 
altar  every  morning  when  he  dressed  the  lamps, 
and  every  evening  when  he  lighted  them,  but  in 
later  limes  the  common  priest  performed  this 
duty  (Luke  i.  8,  9)  ; to  offer,  as  the  Jews  un- 
derstand it,  daily,  morning  and  evening,  the  pecu- 
liar meat-offering  he  offered  on  the  day  of  his 
consecration  (Exod.  xxix.)  ; to  perform  the  cere- 
monies of  the  great  day  of  expiation  (Lev.  xvi.) ; 
to  arrange  the  shew-bread  every  Sabbath,  and  to  eat 
it  in  the  holy  place  (xxiv.  9)  ; must  abstain  from 
the  holy  things  during  his  uncleanness  (xxii. 
1-3);  also  if  he  became  leprous,  or  contracted 
uncleanness  (ver.  4-7).  If  lie  committed  a sin  of 
ignorance  he  must  offer  a sin-offering  for  it  (iv.  3- 
13);  and  so  for  the  people  (ver.  1 2-22)  ; was  to  eat 
the  remainder  of  the  people’s  meat-offerings  with 
the  inferior  priests  in  the  holy  place  (vi.  16) ; to 
judge  of  the  leprosy  in  the  human  body  or 
garments  (xiii.  2-59) ; to  adjudicate  legal  ques- 
tions (Dent.  xvii.  12).  Indeed  when  there  was 
no  divinely  inspired  judge,  the  high-priest  was 
the  supreme  ruler  till  the  time  of  David,  and 
again  after  the  captivity.  He  must  be  present 
at  the  appointment  of  a new  ruler  or  leader 
(Num.  xxvii.  19),  and  ask  counsel  of  the  Lord 
for  the  ruler  (ver.  21).  Eleazar  with  others  dis- 
tributes the  spoils  taken  from  the  Midianites 
(Num.  xxxi.  21,  26).  To  the  high-priest  also 
belonged  the  appointment  of  a maintenance  from 
the  funds  of  the  sanctuary  to  an  incapacitated 
priest  (1  Sam.  ii.  36,  margin).  Besides  these 
duties,  peculiar  to  himself,  he  had  others  in 
common  witli  the  inferior  priests.  Thus,  when  the 
camp  set  forward,  ‘ Aaron  and  his  sons’  were  to  take 
the  tabernacle  to  pieces,  to  cover  the  various 
portions  of  it  in  cloths  of  various  colours 
(iv.  5-15),  and  to  appoint  the  Levites  to  their 
services  in  carrying  them  ; to  bless  the  people  in 
tire  form  prescribed  (vi.  23-27),  to  be  responsible 
for  all  official  errors  and  negligences  (xviii.  1),  and 
to  have  the  general  charge  of  the  sanctuary  (ver.  5). 

Emoluments  of  the  Iiigh-Priest. — Neither  the 
high-priest  nor  common  priests  received  ‘ any  in- 
heritance’ at  the  distribution  of  Canaan  among 
the  several  tribes  (Num.  xviii.  20  ; Deut.  xviii. 
1,  2),  but  were  maintained,  with  their  families, 
upon  certain  fees,  dues,  perquisites,  &c.,  arising 
from  the  public  services,  which  they  enjoyed  as 
a common  fund.  Perhaps  the  only  distinct  pre- 
rogative of  tire  high-priest  was  a tenth  part  of  the 
tithes  assigned  to  the  Levites  (Num.  xviii.  28; 
comp.  Neh.  x.  38) ; but  Josephus  represents  this 
also  as  a common  fund  ( Antiq . iv.  4.  4). 

Duties  of  the  Priests. — Besides  those  duties 
already  mentioned  as  common  to  them  and  the 
high-priests,  they  were  required  to  prove  their  de- 
scent from  Aaron,  to  be  free  from  all  bodily  defect 
or  blemish  (Lev.  xxi.  16-23)  ; must  not  observe 
mourning,  except  for  near  relatives  (xxi.  1-5) ; 
must  not  marry  a woman  that  had  been  a harlot, 
or  divorced,  or  profane.  The  priest’s  daughter 
who  committed  whoredom  was  to  be  burnt,  as 
rofaning  her  father  (xxi.  9).  The  priests  were  to 
ave  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary  and  altar  (Num. 
xviii.  5).  The  fire  upon  the  altar,  being  once- 
kindled  (Lev.  i.  7),  the  priests  were  always  to 
keep  it  burning  (vi.  13).  In  later  times,  and 
upon  extraordinary  occasions,  at  least,  they  flayed 
(he  burnt-offerings  (2  Chron.  xxix.  34),  and  killed 
tne  Passover  (Ezra  vi.  20).  They  were  to  receive 


the  blood  of  the  burnt-offerings  in  basins  (Exod. 
xxiv.  6),  and  sprinkle  it  round  about  the  altar, 
arrange  the  wood  and  the  fire,  and  to  burn  the 
parts  of  the  sacrifices  (Lev.  i.  5-10).  If  the 
burnt  sacrifice  were  of  doves,  the  priest  was  to  nij 
off  the  head  with  his  finger-nail,  squeeze  out  the 
blood  on  the  edge  of  the  altar,  pluck  off  the  fea- 
thers, and  throw  them  with  the  crop  into  the  ash- 
pit, divide  it  down  the  wings,  and  then  com- 
pletely burn  it  (ver.  15-17).  He  was  to  offer  a 
lamb  every  morning  and  evening  (Num.  xxviii. 
3),  and  a double  number  on  the  Sabbath  (ver.  9), 
the  burnt-offerings  ordered  at  the  beginning  of 
months  (ver.  11),  and  the  same  on  the  Feast  of 
Unleavened  Bread  (ver.  19),  and  on  the  day  of  the 
First  Fruits  (ver.  26)  ; to  receive  the  meat-offering 
of  the  offerer,  bring  it  to  the  altar  take  of  it  a 
memorial,  and  burn  it  upon  the  altar  (Lev.  ii.); 
to  sprinkle  the  blood  of  the  peace-offerings  upon 
the  altar  round  about,  and  then  to  offer  of  it  a 
burnt-offering  (iii.)  ; to  offer  the  sin-offering  for 
a sin  of  ignorance  in  a ruler  or  any  of  the  com- 
mon people  (iv.  22-25);  to  eat  the  sin-offering  in 
the  holy-place  (vi.  26  ; comp.  x.  16-1 S)  ; to  offer 
the  trespass-offering  (ver.  6-19;  vi.  6,  7),  to 
sprinkle  its  blood  round  about  the  altar  (vii.  2), 
to  eat  of  it,  &c.  (ver.  6)  ; to  eat  of  the  shew-bread 
in  the  holy  place  (xxiv.  9)  ; to  offer  for  the  puri- 
fication of  women  after  child-birth  (xii.  6,  7); 
to  judge  of  the  leprosy  in  the  human  body 
or  garments;  to  decide  when  the  leper  u'as 
cleansed,  and  to  order  a sacrifice  for  him  (xiv. 
3,  4) ; to  administer  the  rites  used  at.  pronouncing 
him  clean  (ver.  6,  7);  to  present  him  and  his 
offering  before  the  Lord,  and  to  make  an  atone- 
ment for  him  (ver.  10-32);  to  judge  of  the  leprosy 
in  a house  (xiv.  33-47),  to  decide  when  it  wasclean 
(ver.  48),  and  to  make  an  atonement  for  it  (ver. 
49-53) ; to  make  an  atonement  for  men  cleansed 
from  an  issue  of  uncleanness  (xv.  14,  15),  and 
for  women  (ver.  29,  30);  to  offer  the  sheaf  of 
First  Fruits  (xxiii.  10,  11);  to  estimate  the  com- 
mutation in  money  for  persons  in  cases  of  a sin- 
gular or  extraordinary  vow  (xxvii.  8),  or  for  any 
devoted  unclean  beast  (ver.  11,  -12),  or  for  a house 
(ver.  14),  or  field  (xviii.  23);  to  conduct  the 
ordeal  of  the  bitter  water  (Num.  v.  12-31)  [Jea- 
i.ousy,  VVateii  oe]  ; to  make  an  atonement  for 
a Nazarite  who  had  accidentally  contracted  un- 
cleanness  (vi.  13) ; to  offer  his  offering  when  the 
days  of  his  separation  were  fulfilled  (ver.  14,  16)  ; 
to  blow  with  the  silver  trumpets  on  all  occasions 
appointed  (vi.  13-17),  and  ultimately  at  morning 
and  evening  service  (1  Chron.  xvi.  6);  to  make 
an  atonement  for  the  people  and  individuals  in 
case  of  erroneous  worship  (Num.  xv.  15,  21,  25, 
27)  (see  Out  ram,  De  Sacrifciis,  c.  xiv.  2);  to 
make  the  ointment  of  spices  (1  Chron.  ix.  30)  ; 
to  prepare  the  water  of  separation  (Num.  xix. 
1-11);  to  act  as  assessors  injudicial  proceedings 
(Deut.  xvii.  9;  xix.  7);  to  encourage  the  army 
when  going  to  battle,  and  probably  to  furnish  the 
officers  with  the  speech  (ver.  5-9);  to  superintend 
the  expiation  of  an  uncertain  murder  (xxi.  5), 
and  to  have  charge  of  the  law  (xxxi.  9). 

The  emoluments  of  the  priests  were  a » fol- 
lows : — 1.  Those  which  they  might  eat  only  at 
the  sanctuary ; viz.,  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering 
(Lev.  vi.  25,  26),  and  of  the  trespass-offering 
(vii.  1,6);  the  peace-offerings  of  the  congregation 
at  Pentecost  (xxiii.  19,  20);  the  remainder  of 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST 


557 


die  omer  or  *heaf  of  the  first-fruits  of  barley 
harvest  (ver.  10),  and  the  loaves  offered  at  wheat 
harvest  (ver.  17);  the  shew-bread  (xxiv.  9); 
the  remainder  of  the  leper’s  log  of  oil  (xiv.  10, 
&c.);  the  remnants  of  the  meat-offerings  (vi.  16). 
2.  Those  which  might  be  eaten  only  in  the  camp 
in  the  first  instance,  and  afterwards  in  Jerusalem, 
viz.,  the  breast  and  right  shoulder  of  the  peace- 
offerings  (vii.  31,  34) ; the  heave-offering  of  the 
sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  (ver.  12-14);  the  heave- 
offering of  the  Nazarite's  ram  (Num.vi.  17,  20); 
the  firstling  of  every  clean  beast  (xviii.  15);  what- 
soever was  first  ripe  in  the  land  (ver.  13).  3. 

Those  due  to  them  only  from  inhabitants  of  the 
land;  viz.,  the  first-fruits  of  oil,  wine,  wheat 
(ver.  12) ; a cake  of  the  first  dough  made  of  any 
kind  of  grain  (xv.  20);  the  first  fieece  (Deut. 
xviii.  4).  4.  Those  due  to  them  everywhere 

within  and  without  the  land ; viz.,  the  shoulder, 
two  cheeks  and  maw,  of  an  ox  or  sheep,  ottered  in 
sacrifice  (ver.  3)  ; the  redemption  of  man  and 
of  unclean  beasts  (Num.  xviii.  15);  of  the  first- 
ling of  an  ass  (Exod.  xxxiv.  20)  ; the  restitution 
in  cases  of  injury  or  fraud  when  it  could  not  be 
made  to  the  injured  party  or  nis  kinsman  (Num. 
v.  8) ; all  devoted  things.  5.  The  skins  of  the 
burnt  offerings  (Lev.  vii-  8),  which  Philo  calls  a 
very  rich  perquisite  (De  Sacerd.  Honor,  p.  833, 
ed.  1340).  Many  of  these  dues  were  paid  in 
money.  The  priests  might  also  incidentally  pos- 
sess lands  (1  Kings  ii.  26  ; Jer.  xxxii.  7,  8)  ; and 
they  most  likely  shared  in  occasional  donations 
and  dedications  (Num.  xxxi.  25-29,  50-51  ; 2 
Sam.  viii.  11,  12;  1 Chron.  xxvi.  27,  28).  Their 
revenues  were  probably  more  extensive  than  they 
appear,  owing  to  the  ambiguity  with  which  the 
term  Levite  is  often  used.  If  the  regular  and 
ascertained  incomes  of  the  priests  seem  large, 
amounting,  as  it  has  been  computed,  to  one-fifth 
of  the  income  of  a Jew  (comp.  Gen,  xlvii.  24), 
it  must  be  considered  that  their  known  duties  were 
multifarious  and  often  difficult.  Michael  is  calls 
them  ‘ the  literati  of  all  the  faculties.’  The  next 
event  in  the  history  of  the  subject  is  the  'public 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons(B.c.  1490),  ac- 
cording to  the  preceding  regulations  (Lev.  viii.). 
At  their  first  sacerdotal  performances  (ix.)  the 
Divine  approbation  was  intimated  by  a super- 
natural fire  which  consumed  their  burnt-offering 
(ver.  24).  The  general  satisfaction  of  the  people 
with  these  events  was,  however,  soon  dashed  by 
the  miraculous  destruction  of  the  two  elder  sous 
of  Aaron,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  for  offering  strange 
fire  (x.  1),  probably  under  the  influence  of  too 
much  wine,  since  the  prohibition  of  it  to  the  priests 
when  about,  to  enter  the  tabernacle  seems  to  have 
originated  in  this  event  (ver.  9).  Moses  forbade 
Aaron  and  his  sons  to  uncover  their  heads,  or  to 
rend  their  clothes  on  this  occasion  ; but  the  whole 
house  of  Israel  were  permitted  to  bewail  the  visi- 
tation (ver.  6).  The  inward  grief,  however,  of 
Eleazav  and  Itbamar  caused  an  irregularity  in 
their  sacerdotal  duties,  which  was  forgiven  on 
account  of.  the  occasion  (ver.  16-20).  Aaron 
now  appears  associated  with  Moses,  and  the  lead- 
ing men  of  the  several  tribes,  in  taking  the  na- 
tional census  (Num.  i.  3,  &c.),  and  on  other 
grand  state  occasions  (xxvi.  2,3;  xxxi.  13-26; 
xxxii.  2 ; xxxiv.  17).  The  high-priest  appears 
ever  after  as  a person  of  the  highest  consequehce. 
Ths  dignity  of  tne  priesthood  soon  excited  the 


emuiaHon  of  the  ambitious ; hence  the  penalty 
of  death  was  denounced  against  the  assumption 
of  it  by  any  one  not  belonging  to  the  Aavonic 
family  (ver.  10),  and  which  was  soon  after  mi- 
raculously inflicted  upon  Korah,  Dathan,  and 
Abiram  for  this  crime  (xvi.  40),  Its  restriction 
to  that  family  was  further  demonstrated  by  the 
blossoming  of  Aaron’s  rod  (xvii.  5,  8;  comp, 
xxviii.  5-7).  The  death  of  Aaron  (b.c.  1452)  in- 
troduces the  installation  of  bis  successor,  which 
appears  to  have  simply  consisted  in  arraying  him 
in  his  father's  pontifical  garments  (xx.  28).  Thus 
also  Jonathan  the  Asmona3an  contented  himself 
with  putting  on  the  high-priest’s  habit,  in  order 
to  take  possession  of  the  dignity  (1  Macc.  x.  21  ; 
comp.  Josephus,  Antiq.  xiii.  2.  3)  The  high 
esteem  in  which  the  priesthood  was  neld  may  be 
gathered  from  the  fact  that  it  was  promised  in 
perpetuity  to  Phinehas  and  his  family  as  a re- 
ward for  his  zeal  (xxv.  13).  At  the  entrance  into 
Canaan  the  priests  appear  hearing  the  ark  of  the 
Lord,  at  the  command  of  Joshua  (iii.  6),  though 
this  was  ordinarily  the  duty  of  the  Levites.  It 
was  carried  by  the  priests  on  other  grand  occa- 
sions (2  Chron.  v.  4,  5,  7).  At  the  distribution 
of  the  land  the  priests  received  thirteen  cities  out 
of  the  tribes  of  Judah,  Simeon,  and  Benjamin 
(xxi.  4).  The  first  idolatrous  priest  in  Israel 
was  a man  consecrated  by  his  own  father  to 
officiate  in  his  own  house  (b.c.  1413)  ; he  also  af- 
terwards consecrated  a Levite  to  the  office  (Judg. 
xvii.  5-13).  This  act  seems  like  a return  to  the 
ancient  rites  of  Syria  (ver.  5 ; comp.  x.  6 ; Gen. 
xxxi.  19,  30  ; Hosea  iii.  4).  This  Levite  became 
afterwards  the  idolatrous  priest;  of  the  whole  tribe 
of  Dan  (Judg.  xviii.  19),  and  his  successors  long 
held  the  like  office  in  that  tribe  (ver.  30).  The 
abuse  of  the  sacerdotal  office  in  Shiloh  is  evinced 
by  the  history  of  Eli  the  high-priest,  and  his  two 
sons,  Hophni  and  Phinehas  (b.c.  1 156).  Accord- 
ing to  Josephus  Eli  was  not  of  tire  posterity  of  Elea- 
zar,  the  first-born  son  of  Aaron,  but  of  the  family 
of  Itbamar;  and  Solomon  took  the  office  of  high- 
priest  away  from  Abiatbar,  a descendant  of  ltha- 
mar,  and  conferred  it  upon  Zadok,  who  descended 
from  Eleazar  (1  Kings  ii.  26,  27  ; Antiq.  v.  11. 
5;  viii.  1.3).  The  sons  of  Eli  introduced  a 
new  exaction  from  the  peace-offering,  of  so  much 
as  a fiesh-hook  with  three  teelh  brought  up ; for 
which  and  other  rapacities  (1  Sam.  ii.  12-17) 
their  death  was  threatened  (ver.  34),  and  inflicted 
(iv.  11).  The  capture  of  the  arlt  of  God  by  tike 
Philistines  (b.c.  1116)  affords  us  an  insight  into 
the  state  of  sacerdotal  things  among  that  people 
(1  Sam.  v.),  viz.,  a temple  (ver.  2),  priests  (ver. 
5)  who  are  consulted  respecting  the  disposal  of 
the  ark  (vi.  2,  3).  Ahiah,  the  great-grandson  of 
Eli,  succeeded  to  the  high  priesthood  (b.c.  1083) 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  3)  ; he  asks  counsel  of  God  for  Saul, 
but  it  is  not  answered  (ver.  37);  is  succeeded  in 
office  by  his  brother  Ahimelech  (xxi.  1-9).  Saul 
appears  to  have  appointed  Zadok,  of  the  family 
of  Eleazar,  to  the  high  priesthood,  and  who,  with 
his  brethren  the  priests,  officiated  before  the  ta- 
bernacle at  Gibeon  (1  Chron.  xvi.  39).  David, 
at  his  elevation  to  the  throne,  sent  for  all  the 
priests  and  Levites  to  bring  the  ark  of  God  to 
Jerusalem  (b.c.  1051)  (1  Chron.  xiii.  2,  3 ; comp, 
the  Psalm  be  wrote  on  the  occasion,  cxxxii.  9-16}, 
At  this  period,  therefore,  there  were  two  high* 
priests  at  Jerusalem  (1  Chron.  xv.  1 1 ; xviii.  16).  A 


558 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST. 


peculiar  use  of  the  Hebrew  word  signifying  priest 
occurs  in  2 Sam.  viii.  18,  ‘ and  David's  sons  were 
chief  rulers ;’  Sept.  avXupxai , ‘cham- 
berlains;’ Vulg.  sacerclotes.  The  writer  of  the 
First  book  of  Chronicles,  however,  did  not  choose 
to  give  the  name  to  any  but  a priest,  and  renders  it 
‘ the  sons  of  David  were  chief  (or  heads)  on  the 
side  of  the  king’  (xviii.  17).  The  word  seems, 
however,  certainly  applied  to  some  persons  who 
were  not  priests  (1  Kings  iv  5,  ‘ principal  officer;’ 
Sept,  ircupos ; Alex,  lepevs  eraupos ; Vulg.  sa- 
cerdos  ; comp  2 Sam.  xx.  26  ; 1 Chron.  xxvii.  5 ; 
Ps.  xcix.  6).  These  ‘sons  of  David’  were,  there- 
fore, probably  ecclesiastical  counsellors,  or  chief 
church  lawyers.  During  the  reign  of  David, 
both  Zadok  and  Abiatliar  steadily  adhered  to  his 
interests,  accompanied  him  out  of  Jerusalem  when 
he  fled  before  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xv.  24),  and, 
after  having  at  his  desire  returned  to  Jerusalem 
(ver.  29),  still  maintained  private  correspondence 
with  him  (ver.  35),  and  ultimately  negotiated  hia 
restoration  (xix.  11).  David  introduced  the  divi- 
sion of  the  priests  into  twenty-four  classes  or 
courses  by  lot  (1  Chron.  xxiv.),  b.c.  1015.  He  ap- 
pointed sixteen  courses  of  the  descendants  of 
Eleazar,  under  as  many  heads  of  their  families, 
and  eight  of  those  of  Ithamar  (ver.  4).  This  dis- 
tribution took  place  in  the  presence  of  the  king, 
the  princes,  Zadok,  and  the  principal  priests  and 
Levites.  The  first,  of  these  courses  was  that  which 
had  Jehoiarib  at  the  head  of  it  (ver.  7).  It  was 
reckoned  the  most  honourable.  Josephus  values 
himself  on  his  descent  from  it  (Vita,  § l). 
Mattathias,  the  father  of  the  Maccabees,  de- 
scended from  it  (1  Macc.  ii.  1).  Abijuh  was 
the  head  of  the  eighth  course  (ver.  10),  to  which 
Zacharias,  the  father  of  the  Baptist,  belonged 
(Luke  i.  5).  All  these  courses  were  placed  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  high-priest,  called  Aaron, 
on  this  occasion  (ver.  19).  Each  course  served 
a week,  alternately,  under  a subordinate  prefect 
(2  Kings  xi.  5,  7)  ; and  in  the  time  of  Zacharias, 
at  least,  the  duties  of  each  individual  seem  to 
have  been  determined  by  lot  (Luke  i.  9);  but  all 
attended  at  the  great  festivals  (2  Chron.  v.  1 1 ). 
This  arrangement  continued  till  the  time  of  Jo- 
sephus (Antiq.  vii.  14.  7).  At  the  close  of 
David’s  life,  Abiathar  sided  with  Adonijah  in  his 
effort  to  gain  the  throne ; but  Zadok  adhered  to 
Solomon  (1  Kings  i.  7,  8),  and  anointed  him 
king  (ver.  39).  Accordingly,  when  Solomon  be- 
came established  in  the  government,  he  deposed 
Abiathar  (ii.  26),  and  put  Zadok  in  his  place; 
who  appears  to  have  been  anointed  to  the  office 
(1  Chron.  xxix.  22),  owing  to  the  interruption 
already  alluded  to,  which  had  taken  place  in  the 
proper  succession  of  the  high-priesthood.  Frequent 
references  to  the  priests  occur  in  the  Psalms 
written  upon  the  dedication  of  the  temple  (b.c. 

1 064)  (see  Ps.  cxxxv.  1, 19,  &c.).  The  priests  were 
now  installed  in  their  offices  (2  Chron.  viii.  14, 15). 
At  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes  from  Rehoboam 
(b.c.  975),  all  the  priests  repaired  to  him  to  Jeru- 
salem (2  Chron.  xi.  13),  and  there  continued 
their  services  in  the  legal  manner  (xiii.  11).  On 
the  other  hand,  Jeroboam,  now  become  king  of 
Israel,  deposed  them  from  their  office  in  his  domi- 
nions, and  consecrated  priests  of  his  own  idol- 
atrous worship  (xi.  15),  persons  of  the  lowest 
class,  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi  (1  Kings  xii.  31) ; 

' whosoever  would  he  conse  vated  him  ’ (xiii.  33)* 


provided  that  the  candidate  could  only  bring  a. 
young  bullock  and  seven  rams  for  the  purjHJse 
(2  Chron.  xiii.  9).  It  was  during  this  depressh® 
of  the  true  religion  and  worship  that  Jehoshaphv 
king  of  Judah,  made  the  celebrated  attempt  to 
restore  and  confirm  it  in  his  own  dominions,  re* 
corded  in  2 Chron.  xvii.  7-9.  For  this  purpose  he 
sent  priests  and  Levites,  who  ‘ took  with  them  the 
book  of  the  law,’  under  the  convoy  of  certain 
princes,  to  teach  its  contents  throughout  all  the 
cities  of  Judah.  This,  which  seems  the  nearest 
approach  of  any  on  record  to  teach  the  people 
by  the  priests  or  Levites,  really  amounts  to  no 
more  than  the  declaring  the  obligations  of  the  law 
by  the  appointed  expositors  of  its  requirements 
(comp.  Dent.  xvi.  18;  xvii.  9-13;  xxiv.  8; 
xxxiii.  10;  Ezek.  xliv.  23,  24;  Hagg.  ii.  11-13; 
Hosea  iv.  6;  Mi  call  iii.  11;  Mai.  ii.  6-9;  and 
even  Neh.  viii.  7-9).  It  may  be  collected  from 
this  incident,  that  the  Scriptures  were  not  then  in 
common  circulation  (for  the  deputation  ‘took  the 
book  of  the  law  with  them’),  and  that  there  was 
then  no  religious  instruction  in  synagogues  (Cam- 
pegius  Vitringa,  Synag.  Vet.  pt.  ii.  lib.  i.  c.  9). 
Although  the  priests,  bv  the  ceremonies  they  per- 
formed, no  doubt  incidentally  revived  religious 
principles  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  yet  they 
were  never  public  teachers  of  religion  in  the  cus- 
tomary sense  of  the  words.  Those  of  the  prophets 
who  collected  assemblies  on  the  sabbaths  and  new 
moons,  approached  the  nearest  of  any  to  religious 
teachers  under  the  Gospel  (comp.  Ezek.  xxxiii.  30, 
31;  Jahn,  Biblischcs  Archdol.  § 371,  372).  Je- 
hoshaphat  shortly  afterwards  (b.c.  897)  established 
a permanent  court  at  Jerusalem,  composed  of 
priests  and  Levites,  and  of  the  chief  of  the  Fathers 
of  Israel,  for  the  decision  of  all  causes,  with  the 
high-priest  presiding  over  them  in  regard  to  eccle- 
siastical concerns  (2  Chron.  xix.  8-11).  About 
120  years  after,  Jehu  destroyed  all  the  priests  of 
Baal,  and  extirpated  bis  worship  from  Israel 
(2  Kings  x.  15-29).  The  account,  of  this  inci- 
dent. affords  additional  illustration  of  the  general 
resemblance  observable  between  idolatrous  worship 
and  that  of  the  true  God,  viz.,  ‘ prophets  of  Baal,’ 
‘ priests,’  ‘ servants  ’ who  waited  on  the  latter  in 
the  capacity  of  Levites,  ‘a  solemn  assembly,’  ‘ a 
temple’  for  the  god,  ‘sacrifices,*  ‘ burnt-offerings, ’ 
‘ vestments  for  the  priests l About  b.c.  884  the 
high-priest  Jehoiada  recovers  the  throne  of  Judah 
for  its  youthful  heir  Joash  ; and,  after  a long  life 
of  influence  and  usefulness,  dies,  aged  130  years, 
and  is  buried  in  the  royal  sepulchre  at  Jerusalem 
(2  Kings  xi.  12;  2 Chron.  xxiii. ; xxiv.  15,  16). 
During  this  reign  the  priests  were  empowered, 
under  royal  authority,  to  raise  money  for  the 
repair  of  the  temple,  but  at  last  forfeited  this 
commission  by  their  negligent  discharge  of  it 
(2  Kings  xii.  4-12).  At  the  public  humiliation 
for  the  famine,  ordered  by  the  prophet  Joel  (b.c. 
787),  a form  of  prayer  is  delivered  for  the  use  of 
the  priests  (ii.  17;  comp.  Hosea  xiv.  2). 

Some  time  between  b.c. 787  and  765,  the  attempt 
of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  to  burn  incense  in  the 
temple,  calls  forth  the  resistance  of  the  high-priest 
Azariah  and  eighty  of  the  priests,  and  ends  with 
the  king  becoming  leprous  for  life  f2  Chron.  xxvi. 
16,  21).  The  ignorance  and  depravity  of  the  idol- 
atrous priests  of  Israel  at  this  period  are  vividly 
described  (Hosea  iv.  6-8 ; vi.  9).  These  prieefc 
are  called  D'HDS  (2  Kings  xxiii.  5 ; Hosea  x.  5 , 


PRIEST. 


PRIEST. 


559 


Efeph.  i.  4),  from  the  Syr.  the  idolatrous 

priests  of  Palestine  being,  as  might  be  expected, 
derived  from  Syria.  Tiie  abandoned  character  of 
the  priests  of  Judah  nearly  at  the  same  period  is 
described,  Is.  xxviii.  7,  8 ; Micah  iii.  11.  In  the 
reign  of  Ahaz,  king  of  Judah  (b.c.  739),  a flagrant 
violation  of  divine  commands  is  permitted  by 
Urijah  the  high-priest,  by  the  introduction  info  the 
temple  of  an  altar  similar  to  one  which  the  king 
had  seen  at  Damascus  (2  Kings  xvi.  10-16;  comp. 
Exod.  xxvii.  1,  2).  The  prophecy  of  Hosea,  ad- 
dressed to  the  priests  (v.  1,  &c.),  is  referred  to  this 
period.  Better  things  marked  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiah,  who  reinstated  the  priests  in  their  office 
(2  Chron.  xxix.  4);  they  restore  the  Passover 
(xxx.),  and  are  reinstated  in  their  revenues  (xxxi. 
4-10),  are  also  properly  provided  for  in  their  own 
cities  (ver.  15),  and  have  the  care  of  their  gene- 
alogies restored  (ver.  16-21),  b.c.  726.  During  the 
captivity  of  the  ten  tribes , at  least  one  priest  was 
sent  back  from  Assyria  to  teach  the  Assyrian 
colonists  in  Samaria  ‘ the  manner  of  the  God  of 
the  land  ’ (2  Kings  xvii.  27)  ; but  the  colonists 
themselves  also  appointed  priests  for  this  purpose 
(ver.  32).  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  degrades  idol- 
•atry  by  burning  the  bonesof  its  priests  upon  their 
altars  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  5),  expels  some  of  the 
survivors  (2  Kings  xxiii.  8),  yet  affords  some  of 
them  an  allowance  (ver.  9),  but  puts  others  to 
death  (ver.  20).  Jeremiah,  a sacerdotal  prophet, 
flourishes  b.c.  630  : he  is  informed  that  his  commis- 
sion was  partly  directed  against  the  priests  of 
Judah  (i„  18),  whose  degeneracy  is  adverted  to 
(ii.  8),  and  even  idolatry  (ver.  26,  27).  In  his 
time  the  office  of  second  priest,  or  sagan,  as  he  is 
called-  by  the  Jews  in  later  times,  is  referred  to 
(Jer.  Iii.  24  ; 2 Kings  xxv.  18).  This  was  a sort 
of  deputy,  or  vice  high-priest , whose  duty  it  was 
to  officiate  for  his  superior  in  case  of  sudden  ill- 
ness, &c.  Many  references  to  the  depravity  of 
llie  priests  mark  this  period  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  14  ; 
iri.  13 ; Ezek.  xxii.  26),  in  which  they  were 
joined  by  the  prophets  (Jer.  v.  31;  viii.  10; 
xxvi.  8;  Lam.  iv.  13).  Jeremiah  records  the 
attempt  of  a false  prophet,  Shemaiah,  the  Nehe- 
tamite,  to  induce  Zephaniah , the  second  priest, 
to  assume  the  office  of  high-priest,  at  Jerusalem 
during  the  captivity  of  Judah  (b.c.  597).  He  pre- 
dicts the  restoration  of  the  sacerdotal  office 
(xxxiii.  18,  21).  About  this  time  Seraiah,  the 
high -priest,  and  his  sagan  Zephaniah,  were  carried 
to  Babylon,  and  put  to  death  (2  Kings  xxv. 
18,  20).  Jeremiah  describes  the  miseries  of  the 
priests  at  this  period  (Lam.  i.  4, 19).  At  the  decree 
of  Cyrus  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  (b.c.  536),  some 
of  the  priests  in  exile  at  Babylon,  with  the  Fathers 
and  Levites,  avail  themselves  of  the  royal  permis- 
sion to  return  (Ezra  i.  5).  These  belonged  to 
four  of  the  courses  which  retained  the  names  of 
their  original  heads  (comp.  ii.  36-39 ; 1 Chron. 
xxiv.  7,  18,  14;  1 Chron.  ix.  12),  amounting  in 
all  to  4289  priests,  besides  others  who  could  not 
produce  their  genealogy,  and  whom  ‘ the  governor  ’ 
would  not  allow  to  eat  the  priests’  portion  till 
their  claim  should  be  verified  by  a priest  with 
Brim  and  Thummim  (ver.  61-64).  These  were 
followed  by  a second  company  (vii.  7).  The 
proportion  of  the  priests  who  returned  seems  large 
in  comparison  with  the  number  of  the  people  who 
returned,  and  who  scarcely  amounted  to  50,000. 


Some  of  the  Fathers  who  returned  presented  a hun- 
dred priests’  garments  (Ezra  ii.  69).  The  priests 
were  restored  to  theircities  (ver.  70) ; the  servicewas 
restored  (iii.  3-5);  and,  under  Joshua,  the  son  of 
Josedech,  the  temple  was  rebuilt  (Hagg.  i.  1)  and 
dedicated  (b.c.  519).  The  priests  who  had  married 
strange  wives  were  compelled  to  separate  from 
them  (Ezra  x.  18-22).  Ezra  the  scribe  publicly 
reads  the  law  (Nell.  viii.  4),  and  the  priests  trans- 
late the  passages  read  into  the  Aramaean  dialect 
(ver.  7).  They  revive  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
(ver.  13-18),  and  the  chief  of  them  sign  the 
covenant  of  the  Lord  as  representatives  of  the  rest 
(ix.  38,  &c.).  At  the  distribution  of  the  inha- 
bitants, 1760  priests  remained  at  Jerusalem 
(1  Chron.  ix.  13).  In  Nell.  xii.  10,  11,  an  ac- 
count is  given  of  the  succession  of  the  high-priests 
from  the  return  of  the  captivity  to  Jaddua,  or 
Jaddus,  who  held  an  interview  with  Alexander 
the  Great.  Thus,  as  Grotius  observes,  ‘ the 
Scripture  history  ends  where  the  very  light  of 
times,  viz.,  the  affairs  of  Alexander,  begin, 
from  which  time  profane  history  becomes  clear.’ 
Then  follows  a list  of  all  those  chief  of  the 
priests  who  officiated  in  the  lifetime  of  Jehoia- 
kim,  son  of  Joshua,  either  as  assistants  or  suc- 
cessors of  their  fathers  (ver.  12).  Again,  however, 
the  negligence  and  wickedness  of  the  restored 
priests  are  complained  of  by  Malachi  (i.  6-13). 
A heavy  threatening  is  denounced  against  them 
(ii.  1-9).  The  fault  of  Eliashib,  the  high-priest,  in 
the  misappropriation  of  a sacred  storehouse  to  the 
use  of  one  of  his  relations  (Neh.  xiii.  4-10),  and 
whose  family  was  much  corrupted  (ver.  28,  29), 
closes  the  information  furnished  by  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  high-priesthood 
and  government  of  Judaea  continued  in  the  lineage 
of  Eleazar,  son  of  Aaron  (subject,  however,  to  the 
Persians),  in  the  family  of  Josedech,  by  which  it 
was  transmitted  down  to  Onias  III.  He  was 
supplanted  by  Jason,  his  brother,  as  Jason  was  by 
his  brother  Menelaus  ; at  whose  death  Alcimus, 
of  a different  family,  was  put  into  the  office  by 
the  king  of  Syria.  In  the  year  b.c.  152,  Alexan- 
der, king  of  Syria,  bestowed  it  upon  the  heroic 
general  Jonathan  (1  Macc.  x.  18-20),  who  be- 
longed to  the  class  Jehoiarib  (ii.  1),  and  in 
whose  family  it  became  settled,  and  continued  for 
several  descents  till  the  time  of  Herod,  who  took 
the  liberty  to  change  the  incumbents  of  the  office 
at  his  pleasure, — a liberty  which  the  Romans  ex 
ercised  without  restraint,  so  that  at  last  the  office 
was  often  little  more  than  annual.  At  the  entrance 
of  the  Christian  history,  we  are  met  with  the 
priest  Zacharias,  the  father  of  the  Baptist,  of  the 
course  of  Abia,and  married  to  a daughter  of  Aaron 
(Luke  i.  5).  ‘ The  chief  priests,’  mentioned  in 

Matt.  ii.  4,  and  elsewhere,  so  frequently,  included, 
beside  the  high-priest  properly  so  called  and  then 
in  office,  all  that  had  already  held  it,  who,  for  the 
reason  just  mentioned,  were  numerous,  and  the 
chiefs  of  the  twenty-four  courses,  who  also  enjoyed 
this  title.  The  acting  high-priest  also  usually 
had  for  his  coadjutor  some  influential  senior  who 
had  previously  filled  the  station.  Hence  the  asso- 
ciation of  Annas  and  Caiaphas  (Luke  iii.  2). 
Josephus  speaks  of  many  contemporary  high- 
priests  ( Vita,  §38)  ; and  alludes  to  the  influence 
they  possessed  (De  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  3,  6,  7,  9)  ; and 
as  even  wearing  the  archieratical  robe  (10).  By 
virtue  of  his  office,  the  high-priest  Caiaphas  i» 


660 


PRIMOGENITURE. 


PROCHORUS. 


said  1o  have  prophesied  (John  xi  51).  He  ap- 
pears as  chairman  of  the  Sanhedrim  at  our  Lord's 
trial  (Matt.  xxvi.  57).  The  chief  priests  appear 
as  assessors  in  the  court  (ver.  59).  The  common 
priests  still  retain  the  exercise  of  their  ancient 
functions,  in  judging  of  the  leprosy,  & c.  (Mark  i. 
44).  Christians  are  figuratively  called  priests 
(Rev.  i.  6 ; xx.  0).  The  student  will  observe  the 
important  distinction,  that  the  term  lepevs  is 
never  applied  to  the  pastor  of  the  Christian 
chui'ch;  with  which  term  the  idea  of  a sacrifice 
was  always  connected  in  ancient  times.  Thus 
Hesychius,  T epevet,  acjvifci.  'lepevs,  6 oia.  Ovcricdv 
uayrevopevos.  W e submit  the  follow ing  inferences 
from  the  foregoing  particulars  to  the  judgment,  of 
the  reader.  The  patriarchal  form  of  the  priest- 
hood was  of  divine  origin,  and  the  purest.  Tim 
was  carried  at  the  dispersion  of  the  nations  into 
every  part  of  the  globe,  and  became  everywhere 
corrupted  in  some  degree,  and  ultimately  even 
among  the  ancient  Canaauites.  Hence  the  un- 
questionable resemblances  to  it  traceable  in  tJie 
religions  of  all  nations.  The  legation  of  Moses 
was  directed  to  the  revival  of  all  the  important 
truths  comprised  in  the  early  revelations,  and 
which  were  shrouded  under  the  system  of  Egypt. 
Hence  it  was  proper  that  he  should  become 
‘ learned  in  all  the  wisdom  1 of  that  country.  In 
the  accomplishment  of  this  mission,  Moses  re- 
tained also  such  innocent  adaptations  to  the  old 
system  as  were  required  by  the  fixed  associations 
of  the  people  whom  he  was  destined  to  deliver. 
Among  these  adaptations  we  incline  to  consider 
the  peculiar  office  of  the  high-priest,  of  which  we 
find  no  rudiments  in  the  patriarchal  church.  Nor 
does  the  use  and  illustration  made  of  that  office 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  disturb  our  view, 
because  the  same  writer  finds  more  points  of  re- 
semblance between  the  performances  of  Christ 
and  the  priesthood  of  the  patriarchal  Melchizedek 
than  between  the  office  of  Aaron  ami  that  of 
Christ  (ch.  vii. ; see  Jer.  vii.  21-23).  The  resem- 
blances between  the  religious  customs  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians  and  those  of  the  Jews  are 
numerous,  decided,  peculiar,  and  most  important. 
Besides  those  laid  before  the  reader  in  this  article, 
we  refer  him  to  the  articles  Aiuc,  Cherubim,  &c., 
but  especially  to  Kitto’s  1‘ictorial  History  of 
Palestine , London,  l £44,  which  contains  all  the 
most  valuable  illustrations  of  this  nature  derived 
from  the  best  and  most  modern  works  on  Egypt. 
To  this  work  the  reader  is  indebted  for  the  valu- 
able cuts  which  have  been  now  submitted  to  his 
consideration.  For  the  similarity  in  the  religion 
of  ancient  Greece,  see  Potter's  Arcliceologia,  vol. 
i.  p.  202,  Lond.  1775;  of  ancient  Rome,  Adam’s 
Antiquities,  p.  293,  § ministri  sacrorum,  Edin. 
1791.  For  particular  topics,  Kiesling,  De  Le- 
gibns  Mos.  chua  Sacerd.  Vitio  Corporis  labo - 
r antes  ; T.  C.  ICall,  De  Morbis  Sacerdot.  V.  T. 
epc  ministerii  eor.  conditione  oriundis , Hafn. 
1745;  Jablonskii  Pantheon,  pro  leg.  § 29,  41,  43; 
Munch,  De  Matrimonio  Sacerd.  V.  T.  cum  fdiab . 
Sacer.  Nonmh.  1747;  Krumbholz,  Sacer.  Ileb. 
ebendas.  For  the  theology  of  the  subject,  Dr  T- 
P.  Smith's  Discourses  on  the  Sacrifice  and  Priest 
hood  of  Christ,  London,  1842;  Wilson  on  the 
same  subject. — J.  F.  D. 

PRIMOGENITURE  (.Tim ; Sept,  n pea. 
rarduia,  Gen.  xxv.  31,  34;  xxvii.  36;  Dent. 


xxi.  17;  1 Chron.  v.  1)  [see  Birthright] 

It  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  in  Hen 
xii.  16.  Tlpcordroicos,  always  rendered  ‘ first 
bom’  in  the  English  version,  is  found  in  the  Sept 
in  Gen.  iv.  4,  Dent.  xxi.  17,  and  several  othei 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Hebrew  T2D,  signifying  ‘one  whe 
openeth  the  womb,’  whether  an  only  child,  oi 
whether  other  children  follow.  ‘ Primogenitm 
est,  non  post  quern  alii,  sed  ante  quern  nullus 
alius  genitus’  (Pareus).  UpcordroKos  is  found 
nine  times  in  the  New  Testament — viz.  Matt.  i. 
25  (if  the  passage  he  genuine,  and  not  introduced 
from  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke)  ; Luke  ii.  7 ; 
Rom.  viii.  29;  Col.  i.  15,  18;  Heb.  i.  6 ; xi.  28; 
xii.  23;  Rev.  i.  5.  Except  in  the  Gospels,  and 
Heb.  xi.  28,  the  word  always  bears  a metaphor- 
ical sense  in  the  New  Testament,  being  generally 
synonymous  with  heir  or  lord,  and  having,  in 
Heb.  i.  6,  an  especial  reference  to  our  Lord’s 
Messianic  dignity.  In  Heb.  xii.  23,  ‘the  assem- 
bly of  the  first-born,’  it  seems  to  be  synonymous 
with  ‘elect,’  or  ‘dearly  beloved,’  in  which  sense 
it  is  also  used  on  one  occasion  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (Jer.  xxxi.  9).  Jn  the  fourth  century, 
Helvidius,  among  the  Latins,  and  Kunomius 
among  the  Greeks,  wished  to  attach  a significa- 
tion to  TTpurdroKos  in  Matt.  i.  and  Luke  ii., 
different  from  the  Old  Testament  usage,  main- 
taining, in  order  to  support  their  novel  hypo- 
thesis— (viz.  that  Joseph  and  Mary  had  children 
after  the  birth  of  our  Lord) — [Jude],  that  the 
word  rcpondroKos,  by  reason  of  its  etymology, 
could  not  he  applied  to  an  only  child.  Jerome 
replied  to  the  former  by  appealing  to  the  usage  of 
the  word  in  the  Old  Testament,  (adv.  Helvid.  in 
Matt.  i.  9).  'Die  assertion  of  Eunomius  was 
equally  refuted  by  the  Greek  falhers,  Basil  (Horn, 
in  Nat.),  Theophylact  (in  Luc.  ii.),  and  Damas- 
cenus  (De  fid.  Orthod.  1.  iv.).  In  reference  to 
this  controversy,  Drnsius  (Ad.  difflciliora  loea 
Num.  cap.  6) observes:  ‘ Sic  sane  Christus  vocatm 
npccrdroKos,  licet,  mater  ejus  nullos  alios  postea 
liberos  habuerit.  Notet.  hoc  juventus  propter 
Helvidium,  qui  ex  ea  voce  inferebat  Mariam  ex 
Josepho  post  Christum  natum  plures  filios  su9- 
cepisse.’  ‘Those  entitled  to  the  prerogative’ 
[viz.  of  birthright],  observes  Campbell  (On  the 
Gospels ),  ‘were  invariably  denominated  the  first- 
born, whether  the  parents  haddssue  afterwards  or 
not.’  Eunomius  further  maintains,  from  Col.  i.  15, 
that  our  Lord  was  ‘a  creature;’  but  Lis  argu- 
ments were  replieil  to  by  Basil  and  Theophylact. 
Some  of  the  Fathers  referred  this  passage  to 
Christ’s  pre-existence,  others  to  his  baptism.  Jn 
Isa.  xiv.  30,  the  ‘first-born  of  the  poor’  signifies 
the  poorest  of  all;  and  in  Job  xviii.  i 3,  the  ‘ first- 
born of  death’  m-ans  the  most  terrible  of  deaths. 
See  Suicer’s  Thesaurus  ; Leigh’s  Critica  Sacra; 
Wahl's  Claris  Philolog.  ; Rose  s edition  of 
Pai  khurst’s  Lexicon ; and  Cnuleus  Concordance. 

W.  W. 

PRISCA.  [Priscilla.] 

PRISCILLA  (UpicrKiWa),  or  Prisca  (TlplxT- 
Ha),  wife  of  Aquila,  and  probably,  like.  Phoebe,  a 
deaconess.  She  shared  the  travels,  labours,  and 
dangers  of  her  husband,  and  is  always  named 
along  with  him  (Rom.  xvi.  3 ; 1 Cor.  xvi,  19 ; 2 
Tim.  iv.  19)  [Aquila]. 

PRISON.  [Punishment.] 

PRIZE.  [Games.] 


PROCHORUS. 


PROPHECY. 


56  i 


PROCIIORUS  (TJpJxopos),  one  of  the  seven 
drat  deacons  of  the  Christian  church  (Acts  vi.  5). 
Nothing  is  known  of  him. 

PROCONSUL,  a Roman  officer  appointed  to 
the  government  of  a province  with  consular  au- 
thority. He  was  chosen  out  of  the  body  of  the 
senate;  and  it  was  customary,  when  any  one’s 
consulate  expired,  to  send  him  as  a proconsul  into 
some  province.  He  enjoyed  the  same  honour  with 
the  consuls,  but  was  allowed  only  six  lictors  with 
the  fasces  before  him. 

The  proconsuls  decided  cases  of  equity  and 
justice,  either  privately  in  their  palaces,  where 
they  received  petitions,  heard  complaints,  and 
granted  writs  under  their  seals;  or  publicly  in 
the  common  hall,  with  the  formalities  generally 
observed  in  the  courts  at  Rome.  These  duties 
were,  however,  more  frequently  delegated  to  their 
assessors,  or  other  judges  of  their  own  appointment. 
As  the  proconsuls  had  also  the  direction  of  justice, 
of  war,  and  of  the  revenues,  these  departments 
were  administered  by  their  lieutenants,  or  legati , 
who  were  usually  nominated  by  the  senate.  The 
office  of  the  proconsuls  lasted  generally  for  one 
year  only,  and  the  expense  of  their  journeys  to 
and  from  their  provinces  was  defrayed  by  the 
public.  After  the  partition  of  the  provinces  be- 
tween Augustus  and  the  people,  those  who  pre- 
sided over  the  provinces  of  the  latter  were  espe- 
cially designated  proconsuls,  for  whom  it  appears 
to  have  been  customary  to  decree  temples  (Suet. 
Aug.').  Livy  (viii.  and  xxvi.)  mentions  two  other 
classes  of  proconsuls : those  who,  being  consuls, 
had  their  office  continued  beyond  the  time  ap- 
pointed by  law  ; and  those  who,  being  previously 
in  a private  station,  were  invested  with  this  honour 
either  for  the  government  of  provinces,  or  to  com- 
mand in  war.  Some  were  created  proconsuls  by 
the  senate  without  being  appointed  to  any  province, 
merely  to  command  in  the  army,  and  to  take 
charge  of  the  military  discipline  ; others  were 
allowed  to  enter  upon  their  proconsular  office 
before  being  admitted  to  the  consulship,  but 
having  that  honour  in  reserve. 

When  the  Apostle  Paul  was  at  Corinth,  he  was 
brought  before  Gallio,  the  proconsul  of  Achaia, 
one  of  the  provinces  of  Greece,  of  which  Corinth 
was  the  thief  city,  and  arraigned  by  the  Jews  as 
one  Who  * persuadeth  men  to  worship  God  contrary 
to  the  law’  (Acts  xviii.  13);  but  Gallio  refused 
to  act  as  a judge  of  such  matters,  and  ‘ drave  them 
from  the  judgment-seat  ’ (ver.  16). — G.  M.  B. 

PROGNOSTICATORS.  The  phrase  ‘monthly 
prognosticators’  occurs  in  the  Authorized  Version 
of  Isa.  xlvii.  13,  where  the  prophet  is  enumerating 
the  astrological  superstitions  of  the  Chaldaeans. 
In  the  later  Hebrew,  Htn  denotes  a ‘ seer,’  or 
\ prophet ;’  and  to  express  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  employed  in  this  text,  a better  word  than 
prognosticator  could  not  well  be  chosen.  The 
'original,  D'QDIDH  CTfl,  might  perhaps  be  more 
exactly  rendered,  as  by  Dr.  Henderson,  ‘ prognos- 
ticators at  the  new  moons.’  It  is  known  that  the 
Chaldaian  astrologers  professed  to  divine  future 
events  by  the  positions,  aspects,  and  appearances 
of  the  stars,  which  they  regarded  as  having  great 
influence  on  the  affairs  of  men  and  kingdoms; 
and  it  would  seem,  from  the  present  text,  that 
they  put  forth  accounts  of  the  events  which  might 
be  expected  to  occur  from  month  to  month,  like 

von.  ii.  37 


our  old  almanac-makers.  Some  carry  the  analogy 
further,  and  suppose  that  they  also  gave  monthly 
tables  of  the  weather  ; but  such  prognostications 
are  only  cared  for  in  climates  where  the  weather  is 
uncertain  and  variable  ; while  in  Chaldaea,  where 
(as  we  know  from  actual  experience)  the  seasons 
are  remarkably  regular  in  their  duration  and 
recurrence,  and  where  variations  of  the  usual 
course  of  the  weather  are  all  but  unknown,  nc. 
prognosticator  would  gain  much  honour  by  fore 
telling  what  every  peasant  knows. 

PROPHECY.  The  principal  considerations 
involved  in  this  important  subject  may  be  ar- 
ranged under  the  following  heads : — 

I.  The  nature  of  Prophecy,  and  its  position 
in  the  economy  of  the  Old  Testament. — The 
view  commonly  taken  of  the  prophets  is,  that  they 
were  mere  predictors  of  future  events ; but  this 
view  is  one-sided  and  too  narrow,  though,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  must  beware  of  expanding  too 
much  the  acceptation  of  the  term  prophet.  Not 
to  mention  those  who,  like  Hendeweik,  in  the 
introduction  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Prophet 
Isaiah,  identify  the  notion  of  a prophet  with  that 
of  an  honest  and  pious  man,  the  conception  of 
those  is  likewise  too  wide  who  place  the  essential 
feature  of  a prophet  in  his  divine  inspiration. 
That  this  does  not  meet  the  whole  subject,  appeals' 
flora  Num.  xii.  6,  sq.,  where  Moses,  who  enjoyed 
divine  inspiration  in  its  highest  grade,  is  repre- 
sented as  differing  from  those  called  prophets  in 
a stricter  sense,  and  as  standing  in  contrast  with 
them.  Divine  inspiration  is  only  the  general 
basis  of  the  prophetic  office,  to  which  two  mare 
elements  must,  be  added  : — * 

1.  Inspiration  was  imparted  to  the  prophets  in< 
a peculiar  form.  This  appears  decisively  from 
the  passage  in  Numbers  above  cited,  which  states- 
it  as  characteristic  of  the  prophet,  that  he  obtained, 
livine  inspiration  in  visions  and  dreams,  conse- 
quently in  a state  extraordinary  and  distinguished, 
from  the  general  one.  This  mode  was  different* 
from  that  in  which  inspirations  were  conveyed  to 
Moses  and  the  apostles.  The  same  thing  is  shown 
Oy  the  names  usually  given  to  the  prophets,  viz., 
D'JO  and  D'm,  seers , and  from  this  that  all  pro- 
phecies which  have  come  down  to  us  have  a poeti- 
cal character,  which  points  to  an  intimate  affinity, 
between  prophecy  and  poetry  ; a subject  further 
illustrated  by  Steinberk,  in  his  work,  Per  Bidder 
ein  Seher,  Leipzig,  1836;  though  the  materials 
which  he  gives  are  not  sufficiently  digested.  Tlai 
prophetical  style  differs  from  that  of  books  pro- 
perly called  poetical,  whose  sublimity  it  all  but 
outvies,  only  in  being  less  restrained  by  those  ex-- 
ternal  forms  which  distinguish  poetical  language 
from  prose,  and  in  introducing  more  frequently 
than  prose  does  plays  upon  words  and  thoughts. 
This  peculiarity  may  be  explained  by  the  practi- 
cal tendency  of  prophetical  addresses,  which 
avoid  all  that  is  unintelligible,  and  studiously, 
introduce  what  is  best  calculated  for  the  moment 
to  strike  the  hearers.  The  same  appears  from, 
many  other  circumstances,  e.  g.  the  union  of 
music  with  prophesying,  the  demeanour  of  Saul 
when  among  the  prophets  ( 1 Sam.  x.  5),  Balaam's 
description  of  himself  (Num.  xxiv.  3)  as  a; 
man  whose  eyes  were  opened,  who  saw  the  vision, 
of  the  Almighty,  and  heard  the  words  of  God,, 
the  established  phraseology  to  denote  the  inspiring; 
impulse,  viz.,  * the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  strong 


PROPHECY 


PROPHECY. 


bioori  liim  ’ fE/.ek.  iii.  14,  comp.  Isa.  vlii.  11.;  3 
Rings  iii.  15).  &c.  All  these  fuels  prove  that 
there  essentially  belonged  to  prophecy  a state  of 
mind  worked  up — a state  of  being  beside  one's 
self— an  ecstatic  transport,  in  which  ideas  were 
immediately  imparted  from  Heaven.  Acute  re- 
marks on  the  subject  will  be  found  in  the  works 
of  Novalis  (vol.  ii.  p.  472,  sq.),  from  which  we 
give  the  following  passage : v It  is  a most  ar- 
bitrary prejudice  to  suppose  that  to  man  is  denied 
the  power  of  going  out  of  himself,  of  being  endued 
with  a consciousness  beyond  the  sphere  of  sense  : 
he  may  at  any  moment  place  himself  beyond  the 
reach  of  sense  (ein  iibersinnlichcs  Wesen  sci/n ), 
•else  he  would  be  a mere  brute,  not  a rational  free- 
man of  the  universe.  There  are,  indeed,  degrees 
an  the  aptitude  for  revelations;  one  is  more  qua- 
lified for  them  than  another,  and  certain  disposi- 
tions are  particularly  capable  of  receiving  such 
■revelations  ; besides,  on  account  of  the  pressure  of 
sensible  objects  on  the  mind,  it  is  in  this  state 
•difficult  to  preserve  self-possession.  Neverthe- 
less there  are  such  states  of  mind,  in  which  its 
powers  are  strengthened,  and,  so  to  speak,  armed.’ 
The  state  of  ecstacy,  though  ranking  high  above 
<t!»e  ordinary  sensual  existence,  is  still  not  the 
highest,  as  appears  from  Num.  xii.,  and  the  ex- 
ample of  Christ,  whom  we  never  find  in  an  ecsta- 
■tical  state.  To  the  prophets,  however,  it  was  in- 
dispensable, on  account  of  the  frailty  of  them- 
selves and  the  people.  The  forcible  working  upon 
them  by  the  Spirit  of  God  would  not  have  been 
required,  if  their  general  life  had  already  been 
altogether  holy;  for  which  reason  we  also  tind 
ecstacy  to  manifest  itself  the  stronger  the  more  the 
general  life  was  ungodly  ; as,  for  instance,  in 
Balaam,  when  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him 
(Num.  xxiv.  4,  16),  and  in  Saul,  who  throws 
himself  on  the  ground,  tearing  his  clothes  from 
his  body.  With  a'  prophet  whose  spiritual  at- 
tainments were  those  of  an  Isaiah,  such  results 
are  not  to  be  expected.  As  regards  the  people, 
their  spiritual  obtuseness  must  be  considered  as 
very  great,  to  have  rendered  necessary  such  vehe- 
ment excitations  as  the  addresses  of  the  prophets 
caused.  Thus  it  appears  that  prophecy  has  a 
predominant  place  in  the  Old  Testament.  Under 
the  New  Testament  it.  could  take  only  a subordi- 
nate place;  although  even  then  it  could  not  be 
dispensed  with,  and  hence  we  find  it  in  the  apos- 
tolic age.  It  had  to  prepare  the  soil  on  which 
the  peculiar  gifts  of  the  New  Testament  might 
.flourish,  and  the  lower  the  church's  state,  the  more 
it  resemlrfed  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  greater 
•the  need  of  this.  It  had  also  to  counteract  the 
.risk  of  barrenness  and  inefficiency  to  which  the 
unexciting  form  of  the  New  Testament  system 
was  exposed.  To  the  church  in  the  present  day  one 
could  wish  a copious  supply  of  the  prophetic  gifts ! 

2.  Generally  speaking,  every  one  was  a prophet 
to  whom  God  communicated  his  mind  in  this 
jjeenliar  manner.  Thus,  e.  g.  Abraham  is  called 
a prophet  (Gen.  xx.  7),  not,  as  is  commonly 
thought,  on  account  of  general  revelations  granted 
him  by  God,  but  because  such  as  he  received  were 
in  the  special  form  described ; as  indeed  in  chap, 
xv.  it  is  expressly  stated  that  divine  communica- 
tions were  made  to  him  in  visions  and  dreams. 
The  body  of  the  patriarchs  are  in  the  same  manner 
called  prophets  (Ps.  cv.  15).  When  the  Mosaic 
economy  had  been  established,  a new  element 


was  added ; the  prophetic  gift  was  after  that 
time  regularly  connected  with  the  prophetic  office^ 
so  that  the  latter  came  to  form  part  of  the  idea  o? 
a prophet.  Thus  Daniel's  work  was  not  place*! 
in  the  collection  of  prophetical  books,  because, 
though  eminently  endowed  with  prophetic  gifts, 
he  still  had  not  filled  the  prophetic  office.  Speak- 
ing of  office,  we  do  not  of  course  mean  one  con- 
ferred by  men,  but  by  God  ; the  mission  to  Israel, 
with  which  the  certainty  of  a continued,  not  tem- 
porary, grant  of  the  domim  prophelieum  was  con- 
nected. 

That  the  Lord  would  send  such  prophets  was 
promised  to  the  people  by  Moses,  who  by  a special 
law  (Deut.  xviii.  1)  secured  them  authority  and 
safety.  As  his  ordinary  servants  and  teachers, 
God  appointed  the  Priests : the  characteristic 
mark  which  distinguished  the  prophets  from  them 
was  inspiration;  and  this  explains  the  circum- 
stance that,  in  times  of  great  moral  and  religious 
corruption,  when  the  ordinary  means  no  longer 
sufficed  to  reclaim  the  people,  the  number  of  pro- 
phets increased.  The  regular  religious  instruction 
of  the  people  was  no  part  of  the  business  of  the 
prophets  ; their  proper  duty  was  only  to  rouse  and 
excite.  The  contrary,  viz.,  that  part  of  the  regular 
duty  of  the  prophets  was  to  instruct  the  people,  is 
often  argued  from  2 Kings  iv.  23,  where  it  is  said 
that  the  Shunamite  on  the  sabbaths  and  days  of 
new  moon  used  to  go  to  the  prophet  Elisha;  but 
this  passage  applies  only  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
and  admits  of  no  inference  with  respect  to  the 
kingdom  of  Judah.  As  regards  the  latter,  there 
is  no  proof  that  prophets  held  meetings  for  in- 
struction and  edification  on  sacred  days.  Their 
position  was  here  quite  different  from  that  of  the 
prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  agency 
of  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  was  only 
of  a subsidiary  kind  ; these  extraordinary  mes- 
sengers of  the  Lord  only  filled  there  the  gaps  left 
by  the  regular  servants  of  God,  the  priests  and 
the  Levites ; the  priesthood  never  became  there 
utterly  degenerate,  and  each  lapse  was  followed 
by  a revival  of  which  the  prophets  were  the  vi- 
gorous agents ; the  divine  election  always  vindi- 
cated itself,  and  in  the  purity  of  the  origin  of 
the  priesthood  lay  the  certainty  of  its  continued 
renewal.  On  the  contrary,  the  priesthood  in  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  had  no  divine  sanction,  no  pro- 
mise ; it  was  corrupt  in  its  very  source  : to  reform 
itself  would  have  been  to  dissolve  itself;  the 
priests  there  were  the  mercenary  servants  of  the 
king,  and  had  a brand  upon  their- own  consciences. 
Hence  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  the  prophets  were 
the  regular  ministers  of  God  ; with  their  office  all 
stood  or  fell,  and  hence  they  were  required  to  dc 
many  things  besides  what  the  original  conception 
of  the  office  of  a prophet  implied — a circumstance 
from  the  oversight  of  which  many  erroneous  no- 
tions on  the  nature  of  prophecy  have  sprung. 
This  led  to  another  difference,  to  which  we  shall 
revert  below,  viz.,  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah 
the  prophetic  office  did  not,  as  in  Israel,  possess  a 
fixed  organization  and  complete  construction. 

In  their  laljours,  as  respected  their  own  times, 
the  prophets  were  strictly  bound  to  the  Mosaic 
law,  and  not  allowed  to  add  to  it  or  to 
diminish  ought  from  it;  what  was  said  in  this 
respect  to  the  whole  people  (Deut.  iv.  2;  xiii.  1) 
applied  also  to  them.  We  find,  therefore,  pro* 
phecy  always  takes  its  ground  on  the  Mcaaic 


PROPHECY. 


PROPHECY. 


law,  to  which  it.  refers,  from  which  it  derives  its 
sanction,  and  with  which  it  is  fully  impressed  and 
saturate;!.  There  is  no  chapter  in  the  prophets  in 
which  there  are  not  several  references  to  the  law. 
The  business  of  the  prophets  was  to  explain  it,  to 
lay  it  to  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and  to  preserve 
vital  its  spirit.  It  was,  indeed,  also  their  duty  to 
point  to  future  reforms,  when  the  ever-living  spirit 
of  the  law  would  break  its  hitherto  imperfect  form, 
and  make  for  itself  another  : thus  Jeremiah  (iii. 
16)  foretells  days  when  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
shall  be  no  more,  and  (ch.  xxxi.  31)  days  when  a 
new  covenant  will  be  made  with  the  house  of 
Israel  and  with  the  house  of  Judah.  But  for 
their  own  times  they  never  once  dreamt  of  alter- 
ing any,  even  the  minutest,  and  least;  essential  pre- 
cept, even  as  to  its  form  ; how  much  less  as  to  its 
spirit,  which  even  the  Lord  himself  declares 
(Matt.  v.  18)  to  be  immutable  and  eternal.  The 
passages  which  some  interpreters  have  alleged  as 
opposed  to  sacrifices  as  instituted  by  the  Mosaic 
law,  have  been  misunderstood  ; they  do  not  de- 
nounce sacrifices  generally,  but  only  those  of  the 
Canaanites,  with  whom  sacrifice  was  not  even  a 
form  of  true  worship,  but  opposed  to  the  genuine 
and  spiritual  service  of  God. 

As  to  prophecy  in  its  circumscribed  sense,  or  the 
foretelling  of  future  events  by  the  prophets,  some 
expositors  would  explain  all  predictions  of  special 
events  ; while  others  assert  that  no  prediction  con- 
tains anything  but  general  .promises  or  threaten- 
ings,  and  that  the  prophets  knew  nothing  of  the 
particular  manner  in  which  their  predictions  might 
he  realised.  Both  these  classes  deviate  from  the 
correct  view  of  prophecy  ; the  former  resort  often 
to  the  most  arbitrary  interpretations,  and  the  lat- 
ter are  opposed  by  a mass  of  facts  against  which 
they  are  unable  successfully  to  contend  ; e.  g 
when  Ezekiel  foretells  (cb.  xii.  12)  that  Zedekiah 
would  try  to  break  through  the  walls  of  the  city 
and  to  escape,  but  that  he  would  be  seized, 
blinded,  and  taken  to  Babylon.  The  frailty  of 
the  people,  under  the  Old  Testament,  required 
external  evidence  of  the  real  connection  of  the 
prophets  with  God,  and  the  predictions  of  parti- 
cular forthcoming  events  were  to  them  arj/xeia, 
signs.  These  were  the  more  indispensable  to  them, 
because  the  ancients  generally,  and  the  Orientals 
in  particular,  showed  the  greatest  tendency  to- 
wards the  exploration  of  futurity,  which  tended 
to  foster  superstition  and  forward  idolatry.  AH 
other  methods  of  knowing  future  events  by  necro- 
mancy, conjuration,  passing  through  the  fire,  &c., 
having  been  strictly  forbidden  (Deut.  xviii.  10, 
11).  it  might  be  expected  that  the  deep-rooted, 
craving  for  the  knowledge  of  forthcoming  events 
would  be  gratified  in  some  other  and  noblei 
manner.  The  success  of  a prophet  depended  on 
the  gift  of  special  knowledge  of  futurity  ; this  it  is 
true  was  granted  comparatively  to  only  few,  but 
in  the  authority  thus  obtained  all  those  shared 
who  were  likewise  invested  with  the  prophetic 
character.  It  was  the  seal  impressed  on  true 
prophecy,  as  opposed  to  the  false.  From  1 Sarn. 
ix.  6,  it  appears  that,  to  inspire  uncultivated 
minds  with  the  sense  of  divine  truths,  the  pro- 
phets stooped  occasionally  to  disclose  things  of 
common  life,  using  this  as  the  means  to  reach  a 
higher  mark.  On  the  same  footing  with  definite 
predictions  stand  miracles  and  tokens,  which  pro- 
mts of  the  highest  rank,  as  Elijah  and  Isaiah, 


5&S 

volunteered  or  granted.  These  also  were  requisite 
to  confirm  the  feeble  faith  of  the  people 5 bui 
Ewald  justly  remarks,  that  with  the  true  prophet* 
they  never  appear  as  the  chief  point ; they  only 
assist  and  accompany  prophecy,  but  are  not  its 
object,  not  the  truth  itself,  which  supersedes  them  as 
soon  as  it  gains  sufficient  strength  and  influence. 

Some  interpreters,  misunderstanding  passage* 
like  Jer.  xviii.  8 ; xxvi.  13,  have  asserted,  with  l)r, 
Koster  (p.  226,  sq.),  that  all  prophecies  were  con- 
ditional ; and  have  even  maintained  that  their 
revocability  distinguished  the  true  predictions 
( Weissagung)  from  soothsaying  ( W cihrsagung'). 
But  beyond  all  doubt,  when  the  prophet  denounces 
the  divine  judgments,  he  proceeds  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  people  will  not  repent,  an  assumption 
which  he  knows  from  God  to  be  true.  Were  the 
people  to  repent,  the  prediction  would  fail ; but 
because  they  will  not,  it  is  uttered  absolutely.  It 
does  not  follow,  however,  that  the  prophet's  war  n- 
ings and  exhortations  are  useless.  These  serve 
‘ for  a witness  against  them  and  besides,  amid 
the  ruin  of  the  mass,  individuals  might  be  saved. 
Viewing  prophecies  as  conditional  predictions 
nullifies  them.  The  Mosaic  criterion  (Deut. 
xviii.  22),  that  he  was  a false  prophet  who  pre- 
dicted c things  which  followed  not  nor  came  to 
pass/  would  then  he  of  no  value,  since  recourse 
might  always  he  had  to  the  excuse,  that  the  case 
had  been  altered  by  the  fulfilling  of  the  condition. 
The  fear  of  introducing  fatalism,  if  the  pro- 
phecies are  not  taken  in  a conditional  sense,  is 
unfounded  ; for  God’s  omniscience,  his  foreknow- 
ledge, does  not  establish  fatalism,  and  from  divine 
omniscience  simply  is  the  prescience  of  the  pro- 
phets to  he  derived.  The  prophets  feel  themselves 
so  closely  united  to  God,  that  the  words  of  Je- 
hovah are  given  as  their  own,  and  that  to  them 
is  often  ascribed  what  God  does,  as  slaying  and 
reviving  (Hos.  vi.  5),  rooting  out  nations  and  re- 
storing them  (Jer.  i.  10;  xviii.  7 ; Ezek.  xxxii. 
1 8 ; xliii.  3);  which  proves  their  own  consciousness 
to  have  been  entirely  absorbed  into  that  of  God. 

The  sphere  of  action  of  the  prophets  was  abso- 
lutely limited  to  Israel,  and  there  is  only  one  case 
of  a prophet  going  to  the  heathen  to  preach 
among  them,  that  of  Jonah  sent  to  Nineveh.  He 
goes,  however,  to  Nineveh  to  shame  the  Hebrews 
by  the  reception  which  he  meets  with  there,  and 
acting  upon  his  own  nation  was  tlius  even  in  this 
case  the  prophet’s  ultimate  object.  Many  pre- 
dictions of  the  Old  Testament  concern,  indeed, 
the  events  of  foreign  nations,  but  they  are  always 
uttered  and  written  with  reference  to  Israel,  and 
the  prophets  thought  not  of  publishing  them 
among  the  heathens  themselves.  The  conversion 
of  the  pagans  to  the  worship  of  the  true  God  was 
indeed  a favourite  idea  of  the  prophets;  but  the 
Divine  Spirit  told  them,  that  it  was  not  to  be 
effected  by  their  exertions,  as  it  was  connected 
with  extensive  future  changes,  which  they  might 
not  forestall. 

It  needs  hardly  to  be  mentioned  that  before  a 
man  could  be  a prophet  he  must  be  converted. 
This  clearly  appears  in  the  case  of  Isaian,  * whose 
iniquity  was  taken  away,  and  his  sin  purged/ 
previous  to  his  entering  on  his  mission  to  the 
people  of  the  covenant.  For  a single  momentary 
inspiration,  however,  the  mere  beginning  of  spiri- 
tual life  sufficed,  as  instanced  in  Balaam  sxi 
Saul. 


564 


PROPHECY. 


PROPHECY. 


The  most  usual  appellation  of  a prophet  io 
6P33.  and  Exod.  iv.  1-17  is  the  classical  passage 
as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word.  There  God  says 
to  Moses,  ‘ Aaron  shall  he  thy  unto  the 

people,  anil  thou  slialt  he  unto  him  instead  of 
God.’  The  sense  is : Aaron  shall  speak  what 
thou  shalt  communicate  to  him.  This  appella- 
tion implies,  then,  the  prophet's  relation  to  God  : 
he  speaks  not  of  his  own  accord,  but  what  the 
Spirit  puts  into  his  mouth.  This  accords  also 
with  the  etymology  of  the  word,  as  signifies 
in  the  Arabic  produrit,  and  next,  proiulit  verba, 
nunciavit , indicavit.  Thus  N’QJ  is  an  adjective 
of  passive  signification  ; he  who  has  been  divinely 
inspired,  who  has  received  from  God  the  revela- 
tions which  he  proclaims  : it  is  of  the  form 
which  cannot  be  proved  ever  to  have  an  active 
signification  ; and  hence  the  common  opinion  that 
signifies  originally  a speaker , which  has 
recently  been  again  set  up  by  Dr.  Ewald  (p.  6), 
cannot  be  maintained.  While  this  name  refers 
to  divine  inspiration,  the  others  are  derived  from 
the  particular  form  in  which  this  was  communi- 
cated to  the  prophets.  These  names  are  HTH  and 
uNl,  differing  only  in  the  former  being  more 
poetical  and  solemn.  From  1 Sam.  ix.  t>,  some 
expositors  have  inferred  that  the  name  N'123  sprang 
up  after  the  age  of  Samuel,  and  that,  before  this 
the  name  HfciT  had  been  exclusively  in  use.  But 
that  this  view  is  wrong  has  been  proved  in  Hengs- 
fenberg's  ‘Contributions  towards  an  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament’  (Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung 
vis  A.  T.,  vol.  iii.  p.  3J5).  Other  names,  as 
‘ man  of  God,’  &c.,  do  not  belong  to  the  prophets 
as  such,  but  only  i.u  so  far  as  they  are  of  the 
number  of  servants  and  instruments  of  God. 

II.  Duration  of  the  Prophetic  office. — A1 
though  we  meet  with  cases  of  prophesying  as 
early  as  the  age  of  the  patriarchs,  still  the  roots  of 
prophetism  among  Israel  are  properly  fixed  in  the 
Mosaic  economy.  Moses  instilled  into  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel  those  truths  which  form  the 
foundation  of  prophecy,  and  thus  prepared  the 
ground  from  which  it  could  spring  up.  In  the 
time  of  Mose3  himself  we  find  prophesying 
growing  out  of  those  things  which  through  him 
were  conveyed  to  the  minds  of  the  people. 
The  main  business  of  Moses  was  not  that  of  a 
prophet ; but  sometimes  he  was  in  the  state  of 
prophetic  elevation.  In  such  a state  originated 
his  celebrated  song  (Deut.  xxxii.),  which  Eicli- 
horn  justly  calls  the  Magna  Chartaof  prophecy  ; 
and  Iris  blessings  (Deut.  xxxiii.).  Miriam,  the 
sister  of  Aaron,  is  called  a prophetess  (Exod.  xv. 
20;  comp.  Num.  xii.  2,  G),  when  she  took  a 
timbrel  and  sang  to  the  Lord,  who  had  over- 
thrown the  enemy  of  the  children  of  Israel.  The 
seventy  elders  are  expressly  stated  to  have  been 
impelled  by  the  spirit  of  God  to  prophesy.  In 
the  age  of  the  Judges,  prophecy,  though  existing 
only  in  scattered  instances,  exerted  a powerful 
influence.  Those  who  would  deny  this,  in  spite 
of  the  plain  evidence  of  history,  do  not  consider 
that  the  influential  operation  of  prophets,  flourish- 
ing ip  later  times,  requires  preparatory  steps. 
k Now  only,’  says  Ewald  justly,  ‘ we  are  able  to 
perceive  how  full  of  strength  and  life  was  the 
ground  in  which  prophecy,  to  attain  such  an 
eminence,  must  have  sprung  up.’  The  more  con- 
spicuous prophetic  agency  begins  with  Samuel, 


and  the  prophets’  soi.ools  which  he  founded 
From  this  time  to  the  Babylonian  exile,  there 
happened  hardly  any  important  event  in  which 
the  prophets  did  not  appear  as  performing  the 
leading  part.  But  although  the  influential  ope- 
ration of  the  prophets  begins  with  Samuel,  none 
of  the  prophets  up  to  the  year  b.c.  800  left,  any 
written  prophecies.  This  was  certainly  not  a 
mere  accident.  Only  when  the  more  important 
and  extensive  divine  judgments  approached,  it  be- 
came necessary,  by  their  announcement,  to  arouse 
the  impious  from  their  slumber  of  listlessness,  and 
to  open  to  the  faithful  the  stores  of  consolation  and 
hope.  Before  this  time,  the  living  oral  speech  of 
the  prophets  was  the  most  important  thing;  but 
now,  when  the  Lord  revealed  to  them  more  exten- 
sive prospects,  when  their  calling  was  not  restricted 
to  present  events  merely,  but  forthcoming  mo- 
mentous changes  were  conveyed  to  their  notice 
and  consideration,  their  written  words  became 
equally  important.  About  a hundred  years  after 
the  return  from  the  Babylonian  exile,  the  pro- 
phetic profession  ceased.  The  Jewish  tradition 
uniformly  states  that  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and 
Malachi  were  the  last  prophets.  In  the  first  book 
of  the  Maccabees  (ch.  ix.  17)  the  discontinuance 
of  the  prophetic  calling  is  considered  as  forming 
an  important  era  in  Jewish  history  ; while  at  the 
same  time  an  expectation  of  the  renewal  in  future 
ages  of  prophetic  gifts  is  avowed  (iv.  46  ; xiv.  41). 
After  the  Babylonian  exile  the  sacred  writings  were 
collected,  which  enabled  every  one  to  find  the  way 
of  salvation;  but  the  immediate  revelations  to 
the  people  of  Israel  were  to  cease  for  awhile,  in 
order  fo  raise  a stronger  longing  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Messiah,  and  to  prepare  for  him  a wel- 
come reception.  For  the  same  reason  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  had  been  taken  away  from  the  people. 
The  danger  of  a complete  apostacy,  which  in 
earlier  times  might  have  been  incurred  by  this 
withdrawal,  was  r.ot  now  to  be  apprehended.  The 
external  worship  of  the  Lord  was  so  firmly  esta- 
blished, that,  no  extraordinary  helps  were  wanted. 
Taking  also  into  consideration  the  altered  cha- 
racter of  the  people,  we  may  add  that  the  time 
after  the  exile  was  more  fit  to  produce  men  learned 
in  the  law  than  prophets.  Before  this  period,  the 
faithful  and  the  unbelieving  were  strongly  opposed 
to  each  other,  which  excited  the  former  to  great 
exertions.  These  relaxed  when  the  opposition 
ceased,  and  pious  priests  now  took  the  place  of 
prophets.  The  time  after  the  exile  is  characterized 
by  weakness  and  dependance;  the  people  looked 
up  to  the  past  as  to  a height  which  they  eouM 
not  gain  ; the  earlier  writings  obtained  uncon- 
ditional authority,  and  the  disposition  for  receiving 
prophetic  gifts  was  lost. 

III.  Manner  of  Life  of  the  Prophets. — The 
prophets  went  about  poorly  and  coarsely  dressed 
(2  Kings  i.  8),  not  as  a mere  piece  of  asceticism, 
but  that  their  very  apparel  might  teach  what  the 
people  ought  to  do;  it  was  a ‘sermo  propheticus 
realis.’  Compare  1 Kings  xxi.  27,  where  Ahab 
does  penance  in  the  manner  figured  by  the  pro- 
phet : * And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Ahab  hearo 
these  words,  that  he  rent  his  clothes,  and  put  sack- 
cloth upon  his  flesh,  and  fasted.’  Generally  the 
prophets  were  not  anxious  of  attracting  notice  by 
ostentatious  display;  nor  did  they  seek  worldly 
wealth,  most  of  them  living  in  poverty.  an«<: 
even  want  (l  Kings  xiv.  3;  % Kings  iv.  1, 


PROPHECY 


PROPHECY. 


38,  42 ; vi.  *>).  The  decay  of  the  congregation 
of  God  deeply  chagrined  them  (comp.  Micah  vii. 
1,  aiid  many  passages  in  Jeremiah).  Insult, 
persecution,  imprisonment,  and  death,  were  often 
the  reward  of  their  godly  life.  The  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says  (ch.  xi.  37)  : 
* They  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn  asunder,  were 
tempted,  were  slain  with  the  sword : they  wandered 
about  in  sheep-skins  and  goat  skins,  being  desti- 
tute, afflicted,  tormented’  (comp.  Christ’s  speech, 
Matt,  xxiii.  29,  sq. ; 2 Chron.  xxiv.  17,  sq.).  The 
condition  of  the  prophets,  in  their  temporal  humi- 
liation, is  vividly  representeu  m tne  lives  of  Elijah 
and  Elisha  in  the  books  of  the  Kings;  and  Jere- 
miah concludes  the  description  of  his  sufferings  in 
the  20th  chapter,  by  cursing  the  day  of  his  birth. 
Repudiated  by  the  world  in  which  they  were 
aliens,  they  typified  the  life  of  Him  whose  ap- 
pearance they  announced,  and  whose  spirit  dwelt 
in  them.  They  figured  him,  however,  not  only 
in  his  lowness,  but  in  his  elevation.  The  Lord 
stood  by  them,  gave  evidence  in  their  favour  by 
fulfilling  their  predictions,  frequently  proved  by 
miracles  that  they  were  his  own  messengers,  or 
retaliated  on  their  enemies  the  injury  done  them. 
The  prophets  addressed  the  people  of  both  king- 
doms : they  were  not  confined  to  particular 
places,  but  prophesied  where  it  was  required. 
For  this  reason  they  were  most  numerous  in 
capital  towns,  especially  in  Jerusalem,  where 
they  generally  spoke  in  the  temple.  Sometimes 
their  advice  was  asked,  and  then  their  prophecies 
take  the  form  of  answers  to  questions  submitted 
to  them  (Isa.  xxxvii.,  Ez.  xx.,  Zech.  vii.).  But 
much  more  frequently  they  felt  themselves  in- 
wardly moved  to  address  the  people  without  their 
advice  having  been  asked,  and  they  were  not 
afraid  to  stand  forward  in  places  where  their  ap- 
pearance, perhaps,  produced  indignation  and 
terror.  Whatever  lay  within  or  around  the  sphere  of 
religion  and  morals,  formed  the  object  of  their  care. 
They  strenuously  opposed  the  worship  of  false  gods 
(Isa.  i.  10,  sq.),  as  well  as  the  finery  of  women 
(Isa.  iii.  16,  sq.).  Priests,  princes,  kings,  all 
must  hear  them — must,  however  reluctantly, 
allow  them  to  perform  their  calling  as  long  as 
they  spoke  in  the  name  of  the  true  God,  and  as 
long  as  the  result  did  not  disprove  their  pretensions 
to  be  the  servants  of  the  invisible  King  of  Israel. 
(Jer.  xxxvii.  15-21).  There  were  institutions  for 
training  prophets;  the  senior  members  instructed 
a number  of  pupils  and  directed  them.  These 
schools  had  been  first  established  by  Samuel  (1 
Bam.  x.  8;  xix.  19);  and  at  a later  time  there 
were  such  institutions  in  different  places,  as 
Bethel  and  Gilgal  (2  Kings  ii.  3;  iv.  38;  vi.  1). 
The  pupils  of  the  prophets  lived  in  fellowship 
united,  and  were  called  ‘sons  of  the  prophets;’ 
whilst  the  senior  or  experienced  prophets  were 
considered  as  their  spiritual  parents,  and  were 
styled  fathers  (comp  2 Kings  ii.  12;  vi.  21). 
Samuel,  Elijah,  and  Eli  ilia,  are  mentioned  as  prin- 
cipals of  such  institutions.  From  them  the  Lord 
generally  chose  his  instruments.  Amos  relates 
of  himself  (vii.  14,  15),  as  a thing  uncommon, 
that  he  had  been  trained  in  no  school  of  pro- 
phets, but  was  a herdsman,  when  the  Lord  took 
him  to  prophesy  unto  the  people  of  Israel.  At 
the  same  time,  this  example  shows  that  the  be- 
stowal of  prophetic  gifts  was  not  limited  to  the 
«choo!  \f  the  prophets.  Women  also  might  come 


6di 

forward  as  prophetesses,  as  instanced  in  Miriam, 
Deborah,  and  Huhlah,  though  such  cases  are  of 
comparatively  rare  occurrence.  We  should  also 
observe,  that  only  as  regards  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  we  have  express  accounts  of  the  continu- 
ance of  the  schools  of  prophets.  What  is  re- 
corded of  them  is  not  directly  applicable  to  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  especially  since,  as  stated 
above,  prophecy  had  in  it  an  essentially  different 
position.  We  cannot  assume  that  the  organiza- 
tion and  regulations  of  the  schools  of  the  prophet* 
in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  should  have  been  as 
settled  and  established  as  in  the  kingdom  of 
Israel.  In  the  latter,  the  schools  of  the  prophets 
had  a kind  of  monast  ic  constitution  : they  were  not 
institutions  of  general  education,  but  missionary 
stations;  which  explains  the  circumstance  that  they 
were  established  exactly  in  places  which  were  the 
chief  seats  of  superstition.  The  spiritual  fathers 
travelled  about  to  visit  the  training  schools  ; the 
pupils  had  their  common  board  and  dwelling, 
and  those  who  married  and  left,  ceased  not  on 
that  account  to  be  connected  with  their  col- 
leges, but  remained  members  of  them.  The 
widow  of  such  a pupil  of  the  schools  of  prophets, 
who  is  mentioned  in  2 Kings  iv.  1,  sq.,  considered 
Elisha  as  the  person  bound  to  care  for  her.  The 
offerings  which,  by  the  Mosaic  law,  were  to  be 
given  to  the  Levites,  were  by  the  pious  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  brought  to  the  schools  of  the 
prophets  (2  Kings  iv.  42).  The  prophets  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  stood  in  a hostile  position  to 
the  priests.  These  points  of  difference  in  the 
situation  of  the  prophets  of  the  two  kingdoms 
must  not  be  lost  sight  of;  and  we  further  add, 
that  prophecy  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  was  much 
more  connected  with  extraordinary  events  than  in 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  : the  history  of  the  latter 
offers  no  prophetical  deeds  equalling  those  of 
Elijah  and  Elisha.  Prophecy  in  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  not  being  grounded  on  a hierarchy 
venerable  for  its  antiquity,  consecrated  by  divine 
miracles,  and  constantly  favoured  with  divine 
protection,  it  needed  to  be  supported  more  power- 
fully, and  to  be  legitimized  more  evidently.  In 
conclusion,  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  expression 
‘schools  of  the  prophets’  is  not  exactly  suited 
to  their  nature,  as  general  instruction  was  not 
their  object.  1 he  so-called  prophets’  schools  were 
associations  of  men  endowed  with  the  spirit  of 
God,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  their  work, 
the  feeble  powers  of  junior  members  being  di- 
rected and  strengthened  by  those  of  a higher  class. 
To  those  who  entered  these  unions  the  Divine 
Spirit  had  been  already  imparted,  which  was  the 
imperative  condition  of  their  reception. 

IV.  Symbolic  Actions  of  the  Prophets. — 
In  the  midst  of  the  prophetic  declarations  sym- 
bolic actions  are  often  mentioned,  which  the  pro- 
phets had  to  perform.  The  opinions  of  interpreters 
on  these  are  divided.  Some  asse’t  that  they 
always,  at  least  generally,  were  really  done; 
others  assert  that  they  had  existence  only  in  the 
mind  of  the  prophets,  and  formed  part  of  their 
visions.  The  latter  view,  which  was  espoused 
by  Calvin,  is  proved  to  be  correct  by  a considerable 
number  of  such  symbolic  actions  as  are  either 
impossible,  or  inconsistent  with  decorum.  Thus 
Hosea  relates  (i.  2-11)  of  himself  ‘ that  the  Lord 
had  ordered  him  to  take  a wife  of  whoredom*, 
for  the  land  had  committed  great  whoredom,  d*> 


PROPHECY. 


666 

parting  from  the  Lord  ;’  and  that  he  then  had 
taken  Gomer,  by  whom  he  had  several  children. 
That  this  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a real  fact,  is 
proved  by  Hengstenberg’s  (Christoloyie,  vol.  iii.); 
where  it.  is  shown  that  the  prophet  intended  only 
symbolically  to  depict  the  idolatrous  disposition  of 
his  nation.  Another  symbolic  action  of  Jeremiah 
prefigures  the  people’s  destruction.  He  says 
(xiii.  1-10)  he  had  beeu  by  the  Lord  directed  to 
get  a linen  girdle,  to  put  it  on  his  loins,  to  under- 
take a long  tour  to  the  Euphrates,  and  to  hide 
the  girdle  there  in  a hole  of  the  rock.  He  does 
so,  returns,  and  after  many  days  the  Lord  again 
orders  him  to  take  the  girdle  from  the  place 
where  it  was  hidden,  but  ‘ the  girdle  was  marred 
aniLgood  for  nothing.’  In  predicting  the  destruc- 
tion of  Babylon  and  a general  war  (xxv.  12-38), 
he  receives  from  the  Lord  a wine-cup,  to  cause  a 
number  of  kings  of  various  nations,  among 
whom  the  sword  would  be  sent,  to  drink  from  it 
till  they  should  be  overcome.  He  then  goes  with 
this  cup  to  the  kings  of  Egypt,  Arabia,  Persia, 
Media,  and  many  other  countries.  When  the 
prophet  Ezekiel  receives  his  commission  and 
instructions  to  prophesy  against  the  rebellious 
people  of  Israel,  a roll  of  a book  is  presented  to 
him,  which  he  eats  by  the  direction  of  the  Lord 
(Ezek.  ii.  9 ; iii.  2,  3).  He  is  next  ordered  to  lie 
before  the  city  of  Jerusalem  on  his  left  side  three 
hundred  and  ninety  days  ; and  when  he  had  ac- 
complished them,  on  his  light  side  forty  days.  He 
must  not  turn  from  one  side  to  the  other,  and  he  is 
ordered  to  bake  with  dung  of  man  the  bread  which 
he  eats  during  this  time  (Ezek.  iv.  4, 8, 12).  Isaiah 
is  ordered  to  walk  naked  and  barefoot,  for  a sign 
upon  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  (Isa.  xx.  2,3).  Many 
other  passages  of  this  kind  might  be  adduced 
from  the  books  of  the  prophets,  which  compel  us 
to  admit  that  they  state  internal,  not  external 
facts.  This  may  also  further  be  supported  by 
other  reasons.  In  the  records  of  the  prophets, 
their  seeing  the  Lord,  hearing  him  speak,  and 
addressing  him,  are,  no  doubt,  inward  acts. 
Why,  then,  not  likewise  their  symbolic  representa- 
tions P The  world  in  which  the  prophets  moved 
was  quite  different  from  the  ordinary  one;  it  was 
not  the  sensible,  but  the  spiritual  world.  Vision 
and  symbolic  action  are  not  opposed  ; the 
former  is  the  general  class,  comprehending  the 
latter  as  a species.  We  must,  however,  not  refer 
all  symbolic  actions  to  internal  intuition;  at 
least,  of  a false  prophet  we  have  a sure  example 
of  an  externally  performed  symbolic  action  (1 
Kings  xxii.  11),  and  the  false  prophets  always 
aped  the  true  ones  (comp.  Jer.  xix.  1,  scp).  In- 
ward actions  were  sometimes,  when  it  was  pos- 
sible and  proper,  materialized  by  external  per- 
•formance;  they  are  always  at  the  bottom,  and 
form  the  regular,  natural  explanation  of  the 
symbolic  actions  of  the  prophets.  To  attain  the 
intended  object,  external  performance  was  not 
always  required ; the  internal  action  was  nar- 
rated, and  committed  to  writing.  It  made  a naked 
statement  more  intuitive  and  impressive,  and  by 
presenting  the  subject  in  a concentrated  form,  it 
was  preferable  to  external  performance,  which 
could  only  take  place  when  the  sphere  of  internal 
action  was  circumscribed,  and  did  not  extend 
over  long  periods  of  time. 

V.  Criteria  by  which  True  and  False  Pro- 
phets were  distinguished. — As  Moses  had  foretold. 


PROPHECY. 

a host  of  false  prophets  arose  in  later  times  arncng 
the  people,  who  promised  prosperity  without  re- 
pentance, and  preached  the  Gospel  without  the  law. 
The  writings  of  the  prophets  are  full  of  complaints 
of  the  mischief  done  by  these  impostors.  Jeremiah 
significantly  calls  them  ‘ prophets  of  the  deceit 
of  their  own  heart ;’  i.  e.  men  who  followed  the 
suggestions  of  their  own  fancy  in  prophesying 
(Jer.  xxiii.  26  ; comp.  ver.  16,  and  ch.  xiv.-  14). 
All  their  practices  prove  the  great  influence  which 
true  prophet  ism  had  acquired  among  the  people 
of  Israel.  But  how  were  the  people  to  distinguish 
true  and  false  prophets  ? In  the  law  concerning 
prophets  (Deut.  xviii.  20 ; comp.  xiii.  7-9),  the 
following  enactments  are  contained. 

1.  The  prophet  tv  ho  speaks  in  the  name  of 
other  Gods — i.  e.  professes  to  have  his  revelations 
from  a God  different  from  Jehovah — is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  false,  and  to  be  punished  capitally ; 
and  this  even  though  his  predictions  should  come 
to  pass. 

2.  The  same  punishment  is  to  be  inflicted  on 
him  who  speaks  in  the  name  cf  the  true  God, 
but  tohose  predictions  are  not  accomplished. 

These  enactments  established  a peculiar  right 
of  the  prophets.  Pie  who  prophesied  in  the  name 
of  the  true  God,  was,  even  when  he  foretold  cala- 
mity, entitled  to  be  tolerated,  until  it  happened 
that  a prediction  of  his  failed  of  accomplish- 
ment. He  might  then  be  imprisoned,  but  could 
not  be  put  to  death,  as  instanced  in  Jeremiah 
(xxvi.  8-16),  who  is  apprehended  and  arraigned, 
but  acquitted  : ‘ Then  said  the  princes  and  the 
people  unto  the  priests  and  the  prophets,  This 
man  is  not  worthy  to  die,  for  he  has  spoken  to 
us  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  our  God.’  Ahab  is 
by  false  prophets  encouraged  to  attack  Ramoth- 
gilead,  but  Micaiah  prophesied  him  no  good;  on 
which  the  king  becomes  angry,  and  orders  the  pro- 
phet to  be  confined  (1  Kings  xxii.  1-2^.)  '•  ‘ Take 
Micaiah  and  put  him  in  prison,  and  feed  him  with 
bread  of  affliction,  and  with  water  of  affliction, 
until  I come  in  peace.’  Micaiah  answers  (ver.  28) 

‘ If  thou  return  at  all  in  peace,  the  Lord  has  not 
spoken  by  me.’  Until  the  safe  leturn  of  the 
king,  Micaiah  is  to  remain  in  prison;  after  that, 
he  shall  be  put  to  death.  The  prophet  agrees  to  it, 
and  the  king  goes  up  to  Ramoth-gilead,  but  is 
slain  in  the  battle. 

3.  From  the  above  two  criteria  of  a true  pro- 
phet, flows  the  third,  that  his  addresses  must  be 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  lato.  Whoever  de- 
parts from  it  cannot  be  a true  prophet,  for  it 
is  impossible  that  the  Lord  should  contradict 
himself. 

4.  In  the  above  is  also  founded  the  fojnth  crite 
l ion,  that  a true  prophet  must  not  promise  pro 
sperity  without  repentance ; and  that  he  is  a 
false  prophet,  ‘of  the  deceit  of  his  own  heart,’ 
who  does  not  reprove  the  sins  of  the  people,  and 
who  does  not  inculcate  on  them  the  doctrines  of 
divine  justice  and  retribution. 

In  addition  to  these  negative  criteria,  there 
were  positive  ones  to  procure  authority  to  true 
prophets.  First  of  all,  it  must  be  assumed  that 
the  prophets  themselves  received,  along  with  the 
divine  revelations,  assurance  that  these  were  really 
divine.  Any  true  communion  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  affords  the  assurance  of  its  divine  nature,- 
and  the  prophets  could,  therefore,  satisfy  them- 
selves of  their  divine  mission.  Theve  was  Whi.ig 


PROPHECY. 


PROPHECY. 


637 


Id  mislead  and  delude  them  in  this  respect,  for 
temporal  goods  were  not,  bestowed  upon  them  with 
the  gift  of  prophesying.  Their  own  native  dis- 
nosition  was  often  much  averse  to  this  calling, 
and  could  be  only  conquered  by  the  Lord  forcibly 
impelling  them,  as  appears  from  Jer.  xx.  8,  9: 

‘ Since  1 spake,  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  made 
a reproach  unto  me,  and  a derision  daily.  Then 
1 said,  I will  not.  make  mention  of  him,  nor  speak 
any  more  in  his  name  : but  bis  word  was  in  mine 
heart  as  a burning  tire  shut  up  in  my  bones,  and  I 
was  weary  with  forbearing,  and  1 could  not  stay.’ 
Now,  when  the  prophets  themselves  were  convinced 
of  their  divine  mission,  they  could  in  various  ways 
prove  it  to  others,  whom  they  were  called  on  to 
enlighten. 

(a.)  To  those  who  had  any  sense  of  truth,  the 
Spirit  of  God  gave  evidence  that  the  prophecies 
were  divinely  inspired.  This  testimonium  spi- 
ritus  sancti  is  the  chief  argument  for  the  reality 
of  a divine  revelation,  and  he  who  is  susceptible 
of  it  does  not,  indeed,  disregard  the  other  proofs 
suiting  the  wants  of  unimproved  minds,  but  lays 
less  stress  on  them. 

(5.)  The  prophets  themselves  utter  their  firm 
conviction  (hat  they  act  and  speak  by  divine  au- 
thority, not  of  their  own  accord  ; (com}),  the  often 
recurring  phrase  iTlrP  DiO,  Jer.  xxvi.  12,  &c.) 
Their  pious  life  bore  testimony  to  their  being 
worthy  of  a nearer  communion  with  God,  and 
defended  them  from  the  suspicion  of  intentional 
deception  ; their  sobriety  of  mind  distinguished 
them  from  all  fanatic?,  and  defended  them  from 
the  suspicion  of  self-delusion  ; their  fortitude  in 
suffering  for  truth  proved  that  they  had  their 
commission  from  no  human  authority. 

(c.)  Part  of  the  predictions  of  the  prophets 
referred  to  proximate  events,  and  their  accom- 
plishment was  divine  evidence  of  their  divine 
origin.  Whoever  had  been  once  favoured  with 
such  a testimonial,  his  authority  was  established 
for  his  whole  life,  as  instanced  in  Samuel.  Of 
him  it  is  said  (1  Sam.  iii.  19)  : ‘ The  Lord  was  witli 
him,  and  let  none  cf  his  words  fall  to  the  ground 
(i.e.  fulfilled  them) ; and  all  Israel  knew  (from  this) 
that.  Samuel  was  established  to  be  a prophet  of  the 
Lord.’  Of  the  divine  mission  of  Isaiah  no  doubt 
could  be  entertained  after,  for  instance,  bis  pro- 
phecies of  the  overthrow  of  Sennacherib  before 
Jerusalem  had  been  fulfilled.  The  credentials  of 
the  divine  mission  of  Ezekiel  were  certified  when 
his  prediction  was  accomplished,  that  Zedekiah 
should  be  brought  to  Babylon,  but  should  not  see 
ir,  for  the  king  was  made  prisoner  and  blinded 
(Ezek.  xii.  12,  13)  ; they  were  further  confirmed 
by  the  fulfilment  of  his  prediction  concerning  the 
destruction  of  the  city  (Ezek.  xxiv.).  Jeremiah's 
claims  were  authenticated  by  the  fulfilment  of  his 
prediction  that  Shallum,  the  son  of  Josiah  king 
of  Judah,  should  die  in  his  prison,  and  see  his 
native  country  no  more  (Jer.  xxii.  1 1,  12). 

(cf.)  Sometimes  the  divine  mission  of  the  pro- 
phets was  also  proved  by  miracles,  but  this  oc- 
curred only  at  important  crises,  when  the  exist- 
ence of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  was  in  jeopardy, 
as  in  the  age  of  Elijah  and  Elisha.  Miracles 
are  mentioned  as  criteria  of  true  prophets  (Deut. 
xiii.  2),  still  with  this  caution,  that  they  should 
not  be  trusted  alone,  but  that  the  people  should 
inquire  whether  the  negative  criteria  were  extant. 

(e.)  Those  prophets  whose  divine  commission 


had  been  sufficiently  proved,  bore  testimony  to  th« 
divine  mission  of  others.  It  has  been  observed  above, 
that  there  was  a certain  gradation  among  the  pro- 
phets ; the  principals  of  the  colleges  of  prophets 
procured  authority  to  the  * sons  ’ of  prophets. 
Thus  the  deeds  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  at  the  same 
time  authenticated  the  hundreds  of  prophets 
whose  superiors  they  were.  Concerning  the  rela- 
tion of  the  true  prophets  to  each  other,  the  passage 
2 Kings  ii.  9 is  remarkable ; Elisha  says  to 
Elijah,  ‘ I pray  thee,  let  a double  portion  of  thy 
spirit  be  upon  me.’  Here  Elisha,  as  the  first-born 
of  Elijah  in  a spiritual  sense,  and  standing  to  him 
in  the  same  relation  as  Joshua  to  Moses,  asks  for 
a double  portion  of  bis  spiritual  inheritance, 
alluding  to  the  law  concerning  the  hereditary  right 
of  the  lawfully-begotten  first-born  son  (Deut.  xxi. 
17).  This  case  supposes  that  other  prophets  also 
of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  took  portions  of  the  ful- 
ness of  the  spirit  of  Elijah.  It  is  plain,  then,  that 
only  a few  prophets  stood  in  immediate  commu- 
nion with  God,  while  that  of  the  remaining  was 
formed  by  mediation.  The  latter  were  spiritually 
incorporated  in  the  former,  and  on  the  ground  of 
this  relation,  actions  performed  by  Elisha,  or 
through  the  instrumentality  of  one  of  his  pupils, 
are  at  once  ascribed  to  Elijah,  e.  g.  the  anointing 
of  Hazael  to  be  king  over  Syria  (1  Kings  xix. 
15;  comp.  2 Kings  viii.  13);  the  anointing  of 
Jehu  to  be  king  over  Israel  (1  Kings  xix.  16, 
comp.  2 Kings  ix.  1,  sq.);  the  writing  of  the  letter 
to  Joram,  &c.  Thus  in  a certain  sense  it  may  be 
affirmed,  that  Elijah  was  in  his  time  the  only 
prophet  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  Similarly 
of  Moses  it  is  recorded,  during  his  passage 
through  the  desert,  that  a portion  of  his  spirit  was 
conveyed  to  the  seventy  elders.  The  history  of 
the  Christian  church  itself  offers  analogies;  look, 
e.  g.  at  the  relation  of  the  second  class  reformers 
to  Luther  and  Calvin. 

VI.  Promulgation  of  the  Prophetic  Declara- 
tions.— Usually  the  prophets  promulgated  their 
visions  in  public  places  before  the  congregated 
people.  Still  some  portions  of  the  prophetic  books, 
as  the  entire  second  part  of  Isaiah  and  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  new  temple  (Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.),  pro- 
bably were  never  communicated  orally.  In 
other  cases  the  prophetic  addresses  first  delivered 
orally  were  next,  when  committed  to  writing,  re- 
vised and  improved.  Especially  the  books  of  the 
lesser  prophets  consist,  for  the  greater  part,  not 
of  separate  predictions,  independent  of  each  other, 
but  form,  as  they  now  are,  a whole,  that  is,  give 
the  quintessence  of  the  prophetic  labours  of  their 
authors.  In  this  case  it  is  certain  that  the  authors 
themselves  caused  the  collection  to  be  made.  But 
it  is  so  likewise  in  some  cases  where  their  books 
really  consist  of  single  declarations,  and  in  others 
it  is  at  least  highly  probable.  Further  particulars 
concerning  the  manner  in  which  prophetic  rolls 
were  collected  and  published,  we  have  only  re- 
specting Jeremiah,  who,  being  in  prison,  called 
Baruch,  ‘to  write  from  his  mouth  his  predictions, 
and  to  read  them  in  the  ears  of  the  people  ’ (Jer. 
xxxviii.  4-14).  There  is  evidence  to  prove  that 
the  later  prophets  sedulously  read  the  writings  o! 
the  earlier,  and  that,  a prophetic  canon  existed  be- 
fore the  present  was  formed.  The  predictions  ot 
Jeremiah  throughout  rest  on  the  writings  of  earlier 
prophets,  as  Kuper  has  established  in  his  Jeremiai 
librorum  sacrorum  inierpres  atque  vindex,  Her- 


PROPHECY. 


PROSELYTE. 


068 

lin,  1537.  Zechariah  explicitly  alludes  to  writ- 
ings of  former  prophets  ; ‘ to  the  words  which  the 
Lord  has  spoken  to  earlier  prophets,  when  Jeru- 
ta.em  was  inhabited  and  in  prosperity  ’ (Zech. 
i.  4;  vii.  7,  1*2).  In  all  probability  we  have 
complete  those  predictions  which  were  commit- 
ted to  writing;  at  least  the  proofs  which  Dr. 
Ewald  gives  (p.  43,  sq.)  for  his  opinion,  of  pro- 
phecies having  been  lost,  do  not  stand  trial.  The 
words  ‘ a»  the  Lord  hath  said,’  in  Joel  ii.  32,  refer 
to  the  predictions  of  Joel  himself.  In  Isa.  ii.arul 
Micah  iv.  nothing  is  introduced  from  a lost  pro- 
phetic roll,  but  Isaiah  borrows  from  Micah. 
Hosea  alludes  (ch.  viii.  12),  not  to  some  unknown 
work,  but  to  the  Pentateuch.  In  Isa.  xv.  and  xvi. 
the  prophet  repeats,  not.  another’s  prediction,  but 
his  own,  previously  delivered,  to  which  he  adds  a 
supplement.  Obadiah  and  Jeremiah  do  not  avail 
themselves  of  the  written  address  of  a former  pro- 
phet, but  Jeremiah  makes  the  prophecy  of  Oba- 
diah the  groundwork  of  his  own.  The  opinion 
that  in  Isa.  1\  i.  10  ; lvii.  1 1,  there  was  inserted,  un- 
altered, a long  remnant  of  an  older  roll,  is  founded 
on  erroneous  views  respecting  the  time  of  its  com- 
position. The  same  holds  good  of  Isa.  xxiv., 
where  Ewald  would  find  remnants  of  several 
older  rolls.  The  very  circumstance,  that  in  the 
prophets  there  nowhere  occurs  a tenable  ground 
for  maintaining  that  they  referred  to  rolls  lost 
and  unknown  to  us,  but  that  they  often  allude  to 
writings  which  we  know  and  possess,  clearly 
proves  that  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing,  with 
Ewald,  that  a great  number  of  prophetic  compo- 
sitions has  been  lost,  ‘ and  that  of  a large  tree,  only 
a few  blossoms  have  reached  our  time.’  In  conse- 
quence of  the  prophets  being  considered  as  organs 
of  God,  much  care  was  bestowed  on  the  preserva- 
tion of  their  publications.  Ewald  himself  cannot 
refrain  from  observing  (p.  56),  ‘ We  have  in  Jer. 
xxvi.  1-19  a clear  proof  of  the  exact  knowledge 
which  the  better  classes  of  the  people  had  of  all 
that  had,  a hundred  years  before,  happened  to  a 
prophet,  of  his  words,  misfortunes,  and  accidents.’ 

The  collectors  of  the  Canon  arranged  the  pro- 
phets chronologically,  but  considered  the  whole 
of  the  twelve  lesser  prophets  as  one  work,  which 
they  placed  after  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  inasmuch 
as  the  three  last  lesser  prophets  lived  later  than 
they.  Daniel  was  placed  in  the  Hagiographa, 
because  he  had  not  filled  the  prophetic  office. 
The  collection  of  the  lesser  prophets  themselves 
was  again  chronologically  disposed  ; still  Hosea 
is,  on  account  of  the  extent  of  his  work,  allowed 
precedence  before  those  lesser  prophets,  who,  ge- 
nerally, wore  his  contemporaries,  and  also  before 
those  who  flourished  at  a somewhat  earlier  period. 

On  the  general  subject  of  prophecy  no  com- 
prehensive or  altogether  satisfactory  treatise  has 
yet  been  produced.  Some  good  remarks  will  be 
found  in  t he  essay  of  John  Smith,  On  Prophecy 
(Select  Discourses , disc.  vi.  p.  181,  8vo.  ed. 
Loud.  1821),  which  was  translated  into  Latin 
and  reprinted  at  the  end  of  Le  Clerc's  Com- 
mentary on  the  Prophets,  Amsterdam,  1731. 
1 1 contains  interesting  passages  on  the  nature  of  the 
predictions  in  the  Old  Testament,  extracted  from 
Jewish  authors,  of  whom  Maimonides  is  the  most 
distinguished.  Of  less  importance  is  the  essay 
of  Hermann  Witsius,  De  Prophetia  et  Prophetis, 
m vol.  ».  of  his  Miscellan.  Sacra , Utrecht,  1692, 
pj».  1-392 ; he  digresses  too  much  and  needlessly 


from  the  main  question,  and  says  little  applicahli 
to  the  point ; but  he  still  supplies  some  useful 
materials.  The  same  remark  also  applies  in  sub- 
stance to  Ivnibbe’s  History  of  the  Prophets. 
Some  valuable  remarks,  but  much  more  that  is 
arbitrary  and  untenable,  will  be  found  in  Cel- 
sius's Hypomnemata  ad  Theologiam  Prophet .,  3 
vols.  Lips.  1761.  In  the  Treatise  on  Prophecy , 
inserted  by  Jahn  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament , he  endeavours  to  refute  the  views  of 
the  Rationalists,  but  does  not  sift  the  subject  to  the 
bottom.  Kleuker’s  work  De  Nexu  Proph.  inter 
utrumque  Focdus,  possesses  more  of  a genuine 
theological  character.  The  leader  of  the  Ration- 
alists is  Eichhorn,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament , and  in  his  dissertation,  De  Prophet. 
Poe  . Hebr.  Their  views  on  this  subject  are 
most  fully  explained  by  Knobel,  in  his  Pro - 
phetismus  der  Hebrcecr  vollstandig  dargestellt , 
Breslau,  1837,  2 vols. : the  work  contains,  however, 
little  original  research,  and  is  valuable  only  as  a 
compilation  of  what  the  Rationalists  assert  con- 
cerning prophecy.  The  work  of  Ivoster,  Die  Pro - 
pheten  des  A.  und  N.  T.,  Leipzig,  1838,  bears  a 
higher  character : on  many  points  he  approaches 
to  sounder  views ; but  he  is  inconsistent  and  waver- 
ing, and  therefore  cannot  be  said  to  have  essen- 
tially advanced  the  knowledge  of  this  subject. 
Of  considerable  eminence  is  the  treatise  by 
Ewald  on  prophecy,  which  precedes  his  work  on 
the  prophets,  published  in  1840  at  Stuttgart.  But 
to  the  important  question,  whether  the  prophets 
enjoyed  supernatural  assistance  or  not"/  an  ex- 
plicit answer  will  here  be  sought  for  in  vaii: 
His  view  of  the  subject  is  in  the  main  that  of  the 
Rationalists,  though  he  endeavours  to  veil  it: 
the  Spirit  of  God  influencing  the  prophets  is  in 
fact,  only  their  own  mind  worked  up  by  circum- 
stances ; their  enthusiasm  and  eestaey  are  made 
to  explain  all.  Finally,  the  work  of  Hollmann, 
Weissagung  und  Erfullung  im  A.  und  N.  T ., 
Nordlingen,  1841,  vol.  i.,  is  chargeable  with  spu- 
rious and  affected  originality  : his  views  are  often 
in  their  very  details  forced  and  strained;  and  it 
is  to  be  regretted  that  the  subject  has  by  this 
work  gained  less  than  from  the  author's  talent 
might  have  been  expected. 

English  works  on  Prophecy,  besides  those  of 
Smith  and  Knibbe  above  mentioned  : — Sherlock, 
Discourses  on  the  Use  and  Intent  of  Prcphecy, 
8vo.  1755  ; Hurd,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the 
Prophecies , &c.  Svo.  1772;  Apthorp,  Discourses 
on  Prophecy,  2 vols.  Svo.  1786  ; Davison,  Dis- 
courses on  Prophecy,  in  which  are  considered  its 
Structure , Use,  and  Inspiration,  8vo.  1821; 
Smith  ( J.  Pye),  Principles  of  Interpretation  as 
applied  to  the  Prophecies  of  Holy  Scripture , 
Svo.  1 829 ; Brooks,  Elements  of  Prophetical 
Interpretation,  12mo.  1837;  Hi»ne,  Introduc- 
tion, vol.  ii.  p.  534  ; iv.  p.  140;  Alexander,  Con- 
nection of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  Lect. 
iv.-vii.  pp.  168-382,  8vo,  1841. — E W.  H. 

PROSELYTE  (irpoogMnos),  the  name  applied 
in  the  New  Testament  and  the  Septuagint  to  con- 
verts from  heathenism  to  Judaism  ( TTpoo-rjAvros * oi 
e|  eQv&v  -7rpo(r€\T]\v96res  Kcd  Kara  tovs  Belovs 
TToXiTevopevoi  v6pous,  Suidas,  in  voc .).  In  the  Old 
Testament  such  persons  are  called  D'U,  strangers 
advenes,  and  settlers,  incolee.  For  thi 

reception  and  treatment  of  these,  provision  was 
made  in  tne  law  of  Moses  (Exod.  xii.  48 ; Lev 


PROSELYTE. 


PROSELYTE. 


56* 


xvii.  8;  Mum.  xv.  15,  &c.) ; and  tlie  whole 
Jewish  state  was  considered  as  composed  of  the 
two  classes,  Jews,  and  strangers  within  their  gates, 
or  proselytes.  In  later  years  this  distinction  wa^ 
observed  even  to  the  second  generation ; a child 
of  pure  Jewish  descent  on  both  sides  being  desig- 
nated nny  p nay,  *e Ppcuos  <=£  'Eppatuu  (Phil. 

iii  5),  whilst  the  son  of  a proselyte  was  denomi- 
nated *73"p  ; and  if  both  parents  were  proselytes 
he  was  styled  by  the  Rabbins,  3233,  a contrac- 
tion for  mrpi  “irp  ( Pirkc  Avoth , cap.  5). 

It  has  been  customary  to  make  a distinction 
between  two  classes  of  Jewish  proselytes,  the  one 
denominated  proselytes  of  the  gate,  and  the  other 
proselytes  of  the  covenant,  or  of  righteousness. 
Under  the  former  have  been  included  those  con- 
verts from  heathenism  who  had  so  far  renounced 
idolatry  as  to  become  worshippers  of  the  one  God, 
and  to  observe,  generally,  what  have  been  called 
the  seven  Noanhic  precepts,  viz.,  against  idolatry, 
profanity,  incest,  murder,  dishonesty,  eating  blood, 
or  things  strangled,  and  allowing  a murderer  to 
live,  but;  had  not  formally  enrolled  themselves  in 
the  Jewish  state.  The  latter  is  composed  of  those 
who  had  submitted  to  circumcision,  and  in  all 
respects  become  converts  to  Judaism.  The  accu- 
racy of  this  distinction,  however,  has  been  called 
in  question  by  several,  especially  by  Lardner, 
whose  arguments  appear  decisive  of  the  question 
( Works , vol.  vi.  pp.  522-533  ; vol.  xi.  pp.  313-324, 
8vo.  edit.  1788).  That  there  were,  in  later  times 
especially,  many  among  the  Jews  who  had  re- 
nounced the  grosser  parts  of  heathenism  without 
having  come  over  entirely  to  Judaism,  is  beyond 
all  doubt;  but  that  these  were  ever  counted  pro- 
selytes admits  of  question.  Certain  it  is  that 
the  proselytes  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament 
were  all  persons  who  had  received  circumcision, 
and  entered  the  pale  of  the  Jewish  community  ; 
they  were  persons  who,  according  to  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  Old  Testament,  had  become  Jews 
(D’HIVriD,  Esth.  viii.  17 ; Lardner,  loc.  cii.). 
It  is  probable  that  the  distinction  above  men- 
tioned was  introduced  by  the  later  Rabbins  for 
the  sake  of  including  among  the  conquests  of 
their  religion  those  who,  though  indebted  probably 
to  the  Jewish  Scriptures  for  their  improved  faith, 
were  yet  not  inclined  to  submit  to  the  ritual  of 
Judaism,  or  to  become  incorporated  with  the 
Jewish  nation.  That  this,  however,  was  not.  the 
ancient  view  is  clearly  apparent  from  a passage 
in  the  Babylonian  Gemara,  quoted  by  Light  foot 
( Ilor.  Heb.  et  Talm.  in  Matt.  iii.  6),  where  it  is 
said  expressly  that  ‘No  one  is  a proselyte  until 
such  time  as  he  has  been  circumcised.’  Fiirst, 
himself  a Jew,  confirms  our  suggestion  ; for  in  a 
note  upon  the  word  “73,  in  his  Concordantice 
Libb.  V.  T.,  he  says : ‘ Judeei,  interpretations  magis 
dogmatica  quam  historica,  de  eo  interpretantur 
qui  superstitiones  barbaras  repud iavit.’ 

The  rites  by  which  a proselyte  was  initiated 
are  declared  by  the  Rabbins  to-  have  been,  in  the 
case  of  a man,  three,  viz.,  circumcision,  baptism , 

and  a free-will  sacrifice  n^D n 

imp  bw  DW  n&Yinm);  in  the  case  of  a 
woman  the  first  was  of  necessity  omitted.  As  to 
lie  first  and  last  of  these,  their  claim  to  be  regarded 
is  accordant  with  the  ancient  practice  of  the  Jews 
has  been  on  all  hands  admitted  without  scruple  ; 
Wt  it  has  been  matter  of  keen  question  whether 


the  second  can  be  admitted  to  have  been  practised 
before  the  Christian  era.  The  substance  of  much 
learned  discussion  on  this  head  we  shall  attempt 
summarily  to  state. 

There  is  no  direct  evidence  that  tln3  rite  was 
practised  by  the  Jews  before  the  second  or  third 
century  of  the  Christian  era ; but  the  fact  that  it 
was  practised  by  them  then  necessitates  the  in- 
quiry : when  and  how  did  such  a custom  arise 
among  them1?  That  they  borrowed  it  from  the 
Christians  is  an  opinion  which,  though  supported 
by  De  VVette  (in  his  Treatise  De  Morte  Christi 
expiatorid ),  cannot  be  for  a moment  admitted  by 
-any  who  reflect  on  the  implacable  hatred  with 
which  the  Jews  for  many  centuries  regarded 
Christianity,  its  ordinances,  and  its  professors. 
Laying  aside  this  view,  there  are  only  two  others 
which  have  been  suggested.  The  one  is  that  prose- 
lyte baptism  was  practised  among  the  Jews  from 
a period  long  anterior  to  the  birth  of  Christ ; the 
other  is  that  the  custom  of  baptizing  proselytes 
arose  gradually  out  of  (he  habit  which  the  Jews 
had  of  purifying  by  ablution  whatever  they 
deemed  unclean,  and  came  to  be  raised  for  the 
first  time  to  the  importance  of  an  initiatory  ordi- 
nance after  the  destruction  of  the  temple  service, 
and  when,  in  consequence  of  imperial  edicts,  it 
became  difficult  to  circumcise  converts.  This 
latter  opinion  is  that  of  Sehneckenburger  ( Ueb.  das 
Alter  d.  Jud.  Prosely-tentaufe,  Berlin,  1828),  and 
has  been  espoused  by  several  eminent  German 
scholars.  To  us,  however,  it  appears  exceedingly 
unsatisfactory.  The  single  fact  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  it,  viz.,  the  difficulty  of  circumcising 
converts  in  consequence  of  the  imperial  edicts 
against  proselytism  is  a singularly  infelicitous 
piece  of  evidence ; for,  as  the  question  to  be  solved 
is  : how  came  the  later  Rabbins  to  prescribe  both 
baptism  and  circumcision  as  initiatory  rites  for 
proselytes? — it  is  manifestly  absurd  to  reply  that 
it  was,  because  they  could  only  baptise  and  could 
not  circumcise  : such  an  answer  is  a contradic- 
tion, not  a solution  of  the  question.  Besides,  this 
hypothesis  suggests  a source  of  proselyte  baptism 
which  is  equally  available  for  that  which  it  is 
designed  to  supersede  ; for,  if  the  practice  of  bap- 
tizing proselytes  on  their  introduction  into  Juda- 
ism had  its  rise  in  the  Jewish  habit  of  ablution, 
why  might  not  this  have  operated  in  the  way  sug- 
gested, two  hundred  years  before  Christ,  as  well 
as  two  hundred  years  after  Christ?  And  in  fine, 
this  hypothesis  still  leaves  unremoved  tire  master 
difiicult.y  of  that  side  of  the  question  which  it  is 
designed  to  support,  viz.,  the  great  improbability 
of  the  Jews  adopting  for  the  first  time  subsequently 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  a religious  rite  which  was 
well  known  to  be  the  initiatory  rite  of  Christianity. 
Assuming  that  they  practised  that  rite  before,  we 
can  account  for  their  not  giving  it  up  simply  be- 
cause the  Christians  had  adopted  it ; but,  trace  it 
as  we  please  to  Jewish  customs  and  rites,  it  seems 
utterly  incredible  that  after  it  had  become  the 
symbol  and  badge  of  the  religious  party  which 
of  all  others,  perhaps,  the  Jews  most  bitterly 
hated,  any  consideration  whatever  should  have 
induced  them  to  begin  to  practise  it.  On  the 
other  hand  we  have,  in  favour  of  the  hypothesis 
that  proselyte  baptism  was  practised  anterior  te 
the  time  of  our  Lord,  some  strongly  corroborative 
evidence.  We  have,  in  the  first  place,  the  unani- 
mous tradition  of  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  who  impute 


#70 


PROSELYTE. 


PROSEUCHA. 


to  the  practif  e an  antiquity  commensurate  almost 
with  diat  of  their  nation.  2dly.  We  have  the 
fact  tha.  the  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist  was  not 
regarded  by  the  people  as  aught  of  a novelty,  nor 
was  represented  by  him  as  resting  for  its  authority 
upon  any  special  divine  revelation.  3dly.  We 
have  the  fact  that  the  Pharisees  looked  upon  the 
baptism  both  of  John  and  Jesus  as  a mode  of  pro- 
selyting men  to  their  religious  views  (John  iv. 
1-3),  and  that  the  dispute  between  the  Jews  and 
some  of  John’s  disciples  about  purifying  was  ap- 
parently a dispute  as  to  the  competing  claims  of 
John  and  Jesus  to  make  proselytes  (John'  iii. 
2)  sq.).  4thlv.  We  have  the  fact,  that  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  Peter  addressed  to  a multitude 
of  persons  collected  from  several  different  and 
distant  countries,  Jews  and  proselytes,  an  ex- 
hortation to  ‘Repent  and  be  baptized*  (Acts 
ii.  38),  from  which  it  may  be  fairly  in- 
ferred that  they  all  knew  what  baptism  meant, 
and  also  its  connection  with  repentance  or  a 
change  of  religious  views.  5thly.  We  have  the 
fact,  that  according  to  Josephus,  the  Essenes  were 
in  the  habit,  before  admitting  a new  convert  into 
their  society,  solemnly  and  ritually  to  purify  him 
with  waters  of  cleansing  ( De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8.  7), 
a statement  which  cannot  be  understood  of  their 
ordinary  ablutions  before  meals  (as  Mr.  Stuart 
proposes  in  his  Essay  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism, 
p.  67);  for  Josephus  expressly  adds,  that  even 
after  this  lustration  two  years  had  to  elapse  be- 
fore the  neophyte  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  living 
with  the  Proficients.  And,  Gthly.  We  have  the 
mode  in  which  Josephus  speaks  of  the  baptism  of 
John,  when,  after  referring  to  John's  having  ex- 
ported the  people  to  virtue,  righteousness,  and 
godliness,  as  preparatory  to  baptism,  he  adds, 
‘ For  it  appeared  to  him  that  baptism  was  ad- 
missible not  when  they  used  it  for  obtaining  for- 
giveness of  some  sins,  but  for  the  purification  of 
the  body  when  the  soul  had  been  already  cleansed 
by  righteousness  ’ (Antiq.  xviii.  5.  2) ; which 
seems  to  indicate  the  conviction  of  the  his- 
torian that  John  did  not  introduce  this  rite,  but 
only  gave  to  it  a peculiar  meaning.  A passage 
has  also  been  cited  from  Arrian’s  Discoitrses 
of  Epictetus  (ii.  9),  in  which,  after  stating 
that  some  who  called  themselves  Jews  yet 
played  a double  part,  he  adds,  ‘ But  if  any  one 
assume  the  condition  (or  endure  the  suffering, 
QMaXafiri  rb  vaOos)  of  one  who  has  been  baptized 
and  convicted  (ypyperov,  instead  of  which  some 
have  conjectured  that  -tt epippypei/ou,  circumcised, 
is  the  true  reading),  then  is  lie  indeed  a Jew,  and 
is  called  such.’  Were  one  sure  that  in  this 
passage  Arrian  did  not  confound  Jews  with 
Christians,  his  testimony  would  be  of  great  value 
in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  Jewish  baptism  ; 
but  the  doubt  attaching  to  this  point,  and  the 
general  obscurity  of  the  passage  (which  we  have 
translated  somewhat  differently  from  the  usual 
rendering;  but  as  the  words  seem  to  us  to  require), 
make  it  unsafe  to  lay  much  stress  upon  it. 

On  these  grounds  we  adhere  to  the  opinion  that 
proselyte  baptism  was  known  as  a Jewish  rite 
anterior  to  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  reader  will 
find  the  whole  subject  amply  discussed  in  the 
following  works : Selden,  De  Jure  Nat.  et  Gent. 
ii.  2;  Otho,  Lex.  llab.  p.  65;  Light  foot,  Ilor. 
Heb . it  Talm.  in  Matt.  iii.  G;  Danz  in  Meus- 
chenii  Nov.  Test,  ex  Talm.  lllust.  p.  233  sq., 


287  sq. ; Witsius,  Occon.  Foed.  iv.  15  ; Kuinoe’i, 
Conun.  in  Libros  N.  T.  IJistor.  ap.  Matt.  iii.  6, 
and  Dr.  Halley’s  recent  volume  on  the  Sacra* 
me?its,  Lond.  1844,  p.  114  If.,  all  of  whom  con- 
tend for  the  antiquity  of  Jewish  proselyte  bap- 
tism, whilst  the  following  take  the  opposite  side: 
WernsdorlT,  Controv.  de  Bapt.  Recent.  § 18; 
Carpzov,  Apparat.  p.  47  sq.  ; Paulus,  Comment. 
i.  279;  Bauer,  Gottesdienst.  Verfassung  der 
Alien  Heb.  ii.  392;  Schneckenburger,  Lib. 
suj).  cit. : and  Moses  Stuart,  do.  (American 
Bib  Rep.  No.  X.). 

From  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  the  desire  to 
make  proselytes  prevailed  among  the  Jews  to  a 
very  great  extent,  especially  on  the  part  of  the 
Pharisees,  whose  intemperate  zeal  for  this  object 
our  Lord  pointedly  rebuked  (Matt,  xxiii.  15). 
The  greater  part  of  their  converts  were  females, 
which  has  been  ascribed  to  the  dislike  of  the 
males  to  submit  to  circumcision.  Josephus  tells 
us  that  the  Jews  at  Antioch  were  continually 
converting  great  numbers  of  the  Greeks  (De  Bell. 
Jiul.  vii.  3.  3),  and  that  nearly  all  the  women  at 
Damascus  were  attached  to  Judaism  ( Ibid . ii. 
20.  2;  comp.  Antiq.  xvii.  11  ; xx.  2;  De  Bell. 
Jud.  2.  18,  &c. ; Tacit.  Hist.  5.  5 ; Dion  Cass. 
37.  p.  21). 

On  the  subject  of  this  article  generally,  besides 
the  works  of  Carpzov,  Bauer,  and  Otho,  already 
referred  to,  the  reader  may  consult  Jahn,  Archae - 
ologie,  iii.  215  ff. ; Lensden,  Phil.  Hcbr.  Mixt. 
p.  142  sq. ; Alting,  Diss.  de  Proselytis,  Thes. 
27  sq. ; Horne's  Introduction,  vol.  iii.  p.  265  ff. — 

W.  L.  A. 

PROSEUCHA  (Trpocrevxv),  a word  signifying 
‘prayer,’  and  always  so  translated  in  the  Auth. 
Version.  If  is,  however,  applied, per  meton.,  to  a 
place  of  prayer, — a place  where  assemblies  for 
prayer  were  held,  whether  a building  or  not. 
In  this  sense  it  seems  also  to  be  mentioned  in 
Luke  vi.  12,  where  it  is  said  that  our  Saviour 
went  up  into  a mountain  to  pray,  and  continued 
all  night  eu  rij  tt pocrevxfi  too  0eoo,  which  can 
hardly  bear  the  sense  our  translators  have  put 
upon  it,  ‘ in  prayer  to  God.’  This  is  admitted 
by  Whitby  and  others,  who  infer,  from  the  use  of 
parallel  phrases,  such  as  ‘the  mount  of  God,' 
‘ the  bread  of  God,’  ‘ the  altar  of  God,’  ‘ the 
lamp  of  God,’  &c.,  which  were  all  things  con- 
secrated or  appropriated  to  the  service  of  God, 
that  the  phrase  npoaevxfi  rod  0eou  might  here 
signify  ‘an  oratory  of  God,*  or  a place  that  was 
devoted  to  his  service,  especially  for  prayer.  In 
the  same  sense  the  phrase  must,  still  more  cer- 
tainly, be  understood  in  Acts  xvi.  13.  where  we 
are  informed  that  Paul  and  his  companions,  on 
the  sabbath  day,  went  out  of  the  city,  by  the  river 
side,  ou  evopi^ro  rpocrevxv  which  the 

Auth.  Vers,  renders  * where  prayer  was  wont  to 
be  made.*  But  (he  Syriac  here  has,  ‘ because 
there  was  perceived  to  be  a house  of  prayer; 
and  the  Arabic,  ‘ a certain  place  which  was  sup- 
posed to  be  a place  of  prayer'  In  both  these  ver- 
sions due  stress  is  laid  upon  ov  iuopt^tro,  where 
there  was  taken,  or  supposed  to  be;  or  where, 
according  to  received  custom,  there  was;  orwheie 
there  was  allowed  by  law, — a proseucha,  or  oratory ; 
and  where,  therefore,  they  expected  to  meet  an 
assembly  of  people.  Bos  contends  (Exercit, 
Philol.  in  loc.),  however,  that  the  word  ivcpf- 
£er o is  redundant,  and  that  the  passage  o igh! 


PROVERBS,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

(imply  to  be,  ‘ where  there  was  a proseucha 
hut  in  this  he  is  ably  opposed  by  Eisner  ( Obscrv. 
Sacr.  in  loc.). 

That  there  really  were  such  places  of  devotion 
among  the  Jews  is  unquestionable.  They  were 
mostly  outside  those  towns  in  which  there  were  no 
synagogues,  because  the  laws  or  their  admi- 
nistrators would  not  admit  any.  This  was,  per- 
haps, particularly  the  case  in  Roman  cities  and 
colonies  (and  Philippi,  where  this  circumstance 
occurred,  was  a colony) ; for  Juvenal  (Sat.  iii.  296) 
speaks  of  proseuchae,  not  synagogues,  at  Rome  : 

‘ Ede,  ubi  consistas ; in  qua  te  quaero  prosu- 
cha !’ 

They  appear  to  have  been  usually  situated  near 
a river,  or  the  sea-shore,  for  the  convenience  of 
ablution  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  10,  23).  Josephus 
rejieafedly  mentions  proseuchae  in  his  Life,  and 
speaks  of  the  people  being  gathered  els  ri;v  tt pocr- 
ei'XV  (Vita,  § 44,  46).  Sometimes  the  pros- 
eucha was  a large  building,  as  that  at  Tiberias 
{l.  c.  § 54),  so  that  the  name  was  sometimes 
applied  even  to  synagogues  (Yitringa,  Synag.  Vet. 
p.  119).  Proseu chse  are  frequently  mentioned  as 
buildings  by  Philo,  particularly  in  his  oration 
against  Flaccus,  where  he  complains  that  the 
TTpoaevxa.'i  of  the  Jews  were  pulled  down,  and  that 
no  place  was  left  them  in  which  to  worship  God 
and  pray  for  Caesar  (Philo,  in  Flacc.  Opera , 
]>.  752).  But,  for  the  most  part,  the  proseuchae 
appear  to  have  been  places  in  the  open  air,  in  a 
grove,  or  in  shrubberies,  or  even  under  a tree,  al- 
though always,  as  we  may  presume,  near  water, 
for  the  convenience  of  those  ablutions  which  with 
the  Jews  always  preceded  prayer,  as,  indeed,  they 
did  among  the  pagans,  and  as  they  do  among  the 
Moslems  at  the  present  day.  The  usages  of  the 
latter  exhibit  something  answering  to  the  Jewish 
proseuchae,  in  the  shape  of  small  oratories,  with  a 
niche  indicating  the  direction  of  Mecca,  which  is 
often  seen  in  Moslem  countries  by  the  side  of  a 
spring,  a reservoir,  or  a large  water-jar,  which  is 
daily  replenished  for  the  use  of  travellers  (Whitby, 
De  J)ieu,  Wetstein,  Kuinoel,  on  Acts  xvi.  13  ; 
Jennings's  Jewish  Antiquities , pp.  379-382  ; 
l'rideaux’s  Connection , ii.  556). 

PROVERBS,  THE  BOOK  OF.  That  Solo- 
mon was  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
ha3  never  been  questioned.  Some  have  indeed 
thought  that  he  composed  a part  only  of  the 
Proverbs  included  in  that  book,  and  collected 
the  others  from  various  sources.  It  is  probable, 
indeed,  that  he  availed  himself  of  any  sayings 
already  current  which  he  regarded  as  useful  and 
important.  Whether  he  ever  made  any  collec- 
tion of  his  proverbs  in  writing  is,  however,  doubt- 
ful. From  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  to  the  end, 
we  are  expressly  informed,  was  written  out  and 
added  to  the  previous  portion,  by  order  of  King 
Hezekiah.  The  divine  authority  of  the  book  is 
sufficiently  proved  by  the  quotations  made  from 
it  in  the  New  Testament  (Rom.  xii.  16;  Heb. 
xii.  5,  6 ; l Pet.  iv.  8;  1 Tiiess.  v.  15).  Each  of 
the  books  attributed  to  Solomon  is  sui  generis, 
both  as  to  matter  and  manner.  In  reference  to 
the  remarkable  poem  called  ‘ The  Song  of  Solo- 
mon,’ this  is  evident  at  a glance.  Ecclesiastes, 
abounding  in  seeming  contradictions,  proposing 
the  most  startling  paradoxes,  and  holding  alter- 
nately the  language  of  the  Epicurean  and  the 


PROVERBS,  THE  BOOK  OF.  571 

Stoic,  has  proved  scarcely  less  a stone  of  stum- 
bling to  the  commentators.  Tliebook  of  Proveibs, 
if  less  obscure  than  these  two,  is  not  less  strikingly 
marked  by  peculiarities  of  form  and  diction,  and 
not  less  worthy  of  attentive  study. 

It  has  in  all  ages,  indeed,  been  regarded  as  a 
great  storehouse  of  practical  wisdom.  The  early 
fathers  were  accustomed  to  call  it  iravapKeros 
cro<pia.  Modern  writers  have  been  equally  filled 
with  admiration  of  the  profound  knowledge  Oi 
human  nature  displayed  in  it,  its  accurate  deli- 
neations of  character,  and  the  wonderful  richness 
and  appropriateness  of  its  instructions.  ‘ Truly,’ 
says  one  of  the  most  eminent  men  of  our  age, 
‘ in  all  points  of  prudence,  public  and  private, 
we  may  accommodate  to  the  Royal  Preacher 
his  own  words  (Eccles.  ii.  12),  What  can  the 
man  say  that  cometh  after  the  king  ? Even 
that  which  hath  been  said  already .’  . 

The  Hebrew  word  rendered  proverb,  p&D 
maushal , is  derived  from  a root  which  means, 
1.  to  resemble , to  compare ; 2.  to  mile;  and  sig- 
nifies primarily  a similitude  or  comparison  of 
two  objects.  Many  of  the  proverbs  of  Solomon 
are  of  this  nature,  e.g.x.  26  ; xxv.  11,  12,  13,  14, 
18,  19,  20,  25,  26,  28.  Hence  the  meaning  of 
the  word  may  have  been  gradually  extended  so 
as  to  embrace  any  apophthegm  or  brief  pithy 
saying.  Ur  we  may  consider  this  meaning  to 
have  been  derived  from  the  other  signification  of 

, viz.,  to  rule;  whence  authoritative  maxims. 

The  idea  of  resemblance,  however,  seems  to  be 
the  prominent  one,  and  may  refer  to  the  figura- 
tive style  common  in  proverbs,  even  when  no 
direct  comparison  is  instituted.  And  as  highly 
figurative  language  belongs  to  poetry,  it  came  to 
pass  that  maushal  was  used  to  indicate  any  com- 
position expressed  in  a highly  ornamented  and 
poetic  style.  Thus  the  prophecy  of  Balaam  is 
called  maushal  (Num.  xxiii.  7). 

The  characteristics  of  the  proverbial  style  (iv 
the  more  restricted  sense  of  the  word)  are,  accord- 
ing to  Bishop  Lowth,  1.  Brevity;  2.  Obscurity; 
3.  Elegance.  The  first  of  these  is,  however,  the 
only  one  that  can  be  considered  at  all  universal. 
Many  of  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  can  hardly  lay 
claim  to  elegance,  according  to  the  most  liberal 
application  of  the  term,  and  comparatively  few 
of  them  are  at  all  obscure  as  to  meaning.  The 
same  remark  applies  with  even  greater  force  to 
the  proverbs  of  every  day  life,  e.  g.  Time  and  tide 
wait  for  no  man.  Ilaste  makes  waste.  We  must 
make  hay  while  the  sun  shines.  A fool  and 
his  money  are  soon  parted.  We  should  be  rather 
inclined  to  name,  as  a characteristic  of  the  pro 
verb,  a pointed  and  sometimes  antithetical  form 
of  expression  ; and  this,  in  addition  to  brevity  or 
sententiousness,  constitutes  perhaps  the  only  uni- 
versal distinction  of  this  species  of  composition. 
Conciseness  indeed  enters  into  the  very  essence  of 
the  proverb ; and  this  fact  is  probably  indicated 
by  the  word  itself;  proverbia,  for,  or  instead  of 
words,  i.  e.  one  word  for  many. 

We  were  about  to  adduce  examples  from  the 
book  of  Proveibs,  of  these  tw1  excellencies — sen- 
tentiousness and  point — but  it  is  impossible  to 
select,  where  almost  every  verse  is  an  illustration. 
Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  the  structure  of 
the  Hebrew  language  admits  of  a much  higher 
degree  of  excellence  in  this  particular  than  is 


572  PROVERBS,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

possible  in  the  English  tongue.  We  give  two 
examples  taken  at  random.  ‘ A man's  heart 
deviseth  his  way : but  the  Lord  directeth  his 
steps.'  Here  are  twelve  words;  in  the  original 
seven  only  are  employed.  ‘ When  a man's 
ways  please  the  Lord , he  maheth  even  his  enemies 
to  be  at  peace  with  him .’  Eighteen  words ; in 
the  He  I >re  w eight. 

From  what  has  been  said  of  the  characteristics 
of  the  proverbial  or  parabolic  style,  it  is  obvious 
that  it  possesses  peculiar  advantages  as  a medium 
of  communicating  truth.  The  proverb  once  heard 
remains  fixed  in  the  memory.  Its  brevity,  its 
appositeness,  its  epigrammatic  point,  often  aided 
by  antithesis  or  paronomasia,  not  only  ensure  its 
remembrance,  but  very  probably  its  recurrence 
to  the  mind  at  the  very  time  when  its  warning 
voice  may  be  needed.  It  utters  in  a tone  of 
friendly  admonition,  of  gentle  remonstrance,  of 
stern  reproof,  or  of  vehement  denunciation,  its 
wholesome  lesson  in  the  ear  of  the  tried,  the 
tempted,  and  the  guilty.  Such  words  are  em- 
phatically ‘ as  goods  and  as  nails  fastened  in  a 
sure  place.’ 

Another  reason  why  the  mode  of  conveying 
truth  by  apophthegms  is  peculiarly  fitted  to  im- 
press the  mind,  is  the  same  which  explains  the  fact, 
that,  mere  outline  sketches,  executed  with  grace 
and  spirit  (Retzsch’s  for  instance),  please  more 
than  finished  and  elaborate  drawings,  viz.,  they 
leave  more  to  the  imagination.  No  man  likes  to 
have  everything  done  for  him.  The  exercise  of 
the  imagination,  kindled  by  the  lips  or  the  pencil 
of  genius,  creates  a far  higher  pleasure  than  arises 
from  merely  beholding  what  another  has  wrought. 
It  is  because  the  proverb  exerts  this  awakening 
effect  on  the  mind’  because  it  suggests  more  than 
it  expresses,  that  it  pieases. 

The  same  effect  is  produced  by  the  obscurity 
observable  in  some  ] roverbs ; an  obscurity  con- 
sequent in  part  on  their  seutentiousuess,  and  in 
part  on  their  figurative  dress.  It  is  true  that 
obscurity  may  become  a source  of  annoyance 
instead  of  pleasure  ; but  this  is  only  when  it  exists 
in  such  a degree  as  to  baffle  the  efforts  made  to 
dispel  it.  When  the  difficulty  is  one  which  a 
slight  exertion  of  thought  and  ingenuity  is  suffi- 
cient to  surmount,  it  attracts  rather  than  repels. 

The  advantages  above  specified  apply  to  the 
proverbial  mode  of  writing  in  any  age  and  among 
any  people.  But  Solomon  must  have  had  other 
reasons  for  selecting  it,  peculiar  to  the  age  and 
cp  \ntry  in  which  he  lived.  The  Hebrews  have 
been  called  a nation  of  children.  The  mode  of 
teaching  by  aphorisms  is  especially  adapted  to 
men  in  an  early  stage  of  culture,  who  have  not 
yet  learned  to  arrange  and  connect  their  various 
knowledges  into  a system.  The  deductions  of 
their  experience  lie  in  their  minds  in  the  form  of 
detached  and  disconnected  maxims.  Not  being 
able  to  trace  the  philosophical  connection  between 
different  facts,  and  caring  not  to  investigate 
causes,  they  are  more  impressed  by  the  bold 
assertion,  the  energetic  command,  or  the  brief 
warning,  than  by  amplified  and  elaborate  dis- 
courses. Accordingly  we  find  this  mode  of  writ- 
ing employed  in  the  most  remote  ages  ; and  wise 
sayings,  maxims,  apophthegms,  constitute  a large 
part  of  the  early  literature  of  most  nations.  Espe- 
cially is  this  true  of  the  Oriental  nations.  The 
fomlness  of  the  people  of  the  East  for  parables, 


PROVERBS.  THE  BOOK  OF. 

enigmas,  allegories,  and  pithy  sayings,  has  itself 
become  a proverb.  It  is  recorded  as  a proof  of 
the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  that  ‘ he  spoke  three 
thousand  proverbs'  (1  Kings  iv.  32);  and  Solo- 
mon himself  says,  that  in  his  time,  such  sayings 
formed  the  chief  study  of  the  learned.  A wis«* 
man  will  seek 

4 To  understand  a proverb  and  the  interpretation  j 
The  words  of  the  wise  and  their  dark  sayings.’ 

Recent  travellers  in  the  East  assure  us  that 
this  reverence  for  proverbs  still  exists  there  ; and 
that  nothing  gives  a man  so  much  advantage  in 
an  argument  as  the  ability  to  quote  one  of  them 
on  his  side.  We  may  therefore  conclude  that  the 
wise  king  could  have  found  no  better  mode  of 
impressing  truth  on  the  minds  of  his  countrymen 
than  the  one  he  has  here  chosen. 

Let  us  examine  more  particularly  the.style 
and  contents  of  the  book.  As  to  its  style  we  find 
it  to  be  marked  by  those  characteristics  which 
distinguish  the  poetry  of  the  Hebrews  from  their 
prose  compositions.  Of  these,  one  of  the  most 
obvious  and  important  is  what,  since  Bishop 
Lowtli  s day,  has  been  termed  Parallelism.  This 
consists  in  a certain  resemblance  or  correspond- 
ence, either  as  to  thought  or  form,  or  both,  be- 
tween the  members  a period.  The  two  most 
simple  kinds  of  parallelism,  and  the  only  two  we 
shall  notice  here,  are  when  the  period  contains 
hut  two  members,  and  the  last  either  repeats  the 
thought  contained  in  the  first,  or  presents  an  anti- 
thetical assertion,  beginning  generally  with  the 
adversative  but.  The  first  kind  of  parallelism  is 
called  by  Lowtli  synonymous , the  second  anti- 
thetic. The  following  passage  is  a beautiful  ex- 
ample of  Synonymous  Parallelism  : — 

‘My  son,  if  thou  wilt  receive  my  words, 

And  hide  my  commandments  with  thee; 

So  that  thou  incline  thine  ear  to  wisdom, 

And  apply  thy  heart  to  understanding; 

Yea,  if  thou  criest  after  knowledge, 

And  liftest  up  the  voice  for  understanding; 

If  thou  seekest  her  as  silver, 

And  searchest  for  her  as  for  hid  treasures; 
Then  shalt  thou  understand  the  fear  of  the 
Lord, 

And  find  the  knowledge  of  God.’ 

Prov.  ii.  1-5. 

As  an  instance  of  Antithetic  Parallelism,  take 
these  verses. 

‘ The  fear  of  the  Lord  prolongeth  days ; 

But  the  years  of  the  wicked  shall  he  shortened. 
The  hope  ol  the  righteous  shall  be  gladness; 
But  the  expectation  of  the  wicked  shall  perish. 
The  way  of  the  Lord  is  strength  to  the  upright ; 
ik.t  destruction  shall  be  to  the  workers  of 
iniquity.’  Prov.  x.  27-29. 

It  will  he  perceived  that  there  is  a continuity 
in  the  former  of  these  passages,  which  does  not 
belong  to  the  latfer.  In  fact  the  first  nine 
chapters  of  the  book  of  Proverbs  are  remarkably 
distinguished  from  the  remainder,  and  consti- 
tute a sort,  of  proem  or  exordium  to  the  work. 
This  portion  was  probably  committed  to  writing, 
while  the  disconnected  aphorisms  which  compose 
the  greater  part  of  the  remaining  portion  were  only 
uttered.  It  is  a continuous  discourse,  written  in 
the  highest  style  of  poetry,  adorned  with  apt  and 
beaut, ilul  illustrations,  and  with  various  afcd 
striking  figures.  The  personification  of  YVisdoJH 


PROVERBS,  THE  BOOK  OF. 

those  chapters  is  universally  regarded  as  one  of 
;he  most  beautiful  examples  of  Prosopopeia  to  be 
found  in  the  Bible,  and  possesses  an  indescrib- 
able grace  and  majesty.  What  can  be  finer  than 
the  passage  (oh.  viii.  22-31),  where  many  eminent 
critics  are  ot  opinion  that  the  Son  ot  God  is  to 
be  understood  as  speaking.  In  the  next  chapter 
the  word  Wisdom  has  a feminine  termination  ; 
and  Wisdom  and  Folly  are  personified  as  fe- 
males. The  contrast  between  their  respective 
pretensions  and  invitations  may  be  made  more 
evident  than  it  is  in  our  version  by  arranging  the 
passages  in  apposition  to  each  other. 

Wisdom  hath  builded  her  house, 

She  hath  hewn  out  her  seven  pillars, 

She  hath  killed  her  beasts, 

She  hath  mingled  her  wine, 

She  hath  also  furnished  her  table, 

She  hath  sent  forth  her  maidens, 

She  crieth  upon  the  highest  places  of  the  city  , 

■ Whoso  is  simple  let  him  turn  in  hither.’ 

To  him  who  wanteth  understanding  she  saith  : 

Come,  eat  of  my  bread; 

And  drink  of  the  wine  I have  mingled. 
Forsake  the  foolish  and  live  ; 

And  go  in  the  way  of  understanding  ; 

For  by  me  thy  days  shall  be  multiplied, 

And  the  years  of  thy  life  shall  be  increased 
Folly  is  clamorous; 

She  is  simple  and  knoweth  nothing. 

She  sitteth  at  the  door  of  her  house, 

On  a seat  in  the  high  places  of  the  city, 

To  call  passengers  who  go  right  on  their  ways  ; 

‘ Whoso  is  simple  let  him  turn  in  hither.’ 

To  him  who  wanteth  understanding  she  saith  : 

‘ Stolen  waters  are  sweet, 

And  bread  eaten  in  secret  is  pleasant.’ 

But  he  knoweth  not  that  the  dead  are  there, 
And  that  her  guests  are  in  the  depths  of  the 
grave. 

At  the  tenth  chapter  a different  style  com- 
mences. From  ch.  x.  to  ch.  xxii.  17.  is  a series 
of  pithy  disconnected  maxims,  on  various  sub- 
jects, and  applicable  to  the  most  diverse  situa- 
tion. From  ch.  xxii.  17  to  ch.  xxv.  a style  re- 
sembling that  of  the  exordium,  though  inferior  in 
elegance  and  sublimity,  prevails;  and  at  the 
hventy-fiffh  chapter  the  separate  maxims  recom- 
mence. These  compose  the  remainder  of  the  book, 
with  the  exception  of  the  thirtieth  chapter,  which 
is  ascribed  to  Agur,  and  the  thirty-first,  which  is 
said  to  be  the  advice  given  to  king  Lemuel  by 
nis  mother.  Who  these  persons  are  is  not  known. 
The  supposition  that  Lemuel  is  another  name  of 
Solomon  does  not  appear  to  be  supported  by  proof. 

The  thirtieth  chapter  affords  an  example  of 
another  species  of  writing,  closely  allied  to  the 
proverb,  and  equally  in  favour  among  the  Ori 
entals.  It  is  that  of  riddles  or  enigmas,  designed 
to  exercise  the  wit  and  ingenuity  of  the  hearer, 
and  to  impart  instruction  through  the  medium  of 
amusement.  Of  this  kind  is  the  riddle  proposed 
'ay  Samson  (Judg.  xiv.  12-18).  The  seventeenth 
chapter  of  Ezekiel  contains  a very  beautiful 
riddle  or  parable,  in  which  the  king  of  Babylon 
•s  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  a great  eagle 
with  spreading  wings.  Marry  of  the  symbolical 
acta  enjoined  by  God  upon  the  prophets,  which 
perhaps  apjear  to  modern  readers  of  Scripture 


PROVERBS,  THE  BOOK  OF.  573 

extremely  childish  and  ridiculous,  are  of  the 
same  nature  ; and  thus,  however  unsuited  to  our 
times,  were  perfectly  well  adapted  to  impress  and 
interest  the  Hebrews  (e.  g.  Jer.  xiii.  l-l  1 ; 
xviii.  1-6;  xxiv.  l-l 0).  Sometimes  these  riddles 
assumed  the  form  of  a brief  narration,  and  were 
called  fables  or  parables.  See  the  beautiful  fable 
related  by  Jotham  to  the  men  of  Shechem  ; and 
the  touching  story  of  the  one  ewe-lamb  of  the 
poor  man,  by  which  Nathan  reproved  David. 

But  to  return  to  Agur  and  Ins  riddles.  The 
introductory  verses  at  first  view  appear  obscure, 
from  the  absence  of  any  apparent  connection  with 
what  follows.  But  the  explanation  given  by 
Herder  appears  satisfactory.  ‘ The  sage  Agur,’ 
he  says,  ‘ is  to  discourse  lofty  sentiments  to  his 
pupils ; but  he  begins  with  modesty,  that  too 
exalted  wisdom  may  not  be  expected  from  him.’ 
How  shall  he  who  confesses  that  he  is  not  versed 
in  human  wisdom,  he  supposed  to  possess  that 
knowledge  which  belongs  to  the  holy  ? Wisdom 
for  man  consists  in  obeying  ‘every  word  of  God  ’ 
(ver.  5).  We  subjoin  Herder's  version  of  one 
of  these  riddles,  with  the  accompanying  remarks. 

FOUR  SMAI.I,  BUT  VERY  ACTIVE  THINGS. 

Four  things  are  liltle  on  the  earth, 

But  wiser  than  the  wisest. 

The  ant  race  are  a people  without  strength, 
Yet  they  prepare  their  meat  in  summer 
The  conies  are  a feeble  race, 

Yet  build  their  houses  in  the  rocks* 

The  locusts  have  no  king  to  rule  them, 

Yet  all  of  them  go  forth  by  bands; 

The  lizard, — one  may  seize  it  with  his  hand, 
And  yet  it  dwells  in  royal  palaces. 

The  whole  comparison  was  perhaps  made  on 
account  of  the  last,  where  an  animal  of  that  sort 
(which,  in  warm  climates,  lives  in  the  walls,  and 
is  very  annoying)  made  its  appearance;  for  the 
Orientals  are  fond  of  such  conceits  and  involved 
propositions,  especially  in  company,  and  they 
often,  indeed,  assemble  for  the  purpose  of  enjoy- 
ing them. 

The  concluding  chapter,  containing  the  coun- 
sels addressed  to  King  Lemuel  by  his  mother, 
needs  no  elucidation.  It  presents  a beautiful 
picture  of  female  excellence  in  an  age  and  coun- 
try where  modesty,  industry,  submission,  and  the 
domestic  and  matronly  virtues,  were  esteemed  the 
only  appropriate  ornaments  of  woman. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  maxims  which 
compose  the  greater  part  of  the  book  of  Proverbs, 
we  shall  find  enough  to  excite  our  wonder  and 
admiration.  Here  are  not  only  the  results  of  the 
profoundest  human  sagacity,  the  counsels  and 
admonitions  of  the  man  who  excelled  in  wisdom 
all  who  went  before,  and  all  who  came  after  him, 
but  of  such  ,a  man  writing  under  divine  inspira- 
tion. And1  how  numerous,  how  various,  how 
profound,  how  important  are  his  instructions ! 

These  directions  are  adapted  to  the  wants  of 
every  class  and  rank  of  men,  and  to  every 
relation  of  life.  The  rich  and  the  poor,  the 
learned  and  the  ignorant,  the  master  and  the 
servant,  the  monarch  and  the  subject,  may  here 
find  the  counsels  they  need.  ‘ Apples  of  gold  in 
baskets  of  silver’  are  fit  emblems  of  such  prudent 
and  wholesome  counsels,  clothed  in  such  an  at- 
tractive garb. 

[The  boundless  variety  of  these  instructions 


574 


PROVIDENCE. 


PROVIDENCE. 


has  indeed  ltd  some  authors  (such  as  De  Wette, 
Introduction , $ 281),  who  look  too  much  to  the 
human  sources  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  to  allege 
that  there  is  much  in  this  book  too  remote  from  the 
experience  of  Solomon  for  him  to  have  been  the 
author.  The  writer  just  cited  says  : ‘ These  pro- 
verbs, judging  from  their  number  and  variety, 
seem  rather  the  productions  of  a whole  nation 
than  of  a single  man.  Many  of  them  relate  to 
private  and  rustic  life;  with  one  of  which  Solo- 
mon was  not  sufficiently  acquainted,  and  in  the 
other  he  could  not  participate.’  So  again  with 
reference  to  the  introduction  contained  in  the  nine 
first  chapters,  the  same  writer  says  : — ‘ Their 
didactic  and  admonitory  tone,  and  their  strict 
injunction  of  chastity,  agree  better  with  the 
character  of  a teacher  of  youth,  a prophet,  or 
priest,  than  a king  like  Solomon.’  This  is  surely 
precarious  reasoning;  for  a state  life  is  often 
better  described  by  a keen  observer  than  by  one 
who  is  actually  subject  to  its  conditions.  It  is, 
however,  not  necessary  to  contend  that  the  whole 
of  the  Proverbs  were  by  Solomon  ; and  De  Wette 
himself  is  constrained  to  admit  that  a large  share 
in  the  composition  of  the  Proverbs  must  be 
ascribed  to  the  wise  king,  ‘especially  in  the  first 
part,’  i.  e.  ch.  i. — xxii.  16.  There  is,  in  fact,  no 
person  historically  known  to  us  from  Scripture 
to  whom,  taken  as  a whole,  they  could  with 
equal  reason  be  ascribed,  even  apart  from  the 
express  declarations  of  the  book  itself  (ch.  i.  1 ; 
x.  I ; xxv.  1).  In  one  remarkable  passage  of 
Scripture,  Solomon  is  said  to  have  ‘ uttered  three 
thousand  proverbs’  (1  Kings  iv.  32),  a large 
proportion  of  which  may  be  presumed  to  have 
been  preserved  in  the  present  book.  Indeed,  it  has 
been  often  supposed  that  this  very  statement  has 
express  reference  to  the  proverbs  contained  in  it. 
On  the  authority  of  this  conclusion,  Jerome 
( Prcefat . in  Prov.)  erroneously  states  the  number 
if  the  proverbs  to  be  three  thousand. 

The  literature  of  the  book  of  Proverbs  is  con- 
tained chiefly  in  the  following  works  (besides  the 
preliminary  dissertations  in  the  various  Com- 
mentaries) : — Melanchthon,  Explicatio  Prow. 
1555 ; Mercer,  Comment,  in  Prow.  Salom. ; 
Geiero.  Prow.  Salom.  1669  ; Schultens,  Pro- 
verbia  Salom.  1748 ; Hirfz,  Vollst.  Erkliir.  der 
Spr'uche  Salo?n.  1768;  Hunt,  Observations  on 
the  Book  of  Proverbs,  1775  ; Hodgson,  On  the 
Book  of  Proverbs , 1778;  Jager,  Obscrvait.  hi 
Prow.  Salom.  Versionem  Alexand.  1788;  Law- 
son,  Exposition  of  Proverbs , 1821 ; Umbreit, 
Philol.  Krit.  u.  Philosoph.  Comm.  u.  d.  Spr'uche 
Salom.  1 826.  There  are  also  translations,  mostly 
with  note*,  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  1778;  Doeder- 
lein,  1786;  Streunsee,  1783;  Kleuker,  1786; 
Reichard,  1790  ; Ziegler,  1791;  Muntinghe, 
1800,  1802;  Dahler,  1810;  Holden,  1819; 
Gramberg,  1828;  Bockel,  1829;  and  Ewald..  in 
bis  Poetischen  Bucher,  vol.  iv.] — L.  P.  H. 

PROVIDENCE.  The  word  Providence  is 
derived  from  the  Latin  ( providentia , pro-videre ), 
a;»d  originally  meant  foresight.  The  correspond- 
ing Greek  word  ( irpovoia ) means  forethought. 
By  a well-known  figure  of  speech,  called  meto- 
nymy, we  use  a word  denoting  the  means  by 
which  we  accomplish  anything  to  denote  the  end 
accomplished  ; we  exercise  care  over  anything 
by  means  of  foresight,  and  idicate  that  care  by 
the  word  foresight.  On  the  same  principle  the 


word  Providence  is  used  to  signify  the  care  God 
takes  of  the  universe.  As  to  its  inherent  nature. 
it  is  the  power  which  God  exerts,  without  inter - 
mission,  in  and  upon  all  the  works  of  his  hands. 
In  the  language  of  the  schoolmen,  it  is  a con- 
tinual creation  ( creatio  continud).  But  defined 
as  to  its  visible  manifestations,  it  is  God’s  pre- 
servation and  government  of  all  things.  As  a 
thing  is  known  by  its  opposites,  the  meaning  of 
Providence  is  elucidated  by  considering  that  it 
is  opposed  to  fortune  and  fortuitous  accidents. 

Providence,  considered  in  reference  to  all  things 
existing,  is  termed  by  Knapp  universal ; in  re- 
ference to  moral  beings,  special ; and  in  reference 
to  holy  or  converted  beings,  particular.  Every- 
thing is  an  object  of  Providence  in  proportion  to 
its  capacity.  The  disciples,  being  of  more  value 
than  many  sparrows,  were  assured  of  greater  pro- 
vidential care.  By  Providence  being  universal 
is  intended,  not  merely  that  it  embraces  classes 
of  objects  or  greater  matters,  but  that  nothing  is 
too  minute  or  insignificant  for  its  inspection.  To 
Providence  considered  in  this  relation  the  term 
particular  is  also  commonly  applied. 

Providence  is  usually  divided  into  three  divine 
acts,  preservation,  co-operation,  and  government. 
1.  By  preservation  is  signified  the  causing  of 
existence  to  continue.  2.  Co-operation  is  the  act 
of  God  which  causes  the  poxoers  of  created  things 
to  remain  in  being.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the 
existence  and  the  powers  of  things  are  ever  sepa- 
rated, but  only  that  they  are  distinguishable  in 
mental  analysis.  Co-operation  varies  with  the 
nature  of  the  objects  towards  which  it  is  exer- 
cised. 3.  Government,  as  a branch  of  Providence, 
is  God's  controlling  all  created  things  so  as  to 
promote  the  highest  good  of  the  whole.  To  this 
end  every  species  of  being  is  acted  upon  in  a way 
conformable  to  its  nature ; for  instance,  inani- 
mate things  by  the  laws  of  physical  influence, 
brutes  according  to  the  laws  of  instinct,  an«i 
free  agents  according  to  the  laws  of  free  agency. 
Moreover,  as  Providence  has  respect  to  the  nature 
which  God  has  been  pleased  to  assign  to  its 
various  objects,  so,  in  common  with  every  other 
divine  act,  it  is  characterized  by  divine  per- 
fections. It  displays  omnipresence,  omniscience, 
omnipotence,  holiness,  justice,  and  benevolence. 

It  has  been  sometimes  contended  that  Pro- 
vidence does  not  extend  to  all  things,  or  to  un- 
important events,  and  chiefly  for  four  reasons. 
Such  an  all-embracing  Providence,  it  is  said, 
would  (1.)  be  distracting  to  the  mind  of  God; 
or  (2.^  would  be  beneath  his  dignity;  or  (3.) 
would  interfere  with  human  freedom ; or  (4.) 
would  render  God  unjust  in  permitting  evil  to 
exist.  In  reply  to  these  objections  against  a Pro- 
vidence controlling  all  things  without  exception, 
it  may  be  observed  that  the  third  and  fourth 
suggest  difficulties  which  press  equally,  in  fact, 
upon  all  hypotheses,  not  only  as  to  Providence, 
but  as  to  creation,  and  which  shall  be  more  fully 
explained  in  the  sequel. 

As  to  the  first  objection,  that  the  minutiae  of 
the  creation  are  so  multifarious  as  to  confuse  the 
mind  of  God,  we  are  content  to  let  it  refute  itself 
in  every  mind  which  has  any  just  sense  of  the 
divine  knowledge  and  wisdom.  The  second  ob- 
jection, that  some  things  are  beneath  God’s  no- 
tice, if  it  be  not  a captious  cavil,  must  result 
from  pushing  too  far  the  analogy  between  earthly 


PROVIDENCE. 


PROVIDENCE, 


575 


Icings  and  the  King  of  kings.  It  is  an  imper- 
fection in  human  poten fates  that  they  need  vice- 
gerents; let  us  not  then  attribute  such  a weakness 
to  God,  fancying  him  altogether  such  a one  as 
ourselves.  Again,  it  is  to  this  day  doubtful  whe- 
ther the  microscope  does  not  display  the  divine 
perfections  as  illustriously  as  the  telescope;  there 
is  therefore  no  reason  to  deny  a Providence  over 
animalcula  which  we  admit  over  the  constellated 
heavens.  What  is  it  that  we  dare  call  insignifi- 
cant ? The  least  of  all  things  may  be  as  a seed 
cast  into  the  seed-field  of  time,  to  grow  there  and 
bear  fruits,  which  shall  ^e  multiplying  when  time 
shall  be  no  more.  We  cannot  always  trace  the 
connections  of  things, — we  do  not  ponder  those  we 
can  trace, — or  we  should  tremble  to  call  anything 
beneath  the  notice  of  God.  It  has  been  eloquently 
said  that,  where  we  see  a trifle  hovering  uncon- 
nected in  space,  higher  spirits  can  discern  its 
fibres  stretching  through  the  whole  expanse  of 
lie  system  of  the  world,  and  hanging  on  the 
;*motest  limits  of  the  future  and  the  past. 

In  reference  to  the  third  and  fourth  objections 
before  mentioned,  namely,  that  an  all-embracing 
Providence  is  incompatible  with  divine  justice 
and  human  freedom,  it  should  be  considered 
that,  in  contemplating  God’s  Providence,  the 
question  will  often  arise,  why  was  moral  evil 
allowed  to  exist?  But  as  this  question  meets  us 
at  every  turn,  and,  under  different  forms,  may 
be  termed  the  one  and  the  only  difficulty  in 
theology,  it  must  often  be  considered  in  the  pro- 
gress of  this  work,  and  may  therefore  require  the 
less  notice  in  the  present  article.  We  should  in 
all  humility  preface  whatever  we  say  on  the  per- 
mission of  evil  with  a confession  that  it  is  an 
inscrutable  mystery,  which  our  faith  receives,  but 
which  our  reason  could  not  prove  either  to  be  or 
not  to  be  demanded  by  the  perfections  of  God. 
But,  in  addition  to  the  vindication  of  God’s  ways 
which  may  be  found  in  the  overruling  of  evil  for 
good,  the  following  theories  deserve  notice  : — 

1.  Occasionalism,  or  the  doctrine  that  God  is 
the  immediate  cause  of  all  men’s  actions.  It  is 
so  called,  because  it  maintains  that  men  only 
furnish  God  an  occasion  for  what  he  does.  It 
degrades  all  second  causes  to  mere  occasions,  and 
turns  men  into  passive  instruments. 

2.  Mechanism.  Many,  alarmed  at  the  conse- 
quences which  occasionalism  would  seem  to  in- 
volve, have  embraced  an  opposite  scheme.  They 
criticise  the  definition  of  the  laws  of  nature  on 
which  Emmons  builds,  and  contend  that  occa- 
sionalism derives  all  its  plausibility  from  adroitly 
availing  itself  of  the  ambiguities  of  language. 
They  would  have  us  view  the  creation  as  a species 
of  clock,  or  other  machine,  which,  being  once 
made  and  wound  up,  will  for  a time  perform  its 
movements  without  the  assistance  or  even  pre- 
sence of  its  maker.  But  such  reasoners  press  too 
far  the  analogy  between  the  Creator  and  an  arti- 
san. So  excellent  a man  as  Baxter  was  misled 
by  this  hypothesis,  which  evidently  is  as  deroga- 
tory to  God  as  occasionalism  is  fatal  to  the  moral 
agency  of  man. 

3.  The  authors  of  the  third  scheme  respecting 
the  mode  in  which  Providence  permits  sin  sought 
to  be ‘eclectics,’  or  to  find  a path  intermediate 
between  mechanism  and  occasionalism.  In  their 
judgment  man  is  actuated  by  God,  and  yet  is  at 
the  same  time  active  himself.  God  gives  men 


the  powers. of  action,  and  preserves  these  powers 
every  moment,  but  he  is  not  the  efficient  cause 
of  free  actions  themselves.  This,  they  say,  is 
involved  in  the  very  idea  of  a moral  being, 
which  would  cease  to  be  moral  if  it  were  sub- 
jected to  the  control  of  necessity,  and  not  suffered 
to  choose  and  to  do  what  it  saw  to  be  best  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  freedom.  But  it  is  asked, 
why  did  God  create  men  free,  and  therefore 
fallible ? It  were  presumption  to  think  of  an- 
swering this  question  adequately.  It  belongs  lo 
the  deep  things  of  God.  But,  among  the  possible 
reasons,  we  may  mention,  that  if  no  fallible 
beings  had  been  created,  there  could  have  been 
no  virtue  in  the  universe  ; for  virtue  implies  pro- 
bation, and  probation  a liability  to  temptation 
and  sin.  Again,  if  some  beings  had  not  become 
sinful,  the  most  glorious  attributes  of  God  would 
never  have  been  so  fully  exerted  and  displayed. 
How  could  his  wisdom  and  mercy  and  grace 
have  been  adequately  manifested,  except  by  suf- 
fering a portion  of  his  creatures  to  become  such 
as  to  demand  the  exercise  of  those  attributes  ? 
How  else  could  he  have  wrought  the  miracle  of 
educing  good  from  .evil  ? In  this  connection  we 
may  allude  to  the  3rd  chapter  of  Romans,  where, 
as  in  other  passages,  it  is  declared,  that  the  good 
which  evil  may  be  overruled  to  produce,  cannot 
palliate,  much  less  excuse,  the  guilt  of  sinners, 
or  of  those  who  say,  ‘ let  us  do  evil  that  good 
may  come.’ 

Among  the  proofs  of  divine  Providence  may 
be  reckoned  the  following: — 

One  argument  in  proof  of  Providence  is  ana- 
logous to  one  mode  of  proving  a creation.  If  we 
cannot  account  for  the  existence  of  the  world 
without  supposing  its  coming  into  existence,  or 
beginning  to  be ; no  more  can  we  account  for  the 
world  continuing  to  exist,  without  supposing  it 
to  be  preserved ; for  it  is  as  evidently  absurd  to 
suppose  any  creature  prolonging  as  producing  ifs 
own  being. 

A second  proof  of  Providence  results  from  the 
admitted  fact  of  creation.  Whoever  has  made 
any  piece  of  mechanism,  therefore  takes  pains  to 
preserve  it.  Parental  affection  moves  those  who 
have  given  birth  to  children  to  provide  for  their 
sustentation  and  education.  It  is  both  reasonable 
and  Scriptural  to  contemplate  God  as  sustaining 
the  universe  because  he  made  it.  Thus  David, 
having  premised  that  the  world  was  made  by 
God,  immediately  descends  to  the  course  of  his 
Providence  (Ps.  xxiii.  6 ; comp.  ver.  13).  The 
creation  also  evinces  a Providence  by  proving 
God’s  right  to  rule,  on  the  admitted  principle 
that  every  one  may  do  what  he  will  with  his  own 

A third  proof  of  Providence  is  found  in  the 
divine  perfections.  Since,  among  the  divine  per- 
fections, are  all  power  and  all  knowledge,  the 
non-existence  of  Providence,  if  there  be  none, 
must  result,  from  a want  of  will  in  God.  But  no 
want  of  will  to  exercise  a Providence  can  exist, 
for  God  wills  whatever  is  for  the  good  of  the 
universe,  and  for  his  own  glory ; to  either  ot 
which  a Providence  is  clearly  indispensable. 
God  therefore  has  resolved  to  exercise  his  power 
and  knowledge  so  as  to  subserve  the  best  ends 
with  his  creation.  ‘ He  that  denies  Providence, 
says  Charnock,  ‘ denies  most  of  God’s  attributes ; 
he  denies  at  least  the  exercise  of  them  ; he  denies 
his  omniscience,  which  is  the  eye  of  Providence ; 


576 


PROVIDENCE. 


PROVIDENCE. 


mercy  anil  justice,  which  are  the  arms  of  it; 
power,  which  is  its  life  and  motion;  wisdom, 
which  is  the  rudder  whereby  Providence  is  steered  ; 
and  holimss,  which  is  the  compass  and  rule  of 
its  motion.’  This  argument  for  a Providence 
might  be  made  much  more  impressive,  did  our 
limits  allow  us  to  expand  it,  so  as  to  show,  step 
by  step,  bow  almost  every  attribute,  if  not  di- 
rectly, yet  by  implication,  demands  that  God 
put  forth  an  unceasing  sovereignty  over  all  his 
works. 

A fourth  proof  of  God’s  Providence  appears 
in  the  order  which  prevails  in  the  universe.  We 
say  the  order  which  prevails,  aware  of  the  occa- 
sional apparent,  disorder  that  exists,  which  we 
have  already  noticed,  and  shall  soon  treat  of 
again.  That  summer  and  winter,  seed-time  and 
harvest,  cold  and  heat,  day  and  night,  are  fixed 
by  a law,  was  obvious  even  to  men  who  never 
heard  of  God’s  covenant  with  Noah.  Accord- 
ingly the  ancient  Greeks  designated  the  creation 
by  a word  which  means  order  (icScr/AOs)-  But 
our  sense  of  order  is  keenest  where  we  discern  it 
in  apparent  confusion.  The  motions  of  the  hea- 
venly bodies  are  eccentric  and  intervolved,  yet 
are  most  regular  when  they  seem  most  lawless. 
They  were  therefore  compared  by  the  earliest 
astronomers  to  the  discords  which  blend  in  a 
harmony,  and  to  the  wild  starts  which  often 
heighten  the  graces  of  a dance.  Modern  astro- 
nomy has  revealed  to  us  so  much  miraculous 
symmetry  in  celestial  phenomena,  that,  it  shows 
ns  far  more  decisive  proofs  of  a Ruler  seated  on 
the  circle  of  the  heavens,  than  were  vouchsafed 
to  the  ancients.  Moreover,  many  discover  proofs 
of  a Providence  in  such  tacts  as  the  proportion 
between  the  two  sexes,  the  diversities  of  the  coun- 
tenance, as  well  as  human  nature  and  the  nature 
of  all  things  continuing  always  the  same;  since 
such  facts  show  that  all  things  are  controlled  by 
an  unchanging  power. 

An  objection  to  proofs  of  Providence,  derived 
from  the  order  of  the  universe,  is  thought  to  spring 
from  the  seeming  disorders  to  which  we  cannot 
shut  our  eyes.  Much  is  said  of  plagues  and  earth- 
quakes, of  drought,  flood,  frost,  and  famine,  with 
a thousand  more  natural  evils.  But  it  deserves 
consideration  whether,  if  there  were  no  Provi- 
dence, these  anomalies  would  not  be  the  rule 
instead  of  the  exception  ; — whether  they  do  not 
feelingly  persuade  us  that  the  course  of  nature  is 
upheld  by  a power  above  nature,  and  without 
which  it  would  fall  to  nothing; — whether  they 
may  not  be  otherwise  necessary  for  more  im- 
portant ends  than  fall  within  the  scope  of  our 
knowledge. 

A fifth  proof  of  a Providence  is  furnished  by 
the  fact  that  so  many  men  are  here  rewarded  and 
punished  according  to  a righteous  law.  The 
wicked  often  feel  compunctious  visitings  in  the 
midst  of  their  sins,  or  smart  under  the  rod  of 
civil  justice,  or  are  tortured  with  natural  evils. 
With  the  righteous  all  things  are  in  general  re- 
versed. The  miser  and  envious  are  punished  as 
soon  as  they  begin  to  commit  their  respective 
sins ; and  some  virtues  are  their  own  present 
reward.  But  we  would  not  dissemble  that  we 
are  here  met  with  important  objections,  although 
infinitely  less,  even  though  they  were  unanswer- 
able, than  beset  such  as  would  reject  the  doctrine 
of  Providence.  It  is  said,  and  we  gvant,  that 


the  rghteous  are  trodden  under  foot,  and  the 
vilest  men  exalted  ; that  the  race  is  not  to  tho 
swift,  nor  the  battle  to  the  strong;  that  virtue 
starves,  while  vice  is  fed ; and  that  schemes  for 
doing  good  are  frustrated,  while  evil  plots  sue* 
ceed.  But  we  may  reply,  1.  The  prosperity  of 
the  wicked  is  often  apparent,  and  well  styled  a 
shining  misery.  Who  believes  that  Nero  en- 
throned was  happier  than  Paul  in  chains  ? 
2.  We  are  often  mistaken  in  calling  such  or  such 
an  afflicted  man  good,  and  such  or  such  a prosper- 
ous man  bad.  3.  The  miseries  of  good  men  are 
generally  occasioned  by  their  own  fault, since  they 
have  been  so  fool-hardy  as  to  run  counter  to  the 
laws  by  which  God  acts,  or  have  aimed  at  cer- 
tain ends  while  neglecting  the  appropriate  means 
4.  Many  virtues  are  proved  and  augmented  by 
trials,  and  not  only  proved,  but  produced,  so  that 
they  would  have  had  no  existence  without  them. 
Many  of  David’s  noblest  qualities  would  never 
have  been  developed  but  for  the  impious  attempts 
of  Saul.  Job's  integrity  was  not  only  tested,  but 
strengthened,  by  Satan's  being  permitted  to  sift 
him  as  wheat.  Patience,  experience,  and  hope 
were  brought  as  ministering  angels  to  men,  of 
whom  the  world  was  net  worthy,  through  trials 
of  cruel  mockings  and  scourgings.  5.  The  un- 
equal distribution  of  good  and  evil,  so  far  as  it 
exists,  carries  our  thoughts  forward  to  the  last 
judgment,  and  a retribution  according  to  the 
deeds  done  in  the  body,  and  can  hardly  fail  of 
throwing  round  the  idea  of  eternity  a stronger  air 
of  reality  than  it  might  otherwise  wear.  All  per- 
plexity vanishes  as  we  reflect  that,  ‘ He  cometh  to 
judge  the  earth.’  6.  Even  if  we  limit  our  views 
to  this  world,  but  extend  them  to  all  our  ac- 
quaintance, we  cannot  doubt  that  the  tendencies , 
though  not  always  the  effects,  of  vice  are  to 
misery,  and  those  of  virtue  to  happiness.  These 
tendencies  are  especially  clear  if  our  view  em- 
braces a whole  lifetime,  and  the  clearer  the  longer 
the  period  vre  embrace.  The  Psalmist  (Ps.  lxxiii.) 
was  at  first  envious  at  the  foolish,  when  he  saw 
the  prosperity  of  the  wicked ; but  as  his  views 
became  more  comprehensive,  and  he  understood 
their  end,  his  language  was,  ‘ How  are  they 
brought  into  desolation  as  in  a moment!  thev 
are  utterly  consumed  with  terrors!’  The  pro- 
gressive tendency  of  vice  and  virtue  to  reap  each 
its  appropriate  harvest  is  finely  illustrated  by 
Bishop  Butler — best  of  all  perhaps  in  his  picture 
of  an  imaginary  kingdom  of  the  good,  which 
would  peacefully  subvert  all  others,  and  fill  the 
earth.  Indeed,  as  soon  as  we  leave  what  is  im- 
mediately before  our  eyes,  and  glance  at  the 
annals  of  the  world,  we  behold  so  many  mani 
festations  of  God,  that  we  may  adduce  as 

A sixth  proof  of  Providence  the  facts  of  his 
tory.  The  giving  and  transmission  of  a revela- 
tion, it  has  been  justly  said, — the  founding  of 
religious  institutions,  as  the  Mosaic  and  the  Chris- 
tian,— the  raising  up  of  prophets,  apostles,  and 
defenders  of  the  faith, — the  ordering  of  particular 
events,  such  as  the  Reformation, — the  more  re- 
markable deliverances  noticed  in  the  lives  of 
those  devoted  to  the  good  of  the  world,  &c. — all 
indicate  the  wise  and  benevolent  care  of  God 
over  the  human  family.  But  the  historical  proof 
of  a Providence  is  perhaps  strongest  where  the 
wrath  of  man  has  been  made  to  praise  God,  or 
where  efforts  to  dishonour  God  have  been  cop 


PROVIDENCE. 

trained  fo  do  him  honour.  Testimony  in  favours 
of  piety  has  fallen  from  tlie  impious,  and  iias  had 
a double  value,  as  coining  lVom  the  unwilling. 
They  who  have  fought  against  the  truth  have 
been  used  by  God  • as  instruments  of  spreading 
the  knowledge  of  it,  awakening  an  interest  in  it, 
or  stimulating  Christians  to  purify  it  from  human 
additions,  and  to  exhibit  its  power.  The  sci- 
entific researches  also  with  which  infidels  have 
wearied  themselves  to  overthrow  a revelation  have 
proved  at  last  fatal  to  their  darling  scepticism. 
Too  many  histories,  like  Gibbon’s,  have  been  writ- 
ten as  if  there  were  no  God  in  the  heavens,  sway- 
ing the  sceptre  of  the  earth.  But  a better  day  is 
approaching ; and  it  is  exhilarating  to  observe 
that  Alison,  the  first  British  historian  of  the  age, 
writes  in  the  spirit  which  breathes  in  the  histo- 
rical books  of  the  Bible,  where  the  free  actions 
of  man  are  represented  as  inseparably  connected 
with  the  agency  of  God.  If  we  may  judge  of  the 
future  by  the  past,  as  the  scroll  of  time  unrolls, 
we,  or  our  posterity,  and  some  think  glorified 
spirits  in  a yet  higher  degree,  shall  see  more  and 
more  plainly  the  hand  of  God  operating,  till 
every  knee  shall  bow.  Judgments,  now  a great 
deep,  shall  become  as  the  light  that  goeth  forth. 
The  tides  of  ambition  and  avarice  will  all  be 
seen  to  roll  in  subserviency  to  the  designs  of  God. 
To  borrow  the  illustration  of  another,  ‘ We  shall 
behold  the  bow  of  God  encircling  tfee  darkest 
storms  of  wickedness,  and  forcing  them  to  mani- 
fest his  glory  to  the  universe.’ 

As  a seventh  ground  for  believing  in  Provi- 
dence, it  may  be  said  that  Providence  is  the  ne- 
cessary basis  of  all  religion.  For  what  is  religion  % 
One  of  the  best  definitions  calls  it  the  belief  in  a 
superhuman  Power,  which  has  great  influence  in 
human  affairs,  and  ought  therefore  to  be  wor- 
shipped. But  take  away  this  influence  in  human 
affairs,  and  you  cut  off  all  motive  to  worship. 
To  the  same  purpose  is  the  text  in  Hebrews : * He 
that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
Jut  he  is  a rewarder  of  such  as  diligently  seek 
nim.’  If  then  the  religion  sentiments  thrill  us 
not  in  vain, — if  all  attempts  of  all  men  to  com- 
mune with  God  have  not  always  and  everywhere 
been  idle, — there  must  be  a Providence. 

In  the  eighth  place,  we  may  advert  for  a mo- 
ment to  the  proof  of  Providence  from  the  com- 
mon consent  of  mankind,  with  the  single  ex- 
ception of  atheists.  The  Epicureans  may  be 
classed  with  atheists,  as  they  are  generally  thought 
to  have  been  atheists  in  disguise,  and  a god  after 
their  imaginations  would  l>e,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  no  god.  The  Stoics  were  also  atheists, 
believing  only  in  a blind  fate  arising  from  a per- 
petual concatenation  of  causes  contained  in  na- 
ture. The  passages  acknowledging  a Providence 
in  Cicero,  Seneca,  Plutarch,  and  all  the  ancient 
moralists,  are  numerous  and  decisive,  but  too 
accessible  or  well  known  to  need  being  quoted. 

the  last  place,  the  doctrine  of  Providence 
*s  abundantly  proved  by  the  Scriptures.  Some- 
times it  is  declared  that  the  Most  High  ruleth  in 
the  kingdom  of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever 
he  will ; as  much  as  to  say  that  nothing  can 
withstand  his  power.  Again,  lest;  we  may  think 
some  things  beneath  his  notice,  we  read  that  ht 
numberelh  the  hairs  of  our  heads , careth  for 
lilies,  and  disposeth  all  the  lots  which  are  cast. 
The  care  of  God  for  man  is  generally  argue* 
troL.  ix.  38 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF.  677 

a fortiori,  from  his  care  for  inferior  creature*. 
One  Psalm  (xci.)  is  devoted  to  show  the  provi- 
dential security  of  the  godly : another  (xciii.) 
shows  the  frailty  of  man ; and  a third  (civ.)  ttte 
dependence  of  all  orders  in  creation  on  God  s 
Providence  for  food  and  breath.  In  him,  it  is 
elsewhere  added,  we  live,  and  move,  and  have 
our  being.  He,  in  the  person  of  Christ,  sustaineth 
all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  and  from 
him  cometh  down  every  good  and  perfect  gift. 
But  nowhere  perhaps  is  a Providence  so  pointedly 
asserted  and  so  sublimely  set  forth  as  in  some  of 
the  last  chapters  of  Job;  and  nowhere  so  va- 
riously, winningly,  and  admirably  exhibited  as 
in  the  history  of  Joseph. 

The  principal  writers  on  this  important  subject 
are  : — Gomarus,  Explicatio  Doct.  Orthod.  de 
Providentia,  1597  ; Sander,  Ueber  die  Vorse- 
hung,  1780;  Bormann,  Die  Christl.  Lehre  d. 
Vorsehung,  1820;  Feldmann,  Moira,  oder  ii.  d. 
Gotti.  Vorsehung , 1830  ; Leibnitz,  Essais  de 
Theodicte,  1840 ; Rougemont,  Du  Monde  dans 
ses  Rapports  avec  Dieu,  1311  ; and  the  Treatises 
and  Discourses  on  Providence  by  Charnock, 
Flavel,  Hopkins,  Hunter,  Sherlock,  and  Fawcett. 
— J.  D.  B. 

PRUNING-HOOK.  [Vine.] 

PSALMS,  BOOK  OF.  This  collection  of 
sacred  poetry  received  its  name,  "VaX/Aol,  in  con  - 
sequence  of  the  lyrical  character  of  the  pieces  of 
which  it  consists,  as  intended  to  be  sung  to  stringed 
and  other  instruments  of  music.  The  wrord  (from 
to  touch  or  strike  a chord)  is  thus  aptly  de- 
fined by  Gregory  of  Nyssa(7Vac£.  ii.  in  Psalmos , 
cap,  3)  : \f/aAjuJs  ianv  rj  bia  rov  boyavov  rov 
povcriKov  peAwhia.  Another  name,  Psalter , was 
given  to  this  book  from  the  Greek  \f/a\TT]piou,  the 
stringed  instrument  to  which  its  conteuts  were 

originally  sung.  The  Hebrew  title  (Rab- 

binic form,  with  H elided,  D^n  or  j^n)  signifies 
hymns  or  praises,  and  was  probably  adopted  on 
account  of  the  use  made  of  the  collection  in  divine 
service,  though  only  a part  can  be  strictly  called 
songs  of  praise,  not  a few  being  lamentations  and 
prayers.  There  is  evidently  no  proper  correspond- 
ence between  the  titles  in  the  two  languages, 
though  each  is  suitable.  The  word  answering  to 
D^nn  is  vpvoi,  and  not  ipuAyoi,  which  rather 
corresponds  to  D'llDTp,  lyrical  odes, — a name 
which,  though  so  plainly  appropriate,  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  generally  given  to  the  book, 
at  least  so  far  as  the  Hebrew  usage  can  now  be 
ascertained.  This  is  the  more  singular,  inasmuch 
as  no  fewer  than  sixty-five  of  the  songs  distinctly 
bear  the  title  of  Tl DID, while  only  one  (Ps.  cxlv.  1) 

is  styled  That  the  name  D'H'lDtfcD  did, 

however,  obtain  in  ancient  times,  rather  than  the 

present  title  D^nn,  may  be  presumed  from  the 
use  of  -tyaApoi  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  New 

Testament,  and  of  in  thePeshito. 

In  Ps.  lxxii.  20  we  find  all  the  preceding  com- 
positions (Ps.  i. -lxxii.)  styled  Prayers  of  David, 
because  many  of  them  are  strictly  prayers,  and 
all  are  pervaded  by  the  spirit  and  tone  of  suppli- 
cation. 

All  the  best  judges,  as  Lowth,  Herder,  De  Wette, 
Ewakl,  Tholuek,  and  others,  pronounce  the  pc<?try 


578  PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

of  the  Psalms  to  be  of  the  lyric  order.  ‘ They 
are,’  says  De  Wette  ( Einlcitung  in  die  Psalmen ,* 
}>.  2),  ‘ lyric  in  the  proper  sense ; for  among  the 
Hebrews,  as  among  the  ancients  generally,  poetry, 
singing,  ami  music  were  united,  and  the  inscrip- 
tions to  most  of  the  Psalms  determine  their  con- 
nection with  music,  though  in  a way  not  always 
intelligible  to  us.  Also  as  works  of  taste  these 
compositions  deserve  to  be  called  lyric.  The 
essence  of  lyric  poetry  is  the  immediate  expres- 
sion of  feeling;  and  feeling  is  the  sphere  in  which 
most  of  the  Psalms  move.  Pain,  grief,  fear,  hope, 
ioy,  trust,  gratitude,  submission  to  God,  every- 
thing that  moves  and  elevates  the  heart,  is  ex- 
pressed in  these  songs.  Most  of  them  are  the 
lively  effusions  of  the  excited  susceptible  heart, 
the  fresh  offspring  of  inspiration  and  elevation  of 
thought;  while  oidy  a few  are  spiritless  imita- 
tions and  compilations,  or  unpoetic  forms  of 
prayer,  temple  hymns,  and  collections  of  pro- 
verbs.’ For  fuller  information  on  this  subject  see 
POETHY. 

Titles.  All  the  Psalms,  except  thirty-four, 
bear  superscriptions.  According  to  some  there 
are  .only  twenty-five  exceptions,  as  they  reckon 
a title  in  all  the  Psalms  which  com- 
mence with  it.  To  each  of  these  exceptions  the 
Talmud  ( Eabyl . Cud.  Avoda  Sarah , fol.  21, 
col.  2)  gives  the  name  NDIfV  NTlDTD,  Orphan 
Psalm. 

The  authority  of  the  titles  is  a matter  of  douht. 
By  most  of  the  ancient  critics  they  were  considered 
genuine,  ami  of  equal  authority  with  the  Psalms 
themselves,  while  most  of  the  moderns  reject  them 
wholly  or  in  part.  They  were  wholly  rejected  at 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century  by  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  judicious 
of  ancient  interpreters  (Rosemnuller,  Hist.  Tnter- 
pretationis  Librorum  Sacrorum,  P.  iii.,  p.  256). 
On  the  other  hand  it  deserves  to  he  noticed  that 
they  are  received  by  Tholuck  and  Ilengstenberg 
in  their  works  on  the  Psalms.  Of  the  antiquity  of 
the  inscriptions  there  can  he  no  question,  for  they 
are  found  hi  the  Sept.  They  are -supposed  to  be 
even  much  older  than  this  version,  since  they  were 
no  longer  intelligible  to  the  translator,  who  often 
makes  no  sense  of  them.  Their  obscurity  might, 
however,  have  been  owing  not  so  much  to  their  an- 
tiquity as  to  the  translator’s  residence  in  Egypt, 
and  consequent  ignorance  of  the  Psalmody  of  the 
Temple  service  in  Jerusalem.  At  any  rate  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  titles  in  the  Sept,  can  only  prove 
them  to  he  about  as  ancient  as  the  days  of  Ezra. 
Then  it  is  argued  by  many  that  they  must  be  as 
old  as  the  Psalms  themselves,  since  it  is  customary 
for  Oriental  poets  to  [wefix  titles  to  their  songs. 
Instances  are  found  in  Arabic  poems,  hut  these 
are  very  unlike  the  Hebrew  inscriptions.  Much 
more  important  traces  of  the  custom  appear  in  Isa. 
xxxviii.  9,  in  Hab.  iii.  1,  and  in  2 Sam.  i. 
17,  18  (Tholuck ’s  Psalnen,  p.  xxiv.).  The 
other  instances  commonly  appealed  to  in  Exod. 
xv.  1,  Deut.  xxxi.  30,  Judg.  v.  1,2  Sain  xxii.  1, 
furnish  no  evidence,  since  tlrev  are  not  proper 
titles  of  the  songs  so  much  as  brief  statements 
connecting  them  with  the  narrative.  But  in 
2 Sam.  xxiii.  1,  and  Nuin.  xxiv.  3,  there  is  strong 

* Of  this  valuable  Einlcitung  a translation, 
rather  too  free  to  he  faithful,  is  given  in  the 
American  Biblical  depository,  vui.  iii 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

proof  of  the  usage,  if,  with  Tholuck,  we  take  th« 
verses  as  inscriptions,  and  not  as  integral  parts  of 
thesong8,  which  most  hold  them  justly  to  he  from 
then-  poetical  form. 

The  following  considerations  militate  against 
the  authority  of  the  titles.  1.  The  analogy  be- 
tween them  and  the  subscriptions  to  the  Apos- 
tolical Epistles.  The  latter  are  now  universally 
rejected:  why  not  the  former?  2.  The  Greek 
and  Syriac  versions  exhibit  them  with  great  and 
numerous  variations,  often  altering  the  Hebrew 
(as  in  Ps.  xxvii.),  and  sometimes  giving  a head- 
ing where  the  Hebrew  has  none  (as  in  Ps.  xeiii.- 
xcvii.).  Would  the  ancient  translators  have 
taken  such  liberties,  or  could  such  variations 
have  arisen,  if  the  titles  had  been  considered 
sacred  like  the  Psalms  themselves?  At  any 
rate  the  ex-istence  of  these  glaring  variations  is 
sufficient  to  induce  a distrust  of  the  titles  in  their 
present  form,  even  though  they  had  been  once 
sanctioned  by  inspired  authority.  If  ever  Ezra 
settled  them,  the  variations  in  versions  and  ma- 
nuscripts (Eiehhorn's  Einlcitung,  iii.,  pp.  490, 
495)  have  tended  since  to  make  them  doubtful. 
3.  The  inscriptions  are  occasionally  at  variance 
with  the  contents  of  the  Psalms.  Sometimes  the 
author  is  incorrectly  given,  as  when  David  is 
named  over  Psalms  referring  to  the  captivity,  as 
in  Ps.  xiv.  7 ; xxv.  22;  li.  20,  21 ; lxix.  36.  It 
is  not  unlikely,  however,  as  Tholuck  thinks, 
that  these  references  to  the  exile  were  added 
during  that  period  to  the  genuine  text  of  the 
royal  singer.  Others,  as  Calvin  ami  Heng- 
stenberg,  with  far  less  probability  take  these 
passages  in  a figurative  or  spiritual  sense.  Also 
Ps.  cxxxix.  cannot  well  he  David’s,  for  its  style 
is  not  free  from  Chaldaisms.  Then  sometimes 
flic  occasion  is  incorrectly  specified,  as  in  Ps. 
xxx  , unless  indeed  this  refers  to  the  dedication 
of  the  site  of  the  Temple  (1  Chron.  xxii.  1),  as 
Rosenmiiller,  Tholuck,  and  Ilengstenberg,  think 
after  Venema. 

On  the  whole,  as  the  result  of  this  investiga- 
tion, it  seems  the  part  of  sober  criticism  to  receive 
the  titles  as  historically  valid,  except  when  we 
find  strong  internal  evidence  against  them. 

The  design  of  these  inscriptions  is  to  specify 
either  the  author,  or  the  chief  singer  (never  the 
latter  by  name,  except  in  Ps.  xxxix.),  or  the  his- 
torical subject  or  occasion,  or  the  use,  or  the  style 
of  poetry,  or  the  instrument  and  style  of  music. 
Some  titles  simply  designate  the  author,  as  in  Ps. 
xxv.,  while  others  specify  several  of  the  above 
particulars,  as  in  Ps.  li.  The  longest  and  fullest 
title  of  all  is  prefixed  to  Ps.  lx.,  where  we  have 
the  author,  the  chief  musician  (not  by  name), 
the  historical  occasion  (comp.  2 Sam.  viii.\  the 
use  or  design,  the  style  of  poetry,  and  the  instru- 
ment or  style  of  music.  It  is  confessedly  very 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  explain  iff  1 the 
terms  employed  in  the  inscriptions;  and  hence 
critics  have  differed  exceedingly  in  their  conjec- 
tures. The  difficulty,  arising  no  douht  from 
ignorance  of  the  Temple  music,  was  felt,  it 
would  seem,  as  early  as  the  age  of  the  Sept.  ; and 
it  was  felt  so  much  by  the  translators  of  our 
Authorized  Version,  that  they  generally  retained 
the  Hebrew  words,  even  though  Luther  had  set 
the  example  of  translating  them  to  the  best  of  his 
ability.  It  is  worth  observing  that  the  difficulty 
appears  to  have  determined  Coverdale,  1535,  tc 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

omit  nearly  all  except  names  of  authors ; thus, 
in  Ps.  lx.,  which  is  lix.  in  his  version,  lie  gives 
only — a Psalme  of  David. 

Of  the  terms  left  untranslated  or  obscure  in 
our  Bible,  it  may  be  well  to  offer  some  explana- 
tion in  this  place,  taking  them  in  alphabetical 
order  for  the  sake  of  convenience.  On  this  sub- 
ject most  commentators  offer  instruction,  but  the 
reader  may  especially  consult  Rosenmuller, 
Scholia  in  Comp.  Redacta , vol.  iii.  14-22;  De 
Wette,  Commentar  uber  die  Psalmen,  pp.  27-37, 
and  Ewald,  Poet . Bucher , i.  169-1  SO,  195. 

Aijeleth  shahar,  *in^n  hind  of  the 

morning,  i.  e.  the  sun,  or  the  dawn  of  day.  This 
occurs  only  in  Ps.  xxii.,  where  we  may  best  take 
it  to  designate  a song,  perhaps  commencing  with 
these  words,  or  bearing  this  name,  to  the  melody 
of  which  the  psalm  was  to  be  sung.  So  most  of 
the  ablest  critics  after  Aben-Ezra.  Yet  Tholuck 
and  Hengstenberg,  after  Luther,  suppose  it  to 
denote  the  subject  of  the  psalm,  meaning  David 
limself,  or  typically  the  Messiah. 

Alamoth , Ps.  xlvi.,  probably  signifies 

virgins , and  hence  denotes  music  for  female 
voices,  or  the  treble.  So  Gesenius,  Tholuck,  and 
Hengstenberg,  after  Gusset,  who,  in  Comment. 

Ling.  Hebr.  sub  voce  explains  it — vox 

clara  et  acuta , quasi  virginum  (see  below  under 
Sheminith ).  _ . 

Al-taschith,  firiEyrrVx,  destroy  thou  not , is 
found  over  Ps.  Ivii .,  Iviii.,  lix.,  lxxv.,  and  sig- 
nifies, by  general  consent,  some  well-known  ode 
beginning  with  the  expression,  to  the  tune  of 
which  these  compositions  were  to  be  sung. 

Degrees,  rn/jttDn,  appears  over  fifteen  Psalms 
(cxx.-cxxxiv.),  called  Songs  of  Degrees , and 
has  been  explained  in  various  ways,  of  which  the 
following  are  the  chief.  1.  The  ancients  under- 
stood by  it  stairs  or  steps,  as  appears  from  the 
Sept,  version  of  the  title,  r&v  ava^adpcSy,  and 
the  Vulgate,  carmen  gracluum,,song  of  the  steps  ; 
and  in  accordance  with  this,  Jewish  writers  re- 
late (Mishna,  Sucah,  cap.  v.  4),  that  these  Psalms 
were  sung  on  fifteen  steps , leading  from  the  court 
of  Israel  to  the  court  of  the  Avomen.  This  ex- 
planation is  now  exploded,  though  Fiirst,  in  his 
Concordance , sanctions  it.  2.  Luther,  whom 
Tholuck  is  inclined  to  follow,  renders  the  title  a 
song  in  the  higher  choir , supposing  the  Psalms 
to  have  been  sung  from  an  elevated  place  or  as- 
cent, or  with  elevated  voice.  3.  Gesenius  and 
I)e  Wette  fchink  the  name  refers  to  a peculiar 
rhythm  in  these  songs,  by  which  the  sense 
advances  by  degrees,  and  so  ascends  from  clause 
to  clause.  Thus  in  Ps.  cxxi.  : — 

1 I will  lift  up  rny  eyes  to  the  hills, 

From  whence  comcth  my  help. 

2.  My  help  cometh  from  the  Lord, 

The  maker  of  heaven  and  earth. 

3.  He  will  not  suffer  thy  foot  to  he  moved, 

Thy  keeper  will  not  slumber: 

4.  Behold,  he  will  neither  slumber  nor  sleep, 

The  keeper  of  Israel. 

5 Jehovah  is  thy  keeper , 

Jehovah,  thy  shade  on  thy  right  hand. 

* * * * 

1.  Jehovah  will  keep  thee  from  all  evil, 

He  will  keep  thy  soul : 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF.  579 

9.  Jehovah  will  keep  thy  going  out  and  thy  com- 
ing in, 

From  this  time  even  for  evermore. 

To  this  very  itigenious  and  not  improbable  ex- 
planation it  is  objected,  that,  this  rhythm  by  gra- 
dation (as  De  Wette  calls  it.)  is  not  obvious  in 
the  structure  of  all  these  songs,  and  therefore 
could  hardly  suggest  the  name.  4.  According 
to  the  most  prevalent  and  probable  opinion,  the 
title  signifies  song  of  the  ascents , or  pilgrim  song, 
meaning  a song  composed  for,  or  sung  during  the 
journeyings  of  the  people  up  to  Jerusalem,  whether 
as  they  returned  from  Babylon,  or  as  they  statedly 
repaired  to  the  national  solemnities.  So  Herder 
( Geist  der  Ebr.  Poesie , ii.  353-357)  and  Ewald 
(Poet.  Biicher , i.  195).  Journeys  to  Jerusalem 
are  generally  spoken  of  as  ascents,  on  account  of 
the  elevated  situation  of  the  city  and  temple 
(see  Ezra  vii.  9,  and  especially  Ps.  cxxii.  4). 
This  explanation  of  the  name  is  favoured  by  the 
brevity  and  the  contents  of  these  songs,  and  by 
the  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theo- 

dotion,  who  render  HISPID  by  drafidoeis. 

Gittith,  rvmn,  appears  over  Ps.  viii.,  lxxxi., 
lxxxiv.,  and  is  of  very  uncertain  meaning,  though 
not  improbably  it  signifies  an  instrument  or  tune 
brought  from  the  city  of  Gath.  So  Rosenmuller, 
De  Wette,  Ewald,  Hengstenberg,  and  Tholuck. 
In  the  opinion  of  not  a few  the  word  comes  from 
HU,  tcine-press,  and  denotes  either  an  instrument 
or  a melody  used  in  the  vintage.  So  the  Sept, 
renders  it  inrep  twv  Xrjrwr.  The  new  Lexicons 
of  Gesenius  and  Fiirst  give  other  explanations 
[Musical  Instruments]. 

Iliggaion,  is  found  over  Ps.  ix.  16,  and 

probably  means  either  musical  sound,  according 
to  the  opinion  of  most,  and  the  Sept.  <wStj  ; or  medi- 
tation according  to  Tholuck  and  Hengstenberg 
(see  more  below  under  Selah). 

Jeduthun,  prill',  is  found  over  Ps.  xxxix., 
Ixii.,  lxxvii.,  and  is  generally  taken  for  the  name 
of  choristers  descended  from  Jeduthun,  of  whom 
we  read  in  l Cliron.  xxv.  1,  3,  as  one  of  David’s 
three  chief  musicians  or  leaders  of  the  Temple 
music.  This  use  of  the  name  Jeduthun  for 
Jeduthunites  is  just  like  the  well-known  use  of 
Israel  for  the  Israelites.  It  is  most  probable  that 
in  Ps.  xxxix.  Jeduthun  himself  is  meant,  and  not 
his  family.  So  Rosenmuller  and  Hengstenberg 
[Jeduthun]. 

Jonath-elem-rechokim , d'pm  njP,  the 

mute  dove  among  strangers , found  only  over 
Ps.  lvi.,  may  well  denote  the  subject  of  the  song, 
viz.,  David  himself,  ‘ when  the  Philistines  took 
him  in  Gath  or  it  is  the  name  or  commence- 
ment of  an  ode  to  the  air  of  which  this  psalm  was 
sung.  , 

Leannoth,  rVl3J/7,  in  the  title  of  Ps.  lxxxviii. 
means  to  sing,  denoting  that  it  was  to  be  sung  in 
the  way  described. 

Mahalath , rfcnD,  occurs  in  Ps.  liii.  and 
lxxxviii.,  and  denotes,  according  to  some,  a sort 
of  flute,  according  to  Gesenius  in  his  last  edition 
of  his  Thesaurus,  a lute,  but  in  the  opinion  of 
Fiirst,  a tune , named  from  the  first  word  of  some 
popular  song.  Upon  Mahalath  Leannoth,  Ps. 
lxxxviii..  is  accordingly  a direction  to  chaunt  it 
to  the  instrument  or  tune  called  mahalath. 

Maschil,  is  found  in  the  title  of  thirteen 


fttto  PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

paalms.  According  to  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and 
others,  it  means  a poem,  so  called  either  for  its 
skilful  composition  or  for  its  wise  and  pious  strain. 
The  common  interpretation,  which  Tholuck  and 
Hengstenberg  follow,  makes  it  a didactic  poem , 

from  to  teach  or  make  wise.  There  seems 

very  little  to  choose  between  the  two  opinions. 

Michiam , DH3D,  is  prefixed  to  Ps.  xvi.,  lvi.- 
lx.,  ami  is  subject  to  many  conjectures.  Many, 
after  Aben-Ezra,  derive  it  from  DfD,  gold , and 
understand  a golden  psalm,  so  called  either  on 
account  of  its  excellence , or  because  written 
in  golden  letters.  Hengstenberg  understands 
mystery , and  supposes  that  these  Psalms,  more 
than  others,  have  a deep  or  occult  sense.  Others, 
after  the  Sept.,  which  gives  <TTT\\oypa<pia,  fancy 
that  the  woul  means  a poem  engraved  on  a pillar 
or  monument.  But  the  true  explanation  is  most 
likely  that  offered  by  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  Rosen- 
miiller,  and  Tholuck,  who  hold  DD1DD  to  be  only 
another  form  of  by  the  familiar  interchange 

of  the  kindred  letters  Q and  3,  and  to  signify  a 
writing  ox  poem.  It.  is  actually  found  in  this  form 
over  Hezekiah’s  song  in  Isa.  xxxviii.  9. 

Muth-labben  (Ps.  ix.)  presents  a perfect  riddle, 
owing  to  the  various  readings  of  MSS.,  and 
the  contradictory  conjectures  of  the  learned.  Be- 
sides the  common  reading  jY)D"^y,  upon 

death  to  the  son,  we  have  and  f the 

same  word  that  is  used  in  Ps.  xlvi.  (see  above 
Alamoth).  Some  explain  it  as  the  subject  or 
occasion  of  the  song,  but  most  refer  it  to  the  music. 
Gesenius,  in  his  last  edition,  renders  it — with  vir- 
gins' voice  for  the  boys,  i.  e.  to  be  sung  by  a choir 
of  boys  in  the  treble. 

Neginoth,  lYlPlD,  P3.  iv.  and  four  others ; over 
Ps.  lxi.  ncginah  in  the  singular,  though  some 
MSS.  give  neginoth  here  also.  This  name,  from 
to  strike  a chord,  like  \pa\ Ao?,  clearly  denotes 
stringed  instruments  in  general. 

Nehiloth , (Ps.  v.),  comes  most  likely 

from  y?ri,  to  perforate , and  denotes  pipes  or 
flutes.  Hengstenberg,  however,  fancies  it  means 

lots  or  heritages , from  , to  possess,  and  points 

out  the  subject  of  the  Psalm. 

Selah,  n^D,  is  found  seventy-three  times  in  the 
Psalms,  generally  at  the  end  of  a sentence  or  pa- 
ragraph •,  but  in  Ps.  lv.  1 9 and  lvii.  3 it  stands  in 
the  middle  of  the  verse.  While  most  authors 
have  agreed  in  considering  this  word  as  somehow 
relating  to  the  music,  their  conjectures  about  its 
precise  meaning  have  varied  greatly.  But  at  pre- 
sent these  two  opinions  chiefly  obtain.  Some, 
including  Herder,  De  Wette,  and  Ewald  (Poet. 

Biicher,'\.  179),  derive  it  from  n^D  or  ^D,  to 
raise,  and  understand  a raising  of  the  voice  or 
music ; other's,  after  Gesenius,  in  Thesaurus,  de- 
rive it  from  rbo,  to  be  still  or  silent , and  under- 
stand a pause  in  the  singing.  So  Rosenm filler, 
Hengstenberg,  and  Tholuck.  Probably  selah  was 
used  to  direct  the  singer  to  be  silent,  or  to  pause  a 
little,  while  the  instruments  played  an  interlude 
or  symphony.  In  Ps.  ix.  16  it  occurs  in  the 
expression  higgaion  selah,  which  Gesenius,  with 
much  probability,  renders  instrumental  music, 
pause,  i.  e.  let  the  instruments  strike  up  a sym- 
utooay,  and  let  the  singer  pause.  By  Tholuck  and 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

Hengstenberg,  however,  the  two  words  are  ren- 
dered meditation , pause,  i.  e.  let  the  singer  medi- 
tate or  reflect  while  the  music  stops. 

Sheminith,  JVJ'Dfe?  (Ps.  vi.  and  xii.),  means 
properly  eighth,  and  denotes  either,  as  some  think, 
an  instrument  with  eight  chords,  or,  more  likely, 
music  in  the  lower  notes,  or  bass.  So  Gesenius, 
De  Wette,  Tholuck,  and  Hengstenberg.  This  is 
strongly  favoured  by  1 Chron.  xv.  20,  21,  where 
the  terms  alamoth  and  sheminith  clearly  denote 
different  parts  of  music : the  former  answering  to 
our  treble,  and  the  latter  to  the  bass,  an  octave 
below. 

Shiggaion,  (Ps.  vii.),  denotes,  according 
to  Gesenius  and  Ffirst,  a song  or  hymn  ; but 
Ewald  and  Hengstenberg  derive  it  from  to 

err  or  wander ; and  hence  the  former  understands 
a song  uttered  in  the  greatest  excitement,  but  the 
latter,  error  or  wandering , supposing  that  the 
aberrations  of  the  wicked  are  the  subject  of  the 
Psalm.  According  to  Rosenmiiller,  De  Wette, 
and  Tholuck,  it  means  a plaintive  song  or  elegy. 

Shushan,  (Ps.  lx.),  and  in  plural  sho- 

shannim  (Ps.  xlv.,  lxix.,  lxxx.).  This  word  com- 
monly signifies  lily,  and  probably  denotes  either 
an  instrument  bearing  some  resemblance  to  a lily 
(perhaps  cymbal ),  or  a melody  named  lily  for  its 
pleasantness.  Hengstenberg  contends  that  it  ex- 
presses the  subject,  i.  e.  some  delightful  theme. 
Eduth,  ]Yny,  is  joined  to  it  in  Ps.  lx.  and  lxxx , 
giving  the  sense  lily  of  testimony,  the  name  of  a 
tune,  according  to  Tholuck  ; or  lily  of  song,  ac- 
cording to  Gesenius,  who  understands  a lyric 
pipe. 

Authors. — Many  of  the  ancients,  both  Jews 
and  Christians,  maintained  that  all  the  Psalms 
were  written  by  David  : which  is  one  of  the 
most  striking  proofs  of  their  uncritical  judg- 
ment. So  the  Talmudists  (Cod.  Pesachim,  c.  x. 
p.  117);  Augustine,  who  is  never  a good  critic 
(De  Civ.  Dei,  xvii.  14);  and  Chrysostom  (Prol. 
ad  Psalmos ).  But  Jerome,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, held  the  opinion  which  now  universally 
prevails  (Epist.  ad  Sophronium').  The  titles 
and  the  contents  of  the  Psalms  most  clearly  show 
that  they  were  composed  at  different  and  remote 
periods,  by  several  poets,  of  whom  David  was  only 
the  largest  and  most  eminent  contributor.  In 

the  titles  the  author  is  indicated  by  to,  i.  e.  ‘ be- 
longing to,’  prefixed  to  his  name,  hence  called 
lamed  auctoris.  Some  suppose,  without  good 

reason,  that  ^ prefixed  to  a musician’s  name,  e.  g. 
Asaph,  indicates,  not  the  author,  but  simply  the 
head  singer.  According  to  the  inscriptions  we 
have  the  following  list  of  authors : — 

1.  David,  ‘the  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel’ 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.  1).  To  him  are  ascribed  seventy- 
three  Ps.alms  in  the  Hebrew  text  (not  seventy- 
four,  as  De  Wette  and  Tholuck  state;  nor  seventy- 
one,  as  most  others  have  counted)  ; and  at  least 
eleven  others  in  the  Sept.,  namely,  xxxiii.,  xliii., 
xci.,  xciv.-xcix.,  civ.,  cxxxvii. ; to  which  may 
be  added  Ps.  x.,  as  it  forms  part  of  Ps.  ix.  in  tha* 
version.  From  what  has  been  advanced  above 
respecting  the  authority  of  the  titles,  it  is  obviously 
injudicious  to  maintain  that  David  composed  all 
that  have  his  name  prefixed  in  the  Hebrew,  or  tj 
suppose  that  he  did  not  compose  some  of  the  eleven 
ascribed  to  him  in  the  Sept.,  and  of  the  othera 
which  stand  without  any  author’s  name  it  all, 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

VFe  cannot  feel  sure  that  Ps.  cxxxix.  is  David’s, 
for  its  Clialdaisms  (ver.  2,  8,  16,  17)  betray  a 
later  age  ; and  Ps.  oxxii.  can  scarcely  be  his,  for 
its  style  resembles  the  later  Hebrew,  and  its  de- 
scription of  Jerusalem  can  hardly  apply  to  David  s 
time.  Besides,  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the 
Sept,  gives  this  and  the  other  Songs  of  Degrees 
without  specifying  the  author.  Of  those  which 
the  Sept,  ascribes  to  David,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  Ps.  xcix.  and  civ.  are  really  his ; and  of  those 
which  bear  no  name  in  either  text,  at  least  Ps.  ii. 
appears  to  be  David's. 

When  we  consider  David’s  eminence  as  a poet, 
and  the  delight  he  took  in  sacred  song,  we  cannot 
wonder  that  he  should  be  the  author  of  so  many 
of  the  Psalms, — no  fewer,  in  all  likelihood,  than 
half  the  collection  : the  wonder  rather  should  be, 
that  we  do  not  find  more  of  his  fine  odes,  for  it 
is  certain  he  wrote  some  which  are  not  in  this 
book  ; see,  in  2 Sam.  i.  19-27,  his  lament  over 
Saul  and  Jonathan,  and  in  2 Sam.  xxiii.  1-7,  his 
last  inspired  effusion. 

His  character  and  merit  as  the  father  of  Hebrew 
melody  and  music — for  it  was  in  his  hands  and 
under  his  auspices  that  these  flourished  most* — are 
thus  set  forth  by  the  Son  of  Sirach  (ch.  xlvii.  8-10), 
‘ In  all  his  work  he  gave  thanks.  To  the  Holy 
and  Most  High  he  sang  songs  with  all  his  heart, 
in  words  of  praise  (p-fipari  5d|?js),  and  he  loved 
his  Maker.  He  set  singers  also  before  the  altar, 
and  from  their  music  (fxov)  sweet  melody  re- 
sounded. He  gave  splendour  to  the  feasts,  and 
adorned  the  solemn  times  unto  perfection  (/ j.expi 
(rwreXetas),  in  that  they  praised  His  holy  name, 
and  the  sanctuary  pealed  with  music  from  early 
morn.’ 

David’s  compositions  are  generally  distin- 
guished by  sweetness,  softness,  and  grace;  but 
sometimes,  as  in  Ps.  xviii.,  they  exhibit  the  sub- 
lime. His  prevailing  strain  is  plaintive,  owing  to 
his  multiplied  and  sore  trials,  both  before  and 
after  his  occupation  of  the  throne.  How  often  was 
he  beset  with  dangers,  harassed  by  foes,  and  chas- 
tised of  God!  And,  under  these  circumstances, 
how  was  his  spirit  bowed  down,  and  gave  vent 
to  its  plaints  and  sorrows  on  the  saddened  chords 
of  the  lyre  ! But  in  the  midst  of  all  he  generally 
found  relief,  and  his  sorrow  gave  place  to  calm  con- 
fidence and  joy  in  God.  What  wonder,  that  a soul 
so  susceptible  and  devout  as  his  should  manifest 
emotions  so  strong,  so  changeful,  and  so  various, 
seeing  that  he  passed  through  the  greatest  vicissi- 
tudes of  life.  God  took  him  from  the  slieepfolds 
to  feed  Jacob  his  people,  and  Israel  his  inheritance 
(Ps.  lxxviii.  70,  71).  See  Herder’s  Geist  der 
Ebr.  Poesie , ii.  297-301  ; and  especially  Tholuck 
( Psahnen , Einleitung,  § 3),  who  gives  a most 
admirable  exhibition  of  the  Psalmist’s  history  and 
services. 

The  example  and  countenance  of  the  king  na- 
turally led  others  to  cultivate  poetry  and  music. 
It  appears  from  Amos  vi.  5,  that  lovers  of  pleasure 
took  David’s  compositions  as  a model  for  their 
worldly  songs : how  much  more  would  the  lovers 
of  piety  be  induced  to  follow  him  by  producing 
sacred  songs  and  hymns!  The  fine  psalm  in 
Hab.  iii.  is  an  exact  imitation  of  his  style  as  seen 

* It  was  he,  as  Herder  observes,  that  collected 
(he  scattered  wild  field-flowers  and  planted  them 
as  a royal  parterre  on  Mount  Zion. 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF.  511 

in  Ps.  xviii.  And  the  celebrated  singers  of  his 
day  were  men,  like  himself,  moved  by  the  divin* 
afflatus  not  only  to  excel  in  music  but  also  to 
indite  hallowed  poetry.  Of  these  Psalmists  the 
names  of  several  are  preserved  in  the  titles. 

2.  Asaph  is  named  as  the  author  of  twelve 
Psalms,  viz.  1.,  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.  He  was  one 
of  David’s  chief  musicians  [Asaph],  All  the 
poems  bearing  his  name  cannot  be  his  ; for  in  Ps. 
lxxiv.,  lxxix.,  and  lxxx.  there  are  manifest  allu- 
sions to  very  late  events  in  the  history  of  Israel. 
Either,  then,  the  titles  of  these  three  Psalms  must 
be  wholly  rejected,  or  the  name  must  be  here 
taken  for  the  ‘ sons  of  Asaph  which  is  not  impro- 
bable, as  the  family  continued  for  many  genera- 
tions in  the  choral  service  of  the  Temple.  Asaph 
appears  from  Ps.  1.,  lxxiii.,  and  lxxviii.,  to  have 
been  the  greatest  master  of  didactic  poetry,  excel- 
ling alike  in  sentiment  and  in  diction. 

3.  The  sons  of  Kor ah  was  another  family  of  cho- 
risters (see  Korah,  at  the  end),  to  whom  eleven 
of  the  most  beautiful  Psalms  are  ascribed.  The 
authorship  is  assigned  to  the  Korahites  in  general, 
not  because  many  of  theifi  could  have  been  en- 
gaged in  composing  one  and  the  same  song,  but 
because  the  name  of  the  particular  writer  was 
unknown  or  omitted.  However,  in  Ps.  Ixxxviii 
we  find,  besides  the  family  designation,  the  name 
of  the  individual  who  wrote  it,  viz.— 

4.  Hemati  was  another  of  David's  chief  singers 
(1  Cliron.  xv.  19)  : he  is  called  the  Ezrahite,  as 
being  descended  from  some  Ezrah,  who  appears  to 
have  been  a descendant  of  Korah  ; at  least  Heman 
is  reckoned  aKohathite  (1  Chron.  vi.  33-38),  and 
was  therefore  probably  a Korahite  ; for  the  Kohath- 
ites  were  continued  and  counted  in  the  line  of 
Korah;  see  1 Chron.  vi.  22,  37,  38  [Heman]. 
Thus  Heman  was  both  an  Ezrahite  and  of  the  «o- 
of  Korah.  That  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  was  written  by  . 

is  not  unlikely,  though  many  question  it. 

5.  Ethan  is  reputed  the  author  of  Ps.  Ixxxix. 
He  also  is  called  the  Ezrahite,  but  this  is  either  a 
mistake,  or  he  as  well  as  Heman  had  an  ancestor 
named  Ezrah,  of  whom  nothing  is  known.  The 
Ethan  intended  in  the  title  is  doubtless  the  Levite 
of  Merari’s  family  whom  David  made  chief  mu- 
sician along  with  Asaph  and  Heman  (1  Chron.  vi. 
44  ; xxv.  1,  6).  The  Psalm  could  not,  however, 
lie  composed  by  him,  for  it  plainly  alludes  (ver. 
38-44)  to  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom. 

6.  Solomon  is  given  as  the  author  of  Ps.  lxxii. 
and  cxxvii.,  and  there  is  no  decided  internal  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  though  most  consider  him 
to  be  the  subject,  and  not  the  author,  of  Ps. 
lxxii. 

7.  Moses  is  reputed  the  writer  of  Ps.  xe.,  and 
there  is  no  strong  reason  to  doubt  the  tradition. 
But  the  Talmudists,  whom  Origen,  and  even  Je- 
rome, follow,  ascribe  to  him  also  the  ten  succeed- 
ing Psalms  (xci.-c.),  on  the  principle  that  the  ano- 
nymous productions  belonged  to  the  last-named 
author.  This  principle  is  manifestly  false,  since 
in  several  of  these  Psalms  we  find  evidence  that 
Moses  was  not  the  author.  In  Ps.  xcv.  the  forty 
years’  wandering  in  the  wilderness  is  referred  tc 
as  past ; in  Ps.  xcvii.  8,  mention  is  made  of  Zion 
and  Judah,  which  proves  that  it  cannot  be  dated 
earlier  than  the  time  of  David  ; and  in  Ps.  xcix.  6, 
the  prophet  Samuel  is  named,  which  also  prove* 
that  Moses  could  not  be  the  writer. 

Jeduthun  is  sometimes,  without  just  ground, 


582  PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

held  to  be  named  as  the  author  of  Ps.  xxxix.  (see 
above,  under  that  head).  Many  conjectures  have 
been  formed  respecting  other  writers,  especially  of 
the  anonymous  psalms.  The  Sept,  seemingly 
gives,  as  authors,  Jeremiah  (Ps.  cxxxvii.),  and 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  (Ps.  cxxxviii.).*  But  these 
conjectures  are  too  uncertain  to  call  for  further 
notice  in  this  place. 

The  dates  of  the  Psalms,  as  must  be  obvious  from 
what  has  been  stated  respecting  the  authors,  are 
very  various,  ranging  from  the  time  of  Moses  to 
that  of  the  Captivity — a period  of  nearly  1000 
years.  In  the  time  of  king  Jehoshaphat  (about 
b.c.  896)  Ps  lxxxiii.,  setting  forth  the  dangers 
of  the  nation,  as  we  read  in  2 Chron.  xx.  1-25,  was 
composed  either  by  himself,  as  some  suppose,  or 
mo3t  likely,  according  to  the  title,  by  Jahaziel, 
* a Levite  of  the  sons  of  Asaph,’  who  was  then  an 
inspired  teacher  (see  2 Chron.  xx.  14).  In  the 
days  of  Hezekiah,  who  was  himself  a poet  (Isa. 
xxxviii.  9-20),  we  may  date,  with  great  proba- 
bility, the  Korahitic  Psalms  xlvi.  and  xlviii., 
which  seem  to  celebrate  the  deliverance  from  Sen- 
nacherib (2  Kings  xix.  35).  In  the  period  of  the 
Captivity  were  evidently  written  such  laments  as 
Ps.  xliv.,  lxxix.,  cii.,  and  cxxxvii.  ; and  after  its 
close,  when  the  captives  returned,  we  must  mani- 
festly date  Ps.  lxxxv.  and  exxvi.  Some  have 
maintained  that  several  psalms,  especially  lxxiv., 
were  written  even  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees ; 
but  this  is  contrary  to  every  probability,  for,  ac- 
cording to  all  accounts,  the  Canon  had  been  closed 
before  that  time  [Canon]. 

Collection  and  Akuangement. — As  the 
Psalms  are  productions  oT  different  authors  iu 
different  ages,  we  are  led  to  inquire  how  and 
when  they  were  collected.  The  book  has  been 
styled  by  some  moderns  the  Anthology  of  Hebrew 
lyric ; poetry , as  if  it  consisted  of  a selection  of  the 
most  admired  productions  of  the  sacred  muse  ; but 
the  name  is  not  altogether  appropriate,  since  seve- 
ral pieces  of  the  highest  poetic  merit,  are,  to  our 
knowledge,  not  included,  namely,  the  songs  of 
Moses  in  Exod.  xv.  and  Deut.  xxxii. ; the  song 
of  Deborah  in  Judg.  v. ; the  prayer  of  Hannah 
in  1 Sam.  ii.  1-10;  and  even  David’s  lament  over 
Saul  and  Jonathan  in  2 Sam.  i.  18-27.  To  these 
may  be  added  the  song  of  Hezekiah  in  Isa. 
xxxviii.  9-20  ; and  the  prayer  of  Habakkuk  in 
Hah.  iii.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  as  Ewald  and 
Tholuck  maintain,  that  the  collection  was  made 
not  so  much  with  reference  to  the  beauty  of  the 
pieces  as  to  their  adaptation  for  devotional  use  in 
public  worship.  This  view  sufficiently  accounts 
for  omitting  most  of  the  above  pieces,  and  many 
others,  as  being  either  too  individual  or  too  secu- 
lar in  their  application.  It  may  account  for 
not  including  the  lament  over  Jonathan,  and  for 
the  fact  that  only  two  of  Solomon's  compositions 
(Ps.  lxxii.  and  cxxvii.)  are  professedly  given, 
though  ‘his  songs  were  a thousand  and  five’  (1 
Kings  iv.  32,  33  ).  His  themes  were  secular,  and 
therefore  not  suitable  for  this  collection. 

When  the  Psalms  were  collected  and  by  xvhom t 
are  questions  that  cannot  be  confidently  answered. 
The  Talmudists  most  absurdly  consideied  David 
the  collector  (Cod.  Beracoth , c.  i.  p.  9).  It  is 

* Hitzig  (Comment,  iiber  die  Psalmen)  ascribes 
to  Jeremiah  a large  number  of  the  elegiac  or 
plaintive  psalms 


PSALMS,  BOOK  CF. 

certain  that  the  book,  as  if  now  elands,  coui  1 mx 
have  been  formed  before  the  building  of  the  second 
temple,  for  Ps.  exxvi.  was  evidently  composed  at 
th?t  period.  In  all  probability  it  was  formed 
by  Ezra  and  his  contemporaries,  about  u.c.  459 
(Ewald's  Poet  Bucher,  ii.  205).  But  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  book  there  is  manifest  proof  of 
its  gradual  formation  out  of  several  smaller  collec- 
tions, each  ending  with  a kind  of  doxology. 

The  Psalter  is  divided  in  the  Hebrew  into  five 
books,  and  also  in  the  Sept,  version,  which  proves 
the  division  to  be  older  than  n.c.  200.  Some  have 
fancied  that  this  five-fold  division  did  not  origi- 
nally exist,  but  that  it  arose  simply  from  a desire 
to  have  as  many  parts  in  the  Psalms  as  there  are 
in  the  law  of  Moses.  But  strong  reasons  demand 
the  rejection  of  such  a fancy.  Why  should  this 
conformity  to  the  Pentateuch  be  desired  and 
effected  in  the  Psalms,  and.not  also  in  Proverbs 
cr  in  the  Prophets  f The  five  hooks  bear  decided 
marks  of  being  not  arbitrary  divisions,  but  dis- 
tinct and  independent  collections  by  various 
hands. 

The  frst  book  (i.-xli.)  consists  wholly  of 
David’s  songs,  his  name  being  prefixed  to  all  ex- 
cept i.,  ii.,  x.,  and  xxxiii. ; and  it  is  evidently 
the  first  collection,  having  been  possibly  made  in 
the  time  of  Hezekiah,  who  is  known  to  have 
ordered  a collection  of  Solomon's  proverbs  (Prov. 
xxv.  1),  and  to  have  commanded  the  Levites  to 
sing  the  words  of  David  (2  Chron.  xxix.  30). 

The  second  book  (xlii.-lxxii.)  consists  mainly 
of  pieces  by  the  sons  of  Korah  (xlii.-xlix.),  and  by 
David  (li  -Ixv.),  which  may  have  been  separate 
minor  collections.  At  the  end  of  this  book  is 
found  the  notice — ‘The  prayers  of  David  the  son 
of  Jesse  are  ended  and  hence  some  have  thought 
that  this  was  originally  the  close  of  a large  collec- 
tion comprising  Ps.  i.-lxxii.  (Carpzov,  Intro- 
ductio,  &c.  ii.  107).  But  that  the  second  was 
originally  distinct  from  the  first  book,  is  proven 
by  the  repetition  of  one  or  two  pieces ; thus  Ps. 
liii.  is  plainly  the  same  as  Ps.  xiv.,  with  only  a 

notable  variation  in  the  Divine  name,  God , d *r6a, 

being  used  in  the  former  wherever  Lord , niH',  is 
found  in  the  latter.  So  also  Ps.  lxx.  is  but  a re- 
petition of  Ps.  xl.  13-17,  with  the  same  singular 
variation  in  the  Divine  name.  It  is  not  likely 
that  this  collection  was  made  till  the  period  of  the 
Captivity,  if  interpreters  are  right  in  referring  Ps. 
xliv.  to  the  days  of  Jeremiah. 

The  third  6ooA(lxxiii.lxxxix.)  consists  chiefly 
of  Asaph's  psalms,  but  comprises  apparently  two 
smaller  collections,  the  one  Asaphitic  (lxxiii.- 
lxxxiii.),  the  other  mostly  Korahitic  (lxxxiv.- 
lxxxix.).  The  collector  of  this  book  bad  no  in- 
tention to  bring  together  songs  written  by  David, 
and  therefore  he  put  the  above  notice  at  the  end 
of  the  second  book  (see  De  Wette’s  Psalmen , 
Einleitung,  p.  21).  The  date  of  this  collection 
must  be  as  late  as  the  return  from  Babylon,  for 
Ps.  lxxxv.  implies  as  much. 

The  fourth  book  (xc.-cvi.)  and  the  fifth  (cvii.- 
cl.)  are  made  up  chiefly  of  anonymous  liturgic 
pieces,  many  of  which  were  composed  for  the  ser- 
vice of  the  second  temple.  In  the  last  book  we 
have  the  Songs  of  Degrees  (cxx.-cxxxiv.),  which 
seem  to  have  been  originally  a separate  collection. 
The  five  books  may,  with  some  propriety,  be  thin 
distinguished : the  first  Davidic,  the  second  Ko- 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF. 

rahitic , the  third  Asaphitic,  and  the  two  remain- 
ing Litui  gic. 

In  the  mode  of  dividing  and  numbering  the 
Psalm3,  some  Hebrew  MSS.  vary  from  the  printed 
text.  In  some,  Ps.  i.  and  ii.  are  given  as  one, 
the  first  being  reckoned  as  only  introductory  ; 
which  accounts  for  the  various  reading  in  Acts 
xiii.  33.  So  also  Ps.  xlii.  and  xliii.  are  some- 
times joined  into  one,  as  they  evidently  ought  to 
be.  In  the  Septuagint  also,  which  the  Vulgate 
follows,  the  arrangement  varies  from  the  common 
order,  for  it  joins  Ps.  ix.  and  x.  together,  and 
thus  its  numbering  falls  one  behind  the  Hebrew 
as  far  as  Ps.  cxlvii.,  which  it  cuts  into  two  at 
ver.  12,  and  thus  returns  to  the  common  enumera- 
tion. There  is  also  in  the  Sept,  an  apocryphal 
Psalm,  numbered  cli.,  on  David’s  victory  over 
Goliath. 

Various  classifications  of  the  Psalms  have  been 
proposed  (Carpzov,  Introduction  &c.,  ii.  132-134). 
Tholuck  would  divide  them,  according  to  the 
matter,  into  songs  of  praise , of  thanksgiving , of 
complaint , and  of  mstruction.  De  Wette  suggests 
another  method  of  sorting  them  (. Einleitung , p.  3), 

into — 1.  Hymns  (D'^nJI  in  the  proper  sense),  as 

viii.  xviii.  ; 2.  National  Psalms , as  lxxviii.  cv. ; 

3.  Psalms  of  Zion  and  the  Temple , as  xv.  xxiv. ; 

4.  Psalms  respecting  the  King , as  ii.  cx.  ; 5. 
Psalms  of  complaint , as  vii.  xxii. ; and  6.  Re- 
ligious Psalms , as  xxiii.,  xci.  It  is  obvious, 
however,  that  no  very  accurate  classification  can 
be  made,  since  many  are  of  diversified  contents 
and  uncertain  tenor. 

Canonicity  and  Use. — The  inspiration  and 
canonical  authority  of  the  Psalms  are  esta- 
blished by  the  most  abundant  and  convincing 
evidence.  They  never  were,  and  never  can  be, 
rejected,  except  by  impious  impugners  of  all 
divine  revelation.  Not  to  mention  other  ancient 
testimonies  [Canon],  we  find  complete  evidence 
in  the  New  Testament,  where  the  book  is  quoted 
or  referred  to  as  divine  by  Christ  and  his  apostles 
at  least  seventy  times.  No  other  writing  is  so 
frequently  cited;  Isaiah,  the  next  in  the  scale  of 
quotation,  being  cited  only  about  fifty-five  times. 
Twice  (Luke  xx.  42  and  Acts  i.  20)  we  find  dis- 
tinct mention  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  (/3 ifiAos 
ypaXpoor).  Once,  however  (Luke  xxiv.  44),  the 
name  Psalms  is  used  not  simply  for  this  book, 
but  for  the  Hagiographa,  or  the  whole  of  the  third 
division  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  [Hagio- 
grapha],  because  in  it  the  Psalms  are  the  first 
and  chief  part;  or  possibly,  as  Hitvernick  suggests 
(Einleitung , § xiv.  p.  78),  because  the  division 
consists  mainly  of  poetry.  It  deserves  notice 
that  in  Heb.  iv.  7,  where  the  quotation  is  taken 
from  the  anonymous  Ps.  xc.v.,  the  book  is  indi- 
cated by  David , most  likely  because  he  was  the 
largest  and  most  eminent  contributor,  and  also 
the  patron  and  model  of  the  other  Psalmists.  For 
the  same  reasons  many  ancient  and  modern 
authors  often  speak  of  the  book  as  the  Psalms  of 
David  (Carpzov,  Introd.  ii.  98),  without  intend- 
ing to  ascribe  all  the  productions  to  him. 

In  every  age  of  the  church  the  Psalms  have 
been  extolled  for  their  excellence  and  their  use 
for  godly  edifying  (Carpzov,  l.  c.  pp.  109-116). 
Indeed,  if  Paul’s  estimate  of  ancient  inspired 
Scripture  (2  Tim.  iii.  15-17)  can  be  justly  applied 
o any  single  book,  that  book  must  be  the  Psalms. 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF.  5*3 

Even  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  scarcely  a 
work  of  equal  practical  utility.  Basil  the  Great 
and  Chrysostom,  in  their  homilies  (see  Suieeri 
Thes.  Eccles.  sub  \j/aAp.Ss),  expatiate  most  elo- 
quently, and  yet  judiciously,  on  its  excellence 
The  close  of  Basil’s  eulogy  is  to  this  effect : ‘ In 
it  is  found  a perfect  theology  ( ivravOa  evi  6eo\oyia 
TeXeia) ; prophecy  of  Christ’s  sojourn  in  the  flesh, 
threatening  of  judgment,  hope  of  resurrection, 
fear  of  retribution,  promises  of  glory,  revelations 
of  mysteries, — all  things  are  treasured  in  the  book 
of  Psalms,  as  in  some  great  and  common  store- 
house.’ Among  the  early  Christians  it  was  cus- 
tomary to  learn  the  book  by  heart,  that  psalmody 
might  enliven  their  social  hours,  and  soften  the 
fatigues  and  soothe  the  sorrows  of  life.  They  em- 
ployed the  Psalms  not  only  in  their  religious  as- 
semblies, of  which  use  we  find  probable  mention  in 
1 Cor.  xiv.  26,  but  also  at  their  meals  and  before 
retiring  to  rest,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria  testifies  : 
Ouaia  rep  deoi  if/aAjuol  /cat  vyvoi  vapa  ttjv  eanaaiv, 
7r po  t e T?}s  noiT-gs.  Of  their  use  at  meals  we  find 
an  example  also  in  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
supper  (Matt.  xxvi.  30). 

The  great  doctrines  and  precepts  embodied  in 
the  Psalms,  what  views  they  give  of  God  and  his 
government,  of  man  and  his  sinfulness,  of  piety 
and  morals,  of  a future  state,  and  of  the  Messiah, 
are  most  ably  set  forth  by  Tholuck  in  his  Einlei- 
tung, § 4. 

It  may  be  well  here  to  notice  what  are  called  the 
vindictive  Psalms,  namely,  those  which  contain 
expressions  of  wrath  and  imprecations  against  the 
enemies  of  God  and  his  people,  such  as  Ps.  lix., 
lxix.,  lxxix.,  and  which  in  consequence  are  apt 
to  shock  the  feelings  of  some  Christian  readers. 
In  order  to  obviate  this  offence,  most  of  our  pious 
commentators  insist  that,  the  expressions  are  not 
maledictions  or  imprecations,  but  simple  declara- 
tions of  what  will  or  may  take  place.  But  this 
is  ulterly  inadmissible  ; for  in  several  of  the  most 
startling  passages  the  language  in  the  original  is 
plainly  imperative,  and  not  indicative  (see  Ps. 
lix.  14  ; lxix.  2;>,  28  ; lxxix.  6).  The  truth  is, 
that  only  a morbid  benevolence,  a mistaken  phil- 
anthropy, takes  offence  at  these  Psalms;  for  in 
reality  they  are  not  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel,  or  to  that  love  of  enemies  which  Christ 
enjoined.  Resentment  against  evil-doers  is  so 
far  from  being  sinful,  that  we  find  it  exemplified 
in  the  meek  and  spotless  Redeemer  himself  (see 
Mark  iii.  5).  If  the  emotion  and  its  utterance 
were  essentially  sinful,  how  could  Paul  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  22)  wish  the  enemy  of  Christ  to  be  accursed 
(dvadeya),  or  say  of  his  own  enemy,  Alexander 
the  coppersmith,  ‘ the  Lord  reward  him  according 
to  his  works’  (2  Tim.  iv.  14);  and,  especially, 
how  could  the  spirits  of  the  just  in  heaven  call  on 
God  for  vengeance  (Rev.  vi.  10)?  See  a good 
article  on  this  subject  (The  Imprecations  in  the 
Scriptures ) in  the  American  Bibliotheca  Sacra 
for  February,  1844. 

The  following  are  among  the  chief  and  best 
exegetical  helps  for  explaining  this  book: — Poli 
Synopsis  ; Y enema,  Comment,  in  Psalmos  ; De 
Wette’ s Commentar  uber  die  Psalmen , 1836; 
Rosenmiilleri  Scholia  in  Epit.  Redacta , vol.  iii. ; 
Maureri  Comment.  Crit.  Grammaticus,  vol.  iii. ; 
Ilitzig's  Comment,  und  Uebersetzung  ; Ewald's 
Poet.  Bucher , vol.  ii.  ; Tholuck 's  Uebersetzung 
und  Ausltgung  der  Psalmen;  and  Hengsten 


584 


PUBLICAN'. 


PUBLICAN. 


berg's  C^mmentar  ueber  die  Psalmen.  The 
works  of  Tlioluck  ami  Hengstenberg  form  to- 
gether the  very  best  helps,  leaving  nothing  to  be 
desired  by  the  critical  and  devout  student  of  the 
Psalms. 

The  principal  English  works  on  the  Book  of 
Psalms  are  the  translations  (mostly  with  notes) 
of  Mudge,  1744  ; Edwards,  1755  ; Fenwick, 1759; 
Green,  1762;  Street,  1790;  Wake,  1793;  Geddes, 
1807;  Horsley,  1815;  Fry,  1819;  French  and 
Skinner,  1830  ; Noyes,  1831  (Boston, U.S  ) ; Wal- 
ford,  1837;  Bush,  1838  (New  York):  and  the 
Commentaries  of  Ainsworth,  1639;  Hammond, 
1659;  Merrick,  1768;  Horne,  1771;  and  Dimock, 
1791.— B.  D. 

PSALTERY.  [Musicai.  Instruments.] 
PTOLEMAIS.  [Accho.] 

PTOLEMY.  This  common  name  of  the 
Greek  kings  of  Egypt  does  not  occur  in  the  ca- 
nonical  Scripture,  but  is  frequent  in  the  books 
of  Maccabees  and  in  Josephus  (see  the  article 
Egypt). 

PUBLICAN  (Gr.  Te\wmris  ; among  the  Ro~ 
mans  publicanus ),  a person  who  farmed  the 
taxes  and  public  revenues.  This  office  was 
usually  held  by  Roman  knights,  an  order  instituted 
as  early  as  the  time  of  Romulus,  and  composed 
of  men  of  great  consideration  with  the  govern- 
ment, ‘ the  principal  men  of  dignity  in  their 
several  countries,’  who  occupied  a kind  of  middle 
rank  between  the  senators  and  the  people  (Joseph. 
Antiy.  xii.  4).  Although  these  officers  were, 
according  to  Cicero,  the  ornament  of  the  city  and 
the  strength  of  the  commonwealth,  they  did  not 
attain  to  great  oflices,  nor  enter  the  senate,  so 
long  as  they  continued  in  the  order  of  knights. 
They  were  thus  more  capable  of  devoting  their 
attention  to  the  collection  of  the  public  revenue. 

The  publicans  were  distributed  into  three 
classes  : the  farmers  of  the  revenue,  their  partners, 
and  their  securities,  corresponding  to  the  Man- 
cipes,  Socii,  and  Pra;des.  They  were  all  under 
the  Qusestores  jErarii,  who  presided  over  the 
finances  at  Rome.  Strictly  speaking,  there  were 
only  two  sorts  of  publicans,  the  Mancipes  and 
the  Socii.  The  former,  who  were  generally  of 
flie  equestrian  order,  and  much  superior  to  the 
latter  in  rank  and  character,  are  mentioned  by 
Cicero  with  great  honour  and  respect  ( Orat . pro 
Plancio,  9)  ; but  the  common  publicans,  the  col- 
lectors or  receivers  of  the  tribute,  as  many  of  the 
Socii  were,  are  covered  both  by  heathens  and 
Jews  with  opprobrium  and  contempt. 

The  name  and  profession  of  a publican  were, 
indeed,  extremely  odious  among  the  Jews,  who 
submitted  with  much  reluctance  to  the  taxes 
levied  by  the  Romans.  The  Galileans  or  He- 
rodians,  the  disciples  of  Judas  the  Gaulonite, 
were  the  most  turbulent  and  rebellious  (Acts  v. 
37).  They  t’hougnt  it  unlawful  to  pay  tribute, 
and  founded  their  refusal  to  do  so  on  their 
being  the  people  of  the  Lord,  because  a true 
Israelite  was  not  permitted  to  acknowledge  any 
other  sovereign  than  God  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  2). 
The  publicans  were  hated  as  the  instruments  by 
which  the  subjection  of  the  Jews  to  the  Roman 
emperor  was  perpetuated ; and  the  paying  of 
tribute  was  regarded  as  a virtual  acknowledgment 
of  his  sovereignty.  They  were  also  noted  for 
their  imposition,  rapine,  and  extortion,  to  which 
4iey  weB perhaps,  more  especially  prompted  by 


having  a share  In  the  farm  of  the  tribute,  ae 
they  were  thus  tempted  to  oppress  the  people  with 
illegal  exactions,  that  they  might  the  more 
speedily  enrich  themselves.  Theocritus  consi- 
dered the  bear  and  the  lion  the  most  cruel 
among  the  beasts  of  the  wilderness ; and  among 
the  beasts  of  the  city  the  publican  and  the  para 
site.  Those  Jews  who  accepted  the  office  of  pub- 
lican were  execrated  by  their  own  nation  equally 
with  heathens : ‘ Let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an 
heathen  man  and  a publican’ (Matt,  xviii.  17). 
It  is  said  they  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the 
temple  or  synagogues,  to  engage  in  the  public 
prayers,  fill  offices  of  judicature,  or  even  give  tes- 
timony in  courts  of  justice.  According  to  the 
Rabbins,  it  was  a maxim* that  a religious  man 
who  became  a publican  was  to  be  driven  out  of 
the  religious  society  (Grotius,  ad  Matt,  xviii.  ; 
Lightfoot,  Hot.  Heb.  ad  Matt,  xviii.).  They 
would  not  receive  their  presents  at  the  temple  any 
more  than  the  price  of  prostitution,  of  blood,  or  of 
anything  wicked  and  offensive. 

There  were  many  publicans  in  Judaea  in  the 
time  of  our  Saviour,  of  whom  Zacchaeus  was  pro- 
bably one  of  the  principal,  as  he  is  called  ‘ chief 
among  the  publicans'  (Luke  xix.  2),  a phrase  sup- 
posed to  be  equivalent  to  our  Commissioner  of  the 
Customs.  Matthew  appears  to  have  been  an  in- 
ferior publican,  and  is  described  as  ‘ sitting  at 
the  receipt  of  custom  ’ (Luke  v.  27).  Jesus  was 
reproached  by  the  Jews  as  the  friend  of  publicans 
and  sinners,  and  for  eating  with  them  (Luke  vii. 
34) ; but;  such  was  his  opinion  of  the  unbelieving 
and  self-righteous  chiei-priests  and  elders  who 
brought  these  accusations,  that  he  replied  unto 
them,  4 The  publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  before  you’  (Matt.  xxi.  31). 
The  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  who 
went  up  in  to  the  temple  to  pray  (Luke  xviii.  10) 
is  a beautiful  illustration  of  the  distinction  between 
hypocrisy  and  true  piety.  When  Jesus  visited 
the  house  of  Zacchaeus,  who  appears  to  have  been 
eminently  honest  and  upright,  lie  was  assured  by 
him  that  he  was  ready  to  give  one  half  of  his 
goods  to  the  poor ; and  if  he  had  taken  anything 
from  any  man  by  false  accusation,  to  ‘ restore 
him  fourfold’  (Luke  xix.  8 . This  was  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Roman  law,  which  required  that  when 
any  farmer  was  convicted  of  extortion,  he  should 
return  four  times  the  value  of  what,  he  had  frau- 
dulently obtained.  There  is  no  reason  t.o  suppose 
that  either  Zacclneus  or  Matthew  had  been  guilty 
of  unjust  practices,  or  that  there  was  any  exception 
to  their  characters  beyond  that  of  being  engaged 
in  an  odious  employment.  Some  other  exam- 
ples of  this  occur.  Suetonius  ( Vesp.)  mentions 
the  case  of  Sabinus,  a collector  of  the  fortieth 
penny  in  Asia,  who  bad  several  statues  erected  to 
him  by  the  cities  of  the  province,  with  this  in- 
scription, ‘ To  the  honest  tax  farmer.’ 

It  has  been  imagined  by  some  commentators 
that,  by  the  Jewish  laws,  it  was  forbidden  to  pay 
tribute  ro  foreigners,  or  to  be  employed  as  pub- 
licans under  them  (Deut.  xvii.  15)  ; but  publicans 
that  were  Jews  are  so  often  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  Dr.  Lardner  inclines  to  think  the 
Roman  tribute  was  collected  chiefly  by  Jews.  He 
conceives  that  in  most  provinces  the  natives  were 
employed  in  the  towns  as  under-collectors,  and 
that  the  receivers-general,  or  superior  officer*, 
only  were  Romans.  As  the  office  was  so  ex- 


PUBUUS. 


PUNISHMENTS. 


58fl 


Iremely  odious,  the  Romans  might  deem  it  prudent 
to  employ  come  natives  in  collecting  the  taxes ; 
and  there  is  little  doubt  that  in  every  district  they 
would  find  Jews  willing  to  profit  by  the  subjec- 
tion of  their  country,  and  to  accept  appointments 
from  their  conquerors. — G.  M.  B. 

PUBLIUS  (IIj7rAtoy),  governor  of  Melita  at 
the  time  of  Paul's  shipwreck  on  that  island  (Acts 
Kxviii.  7,  8).  Paid  having  healed  his  father,  pro- 
bably enjoyed  his  hospitality  during  the  three 
months  of  his  stay  in  the  island.  An  inscription 
found  in  Malta  designates  the  governor  of  the 
island  by  the  same  title  (irpuros,  ‘ first’  or  ‘ chief  ), 
which  Luke  gives  to  Publius  [Mki.it a]. 

PUDENS  (IIou57js),  one  of  the  persons  whose 
?alutations  Paul,  writing  from  Rome,  sends  to 
Timothy  (2  Tim.  iv.  21).  Nothing  is  really 
known  of  him  ; but  the  martyrologies  make  him 
to  have  been  a person  of  figure  at  Rome,  of  the 
senatorial  order,  and  father  of  two  pious  virgins, 
Praxis  and  Pudentia.  Yet,  by  a strange  incon- 
gruity, he  is  also  deemed  to  have  been  one  of  the 
seventy  disciples.  A female  disciple,  of  the  name 
of  Claudia  (KA.cu/5 la),  is  mentioned  in  the  same 
verse  ; and  as  a poet  of  the  time,  Martial,  speaks 
of  tire  marriage  of  a Pudens  and  Claudia,  the 
same  persons  are  supposed  to  be  intended.  But 
this  sort  of  identification  requires  little  notice; 
and  if  Pudens  and  Claudia  were  husband  and 
wife,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  apostle  would  have 
interposed  another  name  between  theirs. 

PUL,  king  of  Assyria  [Assyria]. 

PULSE.  [Pol.] 

PUNISHMENTS.  This  subject  is  properly 
restricted  to  the  penalty  imposed  on  the  coinmis- 
uon  of  some  crime  or  offence  against  law.  It 
is  thus  distinguished  from  private  retaliation  or 
revenge,  cruelty,  torture,  popular  violence,  cer- 
tain customs  of  war,  &c.  Human  punishments 
are  such  as  are  inflicted  immediately  on  the 
person  of  the  offender,  or  indirectly  upon  his 
goods,  &c.  For  the  leading  points  in  the  litera- 
ture of  the  question  concerning  future  and  divine 
punishment  see  Soul.  Capital  punishment  is 
usually  supposed  to  have  been  instituted  at  the 
deluge  (Gen.  ix.  5,  6)  : ‘ At  the  hand  of  every 
mans  brother  will  I require  the  life  of  man: 
whoso  sheddeth  man’s  blood,  by  man  shall  his 
blood  be  shed ; for  in  the  image  of  God  made  he 
man.*  Arnheim,  however,  contends  that  the, 
words  must  he  rendered  his  kinsman , 

or  near  relative  (compare  xiii.  8,  DTIK  D'tWX, 
or  margin),  and  thus  explains  the  precept  : if 
D1KH,  one  stranger  slay  another,  the  kinsmen  of 
the  murdered  man  are  the  avengers  of  blood ; but 
if  he  be  slain  by  one  of  his  own  kin- 

dred, the  other  kinsmen  must  not  spare  the  mur- 
derer, for  if  they  do,  then  divine  providence  will 
require  the  blood — that  is,  will  avenge  it.  Cer- 
tainly capital  punishment  for  murder  was  not 
inflicted  on  Cain,  who  was  purposely  preserved 
from  death  by  divine  interposition  (iv.  14,  15^, 
and  was  simply  doomed  to  banishment  from 
the  scene  of  his  crime  to  a distant  country,  to  a 
total  disappointment,  in  agricultural  labour,  and  to 
the  life  of  a fugitive  and  a vagabond,  far  from  the 
manifested  presence  of  the  Lord  (11, 14);  although 
the  same  reason  existed  in  equal  force  in  his  case, 
namely,  the  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of  God. 
We  are  inclined  to  regard  the  whole  of  the 
blessing’  pronounced  upon  the  Noachidce,  includ- 


ing this  precept,  as  intended  to  encourage  them  t« 
re-people  the  earth,  by  promises,  &c.,  correspond 
ing  to  the  misgivings  wliich  were  naturally 
created  by  the  catastrophe  they  had  just  escaped; 
such  as  a continuation  of  the  dread  of  man  in  the 
inferior  creatures,  a reinstatement  of  man  in  do- 
minion over  them  (comp.  i.  28),  an  assurance  of 
God’s  high  regard  for  human  life,  notwithstand- 
ing his  late  destruction  of  all  hut  themselves, 
and  the  institution  of  the  most  natural  and 
efficient  mode  of  preserving  it,  by  assigning  the 
punishment  of  homicide  to  the  nearest  of  kin,  no 
doubt,  however,  under  the  superintendence  of  the 
head  of  every  family,  who  appears  to  have  been 
the  legislator  till  the  reconstitution  of  things,  spi- 
ritual and  civil,  at  Sinai,  when  this  among  other 
ancient  laws  was  retained,  perhaps  unavoidably, 
but  at  the  same  time  regulated  (Num.  xxxv. 
9-34).  This  interpretation  would  account  for 
the  custom  of  blood-revenge  among  all  the  an- 
cient and  Asiatic  nations.  Certainly  those  who 
generalize  this  precept  into  an  authority  for  ca- 
pital punishment  by  courts  of  law  in  Christian 
nations,  ought,  by  parity  of  reason,  to  regard  the 
prohibition  of  blood  (Gen.  ix.  4)  of  equal  obliga- 
tion. The  punishment  of  death  appears  among  the 
legal  powers  of  Judah,  as  the  head  of  his  family, 
and.  he  ordered  his  daughter-in-law,  Tamar,  ro  be 
burnt  (xxxviii.  24).  It  is  denounced  by  the  king 
of  the  Philistines,  Abimelech,  against  those  of  his 
people  who  should  injure  or  insult  Isaac  or  his 
wife  (xxvi.  11,29).  Similar  power  seems  to  have 
been  possessed  by  the  reigning  Pharaoh  in  the 
time  of  Joseph  (xli.  13). 

In  proceeding  to  consider  the  punishments 
enacted  by  Moses,  reference  will  be  made  to  the 
Scriptures  only,  because,  as  Michaelis  observes, 
the  explanation  of  the  laws  of  Moses  is  not  to 
be  sought  in  the  Jewish  commentators.  Nor 
will  it  be  necessary  to  specify  the  punishments 
ordered  by  him  for  different  offences,  which 
will  be  found  under  their  respective  names 
[Adui.tery,  Idolatry,  &c.].  The  extensive 
prescription  of  capital  punishment  by  the  Mosaic 
law,  which  we  cannot  consider  as  a dead  letter, 
may  he  accounted  for  by  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  people.  They  were  a nation  of 
newly-emancipated  slaves,  and  were  by  nature 
perhaps  more  than  commonly  intractable  ; and  if 
we  may  judge  by  the  laws  enjoined  on  them, 
whieh  Mr.  Hume  well  remarks  are  a safe  index 
to  the  manners  and  disposition  of  any  people,  we 
must  infer  that  they  had  imbibed  all  the  dege- 
nerating influences  of  slavery  among  heathens. 
Their  wanderings  and  isolation  did  not  admit  of 
penal  settlements  or  remedial  punishments.  They 
were  placed  under  immediate  divine  government 
and  surveillance.  Hence,  wilful  offences  evinced 
an  incorrigibleness,  which  rendered  death  the  only 
means  of  ridding  the  community  of  such  trans- 
gressors ; and  which  was  ultimately  resorted  to 
in  regard  to  all  individuals  above  a certain 
age,  in  order  that  a better  class  might  enter 
Canaan  (Num.  xiv.  29,  32,  35).  If  capital 
punishment  in  Christian  nations  be  defended 
from  the  Mosaic  law,  it  ought  in  fairness  to  be 
extended  to  all  the  cases  sanctioned  by  that 
law,  and  among  the  rest,  as  Paley  argues,  to  the 
doing  of  any  work  on  the  Sabbath-day  (Me r 
Phil.,  b.  v.  ch.  7).  We  have  the  highest  au- 
thority for  saying,  that  the  Mosaic  law  of  divorce 


586 


PUNISHMENTS. 


PUNISHMENTS, 


was  a condescension  to  circumstances  (Matt, 
xix.  8)—  a condescension  which  may  have  ex- 
tended somewhat  further. 

Ti  e mode  of  capital  punishment,  which  con- 
stitutes a material  element  in  the  character  of  any 
law,  was  probably  as  humane  as  the  circum- 
stances of  Moses  admitted.  It  was  probably  re- 
stricted to  lapidation  or  stoning,  which,  by  skil- 
ful management,  might,  produce  instantaneous 
death.  It  was  an  Egyptian  custom  (Exod.  viii. 
26).  The  public  effusion  of  blood  by  decapitation 
cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  a Mosaic  punish- 
ment, nor  even  an  Egyptian ; for,  in  the  instance 
of  Pharaoh's  chief  baker  (Gen.  xl.  19),  ‘ Pharaoh 
shall  lift  up  thine  head  from  off'  thee,’  the  mar- 
ginal rendering  seems  preferable,  ‘ shall  reckon 
thee  and  take  thine  office  from  thee.’  He  is  said 
to  have  been  ‘hanged’  (xli.  13);  which  may  pos- 
sibly mean  posthumous  exposure,  though  no  in- 
dependent evidence  appears  of  this  custom  in 
ancient  Egypt  (Wilkinson’s  Manners  and  Cus- 
toms, vol.  ii.  p.  45).  The  appearance  of  deca- 
pitation, ‘slaying  by  the  sword,'  in  later  times  (2 
Sam.  iv.  8,  20,  21,  22  ; 2 Kings  x.  6-8)  has  no 
more  relation  to  the  Mosaic  law  than  the  decapi- 
tation of  John  the  Baptist  by  Herod  (Matt.  xiv. 
8-12);  or  than  the  hewing  to  pieces  of  Agag  before 
the  Lord  by  Samuel,  as  a punishment  in  kind  (1 
Sam.  xv.  33)  ; or  than  the  office  of  the  Chereth- 
ites,  MVO  (2  Sam.  viii.  18  ; xv.  18 ; xx.  7,  23),  or 
headsmen,  as  Gesenius  understands  by  the  word, 
from  m3,  ‘ to  chop  off’  or  ‘ hew  down  ’ (execu- 
tioners belonging  to  the  body-guard  of  the  king)  ; 
whereas  execution  was  ordered  by  Moses,  probably 
adopting  an  ancient  custom,  to  be  begun  first  by 
the  witnesses,  a regulation  which  constituted  a tre- 
mendous appeal  to  their  moral  feelings,  and  after- 
wards to  be  completed  by  the  people  (Deut.  xiii. 
10  ; xvii.  7;  Josh.  vii.  25  ; John  viii.  7).  It  was  a 
later  innovation  that  immediate  execution  should 
be  done  by  some  personal  attendant.,  by  whom  the 
office  was  probably  considered  as  an  honour  (2 
Sam.  i.  15;  iv.  12).  Stoning  therefore  was,  pro- 
bably, the  only  capital  punishment  ordered  by 
Moses.  It  is  observable  that  neither  this  nor  any 
other  punishment  was,  according  to  his  law,  at- 
tended with  insult  or  torture  (comp.  2 Macc.  vii  ). 
Nor  did  his  laws  admit  of  those  horrible  mutila- 
tions practised  by  other  nations.  For  instance,  he 
prescribed  stoning  for  adulterers  (comp.  Lev.  xx. 
10  ; Ezek.  xxiii.  25;  xvi.  38,  40  ; John  viii.  5); 
but  the  Chaldseans  cut.  off  the  noses  of  such  offend- 
ers (Ezek.  xxiii.  25).  According  to  Diodorus,  the 
Egyptian  monarch,  Actisanes,  punished  robbers 
in  like  manner,  and  banished  them  to  the  confines 
of  the  desert,  where  a town  was  built  called  Rhi- 
nocolura,  from  the  peculiar  nature  of  their  punish- 
ment, and  where  they  were  compelled  to  live  by 
their  industry  in  a barren  and  inhospitable  region 
(i.  60).  Mutilation  of  such  a nature  amounts  to  a 
perpetual  condemnation  to  infamy  and  crime.  It 
will  shortly  be  seen  that  the  lex  talionis,  ‘ an  eye  for 
an  eye,’  &c.,  was  adopted  by  Moses  as  the  principle, 
but  not  the  mode  of  punishment.  He  seems  also 
to  have  understood  the  true  end  of  punishment, 
which  is  not  to  gratify  the  antipathy  of  society 
against  crime,  nor  moral  vengeance,  which  belongs 
to  God  alone,  but  prevention.  ‘ All  the  people  shall 
hear  and  fear,  and  do  no  more  so  presumptuously’ 
( Deut.  xvii.  13  ; xxix.  20).  His  laws  are  equally 
free  from  the  characteristic  of  savage  legislation, 


that  of  involving  the  family  of  the  offender  m hu 
punishment.  He  did  not  allow  parents  to  be  put 
to  death  for  their  children,  nor  children  for  theii 
parents  (Deut.  xxiv.  16),  as  did  the  Chaldaeans 
(Dan.  vi.  24),  and  the  kings  of  Israel  (comp.  1 
Kings  xxi. : 2 Kings  ix.  26).  Various  punish- 
ments were  introduced  among  the  Jews,  or  became 
known  to  them  by  their  intercourse  with  other 
nations, — viz.,  precipitation , or  throwing,  or  caus- 
ing to  leap,  from  the  top  of  a rock  : to  which  ten 
thousand  Idumaeans  were  condemned  by  Ama- 
ziah,  king  of  Judah  (2  Clnon.  xxv.  12).  The 
inhabitants  of  Nazareth  intended  a similar  fate 
for  our  Lord  (Luke  iv.  29).  This  punishment 
resembles  that  of  the  Tarpeian  rock  among  the 
Romans.  Dichotomy,  or  cutting  asunder,  appears 
to  have  been  a Babylonian  custom  (Dan.  ii.  5; 
iii.  29;  Luke  xii.  46;  Matt.  xxiv.  51);  but 
the  passages  in  tiie  Gospels  admit  of  the  milder 
interpretation  of  scourging  with  severity,  discard- 
ing from  office,  &c.  Beating  to  death , rvpira- 
vKrpis,  was  a Greek  punishment  for  slaves.  It  was 
inflicted  on  a wooden  frame,  which  probably  de- 
rived its  name  from  resembling  a drum  or  tim- 
brel in  form,  on  which  the  criminal  was  bound 
and  beaten  to  death  (2  Macc.  vi.  19,  2S ; comp, 
v.  30).  In  Josephus  ( de  Macc.)  the  same  in- 
strument is  called  rpox^s,  or  ‘ wheel  ’ (§  § 5,  9). 
Hence  to  beat  upon  the  tympanum,  to  drum  to 
death,  is  similar  to  ‘ breaking  on  the  wheel’  (Heb. 
xi.  35).  David  inflicted  this  among  other  cruel- 
ties upon  the  inhabitants  of  Rabbath-ammon 
(l  Chron.  xx.  3).  Fighting  xoith  mild  beasts 
was  a Roman  punishment,  to  which  criminals 
and  captives  in  war  were  sometimes  condemned 
(Adam,  Roman  Antiq.,  p.  344;  2 Tim.  iv.  17; 
comp.  1 Cor.  xv.  32).  Drowning  with  a heavy 
weight  around  the  neck,  was  a Syrian,  Greek, 
and  Roman  punishment.  This,  therefore,  being 
the  custom  of  the  enemies  of  the  Jews,  was 
introduced  by  our  Lord  to  heighten  his  ad- 
monitions (Matt,  xviii.  6).  Josephus  records 
that  the  Galileans,  revolting  from  their  com- 
manders, drowned  t lie  partizans  of  Ilerod  (Antiq. 
xiv.  15.  20).  The  Persians  had  a singular  punish- 
ment for  great  criminals.  A high  tower  was 
filled  a great  way  up  with  ashes,  the  criminal 
was  thrown  into  it,  and  the  ashes  by  means  of 
a wheel  were  continually  stirred  up  and  raised 
about  him  till  he  was  suffocated  (2  Macc.  xiii. 
4-6.  The  lion's  den  was  a Babylonian  punish- 
ment (Dan.  vi.),  and  is  still  customary  in  Fez 
and  Morocco  (see  accounts  of  by  Hoest.  c.  ii. 
p.  77).  Bruising  and  pounding  to  death  in  a 
mortar  is  alluded  to  in  Prov.  xxvii.  22.  For 
crucifixion,  see  the  Article. 

Posthumous  insults  offered  to  the  dead  bodies 
of  criminals,  though  common  in  other  nations, 
were  very  sparingly  allowed  by  Moses.  He 
permitted  only  hanging  on  a tree  or  gibbet; 
but  the  exposure  was  limited  to  a day,  and  burial 
of  the  body  at  night  was  commanded  (Dent, 
xxi.  22).  Such  persons  were  esteemed  ‘ cursed 
of  God’  (comp.  Josh.  viii.  29  ; x.  26 ; 2 Sam. 
iv.  12)— a law  which  the  later  Jews  extended 
to  crucifixion  (John  xix.  31,  &c. ; Gal.  iii. 
13).  Hanging  alive  may  have  been  a Canaan- 
itish  punishment,  since  it  was  practised  by  the 
Gibeonites  on  the  sons  of  Saul  (2  Sam.  xxi.  9). 
Another  posthumous  insult  in  later  times  con- 
sisted in  heaping  stones  on  the  body  or  grave 


PUNISHMENTS. 


PUNISHMENTS. 


5 87 


of  the  executed  criminal  (Josh.  vii.  25,  2G).  To 
' make  heaps'  of  houses  or  cities  is  a phrase  de- 
noting complete  and  ignominious  destruction 
(Isa.  xxv.  2;  Jer.  ix.  11').  Burning  the  dead 
body  seams  to  have  been  a very  ancient  posthu- 
mous insult. : it  was  denounced  by  Judah  against 
his  daughter-in-law,  Tamar,  when  informed  that 
she  was  with  child  (Gen.  xxxviii.  24).  Selden 
thinks  hat  this  means  merely  branding  on  the  fore- 
head (De  Jure  N.  et  G .,  vii.  5).  Moses  retained 
this  ancient  ignominy  for  two  offences  only,  which 
from  the  nature  of  things  must  have  been  com- 
paratively rare,  viz.,  for  bigamy  with  a mother 
and  her  daughter  (Lev.  xx.  4),  and  for  the  case 
of  a priest's  daughter  who  committed  whoredom 
(xxi.  9).  Though  ‘burning'  only  be  specified 
in  these  cases,  it  may  be  safely  inferred  that  the 
previous  death  of  the  criminals,  probably  by 
lapidation,  is  to  be  understood  (comp.  Josh.  vii. 
25).  Among  the  heathens  this  merciful  prelimi- 
nary was  not  always  observed,  as  for  instance  in 
the  case  of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego 
(Dan.  iii.). 

Among  the  minor  corporal  punishments  or- 
dered by  Moses,  was  scourging;  or  the  inflic- 
tion of  blows  on  the  back  of  an  offender  with 
a rod.  It  was  limited  by  him  to  forty  stripes, 
a number  which  the  Jews  in  later  times  were 
so  careful  not  to  exceed,  that  they  inflicted 
but  thirty-nine  (2  Cor.  xi.  24).  It  was  to  be 
inflicted  on  the  offender  lying  on  the  ground,  in 
the  presence  of  a judge  (Lev.  xix.  20  ; Dent, 
xxii.  18;  xxv.  2,  3).  We  have  abundant  evi- 
dence that  it  was  an  ancient  Egyptian  punish- 
ment. Nor  was  it  unusual  for  Egyptian  super- 
intendents to  stimulate  labourers  to  their  work 
by  the  persuasive  powers  of  the  stick.  Women 
received  the  stripes  on  the  back,  while  sitting,  from 
the  hand  of  a man  ; and  boys  also,  sometimes 
with  their  hands  tied  behind  them.  The  modern 
inhabitants  of  the  valley  of  the  Nile  retain  the 
predilection  of  their  forefathers  for  this  punish- 
ment. The  Moslem  say  ‘ Nezel  min  e'semma 
e’neboot  baraka  min  Allah:’  ‘ The  stick  came 
down  from  heaven  a blessing  from  God.’  Cor- 
poral punishment  of  this  kind  was  allowed  by 
Moses,  by  masters  to  servants  cr  slaves  of  both 
sexes  (Exod.  xxi.  20).  Scourging  was  common  in 
after  times  among  the  Jews,  who  associated  with 
it  no  disgrace  or  inconvenience  beyond  the  phy- 
sical pain  it  occasioned,  and  from  which  no 
station  was  exempt  (Prov.  xvii.  26  ; comp.  x.  13  ; 
Jer.  xxxvii.  15-20).  Hence  it  became  the  sym- 
bol for  correction  in  general  (Ps.  lxxxix.  32). 
Solomon  is  a zealous  advocate  for  its  use  in  edu- 
cation (Prov.  xiii.  24;  xxiii.  13,  14;  comp. 
Eccles.  xxx.  1).  In  his»opinion  ‘ the  blueness  of 
a wound  cleanseth  away  evil,  and  stripes  the 
inward  parts  of  the  belly'  (Prov.  xx.  30).  It  was 
inflicted  for  ecclesiastical  offences  in  the  syna- 
gogue (Matt.  x.  17  ; Acts  xxvi.  II).  The  Mosaic 
law,  however,  respecting  it,  affords  a pleasing 
contrast  to  the  extreme  and  unlimited  scourging 
known  among  the  Romans,  but  which,  according 
to  the  Porcian  law,  could  not  be  inflicted  upon  a 
Roman  citizen  (Cicero,  Pro  Rabirio , 3 ; ad 
Fan\il.  x.  32  ; in  Verrem , v.  53  ; comp.  Acts  xvi. 
22-37  ; xxii.  25).  Reference  to  the  scourge  with 
scorpions,  i.  e.  a whip  or  scourge  armed  with  knots 
or  thorns,  occurs  in  1 Kings  xii.  11.  So  in  La- 
tin, scorpio  means  ‘ virga  nodosa  vel  aculeata.’ 


Retaliation , the  lex  talionis  of  the  LxHn«,  and 
the  aurnrei rovdbs  of  the  Greeks,  is  doubtless  the 
most  natural  of  all  kinds  of  punishment,  and 
would  be  the  most  just  of  all,  if  it  could  be  in- 
stantaneously and  universally  inflicted.  Rut 
when  delayed  it  is  apt  to  degenerate  into  revenge. 
Hence  the  desirableness  that  it  should  be  regu- 
lated and  modified  by  law.  The  one-eyed 
man,  mentioned  by  Diodorus  Siculus  (xii.),  com- 
plained that  if  he  lost  his  remaining  eye,  he 
would  then  suffer  more  than  his  victim,  who 
would  still  have  one  left.  Phavorinus  argues 
against  this  law,  which  was  one  of  the  twelve 
tables,  as  not  admitting  literal  execution,  because 
the  same  member  was  more  valuable  to  one  man 
than  another;  for  instance,  the  right  hand  of  a 
scribe  or  painter  could  not  be  so  well  spared  as 
that  of  a singer.  Hence  that  law,  in  later  times, 
was  administered  with  tlie  modification,  ‘Ni  cum 
eo  pacet,’  except  the  aggressor  came  to  an  agree- 
ment with  the  mutilated  person,  de  talione  redi- 
menda,  redeem  the  punishment  by  making  com- 
pensation. Moses  accordingly  adopted  the  prin- 
ciple, but  lodged  the  application  of  it  in  the 
judge.  ‘If  a man  blemish  his  neighbour,  as  he 
hath  done,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  him.  Life 
for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  wound  for 
wound,  stripe  for  stripe,  breach  for  breach’  (Exod. 
xxi.  23-25  ; Lev.  xxiv.  19-22).  His  system  of 
compensations,  &c.,  occurs  in  Exod.  xxi.  He,  how- 
ever, makes  wilful  murder,  even  of  a slave,  always 
capital,  as  did  the  Egyptians.  Roman  masters 
had  an  absolute  right  over  the  life  of  their  slaves 
(Juvenal,  vi.  219).  The  Egyptians  doomed  the 
false  accuser  to  the  same  punishment  which  he  en- 
deavoured to  bring  on  his  victim,  as  did  Moses 
(Dent.  xix.  19).  Imprisonment,  not  as  a punish 
ment,  but  custody,  till  the  royal  pleasure  was 
known,  appears  among  the  Egyptians  (Gen.  xxxix. 
20,  21).  Moses  adopted  it  for  like  purposes  (Lev. 
xxvi.  12).  In  later  times,  it  appears  as  a punish- 
ment inflicted  by  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel 
(2  Chron.  xvi.  10  ; 1 Kings  xxii.  27  ; Jer.  xxxvii. 
21) ; and  during  the  Christian  era,  as  in  the  in- 
stance of  John  (Matt.  iv.  12),  and  Peter  (Acts 
xii.  4).  Murderers  and  debtors  were  also  com- 
mitted to  prison;  and  the  latter  ‘tormented’  till 
they  paid  (Matt  xviii.  30  ; Luke  xxiii.  19).  A 
common  prison  is  mentioned  (Acts  v.  18) ; and  also 
an  inner  prison  or  dungeon,  which  was  sometimes  a 
pit  (Jer.  xxxviii.  6),  in  which  were  ‘stocks'  (Jer. 
xx.  2;  xxix.  26;  Acts  xvi.  24).  Prisoners  are 
alluded  to  (Job  iii.  18),  and  stocks  (xlii.  27). 
Banishment  was  impracticable  among  the  Jews. 
It  was  inflicted  by  the  Romans  on  John  (Rev.  i. 
9).  Cutting  or  plucking  off  the  hair  is  alluded 
to  (Isa.  1.  6 ; Nehein.  xiii.  25).  Excision,  or 
‘ cutting  off  from  his  people,’  is  denounced  against 
the  uncircumcised  as  eaily  as  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  14).  This  punishment  is 
expressed  in  the  Mosaic  law  by  the  formulae — 
‘ that  soul  shall  be  destroyed  from  its  people' 
(Lev.  x'ii.  20,  21);  ‘from  Israel’  (Exod.  xii. 
15);  ‘from  the  midst  of  the  congregation’  (Num. 

xix.  20);  ‘ it  shall  be  destroyed’  (Lev.  xvii.  14  ; 

xx.  17);  which  terms  sometimes  denote  capital 
punishment  (Exod.  xxxi.  14;  comp.  xxxv.  2; 
Num.  xv.  32,  &c.)  [Anathema]. 

Ecclesiastical  punishments  are  prescribed,  aa 
might  be  expected,  under  a theocracy,  but  these 
were  moderate.  Involuntary  transgressions  of  the 


568 


PUNON. 


PURIM. 


Le  viticai  law.  whether  of  omission  or  commission, 
were  atoned  for  by  a sin-offering  (Lev.  iv.  2, 
&c. ; v.  1,  4-7).  This  head  embraced  a rash  or 
neglected  oath,  keeping  back  evidence  in  court 
(Lev.  iv.  2,  &c. ; v.  1 ; iv  7),  breach  of  trust, 
ocncealment  of  property  w.ien  fomd,  or  theft, 
even  when  the  offender  had  already  cleared  him- 
self by  oath,  but  was  now  moved  by  conscience 
to  make  restitution.  By  these  means,  and  by  the 
payment  of  twenty  per  cent,  beyond  the  amount 
of  his  trespass,  the  offender  might,  cancel  the  crime 
as  far  as  the  church  was  concerned  (Lev.  vi.  1-7  ; 
Num.  v.  6-10).  Adultery  with  a slave  was  com- 
muted from  death  to  stripes  and  a trespass  offering 
(Lev.  xix.  20-22).  All  these  cases  involved  public 
confession,  and  the  expenses  of  the  offering. 

Future  punishment. — Though  the  doctrine  of 
a future  state  was  known  to  the  ancient  Hebrews, 
yet  temporal  punishment  and  reward  were  the 
immediate  motives  held  out  to  obedience.  Hence 
the  references  in  the  Old  Testament  to  punish- 
ment in  a future  state  are  obscure  and  scanty. 
See  Hades;  Heaven;  Hki.i.. — J.  F.  D. 

PUNON,  one  of  the  stations  of  the  Israelites 
in  the  desert  [Wandering]. 

PURIFICATIONS  [Ablutions,  Unclean- 
ness]. 

PURIM  (D'H-IQ,  Esther  iii.  7 ; ix.  24,  sq., 
from  “1-lS,  supposed  to  be  the  Persic  for  a ‘ lot  ’),  a 
celebrated  Jewish  festival  instituted  by  Mordecai, 
at  the  suggestion  of  Esther,  in  the  reign  of  Aha- 
suerus,  king  of  Persia,  to  commemorate  the  deli- 
verance of  the  Jews  from  the  designs  of  Human 
[Esther;  Haman;  Mordecai].  It  derived  its 
name  from  the  lots  cast  every  day  for  twelve 
months  in  presence  of  Haman,  with  the  view  of 
discovering  an  auspicious  day  for  the  destruction 
of  all  the  Jews  in  the  Persian  dominions ; when 
the  lot  fell  on  the  13th  day  of  Adar  (February  and 
part  of  March)  [Festivals], 

The  celebration  of  this  festival  is  next  referred 
to  in  2 Macc.  xv.  36,  where  it  is  denominated 
Mordecai's  day  (tj  MapSoxai’/c^  ripepa)  [Macca- 
bees]. It  is  also  mentioned  by  Josephus  ( Antiq . 
xi.  6),  who,  having  observed  that  the  Jews  in 
Shushan  feasted  on  the  fourteenth  day  (of  Adar), 
and  that  which  followed  it,  says,  ‘ Even  now  all 
the  Jews  in  the  habitable  world  keep  these  days 
festival,  and  send  portions  one  to  another  ;’  and 
after  referring  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  by 
Divine  protection,  he  adds,  ‘ for  which  cause  the 
Jews  keep  the  forementinned  days,  calling  them 
Phruraean  days  (ypepai  (ppovpaiai ).’  It  is  dis- 
puted whether  the  word  employed  by  Josephus 
(< ppovpalat ) arose  from  an  error  of  transcription, 
or  whether  the  historian  may  not  have  confounded 
the  name  Purim  with  D'Tn-D,  which,  according 
to  some,  implies  protection.  The  Talmud  makes 
frequent  mention  of  this  feast.  In  the  Jerusalem 
Megiltah  (p.  704)  it  is  observed  that  ‘ there  were 
seventy-five  elders,  above  thirty  of  whom  were 
prophets,  who  made  exceptions  against  the  feast  of 
Purim  ordained  by  Esther  and  Mordecai,  as  some 
Kind  of  innovation  against  the  law  ’ (see  Lightfoot, 
on  John  x.  22).  Maimonides  remarks  that  it  is 
forbidden  to  weep  or  fast  on  this  day. 

It  has  been  sharply  contested  whether  there  is 
*ny  reference  in  the  New  Testament  to  this  feast. 
It  is  recorded  in  St.  John’s  Gospel  (v.  1),  that 
after  these  things  was  the  feast  of  the  Jews  (j)  koprr] 
w TovSeuW)’,  or  rather,  perhaps,  a feast,  as  the 


article  is  wanting  in  several  manuscripts.  It 
been  held  by  Out  rein,  Lamy,  and  Hug,  and  still 
more  recently  by  Tholuck  and  lucke,  that  the 
feast  of  Purim  is  here  meant.  The  reasons  oa 
which  this  opinion  is  grounded  will  be  found 
fully  detailed  in  Hug’s  Introd.  (part  ii.  § 64),  and 
in  Liicke’s  Comment,  on  St.  John's  Gospel  (see 
the  English  translation  of  Lucke’s  Dissertation 
in  the  appendix  to  Tittmann's  Meletemata  Sacray 
or  a Commentary  on  St.  John's  Gosj)cl,  in  Bib. 
Cabinet , vol.  xlv.  Hengstenberg,  on  the  other 
hand  ( Christology , vol.  ii.,  ‘ On  the  Seventy 
Weeks  of  Daniel,’  pp.  408-414,  Engl,  transl., 
Washington  (U.  S.),  1839),  opposes  this  hypothesis 
by  many  ingenious  arguments,  andholds  it  to  be 
inconceivable  that  our  Lord,  ‘ who  never  men- 
tions the  book  of  Esther,  whose  apostles  nowhere 
appeal  to  it,  should  have  sought  this  feast  conse- 
crated to  the  remembrance  of  an  event  described 
in  this  book.’  Not  that  he  wishes  to  ‘ impugn  the 
authority  of  the  book  of  Esther,  but  because,  in 
regard  to  the  true  standard,  its  reference  to  Christ, 
it  undoubtedly  holds  the  lowest  place  among  all 
the  books  in  the  Old  Testament.’  It  would  appear 
from  this,  that  Professor  Hengstenberg  follows 
Luther's  ‘touchstone’  of  canonicity  [Deutf.ro- 
canonical].  Those  who  do  not  consider  Purim 
to  be  the  feast  referred  to  in  John  v.  1,  are  di- 
vided between  the  Passover,  the  Feast,  of  Dedi- 
cation, and  that  of  Pentecost : Hengstenberg, 
with  the  majority  of  commentators,  supports  the 
last.  Lucke  concludes  his  able  dissertation 
by  observing  that  all  sure  grounds  of  deciding 
between  Purim  and  the  Passover  are  wanting. 

The  particulars  of  the  mode  in  which  the  Jews 
observe  this  festival  will  be  found  detailed  by 
Buxtorf  (Synag.  Jud.)  and  Schikford  (De  Syna- 
goga,  in  the  Critici  Sacri , vol.  ii.  p.  1185).  We 
shall  select  a few  of  the  most  striking.  The  book 
of  Esther,  written  on  a separate  roll  of  parchment, 
called  on  this  account  Megillah  Esther,  or  simply 
Megillah,  is  read  from  beginning  to  end  ; arid 
even  the  reading  of  the  law  is  on  this  day  post- 
poned to  it.  It  may  be  also  read  in  any  language 
which  the  reader  understands.  When  Mordecai’s 
name  occurs,  the  whole  congregation  exclaim, 
Blessed  be  Mordecai!  and,  on  mention  of  that  of 
Haman,  they  say,  May  his  name  perish  ! and 
it  is  usual  for  the  children  to  hiss,  spring  rattles, 
strike  the  walls  with  hammers,  and  make  all 
sorts  of  noises.  These  noisy  portions  of  the  ce- 
remony have,  however,  been  long  discontinued 
in  England,  except  in  the  synagogues  of  some 
foreign  Jews.  The  remainder  of  the  day  is  spent 
in  festivity,  in  commemoration  of  Esther's  feast ; 
upon  which  occasion  the  Jews  send  presents  to 
each  other,  the  men  to  the  men,  and  the  women 
to  the  women.  They  also  bestow  alms  on  the 
poor,  from  the  benefit  of  which  Christians  and 
other  Gentiles  are  not  excluded.  Plays  and 
masquerades  follow  ; nor  is  it  considered  a breach 
of  the  law  of  Moses  on  this  occasion,  for  men  and 
women  to  assume  the  garb  of  the  other  sex.  It 
is  even  written  in  the  Talmud  (Tract.  Megill. 
vii.  2),  that  a man  should  drink  until  he  cannot 
discern  the  words  ‘ Cursed  be  Haman  ’ from 
‘ Blessed  be  Mordecai.’  But  these  injunctions  are 
certainly  not  considered  as  binding;  and  the 
modern  Jews,  both  at  the  feast  of  Purim  and  in 
their  general  habits,  are  remarkable  for  tbe>r 
temperance  and  sobriety  Hatach  (Esther  it 


PURPLE. 


PURPLE. 


689 


and  v.)  is  considered  by  the  Jews  to  be  the  same 
with  Daniel.  Purim  is  the  last  festival  in  the 
Jewish  ecclesiastical  year,  being  succeeded  by  the 
next  Passover. — W.  W. 

PURPLE,  BLUE,  CRIMSON,  SCARLET. 
1.  Purple  (JD31N)  occurs  in  Exod.  xxv.  4 ; xxvi. 
3,  31, 36  ; xxvii.  16  ; xxviii.  5,  6,  8,  15,  33 ; xxxv. 
6,  23,  25,  35  ; xxxvi.  8,  35,  37  ; xxxviii.  18,  23  ; 
xxxix.  1,  2,  3,  5,  8,  24,  29;  Num.  iv.  13; 
Judg.  viii.  26;  2 Chron.  ii.  7,  14;  iii.  U; 
Est.  i.  6;  viii.  15;  Prov.  xxxi.  22;  Cant.  iii. 

1 0 : vii.  5 ; Jer.  x.  9 ; Ezek.  xxvii.  7,16;  Ecclus. 
xlv.  10;  Bar.  vi.  12.  72;  1 Macc.  iv.  23;  viii. 
14;  x.  20,  62;  2 Macc.  iv.  38;  Mark  xv.  17, 
20;  Luke  xvi.  19;  John  xix.  2,  5;  Acts  xvi. 
14;  Rev.  xvii.  4;  xviii.  12,  16.  Chald.  jintf, 
occurs  in  2 Chron.  ii.  7 ; fcOliHS'?,  Dan.  v.  7,  16, 
29  ; Sept,  and  Greek  Test.,  7 ropcpvpa ; Vulg.  pur- 
pura. In  many  of  these  passages,  the  word  trans- 
lated ‘ purple'  means  ‘ purple  cloth,’  or  some  other 
material  dyed  purple,  as  wool,  thread,  &c. ; but 
no  reference  occurs  to  the  means  by  which  the 
dye  was  obtained,  except  in  1 Macc.  iv.  23,  where 
we  have  tt op<pvpa  OaWacrcrla , ‘ purple  of  the  sea  ’ 
(comp.  Diod.  Sic.  iii.  68  ; Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud. 
v.  5.  4).  There  is,  however,  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  it  was  obtained,  like  the  far-famed 
Tyrian  purple,  from  the  juice  of  certain  species 
of  shell-fish.  Different  accounts  are  given  by  the 
ancients  respecting  the  date  and  origin  of  this 
invention.  Some  place  it  in  the  reign  of  Phoenix, 
second  king  of  Tyre,  b.c.  500.  Others  at  the 
time  that  Minos  the  First  reigned  in  Crete,  b.c. 
1439,  and  consequently  before  the  Exodus  (Sui- 
das,  s.  v.  'HpaKAr/s,  tom.  ii.  p.  73).  But  the 
person  to  whom  the  majority  ascribe  it,  is  the 
Tyrian  Hercules,  whose  dog,  it  is  said,  instigated 
by  hunger,  broke  a certain  kind  of  shell-fish  on 
the  coast  of  Tyre,  and  his  mouth  becoming 
stained  of  a beautiful  colour,  his  master  was  in- 
duced to  try  its  properties  on  wool,  and  gave  his 
first  specimens  to  the  king  of  Tyre,  who  admired 
the  colour  so  much  that  he  restricted  the  use  of  it 
by  law  to  the  royal  garments  (Pollux,  Onom . i.  4 ; 
Achilles  Tatius,  DeClitoph . ; Palsephat.  in  Chron. 
Paschal.,  p.  43).  It  is  remarkable,  that  though 
the  Israelites,  as  early  as  the  first  construction  of 
the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  appear  to  have  had 
purple  stuff  in  profusion  (Exod.  xxv.  1-4),  which 
they  had  most  likely  brought  with  them  out  of 
Egypt,  yet  no  instance  occurs  in  the  pictorial 
language  of  the  Egyptians,  nor  in  Wilkinson’s 
Ancient  Manners  and  Customs , of  the  actual 
manufacture  of  dyeing  either  linen  01  woollen, 
although  dyes  similar  to  the  Tyrian  were  found 
among  them.  These  facts  agree,  at  least,  with 
the  accounts  which  ascribe  the  invention  to  the 
earliest  of  these  two  periods,  and  the  pre-eminent 
trade  in  it  to  the  Tyrians.  The  Greeks  attributed 
its  first  introduction  among  themselves  to  the 
Phoenicians  (Eurip.  Phcen.  1497).  Their  word 
fpolvi};  means  both  a ‘ Phoenician’  and  ‘ purple.’ 
The  word  vopcpipa  is,  according  to  Martinius,  of 
Tyrian  origin.  Though  purple  dyes  were  by  no 
means  confined  to  the  Phoenicians  (comp.  Ezek. 
xxvii.  7,  ‘purple  from  the  isles  of  Elisha,’  supposed 
to  mean  Elis,  ‘ and  from  Syria,’  ver.  16),  yet  violet 
purples  and  scarlet  were  nowhere  dyed  so  well 
os  at  Tyre,  whose  shores  abounded  with  the  best 
xind  of  purples  (Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  ix.  60,  p.  524, 
fd.  Ilarduin),  and  who  were  supplied  with  the  best 


wool  by  die  neighbouiing  nomad*  The  dye 
called  purple  by  the  ancients,  and  its  various 
shades,  were  obtained  from  many  kinds  of  shell- 
fish, all  of  which  are,  however,  ranged  by  Pliny 
under  two  classes  : one  called  ‘ buccinum,’  be- 
cause shaped  like  a horn,  found,  he  says,  in  cliffs 
and  rocks,  and  yielding  a sullen  blue  dye,  which 
he  compares  to  the  colour  of  the  angry  raging 
sea  in  a tempest;  the  other  called  ‘purpura,’  or 
‘pelagia,’  the  proper  purple  shell,  taken  by  fishing 
in  the  sea,  and  yielding  the  deep  red  colour 
which  he  compares  to  the  rich,  fresh,  and  bright 
colour  of  deep-red  purple  roses — >nigrantis  rosae 
colore  sublucens’ — and  to  coagulated  blood,  and 
which  was  chiefly  valued.  ‘ Laus  ei  summa  in 
colore  sanguinis  concreti’  ( Ibid . cap.  61,  62).  It 
is  the  Murex  trunculas  of  Linnaeus  and  Lamarck 
(see  Syst.  Nat.  p.  1215,  and  Animaux  sans  Ver - 
tebres , Paris,  1822,  t.  vii.  p.  170).  Both  sorts 


464.  [Murex  trunculus.] 

were  supposed  to  be  as  many  years  old  as  they 
had  spirals  round.  Michaelis  thinks  that  So- 
lomon alludes  to  their  sha^pe,  when  he  says  (Cant, 
vii.  5),  ‘ The  hair  of  thine  head  is  like  purple;’ 
meaning  that  the  tresses  ( itAokiou  necpaArjs,  Sept. ; 
comce  capitis , Vulg.)  were  tied  up  in  a spiral  or 
pyramidal  form  on  the  top.  Others  say  that  the 
word  ‘purple’  is  here  used  like  the  Latin  pur - 
pureus , for  beautiful,  &c.,  and  instance  the  ‘ pur- 
purei  olores,’  ‘ beautiful  swans’  of  Horace  ( Carm . 

iv.  1.  10),  and  the  ‘purpureus  capillus’  of  Virgil 
(Georg,  i.  405);  but  these  phrases  are  not  pa- 
rallel. The  juice  of  the  whole  shell-fish  was 
not  used,  but  only  a little  thin  liquor  called  the 
flower,  contained  in  a white  vein  or  vessel  in  the 
neck.  The  larger  purples  were  broken  at  the  top 
to  get  at  this  vein  without  injuring  it,  but  the 
smaller  were  pressed  in  mills  (Aristot.  Hist.  An., 

v.  13.  75  ; Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  ix.  60).  The  Murex 
trunculus  has  been  demonstrated  to  be  the  species 
used  by  the  ancient  Tyrians,  by  Wilde,  who 
found  a concrete  mass  of  the  shells  in  some  cf  the 
ancient  dye-pots  sunk  in  the  rocks  of  Tyre  ( Nar- 
rative, Dublin,  1840,  vol.  ii.  p.  482).  It  is  of 
common  occurrence  now  on  the  same  coasts 
(Kitto’s  Physical  History  of  Palestine , p.  418), 
and  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Mediterranean, 
and  even  of  the  Atlantic.  In  the  Mediterranean, 
the  countries  most  celebrated  for  purples  were 
the  shores  of  Peloponnesus  and  Sicily,  and  in 
the  Atlantic,  the  coasts  of  Britain,  Ireland, 
and  France.  Horace  alludes  to  the  African 
(Carm.  ii.  1.6.  35).  There  is,  indeed,  an  es- 
sential difference  in  the  colour  obtained  from 
the  purples  of  different  coasts.  Thus  the  shells 


590 


PURPLE. 


PURPLE. 


from  the  Atlantic  are  said  to  give  the  darkest 
juice;  those  of  the  Italian  and  Sicilian  coasts,  a 
violet  or  nurpiie ; and  those  of  the  Phoenician,  a 
crimson.  It  appears  from  the  experiments  of 
Reaumur  ana  Duhamel,  that  the  tinging  juice 
is  perfectly  white  while  in  the  vein ; but  upon 
being  laid  on  linen,  it  soon  appears  first  of  a light 
green  colour,  and  if  exposed  to  the  air  and 
sun,  soon  after  changes  into  a deep  green,  in  a 
few  minutes  into  a sea  green,  and  in  a few  more 
into  a blue  : thence  it  speedily  becomes  of  a 
purple  red,  and  in  an  hour  more  of  a deep  purple 
red,  which,  upon  being  washed  in  scalding  water 
and  soap,  ripens  into  a most  bright  and  beautiful 
crimson,  which  is  permanent.  The  ancients  ap- 
plied the  word  translated  * purple,’  not  to  one 
colour  only,  but  to  the  whole  class  of  dyes  manu- 
factured from  the  juices  of  shell-fish,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  vegetable  dyes  ( colores  herbacei ), 
and  comprehending  not  only  what  is  commonly 
called  purple,  but  also  light  and  dark  purple,  and 
almost  every  shade  between.  Various  methods 
were  adopted  to  produce  these  different  colours. 

Thus,  a sullen  blue  was  obtained  from  the 
juice  of  the  buccinum  alone ; a plain  red,  yet 
too  deep  and  brown,  from  the  pelagia;  a dark 
red  by  dipping  the  wool,  &c.,  first  in  the  juice 
of  the  purpura,  and  then  in  that  of  the  buc- 
cinum : a violet  (which  was  the  amethyst  colour 
so  much  valued  by  the  Romans)  by  reversing 
the  process  ; and  another,  the  most  valued 
and  admired  of  all,  the  Tyriamethystus,  by 
again  dipping  the  amethyst  in  the  juice  of  the 
pelagia.  This  Pliny  calls  dibapha  Tyria;  so 
named  he  says,  because  ‘bis  tincta’  (Hist.  Nat. 
ix.  39).  No  reference  to  this  process  occurs  in 
the  Scriptures,  but  it  is  often  alluded  to  in  Ro- 
man authors.  Thus  Horace  (Epod.  xii.  21)  : Mu- 
ricibus  Tvriis  iterafas  vellera  lanae.  ‘The  wools 
with  Tyrian  purple  double  dyed.’  Other  varieties 
of  colour  may  have  been  produced  by  the  use  of 
various  species  of  mollusca,  and  of  those  from 
different  coasts.  The  Phoenicians  also  understood 
the  art  of  throwing  a peculiar  lustre  into  this 
colour,  by  making  other  tints  play  over  it,  and 
producing  what  we  call  a shot  colour,  which 
seems  to  have  been  wonderfully  attractive  (Pliny, 
ix.  41).  Purple  was  employed  in  religious  wor- 
ship both  among  Jews  and  Gentiles.  It  was 
one  of  the  colours  of  the  cut  tains  of  the  tabernacle 
(Exod.  xxvi.  1)  ; of  the  vail  (31)  ; of  the  curtain 
over  the  grand  entrance  (36)  ; of  the  ephod  of  the 
high  priest  (xxviii.  5,  6),  and  of  its  girdle  (8)  ; of 
(he  breast-plate  ( 15)  ; of  the  hem  of  the  robe  of 
the  ephod  (33) ; (comp.  Ecelus.  xlv.  10)  ; of  cloths 
for  divine  service  (Exod.  xxxix.  1 ; comp.  Num. 
iv.  13);  resumed  when  the  temple  was  built  (2 
Chron.  ii.  7,  14;  iii.  14).  Pliny  records  a similar 
use  of  it  among  the  Romans  : ‘ l)iis  advocatur 
placandis'  (Hist.  Nat.  ix.  60;  Cicero,  Epist.  ad 
Atticum,  ii.  9).  The  Babylonians  arrayed  their 
idols  in  it  (Jer.  x.  9;  Baruch  xii.  72).  It  was 
at  an  early  period  worn  by  kings  (Judg.  viii. 
26).  Homer  speaks  as  if  it  were  almost  peculiar 
to  them  (II.  iv.  144;  1 Macc.  viii.  14).  Pliny 
says  it  was  worn  by  Romulus  and  the  succeeding 
Kings  of  Rome,  and  by  the  consuls  and  first*, 
magistrates  under  the  republic.  Suetonius  re- 
lates that  Jufc'us  Caesar  prohibited  its  use  bj 
Roman  subjects,  except  on  certain  days;  anu 
‘nat  Ne-o  forbade  it  altogether,  upon  pain  of  death. 


The  use  of  it  was  bestowed  by  kings  upon  favo- 
rites, &c. ; Josephus  says  by  Pharaoh  on  Joseph 
(Antiq.  ii.  5.  7).  It  was  given  by  Ahasuerus  to 
Mordecai  (Esth.  viii.  15);  to  Daniel  by  Belshazzar 
(Dan.  v.  7,  16,  29).  It.  was  the  dress  of  an  ethnarcb 
or  prince,  and  as  such  given  by  Alexander  to  Jo- 
nathan (1  Macc.  x.  20,  62, 64,  65  ; comp.  2 Macc. 
iv.  38).  In  the  last  chapter  of  the  Proverbs  it  is 
represented  as  the  dress  of  a matron  (ver.  22).  It 
was  at  one  time  worn  by  Roman  ladies  and  rich 
men  (Livy,  xxxiv.  7,  and  Valerius  Max.  ii. 
1).  See  also  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and 
Lazarus  (Luke  xvi.  19).  In  Esther  i.  6,  it  ap- 
pears as  part  of  the  royal  furniture  of  Ahasuerus; 
and  in  Cant.  iii.  10,  as  the  covering  of  the  royal 
chariot;  and  Pliny  refers  to  its  general  use,  not 
only  for  clothes,  but  carpets,  cushions,  &c.  (39). 
The  rohe  in  which  the  Praetorian  guard  arrayed 
the  Saviour,  called  xb-apvs  koickIvtj  by  Matthew 
(xxvii.  28),  and  wop<pvpa  by  Mark  (xv.  17,  20), 
and  Ijiariov  TTopcpvpovv  by  John  (xix.  2),  and  which 
appears  to  have  been  the  cast-off  sagum  of  one  of 
their  officers,  was  no  doubt  scarlet — that  is,  proper 
crimson , as  will  hereafter  appear — of  a deeper 
hue  and  finer  texture  than  the  sagum  or  chlamys 
of  the  common  soldier,  but  inferior  in  both  respects 
to  that,  of  the  emperor,  which  was  also  of  this 
colour  in  the  time  of  war,  though  purple  during 
peace.  The  adjectives  used  by  the  Evangelists 
are,  however,  often  interchanged.  Thus  a vest, 
which  Horace  (Sat.  ii.  6.  102)  calls  ‘ ruhro 
cocco  tincta,’  in  1.  106,  he  styles  ‘ purpurea.’ 
Braunius  shows  that  the  Romans  gave  this  name 
to  any  colour  that  had  a mixture  of  red  (De 
Vestitu  Sacerdotum,  i.  1 4,  Ludg.  Bat.  1680). 
Ovid  applies  the  term  purpureas  to  the  cheeks 
and  lips  (Amor.  i.  3).  In  Acts  x.  14,  refer- 
ence is  found  to  Lydia,  of  the  city  of  Thy- 
atira,  a seller  of  purple  cloth.  The  manufac- 
ture seems  to  have  decayed  with  its  native 
city.  A colony  of  Jews,  which  was  established 
at  Thebes  in  Greece  in  the  twelfth  century, 
carried  on  an  extensive  manufactory  for  dyeing 
purple.  It  ultimately  became  superseded  by  the 
use  of  indigo,  cochineal,  &c.,  whence  a cheaper 
and  finer  purple  was  obtained,  and  free  from 
the  disagreeable  odour  which  attended  that  de- 
rived from  shell-fish  (Martial,  i.  50.  32).  The 
method  of  the  ancients  in  preparing  and  ap- 
plying it,  and  other  particulars  respecting  its 
history,  uses,  and  estimation,  are  most  fully  given 
by  Pliny  (Hist.Nat.  ix.  36-42).  The  best  modern 
books  are  Amati,  De  Restitutions  Purpuramm , 
3rd  ed.,  Cesena,  1784;  the  treatise  by  Capelli, 
De  Antiqua  et  Nvpera  Purpura,  with  notes ; 
and  Don  Michaele  Rosa,  Dissertazione  de/le 
porpore , etc.  1768.  See  also  Dictionnaire  des 
Sciences  Naturelles,  tom.  xliii.  p.  219,  &c. ; Bo- 
chart,  edit.  Rosenmiiller,  tom.  iii.  p.  675,  &c. ; 
Heeren’s  Historical  Researches,  translated,  Ox- 
ford, 1833,  vol.  ii.  p.  85,  &c. 

2.  Blue  (n*?3n),  almost  constantly  associated 
with  purple,  occurs  in  Exod.  xxv.  4 ; xxvi.  1,  4, 
31,36;  xxvii.  16;  xxviii.  5 8,  15,  33, 37  ; xxxv. 
25;  xxxvi.  11;  xxxix.  1-5,  22,  31;  Num.  iv. 

6,  7,  9.  11,  12;  xv.  38;  2 Chron.  ii.  7,  14  ; Estlu 
i.  6;  viii.  15;  Jer.  x.  9;  Ezek.  xxiii.  6;  xxvii. 

7,  24 ; Sept,  generally  vaxirBos,  vaicivBtvos , 
and  in  Keel  us.  xl.  4 ; xlv.  10;  1 Macc.  iv.  23; 
and  so  Josephus,  Philo,  Aquila,  SymmachuSj 


PURPLE. 


PURPLE. 


Theodofion,  Vulgate,  ami  Jerome.  This  colour  is 
supposed  to  have  been  obtained  from  another 
purple  shell-fish  of  the  Mediterranean,  the  conchy- 
lium  of  the  ancients,  the  Helix  iantkina  of  Lin- 
naeus (Syst.  Nat.  tom.  i.  part  7,  p.  3645;  and 
see  Forskal's  Descriptio  Animal,  p.  127),  called 
by  the  ancient  Jews.  Thus  the  pseudo- 
Jonathan,  in  Dent.,  xxxiii.  19,  speaks  of  the  Ze- 
bulonites,  who  dwelt  at  the  shore  of  the  great  sea, 
and  caught  chilzon , with  whose  juice  they  dye 
thread  of  a hyacinthine  colour.  The  Scriptures 


465.  [Helix  iantliina.] 

alTb/d  no  clue  to  this  colour;  for  the  only  pass- 
ages in  which  it  seems,  in  the  English  version,  to 
be  applied  to  something  that  might  assist  our 
conceptions,  are  mistranslated,  namely,  ‘ The 
blueness  of  a wound’  (Prov.  xx.  30),  and  ‘A 
blue  mark  upon  him  that  is  beaten  ’ (Ecclus. 
xxiii.  10),  there  being  no  reference  to  colour  in 
the  original  of  either.  The  word  in  the  Sept, 
and  Apocrypha  refers  to  the  hyacinth ; but  both 
the  flower  and  stone,  so  named  by  the  ancients, 
are  disputed,  especially  the  former.  Yet  it  is  used 
to  denote  dark-coloured  and  deep  purple.  Virgil 
speaks  of ferrugineos  hyacinthos , and  Columella 
compares  the  colour  of  the  flower  to  that  of 
clotted  blood,  or  deep,  dusky  red,  like  rust.  ( De 
Re  Rtist.  x.  305).  Hesychius  defines  vauivfhvov’ 
vTToyxXavi^ov,  nopcpvpi^ou.  It  is  plainly  used  in 
the  Greek  of  Ecclus.  xl.  4 for  the  royal  purple. 
Josephus  evidently  takes  the  Heine'"  word  to 
mean  ‘sky-colour;’  for  in  explaining  the  colours 
of  the  vail  of  the  temple,  and  referring  to  the  blue 
(Exod.  xxvi.  31),  he  says  that  it  represented  the 
air  or  sky  (De  Bell.  Jud.  v.  4)  : he  similarly 
explains  the  vestment  of  the  high-priest  (Antiq. 
iii.  7.  7 ; and  see  Philo.  Vita  Mosis , iii.  p.  148, 
tom  ii.  ed.  Mangey).  These  statements  may  be 
reconciled  by  the  fact,  that  in  proportion  as  the 
sky  is  clear  and  serene,  it  assumes  a dark  ap- 
pearance, which  is  still  more  observable  in  an 
eastern  climate.  The  chief  references  to  this  colour 
in  Scripture  are  as  follows: — The  robe  of  the 
high-priest’s  ephocl  was  to  be  all  of  blue  (Exod. 
xxviii.  31)  ; so  the  loops  of  the  curtains  to  the 
tabernacle  (xxvi.  4) : the  riband  for  the  breast- 
plate (xxviii.  28),  and  for  the  plate  for  the  mitre 
(ver.  37;  comp.  Ecclus.  xlv.  10);  blue  cloths 
for  various  sacred  uses  (Num.  iv.  6,  7,  9,  11,  12)  ; 
the  people  commanded  to  wear  a riband  of  blue 
above  the  fringe  of  their  garments  (1S1  urn.  xv.  38)  ; 
it  appears  as  a colour  of  furniture  in  the  palace 
of  Ahasuerus  (Esth.  i.  6),  and  put  of  the  royal 
apparel  (viii.  15)  ;'  array  of  the  idols  of  Babylon 
(Jer.  x.  9);  of  the  Assyrian  nobles,  &c.  (Ezra 
xxiii.  6 ; see  Braunius,  De  Vesti.u,  &c.,  i.  9 and 
13 ; Bochart,  tom.  iii.  p.  670). 

3.  Crimson , occurs  in  2 Chron.  ii.  7- 

1.4;  iii.  14;  Sept.  kSkkivqs;  Vulg.  coccinum. 


591 


This  word  is  by  some  supposed  to  signify  another 
kind  of  shell-fish,  yielding  a crimson  dye,  ec 
called  because  found  on  the  shore  near  Mount 
Carmel.  If  so,  those  words  (Cant.  vii.  5),  ‘ thine 
head  upon  thee  is  like  Carmel,’  may  contain  an- 
other reference  to  the  shape  of  some  sort  of  pur- 
pura (Bochart,  vol.  iii.  p.  661,  &c.).  Gesenius 
says  it  is  a word  belonging  to  later  Hebrew,  and 
most  probably  of  Persian  or  Armenian  origin. 

4.  Scarlet , often  associated  with  purple  and 
blue.  The  words  so  translated  occur  in  the  fol- 
lowing forms: — 1.  and  alone,  Gen. 

xxxviii.  28-30;  Josh.  ii.  18-21  f 2 Sam.  i.  24; 
Prov.  xxxi.  21  ; Cant.  iv.  3;  Jer.  iv.  30;  Sept. 
kokklvou",  Vulg.  coccinum ; Isa.  i.  18,  tyoiviKov v, 
coccinum.  2.  njAm  Exod.  xxv.  4 ; xxvi. 
1,  31,36;  xxvii.  16;  xxviii.  5,  6,  8,  15;  xxxv. 
6,  23,  25;  xxxviii.  18,  23;  xxix.  3 ; Num.  iv. 
8 ; k6kkivov  and  k6kkivov  with  dnr\ovv,  k€kAcc<t- 
fievor,  kKwtov,  b'.aveuri(rpevov ",  Vulg.  bis  tinctus , 
coccus  bis  tinctus , and  vermiculus.  3.  nj6m 
'35?,  Lev.  xiv.  4,  6,  49,  51,  52;  Num.  xix.  6; 
Sept,  kokkivov,  with  h.ei<\w(rpevov,  and  k\cciTt6i/’, 
vermiculus , coccus,  and  with  bis  tinctus.  4 
alone,  Isa.  i.  8,  k6kkivov,  vermiculus; 
Lam.  iv.  5;  Vulg.  croceis ; Nah.  ii.  3,  coccineis. 
In  the  New  Testament,  Matt,  xxvii.  28  ; Heb. 
ix.  19;  Rev.  xvii  3,  4;  xviii.  12,  16;  koickivos , 
coccineus.  The  first  of  these  words,  '35?,  i3  by 
some  derived  from  PI35?,  ‘ to  repeat,’  and  is  thus 
interpreted  to  mean  ‘ double  dyed,’  bifiaepov,  but 
which  Gesenius  observes  is  applicable  only  to  the 
Tvrian  purple  (see  Braunius,  De  Vest.  i.  15, 
§ 214,  p.  237  ; Bochart,  Hieroz.  i.  3.  p.  525-7). 

Gesenius  prefers  the  Arabic  root  splenduit , 

because  scarlet  garments  were  admired  for  their 
brightness:  but  Jerome  asserts  that  the  word 
means  coccinum  (Epist.  ad  Fabiolam ).  It  is 

certain  that  denotes  a worm,  grub,  or  insect, 

and  the  Sept,  and  Vulg.  plainly  understood  by  it 
the  coccus , from  which  the  ancients  procured  a 
blood  red  crimson  dye,  the  coccus  ilicis  of  Linnaeus, 


class  iv.,  tetragynia,  the  ^cyj  kermez  of  the 
Arabians,  whence  used  to  be  derived  the  French 
word  cramoisi,  and  our  crimson;  but  Kilian  gives 
carmensinum,  because  made  from  a worm,  which, 
in  the  Phoenician  tongue,  is  called  carmen.  He- 
sychius defines  kSxkos’  e|  ou  (poivinovr  fionTTercu  rb 
Xpcopa.  It  was  (he  female  of  this  remarkable  in- 
sect that  was  employed  ; and  though  supplanted 
by  the  cochineal  (cocctis  cacti),  it  is  still  used  for 
toe  purpose  in  India  and  Persia.  It  attains  the 
size  and  form  of  a pea,  is  of  a violet  black  colour, 
covered  with  a whitish  powder,  adhering  to  plants, 
chiefly  various  species  of  oak,  and  so  closely  re- 
sembling grains,  that,  its  insect  nature  was  not 
generally  known  for  many  centuries.  According 
to  Beckman,  the  epithet  vermiculatus  was  ap- 
plied to  it  during  the  middle  ages,  when  this  fact 
became  generally  understood,  and  that  hence  is 
derived  the  word  vermilion.  Hence  the  Hebrew 
words  mean  both  the  coccus  itself,  and  the  deepi 
red  or  bright  rich  crimson  which  was  derived 
from  it  (as  in  Cant.  iv.  3,  ‘thy  lips  are  like  a 
thread  of  scarlet’);  and  so  the  word  ‘ scarlet ’ sig- 
n ijied  in  the  time  of  our  translators , rather  than 
the  colour  now  called  by  that  name,  and  which  una 


PURPLE. 


PUTEOLI. 


unknown  in  the  time  of  James  I.  This  insect  is 
widely  distributed  over  many  of  the  south-eastern 
countries  of  the  ancient  world.  It  occurs  abun- 
dantly in  Spain  (Kirby  and  Spence,  Introduction 
to  Entomology,  1828,  vol.  i.  pp.  310-20).  It  is 
found  on  the  quercus  coccifera , or  kermes  oak.  in 
Palestine  (Kitto's  Physical  History,  p.  219). 
Pliny  speaks  of  the  coccus  as  a red  colour  much 
esteemed,  which  he  distinguishes  from  purple 
(Hist.  Nat.  ix.  65),  and  describes  as  a gay,  red, 


466.  [Coccus  ilijis,  on  i branch.] 
lively  bright,  approaching  the  colour  of  fire  (ibid. 
• and  xxi.  22).  All  the  ancients  concur  in  say- 
ing that  this  dye  was  made  from  a sort  of  little 
grains  which  were  gathered  from  the  holm-oak 
(Theophrast.  Hist.  Plant,  iii.  16  ; Pliny,  xvi.  12  ; 
Dioscorides,  iv.  48  ; Pausan.  x.  36).  They  not 
only  call  them  grains,  but  speak  of  them  as  the 
vegetable  productions  of  the  oak  itself,  tv pivov 
Kapiruu  (Pint.  Thes.  p.  7)  ; and  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat. 
xvi.  12)  calls  them  cusculia,  from  the  Greek  koct- 
KvWeiv,  which  signifies  ‘ to  cut  little  excrescences,’ 
because  they  cut  or  scrape  off  these  small  grains 
of  the  oak.  Yet  he  was  not  entirely  ignorant  of 
heir  insect  character,  for  he  says,  ‘ coccum  ilicis 
celerrimein  vermiculum  se  mutans’  (xxiv.  4).  It 
seems,  however,  that  the  colour,  thus  obtained, 
was  not  durable  (xxii.  3).  It  was  known  at  a 
very  early  period  in  Canaan  (Gen.  xxxviii.  28); 
if.  was  one  of  the  colours  of  the  high-priest’s  ephod 
(Exod.  xxviii.  6),  and  of  its  girdle  (ver.  8),  of  the 
breastplate  (ver.  15),  and  of  cloths  for  sacred  uses 
(Num.  iv.  8);  it  was  used  in  cleansing  the  leper 
(Lev.  xiv.  4),  to  indicate,  as  Abarbanel  thinks, 
that  a healthy  complexion  was  restored  to  him. 
It  was  the  dress  of  females  in  the  time  of  Saul 
(2  Sam.  i 24)  ; of  opulent  persons  in  later  times 
(Lam.  iv.  5)  ; of  the  Babylonian  and  Median 
soldiers,  who  also  wore  red  shields  (Nahum  ii.  4 ; 
comp.  Scuta  lectissimis  coloribus  distinguunt. 
Tacit.  Dc  Mor.  Germ.  c.  6 ; and  Philostratus,  Epist. 
ie  Lacedremoniis.  Three  mistranslations  of  the 
ord  occur  in  our  version,  ‘ She  is  not  afraid  of 


the  snow  for  her  household  ; for  all  her  household 
are  clothed  with  scarlet’  (Prov.  xxxi.  21).  Since 
there  is  no  connection  between  the  colour  and  a 
defence  from  the  cold,  it  would  be  better  ren- 
dered, as  in  the  margin,  ‘double  garments;’  Sept. 
eVSeSo/xeVoi ; A’ulg.  vestiti  duplicibus.  The  next 
verse  of  the  Sept,  begins  Snraas  xAcdpas  iirolrjaf 
rip  avbpl  avrijs.  In  Isa.  i.  18,  and  Jer.  iv.  30, 
the  word  should  be  rendered  ‘scarlet’  and  not 
‘ crimson.’  The  final  reference  to  scarlet,  is  in 
regard  to  Pagan  Rome,  which,  like  all  cities, 
is  represented  as  a female;  and  since  every- 
body wore  scarlet  in  Rome,  and  especially  dur- 
ing war,  she  is  described  as  being  arrayed  ra 
that  colour.  ,rn  Exod.  xxxix.  3,  it  is  said,  ‘they 
did  beat,  gold  into  their  plates,  and  cut  into 
wires,  to  work  in  the  blue,  and  in  the  purple,  and 
in  the  scarlet,  and  in  the  fine  linen ;'  which  is 
explained  to  mean  that  these  five  kinds,  blue, 
purple,  scarlet,  fine  linen,  and  gold,  were  twisted 
into  one  thread  ; thus,  a thread  of  gold  with  six 
threads  of  blue,  and  so  with  the  rest,  after  which 
they  twisted  all  these  threads  into  one  (Braunius, 
i.  17.  26).  It  seems  plain  from  Exod.  xxxv. 
25,  that  the  blue,  and  purple,  and  scarlet,  and 
fine  linen  were  spun  by  hand  from  wool  al- 
ready dyed  of  these  colours.  Wilkinson  re- 
marks that  the  colour  was  in  like  manner  im- 
parted by  the  Egyptians  to  the  thread,  &c.,  that 
is,  cloth  was  not  dyed  after  being  wove  (Manners 
and  Customs,  vol.  iii.p.  125).  It  will  have  been 
perceived  that  great  difficulty  attends  the  attempt 
to  determine  the  precise  distinctions  of  colours 
known  to  the  ancients  by  the  various  preceding 
names.  The  only  possible  method  whereby  they 
could  have  conveyed  them  to  our  minds,  would 
have  been  by  comparing  them  to  the  colours  of 
natural  objects,  whose  appearance  was  immutable, 
and  whose  identity  was  beyond  question.  Such 
an  attempt  has  been  made  by  Bishop  Wilkins  in 
his  Peal  Character.  We  may  illustrate  the  utility 
of  these  requisites  by  the  colour  blue,  which  is 
defined  to  mean  ‘ the  colour  produced  or  exposed 
to  the  view  by  the  blowing  away,  or  clearing 
away'’  or  dispersing  of  the  clouds’  (Enc.  Metro- 
politana').  But,  as  is  well  known,  the  shades 
of  ethereal  blue  vary  in  different  countries,  and 
even  in  different  altitudes  of  the  same  coun- 
try. Hence  the  word  blue,  if  illustrated  by  this 
standard,  would  convey  a different  idea  to  the  in- 
habitants of  different  regions.  It  is  most  likely 
that  all  our  ideas  of  sensible  impressions  are  liable 
to  errors  of  association.  It  is,  however,  satisfactory 
to  know,  that  like  all  other  dubious  matters,  these 
are  of  minor  importance.  We  add  a further  re- 
ference to  Goguet’s  Origin  of  Laws,  Arts,  ana 
Sciences,  vol.  ii.  p.  95,  & c.  Edin.  1764. — J.  F.  D. 

PUTEOM  ( UorioXoi ),  a maritime  town  of 
Campania,  in  Italy,  on  the  north  shore  of  the 
bay  of  Naples,  and  about  eight  miles  north-west 
from  the  city  of  that  name,  where  it  still  exists 
under  the  name  of  Pozzuoli.  It  derived  its  name 
from  its  tepid  baths,  whence  the  district  in  which 
it  exists  is  now  called  Terra  di  Lavoro.  The 
ancient  Greek  name  of  the  place  was  AiKaiipxeia. 
It  was  a favourite  watering-place  of  the  Romans, 
as  its  numerous  hot-springs  were  judged  efficacious 
for  the  cure  of  various  diseases.  It  was  also  the 
port  where  ships  usually  discharged  their  pas- 
sengers and  cargoes,  partly  to  avoid  doubling 
the  promontory  of  Circeium,  and  partly  because 


QUAIL. 

there  was  no  commodious  harbour  nearer  to  Rome. 
Hence  the  ship  in  which  Paul  was  conveyed  from 
Melita,  landed  the  prisoners  at  this  place,  where 
the  apostle  staiil  for  a week  (Acts  xxviii.  13). 
The  harbour  was  protected  by  a celebrated  mole, 
tiie  remains  of  which  are  still  to  be  seen. 


Q. 

QUAIL  (1%>  selav ; Sept.  bpTvyofxiirpa  ; 
Vulg.,  coturnix)  occurs  in  Exod.  xvi.  13  ; Num. 
xi.  31,  32;  Ps.  cv.  4U.  Quails  form  a subdivi- 
sion  of  the  Tetraonidce,  or  grouse  family,  being 
distinguished  from  partridges  by  their  smaller 
size,  finer  bill,  shorter  tail,  and  the  want,  of  a red 
naked  eyebrow  and  of  spurs  on  the  legs.  There 
are  several  species,  whereof  the  common,  now 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Coturnix  dactyli- 
sonans,  is  abundant  in  all  the  temperate  regions 
of  Europe  and  Western  Asia,  migrating  to  and 
from  Africa  in  the  proper  season.  Thus  it  crosses 
the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas  twice  a-year 
in  vast  multitudes ; but  being  by  nature  a bird 
of  heavy  flight,  the  passage  is  partially  conducted 
by  way  of  intermediate  islands,  or  through  Spain; 
and  in  the  East,  in  still  greater  numbers,  along 
the  Syrian  desert  into  Arabia,  forming,  especially 
at  the  spring  season,  innumerable  flocks.  They 
alight  exhausted  with  fatigue,  and  are  then  easily 
caught.  Guided  by  these  facts,  commentators 

nave  been  led  to  identify  the  Hebrew  with 
the  quail ; although  other  species  of  partridges, 
and  still  more  of  Pterocles  (‘  sand  grouse  ’), 
abound  in  Western  Asia;  in  particular  Pterocles 
Alchata , or  Attagen , which  is  found,  if  possible, 
in  still  greater  numbers  on  the  deserts,  and  has 
been  claimed  by  Hasselquist  as  the  selav  of  Ex- 
odus. But;  the  present  Arabic  name  of  the  quail 
is  selwa  ; and  the  circumstances  connected  with 
the  bird  in  question — found  on  two  occasions  by 
the  people  of  Israel  in  and  around  the  camp  so 
abundantly  as  to  feed  the  whole  population  in  the 
desert  (Exod.  xvi.  3-13),  and  at  Kibroth-Hat- 
taavah,  both  times  in  the  spring — are  much  more 
applicable  to  flights  of  quail  alighting  in  an  ex- 
hausted state  during  their  periodical  migration, 
than  to  the  pterocles,  which  does  not.  proceed  to 
so  great  a distance,  has  very  powerful  wings,  is 
never  seen  fatigued  by  migration,  is  at  all  times 
a tenant  of  the  wilderness  far  from  water,  and 
which,  strictly  taken,  is  perhaps  not  a clean  bird, 
all  the  species  subsisting  for  the  most  part  on 
larvae,  beetles,  and  insects.  We  regard  these  con- 
siderations as  sufficient  to  establish  the  accuracy 
of  the  Authorized  Version. 

Of  a bird  so  well  known  no  figure  or  further 
particular  description  appears  to  be  necessary, 
beyond  mentioning  the  enormous  flights  which, 
after  crossing  an  immense  surface  of  sea,  are 
annually  observed  at  the  spring  and  fall  to  take  a 
brief  repose  in  the  islands  of  Malta,  Sicily,  Sar- 
dinia, Crete,  in  the  kingdom  of  Naples,  and  about 
Constantinople,  where  on  those  occasions  there  is 
a general  shooting-match,  which  lasts  two(  or 
three  days.  This  occurs  always  in  the  autumn. 
The  birds,  starting  from  the  Crimea  about  seven 
at  night,  and  with  a northerly  wind,  before  dawn 
accomplish  a passage  of  above  sixty  leagues  in 

vol.  t-  29 


QUEEN.  5*3 

breadth,  and  alight  on  the  southern  shore  to  feed 
and  re] lose.  In  the  vernal  season  die  direction 
of  the  flight  is  reversed,  and  they  arrive  in  similar 
condition  on  the  Russian  coast.  The  same  phe- 
nomena occur  at.  Malta,  &c. : and  as  giegariows 
birds  of  passage  are  known  to  guide  their  course 
by  given  landmarks,  which  they  distinguish  with 
unerring  precision,  and  which,  unless  they  have 
been  driven  out  of  their  usual  direction  by  storms 
of  wind,  they  invariably  arrive  at.  or  over,  before 
they  take  a new  flight,  so  also  quails  congregate 
in  Arabia  in  numbers  proportionate  to  the  surface 
of  Western  Asia,  whither  they  are  proceeding. 
The  providential  nature  of  their  arrival  within 
and  around  the  camp  of  the  Israelites,  in  order 
that  they  might  furnish  meat  to  a murmuring 
people,  appears  from  the  fact  of  its  taking  place 
where  it  was  not  to  be  expected:  the  localities, 
we  presume,  being  out  of  the  direction  of  the 
ordinary  passage;  for,  bad  this  not  been  the  case, 
the  dwellers  in  that  region,  and  the  Israelites 
themselves,  accustomed  to  tend  their  flocks  at  no 
great  distance  from  the  spot,  would  have  regarded 
the  phenomenon  as  a well-known  periodical  occur- 
rence.— C.  H.  S. 

QUARTUS  (Kovapros),  a Christian,  resident 
at  Corinth,  and,  from  his  name,  apparently  a 
Roman,  whose  salutations  Paul  communicated  to 
the  Church  of  Rome  in  his  epistle  thereto  (Rom. 
xvi.  23).  In  the  old  church  books  he  is  alleged 
to  have  been  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  which, 
is  altogether  unlikely;  and  it  is  on  the  same 
authority  stated  that  he  was  eventually  bishop  of 
the  church  at  Berytus. 

QUATERNION  CrerpdSiov ),  ‘a  quaternion 
of  soldiers’  (Acts  xii.  4),  was  a detachment  of 
four  men,  which  was  the  usual  number  of  a Ro- 
man night  watch.  Peter,  therefore,  was  guarded 
by  four  soldiers,  two  within  the  prison,  and  two, 
outside  the  doors ; and  as  the  watch  was  usually 
changed  every  three  hours,  it  was  necessary  that 
the  ‘four  quaternions’  mentioned  in  the  text 
should  be  appointed  for  the  purpose  tVeget.  JJe 
Re  Milit.  iii.  8 ; Philo,  In  Flacc .,  p.  98). 

QUEEN.  The  Hebrews  had  no  word  properly 
answering  to  our  term  ‘queen,’  which  is  the  femi- 
nine of  ‘ king  ;’  neither  had  they  the  dignity  which 
that  word  denotes.  The  Hebrew  word  usually 
translated  ‘ queen  ’ is  il'TOS  gebirah , which  means 
‘ mistress,’  or  ‘ lady,’  being  the  feminine  of 
gebir , ‘ master,’  or  ‘ lord.’  The  feminine  is  to  be 
understood  by  its  relation  to  tie  masculine; 
which  is  not  applied  to  kingly  power,  or  to 
kings,  but  to  general  authority  and  dominion. 
It.  is  in  fact  the  word  which  occurs  twice  with 
reference  to  Isaacs  blessing  of  Jacob:  — ‘Be 
lord  over  thy  brethren  ;’  and,  ‘ I have  made  him 
thy  lord'  (Gen.  xxvii.  29 — 37). 

The  limited  use  which  is  made  even  r»f  the 
restricted  term  gebirah,  is  somewhat  remarkable. 
It  is  only  employed  twice  with  reference  to  the 
wife  of  a king  : in  one  of  these  two  cases  it  is 
applied  to  the  wife  of  the  king  of  Egypt,  where 
the  condition  of  the  royal  consort  was  more 
queenly  than  in  Palestine  (1  Kings  xi.  19;  comp. 
Wilkinson,  A.  Egypt,  ii.  59  ; iii.  64  ; v.  28)  ; and; 
in  the  other  to  Jezebel,  the  wife  of  Ahab,  who,  as 
the  daughter  of  a powerful  king,  appears  to  have 
enjoyed  peculiar  privileges  in  her  matjimoniaS 
state  (2  Kings  x.  13).  In  two  other  places  it  is. 


594 


QUEEN. 


QUEEN. 


not  clear  whether  the  king's  wife  or  mother  is  in- 
tended (Jer.  xiii.  18  ; xxix.  2)  ; and  in  the  remain- 
ing passages  it  is  pointedly  referred  to  the  king’s 
mother,  in  such  terms  as  clearly  show  that  the 
state  which  she  held  was  one  of  positive  dignity 
and  rank  (1  Kings  xv.  13*,  2 Chron.  xv.  16). 

There  is  another  word,  skegol , also  trans- 

lated ‘queen,’  which  simply  denotes  the  king’s 
■vife  or  (in  the  plural)  his  wives,  as  distinguished 
from  his  concubines.  It  occurs  in  Ps.  xlv.  9; 
Neb.  ii.  6 ; Dan.  v.  2 ; iii.  23. 

The  result  of  all  inquiry  into  the  subject  seems 
to  show  that  among  the  Jewish  kings  the  usages 
bearing  on  this  point,  were  not  different  from 
those  which  are  still  exhibited  in  Western  Asiatic 
courts.  Where  woman  never  becomes  the  head 
of  the  state,  there  can  be  no  queen  regnant ; and 
where  polygamy  is  allowed  or  practised,  there 
can  be  no  queen  consort.  There  will,  however, 
be  a chief  wife  in  the  harem;  and  this  is  no 
doubt  the  rank  indicated  in  the  Bible  by  the 
words  which  we  render  ‘queen.’  This  rank  may 
be  variously  acquired.  The^rsi  wife  of  the  king, 
or  the  first  whom  he  took  after  his  accession , usu- 
ally obtained  it;  and  if  she  is  both  of  high  birth 
and  becomes  the  mother  of  the  first  son,  her  posi- 
tion is  tolerably  secure  : but  if  she  possesses  neither 
of  these  advantages,  she  may  be  superseded  in  her 
position  as  head  of  the  harem  by  a wife  of  higher 
birth  and  connections,  subsequently  espoused  ; or 
by  one  who  becomes  the  mother  of  the  heir  appa- 
rent. The  king,  however,  will  sometimes  act 
according  to  his  own  pleasure  in  this  matter,  pro- 
mote any  favourite  lady  to  this  dignity,  and  also 
remove  her  from  it  at  his  pleasure  ; but  more 
generally  he  finds  it  convenient  to  follow  the 
established  routine.  The  king  of  Egypt’s  daugh- 
ter was,  doubtless,  from  her  high  rank,  the  chief 
wife  of  Solomon ; as  was  Jezebel,  for  the  same 
reason,  the  chief  wife  of  Ahab.  In  like  manner 
the  high-born  mother  of  Absalom  was  probably 
the  chief  wife  of  David,  although  it  is  possible 
that  the  mother  of  the  eldest  son  Amnon  at  first 
enjoyed  that  distinction,  which,  we  may  safely 
presume,  eventually  devolved  on  Bathsheba, 
after  her  son  Solomon  had  been  recognised  as  the 
heir. 

In  one  of  Mr.  Morier’s  amusing  books  ( HajJi 
Baba  in  England ) there  is  a passage  which 
strikingly  illustrates  this  matter.  The  court  of 
Persia  is  there  represented  as  being  perplexed 
how  to  answer  a letter  which,  in  ignorance  of 
Eastern  customs,  had  been  addressed  by  the 
-queen  consort  of  England  ‘ to  the  queen  of  Persia.’ 
The  cause  of  the  dilemma  thus  created  was  that 
— ‘Although  the  shah’s  principal  wife  is  called 
the  banou  harem,  or  head  of  the  seraglio,  yet  her 
situation  in  the  state  bears  as  little  affinity  to  that 
of  the  queen  of  England  as  one  may  say  the  she 
buffalo  kept  in  the  enclosure  for  food  and  milk 
nas  to  the  cow  fed  and  worshipped  by  the  Hin- 
doo as  his  god.  Our  shah  can  kill  and  create 
banous  at  pleasure,  whereas  the  queen  of  Eng- 
land maintains  her  post  till  the  hand  of  fate  lays 
her  in  the  grave  ’ (Comp.  Chardin,  Voyages , 
edit.  Langles,  vi.  ch.  xii. ; Thornton's  Turkey , 
ii.  264-286.) 

Very  different  whs,  and  is  to  this  day,  in 
Western  Asia,  the  position  of  the  king’s  mother, 
wuose  state  is  much  the  nearest  to  that  of  an 


European  queen  of  any  with  which  the  East  n 
acquainted.  It  is  founded  on  that  essential  prin- 
ciple of  Oriental  manners  which  in  all  cases  con- 
siders the  mother  of  the  husband  as  a far  superior 
person  to  his  wife,  and  as  entitled  to  more  respect 
and  attention.  This  principle  should  be  clearly 
understood  ; for  it  extends  throughout  the  Bible, 
and  is  yet  entirely  different  from  our  own  social 
arrangements,  under  which  the  mother,  as  soon  as 
she  becomes  widowed,  abandons  her  place  as 
head  of  the  family  to  the  daughter  in-law.  Mr 
Urquhart  has  admirably  illustrated  and  deve- 
loped this  principle  in  his  Spirit  of  the  East  (ii. 

387,  sq.),  and  his  remarks,  although  primarily 
illustrative  of  Turkish  manners,  are,  with  some 
unessential  limitations,  applicable  to  the  ancient 
and  modem  East.  In  p.  389  there  is  an  anec- 
dote of  the  present  Ibrahim  Pasha,  who  is  repre- 
sented as  staying  a whole  week  in  the  harem  of 
his  mother,  waiting  to  find  a favourable  opportu- 
nity of  pressing  a request  upon  her;  and  when 
admitted,  kissing  her  feet,  refusing  to  be  seated, 
and  standing  an  hour  and  a half  before  her  with 
his  arms  crossed,  without  after  all  succeeding 
in  the  suit  which  he — the  conqueror  of  Syria  anti 
the  victor  of  Konieh  — preferred  to  an  aged 
woman. 

The  arrangement  in  the  seraglios  of  the  more 
magnificent  Hebrew  monarchs  was  probably  si- 
milar to  that  of  Turkey,  with  this  difference, 
that  the  chief  women  in  the  harems  of  the  Jewish 
sovereigns  entered  it  as  wives,  and  not  as  slaves. 

The  grand  signior,  from  an  indeterminate  number 
of  female  slaves,  selects  his  favourites,  who  are 
distinguished  by  the  title  of  cadun , which,  as  it 
means  ‘ lady  of  the  house,’  seems  nearly  equiva- 
lent to  the  Hebrew  gebirah.  The  number  of 
these  is  said  to  be  limited  to  seven,  and  their 
rank  seems  to  correspond  to  that  of  the  ‘wives’ 
of  the  Hebrew  seraglio,  whose  number  was  un- 
limited. The  mother  of  a boy  is  called  has - 
se7i.it,  unless  the  boy  die,  in  which  case  she  de- 
scends to  her  former  rank.  The  caduns  or  wives 
of  a deceased  or  deposed  sultan  are  all  removed  «! 
from  the  imperial  harem  to  a separate  palace, 
with  the  single  exception  of  the  valide  sultan, 
the  mother  of  the  reigning  sultan,  who  has  her 
liberty,  a palace,  and  revenues  to  support  a 
Suitable  establishment.  But  the  hassekies,  or 
those  who  have  a son  living,  are  treated  with  | 
marked  respect,  as  in  the  natural  course  of  events 
they  may  become  validt.  The  title  of  sultan 
(for  the  Turkish  has  no  distinction  of  gender), 
though  from  courtesy  it  may  be  given  to  the  1 
hassekies,  is,  strictly  speaking,  appropriate  only 
to  the  sovereign's  mother,  and  to  the  sons  and  : 
daughters  of  the  imperial  family  (Thornton,  ir. 

276  ; Urquhart,  ii.  433).  This  statement,  espe- 
cially the  last  point  of  it,  strikingly  illustrates  the 
view  we  have  taken  as  to  the  more  queenly  position 
of  the  king's  mother  than  of  his  wife  in  the  Jewish 
and  other  Asiatic  courts.  It  must  be  clearly 
understood  that  this  position  is  by  no  means 
peculiar  to  the  modern  east,  or  to  the  Jews  among 
the  ancient  Orientals.  Heeren,  indeed,  thinks 
that  the  power  of  ‘ the  queen-mother  ’ was  even 
more  considerable  among  the  ancient  Persians 
than  among  the  modern  Turks  (Hist.  Researches, 
i.  400) ; and  the  narratives  of  Herodotus  and 
Ctesias  respecting  the  tyrannical  influence  ex 
ercised  by  Parysatis,  Amestris,  and  others,  bea> 


RABBAH. 


QUICKSAND. 

ample  testimon  j to  this  fact.  The  careful  reader 
of  Scripture  will  easily  be  able  to  trace  the  same 
ideas  respecting  the  position  of  the  king's  mother 
among  the  Israelites.  In  how  marked  a manner 
does  the  mother  of  Solomon  come  forward  at  the 
end  of  her  husband’s  and  the  beginning  of  her 
eon’s  reign  ! She  takes  an  active  part  in  securing 
her  son’s  succession  ; it  is  in  the  conviction  of  her 
commanding  influence  that  Adonijah  engages 
her  to  promote  his  suit,  alleging  ‘ he  will  not 
pay  thee  nay  ;’  and  then,  when  Bathsheba  appears 
before  her  son,  the  monarch  rises  from  his  place, 
advances  to  meet  her,  bows  himself  before  her, 
and  seats  her  on  the  right  hand  of  his  throne 
Kings  i.,  ii.).  That,  the  king’s  mother  possessed 
high  dignity  is  further  evinced  by  the  fact  that 
Asa  found  it  necessary  to  remove  his  mother 
Maachah  ‘from  being  queen,’  on  account  of  her 
Abuse  of  the  power  which  that  character  conferred 
■ 1 Kings  xv.  13).  Jezebel  was,  as  already 
dated,  very  powerful  in  the  life-time  of  her  hus- 
band ; but  it  is  only  under  her  son  that  she  is 
called  ‘ the  queen  * ( gebirah ) ; and  the  whole 
•iistory  of  his  reign  evinces  the  important  part 
which  she  took  in  public  affairs  (2  Kings  ix. 
22,  30,  37 ; x.  13).  Still  more  marked  was  the 
influence  which  her  daughter  Athaliah  exercised 
in  Judah  during  the  reign  of  her  son  Ahaziah, 
which  was  indeed  such  as  enabled  her  at  his 
leath  to  set  the  crown  on  her  own  head,  and  to 
present  the  anomaly  in  Jewish  history  of  a reg- 
nant queen  (2  Kings  xi.). 

QUEEN  OF  HEAVEN.  [Ashtoreth.] 
QUEEN  OF  SHEBA.  [Sheba.] 
QUICKSAND  (oVis).  In  Acts  xxvii.  17, 
it  is  mentioned  that  when  the  ship  in  which  Paul 
was  embarked  was  driven  past  the  Isle  of  Clauda 
on  the  south,  the  mariners,  as  would  now  be  said, 
struck  the  sails  and  scudded  under  bare  poles, 
lest  they  ‘should  fall  into  the  quicksands.’  The 
original  word  syrtis  denotes  a sandbank  or  shoal 
dangerous  to  navigation,  drawn , or  supposed  to  be 
drawn  (from  avpu,  ‘ to  draw  ’)  together  by  the  cur- 
rents of  the  sea.  Two  syrtes,  or  gulfs  with  quick- 
rands,  were  particularly  famous  among  the  an- 
cients.; one  called  Syrtis  Major,  between  Gyrene 
and  Leptis,  and  the  other,  Syrtis  Minor,  near  Car- 
thage. Both  then  lay  nearly  to  the  south-west 
of  the  west  end  of  Cyprus,  adjoining  which,  on 
the  south,  lay  the  isle  of  Clauda.  These  Syrtes 
were  the  great  dread  of  those  who  navigated  the 
seas  in  which  the  vessel  was  driven,  and  one  of 
them  was  probably  in  this  case  the  object  of 
alarm  to  the  mariners.  The  danger  was  not  so 
imaginary  in  this  case,  we  apprehend,  as  Dr. 
Falconer  (Dissert,  on  St.  Paul’s  Voyage , p.  13) 
conceives.  For  the  apprehension  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  entertained  till  the  ship 
had  been  driven  past  the  isle  of  Clauda ; which, 
as  we  take  it,  is  mentioned  merely  as  the 
last  point  of  land  which  had  been  seen  till  the 
ship  was  wrecked  on  the  isle  of  Melita.  The 
position  of  that  island  must  be  regarded  as  in- 
dicating the  course  in  which  they  were  driven; 
and  if  that  were  Malta,  it  is  clear  that,  had  that 
course  not  been  arrested  by  the  intermediate 
shipwreck,  they  would  in  all  probability  have 
been  driven  upon  the  Syrtis  Minor,  which  we 
may  therefore  conclude  to  have  been  the  subject 
of  their  apprehension.  That  apprehension  only 
becomes  ‘ imaginary  ’ when  Meleda  in  the  Ad- 


696 

riatic  is  taken,  as  Dr.  Falconer  himself  takes  it, 
for  the  Melita  of  Scripture.  It  may  therefore  be 
added  to  the  arguments  in  favour  of  Malta,  that 
its  identification  with  Melita  gives  reality  to  the 
fear  entertained  by  the  mariners,  which  under  the 
other  alternative  must  be  supposed  to  have  been 
imaginary  [Mai.ta]. 

QUlVEli.  [Armour,  Arms.] 

QUIRINUS.  [Cyrenius.] 


R. 


R A AMAH  (HDjn  ; Sept.  'Peyga),  a city  of 
the  Cushites,  or  of  Cushite  origin  (Gen.  x.  7 ; 
1 Clnon.  i.  9 ; Ezelc.  xxvii.  22).  Its  situation 
is  not.  clearly  known,  but  the  'Peyya  with  which 
the  Sept,  identifies  it  was  a city  on  the  Persian 
Gulf,  mentioned  by  Ptolemy  ( Geog . vi.  7),  and 
Stephan.  Byzant.  (See  Bochart,  Phaleg ;.  iv.  5.) 

RAAMSES.  [Rameses.] 

RABBAH  (HID  ; Sept.  'PafipdO).  This  name, 
which  properly  denotes  a great  city  or  metro- 
polis, is  given  in  Scripture  to  the  capital  of  the 
Ammonites  (Josh.  xiii.  25  ; 2 Sam.  xi.  1 ; xii. 
27;  1 Chron.  xx.  1;  Jer.  xlix.  3);  the  full 
name  of  which,  however,  as  given  in  Deut.  iii. 
11,  appears  to  have  been  Rabbath-beni- Ammon. 
It  was  in  this  place  that  the  great  iron  bedstead 
of  Og  king  of  Bashan  was  preserved  (Deut.  iii. 
11).  Here  also,  during  the  siege  of  the  place  by 
Joab,  the  unsuspecting  Uriah  was  slain,  through 
the  contrivance  of  David,  that  he  might  possess 
himself  of  his  wife  Bathsheba ; after  which  the 
king  went  in  person  and  took  the  city,  the  im- 
portance of  which  is  shown  by  the  solicitude 
of  the  monarch  thus  to  appropriate  to  himself 
the  glory  of  its  subjugation  (2  Sam.  xi.,  xii.). 
After  this  Rabbah  was  included  in  the  tribe  of 
Gad.  After  the  separation  of  the  ten  tribes, 
Rabbah,  with  the  whole  territory  beyond  the 
Jordan,  adhered  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  till 
it  was  ravaged  by  the  Assyrians  under  Tiglath- 
pileser,  and  the  inhabitants  expatriated  to 
Media.  The  Ammonites  then  recovered  posses- 
sion of  Rabbah  and  the  other  cities  and  territories 
which  had  in  former  times  been  taken  from  them 
by  the  Israelites  (Jer.  xlix.  3 ; Ezek.  xxv.  2-5) 
[Ammonites].  Some  centuries  later,  when  these 
parts  were  subject  to  Egypt,  Rabbah  was  restored 
or  rebuilt  by  Ptolemy  Philadelphia,  and  called 
by  him  Philadelphia  (Euseb.  Onomast.  s.  v. 
'PaydO  and  ’A ggdv),  and  under  this  name  it  is 
often  mentioned  by  Greek  and  Roman  writers 
(Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  16;  Ptol.  Geog.  v.  15),  by 
Josephus  (De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  6.  3 ; i.  19.  5 ; ii, 
18.  1),  and  upon  Roman  coina  (Eckhel,  iii.  351  ; 
Mionnet,  v.  335),  as  a city  of  Arabia,  Ccele- 
syria,  or  Decapolis.  The  old  name  was  not, 
however,  altogether  superseded,  for  Polybius 
(Hist.  v.  7,  4)  calls  it  'PaPBardyai’a. 

Rabbah  appears  to  have  consisted,  like  Aroer, 
of  two  parts;  the  city  itself,  and  ‘the  city  of 
waters,’  or  royal  city,  which  was  probably  a 
detached  portion  of  the  city  itself,  insulated 
by  the  stream  on  which  it  wa3  situated.  The 
‘ city  of  waters  ’ was  taken  by  Joab ; but  agaii^t 


696 


RABBI. 


RAB-SHAKEH. 


the  city  itself  he  was  obliged  to  call  for  the  assis- 
tance of  David  with  a reinforcement  (2  Sam. 
xii.  29). 

The  ancient  name  has  been  preserved  among 
the  natives  of  the  country.  Almlfeda  calls  it 
Amman , and  by  that  name  it  is  still  known. 
It  was  in  ruins  in  his  time  ( Tab . Syr.  p.  19). 
Toe  ruins  stand  about  19  miles  south-east  of 
Szalt,  in  a long  valley  traversed  by  a stream, 
the  Moiet  Amman.,  which  at  this  place  is  arched 
over,  the  bed  as  well  as  the  banks  being  paved. 
The  ruins  are  extensive,  but  there  remains  no- 
thing of  much  interest,  excepting  the  theatre, 
which  is  very  large  and  perfect,  and  a small 
odeum  close  to  it.  There  are  also  an  ancient 
castle  and  some  vestiges  of  Roman  buildings  and 
of  Christian  churches.  Tlie  Prophet  E/.ekiel 
foretold  that  Rabbah  should  become  ‘ a stable 
for  camels,"  and  the  country  ‘ a couching  place 
for  Hocks"  (Ezek.  xxv.  5).  This  has  been  lite- 
rally fulfilled,  and  Burckhardt  actually  found 
that  a party  of  Arabs  had  stabled  their  camels 
among  the  ruins  of  Rabbah.  Too  much  stress 
has  however  been  laid  upon  this  minute  point  by 
Dr.  Keith  and  others  (Evidence  from  Prophecy , 
p.  150).  What  the  prophet  meant  to  say  was  that 
Ammon  and  its  chief  city  should  be  desolate; 
and  he  expressed  it  by  reference  to  facts  which 
would  certainly  occur  in  any  forsaken  site  in 
the  borders  of  Arabia ; and  which  are  now  con- 
stantly occuring  not  in  Rabbah  only,  but  in 
many  other  places.  Seetzen,  in  Zach's  Monat. 
Corresp.  xviii.  p.  428;  Burckhardt's  Syria , 
p.  356,  sq. ; Irby  and  Mangles,  Travels , p. 
474. 

The  Rabbah  of  Josh.  xv.  60  was  in  the  tribe 
of  Judah. 

RABBATH-AMMON.  [Rabbah.] 
RABBATH-MOAB.  [Ait.] 

RABBI  ('P a##),  a title  of  honour  given  to  the 
teachers  of  the  law  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  for 
which  there  is  no  exact  equivalent  in  our  language, 
though  perhaps  in  purport  and  usage  it  comes 
near  to  ‘doctor’  or  ‘master:’  a word  combining 
both  these  significations  would  fairly  represent  it. 
In  Matt,  xxiii.  S,  'Pa/3/3<  is  explained  by  Kadrj- 
yrjTris,  a leader,  or  guide  (in  the  sense  of  a teacher 
or  master),  and  in  John  i.  39,  by  bidacr/caAos,  a 
teacher,  or  master.  This,  however,  seems  to  have 
been  the  acquired  or  conventional  usage  of  the 
term.  The  actual  signification  of  HI  rab  in 
Hebrew  is  ‘a  great  one,’  i.  e.  a chief,  a master; 
and  would  as  a title  be  probably  represented  by 
the  ‘Excellenza’  of  southern  Europe,  which  is 
perhaps  as  common  as  Rabbi  was  among  the  Jews. 
It  was  there  employed  as  a title  in  the  Jewish 
schools  in  a threefold  form,  indicating  as  many 
degrees,  which  might  without  much  impropriety 
be  compared,  in  the  stricter  sense,  to  the  progres- 
sive academical  degrees  of  Bachelor,  Master,  and 
Doctor.  The  lowest  of  these  degrees  of  honour 
was  rab.  This  with  the  relative  suffix  became 
'31,  ‘Paj8£i,  Rabbi,  ‘ my  master,’  which  was  of 
higher  dignity  ; and  beyond  that  was  p"l  Raban, 
‘great  master;’  or  with  the  suffix  "Paji^ovi,  Rab - 
boni , ‘my  great  master,’  which  was  the  highest 
of  all.  It  is  not  certain,  however,  that  this  gra- 
duation of  terms  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ. 
The  teachers  and  professors  of  the  law  were 
distinguished  by  the  title  of  Rabbi  both  by  the 


people  arid  by  their  own  disciples  (Mart,  xxiii.  7) 
Jesus  was  so  called  by  his  lisciples  (Matt.  xxvi. 
25-49;  Mark  ix.  5;  xi  2;  John  i.  38;  iv.  31) 
as  well  as  by  the  peopie  (Matt.  x.  51  ; John 
xx.  16). 

RABBINICAL  LITERATURE.  [Kab- 
bai.ah,  Talmud.] 

RABBONI  ('PajS^ovt  or  'P afiPocovl),  the  title 
of  highest  honour  applied  by  the  Jews  to  the 
teachers  of  the  law  [Rabbi].  In  Mark  x.  51 
(translated  ‘Lord’),  John  xx.  16,  it  is  applied 
to  Christ;  but,  as  it  seems  to  us,  rather  in  its 
literal  acceptation,  than  with  reference  to  the 
conventional  distinction  which  it  implied  (if  such 
distinction  then  existed)  in  the  Jewish  schools. 
There  were  but  seven  great  professors,  all  of  the 
school  of  IT i 1 lei,  to  whom  the  title  was  publicly 
given.  There  is  some  difference  as  to  their  names, 
and  even  the  Talmud  varies  in  its  statements. 
But  the  only  one  there  whose  name  occurs  in 
Scripture  is  Gamaliel,  unless,  indeed,  as  some 
suppose,  the  aged  Simeon,  who  blessed  the  infant 
Saviour  (Luke  ii.  25),  was  the  same  as  the  Rab- 
ban  Simeon  of  the  Talmud  [Simeon]. 

RAB  SARIS  (Dnp-nn  ; Sept.  'Pa^'y),  one  of 
the  three  Assyrian  generals  in  command  of  the 
army  which  appeared  before  Jerusalem  (2  Kings 
xviii.  17)  [Rab-shaiceh].  The  word  means  ‘ chief 
of  the  eunuchs  ;’  which  could  scarcely  have  been  a 
proper  name  ; but  whether  his  office  was  really 
that  which  the  title  imports,  or  some  other  great 
court  office,  must  be  determined  by  the  consi- 
derations which  have  been  offered  under  the  article 
Eunuch.  The  chief  of  the  eunuchs  is  an  officer 
of  high  rank  and  dignity  in  the  Oriental  courts: 
and  his  cares  are  not  confined  to  the  harem,  but 
many  high  public  functions  devolve  upon  him. 
In  the  Ottoman  Porte  the  Kislar  Aga,  or  chief  of 
the  black  eunuchs,  is  one  of  the  principal  per- 
sonages in  the  empire,  and  in  an  official  paper  of 
great  solemnity  is  styled  by  the  sultan,  the  most 
illustrious  of  the  officers  who  approach  his  august 
person,  and  worthy  of  the  confidence  of  monarchs 
and  of  sovereigns’ (D’Ohsson,  Tab.  Gen.  iii.  308). 
It  is,  therefore,  by  no  means  improbable  that  such 
an  office  should  be  associated  with  a military 
commission  ; perhaps  not  for  directly  military 
duties,  but  to  take  charge  of  the  treasure,  and  to 
select  from  the  female  captives  such  as  might 
seem  worthy  of  the  royal  harem. 

RAB-SHAKEH  (nj?£hn ; Sept.  ‘Pa^dt^y-. 
This  name  is  Aramaic,  and  signifies  chief  cup- 
bearer . Notwithstanding  its  seemingly  official 
significance,  it  appears  to  have  been  used  as  a 
proper  name,  as  Butler  with  us  ; for  the  person 
who  bore  it  was  a military  chief  in  high  com- 
mand, under  Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria.  Yet  it 
is  not  impossible,  according  to  Oriental  usages, 
that  a royal  cup-bearer  should  hold  a military 
command  ; and  the  office  itself  was  one  of  high 
distinction.  He  is  the  last,  named  of  three 
Assyrian  generals  who  appeared  before  Jeru- 
salem ; and  was  the  utterer  of  the  insulting 
speeches  addressed  to  the  besieged.  ‘He  stood 
and  cried  with  a loud  voice  in  the  Jews’  lan- 
guage;’ perhaps  because  he  was  the  only  one  of 
the  three  who  could  speak  that  language  freely. 
2 Kings  xviii.  17,  19,  26,  28,  37  ; xix.  4,  8 ; Isa. 
xxx vi.  2,  4,  12,  13,  22 ; ,xxxv  i.  4,  8, 


R\CA. 


RACK  AM. 


597 


RACA  ('Poicd),  a word  which  occurs  in  Matt, 
v.  22,  and  which  remains  untranslated  in  the 
Authorized  Version.  It.  is  expressive  of  contempt, 
from  the  Chaldee  Kpn,  and  means  an  empty, 
worthless  fellow.  Jesus,  contrasting  the  law  of 
Moses,  which  could  only  take  notice  of  overt  acts, 
with  his  own,  which  renders  man  amenable  for 
his  motives  and  feelings,  says  in  effect;  ‘Whoso- 
ever is  rashly  angry  with  his  brother  is  liable  to 
the  judgment  of  God  ; whosoever  calls  his  brother 
Raca,  is  liable  to  the  judgment  of  the  Sanhedrim  ; 
but  whosoever  calls  him  fool  (Moipe)  becomes 
liable  to  the  judgment  of  Gehenna.’  To  appre- 
hend the  higher  criminality  here  attached  to  the 
term  fool,  which  may  not  at  first  seem  very 
obvious,  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  while 
‘raca’  denotes  a certain  looseness  of  life  and 
manners,  ‘ fool  ’ denotes  a wicked  and  reprobate 
person  : foolishness  being  in  Scripture  opposed  to 
spiritual  wisdom. 

RACE.  [Games.] 

RACHAM  (Dn"l ; Sept,  kvkvov ; Vulg.  por- 
phyrio ; Lev.  xi.  18  ; Deut.  xiv.  17)  isnowadmit- 
ted  to  be  the  white  carrion  vulture  of  Egypt,  Perc- 
nopterus Neophron  JEgyptiacus.  It  would  lead  us 
beyond  the  limits  prescribed  to  this  article  to  enter 
into  a disquisition  on  the  manners  of  cranes,  storks, 
swans,  and  pelicans,  all  in  some  degree  confounded 
in  the  mind  of  Orientals  when  they  describe  the 
marvellous  love,  parental  affection,  and  filial  gra- 
titude of  birds  : consequently  they  have  names  for 
certain  species  which  are  claimed  as  derivatives 
from  roots  expressive  of  the  affections.  For  al- 
though the  incessant  warfare  of  man  upon  brute 
animals  in  their  native  haunts  has,  at  least  in  the 
populous  west,  well  nigh  obliterated  all  their 


more  generous  instincts,  and  we  are  consequently 
not  well  acquainted  with  the  natural  attributes 
of  their  character,  the  swan  alone  can  claim  pre- 
tension to  an  ultra- maternal  feeling,  from  her 
practice  of  supporting  her  young  brood  between 
her  wings  when  she  gives  them  their  first  lesson 
in  swimming.  All  other  tales  of  that  nature 
recorded  in  the  poets  and  historians  of  antiquity 
saay  be  regarded  as  absolute  fictions ; and  among 


the  rest,  that  in  Horns  Apollo,  rej  resenting  the 
Racham  tearing  the  flesh  of  her  thighs  to  feed  her 
young,  is  evidently  an  invention  of  the  Egyptian 
priesthood,  fabricated  in  order  to  enhance  the  cha- 
racter of  a useful  bird,  which,  notwithstanding 
that  it  was  sanctified  in  their  mystical  supersti- 
tions, and  protected  by  the  king  as  ‘ Pharaoh’s 
fowl’  (an  ancient,  appellation),  is  perhaps  1 lie  most 
revoltingly  filthy  bird  in  existence.  With  respect 
to  the  original  imposition  of  the  name  Racham, 
as  connected  with  any  unusual  affection  for  its 
young,  there  is  no  modern  ornithologist  who  assigns 
such  a quality  to  Percnopteri  more  fjian  to  other 
birds,  although  it  is  likely  that  as  the  pelican 
empties  its  bag  of  fish,  so  this  bird  may  void  the 
crop  to  feed  her  brood.  Gesner  had  already 
figured  ( De  Aquila  qnem  Percnopterum  vocant , 
p.  199)  the  Barbary  variety,  and  pointed  out  the 
Racham  of  Scripture  as  the  identical  species,  but 
Bruce  first  clearly  established  the  fact.  The 
Rachama  of  that  writer  is  apparently  the  Ak- 
bobha  (‘ white  father ’)  of  the  Turks,  and  forms 
one  of  a small  group  of  Vulturidae,  subgenerically 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Percnopterus 
and  Neophron , differing  from  the  other  vultures 
in  the  bill  being  longer,  straight,  more  attenuated, 
and  then  uncinated,  and  in  the  back  of  the  head 
and  neck  being  furnished  with  longish,  narrow, 
suberectile  feathers,  but.  like  true  vultures,  having 
the  pouch  on  the  breast  exposed,  and  the  sides  of 
the  head  and  throat  bare  and  livid.  The  great 
wing-coverts  are  partly,  and  the  quill-feathers  en- 
tirely, of  a black  and  blackish  ash-colour ; those 
of  the  head,  nape,  smaller  wing-coverts,  body, 
and  tail,  in  general  white,  with  tinges  of  buff  and 
rufous;  the  legs  are  flesh- colour,  and  rather  long; 
and  the  toes  are  armed  with  sharp  claws.  The 
females  are  brownish.  In  size  the  species  is 
little  bulkier  than  a raven,  but  it  stands  high  on 
the  legs.  Always  soiled  with  blood  and  garbage, 
offensive  to  the  eye  and  nose,  it  yet  is  protected 
in  Egypt  both  by  law  and  public  opinion,  for 
the  services  it  renders  in  clearing  the  soil  of 
dead  carcases  putrefying  in  the  sun,  and  the 
cultivated  fields  of  innumerable  rats,  mice,  and 
other  vermin.  Pious  Moslems  at  Cairo  and 
other  places,  bestow  a daily  portion  of  food  upon 
them,  and  upon  their  associates  the  kites,  who  are 
seen  hovering  conjointly  in  great  numbers  about 
the  city.  The  Racham  extends  to  Palestine  in 
the  summer  season,  but  becomes  scarce  towards 
the  north,  where  it  is  not  specially  protected  ; and 
it  accompanies  caravans,  feasting  on  their  leavings 
and  on  dead  camels,  &c. 

Gesner ’s  figure  represents  the  Barbary  variety  ; 
but  there  are  two  other  species  besides,  viz.,  the 
Percnopterus  Angolensis,  and  Percnopterus  Hy- 
poleuci(s,  both  similarly  characterized  by  their 
white  livery,  and  distinguished  from  the  Egyptian 
by  a different  arrangement  of  colour,  a shorter 
bill,  and  more  cleanly  habits. 

In  our  version  the  name  of  Gier-eagle  is  cer- 
tainly most  improper,  as  such  a denomination 
can  apply  only  to  a large  species,  and  is  most 
appropriate  to  the  bearded  vulture  of  the  Alps. 
The  Liimmer-geyer  of  the  Swiss  ( Gypaetus  Bar- 
batus ),  which  in  the  shape  of  varieties,  or  dis- 
tinct species,  frequents  also  the  high  snowy  ranges 
of  Spain,  Macedonia,  Asia  Minor,  Crete,  Abys- 
sinia, Caffraria,  Barbary,  and  most  likely  of 
Libanus,  was  no  doubt  the  bird  intended  by  our 


RACHEL. 


RAMAH. 


translators  to  represent  the  Racham  ; nor  was  the 
application  unreasonable,  as  will  be  shown  in 
Vulture.  The  Percnopterus  is  somewhat  sin- 
gularly classed  both  in  Lev.  and  Deut.,  along 
with  aquatic  l mis ; and  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  any  animal  will  eat  it,  since,  in  the 
parallel  case  of  Vultur  aura,  the  turkey-buzzard 
or  carrion-crow  of  America,  we  have  found  even 
the  ants  abstaining  from  its  carcase,  and  leaving 
it  to  dry  up  in  the  sun,  though  swarming  around 
and  greedy  of  every  other  animal  substance 
[Vulture], — C.  H.  S. 

RACHEL  (Snn,  a exce ; Sept.  'Pax^A),  one 
and  the  most  beloved  of  the  two  daughters  of 
Laban,  whom  Jacob  married  (Gen.  xxix.  16, 
seq.),  and  who  became  the  mother  of  Joseph  and 
Benjamin,  in  giving  birth  to  the  latter  of  whom 
she  died  near  Bethlehem,  where  her  sepulchre  is 
shown  to  this  day  (Gen.  xxx.  22;  xxxv.  16). 
For  more  minute  particulars  see  Jacob,  with 
whose  history  Rachel  s is  closely  involved. 

RAGUEL,  or  Reuel  (^N-Ijn,  friend  cf  God  ; 
Sept.  ' Payovf}\ ).  1.  A son  of  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi. 
4,  10).  2.  The  father  of  Jethro  (Exod.  ii.  18; 
Num.  x.  29).  Some  confound  him  with  Jethro; 
but  in  the  text  last  cited,  he  is  called  the  father 
of  Hobab,  who  seems  to  have  been  the  same  as 
Jethro.  In  the  same  passage,  indeed,  the  daugh- 
ters of  the  ‘ priest  of  Midian  ’ relate  to  ‘ Reuel  their 
father  ’ their  adventure  with  Moses  : which  might 
seem  to  support  Lis  identity  with  Jethro ; but  it 
is  quite  a Scriptural  usage  to  call  a grandfather 
‘ father,’  and  a granddaughter,  ‘ daughter  ’ (Gen. 
xxxi.  43  ; 2 Sam.  xix.  25 ; 1 Kings  xiv.  3 ; 
xvi.  2;  xviii.  3).  The  Targum  in  this  place 
reads,  ‘They  came  to  Reuel  their  father’s  father.’ 
[«  ohab  ] 3.  Another  person  of  this  name 

occurs  in  1 Chron.  ix.  8. 

1.  RAHAB  pH-];  Sept.  ‘Pad#),  a name, 
signifying  ‘sea-monster,’  which  is  applied  as  an 
appellation  to  Egypt  in  Ps.  lxxiv.  13,  14 ; 
lxxxvii.  4 ; lxxxix.  10  ; Isa.  li.  9 (and  some- 
times to  its  king,  Ezek.  xxix.  3;  xxxiii.  3,  comp. 
Ps.  lxviii.  31);  which  metaphorical  designation 
probably  involves  an  allusion  to  the  crocodiles, 
hippopotami,  and  other  aquatic  creatures  of  the 
Nile. 

2.  RAHAB,  properly  Rachab  (Hirn,  large ; 
Sept.  'Paxa/3),  a woman  of  Jericho  who  received 
into  her  house  the  two  spies  who  were  sent  by 
Joshua  into  that  city;  concealed  them  under  the 
flax  laid  out  upon  the  house-top,  when  they  were 
sought  after ; and,  having  given  them  important 
information,  which  showed  that  the  inhabitants 
were  much  disheartened  at  the  miracles  which 
had  attended  the  march  of  the  Israelites,  enabled 
them  to  escape  over  the  wall  of  the  town,  upon 
which  her  dwelling  was  situated.  For  this  im- 
portant service  Rahab  and  her  kindred  were 
saved  by  the  Hebrews  from  the  general  massacre 
which  followed  the  taking  of  Jericho  (Josh.  ii. 
1-21  ; vi.  17;  comp.  Heb.  xi.  31). 

In  the  narrative  of  these  transactions  Rahab  is 
called  n J IT  zonah,  which  our  own,  after  the 
ancient  versions,  renders  ‘ harlot.’  The  Jewish 
writers,  however,  being  unwilling  to  entertain  the 
idea  of  their  ancestors  being  involved  in  a dis- 
reputable association  at  the  commencement  of 


their  great  undertaking,  chose  to  interpret  fn* 
word  ‘ hostess,’  one  who  keeps  a public  house,  as 
if  from  |1T,  ‘ to  nourish  ’ (Joseph.  Antiq.  v.  1 ; ii. 
and  vii.  ; comp,  the  Targum,  and  Kimchi  and 
Jarchi  on  the  text).  Christian  interpreters  also 
are  inclined  to  adopt  this  interpretation  for  the 
sake  of  the  character  of  a woman  of  whom  the 
Apostle  speaks  well,  and  who  would  appear  fmm 
Matt.  i.  4 to  have  become  by  a subsequent  mar- 
riage with  Salmon  prince  of  Judah,  an  ancestress 
of  Jesus.  But  we  must  be  content  to  take  facts 
as  they  stand,  and  not  strain  them  to  meet  diffi- 
culties ; and  it  is  now  universally  admitted  by 
every  sound  Hebrew  scholar  that  PIDIT  means 
.‘  harlot,’  and  not  ‘ hostess.’  It  signilies  harlot 
in  every  other  text  where  it  occurs,  the  idea 
of  ‘ hostess’  not  being  represented  by  this  or 
any  other  word  in  Hebrew,  as  the  function 
represented  by  it  did  not  exist.  There  were 
no  inns;  and  when  certain  substitutes  for  inn? 
eventually  came  into  use,  they  were  never,  in 
any  Eastern  country,  kept  by  women.  On  the 
other  hand,  strangers  from  beyond  the  river  might 
have  repaired  to  the  house  of  a harlot  with- 
out suspicion  or  remark.  The  Bedouins  from 
the  desert  constantly  do  so  at  this  day  in  theii 
visits  to  Cairo  and  Baghdad.  The  house  of 
such  a woman  was  also  the  only  one  to  which 
they,  as  perfect  strangers,  could  have  had  access, 
and  certainly  the  only  one  in  which  they  could 
calculate  on  obtaining  the  information  they  re- 
quired without  danger  from  male  inmates.  This 
concurrence  of  analogies  in  the  word,  in  the 
thing,  and  in  the  probability  of  circumstances, 
ought  to  settle  the  question.  If  we  are  concerned 
for  the  morality  of  Rahab,  the  best  proof  of  her 
reformation  is  found  in  the  fact  of  her  subse- 
quent marriage  to  Salmon  : this  implies  her  pre- 
vious conversion  to  Judaism,  for  which  inde*ed 
her  discourse  with  the  spies  evinces  that  she  was 
prepared.  The  Jewish  writers  abound  in  praises 
of  Rahab,  on  account  of  the  great  service  she  ren- 
dered their  ancestors.  Even  those  who  do  not  deny 
that  she  was  a harlot,  admit  that  she  eventually 
became  the  wife  of  a prince  of  Israel,  and  that 
many  great  persons  of  their  nation  sprang  from 
this  union.  The  general  statement  is,  that  she 
was  ten  years  of  age  at  the  time  the  Hebrews 
quitted  Egypt,  that  she  played  the  harlot  during 
all  the  forty  years  they  were  in  the  wilderness, 
that  she  became  a proselyte  when  the  spies  were 
received  by  her,  and  that  after  the  fall  of  Jericho 
no  less  a personage  than  Joshua  himself  made  her 
his  wife.  She  is  also  counted  as  an  ancestress  oi 
Jeremiah,  Maaseiah,  Hanameel,  Shallum,  Ba- 
ruch, Ezekiel,  Neriah,  Seriah,  and  Huldah  the 
prophetess.  (See  T.  Babyl.  tit.  Megilla,  lol.  14, 
col.  2 ; Juchasin , x.  1 ; Shalshalet  Iiakabala , 
vii.  2;  Abarbanel,  Kimchi,  &c.,  on  Josh.  vi.  25  ; 
Mitzvoth  Torch,  p.  112;  Lightfoot,  Ilor.  Heb. 
ad  Matt.  i.  4 ; Meuschen,  N.  T.  Talmud,  p.  40.) 

RAIN.  See  under  the  bead  Climate , in  art. 
Palestine. 

RAM.  [Sheep.  ) 

RAMAH  (HDl,  a high  place , height ; Sept. 
"Papa),  the  name  of  several  towns  and  villages 
in  Palestine,  which  it  is  not  in  all  cases  easy  to 
distinguish  from  one  another. 

1.  RAMAH,  a town  of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii, 
25),  in  the  vicinity  of  Gibeah  and  Geba  (Judg, 


HAMAH. 


K AMESES. 


599 


3rix.  13;  Isa.  x.  29;  IIos.  v.  8;  Ezra  ii.  26; 
Neh.  vii.  39,  xi.  33) ; on  the  way  from  Jerusalem 
to  Bethel  (Judg.  iv.  5),  and  not  far  from  the  con- 
fines of  the  two  kingdoms  (1  Kings  xv,  17  ; xxi. 
22).  It  is  also  mentioned  in  Jer.  xxxi.  15  ; xl.  1. 
Jerome  places  it  six  Roman  miles  north  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  Josephus,  who  calls  it  4 P a/mOuv, 
places  it  forty  stadia  from  Jerusalem  (Antiq.  viii. 
12.  3).  In  accordance  with  all  these  intimations, 
at  the  distance  of  two  hours'  journey  north  of 
Jerusalem,  upon  a hill  a little  to  the  east  of  the 
great  northern  road,  a village  still  exists  under 
the  name  of  Er-Ram,  in  which  we  cannot  hesi- 
tate to  recognise  the  representative  of  the  ancient 
llamah.  This  is  one  of  the  valuable  identifica- 
tions for  which  Biblical  geography  is  indebted  to 
Dr.  Robinson  ( Researches , ii.  315-317).  The 
difficult  text  (Jer.  xxxi.  15),  ‘A  voice  was  heard 
in  Ramah  . . . Rachel  weeping  for  her  children,’ 
which  the  Evangelist  (Matt.  ii.  8)  transfers  to 
the  massacre  at  Bethlehem,  has  been  thought  to 
require  a southern  Ramah  not  far  from  that 
place,  near  which  indeed  is  Rachel's  sepulchre. 
But  no  such  Ramah  has  been  found ; and  Dr. 
Robinson  thinks  that  the  allusion  of  the  prophet 
was  originally  applicable  to  this  Ramah.  The 
context  refers  to  the  exiles  carried  away  captive 
by  Nebuzar-adan  to  Babylon,  who  passed  by 
way  of  Ramah,  which  was  perhaps  their  rendez- 
vous (Jer.  xl.  1).  As  Ramah  was  in  Benjamin, 
the  prophet  introduces  Rachel,  the  mother  of  that 
tribe,  bewailing  the  captivity  of  her  descend- 
ants. 

2.  RAMAH,  of  Samuel,  so  called,  where  the 
prophet  lived  and  was  buried  (1  Sam.  i.  19; 
ii.  11;  vii.  17;  viii.  4;  xv.  34;  xvi.  13,  19; 
xviii.  19,  22,  23;  xxv.  1 ; xxviii.  3).  It  is 
probably  the  same  with  the  Ramathaim-Zophim 
to  which  his  father  Elkanah  belonged  (1  Sam. 
i.  1,  19).  The  position  of  this  Ramah  was  early 
lost  sight  of  by  tradition,  and  a variety  of  opinions 
have  prevailed  since  the  time  of  Eusebius  and  Je- 
rome, who  regard  it  as  the  Arimathea  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  place  it  near  Lydda,  where  a Ra- 
mah anciently  existed.  Hence  some  have  held 
the  site  to  be  that  of  the  present  Ramleh,  which 
is  itself  a modern  town  [Arimathea].  Many 
writers  have,  however,  been  disposed  to  seek 
Samuel’s  Ramah  in  the  Ramah  of  Benjamin 
(Pococke,  ii.  71,  72;  Bachiene,  i.  155;  Raumer, 
Paliist.  p.  146 ; Winer,  s.  v.)  ; but  this  was  only 
half  an  hour  distant  from  the  Gibeah  where  Saul 
resided,  which-does  not  agree  with  the  historical 
intimation  (comp.  1 Sam.  ix.  10).  Again,  gene- 
ral opinion  lias  pointed  to  a place  called  Neby 
Samuel,  a village  upon  a high  point  two  hours 
north-west  of  Jerusalem,  and  which  was,  indeed, 
also  usually  supposed  to  be  the  Ramah  of  Ben- 
jamin, till  Dr.  Robinson  established  the  separate 
claims  of  er-Ram  to  that  distinction.  But  this 
appropriation  does  not  agree  with  the  mention  of 
Rachel's  sepulchre  in  1 Sam.  x.  2,  for  that  is 
about  as  far  to  the  south  of  Jerusalem  as  Neby 
Samuel  is  to  the  north-west.  The  like  objection 
applies,  though  in  a somewnat  less  degree,  to 
the  modern  Soba,  west  of  Jerusalem,  which 
Robinson  points  out  as  possibly  the  site  of  Ra- 
in at.liai  m-Zophtm  and  Ramah  ( Researches , ii. 
330-334).  The  chief  difficulties  in  connection 
with  this  matter  arise  of  course  out  of  the  account 
given  of  Saul's  journey  after  his  father’s  asses. 


The  city  in  which  Saul  found  Samuel  is  not 
named,  hut  is  said  to  have  been  4 in  the  land  o4 
Zuph’  (1  Sam.  ix.  5),  and  is  assumed  to  have 
been  Ramah-Zojs/mn.  In  dismissing  him  from 
this  place,  Samuel  foretells  an  adventure  that 
should  hefal  him  near  Rachel’s  sepulchre.  Now, 
as  this  sepulchre  was  near  Bethlehem,  and  as 
Saul  s abode  was  in  Benjamin,  the  southern  border 
of  which  is  several  miles  to  the  north  thereof,  it 
is  manifest  that  if  Saul  in  going  home  was  to 
pass  near  Rachel’s  sepulchre,  the  place  where 
Samuel  was  must  have  been  to  dre  south  of  it. 
Gesenius  contends  that  if  we  allow  weight  to  the 
mention  of  Rachel,  we  can  only  seek  for  this 
Ramah  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bethlehem ; 
where  also  Eusebius  speaks  of  a Ramah.  Not 
far  south-east  of  Bethlehem  is  the  Jebel  Fureidis, 
or  Frank  Mount,  which  Robinson  has  identified 
as  the  site  of  the  ancient  city  and  fortress  of 
Herod,  called  Herodium;  and  Gesenius  contends 
that  if  we  fix  heie  the  site  of  Ramah,  all  the  cir- 
cumstances mentioned  in  1 Sam.  ix.  10  ar* 
sufficiently  explained.  But  then  the  Ramah- 
Zophim  of  1 Sam.  i.  1 must  have  been  a differen: 
place  ( Thesaurus,  p.  1276).  To  this  Dr.  Robin 
sou  himself,  in  his  edition  of  Gesenius,  objects 
that  the  difference  assumed  in  the  last  sentence  Li 
inadmissible.  4 Besides,  no  one  who  had  see* 
the  Frank  mountain  would  suppose  for  a moment 
that  a city  ever  lay  upon  it.  Jt  was  indeed  occu 
pied  by  Herod's  fortress;  but  the  city  Herodium 
lay  at  its  foot.’  He  adds  thatr Eusebius,  in  the 
passage  referred  to,  obviously  places  Ramah  of 
Benjamin  near  Bethlehem,  for  the  purpose  of 
helping  out  a wrong  interpretation  of  Matt.  ii.  18. 
Another,  and  the  most  recent  hypothesis  in  this 
vexed  question,  would  place  this  Ramah  at  a site 
of  ruins  now  called  er-Rameh,  two  miles  north 
of  Hebron  ( Biblioth . Sacra,  No.  I.  pp.  46-51). 
But  this  also  assumes  that  the  Ramathaim-Zo- 
phim, the  place  of  the  prophet's  birth,  was  different 
from  the  place  of  his  residence  and  burial,  con- 
trary to  the  testimony  of  Josephus  (Antiq.  vi. 
4,  6 ; vi.  13,  5),  and  to  the  conclusion  deducible 
from  a comparison  of  1 Sam.  i.  1 with  verses 
3,  19.  In  the  midst  of  all  this  uncertainty,  Dr. 
Robinson  thinks  that  interpreters  may  yet  be 
driven  to  the  conclusion  that,  the  city  where  Saul 
found  Samuel  (1  Sam.  ix.  10),  was  not  Ramah 
his  home. 

3.  RAMAH,  a city  of  Naphtali  (Josh.  xix. 
36). 

4.  RAMAH,  a town  of  Gilead  (2  Kings  viii. 
29),  the  name  of  which  is  given  more  fully  in 
Josh.  xiii.  26,  as  Ramoth-Mizpeh. 

RAMESES  (Dppjn;  Sept.  'P aneaarjj,  an 
Egyptian  city  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  built,  or  at 
least,  fortified,  by  the  labour  of  the  Israelites  (Gen. 
xlvii.  11  ; Exod.  i.  11  ; xii.  37;  Num.  xxxiii. 
3-5).  The  name  of  the  city  seems  to  have  been 
sometimes  given  to  the  whole  province  (Gen. 
xlvii.  11),  by  which  it  would  appear  to  have 
been  the  chief  city  of  the  district.  It  was  pro- 
bably situated  on  the  water-shed  between  the 
Bitter  Lakes  and  the  Valley  of  the  Seven  Wells, 
not  far  from  Heroopolis,  but  not  identical  with 
that  city  (See  Robinson's  Bibl.  Researches,  i.  70, 
547-550).  In  Exod.  i.  11,  the  name  is  by« 
difference  in  the  points  spelt  Raamses.  The 
name  means  4 son  of  the  s in,*  and  was  borne  by 


RAMOTH, 


RAVEN. 


60£ 

several  of  the  ancient,  kings  of  Egypt,  one  of  whom 
was  probably  the  founder  of  the  city. 

RAMOTH  (ninn  or  n'lDXT  ; heights,  pi.  of 
Ramah).  There  were  several  places  of  this 
name,  usually  with  some  addition  to  distinguish 
them  from  one  another. 

1.  RAMOTH-GILEAD,  called  also  Ramoth- 
Mizpeh.  or  simply  Ramoth,  a town  in  Gilead, 
within  the  borders  of  Gad  (Josh.  xiii.  26),  which 
belonged  to  the  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  38  ; 1 Chrou. 
vi.  65,  80).  It  was  one  of  the  cities  of  refuge 
(Deut.  iv.  43 ; Josh.  xx.  8),  abd  one  of  the 
towns  in  which  an  intendant  was  stationed  by 
Solomon  (1  Kings  iv.  13).  It  was  the  last  of 
their  conquests  which  the  Syrians  held  ; and  Ahab 
was  killed  (1  Kings  xxii.  1-37  ; 2 Chrou.  xviii.), 
and  fourteen  years  after,  his  son  Joram  was 
wounded  (2  Kings  viii.  28),  in  the  attempt  to 
recover  it.  The  strength  of  the  place  is  attested 
by  the  length  of  time  the  Syrians  were  enabled 
to  hold  it,  and  by  Ahab  and  Joram  having  both 
been  solicitous  to  obtain  the  aid  of  the  kings  of 
Judah  when  about  to  attack  it ; these  being  two  of 
the  only  three  expeditions  in  which  the  kings  of 
Judah  and  Israel  ever  co-operated.  It  was  here 
also  that  Jehu  was  proclaimed  and  anointed 
king  (2  Kings  ix.  1-6) ; but  it  is  not  very  clear 
whether  the  army  was  then  still  before  the  town, 
or  in  actual  possession  of  it.  Eusebius  (Ono- 
mast.  s.  v.)  places  Ramoth-Gilead  on  the  river 
Jabbok,  fifteen  Roman  miles  west  of  Philadel- 
phia (Rabbah).  At  about  this  distance,  W.N.W. 
from  Philadelphia,  and  about  eight  miles  south 
of  the  Jabbok,  are  the  ruins  of  a town,  bearing 
the  name  of  Jelaad,  which  is  merely  a different 
orthography  of  the  Hebrew  Gilead  (Burck- 
hardt,  Sy?'ia,  p.  348).  Buckingham  is,  however, 
move  disposed  to  seek  the  site  of  Ramoth-Gilead 
in  a place  now  called  Ramtha,  or  Rameza, 
which  is  about  twenty-three  miles  N.W.N.  from 
Philadelphia,  and  about  four  miles  north  of  the 
Jabbok,  where  he  noticed  some  ruins  which  he 
could  not  examine.  As  Ramoth  in  Gilead  is 
called  sometimes  Ramoth  alone,  but  never  Gilead 
alone,  the  analogy  of  name  is  perhaps  in  favour  of 
the  latter  conclusion  ; but  the  bearing  and  dis- 
tance from  Philadelphia  are  both  in  favour  of  the 
other.  We  are  not  disposed  to  rely  upon  either 
of  these  alternatives,  although  nothing  better  has 
yet  been  offered. 

RAMATH-LEHI.  This  name,  which  means 
height  of  the  jawbone,  belonged  to  a place  oa  the 
borders  of  Philistia,  and  is  referred  by  the  sacred 
writer  to  the  jaw-bone  with  which  Samson 
slaughtered  the  Philistines  (Judg.  xv.  17). 

RAMOTH-NEGEB  ( Ramoth  of  the  south' ), 
a city  in  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  8 ; 
1 Sam.  xxx.  27). 

RAMS’  HORNS.  [Musical Instruments.] 

RAMS’  SKINS,  RED,  as  Dr.  M.  Harris  quotes 
»t  (D'EHND  my,  oroth  eylim  mcadda- 

mim ),  occurs  in  Exod.  xxv.  5,  and  xxxv.  7. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  the  red  rams’ skins  here 
noticed  are  to  be  understood  us  the  produce  of 
the  African  Aoudad,  the  Ovis  tragelaphus  of  na- 
turalists, whereof  the  bearded  sheep  are  a domes- 
ticated race.  The  tragelaphus  is  a distinct  species 
of  eheep,  having  a shorter  form  than  the  common 


species,  and  incipient  tear  pits.  Its  normal  colour 
is  red,  from  bright  chestnut  to  rufous  chocolate  ; 
which  last  is  the  cause  of  the  epithet  purple  being 
given  to  it  by  the  poets.  Far  to  the  south,  or  with- 
in the  tropics,  the  species  is  densely  clothed  with 
coarse  short  hair,  but  longer  on  the  neck,  and 
pendant  in  great  abundance  beneath  the  throat. 
From  a specimen  now  living  in  our  possession, 
it  has  been  observed  that  on  the  first  approach  of 
autumn  a very  fine  grey  wool  crops  out  everywhere 
from  beneath  the  hair.  In  Spain,  and  in  the 
islands  of  Sardinia,  Corsica,  Sicily,  and  Crete 
the  most  ancient  zoology  seems  to  have  had 
greater  affinity  to  that  of  Afiica  ihan  of  Europe. 
Hence  the  Homeric  purple  sheep,  and  the  Mus- 
mon  and  Cervus  Barbaras  of  the  two  first- men- 
tioned islands.  We  agree  with  Dr.  Mason  Harris, 
that  the  skins  in  question  were  most  likely  tanned 
and  coloured  crimson  ; for  it  is  well  known  that 
what  is  now  termed  red  morocco  was  manufac- 
tured in  the  remotest  ages  in  Libya,  especially 
about  the  Tritonian  Lake,  where  the  original 
aegis,  or  goat-skin  breastplate  of  Jupiter  and  Mi- 
nerva, was  dyed  bright  red  ; and  the  Egyptians 
had  most  certainly  red  leather  in  use,  for  their 
antique  paintings  show  harnessmakers  cutting  it 
into  slips  for  the  collars  of  horses  and  furniture 
of  chariots. — C.  H.  S 

RAVEN  (my  oreb ; Chald.  Nmty ; Syr. 

: L at  in,  corvus;  Sept.  i<6pa£  ; also  Luke 

xii.  24,  only).  The  Hebrew  word  occurs  in  Gen. 
viii.  7 : Lev.  xi.  15  ; Deut.  xiv.  14  ; 1 Kings  xvii 
4-6  ; Job  xxxviii.  41,  &c.  The  raven  is  so  gene- 
rally confounded  with  the  carrion  crow,  that  even 
in  the  works  of  naturalists  the  figure  of  the  latter 
has  been  sometimes  substituted  for  that  of  the  for- 
mer, and  the  manners  of  both  have  been  mixed  up 
together.  They  are,  it  is  true,  very  similar,  be- 
longing to  the  same  Linnaean  genus,  Corvus , and 
having  the  same  intensely  black  colour  ; hut  the 
raven  is  the  larger,  weighing  about  three  pounds; 
has  proportionably  a smaller  head,  and  a bill 
fuller  an(jl  stouter  at  the  point.  Its  black  colour 
is  more  iridescent,  with  gleams  of  purple  passing 
into  green,  while  that  of  the  crow  is  more  steel- 
blue  ; the  raven  is  also  gi fted  with  greater  sagacity ; 
may  be  taught  to  articulate  words;  is  naturally 
observant  and  solitary  ; lives  in  pairs  ; has  a most 
acute  scent ; and  flies  to  a great  height.  Unlike 
the  crow,  which  is  gregarious  in  its  habits,  the 
raven  will  not  even  suffer  its  young,  from  the 
moment  they  can  shift  for  themselves,  to  remain 
within  its  haunt;  and  therefore,  though  a bird 
found  nearly  in  all  countries,  it  is  nowhere 
abundant. 

Whether  the  raven  of  Palestine  is  the  common 
species,  or  the  Corvus  Montanus  of  Temminck, 
is  not  quite  determined  ; for  there  is  of  the  ravens, 
or  greater  form  of  crows,  a smaller  group  in- 
cluding two  or  three  others,  all  similar  in  man- 
ners, and  unlike  the  carrion  crows  ( Corvus 
Corone , Linn.),  which  are  gregarious,  and  seem- 
ingly identical  in  both  hemispheres.  Sometimes 
a pair  of  ravens  will  descend  without  fear  among 
a flight  of  crows,  take  possession  of  the  carrion 
that  may  have  attracted  them,  and  keep  the  crows 
at  a distance  till  they  themselves  are  gorged.  The 
habits  of  the  whole  genus,  typified  by  the  name 
oreb , render  it  unclean  in  the  Hebrew  law  ; and 
the  malignant,  ominous  expression  of  the  raven, 


REBEKAII. 


RECENSION. 


601 


together  with  the  colour  of  its  plumage,  powers  of 
voice,  ami  solitary  hahits,  are  the  causes  of  that 
universal  and  often  superstitious  attention  with 
which  mankind  have  ever  regarded  it.  This  bird  is 
die  first,  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  as  being  sent,  forth 
by  Noah  out  of  the  ark  on  the  subsiding  of  the 
waters;  and  in  1 Kings  xvii.  4,  ravens  bring  flesh 
and  bread  at  morning  and  eve  to  the  prophet 
Elijah.  Here  the  orebirn  are  manifestly  true 
ravens,  whereof  a pair  would  be  sufficient  to  carry 
the  scanty  meal  of  an  Oriental  abstemious  man; 
for,  independently  of  the  different  mode  of  writing 
the  name,  if  the  word  had  implied  persons  re- 
siding at  a village  called  Aorabi  or  Orbo,  as  pre- 
sumed by  some  critics,  there  would  have  been  no 
miraculous  interposition  of  the  Lord  to  feed  the 
toncealed  prophet,  but  a common,  and  on  this 
occasion  merely  a secret  resolution  on  the  part  of 
a few  pious  men,  to  give  rood  to  a proscribed 
person. 

In  the  mythological  history  of  the  Gentiles,  we 
find  the  appellation  of  Ravens  bestowed  upon  an 
oracular  order  of  priesthood.  In  Egypt,  it  seems, 
(he  temples  of  Ammon  were  served  by  such — 
perhaps  those  priests  that  occur  in  the  catacombs 
playing  on  harps,  and  clothed  in  black.  More 
than  one  temple  in  Greece  had  similar  raven 
priests.  It  was  the  usual  symbol  of  slaughter 
among  the  Scandinavians;  and  a raven  banner 
belonged  to  the  Danes,  and  also  to  the  Saxons  : 
one  occurs  among  the  ensigns  of  the  Normans  in 
the  Bayeux  tapestry  ; and  it.  was  formerly  a custom 
in  the  Benedictine  abbeys  on  the  continent  to 
maintain  in  a very  large  cage  a couple  of  ravens, 
where  several  are  recorded  to  have  lived  above 
fifty  years.  The  Raven  of  the  Sea,  that  ominous 
bird  in  northern  mythology,  is  properly  the  cor- 
morant— the  morvran  of  the  Celtae. — C.  H.  S. 

REBEKAH  (nj?2T,  « noosed  cord;  Sept. 
'PefitKKa),  daughter  of  Bethuel,  and  sister  of  La- 
ban, who  became  the  wife  of  Isaac,  and  the 
mother  of  Jacob  and  Esau.  Th  particulars  of 
her  history  and  conduct,  as  given  in  Scripture, 
chiefly  illustrate  her  preference  of  Jacob  over 
Esau,  and  have  been  related  in  the  article 
Jacob  : see  also  Isaac. 

RECENSION.  After  the  critical  materials 
lying  at  the  basis  of  the  New  Testament  text  had 
accumulated  in  the  hands  of  Mill  and  Wetstein, 
they  began  to  be  surveyed  with  philosophic  eye. 
Important  readings  in  different  documents  were 
seen  to  possess  resemblances  more  or  less  striking. 
Passages  were  found  to  present  the  same  form, 
though  the  testimonies  from  which  they  were 
singled  out  belonged  to  various  times  and  coun- 
tries. The  thought  suggested  itself  to  Bengel, 
that  the  mass  of  materials  might  be  divided  and 
classified  in  conformity  with  such  peculiarities. 
The  same  idea  also  occurred  to  Sender.  Both, 
however,  had  but  a feeble  and  dim  apprehension  of 
the  entire  subject  as  it  was  afterwards  disposed. 
But,  by  the  consummate  learning  and  skill  of 
Griesbach,  it  was  highly  elaborated,  so  as  to  ex- 
hibit a new  topic  for  the  philosophical  acumen 
and  the  historic  researches  of  the  erudite  inquirer. 
To  the  different  phases  of  the  text  existing  in  the 
MSS.,  quotations  made  by  the  fathers,  and  in  the 
ancient  versions,  tire  name  recension  was  given  by 
Griesbach  and  Sender.  Yet  the  appellation  was 
fcot  happily  chosen.  Family  (which  Bengel  used), 


class,  or  order , would  have  been  much  more  a}>- 
propriate.  Recension  ordinarily  suggests  me  idea 
of  an  actual  revision  of  the  text;  but  this  is  inap- 
plicable to  the  greater  part  of  Griesbach’s  own 
system.  If,  however,  it  be  remembered  that  re- 
cension simply  denotes  a certain  class  of  critical 
testimonies  characterized  by  distinctive  pecu- 
liarities, it  matters  little  what  designation  be  em- 
ployed ; though  family  is  less  likely  to  originate 
misconception. 

We  shall  first  state  the  recension-systems  of 
Griesbach,  Hug,  Eichhorn,  and  §cholz ; then 
the  chief  objections  to  which  they  are  exposed; 
concluding  with  some  observations  on  the  real 
state  of  the  question.  As  to  the  systems  of  Mi- 
chael is  and  Nolan,  it  is  unnecessary  to  allude  to 
them,  since  they  are  obviously  incorrect.  The 
latter,  indeed,  never  attracted  notice  in  this  or 
any  other  country,  having  soon  fallen  into  merited 
neglect. 

In  Griesbach’s  system  there  are  three  recensions  : 
1.  The  Occidental ; 2.  The  Alexandrine,  or  Ori- 
ental ; 3.  The  Constantinopolitan,  or  Byzantine. 
The  first  two  are  the  most  ancient,  and  are  assigned 
by  him  to  the  time  in  which  the  two  collections 
— svayyiXiov  and  6 air6(TToXos , were  made.  The 
Oriental,  springing  from  the  edition,  as  we  should 
say  in  regard  fo  a printed  book,  of  the  6 a^aroXos, 
selected  readings  most,  conformable  to  pure  Greek, 
and  made  slight  alterations  in  the  text  where  the 
language  did  not.  appear  to  be  classical.  The 
Occidental,  based  on  the  most  ancient  MSS.,  viz. 
such  as  were  made  before  the  epistles  had  been 
collected  together,  preserved  with  greater  care  than 
the  Oriental  the  Hebraisms  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  made  explanatory  additions,  and  fre- 
quently preferred  a more  perspicuous  and  easy 
reading  to  another  less  facile.  The  Constantino- 
politan arose  from  the  intermingling  of  the  other 
two.  A senior  and  a junior  Constantinopolitan 
are  distinguished.  The  former  belongs  to  the 
fourth  century,  and  is  marked,  to  a still  greater 
extent  than  the  Alexandrine,  by  its  rejection  of 
readings  that  seemed  less  classical,  as  well  as  by 
its  reception  of  glosses ; the  latter  originated  in  the 
fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  in  consequence  of  the 
labours  of  the  learned  men  belonging  to  the  Syrian 
church.  According  to  this  system,  the  leading 
characteristic  of  the  Occidental  recension  is  its 
exegetical , that  of  the  Oriental  its  grammatical 
tendency ; while  the  Constantinopolitan  bears  a 
glossarial  aspect. 

The  Occidental  recension  is  exhibited  by  eight 
Greek  MSS.  of  the  Gospels,  D.  E.  F.  G.  of  the 
Pauline  epistles,  the  Latin  versions  made  before 
Jerome,  the  Sahidic  and  Jerusalem-Syriac  ver- 
sions, and  by  the  quotations  of  Tertullian,  of 
Irenaeus  as  translated  into  Latin,  of  Cyprian, 
Ambrose,  and  Augustine. 

The  Alexandrine  recension  is  found  in  the  do- 
cuments B.  C.  L.  in  the  Gospels,  with  three  others, 
in  A.  B.  C.  in  the  epistles,  with  three  codices  be- 
sides ; in  the  Memphitic,  Harclean  or  Philoxenian, 
Ethiopic  and  Armenian  versions  ; and  in  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  belonging  to  the  Alexan- 
drian school,  especially  those  of  Clement,  Origen, 
Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and 
Isidore  of  Pelusium. 

The  senior  Constantinopolitan  is  found  in 
A.  E.  F.  G.  H.  S.  of  the  Gospels,  and  in  the 
Moscow  codices  of  Paul's  epistles,  in  the  Gothic 


602 


RECENSION. 


RECENSION. 


and  Sclavonic  versions,  in  the  quotations  of  the 
fathers  that  lived  during  the  fourth,  fifth,  and 
sixth  centuries  in  Greece,  Asia  Minor,  and  the 
neighbouring  countries  ; while  the  junior  Con- 
stantinopolitan  is  exhibited  by  the  greater  num- 
ber of  those  MSS.  which  were  written  since  the 
seventh  century. 

Somewhat  different  from  Griesbach ’s  system  is 
that  of  Hug,  first,  proposed  in  his  Introduction  to 
the  New  Testament. 

1.  The  koivi ) eK$oais,  *.  e.  the  most  ancient 
text,  unrevised,  conformed  to  no  recension,  exhi- 
biting diversities  of  readings  of  mixed  origin,  but 
containing  particular  glosses  and  interpolations 
intended  to  explain  the  sense.  This  text  is  found 
in  five  MSS.  of  the  Gospels,  in  four  of  Paul’s 
epistles,  in  the  most  ancient  Latin  versions  and 
in  the  Sahidic,  in  the  oldest  of  the  fathers  down 
to  the  time  of  Origen,  and  in  Origen  himself. 
Such  a phase  of  the  text  is  seen  till  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  and  agrees  with  the  Occi- 
dental recension  of  Griesbach.  In  reference  to 
the  old  Syriac,  Griesbach  afterwards  conceded  to 
Hug  that,  it  approached  nearer  the  Occidental 
than  the  Alexandrian. 

2.  About  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
Hesychius,  an  Egyptian  bishop,  undertook  a re- 
vision of  the  koiv ))  cKSocris.  Bur  he  was  too  fond 
of  such  readings  as  contained  purer  and  more 
elegant  Greek.  To  this  Hesychian  revision,  which 
obtained  ecclesiastical  authority  only  in  Egypt, 
belong  B.  C.  L.  of  the  Gospels,  and  A.  B.  C.  of 
the  Epistles,  the  Memphitic  version,  with  the 
quotations  of  Athanasius,  Macarius,  and  Cyril  of 
Alexandria.  Thus  the  Hesychian  recension  of 
Hug  coincides  with  the  Alexandrian  ofGriesbaeh. 

3.  About  the  same  time,  Lucian,  a presbyter  of 
Antioch  in  Syria,  revised  the  koivt)  enSoats  as  it 
appeared  in  thePeshito,  comparing  different  MSS. 
current  in  Syria.  In  this  way  he  produced  a text 
that  did  not  wholly  harmonize  with  the  Hesychian, 
because  he  was  less  studious  of  elegant  Latinity. 
This  third  form  of  the  text  is  found  in  codd. 
E.  F.  G.  H.  S.  V.  of  the  Gospels,  in  G.  of  Paul's 
epistles,  in  the  Moscow  MSS.,  the  Sclavonic  and 
Gothic  versions,  and  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of 
those  countries  that  adopted  it,  from  the  middle 
of  the  third  century. 

4.  A fourth  form  of  the  text  he  attributes  to 
Origen  during  his  residence  at.  Tyre.  This  revi- 
sion was  based  on  the  Vulgate  edition  current  in 
Palestine,  and  in  many  places  differs  both  from 
the  Hesychian  and  Lucianian.  It  is  found  in 
the  codd.  A.  K.  M.  of  the  Gospels,  in  the  Phi- 
loxenian  or  Harclean  Syriac,  and  in  the  writings 
of  Chrysostom  and  Thecdoret.  Here  Hug  anil 
Griesbach  are  at  variance,  the  latter  believing 
the  alleged  Origenian  recension  to  be  nothing 
more  than  a branch  of  the  Constantinopolitan  or 
Lucianian. 

Eichhorn’s  system  is  substantially  the  same  as 
that  of  Hug,  with  one  important  exception.  That 
distinguished  critic  admitted  a twofold  form  of 
the  text  before  it  had  received  any  revision ; the 
one  peculiar  to  Asia,  the  other  to  Africa.  This 
unrevised  text  may  be  traced  in  its  two  forms  as 
early  as  the  second  century.  Hesychius  revised 
the  first ; Lucian,  the  second.  Accordingly,  from 
the  conclusion  of  the  third  century,  there  was  a 
threefold  phase  of  the  text ; the  African  or  Alex- 
«4ndrian ; the  Asiatic  or  Constantinopolitan ; and 


a mixed  form  composed  of  the  othe^  two.  Eichhaa 
denies  that  Origen  made  a new  recension. 

Scliolz  makes  only  two  classes  or  families  ot 
documents,  the  Alexandrian,  which  he  also  ab- 
surdly calls  the  Occidental , and  the  Constantino- 
politan, which,  with  equal  perversity,  he  designates 
the  Oriental.  The  Occidental  class  of  Griesbach 
is  thus  merged  into  the  Alexandrian.  The  Alex- 
andrian embraces  the  MSS.  that  were  made  in 
Egypt  and  Western  Europe,  most,  of  the  Coptic 
and  Latin  versions,  the  Ethiopic,  and  the  eccle- 
siastical writers  belonging  to  Egypt  and  Western 
Europe.  To  the  Constantinopolitan  he  refers  the 
codices  belonging  to  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Palestine, 
Eastern  Europe,  especially  Constant inople,  with 
the  Harclean  or  Philoxenian,  the  Gothic,  Georgian, 
and  Sclavonic  versions;  as  also  the  ecclesiastical 
fathers  of  these  regions.  To  the  latter  documents 
he  gives  a decided  preference,  because  of  their 
mutual  agreement,  and  because  they  were  written 
with  great  care  agreeably  to  the  most  ancient 
exemplars ; whereas  the  Alexandrian  were  arbi- 
trarily altered  by  officious  grammarians.  Indeed, 
he  traces  the  Constantinopolitan  codices  directly 
to  the  autographs  of  the  original  writers  of  the 
New  Testament. 

Rinck  agrees  with  Scliolz  in  assuming  two 
classes  of  MSS.,  the  Occidental  and  the  Oriental ; 
the  former  exhibited  by  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  in 
the  epistles;  the  latter,  by  MSS.  written  in  the 
cursive  character.  The  occidental  he  subdivides 
into  two  families,  the  African  (A.  B.  C.)  and  the 
Latin  codices  (D.  E.  F.  G.). 

Mattliaei,  as  is  well  known,  rejected  the  entire 
theory  of  recensions  ; and  Lachmann,  the  latest 
editor  of  the  Greek  Testament,  lias  no  regard  to 
such  a basis  for  his  new  text. 

It  remains  for  us  to  make  a few  remarks  on  the 
systems  thus  briefly  ^stated.  To  Griesbach  all 
concede  the  praise  of  ingenuity  anil  acuteness. 
His  system  was  built  up  with  great  tact  and 
ability.  However  rigidly  scrutinized,  it  exhibits 
evidences  of  a most  sagacious  mind.  But  it.  was 
assailed  by  a host  of  writers,  whose  combined 
attacks  it  could  not  sustain.  In  this  country, 
Dr.  Laurence  shook  its  credit.  In  Germany, 
Micbaelis,  Mattliaei,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Hug, 
Schulz,  Scholz,  Gabler,  Schott,  and  others,  have 
more  or  less  made  objection  to  it.  The  venerable 
scholar  in  his  Old  age  himself  modified  it  to  some 
extent,  chiefly  in  consequence  of  Hug's  investi- 
gations. By  far  the  ablest  opponent  of  it  is 
Mr.  Norton,  who,  after  it  bad  been  assailed  by 
others,  finally  stepped  forth  to  demolish  it  beyonc 
the  possibility  of  revival.  Bold  indeed  must  be 
the  man  who  shall  undertake  to  defend  it  after 
such  a refutation.  The  great  point  in  which  it 
fails  is,  that  the  line  of  distinction  between  the 
Alexandrian  and  Western  classes  cannot  be 
proved.  Origen  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  are 
the  principal  evidences  for  the  Alexandrian  form 
of  the  text,  yet  they  coincide  with  the  Western 
recension.  Griesbach’s  allegations  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  Eastern  .and  Western  recensions  are  als' 
visionary;  while  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  tie 
text  followed  by  the  old  Syriac  presents  a formi- 
dable objection  to  the  whole  scheme. 

The  system  of  Hug,  in  so  far  as  it  materially 
differs  from  its  predecessor,  is  as  faulty  as  that  of 
Griesbach.  It  puts  Clement  and  Origen  in  the 
koivt]  eKOocris.  But  Grigen  employed  an  Ocoi 


RECENSION. 


recension. 


eoa 


dental  MS.  only  in  his  commentary  on  Matthew  ; 
in  his  commentary  on  Mark  lie  uniformly  quotes 
an  Alexandrian  codex ; and  his  usual  text  cer- 
tainly agrees  with  the  Alexandrian  recension.  As 
to  Clement,  he  frequently. agrees  with  the  Alexan- 
drian in  opposition  to  the  Western  recension,  and 
therefore  he  cannot  he  properly  reckoned  as  be- 
longing to  the  latter,  in  a system  where  there  are 
two  distinct  recensions  agreeing  with  the  Occi- 
dental and  the  Alexandrian.  The  Hesycnvan  re- 
vision does  not  seem  to  have  had  much  authority, 
or  to  have  been  widely  circulated  ev«n  in  the 
country  where  it  was  made.  Besides,  the  form  of 
the  text  ascribed  to  Hesychius  appear*,  to  be  older, 
even  as  old  as  Clement's  time.  Hesychius,  there- 
fore, probably  did  nothing  rrovs:  „han  revise  the 
Alexandrian  recension.  The  historical  basis  on 
which  Lucian’s  recension  of  d.e  text  rests  is  also 
insecure.  The  MSS.  which  ne  revised  were  not 
numerous  ; neither  did  they  obtain  authority. 
The  testimony  of  Jerhr^e,  so  far  from  supporting 
Hug's  view,  goes  irdhe^dy  to  refute  it.  Again, 
it  is  very  improbable  that  Origen  undertook  to 
revise  the  r.o/vb  The  passage  in  Jerome 

on  which  Hug  founds  this  opinion  does  not  really 
support  it.  Toe  Alexandrian  father  used  copies 
of  the  Nev*  Testament  selected  with  care  and 
Ringed  from  errors ; but  he  did  not  attempt  in 
<da  ohl  age  the  laborious  task  of  making  a peculiar 
<evl«icn.  Such  are  the  chief  objections  that  may 
ce  urged  against  the  recension-system  of  this 
tarlied  critic.  Unsustained  by  historical  data, 
jubsequent  critics  have  refused  to  yield  it  their 
ipprobatioti.  Griesbac.ti,  De  Wette,  Schott,  and 
Rinck,  especially  the  last,  have  assailed  it  with 
more  or  less  ability  ; while,  in  America,  Mr.  Nor 
ton  has  also  opposed  it.  with  great  plausibility. 
In  short,  it  cannot  stand  the  test  of  an  enlight- 
ened, impartial  examination. 

With  regard  to  Scholz’s  system,  it  commends 
itself  to  our  approbation  only  in  so  far  as  it  insists 
upon  two  families  of  documents,  the  Alexandrine 
and  the  Constantinopolitan.  There  is  no  definite 
line  of  demarcation  between  the  Alexandrian 
and  the  Western,  as  was  long  since  shown  by 
Laurence;  although  Tischendorf  has  recently 
re-asserted  it..  Egypt,  and  the  Western  world 
were  supplied  with  Biblical  MSS.  from  Alex- 
andria, come  of  them  revised,  others  untouched 
and  unpurged  by  the  hand  of  a corrector.  Thus 
the  Alexandrian  and  Occidental  MSS.  of  Gries- 
bach  were  the  productions  of  one  country  and 
one  age ; differing,  indeed,  from  one  another 
in  many  respects,  but  that  discrepancy  owing  to 
the  caprice  of  transcribers,  and  to  the  varying 
tastes  which  they  found  it  advantageous  to  please. 
But  although  we  look  upon  Scholz’s  system  as 
simpler  and  better  supported  than  any  other,  in  so 
far  as  it  asserts  no  more  than  two  families,  yet  it  is 
otherwise  pressed  by  fatal  objections.  It  is  based  on 
assertions , instead  of  arguments  solid  and  suffi- 
cient. The  framer  of  it  has  failed  to  prove  that 
the  particular  form  of  the  text  current  during  the 
first  three  centuries  in  Asia  Minor  and  Greece  was 
the  same  as  that- exhibited  by  the  Constantino- 
politau  manuscripts  of  a much  later  date.  He 
tias  failed  to  show  that  the  Byzantine  family  was 
derived  in  a very  pure  state  from  the  autographs 
of  the  inspired  writers.  Besides,  he  is  obliged  to 
admit,  that  the  text  which  obtained  at  Constan- 
tinople ii  the  reigns  of  Constantine  and  Con- 


stans,  was  collated  with  toe  Alexandrian,  which 
would  naturally  give  rise  to  a commingling  of 
readings  belonging  to  both.  Eusebius  states  that, 
at  the  request  of  Constantine,  he  made  out  fifty 
copies  of  the  New  Testament  for  the  use  of  the 
churches  at  Constantinople;  and  as  we  know  that 
lie  gave  a decided  preference  to  Alexandrian 
copies,  it  cannot,  be  doubted  that,  he  followed  those 
sanctioned  by  Origen’s  authority.  On  the  whole, 
it  can  never  be  made  out  on  historic  grounds,  that 
the  Constantinopolitan  codices  have  descended 
from  the  autographs  in  a pure  stats.  They  differ, 
indeed,  in  characteristic  readings  from  the  Alex 
andrian,  but  that  the  preference  should  be  given 
to  the  former  is  a most  questionable  position. 
Why  should  junior  be  set  in  value  above  much 
older  documents  ? What  good  reason  can  be  as- 
signed for  the  predilection  of  Matthaei  and  Scholz? 
None  truly.  Antiquity  may  be  outweighed  by 
other  considerations,  and  certainly  the  Alexan- 
drine MSS.  are  neither  faultless  nor  perfect;  but 
in  the  case  of  the  Byzantine  family  there  is  no 
sufficient  ground  for  arbitrarily  placing  it  above 
the  other.  In  the  present  day,  numbers  will  not 
be  considered  as  decisive  of  genuine  readings,  in 
opposition  to  weighty  considerations  founded  on 
antiquity  ; and  yet  it  is  possible  that  numbers 
may  have  had  an  undue  influence  on  the  mind 
of  Scholz.  Such  as  desire  to  see  a thorough  re- 
futation of  the  system  may  read  Rinck s Lucu- 
bratio  Critica,  &c.,  but  especially  TischendorPs 
Preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
where  it  is  dissected with  great  ability,  and  the 
foundation  on  which  it  professedly  rests  demon 
strated  to  be  feeble  and  futile.  In  fact,  the  his- 
torical proofs  of  the  industrious  Scholz  are  no 
better  than  lictions,  winch  genuine  ecclesiastical 
history  will  never  sanction. 

Perhaps  the  data  are  not  sufficient  to  warrant  or 
support,  any  one  system  of  recensions.  Our  know- 
ledge of  the  maimer  in  which  the  text  was  early 
corrupted,  of  the  innumerable  influences  to  which 
it  was  exposed,  the  revisions  it  underwent  in  differ- 
ent countries  at  different  times,  the  modes  in  which 
transcribers  dealt  with  it,  and  of  the  principles,  if 
any  such  there  were,  on  which  they  proceeded,  is 
too  scanty  to  allow  of  any  definite  superstructure. 
The  subject,  must,  therefore,  be  necessarily  in- 
volved in  obscurity.  Its  genius  is  such  as  to 
give  rise  to  endless  speculation,  without  affording 
solid  satisfaction.  It  is  vague  and  undefined, 
awakening  curiosity,  but  not.  appeasing  it  with 
conviction.  Yet  we  are  not  disposed  to  reject  the 
entire  system  of  classification  as  visionary  and 
fanciful.  It  is  highly  useful  thus  to  arrange  the 
materials ; it  saves  a world  of  labour  after  the 
distribution  has  once  been  made.  The  existence 
of  certain  characteristic  readings  may  be  clearly 
traced  as  pervading  various  memorials  of  the 
text,  however  much  we  may  speculate  on  their 
causes.  It  is  quite  true,  that  in  several  cases  it 
is  very  difficult  to  distinguish  the  family  to  which 
a particular  reading  belongs,  because  its  charac- 
teristics may  be  almost  equally  divided  between 
two  classes.  Or,  they  may  be  so  slightly  marked, 
that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  detect  the  family 
with  which  it  should  be  united.  The  evidences 
of  its  relationship  may  be  so  obscure  as  to  render 
the  determination  of  its  appropriate  recension  a 
subtle  problem.  It  is  also  unquestionab*  , that 
no  one  MS.,  version,  or  father,  exliibits  a recension 


504 


RECENSION 


RECIIABITES. 


in  a pure  state ; but  that  each  form  of  the  text  ap- 
pears more  or  less  corrupted.  Add  to  these  cir- 
cumstances the  frequent  commixture  of  readings 
from  causes  accidental  or  designed.  Hence  the 
various  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  rear  up 
systems  have  been  unsatisfactory  and  unsuccess- 
ful ; so  much  so,  that  we  should  not  be  surprised 
to  find  the  majority  of  the  learned,  at  no  great 
distance  of  time,  regarding  them  as  airy  and  un- 
substantial speculations  k signifying  nothing.’  The 
intricacy  of  the  subject  may  hereafter  induce 
critics  to  say  in  their  haste  that  it  is  unworthy  of 
their  serious  attention.  We  have  seen  that  Mat- 
thaei cast  aside  the  whole  thing  as  a useless  and 
silly  speculation.  Professor  Lee  has  employed 
language  equally  strong,  though  not  equally 
scurrilous  as  that  of  Matthaei — language  of  the 
same  import,  and  tending  to  the  same  result.  So 
too,  Granville  Penn.  We  doubt,  however,  if  the 
learning  or  the  sagacity  of  these  English  scholars 
is  of  such  a kind  as  to  warrant  in  them  the  em- 
ployment of  terms  so  vehement.  It  is  more 
ominous  for  tire  fate  of  the  recension-system  to 
find  it  discarded  in  practice  by  Lachmann ; yet 
when  we  consider  that  he  has  gone  to  the  extreme 
of  resting  on  mere  antiquity . sometimes  on  a single 
testimony , he  will  not  lie  thought  competent  to  do 
away  with  the  labours  of  so  many  eminent  critics 
who  have  preceded.  In  short,  the  theme  is  such  as 
to  disallow  a rigid  division  of  t he  critical  materials 
into  peculiar  families,  or  even  a geographical  dis- 
tribution of  them.  The  M S.,  numerous  though 
they  be,  are  not  sufficiently  so  to  warrant  sale 
results,  with  the  exception  of  a single  class.  As 
regards  versions,  their  testimony  is  rather  indi- 
rect ; and  in  the  Scripture  quotations  made  by 
the  fathers  there  is  a fragmentary  aspect.  Both 
these  circumstances  counterbalance  most  of  the 
advantages  resulting  from  our  ability  to  identify 
versions  and  quotations,  a priori,  with  some  local 
text. 

The  preceding  observations  may  serve  to  account 
for  the  varying,  and,  in  some  cases,  contradictory 
schemes  of  different  critics.  Some  are  inclined  to 
look  for  greater  nicety  and  distinctness  than  others ; 
and  it  may  be  presumed  that  they  will  find  more 
families  in  consequence  of  their  mental  bias  ; 
others,  with  less  delicate  perceptibility,  will  be 
disposed  to  rest  satisfied  with  classes  more  strongly 
marked  by  the  number  of  single  documents  they 
embrace,  or  by  the  breadth  of  territory  over  which 
they  circulated.  Thus  there  is  no  possibility  of 
arriving  at  mathematical  precision  or  demonstra- 
tive evidence,  because  the  historic  furniture  is  so 
meagre  as  to  afford  room  for  almost  boundless 
speculation;  while  the  commingling  of  all  read- 
ings in  the  progress  of  time  has  obliterated  many 
well-defined  landmarks. 

The  term  recension  is  sometimes  applied  to  the 
Old  Testament  as  well  as  the  New.  There,  all 
the  materials  hitherto  collated  belong  to  one 
recension  or  family,  viz.,  the  Masoretic.  Some, 
indeed,  have  divided  them  into  Masoretic  and 
Ante-Masoretic ; but  the  existence  of  the  latter  is 
fictitious.  At  present  we  know  of  no  more  than 
one  great  family,  though  it  is  probable  that  par- 
tial recensions  of  several  portions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament preceded  the  labours  of  the  Masoretic 
doctors.  (Bengel's  Int^oductio  in  Crisin  N.  T., 
prefixed  to  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
Tubingen,  1734,  4to.;  Semlcr’s  Vorbereitungen 


zur  Hermeneutik,  Halle,  1760-69,  8vo.  ; Grit®* 
bach's  Opuscida , as  edited  by  Gabler,  with  the 
Preface  of  the  latter,  Jena,  1821,  2 vols.  8vo. , 
Griesbach's  Commentarius  Criticus  in  Textum 
Grcecum,  &c.  Jena,  1811,  8vo. ; Griesbach’s  Pro- 
legomena to  the  second  edition  of  his  Greek  Tes- 
tament; Eichhorn's  Einleitung , vol.  iv.,  Got- 
tingen, 1827,  Svo. ; Bertholdt's  Einleitung,  vol.  i. 
Erlangen,  8vo.  ; Schulz's  Prolegomena  to  the 
third  edition  of  Griesbach,  Berlin,  1827,  Svo.  ; 
Hug’s  Einleit.  vol.  i.  Stuttgart,  18*26,  Svo. ; Do 
Wet.te  s Einleit.  in  das  Neues  Testament , Berlin, 
1842,  Svo. ; Schott’s  Tsagoge  llistorico-Critica , 
Jena,  1830,  Svo. ; Matthaei,  Ueber  die  Sogenann- 
tem  Recensionen , u.s. w.  Leipzig,  1804,  8vo. ; 
Schulz's  Biblisch-Kritische  lieise, u.s.  w.  Leipzig, 
1823,  8vo. ; Schulz’s  Prolegomena  to  the  New 
Testament ; Laurence’s  remarks  on  Griesbach's 
Systematic  Classification  of  MSS.,  Oxford,  1814, 
Svo  ; llinck’s  Lucubratio  Criticain  Acta  Apost. 
Epp.  Cathol.,  et  Paulin.,  u.  s.  w.  Basel,  1830. 
8vo. ; Tischendorf  s Prolegomena  to  his  edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  Lipsiae,  1841,  8vo. ; 
Reuss's  Geschichte  der  Ileiligen  Schriften  Neuen 
1'estaments,  Halle,  1842,  Svo. ; Guerike’s  His- 
torisc/i-Kritische  Einleit.  Leipzig,  1843,  8vo. ; 
Norton's  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels , vol.  i.  Bos- 
ton, 1837,  8vo. ; Davidson’s  Lectures  on  Biblical 
Criticism,  Edinb.  1839,  8vo.) — S.  D. 

RECHAB  (23^,  rider  ; Sept.  ‘PTjxa#),  son  of 
Hematli  the  Kenite,  and  probably  a descendant  of 
Jethro  [Krnites]  : he  is  only  known  as  the 
father  of  Jonadab,  the  founder  of  the  sect  of 
Recbabit.es,  which  took  from  him  its  name  (2  Kit  gs 
x.  15  ; 1 Chron.  ii.  55  ; Jer.  xxxv.  6). 

RECIIABITES.  The  tribe  or  family  of 
Kenites,  whom  Jonadab,  the  son  of  Rechab,  si  b- 
jected  to  a new  rule  of  life ; or  rather  bound  to 
the  continued  observance  of  ancient  usages  whi  ;h 
were  essential  to  their  separate  existence,  but 
which  the  progress  of  their  intercourse  with  towns 
seemed  likely  soon  to  extinguish.  By  thus  main- 
taining their  independent  existence  as  a pastoial 
people,  they  would  keep  themselves  from  being 
involved  in  the  distractions  and  internal  wars  of 
the  country,  would  be  in  no  danger  of  becoming 
objects  of  jealousy  and  suspicion  to  the  Israelites, 
and  would  be  aide  at  all  times  to  remove  from  a 
country  in  which  they  were  strangers.  The 
Rechabites  found  so  much  advantage  in  these 
rules,  that  they  observed  them  with  great  strict- 
ness for  about  300  years,  when  we  first  become 
aware  of  their  existence.  Jeremiah  brings  some 
Rechabites  into  one  of  the  chambers  of  the 
Temple,  and  sets  before  them  pots  full  of  wine, 
and  cups,  saying,  ‘ Drink  ye  wine  ;’  on  which  it 
is  well  observed  by  Gataker  and  others  that  the 
prophet  omits  the  usual  formula,  ‘Thus  saith 
the  Lord,’  which  would  have  constrained  obe- 
dience in  men  so  pious  as  the  Rechabites,  even 
at  the  expense  of  infringing  their  rule  of  life. 
But  now  they  answer,  ‘ We  will  drink  no  wine; 
for  Jonadab,  the  son  of  Rechab,  our  father,  com- 
manded us,  saying,  Ye  shall  drink  no  wine, 
neither  ye  nor  your  sons  for  ever.  Neither  shall 
ye  build  house,  nor  sow  seed,  nor  plant  vineyard, 
nor  have  any  : but  all  your  days  ye  shall  dwell 
in  tents,  that  ye  may  live  many  days  in  the  land 
where  ye  be  strangers’  (Jer.  xxxv.  6,  7).  They 
added  that  to  the  present  time  they  had  observed 


RECHABITES. 


REEM. 


SOS 


these  injunctions,  although  they  had  been  con- 
strained to  take  refuge  in  Jerusalem  when  the 
Chaldeean  armies  swept  the  face  of  the  land. 
The  Vulgate,  by  translating  all  the  proper  names 
in  1 Chron.  ii.  55,  has  given  currency  to  an  im- 
pression that  the  Rechabites  were  employed  in 
some  of  the  inferior  offices  of  the  temple;  and  has 
led  to  the  inference  that  they  were  taken  as  cap- 
tives to  Babylon,  from  which  they  returned,  and 
resumed  their  duties  under  the  second  temple, 
Jabesh  in  Gilead  being  the  chief  place  of  their 
residence.  There  is  no  shade  of  authority,  beyond 
this  assumption  of  proper  .names  as  appellatives,  for 
a statement  every  point  in  which  is  contrary  to  the 
probabilities  of  the  case.  The  Septuagint,  though 

{(rone  to  regard  Hebrew  proper  names  as  appel- 
atives,  does  not  do  so  in  this  text,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Sopherites,  which  it  renders  by  ‘ scribes/ 
in  which  it  is  followed  by  the  Auth.  Version. 
But  there  is  no  apparent  ground  for  thus  taking 
one  only  as  an  appellative  in  a list  of  proper 
names,  unless  an  intelligible  sense  could  not 
be  otherwise  obtained.  But  the  sense  is  better 
with  this  also  as  a proper  name  than  as  an  appel- 
lative. We  may  then  read,  much  as  in  Geddes’ 
version,  ‘But  the  Sopherite  families  who  inha- 
bited Jabesh,  the  Tirathites,  the  Shimathites,  and 
the  Suchathites,  were  Kenites  who  came  from 
Hemath  Abi-Beth-Rechab.7  The  translator  re- 
marks on  the  last  words,  ‘ I do  not  translate  these 
words,  because  I do  not  understand  them/  There 
is  probably  some  corruption  of  the  text.  The 
literal  version  would  be,  ‘ Hemath,  father  of  the 
house  of  Recliab.’  This  Rechab  was  doubtless  the 
same  from  whom  the  Rechabites  took  their  name; 
and  it  appears  to  us  that  the  text  is  far  from 
meaning  to  say  that  the  families  at  Jabesh  (whether 
scribes’  or  not)  were  Rechabites  in  the  limited 
sense;  their  residence  at  Jabesh  being  indeed  con- 
clusive against  that  notion  : but  that  these  fa- 
milies were  Kenites  descended  from  the  Hemath 
who  was  also  the  progenitor  of  that  Rechab  from 
whom  the  Rechabites  took  their  name.  We  doubt 
if  a clearer  explanation  of  this  difficult  text  can 
be  obtained  : and  if  so,  it  conveys  no  other  in- 
formation concerning  the  Rechabites  than  that 
their  progenitor  was  a .descendant  of  Hemath, 
who  was  likewise  the  founder  of  other  Kenite 
families. 

What  eventually  became  of  the  Rechabites  is 
not  known.  The  probability  is  that,  when  they 
found  themselves  no  longer  safe  among  the 
Hebrews,  they  withdrew  into  the  desert  from 
which  they  at  first  came,  and  which  was  peopled 
by  men  of  similar  habits  of  life,  among  whom,  in 
the  course  of  time,  they  lost  their  separate  exist- 
ence. The  various  attempts  to  identify  them 
with  the  Assideans,  mentioned  in  the  books  of 
Maccabees  (1  Macc.  ii.  42;  vii.  17;  2 Macc. 
xiv.  6),  and  with  the  later  Jewish  sect  of  Essenes, 
V ill  not  bear  examination.  We  can  as  little 
recognise  as  Rechabites  the  body  of  people  in 
Arabia  of  whom  Benjamin  of  Tudela  ( Itinerary , 
i.  112-114,  ed.  Asher),  Niebuhr,  Wolf  (Journals, 
ii.  276,  331-334;  iii.  17),  and  others,  have  given 
hearsay  accounts.  The  details,  however,  whether 
correct  or  not,  apply  to  Talmudical  Jews  more 
than  to  Rechabites.  They  are  described  as  living 
in  caverns  and  low  houses,  not  in  tents — and  this 
in  Arabia,  where  Bedouin  habits  would  cease  to 
*»e  singular ; nor  are  any  of  the  Rechabite  rules 


observable  in  them  except  that  of  refraining  from 
wine — an  abstinence  which  ceases  to  he  remark- 
able in  Arabia,  where  no  one  does  drink  wine,’ 
and  where,  among  the  strongholds  of  Islam,  it 
could  probably  not  be  obtained  without  danger 
and  difficulty.  There  were  large  numbers  of 
Talmudical  Jews  in  Arabia  in  the  time  of  Mo- 
hammed, and  these  supposed  Rechabites  are  pro- 
bably descended  from  a body  of  them,  it  is  to 
be  hoped  that  some  competent  traveller  will  pene- 
trate to  the  spot  which  they  are  said  to  inhabit, 
and  bring  back  some  more  satisfactory  accounts 
than  we  yet  possess.  (See  Witsius,  Dissert,  de 
Rechabitis,  in  Miscell.  Sacra,  ii.  176,  sqq.  ; 
Carpzov,  Apparat.,  p.  148;  Cal  met,  Dissert . 
sur  les  Rechabites , in  Commentaire  Litter al,  vi. 
18-21.) 

RECORDER  (Tplft  ? Sept.  auapupL-paicoov  or 
vTrofjLvrjfu.aTO'ypdcpos),  the  title  of  a high  officer  in 
the  court  of  the  kings  of  Judah  (2  Sam.  viii.  16  , 
1 Kings  iv.  3 ; 2 Kings  xviii.  18).  As  the  idea 
of  memory,  memorials,  is  prevalent  in  the  etymo- 
logy of  the  word,  ‘remembrancer’  would  perhaps 
be  a more  exact  translation  of  it.  We  have  no 
office  with  which  it  can  be  compared;  for  the 
functions  of  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  do  not  suffi- 
ciently correspond  with  the  title  to  warrant  the 
parallel  which  it  might  suggest.  The  Hebrew 
mazkir  seems  to  have  been  not  only  the  grand 
custodier  of  the  public  records,  but  to  have  kept 
the  responsible  registry  of  the  current  transactions 
of  the  government.  This  was  an  employment  of 
the  very  first  rank  and  dignity  in  the  courts  cf 
the  ancient  East. 

RED  SEA.  [Sea.] 

RED  SEA,  PASSAGE  OF.  [Exodus.] 

REED.  [Kaneh.] 

REEM  (D^l ; Sept,  povoicepios ; Vulg.  rhino- 
ceros ; and  in  several  versions  of  the  Bible,  uni- 
corn. The  radical  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  wore 


furnishes  no  evidence  that  an  animal  such  as  is 
now  understood  by  ‘unicorn’  was  known  to  exist, 
or  that  a rhinoceros  is  thereby  absolutely  indicated ; 


469.  [Horn  of  the  unknown  species  of  Rhinoceros,  j 


and  there  is  no  authority  whatever  for  the  infer- 
ence that  either  was  at  any  time  resident  in 
Western  Asia.  The  general  structure  and  figura- 
tive and  symbolical  character  of  the  Hebrew,  in 


6<W 


REEM. 


REEM, 


common  with  all  the  Semitic  languages,  seem 
more  naturally  to  suggest  that  the  word  reem  con- 
veys an  image  of  loftiness,  exaltation,  power,  and 
pre-eminence— -a  form  of  expression  of  which  there 
are  many  parallel  instances ; nor  is  the  root  con- 
fined to  the  Hebrew,  but.  is  found  in  the  Sanscrit, 
Etrusco-Latin,  Erse,  and  Teothisc  dialects.  It 
can  be  traced  in  the  names  Abram,  Abraham,  and 
Ramah,  in  Rom  and  Roma : all  bearing  the 
meaning  of  Robur,  Valentia,  &c.  Ram,  in  Indian 
mythology,  one  of  the  titles  of  Mahadeo,  appears 
in  the  compounds  Rama-deva,  Rama-Chandra, 
and  numerous  other  titles.  It  is  found  again  in 
•he  Teothistic  Ram  ; the  Ram  being  the  opener  of 
he  solar  year,  or  first  sign  of  the  zodiac.  These 
igures,  metaphorical  and  pictorial,  while  phonetic 
vriting  was  as  yet  unknown  or  imperfect,  were 
ibundantly  used  in  early  antiquity,  and  often 
•epresented  very  definite  ideas  in  both  cases ; but 
more  particularly  when  they  were  embodied  in 
sculptural  forms,  and  were  embellished  with  co- 
lours ; for  then  a complex  definition  was  attainable 
by  the  assemblage  of  heterogeneous  members  and 
tints  to  form  one  body ; such  as  serpents  with 
wings,  with  four  legs,  a row  of  teats,  winged 
quadrupeds,  beasts  with  human  heads,  winged 
globes  entwined  by  serpents,  &e.,  constituting  by 
their  unnatural  juxta-position  complex,  yet  per- 
fectly intelligible,  abstractions.  The  ruins  of 
Persepolis,  Nineveh,  and  the  so-called  Baby- 
lonian cylinders,  as  well  as  the  figures  published 
by  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson  in  his  works  on  Egypt 
offer  numerous  examples.  So  deeply  rooted  were 
these  notions  in  the  Oriental  mind,  that  we  find 
them  spoken  of  as  visible  bodies  in  the  prophetic, 
and  other  parts  of  Scripture;  and  they  even 
occur  among  other  symbols  of  the  Evangelists. 
In  the  poetical  language  of  the  Bible  some  of 
these  images  stand  at  one  time  as  typical  of  reali- 
ties in  nature,  at  others  as  symbolical  of  abstrac- 
tions, and  DX1  may  be  found  in  both  characters. 
Although  the  medallic  history  of  the  kings  qf 
Macedon  (Havercampius,  Gen. Hist,  in  the  Dutch 
language)  furnishes  no  coins  bearing  a single- 
horned goat,  it  is  still  asserted  byMaillot  and  others 
that  such  was  to  be  found  among  their  ensigns  : 
but  this  was  most  probably  after  the  Macedonian 
conquest ; for  a single-horned  ibex  appears  on  the 
bas-reliefs  of  Che-el-Miriar ; another  occurs  on  a 
cylinder  ; and  one  cast  in  brass,  supposed  to  have 
been  the  head  of  a^Macedonian  standard,  was 
found  in  Asia  Minor,  and  presented  to  the  Anti- 
quarian Society  of  London.  If  mysterious  names 
were  resolvable  by  the  canons  of  pictorial  defini- 
tion, the  practice  of  imagining  horns  to  be  affixed 
to  the  most  sublime  and  sacred  objects  would  be 
most  evident  from  the  radical  meaning  of  the  word 
cherub,  where  the  notion  of  horns  is  everywhere 
blended  with  that  of  ‘ power  and  greatness  ’ 
[Cherubim].  There  were  also  horns  at  the 
corners  of  altars — the  beast  with  ten  horri3  in 
Daniel,  &c.  (chap.  vii.).  In  profane  history  we 
have  the  goat-head  ornament  on  the  helmet  of  the 
kings  of  Persia,  according  to  Ammianus,  more 
probably  Ammon  horns : such  Alexander  the 
Great  had  assumed  ; and  his  successors  in  Egypt 
and  in  Persia  continued  a custom,  even  now  ob- 
served by  tne  chief  cabossiers  of  Ashantee,  who 
have  a similar  ram-head  of  solid  gold  on  the  front 
of  their  plumy  war-caps.  Indeed,  from  early  an- 
tiquity, Greek  %nd  Ionian  helmets  were  often 


adorned  with  two  horns;  among  others  the  head  of 
Seleucns  I.  (Nicator)  appears  thus  on  his  coins: 
the  practice  extended  to  metal  horns  being  affixed 
to  the  masks  or  chaffrons  of  war-horses  (see  coin 
of  Seleucus  Nicatbr),  and  of  elephants  (Antiochus 
Soter)  ; and  they  form  still,  or  did  lately,  a part 
of  the  barbed  horse-armour  in  Rajahstan.  Triple- 
horned and  bicorned  helmets  are  found  on  early 
Gallic  and  Iberian  coins  ; they  were  again  in  use 
during  the  chivalrous  ages;  but  the  most  remark- 
able, the  horn  of  strength  and  dominion,  is  seen 
elevated  on  the  front  of  the  helmet,  impressed  on 
the  reverse  of  the  coins  of  the  tyrant  Tryphon, 
who,  in  his  endeavours  to  obtain  Syria,  was  at 
war  with  Antiochus  Sidetes,  during  the  oera  of 
the  Maccabees,  and  was  not  likely  to  omit  any 
attribute  that  once  belonged  to  its  ancient  kings 
[Horn].  These  examples,  together  with  thecor- 
nuted  crown  of  Abyssinian  chiefs,  and  the  horned 
female  head-attire  prized  by  the  present  genera- 
tion in  Libanus  and  Palestine,  are  sufficient  to 
show  the  extent  and  duration  of  a symbol,  which, 
it  is  evident,  is  implied  in  the  word  reem , in 
several  places  of  the  Bible,  notwithstanding  that 
literally  it  signifies  also  a real  or  fictitious  crea- 
ture, at  one  time  alluded  to  as  possessed  of  a 
single  horn,  while  in  other  instances  this  charac- 
teristic is  scarcely,  or  not  at  all,  admissible. 

Now  this  may  be  regarded  as  the  natural  con- 
sequence of  assuming  as  a typical  form  an  animal 
of  a remote  country,  or  a generic  term  for  several 
more  or  less  different  in  their  characters.  In 
profane  history,  from  the  time  of  Ctesias  (b.c. 
400)  to  the  present  day,  India,  the  Himalayas,  and 
Tibet,  are  reported  to  have  produced  unicorns; 
whereof  the  most  recently  pointed  out  was  the 
Cliiru  of  Bootan,  a species  of  antelope  with  two 
horns  : and  anciently  ^Elian’s  Cartazon  was  simi- 
larly designated,  though  with  a slight  change  of 
letters,  carcand,  carcaddan  (in  Bocliart);  karga- 
dan , kargazan  (in  Wilson)  ; al-eherchedcn  (in  Be- 
lunensis)  ; and  all  related  to  the  Sanskrit  kharga, 

‘ a horn  ’ (?),  being  the  Persian  and  Arabic  names 
for  the  true  Monoceros,  or  Indian  rhinoceros,  which, 
like  the  rest  of  the  genus,  is  essentially  a tropical 
animal.  For  the  Asiatic  Rhinocerotes,  consti- 
tuting three  species,  belong  all  to  the  south-eastern 
states  of  the  continent  and  the  Great  Austral 
islands ; and  there  is  no  indication  extant  that  in 
a wild-  state  they  ever  extended  to  the  west  of  the 
Indus.  Early  colonies  and  caravans  from  the 
East  most  probably  brought  rumours  of  the  power 
and  obstinacy  of  these  animals  to  Western  Asia, 
and  it  might  have  been  remarked  that  under  ex- 
citement the  rhinoceios  raises  its  head  and  horn  oh 
high,  as  it  were  in  exultation,  though  it  is  mosf 
likely  because  ihesense  of  smelling  is  more  potent 
in  it  than  that  of  sight,  which  is  only  lateral, 
and  confined  by  the  thickness  of  the  folds  of  skin 
projecting  beyond  the  eye-balls.  The  rhinoceros 
is  not  absolutely  untameable — a fact  implied  even 
in  Job.  Thus  we  take  this  species  as  the  ori- 
ginal type  of  the  unicorn;  but  the  active  invention 
of  Arabic  minds,  accidentally,  perhaps,  in  the  first 
instance,  discovered  a species  of  Oryx  (generi- 
cally  bold  and  pugnacious  ruminants),  with  the 
loss  of  one  of  its  long,  slender,  and  destructivf 
horns.  In  this  animal  the  DfcO  of  the  He- 


brews and  the  far  East  became  personified ; & 
rim , being  most  probably  an  Oryx  Leucoryx 


REEM. 


REIIOBO  AM. 


607 


«mce  individuals  of  that  species  have  been 
repeatedly  exnibited  in  subsequent  ages  as  uni- 
corns, when  accident  or  ariitice  had  deprived  them 
of  one  of  their  frontal  weapons,  notwithstanding 
that  the  rim  is  well  known  to  Arabian  hunters 
as  a two-horned  animal.  The  spirit  of  appro- 
priation in  Persia  and  Macedonia,  as  we  have 
before  noticed,  was  similarly  engaged,  and  for  the 
same  purpose  an  Ibex , Bouquet  in,  or  mountain 
goat  was  taken,  but  showing  only  one  horn  [Goat]. 
In  Africa,  however,  among  three  or  four  known 
species  of  rhinoceros,  and  vague  rumours  of  a Bi- 
^ ilcate  species  of  unicorn,  probably  only  the  repe- 
tition of  Arabian  reports,  there  appears  to  exist 
between  Congo,  Abyssinia,  and  tho  Cape,  pre- 
cisely the  terra  incognita  of  Africa,  a real  pachy- 
dermous  animal,  which  seems  to  possess  the  cha- 
racteristics of  the  poetical  unicorn.  It  is  known  in 
Congo,  according  to  Cavassi,  quoted  by  Labat, 
by  the  name  of  Abada  ; it  is  the  Nillekma  and 
Arase,  that  is,  unicorn,  in  Kordofan,  mentioned 
by  Riippell ; and  appears  again  to  be  the  South 
African  Ndzoo-dzoo,  a one-horned  horse-like  beast 
of  considerable  speed,  and  very  destructive  pro- 
pensities, which  Mr.  Freeman  was  informed  is  by 
no  means  rare  about  Makova.  In  the  narratives 
of  the  natives  of  the  different  regions  in  question 
there  is  certainly  both  exaggeration  and  error ; 
but  they  all  incline  to  a description  which  would 
make  the  animal  indicated  a pachyderm  of  the 
rhinoceros  group,  with  a long  and  slender  horn 
proceeding  from  the  forehead,  perhaps  with  an- 
other incipient  behind  ir,  and  in  general  structure 
so  much  lighter  than  other  rhinocerotes,  that  it  may 
possibly  be  the  link  or  intermediate  form  be- 
tween these  and  the  Equine  genera.  Sir  J.  Barrow, 
in  his  Travels,  has  figured  the  head  of  such  an 
animal,  copied  by  the  artist  Daniell  from  a Caflfre 
drawing,  sketched  with  coal  on  the  surface  of  a 
rock  within  a cave.  Similar  drawings  are  not  un- 
frequent, and  we  remember  to  have  seen  among  the 
papers  of  the  same  artist,  in  the  hands  of  Instate  bro- 
ther, another  drawing,  likewise  copied  from  a cave 
in  the  interior  of  South  Africa,  and  representing, 
with  exceedingly  characteristic  fidelity,  a group  of 
Elands,  Boselaphus  Oreas,  Hartebeest,  Acronotus 
Caarha,  and  Spring  Bock,  Antilope  Euchore , 
among  which  was  placed,  with  head  and  shoulders 
towering  above  the  rest,  a Bhinocerotine  animal, 
in  form  lighter  than  a wild  bull,  having  an  arched 
neck  and  a long  nasal  horn  protruding  in  the  form 
of  a sabre.  This  drawing  is  no  doubt  still  ex- 
tant, and  should  be  published;  but  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  opinion  that  truth  exists  to  a certain 
extent  in  the  foregoing  remarks,  it  may  be  ob- 
served that  we  have  seen,  we  believe  in  the  British 
Museum,  a horn  brought  from  Africa,  unlike 
those  of  any  known  species  of  rhinoceros : it  is 
perfectly  smooth  and  hard,  about  thirty  inches  in 
length,  almost  equally  thick  throughout,  not  three 
inches  in  its  greatest  diameter,  nor  less  than  two 
in  its  smaller,  and  rather  sharp-pointed  at  top : 
from  the  narrowness  of  the  base,  its  great  length 
and  weight,  the  horn  must  evidently  stand  move- 
ably  on  the  nasal  bones,  until  excitement  renders 
the  muscular  action  more  rigid,  and  the  coriaceous 
Role  which  sustains  it  more  firm — circumstances 
which  may  explain  the  repeated  assertion  of 
natives,  that  the  born,  or  rather  the  agglutinated 
hair  which  forms  that  instrument,  is  flexible. 

This  short  review  of  the  present  state  of  our 


knowledge  respecting  a physical  unicorn,  together 
with  the  symbols  that  have  emanated  from  one  or 
move  of  the  foregoing  sources,  we  trust  ire  suffi- 
cient to  explain  the  poetical  bearings  of  most  of 
the  Scriptural  texts  where  the  word  DiO  is  intro- 
duced : it  shows  when  the  texts  clearly  point  to 
a single-horned  species;  indicates  when  by  a po- 
etical figure  human  power  and  violence  may  be 
personified  under  the  character  of  an  unicorn; 
and,  lastly,  when  the  same  word  appears  to  denote 
huge  horned  animals,  as  in  the  case  of  the  bulls  of 
Bashan,  where  it  is  fair  to  presurne  that  not  only 
feral  species  of  great  fierceness  would  exist,  but  that 
most  likely  an  urus  or  a bison  still  resided  in  the 
forests  bordering  on  Libanus,  while  the  lion  was 
abundant  in  the  same  locality  ; for,  notwith- 
standing assertions  to  the  contrary,  the  urus  and 
the  bison  were  spread  anciently  from  the  Rhine  to 
China,  and  existed  in  Thrace  and  in  Asia  Minor; 
while  they,  or  allied  species,  are  still  found  in 
Siberia,  and  the  forests  both  of  northern  and 
southern  Persia.  Finally,  though  the  buffalo 
was  not  found  anciently  farther  west  than  Ara- 
chosia,  the  gigantic  gaur.  and  several  congeners, 
are  spread  over  all  ihe  mountain  wildernesses  of 
India,  and  the  SherifF-al-Wady ; and  a further 
colossal  species  roams  with  other  wild  bulls  in 
the  valleys  of  Atlas.  We  figure  Bibos  cavifrons, 
a species  which  is  believed  to  be  still  found  south- 
west of  the  Indus,  and  is  not  remote  from  that 
of  the  Atlas  valleys. — C.  H.  S. 

REFINER.  [Metals.] 

REFUGE,  CITIES  OF.  [Cities  of  Re- 
fuge.] 

REHOB  (Hirn  ; Sept.  'Poo/3,  'PacjjS),  called 
also  Beth-Rehob,  a town  on  the  northern  border 
of  Palestine  (Num.  xiii.  22),  not  far  from  Dan 
(Judg.  xviii.  27-29).  It  was  assigned  to  the 
tribe  of  Asher  (Josh.  xix.  28),  and  was  a Levitical 
city  (Josh.  xxi.  31  ; 1 Chron.  vi.  73).  It  does 
not,  however,  appear  that  the  Israelites  ever  had 
it  in  actual  possession  (comp.  Judg.  i.  31  ; 2 
Sam.  x.  6,  8). 

REHOB,  the  father  of  Hadadezer,  king  of 
Zobah,  in  Syria  (2  Sam.  viii.  3). 

REHOBOAM  he  enlarges  the 

people;  Sept.  'Pofiodp),  only  son  of  Solomon, 
born  of  an  Ammonitess,  called  Naamah(l  Kings 
xiv.  21,  31).  His  reign  commenced  b.c.  975, 
when  he  was  at  the  age  of  forty-one,  and  lasted 
seventeen  years.  This  reign  was  chiefly  re- 
markable for  the  political  crisis  which  gave 
rise  to  it,  and  which  resulted  in  the  separation 
of  the  previously  single  monarchy  into  two  king- 
doms, of  which  the  smaller,  which  took  the 
name  of  Judah,  adhered  to  the  house  of  David. 
All  the  points  involved  in  this  important  event, 
and  its  immediate  results,  have  been  considered 
in  the  articles  Israel,  Jeroboam,  Juoah,  and 
little  remains  to  be  added  in  this  place.  It  is 
highly  probable,  from  the  considerations  adduced 
in  those  articles,  that  the  imprudent  and  imperious 
answer  of  the  misguided  son  of  Solomon  to  the 
public  cry  for  redress  of  grievances,  only  precipi- 
tated a separation  which  would  in  any  case  have 
occurred,  and  could  not  have  been  long  delayed. 
The  envy  of  Ephraim  at  the  sceptre  being  in  the 
house  of  Judah  naturally  led  to  this  result;  and 
the  popular  voice  was,  moreover,  represented  by 


608 


REIIOBOTH. 


REPHIDIM. 


a man  whose  presence  was  an  insult  to  Relioboam, 
and  whose  interest  and  safety  lay  in  widening  the 
difference,  and  in  producing  the  separation.  Al- 
though this  consideration  may  relieve  Rehohoam 
from  the  sole  resp  ►risibility  of  the  separation,  it 
cannot  excuse  the  unwise  and  foolish  answer 
which  threatened  a heavier  yoke  to  those  who 
•ought  to  have  their  existing  burdens  lightened  (l 
Kings  xii.  1-16).  Rehohoam -at  first  thought  of 
nothing  less  than  of  bringing  back  the  revolted 
tribes  to  their  obedience  by  force  of  arms  ; but  the 
disastrous  war  thus  impending  was  arrested  by 
the  interference  of  a prophet  (1  Kings  xii.  21-24); 
and  the  ample  occupation  which  Jeroboam  found 
in  settling  his  own  power,  left  the  king  of  Judah 
some  years  of  peace,  which  he  employed  in  forti- 
fying his  weakened  kingdom.  Concerning  this, 
and  the  invasion  of  the  land  in  the  fifth'  year  of 
Rehoboam's  reign,  by  Shishak,  king  of  Egypt,  see 
Judah.  Kingdom  ok.  Jeroboam,  king  of  Israel, 
being  in  alliance  with  Egypt,  not  only  escaped 
this  storm,  but  may  possibly  have  instigated  the 
invasion  as  the  most  effectual  means  of  weakening 
his  adversary.  The  treasures  which  David  and 
Solomon  had  laid  up  in,  or  lavished  on,  the 
temple  of  God  and  the  royal  palaces,  offered  an 
adequate  temptation  to  the  Egyptian  king,  and 
they  became  bis  prey.  The  brass  with  which 
Rehohoam  replaced  the  plundered  gold  of  Solo- 
mon, furnished  no  inapt  emblem  of  the  difference 
between  his  own  power  and  that  of  his  glorious 
predecessors  ( 1 Kings  xiv.  27).  Idcdatry,  and  the 
worshipping  in  high  places,  which  had  grown  up 
in  the  last  years  of  Solomon,  gained  strength  in 
the  early  years  of  his  son’s  reign,  and  were  not 
discouraged  by  the  example  or  measures  of  the 
king  (1  Kings  xiv.  22-24) ; and  it  is  probably 
for  the  sake  of  indicating  the  influence  of  early 
education,  in  producing  this  culpable  indifference, 
that  it  is  so  pointedly  recorded  in  connection  with 
these  circumstances,  that  his  mother  was  Naamah, 
an  Ammonitess  (2  Chron.  xii.  13).  The  inva- 
sion of  the  land  by  Shishak  seems  to  have  been 
intended  as  a punishment  for  these  offences,  .and 
to  have  operated  for  their  correction  ; which  may 
account  for  the  peace  in  which  the  subsequent  years 
of  this  king's  reign  appear  to  have  been  passed. 

REHOBOTH  (JYQrn  ; Sept.  Evpvx^pia),  a 
name  meaning  ‘wide  places,1  or  ‘ample  room,1 
a s is  indicated  by  Isaac  in  giving  it  to  some  of 
the  wells  which  lie  dug  in  the  south  of  Palestine 
(Gen.  xx vi.  22). 

REHOBOTH-IR  (“1^  ribh") ; Sept.  ‘Po«- 
&w9  ttoAis,  Rehoboth-city ),  a town  of  ancient 
Assyria  (Gen.  x.  1 1),  the  site  of  which  has  not 
been  ascertained. 

REHOBOTH-H ANNAH AR (“I PISH  nhlT) ; 
Sept.  'Poooficod  rrjs  tt apa  TvoTap.6v),  or,  Rehoboth 
of  the  river , the  birth-place  of  one  of  the  Edom- 
itish  kings,  named  Saul  (Gen.  xxxvi.  37).  The 
river  is,  doubtless,  the  Euphrates,  and  the  place 
is  probably  represented  by  the  modern  er-Rahabeh, 
upon  the  west  bank  of  that  river,  between  Rakkah 
and  Anah  (Rosenmiiller,  Geog.  ii.  365 ; W iner, 
B.  Real-worterb.,  s.v.). 

REMPHAN,  or  Rephan  ('P epupau,  *P ecpav'),  a 
name  quoted  in  Acts  vii.  43,  from  Amos  v.  26, 
where  the  Septuagint  has  *P aupav,  for  the  Hebrew 
Ckiun.  It  is  clear  that,  although  thus 


changing  the  letter  3 into  V the  Sept,  held  the 
original  to  be  a proper  name,  in  which  interpreta- 
tion our  own  and  most  other  versions  have  con- 
curred. But  this  is  by  no  means  clear;  for,  ac- 
cording to  the  received  pointing,  it.  would  better 
read,  ‘ Ye  bore  the  tabernacle  of  your  king  (idol), 
and  the  statue  ( or  statues)  of  your  idols,  the  star 
of  your  god,  which  ye  make  to  yourselves;’  and 
so  the  Vulgate,  which  has  ‘ Imaginem  idolorum 
vestrorum.1  According  to  this  reading,  the 
name  of  the  idol  so  worshipped  by  tie  Is- 
raelites is,  in  fact,  not  given,  although  the  men- 
tion of  a star  still  suggests  that  some  planet  is 
intended.  Jerome  supposes  it  may  he  Lucifer  or 
Venus.  But  the  Syriac  renders  the  Hebrew  by 

voJ-:>,  ‘ Saturn  your  idol,'  who  was 

worshipped  by  the  Semitic  nations  along  with  Mars 
as  an  evil  demon  to  be  propitiated  with  sacrifices. 
This  now  seems  to  he  the  general  conclusion, 
and  Winer,  indeed,  treats  the  subject  under 
the  head  Saturn.  It  has  been  alleged,  but  not 
satisfactorily  proved,  that  Remplmn  and  Rephan 
were  Egyptian  names  of  the  planet  Saturn. 
They,  indeed,  occur  as  such  in  the  Coptic- Arabic 
Lexicon  of  Kireher  (Liny.  sEgypt.  Restit .,  p. 
49;  CEdip.  JEgypti , i.  386);  but  Jablonsky  has 
long  since  shown  that,  this  and  other  names  of 
planets  in  these  lexicons  are  of  Greek  origin,  and 
drawn  from  the  Coptic  versions  of  Amos  and 
the  Acts  (Jablonsky,  Remphan  JF.gyptior.,  in 
Opusc.,  ii.  1,  sq. ; Schroeder,  De  Tabernac.  Mo- 
lochi  et  Stella  Dei  Remph.,  1745 ; Mai  us,  Dis- 
sert. de  Kium  et  Remphan,  1763;  Harenberg, 
De  Idolis  Chiitm  et  Remphan , 1723  ; Wolf, 
Dissert,  de  Chium  et  Remph.,  1741;  Gesenius, 
Thesaurus,  pp.  669,  670). 

REPHAIM  (DWl;  Sept,  ylyavres),  an 
ancient  people  of  unusual  stature,  who,  in  the 
time  of  Abraham,  dwelt  in  the  country  beyond 
the  Jordan,  in  and  about  Ashtoreth-Karnaim 
(Gen.  xiv.  5).  Subsequently,  however,  two  of 
their  southern  tribes,  the  Emim  and  Zarazum- 
mim,  were  repressed  and  nearly  annihilated  by  the 
Moabites  and  Ammonites  ; so  that  at  the  time  of 
the  ingress  of  the  Israelites  under  Joshua,  none  of 
the  Rephaim  were  left  save  in  the  dominion  of 
Og,  king  of  Bashan,  who  was  himself  of  this  race 
(Deut.  iii.  11;  Josh.  xii.  4;  xiii.  12).  There 
seems  reason  to  think  that  the  Rephaim  wert 
the  most  ancient  or  aboriginal  inhabitants  ct 
Palestine  prior  to  the  Canaanites,  by  whom  they 
were  gradually  dispossessed  of  the  regions  west  of 
the  Jordan,  and  driven  beyond  that  river.  Some 
of  the  race  remained  in  Palestine  Proper  so  late 
as  the  invasion  of  the  land  by  the  Hebrews,  and 
are  repeatedly  mentioned  as  ‘ the  sons  of  Anak,’ 
and  ‘ the  remnant  of  the  Rephaim’  (Num.  xiii. 
28  : Deut.  ix.  2 ; Josh.  xv.  14),  and  a few  fami- 
lies existed  in  the  land  so  late  as  the  time  of 
David  (2  Sam.  xxi.  16).  [Giants.] 

REPHAIM,  VALLEY  OF,  a valley  be- 
ginning adjacent  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  south- 
west of  Jerusalem,  and  stretching  away  sou*h 
west  on  the  right  of  the  road  to  Bethlehem  (Josh, 
xv.  8;  xvii.  5;  x v iii.  6;  2 Sam.  v.  18,  22), 
This  name  corroborates  the  presumption  that  the 
Rephaim  were  originally  west  of  the  Jordan. 

REPHIDIM,  a station  oi  the  Israelites  in  pro- 
ceeding to  Sinai.  [Sinai.] 


RESEN. 


RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.  609 


RESEN  (fpl ; Sept.  Ao^),  an  ancient  town 
of  Assyria,  i|  escribed  as  a great  city  lying  be- 
tween Nineveh  and  Calah  (Gen.  x.  12).  Biblical 
geographers  have  been  disposed  to  follow  Bochart 
(. Phaleg . iv.  23)  in  finding  a trace  of  the  Hebrew 
name  in  Larissa,  which  is  mentioned  by  Xenophon 
( Anab . iii.  4.  9)  as  a desolate  city  on  the  Tigris, 
several  miles  north  of  the  Lycus.  The  resem- 
blance of  the  names  is  too  faint  to  support  the 
inference  of  identity ; but  the  situation  is  not  irre- 
concilable with  the  Scriptural  intimation.  Ephrem 

Syrus  ( Comment . in  loc .)  says  that  Rassa, 

which  he  substitutes  for  Resen  (the  Peshito  has 
t-CO?  Ressin),  was  the  same  as 

Rish-Ain  ( fountain-head ) ; by  which  Assemanni 
understands  him  to  mean,  not  the  place  in  Me- 
sopotamia so  called,  but  another  Rish-Ain  in 
Assyria,  near  Saphsaphre,  in  the  province  of 
Marga,  which  he  finds  noticed  in  a Syrian 
monastic  history  of  the  middle  age  (Assemauni, 
Biblioth.  Orient,  iii.  2.  p.  709).  It  is,  however, 
still  uncertain  if  Rassa  is  the  same  with  Rish- 
Ain  ; and  whether  it  is  so  or  not,  a name  so 
exceedingly  common  (corresponding  to  the  Arabic 
Has -el -Ain)  affords  a precarious  basis  for  the 
identification  of  a site  so  ancient. 

RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.  After  our 
Lord  had  completed  the  work  of  redemption  by 
his  death  upon  the  cross,  he  rose  victorious  from 
the  grave,  and  to  those  who  through  faith  in  him 
should  become  members  of  his  body,  e became 
apxriybs  rrjs  C«7j$,  ‘ the  prince  of  life.’1  Since  this 
event,  however,  independently  of  its  importance  in 
respect  to  the  internal  connection  of  the  Christian 
doctrine,  was  manifestly  a miraculous  occur- 
rence, the  credibility  of  the  narrative  has  from 
the  earliest  times  been  brought  into  question 
(Celsus,  apud  Origen.  cont.  Cels.  i.  2 ; Woolston, 
Discourses  on  the  Miracles , disc.  vi.  ; Chubb, 
Posth.  Works,  i.  330  ; Morgan,  The  Resurrection 
Considered , 1744).  Others  who  have  admitted 
the  facts  as  recorded  to  be  beyond  dispute,  yet 
have  attempted  to  show  that  Christ  was  not  really 
dead ; but  that,  being  stunned  and  palsied,  he  wore 
for  a lime  the  appearance  of  death,  and  was  after- 
wards restored  to  consciousness  by  the  cool  grave 
and  the  spices.  The  refutation  of  these  views  may 
be  seen  in  detail  in  such  works  as  Less,  Ueber  die 
Religion , ii.  372;  Less,  Auferstehungsgeschichte , 
nebstAnhang,  1799;  Doderlein,  Fragmenteund 
Antijragmente,  1782.  The  chief  advocates  of  these 
views  are  Paulus  (Hist.  Resurrect.  Jes.  1795), 
and,  more  recently.  Henneberg  ( Philol . Histor. 
Krit.  Commentar.  iib.  d.  Gesch.  d.  Begrdbn.  d. 
Auferstehung  u.  Ilimmelfahrt  Jesu,  1826). 

Objections  of  this  nature  do  not  require  notice 
here ; but  a few  words  upon  the  apparent  discre- 
pancies of  the  Gospel  narratives  will  not  be  mis- 
placed. These  discrepancies  were  early  perceived ; 
and  a view  of  what  the  fathers  have  done  in  the 
attempt  to  reconcile  them  has  been  given  by  Nie- 
meyer  (De  Evangelistarum  in  Nctrrando  Christi 
in  Vitam  reditu  disscnsione,  1824).  They  were 
first  collocated  with  much  acuteness  by  Morgan, 
in  the  work  already  cited  ; and  at  a later  date,  by 
an  anonymous  wrter,  whose  fragments  were  edited 
and  supported  by  Lessing ; the  object  of  which 
geems  to  have  been  to  throw  uncertainty  and  doubt 

VOL.  XX.  40 


over  the  whole  of  this  portion  of  Gospel  history.  A 
numerous  host  of  theologians,  however,  rose  to  com- 
bat and  refute  this  writer’s  positions ; among  whom 
we  find  the  names  of  Doderlein,  Less,  Semler, Teller, 
Maschius,  Michaelis,  Pleasing,  Eichhorn,  Herder, 
and  others.  Among  those  wao  have  more  recently 
attempted  to  reconcile  the  different  accounts  is 
Griesbach,  who,  in  his  excellent  Prolusio  de  Fon~ 
tibus  unde  Evangelistee  suas  de  Resurrections 
Domini  narrationes  hauserunt,  1793,  remarks 
that  all  the  discrepancies  are  trifling,  and  not 
of  such  moment  as  to  render  the  narrative 
uncertain  and  suspected,  or  to  destroy  or  even 
diminish  the  credibility  of  the  Evangelists  ; but 
rather  serve  to  show  how  extremely  studious  they 
were  of  truth,  ‘and  how  closely  and  even  scru- 
pulously they  followed  their  documents.’  Gries- 
bach then  attempts  to  show  how  these  discre- 
pancies may  have  arisen  ; and  admits  that, 
although  unimportant,  they  are  hard  to  reconcile, 
as  is  indeed  evinced  by  the  amount  of  contro- 
versy they  have  excited. 

Lately,  Professor  Bush  has  ingeniously  main- 
tained the  opinion,  that  the  body  of  Christ  which 
was  raised  was  not  the  identical  body  which 
was  crucified,  but  another  and  spiritual  body. 
This  view  was  forced  upon  him  by  the  gene- 
ral argument  of  his  book  (Anastasis ; or,  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body  ra- 
tionally and  scripturally  considered,  1845)  ; but 
it  will  not  be  readily  admitted  by  those  who 
remember  the  fresh  prints  of  the  nails,  and  the 
wound  in  the  side  of  the  risen  Saviour,  coupled 
with  his  manifest  anxiety  to  impress  the  fact  of 
his  personal  identity  upon  the  minds  of  his  dis- 
ciples. It  may  indeed  be  asked,  £ In  what  does 
personal  identity  consist  V but  that  is  a question 
we  cannot  here  argue. 

The  three  first  Gospels  agree  in  this,  that  the 
women  who  went  to  the  grave  saw  angels,  by. 
whom  they  were  informed  that  Jesus  had  risen, 
and  who  commanded  them  to  give  the  apostles 
immediate  information  of  the  fact.  But  as  Mary 
Magdalene  was  among  there  women  according; 
to  these  Gospels,  there  seems  a striking  contra- 
diction to  John’s  narrative,  which  speaks  of  hex. 
alone.  The  writers  above  named,  however,  har- 
monise these  accounts  by  supposing  that  Mary 
did  indeed  set  out  for  the  sepulchre  with  the 
other  women ; but  that  running  before  them,  and 
finding  the  stone  rolled  away,  she  was  overcome 
by  a sudden  impulse  of  feeling,  and  hastened  back 
to  communicate  the  intelligence  to  the  apostles, 
as  related  by  John.  In  the  meantime  the  oilier 
women  had  arrived  at  the  sepulchre,  and  there 
witnessed  what  is  recorded  by  the  other. evangelists. 
Mary  Magdalene  returns  to  the  grave  with  Peter 
avid  John  ; and  after  they  had  gone  away  hope- 
less-, she  coixtinued  to  stand  weeping  in  the  same 
place  ; and  while  thus  engaged,,  perceived  the 
angels,  and  immediately  after  our  Lord  himself. 
From  Him  she  receives  the  same  commission 
which  the  angels  had  previously  given  to  the 
other  women,  namely,  to  inform  the  apostles  of  his 
resurrection.  Matthew  (xxviii.  9,  10)  seems  to 
relate  of  all  the  women  what  strictly  belongs  to 
Mary  alone ; while  Mark  (xvi.  9)  is  more  precise  in 
his  account  According  to  this  mode  of  reconciling 
the  Gospe  narratives,  we  are  to  suppose  that  the 
other  women  were  prevented  from  communicating 
to  the  apostles  what  the  angels  had  given  them  in 


610  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY. 


RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY. 


charge ; and  Hess  renders  it  probable,  on  topo- 
graphical grounds,  that  those  who  were  returning 
from  the  grave  may  have  missed  the  apostles,  who 
were  hastily  approaching  it. 

If  this  explanation  be  admitted,  the  only  re- 
maining difficulty  is  that  which  arises  from  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  which  appears  to  state  that  the 
apostles  did  not  visit  the  sepulchre  till  all  the 
intelligence  had  been  communicated  to  them  by 
the  women  (Luke  xxiv.  9-12).  We  will  not  at- 
tempt to  get  over  this  difficulty  by  rejecting  the 
verse  which  creates  it  (xxiv.  12),  on  the  ground 
of  its  being  wanting  in  one  Greek  and  some  an- 
cient Latin  manuscripts ; but  would  rather  sup- 
pose that  in  this,  as  in  some  other  passages,  Luke 
lias  neglected  the  order  of  time,  and  inserted  the 
incident  somewhat  out  of  place.  Besides  the 
works  already  referred  to,  see  Sherlock,  Trial  of 
the  Witnesses  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  1729; 
Benson's  Life  of  Christ,  p.  520,  sq. ; West,  On 
the  Resurrection  ; Mack  night’s  Harmony  of  the 
Gospels ; Lardner,  Observations  on  Dr.  Mack- 
night's  Harmony,  1764;  Newcome’s  Harmony 
of  the  Gospels , 1778 ; Tholuck,  Comment,  zu 
Johan,  xx.;  Neander,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  1839; 
Hase,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  1840.  Since  the  above 
was  in  type  we  have  seen  an  excellent  paper  by 
Professor  Robinson,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for 
Feb.  1845,  in  which  the  writer,  with  his  usual 
perspicuity,  discusses  the  alleged  discrepancies  in 
the  Gospel  narratives  of  ‘ The  Resurrection  and 
Ascension  of  our  Lord.’ 

RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY.  This 
expression  is  used  to  denote  the  revivification  of 
the  human  body  after  it  has  been  forsaken  by  the 
soul,  or  the  re-union  of  the  soul  hereafter  to  the 
body  which  it  had  occupied  in  the  present 
world.  It  is  admitted  that  there  are  no  traces  of 
such  a doctrine  in  the  earlier  Hebrew  Scripture. 
It  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  the 
historical  books,  or  in  the  Psalms;  for  Ps.  xlix. 
15,  does  not  relate  to  this  subject;  neither  does 
Ps.  civ.  29,  30,  although  so  cited  by  Theodoret 
and  others.  The  celebrated  passage  of  Job  xix. 
25,  sq.,  lias,  indeed,  been  strongly  insisted  upon 
in  proof  of  the  early  belief  in  this  doctrine; 
but  the  most  learned  commentators  are  agreed, 
and  scarcely  any  one  at  the  present  day  dis- 
putes, that  such  a view  of  the  text  arises  either 
from  mistranslation  or  misapprehension,  and  that 
Job  means  no  more  than  to  express  a confident 
conviction  that  his  then  diseased  and  dreadfully 
corrupted  body  should  be  restored  to  its  former 
soundness ; that  he  should  rise  from  the  depressed 
state  in  which  he  lay  to  his  former  prosperity ; 
and  that  God  would  manifestly  appear  (as  was 
the  case)  to  vindicate  his  uprightness.  That  no 
meaning  more  recondite  is  to  be  found  in  the 
text,  is  agreed  by  Calvin,  Mercier,  Grotius,  Le 
Clerc,  Patrick,  Warburton,  Durell,  Heath,  Ken- 
nicott,  Doderlein,  Dathe,  Eichhorn,  Jahn,  De 
Wette,  ami  a host  of  others.  That  it  alludes  to 
a resurrection  is  disproved  thus  : — 1.  The  supposi- 
th-n  is  inconsistent  with  the  design  of  the  poem 
and  the  course  of  the  argument,  since  the  belief 
which  it  has  been  supposed  to  express,  as  con- 
nected with  a future  state  of  retribution,  would 
in  a great  degree  have  solved  the  difficulty  on 
which  the  whole  dispute  turns,  and  could  not 
hut  have  been  often  alluded  to  by  the  speakers. 
5.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  connection  of  the 


discourse  the  reply  of  Zopliar  agreeing,  not  with 
the  jx>pu\ar  interpretation,  but  with  the  other. 
3.  It  is  inconsistent  with  many  passages  in  which 
the  same  person  (Job)  longs  for  death  as  the  end  of 
his  miseries,  and  not  as  the  introduction  to  a bettei 
life  (iii. ; vii.  7,  8 ; x.  20-22;  xiv. ; xvii.  II- 
16).  4.  It  is  not  proposed  as  atopic  of  conso- 

lation by  any  of  the  friends  of  Job;  nor  by 
Elihu,  who  acts  as  a sort  of  umpire  ; nor  by  the 
Almighty  himself  in  the  decision  of  the  contro- 
versy. 5.  The  later  Jews,  who  eagerly  sought 
for  every  intimation  bearing  on  a future  life 
which  their  Scriptures  might  contain,  never  re- 
garded this  as  such;  nor  is  it  once  referred  to 
by  Christ  or  his  apostles. 

Isaiah  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  Scripture 
writer  in  whom  such  an  allusion  can  be  traced.  He 
compares  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  people  and 
state  to  a resurrection  from  the  dead  (ch.  xxvi. 
19,  20) ; and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Ezekiel  at 
the  time  of  the  exile  (ch.  xxxvii.).  From  these 
passages,  which  are,  however,  not  very  clear  io 
their  intimations,  it  may  seem  that  in  this,  as  in 
other  matters,  the  twilight  of  spiritual  manifesta- 
tions brightened  as  the  day-spring  from  on  high 
approached;  and  in  Dan.  xii.  2,  we  at  length 
arrive  at  a clear  and  unequivocal  declaration, 
that  ‘Those  who  lie  sleeping  under  the  earth  shall 
awake,  some  to  eternal  life,  and  others  to  ever- 
lasting shame  and  contempt.’ 

In  the  time  of  Christ,  the  belief  of  a resurrec- 
tion, in  connection  with  a slate  of  future  retribu- 
tion, was  held  by  the  Pharisees  and  the  great  body 
of  the  Jewish  people,  and  was  only  disputed  by  the 
Sadducees.  Indeed,  they  seem  to  have  regarded 
the  future  life  as  incomplete  without  the  body  ; 
and  so  intimately  were  the  two  things — the  future 
existence  of  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
body — connected  in  their  minds,  that  any  argu- 
ment which  proved  the  former,  they  considered  as 
proving  the  latter  also  (see  Matt.  xxii.  3 1 ; 1 Cor. 
xv.  32).  This  belief,  however,  led  their  coarse 
minds  into  gross  and  sensuous  conceptions  of  the 
future  state,  although  there  were  many  among 
the  Pharisees  who  taught  that  the  future  body 
would  be  so  refined  as  not.  to  need  the  indulgences 
which  were  necessary  in  the  present  life;  ard 
they  assented  to  our  Lord’s  assertion,  that  the 
risen  saints  would  not  marry,  but  would  be  as 
the  angels  of  God  (Matt.  xxii.  30 ; comp.  Luke 
xx,  39).  So  Paul,  in  1 Cor.  vi.  13,  is  conceived 
to  intimate  that  the  necessit  y of  food  for  subsistence 
will  be  abolished  in  the  world  to  come. 

In  further  proof  of  the  commonness  of  a belief 
in  the  resurrection  among  the  Jews  of  the  time  of 
Clirist,  see  Matt,  xxii.,  Luke  xx.,  John  xi.  24, 
Acts  xxiii.  6-8.  Josephus  is  not  to  be  relied 
upon  in  the  account  which  he  gives  of  the  belief  of 
his  countrymen  ( Antiq . xviii.  2;  De  Bell.  Jud., 
ii.  7),  as  he  appears  to  use  terms  which  might 
suggest  one  thing  to  his  Jewish  readers,  and  ano- 
ther to  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  who  scouted  the 
idea  of  a resurrection.  Many  Jews  believed  that 
the  wicked  would  not  be  raised  from  the  dead  ; 
but  the  contrary  was  the  more  prevailing  opinion, 
in  which  St.  Paul  once  took  occasion  to  express  his 
concurrence  with  the  Pharisees  (Acts  xxiv.  15). 

But  although  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
was  thus  prevalent  among  the  Jews  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  it  might  still  have  been  doubtful  and 
obscure  to  us,  had  not  Christ  given  to  it  the  aasio 


RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY. 


REUBEN. 


611 


tion  of  his  authority,-  and  declared  it  a constituent 
part  of  his  religion  (e.  g.,  Matt.  xxii. ; John  v., 
viii.,  xi.).  He  and  his  apostles  also  were  careful 
to  correct  the  erroneous  notions  which  the  Jews 
entertained  on  this  head,  and  to  make  the  sub- 
ject more  obvious  and  intelligible  than  it  had 
ever  been  before.  A special  interest  is  also  im- 
parted to  the  subject  from  the  manner  in  which 
the  New  Testament  represents  Christ  as  the  person 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  this  benefit,  which, 
by  every  variety  of  argument  and  illustration, 
the  apostles  connect  with  him,  and  make  to 
rest,  upon  him  (Acts  iv.  2;  xxvi.  3 ; 1 Cor.  xv. , 
1 Thess.  iv.  14,  &c.). 

The  principal  points  which  can  be  collected 
from  the  New  Testament  on  this  subject  are  the 
following  : — 1.  The  raising  of  the  dead  is  every 
where  ascribed  to  Christ,  and  is  represented  as 
the  last  work  to  be  undertaken  by  him  for  the 
salvation  of  man  (John  v.  21 ; xi.  25;  1 Cor.  xv. 
22,  sq. ; 1 Thess.  iv.  15;  Rev.  i.  18).  All  the 
dead  will  be  raised,  without  respect  to  age,  rank, 
or  character  in  this  world  (John  v.  28,  29  ; Acts 
xxiv.  15;  1 Cor.  xv.  22).  3.  This  event  is  to 

take  place  not  before  the  end  of  the  world,  or  the 
general  judgment  (John  v.  21  ; vi.  39,  40 ; xi. 
24  ; 1 Cor.  xv.  22-28  ; 1 Thess.  iv.  15  ; Rev.  xx. 
11).  4.  The  manner  in  which  this  marvellous 

change  shall  be  accomplished  is  necessarily  be- 
yond our  present  comprehension  ; and,  therefore, 
the  Scripture  is  content  to  illustrate  it  by  figura- 
tive representations,  or  by  proving  the  possibility 
and  intelligibility  of  the  leading  facts.  Some  of 
the  figurative  descriptions  occur  in  John  v. ; Matt, 
xxiv.;  1 Cor.  15.  52;  1 Thess.  iv.  16  ; Phil.  iii. 
2 1 . The  image  of  a trumpet-call,  which  is  re- 
peated in  some  of  these  texts,  is  derived  from  the 
Jewish  custom  of  convening  assemblies  by  sound 
of  trumpet.  5.  The  possibility  of  a resurrection 
is  powerfully  argued  by  Paul  in  1 Cor.  xv.  32, 
sq.,  by  comparing  it  with  events  of  common  oc- 
currence in  the  natural  world.  (See  also  ver.  12- 
14,  and  compare  Acts  iv.  2.) 

But  although  this  body  shall  be  so  raised  as  to 
preserve  its  identity,  it  must  yet  undergo  certain 
purifying  changes  to  fit  it  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  to  render  it  capable  of  immortality 
(1  Cor.  xv.  35,  sq.),  so  that  it  shall  become  a 
glorified  body  like  that  of  Christ  (ver.  49  ; 
Rom.  vi.  9 ; Phil.  iii.  21)  ; and  the  bodies  of 
those  whom  the  last  day  finds  alive,  will  undergo 
a similar  change  without  tasting  death  (1  Cor. 
xv.  51,  53;  2 Cor.  v.  4;  1 Thess.  iv.  15,  sq. ; 
Phil.  iii.  21). 

The  extent  of  change  consistent  with  per- 
sonal identity  is  so  great,  that  its  limits  have 
been  variously  estimated,  and  can  never  be  in 
this  life  clearly  defined.  We  are,  therefore,  not 
disposed  to  enter  into  the  subject  here.  The  plain 
language  of  Scripture  seems  to  suggest  that  it 
will  be  so  great,  that  the  old  body  will  have  little 
more  relation  to  the  new  one  than  the  seed  has  to 
the  plant.  But  that  there  is  no  analogy — that 
the  new  body  will  have  no  connection  with,  and 
no  relation  to  the  old ; and  that,  in  fact,  the  re- 
surrection of  the  body  is  not  a doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture,— does  not  appear  to  us  to  have  been  satis- 
factorily proved  by  the  latest  writer  on  the  sub- 
ject (Bush,  Anastasis,  1845) ; and  we  think  so 
highly  of  his  ingenuity  and  talent,  as  to  be- 
lieve that  no  one  else  is  likely  to  succeed  in 


an  argument  in  which  he  has  failed  (Knapp, 
Christian  Theology , translated  by  Leonard 
Woods,  D.D.,  § 151-153;  Hody,  On  the  Resur- 
rection; Drew,  Essay  on  the  Resurrection  oj 
the  Human  Body ; Burnet,  State  of  the  Dead ; 
Schott,  Dissert,  de  Resurrect.  Corporis , adv. 
S.  Burnetum , 1763 ; Teller,  Fides  Dogmat. 
de  Resurr.  Carnis , 1766  ; Mosheim,  De  Christ. 
Resurr.  Mort.,  & c.  in  Dissertatt.,  ii.  526,  sq. ; 
Dassov.,  Diatr.  qua  Judocor.  de  Resurr.  Mort. 
sentent.  ex  plur.  Rabbinis,  1675;  Neander,  All. 
K.  Geschichte,  i.  3,  pp.  1088,  10§6  ; ii.  3,  pp. 
1404-1410;  Zehrt,  Ueber  d.  Auferstehung  d. 
Todten,  1835). 

REUBEN  behold  a son  • Sept.'PoojSrjv), 

eldest  son  of  Jacob  by  Leah  (Gen.  xxix.  32; 
xxxv.  23 ; xlvi.  8).  His  improper  intercourse 
with  Bilhah,  his  father’s  concubine  wife,  was  an 
enormity  too  great,  for  Jacob  ever  to  forget,  and 
he  spoke  of  it  with  abhorrence  even  on  his  dying 
bed  (Gen.  xxxii.  22;  xlix.  4).  Yet  the  part  taken 
by  him  in  the  case  of  Joseph,  whom  he  iutended 
to  rescue  from  the  hands  of  his  brothers  and  re- 
store to  his  father,  and  whose  supposed  death  he  so 
sincerely  lamented,  exhibits  his  character  in  an 
amiable  point  of  view  (Gen.  xxxvii.  21,  22,  29, 
30).  We  are,  however,  to  remember,  that  he,  as 
the  eldest  son,  was  more  responsible  for  the  safety 
of  Joseph  than  were  the  others ; and  it  would 
seem  that  he  eventually  acquiesced  in  the  decep- 
tion practised  upon  his  father.  Subsequently, 
Reuben  offered  to  make  the  lives  of  his  own  sons 
responsible  for  that  of  Benjamin,  when  it  was 
necessary  to  prevail  on  Jacob  to  let  him  go  down 
to  Egypt  (Gen.  xlii.  37,  38).  The  fine  conduct 
of  Judah  in  afterwards  undertaking  the  same  re- 
sponsibility, is  in  advantageous  contrast  with  this 
coarse,  although  well-meant,  proposal.  For  his 
conduct  in  the  matter  of  Bilhah,  Jacob,  in  his 
last  blessing,  deprived  him  of  the  pre-eminence 
and  double  portion  which  belonged  to  his  birth- 
right, assigning  the  former  to  Judah,  and  the 
latter  to  Joseph  (Gen.  xlix.  3,  4 ; comp.  ver.  8-10  ; 
xlviii.  5).  The  doom,  ‘ Thou  shalt  not  excel,’ 
was  exactly  fulfilled  in  the  destinies  of  the  tribe 
descended  from  Reuben,  which  makes  no  figure 
in  the  Hebrew  history,  and  never  produced  any 
eminent  person.  At  the  time  of  the  Exodus, 
this  tribe  numbered  46,500  adult  males,  which 
ranked  it  as  the  seventh  in  population  ; but  at  the 
later  census  before  entering  Canaan,  its  numbers 
had  decreased  to  43,730,  which  rendered  it  the 
ninth  in  population  (Num.  i.  21 ; xxvi.  5).  The 
Reubenitfcs  received  for  their  inheritance  the  fine 
pasture  land  (the  present  Belka)  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan,  which  to  a cattle-breeding  people,  as 
they  were,  must  have  been  very  desirable  (Num. 
xxxii.  1 sq. ; xxxiv.  14;  Josh.  i.  14;  xv.  17). 
This  lay  south  of  the  territories  of  Gad  (Deut.  iii. 
12, 16),  and  north  of  the  river  Arnon.  Although 
thus  settled  earlier  than  the  other  tribes,  excepting 
Gad  and  half  Manasseh,  who  shared  with  them 
the  territory  beyond  the  Jordan,  the  Reubenites 
willingly  assisted  their  brethren  in  the  wars  of 
Canaan  (Num.  xxxii.  27,  29;  Josh.  iv.  12); 
after  which  they  returned  to  their  own  lands 
(Josh.  xxii.  15);  and  we  hear  little  more  of 
them  till  the  time  of  Hazael,  king  of  Syria, 
■who  ravaged  and  for  a time  held  possession  of 
their  country  (2  Kings  x.  33).  The  Reubenites* 


*12  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 


ami  the  other  tribes  beyoml  the  river,  were  natu- 
rally the  first  to  give  way  before  the  invaders  from 
the  East,  and  were  the  first  of  all  the  Israelites 
sent  into  exile  by  Tiglath-pileser,  king  of  Assyria, 
b.c.  773  (1  Chron.  v.  26). 

REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  The  follow- 
ing topics  in  relation  to  this  book  demand  ex- 
amination : — 

I.  The  person  by  whom  it  was  written. 

II.  Its  canonical  authority,  genuineness,  and 
authenticity. 

III.  The  time  and  place  at  which  it  was 
written. 

IV.  Its  unity. 

V.  The  class  of  writings  to  which  it  belongs. 

VI.  The  object  for  which  it  was  originally 
written. 

VII.  Its  contents. 

VIII.  Some  errors  into  which  the  interpreters 
of  it  have  fallen. 

I.  The  author  styles  himself  John,  but  not  an 
apostle  (i.  4,  9 ; xxii.  8).  Hence  some  have 
attributed  the  book  to  another  John,  usually 
designated  the  presbyter.  Formerly,  indeed,  the 
existence  of  such  a person  was  unknown  or 
doubted,  the  historic  grounds  adduced  in  proof 
of  his  separate  individuality  being  impugned  or 
otherwise  explained.  (So  Guerike  in  his  Bei- 
triige  zur  Historisch-kritiscken  Einleit .,  1831, 
8vo.)  But  this  writer  has  repently  revoked  his 
doubts,  contented  with  affirming  that  the  historic 
basis  on  which  the  existence  of  the  Ephesian 
presbyter  rests,  is  assuredly  feeble.  The  chief 
argument  for  believing  that  there  was  another 
John  besides  the  apostle,  exists  in  a passage  from 
Papiasof  Hierapolis,  preserved  in  Eusebius  (Hist. 
Eccles.  iii.  39).  In  this  fragment,  several  of  the 
apostles,  among  whom  is  John,  are  mentioned ; 
while,  immediately  after,  the  presbyter  John  is 
specified  along  with  Aristion.  Thus  the  presbyter 
is  clearly  distinguished  from  the  apostle  (see 
Wieseler,  in  the  Theol.  Mitcirbeiten , iii.  4.  113, 
sq.~).  ■ In  addition  to  Papias,  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  25),  Euse- 
bius himself  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39),  and  Jerome 
(Catal.  Scriptor.  Ecclesiast.'),  allude  to  the  pres- 
byter. We  must  therefore  believe,  with  Liicke, 
Bleek,  Credner,  Neander,  Ilitzig,  and,  indeed,  all 
the  ablest  critics  who  have  had  occasion  to  speak 
of  this  point,  that  there  were  two  Johns  : one  the 
apostle,  the  other  the  presbyter. 

It  has  been  much  debated  which  of  the  two 
wrote  the  book  before  us.  On  the  continent  the 
prevailing  current  of  opinion,  if  not  in  favour  of 
the  presbyter,  is  at  least  against  the  apostle.  In 
England  the  latter  is  still  regarded  as  the  writer, 
more  perhaps  by  a kind  of  traditional  belief,  than 
as  the  result  of  enlightened  examination. 

The  arguments  against  assigning  the  author- 
ship to  the  apostle  John  are  the  following. 

1.  The  Apocalyptic  writer  calls  himself  John, 
while  the  Evangelist  never  does  so.  So  Dionysius 
of  Alexandria,  as  related  by  Eusebius  (Hist. 
Ecctes.  vii.  25}.  De  Wette  repeats  the  observa- 
tion as  deserving  at  least  of  attention.  In  addition 
to  this  circumstance,  it  has  been  affirmed  by 
Ewald,  Credner,  and  Hitzig,  that  in  chaps,  xviii. 
20,  and  xxi.  14,  the  apostle  expressly  excludes 
himself  from  the  number  of  the  apostles. 

2.  The  language  of  the  book  is  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  three 


epistles  of  John  the  Apostle.  It  is  characterized 
by  strong  Hebraisms  and  ruggednesses,  by  negli« 
gences  of  expression  and  grammatical  inaccura- 
cies •,  while  it  exhibits  the  absence  of  pure  Greek 
words,  and  of  the  apostle’s  favourite  expressions. 
So  De  Wette. 

3.  The  style  is  unlike  that  which  appears  in 
the  Gospel  and  epistles.  In  the  latter,  there  is 
calm,  deep  feeling  ; in  the  Apocalypse,  a lively, 
creative  power  of  fancy.  In  connection  with  this 
it  has  been  asserted,  that  the  mode  of  representing 
objects  and  images  is  artificial  and  Jewish.  On 
the  contrary,  John  the  son  of  Zebedee  was  an 
illiterate  man  in  the  Jewish  sense  of  that  epithet; 
a man  whose  mental  habits  and  education  were 
Greek  rather  than  Jewish,  and  who,  in  conse- 
quence of  this  character,  makes  little  or  no  use  of 
the  Old  Testament  or  of  Hebrew  learning.  So 
De  Wette. 

4.  It  is  alleged  that  the  doctrinal  aspect  of  the 
Apocalypse  is  different  from  that  of  the  apostle’s 
acknowledged  writings.  In  the  latter  we  find 
nothing’'  of  the  sensuous  expectations  of  the  Mes- 
siah and  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom  or 
earth,  which  are  so  prominent  in  the  former 
Besides,  the  views  inculcated  or  implied  respect- 
ing spirits,  demons,  and  angels,  are  foreign  to 
John.  A certain  spirit  of  revenge,  too,  flows  and 
burns  throughout  the  Apocalypse,  a spirit  incon- 
sistent with  the  mild  and  amiable  disposition  of 
the  beloved  disciple. 

Such  are  the  arguments  advanced  by  De  Wette. 
They  are  chiefly  based  on  the  investigations  of 
Ewald  and  Liicke.  Credner,  who  speaks  with  the 
same  confidence  respecting  the  non-apostolic  origii. 
of  the  book,  has  repeated,  enlarged,  and  confirmee 
them.  It  will  be  observed,  however,  that  they  are 
all  internal , and  do  no  more  than  prepare  tne 
way  for  proving  that  John  the  Presbyter  was  the 
writer.  Let  us  glance  at  the  external  evidence 
adduced  for  the  same  purpose. 

In  the  third  century,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
ascribed  the  book  to  John  the  Presbyter,  not  to 
John  the  Apostle  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  25). 
The  testimony  of  this  writer  has  been  so  often  and 
so  much  insisted  on,  that  it  is  necessary  to  adduce 
it  at  length.  ‘ Some  who  were  before  us  have 
utterly  rejected  and  confuted  this  book,  criticising 
every  chapter,  showing  it  to  be  throughout  unin- 
telligible and  inconsistent ; adding,  moreover, 
that  the  inscription  is  false,  forasmuch  as  it  is 
not  John’s;  nor  is  it  a revelation  which  is  hidden 
under  so  obscure  and  thick  a veil  of  ignorance ; 
and  that  not  only  no  apostle,  but  not  so  much  as 
any  holy  or  ecclesiastical  man  was  the  author  of 
this  writing;  but  that  Cerinthus,  founder  of  the 
heresy  called  after  him  Cerinthian,  the  better  to 
recommend  his  own  forgery,  prefixed  to  it  an 
honourable  name.  For  this  (they  say)  was  one  of 
his  particular  notions,  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
should  be  earthly ; consisting  of  those  things 
which  he  himself,  a carnal  and  sensual  man, 
most  admired, — the  pleasures  of  the  belly  and  of 
concupiscence ; that  is,  eating  and  drinking  and 
marriage ; and  for  the  more  decent  procurement 
of  these,  leastings  and  sacrifices,  and  slaughters 
of  victims.  But  for  my  part,  I dare  not  reject 
the  book,  since  many  of  the  brethren  have  it  in 
high  esteem  : but  allowing  it  to  be  above  my 
understanding,  I suppose  it  to  contain  throughout 
some  latent  and  wonderful  meaning;  for  thougk 


REVELATION.  BOOK  OF.  613 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

1 do  not  understand  it,  I suspect  there  must  be 
some  profound  sense  in  the  words;  not  measuring 
and  judging  these  things  by  my  own  reason,  but 
ascribing  more  to  faith,  I esteem  them  too  sublime 
to  be  comprehended  by  me.  Nor  do  I condemn 
what  I have  not  been  able  to  understand ; but  I 
admire  the  more,  because  they  are  above  my  reach. 

And  having  finished  in  a manner  his 

prophecy,  the  prophet  pronounceth  those  blessed 
that  keep  it,  and  also  himself.  For  “ blessed  is 
every  one,”  says  he,  “ that  keepeth  the  words  of 
the  prophecy  of  this  book ; and  I John,  who  saw 
and  heard  these  things  ” (Rev.  xxii.  7,  8).  I do 
not  deny  then  that  his  name  is  John,  and  that 
'ids  is  John's  book,  for  I acknowledge  it  to  be  the 
work  of  some  holy  and  divinely  inspired  person. 
Nevertheless  I cannot  easily  grant  him  to  be  the 
apostle  the  son  of  Zebedee,  brother  of  James, 
whose  is  the  Gospel  inscribed  according  to  John 
and  the  Catholic  epistle;  for  I conclude,  from 
the  manner  of  each,  and  the  turn  of  expression, 
and  from  the  conductor  disposition)  of  the  book, 
as  we  call  it,  that  he  is  not  the  same  person.  For 
the  Evangelist  nowhere  puts  down  his  name,  nor 
does  he  speak  of  himself  either  in  the  Gospel  or 
in  the  epistle.’  Then  a little  after  he  says  again, 

‘ John  nowhere  speaks  as  concerning  himself  nor 
as  concerning  another.  But  he  who  wrote  the 
Revelation,  immediately  at  the  very  beginning 
prefixeth  his  name  : *•  the  Revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  God  gave  unto  him  to  show  unto 
his  servants  things  which  must  shortly  come  to 
pass.  And  he  sent  and  signified  it  by  his  angel 
unto  his  servant  John,  who  bare  record  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  his  testimony,  the  things  which 
he  saw  ” (Rev.  i.  1,  2).  And  then  he  writes  an 
epistle,  “ John  unto  the  seven  churches  in  Asia. 
Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace  ” (ver.  4).  But  the 
Evangelist  has  not  prefixed  his  name,  no,  not  to 
his  Catholic  epistle ; but  without  any  circum- 
locution begins  with  the  mystery  itself  of  the 
divine  revelation,  “that  which  was  from  the  be- 
ginning, which  we  have  heard,  which  we  have 
seen  with  our  eyes  ” (1  John"  i.  1).  And  for  the 
like  revelation  the  Lord  pronounced  Peter  blessed, 
saying,  “ Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona ; for 
flesh  and  blood  has  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven”  (Matt.  xvi.  17). 
Nor  yet  in  the  second  or  third  epistle  ascribed  to 
John,  though,  indeed,  they  are  but  short  epistles, 
is  the  name  of  John  prefixed ; for  without  any 
name  he  is  called  the  elder.  But  this  other 
person  thought  it  not  sufficient  to  name  himself 
once  and  then  proceed,  but  he  repeats  it  again, 
“ I,  John,  who  am  your  brother  and  companion  in 
tribulation,  and  in  the  kingdom  and  patience  of 
Jesus  Christ,  was  in  the  isle  called  Patmos  for 
the  testimony  of  Jesus”  (Rev.  i.  9).  And  at  the 
end  he  says,  “ Blessed  is  he  that  keepeth  the  say- 
ings of  the  prophecy  of  this  book;  and  I,  John, 
who  saw  and  heard  these  things  55  (ch.  xxii.  7,  8). 
Therefore,  that  it  was  John  who  wrote  these  things, 
ought  to  be  believed  because  he  says  so.  But 
who  he  was  is  uncertain  ; for  he  has  not  said,  as 
in  the  Gospel  often,  that  he  is  “ the  disciple  whom 
the  Lord  loved  ;”  t or  that  he  is  he  “ who  leaned 
on  his  breast nor  the  brother  of  James ; nor  that 
he  is  one  of  them  who  saw  and  heard  the  Lord  : 
whereas  he  would  have  mentioned  some  of  these 
things  if  he  had  intended  plainly  to  discover  him- 
self. Oi  these  things  he  says  not  a word  : bat  he 


calls  himself  our  “brother  and  companion,  and 
witness  of  Jesus,”  and  “ blessed,”  because  he  saw 
and  heard  those  revelations.  And  I suppose 
there  were  many  of  the  same  name  with  John  the 
apostle,  who  for  the  love  they  bore  to  him,  and 
because  they  admired  and  emulated  him,  and 
were  ambitious  of  being  beloved  of  the  Lord  like 
him,  were  desirous  of  having  the  same  name: 
even  as  many  also  of  the  children  of  the  faithful 
are  called  by  the  names  of  Paul  and  Peter.  There 
is  another  John  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  sur- 
named  Mark,  whom  Paul  and  Barnabas  took  for 
their  companion : concerning  whom  it  is  again 
said,  “and  they  had  John  for  their  minister”  (Acts 
xiii.  5).  But  that  he  is  the  person  who  wrote 
this  book,  I would  not  affirm.  But  I think  that 
he  is  another,  one  of  them  that  belong  to  Asia ; 
since  it  is  said  that  there  are  two  tombs  at  Ephesus, 
each  of  them  called  John’s  tomb.  And  from  the 
sentiments  and  words,  and  disposition  of  them,  it 
is  likely  that  he  is  different  (from  him  that  wrote 
the  Gospel  and  Epistle).  For  the  Gospel  and 
Epistle  have  a mutual  agreement,  and  begin 
alike.  The  one  says,  “ In  the  beginning  was  the 
word ;”  the  other,  “ That  which  was  from  the  be- 
ginning.” The  former  says,  “ And  the  word  was 
made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld 
his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the 
Father.”  The  latter  has  the  same  with  a slight 
variation  : “ That  which  we  have  heard,  which  we 
have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked 
upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  word 
of  life.  For  the  life  was  manifested.”  He  is  uni- 
form throughout,  and  wanders  not  in  the  least 
from  the  points  he  proposed  to  himself,  but  prose- 
cutes them  in  the  same  chapters  and  words,  some 
of  which  we  shall  briefly  observe  : for  whoever 
reads  with  attention  will  often  find  in  both  “ life ;” 
frequently  “ light,”  the  “ avoiding  of  darkness 
oftentimes  “ truth,  grace,  joy,  the  flesh  and  the 
blood  of  the  Lord  ; judgment,  forgiveness  of  sins, 
the  love  of  God  toward  us,  the  commandment  of 
love  one  toward  another ; the  judgment  of  this 
world,  of  the  devil,  of  anti-christ;  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  adoption  of  the  sons  of  God, 
the  faith  constantly  required  of  us,  the  Father 
and  the  Son,”  every  where.  And,  in  short,  through- 
out the  Gospel  and  Epistle  it  is  easy  to  observe 
one  and  the  same  character.  But  the  Revelation 
is  quite  different  and  foreign  from  these,  without 
any  affinity  or  resemblance,  not  having  so  much 
as  a syllable  in  common  with  them.  Nor  does 
the  Epistle  (for  I do  not  here  insist  on  the  Gospel) 
mention  or  give  any  hint  of  the  Revelation,  nor  the 
Revelation  of  the  Epistle.  And  yet  Paul,  in  his 
Epistles,  has  made  some  mention  of  his  Revela- 
tions, though  he  never  wrote  them  in  a separate 
book.  Besides,  it  is  easy  to  observe  the  difference 
of  the  style  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle  from 
that  of  the  Revelation;  for  they  are  not  only 
written  correctly,  according  to  the  propriety  of 
the  Greek  tongue,  but  with  great  elegance  of 
phrase  and  argument,  and  the  whole  contexture 
of  the  discourse.  So  far  are  they  from  all  bar- 
barism or  solecism,  or  idiotism  of  language,  that 
nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found  in  them ; for 
he,  as  it  seems,  had  each  of  those  gifts,  the  Lord 
having  bestowed  upon  him  both  these,  knowledge 
and  eloquence.  As  to  the  other,  I will  not  deny 
that  he  saw  the  Revelation,  or  that  he  had  received 
the  gift  of  knowledge  and  prophecy.  But  I do 


614  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  REVELATION,  BOOK  O*, 


Dot  perceive  in  him  an  accurate  acquaintance 
with  the  Greek  language  : on  the  contrary,  he 
uses  barbarous  idioms,  and  some  solecisms,  which 
it  is  necessary  that  I should  now  show  par- 
ticularly, for  I do  not  write  by  way  of  ridicule ; 
let  none  think  so.  I simply  intend  to  represent  in 
a critical  manner  the  difference  of  these  pieces.’ 

Here  are  critical  arguments  which  the  mo- 
derns have  not  failed  to  adduce  and  enlarge.  Eu- 
sebius expresses  himself  in  an  undecided  way 
respecting  the  Apocalypse  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  21, 
25),  for  which  it  is  difficult  to  account.,  on  the 
supposition  that  prevalent  traditiou  attributed  it 
to  the  Apo§tle  John. 

Thus  all  the  external  evidence  directly  in 
favour  of  John  the  Presbyter  resolves  itself  into 
the  authority  of  Dionysius,  who  rested  his  proofs 
not  on  the  testimony  of  his  predecessors,  but  on 
internal  argument.  Eusebius  speaks  so  hesi- 
tatingly, that  nothing  can  be  determined  with 
respect  to  his  real  opinion. 

On  the  whole,  there  is  no  direct  evidence  in 
favour  of  the  opinion  that  John  the  Presbyter  wrote 
the  Apocalypse.  Many  internal  considerations 
have  l>een  adduced  to  show  that  John  the  Apostle 
was  not  the  author  ; but  no  direct  argument  has 
been  advanced  to  prove  that  John  the  Presbyter 
was  the  writer.  Indeed,  our  existing  accounts  of 
the  presbyter  are  so  brief,  as  to  afford  no  data  for 
associating  the  writing  of  this  book  with  his  name. 
All  that  we  know  from  antiquity  is,  that  both 
Johns  were  contemporary,  that  they  are  called 
disciples  of  the  Lord,  that  they  resided  in  Asia 
Minor,  and  that  their  tombs  were  shown  at  Ephe- 
sus. It  is  vain  to  appeal  to  the  second  and  third 
epistles  of  John  for  comparing  the  Apocalypse 
with  them,  with  Credner  and  Jachmann  (Pelt’s 
Mitarheiten , 1839),  who  think  that  they  proceeded 
from  the  presbyter;  since,  to  say  the  least,  the 
hypothesis  that  these  epistles  were  written  by 
John  the  Presbyter  has  not  yet  been  established. 
Still,  however,  notwithstanding  this  deficiency  of 
evidence,  Bleek,  Credner,  and  Jachmann,  follow- 
ing Dionysius,  attribute  the  book  to  John  the 
Presbyter. 

Others  think  that  a disciple  of  John  undertook 
to  write  on  a subject  which  he  had  received  from 
the  apostle  ; and  that  he  thought  himself  justified 
in  introducing  his  instructor  as  the  speaker,  be- 
cause he  wrote  in  his  manner.  So  Ewald,  Liicke, 
Schott,  and  Neander. 

Hitzig  has  lately  written  a treatise  to  prove 
that  the  writer  is  John  Mark,  the  same  from 
whom  the  second  Gospel  proceeded.  His  argu- 
ments are  mainly  based  on  parallelisms  of  lan- 
guage and  construction  ( Ueber  Johannes  Marcus 
and  seine  Schriften,  oder  welcher  Johannes  hat 
die  Offenbarung  verfasst?  Zurich,  8vo.  1843). 

In  stating  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  apostle 
as  the  writer,  we  begin  with  the  external. 

Justin  Martyr  is  the  earliest  writer  who  attri- 
butes it  to  John  the  Apostle  (Dial,  cum  Tryph.). 
Rettig,  indeed,  has  endeavoured  to  impugn  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  containing  this  testi- 
mony, but  he  has  been  well  answered  by  Liicke, 
and  by  Guerike  (Tholuck’s  Literarischer  Anzei - 
per,  1830).  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
and  Origen,  ascribe  it  to  the  apostle;  and,  as  De 
Wette  candidly  remarks,  the  testimony  of  the 
last  two  is  the  more  important,  as  they  were  not 
millennarians.  When  Irenaeus  says  that  it  was 


written  by  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  it 
uncertain  whether  he  meant  the  apostle  or  the 
presbyter,  although  the  former  is  far  more  >wo- 
bable. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  internal  evidence  in 
favour  of  John  the  Apostle,  beginning  with  an 
examination  of  the  arguments  adduced  on  the 
other  side  by  De  Wette.  These  do  not  possess 
all  the  weight  that  many  assign  to  them.  We 
shall  follow  the  order  in  which  they  have  been 
already  stated. 

1.  We  attach  no  importance  to  this  circum- 
stance. Why  should  not  a writer  be-  at  liberty 
to  name  himself  or  not  as  he  pleases  ; above  all, 
why  should  not  a writer,  under  the  immediate 
inspiration  of  the  Almighty,  omit  the  particulars 
which  he  was  not  prompted  to  record?  How 
could  he  refrain  from  doing  so?  The  Holy 
Spirit  must  have  had  some  good  reason  for  lead- 
ing the  writer  to  set  forth  his  name,  although 
curiosity  is  not  gratified  by  assigning  the  reason. 
The  Old  Testament  prophets  usually  prefixed 
their  names  to  the  visions  and  predictions  which 
they  were  prompted  to  record  ; and  John  does 
the  same.  But  instead  of  styling  himself  an 
apostle,  which  carries  with  it  an  idea  of  dignity 
and  official  authority,  he  modestly  takes  to  him- 
self the  appellation  of  a servant  of  Christ , the 
brother  and-  companion  of  the  faithful  in  tribu- 
lation. This  corresponds  with  the  relation  which 
he  sustained  to  Christ  in  the  receiving  of  such 
visions,  as  also  with  the  condition  of  the  Redeemer 
himself.  In  the  Gospel,  John  is  mentioned  as  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  for  then  he  stood  in  an 
intimate  relation  to  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  man  ap- 
pearing in  the  form  of  a servant ; but  in  the  book 
before  us,  Christ  is  announced  as  the  glorified 
Redeemer  who  should  quickly  come  to  judgment, 
and  John  is  his  servant , entrusted  with  the  secrets 
of  his  house.  Well  did  it  become  the  apostle  tc 
forget  all  the  honour  of  his  apostolic  office,  and 
to  be  abased  before  the  Lord  of  glory.  The  re- 
splendent vision  of  the  Saviour  had  such  an  effect 
upon  the  seer,  that  he  fell  at  his  feet  as  dead  ; and 
therefore  it  was  quite  natural  for  him  to  be  clothed 
with  profound  humility,  to  designate  himself  the 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  brother  and  companion 
of  the  faithful  in  tribulation.  Again,  in  ch.  xviii. 
20,  tire  prophets  are  said  to  be  represented  as 
already  in  heaven  in  their  glorified  condition,  and 
therefore  the  writer  could  not  have  belonged  to 
their  number.  But  this  passage  neither  affirms 
nor  necessarily  implies  that  the  saints  and  apostles 
and  prophets  were  at  that  time  in  heaven.  Neither 
is  it  stated  that  all  the  apostles  had  then  been  glo- 
rified. Chapter  xxi.  14  is  alleged  to  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  modesty  and  humility  of  John.  This 
is  a questionable  assumption.  The  official  honour 
inseparable  from  the  person  of  an  apostle  was 
surely  compatible  with  profound  humility.  It 
was  so  witli  Paul;  and  we  may  safely  draw  the 
same  conclusion  in  regard  to  John.  In  describing 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem  it  was  necessary  to  intro- 
duce the  twelve  apostles.  The  writer  could  not 
exclude  himself  (see  Liicke,  p.  389  ; and  Gue- 
rike's  Beitrdge , p.  37,  sq.). 

2.  To  enter  fully  into  this  argument  would  re- 
quire a lengthened  treatise.  Let  us  briefly  notice 
the  particular  words,  phrases,  and  expressions,  to 
which  Ewald,  LUcke,  De  Wette,  and  Crednei 
specially  allude.  Much  has  been  written  by 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

Ewald  concerning  the  Hebraistic  character  of 
tiie  language.  The  writer,  it  is  alleged,  strongly 
imbued  with  Hebrew  inodes  of  thought,  frequently 
inserts  Hebrew  words,  as  in  iii.  11 ; ix.  11  ; xii.  9, 
10  ; xix.  1,  3,  4,  6 ; xx.  2;  xxii.  20  ; while  the 
influence  of  cabbalistic  artificiality  is  obvious 
throughout  the  entire  book,  and  particularly  in 
i.  4,  5 ; iv.  2;  xiii.  18  ; xvi.  14.  The  mode  of 
employing  the  tenses  is  foreign  to  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, and  moulded  after  the  Hebrew  (i.  7;  ii.  5, 
10,  22,  23,  27  ; iii.  9;  iv.  9-11  ; xii.  2-4  ; xvi. 
15,  21;  xvii.  13,  14;  xviii.  11,15;  xxii.  7,  12). 
So  also  the  use  of  the  participle  (i.  16  ; iv.  i,  5, 
8 ; v.  6,  13  j vi.  2,  5 ; vii.  0,  10;  ix.  1 1 ; x.  2 ; 
xiv.  1,  14;  xix.  12,  13;  xxi.  14);  and  of  the 
infinitive  (xii.  7).  The  awkward  disposition  of 
words  is  also  said  to  be  Hebraistic  ; such  as  a 
genitive  appended  like  the  construct  state ; the 
stringing  together  of  several  genitives  (xiv.  8,  10, 
19  ; xvi.  19  ; xviii.  3,  14  ; xix.  15  ; xxi.  6 ; xxii. 
18,  19);  and  the  use  of  the  Greek  cases,  which 
are  frequently  changed  for  prepositions  (ii.  10  ; 
iii.  9 ; vi.  1,  8 ; viii.  7 ; ix.  19  ; xi.  6,  9 ; xii.  5 ; 
xiv.  2,  7)  ; incorrectness  in  appositions  (i.  5 ; ii. 
20;  iii.  12;  iv.  2-4;  vi.  1 ; vii.  9;  viii.  9;  ix. 
14;  xiii.  1-3;  xiv.  2,  12,  14,  20,  &c.) ; a con- 
struction formed  of  an  avrds  put  after  the  relative 
pronoun  (iii.  8;  vii.  2,  9;  xiii.  12;  xx.  8); 
frequent  anomalies  in  regard  to  number  and 
gender  (ii.  27  ; iii.  4,  5 ; iv.  8 ; vi.  9, 10  ; ix.  13, 
14;  xi.  15;  xiv.  1,3;  xvii.  16;  xix.  14  ; and 
viii.  11  ; xi.  18 ; xv.  4 ; xvii.  12,  15  ; xviii.  14  ; 
xix.  21;  xx.  12;  xxi.  4,  24  ; also  xvi.  10  ; xix. 
1,  8,  9.  In  addition  to  this  it  is  alleged  by 
Credner,  that  the  use  made  of  the  Old  Testament 
betrays  an  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  the  writer 
with  the  Hebrew  text  (comp.  vi.  13,  14  with  Isa. 
xxxiv.  4 ; xviii.  2 with  Isa.  xiii.  21,  xxi.  9, 
xxxiv.  14,  Jer.  1.  39;  xviii.  4,  5 with  Jer.  Ii.  6, 
9,  45;  xviii.  7 with  Isa.  xlvii.  7,  8 ; xviii.  21-23 
with  Jer.  xxv.  10,  li.  63,  64).  In  contrast  with 
all  this,  we  are  reminded  of  the  fact  that,  ac- 
cording to  Acts  iv.  13,  John  was  an  unlearned 
and  ignorant  man. 

The  book  is  deficient  in  words  and  turns  of  ex- 
pression purely  Greek,  such  as  iravTOTe,  iru-nore, 
ou5e7roTe;  compound  verbs,  as  dvayyeWeiv,  Trapa- 
Kag^dveiv,  iirifiuWeiv ; the  double  negation  ; the 
genitive  absolute ; the  attraction  of  the  relative 
pronoun  ; the  regular  construction  of  the  neuter 
plural  with  the  verb  singular  (except  viii.  3;  ix. 
20;  xiv.  13;  xviii.  24;  xix.  14;  xxi.  12); 
anoveiv  with  the  genitive.  Favourite  expressions, 
such  as  occur  in  the  Gospel  and  epistles,  are  sel- 
dom found,  as  dedogai,  Qeupeu,  epyd^ogai,  pygara, 
iraAiv,  (pure?!/,  geveiv,  Kadus,  us  (an  adverb  of 
time),  ovv,  gey,  gevroi,  icScrgos,  (pus,  anona, 
bo£d£e<rdai,  vxpovadai,  £ur]  aluyios,  dirdWvadai, 
ouros  ( tovto ) ‘Iva ; the  historic  present.  There 
are  also  favourite  expressions  of  the  writer  of  this 
book,  such  as  do  not  occur  in  John’s  authentic 
writings  : oiKovgevy),  virogovy,  icpareiv  rb  cvoga, 
Thp  bibaxw,  n ravTOKpdrup,  6ebs  Kal  irar^p,  bvvagis, 
kootos,  iaxvs>  rtgi],  ttput6tokos  tuu  veicpuv,  y 
dpxh  tt ]SKnaeus  rov  6eov,  5 apx^v  tuv  fia<n\euv 
TTjsyrjs,  cbSe  in  the  beginning  of  a sentence.  The 
conjunction  el,  so  common  in  the  Gospel,  does  not 
occur  in  the  Apocalypse  ; but  only  el  pci],  el  Se  pfi, 
and  ei  tis.  The  frequent  joining  of  a substantive 
with  gey  as,  as  (puvq  geya\y,  dXiipis  ueyaXy,  cpdflos 
ucyas,,  ceicrgbs  geyas,  rather  reminds  one  of  Luke 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  613 

than  John;  so  frequent  in  the  Gospel,  is 

not  found  in  the  Revelation ; and,  on  the  contrary, 
laxapds,  which  occurs  seven  times  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse,  is  foreign  to  the  Gospel.- 

The  following  discrepancies  between  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Gospel  and  that  of  the  epistles  have 
been  noticed  : aXyOwds  is  used  of  God  both  in 
the  Gospel  and  Apocalypse,  but  in  different  senses  ; 
so  also  icbpios,  and  epyd^ogai',  instead  of  75e  the 
Apocalypse  has  only  Idov  ; instead  of  ’lepoaoXvga 
only  'lepovcaXyg ; instead  of  eav  ns,  as  in  the 
Gospel,  d ns ; tt epl,  so  often  used  by  John,  occurs 
only  once  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  that  too  in  rela- 
tion to  place  ; bxXos  is  used  in  the  plural.  Words 
denoting  seeing  are  differently  used  in  the  Gospel 
and  Apocalypse : thus,  for  the  present  we  find  in 
the  latter  fiXeiveiv,  Oeupeiy,  Spay  ; for  the  aorist  of 
the  active  elSov,  /3A eireiv,  and  8eupe?y ; for  the 
future  birTecrOcu,  and  for  the  aorist  of  the  passive 
also  oirreadai ; geveiv  has  a different  meaning 
from  that  which  it  bears  in  the  Gospel ; instead 
ot  6 dpxuv  rov  Kotrjuov,  and  6 irov'qpos,  we  find  6 
aaravds,  d SidjBoXos,  o Spd.Kuv  6 gey  as. 

Such  is  a summary  statement  of  an  argument 
drawn  out  at  great  length  by  Lucke,  De  Wette, 
Ewald,  and  Credner. 

Some  have  attempted  to  turn  aside  its  force  by 
resorting  to  the  hypothesis  that  the  book  was 
originally  written  in  Hebrew,  and  then  translated 
into  Greek.  This,  however,  is  contradicted  by 
the  most  decisive  internal  evidence,  and  is  in 
itself  highly  improbable.  The  Apocalyse  was 
written  in  the  Greek  language,  as  all  antiquity 
attests.  How  then  are  we  to  account  for  its 
Hebraistic  idioms  and  solecisms  of  language,  its 
negligences  of  diction,  and  ungrammatical  con- 
structions ? One  circumstance  to  be  taken  into 
account  is,  that  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  is  widely 
different  from  that  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  latter 
is  a prophetic  book — a poetical  composition — 
while  the  former,  is  a simple  record  in  prose,  ot 
the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  days  of  his  flesh. 
It  is  apparent,  too,  that  John  in  the  Apocalypse 
imitates  the  manner  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  Tire 
New  Testament  prophet  conforms  to  the  diction 
and  symbolic  features  of  the  former  seers.  ‘If 
the  question  should  be  urged,  why  John  chose 
these  models?  the  obvious  answer  is,  that  he 
conformed  to  the  taste  of  the  times  in  which  he 
lived.  The  numerous  apocryphal  works  of  an 
Apocalyptic  nature,  which  were  composed  nearly 
at  the  same  time  with  the  Apocalypse,  such  as  the 
book  of  Enoch,  the  ascension  of  Isaiah,  the  Testa- 
ment of  the  twelve  patriarchs,  many  of  the  sibyl- 
line oracles,  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra,  the  Pastor 
of  Hermas,  and  many  others  which  are  lost — all 
testify  to  the  taste  and  feelings  of  the  times  when, 
or  near  which,  the  Apocalyse  was  written.  If  this 
method  of  writing  was  more  grateful  to  the  time 
in  which  John  lived,  it  is  a good  reason  for  his 
preferring  it.'*  In  consequence  of  such  imitat  ion, 
the  diction  has  an  Oriental  character;  and  the 
figures  are  in  the  highest  style  of  imagery  pecu- 
liar to  the  East.  But  it  is  said  that  John  was  an 
illiterate  man.  Illiterate,  doubtless,  ne  was  as  com- 
pared with  Paul,  who  was  brought  up  at  the  feet 
of  Gamaliel ; yet  he  may  have  been  capable  of 
reading  the  Old  Testament  books  ; and  ne  was  cer- 
tainly inspired.  Rapt  in  ecstasy,  he  saw  wondrous 


* Stuart,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  pp.  353,  354 


916  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

visions.  He  was  in  the  Spirit.  Ami  when  writing; 
the  things  he  beheld,  his  language  was  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  nature  of  such  marvellous  revelations. 
It.  was  to  be  adapted  to  the  mysterious  disclosures, 
the  vivid  pictures,  the  moving  scenes,  the  celestial 
beings  anti  scenery  of  which  he  was  privileged 
to  tell.  Hence  it  was  to  be  lifted  up  far  above 
the  level  of  simple  prose  or  biographic  history,  so 
as  to  correspond  with  the  sublime  visions  of  the 
seer.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  he  was  not 
in  the  circumstances  of  an  ordinary  writer.  He 
was  inspired.  How  often  is  this  fact  lost  sight 
of  by  the  German  critics  ! It  is  therefore  need- 
less to  inquire  into  his  education  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  or  his  mental  culture  while  residing  in 
Asia  Minor,  or  the  smoothness  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage as  current  in  the  place  where  he  lived, 
before  and  after  he  wrote  the  Apocalypse.  The 
Holy  Spirit  qualified  him  beyond  and  irrespec- 
tive of  ordinary  means,  for  the  work  of  writing. 
However  elevated  the  theme  he  undertook,  he  was 
assisted  in  employing  diction  as  elevated  as 
the  nature  of  the  subject  demanded.  We  place, 
therefore,  little  reliance  upon  the  argument  de- 
rived from  the  time  of  life  at  which  the  Apo- 
calypse was  composed,  though  Olshausen  and 
Guerike  insist  upon  it.  Written,  as  they  think, 
twenty  years  before  the  Gospel  or  epistles,  the 
Apocalypse  exhibits  marks  of  inexperience  in 
writing,  of  youthful  fire,  and  of  an  ardent  tem- 
perament. It  exhibits  the  first  essays  of  one  ex- 
pressing his  ideas  in  a language  to  which  he  was 
unaccustomed.  This  may  be  true;  but  we  lay 
far  less  stress  upon  it  than  these  authors  seem 
inclined  to  do.  The  strong  Hebraized  diction  of 
the  book  we  account  for  on  the  ground  that  the 
writer  was  a Jew ; and,  as  such,  expressed  his 
Jewish  conceptions  in  Greek  ; that  he  imitated 
the  later  Old  Testament  prophets,  especially  the 
manner  of  Daniel  ; and  that  the  only  prophetic 
writing  in  the  New  Testament  naturally  ap- 
proaches nearer  the  Old  Testament,  if  not  in 
subject,  at  least  in  colouring  and  linguistic 
features. 

These  considerations  may  serve  to  throw  light 
upon  the  language  of  the  book,  after  all  the 
extravagances  of  assertion  in  regard  to  anoma- 
lies, solecisms,  and  ruggednesscs,  have  been  fairly 
estimated.  For  it  cannot  be  denied  that  many  rash 
and  unwarrantable  assumptions  have  been  made 
by  De  Wette  and  others  relative  to  the  impure 
Greek  said  to  be  contained  in  the  Apocalypse. 
Winer  has  done  much  to  check  such  bold  asser- 
tions, but  with  little  success  in  the  case  of  those 
who  are  resolved  to  abide  by  a strong  and  pre- 
valent current  of  opinion.  We  venture  to  affirm, 
without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  there  are  books 
of  the  New  Testament  almost  as  Hebraizing  as 
the  Apocalypse;  and  that  the  anomalies  charged 
to  the  account  of  the  Hebrew  language  may  be 
paralleled  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  or 
in  classical  Greek.  What  shall  be  said,  for  in- 
stance, to  the  attempt  of  Hitzig  to  demonstrate 
from  the  language  of  Mark’s  Gospel,  as  compared 
with  that  of  the  Apocalypse,  that  both  proceeded 
from  one  author,  viz.,  John  Mark  ? This  author 
has  conducted  a lengthened  investigation  with 
the  view  of  showing  that  all  the  peculiarities  of 
language  found  in  the  Apocalypse  are  equally 
presented  in  the  second  Gospel,  particularly  that 
the  Hebraisms  of  the  me  correspond  with  those  of 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

the  other.  Surely  this  must  lead  to  new  investi* 
gat  ions  of  the  Apocalyptic  diction,  and  possibly 
to  a renunciation  of  those  extravagant  assertion* 
so  often  made  in  regard  to  the  harsh,  rugged, 
Hebraized  Greek  of  the  Apocalypse.  Who  ever 
dreamed  before  of  the  numerous  solecisms  ol 
Mark’s  language  ? and  yet  Hitzig  has  demon- 
strated its  similarity  to  the  Apocalyptic  as  plau- 
sibly as  Ewald,  Liicke,  and  others  have  proved 
the  total  dissimilarity  between  the  diction  of  tlie 
Apocalypse  and  that  of  John’s  Gospel. 

The  length  allotted  to  this  article  will  not 
allow  the  writer  to  notice  every  term  and  phrase 
supposed  to  be  peculiar.  This  can  only  be  done 
with  success  by  him  who  takes  a concordance  to 
the  Greek  Testament  in  his  hand,  with  the  deter- 
mination to  test  each  example ; along  with  a 
good  syntax  of  classical  Greek,  such  as  Bern- 
hardy's.  In  this  way  he  may  see  whether  the 
alleged  Hebraisms  and  anomalies  have  not  their 
parallels  in  classical  Greek.  Some  of  the  alle- 
gations already  quoted  are  manifestly  incorrect, 
e.  g.  that  aKovoo  with  the  genitive  is  not  found  in 
the  Apocalypse.  On  the  contrary,  it  occurs  eight 
times  with  the  genitive.  Other  words  are  ad 
duced  on  the  principle  of  their  not  occurring  so 
frequently  in  the  book  before  us  as  in  the  Gospel 
and  epistles.  But  by  this  mode  of  reasoning  i 
might  be  shown,  that  the  other  acknowledges 
writings  of  the  Apostle  John,  for  instance  his  first 
epistle,  are  not  authentic.  Thus  p^para,  one  ot 
the  words  quoted,  though  frequently  found  in  the 
Gospel,  is  not.  in  any  of  the  three  epistles  ; there- 
fore, these  epistles  were  not  written  by  John.  It 
is  found  once  in  the  Apocalypse.  Again,  <pyd- 
Copcu,  which  is  found  seven  times  in  the  Gospel, 
and  once  in  the  Apocalypse,  as  also  once  in  eacti 
of  the  second  and  third  epistles,  is  not  in  the  first 
epistle;  therefore  the  first  epistle  proceeded  from 
another  writer  than  the  author  of  the  second  and 
third.  The  same  reasoning  may  be  applied  to 
decDpect).  Again,  it  is  alleged  that  the  regular 
construction  of  neuters  plural  with  singular  verbs 
is  not  found,  with  the  exception  of  six  instances. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  large  list  of  exceptions,  let 
it  be  considered,  that  the  plural  verb  is  joined 
with  plural  nouns  where  animate  beings,  espe- 
cially persons,  are  designated.  Apply  now  this 
principle,  which  regularly  holds  good  in  classical 
Greek,  to  the  Apocalypse,  and  nothing  peculiar 
will  appear  in  the  latter.  Should  there  still  re- 
main examples  of  neuters  plural  designating 
things  without  life,  we  shall  find  similar  ones  in 
the  Greek  writers.  Another  mode  in  which  the 
reasoning  founded  upon  the  use  of  peculiar  terms 
and  expressions  may  be  tested,  is  the  following. 
It  is  admitted  that  there  are  words  which  occur 
in  the  Gospel  and  epistles,  but  not  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse. The  adverb  irdvrore  is  an  example.  On 
the  same  principle  and  by  virtue  of  the  same 
reasoning,  it  may  be  denied,  as  far  as  languagi 
is  concealed , that  1 Timothy  was  written  by  Paul, 
because  TrdvroTe,  which  is  found  in  his  othei 
epistles,  does  not  occur  in  it.  In  this  manner 
we  might  individually  take  up  each  word  and 
every  syntactical  peculiarity  on  which  the  charge 
of  harshness,  or  solecism,  or  Hebraizing  has  been 
fastened.  It  is  sufficient  to  state,  that  there  are 
very  few  real  solecisms  in  the  Apocalypse.  Al- 
most all  that  have  been  adduced  may  be  paral- 
leled in  Greek  writer*,  or  in  those  of  the  New 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

Testament.  The  words  of  Winer,  a master  in 
tiiis  department,  are  worthy  of  attention  : ‘ The 
solecisms  that  appear  in  the  Apocalypse  give  the 
diction  the  impress  of  great  harshness,  but  they 
are  capable  of  explanation , partly  from  anaco- 
luthon  and  the  mingling  of  two  constructions, 
partly  in  another  manner.  Such  explanation 
should  have  been  always  adopted,  instead  of 
ascribing  these  irregularities  to  the  ignorance  of 
the  author,  who,  in  other  constructions  of  a much 
more  difficult  nature  in  this  very  book,  shows 
that  he  was  exceedingly  well  acquainted  with  the 
rules  of  grammar.  For  most  of  these  anomalies 
too,  analogous  examples  in  the  Greek  writers 
may  be  found,  with  this  difference  alone,  that 
they  do  not  follow  one  another  so  frequently  as  in 
ihe  Apocalypse’  ( Grammatik , funfte  Auflage, 
f.p.  273,  4).  Should  the  reader  not  be  satisfied 
with  this  brief  statement  of  Winer,  he  is  referred 
to  his  Exeget.  Stuclien,  i.  154,  sq.,  where  the 
Professor  enters  into  details  with  great  ability. 

The  following  linguistic  similarities  between 
John’s  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  deserve  to  be 
cited  : pera  ravra,  Apoc.  i.  19  ; iv.  1 ; vii.  1,  9 ; 

ix.  12;  xv.  5 ; xviii.  1;  xix.  1;  xx.  3;  Gosp. 
iii.  22  ; v.  1,  14 ; vi.  1 ; vii.  1 ; xix.  38  ; xxi.  1 ; 
papTvpia , Apoc.  i.  2,  9 ; vi.  9 ; xi.  7 ; xii.  1 1,  17  ; 
xix.  10 ; xx.  4.  Gosp.  paprvpe w or  paprvpla, 

i.  7,  8,  15,  19,  32,  34;  ii.  25;  iii.  11,  26,  28, 
32,  33;  iv.  3,  9,  44;  v.  31,  32,  33,  34,  36,  37, 
39;  1 Epist.  i.  2:  iv.  14  ; v.  6-11.  'Iv a,  Apoc. 

ii.  10,  21  ; iii.  9,'  11,  18;  vi.  2,  4,  11  ; vii.  1, 

&c.  &c.  Gosp.  vi.  5,  7,  12, 15,  28,  29,  30,  38,  39, 
40,  50;  xi.  4,  11,  15,  16,  19,  31,  37,  42,  50,  52, 
53,  55,  57 ; xii.  9,  10,  20,  23,  35,  &c.  1 Epist. 

of  John,  i.  3,  4,  9;  ii.  1,  19,  27,  28.  o\f/is, 
Gosp.  vii.  24 ; xi.  44.  Apoc.  i.  16.  iriafeiv, 
Apoc.  xix.  20.  Gosp.  vii.  30,  32,  44 ; viii.  20  ; 

x.  39;  xi.  57;  xxi.  3,  10.  TTjpuv  rov  \6yov, 
ras  ivroAas,  or  some  similar  expression*  Apoc. 

iii.  8,  10;  xii.  17;  xiv.  12;  xxii.  7,  9.  Gosp. 

viii.  51,  55;  xiv.  15:  xxiii.  24,  &c.  6 vikccv, 
Apoc.  ii.  7,  11,  17,  26;  iii.  5,  12,  21  ; xv.  2; 
xxi.  7.  Tiiis  verb  is  quite  common  in  the  first 
epistle,  ii.  13,  14;  iv.  4 ; v.  4,  5.  Gosp.  xvi.  33. 
08c op  £eo rjs,  Apoc.  xxi.  6 ; xxii.  17 ; comp.  Gosp. 
vii.  38.  Compare  also  the  joining  together  of  the 
present  ki.d  the  future  in  Apoc.  ii.  5 and  Gosp. 
xiv.  3.  The  assertion  of  the  same  thing  posi- 
tively and  negativelv,  Apoc.  ii.  2,  6,  8,  13  ; iii. 
8,  17,  21  ; Gosp.  i.  3,  6,  7,  20,  48;  iii.  15,  17, 
20  ; iv.  42;  v.  19,  24;  viii.  35,  45  ; x.  28  ; xv. 
5,  6,  7.  1 Epist.  ii.  27,  &c.  In  several  places 

in  the  Apocalypse  Christ  is  called  the  Lamb;  so 
also  in  the  Gospel,  i.  29^  36.  Christ  is  called 
6 \6yos  rov  ©coy,  Apoc.  xix.  3,  and  in  the  Gospel 
of  John  only  has  he  the  same  epithet,  m ipeiv 
c’k  nv6s,  Apoc.  iii.  10.  Gosp.  xvii.  15.  cnpaTTeiv, 
Apoc.  v.  6,  9,  12  ; vi.  4,  9 ; xiii.  3,  8 ; xviii.  24; 
only  in  the  1st  Epist.  of  John,  iii.  12.  ex*iv 
uepos,  Apoc.  xx.  6.  Gosp.  xiii.  8.  Trepinareiv 
uerd  nvos , Apoc.  iii.  4.  Gosp.  vi  66.  aKgvSca, 
Apoc.  vii.  15;  xii.  12;  xiii.  6;  xxi.  3.  Gosp. 
i.  14.  The  expulsion  of  Satan  from  heaven 
is  expressed  thus  in  the  Apoc.  xii,  9 : e/3A^0?j  els 
r)jv  yyv ; in  the  Gosp.  it  is  said,  vvv  6 apx<ov 
rod  k6(TUov  tovtov  c/f/BA.Tjflfj'ferai  efa,  xii.  31. 
(SeeScholz,  Die  Apokalypse  des  heilig.  Johannes 
ub»rsetztK  erkldrt,  u.  s.  w.  Frankfurt  am  Main, 
1828, 8 vo.;  Schulz,  Ueber  den  Schriftsteller,  Cha- 
racter und  Werth  des  Johannes , Leipzig  1803, 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  dl7 

Sro. ; Donker  Curtius,  Specimen  liermenejtico - 
theologicum  de  Apocalypsi  ab  indole , doctrina 
et  scribendi  genere  Johannis  Apostoli  non  abhor- 
rente,  Trajecti  Batav.  1799,  8vo. ; Kolthoff,  Apo - 
calypsis  Joanni  Apostolo  vindicaia,  Hafniee, 
1834,  8vo. ; Stein  (in  Winer  and  Engelhardt’s 
Kritisch.  Journal , v,  i.),  and  the  Jena  Literatim * 
Zeitung  for  April,  1833,  No.  61).  It  is  true, 
that  some  of  these  expressions  are  said  by  Liicke, 
De  Wette,  and  Credner,  to  be  used  in  a different 
sense  in  the  Apocalypse  ; others  not  to  be  charac- 
teristic, but  rather  accidental  and  casual  ; others 
not  original,  but  borrowed.  Such  assertions, 
however,  proceed  more  from  a priori  assumption 
than  from  any  inherent  truth  they  possess.  In 
regard  to  the  charge  of  cabbalism,  especially  in 
the  use  of  numbers,  it  is  easily  disposed  of.  The 
cabbala  of  the  Jews  was  widely  different  from  the 
instances  in  the  Apocalypse  that  have  been  quoted. 
Perhaps  John’s  use  of  the  number  666  comes  the 
nearest  to  one  kind  of  the  cabbala;  but  still  it 
is  so  unlike  as  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that 
the  apostle  did  not  employ  the  cabbalistic  art. 
His  mysterious  indications  of  certain  facts,  and 
the  reasons  of  their  being  in  some  measure  in- 
volved in  darkness,  are  explicable  on  other  than 
Jewish  grounds.  There  is  no  real  cause  for 
believing  that  the  apostle  had  recourse  to  the 
artificial  and  trifling  conceits  of  the  Rabbins. 
In  short,  this  argument  is  by  no  means  con- 
clusive. As  far  as  the  language  is  concerned 
nothing  militates  against  the  opinion  that  the 
Apocalypse  proceeded  from  John,  who  wrote  the 
Gospel.  The  contrary  evidence  is  not  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  demand  assent.  When  rigidly  scru- 
tinized, it  does  not  sustain  the  conclusion  so  con- 
fidently built  upon  it. 

But  it  is  also  affirmed,  that  the  doctrinal  views 
and  jsentiments  inculcated  in  the  Apocalypse  are 
quite  different  from  those  found  in  the  Gospel. 
This  may  be  freely  allowed  without* any  detri- 
ment to  their  identity  of  authorship.  How  slow 
the  Germans  are  in  learning  that  a difference  in 
the  exhibition  of  truths  substantially  the  same, 
is  far  from  being  a contradiction  ! A difference 
of  subject  in  connection  with  a different,  plan, 
demands  correspondent  dissimilarity  of  treatment. 
Besides,  there  must  be  a gradual  development  of 
the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth.  Sensuous  expectations  of  the  Messiah, 
such  as  are  alleged  to  abound  in  the  Apocalypse, 
may  be  perfectly  consistent  with  the  spirituality 
of  Ids  reign,  though  it  appears  to  us  that  the  re- 
presentations so  designated  are  figurative,  sha- 
dowing forth  spiritual  realities  by  means  of  out 
ward  objects. 

But  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  pneumatological, 
demonological,  and  angelogical  doctrines  of  the 
book?  The  object  for  which  John’s  Gospel  was 
primarily  written  did  not  lead  the  apostle  to  in- 
troduce so  many  particulars  regarding  angels 
and  evil  spirits.  The  intervention  of  good  and 
the  malignant  influence  of  evil  spirits  are  clearly 
implied  in  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  particu- 
larly in  Zechariah  and  Daniel.  It  is  therefore 
quite  accordant  with  the  prophetic,  Hebraistic 
character  of  the  Apocalypse,  to  make  angelic 
agency  a prominent  feature  in  the  book.  And 
that  such  agency  is  recognised  in  the  Gospels,  is 
apparent  to  the  most  cursory  reader.  The  special 
object  with  which  the  fourth  Gospel  was  written 


613  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

was  different  from  that  which  prompted  the  com- 
position of  the  Apocalypse,  and  therefore  the 
subject-matter  of  both  is  exceedingly  diverse. 
But  still  there  is  no  opposition  in  doctrine.  The 
same  doctrinal  views  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all 
the  representations  contained  in  them.  In  the 
one,  the  Redeemer  is  depicted  in  his  humble 
career  on  earth  ; in  the  other,  in  his  triumphs  as 
a king — or  rather,  in  the  victorious  progress  of 
tiis  truth  in  the  world,  notwithstanding  all  the 
efforts  of  Satan  and  wicked  men  to  suppress  it. 
As  to  a spirit  of  revenge  in  the  Apocalyptic  writer, 
it  is  not  found.  The  inspired  prophet  was  com- 
missioned to  pronounce  woes  and  judgments  as 
soon  to  befal  the  enemies  of  Christ,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  persevering,  malignant  efforts. 
As  well  might  an  evil  disposition  be  attributed 
to  the  blessed  Saviour  himself,  in  consequence  of 
his  denunciation  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
The  same  John  who  wrote  the  Apocalypse  says, 
in  the  second  epistle,  ver.  10,  ‘if  there  come  any 
unto  you  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him 
not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed. 
It  must  ever  strike  the  simple  reader  of  the  Apo- 
calypse as  a positive  ground  for  attributing  the 
authorship  to  John  the  Apostle,  that  he  styles  him- 
self the  servant  of  God  by  way  of  eminence, 
which  none  other  at  that  time  would  have  ven- 
tured to  do;  and  that  he  employs  the  expression, 
I John , after  the  manner  of  Daniel,  as  if  he  were 
the  only  prophet  and  person  of  the  name.  Nor 
can  it  be  well  believed  that  a disciple  of  the 
apostle,  or  any  other  individual,  should  have  pre- 
sumed to  introduce  John  as  the  speaker,  thus  de- 
ceiving the  readers.  The  apostle  was  well  known 
to  the  Christians  of  his  time,  and  especially  to 
the  Asiatic  churches.  He  did  not  therefore  think 
it  necessary  to  say  John  the  Apostle  for  the 
sake  of  distinguishing  himself  from  any  other. 
(See  Zullig's  Die  Offenbarung  Johannis , Stutt- 
gart, 1834,  8 vo.  p.  136.) 

To  enter  further  into  the  allegations  of  such 
critics  as  deny,  on  the  ground  of  internal  diver 
sities  between  this  writing  and  John's  acknow- 
ledged productions,  that  the  apostle  was  the  au- 
thor, would  be  a work  of  supererogation.  Even 
Eichhom  and  Bertholdt  made  many  good  remarks 
in  reply,  although  they  did  not  take  the  position 
which  they  were  warranted  to  assume. 

In  view  of  the  whole  question,  we  are  disposed 
to  abide  by  the  ancient  opinion,  that  John  the 
Apostle  wrote  the  Apocalypse.  Ecclesiastica1 
tradition  clearly  favours  this  view  ; while  the  in- 
ternal grounds  so  carefully  drawn  out  and  earn- 
estly urged  by  recent  German  critics,  do  not  ap- 
pear sufficiently  strong  to  overturn  it.  When 
such  grounds  are  soberly  examined,  after  being 
divested  of  all  the  extravagance  with  which  they 
are  associated ; when  the  nature  of  the  subjects 
discussed  is  seen  to  be  such  as  the  fourth  Gospel 
does  not  present ; an  impartial  critic  will  pro- 
bably rest  in  the  opinion  that  both  writings  pro- 
ceeded from  the  same  author.  And  yet  there  are 
phenomena  in  the  Apocalypse,  as  compared  with 
John's  gospel,  which  strike  the  reader’s  attention 
and  induce  suspicions  of  a different  origin.  It 
exhibits  peculiarities  of  language  and  of  symbols, 
such  as  no  other  book  exemplifies.  In  some  re- 
spects it  is  unique.  Hence  an  air  of  plausibility 
attaches  to  the  arguments  of  recent  German 
writers;  although  it  is  preposterous  to  .ook  for  a 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

stereotyped  uniformity  in  the  writing*  of  lh* 
same  author.  IIow  different  are  the  language 
and  representations  that  characterize  some  of 
Paul's  epistles,  as  compared  with  other* ! Place, 
for  example,  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  by  the 
side  of  tliat  addressed  to  the  Romans,  and  how 
dissimilar  are  their  features! 

But  the  entire  question  of  authorship  so  much 
debated  in  Germany,  is  more  curious  than  profit- 
able. The  book  may  not  have  been  written  by 
an  apostle,  and  yet  be  equal  in  authority  to  any 
acknowledged  production  of  an  apostle.  Luke 
was  only  an  Evangelist ; and  yet  his  writings  are 
infallibly  true  and  correct  in  every  particular, 
because  they  proceeded  from  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  question  whether  the  Apocalypse  was  written 
by  an  apostle  or  not,  is  of  trifling  importance  as 
long  as  its  inspiration  is  maintained.  It  will  not 
diminish  the  credit  due  to  the  work,  though  it  be 
assigned  to  the  Presbyter  John,  or  to  a disciple  of 
the  apostle,  or  to  John  Mark.  If  any  imagine 
that,  in  attempting  to  destroy  the  directly  apos- 
tolic authorship,  they  lessen  the  value  or  disturb 
the  canonical  credit  of  the  book,  they  are  mis- 
taken. We  are  glad  to  perceive  that  this  view, 
obvious  as  it  is  to  the  English  mind,  has  not 
escaped  the  perception  of  all  Germans,  though  it 
seems  not  to  have  been  apprehended  by  many. 
Tinius  says  : ‘There  has  been  a needless  strife 
of  argument.  Do  we  not  plainly  see  from  the 
Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  and  from  the  apostolic 
history  of  the  latter,  that  a biblical  book  may  be 
esteemed  canonical  without  having  been  written 
by  one  of  the  twelve  apostles'?  The  name  of  no 
writer  is  associated  with  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, and  yet  it  is  justly  held  to  be  a Christian 
production.  Even  Paul  was  only  an  extraordi- 
nary apostle.  In  all,  says  he,  works  one  and  the 
same  spirit ; and  he  that  is  not  against  us,  said 
Jesus,  is  for  us.  Now  the  Apocalypse  is  not 
against,  but  for  Him,  and  for  Christianity,  to 
preserve  it.  This  indeed  is  its  chief  object ; con- 
sequently, it  is  a Christian  book,  and  has  pro- 
ceeded from  the  Spirit  of  God.  Whoever  wa* 
the  John  of  our  book,  lie  was  certainly  a man  oi 
God,  with  a serious  and  honest  intention  in  re- 
gard to  the  cause  of  Jesus.’  (Die  Offenbarung 
Johannis , Leipzig,  1839,  8vo.,  Einleit.  p.  37.) 

The  external  evidence  certainly  preponderates 
in  favour  of  the  apostle,  since  it  may  be  fairly 
presumed  that  the  fathers  who  speak  of  it  as  the 
writing  of  John , and  as  a divine  writing , gene- 
rally meant  John  the  Apostle.  But  we  attach  lit  tle 
weight  to  the  testimonies  of  the  fathers,  discordant 
as  these  writers  frequently  are  on  topics  that  came 
before  them.  In  many  cases  they  adopted  vague 
traditions,  without  inquiring  whether  such  reports 
rested  on  any  good  foundation.  They  were  for 
the  most  part  incapable  or  undesirous  of  critical 
investigations — investigations  demanding  acute- 
ness and  discrimination.  Hence  they  commonly 
followed  their  immediate  predecessors,  contented 
in  ecclesiastical  matters  to  glide  down  the  stream 
of  popular  belief,  without  diligently  inquiring 
whether  such  belief  were  correct  and  scriptural. 
A few  noble  exceptions  there  are;  but  how  few, 
in  comparison  of  the  undiscerning  number  who 
appear  to  have  possessed  feeble  abilities,  while 
they  exercised  small  discernment  in  theological 
matters ! 

II.  Its  canonical  authority , authenticity , and 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

genuineness. — (a.)  External  testimonies  advevse 
to  its  canonicity.  (6.)  Such  as  are  favourable. 

(«).  The  Alogi  or  Antimontanists  in  the  second 
century,  ascribed  all  John’s  writings,  including 
the  Apocalypse,  to  Cerinthus,  as  Epiphanius  re- 
lates. It  is  obvious  that  no  weight  can  be  attached 
to  these  assertions.  Caius  of  Rome,  from  opposi- 
tion to  Montanism,  ventured  to  make  the  same 
statement,  as  we  learn  from  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles. 
iii.  28)  : ’AA Xu  Kal  K ->ipiv9os  6 S’  air  oKaXv^euv 
us  virb  aTvoariXov  geyaXov  yeypayfxepuu,  rerpa- 
hoylas  7]fM v ws  6 ayyeXuv  avru  Sedeiyperas 
i pevdouevos,  iTrsurayei  A 4yuv,  ic.  r.  A.  This  pass- 
age has  given  rise  to  much  discussion,  some 
affirming  that  the  revelations  spoken  of  do  not 
mean  the  present  Apocalypse  of  John,  but  in- 
vented revelations  bearing  some  resemblance  to 
it.  We  agree  with  Liicke  and  De  Wette  in  their 
view  of  the  meaning,  in  opposition  to  Twells, 
Paulus,  Hartwig,  and  Hug.  They  refer  if  rightly 
to  our  present  book.  The  85th  of  the  ‘ Apostolic 
Canons,’  which  are  supposed  to  belong  to  the 
fourth  century,  does  not  mention  the  Apocalypse 
among  the  apostolic  writings.  In  the  £ Constitu- 
tions ’ also,  which  probably  originated  in  Syria 
and  the  adjacent  regions,  there  is  no  notice  of  the 
book.  It  has  been  inferred,  from  the  circumstance 
of  the  Apocalypse  being  wanting  in  the  Peshito, 
that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  canon  of  the  Syrian 
church.  It  has  also  been  thought  that  the  theo- 
logians of  the  Antiocheuian  school,  among  whom 
are  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suesfia,  omitted  it  out  of  the  catalogue  of  ca- 
nonical writings.  But  in  regard  to  the  first,  if  we 
rely  on  the  testimony  of  Suidas,  he  received  the 
Apocalypse  as  divine  ; and  as  to  Theodoret,  there 
is  no  reason  for  assuming  that  he  rejected  it 
(Liicke,  p.  348).  Probably  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia  did  not  acknowledge  it  as  divine.  It 
appears  also  to  have  been  rejected  by  the  theolo- 
gical school  at  Nisibis,  which  may  be  regarded 
as  a continuation  of  the  Antiochenian.  Juuilius 
does  not  mention  it  in  his  list  of  prophetic 
writings.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  has  omitted  it  in 
his  Catecheses  ; as  also  Gregory  of  Nazianzen, 
and  the  60th  canon  of  the  Laodicean  Synod. 
Amphilochius  of  Iconium  says  that  some  re- 
garded it  as  a divine  production,  but  that  others 
rejected  it.  Eusebius’  testimony  respecting  the 
Asiatics  is,  that  some  rejected  the  Apocalypse, 
while  others  placed  it  among  the  acknowledged 
(bu.oXoyo’ugeva)  books.  Euthalius,  when  divid- 
ing parts  of  the  New  Testament  stichometrically, 
says  nothing  whatever  of  the  book  ; and  Cosmas 
Indicopleustes  excludes  it  from  the  list  of  the 
canonical.  In  like  manner  Nicephorus,  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  in  the  ninth  century,  appears  to 
have  placed  it  among  the  Antilegomena.  The 
witnesses  already  quoted  to  remove  the  authorship 
from  John  the  Apostle  do  not  belong  here,  although 
many  seem  to  have  entertained  the  opinion  of 
their  present  appropriateness. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the  controversy 
respecting  the  Apocalypse  was  revived.  Erasmus 
speaks  suspiciously  concerning  it,  while  Luther 
expresses  himself  very  vehemently  against  it. 

There  are  various  and  abundant  reasons,’  says 
he,  ‘ why  I regard  this  book  as  neither  apostolical 
nor  prophetic.  First,  the  apostles  do  not  make  use 
of  visions,  but  prophesy  in  clear  and  plain  lan- 
guage (as  do  Peter,  Pau«,  and  Chuist  also,  in  the 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  G16 

Gospel) ; for  it  is  becoming  the  apostolic  office 
to  speak  plainly,  and  without  figure  or  vision, 
respecting  Christ  and  his  acts.  Moreover,  it 
seems  to  me  far  too  arrogant  for  him  to  enjoin  it 
upon  his  readers  to  regard  this  his  own  work  as 
of  more,  importance  than  any  other  sacred  book, 
and  to  threaten  that  if  any  one  shall  take  aught 
away  from  it,  God  will  take  away  from  him  his 
part  in  the  book  of  life  (Rev.  xxii.  19).  Besides, 
even  were  it  a blessed  thing  to  believe  what  is 
contained  in  it,  no  man  knows/wlmt  that  is.  The 
book  is  believed  in  (and  is  really  just  the  same  to 
us)  as  though  we  had  it  not ; and  many  more 
valuable  books  exist  for  us  to  believe  in.  But 
let  every  man  think  of  it  as  his  spirit  prompts  him. 
My  spirit  cannot  adapt  itself  to  the  production, 
and  this  is  reason  enough  for  me  why  I should  not 
esteem  it  very  highly.’  This  reasoning  is  mani- 
. festly  so  inconsequential,  and  tire  style  of  cri- 
ticism so  bold,  as  to  render  animadversion  unne 
cessary.  The  names  of  Haffenreffer,  Heerbrand, 
and  John  Schroder,  are  obscure,  but  they  are  all 
ranged  against  the  book.  With  Sender  a new 
opposition  to  it  began.  That  distinguished  critic 
was  unfavourable  to  its  authenticity.  He  was 
followed  by  Qeder,  Merkel,  Michaelis,  Heinrichs, 
Bretschneider,  Ewald,  De  Wette,  Schott,  Bleelc, 
Liicke,  Neander,  Credner,  E.  Reuss,  Hitzig, 
Tinius,  &c.  It  should,  however,  be  distinctly 
observed,  that  most  of  these  recent  critics  go  no 
farther  than  to  deny  that  John  the  Apostle  was 
the  writer;  which  may  certainly  be  done  without 
impugning  its  indirectly  apostolic  authority. 
They  do  not  exclude  it  from  the  canon  as  a 
divinely  inspired  writing;  although  in  attacking 
its  direct  apostolicity , some  may  imagine  that 
they  ruin  its  canonical  credit. 

( b .)  We  shall  now  allude  to  the  evidence  in 
favour  of  its  canonicity.  The  earliest,  witness  for 
it  is  Papias,  as  we  learn  from  Andreas  and 
Arethas  of  Cappadocia,  in  their  preface  to  Com- 
mentaries on  the  Apocalypse.  According  to 
these  writers,  Papias  regarded  it  as  an  inspired 
book.  It.  is  true  that  Rettig  ( Studien  und 
Kritiken , 1831),  followed  by  Liicke,  has  endea- 
voured to  weaken  their  testimony ; but  since  the 

{mblication,  by  Cramer,  of  an  old  scholion  re- 
ating  to  the  words  of  Andreas,  it  is  indubitable 
that  Papias’s  language  refers  to  the  present  Apo- 
calypse of  John  ('Havernick's  Lucubrationes 
Critical  ad  Apoc.  spectantes,  Regiom.  1842,  8vo. 
No.  1,  p.  4,  sq.).  Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  one 
of  the  seven  apocalyptic  churches,  wrote  a work 
exclusively  on  this  book.  Eusebius  thus  speaks 
of  his  production  (Hist.  Eccles.  iv.  26)  : na\  rb 
irepl  rov  diafl6\ov  ical  tt )s  diroKaXvrpeus  ’I uavvov. 
From  these  words  Semler  endeavours  to  show 
that  the  books  concerning  the  devil  and  the 
Apocalypse  were  one  and  the  same,  a conclusion 
which,  if  it  were  valid,  would  go  to  weaken  the 
testimony.  But  Melito  calls  it  the  Apocalypse 
of  John,  implying  that  he  regarded  it  as  such; 
for  had  he  suspected  the  book,  Eusebius  would 
hardly  have  omitted  that  circumstance.  Jerome, 
in  his  catalogue  of  illustrious  men,  explicitly 
distinguishes  two  works,  one  respecting  the  devil, 
the  other  relative  to  the  Apocalypse.  Tneophilus, 
Bishop  of  Antioch  (Euseb.  iv.  24),  in  his  book 
against  Hermogenes,  drew  many  proofs  and  argu- 
ments from  the  Revelation ; so  also  Apollonius  ot 
Ephesus,  according  to  the  same  ecclesiastical 


620  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

historian  (v.  18).  The  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is 
most  important,  because  he  was  in  early  life  ac- 
quainted with  Polycarp,  who  was  John’s  disciple, 
and  because  he  resided  in  Asia  Minor,  where 
John  himself  abode  during  the  latter  part  of  his 
life.  In  one  place  he  says,  ‘ It  was  seen  no 
long  time  ago,  but  almost  in  our  age,  towards 
the  end  of  Domitian’s  reign  while  he  frequently 
quotes  it  elsewhere  as  the  Revelation  of  John , the 
disciple  of  the  Lord.  It  is  true  that  De  Wette 
anu  Credner  seek  to  cast  suspicion  on  this  father’s 
testimony,  because  he  states  that  it  was  written 
under  Domitian,  which  they  regard  as  incorrect ; 
but  this  point  shall  be  noticed  hereafter.  To 
these  may  be  added  the  testimony  of  the  martyrs 
at.  Lyons,  of  Nepos  (Euseb.  vii.  23),  Methodius 
of  Tyre,  Didymus  of  Alexandria,  Cyprian,  Lac- 
tantius,  Augustine,  Athanasius,  Basil  the  Great, 
Epiphanius  of  Cyprus,  Jerome,  Ephrem  the  Syrian, 
Rufinus  the  presbyter,  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Hilary 
of  Poictou,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Arethas  and  An- 
dreas of  Cappadocia,  the  Synod  of  Hippo,  a.d.  393, 
canon  36,  the  Synod  of  Toledo,  a.d.  633,  the 
third  council  of  Carthage,  a.d.  397,  Victorin  of 
Pettaw  in  Pannonia,  Dionysius  the  Areopagite, 
Sulpicius  Severus,  Joh.  Damascenus,  CEcume- 
nius,  Amphilochius,  Novatus  and  his  followers, 
the  Manich^es,  the  Donatists,  the  Arians,  the 
latter  Arnobius,  Rhaban  Maurus,  Isidore  of  Spain, 
Commodian,  and  others. 

It  has  been  disputed  whether  Chrysostom  re- 
jected the  book  or  not.  The  presumption  is  in 
favour  of  the  latter,  as  Lucke  candidly  allows. 
A similar  presumption  may  be  admitted  in  the 
case  of  Theodoret,  although  nothing  very  decisive 
can  be  aflirmed  in  relation  to  his  opinion.  Perhaps 
some  may  be  inclined  to  dispute  the  testimony  of 
Jerome  in  favour  of  the  canonical  authority, 
because  he  says  in  his  annotations  on  the  149th 
Psalm,  ‘ The  Apocalypse  which  is  read  and 
receiver!  in  the  churches  is  not  numbered  among 
the  apocryphal  books,  but  the  ecclesiastical .’  ‘ In 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term,’  says  Hug,  * an 
ecclesiastica  scriptura  is  a book  of  only  secondary 
rank.  It  is  well  known  that  a contemporary  of 
Jerome  divides  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  together  with  those  which  make  any 
pretensions  to  be  such,  into  canonici , ecclesiastici, 
et  apocryphi.  Now  if  Jerome  affixed  the  same 
meaning  as  this  writer  to  the  expression  liber 
ecclesiaslicus,  we  have  here  a very  singular  fact. 
The  Latins  then  placed  this  book  in  the  second 
class  among  the  disputed  books.  Thus  it  will 
have  been  assigned  to  each  of  the  three  classes. 
But  Jerome  does  not  attach  to  this  word  the 
strict  signification  which  it  bears  with  his  con- 
temporary ; for,  in  his  Epistle  to  Dardanus,  he 
says,  “ If  the  Latins  do  not  receive  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  among  the  canonical  Scriptures,  so, 
with  equal  freedom,  the  Greek  churches  do  not 
receive  John’s  Apocalypse.  I,  however,  ac- 
knowledge both,  for  I do  not  follow  the  custom 
of  the  times,,  but  the  authority  of  older  writers, 
who  draw  arguments  from  both,  as  being 
canonical  and  ecclesiastical  writings,  and  not 
merely  as  apocryphal  books  are  sometimes  used.” 
Here  Jerome  has  so  expressed  himself,  that  we 
must  believe  he  made  no  difference  between 
canonical  and  ecclesiastical,  and  affixed  no 
stronger  signification  to  the  one  than  to  the  other’ 
(Hug’s  Introd.,  tran.dn  ;ed  by  Fosdick  pp.  661-2). 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

It  is  also  necessary  to  attend  to  the  testimony  n* 
Ephrem  definitely  ascribing  the  Revelation  tn 
John  the  Theologian,  in  connection  with  th« 
fact  of  the  book’s  absence  from  the  Peshito,  aifd 
from  Ebedjesu's  catalogue  of  the  books  of  Scrip- 
ture received  by  the  Syrians.  Certainly  its 
absence  from  this  ancient  version  does  not  prove 
its  want  of  canonicity  ; else  the  same  might  be 
affirmed  of  John’s  two  epistles,  and  that  of  Jude, 
none  of  which  is  found  in  the  same  version. 
Probably  the  Peshito  was  made,  not.,  as  Lucke 
and  others  affirm,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  second 
or  commencement  of  the  third  century,  but  in 
the  first,  before  the  Apocalypse  was  written.  The 
words  of  Assemanni,  in  relation  to  one  of  the 
passages  in  which  Ephrem  attributes  the  Revelation 
to  John,  are  striking:  ‘In  hoc  sermone  citat  s. 
doctor  Apocalypsin  Johannis  tanquam  canoni- 
cam  Scripturam — quod  ideo  notavi,  ut  constaret 
Svrorum  atitiquissimorum  de  illius  libri  aucto- 
ritate  judicium’  (see  IlUvernick,  p.  8,  sq.). 
That  the  Syrian  church  did  not  reject  the  book, 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  inscription 
of  the  current  Syriac  version  assigns  it  to  John 
the  Evangelist.  The  witnesses  already  adduced 
for  ascribing  the  authorship  to  John  the  Apostle 
also  belong  to  the  present  place,  since  in  attesting 
the  apostolic , they  equally  uphold  the  divine 
origin  of  the  book. 

At  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  Flacius  stre- 
nuously upheld  the  authority  of  the  Apocalypse, 
and  since  his  day  able  defenders  of  it  have  not 
been  wanting.  Twells,  C.  F.  Schmid,  J.  F.  Reuss, 
Knittel,  Storr,  Luderwald,  Hartwig,  Kleuker, 
Herder,  Donker  Curtius,  Hanlein,  Bertholdt. 
Eichhorn,  Hug,  Feilmoser,  Kolthoff,  Olshausen, 
J.  P.  Lange  (Tholuck’s  Lit.  Anzeig.  1838), 
Dannemann,  Havernick  ( Evangel . Kirchenzeit , 
1834,  and  Lucub.  Critical),  Guerike,  Schnitzer 
{Allgem.  Liter aturzeit.  1841),  Zeller  ( Deutsche 
Jahrb.,  1841),  and  others.  Most  of  these  writers 
seem  to  rest  all  the  credit  and  authority  of  t.h« 
book  on  the  fact  of  its  being  written  by  John  the 
Apostle,  while  one  or  two  of  the  later  critics 
attribute  it  to  the  apostle,  for  the  sake  of  inva- 
lidating and  ruining  the  fourth  Gospel.  The 
external  evidence  in  favour  of  its  authenticity 
and  genuineness  is  overwhelming.  This  is  par- 
ticularly the  case  in  regard  to  the  Latin  church. 
In  the  Greek,  doubts  were  more  prevalent,  until 
they  were  lost  in  the  dark  night,  of  the  middle 
ages.  Montanism  first  aroused  and  drew  atten- 
tion to  the  question,  for  the  adherents  of  that  false 
system  based  their  tenets  almost  exclusively  on 
the  Revelation.  Hence  we  may  account  in  some 
degree  for  the  sentiments  of  Dionysius  of  Alex- 
andria, who  contended  against  the  millennarian 
Nepos. 

Thus  the  general  tenor  of  the  external  evidence 
is  clearly  in  favour  of  the  canonical  authority, 
while  internal  circumstances  amply  confirm  it. 
The  style,  language,  and  manner  of  the  book, 
cannot  be  mistaken.  In  dignity  and  sublimity 
it  is  equal  to  any  of  the  New  Testament  writings, 
if  not  superior  to  them  all.  The  variety  and 
force  of  the  images  impress  the  mind  of  every 
reader  with  conceptions  of  a divine  origin. 
Surely  no  uninspired  man  could  have  written  ifn 
such  a strain. 

III.  The  time  and  place  at  which  it  was 
written. — In  ascertaining  these  points  there  ia 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

conaitbrable  difficulty.  The  prevalent  opinion 
is,  that  the  hook  was  written  a.d.  96  or  97,  at 
Patmos  or  Ephesus,  after  Domitian's  death,  i.  e. 
under  Nerva.  So  Mill,  Le  Clerc,  Basnage, 
Lardner,  Woodhouse,  and  others.  This  is  sup- 
posed to  be  in  accordance  with  the  tradition,  that 
John  was  sent  into  Patmos  towards  the  end  of 
Domitian’s  reign,  and  that  he  there  received  the 
Revelation,  agreeably  to  the  statement  in  ch.  i.  9. 
The  fact  that  John  was  banished  to  Patmos  is 
attested  by  antiquity,  and  seems  to  be  hinted 
at  in  ver.  9,  in  which  we  must  believe,  in 
opposition  to  Neander,  that  there  is  a necessary 
reference  to  sufferings  on  account  of  the  Gospel. 
It  is  mentioned  by  Irenseus,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Tertullian,  Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Jerome. 
The  time,  however,  is  very  differently  stated.  Eu- 
sebius and.  Jerome  attribute  the  exile  to  Domitian  ; 
the  Syriac  version  of  the  Apocalypse,  Theophy- 
lact,  and  the  younger  Hippolytus,  assign  it  to 
Nero  ; Epiphanius  to  Claudius ; while  Tertullian, 
Clement,  and  Origen,  give  it  no  name.  It  has 
been  conjectured  that  Domitius  (Nero)  and 
Domitian  were  early  interchanged,  and  that  even 
he  testimony  of  Iren  sens  refers  rather  to  Domi- 
tius (Nero)  than  to  Domitian.  The  following 
is  the  passage  in  question  ; ouSe  yap  irpb  ttoAXov 
XpAvov  ewpdQr],  aWa  crxeSbj'  67rl  r rjs  fiperepas 
yeveas,  npos  tm  TeXet  rrjs  Aopenavov  apxv s 
( Advers . Hcer.  lib.  v.  p.  449,  ed.  Grabe).  If 
A openavov  be  an  adjective  formed  from  the 
substantive  A openos,  it  will  mean  ‘ belonging  to 
Domitius’  (seeGuerike,  Historisch-Krit.  Einleit. 
pp.  285,  6).  But  whatever  plausibility  there  be 
in  this  conjecture  (and  there  seems  to  be  none), 
the  language  of  Tertullian,  Clement,  and  Origen, 
is  more  appropriate  to  Nero  than  to  Domitian. 
Besides,  if  Peter  and  Paul  suffered  from  the 
cruel  tyrant,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how 
John  could  have  eluded  notice  or  persecution. 
Indeed  early  ecclesiastical  tradition  is  as  favour- 
able to  the  assumption  that  John  was  sent  into 
banishment  by  Nero,  as  it  is  to  the  opinion  that 
he  was  exiled  by  Domitian.  Thus  Eusebius, 
who  in  his  Chronicon  and  Ecclesiastical  History 
follows  Irenseus,  in  his  Demon.  Evangel.,  asso- 
ciates the  Patmos-exile  with  the  death  of  Peter 
and  Paul  who  suffered  under  Nero.  But  we 
are  not  left  to  external  grounds  on  the  question 
before  us,  else  the  decision  might  be  uncertain  ; 
for  the  tradition  of  the  early  church  in  regard  to 
the  banishment  of  John  is  neither  consistent  nor 
valuable : it  will  not  stand  the  test  of  modern 
criticism.  Hence  the  view  of  those  who  think 
that  it  was  manufactured  solely  from  chap.  i.  9, 
is  exceedingly  probable.  Taken  from  such  an 
origin,  it  was  shaped  in  various  ways.  The 
passage  in  question  certainly  implies  that  John 
bad  been  a sufferer  for  the  Gospel’s  sake,  and 
that  he  either  withdrew  to  Patmos  before  the 
fury  of  persecution  burst  upon  him,  or  that  he 
was  compelled  to  betake  himself  to  that  lonely 
island  in  consequence  of  positive  opposition. 
The  language  of  the  fathers  in  x-ecording  this 
tradition  also  shows,  that  they  did  not  carefully 
distinguish  between  the  time  of  writing  the 
visions  and  the  time  when  they  were  received. 
Sometimes  it  is  said  that  the  Apocalypse  was 
written  in  Patmos,  but  much  more  frequently  it 
is  simply  stated  that  revelations  were  there  made 
to  the  seer. 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  62 x 

In  the  absence  of  definite  external  evidence, 
internal  circumstances  come  to  our  aid.  These 
show  that  Jerusalem  had  not  been  destroyed. 
Had  such  a catastrophe  already  happened,  it 
would  scarcely  have  been  left  unnoticed.  An 
event  pregnant  with  momentous  consequences  to 
the  cause  of  truth  and  the  fortunes  of  the  early 
church,  would  most  probably  have  been  men- 
tioned or  referred  to.  But  there  are  distinct  re- 
ferences to  the  impending  destruction  of  the  city. 
In  chap.  xi.  1,  it  is  commanded  to  measure  the 
temple,  obviously  pre-supposing  that  it  still 
stood.  In  verse  2,  the  holy  city  is  about  to  be 
trodden  by  the  Gentiles  forty-two  months  ; and 
in  the  13th  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  the  same 
event  is  also  noticed.  Besides,  the  sixth  emperor 
was  still  sitting  on  the  throne  when  the  writer 
was  favoured  with  the  visions  (xvii.  10).  Five 
kings  or  emperors  had  already  fallen,  one  was 
then  reigning,  and  the  other  had  not  come.  The 
most  natural  interpretation  of  the  sixth  king  is 
that  which,  beginning  the  series  with  Julius 
Caesar,  fixes  upon  Nero : so  Bertholdt  and 
Koehler.  Galba  is  of  course  the  seventh,  and 
agreeably  to  the  prophecy  he  reigned  but  seven 
months.  That  such  was  the  usual  mode  of  com- 
putation, Koehler  has  attempted  successfully  to 
show  from  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra  and  Josephus's 
Antiquities  ; which  is  confirmed  by  Suetonius’s 
Twelve  Caesars,  and  by  the  Sibylline  oracles,  fifth 
book.*  W e are  aware  that  Eichhorn  reckons  from 
Augustus,  and  makes  the  sixth  Vespasian — Otho. 
Galba,  and  Vitellius  being  passed  over ; anil 
that  Ewald,  Liicke,  and  others,  beginning  also 
with  Augustus,  make  Galba  the  sixth,  the  em- 
peror ‘ that  is ;’  but  it  was  contrary  to  the  usua' 
method  of  reckoning  among  the  Jews  and  Romans 
to  commence  with  that  emperor.  Yet  the  opinion 
that  the  sixth  emperor  was  Nero,  is  liable  to  objec- 
tion. The  8th  and  1 1th  verses  appear  to  contradict 
it,  for  they  state  that  ‘ he  was,  and  is  not.''  It  will 
be  observed  that  in  these  verses  an  explanation  re- 
specting the  beast  is  given,  couched  in  the  language 
of  current  report.  The  words  amount  to  this — 
‘ The  beast  which  thou  sawest  is  the  emperor,  of 
whom  it  is  commonly  believed  that  he  shall  be 
assassinated,  recover  from  the  wound,  go  to  the 
East,  and  return  from  it  to  desolate  the  church 
and  inflict  terrible  punishments  on  his  enemies 
Nero  is  described,  according  to  the  common 
belief — a belief  that  prevailed  before  his  death.' 
In  chap.  xiii.  3,  it  is  not  implied  that  Nero  ivas 
then  dead,  for  the  holy  seer  beheld  things  a 
p eAXer  yeueadai  as  well  as  things  a den;  and  the 
passage  is  descriptive  of  a vision , not  explana- 
tory of  one  previously  pourtrayed.  We  conclude, 
therefore,  that  the  apostle  saw  the  visions  during 
the  reign  of  the  bloody  and  cruel  Nero.  Still, 
however,  he  may  have  written  the  book  not  at 
Patmos,  but  immediately  after  his  return  to 
Ephesus,  if  so  be  that  he  did  return  thither  before 
Nero  ceased  to  live.  It  has  been  inferred  that 
the  book  was  written  after  he  had  been  in 
Patmos,  because  kyev&ppv  is  used  in  chap.  i. 
9,  10.  The  use  of  this  tense,  however,  by 
no  means  militates  against  the  view  of  those  wlio 
assert  that  he  wrote  as  well  as  saw  the  visions  in 
Patmos,  and  consequently  does  not  prove  that 

* See  Liicke’s  objections  to  this  view,  which 
cannot  be  refuted  here,  at  p.  251,  notes  1 and  2. 


822  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

the  book  was  written  at  Ephesus.  The  verb  in 
ver.  10  may  aptly  refer  to  the  commencement  of 
that  ecstatic  state  into  which  he  was  thrown  lor 
the  purpose  of  receiving  mysterious  disclosures— 
to  the  time  when  lie  first  began  to  be  kv  irrevpan ; 
and  in  ver.  9 it  may  in  like  manner  allude  to 
the  commencement  of  his  exile.  In  view  of  all 
circumstances  we  are  inclined  to  assume  that 
the  Apocalypse  was  written  during  the  reign  of 
Nero,  when  persecution  had  commenced , as  many 
passages  imply,  and,  therefore,  at  Patmos.  It 
•weighs  nothing  with  us  that  Eichhorn,  Bleek,  and 
De  Wette  conjecturally  assume  that  the  place 
mentioned  in  i.  9 may  be  a poetical  fiction: 
even  Ewald  opposes  such  a thought. 

Before  leaving  this  subject  it  is  necessary  to 
glance  at  the  circumstances  supposed  to  show 
th  it  the  book  was  not  written  till  after  Nero’s 
death.  Tire  general  expectation  of  his  return 
(xvii.  11),  and  the  allusions  to  the  persecutions 
of  Christians  under  him  (vi.  9 ; xvii.  6),  as  also 
the  pre-supposed  fact  of  most  of  the  apostles 
being  dead  (xviii.  20),  are  stated  by  De  Wette. 
But  in  xvii.  11,  the  apostle  merely  describes 
Nero  according  to  the  common  report — a report 
current  before  his  death,  the  substance  of  which 
was,  that  after  reigning  a while  he  should  appear 
again,  and  make  an  eighth,  though  one  of  the 
seven.  The  passages,  vi.  9 and  xvii.  6,  allude  to 
different  events,  the  former  to  the  souls  of  the 
martyrs  that  had  been  slain  by  the  Jeios , the 
latter  to  the  persecutions  of  imperial  Rome 
generically.  According  to  the  right  reading  of 
xviii.  20,  it  does  not  imply  that  most  of  the 
apostles  were  already  dead. 

In  conformity  with  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus, 
■understood  in  the  ordinary  acceptation,  it  has  been 
very  generally  believed  that  the  book  was  written 
under  Domitian,  a.d.  96  or  97.  But  the  vague 
report  of  the  apostle’s  banishment,  current  among 
early  writers  in  different  and  varying  forms, 
must  not  be  allowed  to  set  aside  internal  evidence, 
especially  the  clearly-defined  chronological  ele- 
ments of  the  xi.  and  xvii.  chapters. 

The  arguments  adduced  in  favour  of  Domi- 
tian’s  reign  are  the  following  : — 

1.  Nero’s  persecution  did  not  reach  the  pro- 
vinces. 2.  The  Nicolaitans  did  not  form  a sect 
when  the  book  was  written,  although  they  are 
spoken  of  as  such.  3.  The  condition  of  the 
seven  churches,  as  pourtrayed  in  the  Apocalypse, 
shows  that  they  had  been  planted  a considerable 
time.  4.  Mention  is  made  of  the  martyr  Antipas 
at  Pergamos,  who  could  not  have  suffered  death 
in  Nero’s  reign,  because  the  persecution  did  not 
reach  the  provinces  (Lenfant  and  Beausobre’s 
Preface  sur  I'Apoc.  de  S.  Jean , pp.  613-14; 
and  Vitringa,  in  Apoc .,  cap.  i.  v.  2,  p.  9-11). 

1.  In  order  to  account  for  John’s  banishment 
to  Patmos,  it  is  not  needful  to  believe  that  the 
spirit  of  persecution  raged  at  Ephesus.  While 
it  was  so  active  at  Rome,  we  may  \ airly  infer 
that  the  Christians  in  the  provinces  trembled  for 
their  safety.  Whatever  affected  the  capital  so 
fearfully,  would  naturally  affect  the  distant  parts 
of  the  empire  to  a greater  or  less  extent;  and 
John’s  retirement  to  Patmos  does  not  necessarily 
pre-suppose  the  horrors  of  fire  and  sword.  The 
storm  was  seen  to  lower;  the  heathen  magistrates, 
a3  well  as  the  Jews,  put  forth  their  enmity  in 
various  forms,  even  when  the  edicts  of  emperor* 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

forbade  violence  to  the  persons  of  Christians,  and 
the  apostle  in  consequence  withdrew  for  a time 
from  the  scene  of  his  labours. 

2.  The  most  probable  interpretation  is,  that 
Nicolaitans  is  a symbolic  name  signifying  cor 
rupters  of  the  people , equivalent  to  Balaam  in 
Hebrew.  It  is  true  that  Irenaeus  speaks  of  such 
a sect  in  his  time,  deriving  the  appellation  from 
the  deacon  Nicolaus  (Acts  ii.),  and  representing 
the  allusion  in  the  Apocalypse  as  belonging  to  it. 
The  sect  called  the  Nicolaitans,  spoken  of  by 
Clement,  is  probably  not  the  same  as  that  men- 
tioned in  the  Apocalypse  (Neander,  Kirchcnge&ch 

1.  2,  p.  775,  sq.). 

3.  A close  examination  of  the  language  ad- 
dressed to  each  of  the  seven  churches  will  show 
that  it  may  have  been  appropriate  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  68.  It  does  not  by  any  means  imply 
that  there  had  been  an  open  persecution  in  the 
provinces.  About  a.d.  61  the  church  of  Ephesua 
is  commended  by  Paul  for  their  faith  and  lov< 
(Eph.  i.  15),  which  is  quite  consistent  with  Rev.  ii 

2,  3 ; while  both  are  in  agreement  with  the  censure 
that  the  members  had  left  their  first  love.  In  the 
lapse  of  a very  few  years,  and  especially  in  trying 
circumstances,  the  ardour  of  their  love  had  cooled 
The  patience  for  which  they  are  oc  mmended  re- 
fers, as  the  context  shows,  to  the  temptation? 
which  they  suffered  from  wicked  and  corrupting 
teachers,  and  the  difficulties  attendant  upon  th* 
faithful  exercise  of  discipline  ?n  the  church 
Similar  was  the  case  with  the  church  at  Smyrna 
their  tribulation  having  chief  reference  to  th. 
blasphemy  of  Satan’s  synagogue. 

4.  In  regard  to  Antipas  nothing  is  known 
He  suffered  at  Pergamos,  but  under  what  empo- 
ror,  or  in  what  circumstances,  is  uncertain.  It 
is  not  at  all  necessary  to  our  hypothesis  to  assume 
that  he  was  put  to  death  during  Nero's  perse- 
cution. Individual  Christians  were  put  to  dead, 
even  in  the  provinces  before  the  time  of  Ne;c. 
On  the  whole,  we  see  no  good  ground  for  belifv 
ing  that  the  book  was  written  in  the  time  c 
Claudius,  or  Galba,  or  Vespasian,  or  Domitian, 
or  Trajan,  or  Adrian,  though  all  these  have  been 
advocated  ; nor  is  there  sufficient  reason  for  sepa- 
rating the  time  of  the  writing  from  that  of  the 
receiving  of  the  visions.  In  view  of  all  circum- 
stances we  assign  it  to  the  time  of  Nero,  and  the 
locality  of  Patmos,  A.D.  67  or  68.  Sir  Isaac 
Newton  long  ago  fixed  upon  the  same  date. 

IV.  Unity  of  the  book. — A few  writers  have 
thought  that  the  Apocalypse  was  written  at  differ- 
ent times  by  the  same  author,  as  Grotius,  Ham- 
mond, and  Bleek  ; or  by  different  authors,  as 
Vogel.  Such  dismemberment  h now  abandoned. 
Even  De  Wette  allows  that  no  rearouable  doubts 
can  be  entertained  of  its  unity.  The  entire  book 
is  so  regular  in  its  structure,  so  intimately  con- 
nected is  one  paragraph  with  another,  that  all 
must  have  proceeded  from  the  same  writer.  If 
the  nature  of  prophetic  perspective  be  rightly  un- 
derstood, all  will  appear  to  be  natural  and  easy. 
John  saw  things  past,  present,  and  future  at  once. 
He  did  not  need  to  wait  for  the  progress  of  events 
• — for  events  were  presented  to  his  vision  just  as 
the  Spirit  willed.  Hence  the  present  tense  is  so 
much  used  in  place  of  the  future.  The  hypotheses 
of  Grotius,  Vogel,  and  Bleek,  have  been  refuted 
by  Liicke ; and  that  of  Hammond  requires  not 
now  the  like  examination. 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

V.  The  class  of  writings  to  which  it  belongs. 
• — Pareus  seems  to  have  bee<n  th  i first  who  started 
the  idea  of  its  being  a dramatic  poem.  The 
same  opinion  was  also  expressed  by  Hartwig.  But 
the  genius  of  Eichhorn  wrought  out  the  sugges- 
tion into  a theory  pervaded  by  great  symmetry 
and  beauty.  Hence  the  opinion  that  it  forms  a 
regular  dramatic  poem  is  associated  with  his 
name  alone.  According  to  him  the  divisions 
are : 1.  The  title,  chap.  i.  1-3.  2.  The  pro- 

logue, i.  4 — iii.  22.  3.  The  drama,  iv.  1 — xxii.  5. 
Act  1.  The  capture  of  Jerusalem,  or  the  triumph 
of  Christianity  over  Judaism,  vii.  6 — xii.  17. 
Act  2.  The  capture  of  Rome,  or  the  triumph  of 
Christianity  over  Paganism,  xii.  18 — xx.  10. 
Act  3.  The  new  Jerusalem  descends  from  heaven, 
or  the  felicity  which  is  to  endure  for  ever,  xx.  11  — 
xxii.  5.  4.  The  epilogue,  xxii.  6-21 ; (a)  of  the 

angel,  xxii.  6;  (b)  of  Jesus,  xxii.  7-16;  (c)  ot 
John,  xxii.  16-20.  The  apostolical  benediction, 
xxii.  21. 

As  this  theory  is  now  abandoned  by  all  exposi- 
tors, it  needs  no  refutation.  It  is  exceedingly 
ingenious,  but  without  foundation.  To  represent 
the  book  as  made  up  of  little  else  than  sublime 
scenery  and  fiction,  is  contrary  to  the  analogy 
of  such  Old  Testament  writings  as  bear  to  it 
the  greatest  resemblance.  Something  more  is 
intended  than  a symbolic  description  of  the  tri- 
umph of  Christianity  over  Judaism  and  Pagan- 
ism. The  book  contains  historic  narrative.  It 
exhibits  real  prophecies,  which  must  have  had 
their  accomplishment  in  distinct  events  and  indi- 
viduals. It  consists  of  a prophetic  poem.  Its 
diction  is,  with  some  exceptions,  the  diction  of 
poetry.  It  is  not  made  up  of  a series  of  disjointed 
visions  ; it  is  regular  in  its  structure  and  artificial 
in  its  arrangement.  According  to  the  rules  of 
rhetoric,  it  nearly  approaches  an  epopee.  Those 
who  thoroughly  examine  it  with  a view  to  dis- 
cover the  arrangement  and  connection  of  parts 
will  observe  unity  and  artificiality  in  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  whole.  It  bears  an  analogy  to  the 
prophetic  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  espe- 
cially to  those  of  Daniel.  It  is  obvious,  there- 
fore, that  a deep  and  thorough  study  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophets  should  precede  the  study  of 
the  Apocalypse.  If  it  bear  a close  resemblance 
in  many  of  its  features  to  the  inspired  productions 
of  a former  dispensation;  if  the  writer  evidently 
imitated  the  utterances  of  Daniel,  Ezekiel  and 
Zechariab  ; if  his  language  be  more  Hebraistic 
than  that  of  the  New  Testament  generally,  the 
interpreter  of  the  book  should  be  previously  qua- 
lified by  a familiar  acquaintance  with  the  sym- 
bols, imagery,  diction,  and  spirit  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament poets  and  prophets. 

d I.  The  object  for  which  it  was  originally 
icritten.— The  books  of  the  New  Testament,  like 
those  of  the  Old,  were  designed  to  promote  the  in- 
struction of  God’s  people  in  all  ages.  They  were 
adapted  to  teach,  exhort,  and  reprove  ail  man- 
kind. They  do  not  belong  to  the  class  of  ephe- 
meral writings  that  have  long  since  fulfilled  the 
purpose  for  which  they  were  originally  composed. 
Their  object  was  riot  merely  a local  or  partial 
one.  So  of  the  Apocalypse.  It  is  suited  to  all. 
‘ Blessed  is  he  that  readeth,  and  they  that  hear 
the  words  of  this  prophecy.’  But  this  general 
characteristic  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  fact 
tn&l  it  arose  out  of  specific  circumstances,  and 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  m 

was  primarily  meant  to  subserve  a definite  end. 
When  first  written,  it  was  destined  to  suit  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  early  Christians. 
The  times  were  troublous.  Persecution  had  ap- 
peared in  various  forms.  The  followers  of  Christ 
were  exposed  to  severe  sufferings  for  conscience 
sake.  Their  enemies  were  fierce  against  them. 
Comparatively  few  and  feeble,  the  humble  dis- 
ciples of  the  Lamb  seemed  doomed  to  extinction. 
But  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  was  prompted 
to  present  to  them  such  views  as  were  adapted  to 
encourage  them  to  steadfastness  in  the  faith — to 
comfort  them  in  the  midst  of  calamity — and  to 
arm  them  with  resolution  to  endure  all  the  as- 
saults of  their  foes.  Exalted  honours,  glorious 
rewards,  are  set  before  the  Christian  soldier  who 
should  endure  to  the  end.  A crown  of  victory — 
the  approbation  of  the  Redeemer — everlasting 
felicity ; — these  are  prepared  for  the  patient  be- 
liever. In  connection  with  such  representations, 
the  final  triumph  of  Christianity  and  the  Mes- 
siah’s peaceful  reign  with  his  saints,  form  topics 
on  which  the  writer  dwells  with  emphatic  earnest- 
ness (See  chap.  i.  1-3;  ii.  1;  iii.  22;  xxii.  6, 
7,  10-17).  The  suffering  Christians  of  primitive 
times  may  have  sorrowfully  thought  that  they 
should  never  be  able  to  stand  the  shock  of  their 
bitter  and  bloody  assailants,  the  power  and  policy 
of  the  world  being  leagued  against  them— but 
the  statements  of  the  writer  all  tend  to  the 
conclusion  that  truth  should  make  progress  in 
the  earth,  and  the  church,  emerging  out  of  all 
struggles,  wax  stronger  and  stronger.  If  such  be 
the  primary  and  principal  aim  of  the  book,  it 
follows  that  we  should  not  look  in  it  for  a history 
of  the  kingdoms  of  the  world.  To  compose  a 
civil  history  did  not  comport  with  the  writer’s 
object.  The  genius  of  Christ’s  kingdom  is  totally 
different  from  that  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  world. 
It  advances  steadily  and  silently,  independently  of, 
and  frequently  in  opposition  to  them.  Hence  the 
Apocalypse  cannot  contain  a history  of  the  world. 
It  exhibits  a history  of  the  church , specially  of 
its  early  struggles  with  the  powers  of  darkness 
and  the  malice  of  superstition.  This  last  remark 
leads  to  another  of  chief  importance  to  the  inter- 
preter of  the  book  before  us,  viz.,  that  it  pinci- 
pally  relates  to  events  past,  present,  and  speedily 
to  happen  in  connection,  with  the  Christian  reli- 
gion as  viewed  from  the  writer’s  stand-point. 
The  glances  at  the  past  are  brief,  but  references 
to  the  circumstances  of  tne  church  at  the  time 
are  numerous  and  diversified,  while  rapidly 
coming  catastrophes  and  triumphs  are  pourtrayed 
in  full  and  vivid  colours.  Trials  impending 
over  the  church,  and  judgments  over  her  enemh  s, 
in  the  time  of  the  apostle, — these  form  the  burden 
of  the  prophecy.  This  conclusion  is  fully  sus- 
tained both  by  the  prologue  and  epilogue,  although, 
strange  to  say,  it  has  been  overlooked  by  the  ma- 
jority of  expositors.  What  language  can  be  more 
explicit  than  this:  ‘Blessed  is  he  that  readeth, 
and  they  that  hear  the  words  of  this  prophecy, 
for  the  time  is  at  hand.''  ‘ The  revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  unto  him,  to  show 
unto  his  servants  things  which  must  shortly  come 
to  pass.*  ‘ He  which  testifieth  these  things  sairh, 
Surely  I come  quickly . Amen,  even  so,  come 
Lord  Jesus.’ 

VII.  Its  contents. — The  body  of  the  work  is 
contained  in  chaps,  iv.-xxii.  6,  and  is  almost 


624  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

entirely  a series  of  symbolic  representations.  To 
this  is  prefixed  a prologue  (i.-iv).  A brief  epi- 
logue is  subjoined  (xxii.  6-21).,  The  prologue  is 
of  considerable  length,  embracing  separate  epistles 
to  the  seven  churches  in  Asia  Minor.  John  had 
lived  and  laboured  for  a time  in  the  region  where 
these  churches  were  planted.  Probably  he  was 
personally  known  to  many  of  the  believers  of 
which  they  were  com}H)sed.  Now  that  the  other 
apostles  were  dispersed  or  dead,  the  care  of  them 
devolved  upon  himself.  As  their  spiritual  super- 
intendent, he  naturally  felt  the  most  intense  and 
lively  interest  in  their  growing  prosperity  and 
steadfastness  in  the  faith.  The  storm  of  persecu- 
tion had  fallen  upon  the  apostles  and  believers  at 
Rome,  striking  fear  into  their  brethren  in  the  re- 
mote provinces  of  the  empire.  It  is  highly  pro- 
bable, from  other  sources,  that  the  Christians  in 
these  regions  had  been  already  visited  with  such 
trials  (see  1st  Ep.  of  Peter).  After  the  prologue 
or  introduction,  which  is  peculiarly  fitted  to  ad- 
monish and  console  amid  suffering,  we  come  to 
the  body  of  the  work  itself,  commencing  with  the 
fourth  chapter.  This  may  be  appropriately  di- 
vided into  three  parts:  (1.)  iv.-xi. ; (2.)  xii.-xix.; 
(3.)  xx.-xxii.  o.  The  first  narrates  the  fortunes 
and  fate  of  Christ’s  followers  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  when  the  coining  of  the  Saviour  took 
place.  Here  the  triumph  of  Christianity  over 
Judaism  is  exhibited,  as  the  conclusion  demon- 
strates. The  following  particulars  are  comprised 
in  this  portion. 

A vision  of  the  divine  glory  in  heaven,  ana- 
logous to  the  vision  which  Isaiah  had,  as  re- 
corded in  the  6th  chapter  of  his  prophecies. 
An  account  of  the  sealed  book,  with  seven  seals, 
which  none  but  the  Lamb  could  open;  and  the 
praises  of  the  Lamb  sung  by  the  celestial  inha- 
bitants. The  opening  of  the  first  six  seals.  Before 
the  opening  of  the  seventh,  44,000  are  sealed  out 
of  the  tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  an 
innumerable  multitude  with  palms  in  their  hands 
are  seen  before  the  throne.  After  the  opening  of 
the  seventh,  the  catastrophe  is  delayed  by  the 
sounding  of  seven  trumpets,  the  first  six  of  which 
cause  great  plagues  and  hasten  on  the  judgment. 
Yet,  before  the  last  trumpet  sounds,  a mighty 
angel,  with  a rainbow  round  his  head,  appears 
with  an  open  book  in  his  hand,  announcing  that 
the  mystery  of  God  should  be  finished  when  the 
seventh  angel  should  begin  to  sound.  On  this 
he  gives  the  book  to  the  seer,  commanding  him  to 
eat  it  up,  and  to  prophesy  hereafter  concerning 
many  people,  countries,  and  kings.  After  this  the 
interior  of  the  temple,  with  its  Jewish  worshippers, 
is  measured  by  the  prophet,  while  the  outer  court 
is  excepted  and  given  over  to  the  heathen  for  the 
grace  of  forty-two  mouths.  But,  notwithstanding 
the  long-suffering  mercy  of  God,  the  Jews  con- 
tinue to  persecute  the  faithful  witnesses,  so  that 
they  are  punished  by  the  fall  of  a tenth  part  of 
the  holy  city  in  an  earthquake.  Hence  7000  men 
perish,  and  the  remainder,  affrighted,  give  glory 
to  God.  After  this  the  seventh  angel  sounds,  and 
the  Lord  aj>pears,  to  inflict  the  final  blow  on 
Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants.  The  catastrophe 
takes  place  ; the  heavenly  choir  gives  thanks  to 
God  for  the  victory  of  Christianity  ; and  the 
temple  of  God  is  opened  in  heaven,  so  that  he  is 
accessible  to  all,  being  disclosed  to  the  view  of 
toe  whole  earth  as  their  God.  without  the  inter - 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

vention  of  priest  or  solemnity,  as  in  the  abrogated 
economy.  Tims  the  Jewish  ritual  is  done  away; 
the  Jews  as  a nation  of  persecutors  are  destroyed  ; 
and  free  scope  is  given  to  the  new  religion. 

This  portion,  therefore,  of  the  prophetic  book 
depicts  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  triumph 
of  Christianity  over  Judaism.  The  Son  of  Man 
came  in  fearful  majesty  to  punish  the  guilty 
nation,  as  had  been  predicted. 

We  are  aware  that  some  deny  the  existence  of 
a catastrophe  in  the  11th  chapter.  Schott  says 
that  it  is  procrastinated,  although  the  reader  here 
expects  it.  But  Grotius  long  ago  saw  the  point 
in  its  true  light,  and  remarked  : ‘Solet  apostolus 
mala  gravia  brevibus  verbis,  sed  ellicacibus  prse- 
tervehi,  bona  eloqui  liberal  iter.’ 

The  24th  chapter  of  Matthew,  with  the  corre- 
sponding paragraphs  of  the  other  two  Gospels, 
treats  of  the  same  subject,  though  in  much  briefej 
compass.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  ground- 
work of  chaps,  iv.-xi.  of  the  Apocalypse,  and 
should  be  carefully  compared  by  the  interpreter. 

The  second  division,  chaps,  xii.-xix.,  depicts 
the  sufferings  inflicted  on  the  church  by  the 
heathen  Roman  power,  and  the  triumph  of  Chris- 
tianity over  this  formidable  enemy  also.  Here 
the  writer  has  special  reference  to  the  cruel  Nero, 
as  ch.  xvii.  10,  11,  which  can  only  be  consistently 
interpreted  of  him , demonstrates.  This  part  com- 
mences with  a description  of  the  Saviour’s  birth, 
who  is  represented  as  springing  from  the  theocracy 
or  theocratic  church,  and  of  Satan’s  malignity 
against  him.  Cast  out  of  heaven  by  Michael  and 
the  good  angels,  Satan  turns  his  rage  upon  the 
followers  of  Christ  on  earth.  Hitherto  there  is  no 
account  of  the  Romish  persecuting  power;  and  it 
is  an  inquiry  worthy  of  attention,  why  John  com- 
mences with  the  birth  of  the  Saviour  and  Satan's 
opposition  to  the  early  church,  thus  reverting  to 
a period  prior  to  that  which  had  been  gone  over 
already.  Why  does  not  the  seer  carry  on  the 
series  of  symbolic  predictions  from  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  power?  Why  does  he  not  commence 
at  the  point  where,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  he 
had  left  off?  The  question  is  not  easily  answered. 
It  cannot  well  be  doubted  that  the  brief  notice  of 
the  Saviour’s  birth,  and  of  Satan’s  unsuccessful 
attempt  upon  heaven  and  the  holy  child,  is  merely 
introductory  to  the  proper  subject.  Perhaps  John 
carries  the  reader  back  to  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity, when  Satan  was  peculiarly  active,  in 
order  to  link  his  malignant  opposition  as  embodied 
in  the  persecuting  violence  of  heathen  Rome,  to 
his  unceasing  attacks  upon  the  truth  even  from 
the  very  birth  of  Christ.  This  would  serve  to 
keep  up  in  the  reader's  recollection  the  memory 
of  Satan’s  past  opposition  to  religion,  and  also 
prepare  for  a readier  apprehension  of  symbols 
descriptive  of  his  further  malevolence.  The  second 
part  therefore  begins,  properly  speaking,  with  the 
13th  chapter,  the  I2th  being  simply  preparatory. 

A beast  rises  out  of  the  sea  with  seven  heads 
and  ten  horns.  To  it  the  dragon  gives  power. 
The  heathen  power  of  Rome,  aided  by  Satan, 
makes  war  upon  the  saints  arid  overcomes  them. 
Presently  another  beast  appears  to  assist  the 
former,  with  two  horns,  as  a lamb,  but  speaking 
as  a dragon.  This  latter  symbolizes  the  heathen 
priests  assisting  the  civil  power  in  its  attempts  to 
crush  the  Saviour’s  adherents.  Then  comes  t!w 
vision  of  the  Lamb  and  the  144.000  elect  i* 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

Mount  Sion.  Doubtless  this  vision  is  introduced, 
at  the  present  place  to  sustain  and  elevate  the 
hopes  of  the  struggling  Christians  during  the 
dominance  of  this  power.  Such  as  had  passed 
triumphant  through  the  fiery  trials  sing  a new 
song  of  victory,  in  the  undisturbed  possession  of 
everlasting  happiness.  Three  angels  are  now  in- 
troduced with  proclamations  of  the  speedy  down- 
fall of  heathenism,  and  of  divine  judgments  on 
the  persecuting  power.  The  first  announces  that 
the  everlasting  Gospel  should  be  preached;  the 
second,  that  the  great  city  Rome  is  fallen.  The 
third  speaks  of  tremendous  judgments  that  should 
befall  those  who  apostatized  to  heathenism  ; while, 
on  the  other  hand,  a voice  from  heaven  proclaims 
the  blessedness  of  such  as  die  in  the  Lord.  But 
the  final  catastrophe  is  yet  delayed  : it  is  not  fully 
come.  The  Saviour  again  appears  sitting  on  a 
white  cloud,  with  a sharp  sickle  in  his  hand. 
Three  angels  also  appear  with  sickles,  and  the 
harvest  is  reaped.  The  catastrophe  rapidly  ap- 
proaches. Seven  angels  are  seen  with  seven  vials, 
which  are  successively  poured  out  on  the  seat  of 
the  beast.  The  first  six  are  represented  as  tor- 
menting and  weakening  the  Roman  power  in 
different  ways,  until  it  should  be  overthrown. 
At  last  the  seventh  angel  discharges  his  vial  of 
wrath,  and  heaven  resounds  with  the  cry,  It  is 
done,  while  voices,  thunders,  lightnings,  and  a 
mighty  earthquake,  conspire  to  heighten  the  terror 
and  complete  the  catastrophe.  Rome  is  divided 
into  three  parts  ; the  cities  of  the  heathen  fall ; 
the  islands  flee  away,  and  the  mountains  sink. 
Men,  tormented,  blaspheme  Gnd.  After  this,  the 
destruction  of  the  Romish  power  is  described  more 
particularly.  The  writer  enters  into  detail.  An 
angel  takes  the  seer  to  show  him  more  closely  the 
desolation  of  the  church's  enemy.  The  Roman 
power  then  reigning  is  indicated  somewhat  myste- 
riously, though  in  such  a way  as  would  be  intel- 
ligible to  the  Christians  whom  John  addressed. 
This  power  is  embodied  and  personified  in  Nero, 
who,  though. not  named,  is  yet  not  obscurely  de- 
signated. He  is  the  beast  ‘ that  was,  and  is  not, 
and  yet  is.’  ‘The  srory  that  Nero  was  not  really 
dead,  but  had  retired  to  the  Euphrates,  and  would 
return  again  from  thence,  appears  here  move  fully 
delineated  by  a Christian  imagination.  He  is  the 
monster  to  whom  Satan  gave  all  his  power,  who 
returns  as  Antichrist  and  the  destroyer  of  Rome, 
who  will  force  all  to  worship  his  image.  The 
Roman  empire  at  that  time  is  set  forth  as  the 
representative  of  heathenism,  and  of  ungodly 
power  personified  ; and  in  this  connection,  under 
the  image  of  the  beast  with  seven  beads  (the  seven 
emperors  which  would  succeed  one  another  till 
the  appearance  of  Antichrist),  Nero  is  signified 
as  one  of  these  heads  (xiii.  3),  which  appeared 
dead,  but  whose  deadly  wound  was  healed,  c$p 
that  to  universal  astonishment  he  appeared  alive 
again.  Nero,  re-appearing  after  it  had  been  be- 
lieved that  he  was  dead,  is  the  beast  ‘ which  was, 
and  is  not,  and  shall  ascend  out  of  the  bottomless 
pit — and  yetis’  (Rev.  xvii.  8),  (Neander,  History 
of  the  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian 
Church,  translated  by  Ryland,  vol.  ii.  p.  58, 
note).  After  this,  Babylon  or  the  Roman  power, 
is  represented  as  fallen,  and  the  few  remaining 
believers  are  exhorted  to  depart  out  of  her.  A 
mighty  angel  casts  a great  stone  into  the  sea,  an 
emblem  of  the  min  of  that  power.  At  the  cata- 

YOL.  II. 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.  624 

stropht  heaven  resounds  with  praises.  The  mar- 
riage supper  of  the  Lamb  is  announced,  and  the 
church  is  permitted  to  array  herself  in  fine  linen. 
But  the  destruction  is  not  yet  completed.  Another 
act  in  the  great  drama  remains.  A battle  is  to  be 
fought  with  the  combined  powers  of  the  empire. 
Heaven  opens.  The  conqueror  on  the  white  horse 
appears  again,  and  an  angel  calls  upon  the  fowls 
to  come  and  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Lord’s  enemies, 
for  the  victory  is  certain.  Accordingly,  the  beast 
and  the  false  prophet  are  taken  and  cast  alive  into 
the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone.  The  congregated 
hosts  are  slain  by  the  word  of  the  Redeemer. 
Such  is  the  second  great  catastrophe,  the  fall  of 
the  persecuting  heathen  power — the  triumph  of 
Christianity  over  paganism. 

The  third  leading  division  of  the  book  reaches 
from  ch.  xx.  to  xxii.  6,  inclusive.  This  is  the 
only  portion  that  stretches  to  a period  far  remote 
from  the  time  of  the  writer.  It  is  added  to  com- 
plete the  delineation  of  Christ’s  kingdom  on  earth. 
Though  his  main  design  was  accomplished  in  the 
preceding  chapters,  John  was  reluctant,  so  to  speak, 
to  leave  the  sublime  theme  without  glancing  at 
distant  times,  when  the  triumphs  of  righteousness 
should  be  still  more  marked  and  diffusive,  when 
Satan’s  power  should  be  remarkably  restrained, 
and  the  last  great  conflict  of  heathen  and  anti- 
christian  power  with  the  Redeemer  should  ter- 
minate for  ever  the  church’s  existence  on  earth  : 
ushering  in  the  general  judgment,  the  everlasting 
woe  of  the  wicked,  and  the  glorified  state  of  the 
righteous.  Here  the  writer’s  sketches  are  brief 
and  rapid.  But  when  we  consider  the  place  in 
which  they  are  introduced,  the  inconceivable  na- 
ture of  the  happiness  referred  to,  and  the  ten- 
dency of  minds  the  most  Christianized  to  attach 
sensuous  ideas  to  figures  descriptive  of  everlasting 
misery  and  endless  felicity,  their  brevity  is  amply 
justified.  A glorious  period  now  commences,  but 
how  long  after  the  preceding  events  is  not  affirmed. 
That  a considerable  interval  may  be  assumed  we 
deduce  from  the  description  itself.  Satan  is 
bound,  or  his  influences  restrained,  a thousand 
years,  throughout  the  seat  of  the  beast.  Chiis- 
tianity  is  spread  abroad  and  prevails  in  the  Roman 
empire.  But  after  the  thousand  years  are  expired, 
Satan  is  set  free  and  begins  again  to  practise  his 
deceptions.  He  incites  Gog  and  Magog  to  battle. 
The  camp  of  the  saints  and  the  beloved  city  are 
invaded  by  the  assembled  hosts.  But  fire  from 
heaven  devours  the  adversaries,  while  the  devil 
is  again  taken  and  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire. 
After  this  (how  long  is  unknown)  comes  the 
general  resurrection,  the  last  judgment,  and  the 
doom  of  the  wicked.  For  the  righteous  a new 
heaven  and  a new  earth  are  prepared,  in  which 
they  shall  be  perfectly  free  from  sin  and  cor- 
ruption. With  this  the  visions  end,  and  an 
epilogue  closes  up  the  book. 

Froq^  the  preceding  outline  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  body  of  the  work  consists  of  three  leading 
divisions,  in  which  are  pourtrayed  the  proceedings 
of  God  towards  the  Jews  ; the  rise  and  progress  of 
the  Christian  church,  till  through  much  struggling 
it  possessed  the  Roman  empire,  partly  by  convert- 
ing and  partly  destroying  the  heathen  ; the  mil- 
lennium, succeeded  by  the  resurrection  and  judg- 
ment, and  the  glorious  felicity  of  the  saints  in  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem. 

In  this  summary  view  of  the  contents,  it  has 


•25  REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

been  found  inconvenient  to  introduce  any  filing 
iu  the  way  of  exposition  beyond  general  re  narks 
and  hints.  As  to  diversities  of  sentiment  in  regard 
to  the  interpretation  of  ditVerent  portions,  our  limits 
will  not  admit  of  their  statement,  much  less  an 
examination  of  their  respective  merit. 

In  opposition  to  the  majority  of  German  writers, 
as  Bleek,  Schott,  Liicke,  Ewald,  De  Wette,  and 
others,  the  existence  of  a catastrophe  at  the  ter- 
ruination  of  the  11th  chapter  has  been  assumed. 
A primary  reason  for  so  doing  is  the  mention  of 
great  thunderings  (voices)  in  heaven  (xi.  15), 
which  are  always  the  emblems  of  fearful  judg- 
ments. Accordingly,  in  the  parallel  phrase 
(x.  3),  it  is  said  that  seven  thunders  uttered  their 
voices,  denoting  the  signal  and  complete  blow 
about  to  be  inflicted  on  Jerusalem — the  destruc- 
tion consummated  in  the  third  anil  last  woe 
(xi.  14).  In  like  manner,  at  the  destruction  of 
heathen  Rome  there  were  ‘ voices  and  thunders 
and  lightnings’  (xvi.  18).  It  were  useless  to  re- 
count the  different  expositions  of  cli.  xvii.  10. 
We  have  adopted  the  only  one  that  appears  to 
be  tenable  in  connection  with  tiie  surrounding 
context.  Lucke's  view  is  the  most  plausible, 
and  has  therefore  gained  the  assent  of  Neander, 
Reuss,  and  others.  Hug's  must  be  regarded  as 
unfortunate. 

The  position  of  the  Millennium  is  a matter  of 
great  difficulty.  Professor  Bush  contends  that  it 
should  be  regarded  as  commencing  somewhere 
between  a.d.  395  and  a.d.  450,  and  terminating 
not  far  from  the  capture  of  Constantinople  by  the 
Turks,  a.d.  1453.  Not  very  dissimilar  is  the 
opinion  of  Hammond,  viz.,  that  the  period  in 
question  reaches  from  Constantine’s  edict  in 
favour  of  Christianity  to  the  planting  of  Moham- 
medanism in  Greece  by  Othman.  In  either  case 
the  Millennium  is  past. 

To  the  hypothesis  so  ably  supported  by  Bush 
we  hesitate  to  accede,  because  the  description 
given  in  the  20th  chapter  is  extravagantly  figu- 
rative as  appropriated  to  any  period  of  the  church's 
history  already  past;  and  also  because  his  in- 
terpretation of  the  dragon  appears  inconsistent 
with  the  second  verse  of  the  20th  chapter.  Ac- 
cording to  this  ingenious  writer,  the  dragon  is  the 
mystic  name  of  Paganism  in  its  leading  cha- 
racter of  idolatry  and  despotism  combined,  an 
hypothesis  apparently  countenanced  by  the  12th 
chapter,  which  the  reader  is  requested  to  examine. 
But  it.  will  be  observed,  tli.it  in  the  20th  chapter, 
the  beast  and  the  false  prophet  are  expressly  dis- 
tinguished from  the  dragon;  so  that  by  the  dragon 
Satan  alone  must  be  meant  as  distinct  from  the 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  power  of  heathen  imperial 
Rome.  The  beast  had  been  already  cast  into 
the  lake  before  Satan  was  thrown  into  the  same 
place,  and  by  the  former  is  obviously  meant  the 
civil  despotism  of  Paganism. 

In  regard  to  the  period  described  in  Rev.  xxi., 
xxii.,  denoted  by  the  new  heavens  and  the  new 
earth , we  are  quite  aware  of  the  opinion  main- 
tained ry  Hammond,  Hug,  Bush,  and  others, 
viz.,  that  it  comprises  an  earthly  flourishing 
state  of  the  church.  Yet  we  must  freely  confess, 
notwithstanding  the  very  aide  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  advocated  by  Bush,  that  there  is  a 
degree  of  unsatisfactori ness  about  it.  The  paral- 
lelism instituted  between  John’s  description  and 
Isaiah  liv.  11,  12;  lx.  3-11 ; lxv.  17,  18,  19,  20, 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

is  striking,  but  not  demonstrative  of  that  for  whicl* 
it  is  instituted.  The  imagery  indeed  is  substan- 
tially  the  same,  and  probably  the  New  Testa- 
ment, seer  imitated  Isaiah;  but  the  si  rain  of  tbs 
former  rises  far  higher  than  the  sublime  vision 
depicted  by  the  ancient  prophet. 

VIII.  Some  errors  into  which  the  expounder* 
of  the  book  have  fallen. — It  would  not  be  an  easy 
task  to  enumerate  all  the  mistakes  committed  by 
interpreters  in  the  field  of  prophecy  as  unfolded 
in  the  Apocalypse.  We  shall  cursorily  glanco 
at  a few  in  connection  with  their  causes. 

1.  When  the  historic  basis  is  abandoned,  ima- 
gination has  ample  range  for  her  wildest  extra- 
vagances. The  Apocalyptic  visions  are  based 
upon  time  and  place — elements  that  ought  never 
to  lie  neglected  by  the  exegetical  inquirer.  Thus 
we  are  informed  that  the  things  must  shortly 
come  to  pass  (i.  1),  and  that  the  time  is  at 
hand  (ver.  3).  So  also  in  chap,  xxii.,  it  is  stated, 
that  the  things  must  shortly  he  done  (ver.  6), 
while  the  Saviour  affirms,  ‘ Behold,  I come 
quickly’  (ver.  7,  20).  These  notices  are  significant 
as  to  the  period  to  which  the  visions  principally 
refer;  and  the  coming  of  Christ,  announced  to 
take  place  within  a short  time,  denotes  those  re- 
markable judgments  which  impended  over  his 
enemies.  There  are  also  mentioned  three  cities 
forming  the  theatre  of  the  sublime  and  terrible 
occurrences  described.  1.  Sodom,  Egypt.,  de- 
signated as  the  place  where  our  Lord  was  cruci- 
fied, and  the  holy  city.  This  can  mean  none 
other  place  than  Jerusalem.  2.  Babylon,  built  on 
seven  hills.  This  is  Rome.  3.  Tbe  New  Jeru- 
salem. The  first  two  are  doomed  to  destruction. 
They  also  depict  Judaism  and  heathenism;  fir 
when  the  capitals  fell,  the  empires  sank  into  feeble- 
ness and  decay.  The  New  Jerusalem,  the  king- 
dom of  the  blessed,  succeeds  the  two  former  as  a 
kingdom  that  shall  never  be  moved.  There  are  also 
historic  personages  that  appear  in  the  hook.  The 
seven  Roman  emperors  are  mentioned,  while  Nero 
in  particular  is  significantly  referred  to.  Now, 
except  the  interpreter  keep  to  historic  ground,  he 
will  assuredly  lose  himself  in  endless  conjectures, 
as  is  exemplified  in  a remarkable  manner  by  tbe 
anonymous  author  of  Ilyponoia  (New  York,  1844, 
8vu.),  who  supposes  the  book  to  be  ‘an  unveiling 
of  the  mysterious  truths  of  Christian  doctrine, 
with  an  exhibition  of  certain  opposite  errors  — a 
revelation  made  by  Jesus  Christ  of  himself — an 
intellectual  manifestation.’ 

2.  Others  have  fallen  into  grievous  error  by 
seeking  a detailed  history  of  the  church  universal 
in  the  Revelation.  Some  even  find  an  epitome 
of  the  church’s  entire  history  in  tbe  Epistles  to 
the  Seven  Churches;  others,  in  the  rest  of  tbe 
book  ; others  again  in  both.  Agreeably  to  such 
a scheme,  particular  events  are  assigned  to  par- 
ticular periods,  persons  are  specified,  peoples  are 
characterized,  and  names  assigned  with  the  greatest 
particularity.  The  ablest  interpreters  after  this 
fashion  are  Vitriuga,  Mede,  and  Faber;  lut  the 
entire  plan  of  proceeding  is  inconsistent  w th  the 
writer's  original  purpose,  ar.  l leads  to  eudless 
mazes. 

3.  It  is  obvious  that  we  should  not  look  for  a 
circumstance,  event,  or  person,  corresponding  to 
every  particular  ir  the  visions  of  the  seer.  ‘ It  is 
unnecessary  to  remark,’ says  Hug,  ‘ that  all  the 
particular  traits  and  images  in  this  large  work 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF. 

ire  by  no  means  significant.  Many  are  intro- 
duced only  to  enliven  the  representation,  or  are 
taken  from  the  prophets  and  sacred  books  for  the 
purpose  of  ornament ; and  no  one  who  has  any 
judgment  in  such  matters  will  deny  that  the  work 
5 8 extraordinarily  rich  and  gorgeous  for  a pro- 
duction of  Western  origin'  (Fosdicks  Transla- 
tion, p.  668). 

4.  The  principle  of  synchronisms  has  been 
largely  adopted  by  interpreters  since  the  times  of 
Mede  and  Vitringa.  For  an  explanation  and 
defence  of  such  a system,  we  refer  the  reader  to 
Mede's  Claris  Apocalyptica  (Works,  fol.  London, 
1677,  p.  41ff,  sq.),  where  it  is  fully  draw’ll  out. 
The  method  so  ingeniously  (Revised  by  this  learned 
writer  has  been  followed  by  the  great  majority  of 
English  expositors,  especially  by  Faber  in  his 
Sacred  Calendar  of  Prophecy.  In  this  way  the 
same  events  are  said  to  be  represented  by  a suc- 
cession of  different  series  of  symbols,  the  symbols 
being  varied,  but  the  things  intended  by  them  re- 
maining the  same.  Instead,  therefore,  of  the  book 
being  progressive  continuously,  it  is  progressive 
and  retrogressive  throughout.  Such  a plan,  so 
unlike  that  of  the  other  prophetic  books  of  Scrip- 
ture, is  repugnant  to  the  sober  sense  of  every  in- 
telligent student  of  the  Divine  word.  It  intro- 
duces complication  and  enigma  sufficient  to 
ensure  its  rejection.  Not  a hint  is  given  by  John 
of  any  such  method.  It  was  left  for  the  in- 
genuity of  after  ages  to  decipher  ; and  when  dis- 
covered by  the  1 father  of  prophetic  interpretation,’ 
as  Mede  is  frequently  called,  it  is  difficult  to  be 
understood  even  by  the  learned  reader.  There  is 
no  good  reason  for  supposing  that  the  series  of 
events  symbolized  does  not  progress.  The  repre- 
sentation is  progressive,  just  as  the  events  recorded 
by  history  are  progressive. 

5.  On  the  designations  of  time  which  occur 
so  frequently  in  the  Apocalypse,  this  is  not  the 
place  to  enlarge.  The  entire  subject  is  yet  un- 
settled. Those  who  take  a day  for  a year  must 
prove  the  correctness  and  Scriptural  basis  of  such 
a principle.  This  is  quite  necessary  after  the 
arguments  advanced  by  Maitland  and  Stuart  to 
show  that  a day  means  no  more  than  a day,  and 
a year  a year.  We  do  not  suppose  that  all,  or 
most  of  the  numbers  are  to  be  taken  arithmetically. 
The  numbers  seven  and  three,  especially,  recur  so 
often  as  to  suggest  the  idea  of  their  being  em- 
ployed indefinitely  for  poetic  costume  alone.  Yet 
there  may  be  special  reasons  in  the  context  of 
particular  passages  for  abiding  by  the  exact  num- 
bers stated.* 

By  far  the  greater  number  of  works  on  the 
Apocalypse  are  of  no  value,  the  authors  having 
failed  to  perceive  the  primary  purpose  of  the 
apostle.  We  shall  only  mention  a few  ; to  enu- 
merate all  would  be  impossible. 

(«.)  Works  on  the  literature  of  the  book. 

(6.)  Commentaries. 

(a.)  The  best  book  on  the  literature  of  the 
Apocalypse  is  that  of  Liicke,  published  in  1832. 
It  is  both  copious  and  excellent.  In  addition  to 
it  may  be  mentioned  the  Introductions  of  Mi 

* Against  the  view  of  Maitland  and  Stuart, 
see  Bilk’s  First  Elements  of  Sacred  Prophecy 
and  Bush’s  Hierophant ; compare  also  an  article 
in  the  Eclectic  Review  for  December , 1814,  by 
the  preserd  writer. 


REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS.  627 

chaclis,  Haenlein,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Hug, 
Feilmoser,  De  Wette,  Credner,  Schott,  Guerike ; 
Bleek’s  Beitriige  zur  Kritik  der  Offenbarung  Jo- 
hannis  (in  the  Zeitschrift  of  Sclileiermacher, 
De  Wette,  and  Liicke,  ii.  252,  sq.) ; Kleuko-, 
Ueber  Ur  sprung  und  Zweck  der  Offenbar.  Jk. 
hannis  ; Steudel,  Ueber  die  richtige  A ujf as  sung 
der  Apocalypse  (in  Bengel’s  N.  Archiv,  iv.  2); 
the  Treatises  of  Kolthoff,  Lange,  and  Dannemam#^ 
already  referred  to;  Knittel’s  Beitriige  zur  Kritik 
ilber  Johannis  Offenbarung ; Vogel's  Commen- 
tatio  de  Apoc.  Johannis , pt.  i vii.  ; Neander’s 
History  of  the  Planting  and  Training  of  the 
Christian  Church;  Olshausen's  Proof  of  the 
Genuineness  of  the  Writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment (translated  by  Fosdick,  Andover,  1838); 
Lardner’s  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History , 
vols.  i.  and  iii.  4to.  edition;  HSvernick  in  the 
Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung , and  Lucubra- 
tiones  already  quoted. 

(6.)  Pareus,  Grotius,  Vitringa,  Eichhorn,  Hein- 
richs, Scholz,  Ewald,  Tinius,  Bossnet,  Alcassar, 
Hentenius,  Salmeron,  Herrensclmeider,  Hagen. 
Of  English  works  Lowman’s  Commentary  has 
been  highly  esteemed,  though  his  scheme  is  wrong. 
Mede’s  Claris  and  the  Commentary  attached  to 
it,  have  had  great  influence  on  subsequent  writers  ; 
Faber’s  Sacred  Calendar  of  Prophecy  is  able  and 
ingenious,  but  radically  wrong;  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton’s Observations  on  the  Apocalypse , and  Bishop 
Newton’s  Remarks , are  generally  incorrect.  Cun- 
ninghame  has  written  various  treatises  illustrative 
of  the  Apocalypse,  but  his  lucubrations  are  dark 
and  doubtful.  Woodhouse’s  Commentary  is  per- 
vaded by  commendable  diligence  and  sobriety, 
though  he  has  greatly  deviated  from  the  right 
mode  of  interpretation.  We  specially  recom- 
mend Hammond  and  Lee  (.Six  Sermons  on  the 
Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  London,  1830, 
8vo.),  who  have  perceived  the  right  principle  lying 
at  the  basis  of  a correct  exposition  ; to  which  may 
be  added  the  Latin  Notes  of  Grotius,  and  the 
perspicuous  German  Commentary  of  Tinius. 
The  latest  and  largest  work  on  the  Apocalypse  that 
has  appeared  in  England  is  Elliott's  Horce  Apo - 
calypticte,  in  3 vols.  8vo , characterised  by  great 
research  and  minute  investigation,  but  proceeding 
on  principles  essentially  and  fundamentally  er- 
roneous. 

Valuable  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  interpre- 
tation may  be  found  in  Stuart's  Hints  on  the  In- 
terpretation of  Prophecy ; Bush's  Hierophant; 
or,  Monthly  Journal  of  Sacred  Symbols  and  Pro- 
phecy ; as  also  in  the  various  Introductions  and 
Treatises  mentioned  under  (a.). — S.  D. 

REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS  [Apocry- 
pha]. The  Apocalyptic  character,  which  is  oc- 
cupied in  describing  the  future  splendour  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom  and  its  historical  relations, 
presents  itself  for  the  first  time  in  the  book  of 
Daniel,*  which  is  thus  characteristically  distin- 
guished from  the  former  prophetical  books.  In 
the  only  prophetical  book  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  this  idea  is  fully 
developed,  and  the  several  apocryphal  revelations 
are  mere  imitations,  more  or  less  happy,  of  these 
two  canonical  books,  which  furnished  ideas  to  a 


* See  the  able  remarks  on  the  age  of  this  book 
in  the  Publication  of  the  Chris  ian  AdvoccM 

(W.  H.  Mill,  D.D.)  for  1841. 


628  REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS. 

numerous  class  of  writers  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
Christian  church.  The  principal  spurious  reve- 
lations extant  have  been  published  by  Fabricius, 
in  his  Cod.  Pseudep.  V.T.,  and  Cod.Apoc.  N.  T. ; 
and  their  character  has  been  still  more  critically 
examined  in  recent  times  by  Archbishop  Lau- 
rence (who  has  added  to  their  number!,  by 
Nitzsch,  Bleek,  and  others;  and  especially  by 
Dr.  Liicke,  in  his  Einleitung  in  die  Offenbarung 
Johan,  und  die  gesammte  apocalyptische  Litte- 
ratur.  To  this  interesting  work  we  are  in  a 
great  measure  indebted  for  much  of  the  informa- 
tion contained  in  the  present  article. 

We  shall  first  treat  of  the  apocryphal  reve- 
lations no  longer  extant,  which  are  the  following, 
viz. : — 

1.  The  Apocalypse  of  Elias.  2.  The  Apoca- 
lypse of  Zephaniah.  3.  The  Apocalypse  of  Ze- 
chariah.  4.  The  Apocalypse  of  Adam.  5.  The 
Apocalypse  of  Abraham.  6.  The  Apocalypse  of 
Moses.  7.  The  Prophecies  of  Hystaspes.  8.  The 
Apocalypse  of  Peter.  9.  The  Apocalypse  of  Paul. 
10.  The  Apocalypse  of  Cerinthus.  11.  The  Apo- 
calypse of  Thomas.  12.  The  Apocalypse  of  the 
proto-martyr  Stephen. 

The  first  three  are  referred  to  by  St.  Jerome 
( Ep . ad  Pammach.),  and  cited  as  lost  apocryphal 
books  in  an  ancient  MS.  of  the  Scriptures  in  the 
Coislinian  Collection  (ed.  Montfaucon,  p.  194). 
The  Apocalypse  of  Adam , and  that  of  Abraham, 
are  cited  by  Epiphanius  ( H ceres . xxxi.  8)  as 
gnostic  productions.  The  Apocalypse  of  Moses, 
mentioned  by  Syncellus  ( Chronog .)  and  Cedrenus 
(Comp.  Hist.),  fragments  of  which  have  been 
published  by  Fabricius  ( ut  supra),  is  conjectured 
by  Grotius  to  have  been  a forgery  of  one  of  the 
jyicient  Christians. 

The  Prophecies  of  Hystaspes  were  in  use 
among  the  Christians  in  the  second  century. 
This  was  apparently  a pagan  production,  but  is 
cited  by  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Apology,  as  agree- 
ing with  the  Sibylline  oracles  in  predicting  the 
destruction  of  the  world  by  fire.  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus  (Strom.  vi.)and  Lactantius  (histit.  vii. 
15)  also  cite  passages  from  these  prophecies,  which 
bear  a decidedly  Christian  character. 

The  Apocalypse  of  Peter  is  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  3.  25),  and  was  cited 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  his  Adumbrations, 
now  lost  (Euseb.  1.  c.  vi.  14).  Some  fragments 
of  it  have,  however,  been  preserved  by  Clement, 
in  his  Selections  from  the  lost  Prophecies  of 
Theodotus  the  Gnostic,  and  are  published  in 
Grabe’s  Spicilegium  (vol.  i.  p.  74,  sq.).  From  these 
we  can  barely  collect  that  this  Apocalypse  con- 
tained some  melancholy  prognostications,  which 
seem  to  be  directed  against,  the  Jews,  and  to  refer 
to  the  destruction  of  their  city  and  nation.  This 
work  is  cited  as  extant  in  the  ancient  fragment 
of  the  canon  published  by  Muratori,  a document 
of  the  second  or  third  century,  with  this  proviso, 
that  ‘some  of  us  are  unwilling  that  it  be 
read  in  the  church as  is  perhaps  the  signifi- 
cation of  the  ambiguous  passage,  ‘Apocalypsis 
Johannis  et  Petri  tantum  recipimus;  quam  qui- 
dam  ex  nostris  legi  in  ecclesia  nolunt.’  Eusebius 
designates  it  at  one  time  as  ‘ spurious,’  and  at 
another  as  ‘ heretical.’  From  a circumstance 
mentioned  by  Sozomen  (Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  19), 
riz.,  that  it  was  read  in  some  churches  in 
Palestine  on  all  Fridays  in  the  year  down  to  the 


REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS. 

fifth  century,  Liicke  infers  that  it  was  a Jewish- 
Christian  production  (of  the  second  centurv),  and 
of  the  same  family  with  the  Preaching  of  Peter. 
It  is  uncertain  whether  this  work  is  the  same 
that  is  read  by  the  Copts  among  what  they  call 
the  apocryphal  books  of  Peter.  There  was  also 
a work  under  the  name  of  ‘he  Apocalypse  oj 
Peter  by  his  Disciple  Clement , an  account  of 
which  was  transmitted  to  Pope  Honorius  by 
Jacob,  bishop  of  Acre  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
written  in  the  Saracenic  language ; but  this  has 
been  conjectured  to  be  a later  work,  originating 
in  the  time  of  the  Crusades. 

In  the  ancient  Latin  stichometry  in  Cotelerius 
(Apostolic  Fathers),  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  is 
said  to  contain  2070  stichs,  and  that  of  John  1200. 
It  is  cited  as  an  apocryphal  book  in  the  Indiculus 
Scripturarum  after  the  Queestiones  of  Anastasias 
of  Nicaea,  together  with  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra 
and  that  of  Paul.  There  is  in  the  Bodleian 
Library  a MS.  of  an  Arabic  Apocalypse  of  Petei’t 
of  which  Nicoll  has  furnished  an  extract  in  his 
catalogue,  and  which  may  possibly  be  a transla- 
tion of  the  Greek  Apocalypse. 

The  Apocalypse  of  St.  Paid  is  mentioned  by 
Augustine  ( Tract.  98  in  Ev.  Joan.),  who  asserts 
that  it  abounds  in  fables,  and  was  an  invention 
to  which  occasion  was  furnished  by  2 Cor.  xii. 
2-4.  This  appears  from  Epiphanius  (Hares. 
xxxviii.  2)  to  have  been  an  anti-Jewish  Gnostic 
production,  and  to  be  identical  with  the  avafSan- 
kov  of  Paul,  used  only  by  the  anti-Jewish  sect 
of  Gnostics  called  Cainites.  It  is  said  by  Sc- 
zomen  (Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  19)  to  have  been  held  re 
great  esteem.  Jt  was  also  known  to  Theophylae 
and  CEcumenius  (on  2 Cor.  xii.  4),  and  to  Nice 
phorus  in  the  ninth  century  (Can,  3,  4).  Whe 
ther  this  is  the  same  work  which  Du  Pin  (Proleg. 
and  Canon)  says  is  still  extant  among  the  Copts 
is  rendered  more  than  doubtful  by  Fabricius 
(Cod.  Apoc.  ii.  p.  954)  and  Grabe  (Spicileg.  i. 
p.  85).  The  Revelation  of  St.  Paul,  contained  in 
an  Oxford  MS.,  is  shown  by  Grabe  (/.  c.)  to  be 
a much  later  work.  Theodosius  of  Alexandria 
(,Ep<i>TT]p.aTa  7 repl  irpoaabi&v)  says  that  the  Apo- 
calypse of  St.  Paul  is  not  a work  of  the  apostle, 
but  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  from  whom  the  Pauli- 
cians  derived  their  name.  The  Revelation  of  Paid 
is  one  of  the  spurious  works  condemned  by  Pope 
Gelasius,  together  with  the  Revelations  of  St. 
Thomas  and  St.  Stephen. 

The  Apocalypse  of  Cerinthus  is  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  28),  and  by  Theodoret 
(Fab.  Hceret.  ii.  3).  Eusebius  describes  it  as  a re- 
velation of  an  earthly  and  sensual  kingdom  of 
Christ,  according  to  the  heresy  of  the  Chiliasts. 

Of  the  Revelations  of  St.  Thomas  and  St. 
Stephen,  we  know  nothing  beyond  their  con- 
demnation by  Pope  Gelasius,  except  that  Sixtus 
of  Sienr.a  observes  that,  according  to  Serapion, 
they  were  held  in  great  repute  by  the  Manichees ; 
but  in  the  works  of  Serapion  which  we  now 
possess  there  is  no  allusion  to  this.  There  is,  how- 
ever, an  unpublished  MS.  of  Serapion  in  the 
Hamburg  Library,  which  is  supposed  to  contain 
a more  complete  copy  of  his  work 

We  now  proceed  to  treat  of  the  extant  spurious 
Revelations. 

The  Ascension  and  the  Vision  ok  Isaiah 
('  hvafiaTiKbv  koX  "O  pour  is  'Hcra'iov),  although  for  a 
long  time  lost  to  the  world,  w«  a work  well 


■REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS.  REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS.  C2* 


known  to  the  ancients,  as  is  indicated  by  the 
allusions  of  Justin  Martyr,  Origen,  Tertullian, 
and  Epiplianius.  The  first  of  these  writers  (Dial, 
s.  Tryph.  ed.  Par.  p.  349)  refers  to  the  account 
therein  contained  of  the  death  of  Isaiah,  who  ‘ was 
sawn  asunder  with  a wooden  saw  a fact,  he  adds, 

‘ which  was  removed  by  the  Jews  from  the  sacred 
text.’  Tertullian  also  (Dc  Patientid ),  among 
other  examples  from  Scripture,  refers  to  the  same 
event;  and  in  the  next  (the  third)  century  Origen 
(Epist.  ad  African.),  after  stating  that  the  Jews 
were  accustomed  to  remove  many  things  from 
the  knowledge  of  the  people,  which  they  neverthe- 
less pieserved  in  apocryphal  or -secret  writings, 
adduces  as  an  example  the  death  of  Isaiah,  ‘ who 
was  sawn  asunder,  as  stated  in  a certain  apocry- 
phal writing,  which  the  Jews  perhaps  corrupted 
in  order  to  throw  discredit  on  the  whole.’  In  his 
Comm,  in  Matt,  he  refers  to  the  same  events,  ob- 
serving, that  if  this  apocryphal  work  is  not  of 
sufficient  authority  to  establish  the  account  of  the 
prophet's  martyrdom,  it  should  be  believed  upon 
the  testimony  borne  to  that  work  by  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (Heb.  xi.  37);  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  account  of  the  death  of 
Zechariah  should  be  credited  upon  the  testimony 
borne  by  our  Saviour  to  a writing  not  found  in  the 
common  and  published  books  (rtolvois  ual  bedppev- 
fievois  fiifiAlois),  but  probably  in  an  apocryphal 
work.  Origen  cites  a passage  from  the  apocryphal 
account  of  the  martyrdom  of  Isaiah,  in  one  of  his 
Homilies  (ed.  De  la  Rue,  vol.  iii.  p.  108).  The 
Apostolical  Constitutions  also  refer  to  the  apocry- 
phal books  of  Moses,  Enoch,  Adam,  and  Isaiah, 
as  writings  of  some  antiquity. 

The  first  writer,  however,  -who  mentions  the 
Ascension  of  Isaiah  by  name  is  Epiphanius,  in 
the  fourth  century,  who  observes  ( Hceres . xl.) 
that  the  apocryphal  Ascension  of  Isaiah  was  ad- 
duced by  the  Archonites  in  support  of  their  opi- 
nions respecting  the  seven  heavens  and  their 
archons  or  ruling  angels,  as  well  as  by  the 
Egyptian  Hieracas  and  his  followers  in  con- 
firmation of  their  heretical  opinions  respecting  the 
Holy  Spirit,  at  the  same  time  citing  the  passage 
from  the  ’Ai'afiarucdv  to  which  they  refer  (Ascens. . 
of  Isaiah,  ix.  27,  32-36 ; xi.  32,  33).  Jerome 
also  (in  Esai.  Ixiv.  4)  expressly  names  the  work, 
asserting  it  to  be  an  apocryphal  production,  ori- 
ginating in  a passage  in  the  New  Testament 
(l  Cor.  ii.  9).  St.  Ambrose  (Opp.  i.  p.  1124)  cites 
a passage  contained  in  it,  but  only  as  a tradi- 
tionary report,  ‘ plerique  ferunt  ’ (Ascens.  Is.  v. 
4-8) ; and  the  author  of  the  Imperfect  Work  on 
Matt.,  a work  of  the  fifth  century,  erroneously 
attributed  to  St.  Chrysostom  (Chrysost.  Opp. 
horn.  1.),  evidently  cites  a passage  from  the  same 
work  (Ascens.  i.  I,  &c.).  After  this  period  all 
trace  of  the  book  is  lost  until  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury, when  Euthymius  Zigabenus  informs  us  that 
the  Messalian  heretics  made  use  of  that  ‘abo- 
minable pseudepigraphal  work,  the  Vision  of 
Isaiah.’’  It  was  also  used  (most  probably  in  a 
Latin  version)  by  the  Cathari  in  the  West 
(P.  Moneta,  Adv.  Catharos,  ed.  Rich.  p.  218). 
The  Vision  of  Isaiah  is  also  named  in  a cata- 
logue of  canonical  and  apocryphal  books  in  a 
Paris  MS.  (No.  1789),  after  the  Qucest.  et  Resp. 
of  Anastasius  (Cotelerius,  P.  P.  Apost.  i.  p.  197, 
349).  Sixtus  of  Sienna  (Bibl.  Sanct.  1566) 
states  that  the  Vision  of  Isaiah,  as  distinct  from 


the  Anavasis  (as  he  calls  it),  had  been  printed  at 
Venice.  Referring  to  this  last  publication,  the 
late  Archbishop  Laurence  observes  that  he  had 
hoped  to  find  in  some  bibliographical  work  a 
further  notice  of  it,  but  that  he  had  searched  in 
vain  ; concluding  at  the  same  time  that  it  must 
have  been  a publication  extracted  from  the 
Ascension  of  Isaiah,  or  a Latin  translation  of 
the  Vision,  as  the  title  of  it  given  by  Sixtus  was, 
‘ Visio  admirabilis  Esaiae  prophetae  in  raptu 
mantis,  quae  divinae  Trinitatis  arcana,  et  lapsi 
generis  humani  redemptionem  eontinet.’  Dr. 
Laurence  observes  also  that  the  mode  of  Isaiah's 
death  is  further  in  accordance  with  a Jewish  tra- 
dition recorded  in  the  Talmud  (Tract  Jebammoth , 
iv.) ; and  he  supposes  that  Mohammed  may  nave 
founded  his  own  journey  through  seven  different 
heavens  on  this  same  apocryphal  work.  He  shows 
at  the  same  time,  by  an  extract  from  the  Raboth , 
that  the  same  idea  of  the  precise  number  of  seven 
heavens  accorded  with  the  Jewish  creed. 

There  appeared  now  to  be  little  hopes  of  re- 
covering the  lost  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  when  Dr. 
Laurence  (then  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  in 
the  University  of  Oxford)  had  the  good  fortune 
to  purchase  from  a bookseller  in  Drury  Lane  an 
Ethiopic  MS.  containing  the  identical  book,  to- 
gether with  the  canonical  book  of  Isaiah  and  the 
fourth  (called  in  the  Ethiopic  the  first)  book  of 
Esdras.  It  is  entitled  the  Ascension  of  the  Pro- 
phet Isaiah,  the  first  five  chapters  containing  the 
martyrdom,  and  the  six  last  (for  it  is  divided  in 
the  MS.  into  chapters  and  verses)  the  Ascension 
or  Vision  of  Isaiah.  At  the  end  of  the  canonical 
book  are  the  words,  ‘ Here  ends  the  Prophet 
Isaiah  after  which  follows  ‘ The  Ascension,’  &c., 
concluding  with  the  words,  ‘ Here  ends  Isaiah 
the  Prophet,  with  his  Ascension.’  Then  follows 
a postscript,  from  which  it  appears  that  it  was 
transcribed  for  a priest  named  Aaron,  at  the  cost 
of  a piece  of  fine  cloth,  twelve  measures  long 
and  four  broad.  The  Ascension  of  Isaiah  was 
published  by  Dr.  Laurence  at  Oxford  in  1S19, 
with  a new  Latin  and  an  English  version.  This 
discovery  was  first  applied  to  the  illustration  of 
Scripture  by  Dr.  Gesenius  (Comm,  on  Isaiah). 
Some  time  afterwards  the  indefatigable  Dr.  An- 
gelo Mai  (Nova  Collect.  Script.  Vet.  e Vat.  Codd. 
Rom.  1828)  published  two  Latin  fragments  as 
an  appendix  to  his  Sermon.  Arian  Fragment. 
Antiquiss.,  which  he  conjectured  to  be  portions 
of  some  ancient  apocryphal  writings.  Niebuhr, 
however,  perceived  them  to  be  fragments  of  the 
Ascension  and  Vision  of  Isaiah;  and  Dr.  Nitzsch 
(Nachweisung  zweyer  Bruchstiicke,  &c.,  irf  tbe 
Theolog.  Stud,  und  Kritik.  1830)  was  enabled  to 
compare  them  with  the  two  corresponding  por- 
tions ^ii.  14-iii.  12;  vii.  1-19)  of  the  Ethiopic 
version.  Finally,  in  consequence  of  the  more 
complete  notice  of  the  Venetian  edition  of  the 
Latin  version  given  by  Panzer  (Annal.  Typog. 
viii.  p.  473),  Dr.  Gieseler  had  a strict  search  made 
for  it,  which  was  eventually  crowned  with  suc- 
cess, a copy  being  discovered  in  the  Library  at 
Munich.  This  work,  the  date  of  whose  impression 
was  1522,  contained  also  the  Gospel  of  Nico- 
demus,  and  the  Letter  of  Lentulus  to  the  Roman 
Senate.  The  Latin  version  contains  the  Vision 
only,  corresponding  to  the  last  seven  chapters  of 
the  Ethiopic  version. 

The  subject  of  the  first  nart  is  the  martyrdom 


030  REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS. 

of  Isaiah,  who  is  here  said  to  have  been  sawn 
asunder  in  consequence  of  the  visions  which  lie 
related  to  Hezekiah,  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of 
the  reign  of  that  monarch,  ami  which  are  recorded 
in  the  first  four  chapters.  These  relate  princi- 
pally to  the  coining  of  ‘Jesus  Christ  the  Lord’ 
from  the  seventh  heaven ; his  being  changed  into 
the  form  of  a man ; the  preaching  of  his  twelve 
apostles ; his  final  rejection  and  suspension  on  a 
tree,  in  company  with  the  workers  of  iniquity, 
on  the  day  before  the  Sabbath ; the  spread  of  the 
Christian  doctrine ; the  last  judgment ; and  his 
return  to  the  seventh  heaven.  Before  this,  how- 
ever, the  arch-fiend  Berial  is  to  descend  on  earth, 
in  the  form  of  an  impious  monarch,  the  murderer 
of  his  mother,  where,  after  his  image  is  worshipped 
in  every  city  for  three  years,  seven  months,  and 
twenty-seven  days,  he  and  his  powers  are  to  be 
dragged  into  Gehenna. 

The  second  portion  of  the  work  gives  a prolix 
account  of  the  prophet's  ascent  through  seven 
heavens,  each  more  resplendent  and  more  glorious 
than  the  other.  It  contains  distinct  prophetical 
allusions  to  the  miraculous  birth  of  Christ  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  at  Bethlehem ; his  crucifixion,  re- 
surrection. and  ascension  ; and  the  worship  of  ‘ the 
Father,  his  beloved  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.’ 
The  mode  of  the  prophet's  own  death  is  also  an- 
nounced to  him.  The  whole  work,  observes  its 
learned  translator,  is  ‘singularly  characterized  by 
simplicity  of  narration,  by  occasional  sublimity 
of  description,  and  by  richness  as  well  as  vigour 
of  imagination.’  Dr.  Laurence  conceives  that 
the  writer  had  no  design  of  imposing  upon  the 
world  a spurious  production  of  Lis  own  as  that 
of  the  prophet's,  but  rather  of  composing  a work, 
avowedly  fictitious,  but  accommodated  to  the 
character,  and  consistent  with  the  prophecies,  of 
him  to  whom  it  is  ascribed. 

As  to  the  age  of  this  work.  Dr.  Laurence  sup- 
poses, from  the  obvious  reference  to  Nero,  and  the 
}>erioil  of  three  years,  seven  mouths,  and  twenty- 
seven  days,  and  again  of  three  hundred  and 
thirty-two  days,  after  which  Berial  was  to  be 
dragged  to  Gehenna,  that  the  work  was  written 
after  the  death  of  Nero  (which  took  place  on  the 
9th  June,  a.d.  G8),  but  before  the  close  of  the 
year  G9.  Liicke,  however  ( Einleitung  in  die 
OJfenbarung  Johan.'),  looks  upon  these  numbers 
as  purely  arbitrary  and  apocalyptical,  and  main- 
tains that  the  dogmatical  character  of  the  work, 
the  allusion  to  the  corruptions  of  the  church,  the 
absence  of  all  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  the  Chiliastic  view,  all  point  to  a 
later  period.  All  that  can  be  considered  as  cer- 
tain respecting  its  date  is,  that  the  first  portion 
was  extant  before  the  time  of  Origen,  and  the 
whole  before  Epiphanius.  It  has  been  doubted 
whether  the  work  does  not  consist  of  two  inde- 
pendent. productions,  which  were  afterwards  united 
into  one,  as  in  the  Ethiopic  version ; but.  this  is 
a question  impossible  to  decide  in  the  absence 
of  the  original.  The  Latin  fragments  discovered 
by  Mai  correspond  literally  with  the  Ethiopic, 
while  they  not  oidy  differ  from  the  Venetian  edi- 
tion in  single  phrases,  but  the  latter  contains 
passages  so  striking  as  to  induce  the  supposition 
vliat  it  is  derived  from  a later  recension  of  the 
rriginal  text. 

The  author  was  evidently  a Jewish  Christian, 
u appears  from  the  use  made  of  the  Talmudical 


REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS. 

legend  already  referred  to,  as  well  as  by  his  re> 
presenting  the  false  accuser  of  Isaiah  as  a Sama* 
ritan.  The  work  also  abounds  in  Gnostic,  Va* 
lentinian,  and  Ophitic  notions,  such  as  the  ac- 
count of  the  seven  heavens,  and  the  presiding 
angels  of  the  first  five,  the  gradual  transmutation 
of  Christ  until  his  envelopment  in  the  human 
form,  and  finally  the  docetic  conception  of  his 
history  on  earth.  All  this  has  induced  Liicke 
(ut  sujyra)  to  consider  the  whole  to  be  a Gnostic 
production  of  the  second  or  third  century,  of 
which,  however,  the  martyrdom  was  first  written. 
Dr.  Laurence  finds  so  strong  a resemblance  be- 
tween the  account  of  the  seven  heavens  here,  and 
in  the  Testament  of  Levi  ( Twelve  Patriarchs ), 
that  he  suspects  the  latter  to  ‘ betray  a little 
dagiarism.’  If  this  learned  divine  were  right  in 
lis  conjecture  resjiecting  the  early  age  of  this  pro- 
duction, it  would  doubtless  afford  an  additional 
testimony  (if  such  were  wanting)  to  the  antiquity 
of  the  belief  in  the  miraculous  conception  and 
the  proper  deity  of  Jesus,  who  is  here  called  the 
Beloved,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  and  the  Lord 
Christ.  In  respect,  however,  to  another  passage, 
in  which  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  are  represented 
as  worshipping  God,  the  learned  prelate  truly 
observes  that  this  takes  place  only  in  the  character 
of  angels,  which  they  had  assumed. 

Dr.  Liicke  observes  that,  the  drapery  only  of 
the  apocalyptic  element  of  this  work  is  Jewish, 
the  internal  character  being  altogether  Christian. 
But.  in  both  form  and  substance  there  is  an  evi- 
dent imitation,  if  not  of  the  Apocalypse  of  St. 
John,  at  least  of  the  book  of  Daniel  and  of  the 
Sibylline  oracles.  The  use  of  the  canonical  Apo- 
calypse Liicke  ( l . c.  § 16)  considers  to  be  un- 
deniable in  viii.  45  (comp.  Rev.  xxii.  8 9*  vii. 
21-23;  Rev.  xix.  10). 

Of  the  ancient  Greek  poems  called  tne  Cubyi.- 
i.ink  Okaci.es  (written  in  hexameter  verse),  there 
was  formerly  a considerable  number  in  use,  of 
which  but  few  have  descended  to  our  times. 
Servius,  in  the  fifth  century,  mentions  a hundred 
books  ( sermones , \6yoi) ; and  Suidas,  who  lived 
most  probably  in  the  eleventh,  speaks  of  twenty- 
four  books  of  the  Chaldaean  sibyls  alone.  But 
eight  only  were  known  to  the  moderns,  until 
the  recent  discoveries  of  Angelo  Mai,  who  has 
recovered  and  jwiblished  an  eleventh,  twelfth, 
thirteenth,  and  fourteenth  book  from  palimpsests 
in  the  Ambrosian  and  Vatican  libraries  ( Script 
Vet.  Nov.  Collect,  vol.  iii.  p.  3).  The  first,  eight 
books  have  been  shown  to  be  the  compositions  of 
various  writers  from  the  commencement  of  the 
second  century  b.c.  to  a.d.  500.  Of  these,  the 
earliest  in  point  of  date  is  supposed  to  be  the 
third  book,  containing  a series  of  connected  pre- 
dictions written  by  an  Alexandrian  Jew  in  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees,  but  containing  heathen 
poems  of  a still  earlier  period.  The  subject  is 
continued  by  another  Alexandrian  Jew,  who 
lived  about  forty  years  before  the  Christian  era. 
Notwithstanding  the  later  Christian  interpolations 
by  which  this  document  has  been  disfigured,  it 
forms  a valuable  collection  of  Sibylline  oracles 
respecting  the  Messiah,  anterior  to  the  Christian 
era.  It  concludes  with  another  addition,  written 
partly  in  the  third  century  and  partly  at  a still 
later  period.  But  before  this  period,  the  fourth 
and  fifth  books  come  in,  the  former  of  which  wac 


REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS. 

written  by  a Christian  about  a.d.  80  ; the  latter 
consist.?  of  several  predictions,  from  various 
authors,  principally  Egyptians,  one  of  whom  was 
an  Alexandrian  Jew,  who  wrote  in  the  middle  of 
the  second  tentury  ; another  portion  is  by  a Jew 
in  Asia  Minor,  about  a.d.  20  ; and  certain  parts 
by  anothei  Jewish  author,  about  a.d.  70.  But 
the  whole  book  in  its  present  form  proceeds  most 
probably  from  the  Jewish  Christians  residing  at 
Memphis  in  the  commencement  of  Adrian's  reign, 
who  collected  the  greater  portion  of  the  oracles  of 
the  first  part,  and  united  them  to  the  third  and 
fourth  books.  At  least  the  yvhole  three  books 
were  formed  into  one  collection  in  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  and  ascribed  to  one  and  the 
same  sibyl.  But  at  the  close  of  the  next  century 
these  books  were  completely  separated,  and  were, 
together  with  the  subsequent  books  then  written 
(sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth),  each  attributed  to  a 
distinct  prophetess.  Of  these,  the  earliest  in  point 
of  date  is  the  eighth  book,  part  of  which  was 
composed  about  a.d.  170-180,  and  the  entire 
finished  at  the  end  of  the  third  century, — when  it 
was  united  with  the  others,  as  we  learn  from  Lac- 
tant.ius.  The  seventh  book , separate  from  its  later 
interpolations,  was  composed  by  a Judaizing 
Christian  in  the  third  century.  The  sixth  book 
appears  to  have  been  written  at  the  close  of  this 
century  by  a Christian,  for  he  speaks  of  Christ  as 
the  second  Adam.  That  part  called  the  Acrostics 
was  constructed  in  the  fourth  century  from  earlier 
Sibylline  verses.  Some  portions  of  the  eighth  book 
were  probably  written  at.  this  period,  and  intro- 
duced at  a still  later  among  the  Sibylline  oracles. 
The  latest  of  all  are  the  first  and  second  books , 
written  by  one  and  the  same  author,  who  lived  in 
the  West  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 

Of  this  motley  group,  the  chief  portions  only 
are  of  an  Apocalyptic  character,  others  being 
purely  epic,  or  in  the  form  of  hymns.  The  sibyl, 
as  the  oracle  of  God,  predicts  the  destruction  of 
paganism  in  its  wars  on  both  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity. To  this  is  annexed  the  Apocalyptic 
consolation  and  encouragement,  to  the  sufferer  and 
oppressed  among  God’s  people.  The  poetic  in- 
terest, which  is  a characteristic  of  Apocalyptic 
composition,  both  Jewish  and  Christian,  is  not 
lost  sight  of. 

There  have  been  three  distinct  periods  traced 
in  respect  to  the  Sibylline  Revelations.  The  first 
is  the  Jewish,  commencing  at  the  Maccabaean 
period.  This,  observes  Liicke,  ‘ belongs  to  the  cycle 
of  Daniel’s  Apocalypse.’  The  second  period  is 
the  Jewish  Christian,  having  a special  relation  to 
the  Antichristian  character  of  the  persecuting 
Nero,  with  an  admixture  of  Chiliastic  elements. 
The  third  period  is  free  from  Chiliasm,  and  be- 
longs to  the  Christian  character  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, embracing  a species  of  universal  history  in 
the  Sibylline  form,  concluding  with  the  end  of  all 
things  at  the  final  judgment. 

It  is  impossible  to  deny  the  resemblance  be- 
tween the  Apocalypse  of  John  and  the  Sibylline 
poems  of  the  second  period.  ‘ Besides  the  Chili- 
astic elements  and  the  reference  to  the  return  of 
Nero,  it  is  common  to  both  that  the  destruction 
of  Rome  forms  the  g*and  crisis  of  their  predic- 
tions, and  that  letters  and  cyphers  are  symbol- 
ically employed.  Bin,  on  the  other  hand,  what 
a difference  ! The  Sibylline  oracles  are  cha- 
racterized by  a dry,  monotonous  series  of  mere 


REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS.  63! 

predictlons,  threatening?,  and  promises;  while  the 
Apocalypse  of  John  presents  us  with  an  all  but 
diamatic  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in 
a living  picture.  The  most  important  portion  fur 
comparison  with  the  Apocalypse  is  the  contem- 
porary first  oracle  of  the  fourth  book.  The  later 
pieces  of  this  kind  may  have  stood  in  conscious 
relation  with  the  Apocalypse,  but  this  is  incapable 
of  proof’  (Liicke,  ut  supra). 

The  books  discovered  by  Angelo  Mai  are  much 
of  the  same  character  with  the  former,  but  have 
less  of  the  religious  element.  The  eleventh  book 
contains  a statement  of  Jewish,  Greek,  Macedo- 
nian, and  Egyptian  history  from  the  Deluge  to 
Julius  Caesar.  There  are  some  single  passages 
which  resemble  the  third  book,  but  the  author  was 
a different  person,  and  was  probably  a Jew,  who 
lived  a short  time  before  the  Christian  era. 

The  twelfth  book  resembles  the  fifth  in  its  com- 
mencement., and  contains  the  same  series  of  Roman 
emperors  from  Augustus,  under  whose  reign  the 
appearance  of  Christ  is  prominently  brought  for- 
ward. This  series,  which  in  the  third  book 
ended  with  Hadrian,  here  proceeds  as  far  as  Alex- 
ander Severus,  passing  over  Sulpicius.  Severus. 
Its  Christian  origin  is  beyond  question,  and  it 
may  have  been  written  after  the  death  of  Severus, 
.i  d.  222. 

The  thirteenth  book  narrates,  in  the  Sibylline 
form,  the  wars  of  the  Romans  in  the  East  to  the 
midule  of  the  third  century,  probably  com- 
mencing where  the  former  had  ended.  It  is  ol>- 
servable  that  the  author  alludes  to  the  mathe- 
matical fame  of  Bostra. 

The  most  prominent,  feature  of  the  fourteenth 
book  is  the  destruction  and  rebuilding  of  the  city 
of  Rome,  which  is  provisioned  for  a whole  year 
in  expectation  of  a long  period  of  adversity  ; the 
last  prince  df  the  Latin  race  appears  and  departs, 
after  whom  comes  a royal  race  of  long  duration. 
The  whole  narration  points  to  the  period  of  the 
migration  and  downfall  of  the  Western  empire. 
The  author  doubtless  was  a Christian  of  the  fifth 
century. 

The  book  called  the  Testaments  ok  the: 
twelve  Patuiauchs  is  an  ancient  Apocryphal 
work  (founded  most  probably  on  Gen.  xlix.  1,  sq.), 
in  which  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  are  represented 
as  delivering  their  dying  predictions  and  precepts 
to  their  posterity.  If  we  are  to  credit  the  authority 
of  a manuscript  in  the  Bodleian  library,  this  work 
was  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  and  translated 
into  Greek  by  St.  Chrysostom.  But  Dr.  Grabe, 
who  first  adduced  this  testimony,  considers  it  very 
doubtful.  The  author  of  the  Latin  version  (from 
the  Greek)  was  Robert  Grosseteste,  Bishop  of 
Lincoln  in  the  thirteenth  century,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  a Greek  named  Nicholas,  Abbot  of  St. 
Albans.  The  bishop’s  attention  was  first  directed 
to  it  by  Archdeacon  John  de  Basingstoke,  who 
had  seen  the  work  during  his  studies  at  Athens. 
This  version,  which  was  first  printed  from  very 
incorrect  copies  in  1483,  and  afterwards  in  1532 
and  1549,  was  reprinted  in  the  Qrthodoxogra- 
pha  of  Grynaeus,  and  in  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum. 
A few  specimens  of  the  original  were  printed  at 
various  times  by  Cotelerius  ( Not . in  Script. 
Apostol.),  Gale  (Annot.  in  Ja/nblich.),  and 
Wharton  (Auctarium) ; but  it  was  reserved  fox 
the  learned  Dr.  Grabe  to  give  the  entire  ^ork  ifi 


m RE  VELA  FLO  NS,  SPURIOUS. 

the  original  Greek,  in  1699,  from  a Cambridge 
manuscript  on  vellum  (the  identical  MS.  used 
by  Robert  of  Lincoln  for  his  translation),  a copy 
of  which  was  made  for  him  by  the  learned  Dr. 
John  Mill,  who  collated  it  with  a manuscript  on 
paper  in  the  Bodleian,  written  a d.  1268,  and 
annexed  to  it  various  readings  from  other  manu- 
scripts. Dr.  Grabe  was  the  person  who  first  divided 
the  work  into  chapters  or  paragraphs,  with  num- 
bers prefixed.  He  added  some  valuable  notes, 
which,  with  the  originals,  were  republished  by 
Fabricius  in  his  Cod.  Pseudep.  V.  T. 

This  work  contains  many  beautiful  passages, 
and,  while  its  form  is  that  of  a pretended  pro- 
phecy, bears  indirect  testimony  to  the  facts  and 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  the  nativity,  cruci- 
fixion, resurrection,  ascension,  and  unblemished 
character  of  Jesus,  ascribing  to  him  such  titles  as 
evidently  show  that  his  divinity  was  fully  recog- 
nised. The  author  testifies  also  to  the  canonical 
authority  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  St. 
Paul’s  Epistles,  and  seems  especially  to  allude 
to  the  four  Gospels.  The  age  of  this  Apocryphal 
work  is,  therefore,  of  considerable  importance  in 
sacred  criticism. 

Mr.  William  Whiston,  who  has  given  an 
English  translation  of  this  work  in  his  Authentic 
Records , considers  it  to  lie  a genuine  production, 
and  one  of  the  concealed  (as  he  interprets  the 
word  Apocryphal)  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
maintaining  that  if  this,  and  the  book  of  Enoch, 
were  not  written  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
(which  he  holds  to  be  a wild  notion),  they  are  of 
necessity  genuine  and  divine.  Cave  (Hist.  Liter.) 
was  at  first  disposed  to  place  the  work  in  the  year 
a d.  192,  but  he  subsequently  regarded  it  as  more 
probably  written  near  the  commencement  of  the 
second  century.  That  the  \vork  was  extant  in 
the  time  of  Origen  appears  from  his  observation, 
‘ We  find  the  like  sentiment  in  another  little 
book,  called  the  Testament  of  the  twelve  Patri- 
archs, although  it  is  not  in  the  canon,’  viz.,  that 
by  sinners  are  to  be  understood  the  angels  of 
Satan  ( Homil . in  Jos.  comp,  with  Testament. 
Reuben.,  sect.  3).  Jerome  also  observes  that 
there  had  been  forged  revelations  of  all  the  patri- 
archs and  prophets.  Tertullian  has  also  been 
supposed  to  refer  to  it.  It  is  cited  by  Procopius 
of  Gaza,  about  a.d.  520;  and  in  the  Stichometry 
of  Nicephorus  (about  a.d.  800)  it  is  said  to  con- 
tain in  the  Greek  5100,  and  in  the  Latin  4800, 
sticks  or  verses  [Verse].  Dr.  Dodwell,  from 
its  Hellenistic  character,  ascribes  it  to  the  first 
century.  The  recent  investigations  of  Dr.  Nitzsch 
(De  Testamentis  duodecim  Patriarcharum,  Wit- 
tenb.  1810),  however,  seem  to  leave  no  doubt  of 
its  having  been  the  work  of  a Jewish  Christian, 
about  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  The 
design  of  the  writer  was  evidently  to  convert  the 
twelve  tribes  to  the  Christian  faith.  For  this 
object  are  introduced  the  Apocalyptic  elements. 
The  time  of  Christ's  appearance  is  predicted. 
The  Messiah  is  represented  as  both  priest  and 
king,  and  with  this  view  characterized  as  equally 
sprung  from  the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Levi.  He 
is  to  appear,  after  many  calamities,  as  the  com- 
mon Saviour  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  It  also  con- 
tains revelations  purely  Christian,  as  the  ever- 
lasting reign  of  Christ,  the  general  resurrection, 
and  the  last  judgment.  The  Apocalypse  of  John 
i«  referred  to,  if  not  expressly  cited;  and  the 


REVELATIONS,  SPURIOUS. 

Apocalyptical  portions  have  evidently  this  for 
their  groundwork,  together  with  the  book  of 
Daniei,  and  that  of  Enoch,  which  is  expressly 
cited  as  a work  of  authority  (Levi,  2;  Naph- 
thali,  5),  and  is  consequently  an  earlier  produc- 
tion. There  was  an  altered  and  interpolated 
English  translation  of  this  book,  published  (as  a 
genuine  work  of  the  twelve  patriarchs)  in  Bristol 
by  Richard  Day,  in  1813. 

The  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra  (the frst  accord 
ing  to  the  Ethiopic  and  Arabic)  [Esdras]  is.  from 
its  Apocalyptic  character,  styled  by  Nicephorus 
(Can.  3.  4)  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  (5A7ro/cdA.u^ts 
'EaSpa).  Its  original  language  (according  to 
Liicke)  was  Greek,  although  it  is  at  present,  extant 
only  in  a Latin,  Ethiopic,  and  Arabic  tiansla- 
tion,  of  which  the  Latin  is  the  most  ancient.  The 
main  body  of  the  work,  viz.,  chaps,  iii.-xiv.,  con- 
tains a connected  revelation,  which  is  partly  an 
open  imitation  of  Daniel,  and  partly  resembles 
the  New  Testament  Apocalypse.  It  contains  a 
mixture  of  Jewish  and  Christian  elements.  This 
work,  as  has  been  formerly  observed,  was  known 
to  Clemens  Alexandrinus  in  the  second  century  ; 
and  from  the  indication  in  the  Introduction 
(ch.  iii.  1),  ‘ In  the  thirtieth  year  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  city  I was  in  Babylon,’  Liicke 
conjectures  that  the  author  may  have  written  in 
the  thirtieth  year  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, or  a.d.  100  : and  this  date  is  further  confirmed 
by  the  vision  of  the  eagle  (ch.  xi.  ; xii.),  which 
indicates  the  time  of  Trajan.  He  conceives  the 
author  to  have  been  evidently  a Jew,  who  lived 
out.  of  Palestine,  probably  in  Egypt,  but  that  the 
variation  in  the  several  ancient  versions  of  the 
work  prove  it  to  have  been  interpolated  by  a 
Christian  hand. 

The  first  two  and  last  two  chapters  (found  only 
in  the  Latin,  in  most  MSS.  of  which  they  form 
distinct  books,  the  first  two  chapters  being  gene- 
rally named  2nd  and  3rd,  and  the  two  last  5th 
and  sometimes  6th  Esdras  ; see  Laurence’s  1 Ezra, 
pp.  283-287)  are  the  work  of  a Christian,  and  are 
unconnected  with  the  main  body  of  the  book.  In 
the  two  first  the  author  has  imitated  the  canonical 
Apocalypse,  and  prefixed  this  portion  as  a kind 
of  preface  to  the  work ; but  there  is  no  internal 
character  which  can  enable  us  to  form  any  nearer 
conjecture  as  to  their  date.  The  author  of  the 
last  two  chapters  (xv.,  xvi.)  seems  to  have  lived 
in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  during  the  Decian 
or  Diocletian  persecutions  (chap.  xv.  10).  Rome, 
the  Apocalyptic  Babylon  of  the  author,  ap- 
proaches her  downfall  (xv.  43,  sq.).  Several 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  are  evidently 
alluded  to  (comp.  4 Ezra  xvi.  29,  sq.  with  Matt, 
xxiv.  40,  41  ; xvi.  42 — 45,  with  1 Cor.  vii.  29, 
30;  xv.  8,  9,  with  Rev.  vi.  10).  The  whole 
chapter  seems,  indeed,  to  be  an  imitation  of 
Matt.  xxiv.  (comp,  also  4 Ezra  i.  30  with  Matt, 
xxiii.  37;  ii.  11  with  Luke  xvi.  9;  and  ii.  12 
with  Re.v.  xxii.  2 ; also  ii.  42  with  Rev.  xiv.  1-3  ; 
and  ii.  18  with  Rev.  xxii.  1,  2). 

The  ancient  romantic  fiction,  entitled  the  Shep- 
herd of  Hermas,  is  not  without  its  Apoca- 
lyptic elements.  These,  however,  are  confined  t* 
book  i.  3,  4 ; but  they  are  destitute  of  signification 
or  originality  [Hebm  vs]. 


REZEPH. 

The  Book,  ov  Enoch  is  one  of  the  most  curious 
of  the  spurious  revelations,  resembling  in  its  out- 
ward form  both  the  book  of  Daniel  and  the  Apo- 
calypse ; but  it  is  uncertain  whether  this  latter 
work  or  the  book  of  Enoch  was  first  written 
[Enoch].  Professor  Moses  Stuart  ( Biblioth . 
Sacra,  No.  2,  p.  363,  1843)  is  of  opinion  that,  the 
Rook  of  Enoch,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  the  Testa- 
ments of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  many  of  the  Sibyl- 
line Oracles,  the  fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  and  the 
Pastor  of  Hernias,  were  composed  ‘ nearly  at  die 
same  time  with  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John.’ 

There  was  an  Apocryphal  Revelation  op 
St.  John  extant  in  the  time  of  Theodosius  the 
Grammarian,  the  only  one  of  the  ancients  who 
mentions  it,  and  who  calls  it  a pseudepigraphal 
book.  It  was  not  known  what  had  become  of  it, 
until  the  identical  work  was  recently  published 
from  a Vatican,  as  well  as  a Vienna  manuscript, 
by  Birch,  in  his  Auctarium , under  the  title  of 
* The  Apocalypse  of  the  Holy  Apostle  and  Evan- 
gelist John  the  Divine.’  From  the  silence  of  the 
ancients  respecting  this  work,  it  could  scarcely 
have  been  written  before  the  third  or  fourth  cen- 
tury. Liicke  has  pointed  out  other  internal  marks 
of  a later  age,  as,  for  instance,  the  mention  of  in- 
cense, which  he  observes  first  came  into  use  in 
the  Christian  church  after  the  fourth  century  (al- 
though here  the  author  of  the  spurious  book  may 
have  taken  his  idea  from  Rev.  v.  8;  viii.  3)  ; also 
of  images  and  rich  crosses,  which  were  not  in  use 
before  the  ‘ fourth  and  fifth  centuries.’  The  name 
patriarch,  applied  here  to  a dignitary  in  the 
church,  belongs  to  the  same  age.  The  time  in  which 
Theodosius  himself  lived  is  not  certainly  known, 
but  he  cannot  be  placed  earlier  than  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, which  Liicke  conceives  to  be  the  most  pro- 
bable age  of  the  work  itself.  Regarding  the 
object  and  occasion  of  the  work  (which  is  a rather 
servile  imitation  of  the  genuine  Apocalypse),  in 
consequence  of  the  absence  of  dates  and  of  in- 
ternal characteristics,  there  are  no  certain  indica- 
tions. Birch’s  text,  as  well  as  his  manuscripts, 
abound  in  errors;  but  Thilo  has  collated  two 
Paris  manuscripts  for  his  intended  edition  (see 
his  Acta  Thomce,  Proleg.  p.  lxxxiii.).  Assemann 
{Biblioth.  Orient,  tom.  iii.  pt.  i.  p 282)  states 
that  there  is  an  Arabic  version  among  the  Vatican 
MSS.— W.  W. 

REZEPH  (?))n  5 Sept.  'Pooped),  a city  which 
occurs  among  those  subdued  by  the  Assyrians  (2 
Kings  xix.  12;  Isa.  xxxvii,  12).  It  is  supposed 
to  be  the  same  that  Ptolemy  mentions  under  the 
name  of  'P-rjaclixpa,  as  a city  of  Palmyrene  ( Geog . 
v.  15);  and  this  again  is  possibly  the  same  with 
the  Rasapha  which  Abulfeda  places  at  nearly  a 
day’s  journey  west  of  the  Euphrates. 

REZIN  (|'V1 5 Sept.  'P aaaadov),  the  last  king 
of  Damascene-Syria,  slain  by  Tiglath-pileser 
(2  Kings  xv.  37  ; xvi.  5-10  ; Isa.  vii.  1 ; viii. 
4-7)  [Damascus]. 

REZON  (fin,  prince  ; Sept.  'Pa^wv),  an  offi- 
cer of  Hadadezer,  king  of  Zobah,  who  established 
the  independence  of  Damascus,  and  made  it  the 
seat  of  the  kingdom  of  Damascene-Syria,  so  often 
mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  kingdoms 
(1  Kings  xi.  23,  24)  [Damascus], 

RHEGIUM  ('Pi'iyiov),  a city  on  the  coast  of 
Italy,  near  its  south-western  extremity,  opposite 


RHODES.  633 

Messina  in  Sicily  (Acts  xxviii.  13).  It  is  now 
called  Reggio,  and  is  the  capital  of  Calabria. 

RHQDA  ('P65t],  i.  e.  Rose),  a servant  maid 
mentioned  in  Acts  xii.  13. 

RHODES  (cPJ5os),  an  island  in  the  Mediterra- 
nean, near  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  celebrated  frcm 
the  remotest  antiquity  as  the  seat  of  commerce,  na- 
vigation, literature,  and  the  art  s,  but  now  reduced  to 
a state  of  abject  poverty  by  the  devastat  ions  of  war 
and  the  tyranny  and  rapacity  of  its  Turkish  rulers. 
It  is  of  a triangular  form,  about  forty-four  leagues 
in  circumference,  twenty  leagues  long  from  north 
to  south,  and  about  six  broad.  In  the  centre  is 
a lofty  mountain  named  Artemira,  which  com- 
mands a view  of  the  whole  island  ; of  the 
elevated  coast  of  Carmania  on  the  north ; the 
Archipelago,  studded  with  numerous  islands,  on 
the  north-west;  Mount  Ida,  veiled  in  clouds,  on 
the  south-west ; and  the  wide  expanse  of  waters 
that  wash  the  shores  of  Africa  on  the  south  and 
south-east.  It  was  famed  in  ancient  times,  and  is 
still  celebrated  for  its  delightful  climate,  and  the 
fertility  of  its  soil.  The  gardens  are  filled  with 
delicious  fruit,  every  gale  is  scented  with  the  most, 
powerful  fragrance  wafted  from  the  groves  of 
orange  and  citron-trees,  and  the  numberless  aro- 
matic herbs  exhale  such  a profusion  of  the  richest 
odours  that  the  whole  atmosphere  seems  impreg- 
nated with  spicy  perfume.  It  is  well  watered  by 
the  river  Candura,  and  numerous  smaller  si  reams 
and  rivulets  that  spring  from  the  shady  sides  of 
Mount  Artemira.  It  contains  two  cities — Rhodes, 
the  capital,  inhabited  chiefly  by  Turks,  and  a small 
number  of  Jews;  and  the  ancient  Lindus,  now 
reduced  to  a hamlet,  peopled  by  Greeks,  who  are 
almost  all  engaged  in  commerce.  Besides  these 
there  are  five  villages  occupied  by  Turks  and  a 
small  number  of  Jews;  and  five  towns  and  forty- 
one  villages,  inhabited  by  Greeks.  The  whole 
population  was  estimated  by  Savery  at  36,500  ; 
but  Turner,  a later  traveller,  estimates  them  only 
at  20,000,  of  whom  14,000  were  Greeks,  and  6000 
Turks,  with  a small  mixture  of  Jews  residing 
chiefly  in  the  capital. 

The  city  of  Rhodes  is  famous  for  its  huge  brazen 
statue  of  Apollo,  called  Colossus,  which  stood  at 
the  mouth  of  the  harbour,  and  was  so  high  that 
ships  passed  in  full  sail  between  its  legs.  It  was 
the  work  of  Chares  of  Lindus,  the  disciple  of 
Lysippus ; its  height  was  126  feet,  and  twelve  years 
were  occupied  in  its  construction.  It  was  thrown 
down  by  an  earthquake,  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy 
III.,  Euergetes,  king  of  Egypt,  after  having  stood 
56  years.  The  brass  of  which  it  was  com- 
posed was  a load  for  900  camels.  Its  extremities 
were  sustained  by  sixty  pillars  of  marble,  and  a 
winding  staircase  led  up  to  the  top,  from  whence 
a view  might  be  obtained  of  Syria,  and  the  ships 
proceeding  to  Egypt,  in  a large  looking-glass  sus- 
pended to  the  neck  of  the  statue.  There  is  not  a 
single  vestige  of  this  celebrated  work  of  art  now 
remaining. 

St.  Paul  appears  to  have  visited  Rhodes  while 
on  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  a.u.  58  (Acts  xxi.  1), 

The  Sept,  translators  place  the  Rhodians  among 
the  children  of  Javan  (Gen.  x.  4),  and  in  this  they 
are  followed  by  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Isidore;  but 
Bochart  maintains  that  the  Rhodians  are  too  mo- 
dern to  have  been  planted  there  by  any  immediate 
son  of  Javan,  and  considers  that  Moses  rather  in* 


631 


RIBLAH. 


RIDDLE. 


tended  the  Gauls  on  the  Mediterranean  towards 
the  mouth  of  the  Rhone,  near  Maiseiiles,  where 
there  was  a district  called  Rhodanusia,  and  a city 
of  the  same  name.  They  also  render  Ezek. 
xxvii.  15,  ‘children  of  the  Rhodians,’  instead  of, 
as  in  the  Hebrew,  • children  of  Dedan.’  Calmet 
considers  it  probable  that  here  they  read  ‘children 
of  Redan  or  Rodan,’  but  that  in  Gen.  x.  4,  they 
read  ‘ Dedan,'  as  in  the  Hebrew. 

The  antiquities  of  Rhodes  reach  no  farther  bacic 
than  the  residence  of  the  knights  of  St.  John  of 
Jerusalem.  The  remains  of  their  line  old  fortress, 
of  great  size  and  strength,  are  still  to  be  seen; 
the  cells  of  the  knights  are  entire,  but  the  sanc- 
tuary has  been  converted  by  the  Turks  into  a 
magazine  for  military  stores. 

In  modern  times  Rhodes  has  been  chiefly  cele- 
brated as  one  of  the  last  retreats  of  this  military 
order,  under  whom  it  obtained  great  celebrity  by 
its  heroic  resistance  to  the  Turks ; but  in  the 
time  of  Solyman  the  Great  a capitulation  was 
agreed  upon,  and  the  island  was  Anally  surren- 
dered to  the  Turks,  under  whom  it  has  since  con- 
tinued. 

It  is  now  governed  by  a Turkish  Pacha,  who 
exercises  despotic  sway,  seizes  upon  the  property 
of  the  people  at  his  pleasure,  and  from  whose  vigi- 
lant rapacity  scarcely  anything  can  be  concealed. 
Under  this  iron  rule  the  inhabitants  are  ground  to 
poverty,  and  the  island  is  becoming  rapidly  depo- 
pulated (Coronelli,  Isolandi  liodi  (Jeograjica; 
Clarke's  Travels;  Turner’s  Journal;  Schubert's 
Reise  ins  MorgenL). — G.  M.  B. 

RIBLAH  (rta"} ; Sept.  ’PafiXad/T),  a town 
on  the  northern  border  of  Palestine,  in  the  dis- 
trict of  Hamath,  through  which  the  Babylonians, 
both  in  their  irruptions  and  departures,  were  ac- 
customed to  pass  (Nutn.  xxxiv.  11;  2 Kings 
xxiii.  33;  xxv.  2G ; Jer.  xxxix.  5;  lii.  10). 
This  place  is  no  where  mentioned  but  in  the 
Bible.  The  Jewish  commentators,  exchanging 
the  ^ for  "l,  supposed  it  to  denote  Daphne  or  An- 
tioch (Jerome,  Onomast.  s.  v.  ‘ Riblatha;’  and 
on  Ezek.  xlvii.).  This  city,  however,  was  too  far 
from  Hamath  to  the  north  boundary  of  Palestine. 
It  is  perhaps  represented  by  the  site  called  liibleh, 
which  Buckingham  found  thirty  or  forty  miles 
south  of  Hamath  on  the  Orontes  ( Arab  Tribes, 
p.  48 1). 

RIDDLE  (rn'n),  literally,  ‘something  intri- 
cate or  complicated  ;’  oXviypa.  Gesenius  de- 
rives the  Hebrew  word  from  the  Arabic  J \ ^ 

* to  bend  off,  or  tie  in  knots;’  and  the  immediate 
etymology  usually  assigned  to  the  Greek  word  is 
alvicraopai,  * to  hint  obscurely.’  The  Hebrew 
word  (Judg.  xiv.  12-19)  properly  means  ‘ a riddle 
or  enigma;  'Sept.  ^pdfiXp/aa ; Vulg. problcma  and 
propositio  ; where  Samson  proposes  to  the  thirty 
young  Philistines  who  attended  his  nuptials,  an 
enigma,  derived  from  the  circumstance  of  his 
having  lately  found  a swarm  of  bees  and  honey  in 
the  skeleton  of  the  lion,  which  he  had  killed  some 
months  before,  when  he  had  come  to  espouse  his 
wife  [Bee],  This  riddle  or  enigma,  though  un- 
fair in  regard  to  those  who  accepted  the  pledge  to 
unravej  it,  because  they  were  ignorant  of  the  par- 
ticular fact  by  the  knowledge  of  which  alone  it 
could  be  explat  led  by  them,  nevertheless  answers 
to  the  approved  definition  of  an  enigma,  as  con- 


sisting of  an  artful  and  abstruse  pioposition,  put 
in  obscure,  ambiguous,  and  even  contrary  terms, 
in  order  to  exercise  the  ingenuity  of  others  in  find- 
ing out  its  meaning. 

The  pleasure  of  the  propounder  is  derived  from 
perplexing  his  hearers ; and  theirs  from  overcom- 
ing the  difficulty,  which  is  usually  renewed  by 
their  proposing  another  enigma. 

This  kind  of  amusement  seems  to  nave  neen 
resorted  to,  especially  at  entertainments,  in  all 
ages  among  different  nations  ; and  has  even  been 
treated  as  an  art,  and  reduced  to  rules.  The  chief 
writers  on  this  curious  subject  are,  Nic.  Reusner 
(. JEnigmatograph .)  and  F.  Menestrier. 

The  principal  rules  laid  down  for  the  construc- 
tion of  an  enigma  are  the  following  : that  it  must 
be  obscure,  and  the  more  obscure  the  better,  pro- 
vided that  the  description  of  the  thing,  however 
covered  and  abstract,  and  in  whatever  remote  or 
uncommon  terms,  be  really  correct ; and  it  is 
essential  that  the  thing  thus  described  be  well 
known.  Sometimes,  and  especially  in  a witty 
enigma,  the  amusement  consists  in  describing  a 
tiling  by  a set  of  truisms,  which  tell  their  own 
meaning,  but  which  confound  the  heiv  er,  through 
his  expectation  of  some  deep  and  difficult  mean- 
ing. The  greater  enigma  is  to  be  rendered 
more  intricate  and  knotty  by  a multitude  of 
words  ; the  lesser  may  consist  of  only  one  or  two 
remote  words  or  allusions. 

The  speech  <>f  Lamech  to  nis  wives  Adah  and 
Zillah  (Gen.  xiv.  23,  24)  is,  possibly,  an  enig- 
matic mode  of  communicating  some  painful  in- 
telligence. It  is  recorded  (1  Kings  x.  1)  that  the 
queen  of  Sheba  came  to  prove  Solomon  niTTQ  ; 
Sept.  tv  aivlypact ; Vulg.  in  cenigmatibus.  Jose- 
phus relates  that  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  tried  the 
skill  of  Solomon  in  the  same  way  ; and  quotes 
Dius  to  attest,  that  Solomon  sent  riddles  to  Hiram, 
and  that  the  Tyrian  king  forfeited  much  money 
to  Solomon  from  his  inability  to  answer  them,  but 
redeemed  it,  upon  a man  of  Tyre  named  Abdemon 
being  found  able  to  solve  them  ( Antiq . viii.  5.  3). 
The  description  of  the  Messiah  under  the  name  oJ 
the  Branch,  “IV3,  when  considered  in  regard  to  the 
occasion  and  context,  may  be  considered  as  a spe- 
cimen of  the  lesser  enigma  (see  Lowth  upon  the 
passage).  ‘ The  number  of  the  beast  ’ (ltev.  xiii. 
18),  may  be  also  considered  as  an  enigma.  The 
other  instances  in  which  the  Hebrew  word  is  used 
all  exhibit  more  or  less  of  the  enigmatic  character. 
They  are  as  follows,  with  the  Sept,  and  Vulg. 
readings: — Num.  xii.  8,  where  it  means  ‘an 
oracle  or  vision,’  5 1 alviygaruv.  non  per  cenigmata 
et  figures  (Moses)  dominion  videt ; Ps.  xlix.  5, 
‘a  song,’  'KpdfrXpp.a,  propositio  ; lxxviii.  2,  ‘dark 
sayings,’  Trpof3Xr)paTa,  propositions  ; Prov.  i.  6, 
‘intricate  proverbs,’  alviygara,  cenigmata ; Ezra 
xvii.  2,  ‘ a parable,*  Si-f]yvpa,  Aq. ; alviyga  cenigma , 
Dan.  viii.  23,  ‘artifices;’  TTpo^Xyipara,  proposi- 
tionesr,  cenigmata;  Hab.  ii.  6,  ‘a  song,’  -Kpi&Xpgo., 
loquela  cenigmatum.  In  the  Apocrypha  we  find 
(Wisd.  xlrii.  15)  TrapafioXcus  alviy/ddrocv,  cenig - 
mala;  in  the  New  Testament  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12), 
tv  aii’iyuasri,  in  cenigmate,  which  Bretschneider 
points  out  as  a quotation  of  Num.  xii.  8,  and 
where  alvlypan  is  opposed  to  to  d5os,  ‘the  clear 
reality.’  The  word  enigma,  taken  in  the  exten- 
sive meaning  of  its  root,  alvos,  certainly  applies  to 
an  immense  portion  of  the  sacred  writings,  viz.  aa 
a narrative  or  tale,  having  an  applica  'on  to  present 


RIMMON. 


R1MMUN. 


635 


circumstances;  Odyss.  xiv.  508,  a fable,  bearing 
moral  instruction;  Hes.  Oper.  202,  wliicli  nearly 
approaches  to  the  nature  of  a parable  [Parahle]  ; 
a pointed  sentence,  saying,  or  proverb  (Theocritus, 
xiv.  13)  [Proverb  ; Prophecy].  According 
to  Lennep,  the  word  aHviypa,  taken  substantively, 
means  ‘ anything  obscure.’  As  specimens  of  the 
enigmatical  style  in  the  Old  Testament,  Winer 
points  out  Prov.  xxx.  12-19;  Isa.  xxi.  12.  In 
the  New  we  may  adduce  our  Lord’s  discourse 
with  Nicodemus  (John  iii.  3),  and  with  the  Jews 
(vi . 5 1 , &c.),  where  the  enigmatical  style  is  adopted 
for  the  purpose  of  engaging  attention,  in  an  unri- 
valled manner  (Winer,  Bibl.  Archaol. ; Stuck, 
Antiq.  Conviv.  iii.  17). — J.  F.  D. 

RIMMON  (flft*))  is  mentioned  in  numerous 
places  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  universally 
acknowledged  to  denote  the  Pomegranate-tree  and 
fruit,  being  described  in  the  works  of  the  Arabs 
by  the  name  rooman.  The  pomegranate  is  a 
native  of  Asia  ; and  we  may  trace  it  from  Syria, 
through  Persia,  even  to  the  mountains  of  Northern 
India.  It  is  common  in  Northern  Africa,  and 
was  early  cultivated  in  Egypt:  hence  the  Israel- 
ites in  the  desert  complain  (Num.  xx.  5),  ‘ It  is 
no  place  of  seed,  or  of  figs,  or  of  vines,  or  of  pome- 
granates' Being  common  in  Syria  and  Persia, 
it  must  have  early  attracted  the  attention  of 
Eastern  nations.  In  the  present  day  it  is  highly 
valued,  and  travellers  describe  the  pomegranate  as 
being  delicious  throughout  Persia.  The  late  Sir 
A.  Burnes  states  that  the  famous  pomegranates 
without  seeds  are  grown  in  gardens  under  the 
snowy  Bills,  near  the  river  Cabul.  The  bright 
and  dark-green  foliage  of  the  pomegranate,  and 
its  flowers  conspicuous  for  the  crimson  colour 
both  of  the  calyx  and  petals,  must  have  made  it 
an  object  of  desire  in  gardens;  while  its  large 
reddish-coloured  fruit,  filled  with  numerous  seeds, 
each  surrounded  with  juicy  pleasant-tasted  pulp, 
would  make  it  still  more  valuable  as  a fruit  in 
warm  countries.  The  pulpy  grains  of  this  fruit 
are  sometimes  eaten  by  themselves,  sometimes 
sprinkled  with  sugar;  at  other  times  the  juice  is 
pressed  out  and  made  into  wine,  or  one  of  the 
esteemed  sherbets  of  the  East.  This  seems  also  to 
have  been  the  custom  in  ancient  times,  for  it  is 
said  in  Canticles,  viii.  2,  ‘ I would  cause  thee  to 
drink  of  spiced  wine  of  the  juice  of  my  pome- 
granate.’ The  beauty  of  the  fruit  when  burst- 
ing and  displaying  the  delicate  colours  of  the 
pulpy  grains,  seems  to  be  referred  to  in  the  follow- 
ing passage  of  the  same  book  (vi.  7),  ‘ As  a piece 
of  pomegranate  are  thy  cheeks  (temples)  within 
thy  locks ;’  so  also  the  beauty  of  the  flower-beds 
when  first  opening  made  it  an  object  of  attraction 
(vi.  11),  ‘ I went  into  the  garden  of  nuts,  &c.,  to 
see  whether  the  pomegranates  budded;’  and  again 
in  vii.  12.  Being  valued  as  a fruit,  and  admired 
as  a flower,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  it  should 
be  cultivated  in  gardens  and  orchards;  and  to 
this  several  passages  refer,  as  Canticles  iv.  1 3.  In 
other  places  it  is  enumerated  with  the  more  valued 
and  cultivateu  trees  of  the  country,  such  as  the 
vine,  the  fig-tree,  the  palm-tree,  and  the  olive,  as 
in  Joel  i.  12;  Hag.  xi.  19.  The  pomegranate  is 
not  likely  to  have  been  a native  of  Egypt;  it 
must,  however,  have  been  cultivated  there  at  a very 
early  period,  as  the  Israelites,  when  in  the  desert, 
lamented  the  lo'is  of  its  fruit.  That  it  was  pro- 


duced in  Palestine  during  the  same  early  ages  is 
evident,  from  the  spies  bringing  some  back  when 
sent  into  Canaan  to  see  what  kind  of  a land  it  was; 
for  we  are  told  that  they  ‘ came  unto  the  brook  of 
Eshcol,  and  cut  down  from  thence  a branch  with 
one  cluster  of  grapes,  &c.,  and  they  brought  of  the 
pomegranates,  and  of  tiie  figs.’ 

The  pomegranate  was  well  known  to  the  Greeks, 
being  the  pod  of  Theophrastus,  and  of  Dioscorides, 
(i.  151).  It  was  employed  as  a medicine  by 
Hippocrates,  and  is  mentioned  by  Homer  under 
the  name  side,  supposed  to  be  of  Phoenician  origin. 
Its  English  name  is  derived  from  the  pomum 
granatum  (‘  grained  apple’)  of  the  Romans.  Vari- 
ous parts  of  the  plant  were  employed  medicinally, 
as,  for  instance,  the  root,  or  rather  its  bark,  the 
flowers  which  are  called  kvtivos  by  Dioscorides, 
and  the  double  flowers  fSaXavcrTiov ; also  the  rind 
of  the  pericarp,  called  malicorium  by  the  Romans, 
and  cridiov  by  Dioscorides.  Some  of  the  pro- 
perties which  these  plants  possess,  make  them 
useful  both  as  drugs  and  as  medicines.  We 
have  hence  a combination  of  useful  and  orna- 
mental properties,  which  would  make  the  pome- 
granate an  object  sure  to  command  attention : 
and  these,  in  addition  to  the  showy  nature  of  the 
flowers,  and  the  roundish  form  of  the  fruit, 
crowned  by  the  protuberant  remains  of  the  calyx, 
would  induce  its  selection  as  an  ornament  to  be 
imitated  in  carved  work.  Hence  we  find  fre- 
quent mention  of  it  as  an  ornament  on  the  robes 
of  the  priests  (Exod.  xxviii.  33;  xxxix.  24); 
and*also  in  the  temple  (1  Kings  vii.  18,  20,  42  ; 
2 Kings  xxv.  17;  2 Chron.  iii.  16;  iv.  13).  It 
might,  therefore,  well  be  adduced  by  Moses  among 
the  desirable  objects  of  the  land  of  promise 
(Deut.  viii.  8) : ‘a  land  of  wheat,  and  barley, 
and  vines,  and  fig-tre~s,  and  pomegranates  j a land 
of  oil-olive  and  honey.’ — J.  F.  R. 

RIMMON,  the  name  of  several  places  in 
Palestine,  probably  distinguished  by  the  pre- 
sence of  pomegranate-trees. 

1.  A city  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  in  the  south 
of  Palestine  (Josh.  xv.  32 ; xix.  7 ; 1 Chron.  iv. 
32;  Zech.  xiv.  10). 

2.  A town  on  a high  conical  chalky  rock  or 
peak,  north-east  of  Gibeah  and  Michmash,  near 
the  desert  (Judg.  xx.  45,  47;  xxi.  13).  The 
Onomasticon  places  it  fifteen  miles  north  in  Jeru- 
salem, which  corresponds  to  the  situation  of  this 
rock,  which  is  still  crowned  by  a village  bearing 
the  name  of  Rummon  : see  Robinson’s  Palestine , 
ii.  113.  Some  suppose  this  the  Rimmon  men- 
tioned in  1 Sam.  xiv.  2. 

3.  A city  of  Zebulon  (Josh.  xix.  3;  1 Chron. 
vi.  62). 

4.  A station  of  the  Israelites  after  leaving 
Sinai  (Num.  xxxiii.  19). 

RIMMON,  an  idol  worshipped  by  the  Sy- 
rians (2  Kings  v.  18).  As  this  name  is  found 
nowhere  but  in  the  Bible,  and  there  only  in  the 
present  text,  nothing  positive  can  be  affirmed  con- 
cerning the  power  it  symbolized.  If  it  be  referred 
to  the  pomegranate,  we  may  suppose  that  the  fruit 
had  become  the  symbol  of  some  mysterious  pow- 
ers in  nature.  But  many  commentators  entitled 
to  respect,  a»  Le  Clerc,  Selden,  Vitringa,  and 
Rosenmullei,  would  rather  seek  the  signification 
of  the  word  in  DDT  ramam,  ‘ the  exalted ;’  in 
which  case  we  may  take  it  to  Irave  been  a name 


638 


RIPHATH. 


ROADS. 


of  eminence  applied  to  the  sun,  or  rather  to  some 
idol  under  which  the  sun  was  represented. 

RIPH  *.TH  (nan  ; Sept.  'Picpdd ; in  1 Chron. 
Diphath,  naH),  a northern  people  descended 
from  Gomer  (Gen.  x.  3).  See  Nations,  Dis- 
persion of. 

RIVER.  All  the  rivers  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture are  in  this  work  described  under  their  respec- 
ti-®  names,  except  such  as  are  included  in  the 
article  Palestine.  The  Nile  is  described  un- 
der Egypt  ; and  Gihon  and  Pison  are  consi- 
dered under  Paradise. 

It  may  be  desirable  to  discriminate  the  words 
which  are  applied  to  different  kinds  of  rivers  in 
Scripture. 

' "IN]  and  TIN]  jeor,  which  appears  to  have 
been  of  Egyptian  origin,  denotes  a ‘fosse,’  or 
‘ rive-  •’  (it.  was  expressed  by  ioro  in  the  dialect  of 
Memphis,  and  by  iero  in  that  of  Thebes,  while  it 
appears  as  ior  in  the  Rosetta  inscription).  This 
name  is  applied  exclusively  in  Scripture  to  ‘the 
-iver  of  Egypt’  (DH^*D  "IN'),  excepting  in  Dan. 
xii.  5,  6,  7,  where  it  denotes  another  river.  This 
‘ river  of  Egypt’  is  undoubtedly  the  Nile  ; and  is 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  ‘ brook  of  Egypt,’ 
mentioned  below. 

2.  "irD  nahar,  is  the  word  generally  used  to 
express  any  river  or  perennial  stream.  It  has  at 
this  day  the  same  application  in  Arabic,  in 
which  language  also,  as  in  Hebrew,  it  includes 
canals,  as  the  ‘ Nahar&wan  of  Khuzistan ; and 
the  Scripture  must  mean  the  Euphrates  and  its 
canals,  where  it  speaks  of  ‘ the  rivers  ( 'naharoth ) 
of  Babylon’  (Ps.  cxxxvii.  1). 

3.  ^*117,  nachal,  denotes  a stream,  brook,  or 
torrent,  whether  perennial  or  not,  but  mostly  not, 
as  most  of  the  brooks  of  Palestine  are  torrents, 
(lowing  only  in  winter  [Palestine].  See  a 
picturesque  allusion  to  such  brooks  in  Job  vi.  15. 
When  the  word  stands  alone  it  seems  to  denote  a 
mere  winter  torrent,  a permanent  stream  being  in- 
dicated by  the  addition  of  the  word  }jTN.  ‘ peren- 
nial,’ as  in  Ps.  lxxiv.  15;  Deut.  xxxi.  4 ; Amos  v. 
24.  A few  brooks  are  specially  designated,  as 
the  Brook  ok  Willows  (Isa.  xv.  7),  a stream 
on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  probably  the  present 
Wady-el-Ahsy,  which  descends  from  the  eastern 
mountains,  and  enters  the  eastern  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea  ; the  Arnon  (see  the  word) ; the 
Jaubok  (which  see);  the  Besou  ( the  cold),  a 
torrent  emptying  itself  into  the  Mediterranean 
near  Gaza  (1  Sam.xxx.  9,  10,21)  : the  Kidron, 
the  Kishon  (see  the  two  words);  and  the  Kanah, 
a stream  on  the  borders  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh 
(Josh.  xvi.  18;  xvii.  9).  ‘The  Brook  of 
Egypt,’  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxiv.  5;  Josh, 
xv.  4,  47  ; 1 Kings  viii.  65 ; 2 Kings  xxiv.  7 ; 
Isa.  xxvii.  12  ; which  is  also  called  simply  ‘ the 
brook’  (Ezek.  xlvii.  19  : xlviii.  28),  and  described 
as  on  the  confines  of  Palestine  and  Egypt,  is 
unquestionably  the  Wady-el-Arish,  near  the  vil- 
lage of  that  name,  which  was  anciently  called 
Rhhiocorura.  The  ‘ river  (Jeor ) of  Egypt’  is, 
however,  the  Nile ; and  it  is  unfortunate  that  the 
two  are  not  so  well  distinguished  in  the  Authorized 
Version  as  in  the  original. 

The  word  nachal  (bn:  sometimes  oo  :urs  in 
the  sense  of  the  Arabic  Wady,  that  is,  a valley 


watered  by  a brook  or  torrent.  Such  are  the  valley 
of  Eshcol  (which  see);  the  valley  of  Geuak 
(Gen.  xxvi.  17);  and  as  nachal  signifies  both  a 
brook  and  the  valley  in  which  it  flows,  the  same 
terms  may  be  understood  of  either,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  ‘ brook’  Zered  in  Deut.  ii.  13,  14  ; which  is 
expressed  by  the  same  word  as  the  ‘ valley*  ot 
Zered  in  Num.  xxi.  12;  and  in  some  cases  it  is 
difficult  to  say  which  is  meant,  as  in  Josh.  xv. 
7;  xix.  14,  comp.  11.  The  valley  of  Sorkk 
(Judg.  xvi.  4),  so  called  probably  from  its  vine- 
yards, Eusebius  and  Jerome  place  north  of  Elen* 
theropolis,  and  near  to  Zorah.  The  valley  of 
Shittim  (‘acacias’)  was  in  Moab,  on  the  borders 
of  Palestine  (Joel  iv.  18;  comp.  Num.  xxv.  1 ; 
Josh.  ii.  1 ; iii.  1 ; Mic.  vi.  5).  The  valley  of 
Zered  was  in  the  territory  of  Moab,  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea  (Num.  xxi.  12;  Deut.  ii.  13,  14),  pro- 
bably the  same  with  ‘ the  Brook  of  Willows.’ 

RIZPAH  (n5!»“],  « coal ; Sept.  ’Peatpa),  a 
concubine  of  Saul,  memorable  for  the  touching 
example  of  maternal  affection  which  she  afforded, 
in  watching  the  dead  bodies  of  her  sons,  and 
driving  the  birds  away  from  them,  when  they 
had  been  gibbeted  by  the  Gibeonites  (2  Sam. 
iii.  7 ; xxi.  8,  10,  1 1). 

ROADS.  In  the  East,  where  travelling  is  per- 
formed mostly  on  some  beast  of  burden,  certain 
tracks  were  at  a very  early  period  customarily 
pursued  ; and  that  the  rather  as  from  remote  ages 
commerce  and  travelling  went  on  by  means  of 
caravans,  under  a certain  discipline,  and  affording 
mutual  protection  in  their  passage  from  city  to 
city,  ami  from  land  to  land.  Now  wherever  such 
a band  of  men  and  animals  had  once  passed  they 
would  form  a track  which,  especially  in  countries 
where  it  is  easy  for  the  traveller  to  miss  his  way, 
subsequent  caravans  or  individuals  would  natu- 
rally follow  ; and  the  rather  inasmuch  as  the  ori- 
ginal route  was  not.  taken  arbitrarily,  but  because 
it  led  to  the  first  cities  in  each  particular  district 
of  country.  And  thus  at  a very  early  period 
were  there  marked  out  on  the  surface  of  t he  globe 
lines  of  inter-communication,  running  from  land 
to  land,  and  in  some  sort  binding  distant  nations 
together.  These,  in  the  earliest  times,  lay  in  the 
direction  of  east  and  west,  that  being  the  line  on 
which  the  trade  and  the  civilization  of  the  earth 
first  ran. 

The  purposes  of  war  seem,  howevei*,  to  have 
furnished  the  first  inducement  to  the  formation  of 
made,  or  artificial  roads.  War,  we  know,  afforded 
to  the  Romans  the  motive  under  which  they  formed 
their  roads ; and  doubtless  they  found  them  not 
only  to  facilitate  conquest,  but  also  to  insure  the 
holding  of  the  lands  they  had  subdued  : and  the 
remains  of  their  roads  which  we  have  under  our 
own  eyes  in  this  island,  show  us  with  what  skill 
they  laid  out  a country,  and  formed  lines  oi 
communication.  To  the  Romans,  chiefly,  was 
Palestine  indebted  for  such  roads. 

There  seem,  indeed,  to  have  been  roads  of  some 
kind  in  Palestine  at  an  earlier  period.  Language 
is  employed  which  supposes  the  existence  of  arti- 
ficial roads.  In  Isa.  xl.  3 are  these  words,  ‘Pre- 
pare ye  the  w?  f of  the  Lord,  make  straight  in  the 
desert  a highway  for  our  God.  Every  valley  shall 
be  exalted,  and  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  k# 
made  low  ; and  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight, 
and  the  rough  places  plain.’  There  cannot  be  a 


ROADS. 


ROADS. 


637 


more  graphic.  description  of  the  operations  and  re- 
sults connected  with  the  formation  of  a long  and 
important  road.  That  this  i3  the  language  of  pro- 
phet's inspiration  affords  no  objection,  but  rather 
confirms  our  view  ; for  poetry,  as  being  an  appeal 
to  widely-spread  feelings,  grounds  itself,  in  such  a 
case  as  this,  on  fact;  nor  could  such  imagery  as 
ve  find  here  have  been  employed,  had  arti filial 
roads  been  unknown  in  Palestine.  Nor  is  the 
imagery  unusual  (comp.  Isa.  xi.  16  ; xix.  23  ; 
xxxiii.  8;  xxxv.  8;  xlix.  11;  lxii.  10).  In 
1 Sam.  vi.  12  we  read,  ‘ The  kine  went  along  the 
highway,  lowing  as  they  went,  and  turned  not 
aside  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left.’  In  Num- 
bers also  (xx.  17),  ‘ We  will  go  by  the  king’s  high- 
way,’ &c.  (xxi.  22 ; Deut.  ii.  27 ; Lev.  xxvi. 
22).  Whether  or  not  these  were  roads  in  the  mo- 
dern acceptation  of  the  term,  we  know  from  the 
law  regarding  a free,  open,  and  good  passage  to 
the  cities  of  refuge  (see  that  article,  and  Deut.  xix. 
3,  compared  with  Mishna,  tit.  Maccoth ),  that  the 
minds  of  the  Israelites  were  early  familiarized  with 
the  idea  : 4 Thou  shalt  prepare  thee  a way,’  &c., 
‘that  every  slayer  may  flee  thither.’  And,  much 
as  we  hesitate  to  differ  from  so  high  an  authority,  we 
cannot  agree  with  Winer  (. Real-wort . in  ‘Strasse’), 
that  this  last  cited  passage  stands  alone  ; for  other 
passages  have  been  given  which,  when  taken  in 
conjunction  with  it,  seem  to  prove  that  to  some  ex- 
tent artificial  roads  were  known  to  the  Hebrews 
in  the  commencement  of  their  commonwealth. 
Indeed  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  Hebrews  had 
become  acquainted  with  roads  during  their  sojourn 
in  E gy  t,  where,  in  the  Delta  especially,  the  nature 
of  the  country  would  require  roads  and  high- 
ways to  be  thrown  up  and  maintained.  Josephus 
(. Antiq . viii.  7.  4)  expressly  says,  ‘Solomon  did 
not  neglect  the  care  of  the  ways,  but  he  laid  a 
causeway  of  black  stone  (basalt)  along  the  roads 
that  led  to  Jerusalem,  both  to  render  them  easy  for 
travellers,  and  to  manifest  the  grandeur  of  his 
riches.’  Winer,  indeed,  remarks  that  Josephus's 
roads  find  no  support  in  the  Bible.  But  al- 
though these  particular  roads  may  not  be  men- 
tioned, it  does  not  hence  follow  that  they  did 
not  exist ; but  mention  is  made,  as  we  have 
seen,  of  ways  and  highways  in  the  Scriptural 
authorities.  To  the  Romans,  however,  Pales- 
tine was  greatly  indebted  for  its  roads.  On 
tins  subject  Reload  ( Palcestina ) has  supplied 
useful  information.  In  the  East  generally,  and 
in  Palestine  in  particular,  the  Romans  formed 
roads,  set  up  mile-stones,  in  imitation  of  what 
they  Lad  done  in  Italy.  These  stones  bore  the 
nuiuea  <ry/j.eta,  «rr and  Kioues.  From  the  fact 

their  existing  in  Palestine,  Eusebius,  in  his 
Gnomasticon,  frequently  uses  the  t etnas  eV  eWy 
qiuGicp,  and  similar  phrases.  In  Reland's  time 
•fragments  of  these  mile-stones  still  remained. 

For  the  merely  internal,  Palestinian  roads,  Re- 
and  may  be  consulted.  He  gives  a list  of  them 
iii.  2),  which  will  supply  the  reader  with  the 
equisite  information,  especially  if  studied  under 
die  corrections  supplied  by  recent  travellers. 

Our  remarks  will  be  confined  to  roads  which 
tonnected  Palestine  with  other  countries,  since  a 
notice  of  the  internal  roads  as  well,  if  at  all  com- 
plete, would  require  too  much  space. 

The  Phoenicians,  as  a mercantile  people,  main- 
tained a connection  not  only  with  the  West,  by  sea, 
but  also,  overland,  with  the  East.  They  had  two 


great  commercial  highways.  One  came  out  of 
Arabia  Felix,  through  Petia.  The  other  struck 
from  the  northern  extremity  of  the  Persian  Gulf, 
through  Palestine,  to  Tyre. 

The  first  road  in  Palestine  which  we  mention 
ran  from  Ptolemais,  on  the  coast  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean, to  Damascus.  This  road  remains  to  the 
present  day.  Beginning  at  Ptolemais  (Acco),  it 
ran  southward  to  Nazareth,  and  continuing  south 
and  east,  passed  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  on  the 
north  ; after  which,  turning  north  and  east,  it  came 
to  Tiberias,  where,  running  along  the  Sea  of  Ga- 
lilee, it  reachet  Capernaum,  and  having  passed 
the  Jordan  somewhat  above  the  last  place,  it  went 
over  a spur  of  the  Anti  Libanus  (Jebel  Heish), 
and  keeping  straight  forward  east  by  north,  came 
to  Damascus.  This  road  was  used  for  the  pur- 
poses both  of  trade  and  war.  In  the  history  of  the 
Crusades  it  bears  the  name  of  Via  Maris.  It  con- 
nected Europe  with  the  interior  of  Asia.  Troops 
coming  from  Asia  over  the  Euphrates  passed  along 
this  way  into  the  heart  of  Palestine.  Under  the 
Romans  it  was  a productive  source  of  income.  It 
was  on  this  road,  not  far  from  Capernaum,  that 
Jesus  saw  Matthew  sitting  ‘at  the  receipt  of  cus- 
tom,’ and  gave  him  his  call  to  the  apostleship. 

Another  road  passed  along  the  Mediterranean 
coast  southward  into  Egypt.  Beginning  at  Pto- 
lemais, it  ran  first  to  Caesarea,  thence  to  Diospolis, 
and  so  on  through  Ascalon  and  Gaza  down  into 
Egypt.  This  was  also  an  important  line  of  com- 
munication, passing  as  it  did  through  cities  of 
great  importance,  running  along  the  coast  and 
extending  to  Egypt.  A glance  at  the  map  will 
show  how  important  it  was  for  trade  by  land  and 
by  sea,  as  well  as  for  the  passage  of  troops.  A 
branch  of  this  road  connected  the  sea  with  the  me- 
tropolis, leading  from  the  same  Caesarea  through 
Diospolis  to  Jerusalem.  Down  this  branch  Pau'. 
was  sent  on  his  way  to  Felix  (Acts  xxiii.  23,  26). 
The  band  went  through  Antipatris,  and  thence  on 
to  Caesarea. 

A third  line  of  road  connected  Galilee  with 
Judaea,  running  through  the  intervening  Samaria 
(Luke  xvii.  11  ; John  iv.  4;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xx. 
6.  1 ; Vita , § 32).  The  journey  took  three  days. 
Passing  along  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  the  traveller 
entered  Samaria  at  Ginea  (Jenin),  and  was  thence 
conducted  to  Samaria  (Sebaste),  thence  to  She- 
chem  (Nablous),  whence  a good  day’s  travel 
brought  him  to  Jerusalem.  This  last  part  of  the 
journey  has  been  described  by  Maundrell  {Jour- 
ney, p.  85,  sq.). 

In  the  time  of  the  Romans  there  was  also  a road 
from  Jerusalem  to  the  lake  Gennesareth,  through 
Shechem  and  Scythopolis.  The  same  road  sent 
a branch  off  at  Scythopolis,  in  a westerly  direc- 
tion through  Esdraelon  to  Csesarea ; and  another 
branch  across  the  Jordan  to  Gadara,  on  to  Damas- 
cus, along  which  line  of  country  there  still  lies  a 
road,  southward  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  to  the  same 
celebrated  city. 

There  were  three  chief  roads  running  from  Je- 
rusalem. One  passed  in  a north-easterly  direc- 
tion over  the  Mount  of  Olives,  by  Bethany,  through 
openings  in  hills  and  winding  ways  on  to  Jericho, 
near  which  the  Jordan  was  passed  when  travellers 
took  their  way  to  the  north,  if  they  wished  to  pass 
through  Peraea  : which  was  the  road  the  Galilean 
Jews,  in  coming  to  and  returning  from  the  festi- 
vals in  the  capital,  were  accustomed  to  take,  thuf 


63* 


ROADS. 


RODON. 


avoiding  the  unfriendly  territory  of  Samaria ; or 
travellers  turned  their  faces  towards  the  south,  if 
they  intended  to  go  towards  the  Dead  Sea.  This 
road  was  followed  hy  the  Israelites  when  they 
directed  their  steps  towards  Canaan.  Through 
Peraea  the  Syrian  and  Assyrian  armies  made  their 
hostile  advances  on  Israel  (2  Kings  viii.  2S  ; ix. 
14 ; x.  32,  sq.  ; 1 Cliron.  v.  26). 

A second  road  led  from  Jerusalem  southward 
to  Hebron,  whence  travellers  went  through  the 
wilderness  of  Judaea  to  Aila,  as  the  remains  of  a 
Roman  road  still  show  ; or  they  might  take  a 
westerly  direction  on  to  Gaza,  away  which  is  still 
pursued,  and  is  of  two  days'  duration.  The  ordi- 
nary way  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza  appears,  in  the 
Roman  period,  to  have  lain  through  Eleuthero- 
polis  and  Ascalon.  From  Gaza  through  Rhino- 
corura  and  Pelusium  was  the  nearest  road  down 
into  Egypt  from  Jerusalem  ( Antiq . xiv.  14.  2). 
Along  this  road  many  thousand  prisoners,  made 
by  Vespasian  in  his  capture  of  Jerusalem,  were 
sent  to  Alexandria  in  order  to  be  shipped  for  Rome. 
Of  these  two  roads  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  one 
went  westward  by  Ramlah  and  Ascalon ; the 
other  southward  by  Hebron.  This  last  road 
Raumer  ( Palastina , p.  191 ; see  also  his  Beitrage, 
published  after  Robinson’s  work  on  Palestine, 
namely,  in  1843,  correcting  or  confirming  the 
views  given  in  his  Palastina , 1838)  is  of  opinion 
was  that  which  was  taken  by  Philip  (Acts  viii. 
26,  sq.),  partly  because  tradition  states  that  the 
eunuch  was  baptized  in  the  vicinity  of  Hebron, 
and  this  road  from  Jerusalem  to  Hebron  runs 
through  the  ‘desert’  Thekoa  (Thecua)  in  the 
Ono?nasticon.  And  here  he  finds  the  reason  of  the 
angel's  command  to  go  ‘ towards  the  south  for 
Hebron  lay  south  of  Jerusalem ; whereas  but  for 
this  direction  Philip  might  have  gone  westward 
by  Ramlah.  Robinson,  admitting  that  there  is  a 
road  from  Jerusalem  to  Hebron, maintains  (ii.640; 
i.  320)  that  Philip  went  by  a third  road,  which 
led  down  Wady  Musurr  to  Betogabra  (Ehu- 
theropolis),  and  thinks  that  he  has  found  at  Tell 
el-Hasy  the  spot  where  the  eunuch  received  bap- 
tism. But,  says  Raumer  ( Beitr’dge , p.  41),  this 
road  ran  in  a south-westerly  direction,  and  Philip 
v/as  commanded  to  go  towards  the  south,  for  which 
purpose  he  must  have  gone  by  Hebron.  Raumer 
then  proceeds  to  confirm  his  original  position. 
Jerome,  in  his  Life  of  Paula,  testifies  that  a road 
from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza  went  through  Hebron. 
Paula  travelled  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethlehem, 
which  lay  south  of  the  city : ‘ When  she  reached 
Befrdehem  she  quickened  the  pace  of  her  horse  and 
took  the  old  road  which  leads  to  Gaza.’  This  road 
conducted  to  Bethsur  (a  little  north  of  Hebron), 

‘ where,’  says  Jerome,  ‘ while  he  read  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  eunuch  found  the  Gospel  fountain.’ 

‘ This,’  adds  Raumer,  ‘ is  the  same  Bethsur  of 
which  Jerome,  in  the  Onomasticon , says,  “ As 
you  go  from  Aelia  to  Hebron,  at  the  twentieth 
mile-stone,  you  meet  Bethsoron,  near  wuich,  at  the 
foot  of  a mountain,  is  a fountain  bubbling  out  of 
the  soil.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  state  that  the 
chamberlain  of  Queen  Candace  was  baptized  in 
it  by  Philip.”  From  Bethsur  Paula  proceeded  to 
Hebron.  The  Itinerarium  Hierosolymitanutn  (of 
the  year  333)  mentions  Bethsur  as  the  place  where 
the  baptism  was  performed.’ 

Raumer  concludes  by  remarking — ‘ Robinson 
rightly  rejects  tradition  when  it  contradicts  the 


Sacred  Scriptures,  but  he  must  also  reject  thoss 
pretended  scientific  theories  which  contradict  Hofy 
Writ.  Such  hypotheses  may  easily  become  the 
groundwork  of  scientific  legends.  To  fix  the  bap- 
tismal-place of  the  Chamberlain  at  Tel  el-Hasy, 
contradicts  the  Scripture;  but  Bethsur,  which 
has  from  the  earliest  ages  been  so  accounted,  agrees 
with  the  passage  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.’ 

There  only  remains  for  us  to  mention  wl  at 
Winer  reckons  the  third  of  the  three  great  roads 
which  ran  from  Jerusalem  ; this  third  road  went  tc 
the  Mediterranean  at  Joppa  (Jaffa),  a way  which 
from  the  time  of  the  Crusades  has  been  taken  by 
pilgrims  proceeding  to  tire  Holy  City  from  Egypt 
and  from  Europe. 

In  addition  to  the  works  already  referred  to,  see 
De  Wette,  Archdologie ; Scholz,  Archdologie; 
Heeren,  Idem , i.  740  ; Ritter,  Erdkunde  ; Crome, 
Palastina,  i.  8 ; Burckhardt,  Syria,  ii.  547  ; also 
the  article  Geography. — J.  R.  B. 

ROAST.  [Food.] 

RODON  (|3d5o</),  signifying  ‘ rose,’  occurs 
only  in  the  Apocryphal  books  of  Ecclesiasticus 
and  the  Book  ofWisdom.  In  the  English  trans- 
lation of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ‘ rose’  occurs  also 
in  the  Song  of  Solomon  xi.  1,  and  in  Isaiah  xxxv. 
1 ; but  in  neither  of  these  passages  is  there  any 
proof  that  the  word  Chabbazzeleth  ought  to  be 
so  rendered.  Indeed  by  many  the  narcissus  is 
thought  to  be  intended.  In  the  books  of  the 
Apocrypha  written  in  Greek,  the  word  pibov 
may  seem  to  indicate  the  same  plant  that  it  did 
among  the  Greeks,  namely,  the  rose.  Thus  in 
Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  14,  ‘ I was  exalted  like  a 
palm  tree  in  Engaddi,  and  as  a rose  plant  in 
Jericho;'  in  xxxix.  13,  ‘and  bud  forth  as  a rose 
growing  by  the  brook  of  the  field  and  the  high 
priest’s  ornaments  are  compared  in  1.  8,  to  ‘ the 
flowers  of  roses  in  the  spring  of  the  year.’  But 
the  passage  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (xi.  8),  ‘ Let 
us  crown  ourselves  with  roses  ere  they  be  with- 
ered,’ is  especially  well-suited  to  the  rose.  But 
roses  have  not  been  found  by  travellers  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Jericho  ; they  cannot  be  con- 
sidered exactly  as  spring  llowers ; nor  do  they 
grow  specially  by  the  sides  of  brooks. 

The  rose  was  as  highly  esteemed  among  an- 
cient, as  it  is  among  modern  nations,  if  we  may 
judge  fry  the  frequent  references  to  it  in  the 
poets  of  antiquity.  As  we  know  that,  it  con- 
tinues to  be  the  favourite  flower  of  the  Persians, 
and  is  much  cultivated  in  Egypt,  we  might  ex- 
pect more  frequent  mention  of  some  of  its  nume- 
rous species  and  varieties  in  the  Jewish  writings. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  case,  and  probably 
arises  from  its  being  less  common  in  a wild  state 
in  a comparatively  dry  and  warm  climate  like 
that  of  Syria.  It  is,  however,  indigenous  in  some 
parts.  Monro,  as  quoted  by  Kitto  in  the  Physical 
History  of  Palestine,  ‘ found  in  tiie  valley  of 
Baalbec,  a creeping  rose  of  a bright  yellow  colour 
in  full  bloom,  about  the  end  of  May.  About 
the  same  time,  on  advancing  towards  Rama  and 
Joppa  from  Jerusalem,  the  hills  are  found  to  be 
to  a considerable  extent,  covered  with  white  and 
pink  roses.  The  gardens  of  Rama  itself  abound 
in  roses  of  a powerful  fragrance.’  Mariti,  as 
stated  by  Roseumuller,  found  the  greatest  quan- 
tity of  roses  in  the  hamlet  of  St.  Juhn,  in  the 
desert  of  the  same  name.  ‘ In  this  place  the  ro>«?- 
plants  form  small  forests  in  the  gardens  Tbf 


ItODC.  N. 


RODON. 


630 


greatest  part  of  the  roses  reared  there  are  brought 
to  Jerusalem,  where  rose-water  is  prepared  from 
them,  of  which  the  scent  is  so  very  exquisite, 
that  in  every  part  of  Lycia,  and  also  in  Cyprus, 
it  is  in  request  above  all  other  rose-waters.’ 
Burckhardt  was  struck  with  the  number  of  rose- 
trees  which  lie  found  among  the  ruins  of  Bozra 
beyond  the  Jordan.  That,  the  rose  was  cultivated 
in  Damascus  is  well  known.  Indeed  one  species 
is  named  Rosa  Damascena  from  being  supposed 
to  be  indigenous  there.  * In  the  gardens  of  the 
city  roses  are  still  much  cultivated.  Monro 
says  that,  in  size  they  are  inferior  to  our  damask 
rose,  and  less  perfect  in  form  ; but  that  their  odour 
and  colour  are  far  more  rich.  The  only  variety 
that  exists  in  Damascus  is  a white  rose,  which 
appears  to  belong  to  the  same  species,  differing 
onlv  in  colour  ’ (Kitto,  l.  c.  p.  cclxxxiv.). 


It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  common  rose 
may  not  be  the  plant  meant  in  the  above  passages 
of  Ecclesiasticus,  and  that  the  name  rodon  may 
have  been  used  in  a general  sense,  so  as  to 
include  some  rose-like  plants.  We  have  an  in- 
stance of  this,  indeed,  in  the*  oleander,  of  which 
rhododendron,  or  rose-tree , was  one  of  the  ancient 
names,  and  rhododaphne  another.  The  former 
name  is  now  applied  to  a very  different  genus  of 
plants,  but  laurier-rose , the  French  translation 
of  rhododaphne,  is  still  the  common  name  in 
France  of  the  plant  which  used  to  be  called  rose 
bay  in  this  country,  but  which  is  now  commonly 
called  oleander.  Its  long  and  narrow  leaves  are 
like  some  kinds  of  willows,  and  in  their  hue  and 
leathery  consistence  have  some  resemblance  to 
the  bay  tree,  while  in  its  rich  inflorescence  it 
may  most  aptly  be  compared  to  the  rose.  The 
oleander  is  well-known  to  be  common  in  the 
south  of  Europe,  by  the  sides  of  rivers  and 
torrents;  also  in  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and  Egypt. 
The  present  writer  has  seen  it  in  similar  situations 
in  the  north  of  India,  and  nothing  can  be 
conceived  more  beautiful  than  the  rivulets  at 
the  foot  of  the  mountains,  with  their  banks  lined 
with  thickets  of  oleanders,  crowned  with  large 
bunches  of  roseate  coloured  flower®.  Most  tra- 


vellers in  Palestine  have  been  struck  with  the 
beauty  of  this  plant.  Of  the  neighbourhood  of 
Tripoli,  Rauwolf  says,  ‘There  also  by  the  river's 
side  are  found  anthilis  marina,  &c.,  and  oleander 
with  purple  flowers  by  the  inhabitants  called 
defle.'  At  the  foot  of  Lebanon,  again  he  says, 
‘ in  the  valley  further  down  towards  the  water 
grew  also  the  oleander.’  It  is  mentioned  as 
a conspicuous  object  in  similar  situations  by 
Robinson  and  Smith.  Mr.  Kitto  says,  ‘Among 
the  plants  in  flower  in  April,  the  tleander 
flourishes  with  extraordinary  vigour,  and  in  some 
instances  grows  to  a consideialde  size  by  all  the 
waters  of  Palestine  : when  the  shrub  expands  its 
splendid  blossoms  the  effect  is  truly  beautiful. 
Lord  Lindsay  speaks  with  rapture  of  the  glorious 
appearance  which  the  groves  of  blooming  olean- 
ders make  in  this  season,  along  the  streams  and 
in  the  lone  valleys  of  Palestine  ’ (l.  c.  p. 
ccxxxvii.).  ‘ In  the  month  of  May,’  adds  Mr.  Kitto 
(l.  c.  p.  ccxliv.),  ‘oleanders,  continuing  still  in 
bloom,  are  as  much  noticed  in  this  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding month  by  travellers.  Madox  noticed  in 
this  month  that  fine  oleanders  in  full  bloom  were 
growing  all  along  the  borders  of  the  Lake  of 
Tiberias,  mostly  in  the  water.  The  same  obser- 
vation was  made  by  Monro.  The  lake  is  here 
richly  margined  with  a )vide  belt  of  oleanders, 
growing  in  such  luxuriance  as  they  are  never 
known  to  do  even  in  the  most  genial  parts  of 
Europe.’  Such  a plant  could  hardly  escape 
reference,  and  therefore  we  are  inclined  to  think 
that  it  is  alluded  to  in  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus 
by  the  name  p6dov.  If  this  should  not  be  con- 
sidered sufficiently  near  to  rhododaphne  and 
rhododendron,  we  may  state  that  in  Arabic 
writers  on  Materia  Medica,  rodyon  is  given  as 
the  Syrian  name  of  the  oleander. 

The  plant  commonly  called  ‘ Rose  of  Jericho,’ 
is  in  no  way  referred  to  in  the  above-quoted 
passages.  Dr.  Lindley,  in  the  Gardener*  s^idhro- 
nicle , ii.  362,  has  thus  described  it : ‘ the  ana- 
statica  hierochuntica,  or  rose  of  Jericho  of  the 
old  herbalists,  is  not  a rose  at  all,  nor  has  it  the 
smallest  resemblance  to  a rose,  nor  is  it,  as  it  is 
often  described  to  be,  alive  as  sold  in  the  shops. 
It  is  a little  grey-leaved  annual,  very  common 
in  Palestine,  and  of  which  hundreds  may  be 
gathered  in  full  flower  in  June,  by  the  sides  of 
the  road  over  the  Isthmus  of  Suez.  It  produces 
a number  of  short,  stiff,  zigzag  branches,  which 
spread  pretty  equally  from  the  top  of  the  root, 
and,  when  green  and  growing,  lie  almost,  flat 
upon  the  ground,  having  the  flowers  and  fruit 
upon  their  upper  side,  it  is,  in  fact,  a crucife- 
rous plant,  nearly  related  to  the  common  purple 
sea-rocket,  which  grows  on  the  coast  of  England, 
and  has  a somewhat  similar  habit.  When  the 
seed-vessels  of  this  plant  are  ripe,  the  branches 
die,  and  drying  up,  curve  inwards,  so  as  to  form 
a kind  of  ball,  which  then  separates  from  the 
roots,  and  is  blown  about  on  the  sands  of  the 
desert.  In  the  cavity  thus  formed  by  the 
branches,  the  seed-vessels  are  carefully  guarded 
from  being  so  disturbed  as  to  lose  their  contents. 
In  that  condition  the  winds  carry  the  anastatica 
from  place  to  place,  till  at  last  rain  falls,  or  it 
reaches  a pool  of  water.  The  dry  hard  branches 
immediately  absorb  the  fluid,  become  softened, 
relax,  and  expand  again  into  the  position  they 
occupied  when  alive;  at  the  same  time  the  seed 


640 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


vessels  open,  and  the  seeds  fall  out,  when,  the 
place  being  suitable,  they  readily  germinate, 
and  establish  themselves  as  new  plants.’  The 
effe  ts,  therefore,  are  owing  to  the  hygroscopic 
properties  of  vegetable  texture,  which  thus  form 
of  the  anastatica  ‘ hygrometres  naturels,’  accord- 
ing to  D’Arvieux. — J.  F.  R. 

ROE  [Antfj.ope;  species  Tsebi  or  DorcasJ. 
ROLL.  [Writing.] 

ROMAN  EMPIRE : the  government  of  the 
Remans  as  conducted  by  the  emperors,  of  whom 
Augustus  was  the  first.  The  term  may  be  taken 
with  some  latitude  of  meaning,  as  representing 
the  Roman  state  since  the  Romans  came  into 
contact  with  the  Jews  before  the  commencement 
of  the  imperial  sway.  We  have  not,  however, 
the  intention  of  entering  into  an  account  of  the 
rise,  progress,  and  decline  of  the  Roman  power, 
but  merely  to  set  forth  a few  of  the  more  essential 
facts,  speaking  a little  less  briefly  of  the  relations 
formed  and  sustained  between  the  Romans  and 
the  Jews. 

The  foundations  of  Rome  lie  in  an  obscurity 
from  which  the  criticism  of  Niebuhr  has  done 
little  more  than  remove  the  legendary  charm. 
Three  tribes,  however,  formed  the  earliest  popu- 
lation, namely,  the  Ramnenses  (probably  Ro- 
manenses,  still  further  abbreviated  into  Ramnes), 
the  Titienses  (shortened  into  Tities,  from  Titu* 
Tatius,  their  head),  and  the  Luceres  (probably 
an  Etruscan  horde,  who  migrated  to  Rome  from 
Solonium,  under  Lucumo).  In  order  to  in- 
crease his  population,  and  with  a view  to  that 
conquest  which  he  afterwards  achieved,  and  which 
was  only  a small  prelude  to  the  immense  do- 
minion subsequently  acquired,  Romulus  opened 
in  Rome  an  asylum,  inviting  thereto  those  who, 
for  whatever  cause,  fled  from  the  neighbouring 
cities.  To  Rome  accordingly  there  flocked  the 
discontented,  the  guilty,  the  banished,  and  the 
aspiring,  freemen  and  slaves.  Thus  were  laid 
the  foundations  of  the  future  mistress  of  the 
world,  according  to  the  ordinary  reckoning, 
B.c.  753,  the  number  of  inhabitants  at  the  first 
not  exceeding,  it  is  supposed,  four  thousand 
souls  : what  it  arose  to  in  the  period  of  its  greatest 
extent  we  have  scarcely  the  means  of  ascertain- 
ing. Gibbon  thus  speaks  ‘ The  number  of 
subjects  who  acknowledged  the  laws  of  Rome, 
of  citizens,  of  provincials,  and  of  slaves,  cannot 
now  be  tixed  with  such  a degree  of  accuracy  as 
the  importance  of  the  object  would  deserve.  We 
are  informed  that  when  the  Emperor  Claudius 
exercised  the  office  of  censor  he  took  an  account 
of  six  millions  nine  hundred  and  forty-five  thou- 
sand Roman  citizens,  who,  with  the  proportion  of 
women  and  children,  must  have  amounted  to 
about  twenty  millions  of  souls.  The  multitude 
of  subjects  of  inferior  rank  was  uncertain  and 
fluctuating.  But  after  weighing  with  attention 
every  circumstance  which  could  influence  the 
balance,  it  seems  probable  that  there  existed  in 
the  time  of  Claudius  about  twice  as  many  pro- 
vincials as  there  were  citizens,  of  eirher  sex  and 
of  every  age,  and  that  the  slaves  were  at  least 
equal  in  number  to  the  free  inhabitants  of  the 
Roman  world.  The  total  amount  of  this  im- 
perfect calculation  would  rise  to  about  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  millions  of  persons — a degree  of 
population  which  possibly  exceeds  that  of  modern 


Europe,  and  forms  the  most  numerous  siafety  tha^ 
has  ever  been  united  under  the  same  system  of 
government.’ 

The  government  was  at  first  kingly.  Romulus, 
the  first  monarch,  was  probably  succeeded  by  six 
others,  during  a period  of  244  years,  till  in  the 
year  b.c.  509,  kingly  government  was  abolished 
when  in  the  hands  of  Tarquinius  Superbus,  in 
consequence  of  his  arrogant  and  oppressive  des- 
potism. A consular  form  of  government  suc- 
ceeded, which  was  at  the  first  of  an  essentially 
aristocratic  character,  but  was  compelled  to  give 
way  by  degrees  to  popular  influence,  till  men  ot 
plebeian  origin  made  their  way  to  the  highest 
offices  and  first  honours  in  the  state,  when  the 
government  became  an  oligarchy ; then  fell  into 
anarchy,  from  which  it  was  rescued  by  the  strong 
hand  of  Octavius  Caesar,  who  became  sole  mastei 
of  the  world  by  defeating  Antony  at  Actium  on 
the  2nd  of  September,  a.u.  723  (b.c.  31),  though 


471.  [Roman  Emperor  and  Empress. 

it  was  not  till  the  year  725  that  the  senate  named 
Octavius  Imperator,  nor  till  the  year  727  that 
he  received  the  sacred  title  of  Augustus.  His 
empire  had  for  its  limit  the  Euphrates  on  the 
east,  the  cataracts  of  the  Nile,  the  African  deserts, 
and  Mount  Atlas  on  the  south,  the  ocean  on  the 
west,  and  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine  on  the 
north. 

The  subjugated  countries  that  lay  beyond  the 
limits  of  Italy  were  designated  by  the  general 
name  of  Provinces.  The  first  provisions  necessary 
on  the  conquest  of  a country  by  the  Roman  arms 
were  made  with  a view  to  secure  the  acquisition 
by  the  victorious  general,  in  virtue  of  the  power 
and  authority  (imperium)  intrusted  to  him  by 
the  government  at  home.  Accordingly  the  earliest 
object  of  attention  was  the  ordering  of  the  mili- 
tary power,  and  the  procuring  of  suitable  resources 
for  subsisting  the  troops.  These  arrangements, 
however,  were  made  not  without  a regard  to  the 
pacific  relations  into  which  the  conquerors  and 
the  conquered  had  mutually  entered.  Acting 
on  the  principle  that  all  unnecessary  evil  was 
gratuitous  folly,  the  general  availed  aimself  of 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


(he  aid  afforded  l>y  exis'ing  institutions,  and  only 
•entured  to  give  displeasure  by  establishing  new 
ones  in  cases  where  the  laws  and  customs  of  a 
country  were  insufficient  for  his  purposes  The 
civil  government  was,  however,  recognised,  mo- 
dified or  remodelled  by  the  conqueror,  provision- 
ally, and  only  until  the  Roman  senate  had  made 
its  behests  known.  Ordinarily,  however,  the«gene- 
ral  who  had  conquered  the  province  constituted 
its  government,  in  virtue  of  a law  or  decree  of 
the  senate  in  which  the  constitution  (forma  pro- 
vincise)  was  set  forth  and  established,  or  the  pro- 
visional appointments  already  made  were  sanc- 
tioned and  confirmed.  In  order  to  complete  these 
structural  arrangements,  the  general  received  spe- 
cial aid  from  ten  senators,  appointed  for  the  pur- 


pose, whose  counsel  he  was  obliged  to  make  use 
of.  In  thus  re-forming  the  legal  and  social  life 
of  a province,  the  conquerors  had  the  good  sense 
to  act  in  general  with  prudence  and  mildness, 
having  regaid  in  their  appointments  to  local  pe- 
culiari tie’s  and  existing  institutions,  so  far  as  the 
intended  adjunction  to  the  Romatl»  power  per- 
mitted, in  order  to  avoid  giving  the  provincials 
provocation  for  opposing  their  new  masters.  Under 
ordinary  circumstances  the  government  of  the 
provinces  was  conducted  by  authorities  sent  for 
the  purpose  from  Rome.  Augustus  divided  the 
government  of  the  provinces  between  himself  and 
the  senate  in  such  a manner  that  he  assigned  to 
the  senate  the  provinces  which  were  so  well  se- 
cured and  obedient  that  they  needed  no  army  to 
keep  them  in  a'legiance  to  Rome  ; while  he  kept 
under  his  own  hands,  in  virtue  of  his  imperium 
proconsulate,  those  that  were  more  considerable 
and  more  difficult  to  hold.  The  government  of 
the  senatorial  provinces  lay  between  the  consuls, 
for  whom,  after  they  had  completed  their  con- 
sular office,  two  provinces  were  appointed ; the 
other  provinces  were  allotted  to  the  praetors. 
Suetonius  adds  ( Octav.  47)  that  Augustus  some- 
times made  changes  in  this  arrangement.  Quaes- 
tors, chosen  by  lot  out  of  those  who  were  named 
for  the  year,  went  with  the  procqpisuls  into  the 
provinces  of  the  senate.  Into  the  provinces  of  the 
emperor  legati,  or  lieutenants,  were  sent,  with  pro- 
praetorial  power,  to  act  as  representatives  of  their 
voi,  n.  42 


a tv 

master  : they  wore  the  sword  as  an  index  of  mili- 
tary authority,  and  had  power  of  life  and  deatd 
over  the  soldiers — two  distinctions  which  were  util 
granted  to  the  proconsuls,  or  governors  of  the  sena- 
torial provinces.  The  imperial  lieutenants  re- 
mained many  years  in  the  provinces;  until,  in- 
deed, it  pleased  the  emperor  to  recall  them.  Quaes- 
tors were  not  sent  into  t lie  imperial  provinces,  hut 
their  place  was  supplied  by  4 procurators/  called 
at  a later  period  ‘ rationales/  who  were  generally 
taken  from  the  equestrian  order:  they  raised  the 
revenue  for  the  imperial  treasury,  and  discharged 
the  office  of  paymaster  of  the  army.  There  was 
also  in  the  senatorial  provinces  a procurator,  who 
raised  the  income  intended,  not.  for  the  treasury, 
hut  for  the  emperor's  privy  purse  : the  smaller 
provinces,  like  Judaea,  which  belonged  to  Syria, 
were  altogether  governed  by  such. 

The  proconsuls,  propraetors,  and  propraetorial 
lieutenants,  when  about  to  proceed  into  their  se- 
veral provinces,  received  instructions  for  their  guid- 
ance from  the  emperor ; and  in  cases  in  which 
these  were  found  insufficient,  they  were  to  apply 
for  special  directions  to  the  imperial  head  of  the 
state.  A specimen  of  such  application  may  be 
found  in  Pliny’s  letter  to  Trajan,  with  the  .empe- 
ror’s rescript,  regardiugyjhe  conduct  which  was  to 
be  observed  to  wards  the  already  numerous  and 
rapidly  growing  sect  of  Christians.  Theadminis- 
tration  of  justice,  so  far  as  it  did  not  belong  to  the 
province  itself,  was  in  the  governor  or  lieutenants 
assembled  in  a conventus ; an  appeal  lay  from  this, 
court  to  the  proconsul,  and  from  him  to  Caesar. 
Criminal  justice  was  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the 
local  governor,  and  extended  not  only  over  the 
provincials,  but  the  Roman  citizens  as  well : in 
important  cases  the  governors  applied  for  a deci- 
sion to  the  emperor.  As  the  Romans  carefully 
abstained  from  making  any  changes  in  religious 
matters,  so  in  Palestine  the  judging  of  crimes 
against  religion  was  left  by  them  to  the  high-priest 
and  the  Sanhedrim,  even  so  far  as  condemnation 
to  death ; but  the  execution  of  the  sentence  de- 
pended on  the  procurator  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xx.  9.  I j 
Mark  xiv.  53,  55,  62-65;  John  xviii.  31).  The 
Jews,  at  least  during  the  time  covered  by  (he 
Gospels,  enjoyed  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion. 
They  had  their  synagogues  or  temples  of  public 
worship,  where  they  served  God  without  molesta- 
tion, streaming  thither  at  their  great  festivals  from 
all  parts  of  the  land,  and  making  what  offerings 
or  contributions  they  pleased.  On  these  points 
the  testimony  of  Josephus  is  full  and  clear.  The 
Roman  presidents  did  indeed  depose  and  set  up 
high-priests  as  they  pleased,  but  they  confined 
their  choice  to  the  sacerdotal  race.  In  these  inter- 
ferences they  seem  to  have  been  guilty  of  acts  of 
despotism,  for  which,  as  for  other  abuses  of  their 
power,  they  were  liable  to  be  called  to  account 
by  an  appeal  of  the  injured  to  the  Roman  em- 
peror, which  was  not  often  made  in  vain  (Antiq. 
xviii.  2 ; 5 and  3 ; xx.  4,  3 and  4).  Dr.  Lardner 
has,  in  his  own  minute,  accurate,  and  learned 
manner,  reviewed  the  civil  condition  of  the  Jews 
during  the  time  before  referred  to,  dividing  it  into 
four  beads — 1.  The  period  from  the  preaching  of 
John  the  Baptist  to  our  Saviour's  resurrection  ; 2 
Thence  to  the  time  of  Herod  the  king,  mentioned 
Acts  xii. ; 3.  The  reign  of  Herod;  4.  From  the 
end  of  this  reign  to  the  conclusion  of  the  evan- 
gelical nistory  ( Works,  London,  1827,  i.  37,sq.)i 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


»12 

regard  to  the  first  period  he  concludes,  after  a 
l*ng  inquiry,  that  the  Jews  practised  their  own 
religious  rites,  worshipped  at  the  Temple  and  in 
♦heir  synagogues,  followed  their  own  customs,  and 
lived  very  much  according  to  their  own  laws. 
They  had  their  high- priests,  council  or  senate,  and 
inflicted  lesser  punishments ; they  could  apprehend 
men  and  bring  them  before  the  council  : and  if 
a guard  of  soldiers  was  needful,  could  be  assisted 
by  them  upon  asking  the  governor  for  them  ; they 
could  bind  men  and  keep  them  in  custody  ; the 
council  could  summon  witnesses,  take  examina- 
tions, and,  when  they  had  any  capital  offenders, 
carry  them  before  the  governor.  This  governor 
usually  paid  a regard  to  what  they  offered,  and, 
if  they  brought  evidence  of  the  fact,  pronounced 
sentence  according  to  their  laws.  He  was  theproper 
judge  in  all  capital  causes.  In  the  second  period 
the  Scriptures  do  not  make  it  clear  that  there  was 
any  Roman  officer  in  Judaea.  In  the  main  the  con- 
dition of  the  province  was  not  dissimilar  to  what 
it  was  in  the  first  period.  The  case  of  Stephen, 
who  was  stoned  to  death,  may  seem  to  be  an  ex- 
ception ; but  it  may  he  considered  as  the  result  of 
offended  bigotry  and  of  the  outbreak  of  popular 
fury.  The  facts  connected  witli  the  third  period 
offer  no  difficulty,  ami  may  he  found  in  Acts  xii. 
Every  order  and  act  of  Herod,  here  mentioned — 
his  killing  James  with  the  sword,  imprisoning 
Peter  with  intent  to  bring  him  forth  to  the  people, 
commanding  the  keepers  to  be  put.  to  death — are 
undeniable  proofs  of  his  sovereign  authority  at  this 
time  in  Judifea.  In  the  fourth  period  the  main 
thing  is  the  treatment  of  Paul  in  Judaea,  so  far  as 
there  is  any  appearance  of  legal  procedure.  The 
case  was  this  : a man  was  in  danger  of  being 
killed  in  a popular  tumult  in  Jerusalem;  a 
Roman  officer  rescues  him,  takes  him  into  his  own 
hands,  and  lodges  him  in  a castle  ; afterwards, 
that  his  prisoner  might  he  safer,  lie  removes  him 
to  Caesarea,  the  residence  of  the  governor,  before 
whom  there  are  divers  hearings.  There  was  there- 
fore at  the  time  a Roman  governor  in  Judaea.  A 
Jewish  council  also  appears  -one  not  void  of  au- 
thority. The  charge  was  of  a religious  nature,  yet 
is  it  heard  before  Felix  and  Festns,  whose  authority 
is  acknowledged  on  all  sides.  Paul  appealed 
to  the  Roman  emperor.  The  general  conclusion 
is,  that  if  causes  of  a religions  nature  did  not  ex- 
clusively belong  to  the  Romans,  they  had  supreme 
power  over  the  Jews  in  civil  matters.  These  de- 
ductions, made  from  the  Evangelists  themselves, 
Lardner  corroborates  by  an  appeal  to  independent 
authorities,  namely,  the  opinions  of  Roman  law- 
yers concerning  the  power  of  the  governors  of  pro- 
vinces ; the  statements  of  historians  relating  to  the 
condition  of  Judaea  in  particular  ; and  similar  in- 
formation touching  the  state  of  the  people  in  other 
pro vinces.  Before,  however,  we  speak  of  the  con- 
nection in  this  period  between  Rome  and  Judaea, 
we  must  go  back  a li*le  in  order  to  show  under 
what  preliminary  circumstances  Judaea  became  a 
part  of  the  great  Roman  empire.  The  Romans 
and  Jews  first  came  inlo  political  contact  about 
B.c.  161,  when  Judas  Maccabaeus,  being  moved 
by  the  great  and  widely-spread  military  re- 
nown of  the  Romans,  sent  an  embassy  to  Home, 
and  formed  with  them  a treaty  offensive  and 
defensive,  tut  with  the  special  view  of  obtaining 
help  against  ‘ the  Grecians,’  that  is,  Demetrius, 
king  of  Syria  (1  Macc.  viii. ; Joseph.  Antiq.  xii. 


10.  6 ; Justin,  xxxvi.  3).  The  contests,  however, 
which  soon  ensued  in  Syria,  for  the  throne,  gave 
the  Jews  respite  from  their  neighbours,  and  even 
weight  in  the  political  scale,  so  that  the  treaty 
was  not  much  called  into  operation  (1  Macc. 
x.  11).  Jonathan  renewed  and  confirmed  the 
connection  with  the  Romans  (1  Macc.  xii. ; Joseph. 
Antiq.  xiii.  5.  8)  ; as  did  Simon,  who  ‘sent  Nu- 
menius  to  Rome  with  a great  shield  of  gold,  of  a 
thousand  pounds  weight,  to  confirm  the  league 
with  them’ (1  Macc.  xiv.  24).;  A very  favour- 
ablefanswer  was  returned  in  the  name  of  ‘ Lucius, 
consul  of  the  Romans’  The  Jews  thus  attained 
the  honour  of  being  admitted  into  the  rank  of 
friends  (socii)  of  the  Roman  people — a dangerous 
distinction,  hut  which  seems  to  have  had  an  im- 
mediately beneficial  influence  in  restraining  the 
Syrian  kings,  who  at  once  recognised  the  high- 
priest  S mon  (1  Macc.  xiv.  38,  sq. ; xiv.  16,  sq.). 
John  Hyrcanus,  the  successor  of  Simon,  aided  by 
these  influences,  was  able  to  maintain  himself  as 
an  independent,  prince  during  the  conflicts  which 
continued  in  S^ria,  and  had  occasion  only  once  to 
appeal  to  Rome,  namely,  on  occasion  of  injury 
inflicted  on  his  country  by  Antioclms  Sidetes  : an 
embassy  was  dispatched  to  the  senate,  the  treaty  was 
renewed,  and  reparation,  as  well  as  immunity  from 
future  injury,  was  readily  promised  (Antiq.  xiii. 
9.  *2).  The  Romans  gained  a nearer  and  more  de- 
cided influence  in  Judaea  through  the  conflicts  for 
power  carried  on  between  Hyrcanus  II.  and  Aris- 
tobulus II.  Both  these  rivals  sent  an  embassy  to 
Seamus,  who  had  been  detached  by  Pompey  from 
the  army  which  he  was  leading  against  Tigranes 
and  had  come  into  Syria.  Each  of  them  offered 
Scaurus  400  talents.  The  bribe  of  Aristobulus 
was  accepted,  and  Scaurus,  as  the  service  to  be 
done  for  the  payment,  relieved  Aristobulus  by 
compelling  Aretas,  who  was  in  alliance  with  Hyr- 
canus, to  raise  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  (Antiq.  xiv. 
2,  3).  .Shortly  after,  Pompey  himself  came  to 
Damascus  and  marched  over  Coele-Syria,  where 
he  was  met  by  ambassadors  from  Hyrcanus  and 
Aristobulus.  Pompey  heard  their  rival  claims, 
and  the  appeal  of  the  Jewish  nation  against 
them,  which  alleged  as  their  crime  that  they  wished 
to  subvert  the  established  form  of  government, 
and  each  to  make  himself  king  of  the  Jews.  The 
Roman  chief  saw  his  opportunity,  marched  to 
Jerusalem,  and  captured  the  city,  making  Hyrca- 
lius  high-priest  and  prince  of  the  Jews,  restricting 
his  territory,  and  imposing  tribute  (Antiq.  xiv.  4. 
4. ; Flor.  iii.  5,  30  ; Tacit.  Ilist.  v.  9).  This  is  the 
event  (b.c.  63)  from  which  the  loss  of  their  liberty 
by  the  Jews  is  to  be  reckoned.  Henceforth  they 
formed  a part  of  the  province  of  Syria,  under  the 
protection  of  whose  president  they  were;  and  from 
his  avarice  they  had  much  to  endure.  The  mo- 
narchy had  passed  into  a species  of  aristocracy, 
which  lasted  for  some  time.  But  though  the 
Jewish  people  then  became  subject,  to  the  Romans, 
and  from  that  time  forward  the  rod  of  Heaven  may 
he  said  to  have  hung  over  the  land,  they  yet  en- 
joyed many  privileges,  as  well  as  the  freedom  of 
their  worship,  under  the  mild  government  of  these 
masters.  When  Pompey  captured  Jerusalem,  he 
and  some  of  his  officers  entered  into  the  Temple, 
and  the  most  holy  places  of  it,  but  they  took  no> 
thing  away. 

Julius  Caesar,  whom  political  considerations  led 
into  the  East,  confirmed  Hyrcanus  in  the  high* 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


ROMAN  EMPIRE. 


643 


oriesthood,  and  showed  himself  well-disposed  to- 
wards the  Jews  by  several  decrees,  but  associated 
with  Hyrcanus  Antipater,  an  Idumaean,  who, 
under  the  title  of  procurator  of  Judaea,  was  in 
reality  the  sole  governor  ( Antiq . xiv.  10.  10  ; 
xiv.  8.  5).  The  jews  were  anew  declared  friends 
of  the  Roman  people,  being  in  reality  their  sub- 
jects. In  the  year  b.c.  40,  the  Roman  senate 
declared  Herod  king  of  the  Jews.  Archelaus, 
Herod’s  son,  being  banished  by  Augustus  (a.d. 
6 or  7),  Judaea  was  put  under  the  immediate  go- 
vernment of  Rome.  Josephus  says,  ‘The  domi- 
nion of  Archelaus  being  reduced  to  a province, 
Coponius,  a person  of  the  equestrian  order  among 
the  Romans,  is  sent  thither,  invested  by  Caesar  with 
the  power  of  life  and  death’  ( De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8. 
1).  In  his  Antiquities  (xvii.  13.  5)  he  adds, 
‘ Cyrenius  also  came  into  Judaea,  it  being  annexed 
to  the  province  of  Syria.’  The  procurators,  under 
whom  Judaea  had  now  fallen,  had  their  official 
residence  at  Caesarea.  When  Cyrenius  came  into 
Syria  he  took  an  account  of  the  substance  of  the 
Jews.  At  first  they  were  unwilling  to  endure  this 
badge  of  subjection,  but  submitted  with  difficulty 
{Antiq.  xviii.  1.  1).  From  this  time,  however, 
they  continued  tributary  to  Rome  (Lardner,  i. 
80).  In  order  to  enforce  the  taxes  and  generally 
aid.  the  procurator,  a body  of  Roman  soldiers 
(a  cohort)  was  put  at  his  disposal,  which  had  their 
quarters  permanently  in  the  country,  their  head 
station  being  at  Caesarea.  In  Acts  x.  1 mention 
is  made  of  the  Italian  band  at  Caesarea  ; which  was 
so  termed  because  composed  of  Italian  soldiers, 
while  the  other  troops  in  Syria  and  Judaea  consisted 
of  natives  (Schwarz,  De  Cohorte  Italica , Altorf, 
1720).  A portion  of  the  troops  was  always  sta- 
tioned in  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover,  in  order  to 
aid  in  preserving  the  peace : they  had  f heir  quar- 
ters in  the  citadel  Antonia,  which  commanded  the 
Temple,  and  so  controlled  the  city  {Antiq.  xix.  9. 
2;  xx.  4.3;  Acts  xxi.  31,  sq.  *,  xxii.  21;  xxiii. 
23).  The  first  procurator  entrusted  with  the 
government  of  Judaea  was  Coponius;  he  was  fol- 
lowed by  Marcus  Ambivius ; then  came  Annius 
Rufus,  in  whose  time  Augustus  died,  a.d.  14. 
Tlfe  next  was  Valerius  Grains,  who  was  ap- 
pointed by  Tiberius  ; he  continued  in  the  province 
eleven  years,  and  was  then  succeeded  by  Pontius 
Pilate,  whose  government  lasted  ten  years.  Lard- 
ner is  of  opinion  that  Pontius  Pilate  left  Judaea 
before  the  Passover,  a.d.  36.  During  the  ensuing 
four  or  live  years  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
the  Jews  had  a procurator  residing  amongst  them 
with  power  of  life  and  death,  as  they  had  from 
a.d.  7 to  a.d.  36  or  37.  They  were,  however, 
subject  to  the  Romans.  Lardner  inclines  to  the 
opinion  that  they  had  no  procurator  residing 
among  them  from  the  time  of  Pilate's  removal  to 
Agrippa’s  accession.  During  this  time  they  were 
immediately  under  the  government,  first  of  Vitel- 
1 i us,  and  then  of  Petronius,  presidents  of  Syria. 
Hence  some  degree  of  license  would  be  assumed 
by  the  Jewish  authorities;  which  was  manifested  in 
their  treatment  of  the  first  Christian  missionaries, 
as  shown  in  the  stoning  of  Stephen,  and  the  perse- 
cution which  immediately  broke  out.  In  Acts  ix. 
31  a different  state  of  things  is  recorded — ‘Then 
had  the  churches  rest  throughout  all  Judaea,  and 
Galilee,  and  Samaria.’  This  appears  to  have 
arisen  from  the  Jews  taemselves  being  in  distress. 
In  Alexandria  their  houses  of  prayer  were  all  de- 


stroyed. In  the  third  year  of  Caligula,  a.b.  39, 
Petronius  was  sent  into  Syria  with  orders  to  setup 
the  emperor’s  statue  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem. 
This  rest  of  the  churches  seems  to  have  reached 
some  way  into  Herod  Agrippa's  reign.  When  he 
ascended  the  Jewish  throne,  as  we  have  already 
intimated,  the  Jews  had  a king  of  their  own,  but 
he  was  a vassal  king. 

The  Romans,  during  their  dominion,  introduced 
info  Judaea  many  of  their  manners  and  customs  ; 
their  money  became  current ; their  weights  and 
measures  were  adopted  ; their  mode  of  reckoning 
time  was  employed.  Yet  none  of  these  things  ob- 
tained more  than  partial  prevalence.  The  Latin 
language  no  longer  remained  unknown,  especially 
among  the  higher  classes.  In  judicial  proceed- 
ings and  public  documents  the  Latin  was  used. 
It  must  have  been  extensively  spoken  in  Jerusalem, 
since  (John  xix.  20)  the  title  which  bore  the  alle- 
gation on  which  our  Lord  was  ostensibly  put  to 
death  was  written  in  Latin,  as  well  as  in  Greek 
and  Hebrew  (Yal.  Max.  ii.  2.  2).  These  three 
tongues  were  indeed  used,  but  in  what  proportion 
cannot  now  be  ascertained.  Many  Latinisms  are 
found  in  the  diction  of  the  New  Testament,  though 
they  may  not  be  so  numerous  as  was  once  sup- 
posed (Olearius,  De  Stylo  N.  T.  p.  368,  «q. ; Georgi, 
in  the  second  part  of  his  Hierocrit.  N.  T.,  Viterb. 
1733;  Michael  is,  Einleit.  N.  T.,  i.  173,  sq. ; 
Winer,  Grammatik  des  Real  Sprach.,  ed.  Leip- 
zig, 1844,  Erst.  Abschnitt).  The  language  which 
our  Lord  spoke  has  been  much  disputed.  The 
Latin  (Wernsdorf,  De  Christo  Latine  Icquente'), 
lias  put  in  its  claim.  The  Greek  has  done  the 
same  (I).  Diodati,  De  Christo  Greece  loquente,  by 
Dobbin,  London,  1843).  There  can,  however,  be 
little  doubt  that  lie  ordinarily  employed  the  lan- 
guage of  the  people,  which  was  neither  Greek  nor 
Latin,  but  Aramaic,  a dialect  of  the  Hebrew. 

Not  only  in  Judaea,  but  in  other  provinces  of  the 
Roman  empire,  the  Jews  enjoyed  full  freedom  of 
worship,  and  were  excused  from  military  service 
on  the  express  ground  of  their  religious  observances 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  10 ; xix.  5.  3 ; Philo,  De  Leg. 
p.  1036).  In  Alexandria  special  favour  was  shown 
to  the  numerous  Jews  settled  there,  by  their 
Roman  masters. 

The  right  of  citizenship  is  spoken  of  in  Acts 
xxii.  28,  where  we  find  the  chief  captain  declar- 
ing, in  relation  to  Paul's  claim  of  being  a Roman, 
‘ With  a great  sum  obtained  I this  freedom  ’ 
(• iroXLTeia , jus  civitatis,  civitas ).  In  the  preceding 
twenty-fifth  verse  we  learn  that  it  was  unlawful  to 
scourge  ‘ a man  that  was  a Roman,  and  uncon- 
demned.’ These  statements  are  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  what  we  learn  from  independent  sources 
[Citizenship]  (Sigonius,  De  Antiquo  Jure  Civ. 
Rom.,  Paris,  1572);  found  also  in  Graevii  The- 
saurus, i.  ; E.  Spanheim,  Orbis  Rom.,  London, 
1703;  Cellarii  Dissertalt.  p.  715,  sq. ; Fabric. 
Bibliograph.  Antiq.  p.  724,  sq.).  On  the  general 
subject  of  this  article  consult  Eschenberg’s  Clas- 
sical Manual,  § Roman  Antiquities,  Wiley  and 
Putnam,  London,  1844  ; Rupert i’s  Ilandbueh  des 
Romisch.  Alterthiimer,  Hanover,  1841 — a very 
accurate  and  comprehensive  manual,  in  two  vo- 
lumes, 8vo. ; Maillott  and  Martin,  Recherches 
sur  les  Costumes,  les  Mams,  §c.  des  Anciens 
Peoples.  The  first  volume  exhibits  in  detail  th? 
costume,  manners,  &c.  of  the  Romans  down  to 
the  last  emperors  of  Constantinople.  The  engrav 


644  ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 

ings  are  taken  from  medals  and  monuments. 
Those  who  wish  to  study  the  morals  of  the  Ro- 
mans will  find  aid  in  Rupeiti  (ut  supra,  2 Ab- 
theil,  p.  25S,  sq.);  see  also  J.  K.  Unger,  Sitten 
und  Gebrauche  der  Homer , Wien,  1805  ; see  also 
Arnold’s  History  of  Rome.  Much  information 
may  he  found  by  the  English  reader,  on  the  state 
of  manners  in  the  first  centuries  after  Christ, 
in  the  following  fictions — Lockhart’s  Valerius; 
Bulwer's  Pompeii;  Ware's  Palmyra;  and  in 
Mil  man’s  History  of  Christianity. — J.  R.  B. 

ROMANS,  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 
This  epistle  claims  our  interest  more  than  the  other 
didactic  epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  because  it.  is 
more  systematic,  and  because  it  explains  espe- 
cially that  truth  which  became  subsequently  the 
principle  of  the  reformation,  viz.,  righteousness 
through  faith.  Melanchthon  was  so  fond  of  this 
epistle  that  he  made  it  the  subject  of  constant 
lectures,  and  twice  copied  it  out.  with  his  own 
hand,  just  as  Demosthenes  copied  Thucydides 
(comp.  Strobel’s  Litter argeschichte  der  loci  Theo- 
logici  des  Melanchthon,  p.  13):  in  these  lectures 
he  explained  the  leading  dogmatical  and  ethical 
ideas,  i.  e.  the  loci  Theologici,  which,  at  a later 
period,  gave  rise  to  the  dogmatical  work  bearing 
this  title. 

At  the  period  when  the  apostle  wrote  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  he  had  passed  through  a life  full 
of  experience.  About  four  years  after  the  composi- 
tion of  this  letter  Paul  calls  himself  UptafivTgs, 
‘ the  aged’  (Philemon,  ver.  9).  Paul  was  at  this 
time  between  fifty  and  sixty  years  old.  After 
having  spent  two  years  and  a half  at  Ephesus,  he 
planned  a journey  to  Macedonia,  Achaia,  Jeru 
6alem,  and  Rome  (Acts  xix.  21).  Having  sjient 
about  three  montlrs  in  travelling,  he  arrived  at 
Corinth,  where  he  remained  three  months  (Acts 
xx.  2) ; and  during  this  second  abode  at  Gorinth  he 
wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (comp.  1 Cor. 
xvi.  1 — 3,  and  2 Cor.  ix.  with  Rom.  xv.  25). 
Paul  dispatched  this  letter  by  a Corinthian 
woman,  who  was  just  then  travelling  to  Rome 
(xvi.  1),  and  sent  greetings  from  an  inhabitant  of 
Corinth  (xvi.  23;  comp.  I Cor.  i.  14). 

The  data  in  tire  life  of  the  apostle  depend  upon 
the  year  in  which  his  conversion  took  place.  Con- 
sequently we  must  have  a settled  opinion  con- 
cerning the  date  of  this  event  before  we  speak 
about  the  date  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
Tire  opinions  of  the  learned  fluctuate  concerning 
the  date  of  the  conversion  : some  think  that  this 
event  took  place  as  early  as  a.d.  31  or  41  ; but  it 
is  by  far  more  probable  that  the  epistle  was 
written  about  the  year  58  or  59.  The  congrega- 
tion of  Christians  at  Rome  was  formed  at  a very 
early  period,  but  its  founder  is  unknown.  Paul 
himself  mentions  two  distinguished  teachers*  at 
Rome,  who  were  converted  earlier  than  himself. 
According  to  Rom.  i.  8,  the  Roman  congrega- 
tion had  then  attained  considerable  celebrity,  as 
their  faith  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole 
world.  From  chap.  xvi.  we  learn  that  there  were 
a considerable  number  of  Christian  teachers  at 
Rome;  from  which  we  infer  that  the  congregation 
had  existed  there  for  some  time;  and  it  is  most 
likely  thac  the  Jews  at  Rome  were  first  converted 
to  Christianity.  Under  Augustus  there  were  so 
many  Jews  at  Rome,  that  this  emperor  appointed 
for  them  quarters  beyond  the  Tiber.  These  Jews 
comitfed  mostly  of  free  1 men,  whom  Pompey  had 


ROM  \NS,  El  ISTLE  TO  THR 

carried  to  Rome  as  slaves : some  of  the  early 
Christians  at  Rome  followed  mercantile  pursuits. 

At  the  time  when  this  epistle  was  written,  ther# 
were  also  Gentile  Christians  in  the  Roman  church; 
and  from  passages  like  xi.  13;  xv.  1(5;  i.  7 and 
13,  we  learn  that  the  Gentile  Christians  were  then 
mine  numerous  than  the  converted  Jews.  It  ir 
well  known  tlwit  in  those  times  many  heathens 
embraced  Judaism  (Tacitus,  Annul,  xv.  44; 
Juvenal,  Sat.  xiv.  96).  These  converts  to 
Judaism  were  mostly  women.  Such  proselytes 
formed  at'that.  period  the  point  of  coalescence  for 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  Among  the  converts 
from  Judaism  to  Christianity,  there  existed  in  the 
days  of  Paul  two  parties.  The  congregated 
apostles  had  decreed,  according  to  Acts  xv.,  that 
the  converts  from  paganism  were  not  bound  fo 
keep  the  ritual  laws  of  Moses.  There  were,  how- 
ever, many  converts  from  Judaism  who  were  dis- 
inclined to  renounce  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic 
law,  and  appealed  erroneously  to  the  authority  ol 
James  (Gal.  ii.  9;  comp.  Acts  xxi.  25):  they 
claimed  also  the  authority  of  Peter  in  theii 
favour.  Such  converts  from  Judaism,  mentioned 
in  the  other  epistles,  who  continued  to  observe 
the  ritual  laws  of  Moses,  were  not  prevalent  in 
Rome : however,  Dr.  Baur  of  Tubingen  sup- 
poses that  this  Ebionitic  tendency  prevailed  at 
that,  time  in  all  Christian  congregations,  Rome 
not  excepted.  He  thinks  that  the  converts 
from  Judaism  were  then  more  numerous  than  the 
Gentile  Christians,  and  that  all  were  compelled 
to  submit  to  the  Judaizing  opinions  of  the  ma- 
jority (comp.  Baur's  Abhandlung  iiber  Zwcck 
und  Veranlassung  des  Rbmerbriefs , in  der  Tii - 
binger  Zeitschrift,  1836).  However,  we  infer 
from  the  passages  above  quoted,  that  the  Gentile 
Christ  ians  were  much  more  numerous  at  Rome  than 
the  converts  from  Judaism.  Neander  has  also 
shown  that  the  Judaizing  tendency  did  not  prevail 
in  the  Roman  church  (comp.  Neander’s  Pflaii- 
zung  der  Christlichen  Kirche,  3rd  ed.  p.  388). 
This  opinion  is  confirmed  by  the  circumstance, 
that,  according  to  ch.  xvi.,  Paul  had  many 
friends  at  Rome.  Dr.  Baur  removes  this  objec- 
tion only  by  declaring  ch.  xvi.  to  be  spurious. 
He  appeals  to  ch.  xiv.  in  order  to  prove  that  there 
were  Ebionitic  Christians  at  Rome:  it  appears, 
however,  that  the  persons  mentioned  in  ch.  xiv. 
were  by  no  means  strictly  Judaizing  zealots,  wish- 
ing to  overrule  the  Gentile  Christians,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  some  scrupulous  converts  from  Judaism, 
upon  whom  the  Gentile  Christians  looked  down 
contemptuously.  There  were,  indeed,  some  dis- 
agreements between  the  converts  from  Judaism  and 
the  Gentile  Christians  in  Rome.  T his  is  evident 
from  ch.  xv.  6 — 9,  and  xi.  17,  18  : these  debates, 
however,  were  not  of  so  obstinate  a kind  as  among 
the  Galatians ; otherwise  the  apostle  could  scarcely 
have  praised  the  congregation  at  Rome  as  he  does 
in  ch.  i.  8 and  12,  and  xv.  14.  From  ch.  xvi.  17 — 
20,  we  infer  that  the  Judaizers  had  endeavoured 
to  find  admittance,  but  with  little  success. 

The  opinions  concerning  the  occasion  and 
object  of  this  letter,  differ  according  to  the  va- 
rious suppositions  of  those  who  think  that  the 
object  of  the  letter  was  supplied  by  the  occasion, 
or  the  supposition  that  the  apostle  selected  hi* 
subject  only  after  an  opportunity  for  wiiting  was 
offered.  In  earlier  times  the  latter  opinion  pra« 
vailed,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  writings  of  Thoinai 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 

Aquinas,  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Calvin.  In  more 
recent  times  the  other  opinion  has  generally  been 
advocated,  as,  for  instance,  by  Hug,  Eichhorn,  and 
Flatt.  Many  writers  suppose  that  the  debates 
mentioned  in  ch.  xiv.  and  xv.  called  forth  this 
epistle.  Hug,  therefore,  is  of  opinion  that  the 
theme  of  the  whole  epistle  is  the  following — Jews 
AND  Gentiles  HAVE  EQUAL  CLAIM  TO  THE 
Kingdom  ok  God.  According  to  Eichhorn,  the 
Roman  Jews  being  exasperated  against  the  dis- 
ciples of  Paul,  endeavoured  to  demonstrate  that 
Judaism  was  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  man- 
kind ; consequently  Eichhorn  supposes  that  the 
olemics  of  St.  Paul  were  not  directed  against 
udaizing  converts  to  Christianity,  as  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  but  rather  against  Ju- 
daism itself.  This  opinion  is  also  maintained  by 
De  Wette  ( Einleitung  ins  Neue  Testament , 4th 
ed.  § 138).  According  to  Credner  {Einleitung.  § 
141),  the  intention  of  the  apostle  was  to  render  the 
Roman  congregation  favourably  disposed  before  his 
arrival  in  the  chief  metropolis  and  he  therefore  en- 
deavoured to  show  that  the  evil  reports  spread  con- 
cerning himself  by  zealously  Judaizing  Christians 
were  erroneous.  This  opinion  is  nearly  related  to 
that  of  Dr.  Baur,  who  supposes  that  the  real  object 
of  this  letter  is  mentioned  only  in  ch.  ix.  to  xi. 
According  to  Dr.  Baur,  the  Judaizing  zealots 
were  displeased  that  by  the  instrumentality  of 
Paul  such  numbers  of  Gentiles  entered  the  king- 
dom of  God,  that  the  Jews  ceased  to  appear  as 
the  Messianic  people.  Dr.  Baur  supposes  that 
these  Judaizers  are  move  especially  refuted  in 
ch.  ix.  to  xi.,  after  it  has  been  shown  in  the  first 
eight  chapters  that  it  was  in  general  incorrect  to 
consider  one  people  better  than  another,  and  that 
all  had  equal  claims  to  be  justified  by  faith. 
Against  the  opinion  that  the  apostle,  in  writing 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  had  this  particular 
polemical  aim,  it  has  bfeen  justly  observed  by 
Ruckert  (in  the  second  ed.  of  his  Commentar .), 
Olshausen,  and  De  Wette,  that  the  apostle  himself 
states  that  his  epistle  had  a general  scope.  ■ Paul 
says  in  the  introduction  that  he  had  long  enter- 
tained the  wish  of  visiting  the  metropolis,  in  order 
to  confirm  the  faith  of  the  church,  and  to  be  himself 
comforted  by  that  faith  (ch.  i.  12).  Hea,dds(i.  16), 
that  he  was  prevented  from  preaching  in  the  chief 
city  by  external  obstacles  only.  He  says  that  he 
had  written  to  the  Roman  Christians  in  fulfil- 
ment of  his  vocation  as  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 
The  journey  of  Phoebe  to  Rome  seems  to  have 
been  the  external  occasion  of  the  epistle : Paul 
made  use  of  this  opportunity  by  sending  the  sum 
and  substance  of  the  Christian  doctriuein  writing, 
having  been  prevented  from  preaching  in  Rome. 
Paul  had  many  friends  in  Rome  who  commu- 
nicated with  him  ; consequently  he  was  the  more 
induced  to  address  the  Romans,  although  he 
manifested  some  hesitation  in  doing  so  (xv.  15). 
These  circumstances  exercised  some  influence  as 
well  on  the  form  as  upon  the  contents  of  the 
letter;  so  that,  for  instance,  its  contents  differ 
considerably  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
although  this  also  has  a general  scope.  The 
especial  bearings  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  are 
particularly  manifest  in  ch.  xiii.  to  xvi  ; Paul 
shows  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  the  glory  of 
Christianity  as  being  absolute  religion , and  he 
especially  endeavours  to  confirm  the  faith  of  the 
;onverts  from  Judaism  (iv.)  ; Paul  refers  to  the 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE.  645 

circumstance  that  in  Rome  the  number  of  Gen- 
tile Christians  was  much  greater  than  that  of  the 
converted  Jews,  and  he  explains  how  this  wai 
consistent  with  the  counsel  of  God.  He  endea- 
vours to  re-establish  peace  between  the  contend- 
ing parties  ; consequently  he  had  to  produce  many 
arguments  which  might  be  converted  into  pole- 
mics (Polemik)  against  the  Jews  ; but  it  does  by 
no  means  follow  that  such  polemics  were  the 
chief  aim  of  the  apostle. 

Contents  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
— It  belongs  to  the  characteristic  type  of  St. 
Paul’s  teaching  to  exhibit  the  Gospel  in  its  his- 
torical relation  to  the  human  race,  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  also,  we  find  that  peculiar  cha- 
racter of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  which  induced 
Schelling  to  call  St.  Paul's  doctrine  a philosophy 
of  the  history  of  man.  The  real  purpose  of  the 
human  race  is  in  a sublime  manner  stated  by  St. 
Paul  in  his  speech  in  Acts  xvii.  26.  27 ; and  he 
shows  at  the  same  time  how  God  had,  by  various 
historical  means,  promoted  the  attainment  of  his 
purpose.  St.  Paul  exhibits  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation under  the  form  of  an  institution  for  the 
education  of  the  whole  human  race,  which  should 
enable  men  to  terminate  their  spiritual  minority, 
and  become  truly  of  age  (Gal.  iii.  24,  and  v . 1-4). 
In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  also,  the  apostle  com- 
mences by  describing  the  two  great  divisions  of  the 
human  race,  viz.,  those  who  underwent  the  pre- 
paratory spiritual  education  of  the  Jews,  and  those 
who  did  not  undergo  such  a preparatory  educa- 
tion. We  find  a similar  division  indict  ted  by 
Christ  himself  (John  x.  16),  where  he  speaks  of 
one  flock  separated  by  hurdles.  The  chief  aim  of 
all  nations,  according  to  St.  Paul,  should  be  the 
SiKaioavurj  iv&niov  tov  6eov , righteousness  before 
the  face  of  God , or  absolute  realization  of  the 
moral  law.  According  to  St.  Paul,  the  heathen 
also  have  their  vigos,  law.  as  well  religious  as 
moral  internal  revelation  (Rom.  i.  19,  32  ; ii.  i5). 
The  heathen  have,  however,  not  fulfilled  that  law 
which  they  knew,  and  are  in  this  respect  like  the 
Jews,  who  also  disregarded  their  own  law  (ii.). 
Both  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  transgressors,  or  by 
the  law  separated  from  the  grace  and  sonship  of 
God  (Rom.  ii.  12;  iii.  20);  consequently  if 
blessedness  could  only  be  obtained  by  fulfilling 
the  demands  of  God,  no  man  could  be  blessed. 
God,  however,  has  gratuitously  given  righteous- 
ness and  blessedness  to  all  who  believe  in  Christ 
(iii.  21 — 31);  the  Old  Testament  also  recog- 
nises the  value  of  religious  faith  (iv.)  : thus  we 
freely  attain  to  , peace  and  sonship  of  God  pre- 
sently, and  have  before  us  still  greater  things,  viz., 
the  future  development  of  the  kingdom  of  (Hod  (v. 
1-11).  The  human  race  has  gained  in  Christ  much 
more  than  it  lost  in  Adam  (v.  12,  21).  This  doc- 
trine by  no  means  encourages  sin  (vi.) : on  the 
contrary,  men  who  are  conscious  of  divine  grace 
fulfil  the  law  much  more  energetically  than  they 
were  able  to  do  before  having  attained  to  this 
knowledge,  because  the  law  alone  is  even  apt  to 
sharpen  the  appetite  for  sin,  and  leads  finally  to 
despair  (vii.) ; but  now  we  fulfil  the  law  by  means 
of  that  new  spirit  which  is  given  unto  us,  and  the 
full  development  of  our  salvation  is  still  before 
us(viii.  1-27).  The  sufferings  of  the  present  time 
cannot  prevent  this  development,  and  must  rather 
work  for  good  to  them  whom  God  from  eternity 


816  ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 

has  viewed  as  faithful  believers  ; and  nothing 
can  separate  sfich  believers  from  the  eternal  love 
?f  God  (viii.  2S-39).  It  causes  pain  to  behold 
the  Israelites  themselves  shut  out  from  salvation; 
but  they  themselves  are  the  cause  of  this  seclusion, 
because  they  wanted  to  attain  salvation  by  their 
own  resources  and  exertions,  by  their  descent 
from  Abraham,  and  by  their  fulfilment  of  the 
law  : thus,  however,  the  Jews  have  not  obtained 
that  salvation  which  God  lias  freely  offered  under 
the  sole  condition  of  faith  in  Christ  (ix.);  the 
Jews  have  not  entered  upon  the  way  «f  faith, 
therefore  the  Gentiles  were  preferred,  which  was 
predicted  by  the  prophets.  However,  the  Jewish 
race,  as  such,  has  not  been  rejected ; some  of 
them  obtain  salvation  by  a selection  made  not 
according  to  their  works,  but  according  to  the 
grace  of  God.  If  some  of  the  Jews  are  left  to 
their  own  obduracy,  even  their  temporary  fall 
serves  the  plans  of  God,  viz.,  the  vocation  of  the 
Gentiles.  After  the  mass  of  the  Gentiles  shall 
have  entered  in,  the  people  of  Israel  also,  in  their 
collective  capacity,  shall  be  received  into  the 
church  (xi.). 

On  the  authenticity  and  integrity  of 
the  Epjstj.e  to  the  Romans. — The  authen- 
ticity of  this  epistle  has  never  been  questioned. 
The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  quoted  as  early  as 
the  first  and  second  century  by  Clemens  Romanus 
and  Polycarp.  Its  integrity  lias  lately  been  at- 
tacked by  Dr.  Baur,  who  pretends  that  chs.  xv. 
and  xvi.  are  spurious,  but  only,  as  we  have  ob- 
served above,  because  these  chapters  do  not  har- 
monise with  his  supposition,  that  the  Christian 
church  at  Rome  consisted  of  rigid  Judaizers. 
Schmidt  and  Reiche  consider  the  doxology  at  the 
conclusion  of  ch.  xvi.  not  to  be  genuine.  In  this 
dcxology  the  anacoloutliical  and  unconnected 
style  causes  some  surprise,  and  the  whole  has  been 
deemed  to  be  out  of  its  place  (ver.  26  and  27).  We, 
however,  observe,  in  reply  to  Schmidt  and  lleiche, 
that  such  defects  of  style  may  be  easily  explained 
from  the  circumstance,  that  the  apostle  hastened  to 
the  conclusion,  but  would  be  quite  inexplicable  in 
additions  of  a copyist  who  had  time  for  calm  con- 
sideration. The  same  words  occur  in  different 
passages  of  the  epistle,  and  it  must  be  granted  that 
such  a fluctuation  sometimes  indicates  an  interpo- 
lation. In  the  Codex  i.,  in  most  of  the  Codices 
Minusculi,  as  well  as  in  Chrysostom,  the  words 
occur  at  the  conclusion  of  ch.  xiv.  In  the 
Codices  B.C.D.E.,  and  in  the  Syrian  transla- 
tion, This  doxology  occurs  at  the  conclusion  of 
ch.  xvi.  In  Codex  A it  occurs  in  both  places; 
whilst  in  Codex  D**,  the  words  are  wanting 
entirely,  and  they  seem  not  to  fit  into  either  of 
the  two  places.  If  the  doxology  be  put  at  the  con- 
clusion of  ch.  xiv.,  Paul  seems  to  promise  to 
those  Christians  weak  in  faith,  of  whom  he  had 
spoken,  a confirmation  of  their  belief.  But.  it 
seems  unfit  (unpasseud)  in  this  connection  to  call 
the  Gospel  an  eternal  mystery,  and  the  doxology 
seems  here  to  interrupt  the  connection  between 
chs.  xiv.  and  xv. ; and  at  the  conclusion  of  ch.  xvi. 
it  seems  to  be  superfluous,  since  the  blessing  had 
been  pronounced  already  in  ver.  24.  We,  how- 
ever, say  that  this  latter  circumstance  need  not 
have  prevented  the  apostle  from  allowing  his 
animated  feelings  to  burst  forth  in  a doxology, 
especially  at  the  conclusion  of  an  epistle  which 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE. 

treated  amply  on  the  mystery  of  redemption. 
We  find  an  analogous  instance  in  Ephes.  xxi:i. 
27,  where  a doxology  occurs  after  the  mystery  i/f 
salvation  had  been  mentioned  : we  are  therefore 
of  opinion  that  the  doxology  is  rightly  placed  at 
the  conclusion  of  ch.  xvi.,  and  that.  it.  was  in  some 
codices  erroneously  transposed  to  the  conclusion 
of  ch.  xiv.,  because  the  copyist  considered  the 
blessing  in  xvi.  24  to  be  the  real  conclusion  of  the 
Epistle.  In  confirmation  of  this  remark  we  ob- 
serve that,  the  same  codices  in  which  the  doxology 
occurs  in  ch.  xvr.  either  omit -the  blessing  alto- 
gether, or  place  it  after  the  doxology. 

Interpreters  of  the  Epistle  to  tiik 
Romans. — Chrysostom  is  the  most  important 
among  the  fathers  who  attempted  to  interpret  this 
epistle;  lie  enters  deeply,  and  with  psychological 
acumen,  into  the  thoughts  of  the  apostle,  and  ex- 
pounds them  with  sublime  animation.  Among 
the  reformers  Calvin  is  distinguished  by  logical 
penetration  and  doctrinal  depth.  Beza  is 
distinguished  by  his  grammatical  and  critical 
knowledge.  Since  the  period  of  rationalism  the 
interest  about  this  epistle  has  been  revived  by  the 
Commentary  of  Tholuck,  the  first  edition  of 
which  appeared  in  1824.  No  other  book  of  the 
New  Testament  has,  since  that,  period,  been  ex- 
pounded so  frequently  and  so  accurately.  From 
1824  to  1844,  there  have  been  published  as  many 
as  seventeen  learned  and  critical  commentaries 
on  it;  and,  in  addition  to  these,  several  practical 
expositions.  In  the  Commentar  von  Riickert, 
2d  ed.,  1839,  2 vols.,  we  find  copious  criticisms 
of  the  various  interpretations,  and  a clear  and 
pleasing,  although  not  always  carefully  weighed, 
exposition. 

The  Commentar  von  Fritzsche,  1S36  to  1843, 
3 vols.,  exhibits  a careful  critique  of  the  text,  com- 
bined with  philologicalWxplanation,  but  the  true 
sense  of  the  apostle  has  frequently  been  missed. 
The  Commentar  of  Olshausen,  2nd  ed.,  1840, 
generally  contains  only  the  author's  own  exposi- 
tion, but  presents  a very  pleasing  development  of 
the  doctrinal  contents.  De  Wette  manifests  on  the 
whole  a correct  tact  (3rd  ed.,  1841)  ; however,  his 
book  is  too  comprehensive,  so  that  the  contents  of 
the  epist  le  do  not  make  a clear  impression.  Latel  j 
there  has  been  published  in  French  also  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  worked  out 
with  much  diligence  and  ingenuity,  by  Hugues 
01  tram  are ; the  first  part  contains  chs.  i.  to  v. 
11,  and  was  published  at  Geneva,  1843. — A.  T. 

[The  princij  al  English  works  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  are — Willet,  Hexapla , or  a Sixfold 
Comment  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans , 1611  t 
Taylor’s  Paraphrase  and  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans , 1747  ; Jones,  The  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  analyzed,  from  a development  of  the 
circumstances  by  ivhich  it  was  occasioned , 1801 , 
Cox,  Ilorce  Romance , 1824  (translation  with 
notes) ; Turner,  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, New  York,  1824  (exegetical,  for  the  use  of 
students)  ; Terrot,  The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the 
Romans,  1828  (Greek  text,  paraphrase,  notes, 
and  useful  prolegomena).  Stuart’s  Commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Andover,  U.  S., 
1832,  is  undoubtedly  the  greatest  work  on  this 
Epistle  which  has  been  produced  in  the  English 
1 an gu agi^an d may  be  regarded  as  next  in  im- 
portance to  the  admirable  Commentary  by  tbg 


ROME. 


ROME. 


e« 


WTiter  of  (he  above  article  (Dr.  Tholuck),  a 
translation  of  which,  by  the  Rev.  R.  Menzies,  has 
been  given  in  the  Edinburgh  Biblical  Cabinet. — 

Ed.] 

ROME,  (he  famous  capital  of  the  Western 
World,  and  the  present  residence  of  (lie  Pope, 
stands  on  the  river  Tiber,  about  fifteen  miles  from 
its  mouth,  in  (he  plain  of  what  is  now  called  the 
Campagna  ( Felix  ilia  Campania , Pliny,  Ilist. 
Nat.  iii.  6),  in  lat.  4U  54'  N.,  long.  12°  28'  E. 
The  country  around  the  city  is  not.  a plain,  but  a 
sort  of  undulating  table-land,  crossed  by  hills, 
while  it  sinks  towards  the  south-west,  to  the  marshes 
of  Maremma,  which  coast  the  Mediterranean. 
In  ancient  geography  the  country,  in  the  midst  of 
which  Rome  lay,  was  termed  Lat.ium,  which,  in 
the  earliest  times,  comprised  within  a space 
of  about  four  geographical  square  miles  the 
country  lying  between  the  Tiber  and  the  Numi- 
cius,  extending  from  the  Alban  Hills  to  the  sea, 
having  for  its  chief  city  Laurentum.  Here,  on  the 
Palatine  Hill,  was  the  city  of  Rome  founded  by 
Romulus  and  Remus,  grandsons  of  Numitor,  and 
sons  of  Rhea  Sylvia,  to  whom,  as  the  originatdls 
of  the  city,  mythology  ascribed  a divine  parent- 
age. The  origin  of  the  term  Rome  is  in  dispute. 
Some  derive  it  from  the  Greek  'Paynj,  ‘strength,’ 
considering  that  this  name  was  given  to  the  place 
as  being  a fortress.  Cicero  (j)e  Repub.  ii.  7) 
says  the  name  was  taken  from  that  of  its  founder 
Romulus.  At  first  the  city  had  three  gates,  ac- 
cording to  a sacred  usage.  Founded  on  the 
Palatine  Hill,  it.  was  extended,  by  degrees,  so  as 
to  take  in  six.  other  hills,  at  the  foot  of  which  ran 
deep  valleys  that,  in  early  times,  were  in  part 
overflowed  with  water,  while  the  hill-sides  were 
covered  with  trees.  In  the  course  of  the  many 
years  during  which  Rome  was  acquiring  to 
herself  the  empire  of  the  world,  the  city  under- 
went great,  numerous,  and  important  changes. 
Under  its  first  kings  it.  must  have  presented  a 
very  different  aspect  from  what  it  did  after  it 
had  been  beautified  by  Tarquin.  The  destruc- 
tion of  the  city  by  (he  Gauls  (u.c.  365)  caused 
a thorough  alteration  in  it. ; nor  could  the  troubled 
times  which  ensued  have  been  favourable  to  its 
being  well  restored.  It  was  not  till  riches  and 
artistic  skill  came  into  the  city  on  the  conquest 
of  Philip  of  Macedon,  and  Antiochus  of  Syria 
(u.c.  565),  that  there  arose  in  Rome  large  hand- 
some stone  houses.  The  capture  of  Corinth  con- 
duced much  to  the  adorning  of  the  city : many  fine 
specimens  of  art  being  transferred  from  thence  to 
i he  abode  of  the  conquerors.  And  so,  as  the  power 
of  Rome  extended  over  the  world,  and  her  chief 
citizens  went  into  the  colonies  to  enrich  themselves, 
did  the  master-pieces  of  Grecian  art  flow  towards 
the  capital,  together  with  some  of  the  taste  and  skill 
to  which  they  owed  their  birth.  August  us,  however, 
it  was,  who  did  most  for  embellishing  the  capital 
of  the  world,  though  there  may  be  some  sacrifice 
of  truth  in  the  pointed  saying,  that  he  found 
Rome  built  of  brick,  and  left  it  marble.  Subse- 
quent emperors  followed  his  example,  till  the 
place  became  the  greatest  repository  of  architec- 
tural, pictorial,  and  sculptural  skill,  that  the 
world  has  ever  seen;  a result  (o  which  even 
Nero’s  incendiarism  indirectly  conduced,  as  af- 
fording an  occasion  for  the  city’s  being  rebuilt 
under  the  higher  scientific  influences  of  the  times. 
The  site  occupied  by  modern  Rome  is  not  pre- 


cisely the  same  ns  that  which  was  at  any  period  co- 
vered by  the  ancient  city  : the  change  of  locality 
being  towards  the  north-west,  the  city  has  par- 
tially retired  from  the  celebrated  hills.  About 
two-thirds  of  the  area  within  the  walls  (traced  by 
Aurelian)  are  now  desolate,  consisting  of  ruins, 
gardens,  and  fields,  with  some  churches,  con- 
vents, and  other  scattered  habitat  ions.  Origin- 
ally (lie  city  was  a square  mile  in  circumference. 
In  the  time  of  Pliny  the  walls  were  nearly  twenty 
miles  in  circuit ; now,  they  are  from  fourteen 
to  fifteen  miles  round.  Its  original  gales,  three 
in  number,  had  increased  in  the  time  of  the  elder 
Pliny  to  thirty-seven.  Modem  Rome  has  six- 
teen gates,  some  of  which  are,  however,  built  up. 
Thirty-one  great,  roads  centered  in  Rome,  which, 
issuing  from  the  Forum,  traversed  Italy,  ran 
through  the  provinces,  and  were  terminated  only 
by  the  boundary  of  the  empire.  As  a starting 
point  a gilt  pillar  (Milliarium  Aureum)  was  set 
up  by  Augustus  in  the  middle  of  the  Forum. 
This  curious  monument,  from  which  distances  were 
reckoned,  was  discovered  in  1823.  Eight  prin- 
cipal bridges  led  over  the  Tilier ; of  these  three 
are  still  relics.  The  four  districts  into  which 
Rome  was  divided  in  early  times,  Augustus 
increased  to  fourteen.  Large  open  spaces  were 
set  apart  in  the  city,  called  Campi,  for  as- 
semblies of  the  people  and  martial  exercises,  as 
well  as  for  games.  Of  nineteen  which  are  men- 
tioned, the  Campus  Martius  was  the  principal. 
It  was  near  the  Tiber,  whence  it  was  called 
Tibcrinus.  The  epithet  Martius  was  derived 
from  the  plain  being  consecrated  to  Mars,  the  god. 
of  war.  In  the  later  ages  it  was  surrounded 
by  several  magnificent  structures,  and  porticos 
were  erected,  under  which,  in  bad  weather,  the 
citizens  could  go  through  their  usual  exercises. 
It  was  also  adorned  with  statues  and  arches. 
The  name  of  Fora  was  given  to  places  where 
the  people  assembled  for  the  transaction  of  busi- 
ness. The  Fora  were  of  two  kinds — fora  venalia, 

‘ markets  ;’  fora  civil ia.,  ‘ law  courts,’  &c.  Until 
the  time  of  Julius  Caisar  there  was  but  one  of  the 
latter  kind,  termed  by  way  of  distinction  Forum 
Romanum,  or  simply  Forum.  It  lay  between 
the  Capitoline  and  Palatine  Hills;  it  was  eight 
hundred  feet  wide,  and  adorned  on  all  sides  with 
porticos,  shops,  and  other  edifices,  on  the  erection 
of  which  large  sums  had  been  expended,  and  the 
appearance  of  which  was  very  imposing,  especi- 
ally as  it  was  much  enhanced  by  numerous  sta- 
tues. In  the  centre  of  the  Forum  was  the  plain 
called  the  Curtian  Lake,  where  Curtins  is  said  to 
have  cast  himself  into  a chasm  or  gulf,  which 
closed  on  him,  and  so  he  saved  his  country.  On 
one  side  were  the  elevated  seats  or  suggestus,  a 
sort  of  pulpits  from  which  magistrates  and  orators 
addressed  the  people — usually  called  Rostra,  be- 
cause adorned  with  the  beaks  of  ships  which  had 
been  taken  in  a sea-  fight  from  the  inhabbants  of 
Antium.  Near  by  was  the  part  of  the  Forum 
called  the  Comitium,  where  were  held  tl,  'assem- 
blies of  the  people  called  Comitia  Curiata.  The 
celebrated  temple,  bearing  the  name  of  Capitol 
(of  which  there  remain  only  a few  vestiges),  stood 
on  the  Capitoline  Hill,  the  highest  of  the  seven  : 
it  was  square  in  form,  each  side  extending  about 
two  hundred  feet,  and  the  ascent  to  it  was  by  a 
flight  of  one  hundred  steps.  It  was  one  of  the  oldest, 
largest,  and  grandest  edifices  in  the  city.  Fouudetl 


ROME. 


ROME. 


84* 


by  ‘jfarquinius  Prisons,  it  was  ai  several  times 
enlarged  and  embellished.  Its  gates  were  of 
bras*,  and  it  was  adorned  with  costly  gildings  ; 
whence  it  is  termed  ‘ golden’  and  ‘glittering,’ 
aurea,  fulgens.  It  enclosed  three  structures,  the 
temple  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus  in  the  centre,  the 
temple  of  Minerva  on  the  right,  and  the  temple 
of  Juno  on  the  left.  The  Capitol  also  compre- 
hended some  minor  temples  or  chapels,  and  the 
Casa  Romuli,  or  cottage  of  Romulus,  covered 
with  straw.  Near  the  ascent,  to  the  Capitol  was 
the  asylum  [Cities  ok  Refuge].  VVe  also 
mention  the  Basilicae,  since  some  of  them  were 
afterwards  turned  to  the  purposes  of  Christian 
worship.  They  were  originally  buildings  of  great 
splendour,  being  appropriated  to  meetings  ot  the 
6enate,  and  to  judicial  purposes.  Here  coun- 
sellors received  their  clients,  and  bankers  trans- 
acted their  business.  The  earliest  churches,  bear- 


ing the  name  of  Basilicae,  were  erected  under  Con 
stantine.  He  gave  his  own  palaee  on  the  Caelian 
Hill  as  a site  for  a Christian  temple.  Next  in 
antiquity  was  the  church  of  St.  Peter,  on  the 
Vatican  Hill,  built  a.d.  324,  on  the  site  and  with 
the  ruins  of  temples  consecrated  to  Apollo  and 
Mars.  It  stood  about  twelve  centuries,  at  the 
end  of  which  it  was  superseded  by  the  modern 
church  bearing  the  same  name.  The  Circi  were 
buildings  oblong  in  shape,  used  for  public  games, 
races,  and  beast-fights.  The  Theatra  were  edifices 
designed  for  dramatic  exhibitions;  the  Amphi- 
theatra  (double  theatres,  buildings  in  an  oval 
form)  served  for  gladiatorial  shows  and  the  fight- 
ing of  wild  animals.  That,  which  was  erected  by 
the  Emperor  Titus,  and  of  which  there  still  exists 
a splendid  ruin,  was  called  the  Coliseum,  from  a 
colossal  statue  of  Nero  that  stood  near  it.  With 
an  excess  of  luxury,  perfumed  liquids  were  con- 


473.  [Roms.] 


veyed  in  secret  tubes  round  these  immense  struc- 
tures, and  diffused  over  the  spectators,  sometimes 
from  the  statues  which  adorned  the  interior.  In 
the  arena  which  formed  the  centre  of  the  amphi- 
theatres, the  early  Christians  often  endured  mar- 
tyrdom by  being  exposed  to  ravenous  beasts. 

The  connection  of  the  Romans  with  Palestine 
caused  Jews  to  settle  at.  Rome  in  considerable 
numbers.  On  one  occasion,  in  the  reign  of  Tibe- 
rius, when  the  Jews  were  banished  from  the  city 
by  the  emperor,  for  the  misconduct  of  some  mem- 
bers of  their  body,  not  fewer  than  four  thousand 
enlisted  in  the  Roman  army  which  was  then  sta- 
tioned in  Sardinia  (Sueton.  Tib.  36 ; Joseph.  Antiq. 
xviii.  3.  4).  These  appear  to  have  been  emanci- 
pated descendants  of  those  Jews  whom  Pompey 
had  taken  prisoners  in  Judaea,  and  brought  captive 
to  Rome  (Philo.  De  Leg.  ad  Cai..  p.  101 4).  From 
Philo  also  it  appears  that  the  Jews  in  Rome  were 


allowed  the  free  use  of  their  national  worship,  and! 
generally  the  observance  of  their  ancestral  cus- 
toms. Then,  as  now,  the  Jews  lived  in  a part  of 
the  city  appropriated  to  themselves  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xiv.  10.  8),  where  with  a zeal  for  which  the  na- 
tion had  been  some  time  distinguished,  they  ap- 
plied themselves  with  success  to  proselytising  (Dion 
Cass,  xxxvii.  17).  They  appear,  however,  to 
have  been  a restless  colony  ; for  when,  after  their 
expulsion  under  Tiberius,  numbers  bad  returned 
to  Rome,  they  were  again  expelled  from  the 
city  by  Claudius  (Suet.  Claud.  25).  The 
Roman  biographer  does  not.  give  the  date  of  this 
event,  but  Orosius  (vii.  6)  mentions  the  ninth 
year  of  that  emperor's  feign  (a  i>.  50).  The  pre- 
cise occasion  of  this  expulsion  history  does  nol 
afford  us  the  means  of  determining.  The  words  of 
Suetonius  are,  ‘ Judaeos,  impulsore  Chresto,  assi- 
due  tumultuantes,  Romaexpulit’ — ‘ He  expelled 


ROME. 


ROME. 


from  Rome  the  Jews  continually  raising  distur- 
bances under  the  impulse  of  Chrestos.’  The 
sausehere  assigned  for  their  expulsion  is,  that  they 
raised  disturbances,  an  allegation  which,  at  first 
view,  does  not  seem  to  point  to  a religious,  still 
less  to  a Christian,  influence.  And  yet  we  must 
remember  that  the  words  bear  the  colouring  of 
the  mind  of  a heathen  historian,  who  might  easily 
be  led  to  regard  activity  for  the  diffusion  of  Chris- 
tian truth,  and  the  debates  to  which  that  activity 
necessarily  led,  as  a noxious  disturbance  of  the 
peace  of  society.  The  Epicurean  view  of 
life  could  scarcely  avoid  describing  religious 
agitations  by  terms  ordinarily  appropriated  to 
martial  pursuits.  It  must  equally  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  diffusion  of  the  Gospel  in  Rome — 
then  the  very  cetifie  and  citadel  of  idolatry — was 
no  holiday  task,  but  would  call  forth  on  the  part 
of  the  disciples  all  the  fiery  energy  of  the  Jewish 
character,  and  on  the  part  of  the  Pagans  all  the 
vehemence  of  passion  which  ensues  from  pride, 
arrogance,  and  hatred.  Had  the  ordinary  name 
of  our  Lord  been  employed  by  Suetonius,  we 
should,  for  ourselves,  have  found  little  difficulty 
in  understanding  the  words  as  intended  to  be  ap- 
plied to  Jewish  Christians.  But  the  biographer 
uses  the  word  Clirestus.  The  iis  is  a mere  Latin 
termination  ; but  what  are  we  to  make  of  the  root 
of  the  word,  Chrest  for  Christ  ? Yet  the  change 
is  in  only  one  vowel,  and  Chrest,  might  easily  be 
used  for  Christ,  by  a Pagan  writer.  A slight, 
difference  in  the  pronunciation  of  the  word  as 
vocalised  by  a Roman  and  a Jew,  would  easily 
cause  the  error.  And  we  know  that  the  Romans 
often  did  make  the  mispronunciation,  calling 
Christ  Chrest  (Tertull.  Apol.  c.  3 ; Lactant. 
Inst.  iv.  17;  Just..  Mart.  Apol.  c.  2).  The  point  is 
important,  and  we  therefore  give  a few  details, 
the  rather  that  Lardner  lias,  under  Claudius  (vol. 
i.,  259),  left  the  question  undetermined.  Now 
in  Tacitus  ( Annul . xv.  44)  Jesus  is  unquestion- 
ably called  Chrest  (quos  per  ffagitia  invisos  vul- 
gus  Clnistianos  appellabat.  Auctor  nominis  ejus 
Clirestus)  in  a passage  where  his  followers  are 
termed  Christians.  Lucian  too,  in  his  Philopa- 
tris,  so  designates  our  Lord,  playing  on  the  word 
Xpr,<TT6s,  whicl^in  Greek,  signifies  ‘good:’  these 
are  his  words  : et  rvxoi  ye  Xp-rjarbs  Ka]  ev  eQveai, 
k.t. A..,  ‘ since  a Chrest  (a  good  man)  is  found 
among  the  Gentiles  also.’  And  Tertullian  (lit 
supra)  treats  the  difference  as  a case  of  ignorant 


474.  [Mamertine  Prison  ] 


mispronunciation  : * Christ! anus  perperam  Chres- 
tianus  pronunciatur  a vobis,  nam  nominis  certa  est 
ttotitia  penes  vos.’  .The  mistake  may  have  been  the 


more  readily  introduced  from  the  f.ict  that,  while 
Christ  was  a foreign  word,  Chrest,  was  customary  . 
lips  therefore  that  had  been  used  to  Chrest  would 
rather  continue  the  sound  than  change  the  vo- 
calisation. The  term  Chrest  occurs  on  inscrip- 
tions (Ileumann,  Sylloge  Diss.,  i.  536),  and 
epigrams  in  which  the  name  appears  may  be 
found  in  Martial  (vii.  55;  ix.  28).  In  the  same 
author  (xi.  91.)  a diminutive  from  the  word, 
namely  Chrestillus,  may  be  found.  The  word 
assumed  also  a feminine  form,  Cliresta,  as  found 
in  an  ancient  inscription — 

‘ Hoc,  virtus,  fatique  decus  et  amabile  nomen, 
Dote  pudicitiee,  celebrata  lahoribus  actis 
Vitae,  Cliresta  jacet  condita  nunc  tumulo. 

We  subjoin  a few  lines  from  Martial  (vii.  55): 
Nulli  muuera,  Ckreste , si  remiftis, 

Nec  nobis  dederis,  remiserisque, 

Credam  te  satis  esse  Jibeyilem. 

There  can  therefoie  b£  little  risk  in  asserlmg 
that  Suetonius  intended  to  indicate  Jesus  Christ 
by  Clirestus ; and  we  have  already  seen  that 
the  terms  which  he  employs  to  describe  the 
cause  of  the  expulsion,  though  peculiar,  are  not 
irreconcilable  with  a reference  on  the  part  of  the 
writer  to  Christians.  The  terms  which  Suetonius 
employs  are  accounted  for,  though  they  may  not 
be  altogether  justified  by  those  passages  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  in  which  the  collision  between 
the  Jews  who  had  become  Christians,  and  those 
who  adhered  to  the  national  faith,  is  found  to 
have  occasioned  serious  disturbances  (Kuinoel, 
Acts  xviii.  2 ; Rorsal,  De  Christo  per  errorem  in 
Chrest.  Comm. , Groning.  1717).  This  interpreta- 
tion is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  a Christian 
church,  consisting  of  Jews,  Proselytes,  and  Pa- 
gan Romans,  had  at.  an  early  period  been  formed 
in  Rome,  as  is  evident  from  the  Epistle  of  Paul 
to  the  Romans;  which  Christian  community  must 
have  been  in  existence  a long  time  when  Paul 
wrote  (about,  a.d.  59)  that  epistle  (see  Rom.  i.  8- 
13);  and  Meyer  (Commentar  der  Brief  an  die 
Homer  Einleit.,  § 2)  is  of  opinion  lhat  the  found- 
ations of  the  Church  in  Rome  may  have  been 
laid  even  during  the  lifetime  of  our  Lord.  It  is 
also  worthy  of  notice  that  Luke,  in  the  book  of 
Acts  (xviii.  2),  when  speaking  of  the  decree  of 
Claudius  as  a banishment  of  all  the  Jews  from 
Rome,  adverts  to  the  fact  as  a reason  why  two 
Christians,  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  whom  vve  know 
(Rom.  xvi.  3)  to  have  been  members  of  the  Ro- 
man church,  had  lately  come  from  Italy:  these 
the  apostle  found  on  his  arrival  at  Corinth  in  the 
year  a.d.  51.  Both  Suetonius  and  Luke,  in 
mentioning  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews,  seem  to 
have  used  the  official  term  employed  in  the  de- 
cree ; the  Jews  were  known  to  the  Roman  magis- 
trate; and  Christians,  as  being  at  first  Jewish 
converts,  would  he  confounded  under  the  general 
name  of  Jews;  but  that,  the  Christians  as  well  as 
the  Jews  strictly  so  called  were  banished  by  Clau- 
dius appears  certain  from  the  book  of  Acts;  and, 
independently  of  this  evidence,  seems  very  pro- 
bable, from  the  other  authorities  of  which  men- 
tion has  been  made. 

The  question,  Who  founded  the  church  at 
Rome?  is  one  of  some  interest  as  between  Catholic 
and  Protestant.  The  former  assigns  the  honour 
to  Peter,  and  on  this  grounds  an  argument  ir 
favour  of  the  claims  of  the  papacy.  There  is. 


650 


ROME. 


ROSH. 


hcwevei,  no  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that 
Peter  war*  ever  even  so  much  as  within  the  walls 
of  Rome.  But  we  have  no  intention  of  en- 
tering here  on  that  disputed  point,  and  content 
ourselves  with  referring  the  reader  to  the  most 
recent,  work  on  the  subject  which  has  come  to  our 
knowledge,  in  which  he  will  find  the  argument 
well  and  learnedly  handled  (D.  J.  Kllendorf, 
1st  Petrus  in  Pom  und  Bischof  der  Romischen 
Kirche  gewesen  ? Darmstadt,  1843). 

Rome,  as  being  their  tyrannical  mistress,  was 
an  object  of  special  hatred  to  the  Jews,  who 
therefore  denominated  her  by  the  name  of  Baby- 
lon— the  state  in  whose  dominions  they  had  en- 
dured a long  and  heavy  servitude  (Schottgen, 
Ilor.  Ileb.  i.  p.  1125;  Eiseumenger,  Entdcckt 
Judent/i.  i.  1S00).  Accordingly,  Rome,  under 
the  name  of  Babylon,  is  set  forth  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse (xiv.  8;  xvi.  19;  xvii.  5;  xviii.  2)  as  the 
centre  ami  representative  of  heathenism ; while 
Jerusalem  appears  as  tne  symbol  of  Judaism. 
In  ch.  xvii.  9 allusion  is  clearly  made  to  the  Sep- 
ticollis,  the  seven-hilled  city — ‘ seven  mountains 
on  which  the  woman  sitteth.’  The  description  of 
this  woman,  in  whom  the  profligacy  of  Rome  is 
vividly  personified,  may  be  seen  in  ch.  xvii.  of 
the  Revelation.  In  ch.  xiii.  Rome  is  pictured 
as  a huge  unnatural  beast,  whose  name  or  num- 
ber ‘ is  the  number  of  a man,  and  his  number  is 
Xl<rri'  not  improbably  Aarhus,  Latin,  Roman. 
This  beast  has  been  most  variously  interpreted. 
The  several  theories  serve  scarcely  more  than  to 
display  the  ingenuity  or  the  bigotry  of  their  ori- 
ginators, and  to  destroy  each  other.  Miinter 
(De  occidto  Urbis  Roma:  nomine,  Ilafn.  1811,) 
thinks  there  is  a reference  to  the  secret  name  of 
Rome,  the  disclosure  of  which,  it  was  thought, 
would  be  destructive  to  the  state  (Plin.  Ilist.  Nat. 
iii.  9 ; Macrob.  Sat.  iii.  5 : Plutarch,  Qucest.  Rom. 
c.  6 1 ; Serv.  ad  AEn.  ii.  293).  Pliny’s  words  occur 
in  the  midst  of  a long  and  picturesque  account  of 
Italy.  Corning  in  the  course  of  it  to  speak  of 
Rome,  he  says,  ‘ the  uttering  of  whose  other  name 
is  accounted  impious,  and  when  it  had  been 
spoken  by  Valerius  Soranus,  who  immediately 
suffered  the  penalty,  it  was  blotted  out  with  a 
faith  no  less  excellent  than  beneficial.’  lie  then 
proceeds  to  speak  of  the  rites  observed  on  the  1st 
of  January,  in  connection  with  this  belief,  in 
aonour  of  Diva  Angerona,  whose  image  appeared 
with  her  mouth  bound  and  sealed  up.  This  mys- 
tic name  tradition  reports  to  have  been  Valencia. 

The  most  recent  view  of  the  name  of  the 
beast,  from  the  pen  of  a Christian  writer,  we 
find  in  Hgponoia,  or  Thoughts  on  a Spiri- 
tual Understanding  of  the  Apocalgpse,  London, 
1841.  ‘ The  number  in  question  ^666)  is  ex- 

pressed in  Greek  by  three  letters  of  the  alpha- 
bet; Xi  s'x  hundred;  |,  sixty;  err,  six.  Let  us 
suppose  these  letters  to  be  the  initials  of  certain 
names,  as  it  was  common  with  the  ancients  in 
their  inscriptions  upon  coins,  medals,  monuments, 
Sic.,  to  indicate  names  of  distinguished  charac- 
ters by  initial  letters,  and  sometimes  by  an  addi- 
tional letter,  where  the  initial  might  be  considered 
insufficient,  as  C.  Caius,  Cri.  Cneus.  The  Greek 
letter  x (ch)  is  the  initial  of  Xpiaris  (Christ);  the 
letter  £ is  the  initial  of  £uAov  (wood  or  tree)  ; some- 
times figuratively  put  in  the  New  Testament 
for  the  Cross ; and  in  the  Revelation  applied  to 
the  tree  of  life,  the  spiritual  cross;.  The  last  letter 


r is  equivalent  to  cr  and  r,  but  whether  ai  sot  an 
st,  it  is  the  initial  of  the  word  Satanas,  Satan,  or  the 
adversary.  Taking  the  two  first  names  in  the 
genitive,  and  the  last  in  the  nominative,  we  have 
the  following  appellation,  name,  or  title  : Xpiaroi 
ov  aaravas,  ‘‘the  adversary  of  the  cross  ot 
Christ,”  a character  corresponding  with  that  of  cer- 
tain enemies  of  the  truth,  described  by  Paul,  Phil, 
iii.  19.’  The  spiritual  hy  ponoia  or  underthought 
embodied  in  this  the  author  thus  states : ‘ Any  doc- 
trine lending  to  represent  the  intervention  of  a 
divine  propitiation  as  unnecessary,  or  militating 
with  a belief  and  trust  in  the  vicarious  sacrifici 
of  Jesus,  as  the  only  hope  of  salvation,  must  be 
an  adversary  of  the  cross  of  Christ ; of  this  elm 
raefer  we  consider  every  principle  of  self-right 
eousness,’  &c.  (See  Ansald,  Dc  Romana  Tutelar 
Dcor.  evocatione,  Brix.  1743;  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  iii 
9;  Cellar.  Rolit.  i.  p.  632.  sq. ; Mannert.  Geog 

ix.  1.  5Sl,sq. ; Sachse,  Versvch  ein  Hist.  Topogt 
Bsschreib.  von  Rom , Ilannov.  1812;  Hilschet 
De  Chresto  cujus  mention,  fecit  Suet.,  Lips, 
also  Ernesti  and  Wolf,  ad  Sueion. ; Eichhorn, 
Comm,  in  Apocal.  p.  104,  sq  ). 

ROOF.  [House.] 

ROOM.  [House.  1 

ROSE.  [ Riiodon~] 

ROSH  (K^D  and  t?h)  occurs  in  several  places 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  word  is  thought  ori- 
ginally to  signify  ‘poison,’  and  is  therefore  sup- 
posed to  indicate  a poisonous  plant.  But  this  has 
not.  yet  been  ascertained.  Celsius  begins  his  article 
on  Posh  by  stating  that  * Aben  Ezra  and  the 
Rabbins  observe,  that  the  word  is  written  with 
a vau  iu  Dent,  xxxii.  32,  and  with  an  aleph 
in  all  the  other  places,  but  incorrectly,  ac- 
cording to  J.  Gousset.’  It  is  sometimes  trans- 
lated gaily  sometimes  bitter  or  bitterness,  but  is 
generally  considered  to  signify  some  plant.  This 
we  may  infer  from  its  being  frequently  men- 
tioned along  with  launah  or  ‘wormwood,’  as  in 
Deut.  xxix.  18,  ‘lest  there  should  be  among  you 
a root  that  beareth  gall  ( rosli ) and  wormwood 
( laanah );  so  also  in  Jer.  ix.  15;  xxiii.  15;  and 
in  Lament,  iii.  19,  ‘ Remembering  mine  affliction 
and  my  misery,  the  %cornnvo9tl  and  the  gall.' 
That  it  was  a berry-bearing  plant,  has  been  in- 
ferred from  Dent,  xxxii.  32,  ‘ For  their  vine  is 
of  the  vine  of  Sodom,  and  their  grapes  arc 
grapes  of  gall  (josh),  their  clusters  are  bitter.’ 
In  Jer.  v iii.  14,  ‘water  of  gall’  ( rosh ),  i» 
mentioned  ; which  may  be  either  the  expressed 
juice  of  the  fruit  or  of  the  plant,  or  a bitter  in- 
fusion made  from  it : ‘ aquae  Rosch  dicuntur, 
quia  sunt  succus  herhae,  quam  Rosch  appellant.' 
That  if  was  a plant  is  very  evident  from  Hosea 

x.  4,  where  it  is  said  * their  judgment  springeth  up 
as  hemlock  (rosh)  in  the  furrows  of  the  field.' 
Here  we  observe  that  rosh  is  translated  hemlock 
in  the  Auth.  Vers.,  as  it.  is  also  in  Amos  vi.  12, 

‘ For  ye  have  turned  judgment  into  gall  (laanah, 

‘ wormwood  ’),  and  the  fruit  of  righteousness  into 
hemlock  (rosh).' 

Though  rosh  is  generally  acknowledged  to 
indicate  some  plant,  yet  a variety  of  opinions 
have  been  entertained  respecting  its  identifica- 
tion: some,  as  the  Auth.  Vers,  in  Hosea  x.  4, 
and  Amos  vi.  12,  consider  cicuta  or  hemlock  to 
be  the  plant  intended.  Tremellius  adopts  this 
as  the  meaning  of  rosh  in  ail  the  passages,  and  u 


ROSH. 


ROTHEM. 


651 


followed  by  Celsius  (' Hierobot  ii.  49).  Tlie 
cicuta  of  the  Romans,  the  icc&i/eiov  of  the  Greeks, 
is  generally  acknowledged  to  have  been  what  we 
now  call  hemlock,  the  conium  maculatum  of 
botanists.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  poison- 
ous nature,  ‘ Cicuta  venenum  est  publica  Athe- 
niensium  poena  in  visa’  (Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  xxv. 
13),  There  is,  however,  little  or  no  pyoof  adduced 
that  rosh  is  hemlock.  Celsius  quotes  the  descrip- 
tion of  Linnaeus  in  support  of  its  growing  in  the 
furrows  of  Helds,  ‘ Frequens  per  Europam  in  rude- 
ratis,  juxta  pagos,  uvbes,  in  sepibus,  aggeribus, 
agris.7  But  it  does  not  appear  to  be  so  common 
in  Syria.  Celsius,  however,  adduces  Ben  Melech, 
the  most  learned  of  Rabbins,  as  being  of  opinion 
that  rosh  was  conium  or  hemlock  : ‘ Aquae  Rosch, 
virus;  bar  bare  toxicum.  Herba  est,  cujus  suc- 
cum  bibendum  porriguni  illi,  quern  interimere 
volunt.’ 

But.  there  does  not  appear  any  necessity  for  our 
considering  rosh  to  have  been  more  poisonous 
than  laanah  or  wormwood , with  which  it  is  asso- 
ciated so  frequently  as  to  appear  like  a pro- 
verbial expression  (Deut.  xxix.  18;  Jer.  ix.  15; 
xxiii.  15;  Lam.  iii.  19;  Amos  vi.  12).  Some 
have  erroneously  translated  it  wormwood , from 
which  it  is  sufficiently  distinguished  in  the  above 
passages.  The  Sept,  translators  render  it  agrostis, 
intending  some  species  of  grass.  Hence  some  have 
concluded  that  it  must  be  lolium  temulentum , 
or  darnel,  the  zizanium  of  the  ancients,  which 
is  remarkable  among  grasses  for  its  poisonous 
and  intoxicating  properties.  It  is,  however,  rather 
sweetish  in  taste,  and  its  seeds  being  intermixed 
with  corn,  are  sometimes  made  into  bread.  It  is 
well  known  to  grow  in  corn-fields,  and  would 
therefore  suit  the  jrassage  of  Hosea  ; but  it  has  not 
a berry-like  fruit,  nor  would  it  yield  any  juice : 
the  infusion  in  water,  however,  might  be  so  under- 
stood, though  it  would  not  be  very  bitter  or  dis- 
agreeable in  taste.  Some  have  in  consequence 
thought  that  some  of  the  solanece  or  litridce  of 
Linnaeus  might  be  intended  by  the  word  rosh. 
These  are  remarkable  for  their  narcotic  properties, 
though  not  particularly  bitter  ; some  of  them  have 
berried  fruits,  as  the  belladonna,  which,  however, 
is  not  indigenous  in  Palestine : but  solamm  ni- 
grum, common  nightshade,  a small  herbaceous 
plant,  is  common  in  fields  and  road-sides  from 
Europe  to  India,  and  is  narcotic  like  the  others. 
The  henbane  is  another  plant  of  this  family', 
which  is  possessed  of  powerful  narcotic  pro- 
perties, and  has  been  used  in  medicine  from  early 
limes,  both  by  the  Greeks  and  Asiatics.  But 
no  proof  appears  in  favour  of  any  of  this  tribe, 
and  their  sensible  properties  are  not  so  remark- 
ably disagreeable  as  to  have  led  to  their  being 
employed  in  what  appears  to  be  a proverbial  ex- 
pression. Hiller,  in  his  Hierophyticon  (ii.  54), 
adduces  the  centaury  as  a bitter  plant,  which  cor- 
responds widi  much  of  what  is  required.  Two 
kinds  of  centaury,  the  larger  and  smaller,  and 
both  conspicuous  for  their  bitterness,  were  known 
to  the  ancients.  The  latter,  the  Erythrcea  cen- 
taurium,  is  one  of  the  family  of  gentians,  and 
still  continues  to  be  employed  as  a medicine  on 
account  of  its  nitter  and  tonic  properties.  ‘ Hoc 
centaurium  inquit  Plin.  xxv.  c.  G,  nostri  lei 
ten®  vacant,  propter  amaritudinem  summarn.  Ea 
non  radici  tantum  inest,  sed  totam  inficit  plantam  : 
kdb©  et^Germanis  erdgall  et  Hispanic  Heel  di 


iterra,  et  Gall  is  fiel  de  terre  vocitatur.’  We 
may  also  mention  that  an  old  name  of  this 
centaury  was  ‘ Rha  capitatum."  From  the  ex- 
treme bitterness  of  taste,  from  growing  in  fields, 
and  being  a native  of  warm  countries,  some 
plant  like  centaury,  and  of  the  tribe  of  gentians, 
might  answer  all  the  passages  in  which  rosh 
is  mentioned,  with  the  exception  of  that  (Deut. 
xxxii.  32)  where  it  is  supposed  to  have  a berried 
fruit.  Dr.  Harris,  quoting  Blaney  on  Jerem.  viii. 
14,  says,  ‘ In  Ps.  lxix.  21,  which  is  justly  con- 
sidered as  a prophecy  ot  our  Saviour's  sufferings, 
it  is  said,  “ they  gave  me  to  eat,”  which  the 
Sept  have  rendered  %oAVj  gall.  And  accord- 
ingly it  is  recorded  in  the  history,  Matt,  xxvii. 
34,  “ They  gave  him  vinegar  to  drink,  mingled 
with  gall,7'  v£os  pera  xohrjs.  But  in  the  parallel 
passage  (Mark  xv.  123)  it.  is  said  to  be  “wine 
mingled  with  myrrh,”  a very  bitter  ingredient. 
From  whence  I am  induced  to  think  that  x<>A7j,and 
perhaps  may  be  used  as  a general  name 

for  whatever  is  exceedingly  bitter ; and,  conse- 
quently, when  the  sense  requires,  it  may  be  put 
specially  for  any  bitter  herb  or  plant,  the  infusion 
of  which  mav  be  called  'D,  “ Aquae 

Rosch.”  — J.  F.  R. 

ROTHEM,  written  also  Rotem  (DJTY),  oc- 
curs in  four  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  in 
all  of  which  it  is  tianslated  juniper  in  the  Auth. 
Vers.,  though  it  is  now  considered  very  clear  that 
a kind  of  broom  is.  intended.  Celsius  remarks 
that  the  Sept,  translators  seem  to  have  been  un- 
acquainted with  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  in 
one  passage  they  introduce  it  in  Greek  letters  as 
VaQap,  &c.,  in  another  as  meaning  burning  char- 
coal, and  in  a third  as  roots  of  woods.  Some 
who  have  perceived  that,  some  plant  was  intended, 
have  doubted  about  the  genus,  translating  it 
oak  and  terebinth,  but  more  frequently  juniper. 
The  last  has  been  the  most  generally  adopted 
in  modern  versions;  but  travellers  in  the  East 
have  met  with  a plant  or  plants,  which  by 
the  Arabs  is  called  retem,  ratam,  rehtem,  and 
retem,  varying  a little  perhaps  in  different  dis- 
tricts ; the  variations  being  probably  owing  to 
the  modes  of  spelling  adopled  by  different  authors. 
In  the  Arabic  works  on  Materia  Medica  we  have 

the  same  word  retem,  signifying  a kind 
of  bioom,  and  which,  according  to  Celsius,  is  so 
named  from  ^jj,  ligando.  The  Moors,  no 

doubt,  canied  the  word  into  Spain,  as  retama  is 
there  applied  to  a species  of  genista  or  broom. 
In  Loudon’s  Encyclopa-dia  of  Plants  it  is  named 
spartium  monospermum,  or  white  single-seeded 
broom,  and  is  described  as  a very  handsome 
shrub,  remarkable  for  its  numerous  snow-white 
fiowers.  Osbeck  remarks  that  it  grows  like  willow- 
bushes  along  the  shores  of  Spain,  as  far  as  the 
flying  sands  reach,  wheie  scarcely  any  other 
plant  exists,  except  the  ononis  serpens,  or  creeping 
restharrow.  The  use  of  this  slnub  is  very  great 
iir  stopping  the  sand.  The  leaves  and  young 
branches  furnish  delicious  food*  for  goats.  It  con- 
verts the  most  barren  spot  into  a fine  odoriferoi# 
garden  by  its  fiowers,  which  continue  a long 
time.  It  seems  to  shelter  hogs  and  goats  against 
the  scorching  heat  of  the  sun.  The  twigs  are 
used  for  tying  bundles;  anti  all  kinds  of  herbs 


ROTH  EM. 


RUBY. 


that  are  brought  to  market  are  fastened  together 
with  them.  Forskal  found  it.  in  Arabia,  and 
Desfontaines  in  Barhary,  on  the  sandy  coast. 


The  Spaniards  call  it  Retama,  from  the  Arabic 
name  Retem.  It  is  now  referred  by  all 
botanists  to  the  genus  Genista , and  called 
G.  monosperma.  It  is  described  by  De  Can- 
dolle as  a branching  and  erect  shrub,  with 
slender,  wandlike,  flexible  branches  ; leaves  com- 
paratively few,  linear,  oblong,  pressed  to  the 
branches,  pubescent ; inflorescence  in  few  flowered 
lateral  racemes;  petals  white,  silky,  neatly  equal 
to  one  another;  legumes  oval,  inflated,  smooth, 
membranaceous,  one  to  two  seeded.  It  occurs 
on  the  sterile  shftres  of  Portugal,  Spain,  Barbary, 
and  Egypt.  It  Vas  found  by  Forskal  at  Sue/., 
and  named  by  him  Genista  Spartium ? with 
rcetcem  as  its  Arabic  name.  Dove  also  found  it 
at  Suez,  and  again  in  different  parts  of  Syria. 
Belon  also  mentions  finding  it  in  several  places 
when  travelling  in  the  East.  Rurckhardtalso  fre- 
quently mentions  the  shrub  rethem  in  the  deserts 
to  the  south  of  Palestine,  and  he  thought  it  to  be 
the  same  plant  as  the  Genista  rcctaem  of  Forskal. 
lie  states  that  whole  plains  are  sometimes 
covered  with  this  shrub,  and  that  such  places 
are  favourite  places  of  pasturage,  as  sheep  are  re- 
markably fond  of  the  pods.  Lord  Lindsay  again, 
while  travelling  in  the  middle  of  the  valleys  of 
Mount  Sinai,  says,  ‘ The  rattam  a species  of 
broom,  bearing  a white  flower,  delicately  streaked 
with  purple,  afforded  me  frequent  shelter  from 
the  sun  while  in  advance  of  the  caravan.’  Mr. 
Kitto  on  this  well  observes,  ‘ It  is  a remarkable, 
because  undesigned,  coincidence,  that  in  travel- 
ling to  the  very  same  Mount  of  Horeb,  the 
prophet  Elijah  rested,  as  did  Lord  Lindsay, 
undei  a rattam  shrub.’  There  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt,  therefore,  that  the  Hebrew  rothem  de- 
notes the  same  plant  as  the  Arabic  retem , though 
it  has  been  rendered  juniper  in  the  English,  and 
leveral  other  translations,  as  in  1 Kings  xix.  4 ; 


‘but  be  (Elijah  or  Elias)  himself  went  A day’s 
journey  into  the  wilderness,  and  came  and  sat 
down  under  a juniper  ( rothem ) tree,’  &c. ; ‘ And 
as  he  lay  and  slept  under  a juniper  tree,* 

&c.  In  the  other  passages  the  meaning  is  not  so 
clear,  and  therefore  different  interpretations  have 
been  given.  Thus,  Job  (xxx.  4)  says  of  the  half-  • j 
famished  people  who  despised  him,  ‘ who  cut  up  'J 
mallows  by  the  bushes,  and  juniper  ( rothem ) 
roots  for  their  food/  Though  the  broom  root  J 
may  perhaps  be  more  suitable  for  diet  than  the  I 
juniper , yet  they  are  both  too  hitter  and  medicinal  I 
to  he  considered  or  used  as  nutritious,  and,  there-  3 
fore,  some  say,  that.  ‘ when  we  read  that  rotem  roots  j 
were  their  food,  we  are  to  suppose  a great  deal 
more  than  the  words  express,  namely,  that  their  i 
hunger  was  so  violent,  as  not  to  tefrain  even  | 
from  these  roots,’  which  were  neither  refreshing  1 
nor  nourishing.  Unsinus  supposes,  that  instead  of  j 
the  roots  of  this  broom,  we  are  to  understand  a ; 
plant  which  grows  upon  these  roots,  as  well  as  1 
upon  some  other  plants,  and  which  is  well  known  j 
by  the  English  name  of  broom-rape , the  oro~  j 
banclxe  of  botanists.  These  are  someiimes  eaten.  ] 
Thus  Dioscorides  (ii.  U6)  observes  that,  the  oro - \ 

banche , which  grows  from  the  roots  of  broom, 
was  sometimes  eaten  raw,  or  boiled  like  asparagus,  j 
Celsius  again  suggests  an  amendment  in  the  sen-  J 
tence,  and  thinks  that  we  should  understand  it  to  ! 
mean  that,  the  broom  roots  were  required  for  fuel,  \ 
and  not  for  food,  as  the  Hebrew  words  signifying  i 
fuel  and  food,  though  very  similar  to  each  other,  j 
are  very  different  in  their  derivation  : ‘ Divers® 
igitur  sunt  voces  Laclimam , pan  is  eorum,  et 
Ladimam,  ad  calefaciendum  se,  script.ione  licet  ] 
et  literis  atque  punctis  exacte  couveniaut ;’  and 
this  sense  is  confirmed  bv  some  of  the  Talmudical 
writers,  as  R.  Levi  Ben  Gerson,  who  commenting 
on  this  passage  says  : 4 ut.  sign i fleet,  ad  calefacien- 
dum se  : quia  opus  babe  bant,  quo  calefierent,  quod 
versarentur  in  locis  frigidis,  sine  ullo  perfugio/  ■ 
The  broom  is  the  only  fuel  procurable  in  many 
of  these  desert  situations,  as  mentioned  by  several 
travellers.  Thus  Thevmot,  ‘Puis  nous  nous 
reposames  en  un  lieu  ou  il  y avoit  un  peu  de 
genets,  car  ils  ne  nous  faisoient  point  reposer, 
qu’en  des  lieux  ou  il  y eut  de  quoi  bruler,  tant 
pour  se  chauffer,  que  pour  faire  cube  le  cabve 
et  leur  mafrouca/  In  Ps.  cxx.  4,  David  ob- 
serves that  the  calumnies  of  his  enemies  were  ] 
‘ like  arrows  of  the  mighty,  with  coals  of  juniper  ’ 
(rothem).  The  broom,  being,  no  doubt,  very  com- 
monly used  as  fuel  in  a country  where  it  is 
abundant,  and  other  plants  scarce,  might  re-  ;• 
dily  suggest  itself  in  a comparison;  but  it  is  also 
described  as  sparkling,  burning  and  crackling 
more  vehemently  than  other  wood. — J.  F.  R. 

RUBY.  The  word  rendered  ‘ ruby’  in  the 
Authorized  Version  (Job  xxviii.  18  ; Prov.  iii. 

15;  viii.  11  ; xx.  15;  xxxi.  10;  Lam.  iv.  7)  is 
rpJ'JS  peninim,  which  appears  rather  to  indicate 
‘ pearls.’  The  ruby  is,  however,  generally  sup- 
posed to  be  represented  by  the  word  13*13  lead-hod, 
which  occurs  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  6,  and  Isa.  liv.  12, 
where  the  Authorized  Version  renders  it  ‘agate/ 

An  Arabic  word  of  similar  sound  ( kadskadsat ) 
signifies  ‘ vivid  redness  and  as  the  Hebrew  word 
may  he  derived  from  a root  of  like  significa- 
tion, it  is  inferred  that  it  denotes  the  Oriental 
ruby,  which  is  distinguished  for  its  vivid  red 
colour,  and  was  regarded  as  the  most  valuable  ot 


RUTH. 


RUTH. 


653 


precious  stones  next  after  the  diamond.  This 
mode  of  identification,  however,  seems  rather 
precarious.  The  Greek  translator  of  Ezek.  xxvii. 
16,  does  not  appear  to  have  known  what  it  meant, 
for  he  preserves  the  original  word ; and  although 
the  translator  of  Isa.  liv.  12  has  jasper  (Yao-ris), 
he  is  not  regarded  as  any  authority  in  such 
matters,  when  he  stands  alone.  The  ruby  was 
doubtless  known  to  the  Hebrews ; but  it  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  kad-kod  was  its  name.  Some 
have  supposed  that  the  word  mpN  ekdach , which 
from  its  etymology  should  signify  a sparkling 
flaming  gem,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a species  of 
ruby.  It  occurs  only  in  Isa.  liv.  12;  hence  the 
Septuagint  makes  it  a carbuncle,  as  does  the  Au- 
thorized Version. 

RUFUS  ('Povcpos').  A person  of  this  name  was 
one  of  the  sons  of  Simon  the  Cyrenian,  who  was 
compelled  to  bear  the  cross  of  Christ  (Mark  xv. 
21)  : he  is  supposed  to  be  the  same  with  the  Rufus 
to  whom  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Romans,  sends  his 
greeting  in  the  remarkable  words,  * Salute  Rufus, 
chosen  in  the  Lord,  and  his  mother  and  mine’ 
(Rom.  xvi.  13).  The  name  is  Roman;  but  the 
man  was  probably  of  Hebrew  origin.  He  is  said 
to  have  been  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  and 
eventually  to  have  had  charge  of  the  church  at 
Thebes. 

RUSH.  [Agmon.] 

RUTH  (n*Tl ; Sept.  'P ou0),  a Moabitisli 
woman,  brought,  under  peculiar  circumstances, 
into  intimate  relation  with  the  stock  of  Israel, 
and  whose  history  is  given  in  one  of  the  books  of 
the  sacred  canon  which  bears  her  name.  The 
narrative  that  brings  her  into  the  range  of  inspired 
story  is  constructed  with  idyllic  simplicity  and 
pathos,  and  forms  a pleasant  relief  to  the  sombre 
and  repulsive  shades  of  the  picture  which  the 
reader  has  just  been  contemplating  in  tbe  later 
annals  of  the  Judges.  It  is  the  domestic  history 
of  a family  compelled,  hv  the  urgency  of  a famine, 
to  abandon  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  seek  an  asylum 
in  the  territories  of  Moab.*  Elimelech,  the  head 
of  the  emigrating  household,  dies  in  the  land  of 
his  sojourn,  where  his  two  surviving  sons  ‘ took 
them  wives  of  the  women  of  Moab  ; the  name  of 
die  one  was  Orpah,  and  the  name  of  the  other 
Ruth.’  On  the  death  of  the  sons,  the  widowed 
parent,  resolving  to  return  to  her  country  and 
kindred,  the  filial  affection  of  the  daughters-in-law 

* The  period  to  which  this  famine  is  to  be  re- 
ferred is  a greatly  disputed  point  among  commen- 
tators. The  opinion  of  Usher,  which  assigns  it  to 
the  age  of  Gideon,  and  which  is  a mean  between 
the  dates  fixed  upon  by  others,  carries  with  it  the 
greatest  probability.  The  oppression  of  the  Midi- 
anites,  mentioned  in  Judg.  vi.  3-6,  which  was  pro- 
ductive of  a famine,  and  from  which  Gideon  was 
instrumental  in  delivering  his  people,  wasted  the 
land  and  destroyed  its  increase,  ‘ till  thou  come 
unto  Gaza;’  and  this  embraced  the  region  in 
which  Judah  and  Bethlehem  were  situated.  The 
territory  of  Judah  was  also  adjacent  to  Moab,  and 
i removal  thither  was  easy  and  natural.  The 
scourge  of  Midian  endured,  moreover,  for  seven 
years  ; and  at  the  expiration  of  ten  years  after  the 
deliverance  by  Gideon  was  fully  consummated, 
Naomi  re-emigrated  to  her  native  land.  All  the 
circumstances  comiined  favour,  mainly,  the  hy- 
pothesis of  Usher. 


is  put  to  a severe  test,  and  Ruth  determines  at 
all  hazards  to  accompany  Naomi.  Sbe  accord- 
ingly arrives  at  Bethlehem  with  her  mother,  where, 
in  the  extremity  of  want,  she  goes  to  glean  after 
the  reapers  in  the  harvest-field  of  Boaz,  a wealthy 
kinsman  of  her  deceased  father-in-law,  Elimelech. 
Attracted  by  her  appearance,  and  informed  of  her 
exemplary  conduct,  towards  her  mother-in-law, 
Boaz  hade  her  return  from  day  to  day,  and 
directed  his  servants  to  give  her  a courteous  wel- 
come. An  omen  so  propitious  could  not  but  be 
regarded  as  a special  encomagemeut  to  both,  and 
Naomi  therefore  counselled  Ruth  to  seek  an  op- 
portunity for  intimating  to  Boaz  the  claim  she  had 
upon  him  as  the  nearest  kinsman  of  her  deceased 
husband.  A stratagem,  which  in  other  circum- 
stances would  have  been  of  very  doubtful  pro- 
priety, was  adopted  for  compassing  this  object ; 
and  though  Boaz  entertained  tbe  proposal  favour- 
ably, yet  he  replied  that  there  was  another  person 
more  nearly  related  to  the  family  than  himself, 
whose  title  must  first  be  disposed  of.  Without 
delay  he  applied  himself  to  ascertain  whether  the 
kinsman  in  question  was  inclined  to  assert  his 
right — a right  which  extended  to  a purchase  of 
the  ransom  (at  the  Jubilee)  of  Elimeleclfs  estate. 
Finding  him  indisposed  to  1 be  measure,  he  obtained 
from  him  a release,  ratified  according  to  the  legal 
forms  of  the  time,  and  then  proceeded  himself  to 
redeem  the  patrimony  of  Elimelech,  and  espoused 
the  widow  of  his  son,  in  order  ‘ to  raise  up  the 
name  of  the  dead  upon  his  inheritance.’  From 
this  union  sprang  David,  the  illustrious  king  of 
Israel,  whose  line  the  writer  traces  up,  in  conclu- 
sion, through  Boaz,  to  Pharez,  son  of  Judah. 

The  Book  ok  Ruth  is  inserted  in  the  Canon, 
according  to  the  English  arrangement,  between 
the  book  of  Judges  and  the  books  of  Samuel,  as  3 
sequel  to  the  former  and  an  introduction  to  the 
latter.  Among  the  ancient  Jews  it  was  added  to 
the  book  of  Judges,  because  they  supposed  that  the 
transactions  which  it  relates  happened  in  the  time 
of  the  judges  of  Israel  (Judg.  i.  1).  Several  of 
the  ancient,  fathers,  moreover,  make  but  one  book 
of  Judges  and  Ruth.  But  the  modern  Jews  com- 
monly place  in  their  Lillies,  afler  the  Pentateuch, 
the  five  Megilloth — 1.  The  Song  of  Solomon  ; 2. 
Ruth  ; 3.  The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah  ; 4.  Ec- 
clesiastes; 5.  Esther.  Sometimes  Ruth  is  placed 
the  first  of  these,  sometimes  the  second,  and  some- 
times the  fifth. 

The  true  date  and  authorsl\jp  of  the  book  are 
alike  unknown,  though  the  current  of  autho- 
rity is  in  favour  of  Samuel  as  the  writer.  That 
it  was  written  at  a time  considerably  remote 
from  tiie  events  it  records,  would  appear  from  the 
passage  in  ch.  iv.  7,  which  explains  a custom  re- 
ferred to  as  haviug  been  ‘ the  manner  in  former 
time  in  Israel,  concerning  redeeming  and  con- 
cerning changing  ’ (comp.  Dent.  xxv.  9).  That 
it  was  written,  also,  at  least  as  late  as  the  establish- 
ment of  David’s  house  upon  the  throne,  appears 
from  the  concluding  verse — ‘And  Obed  begat 
Jesse,  and  Jesse  begat  David.’  The  expression, 
moreover  (ch.  i.  1),  ‘when  the  judges  ruled/ 
marking  the  period  of  tbe  occurrence  of  the  events, 
indicates,  no  doubt,  that  in  the  writer’s  days  kings 
had  already  begun  to  reign.  Add  to  this  what 
critics  have  considered  as  certain  Chaldaisms  with 
which  the  language  is  interspersed,  denoting  its 
composition  at  a period  considerably  U ter  tha^ 


RUTH. 


SABBATH. 


U\ 

that  of  the  events  themselves.  Thus  Eic.ihom 
finds  a Chaldaism  or  Syriasm  in  the  use  of  N for 
PI  in  KID.  though  the  same  form  occurs  elsewhere. 
He  adverts  also  to  the  existence  of  a superfluous 
Yod  in  and  WV  (iii.  3),  and  'fQDt? 

(ver.  4).  As,  however,  the  language  is  in  other 
respects,  in  the  main,  pure,  these  few  Chalda'sm3 
may  have  arisen  from  a slight  error  of  the  copyists, 
and  therefore  can  scarcely  he  alleged  as  having 
any  special  hearing  on  the  era  of  the  document. 
The  same  remark  is  to  he  made  of  certain  idiomatic 
phrases  and  forms  of  expression  which  occur  else- 
where only  in  the  hooks  of  Samuel  and  of  Kings, 
as  — ‘ The  Lord  do  so  to  me,  and  more  also  ’ (Ruth 
i.  17;  comj).  1 Sam.  iii.  17;  xiv.  44;  xx.  23: 
2 Sam.  iii.  9.  35:  xix.  13;  1 Kings  ii.  23;  xix. 
2 ; xx.  10,  2 Kings  vi.  31)  ; ‘ 1 have  discovered 
to  your  ear,'  for  ‘ I have  told  you  ’ (Ruth  iv.  4 ; 
comp.  1 Sam.  xx.  2;  2 Sam.  vii.  27). 

The  canonical  authority  of  Ruth  lias  never  hem 
questioned,  a sufficient  confirmation  of  it  being 
found  in  the  fact  that  Ruth,  the  Moahitess,  comes 
int&  the  genealogy  of  the  Saviour,  as  distinctly 
given  hy  the  Evangelist  (Matt.  i.  6).  The  prin- 
cipal difficulty  in  regard  to  the  book  arises,  how- 
ever. from  this  very  genealogy,  in  which  it  is 
stated  that  Boaz,  who  was  the  husband  of  Ruth, 
and  the  great-grandfather  of  David,  was  the  son  of 
Salmon  by  Rachab.  Now,  if  by  Rachab  we  sup- 
pose to  be  meant,  as  is  usually  understood,  Rahab 
the  harlot,  who  protected  the  spies,  it  is  not  easy 
to  conceive  that  only  three  persons — Boaz,  Obed, 
and  Jesse,  should  have  intervened  between  her  and 
David,  a period  of  near  400  years.  But  the  solu- 
tion of  Usher  is  not  improbable,  that  the  ancestors 
of  David,  as  persons  of  pre-eminent  piety,  were 
favoured  with  extraordinary  longevity.  Or  it 
may  be  that  the  sacred  writers  have  mentioned 
in  the  genealogy  only  such  names  as  were  distin- 
guished and  known  among  the  Jews. 

The  leading  scope  of  the  book  has  been  variously 
understood  by  different,  commentators.  Umbreit 
( Ueber  Geist  und  Ziveck  des  Bitches  Ruths , in 
Theol.  Stud,  und  Krit.  for  1834,  p.  308)  thinks 
it  was  written  with  the  specific  moral  design  of 
showing  how  even  a stranger,  and  that  of  the  hated 
Moabitish  stock,  might  be  sufficiently  noble  to 
become  the  mother  of  the  great  king  David,  be- 
cause she  placed  her  reliance  on  the  God  of  Israel. 
Bertholdt  regards  the  history  as  a pure  fiction,  de- 
signed to  recommend  the  duty  of  a man  to  marry 
his  kinswoman;  while  Eichhorn  conceives  that  it 
was  composed  mainly  in  honour  of  the  house  of 
David , though  it  does  not  conceal  the  poverty  of 
the  family.  The  more  probable  design  we  think 
to  he  to  pre-intimate,  hy  the  recorded  adoption  of 
a Gentile  woman  into  the  family  from  which 
Christ  was  to  derive  his  origin,  the  final  reception 
of  the  Gentile  nations  into  the  true  church,  as 
fellow-heirs  of  the  salvation  of  the  Gospel.  The 
moral  lessons  which  it  incidentally  teaches  are  of 
the  most  interesting  and  touching  character: 
that  private  families  are  as  much  the  objects  of 
divine  regard  as  the  houses  of  princes;  that  the 
present  life  is  a life  of  calamitous  changes;  that 
a devout  trust  in  an  overruling  Providence  will 
never  fail  of  its  reward;  and  that  no  condition, 
however  adverse  or  afflicted,  is  absolutely  hopeless, 
are  truths  that  were  never  more  strikingly  illus- 
trated than  in  the  brief  and  simnle  narrative 
before  us. — G.  B. 


s. 

SABBATH.  The  original  word  (n2fc?)  sig- 
nifies simply  rest,  cessation  from  labour  or  em- 
ployment. 

The  term,  however,  became  appropriated  in  a 
specific  religious  sense,  to  signify  the  dedication 
of  a precise  portion  of  time  to  cessation  from 
worldly  labour,  and  a peculiar  consecration  by 
virtue  of  which  a sanctity  was  ascribed  to  the 
portion  of  time  so  set  apart,  just  as  a similar 
sacred  character  was  ascribed  to  consecrated 
places,  things,  and  persons:  the  violation  of  it 
was  analogous  to  sacrilege. 

The  character  of  the  institution,  as  it  existed 
under  the  Mosaical  law,  is  distinct  and  mani- 
fest ; hut  the  subject,  as  a whole,  embraces  points 
on  which  Christian  opinion  lias  been  considerably 
divided.  It  will  he  our  object  briefly  to  exhibit 
the  different  views  which  have  been  taken  on 
these  points,  and  to  indicate  the  materials  hy 
means  of  which  the  subject  may  be  more  fully 
investigated. 

Was  there  any  Sabbath  before  the  Law  ? This 
is  a question  which  lies  at  the  root  of  all  the  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  which  have  been  entertai'ned. 
For  the  affirmative,  it  is  alleged  on  the  authority 
of  Gen.  ii.  3,  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  hy 
God  in  commemoration  of  his  resting  on  the 
seventh  day  from  the  work  of  creation,  and  given 
to  our  first  parents. 

This  text  has  indeed  usually  been  regarded  as 
conclusive  of  the  whole  question  : hut  those  who 
nold  that  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  originated 
under  the  Law,  observe  that  this  passage  contains 
no  express  command,  addressed  to  any  parties, 
nor  any  specific  mention  of  the  nature  of  such 
implied  solemnization;  still  less  any  direct  al- 
lusion to  rest  from  labour,  or  to  religious  worship. 

It  is  also  urged,  that  some  of  the  ablest  divines, 
even  of  older  times,  regard  the  passage  (Gen.  ii. 
3)  as  proleptical  or  anticipatory,  and  referring 
to  the  subsequent  institution  recorded  in  Exodus. 
They  conceive  that  Moses,  in  recounting  ibis  de- 
scription of  the  creation,  had  for  at  least  one  prin- 
cipal object,  the  introduction  of  this  sanction  from 
the  received  cosmogony,  for  the  establishment  of 
the  Sabbath  among  the  Israelites : and  that,  as  this 
narrative  was  composed  after  the  delivery  of  the 
law  for  their  special  instruction,  so  this  passage 
was  only  intended  to  confirm  more  forcibly  that 
institution;  or  that  it  is  to  be  understood  as  if 
Moses  bad  said,  ‘ God  rested  on  the  seventh  day, 
which  he  has  since  blessed  and  sanctified .’ 

It  is  admitted  that  there  is  no  other  direct 
mention  of  a Sabbath  in  the  book  of  Genesis  : but 
there  are  traces  of  a period  of  seven  days,  wnich  are 
usually  regarded  as  indicating  the  presence  of  a 
Sabbath.  Thus,  in  Gen.  iv.  3,  the  words  rendered 
‘ in  process  of  time,’  have  been  held  to  signify  ‘ the 
end  of  days,’  and  this  supposed  to  mean  a week, — 
when  the  offerings  of  Cain  and  Abel  were  made, — 
and  thence  the  Sabbath.  Again,  they  refer  to  the 
periods  of  seven  days,  occurring  in  the  history  of 
Noah  (Gen.  vii.  10;  viii.  10);  yet  the  term  ‘week’ 
is  also  used  in  tire  contract  between  Jacob  and 


SABBATH. 


SABBATH. 


Lalian  (Gen.  xxix.  27,  28)  ; and  Job  and  his 
friends  observed  the  term  of  seven  days  (Job  ii. 
13)  ; all  of  whicii,  it.  is  alleged,  goes  to  prove  that 
the  blessing  of  a Sabbath  was  not  withheld  from 
the  primitive  world. 

The  terms  in  which  the  appointment  of  the  Sab- 
bath to  the  Israelites  is  made  before  the  delivery 
of  the  rest  of  the  law  (Exod.  xvi.  23),  have  also 
been  supposed  to  imply  that  it  was  not  a new 
institution,  as  also  the  use  of  the  word  ‘ remember,’ 
introducing  the  injunction  in  the  Decalogue.  But, 
on  the  other  side,  it.  is  answered  that  in  giving 
an  injunction,  the  monitory  word  ‘remember’  is 
as  commonly  used  in  reference  to  the  future  re- 
collection of  the  precept,  so  given,  as  to  anything 
past.  That  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  in  the 
institution  of  one  particular  observance  of  the 
law  before  the  rest  of  it  was  delivered  : the  same 
argument  would  show  a previous  obligation  to 
observe  the  Passover  or  circumcision.  That  with 
regard  to  the  reckoning  of  time  by  weeks,  this 
does  not  at  all  necessarily  imply  any  reference  to 
a Sabbath.  And  that  the  employment  of  any 
particular  mode  of  reckoning  by  an  historian , 
is  no  proof  that  it  was  used  by  the  people , or  in 
the  times  he  is  describing. 

It  is  powerfully  urged  by  the  believers  in  a 
primitive  Sabbath,  that  we  find  from  time  im- 
memorial the  knowledge  of  a week  of  seven  days 
among  all  nations— Egyptians,  Arabians,  In- 
dians— in  a word,  all  the  nations  of  the  East, 
have  in  all  ages  made  use  of  this  week  of  seven 
days,  for  which  it  is  difficult  to  account  without 
admitting  that  this  knowledge  was  derived  from 
the  common  ancestors  of  the  human  race. 

On  the  other  side  it  is  again  denied  that  the 
reckoning  of  time  by  weeks  implies  any  reference 
to  a Sabbath*  One  of  our  own  contributors,  who 
takes  this  view,  remarks — 

‘The  division  of  time  by  weeks,  as  it  is  one 
of  the  most  ancient  and  universal,  so  is  it  one 
of  the  most  obvious  inventions,  especially  among 
a rude  people,  whose  calendar  required  no  very 
nice  adjustments.  Among  all  early  nations  the 
lunar  months  were  the  readiest  large  divisions  of 
time,  and  though  the  recurrence  of  the  lunar 
]>eriod  in  about  29^  days  was  incompatible  with 
any  exact  subdivision,  yet  the  nearest  whole  num- 
ber of  days  which  could  be  subdivided  into 
shorter  periods,  would  be  either  30  or  28  ; of  which 
the  latter  would  of  course  be  adopted,  as  admit- 
ting of  division  into  4,  corresponding  nearly  to 
those  striking  phenomena,  the  phases  or  quarters 
of  the  moon.  Each  of  these  would  palpably 
correspond  to  about  a week ; and  in  a period  of 
about  5^  lunations,  the  same  phases  would  return 
very  nearly  to  the  same  days  of  the  week.  In 
order  to  connect  the  reckoning  by  weeks  with  the 
lunar  month,  we  tind  that  all  ancient  nations 
observed  some  peculiar  solemnities  to  mark  the 
day  of  the  new  moon.  Accordingly,  in  the 
Mosaic  law  the  same  thing  was  also  enjoined 
(Num.  x.  10;  xxviii.  11,  &c.),  though  it  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  while  particular  observe 
anccs  are  here  enjoined,  the  idea  of  celebrating 
the  new  moon  in  some  icay  is  alluded  to  as  if 
already  familiar  to  them. 

‘ In  other  parts  of  the  Bible  we  find  the  Sabbaths 
and  new  moons  continually  spoken  of  in  conjunc- 
tion ; as  (Isa.  i.  13,  & c.)  the  division  of  time  by 
weeks  prevailed  all  over  the  East,  from  the 


€5o 

earliest  periods,  among  the  Assyrians,  Arabs,  and 
Egyptians ; — to  the  latter  people  Dion  Cassius 
ascribes  its  invention.  It  was  found  among  the 
tribes  in  the  interior  of  Africa  by  Oldendorf 
(.Tabu’s  Arch.  Bibl.,  art.  ‘ Week’).  The  Peru- 
vians counted  their  months  by  themoon,  their  half- 
months  by  the  increase  and  decrease  of  the  moon, 
and  the  weeks  by  quarters,  without  having  any 
particular  names  for  the  week  days.  Their  cos- 
mogony, however,  does  not  include  any  reference 
to  a six  days’  creation  (Garcilasso  de  la  Vega, 
Hist,  of  the  Incas,  in  Taylor’s  Nat.  Hist,  of  So- 
ciety, i.  291).  The  Peruvians,  besides  this,  have 
a cycle  o I nine  days,  the  approximate  third  part 
of  a lunation  ( ib . p.  292),  clearly  showing  the 
common  origin  of  both.  Possibly,  also,  the 
“nundin^e‘,  of  the  Romans  may  have  had  a simi- 
lar origin. 

‘ The  Mexicans  had  a period  of  5 days  (Antonio 
de  Solis,  Conquest  of  Mexico,  quoted  by  Norman 
on  ‘ Yucatan,’  p.  185).  They  had  also  periods 
of  13  days:  their  year  was  solar,  divided  into 
18  months  of  20  days  each,  and  5 added  (Laplace, 
Hist.  d'Astron.,  p.  65).  Some  writers,  as  Acosta 
and  Baron  Humboldt,  have  attributed  the  origin 
of  the  week  to  the  names  of  the  primary  planets 
as  known  to  the  ancients.  It  is  certain  that  the 
application  of  the  names  of  the  planets  to  the 
days  originated  "in  the  astrological  notion,  that 
each  planet  in  order  presided  over  the  hours  ol 
the  day;  this  we  learn  expressly  from  Dion  Cas- 
sius (lib.  xxvii.).  Arranging  the  planets  in  the 
order  of  their  distances  from  the  earth,  on  the 
Ptolemaic  system,  Saturn,  Jupiter,  Mars,  the  Sun, 
Venus,  Mercury,  the  Moon, — then  e.  g.  Saturn 
presided  over  the  1st  hour  of  Saturday;  and  as- 
signing each  planet  to  an  hour  in  succession,  the 
22nd  hour  will  fall  to  Saturn  again,  the  23rd  to 
Jupiter,  the  24th  to  Mars;  and  thus  the  1st  hour 
of  the  next  day  would  fall  to  the  Stm,  and  so  on. 
This  mode  of  designation  was  adopted  by  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  from  the  East,  and  is  found 
among  the  Brahmins  (see  Useful  Knowledge 
Society’s  Life  of  Galileo,  p.  12;  also  Laplace, 
Precis  del' Hist,  de  VAstron.,  p.  16).’ 

Those  who  take  the  view  adverse  to  the  existence 
of  a primitive  Sabbath,  regard  it  as  a circum- 
stance worthy  of  remark,  that  in  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  human  race,  after  the  Flood,  we  find 
in  Gen.  ix.  a precise  statement  of  the  covenant 
which  God  is  represented  as  making  with  Noah, 
in  which,  while  several  particulars  are  adverted 
to,  no  mention  whatever  is  made  of  the  Sabbath. 

The  early  Christian  writers  are  generally  as 
silent  on  this  subject  of  a primitive  Sabbath  as  on 
that  of  primitive  sacrifice  [Sacrifice].  Such 
examination  as  we  have  been  able  to  institute,  has 
disclosed  no  belief  in  its  existence,  while  some  in- 
dications are  found  of  a notion  that  the  Sabbath 
began  with  Moses.  Thus,  Justin  Martyr  says, 
that  the  patriarchs  ‘ were  justified  before  God  not 
keeping  the  Sabbaths:’  ami  again,  ‘ from  Abraham 
originated  circumcision,  and  from  Moses  the  Sab- 
bath, and  sacrifices  and  oiler ings/  &c.  ( Dial . con. 
Tryph .,  236.  261).  Iremeus  observes,  ‘Abraham, 
without  circumcision,  and  without  observance  of 
Sabbaths,  believed  in  God,’  &c.  (iv.  30).  And 
Tertullian  expresses  himself  to  the  same  effect 
(Adv.  Jud.  ii.  4).  While,  on  the  other  hand, 
they  regard  the  institution  as  wholly  peculiar  to 
the  Israelites.  Justin  Martyr,  in  particular,  ex- 


556 


SABBATH. 


SABBATH. 


presses  htms?V  pointedly  to  the  effect  that  * it 
was  given  to  urn  on  account,  of  their  lawlessness 
( avopiav ) an  : hardness  o*"  heart  ’ {Dial,  cum 
Tryph .,  235). 

The  Jewish  Sabbath. — Under  the  Mosaic  law 
itself,  the  case  is  perfectly  free  from  all  doubt 
or  ambiguity.  The  Sabbath,  as  consisting  in  a 
rigid  cessation  from  every  species  of  labour,  was 
enjoined  expressly  ‘ for  a perpetual  covenant 
and  as  ‘ a sia*',  between  Got!  and  the  children  of 
Israel  Jot  ever  ’ (Exod.  xxxi.  16).  And  the  same 
idea  is  repeated  in  many  other  passages;  all 
showing  boto  the  exclusive  announcement  atnl 
peculiar  object,  and  application  of  the  institution 
to  the  people  of  Israel ; — as  particularly  Ezek.  xx. 
10;  Nehem.  ix.  13,  & c.  And  this  is  further 
manifest  in  the  constant  association  of  this  ob- 
servance with  otheis  of  the  like  peculiar  and  posi- 
tive nature, — as  with  reverencing  the  sanctuary 
(Lev.  xix.  30).  keeping  the  ordinances  (Ezek. 
xlv.  17),  solemnizing  the  new  moons  (Isa.  i.  13; 
Ixvi.  23),  anil  other  feasts  (Hos.  ii.  11).  And 
obviously  with  the  same  view  it  was  expressly 
made  one  of  the  primary  obligations  of  proselytes 
who  joined  themselves  to  the  Lord,  as  ‘ taking 
hold  of  the  covenant’  thereby  (Isa.  lvi.  6). 

The  degree  of  minute  strictness  with  which  it 
was  to  be  observed,  is  laid  down  in  express  literal 
precepts,  as  against,  kindling  lire  (Exod.  xxxv.  4) 
or  preparing  food  (xvi.  5,  22).  A man  was  put 
to  death  for  gathering  sticks  (Num.  xv.  32). 
Buying  and  selling  were  also  unlawful  (Neh. 
x.  3.1). 

To  those  a multitude  of  more  precise  in- 
junctions were  added  by  the  traditions  of  the 
Rabbis,  such  as  the  prohibition  of  travelling 
more  than  twelve  miles,  afterwards  contracted  to 
one  mile,  and  called  a Sabbath  day's  journey, 
and  not  only  bu  ing  and  selling,  but  any  kind 
of  pecuniary  trai  faction.  even  for  charitable  pur- 
poses, or  so  mi;  ill  as  touching  money  (see  Vi- 
ti  inga,  De  Syria  ;oga , translated  by  Bernard,  p. 

76)«  . 

This  will  be  ti  ; place  also  to  mention,  how- 
ever briefly,  the  extension  of  the  idea  of  a seventh 
period  of  rest,  in  t.  ;e  institution  of  the  Sabbatical 
Year ; or  the  inju  let  ion  of  a falloxo  or  cessation 
of  tillage  for  the  and  every  seventh  year.  Not 
only  were  the  lal,  )urs  of  agriculture  suspended, 
but  even  the  spout  mentis  productions  of  the  earth 
were  to  be  given  to  the  poor,  the  traveller,  and  the 
wild  animals  (see  Lev.  xxv.  1-7  ; Deut.  xv.  1-10). 
This  prohibition,  h nvever,  did  not  extend  toother 
labours  or  trades,  which  were  still  carried  on. 
There  was,  howev  ;r,  in  this  year  an  extraordi- 
dary  time  devoted  :o  the  hearing  of  the  law  read 
through  (see  Deut  xxxi.  10,  IS).  As  Moses  pre- 
dicted (Lev.  xxvi.  34),  this  institution  was  after- 
wards much  neglec  :ed  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21). 

Closely  connecht  1 with  this  was  the  observance 
of  the  year  followi  tg  seven  Sabbatic  years  (i.  e. 
the  fiftieth  year)  cai  led  the  year  of  Jubilee;  but 
of  this  we  have  filly  treated  under  the  Art. 
Jubii.ek. 

The  Christian  Sibbath. — The  question  as  to 
the  continued  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  is  one  on  which  great 
difference  of  opinion  has  been  entertained,  not 
only  by  Christian  churches,  but  by  theologians 
of  the  same  church. 

Tbs  Jewish  proph  its  in  several  places  describe 


in  lofty  imagery  a future  condition  of  glory  and 
prosperity,  connected  with  the  reign  of  the  pro- 
mised Messiali.  These  predictions  are  in  a great 
degree  conveyed  under  the  literal  representation 
of  temporal  grandeur,  to  he  attained  by  the 
Jewish  nation,  and  the  restoration  of  their  temple 
and  worship  to  the  highest  pitch  of  splendour 
while  proselytes  should  come  in  from  all  nations, 
until  the  whole  world  should  own  its  spiritual 
sway  (as  Amos  ix.  11;  Mich.  iv.  1;  Zech.  viii. 
20).  In  the  course  of  these  representations  refer- 
ence is  made  tn  1 he  observance  of  Sabbaths  (Isa. 
lvi.  6,  7 ; lxvi.  23). 

In  the  interpretation  of  these  passages  some 
difference  of  opinion  has  prevailed.  The  Jews 
themselves  have  always  understood  them  in  their 
strictly  literal  sense.  Among  Christians  they 
have  been  regarded  as  literally  predicting  some 
future  restoration  of  the  people  of  Israel,  or  per- 
haps as  applying  in  a first  or  literal  sense  to  the 
temporal  restitution  of  the  Jews  after  the  cap- 
tivity (which  was  to  a gieat  degree  fulfilled  before 
the  coming  of  Christ),  and  the  extraordinary  ac- 
cession of  proselytes  from  all  nations  which  had 
at  that  period  taken  place,  while  in  a second  or 
figurative  sense  they  leler  to  the  final  extension  of 
Christ's  spiritual  kingdom  over  the  whole  world. 

These  passages  have  been  adduced  in  proof  of 
the  continued  and  permanent  obligation  of  the 
Sabbath  under  all  circumstances  of  the  church  of 
God;  hut  those  who  dispute  tin's,  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  these  the  Sabbath  is  always 
coupled  with  other  observances  of  the  Mosaic 
law;  and  they  allege  that  if  the  whole  descrip- 
tion be  taken  literally,  then  by  common  consis- 
tency the  Sabbaths  must  be  also  taken  literally 
as  applying  to  the  Jews  and  the  proselytes  to  their 
religion  : lfTigurativelv,  the  Sabbaths  must  by 
parity  of  reason  be  t.ken  figuratively  also,  as  im- 
plying spiritual  rest,  cessation  from  sin,  and  the 
everlasting  rest  of  the  faithful. 

The  teaching  of  Christ,  himself  on  this  subject 
was  of  precisely  the  same  kind  as  on  all  othei 
points  connected  with  the  law.  He  was  address- 
ing exclusively  Jews  living  under  that  law  still 
in  force.  He  censured  the  extravagant  rigour 
with  which  the  Pharisees  endeavoured  to  enforce 
it ; he  exhorted  to  a more  special  observance  of 
its  weightier  matters,  and  sought  to  lead  his  fol- 
lowers to  a higher  and  more  spiritual  sense  of 
their  obligations  ; hut  he  in  no  degree  relaxed, 
modified,  or  abrogated  any  portion  of  the  Mosaic 
code.  On  the  contrary,  expressly  upheld  its 
authority,  enlarging  indeed  on  many  precepts, 
but  rescinding  none  (Matt.  v.  17,  18;  xxiii.  1, 
29  ; xvfii.  17,  &c.). 

So  in  regard  to  the  more  particular  precept  of 
(he  Sabbath,  while  lie  reproved  the  excessive 
strictness  of  the  Pharisaical  observance — and  to 
this  end  wrought,  miracles  upon  it,  and  vindicated 
works  of  mercy  and  necessity  by  reason  of  the 
case,  and  instances  from  the  Old  Testament  (as 
in  Matt.  xii.  1;  Luke  xiii.  15;  John  v.  9,  &c.) 
— still  he  in  no  way  modified  or  altered  the  obli- 
gation beyond  what  the  very  language  of  the  law 
and  the  prophets  clearly  sanctioned.  He  used 
indeed  the  remarkable  declaration,  ‘ The  Sab- 
bath was  made  for  the  man  (Sia  rbv  &v6pamoy)t 
not  the  man  (6  &v6pa)iros'}  for  the  Sabbath,’  which 
is  usually  regarded  as  the  most  conclusive  text 
favour  of  the  universal  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  • 


SABBATH. 


SABBATH. 


657 


end  it  must  have  been  so  regarded  by  our  trans- 
lators, joeing  that  they  omit  the  article.  It  is 
commonly  understood  in  the  following  sense:  ‘ it 
was  made  for  man,  not  as  he  may  be  a Jew  or  a 
Christian,  but  as  man,  a creature  bound  to  love, 
worsh’p,  anil  serve  his  God  and  maker,  in  time 
and  in  eternity.’  To  this  it  is  answered,  that 
we  must  not  overlook  the  article  in  the  oiiginal, 
where  the  man  must  mean  ‘ those  for  whom  it 
was  appointed,’  without  specifying  who  they  were, 
much  less  implying  man  in  general ; that  ‘ the  man 
was  not  made  for  it,’  as  manifestly  implies  that 
it  was  not  a duty  of  an  essential  and  unchange- 
able nature,  such  as  those  for  which  man  is  es- 
pecially constituted  and  ordained  — in  other 
words,  that  it  was  an  institution  enjoined  by 
way  of  adaptation  to  the  case  of  those  to  whom 
the  precept  was  given.  An  intermediate  view, 
which  lays  no  particular  stress  upon  the  definite 
aiticle,  is  thus  expressed  in  paraphrase  by  the 
elder  Rosernn  filler  {Scholia  in  Marc.  ii.  27)  : ‘ The 
Sabbath  is  an  institution  for  the  recreation  of  man  ; 
but  man  was  not  therefore  created  that  he  might 
on  the  seventh  day  rest  from  all  anxious  labour.’ 
lie  adds,  ‘ This  being  the  nature  of  the  Sabbath, 
what  follows  in  verse  28  will  hold  true,  that  it  is 
in  the  power  of  the  Messiah  to  dispense  with  its 
observance.’ 

In  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles  we  find  hardly 
an  allusion  to  the  subject.  Their  ministry  was 
at  first  addressed  solely  to  the  Jews,  or  to  those 
who  were  at  least  proselytes.  To  these  disciples, 
in  the  first  instance,  they  neither  insisted  on  the 
observance  of  the  law,  nor  on  any  abrogation  of 
it;  though  at  a later  period  we  find  St.  Paul, 
more  especially,  gradually  and  cautiously  point- 
ing out  to  them  its  transitory  nature,  and  that 
having  fulfilled  its  purpose,  it  was  to  cease  (e.  g. 
Heb.  vii.  18).  There  is  nothing  to  show  directly 
whether  the  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  did  or  did 
not  share  in  the  general  declaration  ; and  the  af- 
firmative or  negative  must  be  determined  by  the 
weight  of  the  arguments  in  behalf  of  the  preser- 
vation of  the  moral  as  distinguished  from  the 
ceremonial  law.  It  is  however  clear  from  several 
passages  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it  continued 
to  he  observed  as  heretofore  by  these  converts, 
along  with  the  other  peculiarities  of  the  law.  Our 
Saviour  adds, ‘Therefore  the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord 
even  of  the  Sabbath-day  which  is  on  all  hands 
agreed  to  mean  that  he  had  power  to  abrogate  it 
partially  or  wholly,  if  he  thought  fit,  and  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  he  did  not  then  think  fit  to  exercise  it. 

With  regard,  to  the  Gentile  converts  (who  were 
the  more  special  objects  of  St.  Paul's  labours), 
we  find  a totally  different  state  of  things  prevail- 
ing. They  were  taught  at  first  the  spiritual  re- 
ligion of  the  Gospel  in  all  its  simplicity.  But 
the  narrow  zeal  of  their  Jewish  brethren  very  early 
led  them  to  attempt  the  enforcement  of  the  addi- 
tional burden  of  the  law  upon  these  Gentile 
Christians.  The  result  was  .the  explicit  aposto- 
lic decree  contained  in  Acts  xv.  28.  The  omis- 
sion of  the  Sabbath  among  the  few  things  which 
are  there  enforced  upon  them,  is  advanced  by 
those  who  doubt  the  abiding  obligation  of  the  in- 
stitution, as  a very  strong  circumstance  in  their 
favour  ; and  the  freedom  of  these  converts  from  its 
obligation  is  regarded  by  them  as  conclusively 
j proved  in  Col.  ii.  16,  and  clearly  implied  in 
Uom.  xiv  6,  where  the  Sabbaths  are  said  to  be 

rot.  ii  43 


placed  in  exactly  the  same  predicament  as  new 
moons,  distinctions  of  meats,  &c.,  and  all  ex- 
plicitly declared  to  be  shadows.  It  is  also  urged 
that  in  the  discourses  of  the  apostles  to  the  hea- 
then recorded  in  the  Acts,  we  find  not  ihe  slight- 
est allusion  to  any  'patriarchal  obligations , of 
which,  if  such  had  existed,  it  would  have  been  ma- 
nifestly necessary  to  have  informed  their  hearers. 

These  last  arguments  appear  to  us  to  be  the 
strongest  of  any  that  have  yet.  been  advanced  in 
favour  of  the  view  indicated ; nor  do  we  see  how 
they  can  be  met  but  by  urging  the  distinction 
between  the  moral  and  ceremonial  law,  and  the 
paramount  obligation  of  the  former,  while  the 
latter  is  abrogated  : for  it  will  then  follow,  that 
the  whole  moral  law  being  of  unchangeable  obli- 
gation, it  was  not  necessary  to  specify  the  Sabbath 
in  particular,  when  the  general  obligation  of  the 
whole  was  understood.  This  answer  dors  not. 
however,  meet  the  argument  founded  on  Col.  ii. 
16,  which  is  alleged  to  place  the  Sabbath  under 
the  ceremonial  law,  if  the  distinction  of  the  moral 
and  ceremonial  divisions  of  the  law  be  admitted. 
That  text  is  indeed  of  the  utmost  importance  tc 
the  question  ; of  this  the  disputants  on  both  sides 
have  been  fully  aware,  and  have  joined  issue 
upon  it.  The  view  of  those  who  are  opposed  to 
the  sabbatic  obligation,  has  been  already  given  : 
that  of  the  other  side  may  be  expressed  in  the 
words  of  Bishop  Horsley  (Sermons,  i.  357).  ‘ From 
this  text,  no  less  a man  than  the  venerable  Calvii* 
drew  the  conclusion,  in  which  he  has  been  rashly 
followed  by  other  considerable  men,  that  the 
sanctification  of  the  seventh  day  is  no  indispen- 
sable duty  of  the  Christian  church;  that  it  is 
one  of  those  carnal  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion which  our  Lord  had  blotted  out.  The. 
truth,  however,  is,  that  in  the  apostolical  age,  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  though  it  was  observed  with 
great  reverence,  was  not  called  the  Sabbath-day,, 
but  the  Lord’s  day  ; that  the  separation  of  the 
Christian  church  from  the  Jewish  communion, 
might  be  marked  by  the  name  as  well  as  by  the 
day  of  their  weekly  festival  ; and  the  name  of. 
the  sabbath-days  was  appropriated  to  the  Satur- 
days, and  certain  days  in  the  Jewish  church 
which  were  likewise  called  Sabbaths  m the  law, 
because  they  were  observed  with  no  less  sanctity. 
The  sabbath-days,  therefore,  of  which  St.  Paul  in 
this  passage  speaks,  were  not  the-  Sundays  of  the 
Christians,  but  the  Saturday  and  other  sabbaths* 
of  the  Jewish  calendar.  The  Judaizing  heretics, 
with  whom  St.  Paul  was  all-  his  life  engaged, 
were  strenuous  advocates  for  the  observance  of 
these  Jewish  festivals  in  the  Christian  church  ; 
and  his  (St.  Paul’s)  admonition  to  the  Colossians,. 
is,  that  they  should  no-t  be  disturbed  by  the  cen- 
sures of  those  who  reproached  them  for  neglecting 
to  observe  these  sabbaths  with  Jewish  ceremonies.’ 
To  the  same  effect,  see  Macknight  and  Bulkley,. 
on  Col.  ii.  16. 

The  difference  of  opinion,  then,  is  this,  that 
the  passage  is  alleged,  on  one  side,  to  abrogate 
altogether  the  sabbatic  observance;  while  on  the 
other  it  is  contended,  that  it  applies  only  to  that 
part  of  it  which  was  involved  in  the  ceremonial 
law. 

The  question  thus  becomes  further  narrowed  to: 
the  point,  whether  it  is  right  or  not  to  transfer  to 
the  Lord’s  day  the  name,  the  idea,  and  many  of 
the  obligations  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath?  The  ne- 


558 


8 YBBATH. 


SABBATH. 


gative  is  asserted  by  two  very  opposite  parties; 
by  the  Sabbatarians  as  a body,  and  by  indivi- 
duals in  different  denominations,  who  take  their 
stand  upon  the  primitive  determination  of  the 
Sabbath  to  the  seventh  day,  in  commemoration 
of  the  creation  ; and  who  therefore  hold  that  the 
Saturday  or  seventh  day  must  remain,  to  all  time, 
the  day  of  rest,  unless  altered  by  an  authority 
equal  to  that,  by  which  it.  was  established.  They 
deny  that  the  authority  for  any  such  alteration 
is  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament;  for  they 
understand  the  passage  above  referred  to  (Col. 
ii.  16),  to  apply  not  to  the  day,  but  to  the  ]>ocu- 
liar  observances  which  the  Jewish  law  connected 
with  it  (Rupp,  Relig.  Denom.  pp.  86-91).  The 
right  of  thus  transferring  the  idea  of  the  Sabbath 
to  the  Lord’s  day,  is  also  denied  by  those  who 
believe  that  the  Sabbath  was  entirely  a Mosaical 
institution,  and  as  such  abrogated,  along  with  the 
■whole  body  of  the  law,  at  the  death  of  Christ,  which 
■closed  the  old  shadowy  dispensation,  and  opened 
the  realities  of  the  new.  It  is  admitted  that  Christ, 
himself  did  not  abrogate  it,  though  he  asserted 
bis  right  to  do  so;  for  the  old  dispensation  sub- 
sisted till  his  death.  But  being  then  abro- 
gated, it  is  denied  that  it  was  re-enacted  through 
the  Apostles,  or  that  they  sanctioned  the  transfer 
■of  the  Sabbatic  obligations  to  the  Sunday,  al- 
though the  early  Christians  did,  with  1 heir  appro- 
bation, assemble  on  that  day — as  the  day  on 
which  their  Lord  arose  from  the  dead — for  wor- 
ship, and  to  partake  in  the  memorials  of  his 
love  [Lord’s  Day.]. 

In  answer  to  this,  it  is  urged,  that  the  transfer 
nr  change  was  made  under  the  authority  of  the 
Apostles.  It  is,  indeed,  allowed,  that  there  is  no 
.express  command  to  that  effect.;  but  as  it  was 
done  in  the  apostolic  age  (which,  however,  the 
.other  side  does  not  admit),  the  consent  of  the 
Apostles  is  to  be  understood.  More  cogent,  is  the 
.argument,  that  the  day  itself  was  not  an  essential 
part  of  the  original  enactment,  which  ordains  not 
necessarily  every  seventh  day,  but  one  day  in 
seven,  as  holy  time.  In  the  primitive  ages  of 
•man,  the  creation  of  the  world  was  the  benefac- 
tion by  which  God  was  principally  known,  and  for 
which  he  was  chiefly  to  be  worshipped.  The 
Jews,  in  their  religious  assemblies,  bad  to  com- 
memorate other  blessings — the  political  creation 
of  their  nation  out  of  Abraham's  family,  and 
their  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage. 
■Christians  have  to  commemorate,  besides  the 
common  benefit  of  the  creation,  the  transcendant 
blessing  of  our  redemption, — our  new  creation  to 
the  hope  of  everlasting  life,  of  which  our  Lord’s 
resurrection  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  a 
sure  pledge  and  evidence.  Thus  in  the  progress 
of  ages,  the  Sabbath  acquired  new  ends,  by  new 
manifestations  of  the  divine  mercy ; and  these 
new  ends  justify  corresponding  alterations  of  the 
original  institution.  Horsley,  and  those  who 
agree  with  him,  allege,  that  upon  our  Lord’s 
resurrection,  the  Sabbath  was  transferred  in  me- 
mory of  that  event,  the  great  foundation  of  the 
Christian’s  hope,  from  the  last  to  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  ‘ Tlie  alteration  seems  to  have  been 
made  by  the  authority  of  the  Apostles,  and  to 
have  taken  place  the  very  day  in  which  our  Lord 
arose  ; for  on  that  day  the  Apostles  were  assem- 
bled ; and  on  that  day  sevennight  they  were 
assembled  again.  The  celebration  of  these  two 


first  Sundays  was  honoured  by  our  Lord’s  pr» 
sence.  It  was,  perhaps,  to  set  a mark  of  distinc- 
tion upon  this  day  in  particular,  that  the  inter- 
vening week  passed  oil’,  as  it  would  seem,  without 
any  repetition  of  his  first  visit  to  the  eleven 
Ajiostles.  From  that  time,  the  Sunday  was  the 
constant  Sabbath  of  the  primitive  church.  The 
Christian,  therefore,  who  devoutly  sanctifies  one 
day  in  seven,  although  it  he  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  not  the  last,  as  was  originally  ordained, 
may  rest  assured,  that  he  fully  satisfies  the  spirit 
of  the  ordinance  ’ (Horsley,  i.  334,  335;  compare 
Holden’s  Christian  Sabbath,  pp.  286,  287). 

In  justification  of  the  change,  it  has  also  been 
well  remarked,  that  the  same  portion  of  lime 
which  constituted  the  seventh  day  from  the„crea- 
tion  could  not.  be  simultaneously  observed  in  all 
parts  of  the  earth,  and  that  it  is  not  therefore  pro- 
bable that  the  original  institution  expressed  more 
than  one  day  in  seven — a seventh  day  of  rest  after 
six  days  of  toil,  from  whatever  point  the  enume- 
ration might  set  out  or  the  weekly  cycle  begin.  I f 
more  had  been  intended,  it  would  have  been  neces- 
sary to  establish  a rule  for  the  reckoning  of  days 
themselves,  which  has  been  different,  in  different 
nations ; some  reckoning  from  evening  to  evening, 
as  the  Jews  do  now  ; others  from  midnight  to  mid- 
night, &c.  Even  if  this  point  were  determined, 
the  difference  of  time  produced  by  difference  of 
latitude  and  longitude  would  again  ihrow  the 
whole  into  disorder  ; and  it  is  not  probable  that  a 
law  intended  to  be  universal  would  be  fettered 
with  that  circumstantial  exactness  which  would 
render  difficult,  and  sometimes  doubtful  astrono- 
mical calculations  necessary  in  order  to  its  being 
obeyed  according  to  the  intentions  of  the  lawgiver. 
It  is  true  that  this  very  argument  might  he  adduced 
on  the  other  side,  to  prove  that  the  obligations  of 
the  Sabbatic  observance  were  originally  limited 
to  the  Jews.  It  is  not,  however,  our  object,  nor 
would  it  be  possible,  to  exhaust  all  the  arguments 
which  bear  upon  the  subject.  Enough  has  been 
produced  to  indicate  the  bearings  of  the  question, 
and  at  the  end  of  the  article  materials  are  fur- 
nished for  more  minute  inquiry.  It  appears  to 
us  that  great  confusion  and  much  injustice  have 
arisen  from  confounding  the  different  shades  of 
opinion  respecting  the  Sabbath.  They  might  be 
thus  discriminated  : — 

1.  Those  who  behave  that  the  Sabbath  is  of 
binding  and  sacred  obligation,  both  as  a primitive 
institution  and  as  a moral  law  of  the  Mosaical 
code.  These  may  be  divided  into : 

a.  Those  who  contend  for  the  very  day  of  the 
Mosaical  institution. 

b.  Those  who  believe  the  obligation  to  have 
been  transferred  to  the  Jirst  day  by  the  Apostles. 

2.  Those  who  deny  that  the  Sabbath  was  a 
primitive  institution,  or  that  its  obligation  sur- 
vived the  Mosaical  dispensation,  but  who  never- 
theless hold  the  observance  of  the  Lord’s  day  as  an 
apostolical  institution,  deriving  none  of  its  autho- 
rity or  obligation  from  the  Mosaical  dispensation. 

3.  Those  who  both  deny  the  permanent  obli- 
gation of  the  Sabbath,  and  that  there  is  any  obli- 
gatory authority  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  ob- 
servance of  even  the  Lord's  day.  These  again 
may  be  divided  into  two  classes : — 

a.  Those  who  hold  that,  although  not  of  divine 
obligation,  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  a day  of  rest  from  toil,  and  of  spirit •ia’ 


SABBATH. 


SABBATH-DAY’S  JOURNEY.  659 


tdificalion,  is  not  only  salutary  1 at  necessary, 
and  is  therefore  in  accordance  w ifh  the  will  of 
God,  and  ought  as  such  to  be  maintained. 

b.  Those  who  assert  that,  not  being  a matter  of 
positive  injunction,  it  is  not  necessary  or  desirable 
to  observe  the  day  at  all  on  religious  grounds. 
But  even  these  generally  admit  that  it  is  com- 
petent for  human  legislation  to  enact  its  ob- 
servance as  a day  of  rest,  and  iliat  it  then 
becomes  a duty  to  obey  it  as  the  law  of  the  land, 
seeing  that  it  is  not  contrary  to  the  will  of  God. 

c.  A mixed  view  of  the  subject,  arisingout  of  the 
two  last,  seems  to  be  entertained  by  the  Quakers, 
and  by  individuals  in  different,  denominations; 
namely,  that  the  authorized  institution  of  Moses 
respecting  a weekly  Sabbath,  and  the  practice  of 
the  first  teachers  of  Christianity,  constitute  a 
sufficient  recommendation  to  set  apart  certain 
times  for  the  exercise  of  public  worship,  even 
were  there  no  such  injunctions  as  that  of  Heb.  x. 
23.  Community  of  dependence  and  hope  dic- 
tates the  propriety  of  united  worship,  and  worship, 
to  be  united,  must  be  performed  at  intervals  pre- 
viously fixed.  But,  it  is  urged,  since  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  is  abrogated,  and  since  the  assembling 
together  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  mentioned 
as  an  existing  practice  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  not  enjoined  as  a positive  obligation,  it  does 
not  appear  why  these  periods  should  recur  at 
intervals  of  seven  days  any  more  than  of  five  or 
ten.  Nevertheless,  it  is  added,  ‘the  question 
whether  we  are  to  observe  the  first  day  of  the 
week  because  it  is  the  first  clay , is  one  point — • 
whether  we  ought  to  devote  it  to  religious  exer- 
cises, seeing  that  it  is  actually  set  apart  for  the 
purpose , is  another.  Bearing  in  mind  then  that 
it  is  right  to  devote  some  portion  of  our  time  to 
these  exercises,  and  considering  that  no  objection 
exists  to  the  day  which  is  actually  appropriated, 
the  duty  seems  very  obvious — so  to  employ  it’ 
(Jonathan  Dymond,  Essays  on  the  Principles  of 
Morality , i.  164-172). 

This  testimony  in  favour  of  the  observance, 
from  one  who  utterly  denies  the  religious  obli- 
gation of  setting  even  one  day  in  seven  apart, 
is  not  unlike  that  of  Dr.  Arnold,  who  seems  to 
have  taken  the  view  of  the  subject  represented  in 
3,  a.  In  a letter  to  Mr.  Justice  Coleridge,  lie  says : — 

‘ Although  I think  that  the  whole  law  is  done 
Away  with,  so  far  as  it  is  the  law  given  in  Mount 
Sinai,  yet  so  far  as  it  is  the  law  of  the  Spirit,  1 
hold  it  to  be  all  binding  ; and  believing  that  our 
need  of  a Lord’s  day  is  as  great  as  ever  it  was, 
and  that,  therefore,  its  observance  is  God’s  will, 
and  is  likely,  so  far  as  we  see,  to  be  so  to  the  end 
of  time;  1 should  think  it  most  mischievous  to 
weaken  the  respect  paid  to  it’  ( Life  and  Corre- 
spondence, i.  355). 

We  have  entered  into  these  details  concerning 
the  differences  of  opinion  on  this  important 
subject — which  concerns  one-seventh  of  man’s  life 
— for  the  sake  of  defining  the  exact  amount  of 
such  differences,  and  of  showing  that  pious  men, 
sincerely  seeking  the  truth  of  God’s  word,  may  on 
the  one  hand  conscientiously  doubt  the  obligation 
of  a Christian  Sabbath  without  deserving  to  be 
stigmatised  as  Antinomians,  scoffers,  or  profane  ; 
and  on  the  other,  may  uphold  it  without  being 
regarded  as  Judaizers  and  formalists.  A very 
gratifying  result  which  arises  from  the  contem- 
plation of  these  differences  as  to  the  nature  and 


extent  of  the  obligation,  will  be  found  in  the 
clearer  perception  of  the  agreement  to  which  they 
all  tend,  in  favour  of  the  observance  itself,  as  in 
the  highest  degree  conducive  to  the  health  of  the 
mind  and  the  nourishment  of  the  soul  (Calvin, 
Jnstit.  Christ.  Relig.  lib.  ii.  ch.  8 ; Brerewood, 
Treatise  of  the  Sabbath  ; Bp.  Prideaux,  Doc- 
trine of  the  Sabbath  ; A bp.  Bramhall,  Discourses 
on  the  Controversy  about  the  Sabbath ; Bp. 
White,  Treatise  of  the  Sabbath  Day ; Heylin, 
History  of  the  Sabbath  ; Chandler,  Too  Sermons 
on  the  Sabbath  ; Wotton,  On  the  Mishna,  i.  205  : 
Warburton,  Divine  Legation , iv.  36,  note ; Watts’ 
Perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath ; Kennicott,  Serm. 
and  Dialog,  on  the  Sabbath  ; Porteus,  Sermons , 
vol.  i.  serm.  9 ; Horsley's  Sermons,  u.s. ; Paley, 
Natural  and  Political  Philosophy , b.  v.  c.  7; 
Holden’s  Christian  Sabbath  ; Burnside,  On  the 
Weekly  Sabbath  ; Binder’s  Law  of  the  Sabbath  ; 
Wardlap,  Wilson,  and  Agnew,  severally.  On  the 
Sabbath;  Modern  Sabbath  Examined,  1832; 
Archbishop  Wliately,  Difficulties  of  St.  Paul , 
Essay  v.  note  on  Sabbath).* 

SABBATH-DAY’S  JOURNEY  (o-aftSaVcu 
SSbs,  Acts  i.  12),  the  distance  which  the  Jews 
were  permitted  to  journey  from  and  return  to 
their  places  of  residence  upon  the  Sabbath-day 
(Exod.  xvi.  29).  The  Israelites  were  forbidden  to 
go  beyond  the  encampment  (to  collect  manna) 
upon  the  Sabbath-day;  which  circumstance  seems 
to  have  given  rise  to  the  regulation — which  is  not 
distinctly  enjoined  in  the  law,  although  it  might 
be  fairly  deduced  from  the  principle  on  which  the 
legislation  concerning  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was 
founded — that  no  regular  journey  ought  to  be  made 
on  the  Sabbath-day  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  S.  4). 
The  intention  of  the  lawgiver  in  this  respect  was 
also  indicated  by  the  direction,  that  beasts  should 
rest  on  the  Sabbath-day  (comp.  ch.  xxiv.  26). 
The  later  Jews,  as  usual,  drew  a large  number  of 
precise  and  minute  regulations  from  these  plain  and 
simple  indications.  Thus  the  distance  to  which 
a Jew  might  travel  was  limited  to  2000  cubits 
beyond  the  walls  of  the  city  or  the  borders  of  his 
residence,  because  the  innermost  tents  of  the 
Israelites'  camp  in  the  wilderness  are  supposed  to 
have  been  that  distance  from  the  tabernacle  (Josh, 
iii.  4),  and  because  the  same  distance  beyond  a 
city  fur  a Sabbath-day’s  journey  is  supposed 
to  be  indicated  in  Num.  xxxv.  4,  5 (Lightfoot, 
llor.  Heb.  in  Luke  xxiv.  50  ; Acts  i.  12)  ; Targ. 
on  Ruth,  i.  16;  Jarchi  on  Josh.  iii.  4;  Oecum 
on  Acts  i.  12).  This  also  is  the  distance  stated 
in  the  Talmud  (Tract.  Erubin ),  where  the  mode 
of  measuring  is  determined,  and  the  few  cases 
are  specified  in  which  persons  might  venture  to 
exceed  the  distance  of  2000  cubits.  Some  of 
the  Rabbins,  however,  distinguish  a great  (2800 
cubits),  a middling  (2000  cubits),  and  a lesser 
(1800  cubits)  Sabbath-day’s  journey.  Epipha- 
nius  ( Haer . 66  82)  estimates  the  Sabbath-day’s 
journey  by  the  Greek  measure  of  six  stades, 
equal  to  750  Roman  geographical  paces  (1000  of 
which  made  a Roman  mile).  In  agreement  with 

* In  this  article  the  view  of  the  subject  ft) 
which  prevalent  ideas  are  much  opposed  has  been 
furnished  by  a contributor  (B.  P.) ; and  the 
arguments  which  it  appeared  necessary  to  insert 
on  the  other  side  have,  with  his  concurrence, 
been  subjoined  by  the  Editor. 


G&O 


SACKCLOTH. 


SACRIFICES. 


this  is  the  statement  of  Josephus  (Bell.  Jr*l.  v. 
2.  3),  who  makes  the  Mount  of  Olives  to  he  fcbout 
six  stades  from  Jerusalem;  and  it.  is  the  distance 
between  these  two  places  which  in  Acts  i.  12  is 
given  as  a Sabbath-day's  journey.  It  is  true  that 
Josephus  elsewhere  determines  the  same  dist.tuce 
a3  live  stades  (Antiq.  xx.  8.  6);  but  both  rere 
probably  loose  statements  rather  than  measured 
distances;  and  both  are  below  the  ordinary  esti- 
mate of  2000  cubits.  Taking  all  circumsts.nces 
into  account,  it  seems  likely  that  the  ordinary 
Sabbath-day's  journey  was  a somewhat  lonely 
determined  distance,  seldom  more  than  the  vliole 
and  seldom  less  than  three-quarters  of  a ge  gra- 
phical mile  (Sehlen,  De  Jure  Nat.  ct  Gem,  iii. 
9;  Frischmuth,  Dissert,  de  Itin.  Sabbat.  1 >70; 
Walt  her,  Dissert,  de  Itin.  Sabbat.;  both  i>  The- 
saurus Theolog.  Philoq.,  Amsterd.  1720). 

SABBATIC  YEAR  I Jubilee.] 

SAByEANS.  [Sheba.1] 

SACHAPH.  [Cuckoo;  Gum,.] 

SACKCLOTH.  The  Hebrew  word  fo»  sack- 
cloth, or  sacking,  is  sak ; in  the  Sept,  and 
New  Testament,  craKnos  ; and  as  it  has  been  pre- 
served in  most  languages  (our  own  included)  to 
denote  the  same  thing,  much  ingenious  specula- 
tion has  been  brought  to  bear  upon  it — chiefly  as 
a venerable  monument  of  the  primitive  language, 
from  which  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  derived  by 
all  the  nations  in  whose  vocabularies  it  has  been 
found. 

The  sackcloth  mentioned  in  Scripture  was,  a3 
it  is  still  in  the  East,  a coarse  black  cloth,  com- 
monly made  of  hair  (ltev.  vi.  12),  and  was  used 
for  straining  liquids,  for  sacks,  and  for  mourning 
garments.  In  the  latter  case  it  was  worn  instead 
of  the  ordinary  raiment,  or  bound  upon  the  loins, 
or  spread  under  the  mourner  on  the  ground  (Gen. 
xxxvii.  34  ; 1 Kings  xxiii.  2 ; Isa.  lviii.  5 ; Joel 
i.  8;  Jon.  iii.  5)  [Mourning].  Such  garments 
were  also  worn  by  prophets,  and  by  ascetics  gene- 
rally (Isa.  xx.  2;  Zech.  iii.  4;  comp.  2 Kings  i. 
8;  Matt.  v.  4)  [Prophecy]. 

SACRIFICES.  The  sacrifices  and  other  offer- 
ings required  by  the  Hebrew  ritual  have  been  enu- 
merated under  Offering  ; and  in  this  place  it  is 
only  requisite  to  offer  a few  remarks  upon  the  great 
and  much  controverted  questions — Whether  sacri- 
fice was  in  its  origin  a human  invention,  or  a 
divine  institution  ; and  whether  any  of  the  sa- 
crifices before  the  law,  or  under  the  law,  were 
sacrifices  of  expiation.  Eminent  and  numerous 
are  the  authorities  on  both  sides  of  these  questions  ; 
but  the  balance  of  theological  opinion  preponde- 
rates greatly  for  the  affirmative  in  each  of  them. 
On  the  latter  point,  however,  most  of  those  who 
deny  that  there  was  any  expiatory  sacrifice  be- 
fore the  law,  admit  its  existence  under  the  law  : 
and  on  the  first,  those  who  hold  that  sacrifice  was 
of  Divine  origin,  but  became  much  corrupted, 
and  was  restored  by  the  Mosaic  law,  do  not  in 
substance  differ  much  from  those  who  hold  it  to 
have  been  a human  invention,  formally  recog- 
nised, and  remodelled  by  the  law  of  Moses. 

From  the  universality  of  sacrifice,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  rite  arose  either  from  a common 
source,  or  from  a common  sentiment  among  na- 
tions widely  dispersed,  and  very  differently  con- 
stituted. Remembering  that  Noah,  the  common 
ancestor  cf  the  post-diluvian  nations,  offered  sa- 


crifice, we  are  enabled  to  trace  back  the  custom 
through  all  nations  to  him  ; and  he  doubtless 
derived  it  through  the  antediluvian  fathers,  from 
the  sacrifices  which  the  first,  men  celebrated,  o: 
which  we  have  an  example  in  that,  of  Abel.  The 
question  concerning  the  divine  or  human  origin 
of  sacrifices,  therefore,  centres  upon  the  conclu- 
sions which  we  may  he  able  to  draw  from  the 
circumstances  and  preliminaries  of  that  transac* 
tion.  Abel  brought  for  sacrifice  one  of  the  lambs 
of  his  flock,  for  he  was  a shepherd  ; and  with  his 
offering  God  was  well  pleased  : Cain  brought  of 
the  fruits  of  the  ground,  for  he  was  a husband- 
man ; and  with  bis  offering  God  was  not  well 
pleased.  Now  out  of  ibis  arise  the  questions — 
Was  this  the  first,  animal  sacrifice?  and  if  it.  was, 
Was  it  offered  by  Abel  from  the  spontaneous  im- 
pulse of  his  own  mind,  or  by  command  from  God? 
and  if  not  by  divine  command,  How  was  it  that 
his  offering  was  more  acceptable  than  his  bro- 
ther's ? 

That  this  was  not  the  first  sacrifice  is  held  by 
many  ro  be  proved  by  the  fact,  that  ‘ unto  Adam 
and  bis  wife  the  Lord  made  coats  of  skin,  and 
clothed  them' (Gen.  iii.  21);  for,  it  is  urged,  that 
as  animal  food  does  not.  appear  to  have  been  used 
before  the  deluge,  it  is  not  easy  to  understand 
whence  these  skins  came,  probably  before  any 
animal  had  died  naturally,  unless  from  beasts 
offered  in  sacrifice.  And  if  the  first  sacrifices  had 
been  offered  by  Adam,  the  arguments  for  the  di- 
vine institution  of  the  rite  are  of  the  greater  force, 
seeing  that  it  was  less  likely  to  occur  spontane- 
ously to  Adam  than  to  Abel,  who  was  a keeper  of 
sheep.  Further,  if  the  command  was  given  to  Adam, 
and  his  sons  had  been  trained  in  observance  of 
the  rite,  we  can  the  better  understand  the  merit  of 
Abel  and  the  demerit  of  Cain,  without  further 
explanation.  Apart  from  any  considerations 
arising  out  of  the  skin-vestures  of  Adam  and  his 
wife,  it  would  seem  that  if  sacrifice  was  a divine 
institution,  and,  especially,  if  the  rite  bore  a piacu- 
lar  significance,  it  would  have  been  at  once 
prescribed  to  Adam,  after  sin  had  entered  the. 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  not  have  been  post- 
poned till  his  sons  had  reached  manhood. 

If  animal  sacrifice  was  the  invention  of  Abel, 
testifying  his  thanks  to  God,  by  offering  that 
which  was  most  valuable  to  him,  the  question 
comes,  Where  was  the  offence  of  Cain,  and  why 
was  his  offering  despised?  It  is  suggested  that 
Abel  brought  the  best  of  his  flock,  and  Cain  only 
the  refuse  of  his  produce  ; or,  that.  Abel  believed, 
and  Cain  disbelieved,  that  his  offering  would  be 
accepted.  This  latter  explanation  is  thought  to 
i-e  borne  out  by  the  allegation  of  the  Apostle  (Heb. 
xi.  4),  that  it  was  ‘ by  faith  Abel  offered  to  God  a 
more  acceptable  sacrifice  than  Cain.’  If,  how- 
ever, sacrifice  had  been  divinely  commanded,  this 
fa: 111  was  that  manifested  in  obeying  the  com- 
mand; and  if  it  was  also  piacular,  it  might  be 
even  referred  to  a belief  in  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment. for  sin,  which  the  rite  in  that  case  must  have 
adumbrated. 

One  of  the  most  recent  writers  on  the  subject, 
the  Rev.  J.  Davison,  in  his  Inquiry  into  the  Origin 
and  Intent  of  Primitive  Sacrifice , adduces  (on 
the  authority  of  Spencer  and  Outram)  the  consent 
of  the  fathers  in  favour  of  the  human  origin  of 
primitive  patriarchal  sacrifice ; anc  alleges,  that 
the  notion  of  its  divine  origin  is  ‘ a mere  modem 


SACRIFICES. 

figment,  excogitated  in  the  presumptively  specu- 
lative age  of  innovating  Puritanism.’  This  as- 
sertion has  been  ably,  and  we  think  successfully, 
met  by  the  Rev.  G.  S.  Faber,  iri  hi3  Treatise  on 
the  Origin  of  Expiatory  Sacrifice.  lie  shows 
that  the  onl  y authorities  adduced  by  Outram  and 
Spencer  are  Justin  Martyr,  Chrysostom,  the  au- 
thor of  the  work  called  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tionsand  the  author  of  the  Questions  and 
Answers  to  the  Orthodox , commonly  printed 
with  the  works  of  Justin  Martyr.  Of  the  early 
theologians  thus  adduced,  the  three  last  are  posi- 
tive and  explicit  in  their  assertion;  while  the 
sentiments  of  Justin  Martyr  are  gathered  rather 
by  implication  than  in  consequence  of  any  direct 
avowal.  He  says,  ‘as  circumcision  commenced 
from  Abraham,  so  the  sabbath,  and  sacrifices , 
and  oblations,  and  festivals,  commenced  from 
Moses;’  which  clearly  intimates  that  he  consi- 
dered primitive  sacrifice  as  a human  invention 
until  made  by  the  law  a matter  of  religious  obli- 
gation. The  great  body  of  the  fathers  are  silent 
as  to  the  origin  of  sacrifice  : but  a considerable 
number  of  them,  cited  by  Spencer  (De  Legib. 
Heb.  p.  616,  sq.),  held  that  sacrifice  was  admitted 
into  the  law  through  condescension  to  the  weak- 
ness of  the  people,  who  had  been  familiarised 
to  it  in  Egypt,  and  if  not  allowed  to  sacrifice  to 
God,  would  have  been  tempted  to  sacrifice  to  the 
idols  of  their  heathen  neighbours.  The  ancient 
writers  who  held  this  opinion  are  Justin  Martyr, 
Origen,  Tertullian,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Cyril 
of  Alexandria,  Epiphanius  of  Salamis,  Irenceus, 
Jerome,  Procopius,  Eucherius,  Anastasius,  and 
the  author  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions.  Rut 
out  of  the  entire  number,  only  the  four  already 
mentioned  allege  incidentally  the  human  origin 
of  primitive  sacrifice  : the  rest  are  silent  on  this 
point.  Outram  indeed  ( De  Sacrif.  lib.  i.  cap.  1, 
§ 6,  pp.  8,  9)  thinks,  that  in  giving  this  opinion, 
they  virtually  deny  the  divine  origin  of  sacrifice. 
But  it  is  fairly  answered,  that  the  assertion,  be  it 
right  or  be  it  wrong,  that  sacrifice  was  introduced 
into  the  law  from  condescension  to  the  Egyptian- 
izing  weakness  of  the  people,  furnishes  no  legiti- 
mate proof  that  the  persons  entertaining  this  opinion 
held  the  mere  human  origi  n of  primitive  patriarchal 
sacrifice,  and  affords  no  ground  for  alleging  the 
consent  of  Christian  antiquity  in  favour  of  that  opi- 
nion. Such  persons  could  not  but  have  known, 
that  the  rite  of  sacrifice  existed  anterior  to  the  rise 
of  pagan  idolatry : and  hence  the  notion  which 
they  entertained  leaves  the  question,  as  to  the 
primitive  origin  of  sacrifice,  entirely  open,  so  far 
as  they  are  concerned.  Paganism,  whether  in 
Egypt  or  elsewhere,  merely  borrowed  the  rite 
from  pure  Patriarchism,  which  already  possessed 
it : and  unless  a writer  expressly  declares  such  to 
be  his  opinion,  we  are  not  warranted  in  conclud- 
ing that  he  held  the  human  origin  of  primitive 
patriarchal  sacrifice,  simply  because  he  conceives 
that  a system  of  sacrificial  service  had  been 
immediately  adopted  into  the  law  from  Paganism 
out  of  condescension  to  the  weakness  of  the  people. 
Besides,  some  of  these  very  fathers  held  language 
with  respect  to  primitive  sacrifice,  not  much  in 
favour  of  the  interpretation  which  has  on  this 
ground  been  given  to  their  sentiments.  Thus, 
according  to  Cyril,  ‘ God  accepted  the  sacrifice 
of  Abel  and  rejected  the  sacrifice  of  Cain,  because 
w %s  fitting  that  posterity  should  learn  from 


SACRIFICES.  662 

thence,  how  they  might  blamelessly  offer  unto 
God  his  meet  and  due  honour.’ 

If,  then,  these  authorities  he  taken  as  neutral 
on  the  question,  with  the  four  exceptions  al- 
ready indicated,  we  shall  find  whatever  au- 
thority we  ascribe  to  these  more  than  counter- 
balanced by  the  testimony  of  other  ancient  wit- 
nesses in  favour  of  the  divine  origin  of  primitive 
sacrifice.  Philo-Judseus  says,  ‘ Abel  brought 
neither  the  same  oblation  as  Cain,  nor  in  the 
same  manner ; but  instead  of  things  inanimate, 
he  brought  things  animate  ; and  instead  of  later 
and  secondary  products,  he  brought  the  older  and 
the  first:  for  he  offered  in  sacrifice  from  the  first- 
lings of  his  flock,  and  from  their  fat,  according  to 
the  most  holy  command  (Kara  rb  Upwrarbv 
5 i dr  ay ga : — De  Sacrif.  Abel,  et  Cam.  Opp.  p. 
145).  Augustine,  after  expressly  referring  the 
origin  of  sacrifice  to  the  divine  command,  more 
distinctly  evolves  his  meaning  by  saying  : ‘ The 
prophetic  immolation  of  blood,  testifying  from 
the  very  commencement  of  the  human  race  the 
future  passion  of  the  Mediator,  is  a matter  of 
deep  antiquity : inasmuch  as  Abel  is  found  in 
Holy  Scripture  to  have  been  the  first  who  offered 
up  this  prophetic  immolation  * (Cont.  Faust. 
Munich.  Opp.  vi.  145).  Next  we  come  to  Atha- 
nasius, who,  speaking  of  the  consent  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
New, says:  ‘ What  Moses  taught, these  things hia 
predecessor  Abraham  had  preserved : and  what 
Abraham  had  preserved,  with  those  things  Enoch 
and  Noah  were  well  acquainted  ; for  they  made 
a distinction  between  the  clean  and  the  unclean, 
and  were  acceptable  to  God.  Thus  also  in  like 
manner  Abel  bore  testimony ; for  lie  knew  ivhat 
he  had  learned  from  Adam,  and  Adam  himself 
taught  only  what  he  had  previously  learned  from 
the  Lord  (Synod.  Nicen.  contr.  Hcer.  Arian.  de- 
er et.,  Opp.  i.  403).  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  in  a 
passage  too  long  for  quotation,  alleges,  that  ani- 
mal sacrifice  was  first  of  all  practised  by  the 
ancient  lovers  of  God  (the  patriarchs),  and  that 
not  by  accident,  but  through  a certain  divine  con- 
trivance, under  which,  as  taught  by  the  Divine 
spirit,  it  became  their  duty  thus  to  shadow  forth 
the  great  and  venerable  victim,  really  acceptable 
to  God,  which  was,  in  time  then  future,  d^stinea 
to  be  offered  in  behalf  of  the  whole  human  race 
( Demonst . Evang.  i.  8.  pp.  24,  25). 

These  testimonies  certainly  vindicate  the 
opinion  of  the  divine  origin  of  primitive  sacrifice 
from  the  charge  of  being  a modern  innovation, 
with  no  voice  of  antiquity  in  its  favour. 

Among  the  considerations  urged  in  support  of 
the  opinion,  that  sacrifice  must  have  originated  in 
a divine  command,  it  has  been  suggested  as  ex- 
ceedingly doubtful,  whether,  independently  ofsuch 
a command,  and  as  distinguished  from  vegetable 
oblations,  animal  sacrifice,  which  involves  the 
practice  of  slaughtering  and  burning  an  innocent 
victim,  could  ever,  under  any  aspect,  have  been 
adopted  as  a rife  likely  to  gain  the  favour  of  God. 
Our  own  course  of  scriptural  education  prevents 
us,  perhaps,  from  being  competent  judges  on  this 
point : but  we  have  means  of  judging  how  so  sin- 
gular a rite  must  strike  the  minds  of  thinking 
men,  not  in  the  same  degree  prepossessed  by 
early  associations.  The  ancient  Greek  masters  of 
thought  init  unfrequenily  expressed  their  astonish- 
ment how  and  upon  what  rational  principles,  go 


GS2 


SACRIFICES. 


SACRIFICES. 


strange  an  institution  as  that  of  animal  sacrifice 
could  ever  have  originated;  for  as  to  the  notion 
of  its  being  pleasing  to  the  Deity,  such  a thing 
struck  them  as  a manifest  impossibility  (Jamblic. 
De  Vit.  Pythag. pp.  106-118;  Porphyr.  De  A bstin. 
p.  96;  Theophrast.  et  Porphyr.  apud  Euseb. 
Praep.  Evang.  pp.  90,  91).  Those  who  do  not 
believe  that  sacrifices  were  of  divine  institution, 
must  dispose  of  this  difficulty  by  alleging,  that, 
when  men  had  come  to  slay  animals  for  their 
own  food,  they  might  think  it  right  to  slay  them 
to  satisfy  their  gods:  and,  in  fact,  Grotius,  who 
held  the  human  origin  of  sacrifices,  and  yet  be- 
lieved that  animal  food  was  not  used  before  the 
Deluge,  is  reduced  to  the  expedient  of  contending 
that  Abel’s  offering  was  not  an  animal  sacrifice, 
but  only  the  produce — the  milk  and  wool — of  his 
best  sheep.  This,  however,  shows  that  he  believed 
animal  sacrifice  to  have  been  impossible  before 
the  Deluge,  without  the  sanction  of  a divine  com- 
mand, the  existence  of  which  he  discredited. 

A strong  moral  argument  in  favour  of  the 
divine  institution  of  sacrifice,  somewhat  feebly 
put  by  Hallet  {Comment,  on  Heb.  xi.  4,  cited  by 
Magee,  On  the  Atonement ),  has  been  reproduced 
with  increased  force  by  Faber  {Prim.  Sacrifice , 
p.  1 83).  It  amounts  to  this  : — 

Sacrifice,  when  uncommanded  by  God,  is  a 
mere  act  of  gratuitous  superstition.  Whence,  on 
the  principle  of  St.  Paid's  reprobation  of  what  he 
denominates  will-worship,  it  is  neither  acceptable 
nor  pleasing  to  God. 

But  sacrifice,  during  the  patriarchal  ages,  was 
accepted  by  God,  and  was  plainly  honoured  with 
his  approbation. 

Therefore  sacrifice,  during  the  patriarchal  age, 
could  not  have  been  an  act  of  superstition  uncom- 
manded  by  God. 

If,  then,  such  was*  the  character  of  primitive 
sacrifice  ; that  is  to  say,  if  primitive  sacrifice  was 
not  a mere  act  of  gratuitous  superstition  uncom- 
manded by  God, — it  must,  in  that  case,  in- 
dubitably have  been  a divine,  and  not  a human 
institution. 

If  it  be  held  that  any  of  the  ancient  sacrifices 
were  expiatory,  or  piacular,  the  argument  for  their 
divine  origin  is  strengthened  ; as  it  is  hard  to 
conceive  the  combination  of  ideas  under  which 
the  notion  of  expiatory  sacrifice  could  be  worked 
out  by  the  human  mind.  This  difficulty  is  so 
great,  that,  the  ablest  advocates  of  the  human 
origin  of  primitive  animal  sacrifice,  feel  bound 
also  to  deny  that  such  sacrifices  as  then  existed 
were  piacular.  It  is  strongly  insisted  that  the 
doctrine  of  an  atonement  by  animal  sacrifice 
cannot  be  deduced  from  the  light  of  nature,  or 
from  the  principles  of  reason.  If,  therefore,  the 
idea  existed,  it.  must  either  have  arisen  in  the  fer- 
tile soil  of  a guessing  superstition,  or  have  been 
divinely  appointed.  Now  we  know  that  God 
cannot  approve  of  unwarranted  and  presumptu- 
ous superstition  : if  therefore  he  can  be  shown  to 
ba\e  received  with  approbation  a species  of  sa- 
crifice undiscoverable  by  the  light  of  nature,  or 
from  the  principles  of  reason,  it  follows  that  it 
must  have  been  of  his  own  institution. 

Here,  however,  the  argument  again  divaricates. 
Some  are  unable  to  see  that  piacular  sacrifices 
existed  under,  or  were  commanded  by,  the  law  of 
Moses;  while  others  admit  this,  but  deny  that 
animal  sacrifice,  with  an  expiatory  intent,  existed 


before  the  law.  It  appeals  to  us,  that  the  differ 
ence  of  opinion  as  to  the  existence  of  expiatory 
sacrifice  under  the  law,  is  move  apparent  thar 
real,  and  arises  from  the  different  senses  in  winch 
the  term  ‘expiatory  sacrifice  ' is  understood.  It 
will  often  transpire,  that  those  who  deny  its  ex- 
istence have  an  idea  of  such  a sacrifice  different 
from  that  of  the  persons  whom  they  think  them- 
selves opposing,  but  from  whom  they  do  not,  in 
fact,  materially  differ.  In  general,  those  who 
do  not  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
through  the  death  of  Christ,  do  not  see  that  certain 
sacrifices  of  the  law  were  piacular  : and  on  theii 
own  premises,  they  reason  justly;  for  unless 
expiatory  sacrifice  prefigured  the  atonement  of- 
fered by  Jesus  Christ,  there  appears  no  adequate 
reason  for  the  existence  of  expiatory  sacrifice  as  a 
divine  institution,  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  it  could  (as  piacular)  have  been  a human 
invention.  In  fact,  apart  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement,  the  subject,  of  expiatory  sacrifice 
ceases  to  be  of  any  material  interest. 

The  question,  of  the  existence  of  expiatory  sa- 
crifice before  the  law,  is  more  difficult,  and  is  de- 
nied by  Outram,  Ernesfi,  Doederlin,  Davison, 
and  many  others,  who  believe  that  it  was  revealed 
under  the  law  ; as  well  as  by  those  who  doubt  its 
existence  under  the  Mosaical  dispensation.  The 
arguments  already  stated  in  favour  of  the  divine 
institution  of  primitive  sacrifice,  go  equally  to 
support  the  existence  of  piacular  sacrifice ; the 
idea  of  which  seems  more  urgently  to  have  re- 
quired a divine  intimation.  Besides,  expiatory 
sacrifice  is  found  to  have  existed  among  all  na- 
tions, in  conjunction  with  eucharistic  and  im- 
petratory  sacrifices  ; and  it  lies  at  the  root  of  the 
principle  on  which  human  sacrifices  were  offered 
among  the  ancient  nations.  The  expiatory  view 
of  sacrifice  is  frequently  produced  by  heathen 
writers : — 

‘ Cor  pro  corde,  precor,  pro  fibra  sumite  fibras  ; 

Hanc  animam  vobis  pro  meliore  damus.’ 

Ovid.  Fasti , vi.  161. 

This  being  the  case,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  but 
that  the  idea  was  derived,  along  with  animal 
sacrifice  itself,  from  the  practice  of  Noah,  and 
preserved  among  his  various  descendants.  This 
argument,  if  valid,  would  show  the  primitive 
origin  of  piacular  sacrifice.  Now  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  idea  of  sacrifice  which  Noah 
transmitted  to  the  post-diluvian  world,  was  tne 
same  that  he  had  derived  from  his  pious  an- 
cestors, and  the  same  that  was  evinced  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Abel,  to  which  we  are,  by  the  course 
of  the  argument,  again  brought  back.  Now 
if  that  sacrifice  was  expiatory,  we  have  reason 
to  conclude  that  it  was  divinely  commanded . 
and  the  supposition  that  it  was  both  expiatory 
and  divinely  commanded,  makes  the  whole  his- 
tory far  more  clear  and  consistent  than  any  other 
which  has  been  or  can  be  offered.  It  amounts 
then  to  this — that  Cain,  by  bringing  an  eu- 
charistic offering,  when  his  brother  brought  one 
which  was  expiatory,  denied  virtually  that  his 
sins  deserved  death,  or  that  he  needed  the  blood 
of  atonement.  Some  go  further,  and  allege  that 
in  the  text  itself,  God  actually  commanded  Cain 
to  offer  a piacular  sacrifice.  The  argument  does 
not  require  this  additional  circumstance  ; but  if 
is  certainly  strengthened  by  \ , Whet  Coin  U* 


SACRIFICE,  HUMAN- 


SADDUCEES. 


663 


came  angry  that  Abel's  offering  was  regarded 
with  Divine  complacency,  and  his  own  refused, 
God  said  to  him,  ‘Why  art  f.hou  wroth;  and 
why  is  thy  countenance  fallen?  If  thou  doest 
well,  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted?  and  if  thou 
doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door.'  Now  the 
word  riMDn  chattah , translated  ‘sin,’  denotes 
in  the  law  a ‘sin-offering;’  and  the  won! 
translated  * lieth,’  is  usually  applied  to  the  re- 
cumbency of  a beast.  It  is  therefore  proposed  to 
translate  the  clause,  ‘ a sin-offering  coucheth  at 
the  door which  by  paraphrase  would  mean,  ‘ an 
animal  fit  for  a sin  offering  is  there,  couching  at 
the  door,  which  thou  mayest  offer  in  sacrifice, 
and  thereby  render  to  me  an  offering  as  accept- 
able as  that  which  Abel  has  presented.’ 

These  are  the  principal  considerations  which 
seem  suitable  to  this  place,  on  a subject  to  the 
complete  investigation  of  which  many  large  vo- 
lumes have  been  devoted.  See  Outram,  De 
Sacrificiis  ; Sykes,  Essay  on  the  Nature,  Origin, 
and  Design  of  Sacrifices;  Taylor,  Scripture 
Doctrine  of  the  Atonement , 1758;  Ritchie, 
Criticism  upon  Modern  Notions  of  Sacrifices, 
1761  ; Magee,  Discourses  on  Atonement  and 
Sacrifices  ; Davison,  Inquiry,  &c.,  1825;  Faber, 
Primitive  Sacrifices,  &c.,  1827. 

SACRIFICE,  HUMAN.  The  offering  of  hu- 
man life,  as  the  most  precious  thing  on  earth, 
came  in  process  of  time  to  be  practised  in  most 
countries  of  the  world.  All  histories  and  tra- 
ditions darken  our  idea  of  the  earlier  ages  with 
human  sacrifices.  But  the  period  when  such 
prevailed  was  not  the  earliest  in  time,  though 
probably  the  earliest  in  civilization.  The  prac- 
tice was  both  a result  and  a token  of  barbarism 
more  or  less  gross.  In  this,  too,  the  dearest  object 
was  primitively  selected.  Human  life  is  the 
most  precious  thing  on  earth,  and  of  this  most 
precious  possession  the  most  precious  portion  is 
tlie  life  of  a child.  Children  therefore  were 
offered  in  fire  to  the  false  divinities,  and  in  no 
part  of  the  world  with  less  regard  to  the  claims 
of  natural  affection  than  in  the  land  where,  at  a 
later  period,  ihe  only  true  God  had  his  peculiar 
worship  and  highest  honours. 

It  is  under  these  circumstances  a striking  fact 
that  the  Hebrew  religion,  even  in  its  most  rudi- 
mental  condition,  should  be  free  from  the  conta- 
mination of  human  sacrifices.  The  case  of  Isaac 
and  that  of  Jephthah’s  daughter  cannot  impair  the 
general  truth,  that  the  offering  of  human  beings  is 
neither  enjoined,  allowed,  nor  practised  in  the  Bi- 
blical records.  On  the  contrary,  such  an  offering 
is  strictly  prohibited  by  Moses,  as  adverse  to  the 
will  of  God,  and  an  abominat  ion  of  the  heathen. 

‘ Thou  shalt  not  let  any  of  thy  seed  pass  through 
the  fire  to  Moloch  : defile  not  yourselves  with 
any  of  these  things’  (Lev.  xviii.  21  ; see  also 
ch.  xx.  2;  Deut.  xii.  31  ; Ps.  cvi.  37  ; Isa.  lxvi. 
3;  Jer.  xxiii.  37).  Yet  in  an  age  in  which,  like 
the  present,  all  manner  of  novelties  are  broached, 
and,  in  some  cases,  the  greater  the  paradox 
broached  with  the  more  promptitude,  and  main- 
tained with  the  greater  earnestness,  these  very 
clear  positions  have  been  withstood,  and  human 
sacrifices  have  been  charged  confidently  on  the 
Hebrew  race.  In  the  year  1842,  Chillnny,  pro- 
fessor at  Niirnberg,  published  a book  (Die  Men- 
schenopfer  der  alien  Ilebraer ),  the  object  of 
which  was  to  prove  that,  as  the  religion  of  the 


ancient  Hebrews  did  not  differ  essentially  from 
that  of  the  Ganaanites,  so  that  Moloch,  who  had 
been  originally  a god  common  to  both,  merely 
in  the  process  of  time  was  softened  down  4*ud 
passed  into  Jehovah,  thus  becoming  the  national 
deify  of  the  people  of  Israel;  so  did.  their  altars 
smoke  with  human  blood,  from  the ’time  of  Abra- 
ham down  to  the  fall  of  both  kingdoms  of  Judah 
and  Israel.  In  the  same  year  appeared  in  Ger- 
many another  work,  by  Daumer  ( Der  Feucr  und 
Molochdienst  der  alien  Hebrlier ),  intended  to 
prove  that  the  worship  of  Moloch,  involving  bis 
bloody  rites,  was  the  original  legal  and  orthodox 
worship  of  the  nation  of  Abraham,  Moses,  Samuel, 
and  David.  To  these  works  a reply  was  pul 
forth  in  1843,  by  Lowengard  (Jehovah,  nicht 
Moloch,  war  der  Gott  der  alten  Ilebraer ),  in 
which  he  defends  the  worship  of  Jehovah  from 
the  recent  imputations,  and  strives,  by  distin- 
guishing between  the  essential  and  the  unessen- 
tial, the  durable  and  the  temporary,  to  prepare 
the  way  for  a reformation  of  modern  Judaism. 

We  do  not  think  that  it  requires  any  deep  re- 
search or  profound  learning  to  ascertain  from  the 
Biblical  records  themselves,  that  the  religion  of 
the  Bible  is  wholly  free  from  the  shocking  abomi- 
nations of  human  sacrifices ; and  we  do  not  there- 
fore hesitate  to  urge  the  fact  on  the  attention  of 
the  ordinary  reader,  as  not  least  considerable 
among  many  proofs  not  only  of  the  superior  cha- 
racter, but  of  the  divine  origin,  of  the  Hebrew 
worship.  It  was  in  Egypt  where  the  mind  of 
Moses  and  of  the  generation  with  whom  lie  had 
primarily  to  do,  was  chiefiy  formed,  so  far  as 
heathen  influences  were  concerned.  Here  offer- 
ings were  very  numerous.  Sacrifices  of  meat- 
offerings, libations  and  incense,  were  of  very  early 
date  in  the  Egyptian  temples.  Oxen,  wild  goats, 
pigs,  and  particularly  geese,  were  among  the  ani- 
mal offerings  ; besides  these  there  were  presented  to 
the  gods  wine,  oil,  beer,  milk,  cakes,  grain,  oint- 
ment, flowers,  fruits,  vegetables.  In  these,  and 
in  the  case  of  meat,  peace  and  sin  offerings  (as  well 
as  others),  there  exists  a striking  resemblance  with 
similar  Hebrew  observances,  which  may  be  found 
indicated  in  detail  in  Wilkinson  (Maimers  and 
Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  v.  358;  sq. ; 
see  also  ii.  378),  who,  in  agreement  with  He- 
rodotus, maintains,  in  opposition  to  Diodorus, 
that  the  Egyptians  were  never  accustomed  to 
sacrifice  human  beings  : a decision  which  has  a 
favourable  aspect  on  our  last  position,  namely, 
that  the  religion  of  the  Israelites,  even  in  its 
earliest  days,  was  unprofaned  by  human  blood. 
A remarkable  instance  of  disagreement  between 
the  observances  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  Jews,  in 
regard  to  sacrifices,  is,  that  while  the  Egyptians 
received  the  blood  of  the  slaughtered  animal  into 
a vase  or  basin,  to  be  applied  in  cookery,  the  eat- 
ing of  blood  was  most  strictly  forbidden  to  the 
-Israelites  (Deut.  xv.  23).- — J.  R.  B. 

SADDUCEES  : one  of  the  three  sects  of  Jewish 
philosophers,  of  which  the  Pharisees  and  the 
Essenes  were  the  others,  who  had  reached  their 
highest  state  of  prosperity  about  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Christian  era. 

In  every  highly  developed  social  system  the  ele  - 
ments are  found  to  exist  which  led  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  sect  of  Sadd-ucees.  But  these  elements 
were  in  fuller  amplitude  and  more  decided  energy 
among  the  post-exilian  Jews  than  in  most  ancient 


664 


SADDUCEES. 


SADDUCEES. 


nations.  The  peculiar  doctrines  and  practices  of 
the  Pharisees  naturally  begot  the  Sadduceean 
system.  The  first  embodied  the  principle  of  vene 
ration,  which  looked  on  the  past  with  so  much 
regard  as  to  become  enamoured  of  its  forms  as 
well  as  its  substance,  its  ivy  as  well  as  its  columns, 
its  corruptions  no  less  than  its  excellences,  taking 
and  maintaining  the  whole  with  a warm  but 
blind  and  indiscriminate  a flection  ; the  second, 
alienated  by  the  extravagances  of  the  former, 
were  led  to  seize  on  the  principle  of  rationalism, 
and  hence  to  investigate  prevalent  customs,  and 
weigh  received  opinions,  till  at.  length  investiga- 
tion begot  scepticism,  and  scepticism  issued  in  the 
positive  rejection  of  many  established  notions  and 
observances.  The  principle  of  the  Sadducee  is 
thus  obviously  an  ofl'shoot  from  the  rank  growth 
of  conservatism  and  orthodoxy.  Corruption  brings 
reform.  And  as  it  is  not  possible  for  the  same 
individuals,  nor  for  the  same  classes  of  men,  to 
perform  the  dissimilar  acts  of  conservatism  and 
reformation,  so  most  there  be,  if  Pharisees,  Sad- 
ducees  also  in  society.  It  is  for  the  good  of  men 
that  the  latter  should  come  into  being,  seeing  that 
the  principle  represented  by  the  former  arises,  in- 
evitably, in  the  actual  progress  of  events.  True 
wisdom,  however,  consists  in  avoiding  the  extremes 
peculiar  to  both,  and  aims  to  make  man  possessor 
of  all  the  good  which  the  past  can  bestow  and  all 
the  good  which  the  present  can  produce,  uniting 
in  one  happy  result  the  benign  results  of  conser- 
vatism and  improvement,  retention  of  the  past 
and  progress  in  the  present. 

It  would  he  easy  to  show  how  the  several  par- 
ticulars which  were  peculiar  to  the  Sadducee 
arose  out  of  Pharisaic  errors.  As,  however,  we 
wish  to  give  to  this  necessarily  brief  notice  an  his- 
torical character,  we  shall  content  ourselves  with 
one  instance — the  doctrine  of  tradition.  By  an 
excessive  veneration  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  and 
sacred  hooks,  the  Pharisees  had  been  led  to  regard 
every  thing  which  concerned  them  as  sacred. 
But  if  the  text  and  the  observance  were  holy,  holy 
also  was  that  which  explained  their  meaning  cr 
unfolded  their  hidden  signification.  Hence  the 
exposition  of  the  ancients  came  to  be  received  with 
respect  equal  to  that  vv ith  which  the  very  words  cf 
the  founders  and  original  writers  were  regarded. 
Tradition  was  engrafted  on  the  vine  of  Israel. 
But  all  exposition  is  relative  to  the  mind  of  the 
expositor.  Accordingly  various  expositions  came 
into  being.  Every  age,  every  doctor  gave  a new 
exposition.  Thus  a diverse  and  contradictory,  as 
well  as  a huge,  mass  of  opinions  was  formed, which 
overlaid  and  hid  the  law  of  God.  Then  a true 
reverence  for  that  law  identified  itself  with  the 
principle  of  the  Sadducee.  and  the  Pharisee  was 
made  to  appear  as  not  only  the  author  but  the 
patron  and  advocate  of  corruption. 

The  time  when  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees  came 
into  existence,  history  does  not  define.  From  what 
has  been  advanced  it  appears  that  they  were  pos- 
terior to  the  Pharisees.  And  although  so  soon  as 
the  Pharisaic  elements  began  to  become  excessive, 
there  existed  in  Judaism  itself  a sufficient  source 
for  Sadduceeism,  yet,  as  a fact,  we  have  no 
doubt  tiiat  Grecian  philosophy  lent  its  aid  to  the 
development  of  Sadduceeism.  Whence  we  are 
referred  for  the  rise  of  the  latter  to  the  period  when 
the  conquests  and  the  kingdoms  which  ensued 
fiorn  the  expedition  of  Alexander  had  diffused  a 


very  large  portion  of  Grecian  civilization  over 
the  soil  of  the  East,  and  especially  over  Western 
Asia. 

As  little  is  historically  known  respecting  the 
author  of  this  sect ; there  are  various  statements, 
but  their  very  variety  shows  that,  nothing  certain 
is  known.  Tlw  Rabbins  have  a story  which 
makes  one  Zadok,  a pupil  of  Antigonus  Jocko, 
the  founder;  who,  under  the  instructions  of  his 
master,  was,  in  company  with  one  Baithos,  a 
fellow  disciple,  led  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is 
no  future  life,  and,  of  course,  no  retribution  after 
death  (Pirke  Aboth,  i.  3).  It  has  also  been  said, 
that  the  name  Sadducee  is  descriptive — 

1 the  just  ones,’  that  is,  men  who  were  just  to  the 
law,  to  God  as  the  author  of  the  law  and  the 
source  of  truth,  just  in  their  own  conceptions  and 
their  mode  of  thinking  in  contradistinction  to  the 
excesses  of  the  Pharisees;  just  every  way  in  th* 
sense  in  which  our  word  just  is  sometimes  used — 
exact,  without  superfluities,  the  thing  itself  apart 
from  accessories,  the  truth  and  nothing  but  the 
truth.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  such  a view  of 
the  sect  embodies  their  peculiar  and  fundamental 
principle  (Epiphan.  Hares,  i.  II).  A modern 
critic,  Koster  (Studien  und  Kritiken,  1837,  vol.i. 
p.  164),  deduces  the  word,  as  well  as  the  doctrines 
which  it  represents,  from  the  Grecian  stoics,  which 
is  more  ingenious  than  solid. 

As  may  be  inferred  from  wliat.  has  been  ad- 
vanced, the  Sadducees  stood  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  Pharisees.  So  they  are  described  by  Jose- 
phus (Aniiq.  xiii.  10. 6),  and  so  they  appear  in  the 
New  Testament.  Hostile,  however,  as  these  two 
sects  were,  they  united  for  the  common  purpose  of 
opposing  our  Lord  (Matt.  iii.  7 ; xvi.  1,6,  11, 
sq. ; xxii.  23,  34  ; Acts  iv.  1 ; v.  17).  in  opposing 
the  Pharisees  the  Sadducees  were  led  to  impeach 
their  principal  doctrines,  and  so  to  deny  all  the 
‘ traditions  of  the  elders,’  holding  that  the  law 
alone  was  the  written  source  of  religious  truth 
( Antiq . xviii.  1.  4).  By  more  than  one/Jonsi- 
deration,  however,  it  might  be  shown  that  they  are 
in  error  who  so  understand  the  fact  now  stated,  as 
if  the  Sadducees  received  no  other  parts  of  the 
Jewish  canon  than  the  Pentateuch;  for  in  truth 
they  appear  1o  have  held  the  common  opinion 
regarding  the  sacred  books- — a fact  of  some  con- 
sequence,inasmuch  as  we  thus  gain  the  determina- 
tion, on  the  point  of  the  Jewish  canon,  of  the  cri- 
tical scepticism  of  the  day.  The  Sadducees 
taught  that  the  soul  of  man  perished  together  with 
his  body,  and  that  of  course  there  was  neither  re- 
ward nor  punishment  after  death  (Joseph.  De  Bell. 
Jud.  ii.  8. 14  ; comp.  Matt.  xxii.  23).  Indeed  they 
appear  to  have  disowned  the  moral  philosophy 
which  obtrudes  the  idea  of  recompense.  ‘ Be  not 
as  those  slaves  ’ — so  runs  an  injunction  derived, 
it  is  said,  from  Zadok  himself — ‘ who  serve  their 
master  on  this  condition,  namely,  that  they  receive 
a reward  ; but  let  the  fear  of  heaven  be  in  you  ’ 
( Pirke  Aboth,  i.  3,  and  Rabbi  Nathan  on  the 
passage).  Were  they  consistent,  in  this  view,  they 
may  nave  held  high  and  worthy  ideas  of  duty,  its 
source  arid  its  motives  ; ideas,  however,  which  are 
obviously  more  suited  for  men  of  cultivation  like 
themselves  than  for  the  great  bulk  of  human 
beings.  And  in  views  such  as  this  may  probably 
be  found  a chief  cause  why  they  were  far  less 
acceptable  with  the  common  people  and  far  less 
influential  in  the  state  than  their  rivals,  the  Ptta- 


SADDUCEES. 


SALACH. 


fisees.  Tlie  cold  self-reliance  and  self  sufficiency 
which  sits  apart  in  the  enjoyment- of  the  satisfac- 
tions resulting  from  its  own  resources,  and  aims 
at  nothing  beyond  its  own  sphere  and  nothing 
higher  than  its  own  standard,  may  possess  pecu- 
liar attractions  for  the  philosophic  few,  or  for  the 
contemptuous  scoffer,  but  is  too  alien  from  ordi- 
nary sympathies,  and  too  unkindling  and  too 
tranquil  to  find  general  acceptance  in  any  con- 
dition of  society  that  the  world  has  yet  known. 

It  was  a position  with  the  Sadducees,  that  the 
Scriptures  did  not  contain  the  doctrine  of  a future 
life.  In  this  opinion  they  have  had  many  fol- 
lowers in  modern  times.  Yet  Jesus  himself  finds 
a proof  of  that  doctrine  in  ihe  Pentateuch  (Matt, 
xxii.  31,  32),  and  the  astonishment  which  his 
teaching  on  the  point  excited  seems  to  show  that 
it  was  not  an  ordinary  inference  of  the  llabbins, 
but  a new  doctrine  that  Jesus  then  deduced  : this 
makes  against  the  mode  of  interpretation  which 
would  represent  this  as  a sort  of  argumentum  ad 
hominem , a shaft  from  the  quiver  of  Chiist's  ene- 
mies. That,  however,  the  species  of  exegesis  to 
which  this  proof  belongs  prevailed  among  the  Jews 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord  there  can  be  no  doubt;  for 
from  the  period  of  the  return  from  Babylon  it  bad 
been  gaining  ground,  was  very  prevalent  in  the 
days  of  Christ,  and  abounds  in  the  Talmudical 
writings.  Being,  however,  a kind  of  exegetical 
spiritualism,  it  was  disallowed  by  the  Sadducees, 
who  accordingly  rejected  the  doctrines  which  by 
its  means  had  been  deduced  from  the  sacred 
writings. 

Sadduceeism  appears  to  have  been  to  some  ex- 
tent a logically  deduced  and  systematically 
formed  set  of  ideas.  Making  this  life  the  term  of 
our  being,  and  man  his  own  beau  ideal,  it  was 
naturally  led  to  assert  for  man  all  the  attributes 
that  he  could  reasonably  claim.  Hence  it  taught 
the  absolute  freedom  of  the  human  mind.  The 
words  of  Josephus  are  emphatic  on  this  point : 
‘ The  Pharisees  ascribe  all  to  fate  and  to  God,  but 
the  Sadducees  take  away  fate  entirely,  and  sup- 
pose that  God  is  not  concerned  in  our  doing  or 
not  doing  evil ; and  they  say  that  to  act  what  is 
good  or  what  is  evil  is  in  man’s  own  choice  ; and 
that  all  ihings  depend  on  our  own  selves’  (He 
Bell.Jud.  ii.  8, 14;  Antiq.  xiii.  5,  9).  An  inference 
injurious  to  them  has  been  deduced  from  this 
position,  as  if  they  denied  divine  Providence  alto- 
gether ; but  their  recept  ion  of  the  canonical  books, 
and  their  known  observance  of  the  usages  for 
divine  worship  therein  prescribed,  are  incompa- 
tible with  such  a denial.  Indeed  we  have  here 
the  same  difficulty  which  has  presented  itself  over 
and  over  again  ten  thousand  times  to  thinking 
minds,  namely,  how  to  unite  in  harmony  the 
moral  freedom  of  man  with  the  arrangements  and 
behests  of  the  will  of  Him — 

tfs  ijBr]  ra  r’  4'orra,  ra  r iaadgeva,  irp6  r’  tovra. 

As  the  Sadducees  denied  a future  state,  so  also 
they. were  led  to  deny  the  existence  of  angels  and 
spirits  (Acts  xxiii.  8)  ; for  they  appear  to  have  con- 
cluded that  since  there  were  no  human  spirits  in 
neaven,  there  could  be  no  other  beings  in  the  in- 
visible state  but  God.  Yet  if  we  allow  the  force 
of  this  deduction,  we  cannot  well  understand  how, 
receiving  as  they  did  at  any  rate  the  five  books  of 
Moses,  they  could  bring  themselves  to  disown 
angel-existences,  unless,  indeed,  it  was  under  the 


f>63 

influence  of  a strong  repellant  influence  winch 
came  from  the  extravagant  notions  entertained 
on  the  point  by  their  antagonists  the  Pharisees.  It 
must,  however,  he  said  that  this  denial,  whence- 
soever it  came,  shows  how  entirely  theirs  was  a 
system  of  negatives  and  of  materialism;  and 
being  such  it  could,  with  all  its  elevated  moral 
conceptions,  do  very  little  for  the  improvement  of 
individuals  and  the  advancement  of  society. 

A very  natural  consequence  was,  that  their 
doctrine  held  sway  over  but  comparatively  few 
persons,  and  those  mostly  men  distinguished  by 
wealth  or  station  {Antiq.  xviii.  1.  4;  xiii.  10.6). 
They  were  the  freethinkers  of  the  day,  and  free- 
thinking  is  ordinarily  the  attribute  only  of  the 
cultivated  and  the  fortunate.  Least  of  all  men 
are  those  of  a sceptical  turn  gregarious.  They 
stand  on  their  own  individuality  ; they  enjoy  their 
own  independence;  they  look  down  on  the  vulgar 
crowd  with  pity,  if  not  with  contempt.  'They  may 
serve  quietly  to  undermine  a social  system,  but 
they  rarely  assume  the  proselyting  character 
which  gave  Voltaire  and  Diderot  their  terrible 
power  for  evil.'  It  has  been  reserved  for  modern 
infidelity  to  be  zealous  and  enthusiastic. 

What  Josephus  says  of  the  repulsiveness  of  their 
manners  (. De  Bell.Jud . ii.  8.14)  is  in  keeping 
with  their  general  principles.  A sceptical  mate- 
rialism is  generally  accompanied  by  an  undue 
share  of  self-confidence  and  self-esteem,  which  are 
among  the  least  sociable  of  human  qualities. 

The  Sadducees,  equally  with  the  Pharisees,  were 
not  only  a religious  but  apolitical  party.  Indeed 
as  long  as  the  Mosaic  polity  retained  an  influ- 
ence, social  policy  could  not  be  sundered  from 
religion  ; for  religion  was  everything.  Accord- 
ingly the  Sadducees  formed  a part  of  the  Jewish 
parliament,  the  Sanhedrim  (Acts  xxiii.  6),  and 
sometimes  enjoyed  the  dignity  of  supreme  power 
in  the  high-priesthood.  Their  possession  of  power, 
however,  seems  to  have  been  owing  mainly  to 
their  individual  personal  influence,  as  men  of 
superior  minds  or  eminent  position,  since  the 
general  current  of  favour  ran  adversely  to  them, 
and  their  enemies,  the  Pharisees,  spared  no  means 
to  keep  them  and  their  opinions  in  the  back 
ground.  Accordingly  in  the  Rabbinical  writings 
they  are  branded  with  the  name  of  heretics, 

(Othon.  Lex.  Babb.  p.  270;  see  also  Trigland, 
Syntagma  de  Tribus  Sect  is ; Ugolini,  Trihcere- 
siam,  in  vol.  xxii.  of  his  Thesaurus ; Staudlin, 
Gesch.  der  Sittenlehre  Jesti,  i.  443,  sq. — J.  R.  B 
SAIL.  | Ship.] 

SAIT.  [Zait.] 

SALACH  OJ^,  Lev.  xi.  17 ; Deut.  xiv.  17),  in 
common  with  the  usual  Greek  version  Karapdicrris, 
is  considered  to  have  reference  to  darting,  rushing, 
or  stooping  like  a falcon ; and  accordingly  ha3 
been  variously  applied  to  the  eagle,  the  jerfalcon, 
the  gannet,  the  great  gull,  and  the  cormorant.  Of 
the  Hebrew  Salach  nothing  is  known  but  that  it 
was  an  unclean  bird.  The  Greek  (carapa/crijs , 
associated  with  the  last  mentioned,  though  noticed 
by  several  authors,  is  not  referred  always  to  the 
same  genus,  some  making  it  a minor  gull,  others  a 
diver.  Cuvier  considers  Gesner  to  be  right  in  con- 
sidering it  to  denote  a gull,  and  it  might  certainly 
be  applied  with  propriety  to  the  black-back cc 
gull,  ‘ Laras  marinus,’  or  to  the  glaucous,  ‘ Larus 
glaucus but  although  birds  of  such  powerful 


6G6 


SALACH. 


SALOME. 


win  »■  ami  marine  habitat  are  spread  over  a great 
part  of  the  world,  it.  does  not  appear  that,  if 
Known  at  the  extremity  of  the  Mediterranean, 
they  were  sufficiently  common  to  have  been 
clearly  indicated  by  either  the  Hebrew  or  Greek 
names,  or  to  have  merited  being  noticed  in  the 
Mosaic  prohibition.  Roth  the  above  are  in  gene- 
ral northern  residents,  being  rarely  seen  even  so 
low  as  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  and  the  species  now 
called  ‘ Lestris  catara  'tes  * is  exclusively  Arctic. 


With  regard  to  the  cormorant,  birds  of  that  genus 
are  no  doubt  found  on  the  coasts  of  Palestine, 
where  high  cliffs  extend  to  the  sea-shore;  such,  for 
example,  as  the  ‘ Phalacrocorax  pygmaeus  but 
all  the  species  dive,  and  none  of  them  rush  Hying 
upon  their  prey,  thouglr  that  habit  has  been 
claimed  for  them  by  commentators,  who  have 
mixed  up  the  natural  history  of  ‘cormorants’ 
with  that  of  the  ‘sula’  or  ‘gannet,’  which  really 
darts  from  great  elevations  into  the  sea,  to  catch 
its  prey,  rising  to  the  surface  sometimes  nearly 
half  a minute  after  the  plunge,  as  we  ourselves 
have  witnessed.  But  the  gannet  (solan  goose) 
rarely  comes  farther  south  than  the  British  Chan- 
nel, and  does  not  appear  to  have  been  noticed  in 
the  Mediterranean.  It  is  true  that  several  other 
marine  birds  of  the  north  frecpient  the  Levant; 
but  none  of  them  can  entirely  claim  Aristotle 
and  Oppian’s  characters  of  ‘ cataractes,’  for  though 
the  wide  throat  and  rather  large  head  of  the  dwarf 
cormorant  may  be  adduced,  that  bird  exceeds  in 
stature  the  required  size  of  a small  hawk  ; and 
fishes,  it  may  be  repeated,  swimming  and  diving, 
not  by  darting  down  on  the  wing,  and  is  not  suffi- 
ciently numerous  or  important  to  have  required  the 
attention  of  the  sacred  legislator.  Thus  reduced 
to  make  a choice  where  the  objections  are  less, 
and  the  probabilities  stronger,  we  conclude  the 
salach  to  have  been  a species  of  ‘ tern,’  considered 
to  be  identical  with  the  ‘ Sterna  Caspica,’  so  called 
because  it  is  found  about  the  Caspian  Sea  ; but  it 
is  equally  common  to  the  Polar,  Baltic,  and  Black 
Seas,  and  if  truly  the  same,  is  not  only  abundant 
for  several  months  in  the  year  on  the  coast  of 
Palestine,  but  frequents  the  lakes  and  pools  far 
ii?.and ; flying  across  the  deserts  to  the  Euphrates, 
and  to  the  Persian  and  Red  Seas,  and  proceeding 
up  the  Nile.  It  is  the  largest  of  the  tern  or  sea- 
swallow  genus,  being  about  the  weight  of  a pigeon, 
and  near  two  feet  in  length,  having  a large  black 
naped  head ; powerful,  pointed  crimson  bill  ; a 
white  and  grey  body,  with  forked  tail,  and  wing3 
greatly  exceeding  the  tips  of  the  tail  : the  feet,  are 
very  small,  weak,  arid  but  slightly  webbed,  so 
that  it  swims  perhaps  only  accidentally,  but 
with  sufficient  power  on  land  to  spring  up  and 
to  rise  from  level  ground.  It  flies  with  immense 
velocity,  darting  along  the  surface  of  the  sea 


to  snap  at  mollusca  or  small  fishes,  or  wheel- 
ing through  the  air  in  pursuit  of  insects;  and 
in  calm  weather,  after  rising  to  a great  height,  it 
drops  perpendicularly  down  to  near  the  surface 
of  the  water,  but  never  alights  except  on  land; 
and  it  is  at  all  times  disposed  to  utter  a kind  of 
laughing  scream.  This  tern  nestles  in  high  cliffs, 
sometimes  at  aveiy  considerable  distance  from 
the  sea.  ‘Sterna  Nilotica*  appears  to  be  the 
young  bird,  or  one  nearly  allied. 

Thus  the  species  is  not  likely  to  have  been  un- 
known to  the  Israelites,  even  while  they  were  in 
the  desert;  and  as  the  black  tern,  ‘ Sterna  nigri- 
cans,’ and  perhaps  the  ‘ Procellaria  obscura’  of 
the  same  locality,  may  have  been  confounded  with 
it,  their  number  was  more  than  sufficient  to  cause 
them  to  be  noticed  in  the  list  of  prohibited  birds. 
Still  the  propriety  of  the  identification  of  salach 
with  the  ‘great  tern.’  must  in  some  measure  rest 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  Greek  naTapanTps 
is  the  same.  We  figure  one  that  was  shot  among 
a flight  of  these  birds,  some  distance  up  the  river 
Orontes.— C.  H.  S. 

SAL  A II  (rfc>,  a shoot}  Sept,  and  New  Test. 
2aAa),  a son,  or  grandson,  of  Arphaxad  (Gen.  x. 
24;  xi.  13;  Luke  iii.  35). 

SALAM1S  (2a\ajuls\  one  of  the  chief  cities  of 
Cyprus  on  the  south-east  coast  of  the  islatid  (Acts 
xiii.  5).  It  was  afterwards  called  Constantia, 
and  in  still  later  times  Famagusta  [Cyprus]. 

SALATHIEL.  [Shealtiel.] 

SALEM  peace ; Sept.  2a\-i ?/*),  the  ori 

ginal  name  of  Jerusalem  (Gen.  xiv.  18;  Heb. 
vii.  1,  2),  and  which  continued  to  be  used  poeti- 
cally in  later  times  (Ps.  lxxvi.  2)  [Jerusa- 
i.km]. 

SALIM  (2a\eiV),  a place  near  ^Enon,  where 
John  baptized  (John  iii.  23).  Jerome  places  it 
eight  Roman  miles  from  Scythopolis  (Bethshan), 
which  is  the  same  distance  southward  that  he  and 
Eusebius  assign  to  ./Enon.  Nothing  is  known 
of  this  site.  Some  have  been  led  by  the  name  to 
conceive  that  here,  and  not  at  Jerusalem,  we 
should  seek  the  Salem  of  Melchizedek  (Gen.  xiv. 
18)  [jEnon;  Salem]. 

SALLONIM.  [Sii.i.on  and  Thorns.]" 

SALMON  Qftbp,  clothed ; Sept,  and  New 
Test.  'ZaXp.dov),  the  father  of  Boaz  (Ruth  iv.  21 ; 
Matt.  i.  4,  5 ; Luke  iii.  32),  elsewhere  called 
Salmah,  (Ruth  iv.  20;  1 Chron.  ii.  11). 

SALMONE  (2ctAjuwv?j),  a promontory  forming 
the  eastern  extremity  of  the  island  of  Crete  (Acta 
xxvii.  7). 

SALOME  (SaAwjUTj),  a woman  of  Galilee, 
who  accompanied  Jesus  in  some  of  his  journeys, 
and  ministered  unto  him ; and  was  one  of  those 
who  witnessed  his  crucifixion  and  resurrection 
(Mark  xv.  40  ; xvi.  1).  It  is  gathered,  by  com- 
paring these  texts  with  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  that  she 
was  the  wife  of  Zebedee,  and  mother  of  the 
apostles  James  and  John. 

SALOME  was  also  the  name  (though  not 
given  in  Scripture)  of  that  daughter  of  Herodiaa, 
whose  dancing  before  her  uncle  and  father-in-law, 
Herod  Antipas,  was  instrumental  in  procuring 
the  decapitation  of  John  ihe  Baptist  [Hero- 
di an  Family;  John  the  Baptist). 


SALUTATION. 


SALT. 

SALT  was  procured  by  the  Hebrews 

from  two  sources;  first,  from  rock-salt,  obtained 
from  hills  of  salt,  which  lie  about,  the  southern  ex- 
tremity of  the  Dead  Sea;  and  secondly,  from  the 
waters  of  that -sea,  which,  overflowing  the  banks 
yearly,  and  being  exhaled  by  the  sun  and  the  heat, 
left  behind  a deposit  of  salt  both  abundant  and 
good.  In  the  same  manner  the  Arabs  of  the  present 
day  procure  their  supply  of  salt  from  the  deposits 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  carry  on  a considerable  trade 
in  that  article  throughout  Syria. 

The  uses  to  which  salt  was  anciently  applied 
were  not  dissimilar  to  those  for  which  it  serves  at 
present ; a fact  which  arises  from  the  circumstance 
that  these  uses  depend  on  its  essential  qualities, 
and  on  the  constitution  and  wants  of  the  human 
frame.  It  is  now  known  as  a physiological  fact, 
that  salt  is  indispensable  to  our  health  and  vigour. 
For  this  reason  doubtless  the  use  of  it  was  pro- 
videntially made  agreeable  to  the  palate.  Inde- 
jjendently  of  its  services  to  man  as  an  ingredient 
in  his  food,  salt  is  employed — 1,  as  a manure, 
since  when  used  in  proper  proportions,  it  en- 
riches the  soil ; and  2,  as  an  antiseptic,  as  it 
preserves  flesh  meat  from  corruption.  From  these 
qualities  severally  result  the  applications  of  salt, 
both  natural  and  figurative,  of  which  mention  is 
made  in  Scripture. 

From  Job  vi.  6 it  is  clear  that  salt  was  used  as 
a condiment  with  food.  Salt  was  also  mixed 
with  fodder  for  cattle  (Isa.  xxx.  21),  where  the 
marginal  reading  is  preferable,  ‘ savoury  proven- 
der.’ As  offerings,  viewed  on  their  earthly  side, 
were  a presentation  to  God  of  what  man  found 
good  and  pleasant  for  food,  so  all  meat-offerings 
were  required  to  be  seasoned  with  salt  (Lev.  ii. 
13 ; Spencer,  De  Legibus  Rit.  i.  5.  1).  Salt, 
therefore,  became  of  great  importance  to  Hebrew 
worshippers;  it  was  sold  accordingly  in  the 
Temple  maiket,  and  a large  quantity  was  kept 
in  the  Temple  itself,  in  a chamber  appropriated 
fo  the  purpose  (Maii  Diss.  de  Usu  Salts  Symbol, 
in  rebus  Sacris , Giessen,  1692  ; Wokenius,  De  Sa- 
litura  oblationum  Deo  factar .,  1747  ; Joseph. 
Antiq.  xii.  3.  3 ; Middoth,  v.  3 ; Othon.  Lex. 
Rabb.  p.  66S).  Jewish  tradition  agrees  with 
Ezekiel  xliii.  24,  in  intimating  that  animal  offer- 
ings were  sprinkled  with  salt  (Joseph.  Antiq.  iii. 
9.  1 ; Philo,  ii.  255 ; Hottiuger,  Jur.  Ileb.  Legg. 
p.  168);  as  was  certainly  the  case  wilh  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xxxi.  44 ; 
Ovid,  Fast.  i.  337  ; Spencer,  De  Leg.  Rit.  iii. 

2.  2 ; Lukemacher,  Antiq.  Grcec.  Sacr.  p.  350 ; 
Hottinger,  De  Usu  Salts  in  Cultu  Sacro,  Mar- 
burg, 1708;  Schickeelanz,  De  Salis  usu  in  Sa- 
crific.  Servest.  1758).  The  incense,  ‘ perfume,’  was 
also  to  have  salt  as  an  ingredient  (Exod.  xxx.  35  ; 
marginal  reading  ‘salted'),  where  it  appears  to 
have  been  symbolical,  as  well  of  the  divine  good- 
ness as  of  man’s  gratitude,  on  the  principle  that  of 
every  bounty  vouchsafed  of  God,  it  became  man 
to  make  an  acknowledgment  in  kind. 

As  salt  thus  entered  into  man’s  food,  so,  to  eat 
salt  with  any  one,  was  to  partake  of  his  fare,  toshare 
his  hospitality  ; and  hence,  by  implication,  to  en- 
joy nis  favour,  or  to  be  in  . his  confidence.  Hence, 
also,  salt  became  an  emblem  of  fidelity  and  of  inti- 
mate friendship.  At  the  present  hour  the  Arabs 
regard  as  their  friend  him  who  has  eaten  salt  with 
them,  that  is,  has  partaken  of  their  hospitality 
^Niebuhr,  Beschr.  p.  48;  Roseniniiller,  Morgenl., 


667 

ii.  150) ; in  the  same  way  as,  in  Greece,  those  re- 
garded each  other  as  friends  even  to  distant,  gene- 
rations, between  whom  the  rites  of  hospitality  had 
been  once  exchanged.  The  domestic  sanctity 
which  thus  attached  itself  to  salt  was  much  en- 
hanced in  influence  by  its  religious  applications,  so 
that  it  beeame  symbolical  of  the  most  sacred  and 
binding  of  obligations.  Accordingly  ‘ a covenant 
of  salt 1 nnn,  was  accounted  a very  solemn 
bond  (Num.  xviii.  19  ; 2 Chron.  xiii.  5 ; Lev.  ii. 
13)  : a signification  to  which  force  would  be  given 
by  the  preservative  quality  of  salt  (Bahrdt,  De 
Foedere  Salis ; Zerbech,  De  Fosdere  Salis). 

But  salt,  if  used  too  abundantly,  is  destructive 
of  vegetation  and  causes  a desert.  Hence  arose 
another  class  of  figurative  applications.  Destroyed 
cities  were  sown  with  salt  to  intimate  that  they 
were  devoted  to  perpetual  desolation  (Judg.  ix. 
45)  ; salt  became  a symbol  of  barrenness  (Deut. 
xxix.  23;  Zeph.  ii.  9;  Virg.  Georg,  ii.  238); 
and  ‘a  salt  land  1 (Jer.  xvii.  6)  signifies  a sterile 
and  unproductive  district  (Job  xxxix.  6 ; Alt- 
mann,  Meletem.  Philolog.  Exeg.  i.  47).  By  ex- 
posure to  the  influence  of  the  sun  and  of  the 
atmosphere,  salt  loses  its  savoury  qualities  (Plin. 
Hist.  Nat.  xxx i.  34;  xxxi.  39;  Maundrell,  R, 
162) ; whence  the  striking  and  forcible  language 
of  our  Lord  in  Matt.  v.  13. 

W e have  reserved  to  the  end  reference  to  a sin- 
gular usage  among  the  Israelites,  namely,  wash- 
ing new-born  infants  in  salt  water;  which  was 
regarded  as  so  essential  that  those  could  have 
hardly  any  other  than  an  ill  fate  who  were  de- 
prived of  the  rite  (Ezek.  xvi.  4).  The  practice 
obviously  arose  from  a regard  to  the  preserving, 
the  domestic,  the  moral,  and  the  religious  uses  to 
which  salt  was  applied,  and  of  which  it  became 
the  emblem  (Richter,  De  Usu  Salis  apud  Pris - 
cos  Profano  et  Sacro , Zettan,  1786). — J.  R.  B. 

SALUTATION.  The  frequent  allusion  in 
Scripture  to  the  customary  salutations  of  the  Jews, 
invests  the  subject  with  a higher  degree  of  interest 
than  it  might  otherwise  claim  ; and  it  is  therefore 
fortunate  that  there  are  few  Scriptural  topics, 
which  can  be  better  understood  by  the  help  of  the 
illustrations  derivable  from  the  existing  usages  of 
the  East. 

Most  of  the  expressions  used  in  salutation,  and 
also  those  which  were  used  in  parting,  implied, 
that  the  person  who  employed  them  interceded  foi 
the  other.  Hence  the  word  Tin  bar  ah,  which 
originally  signified  ‘to  bless,’  meant  also  ‘to  sa- 
lute,’ or  ‘ to  welcome,’  and  ‘ to  bid  adieu  ’ (Gen. 
xlvii.  8-11;  2 Kings  iv.  29;  x.  13;  1 Chron. 
xviii.  10). 

The  forms  of  salutation  that  prevailed  among 
the  Hebrews,  so  far  as  can  be  collected  from 
Scripture,  are  the  following  : — 

1 . ‘ Blessed  be  thou  oj  the  Lord,’  or  equivalent 
phrases. 

2.  The  Lord  be  toith  thee. 

3.  1 Peace  be  unto  thee,'  or  ‘ upon  thee,*  or 
1 with  thee.'  In  countries  often  ravaged,  and 
among  people  often  ruined  by  war,  ‘ peace  ’ im- 
plied every  blessing  of  life;  and  this  phrase 
had  therefore  the  force  of  ‘ Prosperous  be  thou.’ 
This  was  the  commonest  of  all  salutations  (Judg. 
xix.  20  ; Ruth  ii.  4 ; 1 Sam.  xxv.  6;  2 Sam.  xx. 
9 ; Ps.  cxxix.  8). 

4.  ‘ Live,  my  lord  ’ ('JIN  iTin\  was  a com- 


668 


SALUTATION 


SALUTATION. 


moa  salutation  among  the  Phoenicians,  and  was 
also  in  use  among"  the  Hebrews,  but  was  by  them 
5tdy  addressed  to  their  kings  in  the  extended  form 
of  ‘ Let  the  king  live  for  ever!’  (1  Kings  i.  31); 
which  was  also  employed  in  the  Babylonian  and 
Persian  courts  (Dan.  ii.  4 ; iii.  9;  v.  10;  vi.  7, 
22  ; Neh.  ii.  3).  This,  which  in  fact  is  no  more 
than  a wish  for  a prolonged  and  prosperous  life, 
has  a parallel  in  the  customs  of  most  nations,  and 
does  not  diil'er  from  the 1 Yivat !’  of  the  Latin  ; the 

‘ Vive  le  Roi  1‘  of  the  French ; or  our  own  ‘ 

for  ever !’ 

5.  Xcups,  xa(peT€,  joy  to  thee ! joy  to  you ! 
rendered  by  Mail!  an  equivalent  of  the  Latin 
Ave  ! Salve!  (Matt,  xxvii.29;  xxviii.  9;  Mark 
xv.  18;  Luke  i.  28;  John  xix.  3). 

The  usages  involved  in  these  oral  salutations, 
seem  not  only  similar  to,  but  identical  with,  those 
still  existing  among  the  Arabians.  These  indeed, 
as  now  observed,  go  upon  the  authority  of  religious 
precepts.  But  it  is  known  that  such  enactments 
of  the  Koran  and  its  commentaries,  merely  em- 
body such  of  the  previously  and  immemorially 
existing  usages  as  the  legislature  wished  to  be 
retained.  Their  most,  common  greeting,  as  among 
the  Jews,  is,  ‘Peace  be  on  you!’  to  which  the  re- 
ply is,  1 On  you  be  peace!’  to  which  is  commonly 
added,  ‘aud  the  mercy  of  God,  and  his  blessings !’ 
This  salutation  is  never  addressed  bv  a Moslem 
to  one  whom  he  knows  to  be  of  another  religion; 
and  if  he  find  that  he  has  by  mistake  thus  sa- 
luted a person  not  of  the  same  faith,  he  generally 
revokes  his  salutation:  so  also  he  sometimes  does 
if  a Moslem  refuses  to  return  his  salutation,  usu- 
ally saying,  ‘ Peace  be  on  us,  and  on  (all)  the  right 
worshippers  of  God!’  This  seems  to  us  a striking 
illustration  of  Luke  x.  5,  6 ; 2 John  xi.  Va- 
rious set  compliments  usually  follow  t his  sal  am  ; 
which,  when  people  intend  to  be  polite,  are  very 
much  extended,  and  occupy  considerable  time. 
Hence  they  are  evaded  in  crowded  streets,  and  by 
persons  in  haste,  as  was  the  case,  for  the  same 
reason  doubtless,  among  the  Jews  (2  Kings  iv. 
29;  Luke  x.  4).  Specimens  of  this  conventional 
intercourse  are  given  by  Lane  (Mod.  Egyptians , 
i.  253),  who  says,  that  to  give  the  whole  would 
occupy  a dozen  of  his  pages.  There  are  set  an- 
swers, or  a choice  of  two  or  three  answers,  to  every 
question  ; and  it  is  accounted  rude  to  give  any 
other  answer  than  that  which  custom  prescribes. 
They  are  such  as  those  by  which  the  Israelites 
probably  prolonged  their  intercourse.  If  one  is 
asked,  ‘How  is  your  health?’  he  replies,  ‘Praise 
be  to  God!’ and  it  is  only  from  the  tone  of  his 
voice  that  the  inquirer  can  tell  whether  he  is  well 
or  ill.  When  one  greets  another  with  the  common 
inquiry,  ‘ Is  it  well  with  thee  ?’  (see  2 Kings  iv. 
25),  the  answer  is,  ‘ God  bless  thee  1’  or  ‘ God 
preserve  thee!’  An  acquaintance  on  meeting 
another  whom  he  has  not  seen  for  several  days,  or 
for  a longer  period,  generally  says,  after  the  salam, 
‘ Thou  hast  made  us  desolate  by  thy  absence 
from  us  ;’  and  is  usually  answered,  ‘ May  God 
not  make  us  desolate  by  thy  absence  1’ 

The  gestures  and  inflections  used  in  salutation 
varied  with  the  dignity  and  station  of  the  person 
saluted  ; as  is  the  case  with  the  Orientals  at  this 
day.  It  is  usual  for  the  person  who  gives  or  returns 
die  salutation,  to  place  at  the  same  time  his  right 
sand  upon  his  breast,  or  to  touch  his  lips,  aud 
then  hi»  forehead  or  turban,  with  the  same  hand. 


This  latter  mode,  which  is  fhe  most  respectful,  is 
often  performed  to  a person  of  suj>erior  rank,  not 
only  at  first,  with  the  salam,  but  also  frequently 
during  a conversation.  In  some  cases  the  bod# 


is  gently  inclined,  while  the  right  hand  is  laid 
upon  the  left  breast.  A person  of  the  lower  or- 
ders, in  addressing  a superior,  does  not  always 
give  the  salam,  but  shows  his  respect  to  high  rank 
by  bending  down  his  hand  to  the  ground,  and 
then  putting  it  to  his  lips  and  forehead.  It  is  a 
common  custom  for  a man  to  kiss  the  hand  of  his 
superior  instead  of  his  own  (generally  on  the  back 
only,  but  sometimes  on  both  back  and  front),  and 
then  to  put  it  to  his  forehead  in  order  to  pay  more 
particular  respect.  Servants  thus  evince  their  re- 
spect towards  their  masters  : when  residing  in 
the  East,  our  own  servants  always  did  this  on 
such  little  occasions  as  arose  beyond  the  usage 
of  their  ordinary  service;  as  on  receiving  a pre- 
sent, or  on  returning  fresh  from  the  public  baths. 
The  son  also  thus  kisses  the  hand  of  his  father, 
and  the  wife  that  of  her  husband.  Very  ofter*, 


however,  the  superior  does  not  allow  this,  but 
only  touches  the  hand  extended  to  take  his ; 
whereupon  the  ot.her.puts  the  hand  that  has  been 
touched  to  his  own  lips  and  forehead.  Thecuetcnri 
of  kissing  the  beard  is  etlil  preserved,  and  follows 
the  first  and  preliminary  gesture ; it  usually  take# 
place  on  meeting  a^ier  an  absence  of  some  dura- 
tion, and  not  as  an  every-day  compliment.  In  Uni 
case,  the  person  who  gives  the  kiss  lays  the  righi 


SAMARIA. 


SAMARIA. 


fft>9 


feand  under  >he  beard,  and  raises  it  slightly  to  his 
lips,  or  rather  supports  it  while  it  receives  his  kiss. 
This  custom  strikingly  illustrates  2 Sam.  xx.  9. 
Tn  Arabia  Petraea,  and  some  other  parts,  it  is 
more  usual  for  persons  to  lay  the  right  sides  of 
their  cheeks  together. 


Among  the  Persians,  persons  in  saluting  under 
the  same  circumstances,  often  kiss  each  other  on 
the  lips;  but  if  one  of  the  individuals  is  of  high 
rank,  the  kiss  is  given  on  the  cheek  instead  of  the 
lips.  This  seems  to  illustrate  2 Sam.  xx.  9 ; 
Gen.  xxix.  11,  13;  xxxiii.  4;  xlviii.  10 — 12; 
Exod.  iv.  27 ; xviii.  7. 

Another  mode  of  salutation  is  usual  among 
friends  on  meeting  after  a journey.  Joining 
their  right  hands  together,  each  of  them  compli- 
ments the  other  upon  his  safety,  and  expresses  his 
wishes  for  his  welfare,  by  repeating,  alternately, 
many  times  the  words  selamat  (meaning  ‘ I congra- 
tulate you  on  your  safety'),  and  teiyibeen  (*  I hope 
you  are  well’).  In  commencing  this  ceremony, 
which  is  often  continued  for  nearly  a minute 
before  they  proceed  to  make  any  particular  in- 
quiries, they  join  their  hands  in  the  same  manner 
as  i3  usually  practised  by  us ; and  at  each  al- 
ternation of  the  two  expressions,  change  the  posi- 
tion of  the  hands.  These  circumstances  further 
illustrate  such  passages  as  2 Kings  iv.  19  ; Luke 
x.  4.  Other  particulars,  more  or  less  connected 
with  this  subject,  may  be  seen  in  Attitudes  ; 
Kiss. 

SAMARIA  watch-height ; 2 afidpeia ), 

a city,  situated  near  the  middle  of  Palestine, 
built  by  Omri,  king  of  Israel,  on  a mountain  or 
bill  of  the  same  name,  about  b c.  925.  It  was 
the  metropolis  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  or  of  the 
ten  tribes.  The  hill  was  purchased  from  the 
owner,  Shen.er,  from  whom  the  city  took  its  name 
(1  Kings  xvi.  23,  24).  The  site  of  the  capital 
was  therefore  a chosen  one  ; ami  all  travellers 
agree  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  in  the  whole 
land  a situation  of  equal  strength,  fertility,  and 
beauty  combined.  ‘In  all  these  particulars,’  says 
Dr.  Robinson,  ‘ it  lias  greatly  the  advantage  over 
Jerusalem1  {Bibl.  Researches,  iii.  148).  Samaria 
continued  to  be  the  capital  of  Israel  for  two  cen- 
turies, till  the  carrying  away  of  the  ten  tribes  by 
Shalmaneser,  about  b.c.  720  (2  Kings  xvii.  3,  5). 
During  all  this  time  it  was  the  seat  of  idolatry, 
and  is  often  as  such  denounced  by  the  prophets, 
sometimes  in  connection  with  Jerusalem.  It  was 
‘die  seat  of  a temple  of  Baal,  built  by  Ahab,  and 


destroyed  by  Jenu  (1  Kings  xvi.  32,  33;  2 Kings 
x.  18-28).  It  was  the  scene  of  many  of  the  acts 
of  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha,  connected  with 
the  various  famines  of  the  land,  the  unexpected 
plenty  of  Samaria,  and  the  several  deliverances 
of  the  city  from  the  Syrians.  After  the  exile  of 
the  ton  tribes,  Samaria  appears  to  have  continued, 
for  a time  at  least,  the  chief  city  of  the  foreigners 
brought  to  occupy  their  place;  although Shechem 
soon  became  the  capital  of  the  Samaritans  as  a 
religious  sect.  John  Hyrcanus  took  the  city  after 
a year’s  siege,  and  razed  it  to  the  ground  (Joseph. 
Antiq.,  xiii.  10.  3 ; De  Bell.  Jnd.,  i.  2.  7).  Yet  it 
must  soon  have  revived,  as  it  is  not  long  after  men- 
tioned as  an  inhabited  place  i:i  the  possession  of 
the  Jews.  Pompey  restored  it  to  its  former  pos- 
sessors ; and  it  was  afterwards  rebuilt  by  Gabinius 
(Joseph.  Antiq .,  xiii.  5.  4 ; xiv.  4.  4;  xiv.  5.  3). 
Augustus  bestowed  Samaria  on  Herod  ; who 
eventually  rebuilt  the  city  with  great  magni- 
ficence, and  gave  it  the  name  of  Sebaste  (which 
is  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Latin  name  or 
epithet  Augustus),  in  honour  of  that  emperor 
{Antiq.,  xv.  7.  3 ; De  Bell.  Jud.,  xv.  7.  7 ; xv. 
8.  5).  Here  Herod  planted  a colony  of  6000 
persons,  composed  partly  of  veteran  soldiers,  and 
partly  of  people  from  the  environs  ; enlarged  the 
circumference  of  the  city;  and  surrounded  it 
with  a strong  wall  twenty  stades  in  circuit.  In 
the  midst  of  the  city — that  is  to  say,  upon  the 
summit  of  the  hill — he  left  a sacred  place  of  a 
stade  and  a half,  splendidly  decorated,  and  here 
lie  erected  a . temple  to  Augustus,  celebrated  for 
its  magnitude  and  beauty.  The  whole  city  was 
greatly  ornamented,  and  became  a strong  fortress 
(Joseph.  Antiq.,  xv.  8.5;  De  Bell.  Jud.,  i.  21.  2; 
Strabo,  xvi.  2.  13). 

Such  was  the  Samaria  of  the  time  of  the  New 
Testament,  where  the  Gospel  was  preached  by 
Philip,  and  a church  was  gathered  by  the  apostles 
(Acts  viii.  5,  9,  sq.).  Nothing  is  known  of  Sebaste 
in  the  following  centuries,  except  from  the  coins, 
of  which  there  are  several,  extending  from  Nero  to 
Geta  (Eckhel,  iii.  440;  Mionnet,  ,Mecl.  Antiq., 
v.  513).  Septimius  Severus  appears  to  have  esta- 
blished there  a Roman  colony  in  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century  (Cellarius,  Not.  Orb.,  ii.  432). 
Eusebius  scarcely  mentions  the  city  as  extant ; 
but  it  is  often  named  by  Jerome  and  other  writers 
of  the  same  and  a later  age  (adduced  in  Reland's 
Palcestina,  pp.  979-981).  Samaria  was  early  an 
episcopal  see.  Its  bishop,  Marius,  or  Marinus, 
was  present  at  the  council  of  Nice  in  a.d.  325  ; 
and  Pelagius,  the  last  of  six  others  whose  names 
are  preserved,  attended  the  council  of  Jerusalem 
in  a.d.  536.  The  city,  along  with  Nabulus,  fell 
into  the  power  of  the  Moslems  during  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem  ; and  we  hear  but  little  more  of  it  till 
the  time  of  the  Crusades.  At  what  time  the  city  of 
Herod  became  desolate,  no  existing  accounts  state  ; 
but  all  the  notices  of  the  fourth  century  and  later 
lead  to  the  inference  lliaf  its  destruction  had 
already  taken  place. 

The  crusaders  established  a Latin  bishopric  at 
Sebaste ; and  the  title  was  continued  in  tire  Romish 
church  till  the  fourteenth  century  (Le  Quien, 
Oriens  Christ,  iii.  1290).  Saladin  marched 
through  it  in  a.d.  1184,  after  his  repulse  from 
Kerak  (Abulfed.  Annul,  a.ii.  580).  Benjamin 
of  Tudela  describes  it  as  having  been  ‘ formerly 
a very  strong  city,  and  situated  on  the  mouKt, 


(70 


SAMARIA. 


SAMARIA. 


in  a fine  country,  richly  watered,  and  surrounded 
by  gardens,  vineyards,  orchards,  and  olive  groves.’ 
He  adds  that  no  Jews  were  living  there  ( Itiner . 
ed.  Asher,  p.  66).  Phocas  and  Brocardus  speak 
only  of  the  church  and  tomb  of  John  the  Baptist, 
and  of  the  Greek  church  and  monastery  on  the 
summit  of  the  hill.  Notices  of  the  place  occur 
in  the  travellers  of  the  fourteenth,  sixteenth, 
and  seventeenth  centuries;  nor  are  they  all  so 
meagre  as  Dr.  Robinson  conceives.  That  of 
Morison,  for  instance,  is  full  and  exact  ( Voyage 
du  Mont  Sinai,  pp.  230-233).  Scarcely  any 
traces  of  the  earlier  or  later  Samaria  could  then 
be  perceived,  the  materials  having  been  used  by 
the  inhabitants  for  the  construction  of  their  own 
mean  dwellings.  The  then  residents  were  an  ex- 
tremely poor  and  miserable  set  of  people.  In  the 
eighteenth  century  the  place  appears  to  have  been 
left  unexplored  ; but  in  the  present  century  it  has 
often  been  visited  and  described. 


480.  [Samaria:  Church  of  St.  John.] 


The  Hill  of  Samaria  is  an  oblong  mountain  of 
considerable  elevation,  and  very  regular  in  form, 
situated  in  the  midst  of  a broad  deep  valley,  the 
continuation  of  that  of  Nabulus  (Shechem), 
which  here  expands  into  a breadth  of  live  or  six 
miles.  Beyond  this  valley,  which  completely 
isolates  the  hill,  the  mountains  rise  again  on 
every  side,  forming  a complete  wall  around  the 
city.  They  are  terraced  to  the  tops,  sown  in 
grain,  and  planted  with  olives  and  figs,  in  the 
midst  of  which  a number  of  handsome  villages 
appear  to  great  advantage,  their  white  stone  cot- 
tages contrasting  strikingly  with  the  verdure  of 
the  trees.  ‘The  Hill  of  Samaria’  itself  is  culti- 
vated from  its  base,  the  terraced  sides  and  sum- 
mits being  covered  with  corn  and  with  olive- 
trees.  About  midway  up  the  ascent  the  hill' is 
surrounded  by  a narrow  terrace  of  level  land, 
like  a belt;  below  which  the  roots  of  the  hill 
spread  off  more  gradually  into  the  valleys. 
Higher  up,  too,  are  the  marks  of  slight  terraces, 
once  occupied,  perhaps,  by  the  streets  of  the 
ancient  city.  The  ascent  of  the  hill  is  very  steep, 
arid  the  narrow  footpath  winds  among  the  moun- 


tains through  substantial  cottages  of  the  modern 
Sebustieh  (the  Arabic  form  of  Sebaste),  which 
appear  to  have  been  constructed  to  a great  extent 
of  ancient  materials,  very  superior  in  siae  a*'d 
quality  to  anything  which  could  at  this  day  be 
wrought  into  an  Arab  habitation.  The  first  object 
which  attracts  the  notice  of  the  traveller,  aTid  at 
the  same  time  the  most,  conspicuous  ruin  of  the 
place,  is  the  church  dedicated  to  John  ihe  Baptist, 
erected  on  the  spot  which  an  old  tradition  fixed 
as  the  place  of  his  burial,  if  not  of  bis  martyrdom. 
It  is  said  to  have  been  built  by  Ihe  Empress  He-, 
lena;  but  the  architecture  limits  its  antiquity  to 
the  period  of  the  crusades,  although  a portion  of 
the  eastern  end  seems  to  have  been  of  earlier  date. 
There  is  a blending  of  Greek  and  Saracenic  styles, 
which  is  particularly  observable  in  the  interior, 
where  there  are  several  pointed  arches.  Others 
are  round.  The  columns  follow  no  regular  order, 
while  the  capitals  and  ornaments  present  a motley 
combination,  not  to  be  found  in  any  church 
erected  in  or  near  the  age  of  Constantine.  The 
length  of  the  edifice  is  153  feet  long  inside,  besides 
a porch  of  10  feel,  and  the  breadth  is  75  feet. 
The  eastern  end  is  rounded  in  the  common  Greek 
style;  and  vesting,  as  it  does,  upon  a precipitous 
elevation  of  nearly  100  feet  immediately  above 
the  valley,  it  is  a noble  and  striking  monument. 
Within  the  enclosure  is  a common  Turkish  tomb  ; 
and  beneath  it,  at  a depth  reached  by  21  stone 
steps,  is  a sepulchre,  three  or  four  paces  square, 
where,  according  to  the  tradition,  John  the  Baptist 
was  interred  after  he  had  been  slain  by  Herod. 
This  tradition  existed  in  the  days  of  Jerome;  but 
there  is  no  earlier  trace  of  it:  and  if  Josephus  is 
correct  in  stating  that  John  was  beheaded  in  the 
castle  of  Machaerus,  on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea 
(Antiq.  xviii.  5.  2),  his  burial  in  Samaria  is 
very  improbable. 

On  approaching  the  summit  of  the  bill,  the 
traveller  comes  suddenly  upon  an  area,  once  sur- 
rounded by  limestone  columns,  of  which  fifteen  are 
still  standing  and  two  prostrate.  These  columns 
form  two  rows,  thirty-two  paces  apvrt,  while  less 
than  two  paces  intervene  between  the  columns. 
They  measure  seven  feet  nine  inches  in  circum- 
ference; but  there  is  no  trace  of  the  order  of 
their  architecture,  nor  are  there  any  foundations 
to  indicate  the  nature  of  the  edifice  to  which  they 
belonged.  Some  refer  them  to  Herod’s  temple  to 
Augustus,  others  to  a Greek  church  which  seems 
to  have  once  occupied  the  summit  of  the  hill. 
The  descent  of  the  hill  on  the  W.S.W.  side  brings 
the  traveller  to  a very  remarkable  colonnade, 
which  is  easily  traceable  by  a great  number  of 
columns,  erect  or  prostrate,  along  the  side  of  the 
hill  for  at  least  one-third  of  a mile,  where  it  ter- 
minates at  a heap  of  ruins,  near  the  eastern  ex- 
tremity of  the  ancient  site.  The  columns  are  sixteen 
feet  high,  two  feet  in  diameter  at  the  base,  and  one 
foot  eight  inches  at  the  top.  The  capitals  have 
disappeared  ; but  the  shafts  retain  their  polish, 
and,  when  not  broken,  are  in  good  preservation. 
Eighty-two  of  these  columns  are  still  erect,  and 
the  number  of  those  fallen  and  broken  must  he 
much  greater.  Most  of  them  are  of  the  lime- 
stone common  to  the  region  ; hut  some  are  of  white 
marble,  and  some  of  granite.  The  mass  of  ruins  in 
which  this  colonnade  terminates  toward  the  west 
is  composed  of  blocks  of  hewn  stone,  covering  no 
great  area  on  the  slope  of  the  hill,  many  feet  lowci 


SAMARITANS. 


SAMARITANS. 


671 


chan  the  summit.  Neither  the  situation  nor  extent 
of  this  pile  favours  the  notion  of  its  having  been  a 
palace;  nor  is  it  easy  to  conjecture  the  design  of 
the  edifice.  The  colonnade,  the  remains  of  which 
now  stand  solitary  and  mournful  in  the  midst  of 
ploughed  fields,  may,  however,  with  little  hesita- 
tion, be  referred  to  the  time  of  Herod  the  Great, 
and  must  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  some  one 
of  the  splendid  structures  with  which  he  adorned 
the  city.  In  the  deep  ravine  which  bounds  the  city 
on  the  north,  there  is  another  colonnade,  not  visited 
by  Dr.  Robinson,  but  fully  described  by  Dr.  Olin 
( Travels , ii.  371-373).  The  area  in  which  these 
columns  stand  is  completely  shut  in  by  hills,  with 
the  exception  of  an  opening  on  the  north-east ; 
and  so  peculiarly  sequestered  is  the  situation,  that 
it  is  only  visible  from  a few  points  of  the  heights 
of  the  ancient  site,  by  which  it  is  overshadowed. 
The  columns,  of  which  a large  number  are  entire 
and  several  in  fragments,  are  erect,  and  arranged 
in  a quadrangle,  196  paces  in  length,  and  64  in 
breadth.  They  are  three  paces  asunder,  which 
would  give  170  columns  as  the  whole  number 
when  the  colonnade  was  complete.  The  columns 
Tesernble  in  size  and  material  those  of  the  colon- 
nade last  noticed,  and  appear  to  belong  to  the 
same  age.  These  also  probably  formed  part  of 
Herod’s  city,  though  it  is  difficult  to  determine 
the  use  to  which  the  colonnade  was  appropriated. 
Dr.  Olin  is  poss'bly  right  in  his  conjecture,  that 
this  was  one  of  tne  places  of  public  assembly  and 
amusement  which  Herod  introduced  into  his  do- 
minions (Robinson,  Researches , iii.  136-149 ; 
Olin,  Travels,  ii.  366-374;  Buckingham,  Tra- 
vels in  Palestine , pp.  512-517;  Richardson, 
Travels,  ii.  409-413  ; Schubert,  Morgenland,  iii. 
156-162;  Raumer,  Palastina,  p.  158 ; Maun- 
drell,  Journey , pp.  78,  79). 

SAMARITANS.  In  the  books  of  Kings 
there  are  brief  notices  of  the  origin  of  the  people 
called  Samaritans.  The  ten  tribes  which  re- 
volted from  Rehoboam,  son  of  Solomon,  chose 
Jeroboam  for  their  king.  After  his  elevation 
to  the  throne  he  set  up  golden  calves  at  Dan 
and  Bethel,  lest  repeated  visits  of  his  subjects  to 
Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  of  worshipping  the  true 
God,  should  withdraw  their  allegiance  from  him- 
self. Afterwards  Samaria,  built  by  Omri,  became 
the  metropolis  of  Israel,  and  thus  the  separation 
between  Judah  and  Israel  was  rendered  complete. 
The  people  took  the  name  Samaritans  from  the 
capital  city.  In  the  ninth  year  of  Hosea,  Samaria 
was  taken  by  the  Assyrians  under  Shalmaneser, 
who  carried  away  the  inhabitants  into  captivity, 
and  introduced  colonies  into  their  place  from 
Babylon,  Cuthah,  Ava,  Hamath,  and  Sephar- 
vaim.  These  new  inhabitants  carried  along  with 
them  their  own  idolatrous  worship ; and  on  being 
infested  with  lions,  sent  to  Esarhaddon,  king  of 
Assyria.  A priest  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  accord- 
ingly dispatched  to  them,  who  came  and  dwelt  in 
Bethel,  teaching  the  people  how  they  should  fear 
the  Lord.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  people  were  a 
mixed  race.  The  greater  part  of  the  Israelites  had 
been  carried  away  captive  by  the  Assyrians,  in- 
cluding the  rich,  the  strong,  and  such  as  were  able 
to  bear  arms.  But  the  poor  and  the  feeble  had 
been  left.  The  country  had  not  been  so  entirely 
depopulated  as  to  possess  no  Israelite  whatever.  The 
dregs  of  the  popalac®,  particularly  those  who  ap- 
peared incapable  of  active  service,  were  not  taken 


away  by  the  victors.  With  them,  therefore,  th« 
heathen  colonists  became  incorporated.  But  the 
latter  were  far  more  numerous  than  the  former, 
and  had  all  power  in  their  own  hands.  The  rem- 
nant of  the  Israelites  was  so  inconsiderable  and 
insignificant  as  not  to  affect,  to  any  important 
extent,  the  opinions  of  the  new  inhabitants.  As 
the  people  were  a mixed  race,  their  religion  also 
assumed  a mixed  character.  In  it  the  worship  of 
idols  was  associated  with  that  of  the  true  God. 
But  apostacy  from  Jehovah  was  not  universal. 
On  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  the  Samaritans  wished  to  join  them  in 
rebuilding  the  Temple,  saying,  ‘ Let  us  build  with 
you  ; for  we  seek  your  God,  as  ye  do  ; and  we  do 
sacrifice  unto  him  since  the  days  of  Esarhaddon, 
king  of  Assur,  which  brought  us  u.p  hither’  (Ezra 
iv.  2).  But  the  Jews  declined  the  profi'ered  assist- 
ance ; and  from  this  time  the  Samaritans  threw 
every  obstacle  in  their  way.  Hence  arose  that 
inveterate  enmity  between  the  two  nations  which 
afterwards  increased  to  such  a height  as  to  become 
proverbial.  In  the  reign  of  Darius  Noth  us,  Ma- 
nassas, son  of  the  Jewish  high-priest,  married  the 
daughter  of  Sanballat  the  Samaritan  governor ; 
and  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  repudiating  her,  as 
the  law  of  Moses  required,  went  over  to  the  Sama- 
ritans, and  became  high-priest  in  the  temple  which 
his  father-in-law  built  for  him  on  Mount  Gerizim. 
From  this  time  Samaria  became  a refuge  for  all 
malcontent  Jews;  and  the  very  name  of  each 
people  became  odious  to  the  other.  About  the 
year  b.c.  109,  John  Hyrcanus,  high-priest  of  the 
Jews,  destroyed  the  city  and  temple  of  the  Sama- 
ritans ; but,  b.c.  25,  Herod  rebuilt  them  at  great 
expense.  In  their  new  temple,  however,  the  Sa- 
maritans could  not  be  induced  to  oiler  sacrifices, 
but  still  continued  to  worship  on  Gerizim.  At 
the  present  day  they  have  dwindled  down  to  a few 
families.  Shechem,  now  called  Nabulus,  is  their 
place  of  abode.  They  still  possess  a copy  of  the 
Mosaic  law. 

A different  account  of  the  origin  of  this  people 
has  been  given  by  Hengstenberg,  whom  Hiiver- 
nick  and  Robinson  follow.  According  to  this 
learned*  writer,  all  the  inhabitants  were  carried 
away  into  Assyria.  None  were  left  in  the  land  by 
the  conquerors.  Shalmaneser  greatly  weakened 
the  ten  tribes,  but  did  not  extinguish  the  king- 
dom of  Israel,  because  at  his  invasion  many  of 
the  people  took  refuge  in  the  most  inaccessible 
and  retired  parts  of  their  country,  or  fled  into 
Judah.  Afterwards  they  returned  by  degrees; 
and  when  Esarhaddon  came  against  them,  they 
were  cairied  away  entirely.  From  the  time  of 
Esarhaddon  there  were  none  but  heathens  in  the 
land.  The  Samaritans  were  wholly  of  heathen 
origin.  Hence  they  requested  the  Assyrian  king 
to  send  them  an  Israelite  priest  (JBeitriige  zur 
Einleit.  ins  alte  Testam.  i.  177  ; ii.  3,  &c.). 
Want  of  space  prevents  us  from  detailing  the 
grounds  of  this  view,  or  from  entering  into  its 
refutation.  It  has  been  ably  combated  by  Kalkar 
(in  Pelt's  Mitarbeiten  for  1840,  drittes  Heft , p. 
21,  &c.),  to  whom  the  reader  is  referred.  We 
cannot  but  reject  the  novel  hypothesis,  notwith- 
standing the  ability  with  which  it  has  been  put 
forward. 

With  the  remnant  above  referred  to  a corre- 
spondence was  formerly  maintained  by  several 
Ir&rned  Europeans,  but  without  leading  to  any  iuv 


672  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH. 


jiortant  result.  It  was  commenced  by  Joseph 
Scaliger,  5n  1559;  and  resumed,  after  a century, 
by  several  learned  men  in  England,  in  1675  ; and 
bv  the  great  Ethiopic  scholar,  Job  Ludolf,  in  1684. 
The  illustrious  Orientalist,  De  Sacy,  also  held 
correspondence  with  them.  All  their  letters  to 
England  and  France,  and  all  that  was  then  known 
respecting  them,  lie-published  in  a work  entitled, 
Correspondance  des  Samar  itains,  &c.  in  Notices 
ct  Extr.  des  MSS.  de  la  Biblioth.  du  Roi,  tom. 
xii.).  The  best  accounts  of  them  given  by  modern 
travellers  are  by  Pliny  Fisk  ( American  Mission- 
ary Herald  for  1824),  who  visited  them  in  1823 ; 
and  by  Robinson  and  Smith,  who  visited  them  in 
1 838  (see  Biblical  Researches  and  Travels  in 
Palestine , iii.  113-116  ).— S.  I). 

SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH.  The  Sa- 
maritan Pentateuch  was  mentioned  by  ttie  fathers 
Eusebius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Procopius  of 
Gaza,  Diodorus,  Jerome,  anti  others.  After  it 
had  lain  concealed  for  upwards  of  a Ihousand 
years,  its  existence  began  to  be  doubted.  At 
length  Peter  Della  Valle,  in  1616,  procured  a 
complete  copy,  which  De  Sancy,  then  French 
ambassador  at  Const antinople,  sent  to  the  library 
of  the  Oratoire  at  Paris,  in  1623.  It  was  first 
described  by  Morin,  and  afterwards  printed  in  the 
Paris  Polvglott.  Not  long  after,  Archbishop 
Ussher  procured  six  copies  from  the  East;  and  so 
great  was  I he  number  in  the  time  of  Kennicott, 
that  he  collated  sixteen  for  his  edition  of  the  He- 
brew Bible. 

In  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  and  the  source  from  which  the  docu- 
ment came,  various  opinions  have  been  entertained. 

1st.  The  hypothesis  maintained  by  Ussher  was, 
that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  the  production 
of  an  impostor  named  Dositheus,  the  founder  of  a 
sect  among  the  Samaritans,  and  who  pretended  to 
be  the  Messiah.  It  is  thought,  that  he  compiled  this 
copy  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Septuagint,  adding,  expunging,  and  altering,  ac- 
cording to  his  pleasure.  Ussher  appeals  to  Origen 
and  Photius,  whose  testimony,  however,  when 
examined,  affords  no  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this 
s'atement.  It  is  well  known  that  the  ‘Alexan- 
drian Samaritans  opposed  Dositheus,  and  would 
not  have  received  such  a compilation.  Besides, 
had  lie  corrupted  any  passages,  it.  is  natural  to 
think  that  he  would  have  perverted  those  relating 
to  the  Messiah,  that,  they  might  be  more  easily 
referred  to  himself.  But  places  of  this  nature  in 
the  Samaritan  copies  agree  with  the  Hebrew  ; and 
we  may  be  farther  assured,  that  the  Jews  would 
not  have  failed  to  mention  such  a fact  as  a just 
ground  of  accusation  against  the  Samaritans. 

2ndly.  Le  Clerc  and  Poncet  imagined,  that 
this  copy  of  the  law  was  made  by  the  Israelitish 
priest  who  was  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria  to  in- 
struct the  new  inhabitants  in  the  religion  of  the 
country.  This  is  a mere  hypothesis,  unsupported 
by  historical  testimony.  It  was  not  necessary  for 
the  priest  to  compose  a new  system,  but.  to  instruct 
the  people  out  of  the  Pentateuch  as  it  then  existed. 
When  the  existing  copy  was  sufficient  for  his 
purpose,  he  would  not  have  undertaken  the  labour 
of  preparing  an  entirely  new  work. 

3rdly.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Hottinger,  Pri- 
deaux,  Fitzgerald,  and  others,  that  Manasseh 
transcribed  one  of  Ezra's  corrected  copies  which 
be  took  with  him  from  Jerusalem,  into  the  old 


character  to  which  they  were  accustomed.  In 
proof  of  this  hypothesis  it  has  beet,  affirmed,  that 
the  variations  in  the  Samaritan  copy  from  the 
Hebrew  are  such  as  were  occasioned  in  the  tran- 
scription by  mistaking  letters  similar  in  Hebrew, 
but  unlike  in  the  Samaritan.  This  supposition 
has  been  completely  set  aside  by  Kopp,  in  his 
Bilder  und  Schriften  der  Vorzeit ; and  by  II  up- 
feld,  in  his  Beleuchtung  dunkler  Stellen,  u.  s.  w. 
( Studien  und  Kritikch,  1830),  in  which  it  is 
convincingly  shown  that,  the  present  Hebrew 
square  character  had  no  existence  till  long  after 
Ezra;  and  that;  so  far  from  owing  its  origin  to 
Chaldaea  and  having  been  introduced  by  Ezra,  it 
was  merely  the  gradual  work  of  time.  When 
Manasseh  fled  from  Jerusalem,  the  Samaritan 
and  Hebrew  characters  must  have  been  substan- 
tially the  same. 

4t.hly.  Others  are  of  opinion  that  copies  of  the 
Pentateuch  must  have  been  in  the  hands  of  Israel 
from  the  time  of  Rehoboam,  as  well  as  among 
Judah;  that,  they  were  preserved  by  the  former 
equally  as  by  the  latter.  This  hypothesis,  first 
advanced  by  Morin,  has  been  adopted  by  Houbi- 
gant,  Cappellus,  Kennicott,  Miehaelis,  Eichhorn, 
Bauer,  Bertholdt,  Stuart,  and  others,  and  appears 
to  be  the  true  one.  The  prophets,  who  frequently 
inveigh  against  the  Israelites  for  their  idolatry  and 
their  crimes,  never  accuse  them  of  being  destitute 
of  the  law,  or  ignorant,  of  its  contents.  It  is  wholly 
improbable,  too,  that  the  people,  when  carried 
captive  into  Assyria,  took  with  them  all  the  copies 
of  the  law.  Thus  we  are  brought  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  the  Samaritan,  as  well  as  the  Jewish 
copy,  originally  flowed  from  the  autograph  of 
Moses.  The  two  constitute,  in  fact,  different 
recensions  of  the  same  wor/c,  and  coalesce  in 
point  of  antiquity. 

If  this  account  of  the  Samaritan  codex  be  cor- 
rect, it  is  easy  to  perceive  the  reason  why  the 
Samaritans  did  not  receive  all  the  Jewish  books 
previously  written.  When  the  schism  of  the 
tribes  took  place,  the  Pentateuch  was  commonly 
circulated,  and  usually  regarded  as  a sacred 
national  collection,  containing  all  their  laws  and 
institutions.  Though  David's  Psalms  and  some 
of  Solomon’s  compositions  may  also  have  been 
written  at  that  time;  yet  the  former  were  chiefly 
in  the  hands  of  the  Levites  who  regulated  the 
Temple  music,  and  were  employed  in  the  public 
service  of  Jehovah ; while  the  latter  were  doubt- 
less disliked  by  the  ten  tribes  on  account  of  their 
author,  who  lived  at  Jerusalem,  and  were  rare 
from  the  non-transcription  of  copies.  The  pro- 
phets must  have  been  unwelcome  to  the  Israelites, 
because  they  uttered  many  tilings  against  them, 
affirming  that  Jehovah  could  not  be  worshipped 
with  acceptance  in  any  other  place  than  Jeru- 
salem. This  circumstance  was  sufficient  to  prevent 
that  people  from  receiving  any  of  the  prophetical 
writings  till  Ezra's  time,  when  their  hatred  to  him 
and  his  associates  was  so  great,  that  they  would 
not  have  admit  ted  any  collection  of  the  Scriptures 
coming  through  such  hands.  Whatever  other 
books,  besides  the  Pentateuch,  were  written  in  the 
time  of  Rehoboam  must  have  been  comparatively 
unknown  to  the  mass  of  the  people.  This  fact,  in 
connection  with  political  considerations,  was  suf- 
ficient to  lead  the  Israelites  to  reject  most,  except 
those  of  Moses. 

Iii  addition  to  the  Pentateuch,  the  Samarltent 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH.  673 


tore  the  book  of  Joshua,  but  it  did  not  always 
form  part  of  their  canon.  Their  Joshua  does  not 
appear  to  be  the  same  as  the  Old  Testament  book. 
On  the  contrary  it  must  have  been  composed  long 
■after,  out  of  the  inspired  records  of  Joshua,  Judges, 
and  Samuel,  to  which  have  been  added  fables  and 
Oriental  traditions.  Such  a compilation  can 
have  no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the  authentib 
Jewish  writing. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  what  is  the  reason  why 
this  people  have  not  the  books  of  Joshua  and 
Judges,  in  addition  to  the  Mosaic?  The  question 
is  of  difficult  solution.  Hengstenberg  affirms  that 
the  problem  is  inexplicable  on  the  common  hypo- 
thesis. If  the  people  were  a mixed  race,  he  sup- 
poses that  no  rational  account  can  be  given  why 
Joshua  and  Judges  should  not  have  been  always 
received  by  them  along  with  the  Pentateuch. 
These  books  had  been  written  and  were  current 
among  the  people  long  before  the  separation  of  the 
tribes.  We  do  not  see,  however,  that  Hengsten- 
berg’s  own  view  materially  lessens  the  difficulty. 
If  the  heathen  Samaritans  received  the  Pentateuch 
from  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  or  rather  from 
tnese  tribes  in  Assyrian  captivity,  why  did  they 
ask  for  no  more  than  the  Pentateuch,  or  why  was 
it  alone  sent  to  them  ? 

For  the  solution  of  the  question  it  should  be 
considered,  that  the  priests,  or  such  as  were  in 
possession  of  the  sacred  books,  had  been  carried 
away,  together  with  the  persons  best  acquainted 
with  such  writings,  who  may  be  supposed  to  have 
had  the  great  majority  of  the  copies  then  current. 
The  holy  books,  too,  were  not  generally  circu- 
lated among  the  people,  nrjany  of  whom,  may  have 
jeen  unable  to  read  them.  The  lower  orders  in 
particular  were  dependent  for  their  religious  in- 
formation on  the  prophets  and  priests;  for  parents 
had  not  fulfilled  the  Mosaic  law  in  diligently 
teaching  their  children.  Besides,  the  same  cir- 
cumstance that  led  them  fo  reject  the  subsequent 
books  would  incline  them,  at  least,  to  reject 
Joshua  and  Judges.  There  was  in  the  latter  too 
much  of  the  historical,  and  that  closely  connected 
with  the  succeeding  events  of  Jewish  history,  all 
which  centred  in  Jerusalem.  Whatever  copies, 
therefore,  of  these  historical  books  may  have  been 
among  the  remnant,  and  these  could  have  been 
but  few,  were  suffered  to  fall  into  neglect,  so  that 
they  became  almost  unknown  when  the  heathen 
majority  introduced  their  idolatrous  worship.  It 
was  far  more  natural  to  stop  with  the  Pentateuch 
when  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  reject  some 
Jewish  books,  than  to  stop  after  Judges.  In  this 
way  their  canon,  imperfect  as  it  would  be,  would 
nave  the  appearance  of  greater  completeness  in 
itself,  than  if  they  had  arbitrarily  and  abruptly 
‘erminated  it  after  Judges.  In  addition  to  these 
remarks  it  may  be  affirmed  with  Hengstenberg, 
that  the  Samaritans  could  not  be  contented  with 
the  fact  that  Joshua  and  Judges  contained  nothing 
which  directly  testified  against  them.  Their  pa- 
triotic fabrications,  if  the  phrase  be  allowable, 
began  with  Joshua ; and  had  they  admitted  the 
two  books,  they  could  have  ventured  to  forge 
nothing  except  what  they  should  be  able  to  prove 
out  of  them.  Hence  it  was  thought  more  desir- 
able to  allow  the  few  copies  current  among  them 
to  go  into  oblivion  in  the  first  instance,  while  it 
was  afterwards  deemed  a politic  measure  not  to 
admit  them  at  all  into  their  canon. 

voi- «.  44 


It  thus  appears  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
carinot  be  ascribed  to  a later  period  than  that 
of  the  schism  between  the  tribes.  All  the  argu- 
ments adduced  by  Gesenius  (in  his  Commentatio 
de  Ventatcuchi  Samaritani  Origine , Indole,  et 
Auctoritate ) are  not  sufficient  to  disprove  it* 
truth.  For  opposite  and  convincing  statements 
we  refer  to  the  last  edition  of  Eichhorn’s  Intro- 
duction to  the  Old  Testament , and  Professor 
Stuart’s  review  of  Gesenius,  in  the  second  volume 
of  the  American  Biblical  Repository.  The  name 
Samaritan  was  first  given  to  that  mixed  multitude 
composed  of  the  heathen  introduced  by  Shalma- 
neser into  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  and  of  the  lower 
classes  of  the  ten  tribes  which  had  not  been  car- 
ried away.  Whatever  civil  jealousies  may  have 
previously  existed  between  them  and  the  Jews, 
their  religious  animosities  were  first  excited  when 
Ezra  and  his  countrymen,  returning  from  exile, 
refused  to  allow  their  co-operation  in  building  the 
Temple.  Subsequent  events,  far  from  allaying 
their  mutual  hatred,  only  raised  it  to  a higher 
pitch,  giving  it  that  permanent,  durable  form  in 
which  it  was  continued  through  succeeding  cen- 
turies. 

With  respect  to  the  authority  and  value  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  there  has  been  mucn  va- 
riety of  sentiment.  Gesenius,  however,  has  very 
ably  shown  that  little  value  should  be  assigned  to 
the  characteristics  of  its  text.  He  has  proved  that 
no  critical  reliance  can  be  placed  on  it,  and  that 
it  is  wholly  unjustifiable  to  use  it  as  a source  of 
correcting  the.  Hebrew  text.  He  has  divided  the 
various  readings  it  exhibits  into  different  classes, 
under  each  of  which  numerous  examples  are  ad- 
duced. By  a most  minute  investigation  of  par- 
ticulars he  has  shown  that  it  cannot  be  employed 
in  emendation,  as  Kennicott,  Morin,  and  Bauer 
supposed.  This  masterly  dissertation  has  ruined 
the  credit  of  the  Samaritan  codex  in  the  critical, 
world.  The  purity  of  the  Hebrew  is  not  to  be 
corrupted  by  additions  or  interpolations  from- 
such  a document.  The  original  text  of  the  Old, 
Testament  cannot  be  established  by  any  weight 
attaching  to  it. 

The  various  peculiarities  of  the  Samaritan  text 
have  been  divided  into  the  following  classes  - 

1.  The  first  class  consists  of  such  readings  as 
exhibit  emendations  of  a merely  grammatical 
nature.  Thus  in  orthography  the  matres  lectioni * 
are  supplied,  the  full  forms  of  verbs  substituted 
for  the  apocopated,  the  usual  forms  of  the  pro- 
nouns given  instead  of  the  unusual.  In  forming 
a noun,  the  paragogic  letters  yod  and  raw  affixed 
to  the  governing  noun  are  almost  always  omitted. 
In  construing  a noun,  the  Samaritan  transcribers 
make  frequent  mistakes  in  relation  to  gender,  by 
changing  nouns  of  the  common  gender  into  the 
masculine,  or  into  the  feminine  alone.  In  the 
syntax  of  verbs  the  infinitive  absolute  is  often 
al  tered. 

2.  The  second  class  consists  of  glosses  received 
into  the  text.  These  glosses  furnish  explanations 
of  more  difficult  terms  by  such  as  are  more  intel- 
ligible. 

3.  The  third  class  comprehends  those  readings 
in  which  plain  modes  of  expression  are  substituted 
in  place  of  such  as  appeared  difficult  or  obscure. 

4.  The  fourth  class  consists  of  those  readings 
in  which  the  Samaritan  copy  is  corrected  or 
supplied  from  parallel  passages,  To  this  cla*» 


*74  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH. 


belongs  Gen.  1.  25,  where  the  Samaritan  adds  with 
you,  reading — ‘ Ye  shall  carry  up  my  bones  with 
you  from  hence.’  The  addition  is  taken  from 
Exod.  xiii.  19,  and  does  not  belong,  as  Gerard 
thinks,  to  the  present  place. 

5.  The  fifth  class  consists  of  larger  additions  or 
repetitions  respecting  things  said  or  done,  which 
are  interpolated  from  parallel  places  and  again 
recorded  in  the  same  terms,  so  as  to  make  the 
readings  in  question. 

6.  Corrections  framed  to  remove  what,  was 
offensive  in  sentiment,  or  whatever  conveyed  ideas 
improbable  in  the  view  of  the  correctors.  Thus 
in  the  antediluvian  genealogies,  none  is  repre- 
sented by  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  as  having 
begotten  his  first  son  after  he  is  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  old.  On  thevcontrary,  in  the  post- 
diluvian genealogies,  none  is  allowed  to  have 
begotten  a son  until  after  he  is  fifty  years  old.  In 
the  former  case,  the  Samaritan  codex  usually 
takes  a hundred  years  from  the  genealogies  as 
found  in  the  Hebrew  ; while  in  the  latter  one  hun- 
dred years  are  commonly  added,  at  least  to  all 
whom  the  Hebrew  copy  represents  to  have  chil- 
dren under  fifty  years  of  age,  except  to  Nahor. 
Such  changes  could  not  have  been  accidental. 
They  are  manifestly  the  effect  of  design.  To 
this  class  belongs  Gen.  xxix.  3,  8:  ‘And  thither 
were  all  the  flocks  gathered  : and  they  rolled  the 
stone,  & c.  And  they  said,  We  cannot,  until  all 
the  flocks  be  gathered  together,  and  till  they  roll 
the  stone,  &c.’  Here  the  subject  of  the  verb  roll 
is  understood  not  expressed  — ‘ the  shepherds 
roiled.'  But  because  the  preceding  subject  is  all 
the  flocks,  and  therefore  they  are  apparently  said 
to  roll  away  the  stone,  and  to  water,  the  word 
D'"n3?n,  flocks , was  altered  into  D'JHn,  shep- 
herds. The  Sept,  follows  the  reading  of  the  Sa- 
maritan ; and  strange  to  say,  Houbigant  and 
Kennicott  contend  that  it  is  the  true  reading.  It 
is  very  usual  with  the  Old  Testament  writers  to 
change  the  subject , and  leave  the  new  nominative 
to  be  supplied  from  the  context.  As  an  example 
of  fhis  Gesenius  (p.  51)  adduces  Isa.  xxxvi.  36. 

7.  The  seventh  class  consists  of  those  words  and 
forms  of  words  in  which  the  pure  Hebrew  idiom 
is  exchanged  for  that  of  the  Samaritan.  This 
respects  many  cases  of  orthography,  and  some  of 
the  forms  belonging  to  verbs. 

8.  The  eighth  class  embraces  such  passages 
as  contain  alterations  made  to  produce  con- 
formity to  the  Samaritan  theology,  worship,  or 
exegesis.  Thus,  where  the  Hebrew  has  a plural 
verb  with  elohim , the  Samaritan  has  substituted  a 
verb  in  the  singular  (Gen.  xx.  13;  xxxi.  53; 
xxxv.  7;  Exod.  xxii.  9),  lest  there  should  be  an 
appearance  of  infringingon  the  divine  unity.  So 
also  voces  honestiores  have  been  put  where  there 
was  a fancied  immodesty.  To  this  head  Gese- 
nius has  referred  the  notable  passage  in  Deut. 
xxvii.  4,  where  the  Samaritans  changed  Ebal  into 
Gerizim,  to  favour  their  own  temple  built  on  the 
latter  mountain.  Some,  indeed,  as  Whiston  and 
Kennicott,  have  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  cor- 
ruption ought  to  be  charged  on  the  Jews  ; but  they 

■ have  not  been  successful  in  recommending  their 
opinion  to  general  acceptance.  Various  writers  of 
ability  have  refuted  this  notion,  especially  Ver- 
gebuir  (in  the  third  of  his  Disscrtationes  Philolog- 
exeget.  Leovard.  et  Francq.  1773,  4to),  who  com- 
pletely set  aside  the  attempted  reasoning  of 


Kennicott.  Of  all  the  peculiar  readings  in  thg 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  four  only  are  considered 
by  Gesenius  as  preferable  to  the  Hebrew,  thesg 
are  Gen.  iv.  8;  xxii.  13;  xlix.  ii;  xiv.  14 
Perhaps  even  these  should  be  reckoned  infe* 
rior  to  the  corresponding  Hebrew  readings.  We 
shall  notice  them  individually. 

Gen.  iv.  8 ; the  Hebrew  text,  literally  trans- 
lated, reads  thus  — ‘ And  Cain  said  to  Abel  his 
brother ; and  it  came  to  pass  when  they  were  in  the 
field,’  &c.  Here  the  Samaritan  supplies  what  ap- 
pears to  be  wanting  by  inserting  the  words  ‘let  ua 
go  into  the  field,’  ,Y1BM  So  also  the  Sep- 

tuagint,  Vulgate,  and  Syriac  versions.  Aquila 
is  doubtful.  Perhaps,  however,  this  clause  waa 
borrowed  from  1 Sam.  xx.  11.  If  the  verb  “1DN 
be  put  absolutely  for  *131,  the  meaning  will  be 
that  Cain  spoke  to  his  brother  Abel,  viz.  what 
God  had  previously  said  to  the  former. 

Gen.  xxii.  13.;  instead  of  “1PIN  the  Samaritan 
reads  THN  : ‘ And  Abraham  lifted  up  his  eyes 
and  looked ; and  behold  a ram  caught,’  &c.  in- 
stead of ‘Behold  a ram  behind  him,’  &c.  The 
Samaritan  reading  is  sanctioned  by  the  Septua* 
gint  and  Syriac,  and  all  the  versions  except 
Jerome’s,  by  forty-two  manuscripts,  and  two 
printed  editions.  Onkelos,  Saadias,  and  the  Per- 
sian have  both  readings  together.  This  use,  how- 
ever. of  the  numeral  adjective  for  the  indefinite 
article,  belongs  rather  to  the  later  than  the  earlier 
Hebrew.  In  Exod.  xxix.  3,  the  use  of  *inN  is 
scarcely  similar,  though  quoted  as  such  by  Gese- 
nius. On  the  whole  we  are  inclined,  with  Nol- 
dius  and  Ravius,  to  abide  by  the  common  read- 
ing, notwithstanding  the-  circumstances  adduced 
against  it  by  Gesenius. 

Gen.  xlix.  14  ; in  this  passage  the  Hebrew  has 
DU  "IDII.  the  ass  of  a bone,  i.  e.  ‘a  strong  ass.’ 
Instead  of  DU  the  Samaritan  has  D'U  ; the  sense 
is  the  same. 

Gen.  xiv.  14;  instead  of  pUI  the  Samaritan 
reads  pUl.  The  meaning  of  the  former  is — -he 
led  forth  his  trained  servants ; of  the  latter,  he 
surveyed  or  numbered.  The  former  is  equally 
good  as  the  laiter. 

The  Samaritan  codex  cannot  be  put  in  compa- 
rison with  the  Hebrew.  The  difference  between 
the  two  recensions  chiefly  consists  in  additions  to 
the  Samaritan  text.  An  omission  may  be  made 
inadvertently,  but  an  insertion  evinces  design. 
When,  therefore,  we  usually  meet  with  words  and 
clauses  in  the  Samaritan  that  are  not  found  in  the 
Hebrew,  it  is  much  more  probable  that  they 
should  have  been  inserted  in  the  one,  than  pur- 
posely omitted  in  the  other.  In  all  cases,  perhaps, 
the  Samaritan  should  be  placed  below  the  Hebrew 
in  the  value  of  its  readings.  Where  other  autho- 
rities concur  with  the  former  against  the  latter, 
there  may  be  reason  for  following  it ; but  this  does 
not  rest  on  tl..  ground  that  it  is  superior  to  the 
Hebrew. 

We  might  also  mention,  in  favour  of  this  esti- 
mate of  the  two  codices,  the  general  character  of 
Israel  and  Judah.  The  one  was  far  more  wicked 
than  the  other.  Wickedness  is  usually  associated 
with  forgetfulness  or  corruption  of  the  inspired 
writings,  and  inattention  to  their  contents. 

But  the  New  Testament  writers  usually  quote 
from  the  Sept.,  which  version  agrees  with  the  Sa- 
maritan, in  preference  to  the  Hebrew  codex.  Does 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH. 


SAMOTHRACE. 


not  this  attach  a si\  perior  value  to  the  Samaritan? 
In  reply  to  such  a question  it  may  he  observed, 
v that  the  New  Testament  does  not  coincide  with 
the  Samaritan  and  Septuagint  in  opposition  to 
the  Hcbreio.  There  are  indeed  tioo , or,  at  the 
most,  three  instances  of  this  nature  ; but  the  vari- 
ation is  so  slignt  in  these,  that,  nothing  can  be  built 
upon  it.  There  is  one  reading  of  the  Samaritan 
to  which  we  deem  it  right  to  allude,  because  it  is 
generally  preferred  to  the  Hebrew.  It  is  in  Exod. 
xii.  40  : ‘Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  who  dwelt,  in  Egypt,  was  430  years.’  The 
Samaritan  has  ‘The  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
Israel  and  of  their  fathers  who  dwelt  in  the  land  of 
Canaan  and  in  the  land  of  Egypt  was  430  years.’ 
The  Hebrews  abode  215  years  in  Egypt ; and  from 
the  call  of  Abraham  to  the  exodus  was  430  years. 
This  passage  presents  no  real  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  chronology,  although  the  Samaritan  corrector 
thought,  that,  as  it  stands  in  the  Hebrew  codex,  it 
is  not  true.  Yet  it  is  not  said  that  the  sojourning 
of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt  was  430  years. 
It  is  simply  stated  that  their  sojourning  continued 
for  that  period.  The  clause  ‘ who  dwelt  in  Egypt 
is  incidental,  not  essential  to  the  sentence.  The 
sojourning  of  the  Israelites  in  various  places  be- 
ginning at  the  time  when  Abraham  was  called  of 
Jehovah,  and  ending  with  the  departure  of  his 
posterity  out  of  Egypt,  occupied  430  years.  Had 
the  words  stood  thus,  ‘the  sojourning  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  430  years 
in  that  country ,’  there  would  have  been  a chrono- 
logical difficulty.  At  present,  however,  there  is 
none.  This  example  is  discussed  by  Gesenius, 
under  the  sixth  class. 

Thus  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  not  a source 
of  emendation.  Other  independent  authorities, 
provided  they  be  sufficient,  may  and  ought  to  be 
taken  as  means  of  emendation ; but  this  codex  by 
itself  cannot  be  used  in  correcting  the  text,  nor 
can  it  be  employed  for  the  same  purpose  along 
with  versions  or  quotations  manifestly  borrowed 
from  it. 

The  utility  of  the  copy  consists  in  confirming 
the  authenticity  of  a reading  when  it  agrees  with 
the  Hebrew.  In  such  a case  there  are  two  inde- 
pendent witnesses. 

It  also  dissipates  the  rigid  notions  entertained 
by  the  Buxtorfs  and  others  respecting  the  vowel- 
points  and  letters.  It  proves  that  the  points  and 
accents  were  not  coeval  with  the  consonants. 
Besides  the  works  referred  to  in  the  course  of  this 
article,  the  reader  may  consult  the  Introductions 
of  Jahn,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  De  Wette,  and 
Havernick ; Steudel’s  treatise  in  Bengel’s  Archiv. 
iii.  326,  sq. ; Mazade,  Sur  V Origine,  V Age, 
et  VEtat  Critique  du  Pent.  Sam.  Genf.  1830, 
8vo;  Tholuck's  Lit.  Anzeig.  for  1833,  p.  303, 
sq.  : Lees  Prolegomena  to  Baxter's  Polyglott ; 
Professor  Stuart,  in  the  North  American  Review 
for  1826,  and  Biblical  Repository  for  1832;  and 
Davidson's  Lectures  on  Biblical  Criticism 

Samaritan  Version  of  the  Pentateuch. 
— The  author  and  date  of  this  version  are  both 
unknown.  Probably  it  belongs  to  the  first  or 
second  century  of  the  Christian  era.  It  follows 
the  Hebraeo-Samaritan  text  word  for  word,  gene- 
rally furnishing  the  same  additions  and  pecu- 
liar it  es  as  its  parent  exhibits.  To  this,  however, 
there  ire  several  exceptions.  Its  agreement  with 


Onkelot  is  remarkable.  Winer  and  De  Wette, 
however,  deny  that  the  translator  used  Onkelos, 
becaus.e  the  hatred  subsisting  between  the  Jews 
and  Samaritans  renders  that  circumstance  im- 
possible; yet  it  may  be  questioned  whether  the 
national  enmity  was  participated  in  by  every 
single  individual  of  the  Samaritans  or  of  the 
Jews.  To  say  that  it  has  been  interpolated  from 
Onkelos  will  scarcely  account  for  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  version,  although  it  is  probable 
that  it  has  passed  through  several  hands,  and  has 
consequently  been  altered  from  its  original  form. 
This  version  has  been  printed  in  the  Paris  and 
London  Polyglotts  : more  accurately  in  the  latter 
than  in  the  former,  but  yet  with  many  imperfec- 
tions and  errors.  The  Latin  version  in  both  is  of 
no  utility.  (Winer,  De  Versionis  Pentateuchi 
Samaritani  Indole,  Lips.  1817,  8vo. ; Walton's 
Prolegomena;  Gesenius,  De  Pent  at.  Samar.  Ori- 
gine, 8pc.  p.  1 8 ; the  Introductions  of  Eichhorn, 
Bertholdt,  Havernick,  De  Wette;  and  Davidson’s 
Lectures  on  Biblical  Criticism.) 

Ti»  ^a/nape it ikov.  This  name  has  been  given 
to  the  fragments  of  a supposed  Greek  version  of 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  It  is  not  certain, 
however,  whether  they  be  the  remains  of  an  old 
Greek  translation,  or  glosses  made  upon  the  Sep- 
tuagint by  Origen.  These  fragments  have  been 
collected  by  Morin,  Hottinger,  and  Montfaucon, 
out  of  the  Greek  fathers.  It  is  probable  that  they 
are  the  remains  of  a real  Greek  version  from  the 
Samaritan,  although  from  their  paucity  they  are 
of  little  use.  (See  the  Introductions  of  Eich- 
horn, Hltvernick,  and  De  Wette  ; Gesenius,  De 
Pentat.  Samarit.,  8$c. ; and  Davidson’s  Lectures 
on  Biblical  Criticism.) — S.  D. 

SAMMINS.  [Spices.] 

SAMOS  ( Xapos ),  an  island  in  the  yEgean  Sea, 
near  the  coast  of  Lydia,  in  Asia  Minor,  and  sepa- 
rated only  by  a narrow  strait  from  the  promontory 
which  terminates  in  Cape  Trogyllium.  This 
strait,  in  the  narrowest  part,  is  not  quite  a mile  in 
width  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  34  ; Strabo,  xiv.  p. 
634  ; comp.  Leake’s  map  of  Asia  Minor).  The 
island  is  sometimes  stated  to  have  been  famous 
for  its  wines;  but,  in  fact,  the  wine  of  Samos  was 
in  ill  repute.  Strabo  says  expressly  that  the 
island  was  ovk  Rjolvos  : it  now,  however,  ranks 
high  among  Levantine  wines,  and  is  largely  ex- 
ported, as  are  also  grapes  and  raisins.  The  apostle 
Paul  touched  at  the  island  in  his  voyage  from 
Greece  to  Syria  (Acts  xx.  15).  Samos  con- 
tained, some  years  ago,  about  60,000  people,  in- 
habiting eighteen  large  villages,  and  about  twenty 
small  ones.  Vathi  is  the  chief  town  of  the  island 
in  every  respect,  except  that  it  is  not  the  residence 
of  the  governor,  who  lives  at  Colonna,  which 
takes  its  name  from  a solitary  column  (about  fifty 
feet  high  and  six  in  diameter),  a remnant  of  the 
ancient  temple  of  Juno,  of  which  some  insignifi- 
cant remains  are  lying  near.  For  further  infor- 
mation, see  the  travels  of  Pococke,  Clarke,  Dalla- 
way,  and  Turner. 

SAMOTHRACE  (ZapoOpaicr)),  an  island  in 
the  north-east  part  of  the  yEgean  Sea,  above  the 
Hellespont,  with  a lofty  mountain,  and  a city  of 
the  same  name.  It  was  anciently  called  Dar« 
dana,  Leucania,  and  also  Samos;  and  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  the  other  Samos,  the  name  of 


676 


SAMSON. 


SAMSl  N. 


Thrace  was  added  from  its  vicinity  to  that  coun- 
try. Hence  Hdpos  Qpaicps,  and  by  contraction 
"SaaodpaKTi,  Samothrace.  The  island  was  cele- 
brated for  the  mysteries  of  Ceres  and  Proserpine, 
and  was  a sacred  asylum  (Diod.  Sic.  iii.  55  ; v. 
47  ; Ptolem.  Geog.  v.  11  ; Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  iv. 
23).  Paul  touched  at  this  island  on  his  first 
voyage  to 'Europe  (Acts  xvi.  11).  The  island  is 
now  called  Samandrachi.  It  is  hut  thinly  peo- 
pled, and  contains  only  a single  village.  The 
mountain  is  described  in  the  Missionary  Herald 
for  1836,  p.  246;  comp.  Richter,  Wallfahrt , p. 
438,  sq. 

SAMSON  Shimshon ; Sept.  2«/u \f/wr), 

the  name  of  the  celebrated  champion,  deliverer, 
and  judge  of  Israel,  equally  remarkable  for  his 
supernatural  bodily  prowess,  his  moral  infirmi- 
ties, and  his  tragical  end.  He  was  the  son  of 
Manoali,  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  and  born  a.m.  2S48, 
of  a mother  whose  name  is  no  where  given  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  circumstances  under  which  his 
birth  was  announced  by  a heavenly  messenger 
gave  distinct  presage  of  an  extraordinary  cha- 
racter, whose  endowments  were  to  be  of  a nature 
suited  to  the  providential  exigencies  in  which  he 
was  raised  up.  The  burden  of  the  oracle  to  his 
mother,  who  had  been  long  barren,  was,  that  the 
child  with  which  she  was  pregnant  was  to  be  a 
son,  who  should  be  a Nazarite  from  his  birth, 
upon  whose  head  no  razor  was  to  come,  and  who 
was  to  prove  a signal  deliverer  to  his  people.  She 
was  directed,  accordingly,  to  conform  her  own 
regimen  to  the  tenor  of  the  Nazarite  law,  and 
strictly  abstain  from  wine  and  all  intoxicating 
liquor,  and  from  every  species  of  impure  food 
[Nazarite],  According  to  the  ‘prophecy  going 
before  upon  him,’  Samson  was  born  in  the  follow- 
ing year,  and  his  destination  to  great  achieve- 
ments began  to  evince  itself  at  a very  early  age 
by  the  illapses  of  superhuman  strength  which 
came  from  time  to  time  upon  him.  Those  speci- 
mens of  extraordinary  prowess,  of  which  the  slay- 
ing of  the  lion  at  Timnath  without  weapons  was 
one,  were  doubtless  the  result  of  that  special  influ- 
ence of  the  Most  High  which  is  referred  to  in  Judg. 
xiii.  25: — ‘And  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  began  to 
move  him  at  times  in  the  camp  of  Dan,  between 
Zorah  and  Eshtaol.’  The  import  of  the  original 
word  (DJ?D^)  for  moved  is  peculiar.  As  DJJQ, 
the  radical  form,  signifies  an  anvil , the  metaphor 
is  probably  drawn  from  the  repeated  and  some- 
what violent  strokes  of  a workman  with  his  ham- 
mer. It  implies,  therefore,  a peculiar  urgency , 
an  impelling  influence,  which  he  could  not  well 
resist  in  himself,  nor  others  in  him.  But  we  do 
not  know  that  this  attribute,  in  its  utmost  degree, 
constantly  dwelt  in  him. 

As  the  position  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  bordering 
upon  the  territory  of  the  Philistines,  exposed  them 
especially  to  the  predatory  incursions  of  this  people, 
it  was  plainly  the  design  of  heaven  to  raise  up  a 
deliverer  in  that  region  where  he  was  most  needed. 
The  Philistines,  therefore,  became  very  naturally 
the  objects  of  that  retributive  course  of  proceed- 
ings in  which  Samson  was  to  be  the  principal 
actor,  and  upon  which  he  could  only  enter  by 
seeking  some  occasion  of  exciting  hostilities  that 
would  bring  the  two  peoples  into  direct  collision. 
Such  an  occasion  was  afforded  by  his  meeting 
with  one  of  the  daughters  of  the  Philistines  at 


Timnath,  whom  he  besought  his  parents  to  pr> 
cure  for  him  ir.  marriage,  assigning  as  a reason 
that  she  1 pleased  him  well,’  Heb.  PTC* 

Kin,  She  is  right  in  mine  eyes , where  the  original 
for  right  is  not  an  adjective,  having  the  sense  of 
beautiful , engaging , attractive,  but  a verb,  con- 
veying, indeed,  the  idea  of  right,  but  of  right 
relative  to  an  end,  purpose,  or  object ; in  other 
words,  of  fitness  or  adaptation  (see  Gousset’s 
Lexicon,  s.  v.  ; and  comp.  2 Sam.  xvii.  4 ; 1 
Kings  ix.  12:  2 Chron.  xii.  30;  Num.  xxviii. 
27).  This  affords,  we  believe,  the  true  clue  to 
Samson’s  meaning,  when  he  says,  ‘ She  is  right  in 
mine  eyes ;’  i.  e.  adapted  to  the  end  which  I have 
in  view  ; she  may  be  used,  she  is  available,  for  a 
purpose  entirely  ulterior  to  the  immediate  con- 
ned ion  which  I propose.  That  he  entertained  a 
genuine  affection  for  the  woman,  notwithstanding 
the  policy  by  which  he  was  prompted,  we  may 
doubtless  admit;  but  that,  he  intended,  at  the 
same  time,  to  make  this  alliance  subservient  to 
the  great  purpose  of  delivering  his  country  from 
oppression,  and  that  in  this  he  was  acting  under 
the  secret  control  of  Providence,  would  seem  to  be 
clear  from  the  words  immediately  following,  when, 
in  reference  to  the  objection  of  his  parents  to  such 
a union,  it  is  said,  that  they  ‘ knew  not  that  it  was 
of  the  Lord  that  he  sought  an  occasion  against 
the  Philistines.’  It  is  here  worthy  of  note,  that 
the  Hebrew,  instead  of  ‘ against  the  Philistines,’ 
has  ‘ of  or  from  the  Philistines,’  clearly  imply- 
ing that  the  occasion  sought  should  be  one  that 
originated  on  the  side  of  the  Philistines.  This 
occasion  he  sought  under  the  immediate  prompt- 
ing of  the  Most  High,  who  saw  fit,  in  this 
indirect  manner,  to  bring  about  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  designs  cf  retribution  on  his 
enemies.  His  leading  purpose  in  this  seems  to 
have  been  to  baffle  the  power  of  the  whole  Philis- 
tine nation  by  the  prowess  of  a single  individual. 
The  champion  of  Israel,  therefore,  was  not  ap- 
pointed so  much  to  be  the  leader  of  an  army,  like 
the  other  judges,  as  to  be  an  army  in  himself. 
In  order  then  that  the  contest  might  be  carried  on 
in  this  way,  it  was  necessary  that  the  entire  oppo- 
sition of  the  Philistines  should  be  concentrated,  as 
far  as  possible,  against  the  person  of  Samson. 
This  would  array  the  contending  parties  in  pre- 
cisely such  an  attitude  as  to  illustrate  most  sig- 
nally the  power  of  God  in  the  overthrow  of  hia 
enemies.  But  how  could  this  result  be  brought 
about  except  by  means  of  some  private  quarrel 
between  Samson  and  the  enemy  with  whom  he 
was  to  contend  cl  And  who  shall  say  that  the 
scheme  now  projected  was  not  the  very  best  that 
could  have  been  devised  for  accomplishing  the 
end  which  God  had  in  view  ? To  what  extent 
Samson  himself  foresaw  the  issue  of  this  transac- 
tion, or  how  far  he  had  a plan  distinctly  laid 
corresponding  with  the  results  that  ensued,  it  is 
difficult  to  say.  The  probability,  we  think,  is, 
that  he  had  rather  a general  strong  impression, 
wrought  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  than  a definite  con- 
ception of  the  train  of  events  that  were  to  transpire. 
It  was,  however,  a conviction  as  to  the  issue  suf- 
ficiently powerful  to  warrant  both  him  and  his 
parents  in  going  forward  with  the  measure.  They 
were,  in  someway,  assured  that  they  were  engaged 
in  a proceeding  which  God  would  overrule  to  ths 
furtherance  of  his  designs  of  mercy  to  his  people^ 
and  of  judgment  to  their  oppressors. 


SAMSON. 


SAMSON. 

From  tliis  point  commences  that  career  or 
»chieven  ients  and  prodigies  on  the  part  of  this  I3- 
raelitish  Hercules,  which  rendered  him  the  terror 
of  his  enemies  and  the  wonder  of  all  ages.  At  his 
wedding-feast,  the  attendance  of  a large  company 
of  paranymphs,  or  friends  of  the  bridegroom, 
convened  ostensibly  for  the  purpose  of  honouring 
lis  nuptials,  but  in  reality  to  keep  an  insidious 
jvatch  upon  his  movements,  furnished  the  occasion 
of  a common  Oriental  device  for  enlivening  enter- 
tainments of  this  nature.  He  propounded  a 
riddle,  the  solution  of  which  referred  to  his  ob- 
taining a quantify  of  honey  from  the  carcase 
of  a slain  lion,  and  the  clandestine  manner  in 
which  his  guests  got  possession  of  the  clue  to  the 
enigma  cost  thirty  Philistines  their  lives.  The 
next  instance  of  his  vindictive  cunning  was 
prompted  by  the  ill-treatment  which  he  had  re- 
ceived at  the  hands  of  his  father-in  law,  who,  upon 
a frivolous  pretext,  had  given  away  his  daughter 
in  marriage  to  another  man,  and  was  executed 
by  securing  a multitude  of  foxes,  or  rather  jackals 

shualim),  and,  by  tying  firebrands  to 

their  tails,  setting  fire  to  the  cornfields  of  his 
enemies.  The  indignation  of  the  Philistines,  on 
discovering  the  author  of  the  outrage,  vented  itself 
upon  the  family  of  his  father-in-law,  who  had 
been  the  remote  occasion  of  it,  in  the  burning  of 
their  house,  in  which  both  father  and  daughter 
perished.  This  was  a fresh  provocation,  for  which 
Samson  threatened  to  be  revenged ; and  thereupon 
falling  upon  them  without  ceremony  he  smote 
them,  as  it  is  said,  ‘ hip  and  thigh  with  a great 
slaughter.’  The  original,  strictly  rendered,  runs, 
‘he  smole  them  leg  upon  thigh’ — apparently  a 
proverbial  expression,  and  implying,  according  to 
Gesenius,  that  he  cut  them  to  pieces,  so  that  their 
limbs,  their  legs  and  thighs,  were  scattered  and 
heaped  promiscuously  _ together ; equivalent  to 
saying  that  he  smote  and  destroyed  them  wholly, 
entirely.  Mr.  Taylor,  in  his  edition  of  Calmet, 
recognises  in  these  words  an  allusion  to  some 
kind  of  wrestling  combat , in  which  perhaps  the 
slaughter  on  this  occasion  may  have  commenced. 

Having  subsequently  taken  up  his  residence  in 
the  rock  Etam,  he  was  thence  dislodged  by  con- 
senting to  a pusillanimous  arrangement  on  the 
part  of  his  own  countrymen,  by  which  he  agreed 
to  surrender  himself  in  bonds  provided  they  would 
not  themselves  fall  upon  him  and  kill  him.  He 
probably  gave  into  this  measure  from  a strong 
inward  assurance  that  the  issue  of  it  would  be,  to 
afford  him  a new  occasion  of  taking  vengeance 
upon  his  foes.  Being  brought  in  this  apparently 
helpless  condition  to  a place  called  from  the  event, 
Lehi,  a jaw , his  preternatural  potency  suddenly 
put  itself  forth,  and  snapping  the  cords  asunder, 
and  snatching  up  the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass,  he  dealt 
so  effectually  about  him,  that  a thousand  men  were 
slain  on  the  spot.  That  this  was  altogether  the 
work,  not  of  man,  but  of  God,  was  soon  demon- 
strated. Wearied  with  his  exertions,  the  illustrious 
Danite  became  faint  from  thirst,  and  as  there  was 
no  water  in  the  place,  he  prayed  that  a fountain 
mi  *ht  be  opened.  His  prayer  was  heard  ; God 
caused  a stream  to  gush  from  a hollow  rock  hard 
by,  and  Samson  in  gratitude  gave  it  the  name  of 
En-hakker , a word  that  signifies  ‘ the  well  of  him 
that  prayed,’  and  which  continued  to  be  the  de- 
signation of  the  founta  a ever  after.  The  render- 


677 

ing  in  our  version — ‘ God  clave  a hollow  place  in 

the  jaw’ — is  unhappy,  as  the  original  is  Lehi, 
the  very  term  which  in  the  final  clause  is  rendered 
‘ in  Lehi.’  The  place  received  its  name  from  the 
circumstance  of  his  having  then  so  effectually 
wielded  the  jaw-bone  (Tl^  Lehi). 

The  Philistines  were  from  this  time  held  in 
such  contempt  by  their  victor,  that  he  went 
openly  into  the  city  of  Gaza,  where  he  seems 
to  have  suffered  himself  weakly  to  be  drawn 
into  the  company  of  a woman  of  loose  character, 
the  yielding  to  whose  enticements  exposed  him  to 
the  most  imminent  peril.  His  presence  being 
soon  noised  abroad,  an  attempt  was  made  during 
the  night  forcibly  to  detain  him,  by  closing  the 
gates  of  the  city  and  making  them  fast;  but 
Samson,  apprised  of  it,  rose  at  midnight,  and 
breaking  away  bolts,  bars,  and  hinges,  departed, 
carrying  the  gates  upon  his  shoulders,  to  the  top 
of  a neighbouring  hill  that  looks  toward  Hebron 

(IVOn  *03  by  ; Sept.  iirl  irpocrdTrov  t ov  Xefip&v, 
facing  Hebron).  The  common  rendering  ‘ be- 
fore Hebron’  is  less  appropriate,  as  the  distance 
between  the  two  cities  is  at  least  twenty  miles. 
The  hill  lay  doubtless  somewhere  between  the 
cities,  and  in  full  view  of  both.  After  this  his 
enemies  strove  to  entrap  him  by  guile  rather  than 
by  violence;  and  they  were  too  successful  in  the 
end.  Falling  in  love  with  a woman  of  Sorek, 
named  Delilah,  he  became  so  infatuated  byr  his 
passion,  that  nothing  but  his  bodily  strength  could 
equal  his  mental  weakness.  The  princes  of  the 
Philistines,  aware  of  Samson’s  infirmity,  deter- 
mined by  means  of  it  to  get  possession,  if  possible, 
of  his  person.  For  this  purpose  they  propose  a 
tempting  bribe  to  Delilah,  and  she  enters  at  once 
into  the  treacherous  compact.  She  employs  all 
her  art  and  blandishments  to  worm  from  him  the 
secret  of  his  prodigious  strength.  Having  for 
some  time  amused  her  with  fictions,  he  at  last,  in 
a moment  of  weakness,  disclosed  to  her  the  fact 
that  it  lay  in  his  hair,  which  if  it  were  shaved 
would  leave  him  a mere  common  man.  Not  that 
his  strength  really  lay  in  his  hair,  for  this  in  fact 
had  no  natural  influence  upon  it  one  way  or  the 
other.  His  strength  arose  from  his  relation  to 
God  as  a Nazarite,  and  the  preservation  of  his 
hair  unshorn  was  the  mark  or  sign  of  his  Naza- 
riteship,  and  a pledge  on  the  part  of  God  of  the 
continuance  of  his  miraculous  physical  powers. 
If  he  lost  this  sign,  the  badge  of  his  consecration, 
he  broke  his  vow,  and  consequently  forfeited  the 
thing  signified.  God  abandoned  him,  and  he 
was  thenceforward  no  more,  in  this  respect,  than 
an  ordinary  man.  His  treacherous  paramour 
seized  the  first  opportunity  of  putting  his  declara- 
tion to  the  test.  She  shaved  his  head  while  he 
lay  sleeping  in  her  lap,  and  at  a concerted  signal 
he  was  instantly  arrested  by  his  enemies  lying  in 
wait.  Bereft  of  his  grand  endowment,  and  for- 
saken of  God,  the  champion  of  Israel  could  now 
well  adopt  the  words  of  Solomon  ; — ‘ I find  more 
bitter  than  death  the  woman  whose  heart  is  snares 
and  nets,  and  her  hands  are  bands  ; whoso  pleaseth 
God  shall  escape  from  her ; but  the  sinner  shall 
be  taken  by  her.’  Having  so  long  presumptuously 
played  with  his  ruin,  Heaven  leaves  him  to  him- 
self, as  a punishment  for  his  former  guilty  indul- 
gence. He  is  made  to  reap  as  he  had  sown,  and 
is  consigned  to  the  hands  of  his  relentlesi  foe*. 


678 


SAMSON. 


SAMUEL. 


His  punishment  was  indeed  severe,  though  "he 
Amply  revenged  it,  as  well  as  redeemed  in  a 
measure  his  own  honour,  by  the  manner  in  which 
ne  mec  his  death.  The  Philistines  having  de- 
prived him  of  sight,  at  first  immured  him  in  a 
prison,  and  made  him  grind  at  the  mill  like  a 
slave.  As*this  was  an  employment  which  in  the 
East  usually  devolves  on  women,  to  assign  it  to 
such  a man  as  Samson  was  virtually  to  reduce 
him  to  the  lowest  state  of  degradation  and  shame. 
To  grind  corn  for  others  was,  even  for  a woman, 
a proverbial  term  expressive  of  the  most  menial 
and  oppressed  condition.  How  much  more  for 
the  hero  of  Israel,  who  seems  to  have  been  made 
grinder-general  for  the  prison-house  ! 

In  process  of  time,  while  remaining  in  this 
confinement,  his  hair  recovered  its  growth,  and 
with  it  such  a profound  repentance  seems  to  have 
wrought  in  his  heart  as  virtually  re-invested  him 
with  the  character  and  the  powers  he  had  so  cul- 
pably lost.  Of  this  fact  his  enemies  were  not 
aware.  Still  exulting  in  their  possession  of  the 
great  scourge  of  their  nation,  they  kept  him,  like 
a wild  beast,  for  mockery  and  insult.  On  one  of 
these  occasions,  when  an  immense  multitude,  in- 
cluding the  princes  and  nobility  of  the  Philistines, 
were  convened  in  a large  amphitheatre,  to  cele- 
brate a feast  in  honour  of  their  god  Dagon,  who 
had  delivered  their  adversary  into  their  hands, 
Samson  was  ordered  to  be  brought  out  to  be  made 
a laughing-stock  to  his  enemies,  a butt  for  their 
scoffs,  insults,  mockeries,  and  merriment.  Se- 
cretly determined  to  use  his  recovered  strength 
to  tremendous  effect,  he  persuaded  the  boy  who 
guided  his  steps  to  conduct  him  to  a spot  where 
he  could  reach  the  two  pillars  upon  whicli  the 
roof  of  the  building  rested.  Here,  after  pausing 
for  a short  time,  while  he  prefers  a brief  prayer  to 
Heaven,  he  grasps  the  massy  pillars,  and  bowing 
with  resistless  force,  the  whole  building  rocks  and 
totters,  and  the  roof,  encumbered  with  the  weight 
of  the  spectators,  rushes  down,  and  the  whole  as- 
sembly, including  Samson  himself,  are  crushed 
to  pieces  in  the  ruin  ! / 

Thus  terminated  the  career  of  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  personages  of  all  history,  whether 
sacred  or  profane.  The  enrolment  of  his  name  by 
an  apostolic  pen  (Heb.  xi.  32)  in  the  list  of  the 
ancient  worthies,  ‘ who  had  by  faith  obtained  an 
excellent  repute,’  warrants  us  undoubtedly  in  a 
favourable  estimate  of  his  character  on  the  whole, 
while  at  the  same  time  the  fidelity  of  the  inspired 
narrative  has  perpetuated  the  record  of  infirmities 
which  must  for  ever  mar  the  lustre  of  his  noble 
deeds.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  lapses  with 
which  he  was  chargeable  arose,  in  a measure,  from 
the  very  peculiarities  of  that  physical  tempera- 
ment to  which  his  prodigies  of  strength  were 
owing ; but  while  this  consideration  may  palliate, 
it  cannot  excuse  the  moral  delinquencies  into 
which  he  was  betrayed,  and  of  which  a just  Pro- 
vidence exacted  so  tremendous  a penalty  in  the 
circumstances  of  his  degradation  and  death. 

Upon  the  parallel  between  the  achievements  of 
Samson  and  those  of  the  Grecian  Hercules,  and 
the  derivation  of  the  one  from  the  other,  we  cannot 
here  enter.  The  Commentary  of  Adam  Clarke 
presents  us  with  the  results  of  M.  De  Lavour,  an 
ingenious  French  writer  on  this  subject,  from 
which  it  will  be  seen  that  the  coincidences  are 
extremely  striking,  and  such  as  would  perhaj\s 


afford  to  most  minds  an  additional  proof  of  how 
much  the  ancient  mythologies  were  a distorted 
reflection  of  the  Scripture  narrative. — G.  B. 

SAMUEL  ; Sept.  HafiovTi A),  the  lpst 

of  those  extraordinary  regents  that  presided  over 
the  Hebrew  commonwealth  under  the  title  of 
Judges.  The  circumstances  of  his  birth  were 
ominous  of  his  future  career.  His  father,  El- 
kanah  of  Ramathaim-Zophim,  of  Mount  Ephraim, 
* had  two  wives,  the  name  of  the  one  was  Hannah, 
and  the  name  of  the  other  Peninnah ; and  Pe- 
ninnah  had  children,  but  Hannah  had  no 
children.’  The  usual  effect  of  polygamy  was 
felt  in  Elkanah’s  household.  The  sterility  of 
Hannah  brought  upon  her  the  taunts  and  ridicule 
of  her  conjugal  rival,  who  £ provoked  her  sore,  to 
make  her  fret,  because  the  Lord  had  shut  up  her 
womb’  (1  Sam.  i.  6).  The  jealousy  of  Peninnah 
was  excited  also  by  the  superior  affection  which 
was  shown  to  Hannah  by  her  husband.  ‘ To 
Hannah  he  gave  a worthy  portion ; for  he  loved 
Hannah’  (i.  5).  More  especially  at  the  period 
of  the  sacred  festivals  did  the  childless  solitude 
of  Hannah  create  within  her  the  most  poignant 
regrets,  when  she  saw  her  husband  give  portions 
to  all  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Peninnah,  who, 
exulting  in  maternal  pride  and  fondness,  took 
advantage  of  these  seasons  to  subject  the  favourite 
wife  to  a natural  feminine  retaliation.  Hannah’s 
life  was  embittered,  ‘ she  wept  and  did  not  eat’ 
(i.  7).  On  one  of  these  occasions,  during  the 
annual  solemnity  at  Shiloh,  whither  Elkatiah's 
family  had  travelled,  ‘ to  worship  and  to  sacri- 
fice,’ so  keen  was  the  vexation  of  Hannah,  that 
she  left  the  domestic  entertainment,  went  to  the 
tabernacle,  and  in  the  extremity  of  her  anguish 
implored  Jehovah  to  give  her  a man-child,  ac- 
companying her  supplication  with  a peculiar 
pledge  to  dedicate  this  gift,  should  it  be  conferred, 
to  the  service  of  Jehovah  ; vowing  to  present  the 
child  in  entire  unreserved  consecration  to  the 
Lord  all  the  days  of  his  life,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  bind  him  to  the  special  obligations  and 
austerities  of  a Nazarite.  In  her  agony  of  earnest- 
ness her  lips  moved,  hut  articulated  no  words,  so 
that  Eli,  the  high  priest,  who  had  observed  her 
frantic  appearance  from  his  seat  by  a post  of  the 
temple,  ‘ thought  she  had  been  drunken,’  and 
sharply  rebuked  her.  Her  pathetic  explanation 
removed  his  suspicion,  and  he  gave  her  his  solemn 
benediction.  Her  spirit  was  lightened,  and  she 
‘ went  her  way.’  The  birth  of  a son  soon  fulfilled 
her  hopes,  and  this  child  of  prayer  was  named,  in 
memory  of  the  prodigy,  Samuei.,  heard  of  God. 
In  consequence  of  his  mother’s  vow,  the  boy  was 
from  his  early  years  set  apart  to  the  service  of 
Jehovah,  under  the  immediate  tutelage  of  Eli 
His  mother  brought  him  to  the  bouse  of  the 
Lord  in  Shiloh,  and  introducing  herself  to  the 
pontiff,  recalled  to  his  memory  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances in  which  he  had  first  seen  her.  So 
‘ Samuel  ministered  before  the  Lord,  being  a 
child,  girded  with  a linen  ephod’  (ii.  18). 

The  degeneracy  of  the  people  at  this  time  was 
extreme.  The  tribes  seem  to  have  administered 
their  affairs  as  independent  republics,  the  national 
confederacy  was  weak  and  disunited,  and  the 
spirit  of  public  patriotic  enterprise  had  been  worn 
out  by  constant  turmoil  and  invasion.  Tiie 
theocratic  influence  was  also  scarcely  felt,  it* 


SAMUEL. 

peculiar  ministers  being  withdrawn,  and  its  ordi- 
nary manifestations,  except  in  the  routine  of  the 
Levitical  ritual,  having  ceased  ; 4 the  word  of  the 
Lord  was  precious  in  those  days,  there  was  no 
open  vision’  (iii.  1 ).  The  young  devotee,  4 the 
cliild  Samuel,’  was  selected  by  Jehovah  to  renew 
the  deliverance  of  his  oracles.  As  he  reclined  in 
his  chamber  adjoining  the  sacred  edifice,  the 
Lord,  by  means  adapted  to  his  juvenile  capacity, 
made  known  to  him  his  first  and  fearful  com- 
munication— the  doom  of  Eli's  apostate  house. 
Other  revelations  speedily  followed  this ; the 
frequency  of  God’s  messages  to  the  young  prophet 
established  his  fame  ; and  the  exact  fulfilment  of 
them  secured  his  reputation.  The  oracle  of 
Shiloh  became  vocal  again  through  the  youthful 
fiierophant  (iii.  19-21).  The  fearful  fate  pro- 
nounced on  the  head  and  family  of  the  pontificate 
was  soon  executed.  Eli  had  indulgently  tole- 
rated, or  leniently  palliated,  the  rapacity  and  pro- 
fligacy of  his  sons.  Through  their  extortions 
and  impiety  4 men  abhorred  the  offering  of  the 
Lord,’  and  Jehovah’s  wrath  was  kindled  against 
the  sacerdotal  transgressors.  They  became  the 
victims  of  their  own  folly ; for  when  the  Philistines 
invaded  the  land,  an  unworthy^  superstition  among 
the  Hebrew  host  clamoured  for  the  ark  to  be 
brought  into  the  camp  and  into  the  field  of 
battle.  Hophrii  and  Phinehas,  Eli’s  sons,  in- 
dulging this  vain  and  puerile  fancy,  accompanied 
the  ark  as  its  legal  guardians,  and  fell  in  the 
terrible  slaughter  which  ensued.  Their  father, 
whose  sin  seems  to  have  been  his  easiness  of  dis- 
position, his  passive  and  quiescent  temper,  sat 
on  a sacerdotal  throne  by  the  wayside,  to  gather 
the  earliest  news  of  the  battle,  for  his  4 heart 
trembled  for  the  ark  of  God;’  and  as  a fugitive 
from  the  scene  of  conflict  reported  to  him  the  sad 
disaster,  dwelling  with  natural  climax  on  its 
melancholy  particulars — Israel  routed  and  fleeing 
in  panic,  Hophni  and  Phinehas  both  slain,  and 
the  ark  of  God  taken — this  last  and  overpowering 
intelligence  so  shocked  him,  that  he  fainted  and 
fell  from  his  seat,  and  in  his  fall,  from  the 
imbecile  corpulence  of  age,  4 brake  his  neck  and 
died’  (iv.  18).  When  the  feeble  administration 
of  Eli,  who  had  judged  Israel  forty  years,  was 
concluded  by  his  death,  Samuel  was  too  young 
to  succeed  to  the  regency,  and  the  actions  of  this 
earlier  portion  of  his  life  are  left  unrecorded. 
The  ark,  which  had  been  captured  by  the  Philis- 
tines, soon  vindicated  its  majesty,  and  after  being 
detained  among  them  seven  months,  was  sent 
back  to  Israel.  It  did  not,  however,  reach  Shiloh, 
in  consequence  of  the  fearful  judgment  of  Beth- 
shemesh  (vi.  19),  but  rested  in  Kirjath-jearim 
for  no  fewer  than  twenty  years  (vii.  2).  It  is 
not  till  the  expiration  of  this  period  that  Samuel 
appears  again  in  the  history.  Perhaps  during  the 
twenty  years  succeeding  Eli’s  death,  his  authority 
was  gradually  gathering  strength,  while  the  office 
of  supreme  magistrate  may  have  been  vacant, 
each  tribe  being  governed  by  its  own  hereditary 
phylarch.  This  long  season  of  national  humi- 
liation was  to  some  extent  improved.  4 All  the 
house  of  Israel  lamented  after  the  Lord,’  and 
Samuel,  seizing  upon  the  crisis,  issued  a public 
manifesto,  exposing  the  sin  of  idolatry,  urging  on 
the  people  religious  amendment,  and  promising 
political  deliverance  on  their  reformation.  The 
people  obeyed,  the  oracular  mandate  was  effec- 


SAMUEL.  678 

tual,  and  the  principles  of  the  theocracy  again 
triumphed  (vii.  4).  The  tribes  were  summoned 
by  the  prophet  to  assemble  in  Mizpeh,  and  at  this 
assembly  of  the  Hebrew  comitia,  Samuel  seems 
to  have  been  elected  regent  (vii.  6).  Some  of 
the  judges  were  raised  to  political  power,  as  the 
reward  of  their  military  courage  and  talents,  but 
Samuel  was  raised  to  the  lofty  station  of  judge, 
from  his  prophetic  fame,  his  sagacious  dispen- 
sation of  justice,  his  real  intrepidity,  and  his 
success  as  a restorer  of  the  true  religion.  His 
government,  founded  not  on  feats  of  chivalry  or 
actions  of  dazzling  enterprise,  which  great  emer- 
gencies only  call  forth,  but  resting  on  more  solid 
qualities,  essential  to  the  growth  and  development 
of  a nation’s  resources  in  times  of  peace,  laid  the 
foundation  of  that  prosperity  which  gradually 
elevated  Israel  to  the  position  it  occupied  in  the 
days  of  David  and  his  successors. 

This  mustering  of  the  Hebrews  at  Mizpeh  on 
the  inauguration  of  Samuel  alarmed  the  Philis- 
tines, and  their  4 lords  went  up  against  Israel.’ 
Samuel  assumed  the  functions  of  the  theocratic 
viceroy,  offered  a solemn  oblation,  and  implored 
the  immediate  protection  of  Jehovah.  Pie  was 
answered  with  propitious  thunder.  A fearful 
storm  burst  upon  the  Philistines,  the  elements 
warred  against  them.  4 The  Highest  gave  his 
voice  in  the  heaven,  hailstones  and  coals  of  fire.’ 
The  old  enemies  of  Israel  were  signally  defeated, 
and  did  not  recruit  their  strength  again  during 
the  administration  of  the  prophet-judge.  The 
grateful  victor  erected  a stone  of  remembrance, 
and  named  it  Ebenezer.  ^From  an  incidental 
allusion  (vii.  14)  we  learn  too,  that  ahout  this 
time  the  Amorites,  the  Eastern  foes  of  Israel, 
were  also  at  peace  with  them — another  triumph  of 
a government  4 the  weapons  of  whose  warfare 
were  not  carnal.’  The  presidency  of  Samuel 
appears  to  have  been  eminently  successful.  From 
the  very  brief  sketch  given  us  of  his  public  life, 
we  infer  that  the  administration  of  justice  occu- 
pied no  little  share  of  his  time  and  attention. 
He  went  from  year  to  year  in  circuit  to  Bethel, 
Gilgal,  and  Mizpeh,  places  not  very  far  distant 
from  each  other,  but  chosen  perhaps,  as  Winer 
suggests,  because  they  were  the  old  scenes  of 
worship  ( Real-wort .,  ii.  444). 

The  dwelling  of  the  prophet  was  at  Ramah, 
where  religious  worship  was  established  after  the 
patriarchal  model,  and  where  Samuel,  like  Abra- 
ham, built  an  altar  to  the  Lord.  Such  procedure 
was  contrary  to  the  letter  of  the  Mosaic  statute. 
But  the  prophets  had  power  to  dispense  with  or- 
dinary usage  (De  Wette,  Bib.  Dogmat.  § 70 ; 
Knobel,  Tier  Prophetism.  d.  Heb.  i.  39  ; Koester, 
Der  Proph.  d.  A.  & N.  T.  p.  52).  In  this  case 
the  reason  of  Samuel’s  conduct  may  be  found  in 
the  state  of  the  religious  economy.  The  ark  yet 
remained  at  Kirjath-jearim,  where  it  had  been 
left  in  terror,  and  where  it  lay  till  David  fetched 
it  to  Zion.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  place  of 
resort  for  the  tribes,  the  present  station  of  the  ark  not 
having  been  chosen  for  its  convenience  as  a scene 
of  religious  assembly.  The  shrine  at  Shiloh, 
which  had  been  hallowed  ever  since  the  settle- 
ment in  Canaan,  had  been  desolate  from  the  date 
of  the  death  of  Eli  and  his  sons — so  desolate  as  to 
become  in  future  years  a prophetic  symbol  of 
divine  judgment  (Jer.  vii.  12-14;  xxri.  6).  In 
such  a period  of  religious  anarchy  and  confusion, 


680 


SAMUEL. 


SAMUEL. 


Samuel,  a theocratic  guardian,  might,  without  any 
violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  law,  superintend  the 
mblic  woiship  of  Jehovah  in  the  vicinity  of  his 
labitation  (Knobel,  Prophet,  der  Heb.  ii.  32). 

In  Samuel's  old  age  two  of  his  sons  were  ap- 
pointed by  him  deputy-judges  in  Beersheba. 
These  young  men  possessed  not  their  father’s  in- 
tegrity of  spirit,  but  ‘ turned  aside  after  lucre,  took 
bribes,  and  perverted  judgment  ’ (1  Sam.  viii.  3). 
The  advanced  years  of  the  venerable  ruler  himselt 
and  his  approaching  dissolution,  the  certainty  that 
none  of  his  family  could  fill  his  office  with  advan- 
tage to  the  country,  the  horror  of  a period  of  anar- 
chy which  his  death  might  occasion,  the  necessity 
of  having  some  one  to  put  an  end  to  tribal  jealou- 
sies and  concentrate  the  energies  of  the  nation, 
especially  as  there  appeared  to  be  symptoms  of 
renewed  warlike  preparations  on  the  part  of  the 
Ammonites  (xii.  12) — these  considerations  seem  to 
have  led  the  elders  of  Israel  to  adopt  the  bold 
step  of  assembling  at  Ramah  and  soliciting 
Samuel  ‘ to  make  a king  to  judge  them.’  The 
proposed  change  from  a republican  to  a regal 
form  of  government  displeased  Samuel  for  various 
reasons.  Besides  its  being  a departure  from  the 
first  political  institute,  and  so  far  an  infringement 
on  the  rights  of  the  divine  head  of  the  theocracy, 
it  was  regarded  by  the  regent  as  a virtual  charge 
against  himself,  and  might  appear  to  him  as  one 
of  those  examples  of  popular  fickleness  and  in- 
gratitude which  the  history  of  every  realm  ex- 
hibits in  profusion.  Jehovah  comforts  Samuel 
In  this  respect  by  saying,  ‘ They  have  not  rejected 
thee,  but  they  have  rejected  me.’  Being  warned 
of  God  to  accede  to  their  request  for  a king,  and 
yet  to  remonstrate  with  the  people,  and  set  before 
the  nation  the  perils  and  tyranny  of  a monarchical 
government  (viii.  10),  Samuel  proceeded  to  the 
election  of  a sovereign.  Saul,  son  of  Kish,  ‘a 
choice  young  man  and  a goodly,’  whom  he  had 
met  unexpectedly,  was  pointed  out  to  him  by 
Jehovah  as  the  king  of  Israel,  and  by  the  prophet 
was  anointed  and  saluted  as  monarch.  Samuel 
again  convened  the  nation  at  Mizpeh,  again  with 
honest  zeal  condemned  their  project,  but  caused 
the  sacred  lot  to  be  taken.  The  lot  fell  on  Saul. 
The  prophet  now  formally  introduced  him  to 
the  people,  who  shouted  in  joyous  acclamation, 

‘ God  save  the  king.’ 

Not  content  with  oral  explanations,  this  last  of 
the  republican  chiefs  not  only  told  the  people  the 
manner  of  the  kingdom,  ‘ but  wrote  it  in  a book 
and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord.’  What  is  here 
asserted  of  Samuel  may  mean,  that  he  extracted 
from  the  Pentateuch  the  recorded  provision  of 
Moses  for  a future  monarchy,  and  added  to  it  such 
warnings,  and  counsels,  and  safeguards  as  his 
inspired  sagacity  might  suggest.  Saul  s first 
battle  being  so  successful,  and  the  preparations 
for  it  displaying  no  ordinary  energy  and  prompti- 
tude of  character,  his  popularity  was  suddenly 
advanced,  and  his  throne  secured.  Taking  ad- 
vantage of  the  general  sensation  in  favour  of 
Saul,  Samuel  cited  the  people  to  meet  again  in 
Gilgal,  to  renew  the  kingdom,  to  ratify  the  new 
constitution,  and  solemnly  instal  the  sovereign 
(xi.  14).  Here  the  upright  judge  made  a power- 
ful appeal  to  the  assembly  in  vindication  of  his 
government.  ‘ Witness  against  me  before  the 
Lord,  and  before  his  anointed ; whose  ox  have  I 
mu  t or  wdose  ass  have  I taken  ? or  whom  have 


I defrauded?  whom  have  I oppressed?  or  at 
whose  hand  have  I received  any  bribe  to  blind 
mine  eyes  therewith?  and  I will  restore  it  you. 
The  whole  multitude  responded  in  unanimous 
approval  of  his  honesty  and  intrepidity  (xii.  3,  4). 
Then  he,  still  jealous  of  God’s  prerogative  and 
the  civil  rights  of  his  people,  briefly  narrated 
their  history,  showed  them  how  they  never  wanted 
chieftains  to  defend  them  when  they  served  God, 
and  declared  that  it  was  distrust  of  God’s  raising 
up  a new  leader  in  a dreaded  emergency  that 
excited  the  outcry  for  a king.  In  proof  of  this 
charge — a charge  which  convicted  them  of  great 
wickedness  in  the  sight  of  God— he  appealed  to 
Jehovah,  who  answered  in  a fearful  hurricane  of 
thunder  and  rain.  The  te-rrified  tribes  confessed 
their  guilt,  and  besought  Samuel  to  intercede 
for  them  in  his  disinterested  patriotism. 

It  is  said  (vii.  ID)  that  Samuel  judged  Israel 
all  the  days  of  his  life.  The  assertion  may  mean 
that  even  after  Saul’s  coronation  Samuel's  power, 
though  formally  abdicated,  was  yet  actually  felt 
and  exercised  in  the  direction  of  state  affairs 
(Havernick,  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T.,  § 166).  No 
enterprise  could  be  undertaken  without  Samuel’s 
concurrence.  His  was  an  authority  higher  than 
the  king’s.  We  find  Saul,  having  mustered  his 
forces,  about  to  march  against  the  Philistines, 
yet  delaying  to  do  so  till  Samuel  consecrated  the 
undertaking.  He  came  not  at  the  time  appointed, 
as  Saul  thought,  and  the  impatient  monarch  pro- 
ceeded to  offer  sacrifice — a fearful  violation  of  the 
national  law.  The  prophet  arrived  as  the  reli- 
gious service  was  concluded,  and  rebuking  Saul 
for  his  presumption,  distinctly  hinted  at  the  short 
continuance  of  his  kingdom.  Again  we  find 
Samuel  charging  Saul  with  the  extirpation  of  the 
Amalekites.  The  royal  warrior  proceeded  on 
the  expedition,  but  obeyed  not  the  mandate  of  Je- 
hovah. His  apologies,  somewhat  craftily  framed, 
for  his  inconsistencies,  availed  him  not  with  the 
prophet,  and  he  was  by  the  indignant  seer 
virtually  dethroned.  He  had  forfeited  his  crown 
by  disobedience  to  God.  Yet  Samuel  mourned 
for  him.  His  heart  seems  to  have  been  set  on 
the  bold  athletic  soldier.  But  now  the  Lord 
directed  him  to  make,  provision  for  the  future 
government  of  the  country  (xvi.  1).  To  prevent 
strife  and  confusion  it  was  necessary,  in  the  cir- 
cumstances, that  the  second  king  should  be  ap- 
pointed ere  the  first  sovereign’s  demise.  Samuel 
went  to  Bethlehem  and  set  apart  the  youngest  of 
the  sons  of  Jesse,  ‘ and  came  to  see  Saul  no  more 
till  the  day  of  his  death.’  Yet  Saul  and  he  met 
once  again  at  Naioth,  in  Ramah  (xix.  24),  when 
the  king  was  pursuing  David.  As  on  a former 
occasion,  the  spirit  of  God  came  upon  him  as  he 
approached  the  company  of  the  prophets  with  Sa- 
muel presiding  over  them,  and  ‘ he  prophesied  and 
lay  down  naked  all  that  day  and  all  that  night.’ 
A religious  excitement  seized  him,  the  contagious 
influence  of  the  music  and  rhapsody  fell  upon  his 
nervous,  susceptible  temperament,  and  overpower- 
ed him.  At  length  Samuel  died  (xxv.  1),  and 
'all  Israel  mourned  for  him,  and  buried  him  in  his 
house  at  Ramah.  The  troubles  of  Saul  increased, 
and  there  was  none  to  give  him  counsel  and 
solace.  Jehovah  answered  him  not  in  the  ordi- 
nary mode  of  oracular  communication,  ‘ by 
dreams,  Urim,  or  prophets.’  His  chafed  and 
melancholy  spirit  could  find  nc  rest,  and  r* 


SAMUEL. 

*orted  to  the  sad  expedient  of  consulting  ‘ a 
woman  that  had  a familiar  spirit’  (xxviii.  3-7). 
The  sovereign  in  disguise  entered  her  dwelling, 
and  he  of  whom  the  prot  erb  was  repeated,  ‘ Is  Saul 
also  among  the  prophets  ? ’ was  found  in  consult- 
ation with  a sorceress.  This  is  not  the  place  to 
enter  into  a discussion  of  this  subject  [Saul]. 
We  follow  the  inspired  narrative,  and  merely  say 
that  Saul  strangely  wished  to  see  Samuel  recalled 

from  the  dead,  that  Samuel  himself  (NlPl 
made  his  appearance  suddenly,  and,  to  the  great 
terror  of  the  necromancer,  heard  the  mournful  com- 
plaint of  Saul,  and  pronounced  his  speedy  deathon 
an  ignoble  field  of  loss  and  massacre  (Henderson, 
On  Divine  Inspiration,  p.  165  ; Hales’  Chronology, 
vol.  ii.  p.  323  ; Scott,  On  the  Existence  of  Evil 
Spirits , &c.,  p.  232). 

We  have  reserved  a few  topics  for  discussion, 
that  we  might  not  interrupt  the  brief  narrative. 
It  is  almost  superfluous  to  say  that  the  derivation 
of  the  prophet's  name  to  which  we  have  referred 
is  preferable  to  others  which  nave  been  proposed — * 

such  as  DE2,  name  of  God;  asked 

of  God  ; or  Deus  posuit.  The  opinion 

was  in  former  times  very  current,  that  Samuel 
was  a priest,  nay,  some  imagine  that  he  suc- 
ceeded Eli  in  the  pontificate.  Many  of  the 
fathers  inclined  to  this  notion,  but  Jerome  affirms 
(Advers.  Jovin.) : Sa?nuel  Propheta  fuit.  Judex 
fuit , Levita  fuit,  non  Pontifex,  ne  Sacerdos 
quidem  (Ortlob,  Samuel  Judex  et  Propheta  non 
Pont,  aut  Sacerd.  Sacrificans  ; Thesaurus  Novus 
Theol.  Philol.  Hasaei  et  Ikenii,  i.  587 ; Selden, 
De  Success,  ad  Pontiff .,  lib.  i.  c.  ’ 4).  That 
Samuel  was  a Levite  is  apparent  from  1 Chron.  vi. 
22-28,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  his  being  a 
priest.  The,  sacerdotal  acts  ascribed  to  him 
were  performed  by  him  as  an  extraordinary  legate 
of  heaven.  The  American  translator  of  De 
Wette’s  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  (ii. 
21)  says  he  was  a priest,  though  not  of  Levitical 
descent,  slighting  ‘he  information  of  Chronicles, 
and  pronouncing  Samuel  at  the  same  time  to  be 
only  a mythical  character.  Samuel's  birth-place 
was  Ratnathaim-Zophim  ; the  dual  form  of  the 
first  term,  according  to  some,  signifying  one  of 
the  two  Ramahs.to  wit,  that  of  the  Zophites  (Light- 
foot,  vol.  ii.  162,  ed.  1832);  and  the  second  term 
(D'Dl^).  according  to  others,  meaning  specula- 
tores,  i.e.,  prophets,  and  denoting,  that  at  this  place 
was  a school  of  the  prophets — an  hypothesis  sup- 
ported by  the  Chaldee  paraphrast,  who  renders  it, 

’ Elkanah  a man  of  Ramatha,  a disciple  of  the 

prophets  ’ (WXi:  H^nD).  Others  find  in  the 
dual  form  of  DTlQ’l  a reference  to  the  shape  of 
the  city,  which  was  built  on  the  sides  of  two  hills ; 
Hid  in  the  word  Zophim,  see  an  allusion  to  some 
watch-towers,  or  places  of  observation,  which  the 
high  situation  of  the  city  might  favour  (Clerici 
Opera , in  175).  Others  again  affirm  that  the  word 
is  added  because  Ramah  or  Ramatha  was 
inhabited  by  a clan  of  Levites  of  the  family  of 
(Calmet,  sub  voce).  Winer  asserts  ( Real - 
wort.  art.  ‘ Samuel  ’)  that  the  first  verse  of  the 
book  declares  Samuel,  to  be  an  Ephraimite 
('rnQfc$).  This  term,  however,  if  the  genealogy 
in  Chronicles  remain  undisturbed,  must  signify 
Dot  an  Ephraimite  by  birth,  but  by  abode,  4 domi- 
cilii ratione  non  sanguinis  ’ (Selden,  l.  <?.).  We 


SAMUEL.  681 

find  that  the  Kohathites,  to  whom  Samuel  be- 
longed, had  their  lot  in  Mount  Ephraim  (Josh, 
xxi.  5-20),  where  TH  signifies,  not  the  hill 

of  Ephraim,  but  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim 
(Gesenius,  Thesaur.  sub  voce).  The  family  of 
Zoph,  living  in  the  lull-country  of  Ephraim, 
might  be  termed  Ephrathite,  while  their  ancestor’s 
name  distinguished  their  special  locality,  as  Ra- 
mathaim-Zophim.  The  geography  ol  this  place 
has  been  disputed  [Ramaii].  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  confound  it  with  Arimathea  of  the  New 
Testament  ( Onomast . art.  Armatha  Sophim). 
The  Seventy  render  it  ’A ppaQal/x  'S.uxplp.,  Cod.  A., 
or  Cod.  B.  'Appadal/n  2upd.  For  an  account  of 
the  place  now  and  for  long  called  Neby  Samwel, 
and  the  impossibility  of  its  being  the  ancient. 
Ramah,  see  Robinson’s  Palestine,  ii.  141  ; and  for 
an  interesting  discussion  as  to  the  site  of  Ramath- 
Zophim,  the  latter  name  being  yet  retained  in 
the  Arabic  term  S6bah,  the  curious  reader  may 
consult  the  same  work  (ii.  830),  or  Robinson’s 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  p.  46.  The  hilly  range  of 
Ephraim  extended  southward  into  other  cantons, 

while  it  bore  its  original  name  of  D’HSW  "IH  ; and 
so  the  inhabitants  of  Ramathaim-Zophim  might 
be  termed  Ephrathif.es,  just  as  Mahlon  and 
Chilion  are  called  ‘ Ephgathites  of  Beth-lehem- 
judah’  (Ruth  i.  2). 

Specific  data  are  not  afforded  us  for  deter- 
mining the  length  of  either  Samuel's  life  or  his 
administration.  Josephus  mentions  that  he  was 
twelve  years  of  age  when  his  first  oracle  was  com- 
municated to  him.  As  the  calculation  of  the 
duration  of  Samuel's  life  and  government  depends 
upon  the  system  of  Chronology  adopted,  the 
reader  may  turn  to  the  article  Judges,  and  to 
the  comparative  chronological  table  which  is 
there  given. 

Samuel’s  character  presents  itself  to  us  as  one  of 
uncommon  dignity  and  patriotism.  His  chief 
concern  was  his  country’s  weal.  Grotius  cx>m- 
pares  him  to  Aristides,  and  Saul  to  Alcibiades 
( Opera  Theol.  tom.  i.  p.  119).  To  preserve  the 
worship  of  the  one  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  to 
guard  the  liberties  and  rights  of  the  people,  to 
secure  them  from  hostile  invasion  and  internal 
disunion,  was  the  grand  motive  of  his  life.  His 
patriotism  was  not  a Roman  love  of  conquest  or 
empire.  The  subjugation  of  other  people  was 
only  sought  when  they  disturbed  the  peace  of  bis 
country.  He  was  loath  indeed  to  change  the 
form  of  government,  yet.  he  did  it  with  con- 
summate policy.  First  of  all  he  resorted  to  the 
divine  modeof  appeal  to  the  Omniscient  Ruler — 
a solemn  sortilege — and  brought.  Saul  so  chosen 
before  the  people,  and  pointed  him  out  to  them  as 
peerless  in  his  form  and  aspect.  Then,  waiting 
till  Saul  should  distinguish  himself  by  some 
victorious  enterprise,  and  receiving  him  fresh 
from  the  slaughter  of  the  Ammonites,  he  again 
confirmed  him  in  his  kingdom,  while  the  national 
enthusiasm,  kindled  by  his  triumph,  made  him  the 
popular  idol.  Samuel  thus,  for  the  sake  of  future 
*peace,  took  means  to  show  that  Saul  was  both 
chosen  of  God  and  yet  virtually  elected  by  the 
people.  This  procedure,  so  cautious  and  so 
generous,  proves  how  little  foundation  there  is  foi 
the  remarks  which  have  been  made  against  Samuel 
by  some  writers,  such  as  Schiller  (Neue  Thalia , 
iv.  94),  Vatke  (Bibl.  Theol.  p.  360),  and  the  in- 


682  SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF. 

famous  Wolfenbiittel  Flagmen tist  (p.  200,  ed. 
Schmidt). 

The  power  of  Samuel  with  God,  as  an  interces- 
sor for  the  people,  is  compared  to  that  of  Moses 
(Jer.  xv.  1 ; Ps.  xcix.  6).  He  was  the  first  of  a 
series  of  prophets  that  continued  in  an  unbroken 
line  till  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon 
(Acts  iii.  24  ; Augustin.  De  Civ.  Dei , 1.  xvii.).  It 
is  in  the  days  of  Samuel  that  mention  is  first  made 
of  the  schools  of  the  prophets.  It  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  he  was  to  some  extent  their  originator. 
In  the  prospect,  of  a regal  form  of  government  he 
seem?  to  have  made  the  prophetic  office  a formal 
institute  in  the  Jewish  nation.  These  Acade- 
mies were  famous  for  the  cultivation  of  poetry 
and  music,  and  from  among  their  members  God 
might  select  his  special  servants  (Gram berg, 
Religions-id.  ii.  264 ; Vit^inga,  Synag.  Vet.  i. 
2,  7 ; W erenfels,  Diss.  de  Scholis  Prophetar. ; De 
Wette,  Comm.  lib.  d.  Psalm,  p.  9).  For  a different 
view  of  the  schools  see  Tholuck's  Literar.  An- 
zeiger , 1831,  i.  38.  We  are  informed  (1  Chron. 
ix.  22)  that  the  allocation  of  the  Levites 
for  the  temple-service  was  made  by  David  and 
Samuel  the  seer,  i.  c.,  that  David  followed  some 
plan  or  suggestion  of  the  deceased  prophet.  It 
is  stated  also  (xxvi.  28)  that  the  prophet  had 
made  some  munificent  donations  to  the  tabernacle, 
which  seems  to  have  been  erected  at  Nob,  and 
afterwards  at  Gibeon,  though  the  ark  was  in 
Kirjath-jearim.  Lastly  (xxix.  29),  the. acts  of 
David  the  king  are  said  to  be  written  in  the  book 
of  Samuel  the  seer.  The  high  respect  in  which 
Samuel  was  held  by  the  Jewish  nation  in  after 
ages,  may  be  learned  from  the  eulogy  pronounced 
upon  him  by  the  son  of  Siracli  (Eccles.  xlvi. 
13-20).  His  fame  was  not  confined  to  Israel. 
The  remains  of  Samuel,  according  to  Jerome 
( Advers . Vigil.),  were,  under  tire  emperor  Ar- 
cadius,  brought  with  great  pomp  to  Thrace 
(D'Herbelot,  Bill.  Orient,  pp.  735,  1021  ; Hot- 
tinger,  His  tor.  Oriental,  i.  3). — J.  E. 

SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF.  The  two  books 
of  Samuel  were  anciently  reckoned  as  but  one 

among  the  Jews,  “)DD.  That  they 

form  only  one  treatise  is  apparent  from  their 
structure.  The  present  division  into  two  books, 
common  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles  since  the  editions 
of  Bomberg,  was  derived  from  the  Septuagint 
and  Vulgate,  in  both  which  versions  they  are 
termed  the  First  and  Second  Books  of  Kings. 
Thus  Origen  (apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  25), 
in  his  famous  catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
names  the  books  of  Samuel — PcunAeTuv  itowtt] 
Sevrepa,  trap'  aurois  %v  Sa/iovijA,  6 Qc6kAt)tos  ; and 
Jerome  thus  describes  them  ( Prolog . Galeatus), 

* tertius  sequitur  Samuel,  quern  nos  regum  primum 
- et  secundum  dicimus.’  Noffe  of  these  titles, 
ancient  or  modern,  is  very  felicitous.  To  call 
them  Books  of  Samuel  is,  if  we  follow  the  analogy 
of  the  phrases,  Books  of  Moses,  Book  of  Isaiah, 
to  assert  the  prophet  to  be  their  author,  though  a 
great  portion  of  the  events  recorded  in  them  hap- 
pened after  his  death.  The  title  Books  of  Kings, 
or  Kingdoms,  is  by  no  means  an  accurate  indi- 
cation of  their  contents,  as  they  refer  only  to  two 
monarchs,  and  the  narrative  does  not  even  include 
the  death  of  David.  But  if  they  be  named  after 
Samuel,  as  he  was  a principal  agent  in  the  events 
recorded  in  taem,  then  the  title  is  only  appropriate 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF. 

to  a few  of  the  introductory  chapters.  Jewish 
opinion  is  divided  on  the  reason  of  the  Hebrew 
name.  It  is  affirmed  in  Baba  Bat  lira  ffol.  15, 
cap.  i.),  that  Samuel  wrote  the  book  so  called,  ami 
also  Judges  and  Ruth  ; and  Abarbanel  argues  that 
these  compositions  are  named  after  Samuel  be- 
cause the  events  narrated  in  them  may  l>e  referred 
to  him,  either  as  a person  or  as  a chief  instrument, 
for  Saul  and  David,  being  both  anointed  by  the 
prophet,  became  ‘opus  veluti  manuum’  (Proof, 
in  lib.  Sam.  fol.  74,  col.  i.)  The  source  of  the 
appellation,  fiacriAeuv  or  f}a<riAeuov,  Regum,  is 
to  be  found  in  the  historic  resemblance  of  the 
books  of  Samuel  to  those  which  come  after  them, 
and  to  which  they  serve  as  an  introduction.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  was  desirable  to  have  short 
names  for  the  books  of  Scripture  ; ami  as  Samuel 
was  a prophet,  of  such  celebrity,  and  had  such 
influence  in  changing  the  form  of  government 
under  which  the  son  of  Kish  and  the  son  of  Jesse 
became  sovereigns,  it  was  natural  to  name  after 
him  the  biographical  tracts  in  which  the  life  and 
times  of  these  royal  chieftains  are  briefly  sketched  : 
especially  as  they  at  the  same  time  contain 
striking  descriptions  of  the  miracle  of  his  own 
birth,  the  oracles  of  his  youth,  and  the  impressive 
actions  of  his  long  career.  The  selection  of  this 
Jewish  name  might  also  be  strengthened  by  the 
national  belief  of  the  authorship  of  a large  portion 
of  the  work,  founded  on  the  language  of  1 Chron. 
xxix.  29. 

Contents. — The  contents  of  the  books  of  Sa- 
muel belong  to  an  interesting  period  of  Jewish 
history.  The  preceding  book  of  Judges  refers  to 
the  affairs  of  the  republic  as  they  were  admi- 
nistered after  the  Conquest,  when  the  nation  was 
a congeries  of  independent  cantons,  sometimes 
partially  united  for  a season  under  an  extraordi- 
nary dictator.  As,  however,  the  mode  of  govern- 
ment was  changed,  and  remained  monarchical  till 
the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom,  it  was  of  national 
importance  to  note  the  time,  method,  and  means 
of  the  alteration.  This  change  happening  under 
the  regency  of  the  wisest  and  best  of  their  sages, 
his  life  became  a topic  of  interest.  The  first  book 
of  Samuel  gives  an  account  of  his  birth  and  early 
call  to  the  duties  of  a seer,  under  Eli’s  pontificate ; 
describes  the  low  and  degraded  condition  of  the 
people,  oppressed  by  foreign  enemies ; proceeds 
to  narrate  the  election  of  Samuel  as  judge  ; his 
prosperous  regency ; the  degeneracy  of  his  sons  ; 
the  clamour  for  a change  in  the  civil  constitution  ; 
the  installation  of  Saul ; his  rash  and  reckless 
character;  his  neglect  of,  or  opposition  to,  the 
theocratic  elements  of  the  government.  Then 
the  historian  goes  on  to  relate  God’s  choice 
of  David  as  king;  his  endurance  of  long  and 
harassing  persecution  from  the  reigning  sove- 
reign ; the  melancholy  defeat  and  death  of  Saul 
on  the  field  of  Gilboa ; the  gradual  elevation  of 
the  man  ‘according  to  Gods  own  heart’  to  uni- 
versal dominion  ; his  earnest  efforts  to  obey  and 
follow  out  the  principles  of  the  theocracy ; his 
formal  establishment  of  religious  worship  at  Jeru- 
salem, now  the  capital  of  the  nation ; and  his 
series  of  victories  over  all  the  enemies  of  Judaea 
that  were  wont  to  molest  its  frontiers.  The  an- 
nalist. records  David’s  aberrations  from  the  path 
of  duty  ; the  unnatural  rebellion  of  his  soa 
Absalom,  and  its  suppression;  his  carrying  into 
effect  a census  of  his  dominions,  and  the  Di- 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

trine  punishment  which  this  act  incurred ; and 
concludes  with  a few  characteristic  sketches  of 
his  military  staff.  The  second  book  of  Samuel, 
while  it  relates  the  last  words  of  David,  yet  stops 
short  of  his  death.  As  David  was  the  real  founder 
of  the  monarchy  and  arranger  of  the  religious 
economy ; the  great  hero,  legislator,  and  poet  of 
his  country;  as  his  dynasty  maintained  itself  on 
the  throne  of  Judah  till  the  Babylonian  invasion  ; 
it  is  not  a matter  of  wonder  that  the  description 
of  his  life  and  government  occupies  so  large  a 
portion  of  early  Jewish  history.  The  books  of 
Samuel  thus  consist  of  three  interlaced  biographies 
— those  of  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David. 

Age  and  AuthorshijJ. — The  attempt  to  ascer- 
tain the  authorship  of  this  early  history  is  attended 
with  difficulty.  Ancient  opinion  is  in  favour  of 
the  usual  theory,  that  the  first  twenty-four  chap- 
ters were  written  by  Samuel,  and  the  rest  by 
Nathan  and  Gad.  Abarbanel,  however,  and 
Grotius,  suppose  Jeremiah  to  be  the  author  (Grot. 
Prcef.  in  1 Sam.).  The  peculiar  theory  of  Jahn 
is,  that  the  four  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  were 
written  by  the  same  person,  and  at  a date  so  recent 
as  the  30th  year  of  the  Babylonish  captivity.  His 
arguments,  however,  are  more  ingenious  than 
solid  ( Introduction , Turner’s  Translation,  § 46). 
The  fact  of  all  the  four  treatises  being  named 
Books  of  Kings,  Jahn  insists  upon  as  a proof 
that  they  were  originally  undivided  and  formed 
a single  work  — a mere  hypothesis,  since  the 
similarity  of  their  contents  might  easily  give 
rise  to  this  general  title,  while  the  more 
ancient  appellation  for  the  first  two  was  The 
Books  of  Samuel.  Jahn  also  lays  great  stress  on 
the  uniformity  of  method  in  all  the  books.  But 
this  uniformity  by  no  means  amounts  to  any  proof 
of  identity  of  authorship.  It  is  nothing  more 
than  the  same  Hebrew  historical  style.  The  more 
minute  and  distinctive  features,  so  far  from  being 
similar,  are  very  different.  The  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings  may  be  contrasted  in  many  of  those 
peculiarities  which  mark  a different  writer  : — - 

1.  In  the  books  of  Kings  there  occur  not  a few 
references  to  the  laws  of  Moses,  while  in  Samuel 
not  one  of  these  is  to  be  found. 

2.  The  books  of  Kings  repeatedly  cite  au- 
thorities, to  which  appeal  is  made,  and  the  reader 
is  directed  to  the  ‘ Acts  of  Solomon,’  ‘ the  book  of 
the  Chronicles  of  Kings,’  or  ‘Judah.’  But  in 
the  books  of  Samuel  there  is  no  formal  allusion 
to  any  such  sources  of  information. 

3.  The  nature  of  the  history  in  the  two  works  is 
very  different.  The  plan  of  the  books  of  Samuel 
is  not  that,  of  the  books  of  Kings.  The  books  of 
Samuel  are  more  of  a biographical  character, 
and  are  more  limited  and  personal  in  their  view. 
They  may  be  compared  to  such  a work  as 
Tytler’s  Henry  VIII.,  while  Kings  bears  an 
analogy  to  such  general  annals  as  are  found  in 
Hume’s  history  of  England. 

4.  There  are  in  the  books  of  Kings  many 
later  forms  of  language.  For  a collection  of 
some  of  these  the  reader  is  referred  to  De  Wette 
( Einleit . in  das  A.  T.  §.  185,  note  e).  Scarcely 
any  of  those  more  recent  or  Chaldaic  forms  oocur 
in  Samuel.  Some  peculiarities  of  form  are  noted 
by  De  Wette  (§.  180),  but  they  are  not  so  nume- 
rous or  distinctive  as  to  give  a general  character 
to  the  treatise  (Hirzel,  De  Chaldaismi  Bibl. 
oripine,  1830).  Many  modes  of  expression,  com- 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF.  683 

mon  in  Kings,  are  absent  from  Samuel  [Kings-. 
Books  ok]. 

5.  The  concluding  chapters  of  the  second  book 
of  Samuel  are  in  the  form  of  an  appendix  to  the 
work — a proof  of  its  completeness.  The  connection 
between  Samuel  and  Kings  is  thus  interrupted 
It  appears,  then,  that  Samuel  claims  a distinct 
authorship  from  the  Books  of  Kings.  Stiihelin,  in 
Tholuck’s  Literar,  Anz.,  1838,  supposes  that  the 
division  between  the  two  treatises  has  not  been 
correctly  made,  and  that  the  two  commencing 
chapters  of  1 Kings  belong  to  Samuel.  This  lie 
argues  on  philological  grounds,  because  the  terms 

'rnsni  (i  Kings  i.  38),  ^23  (i. 

12),  and  HIS  (i.  29),  are  found  nowhere 
in  Kings  but  in  the  first  two  chapters,  while  they 
occur  once  and  again  in  Samuel.  There  is  cer- 
tainly something  peculiar  in  this  affinity,  though 
it  may  be  accounted  for  on  the  principle,  that 
the  author  of  the  pieces  or  sketches  which  form 
the  basis  of  the  initial  portions  of  1 Kings,  not 
only  composed  those  which  form  the  conclusion 
of  Samuel,  but  also  supervised  or  published  the 
whole  work  which  is  now  called  by  the  prophet’s 
name. 

Thus  the  books  of  Samuel  have  an  authorship 
of  their  own — an  authorship  belonging  to  a very 
early  period.  While  their  tone  and  style  are  very 
different  from  the  later  records  of  Chronicles, 
they  are  also  dissimilar  to  the  books  of  Kings. 
They  bear  the  impress  of  a hoary  age  in  their 
language,  allusions,  and  mode  of  composition. 
The  insertion  of  odes  and  snatches  of  poetry, 
to  enliven  and  verify  the  narrative,  is  common 
to  them  with  the  Pentateuch.  The  minute 
sketches  and  vivid  touches  writh  which  they 
abound,  prove  that  their  author  ‘ speaks  what  he 
knows,  and  testifies  what  he  has  seen.’  As  if  the  » 
chapters  had  been  extracted  from  a diary,  some 
portions  are  more  fully  detailed  and  warmly 
coloured  than  others,  according  as  the  observer 
was  himself  impressed.  Many  of  the  incidents, 
in  their  artless  and  natural  delineation,  would 
form  a fine  study  for  a painter;  so  truly  does 
De  Wette  ( Einleit . § 178)  remark,  that  the  book 
abounds  in  ‘lively  pictures  of  character.’ 

Besides,  it  is  certainly  a striking  circumstance, 
that  the  books  of  Samuel  do  not  record  David’s 
death,  though  they  give  his  last  words — his  last 
inspired  effusion  (Havernick,  Einleit.  §.  167).  We 
should  reckon  it  natural  for  an  author,  if  ne  had 
lived  long  after  David’s  time  and  were  writing 
his  life,  to  finish  his  history  with  an  account 
of  the  sovereign’s  death.  Had  the  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings  sprung  from  the  same  source,  then 
the  abrupt  conclusion  of  one  portion  of  the  work, 
containing  David’s  life  down  to  his  last  days, 
and  yet  omitting  all  notice  of  his  death,  might 
be  ascribed  to  some  unknown  capricious  motive  of 
the  author.  But  we  have  seen  that  the  two  trea- 
tises exhibit  many  traces  of  a different  authorship. 
What  reason,  then,  can  be  assigned  for  the  writer 
of  Samuel  giving  a full  detail  of  David’s  life,  and 
actions,  and  government,  and  yet  failing  to  record 
his  decease?  The  plain  inference  is,  that  th« 
document  must  have  been  composed  prior  to  the 
monarch’s  death,  or  at  least  about  that  period. 

If  we  should  find  a memoir  of  George  the  Third, 
entering  fully  into  his  private  and  family  history, 
as  well  as  describing  his  cabinets,  councillor^ 


684  SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF. 

and  parliaments,  the  revolutions,  and  wars,  and 
state  of  feeling  under  his  government,  and  ending 
with  an  account  of  the  appointment  of  a regent, 
and  a reference  to  the  king’s  lunacy,  our  con- 
clusion would  be,  that  the  history  was  composed 
before  the  year  1820.  A history  of  David,  down  to 
the  verge  of  his  dissolution,  yet  not  including  that 
event,  must  have  been  written  before  the  monarch 
4 slept  with  his  fathers.’  We  are  therefore  inclined 
to  think  that  the  books,  or  at  least  the  materials 
out  of  which  they  have  been  formed,  were  con- 
temporaneous with  the  events  recorded  ; that  the 
document  out  of  which  the  sketch  of  David’s  life 
was  compiled  was  composed  and  finished  before 
his  death. 

Against  this  opinion  as  to  the  early  age  of  the 
books  of  Samuel  various  objections  have  been 
brought.  The  phrase  ‘ unto  this  day’  is  often  em- 
ployed in  them  to  denote  the  continued  existence  of 
customs,  monuments,  and  names,  whose  origin  has 
been  described  by  the  annalist  (1  Sam.  v.  5 ; vi.  18; 
xxx.  25).  This  phrase,  however,  does  not  always 
indicate  that  a long  interval  of  time  elapsed 
between  the  incident  and  such  a record  of  its  dura- 
tion. It  was  a common  idiom.  Joshua  (xxii.  3) 
uses  it  of  the  short  time  mat  Reuben,  Gad,  and 
the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh,  had  fought  in  concert 
with  the  other  tribes  in  the  subjugation  of  Canaan. 
So,  again,  he  (xxiii.  9)  employs  it  to  specify  the 
time  that  intervened  between  the  entrance  into 
Canaan,  and  his  resignation  of  the  command  on 
account  of  his  approaching  decease.  Matthew, 
in  his  Gospel  (xxvii.  8,  and  xxviii.  15),  uses  it 
of  the  period  between  the  death  of  Christ  and 
the  composition  of  his  book.  Reference  is  made- 
in  Samuel  to  the  currency  of  a certain  proverb 
(1  Sam.  x.  12),  and  to  the  disuse  of  the  term 
seer  (1  Sam.  ix.  9),  but  in  a manner  which  by 
no  means  implies  an  authorship  long  posterior  to 
the  time  of  the  actual  circumstances.  The  pro- 
verb, ‘ Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets?’  was  one 
which  for  many  reasons  would  obtain  rapid  and 
universal  circulation  : and  if  no  other  hypothesis 
be  considered  satisfactory,  we  may  suppose  that 
the  remark  about  the  term  4 seer  ’ becoming 
obsolete  may  be  the  parenthetical  insertion  of  a 
later  hand.  Or  it  may  be  that  in  Samuel’s  days 
the  term  fcfOJ  came  to  be  technically  used  in  his 
school  of  the  prophets. 

More  opposed  to  our  view  of  the  age  of  these 
books  is  the  statement  made  in  1 Sam.  xxvii.  6 — 

‘ Ziklag  pertaineth  unto  the  kings  of  Judah  unto 
this  day’ — a form  of  language,  according  to  De 
Wette  (§  180),  which  could  not  have  been  em- 
ployed before  the  separation  of  the  nation  into 
the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel.  Hilvernick 
remarks,  however  (§  169),  that  Ziklag  belonged 
first  to  Judah,  and  then  to  Simeon,  ere  it  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  Philistines ; and  the  expression  de- 
notes not  that  the  city  reverted  to  its  former  owners, 
but  that  it  became  the  property  of  David,  and  of 
David’s  successors  as  sovereigns  of  the  territory 
of  Judah.  Judah  is  not  used  in  opposition  to  the 
ten  tribes;  and  the  writer  means  to  say  that 
Ziklag  became  a royal  possession  in  consequence 
of  its  being  a gift  to  David,  and  to  such  as  might 
have  regal  power  over  Judah.  The  names  Israel 
and  Judah  were  used  in  the  way  of  contrast  even 
in  David's  time,  as  De  Wette  himself  admits 
(1  Sam.  xviii.  16  ; 2 Sam.  xxiv.  1 ; v.  15 ; xix. 
41  43;  xx  2) 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF, 

It  is  said  in  1 Chron.  xxix.  29,  ‘ Now  the  acts 
of  David  the  king,  first  and  last,  behold,  they  are 
written  in  the  book  of  Samuel  the  seer,  and  iu 
the  hook  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  book 
of  Gad  the  seer.*  The  old  opinion  as  to  the 
authorship  of  Samuel,  to  which  we  have  already 
alluded,  was  founded  on  this  quotation.  The 
prophets  were  wont  to  write  a history  of  their  own 
times.  That  Samuel  did  so  in  reference  to  the 
great  events  of  his  life,  is  evident  from  the  state- 
ment that  he  ‘ wrote  the  manner  of  the  kingdom 
in  a book,  and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord’  (1  Sam. 

x.  25).  The  phrase,  may  not  refer 

to  our  present  Samuel,  which  is  not  so  compre- 
hensive as  this  collection  seems  to  have  been. 
It  does  not,  like  the  treatise  to  which  the  author 
of  Chronicles  refers,  include  ‘the  acts  of  David, 
first  and  last.’ 

The  annals  which  these  three  seers  compiled 
were  those  of  their  own  times  in  succession 
(Kleinert,  Aechtheit  d.  Jes.  Pt.  I.  p.  83);  so 
that  there  existed  a history  of  contemporary  events 
written  by  three  inspired  men.  The  portion 
written  by  Samuel  might  include  his  own  life, 
and  the  greater  part  of  Saul’s  history,  as  well  as 
the  earlier  portion  of  David’s  career.  Gad  was 
a contemporary  of  David,  and  is  termed  his  seer. 
Probably  also  he  was  one  of  his  associates  in 
his  various  wanderings  (1  Sam.  xxii.  5).  In 
the  latter  part  of  David’s  reign  Nathan  was  a 
prominent  counsellor,  and  assisted  at  the  coro- 
nation of  Solomon.  We  have  therefore  prophetic 
materials  for  the  books  of  Samuel.  Havernick 
(§  161)  supposes  there  was  another  source  of  in- 
formation to  which  the  author  of  Samuel  might 
resort,  namely,  the  annals  of  David’s  reign — a 
conjecture  not  altogether  unlikely,  as  may  be 
seen  by  his  reference  to  2 Sam.  viii.  17,  com- 
pared with  1 Chron.  xxvii.  24.  The  accounts 
of  David’s  heroes  and  their  mighty  feats,  with 
the  estimate  of  their  respective  bravery,  have  the 
appearance  of  a contribution  by  Seruiah,  the 
scribe,  or  principal  secretary  of  state.  We  do  not 
affirm  that  the  various  chapters  of  these  books 
may  be  definitely  portioned  out  among  Samuel, 
Gad,  and  Nathan,  or  that  they  are  a composition 
proceeding  immediately  from  these  persons.  We 
hold  them  to  be  their  production  in  the  sense  of 
primary  authorship,  though,  as  we  now  have 
them,  they  bear  the  marks  of  being  a compilation. 

Another  evident  source  from  which  materials 
have  been  brought,  is  a collection  of  poetic  com- 
positions— some  Hebrew  anthology.  We  have, 
first,  the  song  of  Hannah,  the  mother  of  Samuel, 
which  is  not  unlike  the  hymn  of  the  Virgin  re- 
corded by  Luke.  That  song  is  by  no  means  an 
anachronism,  as  has  been  rashly  supposed  by 
some  critics,  such  as  Hensler  ( Erl'duter  d.  1 B. 
Sam.  12),  and  the  translator  of  De  W ette  (ii.  222). 
The  latter  considers  it  entirely  inappropriate,  and 
regards  its  mention  of  King  and  Messiah , as  be- 
traying its  recent  and  spurious  birth.  The  Song 
is  one  of  ardent  gratitude  to  Jehovah.  It  pourtrays 
his  sovereign  dispensations,  asserts  the  character  of 
his  government  to  be,  that  he  ‘ resisteth  the  proud, 
and  giveth  grace  to  the  humble,’  and  concludes 
with  a prophetic  aspiration,  in  pious  keeping  with 
the  spirit  of  the  theocracy,  and  with  the  great  pro- 
mise, which  it  so  zealously  cherished  (Hengsten- 
berg,  Die  Authentic  des  Pentat.  ii.  115).  2 Saas. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF. 


68A 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF. 

L l8,  also  contains  an  extract  from  the  book  of 
Jaaher,  viz.  a composition  of  the  sweet  singer  of 
Israel,  named  ‘ the  Song  of  the  Bow.’  Besides, 
there  is  the  chorus  of  a poem  which  was  sung  on 
David’s  return  from  the  slaughter  of  the  Philistine 
giant  (1  Sam.  xviii.7).  There  are  also  three  hymns 
of  David  (2  Sam.  vii.  18-29),  in  which  the  king 
offers  up  his  grateful  devotions  to  Jehovah  (2  Sam. 
xxii.) ; a triumphal  ode,  found  with  some  altera- 
tions in  the  18th  Psalm  and  in  1 Sam.  xxiii.  1-7, 
which  preserves  the  last  words  of  the  ‘anointed  of 
the  God  of  Jacob.’  To  these  may  be  added  the 
remains  of  a short  elegy  on  the  death  of  Abner 
(2  Sam.  iii.  33-4).  Whether  all  these  effusions, 
as  well  as  the  lament  over  David  and  Jonathan, 
were  taken  from  Jasher,  we  know  not.  It  may 
be  that  they  were  drawn  from  this  common  source, 
this  national  collection  of  the  Hebrew  muse.  At 
least,  some  critics,  who  compare  the  long  hymn 
found  in  2 Sam.  xxii.,  and  which  forms  the 
eighteenth  psalm,  and  note  the  variations  of  the 
text,  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  one  has  not 
been  copied  from  the  other,  but  that  both  have  been 
taken  from  a very  old  common  source  : a conjec- 
ture far  more  natural  than  the  ordinary  hypothesis, 
namely,  that  David  either  published  a second 
edition  of  his  poem,  or  that  the  varies  lectiones  are 
the  errors  of  transcribers.  At  all  events  the  com- 
piler of  the  books  of  Samuel  has  evidently  used  as 
one  of  his  sources  some  collection  of  poetry*  Such 
collections  often  contain  the  earliest  history  of  a 
nation,  and  they  seem  to  have  abounded  among 
the  susceptible  people  of  the  East. 

Thus,  from  such  sources,  public  and  acknow- 
ledged, has  the  compiler  fetched  his  materials,  in 
the  shape  of  connected  excerpts.  The  last  of  the 
prophetic  triumvirate  might  be  the  redactor  oi 
editor  of  the  work,  and  we  would  not  date  its 
publication  later  than  the  death  of  Nathan,  while 
the  original  biographies  may  have  been  finished 
at  the  period  of  David’s  decease.  But,  after  all, 
certainty  on  such  a subject  is  not  to  be  attained. 
We  can  hope  only  for  an  approximation  to  the 
truth.  Probability  is  all  that  we  dare  assert. 

But  in  opposition  to  our  hypothesis  it  has  been 
argued,  that  in  these  books  there  are  traces  of 
several  documents,  which  have  been  clumsily  and 
inconsiderately  put  together,  not  only  by  a late, 
but  a blundering  compiler.  The  German  critics 
are  fond  of  a peculiar  species  of  critical  chemistry, 
by  which  they  disengage  one  portion  of  a book 
from  the  surrounding  sections.  They  have  ap- 
plied it  to  Genesis,  to  the  Pentateuch  generally, 
and  to  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges.  The 
elaborate  theory  of  Eichhorn  on  the  present  sub- 
ject ( Einleit .,  iii.  p.  476),  is  similar  to  that 
which  he  has  developed  in  his  remarks  on 
Chronicles,  viz.,  that  the  basis  of  the  second 
book  of  Samuel  was  a short  life  of  David,  which 
was  augmented  by  interpolated  additions.  The 
first  book  of  Samuel  is  referred  by  him  to  old 
written  sources,  but  in  most  parts  to  tradition, 
both  in  the  life  of  Samuel  and  Saul.  Bertholdt 
( Einleit . p.  894)  modifies  this  opinion  by  affirm- 
ing that  in  the  first  book  of  Samuel  there  are  three 
independent  documents,  chaps.  i.*vii.,  viii.-xvi., 
xvii  .-xxx.,  containing  respectively  Samuel's  his- 
tory, Saul’s  life,  and  David’s  early  biography  ; 
while  in  reference  to  the  second  book  of  Samuel, 
he  generally  admits  the  conjecture  of  Eichhorn. 
Gramberg  {Die  Chronik,  vol.  ii.  p.  80)  is  in  fa- 


vour of  two  narratives,  named  by  him  A.  and  B., 
and  Stahelin  partially  acquiesces  in  his  view. 
Suca  theories  have  nothing  else  to  recommend 
them  but  the  ingenious  industry  which  framed 
them.  It  is  said,  however,  that  there  are  evident 
vestiges  of  two  different  sources  being  used  and 
intermingled  in  Samuel ; that  the  narrative  is 
not  continuous  ; especially,  that  it  is  made  up  of 
duplicate  and  contradictory  statements.  Such 
vestiges  are  alleged  to  be  the  following:  in  1 
Sam.  x.  1,  Samuel  is  said  to  have  anointed  Saul, 
whereas  in  x.  20-25  the  prophet  is  described  as 
having  chosen  him  by  lot.  The  reason  of  this  two- 
fold act  we  have  already  given  in  our  remarks 
on  Samuel  in  the  preceding  article.  The  former 
was  God's  private  election,  the  latter  his  public 
theocratic  designation.  Again,  it  is  affirmed  that 
two  different  accounts  are  given  of  the  cause  why 
the  people  demanded  a king,  the  one  (l  Sam. 
viii.  5)  being  the  profligacy  of  Samuel’s  sons,  and 
the  other  (xii.  12-13)  a menaced  invasion  of  the 
Ammonites.  Both  accounts  perfectly  harmonize 
The  nation  feared  the  inroads  of  the  children  of 
Ammon,  and  they  felt  that  Samuel's  sons  could 
not  command  the  respect  and  obedience  of  tlx 
various  tribes.  It  was  necessary  to  tell  the  old 
judge  that  his  sons  could  not  succeed  him  ; foi 
he  might  have  pointed  to  them  as  future  adviser* 
and  governors  in  the  dreaded  juncture. 

The  accounts  of  Saul’s  death  are  also  said  ti. 
differ  from  each  other  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2-6,  and 
2 Sam.  i.  2-12).  We  admit  the  difference,  the 
first  account  being  the  correct  one,  and  the  second 
being  merely  the  invention  of  the  cunning  Ama- 
lekite,  who  framed  the  lie  to  gain  the  favour  of 
Saul’s  great  rival,  David.  It  is  recorded  that  twice 
did  David  spare  Saul’s  life  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  and 
xxvi.).  The  fact  of  the  repetition  of  a similar  deed 
of  generosity  can  never  surely  give  the  narrative 
a legendary  character.  The  miracle  which  mul- 
tiplied the  loaves  and  the  fishes  was  twice  wrought 
by  Jesus.  The  same  remark  may  be  made  as  to 
the  supposed  double  origin  of  the  proverb,  ‘ Is  Saul 
also  among  the  prophets  ?’  In  1 Sam.  x 1 1 its 
real  source  is  given,  and  in  xix.  24  another  reasou 
andoccasion  are  assigned  for  its  national  currency. 
Especially  has  great  stress  been  laid  on  what  art 
supposed  to  be  different  records  of  Davids  intro 
duct  ion  to  Saul,  contained  in  1 Sam.  xvi.  18-22, 
and  in  the  following  chapter.  That  there  is  diffi- 
culty here  cannot  be  denied,  but  to  transpose  the 
passages,  on  the  supposition  that  David's  eucountei 
with  Goliath  was  prior  to  his  introduction  to  Saul 
as  musician,  will  not  remove  the  difficulty.  For  if 
Saul  became  so  jealous  of  David's  popularity  as 
he  is  represented,  no  one  of  his  domestics  would 
have  dared  to  recommend  David  to  him  as  one 
possessed  of  high  endowments,  and  able  to  charm 
away  his  melancholy.  The  Vatican  MS.  of  the 
Sept,  omits  no  less  than  twenty-five  verses  in 
these  chapters.  Yet  the  omission  does  not  effect  a 
reconciliation.  Some  critics,  such  as  Houbigant, 
Michaelis,  Dathe,  and  Kennicott,  regard  the  en- 
tire passage  as  an  interpolation.  We  are  inclined 
to  receive  the  chapters  as  they  stand.  David  is 
first  spoken  of  as  introduced  to  Saul  as  a min- 
strel, as  becoming  a favourite  of  the  sovereign, 
and  being  appointed  one  of  his  aid-de-camps. 
Now  the  fact  of  this  previous  introduction  i3  al- 
luded to  in  the  very  passage  which  creates  the 
difficulty ; for  after,  in  minute  Oriental  fashion. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF. 


<$86 

(Ewahl,  Komposition  der  Genes.,  p.  148)  David 
and  his  genealogy  are  again  brought  before  the 
reader,  it  is  said,  ‘ and  David  went  and  returned 
from  Saul  to  feed  Ins  father's  sheep  at  Bethlehem.’ 
The  only  meaning  this  verse  can  have,  is,  that 
David's  attendance  at  court  was  not  constant, 
especially  as  Saul's  evil  spirit  may  have  left  him. 
The  writer  who  describes  the  combat  with  Goliath 
thus  distinctly  notices  that  David  had  already 
been  introduced  to  Saul;  nay,  farther,  specific 
allusion  is  again  made  to  David’s  standing  at 
court.  ‘ And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  morrow,  that 
the  evil  spirit  from  God  came  upon  Saul,  and  he 
' prophesied  in  the  midst  of  the  house ; and  David 
played  with  his  hand,  as  at  other  times*  (1  Sam. 
xviii.  10).  The  phrase,  ‘ as  at  other  times,’  must 
refer  to  the  notices  of  the  former  chapter.  Yet, 
after  the  battle,  Saul  is  represented  as  being  igno- 
rant of  the  youth,  and  as  inquiring  after  him. 
And  Abner  the  general  declares  that  he  does  not 
know  the  youthful  hero.  Can  we  imagine  any 
ordinary  writer  so  to  stultify  himself  as  this  author 
is  supposed  to  have  done,  by  intimating  that 
David  had  been  with  Saul,  and  yet  that  Saul  did 
not  know  him  ? No  inconsistency  must  have 
been  apparent  to  the  annalist  himself.  It  is 
therefore  very  probable  that  David  had  left  Saul 
for  some  time  before  his  engagement  with  Goliath; 
that  the  king’s  fits  of  gloomy  insanity  prevented 
him  from  obtaining  correct  impressions  of  David's 
form  and  person,  the  period  of  David’s  life,  when 
the  youth  passes  into  the  man,  being  one  which 
is  accompanied  with  considerable  change  of  ap- 
pearance. The  inquiry  of  Saul  is  more  about 
the  young  warrior’s  parentage  than  about  himself. 
It  has  sometimes  struck  us  that  Abner’s  vehement 
profession  of  ignorance  is  somewhat  suspicious  : 
‘ As  thy  soul  liveth,  O king,  I cannot  tell ;’ — a 
response  too  solemn  for  a question  so  simple.  We 
canliot  pursue  the  investigation  farther.  We  would 
not  in  such  a passage  positively  deny  all  difficulty, 
like  Hiivernick  (§  166) : we  only  venture  to  sug- 
gest that  no  sane  author  would  so  far  oppose  himself 
in  a plain  story,  as  some  critics  suppose  the  author 
of  Samuel  to  have  done.  Appeal  has  also  been 
made  to  David’s  two  visits  to  Achish,  King  of 
Gath  : but  they  happened  in  circumstances  very 
dissimilar,  and  cannot  by  any  means  be  regarded 
as  a duplicate  chronicle  of  the  same  event. 

Lastly,  attention  is  called  to  1 Sam.  xv.  35 
where  it  is  said,  that  * Samuel  came  no  more  to 
see  Saul  again  till  the  day  of  his  death,’  as  if  the 
statement  were  contradictory  of  xix.  24,  where 
Saul  met  with  Samuel,  and  ‘lay  naked  all  day 
and  all  night  before  him/  De  Wette’s  translator 
before  referred  to  (vol.  ii.  p.  222)  dishonestly 
affirms  that  the  first  verse  says,  ‘ Samuel  did  not 
see  Saul  till  his  death,’  that  is,  he  never  saw  him 
again ; whereas  the  language  is,  ‘ Samuel  came  no 
more  to  see  Saul,’  that  is,  no  longer  paid  him  any 
visit  of  friendship  or  ceremony,  no  longer  sought 
him  out  to  afford  him  counsel  or  aid.  This  decla- 
ration cannot  surely  be  opposed  to  the  following 
portion  of  the  record,  which  states  that  Saul  ac- 
cidentally mot  Samuel;  for  he  pursued  David 
to  Ramah,  where  the  prophet  dwelt,  and  so  came 
in  contact  with  his  former  benefactor.  May  we 
not  therefore  conclude  that  the  compiler  has  not 
Joined  two  narratives  of  opposite  natures  very 
oosely  together,  or  overlapped  them  in  various 
laces  ; but  Las  framed  ou  of  authoritative  docu- 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF. 

ments  a consecutive  history,  not  dwelling  on  alt 
events  with  equal  interest,  but  passing  slightl* 
over  some,  and  formally  detailing  others  with 
national  relish  and  delight? 

Scope. — The  design  of  these  books  is  not  very 
di  fie  rent  from  that  of  the  other  historical  treatises 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  books  of  Kings  are  a 
history  of  the  nation  as  a theocracy  ; those  of 
Chronicles  have  special  reference  to  the  form  and 
ministry  of  the  religious  worship,  as  bearing  upon 
its  re-establishment  after  the  return  from  Babylon. 
Samuel  is  more  biographical,  yet  the  theocratic 
element  of  the  government  is  not  overlooked.  It 
is  distinctly  brought  to  view  in  the  early  chapters 
concerning  Eli  and  his  house,  and  the  fortunes  ot 
the  ark  ; in  the  passages  which  describe  the  change 
of  the  constitution  ; in  the  blessing  which  rested 
on  the  house  of  Obed-Edom  ; in  the  curse  which 
fell  on  the  Bethshemites,  and  Uzzah  and  Saul,  fox 
intrusive  interference  with  holy  things.  The  book 
shows  clearly  that  God  was  a jealous  God  ; that 
obedience  to  him  secured  felicity ; that  the  nation 
sinned  in  seeking  another  king ; that  Saul’s  spe- 
cial iniquity  was  his  impious  oblivion  of  his 
station  as  only  Jehovah’s  vicegerent,  for  he  con- 
temned the  prophets  and  slew  the  priesthood;  and 
that  David  owed  his  prosperity  to  his  careful 
culture  of  the  sacred  principle  of  the  Hebrew 
administration.  This  early  production  contained 
lessons  both  for  the  people  and  for  succeeding 
monarchs,  bearing  on  it  the  motto,  ‘ Whatsoever 
things  were  written  aforetime  were  written  for 
our  learning/ 

Relation  to  Kings  and  Chronicles. — Samuel 
is  distinctly  referred  to  in  Kings,  and  also  quoted. 
(Compare  1 Sam.  ii.  33  with  1 Kings  ii.  26 ; 
2 Sam.  v.  5 with  1 Kings  ii.  11 ; 2 Sam.  vii.  12 
with  1 Kings  ii.  4,  and  1 Chron.  xvii.  24,  25).  The 
history  in  Kings  presupposes  that  contained  in 
Samuel.  The  opinion  ofEichhorn  and  Bertholdt, 
that  the  author  of  Chronicles  did  not  use  our 
books  of  Samuel,  appears  contrary  to  evident  fact, 
as  may  be  seen  by  a comparison  of  the  two  his- 
tories. Even  Keil  (Apologetischer  Versuch  iiber 
die  Chronih , p.  206)  supposes  that  the  chronicler 
Ezra,  did  not  use  the  memoirs  in  Samuel  and 
Kings ; but  Movers  ( Kritisch  Untersuch.  uber 
die  Bibl.  Chronik)  proves  that  these  books  were, 
among  others,  the  sources  which  the  chronicler 
drew  from  in  the  formation  of  a large  portion  of 
his  history. 

Credibility. — The  authenticity  of  the  history 
found  in  the  books  of  Samuel  rests  on  sufficient 
grounds.  Portions  of  them  are  quoted  in  the 
New  Testament  (2  Sam.  vii.  14,  in  Heb.  i.  5 ; 
1 Sam.  xiii.  14,  in  Acts  xiii.  22).  References 
to  them  occur  in  other  sections  of  Scripture,  es- 
pecially in  the  Psalms,  to  which  they  often  afford 
historic  illustration.  It  has  been  argued  against 
them  that  they  contain  contradictory  statements. 
The  old  objections  of  Hobbes,  Spinoza,  Simon, 
and  Le  Clerc,  are  well  disposed  of  by  Carpzovius, 
( Introductio , p.  215).  Some  of  these  supposed 
contradictions  we  have  already  referred  to,  and 
for  a solution  of  others,  especially  of  seeming  con- 
trariety between  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Chro 
nicies,  we  refer  with  satisfaction  to  Davidson's 
Sacred  Hermeneutics , p.  544,  &c.  Some  of  the 
objections  of  Vatke,  in  his  Bibl.  Theol ., — cujuo 
mentio  est  refutatio — are  summarily  disposed  of 
by  Hengstenberg  (Die  Authentic  des  Pentat voL 


SANBALLAT. 


SANDAL. 


687 


ti.  p.  1 15\  who  usually  chastises  such  adversaries 
wfon  a whip  of  scorpions.  Discrepancies  in  num- 
bers, and  sometimes  in  proper  names,  are  the 
most  common  ; and  it  is  well  known  that  textual 
errors  in  numeration  are  both  most  frequently 
and  most  easily  committed.  [David;  Chro- 
Nicr.Es;  Saul.1 

Commentaries. — Yictovini  Strigelii  Comm, 
in  quatuor  Libr.  Reg.  et  Paralipp .,  1621,  folio  ; 
N.  Serrarii  Comm,  in  libr.  Josuce,  Jud.,  Ruth, 
Reg.,  et  Paralipp.,  1609,  folio;  Seb.  Schmidt, 
In  Lib.  Sam.  Comm.  1684-89,  4to ; Jac.  Bon- 
frerii  Comm,  in  libr.  quat.  Reg.,  8ic.,  1613 ; 
Clerici  Comm,  in  libr.  Sam.;  Opera,  T.  ii.; 
Jo.  Drusii  Annotat.  in  Locos  diffic.  Jos.,  Jud., 
Sam.,  1618;  Hensler , Erlduterungen  des  I.  B. 
Sam.  &c.  1795  ; Maurer,  Comment.  Critic,  p.  1 ; 
Exegetische  Handbuch  des  A.  T.  st.  iv.  v. ; Chan- 
dler’s Critical  History  of  the  Life  of  David . 
2 vols.  1786.— J.  E. 

SANBALLAT  (D^D  ; Sept.  'ZavafraWdr), 
a native  of  Horonaim,  beyond  the  Jordan  (Neb. 
ii.  10),  and  probably  also  a Moabitish  chief,  whom 
(probably  from  old  national  hatred)  we  find 
united  in  council  with  the  Samaritans,  and  active 
in  attempting  to  deter  the  returned  exiles  from 
fortifying  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iv.  1,  sq. ; vi.  1,  sq.). 
Subsequently,  during  the  absence  of  Nehemiah 
in  Persia,  a son  of  Joiada,  the  high  priest,  was 
married  to  his  daughter  (Neh.  xiii.  28).  Whether 
Sauballat.  held  any  public  office  as  governor  over 
the  Moabites,  or  over  the  Samaritans,  the  record 
does  not  state.  Such  a character  is  usually 
ascribed  to  him  on  the  supposed  authority  of  a 
passage  of  Josephus,  who  speaks  of  a Sanballat, 
a Cut  bean  by  birth,  who  was  sent  by  the  last 
Darius  as  governor  of  Samaria  ( Antiq . xi.  7.  2). 
The  time  assigned  to  this  Sanballat  is  120  years 
later  than  that  of  the  Sanballat  of  Nehemiah, 
and  we  can  only  identify  the  one  with  the  other 
by  supposing  that  Josephus  was  mistaken  both  in 
the  age  and  nation  of  the  individual  whom  he 
mentions.  Some  admit  this  conclusion,  as  Jose- 
phus goes  on  to  state  how  this  person  gave  his 
daughter  in  marriage  to  a son  of  the  high-priest, 
which  high-priest,  however,  he  tells  us  was  Jaddua, 
in  accordance  with  the  date  he  has  given.  The 
son  of  the  high-priest  thus  married  to  the  daughter 
of  Sanballat  was  named  Manasseh,  and  is  further 
stated  by  Josephus  to  have  become  the  high-priest 
of  the  schismatical  temple,  which  his  father-in-law 
established  for  the  Samaritans  in  Mount  Gerizim 
[Samaritans].  Upon  the  whole,  as  the  account 
in  Josephus  is  so  circumstantial,  it  seems  probable 
that,  notwithstanding  the  similarity  of  name  and 
other  circumstances,  his  Sanballat  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  the  same  that  obstructed  the  labours 
of  Nehemiah.  It  is  just  possible  that  the  Jewish 
historian,  who  does  not  mention  this  contemporary’ 
of  Nehemiah  purposely,  on  account  of  some 
similar  circumstance,  transferred  the  history  and 
name  of  Nehemiah’s  Sanballat  to  fill  up  the  ac- 
count of  a later  personage,  of  whose  name  and 
origin  he  may  have  been  ignorant.  But  there  is 
much  obscurity  and  confusion  in  that  part  of  his 
work  in  which  he  has  lost  the  guidance  of  the 
canonical  history,  and  has  not  acquired  that  of 
tine  1 rooks  of  Maccabees. 

SANDAL  ; Sept,  and  N.  T.,  vtt65tjpm, 
a avbdXiovj,  a covering  for  the  feet,  usually  de- 


noted by  the  word  translated  * shoe  * in  th» 
Authorized  Version.  It  was  usually  a sole  of 
hide,  leather,  or  wood,  bound  on  to  the  foot  by 
thongs;  but  it  may  sometimes  denote  such  shoes 
and  buskins  as  eventually  came  into  use.  Thus 
the  word  inv6br]p.a,  which  literally  means  ‘what, 
is  bound  under,’  i.  e.  the.  foot,  and  certainly  in 
the  first  instance  denoted  a sandal,  came  to  be 
also  applied  to  the  Roman  calctns,  or  shoe  co- 
vering the  whole  foot.  Josephus  (Dc  Bell. 
Jud.  vi.  1-8)  so  uses  it  of  the  caliga,  the  thick 
nailed  shoe  of  the  Roman  soldiers.  This  word 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  (Matt.  iii.  11  ; x. 
10;  Mark  i.  7;  Luke  iii.  16;  x.  4 ; John  i.  27 ; 
Acts  vii.  33;  xiii.  25),  and  is  also  frequently 
used  by  the  Sept,  as  a translation  of  the  Hebrew 
term  ; but.  it  appears  in  most  places  to  denote  a 
sandal.  Hence  the  word  rendered  ‘ shoe-latchet  * 
(Gen.  xiv.  23,  and  in  most  of  the  texts  just  cited), 
means  properly  a sandal  thong. 

Ladies  of  rank  appear  to  have  paid  great  atten- 
tion to  the  beauty  of  their  sandals  (Cant.  vii.  1)  ; 
though,  if  the  bride  in  that  book  was  an  Egyptian 
princess,  as  some  suppose,  the  exclamation,  ‘ How 
beautiful  are  thy  feet  with  sandals,  O prince's 
daughter!’  may  imply  admiration  of  a luxury 
properly  Egyptian,  as  the  ladies  of  that  country 
were  noted  for  their  sumptuous  sandals  (Wilkin- 
son, Anc.  Egypt,  iii.  364).  But  this  taste  was 
probably  general;  for,  at  the  present  day,  the 
dress  slippers  of  ladies  of  rank  are  among  the 
richest  articles  of  their  attire,  being  elaborately 
embroidered  with  flowers  andother  figures  wrought 
in  silk,  silver,  and  gold. 

It  does  not  seem  probable  that  the  sandals  of 
the  Hebrews  differed  much  from  those  used  in 
Egypt,  excepting,  perhaps,  that  from  the  greater 
roughness  of  their  country,  they  were  usually  of 
more  substantial  make  and  materials.  The 
Egyptian  sandals  varied  slightly  in  form  : those 
worn  by  the  uppev  classes,  and  by  women,  were 
usually  pointed  and  turned  up  at  the  end,  like 
our  skates,  and  many  of  the  Eastern  slippers  at  the 


481.  [Ancient  Egyptian  Sandals.] 


present  day.  They  were  made  of  a sort  of  woven 
or  interlaced  work  of  palm-leaves  and  papyrus- 
stalks,  or  other  similar  materials,  and  sometimes 
ot  leather;  and  were  frequently  lined  with  cloth, 
on  which  the  figure  of  a captive  was  painted  ; 
that  humiliating  position  being  considered  suited 
to  the  enemies  of  their  country,  whom  they  hated 
and  despised.  It  is  not  likeiy  that  the  Jews 
adopted  this  practice  ; but  the  idea  which  it  ex- 
pressed, of  treading  their  enemies  under  their  feet 
was  familiar  to  them  (Josh,  x 24.)  Those  cf 


CSft 


SANDAL. 


SANHEDRIM. 


the  middle  classes  who  ware  in  the  habit  of  wear- 
ing sandals,  often  preferred  walking  barefooted. 
Shoes,  or  low  boots,  are  sometimes  found  at 
Thebes ; but  these  are  believed  by  Sir  J.  G.  Wil- 
kinson to  have  been  of  late  date,  and  to  have 
belonged  to  Greeks,  since  no  persons  are  repre- 
sented in  the  paintings  as  wearing  them,  except 
foreigners.  They  were  of  leather,  generally  of 
a green  Colour,  laced  in  front  by  thongs,  which 
passed  through  small  loops  on  either  side,  and 
were  principally  used,  as  in  Greece  and  Etruria, 
by  women  (Wilkinson,  iii.  374-367). 


482.  [Greek  and  Homan  Sandals.] 


In  transferring  a possession  or  domain,  it  was 
customary  to  deliver  a sandal  (Ruth  iv.  7),  as  in 
our  middle  ages,  a glove.  Hence  the  action  of 
throwing  down  a shoe  upon  a region  or  territory, 
was  a symbol  of  occupancy.  So  Ps.  lx.  10: 
‘ Upon  the  land  of  Edom  do  I cast  my  sandal 
t.  e.  I possess,  occupy  it,  claim  it  as  my  own. 
In  Ruth,  as  above,  the  delivering  of  a sandal  sig- 
nified that  the  next  of  kin  transferred  to  another 
a sacred  obligation ; and  he  was  hence  called 
‘ sandal-loosed.’  A sandal  thong  (Gen.  xiv.  23), 
or  even  sandals  themselves  (Amos  ii.  6 ; viii.  6), 
are  put  for  anything  worthless  or  of  little  value; 
which  is  perfectly  intelligible  to  those  who  have 
witnessed  the  extemporaneous  manner  in  which  a 
man  will  shape  two  pieces  of  hide,  and  fasten 
them  with  thongs  to  the  soles  of  his  feet — thus 
fabricating  in  a few  minutes  a pair  of  sandals 
which  would  be  dear  at  a penny. 

It  was  undoubtedly  the  custom  to  take  off  the 
sandals  on  holy  ground,  in  the  act  of  worship, 
and  in  the  presence  of  a superior.  Hence  the  com- 
mand to  take  the  sandals  from  the  feet  under 
such  circumstances  (Exod.  iii.  5 ; Josh.  v.  15). 
This  is  still  the  well-known  custom  of  the  East — 
an  Oriental  taking  off  his  shoe  in  cases  in  which 
a European  would  remove  his  hat.  The  shoes 
of  the  modern  Orientals  are,  however,  made  to 
slip  off  easih  . which  was  not  the  case  with 
sandals,  that  required  to  be  unbound  with  some 
trouble.  This  operation  was  usually  performed 
by  servants ; aivl  hence  the  act  of  unloosing  the 
sandals  of  another  became  a familiar  symbol  of 
servitude  (Mark  i.  7 ; Luke  iii.  16  ; John  i.  27  ; 
Acts  xiii.  25)t  So  also  when  a man’s  sandals 
had  been  removed,  they  were  usually  left  in 
charge  of  a servant.  In  some  of  the  Egyptian 
paintings  servants  are  represented  with  their 
master's  sandals  on  their  arm  : it  thus  became 


another  conventional  mark  of  a servile  coo* 
dition,  to  bear  tire  sandals  of  another  (Matt, 
iii.  11). 

SANHEDRIM,  more  properly  Sanhbdrin 
(PTJDJP*  cvvfSpioi/'),  the  supreme  judicial  coun« 
cil  of  the  Jews,  especially  for  religious  affairs. 
It  was  also  called  j'l  n'2,  House  of  Judgment ; 
and  in  the  Apocrypha  and  New  Testament  the 
appellations  yepovaia  and  irpea^vreptou  seem  also 
to  be  applied  to  it  (comp.  2 Macc.  i.  10 ; iv.  44  ; 
Acts  v.  21 ; xxii.  5 ; 1 Macc.  vii.  33  ; xii.  35^ 
&c.). 

This  council  consisted^  of  seventy  members. 
Some  give  the  number  at  seventy-two,  but  for 
this  there  appears  no  sufficient  authority.  To 
this  number  the  high  priest  was  added,  * provided 
he  was  a man  endowed  with  wisdom  ’ (iTH  DK 
nQ^rQ  'IfcO,  Maimonid.  Sanhed.  c.  2).  Re- 
garding the  class  of  the  Jewish  people  from  which 
these  were  chosen,  there  is  some  uncertainty. 
Maimonides  ( Sanhed . c.  2)  tells  us,  that  this 
council  was  composed  ‘ of  Priests,  Levites,  and 
Israelites,  whose  rank  entitled  them  to  be  as- 
sociated with  priests.’  Dr.  Jost,  the  learned  his- 
torian of  his  nation,  simply  says  : ‘the  members 
of  the  council  were  chosen  from  among  the  peo- 
ple and  more  particularly  in  another  place  he  re- 
marks : ‘these  judges  consisted  of  the  most  eminent 
priests,  and  of  the  scribes  of  the  people,  who  were 
chosen  for  life,  but  each  of  whom  had  to  look  to 
his  own  industry  for  his  support’  ( Geschichte  der 
Israeli  ten  seit  der  Zeit  der  Makkabder , th.  i. 
s.  49;  iii.  86).  The  statement,  in  this  latter 
passage  corresponds  with  the  terms  used  in  Matt, 
ii.  4,  where  the  council  convened  by  Herod,  in 
consequence  of  what  the  wise  men  of  the  East 
had  told  him,  is  described  as  composed  of ‘all 
the  chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people ;’  the 
former  of  whom  Lightfoot  ( Hot . Hob.  et  Talm. 
in  loc.)  explains  as  the  clerical , the  latter  as  the 
laical  members  of  the  Sanhedrim.  In  other 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  we  meet  with  the 
threefold  enumeration,  Priests , Elders , and 
Scribes  (Matt.  xvi.  21 ; xxvi.  2,  57,  &c.);  and 
this  is  the  description  which  most  frequent  ly  occurs. 
By  the  first  are  to  be  understood,  not  such  as  had 
sustained  the  office  of  high-priest,  but  the  chief 
men  among  the  priests  ; probably  the  presidents 
of  the  twenty-four  classes  into  which  the  priest- 
hood was  divided  (1  Chrarn  xxiv.  6 ; comp,  the 
use  of  the  phrase  D’OilDn  in  2 Chron.  xxxvi. 
14).  By  the  second,  we  are  probably  to  under 
stand  the  select  men  of  the  people — the  Aider- 
men, — persons  whose  ranker  standing  led  to  theii 
being  raised  to  this  distinction.  And  by  the  last 
are  designated  those,  whether  of  the  Levitical 
family  or  not,  who  gave  themselves  to  the  ] ursuit 
of  learning,  especially  to  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  of  the  tradition*1  of  the  fathers. 
To  this  general  description  we  may  add  what 
Maimonides  lays  down  as  to  the  qualifications 
required  in  those  who  were  eligible  to  this  office. 
These  were — 1.  that  they  should  possess  much  and 
varied  learning;  2.  that  they  should  be  free  from 
every  bodily  defect,  such  as  lameness,  blindness, 
&c. ; 3.  that  they  should  be  of  such  age  as  should 
afford  them  experience,  and  yet  not  exjjose  them 
to  the  feebleness  of  dotage ; 4.  that  they  should 
not  be  eunuchs ; 5.  that  they  should  be  fathers  , 
6.  that  they  should  possess  the  moral  qualities 


I 


SANHEDRIM. 


SANHEDRIM. 


m 


se>  ftirth  in  Exod.  xviii.  2!  ; Dent.  i.  13-16 
(tanked,  c.  2).  A number  of  persons  were  al- 
ways in  the  condition  of  candidates  for  admission 
Into  this  honourable  body,  from  among1  whom 
vacancies  were  supplied  as  they  occurred.  The 
new  member  was  installed  by  ihe  imposition  of 
Sands,  the  company  chauuting  the  words  *Lo! 
=a  hand  is  upou-thee,  and  the  power  is  given  thee 
®f  exercising  judgment,  even  in  criminal  cases’ 
( Srmhed . c.  4). 

?n  the  council  the  office  of  president,  belonged 
to  the  high  priest,  if  he  was  a member  ol  it ; 
when  be  was  not.  it  is  uncertain  whether  a sub- 
stitute was  provided,  or  his  place  occupied  bv  the 
oersnn  next  in  rank.  He  bore  the  title  of 
chief  oi  president  i and  it  was  his  prerogative  to 
jummon  the  council  together,  as  well  as  to  preside 
oxer  its  deliberations.  When  he  entered  the 
assembly,  all  the  members  rose  and  remained 
standing  until  he  requested  them  to  sit.  Next 
in  rank  to  him  was  the  vice-president,  who  bore 
the  title  of  jH  JT3  3K,  Father  of  the  House  of 
Judgment ; whose,  duty  it  was  to  supply  the  place 
of  the  president  in  case  he  should  be  prevented 
by  any  acciuenta!  cause  from  discharging  his 
duties  himself.  . When  the  president  was  present, 
this  officer  sat  at.  his  right  hand.  The  third  grade 
of  rank  was  that,  of-  the  DDH,  or  sar/e,  whose  bu- 
siness was  to  give  counsel  to  the  assembly,  and 
who  was  generally  selected  to  his  office  on  ac- 
count of  his  sagacity  and  knowledge  of  the  law  ; 
bis  place  was  on  the'  left  hand  of  the  president. 
'The  assembly,  when  convened,  sat  in  the  form  of 
a semi-circle,  or  half-moon,  the  president  occu- 
pying the  centre.  At  each  extremity  stood  a 
*crihe,  whose  duty  it  was  to  record  the  sentence 
pronounced  by  the  council.  There  were  certain 
officers,, called  whose  business  seems  to 

have  been  somewhat  analogous  to  that  of  our 
policemen:  they  were  armed  with  a baton,  kept 
order  in  the  street, -and  were  under  tbs  direction 
of  the  Sanhedrim. 

The  meetings  of  this  council  were  usually  held 
in  the  morning.  Their  place  of  meeting  was  a 
ball,  close  by  the  great  gate  of  the  temple,  and 
leading  from  the  outer  court  of  the  women  to  the 
holy  place  ; from  its  pavement  of  polished  stone, 

it  was  called  F^Un  A Talmudic 

tradition  affirms  that,  forty  years  before  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  the  Sanhedrim  were  com- 
jxdled  by  the  Romans  to  forsake  this  hall,  and 
amid  their  meetings  in  caves  on  thp  east  side  of  the 
Still  on  which  the  temple  stood;  but  as  the 
JVlischna  is  silent  in  regard  to  this,  and  as  die 
New  Testament  history  seems  inert  ipatihle  with 
its  truth,  we  must  resolve  this  tradition  into  the 
generalization  of  some  solitary  case  into  a regular 
practice.  In  cases  of  urgency  the  Sanhedrim 
*uight  be  convened  in  the  house  of  the  high  priest 
(Matt,  xxv i.  3). 

.The  functions  of  the  Sanhedrim  were,  accord- 
ing to  the  Jewish  writers,  co-extensive  w;fb 
<he  civil  and  religious  relations  of  the  people.  In 
their  hands,  we  are  told,  was  jflaced  the  supreme 
authority  in  all  things;  they  interpreted  the  law. 


# This  must  nut  he  confounded  with  the 
*.iQ<S(TTfjcvTos,  where  Pilate  sat  in  judgment  on 
Const,  and  which  was  evidently  a place  in  his 
own  dwelling  (John  six.  13). 


they  appointed  sacred  rites,  they  imposed  tri- 
butes, they  decreed  war,  they  judged  in  capital 
cases;  in  short,  they  engrossed  the  supreme  au- 
thority, legislative,  executive,  and  judicial.  In 
this  there  is  no  small  exaggeration;  at  least, 
none  of  the  historical  facts  which  have  come  down 
to  ns  confirm  this  description  of  the  extent  of  the 
powers  of  the  Sanhedrim  ; whilst  some  of  these 
facts,  such  as  the  existence  of  civil  officers  armed 
with  appropriate  authority,  seem  directly  opposed 
to  it.  In  the  notices  of  thi3  body,  contained  in 
the  New  Testament,  we  find  nothing  which  wou’  1 
lead  us  to  infer  that  their  powers  extended  beyond 
matters  of  a religious  kind.  Questions  of  blas- 
phemy, of  sabbath-breaking,  of  heresy,  are  those 
alone  whidh  we  find  referred  to  their  judicature 
(comp.  Matt.,  xxvi.  5 7-65  ; John  v.  11,  18;  Matt, 
xii.  14,  sq. ; Acts  v.  17,  sq.,  &c.).  On  those  guilty 
of  these  crimes  they  could  pronounce  sentence  of 
death  ; but,  under  the  Roman  government,  it.  was 
not  competent,  fur  them  to  execute  this  sentence  : 
their  power  terminated  with  the  pronouncing  of  a 
decision,  and  the  transmission  of  this  to  the  pro- 
curator, with  whom  it  rested,  to  execute  it  or  not 
as  he  saw  meet  (John  xviii.  31  ; Matt,  xxvii.  1,  2). 
Hence  the  unseemly  readiness  of  this  council  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  the  assassin  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
stroying those  who  were  obnoxious  to  them  (Acts 
v.  33.;  xxiii.  12-15).  rf&e  case  of  Stephen  may 
seem  to  furnish  an  objection  to  this  statement ; 
but  as  his  martyrdom  occurred  at  a time  when  the 
Roman  procurator  was  absent,  and  was  altogether 
a tumultuous  procedure,  it  cannot  be  allowed  ta> 
stand  for  more  than  a casual  exception  to  the 
general  rule.  Josephus  informs  us,  that  after  the* 
death  of  Festus,  and  before  the  arrival  of  his  sue-; 
cesser,  the  high  priest  Ananus,  availing  himself 
of  the  opportunity  thus  afforded,  summoned  a. 
meeting  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  condemned  Jams? 
the  brother  of  Jesus,  with  several  others,  to  suffer 
death  by  stoning.  This  licence,  however,  was 
viewed  with  much  displeasure  by  the  new 
procurator,  Albinus,  and  led  to  the  deposition  of 
Ananus  from  the  office  of  high  priest  ( Aritiq . xx. 
9.  1,  2). 

At  what  period  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  th& 
Sanhedrim  arose,  is  involved  in  much  uncer- 
tainty. The  Jews,  ever  prune  tu  invest -with  the* 
honours  of  remote  antiquity  all  the  institutions  of 
.their  nation,  trace  this  council  to  the  time3  of 
Moses,  and  find  the  origin  of  it  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  a body  of  elders  as  the  assistants  of 
Moses  in  the  discharge  of  his  judicial  functions- 
(Num.  xi.  16,  17).  There  is  no  evidence,  how- 
ever, that  this  was  any  other  than  a temporary 
arrangement  for  the  benefit  of  Moses ; nor  do. 
we,  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
detect  any  traces  whatever  of  the  existence  of 
this  council  in  the  times  preceding  tha  Babylonish- 
captivity,  nor  in  those  immediately  succeeding 
the  return  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land.  The- 
earliest  mention  of  the  existence  of  this  council 
by  Josephus,  is  in  connection  with  the  reign, 
of  Hyrcanus  II.,  b.c.  69  ( Antiq . xiv.  9.  3). 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  it  existed  before- 
this  time — that  it  arose  gradually  after  the  cessa-. 
tion  of  the  prophetic  office  in  Juuah,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  felt  want  of  some  supreme  direction 
ami  judicial  authority — that  the  number  of  its 
members  was  fixed  so  as  to  correspond  with  thafe 
of  the  council  of  elders  appointed  to  assist  Muses— ■* 


SAFPHIRA. 


SARAH. 


c?0 


and  that  ii  firs}  assumed  a formal  and  influential 
existence  in  the  later  years  of  the  Macedo-Grecian 
dynasty.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  allusions 
mad'?  to  it  in  the  Apocryplial  books  (2  Macc.  K 
3.0;  iv;  44;  xiv.  5;  Judith  xi.  14,  &c.);  and 
perhaps,  also,  l>y  the  circumstance  that  the  use  of 
tiie  name  ovvtdpioF,  from  which  the  Hebrews 
formed  their  word  t|aniiedrim,  indicates  a Mace- 
donian origin  (comp.  Livy,  xlv.  32). 

The  Talmudical  writers  tell  us,  that,  besides 
the  Sanhedrim  properly  so  called,  there  was  in 
every  town  containing  not  fewer  than  one  hundred 
nmi  twenty  inhabitants,  a smaller  Sanhedrim 
j'TTHjD),  consisting  of  twenty-three 
members,  before  which  lesser  causes  were  tried, 
and  from  the  decisions  of  which  an  appeal  lay  to 
the  supreme  council.  Two  such  smaller  councils 
are  said  to  have  existed  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  to 
&h is  class  of  tribunals  that  cur  Lord  is  supposed 
fo  allude,  under  the  term  Kpltris,  in  Matt.  v.  22. 
f /There  the  number  of  inhabitants  was  under  one 
fmndred  and  twenty,  a council  of  three  adjudi- 
cated in  all  civil  questions.  What  brings  insu- 
perable doubt  upon  this  tradition  is,  that  Josephus, 
tvho  must  from  his  position  have  been  intimately 
acquainted  with  all  the  judicial  institutions  of 
Iris  nation,  not  only  does  not  mention  these  small- 
er councils,  but  says,  that  the  court  next,  below 
She  Sanhedrim  was- composed  of  seven  members. 
Attempts  have  been  made  to  reconcile  the  two 
accounts,  but  without  success;  and  it  seems 
flow  very  generally  agreed,  that  the  account  of 
Josephus  is  to  t>e  preferred  to  that  of  .t  lie  Mischna ; 
End  that,  consequently,  it  is  to  the  tribunal  of 
the  seven  judges  that  our  Lord  applies  tlie  term 
Kptais,  in  the  passage  referred  to  (Tnuluck,  Berg- 
predigt,  in  loc.,  Eng.  Truusl.  vol.  i.  p.  241 ; Kui- 
uoel,  in  loc.). 

Comp.  Otho,  Lexicon  Rahbinico-Philolog.  in 
voce  ; Selden,  be  Syncdriia  Vetentm  Ebraiorumt 
ii.,  95,  sq.  ; Reland,  Antiq.  ii.  7 ; Jahn,  Archev- 
clogie,  ii.  2.  § 183;  Pareau,  Antiq.  lleb . iii. 
1.4;  Lighffoot,  Works,  plur.  locis ; Hartmann, 
sLnqc  Verbindung  des  Alien  Test,  miidem  Neuen, 
c.  166,  fl’.,  &c.— YV.  L.  A.. 

SAP  PH  IRA  (2crr£ffp?j),  the  wife  of  Ananias, 
and  his  accomplice  in  the  sin  for  which  he  died 
(Acts  v.  1-10).  Unaware  of  the  judgment  wfiich 
!:*d  befallen  her  husband,  she  entered  the  place 

amt  three  hours  after",  probably  to  look  for  him; 
anil  being  there  interrogated  by  Peter,  repeated  and 
resisted  in  the  ‘lie  unto  the  Holy  Ghost,*  which 
kad  destroyed  her  husband  ; on  which  the  grieved 
apostle  made  known  to  her  hb  doom,  and  pro- 
nounced her  own— ‘ Behold,  the  feet  cf  those 
-who  have  buried  tliy-  husband  are  at  the  door, 
c.nd  shall  carry  thee  out.*  On  hearing  these  awful 
words,  she  fell  dead  at  his  feet.  The  cooi  ob- 
stinacy of  Sapphira  in  answering  as  she  did  the 
questions  which  were  probably  designed  to  awaken 
her  conscience,  deepens  the  shade  of  the  foul 
crime  common  to  her  and  her  husband ; and  has 
suggested  to  many  the  probability  that  the  plot 
was  cf  her  devising,  and  that,  like  another  Eve, 
else  drew  her  husband  into  it.  But  this  is  mere 
•conjecture  [Ananias]. 

SAPPHIRE  0»Sp ; Sept,  and  N.  T.  adir- 
&etpos),'  a precious  stone,  mentioned  in  Exod. 
sxiv.  10;  xxyiii.  18;  Job  xxyiii.  13;  Ezek, 
ss,viii.  13;  Rev,  sxit  19.  Thai' which  we  call 


sapphire  is  next  in  hardness  and  val  .eto  ttie  dsa* 
mom),  and  is  mostly  of  a blue  colour  of  various 
shades.  But  the  stone  which  Pliny  describe 
under  the  name  of  sapphire  ( Hist.  Nat.  xxxvii. 
39),  in  agreement  with  Theophrastus  ( De  I^avui. 
23),  is  manifestly  the  lapis  lazuli.  It  is  opaque, 
inclines  often  to  the  deep  blue  colour  of  tin? 
violet,  and  has  sometimes  pebble-spots  of  a gol.Ien 
yellow  hue.  This  stone,  however,  is  not  suffi- 
ciently valuable  for  Joh  xxviii.  16;  ami  Pliny 
says  that  it  is  * inutilis  sc.uipiura?,*  which  does 
not  apply  to  the  sapphir  of  Ex.id.  xxviii.  18), 
which  was  engraved.  It  seems,  theiefure,  likely 
that,  notwithstanding  the  classical  appropriation 
of  the  name  to  the  lapis  lazuli,  the  true  sapphire, 
or  rather  that  which  we  call  such,  is  the  stone 
mentioned  in  Scripture.  It  is  often  found  ia 
collections  of  ancient  gem9. 

SARABIM.  [Thouns.] 


SARAH  (rne>,  c princes3,  a noble  lady,  being 
the  fem.  of  sn?*,  *a  prince/  ‘ a nob’ema«  / Sept. 

the  wife  of  Abraham.  # and  mother  o3 
Isaac.  She  was  at  first  called  Sarai,  the  ety- 
mology and  signification  of  which  are  obscure. 
Ewald  ( Gram . § 324)  explains  it  to  mean  con- 
tentimis , quap-clsome  (from  (he  root  HAp),  which 
is  perhaps'  the  most  natural  sense;  and  the  mere 
change  of  the  name  1 6 one  mure  honourable,  may 
imply  that  there  was  something  unpleasant  in  the 
one  previously  borne  (Gen.  xvii.  5,  sq.).  Aa 
Sarah  never  appears  but  in  connection  with  some 
circumstance  in  which  her  husband  -was  princi- 
pally concerned,  all  the  facts  of  her  history  have 
already  been  given  in  the  urticle  Abkaham,  ami 
her  conduct  to  Hagar  is  considered  in  the  article 
which  bears  her  name.  These  facts  being  fami- 
liar to  the  reader,  a few  supplementary  remarks 
on  particular  points  are  alone  required  in  this 
place. 

There  are  two  opinions  with  respect  ro  the 
parentage  of  Sarah.  Many  interpreters  suppose 
that  she  was  the  daughter  of  Haran,  the  tides 
son  of  Abraham’s  father  Terah  (probably  by  a 
former  wife),  and  the  same  person  with  the  Iscah 
who  is  named  as  one  of  the  daughters  of  Hararr 
(Gen.  xi.  29).  In  this  case  she  was  niece  of 
Abraham,  although  .only  ten  years  younger  than 
her  husband,  and  the  sister  of  Milcali  and  of  Lot. 
The  reasons  for  this  conclusion  are  of  much 
weight.  It  is  certain  that  Nahor,  the  surviving 
brother  of  Abraham,  married  Milcali,  the  other 
daughter  of  Karan,  and  the  manner  in  which 
Abraham’s  marriage  with  Sarah  is  mentioned,, 
would  alone  suggest  tha‘  he  took  the  remaining 
daughter.  4 Abram  and  Nahor  took  them  wives  - 
the  name  of  Abram’s  wife  was  Sarai ; and  the  name 
of  Nahor‘3  wife  Milcali,  the  daughter  of  Haran, 
the  father  of  Milcali,  and  the  father  of  Iscah' 
(Gen. .xi.  29).  Here  most  of  the  Jewish  writers 
say  that  Iscah  is  Sarai ; and  without  supposing 
this  to  be  the  case,  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
for  what  reason  it  should  -be  so  - fxiintedly  noted 
that  Haran,  who  was  the  father  of  M ilcah,  was  aleo 
the  father  of  Iscah.  Besides,  it  Sarai  is  not  iscah, 
no  account  is  given  by  Mocesofher  descent ; and 
it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  lie  ^ouhl  omit 
it,  as  it  must  have  been  agreeable  to  a people 
so  careful  of  genealogy  to  know  whence  they  were 
descended,  both  bv  the  father  and  mother’s  sida 


SABAH. 


SARDIS. 


Again.  w.ieu  Torah  leaves  Ur  of  tho  Chaldees,  it 
is  said  that  : Terah  took  Abram  his  son,  and  Lot 
bis  son's  son,  and  Saras  hi3  daughter-in-law,  his 
eim  Abram’s  wife;  and  they  went  forth,’  &c. 
(Geu.  xi..3l);  on  which  Aben  Ezra  observes 
that  if  Sarai  had  been  (as  some  suppose)  the 
daughter  of  Terah  and  sister  of  Abram,  the  text 
would  doubtless  have  run:  4 Terah  took  Abram 
liis  son,  and  Sarai  his  daughter,  the  wife  ol 
Abram.’  The  double  relationship  to  Lot  which 
each  an  alliance  would  produce,  may  also  help  to 
the  better  understanding  of  some  points  in  the 
connection  between  Lot  and  Abraham.  Against 
this  view  we  have  to  produce  the  assertion  of 
Abraham  himself,  that  Sarai  woe  his  half-sister, 

* the  daughter  of  my  father,  but  not  the  daughter 
of  my  mother1  (Gen.  :xx.  12):  but  this  is  held 
by'many  to  mean  no  more  than  that  Karan  her 
father  was  hia  h&lf-brother ; fer  the  colloquial 
usage  of  the  Hebrews  in  this  matter,  makes  it 
easy  to  understand  that  he  might  call  a niece  a 
sister,  and  a grand-daughter  a daughter.  In 
general  discourse  * daughter 1 comprised  any  and 
every  'female'  descendant,  arid  * sister  ’ any  and 
every  consanguineous  relationship.  4m  ^ . 

That  Sarah  had  great  beauty  appears  from 
She  precautions  ’which  Abraham  took  to  guard 
Isimself  and  her  from  the  dangers  it  was  likely  to 
^occasion.  And  that  his  was  not  ton  partial  an 
estimate  of  her  attractions,  »s  evinced  by  the 
transactions  in  Egypt  and  at  Gerar  (Gen.  xii. 
15  ; xxi.  2).  In  the  former  case  the  commenda- 
tions which  the  princes 'of  Pharaoh  bestowed 
upon  the  charms  of  the  lovely  stranger,  has  been 
supposed  by  some  to  have  been  owing  to  the  con- 
trast which  her  fresh  Mesopotamian  complexion 
offered  to  the  dusky  hue  of  their  own  beauties. 
But  so  far  as  climate  is  concerned,  the  nearer 
Syria  could  offer  complexions  as  fair  as  hers; 
and,  moreover,  a people  trained  by  their  habits 
to  admire  ‘dusky  1 beauties, -were  not  likely  to  be 
inordinately  attracted  by  a fresh  complexion. 

It  ia  asked  wnether  Sarah  was  aware  of  the 
intended  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  the  son  of  her  long- 
deferred  hojiea.  The  chronology  is  uncertain,  and 
does  not  decide  whether  this  translation  occurred 
before  or  afler  her  death.  She  was  probably  alive; 
and  if  so,  we  may  understand  from  the 'precau- 
tions employed  by  Abraham,  that  she  wa3 
acquainted  with  the  purpose  of  the  journey  to  the 
land  of  Moriah,  and,  indeed,  that  it  was  the  object 
of  these  precautions  to  keep  from  her  knowledge  a 
matter  which  must  so  deeply  wound  her  heart. 
He  could  have  the  les3  difficulty  in  this,  if  his 
faith  was  such  as  to  enable  him  to  believe  that 
he  should  bring  back  in  safety  the  son  he  was 
commanded  to  sacrifice  (Hob.  xi.  IS).  As,  how- 
ever, the  account  of  her  death  immediately  fol- 
lows that  of  this  sacrifice,  some  of  the  Jewish 
writers  imagine  that  the  intelligence  killed  her, 
and  that  Abraham  found  her  dead  on  his  return 
( Targ.  Jonath and  Jarchi  on  Gen.  xxiii.  2 ; 
Pirke  Eiiezer.  c.  52).  But  thore  seems  no  au- 
thority for  such  an  inference. 

Sarah  is  so  rarely  introduced,  directly  to  our 
notice,  that  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  her  elia- 
xacter  justly,  for  want  of  adequate  materials. 
She  is  eet-n  only  when 'her  presence  is. indispen- 
sable; '.and  then  she  appears  with  more  of  sub- 
mission, ^nd  of  simplicity,  than  of  dignity,  and 
Eaanitests  an  unwise  but  not  unusual  promptitude 


m 

in  following  her  first  thougnts,  and  .in  proceeding 
upon  the  impulse  of  her  first  emotions.  U^»n 
the  whole,  Sarah  scarcely  meets  the  idea  the 
imagination  would  like  to  form  of  the  life-com- 
panion of  60  eminent  a person  as  Abraham. 
Nevertheless,  rve  cannot  fail  to  observe  that  she 
was  a most  attached  and  devoted  wife.  Her  hus- 
band was  the  central  object  of  all  her  thoughts  ; 
and  he  was  not  forgotten  even  in  her  first  transports 
of  joy  at  becoming  a mother  (Gen.  xxi.  7).  Tina 
is  her  highest  eulogium. 

Isaiah  i3  the  only  prophet  who  names  Sara_ 
(ch.  li.  2).  St.  Paul  alludes  to  her  hope  of  be- 
coming a mother  (Rom.  iv;  19)  ; and  afterwards 
: cites  the  .promise  which  she  received  (Rom.  ix. 
9) ; and  Peter  eulogises  her  submission  to  her 
husband  (l  Pet.  iii.  6). 

SARDIS  (gdpSzis),  the  capital  of  the  ancient 
kingdom  of  Lydia,  situated  at  the  foot  of.  Mount 
Tmolus,  In  a fine  plain  watered  by  the  river  Pac- 
ta! us.  (Herod,  vis.  SI  ; Xenophon,  Cyrop.  vir. 
2-11;  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat;  Strabo,  xiii.  p.  625)=. 
It  is  in  N.  lat.  38°  30';  E.  long.  27°  57k  Sardia 
ra  a great  and  ancient  city,  and  from  its  wealth 
and  importance  was  the  object  of  much  cupidity 
and  of  many  sieges.  When  taken  by  Cyrus, 
under  Cnssus;  its  last  king,  who  has  become  pro- 
verbial for  his  riches,  Sardis  was  one  of  the  most 
splendid  and  opulent  cities  of  the  East..  . Afler  theisr 
victory  over  Antiochus  it  passed  to  the  Romans', 
under  whom  it  rapidly  declined  in  rank  and  im- 
portance. In  the  time  of  Tiberiu3  it  was  de- 
stroyed by  an  earthquake  (Strabo,  xii.  p.  579),  bu£ 
was  rebuilt  by  order  of  the  emperor  (Tacit.  A nnal- 
ii.  47).  The  inhabitants  of  Sardis  bore  an  ill 
repute  among  the  ancients  for  their  voluptuous 
habits  of  life.  Hence,  perhaps,  the  point  of  that 
phrase  in  the  Apocalyptic,  message  to  the  city — 
‘Thou  hast  a few  names,  even  in  Sardis,  which 
have  not  defiled  their  garments’  (Rev.  iii.  4).  The 
place;  that  Sardis  holds  in  this  message,  as  one 
of  the  ‘ Seven  Churches  of  Asia,1  is  the  source  cf 
the.  peculiar  interest  with  which-  the  Christian 
reader  regards  it.  From  what  is  said  it  appears 
that  it  had  already  declined  much  in  real  reli- 
gion, although  it  still  maintained  the  name  and 
external  aspect  of  a Christian  church,  ‘ having  a 
name  to  live,  while  it  was  dead1  (Rev.  iii.  1). 

Successive  eaithquakes,  and  the  ravages  of  tbs 
Saracens  and  Turks,  have  reduced  this  once  Sou* 
risking  city  to  a heap  of  ruins,  presenting  many, 
remains  of  its  former  splendour.  The  habitations 
of  the  living  are  confined  to  a few  miserable 
cottages,  forming  a village  called  Sart.  This, 
with  the  ruins,  are  still  found  on  the  true  site  of 
Sardis,' at  the  foot  of  Mouht  Tmolus,  or  Bouz-dag, 
as  the  Turks  call  it.  The  ruins  are  chiefly  those  of. 
'.the  theatre,  stadium,  and  of  some  churches.  -There 
are  also  two  remarkable  pillare,  supposed  to  have 
belonged  to  the  temple  of  Cybele;  and,  if  so,  they, 
■ are  among  the  oldest^  monuments  now  existing 
in  the  world,  the  temple  having  been  built  only 
300  years  after  that  of  Solomon.  The  acropolis 
.seems  well  to  define  the  site  of  the  city.  It  is  a 
marked  object,  being  a tall  distorted  rock  of  soft 
sandstone,  rent  as  if  by  an  earthquake.  A 
countless  number  of  sepulchral  hillocks,  beyond 
’ the  Hermus,  heighten  the  - deaolateuess  of  a spot 
which  the  multitudes-  lying  there  once  made 
busy  by  their  living  presence  and  pursuits.  Sea 
Smith,  Hartley,  Macisrlane,  and  Aiundell,  seve- 


'SATAN.; 


SAREPTA.- 


Yatly,  On  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia;  ArunJell, 

\ Discoveries  in  Asia  Minor ; S'orch,  Dissert,  de 
'Sept.  Urb.  Asia  in  Apocal.  ; Richter,  Wallfahr- 
■ten;  Schubert,  Morgenland,  Ac. 

^ SARD  I US.  [Odem.]  - 
jSARDONYX.  [Yaiiai.om.] 
aSARKPTA  ( 'S.dpcrvra . Luke -iv.  26;  Hebrew, 
r/.iirephath,  a Phoenician  town  between 

jTyiP  an«l  Salon,  mentioned  in  l Kings  xvii.  9, 
.10;  O'laii.  xx.  It  is  the  place  where  Klijah  went 
lo  dwell,  and  where  he  performed  the  miracle  of 
multiplying  the  barrel  of  meal  and  cruse  of  oil. 
aoM  where  he  raised  the  widow’s  son  to  life.  It 
®till  subsists  as  a large  village,  under  the  name 
'of  Smafend.  The  crusaders  made  Sarepta  a 
‘.Latin  bishopric  in  the  archiepiscopate  of  Sidon, 
and  elected  near  the  port  a small  chapel  over  the 
reputed  site  of  Elijah’s  miracle  (Will.  Tyr.  xix. 
i 1 ; Jacob  de  Vilnucus,  ch.  44).  it  is  clear  that 
Vht?  Saiepta  of  the  crusaders  stood  on  the  sea 
shine ; anil,  therefore,  the  present  village  hearing 
the  same  name,  which  stands  upon  the  adjacent 
lulls,  must  have  been  of  more  recent  origin. 
£See  Nan,  jY ov.  Voyage,  p.  514  ; Pococke,  ii.  85; 
‘Kohinson,  Bib.  Researches , tit.  413,  414;  liau- 
gnet.'*-J>a/ds/mfi,  p.  140;. 

"feSARGON,  king  of  Assyria  f Assyria], 

SARON.  [Sharon] 

<SATAN.  Tiie  doctrineof  Satan  and  of  Satanic 
fegenev  is  to  he  made  out  from  revelation,  and 
prom  reflection  in  agreement  with  revelation. 

, Scripture  Names  or  Titles  of  Satan.— Besides 
Satan,  he  is  called  the  Devil,  the  Dragon,  the  Evil 
One,  the  Angel  of  the  Bottomless  Pit,  the  Prince 
-of  this  World,  the  Prince  of  the  Power  of  the  Air, 
♦he  God  of  thi9  World,  Ajollyon,  Abaddon,  Be* 
•mil,  Beelzebub.  Satan  and  Devil  ate  the  names 
[by  which  he  is  oftener  distinguished  than  by  any 
;0lner,  the  former  being  applied  to  him  about  forty 
times,  and  the  latter  fcfewi  fifty  timew 


Satan  is  the  Hebrew  word  transferred  ti 
the  English.  It  is  derived  from  the  verb 
which  means  ‘to  lie.  in  wait,’ ‘ to  oppose/.**.® 
be  an  adversary.*  Hence  the  noun  denotes,  arj 
adversary  or  opposer.  The  word  in  its  generic 
sense  occurs  in  1 Kings  xi.  14  : ‘The Lord  raised- 
up  an  adversary  (JD!!^)  against  Solomon,’  i.  e.  Ha” 
dad  the  Edomite.  In  the  23rd  verse  the  word  oc 
curs  again,  applied  to  Rezan.  It  is  used  in  thief 
same  sense  in  I Sam.  xxix.  4,  where  David  i» 
termed  an  adversary  ; and  in  Num.  xxii.  22,  wher-  j 
the  angel  * stood  in  the  way  for  an  adversarj 
(|L3w;)to  Balaam,’  i e.  to  oppose  him  when  lie  wei* 
witli  the  princes  of  Moab.  See  also  Ps.  cix.  C. 

I: i Zech.  iii.  1,  2,  the  word  occurs  in  its  specif  t 
sense  as  a proper  name : ‘ And  he  showed  me 
Joshua  the  high-priest  standing  before  the  anger 
of  the  Lord,  and  Satan  standing  at  hu 

right  hand  to  resist  ’ (1313^,  ‘ to  satanize  him  T ) 

‘ And  the  Lord  said  unto  Satan  The 

Lord  rebuke  thee,  O Satan.’  Here  it  is  manifest 
both  from  the  context  and  the  use  of  the  article 
that  some  particular  adversary  i3  denoted. 

In  the  1st  and  2nd  chapters  of  Job,  the  same  list 
of  the  word  with  the  article  occurs  several  time* 
The  events  in  which  Satan  is  represented  as  the 
agent  confirm  this  view.  He  was  a distinguished 
adversary  and  tempter.  See  also  1 Cliron.  xxi.  1. 
When  we  pass  from  the  Old  to  the  New  Testament, 
tins  doctrine  of  an  invisible  evil  agent  becomes 
more  clear.  With  the  advent  of  Christ  and  the 
ojeningof  the  Christian  dispensation,  the  gieat 
opposer  of  that  kingdom,  the  partietdar  adversaiy 
and  antagonist  of  the  Saviour,  would  naturally 
become  more  active  and  more  known.  The  anta- 
gonism of  Satan  and  his  kingdom  to  Christ  anti 
bis  kingdom  runs  through  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  will  appear  from  the  following 
passages  and  their  contexts;  Matt.  iv.  10  , xii.26; 
Mat  it  iv,  15;  Luke  x.  18;  xxii.  3,  31  ; Acta 


SATAN. 


SATAN. 


xs\i.  13;  Rom.  xvi.  20;  2 Cor.  si.  14;  Rev. 
u.  13;  xii.  9.  Peter  is  ewes  called  Satan,  be- 
cause b is  spirit  and  conduct,  at  a certain  time, 
were  so  much  in  opposition  to  the  spirit  and 
intent  of  Christ,  and  so  much  in  the  same  hue 
of  direction  with  the  workings  of  Satan.  This 
is  the  only  application  of  the  word  in  the  New 
Testament  to  any  but  the  prince  of  the  apostate 
angels. 

Devil  (AtaffoXas)  is  the  more  frequent  term  of 
designation  given  to  Satan  in  the  New  Testament. 
Both  Satan  a^.d  devil  are  in  several  instances  ap- 
plied to  the  same  being  (Rev.  xii.  9).  ‘ That  old 
eerpent,  the  devil  and  Satan.’  Christ,  in  the 
temptation  (Matt,  iv.),  in  his  repulse  of  the 
tempter,  calls  him  Satan ; while  the  evangelists 
distinguish  him  by  the  term  ‘ devil.’  Devil  is  the 
translation  of  StSffoXos,  from  the  verb  StaffiW o>,‘  to 
thrust  through,’  ‘ to  carry  over,’  and,  tropically, 
* to  inform  against,’  ‘vto  accuse.’  He  is  also  called 
the  accuser  of  the  brethren  (Rev.  xii.  10).  Tho 
Hebrew  term  Satan  is  more  generic  than  the 
Greek  Staff  o\ot.  The  former  expresses  Ms  cha- 
racter 8.s  an  opposer  of  all  good ; the  latter  denotes 
more  particularly  the  relation  which  he  bears 
to  the  saints,  as  their  traducer  and  accuser. 
£*iaj3oXo$  is  the  uniform  translation  which  tho 
Septuagint  gives  of  the  Hebrew  tdtd,  when  used 
with  the  article.  Farmer  says  that  the  term  Sa- 
tan is  not  appropriated  to  one  particular  person 
or  spirit,  but  signifies  an  adversary  or  opponent 
In  general.  This  is  to  no  purpose,  since  it  is 
also  applied  to  the  devil  as  an  adversary  in  par- 
ticular. There  are  four  instances  in  the  Hew 
‘Testament  in  which  the'  word  Staff oXos  is  applied 
to  human  beings.  In  three  out  of  the  four,  it  is 
in  the  plural  number,  expressive  of  quality,  and 
not  personality  (1  Tim.  "iii.  11 ; 2 Tim.  ill.  8 ; 
Tit.  ii.  3).  In  the  fourth  instance  (John  vi.  70), 
Jesu-3  says  to  his  disciples,  4 Have  not  I chosen 
you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a devil  f (didffokos ). 
This  is  ilia  only  instance  in  the  New  Testament 
ef  its  application  to  a human  being  in  the  singular 
siumlier;  and  here  Dr.  Campbell  thinks  it  should 
ssot  be  translated  4 devil.*  The  translation  is,  how- 
ever, of  no  consequence,  since  ii  is  with  the  use  of 
Che  original  word  that  this  article  is  concerned. 
The  obvious  reasons  for  this  application  of  otd- 
CoA os  to  Judas,  as  an  exception  to  the  general 
sule,  go  to  confirm  the  rule.  The  rule  is  that,  in 
the  New  Testament  usage,  the  word  in  the  singular 
number  denotes  individuality , and  is  applied  to 
Satan  as  a proper  name.  By  the  exception,  it  is 
applied  to  Judas,  from  his  resemblance  to  the 
devil,  as  an  accuser  and  betrayer  of  Christ,  and 
from  his  contributing  to  aid  him  in  his  designs 
against  Christ.  With  these  exceptions,  the  usus 
l&quendi  csf  the  New  Testament  shows  & AiaffoXos 
to  be  a prof'er  name,  applied  to  an  extraordinary 
Being,  whose  influence  upon  the  human  race  is 
great  and  mischievous  (Matt.  iv.  1-11;  Luke 
viii.  12;  John  viii.  44;  Acts  xiii.  10;  Eplies.  vi. 
II;  1 Pet.  v.  8;  1 John  iii.  8;  Rev.  xii.  9). 
The  term  devil,  which  is  in  the  New  Testament 
the  uniform  translation  of  8idffoAosy  is  also  fre- 
quently the  translation  of  Saty&v  and  oaipdi/iov. 
Between  these  words  and  oidffoAos  the  English 
Si’anslatorg  have  made  no  distinction  The  former 
ere  almost  always  used  in  connection  with  de- 
moniacal possessions,  and  are  applied  to  the  poa- 
segsinar  spirits,  but  never  -fo  the  .prince  of  those 
Splits,  ( ‘u  Uis  other  hand,  tilffQhos  is  cover 


applied  to  the  demons,  but  only  to  their  prince; 
thus  showing  that  the  one  is  used  definitely  aa  a 
proper  name,  while  the  others  are  used  indefinitely 
as  generic  terms.  The  sacred  writers  made  a dis- 
tinction, which  in  the  English  version  is  lost. 
In  this,  our  translators  followed  the  German  ver- 
sion : teufel,  like  the  term  devil,  being  applied  la 
both  StdffoAos  and  Saljxwv. 

Personality  of  Satan. — We  determine  the  per- 
sonality of  Satan  by  the  same  criteria  that  we  use 
in'determining  whether  Caesar  and  Napoleon  were 
real,  personal  beings,  or  the  .person ifi cations  oil 
abstract  ideas,  viz.,  by  the  tenor  of  history  con- 
cerning them,  and  the  ascription  of  j>ersonul  attri- 
butes to  them.  All  the  forms  of  personal  agency 
g.re  made  use  of  by  the  sacred  writers  in  setting 
forth  the  character  and  conduct  of  Satan.  They 
describe  him  as  having  power  and  dominion, 
messengers  arid  followers.  He  tempts  and  resists ; 
he  is  held  accountable,  charged  with  guilt ; is  to 
be  judged,  and  to  receive  final  punishment.  On 
the  supposition  that  it  was  the  object  of  the  sacred 
writers  to  teach  the  pro|)cr  personality  of  Satan, 
they  could  have  found  no  mere  express  terms  than 
those  which  they  have  actually  used.  And  on 
the  supposition  that  they  did  not  intend  to  teach 
such  a doctrine,  their  use  of  language,  incapable 
of  communicating  any  ether  idea,  is  wholly  inex- 
plicable. To  suppose  that  all  this  semblance  of  a 
real,  veritable,  conscious  moral  agent,  is  only  a 
tjoye,  a prosbpopeia,  i3  to  make  the  inspired  pen- 
men guilty  of  employing  a figure  in  such  a v/ay 
that,  by  no  ascertained  laws  of  language,  it 
could  be  known  that  it  was  a, figure, — in  such  a 
way  that  it  could  not  be  taken  to  be  a figure, 
without  violence  to  all  the  rhetorical  rules  by 
which  they  on  other  occasions  are  known  to  havu 
been  guided.  A personification,  protracted  through 
such  a book  as  the  Bible,  even  should  we  suppose 
it  to  have  been  written  by  one  person — never 
dropped  in  the  most  simple  and  didactic  portions 
—never  explained  when  the  most  grave  and  im- 
portant truths  are  to  be  inculcated,  and  when  mt-n 
the  most  ignorant  and  prone  to  superstition  are  ft* 
be  the  readers — a personification  extending  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation, — this  is  altogether  ano- 
malous and  inadmissible.  But  to  suppose  thaf 
the  several  writers  of  the  different  books  of  tliar 
Bible,  diverse  in  their  style  and  intellectual 
habits,  writing  under  widely  differing  circunv 
stances,  through  a period  of  nearly  two  thousand 
years,  should  each,  from  Moses  to  John,  fall  hit® 
the  use  of  tiie  same  personification,  and  follow 
it,  too,  in  a way  so  obscure  and  enigmatical, 
that,  not  one  in  a hundred  of  their  readers  would 
escape  the  error  which  they  did  not  mean  to 
teach,  or  apprehend  the  truth  which  they  wished 
to  set  forth, — to  suppose  this,  is  to  require  men  to 
believe  that  the  inspired  writers,  who  ought  t»‘ 
have  done  the  least  violence  to  the  common  law?} 
of  language,  have  really  done  the  most.  Such 
uniformity  of  inexplicable  singularity,  on  the  part 
of  such  men  as  the  authors  of  the  several  books  of 
the  Bible,  could  be  accounted  for  only  on  .tire 
hypothesis  that  they  were  subject  to  an  evil  aa 
well  as  a good  inspiration.  Oh  the  other  hand, 
such  uniformity  of  appellations  and  imagery,  and 
such  identity  of  characteristics,  protracted  through 
such  a series  ui  writings,  go  to  confirm  the  received 
doctrine  of  a real  personality. 

But.theic  are  other  difficulties  than  these  general 


SATAN-. 


GS4-  "SATAN 

ones,  by  which  ihe  theory  of  personification  ig 
encumbered.  This  theory  supjiasea  the  devil  to 
be  ihe  principle  of  evil.  Let  it  be  applied  in  the 
interpretation  of  two  or  three  passages  of  Scripture. 

‘ Then  was  Jesus  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the 
wilderness,  to  he  tempted  of  the  devil’  (Matt, 
i v . 1-11).  Was  Jesus  tempted  by  a real,  personal 
being?*  or  was  it  by  the  principle  of  evil  ? If  by 
the  latter,  in  whom  or  what  did  this  principle 
reside?  Was  it  in  Jesus?  Then  it  could  not  be 
true  that  in  him  was  no  sin.  The  very  principle 
of  sin  was  in  him, “which  would  have  made  him 
tbs  tempter  of  himself.  This  is  bad  hermeneutics, 
producing  worse  theology.  Let  it  also  be  remem- 
bered that  this  principle  of  evil,  in  order  to  be 
moral  evil,  must  inhere  in  some  conscious  moral ^ 
Ireing.  Siri  is  evil,  only  as  it  implies  the  state  or 
action  of  some  personal  anti  accountable  agent. 
Who  was  this  agent  of  evil  in  the  Temptation? 
Was  it  to  a mere  abstraction  that  the  Saviour 
raid,  ‘Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Loid  thy  God 
* Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan?"  Or  was  it  to  a real 
person,  having  desires  and  purposes  and  volitions, 
— evil , because  these  desires  and  purposes  and 
volitions  were  evil?  There  is  but  one  intelligible 
answer  to  such  questions.  And  that  answer  shows 
how  perfectly  untenable  is  the  position  that  the 
devil,  or  Satan,  is  only  the  personification  of  evil. 
Again  : * He  was  a murderer  from  the  beginning, 
and  abode  not  in  the  truth  : he  is  a liar  and  the 
father  of  it’  (John  viii.  44).  With  what,  pro- 
priety could  these  specific  acts  of  guilt  be  charged 
upon  an  abstraction  ? An  abstraction  a murderer ! 
a liar!  The  principle  of  evil  abode  not  in  the 
truth ! Seriously  to  affirm  such  things  of  the 
mere  abstraction  of  evil  is  a solemn  fiction ; 
•while,  to  assert  them  of  a fallen  angel,  who 
beguiled  Kve  by  falsehood,  and  brought  death 
upon  all  the  race  of  man,  is  an  intelligible  and 
affecting  truth.  What  necessity  for  inspired  men 
to  write  that  the  devil  sinned  from  the  beginning, 
5f  he  be  only  the  principle  of  evil  ? What  con- 
sistency, on  this  hypothesis,  in  their  saying  that 
he  transforms  himself  into  an  angel  of  light,  if  he 
has  no  volition,  no  purpose,  no  craft,  no  ends  or 
agency?  If  there  are  such  things  as  personal 
attributes,  it  must  be  conceded  that,  the  sacred 
writers  do  ascribe  them  to  Satan.  On  any  other 
supposition,  the  writers  of  the  Now  Testament 
could  more  easily  be  convicted  of  insanity  than 
believed  to  be  inspired.  The  principle  of  inter- 
jrretation  by  which  the  personality  of  Satan  is 
discarded,  leads  to  the  denial  of  the  personality  of 
the  Deity. 

Natural  History.  — The  class  of  beings  to  which 
Satan  originally  belonged,  and  which  constituted 
a celestial  hierarchy,*  is  very  numerous:  ‘Ten 
thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood  before  him  * 
(Dan.  vii.  10).  They  .were  created  and  dependent 
(John  i.  3).  Analogy  leads  to  the  conclusion, 
that  there  are  different  grades  among  the  angels 
as  among  other  races  of  beings.  The  Scrip- 
t-lies warrant,  the  same.  Michael  is  described 
n3  one  of  the  chief  princes^Dan.  x.  13);  as  chief 
captaif.  of  the  host  of  Jehovah  (Josh.  v.  14). 
Similar  distinctions  exist  among  the  fallen  angels 
<C»1.  ii.  15;  Eph.  vi.  12).  It  is  also  reasonable 
to  suppose  that 'they  were  created  susceptible  of 
improvement  in  all  respects,  except  moral  purity, 
aa  they  certainly  were  capable  of  apostacy.  Aa 
to  t&£  time  when  they  were  brought  into  Ueljijp  tli? 


Bible  is’silent;  and  where  it  is  silent,  we  should 
be  silent,  or  speak  with  modesty.  Some  supjiosa 
that  they  were  called  into  existence  after  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  ; among  whom  is  Dr.  John  Dick. 
Others  have  supposed  that  they  were  created  just 
anterior  to  the  creation  of  man,  and  for  purposes 
of  a merciful  ministration  to  him.  It  is  more 
probable,  however,  that  as  they  were  the  highest 
in  rank  among  the  creatures  of  God,  so  they  we ra 
the  first  in  the  order  of  tima;  and  that  they  may 
have  continued  for  ages  in  obedience  to  their 
Maker,  before  the  creation  of  man,  or  the  fall  of 
the  apostate  angels. 

The  Scriptures  are  explicit  as  to-the  apostacy 
of  some,  of  whom  Satan  was  the  chief  and  leader. 
‘ And  the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first  estate, 
or  principality,  hut  left  their  own  habitation,’  &c. 
(Jude,  ver.  6).  * For  if  God  spared  siot  the  angels 

that  sinned,"  &c.  (2  Pet.  ii.  4).  Those  who  fol- 
lowed Satan  in  his  apostacy  are  described  as 
belonging  to  him.  The  company  is  called  tire 
devil  and  his  angels  (t<£  AicfloA^  «al  rois  cyyt- 
A ois  airrov,  Matt.  xxv.  4 1 ).  The  relation  marked 
here  denotes  the  instrumentality  which  the  devil 
may  have  exerted  in  inducing  those  sailed  his 
angels  to  rebel  against  Jehovah  and  join  them- 
selves to  his  interests.  How  Satan  and  his  fbr- 
lowers,  being  created  so  high  in  excellence  anti 
holiness,  became  sinful  and  fell,  is  a question 
upon  which  theologians  have  differed,  hut  which 
they  have  not  settled.  The  difficulty  has  seemed 
to  great  to  Schleiertnachcr  and  others,  that  they 
have  denied  the  fact  of  such  an  apostacy.  They 
have  untied  the  knot,  by  cutting  it.  Still  the* 
difficulty  remains.  The  denial  of  mystery  is  not 
the  removal  of  it.  Even  philosophy  teaches  us  to 
believe  sometimes  where  we  cannot  understand. 
It  is  here  that  the  grave  question  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  evil  first  meets  us.  If  we  admit  the  fact, 
of  apostacy  among  the  angeb,  a3  by  a fair  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  we  me  constrained  to  do, 
the  admission  of  such  a fact  in  the  case  of  human 
heing3  will  follow  more  easily,  they  being  the 
lower  order  of  creatures,  in  whom  defection  would 
he  less  surprising.  As  to  what  constituted  tha 
first  sin  of  Satan  and  his  followers,  there  has 
l»een  a diversity  of  opinions.  Some  have  supposed 
that  it  wa3  the  beguiling  of  our  first  parents-. 
Others -have  believed  that  the  first  sin  of  the 
angels  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  vi.  2.  The  sacreiL 
writers  intimate  very  plainly  that  the  first  trans- 
gression was  pride,  and  that  from  this  sprang  open 
rebellion.  Of  a bishop,  the  apostle  shys  (I  Tim. 
iii.  6),  * He  must  not  be  a novice,  lest,  being 
puffed  up  with  pride , he  fall  into  the  condemnation 
of  the  devil.’  From  which  it  appears  that  prida 
was  the  sin  of  Satan,  and  that  for  this  he  was  con- 
demned. This,  however,  marks  the  quality  of  the: 
sin,  and  not  the  act.. 

In  his  physical  nature,  Satan  is  among  tnose 
that  are  termed  spiritual  beings ; notes  excluding? 
necessarily  all  idea  of  matter,  but  as  opposed 
rather  to  I he  animal  nature.  It  is  Ihe  rev evpar ik6s9 
in  opposition  to  the  t^vxaais-  The  good  angels  are 
all  ministering  spirits,  revevpara  (Heb.  i.  14). 
Satan  is  one  of  the  angels  that  kept  not  their  first 
principality.  The  fall  produced  no  change  in  his 
physical  or  metaphysical  nature.  Paul,  in  warn- 
ing the  Ephesians  against  the  rviles  of  the  devi] 
(t«s  ueOoSeias  too  SiaP6\ov),  tells  them  (Ep's. 
vj.  J?#'  that  they  contended  net  against  flesh 


SATAN. 

aul  brood,  men;  human  enemies,  but  &giiinai 
pr$hicl  pal:  ties  and  powers,  against  the  rulers  of 
the  darkness  of  tins  world,  against  spiritual 
wickedness  in  high  places;  rrpbs  to  irrcvfiarwcl 
ri}s  ircvTiplxs  iv  •.  ois  itrovpaviais,  iu  which  the 
contrast  is  between  human  and  superhuman  foes, 
the  ra  nirzvuartKa  being  for  ras  Qvcreis  nvevpia- 
tikSs,  or  tix  TrpeufiKTa,  spiritual  natures,  or 
spit  its , in  opposition  to  flesh  and  blood  (Itosen- 
inuller,  in  loc.).  Satan  is  not  pure  spirit  in  the 
cense  that  God  is  spirit,  nor  necessarily  Co  the 
exclusion  of  body  : but  that  body,  if  he  has  airy, 
is  ethereal,  pneumatic,  invisible.  He  is  unlike 
God,  because  finite  and  dependent ; ami,  in  bis 
ethereal  physical  nature,  and  the  rapidity  with 
which  he  ’moves  unseen  from  place  to  place,  be  is 
unlike  to  man.  He  is  immortal,  but  not  eternal ; 
era ither  omniscient  nor  omnipresent,  but  raised 
high  above  the  human  race  in  knowledge  and 
power.  The  Persian  mythology,  in  its  early  stage, 
Sind,  subsequently,  the  Gnostics  and  Manichearts, 
ranked  the  evsl  principle  as  coeval  and  co-ordi- 
nate, or  nearly  so,  with  God,  or  the  good  principle. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  church  always  roads 
him  a dependent  creature,  subject  to  the  control 
of  the  Almighty.  By  she  modifications  which 
Suraasier  subsequently  introduced,  the  Persian 
imgelology  came  more  nearly  to  resemble  tiiat  of 
tlieJews.  Some  liave  ascribed  to  Satan  the  power 
of  working  miracles,  contending  that  there  are 
two  series  of  antagonist  cal  miracles  running 
through  the  Bible.  To  the  miracles  of  Moses 
were  opposed  those  of  the  Egyptian  magicians; 
and  to  those  of  Ohrid  and. Ins  apostles,  the  signs 
and  wonders  of  false  prophets  and  Antichrists — tbs 
Divine  and  the  Satanic.  OLshausen  maintains 
this  view;  as  do  some  of  the. older  commentators 
( Bib  Use  hen  Commentary  vol.  i.  p.  242).  The  evi- 
dence in  support  of  such  a belief  h&3  not  been 
cuSicienfc  to  procure  for  it  general  acceptance 
(see  Rosenmiiller  and  Calvin  on  Matt.  xxiv. 
21 ; 2 Thess.  ii.  9;  Hengstenberg’s  Egypt  and 
the  Books  of  Moses,' ah.  iii. ; also  llosenmuller  and 
Hush  on  Kxod.,  ch.  yti.).  With  a substantial 
presence  in  only  one  place  at  one  time,  yet,  as 
the  head  of  a spir  itual  kingdom,  be  is  virtually 
irresent  wherever  his  angels  or  servants  are  exe- 
cuting his  will. 

His  cl ai racier  is  evil,  purely  and  entirely  so 
(I  John  iii.  8;  John  vili.  44).  His  character  is 
denoted  by  his  titles,  Satan,  Adversary,  Dial  Kilos, 
False  Accuses*,  Tempter,  &c.  All  the  represent- 
ations of  him  in  Scripture  show  him  to  have  un- 
EJissed  and  confirmed  evil  as  the  basis  of  his 
Character,  exhibiting  itself  in  respect  to  God  in 
assuming  to  be  his  equal,  and  in  wishing  to 
transfer  the  homage  and  service  which  belong 
only  to  God  to  himself ; and  in  respect  to  men. 
in  efforts  to  draw  them  away  from  God  and 
attach  them  to  his  kingdom.  The  evil  developes 
itself  in  all  possible  ways  and  by  all  possible 
means  of  opposition  to  God,  and  to  those  who  are 
striving  to  establish  and  extend  his  dominion. 
Evil  is  so  transcendent  in  him,  that  his  whole 
intellectual  and  moral  nature  is  subordinated  to 
it.  His  character  is  symmetrical.  It  has  a 
dreadful  consistency,  from  the  concurrence  in 
evil,  and  subjection  to  it,  of  all  the  powers  of  his 
Being.  It  is  unique  and  complete  in  evil,  made 
so  by  the  act  of  aposiacy,  and  continued  so  by 
a jpsrliuacloua  adherence  to  evil  &)  his  good, 


SATAN.  G53 

Qtter.stsdt  gays  that  ‘ some  angels  are  called  evil, 
not  by  reason  of  their  essential  constitution,  but, 
first,  from  an  evil  act,  that  is,  apostacy  from  God , 
secondly,  from  an  habitual  perverseness  which 
followed  this  act  of  apostacy;  thirdly,  on  accoutre 
of  an  irreclaimable  persistency  in  evil.*  Evil  b 
bis  fixed  6tate,  in  which  he  is  confirmed  by  the 
invincibility  of  bis  dispositions  to  sin — art  invin- 
cibility which  no  motives  can  ever  overcome. 
This  confirmation  of  evil  is  denoted  by  the  ever- 
lasting chains  of  darkness  in  which  the  apostate 
at: gels  are  reserved  unto  the  judgment  of  the 
great  day  (Jude,  ver.  6).  The  immutability  of  hia 
evil  character  precludes  the  idea  of  repentance, 
and  therefore  the  possibility  of  recovering  J»race- 
* He  possesses 'an  understanding  which  misappre- 
hends exactly  that  which  is  most  worthy  to  ba 
known,  to  which  the  key  fails  without  which 
nothing  can  be  understood  in  its  true  relations,— 
ail  understanding  darkened,  however  deep  it  may 
penetrate,  however  wide  it  may  reach.  He  ig 
thereby  necessarily  unblessed ; tom  away  from 
the  centre  of  life,  yet  without  ever  finding,  it  in 
himself;  from  the  sense  of  inward  emptiness-, 
continually  driven  to  die  exterior  world,  and  yet 
with  it, .as  with  himself,  in  eternal  contradiction  ; 
for  ever  fleeing  from  God,  yet  never  escaping  him  ; 
constantly  labouring  to  frustrate  his  designs,  yet 
always  conscious  of  bsuig  obliged  to  promote 
them  ; instead  of  enjoyment  in  the  contemplation 
of  his  excellence,  the  never  satisfied  desire  after 
an  object  which  it  cannot  attain ; instead  of  hope, 
a perpetual  wavering  between  doubt  and  de- 
spair; instead  of  love,  a powerless  hatred  agsinsS 
God,  against  his  fellow-beings,  against  himself* 
(Twasten). 

Agency,— The  agency  of  Satan  extends  to  all 
'.tint  lie  does  or  causes  to  ha  done':  * Qui  tacit  per 
alium  facit  per  se.’  To  this  agency  the  following 
restrictions  liave  been  generallysupposed  to  exist; 
it  ia  limited,  first,  by  the  direct  power  of  God  | 
he  cannot  transcend  the  power  on  which  he  is  de- 
pendent for  existence ; - secondly,  by  the  finitenesa 
of  his  own  created  faculties ; — thirdly,  by  the  esta- 
blished connection  of  cause  and  effect,  or  the  laws 
of  nature.  The  miracles,  which  he  has  been  sup- 
posed to  have  the  power  of  working,  are  deno- 
minated lying  signs  and  wonders,  eppeias  aal 
<ripa<n  ij/cvdovs  (2  Thess.  ii.  9)  \\  itii  these  re- 

strictions, the  devil  goes  about  like  a roaring  lion. 

H is  ag.ncy  is  moral  and  physical.  First,  moral. 
He  beguiled  our  first  parents,  and  thus  brought 
sin  and  death  upon  them  and  their  posterity 
(Gen.  iii.).  He  moved  David  to  number  the 
people  (1  Chron.  xxi.  1).  He  resisted  Joshua 
the  high-priest  (Zech.  iii.  1).  He  tempted  Jesus 
(Matt,  iv.) ; entered  into  Judas,  to  induce  him 
to  betray  his  master  .(Luke  xxii.  3):  instigated 
Ananias  and  Sapphira  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Acts  v,  3);  hindered  Paul  and  Barnabas  on 
their  way  to  the  Thessalonians  (1  Thes<.  ii.  18), 
He  is  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children 
of  disobedience  (Kph.  ii.2);  and  he  deceiveth  tho 
whole  world  (Rev.  xii.  9). 

The  means  which  he  uses  are  variously  called 
wiles,  darts,  depths,  snares,  all  deceivableness’e£ 
unrighteousness.  He  darkens  the  understandings 
of  men,  to  keep  them  in  ignorance.  He  perverts 
their  judgments,  that  lie  may  lead  them  into  error. 
He  insinuates  evil  thoughts,  and  thereby  awakens 
ia  them  unholy  desires.  . He  eixitea  them  fra 


CSS  SATAN. 

pride,  anger,  and  revenge ; to  discontent,  rs- 
pinings.  anil  rebellion.  He  labours  to  prop  up 
false  systems  of  religion,  and  to  conr.pt  and 
overturn  tlie  true  one.  He  came  into  most  direct 
and  determined  conflict  with  the  Saviour  in  the 
temptation,  hoping  lo  draw  him  from  liis  allegiance 
to  God,  and  procure  homage  for  himself : but  lie 
failed,  in  his  purpose.  Next,  he  instigated  the 
JewSilo  put  him  to  death,  thinking  thus  to  thwart 
his  designs  and  frustrate  his  plans.  Here  too  he 
failed,  and  was  made  to  subserve  the  very  ends 
which  he  most  wished  to  prevent.  Into  a similar 
conflict  does  he  come  with  all  the  saints,  and 
with  like  ultimate  ill  success.  God  uses  his 
temptations  as  the  means  of  trial  to  his  people, 
and  of  strength  hy  trial,  and  points  them  out  as  a 
motive  to  watchfulness  and  prayer.  Such  are  the 
nature  and  mode  of  his  moral  influence  and 
agency. 

But  his  efforts  are  directed  against  the  bodies 
of  men,  as  well  as  against  their  souls.  That  the 
agency  of  Satan  was  concerned  in  producing 
physical  diseases  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach 
fJobii.  7;  Luke  xiii.  16).  Peter  say3  of  Christ, 
that  he  went  about  doing  good  and  -healing 
[iii/xevos)  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil 
(row  Zia&6\ov)  (Acts  x.  33)  Hymeneus  and 
Alexander  were  delivered  to  Satan,  that  they 
might  learn  not  to  blaspheme  (1  Tim.  i.  20); 
where  physical  Buffering  by  the  agency  of  Satan, 
a.3  a divine  chastisement,  is  manifestly  intended. 

Farmer  seem3  to  have  been  among  the  first  in 
modem  times  who  adopted  the  rationalistic,  or 
accommodation  principle  of  interpretation,  upon 
the  subject  of  demoniacal  possessions.  Semlei 
introduced  Tils  work  on  Demoniacs  into  Germany, 
and  the  G erne an&j e o 1 ogi 3ta  adopted  substantially 
liis  view.  For  a rtffutation  of  this  system  of  i:i»er- 
|.t elation,  see  Twesten’s  Dogmatik , Olahausen's 
Commentary  Storr  and  Flatt’s  Biblical  Tkeol., 
and  Appleton's  Lectures ; and  for  a general  state- 
ment of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  see  the  articles 
Demon;  Demoniacs. 

Whatever  the  demons  may  have  been,  they 
were  considered  by  the  New  Testament  writers  a3 
Ixdonging  to  the  kingdom  of  Satan.  They  are 
called  unclean  spirits,  evil  demons.  They  are 
conscious  of  being  under  condemnation. (Matt, 
viii.  23).  Christ  came  to  destroy  the  works  cf 
Satan  ; and  he  refers  to  his  casting  out  demons 
by  the  finger  of  God  as  proof  that  he  xvas  exe- 
cuting that  work.  And  when  charged  with  cast- 
ing them  out  by  the  prince  of  demons,  he  meets 
Use  charge  by  the  assertion  that  this  would  be 
dividing  the  kingdom  of  Satan — Satan  casting 
out  Satan,  i.  o.  casting  out  lu3  own  subjects;  — 
the  irresistible  inference  from  which  is,  that  Satan 
and  the  demons  are  one  house,  pertain  to  ens  and 
the' dame  kingdom 

It  is  of  no  avail  that  there  are  d ifficulf  ies  connected 
with  the  agepey  ascribed  to  Satan.  Objections  are 
of  little  weight  when  hrought  against  well-authen- 
ticated facts.  Any  objections  ta’sed-  against  the 
agency  of  Satan  are  equally  valid  against  his 
existence.  If  he  exists,  he  must  act;  and  if  he 
vs  evil,  bis  agency  must  he  evil.  The  fact  of  such 
«*n  agency  being  revealed,  as  it  13,  is  every  way  as 
consonant  with  reason  and  religious  consciousness 
£3  are  the  existence  and  agency  cf  good  angels. 
Weit'u  *r  reason  nor  consciousness  could  by  fhem- 
gelve*  establish  such  a fact;  but  all  the  testimony 


SAUL. 

they  &r£  capable  of  adducing  ia  in  agreement  wiit> 
the  Scripture  representation  on  the  subject.  Sf 
God  communicates  with  good  men  without  tbeii 
consciousness,  there  is  no  apparent  reason  why 
Satan  may  not,  without  their  consciousness,  com- 
municate with  had  men.  And  if  good  men  be- 
come better  by  the  influence  of  good  beings,  it  is 
equally  easy  to  suppose  that  bad  men  may  become 
worse  by  the  influence  of  evil  beings.  Such  at* 
influence  no  more  militates  against  the  benevo- 
lence of  God,  than  does  the  agency  of  wicked  mm. 
or  the  existence  of  moral  evil  in  any  form.  Evil 
agents  are  as  really  under  the  divine  control  as 
are  good  agents.  And  out  of  evil,  God  will 
cause  good  to  come.  He  will  make  the  wrath  of 
devils  as  well  as  of  men  to  praise  him,  and  the 
remainder  He  will  restrain. — E.  A.  L. 

SAUL  Sept,  and  New  Test.  2aooA)L 

son  of  Kish,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  was  the 
first  king  of  the  Israelites.  The  corrupt  adminis- 
tration of  just  ioe  by  Samuel's  sons  furnished  ais 
occasion  to  the  Hebrews  for  rejecting  that  theo- 
cracy, of  which  they  neither  appreciated  toe 
value,  nor,  through  their  unfaithfulness  to  it,  en- 
joyed the  full  advantages  (1  Sam.  viii.).  An  in 
vasion  hy  the  Ammonites  seems  also  to  have  con- 
spired with  the  cause  just  mentioned,  and  with  a 
love  of  novelty,  in  prompting  the  demand  for  u 
king  (l  Sam.  xii.  12) — an  officer  evidently  alien 
to  the  genius  of  the  llieocracy,  though  contem- 
plated as  an  historical  certainty,  and  provided 
for  by  the  Jewish  lawgiver  (1  Sam.  xii.  17-20; 
Deut.  xvii.  14-20;  on  which  see  Grotius's  note; 
also  Da  Jvrc  Belli , &c.  i.  4.  6,  with  the  remarks 
of  Gronoviu3,  who  (as  Puffendorf  also  does)  con- 
troverts the  views  of  Grot!  ns).  An  explanation  of 
the  nature  of  this  request,  as  not  only  an  instance 
of  ingratitude  to  Samuel,  but  of  rebellion  against 
Jehovah,  and  the  delineation  of  the  manner  in 
which  their  kings — notwithstanding  the  restric- 
tions prescribed  in  the  law — might  be  expected 
to  conduct  themselves  0/?3n  DE5 &D,  SepK 
SiKalotfAa  tow  fkurihews ; 1 Sam.  viii.  11  ? x. 
having  failed  to  move  the  pe»plc  from  their  reso- 
lution, the  Lord  sent  Saul,  who  had  left  home  i » 
quest  of  his  father's  asses,  which  had  straypd,  to 
Samuel,  who  having  informed  Saul  of  the  divine 
purpose  regarding  him,  and  having  at  a feast 
shown  him  a preference,  which,  no  doubt,  the 
other  guests  understood,  privately  anointed  bin'* 
king,  and  gave  him  various  tokens,  by  which  he 
might  be  assured  that  his  designation  was  from* 
Jehovah  (1  Sarn.  ix.  x.).  Moved  by  the  autho- 
rity of  Samuel,  and  by  the  fulfilment  of  these 
signs,  Saul's  reluctance  to  assume  the  office  to 
which  he  was  called  was  overcome;  which  may  lie 

the  meaning  of  the  expression  (I  Sam.  js. 

9),  though  his  hesitation  afterwards  ’returned  (ver- 
21,  22).  On  his  way  home,  meeting  a company 
of  prophets,  he  vm  seised  with  the  prophetic 
afflatus,  anti  so  gave  occasion  to  a proverb  after- 
wards in  use  among  the  Jews,  though  else- 
where a different  origin  is  assigned  to  the  caving 
(1  Sam.  xix,  24).  Immediately  after.  Saul  win? 
elected  at.  Mizpab  in  a solemn  assembly  by  the 
detenni nation  cf  the  miraculous  lot — a method 
cf  election  not  confined  to  the  Hebrews  (A  iris  tot. 
Polit.  vi.  11;  and  Virg.  JEn.  ii.  4 Laocoon  lectus 
Neptuni  eovte  eacerdos');  and  both  previously  to 
that  election  (x.  16),  and  subsequently,  when  ia* 


SAUL. 

suited  by  the  worthless  portion  of  the  Israelites,  he 
showed  that  modesty,  humility,  and  forbearance 
which  seem  to  have  characterized  him  till  cor- 
rupted by  the  possession  of  power.  The  person 
thus  set  apart  to  discharge  the  royal  function,  pos- 
sessed at  least  those  corporeal  advantages  which 
most  ancient  nations  desiderated  in  their  sove- 
reigns (the  cl  So?  &%iqp  rvpawiSos.  Eurip.).-  His 
person  was  tall  and  commanding,  and  ha  soots 
showed  that  his  courage  was  not  inferior  to  his 
etrengfb  (1  Sam.  ix.  1 ; x.  23)  Hh  belonging 
to  Benjamin  also,  the  smallest  of  the  tribes, 
though  of  distinguished  bravery,  prevented  the 
mutual  jealousy  with  which  either  of  the  two 
great  tribes,  Judah  and  Ephraim,  would  have  re- 
garded a king  chosen  from  the  other:  so  that  his 
election  was  received  with  general  rejoicing,  and 
e number  of  men,  moved  by  the  authority  of  Sa- 
muel (x.  20),  even  attached  themselves  to  him  as 
si  body  guard,  or  as  counsellors  and  assistants. 
In  the  mean  time  the  Ammonites,  whose  invasion 
«sid  hastened  the  appointment  of  a king,  having 
besieged  Jabesh  in  Gilead,  and  Nahash  their 
king  having  proposed  insulting  conditions  to 
them,  the  elders  of  that  town,  apparently  not 
aware  of  Saul's  election  (1  Sam.  xi.  3),  sent  mes- 
sengers through  the  land  imploring  help.  Saul 
acted  with  wisdom  and  promptitude,  summoning 
the  people,  en  masse,  to  meet  him  at  Bezek;  and 
Laving  at  the  head  of  a vast  multitude  totally 
routed  the  Ammonites  (ver.  11),  and  obtained  a 
higher  glory,  by  exhibiting  a new  instance  of 
clemency  , whether  dictated  by  principle  or  policy 
— ‘Novum  imperium  inchoautibus  utilia  de- 
mentis .fama'  (Tac.  Hist.  iv.  63), 4 For  lowliness  is 
young  ambition’s  ladder — he  and  the  people  be- 
took themselves,  under  the  direction  of  Samuel,  to 
Gilgal,  there  with  solemn  sacrifices  to  reinsfal 
the  victorious  leader  in  his  kingdom  (1  Sam.  xi.). 
If  the  number  set  down  in  the  Hebrew  text,  of  those 
who  followed  Saul  (1  Sam.  xi.  8), can  be  depended 
cn  (the  Sept,  more  than  doubles  them,  and  Jose- 
phus outgoes  even  the  Sept.),  it  would  appear 
that  the  tribe  of  Judah  was  dissatisfied  with 
Saul’s  election,  for  the  soldiers  furnished  by  the 
cither  tribes  were  300,000,  while  Judah  sent  only 
30,000;  whereas  the  population  of  the  former, 
compared  with  (hat  of  Judah,  appears,  from  other 
'aasages,  to  have  been  as  about  five  to  three 
2 Kings  xxiv.  0),  And  yet  it  is  strange  that 
litis  remissness  is  neither  punished  (1  Sam.  xi.  7) 
uor  noticed.  At  Gilgal  Saul  was  publicly 
anointed,  and  solemnly  installed  in  the  kingdom 
by  Samuel,  who  took  occasion  to  vindicate  the 
purity  of  his  own  administration — which  he  vir- 
tually transferred  to  Saul — to  censure  the  people 
for  their  ingratitude  and  impiety,  and  to  warn  both 
them  and  Saul  of  the  danger  of  disobedience  to  the 
commands  of  Jehovah  (I  Sam.  xii.).  These  were 
the  principal  transactions  that  occurred  during  the 
first  year  of  Saul’s  reign  (which  vve  venture  to 
assign  as  (he  meaning  of  the  first  clause' of  chap. 

xiii.  bm?  &3GP  p,  ‘ the  son  of  a yea? 

was  Saul  in  his  reigning’ — the  emendation  .of 
Origen,  ‘Saul  was  thirty  years  old/  which  the 
chronology  contradicts,  for  he  seems  now  to  have 
been  forty  years  old,  and  the  omission  of  tbs 
whole  first  verse  by  the  Sept.,  being  evidently 
(Arbitrary,  and,  therefore,  inadmissible  expedients 
for  solving  a -difficulty) ; aiffi  the  subsequent 


SAUL.  697 

events  happened  in  the  second  year — which  msy 
be  the  meaning  of  the  latter  clause. 

Saul's  first  trial  and  transgression, — The 
restrictions  on  which  he  held  the  sovereignty  Had 
(1  Sam.  x.  25)  been  fully  explained  a3  well  to 
Saul  as  to  the  people,  so  that  he  was  not  ignorant 
of  his  true  position  as  merely  the  lieutenant  of  Je- 
hovah, king  of  Israel,  who  not  only  gave  a'a  the 
laws,  but  whose  will,  in  the  execution  of  them,  was 
constantly  to  be  consulted  and  complied  with. 
The  first  occasion  on  which  his  obedience  to  tliia 
constitution  was  put  to  the  test  brought  out  those 
defects  in  his  character  which  showed  his  unfit- 
ness for  his  high  office,  and  incurred  a threat  of 
that  rejection  which  his  subsequent  conduct,  con- 
firmed (1  Sam.  xiii.  13).  Saul  could  not  under- 
stand his  proper  position,  as  only  the  servant  of 
Jehovah  speaking  through  his  ministers,  or  con- 
fine himself  to  it;  and  in  this  respect  he  was  not, 
what  David;  with  many  individual  and  pri- 
vate faults  and  crimes,  was— -a  man  after  G.od*a 
own  heart,  a king  faithful  to  the  principles  of  the 
theocracy. 

Having"  organized  a small  standing  army, 
part  of  which,  under  Jonathan,  had  taken  a fort 
of  the  Philistines,  Saul  summoned  the  people  to 
withstand  the  forces  which  their  oppressors,  novsr 
alarmed  for  their  dominion,  would  naturally  as- 
semble. But  eci  numerous  a host  came  against 
Saul,  that  the  people,  panic-stricken,  fied  to  rocks 
and  caverns  for  safety — years  of  servitude  having 
extinguished  their  courage,  which  the  want  ot 
arms,  of  which  the  policy  of  the  Philistines  hail 
deprived  them,  still  further  diminished.  Tbs 
number  of  chariots,  30,000,  seems  a mistake ; un- 
less we  suppose;  with  Le  Clerc,  that  they  wera 
not  war-chariots,  but  baggage-waggons  (an  im- 
probable supposition),  bo  that  3900  may  be  tha 
true  number.  Apparently  reduced  to  extremity, 
and-  the  seventh,  day  being  come,  but  not  being 
ended,  the  expiration  of  which  Samuel  had  en- 
joined him  to  wait,  Saul  at  least  ordered  sacri- 
fices to  be  offered — for  the  expression  f 1 Sam.  xii?. 
9)  does  not  necessarily  imply  tjiat  fie  intruded 
into  the  priest’s  office  (2Sam.Vi.  13;  3 Kings 
iii.  2-4),  though  that  is  the  most  obvious  meaning 
of  the  (ext.  Whether  that  which  Saul  now  dis- 
regarded was  the  injunction  referred  to  (1  Sam. 
s.  8),  or  one  subsequently  addressed  to  him,  this 
is  evident,  that  Saul  acted  in  the  full  knowledge 
that  he  sinned  (xiii.  12) ; and  his  guilt,  in  <hat 
act  of  conscious  disobedience,  was  probably  in- 
creased by  its  clearly  involving  an  assumption  ol 
authority  to  conduct  the  war  according  to  lib  own 
judgment  and  will.  Samuel  having  denounced 
the  displeasure  of  Jehovah  and  its  consequences, 
left  him,  and  Saul  returned  to  Gibeah  (the  ad- 
dition made  to  the  text  of  the  Sept.  ver.  15, 
v/ here  after  * -froth  Gilgal,’ the  clause, ‘and  Sha 
rest  of  (he  people  went  up  after  Saul  to  meet  the 
enemy  from  Gilgal  to  Gibeah,’  &c.,  being  re- 
quired apparently  by  the  sense,  which,  probably, 
has  been  the  only  authority  for  its  insertion).  Left 
to  himself,  Saul’s  errors  multiplied  apace.  Jo- 
nathan, having  assaulted  a garrison  of  the  Phi- 
listines (apparently  at  Michmash,  ,1  Sam.  xiv. 
31,  which,  therefore,  must  have  been  situated  near 
Migron  in  Gibeah,  ver.  1,  and  within  sight  of  it 
ver.  15),  Saul,  aided  by  a panic  of  the  enemy 
an  earthquake,  and  the  co-operation  of  his  fugi- 
tive soldiers,  effected  a great  slaughter ; but  by  % 


CSS  SAUL, 

rasn  and  foolish  denunciation,  he  (1)  impeded  his 
success  (ver.  30),  (2)  involved  the  people  in  a 
violation  of  the  law  (ver.  33),  and  (3),  unless  pre- 
vented by  the  more  enlightened  conscience  of  the 
people,  would  have  ended  with  putting  Jonathan 
to  death  for  an  act  which,  being  done  in  invin- 
cible ignorance,  could  involve  no  guilt.  This 
success  against  the  Philistines  was  followed,  not 
only  by  their  retirement  for  a lime  within  their 
own  territory,  but  by  other  considerable  successes 
against  the  other  enemies  of  his  country — Moab, 
.Ammon,  Edom,  the  kings  of  Zobah,  the  Amalek- 
ites,  and  thePnilistines,  all  of  whom  he  harassed, 
l;ut  did  not  subdue.  These  wars  may  have  occu- 
pied five  or  six  years,  till  the  tenth  or  eleveuth 
year  of  Saul’s  reign,  rather  than  the  sixteenth,  as 
marked  in  the  Bible  chronology. 

Saul's  second  transgression. — Another  trial 
•was  afforded  Saul  before  his  final  rejection,  the 
command  to  extirpate  the  Amalekites,  whose 
fiostility  to  .the  people  of  God  was  inveterate. 
Deut.  xxv.  18;  Exod.  xvii.  8:16;  Num.  xiv. 
42*45;  Judg.  iii.  13;  vi.  3),  and  who  had  not 
by  repentance  averted  that  doom  which  had  been 
delayed  550  years  (1  Sam.  xiv.  48).  They  who 
represent  this  sentence  as  unworthy  of  the  God  of 
the  whole  earth,  should  ask  on  what  principle  the 
execution  of  a criminal  under  human  governments 
can  be  defended  ? If  men  judge  that  the  welfare 
cf  society  demands  the  destruction  of  one  of  their 
fellows,  surely  God,  who  can  better  judge  what  the 
interests  of  his  government  require,  and  has  a more 
perfect  right  to  dispose  of  men’s  lives,  may  cut  off 
by  the  sword  of  his  servants  the  persons  whom, 
without  any  imputation  of  injustice,  he  might 
destroy  by  disease,  famine,  or  any  such  visitation. 
It  is  more  to  our  present  purpose  to  remark,  that 
the  apparent  cruelty  of  this  commission  was  not 
the  reason  why  it  was  not  fully  executed,  as 
Saul  himself  confessed  when  Samuel  upbraided 
lain,  * I feared  the  people  ahd obeyed  their  voice’ 
(1  Sam.  xv.  21).  This  stubbornness  in  persisting 
to  rebel  against  the  directions  of  Jehovah  was  now 
visited  by  that  final  rejection  of  his  family  from 
succeeding  bin)  on  the  throne,  which  had  before 
been  threatened  (ver.  23;  xiii.  13,  14).  and  which 
-was  now  significantly  represented,  or  mystically 
predicted,  by  the  rending  of  the  prophet’s  mantle. 
After  this  second  and  flagrant  disobedience,  Saul 
received  no  more  public  countenance  from  the 
venerable  prophet,  who  now  left  him  to  his  sin3 
and  his  punishment;  ‘nevertheless,  he  mourned 
for  Saul,’  and  the  Lord  repented  that  he  had  made 
fjaul  king  (xv.  35). 

Saul's  conduct  to  David. — The  denunciations 
cf  Samuel  sunk  into  the  heart  of  Saul,  and  pro- 
duced a deep  melancholy,  which  either  really 
tyas,  or  which  his  physicians  (1  Sam.  xvi.  14,  15  ; 
comp.  Gen.  1.  2)  told  him,  was  occasioned  by  an 
evil  spirit  from  the  Lord  ; unless  we  understand 
the  phrase  fTH  subjectively,  as  denoting  the 
condition  itself  of  Saul's  mind,  instead  of  the 
cause  of  that  condition  (Isa.  xxix.  10;  Num.  v. 
14;  Rom.  xi.  8).  We  can  conceive  that  music 
might  afi’ect  Saul’s  feelings,  might  cheer  his 
despondency,  or  divert  his  melancholy-;  but  how 
it  should  have  the  power  to  chase  away  a spi- 
ritual messenger  rvhom  the  Lord  had  sent  to 
chasten  the  monarch  for  his  transgressions,  is  not 
eo  easily  understood.  Saul’s  case  must  probably 

judged  of  by  the  same  principles  as  that  of 


SAUL 

the  demoniacs  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament 
[Demoniacs].  David  was  recommended  to  Saul 
on  account  ol  his  skill  as  a musician  ( I Sam.  xvi. 
16-23),  though  the  narrative  of  his  intru  Juctiuj* 
to  Saul,  his  subsequently  killing  Goliath,  Saul  o 
ignorance  of  David's  person  after  he  had  been 
his  attendant  and  armour-bearer,  with  various 
other  circumstances  in  the  narrative  (1  Sam.  xvi. 
14-23;  xvii.  xviii.  1-4),  present  difficulties  which 
neither  the  arbitrary  omissions  in  the  Sept.,  nor 
the  ingenuity  of  subsequent  critics,  have  suc- 
ceeded in  removing,  and  which  have  led  many 
eminent  scholars  to  suppose  the  existence  of  ex- 
tensive dislocations  in  this  part  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Certainly  the  solutions  offered  by  those 
who  would  reconcile  the  narrative  as  it  now  stand* 
in  the  Hebrew  text,  demand  too  much  ingenuity, 
and  appear  very  unsatisfactory.  That  proposed 
by  Hales  and  others  seems  to  be  the  most  feasible, 
which  would  place  the  passage,  xvi.  14-23,  after 
xviii.  9;  yet  why  should  Saul’s  attendants  need 
to  describe  so  minutely  a person  whom  he  and 
all  Israel  knew  so  well  already  ? Alsu,  how  can 
we  conceive  that  Saul  should  love  so  much  (xvi. 
21)  a person  against  whom  his  jealousy  and 
hatred  had  been  so  powerfully  excited  as  his  pro- 
bable successor  in  the  kingdom  ? (xviii.  9).  Be- 
sides, David  had  occupied  already  a much  higher 
position  (xviii.  5)  ; and,  therefore,  his  being  made 
Saul’s  armour-bearer  must  have  been  the  very 
opposite  of  promotion,  which  the  text  (xvi.  21) 
supposes  it  was. 

Though  not  acquainted  with  the  unction  ol 
David,  yet  having  received  intimation  that  flu? 
kingdom  should  be  given  to  aiiother,  Saul  soon 
suspected  from  Id's  accomplishments,  heroism,- 
wisdom,  and  popularity,  that  David  was  his  des- 
tined successor  ; and,  instead  of  concluding  that 
his  resistance  to  the  divine  purpose  would  only 
accelerate  his  own  ruin,  Saul,  in  the  spirit  of 
jealousy  and  rage,  commenced  a series  of  mur- 
derous attempts  on  the  life  of  hi3  rival,  that 
must  have  lost,  him  the  respect  and  sympathy  of 
his  people,  which  they  secured  for  the  object  of 
his  malice  and  envy,  whose  noble  qualities  also 
they  both  exercised  and  rendered  more  con- 
spicuous. He  attempted  twice  to  assassinate  him 
with  his  own  hand  (xviii.  10,  11;  xix.  10);  he 
sent  him  on  dangerous  military  expeditions  (xviii. 
5,  13,  17);  he  proposed  that  David  should  mairy 
first  his  elder  daughter,  whom  yet  he  gave  co 
another,  and  then  his  younger,  that  the  procuring 
of  the  dowry  might  prove  fatal  to  David  ; and 
then  he  sought  to  make  his  daughter  an  instru- 
ment of  her  husband’s  destruction  ; and  it  seems 
probable,  that  unless  miraculously  prevented,  he 
would  have  embrued  his  hands  in  the  blood  oft 
the  venerable  Samuel  himself  (1  Sam.  xix.  18), 
while  the  text  seems  to  intimate  (xx  33)  that 
even  the  life  of  Jonathan  was  not  safe  liom  ins 
fury,  though  the  subsequent  context  may  war- 
rant a doubt  whether  Jonathan  was  die  par»y 
aimed  at  by  Saul.  The  slaughter  of  Ahiinelech 
the  priest  (1  Sam.  xxii.),  under  pretence  of  lua 
being  a partisan  of  David,  and  of  eighty-tive 
other  priests  of  the  house  of  Eli,  to  wtium  nothing 
could  be  imputed,  as  well  as  the  whole  inhabitaun? 
of  Nob,  was  an  atrocity  perhaps  never  exceeded  ; 
and  yet  the  wickedness  of  the  act  was  not  greater 
than  its  infatuation,  for  it  must  have  inspired  hw 
subjects  not  only  with  abhorrence  of  their  king  *ts 


SAUL, 

eu  inhuman  tyrant,  but  with  honor  of  pirn  as  an 
t upiou3  and  sacrilegious  monster.  This  crime 
of  Saul  put  David  in  possession  of  the  sacred  lot, 
which  Abiathar,  the  only  surviving  member  of 
Eli’s  priestly  family,  brought  withkhim,  arid  by 
which  he  was  enabled  to  obtain  oracles  directing 
aim  in  his  critical  affairs  (xxii.  21-23;  xxiii. 
1,  2). 

Having  compelled  David  to  assume  the  posi- 
tion of  an  outlaw,  around  whom  gathered  a num- 
ber of  turbulent  and  desperate  characters,  Saul 
might  persuade  himself  that  he  was  justified  in  be- 
dewing the  hand  of  David's  wife  on  another,  and 
in  making  expeditions  to  apprehend  and  destroy 
him,  A portion  of  the  people  were  base  enough 
to  minister  to  the  evil  passions  of  Saul  (I  Sam. 
xxiii.  19;  xxvi.  1),  and  others,  perhaps,  might 
colour  their  fear  by  the  pretence  of  conscience 
(xxiii.  12).  But  his  sparing  Saul’s  life  twice, 
when  he  was  completely  in  I113  power,  must  have 
destroyed  all  colour  of  right  in  Saul’s  conduct  in 
ihe  minds  of  fcjse  people,  as  it  also  did  in  his 
own  conscience  (xxiv.  3-7 ; xxvi.) ; which  two 
passages,  though  presenting  many  points  of  simi- 
larity, cannot  be  referred  to  the  same  occasion, 
without  denying  to  the  narrative  all  historic  accu- 
racy and  trustworthiness.  'Though  thus  degraded 
and  paralysed  by  the  indulgence  of  malevolent 
passions,  Saul  still  acted  with  vigour  in  repelling 
the  enemies  of  his  country,  and  in  other  affairs 
ivherein  his  jealousy  of  David  was  not  concerned 
(xxiii.  27,  23). 

-The  Bible  chronology,  as  does  also  Ussher, 
dates  David’s  marriage  with  Michal,  a.m.  249!, 
the  same  year  in  which  Goliath  was  slain.  Hales, 
with  apparent  reason,  makes  it  five  years  later, 
when  David  had  attained  the  age  ’of  twenty-five. 
The  same  year  Mephibosheth  was  bom;  which 
teems  to  be  alluded  to  in  2 Sam.  iv.  4 ; and  about 
five  years  more  appear  to  have  elapsed  before  the 
death  of  Saul.  Samuel's  death  had  taken  place 
not  long  before,  as  the  statement  in  l Sam.  xxviii.3 
implies.  Probably  two  years  are  sufficient  to 
allow  time  for  the  intermediate  transactions 
(1  Sam.  xxv.-xxxi.),  instead  of  four,  as  set  down 
in  the  Bible  chronology. 

Saul's  third  qr/ence  and  death. — The  measure 
of  Saul's  iniquity,  now  almost  full,  was  completed 
by  an  act  of  direct  treason  against  Jehovah  the 
God  of  Israel  (Exod.  xxii.  IS Ley.  xix.  31 ; 
2£%.  27 ; Deut.  xviii.  10,  11).  Saul,  probably  in 
a fit  of  seal,  and  perhaps  as  some  atonement  for 
h is  disobedience  in  other  respects,  had  executed 
ihe  penalty  of  the  law  on  those  who  practised 
necromancy  and  divination  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  3). 
Now;  however,  forsaken  of  God,  who  gave  him  no 
cracies,  and  rendered,,  by  a course  of  wickedness, 
both  desperate  and  infatuated,  he  requested  his 
attendants  to  seek  him  a woman  who  had  a fami- 
liar spirit  (which  is  the  loose  rendering  in  tha 
English  Bible  of  the  expression  occurring  twice 

in  ver.  7,  .218$  tf  a woman  a mis- 

tress of  Ob;’  ‘ ha  ben  3 Fythonem,*  Vulg.),  that  he . 
might  obtain  from  her  that  direction  which  Je- 
hovah refused  to  afford  him.  The  question  as  ’to 
the  character  of  the  apparition  evoked  by  the 
witch  of  Endor,  falls  more  properly  to  be  con- 
ciuered  under  other  articles  [Divination; 
Witch]  5 hut  we  may  remark  that  the  king 
bimsslf  manifestly  both  caw  and  conversed  with 


SAUL,  CM 

the  phantom,  whatever  it  was,  which  appeared  h) 
the  form  and  spoke  in  the  character  of  Samuel, 
and  that  the  predictions  uttered  by  the  spectre 
were  real  oracles,  implying  distinct  and  certain 
foreknowledge,  as  the  event  proved  (see  Hales, 
vol.  ii.,  who  has  discussed  thh  subject  very  judi- 
ciously). 

Assured  of  his  own  death  the  next  day,  and 
that  of  his  sons  ; of  the  ruin  of  hb  army,  and  the 
triumph  of  his  most  formidable  enemies,  whose 
invasion  had  tempted  him  to  try  this  unhallowed 
expedient, — all  announced  to  him  by  that  same 
authority  which  had  foretold  his  possession  of  the 
kingdom,  and  whose  words  had  never  been  falsi- 
fied— Saul,  in  a state  of  dejection  which  could  nut 
promise  success  to  his  followers,  met  the  enemy 
next  day  in  Giiboa,  cn  the  extremity  of  the  great 
plain  of  Esdraelon  ; and  having  seen  the  total  rout 
of  his  army,  and  the  slaughter  of  his  three  eons,  of 
whom  the  magnanimous  Jonathan  was  one  ; and 
having  in  vain  solicited  death  from  the  hand  o2 
his  armour-bearer  (Doeg  the  Edomite,  the  Jews 
say,  ‘ A partner  before  of  his  master’s  crimes,  and 
now  of  his  punishment'),  Saul  perished  at  last  by 
his  own  hand.  ‘ So  Saul  died  for  his  transgression 
which  he  committed  against  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
which  he  kept  not,  and  also  for  asking  counsel  o t 
one  that  had.  a familiar  spirit,  to  inquire  of  it; 
and  inquired  not  of  the  Lord,  therefore  the  Lord 
slew  him,  and  turned  the  kingdom  unto  David9 
(1  Chron.  x.  13,  14) 

When  the  Philistines  came  on  the  morrow 
plunder  the  slain,  they  found  Saul's  body  and 
the  bodies  of  his  sons,  which,  having  beheaded 
them,  they  fastened  to  the  wall  of  Bethshan ; but 
the  men  of  Jabesh-gilead,  mindful  of  their  forme? 
obligation  to  Saul  (1  Sam.  xi.),  when  they  heard 
of  the  indignity,  gratefully  and  heroically  went 
by  night  and  carried  them  off,  and  buried  them 
under  a tree  in  Jabesh,  and  fasted  seven  days. 
It  13  pleasing  to  think  that  even  the  worst  men. 
have  left  behind  them  those  in  whom  gratitude 
and  affection  are  duties.  Saul  had  those  who 
mourned  him,  as  some  hand  was  found  to  have 
strewed  flowers  on  the  newly-made  grave  of  Nero. 
From  Jabesh  the  bones  of  Saul  and  of  his  sons 
were  removed  by  David,  and  buried  in  Zelah,  so 
the  sepulchre  of  Kish  his  father. 

There  is  not  in  the  sacred  history,  or  in  any 
other,  a character  more  melancholy  to  contem- 
plate than  that  of  Saul.  Naturally  humble  and 
modest,  though  of  strong  passions,  he  might  bars 
adorned  a private  station.  In  circumstances 
which  did  not  expose  him  to  strong  temptation* 
he  would  probably  have  acted  virtuously.  But 
his  natural  rashness  was  controlled  neither  by  a 
powerful  understanding  nor  a scrupulous  con- 
science ; and  the  obligations  of  duty,  and  the  ties 
of  gratitude,  always  felt  by  him  too  slightly,  were 
totally  disregarded  when  ambition,  envy,  and 
jealousy  had  taken  possession  of  his  mind.  The 
diabolical  nature  of/  these  passions  is  seen,  with, 
frightful  distinctness,  in  Saul,  whom  their  in- 
dulgence transformed  into  an  unnatural  anc? 
blood-thirsty  monster,  who  constantly  exhibited 
the  moral  infatuation,  so  common  among  those 
who  have  abandoned  themselves  to  sin,  of  th ink- 
ing that  the  punishment  of  one  crime  may  be 
escaped  by  the  perpetration  of  another.  In  him 
also  is  seen  that  moral  anomaly  or  contradic- 
tion* which  would  he  ircrf&Uc*  did  v/«  x&l 


700  SCARLET. 

so  Owen  witness  if,  of  an  individual  pursuing  ha- 
bitually a coarse  which  his  better  nature  pre* 
r. ounces  not  only  flagitious,  but  insane  (1  Sam. 
xxiv.  16-22).  Saul  knew  that,  that  person  should 
l:s  king  whom  yet  he  persisted  in  seeking  to  de- 
strov,  and  so  accelerated  his  own  ruin.  For  it  can 
liardly  be  doubted  that  the  distractions  and  dis- 
affection occasioned  hy  Saul’s  jiersecution  of  David 
produced  that  weakness  in  his  government  which 
encouraged  the  Philistines  to  make  the  invasion 
in  which  himself  and  his  sons  perished.  ‘ I gave 
siieea  king  in  mine  anger,  and  took  him  away 
in  my  wrath  ’ (Kos.  xii.  11).  In  the  prolonged 
troubles  and  disastrous  termination  of  tins  first 
s-cign,  the  Hebrews  were  'vividly  shown  how 
vain  was  their  favourite  remedy  for  the  mis- 
chiefs of  foreign  invasion  and  intestine  discord. 

— R.  L. 

SCAPE-GOAT.  [Goat,  Scape.] 

SCARLET.  [Purple.] 

SCEPTRE.  The  Hebrew  word  thus  rendered 
is  I3?r,wl  dch  in  its  primary  signification  denotes 
a stall' of  wood  (Ezek.  xix.  1 1),  about  the  height 
of  a man,  which  the  ancient  kings  and  chiefs  bore 
as  an  insigue  of  honour  (Mart.,  i.  231,  243;  ii. 
185,  sq.  : Amos  i.  5 ; Zech.  x.  II  ; Ezek.  xix. 
11  ; VVisd.  x.  M;  comp.  Gen.  xlix.  10;  Num. 
■xx iv.  17;  Isa.  xiv.  5).  As  such  it  appears  to 
have  originated  in  the  shepherd’s  staff,  since  the 
first,  kings  were  mostly  nomade  princes  (Strabo, 
xvi.  783  ; comp.  Ps.  xxix).  There  were,  however, 
come  nations  among  wlnm  the  agricultural  life 
must  have  been  the  earliest  known  ; and  we  should 
not  among  them  expect  to  find  the  shepherd's 
staff  advanced  to  symbolical  honour.  Accord- 
ingly, Diodorus  Siculus  (iii.  3)  informs  us,  that 
the  sceptre  of  the  Egyptian  kings  bore  the  shape  of 
a plough — a testimony  confirmed  by  existing 
monuments,  in  which  the  long  staff  which  forms 
the  sceptre,  terminates  in  a form  obviously  in- 
tended to  represent  a plough. 

A golden  sceptre,  that  is,  one  washed  or  plated 
with  gold,  is  mentioned  in  Ezek.  iv.  1 1 (comp. 
Xenoph.  Cyrop.  viii.  7,  13  ; Iliad , i.  15  ; ii.  268  ; 
Odyss.  xi.  91).  Other  decorations  of  Oriental 
cceptres  are  noticed  by  Strabo  (xvi.  746).  In- 
clining the  sceptre  was  a mark  of  kingly  favour 
(Esth.  iv.  11),  and  the  kissing  it  a token  of  sub- 
mission (Esth.  v.  2).  Saul  appears  to  have  car- 
ried his  javelin  as  a mark  of  superiority  (1  Sam. 
£iv.  10  ; xxii.  6). 

SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION.  Before  the  exile, 
€he  Jews,  like  the  ancient  Romans,  seem  to  have 
had  no  notion  whatever  of  public  ami  national 
schools,  since  the  sphere  of  our  present  elementary 
knowledge,  reading  and  waiting,  was  confined  to 
but  a few.  Children  were  Usually  taught  the  sim- 
ple doctrines  of  religion  by  their  parents,  by  rneans 
a;f  aphorisms,  sacred  stories  and  rife3  (Dent. 'vi.  7, 
20,  sq  ; xi.  19;  Prov.  vi.  20),  while  the  children 
of  kings  seerh  to  have  had  tutors  of  their  own 
{2  Sam.  xii.  25).  Even  after  the  exile,  national 
instruction  was  chiefly  limited  to  religion,  as 
might  naturally  be  expected  from  a nation  whose 
political  institutions  were  founded  on  theocratic 
principles. 

The  question  naturally  suggests  itself  here, 
How  did  it,  then,  happen  that  the  Jews,  con- 
fad  to  eo  small  a territory  in  Syria,  living  coil; 


SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION. 

tintially  ‘solated  and  apart  from  other  nations, 
and  not  possessing  in  their  own  territory  resources 
of  any  kind  for  the  advancement,  of  education, 
should,  nevertheless,  have  mustered  such  an  host 
of  sages  and  learned  men  ? It  must  indeed  perplex 
those  who  are  initiated  in  the  Hebrew  litera- 
ture lo  discover  by  what  means  learning,  thought, 
and  inquiry  were,  under  such  circumstances, 
fostered  and  cultivated  : and  it  will  be  asked, 
In  what  connection  stood  the  so-called  great  sy- 
nagogue,, under  Ezra  and  Zerubahel,  with  the 
schools  of  the  prophets  in  previous  times?  And 
how  did  John,  the  herald  of  Christ,  and  Paul  the 
Ajwstle,  receive  that  education  which  made  tbs 
former  the  teacher  of  his  own  nation,  and  the 
latter  that  of  so  many  nations  and  ages  ? The  so- 
lution of  these  questions  we  may  find  in  the  esta- 
blishment of  an  institution  among  the  later  Is- 
raelites, unique  in  its  kind,  and  eventually  brought 
to  a high  degree  of  perfection ; namely,  the  pub- 
lic meetings  of  the  learned  men,  for  the  purposa 
of  expounding  die  sacred  writings  and  of  giv- 
ing instruction  in  practical  philosophy.  We 
shall  bring  together  some  of  the  scattered  records 
concerning  this  institution,  to  show  its  powerful 
influence  upon  education  in  general. 

For  the  later  period  of  Jewish  civilization,  front 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem by  Titus,  and  the  collection  of  the  Talmud 
in  the  second  century  after  Christ,  a great  number 
of  philosophical  and  religious  aphorisms  are  found 
collected  in  the  Talmud,  as  originating  with 
the  men  of  those  learned  assemblies  in  various 
epochs,  and  in  which  we  may  trace  the  spirit  of 
many  passages  even  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  the  Babylon  Talmud  (Tr.  Sanhedrin ) 
those  desirous  of  knowledge  are  exhorted  to  repair 
to  the  learned  meetings  of  certain  celebrated 
rabbics  who  taught  in  Lydda,  Burin,  Pekuny 
Jabneh,  Benebarak,  Rome,  Sikni,  Zipporim,  or 
Nesibis;  and  in  the  land  of  captivity  to  the  great 
teacher  in  Beth-shaariin,  and  to  the  sages  who 
taught  in  the  hall  Gaazith.  The  Talmud  also 
mentions  many  other  seals  of  the  learned,  such 
as  Jerusalem,  Caesarea,  Bet.hshan,  Acco,  Bet  her; 
Magdala,  Ushah,  Raccat  (Tiberias),  and  Alex- 
andria in  Egypt.  Jn  Tiberias  the  most,  learned 
meii  of  the  age  assembled  to  compose  that  fa- 
mous monument  of  Jewish  learning,  the  Talmud 
[Talmud].  Gamaliel  (Paul's  master)  was  head 
of  the  learned  assembly  or  college  at  Jabnel* 
(Jamnia),  which,  it  is  stated,  numbered  not  fewer 
than  380  students.  At  Zipporirn  in  Galilee  also; 
where  the  celebrated  R.  Judah  Hakkadosh  passed 
the  latter  part  of  his  life,  there  is  said  to  have 
been  several  of  these  schools,  and  eminent  teach- 
ers, all  of  whom  are  mentioned  by  name  In  Tr. 
Sanhedrin,  we  further  read  : ‘ There  were  three 
teachers  at  Bether,  and  in  Jabneh  four — R.  Klie- 
zer,  R.  Akib.ih,  R.  Joshua,  and  R.  Simon;  the 
last  spoke  in  the  presence  of  the  others,  although 
lie  still  sat  upon  the  ground’ — that  is,  he  was  pre- 
sent as  an  auditor  merely,  although  occasionally 
allowed  to  act  as  a teacher.  In  the  same  tract  it  is 
said — ‘ the  meeting  rests  upon  men  ;*  on  which  the 
gloss  is,  * Wherever  there  are  ten  men  whose  occu- 
pations do  not  prevent  them  front)  devoting  then 
whole  time  to  sacred  learning,  a house  for  thei?. 
meetings  must  he  built.’  lu  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
(Tr.  Chetnb.),  a traditiou  is  alleged  tlio*  here  had 
been  at  Jerusalem  460  synagogues,  each  of  which 


SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION. 

contained  an.  apartment  for  the  reading  of  the  law, 
vuL  another  -for  the  rveeting  of  men  for  inquiry, 
deep-re«earfth,  and  instruction.  ,Snch  a meeting- 
Imp  recalled  by  the  Talmittlsst$  Reth-Midrash 
(STUD  H3),  that  is,  an  apartment  where  lectures 
were  given,  or  conversations  held  on  various  sub- 
jects of  inquiry.  There  were  three  of  these  meet- 
ing-places in  the  Temple  (Tr.  Merjillah ),  anti 
in  all  of  them  it  &as  the  custom  for  the  students 
to  sit.  on  the  floor,  while  the  teachers  occupied 
raised  seats  (T.  Hieros.  Tr.  Taanitli ) ; hence  Paul 
describes  himself  as  having,  when  a student,  ‘sat 
at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel’  (Acts  xxii.  3). 

There  are  many  hints  in  the  Talmud  which 
throw  light  upon  the  manner  of  proceeding  in 
these  assemblies.  Thus,  a student  asked  Gamaliel 
whether  the  evening  prayer  was  obligatory  by  the 
law,  or  not.  He  answered  in  the  affirmative;  on 
which  the  student  informed  him  that  R.  Joshua 
had  told  him  it  was  not  obligatory.  ‘Well,'  said 
Gamaliel,  ‘ when  lie  appears  to-morrow  in  the 
assembly,  step  forward  and  ask  him  the  question 
again.’  He  did  so,  and  the  expected  answer 
raised  a discussion,  a full  account,  of  which  is 
given.  It.  appeavs  that  these  learned  men  deli- 
vered their  dicta  and  arguments  in  Hebrew  to  an 
interpreter  at  their  side,  who  then  explained  them 
in  the  vernacular  dialect  to  the  audience.  Thi3 
h flie  explanation  given  of  an  anecdote,  that  a 
celebrated  teacher  was  unable  to  proceed  for  want 
cf  an  interpreter,  till  Rabh  volunteered  his  services 
(Tr.  Vomak).  In  such  meetings  there  was  one 
who  was  recognised  as  president  or  chief  professor, 
and  another  as  vice-president  (Tr.  Ilorayotk). 

These  teachers  and  professors,  who  were  the 
8 lawyers  ’ and  8 doctors’  of  t he  .New  Testament, 
formed  no  mean  opinion  of  their' own  dignity  and 
importance,  as  indeed  the  Gospels  evince.  It  is 
said,  ‘ A wisq  man  (more  particularly  a chief  pro- 
fessor) is  cf  more  consequence  than  a king ; for 
when  the  former  die3  there  is  (often)  no  one  to 
replace  him,  but  any  one  may  replace  the  latter. 
A wise  man,  even  though  a bastard,  ranks  even 
above  the  high-priest,  if  the  latter  be  one  of  the 
unlearned.’  Even  the  students  tinder  these  person- 
ages claimed  to  be  regarded  with  respect;  they 
were  called  the  ‘holy  people’  (^Vlp  D]i),  as 
opposed  to  the  masses,  who  are  contemptuously 
designated  DI?,  • people  of  the  earth.’ 

Philo  {lie  Vita  CorJstnp.),  speaking  of  the 
meetings  of  the  Essenes,  who  are  supposed  to  have 
observe  the  regulations  of  . the  ancient  prophets, 
eays,  4 After  the  head  teacher  had  finished  his 
exposition  to  the  assembly,  upon  a proposed  ques- 
tion, he  stands- up  and  begins  losing  (a  hymn  or 
psalm),  in  which  the  choirs,  join  at  certain  inter- 
vals; and  the' audience  listen  quietly  till  the 
repetition  of  the  leading  theme,  when  all  join 
in  it. 

Now  the  practices  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
citations  entirely  correspond  with  the  intimations 
cf  the  New  Testanient,  and  with  them  may  be 
taken  into  the  series  of  facta  illustrative  of  the 
condition  of  learning  and  education  and  the  mode 
of  instruction  among  the  Jews,  for  the  period 
considerably  before  and  long  after  the  time  of 
Christ.  The  following  passages  in  particular  may 
be  indicated  in  this  connection — Luke  ii.  46; 
Acts  vi.  0,  10;  xix.  8,  9;  xxii.  3;  1 Cor.  xiv. 
26-33;  2 Tim.  ii.  2.  In  the  last  but  one  of 
these,  it  is  true,  the  description  applies  to  the 


SCHOOLS.  EDUCATION.  703 

Christian  assemblies;  but,  on  comparing  it  with 
the  other  passages,  it  will  appear  that  the  first 
Christian  teachers  had  retained  many  of  the  regu- 
lations of  the  Jewish  assemblies.  The  'Apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  belong  to  this 
period,  contain  some  curiort3  and  distinct  intima- 
tions to  the  same  purport,  and  illustrative  of  tiro 
general  subject.  See  in  particular,  Wisd.  viii.  8, 
10;.  Si  rack  xxxv.  3,  sq. ; xxxix.  2,  3;  xlijV. 
3-5  ; 1 Macc.  v ii.  11:2  Macc.  vi.  18.  ' 

From  the  above,  and  from  sundry  other  pas- 
sages of  the  game  import,  which  we  have  hot 
thought  it  necessary  to  produce,  we  may  safely 
draw  the  fol lowing  conclusions,:- — 

1.  That  soon  after  the  Babylonian  exile,  as- 
semblies of  the  learned  not  only  existed,  but 
had  increased  to  a considerable  extent. 

2.  That  these  meetings  took  place  not.  only  at 
Jerusalem,  but  also  in  other  places,  remote  from 
the  capital  of  Palestine,  such  as  Galilee,  the 
frontiers  of  Idumaea,  Lebanon,  and  even  in  heathen 
countries. 

3.  That  the  meeting-places  of  the  wise  stood 
mostly  in  connection  with  the  synagogues;  ani 
that  the  wise  or  learned  men  usually  met  sum* 
after  divine  worship  anil  reading  were  over,  in  the 
upper  apartment  of  the  synagogues,  in  order  to 
discuss  those  matters  which  required  more  research 
and  inquiry. 

4.  That  the  Beih-3Iidra.sk  was  a place  where 
subjects  of  religious  philosophy  and  various  para- 
doxes * from  the  moral  and  material  world  were 
treated,  serving  as  a sort  of  academical  lectures 
for  those  higher  students  who  aspired  to  till  in 
time  the  place  of  teacher  themselves.  These  in- 
stitutions may  therefore  be  fairly  likened  to  the 
academies,  or  learned  societies,  so  famous  in 
ancient  Greece  and  Rome. 

5.  That  these  assemblies  of  the  wise  were  quite 
different  from  those  of  the  priests,  who  occupied 
themselves  merely  with  investigations  on  the  reli- 
gious rites  and  ceremonies,  &c. ; as  also  from  flics'*- 
where  civil  laws  were  discussed,  and  law-suits  da 
tided,  (p°1  IV2,  Beth-din ,f  ‘ court  of  judgment')  ; 
though  many  of  the  learned  priest^  were  no  doubt 
members  of  the  literary  assemblies,  and  probably 
often  proposed  in  the  Betls-Midrash  questions  of  a 
character  more  suited  to  a eacred  than  to  a phi- 
losophical society. 

6.  That  such  societies  (assemblies  of  the  wise) 
chose  their  own  president  from  amongst  the  most 
distinguished  and  learned  of  their  members  ; and 
consisted  of  more  or  fewer  members,  but  certainly 
not  less  than  ten,  capable  of  partaking  in  a dis- 
cussion on  some  proposed  learned  question. 

It  is  perhaps  worth  notice  that  we  may  trace  in 
some  of  the  fragments  which  have  descended  to 
us  from  those  assemblies,  ten  different  speakers  or 
lecturers;  see,  ex.  gr.,  Kceles.  i.  3 to  iv.  16,  where 

* Paradoxes,  oi  inquiries  on  such  subjects 
as  concern  the  spirit  of  the  philosophy  of  the 
age,  will  surprise  no  one  who  sees  in  those  assem- 
blies something  more  than  mere  popular  instruc- 
tion. Nor  do  we  lack  in  the  New  Testament 
traces  of  esoteric  and  exoteric  systems  in  teaching  • 
ex.  or.  Mark  iv.  33,  sq. 

f This  ia  what  i3  commonly  called  Sanhedrim, 
and  which,  according  to  the  Talmud,  consisted 
of  a quorum  of  three,  twenty-three,  ox  seven!  v-c&a 
persons  [Sanhkorijs], 


SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION. 

fhe  folWbg  sections  evidently  Itear  the  character 
t/f  different  sneakers  ami  different  subjects : (1) 
ch.  i.  3-7;  (2)  8 11 ; (3)  ch.  xk  2-23;  (4)  cl*, 
iii.  1-8 ; (&)  0 15 ; (6)  16-22;  (7)  ch.  iv.  1-6; 
(8)  7-8;  (9)  9-12;  (10)  13-16.  Again  we  can  dis- 
tinguish another  assembly  and  different  speakers 
jut  .he  following  verses  of  Eccles. ; (1)  ch.  viii.  8- 
10  ; (2)  11-13;  (3 >14,  !5;  (4)  16,  17;  (5)  ch. 
is.  1 ; (6)  2-4;  (7)X4-6;  (8)  7-10;  (9)  11,  12; 
30)  13;  ch.  x.  1 

7.  That  the  president  or  head  of  the  assem- 
bly usually  brought  forward  the  question  o- 
subject  at  issue  very  briefly,  and  sometimes  even 
in  a very  low  voice,  so  as  not  to  be  heard  by  the 
ivhole  assembly,  but  only  by  those  close  at  his 
elbow,  who  then  detailed  and  delivered  it  at  largo 
in  a louder  voice  to  the  meeting. 

Traces  of  the  developed  details  of  subjects  thus 
briefly  proposed  by  the  president  cf  the  assembly, 
cannot  escape  the  eye  of  the  inquiring  reader  of 
Ecclesiastes  and  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  Thus,  in 
the  counter-songs  in  Ecclesiastes,  perhaps  the  in- 
troduction, the  few  laconic  words,  ‘ vanity  of  vani- 
ties, all  is  vanity  !’  constituted  the  sentence  with 
which  the  president  opened  the  subject  or  question. 
So  also  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  vi  22;  ix.  17; 
where  perhaps  the  naked  question,  * What  is 
wisdom?  whence  dues  it  come?’  belonged  to  the 
president,  who  in  this  brief  manner  opened  the 
subject,  leaving  the  discussion  and  enlargement 
to  the  other  able  members.  Comp,  also  v.  23 
with  vi.  1-21  : and  see  l Cor.  xiv.  27,  28. 

8.  That  the  pupils  or  students  in  those  assem- 
blies were  not  mete  hoys  coining  to  he  instructed 
in  the  rudiments  of  knowledge,  but  men  or 
youths  of  more  or  less  advanced  education,  who 
came  thither  either  to  profit  by  listening  to  the 
learned  discussions,  or  even  to  participate  in  them 
themselves:  thus  paving  the  way  and  preparing 
themselves  for  the  office  of  the  presidency  at  some 
future  time. 

9.  That  these  meetings  were  public , admitting 
nny  one,  though  not  a member,  and  even  allowing 
him  to  propose  questions. 

10.  That  the  subjects  propounded  in  those 
Assemblies  were  of  a manifold  character:  (1) 
eongs,  in  which  the  audience  now  and  then 
joined ; (2)  counter-songs,  in  which  several  of  the 
learned  members  delivered  their  thoughts  and 
opinions  on  a certain  proposed  question ; (3) 
adages;  (4)  solutions  of  obscure  questions  and 
problems  (aiyiypara).  . 

1 1.  That  the  principal  task  of  these  assemblies 
'Was  to  preserve  the  remains  of  the  sages  of  olden 
^Urnes  by  collecting  and  writing  them  down. 

This  office  probably  procured  for  Ezra  (the 
president  of  such  an  assembly)  the  distinguished 
title  of  "©ID,  4 scribe’  (Kara  vii.  6,  11,  12). 

12.  That  these  assemblies  and  meetings  were 
stiil  in  existence  in  the  times  cf  Christ  and  hi3 
apostles.* 

Comp,  moreover,  Matt.  xi.  2,  9;  xiii.  57; 
xxi.  11 ; xxiii.  29-39  (v.  34  irpo<p7irai,  eoipoi,  and 
ypapparcis  stand  a3  synonymous)  ; Mark  iv.  33, 

u Even  in  the  present  day,  indeed,  an  imitation 
of  these  assemblies  exists  among  all  Jewish  con- 
gregation* throughout  Poland  and  Germany,  and 
Id  . bears  the  name  cf  Beih-Midrash , where 

the  rabbi  cf  the  place  lectures  on  the  various  sub- 
jects cf  ii-2  law. 


SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION. 

34;  vi.  59  ; Luke  i.  76;  xi.  1 ; John  i.  30-41  . 
iii.  25 ; Act9  iii.  22-25  ; xi.  27  ; xiii  , ; xv.  32; 
xxi.  9,  10. 

Specimens  c£  the  matters  discussed  in  those 
assemblies  in  this  latter  period,  arc  found  in  the 
Talmud,  in  the  collections  of  Baruch  and  Jesus 
(son  of  Sirach),  and  mere  especially  in  the  Book 
of  Wisdom.  Perhaps  some  expressions  cf  John 
the  Baptist  arm  some  speeches  of  Christ  might 
be  compared  with  them.  Even  the  frequent  pas- 
sages in  the  New  TestaYnent,  in  which  Christ  aiq!, 
the  apostles  warn  the  people  against  the  sophis- 
tries, subtleties,  idle  questions,  and  vain  researches 
of  the  so-called  wise,  show  ustbot  these  important 
institutions  had  greatly  degenerated  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  period  under  our  notice  (John  x.  34  ; 
xi.  34 ; xv.  23 ; Col.  ii.  8;  1 Tim.  i.  4, 6 ; iv.  7 ; 
vi//!,  20  ; Tit.  iii.  9).  And  so  we  find  it  in  reality, 
AvKeti  we  examine  with  attention  the  scanty  ma- 
terials ivhich  exist  for  the  history  cf  this  time 
(Ex.  gr.  T.  Bab.  Tr.  Ilagigah). 

The  originally  useful  objects  of  this  institution 
were  soon  lost  cigh$  cf  in  the  ambitious  views  of 
the  sages  cn  whom  its  character  depended  to  shine, 
and  to  say  something  new  and  original,  however 
absurd  and  paradoxical,  a mania  visible  already  in 
the  second  part,  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom , and  which 
soon  contributed  and  lent  charms  to  the  cabalistic 
researches  and  interpretations,  and  art  cf  extra- 
vagant speculation,  which  supplanted  even  in 
the  first  period  of  our  Christian  era  all  other  solid 
researches  among  the  Jews,  and  caused  the  down- 
fall of  those  assemblies. 

This  mania  of  distinction  also  led  to  hantermgg. 
and  quarrels  among  the  little  Jewish  academies 
or  literary  societies,  thu3  dividing  them  into  va- 
rious sects  or  parties. 

The  most  violent  of  these  schisms  were  those 
which  broke  out  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
duceo3.  The  Pharisees  soon  obtained,  it.  is  true, 
the  mastery  over  their  opponents,  but  they  them- 
selves were  also  split  into  many  parties  by  the 
disputes  between  the  school  of  the  celebrated 
teacher  Hillel , and  that  of  Shammai , the  for- 
mer advocating  the  right  of  the  traditional  law 
evert  in  opposition  to  that  of  Moses,  while  the  latte? 
(like  Christ)  attached  but  little  weight  to  tra- 
ditions whenever  they  were,  found  to  clash  witlr- 
the  Mosaical  law.  These  disputes  between  the' 
various  schools  of  the  Jewish  doctors  at  the  close  of 
that  period,  were  often  carried  net  only  to  gross 
personalities,  but  even  to  bodily  assaults,  and 
murder  (Tr.  Sabbath  and  ShebuotK) ; and  it  had 
at  last  become  a proverb  4 that  even  Elijah  the 
Tishbite  would  not  he  able  to  reconcile  the  adhe- 
rents of  Hillel  and  Shammai What  the  ona 
party  permitted  the  other  was  sure  to  prohibit, 
anil  vice  versa.  The  school  cf  Hillel,  however, 
had  from  an  early  period  always  numbered  a iz&t 
majority  in  its  favour,  so  that  the  modern  Jewish. 
Rabbis  are  uniformly  guided  by  the  opinion  of 
that  school  in  their  decisions. 

Now,  as  the  Talmud  contains  (with  the  excep- 
tion of  a few  genuine  KHpiqJua  from  the  treasures 
of  the  early  periods,  .which  are  now  and  then  found 
in  the  heavy  volumes  of  useless  researches)  for  tho 
rncst  part  only  the  opinions  and  disputes  of  those 
echools  concerning  the  traditional  laws,  glossed 
over  with  cabalistic  subtiltic-s. and  sophistical  spe- 
culations, it  is  very  natural  that  but  little  cf  real 
la  teres  5 is  to  lie  found  i;:  & 


SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION. 

Nevertheless  some  remnants  of  the  researcher} 
of  the  * Assemblies  of  the  Wise’  from  the  earlier 
periods,  have  also  descended  to  tra  its.  the  Book  of 
Wisdom,  and  in  the  collections  of  the  son  of 
Si  rad  i,  showing  us  those  colleges  in  their  dignified 
and  more  pure  aspect.  From  this  source  we  may 
collect  the  following  intimations: — 

1.  That  the  object  of  these  assemblies  in  the 
earlier  periods  was  chiefly  to  exercise  the  minds  of 
those  who  had  devoted  themselves  to  the  higher 
branches  of  studies,  and  furnish  them  with  matter 
for  reflection  and  opportunities  to  develops  their 
thoughts;  It  is  true  that  no  specimens  are  extant 
from  that  period  exhibiting  the  solution  of  obscure 
problems  (filTH,  abAyy.ara),  which  were  admir- 
ably calculated  in  that  early  stage  of  civilisation, 
and  in  that  climate,  for  the  developemenf.  of  the 
thinking  faculties;  yet  there  can  be  iio  doubt,  a3 
we  have  shown  above,  that  such  had  come  under 
their  consideration.  All  that  ha3  been  preserved 
ere.  Songs,  Counter-songs , and  Adages . 

2.  That  the  Counters  ongS,  which  seem  to  have 
constituted  the  main  debates  in  those  assemblies, 
were  by  no  means  founded  on  egotism,  or  a spirit  of 
contradiction,  but  simply  qn  the  desire  of  mutual 
information  and  instruction ; and  it  is  manifest 
in  many  of  them  that  the  authors . had  truth  for 
iiheir  object,  both  in  advancing  their  own  original 
fcleas,  and  in  refuting  those  of  their  colleagues. 

3.  That  these  discourses  had  at  first  assumed 
ihe  poetical  tone  so  peculiar  to  that  time  and 
Climate,  when  and  where  the  song  comprised  all 
mat  can  he  said  and  thought;  but  that  gradually 
that  tone  was  lowered  to  a poetical  prose,  traces 
of  which  we  still  discover  in  many  of  the  sayings 

1. r  the  New  Testament. 

4.  That  these  discourses  treated  of  Subjects 
hearing  on  religious  philosophy,  and  the  worship  of 
fSrod ; recommending  virtue  and  morals^  exhorting 
ro  wisdom,  laying  down  principles  for  practical^ 
life,  not  emitting,  however,  still  higher  objects,, 
such -as  the  imiriortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  con- 
dition of  the  bad  and  good  after  death,  &c. 

In  the  middle  period  of  the  Jewish  history  of 
civilization,  from  the  time  of  Samuel  to  that  of 
Jeremiah  and  Ezra,  these  philosophic  assemblies 
occur  under  a double  appellation  ; 1,  Schools  of 
the  Prophets,  in  the  first  part  of  that  period,  and 

2,  Assemblies  of  the  Wise,  in  the  latter  part. 

Of  the  existence  of  such  schools  or  meetings  so 
early  as  the  time  of  Moses  but.  faint  traces  are 
found,  in  comparing  Exod.  xviii.  13 — 26,  with 
Hjun?.  xi.  24 — 29,  where  the  eminent  men  whom 
Moses  used  to  consult  on  important  a flairs  re* 
ceive  the  same  designation  (of  ‘ prophets’)  as  the 
members  of  the  prophet-schools  in  the  subsequent 
ages  But.  in  the  time  of  Samuel  we  find  more 
distinct  proofs  of  their  existence  (1  Sam.  ix. 
9;  x.  5-11;  xix.  18  sq. ; 1 Chiron.  xxv.  6,7; 
2 Kings  ii.  3 ; iih  15,  16  ; iv.  18,  43  ; Isa.  viii. 
18-19;  Prov.  i.  2 6;  xxv.  ! ; Eccles.  i.  2;  xii.  8; 
vii.  27 ; xii.  9-11).  ' , 

By  paying  a little  attention  to  the  passages 
which  we  have  quoted  above  regarding  these  as- 
semblies in  the  two  periods,  the  following  results 
may  fairly  be  deduced  from  them 

1.  That,  the  schools  of  the  prophets  in  the  earlier 
periods  were  identical  with  the  assemblies  of  ike 
w its  of  the  later  periods,  both  in  design  and  form. 
This  will  not  appear  doubt  fu  3 when  we  trace 
tke  term  ^23  ‘prophet’  fee  its  etymology— 


SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION.  Tl 

iruj  out,  inspired  (sincere). ^ . Tims  arc  Miriam 
(Exod.  xv.  20)  and  Deborah  (Judg.  iv.  4)  styled 
f!&^33.  ‘ prophetesses/  because  they  uttered  in- 
spired, enthusiastic  songs.  Al30  (l  Kings  xviii. 
29)  if  is  said  that  the  priest3  of  Baal  1&533JV1, 
4 prophesied,’  ivhile  in  1 Chr.xxv.  1 occurs  the  ex- 
pression D'taam  nnm  owns,  * to  prophesy 
with  harps  and  psalteries,’  which  ia  illustrated 
(ver.  6)  by  lTfl331  D^333  m ‘ for  eong 

with  psalteries  and  harps*  (ver.  7)  by 
instructed  in  song  ;*  eo  that  &Q3n,  ‘ prophet,’ 
(ver.  2, .3)  may  also  be  rendered  singer, y 

% That  the  places  where  these  prophets  or  in- 
spired singers  (who  among  other  people  would 
have  been  called  thinkers  or  philosophers)  met, 
were  Hamah  (I  Sam.  six.  18-24),  Bethel  (2  Kings 
ii.  S),  Jericho  (ii.  5),  Gslgal  (iv.  38;  vi.  1).  By 
comparing  1 Kings  xviii.  SO  with  2 Kings  ii.  25, 
there  seems  to  have  been  another  such  place  some- 
where in  Mount  Carmel. 

3.  That  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  or  assem- 
blies of  the  wise,  were  unions  - of  men|  distin- 
guished S>y  learning  and  wisdom,  or  who  strove 
for  that  distinction,  and  were  competent  to  appear 
as  public  orators  or  singers,  animated  declama* 
tion  end  song  being  identical  in  their  origin. 

4.  That  these  institutions  were  chiefly  in- 
tended— 

g*  To  rouse,  develops,  and  strengthen  the  powers 
of  thought,  by  mutual  instruction,  comma-, 
ideation,  criticism,  and  controversy. 

b.  To  hear  public  teachers,  counsellors,  and 
leaders  of  the  people  and  the  monarchs. 

c.  To  save  from  oblivion  the  sayings  and 
speeches  of  ancient  times,  by  collecting  them 
in  props?  order ; and, 

d.  To  rear  from  among  them  teachers  and 

writers  for  the  public.  t 

5.  That  the  subjects  treated  of  in  these  schools 
or  assemblies , comprised  everything  that  might 
appear  important  to  the  philosophers  of  those  times 
and  that  country,  and,  more  especially,  songs 
ef  praise  to  Jehovah,  observations  on  mats  and 
nature,  exhortations  to  morality  .and  virtue,  warn- 
ings against  idolatry  and  enmity  towards  the:? 
fellow-citizens,  &c. 

6.  That  the  foi'm  of  tnose  discourses,  in  both 
the  schools  of  the  prophets  and  assemblies  of  ik& 
zoise,  may  be  divided  into— 


* Quintilian  observes,  that  m the  early  stages: 
of  civilization,  the  performers  on  musical  instru- 
ments (as  such  are  first  described  the  s prophets/ 
l Sam.  x.)  were  identical  with  wise  men,  inspired 
singers,  and  seers.  Quis  ignorat  musicen  tantuni 
jam  illis  antiquis  tern pori bus,  non  studiimodo 
verum  etiam  veneratioJiis  habuisse,  ut  iidem 
Musici  et  Vales  et  Sapientes  judicarentur,  (mit- 
ts, m alios)  Orpheus  et  Linus  (Inst.  i.  10). 

f Even  die  Chaldee  translates  1S533ri%  s they 
prophesied/  in  1 Sam.  xix.  20,  ‘ they  sang  songs 
of  praise.’  In  the  same  sense  must  we  also  take 
KpdiprfTeveii’,  in  I Cor.  xi.  4,  5. 

J That  the  so-called  (sons)  pupils  of  the  pro- 
phets were  not  boys,  but  grown  men,  is  evident 
from  1 Kings  xx.  35,  sq. ; 2 Kings  ii.  15, 16;  where 

mention  is  made  of  fifty  strong  men  (^-H  *^S),th? 
pupils  of  Uie  prophets,  who  nad  csevtal'led  sf 
J-ncho ; as  also  from  2 liisg?  43 


*S4  SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION.  SCHOOLS,  EDUCATION. 


a.  Sayings  of  the  wise. 

ft.  Songs  and  counter-songs  (JYiiy?  Fs. 

lsxxviii.  1 ; Sept,  arpctpal  \6ycay,  Prov.  i. 
3);  containing  thoughts  leading  to  reflection 

and  further  investigation 
CKorcivbs  \6yos). 

c,  Oiiscure  questions  (HITH,  alviy/xaTa)}  and 
their  solutions. 

7.  That  the  president  of  the  assembly  opened 
the  meeting  with  a sentence  or  question,  which 
wa3  left  to  the  various  speakers  to  develope  or 
discuss. 


8.  That  the  members  of  these  literary  unions 
comprised  also  laymen — ex.gr.  Saul  and  David 
— though  Levifcs  were  frequently  not  only  mem- 
bers but  even  founders  of  such  schools — ex.  gr. 
Samuel,  &c.  To  judge,  however,  from  many 
passages  where  censure  is  passed  on  the  too  strict 
olwervance  of  outward  ceremony  as  demanded 
hy  the  priests,  as  also  on  their  arrogance  of  de- 
spotic power,  it  would  seem  that  such  unions 
were  just  forming  a sort  of  opposition  to  those 
evils,  trying  to  out-argue  them,  and  shew.ng  by 
their  own  example,  in  the  selection  of  a president 
and  other  distinguished  members,  that  more  re- 


434.  [Turkish  Sphool.] 


ipect  i3  due  to  personal  merit  than  to  hereditary 
right,  as  advocated  by  the  priests.* 

Specimens  cf  the  form  and  style  of  the  objects 
treated  in  those  early  periods  in  the  schools  of  the 
prophets,  may  probably  be  contained  in  the  hymns 
in  many  of  the  Psalms,  assisted  by  a chorus,  such 
as  Ps.  viii.,  xlii.,  xiiii.,  xlix.,  civ. ; as  also  the  coun- 
ter-songs in  Ps.  lxxxviii.,  Ixxxix.,  lx.,  lxi.,  lxv.,  and 
ciii.  1-1S;  as  also  cxxxix.,  where  three  singers 
r.eem  to  have  performed  successively,  after  the 
fir. ale  of  the  chorus.  < Nor  can  we  fail  to  discover, 
in  Canticles  and  proverbs,  numerous  passages  be- 
longing to  those  assemblies  or  schools  at  various 
periods  (vide  the  superscriptions  of  ch.  x.v  xxv., 
xxx.,.andxxxi.). — E.  M.  N f 

[It  would  appear  that  elementary  instruction 
among  the  mass  of  the  people  became  more  com. 
mon_after  the  Exile  than  it  had  been  previously^ 

It,  is  a curious  fact,  that  among  the  places 
named  as  rendezvous  for  the  sons  of  the  prophets, 
uot  one  Levitical  town  is  found  (comp.  Josh. 
£xi.-and_l  Cbron.  vi.  54,  sq.\  though *uch  places 
may. seem  to  have. been  the  most  appropriate  for 
literary  purposes..  ~ V- 


when  the  ability  to  read  was  regarded  as  a merle 
of  learning  (Isa.  xxix.  12);  and  in  the  time  of 
Christ  reading  and  writing  seem  to  have  been  at- 
tainments common  to  every  class  above  the  very 
lowest.  We  know  that  several  of  the  apostles, 
who  were  fishermen,  could  read  and  write,  and 
may  assume  that  others  of  the  same  class  of  life 
could  do  the  same;  yet  they  were  certainly  consi- 
dered * unlearned’  men  (Acts  iv.  13).  The  state 
of  common  education  about  that  period  appears  to 
us  to  have  been  in  all  probability  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible similar  in  almost  every  respect  to  that  which 
now  prevails  in  Moslem  countries.  Here  also  a 
further  ami  very  striking  resemblance  arises  out  of 
the  prominence  given  to  instruction  in  the  sacred 
books.  Among  Moslems  persons  quite  unable  to 
read  or  write  can  nevertheless  repeat,  a large  part, 
and  sometimes  the  whole,  of  the  Koran  by  rote; 
and  there  is  reason  to  think  that  among  the  Jews  a 
similar  acquaintance  with  the  law,  and  with  parfsoi 
the  psalms  and  prophets,  as  well  as  a general  know 
ledge  of  the  historical  and  other  Looks,  existed  by 
means  of  oral  instruction  even  among  those  who 
had  not  learned  to  read  and  write.  The  Moslems 
make  it,  indeed,  their  first  object  to  instil  into  the 


SCRIBES. 

amines  of  their  children  the  principles  of  their 
religion,  and  then  submit  them,  if  they  can  afford 
the  small  expense,  to  the  instruction  of  a school- 
master. Most  of  the  children  of  the  higher  and 
middle  classes,  and  many  of  the  lower  also,  are 
taught  by  the  schoolmaster  to  read,  and  to  recite  the 
whole  or  certain  portions  oi‘ the  Koran  by  memory. 
They  afterwards  learn  the  common  rules  of  arith- 
metic. Schools  are  numerous  in  every  large  town, 
and  there  is  one  at  least  in  every  considerable 
vil.age.  There  are  also  schools  attached  to  mosques 
and  other  public  buildings,  in  which  children  are 
instructed  at  a very  trifling  expense.  The  lessons 
are  generally  written  ujxm  tablets  of  wood  painted 
•white,  and  when  one  is  learnt,  the  tablet  is  washed 
and  another  written.  Writing  is  also  practised 
on  the  same  tablet.  The  master  and  pupils  sit 
on  the  ground,  and  each  hoy  has  a tablet  in  his 
hand,  or  a copy  of  the  Koran,  or  of  one  of  its 
thirty  sections,  on  a kind  of  small  desk  of  palm- 
sticks.  All  who  are  learning  to  read  recite  their 
lessons  aloud  at  the  same  time,  rocking  their 
bodies  incessantly  backwards  and  forwards:  which 
is  thought  to  assist  the  memory.  Boys  who  mis- 
behave are  beaten  by  the  master  on  the  soles  of 
the  feet  with  a palm-stick. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  these  schools  teach 
l'rttle  more  than  reading  and  learning  by  heart, 
the  reading  lessons  being  written  on  tablets  not 
by  the  boys  themselves  but  by  the  master; 
and  one*who  can  read  well,  and  recite  a good 
deal  of  the  Koran,  is  considered  to  have  had 
a fair  education.  Those  who  learn  to  write  are 
such  as  are  likely  to  require  that  art  in  the  em- 
ployments for  which  they  are  designed ; and  as  few 
schoolmasters  teach  writing,  they  leam  it  of  a. 
person  employed  in  the  bazaars. 

Some  parents  employ  a master  to  teach  their 
boys  at  home;  and  those  who  intend  to  devote 
themselves  to  a learned  or  religious  life,  pursue  a 
regular  course  of  study  in  the  colleges  (Medras- 
6eli — the  same  name  as  the  Hebrew  for  similar 
institutions)  connected  with  the  great  mosques. 
Females  are  seldom  taught  to  read  or  write,  or 
even  ro  say  tneir  prayers ; but  there  are  many 
schools  in  which  they  are  taught  needlework,  em. 
broidery,  &c.  (Lane,  Mod.  Egypt,  i.  C2-f)9 ; 
Schubert,  Morgenlande , pp.  72-74).  The  Jews, 
while  they  paid  equal  attention  to  their  sacred 
books,  appear  to  have  made,  in  the  later  Scriptural 
times,  writing  more  generally  a part  of  common 
education  than  the  Moslems  now  do;  and  the 
religious  education  of  females  was  less  neglected 
by  them,  as  appears  in  the  case  of  almost  every 
woman  named  in  the  New  Testament.  In  other 
respects  the  state  of  things  seems  to  have  been  very 
•similar  to  the  present.^ 

BORISES  PSP),  a learned  body  of  men, 
otherwise  denominated  lawyers,  whose  influence 
with  the  Jewish  nation  was  very  great  at  the  time 
when  our  Saviour  appeared, 

The  genius  of  a social  or  religious  system  may 
be  ascertained  even  from  the  signification  of  the 
names  borne  by  its  high  functionaries.  The  title 
Consul,  which  directs  the  thoughts  to  consultation 
as  t lie  chief  duty  of  the  officer  who  bore  it,  could, 
have  had  no  existence  in  any  of  the  Oriental 
despotisms.  Haruspices,  soothsayers,  determines 
the  degree  of  religious  enlightenment  to  which 
Rome,,  the  mistress  of  the  world,  Lad  been  able  to 

vol.  ii,  45 


SCRIBES’.  703 

attain.  The  feudal  designation  Marshall  (Master 
of  the  Horse)  jjoinfs  to  a state  of  society  in  which' 
brute  force  had  the  mastery.  Our  Saxon  title  of 
a ruler,  namely,  king  (konig,  that  is,  * the  knower,* 
4 the  skilful  man”),  shows  that  the  very  basis  of  our 
social  institutions  was  laid  in  superior  know- 
ledge and  ability,  and  not  in  mere  physical  pre- 
eminence. In  the  same  way  the  word  4 scribe*  of 
itself  pronounces  a eulogy  on  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions. Writers  at  an  early  period  held  a high 
rank  in  the  Hebrew  polity,  and  in  consequence 
that  polity  must  have  been  essentially  of  a libe- 
ral character,  and  of  a refining  tendency.  * Scribe,* 
indeed,  has  reference  to ‘law,’ and  of  itself  i£ 
suggests  the  idea ; and  the  social  institution^  that 
are  founded  on  law,  and  not  on  force — on  law-, 
and  hot  on  the  will  of  one  man — fake  a high  rank 
even  in  their  origin,  and  may  presumably  merit 
high  praise. 

If  now  we,  invert  the  remark,  intimating  that 
law,  as  the  foundation  of  social  institutions,  im- 
plies scribes,  we  shall  see  at  once  that  the  learned 
caste  of  which  we  speak  must  have  taken  their 
rise  contemporaneously  \vith  the  commencement 
of  the  Mosaic  polity.  In  a system  so  complex  as 
was  that  polity,  there  were  no  means  but  repeated 
transcripts  which  could  make  the  law  sufficiently 
known  for  if  to  be  duly  observed  by  the- nation 
at  large.  It  is  true  that  at  first  the  function  oil 
the  serine  may  have  been  ill-defined,  and  his 
services  have  been  only  occasionally  demanded; 
but  as  the  nation  became  settled  in  tfieir  terri- 
torial possessions,  and  the  provisions  of  Moses 
began  to  take  effect,  the  scribe  would  be  more 
and  move  in  demand,  till  at  last  the  office  became 
a.  regular  and  necessary  part  of  social  life,  anti 
grew  finally  into  all  the  dignity,  order,  and  co- 
herence of  a learned  caste.  And  this  growth 
would  be.  accelerated  or  retarded  in  the  same 
manner  and  degree  as  the  idea  of  law  was 
honoured,  out.  of  which  it  sprang.  In  seasons  ofi 
national  depression,  when  might  prevailed  againsf 
right,  law  was  silenced  and  scribes  were  oppressed^ 
When,  Innvever,  the  Mosaic  law  was  honoured; 
when,  as  in  the  reign  of  David,  law  had  triumphed 
over  force,  and  laid  the  foundations  of  a flourish- 
ing empire,  then  the  scribe  stood  at  the  king’s 
light  hand,  and  the  pen  became  at  once  the  sym- 
bol and  the  instrument  of  power.  So,  too,  wheu 
the  exile,  with  its  Weighty  penalties,  had  fa-ught 
the  people  to  value,  respect,  and  ohey,the  law  cl 
God,  the  law  of  their  forefathers,  then  the  scribe 
is  raised  to  the  highest  offices  of  civil  society,  and 
even  an  Ezra  is  designated  by  the  name. 

But  law,  in  the  Mosaic  institutions,  trad  a 
religious  as  well  as  a civil  sanction.  With  tha 
Hebrews,  indeed,  social  was  lost  in  religious  life. 
There  was  but  one  view  of  society,  and  of  mail 
individually,  and  that  was  the  religious  view^ 
Education,  politics, 'morals,  even  the  useful  arts^ 
were  only  religion,  in.  different  exercises  and 
^manifestations.  Hence  writing  was  a sacred  arr* 
and  writers  (scribes)  holy  men;  and  that  the 
rather,  because  scribes  were  engaged  immediately: 
about  the  law,  which  was  the  written  will  of  God, 
and  so  the  embodiment  of  all  knowledge,  truth 
and  duty.  The  scribes,  therefore,  were  not  only, 
a learned  but  a sacred  caste. 

In  the  same  manner  may  we  learn  what,,  in 
general,  the  functions  of  the  scribes  were.  A 
writer  at  the  present  day  frequently  used  aa 


103 


SCRIBES. 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 


6ynonymou3  with  an  author,  and  an  author  is 
necessarily  a teacher.  The  scribes  then  hod  the 
care  of  the  law  ; it  was  their  duty  to  make  tran- 
scripts of  it ; they  also  expounded  its  difficulties, 
and  taught  its  doctrines,  and  so  performed  several 
furfctims  which  are  now  distributed  among  dif- 
ferent professions,  being  keepers  of  the  records, 
consuming  lawyers,  authorized  expounders  of  holy 
writ,  and,  finally,  schoolmasters — thus  blending 
together  in  one  character--  the  several  elements  of 
intellectual,  moral,  social,  and  religious  influence. 
It^ scarcely  needs  to  be  added  that  their  power 
was  very  great. 

A few  details  drawn  from  individual  passages- 
of  Scripture  will  confirm  and  enlarge  these  ob- 
servations. So  early  a3  the  events  recorded  in 
.Irfdg.  v.  14,  we  find  mention  of  those  ‘who 
handle  the. pen  of  the  writer,’ as  if  the  class  of 
ecribes  were  then  well  known.  Zebulun  seems 
to  have  been  famous  as  a school  for  scribes. 
Among  the  high  officers  of  the  court  of  David 
mention  is  made  of  *'  Serai  ah  the  scribe,’  as  if  he 
stood  on  the  Game  footing  in  dignity  as  the  chief- 
priests  and  the  generalissimo  (2  Sam.  viii.  16-18). 
Ily  comparing  this  with  other  passages  (2  Kings 
xxv.  19:  1 Chron.  ii.  55;  2 Chron.  xxxiv.  13; 
1 Chron.  xxvii.  32)  we  learn  that  in  the  time  of 
the  kings  the  scribes  constituted  a learned,  organ- 
ized, much  esteemed,  and  highly  influential  body 
of  men,  recognised  and  supported  by  the  state. 
When,  however,  the  regal  power  had  been  ov.er- 
turned,  and  force  of  arms  had  been  found  insuf- 
ficient to  preserve  the  integrity  of  a nation  that, 
could  not  be  wholly  weaned  from  idolatry;  and 
when  at  length  sorrow  bad  wrought  what  pros- 
perity had  failed  to  achieve,  then  in  the  downfall 
of  external  pomp,  and  greatness,  and  the  rise  and 

firedomiuauce  of  God’s  will,  as  enshrined  in  the 
aw,  the  scribe  rose  to  a higher  eminence  than 
ever,  and  continued  to  hold  his  .lofty  position, 
with  some  slight  variations,  till  letters  were  again 
compelled  to  yield  to  arms,  and  the  holy  city 
was  trodden  down  by  the  hoof  of  heathen  soldiery 
(Ezra  vii.  6, >11;  Neb.  viii.  1 ; xii.  26;  Jer.  viii. 
8;  xxxvi.  12,26;  Ezek.  ix.  2).  And  thus  ‘ Cap- 
tain Sword’  appeared  to  have  gained  a final 
victory  over  ‘ Captain  Pen  ;’  hut  the  power  of  the 
new  knowledge  which  Jesn3,  ‘the  light  of  life,* 
had  recently  brought  into  the  world,  soon  altered 
the  face  of  society,  and  took  the  laurels  from  the 
ensanguined  hand  that  held  them  boastfully. 
*Twas  only  for  many-soul’d  Captaiu  Pen 
To  make  a world  of  swordless  men.  f 

In  the  New  Testament  the  scribes  are  found  as 
a body-of  high  state  functionaries,  who,  in  con- 
junction with  the  Pharisees  and  the  high-priests, 
constituted  the  Sanhedrim,  and  united  all  the 
resources  of  their  power  and  learning  in  order  to 
entrap  and  destroy  the  Saviour  of  mankind  The 
passages  are  so  numerous  as  uot  to  need  citation. 
It  mu y be  of  more  service  to  draw  the  reader’s 
attention  to  the  great  array  of  influence  thus 
brought  to  bear  against  ‘ the  carpenter's  sun.* 
That. influence  comprised,  besides  the  supreme 
power  of  the  state,  the  first  legal  functionaries, 
who  watched  Jesus  closely  iii  order  to  detect  him 
in  some  breach  of  the  law ; the  recognised  ex- 
positors of  duty,  who  lost  no  opportunity  to  take 
exception  to  his  utterances,  to  blame  his  conduct, 
and  misrepresent  his  morals ; also  the  acutest 
intellects  of  the  nation,  who  eagerly  sought  to 


entangle  him  in  the  web  of  their  sophistries,  or  to 
confound  him  by  their  artful  questions.  Yet 
even  all  these  malign  iufiueuces  tailed.  Jesus 
was  triumphant  in  argument;  r.e  failed  only 
when  force  interposed  its  revengeful  arm.  The 
passage  found  in  Luke  xx.  19-47  is  full  of 
instruction  on  this  subject.  At  the  close  of  this 
striking  Scripture  our  Lord  thus  describes  these 
men(ver.  46)  : ‘Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  desire 
to  walk  in  long  robes,  and  love  greetings  in  the 
markets,  and  the  highest  seats  in  die  synagogues, 
and  the  chief  rooms  at  feasts;  which  devour 
widows’  houses,  and  for  a 'show  make  long 
pravprs.’  Their  opportunity  of  assailing'  our 
Lord  was  the  greater  from  their  constant  vigil- 
ance. Winer  (Real-wUrterb.)  thinks  that  they, 
in  union  with  the  high-priests,  formed  a kind  of 
t police,  who  were  on  duty  in  the  Temple  and  the 
synagogues  (Luke  XX.  1 ; Acts  vi.  12).  Nor 
was  their  influence  limited  to  the  capital ; from 
Luke  v.  17,  we  learn  that  members  of  the  body 
were  found  in  every  town  of  Galilee  and  Judaea. 
Like  the  learned  castes  of  most  nations,  they  were 
attached  to  the  traditions  of  the  elders  (Matt.  xv. 

1)  ; had  ample  influence  with  the  people  (Luke 
xx.  46) ; and  though  some  of  them  belonged  to 
the  free-thinking  and  self-satisfied  Sadducees,  they 
were  for  the  most  part  of  the  predominant  sect  of 
Pharisees  (Luke  xi.  45;  Acts  xxiii.  9;  Matf. 
20;  xii.  38;  xv.  1). 

It  may  serve  to  read  a lesson  to  those  wild 
reason  as  if  they  had  a right  to  expect  to  fina 
every  thing  in  Josephus,  and  who  are  ready 
make  his  silence  an  argument  conclusive  agains^ 
the  evangelists,  that  very  little  appears  in  the 
Jewish  historian  touching  this  class  of  men.  Sp 
his  Antiquities  (xvii.  6.  2)  two  are  incidentally 
mentioned  as  engaged  in  education,  Judas  and 
Matthias,  ‘ two  of  the  most  eloquent,  men  among 
the  Jews,  and  the  most  celebrated  interpreters 
of  the  Jewish  laws,  men  well  beloved  by  the 
people,  because  of  the  education  of  their  youth  : 
for  all  those  that  were  studious  of  virtue  fre- 
quented their  lectures  every  day.’  This  descrip- 
tion calls  to  mind  the  sophists  and  philosophers 
of  Greece;  indeed,  tbesG  same  persons  are  termed 
by- Josephus  in  another  part  (Do  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33. 

2)  <To<pi(TTai.  Hence,  however,  it.  is  clear  that  the 
scribes  were  the  Jewish  schoolmasters  as  well  as 
lawyers.  In  this  character  they  appear  in  the 
Talmud.  In  the  outer  courts  of  the  temple  were 
many  chambers,  in  which  they  sat-  on  elevated 
platforms  to  give  their  lessons  to  their  pupils, 
who  sat  on  a lower  elevation,  and  so  at  their  feet. 
Of  these  dignified  instructors  Gamaliel  was  one 
(Acts  v.  34);  and  before  these  learned  doctors 
was  Jesus  found  when  only  twelve  years  old, 
heaving  and  asking  questions  ad’tej..tbe  manner  iu 
which  instruction  was  communicated  in  these 
class-rooms  (Luke  ii.  46;  Acts  xxii.  3;  Light- 
foot  (Bores  Hebr  dices } pp.  741-31;  Pirke  Aboth, 
v.  23).— J.  R.  B. 

SCRIPTURE  (HOLY),  or  Scriptures 
(Holy),  the  term  generally  applied  in  the 
Christian  Church  since  the  second  century,  to 
detiote  the  collective  writings  of  the  Old  ami 
New  "^Testaments  [Bible].  The  names  Sa-ipture^ 
or  ‘writing’  (tj  y$ta(p'}),  2 Pet.  i.  20),  Scriptures 
(at*  yocKbai,  Matt.  xxii.  29  ; Acts  viii.  24),  Holy 
Scriptures  (hpu  ypdpfxara,  2 Tim.  iii.  15),  are 
.tliose  generally  employed  iu  the  New  Testament 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  7DT 

to  denote  exclusively  the  writings  of  tlie  Old  twenty-four  bdo&S,  "placing  Ruth- and  LamenTa-fl 
[See  pETfii,  Episti.es  ok].  About  a.d.  180,  tions  among  the  Hagiographa.  The  other  books* 
die  term  Holy  Scriptures  (al  aylai  ypcupaij  read  in  the  churches,  but  not  found  in  the  Canon," 
is  used  by  Theophilus  (Ad  Autolyc.  iii.  12)  to  as  Wisdom,  Sirach,  Judith,  Tobit,  and  The  Shep4 
include  the  Gospels.  Irenacus  (i».  27)  calls  the  herd,  he  terms  Apocrypha.  With  this*  catalogue 
whole  collection  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and  MeW  agrees  his  contemporary  Rufinus,  who  accuses  Je»' 
Testament,  the  Divine  Scriptures  (8e?ai  ypacpai),  romc  as  we  have  already  seen  [Deuxerocangni* 
ami  the  Lord's  Scriptures  (Dominica  Scripturae, ' cal]  of  compiling,  or  rather  plundering  (com* 
v,  20.2).  By  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom,  vii.)  1 pilaudi),  the  Scriptures,  in  consequence  of  the 
they  are  called  the  Scriptures  (ypcupal),  and  rejection  by  that  Father  of  Susanna  and  the  Bene* 
the  inspired  Scriptures  (al  8eoirv€v<rTot  ypcupal-)  dicite.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  divides  thp  canonical 
From  the  end  of  the  second  and  beginning  of  the  books  into  five  of  Moses,  seven  other  historical1, 
third  century,  at  which  time  a collection  of  the  five  metrical,  and  five  prophetical 
New  Testament  writings  was  generally  received,  With  these  catalogues  the  Jews  also  agree* 
the  term  came  into  constant  use,  and  was  so  ap-  Josephus  enumerates  twenty-two  cooks,  five  of 
plied  as  to  include  all  the  books  contained  in  the  Moses,  thirteen  prophets,  and  four  books  of  mora* 
version  of  the  Seventy,  as  well  as  those  of  the  lity.  The  Prophets  were  divided  by  the  ancieng 
Hebrew  canon  [Deutbrocanonicai.].  l$-  Jews  into  the  early  Prophets,  viz.,  Joshua,  Judges, 

Contents  of  the  Scriptures . — The  Scriptures  Samuel,  and  Kings— and  the  later  Prophef% 
are  divided  into  the  .books  held  sacred  by  the  which  were  again  subdivided  info  the  greater* 
Jews,  and  those  held  sacred  both  by  Jews  and  <■  viz.,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel ; and  the 
Christians.  The  former  are  familiarly  known  by  twelve  lesser  Prophets.  The  Talmud  and  the 
the  name  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  latter  modem  Jews  agree  with  Jerome’s  division  info 
by  that  of  the  Neio  [Bible].  The  Old  Testament,  eight  Prophets,  and  nine  HagiogTapha  ( Chetubim  j. 
according  to  the  oldest  catalogue  extant  in  the  The  Canon  of  the  Alexandrian  version  in* 
Christian  Church,  that  of  Melifo,  Bishop  ot  duties  the  other  books,  called  ecclesiastical,  whicf*. 
Sardis  in  the  second  century,  consists  of  the  five  we  have  already  given  in  their  order  [Deuteko* 
books  of  Moses,  or  the  Pentaieuch  (viz.  Genesis,  , canonical].  As  the  early  Christians  (who  wer© 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy) ; not  acquainted  with  Hebrew)  received  this  vei> 
Joshua,  Judges,  and  Ruth;  four  books  of  Kings  " si  on,  for  which  they  had  the  sanction  of  its  em* 
and  two  of  Paralipomena,  (Chronicles);  the  ployinetit  by the  New  Testament  writers,  and  ‘a® 
Psalms  of  David ; the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  from  if.  flowed  the  old  Latin,  and  several  other 
Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  and  Job;  the  Prophets  ancient  versions,  we  must  not  be  surprised  a t 
Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  : the  twelve  Prophets;  the,  finding  that  all  these  books,  being  thus  placed  m 
books  of  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  and  Ezra,  under  which  V the  Bible  without  any  mark  of  distinction,  were 
head  Nehemiuh  and  Esther  seem  to  be  included  received  indiscriminately  by  the  primitive  Chris* 
^Eusebius,  Hist.'  Eccles.  iv.  26).  Origen,  in  ihe  ; tians,  and  were,  equally  with  the  canonical,  read 
next  century,  reckons  twenty-two  hooks,  calling  | jn  the  churches.  Jerome,  in  his  Latin  translation 
them  by  their  Hebrew  names,  which  consisted  ge-,f  of  the  Bible  from  the  Hebrew,  in  the  fourth  ceii* 
nerallyof  the  initial  word  of  the  book,  viz.  Rresith  \ tury,  introduced  a distinction  by  means  of  hi® 
or  Genesis;  Walmoth,  or  Exodus;  Waikra,. or  prefaces,  prefixed  to  each  hook,  which  continued 
Leviticus;  Amraesphekodeim,  or  Numbers ; | to  be  placed,  in  all  the  MSS.,  and  in  the  early; 
EOahadehamn,  or  Deuteronomy  ; Joshua  ben  | printed  editions  of  Jerome's  version,  in  the  body 
Nun;  Sophetim,  or  Judges  and  Ruth  ; Samuel ; | of  the  text,  from  which  they  were  for  the  first  tmVs£ 
Wahammelecli  Dal>id,  or  3 and  4 Kings-;  Dibre  removed  to  the  beginning  or  end  of  the  Ribleafle?? 
Hajammin,  or  Chronicles ; Ezra,  which  included"  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  in  a d,  15d6> 
Nehemiah;  Sepher  Thillim,  or  Psalms;  Misloth,  (See  Rev.  G.  C.  Gorham V'  Letter  to  Van  Ekr* 
or  Proverbs  ; Koheleth,  or  Ecclesiastes ; Sir  Hasi-  § Loud.  1826).  .Luther  was  the  first  who  separated 
rim,'or  Canticles : Isaiah;  Jeremiah,  Lameufa-|  these  hooks  from  the  others,  and  removed  themvtd,& 
lions,  and  the  Epistle;  Daniel ; Ez<  kiel ; Job;  - place  by  themselves  in  his  translation.  Lonicer* 
and  Esther.;  ‘ besides  which,’  he  adds,  ‘ is  Sarhath  in  his  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1526,  follow eddiis* 
Sarbane  El,  or  Maccabees.'  He  omits,  perhaps  example,  f>ut  gave  so  much  offence  by  so  dcinjj 
by  an  oversight,  the  book  of  the  twelve  minor  that  they  were  restored  to  their  places  by  Cephas 
j rpphets.'  To  the  books  enumerated  in  the  pre-  \ laeus  in  1529.  They  were  however  published  irt  at 
ceding  catalogue,  Origen  applies  the  term  canon-*  separate  form  by  Plant  in  in  1575,  and  have  beers 
deal  Scriptures  in  contradistinction  to  secret  since  that  period  omitted  in  many  editions  bf  the 
(apocryphal)  and  heretical  books.  He  does  not  Septiiaginf.  Although  they  were  never  received, 
however  include  in  these  latter  the  deuterocanoni-  into  the  canon  either  by  the  Palestinian  or  Alex-* 
cal  (iv  Seirepcp,  see  Cyril  of  Jerus.  Catech.  iv.  . amlrian  Jews,  yet  they  seem  to  have  been  by 
36)  or  ecclesiastical  books  ; to  which  he  also  ap*  the  latter  considered  as  an  appendix  to  the  canors 
Julies  the  terms  Scrijdnre,  the  Divine  Word,  and  (De  Wette,  liinleitung ).  There  are,  beside® 
the  Sacred  Books  (De  Frincip.  ii.  1 ; Opp.  i.  pp.  these,  many  books  cited  which  have  long  jsjuces 
16jt9,&c.  &c. ; Coni.  Cels.  viii.  Opp.  i.  p.  778).  perished,  as  the  Book  of  Jasherf  (Josh.  £.  I3J 

J.ero’npe  enumerates  twenty-two  books,  viz. : , «r* — » — — — — . 

1.  TN  Pentateuch,  which  he  terms  Thora , or  * Mr.  Gorhath  is  the* author  pf  the  Historical 
.the  Lqw.  2.  The  eight  Prophets,  viz.,  Joshua;  Examination  of  the  book  of ‘Enoch,  r$|erv.e#t(3 
Judges  and  Ruth;  Samuel;  Kings;  Isaiah  ; above  in  p.  172;  note;  '* 

Jeremiah;  Ezekiel;  and  the  twelve  Prophets.  f The  book  of  Jasner,  published  at  New- 
3. 'Nine  Hagiographa,  viz.  Job;  Psalms;  Pro-  in  1840,  is  not,  as  would  appear  from  the  Ape1 
(verbs ; Ecclesiastes ; Canticles;  Daniel ; Chroni-  pendix  to  Parker’s  translation  of  De  Wqtiit* 

; and  Esther,  $omsylje  adds,  numerate  Ehtetol  fprgery-B^ 


708  SCRIPTURE,  HOLT.  SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 


2 Sam.  i.  18)  Hasher],  and  the  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xxi.  14).  In  regard 
to  the  order  of  the  books,  the  Talmudists  and 
the  Masoretes,  and  even  some  MSS.  of  the  latter, 
differ  'from  each  other.  The  Alexandrian  trans- 
lators differ  from  both,  and  Luther’s  arrange- 
ment, which  is  generally  followed  by  Protes- 
tants, is  made  entirely  according  to  bis  own 
judgment.  The  modern  Hebrew  Bibles  are  thus 
arranged  viz.  five  books  of  Moses,  Joshua,  Judges, 
two  booKs  of  Samuel,  two  books  of  Kings.  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  twelve  minor  Prophets, 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Canticles,  Ecclesiastes, 
Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  1 and  2 
Chronicles.  The  New  Testament  consists  of  four 
Gospels,  the  Acts,  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse:  these  are  differ- 
ently arranged  ih  the  Greek  and  Latin  MSS. 
All  l,ese  writings  have  Ircen  considered  in  the 
Christian  church  from  the  earliest  period  as  di- 
aHrnely  inspired  (OeSirveujToi,  2 Tim.  iii.  14-16), 
«.s  no  doubt  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
by  the  Jews  (see  Talmud,- passim;  Philo,  De  Vit. 
miosis,  ii. ; Josephus,  Cont.  Apion,  i.  3,  and  the 
manner  of  their  citation  in  the  New  Testament). 
The  early  Christian  writers  also  constantly  main- 
tain their  inspiration  (Justin  Martyr.  Second 
Apology;  Irenaeus,  i.  4;  Origen,  irepl  apx&v, 
J?reef.),  the  only  difference  of  opinion  being  as  to 
its  limits.  Some  of  the  fathers  maintain  their 
verbal  inspiration,  others  only  that  of  the  thoughts 
©r  . sentiments,  or  that  the  sacred  writers  were 
merely  preserved  from  error  (Du  Pin,  On  the 
Canon).  But  the  first  controversy  raised  on  this 
•subject  was  in  the  sixteenth  century,  when  the 
theses  of  the  Jesuits  [see  Maccabees],  who  had 
maintained  the  lower  notion  of  inspiration,  were 
condemned  by  the  facultiesa>f  Louvain  and  Douai. 
Jahn  observes  ( lntrod ,)  that  on  this  subject  the 
entire  Christian  world  was  divided,  and  that  the 
condemnation  of  the  theses  was  not  sanctioned 
l>v  the  Church  er  the  Roman  primate,  and  that 
the  Council  of  Trent'  has  pronounced  no  judg- 
ment on  the  subject.  Henry  Holden,  doctor  of 
the  Sorbonne,  .published  his  Analysis  Fidei  in 
’1652,  in  which  he  defended  that  notion  of  the 
Fathers,  which  maintained  only  an  exemption 
from  errors  appertaining  to  doctrine.  Jalm  further 
observes  (/.V.)  that  most  Protestants,  until  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  defended  the 
most  rigid  notions  of  verbal  inspiration  ; but  that, 
from  the  time  of  Toellner  and  Semler,  the  idea  of 
inspiration  was  frittered  away  and  eventually  dis- 
carded. The  high  notion  of  inspiration  has  been 
recently  revived  amongst  Protestants,  especially 
in  the  eloquent  work  of  M.  Gaussen  of  Geneva 
( Tkeopneustia 1842).  The  moderate  view  has 
been  that  generally  adopted  by  English  divines 
(Henderson,  On  Inspiration , Home's  lntrod..; 
Appendix  to  Vol.  I.) 

Some  of  the  most  important  subjects  connected 
with  the  Holy  Scriptures  having  been  treated  of 
throughout  this  work,  it  may  not  prove  unaccept- 


a translation  of  the  much  more  respectable 
though  also  spurious)  Book  of  Jasher,  whicn  we 
have  already  referred  to  in  p.  71  as  published  at 
Naples  in  1625.  and  written  in  excellent  Hebrew, 
before  toe  close  of  the  15ih  century*  "he 
American  Christian  Examiner  for  M*y,  1840, 


able  to  add  a brief  account  of  the  text  of  the  Bible, 
and  chiefly  in  respect  to  its  external  form. 

I.  The  ilehrexo  Text. — The  text  (textus).  or  that 
portion  which  was  composed  by  the  original 
authors,  has  descended  to  our  times  in  MSS.,  the 
oldest  of  which  (in  Hebrew),  are  written  on  skins 
of  animals,  and  date  from  the  twelfth  century. 
They  are  written  in  the  present  square  characters, 
which  subsequently  to  the  exile  superseded  the  old 
character  (see  Jerome,  Prolog.  Gal ),  somewhat 
resembling  the  Samaritan,  and  still  preserved 
on  the  Maccabaean  coins.  The  present  characters 
are  a modification  of  the  Aramaean,  and  not  dis- 
similar to  those  on  the  Palmyrene  inscriptions. 
The  existing  MSS.  (except  the  Synagogue  rolls) 
are  furnished  with  vowel  and  diacritical  points, 
and  the  words  are  separated  from  each  other, 
a practice  which  appears  to  have  been  but  partially 
observed  in  the  more  ancient  writing  (De  Wette, 
Einleitung).  We  have  no  data  on  which  to  form 
a history  of  the  text  previous  to  that  unkuowu 
period  after  the  Exile  when  the  Canon  was  closed, 
and  the.  separate  books  formed  into  a collected 
whole.  It  is  probable  that  the  other  sacred  books; 
as  well  as  the  Law,  weie  preserved  in  or  by  the 
6ide  of  the  ark.  of  the  covenant  (Deut.  xxxj. 
24-26);  and  we  learn  from  Josephus  (De  j 'Bell. 
Jud.  vii.  5)  that  the  Law  (N 6pos)  was  among  the 
spoils  of  the  Temple  which  graced  the  triumph  of 
Titus,  who  afterwards  presented  the  sacred  boohs 
(f3ifl\ia  lepa),  upon  his  requesting  them,  to  that 
historian  (Vita,  ch.  75).  From  theperiod  of  the 
return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  our  information 
is  still  but  scanty,  but  we  are  in  possession  of 
two  important  documents  bearing  on  the  history 
of  the  text,  viz.,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  and 
the  version  of  the  Seventy.  The  former  of  these 
was  known  to  exist  only  from  the  citations  of 
Origen,  Jerome,  and  many  others  among  the 
Fathers,  * and  was  supposed  to  have  been  lost, 
when  a MS.  of  it,  written  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, was  brought  into  Europe  in  a.d.  1616,  and 
was  first  published  in  the  Paris  Polyglott.  This 
work  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  existed  before 
the  separation  of  the  Tribes,  but  is  more  generally 
assigned  to  the  period  of  the  revolt  of  Manasseli, 
who  was  contemporary  with  Nehemiah,  although 
Josephus  places  him  in  the  reign  of  Alexander 
the  Great.  The  Pentateuch  of  the  Seventy  dates 
from  the  commencement  Of  the  third  century 
before  Christ,  and  the  remainder  of  the  books 
v/ere  completed  before  the  time  of  Sirach,  who 
lived  about  n.c.  130.  [Sf.ptuagint.]  These 
.documents,  although  the  work  of  inaccurate  and 
capricious,  if-  not  sometimes  ignorant  translators, 
and  although  the  version  of  the  Seventy  has  come 
down  to  us  in  a very  corrupted  state,  are  notwith- 
standing sufficiently  close  in  their  genera!  resem- 
blance to  our  Hebrew  copies  to  show  that  the  text 
in  use  among  the  Jews  long  before  the  Christian 
era,  was  essentially  the  game  with  that  which  is 
now  in  our  hands. 

The  Jews  of  Palestine  and  Babylon,  both  before 
and  at  the  period  of  the  Christian  era,  were,  how- 
ever, still  careful  of  the  original  text.  This  is 
clear  from  the  fact  that  the  versions  of  Aquila 
and  other  translators  executed  soon  after  the  Chris- 
tian era,  adhere  much  more  closely  than  that  of  the 
Seventy  to  the  present  or  Masfifretic  text.  Origen, 
also,  in  the  third  century,  and  Jerome  in  toe 
fpurth,  used  manuscript*  wliith  must  ha»e  been 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  709 


iftif-arly  Identical  with  our  present  copie?.  _ i^owh 
to  this  period  the  text  was  beyond  question  un- 
furnished with  points. or  diacritical  marks. 

In  the  work  called  the  Talmud,  a digest  of 
Jewish  laws  compiled  between  the  second  and 
sixth  centuries,  we  find  evident  traces  of  an 
anxiety  to  preserve  an  accurate  text,  and  even 
an  enumeration  of  various  readings  in  different 
MSS.,  as  well  as  of  the  words  and  letters 
in  *he  Bible.  When  the  Talmud  was  com- 
pleted, the  Masoretes  of  Tiberias  commenced 
their  labours.  The  Masora  (tradition)  consisted 
Df  scattered  annotations  handed  down  by  oral 
tradition’  from  the  previous  centuries.  Tht 
Masora  was  written  at  first  in  separate  books, 
but  afterwards  in  the  margin  of  manuscripts. 
The  Masoretes  continued  the  labours  of  the 
Talmudists,  whom  they  imitated  in  counting 
the  words  and  'letters,  and  constantly  added 
fresh  annotations  to  the  text  until-  the  eleventh 
century.  The  text  of  the  early  Masoretes,  or 
that  of  the  sixth  century,  cannot  now  be  separated 
from  that  of  the  later.  The  emendations  which 
Ihey  continued  to  make  on  the  text  were  of 
various  kinds,  critical,  orthographical,  and  gram- 
matical, founded  partly  on  tradition,  partly  on 
conjecture.  Of  the  Maspretic  text  we  now  pos- 
sess two  recensions,  both  dating  from  the  eleventh 
century,  namely,  the  western,  or  that  of  Rabbi  ben 
Asher,  a native  of  Palestine,  arid  the  eastern,  or  that 
of  Rabbi  ben  Naphlhali  of  Babylon.  The  variants 
5n  these  texts  amount  to  near  a thousand.  From 
this  period  dates  the  completion  of  the  system  of 
Vowel  points.  The  earliest  manuscripts  are  all 
pointed,  the  unpointed  having  probably  become 
neglected;  nor -has  any  portion  ofjhe  Hebrew 
Bible,  dating  before  the  twelfth  or  the  close  of 
the  preceding  century,  descended  to  our  times. 
Our  oldest  MSS.  of  the  Bible  are  those  of  the 
Greek  version,  which  exceed  the  Hebrew  in  an- 
tiquity by  seven  hundred  years, 
v The  Jews  were  not  slow  in  taking  advantage 
©f  the  new  and  beautiful  invention  which,  in  the 
middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  superseded  the 
labours  of  the  calligraphists.  So  early  as  1477 
the  Psalter  was  printed  at  Bologna,  in  folio,  but 
without  points  except  in  a few  passages,  anil 
without  any  accents  except  that  which  denoted 
the.  end  of  the  verse  (Sipk  Pasuk ).  The  Penta- 
teuch was  printed  at  the  same  place,  with  points, 
an  1482,  folio.  This  was  followed  by  Ruth, 
Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  and  Lamentations,  and 
from  the  press  at  Soncino,  in  1486,  there  issued 
the  early  and  later  prophets.  At  Soncino  also; 
in  1488,  the  entire  Hebrew  Bible  was  first 
printed,  which  was  followed  by  an  edition  at 
Staples  in  1491,  and  another  at  Brescia,  by  Rabbi 
Cxerson,  in  1494.  This  was  succeeded  by  the  He- 
brew of  the  Complutensiau  Polyglott  in  1517, 
and  in  the  following  year  was  published  at 
Venice  Bomberg's  first  edition  of  his  Rabbinical 
Bible,  4 vols.  tbl.,  edited  by  the  learned  Jew, 
Felix  Prateusis.  This,  and  Robert  Stephens’s 
beautiful  editions  of  1539-1544,  were  derived 
from  Gerson’s,  which  was  that  used  by  Luther 
for  his  German  Bible.  Sebastian  Munster's  edi- 
tion (1536)  was  also  of  this  family. 

. jjotnlierg’s second  edition  (Venice,  1525),  which 
Was  followed  by  several  others,  is  the  parent  of 
Stephens’s  editions  of  1544-46,  and  of  our  present 
Hebrew  Bibles.  The  Autwerp  Polyglott  (1569} 


Shd  Hulter’s  edition  (1587)  contain  a mixed 
he  Jaye  and  Walton  have  retained  the  text  of  thft 
Antwerp  Polyglott.  Other  accurate  editions  wer % 
published  by  Buxtorf  (1611  and  1618),  and  by 
Athias  (1661  and  1667),  with  a preface  by 
Leusden.  Van  der  Hooght’s  (1705)  is  a reprint 
of  the  edition  of  Athias.  Tlte  various  readings 
are  contained  in  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  of  Bom  berg 
and  Buxtorf,  and  in  the  editions  of  Munster,  Van 
der  Hooghf,  Michaelis,  Houbigant,  Kenriicott, 
Doederlein,  Meisner,  Jahn,  and  the  Polygtottsi 
All  these  editions  represent  the  Masoretic  recen- 
sion, which,  most  probably,  judging  from  flip 
ancient  translations,  represented  the  text  which 
was  received  at  the  introduction  of  Christianity. 
The  early  Protestant  divines  zealously  contended 
for  the  integrity  of  the  text  of  the  Masoretic 
MSS.,  in  opposition  to  the  ante-Masoretic,  or  that 
which  was  the  basis  of  theSeptuagint  (see  Loscher, 
De  Cans.  Ling.  Heb. ,-  Carpzov,  Cut.  Sacr.  ; 
Buxtorf,  De  Punst.  Antiq.  et  Orig.') ; and  not- 
withstanding the  learning  and  acumen  with  which' 
they  were  opposed,  it  i.s  now  generally  conceded 
that  the  Protestants  were  right.  They  proceeded 
•too  far,  however,  when  they  Contended  for  the 
antiquity,  and  even  the  divine  origin  of  the  vowel 
points.  ‘ The  Protestants,"  says  Jahn  \ lulrod.\ 
* who  until  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
maintained  the  perfect  clearness  of  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  contended  that  the  vowel  points  were 
coeval  with  the  consonants,  in  order,  doubtless, 
to  obviate  the  notion  that  the  Scriptures  were  at 
one  time  less  clear  than  at  another.  But  sincts 
their  rejection  of  this  dogma  they  agree  with  us 
that  the  points  are  but  a commentary  of  the 
middle  ages.’  Lo.uis  Capell,  an  eminent  French 
Protestant  divine,  who  had  contended,  in  -oppo** 
sition  to  the  two  Buxtorfs,  against  the  antiquity 
of  the  points,  was  unable  to  obtain  a licence  irs 
France  for  the  publication  of  his  Arcanum  Pune - 
tationis,  to  which  the  Protestants  of  that  day 
Were  warmly  opposed,  although  their  views  were 
contrary  to  the  more  correct  judgment  of  Luther, 
Calvin,  and  others  among  the  early  reformers; 
The  consonants  alone  are  the  true  objects  of  sacred 
criticism. 

It  was  also  contended  that  the  sacred  text,  had 
descended  to  us  in  a faultless  state.  But  this 
notion,  against  which  the  critical  sceptics  Capel?, 
and,  in  more  recent  times,  our  own  Kennicott,  had 
to  contend  (De  Wette,  § 81),  and  for  which  they 
had  to  endure  much  obloquy,  has  been  long  ex- 
ploded. Such  was  the  force  of  prejudice,  thaf8 
when  Louis  Capell  in  his  Critica  Sacra,  had 
formed  a collection  of  various  readings  and  errors 
which  he  believed  to  have  crept  into  the  copies  of 
the  Pible,  the  Protestants  prevented  the  impression 
of  it,  and  it.  was  only  after  his  son,  John  Capel?, 
had  joined  the  church  of  Rome,  that  he  obtained 
tire  French  king’s  licence  to  print,  it,  in  1650* 
The  errors  of  transcribers,  either  from  accident* 
mistake,  or  design,  the  wish  to  correct  seeming 
difficulties,  or  the  introduction  bf  scholia  into  the 
text,  abbreviations,  &c.,  &c.,  are  such  as  are  com- 
mon to  all  manuscripts,  and  the  true  text  of  th$ 
Scriptures  must  be  collected,  as  in  similar  case?, 
and,  so  far  as  may  lie,  restored,  from  a comparison 
of  these,  from  parallel  passages,  ancient  versions, 
the  Talmud,  the  Masora,  and  critical  conjecture 
f Criticism,  Bibi.ica.i-].  The  accusation  some- 
times mads  against  the  Jews- of  designedly  falsifV* 


710  SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

ing  the  text  in  their  controversies  with  the  early 
Cnvistians  is  now  generally  considered  to  be 
without  foundation. 

II.  The  Greek  Text. — The  Greek  text,  or  that 
of  the  New  Testament,  has  been  noticed  under 
another  head  [Recensions].  ‘The  only  certain 
result,’  observes  De  VVette  ( Einleitung ) ‘which 
is  derived  ftom  the  enquiries  that  have  been  in- 
Gtitufed  into  the  history  of  the  text,  consists  in 
t\.e  fact  that  ‘ certain  MSS.  and  other  critical 
testimonies  correspond  according  to  a certain 
analogy,  and  again  diverge  from  each  other. 
The  Alexandrian  do  tliia  in  the  greatest  degree, 
although  in  these  also  are  many  commutations 
and  admixtures.’ 

The  text  of  the  New  Testament,  observes  the 
came  distinguished  critic,  as  it  is  found  in  MSS. 
from  the  fifth  to  the ' fifteenth  century,  is  con- 
fessedly free  from  * gross  and  palpable  errors.’ 
The  vigilance  produced  by  the  constant  contro- 
versies between  the  catholics  and  the  heretics 
.feuded  to  maintain  this  purity  (De  YVette,  l.  c.). 
This  did  not,  however,  preserve  the  text,  from  nu- 
merous errors,  which  arose  here,  as  well  as  in  the 
Old  Testament,  from  the  commutation  of  letters, 
transposition  of  words,  seeing  ami  hearing  incor- 
rectly, abbreviations,,  reception  into  the  text  of 
marginal  glosses  and  parallel  passages,  and  other 
obvious  causes.  The  text  was  also  altered  by 
.attempts  at  making  it  clearer,  and  correcting  what 
appeared  difficult  or  erroneous,  as  well  as  from 
its  litufgical  use.  The  various  readings  arising 
from  these  and  other  causes  amounted  in  M ill's 
edition' (1707)  to  thirty  thousand.  This  circum- 
stance at  one  time  excited  great  alarm  among 
jpligious  men,  among  whom  was  the  amiable 
Beivjel,  and  was  the  source  of  triumph  to  in- 
fidels (Whitby’s  Excanen  var.  lect.  Joh.  Millii; 
Bentley’s  Fhileleuiherua  Lipsiensis,  in  reply  to 
Collins’s  JDiacourae  on  Free-thinking ).  Some 
Roman-catholic  .writers  made  use  of  the  same  fact 
in  order  to  prove  the  superior  advantage  of  having 
recourse  only  to  the  Latin  ‘authentic*  Vulgale 
(Coppinger’s  Reasons'),  forgetting  that  the  MSS. 
of  the  Vulgate  were  liable  to  the  same  charge 
[Vulgate.]  Rut  these  delusions  have  . been 
4ong  since  dissipated,  and  although  the  various 
readings  have,  in  consequence  of  the  labours  of 
subsequent  editors,  increased  to  one  hundred  or 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  it  is  now  gene- 
rally felt  that  the  greater  part  of  the  variations 
are  only  similar  to  those  in  all  other  MSS.  that 
have  been  frequently  copied;  and  that  with  the 
exception  of  a few  important  passages  they  are  of 
no  authority  or  cor.sequence ; * and  that  it  is  a 
matter  scarcely  worth  consideration, . as- regards 
the  study  of  our  religion  and  its  history,  whether, 
fe-fter  making  a very  few  corrections,  we  take  the 
received  text  formed  as  it  was,  or  the  very  best 
which  the  most  laborious  anil  judicious  criticism 
might  produce’  (Norton’s  Genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  vol.  i.  p.  xl. ; see  also  Dr.  W iseman’s 
Features  on  the  Connection  between  Science  and 
JLievp.aled  Religion , Lect.  x.). 

The  first  portion  of  the  Greek  Testament  that 
-appeared  after  the  invention  of  printing  was  the 
Hymns  of  Zscharia?  and  Elizabeth,  printed  at 
^Venice  in  I486,  and  six  first  chapters  of  St. 
^ohns  Gospel,  which  issued  from  the  press  of 
^Ahlus  Manutius  in  1504.  But  what  has  [>eeu 
IgufT  called  the  Received  Text  w as  Elzevir's 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

reprint,  in  1624,  of  Robert  Stephens's  thhd  edi- 
tion, or  that  of  1550,  from  which,  however,  it 
differs  in  one  hundred  ami  thirty  places.  We 
shall  here  give  a brief  history  of  this  edition, 
which  forms  an  epoch  in  Biblical  Literature. 

The  first  printed  edition  of  the  entire  New 
Testament  was  that  of  the  Complutensian  Poly* 
glott,  published  at  the  munificent  cost  of  the 
celebrated  Cardinal  Ximenes.  The  New  Testa- 
ment, in  this  edition,  was  commenced  in  1502, 
and  bears  the  date  of  1514,  but  was  not.  published 
until  1522,  four  years  after  the  completion  of  the 
entire  Polyglott,  The  text  of  the  New  Testament 
was  not  founded  on  very  ancient  manuscripts 
The  editors  state  in  their  preface  that  they  have 
placed  ‘ the  Latin  version  of  St.  Jerome  between 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  to  represent  the  Synagogue 
atid  the  Oriental  church  as  the  two  thieves,  and 
Jesus,  that  is,  the  Roman  or  Latin  church,  ip  the 
midst  ’ It  was  not,  however,  meant  by  this  to  dis- 
parage the  original  texts,  of  which  Ximenes  in  his 
dedication  speaks  ‘in  as  high  terms- as  Luther 
could  have  used’  (Marsh's  Michaelis ). 

Before  this  edition  saw  the  light,  and  conse- 
quently before  he  could  have  derived  any  aid 
from  it.,  Erasmus  published  his  edition,  which 
issued  from  the  press  of  Basel  in  1516.  This  was 
followed  by  the  editions  of  1519,  1522, 1527,  and 
1535.  It  wa3  in  the  edition  of  4522  that  he 
inserted  the  disputed  clause,  1 John  v.  7 [John, 
Epistles  ok].  Erasmus's  editions  are  chiefly 
founded  on  four  Basel  cursive  manuscripts, 
B.  vi.  27,  B vi.  17,  B.  vi.  25,  B.  ix.,  and  B.  x. 
20,  none  of  which  is  older  than  the  tenth  century. 
The  first  of  these,  which  is  the  most  ancient,  and 
contains  the  whole  New  Testament  except  the 
Apocalypse,  represents  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
what  has  been  called  by  Griesbach  and  Scholz 
the  Constantinopolifan  ; ami  in  the  Gospels,  which 
are  considered  by  Bengel  the  only  correct  por- 
tion of  the  MS.,  it  harmonizes  with  what  is  called 
the  Alexandrian  recension.  B.  vi.  25,  from  which 
the  press  was  set,  is  an  inporrect  MS.  of  the  pos- 
, pels  of  tl.se  (so  called)  Constantinopolitan  recen- 
sion. and  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  other 
MSS.  contain  only  portions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. He  bad  for  the  first  edition  hut  one  in- 
complete MS.  of  part  of  the  Apocalypse,  part  of 
which  he  himself  translated  from  the  Latin,  cor- 
recting in  his  fourth  edition  (1527)  from  the 
Complutensian  text. 

The  Aldine  edition  (1518)  was  founded  on  the 
text  of  Erasmus.  This  was  followed  by  many 
others,  which  it  is  unnecessary  here  to  particu- 
larize. 

Iri  1546  appeared  the  first,  or  O mirificam  edi- 
tion, of  Robert.  Stephens,  l6rrio.  This  principally 
followed  the  Complutensian  text,  compared  with 
that  of  Erasmus.  The  second  edition  (1549) 
gives  nearly  the  same  text.  But  the  third  edition 
(in  folio,  1550),  which  is  the  most  beautiful  of 
all  Stephens  seditions,  had  for  its  basis  Erasmuss 
fifth  edition,  of  which  indeed  it  was  little* more 
. than  a reprint.  With  this,  however,  he  collated 
fifteen  MSS.  in  the  Royal  Library,  together 
with  the  Complutensian  text,  adding  in  tbs 
margin  their  various  readings.  These  MSS. 
have’  been  identified,  one  of  them  being  tha 
Cambridge  MS.  or  Cod.  .Be*ae  (D),  with  another 
uncial  MS.  of  the  ninth  century,  • still  in  tb* 
Royal  Library  of  Paris,  Stephens's  ftfqrth 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

t)on  was  published  in  1551,  and  another  by  his 
son  Robert  in  1569. 

In  respect  to  all  these  editions,  observes  Hug, 
the  editors  seized  upon  the  best  MSS.  in  their 
Vicinity,  without  the  slightest  knowledge  of  the 
critrcal  stores  which  were  within  their  reach  in 
the  obscurity  of  libraries,  of  tht  various  critical 
pi leuomena  occurring,  in  the  N?w  Testament,  or 
of  the  proper  principles  on  which  to  proceed. 
They  acted  \vifhout  plan,  took  MSS.  at  hap- 
hazard, and  amended  . them  according  to  their 
fancy.  They  belong  therefore  to  the  history  of 
Biblical  literature  and  of  the  typography  and 
cultivation  of  the  sixteenth  cehtowy,  but  they  are 
of  no  use  in  the  criticism  of  the  N&V?  Testament, 
except  in  tracing  hack  to  their  origin  the  mis- 
takes and  false  readings  in  our  printed  editions. 
The  other  editions,  for  a considerable  time  after 
this  period,  were  little  more  than  reprints  of  the 
Stephaniau,  Complutensiun,  and  Erasmian  edi- 
tions. The  Complutensian  was  that  adopted  by 
Plantin  and  the  editor  of  the  Paris  and  Antwerp 
polyglotts ; the  Erasmian  by  Cepbalseus  and 
others.  The  most  distinguished  of  the  Erasmian 
are  those  of  Boyard  in  1543,  and  of  Culinseus 
in  1531,  the  latter  with  the  aid  (if  some  MSS. 
in  the  Royal  Library  and  that  of  St.  Victor. 
For  the  other  editions  see  Hug’s  Introd.  § 57. 

The  first  attempt,  at  a critical  edition  was  by 
the  celebrated  Theodore  Beza,  who  used  for  this 

urpose  the  collations  tnp.de  for  Robert  Stephens 

y his  son  Hemy.  His  first  edition  .was  pub- 
lished in  1565,  and  his  second  in  1576,  which 
were  followed  by  those  of  1582,  1589,  and  1598. 
He  made  use  of  nineteen  MSS.  (including, 
for  his  third  edition,  the  Cambridge  and  Cler- 
mont, both  uncials),  as  well  as  an  Arabic,  and 
the  Syrian  Peschito  ‘version,  which  had  been 
|mblished  by  Widmanstadt  in  1555.  ‘It  has 
been  Beza's  lot  to  be  frequently  much  com- 
mended, and  frequently  much  censured,  both 
with  equal  reason’  (plug's  Introd.).  No  prin- 
ciples, however,  had  yet  been  established  for  re- 
ducing to  practice  his  scanty  materials.  Beza’s 
editions  were  the  basis  of  Elzevir's,  or  the  Textua 
Receptus,  the^ first  edition  of  which  was  published 
in  1624,  and  the  second  in  1633.  In  the  preface 
it  is  announced,  * Textum  hahea  ab  omnibus 
KECEPTuni  in  quo  nihil  immutatum,  autcor- 
rupfum  darnus,’  There  were  in  all  five  editions 
published  from  this  ‘ infallible  press,’  amounting 
to  8000  copies.  A new  edition  vvaa  published, 
with-  marginal  various  readings  by  Curcellaeus, 
in  1633,  previous  to  which  there  was  a splendid 
reprint  of  it  published  by  the  Roman-eatbolic 
editor  J.  Mornms,  at  Paris  in  1628.  This  was 
followed  by  the  editions  of  Gerhard  von  Maestricht 
and  Boeder,  in  1711,  1745  and  1760.  Wal- 
ton, however,  in  the  P^olyglott,  adhered  to  the 
third  edition  of  Stephens,  adding  the  various 
readings  of  the  Codex  Alexandrhms  (1657). 

Bishop  Fell’s  edition  of  1625  prepared  the  way 
for  that  of  Dr.  John  Mill,  the  first  truly  critical 
edition  (1707),  the  basis  of  which  was  the  third 
of  Stephens,  whose  text  he  adopted.  He 
furnished  the  various  readings  of  many  MSS. 
hitherto  uncollated,  making  use  of  all  the 
ancient  versions  and  the  citations  of  thb 
fathers,  He  prefixed  valuable  Prolegomena, 
lint  only  survived  a few  days  the  publication 
cf  wcik,  which  commenced  an  entirely  nevy 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLT  721 

era  in  fiacred  criticism.  A new  edition  wa9 
published  by  Kiister,  who  himself  collated  for  the 
work  the  Codex  Beemerianus  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles 
(1710).  [See  Vui.gate.] 

The  firpt  of  the  Germans  who  engaged  in  tha 
laudable  undertaking  of  giving  a more  coirecf 
text  of  the  New  Testament,  was  the  excellent  and 
conscientious  Bengel,  a man  of  great  genius  isi 
this  department,  who  simplified  criticism  by 
classifying  all  the  manuscripts  into  two  distincJ 
families x the  African  and  the  Asiatic,  to  ydiich 
Griesbach  afterwards  gave  the  name  of  recensions-. 
The  chief  value  of  his  work  consists  in  hia 
‘ Apparatus,'  for  he  made  .no  change  in  the 
Texlus  Receptus , and  makes  a merit  of  intro- 
ducing no  reading  which  had  not  been  already 
in  print.  His  edition  was  printed  at  Tubingen 
in  1734. 

Our  limits  will  not  allow  us  to  dwell  on  the  pe- 
culiar merits  of  John  James  Wetstein,  whose  splen- 
did  edition  appeared  in  1751.  He  collated  all  the 
MSS.  used  by  his  predecessors,  together  with  many 
others,  including  C.,  or  the  Codex  Ephrsemi.  Hia 
Prolegomena  furnish  a rich  treasure  to  the  Biblical 
student.  Herein  be  first  denominated  the  various 
MSS.  by  the  letters  of.  the  alphabet,  by  which 
they  are  still  known.  He  made,  however,  na 
alteration  in  the  old  printed  text.  The  first  who 
successfully  entered  this  field  was  the  celebrated 
J J.  Griesbach,  whose  edition,  published  in  1775- 
1777,  ushered  in  the  ‘ golden  age ’of  criticism. 
Whatever  difference  of  opinion  exists  aa  to  the 
correctness  of  his  text,  all  are  agreed  in  com- 
mending his  untiring  zeal  and  strict  conscien- 
tiousness in  this  department.  The  various  read- 
ings which  he  had  collected  rendered  his  edition 
the  mo3t  perfect  of  its  kind  which  had  yet  ap- 
peared. ‘With  this  work,’  observes  Hug,  ‘hu 
adorned  the  evening  of  a laborious  and  praise- 
worthy life,  and  left  behind  him  an  honourable 
memorial  which  may  perhaps  be  surpassed  in 
respect  to  the  critical  materials  it  contains  (for 
these  are  daily  increasing),  but  hardly  in  regard 
to  elaborate  and  accurate  criticism.’  The  pecu- 
liarity of  Griesbach’s  text  (as  distinct  from  hia 
edition)  consists  in  the  preference  he  gives  to  what 
he  considers  the  Alexandrian  or  Oriental  read- 
ings. In  this  he  has  met  with  a Jealous  antagonist 
in  the  indefatigable  Professor  Scholz,  of  Bom?, 
an  eminent  critic  of  the  Roman  church,  who  has, 
in  his  edition  of  1830-35,  represented  the  so-called 
Constantinopolitan  or  common  text  of  the  modern 
MSS.,  to  which  he  attaches  a decided  preference. 
To  the  674  MSS.  of  Griesbach  he  has  added  no 
less  than  667,  which  he  has  the  honour  of  having- 
first  made  known,  but  which  he  has  but  cursorily 
and  superficially  inspected,  rendering  further  in- 
vestigation more  indispensable  than  ever.  The 
Constantinopolitan  text,  which  he  merely  assumes^ 
from  what  he  considers  its  internal  excellence,  as 
well  as  llofn  its  being  the  public  and  authorized 
text  of  the  Greek,  church,  to  correspond  with  the 
autographs  of  the  sacred  writers,  approaches  to  that 
of  Elzevir,  from  the  accidental  circumstance  that 
the  earlier  editors  made  use  of  materials  chiefly 
of  this  class.  Many,  who  are  disposed  to  adopt 
his  theory  from  its  simplicity,  and  its  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  the  case,  ara 
unwilling  to  commit  themselves  to  all  hi®  detail®. 
An  English- scholar  and  divine,  the  latest  who  haa- 
tfeated  of  this  subject,  although  disposed  to  favour 


7!2  SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

Scfeolz’s  theory',  conceives  that  his  historical  de- 
monstration of  the  truth  of  his  system  is  likely  to 
cairy  conviction  to  few  who  really  know  what 
historical  demonstration  means,  and  that  on  the 
point  of  internal  evidence  his  edition  is  a decided 
failure.  He  concludes  his  valuable  observations 
with  expressing  his  regret  that.  Scholzs  edition 
should  have  been  received  in  England  with  a 
cb-gree  of  consideration  to  which  it  has ‘slender 
claims.  ‘I  fully,’  he,  adds,  ‘admit  the  value  of 
this  critic’s  exertions  as  a collator  of  MSS.  I 
admire  his  diligence,  and  venerate  his  zeal. 
His  theory  of  recensions  I conceive  to  approximate 
•very  near  to  the  truth.  But  he  seems  disqualified 
i>v  a lack  of  judgment  for  the  delicate  task  of 
•selecting  from  the  massof  discordant  readings  the 
^genuine  text  of  Holy  Scripture*  ( Supplement  to 
the  Authorized  English  Version  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, by  the  Rev.  F.  H.  Scrivener,  M.A., 
London,  1845). 

An  edition  of  Scholz’s  text,  nut  without  the  appa 
ratus,  was  published  by  Mr.  Bagster,  in  his  Ilex- 
apla , in  4to.,  in  1841  ; end  another  neat  edition 
in  12mo.,  accompanied  with  the  English  version, 
and  the  principal  variations  of  Grieshach’s  text 
'without  a date)  in  1843.  The  anonymous  editor 
of  this  Testament  lias,  however,  departed  from 
Scholz’s  punctuation  and  divisions  into  para- 
graphs. (Comp  1 Tim.  iii.  13). 

Scholz’s  system  of  recensions  has  met  with  a 
powerful  antagonist  in  Tischendorf,  in  his  Prole- 
gomena to  his  portable  and  comprehensive  edition 
of  the  New  Testament,  published  at  Leipsic,  in 
1841.  Tischendorf  has  furnished  the  Alexan- 
drian text  with  the  most  remarkable  various 
readings,  and  an  excellent  critical  apparatus. 
His  work  is  considered  by  De  Wette  to  be  hastily 
executed.  He  was  the  first  to  apply  the  St.  Gall 
MS.  to  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels.  The  theories 
and  criticisms  of  Yafer,Tittmann,  Lachmann  and 
others  have  been  referred  to  in  another  article. 
Lachmann  rejects  all  former  theories,  and  admits 
no  MS.  which  does  not  represent  the  text  of 
the  first  four  centuries.  He  has  added  to  his 
edition  a most  valuable  text  of  the  Vulgate, 
which  he  has  formed  for  himself  from  two  ancient 
MSS. ; and  agreeing  with  Eicbhorn  and  Dr.  W ise- 
man,  that  the  first  Lai  in  version  was  made  in 
Africa,  he  devotes  a large  share  of  attention  to  the 
collection  of  its  fragments. 

We  may  now  reasonably  hope,  from  the  vast 
accession  which  is  daily  making  to  our  stock  of 
materials,  that  we  are  approaching  the  means  of 
forming  a more  correct  estimate  of  the  true  state 
cf  the  text  than  it  has  been  hitherto  our  lot  to 
enjoy. 

We  shall  next  treat  of  the  division*  and  marks 
cf  distinction  in  the  several  books. 

The  divisions  of  the  Hebrew  text,  as  they  are 
1 now  found  in  the  printed  Bibles,  have  descended 
from  a very  remote  antiquity.  The  sections 
called  paraskes  (ni'BHS),  or  paragraphs,  are 
noticed  hi  the  Talmud,  and  were  therefore  in 
existence  anterior  to  the  times  of  the  Masorefes, 
whose  textual  labours,  it  will  be  recollected,  com- 
menced in  the  sixth  century.  Of  these  parashts 
( divisions ) the  Pentateuch  contains  669.  They 
p»re  of  two.sortsj  greater  and  smaller,  or  open  and 
•hut  paragraphs.:'  The  open  paragraphs  (niflinQ 
petwhoth)  are  so  culled  because  they  commeucetl 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

thft  line  $ and  tin*  others  niD’inD,  or  shut,  because 
they  were  separated  within  the  line  by  a space  or 
break.  They  are  also  marked  in  the  common 
MSS.  with  the  initials  D or  D,  and  tht.  former  by 
a triple  space.  In  the  synagogue  rolls  they  are  dis- 
tinguished by  spaces  merely  (which  was  probably 
the  only  aboriginal  note  of  division),  and  not  b,y 
those  initial  letters,  and  ,they  are  in  the  Talmud 
referred  to  Moses  himself  as  their  author-  There 
is  a similar  division,  marked  by  spaces  only,  in 
the  Prophets  and  Chethuhhn , which  are  also  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Talmud.  These  divisions  (some- 
times called  pisqua)  are  found  even  in  some  of 
the  hymns  which  are  stichometricully  arranged, 
viz.  Judg.  v.;  2Sam.  xxii.;  Exod.  xv.;  but  they 
are  wanting  in  those  contained  in  1 Sam.  xxiv. 
and  2 Sam.  i ; and  they  sometimes  even  occur  in 
the  midd*e  of  the  verse.  Each  separate  psalm  is 
also  called  in  the  Talmud  a parash , as  well  as 
each  portion  of  the  cxixth  Psalm.  In  the  book 
of  Job  the  transitions  from  prose  to  verse,  as  well 
as  the  commencement  of  Elihu’s  speech,  are  mark- 
ed in  the  MSS.  by  a larger  space,  and  everywhere 
else  in  the  same  book  the  change  of  speakers 
is  marked  by  a smaller  (Hupfeld,  Attafiirliche 
Grammatik).  In  addition  to  these  there  are 
found  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Pentateuch  larger  sec- 
tions, of  which  there  are  fifty-four  in  number,  and 
of  which  one  is  read  in  the  synagogues  on  every 
Sabbath  Day.  These  are  sometimes  called 
sidarim  (D'TIB) ; they  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
Talmud, and  appear  to  have  had  their  origin  in  tha 
Masora.  The  smaller  sections  have  been  made 
use  of  as  far  as  possible  for  the  purjnise  of  di- 
viding the  Sabbath  lessons  among  several  read- 
ers. They  have  sometimes  been  considered  aa 
subdivisions  of  the  larger  sections.  When  the 
Sabhath  lessons  coincide  in  their  commencement 
with  th  e par  ashes,  they  are  marked  with  a triple 
B DS  or  D D D,  according  as  these  are  open  or 
shut.  There  is  one  only  (Gen.  xlvii.  28)  which 
has  no  space  before  it.  There  is  also  another 
division,  into  sidarim,  found  in  the  Rabbinical 
Bible  of  Ben-cl  aijim,  printed  in  1325,  the  num- 
ber of  which  amounts  in  the  whole  Bible  to  447. 
There  is  some  diversity  in  the  MSS.  in  the  use  of 
the  initial  letters  for  marking  open  and  shut  sec- 
tions (see  Leusden,  Phil.  Heb.,  diss.  iv.),  and  there 
are  further  divisions  of  the  text  marked  by  spaces 
only,  several  of  which  are  identical  with  the  mo- 
dern or  Latin  chapters  of  the  thirteenth  century. 
These  sections  were  divided  into  D'plDD,  short 
sentences,  or  verses , regulated  by  the  sense 
[Veh.se],  and  the  number  of  sidarim  or  larger 
sections  in  each  book,  together  with  the  number  of 
verses  in  each,  was  noted  at  the  end  of  the  book  in 
the  Masoretic  copies.  In  Buxtorfs  Rabbinical 
Bible  the  number  of  verges  is  marked  at  the  end 
of  each  section.  There  is  also,  in  the  prophetical 
books,  a corresjwndiug  division  into,  or  rather 
selection  of,  IVnOSn  ( Haphtarotk ) or  Sabbath 
lessons,  from  a word  nearly  synonymous 

with  the  Latin  missa,  or  dismissal,  because  the 
people  were  dismissed  when  these  were  read.'  These 
irniDSn  are  also  mentioned  in  the  Mishna 
They  are  written  each  on  a separate  roll. 

The  divisions  found  in  the  MSS.  of  the  an- 
cient Greek,  Latin,  and  other  versions  are.  dif- 
ferent from  these,  and  mofe  resemble  me  Am- 
monio  - Eusebian  KeQahaia  or  capitula  of  the 
MSS,  of  the  Nevy  Testament,  which  we  filial! 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  713 

‘gjTcaently  Tefer  to.  jVVe  find  traces  of  these  in  Job,  the  first  of  which  is  divided  info  fin  chapters 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  Codex.  Alexaridrinus,  (K«pd\aia)  ; the  secopd  into  56  ; the  third  into  93  ; 
Inhere,  however,  they  are  confined  to  the  former  the  fourth  into  63  ; and  Job  into  32.  These  are  all 
part  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  middle^  of  the  » numbered  in  the  margin ; and  at  the  beginning  of 
V>ook  of  Joshua.  Thus  Deut.  i.  9 is  marked  with  | each  hook  (except  Tobit  and*  Judith)  is  a table 

6 S,  denoting  the  second  capitulum , commencing  containing  the  numbers  and  the'  few  first  words 

with  kolI  eTn-e;  the  third  capitulum  commences1' l of  each  Kt(pd\mor,  thus  shoiving  the  design  and  use 
with  our  19th  verse;  the  fourth  with  our  40th ;|\of  the  enumeration.  These,  but  no  other  books 
the  fifth  with  ch.  ii.  1 ; the  sixth  with  ch.  ii.  ver.  . (except  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  v Judges,  Ruth, 
7;  the'seventh  with  ver.  14,  and  the  eighth  with  ipd  Chronicles >?ave  the  Latin  chapters,  jjpdylia 
rer.  24.  The  numbers  are  placed  in  the  margin.  Chronicles  fhey  are  sometimes  of/double  length., 
and  the  capitula  commence  theljne  with  a capital  The  Latin  version  of  St.  Jerome,  as  published 
letter.  That  such  divisions  were  very  ancient  is  by  Martianay,  has  a somewhat  similar  division 
further  evident  from  Tertullian  (Scorpiac.  2),  into  sections,  there  designated  tituli,  capitula,  and 
*vho,  after  reciting  Deut.  xiii.  1-5,  proceeds  to  breves.  These  are  all  of  unequal  anti  arbitrary* 
^cite  the  passage  commencing  with  the  next  verse,  length,  and  at  the  commencement  of  each  book  is 
.as  ‘another  'chapter  ’ (capitulum).  And  Jerome-  a breviarium  or  index,  referring  to  »he  numbers 
observes  that  a capitulum  had  ended  in  the  Sept,  of  the  tituli,  capitula.  and  breves,  and  containing 
'where  it  began  in  the  Hebrew  (in  Mic.  vi.  9 ; Soph,  a short  lemma  or  abstract  of  the  contents  of  each, 
mii.  11;  and  Queest.  Heb.  Gen.  xxv.  13-18).  These  divisions  are  confined  to  the  Pentateuch, 
•Jti  the  Monument.  Eccles.  of  Coteleriu3,  Deut.  Joshua,  Samuel',  and  Kings,  the  two  latter  books 
,kxv.  8 is  cited  as  the  .ninetv-third  capitulum;  being  furnished  with  titles  only.  Genesis,  e. 
from  which  it  appears  that  there  were  more  than  ha3  46  breves,  70  capitula,  and' 38  titles;  and 
.One  hundred  of  these  short  sections  in  the  book  of  Kings  has  222  titles.  Each  of  these  has  its  argu- 
•Deuteronomy.  Exod.  xx.  1 is,  in  the  same  docu-  ment  prefixed.  These  divisions  generally  com- 
ment, cited  as  the  sixty-third  capitulum,  and  mence  at*  the  same  place,  and  are  sometimes 
xjt.  22  as  the  sixtv-eighth;  also  Lev.  xxv.  as  the  identical.  Thus  the  first  brevis  in  Genesis  is 
tiundred  and  twentieth,  and  Num.  Xxxv.  as  the  entitled,  ‘ De  lucis  exordia,  et  divisione  tenebra- 
ihundred  and  thirty-seventh.  This  latter  book,  rum  a luce,  et  secunda  die’  [ch.  i.'  1-5];  the  first; 
‘therefore,  vras  divided  into  about  one  hundred  capitulum , ‘ De  die  prime  in  quo  lux  facta  est* 
land  forty  chapters.  [also  vers.  1-5]  ; and-  the  first  tit-ulus,  ‘ De  crea- 

•Jk  in  the  Cod.  Alex,  the  first  number  noted  in  ttone  mundi  et  plasmate  hominis’  [veis.  i ; iiu 
[Joshua  is  12  (16),  coinciding  with  our  ch.  ix  3;,  20].  Exodus  contains  18  titles.  21  breves,  and 
the  thirteenth  commences  with  ch-  x.  1 ; the  Four-  138  capitula  or  chapters  ; Leviticus  16  titles,  1(5 
feeuth  with  ch.  x.  16 ; the  fifteenth  with  ch."  x.  29 ; breves,  and  88  chapters;  Numbers  20  titles,  71- 
the  sixteenth) with  ch.  x.  31  ; the  seventeenth  breves,  and  97  chapters;  Deuteronomy  19  title?, 
with  ch.  x.  34;  the  eighteenth  with  ch.  x.  36;  142  breves,  and  155  chapters;  Joshua  11  titles, 

and  the  nineteenth  with  ch.  x.  38.  The  twen-  32  breves,  and  110  chapters;  Judges  8 titles,  18 
lieth  eqrresponds  with  the  commencement  of  breves,  and  50  chapters ; Samuel  137  titles,  and 
our  chapter  xi.;  the  twenty-second  with  our  Kings  220.  The  books  of  Chronicles  are  divided 
ch.  xi.  16  ; the  twenty-third  with  ch.  xi.  21 ; into  short  sentences  resembling  our  verses. 

the  twenty-fourm  with  ch.  xii.  1 ; the  twenty-  In  later  manuscripts  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  there 
fifth  with  ch.  xii.  4;  the  twenty-sixth  with  ch.  xii,  is  found  a continuous  capitulation,  carried 

7 ; the  twenty-seventh  with  ch.  xiii.  1 ; the  twenty-  through  the  whole  books,  canonical  and  unca- 
eighth 'number  is  omitted ; the  twenty-ninth  corre-  -nonical.  Of  these  the  Charlemagne  MS.  is  an 
eponds  with  ch.xiii.  24;  the  thirtieth  with  ch,  example.  This  valuable  document,  now  the  pro- 
xiii.  29;  the  thirty-first  with  ch.xiv.  1 ; the  thirty-  perry  of  the  British  Museum,  has  the  following 
second  with  ch.  xiv.'fi;  the  thirty-third  with  ch.  divisions; — Genesis  contains  82  capitula,  Exodus 
xviii.  1 ; the  thirty-fourth  number  is  omitted  ; the  139,  Numbers  74,  Deuteronomy  45,  Joshua  33, 
thirty-fifth  answers  to  ch.  xviii.  8 ; the  thirty-sixth  .Judges  18  (Ruth  is  not  capitulated),  1 Kings 
is  omitted;  the  thirty-seventh  answers  to  our  ch.  contains  26,  2 Kings  18,  3 Kings  18,  4 Kings 
xviii.  10;  the  thirty-eighth  to  ch.  xix.  17;  and  1.7.  There  is  no  capitulation  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
here  the  numeration  of  this  ancient  codex. ends.  Daniel,  the  minor  prophets,  nor  Job,  but  the  para- 
The  above  comparison'  will  probably  serve  to  graphs  iu  these  hooks  commence  the  line  with 
convey  to  the  reader  a correct  view  of  the  ancient  rubricated  capitals.  The  prayer  of  Jeremiah  is 
system  of  eapi  filiation,  which  appears  to  he  suffi-  divided  info  sentences,  numbered  in  the  margin 
cientiy  unequal  and  arbitrary,  some  chapters  with  Greek  letters  ; and  the  numbers  of  the  Psalms 
being  comparatively  long,  and  others  not  exceed-  are  also  attached  in  the  margin,  and  each  psalm 
iug  in  length  one  of  our  present  verses.  The  separated  by  the  point  "V.  . The  Proverbs  are  di~ 
only  other  numbers  in  this  codex  are  those  of  the  vided  into  59  chapters,  but  there  are  60  noted 
Decalogue,  in  Exod.  xx.,  of  which  thedourth,  fifth,  in  the  table  of  contents.  The  59th  chapter  is 
and  sixth  commandments  only  (according  to  the  entitled,  Sacramentum  de  muliere  forte,  and  the 
Origenian  or  Greek  division),  are  numbered,  with  60th,  Retributio  de  fructibus  manuum.  Ec clo- 
the letters  y,  §,  and  e (3,  4,  and  5),  as  in  the  siastes  contains  31  chaipters;  the  Song  of  Solomon 
Latin  and  Lutheran  communions.  In  the  V atican  is  not  capitulated,  but  in  the  body  of  the  text  there’ 
MS.  there  exist  only  the  remains  of  a very  obscure  are  rubricated  titles,  as  Vox  Kcclesise,  Vox  ami 
division,  which  is  confined  to  the  four  prophets  corum,  Vox  Christi,  &c. ; Wisdom  has  48  capi» 
(see  Pref.  to  Roman  ed.)  [Decalogue].  - 4,  tula,  and  Ecclesiasticus  127.  Toere  is  no  divi-  ■ 

In  the  Aldine  edition  of  the  Septuagint  and  , siou  whatever  in  Chronicles,  Ezra,  or  Nehemi'ah, 
Greek  Testament  the  qrily  capitulated  portions  but  there  occur  a few  in  the  latter  part  of  Esther, 
&rs  the  books  of  Essra,  Esther,  Tobit,  Judith,  and  with  Jerome  s notes,  Commencing  with  a rubri 


714  SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

cated  capital.  There  are  no  divisions  in  Tobit  or 
Judith,  except  uurubricated  paragraphs,  and  the 
portion  answering  to  our  present  19th  chapter  of 
Tobitj  which  commences  with  a red  letter.  1 
Maccabees  contains  01  chapters,  and  2 Macca- 
Lees  55. 

In1  the  New  Testament  Matthew  contains  81 
chapters,  Mark  46,.  Luke  73,  John  3'i,  and  Acts 
7-1.  The  Epistle  of  James  has  20,  1 Peter  20,  and 
2 Peter  11,  Rom.  51,  l Cor.  62,  2 Cor.  28,  Gal. 
37,  Eph.  31,  Phil.  18,  1 Thess.  25,  2 Thcss.  8, 
Coloss.  31,  l Tim.  28,  2 Tim.  Y5,  Titus  10, 
Piiilem.  4,  Ileb.  38.  After  this  follows  the  Epistle 
to  the  Laodicean,  which  is  not  ..  capitulated. 
Then  follows  the  Apocalypse,  containing  .22  chap- 
ters. All  the  capitulated  books  are  preceded  by 
the  capitulation  or  table  of  the  contents  of  each 
chapter,  except  the  Apocalypse,  the  table  prefixed 
to  which  contains,  instead  of  such  summary,  the 
few  first  words  of  each  division.  The  Gospels  are 
marked  with  the  Eusebian  canons,  and  besides 
the  Ammotiian  numbers,  the  initial  of  each  evan- 
gelist’s name  referred  to  in  the  cations  is  attached. 
The  Pauline  Epistles  have  also  a canon  prefixed 
containing  the  parallel  passages.  This  is  probably 
the  canon  which  James  Faber  of  Ktaples  erro- 
neously ascribed  to  Ammonius  (Zucagni,  Monti- 
rtienta). 

The  Decalogue  is  divided  according  to  the 
Hieronymian  (the  same  as  the  Greek)  division, 
with  the  number  of  each  commandment  prefixed, 
and  the  table  of  contents  contains  the  following 
nummary  : 

Verba  legi3  qnae  precepit  Dominus  emtodire. 

I.  Non  erunt  tibi  dii  alii  absque  me. 

II.  Non  facies  tibi  idolum  rteque  ullam  simi 
Htudirteirt. 

III. -  Non  sumc3  nomen  Domini  tui  in  vanum.- 

IV.  In  monte. babe  diem  Sabbatorum. 

V.  Hon  ora  patrem  tuum  et  matrem. 

VI.  Non  occides.  VII.  Non  moechaberis. 

VIII.  Non  lurtum  facies.  Villi.  Non  dices 

falsum  testimonium. 

X.  Non  concupisces  uxorem  proximi  tui, 
tieque  aliquid  ejus. 

Later  MSS.  have  -the  tinmbew  of  the  capi- 
tula  inserted  in  the  boil y of  the  text;  and  alter 
the  invention  of  the  Latin  chapters,  the  num 
hers  of  these  latter  are  placed  in  the  margin. 
In  one  of  those  in  the  British  Museum,  Hail.  5021 
(written  on  vellum  in  the  13th  century),  the  ca- 
pitulation of  which  is  not  completed.  Genesis  con- 
tains about  70  chapters,  Exodus  140,  Leviticus 
24,  Numbers  72,  Deuteronomy  156,  Joshua  34, 
Judges***.  Ruth  4,  1 and  2 Kings  ,96,  3 
Kings  56,  4 Kings  * * * *,  1 Chronicles  * * * 2 
Chronicles  20.  Ezra  36,  Judith  23,  Esther  11, 
Tobit  15,  1 Macc.  57,  and  2 Macc.  56. 

Divisions  of  the  New  Testament.  The  most 
ancient  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  which’ 
have  descended  to  our  times  also  contain  nume- 
rous divisions  of  the  text.  Of  these  the  most 
ancient-marked  by  numbers,  are  the  Amnionian 
chapters,  to  which  the  Etisebian  canons  were  after- 
wards attached, — the  larger  chapters,  pericopae, 
cr  titles, — the  church-lessons,  and  other  peculiar 
divisions.  Besides  these  are  paragraphs  marked 
by  capitals  commencing  the  line,  and  slichome- 
Srical  tli visions  or  verses  [Verse]. 

Ketpd\aia,  or  chapfers.  We  find  divisions 
under  this  name  extani;  in  the  time  of  Tertulliau 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

(Ad  XJxoy,  2;  De  Pudicit.  xvi. ; and  De  Corn") 
Christ,  xix.),  who  calls  by  the  name  of  capi- 
tulum  the  phrasd  ‘ non  cx  sanguine,  neque  es 
voiuntate  Viri*  sed  ex  Deo  nati  sunt.’  They  are 
also  mentioned  in  a.d.  200,  by  Dionysius  o! 
Alexandria  (ap»  Eusebium,  Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  25), 
who  observes  that  some  have  attempted  to  refute 
the  Apocalypse,  criticising  every  chapter,  and  pro- 
nouncing it  unintelligible  (see  Revelation  ; also 
Stuart’s  Commentary  on  the  Apocalyse,  1845, 
§ 17).*  But.  the  earliest  division  of  which  we  can 
speak  with  historical  accuracy  is  that  of  Ammo- 
nius, the  deacon  of  Alexandria,  who  published 
hi3  Monotessaroii , or  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  in 
the  middle  of  the  third  century.  Csesarius,  the 
brother  of  Gregory  Nazianzen,  observes  of  these 
(Dial,  i.),  that  there  are  four  Gospels  containing 
1162  chapters;  and  Epiphanius  (Ancor.  c.  60) 
makes  the  same  enumeration.  These  divisions 
are  accurately  marked  in  the  margin  of  several 
ancient  M-SS.  But  the  numeral  notations 
were  adopted,  not  for  the  purpose  of  reference, 
or  of  facilitating  citation,  according  to  the  usaga 
of  modem  times,  but  merely  as  a companion  to 
the  author  s harmony  or  abridgment  of  the  Gos- 
pels ; of  these  chapters  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel 
contains  355,  Sf.  Mark’s  235,  St.  Luke’s  342, 
and  St.  John's  232.  It  has  been  supposed  that: 
this  division  was  confined  to  Ammonius”  own 
copy,  and  not  generally  published  (Mill's 
Proleg .)  ; but  this  copy  happening  to  fall  into 
the  hands  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  fie  conceived 
the  idea  of  forming  a perfect  Diafessaron  Ipy  the 
help  of  those  divisions  and  fye  numerals  which 
Ammonius  had  placed  in  thei  margin  tgjfhis  copy 
(See  .Eusebius,  Letter  to  Carpianus ).  He  for  tips 
purpose  reduced  all  the  chapfers  to  ten  classes,  and 
arranged  them  in  ten  tables  cr  canons.  Eusebius 
made  no  new  divisions,  but  confined  himself  to 
those  numbered  by  Ammonius.  His  Nten  canons 
thus  contain — 1.  The  sections  in  which  the  four 
Gospels  agree ; 2.  Those  in  winoh  the  first  three 
agree ; 3.  Those  in  which  Matthew,  Luke,  and 
John  agree  ; 4.  Those  in  which  Mark  and  John 
agree;  5.  Those  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke 

agree;  6.  Those  in  which  Matthew  and  Mark 

a^ree ; 7.  Those  in  which  Matthew  and  John 

agree  ; 8.  Those  in  which  Luke  and  Mark  agree  ; 
9.  Those  in  which  Luke  and  John  agree;  10. 
Those  which  are  peculiar  to  only  one  of  the 
Evangelists.  He  then  placed  additional  numeral 
letters,  rubricated,  in  the  margin  of  the  Gospel 
referring  to  each  canon,  viz.,  a to  denote  the  firsS 
canon.  6 the  second,  &c  A single  glance  «,2 
the  page  thus  indicates  how  many  of  the  Evan- 
gelists agree  in  the  subject  of  each  chapter,  ojsr 
otherwise;  eg.  at  Matt.  iii.  6 (according  to  .ne 
modern  division),  * and  Jesus,  being  baptized, 
went  up  out  of  the  water,’  there  will  be  found  in 
the  margin,  besides  the  Ammo'nian  number  tS,  ob 
xii’V^the  numeral  a signifying  canon  i.,  in  run- 
ning the  eye  down  which  the  number  of  tha 
chapter  again  occurs,  on  a line  with  which  will 
be  perceived  the  corresponding  chapter  in  the 
three  other  Gospels,  viz.,  Mark  vi. ; Luke  xi>»,.; 

* This  work,  which  we  conceive  to  be  the  best 

treatise  on  thq  Apocalypse  that  has  yet  appeared 

in'  English,  was  published  subsequently  to  tha 
articles  Revelation  and  Spurious  RiTt&LV' 
tions  having  gone  to  press. 


.SCRIPTURE,  HOLY; 

Jbnti  'xv. ; answering  according  to  the  modem 
division  to  Mark  i.  9 11,  Luke  iii.  21,  22,  and 
John  i.  32-34.  The  groundwoik  of  thaw  hole  is 
St.  Matthew^  Gospel,  the  figures  irt  the  margin 
of  which  refer  to  the  parallel  passages  ot  the  other 
three  Evangelists. 

.'The  Monotessaron  of  Ammonias  is  nfivvno  longer 
Wx’anf,  but  in  the  eighth  century,  Victor,  bishop 
©f  Capua,  discovered  what,  he  believed  to  be  the 
identical  work,  of  which  he  made  a Latin  trans- 
lation, attaching  to  it  the  Eusebian  canons. 
This  work  having  long  sunk  into  oblivion,  was 
discovered  by  Michael  ' Mender,  a printer  at 
Mayntz,  in  1521.  Wetstein,  however,  .main-'- 
Stained  that  this  could  not  have  been  the  genuine^ 
work  of  Ammonius,  inasmuch'  as,  besides  other* 
reasons,  the  Latin  has  the  four  Gospels  in  one 
canon,  but  Ammonius  in  four;  the  Latin  only 
indicating  the  parallel  passages  of  the  other 
Gospels  by  numerals;  the  Latin  also  has  the  his-, 
fory  of  the  adulteress,  which  was  not  known  to 
Ammonius.-  t*  ' " . V 

t Another  ancient  numerical  division  is  that  of 
•the  rlrKoi  ( titles  or  inscriptions)' a. Iso  called  by 
the  name  of  pericopte  ami  chapters  ( ice<pa\cua ). 
These  are  distinct  in  their  nature  from  the  former 
divisions,  hnd  like  them,  are  confined  to  the  four 
Gospels.  Of  these  divisions  there  are  found  in  St. 
Matthew’s  Gospel  68,  St.  Mark’s  *’6,  St.  Luke's 
,<^3,  and  St.  John’s  18.  They  aia  called  titles , 
inasmuch  as  there  is  a short  title  or  summary  of 
the  contents  of  each  placed  at  the  top  or  bottom. 
<>f  the  page,  together  with  a numerical  reference  in 
die  margin  to  each  title ; and  a table  of  the 
titles  with  the  number  of  each  is  prefixed  to  the 
Gospels.  . Thus  the  first  chapter  is  entitled  it tpl 
vuv  pj&ywv  (of  the  wise  men),  the  second,  irepl  vwv 
Trcudlwv  duaip-rjdfi/Tuu  (of  the  slaughtered  infants 
&c.  A chapter  i(K€(pd\aiov),  therefore,  denotes  a 
larger  section,  when  the  table  or  index  of  the 
chapter  is  prefixed  to  the  MS.,  but  the  same 
word,  when  the  number  is  only  inserted  in  the 
margin,  without  reference  to  a table  of  contents 
or  an  inscription  at  the  top  of  the  page,  denotes 
one  of  the  smaller  or  Ammonian  chapters  (See 
Simon’s  Ilistoire  Critique). 

; There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
age  of  these  larger  chapters,  some  ascribing  them 
to  the  third,  others  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  cen- 
tury. From  the  silence  of  Eusebiu9  respecting 
them  ( Letter  to  Carpianus ),  it  has  been  deduced 
that  he  was  unacquainted  with  them  ; nor  doe3 
Chrysostom  ever  refer  to  them,  but  the  titles  ie- 
Ceriing  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jews  are  cited 
,1 A r Athanasius  in  Ins  third  Orat.  adv.  Arianos. 
{They  could  not  have  been  designed  fur  arayt/iLaus 
©r  church  lessons;  for,  like  the  Ammonian  chap- 
iters, there  is  an  immense  irregularity  in  their 
respective  lengths,  both  the  titles  and  the  Am- 
amdnian  chapters  containing  a portion  sometimes 
exceeding  an  hundred,  and  at  other  times  amount- 
ing to  but  two  or  three  or  even  one  of  our  mo-, 
«lern.  verses.  Neither  could  they  have  been  de- 
signed for  the  distinction  of  subjects;  for  although 
the  title  of  the  chapter  for  the  mo>t  part  expresses 
4>ut  one  subject,  the  chapter  itself  contains  seve- 
ral, and  even  the  Ammonian  chapters  sometimes 
Contain  several  of  the  larger  chapters  or  titles,  or 
parts  of  several.  f?ti!i  less  was  either  division 
ever  desigred  for  th?  purpose  of  reference  or 
ci  ation,  fob  we  never  find  a single  instance  of  this 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  & 1$ 

. .„>«~ 

’ kind  before  Euthymius  Eugabenus  iri  the 
century,  who  cites  passages  which  he  ohse-ves  arjtj 
found.:  in  • the  sixty-fifth , sixty-sixth , and  sixtyl- 
seventh  chapters  of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel,  and  the 
'eightieth  of  St.  Luke’s.  The  chapters  thus  cited 
are  the  titles , not  the  Ammonian  chapters.  Milt 
(Proleg.),  conceiving  that  no  other  object  remains 
to  which  these  larger  sections  could  be  applied 
except  that  of  a harmony,  refers  them  toTatbui  the 
Assyrian,  who  composed,  a.d.  192,  his  harmony 
of  the  Gospels  entuled  Diapente , probably  be- 
cause it  included  the  Gospel  of  the  Kbiunites. 
This  work  was  different  in  character  from,  the 
-later  harmony  of  Ammonius,  being  in  the  for  pi 
of  a diatessaron  compiled  in  the  words  of  the 
v,  Evangelists.  Of  this  work,  which  Tatian  had 
written  for  the  benefit  of  his  disciples,  Thcodoret,* 
bishop  of  Cyprus  it*  the  fourth,  century,  Ibundj 
two  hundred  copies  read  jn  his  churches.  ‘ Mill; 
conjectures  that  on  occasion  of  this  work.  TafidtK 
invented  the  larger  chapters,  which  are  tnarkech 
in  the  inner  margin  of  the  MSS.  with  capital  nu<*. 
:i  merals.  We  have  already  perceived  that  the  first' 
of  these  chapters  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  com?) 
i mences  with  the  journey  of  the  wise  men  (Muff.-| 
ii.)  ; Mark’s  Gospel  commences  with  i.  23,  and: 
Luke’s  and  John's  each  with  our  second  chapter? 
The  omissions  have  been  accounted  for  by  sujj^ 
posing  that  the  author  of  these  divisions  left  tliei 
commencement  vacant  in. order  to  supply  it  witU 
illuminated  letters,  and  that  although  in  the  pre-j 
sent  MSS.  the  chapters  are  masked' with  alphabet 
tical  letters  in  regular  order,  the -author  added  thei 
titles  or  inscriptions  only  in  the  margin,  but  that? 
subsequent  transcribers  transferred  them  ty  thejtop- 
and  bottom  of  the  page,  placing  the  numerals  by 
• way  of  reference,  which  after  the  year  a.I>.  5(>0. 
were  added  in  capital  letters  in  the  inner  margin,- 
(Mill's  Prolog.).  Others  account  for  the  omis- 
sions by  supposing  that,  the  numerals  were  not’ 
intended  to  denote  chap.  1,  2,  3,  &c.,  but  rather 
the  place  of  chap.  1,  2,  and  3;  for  as  the  fiist 
section  (or  title)  is  placed  at  the  end  of  the  first, 
chapter  and  the  beginning  of  the  second,  the  title 
prefixed  to  chap.  2 must  necessarily  correspond 
with  A,  and  that  piefixed  to  chap.  3 with  B,  \vhicl» 
marks  the  second  section  (See  KumpffiU3,'C’o/«* 
rnentatio  Critica). 

We  have  observed  that  both  these  divisions  are! 
contained  in  most  of  the  ancient  MSS,  Thus; 
A,  or  the  Alexandrian  MS.  (Brit.  Mus.),  has  the 
Ammonian  chapters  and  numbers,  and  the  Kusk- 
bian  canons,  together  willi  the  larger  chapters  or 
titles,  and  the  usual  index  of  the  larger  chapters1 
at  the  commencement  of  the  Gospels.  This  MS. 
has,  besides  the  numeral  capitals,  a peculiar, 
mark  (7)  in  Matthew  and  Mark  011  the  left  mar- 
gin ; instead  of  which  the  titles  are  indicated  by 
a cross,  wit  lithe  usual  letter,  rubricated,  iu  Luke'1 
and  John/  it  has  the  corresponding  titles  on  the 
top  oft  he  page. 

C,  or  the  Codex  Ephrssmi,  has,  a primd  menu, 

' the  Ammonian  chapters,  hut  has  not  the  Eusebian 
canons.  This  circumstance  was  first  noticed  by 
Tischendorf,  all  former  writers  having  erroneously 
stated  that  it  contained  the  Eusebian  canons  andi 
the  titles,  and  all  a primd  manu.  With  respect  to; 
these  latter,  it  is  remarkable  that  although  there  is? 
a catalogue  of  them  piefixed  to  the  Gospels  (that; 
,to  Matthew  is  lost),  there  is  no  indication  of  them/ 
whatever  in  the  test.  Of  this  celebrated  codea^, 


716  SCRIPTURE,  KOLV.  , 

which  had  been  partially  collated  by  Wetsfein 
and  Griesbach,  a beautiful  and  accurate  fac- 
simile was  published  by  Tischeudorf  at  Leipsic, 
in  1S43,  with  valuable  Prolegomena.  A great' 
portion  of  the  writing  of  this  Palimpsest.,  which 
liad  been  hitherto  illegible,  has  been  restored  by 
a chemical  process  (see  Codex  Ephrami  Syri 
Ilescriptus.  Lipsia,  1S43,  4to.).* 

D,  or  the  Cou.  Bezae,  has  also,  but  not  a primd 
tnanu,  the  Ammonian  chapters  and  numerals  only/ 
•without'  the  Eusebian  canons.  Probably  it  was  in- 
Sernled  by  the  copyist  to  add  these.  Bishop  Marsh 
{ Notes  to  Mickaelis ) thinks  that  the  division  itself 
was’  different  from  the  Ammonian.  Th's  MS. 
lias  also  the  dvayruopara,  or  church  lesson's, 
marked  in  the  margin,  but  not  a primd  tnanu. 
Z,  or  the  Dublin  Palimpsest,  corresponds  with  C 
iu  having  the  Ammonian  sections  without  the 
canons;  it  has  the  titles  or  larger  chapters,  of 
which,  however,  but  a few  reminiscences  have 
escaped  the  ravages  of  time.  There  remains,  in- 
Jeed,  but  one  of  the  Ansmonian  numbers,  viz., 
in  plate  xxxiii.,  No.  por],  [ch.  xvii.],  and  of  the 
titles,  the  No.-  AZ  at  the  same  place ; in  plate 
xvii..  at  the  top  of  tne  page,  the  twentieth  title, 
viz.  ft.  irepi  too  yevopevov  ^paros  vpb  . . . ‘Icvar- 
vTjt/'y  and  in  plate  li*.  the  title  irepl  rur  8etca' 
•sapQivwv,  but  without  the  number;  in  plate  lxvii. 
the  title  tvttqs  pvaTucis ; and  iu  plate  lxiv.  Uprijcus 
Herpoi*. 

i B,  or  the  celebrated  Vatican  MS,  contains 
neither  the  Ammonian  nor  the  larger  chapters, 
hut  has  divisions  peculiar  to  itself,  distinguished 
only  by  red  numerals  in  the  margin ; of  which 
Matthew  contains  170,  Mark  72,  Luke  152,  and 
John  80  ; Acts  79,  James  9,  1 Peter  8,  1 John 
II,  and  Jude  2.  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  in  this  MS. 
have  a peculiar  and  unique  numeration,  being 
capitulated  in  one  continued  series,  as  if  they 
made  one  book.  Tnere  are  ninety-three  chap- 
ters, of  which  fifty-nine  extend  to  the  close  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians;  then  Ephesians  imme- 
diately commences  with  cli.  lxx.,  the  ten  omitted 
numbers  being  applied  to  the  margin  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  placed  after  those 
»0  the  Thessalonians.  The  last  part. of  Hebrews 
is  wantjng  in  this  MS.,  together  with  the  Epis- 
tles to  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Philemon,  and  the 
Apocalypse  (Zaoagn?,  Monumenta ).  The  Codex 
Cyprins,  and  the  Codex  Hcgius  62  (Stephens's  7j), 
Wli  MSS.  of  the  eighth  century,  have  the  Am- 
inonio- Eusebian  divisions,  and  the  Kc<pd\cua,  lung 
before  wliioh'period  they  had  become  firmly  estar 
blislieu,  and  were  ado;  ted  into  most  Greek  MSS., 
as  well  as  into  the  Latin  version.  They  were  in- 
serted in  the  editions  of  Erasmus,  and  in  Robert 
Stephens's  beautiful  folio  edition  (1550). 

There  was  an  edition  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles, 
with  capitular  divisions,  published  at  the  desire 
of  a certain  bishop  in  the  fifth  century  by  Eutha- 

* Tischendorf  discovered  the  remains  of  the 
transverse  line  of  the  © in  02  pr  ©2  (l  Tim.  iii. 
15)  in  this  MS.,  which  had  escaped  the  observa- 
tion of  Wetstein  and  Griesbach.  He  is,  how- 
ever, convinced  that  this,  as-well  as  the  mark  of 
abbreviation  above  the  ©2,  proceeded  from  the 
second  corrector,  who  lived  iu  the  ninth  century. 
He  is  satisfied,  from  personal  examination,  that 
b;,  not  6els,  was  fi  e original  reading  of  the  Codex 
AJexan  ’firms  in  the  satrie  passage,'  ■ 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

Hue,  the  deacon,  afterwards  bishop  of  SulcO*- 
Kuthalius  was  not  himself  the  author,  but,  as  he  in* 
forms  us,  a Syrian  bishop,  * one  of  the  wisest,  of  the 
fathers,’  who  also  wrote  an  €k0€<tm,  or  summary 
of  tire  contents  of  each  chapter.  The  anonymous 
author  is  conjectured  by  Mill,  with  much  pro-* 
liability,  to  have  heen  no  other  than  the  celebrated 
commentator,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  This 
edition  had  been  completed  on  the  29th  June, 
a.d  396.  The  following  are  the  divisions  which 
it  contains  -Romans  19  chapters,  1 Cor.  9,  2 
Cor.  II.  Gal.  12,  Eph.  10,  Phil.  7,  Col  10  I 
Thess.  7. 2 Thess.  6,  Heb.  22,  1 Tim  12,  2 Tim. 
18,  Titus  6,  Philem.  2.  Euthalius  himself,  at  a 
later  period,  published  his  sticbometrical  edition, 
of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  at  the  desire 
of' Athanasius  the  younger,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
in  which  he  himself  introduced  a similar  divi- 
sion and  summary  of  the  contents  of  each  chapter. 
.The  Acts  contained  1 1 chapters,  the  Epistles  of 
Janies  6,  1 Peter  8,  2 Peter  4,  1 John  7,  2 anil 
3 John  1 each,  and  Jude  4.  Euthalius  also  sub- 
divided his  chapters  by  marking  them  with  as- 
terisks in  rubric,  and  distinguished  the  chapters 
by  numeral  letters,  as  .we  still  find  them  in  MSS. 
of  the  Eulhalian  chapters.  He  also  marked  the 
citations  from  the  Old  Testament  by  numerals,  as 
well  as  by  including  them  in  parentheses,  and 
placing  the  it  erences  to  the  books  in  the  margin. 
This  edition  of  Euthalius  was  completed  in  the 
year  458. 

Another  very  ancient  division,  probably  tho 
most  ancient  of  all,  was  that  into  church  lessons, 
dvayvdxrpaTa.  It  was  prohably  introduced  iu 
imitation  of  the  divisions  of  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  which  were  read  in  the  first  Christian 
assemblies.  Euthalius,  in  bis  edition,  has  given 
the  division  into  church  lessons  as  follows  ; — Acts 
contains  16  lessons,' James  2,  1 Peter  2,  2 Peter 

1,  1 John  2,  2 John  1,  3 John  f,  Jude  1,  Rom.  5, 

1 Cor.  5,  2 Cor.  4,  Gal.  2,  Eph.  2,  Phi  1 . 2,  Col. 

2,  1 Thess.  I,  2 Thess.  1,  Heb.  3,  1 Tim.  1,  2 
Tim.  1,  Titus  1,  Philem.  2.  These  lessons,  or 
Pericopce , as  they  are  called,  in  speaking  of  the 
lessons  of  the  prophets,  by  Justin  Martyr  (Dial.  c. 
Tryph.'),  were  regulated  by  the  number  of  Sun- 
days, to  which  the  additional  three  were  for  the 
festivals  of  Easter,  Whitsuntide,  and  Christmas. 
The  Gospels  had  a similar  division  ; but,  according 
as  church  festivals  increased,  the  number  of  church 
lessons  increased  also,  and  these  were  therefore 
proportionably  brief.  These  divisions  are  the 
foundation  of  our  present  Epistles 'and  Gospels. 
At  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  Lectionaries 
were  published  in  the  Western  Church,  which  were 
divided  into  Episfolaria  and  Evangelaria,,  gene- 
rally in  the  order  iu  which  the  church  lessons 
were  read  ; but  these  books  were  not  introduced 
among  the  Greeks  before  the  eighth  century. 

All  these  divisions  (viz.,-  the  longer  and  shorter 
chapters,  and  the  church  lessons)  are  marked  in 
the  MSS.  by  a space  or  point,  and  sometimes  by 
both,  in  the  middle  of  the  line,  and  frequently  by 
commencing  the  line  with  a capital . letter  ex- 
tending into  the  margin.  But  the  section  itself, 
in  order  to  save  parchment,  often  commences 
with  a small  letter  after  a point  or  space  in  th® 
middle  of  the  line,  the  line  still  commencing 
with  a capital  letter,  which,  therefore,  is  some- 
timejs  placed  in  the  middle  of  a word.  The 
church  lessons  are  also  distinguish®  1 by  the  word 


SCRIPTURE.  HOLY. 

Apy*.  or  sometimes  A,  at  the  commencement,  and 
t4aos  or  T.  at  the  end.  At  the  close  of  the  fifth 
century,  Andrew,  bishop  of  Cappadocia,  intro- 
duced an  imitation  of  the  ancient  capitular  divi- 
sions into  the  Apocalypse,  distinguishing  it  into 
twenty-four  \6yoi , or  sermones.  and  seventy-four 
titles.  The  former  were,  except  in  two  instances, 
identical  with  our  present  chapters. 

The  ancient  divisions  are  marked  in  some  of 
the  early  printed  editions,  especially  those  of 
Erasmus  and  Robert  Stephens.  In  the  Aldine 
edition  of  the  New  Testament,  there  is  no  capi- 
,«lar,  nor  any  division  whatever,  of  either  the 
Gospels  or  Acts,  except  occasionally  short  spaces 
generally  within  t j>e  line;  but  some  of  St.  Paul’s 
Epistles  are  divided  into  short  chapters,  with 
numbers  annexed,  of  which  Romans  contains  14, 

1 Cor.  67,  and  2 Cor.  26,  where  the  numeration 
and  division  cease. 

But  all  these  divisions  were  superseded  in  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century  by  the  present 
division  into  chapters,  the  origin  of  which  is 
involved  in  some  obscurity.  Inasmuch  as  in 
some  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  these 
sections  tally  with  some  of  the  more  ancient 
divisions,  Croius  ( Observat .)  is  anxious  to  ascribe 
to  them  all  a more  ancient  date  than  is  justi- 
fied by  the  historical  evidence.  Among  other 
argu ofents,  he  adduces  the  index  to  each  Gos- 
pel ascribed  to  Theophylact,  which  contains  the 
present  chapters,  hut  this  index  is  evidently  a 
later  addition.  Bale,  Bishop  of  Ossory,  the 
celebrated  antiquarian,  with  great  appearance  of 
probability  ascribes  these  divisions  to  Stephen 
Langfon,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  the  thir- 
teenth century  (Hist.  Eccles.  Cent.  xiii.  c.  7,  10). 
Geuebrard  (Chron  iv.  p.  644)  says  that  the  au- 
thors of  our  present  chapters  were  the  scholastics  who 
were  perhaps  the  authors  of  tire  Concordance  as- 
cribed'to  Cardinal  Hugh  of  St.  Cher,  who  at  this 
period  (a.d.  1262)  published  his  Biblia  cum  Pos- 
tilla,  wherein  the  Aerences  are  for  the  first  time 
made  to  these  ’ivisions.  It  is  certain  that  their 
application  to  this  Concordance  brought  them  into 
repute,  and  from  this  period  we  may  date  the  prac- 
tice of  citing  by  chapters,  which  had  been  hitherto 
done  merely  by  a reference  to  the  book  (see  Heb. 
iv.  7),  as  was  the  custom  of  the  fathers,  or  to  the 
subject,  ©i  some  remarkable  word  therein,  as 
was  the  case  with  the  Jews  and  Samaritans. 
An  example  of  this  appears  in  Mark  ii.  26, 
where  1 Sam.  xxi.  xxii.  is  referred  to  as  ‘ Abi- 
athar,’  and  xii.  26,  ‘ the  bush’  refers  to  Exod. 
iii. ; also  Rom.  xi.  2,  the  word  * Elias'  refers  to 
1 Kings  xvii.  — xix.  [See  also  Hagiograpjia.] 
In  this  Concordance,  however,  there  was  no  re- 
ference to  a division  of  verses , as  Professor 
Moses  Stuart,  supposes  (Bib.  Sac.  No.  1^.  1843, 
(>.  264). * The  subordinate  references  were  indi- 
cated in  Hugh's  Bible  by  the  capital  letters 
A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  placed  at  equal  distances 
from  each  other  in  the  margin  when  the  chapters 
were  long,  or  by  a proportionally  lesser  number 
of  capitals  according  to  the  size  of  the  chapters. 
The  references  to  the  verses  by  their  number  had 
its  origin  at  a much  later  -period,  viz.  in  a.d. 
1438-45,  when  Rabbi  Nathan  wrote  his  Con- 


* Notice  of  Hahn’s  ed.  of  Titmam ’s  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  stereotyped  at  New  York,  1842, 
under  the  care  of  Professor  Robinson. 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY.  717 

cordance  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  which  he  named 
U'fO  TND,  the  illuminator  of  the  path, 

DPI!/,  the  path  of  the  world,  and  J71TT  TluS. 
the  light  sown.  Those  Jews  whq  wished  to  avail 
themselves  of  this  Concordance  must  have  marked 
the  references  thereto  in  their  MSS.  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  Dean  Prideaux  observes  that  ‘ rbe 
first  publishing  of  Nathan's  Concordance  happen- 
ing about  the  time  that  printing  was  invented 
[1440],  it  hath  since  that,  time  undergone  several 
editions,’  and  Mr.  Horne  (Introd.)  follows  Pn- 
deaux  in  stating  that  Nathan,  instead  of  adopting 
the  marginal  letters  of  Hugo,  marked  every  fifth 
verse  with  a Hebrew  numeral ; hut  we  conceive  this 
to  he  an  error.  Rabbi  Nathan’s  Concordance,  which 
was  an  adaptation  of  the  Latin  Concordance  of 
Peter  Allot,  was  not  printed  before  a.d.  1523 
or  1524,  when  it  issued  from  Bomberg’s  press  at 
Venice.  It  afterwards  indeed  passed  through 
several  editions,  and  was  published  in  a Latin 
translation  by  Anthony  Reuchlin,  in  1556,  fid. 
at  the  press  of  Henry  Peter,  in  Basel.  There  is 
also  a translation  in  MS.  by  Nicholas  Fuller,  ii» 
the  Bodleian  Library.  Now  in  all  these  the 
reference  is  to  the  chapter,  and  to  each  single 
verse;  or,  as  Nathan  himself  expressed  it  in  Ins 
preface,  4 As  I obseived  that  the  Latin  translation 
lias  each  book  divided  into  a certain  number  of 
sections  and  chapters,  which  are  rot  in  our 
[Hebrew]  Bibles,  I have  therefore  marked  all  the 
verses,  according  to  their  numbers,  together  with 
the  number  of  each  chapter;  1 have  also  marked 
the  numbers  of  the  verses,  as  they  exist  in  our 
[Hebrew]  Bibles,  for  the  greater  facility  of  finding 
each  passage  referred  to.’  We  have  examined 
ourselves  attentively  all  the  early  printed  editions 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  while  we  find  the 
Latin  chapters  fharked  with  Hebrew  letters  in  all 
those  editions,  commencing  with  Bomherg’s  of 
1518  (for  Jahn  is  mistaken  in  stating  (Introd.  §„ 
102)  that  the  chapters  were  first  marked  in  Bom- 
berg's  edition  of  1525),  we  yet  find  no  edition  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible  in  which  there  is  any  reference 
to  the  verses  by  their  numbers  before  the  edition  of 
the  Pentateuch, ,Megilloth,  and  Haphtaroth,  pub- 
lished at  Sabionetfa  in  Italy  in  1557*  12mc>.  In 
thi3  edition  every  fifth  verse  is  marked  with  a 
Hebrew  numeral,  and  De  Rossi  observes  of  it, 
‘ Me  quidem  judice  prima  omnium  haec  est  editio, 
saltern  primorum  una  in  quibus  hoc  obvium  est* 
( Annales  Typog.  Sabionet.,  1788).  And  every 
fifth  verse  is  equally  marked  throughout  the  wbol& 
Bible  in  the  edition  of  Plantin,  printed  in  1566; 
Sebastian  Munster,  in  bis  edition  (1534).  marked 
the  number  of  the  chapiers  in  Latin  as  well  as 
Hebrew  numerals  in  the  margin.  The  chapters 
wene  first  separated  in  Hebrew  in  Plautin’s  beau- 
tiful edition  of  1574.  In  this  edition  each, sepa- 
rate vers’e  of  the  first  twelve  chapters  of  Genesis  is 
also  marked  in  the  margin  with  an  Arabic  mime*- 
ral,  except  the  fifth  verse,  which  is  indicated  as 
befoie  by  a Hebrew  letter,  after  which  the  Latin 
numeration  of  verses  is  discontinued  throughout 
the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  Pagninus* 
however,  had  long  before,  viz.  in  1528,  market! 
all  the  verses  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible  with 
an  Arabic  figure  in  the  margin  opposite  each 
verse.  Although  this  practice  had,  after  Rol>ert 
StepheTTs’s  edition  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  1555, 
become  general  both  in  this  and  the  modern  ver- 
sions, it  was  not  until  the  ytsar  1661  that  the  whole 


718 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 


Hebrew  Bible  was  thus  marked,  when  Athias 
introduced  the  Arabic  figures  opposite  each  verse, 
at  the  instigation  of  Leusden  (see  his  Fhilol.  Heb.) 
in  his  accurate  edition  published  at  Antwerp  in 
that  year. 

The  Latin  chapters  were  not  adopted  by  the 
Greeks  before  the  fifteenth  century,  when  they 
were  first  introduced  by  those  Greeks  who  fled 
into  the  west  after  the  taking  of  Constantinople  by 
the  Turks  in  1453.  It  was  in  this  century,  and  ge- 
nerally in  Italy,  that  most  of  the  MSS.  now  extant 
of  the  Greek  Testament  were  written,  and  this  fact 
is  of  'material  importance  in  fixing  the  date  of 
MSS.  Thus  we  have  already  observed  [John, 
Episti.ks  ok]  that  the  Codex  Montfortiamis 
(which  most  suppose  to  be  the  Cod.  Britannicus 
of  Erasmus ; see  Davidson’s  Lectures  on  Bib - 
:ical-  Criticism)  contains  the  Latin  chapters;  but 
we  are  enabled  to  add,  oh  the  authority  of  a letter 
which  we  have  received  from  Dr.  Todd,  the  libra- 
rian of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  that  these  divi- 
sions are  not  marked  hv  their  number,  but  only 
by  a space  left  in  the  text  for  an  initial  letter, 
which  letter  does  not  appear  to.  have  been  in  any 
one  case  inserted.  ' The  numbers  of  the  chapters, 
indeed,  are  added  in  a clumsv  way  by  a recent 
bartd,  but  the  Eusebian  numbers  are  marked  rvith 
Greek  numerals  in  a coeval  hand  in  good  rubric 
in  the  margin,  as  far  as  Matt,  x.,  and  in  had  red 
ink  as  far  as  Luke  xii.,  but  thenceforward  they 
are  discontinued.  The  paragraphs  into  which  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  divided  by 
Bengel,  Vater,  and  others,  are  a decided  improve* 
ment  on  the  Latin  chapters. 

Language  of  the  Scriphires.  The  old  Testa* 
meut  is  written  in  Hebrew  [Heuuew  Language], 
with  the  exception  of  part3  of  the  books  of  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  and  Daniel,  which  are  in  -Chaldee 
[Chai.dee].  The  New  Testament  is  written  in 
Greek,  or  rather  iu  what  has  been  called  Hellen- 
istic or  Hebraizing  Greek.  The  most  Hebraizing 
book  i3  the  Apocalypse,  and  the  most  correct 
Greek  the  Episile  to  the  Hebrews ; but  the  voice  of 
antiquity  favours  the  opinion  that  this  was,  origin- 
ally written  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  ( Prcelectio 
Theologica , auctore  Gul.  Hodge  Mill,  S.  T.  P., 
1^43).  A Hebrew  original  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel  ha9  been  also  contended  for. 

Polyglotts,  &c.  Among  the  most,  useful 
aids  to  the  study  of  Biblical  Literature  must  be 
reckoned  the  diglc.tt,  triglott,  and  polvglott  edi- 
tions. These  are  accurately  described  in  Le 
Lung’s  Bibliotheca  Sacra , and  Simon's  Histoire 
Critique . We  shall  confine  ourselves  to  a brief 
notice  of  the  Polyglotts. 

Although  the  earliest  specimen  of  a Polyglott 
was  ihat  of  a projected  work  of  the  celebrated 
printer  Aldus  Manutius,  of  which  one  page  only 
was  published,  the  first  of  this  kind  was  the 
Co  M p lute  ns  i ^n  Poi.YGi.oTT,  entitled  Biblia 
Sacra  Polygfatta,  mine  primum  impresses  &c., 
comprised  in  0 vols.  fol.  We  are  .indebted  for  this 
work  to  the  celebrated  Cardinal,  Statesman,  and 
General,  Francis  Ximene3  de  Cisneros,  who  pub- 
lished it  at  his  own  expense,  at  the  cost  of  50,000 
ducats.  It  was  commenced  in  1502,  completed 
in  1517,  and  published  in  1522.  The  editors  were 
/Eli  us  An  trains,  Ducas,  Pincianus,  Stunica, 
Zamora,  Corcipellus,  and  Johanpes  de  Vergera. 
The  jliree.  lasj  jvere  originally  Jetvs^  The  first 


SCRIPTURE,  HOLY. 

• 

four  volumes  contain  the  Old  Testament,  with  tho 
Hebrew,  Latin,  and  Greek,  in  three  columns,  the 
Targum,  and  a Latin  version  of  the  same  Tk« 
fifth  volume  contains  the  Greek  Testamer  , with 
the  Latin  Vulgate.  The  last  volume  consists  of 
Vocabularies,  Indexes,  &c.  &c.  The  Greek  Tes- 
tament, as  has  been  already  observed  [John  a 
Epistles],  was  finished  in  1517;  but- the  MSS. 
were  modern,  and  not  of  much  critical  value. 
( See  Dr.  Bowring’s  letter,  Monthly  Repository  fot 
1827,  p.  572).  There  is  little  doubt  that  the 
celebrated  text  of  the  three  witnesses  in  this  edi- 
tion was  translated  from  the  Latin.  There  were 
600'copies  only  printed  of  this  splendid  work,  of 
which  three  were  on  vellum.  One  of  these  was 
sold  in  England,  iu  1829,  for  690  guineas. 

The  Antwerp  Polyglott  was  published  in  1569- 
73.  in  8 vols.  fol.,  at  the  expense  of  Philip  II., 
’King  of  Spain.  It  contains,  in  addition  to  the 
Complutensian  texts,  a Chaldee  Paraphrase,  the 
Syriac  version,  and  the  Latin  translation  of  Arias 
Montanus,  which  was  a correction  of  that  of  Pag- 
ninus.  It  also  contains  lexicons  and  grammars 
of  the  various  languages  of  the  originals  and  ver- 
sions. 

The  Paris  Polyglott , in  addition  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  former  works,  has  a Syriac  and  Arabic 
f version  of  both  the  Old  'and  Kfew  Testaments, 
! with  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  now  published 
: for  the  first  time,  and  edited  by  J.  Morions.  This 
Polyglott  also  contains  the  Samaritan  version  of 
■ the  same.  It  was  published  in  1645,  in  10  vols. 
large  folio.  The  editor  of  this  valuable,  but 
unwieldy  work,  was  Michael  le  Jay,  who  vvaa 
ruined  by  the  publication. 

The  London  Polyglott , edited  by  Brian  Wal- 
ton, aftei  wards  Bishop  of  Chester,  is  much  more 
comprehensive  than  any  of  the  former.  It  was 
published  in  1657,  iu  6 vols.  fol.  The  first  vol., 
besides  prolegomena,  contains  the  Pentateuch, 
exhibiting  on  one  page  the  Hebrew  text,  with  the 
interlinear  Latin  version  of  A.  :as  Montanus,  the 
Latin  Vulgate  of  the  Clementine  edition,  fheSep- 
tuagint  of  the  Roman  edition,  and  the  various 
readings  of  the  Cod.  Alex.,  the  Latin  version  of 
Flaminius  Nobilius,  the  Syriac,  with  a Latin 
version,  the  Targum  of  Onkeloe,  with  a Latin  ver- 
sion, the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  with  the  Sama- 
ritan version  of  the  same,  and  a Latin  translation 
serving  for  both,  ami  the  Arabic,  with  a Latin 
version.  The  second  volume  comprises  the  his- 
- torical  hooks,  with  the  Turgums  of  Jonathan. 
The  third  volume  contains  the  books  from  Job 
to  Malachi,  and,  besides  t[ie  versions  in  all  the 
former  languages,  the  Psalms  in  Ethiopia  and  a 
Latin  translation.  The  fourth  volume  has  all  the 
Dutero-canonical  books  in  Greek,  Latin,  Arabic, 
and  Syriac ; the  two  Hebrew  texts  of  Tobit 
' [Tobit], -and  two  Chaldee  and'a  Persian  Targum 
on  the  Pentateuch,  with  Latin  versions.  The  fifth 
l volume  has  the  New  Testament,  with  Ariaa 
Montanns’s  translation  ; the  Syriac,  Persic,  Latin 
Vulgate,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  versions.  These, 
with  separate  Latin  versions  of  the  oriental  trans- 
lations, are  all  given  on  one  page.  The  sixth  vo- 
lume contains  various  readings  and  critical  re- 
marks. The  whole  of  this  stupendous  labour  was 
completed  in  four  year  It  was  published  by 
subscription,  under  the  patronage  of  Oliver  Crom- 
well, who  died  before  its  completion.  This  gave 
occasion  tofuv  cancelling  of  two  leaves  of  the  pro* 


SCYTHIAN. 


'SEA.'  119 


face,  in  order  to  transfer  to  King  Charles  II.  the 
compliments  addressed  to  Cromwell.  There  are,  in 
consequence,  both  Republican  and  Royal  copies, 
the  former  of  which  are  the  most  scarce  and  valu- 
able. For  the  variations  between  these,  see  But- 
ler’s Horcs  Biblicce  and  Adam  Clark’s  Succession 
of  Sacred  Literature.  _ This  Polyglot!  was  ac- 
companied by  Castell  s Heptaglott  Lexicon , in 
2 vols.  fol.  '■  * T ’ , i 

Mr.  Bagsfei-’s  Tolyglott,  fol.,  London,  1831, 
contains  in  one  volume  the  Hebrew  text,  the  Sa- 
maritan Pentateuch,  the  Septuagint,  Yulgat®,  and 
Svriac  versions,  the  Greek  text  of  Mill  in  the 
New  Testament,  together  with  Luther's  German, 
Diodati’s  Italian,  Gstervald's  French,  Scio's  Spa- 


nish, ipid  the  English  authorized  Tcrsiims  of  the 
Bible.  The  quarto  edition,  part  of  the  impressiott 
of  v which  ty as  destroyed'  by  fire,  contains  tha 
Hebrew  and  Samaritan  texts,  the  Greek  text  n# 
the  New  Testament,  with  the  Septuagint,  Vulgate, 
and  English  versions.  There  are’ valuable  Prole- 
gomena by  Dr.  Lee. 

There  are  also  Polyglot, ts  of  several  portions  of 
the  Bible,  of  which  one  of  the  most  valuable  is 
that  r 'dished  at  Constantinople,  in  Hebrew, 
Clmh,  <■  Persian,  and  Arabic,  in  1546. 

For  the  interpunefion  of  the  Bibie,  see  Vkksk. 

For  Writing  Materials,  see  Writing. 

Scripture  Chronology,  see  Chronology  * 

— W.  W. 


i 485.  [A  Scythian  Family.] 


SCYTHIAN  (%kv0 ??r).  a name  which  occu.s 
only  in  Col.  iii.  11.  It  was  anciently  applied 
sometimes  to  a particular  people,  and  sometimes 
to  all  the  noma.de  tribes  which  had  their  seat  to 
the  nprth  of  the  Black  and  Caspian  seas,  stretching 


486.  (I.  A Scythian.  2.  A Scythian  General.] 


indefinitely  eastward  into  the  unknown  regions  of 
Asia.  It  had  thus  much  the  same  latitude  as 
'Tartars,’  and  was  in  like  manner  synonymous 
with  Barbarian,  B dpfiapes.  The  name  also  occurs 
& u 2 Macc.  iv..  47,  and  Joseph.  Cont.  Apion.  ii.  37, 


The  Scythians  were,  in  fact,  the  ancient  represents? 
tives  of  the  modern  Tartars,  arid  like  them  mpvecj^ 
from,  place  to  place  in  carts  drawn  by  oxen,  ft! 
is.  from  this  circumsfance  that  they,  or  a tribe 
nearly-rallied  to  them,  may  be  recognised  on  the 
monuments  of  Egypt.  About  seven  c.enturies  be- 
fore Christ,  the  Scythians  irpvaded  South-Western 
Asia,  and  extended  their,  incursions  as  far  as 
Egypt  (Herodot.  i:  103).  In  doifig  this  they 
could  not  but  have  touched  on  or  passed  through 
Palestine:  and  it  is  even' supposed  that  Betlishan 
derived  its  classical  name  of  Scythopolis  from 
them.  [Bkthshan].,  It  is  singular,  however,  that 
,tlie  Hebrew  writers  take  no  notice  of  this  transac- 
tion ; for  we  cannot  admit  that  the  prophecies  f 
Joel- and  Zephaniah.  have /inference  to  it,  as  .some 
j writers  have  imagined,  — »- 

j|f  SEA.  ■ The  term  D'  yam;  or  ‘sea,’  was  used 
by  the  Hebrew^  more  extensively  than  w-ith  us, 
being  applied  generally  to  all  large  collections  of 
j water,  as  they. had  not  a set.  of  terms  such  as  we 
employ  (^defectively,  indeed)  to  discriminate  the 

r * The  following  important  works  on  this  sub- 
ject have  appeared  since  this  article  went  to  press  : 
A Chronological  Introduction  to.,  the  History  of 
the  Church , fyc.,  by  the  Rev.  S.  F.  Jarvis,  D.D., 
Historiographer  of  the  [Protestant  Episcopal] 
Church  of  the  U.  S.^and  The  Times  of  Daniitf 
Chronological  and  Prbphetical7  bv  George,  Duke 
, of  Manchester,  London,  1845. 


720 


SKA. 


different  kinds.  ‘ Sea  ’ fur  large  collections,  and 
* pool  ’ for  smaller,  formed  the  extent  of  their 
vocabulary;  although,  indeed,  pools  were  distin- 
guished into  D3N  agom , a natural  pool  nr  pond 
(Ps.  cvii:  35  ; cxiv.  8 ; Isa.  xxxv.  7 ; xli.  1 8,  &c.), 
and  bereekuh,  the  same  as  the  Arabic 

beerkeh,  an  artificial  pool  or  reservoir  (2  Sam.  ii. 

; iv.  12;  Nah.  ii.  9).  The  term  ‘sea'  is  ap- 
plied to  various  parts  of  the  ocean,  and  also  .to 
lakes,  for  D'  is  used  for  these  in  Job  xiv.  11. 

1.  The  Mkditeruanean,  being  on  the  west, 
and  therefore  behind  a person  facing  the  east,  is 
called  in  Scripture  the  Hinder  Sea  (plilNH  D'H, 
Dent.  xi.  24;  Joel  ii.  2ft)  that  is,  Western  Sea; 
and  also,  ‘the  Sea  of  the  Philistines'  (Exod. 
xxiii.  31),  as  that  people  possessed  the1  largest 
proportion  of  its  shore  in  Palestine.  Being  also 
the  largest  sea  with  \yhich  the  Hebrews  were  ac- 
quainted, they  called  it  by  pre-eminence,  ‘ the 
Great  Sea'  (Num  xxxiv.  6,  7;  Josh  i.  4;  ix. 
1;  Ezek.  xlvii.  10,  15,  20);  or  simply  ‘the  sea’ 
(Josh.  xv.  47) 

2.  The  Red  Sea. — This  gulf  of  the  Jndian 
Ocean  is  called  in  Hebrew  D*  Yam  Snph 
(Exod.  x.  19;  xiii.  18;  Ps.  cvi.  7,  9,  22),  which 
is  also  its  Egyptian  name,  and  is  supposed  to  mean 
‘weedy  sea' (MicliaelisvSM/)/j/.  p.  1726;  Jablonsky, 
Opascul.  i.  266).  This  designation  has  beeu  by 
some  supposed  to  refer  to  the  quantity  of  sea-weed 
found  in  it.  Rut  Bruce,  who ’traversed  its  whole 
(extent,  declares  that,  he  never  saw  any  sort  of  weed 
in  it,  and  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  it  i3  from 
the  large  trees  or  plants  of  white  coral,  spiead  every 
where  over  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  and  greatly  re- 
sembling plants  on  land,  that  it  derived  its  name. 
It  is  also  called  ‘the  Egyptian  sea*  (Isa.  xi.;  15). 
In  other  places,  where  the  context  plainly  indi- 
cates what  sea  is  intended,  it  is  called  simply 
* the  sea.’  In  the  New  Testament  ii  hears  its  usual 
Greek  name,  g epvdpa  dd\acroa  ^Aets  v ii.  36; 
Heb.  xi  29;  also  1 Macc  iv.  9;  Herudot.  i.  1 ; 
Diod.  Sic.  iii.  18),  whence  our  * Red  Sea.’  How 
it  came  by  the  nam<~of  Red  Sea  is  not  agreed. 
Frideaux  assumes  ( Connection,  i.  14,  15)  that  the 
ancient,  inhabitants  of  the  bordering  countries 
called  it  Yam  Edom , or,  4 the  sea  of  Edom’  (it  is 
never  so  called  ui  Scripture),  as  its  north  eastern 
part  washed  the  country  possessed  by  the  Edom- 
ites. Now  Eilom  means  red  (Gen.  xxv.  3Uj,  and 
the  Greeks,  who  borrowed  the  name  from  the  Phoe- 
nicians, mistook  it  for  an  appellative'  instead  of  a 
proper  name,  and  rendered  it  by  ipvQpa.  6d\aacra, 
that  is,  ‘the  Red  Sea.  Some  inhumation  in  cor- 
rection of.  this  notion  seems,  however,  to  have 
been  afterwards  acquired  : for  Strabo  (xvi.  p.  766), 
Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  vi.  23),  Mela  (iii.  8),  Agathar- 
cides  (p.  2 ed/Oxou.),  Q.  CiirMus.('viii.  9;  x.  1), 
Philostratus  (iii  15),  and  others,  distinctly  admit 
that  trie  Sea  obtained  this  name,  not  from  any 
redness  in  its  waters,  but  from  a great  king 
called  Erythrus,  who  reigned  in  the  adjacent 
country.  The  word  Erythrus  means  the  same  in 
the  Greek  that  Edom  does  in  the  Phoenician  and 
Hebrew  languages;  Which  seems  to  prove  that  this 
king  Erythrus  was  no  other  than  Edom,  whose 
name  was  g<iveu  to  the  country  over  which  his 
descendants  reigned.  This  explanation  seems 
satisfactory ; but  Prideaux,  from  whom  we  take 
it,  by  a very  strange  confusion  of  ijfeas,  in  an  im- 
mediately preceding  page  (i.  10),  ascribes  the 
ft&rne.  Red  .Sea,  as  applied  to  another  part  of  the 


SEA. 

Eryf hr®an  Sea,  to  * the  wafers  appearing  ofa  reddish 
colour  by  reason  of  the  fierceness  of  the  sunbeams, 
constantly  beating  upon  it  in  that  hot  climate.* 
Such  a fancy  needs  no  answer,  as  neither  water 
nor  the  rays  of  the  sun  are  the  more  red  for  being 
more  hot.  Others  liaye  conjectured  that  the  Ara- 
bian Gulf  derived  its  name  from  the  coral  rocks 
and  reefs  in  which  it  abounds ; but  the  coral  of 
the  Red  Sea  is  white,  not  red.  Jn  so  large  a tract 
of  shore  and  water  it  would  lie  strange  if  some  red 
objects  did  not  appear,  and  minds  on  the  watch 
fur  some  physical  cause  for  the  name  would  na- 
turally refer  to  circumstances  which  would  not 
otherwise  have  engaged  attention.  Some  of  the 
mountains  that  stretch  along  the  western  coast 
have  a singularly  red  appearance,  looking,  as 
Bruce  expresses  it,  as  if  {hey  were  sprinkled  with 
Tlavannal)  or  Brazil- snuff,  or  brick-dust;  anil 
from  th is  a notion  is  derived  that  these  mountains, 
presenting  their  conspicuous  sides  to  the  early  na- 
vigators of  the  sea,  induced  them  to  give  it  a 
name  from  that  predominant  colour.  Salt  indi- 
cates a fact  which  affords  a basis  for  another  con- 
jecture as  to  the  origin  of  the  name.  He  says — 
‘ At  one  o’clock  oil  the  7th  of  February,  the  sea 
fur  a considerable  distance  around  the  snip  became 
su  extremely  red. . ,„As  we  were  anxious  to  ascer- 
tain the  cause  of  this  very  singular  appearance,  a 
bucket  was  let  down  into  the  water,  by  which  we 
obtained  a considerable  quantity  of  the  substance 
floating  on  the  surface.  It  proved  to  be  of  a 
jelly-like  consistence,  composed  of  a numberless 
multitude  of  very  small  mqllusca,  each  of  which 
having  a small  red  spot  in  the  centre,  formed, 
when  in  a mass,  a bright  hotly  of  colour  nearly 
allied  to  that  produced  by  a mixture  of  red  lead 
with  water.’  This  account  has  been  more  recently 
confirmed  by  Ehrenberg. 

The  ancients  applied  the  name  of  Erythraean, 
Sea  not  only  to  the  Arabian  Gulf,  but.  to  that 
part  of  the  Indian  Ocean  which  is  enclosed  be- 
tween the  peninsulas  of  India  and  Arabia;  but 
iii  modern  usage  I lie  nameoflled  Sea  is  restricted 
to 'the  Arabian  Gulf,  which  enters  into  the  land 
from  the  Indian  Ocean  in  a westerly  direction, 
and  then,  at  the  stiaits  of  Bab-el-Mamleb,  turns 
N.N.W.,  maintaining  that  direction  till  it  makes 
a nearapproach  to  the. Mediterranean,  from  which 
its  western  arm  is  only  separated  by  the  isthmus 
of  Suez.  ‘ It  thus  separates  the  western  coast  of 
Arabia  from  the  eastern  coast  of  the  north-eastern 
parr  of  Africa.  It  is  about  140U  miles  in  length 
from  Suez  to  the  straits,  and  on  an  average  150 
miles  in  breadth.  On  approaching  its  northern 
termination  tire  gulf  divides  into  two  branches, 
which  enclose  between  them  the  peninsula  of 
Sinai.  The  western  arm,  which  terminates  a little 
above  Suez,  is  far  more  extensive  than  the  other, 
and  is  that  which  was_cros$ed  by  the  Israelites  in 
their  escape  from  Egypt.  An  account  of  this  im- 
portant transaction  lias  been  given  under  another 
head  [Exodus].  This  arm,  anciently  called 
Heroopoliticus  Sinus,  and  now  the  Gulf  of. Suez,  is 
190  miles  long  by  an  average  breadth  of  21  miles; 
but  at  one  part  (Birk/et  el-Faroun)  it  is  as  wide 
as  32  miles.  The  eastern  arm,  which  terminates 
at  Akahah,  and  bears  the  name  of  the  Gulf  of 
Akabah,  was  anciently  called  ^Elaniticus  Sinus, 
from  the  port  of  /El ana,  the  Scriptural  Elath,  and 
is  about  112  miles  long  by  ail  average  breadth  of 
]5  miles.  Towards  its  extremity  were  toe  posts. 


SEA 


SEA. 


72, 


©f  Etath  anti  Eziongeber,  celebrated  in  the  history 
of  the  attempts  made  by  the  Hebrew  kings  to 
establish  a maritime  traffic  with  the  East  [see  the 
several  words] . 

3.  The  Sea  of  Chinneueth,  TYT}?  (Num. 
xxxiv.  11),  called  in  the  New  Testament  ‘ the  Sea 
of  Galilee  ' (Matt.  iv.  18),  the  ‘Sea  of  Tiberias  ’ 
(John  xxi.  1),  and  ‘the  sea’  or  ‘lake  of  Genne- 
sareth  ’ (Matt,  xiv,  34  ; Mark  vi.  53  ; Luke  v.  17) ; 
which  last  is  but  a variation  of  the  Hebrew  name. 

This  lake  lies  very  deep, among  fruitful  hills  and 
mountains,  from  which,  in  the  rainy  season,  many 
rivulets  descend  : its  shape  will  be  seen  from  ihe 
map.  The  Jordan  enters  it  on  the  north,  and 
quits  it  on  the  south  ; and  it  is  said  that  the  river 
passes  through  it  without  the  waters  mingling. 
Its  extent  has  been  greatly  over -rated  : Professor 
Robinson  considers  that  its  length,  in  a straight 
line,  does  not  exceed  eleven  or  twelve  geographical 
miles,  and  that  its  breadth  is  from  five  to  six 
miles.  From  numerous  indications  it  is  inferred 
that  the  bed  of  this  lake  was  formed  by  some 
ancient  volcanic  eruption,  which  history  has  not 
recorded : the  waters  are  very  clear  and  sweet, 
and  contain  various  kinds  of  excellent  fish  in 
great  abundance.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
several  of  the  apostles  were  fishermen  of  this  lake, 
aud  that  it  was  also  the  scene  of  several  transac- 
tions in  the  life  of  Christ : it  is  thus  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  but  very  rarely 
in  the  Old.  The  borders  of  the  lake  were  in  the 
time  of  Christ  well  peopled,  being  covered  with 
numerous  towns  and  villages  ; but  now  they  are 
almost  desolate,  and  the  fish  and  water-fowl  are 
but  little  disturbed. 

The  best  descriptions  of  the  lake  of  Tiberias 
are  those  of  Burckhardt  (Sijria,  p.  332),  Buck- 
ingham ( Palestine , ch.  xxvi.),  Irby  and  Mangles 
(p.  295),  Jowett  (pp.  172-176),  Hardy  (pp.  237- 
241),  Elliott  (ii.  342-350),  Schubert  (iii  231- 
240),  Robinson  (ii.  372-402),  Olin  (iii.  253, 
261-265),  Lord  Nugent  (Lands,  Classical  and 
Sacred , ii.  209). 

4.  The  Dead  Sea,  called  in  Scripture  the 

Salt  Sea,  r&DH  (Gen.  xiv.  3),  the  Sea  of  the 
Plain , or  the  Arabah,  n2“>y_n  D)  (Deut.  iv.  40), 
and  the  Eastern  Sea,  (Joel  ii.  20 ; 

Ezek.  xlvii.  18;  Zech.  xiv.  8).  It  is  not  named 
or  alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  called 
by  Josephus  (JDe  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  10.  7)  XifjLvr)  5Acr- 
(paXr'iTTjs,  by  which  name,  or  in  the  Latin  form 
of  Lacus  Asphaltites,  it  was  known  to  the  classical 
writers.  This  designation  it  obtained  from  the 
large  quantities  of  asphaltum  which  it  afforded. 
The  Arabs  call  it  Birket  Lut,  ‘ the  Sea  of  Lot.’ 
From  its  history  and  qualities,  it  is  the  most  re- 
markable of  all  the  lakes  of  Palestine.  It  was 
long  assumed  that  this  lake  did  not  exist  before 
the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  the  other  ‘ cities  of 
the  plain’  (Gen.  xix.);  and  that  before  that,  time 
the  present  bed  of  the  lake  was  a fertile  plain,  in 
which  these  cities  stood.  It  was  also  concluded 
that  the  river  Jordan  then  flowed  through  this 
plain,  and  afterwards  pursued  its  course,  through 
the  great  valley  of  Arabah,  to  the  eastern  arm  of 
tire  Red  Sea.  The  careful  observations  of  Pro- 
fessor Robinson  have  now,  however,  rendered  it 
more  probable  that  a lake  which,  as  now,  received 

vol.  u. 


the  river  Jordan,  existed  here  before  Sodom  was 
destroyed;  but  that  an  encroachment  of  the 
waters  southward  then  took  place,  overwhelming 
a beautiful  and  well-watered  plain  which  lay  on 
the  southern  border  of  the  lake,  and  on  which 
Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah,  Zeboim,  and  Zoar 
were  situated.  The  promontory,  or  rather  penin- 
sula, towards  the  south,  which  is  so  distinct  a 
feature  of  this  lake,  probably  marks  the  original 
boundary  of  the  lake  in  that  direction,  and  shows 
the  point  at  which  the  waters  broke  into  the  plain 
beyond. 

The  Dead  Sea  is  about  thirty-nine  or  forty 
geographical  miles  long  from  north  to  south,  and 
nine  or  ten  miles  wide  from  east  to  west : it 
lies  embedded  very  deep  between  lofty  cliffs  on 
the  western  side,  which  are  about  1500  feet  high, 
and  mountains  on  the  eastern  shore,  the  highest 
ridges  of  which  are  reckoned  to  be  from  2000  to 
2500  feet,  above  the  water.  The  water  of  the 
lake  is  much  salter  than  that  of  the  sea.  From 
the  quantity  of  salt  which  it  holds  in  solution 
it  is  thick  and  heavy,  and  no  fish  can  live  or 
marine  plants  grow  in  it.  The  old  stories  about 
the  pestiferous  qualities  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  its 
waters  are  mere  fables  or  delusions;  the  actual 
appearances  being  the  natural  and  obvious  effects  of 
the  confined  and  deep  situation,  the  intense  breat, 
and  the  uncommon  saltness  of  the  waters*  Lying 
in  its  deep  cauldron,  surrounded  by  lofty  cliffs  of 
naked  limestone  rock,  exposed  for  seven  or  eight 
months  in  the  year  to  the  unclouded  beams  of  a 
burning  sun,  nothing  but  sterility  and  solitude 
can  be  looked  for  upon  its  shores  ; and  nothing, 
else  is  actually  found,  except  in  those  parts  wb»* 
there  are  fountains  or  streams  of  fresh  water  % ip, 
all  such  places  there  is  alertile  soil  and  abundant, 
vegetation.  Birds  also  abound,  and  they  are>. 
observed  to  fly  above  and  across  the  sea  without 
being,  as  old  stories  tell,  injured  or  killed  bv  its. 
exhalations.  Professor  Robinson  was.  five  days, 
in  the  vicinity  of  its  shores,  without  being  able, 
to  perceive  that  any  noisome  smell  or  noxious 
vapour  arose  from  the  bosom  of  the  lake.  Its 
coasts  have  always  been  peopled,  and  are  so, 
now;  and  although  the  inhabitants  suffer  from 
fevers  in  summer,  this  is  not  more  than  might  be 
expected  from  the  concentrated  beat,  of  the  climate 
in  connection  with  the  marshes.  The  same  efftfcts 
might  be  experienced  were  there  no  lake,  or  wer® 
the  waters  fresh  instead  of  salt. 

On  the  borders  of  this  lake,  is  found  much 
sulphur,  in  pieces  as  large  as  walnuts,  and  even 
larger  There  is  also  a black  shining  stone, 
which  will  partly  burn  in  the  fire,  and  which 
then  emits  a bituminous  smell : this  is  the  ‘ stink- 
stone’  of  Burckhardt.  At  Jerusalem  it  is  made 
into  rosaries  and  toys,  of  which  great  quantities 
are  sold  to  the  pilgrims  who  visit  the  sacred 
places.  Another  remarkable  production,  from, 
which,  indeed,  the  lake  takes  one  of  its  names,  is  . 
the  asphaltum,  or  bitumen.  Josephus  says,  that 
‘the  sea  in  many  places  sends  up  black  masses  . 
of  asphaltum,  which  float  upon  the  surface,  having 
the  size  and  shape  of  headless  oxen  ’ ( De  Bell.  Jud. 
iv.  8,  4).  From  recent  information  it  appears.. 
that  large  masses  are  rarely  found,  and  then 
generally  only  after  earthquakes.  The  substance ■ 
is  doubtless  produced  from  the  bottom  of  the  sea, 
in  which  it  coagulates,  and  rises  to  the  surface; 
or  possibly  the  coagulation  may  have  been  ancient. 


72'i 


SEA,  MOLTEN. 

and  the  substance  adheres  to  the  bottom  until  de- 
tached by  earthquakes  anil  other  convulsions, 
when  its  buoyancy  brings  it  to  the  surface.  We 
know  that  ‘the  vale  of  Siddim  1 (Gen.  xiv.  10) 
was  anciently  ‘full  of  slime-pits,’  or  sources  of 
bitumen  ; and  these,  now  under  the  water,  pro- 
bably supply  the  asphaltum  which  is  found  on 
such  occasions. 

An  admirable  and  very  full  account  of  the 
Dead  Sea  is  given  by  Dr.  Robinson  ( Bibl . Re- 
searches, ii.  216-23S).  See  also  Nau  ( Nov . 
Voyage,  pp. 577-588),  Morison  ( Voyage,  ch.  xxx.), 
Shaw  (ii.  157-158),  Hasselquist  (pp.  130,  131, 
284),  Burckhardt.  (Syria),  Seetzen  (in  Zach's 
Monat.  Corresp.  xviii.  410.  sq.),  Irby  and  Man- 
gles (pp.  351-356  ; 446-459),  Elliot  (ii.  479-486), 
Stephens  (ii.  ch.  xv.),  Paxton  (pp.  150-163), 
Sclmbert  (iii.  84-94),  Olin  (ii.  231-245). 

5.  The.  Lake  Merom  is  named  once  only  in 
Scripture,  where  it.  is  called  O'OIO  'Q,  waters  of 
Merom  (Josh.  xi.  5,  7).  By  Josephus  it  is  called 
■Semechonitis  (Sc/iiexct wms,  Antiq.  v.  5.  1),  and 
at  present  bears  the  name  of  Huleh  : this  is  the 
uppermost  and  smallest  of  the  three  lakes  on  the 
Jordan.  It.  serves  as  a kind  of  reservoir  to  collect 
4hc  waters  which  form  that  river  and  again  to 
.send  them  forth  in  a single  stream.  In  the 
sspring,  when  the  waters  are  highest,  the  lake  is 
seven  miles  long  and  three  and  a half  broad;  but 
in  summer  it  becomes  a mere  marsh.  In  some 
^jarts  it  is  sown  with  rice,  and  its  reeds  and 
lushes  afford  shelter  to  wild  hogs.  (Pococke,  ii. 
|).  72 ; Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  514  ; Richardson,  ii. 
415,416;  Lindsay,  ii.  91;  Robinson,  iii.  339- 
342.)  A full  description  of  the  three  lakes  of 
the  Jordan  (Lake  Huleh,  Lake  of  Gennesareth, 
and  the  Dead  Sea)  is  given  in  Kitto’s  Physical 
History  of  Palestine,  ch.  vi. 

SEA,  MOLTEN  D)).  The  immense 

brazen  reservoir  which,  with  smaller  lavers 
[Laver],  stood  in  the  court  of  Solomon’s  temple, 
was  thus,  by  hyperbole,  denominated.  It  was  of 
a hemispherical  figure,  ten  cubits  in  width,  five 
deep,  and  thirty  in  circumference.  In  1 Kings 
vii.  23,  it  is  stated- to  have  contained  2000  baths, 
equal  to  16,000  gallons;  but  in  2 Citron,  iv.  5, 
it  is  said  to  have  contained  3000  baths,  and  the 
latter  estimate  is  followed  by  Josephus.  It  was 
probably  capable  of  holding  the  larger  quantity, 
butdid  not  usually  contain  more  than  the  smaller. 


It  was  decorated  on  the  upper  edge  with  figures  re- 
sembling lilies  in  bloom,  and  was  enriched  with 
various  ornamental  objects ; and  it  rested,  or 
seemed  to  rest,  upon  the  backs  of  twelve  oxen, 
tuiee  looking  to  the  north,  three  to  the  east,  three 


SEAL. 

to  tne  south,  and  throe  to  the  west  (1  Kings  vi, 
26  ; vii.  40-47  ; 2 Chron.  iv.  3-5).  The  Jewish 
writers  state  that  this  great  basin  was  supplied 
with  water  by  a pipe  JYom  the  well  of  Etam,  al. 
though  some  few  all  ge  that,  it  was  filled  by 
the  manual  labour  of  the  Gibeonites.  It  was, 
according  to  the  same  accounts,  kept  constantly 
flowing,  there  being  spouts  which  discharged  for 
use  from  the  basin  as  much  water  as  it  received 
from  the  well  of  Etam.  If  this  be  correct,  it.  is  not 
improbable  that  the  spouts  discharged  their  water 
through  the  mouths  of  the  oxen — or,  as  some  sup- 
pose, through  embossed  heads  in  the  sides  of  the  ves- 
sel. This  is  perhaps  the  largest  vessel  of  molten 
brass  which  was  ever  made — other  large  reser- 
voirs, which  might  compete  in  dimensions  with  it, 
being  either  of  wood,  marble,  or  sheet  copper. 
The  Fountain  of  the  Lions  in  the  Moorish  palace 
(Alhambra),  at  Grenada,  is  of  stone,  and  the  ani- 
mals which  support  it.  are  lions:  but  it  supplies 
some  remarkable  analogies  to  Solomon’s  great 
work,  in  imitation  of  which  it  is  said  to  have  been 
constructed.  The  conception,  and  still  more  the 
successful  execution  of  this  great  work,  gives  a 
very  favourable  idea  of  the  state  of  the  metal- 
lurgical arts  in  the  time  of  Solomon. 

SEAL.  There  seem  to  have  been  two  kinds 
of  seals  in  use  among  the  Hebrews.  A notion 
appears  to  exist  that  all  ancient  seals,  being  signets, 
were  rings,  intended  to  be  worn  on  the  hand.  But 
this  was  by  no  means  the  case;  nor  is  it  so  now  in 
the  East,  where  signet,  rings  are  still,  probably, 
as  common  as  they  ever  were  in  ancient  times. 
Their  general  use  of  seals  was  very,  different  from 
ours,  as  they  were  employed  not  for  the  purpose 
of  impressing  a device  on  wax,  but  in  the  place 
of  a sign  manual,  to  stamp  the  name  of  the  owner 
upon  any  document,  to  which  he  desired  to  affix 
it.  The  name  thus  impressed  had  the  same  legal 
validity  as  the  actual  signature,  as  is  still  the 
case  in  the  East.  This  practice  may  be  illustrated 
by  a circumstance  which  occurred  in  the  last 
days  of  George  IV.  When  he  became  too  ill  to 
affix  his  sign  manual  to  the  numerous  docu- 
ments which  required  it,  a fac-simile  was  engraved 
on  a stamp,  by  which  it  was  in  his  presence  im- 
pressed upon  them.  By  this  contrivance  any 
one  may  give  to  any  paper  the  legal  sanction  of 
his  name,  although  he  may  be  unable  to  write ; 
and  the  awkward  contrivance  to  which  we  resort 
in  such  cases,  of  affixing  a cross  or  mark  with  the 
signature  of  an  attesting  witness,  is  unnecessary. 
For  this  purpose  the  surface  of  the  seal  is  smeared 
with  a black  pigment,  which  leaves  the  figure  of 
the  body  of  the  seal  upon  the  paper,  in  which  the 
characters  appear  blank  or  white.  The  characters 
required  are  often  too  large  or  too  many  to  be 
conveniently  used  in  a signet  ring,  in  which  case 
they  are  engraved  on  a seal  shaped  not  unlike 
those  in  use  among  ourselves,  which  is  carried  in 
the  bosom,  or  suspended  from  the  neck  over  t he 
breast.  This  custom  was  ancient,  and,  no  doubt, 
existed  among  the  Hebrews  (Gen.  xxxviii.  18; 
Cant.  viii.  6;  Haggai  ii.  23).  These  seals  are 
often  entirely  of  metal — brass,  silver,  or  gold; 
but  sometimes  of  stone  set.  in  metal.  As  an  ap- 
pendage thus  shaped  might  be  inconvenient  from 
the  pressure  of  its  edges,  the  engraved  stone  was 
sometimes  made  to  turn  in  its  metal  frame,  like 
our  swivel  seals,  so  as  to  present  a flat  surface 


SEBAC. 


SELAH. 


733 


to  the  bfdy.  Very  ancient  Egyptian  seals  of 
this  kind  have  been  found. 

If  a door  or  box  was  to  be  sealed,  it  was  first 
fastened  with  some  ligament,  over. which  was 
place.!  some  well  compacted  clay  to  receive  the 
impression  of  the  seal.  Clay  was  used  because  it 
hardens  in  the  heat  which  would  dissolve  wax  ; 
and  this  is  the  reason  that  wax  is  not  used  in  the 
East.  A person  leaving  property  in  the  custody 
of  strangers — say  in  one  of  the  cells  of  a caravan- 
serai— seals  the  door  to  prevent  the  place  from 
being  entered  without  legal  proof  of  the  fact. 
The  simplicity  of  the  Eastern  locks,  and  the  ease 
with  which  they  might  be  picked,  render  this 
precaution  the  more  necessary.  We  have  some- 
times seen  a coarsely  engraved  and  large  wooden 
seal  employed  for  this  purpose.  There  are  dis- 
tinct allusions  to  this  custom  in  Job  xxxviii.  14  ; 
Cant.  iv.  12. 

Signet  rings  were  very  common,  especially 
among  persons  of  rank.  They  were  sometimes 
wholly  of  metal,  but  often  the  inscription  was 
borne  by  a stone  set  in  silver  or  gold.  The  im- 
pression from  the  signet  ring  of  a monarch  gave 
the  force  of  a royal  decree  to  any  instrument  to 
which  it  was  affixed.  Hence  the  delivery  or 
transfer  of  it  to  any  one  gave  the  power  of  using 
the  royal  name,  and  created  the  highest  office  in 
the  state  (Gen.  xli.  42;  Esth.  iii.  10,  12;  viii.  2; 
Jer.  xxii.  24;  Dan.  vi.  10,  13,  17:  comp.  1 
Kings  xxi.  8).  Rings  being  so  much  employed 
as  seals,  were  called  tabbaoth;  which  is 

derived  from  a root  signifying  to  imprint,  and 
also  to  seal.  They  were  commonly  worn  as  or- 
naments on  the  fingers — usually  on  the  little  finger 
of  the  right  hand  (Exod.  xxxv.  22  ; Luke  xv.  22  ; 
James  ii.  2). 

SEASONS.  [Palestine.] 

SEBAC  C]3p)  occurs  in  two  or  three  places 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  considered  by  some 
to  be  the  name  of  a particular  plant,  as  the  bramble, 
smilax,  jasmine,  atriplex;  by  others  it  is  sup- 
posed to  denote  briars  or  thorns.  Celsius,  how- 
ever, has  shown  that  the  meaning  of  the  term  is 
perplexitas,  ‘ id  quod  densum  et  intrieatum  est 
that  it  is  especially  applied  to  the  branches  of 
trees,  shrubs,  and  climbing  plants,  and  is  hence 
rightly  translated  in  the  Auth.  Vers.,  in  Gen. 
xxii.  13,  ‘And  Abraham  beheld  a ram  caught  in 
a thicket  ( sebac ) by  his  horns.’  So  in  Isa.  ix.  18  ; 
x.  34.— J.  F.  R. 

SECUNDUS  (Se/cowSos),  a disciple  of  Thes- 
salonica,  who  accompanied  Paul  in  some  of  his 
voyages  (Acts  xx.  4). 

SEER.  [Prophecy.] 

SEIR  hairy ; Sept.  Hrjdp).  1.  A phy- 

larch  or  chief  of  the  Horim,  who  were  the  former 
inhabitants  of  the  country  afterwards  possessed 
by  the  Edomites. 

2.  Seir,  Mount.  The  mountainous  country 
of  the  Edomites,  extending  from  the  Dead  Sea  to 
the  Elanitic  Gulf.  The  name  is  usually  derived 
from  the  Seir  above-mentioned,  and  as  he  was  a 
great  chief  of  the  original  inhabitants,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  reject  such  a conclusion.  Some,  however, 
as  Gesenius,  would  rather  regard  Seir  as  an  appel- 
lative, and  as  denoting  ‘ the  shaggy  mountain,’ 
t.  e.  clothed  or  bristly  with  woods  and  forests  ; but 
this  is  not,  in  any  marked  way,  a characteristic  of 
the  lange  in  question.  These  mountains  were 


first  inhabited  by  the  Korim  (Gen.  xiv  6 ; 
Deut.  ii.  12);  then  by  Esau  (Gen.  xxxii.  3; 
xxxiii.  14,  16)  and  his  posterity  (Deut.  ii  4,  19; 
2 Chron.  xx.  10).  The  northern  part  of  them 
now  bears  the  designation  of  Jebal,  and  the 
southern  that  of  esh-Sherah,  which  seems  no  other 
than  a modification  of  the  ancient  name.  In 
modern  times  these  mountains  were  first  visited 
and  described  by  Burckhardt  (Syria,  p.  40),  but 
they  have  often  since  been  visited  by  other  tra- 
vellers, among  whom  Dr.  Robinson  has  perhaps 
furnished  the  best  description  of  them  (Bib.  Re- 
searches, ii.  551,  552).  At  the  base  of  the  chain 
are  low  hills  of  limestone  or  argillaceous  rock; 
then  lofty  masses  of  porphyry,  which  constitute 
the  body  of  the  mountain  ; above  these  is  sand- 
stone broken  into  irregular  ridges  and  grotesque 
groups  of  cliffs;  and  again,  further  back  and 
higher  than  all,  are  long  elevated  ridges  of  lime- 
stone without  precipices.  Beyond  all  these 
stretches  off  indefinitely  the  high  plateau  of  the 
great  eastern  desert.  The  height  of  the  porphyry 
cliffs  is  estimated  by  Dr.  Robinson  at  about  2000 
feet  above  the  Arabah  (the  great  valley  between 
the  Dead  Sea  and  Elanitic  Gulf)  ; the  elevation 
of  Wadv  Musa  [Sei.ah]  above  the  same  is  per- 
haps 2000  or  2200  feet;  while  the  limestone  ridges 
further  back  probably  do  not  fall  short  of  3000 
feet.  The  whole  breadth  of  the  mountainous 
tract  between  the  Arabah  and  the  eastern  desert 
above  does  not  exceed  15  or  20  geog.  miles. 
These  mountains  are  quite  different  in  character 
from  those  which  front  them  on  the  other  (west) 
side  of  the  Arabah.  The  latter  seem  to  be  not 
more  than  two-thirds  as  high  as  the  former,  and 
are  wholly  desert  and  sterile;  while  those  on  the 
east  appear  to  enjoy  a sufficiency  of  rain,  and 
are  covered  with  tufts  of  herbs  and  occasional 
trees.  The  valleys  are  also  full  of  trees  and  shrubs 
and  flowers,  the  eastern  and  higher  parts  being  ex- 
tensively cultivated, and  yielding  good  crops.  The 
general  appearance  of  the  soil  is  not  unlike  that 
around  Hebron ; though  the  face  of  the  country 
is  very  different.  It  is  indeed  the  region  of 
which  Isaac  said  to  his  son  Esau : ‘ Behold,  thy 
dwelling  shall  be  of  the  fatness  of  the  earth,  aifd 
of  the  dew  of  heaven  from  above’  (Gen.  xxvii.  39). 

3.  A mountain  in  the  territory  of  Judah  (Josh, 
xv.  10). 

SELAH.  [Psalms.] 

SELAH,  or  rather  Sela  (y|?p,  * rock,’  with 
the  article  in  2 Kings  xiv.  7,  ‘ the  rock  ;’ 

Gr.  7)  rierpa,  Petra,  which  has  the  same  significa- 
tion as  Selah  ; sometimes  plural,  at  Uerpcu),  the 
metropolis  of  the  Edomites  in  Mount  Seir.  In 
the  Jewish  history  it  is  recorded  that  Amaziah, 
king  of  Judah,  ‘slew  of  Edom  in  the  valley 
of  Salt  ten  thousand,  and  took  Selah  by  war,  and 
called  the  name  of  it  Joktheel  unto  this  day’ 
(2  Kings  xiv.  7).  This  name ’seems  however  to 
have  passed  away  with  the  Hebrew  rule  over 
Edom,  for  no  further  trace  of  it  is  to  be  found ; 
and  it  is  still  called  Selah  by  Isaiah  (xvi.  1). 
These  are  all  the  certain  notices  of  the  place  in 
Scripture  ; for  it  may  veil  be  doubted  whether  it 
is  designated  in  Judg  i.  36  and  Isa.  xlii.  11,  as 
some  suppose.  We  next  meet  with  it  as  the 
Petra  of  the  Greek  writers,  which  is  merely  a 
translation  of  the  native  name  Selah.  The  ear- 
liest notice  of  it  under  that  name  by  them  is 

3 a 2 


734 


SELAH. 


SELAH. 


connected  with  the  fact  that  Antigonus,  one  of 
Alexander’s  successors,  sent  two  expeditions 
against  the  Nabathaeans  in  Petra  (Diod.  Sic. 
xix.  94-98).  For  points  of  history  not  imme- 
diately connected  with  the  city,  see  Edomites; 
Nabathaeans.  Strabo,  writing  of  the  Naba- 
thaeans in  the  time  of  Augustus,  thus  describes 
their  capital : — 4 The  metropolis  of  the  Naba- 
thaeans is  Petra,  so  called  ; for  it  lies  in  a place 
in  other  respects  plain  and  level,  but  shut  in  by 
rocks  round  about,  but  within  having  copious 
fountains  for  the  supply  of  water  and  the  irriga- 
tion of  gardens.  Beyond  the  enclosure  the  re- 
gion is  mostly  a desert,  especially  towards  Judaea’ 
( Geog.  xvi.  p.  906).  At  this  time  the  town  had 
become  a place  of  transit  for  the  productions  of 
the  east,  and  was  much  resorted  to  by  foreigners 
(Diod.  Sic.  xix.  95 ; Strabo,  l.  c.).  Pliny  more 
definitely  describes  Petra  as  situated  in  a valley 
less  than  two  miles  (Roman)  in  amplitude,  sur- 
rounded by  inaccessible  mountains,  with  a stream 
(lowing  through  it  (Hist.  Nat.  vi.  28).  About 
th©  same  period  it  is  often  named  by  Josephus 
as  the  capital  of  Arabia  Petraea,  with  which 
kingdom  it  passed  under  the  immediate  sway  of 
the  Romans  in  the  time  of  Trajan,  whose  succes- 
sor Hadrian  seems  to  have  bestowed  on  it  some 
advantage,  which  led  the  inhabitants  to  give  hi? 
name  to  the  city  upon  coins,  several  of  which 
are  still  extant  (Mionnet,  Med.  Antiques,  v.  587  ; 
Eckhel,  Doctr.  Num.  ii.  503).  In  the  fourtn 
century,  Petra  is  several  times  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  and  Jerome;  and  in  the  Greek  ecclesi- 
astical Notitiae  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  it 
appears  as  the  metropolitan  see  of  the  third  Pa- 
lestine (Reland,  Talcest.  pp.  215,  217)  ; the  last- 
named  of  the.  bishops  is  Theodorus,  who  was 
present  at  the  council  of  Jerusalem  in  a.d.  536 
\Oriens  Christ,  iii.  725).  From  that  time  no* 
the  slightest  notice  of  Petra  is  to  be  found  in 
any  quarter;  and  as  no  trace  of  it  as  an  in- 
habited site  is  to  be  met  with  in  the  Arabian 
writers,  the  probability  seems  to  be  that  it  was 
destroyed  in  some  unrecorded  incursion  of  the 
desert  hordes,  and  was  afterwards  left  unpeopled. 
It  is  true  that  Petra  occurs  in  the  writers  of 
the  era  of  the  Crusades  ; but  they  applied 
this  name  to  Kerek,  and  thus  introduced  a 
confusion  as.  to  the  true  Petra  which  is  not  even 
now  entirely  removed.  It  was  not  until  the  re- 
ports concerning  the  wonderful  remains  in  Wady 
Musa  had  been  verified  by  Burckhardt,  that  the 
latter  traveller  first  ventured  to  assume  the  iden- 
tity of  the  site  with  that  .of  the  ancient  capital  of 
Arabia  Petraea.  He  expresses  this  opitiion  in 
a letter  dated  at  Cairo,  Sept.  12th,  1812,  pub- 
lished in  1819,  in  the  preface  to  his  Travels  in 
Nubia;  but  before  its  appearance  the  eminent 
geographer,  Carl  Ritter,  had  suggested  the  same 
conclusion  on  the  strength  of  Seetzen’s  intima- 
tions ( Erdkunde , ii.  117).  Burckhardt’s  view 
v/as  more  amply  developed  in  his  Travels  in 
Syria,  p.  431,  published  in  1822,  and  received 
the  high  sanction  of  his  editor,  Col.  Leake,  who 
produces  in  support  of  it  all  the  arguments  which 
have  since  been  relied  upon,  namely,  the  agree- 
ment of  the  ancient  descriptions  with  this  site, 
and  their  inapplicability  to  Kerek  ; the  coinci- 
dence of  the  ancient  specifications  of  the  distances 
of  Petra  from  the  Elanitic  Gulf  and  from  the 
4>cad  Sea,  which  all  point  to  Wady  Musa,  and 


not  to  Kerek ; (hat  Josephus,  Eusebius,and  Jerome 
testify  that  the  Mount  Hor  where  Aaron  died 
was  in  the  vicinity  of  Petra;  and  that  to  this 
day  the  mountain  which  tradition  and  circum- 
stances point  out  as  the  same,  still  rears  its  lonely 
head  above  the  vale  of  Wady  Musa,  while  in 
all  (he  district  of  Kerek  there  is  not  a single 
mountain  which  could  in  itself  be  regarded  as 
Mount  Hor;  and  even  if  there  were,  its  position 
would  be  incompatible  with  the  recorded  jour- 
neyings  of  the  Israelites  (Leake’s  Preface  to 
Burckhardt’s  Travels  in  Syria , pp.  vii.-ix. ; Ro- 
binson’s Palestine , ii.  576-579  ; 653-659). 


488.  [Petra,  from  above  the  Amphitheatre  ] 


The  ruined  city  lies  in  a narrow  valley,  sur- 
rounded by  lofty,  and,  for  the  most  part,  perfectly 
precipitous  mountains.  Those  which  form  its 
southern  limit  are  not  so  steep  as  to  be  impassable  ; 
and  it  is  over  these,  or  rather  through  Ihem, 
along  an  abrupt  and  difficult  ravine,  that  travel- 
lers from  Sinai  or  Egypt  usually  wind  their  labo- 
rious way  into  the  scene  of  magnificent  desolat  ion. 
The  ancient  and  more  interesting  entrance  is  on 
the  eastern  side,  through  the  deep  narrow  gorge 
of  Wady  Syke.  It  is  not  easy  to  determine  the 
precise  limits  of  the  ancient  city,  though  the  pre- 
cipitous mountains  by  which  the  site  is  encom- 
passed mark  with  perfect  distinctness  the  bound- 
aries beyond  which  it  never  could  have  extended. 
These  natural  barriers  seem  to  have  constituted 
file  real  limits  of  the  city  ; and  they  give  an  ex- 
tent of  more  than  a mile  in  length,  nearly  from 
north  to  south,  by  a variable  breadth  of  about 
half  a mile.  Several  spurs  from  the  surrounding 
mountains  encroach  upon  this  area;  but,  with 
inconsiderable  exceptions,  the  whole  is  fit 
for  building  on.  The  sides  of  the  valley  are 
walled  up  by  perpendicular  rocks,  from  four 
hundred  to  six  or  seven  hundred  feet  high.  The 
northern  and  southern  barriers  are  neither  so  lofty 
nor  so  steep,  and  they  both  admit  of  the  passage 
of  camels.  A great  many  small  recesses  or  side 
valleys  open  into  the  principal  one,  thus  enlarg- 
ing as  well  as  varying  almost  infinitely  the  out- 
line. With  only  one  or  two  exceptions,  however, 
they  have  no  outlet,  but  come  to  a speedy  and 
abrupt  termination  among  the  overhanging  cliffs, 
as  precipitous  as  the  natural  bulwark  that  bounds 
the  principal  valley.  Including  these  irregula- 
rities, the  whole  circumference  of  Petra  may  be 
four  miles  or  more.  The  length  of  this  irregular 
outline,  though  it  gives  no  idea  of  the  extent  of 
the  area  within  its  embrace,  is  perhaps  the  b«< 


&ELAH. 


SELAII. 


725 


treasure  of  the  extent  of  the  excavations.  A 
small  stream,  or  rather  mountain  torrent,  enters 
the  valley  from  ihe  east  through  the  Wady  Syke, 
and  after  a course  of  less  than  half  a mile,  passes 
out  nearly  opposite  to  the  point  of  entrance  on  the 
western  side.  This  pretty  brook  Hows  with  a 
scanty  stream  within  the  gorge  of  Wady  Syke, 
but  is  usually  quite  dry  after  entering  the  valley. 
Two  smaller  streams  flow  in  the  season  ot  rain 
from  the  gorges  of  the  northern  mountain,  and 
join  the  principal  torrent  along  courses  nearly 
at  right  angles  with  it.  The  bottom  of  this  river, 
as  for  distinction  it  may  be  called,  was  paved 
for  ihe  better  preservation  of  its  water  from  waste 
and  filth,  and  its  sides  were  faced  with  a wall  of 
hewn  stone.  Considerable  remains  of  the  wall 
and  pavement,  and  some  large  flagstones  belong- 
ing to  a paved  way  that  ran  along  the  side  ot  the 
river,  still  remain  ; as  do  the  foundations  of  several 
bridges  which  spanned  its  channel. 

The  chief  public  buildings  occupied  the  banks 
of  the  river  and  the  high  ground  further  south,  as 
their  ruins  sufficiently  show.  One  sumptuous 
edifice  remains  standing,  though  in  an  imperfect 
and  dilapidated  state.  It  is  on  the  south  side  of 
the  river,  near  the  western  side  of  the  valley,  and 
seems  to  have  been  a palace,  rather  than  a temple. 
It  is  called  Pharaoh's  house,  and  is  thirty-four 
paces  square.  The  walls  are  nearly  entire,  and 
on  the  eastern  side  they  are  still  surmounted  by  a 
handsome  cornice.  The  front,  which  looks  toward 
the  north,  was  ornamented  with  a row  of  columns, 
foil*  of  which  are  standing.  An  open  piazza, 
behind  the  colonnade,  extended  the  whole  length 
of  the  building.  In  the  rear  of  this  piazza  are 
three  apartments,  the  principal  of  which  is  en- 
tered under  a noble  arch,  apparently  thirty-five 
or  forty  feet  high.  It  is  an  imposing  ruin,  though 
not  of  the  purest  style  of  architecture,  and  is  the 
more  striking  as  the  only  edifice  now  standing 
in  Petra. 

A little  east  of  this,  and  in  a range  with  some 
of  the  most  beautiful  excavations  in  the  mountain 
on  the  east  side  of  the  valley,  are  the  remains  of 
what  appears  to  have  been  a triumphal  arch. 
Under  it  were  three  passages,  and  a number  of 
pedestals  of  columns,  as  well  as  other  fragments, 
would  lead  to  the  belief  that  a magnificent  colon- 
nade was  connected  with  it. 

A few  rods  south  are  extensive  ruins,  which 
probably  belonged  to  a temple.  The  ground  is 
covered  with  fragments  of  columns  five  feet  in 
diameter.  Twelve  of  these,  whose  pedestals  still 
remain  in  their  places,  adorned  either  side  of 
this  stately  edifice.  There  were  also  four  co- 
lumns in  front  and  six  in  the  rear  of  the  temple. 
They  are  nrosti’ate  on  the  ground,  and  Dr.  Olin 
counted  thirty-seven  massive  frusta,  of  which  one 
of  them  was  composed. 

Still  further  south  are  other  piles  of  ruins — 
columns  and  hewn  stones — parts  no  doubt  of  im- 
portant public  buildings.  The  same  traveller 
counted  not  less  than  fourteen  similar  heaps  of 
ruins,  having  columns  and  fragments  of  columns 
intermingled  with  blocks  of  stone,  in  this  part  of 
the  site  of  ancient  Petra.  They  indicate  the 
great  wealth  and  magnificence  of  this  ancient 
capital,  as  well  as  its  unparalleled  calamities. 
These  sumptuous  edifices  occupied  what  may  be 
called  the  central  parts  of  Petra.  A large  surface 
on  the  north  side  of  the  river  is  covered  with 


substructions,  which  probably  belonged  to  private 
habitations.  An  extensive  region  still  farther 
north  retains  no  vestiges  of  the  buildings  which 
once  covered  it.  The  same  appearances  are  ob- 
servable in  Thebes,  Athens,  and  Rome.  Public 
wealth  was  lavished  on  palaces  and  temples, 
while  the  houses  of  the  common  people  were 
slightly  and  meanly  built,  of  such  materials  as  a 
few  years,  or  at  most  a few  centuries,  were  suffi- 
cient to  dissolve. 


489.  [Ruined  Temple.] 


The  mountain  torrents  which,  at  times,  sweep 
over  the  lower  parts  of  the  ancient  site,  have  un- 
dermined many  foundations,  and  carried  away 
many  a chiselled  stone,  and  worn  many  a finished 
specimen  of  sculpture  into  unshapely  masses. 
The  soft  texture  of  the  rock  seconds  the  destruc- 
tive agencies  of  the  elements.  Even  the  accu- 
mulations of  rubbish,  which  mark  the  site  of  all 
other  decayed  cities,  have  mostly  disappeared ; 
and  the  extent,  which  was  covered  with  human 
•habitations  can  only  be  determined  by  the  broken 
pottery  scattered  over  ihe  surface,  or  mingled 
with  the  sand — the  universal,  and,  it  would 
seem,  an  imperishable  memorial  of  populous 
cities  that  exist,  no  longer.  These  vestiges,  the 
extent  of  which  Dr.  Olin  took  great  pains  to  trace, 
cover  an  area  one-third  as  large  as  that  of  Cairo, 
excluding  its  large  gardens  from  the  estimate, 
and  very  sufficient,  he  thinks,  to  contain  the  whole 
population  of  Athens  in  its  prosperous  days. 

The  attention  of  travellers  has  however  been 
chiefly  engaged  by  the  excavations  which,  having 
more  successfully  resisted  the  ravages  of  tune, 
constitute  at  present  the  great  and  peculiar  at- 
traction of  the  place.  These  excavations,  whether 
formed  for  temples,  tombs,  or  the  dwellings  of 
living  men,  surprise  the  visitor  by  their  incredible 
number  and  extent.  They  not  only  occupy  the 
front  of  the  entire  mountain  by  which  the  valley 
is  encompassed,  but  of  the  numerous  ravines  ana 
recesses  which  radiate  on  all  sides  from  this  en- 
closed area.  They  exist  too  in  great  numbers  in 
the  precipitous  rocks  which  shoot  out  from  the 
principal  mountains  into  the  southern,  and  still 
more  into  the  northern  part  of  the  site,  and  they  are 
seen  along  all  the  approaches  to  the  place,  which, 
in  the  days  of  its  prosperity,  were  perhaps 


726 


SELAH. 


SELAH. 


suburbs  of  the  overpeopled  valley.  Were  these 
excavations,  instead  of  following  all  the  sinuosi- 
ties of  the  mountain  and  its  numerous  gorges, 
ranged  in  regular  order,  they  probably  would 
form  a street  pot  less  than  five  or  six  miles  in 
length.  They  are  often  seen  rising  one  above 
another  in  the  face  of  the  cl  iff,  and  convenient 
steps,  now  much  worn,  cut  in  the  rock,  lead  in 
all  directions  through  the  fissures,  and  along  the 
sides  of  the  mountains,  to  the  various  tombs  that 
occupy  these  lofty  positions.  Some  of  them  are 
apparently  not  less  than  from  two  hundred  to  three 
or  four  hundred  feet  above  the  level  of  the  valley*. 
Conspicuous  situations,  visible  from  below,  were 
generally  chosen ; but  sometimes  the  opposite 
taste  nrevailed,  and  the  most  secluded  clitls, 
fronting  towards  some  dark  ravine,  and  quite 
hidden  from  the  gaze  of  the  multitude,  were 
preferred.  The  flights  of  steps,  all  cut  in  the 
solid  rock,  are  almost  innumerable,  and  they 
ascend  to  great  heights,  as  well  as  in  all  direc- 
tions. Sometimes  the  connection  with  the  city  is 
interrupted,  -and  one  sees  in  a gorge,  or  upon  the 
face  of  a cliff,  fifty  or  a hundred  feet  above 
him,  a long  series  of  steps  rising  from  the  edge 
of  an  inaccessible  precipice.  The  action  of 
•winter  torrents  and  other  agencies  have  worn  the 
easy  ascent  into  a channel  for  the  waters,  and 
thus  interrupted  the  communication. 


490.  [Interior  of  a Tomb.] 


The  situations  of  these  excavations  are  not 
more  various  than  their  forms  and  dimensions. 
Mere  niches  are  sometimes  cut  in  the  face  of  the 
rock,  of  little  depth  and  of  various  sizes  and 
forms,  of  which  it  is  difficult  to  conjecture  the 
object,  unless  they  had  some  connection  with 
votive  offerings  and  religious  rites.  B y far  the 
largest  number  of  excavations  were  manifestly 
.designed  as  places  for  the  interment  of  the  dead ; 
and  thus  exhibit  a variety  in  form  and  size,  of 
interior  arrangement  and  external  decorations, 
adapted  to  the  different  fortunes  of  their  occu- 
pants, and  conformable  to  the  prevailing  tastes 
of  the  times  in  which  they  were  made.  There 
are  many  tombs  consisting  of  a single  chamber, 
ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty  feet  square  by  ten  or  twelve 
in  height,  containing  a recess  in  the  wall  large 
enough  to  receive  one  or  a few  deposits  ; some- 
times on  a level  with  the  fioor,  at  others  one  or 
two  feet  above  it,  and  not  unfrequently  near  the 
ceiling,  at  the  height  of  eight  or  ten  feet.  Occa- 
sionally oblong  pits  or  graves  are  sunk  in  the 
Becesses,  or  in  the  floor  of  the  principal  apartment. 


Some  of  these  are  of  considerdtle  depth,  but  they 
are  mostly  choked  witli  stones  and  rubbish,  no 
that,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  it.  In  these 
plebeian  tombs  there  is  commonly  a door  of  small 
dimensions,  and  an  absence  of  all  architectural 
decorations ; in  some  of  larger  dimensions  there 
are  several  recesses  occupying  two  or  three  sides 
of  the  apartment.  These  seem  to  have  been 
formed  for  family  tombs,  besides  these  una- 
dorned habitations  of  the  humble  dead,  there  is  a 
vast  number  of  excavations  enriched  with  various 
architectural  ornaments.  To  these  unique  and 
sumptuous  monuments  of  the  taste  of  one  of  the 
most  ancient  races  of  men  with  whom  history  has 
made  us  acquainted,  Petra  is  indebted  for  its 
great  and  peculiar  attractions.  This  ornamental 
Architecture  is  wholly  confined  to  the  front,  while 
the  interior  is  quite  plain  ami  destitute  of  all 
decoration.  Pass  the  threshold,  and  nothing  is 
seen  but  perpendicular  walls,  hearing  the  marks 
of  the  chisel,  without  mouldings,  columns,  or 
any  species  of  ornament.  But  the  exteriors  of 
these  primitive  and  even  rude  apartments  exhibit 
some  of  the  most  beautiful  and  imposing  results 
of  ancient  taste  and  skill  which  have  remained 
to  our  times.  The  front  of  the  mountain  i3 
wrought  into  facades  of  splendid  temples,  rivalling 
in  their  aspect  and  symmetry  the  most  celebrated 
monuments  of  Grecian  art.  Columns  of  various 
orders,  graceful  pediments,  broad  rich  entabla- 
tures, and  sometimes  statuary,  all  hewn-out  of 
the  solid  rock,  and  still  forming  part  of  the  native 
mass,  transform  the  base  of  the  mountain  into  a 
vast  splendid  pile  of  architecture,  while  the  over- 
hanging cliffs,  towering  above  in  shapes  as  rugged 
and  wild  as  any  on  which  the  eye  ever  rested, 
form  the  most  striking  and  curious  of  contrasts. 
In  most,  instances  it  is  impossible  to  assign  these 
beaut  iful  blades  to  any  particular  style  of  archi- 
tecture. Many  of  the  columns  resemble  those  of 
the  Corinthian  order;  but  they  deviate  so  far 
both  in  their  forms  and  ornaments  from  this  ele- 
gant model,  that  it  would  he  impossible  to  rant 
them  m the  class.  A few  are  Doric,  which  are 
precisely  those  that  have  suffered  most  from  the 
ravages  of  time,  and  are  probably  very  ancient. 

But  nothing  contributes  so  much  to  the  almost 
magical  effect  of  some  of  these  monuments  as 
the  rich  and  various  colours  of  the  rock  out  of 
which,  or  more  properly  in  which,  they  are 
formed.  The  mountains  that,  encompass  the 
vale  of  Petra  are  of  sandstone,  of  which  red  is 
the  predominant  hue.  Their  surface  is  a good 
deal  burned  and  faded  by  the  elements,  and  is  of 
a dull  brick  colour,  and  most  of  the  sandstone 
formations  in  this  vicinity,  as  well  as  a number 
of  the  excavations  of  Petra,  exhibit  nothing  re- 
markable in  their  colouring  which  does  not  be- 
long to  the  same  species  of  rock  throughout  a 
considerable  region  of  Arabia  Petrsea.  Many  of 
them,  however,  are  adorned  with  such  a pro- 
fusion of  the  most  lovely  and  brilliant  colours  as 
it  is  scarcely  possible  to  describe.  Red,  purple, 
yellow,  azure  or  sky  blue,  black  and  white,  are 
seen  in  the  same  mass  distinctly  in  successive 
layers,  or  blended  so  as  to  form  every  shade  and 
hue  of  which  they  are  capable — as  brilliant  and 
as  soft  as  they  ever  appear  in  flowers,  or  in  the 
plumage  of  birds,  or  in  the  sky  when  illuminated 
by  the  most  glorious  sunset.  The  red  perpetually 
shades  into  pale,  or  deep  rose  Jr  flesl  colour,  auii 


SELEUCIA. 


SENNACHERIB. 


Again  approaches  the  lme  ot  the  lilac  or  violet. 
The  white,  which  is  often  as  pure  as  snow,  is 
occasionally  just  dashed,  with  blue  or  red.  The 
blue  is  usually  the  pale  azure  of  the  clear  sky,  or 
of  the  ocean,  but  sonnet imes  has  the  deep  and 
peculiar  shade  of  the  clouds  in  summer  when 
agitated  by  a tempest.  Yellow  is  an  epithet 
often  applied  to  sand  and  sandstone.  The  yellow 
of  the  rocks  of  Petraea  is  as  bright  as  that  of 
saffron.  It  is  more  easy  to  imagine  than  describe 
the  effect  of  tall,  graceful  columns,  exhibiting- 
these  exquisite  colours  in  their  succession  ot 
regular  horizontal  strata.  They  are  displayed 
to  still  greater  advantage  in  the  walls  and  ceil- 
ings of  some  of  the  excavations  where  there  is  a 
slight  dip  in  the  strata. 

We  have  thus  endeavoured  to  give  the  reader  a 
general  idea  of  this  remaikable  place.  Detailed 
descriptions  of  the  principal  monuments  have 
been  furnished  by  Laborde  ( Voyage  en  Arabia 
Petrosa ),  Robinson  ( Biblical  Researches),  and 
Olin  (Travels  in  the  East,  from  which  the  above 
description  lias  been  chiefly  taken).  Interesting 
notices  of  Petra  may  also  be  found  in  the  re- 
spective Travels,  Journeys,  &c.  of  Burckhardt, 
Macmichael,  Irby  and  Mangles,  Stephens,  Lord 
Lindsay,  anil  Schubert. 

SELEUCIA  (2eA evKeia),  a city  of  Syria, 
situated  west  of  Antioch  on  the  sea-coast,  near 
the  mouth  of  the  Orontes  ; sometimes  called  Se- 
leucia  Pieria,  from  the  neighbouring  Mount 
Pierus : and  also  Seleucia  ad  Mare,  in  order  to 
distinguish  it  from  several  other  cities  of  the 
same  name,  all  of  them  denominated  from  Se- 
leucus  Nicanor.  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  their 
first  journey  embarked  at  this  port  for  Cyprus 
(Acts  xiii.  4;  see  also  1 Macc.  xi.  8;  Joseph. 
Antiq.  xviii.  9.  8). 

SENEH  (HJD)  occurs  in  the  well  known 
passage  of  Exod.  iii.  2,  where  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  appeared  unto  Moses  in  a flaming  Are,  out, 
of  the  midst  of  a bush  ( seneh ),  and  the  bush  was 
not  consumed.  It  occurs  also  in  vers.  3 and  4, 
and  in  Dent,  xxxiii.  16.  The  Septuagint  trans- 
lates seneh  by  the  Greek  word  (iaTos,  which 
usually  signifies  the  Rubus  or  Bramble ; so  in 
the  New  Testament  /3 aros  is  employed  when  re- 
ferring to  the  above  miracle  of  the  burning  bush. 
The  monks  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Catherine, 
on  Mount  Sinai,  have  a species  of  rubus  planted 
in  their  garden,  near  their  Chapel  of  the  Burning 
Bush;  but  this  cannot  be  considered  as  any  proof 
of  its  identity  with  the  seneh.  from  the  little  atten- 
tion which  they  have  usually  paid  to  correctness 
in  such  points.  Bove  says  of  it,  ‘ C'est  une  es- 
pece  de  Rubus,  qui  est  voisin  de  notre  R.  fiu- 
ticosus.’  The  species  of  rubus  are  not  common 
either  in  Syria  or  Arabia.  Rubus  sanclus , the 
holy  bramble,  is  found  in  Palestine,  and  is  men- 
tioned by  Dr.  Russell  as  existing  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Aleppo,  and  Hasselqnist  found  a 
rubus  among  the  ruins  of  Scamieretta,  and  ano- 
ther in  the  neighbourhood  of  Seide.  It  is  also 
found  among  the  ruins  of  Petra  (?)  (Calcott). 
Celsius  and  others  quote  Hebrew  authors  as 
stating  that  Mount  Sinai  obtained  its  name  from 
the  abundance  of  these  bushes  {seneh),  ‘ D ictus 
est  mons  Sinai  de  nomine  ejus.’  But  no  species 
of  rubus  seems  to  have  been  discovered  in  a 
wild  state  on  this  mountain.  This  was  observed 


727 


by  Pococke.  lie  found,  however,  on  Mount  Horeh 
several  hawthorn  hushes,  and  says  that  the  holy 
hush  was  more  likely  to  have  been  a hawthorn 
than  a bramble,  and  that  this  must  have  been  the 
spot  where  the  phenomenon  was  observed,  being 
a sequestered  place  and  affording  excellent  pas- 
ture, whereas  near  the  chapel  of  the  holy  bush 
not  a single  her!)  grows.  Shaw  states  that  the 
Oxyacantha  arabica  grows  in  many  places  on 
St.  Catherine’s  mountain.  Bove  says,  on  as- 
cending Mount  Sinai,  ‘J’ai  trouve  eritre  les 
rocheis  de  granit  un  mespilus  voisin  de  l’oxv- 
aeantha.’  Dr.  Robinson  mentions  it  as  called 
zarur ; but  it  is  evident  that  vve  cannot  have 
anything  like  proof  in  favour  of  either  plant. — 

J.  F.  R. 

SEN1R.  [Hermon.] 


SENNACHERIB,  king  of  Assyria,  who,  in 
the  fourteenth  year  of  King  Hezekiah  (b.c.  713), 
came  up  against  all  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah, 
and  took  them  ; on  which  Hezekiah  agreed  to  pay 
the  Assyrian  monarch  a tribute  of  three  hundred 
talents  of  silver,  and  thirty  talents  of  gold.  This, 
however,  did  not  satisfy  Sennacherib,  who  sent 
an  embassy  with  hostile  intentions,  charging  He- 
zekiah with  trusting  on  ‘ this  bruised  leed  Egypt..’ 
The  king  of  Judah  in  his  perplexity  had  recourse 
to  Isaiah,  who  counselled  confidence  and  hope, 
giving  a divine  promise  of  miraculous  aid. 
Meanwhile  ‘ Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia,’  and  of 
Thebes  in  Egypt,  had  come  out  to  fight  against 
the  Assyrians,  who  had  threatened  Lower  Egypt 
with  an  invasion.  On  learning  this,  Sennacherib 
sent  another  deputation  to  Hezekiah,  who  thereon 
applied  for  aid  to  Jehovah,  who  promised  to 
defend  the  capital.  ‘ And  it  came  to  pass  that 
night  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  went  out  and 
smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians  an  hundred 
fourscore  and  five  thousand ; and  when  they 
arose  early  in  the  morning,  behold  they  were  all 
dead  corpses’ (2  Kings  xviii.  13,  sq.).  On  this, 
Sennacherib  returned  to  Nineveh,  and  was  shortly 
after  murdered  by  two  of  bis  sons  as  lie  was  pray- 
ing in  the  house  of  Nisroch  his  god  (2  Kings  xix. 
36,  sq. ; 2 Chron.  xxxii. ; Isa.  xxxvii.). 

With  this  narrative  other  authorities  (as  given 
in  Wilkinson’s  Ancient  Egypt,  i.  140,  sq.)  are 
found  to  agree.  The  Tirhakah  mentioned  in  tiie 
Bible,  as  given  above  (2  Kings  xix.  9),  was  king 
of  Upper  Egypt  at  the  time  that  Sethos.  a priest 
of  Pthah,  ruled  the  lower  country  (b.c.  710  to 
689).  During  Tirhakah ‘s  reign  Sennacherib 
threatened  to  invade  Lower  Egyj.t.  Sethos,  from 
his  sacerdotal  predilections,  was  averse  to  the 
soldiery,  whom  lie  treated  with  indignity.  They 
therefore  were  ill-affected  towards  their  priest- 
king,  whose  dominions  were  consequently  in 
great  danger  of  being  overrun.  Indeed  the 
troops  refused  to  march  against  the  enemy,  when 
their  effeminate  master  retired  to  the  shrine  of 
his  god  to  bewail  bis  misfortunes.  There  sinking 
into  a profound  sleep,  he  saw  the  Deity  in  a 
dream,  who  promised  him  safety  if  he  put  him- 
self at  the  head  of  his  troops,  and  marched  to 
meet  the  enemy.  Sellios  thereupon  proceeded  to 
Pelusium,  the  key  of  Lower  Egypt,  with  an  army 
made  up  solely  of  tradesmen  and  artisans.  The 
promised  assistance  soon  came.  Tirhakah  had 
heard  of  the  approach  of  Sennacherib,  and  at  onoa 
came  down  the  country,  entered  FaleslinGj  &ad 


728 


SEORAH. 


SEPTUAGINT. 


defeated  tlje  Assyrian  monarch,  thus  delivering 
the  territory  of  Sethos  as  well  as  that  of  Hezekiah. 
The  priests  of  Memphis,  however,  who  were  the 
informants  of  Herodotus,  gave  this  event  a colour- 
ing which  suited  their  own  purposes.  According 
to  their  account,  the  victory  was  owing  to  the 
miraculous  interposition  of  the  god  Pthah.  Keep- 
ing out  of  sight  the  effective  aid  rendered  by 
Tirhakah,  these  priests  told  Herodotus  that  when 
the  Assyrians  and  the  feeble  army  of  Sethos  stood 
over  against  each  other,  a prodigious  number  of 
rats  entered  the  enemy’s  camp  by  night.,  and 
gnawed  in  pieces  their  quivers  and  bows,  as  well 
as  the  handles  of  their  shields,  so  that  the  Assy- 
rians in  the  morning  finding  themselves  without 
arms,  fled  in  confusion,  and  suffered  considerable 
loss  of  men.  In  order  to  commemorate  the  event, 
a marble  statue  of  Sethos  was  erected  in  the 
temple  of  Pthah,  at  Memphis,  representing  the 
king,  holding  a rat  in  his  h .nd,  with  this  inscrip- 
tion, ‘ Whoever  thou  art,  learn  from  my  fortune 
to  reverence  the  gods." 

The  rationalistic  school  would  put  these  two 
accounts  on  the  same  footing,  and  so  reduce  the 
miracle  of  Scripture  to  a level  with  the  fiction  or 
the  legend  recorded  in  Herodotus.  A less  pre- 
judiced state  of  mind  will  think  it  very  probable 
that  what  is  common  in  the  two  narratives  rests 
on,  as  it  intimates,  some  extraordinary  event,  or, 
in  other  words,  some  unusual  and  special  display 
of  the  power  of  Him  whose  will  is  law,  and  whose 
•word  is  either  life  or  death.  A comparison  of 
the  two  narratives  in  the  original  sources  and 
statements  would  serve  to  illustrate  the  value,  as 
well  as  the  credibility,  of  the  Biblical  records. — 

J.  11.  B. 

SEORAH  (rnyti\  said  to  be  derived  from 
miffed,  ‘hair1),  by  some  written  also  shoreh,  de- 
rives its  name  in  Hebrew,  according  to  Lexi- 
cographers, from  its  long  awns,  or  beards,  as 
they  are  also  called,  somewhat  resembling  hair. 
The  word  is  very  similar  to  the  Arabic  shair, 
which  means  the  same  tiling,  and  has  already 
been  treated  of  under  the  head  of  Bari.ey. — 

J.  F.  R. 

SEPHAR  ("IDD  ; Sept.  Sa^pa),  ‘ a mounlain 
of  the  east,’  a line  drawn  from  which  to  Mesha 
formed  the  boundary  of  the  Joktanite  tribes  (Gen. 
x.  30).  The  name  may  remind  us  of  Saphar, 
which  the  ancients  mention  as  a chief  place  of 
South  Arabia.  The  excellent  map  of  Berghaus 
exhibits  on  the  south-west  point  of  Arabia  a 
mountain  called  Sabber,  which  perhaps  supplies 
the  spot  we  seek.  If  this  be  the  case,  and  Mesha 
be  (as  usually  supposed)  the  Mesene  of  the 
ancients,  the  line,  between  them  would  intersect 
Arabia  from  north-east  to  south-west.  That 
Sephar  is  called  ‘ a mountain  of  the  east,'  is  to  be 
understood  with  reference  to  popular  language, 
according  to  which  Arabia  is  described  as  the 
‘ east  country.’  See  Baumgarten,  Theolog.  Com- 
mentar  zum  A.  T.  i.  152. 

SEPHARAD  (TTDD  : Sept.’EcppaGa),  a region 
to  which  the  exiles  from  Jerusalem  were  taken 
(Obad.  20).  Most  of  the  Rabbins  regard  Sepha- 
rad  as  Spain,  interpreting  the  whole  passage  with 
reference  to  their  present  captivity  or  dispersion; 
and  so  we  find  it  in  the  Syriac  and  Chaldee. 
Jerome  inf'rnas  us  that  the  Hebrew  who  was  his 


instructor  told  him  that  Bosphorus  was  called  Se- 
pharad,  whither  Adrian  is  said  to  have  sent  the 
Jews  into  exile.  That  the  district  Sepharad  is  to 
be  sought  somewhere  in  the  region  of  the  Bos- 
phorus, has  lately  been  confirmed  by  a palaeogra- 
phic  discovery.  In  the  celebrated  cuneiform 
inscription  containing  a list  of  the  tribes  of 
Persia  (Niebuhr,  tab.  31,  lett.  i.),  after  Assyria, 
Gorydene,  Armenia,  Cappadocia , and  before 
Ionia  and  Greece,  is  found  the  name  CPaRaD, 
as  read  both  by  Bournouf  and  Lassen ; and  this 
was  recognized  also  by  De  Sacy  as  the  Sephar  of 
Obad.  20.  It  was  therefore  a district  of 
Western  Asia  Minor,  or  at.  least  near  to  it 
(Bournouf,  Mem.  stir  Deux  Inscr.  Cuneif., 
1836,  p.  147  ; Gesenius,  Thcsaitr.  s.  v.). 

SEPHAR V AIM  (D?V)pp  ; Sept,  2e7r</>apoi>- 
dip),  a city  of  the  Assyrian  empire,  whence 
colonists  were  brought  into  the  territory  of  Israel, 
afterwards  called  Samaria  (2  Kings  xvii.  24; 
xviii.  31;  xix.  13;  Isa.  xxxvi.  19;  xxxvii.  13). 
The  place  is  probably  represented  by  Sipphara 
in  Mesopotamia,  situated  upon  the  east  bank  of 
the  Euphrates  above  Babylon. 

SEPTUAGINT.  The  oldest  version  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  any  language  is  the  Greek 
translation  commonly  called  the  Septuagint, 
either  because  it  was  approved  and  sanctioned  by 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  consisting  of  seventy-two 
persons  ; or  rather  from  the  Jewish  account,  which 
states  that  so  many  individuals  were  employed 
in  making,  it.  The  history  of  this  version  is  ob- 
scure. Few  notices  of  its  origin  are  extant;  and 
even  such  as  do  exist  are  suspicious  and  contra- 
dictory. 

The  space  allotted  to  the  present  article  will  only 
allow  the  writer  to  touch  upon  the  chief  points 
relating  to  the  Septuagint.  A radical  and  mi- 
nute investigation,  such  as  the  subject  now  de- 
mands, cannot  therefore  be  expected.  Results 
alone  must  be  briefly  stated. 

The  oldest  writer  who  makes  mention  of  the 
Septuagint  is  Aristobulus,  an  author  referred  to 
by  Eusebius  ( Prcepar.  Evangel.),  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (Stromata).  According  to  Eusebius, 
he  was  a Jew,  who  united  the  Aristotelian  with 
the  Jewish  philosophy,  and  composed  a commen- 
tary on  the  law  of  Moses,  dedicated  to  Ptolemy 
Philometor.  He  is  also  mentioned  in  2 Mace, 
i.  10.  Both  Clement  and  Eusebius  make  him 
contemporary  with  Philometor;  for  the  passages 
in  their  writings,  in  which  they  speak  of  him 
under  Philadelpnus,  must  either  have  been  cor- 
rupted by  ignorant  transcribers,  or  have  been  so 
written  by  mistake  (Valckenaer,  §§  10,  11; 
Daehne,  p.  81,  sq.).  His  words  relative  to  the 
Septuagint  are  : p 8'  oAp  epppvela  twv  Sia  rod 
v6pov  'na.vrcav  iiri  rod  irpoaayopevOei/Tos  4>iAa- 
SeAipov  fiacriAecos — Appprpiov  rov  QaAppecos  irpay 
par eva apeuov  ra  tt ept  tovtcvv.  The  entire  passage, 
of  which  the  preceding  words  form  a brief  por- 
tion, has  occasioned  much  conjecture  and  dis- 
cussion. It  is ,gi veil  by  Valckenaer,  Thiersch, 
and  Frankel.  It  appears  to  us,  that  the  words  of 
Aristobulus  do  not  speak  of  any  prior  Greek 
translation , as  Hody  supposes,  or  indeed  of  any 
translation  whatever.  They  rather  refer  to  some 
brief  extracts  relative  to  Jewish  history,  which 
had  been  made  from  the  Pentateuch  into  a lan- 
guage commonly  understood  by  the  Jewi  ia 


SEPTUAGINT. 


SKPTUAG1NT. 


729 


Egypt,  before  the  time  of  Demetrius.  The  entire 
usw,  7)  S’  o\r)  kpgyveia  ruv  Sia  rov  vigov  navruiv, 
was  first  rendered  into  Greek  under  Philadelphus. 
Hodv,  and  after  him  Eichhorn,  conjectured  that 
the  fragments  of  Aristobulus  preserved  by  Euse- 
bius and  Clement  were  written  in  the  second 
century  by  another  Aristobulus,  a Christian ; and 
that  Aristobulus,  the  professed  Peripatetic,  was  a 
heathen.  But  the  quotation  of  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria ( contra  Julianum , lit),  vi.),  to  which  they  ap- 
peal, was  erroneously  made  by  that  father,  as  may 
be  seen  by  comparing  it  with  Clement.  Richard 
Simon  also  denied  the  authenticity  of  Aristo- 
bulus’s  remains  (Histoire  Critique  du  V.  T.,  p. 
189).  But  Yalckenaer  has  sufficiently  esta- 
blished their  authenticity.  The  testimony  of  Aris- 
tobulus is  corroborated  by  a Latin  scholion  re- 
cently found  in  a MS.  of  Plautus  at  Rome,  which 
has  been  described  and  illustrated  by  Ritschl  in 
a little  book  entitled  ‘ Die  Alexandrinischen 
Bibliotheken  und  die  Sammlung  der  Rorrter- 
ischen  Gedichte  naeh  Anleitung  eines  Plautin- 
ischen  Scholium's , Berlin,  1838.'  From  the  pas- 
sage, of  Aristobulus  already  quoted,  it  appears, 
that  in  the  time  of  Aristobulus,  i.  e.  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century  b.c.,  this  version  was 
considered  to  have  been  made  when  Demetrius 
Phalereus  lived,  or  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Soter. 
Hody,  indeed,  has  endeavoured  to  show  that  this 
account  contradicts  the  voice  of  certain  history, 
because  it  places  Demetrius  in  the  reign  of  Phil- 
adelphus. But  the  version  may  have  been  be- 
gun under  Soter  and  completed  under  Philadel- 
phus his  successor.  In  this  way  may  be  recon- 
ciled the  discordant  notices  of  the  time  when  it 
originated ; for  it  is  well  known  that  the  Pales- 
tinian account,  followed  by  various  fathers  of  the 
church,  asserts,  that  Ptolemy  Soter  carried  the 
work  into  execution  ; while  according  to  Aristeas, 
Philo,  Josephus,  &c.  &c.,  his  son  Philadelphus 
was  the  person.  Hody  harmonises  the  discre- 
pancy, by  placing  the  translation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  the  two  years  during  which  father  and 
son  reigned  conjointly,  286  and  285  B.c.  The 
object  of  Demetrius,  in  advising  Soter  to  have  in 
his  library  a copy  of  the  Jewish  laws  in  Greek,  is 
not  stated  by  Aristobulus ; but  Aristeas  relates 
that  the  librarian  represented  it  tothekingasa 
desirable  thing  that  such  a book  should  be  de- 
posited in  ihe  Alexandrian  library.  Some  think 
that  a literary,  rather  than  a religious  motive, 
led  to  the  version.  So  Havernick.  This,  how- 
ever, may  be  reasonably  doubted.  Hody,  Sturz, 
Frankel,  and  others,  conjecture  that  the  object 
was  religious  or  ecclesiastical.  Eichhorn  refers 
it  to  private  impulse  ; while  Hug  takes  the  ob- 
ject to  have  been  political.  It  is  not  probable, 
however,  that  the  version  was  intended  for  the 
king's  use,  or  that  he  wished  to  obtain  from  it 
information  respecting  the  best  mode  of  governing 
a nation,  and  enacting \laws  for  its  economic 
well-being.  The  character  and  language  of  the 
version  unite  to  show  that  an  Egyptian  king,  pro- 
bably ignorant  of  Greek,  could  not  have  under- 
stood the  work.  Perhaps  an  ecclesiastical  motive 
prompted  the  Jews,  who  were  originally  interested 
in  it;  while  Demetrius  Phalereus  and  the  king 
miv  have  been  actuated  by  some  other  de- 
»ign.  < 

It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  ascertain, 
whether  Aristobulus 's  words  imply  that  all  the 


books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  translated  into 
Greek  under  Philadelphus,  or  simply  the  Penta- 
teuch. Hody  contends  that  rigos,  the  teim 
used  by  Aristobulus,  meant  at  that  time  the 
Mosaic  books  alone ; although  it  was  afterwards 
taken  in  a wider  sense,  so  as  to  embrace  all  the 
Old  Testament.  Yalckenaer  thinks  that  all  the 
books  were  comprehended  under  it.  It  is  cer- 
tainly more  natural  to  restrict  it  to  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  Pentateuch,  therefore,  was  completed 
under  Philadelphus. 

The  next  historical  testimony  regarding  the 
Septuagint,  is  the  prologue  of  Jesus  the  son  of 
Sirach.  a document  containing  the  judgment  of  a 
Palestinian  Jew  concerning  the  version  before 
us.  His  words  are  these  : ov  g6vov  ravra 
aAAa  feat  avrhs  6 vogos  /cal  at  7 rpocprjrelai  tea  1 to 
Aonra  run/  /3t/3AtW  ov  gikpav  e%et  ryv  8ia<popav 
iv  kavrois  Xe-yogeva — ‘and  not  only  these  things, 
but  the  law  itself,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  rest 
of  the  books,  have  no  small  difference  when  they 
are  spoken  in  their  own  language.'  Frankel  has 
endeavoured  to  throw  suspicion  on  this  passage, 
as  though  it  were  unauthentic ; but  his  reasons 
are  extremely  slender  (p.  21,  note  w).  It  appears 
from  it,  that  the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the  other 
books,  had  been  translated  into  Greek  in  the 
time  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  i.  e.  that  of  Ptolemy 
Phvscon,  130  b.c. 

The  account  given  by  Aristeas  comes  next 
before  us.  This  writer  pretends  to  be  a Gentile, 
and  a favourite  at  the  court  of  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus, King  of  Egypt.  In  a letter  addressed 
to  his  brother  Philocrates,  he  relates  that  Phila- 
delphus, when  forming  a library  at  great  expense, 
was  advised  by  Demetrius  Phalereus  to  apply  to 
the  Jewish  high  priest  Eleazar  for  a copy  of  the 
book  containing  the  Jewish  laws.  Having  pre- 
viously purchased  the  freedom  of  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  captive  Jews  in  Egypt,  the 
king  sent  Aristeas  and  Andreas  to  Jerusalem, 
with  a letter  requesting  of  Eleazar  sevenly-two 
persons  a#  interpreters,  six  out  of  each  tribe. 
They  were  dispatched  accordingly,  with  a mag- 
nificent copy  of  the  law  ; and  were  received  and 
entertained  by  the  king  for  several  days,  with 
great  respect  and  liberality.  Demetrius  led  them 
to  an  island,  probably  Pharos,  where  they  lodged 
together.  The  translation  was  finished  in  seventy- 
two  days,  having  been  written  down  by  Deme- 
trius, piece  by  piece,  as  agreed  upon  alter  mutual 
consultation.  It  was  then  publicly  read  by 
Demetrius  to  a number  of  Jews  whom  he  had 
summoned  together.  They  approved  of  it;  and 
imprecations  were  uttered  against  any  one  who 
should  presume  to  alter  it.  The  Jews  requested 
permission  to  take  copies  of  it  for  their  use;  and 
it  was  carefully  preserved  by  command  of  the 
king.  The  interpreters  were  sent  home,  loaded 
with  presents.  Josephus  agrees  in  the  main 
with  Aristeas ; but  Philo’s  account  differs  in  a 
number  of  circumstances.  Justin  Martyr  en- 
deavoured to  harmonise  the  various  traditions 
current  in  his  day,  but  without  success.  Exagge- 
rations and  glaring  falsehoods  had  been  added  to 
the  story  of  Aristeas,  in  the  days  of  Justin  and 
Epiphanius,  wh’cb  these  credulous  men  received 
without  hesitation  and  to  which  it  is  probable 
they  themselves  contributed.  The  interpreters 
are  said  to  have  been  shut  up  in  separate  cells, 
where  they  made  separate  versions,  which  wera 


730 


SEPTUAGINT. 


SEPTUAGINT. 


fcurul  on  comparison  to  agree  in  every  minute 
particular.  Hence  they  were  looked  upon  as  in- 
spired, and  their  version  as  infallibly  correct. 
Most  of  the  fathers  received  this  tradition,  and 
the  early  Jewish  abbins  equally  believed  it. 
Even  Philo  regarded  the  translators  as  inspired; 
but  it  is  evident  that  he  was  ignorant  of  Hebrew. 
Jerome  seems  to  have  been  the  lirst  who  distinctly 
rejected  the  story  of  their  inspiration,  although 
he  did  not  doubt  the  veracity  of  Aristeas,  whose 
simpler  narrative  makes  no  mention  of  inspira- 
tion. Until  the  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, the  origin  of  the  Septuagint  as  given  by 
Aristeas,  was  firmly  believed  ; while  the  numerous 
additions  that  had  been  made  to  the  original 
story,  in  the  progress  of  centuries,  were  unhesi- 
tatingly received  as  equally  genuine.  The  story 
was  first  reckoned  improbable  by  L.  Vives  (in  a 
note  to  Augustine's  De  Cidtate  Dei) ; then  Sea- 
liger  asserted  that  it  was  written  by  a Jew  : and 
Richard  Simon  was  too  acute  a critic  not  to  per- 
ceive the  truth  of  Scaliger’s  assertion.  Hody 
was  the  first  who  demonstrated  with  great  learn- 
ing, skill,  and  discrimination,  that  the  narrative 
could  not  be  authentic.  It  is  now  universally 
pronounced  fabulous. 

Tiie  work  of  Aristeas,  which  was  first  pub- 
lished in  the  original  Greek  by  Simon  Schard, 
at  Basel,  1561,  8vo„  and  several  times  reprinted, 
was  also  given  by  Hody  in  Greek  and  Latin,  in 
his  book  entitled  De  Bibliorum  textibus  origi- 
nalibus , versionibus  Greeds , et  Latina  Vulgata , 
Oxonii,  1705,  fol.  The  most  accurate  edition, 
however,  is  that  by  Gallandi,  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Vet . Patrum , vol.  ii.  It  was  translated  into 
English  bv  Whiston,  and  published  at  London 
in  1727,  8vo. 

It  is  a difficult  point  to  determine  the  extent  to 
which  truth  is  mixed  up  w'ith  fable  in  this  an- 
cient story.  However  absurd  the  traditions  may 
appear  in  the  view  of  modern  criticism,  some 
truth  must  lie  at  the  basis  of  them.  In  separating 
the  true  from  the  fabulous,  it  appeals  to  us  that 
Hody  has  not  been  successful.  From  the  ex- 
treme credulity  manifested  in  the  reception  of  the 
fable,  he  has  gone  to  the  extreme  of  scepticism. 
Yet  he  has  been  generally  followed.  That  the 
Pentateuch  was  translated  a considerable  time 
before  the  prophets,  is  not  warranted  by  the  lan- 
guage of  Justin,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertul- 
lian,  Epiphanius,  and  Hilary  of  Poitiers;  al- 
though we  are  aware  that  Aristeas,  Josephus, 
Philo,  the  Talmudists,  and  Jerome,  mention  the 
law  only  as  having  been  interpreted  by  the 
seventy-two.  Iiody  thinks  that  the  Jews  first 
resorted  to  the  reading  of  the  prophets  in  their 
synagogues  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  for- 
bade the  use  of  the  law;  and,  therefore,  that 
the  prophetic  portion  was  not  translated  till 
after  the  commencement  of  Philometor’s  reign. 
It  is  wholly  improbable,  however,  that  Anti- 
ochus interdicted  the  Jews  merely  from  reading 
the  Pentateuch  (comp.  1 Macc.  i.  41,  &c.  ; 
and  Josephus,  Antiq.  xii.  5 ; Frankel,  pp. 
48,  49).  The  interval  between  the  translating 
of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  of  which  many 
speak,  was  probably  very  short.  Hody’s  proof 
that  the  book  of  Joshua  was  not  translated  till 
upwards  of  twenty  yeai-3  after  the  death  of  Ptolemy 
Lagi,  founded  upon  the  word  yaur6s , is  perfectly 
nugatory ; although  the  time  assigned  cannot  be 


far  from  the  truth.  The  epilogue  to  the  book  of 
Esther  does  not  state  that  this  part  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  translated  under  Ptolemy  Philo- 
metor,  or  that  it  was  dedicated  to  him.  On  tht 
contrary,  it.  refers  to  a certain  epistle  containing 
apocryphal  additions  to  the  canonical  book  of 
Esther  (Valckenaer,  pp.  33,  G3).  It  is  a fruitless 
task  to  attempt  to  ascertain  the  precise  times  a. 
which  separate  portions  of  the  version  were  made. 
All  that,can  be  known  with  any  degree  of  proba- 
bility is,  that  it  was  begun  under  Lagi,  and 
finished  before  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  Ptolemy 
Physcon. 

It  is  obvious,  from  internal  evidence,  that  there 
W'ere  several  translators ; but  certainly  not  se- 
venty-two. Hody  has  endeavoured  to  parcel  out 
their  version  into  small  portions,  assigning  each 
part  to  a separate  person,  and  affirming  that  they 
were  put  together  in  one  cento  without  revision  ; 
but  his  notions  of  ligid  uniformity  in  the  trans- 
lators are  such  as  exclude  perspicuity,  freedom, 
variety,  and  elegance.  There  is  no  ground  for 
believing  that  the  Pentateuch  proceeded  from 
more  than  one  interpreter,  who  was  unquestion- 
ably the  most,  skilful  ot  all.  The  entire  work  was 
made  by  five  or  six  individuals  at.  least;  and 
must,  consequently,  be  of  unequal  value. 

In  opposition  to  the  Pseudo- Aristeas,  we  can- 
not but  maintain  that,  the  translators  were  Alex- 
andrian, not  Palestinian  Jews,  The  internal 
character  of  the  entire  version,  particularly  of  the 
Pentateuch,  sufficiently  attests  the  fact.  We 
find,  accordingly,  that  proper  names,  and  terms 
peculiar  to  Egypt  are  rendered  in  such  a manner 
as  must  have  been  unintelligible  to  a Greek- 
speaking population  other  than  the  Egyptian 
Jews.  That  the  translators  were  Egyptians  has 
been  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  by  Hody  ; 
although  some  of  his  examples,  such  as  the  words 
yeveais  and  iirndSpopos,  are  not  appropriate  or 
conclusive.  Frankel  supposes  that  the  version 
was  made  not  only  at  different  times,  but  at 
different  places.  This  is  quite  arbitrary.  There 
is  no  reason  for  believing  with  him,  that  differeni 
books  originated  after  this  fashion,  the  impulse 
having  gone  forth  from  Alexandria,  and  spread- 
ing to  localities  where  the  Jews  had  settled, 
especially  Cyrene,  Leontopolis,  and  even  Asia 
Minor. 

Next  to  the  Pentateuch,  in  point  of' goodness, 
is  the  version  of  the  Proverbs.  The  translator  of 
Job,  though  familiar  with  the  Greek  poets,  and 
master  of  an  elegant  diction,  was  very  imper- 
fectly acquainted  with  Hebrew.  The  Psalms 
and  Prophets  have  been  indifferently  executed. 
Jeremiah  is  best  translated  among  the  prophetic 
books.  Amos  and  Ezekiel  stand  in  the  next  rank. 
Isaiah  met  with  a very  incompetent  translator. 
The  version  of  Daniel  is  the  worst.  The  version 
of  Theodotion  was  very  early  substituted  for  it. 
Michaelis  and  Bertholdt.  conjecture  that  Daniel 
was  first  translated  after  the  advent  of  Christ.  It 
is  certain  that  Jerome  did  not.  know  the  reason 
why  Theodotion’s  had  been  substituted  in  place 
of  that  belonging  to  the  Septuagint.  Most  of  the 
historical  books  are  not  well  interpreted. 

With  regard  to  the  external  form  of  the  MS., 
or  MSS.  from  which  this  version  was  made,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  see  that  the  letters  were  substan- 
tially the  same  as  the  present  square  characters 
— that  there  were  no  vowel-points — that  there  wu 


SEPTUAGINT. 


SEPTUAGINT 


oo  separation  into  words ; no  final  h tters ; that 
the  letter  & wanted  the  diacritic  point ; and  that 
words  were  frequently  abbreviated.  The  division 
into  verses  and  chapters  is  much  later  than  the 
age  of  (lie  translators.  Our  present  editions  have 
been  printed  in  conformity  with  the  division  into 
chapters  made  in  the  twelfth  century;  though 
they  are  not  uniform  in  this  particular.  Still, 
however,  many  MSS.  have  separations  in  the 
text.  The  Alexandrine  codex  is  said  by  Grabe 
to  have  one  hundred  and  forty  divisions,  or  as 
they  may  be  called,  chapters , in  the  book  of 
Numbers  alone  (Prolegomena,  c.  i.  § 7). 

The  titles  given  to  the  books,  such  as  rejects, 
See.,  could  hardly  have  been  affixed  by  the  trans- 
lators, since  often  they  do  not  harmonise  with  the 
version  of  the  book  itself  to  which  they  belong. 

It  has  been  inquired,  whether  the  translator  of 
the  Pentateuch  followed  a Hebrew  or  a Samaritan 
codex.  The  Septuagint  and  Samaritan  harmonise 
in  more  than  a thousand  places,  where  they  differ 
from  the  Hebrew.  Hence  it  has  been  supposed 
that  the  Samaritan  edition  was  the  basis  of  the 
version.  Various  considerations,  have  been  ad- 
duced in  favour  of  this  opinion  ; and  the  names 
of  De  Dieu,  Selden,  Whiston,  Hottinger,  Hassen- 
camp,  and  Eichhorn,  are  enlisted  on  its  behalf. 
But  the  irreconcilable  enmity  subsisting  between 
the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  both  in  Egypt  and 
Palestine,  effectually  militates  against  it.  Be- 
sides, in  the  prophets  and  hagiographa  the 
number  of  variations  from  the  Masoretic  text  is 
even  greater  and  more  remarkable  than  those  in 
the  Pentateuch ; whereas  the  Samaritan  extends 
no  farther  than  the  Mosaic  i books.  No  solu- 
tion, therefore,  can  be  satisfactory,  which  will 
not  serve  to  explain  at  once  the  cause  or  causes 
both  of  the  differences  between  the  Seventy  and 
Hebrew  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  those  found 
in  the  remaining  books.  The  problem  can  be 
fully  solved  only  by  such  an  hypothesis  as  will 
throw  light  on  the  remarkable  form  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  in  Jeremiah  and  Esther,  where  it  deviates 
most  from  the  Masoretic  MSS.,  presenting  such 
transpositions  and  interpolations  as  excite  the 
surprise  of  the  most  superficial  reader.  How, 
then,  is  the  agreement  between  the  Samaritan 
and  Septuagint  to  be  explained  ? 

Some  suppose  that  the  one  was  interpolated 
fiom  the  other — a conjecture  not  at  all  probable. 
Jalin  and  Bauer  imagine  that  the  Hebrew  MS. 
used  by  the  Egyptian  Jews  agreed  much  more 
closely  with  the  Samaritan  in  the  text  and  forms 
of  its  letters,  than  the  present  Masoretic  copies. 
This  hypothesis,  however,  even  if  it  were  other- 
wise correct,  would  not  account  for  the  great 
harmony  existing  between  the  Samaritan  and 
Septuagint. 

Another  hypothesis  has  been  put  forth  by 
Gesenius  ( Commentatio  de  Pent.  tSamar.  orig., 
indole , et  auctor.),  viz.  that  both  the  Samaritan 
and  Septuagint  flowed  from  a common  recension 
(eKdoais)  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  one  older 
than  either,  and  different  in  many  places  from 
the  recension  of  the  Masoretes  now  in  common 
use.  ‘ This  supposition,1  says  Prof.  Stuart,  by 
whom  it  is  adopted,  4 will  account  for  the  differ- 
ences and  for  the  agreements  of  the  Septuagint 
and  Samaritan.1 

The  following  objections  have  been  made  to 
this  ingenious  and  plausible  hypothesis. 


731 

1.  It  assumes,  that  before  the  whole  of  ln<  Old 
Testament  was  written  there  had  been  a recension 
or  revision  of  several  books.  But  t here  is  no 
record  or  tradition  in  favour  of  the  idea,  that 
inspired  men  applied  a correcting  hand  in  this 
manner  till  the  close  of  the  canon.  To  say  that 
others  did  so,  is  not  in  unison  with  right  notions 
of  the  inspirat  ion  of  Script  ure,  unless  it  be  equally 
affirmed  that  they  corrupted,  under  the  idea  of 
correcting , the  holy  books  ’ 

2.  This  hypothesis  implies,  that  a recension 
took  place  at  a period  comparatively  early,  be- 
fore any  books  had  been  written  except  the 
Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  and  the  writings  of 
David  and  Solomon.  It  it  lie  improbable  that  a 
revised  edition  was  made  betore  the  completion 
of  the  canon,  it  is  much  more  improbable  that  it 
was  undertaken  when  few  books  were  written. 

3.  It  supposes,  that  an  older  recension  was  still 
current  after  Ezra  had  revised  the  whole  collec- 
tion and  closed  the  canon.  In  making  the 
Septuagint  version,  it  is  very  improbable  that 
the  Jew's,  who  were  the  translators,  followed  a 
recension  far  inferior  in  their  estimation  to  the 
copy  of  the  sacred  books  corrected  by  Ezra. 
This  objection  rests  on  the  assumption  that.  Ezra 
completed  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  hav- 
ing been  prompted,  as  well  as  inspired,  toarrange 
and  revise  the  books  of  Scripture.  Such  is  the 
Jewish  tradition  ; and  although  a majority  of 
the  German  critics  disallow  its  truth,  yet  it  is 
held  by  very  aide  and  accomplished  men. 

Prof.  Lee  ( Prolegomena  to  Bagsters  Poly- 
glott ) accounts  for  the  agreement  between  the 
Septuagint  and  Samaritan  in  another  way.  He 
conjectures  that  the  early  Christians  interspersed 
their  copies  with  Samaritan  glosses,  which  igno- 
rant transcribers  afterwards  inserted  in  $ie  text. 
But  he  has  not  shown  that  Christians  in  general 
were  acquainted  with  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
and  its  additions  to  the  Hebrew  copy  ; neither 
has  lie  taken  into  account  tire  reverence  enter- 
tained by  the  early  Christians  for  the  sacred 
books.  We  cannot,  therefore,  attribute  the  least 
probability  to  this  hypothesis. 

t Another  hypothesis  has  been  mentioned  by 
Frankel,  viz.  that  the  Septuagint  flowed  from  a 
Chaldee  version,  which  was  used  before  and  after 
the  time  of  Ezra — a version  inexact  and  para- 
phrastic, which  had  undergone  many  alterations 
and  corruptions.  This  was  first  proposed  by  R. 
Asaria  di  Rossi,  in  the  midst  of  other  conjectures. 

Frankel  admits  tlfat  the  assumption  of  such  a 
version  is  superfluous,  except  in  relation  to  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  where  much  is  gained  by 
it.  This  Chaldee  version  circulated  in  various 
transcripts  here  and  there;  and  as  the  same  care 
was  not  applied  in  preserving  its  integrity  as  was 
exercised  with  respect  to  the  original  Hebrew, 
the  copies  of  it  presented  considerable  differences 
among  themselves.  Both  the  Greek  version  and 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  were  taken  from  it. 
Frankel  concedes  that  this  hypothesis  is  not  satis- 
factory with  regard  to  the  Septuagint,  because 
the  mistakes  found  in  that  version  must  have 
frequently  originated  in  misunderstanding  tne 
Iiebreio  text.  There  is  no  evidence,  howeve-, 
that  any  Targum  or  Chaldee  version  had  been 
made  before  Ezra's  time,  or  soon  after.  Expla- 
nations of  the  lessons  publicly  read  by  the  Jews 
were  given  in  Chaldee,  not  regularly  perhaps,  or 


732 


SEPTUAGINT. 


SEPTUAGINT. 


uniformly  ; but  it  can  scarcely  be  assumed  that 
a Chaldee  version  had  been  made  out  in  writing, 
and  circulated  in  dilfereut.  copies.  Glosses,  or 
short  expositions  of  words  and  sentences,  were 
furnished  by  the  public  readers  for  the  benefit  of 
the  people;  and  it  is  by  no  means  improbable 
that  several  of  these  traditional  comments  were 
incorporated  with  the  version  by  the  Jewish 
translators,  to  whom  they  were  familiar. 

In  short,  no  hypothesis  yet  proposed  commends 
itself  to  general  reception,  although  the  Vorstu- 
dien  of  Frankel  have  probably  opened  up  the  way 
towards  a correct  solution.  The  great  source 
from  which  the  striking  peculiarities  in  the  Se- 
venty and  the  Samaritan  flowed,  appears  to  us 
to  have  been  early  traditional  interpretations 
current  among  the  Jews,  targums , or  para- 
phrases— not  written  perhaps,  but  orally  circu- 
lated. Such  glossarial  versions,  which  must  have 
circulated  chiefly  in  Palestine,  require  to  be 
traced  back  to  an  °arly  epoch;  to  the  period  of 
the  second  temple.  They  existed,  in  substance 
at  least,  in  ancient  *times,  at  once  indicating  and 
modifying  the  Jewish  mode  of  interpretation. 
The  Alexandrian  mode  of  interpretation  stood 
in  close  connection  with  the  Palestinian;  for  the 
Jews  of  Egypt  looked  upon  Jerusalem  as  their 
chief  city,  and  the  Sanhedrim  of  Jerusalem  as 
their  ecclesiastical  rulers.  If,  therefore,  we  can 
ascertain  the  traditional  paraphrases  of  the  one, 
those  of  the  other  must  have  been  substantially 
the  same  (see  Gieseler’s  Eccles.  Hist.,  transl.  by 
Cunningham,  vol.  i.  p.  30). 

Tychsen  ( Tentamen  de  variis  codd.  Heb.  V.  T. 
MSS.  gener.)  thought  that  the'  Septuagint  was 
made  from  the  Hebrew  transcribed  into  Hebrew- 
Greek  characters.  It  is  almost  unnecessary  to 
refer  to  such  a notion.  It  never  obtained  general 
currency,  having  been  examined  and  refuted  by 
Dathe,  Michaelis,  and  Hassencamp. 

The  Septuagint  does  not  appear  to  have  ob- 
tained general  authority  as  long  as  Hebrew  was 
understood  at  Alexandria.  It  is  remarkable  that 
Aristobulus  quotes  the  original,  even  where  it 
departs  from  the  text  of  the  Seventy.  The  ver- 
sion was  indeed  spread  abroad  in  Egypt,  northern 
Africa,  and  Asia  Minor  ; but  it  may  be  doubted, 
whether  it  was  ever  so  highly  esteemed  by  the 
Jews  as  to  be  publicly  read  in  their  synagogues, 
in  place  of  the  original.  The  passages  quoted 
by  Hody  from  the  fathers  go  to  prove  no  more 
than  that  it  was  found  in  the  synagogues.  From 
the  116  Novella  of  Justinian  it  would  seem,  that 
some  Jews  wished  the  public  interpreter,  who 
read  the  lessons  out  of  the  law  and  the  prophets 
in  Hebrew,  to  give  his  explanations  of  them  in 
Greek ; while  others  desired  to  have  them  in 
Chaldee.  The  reader,  therefore,  employed  this 
translation  as  explanatory  of  the  sections  recited 
in  the  original.  It  cannot  be  shown  that,  after 
the  Septuagint  had  been  made,  the  Jews  com- 
monly laid  aside  the  original,  and  substituted 
die  Greek  in  the  synagogue-service.  Though 
they  highly  esteemed  the  Greek,  they  did  not 
regard  it  as  equal  to  the  Hebrew.  Philo  and 
Josephus  adopted  it;  and  it  was  universally  re- 
ceived by  the  early  Christians.  Even  the  Tal- 
mudists make  honourable  mention  of  its  origin. 
It  is  true  that  the  Talmud  also  speaks  of  it.  as 
an  abomination  to  the  Jews  in  Palestine;  but 
this  refers  to  the  second  century  and  the  time 


following , not  to  the  period  immediately  after  the 
appearance  of  Christ. 

When  controversies  arose  between  Christians 
and  Jews,  and  the  former  appealed  with  irresist- 
ible force  of  argument  to  this  version,  the  latter 
denied  that  it  agreed  with  the  Hebrew  original. 
Thus  by  degrees  it  became  odious  to  the  Jews — 
as  much  execrated  as  it  had  before  been  com- 
mended. They  had  recourse  to  the  translation 
of  Aquila,  who  is  supposed  to  have  undertaken  a 
new  work  from  the  Hebrew,  with  the  express  ob- 
ject of  supplanting  the  Septuagint,  and  favouring 
the  sentiments  of  his  brethren. 

After  the  general  reception  qF  the  Septuagint 
version,- numerous  mistakes  were  made  in  the 
transcription  and  multiplication  of  copies.  In 
the  time  of  the  early  fathers  its  text,  had  already 
been  altered;  and  the  Jews,  in  argument  with 
the  Christians,  commonly  said,  that  such  and 
such  things  were  not  in  the  Hebrew  original. 
This  affirmation  was  generally  sufficient  to  si- 
lence the  professors  of  the  Christian  religion,  who 
were  unable  to  follow  their  critical  antagonists 
into  the  Hebrew  text. 

In  order  to  rectify  the  text  of  the  Septuagint, 
and  to  place  Christians  on  even  ground  with 
their  Jewish  opponents,  Origen  undertook  to  re- 
vise it.  After  travelling  about  for  twenty-eight 
years  in  quest  of  materials,  and  meeting  with  six 
Greek  translations, — three  belonging  to  Aqi^Ja, 
Symmachus,  and  Theodotion  respectively  ; and 
three  anonymous — he  began  his  great  work,  pro- 
bably at  Alexandria,  and  finished  it,  according 
to  the  best  accounts,  at  Tyre.  Some  think  that  he 
published  at  first  his  Tetrapla,  containing  in  four 
columns  the  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
Theodotion,  and  the  Seventy.  Thus  the  Tetrapla 
was  only  preparatory  to  his  projected  emendation 
of  the  Seventy.  In  an  enlarged  edition,  he  added 
the  Hebrew  text  in  Hebrew  and  in  Gieek  letters; 
and  as  the  work  then  consisted  of  six  columns, 
it  was  termed  Hexapla.  Such  is  the  opinion  of 
Hody,  Montfaucon,  and  Bauer;  but  Eichhorn, 
Eichstaedt,  and  Frankel,  think  that  the  Tetrapla 
was  not  a distinct  work  preparatory  to  the  Hex- 
apla, but  only  an  abridgment  of  the  latter.  In 
some  parts  he  used  two  other  Greek  versions 
made  by  unknown  authors,  and  occasionally  a 
third  anonymous  translation.  Hence  the  names 
Octaplu  and  Enneapla.  Thus  the  different  ap- 
pellations by  which  the  work  is  distinguished, 
refer  merely  to  the  number  of  columns.  The 
following  is  their  order  : — 1.  The  Hebrew  text  in 
its  proper  characters ; 2.  The  same  in  Greek 
letters ; 3.  Aquila ; 4.  Symmachus  ; 5.  Sep- 
tuagint; 6.  Theodotion;  7,  8,  and  9.  The  three 
anonymous  Greek  versions  were  called  the  fifth, 
sixth,  and  seventh,  in  relation  to  the  other  four 
(see  a specimen  of  the  Enneapla  in  Davidson’s 
Bib.  Criticism,  p.  53). 

Orvgen’s  object  in  this  laborious  work  was  not 
so  much  to  correct  the  Septuagint,  as  to  show 
where  and  how  it  differed  from  the  original 
Hebrew.  When  he  discovered  a word  in  Hebrew, 
or  in  the  Greek  versions,  which  was  not  in  the 
Seventy,  he  inserted  it  out  of  Theodotion.  If 
Theodotion  wanted  it  also,  he  made  up  the  defi- 
ciency from  Aquila,  and  occasionally  from  Sym- 
machus. In  every  case,  he  put  the  name  of  the 
translation  from  which  a supplement  was  made, 
with  an  asterisk  at  the  commencement,  and  tw# 


SEPTUAGINT. 

dots  at  the  etu. . to  show  the  extent  of  the  sup- 
plied marter.  And  where  the  Septuagint,  as 
compared  with  other  Greek  versions  and  the 
original,  seemed  to  be  redundant,  he  did  not  ex- 
punge the  superfluity,  but  appended  marks  to 
point  out  this  particular.  His  recension  is  called 
the  Hexaplarian  text,  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  text  as  it  existed  before,  which  has  been  styled 
the  common  (kolut))  or  ante- hexaplarian. 

This  great,  work,  consisting  of  about  fifty  vo- 
lumes, is  thought  to  have  perished  at  Csesaxea, 
when  the  town  was  sacked  by  the  Saracens,  a.d. 
653.  It  was  never  transcribed. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  Pam- 
philus  and  Eusebius  copied  the  column  contain- 
ing the  text  of  the  Seventy,  with  the  passages  and 
scholia  out  of  the  other  translators,  and  the  criti- 
cal marks  used  by  Origen.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  this  copy  was  soon  extensively  corrupted.  The 
Hexaplarian  text,  coming  through  such  a tran- 
script, with  fragments  of  the  other  versions,  was 
published  by  Montfaucon,  at  Paris,  1714,  2 vols. 
fol. ; and  afterwards  reprinted,  in  an  abridgment, 
by  Bahrdt,  Leipzig,  1769-70,  2 vols.  8vo. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  same  century,  Lucian, 
a presbyter  of  Antioch,  undertook  to  amend  the 
text  of  the  Seventy,  after  the  Hebrew  original. 
This  recension  was  called  the  editio  vulgata 
(komi  and  also  A ovniav6s),  and  became  current 
in  various  churches.  Another  revision  was  un- 
dertaken about  the  same  time  by  Hesychius,  an 
Egyptian  bishop,  which,  according  to  Jerome, 
was  generally  used  in  the  churches  of  Egypt. 
Hesychius  and  Lucian  probably  used  the  ver- 
sions of  Aquila,  Symmacbus,  and  Theodotion, 
not  the  Hebrew  text;  although  Hody  thinks 
otherwise.  From  these  three  recensions  all  our 
printed  editions  have  been  derived.  In  the  two 
great  MSS.  of  the  Seventy,  the  Vatican  and  Alex- 
andrine, the  basis  of  the  former  is  the  common,  or 
earlier  text ; while  the  latter  exhibits  more  of  the 
readings  and  interpolations  of  the  Hexaplarian 
text.  Both  have  not  been  always  kept  distinct. 
The  Vatican  text  is  far  purer  than  the  Alexan- 
drine. It  is  free  from  the  asterisks,  obeli,  and 
other  marks  used  by  Origen,  as  well  as  the  trans- 
positions which  he  made.  Besides,  the  Alexan- 
drine has  been  very  frequently  conformed  to  the 
Masoretic  text,  which  must  be  considered  as  a 
corruption. 

All  printed  editions  of  the  Septdagint  may  be 
reduced  to  four ; viz.,  the  Aldine,  the  Complu- 
tensian,  the  Roman,  and  the  Grabian. 

The  Aldine  or  Venetian  appeared  at  Venice 
in  1518,  fol.  The  editor  has  not  specified  the 
MSS.  from  which  the  text  was  taken.  He  merely 
affirms  that  he  collated  many  very  ancient  co- 
pies, and  was  favoured  with  the  advice  of  some 
learned  men.  According  to  Walton,  the  text  of 
this  edition  is  purer  than  the  Complutensian,  and 
resembles  most  the  Roman  text.  It  has  been 
interpolated,  however,  in  various  instances,  out  of 
Theodotion,  Aquila,  and  the  New  Testament. 

The  Complutensian  was  published  in  1522,  as 
a column  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglott.  Per- 
haps the  text  of  it  has  been  occasionally  adapted 
to  that  of  the  Masoretic  Hebrew  copies  ; but  cer- 
tainly not  to  the  extent  assumed  by  Ussher, 
Walton,  and  Hody.  Most  of  its  alterations , as 
they  are  called  in  relation  to  the  text  of  other 
editions,  were  probably  taken  from  Greek  MSS. 


SEPTUAGINT.  733 

containing  Origen’s  improved  Hexaplaric  text,  as 
Simon  believed. 

The  Roman  edition  appeared  under  the  aus- 
pices of  Sixtus  (he  Fifth,  in  1587,  fol.,  superin- 
tended by  Cardinal  Carafa.  The  text  follows 
closely  the  celebrated  codex  Vaticanus.  Yet  the 
editors  made  alterations  in  the  orthography,  and 
in  particulars  which  they  looked-  upon  as  the 
mistakes  of  copyists.  Other  MSS.  were  neces- 
sarily used,  since  almost  the  entire  book  of 
Genesis  is  wanting  in  cod.  B.,  besides  Psalms 
105 — 138,  and  the  books  of  the  Maccabees. 

The  Grabian  eJition  appeared  at  Oxford,  in 
1707  and  following  years,  4 vols.  fol.,  and  8 
vols.  8vo.,  being  prepared  for  the  press  by  Dr. 
Grabe,  a learned  Prussian,  and  published  in  part 
by  himself.  This  edition  exhibits  the  text  of  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus,  but  not  perfectly;  since 
Grabe  altered  and  improved  many  places. 

TheJatest  and  most  splendid  critical  edition  is 
that  begun  in  1798  by  Dr.  Holmes,  and  finished 
by  Parsons,  Oxford,  1798-1827,  five  vofe.  folio, 
with  a large  critical  apparatus.  The  continuator 
appears  to  have  become  weary  of  his  task,  for  he 
has  only  selected  the  readings  most  important  in 
his  own  judgment.  The  text  is  that  of  the 
Roman  edition.  The  work  has  not  satisfied  the 
reasonable  expectations  of  the  learned ; and  a 
good  edition  is  still  a desideratum.  The  Roman 
is  still  the  best ; although  no  one  edition  should 
be  followed  absolutely  (see  Credner’s  Beitrage, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  74-98). 

The  best  Lexicon  to  the  Septuagint  is  that  of 
Schleusnery  published  at  Leipzig,  in  1820/ in 
five  parts,  and  reprinted  at  Glasgow.  The  best 
Concordance  is  that  of  Trommius , published  at 
Amsterdam,  2 vols.  fol.  1718. 

A great  number  of  other  versions  have  been 
founded  on  the  Seventy.  1.  Various  early  Latin 
translations,  the  chief  of  which  was  the  Vttus 
Itala  ; 2.  The  Coptic  and  Sahidic,  belonging  to 
the  first  and  second  centuries;  3.  The  Ethiopic, 
belonging  to  the  fourth  century  ; 4.  The  Arme- 
nian, of  the  fifth  century;  5.  The  Georgian,  of 
the  sixth  century;  6.  Various  Syriac  versions,  of 
the  sixth  and  eighth  cent  uries ; 7.  Some  Arabic 
versions  [Arabic  Versions]  ; 8.  The  Slavonic, 
belonging  to  the  ninth  century. 

Great  value  should  unquestionably  be  attached 
to  this  version.  In  the  criticism  and  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament,  it  holds  a conspicuous 
place.  Yet  most  of  the  translators  were  incom- 
petent. They  often  mistook  the  sense  of  the  ori- 
ginal. They  indulged  in  many  liberties  with 
regard  to  the  text.  They  inserted  glosses,  and 
paraphrased  with  unmeaning  latitude.  Their 
errors  are  neither  few  nor  small.  It  must  be  recol- 
lected, however,  that  the  text  is  in  a state  of  irre- 
mediable disorder.  The  labours  of  Origen, 
however  laudable  the  motive  that  prompted 
them,  introduced  great  confusion.  On  the  whole, 
the  translation  is  free  rather  than  literal.  Figures, 
metaphors,  and  anthropomorphic  expressions  are 
frequently  resolved.  Still  the  document  is  im- 
portant, not  only  in  the  criticism,  but  also  in  the 
exposition  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(For  a more  copious  account  of  the  Septuagint, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  Davidson's  Lectures  on 
Biblical  Criticism , and  the  books  there  specified 
On  the  Pentateuch  part  of  it,  the  best  work  is  that 
of  Thiersch,  De  Pentatcuchi  Versione  Akxa*> 


731 


SERAIAH. 


SERAPHIM. 


drina , libri  tres , Erlangae,  1841,  8vo.,  in  which 
the  character  of  the  diction  employed  by  the 
translator  is  minutely  and  admirably  investi- 
gated. See  also  Toepler,  De  Pentateuchi  inter- 
pretation is  Alexandrine  indole  critica  et  herme- 
neutica,  Hal.  Sax.  1830,  8vo.  ; Pliischke,  Lee - 
tiones  Alexandrines  et  'Hebraicce,  $e.  Bonn,  1837, 
8vo.  This  writer  would  correct  the  present  He- 
brew text  by  the  Seventy  in  many  cases,  although 
the  idea  of  doing  so  is  preposterous.  Vorstudien 
zu  der  Septuaginta , von  Dr.  Z.  Frankel;  Leipzig, 
1S41,  8vo.  This  is  the  most  remarkable  and 
most  important  work  on  the  Septuagint  that 
lias  appeared  for  many  years.  Tire  present  is 
only  the  first  part  of  the  first  volume,  and  we  are 
unable  to  say  whether  more  has  been  published. 
Gfrorer,  Ur  chris  tent  ham,  Th.  i.  B.  ii.,  Stuttgart, 
1S31,  8vo. ; Dahne,  Judisch-Alexandrinische 
Philosophie,  Th.  ii.  Halle,  1831,  8vo. ; Fabricii 
Bibliotheca  Sacra , ed.  Harless,  vol.  3;  Mi- 
chaelis’s  Oriental.  Bibliothek , and  Neue  Orient. 
Biblioth  ; Eichhorn’s  Allgem.  Bibliothek  and 
Repertorium ; Studer,  De  Versionis  Alexan - 
drince  origine,  historia,  usu,  et  abusu  critico , 
Bernae,  1823,  8vo. ; Grabe’s  Prolegomena  to  his 
edition  of  the  Seventy;  Holmes's  Prcefatio  to 
his  edition ; Credner’s  Beitriige  zur  Einleitung , 
u.  s.  w.,  2 vols.  8vo.  Halle,  1838,  B.  ii.;  Atners- 
foordt,  Dissertatio  de  varus  lectionibus  Ilolmes- 
innis , Lugd.  Bat.  1815,  4to. ; Valckenaer,  Dia- 
tribe de  Aristobulo  Judceo , ed.  Job.  Luzae.,  Lugd. 
Bat.,  1806,  4 to.). — S D. 

SEPTUAGINT  CHRONOLOGY.  [CHRO- 
NOLOGY.] 

SEPULCHRE.  [Burial.] 

SERAIAH  (fVX  and  -irPX,  ‘ warrior  of 
Jehovah;’  Sept.  Sapaias).  There  are  several 
persons  of  this  name  in  Scripture. 

1.  Seraiah,  the  scribe  or  secretary  of  David 

(2  Sam.  viii.  17).  This  person’s  name  is  in 
other  places  corrupted  intc^N'C^,  Auth.  Vers. 
Sheva  (1  Sam.  xx.  25),  Shisha  (1  Kings 

iv.  3),  and  Shavsha  (1  Chron.  xviii.  16). 

2.  Seraiah,  the  father  of  Ezra  (Ez.  vii.  1). 

3.  Seraiah,  tine  high  priest  at  the  time  that 
Jerusalem  was  taken  by  the  Chaldaeans.  He  was 
sent  prisoner  to  Nebuchadnezzar  at  Riblah,  who 
put  him  to  death  (2  Kings  xxv.  18;  1 Chron. 
vi.  14  ; Jer.  lii.  24  ; Ez.  vii.  1). 

4.  Seraiah,  son  of  Azriel,  one  of  the  persons 
charged  with  the  apprehension  of  Jeremiah  and 
Baruch  (Jer.  xxxvi.  26). 

5.  Seraiah,  son  of  Neriah,  who  held  a high 
office  in  the  court  of  King  Zedekiah,  the  nature  of 
which  is  somewhat  uncertain.  In  the  Auth.  Vers, 
we  have,  ‘ This  Seraiah  was  a quiet  prince,’ 
where  the  words  rendered  ‘quiet  prince’  are 
iirVDD  which,  according  to  Kimchi,  means 
‘ a chamberlain,’  or  one  who  attended  the  king 
when  he  retired  to  rest ; but  better,  perhaps, 
according  to  Gesenius,  ‘chief  of  the  quarters’  for 
the  king  and  his  army,  that  is  quarter -master- 
general.  This  Seraiah  was  sent  by  Zedekiah  on 
an  embassy  to  Babylon,  probably  to  render  his 
submission  to  that  monarch,  about  seven  years 
before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  He  was  charged  by 
Jeremiah  to  communicate  to  the  Jews  already  in 
axile  a book,  in  which  the  prophet  had  written  out 
oia  prediction  of  all  the  evil  that  should  come 


upon  Babylon.  It  is  not  stated  how  Seraiah  ac- 
quitted himself  of  his  task  ; but  that  he  accepted 
it  at  all,  shows  such  respect  for  the  prophet  as 
may  allow  us  to  conclude  that,  he  would  not 
neglect  the  duty  which  it  imposed. 

6.  Seraiah,  son  of  Tanhumeth,  an  accomplice 
of  Ishmael  in  the  conspiracy  against  Gedaliah 
(2  Kings  xxv.  23;  Jer.  xl.  8). 

SERAH  (HX*,  ‘ abundance Sept.  2ctpa), 
daughter  of  Asher,  named  among  those  who  went 
down  into  Egypt  (Gen.  xlvi.  17;  Num.  xxvi. 
46  ; 1 Chron.  vii.  30).  The  mention  of  a female 
in  a list  of  this  kind,  in  which  no  others  of  her 
sex  are  named,  and  contrary  to  the  usual  practice 
of  the  Jews,  seems  to  indicate  something  extra- 
ordinary in  connection  with  her  history  or  circum- 
stances. This  has  sufficed  to  excite  the  ever 
active  imaginations  of  the  Rabbins,  and  Serah 
shares  with  the  princess  of  Egypt  who  saved 
Moses,  with  Jochebed  his  mother,  and  with  De- 
borah, the  honour  of  occupying  a prominent  place 
in  their  fables. 

SERAPHIM  (D'BX;  Sept,  Zepcupl/x),  or 
Seraphs,  the  plural  of  the  word  saraph^ 

‘ burning,’  or  ‘ Hery  :’  celestial  beings  described 
in  Isa.  vi.  2-6,  as  an  order  of  angels  or 
ministers  of  God,  who  stand  around  his  throne, 
having  each  six  wings,  and  also  hands  and  feet, 
and  praising  God  with  their  voices.  They  were 
therefore  of  human  form,  and,  like  the  Cherubim, 
furnished  with  wings  as  the  swift  messengers  of 
God.  Some  have  indeed  identified  the  Cherubim 
and  Seraphim  as  the  same  beings,  but  under 
names  descriptive  of  different  qualities;  Se- 
raphinv  denoting  the  burning  and  dazzling  ap- 
pearance of  the  beings  elsewhere  described  as 
Cherubim.  It  would  be  difficult  either  to 
prove  or  disprove  this ; but  there  are  differences 
between  the  chcmibim  of  Ezekiel,  and  the  sera- 
phim of  Isaiah,  which  it  does  not.  appear  easy  to 
reconcile.  The  ‘ living  creatures  ’ of  the  former 
prophet  had  four  wings;  the  ‘seraphim’  of  the 
latter,  six ; and  while  the  cherubim  had  four 
faces,  the  seraphim  had  but  one  (comp.  Isa.  vi. 
2,3;  Ezek.  i.  5-12).  If  the  figures  were  in  all 
cases  purely  symbolical,  the  difference  does  not 
signify  ; and  whether  they  were  so,  or  not,  must  be 
determined  by  the  considerations  which  have  been 
indicated  under  Cherubim. 

There  is  much  symbolical  force  and  propriety 
in  the  attitude  in  which  the  Seraphim  are  described 
as  standing;  while  two  of  their  wings  were  kept 
ready  for  instant  flight  in  the  service  of  God,  with 
two  others  they  hid  their  face,  to  express  their 
unworthiness  to  look  upon  the  divine  Majesty 
(comp.  Exod.  iii.  6),  and  with  two  others  they 
covered  their  feet,  or  the  whole  of  the  lower  part 
of  their  bodies — a practice  which  still  prevails  in 
the  East,  when  persons  appear  in  a monarch's 
presence.  It  may  be  seen  in  the  article  Serpent, 
that  a species  of  serpent  was  called  Saraph  ; and 
this  has  led  some  to  conceive  that  the  Seraphim 
were  a kind  of  basilisk-headed  Cherubim  (Bauer, 
Theolog.  A.  T.  p.  189);  or  else  that  they  were 
animal  forms  with  serpents' heads,  such  as  we  find 
figured  in  the  ancient  temples  of  Thebes  (Gesen. 
Comment,  in  Jes.).  Ilitzig  and  others  identify 
the  Seraphim  with  the  Egyptiai  Serapis ; for 
although  it  is  true  that  the  worship  of  Serapis  was 


SERPENT. 


735 


SERGIUS  PAULUS. 

not  introduced  into  Egypt  till  the  time  of  the 
Ptolemies,  it  is  known  that  this  was  but,  a modi- 
fication of  the  more  ancient  worship  of  Kneph,. 
who  was  figured  under  the  form  of  a serpent  of 
the  same  "kind,  the  head  of  which  afterwards 
formed  the  crest  of  Serapis. 

SERGIUS  PAULUS  (Sepytos  TlavXos),  a 
Roman  proconsul  in  command  at.  Cyprus,  who 
was  converted  by  the  preaching  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  (Acts  xiii.  7).  The  title  given  to  this 
functionary  exhibits  one  of  those  minute  accu- 
racies which,  apart  from  its  inspiration,  would 
substantiate  the  sacred  book  as  a genuine  and 
contemporary  record.  Cyprus  was  originally  a 
praetorian  province  ( aTparyyLKri ),  and  not  pro- 
consular ; but  it  was  left  by  Augustus  under 
the  Senate,  and  hence  was  governed  by  a pro- 
consul  (dvdviraTos'),  as  stated  fry  the  Evange- 
list (Acts  xiii.  6,  8,  12;  Dion  Cass.  liv.  p. 
523  ; Kuinoel,  on  Acts  xiii.  7 ; see  also  the  art. 
Cyprus).  Sergius  is  described  by  the  Evangelist 
as  a ‘ discreet.’  or  ‘ intelligent.’  man  ; by  which 
we  are  probably  to  understand  that  he  was  a man 
of  large  and  liberal  views,  and  of  an  inquiring 
turn  of  mind.  Hence  he  had  entertained  Ely- 
mas,  and  hence  also  he  became  curious  to  hear  the 
new  doctrine  which  the  apostle  brought  to  the 
island.  Nothing  of  his  history  subsequent  to 
his  conversion  is  known  from  Scripture.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  abandoned  bis 
post  as  governor  of  Cyprus  ; but  the  legends  as- 
sert that  he  did  so,  and  followed  Paul ; and  that 
eventually  he  went  with  the  apostle  into  Spain, 
and  was  left  by  him  at  Narbonne  in  France,  of 
which  he  became  the  bishop,  and  died  there. 

SERPENT  (E£tn3  nachash).  Systematical 
nomenclators  and  travellers  enumerate  consi- 
derably more  than  forty  species  of  serpents  in 
Northern  Africa,  Arabia,  and  Syria.  Of  these  it 
is  scarcely  possible  to  point  out  with  certainty  a 
single  one  named  in  the  Bible,  where  very  few  de- 
scriptive indications  occur  beyond  what  in  scien- 
tific language  would  now  be  applied  generically. 
It  is  true  that,  among  the  names  in  the  list,  several 
may  be  synonyms  of  one  ami  the  same  species; 
still  none  but  the  most  recent  researches  give 
characters  sufficient  to  be  depended  upon,  and  as 
yet  nothing  like  a complete  erpetology  of  the 
regions  in  question  has  been  established  ; for 
snakes  being  able  to  resist  a certain  degree  of 
cold,  and  also  the  greatest,  heat,  there  are  in- 
stances of  species  being  found,  such  as  the  hayes , 
precisely  the  same,  from  the  Ganges  to  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  ; others,  again,  may  be  traced 
from  Great  Britain  to  Persia  and  Egypt,  as  is 
instanced  in  the  common  viper  and  its  varieties. 
Instead  therefore  of  making  vain  efforts  at  iden- 
tifying all  the  serpents  named,  it  will  be  a 
preferable  course  to  assign  them  to  their  proper 
families,  with  the  exception  of  those  that  can  lie 
pointed  out  with  certainty ; and  in  so  doing 
it  will  appear  that  even  now  species  of  import- 
ance mentioned  by  the  ancients  are  far  from 
being  clearly  established.  Serpents  may  be  di- 
vided generally  into  two  very  distinct  sections,— 
the  first  embracing  all  those  that  are  provided 
with  moveable  tubular  fan^s  and  poison-bags  in 
the  upper  jaw  ; all  regarded  as  ovoviviparous, 
unsi  called  by  contraction  vipers  ; they^bon- 
atitute  not  quite  one-fifth  of  the  species  hitherto 


noticed  by  naturalists.  The  second  section,  much 
more  numerous,  is  the  cohibrine , not  so  armed, 
but  not  therefore  always  entirely  innocuous,  since 
there  may  be  in  some  cases  venomous  secretions 
capable  of  penetrating  into  the  wounds  made  by 
their  fixed  teeth,  which  in  all  serpents  are  single 
points,  and  in  some  species  increase  in  size  as 
they  stand  back  in  the  jaws.  The  greater  part, 
if  not  all,  the  innocuous  species  are  oviparous, 
including  the  largest  or  giant,  snakes,  and  the 
pelamis  and  hydrophis,  or  water-serpents,  among 
which  several  are  venomous. 


491.  [1.  Shephiplion  : Cerastes.  2.  Peten  : ColuLe 

Lehatina.  3.  Python  tigris  Albicans;  probably 
Thaibanne.] 

Scriptural  evidence  attests  the  serpent’s  influ- 
ence on  the  early  destinies  of  mankind  ; and  this 
fact  may  be  traced  in  the  history,  the  legends,  and 
creeds  of  most  ancient  nations.  It  is  far  from 
being  obliterated  at  this  day  among  the  pagan, 
barbarian,  and  savage  tribes  of  both  continents, 
where  the  most  virulent  and  dangerous  animals 
of  the  viviparous  class  are  not  uncommonly 
adored,  but  more  generally  respected,  from  motives 
originating  in  fear;  and  others  of  the  oviparous 
race  are  suffered  to  abide  in  human  dwellings, 
and  are  often  supplied  with  food,  from  causes 
not  easily  determined,  excepting  that  the  ser- 
pent is  ever  considered  to  he  possessed  of  some 
mysterious  superhuman  knowledge  or  power. 
Hence,  beside  real  species,  ideal  forms,  taken  from 
the  living,  but  combining  other  or  additional  pro- 
perties, occur,  at  the  most  early  periods,  as  me 
taphorical  types,  in  faille  and  history,  and  in  the 
hieroglyphics  and  religious  paintings  of  many 
nations.  Such  are  the  innumerable  fables  in 
Hindu  lore  of  Nagas  and  Naga  Kings;  the 
primaeval  astronomy  which  placed  the  serpent  in 
the  skies,  and  called  the  milky  way  by  the  name 
of  Ananta  and  Sesha  Naga  ; the  Pagan  obscure 
yet  almost  universal  record  of  the  deluge  typified 
by  a serpent  endeavouring  to  destroy  the  ark ; 
which  astronomy  has  likewise  transferred  to  the 
skies  in  the  form  of  a dragon  about  to  devour  the 
moon,  when,  in  an  eclipsed  state,  it  appears  in 
the  form  of  an  amphipromnos  or  crescent -shaped 
boat;  and,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  lunar  eclipses 
still  continue  to  be  regarded  in  this  character, 
and  to  excite  general  apprehension  in  Central 
Africa,  as  well  as  in  China  ; in  the  South  Sea 
Islands,  as  well  as  in  America  [Dragon].  The 
nations  of  the  North  once  believed  in  the  Jar-* 
munds  Gander,  or  Kater  serpent  of  the  deep; 


736 


SERPENT. 


SERPENT. 


and  they,  together  with  the  Celts  and  Basques, 
and  all  Asia,  had  legends  of  the  Orm,  the  Paystha, 
the  dragon-guardian  of  riches,  brooding  on  gold, 
in  caverns  deep  below  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
or  lying  iti  huge  folds  on  dreary  and  extensive 
heaths.  These  fables  were  a residue  of  that 
antique  dragon  worship  which  had  its  temples 
from  High  Asia  and  Colchis  to  the  north  of 
Great  Britain,  and  once  flourished  both  in  Greece 
and  Northern  Africa — structures  with  avenues  of 
upright  stones  of  several  miles  in  length,  whereof 
the  ruins  may  still  be  traced  at  Carnak  in  Brit- 
tany, Abury  in  Wiltshire,  and  Redruth  in  Corn- 
wall— the  two  last  mentioned  more  particularly 
showing  their  connection  with  the  circle  consti- 
tuting a form  of  the  mundane  egg,  which  again 
was  an  emblem  of  the  deluge  and  the  ark.  The 
Hesperian,  Colchian,  and  Lernaean  dragons  are 
only  Greek  legends  of  the  same  doctrine,  still 
more  distorted,  and  affording  ample  proof  how 
far  the  Pagan  world  had  departed  from  the  sim- 
plicity of  Scriptural  truth,  from  the  excessive  use 
of  metaphorical  descriptions  and  fanciful  symbols. 
In  Egypt,  the  early  centre  of  Ophiolatry,  this 
debasing  service  was  so  deeply  rooted,  that  a 
Christian  sect  of  heretics,  called  Ophitae,  or  ac- 
cording to  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Opliiani,  arose 
m the  second  century  of  our  era.  As  an  ema- 
nation of  the  Gnostics  their  errors  are  particularly 
noticed  by  Tertullian,  and  form  a signal  in- 
stance of  human  perverseness  ingeniously  mis- 
leading itself  and  others  by  the  abuse  of  sym- 
bols ; yet  when  the  anguine  type  did  not  pass 
into  long  distorted  legends,  it  is  evident,  from 
the  brazen  serpent  raised  by  Moses  in  the  wilder- 
ness, that  it  was  correctly  appreciated  by  the 
people  as  a sign,  not  m itself  a power,  of  Divine 
aid;  and  that  its  true  symbolical  meaning  did 
not  even  escape  Pagan  comprehension  appears 
from  profane  history,  in  Meissi,  the  good  ser- 
pent, being  likewise  properly  understood  by  the 
Egyptians,  until  idolatry  distorted  all  the  na- 
tional reminiscences,  and  the  promise  of  what 
was  not  fully  revealed  till  the  Saviour  appeared 
on  earth  was  obliterated.  Ob.  Oub,  the  Coptic 
Hof,  Obion  in  Kircher,  was,  however,  the  general 
name  for  serpents  in  Egypt;  and  Kneeph,  or 
Cnuphis,  or  Jhh-Nuphi,  the  good  genius,  always 
figured  as  the  Nachash  or  Thermuth,  is  there- 
fore the  same  as  Naga  Sahib,  or  lord-serpent 
of  India  [Adder],  and  still  a personification  of 
ttie  vanquisher  of  the  deluge — Vishnu,  with  many 
others,  being  Pagan  denominationsTtf  Noah.  In 
this  sense  the  good  genius  Cnuphis  was  a type 
of  the  Saviour  of  men,  and  called  by  them  the 
spirit  pervading  nature,  the  creator  from  whose 
mouth  proceeded  the  mundane  egg : being  referred, 
after  the  loss  of  the  true  interpretation,  to  any 
typical  form  of  the  patriarch,  the  events  of  the 
deluge  and  the  creation,  thus  confounding  the 
operations  of  the  Almighty  with  the  ministry  of 
his  servant. 

There  was,  however,  another  idolized  snake  of 
the  great  destroyer  Python  tribe,  which  devour 
even  each  other;  it  is  represented  on  Egyptian 
monuments  bearing  a mummy  figure  on  its  tail, 
and  gliding  over  a seated  divinily  with  an  egg  on 
the  head,  while  human  sacrifice  by  decapitation  is 
performed  before  it.  This  serpent  is  so  carefully 
drawn  that  we  recognise  the  Thaibanne,  The- 
itanus  Ophites,  which  grows  to  twelve  or  more 


feet  in  length,  is  still  found  in  Upper  Egypl^ 
and  is  a congener,  if  not  the  same  as  Python 
Tigris  Albicans,  the  great  snake  even  at  present 
worshipped  in  Cutch  : it  may  be  the  Aphophia 
of  the  Egyptians.  To  descant  further  on  this 
subject  would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  purpose; 
but  the  Egyptian  Python  here  noticed,  changing 
its  character  from  being  a type  of  the  deluge  to 
that  of  an  emblem  of  the  ark  carrying  the  spirit  ol 
human  life  within  or  upon  it,  was  not  without  its 
counterpart  in  England,  where  lately,  in  digging 
out  the  deep  black  mud  of  a ditch,  a boat-shaped 
Python,  carrying  the  eight  Eones  (?)  or  Noachidae, 
has  been  discovered,  with  emblems  that  denote 
them  to  be  the  solar  regenerators  of  mankind. 
Parts  of  these  objects,  in  hard  black  wood,  are 
now  in  possession  of  Sir  Samuel  R.  Meyrick. 

Thus,  as  is  ever  the  case  in  poly theisti cal 
legends,  the  type  disappears  through  multiplied 
transitions  and  the  number  of  other  symbols 
and  personifications  characterized  by  the  same 
emblem  : it  was  so  in  this  instance,  when  the 
snake  form  was  conferred  also  on  abstractions 
bearing  the  names  of  divinities,  such  as  Ramio, 
Hoph,  Bai,  Hoh  or  Hill,  and  others. 

The  asserted  longevity  of  the  serpent  tribe  may 
have  suggested  the  representation  of  the  harmless 
house-snake  biting  its  tail  as  typical  of  eter- 
nity; and  this  same  quality  was  no  doubt  the 
cause  why  this  animal,  entwined  round  a stall’, 
was  the  symbol  of  health,  arid  the  distinctive 
attribute  of  the  classical  ^Esculapius  and  Hygia. 
There  are  species  of  this  genus  common  to  Pales- 
tine and  the  southern  parts  of  continental  Europe  ; 
they  were  domesticated  in  Druidical  and  other 
Pagan  sanctuaries,  and  were  employed  for  omens 
and  other  impostures  ; but  the  mysterious  Ag  or 
Hagstone  was  asserted  to  be  produced  by  the 
venomous  viper  species.  It  is  indeed  with  the 
section  of  noxious  serpents  that  Biblical  research 
has  most  to  do.  In  the  article  Add  hr  we  have 
already  noticed  those  of  the  present  genus  Haye, 
the  hooded  snake,  or  Cobra  de  Capello,  which  in 
one  or  more  of  its  species  is  generically  included 
in  the  Hebrew  DTD  nachash , and  21DOV  achsub , 
the  first  being  a general  appellation,  and  the  se- 
cond probably  confined  to  the  Hayes  proper,  or 
to  one  of  the  species  or  varieties. 

CpD>  saraph,  the  supposed  winged  serpent,  we 
take  also  to  be  a Haye.  one  of  the  more  eastern 
species  or  varieties,  which  have  the  faculty  of  ac- 
tually distending  the  hood,  as  if  they  had  wings  at 
the  side  of  the  head,  and  are  the  same  as,  or  nearly 
allied  to,  the  well  known  spectacle-snake  of  India ; 
and  this  interpretation  seems  to  accord  with  the 
words  of  Moses,  han-nechaslum 

has-seraphim  (Num.  xxi.  6).  The  serpent  may 
exhibit  this  particular  state  of  irritation  when  it 
stands  half  erect  with  its  hood  distended,  or  it 
may  be  that  variety  which  is  possessed  of  this 
faculty  to  the  greatest  extent.  Naga  Reflectrix, 
the  Pof  or  Spooch  adder  of  the  Cape  colonists,  is 
reported  by  Dr.  Smith  to  be  scarcely  distinct  from 
the  Egyptian  Naga  Haye.  With  regard  to  the 
faculty  of  flying,  the  lengthened  form,  the  mus- 
cular apparatus,  the  absence  of  air-cells,  and  the 
whole  osteological  structure,  are  all  incompatible 
with  flight  or  the  presence  of  wings  : hence  Hero- 
dotus, in  his  search  for  flying  serpents  at  Buto, 
may  have  observed  heaps  of  exuviae  of  locusts 
cast  w shore  by  the  sea — a phenomenon  not  uu- 


SERPENT. 


SERPENT. 


731 


frequent  on  that  coast — but  most  assuredly  not. 
heaps  of  bones  and  ribs  of  serpents.  As  for  those 
of  Plutarch,  they  may  have  been  noxious  sand- 
flies. Flying  serpents  are  only  found  represented 
in  the  symbolical  pictures  of  Egypt,  where  they 
occur  with  birds’  wings.  Those  of  history,  and 
of  barbarous  nations  excessively  habituated  to 
figurative  forms  of  speech,  are  various,  some  being 
so  called  because  of  their  rapid  motion,  others  on 
account  of  a kind  of  spring  they  are  said  to  make 
at  their  victims,  and  a third  class  because  they 
climb  trees,  and  are  reported  to  swing  themselves 
from  thence  upon  their  victims,  or  to  other  trees. 
Now,  many  species  of  serpents  are  climbers  ; many 
hang  by  the  tail  from  slender  brandies  of  low 
trees  in  highly  heated  glens,  snapping  at.  insects 
as  they  wheel  around  them  ; but  all  are  deli- 
cately jointed  ; and  if  any  should  swing  further 
than  merely  to  change  their  hold,  and  should  miss 
catching  a branch,  they  would  most  certainly  be 
dislocated,  and,  if  not  killed,  very  seriously  in- 
jured. From  personal  experiments  we  can  attest 
that  serpents  are  heavy  in  proportion  to  their  bulk, 
and  without  the  means  of  breaking  tlieir  fall ; 
that  few,  large  or  small,  could  encounter  the 
shock  of  twelve  or  fourteen  feet  elevation  without 
fracturing  many  spinous  processes  of  their  verte- 
brse,  and  avoid  being  stunned  for  a length  of  time, 
or  absolutely  crushed  to  death.  Being  instinct- 
ively conscious  of  the  brittleness  of  their  structure, 
nearly  all  snakes  are  timid,  and  desirous  of  avoid- 
ing a contest,  unless  greatly  provoked.  This 
vemark  applies,  we  believe,  to  all  innoxious  ser- 
pents, the  great  boas  perhaps  excepted,  and  t© 
most  of  the  poisonous,  exclusive  of  several  species 
of  viper  and  cobra  de  capello. 

Of  the  so-called  flying,  or  rather  darting  ser- 
pents, Niebuhr  found,  near  Basra,  a venomous 
species  called  Heie  Sursurie,  and  Heie  Thiare, 
that  is, f flying  serpent,’  because  it  was  said  to  fling 
itself  from  one  tree  to  another.  Admiral  Anson 
heard,  at  the  island  of  Quibo,  of  snakes  flying 
without  wings  : we  may  notice  the  Acontias  and 
Prester,  that  fell  like  arrows  from  the  tops  of  trees, 
and  the  green  yEtula  of  Ceylon,  said  to  spring 
from  trees  at  the  eyes  of  cattle — an  accusation 
repeated  of  more  than  one  species  in  tropical 
America.  Next  we  have  the  Uler  Tampang  Hari, 
seen  in  a forest  near  the  river  Pedang  Bessie, 
somewhere,  we  believe,  in  the  Austral-Asian 
islands,  under  circumstances  that  most  certainly 
require  confirmation  ; since  this  fiery  serpent,  so 
called  from  the  burning  pain  and  fatal  effect  of 
its  bite,  swung  itself  from  one  tree  to  another, 
240  feet  distant,  with  a declination  to  the  horizon 
of  only  about  fifteen  degrees  ! 

We  find  Leffah  and  Bsetan,  both  conjectured 
to  be  the  Saraph  and  Tsimmaon,  without  being 
able  to  point  out  the  species  in  natural  history, 
where,  nevertheless,  it  seems  most  likely  that  va- 
rieties or  perhaps  different  species  of  the  common 
viper  may  be  meant,  as  is  likewise  assumed  of 
Acontias  and  Prester,  since  that  family,  in  hot 
and  dry  climates,  is  far  more  virulently  noxious 
than  in  Europe.  The  Leffah,  though  little  more 
than  a foot  long,  regarded  by  Shaw  at  least  as 
the  most  formidable  serpent  of  Northern  Africa, 
rs  one  of  this  genus,  and  may  be  the 
Ephoeh , Arabic  Epha,  and  Persian  Mar-iefy ; 
but  as  there  is  some  difference  in  dimensions 
and  markings,  as  well  as  a still  greater  extent 
von.  ii.  48 


of  region  assigned  to  these,  more  than  one  specie* 
of  viper  is  most  likely  included  in  the  above 
names.  But  that  the  Ephoeh  is  a name  of  most 
ancient  date  is  plain  from  its  being  employed  in 
Job  xx.  16,  and  Isaiah  xxx.  6;  while  under  the 
form  of  exifiva,  that  is,  ‘ viper,’  it  occurs  in  the 
New  Testament,  Matt.  iii.  7 ; xii.  34  ; xxiii.  33  ; 
Luke  iii.  7 ; and  Acts  xxviii.  3.  The  last  of 
these  texts  confirms  the  common  superstitious  be- 
lief of  antiquity,  which  regarded  the  bite  of  one  of 
these  serpents  as  a punishment  directly  inflicted 
by  Heaven. 

fflD  pethen  (Deut.  xxxii.  33;  Job  xx.  14,  16, 
Ps.  lviii.  4;  xci.  13  ; Isa.  xi.  8)  is  more  properly 
the  Baetan  of  Forskal ; the  Coluber  (viper a)  Lebe- 
tina  of  Linn.,  and  by  him  characterized  as  one  foot 
in  length,  the  body  spotted  with  black  and  white, 
and  oviparous  (?),  though  excessively  poisonous. 
The  learned  author  evidently  never  saw  this  spe- 
cies in  a living  state,  and  appears  to  have  derived 
all  he  knew  upon  the  subject  from  the  literati  of 
Cyprus,  who  call  it  Asp,  and  the  vulgar  Kufi 
(novcpTi),  ‘deaf.’  Such  an  authority  is  of  little 
weight : a serpent  of  Cyprus  may  not  belong  to 
Palestine  or  Egypt,  and  an  oviparous  species  may 
not  be  poisonous.  It  is  referred  to  the  Aspis  of  the 
ancients,  as  to  which  it  is  still  in  dispute  whether 
it  should  be  identified  with  Vipera  Ammodytes , 
Viper  a Berus , or  Vipera  Prester , all  ovovivi- 
parous,  and  as  such  strikingly  illustrative  of  the 
words  of  Isaiah  (lix.  5).  It.  may  here  be  remarked 
that  the  so-called  ‘deaf  adder’  (Ps.  lviii.  5,  6)  is 
not  without  hearing,  but  is  only  not  obedient  to 
the  musical  notes  which  the  serpent-charmers 
produce  in  order  to  make  their  captured  snakes 
vibrate  in  a particular  erect  posture  as  if  they  were 
dancing ; and  it  is  asserted  of  some,  that  while  in 
a free  state  they  are  actually  enticed  to  come  to 
and  follow  the  musician. 

tzimmaon  (Deut.  viii.  15)  appears  to 
be  the  ‘ Drought  ’ of  some  versions,  so  called  be- 
cause of  the  intolerable  thirst  occasioned  by  its 
bite.  If  this  translation  be  correct,  it  will  form  in 
modern  nomenclature  one  of  the  genus  Hurria, 
and  sub-genus  Dipsas  or  Bongarus.  But  no  species 
of  this  division  of  snakes  has  yet  been  found  in 
Western  Asia,  albeit  there  are  several  in  India; 
and  Avicenna  locates  the  Torrida  Dipsas  in  Egypt 
and  Syria ; whereupon  Cuvier  remarks  that  Ges- 
ner’s  figure  of  Dipsas  belongs  precisely  to  the  sub- 
genus here  pointed  out.  As  one  of  the  Colubrine 
family  it  should  not  be  venomous  ; but  the  last- 
mentioned  writer  remarks  that  several  of  these  are 
regarded  in  their  native  localities  with  great 
dread  ; and  on  examination  it  is  found  that,  al- 
though they  have  no  erectile  tubercular  fangs, 
with  a poison- bag  at  the  roots,  there  is  on  the  long 
back  teeth  a groove,  and  a large  gland  at  the 
base  of  the  maxilla,  which  it  is  not  unlikely  con 
tains,  in  some  at  least,  highly  venomous  matter. 
It  may  be  further  observed,  that  when  the  Acon- 
tias, or  darting  serpent,  perhaps  the  Turreiki  of 
Shaw,  is  mentioned,  it  must  be  considered  as  be- 
longing to  the  oviparous  section,  for  a character- 
istic of  the  venom  snakes  is  to  be  slow  in  their  mo- 
tions, and  to  watch  being  attacked  rather  than  to 
court  hostilities.  This  character  may  be  sup- 
posed to  exist  even  in  the  tzepha , or 

tziphoni,  translated  ‘ cockatrice’  in  Prov.  xxiii. 
32,  and  Isa.  xi.  8.  This  is  an  indefinite  English 
name,  which  belongs  to  no  identified  serpent,  and 


738 


SERUG 


SEVEN. 


now  appears  only  in  the  works  of  ancient  com- 
pilers and  heralds,  where  it  is  figured  with  a crest, 
chough  there  is  no  really  crested  or  frilled  species 
known  to  exist  in  the  whole  Ophidian  order. 
Crested  serpents  occur,  it  is  true,  on  Greek  and 
Etruscan  vases;  but  they  are  invariably  mytholo- 
gical representations,  probably  derived  from  de- 
scriptive rumours  of  the  hooded  Nagas,  Cerastes, 
and  perhaps  Muraenae:  the  first  of  these  having 
what  may  be  likened  to  a turbaned,  the  other  to 
a coronated  head,  and  the  third  fins  at  the  oper- 
culum. But  it  is  from  the  apparently  crowned 
form  that  the  denominations  of  Basilisk  and  Re- 
gal us  were  derived.  There  are,  however,  two  very 
distinct  species  of  horned  serpents  in  Egypt  and 
Northern  Africa,  probably  extending  to  Syria 
and  Arabia.  They  are  of  different  genera;  for 
the  Cerastes,  supposed  to  be  the 

shsphiphon  of  the  Bible,  is  a viper 
with  two  scales  on  the  head,  one  above  each  eye, 
standing  erect  somewhat  in  the  form  of  horns. 
This  is  a dangerous  species,  usually  burrowing 
in  sand  near  the  holes  of  jerboas,  and  occasionally 
in  the  cattle  paths  ; for  there  are  now  few  or  no 
ruts  of  cart-wheels,  where  it  is  pretended  they 
used  to  conceal  themselves  to  assault  unwary 
passers.  It  is  still  common  in  Egypt  and  Arabia. 
The  other  species  is  the  Eryx  Cerastes  of  Daudin, 
also  small,  having  no  moveable  poison-fangs,  but 
remarkable  for  two  very  long  back  teeth  in  the 
lower  jaw,  which  pass  through  the  upper  jaw,  and 
appear  in  the  shape  of  two  white  horns  above  its 
surface.  It  is  known  to  the  Egyptian  Arabs  by 
the  name  of  Harbagi,  which  may  be  a distortion 
of  Ovf3oitos  in  Horapollo,  and  is  classed  by  Hassel- 
quist  among  slow-worms,  because  in  form  the  tail 
dees  not  taper  to  a jioint.  Its  colours  are  black 
and  white  marblings,  and  the  eyes  being  lateral 
and  very  near  the  snout,  the  species  has  an  exceed- 
ingly sinister  aspect,  which  may  be  the  cause  of 
the  ancient  opinion  that  the  melekah,  or 

basilisk,  for  we  take  it  for  this  species,  killed  with 
its  looks,  and  had  a pointed  crown  on  the  head  : 
now  serpents  in  the  form  of  slow-worms,  reputed 
to  kill  by  their  sight,  are  evidently  not  rapid  in 
their  movements. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  observe  again  with  refer- 
ence to  the  figurative  form  of  the  Semitic  tongues, 
that  the  proper  names  of  objects,  and  particularly 
of  animals,  are  very  often  descriptive  of  characters 
which  are  not  exclusively  applicable  to  specific 
individuals,  and  consequently  that  the  same 
sounds  or  names  readily  suggest  themselves  when 
the  property  which  distinguishes  the  appellative 
term  recurs  in  another  object.  Thus  we  have  on 
one  or  two  occasions  ‘young  lions’  for  ‘venom- 
snakes,’  Tseboa  (hyaenas)  likewise  for  serpents, 
probably  because  in  the  first  case  the  idea  of 
slaughter  or  destruction  is  associated  with  both, 
and  because  in  the  second  the  notion  of  striped 
or  varied  is  predominant.  So  also  in  Achsub, 
either  a serpent  striking  backwards,  or  a scorpion, 
or  a tarantula  doing  the  same  thing,  may  be  under- 
stood, from  the  same  faculty  being  ascribed  to 
them  all. — C.  H.  S. 

SERVANT.  [Slave.] 

SERUG  (ynb*,  shoot,  tendril ; Sept,  and 
New  Test.  Seooox)*  80,1  Reu,  and  father  of 
Nahor  the  grandfather  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xi.  20  ; 
l Chron.  i.  6).  He  was  130  years  old  at  the 


birth  of  Nahor,  and  died  at  the  age  of  330. 
The  name  occurs  in  the  genealogy  of  Christ 
(Luke  iii.  35).  The  Jewish  traditions  affirm 
that  Seiug  was  the  first  of  his  line  who  fell  into 
idolatry;  and  this  seems  to  be  sanctioned  by, 
and  is  probably  built  upon,  the  charge  of  idolatry 
brought  against  Terah  and  the  fathers  beyond 
the  Euphrates  in  Josh.  xxiv.  2. 

SETH  (H^,  compensation ; Sept.  2^0),  the 
tnird  son  of  Adam,  to  whom  Eve  gave  this  name 
in  consequence  of  regarding  him  as  sent  to  re- 
place Abel,  whom  Cain  had  slain  (Gen.  iv.  25, 
26  ; v.  3,  sq.). 

SEVEN,  &c.  (Heb.  whence  the  Greek 
eTrrd,  the  aspirate  breathing  being  substituted  for 
the  sibilant  letter,  as  in  e£  for  5^^,  &c.,  which, 
however,  appears  again  in  the  Latin  septem,  and 
English  seven).  This  word  is  used  to  express  the 
number  6 + 1.  Thus  Balaam  said  unto  Balak, 
‘ Build  me  here  seven  altars,  and  prepare  me  here 
seven  oxen  and  seven  rams ; and  Balak  and 
Balaam  offered  on  every  altar  a bullock  and  a 
ram  ’ (Num.  xxiii.  1,  2.  Sept.  e7rrd).  The  Vul- 
gate reads,  ‘ ^Edificamihi  hie  septem  aras  et  para 
totidem  vitulos,  ejusdem  numeri  arietes.’  (In  the 
New  Test,  see  Matt.  xv.  31-36;  xxii.  25,  &c.) 
The  Lexicons  generally,  both  ancient  and  modern, 
also  assign  to  the  word  and  its  derivatives  the 
farther  office  of  a round  or  indefinite  number,  to 
express  a small  number,  in  the  sense  of  several 
(as  we  use  ten  or  a dozen).  Thus  Suidas  says, 
‘ fTTTa  iirl  ttAi'iOovs  raTTerai.'  And  Gesenius 
says  the  same;  but  his  first  reference  under  this 
head  to  Gen.  xli.  2,  &c.,  is  inappropriate ; for 
there  the  word  certainly  denotes  the  particular 
number,  namely,  the  ‘ seven  well-favoured  kine 
of  Pharaoh's  dream,  which  ate  up  the  seven  ill- 
favoured,  and  the  seven  thin  ears  of  corn  which 
ate  up  the  seven  good  ones,’  and  which  are  re- 
spectively interpreted  by  Joseph  to  mean  seven 
years  of  plenty  and  seven  years  of  famine,  and  are 
recorded  to  have  been  numerically  ful  filled 
(comp.  2-7;  25-30;  47-51).  It  appears  to  us  pos- 
sible to  resolve  all  the  other  passages  referred  by 
Gesenius  and  others  to  this  class,  into  the  idea 
of  sufficiency,  satisfaction,  fulness,  completeness, 
perfection,  abundance,  &c.,  intimated  in  the 
Hebrew  root  from  which  the  numeral  in 

question  is  derived.  For  instance,  Gesenius  refers 
to  l Sam.  ii.  5,  ‘ The  barren  hath  bom  seven,’  that 
is.  hath  been  blessed  with  an  ample  family  (Vulg. 
Steri  1 is  peperit  plurimos);  to  Isa.  iv.  1,  ‘ Seven 
women  shall  take  hold  of  one  man,’  where  the  idea 
seems  to  be  that  of  abundance  of  females  compared 
with  the  men,  so  many  of  the  latter  having  been 
slain  in  the  war  (see  Lowth  in  loe.) ; to  Ruth  iv. 
15,  ‘ Better  to  thee  than  seven  sens,’  i.  e.  an. abund- 
ance of  them;  to  Prov.  xxvi.  25.  ‘There  are  seven 
abominations  in  his  heart,’  i.  e.  completeness  of 
depravity  (comp.  Prov.  vi.  31),  where  the  thief  is 
said  to  make  a ‘ sevenfold,’  that  is,  complete  resti- 
tution (comp.  Exod.  xxii.  1-4).  Thus  also  th» 
phrase,  ‘ To  flee  seven  ways’  (Deut.  xxviii.  7,, 
denotes  a total  overthrow  ; to  ‘punish  seven  times’ 
(Lev.  xxvi.  24),  to  punish  completely  ; ‘ Six 
and  seven  troubles,’  a very  great  and  entire  cala- 
mity (Job  v.  19);  ‘ Give  a portion  to  seven,  also 
to  eight,’  be  not  only  duly  liberal,  but  abundant; 

‘ Silver  purified  seven  times/  perfectly  purified 
(Psa.  xii.  6);  ‘Seven  times  a day  do  I prais# 


SEVEN, 


SHARED. 


739 


thee,’  I fully  perform  the  duty  of  thanksgiving 
(Psa.  cxix.  1G4).  Rabbi  Solomon,  however,  con- 
tends for  the  literal  interpretation  of  this  passage, 
which  seems  to  have  been  acted  upon  by  certain 
Jews  and  Christians.  Some  of  the  Greek  versions  in 
Montfaucon’s  Hexapla  render  the  Hebrew  word  by 
irAeia  rams,  ‘often,’  ‘frequently.’  The  above  ex- 
planation applies  to  Gesenius's  instances  of  * poet- 
ical fictions/  viz.,  Job’s  seven  sons  and  seven  thou- 
sand sheep  (i.  2,  3),  and  the  seven  days  and  seven 
nights  during  which  his  friends  sat  with  him  in 
silence  on  the  ground  (ii.  13).  The  word  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  to  express  the  same  idea  of 
abundance  or  completeness ; thus,  ‘ Mary  Mag- 
dalene, out  of  whom  Jesus  cast  seven  devils’ 
(Mark  xvi.  S)  ; where  we  must  either  suppose  the 
Evangelist  to  give  by  inspiration  a numerical 
statement,  or  that  his  words  mean  a most  entire 
case  of  extraordinary  and  not  understood  disease. 
Our  Lord’s  comparison  of  the  men  of  that  genera- 
tion to  the  case  of  the  demon  which  had  gone  out 
of  a man,  returning  with  seven  other  spirits  more 
wicked  than  himself,  seems  to  mean  that  if  Jesus 
were  to  grant  the  sign  demanded  by  the  Pharisees, 
no  other  result  would  ensue  than  a momentary 
conviction,  followed  by  consummate  unbelief 
(Matt.  xii.  43).  ‘ The  seven  spirits  before  the 
throne’  would  seem  to  be  a periphrasis  of  perfec- 
tion, denoting  the  Holy  Spirit  (Rev.  i.  4).  Mul- 
tiples of  this  number  convey  the  idea  of  super- 
abundance. Thus,  Gen.  iv.  24,  ‘ If  Cain  be 
avenged  sevenfold  [that  is  abundantly],  surely 
Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold,’  whose  guilt  from 
accidental  homicide  is  so  much  less.  Similar  is 
St.  Peter’s  question  respecting  the  forgiveness  of 
injuries,  and  the  answer  he  received.  It  is  most 
likely  that  the  idea  of  sufficiency  and  complete- 
ness became  originally  associated  with  the  num- 
ber seven,  from  the  Creator  having  finished,  com- 
pleted, or  made  sufficient,  all  his  work  on  the 
seventh  day;  and  that  hence  also  it  was  adopted 
as  a sacred  number,  or  a number  chiefly  employed 
in  religious  concerns,  in  order  to  remind  mankind 
of  the  creation  and  its  true  author.  Thus  there  were 
seven  offerings  in  making  a covenant  (Gen.  xxi. 
28)  ; seven  lamps  in  the  golden  candlestick  (Exod. 
xxxvii.  23);  the  blood  was  sprinkled  seven  times 
(Lev.  iv.  16,  17)  ; every  seventh  year  was  sab- 
batical, seven  sabbaths  of  years  in  the  jubilee  (xxv. 

8)  ; seven  trumpets,  seven  priests  that  sounded 
them  seven  days  round  Jericho,  seven  lamps, 
seven  seals,  &c.  &e.  We  also  find,  as  might  na- 
turally be  expected,  the  number  seven  introduced 
into  forms  of  superstition,  &c.  Thus  Samson 
said,  ‘ If  they  bind  me  with  seven  green  withs, 
if  thou  weavest  the  seven  locks  of  my  head/  from 
which  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  Nazarite  bound 
tip  his  hair  in  this  number  of  curls  or  plaited  locks 
(Judg.  xvi.  7-13).  Balaam  ordered  seven  altars 
to  be  erected.  It  was  considered  a fortunate 
number  among  the  Persians  (Esth.  i.  10-14  ; ii. 

9) .  Cicero  calls  it  the  knot  and  cement  of  all 
things,  as  being  that  by  which  the  natural  and 
spiritual  world  are  comprehended  in  one  idea 
(Tusc.  Qncest.  i.  10).  Nor  is  this  subject  de- 
void of  practical  utility.  The  references  which 
occur  in  the  patriarchal  history  to  the  num- 
ber seven,  as  denoting  a week  or  period  of  seven 
days,  sufficiency,  &c.,  and  a sacred  number, 
afford  a minute,  indirect,  but  not  an  inconsider- 
able argument,  that  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath 


was  both  established  and  observed  from  fhe  com- 
mencement ; and  not,  as  Paley  thinks,  during  the 
wandering  in  (he  wilderness  : an  argument  abun- 
dantly confirmed  by  the  regard  to  the  seventh 
day  which  has  prevailed  too  far  and  wide  among 
various  nations,  to  be  attributed  to  their  com- 
paratively late  intercourse  with  the  .Tews  (Jose- 
phus, Cont.  Ap.  ii.  39). — J.  F.  I). 

SHAALBIM  (D^yt?,  city  of  foxes  ; Sept. 
2aAa/3iV),  called  also  Sha.ai.bin,  a city  of  the 
tribe  of  Dan  (Josh.  xix.  42),  but  of  which  it  could 
not  for  a long  while  dispossess  the  Amorites 
(Judg.  i.  35).  In  the  time  of  Solomon  it  was 
the  station  of  one  of  the  twelve  officers  or  intend- 
ants  appointed  to  regulate  the  collection  of  pro- 
visions for  the  court  (1  Kings  iv.  9).  One  of 
David's  worthies  belonged  to  this  place  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  32 ; 1 Chron.  xi.  32). 

SHAALIM  (D^y.K',  foxes  region ; Sept. 
2e*yaAi (u),  a district  named  in  1 Sam.  ix.  4 ; 
probably  that  in  which  Shaalbim  was  situated. 

SHAASHGAZ  (WW  5 Sept.  Tot),  the  appro- 
priate name  (meaning  in  Persian,  servant  of  the 
beautiful ) of  a Persian  eunuch,  the  keeper  of  the 
women  in  the  court  of  Ahasuerus  (Esth.  ii.  14). 

SHADDAI  ('l^  ; Sept,  ttclvt oKparup;  Vulg. 
in  Pentateuch,  Omnipotens ),  an  epithet  or  name 
applied  to  Jehovah,  sometimes  with  (Gen.  xvii. 
1 ; Exod.vi.  3),  and  sometimes  without  (John  v. 
7 ; vi.  4 ; viii.  3,  13  ; Gen.  xlix.  5 ; Ruth  i.  20, 
21,  and  elsewhere),  the  prefix  El.  In  the 
Authorized  Version  the  name  is  given  as  Ei.-Shad- 
dai  where  it  first  occurs;  but  is  everywhere  else 
rendered  by  ‘Almighty/  which  is  the  true  signi- 
fication, the  word  being  a pluralis  excellentiae 
from  the  singular  ‘ mighty/  ‘ powerful.’ 

SHADRACH,  one  of  the  three  friends  of 
Daniel,  who  were  delivered  from  the  burning, 
fiery  furnace  [Abednego], 

SHAIT.  [Thorns.] 

SHARED  OB?9  occurs  in  several  passages  of 
Scripture,  and  is  generally  acknowledged  to 
mean  the  almond;  as  in  Gen.  xliii.  11,  where 
Jacob  desires  his  sons  to  take  into  Egypt  of  the 
best  fruits  of  the  land  almonds  ( shakedim ),  &c. 
In  Exod.  xxv.  33,  34  ; xxxvii.  19,  bowls  are  di- 
rected to  be  made  like  unto  almonds.  In  Num. 
xvii.  8,  the  rod  of  Aaron  is  described  as  having 
‘ brought  forth  buds,  and  bloomed  blossoms,  and 
yielded  almonds  ’ ( shakedim ).  The  word  occurs 
in  the  singular  in  Eccles.  xii.  5,  and  in  Jer.  i.  11. 
In  the  article  Luz,  we  have  already  slated,  that 
from  the  similarity  of  that  word  to  the  Arabic 
Louz,  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  the  former  having 
the  same  meaning  as  the  latter,  both  denoting  the 
almond.  There  is  nothing  remarkable  in  a tree 
like  this,  so  conspicuous  from  its  early  flowering, 
showy  appearance,  and  useful  fruit,  having  two 
names  ; one  (luz)  applicable  to  the  tree,  and 
the  other  ( shaked )J  to  the  fruit.  Rosenmiiller 
says,  ‘ The  difference  between  luz  and  shaked 
seems  to  be,  that  the  former  word  designates  the 
“ wild,”  the  latter  the  “ cultivated”  tree.’  The 
almond  tree  is  said  to  be  called  shaked , because 
it  flowers  earlier  in  the  spring  than  other  trees. 
R.  Solomon,  on  Eccles.  xii.  5,  as  translated  by 
Celsius  ( Hierobot . i.  p.  297),  says,  ‘ Shaked  est 


740 


SHAKED. 


SHAMIR. 


arbor  Amygdalarum,  et  sic  dicitur,  quia  floves 
mature  profert  ante  omnes  arbores.’  This  is  well 
known  to  be  the  case  even  in  this  country.  It  was 
observed  by  the  ancients,  as  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  xvi. 
25)  remarks,  ‘ Kx  his  quae  hyeme  aquila  exoriente 
concipiunt,  floret  prima  omnium  Amygdala  mense 
Januario  : Martio  vero  pomum  maturat.’  The 
name  shaked  is  said  to  be  derived  ‘ a verbo 
“IpCt  shakad , assiduus  et  diligens  fuit;*  and 
which  is  also  translated  ‘ to  make  haste/  ‘ to  awake 


early.’  As  the  almond  tree  is  a native  of  Syria 
and  Palestine,  and  extends  from  thence  to  Aff- 
ghanistan,  and  is  not  likely  to  have  been  indi- 
genous in  Egypt,  almonds  were  very  likely  to 
form  part  of  a present  from  Jacob,  even  to  the 
great  men  of  Egypt ; the  more  especially  as  the 
practice  of  the  East  is  for  people  to  present 
what  they  can  afford  in  their  respective  stations. 
The  form  of  the  almond  would  lead  to  its  se- 
lection for  ornamental  carved  work,  indepen- 
dently of  its  forming  an  esteemed  esculent,  as 
well  as  probably  yielding  a useful  oil.  In  Eccles. 
xii.  5,  it  is  said,  ‘The  almond  tree  shall  flourish, 
.and  the  fruit  of  the  caper  [Abiyonah]  droop, 
because  man  goeth  to  his  long  home.’  This  evi- 
dently refers  to  the  profuse  flowering  and  white 
appearance  of  the  almond  tree  when  in  full  bloom, 
and  before  its  leaves  appear.  It  is  hence  adduced 
as  illustrative  of  the  hoary  hairs  of  age,  in  the 
same  way  as  the  drooping  of  the  fruit  of  the  caper 
seems  to  refer  to  the  hanging  down  of  the  head 
Mr.  Kitto  mentions  the  almond  among  the  first 
trees  that  flower  in  January.  ‘ There  are  two 
species  of  Amygdalus  in  Palestine ; the  common 
almond  tree,  and  the  peach  tree,  and  both  are  this 
month  in  blossom  in  every  part  of  Palestine,  on 
both  sides  of  the  Jordan.  It  was  doubtless  from 
this  winter  blossoming  of  the  almond  tree,  not 
less  than  from  the  snowy  whiteness  of  the  blos- 
soms, that  the  hoary  head  of  the  aged  man  is,  by 
a beautiful  metaphor,  said  in  Scripture,  to  flourish 
like  the  almond  tree’  ( Physic.  Hist,  of  Palestine). 


SH ALISHA  P^^;Sept.  2 e\xd),  a d*. 
trict  in  the  vicinity  of  the  mountains  of  Ephraisc 
(1  Sam.  ix.  4),  in  which  appears  to  have  been 
situated  the  city  of  Baal-Shalisha  (2  Kings  iv.  22). 
This  city  is  called  by  Eusebius  Beth-Shalisha, 
and  is  placed  by  him  15  miles  from  Diospoli* 
(Lydda),  towards  the  north. 

SHALLUM  (D>>^,  retribution ; Sept.  2e\- 
\ovfx),  the  fifteenth  king  of  Israel.  In  the  troubled 
times  which  followed  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II., 
b.c.  772,  his  son  Zechariah  was  slain  in  the 
presence  of  the  people  by  Shallum,  who  by  this 
act  extinguished  the  dynasty  of  Jehu.  Shallum 
then  mounted  the  throne  (b.c.  771),  but  occupied 
it  only  one  month,  being  opposed  and  slain  by 
Menahem,  who  mounted  the  throne  thus  vacated 
(2  Kings  xv.  10-15). 

2.  A king  of  Judah,  son  of  Josiah  (Jer.  xxii. 
1 1),  better  known  by  the  name  of  Jchoahaz  [Jk- 
hoaiiaz  II.]. 

3.  The  husband  of  Huldah  the  prophetess  (2 
Kings  xxii.  14).  Several  other  persons  of  this 
name  occur  in  Ezra  ii.  42;  vii.  2;  x.  24,  42; 
Neh.  iii.  12;  vii  45  ; 1 Chron.  ii.  40. 

SHALMANESER,  king  of  Assyria  [Assy- 
ria]. 

SHAMGAR  (*7|tJ$ ; Sept.  ZayeyAp),  son  o* 
Anath,  and  third  judge  of  Israel.  It  is  not 
known  whether  the  only  exploit  recorded  of  him 
was  that  by  which  his  authority  was  acquired.  It 
is  said  that  he  ‘slew  of  the  Philistines  600 
men  with  an  ox-goad’  (Judg.  iii.  31).  It  is 
supposed  that  he  was  labouring  in  the  field,  with 
out  any  other  weapon  than  the  long  stall'  armed 
with  a strong  point,  used  in  urging  and  guid ing  the 
cattle  yoked  to  the  plough,  when  he  perceived  a 
party  of  the  Philistines,  whom,  with  the  aid  of 
the  husbandmen  and  neighbours,  he  repulsed  with 
much  slaughter.  The  date  and  duration  of  hi* 
government  are  unknown,  but  may  be  probably 
assigned  to  the  end  of  that  long  period  of  repose 
which  followed  the  deliverance  under  Ehud.  In 
Shamgar’s  time,  as  the  song  of  Deborah  informs 
us  (Judg.  v.  6),  the  condition  of  the  people  was 
so  deplorably  insecure  that  the  highways  were 
forsaken,  and  travellers  went  through  by-ways, 
and,  for  the  same  reason,  the  villages  were  aban- 
doned for  the  walled  towns. 

1.  SHAMIR,  a precious  stone,  named  in  Jer. 
xvii.  1 ; Ezek.  iii.  9 ; Zech.  vii.  1 2.  The  Sept, 
in  Jer.  xvii.  1,  and  the  Vulgate  in  all  the  passages, 
take  it  for  the  diamond.  The  signification  of  the 
word,  ‘ a sharp  point,’  countenances  this  inter- 
pretation, the  diamond  being  for  its  hardness  used 
in  perforating  and  cutting  other  minerals.  In- 
deed, this  use  of  the  shamir  is  distinctly  alluded 
to  in  Jer.  xvii.  1,  where  the  stylus  pointed  with  it 
is  distinguished  from  one  of  iron  (comp.  Plin. 
Hist.  Nat.  xxxvii.  15).  The  two  other  passages 
also  favour  this  view  by  using  it  figuratively  to 
express  the  hardness  and  obduracy  of  the  Israelites. 
Our  Authorized  Version  has  ‘ diamond’  in  Jer. 
xvii.  1,  and  ‘ adamant’  in  the  other  texts  : but  in 
the  original  the  word  is  the  same  in  all.  Bochart, 
however  ( Hieroz . iii.  843,  sq.),  rejects  the  usual 
explanation,  and  comparing  the  word  shamir 
with  the  Greek  ayipis  or  cryipis,  conceives  it  te 
mean  ‘ emery.’  This  is  a calcined  iron  mixed  with 
siliceous  earth,  occurring  in  1 vid  scales  of  such 


SHAMIR. 


SHAPHAN. 


741 


hardness  that  in  ancient  times,  as  at  present,  it 
was  used  for  polishing  and  engraving  precious 
stones,  diamonds  excepted  (Hoffmann,  Mineral,  i. 
561,  sq.).  Rosenmiiller  is  in  favour  of  the  dia- 
mond in  his  Scholia  ; but  in  his  Alterthumskunde , 
he  takes  up  Bochart’s  notion,  and  urges  that  if 
the  Hebrews  had  ;een  acquainted  with  the  dia- 
mond, and  the  manner  of  working  it,  we  should 
doubtless  have  found  it  among  the  stones  of  the 
high-priest’s  breastplate  ; and  that,  as  the  shamir 
was  not  one  of  the  stones  thus  employed,  there- 
fore it  was  not  the  diamond.  But  to  this  Winer 
well  answers,  that  it  was  perhaps  not  used  be- 
cause it  could  not  be  engraved  on,  or  was  possibly 
not  introduced  until  a later  period.  The  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  rarity  of  the  word  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  of  little  weight,  and  there  is  no 
necessity  for  seeking  an  Oriental  origin  of  the 
word  apipis , or  ground  for  considering  it  identi- 
cal with  shamir,  as  it  may  easily  be  traced  from 
the  Greek  itself.  (See  Passow,  s.  v. ; Eichhorn, 
De  Gemmis  Sculpt.  Hebr .) 

2.  SHAMIR,  a city  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  48). 

3.  SHAMIR,  a city  in  the  mountains  of 
Ephraim,  where  Tola  lived  and  was  buried  (Judg. 

x.  1,  2). 

4.  SHAMIR  [Thorns]. 

SHAMMAH  (i"IK)£2,  astonishment ; 'Zapata), 
one  of  the  three  chief  of  the  thirty  champions  of 
David.  The  exploit  by  which  he  obtained  this 
high  distinction,  as  described  in  2 Sam.  xxiii. 
11,  12,  is  manifestly  the  same  as  that  which  in 
1 Chron.  xi.  12-14,  is  ascribed  to  David  himself, 
assisted  by  Eleazar  the  son  of  Dodo.  The  in- 
ference, therefore,  is,  that  Shammah 's  exploit  lay 
in  the  assistance  which  he  thus  rendered  to  David 
and  Eleazar.  It  consisted  in  the  stand  which  the 
others  enabled  David  to  make,  in  a field  of  len- 
tiles,  against  the  Philistines.  Shammah  also 
shared  in  the  dangers  whicli  Eleazar  and  Jasho- 
beam  incurred  in  the  chivalric  exploit  of  forcing 
a way  through  the  Philistine  host  to  gratify 
David’s  thirst  for  the  waters  of  Bethlehem 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.  16). 

Other  persons  of  this  name  occur.  2.  A son 
of  Reuel  (Gen.  xxxvi.  13,  17).  3.  A brother  of 

David  (1  Sam.  xvi.  9 ; xvii.  3),  who  is  elsewhere 
called  Shimeah  (2  Sam.  xiii.  3,  32)  and  Shimma 
(1  Chron.  ii.  13).  4.  One  of  David’s  thirty 

champions,  seemingly  distinct  from  the  chief  of 
the  same  name  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  33).  5.  Another 

of  the  champions  distinguished  as  Shammah  the 
Harodite  ; he  is  called  Shammoth  in  1 Chron. 

xi.  27,  and  Shamhuth  in  1 Chron.  xxvii.  8. 
That  three  of  the  thirty  champions  should  bear 
the  same  name  is  somewhat  remarkable. 

SHAPHAN  (|S&£),  occurs  in  Lev.  xl.  5 ; 
Deut.  xiv.  7 ; Ps.  civ.  18  ; Prov.  xxx.  26.  Com- 
mentators, in  general,  now  conclude,  on  the  most 
satisfactory  grounds,  that  those  versions  which 
give  Cony  for  the  Hebrew  Shaphan  are  incorrect; 
but  several  still  maintain  that  the  species  to  which 
Shaphan  belongs  ruminates,  which  is  equally  an 
error.  The  Shaphan  is,  in  truth,  as  Bruce  justly 
indicated,  the  6ame  as  the  Ashkoko,  the  Ganam, 
not  Daman,  Israel,  the  Wabber  of  the  Arabs,  and 
in  scientific  zoology  is  one  of  the  small  genus 
Hyrax,  distinguished  by  the  specific  name  of 
Syrian  ( Syriacus ).  In  the  upper  jaw  it  has  no 


incisors,  but  two  rather  pointed  tusks  directed 
downwards,  with  an  open  space  between  them  ; 
in  the  lower  are  four  short,  separated,  roundish 
incisors,  pointing  obliquely  forward  ; there  are 
six  molars  on  each  side,  above  and  below,  the 
upper  round  on  the  surface,  somewhat  resembling 
the  human  back  teeth,  and  the  lower  more  nar- 
row, but  neither  composed  of  alternate  laminae  of 
bony  and  enamel  substance  as  in  ruminants  ; nor 
is  the  jaw-bone  articulated  so  as  to  admit  freely 
of  a similar  action  ; finally,  the  internal  structure 
as  well  as  the  whole  osteology  represents  that  of  a 
rhinoceros  in  miniature,  and  has  no  appearance 
of  the  complicated  four-fold  stomachs  of  rumi- 
nants; therefore  the  hyrax  is  neither  a rodent,  like 
hares  and  rabbits,  nor  a ruminant,  but  is  anoma- 
lous, and  most  nearly  allied  to  the  great  Pachy- 
derms of  systematic  zoology.  Externally,  the 
hyrax  is  somewhat,  of  the  size,  form,  and  brownish 
colour  of  a rabbit,  and,  though  it  has  short  round 
ears,  sufficiently  like  for  inexact  observers  to  mis- 
take the  one  for  the  other.  Navigators  and  colo- 
nists often  carry  the  local  names  of  their  native 
land  to  other  countries,  and  bestow  them  upon 
new  objects  with  little  propriety : this  seems  to  have 
been  done  in  the  instance  before  us ; there  being 
reason  to  believe  that  the  Phoenicians,  on  visiting 
the  western ' shores  of  the  European  side  of  the 
Mediterranean,  found  the  country,  as  other  autho- 
rities likewise  assert,  infested  with  rabbits  or  co- 
nies, and  that  without  attending  to  the  difference 
they  bestowed  upon  them  the  Hebrew  or  Phoe- 
nician name  of  Shaphan,  applying  it  also  to  the 
country  itself  by  forming  sphan,  into  iTOSS* 

sphanih , which  they  intended  should  mean  ‘ the 
land  of  conies ;’  and  from  this  misnomer  ‘ Hispa- 
nia”  and  our  ‘ Spain  ’ are  presumed  to  be  derived 


The  hyrax  is  of  clumsier  structure  than  the 
rabbit,  without  tail,  having  long  bristly  hairs 
scattered  through  the  general  fur;  the  feet  are 
naked  below,  and  all  the  nails  are  fiat  and  rounded, 
save  those  on  each  inner  toe  of  the  hind  feet,  which 
are  long  and  awl-shaped  ; therefore  the  species 
cannot  dig,  and  is  by  nature  intended  to  reside, 
not,  like  rabbits,  iu  burrows,  but  in  the  clefts  of 
rocks.  This  character  is  correctly  applied  to  the 
Shaphan  by  David 

Their  timid  gregarious  habits,  and  the  tender- 
ness of  their  paws,  make  them  truly  ‘ the  wise 
and  feeble  folk  ’ of  Solomon  ; for  the  genus  lives 
in  colonies  in  the  crevices  of  stony  places  in 
Syria,  Palestine,  Arabia,  Eastern  Egypt,  Abys- 
sinia, and  even  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  where 
one  or  two  additional  species  exist.  In  every 
locality,  they  are  quiet,  gentle  creatures,  loving 
to  bask  in  the  sun,  never  stirring  far  from  their 
retreats,  moving  with  caution,  and  shrinking  from 
the  shadow  of  a passing  bird ; for  they  are  often 
the  prey  of  eagles  and  hawks ; their  habits  are 
strictly  diurnal,  and  they  feed  on  vegetables  and 


742 


SHARAB. 


SHEBA. 


seeds..  It  may  lie  that  the  peculiar  structure  of 
their  anterior  teeth  is  convenient  for  stripping  oft’ 
the  seeds  of  grasses  and  tritica,  and  that  these  in 
part  retained  in  the  mouth  cause  a practice  of 
working  the  jaws,  which,  to  common  observers, 
may  appear  to  be  chewing  the  cud.  In  hares 
and  rats  a similar  appearance  is  produced  by  a 
particular  friction  of  the  incisois  or  nippers,  which, 
growing  with  great  rapidity,  would  soon  extend 
beyond  a serviceable  length,  if  they  were  not  kept 
to  their  proper  size  by  constant  gnawing,  and  by 
working  the  cutting  edges  against  each  other. 
This  action,  observed  in  the  motion  of  the  lips  of 
most  rodents,  when  in  a state  of  rest,  caused  the 
belief  of  rumination  in  the  hare,  though,  like  the 
hyrax,  all  rodentia  are  equally  unprovided  with 
the  several  stomachs,  and  want  the  muscular 
apparatus  necessary  to  force  the  food  back  into  the 
mouth  for  remastication  at  pleasure,  which  con- 
stitute the  leading  peculiarities  of  the  anatomical 
structure  of  the  ruminantia.  But  they  may  pos- 
sess, in  common  with  pachydermata,  like  the 
liorse  and  hog,  the  peculiar  aiticulation  and  form 
of  jaws  which  give  them  the  power  of  grinding 
their  food,  and  laminated  teeth,  fitted  for  the 
purpose. — C.  H S. 

SHAPHAN,  the  scribe  or  secretary  of  King 
Josiah  (2  Kings  xxii.  3,  12;  Jer.  xxxvi.  10; 
comp.  Ezra  viii.  11).  Contemporary  with  him 
was  a state  officer  named  Ahikam,  constantly 
mentioned  as  ‘ the  son  of  Shaphan’  (2  Kings 
xxii.  12;  xxv.  22;  Jer.  xxvi.  21;  xxxix.  14; 
and  perhaps  xxxix.  3) ; but  this  Shaphan,  the 
father  of  Ahikam,  can  hardly  be  the  same  with 
Shaphan  the  scribe,  although  the  heedless  reader 
may  be  apt  to  confound  them. 

SHARAB  (3"7p).  This  word  properly  means 
‘ heat  of  the  sun,'  as  in  Isa.  xlix.  10.  Hence  it 
is  used  to  designate  a phenomenon  which  is 
frequent  in  Arabia  and  Egypt,  and  may  be  occa- 
sionally seen  in  the  southern  parts  of  Europe; 
called  by  the  Aiabs  Serab , and  by  the  French 
le  Mirage , by  which  name  it  is  also  commonly 
known  in  English.  Descriptions  of  this  illusion 
are  often  given  by  travellers.  It  consists  in  the 
presentation  to  the  view  of  a lake  or  sea  in  the 
midst  of  a plain  where  none  in  reality  exists.  It 
is  produced  by  the  refraction  of  the  rays  of  light, 
during  the  exhalation  of  vapours,  by  the  excessive 
heat  of  the  sun  ; and  it  frequently  exhibits,  along 
with  the  undulating  appearance  of  water,  the 
shadows  of  objects  within  or  around  the  plain, 
ooth  in  a natural  and  in  an  inverted  position. 
The  deception  is  most  complete ; and  to  the 
weary  traveller  who  is  attracted  by  it,  in  the 
highest  degree  mortifying  ; since,  instead  of  re- 
freshing water,  he  finds  himself  in  the  midst  of 
nothing  but  glowing  sand.  It  is  often  used  pro- 
verbially, or  for  the  sake  of  comparison,  by  the 
Arabs,  as  in  the  Koran  (Sur.  xxiv.  39)  : ‘ But  as 
for  those  who  believe  not,  their  works  are  like 
the  Serab  of  the  plain  : the  thirsty  imagines  it  to 
be  water,  but  when  he  reaches  it  lie  finds  it  is 
nothing.’  The  same  figure  occurs  in  Isa.  xxxv.  7 : 
‘The  sharab  shall  become  a lake,'  i.e.  the  illu- 
sive appearance  of  a lake  in  the  desert  shall  be- 
come a real  lake  of  refreshing  waters.  See  Ge- 
senius  and  Henderson  on  Isaiah,  and  comp,  the 
descriptions  and  explanations  in  Kitto’s  Physical 
History  of  Palestine , pp.  147,  150,  151. 


SHAREZER  pYKTp,  Persic,  prints  oj 
fire ; Sept.  2 apaarap ),  a son  of  Sennacherib,  one 
of  those  who  slew  his  father  (2  Kings  xix.  37  ; 
Isa.  xxxvii.  38).  Another  person  of  this  name 
occurs  in  Zech.  vii.  2. 

SHARON  (|W;  Sept,  ^dpwv),  a level  tract 
along  the  Mediterranean,  between  Mount  Carmel 
and  Caesarea,  celebrated  for  its  rich  fields  and 
pastures  (Josh.  xii.  18  ; Cant.  ii.  1 ; Isa.  xxxii.. 
9;  xxxv.  2 ; lxv.  10;  1 Chron.  xxvii.  9).  See 
the  head  ‘ Plains,’  in  the  art.  Palestine. 

SHAVE.  [Beard;  Hair;  Mourning.] 

SHAVEH  (Hip ; Sept.  2aj8ti),  a valley  on 
the  north  of  Jerusalem,  called  also  the  King's 
Dale  (Gen.  xiv.  17 ; comp.  2 Sam.  xviii.  18). 

SHAVEH- IvIRJATH AIM  (Gen.  xiv.  5),  a 
plain  near  the  city  of  Kirjathaim,  beyond  Jordan, 
which  eventually  belonged  to  Reuben  (Num, 
xxxii.  37;  Josh.  xiii.  19). 

SHEALTIEL  asked  of  God ; 

Sept.  2aAa0t7?A.),  the  father  of  Zerubbabel  (Ezra 
iii.  2;  Neh.  xii.  1 ; Hag.  i.  12,  14  ; ii.  2);  called 
also  Salathiel  (1  Chron.  iii.  7). 

SHEAR-JASHUB  (3**5*  TKp,  the  remnani 
shall  return ; Sept.  6 icaTa\ei<t>6el$  Tcurou/S), 
son  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  who  accompanied  his 
father  when  he  proceeded  to  deliver  to  king 
Ahaz  the  celebrated  prophecy  contained  in 
Isa.  vii.  (see  verse  3).  As  the  sons  of  Isaiah 
sometimes  stood  for  signs  in  Israel  (Isa.  viii.  18), 
and  the  name  of  Maher-shalal-hash-baz  was  given 
to  one  of  them  by  way  of  prophetic  intimation, 
it  has  been  conjectured  that  the  somewhat  re- 
markable name  of  Shear-jashub  intimated  that 
the  people  who  had  then  retired  within  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem  should  return  in  peace  to  their  fields 
and  villages.  But  we  cannot  build  on  this,  as  it 
is  not  distinctly  stated  that  the  name  of  Shear- 
jashub  was  chosen,  like  that  of  his  brother,  with 
any  prophetic  intention. 

SHEBA,  SEBA,  SAB^EANS.  As  much 
confusion  has  been  introduced  by  the  variety 
of  meanings  which  the  name  Sabceans  has  been 
made  to  bear,  it  may  be  proper  to  specify  in  this 
place  their  distinctive  derivations  and  use.  In 
our  Authorized  Version  of  Scripture  the  term 
seems  to  be  applied  to  three  different  tribes.  1st. 
To  the  Sebaiini  (D^SD,  with  a samech),  the 
descendants  of  Sebaor  Saba,  son  of  Cush,  who  ul- 
timately settled  in  Ethiopia  (see  the  article  Seba). 
2nd.  To  the  Shekalim  (Q'&Op,  with  a shin),  the 
descendants  of  Sheba,  son  of  Joktan,  the  Sabcei 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  who  settled  in  Arabia 
Felix.  They  are  the  ‘Sabseans’  of  Joel  iii.  8,  to 
whom  the  Jews  were  to  sell  the  captives  of  Tyre. 
The  unpublished  Arabic  Version,  quoted  by 
Pocock,  has  4 the  people  of  Yemen.’  Hence  they 
are  called  4 a people  afar  oft',’  the  very  designa- 
tion given  in  Jer.  vi.  20  to  Sheba,  as  the  country 
of  frankincense  and  the  rich  aromatic  reed,  and 
also  by  our  Lord  in  Matt.  xii.  42,  who  says,  the 
queen  of  Sheba,  or  ‘the  south,’  came,  e/c  rur 
Trepdrav  rr/s  yns,  ‘from  the  earth's  extremes.' 
3rd.  To  another  tribe  of  Shebans  (fc$3p,  also  with 
a shin),  a horde  of  Bedawee  marauders  in  th* 
days  of  Job  (ch.  i.  15);  for  whether  we  place  the 


SHEBA. 


SHECHEM. 


m 


land  of  Uz  in  Idumaea  or  in  Ausitis,  it  is  by 
no  means  likely  that  the  Arabs  of  the  south  would 
extend  their  excursions  so  very  far.  We  must, 
therefore,  look  for  t h is  tribe  in  Desert  Arabia  ; and 
it  is  singular  enough,  that  besides  the  Seba  of 
Cush,  and  the  Shaba  of  Joktan,  there  is  another 
Sheba,  son  of  Jokshan,  and  grandson  of  Abraham, 
by  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  33);  and  his  posterity 
appear  to  have  been  ‘men  of  the  wilderness,’ 
as  were  their  kinsmen  of  Midian,  Ephah,  and 
Dedan.  To  them,  however,  the  above-  cited  pas- 
sage in  the  prophecy  of  Joel  could  not  apply, 
because  in  respect  neither  to  the  lands  of  Judah 
nor  of  Uz  could  they  be  correctly  described  as 
a people  ‘afar  off.’  As  for  the  Sabaim  ofEzek. 
xxiii.  42  (which  our  version  also  renders  by 
‘ Sabaeans’),  while  the  Keri  has  D^DD,  the  Kethib 
has  i.  e.  ‘ drunkards,’  which  better  suits 

the  context. 

Yet,  as  if  to  increase  the  confusion  in  the  use 
of  this  name  of  ‘ Sabaeans,’  it  has  also  been  ap- 
plied— 4th.  To  the  ancient  star-worshippers  of 
Western  Asia,  though  they  ought  properly  to  be 
styled  Tsabians,  and  their  religion  not  Sabaism 
but  Tsabaism,  the  name  being  most  probably  de- 
rived from  the  object  of  their  adoration,  fcOVj  the 
host,  i.  e.  of  heaven  (sea  an  excursus  by  Gese- 
nius  in  his  translation  of  Isaiah,  On  the  Astral 
Worship  of  the  Chaldceans ).  5th.  The  name  of 
Sabaeans,  or  .Saffians,  has  also  been  given  to  a 
modern  sect  in  the  East,  the  Manda'ites,  or,  as 
they  are  commonly  but  incorrectly  called,  the 
‘ Christians  ’ of  St.  John ; for  they  deny  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Christ,  and  pay  superior  honour  to 
John  the  Baptist.  They  are  mentioned  in  the 
Koran  under  the  name  of  Sabionna,  and  it  is 
probable  that  the  Arabs  confounded  them  with 
the  ancient  Tsabians  above  mentioned.  Norberg, 
however,  says  that  they  themselves  derive  their 
own  name  from  that  which  they  give  to  the  Bap- 
tist, which  is  Abo  Sabo  Zakrio  /from  Abo, ‘father;’ 
'Sabo,  ‘to  grow  old  together;’  and  Zakrio,  e.  g. 
Zecharia.  ‘ The  reason  they  assign  for  calling 
him  Sabo  is  because  his  father,  in  his  old  age, 
had  this  son  by.  his  wife  Aneschbat  (Elizabeth), 
she  being  also  in  her  old  age  (see  Nor  berg’s  Codex 
Nasarceus,  Liber  Adami  Apellatus , and  Silvestre 
de  Sacy,  in  the  Journal  des  Savans  for  1»19). 

Seba  (fc$3D)  was  the  eldest  son  of  Cush  (Gen. 
x.  7 ; 1 Chron.  i.  9),  and  gave  name  to  the  coun- 
try of  Seba  or  Saba,  and  to  one  of  the  tribes  called 
Sabaeans,  not,  however,  the  Shebaiim  (with  a 
shm ),  but  the  Sebaiim  (with  a samecK).  There 
seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  their  ultimate  set- 
tlement was  in  that  region  of  Africa  which  was 
known  to  the  Hebrews  as  the  land  of  Cush,  and 
to  the  Greeks  and  Romans  as  Ethiopia ; and  the 
Scriptural  notices  respecting  them  and  their 
country  have  been  already  anticipated  in  the 
articles  Cush  and  Ethiopia.  If  the  kingdom 
of  Seba  was  the  far-famed  Meroe,  and  the  king- 
dom of  Sheba  the  no  less  famous  Yemen,  then  it 
is  with  peculiar  propriety  that  the  king  of  African 
Seba  in  the  west,  and  the  king  of  Asiatic  Sheba 
in  the  east,  are  represented  by  the  Psalmist  (Ps. 
lxxii.  10)  as  bearing  their  united  homage  to  the 
‘ great  king  of  Judah.’  The  commerce  and 
wealth  of  these  Sabaeans  of  Ethiopia,  as  also  their 
gigantic  stature,  are  allud’d  to  by  the  prophet 


Isaiah  (ch.  xliii.  3:  xlv.  14),  and  his  testimony 
is  confirmed  by  the  profane  writers  of  antiquity. 
The  passages  quoted,  however,  are  the  only  places 
in  Scripture  where  the  Sabaeans  of  Africa  are  ex- 
pressly mentioned;  for  the  Sabaeans  of  Job  i.  15 
were  a tribe  of  Bedowees,  or  ‘men  of  the  desert,’ 
descended  from  Sheba,  grandson  of  Keturah ; 
and  the  Sabaeans  of  Joel  iii.  8 were  the  posterity 
of  another  Sheba,  son  of  Joktan,  in  Arabia 
Felix.  There  was,  indeed,  another  Sheba,  the 
son  of  Raagmah  and  the  grandson  of  Cush,  and 
consequently  the  nephew  of  the  Seba  who  is  the 
subject  of  the  present  article,  but  his  posterity 
appear  to  have  mingled  with  those  of  his  uncle. 
As  for  the  ‘ Sabaeans  ’ mentioned  in  our  version  at 
Ezek.  xxiii.  42,  although  the  Keri  reading  be 
D'frOD  Sabaim , the  Kethib  has  D'fcO'lD  Sobeim , 
‘ drunkards,’  which  gives  a better  sense ; besides 
that,  elsewhere  the  African  Sabaeans  are  not  styled 
Sabaiim  but  Sebaiim,  and  the  Arab  Sabaeans, 
Shebaiim. — N.  M. 

SHE  BAT  (LDpp'  ; Sept.  Safidr),  the  eleventh 
month  of  the  Hebrew  year,  from  the  new  moon 
of  February  to  the  new  moon  of  March.  The 
name  only  occurs  once  in  Scripture  (Zech.  i.  7), 
and  is  the  same  which  is  given  in  the  Arabic  and. 
Syriac  languages  to  the  same  month. 

SHKBNA  (£03t£*,  a youth  ; Sept.  'Xofxvas), 
the  prefect  of  the  palace  to  king  Hezekiah  (Isa. 
xxii.  15);  afterwards  promoted  to  be  scribe  or 
secretary  to  the  same  monarch,  when  his  former 
office  was  given  to  Eliakim  (Isa.  xxii.  15  ; xxxvi. 
3;  2 Kings  xviii.  26,  27  ; xix.  2). 

SHECHEM  (DD^;  Sept.  also  r a 

^iKijua),  a town  of  central  Palestine,  in  Samaria, 
among  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  (Josh.  xx.  7 ; 
1 Kings  xii.  25),  in  the  narrow  valley  between 
the  mountains  of  Ebal  and  Gerizim  (comp. 
Judg.  ix.  7;  Joseph.  Antiq.  iv.  8.  44),  and  con- 
sequently within  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (Josh.  xxi. 
20).  It  is  in  N.  lat.  32°  17',  E.  long.  35°  20', 
being  thirty-four,  miles  north  of  Jerusalem  and 
seven  miles  south  of  Samaria.  It  was  a very  an- 
cient place,  and  appears  to  have  arisen  as  a town 
in  the  interval  between  the  arrival  of  Abraham  in 
Palestine  and  the  return  of  Jacob  from  Padan- 
aram,  for  it  is  mentioned  oidy  as  a place,  de- 
scribed by  reference  to  the  oaks  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood, when  Abraham  came  there  on  first 
entering  the  land  of  Canaan  (Gen.  xii.  6).  But, 
in  the  history  of  Jacob  it  repeatedly  occurs  as  a 
town  having  walls  and  gates  : it  could  not,  how- 
ever, have  been  very  large  or  important,  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  consequence  which  the  inhabitants 
attached  to  an  alliance  with  Jacob,  and  from  the 
facility  with  which  the  sons  of  the  Patriarch  were 
able  to  surprise  and  destroy  them  (Gen.  xxxiii. 
18,  19:  xxxiv.  1,  2,  20,  24,  26;.  After  the 
conquest  of  the  country,  Shechem  was  made  a 
city  of  refuge  (Josh.  xx.  7),  and  one  of  the  Le- 
vitical  towns  (Josh.  xxi.  21),  and  during  the 
lifetime  of  Joshua  it  was  a centre  of  union  to  the 
tribes  (Josh.  xxiv.  1,  25),  probably  because  it 
was  the  nearest  considerable  town  to  the  residence 
of  that  chief  in  Timnath-serah.  In  the  time  of 
the  judges,  Shechem  became,  the  capital  of  the 
kingdom  set  up  by  Abimelech  (Judg.  ix.  1,  sq.), 
but  was  at  length  conquered  and  destroyed  by 


744 


SHECHEM. 


SHECHEM. 


him  (Judg.  ix.  3 I).  It  must,  however,  have 
been  ere  long  rebuilt,  for  it  had  again  become 
of  so  much  importance  by  the  time  of  Reho- 
boam’s  accession,  that  he  there  gave  the  meeting 
to  the  delegates  of  the  tribes,  which  ended  in  the 
separation  of  the  kingdom  (1  Kings  xii.  10). 
It  was  Shechem  which  the  first  monarch  of  the 
new  kingdom  made  the  capital  of  his  dominions 
(1  Kings  xii.  25;  comp.  xiv.  17),  although  later 
iu  his  reign  the  pleasantness  of  Tirzah  induced 
him  to  build  a palace  there,  and  to  make  it  the 
summer  residence  of  his  court ; which  gave  it 
such  importance,  that  it  at  length  came  to  be 
regarded  as  the  capital  of  the  kingdom,  till 
Samaria  eventually  deprived  it  of  that,  honour 
(1  Kings  xiv.  7 ; xvi.  24;  see  Israel).  She- 
chem, however,  still  throve.  It  subsisted  during 
the  exile  (Jer.  xii.  5),  and  continued  for  many 
ages  after  the  chief  seat  of  the  Samaritans  and  of 
their  worship,  their  sole  temple  being  upon  the 
mountain  (Gerizim),  at  whose  foot  the  city  stood 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  xi.  8.  6 ; comp.  John  iv.  20 1 
and  see  also  the  articles  Ebal  and  Gerizim, 
Samaritans).  The  city  was  taken,  and  the 
temple  destroyed,  by  John  Hvrcanus,  b.c.  129 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  9.  1 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  2.  6). 
In  the  New  Testament  it  occurs  under  the  name 
of  Sycbar  (Svxap’,  John  iv.  5),  which  seems  to 
have  been  a sort  of  nick-name  (perhaps  from 
sheker,  ‘ falsehood,’  spoken  of  idols  in  Hab.  ii. 
18;  or  from  TDt?  shikkor,  ‘drunkard,’  in  al- 
lusion to  Isa.  xviii.  1,  7), — such  as  the  Jews  were 
fond  of  imposing  upon  places  they  disliked; 
and  nothing  could  exceed  the  enmity  which  ex- 
isted between  them  and  the  Samaritans,  who  pos- 
sessed Shechem.  Stephen,  however,  in  his  his- 
torical retrospect,  still  uses  the  proper  and  an- 
cient name  (Acts  vii.  16).  Not  long  after  the 
times  of  the  New  Testament  the  place  received 
the  name  of  Neapolis,  which  it  still  retains 
in  the  Arabic  form  of  Nabulus,  being  one 
of  the  very  few  names  imposed  by  the  Romans 
in  Palestine  which  have  survived  to  the  present 
day.  It  had  probably  suffered  much,  if  it  was 
not  completely  destroyed,  in  the  war  with  the 
Romans,  and  would  seem  to  have  been  restored  or 
rebuilt  by  Vespasian,  and  then  to  have  taken  this 
new  name ; for  the  coins  of  the  city,  of  which 
there  are  many,  all  hear  the  inscription,  Flavia 
Neapolis — the  former  epithet  no  doubt  derived 
from  Flavius  Vespasian  (Eckhel,  Doctr.  Num. 

iii.  433  ; Mionnet,  M€d.  Antiq.  v.  499).  The 
name  occurs  first  in  Josephus  (De  Bell.  Jud. 

iv.  8.  1),  and  then  in  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  14), 
Ptolemy  (Geog.  v.  16).  There  had  already 
been  converts  to  the  Christian  faith  at  this  place 
under  our  Saviour,  and  it  is  probable  that  a 
church  had  been  gathered  here  by  the  Apostles 
(John  iv.  30-42;  Acts  viii.  25;  ix.  31  ; xv.  3). 
Justin  Martyr  was  a native  of  Neapolis  (Apolog. 
ii.  41).  The  name  of  Germanus,  bishop  of  Nea- 
polis, occurs  in  a.d.  314  ; and  other  bishops  con- 
tinue to  be  mentioned  down  to  a.d.  53 6,  when 
the  bishop  John  signed  his  name  at  the  synod  of 
Jerusalem  (Reland,  Palcest.  p.  1009).  When 
the  Moslems  invaded  Palestine,  Neapolis  and 
other  small  towns  in  the  neighbourhood  were 
subdued  while  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  was  going 
on  (Abulfeda,  Annal.  i.  229).  After  the  taking 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Crusaders,  Neapolis  and  other 
S>wns  in  the  mountains  of  Samaria  tendered  their 


submission,  and  Tancred  took  possession  <.f  them 
without  resistance  (Will  Tyr.  ix.  20).  Neapolis 
was  laid  waste  by  the  Saracens  in  a.d.  1113; 
but  a few  years  after  (a.d.  1120)  a council  was 
held  here  by  king  Baldwin  II.,  to  consult  upon 
the  state  of  the  country  (Fulcher,  p.  424  ; Will. 
Tyr.  xii.  13).  Neapolis  was  not  made  a Latin 
bishopric,  but  belonged  probably  to  that  ol 
Samaria,  and  the  property  of  it  was  assigned  to 
the  abbot  and  canons  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  (Jac. 
de  Yitriacus,  ch.  lviii.).  After  some  disasters  in 
the  unquiet  times  which  ensued,  and  after  some 
circumstances  which  show  its  remaining  im- 
portance, the  place  was  finally  taken  from  the 
Christians  in  a.d.  1212,  by  Abu  Ali,  the  col- 
league of  Sultan  Bibars,  and  has  remained  in 
Moslem  hands  ever  since. 

There  is  no  reason  to  question  that  the  presen* 
town  occupies  the  site  of  the  ancient  Shechem, 
although  its  dimensions  are  probably  more  con- 
tracted. The  fertility  and  beauty  of  the  deep 
and  narrow  valley  in  which  the  town  stands, 
especially  in  its  immediate  neighbourhood,  have 
been  much  admired  by  travellers,  as  far  exceed- 
ing what  they  had  seen  in  any  other  part  of 
Palestine.  This  valley  is  not  more  than  500 
yards  wide  at  the  town,  which  stands  directly 
upon  its  water-shed,  the  streams  on  the  eastern 
part  flowing  off  east  into  the  plain,  and  so  to- 
wards the  Jordan,  while  the  fountains  on  the 
western  side  send  off  a pretty  brook  down  the 
valley  N.W.  towards  the  Mediterranean.  The 
town  itself  is  long  and  narrow,  extending  along 
the  N.E.  base  of  Mount  Gerizim,  and  partly 
resting  upon  its  declivity.  The  streets  are  narrow  ; 
the  houses  high,  and  in  general  well  built,  all  of 
stone,  with  domes  upon  the  roofs  as  at  Jerusalem. 
The  bazaars  are  good  and  well  supplied.  There 
are  no  ruins  which  can  be  called  ancient  in  this 
country,  but  there  are  remains  of  a church  of  fine 
Byzantine  architecture,  and  a handsome  arched 
gateway,  both  apparently  of  the  time  of  the  first 
crusades.  These  occur  in  the  main  street,  through 
the  whole  length  of  which  a stream  of  clear 
water  rushes  down — a rare  circumstance  in  the 
East.  The  population  of  the  place  is  rated  by 
Dr.  Olin  at  8000  or  10,000,  of  whom  500  or 
600  are  Christians  of  the  Greek  communion,  and 
the  rest  Moslems,  with  the  exception  of  about  130 
Samaritans,  and  one-third  that  number  of  Jews. 
The  inhabitants  bear  the  character  of  being  an 
unusually  valiant  as  well  as  a turbulent  race,  and 
some  years  since  maintained  a desperate  struggle 
against,  the  Egyptian  government,  in  some  bloody 
rebellions  (Robinson,  Palestine , ii.  94-136  ; Olin, 
Travels,  ii.  339-365  ; Narrative  of  the  Scottish 
Deputation , p.  208-218;  Schubert,  Morgenland, 
iii.  136-154  ; Winer,  Real-wort.  s.  v.  ; Lord 
Nugent.  Lands  Classical  and  Sacred,  ii.  172-180. 

2.  SHECHEM,  son  of  Hamor  prince  of 
the  country  or  district  of  Shechem,  in  which 
Jacob  formed  his  camp  on  his  return  from  Meso- 
potamia. This  young  man  having  seen  Jacob’s 
daughter  Dinah,  was  smitten  with  her  beauty, 
and  deflowered  her.  This  wrong  was  terribly 
and  cruelly  avenged  by  the  damsel’s  uterine 
brothers,  Simeon  and  Levi,  as  described  in  the 
article  Dinah  (Gen.  xxxv.).  It  seems  likely 
that  the  town  of  Shechem,  even  if  of  recent 
origin,  must  have  existed  before  the  birth  of  a 
man  so  young  as  Hamor ’s  son  appears  to  have 


SHEEP. 


SHEEP. 


745 


been  ; and  we  may  therefore  suppose  it  a name 
preserved  in  the  family,  and  which  both  the  town 
and  the  princes  inherited.  Shechem's  name  is 
always  connected  with  that  of  his  father  Hamor 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  19  ; xxxv. ; Acts  vii.  16). 

SHEEP,  nb  seh,  tzon , both  it  appears 

occasionally  used  as  a collective  term,  in- 
cluding goats  ; Arab,  zain ; fcJOD  kebes,  a 
lamb  under  a ^ear  old ; ajil,  the  adult 

ram,  but  originally  applied  also  to  the  males  of 

other  ruminants,  such  as  deer,  &c. ; rachal, 
a female  or  ewe  sheep — all  referable  to  Hebrew 
roots  with  apposite  meanings,  deserving  the  more 
confidence  since  the  earliest  patriarchs  of  the 
nation,  being  themselves  shepherds  and  graziers, 
had  never  at  any  time  received  this  portion  of 
their  domesticated  cattle  from  foieign  nations, 
and  therefore  had  indigenous  names  for  them. 


Domestic  sheep,  moreover,  although  commonly  re- 
garded as  the  progeny  of  one  particular  wild  species, 
are  probably  an  instance,  among  many  similar, 
where  the  wisdom  of  Providence  has  provided 
subsistence  for  man  in  different  regions,  by  bestow- 
ing the  domesticating  and  submissive  instincts 
upon  the  different  species  of  animals  which  the 
human  family  might  find  in  their  wanderings  ; for 
it  is  certain  that  even  the  American  argali  can  be 
rendered  tractable,  and  that  the  Corsican  mttsmon 
will  breed  with  the  qommon  sheep.  The  normal 
animal,  from  which  all  or  the  greater  part  of  the 
western  domestic  races  are  assumed  to  be  de- 
scended, is  still  found  wild  in  the  high  mountain 
regions  of  Persia,  and  is  readily  distinguished  from 
two  other  wild  species  bordering  on  the  same 
region.  What  breeds  the  earliest  shepherd  tribes 
reared  in  and  about  Palestine  can  now  be  only 
inferred  from  negative  characters ; yet  they  are 
sufficient  to  show  that  they  were  the  same,  or 
nearly  so,  as  the  common  horned  variety  of 
Egypt  and  continental  Europe : in  general  white, 
and  occasionally  black,  although  there  was  on 
the  upper  Nile  a speckled  race;  and  so  early  as 
the  time  of  Aristotle  the  Arabians  possessed  a 
rufous  breed,  another  with  a very  long  tail,  and 
above  all  a broad-tailed  sheep,  which  at  present 
is  commonly  denominated  the  Syrian.  These 
three  varieties  are  said  to  be  of  African  origin, 
the  red  hairy,  in  particular,  having  all  the  cha- 
racteristics to  mark  its  descent  from  the  wild 

Ovis  Tragelaphus  or  Barbatus  or 

Kebsch  of  the  Arabian  and  Egyptian  mountains 
[Rams’  Skins,  Red].  Flocks  of  the  ancient 
breed,  derived  from  the  Bedouins,  are  now  extant 
Syria,  with  little  or  no  change  in  external  cha- 


racters, chiefly  the  broad-tailed  an  J the  common 
horned  white,  often  with  black  and  white  about 
the  face  and  feet,  the  tail  somewhat  thicker  and 
longer  than  the  European.  The  others  are  chiefly 
valued  for  the  fat  of  their  broad  tails,  which 
tastes  not  unlike  marrow ; for  the  flesh  of  neither 
race  is  remarkably  delicate,  nor  are  the  fleeces 
of  superior  quality.  Sheep  in  the  various  con- 
ditions of  existence  wherein  they  would  occur 
among  a pastoral  and  agricultural  people,  are 
noticed  in  numerous  places  of  the  Bible,  and 
furnish  many  beautiful  allegorical  images,  where 
purity,  innocence,  mildness,  and  submission  are 
pourtrayed — the  Saviour  himself  being  denomi- 
nated ‘ the  Lamb  of  God,’  in  twofold  allusion  to 
his  patient  meekness,  and  to  his  being  the  true 
paschal  lamb,  ‘ slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world  ’ (Rev.  xiii,  8).  The  meaning  of  the  He- 
brew word  ntt'5?p  kesitah , occurring  only  in 
Gen.  xxxiii.  19,  and  Job  xlii.  11,  has,  we  think, 
been  contested  with  more  earnestness  than  can- 
dour, Bochart  himself  pointing  to  the  Greek, 
Onkelos,  Syrian,  Arabic,  and  Vulgate  transla- 
tions, where  we  find  sheep  or  lambs — these  autho- 
rities being  supported  by  the  Chaldee.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Rabbinical  expounders  have  ren- 
dered it  money  ; while  in  Costard’s  dissertation  on 
the  subject  neither  interpretation  seems  to  him 
satisfactory ; for  he,  in  common  with  Bochart  and 
others,  finding  no  Hebrew  word  or  root  to  justify 
the  version  sheep  or  lambs,  would  prefer  money , 
but  that,  according  to  him,  there  was  none  coined 
till  the  era  of  Cyrus,  and  never  any  bearing  the 
impression  of  a lamb,  &c.  Now  here  we  have 
assumptions,  and  not  proofs  ; there  is  no  reason 
why  sheep  should  not  in  the  East,  a land  emi- 
nently pastoral,  have  been  an  object  of  barter  in 
kind,  and  why  in  process  of  time  the  same  word 
should  not  have  been  applied  to  a piece  of  metal, 
as  pecus  in  Italy,  which  likewise  at  first  denoted 
sheep  or  ox,  and  subsequently  a coin.  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  metals,  very  an- 
ciently, in  the  shape  of  mere  rings  or  plates  of  a 
given  weight,  represented  the  value  of  sheep 

in  a more  convenient  form.  The  Jewish 
shakal , ‘ to  weigh,’  indicates  this  early  character 
of  money;  and  its  use  is  plainly  shown  in  Gen. 
xxiii.  16,  where  Abraham,  buying  a field  and 
cave,  weighs  out  four  hundred  shekels  of  silver, 
a kind  of  current  money,  the  medium  of  ex- 
change between  merchants,  but  not  therefore  coin, 
which  implies  a characteristic  impression  on  the 
metal.  In  Gen.  xxxiii.  19,  Kesitah  may  be  a 
Canaanitish,  or  more  properly  a Scytbo-Chaldaic 
designation  of  sheep  in  the  time  of  Jacob,  already 
represented  by  silver,  most  probably  cast  in  the 
form  of  that  animal,  and  of  a standard  weight, 
for  the  Hebrews  were  riot  as  yet  a people,  and  the 
Egyptians  cast  their  weights  in  metal  shaped  like 
cattle,  &c. ; and  that  Phoenicia,  at  a later  period, 
had  sheep  actually  impressed  on  a silver  coin, 
is  proved  by  that  figured  in  the  travels  of  Clarke. 
It  is  a medal  found  in  Cyprus,  of  irregular  form, 
with  the  impression  of  a ram  recumbent  on  one 
side,  and  on  the  other  a sun-flower,  Heliotropium 
or  Calendula,  which  occurs  also  on  the  peltae  of 
Amazons,  and  among  Indian  bas-reliefs.  Two 
Phoenician  letters  are  visible  at  the  sides  of  the 
flower.  But  in  Job  xlii.  11,  where  Kesitah  is 
iendered  in  the  Authorized  Version  by  ‘ money,’ 


743 


SHEKINAH. 


SHEKINAH. 


we  flunk  it  may  have  designated  ‘ sheep since 
rings  of  gold,  translated  ‘ ear-rings,’  follow  imme- 


diately after;  and  it  is  now  known  that  gold, 
during  the  earlier  ages,  was  in  Egypt  worked  into 
"ings,  as  an  article  of  exchange,  and  is  frequently 
represented  instead  of  money  among  the  objects 
of  tribute.  Rings  were  surely  more  likely  to  be 
presented  to  Job  as  money,  than  as  ornaments 
for  the  ears.  It  would  lead  us  beyond  our  limits 
to  show  the  probable  affinity  of  Kesita  and 
Kebesch  with  ancient  Scythian  roofs,  whereof 
Kaisak,  Kupjak,  Kirtak,  Kutschi,  and  even  the 
Persian  and  Turkish  Kotsclikui  and  Dachkutch 
are  all  mutations,  having  reference  to  ‘sheep’  or 
‘fleece.’  Kesitah  was  a foreign  term,  and  might 
perhaps  be  traced  to  the  Pelhevi,  or  some  other 
more  eastern  language. — C.  H.  S. 

SHEKEL.  [Weights  and  Measures.] 

SHEKINAH  oi-Shechinah  (fli'SEP),  a term 
applied  by  the  ancient  Jews,  especially  in  the 
Chaldee  Targums,  to  that,  visible  symbol  of  the 
divine  glory  which  dwelt  in  the  tabernacle  and 
temple.  The  word,  though  nowhere  met  with  in  this 
form  in  the  Scriptures,  is  a direct  derivative  from 
the  Hebrew  root  shukan,  * to  dwell,’  ‘ to  dwell 
in  a tent  or  tabernacle,'  which  is  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  sacred  writers,  and  is  used  mainly  to 
imply  the  tabernacled  presence  and  residence  of 
the  Most  High,  by  a visible  symbol  among  the 
chosen  people.  Though  found  in  several  connec- 
tions where  the  sense  of  secular  habitation  is  obvi- 
ous, yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  dominant 
idea  is  that  of  sacred  indwelling,  of  which  the  fol- 
lowing passages  afford  striking  specimens  : Kxod. 
xxv.  8,  ‘ Let  them  make  me  a tabernacle  that 
I may  dwell  (TODC*)  among  them.'  Exod. 
xxix.  45,  ‘ And  1 will  dwell  (TUDfct)  among  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  will  be  their  God.’  Num. 
v.  3,  ‘ That  they  defile  not  their  camps,  in  the 
midst  whereof  I dwell  (Tl^t?).’  Ps.  lxviii.  16, 

‘ This  is  the  hill  which  God  delighfeth  to  dwell 
in,  yea,  the  Lord  will  dwell  in  it  (pfcJN)  for  ever.’ 
Ps.  lxxiv.  2,  * Remember-— this  Mount  Zion 
wherein  thou  hast  dxoelt  (r)3D£2),’  It  is  -more 
especially  employed  when  the  Lord  is  said  to 
* cause  his  name  to  dwell,'  implying  the  stated 
visible  manifestation  of  his  presence.  Ezra  vi. 
12,  ‘And  the  God  that,  hath  caused  his  name  to 
dwell  there  (}"IQ5^  p&?,  literally,  hath  shakinized 
his  name )’  (comp.  Deut.  xii.  11  ; xiv.  23;  xvi. 
6 ; xxvi.  2).  It  is  emphatically  employed  in 
speaking  of  the  cloud  of  the  divine  glory  dwell- 
ing upon  Mount  Sinai;  Exod.  xxiv.  16,  ‘And 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  abode  (pty*1)  upon  Mount 
Sinai.’  The  term  shekinah  (nPDI^)  is  defined 
by  Buxtorf  (Lex.  Talm.  voc.  p£t)  as  meaning 
primarily  habitation,  or  inhabitation,  but  as  hav- 
ing a dominant  reference  to  the  divine  glory  in 
its  outward  visible  manifestation.  The  term  is 
of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Chaldee  Tar- 


gums,  where  it  is  employed  interchangeably  *ith 
‘ Glory,’  ‘ Glory  of  the  Lord,’  ‘ Angels  of  the 
Lord,’  and  often  with  ‘Lord’  (Jehovah)  itself 
The  citations  that  follow  will  more  fully  disclose 
the  usage  in  this  respect : Ps.  lxxii.  2,  ‘ Remem- 
ber thy  congregation  which  thou  hast  purchased 
of  old,  this  Mount  Zion  wherein  thou  hast  dwelt.’ 
Targ.  Exod.  xxv.  8,  ‘ Let  them  make  me  a taber- 
nacle that  I may  dwell  among  them.’  Chal.  ‘ I 
will  make  my  shekinah  to  dwell  among  them.’ 
Arab.  - I will  make  my  light  (or  splendour) 
to  dwell  among  them.’  Haggai  i.  8,  * Go  up  to 
the  mountain,  and  bring  wood,  and  build  the 
house,  and  I will  take  pleasure,  and  will 
be  glorified,  saith  the  Lord.’  Targ.  ‘ I will 
make  my  shekinah  to  dwell  there  in  glory.’ 
Ps.  Ixxxv.  10,  ‘ His  salvation  is  nigh  them  that 
fear  him,  that  glory  may  dwell  in  our  land.’ 
Thus  explained  by  Aben  Ezra,  ‘ That  the  she- 
kinah may  be  established  in  the  land.’  It  would 
be  easy  to  multiply  these  quotations  to  almost  any 
extent,  but  sufficient  has  been  produced  to  illus- 
trate the  u us  loquendi,  and  to  show  that  we  have 
ample  authority  for  employing  the  term  with  the 
utmost  freedom  in  reference  to  the  divine  theo- 
phanies  or  manifestations. 

From  the  tenor  of  these  and  a multitude  of 
similar  texts,  it  is  evident  that  the  Most  High, 
whose  essence  no  man  hath  seen,  or  can  see,  was 
pleased  anciently  to  manifest  himself  to  the  eyes 
of  men  by  an  external  visible  symbol.*  As  to 
the  precise  nature  of  the  phenomenon  thus  ex- 
hibited, we  can  only  say,  that  it  appears  to  have 
been  a concentrated  glowing  brightness,  a preter- 
natural splendour,  an  effulgent  something,  which 
was  appropriately  expressed  by  the  term  * Glory;’ 
but  whether  in  philosophical  strictness  it  was 
material  or  immaterial,  it  is  probably  impossible 
to  determine.  A luminous  object  of  this  descrip- 
tion seems  intrinsically  the  most  appropriate  sym- 
bol of  that  Being  of  whom,  perhaps  in  allusion  to 
this  very  mode  of  manifestation,  it  is  said,  that 
‘ he  is  light,’  and  that  ‘he  dwelleth  in  light  un- 
approachable, and  full  of  glory.’  The  presence 
of  such  a sensible  representation  of  Jehovah  seems 
to  be  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  harmonize 
what  is  frequently  said  of  ‘seeing  God’  with 
the  truth  of  his  nature  as  an  incorporeal  and 
essentially  invisible  spirit.  While  we  are  told 
in  one  place  that  ‘ no  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time,’  we  are  elsewhere  informed  that  Moses  and 
Aaron,  and  the  seventy  elders,  ‘ saw  the  God  of 
Israel,’  when  called  up  to  the  summit,  of  the  Holy 
Mount..  So  also  Isaiah  says  of  himself  (Isa.  vi. 

1,  5)  that  ‘ in  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died  he 
saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon  Lis  llirone,’  and  that, 
in  consequence,  he  cried  out,  ‘ I am  undone ; for 
mine  eyes  have  seen  ihe  Lord  of  hosts.’  In  these 
cases  it  is  obvious  that  the  object,  seen  was  not 
God  in  his  essence,  but  some  external  visible 
symbol,  which,  because  it  stood  for  God,  is  called 
by  his  name. 

* Even  at  the  early  period  of  the  expulsion  of 
our  sinning  progenitors  from  Paradise,  such  a 
manifestation  seems  to  have  been  made  in  con- 
nection with  the  cherubim  which  the  Most  High 
placed  (Heb.  p8?'  yishkan,  shekinized)  at  the 
east  of  the  garden  of  Eden,  and  which,  probably,  ~ 
constituted  that  ‘ presence  of  the  Lord,’  from 
which  Cain  lied  after  the  murder  of  his  brother.’ 


SHEK1NAH. 


SHEKINAH. 


741) 


It  seems  beyond  question  that  the  divine  ap- 
pearances vouchsafed  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the 
world,  to  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  was  under 
the  aspect,  or  with  the  accompaniment  of  light,  or 
fire,  or  that  which  conveys  to  the  mind  the  idea 
of  ‘ Glory.’  Thus,  in  Stephen's  account  of  the 
call  of  Abraham  (Acts  vii.  2),  ‘And  he  said, 
men,  brethren,  and  fathers,  the  God  of  Glory 
appeared  unto  our  father  Abraham  when  he  was 
in  Mesopotamia,’  &c.  This  is  a phrase  very  un- 
wonted in  plain  narrative  prose,  and  doubtless 
carries  with  it  an  allusion  to  the  fact  ot  Gods 
appearing  ,n  a glorious  manner,  with  a bright 
and  overpowering  effulgence,  or,  in  other  words, 
by  the  symbol  of  the  shekinah.  So  too  when  he 
appeared  to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush,  it  was 
doubtless  by  the  usual  symbol ; and  this  super- 
natural light  or  fire,  glowing  with  a lambent,  and 
vivid,  but  innocuous  flame,  was  no  other  than 
the  splendour  of  the  shekinah.  To  this  august 
phenomenon  the  apostle  plainly  alludes,  when, 
speaking  of  the  distinguished  prerogatives  of  the 
covenanted  race  (Rom.  ix.  4),  ‘ to  whom  per- 
taineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory , and  the 
covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,’  &c. 

But  of  all  these  ancient  recorded  theophanies, 
the  most  signal  and  illustrious  was  undoubtedly 
that  which  was  vouchsafed  in  the  pillar  of  cloud 
that  guided  the  march  of  the  children  of  Israel 
through  the  wilderness  on  their  way  to  Canaan. 
A correct  view  of  this  subject  clothes  it  at  once 
with  a sanctity  and  grandeur  which  seldom 
appear  from  the  naked  letter  of  the  narrative. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  columnar 
cloud  was  the  seat  of  the  shekinah.  We  have 
already  seen  that  the  term  shekinizing  is  applied 
to  the  abiding  of  the  cloud  on  the  summit  of  the 
mountain  (Exod.  xxiv.  16).  Within  the  tower- 
ing aerial  mass,  we  suppose,  was  enfolded  the  inner 
effulgent  brightness,  to  which  the  appellation 
‘ Glory  of  the  Lord’  more  properly  belonged, 
and  which  was  only  occasionally  disclosed.  In 
several  instances  in  which  God  would  indicate 
his  anger  to  his  people,  it  is  said  that  they  looked 
to  the  cloud  and  beheld  the  ‘ Glory  of  the  Lord  ’ 
(Num.  xiv.  10;  xvi.  19,  42).  So  when  he  would 
inspire  a trembling  awe  of  his  Majesty  at  the 
giving  of  the  Law,  it  is  said,  the  ‘ Glory  of  the 
Lord  appeared  as  a devouring  fire  ’ on  the  summit 
of  the  Mount.  Nor  must  the  fact  be  forgotten  in 
this  connection,  that  when  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
die  two  sons  of  Aaron,  offended  by  strange  fire 
in  their  offerings,  a fatal  flash  from  the  cloudy 
pillar  instantaneously  extinguished  their  lives. 
The  evidence  would  seem  then  to  be  conclusive, 
that  this  wondrous  pillar-cloud  was  the  seat  or 
throne  of  the  shekinah,  the  visible  representa- 
tive of  Jehovah  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  his 
people. 

But  it  will  be  proper,  in  a matter  of  so  much 
importance,  to  enter  somewhat  more  fully  into 
the  genius  of  that  mode  of  diction  which  obtains 
in  regard  to  the  shekinah  ; particularly  the  usage 
by  which  the  term  ‘ Angel  ’ is  applied  to  this 
visible  phenomenon,  deserves  our  investigation. 
This  term  occurs  frequently  in  the  Arabic  version 
of  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  divine  mani- 
festations, especially  as  made  in  connection  with 
the  cloudy  pillar.  Thus,  when  we  read  (Exod. 
xiii.  21),  ‘That  the  Lord  went  before  them  in  a 
pillar  of  clo  ud  by  day,  and  by  night  in  a pillar 


of  fire,’  the  Arabic  translation  has  it,  ‘ The 
angel  of  the  Lord  went  before  them.’  This  is 
countenanced  by  the  express  language  of  Exod. 
xiv.  19,  ‘ And  the  angel  of  God  which  went  be- 
fore the  camp  of  Israel,  removed  and  went  behind 
them  ; and  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  went  from 
before  their  face,  and  stood  behind  them.’  Here 
it  is  obvious  that  the  same  object  is  set  before  us 
under  two  different  forms  of  expression ; the 
‘ Pillar  of  Cloud’  in  the  last  clause  being  evi- 
dently the  same  as  ‘ Angel  of  God’  in  the  first. 
In  seeking  the  true  solution  of  this  phraseology,  it 
is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  ‘Angel,’  in  the 
Scripture  idiom,  is  a term  of  office,  ai  d not  of 
nature  [Angels] . It  is  by  no  means  confined 
to  any  order  of  rational,  intelligent,  ox  personal 
beings,  whether  celestial  or  terrestrial.  Though 
primarily  employed  to  denote  messengers,  yet 
nothing  is  clearer  than  that  it  is  used  in  speaking 
of  impersonal  agents,  such  as  winds,  fires,  pes- 
tilences, remarkable  dispensations — any  thing  in 
fact  which  might  serve  as  a medium  to  make 
known  the  divine  will,  or  to  illustrate  the  divine 
working.  • He  maketli  the  winds  his  angels,  and 
the  flaming  fires  his  ministers.’ 

From  the  wide  and  extensive  use  of  the  term 
angel , in  the  language  of  Holy  Writ,  we  are 
prepared  to  recognise  at  once  the  propriety 
of  its  appl i cation  to  the  theophanies,  or  special 
manifestations  of  the  Deity,  of  which  so  much  is 
said  in  the  Old  Testament.  We  perceive  that 
we  are  furnished  from  this  source  with  a key  to 
all  those  passages  in  which  mention  is  made  of 
the  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord , whether 
to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  to  Jacob,  to  Hagar,  to 
Moses,  or  any  of  the  ancient  worthies.  So  far 
as  the  letter  is  concerned  the  intimation  would 
seem,  in  many  cases,  to  be,  that  a created  and 
delegated  angel  was  sent  upon  various  messages 
to  the  patriarchs,  and  became  visible  to  their  eyes 
and  audible  to  their  ears.  These  celestial  mes- 
sengers have  been  supposed  occasionally  to  speak 
in  the  name,  and  even  in  the  person,  of  Him  whose 
mandates  they  communicated.  Thus,  when 
Abraham  was  about  to  offer  up  Isaac  we  are  told 
that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  called  to  him  out  of 
heaveu,  and  said  (Gen.  xxii.  15-18),  ‘ By  myself 
I have  sworn,  that  in  blessing  I will  bless  thee, 
and  that  in  multiplying  I. will  multiply  thy  seed 
as  the  stars  of  heaven,’  &c.  This  might  seem  at 
first  view  to  be  the  voice  of  an  angel  messenger 
speaking  in  the  name,  and  by  the  authority,  of 
him  who  sent  him.  But  from  the  usage  now 
developed,  we  understand  that  it  was  the  visible 
object  that  appeared,  which  is  called  the  angel. 
So  when  it.  is  said  that  ‘ the  angel  of  the  Lord  ap- 
peared to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush,’  we  see  it 
was  the  burning  bush  itself  that  was  called  the 
angel,  because  it  was  the  medium  of  manifesta- 
tion to  Jehovah  in  making  this  communication  to 
his  servant.  The  language  which  he  utters  on 
that  occasion  is  evidently  not  competent  to  any 
created  being,  and  must  be  considered  as  proceed- 
ing from  the  shekinah,  to  which  no  other  than 
the  infinite  Spirit  was  present.  The  appropria- 
tion, therefore,  of  this  language  to  the  majestic 
pillar  of  cloud  viewed  as  the  shekinah  of  Jehovah, 
receives  a countenance  which  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned. We  see  no  room  to  hesitate  iri  believing, 
that  when  it  is  said,  ‘ the  angel  of  God  went  be- 
fore them,’  the  meaning  is,  that  the  pillar  of  cloud 


T48 


SHEKINAH. 


SHEM. 


went  before  them,  or,  in  other  words,  that  the 
pillar  is  called  4 the  angel.’ 

In  pursuance  then  of  this  train  of  investigation, 
we  advance  to  another  phasis  of  the  mystic 
column  that  marshalled  the  way  of  the  sojourning 
nosts,  in  their  march  to  Canaan.  In  Exod.  xxiii. 
2,  it  is  said,  ‘ Behold  I send  an  angel  before  thee, 
to  keep  thee  in  the  way,  and  to  bring  thee  into 
the  place  that  I have  prepared.  Beware  of  him, 
and  obey  his  voice,  provoke  him  not;  for  he  will 
uot  pardon  your  transgressions  : for  my  name  is 
in  him.’  The  first  impression,  upon  the  perusal 
of  this,  would  perhaps  be,  that  a created  and 
tutelary  angel  was  intended,  one  whom,  whether 
visible  or  invisible,  they  used  to  treat,  with  the 
greatest  reverence  as  a kind  of  personal  represent- 
ative of  Jehovah  himself.  This  representative 
and  commissioned  character  would  be  apt  to  be 
recognised  in  the  phrase,  ‘ My  name  is  in  him,’ 
equivalent,  as  would  be  supposed,  to  the  declara- 
tion, ‘ My  authority  is  in  him.’  But  then,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  have  shown  that  the  term 
‘ angel  ’ is  applied  to  the  cloudy  pillar,  and  as 
we  have  no  intimation  of  any  other  angel  being 
visibly  present  with  the  travelling  tribes,  the  in- 
ference is  certainly  a fair  one,  that  the  angel  here 
mentioned  is  but  the  designation  of  that  glorious 
object  which  stood  forth  to  the  eye  of  the  congre- 
gation, as  having  the  shekinah  essentially  con- 
nected with  it. 

And  now  with  the  light  of  this  peculiar  usage 
to  guide  us,  can  we  hesitate  in  regard  to  the 
genuine  scope  of  the  following  passage  from 
Isaiah,  which  we  mu3t  assuredly  recognise  as  a 
parallelism  (Isa.  lxiii.  8)?  ‘ For  he  said,  surely 
they  are  my  people,  children  that  will  not  lie ; 
so  he  was  their  Saviour.  In  all  their  afflictions 
he  was  afflicted,  and  the  angel  of  his  presence 
saved  them  : in  his  love  and  in  his  pity  he  re- 
deemed them  ; and  he  bore  them  and  carried  them 
all  the  days  of  old.'  The  allusion  is  undoubtedly 
to  the  same  grand  symbolical  object  which  we  are 
now  considering.  After  what  has  been  said  we 
can  have  no  difficulty  in  understanding  why  the 
title,  ‘ Angel  of  his  presence,’  is  applied  to  the 
cloudy  column  of  the  wilderness.  It  was  evi- 
dently so  termed,  because  it  was  the  medium  of 
manifestation  to  the  divine  presence.  The  in- 
visible Deity,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  dwelt 
in  it,  and  was  associated  with  it.  It  was  called  the 
‘Angel  of  the  Divine  Presence,’  or,  more  literally, 
face  ('IS),  because,  as  the  human  face  is  the 
grand  medium  of  expression  to  the  human  spirit, 
so  the  shekinah  was  the  medium  of  manifestation 
or  expression  to  the  Divine  Spirit.  Indeed  Moses, 
on  one  occasion,  when  apprehensive  that  the 
guiding  glory  of  his  people  would  be  withdrawn 
on  account  of  their  transgressions,  makes  use  of 
this  language,  ‘ If  thy  presence  go  not  with  me, 
carry  us  not  up  hence.  And  the  Lord  said,  my 
presence  shall  go  with  thee.’  So  also  in  Deut.  iv. 
37,  we  find  the  wotA.  presence  or  face  used  with  a 
personal  import,  ‘ And  because  he  loved  thy 
fathers,  therefore  he  chose  their  seed  after  them, 
and  brought  thee  out  in  his  sight  (VIQH,  with, 
by,  or  through , his  presence,  i.  e.  the  angel  of  his 
presence),  with  his  mighty  power  out  of  Egypt.’ 
We  see  not,  therefore,  that  anything  is  hazarded 
in  the  position,  that  the  angel  of  God's  pre- 
sence, of  whom  Isaiah  speaks,  is  essentially  the 
fame  with  the  angel  of  God's  pillar,  of  which 


Moses  speaks,  and  which  is  invested  with  per 
sonal  attributes,  because  tlw'  Israelites  were  taught 
to  view  it  in  a personal  character  as  a visible  repre- 
sentative of  their  covenant  God. 

But  our  conception  of  the  subject  is  essentially 
incomplete  without  the  exhibition  of  another  aspect 
of  the  cloudy  pillar.  This  is  as  the  oracle  of  the 
chosen  people.  So  long  as  that  sublime  symbol 
continued  as  the  outward  visible  token  of  the 
divine  presence,  it  performed  the  office  of  an 
oracle  in  issuing  commands  and  delivering  re- 
sponses. ‘ They  called  upon  the  Lord,’  says  the 
Psalmist  (Ps.  xcix.  0,  7),  ‘ and  he  answered  them. 
He  spake  unto  them  in  the  cloiidy  pillar  ;'  that 
is,  the  cloudy  pillar  was  the  medium  of  his  com- 
munications. This  is  indeed  sufficiently  express ; 
but  still  more  unequivocal  is  the  language  of 
Exod.  xxxiii.  9,  ‘ And  it  came  to  pass,  as  Moses 
entered  into  the  tabernacle,  the  cloudy  pillar  de- 
scended and  stood  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle, 
and  talked  with  Moses.’  It  is  true  indeed  that 
in  our  established  version  we  read  that  ‘ the  Lord 
talked  with  Moses,’  but  the  words  ‘ the  Lord  ' are 
printed  in  italics  to  show  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  original  answering  to  them.  We  have  given 
a literal  translation ; still  there  is  no  special  im- 
propriety in  supplying  the  words  as  above,  if  it 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  mystic  pillar  was  re- 
garded as  a visible  embodiment  of  Jehovah,  and, 
therefore,  that  in  the  diction  of  the  sacred  writer 
the  two  terms  are  equivalentand  convertible.  This 
is  evident  from  what  follows  in  the  connection, 
‘ And  all  the  people  saw  the  cloudy  pillar  stand 
at  the  tabernacle  door,  and  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses  face  to  face,  as  a man  speaketh  to  his 
friend.’  The  ‘ Lord  ’ here  must  unequivocally  be 
applied  to  the  symbol  of  the  Lord,  or  the  shekinah , 
which  was  the  true  organ  of  communication  with 
the  people.  It  would  be  easy  to  carry  out  this 
line  of  investigation  to  still  further  results : but 
the  considerations  which  have  been  offered  will 
suffice  to  indicate  the  general  bearings  of  this 
interesting  subject. 

See  Lowman,  On  the  Shekinah ; Taylor’s  Let- 
ters of  Ben  Mordecai ; Skinner’s  Dissertatio7i  oa 
the  Shekinah;  Watts’s  Glory  of  Christ ; Upliam, 
On  the  Logos ; Bush’s  Notes  on  Exodus  ; Teni- 
son,  On  Idolatry;  Fleming's  Christology. — G.  B. 

SHEM  (DE^,  name;  Sept.  'S.yf),  one  of  the 
three  sons  of  Noah  (Gen.  v.  32),  from  whom 
descended  the  nations  enumerated  in  Gen.  x. 
22,  sq.,  and  who  was  the  progenitor  of  that  great 
branch  of  the  Noachic  family  (called  from 
him  Shemitic  or  Semitic)  to  which  the  Hebrews 
belong.  The  name  of  Shem  is  placed  first 
wherever  the  sons  of  Noah  are  mentioned  to- 
gether: whence  he  would  seem  to  have  been 
the  eldest  brother.  But  against  this  conclusion  is 
brought  the  text  Gen.  x.  21,  which,  according  to 
the  Authorized,  and  many  other  versions,  has 
‘Shem  the  brother  of  Japheth  the  elder;’  whence 
it  has  been  conceived  very  generally  that  Japheth 
was  really  the  eldest,  and  that  Shem  is  put  first 
by  way  of  excellency,  seeing  that  from  him  the 
holy  line  descended.  But  this  conclusion  is  not 
built  upon  a critical  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew, 

which  would  show  that.  * the  elder,’  must 

in  this  text  be  referred  not  to  Japheth  but  to  Shem, 
so  that  it  should  be  read  ‘Shem.... the  elder 
brother  of  Japheth.’  The  current  version  of  ths 


SHEMAIAH. 


SHEMARIM. 


749 


text  is  sanctioned  only  by  the  Septuagint  among 
the  ancient  versions,  and  it  is  there  supposed  by 
gome  to  be  corrupt.  The  Samaritan,  Syriac, 
Arabic,  and  Vulgate,  adopt  the  other  interpreta- 
tion, which  indeed  is  the  only  one  that  the  ana- 
logy of  the  Hebrew  language  will  admit.  The 
whole  Bible  oilers  no  other  instance  of  such  a 

construction  as  that  bv  which  ‘pvun  ns* 
becomes  ‘ the  brother  of  Japhet  the  elder,’  which 
indeed  would  be  an  awkward  phrase  in  any 
language.  The  object  of  the  sacred  writer  is  to 
mark  the  seniority  and  consequent  superiority  of 
Shem.  He  had  already  told  us  (Gen.  ix.  24) 
that  Ham  was,  if  not  the  youngest,  at  least,  a 
younger  son  of  Noah,  and  he  is  now  careful  to 
acquaint  us  that  Shem,  the  stem  of  the  Hebrews, 
was  older  than  Japheth  (See  Baumgarten,  Theolog. 
Commentar  zum  Alien  Test ; Geddes,  Critical 
Remarks : respecting  the  posterity  of  Shem  see 
Nations,  Dispersion  of). 

1.  SHEMAIAH  (iTJJDEJ?-,  whom  Jehovah 
hears  ; Sept.  'Sap.a'ias),  a prophet  of  the  time  of 
Rehoboam,  who  was  commissioned  to  enjoin  that 
monarch  to  forego  his  design  of  reducing  the  ten 
tribes  to  obedience  (1  Kings  xii.  22-24).  In 
1 Chron.  xii.  15,  this  Shemaiah  is  stated  to  have 
written  the  Chronicles  of  the  reign  in  which  he 
flourished. 

2.  SHEMAIAH,  a person  who,  without  autho- 
rity, assumed  the  functions  of  a prophet  among 
the  Israelites  in  exile.  He  was  so  much  annoyed 
by  the  prophecies  which  Jeremiah  sent  to  Ba- 
bylon, the  tendency  of  which  was  contrary  to  his 
own,  that  he  wrote  to  Jerusalem,  denouncing  the 
prophet  as  an  impostor,  and  urging  the  authorities 
to  enforce  his  silence.  In  return  he  received  new 
prophecies,  announcing  that  he  should  never 
behold  that  close  of  the  bondage  which  he 
fancied  to  be  at  hand,  and  that  none  of  his  race 
should  witness  the  re-establishment  of  the  nation 
(Jer.  xxix.  24-32). 

SHEMARIM  (D^Df,  from  shumar, 
to  keep,  to  preserve').  This  term  is  generally  un- 
derstood to  denote  the  lees  or  dregs  of  wine,  and 
it  is  asserted  that  the  radical  idea  expresses  the 
fact  that  these  preserve  the  strength  and  flavour 
of  the  wine.  There  is  evidently  a reference 
to  this  in  Ps.  lxxv.  8: — ‘For  in  the- hand  of 
Jehovah  there  is  a cup,  and  the  wine  d"  yayin) 
is  red  (or  thick  and  turbid,  “iDn  hhumar)  : 
it  is  full  of  mixture  C?|DQ  mesech ),  and  he 
poureth  out  this ; but  the  dregs  thereof  (iTI^fc^ 
c liemdreyha)  all  the  rebels  of  the  earth  shall 
press  and  suck  in  which  verse  we  have  four  of 
the  terms  rendered  ‘ wine’  by  the  translators  of  the 
English  Bible.  This  verse  is  interesting,  as  in- 
dicating accurately  the  import  of  the  term 
under  discussion,  at  least  in  this  particular  pas- 
sage. Shemdrim  are  here  the  sediments  in  a cup 
compounded  with  articles,  two  of  which,  at 
least,  are  designated  by  terms  invariably  used 
in  the  Scriptures  to  designate  something  obtained 
from  the  vine.  Yayin  is  employed  in  the 
Mishna  (Tr.  Nedarim,  vi.  9)  to  designate  a drink 
obtained  from  apples  (DTllBn  J");  but  this  is  dif- 
ferent,from  its  Scriptural  use.  The  inference  is,  that 
shemdrim  here  denotes  the  dregs  of  wine.  This 
cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  term,  however,  in 
Isa.  xxv.  G,  where,  we  think,  it  must  refer  to 


some  rich  preserves  appropriate  to  the  feast  of 
which  that  text  speaks  ( Tirosh  lo  Yayin , iv.  8). 
The  verse  may  be  rendered  thus  : — ‘ And  Jehovah 
of  hosts  shall  make  to  all  peoples  in  this  moun- 
tain a feast  of  fat  things  ( shemdnim ),  a feast  of 
preserves  {shemdrim),  of  the  richest  fatness,  of 
preserves  well  refined/  Considerable  diversity 
of  opinion  has  obtained  among  biblical  critics  in 
regard  to  both  the  literal  meaning  and  prophetic 
bearing  of  this  text.  The  most  usual  interpre- 
tation supposes  a reference  to  wines  on  the  lees  ; 
but  there  are  strong  objections  to  this  view,  the 
most  obvious  of  which  is,  that  it  is  exceedingly 
inappropriate.  There  is  no  mention  of  wine  in 
the  original,  but  simply  of  dregs ; and  interpreters 
have  been  forced  to  suppose  a reference  to  the 
former,  from  a conviction  that  the  latter  was 
altogether  inapt.  The  mention  of  dregs  does 
not  naturally  call  up  (by  synecdoche,  as  is  sup- 
posed, though  dregs  are  not  a part  of  the  wine 
which  has  been  purified  from  them)  the  idea  of 
wine  which  has  been  drawn  from  them.  The  trope 
here  supposed  is  at  variance  with  a fundamental 
principle  of  figurative  language,  which  takes 
advantage  of  ‘that  great  variety  of  relations  be- 
tween objects,  by  means  of  which  the  mind  is 
assisted  to  pass  easily  from  one  to  another  ; and 
by  the  name  of  the  one,  understands  the  other  to 
be  meant.  It  is  always  some  accessory  idea,  which 
recalls  the  principal  to  the  imagination;  and 
commonly  recalls  it  with  more  force  than  if  the 
principal  idea  had  been  expressed’  (Blair’s  Lec- 
tures on  Rhet.  and  Bell.  Lett.,  lect.  xiv.).  Vi- 
tringa,  indeed,  renders  the  language  with  apparent 
literal  propriety,  a feast  of  dregs  {convivium 
f cecum),  but  he  explains  it  of  wine  purified  from 
its  dregs  (ex  vino  defeecato,  a faecibus  purgato) 
{Comm,  in  loc.).  Vitringa  may  well  say  of 
the  expression  as  thus  rendered  : ‘ phrasi  qui- 
dem  fateor  singulari  et  insolente/  Munster  sup- 
poses very  absurdly  a reference  to  a highly  in- 
toxicating wine  (‘  convivium  vino  unde  omnes  in- 
ebriabuntur’),  which  would  prove  a curse  rather 
than  a blessing,  and  refers  to  the  supposed  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  in  Gog  and  Magog,  when 
‘Dominus  tanquam  ebrios  faciet  eos  ruere  in  mu- 
tuam  caedem’  {Critici  Sacri,  in  loc.).  Clarius, 
Forerius,  and  Grotius  render  it,  afedst  of  vine-fruit 
(vindemise) ; but  Clarius  gives  also  the  same 
explanation  as  Munster.  Our  readers,  we  trust, 
will  agree  with  us  in  rejecting  the  idea  of  intoxi- 
cation from  this  beautiful  passage ; which,  indeed, 
has  but  few  supporters.  We  agree  with  the  great 
majority  of  interpreters,  that  a signal  blessing  is 
here  referred  to ; but  we  cannot  agree  with  those 
who  suppose  that  wine  drawn  off  from  dregs  is 
made  the  emblem  of  that  blessing.  Such  wine 
would  evidently  not  answer  the  purpose.  It-was 
not  the  best  wine.  In  reference  to  the  separation 
of  dregs  and  sediment  from  wine  before  it  was 
drunk,  Professor  Ramsay  says,  ‘ Occasionally  a 
piece  of  linen  cloth  {ffdiacos,  saccus)  was  placed 
over  the  rpuyonros  or  colum  (Pollux,  vi.  19;  x. 
75),  and  the  wine  {araKKias,  saccatus)  filtered 
through  (Martial,  viii.  45).  The  use  of  the  saccus 
was  considered  objectionable  for  all  delicate  wines, 
since  it  was  believed  to  injure  (Hor.  Sat.  ii.  4, 
51),  if  not  entirely  to  destroy,  their  flavour,  and 
in  every  instance  to  diminish  the  strength  of  the 
liquor.  For  this  reason  it  was  employed  by  the 
dissipated  in  order  that  they  might  he  able  to 


750  SHEMARIM. 

sicaVow  a greater  quantity  without  becoming  in- 
toxicated' (Smith's  Dictionary  of  Greek  and 
Rotnan  Antiquities,  art.  Vinum).  Vitringa  ancl 
others  suppose  that  the  wine  in  the  passage  before 
as  was  prepared  by  the  very  method  which  Pro- 
fessor Ramsay  justly  says  was  believed  to  injure , 
if  not  entirely  to  destroy  its  flavour.  Columella, 
Cato,  and  Pliny,  speak  of  wine  made  from  dregs 
or  lees  ; but  none  of  them  speak  of  it  as  of  supe- 
rior excellence : on  the  contrary,  they  mention 
it  as  rather  inferior. 

These  considerations  have  induced  us  to  think 
of  another  interpretation  of  the  term.  We  regard 
it  as  indicating  something  excellent  in  its  kind, 
and  the  best  of  its  kind.  It  seems  to  refer  to  some 
rich  preserves  made  from  grapes  or  other  fruits. 
We  thus  fall  back  on  the  radical  idea  of  the  word, 
and  connect  that  idea  with  its  use  in  the  present 
passage,  which  is  different  from  its  use  in  other 
texts.  These  preserves  might  be  usually  prepared 
from  the  grape,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  limit 
them  to  such  a preparation ; thus  we  find  D'Dy 
asis,  properly  the  juice  of  the  grape  (Joel  i.  5), 
used  to  denote  the  juice  of  the  pomegranate 
(Cant.  viii.  2). 

It  is  .difficult  to  say  how  these  preserves  were 
prepared.  £ In  the  East  grapes  enter  very  largely 
into  the  provisions  at  an  entertainment.  Thus 
Norden  was  treated  by  the  Aga  of  Assaoun  with 
coffee,  and  some  bunches  of  grapes  of  an  excellent 
taste  ’ (Robinson’s  Calmet , art.  Vine).  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  some  solid  preparation  of 
the  dried  grape  (‘  uva  passa’)  is  here  intended.  The 
very  best  grapes  were  anciently,  and  still  are, 
employed  to  make  such  preparations  in  Palestine. 
The  finest  grapes  in  that  country  grow  in  the 
vineyards  around  Hebron.  ‘ The  produce  of  these 
vineyards,’  says  Professor  Robinson,  ‘ is  celebrated 
throughout  Palestine.  No  wine,  however,  nor 
’Arak  is  made  from  them,  except  by  the  Jews, 
and  this  is  not  in  great  quantity.  The  wine  is 
good.  The  finest  grapes  are  dried  as  raisins  ; 
and  the  rest,  being  trodden  and  pressed,  the  juice 
is  boiled  down  to  a syrup,  which,  under  the  name 
of  Dibs  (our  author  states  in  a note  that.  ‘ this 
is  the  Hebrew  word  debhash,  signifying 

honey,  and  also  syrup  of  grapes' ) is  much  used 
by  all  classes,  wherever  vineyards  are  found, 
as  a condiment  with  their  food.  It  resembles 
thin  molasses,  but  is  more  pleasant  to  the  taste’ 
(. Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine , ii.  412). 
The  fact  here  stated  regarding  the  use  made 
of  the  finest  grapes,  supplies  us  with  an  article 
worthy  of  the  feast  mentioned  in  the  text.  Buck- 
ingham, a well-known  traveller,  mentions  the  fol- 
lowing interesting  facts: — ‘By  way  of  dessert, 
some  walnuts  and  dried  figs  were  afterwards 
served  to  us,  besides  a very  curious  article,  pro- 
bably resembling  the  dried  wine  of  the  ancients, 
which  they  are  sai  1 to  have  preserved  in  cakes. 
They  were  of  the  size  of  a cucumber,  and  were  made 
out  of  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape  formed 
into  a jelly,  and  in  this  state  wound  round  a 
central  thread  of  the  kernel  of  walnuts ; the 
pieces  of  the  nuts  thus  forming  a support  for  the 
outer  coat  of  jelly,  which  became  harder  as  it 
dried,  and  would  keep,  it  is  said,  fresh  and  good 
for  many  months,  forming  a welcome  treat  at  all 
times,  and  being  particularly  well  adapted  for 
sick  or  delicate  persons,  who  might  require  some 
grateful  provisi  ns  capable  of  being  carried  in  a 


SHEMARIM. 

small  compass,  and  without  risk  of  injury  c* 
a journey’  ( Travels  among  the  Arabs , p.  137) 
Whether  this  intelligent  traveller  is  right  in  as- 
serting that  the  article  mentioned  by  him  was 
made  out  of  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape, 
we  cannot  determine.  If  so,  it  must  have  been 
entirely  different  from  our  fermented  wines,  for 
none  of  them  could  be  ‘ formed  into  a jelly.' 
The  article,  as  he  found  it,  was  in  a solid  state, 
having  become  hard  as  it  dried,  and  was,  pro- 
bably, free  of  the  intoxicating  principle. 

Were  we  able  to  say  how  the  article  designated 
by  shcmdrim  v/as  prepared,  we  could  easily  ex- 
plain the  force  of  the  epithet  D'ppTD  mezukkd - 
kirn.  It  is  the  passive  participle  of  the  pual  (or 
intensitive)  species  of  the  verb  ppT  zakak , which 
is  usually  explained  as  signifying  to  purify , a 
meaning  sufficiently  applicable  in  the  present 
case.  The  preserves  might  be  purified  by  clear- 
ing out  the  skins  of  the  grapes,  the  stones,  &c. 
Hosenmiiller  ( Scholia , in  loc .),  following  Vit- 
ringa, supposes  here  a reference  to  filtration,  by 
which  the  dregs  were  separated  from  the  wine, 
and  by  which  consequently  the  wine  was  purified. 
We  have  .already  given  a reason  why  this  inter- 
pretation must  be  rejected.  The  following  remark 
of  Horace  (Sat.  ii.  4.  51)  is  directly  opposed  to  it, 
and  shows  that  wine  thus  prepared  would  have  no 
^claim  to  stand  side  by  side  with  the  rich  delicacies 
mentioned  in  the  text : — 

‘ Massica  si  coelo  suppones  vina  sereno, 
Nocturna,  si  quid  crassi  est,  tenuabitur  aura, 
Et  decedet  odor  nervis  inimicus:  at  ilia 
Integrum  perdunt.  lino  vitiata  saporem.’ 

* The  sky  serene,  put  out  your  Massic  wine ; 

In  the  night  air  its  foulness  shall  refine, 

And  lose  the  scent,  unfriendly  to  the  nerves, 
But  filtrated,  no  flavour  it  preserves.’ 

Francis. 

Dr.  E.  Henderson  (Notes  on  Isaiah')  and  Baines 
(Notes  on  Isaiah)  suppose  that  purification  by 
fermentation  is  here  referred  to;  but  these  distin- 
guished writers,  to  be  thoroughly  consistent,  should 
adopt  the  opinion  of  Munster.  Some  have  sought 
a resemblance  between  the  process  by  which  metals 
are  purified,  and  that  employed  to  retine  the  she - 
murim,  the  same  word  being  used  in  connection 
with  each  (Job  xxviii.  1 ; 1 Chron.  xxviii.  18; 
xxix.  4 ; Ps.  xii.  6 [ Heb . 7]  ; Mai.  iii.  3)  ; 
but  probably  the  fact  of  refinement  is  all  that 
may  be  intended,  without  reference  to  the  process. 
Other  interpretations  (as  that  of  Seb.  Ravius,  in 
Diatribe  de  epulo  funebri  gentibus  dando  adJes., 
cap.  xxv.  0,  7,  R;  Traj.  ad  Rhen  , 1747,  p.  23, 
sq. ; of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  Supplem.  ad  Lex. 
Hebr.,  p.  ii.  642)  we  omit,  as  anticipated  in  the 
preceding  observations,  or  unworthy  of  notice. 

After  a full  consideration  of  the  subject,  we 
conclude  that  the  shemurim  of  this  text  was  a 
solid  article,  different  hom  ashishah , 

grape-cake  (Gesenius,  Heb.  Lex.,  sub  voc),  as 
not  being  pressed  in  any  particular  form,  and 
different  from  tsimmukim,  dried  grapes , 

as  being  refined  and  prepared  for  being  served  up 
at  a sumptuous  entertainment. 

This  subject  might  be  further  illustrated  by  a 
consideration  of  the  Hebrew  taste  in  regard  to 
the  produce  of  the  vineyard.  It  will  riot  be  de- 
nied that  the  figurative  language  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  to  be  illustrated  by  reference  to  Jewisii 


SHESH. 


SHEMARIM. 

customs.  Those  commentators,  however,  who 
suppose  that  Isaiah  here  speaks  of  good  old  fer- 
mented wine , advocate  an  article  which  is  rather 
offensive  than  agreeable  to  the  Hebrew  taste. 
In  Cant.  ii.  4,  the  bricle  says  of  the  object  of  her 
affection,  ‘ He  brought  me  to  the  house  of  grapes’ 
(pn  rvn),  an  arbour  being  referred  to,  probably 
similar  to  those  found  in  our  gardens  and  or- 
chards, or  perhaps  larger  (Robinson  s Palestine , 
vol.  i.  p.  314),  such  houses  or  tents  being  common 
in  vineyards,  and  resorted  to  at  the  time  of  the 
vintage.  The  sweetness  of  honey  seems  to  have 
been  preferred  in  their  wines;  for  in  Cant.  v.  1,  the 
bridegroom  says,  ‘I  have  eaten  my  honey  (not 
honey-comb,  as  ‘some  have  falsely  arid  carelessly 
rendered  it'— Gesenius)  [Honey],  with  my  grape 
syrup  •/  and  the  mildness  of  milk  was  also  agree- 
able, for  he  adds,  ‘ I have  drunk  my  wine  with  my 
milk/  That  which  ‘ goeth  down  sweetly’  is  ap- 
proved of  (Cant.  vii.  9),  as  well  as  that  which  has 
the  flavour  of  spices,  with  the  addition  of  the 
juice  of  the  pomegranate  (Cant.  viii.  2),  or  that 
of  other  fruits.  Wisdom,  too  (Prov.  ix.  2),  is 
said  to  have  ‘ mingled  her  wine/  a circumstance 
which  plainly  indicates  that  the  wine  referred  to 
was  thick  and  syrupy,  and  for  use  required  to  be 
mingled  with  a quantify  of  water  equal  to  that 
which  had  been  evaporated  by  boiling.  The  an- 
cient Jews  had  two  objects  in  view  in  mingling 
their  wine — one  of  which  we  have  now  mentioned, 
and  the  other  was  by  the  mixture  of  drugs  to 
produce  a highly-intoxicating  drink  (Isa.  v.  22). 
It  would  be  no  compliment,  therefore,  to  a sober 
Israelite  to  be  promised  an  abundant  supply  of 
old  fermented  wine  at  a rich  entertainment ; in 
fact,  it  would  be  regarded  as  a kind  of  mockery. 

We  may  state  briefly  the  results  to  which  the 
preceding  observations  conduct  us  : — 

( a .)  The  term  shemarim  does  not  naturally 
call  up  the  idea  of  wine. 

(6.)  It  properly  signifies  preservers  or  pre- 
serves. 

(c.)  There  is  a paronomasia  in  the  text  in 
the  words  shemanim  (delicacies)  and  sliemdrim 
(preserves),  the  beauty  of  which  is  increased  by 
the  repetition  of  these  terms. 

( d .)  The  interpretation  of  rich  preserves  is  the 
only  one  that  suggests  an  article  worthy  of  being 
placed  side  by  side  with  the  rich  delicacies  which 
interpreters  acknowledge  to  be  designated  by  the 
accompanying  term. 

(e.)  Wine  filtered  or  drawn  off  from  the  lees 
was  not  in  high  repute. 

(/.)  The  Hebrew  taste  was  in  favour  of  a solid 
preparation  of  the  grape. 

Neither  of  the  other  passages  (Jer.  xlviii.  11, 
Zeph.  i.  12),  which  relate  to  shemarim,  is  in- 
vested with  special  interest.  The  wine  was  sepa- 
rated from  the  lees,  sometimes  at  least,  by  being 
drawn  off'  from  one  vessel  to  another,  as  appears 
from  Jeremiah  xlviii.  11,  which  Bishop  Lowth 
renders  thus  : — 

‘ Moab  hath  been  at  ease  from  his  youth, 

And  he  hath  settled  upon  his  lees; 

Nor  hath  he  been  drawn  oft’  from  vessel  to  vessel, 
Neitner  hath  he  gone  into  captivity  : 

Therefore  his  taste  remaineth  in  him, 

And  his  flavour  is  not  changed/ 

Moab  is  here  represen  ted  *as  spending  a life  of 
auiet  indifference,  living  undisturbed  in  sin. 
Such,  too,  was  the  situation  of  those  of  whom 


751 

Jehovah  says  (Zeph.  i.  12),  ‘I  will  punish  th« 
men  that  are  settled  on  their  lees;’  that  is,  those 
who  disregarded  his  admonitions,  and  prose- 
cuted their  sinful  courses,  unmoved  by  kia 
threatenings. — P.  M. 

SHEMEBER  lofty  fight;  Sept 

2o/iffj8(i/)),  king  of  Zeboim,  one  of  the  five  ‘ cities 
of  the  plain  ’ (Gen.  xiv.  2). 

SHEMER  C")££^,  lees;  Sept.  'Zepnp),  the 
owner  of  the  hill  of  Samaria,  which  derived  its 
name  from  him.  Omri  bought  the  hill  for  two 
talents  of  silver,  and  built  thereon  the  city, 
also  called  Samaria,  which  he  made  the  ca- 
pital of  his  kingdom  (1  Kings  xvi.  24)  [see 
Samaria].  As  the  Israelites  were  prevented  by 
the  law  (Lev.  xxv.  23)  from  thus  alienating  theii 
inheritances,  and  as  his  name  occurs  without  the 
usual  genealogical  marks,  it  is  more  than  pro- 
bable that  Shemer  was  descended  from  those  Ca- 
naanit.es  whom  the  Hebrews  had  not  dispossessed 
of  their  lands. 

SHEM1NITH.  [Psalms.] 

SIIEOL.  [Hades.] 

1.  SHEPHATIAH  (iTtpBfe?,  whom  Jehovah 
defends;  Sept.  Samaria),  a son  of  David  by 
Abital  (2  Sam.  iii.  4). 

2.  SHEPHATIAH,  one  of  the  nobles  who 
urged  Zedekiah  to  put  Jeremiah  to  death  (Jer. 
xxxviii.  1). 

3.  SHEPHATIAH,  one  of  the  heads  of 
families  who  settled  in  Jerusalem  after  the  exile 
(Neh.  xi.  6). 

4.  SHEPHATIAH,  the  head  of  one  of  the 
families,  numbering  three  hundred  and  seventy- 
two  persons,  of  the  returned  exiles  (Ezra  ii.  4,  57). 

The  same  name,  with  a slight  variation  in  the 
original  (in'tDS&JO,  but  not  in  the  Authorized 
Version,  occurs  in  the  following: 

5.  SHEPHATIAH,  a son  of  king  Jehosha- 
phat  (2  Cliron.  xxi.  2). 

6.  SHEPHATIAH,  one  of  the  chief  of  those 
valiant  men  who  went  to  David  when  at  Ziklag 
(1  Ghron.  xii.  5). 

7.  SHEPHATIAH,  the  governor  of  the  tribe  of 
Simeon  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Cliron.  xxvii.  16). 

SHEPHERD.  [Pasturage.] 

SHESH  ( W ),  also  SHESIII,  translated  fine 
linen  in  the  Authorized  Version,  occurs  twenty- 
eight  times  in  Exodus,  once  in  Genesis,  once  in 
Proverbs,  and  three  times  in  Ezekiel.  Con- 
siderable doubts  have,  however,  always  been  en- 
tertained respecting  the  true  meaning  of  the 
word  ; some  have  thought  it  signified  fine  wool, 
others  silk;  the  Arabs  have  translated  it  by  words 
referring  to  colours  in  the  passages  of  Ezekiel  and 
of  Proverbs.  Some  of  the  Rabbins  state  that  it  is 
the  same  word  as  that  which  denotes  the  number 
six,  and  that  it  refers  to  the  number  of  threads  of 
which  the  yarn  was  composed.  Thus  Abarbanel 
on  Gen.  xxv.  says  : ‘ Schesch  est  linum  /Egypti- 
acum,  quod  est  pretiosissimum  inter  species  lini. 
Quum  vero  tortum  est  sex  filis  in  unura,  vocatur 
schesch,  aut  schesch  moschsar.  Sin  ex  unico  filo 
tantum,  dicitur  bad'  (Cels.  Hierobot.  ii.  p.  260). 
This  interpretation,  however,  has  satisfied  but 
few.  The  Greek  Alexandrian  translators  used 
the  word  fivcrcros,  which  by  some  has  been  sup- 
posed to  indicate  ‘ cotton/  and  by  others  ‘ liner.* 


SHESH. 


SHESH. 


753 

In  the  article  Byssus  we  have  seen  that  the 
word  bad,  translated  linen,  occurs  in  various 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  that  the  word 
butz,  translated  fine  linen  and  white  linen,  is 
employed  only  at  a later  period.  Under  the  word 
Karpas.  used  in  Esth.  i.  6,  we  have  shown  the 
probability  of  its  being  derived  from  the  Sanscrit 
karpasum,  and  that  it  signifies  ‘cotton.’  We 
have  there  stated  our  opinion  that  cotton  was 
known  to  the  Hebrews  when  in  Persia,  and  that 
butz , which  is  not  used  before  the  time  when  tire 
book  of  Chronicles  was  written,  probably  also  sig- 
nifies cotton.  Ethun,  as  well  as  oQoviov , appears 
to  have  been  applied  either  to  linen  or  cottpn 
cloth.  Bad  we  conceive  may  mean  linen  only. 
Pishtah,  flax,  we  know  was  one  of  the  great 
productions  of  Egypt. 

Shksh,  however,  must  now  be  taken  ixto  con 
sideration.  In  the  several  passages  where  we 
find  the  word  used,  we  do  not  obtain  any  in- 
formation respecting  the  plant ; but  it  is  clear  it 
was  spun  by  women  (Exod.  xxx.  25),  was  used 
as  an  article  of  clothing,  also  for  hangings,  and 
even  for  the  sails  of  ships,  as  in  Ezekiel  xxvii.  7, 
‘ Fine  linen  (shesh)  with  broidered  work  from 
Egypt  was  that,  which  thou  spreadest  forth  to  be 
thy  sail.’  It  is  evident  from  these  facts,  that  it 
must  have  been  a plant  known  as  cultivated  in 
Egypt  at  the  earliest  period,  and  which,  or  its 
fibre,  the  Israelites  were  able  to  obtain  even  when 
in  the  desert.  As  cotton  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  known  at  this  very  early  period,  we  must 
seek  for  shesh  among  the  other  fibre-yielding 
plaflits,  such  as  flax  and  hemp.  Both  these  are 
suited  to  the  purpose,  and  were  procurable  in  those 
countries  at  the  times  specified.  Lexicographers 
do  not  give  us  much  assistance  in  determining 
the  point,  from  the  little  certainty  in  their  in- 
ferences. The  word  shesh,  however,  appears  to 
us  to  have  a very  great  resemblance,  with  the 
exception  of  the  aspirate,  to  the  Arabic  name  of  a 
plant,  which,  it  is  curious,  was  also  one  of  those 
earliest  cultivated  for  its  fibre,  namely,  hemp. 
Of  this  plant,  one  of  the  Arabic  names  is 

jfc-  husheesh , or  the  herb  par  excellence, 
the  term  being  sometimes  applied  to  the  powdered 
leaves  only,  with  which  an  intoxicating  electuary 
is  prepared.  This  name  has  long  been  known,  and 
is  thought  by  some  to  have  given  origin  to  our 
word  assassin  or  hassasin.  Makrizi  treats  of  the 
hemp  in  his  account  of  the  ancient  pleasure- 
grounds  in  the  vicinity  of  Cairo,  ‘ famous  above 
all  for  the  sale  of  the  hasheesha,  which  is  still 
greedily  consumed  by  the  dregs  of  the  people, 
and  from  the  consumption  of  which  sprung  the 
excesses,  which  led  to  the  name  of  “ assassin” 
being  given  to  the  Saracens  in  the  holy  wars.’ 

Hemp  is  a plant  which  in  the  present  day  is 
extensively  distributed,  being  cultivated  in  Eu- 
rope, and  extending  through  Persia  to  the  southern- 
most parts  of  India.  In  the  plains  of  that 
country  it  is  cultivated  on  account  of  its  in- 
toxicating product,  so  well  known  as  bang  ; in 
the  Himalayas  both  on  this  account  and  for  its 
yielding  the  ligneous  fibre  which  is  used  for  sack 
and  rope-making.  Its  European  names  are  no 
doubt  derived  from  the  Arabic  kinnab,  which 
is  supposed  to  be  connected  with  the  Sanscrit 
shanapee.  There  is  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  it 
might  easily  have  been  cultivated  in  Egypt 


Herodotus  mentions  it  as  being  employed  by  the 
Thracians  for  making  garments.  ‘These were  so 
like  linen  that  none  but  a very  experienced 
person  could  tell  whether  they  were  of  heir  p or 
flax  ; one  who  had  never  seen  hemp  would  cer- 
tainly suppose  them  to  be  linen.'  Hemp  is  used  in 
the  present  day  for  smock  frocks  and  tunics  ; and 
Russia  sheeting  and  Russia  duck  are  well 
known.  Cannabis  is  mentioned  in  the  works  of 
Hippocrates  on  account  of  its  medical  properties. 
Dioscorides  describes  it  as  being  employed  for 
making  ropes,  and  it.  was  a good  deal  cultivated 
by  the  Greeks  for  this  purpose.  Though  we  are 
unable  at  present  to  prove  that  it  was  cultivated 
in  Egypt  at  an  early  period,  and  used  for  making 
garments,  yet  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  its 
having  been  so.  Indeed  as  it  was  known  to  va- 
rious Asiatic  nations,  it  could  hardly  have  been 
unknown  to  the  Egyptians,  and  the  similarity  of 
the  word  husheesh  to  tire  Arabic  shesh  would 
lead  to  a belief  that  they  were  acquainted  with 
it,  especially  as  in  a language  like  the  Hebrew 
it  is  more  probable  that  different  names  were 
applied  to  totally  different  things,  than  that  the 
same  thing  had  two  or  three  different  names. 
Hemp  might  thus  have  been  used  at  an  early 
period,  along  with  flax  and  wool,  for  making 
cloth  for  garments  and  for  hangings,  and  would 
be  much  valued  until  cotton  and  the  finer  kinds 
of  linen  came  to  be  known. 

Fi.ax  and  Linen.  Reference  has  been  made 
to  this  article  from  Byssus  and  from  Pishtah; 
for  an  account  of  flax  and  the  cloth  made  from  it. 
So  many  words  are  translated  linen  in  the  Au- 
thorized Version  of  the  Scriptures,  that,  it  has  been 
considered  doubtful  whether  they  indicate  only 
different  qualities  of  the  same  thing,  or  totally 
different  substances.  The  latter  has  by  some 
been  thought  the  most  probable,  on  account  of 
the  poverty  of  the  Hebrew  language ; lienee,  in- 
stead of  considering  the  one  a synonym  of  the 
oth^r,  we  have  been  led  to  enquire,  as  above, 
whether  shesh  may  not  signify  cloth  made  of  hemp 
instead  offlax.  This  would  leave  bad  and 2>ishtah 
as  the  only  words  peculiarly  appropriated  to  linen 
and  flax.  The  passages  in  which  bad  occurs  have 
already  been  indicated  [Byssus].  On  referring 
to  them  we  find  that  it  is  used  only  when  articles 
of  clothing  are  alluded  to.  It  is  curious,  and 
probably  not  accidental,  that  the  Sanscrit  word 
pat  signifies  cloth  made  from  flax-like  substances. 
It  has  been  remarked  that  the  official  garments  of 
the  Hebrews,  like  those  of  the  Egyptians,  were  all 
made  of  linen  ; and  we  find  in  the  several  passages 
where  bad  occurs,  that  linen  garments  and  clothes, 
linen  breeches,  linen  girdle,  linen  ephod,  linen 
mitre,  are  intended;  so  in  Exod.  xxxix.  28,  and 
they  made  for  Aaron  and  his  sons  ‘ a mitre  of  fine 
linen,  and  goodly  bonnets  of  fine  linen,  and  linen 
breeches  of  fine  twined  linen.’  In  the  article 
Cotton  we  have  seen  that  the  mummy  cloths 
are  composed  very  generally,  if  not  universally, 
of  linen  cloth. 

Pishtah  no  doubt  refers  to  the  flax 

plant,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  context,  of  the 
passages  in  which  it  occurs.  Thus,  in  Exod.  ix. 
31,  in  the  plague  of  the  hail  storm,  it  is  related, 

‘ And  the  flax  ( pishtah ) and  the  barley  was 
smitten : for  the  barley  was  in  the  ear,  and  the 
flax  was  boiled,’  or  in  blossom,  according  to 


SHESHACH. 


SHEW -BREAD. 


'63 


Geaoniug.  As  (he  departure  of  the  Israelites  took 
place  in  the  spring,  this  passage  has  reference  no 
doubt  to  the  practice  adopted  in  Egypt,  as  well 
as  in  India,  of  sowing  these  grains  partly  in  the 
months  of  September  and  October,  and  partly  in 
spring,  so  that  the  wheat  might  easily  be  in  blade 
at  the  same  time  that  the  barley  and  flax  were 
more  advanced.  From  the  numerous  references 


tc  flax  and  linen,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  plant 
was  extensively  cultivated,  not  only  in  Egypt,  but 
also  in  Palestine.  As  to  Egypt  we  have  proof  in 
the  mummy  cloth  being  made  of  linen,  and  also 
in  the  representations  of  the  flax  cultivation  in  the 
paintings  of  the  Grotto  of  El  Kab,  which  repre- 
sent the  whole  process  with  the  utmost  clearness  ; 
and  numerous  testimonies  might  be  adduced  from 
ancient  authors,  of  the  esteem  in  which  the  linen  of 
Egypt  was  held.  Flax  continues  to  be  extensively 
cultivated  in  the  present  day.  That  it  was  also 
much  cultivated  in  Palestine,  and  well  known  to 
the  Hebrews,  we  have  proofs  in  the  number  of 
times  it  is  mentioned;  as  in  Josh.  xi.  6,  where 
Rahab  is  described  as  concealing  the  two  He- 
brew spies  with  the  stalks  of  flax  which  she 
had  laid  in  order  upon  the  roof.  In  several  pas- 
sages, as  Lev.  xiii.  47,  48,  52,  59;  Deut. 
xxii.  11;  Jer.  xcii.  1;  Ezek.  xl.  3;  xliv.  17, 
18,  we  find  it  mentioned  as  forming  different  ar- 
ticles of  clothing,  as  girdles,  cords,  and  bands.  In 
Prov.  xxxi.  13,  the  careful  housewife  ‘ seeketh 
wool  and  flax,  and  worketh  it  willingly  with  her 
hands.’  The  words  of  Isaiah  (xlii.  3),  ‘ A bruised 
reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  the  smoking  flax 
shall  he  not  quench,’  are  evidently  referred  to  in 
Matt.  xii.  20,  where  \lvov  is  used  as  the  name 
of  flax,  and  as  tne  equivalent  of  pishtak.  But 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  this  word  being  correctly 
understood,  as  it  has  been  well  investigated  by 
several  authors.  (Cels.  Hierobot.  ii.  p.  283 ; 
Yates.  Textrinum  Antiqaorwn,  p.  253  ) — J.  F.  R. 

SHESHACH  (y&V)),  a name  twice  given  by 
Jeremiah  to  Babylon  (Jer.  xxv.  26;  li.  41). 
Its  etymology  and  proper  signification  are  doubt- 
ful. The  Jewish  interpreters,  followed  by  Je- 

voi,.  u.  49 


rome,  suppose  Sheshach  to  stand  for  ^>22 

Babel , according  to  the  secret  or  cabbalistic  mode 
of  writing  called  athbash , in  which  the  alphabet 
is  inverted,  so  that  ]"l,  the  last  letter,  is  put.  for 
the  first,  the  penultimate  letter  for  2 the  se 
cond,  and  so  on  ; and  this  they  suppose  was  done 
by  the  prophet  for  fear  of  the  Chaldseans.  Bu 
Gesenius  very  properly  asks,  even  supposing 
these  cabbalistic  mysteries  of  trifling  had  been 
already  current  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  which 
cannot  by  any  means  be  admitted,  bow  comes  it 
to  pass  that  Babylon  is  in  the  very  same  verse 
mentioned  under  its  own  proper  name?  C.  B. 
Michael  is  ingeniously  conjectures  that 
comes  from  shi/cshach,  ‘ to  overlay  with 

iron  or  other  plates,’  so  that,  it  might  designate 
Babylon  as  xaAK6-irv\os.  Yon  Bohlen  thinks  the 
word  synonymous  with  the  Persian  Shih-Shah , 
i.  e.  ‘house  of  the  prince;’  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether,  at  so  early  a period  as  the  age  of  Jere- 
miah, Babylon  could  have  received  a Persian 
name  that  would  be  known  in  Judaea. 

SHESHAN  (JW-  lily;  Sept.  2c wav),  a He- 
brew, who  during  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  gave  bis 
daughter  in  marriage  to  his  freed  Egyptian  slave 
(1  Chron.  ii.  3-1)  [JarhahJ. 

SHESHBAZZAR.  [Zerubbabei..] 

SFIETHAR  pnK>;  Pers.,  a star;  Sept. 
2 oc  per  ad  cuo  s),  one  of  the  seven  princes  of  Persia  and 
Media,  ‘ who  saw  the  king's  face,  and  sat  the  first 
in  the  kingdom’  (Est.  i.  14). 

SHETHAR-BOZNAI  ('^2  Pers., 

shining  star ; Sept.  3Zci9ap/3ov£avai),  one  of  the 
Persian  governors  in  Syria,  who  visited  Jerusalem 
in  company  with  Tatnai,  to  investigate  the 
charges  made  against  the  Jews  (Ezra  v.  3 ; vi.  6): 
[Tatnai]. 

SHEVA.  [Skraiah.1 

SREW-BREAD.  In  the  outer  apartment  of 
the  tabernacle,  on  the  right  hand,  or  north-  side, 
stood  a table,  made  of  acacia  (shittim)  wood,  two 
cubits  long,  one  broad,  and  one  and  a half  high, 
and  covered  with  laminae  of  gold.  The  top  of 
the  leaf  of  this  table  was  encircled  by  a border 
or  rim  of  gold.  The  frame  of  the  table,  imme- 
diately below  the  leaf,  was  encircled  with  a piece 
of  wood  of  about  four  inches  in  breadth,  around 
the  edge  of  which  was  a rim  or  border,  similar 
to  that  around  the  leaf.  A little  lower  down, 
but  at  equal  distances  from  the  top  of  the  table, 
there  were  four  rings  of  gold  fastened  to  the 
legs,  through  which  staves  covered  with  gold, 
were  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  currying  it  (Exod. 
xxv.  23-28  ; xxxvii.  1 0- 1 6).  These  rings  were 
not  found  in  the  table  which  was  afterwards 
made  for  the  temple,  nor  indeed  in  any  of  the 
sacred  furniture,  where  they  had  previously  been, 
except  in  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  Twelve  un- 
leavened loaves  were  placed  upon  this  table, 
which  were  sprinkled  with  frankincense  (the 
Sept,  adds  salt;  Lev.  xxiv.  7).  The  number: 
twelve  represented  the  twelve  tribes,  and  was  not 
diminished  after  the  defection  of  ten  of  the  tribes 
from  the  worship  of  God  in  his  sanctuary,  be- 
cause the  covenant  with  the  sons  of  Abraham  was- 
not  formally  abrogated,  and  because  there  were 
still  many  true  Israelites  among  the  apostatizing 
tribes.  The  twelve  loaves  were  also  a constant 
record  against  them,  and  served  as  a standing 


*64  SHIBBOLETH. 

testimonial  that  their  proper  place  was  before  the 
forsaken  altar  of  Jehovah. 

The  loaves  were  placed  in  two  piles,  one  above 
another,  and  were  changed  every  Sabbath  day  by 
the  priests.  The  frankincense  that  had  stood  on 
the  bread  during  the  week  was  then  burnt  as  an 
oblation,  and  the  removed  bread  became  the 
property  of  the  priests,  who,  as  God's  servants, 
had  a right  to  eat  of  the  bread  that  came  from 
his  table;  but  they  were  obliged  to  eat  it  in  the 
holy  place,  and  nowhere  else.  No  others  might 
lawfully  eat  of  it ; but  in  a case  of  extreme  emer- 
gency the  priest  incurred  no  blame  if  he  im- 
parted it  to  persons  who  were  in  a state  of 
ceremonial  purity,  as  in  the  instance  of  David 
and  his  men  (1  Sam.  xxi.  4-6;  Matt.  xii.  4). 
The  bread  was  called  D'33  DfD,  ‘ the  bread  of 
tire  face,’  or,  ‘ of  the  ’presence,'  because  it  was  set 
fortli  before  the  face  or  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah 
in  his  holy  place.  This  is  translated  4 shew- 

bread.’  It  is  also  called  nDTJJDfl  BIT?,  ‘ the 
oread  arranged  in  order,’  and  VOD  Df6,  * the 
perpetual  bread,’  because  it  was  never  absent 
from  the  table  (Lev.  xxiv.  6,  7 ; 1 Chron. 
xxiii.  29). 

Wine  also  was  placed  upon  the  table  of 
‘ shew-bread,'  in  bowls,  some  larger,  lYnyp,  and 
some  smaller,  TVlDD  ; also  in  vessels  that,  were 
covered,  and  in  cups,  which 

were  probably  employed  in  pouring  in  and  taking 
out  the  wine  from  the  other  vessels,  or  in  making 
libations.  Gesenius  calls  them  4 paterae  libato- 
riae ;’  and  they  appear  in  the  Authorized  Version  as 
4 spoons’  (See  generally  Kxod.  xxv.  29,  30; 
xxxvii.  1 0-1 G ; xl.  4,  24  ; Lev.  xxiv.  5-9 ; Num. 
5v.  7). 

SHIBBOLETH  (H^).  The  word  means 
4i  stream  or  flood,  and  was  hence  naturally  sug- 
gested to  the  followers  of  Jephthah,  when,  having 
seized  the  fords  of  the  Jordan  to  prevent  the  re- 
treat of  the  defeated  Ephraimites,  they  sought  to 
■distinguish  them  through  their  known  inability  to 
utter  the  aspirated  sound  sh.  The  fugitives  gave 
instead  the  unaspirated  s,sibboleth,  on  which  they 
were  slain  without  mercy  (Judg.  xi'.  6).  The 
•certainty  which  was  felt  that  the  Ephraimites 
could  not  pronounce  sh,  is  very  remarkable,  and 
strongly  illustrates  the  varieties  of  dialect  wjiich 
had  already  arisen  in  Israel,  and  which  perhaps 
•even  served  to  distinguish  different  tribes,  as 
similar  peculiarities  distinguish  men  of  different 
counties  with  us.  If  what  is  here  mentioned  as 
the  characteristic  of  a particular  tribe  had  been 
shared  by  other  tribes,  it  would  not  have  been 
sufficiently  discriminating  as  a test.  [Hebrew 
Language.] 

SHIELD.  [Arms.] 

SHIKMOTH  (Tripps)  and  SHIKMIM 
(D'DpSjj),  translated  4 sycomore,’  occur  in  several 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  always  in  the 
plural.  From  the  context  it  is  evident  that 
4 must  have  been  a tree  of  some  size,  common  in 
the  plains,  unable  to  bear  great  cold,  with  wood 
of  inferior  quality,  but  still  cultivated  and  valued 
on  account  of  its  fruit.  It  was  not  what  is  called 
sycamore  in  this  countr) , which  is  a kind  of 
taaple,  and  in  some  of  its  cnaracters  the  reverse  of 
oat  a required.  The  Septuagint  everywhere  ren- 


3HIKMOTIL 

ders  it  (rvK&iuvos , which  signifies  the  mulberry.  In 
the  Arabic  translation  the  word  j^s»-  jumeez  is 

used  as  synonymous.  Now  jumeez  is  applied 
by  the  Arabs  in  the  present  day,  and  has  been 
so  from  ancient  times  to  a great,  tree  of  Egypt. 
According  to  Abu’l  Fadli,  as  translated  by  Cel 
sius,  ‘ Giummeis  nomen  est  Syriacum  arbori 
simili  ficui,  sed  foliis  morum  referenti/  These 
few  words  would  be  sufficient  1o  direct  us  to  the 
tree  which  was  called  avKo/xopos  by  the  Greeks, 
from  <rvKrj , a fig,  and  ixopos , the  mulberry  tree, 
and  which  is  the  Finis  Sycomorus  of  botanists- 
being  a genuine  specie  of  Ficus,  to  which  the 
ancient  name  has  been  added  as  the  specific  one. 
The  fruit  in  its  general  characters  lesembles  that, of 
the  fig,  while  the  leaves  resemble  those  of  the  mul- 
berry tree.  Prosper  Alpinus  says  of  it,  4 Arbor 
vastissima  ab  ASgyptiis  Zwnez  vocata,  in  ^Egypto 
proven  it,  quam  nostri  Sycotnorum,  ac  ficuir 
^Egyptiam  appellant.’ 


The  ancients  were  well  acquainted  with  it;  and 
it  is  common  in  Egypt  as  well  as  in  Syria.  In 
Egypt,  being  one  of  the  few  trees  indigenous  in 
that  country,  its  wood  was  proportionally  much 
employed,  as  in  making  mnmmy-casos,  though 
it  is  coarse  grained,  and  would  not  be  valued 
where  other  trees  are  more  common.  Thus,  in 
Isa.  ix.  10,  4 The  sycamores  are  cut  down,  but 
we  will  change  them  into  cedars.’  By  this  the 
Israelites  intimate  that  they  will  soon  be  able  to 
repair  their  losses,  and  rebuild  in  greater  perfec- 
tion than  ever.  So  in  1 Kings  x.  27 ; 2 Chton. 
i.  15,  the  riches  introduced  by  Solomon,  and  the 
improvements  made  by  him  are,  in  like  manner, 
intimated  by  contrasting  the  cedar  with  the  syca- 
more: — ‘And  the  king  made  silver  to  be  in 
Jerusalem  as  stones,  and  cedars  made  he  as  the 
sycamore  trees  that  are  in  the  vale  for  abundance.’ 
Though  the  wood  of  this  sycamore  is  coarse 
grained,  it  is  yet  very  durable  in  a dry  climate 
like  that  of  Egypt;  hence  the  mummy-cases  even 
in  the  present  day  seem  as  if  made  with  fresh 
wood.  This  may  no  doubt  be  partly  escribe?* 


SHILOH. 


SHILOH. 


755 


to  the  preservative  effects  of  the  resinous  coats, 
paints,  &c.  with  which  they  are  impregnated.  The 
late  Professor  Don  wa3  of  opinion  that  this  wood 
was  that  ot  Cordia  Myaea,  or  the  Sebesten  tree;  but 
it,  hardly  grows  large  enough.  The  sycamore 
being  a tree  abundant  in  Egypt  must  necessarily  be 
one  suited  to  plains  and  vales,  and  hence  would 
also  be  one  likely  to  be  injured  by  cold,  as  in 
Psa.  lxxviii.  47,  c He  destroyed  their  vines  with 
hail,  and  their  sycamore  trees  with  frost.’  That 
the  sycamore  was  cultivated  and  esteemed  in 
Palestine  we  learn  from  1 Chron.  xxvii.  2S, 
‘ And  over  the  olive  trees  and  the  sycamore  trees 
that  were  in  the  low  plains  was  Baal-hanan  the 
Gederite.’  This  was  on  account  of  its  fruit, 
which  it  bears  on  its  stem  and  branches,  like  the 
common  fig,  and  continues  to  produce  in  succes- 
sion for  months.  The  fruit  is  palatable,  sweetish 
in  taste,  and  still  used  as  food  in  the  East. 
One  mode  of  ripening  the  fruit  is  supposed  to 
be  alluded  to  in  Amos  vii.  14,  ‘I  was  an 
herdman,  and  a gatherer  of  sycamore  fruit 
but  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  is  understood  to 
mean  ‘ scraping  or  making  incisions  in  the  syca- 
more fruit,’and  to  refer  to  the  practice  mentioned 
by  Hasselquist  as  existing  even  in  modem  times. 
When  the  fruit  has  reached  the  size  of  an 
inch  in  diameter,  the  inhabitants  pare  off  a part 
at  the  centre  point.  They  say  that  without  this 
operation  it  would  not  come  to  maturity.  The 
same  practice  is  mentioned  by  Theophrastus  and 
Pliny,  &c.  As  the  sycamore  is  a lofty,  shady 
tree,  it  was  well  suited  for  climbing  up  into,  as 
described  in  Luke  xix.  4,  where  Zacchaeus  ascends 
one  to  see  Jesus  pass  by. — J.  F.  R. 

SHILOH  (nHo,  the  epithet  applied,  in  the 
prophetic  benediction  of  Jacob  on  his  death-bed 
(Gen.  xlix.  10),  to  the  personage  to  whom  ‘ the 
gathering  of  the  nations  should-  be,’  and  which 
has  ever  been  regarded  by  Christians  and  by  the 
ancient  Jews  as  a denomination  of  the  Messiah. 
The  oracle  occurs  in  the  blessing  of  Judah,  and 
is  thus  worded — The  sceptre  shall  not  depart 
from  Judah,  nor  a lawgiver  from  between  his 
feet,  until  Shiloh  come  : and  unto  him  the  gather- 
ing of  the  people  shall  be.’  The  term  itself,  as 
well  as  the  whole  passage  to  which  it  belongs, 
has  ever  been  a fruitful  theme  of  controversy  be- 
tween Jews  and  Christians,  the  former,  although 
they  admit  for  the  most  part  the  Messianic 
reference  of  the  text,  being  still  fertile  in  expe- 
dients to  evade  the  Christian  argument  founded 
upon  it.  Neither  our  limits  nor  our  object  will 
permit  us  to  enter  largely  into  the  theological 
bearings  of  this  prediction  ; but  it  is  perhaps 
scarcely  possible  to  do  justice  to  the  discussion  as 
a question  of  pure  philology,  without  at  the  same 
time  displaying  the  strength  of  the  Christian  in- 
terpretation, and  trenching  upon  the  province 
occupied  by  the  proofs  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  being 
the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies. 

Before  entering  upon  the  more  essential  merits 
of  the  question,  it  may  be  well  to  recite  the  ancient 
versions  of  this  passage,  which  are  mostly  to  be 
referred  to  a date  that  must  exempt  them  from 
the  charge  of  an  undue  bias  towards  any  but  the 
right  construction.  Influences  of  this  nature 
have,  of  course,  become  operative  with  Jews  of  a 
late?  period.  The  version  of  the  Sept,  is  pe- 
culiar—* A prince  sliall  not  fail  from  Jfudah,  nor 


a captain  out  of  his  loins,  eus  &v  eA0rj  ra  araicd' 
/tern  (xvtw,  until  the  things  come  that  are  laid  up 
for  him.'  In  some  copies  another  reading  is 
found,  <5  andfceiTai,  for  idiom  it  is  laid  up; 
meaning,  doubtless,  in  the  kingdom,  —for  whom 
the  kingdom  is  laid  up  in  reserve.  This  render 
ing  is  probably  to  be  referred  to  an  enoneoiw 
lection,  1^  whose  it  is.  Targ.  Onk.,  ‘One 

having  the  principality  shall  not  be  taken  from 
the  house  of  Judah,  nor  a scribe  from  his 
children's  children,  until  the  Messiah  come, 
whose  the  kingdom  is.’  Targ.  Jerus.,  * Kings 
shall  not  fail  from  the  house  of  Judah,  nor  skil- 
ful doctors  of  the  law  from  their  children's 
children,  till  the  time  when  the  King’s  Messiah 
shall  come.’  Syr.,  ‘ The  sceptre  shall  not  fail 
from  Judah,  nor  an  expounder  from  between  his 
feet,  till  he  come  whose  it  is ;’  i.  e.  the  sceptre, 
the  right,  the  dominion.  Arab.,  ‘ The  sceptre 
shall  not  be  taken  away  from  Judah,  nor  a law- 
giver from  under  his  rule,  until  he  shall  come 
whose  it  is.’  Sam.,  ‘ The  sceptre  shall  not  be 
taken  away  from  Judah,  nor  a leader  from  his 
banners,  until  the  Pacific  shall  come.’  Lat. 
Yulg.,  ‘ The  sceptre  shall  not  be  taken  away 
from  Judah,  nor  a leader  from  his  thigh — donee 
veniet  qui  rr.ittendus  est,  until  he  shall  come  who 
is  to  be  sent.'  This  is  evidently  founded  upon 

mistaking  in  the  original  for  rh'W,  which 

latter  comes  from  the  root  signifying  to  send. 
It  is,  however,  adopted  by  Grotius  as  the  truest 
reading,  the  present  form  of  the  word  being 
owing,  in  bis  opinion,  to  the  error  of  transcribers 
in  substituting  H for  !“!• 

Various  other  etymologies  have  been  assigned 
to  the  term,  the  advocates  of  which  may  be  di 
vided  into  two  classes:  those  who  consider  the 

word  n b'W  as  a compound  ; and  those  who  deem 
it  a radical  or  simple  derivation.  Those  of  the 
first  class  coincide,  for  the  most  part,  with  the 

ancient  interpreters,  taking  as  equivalent  to 
and  this  to  be  made  up  of  the  contrac- 
tion of  who,  and  1^,  the  dative  of  the  third 

personal  pronoun.  The  rendering,  accordingly, 
in  this  case,  would  he  cujus  est,  or  cui  est,  whose 
it  is,  to  whom  it  belongs,  i.  e.  the  sceptre  or  do- 
minion. This  interpretation  is  defended  by  Jalm 
( Einl . in  A.  T.  i.  p.  507,  and  Vat.  Mes.  ii.  p. 
179).  It  is  approved  abo  by  Hess,  De  Wette, 
Krummacher,  and  others.  The  authority  of  the 
ancient  versions,  already  alluded  to,  is  the  prin- 
cipal ground  upon  which  its  advocates  rely.  But 
to  this  sense  it  i3  a serious  objection,  that  there  is 
no  evidence  that  the  abbreviation  of  into 

was  known  in  the  time  of  Moses.  There  is  no 
cither  instance  of  it  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  it  is 
only  in  the  book  of  Judges  that  we  first  meet  with 
it.  However  the  rendering  of  the  old  translators 
is  to  be  accounted  for,  there  is  no  sufficient 
ground  for  the  belief  that  the  form  in  question 
was  the  received  one  in  their  time.  If  it  was,  we 
should  doubtless  find  some  traces  of  it  in  exist- 
ing manuscripts.  But  though  these  copies  ex- 
hibit the  reading  not  one  of  them  girca 

and  but  very  few  : which  Hengstenberg 
deems  of  no  consequence,  as  the  omission  of  tb* 
yod  was  merely  a defective  way  of  writing,  whsa^t 


SHILOH. 


SHILOH. 


756 


often  occurs  in  words  of  similar  structure.  An 
argument  for  tliis  interpretation  has  indeed 
been  derived  from  Ezek.  xxi.  27,  where  the 
words,  ‘ until  he  shall  come,  whose  is  the  domi- 
nion. “1EJW,1  are  regarded  as  an  ob- 

vious paraphrase  of  ibi^  or  n^E2.  But  to  this  it 
may  be  answered,  that  while  Ezekiel  may  have 
had  the  present  passage  in  his  eye,  and  intended 
an  alluskm  to  the  character  or  prerogatives  of  the 
Messiah,  yet  there  is  no  evidence  that  tin's  was 
designed  as  an  interpretation  of  the  name  under 
consideration.  The  reasons,  therefore,  appear 
ample  fir  setting  aside,  as  wholly  untenable,  the 
explication  of  the  time  here  propounded,  without 
adverting  to  the  fact,  that  the  ellipsis  involved  in 
this  construction  is  so  unnatural  and  violent,  that 
no  parallel  to  it  can  he  found  in  the  whole 
Scriptures. 

Another  solution  proposed  by  some  expositors 
is,  to  derive  the  word  nb'I^  from  child , and 

the  suffix  H for  1.  This  will  yield  the  reading, 
* until  his  (Judah’s)  son  or  descendant , the  Mes- 
siah, shall  come.’  Thus  the  Targ.  Jon.,  ‘ Until 
the  time  when  the  king’s  Messiah  shall  come, 
the  little  one  of  his  sons.'  This  view  is  favoured 
by  Calvin  (in  loc.')  and  by  Knapp  (Dogm.  ii. 
p.  138),  and  also  by  Dathe.  But  as  this  re- 
solves into  a synonym  with  after- 

birth (Deut.  xxviii.  57),  rendered  ‘ young  one,1 
it  requires  us  to  adopt  the  unnatural  supposition, 
that  the  term  properly  denoting  the  secundines , 
or  the  membrane  that  encloses  the  foetus,  is  taken 
for  the  foetus  itself.  Besides,  this  exposition  has 
an  air  of  grossness  about  it  which  prompts  its  in- 
voluntary rejection. 

The  second  class  consists  of  those  who  con- 
sider nb^  as  a radical  or  simple  derivative.  Of 
these  we  may  remark,  that  it  is  principally  among 
the  Jews  that  the  opinion  of  Aben  Ezra-  finds 

currency,  who  makes  flb'E?  here  to  be  the  name 
of  the  place  (Shiloh)  where  the  tabernacle  was 
first  fixed  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  The 
sense  of  the  oracle,  according  to  this  construction, 
will  be,  that  Judah  was  to  be  the  leader  of  the 
tribes  during  the  whole  journey  to  Canaan,  until 
they  came  to  Shiloh.  Subsequent  to  this  event, 
in  consequence  of  the  distribution  of  the  tribes 
according  to  the  boundaries  assigned  them,  it 
was  to  lose  its  pre-eminence.  But  there  is  no 
mention  made  of  Shiloh  elsewhere  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  no  probability  that  any  such  place 
existed  in  the  time  of  Jacob.  It  is,  moreover, 
scarcely  conceivable  that  such  a splendid  train 
of  prediction  should  be  interrupted  by  an  allu- 
9*1011  to  such  an  inconsiderable  locality.  It  is 
so  utterly  out  of  keeping  witli  the  general  tone  of 
the  prophecy,  that  it  is  surprising  that  any  mind 
not  infatuated  by  Rabbinic  trivialities,  should  en- 
tertain the  theory  for  a moment.  Yet  Teller, 
Mendelsohn,  Eichhorn,  Ammon,  Rosenmiiller 
(in  first  edition),  Kelle,  and  others  have  enrolled 
themselves  in  favour  of  this  crude  conceit. 

But  an  exposition  of  far  more  weight,  both 
from  its  intrinsic  fitness,  and  from  the  catalogue 
of  distinguished  name3  which  have  espoused  it, 

is  that  which  traces  the  term  to  the  root  flb^ 
psievit,  to  rest , to  be  at  peace , and  makes  it 
equivalent  to  Pacificator,  Tranquillizer,  or  Great 


Author  of  Pea  re.  This  is  a sense  iccirdan* 
with  the  anticipated  and  realised  character  oi 
the  Messiah,  one  of  whose  crowning  denomina- 
tions is  ‘ Prince  of  Peace.1  Still  it  is  an  objec- 
tion to  this  sense  of  the  term,  that,  it  is  not  suffi- 
ciently sustained  by  the  analogy  of  forms.  The 
idea  conveyed  by  the  proposed  interpretation,  is 
that,  of  causing  or  effecting  peace ; an  idea  for 
which  the  Hebrew  has  an  appropriate  form  oi 
expression,  and  which,  in  this  word,  would  nor- 
mally be  mashliah.  The  actual  form, 

however,  is  wholly  diverse  from  this,  and  though 
several  examples  are  adduced  by  the  advocates 
of  this  interpretation,  of  analogous  derivations 
from  a tri-literal  root,  as  TITO  from  TD, 
from  XO,  "TlO'P  from  “Ittp,  &c.,  yet  it 
is  certain  that  the  original  characteristic  of  this 
form  is  a jwssive  instead  of  an  active  sense, 

which  obviously  requires  according  to  the 

exegesis  proposed. 

In  these  circumstances  we  venture  to  suggest 
another  origin  for  the  term.  In  our  view  the 

legitimate  derivation  is  from  to  ask , seek, 

require , so  that  its  true  import  is  the  desired , the 
longed  for  one.  The  appropriate  participial  form 

for  this  is  or  its  equivalent  ^'NE^,  in 

which  the  passive  sense  is  predominant.  In 
words  of  this  class  the  weak  guttural  K not  enly 
remits  its  vowel  to  the  preceding  letter,  but  falls 

out  in  the  writing,  as  'Q  for  for 

nw  for  rve\s“i,  m for  rw  for 

JYHNE^.  We  obtain  by  this  process  for 
or  the  ashed,  the  desired,  which  leaves  (lie 

passive  import  unimpaired.  We  have  then  to 
account  for'  the  supplementary  letters  HI  oh 

It  would  perhaps  be  reason- 
able to  expect  that  the  form  would  not  be 

retained  in  this  connection,  as  it  might  he  con- 
founded with  blfrEE?,  hades,  from  the  same  root. 
In  order,  therefore,  to  distinguish  it,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  convey  in  the  word  itself  an  inti- 
mation of  the  divine  character  of  the  personage 
announced,  we  may  suppose  that  two  of  the 
letters  of  the  word  niiT*  Jehovah  are  appended ; 
than  which  nothing  is  more  common  in  (lie  con- 
struction of  proper  names  in  Hebrew.  Tlius,  in 
the  names  of  Abraham  and  Sarah  we  recognise 
the  insertion  of  the  letter  H as  a fragment  of  the 
divine  title  niiT' ; and  it  is  well  known  that  the 
termination  el  and  oh,  in  nearly  all  the  proper 
names  of  Scripture,  are  derived  from  the  divine 
designation  (Simonis,  Onomast.  § x.).  As  there 
is  nothing  then  on  the  ground  of  strict,  philology 
which  can  be  objected  to  this  pedigree  of  the 
term,  and  as  the  idea  conveyed  by  it  is  wholly 
in  accordance  with  the  character  of  the  predicted 
Messiah,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  give  it  the  decided 
preference  over  any  other  that  has  been  assigned. 
An  expression  in  Abarbanel’s  Commentary  on 
this  passage,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  had 
at  least  a gleam  of  this  as  its  true  import.  In 
speaking  of  the  requisite  characters  of  the  Mes- 
siah, he  say 3,  ‘ The  eighth  coi  dition  and  attri- 
bute to  be  found  in  the  promised  King  is,  tha» 

the  nations  should  require  him,  and  that 

hb  rest  should  be  glorious.1  The  reader  who 


SHILOIL 


SHIP. 


751 


would  pursue  the  inquiry  into  this  subject,  may 
consult  with  advantage  Jacobi,  Alting  Schilo, 
iii.  8 ; Hengstenberg,  Christol.  ch.  ii.  1 a,  p.  41, 
Keith’s  Transl. — G.  13. 

2.  SHILOH,  a city  in  the  tribe  of  Ephraim, 
•tuated  among  the  hills  to  the  north  of  Bethel, 
eastward  of  the  great  northern  road,  where  the 
.abernacle  and  ark  remained  for  a long  time, 
from  the  days  of  Joshua,  during  the  ministry  of 
all  the  judges,  down  to  the  end  of  Eli  s life 
(Josh,  xviii.  1;  1 Sam.  iv.  3).  To  this  circum- 
stance Shiloh  owed  all  its  importance;  for  after 
the  loss  of  the  ark — which  never  returned  thi- 
ther after  it  had  been  restored  to  Israel  by  the 
Philistines — it  sunk  into  insignificance.  It  was, 
indeed,  the  residence  of  Ahijah  the  prophet  (1 
Kings  xi.  29 ; xii.  15  ; xiv.  2),  hut  it  is  more  than 
once  mentioned  as  accursed  and  forsaken  (Ps. 
Ixxviii.  60  ; Jer.  vii.  12,  14;  xxvi.fi).  The  last 
mention  of  it  in  Scripture  is  in  Jer.  xli.  5,  which 
only  shows  that  it  survived  the  exile.  Dr.  Robin- 
son identifies  it  with  a place  named  Seilun,  a city 
surrounded  by  hills,  with  an  opening  by  a narrow 
valley  into  a plain  on  the  south.  The  ruins  con- 
sist chiefiy  of  an  old  tower  with  walls  four  feet 
thick,  and  of  large  stones  and  fragments  of  co- 
lumns indicative  of  an  ancient  site  (see  Robin- 
son’s Palestine , iii.  85-89). 

SHIMEI  renoioned ; Sept.  2ejuei),  a 

member  of  the  family  of  Saul,  residing  at  Bahu- 
rim,  who  grievously  insulted  king  David  when 
he  fled  from  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xvi.  5-13).  The 
king  not  only  saved  him  from  the  immediate 
resentment  of  his  followers,  but  on  his  triumphant 
return  by  the  same  road  after  the  overthrow  of  his 
rebellious  son,  he  bestowed  on  Shimei  the  pardon 


which  he  implored  (2  Sam.  xix.  16).  It  seema 
however,  that  it  was  policy  which  chiefly  dictated 
this  course,  for  it  was  by  the  advice  of  David 
himself  (1  Kings  ii.  8,  9)  that  Solomon,  after  his 
father’s  death,  made  Shimei  a prisoner  at  large  in 
Jerusalem  (l  Kings  ii.  36,  37).  Three  years 
after  he  broke  his  parole  by  leaving  Jerusalem  in 
pursuit  of  some  runaway  slaves,  and  was,  on  hi.* 
return,  put  to  death  by  order  of  the  king  (1  Kings 
ii.  39-46). 

SHINAR  pyjK>  ; Sept.  TSemxap),  the  proper 
name  of  Babylonia,  particularly  of  the  country 
around  Babylon  (Gen.  x.  10  ; xiv.  1 ; Isa.  xi. 
11 ; Dan.  i.  2;  Zech.  v.  11);  see  Ba.byi.onia. 

SHIP.  In  few  things  is  there  greater  danger 
of  modern  associations  misleading  the  reader  of 
the  Scriptures  than  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  the 
present  article.  To  an  Englishman  a ship  calls 
up  the  idea  of  ‘ the  wooden  walls  of  old  England,’ 
which  have  so  long  withstood  the  ‘ battle  and  the 
breeze,’  and  done  so  much  to  spread  the  fame  and 
the  influence  of  the  British  nation  throughout  the 
world.  But  both  the.  ships  and  the  navigation  of 
the  ancients,  even  of  the  most  maritime  states, 
were  as  dissimilar  as  things  of  the  same  kind 
can  well  be  to  the  realities  which  the  terms  now 
represent.  Navigation  confined  itself  to  coast- 
ing, or  if  necessity,  foul  weather,  or  chance  drove 
a vessel  from  the  land,  a regard  to  safety  urged 
the  commander  to  a speedy  return,  for  he  had  no 
guide  but  such  as  the  stars  might  afford  under  skies 
with  which  he  was  but  imperfectly  acquainted. 
And  ships,  whether  designed  for  commercial  or 
warlike  purposes,  were  small  in  size  and  frail 
in  structure,  if  our  immense  piles  of  oak  and 
iron  be  taken  as  the  objects  of  comparison. 


The  Jews  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  a sea- 
faring people  ; yet  their  position  on  the  map  of 
the  world  is  such  as  to  lead  us  to  feel  that  they 
could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  ships  and  the 
business  which  relates  thereunto.  Phoenicia,  the 
north-western  part  of  Palestine,  was  unquestion- 
ably among,  if  not  at  the  head  of,  the  earliest 
cultivators  of  mari’ime  affairs.  Then  the  Holy 
Land  itself  lay  with  one  side  coasting  a sea  which 
was  anciently  the  great  highway  of  navigation, 
and  the  centre  of  social  and  commercial  enter- 
prise. Within  its  own  borders  it  had  a navi- 
gable lake.  The  Nile,  with  which  river  the 
fathers  of  the  nation  had  become  acquainted  in 
their  bondage,  was  another  great  thoroughfare  for 
ship*  And  the  Red  Sea  itself,  which  con- 


ducted towards  the  remote  east,  was  at  no  great 
distance  even  from  the  capital  of  the  land. 
Then  at  different  points  in  its  long  line  of  sea- 
coast  there  were  harbours  of  no  mean  repute. 
Let  the  reader  call  to  mind  Tyre  and  Sidon  in 
Phoenicia,  and  Acre  (Acco)  and  Jaffa  (Joppa)  in 
Palestine.  Yet  the  decidedly  agricultural  bear- 
ing of  the  Israelitish  constitution  checked  such 
a development  of  power,  activity,  and  wealth, 
as  these  favourable  opportunities  might  have 
called  forth  on  behalf  of  seafaring  pursuits. 
There  can,  however,  be  no  doubt  that  the  arts 
of  ship-building  and  of  navigation  came  to 
Greece  and  Italy  from  the  East,  and  immediately 
from  the  Levant;  whence  we  may  justifiably 
infer  that  these  arts,  so  far  as  they  were  cult*- 


758 


SHIP. 


SHIP. 


vated  in  Palestine,  were  there  in  a higher  state  of 
] erfection  at  an  early  period,  at  least,  than  in 
the  more  western  parts  of  the  world  (Ezek.  xxvii. ; 
Strabo,  lib.  xvi. ; Comenz,  De  Nave  Tyrid).  In 
the  early  periods  of  their  history  the  Israelites 
themselves  would  partake  to  a small  extent  of  this 
skill  and  of  its  advantages,  since  it  was  only  by 
degrees  that  they  gained  possession  of  the  entire 
land,  and  for  a long  time  were  obliged  to  give  up 
the  sovereignty  of  very  much  of  their  seaboard 
to  the  Philistines  and  other  hostile  tribes.  The 
earliest  history  of  Palestinian  ships  lies  in  impene- 
trable darkness,  so  far  as  individual  facts  are 
concerned.  In  Gen.  xlix.  13  there  is,  however, 
a prophecy,  the  fulfilment  of  which  would  con- 
nect the  Israelites  with  shipping  at  an  early 
period  : ‘ Zebulun  shall  dwell  at  the  haven  of 
the  sea,  and  he  shall  be  for  a haven  of  ships,  and 
his  border  shall  be  unto  Zidon*  (compare.  Dent, 
xxxiii.  19;  Josh.  xix.  10,  sq.)  : words  which 
seem  more  fitly  to  describe  the  position  of  Asher 
in  the  actual  division  of  the  laud.  These  local 
advantages,  however,  could  have  been  only  par- 
tially improved,  since  we  find  Hiram,  King  of 
Tyre,  acting  as  carrier  by  sea  for  Solomon,  en- 
gaging to  convey  in  floats  to  Joppa  the  timber 
cut  in  Lebanon  for  the  temple,  and  leaving  to 
the  Hebrew  prince  the  duty  of  transporting  the 
wood  from  the  coast  to  Jerusalem.  And  when, 
after  having  conquered  El  at h and  Ezion-geber  on 
the  further  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  Solomon  pro- 
ceeded to  convert  them  into  naval  stations  for 
his  own  purposes,  he  was  still,  whatever  he  did 
himself,  indebted  to  Hiram  for  ‘shipmen  that  had 
knowledge  of  the  sea’  (1  Kings  ix.  26  ; x.  22). 
The  effort,  however,  to  form  and  keep  a navy  in 
connection  with  the  East  was  not  lastingly  suc- 
cessful ; it  soon  began  to  decline,  and  Jehoshaphat 
failed  when  at  a later  day  he  tried  to  give  new 
life  and  energy  to  the  enterprise  (l  Kings  xxii. 
49,  50). 

In  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  Joppa  was  a 
Jewish  seapo:t(l  Macc.  xiv.  5).  Herod  the  Great 
availed  himself  of  the  opportunities  naturally  af- 
forded to  form  a more  capacious  port  at.  Caesarea 
(Joseph.  De  Bell  Jud .,  iii.  9.  3).  Nevertheless 
no  purely  Jewish  trade  by  sea  was  hence  even 
now  called  into  being.  Caesarea  was  the  place 
whence  Paul  embarked  in  order  to  proceed  as  a 
prisoner  to  Rome  (Acts  xxvii.  2).  His  voyage 
on  that  occasion,  as  described  most  graphically 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (ch.  xxvii.,  xxviii.), 
if  it  requires  some  knowledge  of  ancient  maritime 
allairs  in  order  to  be  rightly  understood,  affords 
also  rich  and  valuable  materials  towards  a his- 
tory of  the  subject,  and  might,  we  feel  convinced, 
be  so  treated  as  of  itself  to  supply  many  irre- 
sistib.e  evidences  of  the  certainty  of  the  events 
therein  recorded,  and,  by  warrantable  inferences, 
of  the  credibility  of  the  evangelical  history  in 
general.  No  one  but  an  eye-witness  could  have 
written  the  minute,  exact,  true,  and  graphic  ac- 
count which  these  two  chapters  give. 

The  reader  of  the  New  Testament  is  well 
aware  how  frequently  he  finds  himself  with  the 
Saviour  on  the  romantic  shores  of  the  sea  of 
Gennesareth.  There  Jesus  is  seen,  now  addressing 
the  people  from  on  board  a vessel,  ttA oiov  (Matt, 
xiii.  2;  Luke  v.  3)  ; now  sailing  up  and  down 
the  lake  (Matt.  viii.  23;  ix.  1;  xiv.  13;  John 
ri.  17).  Some  of  his  earliest  disciples  were  pro- 


prietors of  barks  which  sailed  on  jhis  ?ult  i l so* 
(Matt.  iv.  21  : John  xxi.  3;  Luke  v.  3).  These 
‘ ships’  were  indeed  small.  Josephus  designates 
the  ships  here  employed  by  the  term  andcbr). 
They  were  not,  however,  mere  boats.  They 
carried  their  anchor  with  them  (De  Bell.  Jud., 
iii.  10.  1 ; Vit.  xxxiii.).  There  was  too  a kind  of 
vessel  larger  than  this,  called  a by  Jose- 

phus, who  narrates  a sea-fight  which  took  place 
on  the  lake,  conducted  on  the  part  of  the 
Romans  by  Vespasian  himself  (De  Bell.  Jud., 
iii.  10.  9).  It  thus  appears  that  the  lake  was 
not  contemptible,  nor  its  vessels  mean;  and  those 
should  hence  learn  to  qualify  their  language  who 
represent  the  Galilean  fishermen  as  of  the  poorest 
class. 


The  vessels  connected  with  Biblical  history 
were  for  the  most  part  ships  of  burden,  almost  in- 
deed exclusively  so,  at  least  within  the  period  of 
known  historical  facts,  though  in  a remote  an- 
tiquity the  Phoenician  states  can  hardly  fail  to 
have  supported  a navy  for  warlike,  as  it  is  known 
they  did  for  predatory,  purposes.  This  peculi- 
arity, however,  of  the  Biblical  ships  exonerates  the 
writer  from  entering  into  the  general  subject  of 
the  construction  of  ancient  ships  and  their  seve- 
ral sub-divisions.  A good  general  summary  on 
that  head  may  be  found  in  Smith  s Dictionary  of 
Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities , p.  875,  sq.  A 
few  details  respecting  chiefly  ships  of  burden 
may  be  of  service  to  the  Scriptural  student.  In 
a ship  of  this  kind  was  Paul  conveyed  to  Italy. 
They  (naves  onerariae)  were,  for  the  purposes  to 
which  they  were  destined,  rounder  and  deeper 
than  ships  of  war,  and  sometimes  of  great  capa- 
city. In  consequence  of  their  bulk,  and  when 
laden,  of  their  weight,  they  were  impelled  by 
sails  rather  than  by  oars.  On  the  prow  stood  the 
insignia  from  which  the  ship  was  named,  and  by 
which  it  was  known.  These  in  Acts  (xxviii.  11) 
are  called  7rapd(T7)ij.oi ‘sign,’  which  it  appears 
consisted  in  this  case  of  figures  of  Castor  and  Pol- 
lux— lucida  sidera — brilliant  constellations,  aus- 
picious to  navigators  (Horat.  Od.,  i.  3 ; Liv. 
xxxvii.  92;  Tac.  Ann.  vi.  34;  Ovid,  Fast.  i. 

10.  1).  Each  ship  was  provided  with  a boat, 
intended  in  the  case  of  peril  to  facilitate  escape, 
aicdcpy  (Acts  xxvii.  16  ; xxx.  32  ; Cic.  De  Invent. 

11.  51)  ; and  several  anchors  (Acts  xxvii.  29,40  ; 
Caes.  Civ.  i.  25);  also  a plumb  line  for  sounding 
(Acts  xxvii.  28;  Isidor.  Orig.  xix.  4).  Among 
the  sails  one  bore  the  name  of  ap-eg^v,  trans- 
lated in  Acts  xxvii.  40,  by  ‘ mainsail ;’  but  pc* 


SHIP. 


SH  ITT  A II. 


75f 


libly  the  word  may  rather  mean  what  is  now 
tamed  the  ‘topsail’  ( Schol . ad  Juven.  xii.  68). 


Iu  great  danger  it  was  customary  to  gird  the 
vessel  with  cables,  in  order  to  prevent  her  from 
falling  to  pieces  under  the  force  of  wind  and  sea 
(Acts  xxvii.  17  : Polyb.  xxvii.  3.  3 ; Athen.  v. 
204;  Hor.  Od.  i.  14.  0).  The  various  expedients 
that  were  employed  in  order  to  prevent  shipwreck 
are  described  to  the  eye  in  the  passage  in  the 
Acts.  First,  the  vessel  was  lightened  by  throwing 
overboard  all  lumber,  luggage,  and  everything 
that  could  be  snared.  The  term  employed  by 
Luke  is  (TKcwfi  (xxvii.  19),  one  of  a very  wide 
signification,  which  the  words  we  have  just 
employed  do  not.  we  think,  more  than  equal.  If 
the  peril  grew  more  imminent,  the  freight  was 
sacrificed  (xxvii.  38).  When  hope  or  endur- 
ance had  come  ro  a period,  recourse  was  had  to 
the  boat,  or  efforts  were  made  to  reach  the  shore 
on  spars  or  rafts  (xxvii.  38,  44).  The  captain 
was  denominated  vavicAypos  (xxvii.  II),  steers- 
man, though  he  was  a different  person  from  him 
who  had  the  actual  charge  of  the  helm,  who 
bore  the  name  of  KvfieprijTps,  which  is  the  root 


of  our  word  ‘goiernor’  (Lat.  gubernatcr,  helms- 
man). 


The  dangers  of  the  ocean  to  sailors  on  board 
such  ships  as  these  were,  and  in  the  then  ignorance 
of  navigation,  caused  sailing  to  he  restricted  to 
the  months  of  spring,  summer,  and  autumn ; 
winter  was  avoided.  To  the  Romans  the  sea  was 
opened  in  March  and  closed  in  November  (Cass. 
Bell.  Gall.  iv.  36  ; v.  23  ; Philo,  Opp.  iv.  548  ; 
Acts  xxvii.  9);  and  ships  which  towards  the  end  of 
the  year  were  still  at  sea  earnestly  sought,  a bar 
hour  in  which  to  pass  the  winter  (Acts  xxvii.  12). 

Schlozer,  Vers,  einer  Ally.  Geschichte  d. 
Handels  u.  d.  Schiffart  in  den  alt.  Zeiten, 
Rostock,  1760  ; La  Marine  des  Ancims  Peuplest 
par  le  Roy,  Paris,  1777  ; Bergbaus,  Gesch.  d. 
Bchifartskunde,  1792;  Benedict,  Vers.  e.  Gesch. 
d.  Schiff.  u.  d.  Handels  hei  den  Alien , 1809; 
Howell,  On  the  H ar  Galleys  of  the  Ancients  ; 
A.  Jal,  Archeologie  Navale,  Paris,  1840;  Bockh, 
Urkunden  uber  das  Seewesen  des  Attischen 
Staales. — J.  R.  B. 

SHISHA.K  (pK^  ; Sept.  ^oi/cra/a/z),  akingot 
Egypt  contemporary  with  Jeroboam,  to  whom  he 
gave  an  asylum  when  he  fled  from  Solomon  (I 
Kings  xi.  40).  This  fras  indicative  of  his  politic 
disposition  to  encourage  the  weakening  of  the 
neighbouring  kingdom,  the  growth  of  which  under 
David  and  Solomon  was  probably  regarded  by  the 
kings  of  Egypt  with  some  alarm.  After  Jeroboam 
had  become  king  of  Israel,  and  probably  at  his 
suggestion,  Shishak  invaded  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  b.c.  971,  at  the  head  of  an  immense  army  ; 
and  after  having  taken  the  fortified  places,  ad- 
vanced against  Jerusalem.  Satisfied  with  the 
submission  of  Rehoboam,  and  with  the  immense 
spoils  of  the  Tempie,  the  king  of  Egypt  withdrew 
without  imposing  any  onerous  conditions  upon 
the  humbled  grandson  of  David  (1  Kings  xiv. 
25,  26;  2 Chron.  xii.  2-9).  Shishak  has  been 
identified  as  the  Hist,  king  of  the  22nd  or  Dios- 
politan  dynasty,  the  Sesonchis  of  profane  history. 
His  name  has  been  found  on  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments. He  is  saiii  to  have  been  of  Ethiopian  origin, 
and  it  is  supposed  that,  with  the  support  of  the 
military  caste,  he  dethroned  the  Pharaoh  who 
gave  his  daughter  to  Solomon  (1  Kings  iii.  1). 
In  the  palace-temple  of  Karnak  there  still  exists  a 
large  bas-relief  representing  Sesonchis,  who  bears 
to  the  feet  of  three  great  Theban  gods  the  chiefs  of 
vanquished  nations.  To  each  figure  is  attached 
an  oval,  indicating  the  town  or  district  which  he 
represents.  One  of  the  figures,  with  a pointed 
beard  and  a physiognomy  which  some  decide  to 
be  Jewish,  bears  on  bis  oval  characters  which 
M.  Cham  poll  ion  interprets  Yood/*  Mki.chi,  or 
‘kingdom  of  Judah,"  a name  whose  component 
letters  agree  with  the  hieroglyphics,  though  Sir  J.  G. 
Wilkinson  and  others  think  that  the  place  it  holds 
is  not  sufficiently  marked  to  satisfy  the  scruples 
of  a rigid  sceptic.  It  is  well  to  observe  that  this 
figure  has  not,  as  some  have  hastily  conceived, 
been  alleged  to  represent  the  king,  but  topersoniiy 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  (Champollion,  Sysieme 
Hieroglyph,  p.  205;  Rosellini,  Monumenti  Sto - 
rici,  i.  85  ; Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  i.  37  ; Cory, 
Chronological  Inquiry , p.  5). 

SHITTAH  (HEP)  and  SHITTIM 
occur  in  several  passages  of  Exodus,  and  indi- 
cate the  kind  of  wood  which  was  employed  in 
making  various  parts  of  the  tabernacle  while  the 
Israelites  were  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  it 


**60 


SHITTAH. 


SHOHAM. 


is  mentioned  also  as  forming  part  of  the  offerings, 
as  in  Exod.  xxv.  5,  ‘rams’  skins  dyed  red.  and 
badgers"  skins  and  shittim  wood  and  in  xxxv. 
7,  24.  In  I ia.  xli.  19,  it  is  mentioned  as  a 
tree  worthy  of  planting,  ‘ I will  plant  in  the  wil- 
derness the  cedar,  t\\eshittqji  tree,  and  the  myrtle, 
and  the  oil  tree,’  &c.  But  considerable  doubts 
have  been  entertained  respecting  the  kind  of  wood 
•or  tree  intended  ; hence  the  great  diversity  of  ren- 
dering, some  translators  retaining  the  original 
word.  It  is  evident  that  the  wood  must  either 
have  been  brought  to  the  coast  of  the  Red  Sea 
from  Egypt  or  some  other  country,  or  it  must 
have  been  one  of  the  few  timber  trees  indigenous 
in  the  desert  where  the  Israelites  wandered.  It  is 
curious  that  a wood  has  for  many  ages  formed  an 
article  of  commerce  from  India  to  the  Red  Sea, 
and  that  its  name,  sheeshum  or  seesicm , is  very 
similar  in  sound  to  the  shittim  of  Scripture. 
This  wood  we  have  already  mentioned  in  the 
article  Hobnim,  and  identified  it  with  the  shee- 
shum of  Forskal,  considering  it  as  probably  the 
came  as  the  sesamina  of  the  Pet iplus  of  Arrian. 
This  would  seem  to  alVord  some  grounds  for  the 
opinion  held  by  some  authors,  that  the  shittah 
of. Scripture  was  some  valuable  foreign  wood. 


But  there  does  not  appear  any  proof  that  shit- 
tim was  an  imported  wood,  and  it  is  more  probable 
that  it  was  the  wood  of  a tree  of  the  desert.  Ro- 
senmiiller  (after  Celsius,  ii.  p.  499)  says  : ‘the 
Hebrew  name,  which  is  properly  shintah,  wa3 
formed  from  the  Egyptian  word  shant,  the  double 
t being  substituted  for  the  nt,  for  the  sake  of  sound 
and  an  easier  pronunciation.’  The  Arabs  also  call 

it  kart  or  karazz,  written  also  kharad. 

The  Arabs  pronounce  the  Egyptian  name  sont. 
This  is  a tree  of  the  genus  Acacia , found  both  in 
Egypt  and  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia.  Thus  Pros- 
per Alpinus  ( De  Plantis  AZgypti,  p.  6):  ‘Aca- 
cia, quam  sant  vEgyptii  appellant,  in  ^Egypti 
locis  a mari  remotis  nascitur  : hujusque  arbores 
■sopiosissimae  in  inontibus  Synai,  pene  rubrum 
marepositis  proveniunt.’  Celsius,  moreover,  quotes 
Eugene  Roger  (T.  S.  p.  17)  as  stating,  ‘ Le  Se- 
taim  ne  se  trouve  que  dans  l’Avabie  deserte,  et 


eroist  proche  de  la  lerre  des  Madianites,  peu 
eloign^e  du  mont  Sinai,  e.n  un  lieu  qu  on  apjielle 
Sethim  ou  Sethe , soit  que  l’arbre  tire  son  nom  du 
lieu,  ou  que  1’arbre  donue  le  nom  an  lieu  mesme 
de  sa  naissance.  Son  bois  est  leger,  de  tres  bonne 
odeur,  et  incorruptible  aussi  bien  que  le  bois  de 
cedre,  c’est.  du  bois  de  sethim  que  fut  fabriquee 
l’arche  ri’alliance.’  ‘ The  acacia  tree,’  says  Dr. 
Shaw,  ‘ being  by  much  the  largest  and  most 
common  tree  in  these  deserts  (Arabia  Petraea),  we 
have  some  reason  to  conjecture  that  the  shittim 
wood  was  the  wood  of  the  acacia,  esjiecially  as 
its  dowers  are  of  an  excellent  smell,  for  the  shit- 
tah tree  is,  in  Isa.  xli.  19,  joined  with  the  myrtle 
and  other  fragrant  shrubs.’  Mr.  Bruce,  again, 
as  quoted  by  l)r.  Harris,  remarks,  that  ‘ the 
acacia  seems  the  only  indigenous  tree  in  the 
Thebaid.  The  male  is  called  the  Sa-icl ; from  it 
proceeds  the  gum-arabic  on  incision  with  an  axe. 
This  gum  chiefly  comes  from  Arabia  Petraea, 
where  these  trees  are  most  numerous.’  Mr.  Kitto 
says  : The  required  species  is  found  in  either  the 
Acacia  gummifera , or  in  t tie  A.  Seycl,  or  rather 
in  both.  They  both  grow  abundantly  in  the 
valleys  of  that  region  in  which  the  Israelites 
wandered  for  forty  years,  and  both  supply  pro- 
ducts which  must  have  rendered  them  of  much 
value  to  the  Israelites.  We  think  the  probability 

is,  that  the  A.  Seycl  supplied  the  shittim  wood, 
if,  indeed,  the  name  did  not  denote  acacia  wood 
in  general.  This  tree  grows  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
feet  in  height.’  So  M.  Bove  : ‘ Le  lendemain, 
en  traversant  le  Voode  (Wady)  Schen,  je  vis 
un  grand  nomine  d' Acacia  Seyel ; cet  arbre 
s’eleve  a la  hauteur  de  vingt  a vingt-cinq  pieds. 
Les  Arabes  font  avec  son  Lois  du  charbon  qu’ils 
vont  vendre  a Suez."  Robinson  and  Smith  fre- 
quently mention  the  Seyel  as  occurring  in  the  same 
situations.  It  is  very  probable  therefore  that  it 
yielded  the  shittim  wood  of  Scripture. — J.  F.  R. 

SHITTIM,  a spot  in  the  plain  of  Moab,  east 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  where  the  Israelites  formed  their 
last  encampment  before  passing  the  Jordan 
(Num.  xxv.  1 ; comp.  Micah  vi.  5).  See 
Wandering. 

SHITTIM,  VALLEY  OF,  mentioned  in  Joel 
iii.  18.  It  must  certainly  have  been  west  of  the 
Jordan,  and  probably  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Je- 
rusalem, although  the  particular  vale  cannot  now 
be  distinguished.  The  name  is  probably  to  be 
regarded  as  an  appellative — ‘acacia  vale"  denot- 
ing, perhaps,  as  that  tree  delights  in  a dry  soil, 
an  arid,  unfruitful  vale. 

SHOE.  [Sandal.] 

SHOHAM  (Dnb>),  a precious  stone  mentioned 
in  Gen.  ii.  12;  Exod.  xxviii.  9,  xxxv.  9-27; 
Job  xxviii.  16;  Ezek.  xxviii.  13.  That  it  is 
really  unknown  is  evinced  by  the  variety  of 
opinions  which  have  been  hazarded  concerning 

it.  In  the  two  last  texts  the  Sept,  makes  it  the 
beryl  (PgpvWioi/),  and  is  followed  .by  the  Vul 
gate.  Josephus  also  gives  it  the  same  name  ( An* 
tiq.  iii. 7.  5).  This  is  a great  weight  of  authority; 
and  whether  the  beryl  be  the  shoham  or  not,  it  is  a 
Scriptural  stone  by  virtue  of  the  mention  of  it  ir 
Rev.  xxi.  20.  There  is  no  doubt  that,  the  stone 
which  we  call  beryl  is  the  substance  to  which  the 
ancients  gave  the  same  name.  It  is  of  a pale  sea- 
green  colour,  inclining  sometimes  to  water  blue^ 
and  sometimes  to  yellisw.  In  its  crystalliwd 


SHUAL. 


SHUAL. 


76*. 


form  » ; exhib  ts  sexagonal  coli  imns  striped  lon- 
gitudinally. The  shoham  furnished  the  shoulder- 
pieces  in  the  breastplate  of  the  high-priest,  on 
each  of  which  six  names  were  engraven,  and  for 
this  purpose  the  stalky  beryl,  consisting  of  long, 
stout,  hexagonal  pieces,  was  peculiarly  suited. 
Beryls  are  found,  but  not  often,  in  collections  of 
ancient  gems.  In  Gen.  ii.  12,  the  shoham  is 
named  as  the  product  of  Havilah ; in  Job 
xxviii.  1(5,  it  is  mentioned  as  a stone  of  great 
value,  being  classed  with  the  sapphire  and  the 
gold  of  Ophir;  in  Kzek.  xxviii  13,  it  appears  as 
a valuable  article  of  commerce. 

In  Gen.  ii.  12,  the  Sept,  renders  the  word, 
which  it  elsewhere  gives  as  the  beryl,  by  \l6os  6 
npaaivos,  or  the  k chrysoprasus,’  according  to  its 
etymology  ‘ leek -green  stone;’  but  as  the  an- 
cients did  notnicely  distinguish  between  stones  of 
similar  quality  and  colour,  it  is  probable  that  the 
beryl  is  still  intended  by  the  translator  in  this 
text.  The  chrysoprasus  (xpvaoirpaaos)  is,  how- 
ever, a Scriptural  stone,  being  named  in  Rev.  xxi. 
20.  It  is,  as  the  name  imports,  of  a greenish 
golden  colour,  like  a leek  ; i.  e.  usually  apple- 
green,  passing  into  a grass-green  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat. 
xxvii.  20,  21). 

Luther,  relying  upon  the  authority  of  some 
ancient  versions,  makes  the  shoham  to  have  been 
the  onyx,  an  interpretation  which  Braun,  Mi- 
chael is,  Eichhorn,  and  others  support  on  etymolo- 
gical grounds.  This  indeed  is  the  stone  usually 
given  for  the  Shoham  in  Hebrew  lexicons,  and 
is  the  one  which  the  Authorized  Version  has  also 
adopted. 

SHUAL.  s/mal , and  •>&  aye  or  ije, 

jackal  (?),  are  both  somewhat  arbitrarily  inter- 
preted by  the  word  ‘ fox  although  that  denomi- 
• nation  is  not  uniformly  employed  in  different 
texts  (Judg.  xv.  4;  Neh.  iv.  *3;  xi.  27;  Ps. 
lxiii.  10  ; Cant.  ii.  15 ; Lam.  v.  18 ; Ezek.  xiii.  4). 
Fox  is  thus  applied  to  two  or  more  species, 
though  only  strictly  applicable  in  a systematic 
view  to  Taaleb,  which  is  the  Arabic  name  of 
a wild  canine,  probably  the  Syrian  fox,  Vidpcs 
Thaleb  or  Taaleb  of  modern  zoologists,  and  the 
only  genuine  species  indigenous  in  Palestine. 
Fox  is  again  the  translation  of  in  Matt, 

viii.  20 ; Luke  ix.  5-8 ; xiii.  32 : but  here 
also  the  word  in  the  original  texts  may  apply 
genetically  to  several  species  rather  than  to  one 


only.  There  is  in  the  language  of  the  ancients 
a vague  and  often  an  inUiscriminating  use  of 
zoological  names ; while  among  the  moderns  the 
contrary  tendency  exists,  it  being  often  attempted 
to  apply  specifically  those  ancient  terms  which 
in  their  original  acceptation  were  more  or  less 
generic ; and  mere  scholars,  not  familiar  with 
the  principles  which  guide  the  reasoning  of 


systemafists,  often  disregard  their  conclusions, 
and  follow  the  still  more  fallacious  inferences 
drawn  from  arbitrary  etymologies  and  the  fancied 
authority  of  similarity  of  names  in  kindred  lan- 
guages. Yet  eveiy  modern  tongue  of  the  west, 
notwithstanding  the  greater  attention  that  is  paid 
to  a more  definite  terminology,  abounds  in  similar 
transferences  of  the  same  radical  names  from  one 
species  to  another,  and  often  to  genera  totally 
distinct.  These  remarks  apply  forcibly  in  the 
present  case  ; for,  of  vulpine  animals,  though  the 
taaleb  alone  is  considered  indigenous,  there  is 
the  so-called  Turkish  fox  (Cynalopex  Turcicus ) 
of  Asia  Minor,  not  unknown  to  the  south  as  far 
as  the  Orontes,  and  therefore  likely  to  be  an  occa- 
sional visitant  at  least  of  the  woods  of  Libanus. 
This  animal  is  one  of  an  osculant  group,  with  the 
general  characters  of  vulpes,  but  having  the  pu- 
pils of  the  eyes  less  contractile  in  a vertical  direc- 
tion, and  a gland  on  the  base  of  the  tail,  marked 
by  a dark  spot.  There,  is  besides,  one  of  a third 
group,  namely,  Thous  anthus , or  deeb  of  the 
Arabs,  occasionally  held  to  be  the  wolf  of  Scrip- 
ture, because  it  resembles  the  species  in  general 
appearance,  though  so  far  inferior  in  weight,  size, 
and  powers,  as  not  to  be  in  the  least  dangerous, 
or  likely  to  be  the  wolf  of  the  Bible.  The  two 
first  do  not  howl,  and  the  third  is  solitary  and 
howls  seldom  ; but  there  is  a fourth  ( Canis  Syri - 
acus,  Ehrenb.)  which  howls,  is  lower  and  smaller 
than  a fox,  has  a long  ill-furnished  tail,  small  ears, 
and  a rufous-grey  livery.  This  may  be  the  Ca- 
nis  aureus,  or  jackal  of  Palestine,  though  cer- 
tainly not  the  ppvoeos  of  Lilian.  The  German 
naturalists  seem  not  to  have  considered  it  identi- 
cal with  the  common  jackal  ( Sacalius  aureus'), 
which  is  sufficiently  common  along  the  coast,  is 
eminently  gregarious,  offensive  in  smell ; howls 
intolerably  in  complete  concert,  with  all  others 
within  hearing;  burrows  ; is  crepuscular  and  noc- 
turnal, impudent,  thievish  ; penetrates  into  out- 
houses ; ravages  poultry-yards  more  ruinously  than 
the  fox  ; feeds  on  game,  lizards,  locusts,  insects, 
garbage,  grapes  ; and  leaves  not  even  the  graves 
of  man  himself  undisturbed.  It  may  ultimately 
turn  out  that  Canis  Syriacus  is  not  a jackal,  but 
a chryseus,  or  wild  dog,  belonging  to  the  group  of 
Dholes,  well  known  in  India,  and,  though  closely 
allied  to,  distinct  from,  the  jackal.  But  whether 
the  last-mentioned  is  the  'fcs  and  is  a ques- 

tion which  Bochart  does  not  solve  by  making 

thoes  synonymous  with  awi,  and  beni-awi, 

since  that  denomination  is  only  a slight  mutation 
of  U'aiva,  the  name  applied  to  wild  dogs  in 
India,  China,  and  even  in  South  America,  being 
an  imitation  of  barking;  while  thoes,  thos,  the 
Phrygian  daus,  Greek  Odes,  are  of  the  same  radi 
cal  origin  as  our  dog,  and  Teutonic  docke,  dogue ; 
and  in  Semitic  tongues  appears  in  tire  forms  of 
tokla,  tulke , til/ci,  applied  to  species  not  of  the 
same  genus. 

Russell  heard  of  four  species  of  Can'dae  at 
Aleppo,  Emprich  and  Ehrenberg  of  four  in  Liba- 
nus, not  identical  with  each  other;  nor  are  any  of 
these  clearly  included  in  the  thirteen  species  which 
the  last-named  writers  recognise  in  Egypt.  They 
still  omit,  or  are  not  cognizant  of,  wild  dogs, 
already  mentioned  in  this  work  [Dogs],  and  like- 
wise other  wild  species  in  Arabia  and  Persia ; 
all,  including  foxes,  having  migratory  habits,  and 


762 


SHUAL. 


SHUMIM. 


therefore  not  unlikely  to  visit  Palestine.  Some  of 
these  inay  have  accompanied  the  movements  of 
the  great  invasions  of  antiquity,  or  the  caravans, 
and  become  acclimated ; and.  again,  may  have 
departed,  or  have  been  gradually  extinguished  by 
local  circumstances,  such  as  the  destruction  of 
the  forests  or  of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  conse- 
quent reduction  of  the  means  of  subsistence  ; or 
linally,  they  may  have  been  extirpated  since  the 
introduction  of  gunpowder. 

We  have  therefore  no  proof  that  shual  denotes 
exclusively  the  fox,  and  that  aye  or  ije  and  iyim, 
and  Kasselquist’s  little  foxes,  refer  solely  to 
jackals ; particularly  as  these  animals  were,  if 
really  known,  not  abundant  in  Western  Asia,  even 
during  the  first  century  of  the  Roman  empire; 
for  they  are  but  little  noticed  by  the  Greek  writers 
and  sportsmen  who  resided  where  now  they  are 
heard  and  seen  every  evening;  these  authorities 
offering  no  remark  on  the  most  prominent  cha- 
racteristic of  the  species,  namely,  the  chorus  of 
bowlings  lasting  all  night  — a habit  so  into- 
lerable that  it  is  the  Invariable  theme  of  all  the 
Semitic  writers  since  the  Hegira  whenever  they 
mention  the  jackal.  We  may  therefore  infer 
that  shual,  if  a general  denomination,  and  that 
ajirn , if  the  etymology  be  just,  is  derived  from 
howling  or  barking,  and  may  designate  the  jackal, 
though  more  probably  it  includes  also  those  wild 
Canidae  which  have  a similar  habit. 

Vulpes  Taaleb,  or  Taleb , the  Syrian  fox,  is  of  the 
size  of  an  English  cur  fox.  and  similarly  formed  ; 
but  the  ears  are  wider  and  longer,  the  fur  in 
general  ochry-rulbus  above,  and  whitish  beneath: 
there  is  a faint  black  ring  towards  the  tip  of  the 
tail,  and  the  back  of  the  ears  are  sooty,  with 
bright  fulvous  edges.  The  species  burrows,  is 
silent  and  solitary,  extends  eastward  into  South- 
ern Persia,  and  is  said  to  be  found  in  Natolia. 
Khrenberg’s  two  species  of  Taleb  (one  of  which  he 
takes  to  be  the  Anubis  of  ancient  Egypt,  and 
Geoffrey's  Canis  Niloticus,  the  Abou  Hossein  of 
the  Arabs)  are  nearly  allied  to,  or  varieties  of  the 
species,  but  residing  in  Egypt,  and  further  to  the 
same  south,  where  it  seems  they  do  not  burrow. 
The  Syrian  Taleb  is  reputed  to  be  very  destructive 
in  the  vineyards,  or  rather  a plunderer  of  ripe 
grapes ; but  he  is  certainly  less  so  than  the  jackal, 
whose  ravages  are  carried  on  in  troops  and  with 
less  fear  of  man. 

None  of  the  explanations  which  we  have  seen 
of  the  controverted  passage  in  Judg.  xv.  4,  5, 
relative  to  the  shualim , foxes,  jackals,  or  other 
canines,  which  Samson  employed  to  set  fire  to 
the  corn  of  the  Philistines,  is  altogether  sa- 
tisfactory to  our  mind.  First,  taking  Dr. 
Kennicott's  proposed  explanation  of  the  case  by 

changing  to  thus  reading  ‘ foxes’ 

instead  of  ‘sheaves,' and  translating  33*).  ‘ends,’ 
instead  of  ‘tails,’  the  meaning  then  would  be, 
that  Samson  merely  connected  three  hundred 
shocks  of  corn,  already  reaped,  by  bands  or  ends, 
and  thus  burned  the  whole.  We  admit  that  this, 
at  first  view,  appears  a rational  explanation  ; but 
it  should  be  observed  that  three  hundred  shocks 
cf  com  would  not  make  two  stacks,  and  there- 
fore the  result  would  be  quite  inadequate,  con- 
sidered as  a punishment  or  act  of  vengeance 
upon  the  Philistine  population,  then  predominant 
ever  the  greater  part  of  Palestine  : and  if  we  take 


snocks  to  mean  corn-stacks,  then  it  may  be  asked 
how,  and  for  what  object,  were  three  hundred 
corn-stacks  brought  together  in  one  place  from  a 
surface  of  country  at  least  equal  fo  Yorkshire1? 
The  task,  in  that  hilly  region,  would  have  occu- 
pied all  the  cattle  and  vehicles  for  several  months  • 
and  then  the  corn  could  not  have  been  thrashed 
out  without  making  the  whole  population  travel 
repeatedly,  in  order  finally  to  reload  the  grain 
and  take  it  to  their  threshing  floors. 

Reverting  to  the  interpretation  of  foxes  burning 
the  harvest  by  means  of  firebrands  attached  t& 
their  tails,  the  case  is  borne  out  by  Ovid  (Fasti* 
iv.  681)  — 

‘ Cur  igitur  missae  junctis  ardentia  telis 
Terga  ferunt  vulpes.’ 

And  again,  in  the  fable  of  Apthonius,  quoted  by 
Merrick ; but  not,  as  is  alleged,  by  the  brick  with 
a bas-relief  representing  a man  driving  two  foxes 
with  fire  fastened  to  their  tails,  which  was  found 
twenty- eight  feet  below  the  present  surface  of 
London ; because  tiles  of  similar  character  and 
execution  have  been  dug  up  in  other  parts  of 
England,  some  representing  the  history  of  Susanna 
and  the  elders,  and  otheis  the  four  Evangelists, 
and  therefore  all  derived  from  biblical,  not  pagan 
sources. 

Commentators,  following  the  reading  of  the 
Sept.,  have  with  common  consent  adopted  the 
interpretation,  that  two  foxes  were  tied  together  by 
their  tails  with  a firebrand  between  them.  Now 
this  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  practice  of 
the  Romans,  nor  does  it  occur  in  the  fable  of 
Aptlionius.  We  understand  the  text  to  mean, 
that  each  fox  had  a separate  brand ; and  mosf 
naturally  so  ; for  it  may  be  questioned  whethei 
two  united  would  run  in  the  same  direction. 
They  would  assuredly  pull  counter  to  each  other, 
and  ultimately  fight  most  fiercely  ; whereas  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  every  canine  would  run,  with 
fire  attached  to  its  tail,  not  from  choice  but  ne- 
cessity, through  standing  corn,  if  the  field  lay  in 
the  direction  of  the  animal’s  burrow:  for  foxes 
and  jackals,  when  chased,  run  direct  to  then 
holes,  and  sportsmen  well  know  the  necessity  of 
stopping  up  those  of  the  fox  while  the  animal  is 
abroad,  or  there  is  no  chance  of  a chace.  We 
therefore  submit  that  by  the  words  rendered  ‘tail 
to  tail  ’ we  should  understand  the  end  of  the  fire- 
brand attached  to  the  extremity  of  the  tail. 
Finally,  as  the  operation  of  tying  300  brands  to 
as  many  fierce  and  irascible  animals  could  not 
be  effected  in  one  day  by  a single  man,  nor  pro- 
duce the  result  intended  if  done  in  one  place,  if 
seems  more  probable  that  the  name  of  Samson, 
as  the  chief  director  of  the  act,  is  employed  to 
represent  the  whole  party  who  effected  his  inten- 
tions in  different  places  at  the  same  time,  and 
thereby  insured  that  general  conflagration  of  the 
harvest  which  was  the  signal  of  open  resistance  on 
the  part  of  Israel  to  the  long-endured  oppression 
of  the  Philistine  people.  These  observations, 
though  by  no  means  sufficiently  answering  all  (he 
objections,  are  the  best  we  can  offer  on  a difiiculi 
question  which  could  not  be  passed  over  altogetha 
without  notice  [Dog  ; Wolfj. — C.  H.  S. 

SHUMIM  (D'D-lt?)  occurs  only  once  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  that  in  the  passage  which  has  already 
been  quoted  under  Abattachim,  &c.,  where  the 
Israelites  are  described  as  murmuring,  among 


SHUN  KM. 


SHUSH  AN. 


703 


otnei  things,  for  the  leeks,  the  onions,  and  the 
garlic  ( shumim ) of  Egypt.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  of  its  being  coiTectly  so  translated,  as  the 

Arabic  (thorn)  still  signifies  a species  of 

garlic,  which  is  cultivated  and  esteemed  through- 
out Eastern  countries.  Ancient  authors  mention 
that  garlic  was  cultivated  in  Egypt.  Herodotus 


enumerates  it  as  one  of  the  substances  upon  which 
a laige  sum  (1600  talents)  was  spent  for  feeding 
labourers  employed  in  building  the  Pyramids; 
so  also  Pliny,  who,  moreover,  states  that  it  was 
so  highly  esteemed,  that ‘allium  cepasque  inter 
Deos  in  jurejurando  habuere  olim  vEgyptii.’  The 
species  considered  to  have  been  thus  cultivated 
in  Egypt,  is  Allium  Ascalonicum,  which  is  the 
most  common  in  Eastern  countries,  and  obtains 
its  specific  name  from  having  been  brought  into 
Europe  from  Ascalon.  It  is  now  usually  known 
in  tlie  kitchen  garden  by  the  name  of  ‘ eschalot’ 
or  ‘ shallot,'  and  is  too  common  to  require  a 
fuller  notice. — J.  F.  R. 

SHUNEM  (D3-1S^ ; Sept.  'S.ovvan),  a town  of 
the  tribe  of  Issachar  (Josh.  xix.  IS),  where  the 
Philistines  encamped  before  Saul’s  last  battle  (1 
Sam.  xxviii.  4),  and  to  which  belonged  Abishag, 
the  last  wife  of  David  (1  Kings  i.  3),  and  ‘ the 
Shunamite  woman,’  with  whom  Elisha  lodged  (2 
Kings  iv.  8-37;  viii.  L-6).  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
describe  it  as,  in  their  day,  a village,  lying  five 
Roman  miles  from  Mount  Tabor  towards  the 
south.  They  call  it  Sulem  (Sou At)ju).  It  has  of 
late  years  been  recognised  in  a village  called 
Solam,  three  miles  and  a half  north  of  Zerin 
(Jezreel),  which  is  a small  place  on  the  slope  of 
a hill,  Avhere  nothing  occurs  to  denote  an  ancient 
site  (Elliot,  ii.  378;  Schubert,  iii.  165;  Robin- 
son, iii.  169,  170). 

SHUR  (“Vlty  ; Sept.  2oup),  a city  on  the  con- 
fines of  Egypt  and  Palestine  (Gen.  xvi.  7 ; x,x. 
1;  xxv.  18;  1 Sam.  xv.  7)  ; xxvii.  8).  Josephus 
makes  it  the  same  as  Pelusium  (Antiq.  vi.  7,  3; 
comp.  1 Sam.  xv.  7) ; but  this  city  bore  among 
the  Hebrews  the  name  of  Sin.  More  probably 
Shur  was  somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  the  modern 
Sues.  The  desert  extending  from  the  borders  of 


Palestine  to  Shur,  is  called  ir.  Exod.  xv.  22, 
the  ‘desert  of  Shur,’  but  in  Num.  xxxiii.  8, 
the  ‘ desert  of  Etham.’ 

SHUSHAN  (|KW),  also  Shusiiannaii 
(n3K,15^ ; Sept,  npivov ),  occurs  in  several  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  translated  lily  in  the 
Authorized  Version.  In  toe  article  Kuinon  we 
have  mentioned  that  several  plants  have  been 
adduced  as  the  lily  of  the  New  Testament,  such 
as  Amaryllis  lutea,  Ixiolirion  montanum , &c., 
but  that  Lilium  chalcedonicum , or  the  scarlet 
martagon  lily,  appears  to  be  the  one  alluded  to 
by  our  Saviour.  Besides  the  above,  there  are  no 
doubt  several  other  plants  indigenous  in  Syria, 
which  might  be  grouped  with  them,  and  come 
under  the  denomination  of  lily,  when  that  name 
is  used  in  a general  sense,  as  it  often  is  by  tra- 
vellers and  others.  The  term  shoshun  or  sosun 
seems  also  to  have  been  employed  in  this  sense. 
It  was  known  to  the  Greeks;  for  Dioscorides  de- 
scribes the  mode  of  preparing  an  ointment  called 
susinon , which  others,  he  says,  call  Kpivivov , that 
is,  lilinum.  So  Atbenseus,  as  translated  by 
Celsius  : ‘ Suson  enim  id  significare  Persis,  quod 
Kpivov  Grsecis.’  The  Arabic  authors  also  use  the 
word  in  a general  sense,  several  varieties  being 

described  under  the  head  sosun.  The 

name  is  applied  even  to  kinds  of  Iris,  of  which 
several  species,  with  various  coloured  flowers,  are 
distinguished. 


505.  [Lotus.  Water-lily.  J 

The  shushan  of  Scripture  has  been  variously 
interpreted  by  translators,  being  by  some  thought 
to  be  the  rose,  by  others  the  violet,  or  con- 
vallaria,  a jasmine,  or  some  one  or  more  of  the 
plants  included  under  the  general  name  of  lily. 
But  it  appears  to  us  that  none  but  a plant  which 
was  well  known  and  highly  esteemed  would  be 
found  occurring  in  so  many  dillerent  passages. 
Thus,  in  1 Kings  vii.  19-26,  and  2 Chron. 
iv.  5,  it  is  mentioned  as  forming  the  ornamental 
work  of  the  pillars  and  of  the  brazen  sea,  made 
of  molten  brass,  for  the  house  of  Solomon,  by 
Hiram  of  Tyre.  In  Canticles  the  word  is  fr* 
quently  mentioned  ; and  it  is  curious  that 


?64 


SHUSH  AN. 


SILAS. 


five  passages,  Cant  ii.  2 and  16 ; iv.  5 ; vi.  2 and 
3,  there  is  a reference  to  feeding  among  lilies: 
which  ap’KMrs  unaccountable,  when  we  consider 
that  the  allusion  is  made  simply  to  an  ornamen- 
tal or  sweet-smelling  plant. ; and  this  the  shushan 
appears  to  have  been  from  the  other  passages  in 
which  it  is  mentioned.  Thus  in  Cant.  ii.  1, 
‘ I am  the  rose  of  Sharon  ami  the  lily  of  the  val- 
leys;’ ver.  2,  ‘as  the  lily  among  thorns,  so  is 
my  love  among  the  daughters;’  v.  13,  ‘his  lips 
tike  lilies , dropping  sweet-smelling  myrrh  vii. 
2,  ‘ thy  belly  is  like  an  heap  of  wheat  set:  about 
with  lilies’  If  we  consider  that,  the  book  cf  Can- 
ticles is  supposed  to  have  been  written  on  the 
occasion  of  the  marriage  of  Solomon  with  a 
princess  of  Egypt,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
some  of  the  imagery  may  have  been  derived  from 
her  native  country,  and  that,  the  above  lily  may 
he  a plant  of  Egypt,  rather  than  of  Palestine. 
And  this  appears  to  us  to  he  the  case,  especially 
as  the  water  lily  or  lotus  of  the  Nile  seems 
suitable  to  most  of  the  above  passages,  as  we 
may  endeavour  on  some  future  occasion  to 
prove.  Thus  Herodotus  (ii.  92)  says  : ‘ When 
the  waters  have  risen  to  their  extremest  height, 
and  all  the  fields  are  overllowed,  there  ap- 
pears above  the  surface  an  immense  quantity 
of  plants  of  the  lily  species,  which  the  Egyptians 
call  the  lotus;  having  cut  down  these  they 
dry  them  in  the  sun.  The  seed  of  the  flowers, 
which  resembles  that  of  the  poppy,  they  bake, 
and  make  into  a kind  of  bread:  they  also  eat 
the  root  of  this  plant,  which  is  round,  of  an 
agreeable  flavour,  a .d  about  the  size  of  an  apple. 
There  is  a second  species  of  the  lotus,  which 
grows  in  the  Nile,  and  which  is  not  unlike  a 
rose.  The  fruit,  winch  grows  from  the  bottom  of 
the  root  resembles  a wasp's  nest : it  is  found  to 
contain  a number  of  kernels  of  the  size  of  an 
olive  stone,  which  are  very  grateful  either  fresh 
or  dried.’  All  this  exists  even  to  the  present 
day.  Both  the  roots  and  the  stalks  form  articles 
of  diet  in  Eastern  countries,  ami  the  large  fari- 
naceous seeds  of  both  the  nyrriphaea  and  nelum- 
bium  are  roasted  and  eaten.  Hence  probably 
the  reference  to  feeding  among  lilies  in  the  above 
quoted  passages. 

In  confirmation  of  this  view  we  may  adduce 
also  the  remarks  of  Dr.  W.  C.  Taylor  in  his 
4 Bible  illustrated  by  Egyptian  monuments where 
he  says  that  the  lilies  of  the  xlv.  and  lxix.  Psalms 
have  puzzled  all  Biblical  critics.  The  title, 
‘To  the  chief  musician  upon  Shoshannim,’  has 
been  supposed  to  he  the  name  of  some  unknown 
tone  to  which  the  Psalm  was  to  be  sung.  But 
Dr.  Taylor  says,  ‘ the  word  Shoshannim  is  univer- 
sally acknowledged  to  signify  lilies,  and  lilies 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject  of  the  ode. 
But  this  hymeneal  ode  was  intended  to  be 
sung  by  the  female  attendants  of  the  Egyptian 
princess,  and  they  are  called  “ the  lilies,”  not  only 
by  a poetic  reference  to  the  lotus  lilies  of  the 
Nile,  but  by  a direct  allusion  to  their  custom  of 
making  the  lotus  lily  a conspicuous  ornament  of 
their  head-dress.’  Tlius,  therefore,  all  the  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  in  which  Shoshan  occurs  ap- 
pear to  be  explained  by  considering  it  to  refer  to 
ijie  lotus  lily  of  the  Nile. — J.  F.  R. 

2.  SHUSHAN,  or  Susa,  the  chief  town  of  Su- 
s:ana,  and  capital  of  Persia,  in  which  the  kings  of 
Persia  had  their  winter  residence  (Dan.  viii.  2 ; 


Neh.  i.  1 ; Esther  i.  2,  5).  It  was  situated  upon 
the  Euldeus  or  Choaspes,  probably  on  the  spot  now 
occupied  by  the  vWlage  Slius  (Kennel,  Gicg.  oj 
Herodotus ; Kinneir,  Mem.  Pers.  Empire ; K. 
Porter,  Travels , ii.  4,  11;  Ritter,  Erdkunde 
Asien,  ix.  291 ; Pictorial  Bible , on  Dan.  viii.  2). 
Others  believe  the  site  to  he  that  of  Shuster  (Vin- 
cent, Commerce  and  Navig.  of  the  Ancients ; 
Yon  Hammer,  in  Mem.  of  the  Geog.  Soc.  oj 
Paris,  ii.  320,  sq. ; 333,  sq.).  At  Shus,  which  is 
the  more  likely  position,  there  are  extensive  ruins, 
stretching  perhaps  twelve  miles  from  one  extre- 
mity to  the  other,  and  consisting,  like  the  other 
ruins  of  this  region,  of  hillocks  of  earth  and  rubbish 
covered  with  broken  pieces  of  brick  and  coloured 
tile.  At  the  foot  of  these  mounds  is  the  so-called 
tomb  of  Daniel,  a small  building  erected  on  the 
spot  where  the  remains  of  that  prophet  are  locally 
believed  to  rest.  It  is  apparently  modern ; but 
nothing  but  the  belief  that  this  was  the  site  of  the 
prophet's  sepulchre  could  have  led  to  its  being 
built,  in  the  place  where  it  stands  (Malcolm,  Hist, 
of  Persia,  i.  255,  2o6) ; and  it  may  be  added 
that  such  identifications  are  of  far  more  value  in 
these  parts,  where  occasion  for  them  is  rare,  than 
among  the  crowded  ‘holy  places’  of  Palestine. 
The  city  of  Shus  is  now  a gloomy  wilderness,  in- 
fested by  lions,  hyaenas,  and  other  beasts  of  prey. 
It  is  in  N.  lat.  31°  56'  and  E.  long.  48°  26'. 

SIDON.  [Zidon.] 

SI IiON  (jliTp,  sioceping  aicay ; i.  e.  a war- 
rior sweeping  all  before  him;  Sept.  '2,-r)xv),  the 
king  of  the  Amorites,  reigning  at  Heshbon,  who 
was  destroyed,  and  his  kingdom  subjugated,  in 
the  attempt  to  resist  the  progress  of  the  Israelites 
through  his  dominions  (Nura.  xxi.  21,  23,  sq.) 
[Amorites], 

SI II OR  (Tl’rm,  Tlhp' ),  more  properly  Stu- 
CHOR,  the  Hebrew  proper  name  for  the  Nile  (Isa. 
xxiii.  3;  Jer  ii.  18).  The  word  means  ‘black;’ 
and  a corresponding  name  or  epithet  (M e\as) 
was  by  the  Greeks  applied  to  the  same  river 
(Serv.  ad  Virg.  Georg,  iv.  291),  on  account  of  the 
black  slime  left  after  the  subsidence  of  the  inun- 
dation. In  Josh.  xiii.  3;  1 Chron.  xiii.  5,  Sihor 
is  put  as  the  south-western  limit  of  Palestine, 
where  one  would  rather  expect  ‘ the  torrent  of 
Egypt;’  see  River. 

SIHOR-LIBNATII  *YlW),  a small 

stream  or  river  emptying  itself  into  the  sea  in  the 
teriitory  of  Asher  (Josh.  xix.  26).  Michaelis 
(Hist.  Vitri,  § 2,  in  Com.  Soc.  Goti.  iv.)  trans- 
lates it  ‘glass-river,’  and  identifies  it  with  the 
Belus,  which  joins  the  sea  near  Acre,  and  from 
whose  sands  the  first  glass  was  made  by  the  Phoe- 
nicians (Strabo,  xvi.  p.758;  Tacit.  Hist.  v.  7; 
Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  10.  2). 

SILAS  (St'Aas),  a contraction  of  Sii.vanus 
0 tiXovavis ),  a distinguished  Christian  teacher  in 
the  church  at  Jerusalem,  who,  with  Barnabas,  was 
associated  by  that  church  with  Paul  (Acts  xv.  22, 
32),  and  accompanied  him  in  his  second  journey 
through  Asia  Minor  to  Macedonia  (Acts  xv.  40 ; 
xvi.  19,  25  ; xvii.  4).  He  remained  behind  at  Berea 
for  a short  time,  when  Paul  was  obliged  to  flee  from 
that  place  (Acts  xvii.  10,  14\  They  metagain  at 
Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  5 ; comp.  Thess.  i.  1),  where 
Silas  was  active  in  the  work  of  an  evangelist  (2 


SILO  AM. 


SIMEON. 


763 


Cor.  i.  ID).  He  is  invariably  called  Silvanus  iir 
the  Epistles,  but  the  contraction  Silas  is  always 
used  in  the  Acts.  Whether  this  Silvanus  is  the 
lame  person  who  was  the  bearer  of  St.  Peter’s 
epistle  to  the  churches  in  Asia  Minor  (1  Pet.  v, 
12),  cannot  be  ascertained.  The  traditions  (ap. 
Dorothaeum  et  Hippolytum)  regard  Silas  and  Sil- 
vai  us  as  different  persons,  making  the  former 
bishop  of  Corinth,  and  the  latter  bishop  of  Thes- 
salonica.  See  Fabricius,  Lux  Evany,  p.  117  ; 
Cellarius,  Diss.  de  Sila  Tiro  Apostol. 

SILOAH.  [Siloam.] 

SILOAM  (SiAwa^i),  or  Shiloah  (1W). 
The  name  Siloah  or  Siloam  if  found  only  three 
times  in  Scripture  as  applied  to  water ; once  in 
’saiah  (viii.  6).  who  speaks  of  it  as  running  water; 
again,  as  a pool,  in  Nehemiah  ii.  15;  and  lastly, 
also  as  a pool,  in  the  account  of  our  Lord’s  healing 
the  man  who  had  been  born  blind  (John  ix.  7-1 1) 
None  of  these  passages  affords  any  clue  to  the 
situation  of  Siloam  ; but  this  silence  is  supplied 
by  Josephus,  who  makes  frequent  mention  of  it  as 
a fountain  ( De  Bell.  Jud.  v.  4,  § 1,  2),  and  indi- 
cates its  situation  at.  the  mouth  of  the  valley  of 
Tyropoeon,  where  the  fountain,  now  and  long 
since  indicated  as  that  of  Siloam,  is  still  found. 
He  describes  its  waters  as  sweet  and  abundant. 
Jerome  ( Comment . in  Esa.  viii.  6),  indicating  its 
situation  more  precisely,  also  mentions  its  ir- 
regular flow — a very  remarkable  circumstance, 
which  has  been  noticed  by  most  subsequent  pil- 
grims and  travellers.  This  assures  us  that  the 
present  fountain  of  Siloam  is  that  which  he  had 
in  view;  and  that  it  is  the  same  to  which  the 
Scriptural  notices  refer  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt. 
The  pool  of  Siloam  is  within  and  at  the  mouth 
cf  the  valley  of  Tyropoeon,  and  about  eighty  paces 
above  its  termination  is  that  of  Jehoshaphat. 
The  water  flows  out  of  a small  artificial  basin 
under  the  cliff,  the  entrance  to  which  is  excavated 
in  the  form  of  an  arch,  and  is  immediately  re- 
ceived into  a larger  reservoir,  fifty-three  feet  in 
length  by  eighteen  feet  in  width.  A flight  of 
steps  leads  down  to  the  bottom  of  the  reservoir, 
which  is  nineteen  feet  deep.  This  large  receptacle 
is  faced  with  a wall  of  stone,  now  slightly  out  of 
repair.  Several  columns  stand  out  of  the  side 
walls,  extending  from  the  top  downward  into  the 
cistern,  the  design  of  which  it  is  difficult  to  conjec- 
ture. The  water  passes  out  of  this  reservoir  through 
a channel  cut  in  the  rock,  which  is  covered  for  a 
short  distance;  but  subsequently  it  opens  and  dis- 
closes a lively  copious  stream,  which  is  conducted 
into  an  enclose  l garden  planted  with  fig-trees.  It 
is  afterwards  subdivided,  and  seems  to  be  ex- 
hausted in  irrigating  a number  of  gardens  occu- 
pied with  figs,  apricots,  olive  and  other  trees,  and 
some  flourishing  legumes.  The  small  upper  basin 
or  fountain  excavated  in  the  rock  is  merely  the 
entrance,  or  rather  the  termination  of  a long  and 
narrow  subterranean  passage  beyond,  by  which 
the  water  comes  from  the  Fountain  of  the  Virgin. 
This  has  been  established  beyond  dispute  by  Dr. 
Rub’nson,  who,  with  his  companion,  had  the 
hardihood  to  crawl  through  the  passage.  They 
<6und  it  17;0  feet  in  length,  which,  owing  to  its 
windings,  is  several  hundred  feet  more  than  the 
iirect  distance  above  ground.  It  is  thus  proved 
.hat  the  water  of  both  these  fountains  !s  the  same, 
hough  some  travellers  have  pronounce  1 the  water 


of  Siloam  to  be  bad,  and  that  of  the  other  foun- 
tain good.  It  has  a peculiar  taste,  sweetish  and 
very  slightly  brackish,  but  not  at  all  disagreeable. 
Late  in  the  season,  when  the  water  is  low,  it  i* 
said  to  become  more  brackish  and  unpleasant 
The  most  remarkable  circumstance  is  the  ebb  and 
How  of  the  waters,  which,  although  often  men- 
tioned as  a characteristic  of  Siloam,  must  belong 
equally  to  both  fountains.  Dr.  Robinson  himself 
witnessed  this  phenomenon  in  (he  fountain  of  the 
Virgin,  where  t lie  water  rose  in  five  minutes  one 
foot  in  the  reservoir,  and  in  another  five  minutes 
sunk  to  its  former  level.  The  intervals  and  the 
extent  of  the  How  and  ebb  in  this  and  the  fountain 
of  Siloam,  vary  with  the  season;  but  the  fact, 
though  it  has  not  yet  been  accounted  for,  is  be- 
yond dispute  (see  Robinson’s  Palestine,  i.  460, 
492-498;  Olin’s  Travels,  ii.  153,  154  ; Williams's 
Holy  City,  pp.  378,  379. 

SILVANUS.  [Silas.] 

SILVER.  There  is  no  mention  of  this  metal 
in  Scripture  until  the  time  of  Abraham.  Before 
that  time  brass  and  iron  appear  to  have  been  the 
only  metals  in  use  (Gen  iv.  22).  Abraham  was 
rich  in  gold  and  silver,  as  well  as  in  flocks  and 
herds,  and  silver  in  his  day  was  in  general  circu- 
lation as  money.  It  was  uncoined,  and  estimated 
always  by  weight.  Coined  money  was  not  in 
use  among  the  Israelites  until  an  advanced  period 
of  their  history.  The  Romans  are  said  to  have 
had  only  copper  mpney  until  within  five  years  of 
the  first  Punic  war,  when  they  began  to  coin 
silver(Pliny,  l list.  Nat.  xxx.  3).  Their  coins  were 
extensively  introduced  into  Judsea  after  it  be 
came  a Roman  province. 

Silver,  as  well  as  gold,  is  frequently  mentioned 
in  Scripture.  They  were  both  largely  used  by 
the  Jews  in  the  manufacture  of  articles  of  orna 
ment,  and  of  various  vessels  for  domestic  pur 
poses,  and  also  for  the  service  of  the  temple. 
Many  of  the  idols,  and  other  objects  belonging  to 
the  idolatrous  nations,  are  stated  to  have  been  of 
silver.  This  metal  was  so  abundant  as  to  belittle 
thought  of  in  the  days  of  Solomon,  although  it 
was  at  that  time,  and  both  before  and  long  after- 
wards, the  principal  medium  of  exchange  among 
the  Jews — the  only  recognised  standard  or  mea- 
sure of  value  [Metals]. — G.  M.  B. 

SIMEON  (fiyp^,  favourable  hearing ; 2u- 
ps&v'),  the  second  son  of  Jacob,  born  of  Leah 
(Gen.  xxix.  33),  and  progenitor  of  the  tribe  of  the 
same  name.  He  was  the  full  brother  of  Levi 
(Gen.  xxxiv.  25  ; xxxv.  23),  with  whom  he  took 
part  in  cruelly  avenging  upon  the  men  of  She- 
chem  the  injury  which  their  sister  Dinah  had 
received  from  the  son  of  Hamor  (Gen.  xxxiv. 
25  30);  see  Dinah.  The  ferocity  of  character 
thus  indicated  probably  furnishes  the  reason  that 
Joseph  singled  Simeon  out  to  remain  behind  in 
Egypt,  when  his  other  brethren  were  the  first 
time  dismissed  (Gen.  xlii.  24);  but  when  they 
returned  he  was  restored  safely  to  them  (Gen. 
xliii.  23).  Nothing  more  of  his  personal  history 
is  known.  The  tribe  descended  from  Simeon 
contained  59,300  able  bodied  men  at  the  time  of 
tlie  Exode  (Num.  i.  23),  but  was  reduced  to 
22,000  before  entering  Palestine  (Num.  xxvi. 
14).  This  immense  decrease  in  the  course  of  one 
generation  was  greater  than  that  sustained  by  all 
tlie  other  tribes  together,  and  reduced  Simeon  froai 


766 


SIMEON. 


SIMON. 


rise  third  rank  to  the  lowest  of  all  in  point  of  imm- 
b*ers.  It  cannot  well  be  accounted  for  but  by  sup- 
posing that  the  tribe  erred  most  conspicuously, 
and  was  punished  most  severely  in  those  transac- 
tions which  drew  down  judgments  from  God.  As 
it  appeared  that  Judah  bad  received  too  large  a 
territory  in  the  first  distribution  of  lands,  a portion 
of  it  was  afterwards  assigned  to  Simeon.  This 
portion  lay  in  the  south-west,  towards  the  borders 
of  Philistia  and  the  southern  desert,  and  contained 
seventeen  towns  (Josh.  xix.  1-9).  However,  the 
Judahites  must  afterwards  have  re- appropriated 
some  of  these  towns  ; at  least  Beersheba  (1  Kings 

ix.  3)  and  Ziklag  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  6)  appear  at  a 
subsequent  period  as  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of 
Judah.  The  remarkable  passage  in  1 Chron.  iv. 
41-43  points  to  an  emigration  of  or  from  this  tribe, 
perhaps  more  extensive  than  the  words  would  seem 
to  indicate,  and  suggests  that  when  they  ceased  to 
have  common  interes*s,  this  small  tribe  was  obliged 
to  give  way  before  the  greater  power  of  Judah  and 
the  pressure  of  its  population  (com]).  Gen.  xlix.  7). 
Nothing  mure  of  this  tribe  is  recoi  Jed,  although 
its  name  occurs  in  unhistorical  intimations  (Ezek. 
xlviii.  21 ; Rev.  vii.  8). 

2.  SIMEON,  the  aged  person  who,  when 
Jesus  was  presented  by  his  mother  at  the  temple, 
recognised  the  infant  as  the  expected  Messiah, 
and  took  him  in  his  arms  and  blessed  him,  glori- 
fying God  (Luke  ii.  25-35).  The  circumstance  is 
interesting,  as  evincing  the  expectations  which  were 
then  entertained  of  the  speedy  advent  of  the  Mes- 
siah ; and  important  from  the  attestation  which  it 
conveyed  in  favour  of  Jesus,  from  one  who  was 
known  to  have  received  the  divine  promise  that 
he  should  ‘ not  taste  of  death  till  he  had  seen  the 
Lord's  Christ.’  It  has  been  often  supposed  that 
this  Simeon  was  the  same  with  Rahhan  Simeon, 
t lie  son  of  the  famous  Ilillel,  and  father  of  Gama- 
liel ; but  this  is  merely  a conjecture,  founded  on 
circumstances  too  weak  to  establish  such  a con- 
clusion. 

SIMON  (2 IfJLwv),  the  same  name,  in  origin 
and  signification,  as  Simeon. 

1.  SIMON  MACCA ILEUS.  [Maccabjean 
Famii.y.] 

2.  SIMON,  the  apostle,  to  whom  Christ  gave 
the  name  of  Peter,  after  which  he  was  rarely 
called  by  his  former  name  alone,  but  usually 
by  that  of  Peter,  or  else  Simon  Peter  [Petek], 

3.  SIMON,  surnamed  Zelotes  6 

one  of  the  twelve  apostles  (Luke  \i. 
15;  Acts  i.  13),  and  probably  so  named  from 
having  been  one  of  the  Zealots.  He  is  also  called 
4 The  Canaanite’  (2i '.[xcov  6 Kavav'nris)  in  Matt. 

x.  4;  Mark  iii.  18.  This,  however,  is  not,  as  is 
usually  the  case,  to  be  taken  for  a Gentile  name, 
but  is  merely  an  Aramaic  word  signifying  ‘zeal,’ 
and  therefore  of  the  same  signification  as  Zelotes. 
Simon  is  the  least  known  of  all  the  apostles,  not 
a single  circumstance,  beyond  the  fact  of  his 
apostleship,  being  recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  He 
is  probably  to  be  identified  with  Simon  the  son 
of  Cleophas  ; and  if  so,  the  traditions  concerning 
that  person,  given  by  those  who  make  them  dis- 
tinct, must  be  assigned  to  him.  These  traditions, 
however,  assign  a different  destiny  to  this  Simon, 
alleging  that  he  preached  the  Gospel  throughout 
North  Africa,  from  Egypt  to  Mauritania,  and  that 
ke  even  proceeded  to  the  remote  isles  of  Britain. 


4.  SIMON,  son  of  Cleophas  and  Mary,  brothel 
of  the  apostles  James  and  Jude,  and  a kinsman 
of  Jesus  (Matt.  xiii.  55  ; Mark  vi.  3).  He  is 
probably  the  same  with  the  Simon  Zelotes  above 
mentioned,  and  in  that  case  we  must  regard  the 
separate  traditions  respecting  him  as  apocryphal, 
and  take  those  assigned  to  the  present  Simon  as 
proper  to  both.  They  amount,  to  this,  that  after 
St.  James  had  been  slain  by  the  Jews  in  a.d.  62, 
bis  brother  Simon  was  appointed  to  succeed  him 
in  the  government  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
and  that  forty-three  years  after,  when  Trajan 
caused  search  to  be  made  for  all  those  who  claimed 
to  be  of  the  race  of  David,  he  was  accused  before 
Atticus,  the  governor  of  Palestine,  and  after  en- 
during great  torture  was  crucified,  being  then  120 
years  of  age  (Epiphanius,  Hares,  c.  14;  Euseb. 
hist.  Eccles.  iii.  32;  Tillemont,  hist.  Eccles.  ii. 
204). 

5.  SIMON,  father  of  Judas  Iscariot  (John  vi. 
71 ; xii.  4 ; xiii.  2,  26). 

6.  SIMON,  a Pharisee  who  invited  Jesus  to 
his  house  (Luke  vii.  40,  43,  44). 

7.  SIMON  THE  LEPER,  so  called  from  having 
formerly  been  afflicted  with  leprosy  (Matt.  xxvi. 
6 ; Mark  xiv.  3).  He  was  of  Bethany,  and  after 
the  raising  of  Lazarus,  gave  a feast,  probably 
in  celebration  of  that  event,  at  which  both  Jesus 
and  Lazarus  were  present  (comp.  John  xii.  2). 
He  was,  therefore,  probably  a near  friend  or  rela- 
tion of  Lazarus:  some  suppose  that  lie  was  his 
brother;  others  that  he  was  the  husband  of  Mary, 
the  sister  of  Lazarus,  who  at.  this  feast  anointed 
the  Lord's  feet,  and  that  Lazarus  abode  with 
them.  But  all  this  is  pure  conjecture. 

8.  SIMON  THE  CYRENIAN,  who  was 
compelled  to  aid  in  bearing  the  cross  of  Jesus 
(Matt,  xxvii.  32;  Mark  xv.21  ; Luke  xxiii.  26). 
Whether  this  surname  indicated  that  Simon  was 
one  of  the  many  Jews  from  Cyrene,  who  came  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  Passover,  or  that  he  was  origin- 
ally from  Cyrene,  although  then  settled  at  Jeru- 
salem, is  uncertain.  The  latter  seems  the  more 
likely  opinion,  as  Simon’s  two  sons,  Alexander 
and  Rufus,  were  certainly  disciples  of  Christ. ; 
and  it  was  perhaps  the  knowledge  of  this  fact 
which  led  the  Jews  to  incite  the  soldiers  to  lay 
on  him  the  burden  of  the  cross.  The  family  of 
Simon  seems  to  have  resided  afterwards  at  Rome; 
for  St.  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  church  there, 
salutes  the  wife  of  Simon  with  tenderness  and 
respect.,  calling  her  his  ‘ mother,’  though  he  does 
not  expressly  name  her:  ‘Salute  Rufus,  and  his 
mother  and  mine’  (Rom.  xvi.  13). 

9.  SIMON  THE  TANNER,  with  whom  St. 
Peter  lodged  at  Joppa  (Acts  ix.  43;  x.  6 ; xvii. 
32).  He  was  doubtless  a disciple.  His  hou.se 
was  by  the  sea  side,  beyond  the  wall,  as  the  trade 
of  a tanner  was  one  which  the  Jews  did  not  allow 
to  he  carried  on  inside  their  towns. 

10.  SIMON  MAGUS.  In  the  eighth  chapter 
of  the  Acts  we  read  that  Philip  the  Evangelist, 
whilst  preaching  the  Gospel  in  a city  of  Samaria, 
came  in  contact  with  a person  of  the  name  of 
Simon,  who  had  formerly  exercised  immense 
power  over  the  minds  of  the  people  by  his  skill 
in  the  resources  of  magic.  So  high  were  the 
pretensions  of  this  impostor,  and  so  profound  the 
impression  he  had  made  on  the  minds  of  flic 
multitude,  that  they  not  only  received  with 
readiness  all  that  be  taught,  but  admitted  hi* 


SIMON. 


SIMON. 


7<J7 


claim  to  be  regarded  as  an  incarnation  of  tbe  de- 
miurgic power  of  God.  The  doctrines  of  Philip, 
however,  concerning  Christ  as  the  true  and  only 
incarnation  of  Deity,  supported  by  the  unparal- 
leled and  beneficent  miracles  which  he  per- 
formed, had  the  effect  of  dispelling  this  delusion, 
and  inducing  the  people  to  renounce  their  alle- 
giance to  Simon  and  receive  baptism  as  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ.  On  the  mind  of  Simon  himself 
a deep  impression  was  also  produced.  In  h:s 
former  pursuits  he  had  been  probably  not  a little 
of  a dupe  as  well  as  a deceiver,  for  the  belief  in 
the  reality  of  magical  power  was  so  widely  dif- 
fused through  the  East  that  we  can  easily  suppose 
Simon  to  have  been  thoroughly  convinced,  not 
only  that  the  possession  of  such  power  was  attain- 
able, but  that  the  charms  of  which  he  was  mas- 
ter actually  conferred  upon  him  a portion  of 
that  power,  though  very  far  short  of  what  he  pre- 
tended to  have.  To  his  mind,  therefore,  the 
idea  in  all  probability  suggested  by  the  miracles 
of  Philip,  the  reality  of  whieh  he  could  not 
doubt,  was,  that  here  was  a magician  of  a higher 
order  than  himself — one  who  was  possessed  of 
charms  and  secrets  more  powerful  and  mysterious 
than  those  which  he  had  obtained.  To  Philip, 
consequently,  as  a greater  master  of  his  science 
than  himself,  he  deemed  it  wise  to  succumb,  in 
the  hope  doubtless  of  being  able  ere  long  to  par- 
ticipate in  his  knowledge  and  to  wield  his  power. 
With  this  view  he  professed  himself  a disciple  of 
Jesus,  and  as  such  was  baptised  by  Philip. 

On  the  news  of  Philip’s  success  reaching  Jeru- 
salem, Peter  and  John  went  down  to  Samaria  to 
confer  upon  the  new  converts  the  spiritual  gifts 
which  were  vouchsafed  to  the  primitive  churches. 
During  their  visit  Simon  discovered  that  by 
means  of  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands  the 
Apostles  were  able  to  dispense  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ; and  supposing  probably  that  in  this 
lay  the  much-prized  secret  of  their  superior 
power,  he  attempted  to  induce  the  Apostles  to 
impart  to  him  this  power  by  offering  them  money. 
This,  which  for  such  a man  was  a very  natural 
act,  intimated  to  the  Apostles  at  once  his  true 
character  (or  rather,  to  express  more  accurately 
our  conviction,  it  enabled  them  to  manifest  to 
the  people  and  publicly  to  act  upon  what  their 
own  power  of  discerning  spirits  must  have  al- 
ready taught  them  of  his  true  character)  ; and 
accordingly  Peter  indignantly  repudiated  his 
offer,  proclaimed  his  utter  want  of  all  true 
knowledge  of  Christian  doctrine  (so  we  under- 
stand the  words  ovk  tern  aoi  gepls  ovde  icXrjpos 
iv  rep  tovtu),  ver.  21),  and  exhorted  him  to 

repentance  and  to  prayer  for  forgiveness.  The 
words  of  Peter  on  this  occasion,  it  is  justly  re- 
marked by  Neander,  * present  the  doctrine  of 
the  Gospel,  which  so  expressly  intimates  the  abso- 
.'ute  necessity  of  a right  state  of  mind  for  the  re- 
ception of  all  that  Christianity  conveys,  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  Magianism,  which  denies 
all  necessary  connection  between  the  state  of 
mind  and  that  which  is  divine  and  supernatural, 
brings  down  the  divine  and  supernatural  within 
the  sphere  of  ordinary  nature,  and  imagines  that 
divine  power  may  be  appropriated  by  means  of 
something  else  than  that  which  is  allied  to  it  in 
man’s  nature,  and  which  supplies  the  only  point 
of  union  between  the  two’  ( Apostol . Zeitalt.  i.  82). 
The  solemn  aid  threatening  words  of  the  Apostle 


struck  dread  into  the  bosom  of  the  impostor,  srho 
besought  the  Apostle  to  pray  for  him  that  none 
of  the  tilings  lie  had  threatened  might  come  upon 
him — an  entreaty  which  shows  that  his  mind 
still  laboured  under  what  Neander  above  de- 
scribes as  the  chief  error  of  the  Magian  doctrine. 

After  this  we  read  no  more  of  Simon  Magus 
in  ihe  New  Testament.  By  the  ecclesiastical 
writers,  however,  he  is  frequently  referred  to,  and 
several  curious  particulars  are  recorded  concern- 
ing him,  some  of  winch  must  unquestionably  he 
abandoned  to  the  region  of  fable,  but  many  of 
which  are  apparently  true.  According  to  Justin 
Martyr  ( Apol . i.  § 26),  Theodoret,  ( Harrct . fab. 
i.  1),  Epiphanius  ( Ilcer . xxi.  55),  and  others,  he 
was  a native  of  Gitton  or  Gittum,  a town  of 
Samaria.  The  Clementine  Homilies  (ii.  22), 
inform  us  that  lie  studied  at  Alexandria;  but 
their  authority  is  very  doubtful.  Josephus  speaks 
of  a Simon  Magus  who  was  a dependant  of 
Felix  and  the  minister  of  his  vices  ( Antiq . xx. 
7.  2),  and  whom  Neander  regards  as  the  same 
person  with  ihe  one  now  under  notice  ( Lib . cit. 
p.  84).  Justin  says  he  went  to  Rome  in  the 
reign  of  Claudius,  where  he  attracted  much  at- 
tention, and  gained  such  reverence  that  he  was 
worshipped  as  a God.  The  same  writer  affirms 
that  he  even  saw  a statue  erected  in  the  Tiber, 
between  the  two  bridges,  to  his  memory,  and 
bearing  the  inscription  ‘Simoni  Deo  Sancto/ 
and  this  is  repeated  by  many  of  tbe  fathers.  It 
is  now,  however,  very  generally  supposed  that 
Justin's  partial  acquaintance  with  the  Latin 
language  and  mythology  led  him  to  mistake  a 
statue  of  the  Sabine  deity,  Semo,  for  one  to 
Simon,  a supposirion  which  it  is  hardly  possible 
to  resist  when  we  know  that  a piece  of  marble  lias 
been  found  in  an  island  of  the  Tiber  actually 
bearing  the  inscription  Semoni  Sanco  Deo 
Fidio  Sacrum  (Salmasius,  Ad  Spartianum , 
p.  38 ; Van  Dale,  De  Oraculis,  p.  579 ; Burton, 
Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age , p.  374,  <^c.). 
Eusebius  adds  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  13,  14),  that  the 
popularity  of  the  impostor  was  completely . de- 
stroyed by  St.  Peter’s  coming  to  Rome  ; and  later 
writers  give  us  a wonderful  legend  of  his  destruc- 
tion by  the  miraculous  power  of  the  Apostle’s 
prayers  joined  to  those  of  St.  Paul.  All  are 
agreed  in  regarding  these  legendary  accounts  a9 
fabulous,  but  Dr.  Burton  has  with  much  inge- 
nuily  endeavoured  to  expiscate  the  truth  which 
may  be  involved  in  them.  According  to  his 
view  it  is  probable  that  Simon,  in  endeavouring 
to  work  something  that  should  pass  for  a miracle, 
and  to  maintain  his  credit  against  the  Apostles, 
met  with  an  accident  which  ended  in  his  death 
(Lib.  cit.  p.  371).  To  us  it  appears  more  pro- 
bable that  1 he  whole  is  a mythic  fable ; the 
silence  of  all  the  earlier  fathers  regarding  it  is 
sufficient  to  invalidate  its  pretensions  to  be  viewed 
as  history. 

Simon's  doctrines  were  substantially  those  ui 
the  Gnostics,  and  he  is  not,  without  reason  re- 
garded as  the  first  who  attempled  to  engraft  the 
theurgy  and  egotism  of  the  Magian  philosophy 
upon  Christianity.  He  represented  himself,  ac- 
cording to  Jerome  (In  Matt Opp.  iv.  114),  as 
the  Word  of  God,  the  Perfection,  the  Paraclete, 
"the  Almighty,  the  All  of  Deity;  and  Irenseu* 
(i.  20)  tells  us  he  carried  with  him  a beautiful 
female  named  Helena,  whom  he  set  forth  as 


76S 


SIN. 


SINAI. 


first  idea  (fpvoia)  of  Deity.  If  this  be  not  ex- 
aggerated fable  on  the  part  of  bis  enemies,  we 
must  suppose  that  such  modes  of  speech  and  re- 
presentation were  adopted  by  him  as  suited  to 
the  highly  allegorical  character  of  Orientalism 
in  his  day;  for  were  we  to  suppose  him  to  have 
meant  such  utterances  to  be  taken  literally,  we 
should  be  constrained  to  look  upon  him  in  the 
light  of  a madman. 

Comp.  Tillemont,  Me  moires , tom.  i.  p.  158,  ft". ; 
Beausobre,  Hist,  du  Manichee,  tom.  i. ; Ittigius, 
Hist.  Eccles.  Selecta  Capita , v.  16,  &c. ; Mos- 
heim,  Hist,  of  the  Church , Cent.  ii.  5,  12;  De 
Rebus  Christianorum , &c.  p 190  ft*. ; Burton's 
Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age , Lect.  iv. ; Milman, 
Hist,  of  Christianity,  vol.  ii.  p.  96,  ft’.,  &c. — 

W.  L.  A. 

SIN  (I'D  ; Sept.  2ats),  a city  of  Egypt,  which 
is  mentioned  in  Ezek.  xxx.  15,  16,  ir<  connection 
with  Thebes  and  Memphis,  and  is  described  as 
‘ the  strength  of  Egypt,’  showing  it  to  have  been 
a fortified  place.  The  Sept,  makes  it  to  have 
been  Sais,  but  Jerome  regards  it  as  Pelusium 
This  latter  identification  lias  been  general!) 
adopted,  and  is  scarcely  open  to  dispu’e.  Sin 
means  ‘ mire,"  and  Pelusium,  from  the  Greek  pelos , 
has  the  same  meaning,  which  is,  indeed,  preserved 
in  the  modern  name  Tineh,  ‘clay,’  all  doubtless 
derived  from  the  muddy  nature  of  the  soil  in 
the  vicinity.  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson,  however,  sup- 
poses that  the  ancient  native  name  more  nearly 
resembled  the  Peremoun  or  Phkromis  of  the 
Copts;  and  the  latter  is,  doubtless,  the  origin  of 
the  Farama  of  the  Arabs,  by  which  it  is  still 
known.  Pelusium  was  anciently  a place  of  great 
consequence.  It  was  strongly  fortified,  being  the 
bulwark  of  the  Egyptian  frontier  on  the  eastern 
side,  and  was  considered  the  ‘ key,’  or,  as  the 
prophet  terms  it,  ‘ the  strength’  of  Egypt  (Hist. 
Bell.  Alexand.  p.  20,  27  ; Liv.  xlv.  11  ; Joseph. 
Antiq.  xiv.  8.  1 ; De  Beil.  dud.  i.  8.  7 ; i.  9.  3). 
It  was  near  this  place  that  Pompey  met  his  death, 
being  murdered  by  order  of  Ptolemy,  whose  pro- 
tection he  had  claimed.  It.  lay  among  swamps  and 
morasses  on  the  most  easterly  estuary  of  the  Nile 
(which  received  from  it  the  name  of  Ostium  Pelu- 
siacum),  and  stood  twenty  stades  from  the  Medi- 
terranean (Strabo,  xvi.  p.  760;  xvii.  801,  802; 
PI  in.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  11).  The  site  is  now  only 
approachable  by  boats  during  a high  Nile,  or  by 
land  when  the  summer  sun  lias  dried  the  mud 
left  by  the  inundation  : the  remains  consist  only 
of  mounds  anil  a few  fallen  columns.  The  cli- 
mate is  very  unwholesome  (Wilkinson's  Mod. 
Egypt,  i.  408,  411;  Savary’s  Letters  on  Egypt, 
i.  let.  24 ; Henniker's  Travels). 

SIN,  the  desert  which  ihe  Israelites  entered  on 
turning  off  from  the  Red  Sea  (Exod.  xvi.  1 ; 
xvii.  1 : Kum.  xxxiii.  12)  [Sinai]. 

SINAI  (\3'D  ; Sept.  Su'd).  The  Hebrew  name, 
denoting  a district,  of  broken  or  cleft  rocks,  is  de- 
scriptive of  the  region  to  which  it  is  applied.  That 
region,  according  to  Exod.  xix.  1 ; Lev.  vii.  38 ; 
Num.  i.  1,3,  4,  is  a wild  mountainous  country  in 
Arabia  Petraea,  whither  the  Israelites  went  from 
Rephidim,  after  they  had  been  out  of  Egypt  for  the 
space  of  three  months.  Here  the  law  was  given  to 
Moses,  which  fact  renders  this  spot  one  of  special 
and  lasting  interest.  From  the  magnitude  and  pro- 
minence of  the  Sinaitic  group  of  mountains,  the 


entire  district  of  which  it  forms  a part  has  leceived 
the  name  of  the  peninsula  of  Sinai.  This  peninsula 
may  be  roughly  described  as  formed  by  a line 
running  from  Suez  to  Ailah.  all  that  lies  on 
the  south  of  this  line  falling  within  the  peninsula. 
In  the  present  day  the  name  Sinai  is  given  by 
Christians  to  the  cluster  of  mountains  to  which 
we  have  referred  ; but.  the  Arabs  have  no  other 
name  (or  this  group  than  Jebel  et-Tar,  sometimes 
adding  the  distinctive  epithet  Sina.  In  a stricter 
sense  the  name  Sinai  is  applied  to  a very  lofty 
ridge  which  lies  between  1 he  two  parallel  valleys 
of  Slier  and  el- Lega.  Of  this  ridge  the  northern 
end  is  termed  Horeb,  the  southern  Sinai,  now 
called  Jebel  Musa,  or  Moses’  Mount,  The  entire 
district  is  a heap  of  lofty  granite  rocks,  with  steep 
gorges  and  deep  valleys.  The  several  mountains 
in  the  peninsula  seem  all  to  ascend  gradually  till 
they  reach  their  highest  point  in  the  group  of 
Sinai,  which  presents  a wild  aspect  of  broken, 
cleft,  and  irregular  masses,  with  pointed  tops 
and  precipitous  sides.  The  entire  group  is  made 
up  of  four  huge  ranges,  which  run  south  and 
north  with  an  inclination  eastward.  The  ranges 
are  separated  from  each  other  by  deep  valleys  or 
watercourses.  Of  the  four  longitudinal  masses  of 
mountain,  Sinai  lies  the  most  easterly  but  one, 
namely,  Jebel  ed-Deir.  The  range  which  lies  on 
the  west  of  Sinai  is  designated  at  its  southern 
extremity  Jebel  Catharine,  which  is  the  highest 
mountain  in  the  district,  for  Sinai  is  7033, 
and  Catharine  8063  Parisian  feet  above  the 
level  of  the  Mediterranean  (the  highest  point  ol 
Hermon  being  10,000  feet).  The  Sinai  ridge,  in- 
cluding Horeb,  is  at  least  three  miles  in  length. 
It  rises  boldly  and  majestically  from  the  southern 
end  of  the  plain  Rahali,  which  is  two  geographical 
miles  long,  and  ranges  in  breadth  from  one-third 
to  two-thirds  of  a mile,  making  at  least  one 
square  mile.  This  space  is  nearly  doubled 
by  extensions  of  the  valley  on  the  west  and 
east.  ‘ The  examination  convinced  us,’  says 
Robinson  (Biblical  Researches,  i.  141),  ‘that  here 
was  space  enough  to  satisfy  all  the  requisitions 
of  the  Scriptural  narrative,  so  far  as  it  relates  to 
the  assembling  of  the  congregation  to  receive  the 
law.’  Water  is  abundant  in  this  mountainous 
region,  to  which  the  Bedouins  betake  themselves 
when  oppressed  by  drought  in  the  lower  lands. 
As  there  is  water,  so  also  is  there  in  the  valleys 
great  fruitfulness  and  sometimes  luxuriance  of 
vegetation,  as  well  as  beauty.  What  was  the 
exact  locality  from  which  the  law  was  given,  it 
may  not  be  easy  to  ascertain.  The  book  of 
Deuteronomy  (i.  6 ; iv.  18,  &c.)  makes  it  to  be 
Horeb,  which  seems  most  probable ; for  this,  the 
north  end  of  the  range,  rises  immediately  from  the 
plain  of  which  we  have  just  spoken  as  the  head- 
quarters of  the  Israelites.  Sinai  is,  indeed,  ge- 
nerally reputed  to  be  the  spot,  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  southern  extremity  of  the  range  is  deno- 
minated Moses’  Mount  ; hut  this  may  have  arisen 
from  confounding  together  two  meanings  of  Si- 
nai, inasmuch  as  it  denotes  1,  a district;  2,  a 
particular  part  of  that  district.  It  was  no  doubt 
on  Horeb,  in  the  region  of  Sinai,  that  the  law  was 
promulgated.  Robinson  imputes  the  common 
error  to  tradition,  and  declaves  that  ‘ there  is  not 
the  slightest  reason  for  supposing  that  Moses  had 
any  thing  to  do  with  the  summit  which  now  bears 
his  name.  It  is  three  miles  distant  from  the  plain 


SINAI. 


SINAI 


70* 


ora  vtwxh  the  Israelites  must  have  stood,  and  hid- 
den fno.ir  it  by  the  intervening  peaks  of  modern 
Horeb.  No  part  of  the  plain  is  visible  from  the 
summit,  nor  are  the  bottoms  of  the  adjacent  val- 
leys, nor  is  any  spot  to  be  seen  around  it  where 
the  people  could  have  been  assembled.’  Robinson 
also  ascended  the  northern  extremity  of  the 
ridge,  and  had  there  a prospect  which  he  thus 
describes  : — ‘ The  whole  plain,  er-Rahah,  lay 
spread  out  beneath  our  feet  with  the  adjacent 
Wadys  and  mountains.  Our  conviction  was 
strengthened  that  here,  or  on  some  one  of  the  ad- 
jacent cliffs,  was  the  spot  where  the  Lord  “ de- 
scended in  fire,”  and  proclaimed  the  law.  Here 
lay  the  plain  where  the  whole  congregation  might 
be  assembled ; here  was  the  mount  that  could  be 
approached  and  touched,  if  not  forbidden ; and 
here  the  mountain  brow  where  alone  the  lightnings 


and  the  thick  cloud  would  he  visible,  and  the 
thunders  and  the  voice  of  the  trump  be  heard 
when  “the  Lord  came  down  in  the  sight  of  all  the 
people  upon  Mount  Sinai.”  We  gave  ourselves 
uj)  to  the  impressions  of  the  awful  scene,  and 
read  with  a feeling  that  will  never  be  forgotten 
the  sublime  account  of  the  transaction  and  the 
commandment,  there  promulgated.’  On  descend- 
ing, Robinson  came  to  a convent  (5366  feet  above 
the  sea),  his  description  of  the  vicinity  of  which 
will  impress  on  the  reader’s  mind  what  we  have 
before  said  as  to  the  fruitfulness  of  spots  in  these 
lofty  regions.  ‘ A large  plantation  of  olive-trees 
extends  far  above  'and  below  the  convent  along 
the  valley.  Just  around  the  buildings  is  also  a 
garden  of  other  fruit  trees,  in  which  apple  and 
apricot  trees  were  in  blossom  (March  26),  and 
not  far  oft*  is  a small  grove  of  tall  poplars,  here 


508.  [The  summit  of  Mount  Sinai.] 


cultivated  for  timber.  In  this  garden  too  was  a 
rill  of  water.  A family  of  serfs  was  here  to  keep 
the  garden.  As  we  entered,  the  sweet  voice  of  a 
prattling  Arab  child  struck  my  ear,  and  made 
my  heart  thrill  as  it  recalled  the  thoughts  of 
home’  (i.  159).  Tradition  seems  to  have  been 
busily  a^d  freely  at  work  in  the  district.  A rock 
is  pointed  out  as  that  whence  Moses  made  the 
water  gush.  It  is  in  a narrow  valley,  and  Ro- 
binson affirms  that  there  is  not  the  slightest 
ground  for  assuming  any  connection  between  it 
and  Rephidim  ; but,  on  the  contrary,  every  thing 
against  such  a supposition. 

Having  thus  given  a general  view  of  Sinai,  we 
shall  now  briefly  trace  the  Israelites  in  their 
journey  to  the  mountain.  Another  article  [Wav?- 
DKniim]  will  follow  their  course  into  the  Land 
of  Promise.  If  the  reader  will  turn  back  to. 
Exodus,  he  will  find  that  we  there  conducted  the 
fugitive  horde  through  the-Red  Sea  to  the  eastern 
shore  of  the  gulf  of  Suez.  The  Biblical  autho- 
rities for  the  portion  of  the  task  immediately  be- 

IX.  50 


fore  us  may  be  found  in  Exod.  xvi.  22 ; xviii. 
xviii.,  xix.,  1 and  2;  and  Num.  xxiii.  8-15 
When  safe  on  the  eastern  shore,  the  Israelites, 
had  they  taken  the  shortest  route  into  Palestine, 
would  have  struck  at  once  across  the  desert- 
in  a south-easterly  direction  to  el-Arish  or  Gaza. 
But  this  route  would  have  brought  them  into 
direct  collision  with  the  Philistines,  with  whom 
they  were  as  yet  quite  unable  to  cope.  Or  they 
might  have  traversed  the  desert  of  Paran,  follow- 
ing the  pilgrim  road  of  the  present  day  to  Elath, 
and,  turning  to  the  north,  have  made  for  Pales- 
tine. In  order  to  accomplish  this,  however, 
hostile  hordes  and  nations  would  have  to  be  en- 
countered, whose  superior  skill  and  experience  in 
war  might  have  proved  fatal  to  the  newly  liberated 
tribes  of  Israel.  Wisely,  therefore,  did  theiEleadei 
take  a course  which  necessitated  the  lapse  of  time, 
and  gave  promise  of  affording  intellectual  and 
moral  discipline  of  the  highest  value.  A regard 
to  this  discipline  chiefly  determined  Motes  in  the 
selection  of  his  route.  He  resolved  to  le&d  his  flock 


no 


SINAI. 


SINAI. 


to  Sinai  m order  that  they  might  see  the  wonders 
there  to  be  exhibited,  and  hear  the  lessons  there  to 
be  given.  At  Sinai,  and  on  the  journey  thither, 
might  the  great  leader  hope  that  the  moral  brand 
which  slavery  had  imprinted  on  his  people  would 
be  effaced,  and  that  they  would  acquire  that  self- 
respect.  that  regard  to  God’s  will,  that  capacity  of 
self-guidance,  which  alone  could  make  liberty  a 
blessing  to  the  nation,  and  enable  Moses  to  realise 
on  their  behalf  the  great  and  benign  intentions 
which  God  had  led  him  to  form.  There  were, 
however,  two  ways  by  which  he  might  reach 
Sinai.  By  following  a south-easterly  direction, 
and  proceeding  across  the  desert  el-Tyh,  he 
would  have  reached  at  once  the  heart  of  the  Si- 
naitic  region.  This  was  the  shorter  and  the  more 
expeditious  road.  The  other  route  lay  along 
the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  which  must  be  pursued 
till  an  opening  gave  the  means  of  turning  sud- 
denly to  the  east,  and  ascending  at  once  into 
the  lofty  district.  The  latter  was  preferable  for 
the  reason  before  assigned,  namely,  the  addi- 
tional opportunities  which  it  offered  for  the  edu- 
cation of  the  undisciplined  tribes  of  recently 
emancipated  slaves.  It,  therefore,  was  wisely 
adopted  by  Moses. 

Moses  did  not  begin  his  arduous  journey  till, 
with  a piety  and  a warmth  of  gratitude  which  well 
befitted  the  signal  deliverance  that  his  people  had 
just  been  favoured  with,  he  celebrated  the  power, 
majesty,  and  goodness  of  God  in  a triumphal  ode, 
full  of  the  most  appropriate,  striking,  and  splendid 
images ; in  which  commemorative  festivity  he 
was  assisted  by  ‘ Miriam  (he  prophetess,  the  sister 
of  Aaron/  and  her  associated  female  band,  with 
poetry,  music,  and  dancing.  The  nature  of  these 
festivities  gives  us  full  reason  to  conclude,  that  if 
the  people  at  large  were  still  slaves  in  intellect 
and  morals,  there  were  not  wanting  individuals  in 
the  camp  who  were  eminently  skilled  in  the  best 
refinements  of  the  age.  The  spot  where  these  re- 
joicings were  held  could  not  have  been  far  from 
that  which  still  bears  the  name  of  Ayun  Musa, 
'the  fountains  of  Moses/  the  situation  of  which  is 
even  now  marked  by  a few  palm-trees.  This  was 
a suitable  place  for  the  encampment,  because  well 
supplied  with  water.  Here  Robinson  counted 
seven  fountains,  near  which  he  saw  a patch  of 
barley,  and  a few  cabbage  plants.  Hence  the 
Israelites  proceeded  along  the  coast,  three  days’ 
-journey,  into  what  is  termed  the  wilderness  of 
Shur.  During  this  march  they  found  no  water. 
The  district  is  hilly  and  sandy,  with  a few 
watercourses  running  into  the  Red  Sea,  which, 
•failing  rain,  are  dry.  ‘ These  Wadys/  says 
Robinson,  ‘ are  mere  depressions  in  the  desert, 
with  only  a few  scattered  herbs  and  shrubs,  now 
withered  and  parched  with  drought.’  At  the  end 
of  three  days  the  Israelites  readied  the  fountain 
Marah,  but  the  waters  were  bitter,  and  could  not 
be  drunk.  The  stock  which  they  had  brought 
with  them  being  now  exhausted,  they  began  to 
utter  inurmurings  on  finding  themselves  disap- 
pointed at  Marah.  Moses  appealed  to  God,  who 
directed  him  to  a tree,  which,  being  thrown 
into  the  waters,  sweetened  them.  The  people 
were  satisfied  and  admonished.  About  this  sta- 
tion authorities  are  agreed.  It  is  identified  with 
the  fountain  Hawarah.  The  basin  is  six  or  eight 
fuel  in  diameter,  and  the  water  Robinson  found 
ebeut  iuo  feat  deep.  Its  taste  is  unpleasant,  saltish, 


and  somewnat  bitter.  The  Arabs  pronounce  it 
bitter,  and  consider  it  as  the  worst  water  in  all 
these  regions.  Near  the  spring  are  numerous 
bushes  of  the  shrub  ghurkud — a low,  bushy, 
thorny  shrub,  producing  a small  fruit,  which 
ripens  in  June,  not  unlike  the  blackberry,  very 
juicy,  and  slightly  acidulous.  It  delights  in  a 
saline  soil,  and  is  found  growing  near  the  brackish 
fountains  in  and  around  Palestine,  affording  a 
grateful  refreshment  to  travellers.  By  means  of  the 
berries,  or,  if  they  were  not  ripe,  the  leaves  of  this 
plant,  the  bitterness  may  have  been  removed  from 
the  waters  of  Marah.  Not  improbably  the  miracle 
in  the  case  lay  in  this,  that  Jehovah  directed 
Moses  to  use  the  tree  (bush)  itself,  instead  of  what 
was  usual,  the  berries,  as  from  the  time  of  year, 
shortly  after  Easter,  they  could  hardly  iiaye  been 
ripe. 

The  next  station  mentioned  in  Scripture  is 
Elim,  where  were  twelve  wells  of  water,  and 
three  score  and  ten  palm-trees.  As  is  customary 
with  travellers  in  these  regions,  ‘ they  encamped 
there  by  the  waters’  (Exod.  xvi.  1).  ■ The  indica- 
tions given  in  the  Bible  are  not  numerous,  nor 
very  distinct.  Neither  time  nor  distance  is  accu- 
rately laid  down.  Hence  we  can  expect  only 
general  accuracy  in  our  maps,  and  but  partial  suc- 
cess in  fixing  localities.  Elim,  however,  is  gene- 
rally admitted  to  be  Wady  Ghurundel,  lying 
about  half  a day’s  journey  south-east  from  Marah. 
The  way  from  Egypt  to  Sinai  lies  through  this 
valley,  and  on  account  of  its  water  and  verdure 
it  is  a chief  caravan  station  at  the  present  day. 
From  Elim  the  Israelites  marched,  encamping  on 
the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  for  which  purpose  they 
must  have  kept  the  high  ground  for  some  time, 
since  the  precipices  of  Jebel  Hummam — a lofty 
and  precipitous  mountain  of  chalky  limestone — 
run  down  to  the  brink  of  the  sea.  They,  there- 
fore, went  on  the  land  side  of  this  mountain  to 
the  head  of  Wady  Taiyikeh,  which  passes  down 
south-west  through  the  mountains  to  the  shore. 
On  the  plain  at  the  mouth  of  this  valley  was  the 
encampment  ‘ by  the  Red  Sea’  (Nura.  xxxiii.  10). 

According  to  Num.  xxxiii.  11,  the  Israel- 
ites removed  from  the  Red  Sea,  and  encamped 
next  in  the  wilderness  of  Sin.  This  Robinson 
identifies  with  ‘ the  great  plain  which,  beginning 
near  el-Mhrkhah,  extends  with  greater  or  less 
breadth  almost  to  the  extremity  of  the  peninsula. 
In  its  broadest  part  it  is  called  el-Ka-a’  (i.  106). 
Thus  they  kept  along  the  shore,  and  did  not  yet 
ascend  any  of  the  fruitful  valleys  which  run  up 
towardst.be  centre  of  the  district.  They  arrived 
in  the  wilderness  of  Sin  on  the  tifteenlh  (lay  of  the 
second  mouth  after  their  departure  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt ; and  being  now  wearied  with  their 
journey,  and  tired  of  their  scanty  fare,  they  began 
again  to  murmur.  Indeed,  it  is  not  easy  to  see 
how  the  most  ordinary  and  niggard  food  could 
have  been  supplied  to  them,  constituting  as  they 
did  nearly  two  millions  of  persons,  in  such  a 
country  as  that  into  which  they  had  come.  It  is 
true  that  some  provision  might  have  been  made 
by  individuals  ere  the  march  from  Suez  began. 
It  is  also  possible  that  the  accounts  of  encamp- 
ments which  we  have,  are  to  be  regarded  as  chiefly 
those  of  Moses  and  his  principal  men,  with  a 
chosen  body  of  troops,  while  the  multitude  were 
allowed  to  traverse  the  open  country,  and  forage 
in  the  valleys.  Still  the  region  was  unfavour- 


SINAI. 


SINAI. 


771 


able  for  the  purpose,  and  we  are  brought,  to  the 
conclusion  that  here  we  have  one  of  those  nu- 
merical difficulties  which  are  not  uncommon  in 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  which  make 
us  suspect  some  radical  error  in  our  conceptions 
of  the  Hebrew  system  of  numbers.  The  contrast 
between  the  scant  supply  of  the  desert  and  the 
abundance  of  Egypt,  furnished  the  immediate 
occasion  of  the  outbreak  of  dissatisfaction.  Bread 
and  flesh  were  the  chief  demand  ; bread  and  flesh 
were  miraculously  supplied;  the  former  by  manna, 
the  latter  by  quails.  Manna  grows  in  some  of 
the  neighbouring  valleys;  but  the  Israelites  were 
in  the  wilderness,  so  that  the  supply  could  not 
have  proceeded  from  natural  resources,  even  had 
such  existed  to  a sufficient  extent  for  the  purpose. 

The  next  station  mentioned  in  Exodus  is 
Rephidim  ; but  in  Numbers  Dophkah  and  Alush 
are  added.  The  two  latter  were  reached  after  the 
people  had  taken  ‘ their  journey  out  of  the  wil- 
derness of  Sin.’  Exact  precision  and  minute 
agreement  are  not  to  be  expected.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  case  forbid  us  to  look  for  them.  In 
a desert,  mountainous,  and  rarely  frequented 
country,  the  names  of  places  are  not  lasting. 
There  was  the  less  reason  for  permanence  in  the 
case  before  us,  because  the  Israelites  had  not  taken 
the  shorter  and  more  frequented  road  over  the 
mountains  to  Sinai,  but  kept  along  the  shore 
of  the  Red  Sea.  It  still  deserves  notice,  that  in 
Exodus  (xvii.  1)  there  is  something  like  an  inti- 
mation given  of  other  stations  besides  Rephidim 
in  the  words  ‘ after  their  journeys.’  Dophkah  is 
probably  to  |je  found  near  the  spot  where  Wady 
Feiran  runs  into  the  gulf  of  Suez.  Alush  may 
have  lain  on  the  shore  near  Ras  Jehan.  From 
this  point  a range  of  calcareous  rocks,  termed 
Jebal  Hemam,  stretches  along  the  shore,  near  the 
southern  end  cf  which  the  Hebrews  took  a sudden 
turn  to  the  north-east,  and  going  up  Wady  Hibran, 
reached  the  central  Sinaitic  district.  On  the 
opposite  side,  the  eastern,  the  Sinaitic  mountains 
come  to  a sudden  stop,  breaking  off,  and  present- 
ing like  a wall  nearly  perpendicular  granite 
cliffs.  These  cliffs  are  cut  by  Wady  Hibran, 
and  at  the  point  of  intersection  with  the  plain 
which  runs  between  the  two  ranges,  lay  Rephidim. 

This  was  the  last  station  before  Sinai  itself  was 
reached.  Naturally  enough  is  it  recorded,  that 
‘ there  was  no  water  for  the  people  to  drink.’  The 
road  was  an  arid  gravelly  plain ; on  either  side  were 
harren  rocks.  A natural  supply  was  impossible. 
A miracle  was  wrought,  and  water  was  given. 
The  Scripture  makes  it  clear  that  it  was  from 
the  Sinaitic  group  that  the  water  was  produced 
(Exod.  xvii.  6).  The  plain  received  two  de- 
scriptive names:  Massah,  ‘Temptation;’  and 
Meribah,  ‘ Strife.’  It  appears  that  the  congregation 
was  not  allowed  to  pursue  their  way  to  Sinai  un- 
molested. The  Arabs  thought  the  Israelites 
suitable  for  plunder,  and  fell  upon  them.  These 
hordes  are  termed  Amalek.  The  Amalekites  may 
have  been  out  on  a predatory  expedition,  or  they 
may  have  followed  the  Israelites  from  the  north, 
and^onjy  overtaken  them  at  Rephidim ; any  way 
no  conclusion  can  be  gathered,  from  this  fact  as 
to  the  ordinary  abode  of  these  nomades.  It  ap- 
pears, however,  that  the  conflict  was  a severe  and 
doubtful  one,  which  by  some  extraordinary  aid 
ended  in  favour  of  the  children  of  Israel.  This 
VdSressidn  on  he  part  of  Amalek  gave  occasion 


to  a permanent  national  hatred,  which  ended  only 
in  the  extermination  of  the  tribe  (Num.  xxiv.  20  ; 
Exod.  xvii.  14-16).  In  commemoration  of  this  vic- 
tory Moses  was  commanded  to  write  an  account 
of  it  in  a book  : he  also  erected  there  an  altar  to 
Jehovah,  and  called  the  name  of  it  ‘ Jehovah, 
my  banner.’  There  is  no  occasion  to  inquire 
whether  or  not  there  was  space  for  a battle  in  the 
spot  where  Moses  was.  It  was  a nomade  hold* 
that  made  the  attack,  and  not  a modern  army 
The  fight  was  not  a pitched  battle.  The  word 
Horeb,  applied  by  Moses  to  the  place  whence 
the  watei  was  gained,  suggests  the  idea  that 
Horeb  was  the  general,  and  Sinai  the  specific 
name  ; Horeb  standing  for  the  entire  district,  and 
Sinai  for  one  particular  mountain.  Many  pas- 
sages sanction  this  distinction.  But  in  the  New 
Testament  Sinai  only  is  read,  having  then  ap- 
parently become  a general  name,  as  it  is  at  the 
present  day  (Acts  vii.  30-38  ; Gal.  iv.  24).  It 
is  a monkish  usage  which  gives  the  name  Sinai 
to  Jebel  Musa,  and  Horeb  to  the  northern  part  of 
the  same  ridge. 

The  district  of  Sinai  is  remarkable  for  the  nume- 
rous inscriptions  engraved  on  the  face  of  the  rocks. 
They  are  found  on  all  the  routes  which  lead  from 
the  west  towards  the  mountain,  as  far  south  as 
Tur,  and  extend  to  the  very  base  of  Sinai.  The 
spot  where  they  exist  in  the  greatest  number  is 
the  Wady,  which  hence  derives  its  name,  W 
Mukatteb,  ‘ Written  Valley,’  through  which  the 
usual  road  to  Sinai  passes  before  reaching  Wady 
Teiran.  Here  inscriptions  occur  by  thousands  on 
the  rocks,  chiefly  at  such  points  as  would  form 
convenient  resting-places  for  travellers  or  pilgrims 
during  the  noon-day  sun.  Many  of  them  are  ac- 
companied by  crosses.  The  characters  are  every 
where  the  same,  and  till  recently  had  defied  all 
the  efforts  of  the  ablest  palaeographists.  In  the 
year  1839,  Professor  Beer,  of  the  university  of  Leip- 
zig, succeeded  in  deciphering  them.  The  charac- 
ters of  the  Sinaitic  inscriptions  the  Professor  finds 
to  belong  to  a distinct  and  independent  alphabet ; 
some  being  wholly  peculiar,  others  having  more 
or  less  affinity  with  the  Cufic,  which  may  have 
been  developed  from  them.  The  contents  hitherto 
ascertained  (1839)  consist  of  proper  names,  pre- 
ceded by  some  such  word  as  peace  i blessed  ; in 
memory  of'  The  word  son  often  occurs  between 
the  names.  No  Jewish  nor  Christian  name  has 
been  found.  Beer  thinks  the  writers  were  pil- 
grims : it  is  probable,  from  the  presence  of  the 
cross,  that  they  were  also  Christians.  The  in- 
scriptions are  ascribed  to  the  fourth  century,  and 
may  have  been  made  by  the  native  inhabitants  of 
the  mountains.  The  Leipzig  Professor  considers 
them  as  the  only  remains  of  the  language  and  cha- 
racter once  peculiar  to  the  Nabathaeans  of  Arabia 
Petraea.  Inscriptions  have  also  been  discovered 
on  the  rocks  of  Hisn  Ghorab  in  Hadramaut,  on 
the  southern  extremity  of  Arabia,  of  which,  and  of 
the  deciphering  of  which,  a very  interesting  ac- 
count may  be  found  in  Forster’s  recently  pub- 
lished  and  very  valuable  work,  The  Historical 
Geography  of  Arabia , or  the  Patriarchal  Evi- 
dences of  Revealed  Religion , 2 vols.  8vo.  Lond. 
1844.  Robinson’s  work  before  referred  to  is  a 
classical  one  on  the  subject,  though  we  are  unable 
to  assent  to  all  his  views.  The  celebrated  Raumer’a 
Beitrdge  to  his  Palestine  should  be  studied  in 
connection  with  Robinson.  Within  the  last  ft? 


772 


SINAPI. 


SINIM. 


yea.s  very  much  has  been  done  for  laying  open 
the  regions  through  which  our  minds  have  passed, 
by  Niebuhr,  Burckhardt,  and  Laborde.  See  also 
Biisching,  Erdbeschreibung,  v. ; andRosenmuller, 
Alterthum.  iii.  131,  sq. — J.  R.  B. 

SINAPI  (2iVa7rt),  translated  ‘mustard  tree’ 
in  the  Auth.  Vers,  of  the  New  Testament,  has 
engaged  the  attention  of  many  commentators, 
great  difficulty  having  been  experienced  in  find- 
ing a plant  with  the  requisite  characteristics, 
notwithstanding  the  several  attempts  which  have 
been  made.  The  subject  was  investigated  by  the 
present  writer  in  a paper  read  before  the  Royal 
Asiatic  Society,  on  the  16th  March,  1844.  Hav- 
ing referred  to  the  passages  of  the  New  Testament 
in  which  the  word  occurs  (Matt.  xiii.  31  ; xvii. 
20  ; Mark  iv.  31 ; Luke  xiii.  19 ; xvii.  6),  he  first 
showed  how  unsuitable  were  the  plants  which  had 
been  adduced  to  the  circumstances  of  the  sacred 
narrative,  and  mentioned  that  his  own  attention 
had  been  turned  to  the  subject  in  consequence  of 
the  present  Bishop  of  Lichfield  having  informed 
him  that  Mr.  Amueny,  a Syrian  student  of 
King’s  College,  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
tree.  Mr.  A.  stated  that  this  tree  was  found  near 
Jerusalem,  but  most  abundantly  on  the  banks  of 
the  Jordan  and  round  the  sea  of  Tiberias ; that  its 
seed  was  employed  as  a substitute  for  mustard,  and 
that  it  was  called  khardal,  which,  indeed,  is  the 
common  Arabic  name  for  mustard.  In  the  writer's 
MS.  Materia  Medica  of  the  East , mentioned 
in  vol.  i.  p.  6,  he  had  enumerated,  1.  Khardal, 
Or  common  mustard  ; 2.  Khardal  barree,  or  wild 
mustard  ; 3.  Khardal  rooniee,  Turkish  mustard. 
The  last  appeared  to  be  the  plant  referred  to,  but 
nothing  more  than  this  name  was  known  of  it.  In 
his  Illustrations  of  Himalayan  Botany , he  foumJ 
a tree  of  N.  W.  India,  which  was  there  called 
kharjal , and  which  appeared  possessed  of  the  re- 
quisite properties,  but  he  could  not  find  it  men- 
tioned in  any  systematic  work,  or  local  Flora,  as 
a native  of  Palestine.  The  plant  is  Salvadora 
Persica,  a large  shrub,  or  tree  of  moderate  size, 
a native  of  the  hot  and  dry  parts  of  India,  of 


Persia,  and  of  Arabia.  Dr.  Roxburgh  describes 
the  berries  as  mucn  smaller  than  a grain  of  black 
pepper,  having  a strong  aromatic  sttall,  and  a taste 
much  like  that  of  garden  cresses  Dr.  Lindley 


informed  the  writer  that  he  had  seen  them  in  a col- 
lection made  by  Bove.  Lastly,  Irby  and  Mangle*, 
in  their  travels,  mention  a tree  which  they  suppose 
to  be  the  mustard  tree  of  Scripture.  They  met 
with  it  while  advancing  towards  Kerek,  from  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  bore  its 
fruit  in  bunches  resembling  the  currant;  and  the 
seeds  had  a pleasant,  though  strongly  aromatic  taste, 
nearly  resembling  mustard.  They  say,  ‘ We  think 
it  possible  that  this  is  the  tree  our  Saviour  alluded 
to  in  the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed,  and  not  the 
mustard  plant  which  we  have  in  the  north,  and 
which,  even  when  growing  large,  can  never  be 
called  a tree,  whereas  the  other  is  really  such,  and 
birds  might  easily,  and  actually  do,  take  shelter 
under  its  shadow.’  On  further  inquiry,  the  wri- 
ter learned  that  a specimen  of  the  tree  had  been 
brought  home  by  Mr.  W.  Barker,  and  that  it  had 
been  ascertained  by  Messrs.  Don  and  Lambert 
to  be  the  Salvadora  Persica  of  botanists ; but  both 
had  written  against  its  claim  to  be  the  mustard 
tree  of  Scripture,  while  Mr.  Frost,  hearing  a con- 
versation on  the  subject,  had  supposed  the  tree  to 
be  a Phytolacea,  and  had  hence  maintained  it  to 
be  the  mustard  tree  of  Scripture,  but  without 
adducing  proofs  of  any  kind. 

The  paper  above  referred  to  concludes  by  stating 
it  as  an  important,  fact,  that  the  writer  had  come 
to  the  same  conclusion  as  Irby  and  Mangles,  by  an 
independent  mode  of  investigation,  even  when 
he  could  not  ascertain  that  the  plant  existed  in 
Palestine ; which  is,  at  all  events,  interesting,  as 
proving  that  the  name  kharjal  is  applied,  even  in 
so  remote  a country  as  the  north-west  of  India, 
to  the  same  plant  which,  in  Syria,  is  called 
khardal,  and  which  no  doubt  is  the  chardal  of 
the  Talmudists,  one  of  whom  describes  it  as  a 
tree  of  which  the  wood  was  sufficient  to  cover  a 
potter’s  shed,  and  another  says  that  he  was  wont 
to  climb  into  it,  as  men  climb  into  a fig-tree. 
Hence  the  author  stated  that  he  had  no  doubt  but 
that  Salvadora  Persica  is  the  mustard  tree  of 
Scripture.  The  plant  has  a small  seed,  which 
produces  a large  tree  with  numerous  branches,  in 
which  the  birds  of  the  air  may  take  shelter.  The 
seed  is  possessed  of  the  same  properties,  and  is  used 
for  the  same  purposes,  as  mustard,  and  has  a name, 
khardal,  of  which  sinapi  is  the  true  translation, 
and  which,  moreover,  grows  abundantly  on  the 
very  shores  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  where  our  Saviour 
addressed  to  the  multitude  the  parable  of  the 
mustard  seed. — J.  F.  R. 

SINIM  (D'O'D ; Sept.  717  n epawv),  a people 
whose  country,  ‘ land  of  Sinim,’  is  mentioned 
only  in  Isa.  xlix.  12,  where  the  context  im- 
plies a remote  region,  situated  in  the  eastern  or 
southern  extremity  of  the  earth.  Many  Bibli- 
cal geographers  think  this  may  possibly  denote 
the  Sinese  or  Chinese,  whose  country  is  Sina, 
China.  This  ancient  people  were  known  to  the 

Arabians  by  the  name  of  Sin,  and  to 

the  Syrians  by  that  of  Tsini ; and  a 

Hebrew  writer  may  well  have  heard  of  them,  espe- 
cially if  sojourning  at  Babylon,  the  metropolis, 
as  it  were,  of  all  Asia.  This  name  appears  to 
have  been  given  to  the  Chinese  by  other  Asiatics; 
for  the  Chinese  themselves,  though  not  unac- 
quainted with  it,  do  not  employ  it,  either  adopt* 
ing  the  names  of  the  reigning  dynasties,  or  o^toa 


SINITE 


SLAVE. 


77» 


tatiously  assuming  high-sounding  titles,  e.  g. 
Tchungkue,  ‘ central  empire.’  But  when  the 
name  was  thus  given  by  other  nations,  and  whence 
it  was  derived,  is  uncertain.  The  opinion  of  those 
writers  is  possibly  correct,  who  suppose  that  the 
name  D’O'D  Sineses  came  from  the  fourth  dynas- 
ty, called  Tshin,  which  held  the  throne  from  219 
to  206  b.c.  (Du  Halde,  Descript,  de  la  Chine , i. 

§ 1,  p.  306;  A.  Remusat,  Nouv.  Melanges  Asia- 
tiques,  ii.  334,  sq. ; Klaproth,  Journal  Asiat.  x. 
53,  sq.).  A people  called  Tshinas  are  spoken 
of  in  the  laws  of  Menu,  ancl  the  name  of  this 
dynasty  may  have  been  known  among  foreign 
nations  long  before  it  acquired  the  sovereign  power 
over  all  China.  See  this  view  more  largely  stated 
by  Gesenius  ( Thesaurus , pp.  948-950).  It  is  not 
void  of  probability,  but  objections  to  it  are  obvi- 
ous and  considerable.  Some,  therefore,  think  that 
by  the  Sinim  the  inhabitants  of  Pelusium  (Sin) 
are,  by  synecdoche,  denoted  for  the  Egyptians 
(Bochart,  Phaleg,  iv.  27).  But  as  the  text  seems  to 
point  to  a region  more  distant,  others  have  upheld 
the  claims  of  the  people  of  Syene,  taken  to  repre- 
sent the  Ethiopians  (Michaelis,  Spicil.  ii.  32,  sq. : 
Suppl.  p.  1741,  sq.).  See  Syene.  If,  however, 
‘the  land  of  Sinim’  was  named  either  from  Sin 
or  Syene,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  Seventy,  who 
knew  Egypt  well,  should  have  gone  eastward  in 
search  of  it,  even  so  far  east  as  Persia ; and  if 
they  considered  it  as  lying  in  the  remote  eastern 
parts  of  the  Persian  empire,  which  extended  to 
the  borders  of  India,  the  great  step  which  is  thus 
taken  in  the  direction  of  China  would  give  some 
support  to  the  identification  of  the  Chinese  with 
the  Sinim. 

SINITE  ('J'D;  Sept.  ’Ao-emuos),  a people  pro- 
bably near  Mount  Lebanon  (Gen.  x.  17  ; 1 Chron. 
i.  15).  Strabo  mentions  a city  in  Lebanon  called 
Sinna  ( Geog . xvi.  756).  Jerome  also  speaks 
of  a place  called  Sini,  not  far  from  Area  ( Qucest . 
Heb.  in  Gen.). 

SISERA  (X^D'D,  battle  array  ; Sept.  ^Zicrdpa), 
the  general  in  command  of  the  mighty  army  of 
the  Canaanitish  king  Jabin.  As  this  is  the  only 
instance  in  those  early  times  of  armies  being  com- 
manded by  other  than  kings  in  person,  the  cir- 
cumstance, taken  in  connection  with  others,  in- 
timates that  Sisera  was  a general  eminent  for  his 
abilities  and  success.  He  was,  however,  defeated 
by  Barak,  and  slain  (Judg.  iv.  2-22),  under  the 
circumstances  which  have  been  described  in  the 
article  Jael. 

SIVAN  (lyp  ; Sept.  N nrav),  the  third  month 
of  the  Hebrew  year,  from  the  new  moon  of  June 
to  the  new  moon  of  July.  The  name  admits  of  a 
Hebrew  etymology ; but  as  it  occurs  only  in 
Esth.  viii.  9,  it  is  better  to  regard  it  as  of  Persian 
origin,  like  the  other  names  of  months ; the  cor- 
responding Persian  month  being  called  Sefend- 
artned ; Zend,  Qpenti  Armaiti ; Pehlv.  Sapand- 
omad.  (Benfey,  Monatsnamen,  pp.  13,41,  sq. ; 
122,  sq. ; Gesen.  Thesaur.  p.  946). 

SKHINOS  (2%?i/os)  occurs  only  in  the  book 
entitled  Susannah,  ver.  54,  where  one  of  the 
elders  says  that  he  saw  Susannah  with  a young 
man,  forb  axivov,  which  is  correctly  translated 
1 under  a mastic-tree.’  The  other  elder  replied, 
kbat  it  was  virb  irplvev  ‘ under  a holm-tree,’  that  is, 


a species  of  oak.  The  mastic-tree  was  well  known 
to  the  Greeks  by  the  name  of  axivos.  It  is  the 
Pistacia  Lentiscus  of  botanists,  and  belongs  to 
the  same  genus  as  the  lristachio  nut  and  tur- 
pentine tree  [Botnim  and  Alah].  The  mastic* 
tree  is  a native  of  the  Mediterranean  region,  and 
is  found  in  different  parts  of  Syria.  It  is  a 
moderate  sized  tree  or  large  shrub.  It  is  cele- 
brated for  producing  mastic,  a resin  which  exudea 
from  incisions  made  in  the  bark,  chiefly  in  the 
island  of  Scio.  The  hardened  mastic,  in  the 
form  of  roundish  straw-coloured  tears,  is  muel 
chewed  by  Turkish  women.  It  consists  of  resin, 
with  a minute  portion  of  volatile  oil : it  Is 
much  used  as  a varnish,  and  sometimes  as  a me- 
dicine, and  by  dentists  in  this  country. — J,  F.  R. 

SLAVE  05^;  Sept.  ■7 reus,  SovAos,  oiKerps  ; 
Yulg.  servus  ; Auth.  Eng.  Version,  servant  and 
bondman;  Fern.  riDfcS  and  nfipp*,  SooAtj,  7rat- 
h'nTK7]i  olniris , ancilla).  The  term  slavery, 
though  frequently  applied  to  the  Jewish  system 
of  servitude,  is  not  wholly  appropriate.  Among 
the  GreeKS  and  Romans,  it  properly  expressed 
the  legal  condition  of  captives  taken  in  war, 
or  the  victims  of  the  existing  slave-trade,  and 
the  offspring  of  female  slaves.  Those  slaves 
were  held  to  be  the  absolute  property  of  their 
masters,  and  their  slavery  was  regarded  as  per- 
petual and  hereditary.  Nor  does  Jewish  servitude 
bear  any  resemblance  to  modern  slavery,  which, 
however  it  may  differ  from  the  Greek  and  Roman 
in  some  of  its  minor  incidents,  resembles  it  in  its 
essential  principles.  If  under  the  Roman  law 
slaves  were  held  ‘ pro  nullis,  pro  mortuis,  pro 
quadrupedibus,’  so  under  the  law  of  the  United 
States  they  are  adjudged  to  be  chattels  personal 
in  the  hand  of  their  owners,  to  all  intents,  con- 
structions, and  purposes  whatsoever;  and  then- 
slavery,  like  that  of  the  ancient  Romans,  is,  as  a 
necessary  consequence,  perpetual  and  hereditary. 

It  is  difficult  to  trace  the  origin  of  slavery.  It 
may  have  existed  before  the  deluge,  when  violence 
filled  the  earth,  and  drew  upon  it  the  vengeance 
of  God.  But  the  first  direct  reference  to  slavery, 
or  rather  slave-trading,  in  the  Bible,  is  found  in 
the  history  of  Joseph,  who  was  sold  by  his  brethren 
to  the  Ishmaelites  (Gen.  xxxvii.  27,  28).  In 
Ezek.  xxvii.  12,  13,  we  find  a reference  to  the 
slave-trade  carried  on  with  Tyre  by  Javan,  Tubal, 
and  Mesbech.  And  in  the  Apocalypse  we  find 
enumerated  in  the  merchandise  of  pagan  Rome 
(the  mystic  Babylon)  slaves  (aupaTa)  and  the 
souls  of  men  (Rev.  xviii.  13). 

The  sacred  historians  refer  to  various  kinds  of 
bondage : — 

1.  Patriarchal  Servitude. — The  exact  nature 
of  this  service  cannot  be  defined : there  can  be  no 
doubt,  however,  that  it  was  regulated  by  principles 
of  justice,  equity,  and  kindness.  The  servants  of 
the  patriarchs  were  of  two  kinds,  those  ‘ born  in 
the  house,’  and  those  ‘bought  with  money’  (Gen. 
xvii.  13).  Abraham  appears  to  have  had  a large 
number  of  servants.  At  one  time  he  armed  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  young  men,  ‘ born  in  his 
own  house,’  with  whom  he  pursued  the  kings  who 
had  taken  ‘ Lot  and  his  goods,  and  the  women  also, 
and  the  people,’  and  recaptured  them  (Gen.  xiv. 
1-16).  The  servants  born  in  the  house  were  per- 
haps entitled  to  greater  privileges  than  the  others 
Eliezer  of  Damascus,  a home-born  servai  U wai 


77* 


SLAVE. 


SLAVE. 


Abraham’s  steward,  and,  in  default  of  issue,  would 
nave  been  his  heir  (Gen.  xv.  2-4).  This  class  of 
servants  was  honoured  with  the  most  intimate 
confidence  of  their  masters,  and  was  employed  in 
the  most  important  services.  An  instance  of  this 
kind  will  be  found  in  Gen.  xxiv.  1-9,  where  the 
eldest  or  chief  servant  of  Abraham’s  house,  who 
ruled  over  all  that  he  had,  Was  sent  to  Mesopo- 
tamia to  select  a wife  for  Isaac,  though  then 
forty  years  of  age.  The  authority  of  Abraham 
was  that  of  a prince  or  chief  over  his  patriarchate 
or  family,  and  was  regulated  by  usage  and  the 
general  consent  of  his  dependents.  It  could  not 
have  been  otherwise  in  his  circumstances  ; nor, 
from  the  knowledge  which  the  Scriptures  give  of 
his  character,  would  he  have  taken  advantage  of 
any  circumstances  to  oppress  or  degrade  them  : 
‘ for  I know  him,  saith  the  Lord,  that  he  will 
command  his  children  and  his  household  after 
him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
to  do  justice  and  judgment,  that  the  Lord  may 
bring  upon  Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken 
of  him  ’ (Gen.  xviii.  19).  The  servants  of  Abraham 
were  admitted  into  the  same  religious  privileges 
with  their  master,  and  received  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  (Gen.  xvii.  9,  14,  24,  27). 

There  is  a clear  distinction  made  between  the 
‘servants’  of  Abraham  and  the  things  which  con- 
stituted his  property  or  wealth.  Abraham  was  very 
rich  in  cattle,  in  silver,  and  in  gold  (Gen.  xiii. 
2,  5).  But  when  the  patriarch's  power  or  great- 
ness is  spoken  of,  then  servants  are  spoken  of  as 
well  as  the  objects  which  Constituted  his  riches 
(Gen.  xxiv.  34,  35).  It  is  said  of  Isaac,  ‘ And  the 
man  waxed  great,  and  went  forward,  and  grew 
until  he  became  very  great , for  he  had  possession 
of  flocks,  and  possession  of  herds,  and  great  store 
)f  servants'  (Gen.  xxvi.  13,  14,  16,  26,  28,  29). 
When  Hamor  and  Shechem  speak  to  the  Hivites 
of  the  riches  of  Jacob  and  his  sons,  they  say, 
‘ Shall  not  their  cattle  and  their  substance  and 
every  beast  of  theirs  be  ours?’  (Gen.  xxxiv.  23). 
Jacob’s  wives  say  to  him,  ‘ All  the  riches  which 
God  hath  taken  from  our  father,  tlrat  is  ours  and 
our  children’s.’  Then  follows  an  inventory  of 
property:  ‘all  his  cattle,’  ‘all  his  goods,’  ‘the 
cattle  of  his  getting.’  His  numerous  servants  are 
not  included  with  his  property  (comp.  Gen.  xxxi. 
43 — 16,  18).  When  Jacob  sent  messengers  to 
Esau,  wishing  to  impress  him  with  an  idea  of  his 
state  and  sway,  he  bade  them  tell  him  not  only 
of  his  kiches,  but  of  his  greatness , and  that  he 
had  oxen  and  asses  and  flocks,  and  men-servants 
and  maid-servants’  (Gen.  xxxii.  4,  5).  Yet  in 
the  present  which  he  sent  there  were  no  servants, 
though  he  manifestly  selected  the  most  valuable 
kinds  of  property  (Gen.  xxxii.  14,  15  ; see  also 
xxxiv.  23 ; xxxvi.  6,  7).  In  no  single  instance 
do  we  find  that  the  jiatriarchs  either  gave  away  or 
sold  their  servants,  or  purchased  them  of  third 
persons.  Abraham  had  servants  ‘ bought  with 
money.’  It  has  been  assumed  that  they  were 
bought  of  third  parties,  whereas  there  is  no  proof 
that  this  was  the  case.  The  probability  is 
that  they  sold  themselves  to  the  patriarcli  for  an 
equivalent ; that  is  to  say,  they  entered  into  vo- 
luntary engagements  to  serve  him  for  a longer  or 
shorter  period  of  time,  in  return  for  the  money 
advanced  them.  It  is  a fallacy  to  suppose  that 
whatever  costs  money  is  money  or  property.  The 
®hildren  of  Israel  were  required  to  purchase  their 


first-born  (Num.  xviii.  15,  16  ; .ii.  45,  51 ; Kxod 
xiii.  13*,  xxxiv.  20).  They  were,  moreover,  re- 
quired to  pay  money  for  their  own  souls ; and 
when  they  set  themselves  or  their  children  apart 
by  vow  unto  the  Lord,  the  price  of  release  was 
fixed  by  statute  (Lev.  xxvii.  2-8).  Boaz  bought 
Ruth  (Ruth  iv.  10).  Hosea  bought  his  wife 
(Hos.  iii.  2).  Jacob  bought  his  wives  Rachel 
and  Leah ; and  not  having  money,  paid  for  them 
in  labour,  seven  years  a-piece  (Gen.  xxix.  16-23). 
That  the  purchase  of  wives,  either  with  money  or 
by  service,  was  the  general  practice,  is  plain  from 
such  passages  as  Exod.  xxii.  17,  and  1 Sam. 
xviii.  25.  But  the  idea  of  property  does  not  appear 
in  any  of  these  purchases.  For  the  various  ways 
in  which  the  terms  ‘bought,’  ‘buy,’  and  ‘bought 
with  money,’  are  used,  consult  Neh.  v.  8;  Gen. 
xlvii.  18-26,  &c.  In  Lev.  xxv.  47,  will  be  found 
the  case  of  the  Israelite  who  became  the  servant 
of  the  stranger.  The  words  are,  ‘ If  he  sell  him- 
self unto  the  stranger.’  Yet  the  51st  verse  says 
that  this  servant  was  ‘ bought,’  and  that  the  price 
of  the  purchase  was  paid  to  himself.  For  a further 
clue  to  Scripture  usage,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
1 Kings  xxi.  20,25;  2 Kings  xvii.  17  ; Isa.  lv.  1 ; 
lii.  3 : see  also  Jer.  xxxiv.  14;  Rom.  vi.  16  ; vii. 
14  ; John  viii.  31.  Probably  Job  had  more  ser- 
vants than  either  of  the  patriarchs  to  whom 
reference  has  been  made  (Job  i.  2,  3).  In 
what  light  he  regarded,  and  how  he  treated, 
his  servants,  may  be  gathered  from  Job  xxxi. 
13-23.  And  that  Abraham  acted  in  the  same 
spirit  we  have  the  divine  testimony  in  Jer.  xxii. 
15,  16,  17,  where  his  conduct  is  placed  in  direct 
contrast  with  that  of  some  of  his  descendants, 
who  used  their  neighbour's  service  without  wages, 
and  gave  him  not  for  his  work  (ver.  13). 

2.  Egyptian  Bondage. — The  Israelites  were 
frequently  reminded,  after  their  exode  from  Egypt, 
of  the  oppressions  they  endured  in  that  ‘ house  of 
bondage,’  from  which  they  had  been  delivered  by 
the  direct  interposition  of  God.  The  design  of 
these  admonitions  was  to  teach  them  justice 
and  kindness  towards  their  servants  when  they 
should  become  settled  in  Canaan  (Deut.  v.  15; 

viii.  14  ; x.  19  ; xv.  15  ; xxiii.  7,  &c.),  as  well 
as  to  impress  them  with  gratitude  towards  their 
great  deliverer.  The  Egyptians  had  domestic 
servants,  who  may  have  been  slaves  (Exod. 

ix.  14,  20,  21  ; xi.  5).  But  the  Israelites  were 
not  dispersed  among  the  families  of  Egypt ; they 
formed  a special  community  (Gen.  xlvi.  34 ; 
Exod.  viii.  22,  24  ; ix.  26 ; x.  23 ; xi.  7 ; iv.  29; 
ii.  9;  xvi.  22;  xvii.  5;  vi.  14).  They  had  ex- 
clusive possession  of  the  land  of  Goshen,  ‘the  best 
part  of  the  land  of  Egypt.’  They  lived  in  perma- 
nent dwellings,  their  own  houses,  and  not  in  tents 
(Exod.  xii.  22).  Each  family  seems  to  have  had 
its  own  house  (Exod.  xii.  4 ; comp.  Acts  vii.  20) ; 
and  judging  from  the  regulations  about  eating 
the  Passover,  they  could  scarcely  have  been  small 
ones  (Exod.  xii.,  &c.).  They  appear  to  have 
been  well  clothed  (Exod.  xii.  11).  They  owned 
‘ flocks  and  herds,  and  very  much  cattle  ’ (Exod. 
xii.  4,  6,  32,  37,  38).  Tliey  had  their  cwn  form 
of  government;  and  although  occupying  a pro- 
vince of  Egypt,  and  tributary  to  it,  they  pre- 
served their  tribes  and  family  divisions,  and  their 
internal  organization  throughout  (Exod.  ii.  I j 
xii.  19,  21;  vi.  14,  25;  v.  19;  iii.  16,  16> 
They  had  to  a considerable  degree  the  dispose 


SLAVE, 


SLAVE. 


116 


jtf  th<tfr  own  time  (Exod.  iii.  16,  18  ; xii.  6 ; ii. 
0;  iv.  27,  29,  31).  They  were  not  unacquainted 
with  the  fine  arts  (Exod.  xxxii.  4 ; xxxv.  22,  35). 
They  were  all  armed  (Exod.  xxxii.  27).  The 
women  seem  to  have  known  something  of  do- 
mestic refinement.  They  were  familiar  with  in- 
struments of  music,  and  skilled  in  the  working 
of  fine  fabrics  (Exod.  xv.  20  ; xxxv.  25,  26)  ; 
and  both  males  and  females  were  able  to  read 
and  write  (Deut.  xi.  18,  20;  xvii.  19;  xxvii.  3). 
Their  food  was  abundant  and  of  great  variety 
(Exod.  xvi.  3;  Num.  xi.  4,  5;  xx.  5).  The 
service  required  from  the  Israelites  by  their  task- 
masters seems  to  have  been  exacted  from  males 
only,  and  probably  a portion  only  of  the  people 
were  compelled  to  labour  at  any  one  time.  As 
tributaries,  they  probably  supplied  levies  of  men, 
from  which  the  wealthy  appear  to  have  been 
exempted  (Exod.  iii.  16;  iv.  29;  v.  20).  The 
poor  were  the  oppressed  ; ‘ and  all  the  service 
wherewith  they  made  them  serve  was  with  rigour’ 
(Exod.  i.  1 1-14).  But  Jehovah  saw  their  c afflic- 
tions and  heard  their  groanings,’  and  delivered 
them  after  having  inflicted  the  most  terrible 
plagues  on  their  oppressors. 

3.  Jeivish  Servitude. — Whatever  difficulties 
may  be  found  in  indicating  the  precise  nature  of 
patriarchal  servitude,  none  exists  in  reference  to 
that  which  was  sanctioned  and  regulated  by  the 
Mosaic  institutes. 

The  moral  law  is  a revelation  of  great  prin- 
ciples. It  requires  supreme  love  to  God  and  uni- 
versal love  among  men,  and  whatever  is  incom- 
patible with  the  exercise  of  that  love  is  strictly 
forbidden  and  condemned.  Hence  immediately 
after  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai,  as  if  to  guard 
against  all  slavery  and  slave-trading  on  the  part 
of  the  Israelites,  God  promulgated  this  ordinance  : 
‘ He  that  stealeth  a man  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he 
be  found  i:i  his  hands,  he  shall  surely  be  put 
to  death’  (Exod.  xxi.  16;  Deut.  xxiv.  7).  The 
crime  is  stated  in  its  threefold  form,  man -stealing  > 
selling , and  holding  ; the  penalty  for  either  of 
which  was  death.  The  law  punished  the  steal- 
ing of  mere  property  by  enforcing  restitution,  in 
some  cases  twofold,  in  others  fivefold  (Exod. 
xxii.  14).  When  property  was  stolen,  the  legal 
penalty  was  compensation  to  the  person  injured; 
but  when  a man  was  stolen,  no  property  compen- 
sation was  .allowed  ; death  was  inflicted,  and  the 
guilty  offender  paid  the  forfeit  of  his  life  for  his 
transgression;  God  thereby  declaring  the  infi- 
nite dignity  and  worth  of  man,  and  the  inviola- 
bility of  his  person.  The  reason  of  this  may  be 
found  in  the  great  fact  that  God  created  man  in 
his  own  image  (Gen.  i.  26-28) — a high  distinction, 
more  than  once  repeated  with  great  solemnity 
(v.  1;  and  ix.  6).  Such  was  the  operation  of 
this  law,  and  the  obedience  paid  to  it,  that  we 
rave  not  the  remotest  hint  that  the  sale  and  pur- 
chase of  slaves  ever  occurred  among  the  Israel- 
ites. The  cities  of  Judsea  were  not,  like  the 
cities  of  Greece  and  Rome,  slave-markets,  nor 
were  there  found  throughout  all  its  coasts  either 
helots  or  slaves.  With  the  Israelites  service  was 
either  voluntary,  or  judicially  imposed  by  the  law 
of  God  (Lev.  xxv.  39, 47  ; Exod.  xxi.  7 ; xxii.  3, 4; 
Deut.  xx.  14).  Strangers  only,  or  the  descendants 
of  strangers,  became  their  possession  by  purchase 
(Lev.  xxv.  44-46) , but,  however  acquired,  the 
law  gave  the  Jewish  servants  many  rights  and  pri- 


vileges : they  were  admitted  into  covenant  with 
God  (Deut.  xxix.  10,  13);  they  were  guests  at 
all  the  national  and  family  festivals  (Exod.  xii. 
43,  44;  Deut.  xii.  18;  xvi.  10-16):  they  were 
statedly  instructed  in  morals  and  religion  (Deut. 
xxxi.  10-13;  Josh.  viii.  33-35  ; 2 Chron.  xvii. 
8,  9;  xxxv.  3;  xxxiv.  30;  Nell.  viii.  7,  8); 
they  were  released  from  their  regular  labour 
nearly  one-half  of  their  term  of  servitude,  viz., 
every  seventh  year  (Lev.  xxv.  3-6)  ; every  seventh 
day  (Exod.  xx.) ; at  the  three  annual  festivals 
(Exod.  xxiii.  17;  xxxiv.  23),  viz.,  the  Passover 
and  Feast  of  Weeks,  which  lasted  each  seven 
days,  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  lasted 
eight.  Also  on  the  new  moons,  the  Feast  of 
Trumpets,  and  the  Day  of  Atonement.  Besides 
these  were  the  local  festivals  (Judg.  xxi.  19 ; 1 
Sam.  ix.  12,  22,  &c.),  and  the  various  family 
feasts,  as  the  weaning  of  children,  marriages, 
sheep-shearing,  and  circumcisions  ; the  making  of 
covenants,  &c.  (1  Sam.  xx.  6.  28,  29).  To  these 
must  be  added  the  Feast  of  Purim,  which  lasted 
three  days,  and  the  Dedication,  which  lasted  eight. 
The  servants  of  the  Israelites  were  protected  by 
the  law  equally  with  their  masters  (Deut.  i.  16, 
17;  xxvii.  19;  Lev.  xix.  15;  xxiv.  22;  Num. 
xv.  29);  and  their  civil  and  religious  rights  were 
the  same  (Num.  xv.  15,  16,  29;  ix.  14;  Deut. 
i.  16,  17  ; Lev.  xxiv.  22).  To  these  might  be 
added  numerous  passages  which  represent  the 
Deity  as  regarding  alike  the  natural  rights 
of  all,  and  making  for  all  an  equal  provision 
(2  Chron.  xix.  7 ; Prov.  xxiv.  23  ; xxviii.  21  ; 
Job  xxxiv.  19;  2 Sam.  xiv.  14;  Ephes.  vi.  9). 
Finally,  these  servants  bad  the  power  of  changing 
their  masters,  and  of  seeking  protection  where 
they  pleased  (Deut.  xxiii.  15,  16);  and  should 
their  masters  by  any  act  of  violence  injure  their 
persons,  they  were  released  from  their  engage- 
ments (Exod.  xxi.  26,  27).  The  term  of  Hebrew 
servitude  was  six  years,  beyond  which  they  could 
not  be  held  unless  they  entered  into  new  engage- 
ments (Exod.  xxi.  1-1 1 ; Deut.  xv.  12);  while 
that  of  strangers,  over  whom  the  rights  of  the 
master  were  comparatively  absolute  (Lev.  xxv. 
44-46),  terminated  in  every  case  on  the  return 
of  the  jubilee,  when  liberty  was  proclaimed  to 
all  (Lev.  xxv.  8,  10.  54).  On  one  occasion  the 
state  of  the  sexennial  slavery  was  violated,  and 
the  result  was  fearful  (Jer.  xxxiv.  8-22).  See 
also  Exod.  xxi.  20;  Lev.  xix.  20-22;  Tobit  x.  10 
((TeS/uxTa) ; Ecclus.  vii.  20,  21 ; x.  25  ; xxxiii. 
24-31. 

4.  Gibeonitish  Servitude. — The  condition  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Gibeon,  Chephirah,  Beeroth, 
and  Kirjath-jearim,  under  the  Hebrew  common- 
wealth, was  not  that  of  slavery.  It  was  volun- 
tary (Josh.  ix.  8-11).  They  were  not  employed 
in  the  families  of  the  Israelites,  but  resided  in 
their  own  cities,  tended  their  own  flocks  and 
herds,  and  exercised  the  functions  of  a distinct 
though  not  independent  community  (Josh.  x. 
6-18).  The  injuries  inflicted  on  them  by  Saul 
were  avenged  by  the  Almighty  on  his  descendants 
(2  Sam.  xxi.  1-9).  They  appear  to  have  been 
devoted  exclusively  to  Ibe  service  of  the  ‘ house 
of  God’  or  the  Tabernacles,  and  only  a few  of 
them  comparatively  could  have  been  engaged  at 
any  one  time.  The  rest  dwelt  in  their  cities, 
one  of  which  was  a great  city,  as  one  of  tl>3 
royal  cities.  The  service  they  rendered  may  Li 


776 


SLAVE. 


SLAVE. 


regarded  as  a natural  tribute  for  the  privilege  of 
protection.  No  service  seems  to  have  been  re- 
quired of  their  wives  and  daug’ iters.  On  the  re- 
turn from  the  Babylonish  captivity  they  dwelt  at 
Ophel  (Neh.  iii.  26).  See  also  1 Chron.  ix.  2; 
Ezra  ii.  43;  Neh.  vii.  24;  viii.  17:  x.  28; 
xi.  21  [Nethinim]. 

The  laws  which  the  great  Deliverer  and  Re- 
deemer of  mankind  gave  for  the  government  of  his 
kingdom,  were  those  of  universal  justice  and  bene- 
volence, and  as  such  were  subversive  of  every  sys- 
tem of  tyranny  and  oppression.  To  suppose,  there- 
fore, as  has  been  rashly  asserted,  that  Jesus  or  his 
apostles  gave  their  sanction  to  the  existing  systems 
of  slavery  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  is  to 
dishonour  them.  That  the  reciprocal  duties  of 
masters  and  servants  (SooAoi)  were  inculcated,  ad- 
mits, indeed,  of  no  doubt  (Col.  iii.  22 ; iv.  1 ; Tit. 
ii.  9;  1 Pet.  ii.  18;  Ephes.  vi.  5-9).  But  the  per- 
formance of  these  duties  on  the  part  of  the  masters, 
supposing  them  to  have  been  slave-masters,  would 
have  been  tantamount  to  the  utter  subversion  of 
the  relation.  There  can  be  no  doubt  either  that 
* servants  under  the  yoke,’  or  the  slaves  of  heathens, 
are  exhorted  to  yield  obedience  to  their  masters 
(1  Tim.  vi.  1).  But  this  argues  no  approval  of 
the  relation  ; for,  1.  Jesus,  in  an  analogous  case, 
appeals  to  the  paramount  law  of  nature  as  super- 
seding such  temporary  regulations  as  the  ‘ hard- 
ness of  men's  hearts  ’ had  rendered  necessary  (see 
Slavery  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope , by  the  Rev. 
W.  Wright,  M.A.,  1831,  p.  58) ; and,  2.  St.  Paul, 
while  counselling  the  duties  of  contentment  and 
submission  under  inevitable  bondage,  inculcates 
at  the  same  time  on  the  slave  the  duty  of  adopt- 
ing all  legitimate  means  of  obtaining  his  freedom 
(1  Cor.  vii.  18-20).  We  are  aware  that  the  ap- 
plication of  this  passage  has  been  denied  by 
Chrysostom,  Photius,  Theodoret,  and  Theophy- 
lact,  who  maintain  that  it  is  the  state  of  slavery 
which  St.  Paul  here  recommends  the  slave  to 
prefer.  But  although  this  interpretation  is  in- 
deed rendered  admissible  by  the  context,  yet  the 
more  received  meaning,  or  that  which  counsels 
freedom,  is  both  more  easily  connected  with  the 
preceding  phrase,  ‘ if  thou  mayest  be  mad e free, 
use  it  rather,’  and  is,  as  Neander  observes,  * more 
in  accordance  with  the  liberal  views  of  the  free- 
minded  Paul  ’ (Bilroth,  Commentary  on  Co' 
rinthians , in  Bib.  Cabinet').  Besides  which,  the 
character  of  the  existing  slavery,  to  which  we 
shall  now  refer,  was  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
entire  tenor  of  the  moral  and  humane  principles 
of  the  precepts  of  Jesus. 

5.  Roman  Slavery. — Our  limits  will  not  allow 
us  to  enter  into  detail  on  the  only  kind  of  slavery 
referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  for  there  is  no 
indication  that  the  Jews  possessed  any  slaves  in 
the  time  of  Christ.  Suffice  it  therefore  to  say 
that,  in  addition  to  the  fact  that  Roman  slavery 
was  perpetual  and  hereditary,  the  slave  had  no 
protection  whatever  against  the  avarice,  rage,  or 
lust  of  his  master.  The  bondsman  was  viewed 
less  as  a human  being,  subject  to  arbitrary  do- 
minion, than  as  an  inferior  animal,  dependent 
wholly  on  the  will  of  his  owner.  The  master 
possessed  the  uncontrolled  power  of  life  and  death 
over  hia  slave, — a power  which  continued  at  least 
to  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian.  He  might, 
srd  frequently  d’d,  kill,  mutilate,  and  torture  his 


slaves,  for  any  or  for  no  offence,  so  that  slaves  were 
sometimes  crucified  from  mere  caprice.  He  might 
force  them  to  become  prostitutes  or  gladiators;  and, 
instead  of  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  marriage 
tie,  their  temporary  unions  ( contubernia ) were 
formed  and  dissolved  at  his  command,  families 
and  friends  were  separated,  and  no  obligation 
existed  to  provide  for  their  wants  in  sickness  or 
in  health.  But,  notwithstanding  all  the  barbarous 
cruelties  of  Roman  slavery,  it  had  one  decided 
advantage  over  that  which  was  introduced  in 
modern  times  into  European  colonies,  both  law 
and  custom  being  decidedly  favourable  to  the 
freedom  of  the  slave  ( Inquiry  into  the  State  oj 
Slavery  among  the  Romans,  by  W.  Blair,  Esq. 
1833).  The  Mahommedan  law  also,  in  this  re- 
spect, contrasts  favourably  with  those  of  the 
European  settlements. 

Although  the  condition  of  the  Roman  slaves 
was  no  doubt  improved  under  the  emperors,  the 
early  effects  of  Christian  principles  were  manifest 
in  mitigating  the  horrors,  and  bringing  about  the 
gradual  abolition  of  slavery.  St.  Onesimus,  ac- 
cording to  the  concurrent  testimony  of  antiquity, 
was  liberated  by  Philemon  (Phil.  ver.  21)  ; and 
in  addition  to  the  testimonies  cited  in  Wright’s 
Slavery  (ut  supra,  p.  60),  see  the  preface  ol 
Eufhalius  to  this  Epistle.  The  servile  condition 
formed  no  obstacle  to  attaining  the  highest  dig- 
nities of  the  Christian  priesthood.  Our  space  will 
not  allow  us  to  pursue  this  subject.  ‘ It  was,' 
says  M.  Guizot,  ‘ by  putting  an  end  to  the  cruel 
institution  of  slavery  that  Christianity  extended 
its  mild  influence  to  the  practice  of  war ; and 
that  barbarous  art,  softened  by  its  humane  spirit, 
ceased  to  be  so  destructive’  (Milman's  Gibbon, 
i.  61).  ‘ It  is  not,"  says  Robertson,  ‘ the  authority 

of  any  single  detached  precept  in  the  Gospel,  but 
the  spirit  and  genius  of  the  Christian  religion, 
more  powerful  than  any  particular  command, 
which  has  abolished  the  practice  of  slavery 
throughout  the  world.’  Although,  even  in  the 
most  corrupt  times  of  the  church,  the  operation 
of  Christian  principles  tended  to  this  benevolent 
object,  they  unfortunately  did  not  prevent  the 
revival  of  slavery  in  the  European  settlements  in 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  together 
with  that  nefarious  traffic,  the  suppression  of 
which  has  rendered  the  name  of  Wilberforce  for 
ever  illustrious.  Modern  servitude  had  all  the 
characteristic  evils  of  the  Roman,  except,  perhaps, 
the  uncontrolled  power  of  life  and  death,  while  it 
was  destitute  of  that  redeeming  quality  to  which 
we  have  referred,  its  tendency  being  to  perpetuate 
the  condition  of  slavery.  It.  has  also  been  sup- 
posed to  have  introduced  the  unfortunate  pre- 
judice of  colour,  which  was  unknown  to  the 
ancients  (Linstant’s  Essai,  1841).  It  was  the  be- 
nevolent wish  of  the  philosophic  Herder  ( History 
of  Man,  1788)  that  the  time  might  come  ‘ when 
we  shall  look  back  with  as  much  compassion  on 
our  inhuman  traffic  in  negroes,  as  on  the  ancient 
Roman  slavery  or  Spartan  helots.’  This  is  now 
no  longer  a hope,  so  far  as  England  is  concerned, 
as  she  not  only  set  the  example  of  abolishing  the 
traffic,  but  evinced  the  soundness  of  her  Christian 
principles  by  the  greatest  national  act  of  justice 
which  history  has  yet  recorded,  in  the  total  abo- 
lition of  slavery  throughout  all  her  dependencies 

W.  W 

SLIME.  [Asphaetum.] 


SMITH. 


SMYRNA. 


777 


SMITH  (Bnn;,  a workman  in  stone,  wood,  or 
metal,  like  the  Latin  faber,  but  sometimes  more 
accurately  defined  by  what  follows,  as 
a workman  in  iron,  a smith  ; Sept.  reKroou,  tcktcop 
aib'flpov,  xaAtceur,  tc)(Att)s  ; \ ulg.  faber  and 
faber  j err arias  (1  Sam.  xiii.  19;  Isa.  xliv.  12; 
liv.  16 ; 2 Kings  xxiv.  14 ; Jer.  xxiv.  1 ; xxix. 
2).  In  2 Chron.  xxiv.  12,  ‘ workers  in  iron  and 
brass’  are  mentioned.  The  first  smith  mentioned 
in  Scripture  is  Tubal-Cain,  whom  some  wiiters, 
arguing  from  the  similarity  of  the  names,  iden 
tify  witli  Vulcan  (Getli.  Vossius,  De  Orig.  Ido -■ 
lol.  i.  16).  He  is  said  to  have  been  ‘ an  in- 
structor of  every  artificer  in  brass  and  iron  (Gen. 
iv.  22),  or  perhaps  more  properly,  a whetter  or 
sharpener  of  every  instrument  of  copper  or  iron. 
So  Montanus,  ‘ acuentem  omne  artificium  seris 
et  ferri ;’  Sept.  acpvpoKoiros  x<xA/ceus  x^kov  k<x\ 
arib-fipov,  Vulg.  ‘ fuit  maleator  et  faber  in  cuncta 
opera  seris  et  ferri.’  Josephus  says  that  he  first 
of  all  invented  the  art  of  making  brass  ( Antiq . 
i.  2.  2).  As  the  art.  of  the  smith  is  one  of  the 
first  essentials  to  civilization,  the  mention  of  its 
founder  was  worthy  of  a place  among  the  other 
fathers  of  inventions.  So  requisite  was  the  trade 
of  a smith  in  ancient  warfare  that  conquerors 
removed  these  artizans  from  a vanquished  na- 
tion, in  order  the  more  effectually  to  disable  it. 
Thus  the  Philistines  deprived  the  Hebrews  of 
their  smiths  (1  Sam.  xiii.  19;  comp.  Judg.  v.  8). 
So  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  treated 
them  in  later  times  (2  Kings  xxiv.  14 ; Jer. 
xxiv.  1 ; xxix.  2).  With  these  instances  the 
commentators  compare  the  stipulation  of  Por- 
senna  with  the  Roman  people,  after  the  expul- 
sion of  their  kings : ‘ Ne  ferro,  nisi  in  agricul- 
tura,  uterentur ’ (Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  xxxi.  14). 
Cyrus  treated  the  Lydians  in  the  same  manner 
(Herodotus,  i.  142).  "1JDD,  smith,  occurs  in 
2 Kings  xxiv.  14,  16;  Sept.  crvyuXeiovTa ; Jer. 
xxiv.  1 ; xxix.  2;  Vulg.  ‘ clusor,’  or  ‘inclusor.’ 
Buxtorf  gives  ‘ claustrarius,  faber  ferrarius.’ 
The  root  "DD,  to  close , indicates  artizans  1 with 
busy  hammers  closing  rivets  up ;’  which  suits 
the  context  better  than  other  renderings,  as 
setters  of  precious  stones,  seal-engravers,  &c.  In 
the  New  Testament  we  meet  with  Demetrius, 
‘ the  silversmith,’  at  Ephesus,  apyvpoKdiros,  ‘ a 
worker  in  silver,’  Vulg.  argentariics  ; but  the 
commentators  are  not  agreed  whether  he  was 
a manufacturer  of  small  silver  models  of  the 
Temple  of  Diana,  vaobs  apyvpovs,  or  at  least  of 
the  chapel  which  contained  the  famous  statue 
of  the  goddess,  to  be  sold  to  foreigners,  or  used 
in  private  devotion,  or  taken  with  them  by  tra- 
vellers as  a safeguard ; or  whether  he  made  large 
coins  representing  the  temple  and  image.  Beza, 
Scaliger,  and  others,  understand  a coiner  or 
mintmaster  (see  Kuinoel  in  loc.).  That  the  word 
may  signify  a silver  -founder,  is  clear  from  the 
Sept,  rendering  of  Jer.  vi.  29.  From  Plutarch 
{Opp.  t.  ix.  pp.  301  and  473,  ed.  Reisk.)  and 
Hesychius  it  appears  that  the  word  signifies  any 
worker  in  silver  or  money.  A coppersmith 
named  Alexander  is  mentioned  as  an  opponent 
of  St.  Paul  (2  Tim.  iv.  14)  [Coal,  Iron,  Me- 
tals].— J.  F.  D. 

SMYRNA  ( 'Zgvpva ),  a celebrated  commercial 
sity  ot  Ionia  (Ptolem.  v.  2),  situated  near  the 


bottom  of  that  gulf  of  the  an  Sea  which  re- 
ceived its  name  from  it  (Mela,  i.  17.  3),  at  the 
mouth  of  the  small  river  Meles,  and  320  stades 
north  of  Ephesus  (Strabo,  xv.  p.  632).  It  is  in  N. 
lat.  38°  26',  E.  long.  27°  7'.  Smyrna  was  a very 
ancient  city,  but  having  been  destroyed  by  the 
Lydians  it  lay  waste  400  years,  to  the  time  of 
Alexander  the  Great  (Plin.  v.  29  ; Pausan.  vii- 
5)  ; or,  according  to  Strabo,  to  that  of  Antigonus. 
It  was  rebuilt  at  the  distance  of  twenty  stades 
from  the  ancient  city  (Strabo,  xiv.  p.  646),  and  we 
soon  find  it  flourishing  greally  ; and  in  the  time 
of  the  first.  Roman  emperors  it  was  one  of  the  finest 
cities  of  Asia  (Strabo,  iv.  9).  It  was  at  this 
period  that  It  became  the  seat  of  a Christian 
church,  which  is  noticed  in  the  Apocalypse,  as 
one  of  ‘ the  seven  churches  of  Asia’  (Rev.  i.  11  ; 
ii.  8-11).  It  was  destroyed  by  .an  earthquake  in 
a.d.  177;  but  the  emperor  Marcus  Aurelius 
caused  it  to  be  rebuilt  with  even  more  than  its 
former  splendour.  It  afterwards,  however,  suf- 
fered greatly  from  earthquakes  and  conflagrations, 
and  must  be  regarded  as  having  declined  much 
from  its  ancient  importance,  although  from  the 
convenience  of  its  situation  it  has  still  maintained 
its  rank  as  a great  city  and  the  central  emporium 
of  the  Levantine  trade;  and  seeing  the  terrible 
decay  which  has  fallen  upon  the  numerous  great 
aud  beautiful  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  its  relative  rank 
among  the  existing  cities  of  that  region  is  probably 
greater  than  that  which  it  anciently  bore.  The 
Turks  call  it  Izmir.  It  is  abetter  built  town  than 
Constantinople,  and  in  proportion  to  its  size  there 
are  few  {daces  in  the  Turkish  dominions  which 
have  so  large  a population.  It  is  computed  at 
130,000,  of  which  the  Franks  compose  a far 
greater  proportion  than  in  any  other  town  of  Tur- 
key; and  they  are  generally  in  good  circumstances. 
Next  to  the  Turks  the  Greeks  form  the  most  nu- 
merous class  of  inhabitants,  and  they  have  a 
bishop  and  two  churches.  The  unusually  large 
proportion  of  Christians  in  the  town  renders  it 
peculiarly  unclean  in  the  eyes  of  strict  Moslems, 
whence  it  has  acquired  among  them  the  name  of 
Giaour  Izmir  or  Infidel  Smyrna.  There  are 
in  it  20,000  Greeks,  8000  Armenians,  1000  Eu- 
ropeans, and  9000  Jews  : the  rest  are  Moslems. 

The  prosperity  of  Smyrna  is  now  rather  on  the 
increase  than  the  decline ; houses  of  painted  wood 
are  giving  way  in  all  directions  to  mansions  of 
stone;  and  probably  not  many  years  will  elapse 
before  the  modern  town  may  not  unworthily  repre- 
sent that  city  which  the  ancients  delighted  to  call 
‘ the  lovely — the  crown  of  Ionia — the  ornament 
of  Asia.’ 

Smyrna  stands  at  the  foot  of  a range  of  moun- 
tains, which  enclose  it  on  three  sides.  The  only 
ancient  ruins  are  upon  the  mountains  behind  the 
town,  and  to  the  south.  Upon  the  highest  summit 
stands  an  old  dilapidated  castle,  which  is  supposed 
by  some  to  mark  the  previous  (but  not  the  most 
ancient)  site  of  the  city;  frequent  earthquakes 
having  dictated  the  necessity  of  removing  it  to  the 
plain  below,  and  to  the  lower  declivities  of  the 
mountains.  Mr.  Arundell  says — ‘ Few  of  the 
Ionian  cities  have  furnished  more  relics  of  anti- 
quity than  Smyrna;  but  the  convenience  of 
transporting  them,  with  the  number  of  investiga- 
tors, have  exhausted  the  mine;  it  is  therefore 
not  at  all  wonderful  that  of  the  stoas  and  temples 
the  very  ruins  have  vanished  j and  it  is  now  ex 


778 


SNAIL. 


SODOM. 


trtmely  difficult  to  determine  the  sites  of  any  of 
the  ancient  buildings  with  the  exception  of  the 
stadium,  the  theatre,  and  the  temple  of  Jupiter 
Acrseus,  which  was  within  the  Acropolis*  (Dw- 
eaveries  in  Asia  Minor , ii.  407).  Of  the  stadium 
here  mentioned  the  ground  plot  only  remains,  it 
being  stripped  of  its  seats  and  marble  decorations. 
It  is  supposed  to  be  the  place  where  Polycarp, 
the  disciple  of  St.  John,  anil  probably  ‘ the  angel 
of  the  church  of  Smyrna  ’ (John  ii.  8),  to  whom 
the  Apocalyptic  message  was  addressed,  suffered 
martyrdom.  The  Christians  of  Smyrna  hold  the 
memory  of  this  venerable  person  in  high  honour, 
and  go  annually  in  procession  to  his  supposed 
tomb,  which  is  at  a short  distance  from  the  place 
of  martyrdom  (Rosenmuller,  Altertkum.sk.  i.  2. 
224,  sq. ; Turner,  Travels,  iii.  138-141;  285- 
29 1 ; Arundell,  u.  s. ; Richter,  p.  495 ; Schu- 
bert, i.  272-283  ; Narrat.  of  Scottish  Mission , 
pp.  328-336;  Eotlien,  cli.  v.). 

SNAIL  (^-I^Dt^).  Snails  and  slugs  are  not 
very  common  in  countries  so  dry  in  summer  as 
Palestine.  Hence,  perhaps,  the  fact,  that  there  is 
only  one  allusion  to  them  in  Scripture.  This  oc- 
curs in  Psalm  lviii.  8,  where  the  figure  seems  to 
be  more  significant,  if  understood  of  snails  without 
shells,  i.  c.  slugs,  rather  than  shell -snails,  though 
true  of  both.  ‘ Let  them  melt  away  ...  as  the 
snail  which  melteth  as  it  goeth.’  The  name  itself, 
shabhil,  from  a verb  signifying  ‘ to  smear’  or  ‘soil,’ 
has  reference  to  the  slime  and  moisture  of  this 
animal  (like  Ae(ua|,  from  A et/3co).  The  Sept,  does 
not  regard  the  word  as  denoting  a snail  at  all,  but 
in  the  text  cited  translates  it  by  Kypos,  ‘ bees’  wax.’ 

SO  (KID  ; Sept.  2-qy up),  a king  of  Egypt, 
whom  Hoshea,  the  last  king  of  Israel,  called  to 
his  help  against  the  Assyrians  under  Shalmaneser 
(2  Kings  xvii.  4).  It  has  been  questioned  whe- 
ther this  So  was  the  same  with  Sahaco,  the  first 
king  of  the  Ethiopian  dynasty  in  Upper  Egypt, 
or  his  son  and  successor  Sevechus,  the  second  king 
of  the  same  dynasty,  and  the  immediate  prede- 
cessor of  Tirhakah.  Winer  hesitates  between  them, 
and  Gesenius  concludes  for  the  latter.  Sevechus 
reigned  twelve  years,  according  to  Manetho,  four- 
teen according  to  Syncellus.  This  name,  in 
Egyptian  Sevech,  is  also  that  of  the  god  Saturn 
(Champollion,  Panth.  Egypt.  No.  21,  22 ; Winer, 
Real-Worterb.  s.  v. ; Gesenius,  Comment,  in  Jes. 
i.  696). 

SOAP.  [Bouith  ; Neter.] 

SODOM  (DTp  ; Sept.  ~2,6bo/xa),  a city  in  the 
vale  of  Siddim,  where  Lot  settled  after  his  sepa- 
ration from  Abraham  (Gen.  xiii.  12;  xiv.  12; 
xix.  1).  It  had  its  own  chief  or  ‘king,’  as  had 


but  the  last  has  awakened  much  discussion,  and 
may  therefore  require  a larger  measure  of  atten- 
tion. The  circumstances  are  these.  In  the  first 
place,  we  learn  that  the  vale  of  Siddim,  in 
which  Sodom  lay,  was  very  fertile,  and  every- 
where well  watered — ‘like  the  garden  of  the 
Lord  ;’  and  these  circumstances  induced  Lot  to 
fix  his  abode  there,  notwithstanding  the  wicked- 
ness of  the  inhabitants  (Gen.  xiii.  10,  11).  Next 
it  appears  that  this  vale  was  full  of  * slime-pits.’ 
This  means  sources  of  bitumen,  for  the  word 
is  the  same  as  that  which  is  applied  to  the 
cement  used  by  the  builders  of  Babylon,  and 
we  know  that,  to  have  been  bitumen  or  asphaltum 
(Gen.  xiv.  10;  comp.  xi.  3).  These  pits  appear 
to  have  been  of  considerable  extent;  and,  indeed, 
it  was  from  them  doubtless  that  the  whole  valley 
derived  its  name  of  Siddim  (D^Tp*).  At  length, 
when  the  day  of  destruction  arrived,  ‘ the  Lord 
rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon  Gomorrah  fire 
and  brimstone  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven  ; 
and  he  overthrew  those  cities,  and  all  the  plain, 
and  all  the  inhabitants  of  those  cities,  and  that 
which  grew  upon  the  ground’  (Gen.  xix.  24,  25). 
In  the  escape  from  this  overthrow,  the  wife  ol 
Lot  * looked  back,  and  became  a pillar  of  salt  ’ 
(ver.  26).  When  Abraham,  early  that  sama 
morning,  from  the  neighbourhood  of  his  distanl 
camp,  ‘ looked  towards  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
and  towards  all  the  land  of  the  plain,  and  beheld, 
and,  lo,  the  smoke  of  the  country  went  up  as  the 
smoke  of  a furnace’  (ver.  27).  These  are  the 
simple  facts  of  the  case.  It  has  usually  been 
assumed  that  the  vale  of  Siddim  occupied  the 
basin  of  what  is  now  the  Dead  Sea,  which  did 
not  previously  exist,  but  was  one  of  the  results  d 
this  catastrophe.  It  has  now,  however,  beet 
established  by  Dr.  Robinson,  that  a lake  to  re 
ceive  the  Jordan  and  other  waters  must  have  oc 
cupied  this  basin  long  before  the  catastrophe  o* 
Sodom:  as  all  the  geological  characteristics  o? 
the  region  go  to  show  that  its  present  configuration 
is  in  its  main  features  coeval  with  the  present 
condition  of  the  surface  of  the  earth  in  general, 
and  is  not  the  effect  of  any  local  catastrophe  at  a 
subsequent  period  [Sea,  Dead],  But  although 
a lake  must  then  have  existed,  to  receive  the 
Jordan  and  other  waters  of  the  north,  which  could 
not  have  passed  more  southward,  as  was  at  one 
time  supposed,  and  which  must  even,  as  is  now 
proved,  have  received  the  waters  of  the  south 
also,  we  are  at  liberty  to  assume,  and  it  is  neces- 
sary to  do  so,  that  the  Dead  Sea  anciently  covered 
a much  less  extent  of  surface  than  at  present. 
The  cities  which  were  destroyed  must  have  been 
situated  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake,  as  it  then 


the  other  four  cities  of  the  plain  (Gen.  xiv.  2,  8,  ^existed ; for  Lot  lied  to  Zoar,  which  was  near 

1 AN  1 1 ! 4.1 . iU  ^ rw „ 1 a - A / L1  — I //''l O A \ 1 7 1^..  ~ 1 ^ i 4.1 — 


10),  and  was  along  with  them,  Zoar  only  excepted 
destroyed  by  fire  from  heaven,  on  account  of  the 
gross  wickedness  of  the  inhabitants ; the  memory 
of  which  event  has  been  perpetuated  in  a name 
of  infamy  to  all  generations  (Gen.  xix.).  The 
destruction  of  Sodom  claims  attention  from  the 
solemnity  with  wdiich  it  is  introduced  (Gen.  xviii. 
20-22);  from  the  .circumstances  which  pre- 
ceded and  followed- — the  intercession  of  Abra- 
ham, the  preservation  of  Lot,  and  the  judgment 
which  overtook  his  lingering  wife  (Gen.  xviii. 
25-33  ; xix.);  and  from  the  nature  of  the  physical 
agencies  through  which  the  overthrow  was  effected. 
6Iosl  of  these  particulars  are  easily  understood ; 


Sodom  (Gen.  xix.  20),  and  Zoar  lay  almost  at  the 
southern  end  of  ihe  present  sea  [Zoar].  ‘ Even  at 
the  present  day,’  says  Robinson,  ‘ more  living 
streams  How  into  the  Ghor,  at.  the  south  end  ol 
the  sea,  from  wadys  of  the  eastern  mountains, 
than  are  to  be  found  so  near  together  in  all 
Palestine ; and  the  tract,  although  now  mostly 
desert,  is  still  better  watered  through  these  streams, 
and  by  the  many  fountains,  than  any  other 
district  throughout  the  whole  country  ’ ( Bibl 
Researches,  ii.  603).  The  slime-pits,  or  wells  ol 
asphaltum,  are  no  longer  to  be  seen ; but  it  seem* 
that  masses  of  floating  asphaltum  occur  only  ie 
the  southern  part  of  the  lake;  and  as  they  are 


SODOM. 


SOLOMON. 


but  rare.y,  and  immediately  after  earthquakes,  the 
asphaltum  appears  to  he  gradually  consolidated 
in  the  lake,  and  not  being  able  to  flow  off,  forms 
by  consequence  a layer  at  the  bottom,  portions  ot 
which  may  be  detached  by  earthquakes  and  other 
convulsions  of  nature,  and  then  appear  on  the 
surface  of  the  water  or  upon  the  shore.  The 
eminent  geologist,  Leopold  von  Buch,  in  his  letter 
to  Dr.  Robinson  (Bibl.  Researches,  ii.  606-608), 
thinks  it  quite  probable  that  this  accumulation 
may  have  taken  place  in  remote  times,  as  well  as 
at  the  present  day.  Thus  another  circumstance 
of  importance  is  produced  in  coincidence  with 
the  sacred  accounts ; and  again,  with  reference 
to  the  southern  portion  of  the  present  lake, 
suggesting  the  probability  that  the  remarkable 
bay,  or  ‘ back  water,’  at  its  southern  extremity, 
is  the  portion  of  it  which  did  not  in  ancient 
times  exist,  that  it  in  fact  covers  the  more 
fertile  vale  of  Siddim,  and  the  site  of  Sodom  and 
the  other  cities  which  the  Lord  destroyed  ; and 
that,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Robinson — ‘ by  some 
convulsion  or  catastrophe  of  nature,  connected 
with  the  miraculous  destruction  of  the  cities, 
either  the  surface  of  this  plain  was  scooped  out, 
or  the  bottom  of  the  sea  was  heaved  up,  so  as  to 
cause  the  waters  to  overflow,  and  cover  perma- 
nently a larger  tract  than  formerly.  The  coun- 
try is,  as  we  know,  subject  to  earthquakes,  and 
exhibits  also  frequent  traces  of  volcanic  action. 
It  would  have  been  no  uncommon  effect  of  either 
of  these  causes,  to  heave  up  the  bottom  of  the  an- 
cient lake,  and  thus  produce  the  phenomenon  in 
question.  But  the  historical  account  of  the 
destruction  of  the  cities  implies  also  the  agency 
of  fire.  Perhaps  both  causes  were  therefore  at 
work ; for  volcanic  action  and  earthquakes  go 
hand  in  hand;  and  the  accompanying  electric 
discharges  usually  cause  lightnings  to  play  and 
thunders  to  roll.  In  this  way  we  have  all  the 
phenomena  which  the  most  literal  interpretation 
of  the  sacred  records  can  demand.’  The  same 
writer,  with  the  geological  sanction  of  Leopold 
von  Buch,  repeats  the  conjecture  of  Le  Clerc  and 
others,  that  the  bitumen  had  become  accumulated 
around  the  sources,  and  had  perhaps  formed 
strata,  spreading  for  some  distance  upon  the  plain  ; 
that  possibly  these  strata  in  some  parts  extended 
under  the  soil,  and  might  thus  approach  the 
vicinity  of  the  cities: — ‘If,  indeed,  we  might 
suppose  all  this,  then  the  kindling  of  such  a heap 
of  combustible  materials,  through  volcanic  action 
or  lightning  from  heaven,  would  cause  a confla- 
gration sufficient  not  only  to  engulf  the  cities, 
but  also  to  destroy  the  surface  of  the  plain,  so  that 
‘ the  smoke  of  the  country  would  go  up  as  the 
smoke  of  a furnace,  and  the  sea  rushing  in, 
wou  d convert  it  to  a tract  of  waters.’  The  sup- 
posiion  of  such  an  accumulation  of  bitumen, 
with  our  present  knowledge,  appears  less  extra- 
ordinary than  it  might  in  former  times  have 
seemed,  and  requires  nothing  more  than  nature 
presents  to  our  view  in  the  wonderful  lake,  or 
rather  tract,  of  bitumen,  in  the  island  of  Trinidad. 
The  subsequent  barrenness  of  the  remaining  por- 
tion of  the  plain  is  readily  accounted  for  by  the 
presence  of  the  masses  of  fossil  salt  which  now 
abound  in  its  neighbourhood,  and  which  were 
perhaps  then,  for  the  first  time,  brought  to  light. 
These  being  carried  by  the  waters  to  the  bottom 
of  the  valley,  would  suffice  to  take  away  its  pro- 


179 

ductive  power.  In  connection  with  this  fact,  the 
circumstance  that  the  wife  of  Lot  ‘ became  a 
pillar  of  salt,'  is  significant  and  suggestive,  what- 
ever  interpretation  we  may  assign  to  the  fact 
recorded. 

SOHERETH  (ITTPID  ; Tlt.pivos  \l6os),  a kind 
of  costly  stone,  used  for  tesselated  pavements 
(Esth.  i.  6).  It  seems  to  have  been  either  a species 
of  black  marble,  as  a similar  word  in  Syriac 
would  suggest ; or  else  marble  marked  with  round 
spots  like  shields,  i.  e.  spotted  or  shielded  marble. 
This  interpretation  finds  the  meaning  in  the  He- 
brew word  mUD  soherah,  which  is  the  name  for 
a shield.  It  is  however  easier  to  discover  the  mean- 
ing of  the  name  than  the  application  of  it.  We  do 
not  feel  satisfied  with  that  which  has  been  given  ; 
and  still  less  with  that  of  Hartmann  ( Hebrderin , 
iii.  363),  who  supposes  the  sohereth  to  have  been 
tortoise-shell,  consisting  as  it  were  of  shields  ; for 
tortoise-shell  would  hardly  be  interspersed  in  a 
pavement  with  various  kinds  of  marble. 

? SOLOMON  (HbV,  pacific;  Sept.  'Zdhup&v). 
The  reign  of  Solomon  over  all  Israel,  although 
second  in  importance  only  to  that  of  David,  has 
so  little  variety  of  incident  as  to  occupy  a far 
less  space  in  the  Bible  narrative.  Moreover,  some 
of  the  problems  which  that  narrative  suggests  do 
not  admit  of  a solution  sufficiently  certain  to 
allow  of  our  entering  on  the  discussion. 

In  the  declining  age  of  David,  his  eldest  sur- 
viving son,  Adonijah,  endeavoured  to  place  him- 
self on  the  throne,  by  the  aid  of  Joab  the  chief 
captain,  and  Abiathar  one  of  the  chief  priests, 
both  of  whom  had  been  associated  with  David’s 
early  sufferings  under  the  persecution  of  Saul. 
The  aged  monarch  did  not  for  a moment  give 
way  to  the  formidable  usurpation,  but  at  the  re- 
monstrance of  his  favourite,  Bathsheba,  resolved 
forthwith  to  raise  Solomon  to  the  throne.  To 
Joab  he  was  able  to  oppose  the  celebrated  name 
of  Benaiah ; to  Abiathar  his  colleague  Zadok 
and  the  aged  prophet  Nathan.  The  plot  of  Ado- 
nijah  was  at  once  defeated  by  this  decisive  mea- 
sure ; and  Solomon,  being  anointed  by  Nathan, 
was  solemnly  acknowledged  as  king.  The  date 
of  this  event  is,  as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained, 
b.c.  1015. 

The  death  of  David  would  seem  to  have  fol- 
lowed very  quick  upon  these  transactions.  At 
least,  no  public  measures  in  the  interval  are  re- 
corded, except  Solomon’s  verbal  forgiveness  of 
Adonijah.  But  after  the  removal  of  David,  the 
first  events  of  which  we  hear  are  the  destruction 
of  Adonijah,  Joab,  and  Shimei  son  of  Gera, 
with  the  degradation  of  Abiathar.  Those  who 
look  for  Christian  perfection  in  the  conduct  of 
Solomon  do  some  violence  to  the  facts  in  order  to 
explain  these  transactions ; which  are  in  them- 
selves clear  enough.  Despotic  monarchs  are 
seldom  found  to  forgive  unsuccessful  competitors 
for  the  crown,  or  their  assistants ; and  their  first 
deed  is  not  rarely  to  put  to  death  even  their  inno- 
cent brothers  (2  Chron.  xxi.  4).  The  promise  of 
Solomon  to  Adonijah,  almost  as  much  as  his 
command  to  Shimei  (1  Kings  ii.  37),  was  but  a 
deferring  of  vengeance  to  a more  convenient 
time ; and  the  same  absolute  power,  which  could 
interpret  into  treason  the  humble  suit  for  the  hand 
of  a beautiful  but  obscure  damsel,  would  h&rs> 


780 


SOLOMON. 


SOLOMON. 


been  sure  sooner  or  later  to  find  a plausible  ex- 
cuse for  effecting  the  object  determined  on.  In 
fact,  Abiathar  is  declared  ‘ worthy  of  death,’ 
clearly  not  for  any  new  offences,  but  for  his  par- 
ticipation in  Adonijah’s  original  attempt ; and 
Joab  is  put  to  death  solely  because  he  is  alarmed 
at  the  treatment  of  his  associates  (ver.  26-29).  For 
the  wicked  Joab  no  pity  need  be  felt  ; yet  the 
complexion  of  the  whole  affair  proves  that  his 
murder  of  two  chief  captains  was  rather  a con- 
venient excuse  than  the  true  ground  of  his  death. 
As  for  Shimei,  the  tyrannical  restriction  on  his 
innocent  liberty,  by  which  a pretence  for  his 
death  was  found,  is  far  less  respectable  than 
simple  violence;  and  almost  makes  David’s  pub- 
lic forgiveness  of  him  (2  Sam.  xvi.  9-12)  and 
solemn  oath  (xix.  21-23),  appear  like  an  ostenta- 
tious catching  at  popularity,  which  concealed 
implacable  resentment.  It  is  remarkable  that 
these  three  executions  are  all  perpetrated  by  the 
hand  of  Benaiah  himself,  who  was  head  of  Da- 
vid’s body-guard,  and  after  Joab's  death  chief 
captain  of  the  army. 

After  this,  the  history  enters  upon  a general 
narrative  of  the  reign  of  Solomon ; but  we  have 
very  few  notices  of  time,  and  cannot  attempt  to 
fix  the  order  of  any  of  the  events.  All  the  in- 
formation, however,  which  we  have  concerning 
him,  may  be  consolidated  under  the  following 
heads:  (1)  his  traffic  and  wealth;  (2)  his 

buildings  ; (3)  his  ecclesiastical  arrangements  ; 
(4)  his  general  administration ; (5)  his  seraglio ; 
(6)  his  enemies. 

(1.)  The  overflowing  wealth  in  which  he  is  so 
vividly  depicted  is  not  easy  to  reduce  to  a mo- 
dern financial  estimate  ; partly  because  the  num- 
bers are  so  often  treacherous,  and  partly  because  it 
is  uncertain  what  items  of  expenditure  fell  on  tli-e 
general  funds  of  the  government.  In  illustration 
of  the  former  topic,  it  is  enough  to  observe,  that 
the  money  prepared  for  the  temple  by  David,  is 
computed  in  1 Chron.  xxix.  4 at  3000  talents  of 
pure  gold  and  7000  of  silver,  while  in  xxii.  14 
it  is  called  100,000  of  gold  and  1,000,000  of 
silver  : also  the  sum  for  which  David  buys  the 
floor  of  Araunah  is,  in  2 Sam.  xxiv.  24,  50  she- 
kels of  silver;  but  this  in  1 Chron.  xxi.  25,  is 
become  600  shekels  of  gold.  Efforts  are  made 
to  resolve  the  former  difficulty  ; but  they  are  su- 
perseded by  the  latter,  and  by  numerous  other 
manifestly  exaggerated  figures.  But  abandoning 
all  attempt  at  numerical  estimates,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  the  wealth  of  Solomon  was  very 
great ; and  it  remains  for  us  to  consider  from 
what  sources  it  was  supplied. 

The  profound  peace  which  the  nation  enjoyed 
as  a fruit  of  David's  victories,  stimulated  the  in- 
lustry  of  all  Israel.  The  tribes  beyond  the  Jordan 
had  become  rich  by  the  plunder  of  the  Hagar- 
enes,  and  had  a wide  district  where  their  cattle 
might  multiply  to  an  indefinite  extent.  The 
agricultural  tribes  enjoyed  a soil  and  climate  in 
some  parts  eminently  fruitful,  and  in  all  richly 
rewarding  the  toil  of  irrigation ; so  that,  in  the 
security  of  peace,  nothing  more  was  wanted  to 
develope  the  resources  of  the  nation  than  markets 
for  its  various  produce.  In  food  for  men  and 
cattle,  in  timber  and  fruit  trees,  in  stone,  and 
probably  in  the  useful  metals,  the  land  supplied 
of  itself  all  the  first  wants  of  i s people  in  abun- 
dance. For  exportation,  it  is  distinctly  stated, 


that  wheat,  ba  ley,  oil,  and  wine,  were  in  chief  n 
demand ; to  which  we  may  conjecturally  add^,  i 
wool,  hides,  and  other  raw  materials.  The  king  t 
undoubtedly  had  large  districts  and  extensive 
herds  of  his  own  ; but  besides  this,  he  received 
presents  in  kind  from  his  own  people  and  from  ! 
the  subject  nations ; and  it  was  possible  in  this 
way  to  make  demands  upon  them,  without  severe 
oppression,  to  an  extent  that  is  unbearable  where 
taxes  must  be  paid  in  gold  or  silver.  He  was 
himself  at  once  monarch  and  merchant ; and  we 
may  with  much  confidence  infer,  that  no  private 
merchant  will  he  allowed  to  compete  with  a prince  J 
who  has  assumed  the  mercantile  character.  By  jj 
his  intimate  commercial  union  with  the  Tyrians,  1 
he  was  put  into  the  most  favourable  of  all  posi-  I 
tions  for  disposing  of  his  goods.  That  energetic 
nation,  possessing  so  small  a strip  of  territory, 
had  much  need  of  various  raw  produce  for  their 
own  wants.  Another  large  demand  was  made 
by  them  for  the  raw  materials  of  manufactures, 
and  for  articles  which  they  could  with  advantage 
sell  again  : and  as  they  were  able  to  furnish  so 
many  acceptable  luxuries  to  the  court  of  Solo- 
mon, a most  active  exchange  soon  commenced. 
Only  second  in  importance  to  this,  and  superior 
in  fame,  was  the  commerce  of  the  Red  Sea, 
which  could  not  have  been  successfully  prose- 
cuted without  the  aid.  of  Tyrian  enterprise  and 
experience.  The  navigation  to, Sheba,  and  the 
districts  beyond — whether  of  Eastern  Arabia  or 
of  Africa — in  spite  of  its  tediousness,  was  highly 
lucrative,  from  the  vast  diversity  of  productions  j 
between  the  countries  so  exchanging ; while,  as 
it  was  a trade  of  monopoly,  a very  disproportion-  J 
ate  share  of  the  whole  gain  fell  to  the  carriers  of 
the  merchandise.  The  Egyptians  were  the  only  J 
nation  who  might  have  been  rivals  in  the  south-  d 
ern  maritime  traffic;  but  their  religion  and  their  J 
exclusive  principles  did  not  favour  sea- voyages  ; | 
and  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  at  this  ;1 
early  period  they  abstained  from  sending  their  J 
own  people  abroad  for  commerce.  The  goods  fl 
brought  back  from  the  south  were  chiefly  gold,  | 
precious  stones,  spice,  almug  or  other  scented  I 
woods,  and  ivory;  all  of  which  were  probably  1 
so  abundant  in  their  native  regions  as  to  be  a 
parted  with  on  easy  terms ; and  of  course  were  1 
all  admirably  suited  for  re-exportation  to  Europe.  ■;m 
The  carrying  trade,  which  was  thus  shared  be-  9 
tween  Solomon  and  the  Tyrians,  was  probably  M 
the  most  lucrative  part  of  the  southern  and  east-  .9 
ern  commerce.  How  large  a portion  of  it  went  M 
on  by  caravans  of  camels,  is  wholly  unknown}* 
yet  that  this  branch  was  considerable,  is  certain.  M 
From  Egypt  Solomon  imported  not  only  linen  j* 
yarn,  but  even  horses  and  chariots,  which  were  | 
sold  again  to  the  princes  of  Syria  and  of  the  I. 
Hittites  ; and  were  probably  prized  for  the  supe- 
rior breed  of  the  horses,  and  for  the  light,  strong,  * 
and  elegant  structure  of  the  chariots.  Wine  + 
being  abundant  in  Palestine,  and  wholly  wanting  | 
in  Egypt,  was  no  doubt  a principal  means’ of  re-  .1 
payment.  Moreover,  Solomon’s  fortifying  of  j 
Tadmor  (or  Palmyra),  and  retention  of  Thapsa- 
cus  on  the  Euphrates,  show  that  he  had  an  im-  .• 
portant  interest  in  the  direct  land  and  river  trade 
to  Babylon  ; although  we  have  no  details  on  this 
subject.  The  difficulty  which  meets  us  is,  to 
imagine  by  what  exports,  light  enough  to  beai 
land  carriage,  he  was  able  to  pay  for  his  imports-. 


SOLOMON. 


80L01Vf0N. 


78i 


We  may  conjecture  that  he  sent  out  Tyrian 
cloths  and  trinkets,  or  Egyptian  linen  of  the 
finest  fabric  ; yet  in  many  of  these  things  the 
Babylonians  also  excelled.  On  the  whole,  when 
we  consider  that  in  the  case  of  Solomon  the  com- 
mercial wealth  of  the  entire  community  was  con- 
centrated in  the  hands  of  the  government ; that 
much  of  the  trade  was  a monopoly ; and  that 
all  was  assisted  or  directed  by  the  experience  and 
energy  of  the  Tyrians ; ‘e  overwhelming  riches 
of  this  eminent  merchant-sovereign  are  perhaps 
not  surprising. 

The  visit  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba  to  Solomon, 
although  not  strictly  commercial,  rose  out  of 
commercial  intercourse,  and  may  perhaps  be 
here  noticed.  The  territory  of  Sheba,  according 
to  Strabo,  reached  so  far  north  as  to  meet  that  of 
the  Nabathaeans,  although  its  proper  seat  was  at 
the  southernmost  angle  of  Arabia.  The  very 
rich  presents  made  by  the  queen  show  the  extreme 
value  of  her  commerce  with  the  Hebrew  mo- 
narch ; and  this  early  interchange  of  hospitality 
derives  a peculiar  interest  from  the  fact,  that  in 
much  later  age3 — those  of  the  Maccabees  and 
downwards — the  intercourse  of  the  Jews  with 
Sheba  became  so  intimate,  and  their  influence, 
and  even  power,  so  great.  Jewish  circumcision 
took  root  there,  and  princes  held  sway  who  were 
called  Jewish.  The  language  of  Sheba  is  be- 
lieved to  have  been  strongly  different  from  the 
literate  Arabic;  yet,  like  the  Ethiopic,  it  be- 
longed to  the  great  Syro-Arabian  family,  and 
was  n$t  alien  to  the  Hebrew  in  the  same  sense 
that  the  Egyptian  was;  and  the  great  ease  with 
which  the  pure  monotheism  of  the  Maccabees 
propagated  itself  in  Sheba,  gives  plausibility  to 
the  opinion,  that  even  at  the  time  of  Solomon 
the  people  of  Sheba  had  much  religious  supe- 
riority over  the  Arabs  and  Syrians  in  general. 
If  so,  it  becomes  clear,  how  the  curiosity  of  the 
southern  queen  would  be  worked  upon,  by  seeing 
the  riches  of  the  distant  monarch,  whose  purer 
creed  must  have  been  carried  every  where  with 
them  by  his  sailors  and  servants. 

(2.)  Besides  the  great  work  which  has  ren- 
dered the  name  of  Solomon  so  famous — the  Tem- 
ple at  Jerusalem — we  are  informed  of  the  palaces 
which  he  built,  viz.,  his  own  palace,  the  queen’s 
palace,  and  the  house  of  the  forest,  of  Lebanon, 
his  porch  (or  piazza)  for  no  specified  object,  and 
his  porch  of  judgment,  or  law  court.  He  also 
added  to  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  fortified 
Millo  (‘in  the  city  of  David,’  2 Chron.  xxxii.  5), 
and  many  other  strong-holds.  The  temple  seems 
to  have  been  of  very  small  dimensions  — 60  cu- 
bits long,  20  broad,  and  30  high  (1  Kings  vi.  3) 
— or  smaller  than  many  moderate-sized  parish 
churches  in  England ; but  it  was  wonderful  for 
the  lavish  use  of  precious  materials.  Whether 
the  three  palaces  were  parts  of  the  same  great 
pile,  remains  uncertain.  The  house  of  the  forest 
of  Lebanon,  it  has  been  ingeniously  conjectured, 
was  so  called  from  the  multitude  of  cedar  pil- 
I lars,  similar  to  a forest.  That  Solomon’s  own 
I house  was  of  far  greater  extent  than  the  temple, 
appears  from  its  having  occupied  thirteen  years 
in  building,  while  the  temple  was  finished  in 
seven.  In  all  these  works  he  had  the  aid  of  the 
Tyrians,  whose  skill  in  hewing  timber  and  in 
curving  stone,  and  in  the  application  of  machines 
'or  conveying  heavy  masses,  was  of  the  first  im- 


portance. The  cedar  was  cut  from  Mount  Leba 
non,  and,  as  would  appear,  from  a district  which 
belonged  to  the  Tyrians ; either  because  in  the 
Hebrew  parts  of  the  mountain  the  timber  was 
not  so  fine,  or  from  want  of  roads  by  which  it 
might  be  conveyed.  The  hewing  was  superin- 
tended by  Tyrian  carpenters,  but  all  the  hard 
labour  was  performed  by  Hebrew  bondsmen. 
This  circumstance  discloses  to  us  an  important 
fact — the  existence  of  so  large  a body  of  public 
slaves  in  the  heart  of  the  Israel itish  monarchy, 
who  are  reckoned  at  153,600  in  2 Chron.  ii.  17; 
see  also  1 Kings  ix.  20-23.  During  the  prepara- 
tion for  the  temple,  it  is  stated  (ver.  13-18)  that 

70.000  men  were  employed  to  bear  burdens, 

80.000  hewers  of  wood  in  the  mountains  ; be- 
sides 3300  overseers.  The  meaning  of  this,  how- 
ever, is  rather  obscure;  since  it  also  states  that 
there  was  a ‘ levy’  of  30,000,  of  whom  10,000  at 
a time  went  to  Lebanon-  Perhaps  the  150,000 
was  the  whole  number  liable  to  serve,  of  whom 
only  one-fifth  was  actually  called  out.  From 
the  large  number  said  to  ‘ bear  burdens,’  we  may 
infer  that  the  mode  of  working  was  very  lavish 
of  human  exertion,  and  little  aided  by  the 
strength  of  beasts.  It  is  inferred  that,  at  least 
the  Hittites  had  recognized  princes  of  their  own, 
since  they  are  named  as  purchasers  of  Egyptian 
chariots  from  Solomon  ; yet  the  mass  of  these 
nations  were  clearly  pressed  down  by  a cruel 
bondage,  which  must  have  reacted  on  the  op- 
pressors at  every  time  of  weakness.  The  word 
DD,  which  is  translated  ‘ levy’  and  ‘ tribute,’ 
means  especially  the  personal  service  performed 
by  public  slaves,  and  is  rendered  ■'  task,’  in 
Exod.  i.  11,  when  speaking  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt. 

(3.)  Until  the  temple  was  finished,  the  taber- 
nacle appears  to  have  continued  at  Gibeon,  al- 
though the  ark  had  been  brought  by  David  to 
Zion  (2  Chron.  i.  3,  4).  [This  distinction  was 
overlooked  in  a passage  concerning  David,  i. 
529  a.  of  this  work.]  David,  it  appears  had 
pitched  a tent  on  purpose  to  receive  the  ark,  where 
Asaph  and  his  brethren  the  Levites  ministered 
before  it  with  singing,  while  Zadok  and  his 
brethren  the  priests  ministered  before  the  taber- 
nacle at  Gibeon  with  sacrifices  (1  Chron.  xv. 
16-24;  xvi.  37-40).  This  shows  that  even  in 
David’s  mind  the  idea  of  a single  centre  of 
religious  unity  was  not  fully  formed;  as  the  co- 
ordinate authority  of  Abiathar  and  Zadok  indi- 
cates that,  no  single  high  priest  was  recognized. 
But  from  the  time  of  the  dedication  of  the  tem- 
ple, not  only  the  ark,  but  all  the  holy  vessels 
from  the  tabernacle  were  brought  into  it  (1  Kings 
viii.  4),  and  the  high  priest  naturally  confined 
his  ministrations  to  the  temple,  Zadok  having 
been  left  without  an  equal  by  the  disgrace  of 
Abiathar.  Nevertheless,  the  whole  of  the  later 
history  of  the  Jewish  monarchy,  even  under  the 
most,  pious  kings,  proves  that  the  mass  of  the 
nation  never  became  reconciled  to  the  new  idea, 
that  ‘ in  Jerusalem  (alone)  was  the  place  where 
they  ought  to  worship.’  The  ‘ high  places,’  at 
which  Jehovah  was  worshipped  with  sacrifice, 
are  perpetually  alluded  to  in  terms  which  show 
that,  until  the  reign  of  Josiah,  it  was  impossible 
for  kings,  priests,  or  prophets,  to  bring  about  a 
uniformity  and  central  superintendence  of  tfef 
nati  )nal  religion. 


782 


SOLOMON. 


SOLOMON. 


After  the  death  of  Nathan  and  Zadok,  those 
faithful  iriends  of  David,  although  Solomon 
continued  to  celebrate  with  the  same  splendour 
all  the  exterior  ceremonies  of  worship,  it  is  hard 
to  believe  that  much  of  that  spirit  of  God  which 
was  in  his  father  animated  Lis  ecclesiastical  pro- 
ceedings. Side  by  side  with  the  worship  of  Je- 
hovah foreign  idolatries  were  established ; and 
the  disgust  which  this  inspired  in  the  prophets  of 
Jehovah  is  clearly  seen  in  the  address  of  Ahijah 
the  Shilonite  to  Jeroboam,  so  manifestly  exciting 
him  to  rebel  against  the  son  of  David  (1  Kings 
xi.  29-39).  The  priests  were  too  much  under 
the  direct  domination  of  the  crown  to  act  an  in- 
dependent part ; the  prophets  had  little  sympathy 
with  the  routine  of  pompous  solemnities.  Solo- 
mon himself,  with  all  his  erudition  and  insight 
into  man’s  nature,  had  little,  as  far  as  we  are 
aware,  of  that  devotional  character  and  susceptible 
feeling  which  distinguished  David ; and  how- 
ever well  meant  his  ostentatious  patronage  of 
divine  worship,  it  probably  could  have  produced 
no  spiritual  fruit,  even  if  he  had  not  finally 
neutralized  it  by  his  impartial  support  of  hea- 
then superstitions. 

(4.)  Concerning  his  general  administration 
little  is  recorded  beyond  the  names  of  various 
high  officers.  Among  his  chief  ministers  (1 
Kings  iv.  1-6)  are  named  a son  of  Zadok,  and 
two  sons  of  Nathan.  There  is  a difficulty  in 
the  list,  since  it  names  Abiathar  and  Zadok  as 
joint  priests,  at  a time  when  Benaiah  is  already 
‘ over  the  host although  the  latter  event  could 
not  have  been  until  after  the  death  of  Joab,  and 
therefore  after  the  ejection  of  Abiathar.  The 
two  sons  of  Nathan  seem  to  be  named  as  pecu- 
liarly eminent;  for  one  of  them,  Azariah,  is  said 
to  have  been  ‘ over  the  officers  the  other,  Zabud, 
is  called  ‘ principal  officer  and  the  king’s  friend.’ 
It  is  not  likely  that  any  other  considerable 
changes  were  made  in  his  government,  as  com- 
pared witli  David’s,  than  such  as  peace  and 
commerce,  in  place  of  war,  necessitate.  Yet  it 
is  probable  that  Solomon’s  peculiar  talents  and 
taste  led  him  to  perform  one  function  which  is 
always  looked  for  in  Oriental  royalty,  viz.,  to 
act  personally  as  Judge  in  cases  of  oppression. 
His  award  between  the  two  contending  mothers 
cannot  be  regarded  as  an  isolated  fact : and 
‘ the  porch  of  judgment’  which  he  built  for  him- 
self may  imply  that  he  devoted  fixed  portions  of 
time  to  the  judicial  duties  (see  2 Kings  xv.  5 of 
Jotham).  In  all  the  older  civilization  of  the 
world,  the  quality  most  valued  in  a judge  is  the 
ability  to  detect  truth  in  spite  of  the  perjury  of 
witnesses,  or  defect  of  (what  we  should  esteem) 
legal  evidence  ; a defect  which  must  be  of  daily- 
occurrence  where  the  art  of  writing  is  little  used 
for  common  contracts.  The  celebrity  which  So- 
lomon gained  for  wisdom,  although  founded 
mainly  perhaps  on  his  political  and  commercial 
sagacity,  must  have  received  great  popular  im- 
petus from  his  administration  of  law,  and  from 
liis  readiness  in  seeing  through  the  entanglements 
of  affairs  which  arise  in  commercial  transactions. 

(5.)  For  the  harem  of  Solomon — consisting  of 
700  wives  and  300  concubines — no  other  apology 
can  be  made,  than  the  fact,  that  in  countries 
where  polygamy  is  not  disreputable,  an  unlimited 
indulge  \ce  as  to  the  number  of  wives  is  looked 
•'pon  hm  the  chief  luxury  of  wealth,  and  the  most 


appropriate  appendage  to  royalty.  Permission  V 
once  being  given  and  the  taste  established,  no* 
thing  but  poverty  can  set  a limit ; since  &n  esta-  I 
blishment  of  a hundred  or  a thousand  wives  is  1 
perhaps  more  harmonious  than  one  of  two  or  1 
three.  The  only  remarkable  facts  are,  his  max-  I 
riage  with  an  Egyptian  princess,  and  his  esta  I 
blishment  of  his  wives’  idolatry. 

The  commercial  union  of  Tyre  with  Egypt,  ii;  U 
spite  of  the  vast  diversity  of  genius  between  the'  j I 
two  nations,  was  in  those  days  very  close ; and  M 
it  appears  highly  probable  that  the  affinity  to  JB 
Pharaoh  was  sought  by  Solomon  as  a means  ofl 
aiding  his  commercial  projects.  Although  his 
possession  of  the  Edomite  ports  on  the  gulf  of 
Akaba  made  him  to  a certain  extent  independent 
of  Egypt,  the  friendship  of  that  power  must  have' 
been  of  extreme  importance  to  him  in  the  dan-, 
gerous  navigation  of  the  Red  Sea;  and  was  per-' 
haps  a chief  cause  of  his  brilliant  success  in  so 
new  an  enterprise.  That  Pharaoh  continued  for 
some  time  on  good  terms  with  him,  appears  from 
a singular  present  which  the  Egyptian  king  made 
him  (l  Kings  ix.  16):  ‘Pharaoh  had  gone  up 
and  taken  Gezer,  and  burnt,  it  with  fire,  and  slain 
the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  the  city,  and  given 
it  for  a present  unto  his  daughter,  Solomon’s 
wife;’  in  consequence  of  which,  Solomon  rebuilt 
and  fortified  the  town.  In  his  declining  years,  a 
very  different  spirit  is  manifested  towards  him  by 
Shishak,  the  new  Egyptian  king ; whether  after 
the  death  of  the  princess  who  had  been  the  link 
between  the  two  kingdoms,  or  from  a new  vig\v 
of  policy  in  the  new  king,  is  unknown. 

The  proceedings  of  Solomon  towards  the  reli-'B 
gion  of  his  wives  has  been  mildly  or  approv*® 
ingly  regarded  by  various  learned  men,  as  being® 
only  what  we  have  learned  to  name  TolerationiU 
But  such  a view  seems  to  imply  a want  of  die** 
crimination  between  those  times  and  our  own  gH 
and  besides,  would  require  us  to  suppose  the 
statements  in  the  history  to  be  exaggerated,  as 
though  they  were  highly  improbable.  The  re-TJ 
ligions  of  antiquity,  being  essentially  ceremonial, 
were  of  a most  obtrusive  kind.  It  is  one  thing 
to  allow  men  in  private  to  hold  their  conscientious  , 
sentiments,  or  indeed  by  argument  and  discussion® 
to  aim  at  propagating  them,  and  quite  another 
to  sanction  pubtrc  idolatries,  which  appeal  tQ 
and  allure  the  senses  of  the  ignorant,  and  scan- 
dalize  the  minds  of  the  better  taught;  to  say  no- 
thing of  the  impurities  and  cruelties  with  which  ■ J 
these  idolatries  were  almost  always  connected.)  I 
The  spirituality  and  individuality  of  religion  were  I 
not  as  yet  so  developed  as  to  allow  of  our  ascrib- 
ing Solomon's  conduct  to  right  and  noble  views 
of  toleration.  Besides,  he  was  under  no  neces-  j 
si ty  to  marry  these  foreign  wives  at  all.  Unless 
prompted  by  mere  voluptuousness  (as  in  the  case 
of  the  concubines),  he  must  have  taken  them  j 
from  political  motives;  although  distinctly know-^ 
ing  that  the  step  would  draw  after  it  li%  public  • 
establishment  of  heathen  sin  and  superstition,  •. 
This  is  widely  different  from  allowing  foreigners,  ; 
who  for  trade  resided  in  the  country,  to  practise 
their  own  religious  ceremonies  at  their  own 
prompting  and  expense;  and  yet  even  this,  if 
permitted  at  all,  would  have  been  permitted  only 
within  walled  and  separated  streets  appropriated  ; 
to  the  foreigners,  by  a king  anxious  to  obey  the* 
law  of  Moses  and  of  Jehovah  in  ever  so  lib&.'J 


SOLOMON. 


SOSTHENES. 


7CJ 


Kid  unconfined  a spirit.  This  is  a topic  of  prime 
consequence  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  monarchy. 
Modem  commentators,  impressed  with  the  im- 
portance of  liberty  of  conscience,  are  naturally 
prone  to  suspect  that  the  prophetical  or  priestly 
feeling  under  which  the  history  of  the  kings  was 
composed,  has  misrepresented  the  more  liberal 
policy  of  these  monarchs.  But  granting,  as  we 
may,  that  it  was  not  given  to  those  prophets  or 
priests  to  understand  the  Christian  rule  of  univer- 
sal toleration,  it  is  certain  that  the  times  were  not 
ripe  for  the  application  of  that  rule,  and  that  the 
most  earnest,  devout,  and  spiritually  enlightened 
men  of  those  days  were  the  most  vehemently  op- 
posed to  a public  toleration  of  idolatry.  Taking 
this  merely  as  a great  and  unalterable  fact , it 
was  shortsighted  policy  in  Solomon,  as  well  as 
worldly  want  of  faith,  to  seek  to  conciliate  the 
foreign  heathen,  at  the  expense  of  the  devoted 
allegiance  of  God’s  chosen  ones  in  Israel.  He 
won  at  best  a momentary  gotd  will  from  Ammon- 
ites, Moabites,  or  Sidonians,  by  such  an  affinity, 
and  by  such  an  introduction  of  their  favourite 
idols  : he  lost  the  heart  of  the  prophets  of  J eho- 
vah,  and,  as  a result,  he  could  not  transmit  to 
his  son  more  than  a fraction  of  his  kingdom.  It 
is  no  mere  fiction  of  priestly  prejudice,  but  a his- 
torical certainty,  thaf  David  owed  his  rise  mainly 
to  the  overruling  and  pervading  power  exerted  on 
him  by  the  pure  and  monotheistic  faith  of  the 
prophets ; while  Solomon  lost  (for  his  posterity) 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  perpetuated 
strife,  weakness,  debasement,  and  superstition, 
by  preferring  the  attractive  splendours  of  this 
world  to  that  godliness  which  would  in  the 
end  have  been  rewarded  even  in  the  present 
life. 

(6.)  The  enemies  especially  named  as  rising 
against  him  in  his  later  years,  are  Jeroboam,  Ha- 
dad  the  Edomite,  and  Rezon  of  Damascus.  The 
first  is  described  as  having  had  no  treasonable  in- 
tentions, until  Solomon  sought  to  kill  him,  on 
learning  the  prophecy  made  to  him  by  Ahijah. 
Jeroboam  was  received  and  fostered  by  Shishak, 
king  of  Egypt,  and  ultimately  became  the  provi- 
dential instrument  of  punishing  Solomon’s  ini- 
quity, though  not  without  heavy  guilt  of  his  own. 
As  for  Hadad,  his  enmity  to  Israel  began  from 
the  times  of  David,  and  is  ascribed  to  the  savage 
butchery  perpetrated  by  Joab  on  his  people.  He 
also,  when  a mere  child,  was  warmly  received  in 
Egypt,  apnarently  by  the  father-in-law  of  Solo- 
mon; but  this  does  not  seem  to  have  been  prompted 
by  hostility  to  David.  Having  married  the  sister 
of  Pharaoh’s  queen,  he  must  have  been  in  very 
high  station  in  Egypt;  still,  upon  the  death  of 
David,  he  begged  leave  to  depart  into  Edom, 
and  during  the  earlier  part  of  Solomon’s  reign 
was  probably  forming  his  party  in  secret,  and 
preparing  for  that  dangerous  border  warfare  which 
lie  carried  on  somewhat  later.  Rezon,  on  the 
contrary,  seems  to  have  had  no  personal  cause 
against  the  Hebrew  monarchy ; but  having  be- 
come powerful  at  Damascus  and  on  its  frontier, 
sought,  not  in  vain,  to  aggrandize  himself  at  its 
expense.  In  the  long  continuance  of  peace  Da- 
vid’s veterans  had  died,  and  no  successors  to 
them  can  have  been  trained ; and  considering  the 
other  great  expenses  of  the  court,  it  may  be  confi- 
dently inferred  that  the  standing  army  had  not 
kept  up  in  any  efficiency.  The  revenues 


which  would  have  maintained  it  were  spent  on  «t 
thousand  royal  wives : the  king  himself  was  un- 
warlike; and  a petty  foe,  if  energetic,  was  very 
formidable.  Such  were  the  vexations  which 
darkened  the  setting  splendours  of  the  greatest 
Israelitish  king.  But  from  within  also  his  pros- 
perity was  unsound.  Deep  discontent  pervaded 
his  own  people,  when  the  dazzle  of  his  grandeur 
had  become  familiar;  when  it  had  become  clear, 
that  the  royal  wealth,  instead  of  denoting  national 
well  being,  was  really  sucked  out  of  the  nation's 
vitals.  Having  no  constitutional  organ  to  express 
their  discontent,  they  waited  sullenly,  until  the 
recognition  of  a successor  to  the  crown  should 
give  them  the  opportunity  of  extorting  a removal 
of  burdens  which  could  not  permanently  be 
endured. 

The  picture  of  Solomon  here  drawn  is  far  less 
favourable  than  could  be  wished;  yet  an  en- 
deavour has  been  made  to  keep  close  to  the  facts. 
Undoubtedly  the  book  of  Chronicles, — which 
(contrary  to  custom)  in  this  reign  adds  little  or 
nothing  to  that  of  the  Kings, — by  omission  never- 
theless gives  a seriously  altered  view  of  this  cele- 
brated man : for  not  only  are  his  numerous  mar- 
riages, his  idolatries,  his  oppressions,  his  vexatious 
enemies,  and  the  grave  rebuke  of  the  prophet 
Ahijah,  left  out  of  the  narrative  entirely, — but 
his  building  of  a special  palace  for  his  Egyptian 
queen  is  ascribed  to  his  pious  objection  to  her 
dwelling  in  the  house  of  David,  because  of  the 
ark  having  passed  through  it  (2  Chron.  viii.  11). 
From  a mind  of  so  sensitive  scrupulosity  no  one 
could  have  expected  an  establishment  of  heathen- 
ish worship.  This  very  circumstance  will  show 
how  tender  was  the  feeling  of  the  Levitica!  body 
towards  him,  and  how  little  likely  it  is  that  the 
book  of  Kings  has  in  any  way  given  a discoloured 
and  unfair  view  of  his  lamentable  worldliness  of 
principle. — F.  W.  N. 

SOLOMON,  WISDOM  OF.  [Wisdom  of 
Soi.OMON.] 

SOLOMON’S  SONG.  [Cantici.es.] 

SONG.  [Poetry.] 

SOOTHSAYER.  [Divination.] 
SOPATER  (2w7t arpos),  a Christian  at  Beraea 
and  one  of  the  party  of  brethren  who  accom- 
panied Paul  into  Asia  Minor  from  Greece  (Acts 
xx.  4).  He  is  supposed  to  be  the  same  with 
the  Sosipaler  ( ^wa'nraTpos ) named  in  Rom.  xvi. 
21  ; and,  if  so,  was  a kinsman  of  St.  Paul. 

SORCERER.  [Divination.] 

1.  SOREK  (p*).^  ; Sept.  o-ft>/>77/c),  a vine  of 
the  finest  and  noblest  kind  (Isa.  v.  2 ; comp.  Gen. 
xlix.  11,  where  Hp“l^  sorekah,  is  translated  a 
‘ choice  vine  ;’  and  Jer.  ii.  21,  where  pTlCJt  sorek, 
is  rendered  ‘noble  vine’).  [Vine.] 

2.  SOREK,  a valley,  probably  so  called  from 
its  vineyards  (Judg.  xvi.  4).  Eusebius  and  Je- 
rome place  it  north  of  Eleutheropolis,  and  near 
to  Zorah. 

SOSIPATER.  [Sopater.] 

SOSTHENES  (Soxrfleiojs),  the  chief  of  the 
synagogue  at  Corinth,  when  Paul  was  in  that 
city  on  his  second  journey  inio  Greece  (Acts 
xviii.  17).  He  was  seized  and  beaten  by  the 
people,  Before  the  judgment-seat  of  Gallio,  oa 
account  of  the  tumult  raised  by  the  Jews  againat 
Paul,  of  which  he  seems  to  have  been  one  of  ths 
leaders.  He  is  supposed  to  have  been  afterwards 


T84 


SOUL. 


SOUL. 


converted  to  Christianity,  as  a Sosthenes  is  men- 
tioned by  Paul  as  ‘a  brother,’  and  coupled  with 
himself  in  1 Cor.  i.  1.  This  identity  is,  how- 
ever, a pure  conjecture,  and  not  remarkably  pro- 
bable. Apart  from  it,  however,  we  know  nothing 
of  this  second  Sosthenes.  Eusebius  makes  him 
one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  and  later  tradition 
describes  him  as  bishop  of  Kolophon. 

SOUL.  The  present  article  is  a sequel  to  that 
cn  Punishment,  in  which  the  literature  only  of 
LW  question  concerning  future  punishment  will 
be  briefly  stated.  It  is  frequently  conceded  that 
we  have  not  authority  decidedly  to  say  that  any 
other  motives  were  held  out  to  the  ancient  He- 
brews to  pursue  good  and  avoid  evil,  than  those 
derived  from  the  rewards  and  punishments  of 
this  life  (Jahn,  Biblisches  Archdologie , § 314). 
It  is,  however,  considered  by  some  learned  Jews 
that  one  reference  in  the  book  of  Genesis  to 
punishment  in  a future  state  has  been  over- 
looked. God  said  to  the  Noachidae  (ch.  ix.  5), 
4 And  surely  your  own  blood  will  1 require,’  &c. 
According  to  tradition,  the  first  part  of  the  text 
is  directed  against  suicide  ; but  it  seems  to  us 
more  like  the  enunciation  of  the  general  sub- 
ject, which  afterwards  descends  to  particulars. 
Then  follows  the  unintelligible  rendering,  ‘ at 
the  hand  of  every  beast  will  I require  it.’  Now 
it  is  a surprising  fact  that,  wherever,  throughout 
the  Scriptures,  we  find  iTTl  (here  rendered  beast ) 
applied  to  the  brute  creation,  it  is  always  in 
conjunction  with  the  word  (cattle), 

(reptile),  or  (bird),  and  that  if  none  of 

these  words  accompany  it,  the  expression  is 
cither  1YTI  (beasts  of  the  earth),  or  HTl 

rnE^n  (beasts  of  the  field),  or  IflTJ  (beast 
of  the  forest),  or  ilJH  iVn  (a  wild  beast);  but 
that  whenever,  as  in  this  instance,  no  adjunct 
is  coupled  with  HTI,  it  invariably  relates  to 
the  soul  of  man . This  rule  is,  by  the  best 
Hebraists,  allowed  to  be  general,  the  only  ex- 
ception throughout  the  Scriptures  being  the  text 
now  before  us,  in  which  the  word  HTl  stands  by 
itself  without  any  adjunct,  but  is  nevertheless 
made  in  our  version  to  refer  to  the  brute  creation. 
It  would,  however,  remove  these  apparent  diffi- 
culties to  suppose  that  the  general  rule  holds 
good  in  our  text,  as  well  as  in  every  other  part 
of  Scripture,  and  that  the  word  here  also  means 
the  soul  of  man.  Suppose  then  the  first  part  of 
the  verse,  ‘ Surely  your  own  life-blood  will  I re- 
quire,’ to  be  taken  as  a general  prohibition  against 
the  unauthorized  destruction  of  human  life,  then 
the  following  words  may  be  understood  as  be- 
ginning to  particularise,  first,  the  punishment  of 
suicide,  ‘of  every  soul  will  I require  it,’  that  is, 
of  every  soul  will  I require  his  own  blood  shed 
by  himself.  Then  follows  the  punishment  of 
homicide,  ‘and  at  the  hand  of  man,  yea,  at  the 
hand  of  every  man,  will  I require  the  life  of  man 
his  brother literally,  ‘and  at  the  hand  of  the 
man,  at  the  hand  of  man  his  brother,  will  1 
require  the  life  of  many  which  words,  as  has 
already  been  suggested,  may  be  the  foundation 
of  the  law  of  blood-revenge  [Punishment]. 
Next  follows,  agreeably  to  the  style  of  the  book  of 
Genesis,  an  emphatical  recapitulation  of  this  pu- 
nishment of  homicide,  and  the  reason  of  it  (ver. 
6)  : ‘ Whoso  sheddeth  man’s  blood,  by  man  shall 
his  blood  be  shed,  for  in  the  image  of  God  made 
Ha  raftn.’  If  then  the  rendering,  ‘ at  the  hand  of 


every  soul  will  I require  it,’  be  admitted,  and  this 
part  of  the  text  be  understood  concerning  suicides, 
the  meaning  must  necessarily  be,  ‘ from  the  soul 
of  the  suicide  will  I require  his  blood.’  Hence 
then  we  have  the  satisfaction  to  find  in  the  Scrip- 
tures this  early  and  perfect  indication  of  a punish- 
ment to  the  soul  alter  death,  and  the  necessary 
sequitur — its  immortality  (Naphtaly  Herz  Wes- 
seley,  in  the  or  Gatherer  for  Adar  Rislion . 

5548,  p.  160;  see  also  Menasseh  Ben  Israel’s 
Nishmat  Charjim,  and  the  New  Translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  with  notes,  by  the  Rev.  I).  A.  De  Sola, 
&c.,  pp.  51,  52).  The  literature  of  the  question 
concerning  the  nature  and  duration  of  future 
punishment  consists  of  the  following  particulars. 
First,  its  duration  was  believed  by  the  heathens 
to  ! *'  “temal,  or  more  correctly  speaking,  at  least 
in  our  language,  everlasting.  For  though  these 
two  words  are  often  used  as  synonymous,  yet 
strictness  of  use  requires  that,  the  word  eternal 
should  be  limited  to  that  which  has  neither  be- 
ginning nor  end ; and  everlasting,  to  that  which 
has  a beginning  but  no  end.  The  duration  of 
the  Deity  alone  is  eternal  ; that,  of  the  souls  of 
men,  angels,  &c.,  everlasting.  Thus  Virgil,  in 
his  well-known  description  of  Tartarus,  ‘Sedet, 
ceternumque  sedebit,  Infelix  Theseus.’  For  the 
Greeks  reference  is  made  to  Lilian.  Or.  941  B: 
avrl  paupov  XP^V0V  too  ribovris,  aOdvaros 
iiriKelaerai  (rjpia.  Lycoph.  907  ; aKTepiaTor  eV 
ntTpcus  Aluva  Kcanvcrovtnv  qXoKitrpevoi ; and  928, 
alavij  &ebu  Kvbavoixri.  Secondly,  there  is  a still 
more  striking  similarity  between  the  descriptions 
both  of  the  nature  and  duration  of  future  punish- 
ment given  in  the  Apocryphal  books  and  those  of 
the  New  Testament.  Thus  Judith  xvi.  17  : ‘ Woe, 
to  the  nations  yvhich  rise  up  against  my  kindred  ; 
the  Lord  Almighty  will  take  vengeance  on  them 
in  the  day  of  judgment,  in  putting  fire  and  worms 
in  their  flesh ; and  they  shall  feel  them,  and  weep 
for  ever,’  etas  aluuos  (comp.  Ecclus.  vii.  17; 
Mark  ix.  44).  These  terms  seem  borrowed  from 
Isaiah’s  description  of  a different  subject  (ch.  lxvi. 
24).  Thirdly,  Josephus  describes  the  doctrine 
of  everlasting  punishment  as  being  held  by  the 
Pharisees  and  Essenes : ‘ that  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  should  be  punished  with  perpetual  pu- 
nishment (aiSltp  npupia),  and  that  there  was  ap- 
pointed for  them  a perpetual  prison  (elpypbs 
atStos’).  (De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8.  11,14;  Antiq.  xviii. 
1.  3).  Josephus  himself,  in  the  discourse  ascribed 
to  him  on  Hades,  speaks  of  a subterraneous  re- 
gion, a lake  of  unquenchable  fire,  everlasting 
punishment,  and  of  a worm  never  dying  ($  2.  6) ; 
but  that  homily,  as  Whisfon  calls  it,  abounds 
with  other  evidence  that  its  author  was  a Christian. 
For  proofs  that  the  Rabbinical  writers  held  the 
notion  of  infinite  punishment,  see  the  references 
by  Wetstein  on  Matt.  xxv.  46.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  nature  of  future  punishment  is 
almost  always  described  by  figures.  The  most 
abstract  description  occurs  in  Rom.  ii.  9-16: 

‘ Tribulation  and  anguish  upon  every  soul  of  man 
that  doeth  evil,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge 
the  secrets  of  men.’  Our  Lord  generally  describes 
it  under  figures  suggested  by  some  comparison 
he  had  just  before  made,  and  in  unison  with  it. 
Thus,  having  described  future  happiness  unde? 
the  figure  of  a midnight  banquet,  lighted  up  with 
lamps,  then  the  state  of  the  rejected  i3  described 
under  that  of  ‘ outer  darkness  ’ outside  tlu*  mv> 


SOUL. 


SOUTH. 


784 


lion,  and  gnashing  * or  chattering  * of  teeth,' 
from  the  extreme  cold  of  an  Oriental  night  (Matt, 
viii.  12;  Luke  xiii.  28);  though  the  phrase  also 
denotes  rage  and  vexation  (comp.  Ecclus.  xxx. 
10).  Our  Lord  employs  the  phrase  ‘ wailing  ’ or 
‘weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth'  no  less  than 
seven  times.  If  ‘the  end  of  the  world’  be  de- 
scribed by  him  under  the  figure  of  a harvest,  then 
the  wicked,  who  are  represented  by  the  tares,  are 
accordingly  gathered  and  burned.  If  his  return 
be  represented  by  a master  returning  to  take  ac- 
count of  his  servants,  then  the  wicked  servant  is 
cut  asunder,  or  rather  discarded — margin,  ‘ cut 
off’  (Matt.  xxiv.  51);  for  in  the  same  verse  he 
* is  described  as  being  still  alive,  and  consigned  to 
the  place  of  ‘ weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.’ 
Our  Lord  also  frequently  represents  future  punish- 
ment under  the  idea  of  fire,  which  Calvin,  on  Isa. 
lxvi.  24,  remarks,  must  be  understood  metaphori- 
cally of  spiritual  punishment.  Indeed  both  the 
nature  and  variety  of  the  figures  employed  by 
our  Saviour  in  regard  to  the  subject  fully  justify 
Paley’s  observation,  ‘that  our  Lord's  discourses 
exhibit  no  particular  description  of  the  invisible 
world.  The  future  happiness  of  the  good  and  the 
future  misery  of  the  bad,  which  is  all  we  want  to 
be  assured  of,  is  directly  and  positively  affirmed, 
and  is  represented  by  metaphors  and  comparisons 
which  were  plainly  intended  as  metaphors  and 
comparisons,  and  nothing  more.  As  to  the  rest 
a solemn  reserve  is  maintained  ’ ( Evidences  of 
Christianity,  part  ii.  ch.  ii.).  The  question  of 
the  duration  of  future  punishment  chiefly  turns 
on  the  force  of  the  words  translated  ‘ ever,’  ‘ ever- 
lasting,’ ‘never,’  which  our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
apply  to  it,  and  which  it  is  well  known  have  some- 
times a limited  signification,  and  are  very  vari- 
ously translated  in  the  English  version.  Thus 
the  word  aldu,  as  a substantive,  occurs  128  times 
in  the  Greek  Testament ; and  in  our  translation 
is  rendered  72  times  ever,  twice  eternal,  36  times 
world,  7 times  never , 3 times  evermore,  twice 
worlds,  twice  ages,  once  course,  once  world  with- 
out end,  and  twice  it  is  passed  over.  The  word 
alwvioz,  as  an  adjective,  occurs  71  times,  and  is 
once  rendered  ever,  42  times  eternal,  3 times 
world,  and  25  times  everlasting . It  is  furthermore 
an  important  circumstance,  that  the  terms  of  like 
import  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  translated  in 
the  Septuagint  by  these  Greek  words,  when  ap- 
plied to  the  Mosaic  law,  as  a ‘ statute  for  ever,’ 
‘ v6y.iy.ov  auaviov,  ’ were  urged  in  proof  of  the  ir- 
revocable perpetuity  of  that  law,  by  the  Judaizing 
teachers;  yet  St.  Paul  styles  this  argument  ‘a 
doting  about  questions,  and  a strife  of  words’ 
(1  Tim.  vi.  4),  ‘fighting  about  words’  (2  Tim. 
ii.  14);  ‘foolish  and  untaught  questions’  (see 
Macknight’s  comment  on  these  passages,  and 
Archbishop  Seekers  Sermons,  Serm.  xvi.  vol.  5, 
Loud.  1771).  Hence,  therefore,  it,  is  urged  on  the 
one  side,  that,  we  can  never  settle  the  precise  import 
\ of  these  words,  as  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
to  the  duration  of  future  punishment,  until  we 
shall  be  able  also  to  answer  the  following  ques- 
tions; namely,  Was  it  part  of  the  commission  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles  to  determine  this  matter? 
and  if  so,  In  what  sense  were  the  terms  they  used 
in  regard  to  it  meant  by  themselves,  and  under- 
stood by  their  hearers — whether  as  denoting  a 
punishment  of  unknown  duration,  or  one  literally 
coexistent  with  the  duration  of  the  Eternal  God? 

TOW  II. 


On  the  other  side  it  is  objected,  that  the  same 
word  is  applied  both  to  the  happiness  of  the 
righteous  and  the  misery  of  the  wicked,  though 
varied  in  our  translation  of  Matt.  xxv.  46 : 
‘These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punish- 
ment, but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal;’  where 
Rosenmiiller,  reasoning  from  the  context,  infers 
‘ the  loss  of  the  rewards  of  virtue  ’ to  be  meant, 
which  will  necessarily  be  infinite.  Various 
opinions  have  been  held  concerning  the  nature 
and  duration  of  future  punishment,  ascending 
from  the  doctrine  of  Edwards, — ‘Souls  full  of 
dreadful  grief,  bodies  and  etary  member  of  them 
full  of  racking  torture,  without  any  possibility  of 
getting  ease,  without  any  possibility  of  moving 
God  to  pity’  {Discourse  on  the  Eternity  of  Hell 
Torments,  p.  28,  &c.),  through  the  various  mo- 
difications of  the  doctrine — punishment  with  pain, 
literally  everlasting,  but  proportioned  to  the  de- 
merit of  the  condemned  ; punishment  in  the  sense 
of  loss  or  damage  (see  Greek  of  Matt.  xvi.  26)  to 
the  same  duration;  punishment  by  pain,  reme- 
dial in  its  intention,  limited  in  duration,  but  yet 
followed  by  disadvantage  literally  everlasting- 
up  to  the  highest  extreme  on  the  opposite  side, 
namely,  annihilation.  Upon  this  truly  important 
subject  we  cordially  acquiesce  in  the  remark  o» 
Doddridge : ‘ Miserable  are  they  who  venture 
fheir  souls  upon  the  possibility  that  the  words  in 
question,  when  applied  to  future  punishment, 
may  have  a limited  meaning.’  Among  the  an- 
cients, the  following  held  that  punishments,  at 
least  sensible  ones,  would  some  time  cease  : 
Justin  Martyr,  Theophilus,  Tatian,  Arnobius, 
&c.  Grotius  (apud  Bloomfield,  Recensio  Syn- 
optica,  on  Matt,  xxv.)  refers  also,  for  the  doubts 
of  certain  ancients,  to  the  end  of  Jerome's 
Commentary  on  Isaiah.  Among  the  more  emi- 
nent moderns  who  have  maintained  that  the  fu- 
ture punishment  of  the  wicked  will  be  limited  and 
corrective,  see  Bishop  Rust,  Letter  of  Resolution 
concerning  Origen,  1661  ; Jeremy  White  (who 
had  been  Chaplain  to  the  Protector  Cromwell), 
On  the  Restoration  of  all  Things,  Lond.  1712; 
Dr.  Thomas  Burnet  (Master  of  the  Charter  House) 
He  Statu  Mortuorum  ; Newton  (Bishop  of  Bris- 
tol), Sixtieth  Dissertation;  Hartley,  Observa- 
tions on  Man,  1791;  Whiston,  The  Eternity  of 
Hell  Torments  considered;  Southwood  Smith, 
On  the  Divine  Government,  Lond.  1826  ; and 
the  List  of  Authors  mentioned  in  his  Appendix. 

J.  F.  D. 

SOUTH.  The  country,  or  quarter  of  the 
heavens,  which  the  Shemite,  standing  with  his 
face  to  the  east,  supposes  to  be  on  his  right 
hand.  It  is  denoted  by  seven  Hebrew  words 
(I.  23.3;  2.  DVVH;  3.  jD'J-l ; 4 ppj;  5.  “T^n ; 
6,  *7|np ; 7.  D^D),  nearly  all  of  which  refer  to 
some  characteristic  of  the  region  to  which  they 
are  respectively  applied.  1.  333  (noot  233  in 
Syr.  and  Chald.,  to  be  dry),  probably  derived  its 
name  from  the  hot  drying  winds  which  blow 
annually  into  Syria,  over  Africa  and  Arabia. 
‘ In  March,’  says  Volney,  ‘appear  in  Syria  the 
pernicious  southerly  winds,  with  the  same  cir- 
cumstances as  in  Egypt,  that  is  to  say,  their  heat, 
which  is  carried  to  a degree  so  excessive,  that  it 
is  difficult,  to  form  an  idea  of  it  without  having 
felt  it  ; but  one  can  compare  it  to  that  of  a great 
oven  when  the  bread  is  drawn  out  ( Voyage  en 


786 


SOUTH. 


SOUTH. 


Syrte  et  Egypie , tom.  i.  p.  297 ; comp.  p.  55 ; 
Luke  xii.  55,  ‘ When  ye  see  the  south  wind 
blow  ye  say  there  will  be  heat;’  and  see  Kitto's 
Physical  History  of  Palestine , month  of  March, 
pp.  221,  222).  The  word  is  occasionally  applied 
to  a parched  or  dry  tract  of  land.  Caleb’s  daughter 
says  to  her  father,  ‘ Thou  hast  given  me  a south,’ 
or  rather  ‘ dry  land ;’  333 !7  ^7^  (Vulg.  terrain 
arentem  ) ; ‘ give  me  also  springs  of  water  ’ (Judg. 
i.  15 ; comp.  ver.  9).  At  other  times  the  word 
refers  to  those  arid  regions,  notwithstanding  their 
occasional  fertility,  over  which  the  south  wind 
blows  into  Syria.  So  the  Sept,  and  Vulg.  under- 
stood the  ‘ whirlwinds  from  the  south  ’ (Isa.  xxi. 
1 ; 8:’  eprjpov,  turbines  ab  Aphrico).  ‘ The  burden 
of  the  beasts  in  the  south  ’ is  rendered  tuv  re- 
rpanoSur  t Sjv  ev  ry  epijpcp  (Isa.  xxx.  6).  At 
other  times  the  word  is  rendered  by  viros 
and  Aty,  which  latter  is  the  Hellenized  form  of 
Libs,  Ventus  ex  Libya , the  south-west  wind,  and, 
by  metonymy,  the  quarter  whence  it  blows.  In 
several  instances  the  Hebrew  word  is  simply 
put  into  Greek  letters;  thus,  r bv  N ayefi,  Josh.  x. 
40  ; Trju  yrjr  Naye/3,  Alex,  rrju  NayejS,  al.  Neye/3, 
xi.  16;  Naye/3,  Cyr.  \Aye/3,  Obad.  19,  20;  and 
once,  probably  by  a corruption,  it  is  apyafi,  l Sam. 
xx.  41,  al.  veyhfi,  veye/3,  oil.  epyafi.  The 
Vulgate  renders  the  word  by  ‘ meridies,  australis 
plaga,  terra  meridiana,  auster  ab  Aphrico,  terra 
australis.’  More  than  once  the  Sept,  differs  widely 
from  the  present  Hebrew  text ; thus,  in  Ezek.  xx. 
47,  it  renders  333D  by  &7t8  airpAiuTov 

ea )s  (Joppa ; Vulg.  ‘ ab  austro  usque  ad  aqui- 
lonem ;’  so  also  in  Exod.  xxvi.  8,  17333  J7ND 
is  rendered  tt pbs  fiojlfiav,  Vulg.  ‘ad  austrum/ 
It  is  also  used  in  the  geographical  sense  in  Num. 
xxxiv.  3;  Josh.  xv.  2;  1 Chron.  ix.  24;  2Chron. 
iv.  4;  Ezek.  xl.  2;  xlvi.  9,  &c.  But  a further 
and  important  use  of  the  word  is  as  the  name  or 
designation  of  the  desert  regions  lying  at  the  south 
of  Judaea,  consisting  of  the  deserts  of  Shur,  Zin, 
and  Paran,  the  mountainous  country  of  Edom  or 
Idumaea,  and  part  of  Arabia  Petraea  (comp. 
Mai.  i.  3;  Shaw’s  Travels,  p.  438).  Thus  Abra- 
ham, at  his  first  entrance  into  Canaan,  is  said  to 
have  ‘ gone  on  toward  the  south  ’ (Gen.  xii.  9); 
Sept.  eV  rfj  ep-ftpcp,  Aquila  v6tov 5e,  Symmachus 
els  vfnov ; and  upon  his  return  from  Egypt  into 
Canaan,  he  is  said  to  have  gone  ‘ into  the  south  ’ 
(xiii.  1);  Sept,  els  rbv  epypov,  Vulg.  ‘ad 
australem  plagam,’  though  he  was  in  fact  then 
travelling  northward.  Comp.  ver.  3,  ‘ He  went 
from  the  south  to  Bethel ;’  Sept,  els  rrjv  epgpov  ; 
Vulg.  ‘ a meridie  in  Bethel.’  In  this  region  the 
Amalekites  are  said  to  have  dwelt,  ‘ in  the  land  of 
the  south,’  when  Moses  sent  the  spies  to  view  the 
land  of  Canaan  (Num.  xiii.  29),  viz.,  the  locality 
between  Idumaea  and  Egypt,  and  to  the  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea  and  Mount  Seir  [Amalekites],  The 
inhabitants  of  this  region  were  included  in  the 
■conquests  of  Joshua  (x.  40).  Whenever  the  Sept, 
giies  the  Hebrew  word  in  the  Greek  letters, 
Nocye/J,  it  always  relates  to  this  particular  district. 
To  the  same  region  belongs  the  passage,  ‘ Turn 
■our  captivity  as  the  streams  in  the  south  ’ (*Ps. 
cxxvi.  4)  ; Sept,  us  *v  T$  ‘ as 

winter  torrents  in  the  south’  (Vulg.  ‘ sicut  torrens 
in  Austro’);  which  sud  lenly  till  the  wady*  or  val- 
leys during  the  season  of  rain  (comp.  Ezek.  vi.  3 ; 
■sxxiv.  13  ; xxxv.  8 ; xxxvi.  4,  6).  These  are  dry 
4n  summer  (Job  vi.  16-18).  The  Jews  had,  by 


their  captivity,  left  their  country  empty  and  deso- 
late, but.  by  their  return  would  ‘ flow  again  into  it.’ 
Through  part  of  this  sterile  region  the  Israelites 
must  repass  in  their  vain  application  to  Egypt. 
(Isa.  xxx.  6 ; comp.  Deut.  viii.  15).  It  is  called 
the  Wilderness  of  Judaea  (Matt.  iii.  1 ; Josh.  xv. 
61;  comp.  Ps.  lxxv.  6,  Hebrew  or  margin;  see 
also  Jer.  xvii.  26;  xxxii.  44;  xxxiii.  14;  Ezra  xx. 
46,  47  ; xxi.  4 ; comp.  Obad.  xix.  20  ; Zech.  ix. 
7).  Through  part  of  this  region  lay  the  road  from 
Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  ‘ which  is  desert'  (Acts  viii.  26). 
Thus,  as  Drusius  observes,  the  word  often  means 
not  the  whole  southern  hemisphere  of  the  earth,  but 
a desert  tract  of  land  to  the  south  of  Judaea.  Some- 
times it  is  used  in  a relative  sense ; thus,  the  cities 
of  Judah  are  called  ‘ the  cities  of  the  south  ’ (Jer. 

xiii.  19),  relatively  to Chaldaja, expressed  by  ‘the 
north’  (i.  14;  comp.  iv.  6;  vi.  1).  Jerusalem 
itself  is  called  ‘ the  forest  of  the  south  field,’  or 
country , like  the  Latin  ager  (Ezek.  xx.  46  ; comp. 
Gen.  xiv.  7)  [Forest],  Egypt  is  also  called 
‘ the  south  thus,  ‘ the  king  of  the  south  ’ (Dan. 
xi.  5)  is  Ptolemy  Soter  and  his  successors  ; comp, 
verses  6,  9, 11,15, 25,  29,  40 ; but  in  the  last-named 
verse,  Mede  understands  the  Saracen  from  Arabia 
Felix  (Works,  pp.  674,  816).  2.  D777,  which, 
according  to  Gesenius,  is  a word  of  uncertain 
derivation.  It  is  rendered  by  AliJ/,  Sept.,  Deut. 
xxxiii.  23;  by  v6tos,  Eccles.  i.  6;  xi.  3;  Ezek. 
xl.  21,  27,  28,  44,  45 ; xii.  1 1 ; and  by  OaAAaoaa, 
Ezek.  xiii.  18.  Vulg.  ‘ meridies,  auster,  australis, 
ventus  australis.’  3.  jft'J7  audits  adverb  rDD'D, 
strictl-y  what  lies  to  the  right;  Sept,  voros,  An// ; 
and  sometimes  the  word  is  simply  put  into  Greek 
letters ; thus,  ©aipav  (Hab.  iii.  3).  Indeed  all  the 
three  preceding  words  are  so  rendered  (Ezek.  xx. 
46),  'Tie  avOpwiTov,  crppiaov  rb  Trpdcruvbr  aov 
eirl  daipav,  koL  eVijSA exf/or  enl  dapbp,  koI  irpocprj- 
reverou  eVl  bpvp.br  yyovperov  vayefi : where  per- 
haps the  vocabulary  of  the  translator  did  not 
afford  him  sufficient  variety.  The  Vulgate  here 
gives  ‘ viam  austri,  ad  aphricum,  ad  saltum  agri 
meridiani,’  and  elsewhere  renders  the  Hebrew  word 
by  ‘ meridiana  plaga,  ad  meridiem.’  It  occurs  in 
Exod.  xxvi.  35;  Num.  ii.  10;  iii.  29;  x.  6;  Job 
ix.  9;  xxxix.  26;  Ps.  lxxviii.  26;  Cant.  iv. 
16;  Isa.  xliii.  6;  Hab.  iii.  3;  Zech.  ix.  14; 

xiv.  4.  In  Zech.  vi.  6,  it  denotes  Egypt.  It  is 

poetically  used  for  the  south  wind,  like  Shaks- 
peare’s  ‘ sweet  south Ps.  lxxviii.  26,  v6tov , 
Africum , and  Cant.  iv.  16,  v6re ; for  the  ex- 
planation of  the  latter  see  North.  Observe  tha1: 
ri3D'n  and  333  are  interchanged  in  Exod.  xxvi. 
18;  xxxvi.  23;  Ezek.  xlvii.  1.  4.  . PD,  also 

meaning  the  right  side  and  south.  Thus,  Ps. 
lxxxix.  12,  ‘Thou  hast  made  the  north  and  the 
south  ;’  Sept.  0aAa<r<ra;  Vulg.  mare.  The  word 
is  evidently  here  used  in  its  widest  sense,  compre- 
hending not  only  all  the  countries  lying  south, 
but  also  the  Indian  ocean,  &c.,  the  whole  hemi- 
sphere. Aquila,  Bopfiav  ku\  5e|idv  ; Theodotion, 
B oppeir  teal  N 6toi>.  In  some  passages  where  our 
translation  renders  the  word  right , the  meaning 
would  have  been  clearer  had  it  rendered  it  south 
(1  Sam.  xxiii.  19,  24  ; 2 Sam.  xxiv.  5 ; Job  xxiii. 
9).  5.  7717,  ‘ Out  of  the  south  cometh  the  whirl- 

wind’ (Job  xxxvii. 9), literally ‘chamber’  or ‘store- 
house,’ eKrapieluv,  interioribus.  The  full  phrase 
occurs  in  ch.  ix.  9,  jDJ7  '77 f7,  rapeia  v6tov , in- 
teriora  austri,  the  remotest  south  ; perhaps  in  both 
these  passages  the  word  means  the  chamber*  o* 


SPAIN. 


SPICES. 


787 


,*ts  of  the  south  wind.  6.  “D'ltD,  1 Pro* 
«emet.h  not  from  the  south  ’ (Ps.  lxxv.  6), 
.>tcrally  ‘wilderness,’  aivb  ipjjgwy,  desertis  mon - 
ixbus.  7.  O'D,  ‘ And  gathered  them  out  of  the 
lands,  and  from  the  south  1 (Ps.  evii.  3),  OaKacraa, 
mare ; where  Gesenius  contends  that  it  ought  to 
be  translated  ‘ west,’  though  it  stands  opposed  to 
j'.DVft,  as  it  is  indeed  so  translated  under  ex- 
actly the  same  circumstances  in  Isa.  xlix.  12.  He 
refers  to  Dent,  xxxiii.  23,  and  Amos  viii.  12.  It 
is  also  thus  rendered  in  our  version  of  the  first  of 
these  references ; and  on  the  latter  we  can  only 
refer  to  Archbishop  Newcome’s  Version  of  the 
Minor  Prophets , Pontefract,  1809,  pp.  51,  52. 
In  the  New  Testament  we  have  v6ros  in  the  geo- 
graphical sense,  @ci(rl\i(r<ra  v6rov,  regina  austri, 
Matt.  xii.  42  [Sheba,  Queen  of],  and  Luke 
xiii.  29 ; Rev.  xxi.  13.  The  word  geo-ypPpia  is  also 
translated  ‘ south  ’ in  Acts  viii.  26,  Kara  gee rrjg- 
fipiav,  contra  meridianum.  It  is  used  in  the 
same  sense  by  Josephus  (. Antiq . iv.  5.  2).  In 
Symmachus  (1  Sam.  xx.  41)  for  222.  Hesy- 
chius  defines  MecnjgPplcr  ra  rov  N orov  glpr\  Kal 
rb  rrjs  pgepas  geerov.  The  south-west  Alif/  occurs 
in  St.  Paul’s  dangerous  voyage  (Acts  xxvii.  12)  ; 
‘ a haven  of  Crete,’  PAeirov/a.  Kara  Aifia,  respicien- 
tem  ad  africum , by  metonymy  the  wind,  for  the 
quarter  whence  it  blows.  The  south  wind  is 
mentioned  ver.  13,  voros , auster,  and  xxviii.  13 
[Winds].— J.  F.  D. 

SOWER,  SOWING.  [Agriculture.] 

SPAIN  ( hirarla , Rom.  xv.  24,  28  ; ‘ lairavia , 
1 Macc.  viii.  3).  This  name  was  anciently  ap- 
plied to  the  whole  Peninsula  which  now  com- 
prises Spain  and  Portugal  (Cellar.  Notit.  i.  51, 
sq.).  In  the  time  of  Paul  Spain  was  a Roman 
province,  and  many  Jews  appear  to  have  settled 
there.  It  seems  clear  from  Rom.  xv.  24,  28,  that 
Paul  formed  the  design  of  proceeding  to  preach 
the  Gospel  in  Spain  : that  he  ever  executed  this 
intention  is  necessarily  denied  by  those  who  hold 
that  the  apostle  sustained  but  one  imprisonment 
at  Rome — namely,  that  in  which  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  leave  him ; and  even  those  who  hold 
that  he  was  released  from  this  imprisonment  can 
only  conjecture  that,  in  the  interval  between  it 
and  the  second,  he  fulfilled  his  intention.  There 
is,  in  fact,  during  the  three  first  centuries,  no 
evidence  on  the  subject,  beyond  a vaguo  intima- 
tion by  Clement,  which  is  open  to  different  ex- 
planations [Paul]  ; and  later  traditions  are  of 
small  value. 

SPARROW  (“VI 5 ¥ tzippor ) occurs  in  Gen. 
vii.  14 ; Lev.  xiv.  4 ; Ps.  lxxxiv.  3 ; cii.  7 ; 
erroovQlov,  Matt.  x.  29;  Luke  xii.  6,  7.  The 
Hebrew  word  includes  not  only  the  sparrow,  but 
also  the  whole  family  of  small  birds  not  ex- 
clusively feeding  on  grain,  but  denominated 
clean,  or  those  that  might  be  eaten  according  to 
the  law : hence  the  same  word  is  also,  in  many 
instances,  translated  ‘ bird,’  the  Hebrew  name 
itself  being  evidently  an  imitation  of  the  voice 
of  small  birds,  synonymous  with  the  English 
( chirrup.’  Tzippor  includes  many  insectivorous 
and  frugivorous  species,  all  the  thrushes  we  have 
in  Europe,  and  the  rose-coloured  ousel  or  locust- 
bird,  rare  with  us,  but  numerous  and  cherished  in 
the  East,  solely  for  the  havock  it  makes  among 
locusts,  and  named  Smurmur  by  the  Arabs,  in  imi- 
tation of  it*  voice,  It  also  includes  perhaps  the 


starlings  (not  Zarzir),  the  nightingale,  all  the  Eu- 
ropean larks,  the  wagtails,  and  all  the  tribe  of 
finches ; but  not  fly-catchers,  nor  indeed  swal- 
lows, which,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  were  reck- 
oned, along  with  night-hawks  or  goatsuckers,  and 
crows,  among  the  unclean  and  prohibited  species. 
In  Syria  the  sparrow  is  the  same  vivacious  fa- 
miliar bird  we  find  it  in  Europe,  and  equally 
frequents  the  residence  of  man. — C.  H.  S. 

SPEAR.  [Arms.] 

SPICES.  This  word,  which  occurs  very  fre- 
quently in  our  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  has 
usually  been  considered  to  indicate  several  of  the 
aromatic  substances  to  which  the  same  general 
name  is  applied  in  the  present  day.  The  Hebrew 
words  so  translated  are  Necoth,  Bosem,  and 
Sammirn , the  corresponding  Greek  being  dpuga. 
These  may  indicate  different  things,  as  the  two  first, 
words,  or  be  merely  different  names,  as  spices  and 
aromatics  in  English  may  be  applied  to  the  same, 
kind  of  substances.  Sammim,  rendered  in  Exod. 
xxxv.  7 incense,  and  in  ver.  34  spices , may  be  sup- 
posed to  mean  drugs  and  aromatics  in  general. 
When  these  are  separately  noticed,  especially  when 
several  are  enumerated,  their  names  may  lead  us 
to  their  identification.  Dr.  Vincent  has  ob- 
served that  ‘ in  Exod.  xxx.  we  find  an  enu- 
meration of  cinnamon,  cassia,  myrrh,  frankin- 
cense, stacte,  onycha,  and  galbanum,  all  of 
which  are  the  produce  either  of  India  or  Arabia.’ 
More  correctly,  cinnamon,  cassia,  frankincense, 
and  onycha,  were  probably  obtained  from  India  ; 
myrrh,  stacte,  and  some  frankincense,  from  the 
east  coast  of  Africa,  and  galbanum  from  Persia. 
Nine  hundred  years  later,  or  about  b.c.  588,  in 
Ezek.  xxvii.  the  chief  spices  are  referred  to,  with 
the  addition  however  of  calamus.  They  are  pro- 
bably the  same  as  those  just  enumerated.  Dr.  Vin- 
cent refers  chiefly  to  the  Periplus,  ascribed  to  Ar- 
rian, written  in  the  second  century,  as  furnishing  a 
proof  that  many  Indian  substances  were,  at  that 
time,  well  known  to  commerce,  as  aloe  or  agila 
wood,  gum  bdellium,  the  googal  of  India,  cassia 
and  cinnamon,  nard,  costus,  incense,  that  is,  oliba- 
num,  ginger,  pepper,  and  spices.  If  we  examine 
the  work  of  Dioscorides  we  shall  find  all  these, 
and  several  other  Indian  products,  not  only  men- 
tioned, but  described,  as  schoenantlms,  calamus 
aromaticus,  cyperus,  malabathrum,  turmeric. 
Among  others,  Lycium  indicum  is  mentioned. 
This  is  the  extract  of  Barberry  root,  and  is 
prepared  in  the  Himalayan  mountains.  (Royle 
on  the  Lycium  of  Dioscorides,  Linnean  Trans.). 
It  is  not  unworthy  of  notice,  that  we  find  no 
mention  of  several  very  remarkable  products  of 
the  East,  such  as  camphor,  cloves,  nutmeg,  betel 
leaf,  cubebs,  gamboge ; all  of  which  are  so 
peculiar  in  their  nature  that  we  could  not  have 
failed  to  recognise  them  if  they  had  been  de- 
scribed at  all,  like  those  we  have  enumerated 
as  the  produce  of  India.  These  omissions  are 
significant  of  the  countries  to  which  com- 
merce and  navigation  had  not  extended,  at  the 
time  when  the  other  articles  were  well  known 
(. Hindoo  Medicine , p.  93).  If  we  trace  these  up 
to  still  earlier  authors,  we  shall  find  many  of 
them  mentioned  by  Theophrastus,  and  even  by 
Hippocrates  ; and  if  we  trace  them  downwards  to 
the  time  of  the  Arabs  [Spikenard],  and  from 
that  to  modern  times,  we  find  many  of  them 
described  under  their  present  names  in  work! 


788 


SPIDER. 


SPIRIT. 


emrrent  throughoi:!;  the  East,  and  in  which  their 
ancient  names  are  given  as  synonymes.  We  have, 
therefore,  as  much  assurance  as  is  possible  in  sum 
cases,  that  the  majority  of  the  substances  men- 
tioned by  the  ancients  have  been  identified : and 
that  among  the  spices  of  early  times  were  in- 
cluded many  of  those  which  now  form  articles 
of  commerce  from  India  to  Europe.  This  has 
been  shown  in  the  articles  on  tne  different  sub- 
stances [Ahalim  ; Ai.mug  ; Chei.benah  ; Hob- 
nim  ; Kaneh-bosem  ; KxTZOii  ; Kiddaii  ; 
Kinnemon  ; Lebona;  Lot;  Mou  ; Nard  ; 
Nataf  ; Nkcoth]. 

SPIDER  ; Sept,  aoaxvr] ; Vulg.  ara- 

nea)  occurs  in  Job  viii.  14;  Isa.  lix.  5.  In  the 
other  instance  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  our 
version  (Prov.  xxx.  28),  and  where  the  Hebrew 
has  the  Sept.  KaXa^urijs,  and  the  Vulg. 

gtelliOy  there  is  most  probably  a mistranslation 
[Semamith],  In  the  first  of  these  passages,  the 
reference  seems  clear  to  the  spider’s  web,  or  lite- 
rally, house  (mi),  whose  fragility  is  alluded  to 
as  a fit  representation  of  the  hope  of  a profane , 
ungodly , or  profligate  person  ; for  so  the  word 
Cpn  really  means,  and  not  ‘hypocrite,’  as  in  our 
version.  The  object  of  such  a person’s  trust 
or  confidence,  who  is  always  really  in  imminent 
danger  of  min,  may  be  compared  for  its  uncer- 
tainty to  the  spider's  web.  ‘ He  shall  lean  upon 
his  house  (i.  e.  to  keep  it  steady  when  it  is  shaken)  ; 
he  shall  hold  it  fast  (i.  e.  when  it  is  about  to  be  de- 
stroyed); nevertheless  it.  shall  not  endure  (ver.  15). 
In  the  second  passage  (Isa.  lix.  5)  it  is  said,  ‘The 
wicked  weave  the  spider’s  web’  ('Tip,  literally, 

* thin  threads) ;’  but.  it  is  added,  ‘ their  thin  threads 
shall  not  become  garments,  neither  shall  they 
cover  themselves  with  their  works;’  that  is,  then- 
artifices  shall  neither  succeed,  nor  conceal  them- 
selves, as  does  the  spider's  web.  This  allusion 
intimates  no  antipathy  to  the  spider  itself,  or  to 
its  habits  when  directed  towards  its  own  purposes; 
but  simply  to  the  adoption  of  tho,se  habits  by 
man  towards  his  fellow-creatures.  No  expression 
of  an  abstract,  antipathy  towards  any  creature 
whatever  is  to  be  found  in  Scripture.  Though 
certain  species,  indeed,  which  for  good  and  wise 
reasons  were  prohibited  as  food,  are  so  far  called 

* an  abomination  ;’  yet  revelation  throughout  re- 
cognises every  living  creature  as  the  work  of  God, 
and  deserving  the  pious  attention  of  mankind. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  natural  history,  with 
all  its  characteristic  suj/eriority  to  prejudices  and 
antipathies,  is  indebted  for  its  existence  to  reve- 
lation. The  Creator  nimself  first  directed  the 
attention  of  man  to  inis  science  : — ‘ Out  of  the 
ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every  beast  of  the 
field,  and  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  brought 
them  unto  Adam,  to  see  what  he  would  call 
them;  and  whatsoever  Adam  called  every/ living 
creature,  that  was  the  name  thereof.  And  Adam 
gave  names  to  all  c&icie.  and  to  the  fowl  of  the 
air,  and  to  every  beast  of  the  field’  (Gen.  ii.  19, 
20).  The  most  anc.truc  system  or  classification 
of  the  natural  world  is  to  be  found  in  the  writings 
of  Moses  (Gen.  i.  20,  oZc. ) ; a system  recognised  by 
the  writers  of  ScripWae  in  widely  different  times 
(Gen.  vi.  vii.  viii.  ix. ; 1 Kings  iv.  33  ; Ps.clxviii.; 
Acts  x.  12).  Michaelis  well  observes  that  ‘ the 
systematic  division  of  quadrupeds  given  by 
Moses  is  so  excellent,  as  never  yet,  after  all  the 


improvements  in  natural  history,  to  have  become 
obsolete,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  still  considered 
as  useful  by  the  greatest  masters  of  the  science ‘ a 
fact,’  he  adds,  ‘ which  cannot  but  be  looked  upon 
as  truly  wonderful’  ( Commentary  on  the  Laics 
of  Moses , Art.  204).  It  is  recorded  of  Solomon, 
that  ‘ he  spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar  tree  that  is 
in  Lebanon,  unto  the  hyssop  (moss)  that  spring- 
eth  out  of  the  wall : he  spake  also  of  beasts,  and 
of  fowl,  and  of  creeping  things,  and  of  fishes’ 
(1  Kings  iv.  33).  To  revelation  also  the  rise  of 
natural  history,  as  a science,  is  to  be  attributed 
among  the  Gentiles  ; for  there  is  good  ground  for 
believing  that  Aristotle  had  seen  the  writings  of 
Solomon.  It  is  revelation  which,  by  teaching 
that  ‘ all  things  ’ proceed  from  one  and  the  same 
God,  invests  the  science  with  interest  to  every  dis- 
cerning mind. 

The  study  of  insects  is  so  new  in  this  country, 
that  even  at  the  distance  of  some  years  after  the 
death  of  Willughbv,  an  attempt  was  made  to  set 
aside  the  will  of  a Lady  Glanville,  on  the  ground 
of  lunacy,  because  she  had  shown  a strong  par- 
tiality for  insects;  and  Mr.  Ray  had  to  appear 
on  the  day  of  trial  to  bear  testimony  to  her  sanity 
(see  Memoir  of  Willughby,  by  Rev.  J.  F.  Den- 
ham, p.  1 32,  Edinburgh,  1838  ; or  in  the  Natural- 
ist’s Library).  Even  poets,  from  Aristophanes  to 
Thomson,  have  too  often  contributed  to  the  popu- 
lar prejudices  against  insects.  The  latter  stigma- 
tizes spiders  as 

‘ Cunning  and  fierce — 

Mixture  abhorred  ;’ 

but  these  epithets  are  in  reality  as  unjustly  ap- 
plied to  them  (at  least  with  reference  to  the  mode 
by  which  they  procure  necessary  subsistence),  as 
to  the  patient  sportsman,  who  lays  snares  for  the 
birds  that  are  to  serve  for  the  dinner  of  his  fa- 
mily : while  it  can  be  further  pleaded  in  behalt 
of  spiders,  that  they  are  actively  serviceable  to 
the  human  race,  in  checking  the  superfecundity 
of  other  insects,  and  afford  in  their  various  pro- 
cedures the  most  astonishing  displays  of  that 
Supreme  Intelligence  by  which  they  are  directed. 

J.  F.  D. 

SPIKENARD.  [Nerd.] 

SPIRIT  and  HOLY  SPIRIT.  The  word 
for  ‘spirit’  in  the  Hebrew  is  ITH ; in  the  Greek, 
Tvvevga ; and  in  the  German,  geist.  It  is  one 
of  the  most  generic  terms  in  either  the  English, 
Hebrew,  or  Greek  language.  A somewhat  ex- 
tended reference  to  the  usus  loquendi,  both  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  is  necessary,  in  order 
to  ascertain  its  Scriptural  use  and  import. 

Its  leading  significations  may  be  classed  under 
the  following  heads  : — 

1.  The  primary  sense  of  the  term  is  wind. 

‘ He  that  formeth  the  mountains  and  createth  the 
wind  ’ (fin,  Amos  iv.  13;  Isa.  xxvii.  8).  ‘ The 

wind  (trvev/xa)  bloweth  where  it  listeth  ’ (John  iii. 
8).  This  is  the  ground  idea  of  the  term  ‘ spirit  ’ — 
air — ether — air  refined,  sublimated,  or  vitalized  *. 
hence  it  denotes — 

2.  Breathy  as  of  the  mouth.  ‘ At  the  blast  ot 

the  breath  of  his  nostrils  (1Qfc$  fTH)  are  they  con- 
sumed ’ (Job  iv.  9).  ‘ The  Lord  shall  consume 

that  wicked  one  with  the  breath  of  his  mouth  ’ 
(tg5  TrvevpaTi  rov  <rrSjuaTosf  2 Thess.  ii.  8). 

3.  The  vital  principle  which  resides  in  and 
animates  the  body.  In  the  Hebrew,  is  the 


SPIRIT. 


SPIRIT. 


789 


tcnin  specific  term  for  this.  In  the  Greek  it  is 
♦"xi  and  in  the  Latin,  anima.  ‘ No  man  hath 
power  over  the  spirit  (niT3)  to  retain  the  spirit’ 
(Eccles.  viii.  8;  Gen.  vi.  17;  vii.  15).  ‘Jesus 
yielded  up  the  ghost’  ( ouprjKe  to  n vevpa,  Matt, 
xxvii.  50).  ‘And  her  spirit  (tt  vevpa  ai/rrjs)  came 
dgain,’  &c.  (Luke  viii.  55). 

In  close  connection  with  this  use  of  the  word  is 
another — 

4.  In  which  it  has  the  sense  of  apparition — 
spectre.  ‘ They  supposed  that  they  had  seen  a 
spirit,’  i.  e.  spectre  (Luke  xxiv.  37).  ‘A  spirit 
hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have  ’ 
(ver.  39  ; Matt.  xiv.  26). 

5.  The  soul — the  rational  immortal  principle, 

by  which  man  is  distinguished  from  the  brute 
creation.  It  is  the  rb  Trvevpa,  in  distinction  from 
the  t]  tyvxh-  With  the  Latins  it  is  the  animus. 
In  this  class  may  be  included  that  use  of  the 
word  spirit  in  which  the  various  emotions  and 
dispositions  of  the  soul  are  spoken  of.  ‘ Into 
thy  hands  I commend  my  spirit  ’ (rb  Trvevpa 
pov,  Luke  xxiii.  46  ; Acts  vii.  59  ; 1 Cor.  v.  5 ; 
vi.  20  ; vii.  34  ; Heb.  xii.  9).  ‘ My  spirit  hath 

rejoiced  in  God  my  Saviour’  (Luke  i.  47). 
‘ Poor  in  spirit  ’ (7 rrcoxol  rep  rvevpari)  denotes 
humility  (Matt.  v.  3).  ‘ Ye  know  not  what 

manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of’  (Luke  ix.  55),  where 
irvevpa  denotes  disposition  or  temper.  ‘ He  that 
hath  no  rule  over  his  own  spirit’  (IITH,  Prov. 
xxv.  28;  xvi.  32;  Eccles.  vii.  9).  The  moral 
affections  are  denominated  ‘ the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness ’ (Gal.  vi.  1) ; ‘of  bondage ’ (Rom.  viii.  15)  ; 
‘of  jealousy’  (Num.  v.  14);  ‘of  fear’  (2  Tim. 
i.  7)  ; ‘ of  slumber  ’ (Rom.  xi.  8).  In  the  same 
way  also  the  intellectual  qualities  of  the  soul 
are  denominated  ‘ the  spirit  of  counsel  ’ (Isa. 
xi.  2) ; ‘ the  spirit  of  knowledge  ’ (Isa.  xi.  2)  ; 
‘the  spirit  of  wisdom’  (Eph.  i.  17);  ‘the  spirit 
of  truth  and  of  error’  (1  John  iv.  6). 

6.  The  race  of  superhuman  created  intelli- 
gences. Such  beings  are  denominated  spiritual 
beings  because  they  have  no  bodies  like  ours. 
To  both  the  holy  and  the  sinning  angels  the  term 
is  applied.  In  their  original  constitution  their 
natures  were  alike  pure  spirit.  The  apostacy  oc- 
casioned no  change  in  the  nature  of  the  fallen 
angels  as  spiritual  beings. 

In  the  New  Testament  dsemonology  Zaipoov, 
baipdviov,  irvevpa  aKadaprov,  Trvevpa  irovfip6vt  are 
the  distinctive  epithets  for  a fallen  spirit.  Christ 
gave  to  his  disciples  power  over  unclean  spirits 
(7 rv.  aKaddpTwv,  Matt.  x.  1 ; Mark  i.  23  ; Luke 
iv.  36 ; Acts  v.  16).  The  holy  angels  are  termed 
spirits  : — ‘ Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits  ’ 
(\eirovpyiKa  Trvevpara,  Heb.  i.  14)?  ‘And  from 
the  seven  spirits  (eirra  irveupdrcov)  which  are  be- 
fore his  throne’  (Rev.  i.  4). 

7.  The  term  is  applied  to  the  Deity,  as  the 
sole,  absolute,  and  uncreated  Spirit.  ‘ God  is  a 
Spirit’  (irveupa  6 0eJs).  This,  as  a predicate, 
belongs  to  the  divine  nature,  irrespective  of  the 
distinction  of  persons  in  that  nature.  But  its 
characteristic  application  is  to  the  third  person 
in  the  Divinity,  who  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit 
(Ilveu^a  ayiov),  because  of  his  essential  holiness, 
and  because  in  the  Christian  scheme  it  is  his 
peculiar  work  to  sanctify  the  people  of  God.  He 
is  denominated  The  Spirit,  by  way  of  eminence, 
as  the  immediate  author  of  spiritual  life  in  the 
hearts  of  Christians.  The  New  Testament  writers 


are  full  and  explicit  in  referring  the  principle  of 
the  higher  life  to  the  Spirit.  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment  the  reference  is  more  general.  The  Spirit 
is  an  all-pervading,  animating  principle  of  life 
in  the  world  of  nature.  In  the  work  of  creation 
the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon,  or  brooded  over, 
the  face  of  the  waters  (Gen.  i.  2;  Job  xxvi.  13). 
This  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  natural  world 
the  ancients  expressed  as  Ens  extra — Ens  super — 
Ens  intra  mundanum.  The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit, 
as  the  omnipresent  life  and  energy  in  nature, 
differs  from  Pantheism  on  the  one  hand,  and 
from  the  Platonic  soul  of  the  world  on  the  other. 
It  makes  the  Spirit  the  immanent  divine  causality, 
working  in  and  through  natural  laws,  which  work 
is  called  nature ; as  in  the  Christian  life  He  is 
the  indwelling  divine  causality,  operating  upon 
the  soul,  and  through  divine  ordinances;  and  this 
is  termed  grace.  The  Spirit  in  the  world  may 
be  considered  as  the  divine  omnipresence,  sold  be 
classed  among  the  doctrines  which  are  mo  e ]>e- 
culiarly  theological.  But  the  indwelling  and 
operation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  the  belrtver 
is  an  essential  doctrine  of  Christianity.  The  one 
province  of  the  Spirit  is  nature,  the  other  grace. 
Upon  the  difference  between  the  two,  in  respect  to 
the  Spirit’s  work,  rests  the  Christian  consciousness. 
The  general  presence  and  work  of  the  Spirit  in 
nature  is  not  a matter  of  consciousness.  The 
special  presence  and  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
heart  of  the  believer,  by  the  effects  which  are 
produced,  is  a matter  of  which,  from  conscious- 
ness, there  may  be  the  most  consoling  and  de- 
lightful assurance. 

The  words  Spirit,  and  Holy  Spirit,  frequently 
occur  in  the  New  Testament,  by  metonymy,  for 
the  influence  or  effects  of  His  agency. 

a.  As  a procreative  power — ‘ the  power  of  the 
Highest’  (Luke  i.  35). 

b.  As  an  influence,  with  which  Jesus  was  en- 
dued (Luke  iv.  4). 

c.  As  a divine  inspiration  or  afflatus,  by  w ich 
the  prophets  and  holy  men  wrote  and  spoke  (ip 
TrvevpaTi,  5ia  irvexiparos,  virb  Trvevpa ros).  ‘ Holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost’  (2  Pet.  i.  21  ; Num.  xi.  26;  Neh. 
ix.  30;  Ezek.  iii.  12,  14).  John  in  Patmos  was 
wrapped  in  prophetic  vision — wa<£  iv  mevp an 
(Rev.  i.  10;  iv.  2;  xvii.  3). 

d.  As  miraculous  gifts  and  powers,  with  which 

the  Apostles  were  endowed,  to  qualify  them  for 
the  work  to  which  they  were  called.  ‘ Jesus 
breathed  on  them,  and  said  unto  them,  Receive 
ye  the  Holy  Ghost’  (Adhere  TIvevpa  ayiov,  John 
xx.  22).  ‘ And  they  were  filled  with  the  Holy 

Ghost,’  &c.  (Acts  ii.  4).  ‘ They  were  baptized 

with  the  Holy  Ghost’  (iv  Uvevpan  a ylep,  Acts  i. 
5;  comp.  Joel  ii.  28  with  Acts  ii.  16-18,  where 
the  nn  of  the  prophet  is  translated  7r vevpa  by 
the  apostle). 

But  the  phrase,  Holy  Spirit,  is  specially  used 
to  denote  a divine  personal  agent.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  associated,  as  a distinct  person,  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  in  the  baptismal  formula 
and  the  apostolical  benediction.  The  Father 
and  Son  are  real  persons.  It  is  reasonable  to  think 
that  the  spirit  who  is  joined  with  them  in  this 
solemn  form  of  induction  into  the  Christian 
church,  is  also  a personal  agent,  and  not  an  ab- 
straction— a mere  power  or  influence.  The  sub- 
ject is  baptized  into  the  belief  of  three  persoMU 


790 


SPIRIT. 


SPIRIT. 


agents.  To  suppose  that,  in  this  solemn  profes- 
sion of  faith,  he  avows  his  belief  in  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  the  power  or  influence  of  God,  is 
forced  and  frigid. 

He  is  baptized  into  the  name  of  each  of  the 
three — els  rb  ovopa  r ov  irarpbs,  kuI  t ov  vlov,  noil 
rod  aylov  irt/cvparos  (Matt,  xxviii.  19).  The  word 
ovopa,  Heb.  Dk^,  is  the  appellation  of  a person. 
And  when  used  tropically,  as  in  Acts  i.  5,  ifc 
stands  for  persons,  and  not  for  their  influence,  or 
virtue,  or  power.  So  in  the  formula  ovopa  = aylov 
irvfvparos , by  the  usus  loquendi,  is  required  to  be 
the  designation  of  a personal  agent.  vVe  are  not 
baptized  into  the  name  of  an  influence  or  a power, 
but  into  the  name  of  a person — of  three  real  and 
distinct  subjects,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

In  the  apostolical  benedictions,  the  Spirit,  as  a 
person,  is  associated  in  the  same  way  with  the 
Father  and  Son.  * The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all’  (2  Cor.  xiii. 
13).  In  this  uniting  of  the  three  there  is  the 
recognition  of  the  distinct  personality  of  each,  in 
the  separate  charisma  which  is  appropriated  to 
each.  The  x^Pls  is  from  Christ,  the  aydirp  from 
God,  t.  e.  the  Father,  and  the  noivwvla  from  the 
Spirit  The  act  of  communion,  of  fellowship, 
implies  a divine  personal  agent  as  really  as  does 
the  grace  or  the  love.  The  three  are  connected 
in  a similar  way  in  1 Cor.  xii.  4-G. 

Distinct  personal  acts  and  attributes  are  as- 
cribed to  the  Holy  Spirit  too  frequently  and 
fully  to  admit  of  explanation  by  the  prosopo- 
poeia. 

The  Holy  Ghost  speaks,  by  Esaias  the  prophet 
(Acts  xxviii.  25),  expressly  (1  Tim.  iv.  1).  He 
teaches  (Luke  xii.  12).  He  reproves  the  world 
of  sin  (John  xvi.  8).  The  spirit  helpelh  our  in- 
firmities, and  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints 
(Rom.  viii.  26,  27).  He  is  grieved  (Eph.  iv. 
30). 

Apostles  are  set  apart  to  him  in  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  and  he  appoints  them  to  that  work 
(Acts  xiii.  2;  xv.  28). 

These  are  all  acts  which  imply  a personal 
agent.  Speaking,  teaching,  reproof,  grief,  inter- 
cession, are  predicable  only  of  a personal  subject, 
except  in  the  language  of  poetry  or  eloquence. 
In  serious  didactic  style,  in  the  language  of  pre- 
scription, of  promise,  of  permanent  institution 
and  instruction,  where  clearness  and  precision, 
and  not  strong  figures,  are  expected,  they  must 
denote  a person. 

And  these  acts  and  attributes  distinguish  the 
Spirit  from  the  person  of  the  Father  on  the  one 
hand,  and  from  the  personal  subjects  upon  which 
he  acts  on  the  other. 

The  Spirit,  as  a personal  agent,  comes  from  the 
Father,  is  sent  by  the  Father,  and  of  course  can- 
not be  the  Father.  As  sent  by  the  Father,  he 
maketh  intercession  for  the  saints,  according  to 
the  will  of  God,  i.  e.  the  Father  from  whom  he 
came.  The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the 
deep  things  of  God  .(l  Cor.  ii.  10).  If  there  be 
no  distinct  personality  of  the  Spirit  separate  from 
that  of  the  Father,  the  real  import  of  these 
passages  must  be,  that  the  Father  comes  from 
himself,  is  sent  by  himself,  makes  intercession  to 
himself,  according  to  the  will  of  himself,  and 
that  he  searches  the  deep  things  of  himself, — 


which  is  a style  of  writing  not  to  be  ascribe,  re 
any  rational  man,  and  certainly  not  to  inspired 
apostles.  Nor  can  the  personality  of  the  Spirit, 
as  Socinus  affirms,  be  taken  for  the  subjects  who 
are  affected  by  the  divine  influence.  He  is  ai 
distinct  from  the  disciples,  to  whom  he  was  sent, 
as  from  the  Father,  by  whom  he  was  sent.  The 
promise  of  Christ  is,  that  the  Father  will  give 
them  another  comforter,  one  to  take  his  place, 
as  a teacher  and  comforter.  And  that  comforter, 
he  says,  ‘which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  tho 
Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you 
all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remem- 
brance’ (John  xiv.  16,  26).  This  UapaKXrjros,  sent 
from  the  Father,  to  teach,  and  guide,  and  comfort 
the  disciples,  is  as  manifestly  distinct  from  the 
disciples  whom  he  came  to  teach,  as  the  Father 
was,  from  whom  he  came,  or  as  Christ  was,  who 
had  been  their  teacher. 

The  procession  of  the  Spirit  may  be  considered 
as  the  intrinsic  relation  which  he  sustains  to  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  or  with  respect  to  the  mode 
of  his  manifestation.  In  respect  to  the  former, 
the  procession,  tiarSpewis,  of  the  Spirit  has  an 
implied  reference  to  the  generation,  yevvpais,  of 
the  Son,  and  the  ayevvpais  of  the  Father.  The 
Father  is  unbegotten,  the  Son  is  begotten ; the 
Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father  alone,  says  the 
Greek  church,  from  the  Father  and  Son,  says  the 
Latin  church.  Christ  says  that  the  Spirit  of  truth 
proceedeth  from  the  Father,  napa  rod  Uarpos 
eniropeverai  (John  xv.  26).  There  is  no  such  ex- 
plicit statement  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  proces- 
sion of  the  Spirit  from  the  Son,  yet  equivalent 
expressions  of  the  doctrine  are  supposed  to  be 
there.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  called  the  Spirit  of 
the  Father,  because  he  proceeds  from  the  Father. 
For  the  same  reason  he  is  called  the  Spirit  of 
Christ ; because  he  proceedeth  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  because  he  is  sent  by  both  Father  and 
Son  : hence  the  formula  of  the  Latin  church  has 
always  been,  ‘Spiritus  S.  a Patre  et  Filio,  non 
factus,  nec  creatus,  nec  genitus,  sed  procedens.’ 
The  addition  of  the  Filioque  to  the  Constantino- 
politan  confession  of  faith,  by  the  Latin  fathers, 
occasioned  the  division  of  the  church  into  the 
eastern  and  western,  or  the  Greek  and  Latin 
branches.  It  is  from  the  relation  implied  in  the 
procession,  that  the  Spirit  is  called  the  third  per- 
son in  the  Godhead.  The  Father  is  considered  as 
first  in  the  order,  as  the  fountain  and  source  of  all 
things.  The  Son  is  the  second  person,  as  being 
begotten  by  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit  is  the  third, 
as  proceeding  from  and  sharing  the  nature  of 
both.  ‘ These  distinctive  appellations  denote,’ 
says  Augustine,  ‘ the  reciprocal  relations  of  the 
three  persons  to  each  other,  and  not  the  substance 
.itself,  which  is  but  one.’  The  order  has  relation 
to  the  distinction  of  persons;  the  unity  of  the 
divine  nature  has  respect  to  the  substance.  The 
homoousan  includes  the  three.  The  hypostasis 
applies  to  the  distinctions.  As  to  the  homoousan, 
there  is  but  one  God ; as  to  the  hypostasis,  there 
are  three  persons.  The  subordination  of  the  Spirit 
does  not  imply  inferiority,  but  is  a term  of  office 
or  of  relation.  Thus  it  is  that  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine, maintaining  the  unity  of  the  divine  nature 
as  belonging  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  and 
also  the  proper  distinction  between  the  three, 
closes  the  door  equally  against  Arianism  and 
Sabellianism. 


SPIRIT. 


STANDARDS. 


791 


The  Spirit  cf  God  (1  Cor.  ii.  1 1)  is  not  a created 
Spirit;  and  if  uncreated,  it  must  be  divine  in  the 
highest  sense;  but  this  Spirit  is  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  a proper  person  ; hence  he  is  God. 

As  the  author  of  regeneration,  or  of  the  new 
spiritual  and  incorruptible  life  in  the  heart  of  the 
believer,  he  must  be  divine.  This  change,  the 
Scriptures  abundantly  declare,  is  wrought  by  the 
Spirit  and  power  of  God. 

Blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  only 
6in  for  which  there  is  no  remission  (Matt.  xii.  31). 
This  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  whatever  it 
may  consist,  is  distinguished  from  all  other  sins 
by  a degree  of  guilt  which  renders  it  unpardon- 
able. If  he  be  not  in  his  nature  truly  God,  there 
is  nothing  in  him  to  give  to  sin  against  him  such 
a peculiar  aggravation.  Although  it  is  not  simply 
because  the  Spirit  is  God  that  blasphemy  against 
him  is  unpardonable — for  then  would  blasphemy 
against  the  Father  and  the  Son  also  be  unpardon- 
able— yet  it  is  a sin  against  God,  and,  as  being 
against  the  third  person  of  the  Godhead,  it  is  ag- 
gravated to  a degree  of  enormity  which  it  could 
not  receive  if  committed  against  any  other  being 
than  God. 

The  divine  and  incommunicable  attributes  of 
the  Deity  are  ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  These  attri- 
butes belong  exclusively  to  the  divine  nature ; he 
who  possesses  them  must  have  the  divine  nature 
and  honour  as  God  (for  proof  texts,  see  Tri- 
nity). 

Works  truly  divine  are  attributable  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  creation  and  preservation,  and  especially 
the  work  of  sanctification.  There  are  diversities 
of  gifts,  and  there  are  differences  of  administra- 
tions, but  the  same  Spirit.  ‘ All  these  worketh 
that  one  and  self-same  Spirit,  dividing  to  every 
man  severally  as  he  will  ’ (1  Cor.  xii.  4-11). 
Hence  Peter  calls  the  Holy  Ghost,  God  (Acts  v. 
3,  4). 

Of  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  only  ne- 
cessary to  say,  that  it  is  not  ministerial,  like  that 
of  the  angels  and  apostles,  but  it  is  the  peculiar 
work  in  the  salvation  of  man  which  he  performs, 
as  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Paul  has 
developed  the  functions  or  charismata  of  the  office 
with  great  clearness  in  1 Cor.  xii.,  in  which  he 
shows  that  the  diversities  of  gifts  are  all  by  the 
same  Spirit.  Each  charisma  is  the  4 manifesta- 
tion of  the  Spirit’  (7)  (pavepwcris  t ov  Tluev/xaTos). 
This  manifestation  was  in  some  particulars  diffe- 
rent in  the  apostolic  age  from  what  it  was  after 
Christianity  was  established.  The  gifts  which 
were  peculiar  to  that  age,  and  which  evinced  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  some  immediate 
effect,  remarks  Neander,  are  called,  in  the  New 
Testament,  Sui/ajj.e?s,  (Tri/ieia,  repara.  That  pe- 
riod, he  says,  was  peculiarly  the  creative  epoch  of 
Christianity.  Other  gifts  belong  to  the  office  and 
operation  of  the  Spirit  in  every  age  of  the  church, 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints  and  the  edifying  of 
the  body  of  Christ. 

The  views  of  the  first  Christians  respecting  the 
Holy  Spirit  were  vague  and  diverse.  His  power 
had  penetrated  and  pervaded  the  early  church, 
and  yet,  in  general,  no  distinct  and  adequate  con- 
ceptions of  him  were  formed  in  the  mind.  Baum- 
gai  ten  says,  ‘ The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
remained  a long  time  undecided.  It  lay  near 
to  the  first  church  in  a.  practical  respect  only.* 
*W«  *ee  fronii  this,*  says  Neander,  4 how  com- 


pletely religion  is  a thing  of  life,  before  it  can 
obtain  for  itself  an  adequate  form  of  developement 
in  definite  conceptions.’  Some  believed  him  to  be 
a mere  power;  some  confounded  the  idea  of 
person  with  the  charisn\i ; others  supposed  him 
to  be  a creature;  others  believed  him  to  be  God  ; 
and  others  still  were  undecided.  The  practical 
recognition  of  him,  however,  as  the  principle  of 
the  divine  life  in  man,  was  almost  universal  in 
the  early  church. 

The  more  distinct  conceptions  of  the  nature  of 
the  Spirit  arose  out  of  the  baptismal  formula,  and 
the  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  espe- 
cially of  the  Arian  controversy.  Athanasius, 
Basil,  and  the  Gregories  believed  in  the  equality 
of  the  Spirit,  and  contended  that  it  was  a common 
church  doctrine  from  the  beginning.  The  Council 
of  Nice  says, 4 We  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost.’  In 
the  Constant.inopolitan  confession  the  deity  of  the 
Spirit  was  affirmed  with  more  distinctness,  and 
his  procession  from  the  Father  alone  implied. 
The  council  at  Antioch  rejected  the  homoousan 
in  respect  both  to  the  Spirit  and  the  Son.  Under 
Theodosius  the  Scripture  doctrine  was  restored, 
and  it  has  since  remained  the  catholic  doctrine. 

E.  A.  L. 

SPOUSE.  [Marriage.] 

SPRING.  [Palestine.] 

STACHYS  (2t axvs),  an  unknown  person,  from 
his  name  apparently  a Greek,  a disciple  at  Rome, 
and  a friend  of  Paul  (Rom.  xvi.  9). 

STACTE.  [Natak.] 

STANDARDS.  Standards  and  ensigns  are 
to  be  regarded  as  efficient  instruments  for  main- 
taining the  ranks  and  files  of  bodies  of  troops ; 
and  in  Num.  ii.  2 they  are  particularly  noticed, 
the  Israelites  being  not  only  enjoined  to  encamp 
4 each  by  the  standard  of  his  tribe  and  the  ensign 
of  his  father’s  house,’  but,  as  the  sense  evidently 
implies,  in  orders  or  lines.  It  is  clear,  when  this 
verse  is  considered  in  connection  with  the  reli- 
gious, military,  and  battle  pictures  on  Egyptian 
monuments,  that  the  Hebrews  had  ensigns  of  at 
least  three  kinds,  namely ; 1.  The  great  standards 
of  the  tribes,  serving  as  rallying  signals  for 
marching,  forming  in  battle  array,  and  for  en- 
camping ; 2.  The  divisional  standards  (ninSE^D 
mishpachoth ) of  clans ; and,  3.  Tiiose  of  houses  or 
families  (niDX  IVJ3  beth  aboth)-,  which  after  the 
occupation  of  the  Promised  Land  may  gradually 
have  been  applied  more  immediately  to  corps 
and  companies,  when  the  tribes,  as  such,  no 
longer  regularly  took  the  field.  That  there  were 
several  standards  may  be  inferred  from  the  uni- 
form practice  of  the  East  to  this  day ; from 
their  being  useful  in  manoeuvres,  as  already  ex- 
plained, and  as  shown  in  the  Egyptian  paintings; 
and  from  being  absolutely  necessary ; for  had  there 
been  only  one  to  each  tribe,  it  would  not  have  been 
sufficiently  visible  to  crowds  of  people  of  all  ages 
and  both  sexes,  amounting  in  most  cases  lo 
more  than  100,000,  exclusive  of  the  incum- 
brance of  their  baggage.  Whole  bodies,  there- 
fore, each  under  the  guidance  of  the  particular 
clan  ensign,  knew  how  to  follow  the  tribal  standard ; 
and  the  families  offered  the  same  convenience  to 
the  smaller  divisions.  It  may  be  doubted  whether 
these  three  were  enough  for  the  purpose ; for  if  they 
were  carried  in  the  ranks  of  the  armed  liodies,  it 
must  have  been  difficult  for  the  household*  to 


STANDARDS. 


STANDARDS. 


793 


keep  near  them ; and  if  they  were  with  the  crowd,  the  shoulders  of  a row  of  men,  surmounted  by  a 
the  ranks  must  have  had  others  to  enable  them  globe  with  an  enormous  double  feather,  appa* 


to  keep  order,  as  we  find  that  even  in  the  Roman 
legions,  thoroughly  trained  as  they  were,  numerous 
vexilla  were  still  held  to  be  necessary.  That 
there  were  others  might  be  inferred  (Isa.  xiii.  2 ; 
Jer.  li.  27)  from  the  circumstance  of  their  being 
planted  on  the  summit  of  some  high  place,  to 
mark  the  point  where  troops  were  to  assemble : 
these  last,  therefore,  were  not  ensigns  of  parti- 
cular bodies,  but  signals  for  an  understood  pur- 
pose, such  as  both  the  Greeks  and  Romans  em- 
ployed when  the  general  gave  notice  of  his  inten- 
tion to  engage,  by  hoisting  above  his  tent  a red 
tunic,  or  when  Agamemnon  recalled  his  troops 
in  order  to  rally  them,  by  the  signal  of  a purple 
veil. 

But  what  the  form,  colours,  materials,  and 
symbols  of  the  Hebrew  ensigns  were  it  is  more  diffi- 
cult to  determine,  chiefly  because  there  has  been 
a great  quantity  of  learned  trifling  among  Rab- 
binical writers  and  more  modern  heralds,  all 
equally  bent  upon  fearless  assertions,  and  with  so 
little  true  knowledge  of  the  customs  of  antiquity, 
that  they  have  uniformly  described  these  ensigns 
as  flags  in  shape  like  modern  banners — a form  not 
yet  shown  to  have  existed  in  the  west  of  Asia  or 
Europe  anterior  to  the  first  invasion  of  the  Huns, 
excepting  on  some  naval  medals  of  the  empire.* 
In  a collection  of  drawings,  now  before  us,  of  124 
Egyptian,  a considerable  number  of  Persian, 
Bactrian,  Etruscan,  and  Greek  ensigns,  and  a 
very  large  series  of  Roman,  all  are  effigies,  spolia 
of  animals  or  plants,  tablets,  globes,  vexilla,  or 
dragons.  The  vexillary  or  labarum  form  is 
known  to  be  of  Oriental  (Bactrian)  origin,  and 
the  dragon  similarly  originated  among  the  eques- 
trian nations  of  the  East.  It  consisted  of  a head  of 
metal  with  an  open  mouth,  which  turned  on  a 
spindle  at  the  neck,  where  a long  bag  of  coloured 
stuff  was  sewn  to  it,  and  kept  the  open  mouth  to 
the  wind,  filling  the  bag  with  air,  and  causing 
it  to  flout  and  twist  like  a serpent’s  tail.  It  was 
the  origin  of  the  vane  and  pendant : when  the 
metal  head  was  omitted  on  account  of  its  weight 
on  the  top  of  a spear,  and  the  bag  which  formed 
the  body  and  tail  was  cut  open,  or  reduced  to  one 
breadth,  the  dragon  became  the  flammula  or 
pennon  of  more  recent  times.  The  vexillum  was 
a substitute  for  a tablet  ensign,  being  made  of 
cloth,  and  spread  upon  a short  bar,  placed  cross- 
wise on  the  summit  of  a pole. 

As  early  as  the  days  of  the  exode  of  Israel, 
the  Egyptians  had  ensigns  of  different  kinds. 
We  observe  on  the  monumentsf — 1.  Thrones  or 
palanquins,  indicating  the  great  and  sacred 
centre  of  an  army.  2.  Royal  fans  attending 
the  sacred  centre;  they  are  the  ‘ Efthoudehs  of 
India,’  always  carried  by  princes,  or  sons  of  the 
Pharaoh,  on  the  summit  of  long  poles,  and 
therefore  intended  as  signs  of  honour,  not  for 
use  as  umbrellas.  3.  A long  spar  borne  on 

* In  a work  specially  devoted  to  this  subject, 
the  present  writer  intends  shortly  to  publish  the 
result  of  many  years’  investigation,  with  many 
hundred  drawings  collected  for  the  purpose  : it 
will  show  how  much  nations,  religious  opinions, 
laws,  authority,  civilization,  and  war  were  in- 
fluenced by  the  use  of  signa  and  symbols. 

f See  woodcut,  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7, 


508.  1.  Bactrian  eagle;  2.  Persian  vexillum ; 3.  Stan- 

dard of  Sesostris ; 4.  Egyptian  ensign  set  in  a frame, 
signal  of  castrametation'  and  of  direction ; 5.  Tele- 
graphic ensign,  varying  with  each  Pharaoh;  6.  Sub- 
ordinate Egyptian  ensigns;  7.  Tribal  tablet;  8.  Plume 
ensign  used  in  temples. 

rently  twelve  or  fourteen  feet  high,  and  four  or  five 
broad,  coloured  green,  white,  anti  red.  This  has 
been  denominated  the  standard  of  Sesostris,  and 
was  most  likely  the  signal  ensign  of  encamp- 
ment, which  was  fixed  before  the  royal  tent,  and 
when  set  up  must  have  been  visible  high  above 
all  the  other  signa.  4.  Standards  of  lower 
elevation,  always  with  two  great  feathers  issuing 
from  a globe,  and  the  foot  set  in  a portable  frame ; 
which  we  take  to  be  the  signa  ot  castrametation 
and  of  direction,  serving  as  temporary  guiding 
posts,  indications  of  wells,  lines  of  front  in  camp, 
&c.  5.  We  have  found  several  tablets  on  poles, 

similarly  set  in  frames,  but  with  particular  sym- 
bols above  the  tablet,  and  two,  three,  or  four  arms 
holding  objects  that  can  be  inserted  or  taken  off, 
and  the  arms  themselves  apparently  moveable,  the 
whole  having  the  appearance  of  a complete  tele- 
graph. 6.  Besides  these  there  are  very  many 
varieties  of  effigial  ensigns,  with  and  without 
shawls  beneath  them,  ensigns  of  particular  tem- 
ples, idols,  cities,  nomes.  7.  Square  tablets  on 
poles  borne  by  the  file-leader  of  a tribe.  8. 
Ostrich  feather  ensigns,  carried  as  marks  of  honour 
by  princes,  and  sometimes  seen  stuck  at  the  back 
in  a broad  belt.  . # 

Ostrich  feathers  occur  again  as  an  ensign  o ! 
the  Lebanon  people,  or  a nation  of  Palestine, 

f 


STANDARDS. 


STAR  IN  THE  EAST. 


793 


which  is  represented  submitting  to  Sesostris. 
These  ensigns  are  not  necessarily  made  of  plumes 
of  the  bird,  and  they  occur  white,  white  with  a 
black  bar,  and  barred  red  and  white,  red,  white 
and  black,  and  red,  white,  and  green  ; so  that  there 
were  many  belonging  to  different,  appropriations. 
Indeed  this  ensign  is  still  in  use  in  Yemen  and 
the  southern  desert,  where  many  sheiks  have  it 
borne  on  bamboo  poles  as  the  cognizance  of  their 
clans. 

These  details  we  have  deemed  necessary  in  order 
to  show  that  at  the  time  when  Israel  departed  out 
of  Egypt,  most,  if  not  all  of  these  kinds  of  ensigns, 
were  well  known,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  likely 
they  were,  under  proper  modifications,  adopted  by 
that  people  when  about  to  become  wanderers  over 
desert  regions  where  order  and  discipline,  direct- 
ing signals,  telegraphs,  and  indications  of  water 
would  be  most  useful  •,  and  as  the  Egyptians,  in 
common  with  other  organized  nations,  had  a 
tensa  deorum,  or  sacred  centre  for  their  gods  and 
the  royal  tent,  so  also  had  the  chosen  race  a sacred 
centre,  the  twelve  tribes  taking  their  well-known 
stations  around  it — that  centre  rendered  the  more 
awful  and  sublime  by  the  cloud  hovering,  or  the 
light  shining,  above  it  [Encampment]. 

From  the  kind  of  service  which  each  class  of 
ensign  was  to  render,  we  may  take  for  granted, 

that  the  tribal  standard  deghel),  at  all  times 
required  to  be  distinguishable  ‘ afar  off,’  would  be 
elevated  on  high  poles  with  conspicuously  marked 
distinctions,  and  that,  therefore,  although  the  mot- 
toes ascribed  to  the  twelve  tribes,  and  the  symbo- 
lical effigies  applied  to  them,  may  or  may  not  have 
been  adopted,  something  like  the  lofty  flabelliform 
signa  of  Egypt  most  likely  constituted  their  par- 
ticular distinction ; and  this  is  the  more  probable, 
as  no  fans  or  umbrellas  were  borne,  about  the  ark, 
and,  being  royal,  no  chief,  not  even  Moses  him- 
self, could  assume  them  ; but  a priest  or  Levite 
may  have  carried  that  of  each  tribe  in  the  form  of 
a fan,  as  the  distinction  of  highest  dignity,  and 
of  service  rendered  to  the  Lord.  They  may  have 
had  beneath  them  vittae,  or  shawls,  of  the  par- 
ticular colour  of  the  stone  in  the  breastplate  of 
the  high-priest  (although  it  must  be  observed  that 
that  ornament  is  of  later  date  than  the  standards) ; 
and  they  may  have  been  embellished  with  in- 


509.  1.  Egyptian  fans  of  state  attending  the  king,  or 

stuck  upon  the  sacred  arks;  2.  Tablet  ensign  of  the 
Jew8(?),  as  represented  on  the  arch  of  Titus  ; 3.  Globe 
signum  of  Augustus ; 4.  Dragon  ensign,  common  to 
many  nations;  5.  Parthian  standard;  6.  State  um- 
brella, on  a coin  of  Augustus. 

tcriptions,  or  with  figures,  which,  at  a time 
rhen  every  Hebrew  knew  that  animal  forms 


and  other  objects  constituted  parts  of  written  hiero- 
glyphic inscriptions,  and  even  stood  for  sounds, 
could  not  be  mistaken  for  idols,  the  great  law- 
giver himself  adopting  effigies  when  he  shaped 
his  cherubim  for  the  ark  and  balls  for  the  brazen 
sea.  In  after  ages  we  find  typical  figures  ad- 
mitted in  the  ships  carved  on  t lie  monuments 
of  the  Maccabees,  being  the  symbol  of  the  tribe  of 
Zebulon,  and  not  even  then  prohibited,  because 
ships  were  inanimate  objects.  As  for  the  ‘ abo- 
mination of  desolation,’  if  by  that  term  the  Ro- 
man eagle  was  really  meant,  it  was  with  the  Jews 
more  an  expression  of  excited  political  feeling 
under  the  form  of  religious  zeal,  than  of  pure  de- 
votion, and  one  of  the  many  signs  which  preceded 
their  national  doom. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  mishpachoth, 
or  clan  ensigns,  and  HIN  aoth,  were,  at  least  in 
the  earlier  ages,  symbolical  figures  ; and  that  the 
shekels  ascribed  to  David,  bearing  an  olive  or 
citron  branch,  to  Nehemiah  with  three  lilies,  to 
Herod  Agrippa  with  three  ears  of  corn,  and  to 
Tryphon  with  a helmet  and  star,  were  so  many 
types  of  families*  which  may  all  have  been  borne 
as  sculptured  figures,  or,  when  the  purism  of  later 
times  demanded  it,  may  have  been  painted  upon 
tablets,  like  the  supposed  family  or  clan  motto  on 
the  ensign  of  the  Maccabees  ('HDD).  The  prac- 
tice was  equally  common  among  the  heathen 
Egyptians,  Persians,  and  Greeks ; and,  perhaps, 
the  figures  of  those  actually  used  in  Jerusalem  are 
represented  in  the  sculptured  triumphal  proces- 
sion on  the  arch  of  Titus,  where  the  golden  can- 
dlestick and  other  spoils  of  vanquished  Judah  are 
portrayed.  A circumstance  which  confirms  the 
meaning  of  the  objects  represented  upon  the 
Jewish  shekels  is,  that  on  the  reverse  of  those  of 
Herod  Agrippa  is  seen  another  sovereign  ensign  of 
Asia,  namely,  the  umbrella  ( chattah , chutah  of 
India),  always  attending  monarchs,  and  sculp- 
tured at  Chehel  Minar , and  at  Nacshi-Boostan, 
where  it  marks  the  presence  of  the  king.  It  is 
still  the  royal  token  through  all  the  East  and 
Islam  Africa ; and  it  appears  that  in  the  Mace- 
donian era  it  was  adopted  by  the  Graeco-Egyptian 
princes ; for  Antony  is  reproached  with  joining 
the  Roman  Eagles  to  the  state  umbrella  of  Cleo 
patra : — 

‘ Interque  signa  (turpe !)  militaria 
Sol  aspicit  conopeum.’ — Hor.  Epod.  ix. 

The  ensign  of  the  family  or  clan  of  the  royal 
house  then  reigning,  of  the  judge  of  Israel,  or  of  the 
captain  of  the  host,  was  no  doubt  carried  before  the 
chief  in  power,  although  it  does  not  appear  that 
the  Hebrew  kings  had,  like  the  Pharaohs,  four  of 
them  to  mark  their  dignity  ; yet  from  analogy 
they  may  have  had  that  number,  since  Ihe  prac- 
tice was  also  known  to  the  Parthian  kings  subse- 
quently to  the  Byzantine  emperors,  and  even  to 
the  Welsh  princes. — C.  H.  S 

STAR  IN  THE  EAST.  Matthew  (ch.  ii.  1, 
sq.)  relates  that  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  our 
Lord  there  came  wise  men  (magi)  from  the  East 
to  Jerusalem,  to  inquire  after  the  newly  born 
king  of  the  Jews,  in  order  that  they  might  offer 
him  presents  and  worship  him.  A star,  which 
they  had  seen  in  the  East,  guided  them  to  the 
nouse  where  the  infant  Messiah  was.  Having 
come  into  his  presence,  they  presented  unto  hid 
gifts — gold,  and  frankincense,  and  myrrh 


7»4 


STAR  IN  THE  EAST 


STAR  IN  THE  EAST. 


The  solid  learning  and  free  conjecture  of 
Christian  divines  have  combined  with  the  un- 
friendly daring  of  infidelity  to  cast  a heap  of 
difficulties  on  the  particulars  involved  in  this 
passage  of  Holy  Writ.  Our  space  will  not  allow 
us  to  review  and  examine  what  has  been  written  by 
friends  and  enemies  (last  of  all,  by  Strauss,  Leben 
Jesu,  i.  249,  4th'edit.)  on  the  subject.  We  must 
content  ourselves  with  a brief  statement  of  what 
appears  to  us  the  right  view  of  the  case,  referring 
in  justification  to  the  authorities  whence  we  have 
drawn  our  materials. 

These  wise  men  were  Chaldaean  magi.  During 
many  centuries  the  magi  had  been  given  to  the 
study  of  astronomy,  and  for  some  considerable 
time  before  the  birth  of  our  Lord  they  had  cor- 
rupted and  disfigured  their  scientific  knowledge 
by  astrological  speculations  and  dreams.  A con- 
viction had  long  been  spread  throughout  the  East, 
that  about  the  commencement  of  our  era  a great 
and  victorious  prince,  or  the  Messiah,  was  to  be 
born.  His  birth  was,  in  consequence  of  words  of 
Sacred  Scripture  (Num.  xxiv.  17),  connected 
with  the  appearance  of  a star.  Calculations  seem 
to  have  led  the  astrological  astronomers  of  Meso- 
potamia to  fix  the  time  foV  the  advent  of  this  king 
in  the  latter  days  of  Herod,  and  the  place  in  the 
land  of  Judaea.  Accordingly,  at  the  appointed 
time  two  planets,  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  were  in 
conjunction  under  such  circumstances  as  to  ap- 
pear one  resplendent  heavenly  body,  and  to 
marshal  the  way  for  the  magi  from  their  Own 
nomes  to  Jerusalem,  Bethlehem,  and  the  inn. 

But  as  this  view  is,  we  believe,  novel  in  this 
country,  we  will  enter  somewhat  more  into  par- 
ticulars. It  owes  its  origin  to  no  less  a distin- 
guished person  than  the  astronomer  Kepler.  It 
has  been  investigated  and  approved  by  some  of 
the  soundest  minds  of  Germany.  Under  the 
influence  of  a conjunction  of  Jupiter,  Saturn, 
and  Mars,  which  took  place  in  the  year  1604, 
Kepler  was  led  to  think  that  he  had  discovered 
means  for  determining  the  true  year  of  our 
Saviour’s  birth.  He  made  his  calculations,  and 
found  that  Jupiter  and  Saturn  were  in  conjunction 
in  the  constellation  of  the  Fishes  (a  fish  is  the  astro- 
logical symbol  of  Judaea)  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
year  of  Rome  747,  and  were  joined  by  Mars  in 
748.  Here  then  he  fixed  the  first  figure  in  the 
date  of  our  era,  and  here  he  found  the  appearance 
in  the  heavens  which  induced  the  magi  to  under- 
take their  journey,  and  conducted  them  success- 
fully on  their  way.  Others  have  taken  up  this 
view,  freed  it  from  astrological  impurities,  and 
shown  its  trustworthiness  and  applicability  in  the 
case  under  consideration.  It  appears  that  Jupiter 
and  Saturn  came  together  for  the  first  time  on 
May  20th  in  the  twentieth  degree  of  the  constel- 
lation of  the  Fishes.  They  then  stood  before  sun- 
rise in  the  eastern  part  of  the  heavens,  and  so 
were  seen  by  the  magi.  Jupiter  then  passed  by 
Saturn  towards  the  north.  About  the  middle  of 
September  they  were  near  midnight  both  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  sun,  Saturn  in  the  thirteenth,  Jupiter 
in  the  fifteenth  degree,  being  distant  from  each 
other  about  a degree  and  a half.  They  then  drew 
nearer:  on  October  27th  there  was  a second  con- 
junction in  the  sixteenth  degree,  and  on  Novem- 
ber 12th  there  took  place  a third  conjunction  in 
the  fifteenth  degree  of  the  same  constellation.  In 
tie  two  last  conjunctions  the  interval  between 


u.e  planets  amounted  to  no  more  than  a degree 
so  that  to  the  unassisted  eye  the  rays  of  the 
one  planet  were  absorbed  in  those  of  the  other, 
and  the  two  bodies  would  appear  as  one.  The 
two  planets  went  past  each  other  three  times, 
came  very  near  together,  and  showed  themselves 
all  night  long  for  months  in  conjunction  with 
each  other,  as  if  they  would  never  separate  again. 
Their  first  union  in  the  East  awoke  the  attention 
of  the  magi,  told  them  the  expected  time  had 
come,  and  bade  them  set  off  without  delay  to- 
wards Jud*a  (the  fish  land).  When  they  reached 
Jerusalem  the  two  planets  were  once  more  blended 
together.  Then,  in  the  evening,  they  stood  in 
the  southern  part  of  the  sky,  pointing  with  their 
united  rays  to  Bethlehem,  where  prophecy  de- 
clared the  Messiah  was  to  be  born.  The  magi 
followed  the  finger  of  heavenly  light,  and  were 
brought  to  the  child  Jesus.  The  conclusion,  in 
regard  to  the  time  of  the  advent,  is,  that  our  Lord 
was  born  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  of  Rome 
747,  or  six  years  before  the  common  era. 

We  have  not  presented  this  view  from  any 
leaning  in  favour  of  a rationalistic  interpretation, 
believing  that  God  could,  had  he  so  pleased,  have 
created  a heavenly  body  for  the  purpose.  But  it 
must  also  be  said  that  the  divine  Ruler  of  the 
universe  is  frugal  (absit  invidia  verbo ) of  his 
instrumentalities,  and  might  well,  in  the  case 
before  us,  make  use,  for  the  gracious  purposes  of 
his  providence,  of  cosmical  arrangements  which 
he  had  fixed  ere  the  earth  and  heavens  were  made. 
They  are,  however,  facts  which  have  been  set 
forth.  As  facts  they  explain  a passage  on  which 
many  doubts  and  difficulties  have  lain.  The 
reader  will  determine  whether  he  finds  the  ex- 
planation satisfactory.  Kepler's  ideas  may  be 
found  in  the  essay  De  Jesu  Christi  servatoris 
nostri  vero  anno  natalitio,  and  more  fully  in  De 
vero  anno  quo  ceternus  Dei  Jilius  humanam 
naturam  assumpsit,  Frankfurt,  1614.  His  view 
was  taken  up,  and  presented  with  approbation  to 
the  literary  world,  by  a learned  prelate  of  the 
Lutheran  church,  Bishop  Miinfer  ( Der  Stern  der 
Weisen,  Kopenh.  1827).  It  also  gained  approval 
from  the  celebrated  astronomer  Schubert,  of  Pe- 
tersburg ( Vermischten  Schriften,  Stuttgart,  1823). 
The  learned  and  accurate  ldeler  ( Handbuch  der 
Chronologie , Berlin ; see  vol.  ii.  p.  399,  sq.) 
reviewed  the  entire  subject,  and  signified  his 
agreement.  Hase  and  De  Wette,  however,  have 
stated  objections.  A recent  writer  of  considerable 
merit,  Wieseler  ( Chronolog . Synop.  der  4 Evan- 
gelien,  Hamburg,  1843),  has  applied  this  theory 
of  Kepler’s  in  conjunction  with  a discovery  that 
he  has  made  from  some  Chinese  astronomical 
tables,  which  show  that  in  the  year  of  Rome  750  a 
comet  appeared  in  the  heavens,  and  was  visible 
for  seventy  days.  . Wieseler’s  opinion  is,  that  the 
conjunction  of  the  planets  excited  and  fixed  the 
attention  of  the  magi,  but  that  their  guiding-star 
was  the  aforesaid  comet.  The  subject  is  worthy 
of  attention,  and  we  shall  be  glad  if  this  notice 
of  it  should  meet  the  eye  of  some  distinguished 
astronomer  who  would  give  the  subject  a thorough 
investigation.  The  writer  will  be  happy  to  supply 
to  any  competent  inquirer  full  details  of  what 
has  already  been  done.  The  literature  connected 
with  the  subject  is  abundant,  but  appears  to  the 
writer  to  have  lost  much  of  its  interest  since 
Kepler's  views  have  found  acceptance..  Those, 


STEPHANAS. 


STEPHEN. 


793 


however,  who  wish  to  ascertain  what  works  have 
been  written  on  the  subject  are  referred  to  Walch, 
Bibliotheca  Theol.  ii.  422,  sq. ; Thiess,  Krit. 
Comment,  ii.  350,  sq.  On  the  epoch  of  the  birth 
of  Christ,  See  Professor  Wallace’s  Dissertation  on 
the  True  Age  of  the  World  (a  work,  however,  to 
which  we  uo  not  attach  much  value),  p.  84, 
London,  1844. — J.  R.  B. 

STEPHANAS  (2,Te<pavas),  a disciple  at  Co- 
rinth, whose  household  Paul  baptized  (1  Cor. 
i.  16),  being  the  first  converted  to  Christianity  in 
Achaia  (1  Cor.  xvi.  15).  From  the  last  of  these 
texts  it  would  appear  that  Stephanas  and  his 
family,  in  the  most  exemplary  manner,  ‘ ad- 
dicted themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints 
which  some  interpret  of  their  having  taken  upon 
them  the  office  and  duty  qf  deacons ; but  which 
seems  to  admit  of  a larger  sense  (without  exclud- 
ing this),  namely,  that  all  the  members  of  this 
excellent  family  ministered  to  the  wants  and 
promoted  the  comfort  of  their  fellow-Christians, 
whether  strangers  or  countrymen.  As  ‘ the  house- 
hold of  Stephanas  ’ is  mentioned  in  both  texts,  it 
has  been  supposed  that  Stephanas  himself  was 
dead  when  Paul  wrote ; but  in  verse  17  it  is 
said,  ‘ I am  glad  of  the  coming  of  Stephanas.’ 

STEPHEN  (Sre^aros),  one  of  the  seven  first 
deacons,  and  the  proto-martyr,  of  the  Christian 
church.  It  appears  from  his  name  that  he  was  a 
Hellenist,  as  it  was  not  common  for  the  Jews  of 
Palestine  to  adopt  names  for  their  children,  except 
from  the  Hebrew  or  Syriac ; though  of  what  country 
he  was  is  unknown.  He  is  represented  by  Epi- 
phanius  (xl.  p.  50)  as  one  of  the  seventy  disciples 
chosen  by  Christ ; but  this  statement  is  without 
authority  from  Scripture,  and  is,  in  fact,  incon- 
sistent with  what  is  there  mentioned  concerning 
him.  He  is  spoken  of  by  others  as  one  of  the 
first  converts  of  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ; but 
this  also  is  merely  conjectural.  Jerome  (on  Isa. 
xlvi.  12)  and  others  of  the  Fathers  praise  him  as 
a man  of  great  learning  and  eloquence.  The  first 
authentic  notice  we  find  of  him  is  in  Acts  vi.  5. 
In  the  distribution  of  the  common  fund  that  was 
entrusted  to  the  apostles  (Acts  iv.  35-37)  for  the 
support  of  the  poorer  brethren  (see  Mosheim,  De 
Rebus  Christ,  ante  Const,  p.  118,  and  Dissert, 
ad  Hist.  Eccles.  pertin.),  the  Hellenistic  Jews 
complained  that  a partiality  was  shown  to  the 
natives  of  Palestine,  and  that  the  poor  and  sick 
among  their  widows  were  neglected.  Whether 
we  conceive  with  Mosheim  ( De  Rebus,  &c.  p. 
118),  that  the  distribution  was  made  by  indivi- 
duals set  apart  for  that  office,  though  not  yet  pos- 
sessing the  name  of  deacons;  or,  with  the  writer 
in  the  Encyclopeedia  Metropolitan  a (art.  ‘ Eccle- 
siastical History  see  also  Archbishop  Wbately’s 
Kingdom  of  Christ),  we  conclude  that  with  the 
office  they  had  also  the  name,  but  were  limited 
to  Hebrews  ; or  whether  we  follow  the  more  com- 
mon view,  as  set  forth  by  Bohmer  (Diss.  vii. ; 
Juris  Eccles.  Antiq.),  does  not  materially  affect 
the  present  subject.  The  complaint  of  the  Hel- 
lenists having  reached  the  ears  of  the  apostles,  im- 
mediate directions  were  given  by  them  with  a view 
to  remove  the  cause  of  it.  Unwilling  themselves 
to  be  called  away  from  their  proper  employment 
of  extending  the  bounds  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity, they  told  the  assembled  multitude  of  be- 
lievers to  select  seven  men  of  their  own  number, 
in  whose  faith  and  integrity  they  might  repose 


entire  confidence,  for  the  superinte: ilence  of  every 
thing  connected  with  the  relief  of  the  poor.  The 
proposal  of  the  apostles  met  with  the  approba- 
tion of  the  brethren,  who  proceeded  at  once  with 
the  choice  of  the  prescribed  number  of  indivi- 
duals, among  whom  Stephen  is  first  mentioned ; 
hence  the  title  of  first  deacon,  or  first  of  the  dea* 
cons,  is  given  to  him  by  Irenams  (Iren.  i.  12). 
He  is  distinguished  in  Scripture  as  a man  ‘ full 
of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost’ (Acts  vi.  5). 
The  newly  elected  individuals  were  brought  t a 
the  apostles,  who  ordained  them  to  their  office, 
and  they  entered  upon  their  duties  with  extra- 
ordinary zeal  and  success.  The  number  ol 
the  disciples  was  greatly  increased,  and  many 
priests  were  among  the  converts.  In  this  work 
Stephen  greatly  distinguished  himself  by  the 
miracles  he  performed  before  the  people,  and  by 
the  arguments  he  advanced  in  support  of  the 
Christian  cause.  From  his  foreign  descent  and 
education  he  was  naturally  led  to  address  him- 
self to  the  Hellenists,  and  in  his  disputation* 
with  Jews  of  the  Synagogue  of  the  Libertine* 
and  Cyrenians,  &c.  [Synagogue  and  Liber- 
tine], he  brought  forward  views  of  the  Chris 
tian  scheme  that  could  not  be  relished  by  the 
bigots  of  the  ancient  faith.  As  they  were  un- 
able to  withstand  his  powers  of  reasoning,  theij 
malice  was  excited;  they  suborned  false  wit- 
nesses against  him,  and  dragged  him  before  th* 
Sanhedrim  as  a blasphemer.  The  charge  brought 
against  him  was,  that  he  had  spoken  against  ths 
law  and  the  Temple,  against  Moses  and  against 
God.  This  accusation  was  calculated  to  incite  all 
parties  in  the  Sanhedrim  against  him  (comp.  Acts 
xxii.  22)  ; and  upon  receiving  it  the  predetermined 
purpose  of  the  Council  was  not  to  be  mistaken. 
Stephen  saw  that  he  was  to  be  the  victim  of  the 
blind  and  malignant  spirit  which  had  been  ex- 
hibited by  the  Jews  in  every  period,  of  their  his- 
tory. But  his  serenity  was  unruffled;  his  con- 
fidence in  the  goodness  of  his  cause,  and  in  the 
promised  support  of  his  heavenly  Master,  im- 
parted a divine  tranquillity  to  his  mind;  and 
when  the  judges  fixed  their  regards  upon  him, 
the  light  that  was  within  beamed  forth  upon  his 
countenance,  and  ‘ they  saw  his  face  as  if  it  had 
been  the  face  of  an  angel’  (Acts  vi.  15). 

Benson.  ( History  of  the  First  Planting  of  the 
Christian  Religion)  and  others  have  considered 
the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  against  Stephen  as 
in  every  respect  false,  and  that  we  are  not  even 
to  suppose  that  he  had  stated  that  Christ  would 
change  the  customs  which  Moses  delivered  (Acts 
vi.  14),  upon  the  ground  of  the  improbability  of 
more  being  revealed  to  Stephen  than  to  the 
apostles,  as  to  the  abolition  of  the  Levitical  cere- 
monies. From  the  strain  of  the  martyr’s  speech, 
however,  a different  conclusion  may  be  drawn. 
His  words  imply,  in  various  passages,  that  external 
rites  were  not  essential,  and  that  true  religion  was 
not  confined  to  the  Temple  service  (Acts  vii.  8,  38, 
44,  &c.).  And  there  seems  much  plausibility  in 
the  conjecture  of  Neander  ( Planting  and  Train- 
ing of  the  Christian  Church,  translated  by 
Ryland,  vol.  i.  p.  56,  sq.),  that  Stephen  and  the 
other  deacons  from  their  birth  and  education  were 
less  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  prejudices  than 
the  natives  of  Palestine,  and  may  thus  have  been 
prepared  to  precede  the  apostles  themselves  in 
apprehending  the  libeity  which  the  Gospel  was 


796 


STEPHEN. 


STOICS. 


to  introduce.  The  statements  of  Stephen  corre- 
spond in  more  than  one  particular  with  what  was 
afterwards  taught  by  St.  Paul. 

His  speech  is  well  deserving  of  the  most  dili- 
gent study,  and  the  more  it  is  understood  the 
higher  idea  will  it  convey  of  the  degree  in  which 
he  possessed  the  qualities  ascribed  to  him  in  the 
fifth  chapter.  Very  different  views  have  been 
taken  of  it  by  commentators.  Upon  the  whole 
we  are  inclined  to  follow  that  which  is  given 
by  Neander  in  the  work  referred  to.  Even  as  a 
composition  it  is  curious  and  interesting  from 
the  connection  which  may  be  discovered  between 
the  various  parts,  and  from  the  unity  given  to 
the  whole  by  the  honesty  and  earnestness  of  the 
speaker.  Without  any  formal  statement  of  his 
object,  Stephen  obviously  gives  a confession  of1 
his  faith,  sets  forth  a true  view  of  the  import  of 
his  preaching,  in  opposition  to  the  false  gloss  that 
nad  been  put  upon  it,  maintains  the  justness  of 
his  cause,  and  shows  how  well  founded  were  his 
denunciations  against  the  impenitent  Jews. 

He  first  enters  upon  a historical  statement,  in- 
volving a refutation  of  the  charges  which  had 
been  made  against  him  of  hostility  to  the  Old 
Testament  institutions;  but  at  the  same  time 
showing  that  acceptance  with  God  does  not  de- 
pend upon  outward  relations.  Under  the  same 
form  he  illustrates  the  providential  care  exercised 
by  the  Almighty  in  regard  to  the  Jewish  people, 
along  with  the  opposition  exhibited  by  the  Jews 
towards  those  sent  to  them  by  God.  And  he 
points  the  application  of  his  whole  discourse  by 
charging  his  carnal-minded  hearers  with  resisting, 
like  their  fathers,  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  effect 
upon  his  auditors  was  terrible.  Conscience-smit- 
ten, they  united  in  wreaking  their  vengeance  on 
the  faithful,  denouncer  of  their  guilt.  They 
drowned  his  voice  with  their  clamorous  outcries, 
they  stopped  their  ears  against  him,  they  rushed 
on  him  with  one  accord  in  a tumultuary  manner, 
they  carried  him  forth,  and  without  waiting  for 
the  authority  of  law,  they  stoned  him  to  death  as 
a blasphemer  [Stoning]. 

The  frantic  violence  of  his  persecutors  did  not 
disturb  the  tranquillity  of  the  martyr,  and  he  died 
praying  that  his  murderers  might  be  forgiven 
fvii.  60).  In  his  prayer  he  showed  that  a new 
spirit  had  been  introduced  into  the  world,  and 
taught  the  Christians  that  the  example  of  their 
Divine  Master  was  to  be  followed  even  in  cir- 
cumstances that  they  might  have  conceived  to 
be  impossible.  Nor  was  this  prayer  without  effect. 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  consented  to  his  death  (viii. 
1),  and  kept  the  clothes  of  them  that  stoned  him 
(vii.  58),  heard  his  words,  mocking,  doubtless, 
like  the  rest.  But  the  prayer  was  heard,  and  fo 
it  we  owe  the  ministry  of  the  apostle  Paul  (Til- 
lemont,  Memoires,  vol.  ii.  p.  8). 

The  only  other  particular  connected  with  Ste- 
phen, mentioned  in  Scripture,  is,  that  ‘ devout 
men  carried  him  to  his  burial,  and  made  great  la- 
mentation over  him’  (viii.  2).  No  information  is 
given  respecting  the  time  of  his  death,  or  the  place 
of  his  burial.  In  the  fifth  century  (415),  however, 
the  relics  of  the  martyr  were  said  to  have  been 
miraculously  discovered  by  a Greek  priest  of  the 
name  of  Lucian  (Luciani  Presbyteri  Epistola 
de  Inventione  S.  Stepham, , and  they  were 
brought  to  Europe  by  Orosius.  Evodius,  Bishop 
of  Myala,  wrote  a small  treatise  concerning  the 


miracles  performed  by  them ; arid  Severus,  c 
Bishop  of  the  Island  of  Minorca,  wrote  a cir- 
cular letter  of  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  in  that 
island,  and  of  the  miracles  wrought  in  that  place, 
by  the  relics  which  Orosius  left  there.  These 
writings  are  contained  in  the  works  of  Augustine, 
who  gives  the  sanction  of  his  authority  to  the 
incredible  follies  they  record  ( De  Civit.  Dei , 
xxii.  8). 

Since  the  fifth  century,  Stephen’s  day  has  been 
celebrated  on  the  26  th  of  December.  The  date 
is  confessed  by  many  Roman  Catholic  writers  to 
be  arbitrary,  and  is  wholly  without  authority. 

STOICS  AND  EPICUREANS.  A concise 
notice  of  these  celebrated  sects  is  all  that  is  re- 
quired for  the  elucidation  of  the  Christian  history, 
and  all  that  the  limits  of  the  present  work  allow. 

The  Stoics  derive  their  name  from  <rrod,  ‘ a 
porch because  their  founder  Zeno  was  accus- 
tomed to  teach  in  a certain  porch  at  Athens. 
This  Zeno,  of  Citium,  in  Cyprus,  must  not  be 
confounded  with  an  earlier  Zeno  of  Elea.  The 
younger  and  more  celebrated  philosopher  of  the 
name  was  born  from  360  to  350  years  b.c.,  and 
formed  a system  of  tenets  which  combined  much 
of  the  harsh  asceticism  of  the  Cynics  with  the 
noble  moral  aspirations  and  vexatious  verbal 
quibblings  of  the  Platonists.  The  Greek  stoical 
schools  produced  the  most  elaborate  speculations 
on  grammar  which  those  ages  could  boast  of,  and 
in  moral  teaching  they  showed  a strong  tendency 
to  a technical  and  over-systematic  nomenclature. 
Under  such  a covert  a Jesuitical  casuistry  might 
easily  arise,  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the 
asceticism  and  high  pretensions  of  this  sect  uni- 
formly implied  virtuous  conduct.  Their  most  re- 
volting paradoxes  appear  to  be  only  exaggeration* 
of  truth  : exaggerations  into  which  they  were  pro- 
bably forced  by  their  intense  controversy  with  tlv 
Epicureans,  in  part  through  their  resolute  adhe- 
rence to  the  deductions  of  fheirown  logic,  in  part 
from  a certain  love  of  eccentricity,  with  whicl 
the  Stoics  were  not  unjustly  charged. 

Epicurus  is  said  to  have  been  born  at  Athens 
b.c.  344,  and  to  have  opened  a school  (or  rather  » 
garden)  where  he  propagated  his  tenets,  at  a time 
when  the  doctrines  of  Zeno  had  already  obtained 
credit  and  currency.  In  physics,  in  religion , in 
politics , and  in  morals , the  two  systems  espoused 
directly  opposite  views.  The  Stoics,  like  the  Pla- 
tonists, were  practically  disinclined  to  what  we 
distinctively  name  physical  philosophy,  and  ac- 
quiesced in  numerous  vague  dogmas  concerning 
it,  which  had  no  ground  in  experiment  or  cau- 
tious observation,  preferring  mystical  or  moral 
views,  and  such  as  well  combined  with  popular 
superstition.  Thus  they  held  the  sun  and  stars  to 
be  real  gods,  because  composed  of  fire,  which  was 
asserted  to  be  a divine  quality.  The  Epicureans, 
on  the  contrary,  pursued  physics,  in  too  hasty  a 
spirit,  no  doubt,  but  nevertheless,  on  the  whole,  with 
much  of  the  genius  of  the  moderns,  and,  we  mig  it 
add,  with  surprising  success,  if  the  followers  of 
Epicurus  had  followed  in  his  steps  by  inquiring 
as  freely  as  he.  With  creditable  discernment, 
he  adopted  the  Atomic  theory  of  Democritus,  a 
philosopher  of  first-rate  genius,  though  be rn  before 
his  time  ; who,  when  not  a single  sound  principle 
had  been  laid  down  in  chemistry,  or  in  errestrial 
mechanics,  seized  on  the  grand  idea  of  Newton 
that  the  heavenly  bodice  a re  regulated  by  the  sat m 


STOICS. 


STOICS. 


7V1 


laws  as  the  minutest  objects  on  the  surface  of  the 
earth,  and  taught,  concerning  the  constituent  par- 
ticles of  matter,  a doctrine  which  Dalton  and 
Berzelius  have  developed  and  established.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  the  physics  of  Epicurus  was  found 
an  intense  antagonism  to  existing  prejudices  and 
popular  superstitions.  With  him  the  sun  was 
»nly  a large  fire,  and  not  a god  ; the  lightning 
was  guided  by  physical  laws,  and  was  not  the 
bolt  of  Jupiter  to  strike  down  the  impious.  Many 
of  the  Epicurean  explanations  of  physical  pheno- 
mena (as  may  be  seen  in  Lucretii^)  show  the 
school  to  have  been  much  in  advance  of  the 
age;  but  as  unfortunately  they  were  not  satis- 
fied to  learn  gradually,  they  spoiled  their  best 
ideas  by  mingling  them  with  the  crudest  ab- 
surdities. 

It  is  in  striking  contradiction  to  what  might 
have  been  expected  from  each  school,  that  while 
Epicurus  endowed  his  atoms  with  certain  chance- 
movements  (an  idea  which  he  had  superadded  to 
die  theory  of  Democritus),  the  Stoics  maintained 
that  the  whole  universe,  including  the  gods,  were 
subject  to  an  unalterable  fate,  which  they  also 
called  providence . That  they  subjected  the  gods 
to  this  exterior  force,  is  perhaps  explained  by 
their  material  conception  of  godhead. 

Since  they  studied  to  keep  as  close  as  possible 
to  the  popular  religion,  the  Stoics  almost  ne- 
cessarily applied  a system  of  mystical  allegorizing 
to  all  that  was  offensive  in  the  current  legends. 
In  no  part  of  their  tenets  is  their  sincerity  more 
doubtful : nevertheless,  if  we  may  accept  as  any 
fair  representation  of  their  devotional  feeling  the 
hymn  to  Jupiter  by  the  Stoic  Cleanthes,  which  is 
by  far  the  noblest  religious  address  in  all  anti- 
quity, we  shall  set  them  on  a much  higher  eminence 
than  any  other  sect.  Cleanthes,  while  elevating 
Jupiter  to  a position  which  may  satisfy  a strict 
Monotheist,  ascribes  to  him  the  purest  moral  cha- 
racter, as  being  ‘ the  cause  of  every  thing,  except 
of  Sin  and  concludes  by  fervent  prayers  for  the 
divine  teaching  to  scatter  all  darkness  from  the 
soul,  and  enable  it  to  attain  divine  wisdom.  The 
Epicureans  (in  spite  of  the  chance-movements 
ascribed  to  atoms)  pushed  out  to  a great  extent 
the  supremacy  of  general  laws  in  the  universe ; 
and  as  they  were  strict  Materialists,  could  make 
no  exception  in  favour  of  the  moral  world.  Hence 
they  would  admit  of  no  interferences  of  the  deities 
in  the  concerns  of  man,  whether  by  external  visit- 
ation or  by  secret  spiritual  influence  on  the  heart. 
The  gods  were  represented  as  serene,  majestic 
beings,  too  distant,  and  too  quietly  comfortable, 
to  care  about  human  concerns;  so  that  while  it 
was  proper  to  think  of  them  with  reverence  and 
admiration,  to  pray  to  them  or  worship  them  with 
ceremonies  was  absurd.  They  undoubtedly  are 
such  a nullity  in  the  practical  creed  of  Epicurus, 
and  the  muscular  weakness,  which,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  light  and  airy  texture  of  their  spi- 
ritual form,  he  ascribes  to  them,  wears  so  ridiculous 
an  aspect,  as  to  give  colour  to  the  imputation  that 
his  Theism  was  assumed  to  avoid  the  popular 
odium  which  an  undisguised  Atheism  would 
hawe  incurred. 

Concerning  politics  no  well-defined  dogmas 
seem  to  have  been  propounded  by  the  Stoics ; but 
the  genius  of  their  creed  led  them  to  patronise  the 
national  religion  in  each  country,  and  thereby  to 
give  to  their  pupils  a strong  sentiment  of  special 


citizenship.  This  is  the  first  element  of  patriotio 
exertion  everywhere;  and  the  early  Stoics,  how- 
ever unsuited  by  many  parts  of  their  creed  for 
public  life,  maintained,  in  theory  at  least,  that 
their  wise  man  was  the  best  ruler  of  a state,  and 
ought 'upon  occasion  to  devote  property  and  life 
in  his  country’s  service.  The  Epicureans,  from 
their  devotion  to  physical  science,  and  their  con- 
tempt for  general  literature,  were  cosmopolitan 
in  their  tendency,  with  too  little  concern  for  any 
one  particular  state  to  make  patriotic  sacrifices. 
Even  the  trouble  of  exercising  power  was  generally 
thought  by  them  too  heavy  a burden.  Whether 
less  or  more  voluptuous  in  personal  life — a Pom- 
ponius  Atticus  or  a Mucianus — they  were  reso- 
lute in  refusing,  or  glad  to  get  rid  of,  official 
power,  and  to  slip  back  into  social  comfort  and 
quiet  speculation,  like  the  gods  whom  they  ad- 
mired. This  political  selfishness  was  in  strange 
contrast  with  the  unaffected  and  warm  friendships 
of  their  private  life,  in  which  they  were  capable, 
if  not  of  great  sacrifices,  yet  of  constant,  amiable, 
forbearing,  and  active  affection.  But  it  is  pro- 
bable that  a prevalent  neglect  of  historical  read- 
ing, joined  with  the  distaste  for  the  national  bal- 
lads which  their  scepticism » necessitated,  could 
not  but  render  political  pursuits,  in  Greece,  un- 
congenial to  them. 

The  moral  system  of  each  school  was  in  close 
connection  with  their  other  views.  Both  taugbt 
that  we  must  live  ‘ in  harmony  with  Nature,’  but 
they  interpreted  this  differently.  The  Stoic  theory 
erected  a noble  fabric  of  virtue,  which  the  wise 
man  would  pursue  at  all  events,  and  proclaimed, 
that  while  virtuous,  he  was  perfectly  happy,  what- 
ever his  external  circumstances.  This  may  be 
forgiven,  as  only  an  over-statement  of  a valuable 
truth.  The  same  may  be  said  of  their  do£ma, 
that  ‘ all  sins  are  equal/  that £ the  wise  cannot  fall 
away/  and  that  ‘ he  is  a king,  though  in  abject 
poverty.’  But  they  to  a great  extent  spoiled  all 
that  was  excellent  in  these  ideas,  sometimes  by 
sour  asceticism  and  fanatical  coxcombry,  yet 
oftener  perhaps  by  the  despicable  logical  cavilling 
which  they  had  inherited  from  Socrates  and 
Plato.  Grammar  and  dialectics  appear  literally 
to  have  been  the  curse  of  these  schools,  and  utterly 
incapacitated  them  from  acting  on  the  popular 
intellect,  to  which  their  subtleties  were  unintel- 
ligible, and  their  verbose  reasoning  a source  of 
merited  disgust.  Epicurus,  on  the  contrary,  like 
modern  physical  philosophers,  cared  for  things , 
not  for  xoords  ; and  had  at  least  the  good  sense 
to  know,  that  since  morality  belongs  to  the  mass 
of  mankind,  it  must  rest  on  broad  foundations 
which  they  can  appreciate,  and  cannot  need 
lengthy  and  hairspun  reasonings  to  adapt  it  to 
practice.  His  contempt  of  rhetoric  and  of  the  art 
of  elegant  composition  may  possibly  not  have 
been  more  than  is  expected  by  us  in  every  mathe- 
matical work,  but  has  exposed  him  to  frequent 
invectives  from  Cicero.  The  Epicurean  theory  of 
morals  was  undoubtedly  wholly  selfish,  and  this 
was  its  blight.  Like  the  modern  advocates  of 
the  selfish  system,  he  taught  that  ‘pleasing  sensa- 
tions’ constitute  all  that  is  good  in  anything; 
even  benevolence  and  generosity  were  resolved 
into  selfish  affections,  by  supposing  them  to  have 
thei;  spring  in  the  ‘pleasure’  of  him  who  exer- 
cises them.  This  theory  has  been  innocently 
held  by  many  Christians,  in  whom  it  is  a fault  rtf 


STOICS. 


STORK. 


7*-* 

the  head,  not  of  the  heart. ; and  the  same  may  have 
been  tne  case  with  numbers'  of  the  Epicureans. 
But  it  is  impossible,  without  practical  mischief  to 
the  multitude,  to  confound  under  the  single  name 
of  ‘ pleasure  ’ feelings  so  different  as  those  of  the 
sailor  who  risks  his  life  to  save  a stranger,  and 
those  of  the  profligate  who  sacrifices  the  happiness 
of  others  to  his  sensuality.  Epicurus  taught  that 
men  should  be  amiable  members  of  a family,  en- 
oying  freely  all  innocent  social  pleasures,  and 
abstaining  from  all  vice  and  crime,  and  his  prac- 
tice was  as  pure  as  his  precepts ; but  he  also  said, 
that  we  should  be  thus  virtuous,  because  this 
would  yield  us  most  pleasure ; and  by  making 
this  his  foundation,  he  gave  currency  to  a great 
debasing  idea,  which  has  always  generated  rot- 
tenness. 

Thus  far  we  have  spoken  of  Stoicism  and  Epi- 
cureanism, chiefly  as  they  were  among  the  Greeks ; 
but  both  systems  underwent  modification  among 
the  Romans  ; the  former  for  the  better,  the  latter 
(it  would  seem)  for  the  worse.  Perhaps  this  must 
in  any  case  have  happened.  Stoicism,  which  had 
in  it  some  great  anil  true  moral  ideas,  might  have 
been  expected  to  clear  itself  of  its  asceticism,  its 
coxcombry,  its  love  of  paradox,  its  subtleties,  its 
mythological  absurdities,  by  the  wear  and  tear  of 
practical  life,  and  by  the  ridicule  of  men.  Epi- 
cureanism, which  inculcated  (at  least  in  appear- 
ance) mere  self-indulgence,  would  attract  to 
itself  all  the  more  grovelling  natures,  and  the  phi- 
losophy itself  would  become  deteriorated  by  the 
practice  and  interpretation  of  its  votaries.  But 
beside  this,  the  Epicurean  intellect  miserably 
stagnated  through  the  insane  idolatry  directed 
towards  their  founder.  This  is  the  more  amazing, 
considering  how  little  was  original  in  his  system  ; 
for  he  had  taken  his  morals  from  Aristippus  and 
Eudoxus,  as  his  physics  from  Democritus:  yet 
they  seem  to  have  made  no  effort  to  improve  upon 
his  theories,  or  perfect  even  his  physical  specula- 
tions, but  wasted  all  their  labour  in  endless  com- 
mentaries on  his  work.  Even  the  Roman  poet 
Lucretius,  a genius  far  superior  to  Epicurus,  pa- 
negyrizes him  in  the  most  fulsome  strains  : — 

* Deus  ille  fuit,  Deus,  inclute  Memmi, 

Qui  princeps  vitse  rationem  invenit  earn,  quae 

Nunc  appellatur  Sapienti^,’  &c. 

The  Stoics  were  not  so  absurd,  however  great  their 
respect  for  their  founder ; and,  in  consequence, 
they  from  time  to  time  received  new  views  and 
fresh  light  from  several  sources. 

Moreover,  it  is  probable  that  the  genius  of  the 
Roman  people,  and  of  all  Western  Europe,  was 
better  fitted  to  improve  Stoicism  than  Epicu- 
reanism. Their  more  practical  mind  despised 
and  cast  aside  very  much  of  the  trashy  logic  which 
disgraced  the  acute  Greeks,  and  a mere  riddance 
from  this  was  an  immense  gain  to  Stoicism.  On 
the  contrary,  their  coarser  natures,  in  adopting 
such  a theory,  as,  that  ‘ pleasure  was  the  chief 
good,’  were  likely  to  accept  this  in  the  worst 
sense  ; nor  do  they  appear  in  general  to  have  had 
much  taste  for  the  tranquil  ease  and  intellectual 
retirement  which  was  the  paradise  of  the  frugal 
Epicurus.  Men  of  weak  passions  and  strong 
mind  may  live  virtuously  under  the  selfish  theory, 
or  by  arguments  of  expediency ; but  ambitious, 
ardent,  or  passionate  temperaments,  as  they  are 
capable  of  higher  excellence,  so  are  they  in  dan- 


ger of  deeper  debasement,  unless  influenced  by 
some  nobler  ideal  of  excellence.  The  Roman  Stoicf 
were  the  very  prime  of  the  nation  ; many  of  them 
characters  who  must  ever  be  thought  of  with  re- 
verence and  admiration.  But  before  their  doc- 
trine reached  its  culminating  point,  it  had  re- 
ceived, wemay  believe,  amollifying  influence  from 
Christianity,  which  had  risen  by  its  side.  Epic- 
tetus, a Greek,  who  is  said  to  have  flourished  from 
Nero  to  Hadrian,  or  even  later,  is  one  eminent 
extant  source  of  information  concerning  the  im- 
proved Stoicism  of  the  day.  Self-denial  is  his 
great  virtue,  but  a true  and  beautiful  benevolence 
animates  it.  His  contemporary,  Seneca,  and  that 
best  of  emperors,  Marcus  Aurelius,  are  our  au- 
thentic informants  what  Roman  Stoicism  had 
become.  That  they  could  not  see  Christianity  to 
be  a supernatural  system  may  be  lamented;  but 
that  they  (consciously  or  unawares)  drew  much 
instruction  from  it,  ought  surely  to  be  praised,  not 
harshly  censured,  as  it  has  been.  Concerning  the 
Epicureans,  the  poem  of  Lucretius  is  our  most 
accessible  source  of  knowledge;  Laertius,  Sextus 
Empiricus,  Cicero,  and  Plutarch,  are  very  va- 
luable to  us  for  the  doctrines  of  both  sects. — 

F.  W.  N. 

STONING.  [Punishments.] 

STORAX  (2ropa|)  occurs  only  in  Ecclesi- 
asticus  xxiv.  15,  ‘I  gave  a sweet  smell  like 
cinnamon  and  aspalathus,  and  I yielded  a plea- 
sant odour  like  the  best  myrrh,’  &c.  Sweet  sto- 
rax  is  mentioned  by  various  Greek  writers,  from 
the  time  of  Hippocrates  to  that  of  Dioscorides. 
Several  kinds  of  it  were  known,  varying  chiefly 
in  the  form  in  which  it  was  obtained,  or  the  de- 
gree of  adulteration  to  which  it  had.  been  sub- 
jected. Most  of  the  kinds  are  still  known  in 
commerce.  It  is  obtained  by  incisions  made 
in  the  bark  of  the  tree  called  styrax  officinale 
by  botanists.  This  tree  is  a native  of  Greece, 
Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and  Palestine,  and  is  about 
twenty  feet  high,  with  leaves  like  those  of  the 
quince,  and  flowers  somewhat  resembling  those 
of  the  orange.  Storax  was,  and  is  still,  much 
esteemed,  both  as  an  incense  and  for  its  medical 
properties.  It  consists  chiefly  of  resin,  a volatile 
oil,  and  some  Benzoic  acid.  It  has  a grateful 
balsamic  odour,  which  no  doubt  made  it  valued 
in  ancient  times. 

STORK  (HTpn  chasidah).  In  Egypt,  the 
two  species  collectively  are  called  Anaseh,  the 
white,  more  particularly,  Belari ; in  Arabic 
Zakid,  ZoAig  (?),  Abuhist , Ileklek,  Ilegleg,  and 
Hadji  Luglug , the  three  last-mentioned  express- 
ing the  peculiar  clatter  which  storks  make  with 
their  bills,  and  Hadji,  or  pilgrim,  denoting  their 
migratory  habits.  This  quality  several  of  the 
Western  names  likewise  indicate,  while  our  word 
stork,  albeit  the  Greek  oTopyi)  implies  natural 
affection,  is  an  appellation  which  extends  to  the 
Icelandic,  Danish,  Swedish,  German,  Hungarian, 
Lette,  and  Wallachian  languages,  and  is  pre- 
sumed originally  to  have  been  Stor  Eger,  i.  e. 
migrating  Heron , with  which  the  Greek  agrees  in 
sound,  but  has  no  affinity  of  meaning,  though  it 
corroborates  the  interpretation  of  Chasidah  in 
the  Hebrew,  similarly  implying  affection,  piety, 
mercy,  and  gratitude.  This  name  results  from 
a belief,  general  through  all  ancient  Asia,  in  the 
attachment  of  these  birds  to  each  other  j of  th* 


STORK. 


STORK. 


799 


young  towards  the  old,  and  of  the  parents 
towards  their  young.  But  the  latter  part  of 
this  opinion  is  alone  verified  by  the  moderns, 
in  cases  where  the  mother  bird  has  perished  while 
endeavouring  to  save  her  progeny.  This  oc- 
curred in  the  great  fire  at  Delft,  and  more  recently 
at  the  battle  of  Fr iedland,  where  a fir-tree  with  a 
stork’s  nest  in  it  being  set  on  fire  by  a howitzer- 
shell,  the  female  made  repeated  efforts  to  extricate 
her  young,  arid  at  length,  as  in  the  other  case, 
was  seen  to  sink  in  the  flames.  Without,  there- 
fore, admitting  the  exaggerated  reports,  or  the 
popular  opinions  of  the  East,  respecting  the  stork, 
enough  is  shown  to  justify  the  identification  of 
Chasidah  with  that  bird;  notwithstanding  that 
some  learned  commentators  have  referred  the 
word  to  Heron,  and  to  several  other  birds,  though 
none  upon  investigation  are  found  to  unite  in  the 
same  degree  the  qualities  which  are  ascribed  to 
the  species  in  Lev.  xi.  19;  Deut.  xiv.  18;  Job 
xxxix.  13;  Psa.  civ.  17 ; Jer.  via.  7 ; Zech.  v.  9. 


Storks  are  about  a foot  less  in  height  than  the 
crane,  measuring  only  three  feet  six  inches  from 
the  tip  of  the  bill  to  the  end  of  the  toes,  and 
nearly  the  same  to  the  end  of  the  tail.  They  have 
a stout,  pointed,  and  rather  long  bill,  which,  to- 
gether with  their  long  legs,  is  of  a bright  scarlet 
colour  ; the  toes  are  partially  webbed,  the  nails 
at  the  extremities  flat,  and  but  little  pointed 
beyond  the  tips  ©f  the  joints.  The  orbits  are 
blackish,  but  the  whole  bird  is  white,  with  the 
exception  of  a few  scapulars,  the  greater  wing 
covers,,  and  all  the  quills,  which  are  deep  black  : 
they  are  doubly  scalloped  out,  with  those  nearest 
the  body  almost  as  long  as  the  very  foremost  in 
the  wing.  This  is  a provision  of  nature,  enabling 
the  bird  more  effectually  to  sustain  its  after 
weight  in  the  air ; a faculty  exceedingly  im- 
portant to  its  mode  of  flight  with  its  long  neck, 
and  longer  legs  equally  stretched  out,  and  very 
necessary  to  a migrating  species  believed  to 
fly  without  alighting  from  the  lower  Rhine,  or 
even  from  the  vicinity  of  Strasburg,  to  Africa, 
and  to  the  Delta  of  the  Nile.  The  passage  is  per- 
formed in  October,  and,  like  that  of  cranes,  in 
single  or  in  double  columns,  uniting  in  a point 
to  cleave  the  air ; but  their  departure  is  seldom 
seen,  because  they  start  generally  in  the  night;  they 
rise  always  with  clapping  wings,  ascending  with 
surprising  rapidity  out  of  human  sight,  and  arriv- 
ing at  their  southern  destination  as  if  by  enchant- 
ment. Here  they  reaid*  until  the  last  days  of 
March,  when  they  again  depart  for  the  north,  but 


more  leisurely  and  less  congregated  A feeling  of 
attachment,  not  without  superstition,  procure* 
them  an  unmolested  life  in  all  Moslem  countries, 
and  a notion  of  their  utility  still  protects  them  in 
Switzerland,  Western  Germany,  and  particularly 
in  Holland,  where  we  have  seen  them  (at  Midde.- 
burg)  walking  with  perfect  composure  in  a crowded 
vegetable  market  Storks  build  their  nests  in 
pine,  fir,  cedar,  and  other  coniferous  trees,  but 
seem  to  prefer  lofty  old  buildings,  lowers,  and 
ruins  : there  are  always  several  located  on  the 
tops  of  the  isolated  pillars  at  Persepolis ; and 
they  often  obstruct  the  Muesim  by  nestling  in 
their  way,  about  the  summits  of  the  minarets 
which  these  servants  of  the  mosques  must  ascend 
to  call  the  congregation  to  prayer.  Several 
modern  writers  still  assert  the  filial  affection  of 
young  storks,  whom  they  describe  as  assisting  their 
aged  parents  when  they  cannot  any  longer  fly  with 
vigour,  and  as  bringing  them  food  when  unable 
to  provide  for  themselves.  Without  entirely  re- 
jecting the  fact  of  affectionate  relations  among 
these  birds,  it  may  be  remarked  that  storks  live 
to  a good  old  age  ; and  as  they  have  a brood  (some- 
times two)  every  year,  the  question  is,  which  of 
these  takes  charge  of  the  decrepid  parents?  It 
cannot  be  the  youngest,  not  as  yet  of  sufficient 
btrength,  nor  those  of  preceding  years,  which  are 
no  longer  in  their  company.  Besides,  the  weaker 
birds  remain  and  breed  in  the  south.  May  it  not 
be  conjectured  that  much  of  this  belief  is  derived 
from  a fact,  which  we  have  ourselves  had  an  op- 
portunity of  witnessing,  though  we  could  not 
distinguish  whether  the  flight  was  composed  of 
cranes  or  storks?  In  an  exceedingly  stormy  day. 
when  their  southward  course  had  been  suddenly 
opposed  by  a contrary  gale,  we  saw  a column  of 
birds  still  persisting  in  their  toil,  but  at  a lower 
elevation,  and  changing  their  worn-out  leader ; 
and  the  bird  on  taking  his  station  in  the  rear  was 
clearly  attended  for  a moment  by  three  or  four 
others  of  the  last,  who  quitted  their  stations  as  if 
to  help  him  to  reach  the  wake  of  the  line.  With 
regard  to  the  snake-eating  habits  of  the  species, 
the  Marabbu,  or  adjutant  bird  of  India,  often 
classed  with  storks,  is  undoubtedly  a great  de- 
vourer  of  serpents,  but  not  so  much  so  as  the  com- 
mon peacock  ; and  that  domestic  fowls  are  active 
destroyers  of  the  young  of  reptiles,  may  be  ob- 
served even  in  England,  where  they  carry  off 
and  devour  small  vipers.  The  chief  resort  how- 
ever of  storks,  for  above  half  the  year,  is  in  cli- 
mates where  serpents  do  not  abound : and  they 
seem  at  all  times  to  prefer  eels,  frogs,  toads, 
newts,  and  lizards  ; which  sufficiently  accounts 
for  their  being  regarded  as  unclean  (perhaps  no 
bird  sacred  in  Egypt  was  held  clean  by  the 
Hebrew  law).  Storks  feed  also  onfield  mice; 
but  they  do  not  appear  to  relish  rats,  though  they 
break  their  bones  by  repeated  blows  of  their  bills. 

In  conclusion,  Agyst,  the  Russian  (?)  name 
of  the  stork  according  to  Merrick,  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  related  to  the  Hebrew,  unless  it  could 
be  shown  that  the  Esthonian  Aigr  or  Aigro,  applied 
to  the  same  bird,  and  the  old  Teutonic  Aigel , Da- 
nish Hegre,  Italian  and  Provencal  Arione,  Aigron> 
denominations  of  the  common  heron,  are  from  the 
same  source,  and  not  primitive  appellatives  ia 
the  great  northern  family  of  languages,  which,  ig 
must  be  confessed,  are  not  solitary  examples  ia 
vocabularies  so  remote  from  each  other.  Of  tfc* 


SUCCOTR. 


SUPPER  OF  THE  LORD. 


SW 


analler  sized,  more  solitary  black  stork,  no  men- 
tion need  be  made  in  this  place,  because  it  is 
evidently  not  the  bird  referred  to  in  the  sac-rea 
writers. — C.  H.  S. 

STREETS.  [Towns.] 

STRIPES.  [Punishments.] 

1.  SUCCOTH  (lYDD,  booths  ; Sept.  2 

the  first  encampment  of  the  Israelites  on  the 
Egyptian  side  of  the  Red  Sea  (Exod.  xii.  37 ; 
xiii.  20;  Num.  xxxiii.  5)  [Exodus]. 

2.  SUCCOTH,  a town  in  the  tribe  of  Gad 
(Josh.  xiii.  27),  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  (Judg. 
viii.  5 ; 1 Kings  vii.  6).  The  spot  in  which  the 
town  stood  is  called  * the  Valley  of  Succoth,’  and 
must  have  been  part  of  the  valley  of  the  Jordan. 
The  place  derived  its  name  from  Jacob  having 
tarried  some  time  there  on  his  return  from  Padati- 
aram,  and  made  booths  for  his  cattle  (Gen. 
xxxiii.  17). 

SUMMER.  [Palestine.] 

SUPH  (P]-1D),  translated  ‘ flags’  in  the  Auth. 
Vers.,  means  some  aquatic  plant.  It  is  men- 
tioned in  Exod.  ii.  3,  5 ; Isa.  xix.  6 ; Jonah  ii.  6 ; 
but  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  it  may  not  have 
been  used  in  a comprehensive  sense,  as  sea-weed 
is  with  us,  rather  than  have  been  confined  to  one  of 
the  plants  growing  in  the  sea.  The  word  suph  oc- 
curs in  several  other  passages  : these,  however, 
have  reference  to  the  Red  Sea,  which  by  the  He- 
brews was  called  Suph  Sea.  Rosenmuller  states 
that  this,  ‘ in  the  Coptic  version  of  the  Pentateuch, 
anti  the  Psalms,  is  called  by  its  old  Egyptian 
name,  the  Shari  Sea.’  But  Shari,  or,  as  the  Greeks  , 
pronounced  it,  Sari,  is  the  Egyptian  name  for  tan- 
gles or  sea-weeds,  of  which  there  is  great  abund- 
ance in  that  sea.  In  Jonah  ii.  5,  ‘ sea-weed  was 
wrapped  around  my  head,1  one  of  the  fuci  would 
seem  to  be  indicated.  Lady  Calcot.t  selects  zostera 
marina,  or  sea  wrack,  which  resembles  them  in 
habit.  It  has  by  others  been  translated  juncus , 
arundo , carex , &c.  Rosenmuller  says,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  a species  of  sari  is  denoted  by  suph, 
which,  according  to  Pliny,  grows  on  the  banks  of 
the  Nile.  ‘Fruticosi  est  generis  sari,  circa  Nilum 
nascens,  duorum  ferme  cubitorum  altitudine, 
pollicari  crassitndine ; coma  papyri,  similique 
mandilur  modo.’  This  is  supposed  to  be  some 
reed,  or  grass-like  plant.  It  is  curious  that  the 
names  sar  and  sari  extend  even  to  India.  There 
is  a species  of  saccharum  growing  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Calcutta,  which  has  been  named  S. 
Sari  by  Dr.  Roxburgh. — J.  F.  R. 

SUPPER  OF  THE  LORD  (K vpuucSr  iettr- 
vov'),  so  called  by  St.  Paul  in  his  historical  re 
ference  to  the  Passover  Supper  as  observed  by 
Jesus  on  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  (1 
Cor.  xi.  20  ; Matt.  xxvi.  20-31).  As  regards 
the  day  on  which  our  Lord  observed  the  Passover, 
it  seems  more  proper  to  say,  that  the  Pharisees, 
the  dominant  party  among  the  Jews,  deferred  its 
observance  a day  in  accordance  with  their  tra- 
ditions, than  that  Jesus  anticipated  it.  What  one 
party  considered  the  fourteenth  Nisan,  would  to 
the  other  be  the  thirteenth.  This  supposition  seems 
*>est  to  harmonize  any  apparent  discrepancy  in  the 
accounts  of  the  evangelists. 

Several  controverted  points  may  perhaps  be  best 
adjusted  by  a connected  harmony  of  the  last  Pass- 
over  of  the  Lord,  constructed  from  the  evangeli* 


narratives  alluding  to  it,  but  filling  up  the  va- 
rious omitted  circumstances  from  the  known 
Passover  rites  [Passover]. 

‘ Now,  when  it  was  evening,  Jesus  sat  down 
with  the  twelve  (Matt.)  Apostles  ’ (Maik).  The 
first  customary  washing  and  purifications  being 
performed,  the  blessing  over  the  first  cup  of  wine, 
which  began  the  feast,  would  be  pronounced, 
probably  in  the  usual  form — ‘ We  thank  thee,  O 
God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  who  hast  created  the 
fruit  of  the  vine.’  Considering  the  peculiarity  of 
the  circumstances,  and  the  genius  of  tr.o  new  dis- 
pensation about  to  be  established— that  the  great 
Teacher  had  already  declared  the  superiority  of 
simple  forms  to  the  involved  traditions  of  the 
Jewish  doctors,  and  that  his  disciples  alone  were 
present  on  this  occasion — it  may  be  supposed 
that,  after  the  blessing  over  the  herbs,  the  recital 
of  the  liturgy  (or  haggadah)  explanatory  of  the 
redemption  of  their  ancestors  from  Egyptian  bond- 
age, would  be  somewhat  simplified,  and  perhaps 
accompanied  with  new  reflections. 

Then  probably  the  second  cup  of  wine  was 
mingled,  and  with  the  flesh  of  the  paschal  lamb, 
feast-offerings,  and  other  viands,  placed  before  the 
LorcL  ’ ‘ And  he  said  unto  them,  With  desire  have 
I desired  to  eat  this  Pascha  with  you  before  I 
suffer  ; for  I aay  unto  you,  I shall  no  more  eat 
thereof  until  it  be  fulfilled  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
And  he  took  the  [second]  cup,  and  gave  thanks, 
and  said,  Take  this,  and  divide  among  you,  for  I 
say  unto  you,  I will  not  henceforth  drink  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  kingdom  of  God  shall 
come  ’ (Luke). 

When  the  wine  distributed  to  each  would  l>e 
drunk  off,  one  of  the  unleavened  cakes  would 
next  be  broken,  the  blessing  said  over  it,  and  a 
piece  distributed  to  each  disciple,  probably  with 
the  usual  formula : — ‘ This  is  the  bread  of  afflic- 
tion which  your  fathers  did  eat  in  the  land  of 
Egypt  ’ — i.  e.,  not  the  identical  bread,  transub- 
stantiated, but  a memorial  or  sign  of  it..  The 
company  would  then  proceed  with  the  proper  sup- 
per, eating  of  the  feast-offeriug,  and,  after  a bene- 
diction, of  the  paschal  lamb. 

‘ And  as  they  were  at  supper,*  the  Devil  having 
now  put  it  into  the  heart  of  judas  to  betray  him  ; 
Jesus,  knowing  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things 
into  his  hands,  and  that  he  was  come  from  God, 
and  was  going  to  God,  riseth  from  supper;  and’ 
after  due  preparations  ‘ began  to  wash  the  disci- 
ples’ feet.’  (John).  After  this  striking  symbolic 
exhortation  to  humility  and  mutual  service  (John 
xiii.  6-20),  ‘ Jesus  was  troubled  in  spirit,  and 
bare  witness,  and  said,  Verily,  verily,  I say  unto 
you,  that  one  of  you  will  betray  me.  Then  the 
disciples  looked  on  one  another,  doubting  of  whom 
he  spake  ’ (John).  ‘ And  they  were  very  sorry, 
and  began  each  of  them  to  say  unto  him,  Lord,  is 
it  I?’ (Matt.)  ‘One  of  the  disciples,  leaning 
back  on  Jesus's  breast,  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  is  it 
I?  Jesus  answered,  He  it  is  to  whom  1 shall 


* The  translation  of  the  phrase  beiirrov  yevo- 
akvov  by  ‘ supper  being  ended,’  has  much  con- 
fused the  various  narratives,  and  led  many  to 
think  that  Judas  was  present  at  the  Lord's  Supper, 
properly  so  called.  The  Irue  reading  probably  is 
yivogkvov  (not  yevogkvov),  as  understood  by  the 
Arabic  and  Persic  translators,  in  the  sense  4 while 
*upper  wae  about,’  or  ‘ during  supper-time.’ 


SUPPER  OF  THE  LORD. 


SUPPER  OF  THE  LORD.  801 


give  a so}.',  when  I have  clipped  it.  And  after 
dipping  the  sop  he  giveth  it  to  Judas  Iscariot. 
Then  Satan  entered  into  him.  Jesus  saith  unto 
him,  What  thou  doest,  do  quickly.  Pie  then,  on 
taking  the  sop,  went  immediately  out;  and  it  was 
night’  (John). 

The  supper  would  then  proceed,  until  each  had 
eaten  sufficient  of  the  paschal  lamb  and  feast- 
offering. 

‘And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  the  bread,’ 
the  other  unleavened  cake  left  unbroken,  ‘and 
blessed’  God  ‘and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the’ 
eleven  ‘disciples,  and  said,  Take  eat;  this  is  my 
body  (Matt.,  Mark),  which  is  broken  for  you : 
this  do  in  remembrance  of  me  ’ (Luke,  Paul,  1 Cor. 
xi.  24). 

The  supper  being  concluded,  the  hands  were 
usually  washed  the  second  time,  and  the  third  cup 
or  ‘ cup  of  blessing  ’ (1  Cor.  x.  16)  prepared,  over 
which  the  master  usually  gave  thanks  for  the 
Covenant  of  Circumcision,  and  for  the  law  given 
to  Moses.  Jesus,  therefore,  at  this  juncture,  an- 
nounced, with  peculiar  appropriateness,  his  New 
Covenant. 

‘ After  the  same  manner,  also,  Jesus  took  the 
cup  after  supper,  and,  having  given  thanks,  gg.ve 
it  to  them,  saying.  Drink  all  of  you  out  of  it ; for 
this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  which  is  shed 
for  many  for  forgiveness  of  sins  (Matt.):  this  do, 
as  oft  as  ye  drink,  in  remembrance  of  me  ’ (1  Cor. 
xi.  24).  But  I say  unto  you,  I shall  not  drink 
henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day 
when  I drink  it  new  (ucuv6v)  with  you  in  my 
Father’s  kingdom  ’ (Matt.). 

‘ And  when  they  had  sung  a hymn  ’ (Matt.), 
probably  the  Hallel,  our  Lord  discoursed  long 
with  his  disciples  about  his  approaching  death 
f.ud  departure  (John  xiii.  31  ; xiv.  31),  and  when 
he  had  finished  lie  said,  ‘ xWise,  let  us  go  hence.’ 
1 And  they  went  out  on  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  ’ 
(Matt.). 

A multitude  of  disputes  and  controversies 
have  existed  in  the  church,  from  the  earliest 
ages  of  Christianity,  regarding  the  nature,  ob- 
servance, and  elements  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.  On 
these  points  the  reader  may  consult  the  following 
works: — Pierce,  Waterl  and.  Cud  worth,  Hoadley, 
and  Bell,  On  the  Eucharist ; Dr.  Wiseman’s  Ro- 
man Calholic  Lectures,  and  Dean  Turton’s 
Reply  ; Orme's  Lord's  Supper  Illustrated , Lond. 
1832;  Goodman,  On  the  Eucharist,  Lond.  1841  ; 
Coleman's  Christ.  Antiq. ; Dr.  Halley,  On  the 
Sacraments,  Lond.  1845  ; De  Linde  and  Mearns’s 
Prize  Essays  on  the  Jewish  Passover  and  Chris- 
tian Eucharist  Lond.  1845.  The  early  church 
appears,  from  a vast  preponderance  of  evidence, 
to  have  practised  communion  weekly,  on  the 
Lord’s  day.  The  custom,  which  prevailed  during 
the  first  seven  centuries,  of  mixing  the  wine  with 
water,  and  in  the  Greek  church  with  hot  water, 
appears  to  have  originated  with  the  ancient  Jews, 
who  mingled  their  thick,  boiled  wine  with  water 
(Mishna,  Tr.  Ttroomoth,  xi.).*  The  raisin-wine, 
often  employed  both  by  the  ancient  and  modem 

! 3T* — — 

* Maimonides  (in  Chometz  Vematzah , sect, 
vii.)  states,  that  the  proportion  of  pure  wine  in 
every  cup  must  not  be  less  than  the  fourth  part 
of  a quarter  of  a hin,  besides  water  which  must 
needs  be  mingled,  tha  the  drinking  of  it  may  be 
the  more  pleasant. 

TOL.  II 


Jews  ( Arbah  Turim , §483,  date  1300),  contain* 
water  of  course.  Remnants  of  this  custom  are 
still  traceable  in  the  East.  The  Nestorian  Chris- 
tians, as  late  as  the  sixteenth  century,  as  we  find 
from  the  old  travellers,  celebrated  the  Eucharis* 
in  such  wine,  made  by  steeping  raisins  one  nigh 
in  water,  the  juice  being  pressed  forth  (Osoriue, 
De  Pel.  Emanuel,  lib.  iii. ; Boter,  Pel.,  p.  3,  lib. 
ii. ; Odoard  Barboso,  ap.  Ramum.,  v.  i.  p.  313; 
Prof.  Brerewood,  On  Div.  Lang.,  1622,  p.  147). 
The  Christians  of  India  (said  to  be  converted  by 
St.  Thomas)  used  raisin-wine,  as  also  do  some  of 
the  Syrian  churches  at  the  present  day  (Ross’# 
Panseheia 1683,  p.492;  W.  Ainsworth’s  Travels 
in  Asia  Minor,  1842).  The  third  Conned  of 
Braga  would  not  permit  the  use  of  the  pure  ‘fruit 
of  the  vine,’  for  they  condemned  as  heretics  ‘those 
who  used  no  other  wine  but  what  they  pressed 
out  of  the  clusters  of  grapes,  which  were  then 
presented  at  the  Lord’s  Table  ’ (Bingham,  Christ. 
Antiq.,  V.  ch.  ii.). 

It  seems  to  us,  however,  that  the  language  of 
Jesus  is  conclusive  on  this  point.  Dr.  De  Wette 
(on  Matt.  xxvi.  29)  observes,  that  ‘ the  wine  is 
called  new  here,  in  reference  to  t he  future  renova- 
tion of  all  things  at  Christ's  coming.  It  refers  to 
an  ideal  celebration  of  the  supper  in  a glorified 
state.’  This  is  true ; but  this  able  critic  should 
have  further  explained  why  the  wine  must  be 
new  rather  than  the  bread.  The  reason  is  plainly 
referable  to  the  kind  of  wine  which  the  disciples 
were  then  drinking.  Had  Jesus  been  speaking  oil 
fermented  wine  he  could  not  have  used  this  lan^. 
guage,  because  of  such  it  is  said  that  ‘ the  old  ik, 
better  than  the  new  ’ (Luke  v.  39).  But  the  wine 
here  employed  to  symbolize  the  heavenly  02>spiriT 
tual  feast  was  of  a kind  which  is  best  when  new,  or, 
as  Clement  of  Alexandria  designates  it  (P&d.  ii.), 

‘ the  blood  of  the  vine ,’  which  of  course' is  in  its 
best  state  when  pure  and  fresh  from  the  vintage. 
The  wine  employed  at  the  last  Supper  of  our 
Lord  must,  therefore,  have  been  made  either  fi;ora 
dried  or  preserved  grapes,  or  from-  the  juice  fire- 
served  by  boiling  or  by  preventing  the  access  ofair. 

As  regards  the  bread,  many  of  the  Eastern 
churches  use  unfermented  bread  in  the  Commu- 
nion. ‘ The  Greek  church  adopts  a leavened 
bread,  but  the  Roman  church  has  it  unleavened; 
and  this  difference  has  been  the  cause  of  much 
controversy,  though  it  seems  easy  to  decide  which 
kind  was  used  by  Jesus,  the  last  Supper  having 
been  on  one  of  the  “ days  of  unleavened  bread,” 
when  no  other  kind  could  be  eaten  in  the  land  of 
Judaea.’  The  Protestant  churches,  generally,  pay 
little  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  elements,  but 
use  the  ordinary  bread,  as  well  as  wine,  of  the 
country.  It  was  probably  from  regarding  in  a 
similar  way  the  bread  and  wine  as  mere  ordinary 
beverage,  that  some  of  the  ancient  sects  gave  up 
the  wine  altogether,  and  substituted  other  things. 
Epiphanius  r Hares.  49)  and  Augustine  ( Hares . 
28)  mention  an  ancient  sect  of  Christians  in 
Phrygia,  called  Artotyrites,  because  they  used 
bread  and  cheese.  Others  made  use  of  bread  and 
water  only;  and  the  third  Council  of  Biaga  (ad. 
675)  condemn  a custom  of  communicating  in 
bread  and  milk.  If,  however,  the  elements  of 
the  Supper  are  to  be  regarded  in  a symbolic 
sense,  after  the  manner  of  the  Jewish  Passover— 
if  tire  language  of  our  Lord  is  to  be  applicable  to 
wine  In  the  present  day — it  would  seem  that  ar- 


52 


S02 


SWALLOW. 


SWINE. 


fent’un  should  he  paid,  not  only  to  the  name, 
but  to  the  nature  of  the  elements;  that  the  symbol 
and  the  things  symbolized  should  naturally  cor- 
respond, and  still  retain  a reference  to  the  ancient 
Passover.  ‘ For,’  as  St.  Paul  observes,  * Christ 
our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us.  Therefore  let 
us  keep  the  feast,  not  with  old  leaven,  nor  with 
the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness ; but  with 
the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth  ’ 
(1  Cor.  v.  8).— F.  R.  L. 

SUSA.  [Shusiian.] 

SUSANNAH.  [Daniel,  Apocryphal  ad- 
denda to.] 

SWALLOW  (D'D  Sis,  and  *Y|YT  Deror ). 
The  latter  is  sometimes  translated  ‘ turtle-dove,’ 
but  it  is  more  properly  the  4 swift’  or  ‘ black  mar- 
tin,’ and,  probably,  the  Dururi  of  Alexandria, 
mentioned  by  Forskal.  The  first  occurs  only  in 
Isa.  xxxviii.  14  ; Jer.  via.  7 ; the  second  in  Psa. 
lxxxiv.  3 ; Prov.  xxvi.  2,  Sis,  however,  when 
coupled  with  “VDJJ  Ogur,  is  by  some  thought  to 
denote  the  crane,  while  the  last-mentioned  He- 
brew word  denotes  the  swallow.  The  Septuagint, 
Vulgate,  and  three  ancient  manuscripts  point  out 
the  true  meaning  ; and  Bochart  with  others  have 
established  it  by  learned  researches,  which  leave 
little  to  be  desired,  although  Rabbinical  writers 
produce  Arabic  authority  to  prove  that  Sis  is  the 
name  of  a long-legged  bird.  Sis,  however,  is  an 
imitative  name  expressive  of  the  swallow's  voice 
or  twitter,  and  in  Dr.  Kennicott’s  remark,  that,  in 
thirteen  Codices  of  Jerem.  he  read  Isis  for  Sis, 
we  find  the  source  of  the  ancient  fable  of  the 
Egyptian  Isis  being  transformed  into  a swallow. 

The  species  of  Syria  and  Palestine,  so  far  as 
fney  are  known,  appear  all  to  be  the  same  as  those 
of  Europe:  they  are,  1.  Hirundo  rustica,  or  do- 
mestica,  the. chimney  swallow,  with  a forked  tail, 
marked  with  a row  of  white  spots, whereof  llirundo 
Syriaca,  if  at  all  different,  is  most  likely  only  a 
variety. 

2.  Hirundo  Urbica,  the  martin  or  common 
window  swallow.  These  two  are  most  likely  the 
species  comprehended  under  the  name  of  Sis. 

3.  Hirundo  Riparia , sand-martin  or  shore-bird, 
not  uncommon  in  northern  Egypt,  near  the 
mouths  of  the  Delta,  and  in  southern  Palestine, 
about  Gaza,  where  it  nestles  in  holes,  even  on  the 
sea-shore. 

4.  Hirundo  Assus,  the  swift  or  black  martin, 
distinguished  by  its  larger  size,  short  legs,  very 
long  wings,  forked  tail,  and  by  all  the  toes  of  the 
feet  turning  forward  : these,  armed  with  small, 
crooked,  and  very  sharp  claws,  enable  the  bird  to 
hang  against  the  sides  of  walls,  but  it  cannot  vise 
from  the  ground  on  account,  of  the  length  of  its 
wings.  The  last  two,  but  more  particularly  this 
species,  we  take  to  be  the  Deror , on  account  of  the 
name  Dururi,  already  mentioned;  which  was 
most  probably  applied  to  it,  because  the  swift 
martin  prefers  towers,  minarets,  and  ruins  to  build 
in,  and  is,  besides,  a bird  to  which  the  epithet  of 
‘ free’  is  particularly  applicable.  On  the  Eu- 
ropean coast  of  the  Mediterranean  it  bears  the 
name  of  Barbota,  anil  in  several  parts  of  France, 

^including  Paris,  is  known  by  the  vulgar  name  of 
Me  Juif,’  the  Jew  ; and,  finally,  being  the  largest 
and  most  conspicuous  bird  of  the  species  in  Pa- 
lestine, it  is  the  type  of  the  heraldic  martlet, 
originally  applied  in  the  science  of  blazon  as  the 


especial  distinction  of  Crusader  pilgrims,  being 
borrowed  from  Oriental  nations,  where  the  bird  is 
likewise  honoured  with  the  term  Hadgi , or  PU- 


SH. [The  Swift — Dururi.] 

grim,  to  designate  its  migratory  habits.  The 
Deror  being  mentioned  as  building  on  the  altar, 
seems  to  imply  a greater  generalization  of  the 
name  than  we  have  given  it ; for  habits  of  nest- 
ing in  immediate  contact  with  man  belong  only 
to  the  house  and  window  swallows ; but,  in  the 
present  instance,  the  expression  is  not  meant  to 
convey  a literal  sense,  but  must  be  taken  as  re- 
ferring to  the  whole  structure  of  the  temple,  and 
in  this  view  the  swift  bears  that  character  more 
completely  than  the  other.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
dilate  further  on  the  history  of  a genus  of  birds  so 
universally  known. — C.  H.  S. 

SWEARING.  [Oath.] 

SWINE  (Ttn  chazir ).  We  have  already 

noticed  these  animals  [Boar],  chiefly  as  they 
occur  in  a wild  state,  and  here  refer  to  the  do- 
mesticated breeds  only,  because  they  appear  to 
have  been  repeatedly  introduced  and  reared  by 
the  Hebrew  people,  notwithstanding  the  strong 
prohibitions  in  the  law  of  Moses  (Isa.  lxv,  4). 

Egyptian  pictures,  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal 
Son,  and  Christ’s  miraculous  cure  of  the  demo- 
niac, when  he  permitted  swine  to  be  possessed 
and  destroyed  by  rushing  over  a precipice  into 
the  sea  of  Galilee,  furnish  ample  proofs  that 
during  the  dominion  of  the  Romans  they  were 
kept  around  the  kingdom  of  Judah  ; and  the  re- 
strictive laws  of  Hyrcanus  on  this  subject  indicate 
that,  the  Jews  themselves  were  not  altogether 
strangers  to  this  unlawful  practice.  Commentators 
ascribe  this  abundance  of  swine  to  the  numerous 
Pagan  sacrifices  of  these  animals  in  the  temples: 
but  we  do  not  deem  this  to  be  a sufficiently  cor- 
rect view  of  the  case,  since  hogs  of  every  denomi- 
nation were  less  used  for  that  purpose  than  oxen, 
goats,  and  sheep.  May  it  not  be  conjectured  that 
in  those  days  of  a greatly  condensed  population 
tie  poor  found  in  swine's  flesh,  and  still  more 
ii  Te  fat  and  lard,  melted  for  culinary  purposes, 
as  it  still  is  in  every  part  of  Pagan  Africa,  a most 
desirable  aliment,  still  more  acceptable  than  the 
salt  fish  imported  from  Sidon,  to  season  their  usual 
vegetable  diet?  * When  the  melting  fire  burneth, 
the  fire  causeth  the  w»#ers  to  boil’  (Isa.  Ixiv.  2); 
and,  again,  ‘ a broth  of  abominable  things  in  their 
vessels  ’ (lxv.  4).  For,  although  the  Mosaic  law 


SYCAMINE  TREE. 


SYENE. 


803 


justly  condemned  the  use  of  swine’s  flesh,  at  the 
time  of  the  departure  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  when 
the  state  of  slavery  the  people  had  been  in,  there 
is  reason  to  believe,  had  greatly  multiplied  leprosy, 
and,  moreover,  when  it  was  important  to  enforce 
cleanliness  among  the  multitude  on  many  ac- 
counts ; yet  the  reasoning  of  the  ancients  and  of 
lom men  tutors,  Rabbinical  and  medical,  regard- 
ing the  unhealthiness  of  sound  pork,  in  moderate 
quantities,  as  a condiment,  or  more  generally  as 
an  article  of  food,  is  entirely  erroneous.  For  in 
some  provinces  of  Ancient  Persia,  the  practice 
of  curing  animal  food  was  known  so  early,  that 
the  procession  of  tribute-bearing  deputies  from 
the  several  satrapies,  sculptured  on  the  great 
stairs  at  Persepolis,  represents  at  least  one  nation 
bringing  preserved  flesh  meat,  apparently  hams, 
and  already,  before  the  conquest  of  northern  Gaul 
by  Caesar,  pork  and  various  sausages  were  ex- 
ported from  Belgium  to  the  Roman  capital. 
Neither  in  the  tropics,  nor  in  the  East,  during  the 
first  centuries  of  Christianity,  or  in  the  era  of  the 
Crusades,  or  among  the  Christians  of  the  present 
day,  are  any  ill  effects  ascribed  to  the  use  of  swine’s 
flesh;  and  the  Moslem  population,  which  is  debarred 
the  use  of  this  kind  of  food,  is,  perhaps,  more 
liable  to  disease  and  to  the  plague  than  others, 
because  it  lacks  the  stamina  of  resistance  to  in- 
fection, and  that  supply  of  digestive  nutriment 
which  keeps  the  alimentary  system  in  a healthy 
condition.  The  rich  Moslem  supply  the  deficiency 
by  vegetable  oils  and  butter,  or  ghee : hence, 
while  the  wealthy  official  class  multiplies,  the 
poorer  classes,  for  want  of  a cheap  supply  of  simi- 
lar ingredients,  diminish.  As  the  Mosaic  law  was 
abrogated  by  the  Christian,  it  was  plainly  meant 
.to  be  only  temporary  ; and  if  by  the  decrees  of 
Providence  the  Gospel  is  once  more  to  triumph  in 
the  land  of  the  first  Christian  churches,  it  may 
hereafter  be  found  that  this  apparently  insignifi- 
cant agent  has  been  a considerable  instrument  in 
the  event. — C.  H.  S. 

SWORD.  [Arms.] 

SYCAMINE  TREE  {'S.vKapuvos)  is  mentioned 
only  once  in  the  New  Testament,  in  Luke  xvii. 
6,  ‘ And  the  Lord  said,  If  ye  had  faith  as  a grain 
of  mustard-seed,  ye  might  say  unto  this  sycamine- 
tree,’  &c.  From  a slight  similarity  in  name,  this 
tree  has  often  been  confounded  with  the  sycamore , 
both  by  ancient  and  modern  writers.  Botli  trees 
are,  however,  mentioned  by  the  apostle,  who  must 
have  had  the  technical  knowledge  necessary  for 
distinguishing  such  things.  Though  the  English 
version  avoids  translating  the  word,  there  can  be 
little  doubt  of  the  mulberry-tree  being  intended; 
and  it  is  frequently  so  rendered.  Thus,  Dios- 
corides  says,  Mopea  7)  2 vtcafuvea,  &c.,  ‘Mulberry 
or  sycamine  is  well  known.’  Celsius  shows 
( Hicrobot . i.  290),  by  quotations  from  Athenseus, 
Galen,  &c.,  that  the  Greeks  called  it  by  both 
names;  and  Corn.  Celsus  (De  Medicina , iii.  18) 
says  expressly,  ‘ Graeci  morum  avicapivov  ap- 
pellant.’ But  still  even  ancient  authors  confound 
it  with  the  sycamore,  and  therefore  modern  writers 
may  be  excused  when  so  doing.  Dr.  Sibthorpe, 
who  travelled  as  a botanist  in  Greece,  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  identifying  the  plants  known  to 
the  Greeks,  says  that  in  Greece  the  white  mul- 
berry-tree is  called  fiovpea  ; the  black  mulberry- 
tree,  crit  (auev'ia.  The  mulberry,  moreover,  is  a tree 
which  we  might  expect  to  find  mentioned  in 


Scripture,  since  it  is  so  common  in  Palestine. 
It  is  constantly  alluded  to  by  old  travellers,  and 
indeed  is  much  cultivated  in  the  present  day,  in 
consequence  of  its  affording  food  for  the  silk- 
worm ; and  it  must  have  been  common  also  in 


early  times,  or  the  silk-worms  would  not  have  ob- 
tained suitable  food  when  first  introduced.  As 
the  mulberry-tree  is  common,  as  it  is  lofty  and 
affords  shade,  it  is  well  calculated  for  the  illus- 
tration of  the  above  passage  of  Luke. — J.  F.  R. 

SYCAMORE  is  a species  of  fig,  N.  Ficus 
Sycomonis  of  botanists,  and  the  same  as  Shik- 
MOL. J.  F.  R. 

SYCHAR  (2 vxap),  a name  of  reproach  ap- 
plied by  the  Jews  to  Shechem  [Sheckem]. 

SYCHEM  (2uxeV*)>  name  for  Shechem  in 
Acts  vii.  16,  being  that  also  used  in  the  Septua- 
gint  version  of  the  Old  Testament  [Shechem]. 

SYENE  (rDIp  ; Sept.  2idp'?j)  a city  of  Egypt, 
situated  in  the  Theba'is,  on  the  southern  extremity 
of  the  land  towards  Ethiopia  (Ptol.  iv.  5 ; Plin. 
Ilist.  Nat.  v.  10;  xii.  8 ; Strabo,  pp.  787,  815). 
Ezekiel,  describing  the  desolation  to  be  brought 
upon  Egypt  through  its  whole  extent,  says, 
‘ Thus  saith  the  Lord,  I will  make  the  Land  of 
Egypt  utterly  desolate,  from  the  tower  of  Syene 
even  to  the  border  of  Cush  (Arabia),’  or,  as  some 
read,  is  ‘ from  Migdol  to  Syene,’  implying,  ac- 
cording to  either  version  of  the  passage,  the  whole 
length  of  the  country  from  north  to  south.  Syene 
is  represented  by  the  present  Assouan,  which 
exhibits  few  remains  of  the  ancient  city,  except 
some  granite  columns  of  a comparatively  late 
date,  and  the  sekos  of  a small  temple.  This 
building  has  been  supposed  by  late  travellers  to 
have  contained  the  famous  well  of  Strabo  ( Geog . 
xvii.  p.  817),  into  which  the  rays  of  a vertical  sun 
were  reported  to  fall  during  the  summer  solstice, 
a circumstance,  says  the  geographer,  that  proves 
the  place  ‘ to  lie  under  the  tropic,  the  gnomon  at 
midday  casting  no  shadow.’  But  although  exca- 
vations have  been  carried  on  considerably  below 


S04 


SYNAGOGUE. 


SYNAGOGUE. 


Wfm 


the  pavement,  which  has  beem turned  up  in  search 
of  the  well  it  was  thought  to  cover , no  other  re- 
sults have  been  obtained  than  that  this  sekos  was 
a very  improbable  site  for  such  an  observatory, 
even  if  it  ever  existed ; and  that  Strabo  was 
strangely  misinformed,  since  the  Egyptians  them- 
selves could  never  in  his  time  have  imagined  this 
city  to  lie  under  the  tropic , for  they  were  by  no 
means  ignorant  of  astronomy,  and  Syene  was,  even 
in  the  age  of  Hipparchus  (b.c.  140,  when  the  obli- 
quity of  the  ecliptic  was  about  23°  51'  20"),  very 
far  north  of  that  line.  The  belief  that  Syene  was 
in  the  tropic  was  however  very  general  in  the  time 
of  the  Romans,  and  is  noticed  by  Seneca,  Lucan, 
Pliny,  and  others.  But,  as  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson 
remarks,  4 a well  would  have  been  a bad  kind  of 
observatory  if  the  sun  had  been  really  vertical ; 
and  if  Strabo  saw  the  meridian  sun  in  a well,  he 
might  be  sure  he  was  not  in  the  tropic’  (Mod. 
Egypt  and  Thebes , ii.  2S6).  The  same  writer 
adds,  4 Unfortunately  the  observations  of  the 
ancient  Greek  writers  on  the  obliquity  of  the 
ecliptic  are  not  so  satisfactory  as  might  be 
wished,  nor  are  we  enabled,  especially  as  La 
Grange’s  theory  of  the  annual  change  of  obliquity 
being  variable  is  allowed  to  be  correct,  to  ascertain 
the  time  when  Assouan  might  have  been  within 
the  tropic,  a calculation  or  traditional  fact  in 
which,  perhaps,  originated  the  erroneous  assertion 
of  Strabo.’  The  latitude  of  Assouan  is  fixed  by 
Wilkinson  at  24°  5' 30",  and  the  longitude  is 
usually  given  as  32°  55'. 

SYNAGOGUE  (nD3pn  'PI?),  a Jewish  place 
of  worship.  The  Greek,  from  which  the  word  is 
immediately  derived  (away wy tj),  denotes  ‘ an 
assembly  being  similar  in  meaning  to  eKKXpala, 
whence  our  4 church  ’ is  taken.  Both  terms  ori- 
ginally signified  an  assembly  or  congregation ; but 
afterwards,  by  a natural  deflection  of  meaning, 
they  both  came  to  designate  the  building  in  which 
such  church  or  assembly  met.  The  Hebrew  phrase 
(4  house  of  assembly’)  is  more  strictly  descriptive 
of  the  place  than  were  originally  4 synagogue’  and 
‘ church.’  The  latter  word  retains  its  ambiguity  ; 
the  former  has  lost  it,  signifying  now  and  in  the 
time  of  our  Lord  exclusively  a building. 

The  precise  age  of  the  introduction  of  syna- 
gogues among  the  Israelites  it  does  not  appear 
easy  to  determine.  There  is  a natural  tendency 
among  men,  nor  least  among  those  who  are  given 
to  letters,  to  refer  institutions  back  to  very  early 
periods ; and  the  Rabbins  surpassed  all  others  in 
this  exaggerating  propensity.  Hence,  we  believe, 
arose  the  traditionary  and  Targuminical  stories  of 
the  extreme  antiquity  of  synagogues.  Even  a 
patriarchal  origin  lias  been  ascribed  to  them.  But 
the  statements  made  are  unworthy  as  of  credence, 
so  of  investigation.  It  is  quite  certain  that  if 
synagogues  were  in  use  in  the  days  of  Abraham, 
we  have  no  evidence  to  establish  this  as  an  histo- 
rical fact ; and  averments  which  rest  on  conjecture 
or  legends  may  well  be  passed  in  silence.  A 
passage  in  Acts  (xv.  21)  certainly  speaks  of  the 
antiquity  of  synagogues  in  the  first  century  : 
‘ Moses  of  old  (4k  yeveutv  apxaiuu)  hath  in  every 
city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the 
tynagogues  every  Sabbath-day.’  But  4 of  old  ’ is 
u relative  term.  The  4 ancient  generations  ’ here 
spoken  of  may  not  reach  back  farther  than  the 
csta***  from  Babylon.  If,  indeed,  Psalm  lxxiv. 


was  written  before  the  exile,  synagogues  wer# 
known  previously  to  that  event.  This,  however, 
would  leave  a long  interval  between  the  date  cf 
the  psalm  and  the  days  of  the  patriarchs  untouched 
and  unaffected.  The  words  to  which  we  refer  are 
found  in  ver.  8 : 4 They  have  burned  up  all  the 

synagogues  of  God  'TyiD)  in  the  land.’ 

Ewald  (Die  Poet.  Bucher  des  Alten  Bundes,  2 
th.  p.  293)  refers  this  composition  to  the  time 
of  Nehemiah  (b.c.  445).  Tholuck  gives  for  its 
date  the  year  b.c.  5S8,  when  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  was  overrun  by  the  Cliuldaeans,  and  the 
temple  plundered  and  burnt  down.  The  Hebrew 
words,  however,  do  not  necessarily  denote  syna- 
gogues. 4 Houses  of  God  1 is  a general  term,  and 
may  refer  to  any  sacred  place.  There  may  be  here 
a reference  to  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  preserved 
by  the  principle  of  reverence  long  after  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  and  the  pursuits  of  learning  had  ceased 
to  fill  them  with  eager  pupils.  If  we  might,  from 
2 Kings  iv.  23,  suppose  that  at  least  on  festival 
occasions  pious  Israelites  resorted  to  the  prophets 
for  prayer  and  advice,  we  could  easily  understand 
how  such  a practice  would  spontaneously  convert 
the  places  where  they  abode  into  a species  of  syna- 
gogue; and  not  improbably  we  may  here  find  the 
germ  out  of  which  the  proper  synagogue  worship 
arose.  Psalm  cvii.  32,  4 Let  them  exalt  him  also 
in  the  congregation  of  the  people,  and  praise  him 
in  the  assembly  of  the  elders,’  affords  words  which 
will  correspond  with  that  worship,  but  proves 
nothing  as  to  a prae-exilian  custom,  since  it  was 
written  after  the  return  from  captivity;  for  even 
Tholuck  says,  ‘ Fredich  nach  dem  Exil 1 (Psalmen 
fur  Geistliche  und  Laien , p.  343.  Halle,  1843). 

The  earliest  worship  was  offered  to  God  in  what 
may  with  propriety  be  termed  his  own  house — sub 
divo — before  the  eye  of  Heaven,  in  the  open  air. 
But  such  a temple  was  too  vast  for  the  human 
mind,  which  lost,  itself  in  the  immensity  of  space, 
and  needed  narrower  limits,  in  order  to  concen- 
trate, fix,  and  inflame  its  sympathies.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  course  of  time,  particular  spots  were 
approved  of  God  as  worshipping  places,  till  at 
length  one  distinguished  house  of  prayer  was 
chosen  and  established  in  Zion.  The  temple- 
worship,  as  it  was  constituted  in  the  days  ot 
David  and  Solomon,  was  grand,  august,  and 
imposing.  Yet  can  we  easily  understand  how  a 
felt  necessity  would  arise  for  a more  intimate  and 
closer,  if  it  must  be  also  majestic,  intercourse  ] 
with  God,  by  the  intermediation  of  certain  so-  1 
lemnities  in  which  all  and  each  of  a congregation  ij 
would  have  an  individual  share.  Nor  would  this  j 
feeling  of  want  wait  for  any  other  condition  than 
an  active  and  somewhat  refined  religious  sense  | 
experienced  in  a population  of  which  only  a small  j 
number  pould  crowd  and  find  room  in  the  gates 
of  the  national  temple  : so  that  there  is  nothing  J 
unreasonable  nor  imaginary  in  giving  to  the  J 
origin  of  synagogues  an  earlier  date  than  the  I 
period  of  the  exile. 

To  this  epoch  it  is  that  the  origin  of  synagogues  | 
is  generally  referred ; and  beyond  a doubt  there  J 
were  then  peculiar  circumstances  which  called 
for  their  establishment.  Yet  the  considerations  ■ 
into  which  we  have  gone  may  possibly  warrant 
the  idea  that  the  wish  rather  developed  than  ori- 
ginated the  influences  out  of  which  the  worsnip 
in  question  sprung.  Unquestionably,  however. 


SYNAGOGUE. 


SYNAGOGUE. 


then,  if  not  before,  synagogues  came  into  exist- 
ence. A later  date  cannot  well  be  assigned 
Deprived  of  the  solemnities  of  their  national  wor- 
ship, yet  still  retaining  their  religious  convictions, 
and  keenly  feeling  the  loss  they  had  endured, 
earnestly,  too,  longing  and  praying  for  a restora- 
tion of  their  forfeited  privileges,  the  captive 
Israelites  could  not  help^meeting  together  for  the 
purposes  of  mutual  sympathy,  counsel,  and  aid, 
or  of  prayer  and  other  devout  exercises.  But 
prayer  makes  every  spot  holy  ground.  Some 
degree  of  secrecy,  too,  may  have  been  needful  in 
the  midst  of  scoffing  and  scornful  enemies.  Thus 
houses  of  prayer  would  arise ; and  the  peculiar 
form  of  the  synagogue  worship — namely,  devotion 
apart  from  external  oblations — would  come  into 
being.  It  has,  indeed,  been  asserted  (Bauer, 
Gottesd.  Verfassung,  ii.  125)  that  synagogues 
were  not  known  till  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epi- 


phanes  (n.c.  1 74),  on  the  ground  that  it  is  then  for 
the  first  time  that  the  term  is  used  by  Josephus — * 
one  more  instance  added  to  the  hundreds  which 
already  existed,  of  the  folly  which  denies  an  histo- 
rical reality  to  every  thing  for  which  positive 
vouchers  cannot  be  found  in  the  Jewish  historian. 
Such  arguments  would  have  some  force  if  Jose- 
phus had  professed  to  narrate  every  thing,  and 
left  us  as  many  volumes  as  he  has  left  us  chapters. 
That  he  did  not  consider  it  ' set  down  in  his  duty  ’ 
to  give  an  exact  history  of  the  origin  and  progress 
of  the  synagogue- worship,  may  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  his  mention  of  synagogues  is  only 
occasional  and  en  passant. 

The  authority  of  the  Talmudists  (such  as  it  is) 
would  go  to  show  that  a synagogue  existed 
wherever  there  were  ten  families.  What,  how- 
ever, is  certain  is,  that  in  the  times  of  Jesus 
Christ  synagogues  were  found  in  all  the  chief 


513.  [Jewish  Synagogue  in  Amsterdam 


cities  and  lesser  towns  of  Palestine.  These  places 
are  then  spoken  of  as  well  known,  and  therefore 
long-established  houses  of  worship,  and  obviously 
formed  an  essential  and  recognised  portion  of  the 
national  inheritance.  There  was  a synagogue  at 
Nazareth  (Luke  iv.  16),  one  also  at  Capernaum 
(Mark  i.  21),  as  well  as  in  the  several  cities  of 
Syria,  Asia  Minor,  and  Greece,  which  had  a 
Jewish  population  (Acts  ix.  2;  xiii.  5 ; xiii.  42; 
xiv.  1 ; xvii.  1,  10  ; xviii.  4 ; xix.  8 ; and  see  also 
Joseph.  Amiq.  xix.  6.  3 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  3.  3). 
The  larger  cities  had  several.  In  Acts  ix.  2,  we 
find  Paul  asking  for  letters  to  Damascus  ‘ to  the 
synagogues'1  (ver.  20).  In  Jerusalem,  one  Rab- 
binical authority  (Meg ill.  lxxiii.4)  represents  the 
number  to  have  been  480  ; another  (T.  Hieros. 
Ctuboth,  xxxv.  3)  *iakes  them  460.  From 


Acts  vi.  9,  it  appears  that  every  separate  tribe 
and  colony  had  a synagogue  in  Jerusalem.  The 
reader  must  not  confound  synagogues  with  the 
TTpoaeoxai,  houses  of  prayer,  oratoria,  oratories, 
chapels,  places  ‘ where  prayer  was  wont  to  be 
made’  (Acts  xvi.  13),  which,  as  in  the  place  just 
cited,  were  mostly  near  a piece  of  flowing  water, 
in  order  to  afford  the  Jews  means  of  observing 
their  custom  of  washing  before  prayer  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  xiv.  10.  23  ; Deutsch,  De  Sacris  Judceorum 
ad  litora  frequenter  exstruclis).  Synagogues 
were  built  sometimes  on  the  outside  of  cities,  but 
more  frequently  within,  and  preferably  on  elevated 
spots.  At  a later  period  they  were  fixed  near 
burial-places.  A peculiar  sanctity  was  attached 
to  these  spots,  even  after  the  building  had 
fallen  to  ruin  (Mishna,  Megill.  3.  3).  In  the 


SYNAGOGUE. 


Synagogue  pious  Israelites  assembled  every  Sab- 
bath and  festival  day,  the  women  sitting  apart 
from  the  men  (Philo,  Opp.  ii.  458,  630)  ; and  at  a 
later  period,  on  every  second  and  fifth  day  of' each 
week  (T.  Hieros.  Megill.  75.  1 ; T.  Babyl.  Babd. 
Kama , 82. 1),  for  the  purposes  of  common  prayer, 
and  to  hear  portions  of  the  sacred  books  read ; 
which  was  performed  sometimes  by  any  one  of 
the  company  (Luke  ii.  16),  or,  according  to 
Philo  (Opp-  ii.  630,  ed.  Mang.),  by  any  one  of 
the  priests  or  elders  (tuv  Upi W 5e  ns  6 irapwv  fj 
Tuy  yepouruiv  els  avayivuxTKei  tovs  lepovs  vopovs 
abrols  Ka\  icaQ ’ cKacrrov  e^yetrat),  who,  as  the  pas- 
sage just  quoted  shows,  expounded  each  particular 
as  he  proceeded.  The  writings  thus  read  aloud 
and  expounded  were  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and 
other  Old  Testament  books  (Actsxiii.  15;  xv.  21 ; 
Mishna,  Megill.  3.  4 ; Eichhorn,  Einleit.  ins  A. 
T.  ii.  458,  sq.).  The  language  in  which  the  Scrip- 
tural passages  were  read  cannot  be  generally  and 
accurately  determined.  It  doubtless  varied  ac- 
cording to  circumstances.  Ezra  (Neh.  viii.  8),  if 
he  read  in  the  old  Hebrew,  gave  the  sense  in  the 
Chaldee.  The  Septuagint  translation  was  in  very 
common  use  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and  may 
have  been  employed  in  synagogues.  It  appears 
(T.  Hieros.  .Soda,  7 ) that  in  Ctesarea,  a city  more 
Graecian  than  Jewish,  the  prayers  were  uttered  in 
the  Greek  tongue.  In  synagogues  out  of  Palestine, 
the  Greek  translation  seems  to  have  been  read 
conjointly  with  the  original  text.  The  exposition 
of  the  Scripture  was  doubtless  made  in  each 
nation  in  the  vernacular  tongue;  accordingly,  in 
Palestine  the  worship  of  the  synagogue  was  con- 
ducted in  Syro-Chaldee.  In  Egypt,  from  the 
time  of  the  Ptolemies,  the  Greek  language  was 
customary  in  the  services  of  the  synagogue. 

The  expositor  was  not  always  the  same  person 
as  the  reader  (Philo,  Opp.  ii.  458,  476).  A 
memorable  instance  in  which  the  reader  and  the 
expositor  was  the  same  person,  and  yet  one  dis- 
tinct from  the  stated  functionary,  may  be  found 
in  Luke  iv.  16,  sq.,  in  which  our  Lord  read  and 
applied  to  himself  the  beautiful  passage  found  in 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (lxi.  4).  Tiie  synagogue, 
indeed,  afforded  a great  opportunity  for  preaching 
the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  ; and  the  reader  may 
well  suppose  that  the  novelties  of  doctrine  which 
weie  then  for  the  first  time  heard  within  its  walls 
created  surprise,  delight,  wonder,  and  indignation 
in  the  minds  of  the  hearers  of  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles,  according  to  their  individual  spiritual 
condition. 

After  the  reading  and  exposition  were  con- 
cluded, a blessing  was  pronounced,  commonly 
by  a priest.  The  people  gave  a response  by  utter- 
ing the  word  Amen;  when  the  assembly  broke  up 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  16). 

Ai,  the  head  of  the  officers  stood  the  ‘ ruler  of 
the  synagogue’  (upxicrwdytryos,  HDJDn 
who  had  the  chief  direction  of  all  the  affairs  con- 
nected with  the  purposes  for  which  the  syna- 
gogue existed  (Luke  viii.  49  ; xiii.  14;  Mark  v. 
35,  seq. ; Acts  xviii.  8 ; Vitringa,  Archisynag. 
Observat.  novis  Illustrat.').  Next  in  rank  were 
the  elders  (Luke  vii.  3),  called  also  ‘ heads  of  the 
synagogue’  (Mark  v.  22;  Acts  xiii.  15),  as  well 
as  ‘ shepherds  ’ and  ‘ presidents,’  who  formed  a sort 
of  college  or  governing  body  under  the  presidency 
ef  the  chief  ruler.  There  was  in  the  third  place 
the  "VD^n  fW,  legatus  ecclesice,  ‘ the  angel  of 


SYNAGOGUE,  GREAT. 

the  church,’  who  in  the  synagogue  meetings  acttd 
commonly  as  the  speaker,  or  as  the  Protestant 
minister,  conducting  the  worship  of  the  congre- 
gation (Mishna,  Bosh  Hasshana,  4.  9),  as  well 
as  performed  on  other  occasions  the  duties  of  se- 
cretary and  messenger  (Schottgen,  Hor.  Ileb.  i. 
1089,  sq.).  Then  came,  fourthly,  ‘ the  minister  ’ 
(Luke  iv.  20),  the  attendant  who  handed  the 
books  to  the  reader,  was  responsible  for  the  clean- 
liness of  the  room,  and  for  its  order  and  decency, 
and  opened  and  closed  the  synagogue,  of  which  he 
had  the  general  care.  In  addition,  there  probably 
were  almoners  or  deacons,  ilpTV  (Matt.  vi. 
2),  who  collected,  held,  and  distributed  the  alms 
of  the  charitable. 

In  regard  to  the  furniture  of  the  synagogue, 
seats  merely  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament 
(Matt,  xxiii.  6 ; James  ii.  3).  The  ‘chief  seats,’ 
or  rather  ‘ front  seats’  (irpwTOKaOebpiai),  were  oc- 
cupied by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  The  outfit 
may  have  been  more  simple  in  the  days  of  Christ ; 
still  there  was  probably  then,  as  well  as  at  a later 

period,  a sort  of  pulpit  (£ rjpa,  ^130),  and 

a desk  or  shelf  (dip  177,  17317  or  pTl),  for  holding 
the  sacred  books  (Mishna,  Berach , v.  3 ; Bosh 
Hassha?ia,  4.7;  Meg  ilia,  3.  1;  Sabb.  16.  1). 
Some  sort  of  summary  judicature  seems  to  have 
been  held  in  the  synagogues,  and  punishments  of 
flogging  and  beating  inflicted  on  the  spot  (Matt, 
x.  17;  xxiii.  34;  Mark  xiii.  9;  Luke  xii.  11; 
xxi.  12;  Acts  xxii.  19;  xxvi.  11  ; 1 Cor.  xi.  22). 
The  causes  of  which  cognizance  was  here  taken 
were  perhaps  exclusively  of  a religious  kind. 
Some  expressions  in  the  Talmud  seem  to  imply 
that  a sort  of  judicial  triumvirate  presided  in  this 
court  (Mishna,  Sanhed.  i. ; Maccoth,  3.  12).  It 
certainly  appears  from  the  New  Testament  that 
heresy  dnd  apostacy  were  punished  before  these 
tribunals  by  the  application  of  stripes. 

The  reader  may  have  been  struck  by  some  re- 
semblance between  this  account  and  the  arrange- 
ments which  prevailed  in  the  early  Christian 
churches.  The  ‘ angel  of  the  church  ’ .(Rev.  ii.  1), 
the  pastor,  was  obviously  taken  from  the  syna- 
gogue. Winer,  however,  denies  that  ‘ the  mes- 
sengers of  the  churches’  (2  Cor.  viii.  23)  has  any 
connection  with  the  legatus  ecclesice.  The  words 
‘ because  of  the  angels’  (1  Cor.  xi.  10)  have  been 
referred  to  this  same  office, — a reference  which 
Winer  does  not  approve.  Meier  (Commentary 
in  loc.)  holds  that  the  allusion  is  to  celestial 
beings,  an  idea  wlfich  he  thinks  Paul  derived 
from  Judaism  (Septuagint,  Ps.  cxxxviii.  1 ; Tobit 
xii.  12;  Burt,  Bynag.  p.  15;  Grotius,  in  loc.; 
Eisenmeier,  Entdeckt.  Juclenth.  ii.  p.  193). 

The  work  of  Vitringa  (De  Synagoga  Veterum ) 
remains  the  chief  authority  on  the  subject,  though 
published  in  1696.  See  also  Burmann,  Exercitt. 
Acad.  ii.  3,  sq. ; Reland,  Antiq.  Sacr.  i.  10; 
Carpzov,  Appar.  p.  307,  sq. ; Hartmann,  Verbind. 
des  A.  T.  mit  d.  Neuen,  p.  225,  sq. ; Brown,  Anti- 
quities of  the  Jews,  vol.  i.  p.  590,  sq. — J.  R.  B. 

SYNAGOGUE,  GREAT  (nVn|H  HD 33), 
the  name  applied  in  the  Talmud  to  an  assembly 
or  synod  presided  over  by  Ezra,  and  consisting 
of  one  hundred  and  twenty  men,  alleged  therein 
to  have  been  engaged  in  restoring  and  reforming 
the  worship  of  the  Temple  after  the  return  of  the 
Jews  from  Babylon.  We  shall  here  furnisn  the 
evidences  of  the  existence  of  this  assembly.  ‘ Tha 


SYRIA. 


807 


SYNAGOGUE,  GREAT. 

house  of  judgment  of  Ezra  is  that  called  the 
Great  Synagogue , which  restored  the  crown  to 
its  original  condition  ’ (Chron.  j''D!T),,,  fol.  13). 
The  crown,  observes  Buxtorf  ( Tiberias , ch.  x.), 
‘was  triple,  consisting  of  the  law,  the  priesthood, 
and  the  commonwealth  f and  he  explains  this  by 
adding  that  Ezra  purified  the  law  and  the  Scrip- 
tures generally  from  all  corruptions.  Again  in 
the  Jerusalem  Talmud  ( Cod . Megillah,  3)  it  is 
said,  ‘ When  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
arose,  they  restored  magnificence  (i.  e.  the  crown 
of  the  law)  to  its  pristine  state.’  In  Pirke  Abotli , 
cap.  it  is  observed  that  Moses  received  the  law 
from  Mount  Sinai,  gave  it  to  Joshua,  Joshua  to 
the  elders,  the  elders  to  the  prophets,  and  these  to 
the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  and  in  Tract 
Yomah,  lxix.  2,  it  is  added,  ‘ Why  is  this 
called  by  the  name  of  the  Great  Synagogue  ? 
Because  they  restored  the  crown  to  its  pristine 
state.’  In  Megillah,  fol.  x.  2 : ‘ This  is  a tra- 
dition from  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue ;’ 
and  in  Baba  Bathra,  fol.  15  : ‘The  men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel,  the  twelve  (minor) 
prophets,  Daniel,  and  Esther and  the  glossator 
explains  this  by  saying  ‘ that  they  collected  the 
books  into  one  volume,  and  made  new  copies  of 
them,  knowing  that  the  prophetic  spirit  was  about 
to  depart.’  In  Pirke  Abotli  it  is  added  that 
Simeon  the  Just  was  the  last  survivor  of  the  men 
of  the  Great  Synagogue.  He  is  supposed  to  have 
been  contemporary  with  Alexander  the  Great  (b.c. 
332),  and  is  said  to  have  completed  the  canon  by 
adding  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  to 
have  survived  forty  years  the  building  of  the 
second  temple. 

Abarbanel  and  some  of  the  later  Jewish  com- 
mentators have  amplified  these  statements,  and 
some  eminent  Christian  writers  have  adopted  their 
views  in  regard  to  the  history  of  the  text  of 
Scripture.  We  have  already  seen  that  several 
of  the  fathers  held  that  the  books  of  the  law, 
having  been  destroyed  at  the  burning  of  the 
temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  were  miraculously 
restored  by  Ezra  [Esdras].  Buxtorf  assumes 
that  the  labours  of  the  Great  Synagogue  con- 
sisted only  in  restoring  both  the  law  and  the 
entire  Scriptures  to  their  integrity,  separating  the 
false  from  the  true,  and  removing  corruptions. 
Carpzov  ( Introd . lib.  i.  ch.  i.)  observes,  in  re- 
ference to  this  subject,  that  the  account  of  the 
restoration  by  Ezra  of  the  law,  which  had  been 
burned  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  is  ‘ a fAble  of  the 
Papists  derived  from  the  fathers,  but  impugned 
by  Bellarmine  ( De  Verb.  Dei , ii.  1),  and  Natalis 
Alexander,  (Hist.  Eccles .)  [and  others  of  the 
Roman  church].  Neither,’  he  adds,  ‘ did  Ezra 
correct  and  amend  the  Scriptures,  which  had 
been  corrupted  during  the  captivity — a papist- 
ical comment  built  up  by  Cornelius  a Lapide, 
(Proem.  Com.  p.  5),  and  refuted  by  our  divines 
(see  Calovius) ; nor  did  he  invent  the  present 
letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  in  place  of  the 
Samaritan — a fable  refuted  by  Buxtorf  [Scrip- 
ture, Holx].  But  what  Ezra  really  did  was 
this  : he  collected  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
into  one  volume,  purified  them  by  separating  the 
spurious  from  the  genuine,  fixed  the  canon  of  di- 
vinely inspired  books,  and  rejected  all  that  was 
heterogeneous,  and  finally  examined  the  canonical 
books,  that  nothing  foreign  or  depraved  should 
be  mixed  v p with  them,  and  pointed  out  the  true 


method  of  readn.g  and  expon  tling  them : in 
which  labour  he  had  the  assistance  of  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  Malachi,  Nehemiah  [Ezra,  Mordecai, 
Simon  the  Just],  and  the  others,  in  all  cme  hun- 
dred and  twenty.’  ‘ It  was,’  he  observes,  ‘ the 
unshaken  principle  of  both  Jews  and  Christians 
that  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  fixed 
once  for  all  by  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue.’  Bellarmine  also  (l.  c.)  maintains 
that  although  some  of  the  fat  tiers  supposed  that 
the  whole  Scriptures  had  been  burned  and  mira- 
culously restored  by  Ezra,  as  Basil,  whose  words 
(Ep.  ad  Chilon.)  are,  ‘ Hie  campus  in  quo 
secessu  facto  Esdras  omnes  divinos  libros  ex 
mandato  Dei  eructavit,"  yet  that  from  the  state- 
ments of  Chrysostom,  ‘ that  out  of  the  remains  of 
the  Sbripture  Ezra  recomposed  it of  Hilary 
{Prof,  in  Psal.'),  that  ‘Ezra  had  collected  the 
Psalms  into  one  volume and  of  Theodoret,  that 
‘ the  Scripture  having  been  depraved  in  the  time 
of  the  exile  was  restored  by  Ezra  — these  fathers 
did  not  mean  to  assert  that  Ezra  had  restored  the 
whole  from  memory,  but  only  that  he  collected 
into  one  body  the  different  books  which  he  had 
found  dispersed  in  various  places,  and  amended 
such  parts  as  had  been  corrupted  by  the  negli- 
gence of  transcribers.  In  opposition  to  all  these 
views,  Le  Clerc  (Sentiments  de  quelques  Thto- 
logiens ) maintains  that  the  whole  history  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  and  t be  Esdrine  Recension  was 
a Talmudical  fable ; in  which  he  was  followed 
by  Father  Simon  and  many  others.  There  cer- 
tainly appears  but  a very  slight  foundation  foi 
the  superstructure  raised  by  Buxtorf  (Tiberias), 
Carpzov,  and  Prideaux  [Esdras].  That  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  however,  had  not  perished,  but 
were  read  by  the  Jews  during  the  exile,  appears 
from  Dan.  ix.  1,  2,  6,  11,  12;  comp.  Ezra  vi. 
18;  vii.  10. 

Genebrard  asserts  that  there  were  no  less  than 
three  Great  Synagogues,  one  in  a.m.  3610,  or 
b.c.  394,  when  the  Hebrew  canon,  consisting  ot 
twenty-two  books,  was  fixed;  another  in  386C 
(b.c.  144),  when  Tobit  and  Ecclesiasticus  were 
added ; and  a third  in  3950  (b.c.  54),  when  the 
whole  was  completed  by  the  addition  of  the  books 
of  Maccabees.  But  this  statement,  being  un- 
supported by  any  historical  proof,  has  met  with 
no  reception. — W.  W. 

SYNTYCHE  ('ZvvTvxg),  a female  Christian 
named  in  Phil.  iv.  2. 

SYRACUSE  (hupanovcrai),  a celebrated  city 
on  the  south-east  coast  of  the  island  of  Sicily, 
It  was  a strong,  wealthy,  and  populous  place,  to 
which  Strabo  gives  a circumference  of  not  less 
than  one  hundred  and  eighty  stades.  The  great 
wealth  and  power  of  Syracuse  arose  from  its  trade, 
which  was  carried  on  extensively  while  it  re- 
mained an  independent  state  under  its  own  kings  ; 
but  about  200.  b.c.  it  was  taken  by  the  Romans, 
after  a siege  rendered  famous  by  the  mechanical 
contrivances  whereby  Archimedes  protracted  the 
defence.  Syracuse  still  exists  as  a considerable 
town  under  its  original  name,  and  some  ruins 
of  the  ancient  city  yet  remain.  St.  Paul  spent 
three  days  at  Syracuse,  after  leaving  Melita,  when 
being  conveyed  as  a prisoner  to  Rome  (Acts 
xxviii.  12). 

SYRIA  (2upia).  This  great  country  is  men- 
tioned under  the  name  of  Aram  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  several  parts  of  it  being  so  designated. 


SYRIA. 


SYRIA, 


with  the  addition  of  a district  name;  and  it  is 
only  by  putting  together  the  portions  thus  sepa- 
rately denominated,  that  we  learn  the  extent  of 
country  which  the  word  indicated  among  the  He- 
brews [see  Aram].  Aram  is  usually  rendered 
Syria  in  the  Authorized  and  other  versions : 
and  in  the  time  of  the  kings  it  more  frequently  in- 
dicates the  kingdom  of  which  Damascus  was  the 
capital  than  the  whole  country,  or  any  other  part 
of  it.  [Damascus.]  In  the  Maccabees  the 
Greek  text  frequently  employs  the  term  * Syria  ’ 
to  designate  the  empire  of  the  Seleucidae  ; and  in 
the  New  Testament  it  occurs  as  the  name  of  the 
Roman  province  (Matt.  iv.  24;  Luke  ii.  2; 
Acts  xv.  23,  41  ; xviii.  18;  xx.  3 ; xxi.  3;  Gal. 
i.  21],  which  was  governed  by  presidents,  and  to 
which  Phoenicia  and  (with  slight  interruption) 
Judaea  also  were  attached;  for  in  and  after  the 
time  of  Christ,  Judaea  was  for  the  most  part  go- 
verned by  a procurator,  who  was  accountable  to 
the  president  of  Syria. 

The  word  Syria  is  of  uncertain  origin.  Some 
conceive  it  to  be  merely  a contraction  of  Assyria, 
which  was  sometimes  considered  as  part  of  it ; 
while  others  conjecture  that  it  may  have  been 
derived  from  Sur  (Tyre),  which  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  best  known,  if  not  the  chief,  town  of 
the  whole  country.  The  names  of  both  Aram 
and  Syria  are  now  equally  unknown  in  the  coun- 
try itself,  which  is  called  by  the  Arabs  Bar- 
esh-Sham,  or  simply  Esh-Sham,  i.  e.  the  country 
to  the  left,  in  contradistinction  to  Southern 
Arabia  or  Yemen,  i.  e.  the  country  to  the  right; 
because  when,  in  order  to  determine  the  direc- 
tion of  the  cardinal  points,  the  eye  is  supposed 
to  be  directed  towards  the  east,  Arabia  lies  on  the 
right  hand,  and  Syria  on  the  left.  It  is  difficult 
to  define  the  limits  of  ancient  Syria,  as  the  name 
seems  to  have  been  very  loosely  applied  by  the 
old  geographers.  In  general,  however,  we  may 
perceive  that  they  made  it  include  the  tract  of 
country  lying  between  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Mediterranean,  from  the  mountains  of  Taurus  and 
Amanus  in  the  north,  to  the  desert  of  Suez  and 
the  borders  of  Egypt  on  the  south  ; which  coin- 
cides pretty  well  with  the  modern  application  of 
the  name.  Some  ancient  writers,  such  as  Mela 
(i.  11)  and  Pliny  (v.  13),  give  to  Syria  a much 
larger  extent,  carrying  it  beyond  the  Euphrates, 
and  making  it  include  Mesopotamia,  Assyria, 
and  Adiabene.  Understood  in  the  narrower  and 
more  usual  applications,  Syria  may  be  de- 
scribed as  composed  of  three  tracts  of  land,  of 
very  different  descriptions.  That  which  adjoins 
the  Mediterranean  is  a hot,  damp,  and  rather  un- 
wholesome, but  very  fruitful  valley.  The  part 
next  to  this  consists  of  a double  chain  of  moun- 
tains, running  parallel  from  south-west  to  north- 
east, with  craggy  precipitous  rocks,  devious  val- 
leys, and  hollow  defiles.  The  air  is  here  dry  and 
healthy  ; and  on  the  western  declivities  of  the 
mountains  arese^n  beautiful  and  highly  cultivat- 
ed terraces,  alternating  with  well-watered  valleys, 
which  have  a rich  and  fertile  soil,  and  are  densely 
peopled.  The  eastern  declivities,  on  the  contrary, 
are  dreary  mountain  deserts,  connected  with  the 
third  region,  which  may  be  described  as  a spa- 
cious plain  of  sand  and  rock,  presenting  an  ex- 
tensive and  almost  unbroken  level. 

Spring  and  autumn  are  very  agreeable  in  Syria, 
sjad  the  heat  of  summer  in  the  mountain  districts 


is  supportable.  But  in  the  plains,  as  soon  as  the 
sun  reaches  the  equator,  it  becomes  of  a sudden 
oppressively  hot,  and  this  heat  continues  till  the 
end  of  October.  On  the  other  hand,  the  winter 
is  so  mild,  that  orange-trees,  tig-trees,  palms,  and 
many  tender  shrubs  , and  plants  fiourish  in  the 
open  air,  while  the  heights  of  Lebanon  are  glitter- 
ing with  snow  and  hoar-frost.  In  the  districts, 
however,  which  lie  north  and  east  of  the  moun- 
tains, the  severity  of  winter  is  greater,  though  the 
heat  of  the  summer  is  not  less.  At  Antioch, 
Aleppo,  and  Damascus,  there  are  ice  and  snow  for 
several  weeks  every  winter.  Yet,  upon  the  whole, 
the  climate  and  soil  combine  to  render  this  coun- 
try one  of  the  most  agreeable  residences  through- 
out the  East. 

The  principal  Syrian  towns  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture are  the  following,  all  of  which  are  noticed 
under  their  respective  names  in  the  present  work  : 
— Antioch,  Seleucia,  Helbon,  Rezeph,  Tiphsah, 
Rehoboth,  Hamath,  Riblah,  Tadmor,  Baal-Gad, 
Damascus,  Ilobah,  Beth  -Eden. 

Syria,  when  we  first  become  acquainted  with 
its  history,  was  divided  into  a number  of  small 
kingdoms,  of  which  the  most  important  of  those 
mentioned  in  Scripture  was  that  of  which  Damas- 
cus was  the  metropolis.  A sketch  of  its  history 
is  given  under  Damascus.  These  kingdoms  were 
broken  up,  or  rather  consolidated  by  conquerors, 
of  whom  the  first  appears  to  have  been  Tiglath- 
pileser.  King  of  Assyria,  about  750  B.c.  After  the 
fall  of  the  Assyrian  monarchy,  Syria  came  under 
the  Chaldsean  yoke.  It  shared  the  fate  of  Baby- 
lonia when  that  country  was  conquered  by  the  Per- 
sians ; and  was  again  subdued  by  Alexander  the 
Great.  At  his  death  in  B.c.  323,  it  was  erected 
into  a separate  monarchy  under  the  Seleucidae,  and 
continued  to  be  governed  by  its  own  sovereigns 
until,  weakened  and  devastated  by  civil  wars  be- 
tween competitors  for  the  throne,  it  was  finally, 
about  B.C.  65,  reduced  by  Pompev  to  the  condition 
of  a Roman  province,  after  the  monarchy  had  sub- 
sisted 257  years.  On  the  decline  of  the  Roman 
empire,  the  Saracens  became  the  next  possessors  of 
Syria,  about  a.d.  622;  and  when  the  crusading 
armies  poured  into  Asia,  this  country  became  the 
chief  theatre  of  the  great  contest  between  the  armies 
of  the  Crescent  and  the  Cross,  and  its  plains  were 
deluged  with  Christian  and  Moslem  blood.  For 
nearly  a century  the  Crusaders  remained  masters 
of  the  chief  places  in  Syria ; but  at  length  the 
power  of  the  Moslems  predominated,  and  in  1180 
Saladin,  Sultan  of  Egypt,  found  himself  in  pos- 
session of  Syria.  It  remained  subject  to  the  sul- 
tans of  Egypt  till,  in  a.d.  1517,  the  Turkish  sul- 
tan, Selim  I.,  overcame  the  Memlook  dynasty, 
and  Syria  and  Egypt  became  absorbed  in  the 
Ottoman  empire.  In  1832,  a series  of  successes 
over  the  Turkish  arms  gave  Syria  t,o  Mehemet 
Ali,  the  Pasha  of  Egypt ; from  whom,  however, 
after  nine  years,  it  again  passed  to  the  Turks,  in 
consequence  of  the  operations  undertaken  for  that 
purpose  by  the  fleet,  under  the  command  of  Ad- 
miral Stopford,  the  chief  of  which  was  the  bom- 
bardment of  Acre  in  November  1840.  The 
treaty  restoring  Syria  to  the  Turks  was  ratified 
early  in  the  ensuing  year.  See  Rosenm filler's  Bib. 
Geograph .,  translated  by  the  Rev.  N.  Morren  ; 
Winer’s  Real-  Worlerb.  s.  v. ; Volney’s  Travels , ii 
289,  358 ; Modern  Traveller , vol.  ii  • Napier  a 
War  in  Syria. 


SYRJAC  VERSIONS. 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS. 


m 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS.  The  old  Syriac  version 
of  the  Scriptures  is  often  called  the  Peshito ; a 
term  in  Syriac  which  signifies  simple  or  single, 
and  which  is  applied  to  this  version  to  mark  its 
freedom  from  glosses  and  allegorical  modes  of 
interpretation  (Havernick,  Einleit.  Erst.  Theil. 
zweite  Abtheil.  S.  90).  The  time  when  tire  Peshito 
was  made  cannot  now  be  certainly  known.  Various 
traditions  respecting  its  origin  have  been  current, 
among  the  Syrians,  which  partake  of  the  fabulous. 
Jacob  of  Edessa,  in  a passage  communicated  by 
Gregory  Bar  Hebraeus,  speaks  of c those  translators 
who  were  sent  to  Palestine  by  the  apostle  Thad- 
deus,  and  by  Abgarus  king  of  Edessa’  (Wiseman, 
Horce  Syriacce,  p.  103).  This  statement  is  not 
improbable.  There  is  no  good  ground  for  abso- 
lutely rejecting  it.  It  is  true  that  other  accounts 
are  repeated  by  Bar  Hebraeus  which  must  be  pro- 
nounced fabulous  ; but  the  present  does  not  wear 
the  same  aspect.  Ephrem  the  Syrian,  who  lived 
in  the  fourth  century,  refers  to  the  translation 
before  us  in  such  a manner  as  implies  its  high 
antiquity.  It  was  universally  circulated  among 
the  Syrians  in  his  time ; and  accordingly  he 
speaks  of  it  as  our  version , which  lie  would 
scarcely  have  done  had  it  not  then  obtained 
general  authority.  Besides,  it  has  been  shown  by 
Wiseman  that  many  expressions  in  it  were  either 
unintelligible  to  Ephrem,  or  at  least  obscure. 
Hence  this  father  deemed  it  necessary  to  give  an 
explanation  of  many  terms  and  phrases  for  the 
benefit  of  his  countrymen.  Such  circumstances 
are  favourable  to  the  idea  of  an  early  origin. 
Perhaps  it  was  made  in  the  first  century,  agreeably 
to  the  tradition  in  Jacob  of  Edessa. 

Its  internal  character  favours  the  opinion  of 
those  who  think  that  the  Old  Testament  part,  of 
which  we  are  now  speaking,  was  made  by  Chris- 
tians. Had  it  proceeded  from  Jews,  or  one  Jew, 
as  Simon  supposed,  it  would  not  have  been  free 
from  the  glosses  in  which  that  people  so  much 
indulged.  It  would  probably  have  resolved 
anthropomorphisms  and  other  figurative  expres- 
sions, as  is  done  in  the  Sept. ; and  have  exhi- 
bited less  negligence  and  awkwardness  in  render- 
ing the  Levitical  precepts  (Hirzel,  De  Pentat. 
vers.  Syr.  indole,  Commentat.  crit.-exeget.,  p 127, 
et  seq.).  Besides,  the  Messianic  passages  show 
that  no  Jew  translated  them.  Dathe  conjectured 
that  the  author  was  a Jewish  Christian,  which  is 
not.  improbable ; for  the  version  does  present  evi- 
dence of  Jewish  influences  upon  it — influences 
subdued  and  checked  by  Christian  opinions, 
yet  not  wholly  imperceptible.  Hence  some 
have  thought  that  use  was  made  of  the  Targums 
by  the  translator  or  translators.  This  can  scarcely 
be  proved.  The  Jews  were  numerous  throughout 
Syria  and  Mesopotamia,  as  we  learn  from  Jose- 
phus ; and  their  modes  of  interpretation  were 
prevalent  in  consequence.  There  is  therefore  an 
approach  to  the  Chaldaic  usus  loquendi — a simi- 
larity to  Jewish  exegesis.  If  the  authors  were 
originally  Jews,  who  had.  afterwards  embraced 
Christianity,  this  indication  of  Jewish  influence 
is  at  once  accounted  for,  without  having  recourse 
to  the  supposition  that  they  made  actual  use  of 
the  Targums  when  translating  the  original.  It 
is  now  impossible  to  tell  whether  the  Septuagint 
was  consulted  by  the  authors  of  the  Peshito. 
There  is  indeed  a considerable  resemblance  be- 
tween i v’d  our  version,  not  so  much  in  single 


passages  as  in  general  tenor  ; but  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  assume  that  the  Greek  was  used.  Perhaps 
it  was  afterwards  employed  in  revising  and  cor- 
recting the  Peshito.  The  latter  was  sometimes 
interpolated  out  of  it  in  after  times  (Havernick, 
p.  92;  Hirzel,  p.  100;  Credner,  p.  107). 

It  is  certain  that,  it  was  taken  from  the  original 
Hebrew.  In  establishing  this  position,  external 
and  internal  arguments  uiiite. 

Eichhorn  tried  to  show,  from  the  parts  of  the 
version  itself,  that  it  proceeded  from  several  per- 
sons. Without,  assenting  to  all  his  arguments,  or 
attaching  importance  to  many  of  his  presumptive 
circumstances,  we  agree  with  him  in  opinion. 
Tradition,  too,  affirms  t;lu  same  thing;  and  the 
words  of  Ephrem  are  favY  .irable  where  he  says, 
on  Josh.  xv.  28,  ‘ since  those  who  translated  into 
Syriac  did  not  understand  the  signification  of  the 
Hebrew  wOrd,’&c.  (Von  Lengerke,  Commentalio 
Critica  de  Ephr.  Syro  s.  s.  interprete,  p.  24). 

The  Peshito  contains  all  the  canonical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Apocryphal  were  not 
originally  included.  They  must,  however,  have 
been  early  rendered  into  Syriac  out  of  the  Septua- 
ginr,  because  Ephrem  quotes  them.  In  his  day, 
the  books  of  Maccabees  were  wanting  in  the 
Syriac ; as  also  the  apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel. 
After  the  Syrian  church  had  been  divided  into 
different  sections,  various  recensions  of  t he  version 
were  made.  The  recension  of  the  Ncstorians  is 
often  quoted  in  the  scholia  of  Gregory  Bar 
Hebrseus.  According  to  W iseman,  this  recension 
extended  no  farther  than  the  points  appended  to 
the  Syriac  letters.  The  Karkapbensian  recension 
is  also  cited  by  Bar  Hebraeus.  For  a long  time 
this  was  supposed  to  be  a separate  version,  till  the 
researches  of  Dr.  Wiseman  at  Rome  tine w light 
upon  its  true  character.  From  the  examination 
of  two  codices  in  the  Vatican  library,  he  ascer- 
tained that  it  was  merely  a revision  of  the  Peshito, 
distinguished  by  a peculiar  mode  of  pointing  and 
a peculiar  arrangement  of  the  books,  but  not  de- 
viating essentially  from  the  common  text.  In 
this  recension,  Job  comes  before  Samuel ; and 
immediately  after  Isaiah,  the  minor  prophets. 
The  Proverbs  succeed  Daniel.  The  arrangement 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  quite  as  singular.  It 
begins  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  ends 
with  the  four  Gospels  ; while  the  epistles  of  James, 
Peter,  and  John  come  before  the  fourteen  letters 
of  Paul.  This  recension  proceeded  from  the 
Monophysites.  According  to  Assemani  and 
Wiseman,  the  name  signifies  mountainous, 
because  it  originated  with  those  living  about 
Mount  Sagara,  where  there  was  a monastery  of 
Jacobit^  Syrians,  or  simply  because  it  was  used 
by  them. 

The  Peshito  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
is  one  and  the  same  version,  having  been  made  in 
the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Bishop 
Marsh,  in  his  notes  to  Michaelis’s  Introduction  to 
the  New  Testament,  contends  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment part  was  not  made  till  after  the  canon  had 
been  formed,  i.  e.  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  From  the  fact,  however,  of  its  wanting 
the  books  that  were  not  received  at  once  by  the  early 
Christians,  viz.,  the  second  epistle  of  Peter,  the 
second  and  third  of  John,  Jude,  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse, it  claims  a higher  antiquity  than  th« 
learned  prelate  assigns  it.  Had  the  version  been 
made  in  the  third  century,  it  is  not  probable 


810 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS. 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS. 


that  these  epistles  would  have  been  wanting. 
M ichael  is  therefore  seems  to  have  been  right  in 
olacing  it  in  the  first  century.  Hug  has  endea- 
voured to  show  that  the  Peshito  hail  originally 
the  Apocalypse  and  the  four  Catholic  epistles 
which  are  now  wanting,  and  that  they  gradually 
disappeared  from  the  version  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury ; but  his  opinion  is  improbable,  as  has  been 
shown  by  Bertholdt  and  Guerike  (Bertholdt, 
E bile  it.  th.  ii.  s.  635 ; Guerike,  Einleit.  s.  44, 
not.  1). 

As  the  Old  Testament  part  was  made  from  the 
original  Hebrew,  so  the  New  Testament  portion 
was  translated  from  the  original  Greek. 

In  consequence  of  the  variety  observable  in  the 
mode  of  translating  different  books.  Hug  supposes 
that  the  New  Testament  proceeded  from  different 
hands.  This,  however,  is  scarcely  probable.  The 
tradition  of  the  Syrians  themselves  (Assemani, 
Biblioth.  Orient,  ii.  4S6)  refers  it  to  one  person ; 
and  such  is  the  opinion  of  Eichhorn.  The  text 
of  it  is  somewhat  peculiar  Hug  assigns  it  to  the 
itoivri  iicboais.  or  unrevised  text ; while  Griesbach 
thinks  that  it  comes  nearer  the  Occidental  than  any 
of  the  other  recensions.  Scholz  reckons  it  to  the 
Consiantinopolitan,  although  he  admits  that  it 
contains  Alexandrian  and  singular  readings. 

The  Old  Testament  Peshito  was  first  printed  in 
the  Paris  Polyglott,  with  a translation  by  Gabriel 
Sionita.  The  text  is  by  no  means  accurate,  for 
the  editor  supplied  deficiencies  in  his  MSS.  out.  of 
the  Vulgate.  It  was  afterwards  printed  in  the 
London  Polyglott  from  various  MSS. ; but  Pro- 
fessor Roediger  pronounces  the  London  edition  to 
have  been  more  carelessly  executed  on  the  whole 
than  the  Paris  one  ( Ilallische  Lit.  Zeit.  1832, 
No.  5,  p.  38).  The  edition  published  by  Professor 
Lee  in  1823,  4to.,  for  the  use  of  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bihle  Society,  is  the  best.  It  was  ably 
reviewed  by  Roediger  in  the  Hall.  Lit.  Zeit.  for 
1832,  No.  4.  The  best  lexicon  is  Michaelis’s  re- 
print and  enlargement  of  Castell's,  published  in 
two  parts  at  Gottingen,  1788,  4to. 

The  New  Testament  Peshito  was  first  made 
known  in  Europe  by  Moses  of  Merdin,  a Syrian 
priest,  who  was  sent  by  Ignatius,  patriarch  of 
Antioch,  in  1552,  to  Pope  Julius  III.,  to  acknow- 
ledge the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  pontiff  in  the 
name  of  the  Syrian  church,  and  also  to  superin- 
tend the  printing  of  the  Syriac  Testament.  It 
was  first  published  at  Vienna  in  1555,  by  Albert 
Widmanstadt,  chancellor  of  Austria  under  Fer- 
dinand I.  Two  MSS,  were  employed.  L.  de 
Dieu  subsequently  published  the  Apocalypse  from 
an  ancient  MS.  formerly  in  the  library  of  the 
younger  Scaliger,  and  afterwards  in  that  of  the 
university  at  Leyden,  containing  part  of  the 
Philoxenian  or  younger  Syriac  version ; or  rather 
of  the  translation  made  by  Thomas  of  Harclea. 
(Lugd.  Bat.  1627,  4to.,  reprinted  witli  a Latin 
version  and  notes  in  his  Critica  Sacra,  Amster- 
dam, 1693,  fol.).  Pococke  published  the  four 
epistles,  viz.,  second  Peter,  second  and  third  John, 
and  Jude,  from  a MS.  in  the  Bodleian  library 
(Lugd.  Bat.  1630,  4to.).  This  is  the  only  MS. 
of  the  Peshito,  so  far  as  is  yet  known,  which  con- 
tains these  four  epistles,  together  with  the  Acts 
and  the  three  Catholic  epistles  universally  ac- 
knowledged. The  character  of  this  version  of  the 
four  epistles  does  not  generally  correspond  with 
that  of  the  Peshito ; on  the  contrary,  it  appears  to 


betray  a later  age,  and  probably  belongs  to  tb« 
Philoxenian  orHeraclean,  of  which  it  apparently 
forms  a part.  All  the  parts  were  collected  and 
printed  in  the  Paris  Polyglott  along  with  the 
Old  Testament  portion ; and  transferred  to  the 
London  Polyglott,  with  corrections.  The  best 
editions  of  the  New  Testament  Peshito  are  the 
second  edition  of  Schaaf,  Lugd.  Bat.  4to.,  1717  j 
and  that  prepared  by  Professor  Lee  for  the  Bible 
Society,  London,  1816,  4to.  The  best.  Lexicon, 
which  also  serves  as  a concordance,  is  Schaaf’s, 
in  one  quarto  volume,  published  at  Leyden,  in 
1709,  4to. 

The  style  of  this  version  is  generally  pure,  the 
original  well  translated,  and  the  idioms  trans- 
ferred to  the  Syriac  with  ease,  vigour,  and  pro- 
priety. It  need  create  no  surprise  that  it  differs 
considerably  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  MSS. 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  since  it  existed 
much  earlier  than  the  oldest  codices  now  extant. 
Its  assistance  in  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament  is  valuable  and  important  Nor  is  it 
wholly  without  its  use  in  the  criticism  of  the 
same  (Winer,  De  usu  vers.  Syriacce' N.  T.  critico 
caute  instituendo,  Erlang.  1823,  4to.).  See 
Davidson’s  Lectures  on  Biblical  Criticism , the 
various  Introductions  to  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments, especially  those  of  Havernick  and  De 
Wette  (last  edition)  to  the  Old,  and  those  of 
Hug,  Michaelis  (by  Marsh),  and  De  Wette  (last 
edition)  to  the  New  Testament  ; Wiseman, 
ITorce  Syriacce , vol.  i.,  Romae,  1828,  8vo. 
For  the  Old  Testament  Peshito  consult  also 
Hirzel,  De  Pentat.  vers.  Syr.  quam  vocant  Pe- 
schito,  indole , Lips.  1825, 8vo. ; Credner,  Dc  Pro- 
phet arum  min.  vers.  Syr.  quam  Peschito  vocant 
indole,  Gotting.  1827,  8vo. ; C.  v.  Lengerke, 
De  Ephrcemi  Syr.  arte  hermencutica,  Regiom. 
1831,  8vo.,  and  Comm.  crit.  de  Ephr.  Syro  s.  s. 
interprete,  Hal.  1828,  4to. ; Gesenius,  Ueber 
Jesaia,  vol.  i. ; Lee,  Prolegomena  to  Bagster's 
Polyglott;  Simon,  Ilistoire  Critique  du  V.  T.% 
Paris,  1678,  4to. 

For  the  New  Testament  Peshito  see  also  J.  G. 
C.  Adler,  N.  T.  versiones  Syriacce  simplex , 
Philoxeniana  et  Ilierosolymitana , denuo  exami- 
natce  et  ad  Jiclem , &c.,  Halniae,  1789,  4to. ; G.  C. 
Storr,  Observations  super  N.  T.  versionibus 
Syriacis , Stuttg.  1772,  8vo.  ; J.  G.  Reusch, 
Syncs  interpres  cumfonte  N.  T.  Grceco  collatus , 
Lips.  1741,  8vo.  Various  Arabic  versions  have 
been  made  from  the  Old  Testament  Peshito. 
These  have  been  already  mentioned  [Arabic 
Versions].  The  Persian  version  of  the  Gospels 
in  the  London  Polyglott  was  also  derived  from 
the  Peshito.  Hug  thinks  that  it  was  made  at 
Edessa  {Introduction,  §§81,  82,  83). 

Besides  the  Peshito,  Gregory  Bar  Hehrseus,  in 
the  preface  to  his  Horreum  Mysteriorum , men- 
tions two  other  versions  of  the  New  Testament 
the  Philoxenian  and  the  Hardean. 

The  Philoxenian  was  made  from  the  origina 
Greek  into  Syriac,  in  the  city  of  Mabug.  It  is, 
so  called  from  Philoxenus  or  Xenayas,  Bishop  o\ 
Mabug  or  Hierapolis,  in  Syria.  There  is  some 
uncertainty  in  relation  to  the  part  which  this 
bishop  took  in  the  version.  The  testimony  of 
Bar  Hebraeus  is  not  uniform.  In  one  passage  be 
affirms  that  it  was  made  in  the  time  of  Philo- 
xenus ; in  his  Chronicon,  that  it  was  done  by 
desire  of  this  bishop  ; and  in  another  place  of  the 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS. 

same  work,  that  it  was  his  own  production.  Aghe- 
laeus  (Assemani,  Biblioth.  Orient.  tom.  ii.  p.  83) 
states,  that  the  author  of  it  was  Polycarp,  rural 
Bishop  of  Philoxenus.  Again,  in  an  Arabic  MS. 
quoted  by  Assemani,  Philoxenus  is  said  to  have 
translated  the  four  Gospels  into  Syriac.  Thus 
all  is  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of 
the  version.  It  cannot  be  ascertained  whether  it 
proceeded  in  whole,  or  in  part  only,  from  Philo- 
xenus himself ; or  whether  Polycarp,  acting  under 
his  auspices  and  by  his  advice,  deserves  the  ho- 
nour of  the  work.  One  thing  is  certain,  that  it 
was  made  between  the  years  485  and  518  of  the 
Christian  era,  most  probably  in  508. 

No  MS.  of  this  version  has  been  yet  discovered, 
either  complete  or  otherwise,  so  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  ascertain  its  intrinsic  merit.  Bar  He- 
braeus  does  not  quote  it.  Hence  it  would  seem 
to  have  been  almost  supplanted  in  his  day.  It  is 
known  to  the  public  only  by  a few  fragments 
constituting  the  marginal  annotations  of  a very 
ancient  Vatican  MS.  examined  by  Wiseman  and 
numbered  153.  The  passages  were  first  printed 
by  Wiseman  in  his  Horce  Syriacce , p.  178, 
sq.  As  far  as  it  is  possible  to  judge  from  these 
specimens,  the  version  was  much  superior  to  the 
Peshito, — conclusion  which  agrees  with  the 
Syrian  tradition  respecting  it. 

The  Harclean  derives  its  name  from  Thomas 
of  Harkel  or  Heraclea,  in  Syria.  Various  notices 
of  Thomas’s  life  have  been  collected  by  Bern- 
stein from  ancient  authors.  He  was  bishop  of 
Mabug  at  the  conclusion  of  the  sixth  and  the 
commencement  of  the  seventh  century.  From 
thence  he  fled  into  Egypt,  and  took  up  his  abode 
in  a monastery  at  Alexandria,  where  he  laboured 
in  amending  the  Syriac  Philoxenian  version  of 
the  New  Testament.  From  postscripts  added  by 
himself  it  appears  that  he  corrected  the  Gospels  of 
the  Philoxenian  after  two  (some  MSS.  have  three ) 
Greek  MSS.  ; the  Acts  and  the  Catholic  epistles 
after  one.  Having,  revised  and  amended  the  en- 
tire text  with  great  care,  rendering  it  as  conform- 
able as  possible  to  the  Greek  copies  which  he  had 
before  him,  the  work  was  completed  and  published 
in  the  year  of  Christ  616.  The  basis  of  it  was 
the  Philoxenian ; but  the  Peshito  seems  to  have 
been  also  consulted.  Still  it  was  not  so  much  a 
new  recension  of  the  Philoxenian,  as  an  addi- 
tional version  of  the  New  Testament;  and  ac- 
cordingly it  is  described  as  a third  translation  by 
Bar  Hebraeus.  The  most  complete  MS.  of  this 
translation  which  has  yet  been  described,  is  that 
which  formerly  belonged  to  Ridley,  now  in  the 
library  of  New  College  Oxford.  Those  who 
wish  to  know  more  of  this  copy  must  consult 
Ridley’s  Dissertation  concerning  the  Genius  and 
Use  of  Syriac  Versions  of  the  New  Testament 
(London,  1761),  and  White's  preface  io  the 
printed  edition  of  it.  It  contains  all  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  except  the  Apocalypse,  and 
from  th®  27th  verse  of  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  to  the  end  of  that  epistle. 
The  edition  of  Professor  White  is  the  only  one  of 
the  Harclean  version  published.  It  is  in  four 
volumes  4 to.,  Oxford,  1778-1803.  The  text 
agrees  generally  with  the  Alexandrine  family,  as 
might  be  inferred  a priori  from  the  place  where 
it  was  made.  It  is  now  impossible  to  determine 
whether  the  Harclean  version  embraced  originally 
the  entire  New  Testament.  No  MS.  has  yet  been 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS.  8fi 

found  which  has  the  Apocalypse.  Gregory  Bax 
Hebraeus,  who  quotes  and  criticises  the  version, 
has  no  citation  from  this  book — a circumstance 
favourable  to  the  opinion  that  it  never  belonged 
to  the  version  in  question.  It  is  also  impossible 
to  determine  whether  it  ever  extended  to  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  version  is  extremely  literal.  It  seems 
to  have  been  the  translator’s  endeavour  that  not 
a word  or  syllable  of  the  original  should  be 
lost.  Accordingly,  he  has  often  sacrificed  the 
Syriac  idiom  to  a rigid  adherence  to  the  Greek 
text.  The  style  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  Peshito. 
Bernstein  thus  contrasts  the  two  translations: 
1 In  ilia  (Simplice)  interpretatio  est  liberior,  ver- 
borum  quodque  non  exprimens,  sed  sensum  eorum 
per  ambitum  magis,  quam  ad  fidem  enuntians, 
oratio  consuetudini  sermonis  Syriaci  accommoda- 
tior,  elegantior,  et  inteflectu  facilior;  haec  (Char- 
klensis)  ad  verbum  facta  diligenter  archetypum 
reddit,  sed  oratio  ejus  ea  ipsa  de  causa  a com- 
muni  Syrorum  usu  loquendi  saepe  abhorret,  lo> 
cisque  baud  paucis  obscura  est  et  sine  Graeco  ex- 
emplo  rix  apta  ad  intelligendum.  Ilia  Syrorum 
istius  temporis  doctorum  de  Novi  Testamenti 
locis  sententias  et  explicationes  refert,  bsec  Grae- 
corum praecipuae  auctoritatis  exemplarium,  quae 
exeunte  seculo  sexto  Thomas  Charklensis  Alex- 
andriae,  illustri  literarum  illius  temporis  sede,  in- 
venit,  effigiem  mira  similifudine  exscriptam  re- 
praesentat  ’ (p.  38).  The  same  writer  has  printed 
a specimen  of  it  along  with  a speciiqen  of  the 
old  Syriac  ; as  also  the  readings  quoted  by  Bar 
Hebraeus  in  his  Horreum  Mysterioruni. 

From  the  preceding  description  it  will  be  seen, 
that  what  is  usually  called  the  Philoxenian, 
should  be  designated  the  Harclean  version.  The 
two  are  quite  distinct.  Of  the  one  we  know  ex- 
ceedingly little;  the  other  has  been  printed  under 
the  superintendence  of  White,  who  erroneously  calls 
it  the  Philoxenian.  (See  Wiseman’s  Horce  Sy- 
riacce; Bernstein’s  Commentatio  de  CharMensi 
Novi  Testamenti  translatione  Syriacd  ; Ridley's 
Dissertatio  de  Syriacarum  Novi  Foederis  ver- 
sionum  indole  atque  usu ; Adler’s  Novi  Testa- 
menti versiones  Syriacce  Simplex,  Philoxeniana 
et  Ilierosolymitana,  &c. ; White's  edition  of  the 
Harclean,  vol.  i.;  Bertholdt’s  Krit.  Journal  der 
neuesten  Theol.  Literatur , tom.  xiv. ; Loehnis’s 
Grundz'uge,  pp.  373-4  ; and  Davidson’s  Lectures 
on  Biblical  Criticism.') 

There  is  also  another  Syriac  version  of  the 
New  Testament  called  the  Jerusalem  or  Palces - 
tino-Syriac , which  was  discovered  by  Adler  in  a 
Vatican  MS.  (No.  19).  The  MS.  seems,  from 
the  subscription,  to  have  been  written  in  a mo- 
nastery at  Antioch,  a.d.  1030.  The  language  is 
a mixture  of  Chaldee  and  Syriac,  similar  to  that 
of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  and  the  character  em- 
ployed is  peculiar.  The  MS.  consists  merely  of 
a lectionary  or  evangelistarium , embracing  no 
more  than  lessons  from  the  four  Gospels  for  all 
the  Sundays  and  festivals  in  the  year.  Internal 
evidence  favours  the  idea,  that  this  version  was 
made  in  some  part  of  Syria,  subject  at  the  time 
to  the  Romans  ; probably  in  the  fifth  century. 
The  text  agrees  with  the  western  family.  The 
story  of  the  adulteress,  though  wanting  in  the 
Peshito  and  Harclean,  is  given  in  this  version, 
almost  in  the  same  form  as  that  in  which  it  ap- 
pears in  the  Codex  Bezae.  Specimens  of  it  era 


81*2 


SYRO-PHCENICIA. 


TABERNACLE. 


given  by  Adler  in  his  Treatise  an  Syriac  Ver- 
sions, p.  137,  sq.  See  also  Eichhorn's  All- 
gem. Bib/ioth.  ii.,  p.  498,  sq. ; and  Marsh's  Notes 
lo  Mickaelis's  Introduction.  Dr.  Scholz  col- 
lated it  for  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
\ Davidson’s  Lectures . pp.  bo,  66.) — S.  D. 

SYRO-PHCENICIA.  {XupocpoivUrj),  or  Phck- 
.ojicia  Proper,  called  Svro  or  Syrian  Phoenicia, 
from  being  included  in  the  Roman  province  of 
Syria.  It  includes  that  part  of  the  coast  of 
Canaan,  on  the  borders  of  the  Mediterranean,  in 
which  the  cities  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  were  situated  ; 
and  the  same  country,  which  is  called  Syro- 
Phcenicia  in  the  Acts,  is  in  the  Gospels  called  the 
coasts  of  Tyre  and  Salon.  The  woman  also 
described  as  Syro  Phoenician  (2 vpocpoiviaaa ) in 
Mark  vii.  2-6,  is  in  Matt.  xv.  22  called  a 
Canaanitish  woman,  because  that  country  was 
still  occupied  by  the  descendants  of  Canaan,  of 
whom  Sidon  was  the  eldest  son. 


T. 

TAANACH  Cq^n  ; Sept.  QclAk),  a royal 
city  of  rfie  Canaauites  (Josh.  xii.  21),  in  the  ter- 
ritory of  Issachar,  but  assigned  to  Manasseh 
(Judg.  i.  27  ; v.  19  ; Josh.  xvii.  11-21  ; 1 Kings 
iv.  12).  Schubert,  followed  by  Robinson,  finds  it 
in  the  modern  Taannuk,  now  a mean  hamlet  on 
the  south  side  of  a small  hill,  with  a summit  of 
table-land.  It  lies  on  the  south-western  border 
of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  four  miles  south  of  Me- 
giddo,  in  connection  with  which  it  is  mentioned 
in  the  triumphal  song  of  Deborah  and  Barak 
(Judg.  v.  19).  Schubert,  Morgenland,  iii.  164  ; 
Robinson,  Bib.  Res.  iii.  156  : Bib.  Sacra,  i.  76. 

TABEAL  God  is  good;  Sept. 

T father  of  the  unnamed  person  on  whom 
Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekab,  king  of  Israel, 
proposed  to  bestow  the  crown  of  Judah  in  ease 
they  succeeded  in  dethroning  Ahaz  (Isa.  vii.  > . 
Who  ‘ Tabeal’s  son’  was  is  unknown,  but  it  is 
conjectured  that  he  was  some  factious  and  pow- 
erful Kphraimite  (perhaps  Zichri,  2 Chron.  xxviii. 
7),  who  promoted  the  war  in  the  hope  of  this  result. 

TABERAH,  one  of  the  stations  of  the  Israel- 
ites in  the  desert.  [Wandering.] 

TABERNACLE  (1VV2  hriS,  tent  of  assem- 
bly, from  the  root  “EA,  to  fix  or  appoint  time  and 
place  of  a meeting').  Kimchi  explains  the  name 
thus  : ‘ And  thus  teas  called  the  “lyiD  be- 

cause the  Israelites  xoere  assembled  and  congre- 
gated there , and  also  because  he  (Jehovah)  met 
there  with  Moses,’  &c.  It  is  also  called 
rrnyn,  or  nnyn  tent  of  testimony,  from 

Tiy,  testari,  to  witness.  The  Septuagint  almost 
constantly  use3  the  phrase  cncTpd?  too  yaprupiov, 
and  in  Kings  viii.,  (TKyvcaya  rev  yaprvpiov,  not  dis- 
tinguishing the  roots  I])'  and  *Tiy.  The  Vulgate 
has  tabernaculum  foederis,  tent  of  the  covenant. 
With  this  rendering  agrees  Luther's  Stiftshiitte. 
The  Chaldee  and  Syrian  translators  have 
N7DT  pPB,  tent  of  festival. 

We  may  distinguish  in  the  Old  Testament 
three  sacred  tabernacles  : I.  The  Ante-Sinaitic, 
which  was  probably  the  dwelling  of  Moses,  and 


was  placed  by  the  camp  of  the  Israelites  in  th* 
desert,  for  the  transaction  of  public  business. 
Exod.  xxxiii.  7,  ‘ Moses  took  the  Jabernacle,  and 
pitched  it  without  the  camp,  afar  off  from  the 
camp,  and  called  it  the  tabernacle  of  the  congre 
gation.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  every  on# 
which  sought  the  Lord  went  out  unto  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation,  which  was  without  the 
camp.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses  went 
out  unto  the  tabernacle,  that  all  the  people  rose 
up,  and  stood  every  man  at  his  tent  doth-,  and 
looked  after  Moses  until  he  was  gone  into  the 
tabernacle.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  Moses  en- 
tered into  the  tabernacle,  the  cloudy  pillar  de- 
scended and  stood  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle, 
and  the  Lord  talked  with  Moses.  And  all  the 
people  saw  the  cloudy  pillar  stand  at  the  taber- 
nacle door  : and  all  the  people  rose  up  and  wor- 
shipped, every  one  in  his  tent,  door.’ 

II.  The  Ante-Sinaitic  tabernacle,  which  had 

served  for  the  transaction  of  public  business 
probably  from  the  beginning  of  the  Exodus, 
was  superseded  by  the  Sinaitic  : this  was  con- 
structed by  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab  as  a portable 
mansion-house,  guildhall,  and  cathedral,  and 
set  up  on  the  first  day  of  the  first,  month  in  the 
second  year  after  leaving  Egypt.  Of  this  alone 
we  have  accurate  descriptions.  Philo  (Opera,  ii. 
p.  146)  calls  it  lepbu  (popyriv,  and  Josephus 
( Antiq . iii.  6.  1),  vabs  yera(pep6yevos  kci) 
avyiTepii/oaruv,  a portable  travelling  temple.  Ii 
is  also  sometimes  called  ‘ temple’  (1  Sam. 

i.  9,  iii.  3). 

III.  The  Davidic  tabernacle  was  erected  by 
David  in  Jerusalem  for  the  reception  of  the  ark 
(2  Sam.  vi.  12),  while  the  old  tabernacle  remained 
to  the  days  of  Solomon  at  Gibeon,  together  with 
the  brazen  altar,  as  the  place  where  sacrifices  were 
offered  (1  Chron.  xvi.  39,  and  2 Chron.  i.  3). 

The  second  of  these  sacred  teuts  is,  as  the  most 
important,  called  the  tabernacle  par  excellence. 
Moses  was  commanded  by  Jehovah  to  have  it 
erected  in  the  Arabian  desert,  by  voluntary  con- 
tributions of  the  Israelites,  who  carried  it  about 
with  them  in  their  migrations  until  after  the  con- 
quest of  Canaan,  when  it  remained  stationary  for 
longer  periods  in  various  towns  of  Palestine. 

The  materials  of  which  this  tent  was  composed 
were  so  costly,  that  sceptics  have  questioned 
whether  they  could  be  furnished  by  a nomadic 
race.  The  tabernacle  exceeded  in  costliness  and 
splendour,  in  proportion  to  the  slender  means  of  a 
nomadic  people,  the  magnificence  of  any  cathe- 
dral of  the  present  day,  compared  with  the  wealth 
of  t he  surrounding  population.  It  is,  however, 
remarkable  that.  Moses  was  directed  by  Jehovah 
to  collect,  the  means  for  erecting  the  tabernacle, 
not  by  church-rates,  but  by  the  voluntary  prin- 
ciple. The  mode  of  collecting  these  means,  and 
the  design  of  the  structure,  are  fully  described  in 
Exod.  xxv.  to  xxvii.,  and  in  xxxv.  to  xxxvii.; 
which  the  reader  should  peruse  in  connection 
with  the  following  remarks  : ‘And  the  Lord  spake 
unto  Mokes,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  that  they  bring  me  an  offering  : of  every 
man  that  giveth  it  willingly  with  his  heart  ye 
shall  take  my  offering.  And  this  is  the  offering 
which  ye  shall  take  of  them ; gold,  and  silver, 
and  brass,  and  blue,  and  purple,  and  scarlet,  and 
fine  linen,  and  goats’  hair,  and  rams’  skins  dyed 
red,  and  badgers’  skins,  and  shitfim-wotd,’  &«v 


TABERNACLE. 


TABERNACLE. 


813 


In  addition  to  these  voluntary  contributions,  the 
half  shekel  redemption-money,  which  every  adult 
male  paid  in  substitution  of  the  first-born,  was 
applied  to  the  casting  of  the  sockets  on  which  the 
boards  rested — in  the  whole  100  talents,  and  1775 
shekels.  Of  the  100  talents  were  cast  100  sock- 
ets, and  of  the  remaining  1775  shekels  were  made 
hooks,  platings,  and  bands  for  the  pillars  (Exod. 
xxx.  13  ; xxxviii.  24-28).  Public  worship  was 
also  maintained  by  various  fines  and  trespass- 
offerings  (Lev.  v.  15;  xxvii.  3;  Num.  iii.  47 ; 
vii.  55). 

The  graphic  description  given  in  Exodus  indi- 
cates that  the  framework  of  the  tabernacle  consisted 
of  perpendicular  gilded  boards  of  acacia  wood. 
These  boards  were  fixed  into  silver  sockets,  and 
were  kept  together  by  means  of  golden  rings, 
through  which  transverse  bars  were  passed.  Over 
this  wooden  framework  four  coverings  were  spread, 
the  first  of  which  consisted  of  byssus,  or  of  a fine 
cotton  texture,  dark  blue,  purple,  and  scarlet, 
into  which  the  representations  of  cherubim  were 
woven.  The  second  was  somewhat  larger  than 
the  first,  and  consisted  of  a texture  made  of  the 
very  fine  wool  which  grows  between  the  hair  of 
some  breeds  of  goats.  The  third  covering  was  a 
pall,  made  of  red  morocco  leather;  and  the 
fourth  was  also  a pall  of  a stronger  leather,  more 
capable  of  resisting  inclement  weather.  It  was 
probably  made  of  sealskins,  which  were  furnished 
by  the  Red  Sea.  The  first  and  second  of  these 
coverings  consisted  of  several  curtains,  which 
were  connected  with  each  other  by  means  of 
golden  hooks  and  eyes. 

In  the  pictorial  illustrations  the  four  coverings 
of  the  tabernacle  are  usually  represented  as  being 
all  spread  over  the  wooden  frame,  so  as  to  hang 
down  outside  the  boards.  But  this  seems,  as  Ba.hr 
remarks,  not  quite  correct.  The  splendid  cover- 
ing of  blue  and  purple  byssus,  with  interwoven 
images  of  cherubim,  was  suspended  by  ho6ks  and 
eyes  within  the  boards,  so  that  the  inside  of  the 
tabernacle  was  covered  entirely  as  with  costly 
tapestry. 

The  entrance  was  turned  towards  the  east,  and 
was  closed  by  means  of  a splendid  curtain 
of  byssus,  into  which  figures  were  woven.  This 
curtain  was  supported  by  fine  wooden  columns, 
which  were  plated  with  gold.  Against  incle- 
ment weather  the  curtain  was  protected,  ac- 
cording to  the  statement  of  Josephus,  by  a 
linen  covering.  The  interior  of  the  tabernacle 
was  divided  into  two  rooms.  The  sanctuary  was 
twenty  cubits  long,  ten  cubits  wide,  and  ten 
high.  The  holy  of  holies  was  ten  cubits  square, 
and  ten  high,  and  was  separated  from  the  sanc- 
tuary by  a curtain,  into  which  the  figures  of 
cnerubim  were  woven,  and  which  was  sup- 
ported by  four  columns  plated  with  gold.  The  ta- 
bernacle was  surrounded  by  a sort  of  court-yard, 
which  was  one  hundred  cubits  long  and'  fifty 
cubits  wide,  and  was  surrounded  by  columns, 
from  which  cotton  curtains  were  suspended.  The 
entrance  was  twenty  cubits  wide,  and  was  closed 
by  a suspended  curtain.  In  the  holy  of  holies 
stood  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  In  the  sanctuary 
was  placed  on  the  north  the  table  with  the  twelve 
loaves  of  shewbread,  together  with  cups,  saucers, 
&c. ; opposite  to  this  table  towards  the  south 
6tood  the  golden  candlestick  with  six  branches; 
*«  the  middle,  between  the  table  and  the  candle- 


stick, stood  the  altar  of  incense.  In  the  court 
under  the  open  sky  stood  the  altar  of  burnt  offer- 
ings, and  between  this  altar  and  the  sanctuary 
was  placed  the  brazen  laver. 

Among  the  pictorial  il lustrations  of  the  struc- 
ture of  the  tabernacle,  those  lately  published  by 
Captain  W.  llhind  are  distinguished  by  their 
beauty. 

The  typology  of  the  tabernacle  has  been  ex- 
plained by  divines  of  former  centuries  in  a rather 
daring  manner.  Salomon  Van  Til,  in  his  Com - 
mentatio  de  Tabernaculo  Mosis,  is  very  explicit 
in  his  typological  statements.  For  instance : 

‘ Considerare  oportet  materiam  quae  est.  lignum 
fragile,  ita  quoque  ecclesia  colligitur  ex  homini- 
bus  ejusdem  conditionis,  dum  omnes  natura 
fragiles  sunt.’  The  vjood  of  the  tabernacle  sig- 
r.ifies  the  fragility  of  men  constituting  the 
Church.  ‘ Ornatus  ab  auro  introductus  est  em- 
blema  correctae  frag  ili  tat  is,  scilicet  vocati  sancti 
intus  gloriosi  sunt  propter  dona  spiritualia  una 
cum  justitia  Christi  imputata..’  The  golden  or- 
naments  signify  that  the  fragility  of  the  saints 
has  been  removed  by  the  spiritual  gifts  and  the 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.  ‘Tegumenta 
pellicea  rubelacta  inclemeutiae  aeris  exposita, 
quidni  nobis  sint  emhlemata  martyrum  sanguine 
Christi  et  suo  tinctorum?  nam  sicut  tegumenta 
pellicea  ilia  ex  mactatis  animalibus  detracta 
luerant,  ita  quoque  martyres  occisi  etmactati  per 
memoriam  martyrii  sui  ecclesiae  quasi  exuvias 
reliriquunt  perpetuo  ostentandas,  quod  diligen- 
tissime  factum  est  in  martvrologiis.’  The  skins 
dyed  red  arc  emblems  of  the  martyrs  whose  ex- 
ample is  exhibited  in  the  martyrologies,  &c. 

Vestiges  of  typological  interpretations  occur 
even  in  Philo  (Opera,  ii.  p.  14G,  sq.)  ;.  Josephus 
(Antiq.  iii.  7.  7);  Clem.  Alex.  (Stromata,  V. 
p.  562,  sq.),  and  Hieronymus  (Ep.  64,  ad  Fabiol.) 
Compare  Witsii  Miscellanea  Sacra,  i.  318,  sq. ; 
Kraft  ii  Observationes  Sacrce,  i.  p.  136 ; and 
Balir's  Sytnbolik  Medosas  ischen  Cultus. 

We  do  not  belong  to  those  who  either  deny  or 
overlook  the  symbolism  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
general,  or  that  of  the  tabernacle  in  particular. 
It  appears  to  us,  however,  that  the  interpretations 
and  applications  of  the  t.ypologians  are  generally 
more  arbitrary  and  less  cogent  than  the  psycho- 
logical and  moral  facts  which  the  history  of  the 
tabernacle  places  before  our  observation,  and  to 
which  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  refers. 

Compare  the  cognate  articles  Aaron  ; Altar  ; 
Akk;  Cherubim  ; Court;  Elders  ; Ei.eazar  ; 
Gershonites  ; Incense  ; Koiiathites  ; Korah- 
ites;  Laver;  Levites;  Merarites  ; Offer- 
ings; Priests;  Sacrifices;  $hew-bread  ; 
Sea,  Brazen;  Uiiim  and  Thummim,  &c. 

Besides  the  works  of  S.  van  Til  and  Be  hr, 
compare  also  Eh.  Conrad.,  De  Generali  Taber- 
naculi  Mosis  Structura  et  Figura,  Offenbach, 
1712;  Bh.  Lamy,  De  Tabernaculo  Foederis 
libri  septem,  Paris,  1720  ; J.  G.  Tympe,  Taber- 
naculi  e Monumentis  Descript io,  Jena,  1731  ; 
Benzelii  Dissertationes , ii.  97,  sq.;  Millii  Mis- 
cellanea Sacra,  Amit.  1754,  p.  329,  sq. ; Teb. 
Ran.  De  Us  quce  ex  Arabia  in  usum  Taberna - 
culi  fuerant  petita,  Ultraject.  1753,  ed.  J.  M. 
Schrockh,  Lips.  1755  ; V.  Meyer,  Bibeldeutung, 
p.  262,  sq.  ; Description  de  I'Egypte,  Yol.  i. 
pi.  ii.  A.  fig.  4;  Michelangelo  Lanzi,  La  Sacra 
Scrittura  illustrata  con  monum.  Fenico  Assiri 


814  TABERNACLES,  FEAST  OF. 

ed  Egiziani,  Roma,  1827,  fol. ; Winer,  Real- 
Worterbuch,  art.  ‘ Stiftshutte.’ — C.  H.  F.  B. 

TABERNACLES,  FEAST  OF  (rilSDnan; 

in  Josephus  aK-gvoirqyia ),  one  of  the  three  great 
festivals  of  the  Jews,  being  that  of  the  closing 
year,  as  the  Passover  was  of  the  spring.  In  Lev. 
xxiii.  34-43,  directions  for  observing  the  feast  are 
given  in  very  clear  terms.  It  was  to  commence 
ou  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh  month  (Tisri), 
and  consequently  five  days  after  the  great  day  of 
annual  atonement ; it  was  to  last  for  seven  days  ; 
the  first  day  and  the  following  eighth  day  were 
to  be  Sabbaths;  seven  days  were  offerings  to  be 
made  : ‘ And  ye  shall  take  you  on  the  first  day  the 
boughs  of  goodly  trees,  branches  of  palm-trees, 
and  the  boughs  of  thick  trees,  and  willows  of  the 
brook ; ye  shall  dwell  in  booths  seven  days,  and 
ye  shall  rejoice  before  the  Lord  your  God,  when 
ye  have  gathered  in  the  fruit  of  the  land  ; that 
your  generations  may  know  that  I made  the 
children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths  when  I 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt’  (comp. 
Num.  xxix.  13-34).  The  festival  was  therefore 
commemorative  of  the  divine  goodness  as  exer- 
cised towards  the  Jews  when  they  were  wandering 
in  the  desert,  as  well  as  expressive  of  gratitude 
for  the  supply  of  the  rich  fruits  of  the  earth  ; and 
so  was  fitted  t<s  awaken  the  most  lively  feelings 
of  piety  in  the  minds  of  the  Hebrews  in  each 
successive  generation.  Nor  would  it  be  a small 
enhancement  of  the  joy  felt  on  the  occasion  that 
the  solemn  purification  of  the  day  of  atonement 
had  just  taken  place,  leaving  the  heart  open  to 
free  and  unrestrained  emotions  of  pleasure.  It  is 
equally  clear  that  such  an  observance  was  a very 
important  element  in  that  system  of  education,  by 
facts,  customs,  and  institutions,  which  formed  so 
marked  a peculiarity  in  Mosaism,  and  must  have 
proved  most  effectual  for  the  religious  and  moral 
training  of  the  young,  and  for  the  confirming  of 
the  mature  and  the  aged  in  their  great  national 
convictions  and  remembrances.  That  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  of  a general 
character  appears  from  the  fact  that  it  required 
the  actual  presence  in  Jerusalem  of  all  Israelites 
(Deut.  xvi.  15,  sq. ; xxxi.  10;  Zech.  xiv.  16; 
John  vii.  2).  Still  more  to  further  the  educa- 
tional and  religious  aims  of  the  observance,  Moses 
commanded  that  every  Sabbatical  year,  ‘ in  the 
solemnity  of  the  year  of  release,  in  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  is  come  to  appear 
before  Jehovah  thy  God,  thou  shalt  read  this  law 
before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing.  Gather  the 
people  together,  men  and  women,  and  children, 
and  thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates,  that 
they  may  hear,  and  that  they  may  learn,  and  fear 
Jehovah,  and  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of  this 
law ; and  that  their  children,  which  have  not 
known  [the  event  commemorated],  may  hear  and 
learn  to  fear  Jehovah,  as  long  as  ye  live  in  the 
land,  whither  ye  go  over  Jordan  to  possess  it’ 
(Deut.  xxxi.  10-13).  After  reading  a command 
so  full  and  emphatic  as  this,  and  after  con- 
templating the  important  purposes  designed  to 
be  promoted,  one  is  not  a little  surprised  to  read 
in  Winer  ( Real-Worterbuch , ii.  8)  that  this  fes- 
tival was  not  celebrated,  or  at  least  not  legiti- 
mately celebrated,  before  the  Babylonish  Captivity. 
In  the  first  place  we  complain  of  the  vagueness 
and  uncertainty  of  such  a sta ‘ement.  Whether 


TABERNACLES,  FEAST  OF. 

does  Winer  mean  that  the  feast  was  not  jb 
served  at  all  ? or  that  it  was  only  partially  ob- 
served? These  are  very  different  propositions, 
and  must  rest  on  very  different  evidence.  The 
only  authority  for  his  statement  to  which  Winer 
refers  is  Neh.  viii.  17,  where,  after  a description  of 
the  observance  of  the  festival  on  the  part  of  the 
returned  exiles,  it  is  added,  ‘ since  the  days  of 
Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun.  unto  that  day  hail  not 
the  children  of  Israel  done  so.’  These  words  make 
one  thing  clear,  namely,  that  Winer  is  wrong 
in  saying  that  the  feast  was  not  kept  before  the 
Captivity  ; for  they  clearly  imply  that  during  the 
days  of  Joshua,  that  which  they  deny  to  have 
taken  place  after  his  days,  did  take  place  then. 
But  what  do  they  deny?  The  observance  of  the 
festival  ? No,  but  the  manner  merely  of  such  ob- 
servance, which  must  have  varied  somewhat  with 
the  lapse  of  time  and  the  great  changes  that 
were  successively  introduced  into  the  solemnities 
of  the  national  worship.  From  the  writings  of 
the  Rabbins  we  learn,  1.  That  those  who  took 
part  in  the  festival  bore  in  their  left  hand  a branch 
of  citron,  and  in  their  right  a palm  branch,  en- 
twined with  willows  and  myrtle.  In  1 Sam.  vii.  6, 
we  read  that  in  Samuel’s  days,  with  a view  to 
cleanse  themselves  from  Baalim  and  Ashtaroth, 
the  Israelites  gathered  together  to  Mizpeh,  and 
drew  water,  and  poured  it  out  before  Jehovah, 
and  fasted  on  that  day,  and  said,  ‘ We  have 
sinned  against  Jehovah.’  2.  A similar  libation 
of  water  took  place  on  each  of  the  seven  days  (Isa. 
xii.  3;  John  vii.  37) ; at  the  time  of  the  morning 
oblation  a priest  drew  from  the  fount  of  Siloam 
water  in  a jar  holding  three  logs,  and  poured  it 
out,  together  with  wine,  into  two  channels  or 
conduits,  made  on  the  west  side  of  the  altar,  the 
water  into  the  one,  the  wine  into  theotner;  in- 
tending thereby,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  terms 
employed  in  the  passage  of  the  book  of  Samuel,  to 
signify  ami  pray  for  moral  purification,  and  also, 
not  improbably,  to  bring  to  mind  the  value  and 
supply  of  water  during  the  journey  ings  in  the  wil- 
derness, while  the  grand  choral  symphonies  of  the 
temple  music  and  sacred  song  swelled  and  re- 
verberated around.  3.  In  the  outer  court  of 
the  women  there  began,  on  the  evening  of  the  first 
day,  an  illumination  on  great  golden  candle- 
sticks, which  threw  its  light  over  the  whole  ,of 
Jerusalem ; and  a dance  by  torch-light  (the  torches 
being  made  from  the  priest’s  cast-off  linen),  at- 
tended by  song  and  music, was  performed  before  the 
candelabra.  To  this  illumination  our  Lord  has  been 
thought  to  allude,  when  he  says,  ‘ I am  the  litrht 
of  the  world  ’ (John  viii.  12),  as  in  his  words,  ‘ If 
any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink  ’ 
(John  vii.  37),  he  is  supposed  to  have  referred  to 
the  libation  on  the  seventh  day  (Succa,  Mishna , 
v.  2-4  ; Tosaphta,  in  Ugolini,  Thes.  tom.  xviii. ; 
Succa,  iii.  12).  From  the  passage  in  Nehemiah 
(viii.  13,  sq.)  it  appears  that  it  was  customary  in 
Jerusalem  and  all  the  cities  to  ‘ go  forth  unto  the 
mount  and  fetch  olive  branches  and  pine  branches, 
and  myrtle  branches,  and  palm  branches,  and 
branches  of  thick  trees,  to  make  booths.’  It  is 
added,  ‘ So  the  people  made  themselves  booths, 
every  one  upon  the  roof  of  his  house,  and  in 
their  courts,  and  in  the  courts  of  the  house  of 
God,  and  in  the  street  of  the  water-gate,  and  the 
street  of  the  gate  of  Ephraim.’  From  the  details 
given  in  this  article,  it  appears  that  the  Feast  of 


TABITHA. 


TABOR. 


815 


Tabernacle*  was  a season  of  universal  joy.  Je- 
rusalem bore  the  appearance  of  a cam]).  The 
entire  population  again  dwelt  in  tents,  but  not 
with  the  accompaniments  of  travel,  fatigue,  and 
solicitude ; all  was  hilarity,  all  wore  a holiday 
appearance ; the  varied  green  of  the  ten  thousand 
branches  of  different  trees  ; the  picturesque  cere- 
mony of  the  water- libation,  the  general  illumina- 
tion, the  sacred  solemnit.es  in  and  before  the 
temple  ; the  feast,  the  dance,  the  sacred  song ; the 
full  harmony  of  the  choral  music;  the  bright  joy 
that  lighted  up  every  face,  and  the  gratitude 
at  ‘ harvest  home,’  which  swelled  every  bosom, 
— all  conspired  to  make  these  days  a season 
of  pure,  deep,  and  lively  joy,  which,  in  all  its 
elements,  finds  no  parallel  among  the  observances 
of  men.  Plutarxh  ( Sympos . iv.  5)  has  found  in 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  a Dionysian  or  Baccha- 
nalian festival.  He  could  trace  any  outward  re- 
semblance there  was  between  the  Jewish  and  his 
own  heathen  festivals,  but  the  deep  and  appro- 
priate moral  and  spiritual  import  of  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  he  was  unable  to  discern  (Biel, 
De  Sacrificio  aquce  in  scenar.  festo  vino  misceri 
solito , Vit.  1716;  Reland,  Antiq.  Sacr.  iv.  5; 
Carpzov,  Appar.  p.  414,  sq. ; Nicolaus,  De  Phyl- 
iobolia , Thes.  in  Ugolini,  tom.  xxx.). 

TABITHA  (Ta/3i6d  antelope ),  the  Aramsean 
name  of  a Christian  female,  called  in  Greek 
Dorcas  (A ootids),  resident  at  Joppa,  whose  bene- 
volent and  liberal  conduct,  especially  in  pro- 
viding the  poor  with  clothing,  so  endeared  her  to 
the  Church  in  that  place,  that  on  her  death  they 
sent  for  Peter,  then  six  miles  off  at  Lydda,  im- 
ploring him  to  come  to  them.  Why  they  sent  is 
not  stated.  It  is  probable  that  they  desired  his 
presence  to  comfort  and  sustain  them  in  their 
affliction.  That  they  expected  he  would  raise 
her  from  the  dead  is  less  likely,  as  the  Apostles 
had  not  yet  performed  such  a miracle,  and  as 
even  Stephen  had  not  been  restored  to  life.  But 
the  Apostle,  after  fervent  prayer  to  God  in  the 
chamber  of  death,  bade  the  corpse  arise;  on  which 
Tabitha  e opened  her  eyes,  and  when  she  saw 
Peter,  she  sat  up.’  This  great  miracle  was  not 
only  an  act  of  benevolence,  but  tended  to  give 
authority  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  and  to 
secure  attention  for  the  doctrines  which  they 
promulgated  (see  Acts  ix.  36-42). 

1.  TABOR  (TOFl  ; TcuOfiap-,  ©aficlop ; 'irafiv- 
oiov  , a mountain  on  the  confines  of  Zebulun 
and  Naphtali,  standing  out  in  the  north-east 
border  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  the  name  of  which 
appears  among  Greek  and  Roman  writers  in  the 
forms  of  Itabyrion  and  Atabyrion,  and  which  is  now 

known  by  the  name  ofjjl?  Jebel  Tur.  It 

is  mentioned  in  Josh.  xix.  22;  Judg.  iv.  6 ; viii. 
IS;  Ps.  lxxxix.  12;  Jer.  xlvi.  1-8;  Hos.  v.  1). 
Mount  Tabor  stands  out  alone  and  eminent 
above  the  plain,  with  all  its  fine  proportions  from 
base  to  summit  displayed  atone  view.  It  lies  at 
the  distance  of  two  hours  and  a quarter  south  of 
Nazareth.  According  to  the  barometrical  mea- 
surements of  Schubert,  the  height  of  Tabor  above 
the  level  of  the  sea  is  1748  Paris  feet,  and  1310 
Paris  feet  above  the  level  of  the  plain  at  its  base. 
Seen  from  the  south-west,  it  presents  a semi- 
globi  lar  appearance  ; but  from  the  north-west,  it 
more  resembles  a truncated  cone.  By  an  an- 


cient path,  which  winds  considerably,  one  may 
ride  to  the  summit,  where  is  a small  oblong 
plain,  with  the  foundations  of  ancient  buildings. 
The  view  of  the  country  from  this  place  is  very 
beautiful  and  extensive.  The  mountain  is  of 
limestone,  which  is  the  general  rock  of  Pales- 
tine. The  sides  of  the  mountain  are  mostly 
covered  with  bushes,  and  woods  of  oak  trees  (ilex 
and  ajgilops),  with  occasionally  pistachio  trees, 
presenting  a beautiful  appearance,  and  affording 
a fine  shade.  There  are  various  tracks  up  its 
sides,  often  crossing  one  another.  The  ascent 
usually  occupies  an  hour,  though  it  has  beer, 
done  in  less  time.  The  crest  of  the  mountain  is 
table-land,  of  some  six  or  seven  hundred  yards  in 
height  from  north  to  south,  and  about  half  as  much 
across;  and  a fiat  field  of  about  an  acre  occurs 
at  a level  of  some  twenty  or  twenty-five  feet  lower 
than  the  eastern  brow.  There  are  remains  of 
several  small  ruined  tanks  on  the  crest,  which 
still  catches  the  rain-water  dripping  through  the 
crevices  of  the  rock,  and  preserves  it  cool  and 
pure,  it  is  said,  throughout  the  year.  The  view 
from  the  summit,  though  one  edge  or  the  other  of 
the  table-land,  wherever  one  stands,  always  in- 
tervenes to  make  a small  break  in  the  distant 
horizon,  is  declared  by  Lord  Nugent  to  be  the 
most  splendid  lie  could  recollect  having  ever  seen 
from  any  natural  height.  This  writer  cites  an 
observation  made  many  years  ago,  in  his  hearing, 
by  Mr.  Riddle,  that  he  had  never  been  on  any 
natural  hill,  or  rock,  or  mountain,  from  which 
could  be  seen  an  unbroken  circumference  with  a 
radius  of  three  miles  in  every  part.  This,  his 
lordship  says,  has  been  verified  in  all  his  own 
experience,  and  it  was  so  at  Mount  Tabor,  although 
there  are  many  abrupt  points  of  vantage  ground 
on  the  summit  (. Lands  Classical  and  Sacred , ii. 
204,  205). 

This  mountain  is  several  times  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament  (Josh.  xix.  12,  22;  Judg.  iv.  6, 
12,  14);  but  not  in  the  New.  Its  summit  has 
however  been  usually  regarded  as  the  ‘ high 
mountain  apart,’  where  our  Lord  was  transfigured 
before  Peter,  James,  and  John.  But  the  proba- 
bility of  this  is  opposed  by  circumstances 
which  cannot  be  gainsaid.  It  is  manifest  that 
the  Transfiguration  took  place  in  a solitary  place, 
not  only  from  the  word  ‘ apart,’  but  from  the 
circumstance  that  Peter  in  his  bewilderment  pro- 
posed to  build  ‘ three  tabernacles  ’ on  the  spot 
(Matt.  xvii.  1-8;  Luke  ix.  28-36).  But  we 
know  that  a fortified  town  occupied  the  top  of 
Tabor  for  at  least  220  years  before  and  60  years 
after  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  probably  much  be- 
fore and  long  after  (Polybius,  v.  70.  6;  Joseph. 
Antiq.  xiv.  6.  3 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  8.  7 ; ii.  20.  1 ; 
iv.  1.  8 ; Vita , § 37)  ; and  the  tradition  itself  can- 
not be  traced  back  earlier  than  towards  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century,  previously  to  which  we  have 
in  the  Onomasticon  notices  of  Mount  Tabor,  with- 
out any  allusion  to  its  being  regarded  as  the  sit? 
of  the  Transfiguration.  It  may  further  be  re- 
marked that  this  part  of  Galilee  abounds  with 
‘ high  mountains  apart,’  so  that  in  removing  the 
scene  of  this  great  event  from  Tabor,  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  providing  other  suitable  s^tes  for  it 
(Robinson,  Bibl.  Researches , iii.  210-227 ; Lord 
Nugent,  u.  s.,  ii.  198-204  ; Schubert,  Morgenland , 
iii.  174-180;  Burckhardt,  Syria,  pp.  332-336, 
Stephens,  ii.  317-19  ; Elliot,  ii.  364). 


81 G 


TABOR. 


TADMOR. 


2.  TABOR  is  also  the  name  of  a grove  of  oaks 
in  the  vicinity  of  Benjamin,  in  1 Sam.  x.  3,  the 
topography  of  which  chapter  is  usually  much  em- 
barrassed by  the  groundless  notion  that  Mount 
Tabor  is  meant. 

3.  TABOR,  a Levitical  city  in  Zebulun,  si- 
tuated upon  Mount  Tabor  (1  Chron.  vi.  62). 

TABRET.  [Musical  Instruments.] 

TABRET.  [Weights  and  Measures.] 
TACHMAS  (DDnri,  Lev.  xi.  16;  Deut.  xiv. 
15)  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  unclean  birds  in  the 
Pentateuch,  but  so  little  characterised  that  no  de- 
cided opinion  can  be  expressed  as  to  what  species  is 
really  intended.  Commentators  incline  to  the  belief 
that  the  name  imports  voracity,  and  therefore  indi- 
cates a species  of  owl,  which,  however,  we  take  to 
be  not  this  bird,  but  the  lilith ; and  as  the 

night-hawk  of  Europe  ( Caprimulgus  Europaus ), 
or  a species  very  nearly  allied  to  it,  is  an  inha- 
bitant of  Syria,  there  is  no  reason  for  absolutely 
rejecting  it  in  this  place,  since  it  belongs  to  a genus 
highly  connected  with  superstitions  in  all  coun- 
tries ; and  though  a voracious  bird  among  moths 
( Phalence ) and  other  insects  that  are  abroad 
during  darkness,  it  is  absolutely  harmless  to  all 
other  animals,  and  as  wrongfully  accused  of 
sucking  the  udders  of  goats,  as  of  being  an 
indicator  of  misfortune  and  death  to  those  who 
happen  to  see  it  11  y past  them  after  evening  twi- 
light ; yet,  beside  the  name  of  * goatsucker,'  it  is 
denominated  ‘night-hawk’  and  ‘night-raven,’  as 
if  it  were  a bulky  species,  with  similar  powers  of 
mischief  as  those  day  birds  possess.  The  night- 
hawk  is  a migratory  bird,  inferior  in  size  to  a 
thrush,  and  has  very  weak  talons  and  bill ; but  the 
gape  or  mouth  is  wide;  it  makes  now  and  then  a 
plaintive  cry,  and  preys  on  the  wing;  it  Hies  with 
the  velocity  and  action  of  a swallow,  the  two 
genera  being  nearly  allied.  Like  those  of  most 
night  birds,  the  eyes  are  large  and  remarkable, 
and  the  plumage  a mixture  of  colours  and  dots, 
with  a prevailing  grey  effect. ; it  is  finely  webbed, 
and  entirely  noiseless  in  its  passage  through  the 
air.  Thus  the  bright  eyes,  wide,  mouth,  sudden 
and  inaudible  flight  in  the  dusk,  are  the  original 
causes  of  the  superstitious  fear  these  birds  have 
excited;  and  as  there  are  in  southern  climates 
other  species  of  this  genus,  much  larger  in  size, 
with  peculiarly  contrasted  colours,  strangely  dis- 
posed feathers  on  the  head,  or  paddle-shaped 
single  plumes,  one  at  'each  shoulder,  projecting 
in  the  form  of  two  additional  wings,  and  with 
plaintive  loud  voices  often  uttered  in  the  night, 
all  the  species  contribute  to  the  general  awe  they 
have  inspired  in  every  country  and  in  all  ages. 
We  see  here  that  it  is  not  the  bulk  of  a species, 
nor  the  exact  extent  of  injury  it  may  inflict, 
that  determines  the  importance  attached  to  the 
name,  but  the  opinions,  true  or  false,  which 
the  public  may  have  held  or  still  entertain 
concerning  it.  The  goatsucker  is  thus  confounded 
with  owls  by  the  Arabian  peasantry,  and  the 
name  massasa  more  particularly  belongs  to  it. 
But  that  the  confusion  with  the  lilith  is  not  con- 
lined  to  Arabia  and  Egypt,  is  sufficiently  evident 
from  the  Sclavonic  names  of  the  bird,  being  in 
Russian,  lilo/e,  lelek  ; Polish,  lelek ; Lithuanian, 
lehlis  ; and  Hungarian,  egeli ; all  clearly  allied 
to  the  Semitic  denomination  of  the  owl  — C.  H.  S. 


TADMOR  n ; Sept.  &ortp6p)  or  Ta- 
mar (“1DD),  a town  built  by  King  Solomon 
(1  Kings  ix.  18;  2 Clnon.  viii.  4).  The  name 
Tamar  signifies  a palm-tree,  and  hence  the  Greek 
and  Roman  designation  of  Palmyra,  ‘ city  ©f 
palms ;'  but  this  name  never  superseded  the 
other  among  the  natives,  who  even  to  this  day 
give  it  the  name  of  Thadmor.  The  form  Tamar 
seems  more  ancient  than  that  of  Tadmor.  It  is 
found  in  the  text  ( kethib ) of  1 Kings  ix.  18,  while 
the  latter  stands  in  the  margin  (fieri):  but  in 
the  later  historical  book  ‘ Tadmor, ’..having  become 
the  usual  designation,  stands  in  the  text  without 
any  various  reading.  Palm  trees  are  still  found 
in  the  gardens  around  the  town,  but  not  in  such 
numbers  as  would  warrant,  as  they  once  did,  the 
imposition  of  the  name.  Tadmor  was  situated 
between  the  Euphrates  and  Hamath,  to  the  south- 
east of  that  city,  in  a fertile  tract  or  oasis  of  the 
desert.  It  was  built  by  Solomon  probably  with 
the  view  of  securing  an  interest  in  and  com- 
mand over  the  great  caravan  traffic  from  the 
east,  similar  to  that,  which  he  had  established  in 
respect  of  the  trade  between  Syria  and  Egypt. 
See  this  idea  developed  in  the  Pictorial  Bible , 
note  on  2 Chron.  viii.  4 ; where  it  is  shown  at 
some  length  that,  the  presence  of  water  in  this 
small  oasis  must  early  have  made  this  a station 
for  the  caravans  coming  west  through  the  desert ; 
and  this  circumstance  probably  dictated  to  So- 
lomon the  importance  of  founding  here  a garrison 
town,  which  would  entitle  him — in  return  for  the 
protection  he  could  give  from  the  depredations  of 
the  Arabs,  and  for  offering  an  intermediate  station 
where  the  factors  of  the  west  might  meet  the 
merchants  of  the  east — to  a certain  regulating 
power,  and  perhaps  to  some  dues,  to  which  they 
would  find  it  more  convenient  to  submit  than  to 
change  the  line  of  route.  It  is  even  possible  that 
the  Phoenicians,  who  took  much  interest  in  this 
important,  trade,  pointed  out  to  Solomon  the 
advantage  which  he  and  his  subjects  might  de- 
rive from  the  regulation  and  protection  of  it, 
by  building  a fortified  town  in  the  quarter  where 
it  was  exposed  to  the  greatest  danger.  A most 
important  indication  in  favour  of  these  conjec- 
tures is  found  in  the  fact  that  all  our  information 
concerning  Palmyra  from  heathen  writers,  de- 
scribes it  as  a city  of  merchants,  who  sold  to  the 
western  natives  the  products  of  India  and  Ara- 
bia, and  who  were  so  enriched  by  the  traffic  that 
the  place  became  proverbial  for  luxury  and 
wealth,  and  for  the  expensive  habits  of  its  ci- 
tizens. 

We  do  not  again  read  of  Tadmor  in  Scripture, 
nor  is  it  likely  that  the  Hebrews  retained  posses- 
sion of  it  long  after  the  death  of  Solomon.  No 
other  source  acquaints  us  with  the  subsequen' 
history  of  the  place,  till  it  reappears  in  the  ac- 
count of  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  24),  as  a consider- 
able town,  which,  along  with  its  territory,  formed 
an  independent  state,  between  the  Roman  and 
Parthian  empires.  In  the  time  of  Trajan,  how- 
ever, it  was  lying  waste  ; but  it  was  rebuilt  by 
his  successor  Adrian,  and  from  him  took  the 
name  of  Adrianopolis.  From  Caracalla  it  re- 
ceived the  privileges  of  a Roman  colony.  Dur- 
ing the  weak  administration  of  the  emperors 
Gallienus  and  Valerian,  in  the  third  century, 
while  independent  governments  were  rising  ia 


TADMOR. 


TAD  M OR. 


sn 


several  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire,  Oden- 
jitus  became  master  of  Palmyra  and  the  whole  of 
Mesopotamia,  and  assuming  the  regal  title  him- 
self, also  bestowed  it  upon  his  consort  Zenobia, 
and  his  eldest  son  Herod.  After  his  death,  Ze- 
nobia, styling  herself  queen  of  the  East,  ruled 
over  most  of  the  eastern  provinces  of  the  Roman 
empire,  as  well  as  over  her  .own  territories,  with 
so  much  firmness  and  policy,  that  Aurelian,  who 
vanquished  her  and  led  her  in  triumph  to  Rome, 
could  not  withhold  his  admiration.  On  the 
revolt  of  Palmyra  shortly  after,  Aurelian,  having 
recovered  possession  of  it,  caused  it  to  be  levelled 
with  the  ground,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  inha- 
bitants to  be  put  to  death.  He,  however,  ordered 


the  temple  of  the  sun  to  be  restored,  placed  a gar- 
rison in  the  town,  and  appointed  a deputy  over  the 
district  attached  to  it.  Diocletian  adorned  the 
city  with  additional  buildings  ; and  under  the 
Emperor  Honorius  it  still  had  a garrison,  and  waa 
the  seat  of  a bishop.  Justinian  strengthened  the 
fortifications,  and  also  constructed  a very  costly 
aqueduct,  the  remains  of  which  still  exist.  When 
the  successors  of  Mohammed  extended  their  con- 
quests beyond  the  confines  of  Arabia,  Palmyra 
was  one  of  the  first  places  which  became  sub- 
ject to  the  klialifs.  In  the  year  659,  a battle 
was  here  fought  between  the  khalifs  Ali  and 
Moawiyah,  and  won  by  the  former.  In  74J 
it  was  still  so  strongly  fortified  that  it  took  th* 


514.  [Palmyra.] 


khalif  Merwan  seven  months  to  reduce  it,  the 
rebel  Solyman  having  shut  himself  up  in  it. 
From  this  period  it  seems  to  have  gradually 
fallen  into  decay.  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  who 
was  there  towards  the  end  of  the  12th  century, 
speaks  of  it  as  ‘ Thadmor  in  the  desert,  built  by 
Solomon  of  equally  large  stones  (with  Baalbec). 
This  city  is  surrounded  by  a wall,  and  stands  in 
the  desert,  far  fiom  any  inhabited  place.  It  is 
four  days’  journey  from  Baa’lath  (Baalbec),  and 
contains  2000  warlike  Jews,  who  are  at  war 
with  the  Christians  and  with  the  Arabian  sub- 
jects of  Noureddin,  and  aid  their  neighbours  the 
Mohammedans.’  In  connection  with  this  state- 
ment, it  may  be  remarked  that  the  existing  in- 
scriptions of  Palmyra  attest  the  presence  of  Jews 
there  in  its  most  flourishing  period,  and  that 
they,  in  common  with  its  other  citizens,  shared 
in  the  general  trade,  and  were  even  objects  of 
public  honour.  One  inscription  intimates  the 
erection  of  a statue  to  Julius  Schalmalat,  a Jew 
for  having  at  his  own  expense  conducted  a cara- 
van to  Palmyra.  This  was  in  a.d.  258,  not  long 
von.  u.  53 


before  the  time  of  Zenobia,  who,  according  to 
some  writers,  was  of  Jewish  extraction.  Irby  and 
Mangles  ( Travels , p.  273)  also  noticed  a Hebrew 
inscription  on  the  architrave  of  the  gieat  colonnade, 
but  give  no  copy  of  it,  nor  say  what  it  expressed. 
The  latest  historical  notice  of  Tadmor  which  we 
have  been  able  to  find  is,  that  it  was  plundered 
in  1400  by  the  army  of  Timur  Beg  (Tamer- 
lane), when  200,000  sheep  were  taken  (Ran- 
kin, Wars  of  the  Mongols').  And  Abulfeda, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century  (Arab. 
Descript,  p.  98),  speaks  of  Tadmor  as  merely  a 
village,  but  celebrated  for  its  ruins  of  old  and 
magnificent  edifices.  These  relics  of  ancient  art 
and  magnificence  were  scarcely  known  in  Europe 
till  towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
In  the  year  1678,  some  English  merchants  at 
Aleppo  resolved  to  verify,  by  actual  inspection, 
the  re]>orts  concerning  these  ruins  which  existed 
in  that  place.  The  expedition  was  unfortunate  ; 
for  they  were  plundered  of  every  thing  by  the 
Arabs,  and  returned  with  their  object  unaccom- 
plished. A second  expedition,  in  1691,  had 


818 


TADMOR. 


TAHPANHE3. 


better  success ; but  the  accounts  which  were 
brought  back  received  little  credit : as  it  seemed 
unlikely  that  a city  which,  according  to  their 
report,  must  have  been  so  magnificent,  should 
have  been  erected  in  the  midst  of  deserts.  When, 
however,  in  th»  year  1753,  Robert  Wood  pub- 
lished the  views  and  plans,  which  had  been  taken 
with  great  accuracy  on  the  spot  two  years  before, 
by  Dawkins,  the  truth  of  the  earlier  accounts 
could  no  longer  be  doubted  ; and  it  appeared 
that  neither  Greece  nor  Italy  could  exhibit  an- 
tiquities which  in  point  of  splendour  could  rival 
those  of  Palmyra.  The  examinations  of  these 
travellers  show  that  the  ruins  are  of  two  kinds. 
The  one  class  must  have  originated  in  very  remote 
times,  and  consists  of  rude,  unshapen  hillocks  of 
min  and  rubbish,  covered  with  soil  and  herbage, 
such  as  now  alone  mark  the  site  of  the  most 
ancient  cities  of  Mesopotamia  and  Babylonia, 
and  among  which  it  would  be  reasonable  to  seek 
any  traces  of  the  more  ancient  city  of  Solomon. 
The  other,  to  which  the  most  gorgeous  monu- 
ments belong,  bears  the  impress  of  later  ages. 
It  is  clear  from  the  style  of  architecture  that  the 
later  buildings  belong  to  the  three  centuries  pre- 
ceding Diocletian,  in  which  the  Corinthian  order 
of  pillars  was  preferred  to  any  other. 

The  ruins  cover  a sandy  plain  stretching  along 
the  bases  of  a range  of  mountains  called  Jebel 
Belaes,  running  nearly  north  and  south,  dividing 
the  great  desert  from  the  desert  plains  extending 
westward  towards  Damascus,  and  the  north  of 
Syria.  The  lower  eminences  of  these  mountains, 
bordering  the  ruins,  are  covered  with  numerous 
solitary  square  towers,  the  tombs  of  the  ancient 
Palmyrenes,  in  which  are  found  memorials  simi- 
lar to  those  of  Egypt.  They  are  seen  to  a grfcat 
distance,  and  have  a striking  effect  in  this  desert 
solitude.  Beyond  the  valley  which  leads  through 
these  hills,  the  ruined  city  first  opens  upon  the 
\iew.  The  thousands  of  Corinthian  columns  of 
white  marble,  erect  and  fallen,  and  covering  an 
extent  of  about  a mileatid  abalf,  present,  an  appear- 
ance which  travellers  compare  to  that  of  a forest. 
The  site  on  which  the  city  stands  is  slightly  ele- 
vated above  the  level  of  the  surrounding  desert 
for  a circumference  of  about  ten  miles  ; which  the 
Arabs  believe  to  coincide  with  the  extent  of  the 
ancient  city,  as  they  find  ancient  remains  when- 
ever they  dig  within  this  space.  There  are  in- 
deed traces  of  an  old  wall,  not  more  than  three 
miles  in  circumference ; but  this  was  probably 
built  by  Justinian,  at  a time  when  Palmyra  had 
lost  its  ancient  importance  and  become  a deso- 
late place ; and  when  it  was  consequently  desirable 
to  contract  its  bounds,  so  as  to  include  only  the 
more  valuable  portion.  Volney  well  describes 
the  general  aspect  which  these  ruins  present: — ‘In 
the  space  covered  by  these  ruins  we  sometimes 
find  a palace,  of  which  nothing  remains  but  the 
court  and  walls  ; sometimes  a temple  whose 
peristyle  is  half  thrown  down  ; and  now  a portico, 
a gallery,  or  triumphal  arch.  Here  stand  groups 
of  columns,  whose  symmetry  is  destroyed  by  the 
fall  of  many  of  them  ; there,  we  see  them  ranged 
in  rows  of  such  length  that,  similar  to  rows  of 
trees,  they  deceive  the  sight  and  assume  the  ap- 
pearance of  continued  walls.  If  from  this  strik- 
ing scene  we  cast  our  eye3  upon  the  ground, 
another,  almost  as  varied,  presents  itself : on  all 
rides  we  behold  nothing  but  subverted  shafts, 


some  whole,  others  shattered  to  pieces,  or  dishy 
cated  in  their  joints ; aod  on  which  side  soevei 
we  looked,  the  earth  is  strewed  with  vast  stones, 
half  buried  ; with  broken  entablatures,  mutilated 
friezes,  disfigured  reliefs,  effaced  sculptures,  vio- 
lated tombs,  and  altars  defiled  by  dust.’ 

It  may  be  right  to  add,  that  the  account  which 
has  been  more  recently  given  of  these  ruins  by 
Captains  Irby  and  Mangles,  is  a much  less  glow- 
ing one  than  those  of  other  travellers,  English  and 
French.  They  speak  indeed  with  admiration  of 
the  general  view,  which  exceeded  anything  they 
had  ever  seen.  But  they  add,  ‘ Great,  however, 
was  our  disappointment  when,  on  a minute  exa- 
mination, we  found  that  there  was  not  a single 
column,  pediment,  architrave,  portal,  frieze,  ot 
any  architectural  remnant  worthy  of  admiration.’ 
They  infirm  us  that  none  of  the  pillars  exceed 
four  feetln  diameter,  or  forty  feet  in  height;  that 
the  stone  scarcely  deserves  the  name  of  marble, 
though  striking  from  its  snowy  whiteness ; that 
no  part  of  the  ruins  taken  separately  excite  any 
interest,  and  are  altogether  much  inferior  to  those 
of  Baalbec;  and  that  the  plates  in  the  magnifi- 
cent work  of  Messrs.  Wood  and  Dawkins  do  far 
more  than  justice  to  Palmyra.  Perhaps  this  dif- 
ference of  estimate  may  arise  from  the  fact  that 
earlier  travellers  found  more  wonderful  and 
finished  works  at  Palmyra  than  their  information 
had  prepared  them  to  expect;  whereas,  in  Ihe 
latter  instance,  the  finished  representations  in  the 
plates  of  Wood’s  great  work  raised  the  expecta- 
tion so  highly,  that  their  disappointment  inclined 
the  mind  to  rather  a detractive  estimate  of  the 
claims  of  this  ruined  city — Tadmor  in  the  wil- 
derness. The  present  Tadmor  consists  of  num- 
bers of  peasants’  mud  huts,  clustered  together 
around  the  great  temple  of  the  sun.  This  temple 
is  the  most  remarkable  and  magnificent  ruin  of 
Palmyra.  The  court  by  which  it  was  enclosed 
was  179  feet  square,  within  which  a double  row 
of  columns  was  continued  all  round.  They  were 
390  in  number,  of  which  about  sixty  still  remain 
standing.  In  the  middle  of  the  court  stood  the 
temple,  an  oblong  quadrangular  building,  sur- 
rounded with  columns,  of  which  about  twenty 
still  exist,  though  without  capitals,  of  which  they 
have  been  plundered,  probably  because  they  were 
composed  of  metal.  In  the  interior,  at  the  south 
end,  is  now  the  humble  mosque  of  the  village. 

The  remains  of  Palmyra,  not  being  of  any 
direct  Scriptural  interest,  cannot  here  be  more 
particularly  described.  Very  good  accounts  of 
them  may  be  seen  in  Wood  and  Dawkins,  Ruins 
of  Palmyra , otherwise  Tadmor  in  the  Desert ; 
Irby  and  Mangles,  Travels  ; Richter,  IVallfahr - 
ten ; Addison,  Damascus  and  Palmyra.  The 
last  work  contains  a good  history  of  the  place  , 
for  which  see  also  Rosenmiiller’s  Bib.  Geoy. 
translated  by  the  Rev.  N.  Morren ; and  in  particu- 
lar Cellarius,  Dissert,  de  Imp.  Palmyreno,  1693. 
Besides  Wood’s  great  work,  excellent  views  of 
the  place  have  been  published  by  Cassas  in  bis 
Voyage  Pittoresque  de  la  Syrie ; and  more  re 
cently  by  Laborde  in  his  Voyage  en  Orient. 

TAHASH-SKINS.  [Rams’-Skins,  Red.] 
TAHPANHES  (DnjSpn),  or  Teha.pu- 
nehes  (Dnjjpnri),  a city  of  Egypt.  The  for* 
mer  name  is  used  by  Jeremiah  (ii.  16 ; xliii. 
7-9;  xliv.  1 : xlvi.  14),  and  the  latter  by  Es* 


TAHPENES. 


TALMUD. 


619 


fciel  (xxx.  18).  The  Sept,  render  it  by  T d<pvn, 
T dtpvcu,  the  name  of  a goddess,  Tphnet  (Cham- 
pollion,  pp.121, 123).  This  was  doubtless  Daphne, 
a strong  boundary  city  on  thePelusiac  arm  of  the 
Nile  (Herodot,  ii.  30,  107).  A mound  called 
Tel  Defenneh,  nearly  in  a direct  line  between  the 
moda-n  Zan  and  Pelusium,  is  supposed  from  its 
name  and  position  to  mark  the  site  of  Daphne 
(Wilkinson,  Mod.  Egypt.,  i.  447).  Isaiah  (xxx. 
4)  names  it  in  the  abbreviated  form  Hanes.  It 
was  to  this  place  that  Johanan  and  his  part  y re- 
]' aired,  taking  Jeremiah  with  them,  after  the 
murder  of  Gedaliah. 

TAHPENES  (D\ibnn,  head  of  the  age , 
Sept.  ©e/ce/uVas),  a queen  of  Egypt,  consort  of  the 
Pharaoh  contemporary  with  David.  Her  sister 
was  given  in  marriage  to  Hadad,  the  fugitive 
prince  of  Edom  (1  Kings  xi.  19)  [HadadJ. 

TaLMAI  full  of  furrows  ; Sept, 

king  of  Geshur,  and  father  of  David’s 
wife  Maacah,  the  mother  of  Absalom  (2  Sam.  iii. 
3 ; xiii.  37  ; 1 Chron.  iii.  1,  2)  [Geshur]. 

TALMUD.  The  Talmud  doctrine, 

from  TE&,  to  learn ) is  the  work  which  embodies 
the  civil  and  canonical  law  of  the  Jewish  people. 
It  contains  those  rules  and  institutions  by  which, 
in  addition  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  conduct  of 
that  nation  is  regulated.  Whatever  is  obligatory 
on  them,  besides  the  law,  is  recorded  in  this  work; 
Here  doubts  are  resolved,  duties  explained,  cases  of 
conscience  cleared  up,  and  the  most  minute  cir- 
cumstances relative  to  the  conduct  of  life  dis- 
cussed with  wonderful  particularity.  Hence  the 
contents  of  the  Talmud  are  of  a diversified  cha- 
racter, relating  not  merely  to  religion,  but  to  phi- 
losophy, medicine,  history,  jurisprudence,  and  the 
various  branches  of  practical  duty. 

The  Jews  have  been  accustomed  to  divide  their 
law  into  written  and  unwritten — the  former  being 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch ; the  latter  having 
been  handed  down  orally,  until  circumstances 
compelled  them  to  commit  it  also  to  writing. 
The  oral  law  is  an  interpretation  of  the  written , 
and  constitutes  the  text  of  the  Talmud.  To  the 
oral  law  the  same  antiquity  is  assigned  as  be- 
longs to  the  written.  According  to  the  Jews, 
Moses  received  both  on  Mount  Sinai.  It  was 
received  by  Joshua  from  Moses  ; Joshua  again 
delivered  it  to  the  seventy  elders,  from  whom  it 
was  received  by  the  prophets,  who  transmitted  it 
to  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue,  the  last  of 
whom  was  Simon  the  Just.  From  the  men  of  the 
synagogue  it  was  received  by  the  Rabbins.  After 
the  second  destruction  of  Jerusalem  under  Adrian, 
and  the  consequent  dispersion  of  the  Jews  t hrough- 
out the  world,  fears  were  entertained  lest  the  oral 
traditions  which  they  held  so  sacred  should  be 
lost,  particularly  as  their  number  rendered  it  in- 
convenient, or  rather  impossible,  to  preserve  them 
in  the  memory.  Hence  arose  the  necessity  of 
committing  them  to  writing,  that  they  might  be 
banded  down  from  age  to  age  as  a national  trea- 
sure. It  is  generally  agreed  that  Rabbi  Judah 
Hakkadosh  (i.  e.  the  holy ) made  the  first  perma- 
nent record  of  them,  about  120  or  150  years  from 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  a.d.  190  or  220. 
Morin,  however,  has  assigned  a much  later  date, 
Vi*,  the  sixth  century,  relying  chiefly  $n  the  fact 


that  Origen,  Epiphanius,  and  Jerome,  make  no 
mention  of  such  a work  ( Exercitationes  Biblica , 
lib.  ii.  exercit.  vi.  cap.  2,  p.  294,  sq.).  But  the 
circumstances  adduced  by  this  learned  and 
ingenious  writer  are  not  conclusive  in  favour 
of  his  peculiar  opinion.  R.  Judah  is  said  to 
have  lived  under  Antoninus  Pius.  Such  was 
the  origin  of  the  Mishna  or  text.  It  must  not  be 
supposed,  however,  that  all  the  traditional  inter- 
pretations or  midrashim  were  embodied  in  the 
official  Mishna.  Many  others  existed  which  were 
not  incorporated  in  that  work. 

A twofold  commentary,  or  series  of  commen- 
taries, was  subsequently  appended  to  it;  one  called 
the  Babylonian  Gemara,  the  other  the  Jerusalem 
Gemara.  The  former  ^as  begun  by  R.  Asche, 
who  died  a.d.  427,  and  was  completed  a.d.  500. 
It  is  the  work  of  several  Rabbins,  whose  names 
continue  to  be  venerated  by  the  learned  Jews. 
Morin  indeed  thinks  that  it  was  not  finished  till 
the  commencement  of  the  eighth  century  ; but  in 
this  sentiment  he  has  not  been  followed.  These 
portions,  committed  to  writing  after  the  Mishna, 
constitute  notes  on  that  text , and  make  up,  toge- 
ther with  it,  the  Babylonian  Talmud. 

The  Jerusalem  Gemara  proceeded  from  the  aca- 
demy at  Tiberias,  and  embodied  the  comments  of 
the  Palestinian  Jews.  It  is  said  to  have  been 
written  chiefly  by  R.  Jochanan,  rector  of  that 
academy.  It  is  not  agreed  when  R.  Jochanan 
lived  ; but  most  writers  follow  Buxtorf,  who  places 
him  in  a.d.  230.  David  Ganz  prefers  270  ; while 
Moses  Maimonides,  Abarbanel,  Simeon  Mikke- 
non,  and  Elias  Levita,  fix  upon  a.d.  370.  But 
internal  evidence  shows  that  it  was  composed 
towards  the  end  of  the  last  half  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, which  would  agree  nearly  with  the  opinion 
of  Maimonides.  Hence  R.  Jochanan  could  not 
have  been  the  principal  author.  Morin,  Vossius, 
and  Pezronius,  assign  to  this  Gemara  a later  date. 
According  to  Vossius,  it  was  begun  in  a.d.  655, 
and  finished  in  727.  Morin  refers  it  to  the  seventh 
century  ; while  Pezronius  fixes  it  between  6 1 4 and 
628.  Morin  alludes  to  the  occurrence  of  Gothic 
and  other  barbarous  words,  and  to  the  name  Turcs 
which  is  found  in  it.  Such  evidence  is  scarcely 
conclusive.  The  Jerusalem  Talmud  has  contri- 
buted to  the  Babylonian,  since  there  are  evident 
traces  of  it  in  the  latter. 

From  this  statement  it  will  be  seen  that  the  two 
Talmuds  differ  in  their  Gemaras  or  notes  upon 
the  text,  while  both,  have  the  same  Mishna.  The 
term  mishna*  (H^D)  signifies  repetition,  from 
!W,  to  repeat,  because  it  is,  as  it  were,  a repetition 
of  the  written  law,  or  a second  law  (Sevrepacris). 
The  word  gemara  (fcODjl),  according  to  Buxtorf, 
denotes  completion  or  supplement,  inasmuch  as  it 
completes  the  work  ; but  it  is  better  to  regard  it 
as  synonymous  with  talmud,  ‘doctrine,’  from  the 
Aramaean  T10J,  to  learn,  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew' 
^ID?.  By  the  J ews  the  Babylonian  is  always  pre- 
ferred to  the  Jerusalem  Talmud.  It  is  far  more 
copious  and  abundant  in  its  expositions.  Hence,  in 
speaking  of  it,  they  call  it  the  Talmud,  while  the 
other  is  never  mentioned  without  prefixing  the  name 
Jerusalem.  Yet  Christians  generally  value  the 
Jerusalem  Talmud  more  than  the  Babylonian : its 
brevity  and  succinctness  recommend  it  to  them  ; 
besides,  it  is  generally  free  from  the  absurdities 
and  fables  of  the  other ; it  is,  however,  more  diiS 


820 


TALMUD. 


cult  to  be  understood ; both,  indeed,  partake  of 
obscurity.  The  Mishna  is  written  in  the  Hebrew 
dialect,  but  the  Gemara  in  Aramaean.  The  for- 
mer is  tolerably  pure,  and  free  from  the  admix- 
ture of  foreign  terms,  but  the  latter  contains  many 
Persian,  Greek,  and  Latin  words — a circumstance 
which  contributes  to  the  difficulty  of  understand- 
ing it.  The  style  of  the  Babylonian  Gemara 
differs  from  that  of  the  Jerusalem  commentary. 
The  latter  is  more  in  the  Palestinian  dialect,  ap- 
proaching to  the  Syriac.  4 The  almost  uncon- 
querable difficulty  of  the  style,'  says  Lightfoot, 

‘ the  frightful  roughness  of  the  language,  and  the 
amazing  emptiness  and  sophistry  of  the  matters 
handled,  do  torture,  vex,  and  tire  him  that  reads 
them  (the  Talmudic  authors).  They  do  every- 
where abound  with  trifles  in  that  manner,  as 
though  they  had  no  mind  to  be  read;  with  obscu- 
rities and  difficulties  as  though  they  had  no  mind 
to  be  understood ; so  that  the  reader  hath  need  of 
patience  all  along,  to  enable  him  to  bear  both 
trifling  in  sense,  and  roughness  in  expression.’ 

The  Mishna  is  divided  into  six  parts, 
DniD,  or,  in  the  abbreviated  form,  D 

1.  The  first  “HD  seder,  i.  e.  order,  disposition , 
division,  is  called  D'JTlT  VID  seder  zernim,  the 
order  of  seeds.  It  treats  of  sowing,  the  produc- 
tions of  the  earth,  herbs,  trees,  the  uses  of  fruits, 
of  seeds,  &c.  &c. 

2.  The  second  is  called  Y1D  seder  moed, 
the  oi'der  of  festivals , and  is  occupied  with  a 
statement  of  the  times  when  the  festivals  should 
begin  and  when  they  should  terminate,  as  also  of 
the  different  rites  and  ceremonies  to  be  observed 
at  such  seasons. 

3.  “HD  seder  nashim,  the  order  of  too- 
men.  This  section  discusses  the  distinctive  rights 
of  men  and  women,  marriage,  divorce ; the  cus- 
toms, inclinations,  and  sicknesses  of  women,  &c. 

4.  D'iTT}  “HD  seder  nezikim,  the  order  of 
damages.  This  division  treats  of  the  losses  and 
injuries  which  one  may  be  the  means  of  bringing 
on  another,  of  the  damages  done  by  cattle,  of  resti- 
tution, of  the  punishment  to  be  inflicted  for  such 
offences  or  losses,  &c.  &c. 

5.  D'fcHp  HD  seder  kodashim,  the  order  of 
holy  things,  treating  of  sacrifices,  oblations,  their 
different  species,  &c.  &c. 

6.  JVnnD  T1D  seder  taharoth,  the  order  of 
purifications , relative  to  the  purity  and  impu- 
rity of  vessels,  to  household  furniture  and  other 
things,  and  the  way  in  which  they  should  be  pu- 
rified. 

Each  of  these  D'TID  is  subdivided  into  several 
JYlHDDD  massictoth , treatises,  or  tracts,  which 
again  are  subdivided  into  D'p*l tiperakim,  sections 
or  chapters. 

i.  tpjnt  VID. 

1.  JYD^Q  1"I3D?0  masscceth  berachoth,  the 
treatise  of  blessings,  containing  precepts  relative 
to  prayers  and  thanksgivings  for  the  fruits  of  the 
earth  and  other  blessings  given  by  God  ; instruc- 
tions in  relation  to  the  times,  places,  and  modes 
in  which  such  prayers  should  be  offered  up.  This 
treatise  contains  nine  chapters. 

2.  HKD  rDDD  masseceth  peak,  treatise  of  the 
earner.  This  treatise  shows  how  corners  of  the 
harvest  fields  should  be  left  to  the  poor  at  the 
tint  of  reaping,  and  how  the  fruits  of  the  field 


TALMUD. 


should  be  gathered.  Ht  re  there  are  eight  chap 
ters. 

3.  'NET  masseceth  demai,  treatise  of  the 
doubtful.  This  treatise  refers  to  things  about 
which  some  doubts  may  be  raised  whether  tithes 
should  be  paid  from  them  or  not.  Here  there 
are  seven  chapters. 

4.  masseceth  cilaim , treatise  of  the 
heterogeneous,  i.  e.  the  mixing  of  several  kinds 
of  seed,  &c.  Here  there  are  nine  chapters. 

5.  n'yOt?  masseceth  shebiith,  of  the  seventh 
year,  i.  e.  the  sabbatical  year, In  which  the  Jews 
were  forbidden  to  sow.  In  this  treatise  are  ten 
chapters. 

6.  riDlin  masseceth  terumah,  oblation,  treat- 
ing of  free-will  gifts  and  offerings,  what  one  must 
take  out  of  his  own  property  and  bring  to  tlm 
priest,  as  also  who  ought  and  who  ought  not  to 
do  so,  &c.  & c.  This  contains  eleven  chapters. 

7.  maasher  rishon,  the  first 
tenth  or  tithe,  which  belonged  to  the  Levites, 
and  with  what  things  it  should  be  discharged. 
Here  there  are  five  chapters. 


8.  “ItyyD  maasher  sheni,  the  second  tenth, 
which  the  Levites  had  to  pay  out  of  their  tenth 
to  the  priests.  Here  again  there  are  five  chap- 
ters. 

2.  r6n  challah,  cake , i.  e.  the  cake  which  the 
women  were  required  to  bring  of  kneaded  dough 
to  the  priest,  &c.  This  treatise  has  four  chapters. 

10.  orlah,  prepuce.  Young  trees  were 
so  called ; for  during  the  first  three  years  their 
fruit  was  reckoned  impure  and  injurious,  and 
was  thrown  away.  In  the  fourth  year  it  was 
consecrated  to  God.  Here  are  three  chapters. 

11.  D'YDl  bicurim,-  first-fruits.  This  trea- 
tise is  occupied  with  an  examination  of  the  things 
of  which  first-fruits  were  to  be  brought  into  tlie 
temple.  Here  are  four  chapters. 

The  entire  seder  consists  of  seventy-five  chap- 
ters. 

ii.  nyiD  viD. 

1.  rDK*  nDDID  masseceth  shabbath , of  the 
sabbath,  its  privileges  and  its  sacredness  ; of 
lights,  oil  used  on  that  day;  of  ovens  in  which 
articles  of  food  were  warmed  on  the  sabbath,  and 
the  dress  of  men  and  women  used  on  the  same 
day.  This  treatise  has  twenty-four  chapters. 

2.  D'Q'niJ  crubim,  mixings.  This  treatise 
shows  how,  on  the  evening  of  the  sabbath,  the  food 
collected  by  various  neighbours  should  unite  them 
in  such  a manner  as  if  they  belonged  to  one 
household.  This  was  done  lest  persons  living  at 
a distance  should  break  the  sabbath  by  too  long 
journeys.  If  they  lived  beyond  the  zechum 
shabbath,  i.  e.  the  proper  limits  of  a sabbath  day’s 
journey,  the  food  was  placed  in  such  a position 
as  that  an  individual  was  allowed  to  go  farther 
than  he  otherwise  might  lawfully  have  done. 
His  eating  it  at  the  place  where  it  was  put  was 
reckoned  equivalent  to  his  eating  it  at  home. 
Here  are  ten  chapters. 

3.  D^riDD  pesachim,  the  Passover.  This  trea- 
tise relates  to  the  Passover,  and  all  things  con- 
nected with  the  celebration  of  it.  Here  again 
are  ten  chapters. 


TALMUD. 


TALMUD. 

4.  otyw  shekalim , shekels.  This  treatise  is 
occupied  with  a statement  of  the  contributions 
which  individuals  were  to  pay  towards  the  daily 
sacrifice,  and  the  defraying  of  other  expenses 
connected  with  the  temple  worship.  This  treatise 
has  eight  chapters. 

5.  KCI'  yoma,  the  day  of  expiation  or  atone - 
ment,  a day  spent  by  the  Jews  in  fasting  and 
chastising  the  body  in  many  ways.  This  treatise 
has  also  eight  chapters. 

6.  riDlD  succah,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 
This  treats  of  the  form  of  the  tents,  the  mode  of 
living  in  them,  &c.  &c.  Here  are  five  chapters. 

7.  nifO  betzah,  egg.  This  treatise  begins  with 
the  question,  whether  it  be  right  to  eat  on  the  day 
of  a festival,  or  a lift  D1'  yom  tob , the  egg  which 
a hen  has  laid  on  the  same  day.  It  relates  to 
everything  which  a person  should  do  or  omit  on 
any  feast-day  except  the  sabbath.  Here  again 
are  five  chapters. 

8.  rwn  t^K"l  rosh  hashannah.  This  treatise 
is  occupied  with  remarks  about  the  new  year,  the 
beginning  of  the  new  year  on  the  new  moon  of 
the  month  Tisri,  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
day  should  be  kept.  Here  are  four  chapters. 

9.  rwyn  taanith,  fasting.  This  relates  to 
fasting  and  the  different  kinds  of  it.  It  has  also 
four  chapters. 

10.  iT?3D  megillah.  This  treatise  refers  to  the 
Feast  of  Purim,  and  is  so  called-  because  the  me- 
gillah of  Esther  is  read  at  that  time.  Here  are 
four  chapters. 

11.  ‘lyiD  moed  katon.  In  the  present 
treatise  are  discussed  the  minor  festivals  inter- 
vening between  the  first  and  last  days  of  the  great 
festival.  Here  are  three  chapters. 

12.  nran  chagigah.  This  treatise  is  founded 
on  ttie  command  contained  in  Exodus  xxiii.  17, 
that  all  the  males  should  appear  three  times  in 
the  year  before  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem.  Here 
again  are  three  chapters. 

The  entire  seder  contains  eighty-eight  chapters. 

III.  D'tW  Y!D. 

1.  JYltol*  yebdmoth.  This  treatise  concerns 
the  marrying  of  a deceased  brother’s  wife,  who 
has  had  no  children  by  her  husband.  Here  are 
sixteen  chapters. 

2.  rVQirD  cethuboth.  The  present  treatise 
relates  to  matrimonial  contracts,  dowries,  and 
writings  connected  with  marriage.  Here  are 
thirteen  chapters. 

3.  nedarim , votes,  discussing  what  vows 
are  binding  or  otherwise ; who  can  make  vows 
and  who  not.  Here  are  eleven  chapters. 

4.  TVniJ  neziroth.  This  treatise  refers  to  the 
vows  of  the  Nazarites,  and  their  mode  of  living. 
It  contains  line  chapters. 

5.  I'D'H  gittin , respecting  divorce,  and  the 
writing  given  to  the  wife  on  that  occasion,  how 
it  must  be  written,  &c.  &c.  This  treatise  con- 
sists of  nine  chanters. 

6.  flDlD  sotah.  This  treatise  regards  the  adul- 
teress, or  rather  the  woman  suspected  of  conjugal 
infidelity ; how  she  must  drink  the  bitter  water 
that  causeth  the  curse,  &c.  &c.  Here  again  are 
nine  chapters. 


821 

7.  J'tPVTp  kiddushin , respecting  betrothmenL 
Here  are  four  chapters. 

This  third  seder , or  order,  contains  seventy-one 
chapters. 

iv.  ppna  no. 

1.  KDp  Km  baba  kama , the  frst  gate , rela- 
tive to  the  losses  sustained  by  men  and  beasts 
from  one  another.  This  treatise  consists  of  tea 
chapters. 

2.  Km  baba  metziah,  the  middle  gate . 
This  treatise  refers  to  things  found  or  deposited, 
usury,  &c.  &c.  It  has  also  ten  chapters. 

3.  K“irn  Km  baba  bathra , the  last  gate . 
This  treatise  relates  to  commercial  transactions, 
buying  and  selling,  inheritances,  &c.  &c.  Here 
again  are  ten  chapters. 

4.  p-nrUD  Sanhedrim.  This  is  a most  im- 
portant treatise,  relating  to  the  great  tribunal,  to 
various  punishments,  judges,  witnesses  ; who  of 
the  Israelites  shall  have  part  in  the  future  life,  and 
who  not.  It  consists  of  eleven  chapters  or  sec- 
tions. 

5.  1YDD  maccoth.  This  treatise  relates  to  the 
forty  stripes  (Deuteron.  xxv.  3)  which  were  to  be 
inflicted  on  certain  offenders.  Here  the  reason  is 
explained  why  the  expounders  of  the  law  omitted 
one  stripe  of  the  forty  (2  Cor.  xi.  24).  It  contains 
three  chapters. 

6.  myim  shebuoth,  respecting  oaths;  who 
can  take  an  oath,  and  who  not.  This  treatise  con- 
sists of  eight  chapters. 

7.  niHy  edaioth,  respecting  witnesses  and 
witness-bearing.  Here  again  are  eight  chapters. 

8.  miK  aboth,  or  miK  'pm  pirke  aboth. 
This  treatise  relates  to  the  Jewish  fathers  who 
handed  down  the  oral  law  from  the  time  of  Moses. 
It  contains  six  chapters. 

9.  nmin  horaioth,  respecting  the  statutes  and 
other  original  documents,  according  to  which 
every  man  was  required  to  judge  in  cases  of  trial ; 
and  how  transgressors  should  be  punished.  The 
present  treatise  contains  three  chapters. 

10.  mr  minK  abodah  zarah , called  also 

D'Wk  mmy  abodath  elilim,  and  also  JYTQK 
D'mi3  abodath  cocabim,  respecting  idolatry,  and 
the  avoiding  of  communion  with  the  idolatrous 
Christians.  This  treatise  is  wanting  in  the  Basel 
edition,  because  it  has  severe  reflections  upon 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  followers.  It  is  printed  in 
the  Venice  edition,  and  consists  of  five  chapters. 
The  entire  seder  contains  seventy-four  chapters. 

V.  D'BHp  VJD. 

1.  DTDT  zebachim,  sacrifices.  This  treatise 
has  fourteen  chapters. 

2.  lYin^D  menachoth , the  evening  sacrifices. 
This  treatise  has  thirteen  chapters. 

3.  cholin.  This  treatise  respects  the 
clean  and  unclean  animals  which  the  Jews  were 
required  or  forbidden  to  eat.  Here  are  twelve 
chapters. 

4.  rVlTim  becoroth , respecting  the  first-born 
of  beasts.  Here  are  nine  chapters. 

5.  {'my  eracin.  This  treatise  relates  to  the 
valuing  and  taxing  of  such  things  as  are  dedi- 
cated to  the  Lord.  It  consists  of  nine  chapters. 

6.  iTTllDn  temurah.  This  treatise  refers  to  the 
putting  of  one  sacrifice  in  place  of  another) 


TALMUD. 


TALMUD. 


M2 

whether  such  a tiling  is  lawful  or  not.  It  con- 
sists of  seven  chapters. 

7.  TVIJVTD  cerithuth , the  cutting  off  a soul 
from  a future  life,  and  the  sins  which  cause  such 
a punishment : thirty-six  kinds  of  this  excision 
are  enumerated.  Here  are  six  chapters. 

s.  nWo  meilah,  respecting  sins  committed 
in  offering  up  animals  in  sacrifice.  This  treatise 
also  has  six  chapters. 

9.  TEH  tamicl , respecting  the  daily  morning 
and  evening  sacrifice.  Here  are  six  chapters. 

10.  nHD  middoth.  This  treatise  relates  to 
the  measuring  of  the  temple.  It  consists  of  five 
chapters. 

11.  D'3p  kinnim , relating  to  birds’  nests.  The 
treatise  is  divided  into  three  chapters. 

The  whole  seder  has  ninety  sections. 

vi.  nnnD  “no. 

1.  celirn , respecting  measures,  household 
furniture,  clothes,  and  their  purification.  This 
treatise  has  thirty  chapters. 

2.  niipriK  aholoth , respecting  cottages  or  houses ; 
how  they  become  unclean,  and  how  they  must  be 
cleaned.  This  treatise  has  eighteen  chapters. 

3.  negaim , regarding  leprosy.  Here  are 
fourteen  sections. 

4.  mD  parah,  the  red  heifer  (Num.  xix.). 
This  treatise  is  divided  into  twelve  chapters. 

5.  nnntD  tahoroth , respecting  purification, 
when  a person  who  has  touched  any  object  has 
been  made  unclean.  Here  are  ten  chapters. 

6.  DINIpQ  mikvaoth.  This  treatise  concerns 
those  reservoirs  of  water  in  which  the  Jews  washed 
their  bodies.  It  is  divided  into  ten  chapters. 

7.  HU  niddah,  respecting  the  uncleanness  of 
women.  This  treatise  has  also  ten  chapters. 

8.  mecshirin,  of  fluids  and  their  pu- 
rification. It  consists  of  six  chapters. 

9.  D'DT  zabim,  of  nocturnal  pollution.  This 
treatise  is  divided  into  five  sections. 

10.  D1'  tebul  yom,  respecting  the  washing 

of  the  same  day,  or  what  is  washed  while  it  is  yet 
day.  This  treatise  consists  of  four  sections. 

11.  D'7'  yadaim,  respecting  the  washing  of 
hands.  Here  again  are  four  chapters  or  sections. 

12.  oketzim,  relative  to  the  stalks  of 
fruits;  and  how  they,  by  touching  other  fruits, 
become  unclean.  This  treatise  has  three  chapters. 

The  entire  seder  has  126  chapters. 

From  the  detailed  account  now  given,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  Talmud  consists  of  six  sedarim , or 
orders,  containing  sixty-three  massecoth , or  trac- 
tates, and  five  hundred  twenty  and  four  perakim , 
or  chapters. 

The  Babylonian  Gemara  extends  to  one  trac- 
tate of  the  first  order,  i.  e.  Berachoth,  and  to  most 
in  the  succeeding  four  orders  except  Shekalim  in 
the  second  order ; Aboth  and  Edaioth  in  the 
fourth ; Middoth , Kinnim , and  the  half  of  Tamid 
in  the  fifth.  In  Taharoth  (the  sixth  order)  there 
is  only  a Gemara  in  both  Talmuds  to  the  tract 
Nidda. 

The  Jerusalem  Talmud  originally  extended  to 
the  first  five  orders  of  the  Mishna.  It  is  now,  how- 
ever, incomplete.  The  order  Kodashim  is  en- 
tirely wanting.  There  is  no  Gemara  to  the  four 


last  chapters  of  Shabbath,  to  the  three  last  a 
Maccoth,  nor  to  Aboth  and  Edaioth. 

Four  treatises  were  afterwards  added  to  th« 
Talmud,  viz. : 

1.  onaiD  riDDD  masseceth  sopherim , con- 
taining directions  for  the  writers  of  manuscript 
rolls.  This  treatise  consists  of  twenty-one  chap- 
ters. 

2.  'fill  ebel  rabbethe , or  niriDt?  DDDO 

masseceth  shemachoth.  This  treatise  relates  tc  ' 
mourning  for  the  dead,  and  the  manner  in  which 
mourners  should  be  comforted.  It  has  fourteen 
chapters. 

3.  rfo  callah,  how  one  should  take  a wife, 
&c.  &c.  Here  there  is  but  one  chapter. 


4.  pN  “l“n  DU  Dp  masseceth  derek  eretz, 
about,  modes  of  life,  &c.  This  treatise  is  sepa- 
rated into  a greater  and  a less,  the  former  con- 
taining ten  chapters,  the  latter  six.  To  this  is 
appended  a O'lipD*  p“lS  perek  shalom , or  chapter 
of  peace,  by  way  of  conclusion. 

The  earliest  edition  of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
was  published  at  Venice  by  Bomberg,  in  one 
volume  folio,  about  the  year  1523.  No  date  is 
attached  to  it.  Another  edition  was  published  at 
Cracow  in  1609,  folio;  and  another  at  Amster- 
dam, in  1710,  folio.  The  Babylonian  Talmud  was 
published  by  Bomberg  at  Venice  in  twelve  folio 
volumes,  in  1520-30.  This  edition  contains 
the  comments  of  Rashi  and  others,  as  also  various 
appendices  by  different  Rabbins.  In  the  years 
1578,  1579,  1580,  the  celebrated  Froben  of  Basel 
published  the  same  work ; but  passages  which  ca- 
lumniated Christ  were  rejected  by  command  of 
the  Tridentine  bishops.  Accordingly  the  Jews 
prepared  a new  and  complete  edition  at  Cracow, 
in  13  volumes  folio,  in  1603,  and  following 
years.  Another  edition  was  prepared  and  pub- 
lished at  Frankfort  and  Berlin,  1715,  in  12  vole 
folio;  and  another  at  Amsterdam,  1763,  in  18  vols. 
folio,  with  additions  and  notes,  besides  various 
passages  not  found  in  preceding  impressions.  This 
last  has  been  pronounced  the  best. 

Various  parts  of  the  Talmud  have  also  been 
printed  at  different  times  by  different  editors; 
sometimes  with  translations  and  commentaries, 
ex.  gr.  by  Coch,  Schmidt,  l’Empereur,  Leusden, 
Dachs,  Wagenseil,  &c. 

The  best  edition  of  the  Mishna  is  that  of  Suren- 
husius,  published  at  Amsterdam,  1698,  and  fol- 
lowing years,  in  six  folio  volumes,  with  a Latin 
version  and  copious  commentaries  by  the  Rabbins. 
The  Mishna  was  translated  into  Arabic  by  desire 
of  Alhachem,  king  of  Ismael,  at  Corduba,  in  the 
tenth  century  after  Christ.  It  has  also  been 
translated  into  German  by  Rabe,  in  six  parts, 
Anspach,  1760.  No  English  version  of  it  has 
appeared  ; much  less  has  the  whole  Talmud  been 
translated  into  our  language.  The  Greek  words 
have  been  collected  by  Landau  in  his  lexicon  en- 
titled, Rabbinisch-aramiiisch-deutsches  Worter - 
buck  zur  Kentniss  des  Talmuds,  der  Targumim 
und  Midraschim,  mit  Anmerkungen  fur  Philo 
logie , Geschichte,  Archdologie,  Geographic,  Na 
tur  und  Kunst,  5 Bande,  8vo.  Lips.  1819 
Reland  has  a dissertation  on  the  Persian  terms, 
in  the  second  volume  of  his  Miscellaneous  Dispu- 
tations. The  best  lexicon  to  the  Talmud  is  still 
that  of  Buxtorf,  Basel,  1639,  folio.  The  raoderc 


TALMUD. 


TALMUD. 


62ft 


Work  of  Landau  is  a valuable  accompaniment, 
but  cannot  compensate  for  the  want  of  BuxtorPs 
volume.  The  celebrated  Maimonides,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  made  a digest  of  all  the  laws  and 
ordinances  contained  in  the  Talmud.  This  ex- 
cellent abridgment  is  sufficiently  copious  for  most 
readers,  since  it  contains  everything  of  value  in 
.he  whole  work.  It  is  entitled  Tad  Ilachazakah , 
seu  manus  fords  quam  fecit  Moses  in  conspectu 
Israel , and  was  hist  published  at  Soncino,  1490, 
folio;  republished  at  Venice,  1521,  3 vols.  folio; 
and  at  Amsterdam,  dated  54G1,  4 vols.  folio. 
Selections  from  it  have  also  been  published  in 
Hebrew  and  English,  with  notes,  by  Bernard,  in  a 
book  entitled,  The  main  principles  of  the  Creed 
and  Ethics  of  the  Jews,  exhibited  in  selections 
from  the  Yad  Ilachazakah  of  Maimonides,  with 
a literal  English  translation,  copious  Illustra- 
tions from  the  Talmud , &c.  Cambridge,  1832, 
8vo. 

The  Jews  set  so  high  a value  on  the  Talmud  as 
to  place  it  generally  above  the  inspired  law. 
Hence  we  find  in  the  Masseceth  Sopherim  the 
saying,  ‘ The  Biblical  text  is  like  water,  and  the 
Mishna  like  wine,  and  the  six  orders  (sedarim) 
like  aromatic  wine.’  In  another  passage  the  fol- 
lowing Avoids  occur — * The  Law  is  like  salt,  the 
Mishna  like  pepper,  but  the  six  orders  like  fine 
pices/  Again,  ‘ The  words  of  the  scribes  are 
lovely,  above  the  words  of  the  Law  ; for  the  words 
of  the  Law  are  weighty  and  light,  but  the  words 
of  the  scribes  are  all  weighty/  ‘ He  that  shall 
gay  there  are  no  phylacteries,  transgressing  the 
words  of  the  law,  is  not  guilty  ; but  he  that  shall 
gay,  There  are  five  totaphoth,  adding  to  the  words 
of  the  scribes,  he  is  guilty  ’ ( Hieros . Berac.  fol.  3. 
2).  Such  extravagant  praises  of  their  oral  tradi- 
tions correspond  ivitli  the  Saviour’s  words,  ‘ Mak- 
ing the  word  of  God  of  none  effect,  through  your 
tradition  which  ye  have  delivered  ’ (Mark  vii. 
13).  But  they  do  not  harmonize  with  the  real 
nature  of  the  Talmud  itself;  for  the  book  contains 
many  fabulous,  trifling,  absurd,  and  irreverent 
things.  It  unites  the  allegorizing  propensity  of 
the  East  with  a childish  prying  into  the  most 
curious  questions.  It  abounds  with  miraculous 
stories,  and  with  sentiments  derogatory  to  the 
majesty  of  God.  Some,  indeed,  of  the  questions 
proposed  are  merely  ludicrous,  but  others  belong 
to  the  profane  and  impious.  The  following  ex- 
amples will  justify  the  truth  of  our  remarks. 

A Rabbin  was  once  in  the  midst  of  the  ocean, 
and  seeing  a bird  standing  up  to  its  thighs  in  the 
water,  he  said  to  his  companions,  i We  will  bathe 
here.’  But  a voice  from  heaven  was  heard,  say- 
ing, ‘ Do  not  so  ; for  seven  years  ago  a person  let 
an  axe  fall  from  his  hand  into  this  water,  and  it 
has  not  yet  reached  the  deep  bottom.’ 

‘ Is  it  right  to  kill  a flea  on  the  Sabbath  ?’ 

‘We  were  once  carried,’  says  a Rabbin,  ‘ in  a 
great  ship,  and  the  ship  went  three  days  and  three 
nights  between  the  two  fins  of  one  fish.  But  per- 
haps the  ship  sailed  very  slowly?  The  Rabbi 
Dimi  says,  A rider  shot  an  arrow,  and  the  ship 
flew  .faster  than  the  arrow ; and  yet  it  took  so 
long  time  to  pass  between  the  two  fins  of  this  fish. 
It  is  called  Gildena  ’ (Pitman’s  Preface  to  the 
octavo  edition  of  Lightfoot's  Works,  pp.  43-45; 
Allen’s  Modern  Judaism;  and  M ‘Caul’s  Old 
Paths).  Several  parts  of  the  Tilmud,  however, 
form  an  exception  to  the  fa  olish  and_  ridiculous 


passages  with  which  the  work  abounds.  Thus  the 
treatise  Pirhe  Aboth,  containing  the  moral 
maxims  and  sentiments  of  the  Jewish  fathers,  pre- 
sents a favourable  specimen  of  ethical  philosophy. 

The  work  before  us  has  been  applied  to  the 
illustration  of  the  New  Testament  by  Lightfoot, 
Schoettgen,  and  Meuschen  ; and  in  various  in- 
stances it  has  served  to  throw  light  on  the  meaning, 
especially  where  there  is  a reference  to  Jewish  cus- 
toms and  manners.  Here,  however,  its  utility  has 
been  over-estimated,  as  is  apparent  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Lightfoot  in  the  dedication  prefixed  to 
his  Talmudical  exercifations  on  Matthew,  com- 
pared with  the  exercitations  themselves  : ‘ Chris- 
tians, by  their  skill  and  industry,  may  render 
them  (the  Talmudic  writings)  most  usefully 
serviceable  to  their  studies,  and  most  eminently 
tending  to  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ’ (Pitman’s  edition  of  Lightfoot's  Works , 
vol.  xi.  p.  6,  dedication). 

The  work  has  also  been  employed  to  illustrate 
the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  by- 
Gill,  who  has  frequently  cited  it  where  it  throAvs 
no  light  on  the  text.  Nor  is  he  alone  in  this 
respect ; others  have  spent  their  time  in  the  same 
unprofitable  task. 

The  Talmud  is  more  useful  in  the  criticism  ol 
the  Old  Testament  text,  although  most  of  its  cita- 
tions from  the  original  agree  Avith  the  Masoretic 
readings.  Probably  it  has  been  conformed  to  the 
Masoretic  standard  by  the  Rabbins.  Criticism 
therefore,  can  derive  extensive  benefit,  from  it  only 
by  consulting  MS.  copies,  not  the  printed  text, 
since  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  latter 
has  been  altered.  The  instances  in  which  the  text 
of  the  work,  even  as  printed,  deviates  from  the 
Hebrew  Masoretic  text,  afford  a presumption  that 
more  of  the  same  kind  might  be  found,  were 
MSS.  carefully  collated.  Frommann  collected 
fourteen  various  readings  out  of  the  Mishna  ; but 
Dr.  Gill,  Avhen  collating  the  Mishna  and  Gemara 
for  Kennicott,  found  a thousand.  Many  of  them, 
properly  speaking,  are- not  various  readings,  but 
Avords  added  by  the  Rabbins  for  the  purpose  of 
explanation  ; Avhile  not  afeAV  are  of  trilling  conse- 
quence. * 

(See  the  preface  of  Maimonides,  prefixed  to 
Surenhusius’s  edition  of  the  Mishna,  and  trans- 
lated into  Latin  by  Pocock  ; BuxtorPs  Recensio 
operis  Talmuclici,  in  his  Liber  de  Abbreviations 
Hebraicis  ; Wolfius’  Bibliotheca  Ilebrcea,  ii.  G57, 
sq. ; Wot  ton’s  Miscellaneous  Discourses  relat- 
ing to  the  Traditions  and  Usages  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  in  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ's 
time , i.  10,  sq. ; Stehelin's  Traditions  of  the 
Jews,  or  the  Doctrines  and  Expositions  con- 
tained in  the  Talmud  and  other  Rabbinical  writ- 
ings, &c.,  2 vols.  8 vo.,  London,  1742;  Leusden’s 
Philologies  llebrceo-mixtus , p.  95,  sq. ; Pri- 
deaux's  Connection,  part  i. ; Basnage’s  llistoirc 
des  Juifs ; Bodenschatz's  Aufrichtig  deutsch - 
redender  Hebrder , Frankfort  and  Leipzig,  1756  ; 
Loehnis’s  Grundzuge  der  biblischen  Hemeneutik, 
u.  s.  av.,  p.  397,  sq. ; Waehner’s  Antiquitates 
Hebrceorum , i.  256,  sq. ; Aug.  Pfeiffer's  Critica 
Sacra,  also  printed  in  the  second  volume  of  his 
Works,  Utrecht,  1704,  4to;  Bartolocci’s  Bibli- 
otheca Rabbinica,  iii.  85,  sq. ; Reimann’s  Ein- 
leit.  in  die  Geschichte  der  Theologie , p.  282,  sq. ; 
Zunz,  Gottesdienstlichen  Vortr'dge  der  Judan. 
p.  50,  sq.). — S.  D. 


TAMAR. 


TAMAR. 


824 


1.  TAMAR  p£Pl)  lias  been  universally  ac- 
knowledged to  denote  the  * palm-tree/  sometimes 
called  the  ‘ date-tree.’  Good  says  the  radical 
meaning  of  the  word  is  straight  or  upright.  The 
date- tree  is  remarkable  for  its  erect  and  cylin- 
drical stem,  crowned  with  a cluster  of  long  and 
feather-like  leaves,  and  is  as  much  esteemed  for 
its  fruit,  tiie  ‘date,’  as  for  its  juice,  whether  fer- 
mented or  not,  known  as  ‘palm  wine,’  and  for  the 
numerous  uses  to  which  every  part  of  the  plant  is 
applied.  The  Arabic  name  of  the  date  is  tamr  ; 
thus  the  tamarind  is  called  the  Indian  date, 
tamr  hindee.  The  name  Tamar  seems  to  have 
been  applied  to  the  city  which  Solomon  built 
in  the  desert  (1  Kings  ix.  18;  Ezek.  xlvii.  19; 
xlviii.  28),  probably  on  account  of  the  palm- 
trees  growing  about  it ; and  the  name  Palmyra, 
from  palma,  a palm,  was  no  doubt  applied  to 
it  by  the  Romans  on  the  same  account.  Abul- 
feda,  who  flourished  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
expressly  mentions  the  palm-tree  as  common  at 
Palmyra  in  his  time  ; and  it  is  still  called  by 
the  Arabs  by  the  ancient  name  of  Tadmr.  The 
family  of  palms  is  characteristic  of  tropical  coun- 
tries, and  but  few  of  them  extend  into  northern 
latitudes.  In  the  old  world,  the  species  P. 
dactylifera,  genus  Phoenix,  is  that  found  furthest 
north.  It  spreads  along  the  course  of  the  Eu- 
phrates and  Tigris  across  to  Palmyra  and  the 
Syrian  coast  of  the  Mediterranean.  It  has  been  in- 
troduced into  the  south  of  Spain,  and  thrives  well 
at  Malaga;  and  is  also  cultivated  at  Bordaghiere 
in  the  south  of  France,  chiefly  on  account  of  its 
leaves,  which  are  sold  at  two  periods  of  the  year, 
in  Spring  for  Palm  Sunday,  arid  again  at 
the  Jewish  Passover.  In  the  south  of  Italy  and 
in  Sicily,  Lady  Callcott  states,  ‘ that  near  Genoa 
there  is  a narrow,  warm,  sandy  valley  full  of 
palms,  but  they  are  diminutive  in  growth,  and 
unfruitful,  being  cultivated  only  for  the  sake  of 
the  leaves,  which  are  annually  sent  to  the  pope’s 
chapel  at  Rome,  where  they  are  blessed  and  dis- 
tributed to  the  cardinals  and  other  dignitaries,  in 
sign  of  the  triumph  of  the  church.’ 

The  peculiarities  of  the  palm-tree  are  such  that 
they  could  not  fail  to  attract  the  attention  of  the 
writers  of  any  country  where  it  is  indigenous, 
and  especially  from  its  being  an  indication  of  the 
vicinity  of  water  even  in  the  midst  of  the  most 
desert  country.  Its  roots,  though  not  penetrating 
very  deep,  or  spreading  very  wide,  yet  support  a 
stem  of  considerable  height,  which  is  remark- 
able for  its  uniformity  of  thickness  through- 
out. The  centre  of  this  lofty  stem,  instead 
of  being  the  hardest  part,  as  in  other  trees,  is  soft 
and  spongy,  and  the  bundles  of  woody  fibres 
successively  produced  in  the  interior  are  regu- 
larly pushed  outwards,  until  the  outer  part  be- 
comes the  most  dense  and  hard,  and  is  hence 
most  fitted  to  answer  the  purposes  of  wood.  The 
outside,  though  devoid  of  branches,  is  marked  with 
a number  of  protuberances,  which  are  the  points  of 
insertion  of  former  leaves.  These  are  from  four 
to  six  and  eight  feet  in  length,  ranged  in  a bunch 
round  the  top  of  the  stem,  the  younger  and 
softer  being  ir.  the  centre,  and  the  older  and  outer 
series  hanging  dewn.  They  are  employed  for 
covering  the  roofs  or  sides  of  houses,  for  fences, 
fiame-work,  mats,  and  baskets.  The  male  and  fe- 
male flewers  being  on  (Efferent  trees,  the  latter  re- 


quire to  be  fecundated  by  the  pollen  of  the  former 
before  the  fruit  can  ripen.  The  tender  part  of 
the  spatlia  of  the  flowers  being  pierced,  a bland 
and  sweet  juice  exudes,  which  being  evaporated, 
yields  sugar,  and  is  no  doubt  what  is  alluded  to 
in  some  passages  of  Scripture  : if  it  be  fermented 
and  distilled  a strong  spirit  or  arak  is  yielded. 
The  fruit,  however,  which  is  yearly  produced  in 
numerous  clusters  and  in  the  utmost  abundance, 
is  its  chief  value;  for  whole  tribes  of  Arabs  and 
Africans  find  their  chief  sustenance  in  the  date, 
of  which  even  the  stony  seeds,  being  ground 
down,  yield  nourishment  to  the  camel  of  the 
desert. 


615.  [1.  Cluster  of  dates  ; 8.  flower  ; 3.  a date;  4.  sec- 
tion of  the  same.] 


The  palm-tree  is  first  mentioned  in  Exod. 
xv.  27,  when  the  Israelites  encamped  at  Elim, 
where  there  were  twelve  wells  and  threescore  and 
leu  palm-trees.  In  the  present  day  Wady  Gho- 
rendel  is  found  the  largest  of  the  torrent  beds  on  the 
west  side  of  the  Sinai  peninsula,  and  is  a valley 
full  of  date-trees,  tamarisks,  &c.  Jericho  was 
called  the  City  of  Palm  Trees,  no  doubt  from 
the  locality  being  favourable  to  their  growth. 
Mariti  and  Shaw  describe  them  as  still  existing 
there,  though  in  diminished  numbers.  The 
palm-tree  was  considered  characteristic  of  Judaea, 
not  so  much  probably  because  it  was  more 
abundant  there  than  in  other  countries,  but  be- 
cause that  was  the  first  country  where  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  would  meet  with  it  in  proceed- 
ing southward.  Hence  the  coins  of  the  Roman 
conquerors  of  Judaea  have  inscribed  qn  them  a 
weeping  female  sitting  under  a palm-tree,  will) 
the  inscription  “Judaea  capta’  (vide  Kempfer, 
Amocnitates  Exotica,  and  Celsius,  Hierobot.  i. 
444-579). 

2.  TAMAR,  a Canaanitish  woman,  espoused 
successively  to  the  two  sons  of  Judah,  Er  and 
Onan ; but  as  they  both  died  childless,  Judah 
hesitated  to  give  her  his  third  sonShelah,  as  patri- 
archal usage  required.  This  set  her  upon  the 
contrivance  described  in  Gen.  xxxviii. ; and 
two  sons,  Pharez  and  Zarah,  thus  became  the 
fruit  of  her  criminal  intercourse  with  Judah  him- 
self [Judah]. 

3.  TAMAR,  daughter  of  David  by  Maacah, 
who  was  also  the  mother  of  Absalom.  The  un- 
happy consequences  of  the  criminal  passion 
entertained  for  this  beautiful  damsel  by  her  half- 
brother  Amnon,  brutally  gratified  by  him,  and 
terribly  avenged  by  Absalom,  formed  the  ground- 


TAMMUZ. 


TARGUMS. 


work  of  (lie  family  distractions  which  embittered 
the  latter  years  of  David’s  reign  (2  Sam.  xiii.) 
[Absaj.om;  Amnon;  David]. 

TAMMUZ  (Wen  ; Sept.  Qa/xfJLOvQ,  a Syrian 
deity,  for  whom  the  Hebrew  idolatresses  were  ac- 
customed to  bold  an  annual  lamentation  (Ezek. 
viii.  14).  This  idol  was  the  same  with  the  Phoe- 
nician Ad  on  or  Adonis,  and  the  feast  itself  such  as 
they  celebrated.  Silvestre  de  Sacy  thinks  that 
the  name  Tammuz  was  of  foreign  origin,  and 
probably  Egyptian,  as  well  as  the  god  by  whom 
it  was  borne.  In  fact,  it  would  probably  not  be 
difficult  to  identify  him  with  Osiris,  from  whose 
worship  his  differed  only  in  accessories.  The 
feast  held  in  honour  of  Tammuz  was  solstitial, 
and  commenced  with  the  new  moon  of  July,  in 
the  month  also  called  Tammuz  ; it  consisted  of 
two  parts,  the  one  consecrated  to  lamentation,  and 
the  other  to  joy ; in  the  days  of  grief,  they 
mourned  the  disappearance  of  the  god,  and  in  the 
days  of  gladness,  celebrated  his  discovery  and 
return.  Tammuz  appears  to  have  been  a sort  of 
incarnation  of  the  sun,  regarded  principally  as  in 
a state  of  passion  and  sufferance,  in  connection 
with  the  apparent  vicissitudes  in  its  celestial  po- 
sition, and  with  respect  to  the  terrestrial  meta- 
morphoses produced,  under  its  influence,  upon 
vegetation  in  advancing  to  maturity.  See  Lucian, 
De  Dea  Syra , § vii.  19  ; Selden,  De  Diis  Syris , 
ii.  31  ; Creuzer,  Symbolik,  iv.  3 ; Fickenscher, 
Erklar.  d.  Mythus  Adonis. 

TAPPUACH  (n-iaPl),  translated  ‘apple’  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  has  been  the  subject  of' 
considerable  difference  of  opinion  among  authors 
on  Biblical  Botany.  Most  admit  that  apple  is  not 
the  correct  translation,  for  that  fruit  is  indifferent 
in  Palestine,  being  produced  of  good  quality 
only  on  Mount  Lebanon,  and  in  Damascus. 
Many  contend  that  ‘quince  ’ is  the  correct  trans- 
lation of  Tappuach.  Though  somewhat  more 
suitable  than  the  apple,  we  think  that  neither  the 
quince  tree  nor  fruit  is  so  superior  to  others  as  to 
be  selected  for  notice  in  the  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture where  tappuach  occurs.  This  word  would 
seem  to  have  the  same  general  signification  as  the 
Arabic  toph  or  toofa,  which  it  so  closely  resem- 
bles, and  which  is  usually  thought  to  be  the 
apple;  but  the  Arabs  themselves  are  but  little 
acquainted  with  that  fruit.  They  no  doubt  use 
the  word  occasionally  in  a generic  sense,  for 
tappuach-al-shuetan,  or  ‘devil’s  apple,’  is  one  of: 
the  names  of  Mandragora.  So  the  Greek  priXov, 
and  the  Latin  pomum,  were  used  rather  as  generic 
than  as  specific  terms.  Dioscorides,  for  instance, 
jives  the  different  kinds,  under  the  heads  of 
Mala  vulgaria,  Cotonea,  Persica,  Armeniaca,  and 
Medica,  sive  Citria.  The  last,  or  citron,  we 
think,  has  the  best  claim  to  be  considered  the 
Tappuach  of  Scripture,  as  it  was  esteemed  by  the 
ancients,  and  known  to  the  Hebrews,  and  con- 
spicuously different,  both  as  a fruit  and  a tree, 
from  the  ordinary  vegetation  of  Syria,  and  the 
only  one  of  the  orange  tribe  which  was  known 
to  the  ancients.  The  orange,  lemon,  and  lime, 
were  introduced  to  the  knowledge  of  Euro- 
peans at  a much  later  period,  probably  by  the 
Arabs  from  India  (Royle,  Himal.  Bot.).  The 
citron,  resembling  the  lemon  in  form,  but  distin- 
guished by  its  thick  rind,  was  the  pr\Xov  M rjdiuSv 

Theophrastus,  the  Mt}5ik6v  of  Dioscorides,  and 


825 

for  which  he  gives  as  a synonyme  H€$p6fn}Xov; 
‘Malus  Medica  et  Assyria  dicitur,  utroque  nomine 
a regionibus  ducto,  ut  habet  Theoph.  4,  Hist.  4. 
Citrus  apud  Medos  et  Persas  in  prim  is  frequens, 
dein  Paladii  diligentia  in  Italiam  translata  f'uit: 
postea  in  Hispania,’  etc.  (Bauhin.  Pinax.)  it 
was  called  citria  and  citromela  by  the  Romans, 
though  their  citron  wood  was  produced  by  Thuya 
articulata  [Thyinis  Wood].  It  is  thus  gra- 
phically' described  : ‘ Fert  poma  omnibus  horis, 
aliis  decidentibus,  aliis  subnascentibus,  aliis  ma- 
turescentibus.’  That  the  citron  was  well  known 
to  the  Hebrews  we  have  the  assurance  in  the  fact 
mentioned  by  Josephus,  that  at  the  Feast  of  Ta- 
bernacles king  Alexander  Jannseus  was  pelted 
with  citrons,  which  the  Jews  had  in  their  hands; 
for,  as  he  says,  ‘ the  law  required  that  at  that 
feast,  every  one  should  have  branches  of  the  palm- 
tree  and  citron tree ’ (Antiq.  x iii.  13.5).  From 
this  and  other  facts  we  conclude  tb  it  the  Etz 
hadar  of  Lev.  xxiii.  40  has  reference  to  the 
citron  [Etz  Hadar].  There  is  nothing  impro- 
bable in  the  Hebrews  having  made  use  of  boughs 
of  the  citron,  as  it  was  a native  of  Media,  and 
well  known  to  the  Greeks  at  a very  early  period  ; 
and  indeed  on  some  old  coins  of  Samaria,  the 
citron  may  be  seen,  as  well  as  the  palm-tree ; 
and  it  is  not  an  unimportant  confirmation  that 
the  Jews  still  continue  to  make  offerings  of 
citrons  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Citrons, 
accordingly,  are  imported  in  considerable  quan- 
tities for  this  purpose,  and  are  afterwards  sold, 
being  more  highly  esteemed  after  having  been 
so  offered. 

The  tappuach , or  citron-tree,  is  mentioned 
chiefly  in  the  Canticles,  ch.  ii.  3,  ‘ as  the  citron 
tree  among  the  trees  of  the  wood ;’  ver.  5, 
‘ Comfort  me  with  citrons,  for  I am  sick  of  love 
vii.  8,  ‘The  smell  of  thy  nose  like  citrons;’  so 
in  viii.  5.  Again,  in  Prov.  xxv.  11,  ‘A  word 
fitly  spoken  is  like  apples  of  gold  (or  rather  golden 
citrons)  in  baskets  of  silver.’  In  Joel  i.  12,  it 
is  enumerated  with  the  vine,  the  fig-tree,  the  palm, 
and  pomegranate,  as  among  the  most  valuable 
trees  of  Palestine.  The  rich  colour,  fragrant 
odour,  and  handsome  appearance  of  the  tree,  whe- 
ther in  flower  or  in  fruit,  are  particularly  suited 
to  all  the  above  passages  of  Scripture. — J.  F.  R. 

TAPPUAH,  or  Beth-Tappuah,  a city  in  the 
tribe  of  Judah,  not  far  from  Hebron  (Josh.  xv.  53). 
Robinson  identifies  it  with  an  old  village,  called 
Teffuh,  which  he  found  upon  the  hills  north-west 
of  Hebron  (Bi'6.  Researches,  ii.  428).  2.  Another 
Tappuah  lay  in  the  plain  of  Judah,  apparently 
in  the  vicinity  of  Zanoah,  Jarmuth,  Socoh,  etc. 
(Josh.  xv.  34)  : which  of  these  was  the  place  con- 
quered by  Joshua  is  not  very  clear  (Josh.  xii.  17 ; 
comp.  x.  6).  3.  Another  place  of  the  same  name 

occurs  on  the  confines  of  Ephraim  and  Manasset 
(Josh.  xvi.  8).  4.  And  in  1 Chron.  ii.  43,  a man 

of  this  name  appears. 

TARES.  [Zizanion.] 

TARGUMS.  Different  accounts  of  the  origin 
of  the  Targums,  or  Chaldee  paraphrases,  have  been 
given.  Eichhorn  and  others  endeavour  to  show 
that  they  are  not  so  ancient  as  has  been  generally 
supposed,  and  that  the  earliest  of  them  appeared 
about  the  same  time  as  *he  Talmud,  or  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  century.  This  point  is  in 
part  connected  with  another,  viz.,  the  extinction 
of  the  Hebrew  as  a living  language.  Eichhom 


targums. 


TARGUMS. 


8*26 

and  others  believe  that  it  did  not  cease  to  be 
spoken  during  the  Babylonish  captivity,  but 
that  it  was  still  used  after  the  return,  and  gra- 
dually died  away ; while  the  Buxtorfs  maintained 
that  it  then  became  entirely  extinct  as  a living 
tongue.  It  is  most  probable  that  the  people  ceased 
to  speak  it  in  common  before  the  termination  of 
the  Captivity,  but  that  the  learned  and  educated 
of  the  Jews  retained  it  partially  in  conversation. 
The  latter  would  naturally  adhere  to  it  longer 
than  the  mass  of  the  people,  not  only  from  their 
perusal  of  the  sacred  books,  but  their  stronger 
attachment  to  the  usages  of  their  fathers.  The 
decision  of  the  question  rests  upon  the  meaning 
assigned  to  the  two  words  KHQO  and  IVTirP  in 
Nehemiah  viii.  and  xiii.  24  respectively,  as  has 
been  already  remarked  by  another  contributor 
[Hebrew  Language].  Gesenius  explains  the 
former  term  distinctly;  but  Hengstenberg  ren- 
ders it  giving  a version  or  translation.  The 
latter  tern,  is  understood  by  Gesenius  to  mean 
the  Hebrew  language , while  Hengstenberg  refers 
it  to  the  Aramaean,  or  that  which  the  Hebrews 
commonly  used.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  be- 
tween these  conflicting  expositions.  There  is 
some  reason  for  doubt  in  regard  to  the  accuracy 
of  the  meaning  assigned  by  Hengstenberg  to 
tiHSQ.  The  entire  verse,  however,  implies  that 
the  people  generally  did  not  understand  the  law 
when  publicly  read  in  the  Hebrew  language,  so 
that  the  priests  and  Leviteswere  obliged  to  adopt 
some  expedient  in  order  to  make  it  intelligible. 
Hence  it  is  most  natural  to  conclude  that  they 
had  ceased  to  speak  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  re- 
quired explanatory  comments  in  the  Chaldee  or 
Aramaean.  Probably  the  priests  and  Levites 
gave  a sort  of  running  paraphrase  on  the  words 
of  the  law  as  they  were  read  before  the  people, 
putting  these  words  into  the  Chaldee  dialect  with 
which  the  hearers  were  acquainted.  Such  was 
the  origin  of  the  Chaldee  versions.  At  first  they 
were  given  orally , but  subsequently  they  were 
reduced  to  writing.  The  practice  began  in  the 
time  of  Ezra,  and  was  afterwards  continued. 

Great  importance  was  attached  to  the  office  of 
interpreter  or  translator  of  the  law.  The  Tal- 
mudic canon  asserts  that  as  the  law  was  given 
by  a mediator , so  it  could  only  be  read  and  un- 
derstood by  a mediator.  The  custom  of  extem- 
pore paraphrase  seems  to  have  occasioned  palpable 
abuses.  Hence  definite,  hermeneutic  rules  were 
laid  down,  in  conformity  with  which  the  interpre- 
tation ii  the  law  should  be  conducted.  The 
licence  of  the  paraphrast  was  curbed  by  canons, 
which  came  to  be  universally  binding.  It  is 
easy  to  see  how  the  value  of  written  expositions 
would  become  apparent  when  the  freedom  of  the 
interpreter  was  abridged  by  established  regula- 
tions. The  nature  of  the  exposition  required 
called  for  zoritten  interpretations.  Hence  oral 
gave  rise  to  zoritten  explanations,  the  necessity  of 
the  latter  becoming  more  visible  when  the  liberty 
taken  by  the  extempore  translator  was  narrowed 
by  rules  to  which  he  must  rigidly  adhere.  The 
surest  and  safest  method  of  giving  the  meaning 
was  simply  by  reading  a version  that  had  been 
written  for  the  use  of  the  people. 

External  circumstances  were  also  favourable  to 
the  existence  of  written  explanations.  The  Hel- 
lenistic Jews  were  already  in  possession  of  the 
Law  in  their  own  tongue  ; and  in  the  first  century 


the  Syrians  had  translated  the  Holy  Wii  mg# 
into  their  dialect.  Greek  versions,  in  opposition 
to  the  Alexandrine,  also  proceeded  from  the  Jews 
themselves,  and  obtained  much  approbation.  In 
the  midst  of  so  general  a desire  to  have  versions 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  different  languages,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  Jews  who  spoke 
Aramsean  should  wish  to  possess  translations  of 
the  Scriptures  in  their  living  tongue.  All  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  conspire  to  show  that 
there  were  written  Targums  of  several  Old  Tes- 
tament books  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  In 
various  parts  of  the  Talmud  mention  is  made  of 
a written  Aramajan  version  of  Job  in  the  first 
century,  and  it.  is  not  likely  that  this  was  the  first 
book  rendered  into  the  language  of  the  people. 
Besides,  there  are  also  allusions  to  older  Targums 
(Zunz,  j).  62).  The  silence  of  the  early  fathers 
regarding  such  paraphrases  is  of  no  weight,  be- 
cause they  were  generally  ignorant  of  Hebrew 
and  Hebrew  literature. 

The  language  of  the  older  Targums  agrees 
substantially  with  that  of  the  Chaldee  sections  in 
Daniel  and  Ezra,  though  the  orthography  is  some- 
what different.  The  later  abound  with  foreign 
words.  They  depart  much  further  from  the 
ancient  orthography,  and  sometimes  from  the 
grammatical  principles,  of  the  Chaldee.  Theii 
present  punctuation  is  different  from  that  found 
in  the  Biblical  Chaldee.  It  is  probable  that  they 
were  written  at  first  without  the  vowels.  When 
the  vocalisation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  was  enlarged 
and  perfected  by  the  Jewish  grammarians,  the 
same  attention  was  not  given  to  the  Targums. 
Subsequently  the  editors  of  these  paraphrases 
endeavoured  tq  bring  the  pointing  of  them  nearer 
to  that  of  Daniel  and  Ezra.  Buxtorf  laboured 
in  this  province  with  great,  success.  The  repu- 
tation of  these  Targums  among  the  Jews  has 
always  been  high,  because  amid  other  things  they 
flatter  their  national  pride,  and  abound  with 
Rabbinic  fables. 

The  word  Taz'gum  is  derived  from  a quaari- 
literal  root,  and  signifies  interpretation  or  version. 

At  present  we  know  of  eleven,  three  of  which 
comprehend  the  live  books  of  Moses.  1.  The 
Targum  of  Onkelos.  2.  That  of  the  Pseudo- 
Jonathan.  3.  The  Jerusalem  Targum.  4.  That 
of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel  on  the  Prophets.  5.  That 
of  Joseph  the  blind  or  one-eyed,  on  the  Hagio- 
grapha  (Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs).  6.  A Targum 
on  the  five  Megilloth,  i e.  the  books  of  Ruth, 
Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solomon,  and  La- 
mentations of  Jeremiah.  7.  A Targum  on  1st 
and  2nd  Chronicles.  8,  9,  and  10.  Three  on 
Esther.  11.  The  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the 
Prophets. 

Onkelos. — According  to  the  Babylonian  Tal- 
mud, Onkelos  was  a disciple  of  Hillel,  who  died 
CO  years  b.c.  This  Hillel  was  grandfather  of 
Gamaliel,  Paul's  instructor.  Eichhorn,  disre- 
garding the  Jewish  tradition,  places  him  much 
later. 

His  version,  containing  the  Pentateuch  alone, 
is  incomparably  the  best  of  all  the  Targums- 
The  style  is  pure,  approaching  that  of  Daniel 
and  Ezra;  it  follows  the  original  word  for  word, 
except  where  figures  of  speech  are  occasionally 
resolved  in  poetical  passages,  and  anthropomor- 
phic expressions  removed  or  changed,  le3t  cor- 
poreity should  be  attributed  to  the  S'ipr«*i* 


TARGUMS. 


TARGUMS. 


637 


Being.  The  work  is  particularly  useful  in  cri- 
ticism, because  it  is  very  literal  closely  adhering 
to  the  original  words.  Wherever  the  translator 
det  iates  from  the  Masorctic  text,  lie  has  almost 
always  the  countenance  of  other  ancient  versions. 
He  refers  only  two  passages  to  the  Messiah  (Gen. 
xlix.  10;  Num.  xxiv.  17).  Onkelos's  reputation 
among  the  Jews  has  always  been  great ; his  ver- 
sion is  even  used  by  them  as  a kind  of  dictionary 
giving  the  significations  of  Hebrew  words  ; and 
they  have  composed  a Masora  on  it  like  that  upon 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  called  Masora  ITattargum. 
This  paraphrase  is  given  in  the  Paris  and  London 
Polyglotts  from  Buxtorf’s  edition  of  1618;  the 
text,  however,  is  not  yet  accurately  printed  after 
good  MSS.  Luzzato  has  recently  attempted  to 
revise  it  in  his  work  entitled  Philoxenus , sive 
de  Onkelosi  paraphr.  Chald.,  Wien.  1830,  8vo. 
(See  the  Halle  Literaturzeit.  for  1832.) 

Jonathan  Ben  TJzziel  on  the  Prophets  and 
Historical  Books. — The  accounts  of  Jonathan's 
life  are  obscure.  It  is  generally  said  that  he 
was  the  most  distinguished  of  Hillel’s  eighty 
disciples,  and  colleague  of  Simeon  the  Just ; and 
thus  he  is  represented  as  living  a short  time 
before  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  grounds  assigned 
by  Eichhorn  and  others  in  favour  of  a more  recent 
period  are  unsatisfactory. 

This  Targum,  like  that  of  Onkelos,  is  fre- 
quently mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  and  must 
have  been  well  known  when  the  latter  was 
written.  Some  have  supposed  that  in  various 
places  Jonathan  made  use  of  Onkelos’s  version ; 
the  contrary  is  as  probable.  Jonathan’s  version 
seems  to  have  been  made  prior  to  Onkelos  on  the 
law.  It  is  more  likely  that  the  Jews  would  first 
venture  to  translate  the  prophetic  writings,  in 
which  freer  scope  might  be  taken,  than  undertake 
the  difficult  task  cf  giving  a version  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. In  the  latter  ease,  greater  literalify  was 
required  and  stricter  injunctions  were  to  be  ob- 
served. 

Some  have  erroneously  looked  upon  this  Tar- 
gum as  the  composition  of  different  authors, 
because  it  is  more  literal  in  the  historical  books 
than  in  the  prophets;  but  external  and  internal 
evidence  coincide  in  proving  the  unity  of  the 
whole. 

It  contains  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  minor 
prophets. 

The  style  is  inferior  to  that  of  Onkelos ; it 
contains  several  Greek  words,  but  no  Latin  terms, 
as  Eichhorn  affirms.  We  are  aware  that  Haver- 
nick,  after  Carpzov,  asserts  that  the  style  agrees 
in  the  main  with  Onkelos’s ; but  it  is  certainly 
less  pure,  freer,  and  more  paraph rastical. 

The  utility  of  this  Targum  chiefly  bears  upon 
the  critical  history  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  it  ge- 
nerally harmonises  with  the  Masoretie  recension. 
It  is  printed  in  the  Bibles  of  BomfJerg  and  Bux- 
torf,  as  also  in  the  London  Polyglott. 

Pseudo- Jonathan  on  the  Pentateuch . — This 
paraphrase  has  been  falsely  ascribed  to  the  same 
Jonathan  who  translated  the  prophets  and  his- 
torical books.  Its  language  is  much  more  im- 
pure, being  mixed  with  foreign  words,  such  as 
Persian,  Greek,  and  Latin,  a collection  of  which 
oas  been  made  by  Petermann  £ De  indole  Para- 
hraseos,  quai  Jonathanis  esse  dicitur*  (Berol. 
829,  p.  65,  sq.)  The  mode  of  rendering  is  en- 


tirely different ; it  contains  mm  frous  allegories, 
fables,  and  dialogues,  unlike  the  manner  of  the 
real  Jonathan.  The  dialect  in  which  it  is  written 
is  that  of  Jerusalem  ; and  where  the  author  abides 
by  the  Hebrew  text,  he  uniformly  follows  the 
Rabbinical  interpretation.  Several  circumstances, 
especially  the  character  of  the  style  and  the  men- 
tion of  the  Talmud,  prove  that  it  was  made  after 
the  sixth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Zunz, 
with  great  probability,  assigns  it  to  the  latter  half 
of  the  seventh  century.  It  appears  to  have  been 
compiled  in  part  from  former  expositions. 

The  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch. — 
This  version  is  styled  the  Jerusalem  Targum, 
either  from  having  been  made  at  Jerusalem,  or 
rather  from  its  being  executed  in  the  dialect  of 
that  place.  It  contains  merely  interpretations  of 
select  passages,  and  generally  agrees  with  Pseudo- 
Jonathan.  The  fables  of  the  Pseudo-Jonathan 
are  repeated,  and  Hebrew  words  are  inserted 
without  any  explanation.  The  language  is  im- 
pure and  barbarous ; whole  chapters  are  occasion- 
ally omitted  ; and  again,  a series  of  successive  ex- 
planations is  attached  to  a single  word.  It  con- 
sists of  mere  fragments. 

Late  investigations,  conducted  with  great  skill 
and  industry,  have  fully  established  the  fact  that 
the  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch,  falsely  ascribed  to 
Jonathan,  existed  much  earlier  under  the  name  of 
the  Jerusalem  Targum  ox  the  Targum  of  Pales- 
tine. Thus  the  Pseudo- Jonathan  is  identified 
with  the  Targum  of  Jerusalem.  They  are  merely 
recensions  of  the  same  work.  There  is  also 
ground  for  believing  that  the  Jerusalem  Targum 
extended  to  the  prophetic  books,  and  even  to  the 
other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  (Zunz,  p.  77, 
sq.).  Some  of  the  Targums  now  existing  on 
several  books  of  the  Hagiographa  appear  to  be- 
long to  it.  (See  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Portrage 
der  Juden,  Berlin,  1832,  8vo.,  and  Havernick’s 
Einleitung.') 

These  two  Targums,  which  are  substantially 
one  and  the  same,  furnish  extremely  little  aid  in 
the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  ex- 
hibit the  doctrinal  system  of  the  later  Jews ; 
indeed,  all  the  post-Talmudic  versions  were  de- 
signed to  furnish  allegorical  explanations  agreeable 
to  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  Talmud,  and  to  em- 
body current  traditions,  legends,  and  tales. 

The  paraphrases  on  Job,  Psalms,  and  Proveibs 
possess  a common  character  in  regard  to  style 
and  language,  and  probably  proceeded  from  the 
same  country,  which  Zunz  conjectures  to  have 
been  Syria;  that  on  Proverbs,  however,  adheres 
closely  to  the  Hebrew  text,  partaking  more  of  the 
character  of  a version,  than  a paraphrase , while 
those  on  Job  and  Psalms  are  loose  and  legendary, 
agreeably  to  the  genius  of  the  time  in  which  they 
were  made.  It  has  been  frequently  noticed  that 
the  Targum  on  Proverbs  has  a remarkable  agree- 
ment with  the  Syriac  version,  so  that  some  have 
supposed  the  writer  to  have  made  use  of  that  more 
ancient  translation  ; this  hypothesis,  however,  is 
not  very  probable.  The  dialects  in  which  both 
are  written  were  cognate  ; the  country  to  which 
they  owed  their  origin  the  same ; it  is  not  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  conclude  that  the  one  was  de- 
rived in  part  from  the  other.  The  paraphrases  of 
the  books  of  Psalms  and  Job  appear  to  have  been 
written  by  the  same  person,  as  far  as  we  can  judge 
from  internal  uniformity.  Earlier  Targuma  oa 


828 


TARGUMS. 


TARSHISH. 


Jot)  must  have  existed,  as  they  are  mentioned  by 
some  of  the  Rabbins. 

The  Targum  on  the  Megilloth  was  probably 
written  by  the  same  person  ; it  is  exceedingly  free 
and  full  of  adventitious  matter.  The  part  upon 
Rutl?  is  the  best;  that  on  Solomon's  Song  the 
most  fabulous.  The  work  must  have  been 
written  a considerable  time  after  the  Talmud. 
In  addition  to  the  Targum  on  Esther,  which 
forms  a part  of  this  Targum  on  the  five  Megilloth, 
and  is  also  the  oldest  and  best,  there  are  two  others 
on  the  same  book.  The  second  is  an  enlargement 
of  this  first,  and  was  inserted  in  the  London  Poly- 
glott ; it  had  been  previously  published  by  Tayler 
in  a Latin  version,  under  the  name  of  Targum 
prius  (Lond.  1655,  4to.).  The  third  is  still 
longer  and  more  full  of  fables;  it  was  published 
in  Latin  by  Tayler,  under  the  title  of  Targum 
posterius,  but  the  original  has  never  been  printed. 
These  three  are  properly  different  recensions  of 
one  and  the  same  work,  which,  having  been  com- 
paratively brief  and  free  from  absurd  stories,  was 
subsequently  enlarged  at  two  different  times. 

It  was  long  thought  that  there  was  no  Targum 
on  the  books  of  Chronicles;  Beck,  however,  found 
such  a paraphrase  in  a MS.  belonging  to  the 
library  at  Erfurt,  and  published  it  with  learned 
annotations  in  1680-83.  The  MS.  has  several 
chasms.  It  was  afterwards  published  by  Wilkins 
from  the  Erpenian  MS.  at  Cambridge,  in  1715  ; 
here  the  text  is  full  and  correct.  This  Targum 
resembles  the  later  works  of  the  same  kind;  and 
could  not  have  been  written  before  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, from  its  references  to  the  Jerusalem  Targum. 

The  Targum  on  Job,  Psalms,  and  Proverbs, 
attributed  to  R.  Joseph  the  Blind,  is  generally 
considered  not  to  have  been  written  by  the  reputed 
author. 

In  cod.  154  of  Kennicott,  there  is  a passage  of 
some  length  quoted  in  the  margin  at  Zechariah, 
xii.  10  (Bruns  in  Eichhom’s  Repertorium , xv. 
174).  It  is  attributed  to  a Targum  of  Jerusalem 
on  the  prophets. 

As  far  as  our  present  knowledge  reaches,  there 
is  no  Chaldee  version  of  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah.  The  reason  assigned  in  the  Talmud  for 
not  translating  Daniel  into  Chaldee  is,  because 
it  reveals  the  exact  time  of  Messiah’s  advent.  But 
the  true  cause  seems  rather  to  have  been  the  super- 
stition of  the  Jews  in  supposing  that  if  these  books 
were  translated  into  Chaldee,  the  holy  text  of  the 
original  should  be  mixed  with  that  of  the  para- 
phrase, inasmuch  as  there  are  in  them  Chaldee 
sections.  There  are  indeed  no  Chaldee  pieces  in 
Nehemiah ; but  it  was  taken  along  with  Ezra  as  one 
book,  and  hence  no  Targum  of  either  was  made. 

The  Targums  are  of  considerable  use  in  a cri- 
tical view.  They  show  the  integrity  of  the  present 
Masoretic  text.  It  is  not  denied  that  they  con- 
tain readings  different  from  some  now  current 
among  the  Jews,  and  that  they  appear  to  have 
been  occasionally  altered  in  order  to  be  conformed 
to  an  altered  original : neither  should  it  be  con- 
cealed that  the  MSS.  vary  from  one  another  and 
from  the  printed  copies.  As  to  their  having  been 
assimilated  to  the  Hebrew,  it  remains  to  be  proved 
that  this  was  done  to  any  great  extent,  or  that  it 
was  uniformly  practised.  After  all  reasonable 
deductions  for  probable  deterioration,  they  still 
afford  a considerable  amount  of  testimony  in 
favour  of  the  general  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text 


They  may  be  advantageously  used  in  a critical 
edition  of  the  Bible,  as  suggesting  readings  of  rea. 
importance  and  value.  Onkelos  on  the  law,  and 
Jonathan  on  the  prophets,  because  of  their  1 it©- 
rality,  will  be  most  serviceable. 

Besides  the  works  referred  to  in  the  preceding 
article,  the  following  may  be  mentioned  : the 
Introductions  of  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  and  De 
Wette ; Winer,  De  Onke/oso  ejusque  Paraphrasi 
Chaldaica,  4to.  Lips.,  1819;  Gesenius,  Comment. 
zuJesaia,  tom.  i. ; Walton,  Prolegomena',  Jost, 
Geschichte  der  Israelii en,  Berlin,  1824-9,  tom.  iii. 
and  iv.  Winer  has  published  a grammar  and 
Cbrestomathy  to  facilitate  the  reading  of  the 
Targums,  and  Buxtorf’s  folio  Lexicon  is  the  best 
dictionary. -*-S.  D. 

TARSHISH  (S5*Bhn),  a celebrated  part  of 
the  ancient  world,  about  the  exact  position  of 
which  opinions  are  much  divided.  In  this  case, 
however,  as  in  many  other  Scriptural  difficulties, 
that  is  clear  which  is  important,  while  the  doubt- 
ful or  the  hidden  is  of  comparatively  little  mo- 
ment. We  may,  or  we  may  not,  be  able  to  ffx 
with  certainty  the  exact  spot  where  Tarshish  lay  ; 
but  the  particulars  which  Scripture  supplies  le- 
specting  it  are  too  numerous  and  too  definite  to 
allow  any  doubt  as  to  what  was  the  character  and 
condition  of  the  place  itself.  Tarshish  may  be 
described,  and,  therefore,  may  be  known,  though 
we  still  remain  in  uncertainty  on  what  point  in 
the  map  the  name  should  be  inscribed.  And 
while  the  exact  locality  is  of  small  concern,  the 
important  details  which  the  Bible  presents  may, 
nevertheless,  render  us  aid  in  attempting  to  deter- 
mine where  Tarshish  lay. 

Wre  will  first  give  a summary  of  the  notices 
which  the  Scriptures  afford  respecting  Tarshish. 
In  the  great  genealogical  table  (Gen.  x.  4,  5)  it 
is  placed  among  the  sons  of  Javan  ; ‘ Elishah  and 
Tarshish,  Kittim  and  Dodanim.  By  these  were 
the  islands  of  the  Gentiles  divided.’  This  refers 
the  mind  at  once  to  the  north-western  parts  of  the 
Mediterranean.  To  a similar  conclusion  does 
other  Scriptural  language  lead.  In  Ps.  Ixxii.  10  it 
is  said,  ‘ The  kings  of  Tarshish  and  of  the  isles 
shall  bring  presents;’  and  in  2 Chron.  ix.  21, 
we  read,  ‘ The  king's  (Solomon)  ships  went  to 
Tarshish  with  the  servants  of  Hiram  ; every  three 
years  once  came  the  ships  of  Tarshish  bringing 
gold  and  silver,  ivory,  and  apes,  and  peacocks.’ 
Now  Hiram’s  city,  Tyre,  lay  on  the  Mediterranean 
coast,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  how  Solomon's  vessels 
might  be  associated  with  his  in  a voyage  towards 
the  west  to  fetch  merchandise.  In  Isa.  lxvi. 
19,  we  find  Tarshish  mentioned  in  a way  which 
confirms  this  view  : ‘And  I will  set  a sign  among 
them,  and  I will  send  those  that  escape  of  them 
unto  the  nations  (or  Gentiles) ; to  Tarshish,  Pul, 
and  Lud,  that  draw  the  bow,  to  Tubal  and  Javan, 
to  the  isles  afar  off.’  These  passages  make  it  clear 
that  Tarshish  lay  at  a distance  from  Judaea,  and 
that  that  distance  was  in  a north-westerly  direction ; 
and  the  mention  of  such  names  as  Lud,  Javan,  and 
the  isles,  carries  the  mind  to  the  extreme  north- 
west, and  suggests  Spain  as  the  place  for  Tarshish. 
But  Tarshish  must  have  been  on  the  sea-coast^ 
for  it  was  famous  for  its  ships.  ‘ The  ships  of 
Tarshish  ’ were  celebrated  under  that  designation, 
which  may  have  been  used  in  that  wide  sense  in 
which  we  speak  of  an  East  Indiaman,  reference 


TAHSHISK. 


TARSHISH. 


m 


feeing  made  rather  to  the  place  whither  the  vessel 
traded,  than  to  that  where  it  was  bnilt;  or  the 
phrase  may  have  come  to  denotea  particular  kind 
of  vessel,  i.  e.  trading  or  merchant  ships,  from 
the  celebrity  of  Tarshish  as  a commercial  port 
v'l  Kings  x.  22;  Ps.  xlviii.  7 ; Isa.  ii.  16;  xxiii. 
1-14;  lx.  9;  Ezek.  xxvii.  25).  Some  six  times 
do  we  meet  with  the  phrase,  ships  or  navy  of 
Tarshish ; which  of  itself  shows  how  noted  a sea- 
port we  have  under  consideration,  if  it  does  not 
prove  also  that  in  process  of  time  the  terms  had 
come  to  describe  vessels  according  to  their  occu- 
pation rather  than  their  country,  as  we  say  1 a 
slaver,’  denoting  a ship  engaged  in  the  slave-trade 
(comp.  Horat.  ‘ ssevis  Liburnis,’  Carm.  i.  27  ; 

‘ Bit  hyna  carina’,  i.  35;  ‘ trabe  Cypria,’  i.  1). 
In  Ezek.  xxvii.  12-25,  the  place  is  described  by 
its  pursuits  and  its  merchandise:  — ‘Tarshish 
(here  again  in  connection  with  a western  country, 
Javan,  ver.  13)  ‘ was  thy  (Tyre)  merchant,  in  all 
riches,  with  silver,  iron,  tin,  and  lead,  they  traded 
in  thy  fairs.  The  ships  of  Tarshish  did  sing  of 
thee  in  thy  market,  and  thou  wast  replenished 
and  made  very  glorious  in  the  midst  of  the  seas.’ 
The  last  words  are  admirably  descriptive  of  the 
south-western  coast  of  Spain.  How  could  a 
Hebrew  poet  better  describe  the  locality  where  the 
songs  of  the  sailors  of  Tarshish  made  the  name  of 
Tyre  glorious1?  Let  the  reader  turn  to  the  map, 
and  cast  his  eye  on  the  embouchure  of  the  Gua- 
dalquivir, and  say  if  this  spot  is  not  pre-eminently, 
when  viewed  from  Palestine,  ‘ in  the  midst  of  the 
seas.’  There  is  a propriety  too  in  the  words  found 
in  Ps.  xlviii.  7 (comp.  Ezek.  xxviii.  26),  ‘ Thou 
bleakest  the  ships  of  Tarshish  with  an  east  wind,’ 
if  we  suppose  merchant  vessels  working  eastwardly 
up  the  Mediterranean  towards  Tyre,  encountering  • 
an  east  or  rather  north-east  gale,  which  is  a very 
violent  and  destructive  wind  to  this  day.  Jere- 
miah (x.  9)  tells  us  that  ‘ silver  spread  into  plates  ’ 
was  brought  from  Tarshish  ; and  from  the  con- 
nection the  silver  appears  to  have  been  elaborately 
wrought ; whence  we  infer  that  at  one  period 
there  was  in  Tarshish  the  never-failing  connection 
found  between  commerce,  wealth,  and  art.  An 
important  testimony  occurs  in  Ezek.  xxxviii.  13, 

‘ Sheba  and  Dedan,  and  the  merchants  of  Tar- 
shish, with  all  the  young  lions  thereof,  shall  say 
unto  thee,  Art  thou  come  to  take  a spoil  ? to  carry 
away  silver  and  gold?  to  take  away  cattle  and 
goods,  to  take  a great  spoil?  ’ whence  it  is  clear 
that  Tarshish  was  an  opulent  'place,  abounding 
in  cattle  and  goods,  in  silver  and  gold.  We  are 
not  sure  that  the  words  ‘ the  young  lions  thereof’ 
are  intended  to  be  taken  literally.  They  may 
refer  to  the  lion-hearted  chiefs  of  the  nation  ; but 
if  they  are  understood  as  implying  that  lions 
were  literally  found  in  Tarshish,  they  only  concur 
with  other  parts  of  Scripture  in  showing  that  the 
name  is  to  be  taken  in  a wide  acceptation,  as  de- 
noting, besides  modern  Andalusia,  those  parts  of 
Africa  which  lay  near  and  opposite  to  Spain. 
Nor  is  it  impossible  that  a part  of  the  trade  of 
Tarshish  lay  in  these  and  in  other  animals ; for  we 
certainly  know  that  Solomon's  ships  brought  .that 
prince  apes  and  peacocks  : the  lions  may  have 
been  caught  in  Africa,  and  conveyed  in  ships  of 
Tarshish  to  Tyre.  Sheba  and  Dedan,  however, 
are  mentioned  here  in  connection  with  Tarshish, 
and  they  were  certainly  eastern  countries,  lying 
probably  on  the  western  side  of  the  Persian  gulf 


in  Arabia.  But  the  object  of  the  writer  may 
have  been  to  mention  the  countries  placed  at  the 
extremities  of  the  then  known  world — Tarshish 
on  the  west,  Sheba  and  Dedan  on  the  east.  In 
Isa.  xxiii.  1-14,  we  read,  as  a part  of  the  burden 
of  Tyre,  that  the  ships  of  Tarshish  are  called  on 
to  howl  at  her  destruction,  because  Tyre  afforded 
them  no  longer  a commercial  port  and  a haven  ; 
words  which  entirely  agree  with  the  hypothesis 
which  makes  Tarshish  a city  on  the  sea- board  of 
Spain,  trading  up  the  Mediterranean  to  Tyre. 
Nor  are  the  words  found  in  the  sixth  verse  dis- 
cordant : ‘ Pass  ye  over  to  Tarshish  ; howl,  ye 
inhabitants  of  the  isles.’  Let  us  now  turn  to  the 
book  of  Jonah  (i.  1-3;  iv.  2).  The  prophet  was 
commanded  to  go  and  prophesy  against  Nineveh 
on  the  Tigris.  For  this  he  should,  on  quitting  Je- 
rusalem, have  gone  in  an  easterly  direction  ; but 
he  shunned  the  duty  and  fled.  Of  course  he  na- 
turally fled  in  a direction  the  opposite  of  that  in 
which  the  avoided  object  lay:  be  proceeded,  in 
fact,  to  Tarshish.  Tarshish  then  must  have  been 
to  the  west,  and  not  to  the  east,  of  Jerusalem. 
In  order  to  reach  Tarshish  he  went  to  Joppa,  and 
took  ship  for  the  place  of  his  destination,  thus 
still  keeping  in  a westerly  course,  and  showing  that 
Tarshish  lay  to  the  west.  In  Tarshish,  indeed, 
placed  in  the  extreme  north-west,  he  might  well 
expect  to  be  distant  enough  from  Nineveh.  It  is 
also  worthy  of  notice  that,  when  he  arrived  at 
Joppa  on  the  coast  of  Palestine,  ‘ he  found  a ship 
going  to  Tarshish  ;’  which  fact  we  can  well  under- 
stand if  Tarshish  lay  to  the  west,  but  by  no  means 
if  it  lay  on  the  Red  Sea. 

Thus  far  all  the  passages  cited  agree,  with  more 
or  less  of  evidence,  in  fixing  Tarshish  somewhere 
in  or  near  Spain.  But  in  2 Chron.  xx.  36,  it  is 
recorded  that  Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah  joined 
himself  with  Ahaziah  king  of  Israel,  ‘ to  make 
ships  to  go  to  Tarshish,  and  they  made  the  ships 
in  Ezion-geber,’  that  is,  on  theElanitic  gulf  on  the 
eastern  atm  of  the  Red  Sea.  If  then  these  ves- 
sels, built  at  Ezion-geber,  were  to  go  to  Tarshish, 
that  place  must  lie  on  the  eastern  side  of  Palestine 
instead  of  the  western  ; for  we  cannot  suppose  they 
circumnavigated  Africa;  not  because  such  a 
voyage  was  impossible,  but,  because  it  was  long 
and  tedious,  and  not  likely  to  be  taken  when  a 
nearer  and  safer  way  to  Tarshish  lay  from  the 
ports  of  the  Palestinian  coast.  But  in  the  pa- 
rallel passage,  found  in  1 Kings  xxii.  49,  ihese 
vessels  are  described  as  ‘ships  of  Tarshish  ’ (nun- 
chant  vessels),  which  were  intended  to  go  to  Ophir , 
not  to  Tarshish.  This  removes  the  difficulty  at 
once,  for  Ophir  was  in  the  east,  and  accounts  for 
the  fact  that  the  fleet  was  built  on  the  Red  Sea, 
since  it  was  an  eastern  not  a western  voyage 
which  was  intended.  The  reference  appears  to  be 
to  the  same  eastern  trade  of  which  mention  is 
made  in  1 Kings  x.  22,  where  we  find  Hiram  and 
Solomon  importing  from  the  East  in  ships  of 
Tarshish  or  merchantmen,  gold  and  silver,  ivory 
apes,  and  peacocks.  We  have  not  space  to  entej 
into  the  critical  questions  which  this  contrariety 
between  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  sug- 
gests for  consideration  ; but  we  may  remark  that 
in  a case  in  which  a diversity  appears  in  the 
statements  of  these  two  authorities,  no  competently 
infonped  theologian  could  hesitate  to  give  me 
preference  to  the  former. 

It  appears  then  clear  from  this  minute  review 


830 


TARSIIISH. 


TARSUS. 


sf  the  Scriptural  accounts  and  allusions,  that 
Tarshish  was  an  old,  celebrated,  opulent,  culti- 
vated, commercial  city,  which  carried  on  trade  in 
the  Mediterranean  and  with  the  sea-ports  of 
Syria,  especially  Tyre  and  Joppa,  and  that  it  most 
probably  lay  on  the  extreme  west  of  that  sea.  Was 
there  then  in  ancient  times  any  city  in  these  parts 
which  corresponded  with  these  clearly  ascer- 
tained facts?  There  was.  Such  was  Tartessus 
in  Spain,  said  to  have  been  a Phoenician  colony 
(Arrian,  Alex.  iii.  86),  a fact  which  of  itself 
would  account  for  its  intimate  connection  with 
Palestine  and  the  Biblical  narratives.  As  to  the 
exact  spot  where  Tartessis  (so  written  originally) 
lay,  authorities  are  not  agreed,  as  the  city  had 
ceased  to  exist  when  geography  began  to  re- 
ceive attention  ; but  it  was  not  far  from  the  Straits 
of  Gibraltar,  and  near  the  mouth  of  the  Guadal- 
quivir, consequently  at  no  great  distance  from 
the  famous  Granada  of  later  days.  The  reader, 
however,  must  enlarge  his  notion  beyond  that  of 
a mere  city,  which,  how  great  soever,  would 
scarcely  correspond  with  the  ideas  of  magnitude, 
affluence,  and  power  that  the  Scriptures  suggest. 
The  name,  which  is  of  Phoenician  origin,  seems 
to  denote  the  district  of  south-western  Spain, 
comprising  the  several  colonies  which  Tyre 
planted  in  that  country,  and  so  being  equivalent 
to  what  we  might  designate  Phoenician  Spain. 
We  are  not  however  convinced  that  the  opposite 
coast  of  Africa  was  not  included,  so  that  the  word 
would  denote  to  an  inhabitant  of  Palestine  the 
extreme  western  parts  of  the  world.  We  seem, 
however,  authorized  by  considerations,  besides 
those  which  have  been  already  elicited,  in  iden- 
tifying the  Hebrew  Tarshish  with  the  Spanish 
Tartessus,  whatever  may  have  been  the  extent  of 
the  neighbouring  country  over  which  the  latter 
held  dominion,  or  possessed  immediate  influence. 
Among  these  considerations  we  mention,  1st.  that 
the  two  names  are  similar,  if  they  are  not  the  same  ; 
the  Greek  T apTijaaSs,  with  the  Aramaic  pronun- 
ciation, would  be  a fact  which  would  of 

itself  seem  to  settle  the  question,  in  the  absence 
of  conflicting  evidence  and  claims  ; 2nd.  Spain 
was  one  of  the  chief  seats  of  Phoenician  coloniza- 
tion ; and  if  we  unite  therewith  the  north-west  of 
Africa,  we  shall  have  some  idea  of  the  greatness 
of  the  power  of  Tyre  in  these  parts,  for  Tyre  is 
reported  to  have  founded  not  fewer  than  three 
hundred  cities  on  the  western  coast  of  Africa,  and 
two  hundred  in  south-western  Spain  (Strabo,  ii. 
82).  Here,  then,  was  found  the  chief  object  of 
the  Phoenician  sea  trade.  These  countries  were 
to  Tyre  what  Peru  wa3  to  Spain.  Conlining  our 
remarks  to  Spain,  we  learn  from  Heeren  that  the 
Phoenician  colonies  on  the  European  side  of  the 
sea  were  situated  in  the  south  of  the  present  An- 
dalusia. Here,  with  other  important  places,  lay 
Tartessus,  a name  which  is  borne  by  a river,  an 
island,  a town,  and  a region.  Heeren  distinctly 
says  that  to  Orientalists  the  word  indicated  the 
farthest  west  generally,  comprising,  of  course, 
many  places.  In  the  commercial  geography  of  the 
Phoenicians,  he  adds,  the  word  obviously  meant 
♦he  entire  of  their  colonial  dependencies  in  southern 
Spain.  In  the  same  general  way  we  use  the  term 
West  Indies ; and  thus  arose  the  river,  the  town, 
the  district  of  Tartessus,  since  the  country  in- 
cluded them  all  (Heeren,  Ideen,  ii.  44,  sq.).  3rd. 
It  does  much  to  confirm  our  view  that  all  the 


articles  reported  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  to  have 
been  brought  from  Tarshish,  might  have  com# 
from  south-western  Spain.  Here  there  were  mine* 
of  gold  and  silver,  and  Tartessus  is  expressly 
named  as  affording  the  latter  mineral  (Strabo,  iii. 
p.  1 17  ; Diod.  Sic.  v.  35).  Tin  was  brought  by  the 
Phoenicians  from  Britain  into  Spain,  and  thence 
carried  to  the  Oriental  markets.  According  to 
Diodorus  Siculus  (v.  3S),  tin  was  procured  in 
Spain  also,  as  well  as  lead,  according  to  Pliny 
(Hist.  Nat.  iii.  4).  Pliny’s  words  .are  forcible; 
‘ Nearly  all  Spain  abounds  in  the  metals — lead, 
iron,  copper,  silver,  gold.’ 

The  view  which  has  been  taken  in  these  ob- 
servations was  suggested  to  our  mind  by  Winer's 
excellent  article  on  the  subject  (Real-icorterb.  ii. 
700),  and  on  his  authority  some  of  our  statements 
rest;  but  we  should  not  do  justice  to  it,  did  we 
not  add,  that  though  suggested  by  Winer,  it  i3 
the  unprejudiced  result  of  our  own  investigation 
of  the  several  Scriptural  passages  which  bear  on 
the  subject.  We  add  one  or  two  corroborations. 
Heeren  (Ideen,  ii.  64)  translates  Ezek.  xxvii.  25, 
‘ The  ships  of  Tarshish,’  &c.,  by  ‘ Spanish  ships 
were  the  chief  object  of  thy  merchandise;  thou 
(Tyre)  wast  a full  city,  and  wast  honoured  on  the 
seas.’  The  Phoenicians  were  as  eager  in  their 
quest  of  gold  and  gold  countries  as  were  the 
alchemists  and  the  Europeans  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. Tlie  lu'st  for  gold  urged  them  over  the 
deserts  of  Arabia,  and  the  cliffs  of  the  Red  Sea, 
as  far  as  Yemen  and  Ethiopia;  and  the  same 
passion  carried  them  westwardly  to  the  coasts  of 
Spain  and  the  pillars  of  Hercules.  11  Spain,’ 
says  Heeren,  ‘ was  once  the  richest  land  in  the 
world  for  silver ; gold  was  found  there  in  great 
abundance,  and  the  baser  metals  as  well.  The 
silver  mountains  were  in  those  parts  which  the 
Phoenicians  comprised  under  the  general  name  of 
Tartessus  or  Tarshish.  The  immeasurable  afflu- 
ence of  precious  metals  which  on  their  first  ar- 
rival they  found  here,  so  astounded  them,  and 
the  sight,  thereof  so  wrought  on  the  imagination  of 
the  people,  that  fact  called  fable  to  its  aid,  and 
the  story  gained  currency,  that  the  first  Phoenician 
colonists  not  only  filled  their  ships  with  gold,  but 
made  thereof  their  various  implements,  anchors 
not  excepted.’ — J.  It.  B. 

TARSHISH,  a precious  stone,  so  called  as 
brought,  from  Tarshish,  as  Ophir  is  also  put  for 
the  gold  brought,  from  thence  (Exod.  xxviii.  20 ; 
xxxix.  13;  Ezek.  i.  16;  x.  9;  xxviii.  13;  Cant, 
v.  14  ; Dan.  x.  6).  The  Septuagint,  followed  by 
Josephus,  makes  it  the  ‘chrysolite,’  i.e.  the  topaz 
of  the  moderns,  which  is  still  found  in  Spain  : so 
Braun,  De  Vestitu  Sacerd.  ii.  17.  Others  sup- 
pose it  to  be  ‘amber;’  but  this  does  not  agree  with 
the  passages  in  Exodus,  which  make  the  Tarshish 
to  have  been  one  of  the  engraved  stones  of  the 
high-priest’s  breast-plate.  The  word  is  translated 
‘ beryl  ’ in  the  Authorized  Version. 

TARSUS  (Tap<r6s),  a celebrated  city,  the 
metropolis  of  Cilicia,  in  Asia  Minor,  on  the  banks 
of  the  river  Cydnus,  which  flowed  through  it,  and 
divided  it  into  two  parts.  Hence  it  is  sometimes 
by  "Greek  writers  called  Tapcro't  in  the  plural, 
perhaps  not  without  some  reference  to  a fancied 
resemblance  in  the  form  of  the  two  divisions  of 
the  city  to  the  wings  of  a bird.  Tarsus  was  a di»- 
tinguished  seat  of  Greek  philosophy  and  literature, 
and  from  the  number  of  its  schools  and  learned 


TARTAK. 


TATNAI. 


831 


men,  M as  ranked  by  the  side  of  Athens  and  Alex- 
andria (Strabo,  xiv.,  pp.  673,  674).  Augustus 
made  Tarsus  free  (Appian,  Bell.  Civ.v.  7).  This 
seems  to  have  implied  the  privilege  of  being 
governed  by  its  own  laws  and  magistrates,  with 
freedom  from  tribute;  but  did  not  confer  the  jus 
coloniarum,  nor  the  jus  civitcitis  : and  it  was  not 
therefore,  as  usually  supposed,  on  this  account, 
that  Paul  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  Roman  citizen- 
ship. Tarsus,  indeed,  eventually  did  become  a 
Roman  colony,  which  gave  to  the  inhabitants  this 
privilege;  but  this  was  not  till  long  after  the  time 
of  Paul  (Deyling,  Observat.  Sacr.  iii.  391,  sq.  ; 
comp.  Citizenship  ; Colony).  We  thus  find 
that  the  Roman  tribune  at  Jerusalem  ordered 
Paul  to  be  scourged,  though  he  knew  that  he  wras 
a native  of  Tarsus,  but  Resisted  on  learning  that 


he  was  a Roman  citizen  (Acts  ix.  11 ; xxi.  89; 
xxii.  24,  27).  In  the  time  of  Abulfeda,  that  is, 
towards  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  and  beginning 
of  the  fourteenth  century.  Tarsus  was  still  large, 
and  surrounded  by  a double  wall,  and  in  the  oc- 
cupation of  Armenian  Christians  {Tab.  Syria 
p.  133).  It  is  now  a poor  and  decayed  town, 
inhabited  by  Turks ; but  it  is  not  so  much 
fallen  as  many  other  anciently  great  towns  of 
the  same  quarter,  the  population  being  estimated 
at  30,000.  There  are  some  considerable  remains 
of  the  ancient  city  (Heuma-nn,  De  Claris  Tar- 
sencnsib.,  Gott,.  1748  ; Altmann,  Exerc.  de  Tarso. 
Bern.  1731  ; Mannert,  ii.  97,  sq.  ; Rosenmiiller, 
Bib.  Geog.  iii.  38  ; Beaufort,  Karamania ; Irby 
and  Mangles,  Travels , pp.  502-506  ; see  also  the 
articles  Citizenship  and  Colony). 


5’.  6.  [Tarsus.] 


TARTAK  (p^HFl ; Sept.  ©apflafc),  an  idol  of 
the  Avites,  introduced  by  them  into  Samaria 
(2  Kings  xvii.  31).  In  Pehlevi  Tar-thakh  might 
mean  ‘ deep  darkness’  or  ‘ hero  of  darkness.’  Ge- 
eenius  thinks  that  under  this  name  some  malign 
planet  (Saturn  or  Mars)  was  worshipped  {Com- 
ment. in  Jes.,  ii.  348);  but  v/e  are  too  little  ac- 
quainted with  the  Assyrian  superstitions  to  be 
able  to  identify  this  idol  with  certainty. 

TARTAN  (ifni!) ; Sept.  Gapdav  and  Tcivddav), 
an  Assyrian  general  whom  Sennacherib  sent,  ac- 
companied by  Rabsaris  and  Rabshakeh,  to  Jeru- 
salem (2  Kings  xviii.  17).  It  is  not  known  whe- 
ther this  is  the  same  officer  who  in  a preceding 
reign  besieged  and  took  Ashdod  for  his  master 
(Isa.  xx.  1). 

TATNAI  ; Pers.,  perhaps  gift;  Sept. 

GavQavat),  a Persian  governor,  who  succeeded  Re- 
hum  in  the  rule  of  Samaria,  arid  probably  of  other 
provinces  north  of  Judaea.  He  appears  to  have 
been  a more  just  person,  and  more  friendly  to  the 


Jews,  than  his  predecessor.  An  adverse  report  o. 
their  proceedings  at  Jerusalem  reached  him ; but  he 
resolved  to  suspend  his  judgment  till  he  had  ex- 
amined into  the  matter  on  the  spot.  He  accord- 
ingly repaired  thither,  accompanied  by  another 
great  officer,  named  Shethar-boznai,  and  their  col- 
leagues, and  finding  that  the  Jews  alleged  the 
authority  of  a royal  decree  for  their  proceedings, 
he  sent  to  the  supreme  government  a temperate 
and  fair  report,  founded  on  the  information  he 
had  obtained,  suggesting  that  the  statement  made 
by  the  Jews  as  to  the  decree  of  Cyrus  and  other 
matters  should  be  verified  by  reference  to  the 
archives  at  Babylon.  Then,  without  one  wrord  to 
influence  the  decision  or  to  prejudice  the  claim 
advanced,  Tatnai  concludes  with  intimating  that 
he  awaits  the  royal  orders.  This  official  letter  of 
the  Persian  governor  is  quite  a model  of  exact- 
ness, moderation,  and  truth,  and  gives  a very 
favourable  idea  of  the  administrative  part  of  the 
Persian  government.  This  took  place  in  the  se- 
cond year  of  Harms,  b.c.  519.  The  rescript  being 


833 


TAXES. 


TAVERNS,  THE  THREE. 

favourable  to  the  claim  of  the  Jews,  whose  state- 
ment had  been  verified  by  the  discovery  of  the 
original  decree  of  Cyrus,  Tatnai  and  his  col- 
leagues applied  themselves  with  vigour  to  the 
execution  of  the  royal  commands  (Ezra  v.  and 
vi.). 

TAVERNS,  THE  THREE  (Tpets  Tafcpvar, 
V ulg.  Tres  tabernae).  The  name  of  a small  place 
on  the  Appian  way,  mentioned  Acts  xxviii.  15. 
The  word  rajSepva  is  plainly  the  Latin  taberna 
in  Greek  letters,  and  denotes  a house  made  with 
boards  or  planks,  quasi  trabena . Wooden  houses, 
huts,  &c.  are  called  tabernae.  Thus  -Horace, 
‘ pauperum  tabernas  regumque  tunes,’  Carm.  i. 
1 4, 13.  Hence  the  word  also  means  shops,  as  distin- 
guished from  dwelling  houses.  Horace  uses  it  for 
a bookseller’s  shop  (Sat.  i.  4.  71),  and  for  a wine 
shop  ( Ep . i.  14.24).  The  shops  at  Pompeii  are 
booths,  connected  in  almost  every  case  with  dwell- 
ings behind,  as  they  were  in  London  three  centu- 
ries ago.  When  eatables  or  drinkables  were  sold 
in  a Roman  shop,  it  was  called  taberna,  tavern, 
victualling-house.  The  place  or  village  called 
‘ Three  Taverns  ’ probably  therefore  derived  its 
name  from  three  large  inns,  or  eating-houses,  for 
the  refreshment  of  travellers  passing  to  and  from 
Rome.  Zosimus  calls  it.  rpiu  KatrrjXela  (ii.  10). 
Appii  Forum  appears  to  have  been  such  another 
place.  Horace  mentions  the  latler  in  describing 
his  journey  from  Rome  to  Brundusium,  as  ‘ dif- 
fertum  nautis,  cauponibus  atque  malignis’ — - 
stuffed  with  rank  boatmen,  and  with  vintners  base 
(Sat.  i.  5.  3).  That  the  Three  Taverns  was  nearer 
Rome  than  Appii  Forum,  appears  from  the  con- 
clusion of  one  of  Cicero's  letters  to  Atticus  (ii. 
10),  which,  when  he  is  travelling  south-easticards 
from  Antium  to  his  seat  near  Formise,  he  dates 
*Ab  Appii  Foro,  hora  quarta’ — from  Appii  Forum, 
at  the  fourth  hour ; and  adds,  ‘ Dederam  aliam 
paulo  ante,  Tribus  Tabernis  ’ — I wrote  you  an- 
other, a little  while  ago,  from  the  Three  Taverns. 
Grotius  observes,  that  there  were  many  places  in 
the  Roman  empire  at  -this  time  which  had  the 
names  of  Forum  and  Tabernae,  the  former  from 
having  markets  of  all  kinds- of  commodities,  the 
latter  from  furnishing  wine  and  eatables.  The 
Itinerary  of  Antoninus  places  Appii  Forum  at 
forty-three  Roman  miles  from  Rome,  and  the 
Three  Taverns  at  thirty- three.  The  place  still 
remains,  and  is  called  Tre  Taverne.  In  Evekyn's 
time  (1645),  the  remains  were  ‘ yet  very  faire  ’ 
(Diarie,  vol.  i.  p.  134).  The  Roman  Christians 
went  in  token  of  respect  to  meet  St.  Paul  at  these 
places,  having  been  probably  apprised  of  his  ap- 
proach by  letters  or  express  from  Puteoli  (Acts 
xxviii.  13-15) — one  party  of  them  resting  at  the 
Three  Taverns,  and  the  other  going  on  to  Appii 
Forum.  When  the  apostle  saw  this  unequivocal 
token  of  respect  and  zeal,  he  took  fresh  courage. 
In  the  fourth  century  there  was  a Bishop  of  Three 
Taverns,  named  Felix  (Optatus,  lib.  i.). — J.F.D. 

TAXES  of  some  kind  must  have  been  coeval 
with  the  origin  of  civilized  society.  The  idea  of 
the  one  is  involved  in  that  of  the  other;  since 
society,  as  every  organization,  implies  expense, 
which  must  be  raised  by  the  abstraction  of  pro- 
•perty  from  the  individuals  of  which  it  consists, 
either  by  occasional  or  periodical,  by  self-im- 
posed, or  compulsory  exactions. 

Accordingly  we  find  a provision  of  income 
made  at  the  very  commencement  of  the  Mosaic 


polity.  Taxes,  like  all  other  things  in  that 
polity,  had  a religious  origin  and  import.  As  a 
ransom  lor  his  soul  unto  the  Lord,  every  Israelite 
was  to  pay  half  a shekel  yearly,  from  twenty 
years  old  and  upward,  the  rich  not  giving  more,, 
the  poor  not  giving  less,  for  the  service  of  th# 
tabernacle  (Exod.  xxx.  12,  sq. ; 2 Chron.  xxiv.  6). 
From  the  latter  passage  it  appears  that  the  law 
appointing  this  payment  was  in  force  in  the  dayi 
of  Joash  (b.c.  878).  This  half  shekel  was  the 
tribute  which  our  Lord  was  asked  if  he  paid 
(Matt,  xv ii.  24).  It  is  called  in  the  Greek 
ra  Sldpaxp-n,  and  was  in  value  about  fifteen  pence. 
The  way  in  which  it  is  spoken  of  shows  that  it 
was  an  established  and  well-known  payment — 
‘ they  that  received  the  didrachm  ’ — in  rendering 
which  by  ‘tribute,’  our  translators  have  failed  to 
give  the  force  of  the  original  (comp.  Joseph. 
De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  6.  6).  This  offering  was  obli- 
gator}’- on  Jews  who  lived  in  foreign  countries  no 
less  than  on  those  who  lived  at  home,  though  fre- 
quently the  native  princes  tried  to  divert  the 
didrachm  from  the  temple  treasury  to  their  own,  in 
which  effort  they  were  more  than  ouce  arrested  by 
the  Romans  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  9.  1).  From 
the  Talmudical  Tract  Shekalim  (Mishna,  ii.  4), 
the  time  of  payment  appears  to  have  been  between 
the  fifteenth  and  the  twenty-fifth  of  the  month 
Adar,  that  is,  in  March.  After  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  this  didrachm  was  ordered  by  Vespa- 
sian to  be  paid  into  the  capitol,  as,  says  Josephus, 
* they  used  to  pay  the  same  to  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  ’ (De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  6.  6).  A special 
provision  seems  to  have  been  made,  under  peculiar 
circumstances,  of  one-third  of  a shekel  yearly, 
‘ for  the  service  of  the  house  of  our  God  ’ (Neh. 
x.  32).  The  Jews,  at  times,  found  the  taxes 
they  had  to  pay  very  oppressive.  The  ten  tribes 
complained  that  they  had  found  David’s  yoke 
heavy,  and  entreated  Rehoboam  that  he  would 
lighten  it.  And  the  stoning  to  death  of  Adoram, 
who  ‘was  over  the  tribute,’  shows  to  what  an  ex- 
tent the  question  of  taxes  entered  into  the  causes 
of  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes  (1  Kings  xii.  4,  18). 
When  the  Romans  became  masters  of  Palestine 
the  unhappy  Jews  had  a double  yoke  to  bear; 
while  it  appears  from  Josephus  that  the  yoke  ot 
the  native  princes  was  anything  but  light.  The 
income  of  Herod  the  Great  seems  to  have  been 
about  1600  talents,  which  has  been  estimated  at 
680, 000£.  sterling  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xvii.  11.  4,  note 
in  Whiston’s  Translation).  Agrippa  II.  had 
revenues  which  amounted  to  twelve  millions  of 
drachmae,  which  may  have  equalled  nearly  half 
a million  of  our  money.  Nor  was  the  recently 
removed  house-tax  an  exclusive  English  imposi- 
tion, for  Herod  Agrippa  is  recorded  to  nave 
‘ released  the  Jews  from  the  tax  upon  houses,  every 
one  of  whom  paid  it  before  ’ (Joseph.  Antiq.  xix 
6.  3 ; 8.  2). 

Besides  the  regular  hail  shekel  ir.eie  was  a 
considerable  income  derived  to  the  Temple  from 
tithes,  firstlings,  &c.  (2  Kings  xii.  4).  Consider- 
ing the  fertility  of  the  land  we  cannot  accoun< 
these  religious  imposts  as  heavy.  If  we  turn  ta 
the  civil  constitution,  we  find  taxes  first  insti- 
tuted at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  regal 
power,  whose  exactions  are  forcibly  described  by 
Samuel  (1  Sam.  viii.  10,  sq.).  They  consisted 
partly  in  personal  service,  partly  in  tithe  in  kind. 
Occasionally  a heavy  poll-tax  was  imposed — ‘ of 


TEASHUR. 

til  the  mighty  men  of  wealth,  of  each  man  fifty 
shekels  of  silver’  (2  Kings  xv.  20).  On  other 
occasions  an  assessment  was  made,  and  a tax 
raised  from  the  people  of  the  land  generally  (2 
Kings  xxiii.  35).  Both  these  last  cases,  how- 
ever, were  provisions  for  a special  need.  Pre- 
sents constituted  a source  of  abundant  income, 
and  can  hardly  be  regarded  in  any  other  light 
than  as  a sort  of  self-imposed  tax  (1  Sam.  x.  27  ; 
xvi.  20;  1 Kings  x.  25 ; 2 Chron.  xvii.  5). 
Royal  demesnes  supplied  resources  (1  Kings  iv. 
22,  sq.).  There  was  also  a transit-tax  ‘ of  the 
merchantmen,  and  of  the  traffic  of  the  spice-mer- 
chants, and  of  all  the  kings  of  Arabia,  and  of 
the  governors  of  the  country’  (1  Kings  x.  15). 
Ships  and  other  public  property  belonged  to  the 
king  (1  Kings  x.  28;  ix.  26;  xxii.  49):  the 
weight  of  gold  that  came  to  Solomon  in  one  year 
(independently  of  several  sources)  was  676  talents 
(1  Kings  x.  14).— J.R.  B. 

TEASHUR  occurs  in  three  places 

in  Scripture,  but  great  uncertainty  has  alwfays 
existed  respecting  its  true  meaning  (Cels.  Hiero- 
bot.  ii.  153)  ; though  it  is  now  generally  ac- 
knowledged to  denote  the  box-tree.  There  is  no 
philological  proof  of  this  conclusion,  but  yet 
there  is  nothing  in  the  tree  indicated  unsuitable 
to  the  several  contexts.  Thus,  with  reference  to 
the  future  temple,  it  is  said  (Isa.  lx.  13),  ‘ The 
glory  of  Lebanon  shall  come  unto  thee,  the  fir-tree, 
the  pine-tree,  and  the  box  together ;’  and  at  xli.  19, 
4 1 will  set  in  the  desert  the  fir-tree,  and  the  pine, 
and  the  box  together.’  Further  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  6, 
in  the  account  of  the  arts  and  commerce  of  Tyre, 
we  read,  4 Of  the  oaks  of  Bashan  have  they  made 


tnine  oars,  and  the  benches  of  the  rowa-s  are  made 
of  ashur-xoood,  inlaid  with  ivory,’  as  it  is  now 
Tonally  interpreted.  The  ashur-wood,  moreover, 

VOL.  ii.  54 


TEENAH.  933 

is  said  to  have  been  brought  from  the  isle*  oS 
Chittim,  that  is,  of  Greece. 

The  box  (buxus  sempervirens)  is  a native  of 
most  parts  of  Europe.  It  grows  well  in  England, 
as  at  Boxhill,  &c.,  while  that  from  the  Levant  is 
most  valued  in  commerce,  in  consequence  of  its 
being  highly  esteemed  by  wood-engravers.  Turkey 
box  is  yielded  by  buxus  Balearica,  a species  which 
is  found  in  Minorca,  Sardinia,  and  Corsica,  and 
also  in  both  European  and  Asiatic  Turkey,  and  is 
imported  from  Constantinople,  Smyrna,  and  the 
Black  Sea.  Box  is  also  found  on  Mount  Caucasus, 
and  a species  extends  even  to  the  Himalaya 
mountains.  Hence  it  is  well  known  to  Asiatics, 
and  is  the  shumshad  of  the  Arabs.  It  is  much 
employed  in  the  present  day  by  the  wood  en- 
graver, the  turner,  carver,  mathematical  instru- 
ment maker,  and  the  comb  and  flute  maker.  It 
was  cultivated  by  the  Romans,  as  described  by 
Pliny.  Virgil  (JEn.  x.  135)  alludes  to  the  prac- 
tice of  its  being  inlaid  with  ivory — 

Quale  per  artem 

Inclusum  buxo,  aut  Oriciii  terebintho, 

Lucet  ebur. 

The  box-tree,  being  a native  of  mountainous 
regions,  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  calcareous 
formations  of  Mount  Lebanon,  and  therefore 
likely  to  be  brought  from  theiice  with  the  coni- 
ferous woods  for  the  building  of  the  temple,  and 
was  as  well  suited  as  the  fir  and  the  pine  trees  for 
changing  the  face  of  the  desert. — J.  F.  R. 

TEBETH  (n3tp),  the  tenth  month  (Esth.  ii. 
16)  of  the  sacred  year  of  the  Hebrews,  com- 
menced with  the  new  moon  in  December,  and 
terminated  at  the  new  moon  in  January.  The 
Egyptians  called  it  To/3i  or  TwjSt,  and  it  was 
their  fifth  month.  Hieronymus  has  the  following 
comment  upon  Ezek.  xxix.  1 : 4 Decimus  mensis, 
qui  Hebraeis  appellatur  Tebeth,  et  apud  Aegyptios 
Tvfii,  apud  Romanos  Jauuarius.’  In  Arabic  it 
is  called  fQHD,  in  Greek  Tu/3 t or  T^/3,  and  in 
Sanscrit  TArAs. — C.  H.  F.  B. 

TEENAH  (iTIXF))  is  universally  translated 
fig  and  fig-tree , in  both  ancient  and  modern  ver- 
sions, and,  no  doubt,  correctly  so  : it  has  from  the 
earliest  times  been  a highly  esteemed  fruit  in  the 
East,  and  its  present,  as  well  as  ancient  Arabic 
name,  is  teen.  The  fig-tree,  though  now  success- 
fully cultivated  in  a great  part  of  Europe,  even  as 
far  north  as  the  southern  parts  of  England,  is  yet 
a native  of  the  East,  and  probably  of  the  Persian 
region,  where  it  is  most  extensively  cultivated. 
The  climate  there  is  such  that  the  tree  must  neces- 
sarily be  able  to  bear  some  degree  of  cold,  and  thus 
be  fitted  to  travel  northwards,  and  ripen  its  fruit 
where  there  is  a sufficient  amount  and  continuance 
of  summer  heat.  The  fig  is  still  extensively  cul- 
tivated in  the  East,  and  in  a dried  state,  strung 
upon  cords,  it  forms  an  extensive  article  of  com- 
merce from  Persia  to  India.  Athenaeus,  as 
quoted  by  Rosenmiiller,  states  that.  Amitrochates, 
an  Indian  king,  in  a letter,  begged  Antiochus  to 
send  him  at  his  own  expense,  ‘sweet  wine,  dried 
figs,  and  a sophist.' 

The  fig  is  mentioned  in  so  many  passages  of 
Scripture,  that  our  space  will  not  allow  us  to 
enumerate  them,  but  they  are  detailed  by  Celsius 
{Hierobot.  ii.  p.  368).  The  first  notice  of  it,  how- 
ever, occurs  in  Gen.  iii.  7,  where  Adam  and  Evs 


934 


TEIL  TREE. 


TEMPLE. 


are  dssc  ribetl  as  sewing  fig-leaves  together,  to  make 
themselves  aprons.  The  common  fig-leaf  is  not 


•o  well  suited,  from  its  lobed  nature,  for  this  pur- 
pose ; but  the  practice  of  sewing  or  pinning  leaves 
together  is  very  common  in  the  East  even  in  the 
present  day,  and  baskets,  dishes,  and  umbrellas, 
are  made  of  leaves  so  pinned  or  sewn  together.  The 
fig-tree  is  enumerated  (Dent.  viii.  8)  as  one  of  the 
valuable  products  of  Palestine,  ‘ a land  of  wheat, 
and  barley,  and  vines,  and  fig-trees,  and  pomegra- 
nates.’ The  spies,  who  were  sent  from  the  wilder- 
ness of  Paran,  brought  back  from  the  brook  of 
Eshcol,  clusters  of  grapes,  pomegranates,  and  figs. 
The  fig-tree  is  referred  to  as  one  of  the  signs  of 
prosperity  (1  Kings  iv.  25),  ‘And  Judah  and  Israel 
dwelt  safely,  every  man  under  his  vine  and  under 
his  fig-tree.’  And  its  failure  is  noted  as  a sign  of 
affliction  (Ps.  cv.  33),  ‘ He  smote  their  fig-trees,  and 
broke  the  trees  of  their  coasts.’  The  very  frequent 
references  which  are  made  in  the  Old  Testament 
to  the  fig  and  other  fruit  trees,  are  in  consequence 
of  fruits  forming  a much  more  important  article 
of  diet  in  the  warm  and  dry  countries  of  the  East, 
than  they  can  ever  do  in  the  cold  and  moist 
regions  of  the  North.  Figs  are  also  used  medi- 
cinally, and  we  have  a notice  in  2 Kings  xx.  7,  of 
their  employment  as  a poultice : ‘ And  Isaiah  said, 
Take  a lump  of  figs ; and  they  took  and  laid  it  on 
the  boil,  and  he  recovered.’  The  fig-tree  is,  more- 
over, mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  by  its 
Greek  name  ervurj  ,by  all  the  Evangelists.  The 
passages  have  been  fully  illustrated  by  the  several 
commentators. — J.  F.  R. 

TEIL-TREE  is  the  linden-tree,  or  Tilia  Eu- 
ropeans of  botanists.  It  is  mentioned  in  the 
Authorized  Version,  in  Isa.  vi.  13,  ‘as  a teil- 
tree,  and  as  an  oak ;’  but  as  in  the  Hebrew  the 
word  alah,  or  turpentine  tree,  is  used,  there  is 
no  reason  for  giving  it  a different  signification  in 
this  from  what  it  has  in  other  passages  [Alah]. 

TEKEL.  [Mene,  &c.] 

TEKOA  (yipW  ; Sept,  ©e/ewe),  a city  south 
of  Bethlehem,  mi  the  borders  of  the  desert  to 


which  it  gave  name,  and  noted  as  the  residenoi 
of  ‘ the  wise  woman  ’ who  interceded  for  Absa- 
lom ; as  one  of  the  towns  fortified  by  Rehoboam  ; 
and  as  the  birthplace  of  the  prophet  Amos  (2  Sam. 
xiv.  2 ; 1 Chron.  ii.  24 ; 2 Chron.  xx.  20 ; Jer. 
vi.  1 ; Amos  i.  1).  The  site  has  long  been  known  ; 
it  lies  six  miles  south  of  Bethlehem,  on  an  ele- 
vated hill,  not  steep,  but  broad  at  the  top,  and 
covered  with  ruins  to  tlie  extent  of  four  or  five 
acres.  These  consist  chiefly  of  the  foundations 
of  houses  built  of  squared  stones,  some  of  which 
are  bevilled.  The  mMdle  of  the  space  is  occupied 
by  the  ruins  of  a Greek  church.  The  site  com- 
mands extensive  prospects,  and  towards  the  east 
is  bounded  only  by  the  level  mountains  of  Moab. 
Before  and  during  the  Crusades  Tekoa  was  well 
inhabited  by  Christians  ; but  in  a.d.  1138  it  was 
sacked  by  a party  of  Turks  from  beyond  the 
Jordan,  and  nothing  further  is  known  of  it  till 
the  seventeenth  century,  when  it  lay  desolate,  as 
it  has  ever  since  done  (Robinson,  Bib.  Researches , 
ii.  182-184;  Raumer,  Paliistina,  p.  219;  Turner, 
Tour,  ii.  210  ; Irby  and  Mangles,  p.  344). 

TELEM  (D^tD),  a city  in  Judah  (Josh.  xv. 
24).  According  to  Kimchi  and  others,  it  is  the 
same  which  is  called  Telaim  in  1 Sam.  xv.  4. 

TEMA  (NJp'Fl ; Sept.  ©aupav),  a tract  and 
people  in  the  northern  part  of  the  Arabian  desert, 
adjacent  to  the  Syrian  desert,  so  called  from 
Tema,  the  son  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  15 ; Job 
vi.  19;  Isa.  xxi.  14;  Jer.  xxv.  23).  This  tfuct 

is  still  called  Ia**’  Tema , by  the  Arabs,  and 

corresponds  to  the  ®a?pa  of  Ptolemy  ( Geog . vi. 
p.  179)  [Arabia]. 

TEMAN  (jft'Fl;  Sept.  Qaipdv),  a grandson 
of  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.  11,  15);  also  a city,  region, 
and  people  on  the  east  of  Idumaea  sprung  from 
him  (Gen.  xxxvi.  42;  Jer.  xlix.  7;  Ezek. 
xxv.  13  ; Amos  i.  1 1,  12  ; Obad.  9).  Like  off  er 
Arabs  (1  Kings  v.  12),  the  Temanites  were  cele- 
brated for  wisdom  (Jer.  xlix.  7 ; Bar.  iii.  22,  2<* ; 
comp.  Job  ii.  11  ; xxi.  1). 

TEMANITE,  one  belonging  to  the  tribe  Qr 
country  of  Tema  (Job  ii.  11;  xxi.  1). 

temple  (^'nn,  or  pin;  mp 

nirp  rva,  rva,  !?Nrv2).  The  word 

is  a participial  noun  from  the  root  ^DJI, 
caper e,  excipere,  and  reminds  us  strongly  of  the 
Roman  templum,  from  repevos,  rtpvu,  locus  libe- 
ratus  et  effatus.  When  an  augur  had  defined  a 
space  in  which  he  intended  to  make  his  observa- 
tions, he  fixed  his  tent  in  it  (tabernaculum  capere ), 
with  planks  and  curtains.  In  the  arx  this  was  not 
necessary  because  there  was  a permanent  augura - 
culum.  The  Septuagint  translation  usually  ren- 
ders ‘ temple,’  by  oIkos  or  va6s,  but  in  the 

Apocrypha  and  the  New  Testament  it  is  gene- 
rally called  t b Up6v.  Rabbinical  appellation* 
are  KHpftH  JV3,  the  house  of  sanctuary , 
irmnn  ITO,  the  chosen  house,  JV3,  th« 

house  of  ages,  because  the  ark  was  not  transferred 
from  it,  as  it  was  from  Gilgal  after  24,  from  Shiloh 
after  369,  from  Nob  after  13,  and  from  Giboou 


TEMPLE. 


TEMPLE. 


after  50  years.  It  is  also  called  jlJJD.  After  the 
Israelites  had  exchanged  their  nomadic  life  for 
ft  life  in  permanent  habitations,  it  was  becoming 
that  they  should  exchange  also  their  moveable 
sanctuary  or  tabernacle  for  a temple.  There 
elapsed,  however,  after  the  conquest  of  Palestine, 
several  centuries  during  which  the  sanctuary  con- 
tinued moveable,  although  the  nation  became 
more  and  more  stationary.  It  appears  that  the 
first  who  planned  the  erection  of  a stone-built 
sanctuary  was  David,  who,  when  he  was  inhabit- 
ing his  house  of  cedar,  and  God  had  given  him 
rest  from  all  his  enemies,  meditated  the  design  of 
building  a temple  in  which  the  ark  of  God  might 
be  placed,  instead  of  being  deposited  ‘ within 
curtains,’  or  in  a tent,  as  hitherto.  This  design 
was  at  first  encouraged  by  the  prophet  Nathan  ; 
but  he  was  afterwards  instructed  to  tell  David 
that  such  a work  was  less  appropriate  for  him,  who 
had  been  a warrior  from  his  youth,  and  had  shed 
much  blood,  than  for  his  son,  who  should  enjoy 
in  prosperity  and  peace  the  rewards  of  his  father’s 
victories.  Nevertheless,  the  design  itself  was 
highly  approved  as  a token  of  proper  feelings 
towards  the  Divine  King  (2  Sam.  vii.  1-12;  1 
Chron.  xvii,  1-14;  xxviii.).  We  learn,  more- 
over, from  1 Kings  v.,  and  1 Chron.  xxii.,  that 
David  had  collected  materials  which  were  after- 
wards employed  in  the  erection  of  the  temple, 
which  was  commenced  four  years  after  his  death, 
about  B.c.  1012,  in  the  second  month,  that  is,  the 
month  of  Siv  (compare  1 Kings  vi.  1 ; 2 Chron. 
iii.  2),  four  hundred  and  eighty  years  after  the 
Exodus  from  Egypt.  We  thus  learn  that  the 
Israelitish  sanctuary  had  remained  moveable 
more  than  four  centuries  subsequent  to  the  con- 
quest of  Canaan.  ‘ In  the  fourth  year  of  Solo- 
mon’s reign  was  the  foundation  of  the  house  of 
the  Lord  laid,  in  the  month  Siv  : and  in  the 
eleventh  year,  in  the  month  Bui,  which  is  the 
eighth  month,  was  the  house  finished  through- 
out all  the  parts  thereof,  and  according  to  all  the 
fashion  of  it.  So  was  he  seven  years  in  build- 
ing it.’ 

The  site  of  the  temple  is  clearly  stated  in 
2 Chron.  iii.  1 : 4 Then  Solomon  began  to  build 
the  house  of  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem  in  Mount 
Moriah,  where  the  Lord  appeared  unto  David  his 
father,  in  the  place  that  David  had  prepared  in 
the  threshing-floor  of  Oman  (or  Araunah)  the 
Jebusite.’  In  south-eastern  countries  the  site  of 
the  threshing-floors  is  selected  according  to  the 
same  principles  which  might  guide  us  in  the  se- 
lection of  the  site  of  windmills.  We  find  them 
usually  on  the  tops  of  hills,  which  are  on  all  sides 
exposed  to  the  winds,  the  current  of  which  is  re- 
quired in  order  to  separate  the  grain  from  the 
chaff.  It  seems  that  the  summit  of  Moriah, 
although  large  enough  for  the  agricultural  pur- 
poses of  Araunah,  had  no  level  sufficient  for  the 
plans  of  Solomon.  According  to  Josephus  (De 
Bell.  Jud.  v.  5),  the  foundations  of  the  temple 
were  laid  on  a steep  eminence,  the  summit  of 
which  was  at  first  insufficient  for  the  temple  and 
altar.  As  it  was  surrounded  by  precipices  it 
became  necessary  to  build  up  walls  and  buttresses 
in  order  to  gain  more  ground  by  filling  up  the 
interval  with  earth.  The  hill  was  also  fortified 
by  a threefold  wall,  the  lowest  tier  of  which  was 
in  some  places  more  than  300  cubits  high  ; and 
the  depth  of  the  foundation  was  not  visible,  be- 


835 

cause  it  had  been  necessary  in  some  parts  to  dig 
deep  into  the  ground  in  order  to  obtain  sufficient 
support.  The  dimensions  of  the  stones  of  which 
the  walls  were  composed  were  enormous;  Jose- 
phus mentions  a length  of  40  cubits.  It  is,  how- 
ever, likely  that  some  parts  of  the  fortifications 
of  Moriah  were  added  at  a later  period.  The 
characteristics  of  the  site  of  the  Solomonic  temple 
have  undergone  so  many  changes  that  it  is  at 
present  scarcely  possible  to  discern  them.  Nie- 
buhr gave  an  accurate  description  of  what  he 
found,  illustrated  by  a map,  in  the  Deutsches 
Museum , 1784,  vol.  i.  p.  448,  sq. ; ii.  137,  sq. ; 
and  also  in  the  third  volume  of  his  travels  (eomp. 
also  Mishna,  Middoth,  ii?  4). 

The  workmen  and  the  materials  employed  in 
the  erection  of  the  temple  were  chiefly  procured 
by  Solomon  from  Hiranrt,  king  of  Tyre,  who  was 
rewarded  by  a liberal  importation  of  wheat. 
Josephus  states  that  duplicates  of  the  letters 
which  passed  between  Solomon  and  king  Hiram 
were  still  extant  in  his  time,  both  at  Jerusalem 
and  among  the  Tyrian  records.  He  informs  us 
that  the  persons  employed  in  collecting  and  ar- 
ranging the  materials  for  the  temple  were  ordered 
to  search  out  the  largest  stones  for  the  foundation, 
and  to  prepare  them  for  use  on  the  mountains 
where  they  were  procured,  and  then  convey  them 
to  Jerusalem.  In  this  part  of  the  business 
Hiram’s  men  were  ordered  to  assist. 

Josephus  adds,  that  the  foundation  was  sunk 
to  an  astonishing  depth,  and  composed  of  stones 
of  singular  magnitude,  and  very  durable.  Being 
closely  mortised  into  the  rock  with  great  ingenuity, 
they  formed  a basis  adequate  to  the  support  of  the 
intended  structure.  Josephus  gives  to  the  temple 
the  same  length  and  breadth  as  are  given  in  l Kings, 
but  mentions  60  cubits  as  the  height.  He  says 
that  the  walls  were  composed  entirely  of  white 
stone ; that  the  walls  and  ceilings  were  wainscoted 
with  cedar,  which  was  covered  with  the  purest 
gold  ; that  the  stones  were  put  together  with  such 
ingenuity  that  the  smallest  interstices  were  not 
perceptible,  and  that  the  timbers  were  joined  with 
iron  cramps. 

The  temple  itself  and  its  utensils  are  described 
in  1 Kings  vi.  and  vii.,  and  2 Chron.  iii. 
and  iv. 

Divines  and  architects  have  repeatedly  en- 
deavoured to  represent  the  architectural  propor- 
tions of  the  temple,  which  was  60  cubits  long, 
20  wide,  and  30  high.  Josephus,  however 
( Antiq . viii.  3.  2),  says,  ‘ The  temple  was  60 
cubits  high  and  60  cubits  in  length ; and  the 
breadth  was  20  cubits ; above  this  was  another 
stage  of  equal  dimensions,  so  that  the  height  of 
the  whole  structure  was  120  cubits.’  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  reconcile  this  statement  with  that  given 
in  1 Kings,  unless  we  suppose  that  the  words 
leros  rods  fierpois,  equal  in  measures , do  not 
signify  an  equality  in  all  dimensions,  but  only 
as  much  as  equal  in  the  number  of  cubits ; so  that 
the  porch  formed  a kind  of  steeple,  which  pro- 
jected as  much  above  the  roof  of  the  temple  as 
the  roof  itself  was  elevated  above  its  foundations. 
As  the  Chronicles  agree  with  Josephus  in  assert- 
ing that  the  summit  of  the  porch  was  120  cubits 
high,  there  remains  still  another  apparent  con- 
tradiction to  be  solved,  namely,  how  Josephua 
could  assert  that  the  temple  itself  was  60  cubits 
high,  while  we  read  in  1 Kings  that  its  height  w^a 


936 


TEMPLE, 


TEMPLE. 


only  30  cubits.  We  supjxwe  that  in  the  book  of 
Kings  the  internal  elevation  of  the  sanctuary  is 
stated,  and  that  Josephus  describes  its  external 
elevation,  which,  including  the  basement  and 
an  upper  story  (which  may  have  existed,  con- 
sisting of  rooms  for  . the  accommodation  of 
priests,  containing  also  vestries  and  treasuries), 
might  be  doubly  the  internal  height  of  the 
sanctuary.  The  internal  dimension  of  the  ‘holy,’ 

which  was  called  in  preference  was  40 

cubits  long,  20  cubits  wide,  and  30  cubits  high. 
The  holy  was  separated  from  the  ‘ holy  of  holies  ’ 
(Y2*l)  by  a partition,  a large  opening  in  which 
was  closed  by  a suspended  curtain.  The  holy 
of  holies  was  on  the  western  extremity  of  the 
entire  building,  and  its  internal  dimensions 
formed  a cube  of  20  cubits.  On  the  eastern 

extremity  of  the  building  stood  the  porch, 
vp6va.os.  At  the  entrance  of  tjiis  pronaos  stood 
the  two  columns  called.  Jackin  and  Boaz,  which 
were  23  cubits  high. 

The  temple  was  also  surrounded  by  three 
stories  of  chambers , each  of  which  stories  was 
five  cubits  high,  so  that  there  remained  above 
ample  space  for  introducing  the  windows,  re- 
quisite more  for  ventilation  than  for  the  admis- 
sion of  light  into  the  sanctuary.  Now  the  state- 
ment of  Josephus,  who  says,  that  each  of  these 
stories  of  chambers  (JYiy^V)  was  20  cubits  high, 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  biblical  statements, 
and  may  prove  that  he  was  no  very  close  reader 
of  his  authorities.  Perhaps  he  had  a vague  kind 
of  information  that  the  chambers  reached  half- 
way up  the  height  of  the  building,  and  taking 
the  maximum  height  of  120  cubits  instead  of  the 
internal  height  of  the  holy,  he  made  each  story 
four  times  too  high.  The  windows  which  are 
mentioned  in  1 Kings  vi.  4,  consisted  probably 
of  lattice-work. 

The  lowest  story  of  the  chambers  was  five 
cubits,  the  middle  six,  and  the  third  seven  cubits 
wide.  This  difference  of  the  width  arose  from 
the  circumstance  that  the  external  walls  of  the 
temple  were  so  thick  that  they  were  made  to 
recede  one  cubit  after  an  elevation  of  five  feet,  so 
that  the  scarcement  in  the  wall  of  the  temple 
gave  a firm  support  to  the  beams  which  supported 
the  second  story,  without  being  inserted  into  the 
wall  of  the  sanctuary  ; which  insertion  was  perhaps 
avoided  not  merely  for  architectural  reasons,  but 
also  because  it  appeared  to  be  irreverent.  The 
third  story  was  supported  likewise  by  a similar 
scarcement,  which  afforded  a still  wider  space  for 
the  chamber  of  the  third  story.  These  observa- 
tions will  render  intelligible  the  following  bib- 
lical statements  : — ‘And  against  the  wall  of  the 
house  he  built  stories  round  about,  both  of  the 
temple  and  of  the  oracle  : and  he  made  chambers 
round  about:  the  nethermost  story  was  five 
cubits  broad,  and  the  middle  was  six  cubits 
broad,  and  the  third  was  seven  cubits  broad  : for 
without  in  the  wall  of  the  house  he  made 
narrowed  rests  (JTljnSD,  narrowings  or  rebate- 
men  ts)  roundabout,  so  that  the  beams  should  not 
be  fastened  in  the  walls  of  the  house.  The  house, 
when  it  was  in  building,  was  built  of  stone  made 
ready  before  it  was  brought  thither  : so  that  there 
was  neither  hammer,  nor  axe,  nor  any  tool  of  iron 
beard  in  the  house  while  it  was  in  building.  The 


door  of  the  middle  story  was  in  the  right  side  of 
the  house  : and  they  went  up  with  winding  stair* 
into  the  middle  story,  and  out  of  the  middle  into 
the  third.  So  he  built  the  house,  and  finished  it; 
and  covered  the  house  with  beams  and  boards  of 
cedar.  And  then  he  built  chambers  against  ail 
the  house,  five  cubits  high  : and  they  rested  on 
the  house  with  timber  of  cedar  ’ (1  Kings  vi.  7). 

From  this  description  it  may  be  inferred,  tliat 
the  entrance  to  these  stories  was  from  without ; 
but  some  architects  have  supposed  that  it  was 
from  within ; which  arrangement  seems  to  be 
against  the  general  aim  of  impressing  the  Israel- 
itish  worshippers  with  sacred  awe  bv  the  seclu- 
sion of  their  sanctuary. 

In  reference  to  the  windows  it  should  be  ob- 
served, that  they  served  chiefly  for  ventilation, 
since  the  light  within  the  temple  was  obtained 
from  the  sacred  candlesticks.  It  seems  from  the 
descriptions  of  the  temple  to  be  certain  that  the 
oracle , or  holy  of  holies,  was  an  adytum 
without  windows.  To  this  fact  Solomon  seems  to 
refer  when  he  spake,  ‘The  Lord  said  that  he 
would  dwell  in  the  thick  darkness*  (1  Kings  viii. 
12). 

The  TO*!,  oracle , had  perhaps  no  other  opening 
besides  the  entrance,  which  was,  as  we  may  infer 
from  the  prophetic  visions  of  Ezekiel  (which  pro- 
bably correspond  with  the  historic  temple  of 
Solomon)  six  cubits  wide. 

From  1 Kings  vii.  10,  we  learn  that  the  private 
dwellings  of  Solomon  were  built  of  massive  stone. 
We  hence  infer,  that  the  framework  of  the  temple 
also  consisted  of  the  same  material.  The  temple 
was,  however,  wainscoted  with  cedar  wood,  which 
was  covered  with  gold.  The  boards  within  the 
temple  were  ornamented  by  beautiful  carvings 
representing  cherubim,  palms,  and  flowers.  The 
ceiling  of  the  temple  was  supported  by  beams 
of  cedar  wood  (comp.  Ekes  ; Pliny,  Hist.  Nat. 
xvi.  69).  The  wall  which  separated  the  holy 
from  the  holy  of  holies,  probably  consisted  not 
of  stone,  but  of  beams  of  cedar.  It  seems, 
further,  that  the  partitions  partly  consisted  of  an 
opus  reticulatum ; so  that  the  incense  could 
spread  from  the  holy  to  the  most  holy.  This  we 
infer  from  1 Kings  vi.  21  : ‘So  Solomon  overlaid 
the  house  within  with  pure  gold  : and  he  made  a 
partition  by  the  chains  of  gold  before  the  oracle; 
and  he  overlaid  it  with  gold.’ 

The  floor  of  the  temple  was  throughout  of  cedar, 
but  boarded  over  with  planks  of  fir  (1  Kings  vi. 
15).  The  doors  of  the  oracle  were  composed  of 
olive-tree;  but  the  doors  of  the  outer  temple  had 
posts  of  olive-tree,  and  leaves  of  fir  (1  Kings  vi. 
31,  sq.).  Both  doors,  as  well  that  which  led  into 
the  temple  as  that  which  led  from  the  holy  to  the 
holy  of  holies,  had  folding  leaves,  which,  however, 
seem  to  have  been  usually  kept  open,  the  aper- 
ture being  closed  by  a suspended  curtain — a con- 
trivance still  seen  at  the  church-doors  in  Italy, 
where  the  church-doors  usually  stand  open,  but 
the  doorways  can  be  passed  only  by  moving  aside 
a heavy  curtain.  From  2 Chron.  iii.  5,  it  appears 
that  the  greater  house  was  also  ceiled  with  fir.  It 
is  stated  in  ver.  9,  ‘ that  the  weight  of  the  nails 
employed  in  the  temple  was  fif  y shekels  of  gold.* 
And  also  that  Solomon  ‘ overlaid  the  upper  cham- 
bers with  gold.’ 

The  lintel  and  side  posts  of  the  oracle  seem  to 
bare  circumscribed  a space  which  contained  oao- 


TEMPLE. 


TEMPLE. 


flLth  of  the  whole  area  of  the  partition  ; and  the 
posts  of  the  door  of  the  temple  one-fourth  of  the 
area  of  the  wall  in  which  they  were  placed.  Thus 
we  understand  the  passage,  1 Kings  vi.  31-35, 
which  also  states  that  the  door  was  covered  wit'j 
carved  work  overlaid  witli  gold. 

Within  the  holy  of  holies  stood  only  the  ark  of 
the  covenant;  but  within  the  holy  were  ten  golden 
candlesticks,  and  the  altar  of  incense  (comp,  the 
separate  articles). 

The  temple  was  surrounded  by  an  inner  court, 
which  in  Chronicles  is  called  the  Court  of  the 
Priests,  and  in  Jeremiah  the  Upper  Court.  This 
again  was  surrounded  by  a wall  consisting  of  cedar 
beams  placed  on  a stone  foundation  (1  Kings  vi. 
36) : ‘ And  he  built  the  inner  court  with  three 
rows  of  hewed  stone,  and  a row  of  cedar  beams.’ 
This  inclosure,  according  to  Josephus  (. Antiq . 
viii.  3,  9),  was  three  cubits  high.  Besides  this 
inner  court,  there  is  mentioned  a Great  Court  (2 
Chron.  iv.  9)  : ‘Furthermore  he  made  the  court 
of  the  priests,  and  the  great  court,  and  doors  for 
‘lie  court,  and  overlaid  the  doors  of  them  with 
)rass.’  It  seems  that  this  was  also  called  the 
Outward  Court  (comp.  Ezek.  xiv.  17).  This 
court  was  also  more  especially  called  the  court  of 
the  Lord’s  house  (Jer.  xix.  12 ; xxvi.  2).  These 
courts  were  surrounded  by  spacious  buildings, 
which,  however,  according  to  Josephus  (De  Bell. 
Jud.  v.  5.  1),  seem  to  have  been  partly  added  at  a 
period  later  than  that  of  Solomon.  For  instance 
(2  Kings  xv.  35),  Jotham  is  said  to  have  built 
the  higher  gate  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  in  Jer. 
xxvi.  10,  and  xxxvi.  10,  there  is  mentioned  a 
New  gate  (comp,  also  Ezek.  xl.  5-47  ; xlii.  1- 
14).  But  this  prophetic  vision  is  not  strictly  his- 
torical, although  it  may  serve  to  illustrate  history 
(comp,  also  Joseph.  Antiq.  viii.  3.  9).  The  third 
entry  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  mentioned  in  Jer. 
xxxviii.  14,  does  not  seem  to  indicate  that  there 
were  three  courts,  but  appears  to  mean  that  the 
entry  into  the  outer  court  was  called  the  first,  that 
into  the  inner  court  the  second,  and  the  door  of  the 
sanctuary  the  third.  It  is  likely  that  these  courts 
were  quadrilateral.  In  the  divisions  of  Ezekiel 
they  form  a square  of  four  hundred  cubits.  The 
inner  court  contained  towards  the  east  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering,  the  brazen  sea,  and  ten  brazen 
lavers ; and  it  seems  that  the  sanctuary  did  not 
stand  in  the  centre  of  the  inner  court,  but  more 
towards  the  west.  From  these  descriptions  we 
learn  that  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  not  distin- 
guished by  magnitude,  but  by  good  architectural 
proportions,  beauty  of  workmanship,  and  costli- 
ness of  materials.  Many  of  our  churches  have 
an  external  form  not  unlike  that  of  the  temple  of 
Solomon.  In  fact,  this  temple  seems  to  have 
been  the  pattern  of  our  church  buildings,  to  which 
the  chief  addition  has  been  the  Gothic  arch. 
Among  others,  the  Roman  Catholic  church  at 
Dresden  is  supposed  to  bear  much  resemblance 
to  the  temple  of  Solomon. 

It  is  remarkable  that  after  the  temple  was 
finished,  it  w*not  consecrated  by  the  high  priest, 
but  by  a layman,  by  the  king  in  person,  by  means 
of  extempore  prayers  and  sacrifices.  The  temple 
remained  the  centre  of  public  worship  for  all  the 
Israelites  only  till  the  death  of  Solomon,  after 
which  ten  tribes  forsook  this  sanctuary.  But  even 
in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  it  was  from  time  to 
time  desecrated  by  altars  erected  to  idols.  For 


instance,  ‘ Manasseh  built  altars  for  all  the  host 
of  heaven  in  the  two  courts  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord.  And  he  caused  his  son  to  pass  through  tin# 
Ire,  and  observed  times,  and  used  enchantments, 
and  dealt  with  familiar  spirits  and  wizards:  he 
wrought  much  wickedness  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord 
to  provoke  him  to  anger.  And  he  set  a graven 
image  of  the  grove  that  he  had  made  in  the  house/ 
&c.  Thus  we  find  also  that  king  Josiah  com- 
manded Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  and  the  priests  ol 
the  second  order,  to  remove  the  idols  of  Baa)  and 
Asherah  from  the  house  of  the  Lord  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  4,  13)  : ‘ And  the  altars  that  were  on  the  top 
of  the  upper  chamber  of  Ahaz,  which  the  kings  of 
Judah  had  made,  and  the  altars  which  Manasseh 
had  made  in  the  two  courts  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord,  did  the  king  beat  down,  and  brake  them 
down  from  thence,  and  cast  the  dust  of  them  into 
the  brook  Kidron.’  In  fact,  we  are  informed  that 
in  spite  of  the  better  means  of  public  devotion 
which  the  sanctuary  undoubtedly  afforded,  the 
national  morals  declined  so  much  that  the  chosen 
nation  became  worse  than  the  idolaters  whom 
the  Lord  destroyed  before  the  children  of  Israel  (2 
Kings  xxi.  9) — a clear  proof  that  the  possession  of 
external  means  is  not  a guarantee  for  their  right 
use.  It  appears  also  that,  during  the  times  when 
it  was  fashionable  at  court  to  worship  Baal,  the 
temple  stood  desolate,  and  that  its  repairs  were 
neglected  (see  2 Kings  xii.  6,  7).  We  further 
learn  that  the  cost  of  the  repairs  was  defrayed 
chiefly  by  voluntary  contribution,  by  offerings, 
and  by  redemption  money  (2  Kings  xii.  4,  5). 
The  original  cost  of  the  temple  seems  to  have  been 
defrayed  by  royal  bounty,  and  in  great  measure 
by  treasures  collected  by  David  for  that  purpose. 

There  was  a treasury  in  the  temple,  in  which 
much  precious  metal  was  collected  for  the  main- 
tenance of  public  worship.  The  gold  and  silver 
of  the  temple  was,  however,  frequently  applied  to 
political  purposes  (1  Kings  xv.  18,  sq. ; 2 Kings 
xii.  18;  xvi.  8;  xviii.  15).  The  treasury  of  the 
temple  was  repeatedly  plundered  by  foreign  in- 
vaders. For  instance,  by  Shishak  (1  Kings  xiv. 
26);  by  Jehoash,  king  of  Israel  (2  Kings  xiv. 
14);  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxiv.  13); 
and  lastly,  again  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  who,  hav- 
ing removed  the  valuable  contents,  caused  the 
Temple  to  be  burned  down  (2  Kings  xxv.  9,  sq.), 
B.c.  588.  The  building  had  stood  since  its  com- 
pletion 417  or  418  years  (Josephus  has  470,  and 
Ruffinus  370  years).  Tims  terminated  what  the 
later  Jews  called  1V3,  the  first  house. 

In  many  writers  on  the  temple  the  biblical  state- 
ments concerning  the  first,  or  Solomon's  temple, 
are  confounded  not  merely  with  the  temple  in  the 
prophetic  visions  of  Ezekiel,  but  also  with  descrip- 
tions of  the  tempi ; erected  by  Zerubbabel,  and 
even  with  the  later  structures  of  Herod.  This 
confusion  we  have  endeavoured  to  avoid  in  the 
foregoing  statements. 

The  Second  Temple. — In  the  year  b.c.  536 
the  Jews  obtained  permission  from  Cyrus  to  colo- 
nise their  native  land.  Cyrus  commanded  also 
that  the  sacred  utensils  which  had  been  pillaged 
from  the  first  temple  should  be  restored,  and  that 
for  the  restoration  of  the  temple  assistance  should 
be  granted  (Ezra  i.  and  vi. ; 2 Chr.  xxxvi.  22, 
sq.).  The  first  colony  which  returned  under 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  Having  collected  the  De> 
cessary  means,  and  having  also  obtained  th3 


838 


TEMPLE. 


TEMPLE. 


gistance  of  Phoenician  workmen,  commenced  in 
the  second  year  after  their  return,  b.c.  534,  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple.  TheSidonians  brought 
rafts  of  cedar  trees  from  Lebanon  to  Joppa.  The 
Jews  refused  the  co-operation  of  the  Samaritans, 
who  being  thereby  offended,  induced  the  king 
Artasashta  (probably  Smerdis)  to  prohibit  the 
building.  And  it  was  only  in  the  second  year  of 
Darius  Hystaspis,  B.c.  520,  that  the  building  was 
resumed.  It  was  completed  in  the  sixth  year  of 
this  king,  B.c.  516  (compare  Ezra  v.  and  vi. ; 
and  Haggai  i.  15).  According  to  Josephus 
{Antiq.  xi.  4.  7)  the  temple  was  completed  in  the 
ninth  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius. 

Tins  second  temple  was  erected  on  the  site  of 
the  former,  and  probably  after  the  same  plan. 
According  to  the  plan  of  Cyrus,  the  new  temple 
was  sixty  cubits  high  and  sixty  cubits  wide. 
It  appears  from  Josephus,  that  the  height  is  to  be 
understood  of  the  porch,  for  we  learn  from  the 
speech  of  Herod  which  he  records,  that  the  second 
temple  was  sixty  cubits  lower  than  the  first,  whose 
porch  was  120  cubits  high  (comp.  Joseph.  Antiq, 
xv.  11.  1).  The  old  men  who  had  seen  the 
first  temple  were  moved  to  tears  on  beholding 
the  second,  which  appeared  like  nothing  in  com- 
parison with  the  first  (Ezra  iii.  12;  Haggai  ii.  3, 
sq.).  It  seems,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  so 
much  in  dimensions  that  the  second  temple  was 
inferior  to  the  first,  as  in  splendour,  and  in  being 
deprived  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  which  had 
been  burned  with  the  temple  of  Solomon.  The 
temple  of  Zerubbabel  had  several  courts  (auAai) 
and  cloisters  or  cells  {irpSdvpa).  Josephus  dis- 
tinguishes an  internal  and  external  Up6v , and 
mentions  cloisters  in  the  courts.  This  temple 
was  connected  with  the  town  by  means  of  a 
bridge  {Antiq.  xiv.  4).  During  thq  wars  from 
B.c.  175  to  b.c.  163,  it  was  pillaged  and  dese- 
crated by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  introduced 
into  it  idolatrous  rites  (2  Mac.  vi.  2,  5),  de- 
dicating the  temple  to  Jupiter  Olympius,  and  the 
temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  in  allusion  to  the 
foreign  origin  of  its  worshippers,  to  Jupiter  H evi6s. 
The  temple  became  so  desolate  that  it  was  over- 
grown with  vegetation  (1  Macc.  iv.  38  ; 2 Macc. 
vi.  4).  Judas  Maccabaeus  expelled  the  Syrians 
and  restored  the  sanctuary,  b.c.  165.  He  re- 
paired the  building,  furnished  new  utensils,  and 
erected  fortifications  against  future  attacks  (1 
Macc.  iv.  43-60 ; vi.  7 ; xiii.  53 ; 2 Macc. 
i.  18;  x.  3).  Alexander  Jannaeus,  about  B.c.  106, 
separated  the  court  of  the  priests  from  the  external 
court  by  a wooden  railing  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii. 
5).  During  the  contentions  among  the  later 
Maccabees,  Pompey  attacked  the  temple  from  the 
north  side,  caused  a great  massacre  in  its  courts, 
but  abstained  from  plundering  the  treasury,  al- 
though he  even  entered  the  holy  of  holies,  B.c.  63 
(Joseph. Antiq.  xiv.  4).  Herod  the  Great,  with  the 
assistance  of  Roman  troops,  stormed  the  temple, 
B.c.  37  ; on  which  occasion  some  of  the  surround- 
ing halls  were  destroyed  or  damaged. 

III.  Temple  ok  Herod. — Herod,  wishing  to 
ingratiate  himself  with  the  church  and  state  party, 
and  being  fond  of  architectural  display,  undertook 
cot  merely  to  repair  the  second  temple,  but  to 
raise  a perfectly  new  structure.  As,  however,  the 
temple  of  Zerubbabel  was  not  actually  destroyed, 
Wit  only  removed  after  the  preparat  ions  for  the 
aew  temple  were  completed,  there  has  arisen  some 


debate  whether  the  temple  of  Herod  could  pic* 
perly  be  called  the  third  temple. 

The  reason  why  the  temple  of  Zerubbabel 
was  not  at  once  taken  down,  in  order  to  make 
room  for  the  more  splendid  structure  of  Herod,  is 
explained  by  Josephus  as  follows  (Joseph.  Antiq. 
xv.  11.  2).  The  Jews  were  afraid  that  Herod 
would  pull  down  the  whole  edifice,  and  not  be 
able  to  carry  his  intentions  as  to  its  rebuilding 
into  effect ; and  this  danger  appeared  to  them  to 
be  very  great,  and  the  vastness  of  the  undertaking 
to  be  such  as  could  hardly  be  accomplished.  But 
while  they  were  in  this  disposition,  the  king  en- 
couraged them,  and  told  them  he  would  not  pull 
down  their  temple  till  all  things  were  gotten 
ready  for  building  it  up  entirely. 

And  as  Herod  promised  them  this  beforehand, 
„ so  he  did  not  break  his  word  with  them,  but  got 
ready  a thousand  waggons,  that  were  to  bring 
stones  for  this  building,  and  chose  out  ten  thousand 
of  the  most  skilful  workmen,  and  bought  a thou- 
sand sacerdotal  garments  for  as  many  of  the 
priests,  and  had  some  of  them  taught  the  arts  of 
stonecutters,  and  others  of  carpenters,  and  then 
began  to  build  ; but  this  not  till  everything  was 
well  prepared  for  the  work. 

The  work  was  commenced  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Herod  ; that  is,  about  the 
year  734-735  from  the  building  of  Rome,  or 
about  twenty  or  twenty-one  years  before  the 
Christian  era.  Priests  and  Levites  finished  the 
temple  itself  in  one  year  and  a half.  The  out- 
buildings and  courts  required  eight  years.  How- 
ever, some  building  operations  were  constantly  i:» 
progress  under  the  successors  of  Herod,  and  it 
is  in  reference  to  this  we  are  informed  that  the 
temple  was  finished  only  under  Albinus,  the  last 
procurator  but  one,  not  long  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Jewish  war  in  which  the  temple 
was  again  destroyed.  It  is  in  reference  also  to 
these  protracted  building  operations  that  the  Jews 
said  to  Jesus,  ‘Forty  and  six  years  was  this  tem- 
ple in  building’  (John  ii.  20).  The  temple  is  de- 
scribed by  Josephus  {Antiq.  xv.  11,  and  De  Bell. 
Jud.v.5).  With  this  should  be  compared  the 
Talmudic  tract  Middoth  (Mishna,  v.  10),  which 
has  been  edited  and  commented  upon  by  C. 
l’Empereur  de  Oppyck,  Lugduni  Bat.  1630,  4to. 
Compare  also  vols.  viii.  and  ix.  of  Antiquitates 
Hebraicce , by  Ugolino,  which  contain,  in  addition 
to  other  dissertations,  Mosis  Maimonidis  Constir 
tutiones  de  domo  electa ; Abraham  ben  David 
De  Templo.  Compare  also  E.  A.  Schulze,  De 
variis  Judceorum  erroribus  in  descriptione  tem- 
pli  secundi , prefixed  to  his  edition  of  Reland,  De 
spoliis  templi  Hierosolymitani. 

The  whole  of  the  structures  belonging  to  the 
temple  were  a stadium  square,  and  consequently 
four  stadia  (or  half  a Roman  mile)  in  circum- 
ference. The  temple  was  situated  on  the  highest 
point,  not  quite  in  the  centre,  but  rather  to  th# 
north-western  corner  of  this  square,  and  was  sur- 
rounded by  various  courts,  the  innermost  of 
which  was  higher  than  the  next  outward,  which 
descended  interlaces.  The  temple, consequently, 
was  visible  from  the  town,  notwithstanding  its 
various  high  enclosures.  The  cuiter  court  was 
call  JVnn  "Iii,  the  mountain  of  the  house,  rb 
opos  tov  Upov  (1  Macc.  xiii.  52).  According:  to 
Middoth  (i.  3)  this  mountain  of  the  house  had 
five  gates,  two  towards  the  south,  and  one  towards 


TEMPLE. 


TEMPLE. 


830 


«ach  of  the  other  quarters.  The  principal  gate 
was  that  towards  the  east : it  was  called  the  gate 
Susan,  and  a representation  of  the  town  of  Susa, 
sculptured  in  relief,  was  affixed  to  it.  This  had 
been  preserved  from  the  days  of  Zerubbabel, 
when  the  Jews  were  anxious  to  express  by  all 
means  their  loyal  submission  to  the  Persian 
power.  Most  interpreters  consider  it  the  same 
which  in  Acts  iii.  2 and  10  is  called  irvXii  wpala, 
the  beautiful  gate.  It  seems,  however,  that  be- 
sides these  five  principal  gates  there  were  some' 
other  entrances,  because  Josephus  speaks  of  four 
gates  on  the  west  and  several  on  the  south.  An- 
nexed to  the  outer  wall  were  halls  which  sur- 
rounded the  temple,  and  were  thirty  cubits  wide, 
except  on  the  south  side,  where  the  fSauriXm))  aroa, 
the  royal  hall , seems  to  have  been  threefold,  or 
three  times  wider  than  the  other  halls.  The  roofs 
of  these  halls  were  of  cedar-wood,  and  were  sup- 
ported by  marble  columns  twenty-five  cubits  high. 
The  Levites  resided  in  these  halls.  There  was 
also  a synagogue  where  the  Talmudic  doctors 
might  be  asked  questions,  and  where  their  deci- 
sions might  be  heard  (Luke  ii.  46).  These  halls 
seem  likewise  to  have  formed  a kind  of  lounge 
for  religionists ; they  appear  to  have  been  spacious 
enough  to  afford  opportunities  for  religious 
teachers  to  address  knots  of  hearers.  Thus  we 
find  that  Jesus  had  there  various  opportunities 
for  addressing  the  people  and  refuting  cavillers. 

Here  also  the  first  Christians  could  daily  as- 
semble with  one  accord  (Acts  ii.  46).  Within 
this  outer  court  money-changers  and  cattle- 
lealers  transacted  a profitable  business,  especially 
luring  the  time  of  Passover.  The  priests  took 
)nly  shekels  of  full  weight,  that  is,  shekels  of  the 
sanctuary,  even  after  the  general  currency  had 
Deen  deteriorated  : hence  the  frequent  opportu- 
nity of  money-changers  to  accommodate  for  agio 
the  worshippers,  most  of  whom  arrived  from 
abroad  unprovided  with  the  right  coin.  The 
profaneness  to  which  this  money-changing  and 
cattle-dealing  gave  rise  caused  the  indignation 
of  our  Lord,  who  suddenly  expelled  all  these 
sharks  from  their  stronghold  of  business  (Matt, 
xxi.  12,  sq. ; Mark  xi.  15-17  ; Luke  xix.  45,46; 
John  ii.  13-17). 

The  surface  of  this  outer  court  was  paved  with 
stones  of  various  colours.  A stone  balustrade, 
which  according  to  some  statements  was 
three  cubits  high,  and  according  to  Middoth  ten 
hands  high,  was  several  steps  higher  up  the  moun- 
tain than  this  outer  court,  and  prevented  the 
too  near  approach  of  the  heathens  to  the  next 
court.  For  this  purpose  there  were  also  erected 
columns  at  certain  distances  within  this  balus- 
trade, on  which  there  were  Greek  and  Latin  in- 
scriptions, interdicting  all  heathens,  under  penalty 
of  death,  to  advance  farther  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud. 
vi.  2,  4 ; Philo,  Opera , ii.  577).  Compare  Acts 
xxi.  28,  where  Paul  is  accused  of  having  brought 
Greeks  into  the  temple,  and  thus  polluting  the 
holy  place. 

Higher  up  than  this  balustrade  was  a wall  of 
the  court  called  PTl.  This  wall  was  from  its 
foundation  forty  cubits  high,  but  from  within 
the  court  it  appeared  to  be  only  twenty-five  cubits 
high.  To  this  higher  court  led  a staircase  and 
gate  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  square.  This 
stairoase  first  led  into  the  DtW,  mtJJ,  yvvaiua>- 
rb  rwv  yvvautwv  irepireixiapa,  the  court  of 


the  women , which  was  135  cubits  square.  Again, 
fifteen,  steps  higher  up  was  the  principal  entrance 
to  the  miy,  the  court  of  the  Israelites , 

i.  e.  the  men,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  temple, 
On  the  other  sides  only  five  steps  led  up  from 
the  court  of  the  women  to  that  of  the  men.  But 
the  fifteen  steps,  each  of  which  was  lower  than 
each  of  the  five  steps,  seem  to  have  terminated 
in  the  same  level.  Over  the  gates  were  struc- 
tures more  than  forty  cubits  high,  in  which  were 
rooms.  Each  of  the  gates  was  adorned  with  two 
columns,  which  were  twelve  cubits  in  circum- 
ference. In  these  gates  were  folding-doors,  each 
of  which  was  thirty  cubits  high  and  fifteen  wide  : 
they  were  plated  with  gold  and  silver.  The  gate 
towards  the  east,  being  the  principal  one,  was  of 
Corinthian  brass,  and  was  higher,  larger,  and 
more  adorned  with  precious  metal  than  the  rest. 
Within  the  walls  of  this  court  were  halls  sup- 
ported by  beautiful  columns.  The  court  of  the 
priests  was  separated  from  that  of  the  Israelites 
by  a low  stone  balustrade  one  cubit  high.  The 
whole  space  which  was  occupied  by  the  court  of 
the  Israelites  and  that  of  the  priests,  together  with 
the  temple,  was  from  east  to  west  187  cubits,  and 
from  north  to  south  135  cubits.  Each  of  these 
courts  was  eleven  cubits  wide,  in  which  measure- 
ment that  of  the  halls  seems  not  to  have  been 
included  (comp.  Middoth,  ii.  6).  The  court  of 
the  priests  surrounded  the  whole  temple.  On  the 
northern  and  southern  sides  were  magazines  of 
salt,  wood,  water,  &c.,  and  on  the  south  side  also 
was  the  place  of  meeting  for  the  Sanhedrin.  To- 
wards the  east,  with  entrances  from  the  court  of 
the  women,  were  two  rooms  in  which  the  musical 
instruments  were  deposited ; towards  the  north- 
west were  four  rooms  in  which  the  lambs  for  the 
daily  sacrifices  were  kept,  the  shewbread  baked, 
&c.  (comp.  1 Chron.  ix.  31,  32).  In  the  four  cor- 
ners of  the  court  of  the  women  were  lazarettos  and 
quarantine  establishments  for  the  reception  of 
persons  suspected  of  leprosy  and  other  infectious 
diseases : there  was  also  a physician  appointed 
to  treat  the  priests  who  were  unwell.  There  were 
several  alms-boxes  within  the  various  courts, 
which  had  the  shape  of  trumpets,  and  which  some- 
times are  called  ya^orpvXaKia,  or  also  collectively 
rb  ya(o<pv\a.Kiov.  All  the  courts  were  paved 
with  flat  stones.  From  the  various  statements 
concerning  the  court  of  the  women,  it  is  evident 
that  this  appellation  did  not  mean  a place  ex- 
clusively devoted  to  the  women,  but  rather  a 
place  to  which  even  women  were  admitted,  to- 
gether with  other  persons  who  were  not  allowed  to 
advance  farther.  The  temple  itself  (o  m6s)  was 
fifteen  steps  higher  than  the  court  of  the  Israelites, 
and  stood,  not  in  the  middle,  but  rather  towards 
the  north-western  corner  of  the  court  of  the  priests. 
In  the  usual  plans  of  the  temple  the  passage  in 
Middoth  (ii.  1)  has  been  disregarded.  This  pas- 
sage clearly  states  that  the  temple  was  riot  in  the 
centre  : ‘ The  greatest  space  was  from  the  south, 
the  next  greatest  from  the  east,  the  third  from  the 
north,  and  the  least  from  the  west.  The  foundations 
of  the  temple  consisted  of  blocks  of  white  marble, 
some  of  which  were  forty-five  cubits  long,  six  cu- 
bits wide,  and  five  cubits  high.  The  porch  mea- 
sured externally  a hundred  cubits  in  width  ; the 
remaining  part  of  the  building  sixty  or  seventy 
cubits.’  Thus  it  appears  that  the  porch  projected  oo 
each  side  from  fifteen  to  twenty  cubits.  The  difl» 


$40 


TEMPLE. 


TEMPLE. 


ence  of  measurement  between  Josephus  and  the 
Talmud  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  difference  of 
internal  and  external  width.  The  projections  of 
the  porch  were  like  shoulders  (uxrirep  2>poi ).  The 
whole  building  was  a hundred  or  a hundred  and 
ten  cubits  long,  and  a hundred  cubits  high.  The 
internal  measurement  of  the  porch  was  fifty  cubits 
by  twenty,  and  ninety  cubits  in  height.  The 
holy  was  forty  cubits  by  twenty,  and  sixty  cubits 
high  ; the  holy  of  holies  was  twenty  cubits  square 
and  sixty  cubits  high.  According  to  Middoth 
the  porch  was  only  eleven  cubits,  the  holy  forty 
cubits,  the  holy  of  holies  twenty  cubits,  and  be- 
hind this  last  there  was  a vestry  of  six  cubits. 
The  remaining  twenty-three  cubits  were  distri- 
buted among  the  diameters  of  the  several  walls, 
so  that  the  whole  was  a hundred  cubits  long.  In 
the  eastern  front,  which  was  a hundred  cubits 
square,  was  a proportionate  gate,  seventy  cubits 
high  and  twenty-five  cubits  wide.  Above  the 
holy  and  holy  of  holies  were  upper  rooms.  On 
the  summit  of  the  temple  ( Kara  Kopucp^v)  were 
spikes  (ojSeAoi),  which  resembled  our  conductors 
in  shape,  and  were  intended  to  prevent  birds  from 
settling  on  the  temple.  Middoth  (iv.  6)  calls 

these  'spikes,  which  were  one  cubit  long, 

scare-crows , or  literally  scare-ravens.  It 
seems  that  the  roof  was  fiat,  and  surrounded  by 
a balustrade  three  cubits  high.  On  the  north 
and  south  side  of  the  temple  were  three  stories 
of  chambers,  which  were  much  higher  than 
those  of  the  Solomonic  temple,  but  did  not  en- 
tirely conceal  the  temple  itself,  because  it  pro- 
jected above  them.  The  spaces  on  the  north  and 
south  side  of  the  porch  contained  the  apparatus 
for  slaughtering  the  sacrifices,  and  were  called 
niQ^nn  JV2,  the  house  of  knives. 

The  holy  of  holies  was  entirely  empty,  etceiTo 
ovbhv  '6\u)s  iv  avrtp  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  v.  5. 5) ; 
however,  there  was  a stone  in  the  place  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  called  iTTlfc^  pR,  on  which  the 
high-priest  placed  the  censer.  Before  the  entrance 
of  the  holy  of  holies  was  suspended  a curtain, 
which  was  torn  by  the  earthquake  that  followed 
after  the  crucifixion.  The  rabbis  talk  of  two 
curtains,  between  which  was  a space  of  one  cubit, 
suspended  before  the  holy  of  holies.  The  folding 
doors  between  the  porch  and  the  holy  were 
twenty  cubits  high  and  ten  cubits  wide ; but  the 
entrance  itself,  with  its  mouldings,  was  fifty- five 
cubits  high  and  sixteen  cubits  wide.  These  doors 
stood  open  ; there  were,  however,  behind  them 
some  other  doors  which  were  shut,  and  before 
which  a splendid  Babylonian  byssus  curtain  was 
suspended,  in  colours  and  workmanship  similar  to 
that  of  the  Solomonic  temple.  The  entrance  to 
the  porch  was  externally  seventy  cubits  high  and 
twenty-five  cubits  wide,  with  folding  doors  of 
forty  cubits  higli  and  twenty  cubits  wide.  These 
doors  were  usually  kept  open.  This  entrance  to 
the  porch  was  adorned  by  a colossal  golden  vine, 
nnr  |aa,  whose  grapes  were  as  big  as  men 
(Jani.  De  vite  aurea  templi  Hierosolymitani,  in 
Ugolino,  tom.  ix,).  This  vine  was  a symbolical  re- 
presentation of  the  ‘noble  vine  ’ (Jer.  ii.  21  ; Ezek. 
xix.  10  ; Joel  i.  7),  and  of  the  vineyard  (Isa.  v.), 
under  which  the  prophets  represent  their  nation. 
It  )3  very  likely  that  this  vine  also  gave  an  oppor- 
tunity to  the  parable  of  the  vine  (John  xv.),  aud 


to  the  strange  misconception  of  pagan  scribblerf 
that  the  Jews  worshipped  Bacchus.  (Comp 
Lakemacheri  Observat.  Philolog.  i.  17.  sq. ; Ro- 
senmiil  let’s  Exegetisches  Repertorium , i.  166,  sq.) 

Within  the  porch  were  a golden  and  a marble 
table,  on  which  the  priest  who  entered  the  sanc- 
tuary daily  deposited  the  old  and  the  new  shew- 
bread.  Before  the  porch,  towards  the  south,  were 
the  *Y)'D,  brazier  or  fire-pan,  and  the  altar  for 
burnt- offerings  ; towards  the  north  were  six  rows 
of  rings  attached  to  the  pavement,  to  which  the 
sacrifices  to  be  killed  were  fastened ; also  eight 
low  columns  overlaid  with  cedar  beams,  from 
which  the  beasts  that  had  been  killed  were 
suspended  in  order  to  be  skinned.  Between  these 

columns  stood  5W  ^ nttrfe  marble  tables , 

on  which  the  flesh  and  entrails  were  deposited. 
On  the  western  side  of  the  altar  stood  a marble 
table,  on  which  the  fat  was  deposited,  and  a silver 
table,  on  which  the  various  utensils  were  placed. 

The  temple  was  situated  upon  the  south-eastern 
corner  of  Mount  Moriah,  which  is  separated  to 
the  east  by  a precipitous  ravine  and  the  Kidron 
from  the  Mount  of  Olives:  the  Mount  of  Olives 
is  much  higher  than  Moriah.  On  the  south,  the 
temple  was  bounded  by  the  ravine  which  separates 
Moriah  from  Zion,  or  the  lower  city  from  the 
upper  city.  Opposite  to  the  temple,  at  the  fool 
of  Zion,  were  formerly  the  king's  garden*,  and 
higher  up  in  a south-westerly  direction,  the  strong- 
hold of  Zion  or  the  city  of  David,  on  a higher 
level  than  the  temple.  The  temple  was  in  an- 
cient warfare  almost  impregnable,  from  the  ravines 
at  the  precipitous  edge  of  which  it  stood  ; but  it 
required  more  artificial  fortifications  on  its  western 
and  northern  sides,  which  were  surrounded  by 
the  city  of  Jerusalem ; for  this  reason  there  was 
erected  at  its  north-western  coiner  the  tower  of 
Antonia,  which  although  standing  on  a lower 
level  than  the  temple  itself,  was  so  high  as  to  over- 
look the  sacred  buildings  with  which  it  was  con- 
nected, partly  by  a large  staircase,  partly  by  a 
subterraneous  communication.  This  tower  pro- 
tected the  temple  from  sudden  incursions  from 
the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  from  dangerous  com- 
motions among  the  thousands  who  were  fre- 
quently assembled  within  the  precincts  of  the 
courts ; which  also  were  sometimes  used  for 
popular  meetings.  Under  the  sons  of  Herod,  the 
temple  remained  apparently  in  good  order,  and 
Herod  Agrippa,  who  was  appointed  by  the  Em- 
peror Claudius  its  guardian,  even  planned  the 
repair  of  the  eastern  part,  which  had  probably 
been  destroyed  during  one  of  the  conflicts  between 
the  Jews  and  Romans  of  which  the  temple  was 
repeatedly  the  scene  ( Antiq . xvii.  10).  Many 
savants  have  adopted  a style  as  if  they  possessed 
much  information  about  the  archives  of  the  tem- 
ple; there  are  a few  indications  from  which  we 
learn  that  important  documents  were  deposited  in 
the  tabernacle  and  temple.  Even  in  Deut.  xxxi. 
26,  we  find  that  the  book  of  the  law  was  deposited 
in  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  2 Kings  xxii.  8, 
Hilkiah  rediscovered  the  book  of  the  law  in  the 
house  of  Jehovah.  In  2 Macc.  ii.  13,  we  find  a 
fitfiXioG-fiKr]  mentioned,  apparently  consisting 
chiefly  of  the  canonical  books,  and  probably  de- 
posited in  the  temple.  In  Josephus  (De  Bell.  Jud. 
v.  5)  it  is  mentioned  that  a book  of  the  law  was  found 
in  the  temple.  It  appears  mat  the  sacred  writings 


TEMPLE. 


TEMPLE. 


8-11 


rare  kepi  intne  temple  (Antiq.  v.  1.  .7).  Copies 
of  j-olitical  documents  seem  to  have  been  depo- 
sited in  the  treasury  of  the  temple  (1  Macc.  xiv.  49). 

This  treasury,  6 Upbs  dyaavpbs,  was  managed  by 
an  inspector,  ya(v(pvka£,  "DTJ,  and  it  contained 
the  great  sums  which  were  annually  paid  in  by 
the  Israelites,  each  of  whom  paid  a half  shekel, 
and  many  of  whom  sent  donations  in  money,  and 
nrecious  vessels,  avaO-hpara.  Such  costly  presents 
were  especially  transmitted  by  rich  proselytes,  and 
even  sometimes  by  pagan  princes  (2  Macc.  iii.  3 ; 
Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  16.  4 ; xviii.  3.  5 ; xix.  6.  1 ; 
De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  17.  3 ; v.  13. 6 ; c.  Apion.  ii.  5 ; 
Philo,  Opp.  ii.  59,  sq. ; 569).  It  is  said  especially 
that  Ptol.  Philadelphus  was  very  liberal  to  the 
temple,  in  order  to  prove  his  gratitude  for  having 
been  permitted  to  procure  the  Septuagint  trans- 
lation (Aristeas,  De  Translat.  LXX.,  109,  sq.). 
The  gifts  exhibited  in  the  temple  are  mentioned  in 
Luke  xxi.5;  we  find  even  that  the  rents  of  the 
whole  town  of  Ptolemais  were  given  to  the  tem- 
ple (1  Macc.  x.  39).  There  were  also  preserved 
historical  curiosities  (2  Kings  xi.  10),  especially 
the  arms  of  celebrated  heroes  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xix. 
C.  1)  : this  was  also  the  case  in  the  tabernacle. 

The  temple  was  of  so  much  political  importance 
that  it  had  its  own  guards  ( <pvkanes  tov  Upov ), 
which  were  commanded  by  a <rTpaTrjy6s. 

Twenty  men  were  required  for  opening  and 
shutting  the  eastern  gate  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  vi. 
5.  3 : c.  Apion.  ii.  9 ; Antiq.  vi.  5.  3 ; xvii.  2.  2). 
The  arparpyos  had  his  own  secretary  (Antiq.  xx. 
6.2;  9.  3),  and  had  to  maintain  the  police  in  the 
courts  (comp.  Acts  iv.  1 and  v.  24).  He  appears 
to  have  been  of  sufficient  dignity  to  be  mentioned 
together  with  the  chief  priests.  It  seems  that  his 
Hebrew  title  was  JYQn  “IH  the  man  of  the 
mountain  of  the  house. 

The  priests  themselves  kept  watch  on  three  dif- 
ferent posts,  and  the  Levites  on  twenty-one  posts. 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  police  of  the  temple  to 
prevent  women  from  entering  the  inner  court,  and 
to  take  care  that  no  person  who  was  Levitically 
unclean  should  enter  within  the  sacred  precincts. 
Gentiles  were  permitted  to  pass  the  first  enclosure, 
which  was  therefore  called  the  Court  of  the  Gen- 
tiles ; but  persons  who  were  on  any  account 
Levitically  unclean  were  even  not  permitted  to 
advance  thus  far.  Some  sorts  of  uncleanness,  for 
instance  that  arising  from  the  touch  of  a corpse, 
excluded  only  from  the  court  of  the  men.  If  an 
unclean  person  had  entered  by  mistake,  he  was  re- 
quired to  offer  sacrifices  of  purification.  The 
high-priest  himself  was  forbidden  to  enter  the 
holy  of  holies  under  penalty  of  death  on  any 
other  day  but  the  day  of  atonement  (Philo,  Opp. 
ii.  591).  Nobody  was  admitted  within  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  temple  who  carried  a stick  or  a 
basket,  and  who  wanted  to  pass  merely  to  shorten 
his  way,  or  who  had  dusty  shoes  ( Middoth , ii.  2). 

The  various  office-bearers  in  the  temple  were 
called  (TTparriyol  tov  Upov,  captains  or  officers  of 
the  temple  (Luke  xxii.  52),  while  their  chief 
was  simply  designated  aTparnyos. 

During  the  final  struggle  of  the  Jews  against 
the  Romans,  a.d.  70,  the  temple  was  the  last 
soene  of  the  tug  of  war.  The  Romans  rushed 
from  the  tower  Antonia  into  the  sacred  precincts, 
the  halls  of  which  were  set  on  fire  by  the  Jews 
themselves.  It  was  against  the  will  of  Titus  that 
a Roman  soldier  threw  a firebrand  into  the  north- 


ern outbuildings  of  the  temple,  which  caused  the 
conflagration  of  the  whole  structure,  although 
Titus  himself  endeavoured  to  extinguish  the  fire 
(Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  vi.  4).  ‘ One  cannot  but 

wonder  at  the  accuracy  of  this  period  thereto  re- 
lating; for  the  same  month  and  day  were  now 
observed,  as  I said  before,  wherein  the  holy  house 
was  burnt  formerly  by  the  Babylonians.  Now 
the  number  of  years  that  passed  from  its  first 
foundation,  which  was  laid  by  King  Solomon,  till 
this  its  destruction,  which  happened  in  the  second 
year  of  the  reign  of  Vespasian,  are  collected  to  be 
one  thousand  one  hundred  and  thirty,  besides 
seven  months  and  fifteen  days ; and  from  the  second 
building  of  it,  which  was  done  by  Haggai,  in  the 
second  year  of  Cyrus  the  king,  till  its  destruction 
under  Vespasian,  there  were  six  hundred  and 
thirty-nine  years  and  forty-five  days.’ 

The  sacred  utensils,  the  golden  table  of  the 
shew-bread,  the  book  of  the  law,  and  the  golden 
candlestick,  were  displayed  in  the  triumph  at 
Rome.  Representations  of  them  are  still  to^be  seen 
sculptured  in  relief  on  the  triumphal  arch  of 
Titus  (comp.  Fleck's  Wissenschaftliche  Reise , 
i.  1,  plate  i.-iv. ; and  Reland,  De  spoliis  Templi 
Hierosolymitani  in  arete  Titiano,  edit.  E.  A. 
Schulze,  Tvaject.  ad  Rh.  1775.  The  place  where 
the  temple  had  stood  seemed  to  be  a dangerous 
centre  for  the  rebellious  population,  until,  in  a.d. 
136,  the  Emperor  Hadrian  founded  a Roman 
colony,  under  the  name  ./Elia  Capitolina,  on  the 
ruins  of  Jerusalem,  and  dedicated  a temple  to 
Jupiter  Capitolinus  on  the  ruins  of  the  temple  of 
Jehovah.  Henceforth  no  Jew  was  permitted  to 
approach  the  site  of  the  ancient  temple,  although 
the  worshippers  of  Jehovah  were  in  derision  com- 
pelled to  pay  a tax  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
temple  of  Jupiter.  Comp.  Dion  Cassius  (Xiphil.) 
lxix.  12 ; Hieron.  ad  Jes.  ii.  9 ; vi.  1 1,  sq. ; Euseh. 
Hist.  Eccles.  iv.  6 ; Demonsiratio  Evangelica, 
viii.  18.  Under  the  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great 
some  Jews  were  severely  punished  for  having 
attempted  to  restore  the  temple  (comp.  Fabricii 
Lux  Evangelii , p.  1 24) 

The  Emperor  Julian  undertook,  a.d.  363,  to  re- 
build the  temple;  but  after  considerable  prepara- 
tions and  much  expense,  lie  was  compelled  to 
desist  by  flames  which  burst  forth  from  the 
foundations  (comp.  Ammianus  Marcellinus, 
xx  iii.  1 ; Socrates,  Ilist.  Eccles.  iii.  20  ; Sozomen, 
v.  22;  Theodoretus,  iii.  15;  Schi*ockh,  Kirchen 
Geschichte , vi.  385,  sq.).  Repeated  attempts  have 
been  made  to  account  for  these  igneous  ex- 
plosions by  natural  causes ; lor  instance,  by 
the  ignition  of  gases  which  had  long  been 
pent  up  in  subterraneous  vaults  (comp.  Mi- 
chael is,  Zerstr.  kl.  Schrift.  iii.  453,  sq.).  A 
similar  event  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Antiq. 
xvi.  7.  1),  where  we  are  informed  that  Herod, 
while  plundering  the  tombs  of  David  and  So- 
lomon, was  suddenly  frightened  by  flames 
which  burst  out  and  killed  two  of  his  soldiers. 
Bishop  Warburton  contends  for  the  miraculousness 
of  the  event  in  his  discourse  Concerning  the 
Earthquake  and  Fiery  Eruption  which  de- 
fended Julian's  Attempt  to  rebuild  the  Temple 
of  Jerusalem.  Comp,  also  J.  G.  Lotter,  Ilis- 
toria  Instaurationis  Templi  Hierosolymitani 
sub  Juliano , Lips.  1728,  4to. ; J.  G.  Michaelia 
(F.  Holzfuss)  Diss.  de  Templi  Hierosolymitani 
Juliani  mandato  per  Judceos  frustra  tentata 


842  TEMPTATION  OF  OUR  LORD. 

reslitutione , Hal.  1751,  4to. ; Lardner’s  Cot,  ection 
of  Ancient  Jewish  and  Heathen  Testimonies , iv. 
p.  57,  sq. ; Ernesti,  Theol.  Bibl.,  ix.  604,  sq.).  R. 
Tourlet’s  French  Translation  of  the  works  of 
Julian,  Paris,  1S21,  tom.  ii.  p.  435,  sq.,  con- 
tains an  examination  of  the  evidence  concern- 
ing this  remarkable  event.  See  also  Jost's 
Geschichte  der  Israeliten,  iv.  p.  211  and  254,  sq. ; 
and  Jost’s  Alcgemeine  Geschichte  des  Jiidischen 
Volkes , vol.  ii.  p.  158. 

A splendid  mosque  now  stands  on  the  site  of 
the  temple.  This  mosque  was  erected  by  the 
caliph  Omar  after  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by 
the  Saracens,  a.d.  636.  It  seems  that  Omar 
changed  a Christian  church,  that  stood  on  the 
ground  of  the  temple,  into  this  mosque,  which  is 
called  El  Aksa,  the  outer , or  northern , because  it 
is  the  third  of  the  most  celebrated  mosques,  two  of 
which,  namely  those  of  Mecca  and  Medina,  are 
iu  a more  southern  latitude. 

Compare  on  the  whole  subject  Ugolino,  tom.  viii. 
9 ; Lightfoot,  Descriptio  Templi  Hierosolymitani, 
Opp.  i.  p.  533,  sq. ; J.  Bapt.  Villalpando  et  Pradi, 
in  Ezechiel;  J.  Jud.  Leonis,  libri  quatuor,  De 
Templo  Hieros.  tam  priori  quam  poster,  ex  Hebr. 
Lat.  vers,  a J.  Saubert,  Helmst.,  1665,  4to. ; L. 
Capelli,  TpiarayLov,  sive  Triplex  Templi  delineatio , 
Amst.  1643,  4to.  This  is  also  inserted  in  the 
Critici  Anglicani , tom.  viii., and  in  the  firstvolume 
of  Walton’s  Polyglott.  Harenberg,  in  d.  Brem. 
u.  Verdisch.  Biblioih..  iv.  1.  sq. ; 573,  sq. ; 879, 
sq. ; Bh.  Lamy,  De  tabern.  foed.,  urbe  Hieros.  et 
de  Templo,  Par.  1720,  sq.  ; Hirt,  Der  Tempel 
Salomons,  Beil.  1809,  4to.  m.  3 Kpfrn. ; 
Stieglitz,  Gesch.  der  Baulcunst,  Niirmb.  1827, 
p.  125,  sq. ; and  Less,  Beitriige  zur  Geschich. 
d.  Ausbild.  Baukunst , Leipz.  1831,  i.  63,  sq. ; 
V.  Meyer,  Dei r Temple  Salom.  Berl.  1830; 
inserted  also  in  Blatter  f.  hohere  Wahrneue 
Fofge , i. ; Griineisen,  im  Kunstblatt  z.  Morgenbl. 
1831,  No.  73-75,  77-80.  Some  more  works  are 
mentioned  by  Meusel,  Biblioth.  Histor.,  i. 
ii.  113,  sq.  The  best  works  on  the  antiquities 
and  history  of  the  Jews  contain  also  chapters 
illustrative  of  the  temple.  Among  the  biblical 
dictionaries,  see  especially  Winer’s  Real-fVorterb. 
sub  1 Tempel Ezekiel's  Temple,  being  an  At- 
tempt to  delineate  the  Structure  of  the  Holy 
Edifice , its  Courts,  Chambers,  and  Gates , as 
described  in  the  last  nine  chapters  of  the  Book  of 
Ezekiel,  with  plates,  by  Joseph  Isreels,  London, 
1827.— C.  H.  F.  B. 

TEMPTATION  OF  OUR  LORD  (Matt.  iv. 
1-11 ; Mark  i.  12,  13  ; Luke  iv.  1-12).  The  popu- 
lar view  of  this  undoubted  portion  of  our  Saviour's 
history,  is,  that  it  is  u narrative  of  outward  trans- 
actions ; that  our  Saviour  immediately  after  his 
baptism  was  conducted  by  the  Spirit  into  the 
wilderness — either  the  desolate  and  mountainous 
region  now  called  Quarantania  by  the  people  of 
Palestine  ( Kitto's  Physical  History,  pp.  39,  40), 
or  the  great  desert  of  Arabia,  mentioned  in  Deut. 
Xxxii.  10 ; viii.  15 ; Hos.  xiii.  5 ; Jer.  ii.  6,  &c. — 
where  the  devil  tempted  him  in  person,  appeared 
to  him  in  a visible  form,  spoke  to  him  in  an 
audible  voice,  removed  him  to  the  summit  ‘ of 
an  exceeding  high  mountain,’  and  to  the  top  of 
* a pinnacle  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  whereas 
the  view  taken  by  many  learned  commentators, 
ancient  and  modern,  is,  that  it  is  the  narrative  of 
A vision^  which  was  designed  to  ‘supply  that 


TEMPTATION  OF  OUR  LORD 

ideal  experience  of  temptation  or  trial,  which  it 
was  provided  in  the  divine  counsels  for  our  Lord 
to  receive,  previously  to  entering  upon  the  actual 
trials  and  difficulties  of  his  ministry  ’ (Bishop 
Maltby,  Sermons,  vol.  ii.,  Lond.  1822,  p.  276). 
Farmer  also  considers  it  a ‘ divine  vision,’  and 
endeavours  with  much  learning  and  ingenuity,  to 
* illustrate  the  wise  and  benevolent  intention  of 
its  various  scenes,  as  symbolical  predictions  and 
representations  of  the  principal  trials  attending 
Christ's  public  ministry  ’ (. Inquiry  into  the 
Nature  and  Design  of  Christ's  Temptation,  8vo., 
London,  Preface).  On  behalf  of  the  popular 
interpretation  it  is  urged,  that  the  accounts  given 
by  the  evangelists  convey  no  intimation  that  they 
refer  to  a vision;  that  the  feeling  of  hunger  could 
not  have  been  merely  ideal ; that  a vision  of  forty 
days’  continuance  is  incredible;  that  Moses,  who 
was  a type  of  Christ,  saw  no  ‘ visions,’  and  that 
hence  it  may  be  concluded  Christ  did  not ; that 
it  is  highly  probable  there  would  be  a personal 
conflict  between  Christ  and  Satan,  when  the 
former  entered  on  his  ministry.  Satan  had  ruined 
the  first  Adam,  and  might  hope  to  prevail  with 
the  second  (Trollope’s  Analecta,  vol.  i.  Lond. 
1830,  p.  46).  Why  too,  say  others,  was  our 
Lord  taken  up  into  a mountain  to  see  a vision  ? 
As  reasonably  might  St.  Paul  have  taken  the 
Corinthians  into  a mountain  to  ‘ show  them  the 
more  excellent  way  of  charity  ’ (l  Cor.  xii.  31). 
On  the  contrary  side,  it  is  rejoined,  that  the  evan- 
gelists do  really  describe  the  temptation  as  a 
vision.  St.  Matthew  says,  awtix^7)  €1>s  TV  epgpov 
virb  rod  irrevparos  ’,  St.  Mark,  rb  Ttvevpa  avrbv 
ixfiaWei ; and  St.  Luke,  ijycTo  iv  rta  nvcbpaTi. 
Do  these  phrases  mean  no  more  than  that  Jesus 
went  by  the  guidance  or  impulse  of  the  Spirit  to 
a particular  locality  ? Do  they  not  rather  import, 
that  Christ  was  brought  into  the  wilderness  under 
the  full  influence  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  making 
suitable  revelations  to  his  mind?  With  regard 
to  the  hunger,  the  prophets  are  represented  as  ex- 
periencing bodily  sensations  in  their  visions  (Ezek, 
iii.  3 ; Rev.  x.  10).  Further  arguments,  derived 
from  an  unauthorized  application  of  types,  are  pre- 
carious— that  the  first  Adam  really  hud  no  personal 
encounter  with  Satan  ; that  all  the  purposes  of  our 
Lord's  temptation  might  be  answered  by  a vision, 
for  whatever  might  be  the  mode , the  effect  was 
intended  to  be  produced  upon  his  mind  and 
moral  feelings,  like  St.  Peter’s  vision  concerning 
Cornelius,  &c.  (Acts  x.  11-17);  that  commen- 
tators least  given  to  speculate  allow  that  the 
temptation  during  the  first  forty  days  was  carried 
on  by  mental  suggestion  only,  and  that  the  vi- 
sible part  of  the  temptation  began  ‘ when  the 
tempter  came  to  him  ’ (Matt.  iv.  3 ; Luke  iv.  3 ; 
Scott,  in  loc .) ; that,  with  regard  to  Christ’s 
being ‘taken  up  into  an  exceeding  high  mountain,’ 
Ezekiel  says  (xl.  2),  ‘ in  the  visions  of  God,  brought 
he  me  into  the  land  of  Israel,  and  set  me  upon  a 
very  high  mountain,’ &c. ; and  that  St.  John  says, 
‘ he  carried  me  away  in  the  spirit  to  a great  and 
high  mountain,  and  showed  me  that  great  city 
the  holy  Jerusalem  ’ (Rev.  xxi.  10).  But  cer- 
tain direct  arguments  are  also  urged  on  the  same 
side.  Thus,  is  it  consistent  with  the  saga- 
city and  policy  of  the  evil  spirit,  to  suppose  that 
he  appeared  in  his  own  proper  ]>erson  to  our 
Lord,  uttering  solicitations  to  evil?  Was  no* 
this  the  readiest  mode  to  frustrate  his  own  intea* 


TEMPTATION  OF  OUR  LORD. 


TEMPTATION  OF  OUR  LORD.  843 


hems?  Archbishop  Seeker  says,  ‘certainly  he 
did  not  appear  what  he  was,  for  that  would 
have  entirely  frustrated  his  intent’  ( Sermons , 
vol.  ii.  p.  114).  Chandler  says,  ‘The  devil 
appeared  not  as  himself,  for  that  would  have 
frustrated  die  effect  of  his  temptation’  ( Berm . vol. 
iii.  p.  178).  Seeker  supposes  that  ‘ Satan  trans- 
formed himself  into  an  angel  of  light but  was  it 
likely  that  he  would  put  on  this  form  in  order 
to  tempt  our  Lord  to  idolatry?  (Matt.  iv.  9.) 
Chandler  thinks  he  appeared  as  ‘ a good  man 
but  would  it  have  served  his  purpose  to  appear 
as  a good  man  promising  universal  dominion  ? 
The  supposition  that  the  devil  disguised  himself 
in  any  form  might  indeed  constitute  the  tempta- 
tion a trial  of  our  Lord’s  understanding,  but  not 
of  his  heart.  Besides,  Christ  is  represented  as 
addressing  him  as  ‘Satan’  (ver.  10).  It  is  fur- 
ther urged  that  the  literal  interpretation  does  but 
little  honour  to  the  Saviour,  whom  it  represents 
as  carried  or  conducted,  ‘ by  the  devil  at  his 
will,’  and  therefore  as  accessory  to  his  own  tempt- 
ation and  danger ; nor  does  it  promote  the  conso- 
lation of  his  followers,  none  of  whom  could  ever 
be  similarly  tempted.  Our  Lord  indeed  sub- 
mitted to  all  the  liabilities  of  the  human  con- 
dition; but  do  these  involve  the  dominion  of 
Satan  over  the  body,  to  the  extent  thus  repre- 
sented ? The  literal  interpretation  also  attributes 
miraculous  powers  to  the  devil,  who,  though  a 
spiritual  being,  is  represented  as  becoming  visible 
at  pleasure,  speaking  in  *an  audible  voice,  and 
conveying  mankind  where  he  pleases — miracles 
not  inferior  to  what  our  Lord’s  preservation  would 
have  been,  had  he  cast  himself  headlong  from 
the  temple.  Suppose  we  even  give  up  the  old 
notion,  that  ‘ the  devil  hurried  Christ  through  the 
air,  and  carried  him  from  the  wilderness  to  the 
temple  ’ (Benson’s  Life  of  Christ , p.  35),  and 
say  with  Doddridge  and  others,  that  ‘ the  devil 
took  our  Lord  about  with  him  as  one  person 
takes  another  to  different  places,’  yet  how  without 
a miracle  shall  we  account  for  our  Saviour’s  ad- 
mission to  the  exterior  of  the  temple,  unless  he 
first,  indeed,  obtained  permission  of  the  autho- 
rities, which  is  not  recorded  ? (Comp.  Josephus 
Antiq.  xv.  11,  § iii.  5,  and  De  Bell.  Jud.  v.  5.) 
The  difficulty  is  solved  by  the  supposition  simply 
of  a change  in  our  Lord's  perceptions.  And  how 
can  we  further  understand,  except  by  the  aid  of 
a vision  or  a miracle,  that  the  devil  ‘ showed  our 
Lord  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the 
glory  of  them  in  a moment  of  time’  (iv  ariygy 
Xpovov),  a phrase  referring  to  the  mathematical 
point,  and  meaning  the  most  minute  and  indi- 
visible portion  of  duration,  thatis,  instantaneously; 
yet  in  this  space  of  time,  according  to  the  literal 
interpretation,  ‘ the  devil  showed  our  Lord  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  and  all  the  glory  of  them’ 
i.  e.  whatever  relates  to  their  magnificence,  as 
imperial  robes,  crowns,  thrones,  palaces,  courts, 
guards,  armies,  &c.  Scott  and  Doddridge  resort  to 
the  supposition  of  ‘ an  illusory  show ;’  but  it  may 
be  asked,  if  one  of  the  temptations  was  conducted 
by  such  means,  why  not  the  other  two  ? Mac- 
knight  endeavours  to  explain  ‘ all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world,  and  the  glory  of  them  ’ as  relating 
only  to  the  land  of  promise  ( Harmony  of  the 
Gospels , Lond.  1822,  p.  35U,  note).  Farmer 
conceives  that  no  mountain  in  Palestine  com- 
mands so  extensive  a prospect.  It  is  a further 


difficulty  attending  the  literal  interpretation,  that 
Satan  represents  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world 
and  their  glory  to  be  at  his  disposal;  an  assertion 
not  denied  by  our  Lord,  who  simply  rejects  the 
offer.  It  may  readily  be  conceived  that  it  would 
answer  all  purposes  that  Jesus  should  seem  to 
have  the  proposal  in  question  made  to  him.  It 
is  next  observed,  that  many  things  are  spoken  of 
in  Scripture  as  being  done,  which  were  only  done 
in  vision.  See  the  numerous  instances  collected 
by  Bishop  Law  (Considerations  of  the  Theory 
of  Religion,  Lond.  1820,  pp.  85,  86).  The  reader 
may  refer  to  Gen.  xxxii.  30  ; Hosea  i.  iii. ; Jer. 
xiii.  xxv.  xxvii. ; Ezek.  iii.  iv.  v.  St.  Paul  calls 
his  being  ‘ caught  up  into  the  third  heaven  and 
into  Paradise’  a vision  and  revelation  of  the  Lord 
(2  Cor.  xii.  1-4).  It  is  plain  from  this  instance 
in  the  case  of  Paul,  and  from  that  of  St.  Peter 
(Acts  xii.  7-9),  who  had  already  experienced 
visions  (x.  10,  &c.),  that  neither  of  the  apostles 
could  at  first  distinguish  visions  from  impressions 
made  on  the  senses.  In  further  illustration  it  is 
urged  that  the  prophets  are  often  said  to  be  car- 
ried about  in  visions  (Ezek.  viii.  1-10  ; xi.  24,  25  ; 
xxxvii.  I ; xl.  1,  2).  The  phrases  ‘ by  the  spi- 
rit,’ &c.,  are  equivalent  to  ‘ the  hand  of  God,’  &c., 
among  the  prophets  (1  Kings  xviii.  46  ; 2 Kings 
iii.  15  ; Ezek.  i.  3).  A comparison  of  the  parallel 
phrases  in  the  *Sept.  of  Ezekiel,  and  the  evan- 
gelists in  regard  to  Christ’s  temptation,  casts 
much  light  upon  the  subject.  The  phrase  ‘ the 
devil  leaveth  him,’  is  equivalent  to  the  phrase, 

‘ the  vision  I had  seen  went  up  from  me  (Ezek.  xi. 
24).  Farmer’s  theory  respecting  the  intention  of 
this  prophetic  vision  may  be  thus  summarily 
stated.  The  spirit,  of  God  was  its  sole  author, 
making  suitable  revelations  to  the  mind  of  Jesus, 
with  a view  to  his  future  trials.  It  is  called  a 
temptation  of  the  devil,  because  couched  under 
the  figure  of  Satan  coming  to  him  and  offering 
him  temptations.  The  first  scene  was  proba- 
tionary, serving  to  try  the  present  turn  and  tem- 
per of  the  Saviour’s  mind;  and  also  prophetical, 
having  reference  to  his  future  ministry,  through 
the  whole  course  of  which  he  was  pressed  with 
the  same  kind  of  temptations,  and  resisted  them 
upon  the  same  principles.  This  part  of  the  vision 
conveyed  this  general  instruction,  that  Christ, 
though  the  Son  of  God,  was  to  struggle  with  hun- 
ger and  thirst,  and  dll  other  evils  incidental  to 
the  lowest  of  the  sons  of  men,  and  that  he  was 
never  to  exert  his  miraculous  power  for  his  own 
personal  relief,  but  with  resignation  and  faith 
wait  for  the  interposition  of  God  in  his  favour. 
The  second  scene,  in  which  he  was  tempted  to 
cast  himself  from  the  temple,  though  dazzling  as 
a proposal  to  demonstrate  his  Messiahship  by  a 
mode  corresponding  to  the  notions  of  the  Jewish 
people,  was  intended  to  teach  him  not  to  prescribe 
to  God  in  what  instances  he  shall  exert  his 
power,  nor  rush  into  danger  uncalled  in  depend- 
ance  upon  divine  aid,  nor  to  dictate  to  divine  wis- 
dom what  miracles  shall  be  wrought  for  men's 
conviction.  Upon  these  principles  he  resisted 
this  suggestion,  and  accordingly  we  find  him 
ever  after  exemplifying  the  same  principles.  He 
never  needlessly  exposed  himself  to  danger  in 
reliance  upon  miraculous  interposition,  he  cau- 
tiously declined  hazards,  avoided  whatever  might 
exasperate  his  enemies,  enjoined  silence  with  re- 
gard to  his  miracles,  when  the  publication  of 


TENT. 


TBRAPHIM. 


844 

them  might  have  excited  envy  or  commotion  ; ba 
opened  his  commission  in  Galilee,  not  in  Jeru- 
salem, courted  privacy,  avoided  the  great,  con- 
versed with  the  common  people,  &c.  The 
third  scene  presignified  the  temptation  to 
which  he  would  be  subject  during  the  whole 
course  of  his  ministry,  to  prostitute  all  his  mira- 
culous endowments  to  the  service  of  Satan,  for 
the  sake  of  worldly  honours,  or  for  gratifying  the 
mistaken  apprehensions  of  the  Jewish  people.  It 
is  pleaded  mat  this  explanation  obviates  all  diffi- 
culties, justifies  the  wisdom  of  God  in  this  dis- 
pensation, and  confirms  our  confidence  in  Christ’s 
divine  mission  and  character,  since  we  thus  learn 
that  he  was  made  acquainted  with  all  he  had  to 
suffer,  and  nevertheless  persevered,  and  with  final 
success;  and  further,  that  through  the  various 
exercises  thus  afforded  to  his  moral  principles 
he  learned  ‘to  succour' those  that  are  tempted.’ 
Farmer’s  inquiry  throughout  is  recommended  to 
the  careful  perusal  of  the  student.  For  a com- 
parison of  the  circumstances  of  the  temptation 
and  of  the  crucifixion,  see  Encyclopedia  Metro- 
politana , vol.  x.,  p.  604  ; for  the  coincidence 
between  the  petitions  of  the  Lord’s  prayer  and 
the  temptation,  p.  605,  note  ; and  for  the  analogy 
between  the  temptation  of  our  Lord  in  the  wil- 
derness and  of  Adam  in  Paradise,  see  Town- 
send’s Chronological  Arrangement , Lond.  1828, 
vol.  i.  p.  92. — J.  F.  D. 

TENT.  The  patriarchal  fathers  of  the  Israel- 
ites were  dwellers  in  tents,  and  their  descen- 
dants proceeded  at  once  from  tents  to  houses. 
We  therefore  read  but  little  of  huts  among  them  ; 
and  never  as  the  fixed  habitations  of  any  people 
with  whom  they  were  conversant.  By  huts  we 
understand  small  dwellings,  made  of  the  green  or 
dry  branches  of  trees  interwined,  and  sometimes 
plastered  with  mud.  In  Scripture  they  are  called 
booths.  Such  were  made  by  Jacob  to  shelter  his 
cattle  during  the  first  winter  of  his  return  from 
Mesopotamia  (Gen.  xxxiii.  17).  In  after  times 
we  more  frequently  read  of  them  as  being  erected 
in  vineyards  and  orchards,  to  shelter  the  man 
who  guarded  the  ripened  produce  (Job  xxvii.  18; 
Isa.  i.  8 ; xxiv.  20).  It  was  one  of  the  Mosaical 
institutions  that,  during  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
the  people  should  live  for  a week  in  huts  made  of 
green  boughs  (Le7.  xxiii.  42). 


The  Scriptures  make  us  more  familiar  with 
tents  than  with  huts.  They  were  invented  before 
the  Deluge,  and  appear  from  the  first  to  have  been 
associated  with  the  pastoral  life,  to  which  a move- 
able  habitation  was  necessary  (Gen.  iv.  20).  The 
practice  of  the  pastoral  fathers  was  to  pitch  their 
tents  near  wells  of  water,  and,  if  possible,  under 


some  shady  tree  (Gen.  xviii.  4 ; Judg.  iv.  5 1 
The  first  tents  were  undoubtedly  covered  witn 
skins,  of  which  there  are  traces  in  the  Pentateuch 
(Exod.  xxvi.  14);  but  nearly  all  the  tents  men- 
tioned in  Scripture  were,  doubtless,  of  goats’  hair, 
spun  and  woven  by  the  women  (Exod.  xxxv.  26  ; 
xxxvi.  14);  such  as  are  now,  in  Western  Asia, 
used  by  all  who  dwell  in  tents  ; hence  their  black 
colour  (Sol.  Song,  i.  5).  Tents  of  linen  were, 
and  still  are,  only  used  occasionally,  for  holiday 
or  travelling  purposes,  by  those  who  do  not  ha- 
bitually live  in  them.  The  patriarchal  tents 
were  probably  such  as  we  now  see  in  Arabia,  of 
an  oblong  shape,  and  eight  or  ten  feet  high  in  the 
middle.  They  vary  in  size,  and  have,  accord- 
ingly, a greater  or  less  number  of  poles  to  sup- 
port them — from  three  to  nine.  An  encampment 
is  generally  arranged  circularly,  forming  an  en- 
closure, within  which  the  cattle  are  driven  at 
night,  and  the  centre  of  which  is  occupied  by  the 
tent  or  tents  of  the  Emir  or  Sheikh.  If  he  is  a 
person  of  much  consequence,  he  may  have  three 
or  four  tents,  for  himself,  his  wives,  his  servants, 
and  strangers,  respectively.  The  two  first  are  of 
the  most  importance,  and  we  know  that  Abra- 
ham % wife  had  a separate  tent  (Gen.  xxiv.  27). 

It  is  more  usual,  however,  for  one  very  large 
tent  to  be  divided  into  two  or  more  apartments 
by  curtains.  The  Holy  Tabernacle  was  on  this 
model  (Exod.  xxvi.  31-37). 

TERAH  (mn,  Sept.  0a/3/5a),  son  of  Nahor 
and  father  of  Abraham,  who,  with  his  family, 
quitted  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  to  go  to  the  land 
which  God  should  show  him,  ‘ but  tarried  at  \ 
Haran  in  Mesopotamia,  and  there  died  at  the 
age  of  205  years  ’ (Gen.  xi.  24-32  ; Acts  vii. 
2-4).  From  the  latter  text,  it  appears  that  the 
first  call  which  prompted  them  to  leave  Ur  was 
addressed  to  Abraham,  not  to  Terah,  as  well  as 
the  second,  which,  after  the  death  of  his  father, 
induced  him  to  proceed  from  Haran  to  Canaan 
[Abraham].  The  order  to  Abraham  to  proceed 
to  Canaan  immediately  after  Terah ’s  death 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  pause  at  Haran  was  on 
his  account.  Whether  he  declined  to  proceed 
any  further,  or  his  advanced  age  rendered  him 
unequal  to  the  fatigues  of  the  journey,  can  only 
be  conjectured.  It  appears,  however,  from  Josh, 
xxiv.  2,  14,  that  Terah  was  given  to  idolatry,  or 
rather,  perhaps,  to  certain  idolatrous  superstitions 
retained  together  with  the  acknowledgment  and 
worship  of  Jehovah,  such  as  existed  in  the  family 
in  the  time  of  his  great-grandson  Labau  (Gen. 
xxxi.  30).  This  may  suggest  that  it  was  not  in  the 
Divine  wisdom  deemed  proper  that  one  who  had 
grown  old  in  such  practices  should  enter  the  land 
in  which  his  descendants  were  destined  to  exem- 
plify a pure  faith. 

TERAPHIM  (D'Snn).  The  etymology  and 
meaning  of  this  word  may  be  inferred  from  the 
various  modes  in  which  it  is  rendered  by  the 
Greek  translators,  such  as  Oepcupeiv,  0epa<peir,  or 
Oepacpt v,  reminding  us  of  the  etymological  rela- 
tion of  PpD  5] "ID,  nutrivit,  to  rpecp-cir.  Its  re-  • 
mote  derivatives  in  modem  languages,  viz.,  the 
Italian  tarifa,  French  tariff  and  even  the  Eng- 
lish tripe , throw  a little  light  upon  our  subject. 

According  to  its  etymology  the  woud  Teraphin 
has  been  literally  translated  nutritores,  nourishert 
It  seems  that  the  plural  form  was  used  as  a col 


TERAPHIM. 


TERAPHIM. 


845 


Jcctive  singular  for  the  personified  combination 
3f  all  nourishing  powers,  as  the  plural  Teraphim 
•ignifies  God,  in  whom  all  superior  powers,  to 
be  revered  with  reverential  awe,  are  combined 
(comp,  the  classical  epithets  of  gods — Sol,  Phoe- 
bus, Ceres,  Venus,  Cybele,  Pales,  Trivia,  Fides, 
Sibylla,  &c.,  (ilmus,  bpirvios,  rp6<pipos ). 

The  word  Teraphim  signified  an  object  or  objects 
of  idolatry,  as  we  may  learn  from  the  renderings 
of  the  Septuagint,  efScoAov,  y\vnr6v ; and  that  it 
was  in  meaning  similar  to  the  Penates  is  indicated 
by  Kevoracpiov.  Aquila  renders  it  gopipw/xaTa, 
Kporofiai,  ayOwcpalpecris,  iiriAvais,  etSwAa ; Sym- 
machus  also  translates  it  et5o>Aa.  It  seems  there- 
fore that  D'DIH,  and  the  feminine  which  occurs 
5 in  Rabbinical  writers,  niQ’in,  were  tutelar  house- 
hold gods,  by  whom  families  expected,  for  wor- 
ship bestowed,  to  be  rewarded  with  domestic  pros- 
perity, such  as  plenty  of  food,  health,  and  various 
necessaries  of  domestic  life. 

We  have  most  remarkable  proofs  that  the  wor- 
ship of  Teraphim  co-existed  with  the  worship  of  Je- 
hovah even  in  pious  families  ; and  we  have  more 
than  one  instance  of  the  wives  of  worshippers  of 
Jehovah,  not  finding  full  contentment  and  satis- 
faction in  the  stern  moral  truth  of  spiritual  wor- 
ship, and  therefore  carrying  on  some  private 
symbolism  by  fondling  the  Teraphim.  It  seems, 
however,  that  this  swerving  from  truth  was  com- 
paratively innocent.  It  was  never  denounced 
and  suppressed  with  the  same  rigour  as  the  wor- 
ship of  Moloch. 

We  find  intern  xxxi.  19,  that  Rachel  stole  the 
images  (teraphim)  belonging  to  her  father  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  her  husband,  who,  being 
accused  by  his  father-in-law  of  having  stolen  his 
gods,  answered,  ‘ With  whomsoever  thou  findest 
thy  gods,  let  him  not  live/  Laban  searched,  but 
found  not  the  images  (teraphim). 

It  appears  from  Judg.  xvii.  2-7,  that  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Lord,  SVin\  was  blended  with  that  of 
a graven  image  of  teraphim,  as  intimately  as  at 
present  some  forms  of  image-worship  are  blended 
with  the  worship  of  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 
That  such  will-worship,  howevei',  was  only  com- 
paratively innocent,  and  originated  in  an  obsti- 
nate pruritus  of  improving  rather  than  obeying 
God's  revelation,  Samuel  clearly  expressed  in 
reproving  Saul  (1  Sam.  xv.  23):  ‘Stubbornness 
is  as  iniquity  and  idolatry literally  teraphim. 
We  do  not  read  that  the  stubbornness  of  Saul 
led  him  literally  to  worship  teraphim.  How- 
ever, his  daughter  possessed  teraphim  as  big  as  a 
man  (1  Sam.  xix.  13) : Michal  took  an  image 
(teraphim),  and  put  it  into  the  bed  of  David  in 
?rder  to  conceal  his  flight : ‘ And  behold  an  image 
teraphim)  in  the  bed ? (ver.  16). 

On  every  revival  of  the  knowledge  of  the  writ- 
ten revelation  of  God  the  teraphim  were  swept 
away  together  with  the  worse  forms  of  idolatry 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  24)  : ‘ The  workers  with  familiar 
spirits,  and  the  wizards,  and  the  images  (tera- 
phim), and  the  idols,  and  all  the  abominations 
that  were  spied  in  the  land  of  Judah  and  in  Jeru- 
salem, did  Josiah  put  away,  that  he  might  per- 
form the  words  of  the  law,  which  were  written  in 
the  book  that  Hilkiah  the  priest  found  in  the  bouse 
of  the  Lord/ 

As,  however,  the  worship  of  teraphim,  like 
that  of  the  Penates  and  Lares  among  the  Romans, 
connected  with  nationality,  it  necessarily 


perished  with  the  nationality  itself  (Hosea  iii.  4): 
* For  the  children  of  Israel  shall  abide  many  days 
without  a king,  and  without  a prince,  and  with- 
out a sacrifice,  and  without  an  image,  and  with- 
out an  ephod,  and  (without)  teraphim.  After- 
wards shall  the  children  of  Israel  return  and  seek 
tne  Lord  their  God,  and  David  their  king,  and 
shall  fear  the  Lord  and  his  goodness  in  the  latter 
days.’ 

The  teraphim  were  consulted  by  persons  upon 
whom  true  religion  had  no  firm  hold,  in  order  to 
elicit  some  supernatural  omina , similar  to  the 
auguria  of  the  Romans. 

Zech.  x.  2 : ‘ For  the  idols  (teraphim)  have 
spoken  vanity,’  &c.  In  connection  with  the  ha- 
raspicia,  instituted  by  the  king  of  Babylon,  we 
read  (Ezek.  xxi.  21,  26)  that  he  consulted  images 
(teraphim). 

According  to  the  great  Rabbi  Eliezer,  who  was 
the  son  of  Hyrcanus,  and  the  brother-in-law  of 
Gamaliel  the  Second,  who  seems  to  have  been  the 
tutor  of  St.  Paul  (in  'pIS,  and  the  Targum  of 
Jonathan  on  Gen.  xxxi.  19),  the  worship  of  tera- 
phim was  connected  with  atrocities.  ‘ The  makers 
of  teraphim  slaughtered  a man  who  was  a first- 
born, cut  his  head  oft'  and  salted  it,  and  cured  it 
with  spices  and  oil.  After  this,  they  wrote  the 
name  of  an  impure  spirit,  and  sentences  of  divina- 
tion on  a golden  plate,  which  they  placed  under 
the  tongue  of  the  head,  which  was  fastened  to 
the  wall,  and  lighted  lamps  before  it,  and  knelt 
down  in  adoration,  upon  which  the  tongue  began 
to  utter  divinations.’  Rabbi  Salomo  or  Rashi 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  24)  says,  ‘the  teraphim  uttered 
divinations  by  magical  and  horoseopic  arts.’  On 
1 Sam.  xix.  13  sq.,  he  adduces  the  opinion  that  the 
teraphim  were  horoseopic . and  astrological  in 
struments  made  of  brass;  but  he  confesses  that 
this  opinion,  to  which  he  is  himself  much  in- 
clined, is  not  consistent  with  the  account  of 
Michal,  from  which  it  is  evident  that  the  tera- 
phim had  the  shape  of  man.  On  Gen.  xxxi.  Aben 
Ezra  adduces  the  opinion,  that  the  teraphim  were 
automata , made  by  astrologers  so  as  to  show  the 
hours  and  to  utter  divinations.  Hence  the  Per- 


sian Tawas  in  Gen.  xxxi.  translates 


astrolabia.  Aben  Ezra  also  adduces  the  opinion, 
that  Rachel  stole  the  teraphim  of  Laban  in  order 
to  prevent  him  from  idolatry,  and  from  asking 
the  teraphim  whither  his  children  had  fled. 
Rabbi  Levi  ben  Gersom  (on  Genesis)  states  that 
the  teraphim  were  human  figures,  by  which  the 
imagination  of  diviners  was  so  excited,  that  they 
supposed  they  heard  a low  voice  speaking  about 
future  events  with  which  their  own  thoughts  were 
filled,  although  the  image  did  not  speak,  an  ope- 
ration which  can  only  be  performed  by  such  na- 
tural organs  as  God  has  provided  for  that  purpose. 
The  book  Zohar  derives  the  name  teraphim  from 
tpm,  turpitude,  but  mentions  also  that  Rabbi 
Jehuda  derives  it  from  nS"l,  to  slacken , because 
they  slackened  the  hands  of  men  in  well-doing. 
The  Rabbi  adds,  that  they  uttered  a 
n5*7,  prophetia  laxa , inanis,  vana,  a loose  sort 
of  prediction.  Hence  Rabbi  Bechai  says  that 
D'Q'in  are  the  same  as  D'Sfl,  feeble , objects  not 
to  be  depended  upon.  But  in  Tanchuma  tha 
former  etymology  is  produced,  since  the  tera» 
phim  were  opus  turpitudini-9  sju 


J46 


TERTIUS. 


THEBES. 


faeditatis  (see  Buxtorfii  Lex.  Talmud,  et  Rabb. 
Bub  PpH,  which  root  occurs  in  the  Latin  turpis ). 

Onkelos  renders  Teraphim  in  Gen.  xxxi.  by 
and  Jonathan  in  Judges  xvii.  and  xviii. 
by  f'XD”!,  images.  The  Targum  on  Hosea  iii.  4 
has  'l  riD,  indicans,  expounder  of  oracles,  where 
the  Greek  has  SyAow ; and  the  Targum  on  1 
Sam.  xv.  23,  NmyD,  idols.  Goussetius,  under 
5pn,  goes  so  far  as  to  assert  that  the  word 
&v9pci)wos  is  formed  from  CiTinn.  Lud.  de 
Dieu,  and  after  him  Spencer,  in  Leg.  Bit. 
Hebr.  Dissert,  (vii.”  1.  3,  c.  3,  s.  7),  urges  the 
frequent  interchange  of  the  sounds  T and  S and 
SH,  in  order  to  show  that  Teraphim  and  Seraphim 
are  etymologically  connected.  Hottinger  in  his 
Smegma , and  Athanasius  Kircher  in  the  first 
volume  of  his  C Edipus  JEgyptiacus,  exhibit  the 
etymological  progression  thus : Sou  Apis  (c&p  air, 
ark  of  the  ox),  Sarapis,  Serapis,  Terapis, 
Teraphim.  The  Arabic  author,  Aben  Neph,  also 
asserts  the  identity  of  Teraphim  and  Serapides. 
Others  appeal  to  Oepaireveiv,  to  heal  (com- 

pare Jo.  Christ.  Wichmannshausen,  Dissertatio 
de  Teraphim ; Witsius,  Aegyptiac.  i.  8 ; Ugo- 
lino,  Thes.  tom.  xii.  p.  7S6). 

Coin,  in  his  Biblische  Theologie,  derives 

teraphim  from  the  Syriac  percontari. 

Michaelis,  in  Commentationes  Societati  Gottin - 
gensi  oblatce , Brem.,  1763,  p.  5,  sq.,  compares 
the  teraphim  to  the  Satyri  and  Sileni,  referring  to 
the  statement  of  Pausanias  (vi.  24.  6),  that  there 
were  graves  of  Sileni  in  the  country  of  the  He- 
brews. Creuzer  asserts  ‘Theraphimis  asininum 
aliquid  infuisse,’  that  the  Teraphim  had  some- 
thing of  asses  in  them  ( Commentationes  Herod. 
i.  277  ; Symbolik,  iii.  208,  sq.).  Creuzer  appeals 
also  ( Symb . ii.  340)  to  Gen.  xxxi.,  in  order  to  prove 
the  fertilizing,  or  ralher  fecundizing  power  of  the 
D'Sin,  which  scarcely  can  be  proved  from  ver. 
19  (comp,  here  Rosenmiilleri  Scholia  ; Jahn,  iii. 
506,  sq.)  The  dissertations  of  Wichmannshausen 
and  of  Pfeiffer,  De  Teraphim , are  inserted  in  vol. 
xxiii.  of  Ugolini  Thesaurus. — C.  H.  E.  B. 
TEREB1NTHUS.  [Alah.] 

TERTIUS.  We  learn  from  Rom.  xvi.  22 
(‘  I Tertius,  who  wrote  this  epistle,  salute  you  in 
the  Lord’),  that  the  Apostle  Paul  dictated  that 
epistle  to  Tertius.  Some  writers  say  that  Tertius 
was  bishop  of  Iconium  (see  Fabricii  Lux  Evan- 
gelii , p.  117).  F.  Burmann  and  Lightfoot  con- 
jectured that  Tertius  and  Silas  were  one  and  the 
same  person  ; but  this  conjecture  rests  on  an  ex- 
ceedingly feeble  foundation,  namely,  the  simi- 
larity merely  of  the  consonants  in  the  Hebrew 

numeral  three,  to  the  consonants  in  the 

name  Silas,  while  Tertius  signifies  in  Latin  the 
third.  However,  2iA.as  is  the  usual  Greek  con- 
traction of  the  Roman  name  Silvanus,  meaning 
nearly  the  same  as  the  English  name  Forester  or 
Woodman , just,  as  A ovitas  is  a contraction  of 
Lucanus,  the  meaning  of  which  is  nearl / the 
same  as  that  of  Silas,  and  may  be  compared  with 
the  English  name  Graves.  The  scantiness  of  our 
information  about  Tertius  has  been  a fruitful 
source  of  learned  pedantry  and  petulant  con- 
jecture, such  as  that  of  F.  Stosch  in  his  Exerci- 
tatio  de  Tertio  qua  esse  eum  non  alium  ac  ipsum 
Paulum  probatur,  p.  23 — in  the  Fortges.  n'utzl. 
Anmm.  Samml.  Compare  also  N.  D.  Briegleb, 


De  Tertio,  scriba  cpistohr  Pauli  ad  Romanos^ 
Jen.  1754,  4to.  See  the  article  Tertius  in  Winer’* 
Real- Wort.— C.  H.  F.  B. 

TERTULLUS  (TepryAAos),  the  Roman 
orator  or  advocate  employed  by  the  Sanhedrim 
to  sustain  their  accusation  against  Paid  befor® 
the  Roman  governor  (Acts  xxiv.  1-8).  The  Jews, 
as  well  as  the  other  peoples  subject  to  the  Romans, 
in  their  accusations  and  processes  before  the 
Roman  magistrates,  were  obliged  to  follow  the 
forms  of  the  Roman  law,  of  which  they  knew 
little.  The  different  provinces,  and  particularly 
the  principal  cities,  consequently  abounded  with 
persons  who,  at  the  same  time  advocates  and 
orators,  were  equally  ready  to  plead  in  civil  actions 
or  to  harangue  on  public  affairs.  This  they  did, 
either  in  Greek  or  Latin,  as  the  place  or  occasion 
required. 

TESTAMENT.  [Bibi.e.] 

TETRARCH  (reTp<xpx> js),  a prince  or  sove- 
reign who  holds  or  governs  a fourth  part  of  a 
kingdom,  without  wearing  the  diadem,  or  bear- 
ing the  title  of  king.  Such  was  the  original  im- 
port of  the  word,  but  it  was  afterwards  applied  ta 
any  petty  king  or  sovereign,  and  became  synony- 
mous with  ethnarch.  The  titles  of  tetrarch  and 
king  were  often  used  indiscriminately.  The 
tetrarch  was  sometimes  a prince  who  possessed  a 
half  or  only  a third  part,  and  though  a mere 
tetrarch,  was  from  courtesy  called  a king.  In 
the  same  manner  what  was  only  a tetrarchy  wan 
sometimes  called  a kingdom. 

In  the  reign  of  Tiberius  CajsarNflerod’s  king 
dom  of  Judaea  was  divided  into  three  parts,  which 
were  called  tetrarch ies,  and  the  sovereigns  te- 
trarchs.  His  sons  were  made  the  heirs  to  his 
kingdom.  Archelaus  became  tetrarch  of  Judaea, 
Samaria,  and  Idumaea;  Philip  of  Trachonitis 
and  Ituraea ; and  Herod  Antipas  of  Galilee  and 
Peraea  (Luke  iii.  1).  Herod  Agrippa,  the  nephew 
of  Herod  Antipas,  who  afterwards  obtained  the 
title  of  king  (Acts  xxv.  13),  was  in  the  reign  of 
Caligula  invested  with  royalty,  and  appointed 
tetrarch  of  Abilene ; to  which  was  afterwards 
added  Galilee  and  Peraea,  Judaea  and  Samaria  ; 
until  at  length  his  dominion  extended  over  the 
whole  land  of  Palestine  [Herodian  Family]. 
The  title  of  tetrarch  was  frequently  conferred 
upon  the  descendants  of  Herod  the  Great  by  the 
Roman  emperors  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33). — 

G.  M.  B. 

THADD^EUS  (0a55atoy),  a surname  of  the 
Apostle  Jude,  who  was  also  called  Lebbaeus  (Matt, 
x.  3;  Mark  iii.  18;  comp.  Luke  vi.  16)  [Jude], 

THAMMUZ.  [Tammuz.] 

THEBES  is  a name  borne  by  two  of  the  most 
celebrated  cities  in  the  ancient  world,  Thebes  ir. 
Boeotia,  and  Thebes  in  Egypt.  Of  the  latter  it  is 
that  we  have  here  to  speak  in  brief,  referring  those 
who  wish  for  detailed  information  to  the  works  of 
Wilkinson,  especially  his  Modern  Egypt  and 
Thebes. 

The  name  Thebes  is  corrupted  from  the  Tap£ 
of  the  ancient  Egyptian  language.  In  hiero- 
glyphics it  is  written  Ap,  Ape,  or  with  the  femi- 
nine article,  Tape,  the  meaning  of  which  appears 
to  be  ‘ the  head,’  Thebes  being  the  capital  of  the 
Thebais  in  Upper  Egypt.  By  the  Septuagint  it 
is  generally  termed  AiiariroAis,  Diospolis  (Magna), 
a name  corresponding  with  that  by  which  it  u 


THEBES. 


THEBES. 


8tf 


spoken  of  in  the  Bible — as  in  Ezek.  xxx.  14,  ‘I 
will  make  Pathros  (Pathyris,  the  western  division 
of  the  city)  desolate,  and  will  execute  judgments 
in  No  ’ (the  name  of  the  city,  as  it  lay  on  the 
eastern  bank  of  tneNile);  see  verses  15,  16,  and 
compare  xxix.  14,  15.  So  in  Jerem.  xlvi.  25,  ‘ I 
will  punish  the  multitude  of  No,  and  Pharaoh,  and 
Egypt,  with  their  gods  and  their  kings  ; and  I will 
deliver  them  into  the  hands  of  Nebuchadnezzar.’ 
Here  Thebes  is  denominated  by  the  term  No ; in 
Nahum  iii.  8,  the  name  is  made  more  specific, 
becoming  Nc  Amon,  that  is,  the  abode  of  Amon 
or  Amun,  who  may  be  roughly  described  as  the 
Egyptian  Jupiter.  There  was  indeed  another 
place  bearing  the  same  name  in  Lower  Egypt, 
just  above  Mendes,  whose  position  near  the  Medi- 
terranean would  correspond  very  well  with  the 
language  of  Nahum  (iii.  8),  who  has  been  thought 


by  some  (Kreenen,  Nahumi  Vaticinia  Expov , 
1808)  to  have  intended  this  latter  city  ; but'  the 
language  employed  by  the  prophet  would  answer 
equally  well  to  the  position  of  Thebes  in  Upper 
Egypt,  situated  as  it  was  on  both  sides  of  the  river 
Nile,  still  called  el-Bahr,  the  sea,  and  having 
canals  cutting  the  land  in  all  directions,  the 
waters  of  which  (the  Nile  and  its  canals)  would 
not,  only  minister  to  the  daily  wants  and  to  the 
affluence  of  the  city,  but  form  in  case  of  attack  a 
‘ rampart  ’ and  a ‘ wall.’  The  Thebes  of  Upper 
Egypt,  which  lay  on  both  the  eastern  and  western 
banks  of  the  Nile,  was  probably  the  most  ancient 
city  of  Egypt,  and  the  residence  in  very  early 
ages  of  Egyptian  kings  who  ruled  the  land  during 
several  dynasties.  The  plain  was  adorned  not 
only  by  large  and  handsome  dwellings  for  man, 
but  by  temples  and  palaces,  of  whose  grandeur 


.JACK  SQN.Sc 


520.  [Thebes. — The  palace-temple  at  Karnak.] 


words  can  give  but  a faint  conception.  Of  these 
edifices  there  are  still  in  existence  ruins  that 
astound  and  delight  the  traveller.  The  most  an- 
cient remains  now  existing  are  in  the  immense 
temple,  or  rather  cluster  of  temples,  of  Karnak, 
the  largest  and  most  splendid  ruin  of  which  either 
ancient  or  modern  times  can  boast,  being  the 
work  of  a number  of  successive  mouarchs,  each 
anxious  to  surpass  his  predecessor  by  increasing 
the  dimensions  of  the  part  he  added.  Osirtasen  I., 
the  contemporary  of  Joseph,  is  the  earliest  mo- 
narch whose  name  appears  on  the  monuments  of 
Thebes.  The  wealth  of  these  temples  was  as 
ample  as  their  architectural  pretensions  were 
great.  They  were  served  by  a numerous  and 
learned  priesthood.  On  the  western  shore  the 
chief  points  of  interest  are  the  palace  and  temple  of 
Rameses  II.,  erroneously  called  the  Memnonium  ; 
the  temples  of  Medinet  Habu,  the  statue  of  Mem- 
con,  and  the  tombs  of  the  kings.  On  the  eastern 


shore  are  the  temple  of  Luksor,  and  the  temple 
of  Karnak,  already  mentioned.  ‘ It  is  impossible,’ 
says  Robinson  (Bib.  Researches,  i,  29),  ‘lo  wander 
among  these  scenes  and  behold  these  hoary  yet 
magnificent  ruins  without  emotions  of  astonish- 
ment and  deep  solemnity.  Everything  around 
testifies  of  vastness  and  of  utter  desolation.  Here 
lay  once  that  mighty  city  whose  power  and  splen- 
dour were  proverbial  throughout  the  ancient 
world.’  Yet,  like  all  earthly  things,  Thebes  had 
her  period  of  death.  She  sprang  up,  flourished, 
declined,  and  sank.  Memphis  rose  to  be  her 
rival  when  Thebes  began  to  part  with  her  glory. 
She  was  plundered  by  Cambyses,  and  destroyed 
by  Ptolemy  Lathyrus.  In  Strabo’s  time  the  city 
was  already  fallen  ; yet  its  remains  then  covered 
eighty  stadia,  and  the  inhabited  part  was  divided 
into  many  separate  villages,  as  the  ru'ns  now  are 
portioned  out  between  nine  hamlets.  Thebes  ii 
thus  described  by  Homer : — 


THEBEZ- 


S48 

Not  all  proud  Thebes*  unrivalled  walls  contain, 
The  world’s  great  empress  on  th’  Egyptian 
plain, 

That  spreads  her  conquests  o’er  a thousand 
states, 

And  pours  her  heroes  through  a hundred  gates. 
Two  hundred  horsemen,  and  two  hundred  cars, 
From  each  wide  portal  issuing  to  the  wars. 

But  the  countless  generations  of  a city  which  well 
deserved  to  have  Homer  for  its  herald,  have  now 

Eassed  for  ever  away,  leaving  their  mighty  works 
ehind,  to  tell  to  wanderers  from  distant  and  un- 
Known  climes  the  story  of  her  greatness  and  her 
fall.  The  desert  hills  around  are  filled  with  their 
corpses : on  one  spot  Irbv  and  Mangles  counted 
in  the  side  of  the  Libyan  hills  fifty  mummy -pits, 
gaping  with  their  open  mouths,  as  if  they  would, 
vomit  forth  their  dusty  contents,  and  showing  how 
vain  were  the  efforts  which  the  Thebans  made  to 
preserve  themselves  from  the  dread  decree — ‘Dust 
thou  art,  and  to  dust  thou  shalt  return.’  The 
period  in  which  Thebes  enjoyed  the  highest  pros- 
perity Robinson  considers  to  have  been  coeval 
with  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon.  This,  how- 
ever, appears  too  late  a date.  From  the  passage  in 
Nahum  (iii.  8,  sq.),  it  would  seem  that  in  his  day 
(according  to  Josephus,  cir.  750  b.c.),  the  city  had 
suffered  a terrible  overthrow — how  long  previously 
is  not  recorded,  for  we  do  not  know  what  conquest 
or  what  conqueror  was  here  intended  by  the  pro- 
phet. The  walls  of  all  the  temples  at  Thebes  are 
covered  with  sculptures  and  hieroglyphics  re- 
presenting in  general  the  deeds  of  the  kings  who 
founded  or  enlarged  these  structures.  Many  of 
these  afford  happy  illustrations  of  Egyptian  his- 
(ory.  An  interesting  scene  is  thought  to  record  the 
exploits  of  Sheshonk,  the  Sbishak  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, who  made  a successful  expedition  against 
Jerusalem  in  the  fifth  year  of  King  Rehoboam, 
b.c.  97  1.  These  sculptures  are  on  the  exterior 
of  the  south-west  wall  of  the  great  temple  of 
Karnak.— J.  R.  B. 

THEBEZ  (15$  '*  Sept.  ©77/377$),  a place  near 
Shechem,  where  Abimelech  met  his  death  (Judg. 
ix.  50 ; 2 Sam.  xi.  21).  It  seems  to  be  the  same 
with  the  place  now  called  Tubas. 

THEOLOGY,  BIBLICAL.  The  historical 
contemplation  of  the  Bible  consists  of  three  parts, 
namely,  first,  of  an  examination  of  the  Biblical 
hooks  themselves,  or  of  what  is  called  Introduc- 
tion [Introduction]  ; secondly,  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  these  writings  [Interpretation]  ; 
and  lastly,  of  the  system  of  religious  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Bible.  We  may  define  Biblical 
theology  as  the  scientific  form  of  the  religious 
opinions  contained  in  the  Bible.  Biblical  theo- 
logy belongs,  therefore,  entirely  to  the  historical 
branch  of  divinity  and  differs  essentially  from 
Biblical  dogmatics  by  keeping  clear  from  all 
doctrinal  predilections.  Biblical  theology  and 
Biblical  dogmatics  are,  however,  so  nearly  related 
that  they  have  frequently  been  confounded.  Bib- 
lical dogmatics,  in  developing  the  religious  system 
of  the  Bible,  assume  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion. Biblical  theology,  however,  does  not  con- 
sider inspiration  to  l>e  an  historical  starting-point 
of  a science,  but  rather  an  ecclesiastical  attribute 
of  the  Bible  to  which  a purely  historical  contem- 
plation of  the  Bible  may  ultimately  lead,  but 
which  ought  not  to  be  pre-supposed.  The  basis 


THEOLOGY,  BIBLICAL. 

of  the  investigation  in  Biblical  theology  is  nothing 
else  but  historical  truth.  The  moral  nature  of 
man  claims  a purely  historical  contemplation  of 
the  Bible,  although  this  is  opposed  by  hierarchical 
narrow-mindedness. 

The  Bible  itself  consists  of  a variety  of  writ- 
ings, the  date  of  whose  origin  differs  by  centuries. 
Consequently,  chronology  is  of  great  importance 
in  Biblical  theology.  The  mere  division  into  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  does  not  suffice  for  the 
purposes  of  Biblical  theology.  In  the  history  of 
Biblical  literature  before  Christ,  various  periods 
are  discernible,  and  the  transition  from  the  Old  to 
the  New  Testament  is  such  that  we  must  supjxise 
that  there  existed  an  intervening  literature. 

The  great  space  of  time  to  which  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament  belong  is  conveniently 
subdivided  into  the  periods  of  Hebraism, 
Mosaism,  and  Judaism.  I.  During  the  whole 
history  before  the  exile,  that  is,  as  long  as  the 
Hebrews  were  an  independent  nation,  we  find  no 
allusion  to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaical  law  as 
we  have  it  in  the  Pentateuch.  This  is  especially 
remarkable  in  the  earlier  prophets.  For  this 
reason  the  whole  period  of  Hebrew  national  in- 
dependence has  been  called  the  age  of  Hebraism, 
or  the  Hebraic  age.  11.  Simultaneously  with  the 
loss  of  national  independence  the  Mosaic  law 
gradually  makes  its  appearance,  expelling  the 
freer  religious  enthusiasm  which  before  that  time 
had  prevailed  in  the  nation  in  the  form  of  Pro- 
phetism.  This  period  of  the  prevalence  of  the 
Mosaical  law  is  the  period  of  Mosaism. 

During  this  period  of  Mosaism  a colony,  chiefly 
from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  gradually  proceeded  to 
Palestine  ; and  in  this  colony  the  ancestral  reli- 
gion was  further  developed.  This  religion  did 
not  then  seem  the  property  of  the  whole  nation, 
but  to  be  restricted  to  the  Jews  alone. 

The  new  phasis  into  which  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Testament  then  entered  is  characterized  by  the 
extinction  of  prophetic  inspiration.  Consequently 
the  period  of  Mosaism  extends  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  exile  to  the  times  immediately 
after  the  latest  prophets,  Zechariah  and  Malachi, 
or  to  about  the  year  b.c.  400. 

III.  The  age  of  Judaism  commences  about 
the  year  b.c.  400.  During  this  age  the  law  and 
its  interpretation  remained  paramount ; but 
tradition  took  the  place  of  the  free  inspiration  of 
Jehovah.  This  tradition  refers  both  to  those  writ- 
ings which  in  the  periods  of  Hebraism  and 
Mosaism  expressed  the  prevalence  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  and  also  to  some  accounts  said  to  be 
orally  preserved.  The  oval  tradition,  following 
the  spirit  of  the  times,  constantly  imbibed  new 
elements,  and  brought  into  subjection  both  the 
Mosaical  law  and  the  writings  which  were  com- 
posed during  the  period  of  the  prevalence  of  thft 
Divine  Spirit.  The  period  of  Judaism  exhibits 
this  new  developement  of  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Testament,  first,  in  its  growth,  and  then  in  its 
maturity.  There  are  no  writings  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament canon  which  exhibit  tradition  in  its  ma- 
turity. The  Old  Testament  canon  contains  a 
collection  of  the  Mosaical  laws,  and  of  the  books 
which  were  written  under  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah. 
The  Christian  times,  however,  are  directly  con- 
nected with  the  formation  of  Judaism  in  its  second 
stage,  and  the  New  Testament  rests  on  the  basis  of 
this  latter  form  of  contemplation.  The  Ne  v 


THEOLOGY,  BIBLICAL. 

Testament  presupposes,  not  so  much  the  views 
and  opinions  of  Hebraism  and  of  Mosaism,  but 
those  of  later  Judaism,  in  which  the  canonical 
portion  of  the  Bible  leaves  a gap,  partly  but  im- 
perfectly filled  up  by  the  Old  Testament  Apo- 
crypha, and  the  writings  of  Philo  and  Josephus. 
Consequently  we  are  frequently  obliged  to  take 
from  the  New  Testament  itself  the  proofs  requisite 
to  convince  us  that  certain  opinions  were  prevalent 
in  the  Judaism  of  those  times. 

The  New  Testament,  containing  a collection  of 
the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  comprehends  a much 
shorter  period  than  the  Old  Testament ; neverthe- 
less, in  these  Christian  writings  also  there  is  a 
twofold  mode  of  viewing  religion,  namely,  the 
particularistic  or  Judaizing,  which  chronologically 
preceded  the  more  universal  or  catholic,  which  is 
embodied  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  and  St. 
John.  In  exhibiting  the  doctrines  of  the  New 
Testament  we  ought  to  keep  in  view  the  difference 
of  these  particularistic  and  catholic  tendencies. 
Consequently  Biblical  theology  consists  of  the 
following  parts,  which  may  be  historically  distin- 
guished— Hebraism , Mosaism , Judaism , Juda- 
izing Christianity,  and  Paulino-  Johannic  Chris- 
tianity. From  the  union  of  the  two  Christian  ten- 
dencies proceeds  tb*  catholic  and  apostolic 
church,  the  maxims  pf  which  are  in  the  New 
Testament  only  indicated. 

It  is  the  problem  of  Biblical  Theology,  first, 
to  classify  the  Biblical  books  according  to  these 
periods  or  tendencies ; secondly,  to  examine  the 
writings  of  each  author  and  of  each  tendency  as 
muchas  possible  in  chronological  succession — each 
by  itself  with  reference  to  the  religious  doctrines 
contained  therein — and  also  to  sum  up  the  results 
of  each  section, and  thus  to  advance  from  Hebraism 
»o  Mosaism,  and  from  Mosaism  to  Judaism,  &c. 
In  this  generical  developement  of  Biblical  doc- 
trines, the  investigator  ought,  to  keep  in  view  what 
'»  common  to  all  Biblical  books  in  all  periods; 
also  what  is  characteristic  in  each  author  and 
>1  each  period ; and  finally,  he  ought  to  render 
prominent  that  in  which  all  the  authors  of  the  New 
Testament  agree,  because  this  alone  constitutes 
what  is  really  essential  in  Christianity. 

The  science  of  Biblical  theology,  in  this  sense, 
is  only  in  its  infancy.  Its  principles  were  disco- 
vered after  manifold  errors  and  mistakes.  A 
work  comprehending  the  results  of  the  historical 
investigation  of  the  Bible,  is  still  a desideratum. 
There  exist,  however,  excellent  preparatory  worJ<s. 
The  scientific  description  of  Hebraism  and  Mo- 
saism is  further  advanced  than  that  of  Judaism 
and  the  Biblical  theology  of  the. New  Testament. 
The  true  cause  of  this  fact  is  the  greater  internal 
definiteness  of  Hebraism  and  Mosaim. 

Formerly,  the  expression  Theologia  Biblica 
implied  the  whole  sphere  of  exegetical  divinity. 
About  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  the 
term  Theologia  Biblica  was  employed  in  preference 
in  order  to  express  the  exegetical  interpretation  of 
the  dicta  probantia,  or  those  Biblical  passages 
by  which  divines  defended  their  system.  Spener 
and  his  followers  introduced  the  habit  of  con- 
tradistinguishing Biblical  theology  and  sym- 
bolical dogmatics.  About  this  period  Biblical 
theology  consisted  chiefly  in  strings  of  Biblical 
passages. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  a 
divine  in  Gottii  gen,  Gotthilf  Traugott  Zachariae, 
vet.  n.  55 


THEOLOGY,  BIBLICAL  64* 

first  attempted  to  bring  Biblical  theology  into  the 
form  of  a system  (comp.  G.  T.  Zachariae,  Bib- 
lischer  Th/.ologus  oder  Untersuchung  des  bib - 
lischen  Grundes  der  vornehmsten  theologischm 
Lehren , first  published  at  Gottingen  in  1771,  in 
2 vols.  The  third  edition  was  published  in  1786, 
in  4 vols  , to  which  was  added  in  the  same  year 
a fifth  volume  by  Vollborth.  Similar  works  are  W. 
Fr.  .tiufnagel's  IJandbuch  der  biblischen  Theo- 
logie,  band  i.,  Erlangen,  17S2;  band  ii.  Abtnei- 
lung  i.,  1789;  Ammon's  Biblische  Theologie,  Er- 
langen, 1792,  band  i.  second  euition,  in  3 vols. 
1801-1802;  Storr’s  Doctrines  Christiana:  pars 
theoretica , e sacris  literis  repetita , Stutt  gai  t,  1793, 
translated  into  German  by  T.  Chr.  Flatt,  Stutt- 
gart, 1803  : a second,  but  incomplete  edition,  ap- 
peared in  1813.  An  English  translation  of  this 
work,  with  additions,  was  published  at.  Andover 
in  America,  by  Dr.  Schumacker,  in  1836.  The 
above  works  on  Biblical  Theology  are  too  de- 
void of  science,  and  do  not  rest  upon  the  basis 
of  a firm  principle.  F.  Ph.  Gabler,  a pupil  of 
Griesbach,  first  attempted  to  avoid  these  defects, 
in  his  Oratio  de  justo  discrimine  Theologia:  Bib- 
lica: et  Dogmaticce  regundisque  recte  utriusque 
fnibus,  Altorf,  1787;  Opuscula,  1831,  ii.  129, 
sq.  In  this  work  Biblical  theology  is  established 
as  a purely  historical  science.  Gabler  was  fol- 
lowed by  Georg  Laurenz  Baur  and  G.  Ph.  Chr. 
Kaiser,  who,  however,  did  not  keep  clear  from 
mixing  up  with  Biblical  theology  several  not 
strictly  historical,  and  therefore  foreign,  elements.. 
Their  works  have  been  surpassed  by  those  of  De. 
Wette  and  Baumgarten-Crusius.  These  writes^,, 
however,  render  history  too  much  subservient  to 
their  philosophical  opinions;  comp.  W.  M,  da 
Wette’s  Biblischer  Dogmatik  des  Alten  und  Neuen- 
Testamentes , Berlin,  1813,  third  edit.  1830-,  and, 
Baumgarten-Crusius's  Grundzuge  der  Biblischen 
Theologie,  Jena,  1828. 

The  idea  of  Biblical  theology  has  been  best, 
understood  and  executed  by  Dan.  Georg.  Conrad 
von  Colin  ( Biblische  T'h.eologie'),  Leipzig,  1836, 
2 vols.  The  second  volume,  which  relates  to  the 
New  Testament,  is,  however,  much  inferior  to  the 
first. 

The  following  works  refer  to  parts  of  Biblical 
theology  : Gramberg's  Kritische  Geschichte  der 
Religions  Ideen  des  Alten  Testaments , Berlin, 
1822  and  1830,  2 vols.  ; Vatke's  Biblische  The- 
logie  wissenschaftlich  dargestellt,  Berlin,  1835. 
Of  this  work  the  first  volume  alone  has  been  pub- 
lished, which  refers  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  is 
not  so  much  an  historical  as  a strictly  Hegelian 
book.  G.  Fr.  (Elder’s  Prolegomena  zur  Theolor 
gie  des  Alten  Testamentes,  Stuttgart,  1845,  is 
more  an  ecclesiastico-dogmatical  than  an  histo- 
rical book  ; Bertholdt,  Christologia  Judocorum 
Jesu  et  Apostoloi'um  cetate,  Erlangae,  1811  ; 
Aug.  Gfrorer’s  Philo  und  die  Alexundrinische 
Theosophie,  Stuttgart,  1831,  2 vols.;  A.  F. 
Dahne’s  Geschichtliche  Darstellung  der  judisch 
Alexandrinischen  Religions  Philosophie,  Halle, 
1834,  2 parts  ; George,  Ueber  die  neuesten  Gegen- 
siitze  in  der  Auffassung  der  jiidischen  Religion , 
philosophic,  in  111  gen’s  Zeitschrift  fur  histo- 
rische  Theologie,  1839,  Heft  3 und  4;  Usteri’s- 
Entwickelung  des  Pauluiisclien  Lehrbegriffes, 
Zurich,  1824,  4th  ed.  1832  ; Dahne,  Entioickelung 
des  Paulinischen  Lehrbegriffes,  Hall*,  1834; 
Frommann,  Der  Johanneischc  Lehrbeariff,  Leip- 


850 


THEOPHILUS. 


THESSALONIANS. 


tig,  1839;  K.  R.  Kostlin,  Der  Lehrbegriff  des 
Evangelii  und  der  Briefe  des  Johannis , Berlin, 
1843.  This  book  also  is  rather  too  Hegelian. 
In  Matfhaei's  Religions  glaube  der  Apostcl  ncich 
seitiem  Inhalte  Ursprung  und  Werth,  Gottin- 
gen, 1826-1830,  Hegelian  ideas  predominate.* — • 

K.  A.  C. 

THEOPHILUS  (0eo<pi\os),  a person  of  dis- 
tinction, to  whom  St.  Lake  inscribed  his  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (Luke  i.  3;  Acts  i. 
1).  The  word  means  ‘lover  of  God;’  whence 
some  have  fancied  that  it  was  to  be  taken  as  a 
general  name  for  any  or  every  lover  of  God.  But 
tnere  seems  no  foundation  for  this  opinion,  as  the 
circumstance  and  style  of  address  point  to  a par- 
ticular person  of  honourable  station,  with  whom 
Juke  was  acquainted.  The  til le  — KpuTurros , 
•ranslated  ‘most  excellent,’  is  the  same  which 
i*  given  to  governors  of  provinces,  as  Felix  and 
Festus  (Acts  xxiii.  26  ; xxvi.  25)  ; whence  he  is 
received  by  some  to  have  been  a civil  magistrate 
m some  high  office.  Theophylact  ( Argument . in 
supposes  that  he  was  of  the  senatorian  order, 
and  J~ivhaps  a nobleman  or  prince. 

THESSALONIANS,  EPISTLES  TO  THE. 
— *\ust  Epistj.e. — ’The  authenticity  and  ca- 
nonical authority  of  this  epistle  have  been  from 
tb“  earliest  ages  admitted  ; nor  have  these  points 
ever  been  called  in  question,  either  in  ancient  or 
^cdern  times,  by  those  who  have  received  any 
of  Paul's  epistles.  Besides  two  probable  quota- 
'•  Jns  from  it  by  Polvcarp  (Lardner,  ii.  96,  8vo. 
ed.),  it  is  certainly  cited,  and  cited  as  the  pro- 
duction of  the  apostle  Paul,  by  Irenseus  (v.  6, 
6 1),  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  ( Paed . i.  § 19,  p. 
lO  9,  ed.  Potter),  by  Tertullian  (De  Rcsur.  Carnis, 
c.  24),  by  Cains  (up.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  vi. 
CO),  by  Origen  ( Cont . Cels.  lib.  iii.),  and  by 
others  oi  die  ecclesiastical  writers  (Lardner,  ii. 
pi.  locc.). 

This  episile  has  generally  been  regarded  as  the 
first  written  by  Paul  of  those  now  extant.  In  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  (xvii.  5,  sq.)  we  are  told  that 
Paul,  after  preaching  the  Gospel  with  success  at 
Thessalonica,  had  to  flee  from  that  city  in  conse- 
quence of  the  malice  of  the  Jews  ; that  he  thence 
betook  himself  to  Berea,  in  company  with  Silas; 
♦hat,  driven  by  the  same  influence  from  Berea,  he 
journeyed  to  Athens,  leaving  Silas  and  Timothy 
(the  latter  of  whom  had  probably  preceded  him 
to  Berea)  behind  him  ; and  that  after  remaining 
in  that  city  for  some  time,  he  went  to  Corinth, 
where  he  was  joined  by  Timothy  and  Silas.  It 
appears  also  from  this  epistle  (iii.  1,  2,  5),  that 
whilst  at  Athens  he  had  commissioned  Timothy 
to  visit  the  infant,  church  at  Thessalonica;  and 
from  Acts  xvii.  15,  16,  we  learn  that  he  expected 
to  be  joined  by  Timothy  and  Silas  in  that  city. 
Whether  this  expected  meeting  ever  took  place 
there,  is  a matter  involved  in  much  uncertainty. 
Michael  is,  Eichhorn,  De  Wette,  Koppe,  Pelt,  and 


* In  the  English  language  there  are  scarcely 
any  works  on  Biblical  Theology  as  defined  in  this 
article,  except  one  or  two  which  have  been  trans- 
lated in  America  from  the  German.  There  are 
indeed  several  works  of  various  merit  on  Biblical 
dogmatics,  that  is  to  say,  doctrinal  rather  than 
nistorical,  but  they  do  not  claim  notice  in  this 
olace, — Edit. 


others,  are  of  opinion  that,  at  least  as  respects  Ti- 
mothy, it  did  take  place;  and  they  infer  that  Paul 
again  remanded  him  to  Thessalonica,  and  that  lit 
made  a second  journey  along  with  Silas  to  join 
the  apostle  at  Corinth,  Hug,  on  the  other  hand, 
supposes  only  one  journey,  viz.,  from  Thessalo- 
nica to  Corinth ; and  understands  the  apostle  in 
1 Thess.  iii.  1,  2,  as  intimating,  not  that  he  had 
sent  Timothy  from  Athens  to  Thessalonica,  but 
that  he  had  pre vented  his  coming  to  Athens  by 
sending  him  from  Berea  to  Thessalonica.  Be- 
tween these  two  opinions,  there  is  nothing  to 
enable  us  to  judge  with  certainty,  unless  we 
attach  weight  to  the  expression  of  Luke,  that 
Paul  had  desired  the  presence  of  Timothy  and 
Silas  in  Athens  ws  raxarra,  "as  speed il y as  pos- 
sible.’ His  desiring  them  to  follow  him  thus, 
without  loss  of  time,  favours  the  conclusion  that 
they  did  rejoin  in  Athens,  and  were  thence  sent 
to  Thessalonica. 

But  whatever  view  we  adopt,  on  this  point,  it 
seems  indisputable  that  this  epistle  was  not  written 
until  Paul  met  Timothy  and  Silas  at  Corinth. 
The  ancient  subscription,  indeed,  testifies  that  it 
was  written  at  Athens;  but  that  this  could  not  be 
the  case  is  clear  from  the  epistle  itself.  1.  In 
ch.  i.  7,  8,  Paul  says  that  the  Thessalonians  had 
become  ‘ensamples  to  all  that  believe  in  Mace- 
donia and  Achaia : for  from  you  (says  he')  sounded 
out  the  word  of  the  Lord  not  only  in  Macedonia 
and  Achaia,  but.  also  in  every  place  your  faith  to 
God-ward  is  spread  abroad.’  Now,  for  such  an 
extensive  diffusion  of  the  fame  of  the  Thessalo- 
nian  Christians,  and  of  the  Gospel  by  them,  a 
much  longer  period  of  time  must  have  elapsed 
than  is  allowed  by  the  supposition  that  ir-'aul  wrote 
this  epistle  whilst  at  Athens  ; and  besides,  his  re- 
ference particularly  to  Achaia  seems  prompted  by 
the  circumstance  of  his  being,  at  the  time  he  wrote, 
in  Achaia,  of  which  Corinth  was  the  chief  city. 
2.  Ilis  language  in  ch.  iii.  1,  2,  favours  the  opinion 
that  it  was  not  from  Athens,  but  after  he  had  left 
Athens,  that  he  wrote  this  epistle  ; it  is  hardly  the 
turn  which  one  living  at.  Athens  at  the  time 
would  have  given  his  words.  3.  Is  it  likely  that, 
during  the  short  time  Paul  was  in  Athens,  before 
writing  this  epistle  (supposing  him  to  have  written 
it  there),  he  should  have  '•over  and  againy  pur- 
posed to  revisit  the  Thessalonians,  but  have  been 
hindered?  And  yet  such  purposes  lie  had  enter- 
tained before  writing  this  epistle,  as  we  learn 
from  ch.  ii.  18  ; and  this  greatly  favours  the  later 
date.  4.  Before  Paul  wrote  this  epistle,  Timothy 
had  come  to  him  from  Thessalonica  with  good 
tidings  concerning  the  faith  and  charity  of  the 
Christians  there  (iii.  6).  But  had  Timothy  fol- 
lowed Paul  to  Athens  from  Berea,  what  tidings 
could  he  have  brought  the  apostle  from  Thessalo- 
nica, except  such  hearsay  reports  as  would  inform 
the  apostle  of  nothing  he  did  not  already  know? 
From  these  considerations,  it  follows  that  this  epistle 
was  not  written  from  Athens.  It  must,  however, 
have  been  written  very  soon  after  his  arrival  at 
Corinth  ; for,  at  the  time  of  his  writing,  Timothy 
had  just  arrived  from  Thessalonica  (&pri  tkBdv 
tos  TipoOeov,  iii.  6),  and  Paul  had  not  been  long 
in  Corinth  before  Timothy  and  Sdas  joined  him 
there  (Acts  xvii.  1-5).  Michael  is  contends  for  a 
later  date,  but  his  arguments  are  destitute  oi 
weight.  Before  Paul  could  learn  that  the  fame 
of  the  Thessalonian  church  had  spread  through 


THESSALONIANS. 


THESSALONIANS. 


m 


Achais,  and  far  beyond,  it  was  not  necessary,  as 
MichaC'lis  supposes,  that  he  should  have  made 
several  extensive  journeys  from  Corinth ; for  as 
tnat  city,  from  its  mercantile  importance,  was  the 
resort  of  persons  from  all  parts  of  the  commercial 
world,  the  apostle  had  abundant  means  of  gather- 
ing this  information  even  during  a brief  residence 
there.  As  little  is  it  necessary  to  resort  to  the 
supposition  that  when  Paul  says,  that  over  and 
again  Satan  had  hindered  him  from  fulfilling  his 
intention  of  visiting  Thessalonica,  lie  must  refer 
to  shipwrecks  or  some  such  misfortunes  (as  Mi- 
chaelis  suggests)  ; for  Satan  has  many  ways  of 
Hindering  men  from  such  purposes,  besides  acci- 
dents in  travelling. 

The  design  of  this  epistle  is  to  comfort  the 
Thessalonians  under  trial,  and  to  encourage  them 
to  the  patient  and  consistent  profession  of  Christi- 
anity. The  epistle  may  be  conveniently  divided 
into  two  parts.  The  former  of  these,  which  com- 
prises the  first  three  chapters,  is  occupied  with 
statements  chiefly  of  a retrospective  character:  it 
details  the  apostle’s  experience  among  the  Thes- 
salonians, his  confidence  in  them,  his  deep  regard 
for  them,  and  his  efforts  and  prayers  on  their  be- 
half. The  latter  part  of  the  epistle  (iv.  5)  is,  for 
the  most  part,  of  a hortatory  character  : it  contains 
the  apostle's  admonitions  to  the  Thessalonians  to 
walk  according  to  their  profession  ; to  avoid  sen- 
suality, dishonesty,  and  pride;  to  cultivate  bro- 
therly love,  to  attend  diligently  to  the  duties  of 
life,  to  take  the  comfort  which  the  prospect  of 
Christ’s  second  coming  was  calculated  to  convey, 
but  not  to  allow  that  to  seduce  them  into  indolence 
or  idle  speculations ; to  render  due  respect  to  their 
spiritual  superiors  ; and,  by  attention  to  a number 
of  duties  which  the  apostle  specifies,  to  prove  them- 
selves worthy  of  the  good  opinion  he  entertained 
of  them.  He  concludes  the  epistle  by  offering 
fervent  supplication  on  their  behalf,  and  the  usual 
apostolic  benediction. 

Second  Epistle. — The  apostle’s  allusion  in 
his  former  epistle  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ, 
and  especially  his  statement  in  cli.  iv.  15-18,  ap- 
pear to  have  been  misunderstood  by  the  Thessa- 
lonians, or  wilfully  perverted  by  some  among 
them,  so  as  to  favour  the  notion  that  that  event 
was  near  at  hand.  This  notion  some  inculcated 
as  a truth  specially  confirmed  to  them  by  the 
Spirit;  others  advocated  it  as  part  of  the  aposlolic 
doctrine;  and  sonfe  claimed  for  it  the  specific 
support  of  Paul  in  a letter  (ii.  2).  Whether  the 
letter  here  referred  to  is  the  apostle’s  former 
epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  or  one  forged  in  his 
name  by  some  keen  and  unscrupulous  advocates 
of  the  notion  above  referred  to,  is  uncertain.  The 
latter  opinion  has  been  very  generally  adopted 
from  the  time  of  Chrysostom  downwards,  and  is 
certainly  somewhat  countenanced  by  the  apostle’s 
statement  in  the  close  of  the  epistle  as  to  his  auto- 
graph salutation  being  the  mark  of  a genuine 
letter  from  him  (iii.  17).  At  the  same  time,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  probability  of  such  a 
thing  being  done  by  any  one  at  Thessalonica,  is, 
under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  not  very 
strong. 

On  receiving  intelligence  of  the  trouble  into 
which  the  Thessalonians  had  been  plunged,  in 
consequence  of  the  prevalence  among  them  of 
the  notion  (from  whatever  source  derived)  that 
t&jfc  second  coming  of  Christ  was  nigh  at  hand, 


Paul  wrote  to  them  this  second  epistle,  in  which 
lie  beseechingly  adjures  them  by  the  very  fact 
that  Christ  is  to  come  a second  time,  not  to  be 
shaken  in  mind  or  troubled,  as  if  that  event  wer© 
near  at  hand.  He  informs  them  that  much  was 
to  happen  before  that  should  take  place,  and  espe- 
cially predicts  a great  apostacy  from  the  purity 
and  simplicity  of  the  Christian  faith  (ii.  5-12). 
He  then  exhorts  them  to  hold  last  by  the  traditions 
they  had  received,  whether  by  word  or  epistle,  and 
commends  them  to  the  consoling  and  sustaining 
grace  of  God  (ver.  1 5-17).  The  rest  of  the  epistle 
consists  of  expressions  of  affection  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians, and  of  confidence  in  them ; of  prayers 
on  their  behalf,  and  of  exhortations  and  directions 
suited  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were 
placed.  As  regards  the  disposition  and  arrange- 
ment of  these  materials,  the  epistle  naturally 
divides  itself  into  three  parts.  In  the  first  (i. 
1-12),  the  apostle  mingles  commendations  of  the 
faith  and  piety  of  the  Thessalonians,  with  prayers 
on  their  behalf.  In  the  second  (ii.  1-17),  he 
dilates  upon  the  subject  of  the  trouble  which  had 
been  occasioned  to  the  Thessalonians  by  the  anti- 
cipation of  the  near  approach  of  the  day  of  the 
Lord.  And  in  the  third  (iii.  1-16),  lie  accumu- 
lates exhortations,  encouragements,  and  directions, 
to  the  Thessalonians,  respecting  chiefly  the  peace- 
able, quiet,  and  orderly  conduct  of  their  lives, 
which  he  follows  up  with  a prayer  on  their  behalf 
to  the  God  of  peace.  The  epistle  concludes  with 
a salutation  from  the  apostle’s  own  hand,  and  the 
usual  benediction  (ver.  17,  18). 

There  is  the  strongest  reason  for  believing  that 
this  second  epistle  was  written  very  soon  after  the 
first,  and  at  the  same  place,  viz.  Corinth.  The 
circumstances  of  the  apostle,  while  writing  the 
one,  seem  very  much  the  same  as  they  were  whilst 
writing  the  other ; nor  do  those  of  the  Thessalo- 
liians  present  any  greater  difference  than  such  as 
the  influences  referred  to  in  the  second  epistle  may 
be  supposed  in  a very  short  time  to  have  produced. 
What  seems  almost  to  decide  the  question  is,  that 
whilst  writing  the  second  epistle,  the  apostle  had 
Timothy  and  Silas  still  witli  him.  Now,  after 
he  left  Corinth,  it  was  not  for  a long  time  that 
either  of  these  individuals  was  found  again  in 
his  company  (Acts  xviii.  18,  compared  with  xix. 
22)  ; and  witli  regard  to  one  of  them,  Silas,  there 
is  no  evidence  that  he  and  Paul  were  ever  together 
at  any  subsequent  period.  At  what  period,  how- 
ever, of  the  apostle’s  abode  at  Corinth  this  epistle 
was  written,  we  are  not  in  circumstances  accurately 
to  determine. 

‘ The  genuineness  of  this  epistle,’  remarks  Eich- 
horn,  ‘ follows  from  its  contents.  Its  design  is  to 
conect  the  erroneous  use  which  had  been  made 
of  some  things  in  the  first  epistle ; and  who  but 
the  writer  of  that  first  epistle  would  have  set  him- 
self thus  to  such  a task  % It  however  appears  that 
the  author  of  the  first  must  also  be  the  author  of 
the  second  ; and  as  the  former  is  the  production 
of  Paul,  we  must  ascribe  the  latter  also  to  him. 
It  was  essential  to  the  apostle’s  reputation  that  the 
erroneous  consequences  which  had  been  deduced 
from  his  words  should  be  refuted.  Had  he  re- 
frained from  noticing  the  expectation  built  upon 
his  words,  of  the  speedy  return  of  Christ,  hi# 
silence  would  have  confirmed  the  conclusion,  that 
this  was  one  of  his  peculiar  doctrines ; as  such 
it  would  have  passed  to  the  succeeding  genera 


652 


THESSALONICA. 


THEUDAS. 


tion ; anil  when  they  perceived  that  in  this  Paul 
had  been  mistaken,  what  confidence  could  they 
(have  had  in  other  parts  of  his  leaching?  The  weight 
of  this,  as  an  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  this 
Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  acquires  new 
strength  from  the  fact,  that  of  all  the  other  ex- 
pressions in  the  epistle,  not  one  is  opposed  to  any 
point  either  in  the  history  or  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostle  ‘ ( Einleit . ins  N.  T.  iii.  69). 

The  internal  evidence  in  favour  of  the  genuine- 
3ess  of  this  epistle  is  equally  strong  with  that 
which  attests  the  first.  Polycarp  ( Ep.  ad  Philip. 
§11)  appears  to.  allude  to  ch.  iii.  15.  Justin 
Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  (p.  193, 
32,  ed.  Sylburg.  1593),  speaks  of  the  reigning 
of  the  man  of  sin  (t by  rgs  avoplas  &y9pwjroy), 
which  seems  to  be  an  evident  allusion  to  ch.  ii. 
3 ; and  in  a passage,  quoted  by  Lardner  (vol.  ii. 
p.  125),  he  uses  the  phrase  6 rrj s air ocrracrlas 
&ydpct>Tros.  The  eighth  verse  of  this  second  chapter 
is  formally  cited  by  Irenaeus  (iii.  c.  7.  § 2), 
as  from  the  pen  of  an  apostle ; Clement  of  Alex- 
andria specially  adduces  ch.  iii.  2.  as  the  words 
of  Paul  (Strom,  lib.  v.  p.  554,  ed.  Sylb.),  and 
Tertullian  also  quotes  this  epistle  as  one  of  Paul's 
(De  Resurrec.  Carnis,  c.  24). 

Notwithstanding  these  evidences  in  its  favour, 
the  genuineness  of  this  epistle  has  been  called  into 
doubt  by  the  restless  scepticism  of  some  of  the 
German  critics.  The  way  here  was  led  by  John 
Ernest  Chr.  Schmidt,  who,  in  1801,  published  in 
his  Bibliothek  fur  Kritik  wad  Exegese , a tract 
entitled  Vcrmuthungen  iiber  die  Beiden  Brief e 
an  die  Thess  a Ionic  her , in  which  he  impugned 
the  genuineness  of  the  first  twelve  verses  of  the 
second  chapter.  He  afterwards,  in  his  Einleitung, 
p.  256,  enlarged  his  objections,  and  applied  them 
to  the  whole  epistle.  De  Wette  took  the  same 
side,  and,  in  his  Einleitung , has  adduced  a num- 
ber of  reasons  in  support  of  his  opinion,  drawn 
from  the  epistle  itself.  His  cavils  are  more  than 
usually  frivolous,  and  have  been  most  fully  re- 
plied to  by  Guericke  (Beiiriige  zur  Hist.  Krit. 
Einl.  insN.  T.  s.  92-99,  Halle,  1828),  by  Reiche 
(Authentic  Post,  ad  Thess.  Epist.  Vindiciee , 
Gott.  1829),  and  by  Pelt  in  the  Prolegomena  to 
his  Commentary  on  the  Ejnsties  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians (p.  xxvii.). 

Jewell,  Bp.,  An  Exposition  upon  the  two 
Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Saint  Paid  to  the  Thes- 
salonians, Loud.  1583,  12mo.,  1811,  8vo. ; YV. 
Sclater,  Exposition  and  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Thess.,  Lond.  1619,  1629,  4to. ; J.  Alph. 
Turretin,  Commentarius  in  Epp.  Pauli  ad  Thess., 
Basil,  1739,  8vo. ; Lud.  Pelt,  Epist.  Pauli  Apost. 
ad  Thess.  perpetuo  illust.  Commentario,  &c., 
Gryphiswald,  1830,  8vo. — W.  L.  A. 

THESSALONICA  (©ecrcaXoviKt]),  now  called 
Salonichi,  is  still  a city  of  about  sixty  or  seventy 
thousand  inhabitants,  situated  on  the  present  gull 
of  Salonichi,  which  was  formerly  called  Sinus 
Thermaicus,  at  the  mouth  of  the  river  Echedorus. 
It  was  the  residence  of  a presses,  the  principal 
city  of  the  second  part  of  Macedonia,  and  was  by 
later  writers  even  styled  metropolis  (Liv.  xlv.  29, 
sq. ; Cic.  Pro  Plane.  41).  Under  the  Romans  it 
became  great,  populous,  and  wealthy  (Strabo,  vii. 

323  ; Lucian,  Osir.,  c.  46  ; Appian,  Bell.  Civ., 
iv.  118;  Mannert,  Geographie,  vii.  471,  sq.).  It 
had  it3  name  from  Thessalonice,  wife  of  Cassander, 
who  built  the  city  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Ther- 


maj.  after  which  town  the  Sinus  Thermaicus  wm 
called  (Strabo,  vii.  p.  330  ; Herod,  vii.  121  ; Plin. 
Hist.  Nat.  iv.  17  ; Schol.  Thuc.  i.  61  ; comp.  Steph 
Byz.  s.  v.  Tliessalonica).  Thessalonice  is  said  to 
have  been  killed  by  her  own  son  Antipater 
Tliessalonica  was  267  Roman  miles  east  of  Apol- 
lonia  and  Dvrrachium,  66  miles  from  Amphi- 
polis,  89  from  Philippi,  433  west  from  Byzan- 
tium, and  150  south  of  Sophia.  A great  number 
of  Jews  were  living  at  Tliessalonica  in  the  tiim 
of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  also  many  Christian  con- 
verts, most  of  whom  seem  to  have  been  either 
Jews  by  birth  or  proselytes  before  they  embraced 
Christianity  by  the  preaching  of  Paul.  Jews 
are  still  very  numerous  in  this  town,  and  possess 
much  influence  there.  They  are  unusually  ex- 
clusive, keeping  aloof  from  strangers.  The  apos- 
tolical history  of  the  place  is  given  in  the  pre- 
ceding article.  The  present  town  stands  on  the 
acclivity  of  a steep  hill,  rising  at  the  north- 
eastern extremity  of  the  bay.  It  presents  an  im- 
posing appearance  from  the  sea,  with  which  the 
interior  by  no  means  corresponds.  The  principal 
antiquities  are  the  propylsea  of  the  hippodrome,  the 
rotunda,  and  the  triumphal  arches  of  Augustus 
and  Constantine. — C.  H.  F.  B. 

THEUDAS,  a Jewish  insurgent,  who  was  slain, 
while  a band  of  followers  that  he  had  induced  to 
join  him  were  scattered  and  brought  to  nought.  This 
statement  was  made  by  Gamaliel  at  the  meeting 
of  the  Sanhedrim  held  about  a.d.  33,  to  consider 
what,  measures  should  be  taken  for  the  suppression 
of  the  Gospel  now  preached  and  recommended  by 
the  virgin  zeal  of  Peter  and  the  apostles  (Acts  v. 
29,  34,  sq.).  Josephus  (Antiq.  xx.  5.  1)  tells 
us  of  a Theudas  who,  under  the  procurator  Pha- 
dus  (a.d.  44),  set  up  for  a prophet,  and  brought 
ruin  on  himself  and  many  whom  he  deluded. 
Now  the  Theudas  of  Gamaliel  appeared  before 
‘ these  days,’  that  is,  before  the  speech  was  deli- 
vered, a.d.  33;  and  also  before  ‘Judas  of  Galilee 
in  the  days  of  the  taxing  ;’  while  the  Theudas  of 
Josephus  arose  not  before  a.d.  44.  This  diflerence 
of  time  would  seem  to  show  that  the  two  were 
difl'erent  persons;  but  an  undue  desire  to  draw 
from  Josephus  a corroboration  of  every  fact  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament  led  to  the  conversion 
of  this  simple  diversity  into  a contradiction. 
Then  came  attempts  at  solution.  Assuming  that 
the  two  authorities  referred  to  the  same  Theudas. 
expositors  took  two  difl'erent  ways  of  treating  the 
difficulty:  1.  they  imputed  an  omission  to  Jose- 
phus ; 2.  they  imputed  an  error  to  Luke.  Sup- 
posing, however,  that  Josephus  made  no  omission, 
and  that  he  meant  the  same  Theudas  who  is  men- 
tioned by  Gamaliel,  might  not  the  Jewish  histo- 
rian be  wrong  in  his  chronology  ? If,  however,  hi* 
Theudas  appeared  in  the  defined  time,  might  not 
the  Theudas  of  Gamaliel  have  appeared  before 
Gamaliel’s  days?  Gamaliel,  too,  though  ‘ a doctor 
of  the  law,  held  in  reputation,’  was  not  infallible, 
He  might  have  mistaken  the  name.  Religiou* 
insurgents  were  common.  Several  of  them  bore 
the  not  greatly  dissimilar  name  (V  Judas.  And 
if  Gamaliel  committed  an  error,  sorely  it  should 
not  be  charged  on  Luke,  who  was  no  more  respon- 
sible for  the  erroneous  history  than  for  the  lame 
argument  of  that  learned  doctor’s  speech,  whicn 
seems  to  affect  a display  of  knowledge  not  un- 
likely to  lead  into  mistakes.  If,  however,  any 
error  is  fairly  imputable  to  the  writer  of  the  Act* 


THIEF. 


THIGH. 


»f  thq  Arostbvs  / Is  too  inconsiderable  to  occasion 
concern  tc  tLc  enlightened  student  of  the  New 
Testament. 

These  remark*  have  been  made  to  meet  the 
ordinary  view  of  the  case.  But  the  name  Theudas 
:s  an  Aramaic  fbrm  of  (he  Greek  ©edSoros,  which 
is  a literal  t-ansiation  of  the  Hebrew  ITTlD,  Mat- 
thias or  Matthew.  It  is,  then,  of  a Matthew  that 
Luke  speaks;  and  in  Josephus  (Antiq.  xvii.  6. 
2-4)  we  find  a detailed  account  of  one  Matthew, 
a distinguished  teacher  among  the  Jews,  who,  in 
the  latter  days  of  Herod  the  Great,  raised  a band 
of  his  scholars  to  effect  a social  reform  in  the  spirit 
of  the  old  Hebrew  constitution,  by  ‘ destroying  the 
heathen  works  which  the  king  had  erected  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  their  fathers.’  A large  golden 
eagle,  which  the  king  had  caused  to  be  erected 
over  the  great  gate  of  the  Temple,  in  defiance  of 
the  law  that  forbids  images  or  representations  of 
any  living  creatures,  was  an  object  of  their  special 
dfslike,  which,  on  hearing  a false  report  that 
Herod  was  dead,  Matthias  and  his  companions 
proceeded  to  demolish ; when  the  king’s  captain, 
supposing  the  undertaking  to  have  a higher  aim 
than  was  the  fact,  came  upon  the  riotous  reform- 
ers with  a band  of  soldiers,  and  arrested  the  pro- 
ceeding* of  the  multitude.  Dispersing  the  mob 
he  apprehended  forty  of  the  bolder  spirits,  together 
with  Matthias  and  his  fellow-leader  Judas.  Mat- 
thias was  burnt. 

Now,  had  we  used  the  term  Theudas  for  the 
term  Matthias,  the  reader  would  at  once  have  seen 
that  what  we  have  just  given  from  the  more 
minute  narrative  of  Josephus,  is  only  a somewhat 
detailed  statement  of  the  facts  of  which  Gamaliel 
gave  a brief  summary  before  the  Sanhedrim. 
This  chronological  difficulty  then  disappears. 
Matthias  or  Theudas  appeared  ‘ before  these 
days,’  before  Judas  of  Galilee,  and  before  the 
census ; he  appeared,  that  is,  some  four  years  an- 
terior to  the  birth  of  our  Lord. — J.  R.  B. 

THIEF,  PENITENT  ON  THE  CROSS 
(Luke  xxiii.  39-43).  It  has  been  assumed 
that  this  man  had  been  very  wicked  ; that  he  con- 
tinued so  till  he  was  nailed  to  the  cross;  that  he 
joined  the  other  malefactor  in  insulting  the 
Saviour;  and  that  then,  by  a miracle  of  grace,  he 
was  transformed  into  a penitent  Christian.  But 
this  view  of  the  case  seems  to  involve  some  mis- 
conception of  the  facts,  which  it  may  not  be  in- 
expedient to  indicate.  Whitby  says, ‘Almost  all 
interpreters  that  I have  read  here  say  that  this  thief 
began  his  repentance  on  the  cross.’  With  regard  to 
his  moral  character,  he  is  indeed  styled  by  the 
Evangelist  one  of  the  ‘ malefactors  ( KaKovpyoi ) who 
were  led  with  Jesus  to  be  put  to  death  ’ (ver.  32) ; 
but  the  word  ia  evidently  used  So^acrriKws,  i.  e. 
malefactors  as  they  were  considered.  St.  Matthew 
(xxvii.  44) and  St.  Mark  (xv.  27)  call  them  Kyarai ; 
but  this  word  denotes  not  only  robbers, &c.,  but  also 
brigands,  rebels,  or  any  who  carry  on  unauthorized 
hostilities,  insurgents  (Thucyd.  iv.  53).  Bishop 
Maltby  observes,  in  his  sermon  on  the  subject, 
tlmt  ‘these  KaKovpyoi  were  not  thieves  who  robbed 
all  for  profit,  but  men  who  had  taken  up  arms 
on  a principle  of  resistance  to  the  Roman  oppres- 
sion, and  to  what  they  thought  an  unlawful 
burden,  the  tribute-money ; who  made  no  scruple 
to  rob  all  the  Romans,  and  when  engaged  in  these 
unlawful  causes,  made  less  difference  between 
lews  and  Romans  than  they  at  first  meant  to  do’ 


85o 

( Sermons , 1819-22,  vol.  i.).  Insurrection  was  a 
crime,  but  it  was  a crime  a person  might  have 
committed  who  had  good  qualities,  and  had  main- 
tained a respectable  character.  Again,  this  man’s 
punishment  was  crucifixion,  which  was  not  in 
use  among  the  Jews,  and  inflicted  by  the  Romans 
not  on  mere  thieves,  but  rebels.  Barabbas  had 
been  one  of  these,  and  though  lie  ‘ lay  bound  with 
them  that  had  made  insurrection  with  him,  who 
had  committed  murder  in  the  insurrection,’  Mark 
(xv.  27)  has  the  same  word,  Xycrrijs,  ‘robber,’ 
which  is  applied  to  him  by  St.  John  (xviii.  40). 
It  is  most  probable , that  these  ‘malefactors’  were 
two  of  his  companions.  Our  Lord  was  con- 
demned under  the  same  charge  of  insurrection 
(Luke  xxiii.  2),  and  the  man  whose  case  we  are 
considering  says  to  his  fellow-sufferer,  ‘ thou  art 
under  the  same  sentence ,'  iv  tw  av t&S  Kplpan,  and 
admits  that  they  botli  were  guilty  of  the  charge, 
while  our  Lord  was  innocent  of  it  (Luke  xxiii.  40, 
41).  It  is  impossible  then  to  determiuethe  degree  of 
his  criminality,  without  knowing  what  provocations 
he  had  received  under  the  despotic  and  arbitrary 
rule  of  a Roman  governor  such  as  Pilate,  how  far 
he  had  been  active, or  only  mixed  up  with  the  sedi- 
tion, &c.  The  notion  that  he  was  suddenly  and  in- 
stantaneously converted  on  the  cross  is  grounded 
entirely  upon  the  general  statement  of  Matthew, 

‘ the  thieves  also  which  were  crucified  with  him 
cast  the  same  in  his  teeth’  (xxvii.  44),  whereas 
St.  Luke,  in  his  relation  of  the  incident,  is  more 
exact.  Instances  of  St.  Matthew’s  style  of  speak- 
ing, which  is  called  amplification , abound  in  the 
Gospels,  and  in  all  writers.  Thus,  ‘ the  soldiers 
brought  him  vinegar*  (Luke  xxiii.  36;  John  xix. 
29),  ‘ one  of  them  did  so*  (Matt,  xxvii.  48 ; 
Mark  xv.  36).  ‘ The  disciples  had  indignation’ 

(Matt.  xxvi.  8),  ‘some  of  them’  (Mark  xiv.  4), 
‘one  of  them’  (John  xii.  4).  So  in  Mark  xvi.  5; 
Matt,  xxviii.  2,  there  is  mention  of  one  angel 
only;  but  ini  Luke  xxiv.  4;  John  xx.  12,  there  is 
mention  of  two.  It  is  also  far  from  certain  that 
either  his  faith  or  repentance  was  the  fruit  of  this 
particular  season.  He  must  have  knov^n  some- 
thing of  the  Saviour,  otherwise  he  could  not  have 
said  ovSev  'o.tottov  eirpa^e,  ‘ he  hath  done  nothing 
amiss.’  He  may  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
miracles  and  preaching  of  Jesus  before  he  was 
cast  into  prison;  he  may  have  even  conversed 
with  him  there.  He  was  convinced  of  our  Lord’s 
Messiahship,  ‘ Lord,  remember  me  when  thou 
comest  into  thy  kingdom.’  His  crime  possibly 
consisted  of  oidy  one  act  of  insuboi'dination,  and 
he  might  have  been  both  a sincere  believer,  and, 
with  this  one  exception,  a practical  follower  of 
Christ.  Koecher  (ap.  Bloomfield,  Reccn.  Synop.') 
tells  us  that  it  is  a very  ancient  tradition  that  the 
thief  was  not  converted  at  the  cross,  but  was  pre- 
viously imbued  with  a knowledge  of  t he  Gospel. 
See  Kuinoel,  Macknight,  &c. — J.  F.  D. 

THIGH,  the  part  of  the  body  from  the  legs 
to  the  trunk,  of  men,  quadrupeds,  &c.  (Heb.  “p' ; 
Sept.  p.yp6s ; Vulg.  femur).  It  occurs  in  Gen. 
xxxii.  25,  31,  32;  Judg.  iii.  16,  21 ; Ps.  xlv.  3; 
Cant.  iii.  8.  Tutting  the  hand  under  the  thigh 
appears  to  have  been  a very  ancient  custom,  upon 
occasion  of  taking  an  oath  to  any  one.  Abraham 
required  this  of  the  oldest  servant  of  his  house, 
when  lie  made  him  swear  that  he  would  not  take 
a wife  for  Isaac  of  the  daughters  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  (Gen.  xxiv.  2-9).  Jacob  required  it  of  his 


THIGH. 


THOMAS. 


son  Joseph,  when  he  bound  him  by  oath  not  to 
bury  him  in  Egypt,  but  with  his  fathers  in  the 
land  of  Canaan  (xlvii.  29-31).  The  origin,  form, 
and  import  of  this  ceremony  in  taking  an  oath, 
are  very  doubtful.  A ben  Ezra  says,  ‘ It  appears 
to  mi  that  it  was  the  custom  in  that  age  for  a 
servant  to  place  his  hand  on  his  master’s  thigh,  at 
the  command  of  the  latter,  to  show  that  he  con- 
sidered himself  subject  to,  and  undertook  his 
master's  bidding;  and  such  is  at  present  the  cus- 
tom in  India.’  Grotius  thinks  that  as  the  swo.d 
was  worn  upon  the  thigh  (comp.  Judg.  iii.  16, 
21  ; Ps.  xlv.  3 ; Cant.  iii.  8)  this  custom  was  as 
much  as  to  say,  If  I falsify,  kill  me.  Not  a few 
commentators,  ancient  and  modern,  explain  it  of 
laying  the  hand  on  or  near  the  sectio  circumcisi- 
onis , to  protest  by  that  solemn  covenant  of  God, 
whereof  circumcision  was  the  badge  and  type,  in 
the  Abrahamic  family.  So  R.  Eleazar  says, 
4 Before  the  giving  of  the  law,  the  ancient  fathers 
swore  by  the  covenant  of  circumcision’  (Pirke, 
cap.  49).  The  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel 
explains  it  m'TM  in  seetione  circum- 

cisionis  meae  : the  Jerusalem  Targum,  ITinn 
'D'p,  sub  femore  foederis  mei.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke 
adopts  the  former  of  these  two  explanations  (Com- 
mentary on  Gen.  xxiv.  9).  This  interpretation 
supposes  a meiosis,  or  metonymy,  such  as  is  sup- 
posed by  some  to  attend  the  use  of  the  word  with 
regard  to  the  effect  of  the  water  of  Jealousy 
(Num.  v.  21,  22,  27).  Boc’rtart  adduces  many 
similar  instances  ( Hierozoic . p.  2,  lib.  v.  cap.  15). 
We  may  also  refer  to  the  margin  or  Ileb.  of 
Gen.  xlvi.  26;  Exod.  i.  5;  Judg.  viii.  30.  No 
further  allusion  to  this  ceremony  in  taking  an 
oath  occurs  in  Scripture,  unless  the  phrase 
4 giving  the  hand  under’  refer  to  it.  See  Hebrew 
or  margin  of  1 Chron.  xxix.  24,  and  ‘giving  the 
hand,’  2 Chron.  xxx.  8;  Jer.  1.  15;  Ezek.  xvii. 
18.  Our  translation  states  that  ‘ the  hollow  of 
Jacob's  thigh  was  out  of  joint  by  the  touch  of  the 
angel  who  wrestled  with  him’  (Gen.  xxxii.  25). 
Some,  however,  prefer  to  render  JJplYl,  was 
sprained,  or  wrenched , and  adduce  Jer.  vi.  8 ; 
Ezek.  xxiii.  17,  18.  The  Sept u agin t renders  it  ical 
ivdpKyac  t b ttKoltos  tov  pppov  ; the  Vulg.  tetigit 
nervum  fern  oris  ejus,  et  statim  emarcuit.  Some 
such  sense  better  suits  ver.  31,  where  we  find 
Jacob  limping  on  his  thigh  ; see  Gesenius  on 
The  custom  of  Jacob's  descendants,  founded  upon 
this  incident,  is  recorded  in  ver.  32,  which  hits  been 
thus  translated  : ‘ Therefore  the  children  of  Yisrael 
eat  not  of  the  nerve  Nashe,  which  is  upon  the 
hollow  of  the  thigh,  unto  this  day  : because  he 
struck  the  hollow  of  Yaacob's  thigh,  on  the  nerve 
Nash§’  (Sept,  rb  vevpoy,  Vulg.  nervus).  The  true 
derivation  of  the  word  is  considered  by  Dr. 
Fiirst,  in  his  Concordance , to  be  still  a secret; 
but,  along  with  Gesenius,  he  understands  the  nerve 
itself  to  he  the  ischiatic  nerve , which  proceeds 
from  the  hip  to  the  ancle.  This  nerve  is  still  ex- 
tracted from  the  hinder  limbs  by  the  Jews  in 
England,  and  in  other  countries  where  properly 
qualified  persons  are  appointed  to  remove  it  (New 
Translation,  &c.,  by  the  Rev.  D.  A.  De  Sola, 
p.  333).  The  phrase  ‘ hip  and  thigh'  occurs 
in  Judg.  xv.  8,  in  the  account  of  Samson's  slaugh- 
ter of  the  Philistines.  Gesenius  translates  in 
this  passage  with,  and  understands  it  as  a pro- 
verbial expression  for  ‘ he  smote  them  all.’  The 


Chaldee  paraphvast  interprets  it,  « He  smote  both 
footmen  and  horsemen,  the  one  resting  on  their 
legs  (as  the  word  pit?  should  be  rendered),  the 
other  on  their  thighs,  as  they  sat  on  their  horses.’ 
Others  understand  that  he  smote  them  both  on  the 
legs  and  thighs.  Some  give  another  interpretation. 
Smiting  on  the  thigh  denotes  penitence  (Jer.  xxxi. 
19),  grief,  and  mourning  (Ezek.  xxi.  12).  A few 
mistranslations  occur.  The  word  ‘thigh’  should 
have  been  translated  ‘ leg  ’ in  Isa.  xlvii.  2,  pit?, 
Kvypas,  crura.  In  Cant.  vii.  1,  ‘ The  joints  of  thy 
thighs,’ &c.,  the  true  meaning  is^  the  cincture  pf  thy 
loins  (i.  e.  the  drawers,  trovvsers)  is  like  jewellery.1 
Lady  Wortley  Montagu  describes  this  article  of 
female  attire  as  ‘ composed  of  thin  rose-coloured 
damask,  brocaded  with  silver  fl outers’  ( Letters , 
ii.  12;  see  Harmeir,  On  Solomon's  Song,  p.  110). 
Cocceius,  Buxtorf,  Mercerus,  and  Junius,  all 
adopt  this  explanation.  In  Rev.  xix.  16,  it  is 
said  ‘ the  Word  of  God  (ver.  13)  hath  on  his  ves- 
ture and  on  his  thigh  a name  written,  King  of 
kings  and  Lord  of  lords.’  Schleusner  thinks  the 
name  was  not  written  upon  the  thigh,  but* upon  the 
sword.  Montfaucon  gives  an  account  of  several 
images  of  warriors  having  inscriptions  on  the 
thighs  (Antiquiti  Expliguee,  vol.  iii.  part  ii.  pp. 
268-9;  Grupter,  ?ii.  1189;  and  see  Zornii  Opus - 
cvla  S.S.  ii.  759.) — J.  F.  D. 

THISTLE.  [Thorns.] 

THOMAS  (&u>yas).  The  word  NONA  is 
equivalent  to  the  Greek  Albupos,  twin.  This 
name  occurs  also  on  Phoenician  inscriptions,  in  a 
form  which  remi*  ds  us  of  the  colloquial  English 
abbreviation,  viz.  and  (Gesenii  Mo- 

numenta  Phoenicia , p.  356). 

The  Apostle  Thomas  (Matt.  x.  3 ; Mark  iii. 
18;  Luke  vi.  15 ; Acts  i.  13)  has  been  considered 
a native  of  Galilee,  like  most  of  the  other  apostles 
(John  xxi.  2)  ; hut  according  to  tradition  he  was 
a native  of  Antiochia,  and  had  a twin-sister 
called  Lysia  (Patres  Apost.  ed.  Cotel.  pp.  272, 
50 1 ).  According  to  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  i.  13) 
the  real  name  of  Thomas  was  Judas;  and  he 
occurs  under  this  name  also  in  the  Acta  Thomce. 
This  Judas  was  deemed  the  same  as  Judas  the 
brother  of  Jesus  (Matt.  xiii.  55).  It  would  seem 
even  that  the  surname  AlSvjuos  was  understood  to 
mean  that.  Thomas  was  a twin-brother  of  Jesus 
(Philo,  ad  Acta  Thumoe,  p.  94,  sq.). 

In  the  character  of  Thomas  was  combined, 
great  readiness  to  act  upon  his  convictions,  to  be 
faithful  to  his  faith  even  unto  death,  so  that  he 
even  exhorted  his  fellow-disciples,  on  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  ‘ Let  us  also  go,  that  we 
may  die  with  him’  (John  xi.  16),  together  with 
that  careful  examination  of  evidence  which  will 
be  found  in  all  persons  who  are  resolved  really 
to  obey  the  dictates  of  their  faith.  Whosoever  is 
minded,  like  most  religionists  who  complain 
of  the  scepticism  of  Thomas,  to  follow  in  the 
common  transactions  of  life  the  dictates  of  vulgar 
prudence,  may  easily  abstain  from  putting  hit 
hands  ,into  the  marks  of  the  nails  and  into  the 
side  of  the  Lord  (John  xx.  25)  ; but  whosoever  is 
ready  to  die  with  the  Lord  will  be  inclined  to 
avail  himself  of  extraordinary  evidence  for  extra- 
ordinary facts,  since  nobody  likes  to  suffer  mar- 
tyrdom by  mistake.  These  remarks  are  directed 
against  Winer  anti  others,  who  find  in  the  dm* 
ract’er  of  Thomas  what  they  consider  contradictor* 


THORNS  and  THISTLES. 


THORNS  and  "THISTLES.  855 


traits,  viz-}  inconsiderate  faith,  and  a turn  for 
exacting  the  most  rigorous  evidence.  We  find 
that  a resolute  and  lively  faith  is  always  neces- 
sarily combined  with  a sense  of  its  importance, 
and  with  a desire  to  keep  its  objects  unalloyed  ami 
free  from  error  and  superstition.  Christ  himself 
did  not  blame  Thomas  for  availing  himself  of 
all  possible  evidence,  but  only  pronounced  those 
blessed  who  would  be  open  to  conviction  even  if 
some  external  form  of  evidence  should  not  be 
within  their  reach  (comp.  Niemeyer’s  Akade- 
mische  Predigten  und  Reden , p.  321,  sq.). 

Thomas  preached  the  Gospel  in  Parthia  (Ori- 
gen,  apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eecles.  iii.  1 ; Socrat.  i. 
19;  Clement,  Recogn.  ix.  29),  and,  according  to 
Jerome,  in  Persia ; and  was  buried  at  Edessa 
(Rufin.  Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  5).  According  to  a later 
tradition  Thomas  went  to  India,  and  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom there  (Gregor.  Naz.  Orat.  xxv.ad  Arian. 

р.  438,  ed.  Par. ; Ambrose,  in  Ps.  xlv.  10  ; Hieron. 
Ep.  148(59)  ad  Marcell. ; Niceph.  Hist.  Eccles. 
ii.  40 ; Acta  Thomce , c.  i.  sq. ; Abdiae  Hist.  Apost. 

с.  ix. ; Paulin.  A.  S.  Bartholomaeo,  India  Orient. 
Christiana,  Rom.  1794).  This  tradition  has  been 
attacked  by  Von  Bolden  ( Indien , i.  375,  sq.).  The 
ancient  congregations  of  Christians  in  India  who 
belong  to  the  Syrian  church,  are  called  Thomas- 
Christians,  and  consider  the  Apostle  Thomas  to 
be  their  founder  (Fabricii  Lux  Evangelii,  p.  626, 
sq. : Assemani,  Biblioth.  Orient.,  iii.  2.  435,  sq. ; 
Ritter’s  Erdkunde , v.  i.  601,  sq.).  Against  this 
tradition  Thilo  wrote  in  his  edition  of  the  Acta 
Thomce,  p.  107,  sq.  (comp.  August!,  Denkw'iir- 
digkeiten , iii.  219,  sq.). 

The  fathers  frequently  quote  an  Evangelium 
secundum  Thomam , -aud.  Acta  Thomce,  the  frag- 
ments of  which  have  "been  carefully  edited  by 
J.  C.  Thilo,  in  his  Codex  Apocryphus  Novi  Tes- 
tamenti,  i.  275  ; and  the  Acta  Thomce  separately, 
L.  1823  ; and  see  Winer’s  Real-W orterbuch,  un- 
der ‘Thomas.’ — C.  H.  F.  B. 

THORNS  and  THISTLES.  We  have  re- 
ferred to  this  article  the  various  words  which, 
in  the  Authorized  and  other  versions,  have  been 
considered  to  indicate  brambles,  briers,  thorns, 
thistles.  Rabbinical  writers  state  that  there  are 
no  less  than  twenty-two  words  in  the  Bible  sig- 
nifying thorny  and  prickly  plants;  but  some  of 
these  are  probably  so  interpreted  only  because  they 
are  unknown,  and  may  merely  denote  insignifi- 
cant shrubs.  V\  e shall  enumerate  them  alphabeti- 
cally, though  not  likely  to  throw  any  light  upon 
what  has  already  baffled  so  many  inquirers. 
This  does  not  arise  from  any  deficiency  of  thorny 
plants  to  which  the  Biblical  names  might  be 
applied,  but  from  the  want,  of  good  reasons  for 
selecting  one  plant  more  than  another ; for,  as 
Celsius  has  said,  4 Fuerunt  in  Judaea  hand  pauca 
loca  a spinis  diversorum  generum  denominata, 
quod  esset  haec  terra  non  tantum  lacte  et  melle 
fluens,  sed  herbis  quoque  inutilibus,  et  spinis 
multifariis  passim  infestata.’  As  examples  we 
may  mention  the  genera  of  which  some  of  the 
species  are  thorny,  such  as  Acacia,  Astragalus, 
Acantbodium,  Alhagi,  Fagonia,  Tribulus,  Berbe* 
ris,  Prunus,  Rubus,  Crataegus,  Solanum,  Carduus, 
Cnicus,  Onopordon,  Eryngium,  Rhamnus,  Zizy- 
phus;  and  of  species  which  are  named  from  this 
characteristic,  Anabasis  spinosissima,  Paliurus 
aculeatus,  Ruscus  aculeatus,  Forskalea  tenacissi- 
tua,  Aristida  pungens,  Salsola  Echinus,  Echinops 


spinosus,  Bunias  spinosa,  Lycium  spinosum,  Potc- 
rium  spinosum,  Atraphaxis  spinosa,  Prenanthes 
spinosa,  Ononis  spinosa,  Smilax  asper,  Spartium 
spinosum,  Zizyphus  Spina  Christi. 


Akantha  (ci.Ka.v9a)  occurs  in  Matt.  vii.  16  ; 
xiii.  7,  22  ; xxvii.  27  ; and  also  in  the  parallel 
passages  of  Mark  and  Luke;  and  as  forming  the 
crown  of  thorns,  in  John  xix.  2,  5.  The  word  is 
used  in  as  general  a sense  as  * thorn  ’ is  with  us, 
anu  therefore  it  would  be  incorrect  to  confine  it 
to  any  one  species  of  plant  in  all  the  above 
passages,  though  no  doubt  some  particular  thorny 
plant  indigenous  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jeru- 
salem would  be  selected  for  plaiting  the  crown 
of  thorns.  Hasselquist  says  of  the  Nabca  Pali- 
urus Athencei  of  Alpinus,  now  Zizyphus  Spina 
Christi , ‘ In  all  probability  this  is  the  tree  which 
afforded  the  crown  of  thorns  put  upon  the  head 
of  Christ.  It  is  very  common  in  the  East.  This 
plant  is  very  fit  for  the  purpose,  for  it  has  many 
small  and  sharp  spines,  which  are  well  adapted 
to  give  pain  : the  crown  might  easily  be  made 
of  these  soft,  round,  and  pliant  branches ; and 
what  in  my  opinion  seems  to  be  the  greater 
proof  is,  that  the  leaves  very  much  resemble  those 
of  ivy,  as  they  are  of  a very  deep  glossy  green. 
Perhaps  the  enemies  of  Christ  would  have  a 
plant  somewhat  resembling  that  with  which  em- 
perors and  generals  were  crowned,  that  there 
might  be  a calumny  even  in  the  punishment.’ 
Some  have  fixed  upon  Paliurus  aculeatus,  and 
others  upon  Lycium  horridum. 

At  ad,  orATHAD  (lOX),  occurs  in  Gen.  1.  10: 
Judg.  ix.  14,  15  ; Ps.  lviii.  9.  In  the  first  passage 
it  is  said  lhat  4 they  came  to  the  threshing-floor,’ or 
the  place  of  Atad.  In  the  fable  in  Judg.  ix.  14, 
15,  the  atad , or  bramble,  is  called  to  reign  over 
the  trees.  From  Ps.  lviii.  9,  it  is  evident  that 
the  atad  was  employed  for  fuel  ; * Before  you* 


THORNS  and  THISTLES. 


R56  THORNS  and  THISTLES. 

pots  can  feci  the  thorns.’  Athad  is  so  similar  to 

the  Arabic  ausuJ,  t!iat  'lt  has  generally 

been  considered  to  mean  the  same  plant,  namely, 
a species  of  buckthorn.  This  is  confirmed  by 
atadmi  being  one  of  the  synonymes  of  rhamnus, 
as  given  in  the  supplements  to  Dioscorides. 
A species  of  rhamnus  is  described  both  by  Kelon 
and  by  Rauvvolf  as  being  common  in  Pales- 
tine, and  by  the  latter  as  found  especially  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem.  It  has  been  de- 
scribed by  Prosp.  Alpinus  as  having  an  abun- 
dance of  long  branches,  on  which  are  found  many 
long  and  very  sharp  thorns.  So  Rauvvolf:  ‘It 
puts  forth  long,  slender,  crooked  switches,  on 
which  there  are  a great  many  long,  strong,  and 
acute  thorns.’  As  above  mentioned,  this  has  been 
supposed  by  some  to  be  the  true  Christ’s  thorn, 
Rhamnus , now  Zizyphus  Spina  Christi. 

Besha  and  Beshim,  translated  rosed  and 
thistles  in  Auth.  Vers.  [Besha]. 

Barkanim  (D'3p"D),  translated  briers  in  the 
Auth.  Vers.,  occurs  in  Judg.  viii.  7,  16,  where 
Gideon  is  described  as  saying,  ‘ then  I will  tear 
your  flesh  with  the  thorns  ( kozim ) of  the  wilder- 
ness, and  with  osiers  {barkanim).'  The  Seventy 
in  their  version  retain  the  original  name.  There 
is  no  reason  for  believing  that  briers,  as  applied 
to  a rose  or  bramble,  is  the  correct  meaning ; but 
there  is  nothing  to  lead  us  to  select  any  one  pre- 
ferably from  among  the  numerous  thorny  and 
prickly  plants  of  Syria  as  the  barkanim  of  Scrip- 
ture Rosenmiiller,  however,  says  that  this  word 
signifies  ‘ a flail,’  and  has  no  reference  to  thorny 
plarrfs. 

Batos  {fidros).  [Seneh.] 

Charue,  ‘ nettle.’  [Charue.] 

Chedek  (p*in)  occurs  twice  in  Scripture;  in 
Prov.  xv.  19  : ‘ The  way  of  the  slothful  is  as  a 
hedge  of  thorns  ' {chedek)  ; and  in  Micah  vii.  4 : 
‘ The  best  of  them  is  as  a brier  {chedek).  and  the 
most  upright  like  a thorn-hedge.’  Chedek  is 
generally  supposed  to  be  as  little  known  as  the 
other  thorny  and  prickly  plants,  but  there  is  an 

Arabic  word,  chadak  or  hudak , which  is 

applied  in  the  East  to  a species  of  solarium. 
This  is  supposed  by  Rosenmiiller  and  others  not 
to  be  suitable  to  the  above  passages  ; but  some 
species  of  solarium  grow  to  a considerable  size ; 
others  are  among  the  most  prickly  plants  of  the 
East,  and  very  common  in  dry  arid  situations. 
S.  sanctum,  the  S.  spinosum  of  others,  is  found 
in  Palestine.  Dr..Harris  is  of  opinion  that  chedek 
is  the  colutea  spinosa  of  Forskal,  which  is  called 
heddad  in  Arabic,  and  of  which  there  is  an  en- 
graving in  Russell’s  JSat.  Hist,  of  Aleppo,  tab.  5. 

Choach  (niH)  is  found  in  several  places,  and 
is  in  the  Auth.  Vers,  translated  thistle  in  2 Kings 
xiv.  9 ; Job  xxxi.  40  ; and  thorns  in  Job  xli.  2 ; 
Prov.  xxvi.  9;  Isa.  xxxiv.  13,  &c.  From  the 
context  of  the  several  passages,  it  is  evident  that 
choach  must  have  been  some  useless  plant  (Jr 
weed  of  a thorny  nature.  Prov.  xxvi.  9 : As  a 
thorn  {choach)  goeth  into  the  hand  of  a drunkard, 
&c.  The  Septuagint  translates  it  by  duavda,  and 
&Kav,  that  is,  words  which  signify  thorny  plants 
in  general,  and  also  by  kulStj,  ‘ a nettle.’  But  it  is 
difficult  in  thi3,  as  in  other  instances,  to  ascertain 


what  particular  plant  is  intended,  and  hence 
choach  has  been  variously  translated.  Celsius  h&a 


pointed  out  that  the  Arabic 


khokh  is 


similar  in  nature  and  origin  to  the  Hebrew  word, 
and  is  employed  as  its  synonyme,  and  lhat 
chucho  is  the  Syriac  version.  Khookh  is  applied 
in  Arabic  to  the  peach,  and  bur  khookh,  whence 
we  have  apricock,  &c.  to  the  apricot.  Choach  may 
therefore  be  considered  as  a generic  term  applied 
to  the  plum  tribe;  and  some  of  these, as  the  com- 
mon sloe,  Prunus  spinosa,  are  well  known  to  lie 
of  a thorny  nature  : ‘ Sylvestris  prunus,  humilis, 
ac  solidis  spinis  munitus  est.’  Some  kindred 
species,  as  a thorny  Crataegus,  may  supply  its 
place  in  Syria.  Bove  says  of  Mesteh,  not  far 
from  the  Jordan,  ‘ Les  arbustes  qui  y croissent 
m’ont  paru  des  Rhamnees  ou  des  Rosacees  du 
genre  Prunus.’ 


Dardar  OTlI),  translated  thistles  in  the 
Auth.  Vers.,  occurs  in  Gen  iii.  18,  ‘Thorns  also 
and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee;’  and 
again  in  Hosea  x.  8 ; in  both  of  which  passages 
dardar  is  conjoined  with  koz.  The  Rabbins  de- 
scribe it  as  a thorny  plant  which  they  also  call 
accobita.  The  accub  of  the  Aiabs  is  a thistle  or 
wild  artichoke.  The  Septuagint,  however,  ren- 
ders dardar  by  the  Greek  word  rpifioXos  in  both 
passages,  and  this  will  answer  as  well  as  any 
other  thorny  or  prickly  plant.  See  below,  Tri- 
BULUS. 

Kimosh,  translated  ‘nettles’  [Kimosh]. 

Kotz  or  Koz  (pp)  occui'3  in  several  passages 
of  Scripture ; in  two  of  which  it  is  mentioned 
along  with  dardar,  where  koz  and  dardar  may 
be  considered  equivalent  to  the  English  thorns 
and  thistles.  The  Septuagint  translates  it  in 
all  the  passages  by  dnavOa,  and  it.  probably 
was  used  in  a general  sense  to  denote  plants 
which  were  thorny,  useless,  and  indicative  of 
neglected  culture  or  deserted  habitations,  grow- 
ing naturally  in  desert  situations,  and  useful  only 


for  fuel.  But  if  any  particular  plant  be  mean', 
the  Ononis  spinosa  or  ‘ Rest-harrow,’  mentioned 
by  Hasselquist,  may  be  selected  as  fully  charas 


THORNS  and  THISTLES. 


THORNS  and  THISTLES. 


857 


terist.ic.  ‘ Spinosissima  ilia  et  perniciosa  planta, 
campos  integros  tegit  ./Egypt  i et  Palestinae.  Non 
dubitandum  quin  banc  indicaverint  in  aliquo 
loco  scriptures  saoi.’ 

Naazlz  or  N.»  atzutz,  supposed  to  be  a species 
of  Zizyphus  [Naazuz]. 

Sallonim.  [Sillon.] 

Serebim  (Ezek.  ii.  6),  supposed  to  be  the 
gadfly  ’ or  somethwsg  of  the  kind. 

' Sen  eh.  [Sen  eh.] 

Shait  occurs  in  several  passages  of 

Isaiah:  v.  65"  vii.  23,  21,  25  ; ix.  18;  x.  17; 
xxvii.  4,  in  all  of  which  it  is  associated  with 
shamir,  the  two  being  translated  thorns  and 
briers  in  the  Authorized  Version.  From  the  con- 
text of  all  the  passages  it  is  evident  that  some 
weed-like  plants  are  intended,  either  of  a thorny 
or  prickly  nature,  or  such  as  spring  up  in  neg- 
lected cultures  and  are  signs  of  desolation,  and 
which  are  occasionally  employed  for  fuel.  No- 
thing has,  “however,  been  ascertained  respecting 
the  plant  intended  by  shait , and  consequently  it 
lias  been  variously  translated  in  the  several  ver- 
sions of  the  Scriptures. 

Shamir.  occurs  in  all  the  same  pass- 

ages as  the  word  shait , with  the  addition  also  of 
Isa.  xxxii.  13  : ‘ Upon  the  land  of  my  people  shall 
come  up  thorns  (kozim)  and  briers  ’ (shamir). 
Being  associated  with  koz,  it  lias  been  inferred 
that  shamir  must  also  mean  some  thorny  plant. 


samir,  in  Arabic,  according  to  Celsius 


( Hierobot . xi.  p.  188),  from  Abulfeda,  is  a 
thorny  plant,  said  to  be  a species  of  sldri,  which 
does  not  bear  fruit.  Sidr  is  another  name  of 
Nabca,  a species  of  Zizyphus.  No  plants  are  more 
common  in  the  warm  and  dry  uncultivated  parts 
of  the  East  than  prickly  species  o^  Zizyphus , 
which  impede  the  path  and  choke  up  vegetation 
and  are  therefore  very  suitable  for  the  illustration 
of  the  passages  in  which  shamir  occurs.  This 
kind  of  sidri  not  bearing  fruit  may  be  the  Paliurus 
aculeatus  of  botanists. 


KS.  [Zizyphus  Paliurus.} 

&ILLON  (fib?)  occurs  in  Ezek,  xxviii.  24  : 
And  there  shall  be  no  more  a pricking  brier 


(silloji)  unto  the  house  of  Israel,  nor  any  grieving 
thorn  ’ ( koz ).  As  sillon  is  here  mentioned  with 
koz,  it  has  been  inferred  that  it  must  mean  some- 
thing of  the  same  kind.  Several  Arabic  words 
resemble  it  in  sound  ; as  seel,  signifying  a kind  of 
wormwood;  silleh,  the  plant  Zilla  My  ay  rum ; 
sillah , the  rpdyos  of  the  Greeks,  supposed  to  be 
Salsola  ka/i  and  S.  tragus  ; sulal  or  su/alon, 
which  signifies  the  thorn  of  the  date-tree,  while 
the  Chaldee  word  sil'eta  signifies  a thorn  simply. 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  sillon  has  something 
of  the  same  meaning,  as  also  sallonim  or  sillonim, 
which  occurs  in  Ezek.  xi.  6 along  with  serebim  ; 
but  we  are  unable  to  fix  upon  any  particular  plant, 
of  Syria  as  the  one  intended. 

Sikkim  (D'2E^)  is  another  of  the  words  which 
is  considered  to  indicate  thorny  plants,  as  in 
Num.  xxxiii.  55:  ‘Those  which  ye  let  remain 
of  them  shall  he  pricks  ( sikkim ) in  your  eyes  and 
thorns  ( zinnim ) in  your  sides.'  It  occurs  in  the 
feminine  form  sykkoth  (1713^)  in  Job  xli.  7,  where 
it  is  translated  ‘ barbed  irons.*  Sikkim  has 
been  variously  translated,  but  its  resemblance  to 

the  Arabic  shok , thorns , sufficiently  indi- 

cates the  probability  of  its  meaning  something 
of  the  same  kind,  though  it  has  not  been  ascer- 
tained whether  it  is  used  in  a general  sense, 
as  is  probable,  or  applied  to  some  particular 
plant. 

Sirim  (DVVS)  occurs  in  several  passages,  e.y. 
in  Eccles.  xii.  6,  ‘ as  the  crackling  of  thorns  (sirim) 
under  a pot,’  &c. ; Isa.  xxxiv.  14,  ‘And  thorns 
(sirim)  shall  come  up  in  her  palaces,’  &c. ; Hosea 
xi.  6;  Amos  iv.  2:  Nahum  i.  10.  The  Seventy 
and  other  translators  have  employed  words  signi- 
fying thorns,  as  conveying  the  meaning  of  sirim, 
but  nothing  has  been  advanced  to  lead  us  to 
"'elect  one  plant  more  than  another. 

Sirpad  (ISTD)  is  mentioned  only  once  by 
Isaiah  (lv.  13),  ‘ And  instead  of  the  brier  (sirpad) 
shall  come  up  the  myrtle.’  Though  this  has  ge- 
nerally been  considered  a thorny  and  prickly 
plant,  it  does  not  follow  from  the  context  that  such 
a plant  is  necessaiilv  meant.  It  would  be  suffi- 
cient for  the  sense  that  some  useless  or  insignificant 
plant  be  understood,  and  there  are  many  such 
in  desert  and  uncultivated  places.  In  addition 
to  Paliurus  Carduus,  JJrtica , Conyza,  species  of 
Polygonum , of  Euphorbia , &c.,  have  been  ad- 
duced ; and  also  Ruscus  aculeatus , or  ‘ butcher’s 
broom.’ 

Tribolos  or  Tribulus  (rplfioXos)  is  found  in 
Matt.  vii.  16,  4 Do  men  gather  figs  of  thistles’ 
(rpifioXoovyi  and  again,  in  Heb.  vi.  8,  ‘ But  that 
which  beareth  thorns  and  briers  (TpifioXoi)  is  re- 
jected.’ The  name  was  applied  by  the  Greeks 
to  two  or  three  plants;  one  of  which  was,  no 
doubt,  aquatic,  Trapa  natans  ; of  the  others  Tri- 
bulus terrestris  is  undoubtedly  one,  and  Fagonia 
cretica  is  supposed  to  be  the  other.  Both,  or  nearly 
allied  species,  are  found  in  dry  and  barren  places 
in  the  East;  and  as  both  are  prickly  and  spread 
over  the  surface  of  the  ground,  they  are  extremely 
hurtful  to  tread  upon.  The  word  rpifioXos  is 
further  interesting  to  us,  as  being  employed  in  (lie 
Septuagint  as  the  translation  of  dardur.  The 
presence  of  species  of  Tribulus  and  of  Fagonia 


THREE. 


THREE. 


8:8 


Indicates  a dry  a^d  barren  uncultivated  soil,  co- 
vered. with  pri-ckly  or  thorny  plants. 


Zinnim  (D'3y)  and  Zenenim  (D'2'3¥)  occur 
in  several  passages  of  Scripture,  asinNum.  xxxiii. 
55;  Josh,  xxiii.  13,  where  they  are  mentioned 
along  witli  Sikkim  ; also  in  Job  v.  5,  and  Prov. 
xxh.  5.  The  Sepluagint  has  rpi&oXos  in  Prov. 
xxii.  5,  and  fiokfies  in  Num.  xxxiii.  55,  and 
Josh,  xxiii.  13.  It  has  been  supposed  that 
zinnim  might  be  the  Rhamnus  Paliurus,  but 
nothing  more  precise  has  been  ascertained  re- 
specting it.  than  of  so  many  other  of  these 
thorny  plants;  and  we  may  therefore,  with  Mi- 
chaelis,  say, ‘Nullum  simile  nomen  habent  re- 
liquae  linguae  Oriental es ; ergo  fas  est  sapienti, 
Celsio  quoque,  fas  sit  et.  mihi,  aliquidlgnorare. 
Ignorantiae  professio  via  ad  inveniendum  verum, 
si  quis  in  Oriente  quaesieiit.’ — J.  F.  R. 

THREE.  &c.,  occur  frequently 

as  cardinal  numbers ; thus,  three 

years  (Lev.  xix.  23) ; as  ordinals, 
in  the  third  year  (2  Kings  xviii.  1) ; in  com- 
bination with  other  numbers,  as  nw  uhw, 
tliirteen  ; and  they  are  also  used  in  the  plural 

as  ordinals  for  thirty,  (1  Kings  xvi.  23). 

For  other  forms  and  uses  of  the  words,  see  Lexi- 
cons. The  nouns  and  li- 

terally, according  to  one  derivation,  a third  man , 
are  used  in  the  sense  of  a commander  or  general, 
sometimes  as  connected  with  war-chariots  or  ca- 
valry. Thus  (Exod.  xiv.  7),  ‘ Pharaoh  took 
all  the  chariots  of  Egypt  and  captains 

third  men),  over  all  this  armament ? (li?D 
not  as  in  our  translation,  ‘ over  every  one  of  them.’ 
Sept,  rptcrraray  hc\  navruv,  tristatce  over  all  ; 
V ulg.  duces  toiius  exercitus.  So  it.  is  said  (xv. 
4),  that  ‘the  choice  of  all  Pharaoh's  captains’ 
£*6^6?),  or  third  men,  were  drowned ; Sept,  ava- 
jSdros  TpuTTaras  ; Vul g.  principes.  The  Septua- 
gint  word  seems  chosen  upon  the  assumed  analogy 
of  its  etymology  to  the  Hebrew,  quasi  Tpiro- 


crrdrTjs,  ‘ one  who  stands  third.’  According  to 
Origeti,  tristates  has  this  meaning,  because  there 
were  three  persons  in  each  chariot,  of  whom  the 
first  fought,  the  second  protected  him  with  a 
shield,  and  the  third  guided  the  horses.  Wilkin- 
son, however,  says,  ‘ there  were  seldom  three  per- 
sons in  an  Egyptian  war-chariot,  except  in  tri- 
umphal processions.  In  the  field,  each  one  had 
his  own  car  with  a charioteer’  ( Manners  and 
Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  i. 
p.  335).  Jerome,  on  Ezekiel  xxiii.,  says, i Tristatce 
among  the  Greeks  is  the  name  of  the  second  rank 
after  the  royal  dignity.’  But  it  is  possible  that 
the  ideal  meaning  of  the  verb  vfov},  may  be  to 
rule  or  direct,  as  appears  from  its  share  in  such 
words  as  ‘ excellent  things,’  or  rather 

‘rules  and  directions’  (Prov.  xxii.  20), and 

‘ a proverb,’  from  ‘to  rule,’ hence  an  authori- 
tative precept.  According  to  this  sense,  our 

translation  renders  the  word  W'h'V),  ‘ lord :’  ‘a  lord 
on  whose  hand  the  king  leaned’  (2  Kings  vii.  2; 
comp.  v.  17,  19).  If  the  latter  derivation  of  the 
Hebrew  word  be  admitted,  it.  will  cease  to  con- 
vey any  allusion  to  the  number  three ; of  which 
allusion  Gesenius  speaks  doubtingly  of  any  in- 
stance, but  which  he  decidedly  pronounces  to  be 
unsuitable  to  the  first  passage,  where  the  word 
evidently  stands  in  connection  with  war-chariots 
(see  Gesenius,  s.  v.  D^S^).  Three  days  and 
three  nights.  ‘ For  as  Jonas  was  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly,  so  shall  the 
Sou  of  man  be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
heart  of  the  earth.’  The  apparent  difficulty  in 
these  words  arises  from  the  fact  that  our  Lord 
continued  in  the  grave  only  one  day  complete, 
together  with  a part,  of  the  (lay  on  which  he  was 
buried,  and  of  that  on  which  lie  ro^e  again.  The 
Hebrews  had  no  word  expressly  answering  to  the 
Greek  word  wx^P^pov,  or  natural  day  of  twenty- 
four  hours,  an  idea  which  they  expressed  by 
the  phrases  a night  and  a day  and  a da,y  and  a 
night.  Thus  ( Dan.  viii.  14),  ‘ Unto  two  thousand 
and  three  hundred  evening  mornings  (i.  e.  days, 
as  it  is  in  our  translation),  then  shall  the  sanctuary 
be  cleansed.’  Thus,  also,  what  is  called  ‘ forty  days 
and  forty  nights’  in  Gen.  vii.  12,  is  simply  ‘ forty 
days’  in  ver.  17  ; wherefore,  as  it  is  common  in 
general  computations  to  ascribe  a whole  day  to 
what  takes  up  only  a part  of  it,  when  this  was  done 
in  the  Jewish  language,  it  was  necessary  to  men- 
tion both  day  and  night ; hence  a part  of  three 
days  was  called  by  them  three  days  and  three 
nights.  Another  example  we  have  in  1 Sam.  xxx. 
12,  where  the  Egyptian,  whom  David's  men  found 
in  the  field,  is  said  to  have  eaten  no  bread,  nor 
drunk  any  water,  three  days  and  three  nights. 
Nevertheless,  in  giving  an  account  of  himself,  the 
Egyptian  told  them  that  his  master  had  left  him, 
‘ because  three  days  ago  I fell  sick  ;’  in  the 
Hebrew  it  is,  1 fell  sick  this  third  day , that  is,  this 
is  the  third  day  since  I fell  sick.  Indeed,  among 
the  Hebrews,  things  were  said  to  be  done  after 
three  days , which  were  done  on  the  third  day 
(comp.  2 Chron.  x.  5 with  ver.  12  ; Deut.  xiv.  28 
with  xxvi.  2).  Agreeably  to  these  forms  of  speech, 
the  prophecy  of  our  Lord’s  resurrection  from  the 
dead  is  sometimes  represented  as  taking  place  after 
three  days,  sometimes  on  the  third  day  (see 
Whitby,  Macknight,  Wakefield,  Dr.  Adana 


THRONE. 


THUNDER. 


$50 


Clarke,  in  loc.).  The  phrase,  ‘ three  and  four,’  so 
often  repeated  (Amos  i.),  means  abundance,  any- 
thing that  goes  on  toward  excess.  It  finds  its 
parallel  in  Virgil’s  well-known  words,  O terque 
quaterque  beati — ‘Oh  three  and  foui  times 
happy  1 ( JEn . i.  94 ; see  also  Odyss.  v 306). 
Three  has  also  been  considered,  both  by  Jews 
and  Christians,  as  a distinguished  or  mystical 
number , like  ‘seven.’  Ainsworth,  on  Gen.  xxii. 
4.  has  collected  many  such  instances,  but  they 
all  appear  to  us  to  be  fanciful. — J.  F.  D. 

THRESHING.  [Agriculture.] 

THRONE.  The  Hebrew  word  NDD  is 
generally  thought  to  have  for  its  root-meaning  the 
idea  of  covering  ; hence  it  denotes  a covered  seat, 
or  throne.  Fiirst,  in  his  admirable  Hebrew  Con- 
cordance, holds  it  to  convey  the  notion  of  an 
arched  or  curved  body,  and  so  to  have  come  to  sig- 
nify a seat  of  dignity,  having  the  elegance  given  to 
it  which  curved  lines  can  easily  impart.  Whatever 
the  original  import  of  the  term  may  have  been, 
or  rather  JTD^Dn,  denoted  the  orna- 

mented seat  on  which  royal  personages  gave  au- 
dience on  state  occasions  among  the  Hebrews  (1 
Kings  ii.  19;  xxii.  10;  comp.  Esth.  v.  1).  It  was 
originally  a decorated  arm-chair,  higher  than  an 
ordinary  seat,  so  as  to  require  a foot-stool 
(D'Hi'l)  to  support  the  feet.  Sometimes  the  throne 
was  placed  on  a platform  ascended  by  steps  (Isa. 
vi.  1).  Solomon  made  a throne  of  ivory  overlaid 
with  gold,  which  had  six  steps,  with  six  lions  on 
each  side  (1  Kings  x.  18).  Archelaus  addressed 
the  multitude  from  ‘ an  elevated  seat  and  a throne 
of  gold  ’ (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.l.  1).  A throne 
became  the  emblem  of  regal  power  (Gen.  xli.  40)  ; 
whence  the  phrases,  ‘ to  sit  on  the  throne  of  his 
kingdom’  (Deut.  xvii.  18),  that  is,  to  rule  as  a 
monarch  ; and  ‘ to  sit  on  the  throne  of  a person' 
(l  Kings  i.  13  ; 2 Kings  x.  30),  which  signifies, 
to  be  his  successor. — J.  R.  B. 

THUMMIM.  [Urim  and  Thummim.] 

THUNDER  (Qjn  : Sept.  Bpovr-i],  passim  ; 
also  ^ip,  (pcnvi J).  This  sublimest  of  all  the  ex- 
traordinary phenomena  of  nature  is  'poetically 
represented  as  the  voice  of  God,  which  the  waters 
obeyed  at  the  creation  (Ps.  civ.  7 ; comp.  Gen.  i. 
9).  For  other  instances  see  Exod.  ix.  23  (Hebrew, 
or  margin);  Job  xxxvii.  4,  5 ; xl.  9;  Ps.  xviii. 
13;  and  especially  Ps.  xxix.,  which  contains  a 
magnificen  t description  of  a thunder  storm.  Agree- 
ably to  the  popular  speech  of  ancient  nations,  the 
writer  ascribes  the  effects  of  lightning  to  the 
thunder:  'The  voice  of  the  Lord  break eth  the 
cedars’  (ve  . 5;  comp.  1 Sam.  ii.  19).  Thunder 
is  also  introduced  into  the  poetical  allusion  to  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea  in  Ps.  lxxvii.  18.  The 
plague  of  hail  on  the  land  of  Egypt  is  very  natu- 
rally represented  as  accompanied  with  ‘mighty 
thunderiugs,’  which  would  be  literally  incidental 
to  the  immense  agency  of  the  electric  fluid  on  that 
occasion  (Exod.  ix.  22-29,  33,  34).  It  accom- 
panied the  lightnings  at  the  giving  of  the  law 
(xix.  16;  xx.  18).  See  also  Ps.  Ixxxi.  7,  which 
probably  refers  to  the  same  occasion  : ‘ 1 answered 
thee  in  the  secret  place  of  thunder,’  literally,  ‘ in 
the  covering  of  thunder,’  DJH  “inD3,  i.  e.  the 
thunder  clouds.  It.  was  also  one  of  the  grandeurs 
attending  the  divine  interposition  described  in  2 
Sam,  xxii.  14 ; co  *.r . Ps.  xviii.  13.  The  enemies 


of  Jehovah  are  threatened  with  destr.  ttixn  by 
thunder;  perhaps,  however,  lightning  is  included 
in  the  mention  of  the  more  impressive  pheno- 
menon (1  Sam.  ii.  10).  Such  means  are  repre- 
sented as  used  in  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib’s 
army  (Isa.  xxix.  5-7 ; con:]),  xxx.  30-33).  Bishop 
Lowth  would  understand  the  description  as  me- 
taphorical, and  intended,  under  a variety  of 
expressive  and  sublime  images,  to  illustrate  the 
greatness,  the  suddenness,  the  horror  of  the  event, 
rather  . than  the  manner  by  which  it  was  effected 
(New  Translation,  and  notes  in  loc.').  Violent 
thunder  was  employed  by  Jehovah  as  a means  of 
intimidating  the  Philistines,  in  their  attack  upon 
the  Israelites,  while  Samuel  was  offering  the 
burnt-offering  (1  Sam.  vii.  10  ; Ecclus.  xlvi.  17). 
Homer  represents  Jupiter  as  interposing  in  a battle 
with  thunder  and  lightning  (Iliad,  viii.  75,  &c. : 
xvii.  594 ; see  also  Spence’s  Polymetis,  Dial, 
xiii.  p.  211).  Thunder  was  miraculously  sent 
at  the  request  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  xii.  17,  18). 
It  is  referred  to  as  a natural  phenomenon  subject 
to  laws  originally  appointed  by  the  Creator  (Job 
xxviii,  26;  xxxviii.  25;  Ecclus.  xliii.  17);  and 
introduced  in  visions  (Rev.  iv.  5 ; vi.  1 ; viii.  5 ; 
xi.  19;  xiv.  2;  xvi.  18  ; xix.  6 ; Esther  (Apoc.) 
xi.  5).  In  Rev.  x.  3,  4,  ‘seven  thunders’ 
[Seven].  It  is  adopted  as  a comparison.  Thus 
‘ as  lightning  is  seen  before  the  thunder  is  heard, 
so  modesty  in  a person  before  he  speaks  recom- 
mends him  to  the  favour  of  the  auditors  ’ (Ecclus 
xxxii.  10  ; Rev.  xix.  6,  &c.).  The  sudden  ruin 
of  the  unjust  man  is  compared  to  the  transitory 
noise  of  thunder  (Ecclus.  xl.  13) ; but  see  Arnald, 
in  loc.  One  of  the  sublimest  metaphors  in  the 
Scriptures  occurs  in  Job  xxvi.  14,  ‘ Lo,  these  are 
parts  of  his  ways ; but  how  little  a portion  is  heard 
of  him  (yOW,  a mere  whisper)  ; but  the  thunder  of 
his  power  who  can  understand  ? ’ Here  the  whis- 
per and  the  thunder  are  admirably  opposed  to 
each  other.  If  the  former  be  so  wonderful  and 
overwhelming,  how  immeasurably  more  so  the 
latter?  In  the  sublime  description  of  the  war- 
horse  (Job  xxxix.)he  is  said  to  perceive  the  battle 
afar  off  ‘ by  the  thunder  of  the  captains,  and  the 
shouting ' (ver.  25).  That  part  of  the  description, 
however  (ver.  19),  ‘hast  thou  clothed  his  neck 
with  thunder?’  appears  to  be  a mistranslation. 
The  word  n£>jn  from  Dy“),  ‘to  be  agitated,’  ‘trem- 
ble,’ refers  rather  to  the  mane  : ‘ Canst.  thou  clothe 
his  neck  with  the  trembling  mane?’  To  the 
class  of  mistranslations  must  be  referred  every 
instance  of  the  word  ‘ thunderbolts  ’ in  our  version, 
a word  which  corresponds  to  no  reality  in  nature. 
Thus  ‘ hot  thunderbolts  ’ (Ps.  lxxviii.  48,  Ij,,E)5J,*1) 
means  ‘ lightnings,’  rw  irvpi,  igni.  * Then  shall  the 
right-aiming  thunderbolts  go  abroad  ’ (Wisd.  v. 
21),  j8oAi5es  acTTpcnruiy,  ‘flashes’  or  ‘strokes  of 
lightning.’  ‘ Threw  stones  like  thunderbolts  ’ (2 
Macc.  i.  16),  avveKepavvbooav.  The  word  conveys 
an  allusion  to  the  mode  in  which  lightning 
strikes  the  earth.  Thunder  enters  into  the  appel- 
lative or  surname  given  by  our  Lord  to  James 
and  John — Boanerges;  o iariu,  viol  /SpoLvijs, says 
St.  Mark,  ‘sons  of  thunder’  (iii.  17).  Schleusner 
here  understands,  the  thunder  of  eloquence,  as  in 
Aristoph.  ( Achar . 530).  Virgil  applies  a like 
figure  to  the  two  Scipios  : ' Duo  fulmina  belli  ’ 
(PEn.  vi.  842).  Others  understand  the  allusion  to 
be  to  the  energy  and  courage,  &c.  of  the  two  apostles 
(Lardner  s Hist,  of  the  Apostles  a nd  Evangelists, 


THYATIRA. 


THYINE  WOOD. 


ch.  ix.  § 1 ; Suic-er.  Thesaurus , s.  v.  B povrq). 
Theophylact  says  tliey  were  so  called  because  they 
were  great  preachers  and  divines,  diy  /te-yaAo- 
KTjovitcis  Kal  OeoAoytKOT&Tovs.  Others  suppose 
the  allusion  to  be  to  the  proposal  of  these  apostles 
to  call  fire  from  heaven  on  the  inhospitable  Sa- 
maritans (Luke  ix.  53,  51).  It  is  not  certain 
when  our  Lord  so  surnamed  them  [Boanerges]. 

The  word  simply  ‘ voice,’  is  often  used  for 
thunder,  as  in  Exod.  ix.  23;  Ps.  xxix.  3;  lxxvii. 
18  ; Jer.  x.  13.  In  the  last  of  these  passages  the 
production  of  rain  by  lightning  is  referred  to  : 

‘ When  lie  i ttereth  his  voice,  there  is  a multitude 
of  waters  in  the  heavens,  he  maketh  lightnings 
with  (or  for)  vain.'  It  is  related  (John  xii.  28) 
that  Jesus  said,  ‘ Father,  glorify  thy  name.  Then 
came  there  a voice  from  heaven,  saying,  I have 
both  glorified  it,  and  will  glorify  it  again.’  Some 
of  the  people  that  stood  by,  but  had  not  heard  the 
words  distinctly,  said  it  had  ‘thundered,’  for 
the  voice  came  from  heaven ; others  who  had 
caught  the  words,  supposed  that  God  had  spoken 
to  Jesus  by  an  angel,  conformably  to  the  Jewish 
opinion  that  God  had  never  spoken  but  by  the 
ministry  of  angels.  Perhaps,  however,  thunder 
attended  the  voice,  either  a little  before  or  after ; 
comp.  Exod.  xix.  L(>,  19;  Rev.  iv.  5 ; vi.  1 
[Bath  Koi.].— J.  F.  I). 

THYATIRA  (©i/areipa,  ra),  a city  on  the 
northern  border  of  Lydia,  about  twenty  seven 
miles  from  Sardis,  the  seat  of  one  of  the  seven 
Apocalyptic  churches  (Rev.  i.  11;  ii.  18).  Its 
modern  name  is  Ak-hissar,  or  the  white  castle. 
According  to  Pliny,  it  was  known  in  earlier  times 
by  the  names  Pelopia  and  Euhippa  (Hist.  Nat. 
v.  29).  Strabo  asserts  that  it  was  a Macedonian 
colony  (xiii.  p.  928).  The  Roman  road  from  Per- 
gamus  to  Sardis  passed  through  it.  It  was  noted 
for  the  art  of  dyeing,  as  appears  from  Acts  xvi.  14. 
Luke’s  account  has  been  confirmed  by  the  dis- 
covery of  an  inscription  in  honour  of  Antonius 
Claudius  Alphenus  oy  the  corporation  of  dyers, 
which  concludes  with  the  words  oi  /^cupels.  It  still 
maintains  its  reputation  for  this  manufacture,  and 
large  quantities  of  scarlet  cloth  are  sent  weekly  to 
Smyrna.  The  town  consists  of  about  two  thou- 
sand houses,  for.  which  taxes  are  paid  to  the 
government,  besides  two  or  three  hundred  small 
huts  ; of  the  former  300  are  inhabited  by  Greeks, 
30  by  Armenians,  and  the  rest  by  Turks.  The 
common  language  of  all  classes  is  the  Turkish  : 
but  in  writing  it,  the  Greeks  use  the  Greek,  and 
the  Armenians  the  Armenian  characters.  There  are 
nine  mosques  and  one  Greek  church. — J.  E.  R. 

THYINE  WOOD(£oAov  Qvivov)  is  mentioned 
as  one  of  the  articles  of  merchandise  which  would 
cease  to  be  purchased  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of 
Babylon  (Rev.  xviii.  12).  This  wood  was  in  con- 
siderable demand  by  the  Romans,  being  much 
employed  by  them  in  the  ornamental  wood-work 
of  their  villas,  and  also  for  tables,  bowls,  and  vessels 
of  different  kinds.  It  is  noticed  by  most  ancient 
authors,  from  the  time  of  Theophrastus.  It  was  the 
citron-wood  of  the  Romans ; thus  Salmasius  : ‘ 0ua 
Theophrasti  est  ilia  citrus,  quae  citreas  mensas 
dabat  Romanis  inter  lautissima  opera’ (Cels.  Hi - 
erobot.  vol.  ii.  p.  25).  It  was  produced  only  in 
Africa,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Mount  Atlas,  and 
m Granada  : ‘ citrum,  arborem  Africae  peculiarem 
esse,  nec  alibi  nasci.’  It  grew  to  a great  size : 


‘ quarum  amplitudo  ac  radices  aestimari  poesuri 
ex  orbibus  ’ (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xiii.  15). 


This  cedar  or  citron-wood  was  most  likely  pro* 
duced  by  Caliitris  quadrivalvis,  the  Thuja  arti • 
culata  of  Linmeus,  which  is  a native  of  Mount 
Atlas,  and  of  other  uncultivated  hills  on  the  coast 
of  Africa.  In  the  kingdom  of  Morocco,  according 
to  Broussouel,  this  tree  produces  the  Sandarach  resin 
of  commerce.  Capt.  S.  E.  Cook,  in  his  Sketches  in 
Spai?i  (vol.  ii.),  brought  to  light,  the  fact  that  the 
woodwork  of  the  roof  of  the  celebrated  mosque, 
now  the  cathedral  of  Cordova,  built  in  the  9th 
century,  is  of  this  wood  ; it  had  previously  been 
thought  to  be  that  of  the  larch,  from  the  resem- 
blance of  the  Spanish  word  alerce,  which  is 
applied  to  the  wood  of  Caliitris  quadrivalvis  in 
Spain  and  Barbary,  to  the  Latin  word  larix. 
After  carefully  examining  the  wood  in  question, 
Capt.  Cook  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
timber  of  the  mosque  was  not  of  any  Spanish,  or 
even  European  tree.  * By  a singular  coincidence, 
the  subject  had  been  undergoing  investigation 
about  the  same  time  in  Africa.  Mr.  D.  Hay, 
the  British  Consul  at  Tangiers,  had,  by  tracing 
the  Arabic  etymology  of  the  word  alerce  (no 
doubt  al  arz  or  eves'),  by  availing  himself  ol 
the  botanical  researches  of  the  Danish  Consul 
in  Morocco,  and  by  collating  the  accounts  of 
the  resident  Moors,  made  out  that  the  alerce  was 
the  Thuja  articulates,  which  grows  on  Mount 
Atlas.  In  corroboration  of  his  views,  a plank  of 
its  timber  was  sent  to  London.  This  plank,  which 
is  in  the  possession  of  the  Horticultural  Society, 
is  1 foot  8 inches  in  diameter.  Capt.  Cook  says  he 
is  perfectly  satisfied  of  its  identity  with  the  parts 
of  the  timber  of  the  mosque  at  Cordova  which  he 
examined.  It  is  highly  balsamic  and  odoriferous, 
the  resin,  no  doubt,  preventing  the  ravages  ol 
insects,  as  well  as  the  influence  of  the  air.’  (Lw> 


TIBERIAS. 


TIB  NT. 


m 


don’s  Arbont.  iv.  2463).  This,  no  doubt,  was 
also  the  citron  or  thyine-wood  of  the  ancients, 
and  therefore  that  of  the  above  cited  passage  of 
the  Revelation. — J.  F.  R. 


TIBERIAS  ( Tifcpids ; Talm.  Arab. 


is  a small  town  situated  about  the  middle 


of  the  western  bank  of  the  lake  of  Gennesareth. 
Tiberias  was  chiefly  built,  by  theTetrarch  Herodes 
Antipas,  and  called  by  him  after  the  Emperor  Ti- 
berius (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.2.  3).  According  to  the 
Life  of  Josephus  (6  65),  Tiberias  was  30  stadia 
from  Hippo,  60  from  Gadara,  and  120  from 
Scythopolis ; according  to  the  Talmud,  it  was  13 
Roman  miles  from  Sepphoris;  and  Jolifl'e,  in  his 
Travels , states  that  it  is  nearly  20  English  miles 
from  Nazareth,  and  90  miles  from  Jerusalem. 
Others  find  it  above  two  days’  journey  from 
Ptolemais. 

From  the  time  of  Herodes  Antipas  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  reign  of  Herodes  Agrippa  II., 
Tiberias  was  the  principal  city  of  the  province  (see 
Joseph.  Vita , § 9).  Justus,  son  of  Pistus,  when 
addressing  the  inhabitants  of  Tiberias,  stated  that 
‘ the  city  Tiberias  had  ever  been  a city  of  Galilee ; 
and  that  in  the  days  of  Herod  the  Tetrarch,  who 
had  built  it,  it  had  obtained  the  principal  place; 
and  that  he  had  ordered  that  the  city  Sepphoris 
should  be  subordinate  to  the  city  Tiberias;  that 
they  had  not  lost  this  pre-eminence  even  under 
Agrippa,  the  father,  but  had  retained  it  until 
Felix  was  procurator  of  Judaea;  but  he  told  them 
that  now  they  had  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  be 
made  a present  of  by  Nero  to  Agrippa;  and  that 
upon  Sepphoris’s  submission  of  itself  to  the  Ro- 
mans, that  city  was  become  the  capital  of  Gali- 
lee, and  that  the  royal  treasury  and  the  archives 
were  now  removed  from  them.’  Tiberias  was  one  of 
the  four  cities  which  Nero  added  to  the  kingdom 
of  Agrippa  (De  Bell.  Jucl.  xx.  13.  2).  Sepphoris 
and  Tiberias  were  the  largest  cities  of  Galilee 
(Joseph,  Vita,  § 65).  In  the  last  Jewish  war  the 
fortifications  of  Tiberias  were  an  important  mili- 
tary station  ( De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  20,  6 ;*m.  10,  1 ; 
Vita,  § 8,  sq  ). 

According  to  Josephus  ( Vita,  6 12),  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Tiberias  derived  their  maintenance  chiefly 
from  the  navigation  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret  h,  and 
from  its  fisheries.  After  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem Tiberias  was  celebrated  during  several 
centuries  for  its  famous  Rabbinical  academy  (see 
Lightfoot’s  Horae  Heh.  p.  140,  sq.). 

Not  far  from  Tiberias,  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  town  of  Emmaus,  were  warm 
mineral  springs,  whose  celebrated  baths  are  some- 
times spoken  of  as  belonging  to  Tiberias  itself 
(Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  21,  § 6 ; Antiq.  xviii.  2. 
3 ; Vita,  § 16  ; Mishna,  Saob.  iii.  4 ; and  other 
Talmudical  passages  in  Lightfoot's  Horae  Heh. 
p.  133,  sq.  Compare  also  Wichmannshausen,  De 
Thermis  Tiberiensibus,  in  Ugolini  Thesaur.  tom. 
vii.)  These  springs  contain  sulphur,  salt,  and 
iron;  and  were  employed  for  medicinal  pur- 
poses. Compare  the  Travels  of  Yoluey  and  Scholz. 

There  is  a tradition  that  Tiberias  was  built  on 
the  site  of  the  town  Kinnereth.  Compare 

Hieronymi  Onomasticon , sub  voc.  ‘ Chennereth  :’ 
‘ Oppidum,  quod  in  honorem  Tiberii  Csesaris  He- 
rodes rex  Judaeae  postea  instauratum  appcllavit 
Tiberiadem,  ferunt  hoc  primum  appellatum  no- 


mine.’ Against  this  tradition  it  has  been  urged 
that,  according  to  Joshua  (xix.  35),  Chinneret.h 
belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Naphthali.  Compare  Re- 
land (Balrestina,  p.  161).  It  has  also  been  said 
that  this  tradition  is  contradicted  by  the  following 
statement  of  Joseph  us  {Antiq.  xviii.2. 3): — ‘ Herod 
the  tetrarch,  who  was  in  great  favour  with  Tibe- 
rius, built  a city  of  the  same  name  with  him,  and 
called  it  Tiberias.  He  built,  it  in  the  best  part 
of  Galilee,  at  the  lake  of  Gennesareth.  There 
are  warm  baths  at  a little  distance  from  it,  in  a 
village  named  Emmaus.  Strangers  came  and 
inhabited  this  city;  a great  number  of  the  inha- 
bitants were  Galileans  also,  and  many  were  ne- 
cessitated by  Herod  to  come  thither  out  of  the 
country  belonging  to  him.  and  were  by  force 
compelled  to  be  its  inhabitants  ; some  of  them 
were  persons  of  condition.  He  also  admitted 
poor  people,  such  as  those  that  were  collected 
from  all  parts  to  dwell  in  it.  He  was  a bene- 
factor to  these,  and  made  them  free  in  great 
numbers,  but  obliged  them  not  to  forsake  the 
city  by  building  them  very  good  houses  at  his 
own  expense,  and  by  giving  them  land  also;  for 
he  was  sensible  that  to  make  this  place  a habita- 
tion was  to  transgress  the  Jewish  ancient  laws, 
because  many  sepulchres  were  to  be  here  taken 
away,  in  order  to  make  room  for  the  city  Tibe- 
rias, whereas  our  law  pronoun cesvt hat  such  inha- 
bitants are  unclean  for  seven  days.’ 

Others  have  identified  Tiberias  with  Chamath ; 
but  it  also  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Naphthali, 
and  the  graves  mentioned  by  Josephus  militate 
agaifist  it  as  much  as  against  Chinnereth.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Rabbins,  Tiberias  was  situated  on 
the  site  of  Rakkath  ( Hieros . Megil.  fol.  701). 
Compare  Othonis,  Lex.  Babb.  p.  755  ; but  it  too 
was  in  the  territory  of  Naphthali,  and  if  tire 
graves  mentioned  by  Josephus  are  any  objection 
they  must  militate  against  this  assumption  like- 
wise (Lightfoot,  Chorog.  Cent . cap.  72-74). 

According  to  Jolifl'e  ( Travels , pp.  48,  49,  sq.) 
the  modern  Tabaria  has  about  four  thousand  in- 
habitants, a considerable  part  of  whom  are  Jews. 
The  hot  springs  are  about  thirty-five  minutes  from 
Tabaria,  and  about  twenty  paces  from  the  lake. 
Compare  the  Travels  of  Mariti,  Hasselquist, 
Buckingham,  Burckhardt,  and  Richter.  The  site 
of  the  present,  town  does  not  fill  the  area  of  the 
ancient  Tiberias,  of  which  there  are  still  some 
insignificant  vestiges.  Tabaria  suffered  greatly 
by  an  earthquake  on  New  Year’s  day,  1837.  Al- 
most every  building,  with  the  exception  of  the 
walls  and  some  part  of  the  castle,  was  levelled  to 
the  ground.  The  inhabitants  were  obliged  to  live 
for  some  time  in  wooden  booths  (Schubert,  in  d. 
Munchn.  Gelehrt.  Anzeig.  1837,  No.  191,  p.  505 ; 
Winer’s  Real- Wbrterb.).— C.  Id.  F.  B. 

TIBERIUS  (Tifiepios),  the  third  Emperor  of 
Rome.  He  is  mentioned  by  name  only  by  St. 
Luke,  who  fixes  in  the  fifth  year  of  his  reign  the 
commencement  of  the  ministry  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, and  of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  1).  The  other 
passages  in  which  he  is  mentioned  under  the  title 
of  Caesar,  offer  no  points  of  personal  allusion,  and 
refer  to  him  simply  as  the  emperor  (Matt.  xxii. 
17,  sq. ; Mark  xii.  14,  sq. ; Luke  xx.  22,  sq. ; 
xxiii.  2,  sq. ; John  xix.  12,  sq.). 

TIBNI  ('J3P1,  building  of  God ; Sept.  &ap.v t), 
one  of  those  factious  men  who  took  a prominent 


862 


TIDAL. 


TIGRIS. 


part  in  the  troubles  which  followed  the  violent 
death  of  Elah.  He  disputed  the  throne  of  Israel 
with  Omri,  and  the  civil  war  which  was  thus 
lcindled  between  the  two  factions  lasted  for  about 
three  years  with  varying  success,  till  the  death  of 
Tibni  left  his  adversary  master  of  the  crown,  b.c. 
929  (1  Kings  xvi.  21-23). 

TIDAL  (^HR,  veneration ; Sept.  QapyaK), 
one  of  the  allies  who  with  Chedorlaomer  invaded 
Palestine  inthe  time  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.  1). 
Tidal  bears  the  somewhat  singular  title  of  ‘ king 
of  nations  ’ or  ‘ Gentiles  ’ (CPU  goyim).  Some 
make  it  almost  a proper  name  here,  as  in  Josh, 
xii.  23,  where  we  read  of  a ‘ king  of  the  Gentiles, 
( goyim ) of  Gil  gal.’  Le  Clerc  and  others  take  it  for 
Galilee,  because  in  Isa.  viii.  23,  we  meet  with 
‘Galilee  of  the  nations.’  But.  there  were  reasons 
for  its  having  then  acquired  that  name,  which  did 
not  exist  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  when  all  Pales- 
tine and  the  neighbouring  countries  were  as  much 
Gentile  as  Galilee.  In  fact,  we  cannot  tell  who 
these  Goyim  were  over  whom  Tidal  ruled  ; but  it 
seems  probable  that  he  was  a chief  of  several  con- 
federated tribes,  whose  military  force  he  contri- 
buted to  the  expedition  of  Chedorlaomer. 

TIDHAR  ("lrnPl)  is  twice  mentioned  in 
Scripture  (Isa.  xli.  19,  and  lx.  13),  in  both  of  which 
places  it  is  enumerated  along  with  the  Bkrosh 


and  Teashur,  or  cypress  and  box-tree,  and  i» 
translated  pine-tree  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
But  it  has  been  variously  interpreted,  and  even  by 
the  same  translator  in  the  two  passages.  Thus 
it.  is  rendered  elm  in  one  passage,  and  box  or  pine 
in  the  other.  In  the  Chaldee  paraphrase,  the  word 
murneyan , commonly  thought  to  mean  the  elm, 
is  used  as  the  synonyme  of  tidhar.  But  no  simi- 
lar'name  having  been  discovered  in  any  of  the 
cognate  languages,  no  proofs  can  be  adduced  in 
favour  of  one  more  than  anot  her.  The  name  tid- 
hara,  meaning  ‘ three-cornered,’  is  applied  in 
India  to  a species  of  Euphorbia  (E.  antiquorum) ; 
but  this  is  not  likely  to  be  the  plant,  alluded  to  in 
Scripture.  Geseuius  is  of  opinion  that  tidhar 
siguities  a durable  tree,  or  one  that  yields  durable 
wood.  It  is  difficult,  therefore,  to  select  from 
among  the  trees  of  Lebanon  that  which  is  spe- 
cially intended. — J.  F.  R. 

TIGLATH-PILESER,  the  Assyrian  king  who 
subjected  the  kingdom  of  Israel  in  b.c.  747.  [See 
Assyria,  Israel.] 

TIGRIS  (fen  ; Sept.  T lypis),  one  of  the  four 
rivers  of  Paradise,  twice  mentioned  in  Scripture 
under  the  name  of  Hiddekel  (Gen.  ii.  14; 

Dan.  x.  4).  In  Aramaean  it  is  called 
Digla,  in  Arabic  Diglat,  in  Zend  T«gert 


585.  [The  Tigris  at  its  junction  with  the  Euphrates.  Korna.j 


tn  Pehlvi  Tegera,  ‘stream;’  whence  have  arisen 
both  the  Aramaean  and  Arabic  forms,  to  which 
also  we  trace  the  Hebrew  De/cel  divested  of 
the  prefix  Hid.  This  prefix  denotes  activity, 
rapidity,  vehemence,  so  that  Hid-dekel  signifies 
‘the  rapid  Tigris.’  From  the  introduction  of  the 
prefix,  it  would  appear  that  the  Hebrews  were  not 
entirely  aware  that  Teger,  represented  by  their 
Hekty  by  itself  signified  velocity;  so  in  the  lan- 


guage of  Media,  Tigris  meant  an  arroio  (Strabo, 
ii.  527  ; PI  in.  Hist.  Nat.  vi.  27  ; comp.  Pers.^J 

teer,  ‘arrow;’  Sanscrit  tigra,  ‘sharp,’  ‘ swift ’)• 
hence  arose  such  pleonasms  as ‘king  Pharaoh' 
and  ‘ Al-coran.’ 

The  Tigris  rises  in  the  mountains  of  Armenia* 
about  fifteen  miles  south  of  the  sources  of  the  Eue 
ph rates,  and  pursues  nearly  a regular  course  south* 


TIMNA. 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO. 


s®st  till  vis  junction  with  that  river  at  Korna, 
fifty  miles  above  Basrah  (Basso rah).  The  Tigris  is 
Navigable  for  boats  of  twenty  or  thirty  tons’  bur- 
den as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  0(  lorn  eh,  but  no 
further;  and  the  commerce  of  Mosul  is  conse- 
quently carried  on  by  rafts  supported  on  inflated 
sheep  or  goats’  skins.  These  rafts  are  floated  down 
the  river,  and  when  they  arrive  at  Bagdad,  the 
wood  of  which  they  are  composed  is  sold  without 
loss,  and  the  skins  are  conveyed  back  to  Mosul  by 
camels.  The  Tigris,  between  Bagdad  and  Korna, 
is,  on  an  average,  about  two  hundred  yards  wide  ; 
at  Mosul  its  breadth  does  not  exceed  three 
hundred  feet.  The  banks  are  steep,  and  over- 
grown for  the  most  part  with  brushwood,  the 
esort  of  lions  and  other  wild  animals.  The 
middle  part  of  the  river’s  course,  from  Mosul  to 
Korna,  onct  he  seat  of  high  culture  and  the  resi- 
dence of  mighty  kings,  is  now  desolate,  covered 
with  the  relics  of  ancient  greatness  in  the  shape  of 
fortresses,  mounds,  and  4>*rns,  which  had  been 
erected  for  the  defence  and  irrigation  of  the 
country.  At  the  ruins  of  Nimrod,  eight  leagues 
below  Mosul,  is  a stone  dam  quite  across  the 
river,  which,  when  the  stream  is  low,  stands  con- 
siderably above  the  surface,  and  forms  a small 
cataract ; but  when  the  stream  is  swollen,  no  part 
of  it  is  visible,  the  water  rushing  over  it  like  a 
rapid,  and  boiling  up  with  great  impetuosity.  It  is 
a work  of  great  skill  and  labour,  and  now  vene- 
rable for  its  antiquity.  The  inhabitants,  as  usual, 
attribute  it  to  Nimrod.  It  is  called  the  Zikr- 
nl-Aawaze.  At  some  short  distance  below  there 
is  another  Zikr  (dyke),  but  not  so  high,  and  more 
ruined  than  the  former.  The  river  rises  twice  in 
the  year  : the  first  and  great  rise  is  in  April,  and 
is  caused  by  the  melting  of  the  snows  in  the 
mountains  of  Armenia;  the  other  is  in  Novem- 
ber, and  is  produced  by  the  periodical  rains.  See 
Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  p.  448 ; Kinneir,  Geog. 
Mem.  of  Pers.  Empire,  pp.  9, 10  ; Rich’s  Koor - 
distan,  which  includes  a minute  and  accurate 
account  of  observations  made  in  a voyage  down 
the  river  from  Mosul  to  Bagdad,  and  of  another 
voyage  up  the  river  from  Basrah  to  the  same 
place;  being  In  fact  a survey  of  the  greater  and 
more  interesting  part  of  the  Tigris. 

TIMBRELS.  [Musicat.  Instruments.] 

TIMNA  (JDfpn,  restraint ; Sept.  ®apva), 
a concubine  of  Eliphaz,  the  sou  of  Esau  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  12-22  ; 1 Chron.  i.  36).  From  her  the 
name  passed  over-  to  an  Edomitish  tribe  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  40  ; 1 Chron.  i.  51). 

TIMNAH  (n:Dn  ; Sept.  ®apvA),  or  TIM- 
nath  (J*D?pF)),  an  ancient  city  of  the  Ca- 
naanites  (Gen.  xxxviii.  12),  first  assigned  to  the 
tribe  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  10-57),  and  afterwards 
to  Dan  (Josh.  xix.  43);  but  it  long  remained  in 
the  possession  of  the  Philistines  (Judg,  xiv.  1 ; 
2 Chron.  xxviii.  18;  comp.  Joseph.  Antiq.  v.  8. 
5).  It  is  chiefly  noted  as  the  abode  of  Samson's 
bride,  and  the  place  where  he  held  his  marriage 
feast.  It  is  probably  represented  by  a deserted 
site  now  callefl.  Tibneh,  which  is  about  one  hour’s 
journey  south-west  of  Zerah,  the  residence  of 
Samson.  Another  Timnah  lay  in  the  mountains 
of  Judah  (Josh.  xxv.  57 ; Gen.  xxviii.  12-14). 

TIMNATH-HERES.  [Timnath-serah.] 


8f)3 

TIMNATH-SERAH  (nip"n3pn,;)orfto».  oj 

abundance,  i.  e.  remaining  portion  ; Sept.  0a/u/  o- 
aapax),  a town  in  the  mountains  of  Ephraim, 
which  was  assigned  to  Joshua,  and  became  the 
place  of  his  residence  and  burial  (Josh.  xix.  50  ; 
xxiv.  30).  In  Judg.  ii.  9,  it  is  called  Timnath- 
heres  ^portion  of  the  sun)-,  but  the  former  is  pro- 
bably the  correct  reading,  since  a possession  thus 
given  to  Joshua  after  the  rest  of  the  land  was  dis- 
tributed (.Tosh.  xix.  49),  would  strictly  be  a por- 
tion remaining.  This  was  probably  the  same 
with  the  Timnah  (Qapva.)  of  Josephus  (Antiq.  iv. 
iv-.  11.  12;  De  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  3.  5),  the  head  of  a 
toparchy  lying  between  those  of  Gophna  and 
Lydda  j which  seems  to  be  recognised  in  a 
place  called  Tibneh,  lying  north-west  of  Gophna 
on  the  Roman  road  to  Antipatris  (Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  i.  483).  The  choice  of  Joshua  was  cer- 
tainly not  in  the  nest  of  the  land.  Jerome  relates 
that  Paula,  when  travelling  in  these  parts,  mar- 
velled that  the  distributor  of  the  possessions  of 
the  children  of  Israel  should  have  chosen  for 
himself  a situation  so  rough  and  mountainous 
(Epitaph.  Paulce,  fol.  99). 

TIMOTHY  (T i/xoOeos),  a young  Christian  of 
Derbe,  grandson  of  Lois,  and  son  of  Eunice,  a 
Jewess,  by  a Greek  father,  who  was  probably  a 
proselyte  (Acts  xvi.  1 ; xx.  4).  He  seems  to 
have  been  brought  up  with  great  care  in  his 
family,  and  to  have  profited  well  by  the  example 
of  the  4 unfeigned  faith’  which  dwelt  in  rne  ex- 
cellent women  named  in  2 Tim.  i.  5 ; iii.  15. 
The  testimonials  which  Paul  received  in  Lvcao- 
nia  in  favour  of  this  young  disciple,  induced  the 
apostle  to  make  him  the  companion  of  his  jour- 
neys and  labours  in  preaching  the  Gospel  (Acts 
xvi.  2,  3 ; 1 Tim.  iv.  12).  He  became  his  most 
faithful  and  attached  colleague  ; and  is  frequently 
named  by  Paul  with  truly  paternal  tenderness 
and  regard.  He  calls  him  4 son  Timothy’  (1 
Tim.  i.  18) ; 4 my  own  son  in  the  faith’  (1  Tim. 
i.2);  4 my  beloved  son’  (1  Cor.  iv.  17);  4 my 
workfellow’  (Rom.  xvi.  21 ) ; 4 my  brother’  (which 
is  probably  the  sense  of  Tipodtos  6 a5s\ (f>6s  in  2 
Cor.  i.  1).  Timothy  appears  to  have  been  with 
the  apostle  at  Rome,  and  to  have  been,  like  him, 
a prisoner  thei'e,  though  liberated  before  him 
(Heb.  xi ii.  23).  His  subsequent  history  is,  how- 
ever, unknown.  It  appears  from  1 Tim.  i.  3, 
that  when  Paul  went  into  Macedonia  he  left 
Timothy  in  charge  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and 
there  are  indications  that  he  was  still  at  Ephesus 
when  the  apostle  was  (as  usually  understood)  a 
second  time  captive  at  Rome,  and  without  hope 
of  deliverance  (1  Tim.  iii.  14).  The  tradition 
is,  that  Timothy  retained  the  charge  of  the  church 
at  Ephesus  till  his  death,  arrd  eventually  suf- 
fered martyrdom  in  that  city. 

TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO.  The  com- 
mon authorship  of  these  two  enistles  has  seldom 
been  denied ; nor,  if  denied,  could  the  denial  be 
successfully  maintained,  so  marked  and  so 
numerous  are  the  points  of  resemblance  between 
the  two,  except  upon  the  assumption  that  the  one 
has  been  made  up  from  the  other.  When,  how- 
ever, we  proceed  to  inquire,  By  tchom  were  they 
written?  the  question  is  one  which  has  occa- 
sioned in  more  recent  times  no  small  controversy. 

If  we  defer  to  the  testimer.-v  of  the  early  eccle- 
siastical writers,  no  doubt  will  remain  upon  the 


864  TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO. 

point.  For  the  high  antiquity  of  these  epistles, 
the  allusions  to  passages  in  them  by  Barnabas, 
Clement  of  Rome,  Polycarp,  and  Ignatius,  suffi- 
ciently vouch  (Laniner,  ii.  t?0,  3$,  79,  9b). 
That  they  are  also  to  lie  regarded  as  genuine  pro- 
ductions of  the  apostle  whose  name  they  bear,  is 
attested  by  Irenaeus  (Ado,  Hcer.  lib.  i.,  sub  init. 
iii.  3.  3)  ; by  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  who  quotes 
1 Tim.  ii.  1,  2.  along  with  Rom.  xiii.  7,  8,  as 
part  of  ‘ the  divine  word  ' ( Ad  Autol.  iii.  14); 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom,  ii.  383)  ; ibid. 

р.  448);  by  Tertullian  (De  Proescr.  Hceret. 

с.  25)  ; by  Cains  (ap.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccics.  vi. 
20);  by  Origen,  &c.  (comp.  Lardner,  vol.  ii. 
To  this  weighty  mass  of  external  evidence,  there 
is  nothing  to  oppose  of  the  same  kind,  for  the 
omission  of  these  epistles  by  JVIarcion  from  his 
Apostolicon,  is  a fact,  to  which,  from  the  well- 
known  caprice  and  prejudice  of  that  heretic,  no 
weight  can  be  attached.  Unless,  therefore,  diffi- 
culties of  an  insurmountable  nature  are  presented 
by  the  epistles  themselves  to  our  regarding  them 
as  the  productions  of  Paul,  we  must  hold  their 
claim  to  rank  as  his  to  be  unimpeachable. 

That  such  difficulties  are  presented  by  these 
epistles  has  been  confidently  maintained  by  Eich- 
horn  ( Einleit . iii.  ff.  317),  and  De  Wette  ( Einlcit . 
s.  2S3,  ff.),  as  well  as  by  some  other  scholars  of 
less  note.  The  learned  and  acute  Schleiermaclier 
has  also  assailed  the  genuineness  of  the  first  epistle 
in  his  Kritisches  Sendschreiben  an  J.  C.  Gass 
(Berlin,  1807);  but  -that  of  the  second  he  ad- 
mitted, and  not  only  so,  but  was  wont  to  censure 
the  attempts  of  those  who  rejected  it  and  that  to 
Titus,  as  ‘ removing  the  occasion  and  the  means 
for  the  criticism  of  the  first  ’ (Liicke,  Theol.  Stud, 
rind  Krit.,  1834,  s.  768).  To  examine  all  the 
cavils  which  these  eminent  men,  in  the  exercise  of 
that  micrologistic  criticism,  in  which  it  seems 
characteristic  of  their  nation  to  delight,  would  be 
a task  altogether  incompatible  with  the  limits 
within  which  we  are  confined.  A succinct  sur- 
vey of  the  more  weighty  of  their  objections  we 
shall,  however,  attempt  to  supply ; beginning 
with  those  which  are  common  to  Doth  epistles, 
and  proceeding  to  such  as  are  peculiar  to  each. 

1.  It  is  objecled  that  the  general  style  of 

these  epistles  is  not  Pauline.  ‘ Has  Paul’s  lan- 
guage in  general,’  asks  Eichhorn,  ‘ the  clearness 
and  ease  of  expression  which  we  find  in  these 
pastoral  epistles?  Is  it  not  much  more  un- 
polished, careless,  and  allied  to  a prose  which  has 
been  thrown  together,  rather  than  carefully  ela- 
borated ?’  &c.  ‘ The  force  of  such  an  objection,’ 

Eichhorn  adds,  * it  is  very  difficult  to  make 
apparent  to  those  who  have  not  the  natural  gift  of 
discerning  modes  of  writing.’  A most  convenient 
difficulty  ! enabling  the  critic  to  retort  the  charge 
of  incapacity  upon  all  who  do  not  see  the  charac- 
teristics of  Paul's  style  in  exactly  the  same  light 
as  they  are  viewed  by  him.  We  shelter  ourselves 
behind  the  ample  authority  of  Hug,  who  says  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  objection,  that  it  i is  abso- 
lutely false,’  and  who  replies  to  the  former  by 
asserting  for  a letter,  written  by  the  apostle  to  a 
friend  so  intimate  as  Timothy,  the  right  to  ex- 
hibit a more  free  and  flowing  style  than  would 
be  proper  in  a letter  addressed  to  a church 
( Introd . Fosdick’s  transl.  p.  569). 

2.  Much  stress  is  laid  by  all  who  have  im- 
pugned the  Pauline  origin  of  these  epistles  on  the 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO. 

occurrence  in  them  of  fiira£  \ey6ptv a,  and  forms 
ot  expression  not  elsewhere  usual  with  PauL 
But  to  this  it  may  be  replied  that  the  same  objec- 
tion might  be  offered  against  many  of  the  un- 
questioned writings  of  the  apostle,  such,  e.  g.,  as 
the  epistle  to  the  Cialat ians,  in  which  57  oira£  \ey6- 
peva  occur,  and  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  in 
which  we  find  54,  &c. ; from  which  it  appears 
but  fair  to  infer  that  the  occurrence  of  such  is,’  so 
far  as  it  can  prove  anything,  an  evidence  for 
ratfier  than  against  the  Pauline  origin  of  these 
epistles.  All  such  reasonings,  however,  appear 
to  rest  upon  too  precarious  a basis  to  be  allowed 
much  weight.  W hen  it  is  remembered  how 
much  the  style  of  a writer  is  affected  by  his  sub- 
ject, by  his  design,  by  the  state  of  his  mind  at  the 
time  of  writing,  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
parties  for  whom  his  composition  is  intended,  as 
well  as  how  much  in,  the  course  of  a few  years 
the  style  of  even  a very  careful  writer  alters,  we 
shall  cease  to  be  much  moved  by  the  occurrence 
in  the  epistles  of  such  a writer  as  Paul,  of  unex- 
pected varieties  and  peculiarities  of  expression. 
The  only  valid  argument  that  can  be  urged  against 
the  genuineness  of  a writing  from  such  facts  is, 
when  it  can  be  shown  that  the  writer  has  U3ed 
phrases  or  words,  which  it  is  historically  im- 
possible that  the  party  to  whom  the  writing  is 
ascribed  could  have  employed;  as  has  been  done 
so  successfully  in  several  instances  by  Bentley, 
in  his  work  on  the  Epistles  ascribed  to  Phalaris. 
No  attempt  of  this  sort,  however,  is  made  by 
those  who  have  impugned  the  authenticity  of  the 
Epistles,  to  Timothy  ; * not  one  word  has  been 
adduced  which  can  be  shown  to  be  foreign  to  the 
age  of  Paul ; not  a single  phrase  has  been  pointed 
out,  of  which  either  the  outward  form  or  the  con- 
ception on  which  it  is  based,  belongs  to  a later 
age’  (Planck,  Bemerkungen,  u.  s.  w.  s.  17). 
So  far  from  this,  Eichhorn  himself  admits  * that 
they  have  in  their  language  much  that  is  Pauline,’ 
and  that  the  allusion  to  the  apostle’s  persecuting 
zeal  before  his  conversion  (1  Tim.  i.  13),  the  prin- 
ciples asserted  respecting  both  the  substance  and 
the  form  of  Christianity,  and  the  proofs  adduced, 
are  highly  Pauline  (p.  318). 

Besides  these  objections,  which  apply  to  both 
epistles  alike,  there  are  some  which  affect  each 
epistle  separately. 

To  the  first  epistle  it  is  objected  : 1.  That  it 
presents  Timothy  in  a light  in  which  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  other  notices  of  him  in  Paul’s  epistles 
to  regard  him.  Here  he  appears  as  little  better 
than  a novice,  needing  instruction  as  to  the  sim- 
plest affairs  of  ecclesiastical  order;  whereas,  in 
the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  written  earlier 
than  this,  we  find  him  (iv.  17)  described  by  Paul 
as  ‘ My  beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord, 
who  shall  bring  you  into  remembrance  of  my 
ways  which  be  in  Christ,  as  I teach  everywhere 
in  every  church;’  and  in  1 Thess.  i.  1-3,  we  are 
told  that  the  apostle  had  sent  him  to  Thessalonica 
to  establish  the  believers  there,  and  to  comfort 
them  concerning  their  faith.  If  Timothy  was  so 
well  able  to  regulate  the  churches  at  Corinth  and 
Thessalonica,  how,  it  is  asked,  can.it  be  supposed 
that  a short  while  afterwards  he  should  require 
such  minute  instructions  for  his  conduct  as  this 
epistle  contains?  To  this  it  may  be  replied, 
(1)  that  in  visiting  Corinth  and  Thessalonica 
Timothy  acted  as  the  apostle's  delegate,  and  had. 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO. 

doubtless*,  received  from  him  minute  instructions 
as  to  ho\»  he  should  proceed  among  those  to  whom 
he  was  seat;  so  that  the  alleged  difference  in  the 
circumstances  of  Timothy  when  sent  to  Corinth, 
and  when  left  in  Ephesus,  disappears  ; (2)  that 
it  does  not  necessarily  follow,  from  the  injunc- 
tions given  to  Timothy  in  this  epistle,  that  the 
writer  regarded  him  as  a novice  ; for  they  rather 
respect  the  application  of  general  principles  to 
peculiar  local  circumstances,  than  set  forth  in- 
structions such  as  a novice  would  require ; and 
(3)  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  apostle  de- 
signed through  Timothy  to  present  to  the  church 
at.  large  a body  of  instruction  which  should  be 
useful  to  it  in  all  ages  of  its  existence. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  after  the  church  at 
Ephesus  had  enjoyed  the  apostle’s  instructions  and 
presidency  for  three  years,  it  could  not  have  been, 
at  the  time  this  epistle  is  supposed  to  have  been 
written  by  Paul,  in  such  ignorance  of  eccle- 
siastical arrangements  as  the  injunctions  here 
given  would  lead  us  to  suppose.  But  what  is 
there  in  the  epistle  that  necessitates  such  a 
supposition?  It  contains  many  directions  to 
Timothy  how  he  should  conduct  himself  in  a 
church,  some  of  which  are  certainly  of  an  ele- 
mentary character,  but  there  is  nothing  that  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  all  intended  for 
the  benefit  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  or  that  the 
state  of  that  church  was  such  as  to  require  that 
injunctions  of  this  kind  should  be  given  for  its 
sake  alone.  Timothy's  sphere  of  evangelistic 
effort  extended  greatly  beyond  Ephesus;  and  this 
epistle  was  designed  at  once  to  guide  him  as  to 
what  he  was  to  do  in  the  churches  which  he 
might  be  called  to  regulate,  and  to  supply  his 
authority  for  so  doing.  Besides,  does  it  not 
naturally  occur  that  such  minute  injunctions  are 
just  such  as  a person  forging  this  epistle  at  a later 
period  in  Paul’s  name,  would  be  most  likely  to 
avoid  ? 

3.  The  absence  of  allusions  to  events  in  Ti- 
mothy’s history  has  been  alleged  against  the 
Pauline  origin  of  this  epistle.  A strange  objec- 
tion ! — and  as  untenable  as  strange  ! This  may 
be  seen  by  a reference  to  the  following  passages  : 
i.  18 ; iv.  14  ; v.  23 ; vi.  12. 

4.  It  is  alleged  that  the  writer  of  this  epistle 
has  made  such  a mistake  as  Paul  could  not  have 
made  when  he  classes  Alexander  with  Hymenaeus 
(l  Tim.  i.  20)  as  a false  Christian,  whereas  we 
know  from  2 Tim.  iv.  14,  that  lie  was  not  a 
Christian  at  all.  But  where  is  the  shadow  of  evi- 
dence that  the  Alexander  mentioned  in  1 Tim.  i. 
20,  is  the  same  person  with  the  Alexander  men- 
tioned in  2 Tim.  iv.  14  ? Was  this  name  so  un- 
common in  Ephesus  that  we  must  needs  suppose 
a blunder,  where  a writer  speaks  of  one  so  called 
as  a heretic,  simply  because  in  other  passages 
mention  is  made  of  one  so  called  who  was  not  a 
heretic?  Nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than  that 
there  were  two  Alexanders,  just  as  there  might 
have  been  twenty,  known  to  the  apostle  and  Ti- 
mothy; and  that  of  these  two  one  was  a heretic 
and  troubler  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  the 
other  probably  a heathen  and  an  eneir  r of  the 
apostle. 

5.  In  1 Tim.  i.  20,  mention  is  madfe  of  Hy- 
menaeus as  a heretic,  whom  the  writer  makes  Paul 
say  he  had  excommunicated ; but  this  is  a mis- 
take, for  in  2 Tim.  ii.  17,  we  find  Hymenaeus 

VOL.  II.  56 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  IX). 

still  a member  of  the  church  at  Ephesus, 
such  a mistake  could  not  have  been  made  by 
Paul.  Here,  however,  it  is  assumed  without 
proof,  (1)  that  the  Hymenaeus  of  the  one  epistle 
is  the  same  as  the  Hymenaeus  of  the  other;  (2) 
that  being  the  same,  he  was  still  a member  of  the 
same  church;  and  (3)  that  it  was  impossible  for 
him,  though  excommunicated,  to  have  returned 
as  a penitent  to  the  church,  and  again  to  have 
become  a plague  to  it.  Here  are  three  hypotheses 
on  which  we  may  account  for  the  fact  referred  to, 
and  until  they  be  all  excluded  it  will  not  follow 
that  any  blunder  is  chargeable  upon  the  writer  of 
this  epistle. 

6.  In  1 Tim.  vi.  13,  the  writer  refers  to  our 
Lord's  good  confession  before  Pontius  Pilate. 
Now  of  this  we  have  a record  in  John’s  Gospel ; 
but  as  this  was  not  written  in  Paul's  time,  it  is  urged 
that  this  epistle  must  be  ascribed  to  a later  writer. 
It  is  easy  to  obviate  any  force  that  may  appear 
to  be  in  this  remark  by  the  consideration  that  all 
the  prominent  facts  of  our  Lord’s  life,  and  espe- 
cially the  circumstances  of  his  death,  were  fami- 
liarly known  by  oral  communication  to  all  the 
Christians  before  the  Gospels  were  written. 
Though,  then,  John’s  Gospel  was  not  extant  in 
Paul’s  time,  the  facts  recorded  by  John  were 
well  known,  and  might  therefore  be  very  natu- 
rally referred  to  in  an  epistle  from  one  Christian 
to  another.  Of  our  Lord’s  confession  before  Pi- 
late we  may  readily  suppose  that  Paul,  the  great 
advocate  of  the  spirituality  of  the  Messiah's  king- 
dom, was  especially  fond  of  making  use. 

7.  The  writer  of  this  epistle,  it  is  affirmed, 
utters  sentiments  in  favour  of  the  law  which  are 
not  Pauline,  and  teaches  the  efficacy  of  good 
works  in  such  a way  as  to  be  incompatible  with 
Paul’s  doctrine  of  salvation  by  grace.  This  as- 
sertion we  may  safely  meet  with  a pointed  denial. 
The  doctrine  of  this  epistle  concerning  the  law 
is,  that  it  is  good  if  it  be  used  vo/uifxws,  as  a law, 
for  the  purposes  which  a moral  law  is  designed  to 
serve ; and  what  is  this  but  the  doctrine  of  the 
epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  where  the 
apostle  maintains  that  in  itself  and  for  its  own 
ends  the  divine  law  is  holy,  just,  and  good,  and 
becomes  evil  only  when  put  out  of  its  proper 
place,  and  used  for  purposes  it  was  never  designed 
to  serve?  (Rom.  vii.  7-12;  Gal.  iii.  21,  &c.) 
What  the  writer  here  teaches  concerning  good 
works  is  also  in  full  harmony  with  the  apostle 
Paul’s  teaching  in  his  acknowledged  epistles 
(comp.  Rom.  xii.,  Ephes.  v.  and  vi.,  &c.)  ; and! 
if  in  this  epistle  there  is  no  formal  exposition  of.' 
the  Gospel  scheme,  but  rather  a dwelling  upon, 
practical  duties,  the  reason  may  easily  be  found 
in  the  peculiar  character  of  this  as  a pastoral!1 
epistle — an  epistle  of  official  counsels  and  ex- 
hortations to  a minister  of  Christianity. 

8.  De  Wette  asserts  that  1 Tim.  iii.  16,  bear* 
marks  of  being  a quotation  from  a confession  or. 
symbol  of  the  church,  of  which  there  were  none 
in  PauTs  day.  But  what  marks  of  this  does  the 
passage  present  ? The  answer  is,  the  use  of  tlie 
word  d/AoKoyov/ievcos,  a technical  word,  and  the 
word  used  by  the  ecclesiastical  writers  to  de- 
signate something  in  accordance  with  orthodox 
doctrine.  This  is  true ; but  as  technical  words 
are  first  used  in  their  proper  sense,  and  as  the 
proper  sense  of  ofj.oXoyov/xei'us  perfectly  suits  the 
passage  in  question,  there  is  no  reason  for  sup- 


S66  TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  T^. 

posing  any  such  later  usage  as  De  Wette  suggests 
Besides,  His  argument  tells  both  ways,  for  one  may 
as  well  assert  that  the  ecclesiastical  usage  arose 
from  the  terms  of  this  passage,  as  affirm  that  the 
terms  of  this  passage  were  borrowed  from  eccle- 
siastical usage. 

9.  The  writer  of  this  epistle  quotes  ns  a part 
of  Scripture  a passage  which  occurs  only  in 
Luke  x.  7 ; but  as  Luke  had  not  written  his  Gos- 
pel at  the  time  Paul  is  supposed  to  have  written 
this  epistle,  and  as  if  is  not  the  habit  of  the  New 
Testament  writers  to  quote  from  each  other  in  the 
way  they  quote  from  the  Old  Testament,  we  are 
bound  to  suppose  that  this  epistle  is  the  produc- 
tion of  a later  writer.  But  does  this  writer  quote 
Luke  x.  7,  in  the  manner  alleged?  The  passage 
referred  to  is  in  ch.  v.  18,  where  we  have  first  a 
citation  from  Deut.  xxv.  4,  introduced  by  the 
usual  formula,  ‘The  Scripture  saith and  then 
the  writer  adds,  as  further  confirmatory  of  his 
position,  the  saying  of  our  Lord,  which  is  supposed 
to  be  quoted  from  Luke’s  Gospel.  Now  we  are 
not  bound  to  conclude  that  this  latter  was  ad- 
duced by  the  writer  as  a part  of  Scripture.  It 
may  be  regarded  as  a remark  of  his  own,  or  as 
some  proverbial  expression,  or  as  a well-known 
saying  of  Christ’s,  by  which  he  confirms  the  doc- 
trine he  is  establishing.  We  are  under  no  ne- 
cessity to  extend  the  formula  with  which  the  verse 
is  commenced  so  as  to  include  in  it  all  that  the 
verse  contains.  The  /cal  by  itself  will  not  justify 
this ; indeed  we  may  go  further,  and  affirm  that 
the  use  of  /cal  alone  rather  leads  to  an  opposite 
conclusion,  for  had  the  writer  intended  the  latter 
clause  to  be  regarded  as  a quotation  from  Scrip- 
ture as  well  as  the  former,  he  would  probably  have 
used  some  such  formula  as  /cal  Tra\iv  (comp.  Heb. 
5i.  13). 

10.  De  Wette  maintains  that  the  injunction 
in  ch.  v.  23,  is  so  much  beneath  the  dignity  of 
an  apostle,  that  we  cannot  suppose  it  to  have 
proceeded  from  such  a writer  as  Paul.  But 
what  is  there  in  such  an  injunction  less  dignified 
than  in  many  injunctions  of  an  equally  familiar 
nature  scattered  through  Paul’s  epistles?  And 
in  what  is  it  incompatible  with  the  apostolic  cha- 
racter that  one  sustaining  it  should  enjoin  upon 
a young,  zealous,  and  active  preacher,  whom  he 
esteemed  as  his  own  son,  a careful  regard  to  his 
health  ; the  more  especially  when,  by  acting  as  is 
here  enjoined,  Ire  would  vindicate  Christian  liberty 
from  those  ascetic  restraints  by  which  the  false 
teachers  sought  to  bind  it. 

Such  are  the  principal  objections  which  have 
of  late  been  urged  against  the  Pauline  authorship 
of  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy.  Let  us  now  turn 
to  glance  with  equal  brevity  at  those  which  have 
been  urged  against  the  second.  Of  these  the  most 
weighty  are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  this 
epistle  must  be  viewed  as  written  during  the 
apostle's  first  imprisonment  at  Rome ; and  as,  for 
reasons  to  be  subsequently  stated,  we  do  not  re- 
gard this  assumption  as  tenable,  it  will  not  be 
necessary  to  occupy  space  with  any  remarks  upon 
them.  We  may  leave  unnoticed  also  those  ol>- 
yections  to  this  epistle  which  are  mere  repetitions 
of  those  urged  against  the  first,  and  which  admit 
of  similar  replies. 

1.  In  ch.  iii.  11,  tne  writer  enumerates  a series 
of  persecutions  and  afflictions  which  befell  him 
fjfc  Axsficch,  J.conium,  and  Lystra,  of  which  he 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTI.ES  TO. 

says  Timothy  knew.  Would  Paul,  it  h 
in  making  such  an  enumeration,  have  committed 
the  mistake  of  referring  to  persecutions  which  he 
had  endured  before  his  connection  with  Timothy, 
and  have  said  nothing  of  those  which  he  endured 
subsequently,  and  of  which  Timothy  must  have 
known,  whilst  of  the  former  he  might  be  ignorant? 
But  there  is  no  mistake  in  the  matter.  Paul  has 
occasion  to  refer  to  the  knowledge  Timothy  had 
of  his  sufferings  for  the  Gospel.  Of  these  some 
had  occurred  before  Timothy's  connection  with 
him,  whilst  others  had  occurred  while  Timothy 
was  his  companion  and  fellow-sufferer.  Of  the 
latter,  therefore,  Paul  makes  no  specific  mention, 
feeling  that  to  be  unnecessary;  but  of  the  former, \ 
ot  which  Timothy  could  know  only  by  hearsay, 
but  of  which  he  no  doubt  did  know,  for  we  cannot 
conceive  that  any  interesting  point  in  Paul’s 
previous  history  would  be  unknown  to  his  ‘ dear 
son  in  the  faith,’  he  makes  specific  enumeration. 
This  fully  accounts  for  his  stopping  short  at  the 
point  where  Timothy’s  personal  experience  could 
amply  supply  the  remainder. 

2.  The  declaration  in  ch.  iv.  7,  &c.  is  incom- 
patible with  what  Paul  says  of  himself  in  Phil.  iii. 
12,  &c.  But  respect  must  be  had  to  the  very  dif 
ferent  circumstances  in  which  the  apostle  was  whei 
he  wrote  these  two  passages.  In  the  one  case  he 
viewed  himself  as  still  engaged  in  active  work, 
and  having  the  prospect  of  service  before  him  ; 
in  the  other  he  regards  himself  as  very  near  to 
death,  and  shortly  about  to  enter  into  the  presence 
of  his  master.  Surely  the  same  individual  might 
in  the  former  of  these  cases  speak  of  work  yet  to 
do,  and  in  the  latter  of  his  work  as  done,  without 
any  contradiction. 

3.  In  ch.  i.  6,  and  ii.  2,  there  are  allusions  to 

ecclesiastical  ceremonies  which  betray  a later 
age  than  that  of  Paul.  This  is  said  without 
reason.  The  laying  on  of  hands  in  the  conferring 
of  a was  altogether  an  apostolic  usage  ; 

and  the  hearing  of  Paul’s  doctrines  was  what 
Timothy,  as  his  companion  in  travel,  could  easily 
enjoy,  without  our  needing  to  suppose  that  the 
apostle  is  here  represented  as  acting  the  part  of 
professor  in  a school  of  theology. 

A survey  of  these  objections,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  petty  cavils  with  which  De  Wette  has  crowded 
his  pages,  and  which  one  can  only  wonder  that 
such  a man  should  for  a moment  have  deemed 
worthy  of  notice,  will  amply  show  that  no  real 
and  insuperable  objection  lies  in  the  way  of  our 
yielding  full  assent  to  the  claims  of  these  two 
epistles  to  Timothy  to  rank  among  the  produc- 
tions of  the  apostle  Paul.  On  the  contrary,  the 
entire  spirit,  tone,  character,  and  contents  of  these 
epistles  are  so  truly  Pauline,  that  they  carry  the 
evidence  of  their  authenticity  with  them,  and  set 
at  defiance  the  idle  ingenuity  of  men  to  whom 
scepticism  has  become  a habit,  and  who,  indif- 
ferent to  all  consequences,  seek  only  to  display 
their  learning  or  acuteness  in  their  assaults  upon 
the  sacred  writings. 

(Comp,  the  Introductions  of  Hug,  Haenlein, 
Michaelis,  Eichhom,  De  Wette,  Bertholdt,  Gue- 
ricke, Schott,  &c.  ; Schleiermacher,  Ueb.  den 
sogenannten  ersten  Brief  des  Paulos  an  den  Ti - 
motheos,  ein  Kritisches  Sendschreiben  an  J.  C 
Gass , Beilin,  1807,  12mo. ; Planck,  Bemerkwr 
gen  iiber  d.  ersten  Paulin.  Brief  an  d.  Tim.% 
Gott.  1808,  8vo. } Beckhaus,  Specimen  OLm. 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO. 

erif.  exeget.  de  voccibidis  air a|  Xeyo/xevots  in  I. 
ad  Tim.  Ep.  Paulina  obviis , authentia  ejus 
nihil  detrahentibus,  Ling®,  1810,  8vo.  ; Curtius, 
De  tempore  quo  prior  Pauli  ad  Tim.  Epist. 
exarata  sit.  Berol.  1828,  8vo.,  &c.) 

Assuming  that  these  epistles  were  written  by 
Paul,  the  question  next  to  be  considered  respects 
the  time  when  each  of  them  was  composed. 

With  regard  to  the  first,  it  is  clear  that  it  was 
written  not  long  aPer  Paul  had  left  Ephesus  for 
Macedonia  (ch.  i.  3).  Now  from  Acts  xx.  1,  we 
)earn  that  Paul  left  Ephesus  after  the  uproar 
mused  by  Demetrius,  and  went  into  Macedonia. 
Shall  we  suppose,  then,  that  it  was  at  this  time 
-bis  epistle  was  written?  Many  excellent  critics 
eply  in  the  affirmative ; and  upon  the  whole  we 
iiink  this  opinion  the  one  to  be  preferred.  It  is 
*ot,  however,  without  difficulties ; the  chief  of 
which  lies  in  the  fact  that  Timothy,  to  whom  this 
epistle  is  addressed,  appears  to  have  been  with  Paul 
in  Macedonia  at  this  time  (comp.  2 Cor.  i.  1). 
To  obviate  this  objection,  it  has  been  suggested 
that  Paul  might  have  written  this  epistle  imme- 
diately after  leaving  Ephesus,  and  the  second  to 
the  Corinthians  not  before  the  concluding  period 
of  his  stay  in  Macedonia ; so  that  Timothy  might 
have  visited  him  in  the  interval.  This  appears 
to  remove  the  difficulty,  but  it  does  so  by  sug- 
gesting a new  one ; for  how  on  this  supposition 
are  we  to  account  for  the  apostle’s  delaying  so 
long  to  write  to  the  Corinthians  after  the  arrival 
of  Titus,  by  whose  intelligence  concerning  the 
state  of  the  Corinthian  church  Paul  was  led  to 
address  them  ? [Second  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians.] It  may  be  asked  also  if  it  be  likely 
that  Timothy,  after  receiving  such  a charge  as 
Paul  gives  him  in  this  epistle,  would  so  soon 
have  left  Ephesus  and  followed  the  apostle. 
Pressed  by  these  difficulties,  many  critics  of  note 
have  resorted  to  the  hypothesis  that  this  epistle 
must  have  been  written  at  a later  period,  subse- 
quent to  the  apostle’s  first  imprisonment  at  Rome, 
and  upon  a journey  undertaken  by  him  during 
the  interval  between  that  and  his  final  imprison- 
ment. As  the  evidence  that  the  apostle  took  such 
a journey  is  purely  hypothetical  and  inferential, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  hypothesis  built  upon 
it  as  to  the  date  of  this  epistle  rests  at  the  best  on 
somewhat  precarious  grounds.  This  hypothesis, 
besides,  seems  to  assume  the  possibility  of  churches 
remaining  in  and  around  Ephesus  in  a state  of 
defective  arrangement  and  order  for  a greater 
length  of  time  than  we  can  believe  to  have  been 
the  case.  It  is  opposed  also  by  what  Paul  says, 
ch.  iv.  12,  from  which  we  learn  that  at  the  time 
this  epistle  was  written  Timothy  was  in  danger  of 
being  despised  as  a youth ; but  this  could  hardly 
be  said  of  him  after  Paul’s  first  imprisonment, 
when  he  must  on  the  lowest  computation  have 
been  thirty  years  of  age.  And,  finally,  this  hypo- 
thesis is  directly  opposed  to  the  solemn  declaration 
of  Paul  to  the  elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus 
when  he  met  them  at  Miletum  : ‘ I know  that  ye 
all  shall  see  my  face  no  more  ’ (Acts  xx.  25),  for 
it  assumes  that  be  did  see  them  again  and  preached 
to  them.  These  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
hypothesis  of  a later  date  for  this  epistle  seem  to 
us  weightier  than  those  which  attach  to  the  other 
supposition. 

W ith  regard  to  the  second  epistle,  it  is  certain 
ihi-t  it  wae  written  at  Rome,  and  whilst  Paul  was 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLEis  TO.  867 

a prisoner  there  (i.  8,  16  ; ii.  9 ; i.  17  ; iv.  21); 
but  the  question  arises,  was  it  during  his  first  cr 
his  second  imprisonment  that  this  took  place? 

In  favour  of  the  first,  the  most  weighty  consi- 
deration arises  out  of  the  fact  that  the  apostle 
appears  to  have  had  the  same  individuals  as  his 
companions  when  he  wrote  this  epistle,  as  he  had 
when  he  wrote  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  Phi- 
lippians,  and  Colossians,  and  that  to  Philemon, 
which  we  know  were  written  during  his  first  im- 
prisonment at  Rome.  ‘ At  the  beginning  of  the 
imprisonment,’  says  Hug,  who  has  very  forcibly 
stated  this  argument  in  favour  of  the  earlier  hypo- 
thesis, ‘ when  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was 
written,  Timothy,  who  was  not  one  of  Paul’s  com- 
panions on  the  voyage  to  Italy  (Acts  xxvii.  2), 
was  not  with  him  at  Rome ; for  Paul  does  not 
add  his  name  in  the  address  with  which  the 
epistle  commences,  as  he  always  did  when  Ti- 
mothy was  at  his  side.  Timothy  afterwards 
arrived  ; and  accordingly,  at  the  outset  of  the 
epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Philemon,  his  name 
appears  with  the  apostle’s  (Col.  i.  1 ; Phil.  1) ; 
secondly,  Luke  was  in  Paul’s  company  (Col.  iv. 

Phil.  24);  thirdly,  Mark  was  likewise  with 
him  (Col.  iv.  10 ; Phil.  24) ; fourthly,  Tychicus 
was  tht^i  Paul’s  Siaxovos  and  letter-bearer,  and, 
in  particular,  vras  sent  to  Asia  (Ephes.  iv.  21  ; 
Col.  iv.  7,  8).  All  these  circumstances  are  pre- 
sented to  viev  in  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy. 
Timothy  was  not  with  Paul  at  first,  but  was 
summoned  to  his  side  (2  Tim.  iv.  9,  21);  se- 
condly, Luke  was  with  him  (iv.  11);  thirdly, 
he  wishes  Mark  to  come  with  Timothy,  so  that 
he  must  have  been  with  him  in  ihe  course  of  his 
imprisonment  (iv.  11);  fourthly,  Tycnicus  was 
with  him  in  the  capacity  of  letter- bearer,  and, 
in  particular,  was  sent  to  Asia  (iv.  12).  l\ow, 
in  order  to  suppose  that  Paul  wrote  this  epistle 
to  Timothy  during  a second  imprisonment  &t 
Rome,  we  must  assume  that  the  circumstances  of 
both  were  exactly  the  same,  &c.  We  must  also 
assume  that  Paul  at  both  times,  even  in  the  latter 
part  of  Nero’s  reign,  was  permitted  to  receive 
friends  during  his  confinement,  to  write  letters, 
dispatch  messengers,  and,  in  general,  to  have  free 
intercourse  with  everybody’  (. Introduction , p.556, 
&c.,  Fosdick’s  transl.). 

The  case,  as  here  stated,  it  must  be  admitted, 
is  strongly  in  favour  of  our  assigning  the  com- 
position of  this  epistle  to  the  time  of  Paul’s  first 
imprisonment  at  Rome.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
difficulties  lying  in  the  way  of  this  seem  in- 
superable. Hug's  reasoning  assumes  that  the 
epistle  must  have  been  written  in  the  early  part 
of  the  apostle’s  imprisonment,  else  Timothy 
could  not  have  been  absent  at  the  time  of  its 
composition.  But  that  this  is  utterly  inad- 
missible the  following  considerations  show  : — ■ 
1 . When  Paul  wrote  to  the  Colossians,  the  Phi 
lippians,  and  Philemon,  Demas  was  with  him : 
when  he  wrote  this  epistle  to  Timothy,  Demas  had 
forsaken  him,  having  loved  this  present  world 
and  gone  to  Thessalonica  (iv.  10).  2.  When 

Paul  wrote  to  the  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philip* 
pians,  and  Philemon,  he  was  in  good  hopes  of  a 
speedy  liberation  from  his  imprisonment ; when 
he  wrote  this  epistle  to  Timothy  he  had  lost  all 
these  hopes,  and  was  anticipating  death  as  near  at 
hand  (iv.  6-8).  3.  At  the  time  this  epistle  wac 

written  Paul  had  been,  if  not  oftener,  at  lotwt 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO. 


*38  TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO. 

once  before  (lie  bar  of  the  emperor,  when  he  had 
offered  his  apology  (iv.  16).  4.  Tychicus,  the 

bearer  of  the  letters  to  the  Colossians,  had  been 
despatched  from  Rome  before  this  epistle  to 
Timothy  was  written  (iv.  12).  5.  At  the  time 

the  epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Philemon  were 
written,  Aristarchus  was  with  Paul  ; by  the  time 
this  was  written  Aristarchus  had  left  Paul  (iv. 
11).  All  these  circumstances  forbid  our  suppos- 
ing that  this  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  was 
written  before  the  epistles  above  named,  that  is, 
in  the  early  part  of  Paul's  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome.  Shall  we  then  assign  the  epistle  to  a 
later  period  of  that  same  imprisonment  ? Against 
this  also  lie  difficulties.  Before  we  can  admit 
it  we  must  suppose  that  Timothy  and  Mark,  who 
did  not  accompany  Paul  to  Rome,  had  shortly 
after  followed  him  thither,  and,  after  remaining 
awhile,  left  Paul,  and  were  again  requested  by 
him  in  this  epistle  to  return  ; that  during  the 
interval  of  their  absence  from  Rome,  Paul’s  first 
trial  had  occurred  ; and  that,  yet  even  before  be 
sad  so  much  as  appeared  before  his  judges,  he 
had  written  to  his  friends  in  terms  intimating  his 
full  confidence  of  a speedy  release  (Phil.  i.  25  ; 
ii.  24 ; Philem.  22).  These  circumstances  may 
perhaps  admit  of  explanation;  but  there  are 
others  which  seem  to  present  insuperable  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  the  supposition,  that  this 
epistle  was  written  at  any  period  of  Paul’s  first 
imprisonment  at  Rome.  1.  Paul’s  imprison- 
ment, of  which  we  have  an  account  in  the  Acts, 
was  of  a much  milder  kind  than  that  in  which  he 
was  at  the  time  he  wrote  this  epistle.  In  the 
former  case  he  was  permitted  to  lodge  in  his  own 
hired  house,  and  to  receive  all  who  came  to  him, 
being  guarded  only  by  a single  soldier;  in  the 
latter  he  was  in  such  close  confinement  that  One- 
siphorus  had  no  small  difficulty  in  finding  him, 
be  was  chained,  he  suffered  evil  even  unto  bonds 
as  a malefactor,  his  friends  had  mostly  deserted 
him,  and  he  had  narrowly  escaped  destruction 
from  the  Roman  tyrant  (i.  16-18;  ii.9;  iv.  6,  7, 
8,  18).  2.  In  c’n.  iv.  13,  he  requests  Timothy 

to  bring  with  him  from  Troas  some  books,  parch- 
ndenls,  &c.,  which  he  had  left  at  that  place.  If 
we  suppose  the  visit  here  referred  to  the  same  as 
that  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.  3-7,  we  must  conclude 
that  these  documents  had  been  allowed  by  the 
apostle  to  lie  at  Troas  for  a space  of  seven  or 
eight  years,  as  that  length  of  time  elapsed  bet  ween 
tire  visit  to  Troas,  mentioned  by  Luke,  and  Paul’s 
first  imprisonment  at  Rome.  This  is  surely  very 
unlikely,  as  the  documents  were  plainly  of  value 
to  the  apostle ; and  if  by  g>ai\6vr]s , in  this  pas- 
sage, he  meant  a cloak  or  mantle , the  leaving  of 
it  for  so  long  a time  unused,  when  it  might  have 
been  of  service,  and  the  sending  so  anxiously  for 
it,  when  it  could  be  of  little  or  none,  as  the 
apostle's  time  of  departure  was  at  hand,  must  be 
allowed  to  be  not  a little  improbable.  3.  In 
eh.  iy.  20,  Paul  speaks  of  having  left  Trophimus 
sick  at  Miletus.  Now  this  could  not  have  been 
on  the  occasion  referred  to  in  Acts  xx.  15;  for 
subsequent  to  that  Trophimus  was  with  Paul  at 
Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  29).  It  follows  that  Paul 
must  have  visited  Miletus  at  a subsequent 
period  ; but  he  did  not  visit  it  on  his  way  from 
Jerusalem  to  Rome  on  the  occasion  of  his  first 
imprisonment ; and  this,  therefore,  strongly  fa- 
vours the  hypothesis  of  a journey  subsequent  to 


that  event,  and  immediately  antecedent  to  tho 
writing  of  this  epistle.  The  attempt  to  enfeeble 
the  force  of  this  by  translating  uire\nrovf  ‘ they 
left  ’ &c.,  and  tinderstanding  it  of  messengers 
from  Ephesus  coming  to  visit  Paul,  is  ingenious, 
but  can  hardly  be  admitted,  as  no  sound  inter- 
preter would  forcibly  supply  a subject  to  a verb 
where  the  context  itself  naturally  supplies  one. 
4.  In  ch.  iv.  20,  the  apostle  says  ‘ Erastug 
abode  in  Corinth.’  Such  language  implies  that 
shortly  before  writing  this  epistle  the  apostle  had 
been  at  Corinth,  where  he  left  Erastus.  But  be- 
fore his  first  imprisonment  Paul  had  not  been  at 
Corinth  for  several  years,  and  during  the  interval 
Timothy  had  been  with  him,  so  that  he  did  not 
need  to  write  to  him  at  a later  period  about  that 
visit  (Acts  xx.  4).  Hug  contends  that  epeivt 
simply  expresses  the  fact  that  Erastus  was  then 
residing  at  Corinth,  without  necessarily  implying 
that  Paul  had  left  him  there ; but  would  the 
apdstle  in  this  case  have  used  the  aorist? 

On  these  grounds  the  hypothesis  has  been 
adopted,  that  Paul,  after  his  first  imprisonment, 
was  set  at  liberty,  resumed  his  missionary  labours, 
was  again  apprehended,  and  wrote  this  epistl* 
during  his  second  imprisonment.  Whichevei 
hypothesis  we  adopt  we  shall  encounter  diffi- 
culties ; but  the  latter  seems,  upon  the  wholej 
the  preferable  (comp,  the  Introductions  of  Horne. 
Hug,  Michaelis,  Eichhorn;  Hemsen’s  Lebcn 
Pauli ; Paley’s  Ilorce  Pauli  nee,  &c.). 

The  design  of  the  first  epistle  is  partly  to  in- 
struct Timothy  in  the  duties  of  that  office  with 
which  he  had  been  intrusted,  partly  to  supply 
him  with  credentials  to  the  churches  which  he 
might  visit,  and  partly  to  furnish  through  him 
guidance  to  the  churches  themselves.  It  may  be 
divided  into  three  parts,  exclusive  of  the  intro- 
duction (i.  1,  2),  and  the  conclusion  (vi.  20,  21). 
In  the  first  of  these  parts  (i.  3-20)  the  apostle 
reminds  Timothy  generally  of  his  functions,  and 
especially  of  the  duties  he  had  to  discharge  in 
reference  to  certain  false  teachers,  who  were  anxi- 
ous to  bring  the  believers  under  the  yoke  of  the 
law.  In  the  second  (ii.-vi.  2)  he  gives  Timothy 
particular  instructions  concerning  the  orderly 
conducting  of  divine  worship,  the  qualifications 
of  bishops  and  deacons,  and  the  proper  mode  of 
behaving  himself  in  a church.  In  the  third 
(vi.  3-19)  the  apostle  discourses  against  some 
vices  to  which  the  Christians  at  Ephesus  seem  to 
have  been  prone. 

The  design  of  the  Second  Epistle  is  partly  to 
inform  Timothy  of  the  apostle’s  trying  circum- 
stances at  Rome,  and  partly  to  utter  a last  warn- 
ing voice  against  the  errors  and  delusions  which 
were  corrupting  and  disturbing  the  churches.  It 
consists  of  an  inscription  (i.  1-5)  ; of  a series  of 
exhortations  to  Timothy,' to  be  faithful  in  his  zeal 
for  sound  doctrine,  patient  uuder  affliction  and 
persecution,  careful  to  maintain  a deportment 
becoming  his  office,  and  diligent  in  his  endea- 
vours to  counteract  the  unhallowed  efforts  ot  the 
false  teachers  (i.  6 ; iv.  8)  ; and  a conclusion  in 
which  Paul  requests  Timothy  to  visit  him,  and 
sends  the  salutations  of  certain  Christians  at  Rome 
to  Timothy,  and  those  of  the  apostle  himself  to 
some  believers  in  Asia  Minor. 

Commentaries:  Mosheim, ErJcliirung  der  beyden 
Brief e des  Ap.  Pauli  an  den  Timotheum , Hamb. 
1755,  4 to. ; Zachariae,  Paraphrast.  Erkldr.  dir 


TIN 


TIPHSA1I. 


set 


Br.  an  Tun.,  1775.  Wegscbeider,  Der  /.  Br. 
dcs  Ap.  P.  an  d.  Tim.  ubersetz  and  erklart.  Gott. 
1810,  8vo. ; Heydenreich.  Die  Pastor albriefe 
Pauli  erlaiitert.  Hadamar.  1820-1828,  2 vols. 
8vo. ; Mack,  Comment,  ub.  d.  Pastoralbr. 
des  Ap.  Paulas , Tub.  1841,  8vo. ; Matthies, 
Erkliir.  d.  Pastoralbr.  Griefswald,  1840;  Leo, 
Pauli  Epist.  prima  ad  Tim.  Grceca  cum  Com- 
ment, perpetuo,  Lips.  1838,  8vo. — W.  L.  A. 

TIN  (V"p  bedil ; Sept.  Kaatrirepos').  If  this 
substance  be  really  intended  by  the  Hebrew  word, 
which  seems  somewhat  doubtful,  it.  is  first  men- 
tioned among  the  metals  which  were  to  be  puri- 
fied by  fire  found  among  the  prey  taken  from 
die  Midianites  (Num.  xxxi.  22).  It  is  also 
named  among  the  articles  of  commerce  which  the 
Tyrians  received  from  Tarshish  (Ezek.  xxvii.  12) ; 
and  a levelling  instrument  of  bedil  used  by 
builders  is  noticed  in  Zech.  iv.  10.  The  Hebrew 
word  also  denotes  the  alloy  of  lead,  tin,  and  other 
inferior  metals,  combined  with  silver  in  the  ore 
and  separated  from  it  by  smelting  (Isa.  i.  25). 

TINSHEMETH  (H D^fl).  This  name  has 
already  been  referred  to  the  ‘ chamaeleon,’  but  there 
is  no  doubt  that  it  also  denotes  a bird ; for  it 
occurs  in  the  enumeration  of  unclean  species 
which  the  law  forbade  to  be  eaten,  and  we  are 
not  at  liberty  to  presume  that  a lizard  could  be 
meant,  where  all  the  others  are  positively  flying 
creatures  (Lev.  xi.  18;  Deut.  xiv.  16).  Bochart, 
with  his  usual  learning,  endeavours  to  prove  it  to 
be  a species  of  owl ; but  in  that  case  not  less  than 
three  species  of  owls  would  be  enumerated  in  the 
series,  while  many  other  birds  that  cannot  well 
be  assumed  to  be  clean  would  be  omitted.  The 
Sept,  and  the  Vulgate  understand  a water-fowl 
to  be  meant,  the  first  rendering  it  Ttoptyvpiwv, 
and  the  second,  not  comprehending  the  meaning 
of  this  designation,  rendering  it ‘swan.’  Giggeius 
wavered  between  these  two  ; and  Dr.  Mason  Har- 
ris, seemingly  not  better  informed,  and  confound- 
ing the  American  red  species  with  the  white  one 
of  Africa,  guessed  that  porphyrion  must  mean  the 
‘flamingo.’  The  swan,  for  which  some  recent 
scholars  contend,  asserting  that  it  was  held 
sacred  in  Egypt,  does  not  occur,  so  far  as  we 
have  ascertained,  in  any  Egyptian  ancient  picture, 
and  is  not  a bird  which,  in  migrating  to  the 
south,  even  during  the  coldest  seasons,  appears  to 
proceed  further  than  Fiance  or  Spain,  though 
no  doubt  individuals  may  be  blown  onwards 
in  hard  gales  to  the  African  shore.  We  recol- 
lect only  two  instances  of  swans  being  noticed 
so  far  to  the  south  as  the  sea  between  Candia 
and  Rhodes  : one  where  a traveller  mentions  his 
passing  through  a flock  reposing  on  the  sea 
during  the  night;  the  other  recorded  by  Hassel- 
quist,  who  saw  one  on  the  coast  of  Egypt;  but  we 
conjecture  that  they  mistook  pelicans  for  swans, 
particularly  as  the  last  mentioned  are  fresh-water 
birds,  and  do  not  readily  take  to  the  true  salt  sea. 
Parkhurst,  deriving  the  word  from  DfcJO  nasam, 
'to  breathe,’  was  inclined  to  render  Tinshemeth 
by  ‘ goose ;’  but  as  this  bird  is  not  by  the  pre- 
sent Jews  deemed  unclean,  it  may  be  confidently 
assumed  that  no  mistake  in  this  matter  can  have 
occurred  during  any  period,  and  consequently 
that  the  goose  cannot  have  been  marked  unclean 
by  the  law,  and  afterwards  admitted  among  the 
clean  birds,  with  its  name  transferred  to  another 


species.  The  Hebrew  dictionary  by  Selig  New- 
man, it  is  true,  renders  Tinshemeth  ‘swan}1 
but  the  Polyglotts  show  the  great  uncertainty 
there  is  in  several  of  the  names  of  both  the 
chapters  in  question.  We  prefer  the  rendering 
of  the  Sept.,  because  the  porphyrion,  or  purple 
gallinula,  cannot  have  been  unknown  to  the  trans- 
lators, as  it  was  no  doubt  common  in  the  Alex- 
andrian temples,  and  was  then,  as  it  is  now,  seen 
both  in  Egypt  and  Palestine.  The  circumstance 
of  the  same  name  being  given  to  the  chamaeleon 
may  have  arisen  from  both  having  the  faculty  of 
changing  colours,  or  being  iridescent  ; the  first 
when  angry  becoming  green,  blue,  and  purple — co- 
lours which  likewise  play  constantly  on  the  glossy 
parts  of  the  second’s  plumage.  The  porphyrion 
is  superior  in  bulk  to  our  water-hen  or  gallinula, 
has  a hard  crimson  shield  on  the  forehead,  and 
flesh-coloured  legs;  the  head,  neck,  and  sides  are 
of  a beautiful  turquoise  blue,  the  upper  and  back 
parts  of  a dark  but  brilliant  indigo. 


527.  [The  Porphyrion.] 


The  porphyrion  is  a remarkable  bird,  abound- 
ing in  the  southern  and  eastern  parts  of  Europe 
and  Western  Asia,  feeding  itself  standing  on  one 
leg,  and  holding  its  food  in  the  claws  of  the  other. 
It  was  anciently  kept  tame  in  the  precincts  of 
pagan  temples,  and  therefore  perhaps  was  marked 
unclean,  as  most,  if  not  all,  the  sacred  animals 
of  the  heathens  were.  When  in  the  decline  of 
idolatry  the  dog,  peacock,  ibis,  the  purple  bird 
in  question,  and  other  domesticated  ornaments  of 
the  fern  pies,  had  disappeared,  Gesner’s  researches 
show  how  early  and  long  the  writers  of  the  middle 
ages  and  of  the  revival  of  literature  were  per- 
plexed to  find  again  the  porphyrion  of  the  an- 
cients, although  modern  naturalists  have  not  the 
shadow  of  a doubt  upon  the  subject,  the  species 
being,  moreover,  depicted  upon  Egyptian  mo- 
numents. We  subjoin  a figure  of  porphyrio 
hyacinthinus,  the  species  most  common  in  Flu- 
rope,  although  there  are  several  others  in  Asia 
and  Africa  ; porphyrio  erythropus,  abundant  on 
the  south-east  coast  of  Africa,  appears  to  be  that 
which  the  pagan  priests  most  cherished. — C.  H.  S. 

TIPHSAH  (npDJjl ; Sept,  ©eerpd),  a large  and 
opulent  city  on  the  western  bank  of  the  Eu- 
phrates. It  is  doubtless  the  same  as  the  Thapsacus 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  The  name  means 
‘ ford  and  the  town  was,  in  fact,  situated  at  the 
lowest  fording-place  of  the  Euphrates ; whence 
it  became  the  point  of  trading-communication 
between  the  natives  east  and  west  of  the  river.  On 


870 


TIRHAKAH* 


TITHE. 


this  account,  and  as  commanding  the  ford,  the 
possession  of  the  place  was  deemed  of  great  im- 
portance by  the  ruling  powers  of  the  day  (Xenoph. 
Anab.  i.  4-11;  Arrian,  ii.  13;  iii.  7;  Strabo, 
xvi.  p.  1082  ; Q.  Curtius,  x.  1-9).  This  circum- 
stance explains  the  contentions  of  the  kings  of 
Syria  and  Egypt  respecting  Carchemish,  which 
was  a strong  place  a little  lower  down  the  river, 
at  the  junction  of  the  Chaboras.  Solomon  ob- 
tained possession  of  Tiphsah  (1  Kings  iv.  21), 
probably  in  connection  with  the  series  of  opera- 
tions (of  which  the  building  or  fortification  of 
Tadmor  was  one)  adopted  by  him  for  the  purpose 
of  drawing  the  Eastern  trade  into  his  own  do- 
minions [Solomon  ; Tadmor].  Nothing  remains 
of  Tiphsah  at  the  present  day  except  the  name  ; 
but  the  site  is  supposed  to  be  marked  by  the  village 
of  Ed-Deyr.  The  Tiphsah  of  2 Kings  xv.  16,  is 
usually  identified  with  the  above  by  Jewish 
writers  ; but  it  seems  rather  to  have  been  in  the 
land  of  Israel,  and  not  far  from  Tirzah. 

TIRHAKAH,  king  of  Cush  (Ethiopia  in  the 
Common  Version),  who  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah 
came  out  against  Sennacherib  when  he  was  mak- 
ing war  on  Judah  (2  Kings  xix.  9 ; Isa.  xxxvii.  9). 
He  is  the  Tapai<6s  of  Manetho,  the  third  king  of 
the  twenty- fifth  dynasty,  and  the  TeapKcir  of 
Strabo  (xv.  687),  with  whom  the  twenty-fifth 
Ethiopic  dynasty  came  to  an  end.  According  to 
Strabo,  he  made  his  way  victoriously  as  far  as  the 
pillars  of  Hercules.  The  length  of  his  reign  is 
fixed  by  Syncellus  at  eighteen,  and  by  Eusebius 
at  twenty  years.  According  to  the  first  statement, 
the  period  of  his  reign  falls  in  the  years  714-696 
B.c.  His  successful  opposition  to  the  power  of 
Assyria  is  recorded  on  the  walls  of  a Theban 
temple,  for  at  Medinet  Habu  are  the  figure  and 
the  name  of  this  king  and  the  captives  he  took. 
That  Tirhakah  ruled  at  Napata,  now  Gebel 
Berkel,  and  in  the  Thebaid  at  the  same  period, 
is  proved  by  the  additions  he  made  to  the  temples 
of  Thebes,  and  by  the  monuments  he  built  in 
Ethiopia.  That  he  was  a very  potent  monarch  is 
evident  from  his  defeat  of  Sennacherib,  as  well  as 
from  the  monuments  he  has  left  both  in  Egypt  and 
Ethiopia,  and  his  maintenance  of  the  Egyptian 
possessions  in  Asia ; and  although  Strabo  may  have 
exaggerated  his  power  when  he  affirms  that  he 
extended  his  conquests  like  Sesostris  into  Europe, 
yet  his  authority  is  of  use,  as  it  leads  to  thqapon- 
clusion  that  Tirhakah  ruled  Lower  as  well  as 
Upper  Egypt  [Sennacherib]. — J.  R.  B. 

TIRSHATA  (Nfitfpfi;  Sept.  dOepaaaed),  a 
title  borne  by  Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah  as  Per- 
sian governors  of  Judaea  (Ezra  ii.  63 ; Neh.  vii. 
65,  70  ; viii.  9 ; x.  2).  It  seems  to  come  from 

the  Persic  torsh , ‘severe,’  and,  in  that 

case,  would  be  equivalent  to  ‘your  severity:’ 
comp.  ‘ dread  sovereign,’  and  the  German  ‘ ge- 
strenger  Herr,’  a title  formerly  borne  by  the  ma- 
gistrates of  the  free  and  imperial  German  states. 

TIRZAH  (np.fi)  is  mentioned  only  once  in 
Scripture,  namely  in  Isa.  xliv.  14.  ‘He  (that  is, 
me  carpenter,  ver.  13)  heweth  him  down  cedars, 
and  taketh  the  cypress  (tirzah'),  for  the  purpose  of 
making  an  idol.  There  is  no  doubt  but  the  wood 
must  have  been  of  a texture  fit  to  be  worked,  as 
well  as  to  retain  the  shape  given  to  it.  Though 
translated  * cypress,’  we  have  no  proof  that  this  tree 


was  intended,  but  it  is  well  suited  for  the  purpooa 
indicated  [Berosh].  The  Greek  translators^ 
Aquila  and  Theodotion,  have  employed  a word 
which  denotes  the  wild  or  forest  oak  ( aypio&d - 
\avos).  The  oldest  Latin  version  renders  the 
Hebrew  word  by  ilex,  ‘ the  evergreen  oak  ’ (Rosen- 
miiller,  p.  317).  As  the  wood  of  this  species  is 
well-fitted  for  being  worked  into  images,  and  was 
so  employed  by  the  ancients,  it  is  possible  that 
it  may  be  that  intended,  though  we  have  no 
satisfactory  proof  of  its  being  so. 

TIRZAH  (i“l]f*)fi  ; Sept.  Qepcrd),  an  ancient 
Canaanitish  city  (Josh.  xii.  24),  pleasantly  situ- 
ated (Cant.  vi.  4),  which  Jeroboam  made  the 
capital  of  his  kingdom,  and  which  retained  that 
rank  till  Samaria  was  built  by  Omri  (1  Kings  x. ; 
xv.  21  ; xvi.  24  ; 2 Kings  xv.  4).  It  is  nowhere 
stated  to  what  tribe  this  town  belonged ; but 
Adrichomius  ( Theat . T.  S.,  p.  74)  and  others 
place  it  in  Manasseh.  Lightl'oot  ( Chorograph . 
Cent.  c.  88)  seems  to  suspect  that  Tirzah  and 
Shechem  were  the  same ; for  he  says  that  ‘ if 
Shechem  and  Tirzah  were  not  one  and  the  same 
town,’  it  appears  that  Jeroboam  had  removed 
when  his  son  died  from  where  he  was  when  he 
first  erected  his  idols  (comp.  1 Kings  xii.  25; 
xiv.  17).  It  is  not  very  probable  that  Shechem 
and  Tirzah  were  the  same;  but  it  would  seem 
that  they  were  not  very  distant  from  each  other. 
Thq^jite  is,  however,  entirely  unknown. 

TISHBITE  ('ntpfi;  Sept.  ©ejrjSmjs),  the 
Gentile  name  of  Elijah — ‘Elijah  the  Tishbite’ 
(1  Kings  xvii.  1,  2;  xxi.  17) — derived  from  a 
town  called  Tishbi  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  the 
name  of  which  occurs  only  in  Tob.  i.  2,  OiVjSTj 
(see  Reland,  Palcestina,  p.  1035). 

TISRI  (p&^fi,  from  a root  which  denotes 
to  begin)  was  the  first  month  of  the  civil,  and  the 
seventh  month  of  the  ecclesiastical  year,  in  which 
fell  the  Festival  of  Atonement  and  that  of  Taber- 
nacles. In  1 Kings  viii.  2,  it  is  termed  the  month 
of  Ethanim,  that  is,  the  month  of  streaming  rivers, 
which  are  filled  during  this  month  by  the  au- 
tumnal rains.  It  corresponds  with  our  September 
— October.  Tisri  is  one  of  the  six  names  of 
months  found  in  Palmyrene  inscriptions ; which, 
with  other  evidence,  renders  it  very  probable  that 
the  Jewish  names  of  months  form  a member  in  a 
great  series  of  names  of  months,  whici.  'ere  ex- 
tensively in  use  in  the  eastern  parts  of  tne  world 
(see  Ueber  die  Monatsnamen  emiger  alter  Volker 
von  T.  Benfey  und  M.  A..  Stern,  Berlin,  1836). — 

J R.  B 

TITHE,  &c.  p&?K>,  Lev.  xxvii.  30,  31,  32, 
&c. ; Sept.  Se/cctTTj,  soil,  fiotpa,  ‘ a part Vulg. 
decimce).  The  Hebrew  word  is  plainly  derived 
from  ‘ ten,’  which  also  means  ‘ to  be  rich ;’ 

hence  ten  is  the  rich  number,  because  including 
all  the  units  under  it.  The  same  idea  is  retained 
in  the  Greek;  thus,  5e/c«,  5e'xo//,ai,  ‘to  receive,’ 
‘ hold,’  &c.  Se/ca,  ‘ ten,’  because  the  ten  fingers 
hold  everything ; and  in  the  Latin,  teneo; 
French,  contenir ; English,  contain,  ten.  Py- 
thagoras speaks  of  the  Decade,  which  is  the 
sum  of  all  the  preceding  numbers  1+2-^3-M, 
as  comprehending  all  musical  and  antnme 
tical  proportions.  For  a view  of  his  doctrine  ot 
numbers,  and  the  probability  of  its  Egyptian 
origin,  see  W ilkinson’s  Manners  and  CustorM  cj 


TITHE. 


TITHE. 


871 


the  Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  tv.  pp.  193-200 
For  Aristotle’s  similar  ideas  of  the  number  ten, 
ree  Probl.  iii.  15.  This  number  seems  signifi- 
cant of  completeness  or  abundance  in  many  pas- 
sages of  Scripture.  Jacob  said  unto  Laban, 
‘ Thou  hast  changed  my  wages  these  ten  times  ’ 
(Gen.  xxxi.  41) ; ‘ Am  not  I better  to  thee  than 
ten  sons  ’ (1  Sam.  i.  8)  ? ‘ These  ten  times  have  ye 
reproached  me’  (Job  xix.  3) ; ‘ Thy  pound  hath 
gained  ten  pounds’  (Luke  xix.  16),  &c.  This 
number,  as  the  end  of  less  numbers  and  beginning 
of  greater,  and  as  thus  signifying  perfection,  suffi- 
ciency, &c.,  may  have  been  selected  for  its  suit- 
ableness to  those  Eucharistic  donations  to  reli- 
gion, &c.,  which  mankind  were  required  to  make 
probably  in  primeval  time3.  Abraham  gave  to 
Melchizedec,  ‘ priest  of  the  most  high  God,’  a 
tenth  of  all  the  spoils  he  had  taken  from  Chedor- 
laomer  (Gen.  xiv.  20 ; Heb.  vii.  4).  The  inci- 
dental way  in  which  this  fact  is  stated,  seems  to 
indicate  an  established  custom.  Why  should 
Abraham  give  tithes  of  the  spoils  of  war,  and  not 
of  other  things?  For  instances  of  the  heathen 
dedicating  to  their  gods  the  tenth  of  warlike  spoils 
see  Wetstein  on  Heb.  vii.  4.  Jacob’s  vow  (Gen. 
xxviii.  22)  seems  simply  to  relate  to  compliance 
with  an  established  custom  ; his  words  are,  lite- 
rally, ‘ And  all  that  thou  shalt  give  me,  I will 

assuredly  tithe  it  unto  thee’  “15^. 

On  the  practice  of  the  heathen,  in  various  and 
distant  countries,  to  dedicate  tithes  to  their  gods, 
tee  Sir  Henry  Spelman,  OnTithes , ch.  xxvi. ; Sel- 
len,  c.  iii. ; Lesley’s  Divine  Right  of  Tithes , 
} 7 3 Wetstein  on  Heb.  vii.  2.  The  Mosaic  law, 
therefore,  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  in  others,  was 
simply  a reconstitution  of  the  patriarchal  religion. 
Thus,  the  tenth  of  military  spoils  is  commanded 
(Num.  xxxi.  31).  For  the  law  concerning  tithes 
generally,  see  Lev.  xxvii.  30.  &c.,  where  they  are 
first  spoken  of  as  things  already  known.  These 
tithes  consisted  of  a tenth  of  all  that  remained  after 
payment  of  the  first-fruits  of  seeds  and  fruits,  and 
of  calves,  lambs,  and  kids.  This  was  called  the 
first  tithe,  and  belonged  to  God  as  the  sovereign 
and  proprietor  of  the  soil  (Lev.  xxvii.  30-32 ; 
2 Chron.  xxxi.  5,  6).  The  proceeds  of  this  rent, 
God,  as  king,  appropriated  to  the  maintenance  and 
remuneration  of  his  servants  the  Levites,  to  be 
paid  to  them  in  their  several  cities  (Num.  xviii. 
21-24).  A person  might  redeem  or  commute  in 
money  his  tithes  of  seeds  and  fruits,  by  adding 
the  value  of  a fifth  part  to  them  (Lev.  xxvii.  31). 
Out  of  this  tithe  the  Levites  paid  a tenth  to  the 
priests,  called  the  tithe  of  tithes,  or  tithe  of  holy 
things  (Num.  xviii.  26-2S) ; and  another  tithe 
of  the  produce  of  the  fields  belonging  to  their 
cities  (ver.  29).  The  first  tithe  being  paid,  the 
proprietor  had  to  set  apart  out  of  the  remainder 
a second  tithe,  tojie  expended  by  him  in  the 
courts  of  the  tabernacle,  in  entertaining  the 
Levites  and  his  own  family,  &c.  (Deut.  xii.  18). 
If  the  trouble  and  expense  of  transporting  this 
second  tithe  in  kind  to  the  tabernacle  were  too 
great,  he  might  turn  it  into  money,  but  this  he 
must  take  in  person,  and  expend  there  for  the 
appointed  purpose  (ver.  24-28).  Some  have  sup- 
posed that  in  addition  to  the  first  and  second 
tithe,  there  was  another,  to  be  paid  every  third 
year  to  the  poor,  &c.  (Deut.  xiv.  28,  29),  and 
that  it  is  referred  to  in  Tobit  i.  6-8  ( Tp'nrjv 


Seicdryi',  * the  third  tithe) but  other*  under- 
stand the  meaning  to  be,  that  every  third  year, 
called  “I^OrTn:^,  ‘ the  year  of  tithes,’  the 
people  made  a feast  of  the  second  tithes  in 
their  owti  houses  for  the  Levite,  the  stranger, 
the  fatherless,  and  the  widow  (Deut.  xii.  26  ; 
Jahn,  Ribl.  Arch.  § 390),  and  that  from  being 
put  to  this  use  every  third  year,  it  was  called  ‘ the 
third  tithe,’  and  ‘poor  man’s  tithe.’  Josephus, 
however,  speaks  positively  of  a third  tithe  every 
third' year  to  those  in  viaa\\.{Antiq.  iv.  8.  8,  22). 
It  seems  that  the  people  were  left  to  their  own 
consciences  in  regard  to  the  just  payment  of  their 
tithes,  subject,  however,  to  the  solemn  declara- 
tion 1 before  the  Lord,’  which  they  were  required 
to  make  concerning  it  every  third  year  (Deut. 
xxvi.  12-16).  Possibly  the  Levites  were  not  pro- 
hibited from  taking  due  care  that  they  received 
their  rights,  inasmuch  as  in  later  times,  at  least, 
they  paid  their  own  tithes  to  the  priests  under 
sacerdotal  supervision  (Neh.  x.  38).  Upon  exa- 
mination it  will  be  found  that  the  payments  re- 
quired by  Moses  of  the  Jewish  people  were  ex- 
ceedingly moderate,  and  were  no  doubt  easily 
borne  till  they  chose  to  incur  the  additional  ex- 
penses of  a regal  establishment.  It  pleased  God, 
while  sustaining  the  relation  to  them  of  sovereign 
and  proprietor  of  the  land,  to  require  the  same 
quit-rent  of  one-tenth  v^hicli  was  usually  paid 
to  the  kings  in  other  nations  (1  Sam.  viii.  14,  15, 
17  ; comp.  1 Macc.  ii.  35).  Aristotle  speaks  of 
it  as  tc a\aibs  v6pos,  ‘ an  ancient  law’  at  Babylon 
{(Economic,  lib.  ii.  sub  fin.).  In  Egypt  one- 
fifth  was  paid  to  the  king,  which  was  more  than 
the  first-fruits  and  first  and  second  tithes  put 
together.  This  quit-rent  God  appointed  to  be 
paid  to  the  Levites  for  their  subsistence,  since 
their  festive  share  in  the  second  tithes  can  hardly 
be  accounted  part  of  their  income.  They  had, 
as  a tribe  of  Israel,  an  original  right  to  one- 
twelfth  of  the  land,  for  which  they  received  no 
other  compensation  than  the  tithes,  subject  to  the 
sacerdotal  decimation,  their  houses,  and  glebes. 
In  return  for  these,  they  consecrated  their  time 
and  talents  to  the  service  of  the  public  [Levites]. 
The  payment  of  tithes,  &c.  was  re-established  at 
the  restoration  of  religion  by  Hezekiah  (2  Chron. 
xxxi.  5,  6,  12),  and  upon  the  return  from  the 
captivity  by  Nehemiah  (x.  37  ; xii.  44  ; xiii.  5). 
The  prophet  Malachi  reproves  the  people  for  then- 
detention  of  the  tithes,  &c.,  for  which  they  had 
brought  a divine  chastisement  by  famine  upon 
themselves,  and  promises  a restoration  of  plenty 
upon  their  amendment  (iii.  8-12  ; comp.  iii.  9 ; 
Ecclus.  xxxv.  9).  In  our  Saviour’s  time  the 
Pharisees  scrupulously  paid  their  tithes,  but  neg- 
lected the  weightier  matters  of  the  law.  His 
comment  on  their  conduct  conveys  no  censure  on 
their  punctiliousness  on  this  point,  but  on  their 
neglect  of  more  important  duties.  ‘ These  ought 
ye  to  have  done,  and  not  to  leave  the  other  undone’ 
(Matt,  xxiii.  23  ; Luke  xviii.  12).  For  an  illustra- 
tion of  St.  Paul’s  reasoning  on  Abraham's  pay- 
ment of  tithes  to  Melchizedec  (Heb.  yii.  4,  &c.), 
see  Stuart,  On  the  Hebrews ; Professor  Wilson,  On 
the  Priesthood  of  Christ.  On  the  Jewish  tithes, 
see  Hottinger,  Dc  decimis  Judceorum , Lugdun. 
Batav.  1713  ; Michaelis,  On  the  Laws  of  Moses, 
by  A.  Smith,  Lond.  1814,  vol.  iii.  pp.  141-146; 
and  On  the  Heathen  Tithes ; Rose’s  Inscrip - 
tiones  Grcecce , Lond.  1825,  p.  215. — J.  F.  D. 


872 


TITUS. 


TITUS  (Tiros),  a Christian  teacher,  and  com- 
panion and  fellow-labourer  of  St.  Paul.  He  was 
cf  Greek  origin,  but  was  converted  by  the  apostle, 
who  therefore  calls  him  his  own  son  in  the  faith  (Gal. 
ii.  3;  Tit.  i.  4).  He  was  one  of  the  persons  sent  by 
the  church  of  Antioch  to  Jerusalem  to  consult 
the  apostles,  and  it  was  not  judged  necessary  that 
he  should  receive  circumcision  (Acts  xv.  2 ; Gal. 

11.  1).  After  a time  we  find  him  in  company 
with  Paul  at  Ephesus,  whence  he  was  sent  to 
Corinth  (2  Cor.  xii.  18),  where  he  was  well  re- 
ceived, discharged  with  discretion  the  task  con- 
fided to  him,  and  declined  to  suffer  the  chufch 
to  defray  his  expenses  (2  Cor.  viii.  13,  sq. ; xii. 
18).  He  then  proceeded  to  Macedonia,  and  at 
Philippi  rejoined  his  master,  who  had  vainly 
been  expecting  him  at  Troas  (2  Cor.  vii.  6 ; ii. 

12,  13).  He  was  then  employed  by  Paul  in 
preparing  the  collection  for  the  poor  saints  in 
Judaea,  and,  as  an  incident  of  this  mission,  became 
the  bearer  of  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
(2  Cor.  viii.  16,  17,  23).  On  a subsequent  jour- 
ney, Titus  was  left  by  the  apostle  in  Crete,  to 
establish  and  regulate  the  churches  in  that  island 
(Tit.  i.  5),  and  he  was  still  there  when  he  received 
the  epistle  from  St.  Paul  which  bears  his  name 
(Tit.  iii.  12).  He  is  therein  desired  to  join  the 
apostle  at  Nicopolis  ; and  it  is  presumed  that  he 
did  so,  and  afterwards*  accompanied  him  in  his 
last  journey  to  Rome,  whence  he  was  sent  into 
Dalmatia  (2  Tim.  iv.  10).  Tradition  states  that 
Titus  eventually  returned  to  Crete,  and  died 
there  at.  an  advanced  age. 

TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO.  The  genuineness  of 
this  Epistle  is  attested  by  a large  body  of  evi- 
dence, and  seems  never  to  have  been  questioned, 
except  by  the  heretic'Marcion,  and  that  upon  the 
most  frivolous  grounds  (Tertullian,  Adv.  Marcion. 
v.  21),  until,  in  recent  times,  it  was  attacked  by 
Eichhorn  anti  De  Wette.  It  is  manifestly  quoted 
by  Clement  of  Rome  ( Ep.  ad  Cor.  cap.  2) ; and 
it  is  referred  to  as  the  production  of  Paul  by 
Irenaeus  (iii.  3.  § 4);  as  part  of  the  divine 
word  by  Theophilus  ( Ad  Antol.  iii.  § 14) ; 
as  Paul  s,  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom,  lib. 
i.  p.  299,  and  in  many  other  places);  by  Tertul- 
lian (De  Preeser.  Heer.  c.  6)  ; and  by  Origen, 
in  many  places  (Lardner,  Works,  vol.  ii.  8vo.). 
The  objections  of  the  German  critics  are  founded 
chiefly  upon  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the 
proper  date  of  this  Epistle,  and  upon  minute 
peculiarities  in  its  style  and  sentiments.  The 
latter  class  of  objections  are  so  much  identical 
with  those  already  considered  in  reference  to  the 
Epistles  to  Timothy,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  enter 
upon  any  examination  of  them  here.  To  the 
former  the  best  reply  will  be  furnished  by  ascer- 
taining, if  possible,  when  and  where  the  Epistle 
was  written ; but  even  should  we  fail  in  this,  it 
would  be  strange  were  we  to  relinquish  our  con- 
viction of  the  authenticity  of  an  ancient  writing 
simply  because,  possessing  very  imperfect  informa- 
tion as  to  many  parts  of  the  alleged  author’s  his- 
tory, we  were  unable  to  say  with  certainty  when 
he  was  in  circumstances  to  compose  it. 

It  is  evident  from  the  Epistle  itself,  that  at  the 
time  it  was  written  Paul  had  recently  visited 
Crete  (ch.  i.  5)  ; that,  he  was  about  to  spend  the 
winter  in  Nicopolis  (ch.  iii.  12);  and  that  Apol- 
loa  was  about  to  visit  Crete,  on  his  way  to  some 
5thar  plr,ce  (ch.  iii.  13).  These  points  may  serve, 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO. 

in  some  measure,  if  not  as  indices  to  tiv$  exact 
time  when  this  Epistle  was  written,  at  least  as  cri- 
teria by  which  to  test  the  truth  of  any  hypothesis 
that  may  be  suggested  on  this  subject. 

We  learn  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that 
Paul  visited  Crete  on  his  voyage  to  Rome  (ch. 
xxvii.  7)  ; but  the  shortness  of  his  visit  at  that 
time,  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  made, 
and  the  improbability  of  his  expecting  to  spend 
the  ensuing  winter  at  Nicopolis,  place  it  out  o 
the  question  to  suppose  that  it.  was  to  this  visit  he 
refers  in  this  Epistle.  As  this  is,  however,  the  only 
visit  recorded  by  Luke,  in  rejecting  it  we  are 
forced  to  suppose  another  visit,  and  to  find  some 
period  in  the  apostle's  life  when  it  was  probable 
that  such  a visit  was  paid. 

It  has  been  suggested  by  Hug  that  the  period 
referred  to  in  Acts  xviii.  18,  19  admits  of  our 
placing  this  visit  to  Crete  within  it.  Paul,  at  that 
time,  was  on  his  journey  from  Corinth  to  Palestine, 
but  on  some  account  or  other  landed  at  Ephesus. 
This  leads  to  the  suggestion  that  the  apostle  must 
either  voluntarily  have  departed  from  the  usual 
course  in  order  to  visit  some  place  lying  between 
Corinth  and  Ephesus ; or  that  he  must  have  been 
driven  by  stress  of  weather  from  the  course  he 
meant  to  pursue.  In  either  case  the  probability 
of  his  visiting  Crete  at  that  time  is  strong.  We 
find,  from  the  mention  made  by  Paul  in  this 
Epistle  of  Apollos,  that  he,  on  his  way  from  Ephe- 
sus to  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  24;  xix.  1),  was  to 
touch  at  Crete;  which  renders  it  not  improbable  that 
it  was  customary  for  ships  sailing  between  these 
two  ports  to  call  at  Crete  by  the  way ; and  Paul 
may  have  availed  himself  of  this  practice  in  order 
to  visit  Crete  before  going  to  Palestine.  Or  he 
may  have  sailed  in  a ship  bound  directly  from 
Corinth  to  Palestine,  and  have  been  driven  out  of 
his  course,  shipwrecked  on  Crete,  and  obliged  to 
sail  thence  to  Ephesus  as  his  only  remaining  me- 
thod of  getting  to  his  original  destination — a sup- 
position which  will  not  appear  very  improbable 
when  we  remember  that  Paul  must  have, suffered 
several  shipwrecks  of  which  Luke  gives  no  ac- 
count (2  Cor.  xi.  25,  26)  ; and  that  his  getting  to 
Ephesus  on  his  way  from  Corinth  to  Palestine  is 
a fact  for  which,  in  some  way  or  other,  we  are 
bound  to  account. 

It  was  whilst  staying  on  this  occasion  at  Ephe- 
sus that  Hug  supposes  Paul  lo  have  written  this 
Epistle.  As  confirmatory  of  this  may  be  adduced 
the  two  other  facts  above  referred  to  as  mentioned 
in  the  Epistle  itself,  viz.  the  visit  of  Apollos  to 
Crete,  and  Paul’s  intention  to  winter  at  Nicopolis. 
From  Acts  xix.  1 we  learn  that  during  the  time 
Apollos  was  residing  at  Corinth,  whence  he  had 
gone  from  Ephesus,  Paul  was  engaged  in  a tour 
through  the  upper  coasts  (viz.  Phrygia  and  Ga- 
latia; comp.  Acts  xviii.  23),  which  ended  in  his 
return  to  Ephesus.  This  tour  was  commenced 
after  the  apostle  had  been  at  Jerusalem  and  An- 
tioch (ch.  xviii.  22).  It  appears,  therefore,  that 
Paul  left  Antioch  much  about  the  same  time  that 
Apollos  reached  Corinth.  But  Apollos  went  to 
Corinth  from  Ephesus,  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem 
from  Ephesus.  At  this  city,  therefore,  they  must 
have  met ; and  before  leaving  it  Paul  probably 
wrote  this  Epistle,  and  gave  it  to  Apollos  to  deli- 
ver to  Titus  at  Crete,  on  his  way  to  Corinth. 

Further,  Paul  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  keep 
the  feast ; after  which  he  visited  Antioch,  and  ths3 


TOBIAH. 


873 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO. 

travelled  for  some  considerable  time  in  Upper 
Asia.  He,  therefore,  probably  spent  the  winter 
somewhere  in  Asia  Minor.  Now  there  was  a town 
named  Nicopolis,  between  Antioch  and  Tarsus, 
near  to  which,  if  not  through  which,  Paul  must 
pass  on  his  way  from  Antioch  to  Galatia 
(Strabo,  lib.  xiv.  p.  465,  ed.  Casaubon,  fol.  15S7). 
May  not  this  have  been  the  very  place  referred  to 
in  Tit.  iii.  12?  In  such  a locality  it  was  quite 
natural  for  Paul  to  desire  to  spend  the  winter ; 
and  as  Titus  was  a native  of  Asia  it  would  be  well 
known  to  him,  especially  if  he  knew  what  route 
the  apostle  designed  to  pursue.  All  this  supports 
the  hypothesis  that  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle  before 
leaving  Ephesus  to  go  to  Syria. 

Another  circumstance  in  favour  of  this  hypothe- 
sis is  the  close  resemblance  in  sentiment  and  phra- 
seology between  this  Epistle  and  the  first  Epistle 
to  Timothy.  This  resemblance  is  so  close,  and  in 
some  particulars  so  peculiar,  that  we  are  naturally 
led  to  conclude  that  both  must  have  been  written 
whilst  the  same  leading  ideas  and  forms  of  ex- 
pression were  occupying  the  apostle’s  mind.  Now 
the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  most  probably 
written  after  Paul  had  left  Ephesus  the  second 
time  to  go  into  Macedonia  [Timothy,  Epistles 
to],  that  is,  about  two  years  and  a half  after  the 
period  when  Hug  supposes  the  Epistle  to  Titus  to 
have  been  written.  To  some  this  may  appear  too 
long  a time  to  justify  any  stress  being  laid  upon 
the  similarity  of  the  two  epistles  in  this  question 
of  their  respective  dates;  but  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  during  the  interval  Paul  had  been 
dealing  at  Ephesus  with  very  much  the  same  class 
of  persons,  to  whom  a great  part  of  both  Epistles 
refer,  and  that  both  are  addressed  to  persons 
holding  the  same  peculiar  office,  the  force  of  this 
objection  will  be  weakened. 

Such  is  Hug’s  hypothesis.  To  us  it  appears 
worthy  of  all  respect.  The  only  one  which 
can  compete  with  it  is  that  which  Benson, 
Paley,  Pearson,  and  several  other  British  scholars 
have  adopted,  viz.  that  this  Epistle  was  written 
after  Paul's  firstimprisonmentat  Rome,  and  whilst 
he  was  residing  probably  at  Nicopolis  in  Mace- 
donia. As  this  hypothesis,  however,  is  formed 
solely  out  of  the  Epistle  itself  it  can  be  legiti- 
mately resorted  to  only  when  no  other,  supported 
by  external  authority,  can  be  found.  If  H 
hypothesis  be  not  untenable,  it  must  on  this  ac- 
count claim  the  preference. 

The  task  which  Paul  had  committed  to  Titus, 
when  he  left  him  in  Crete,  was  one  of  no  small 
difficulty.  The  character  of  the  people  was  un- 
steady, insincere,  and  quarrelsome;  they  were 
given  to  greediness,  licentiousness,  falsehood,  and 
drunkenness,  in  no  ordinary  degree  ; and  the  JewS 
who  had  settled  among  them  appear  to  have  even 
gone  beyond  the  natives  in  immorality.  Among 
such  a people  it  was  no  easy  office  which  Titus  had 
to  sustain  when  commissioned  to  carry  forward  the 
work  Paul  had  begun,  and  to  set  in  order  the 
affairs  of  the  churches  which  had  arisen  there, 
especially  as  heretical  teachers  had  already  crept 
in  among  them.  Hence  Paul  addressed  to  him 
this  Epistle  the  main  design  of  which  is  to  direct 
nim  how  to  discharge  with  success  the  duties  to 
which  he  had  been  appointed.  For  this  purpose 
the  apostle  dilates  upon  the  qualifications  of 
dders,  and  points  out  the  vices  from  which  such 
should  be  free  (ch.  i.1.  He  then  describes  the 


virtues  most  becoming  in  aged  persons,  in  tha 
female  sex,  in  the  young,  in  servants,  and  in 
Christians  generally  (ch.  ii.).  From  this  lie  pro- 
ceeds to  enjoin  obedience  to  civil  rulers,  modera- 
tion, gentleness,  and  the  avoidance  of  all  idle  and 
unprofitable  speculations  (iii.  1-11).  He  then 
invites  Titus  to  join  him  at  Nicopolis,  commends 
to  him  certain  brethren  who  were  about  to  visit 
Crete,  and  concludes  with  the  apostolic  bene- 
diction (ver.  12-15). 

Commentaries.  Most  of  those  who  have  writ- 
ten commentaries  on  the  Epistles  to  Timothy 
have  written  also  on  that  to  Titus.  The  follow- 
ing works  are  on  Titus  alone  : Taylor,  Commen- 
tary on  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  written  to  Titus. 
Cambridge,  4to.,  1612,  fol.,  1658;  P.  von  Ha- 
ven, Commentatio  Analyt.  in  Ep.  Pauli  ad  Ti- 
tum , Hamb.  4to.  1742. — W.  L.  A. 

TOB  (210 ; Sept.  Tcv/3),  a region  or  district 
beyond  the  Jordan  into  which  Jephthah  withdrew 
when  expelled  from  Gilead  (Judg.  xi.  5).  As 
the  name  occurs  nowhere  else,  some  doubt  has 
arisen  in  determining  its  position.  Toh  signifies 
‘ good,’  and  the  Targum  and  Abarbanel  render 
what  we  translate  ‘land  of  Tob’  by  ‘good  land ; 
while  Kimehi  and  Ben  Gerson  look  upon  Tob 
as  the  name  of  the  lord  or  owner  of  the  land.  It 
is,  however,  more  usually  regarded  as  the  name 
of  a city  or  country,  and  some  conjecture  it  to  be 
the  same  with  Ish-tob,  which  was  not  far  from 
the  land  of  the  Ammonites,  seeing  that  they  sent 
thither  for  assistance  (2  Sam.  x.  6).  Jerome 
makes  it  a country,  but  says  nothing  of  its  situa- 
tion. Junius  places  it  on  the  border  of  Arabia 
Deserta  ; which  is  likely,  if  Tob  be  the  same  with 
the  T ovfiiov  or  Tcafiiov  of  l Macc.  v.  13. 

TOBIAH,  a base  Samaritan,  who,  having 
raised  himself  from  a state  of  slavery  to  be  a 
trusted  favourite  of  Sanballat,  did  his  utmost  to 
gratify  his  master  by  resisting  the  proceedings  of 
Nehemiah  in  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 
With  an  affectation  of  scorn,  he,  after  the  manner 
of  Remus  in  the  Roman  legend,  looked  on  the 
constructions  of  the  now  hopeful  and  thriving 
Jews,  and  contemptuously  said,  ‘Even  if  a fox 
go  up  he  will  breakdown  their  stone  wall’  (Neh. 
iv.  3).  This  insult  was  the  more  disgraceful  to 
Tobiah,  because  his  own  conduct  quickly  exposed 
the  insincerity  which  lay  at  the  bottom  of  it,  for 
he  took  a prominent  and  active  part  with  San- 
ballat in  his  unworthy  courses  against  Nehe- 
miah. In  these  treachery  had  its  share ; which 
Tobiah  was  enabled  to  carry  on  the  more  easily 
because  he  had  allied  himself  with  the  chief  men 
of  Judah,  having  married  the  daughter  of  Shecha- 
niah,  the  son  of  Arab,  while  his  son  Johanan  had 
taken  to  wife  the  daughter  of  Meslmllam,  the  son 
of  Berechiah  (Neh.  vi.  17,  sq. ; comp.  xiii.  41. 
These  dishonest  practices  and  the  use  of  threats 
alike  proved  nugatory.  Nehemiah,  however,  was 
obliged  to  leave  Jerusalem.  By  this  absence 
Tobiah  profited,  in  order,  with  the  aid  of  his  re- 
lative Eliashib,  the  priest,  to  get  himself  com- 
fortably and  splendidly  established  in  ‘a  great 
chamber  in  the  house  of  God’  (ch.  xiii.  4).  But 
his  glory  was  short-lived.  Nehemiah  returned 
and  caused  him  and  his  household- stuff  to  he 
ignominiously  cast  out  of  the  temple.  This  is 
the  last  that  we  know  of  this  member  of  that  vile 
class  who  are  ready  and  unscrupulous  tools  in  tbj 


B74  TOBIT,  BOOK  OF. 

hands  of  their  superiors  for  any  dishonourable 
undertaking.- — J.  R.  B. 

TOBIT,  BOOK  OF  (Sept.  Tapir, 

Vulg.  Tobias , Tobis ) [Apocrypha],  one  of  the 
deutero-canonical  books,  containing  the  private 
history  of  a venerable  and  pious  old  man  of  this 
name,  who  was  carried  captive  into  Assyria  by 
Shalmaneser.  The  following  is  an  abstract  of 
the  narrative. 

At  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Samaria  and 
the  exile  of  the  ten  tribes  [b.c.  734-678],  there 
lived  a pious  Israelite,  of  the  tribe  and  city  of 
Naphtali  in  Galilee,  named  Tobit,  or,  according 
to  the  Vulgate,  Tobias,  who  was  distinguished 
above  his  compatriots  for  his  piety  and  his  strict 
observance  of  the  law.  Instead  of  following  their 
example  in  sacrificing  to  the  golden  calves  (1 
Kings  xii.  30),  he  went  regularly  to  Jerusalem 
to  the  feasts,  paid  his  tithes  and  first-fruits,  and 
was  distinguished  by  his  charities.  Upon  the 
conquest  of  Samaria  by  Shalmaneser,  here  called 
Enemessar  ('Evejj.fcrcrapos'),  he  was  carried  away 
captive  to  Nineveh,*  where  he  was  intrusted  by 
that  monarch  with  the  high  office  of  purveyor  to 
the  court  Having  amassed  considerable  wealth, 
he  employs  a portion  of  it  in  relieving  the  wants  of 
his  fellow -exiles,  and  deposits  ten  talents  of  silver 
with  his  kinsman  Gabael  (Ta$aT}\os)  who  resided 
at  Rages,  in  Media.  Shalmaneser  is  succeeded  at 
his  death  by  Sennacherib,  the  oppressor  of  the  Is- 
raelites, who  displaces  Tobit,  and  puts  to  death 
several  of  the  exiles,  especially  after  the  failure 
of  his  unfortunate  expedition  against  Hezekiah, 
King  of  Judah.  Tobit  still  devotes  himself  to 
the  protection  of  his  unhappy  countrymen,  feed- 
ing the  hungry,  clothing  the  naked,  and  burying 
the  dead.  The  circumstance  of  his  performing 
the  last  office  for  one  of  his  murdered  compatriots 
having  reached  the  ears  of  the  irritated  monarch, 
Tobit  conceals  himself  from  his  fury  by  flight, 
until  Sennacherib’s  assassination  by  his  own  two 
sons,  when  he  returns  to  Nineveh  under  the  pro- 
tection of  his  kinsman  Achiacharus,  keeper  of  the 
signet  and  cup-bearer  to  Esar-haddon.  His  pro- 
perty meantime  is  taken  away  from  him,  and  no- 
thing left  him  but  his  wife  Anna,  and  his  son 
Tobias.  He  still  perseveres  in  burying  the  dead, 
and  upon  one  occasion  having  rendered  himself 
unclean  by  burying  a strangled  Israelite,  he  lies 
all  night  outside  the  walls  of  his  house,  when  he 
has  the  misfortune  to  be  deprived  of  the  sight  of 
both  his  eyes  by  the  hot  dung  of  some  swallows, 
who  had  chanced  to  nestle  over  his  head.  He  is 
now  maintained  by  Achiacharus  until  the  depar- 
ture of  the  latter  for  Elymais,  and  his  wife  is 
forced  to  support  herself  by  manual  labour.  His 
scrupulous  honesty  during  his  state  of  poverty 
draws  down  upon  him  the  unjust  reproaches  of 
his  wife,  who,  like  Job’s,  upbraids  him  with  his 
integrity  and  his  misfortunes.  Tobit  can  endure 
no  more,  and  prays  for  death. 

It  happened  on  the  same  day  that  Tobit’s  kins- 
woman Sara,  the  daughter  of  Raguel,  an  exile  at 
Ecbatana,f  in  Media,  had  to  sustain  an  equally 

* The  tribe  of  Naphtali  was,  however,  carried 
away  captive,  by  Tiglath-pileser  (2  Kings  xv. 
39),  nearly  twenty  years  before.  Tobit  must 
therefore  have  remained  behind  his  tribe,  or  an 
historical  inaccuracy  be  acknowledged. 

f So  tke  Greek,  old  Latin,  and  Hebrew  of 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF. 

unmerited  and  cruel  reproach  under  the  followiu, 
singular  circumstances.  She  had  been  betrothea 
at  various  times  to  seven  different  men,  each  of 
whom  was  destroyed  on  the  day  of  his  nuptials 
by  the  demon  Asmodeus.  Having  punished  one 
of  her  female  slaves,  the  latte-  reproaches  Sara 
with  being  herself  the  murderess  her  seven  hus- 
bands. Sara’s  indignation  at  these  unmerited 
taunts  at  first  suggests  to  her  the  idea  of  putting 
an  end  to  her  existence,  but  her  filial  duty  sus- 
tains her,  and  she  prays  for  death  or  the  vindica- 
tion of  her  honour.  She  descends  from  her  cham- 
ber, where  she  bad  been  praying  at  her  window, 
and  at  the  same  moment  Tobit  enters  his  own 
house.  It  appears  from  the  sequel  that  the  prayers 
of  both  are  heat'd. 

Tobit,  under  the  apprehension  of  death,  sends 
his  son  Tobias  to  Rages  for  the  ten  talents  which 
he  had  deposited  with  Gabael.  A young  stranger 
of  his  kindred,  named  Azarias,  offers  himself  as 
his  companion,  and  he  sets  out  accompanied  by 
his  dog.  While  bathing  in  the  Tigris  he  is  res- 
cued, by  the  help  of  Azarias,  from  the  jaws  of  an 
enormous  fish  (supposed  by  Bochart  to  be  a shark). 
He  drags  the  fish  to  shore,  and  by  the  advice  of 
his  companion  takes  out  the  gall  and  liver  to  pre- 
serve them  for  medicinal  purposes.  Upon  arriving 
at  Rages,  they  proceed  to  the  house  of  Raguel, 
where  Azarias  brings  about  a marriage  between 
Tobias  and  his  fair  cousin  Sara,  and  teaches  him 
to  expel  the  demon  by  the  fumes  arising  from  the 
heart  and  liver  of  the  fish.  Asmodeus  now  flees, 
and  is  bound  in  (he  deserts  of  Egypt.  Azarias 
meantime  proceeds  to  Rages,  and  receives  the  ten 
talents  from  Gabael,  who  accompanies  him  to 
Ecbatana.  Upon  the  conclusion  of  the  festivi- 
ties the  bride  and  bridegroom  veturn  to  Nineveh, 
Tobias  having  received  as  his  marriage  dower 
half  the  wealth  of  his  father-in-law  Raguel. 
Tobias  is  now  anxiously  and  hourly  expected  by 
his  parents.  Their  approach  is  first  announced 
by  the  appearance  of  the  dog,  who,  according  to 
the  Vulgate,  shows  his  joy  by  fawning  and  wag- 
ging his  tail  (blandimento  suae  caudae  gaudebat). 
Tobias  greets  his  venerable  father,  and  at  the 
same  moment,  by  the  advice  of  the  faithful 
Azarias,  anoints  his  eyes  with  the  gall  of  the  fish, 
by  which  his  sight  is  restored.  The  joy  of  all  is 
now  complete.  Tobit  proposes  to  reward  Azarias 
by  giving  him  half  the  amount  of  the  deposit, 
when  he  concludes  a beautiful  admonition  on  the 
advantages  of  prayer  and  almsgiving  by  the  un- 
expected announcement,  ‘ I am  Raphael,  one  of 
the  seven  holy  angels,  which  present  the  prayers 
of  the  saints,  and  which  go  in  and  out  before  the 
glory  of  the  Holy  One.’  Tobit  and  Tobias  burst 
out  into  a sublime  song  of  thanksgiving,  and  the 
former  concludes  with  reiterating  the  prophecy  of 
Jonah  respecting  the  destruction  of  Nineveh,  and 
adds  a prediction  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
of  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  of  the  rebuilding 
of  the  second  temple,  to  be  succeeded  by  the  uni- 
versal return  of  the  Jews  from  all  places  of  their 
captivity,  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  in  splen- 
dour, and  of  a glorious  temple.  Tobit  dies  at 
Nineveh,  at  the  advanced  age  of  158,  according 
to  the  Greek,  or  102  according  to  the  Vulgate, 
having  seen  six  grandchildren  ; and  Tobias,  whc 

Fagius.  The  Vulgate  here,  instead  of  Ecb&tano, 
reads  Rages. 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF. 

survives  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  (Sept.  xiv. 
15),  dies  at  Ecbatana,  at  the  ag*  of  127,  or  of 
99  years  according  to  the  Vulgate,  wherein  it  is 
also  stated  that  he  saw  his  children’s  children 
as  far  as  the  fifth  generation  (Vulg.,  xiv.  15). 

Character  of  the  Narrative. — Tine  question  has 
been  first  raised  in  modern  times,  whether  this 
book  is  a true  history  or  a moral  fiction.  All 
ancient  writers  looked  upon  it  as  historical  and 
authentic.  As  far  as  we  have  been  able  to 
ascertain,  Luther  was  the  first  who  doubted  its 
historic  truth.  He  does  not  at  the  same  time 
conceal  his  admiration  of  its  contents.  ‘ What  we 
have  said  of  Judith,’  he  observes  (Pref.  to 
Tobit ),  ‘ may  be  equally  applied  to  Tobias.  If  it 
be  a history,  it  is  a fine  holy  history;  if  it  be  a 
fiction,  it  is  a fine  holy  fiction.  But  if  a fiction, 
it  is  indeed  a right  beautiful,  wholesome,  profit- 
able fiction,  the  play  of  a poet  rich  in  fancy.’ 
And  again,  ‘Would  God  the  Greeks  had  learned 
from  the  Jews  their  method  of  comedies  and  tra- 
gedies as  well  as  much  of  their  other  wisdom  and 
godliness,  for  Judith  furnishes  a good,  serious, 
gallant  tragedy  ; Tobit  a fine,  pleasant,  devout 

comedy.  As  Judith  teaches that 

blustering  tyrants  often  meet  with  an  ignominious 
end,  so  Tobit  shows  that  however  ill  it  fares  with 
a pious  burgher  or  peasant,  who  has  much  to 
endure  in  the  married  state,  God  is  ever  at  hand 
to  bring  to  a joyful  issue  the  case  of  such  as,  with 
prayer  and  good  works,  patiently  support  their 
sufferings.’ 

Paul  Fagius  agreed  with  Luther  in  represent- 
ing the  history  of  Tobit  as  a moral  fiction,  but 
Eichhorn  observes  that  he  had  but  few  followers. 
Most  of  the  moderns,  among  whom  are  Eichhorn, 
Jahn,  and  Bertholdt,  have,  however,  adopted 
this  view,  to  which,  it  has  been  observed,  not 
only  its  resemblance  to  the  book  of  Job,  but  also 
its  historical  and  geographical  difficulties,  and 
the  significancy  of  its  names,  not  a little  con- 
iribute  (De  Wette,  Einleitung ).  In  this  last 

particular  those  writers  have  also  Luther  as  their 
precursor.  ‘ The  Greek  text,’  observes  this  dis- 
tinguished reformer  and  commentator,  ‘ shows 
that  it  is  a drama,  for  it  makes  Tobit  speak  in  the 
first  person.  Subsequently  a master  reduced  it 
to  a regular  narrative.  The  names  are  a further 
evidence  of  its  being  a fiction,  for  Tobias  sig- 
nifies “ a pious  man"’  (PI'llD,  goodness  of  God), 

from  whom  proceeds  a second  Tobias 

As  misfortunes  do  not  come  alone,  he  becomes 
blind,  is  at  variance  with  his  dear  Anna  .... 
Anna  means  “ graceful.”  . . . The  devil,  Asmo- 
deus,  means  the  “ destroyer,”  and  is  the  house- 
devil,  who  spoils  everything,  so  that  all  goes  wrong 

with  children  and  servants Sarah  means 

“ heroine.”  . . . Raphael  signifies  a “ physician  ” 
(NEH,  see  Gen.  1.  2),  also  called  Azarias,  that  is, 
“ helper,”  son  of  the  great  Ananias,  that  is,  the 
chief  helper  or  God.  Without  his  help  all  goes 
wrong  through  the  power  of  Asmodeus.’ 

Luther  adds,  that  this  book  is,  although  the 
work  of  a fine  Hebrew  poet,  as  profitable  to  the 
Christian  as  it  was  to  the  Jew.  Bertholdt,  Eich- 
horn, Jahn,  and  others,  who  consider  the  work  a 
pure  fiction,  do  not  entirely  agree  upon  its  main 
object,  although  they  lean  to  the  opinion  that  the 
moral  is  contained  in  the  words  of  Raphael 
(xii.  6-19).  Seiler  (§218,  Wright’s  Translation , 
t.  312),  supposes  that  the  book  of  Tobit  is  de- 


TOB1T,  BOOK  OF.  874 

signed  to  convey,  in  the  form  of  a moral  tale,  thn 
following  truth, — that  the  pious,  notwithstanding; 
all  their  zeal  in  good  works,  have  often  many 
sufferings  to  undergo,  but  will  be  finally  re- 
warded by  God.’  The  author  probably  intended 
to  imitate  the  book  of  Job. 

Others  have  maintained  that  the  book  is  partly 
historical  and  partly  mythical.  Among  these  is 
Ilgen  (fDie  Geschichte  Tobis  nach  3 verschied. 
Originalen , 1830),  who  supposes  that  Tobit  is  a 
true  but  poetically  adorned  history,  interspersed 
•with  beautiful  and  edifying  discourses.  Calmet, 
although  he  does  not  go  the  length  of  these 
writers  (who  consider  the  miraculous  portions  to 
be  designed  merely  as  ornaments  to  the  plot), 
supposes  that  the  narrative  has  been  embellished 
by  various  writers ; but  it  is  amusing  to  hear  him, 
by  way  of  supporting  the  historic  truth  of  the 
narrative,  attaching  some  degree  of  credit  to  the 
report  that  a monstrous  serpent,  which  is  still  said 
to  reside  in  a cavern  in  Egypt,  is  no  other  than 
the  demon  Asmodeus.  Gutmann,  a modern 
Jewish  Rabbi,  in  his  learned  work  ( Die  Apokry- 
phen  des  Alten  Test.,  Alton.  1841),  adopts  the 
opinion  that  the  book  of  Tobit  is  a fiction  founded 
on  facts.  Under  any  view  he  conceives  the 
moral  of  the  book  to  be  of  a pure  and  exalted 
character,  and  the  book  itself  on  this  account 
to  be  one  of  the  most  important  among  the  Apo- 
crypha. Alber  maintains  (as  might  be  expected) 
the  literal  historical  truth  of  the  whole  book. 

Author , Age,  and  Language. — The  author 
of  the  book  is  unknown.  The  old  writers  con- 
sidered it  to  have  been  the  work  of  Tobit  and  his 
son  Tobias  (Huet,  Demonst.  Evang.).  But  this 
opinion  has  no  other  authority  than  the  fact  that 
Tobit  (in  the  Greek)  speaks  in  the  fust  person  in 
the  first  three  chapters,  and  that  in  xii.  20, 
Raphael  says  to  Tobit,  ‘ Write  all  things  which 
are  done  in  a book.’  Calmet  supposes  that  the 
memoirs  left  by  Tobias  and  his  son  were  edited 
by  some  later  writer,  who  composed  the  history  ; 
but  he  does  not  attempt  to  determine  in  what  age 
he  lived.  Eichhorn  ( Einleitung ) maintains  that 
the  angelology  of  Tobit  proves  that  it  could  not 
have  been  written  before  the  time  of  Darius 
Hystaspes,  and  that  the  notice  of  the  seven  holy 
angels  (xii.  15)  was  derived  from  the  practice 
introduced  in  that  monarch’s  reign,  of  having 
seven  counsellors  round  the  Persian  throne.  He 
also  maintains  that  the  narrator  presupposes  an 
acquaintance  with  the  philosophy  of  good  and 
evil,  guardian  and  national  angels,  which  was 
first  introduced  under  the  Persian  rule  during 
and  after  the  exile.  Jahn  ( Introd .)  main- 
tains that  the  Magian  notions  regarding  Asmo- 
deus, whom  he  conceives  to  be  the  same  with 
Ahriman  (the  destroyer)  points  to  the  Persian 
period.  Professor  Stuart,  however,  who  does  not 
appear  to  hold  that  the  angelology  and  demon- 
ology of  the  book  of  Tobit,  ‘ one  of  the  earliest, 
most  simple,  and  attractive  of  all  the  apocryphal 
books’  ( Comment . on  the  Apocalypse ),*  differ  in 
kind  from  those  of  the  Old  Testament,  ascribes 
the  book  to  an  early  period  of  the  exile  ( Biblioth . 
Sacra,  vol.  i.).  The  name  Raphael,  which  first 

* This  new  work  contains  a more  recent 
treatise  on  the  names  of  the  beast  than  that  re- 
ferred to  in  p.  650  of  this  vol.  Prof  Stuart  con* 
ceives  the  Emperor  Nero  to  be  the  person  indicated 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF. 


87* 

occurs  vn  Toblt,  is  said  in  the  Talmud  ( Beres . 
Rabba,  and  Jcr.  Talm.')  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  exile.  De  Wette,  Gutmann,  and  most  modem 
critics  conceive  that  the  age  of  Tobit  is  negatively 
determined  by  the  mention  of  the  city  of  Rages 
(Ragae,  see  Medes),  which,  according  to  Strabo 
( Geog . p.  524),  was  founded  by  Seleucus  Nica- 
tor  b.c.  300,  and  Jahn,  in  order  to  allow  a rea- 
sonable time  for  the  name  of  the  founder  to  have 
been  forgotten,  supposes  that  the  author  lived  b.c. 
150  to  200.  No  nearer  conjecture  can  be 
formed.  Seiler  (tit  supra ) says  that  the  author 
‘seems  to  have  lived  among  the  Greek  Jews  after 
the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.’  Eichhorn  and 
Jahn  suppose  that  the  work  was  written  by  a 
Greek,  but  Ilgen,  on  the  other  hand,  with  whom 
are  De  Wette  and  Gutmann,  are  satisfied,  from 
internal  evidence,  that  the  author  was  a Jew  of 
Palestine,  who  wrote  in  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic 
language,  but  that  the  original  text  has  been  lost. 
Ilgen  ascribes  the  present  contradictions  to  the 
ignorance  of  the  Greek  translator,  and  is  of  opi- 
nion that  the  hook  in  its  pris'  ine  state  was  written 
by  Tobit  himself. 

Authority  of  Tobit. — Although  this  book  is 
never  cited  by  Josephus  (to  whom,  however,  its 
existence  must  have  been  known),  and  although 
the  first  writer  who  gives  it  the  character  of 
canonical  was  Augustine,  at  a time  that,  accord- 
ing to  De  Wette  (Einleitung),  this  term  had 
acquired  the  notion  of  an  ecclesiastical  decision, 
its  authority  in  the  early  Christian  church  is 
beyond  question.  It  is  cited  by  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus  (Strom,  ii.p.  503),  ‘The  Scripture  says, 
do  that  to  no  man  which  thou  hatest ’ (Tob. 
iv.  15),  and  ‘ prayer  is  good  with  fasting  ’ (Tob. 
xii.  8).  Poly  carp  also  (ad  Phil.)  cites  the  words 
‘ alms  doth  deliver  from  death  ’ (Tob.  xii.  9) ; but 
some  suppose  them  to  be  a citation  from  Prov. 
xxi.  12.  Tob.  iv.  15  is  also  cited  in  the  Aposto- 
lical Constitutions — according  to  Ilgen,  in  aGreek 
translation  from  the  Vulgate  of  Jerome  (but 
comp.  Lev.  i.  18;  Matt.  v.  44-47;  Mark  xii. 
32).  Cyprian  also  (xii.  9)  cites  Tobit  xiv.  14, 
‘ The  Holy  Spirit  says  in  the  Scriptures,  “ alms 
shall  purge  away  all  sin” — Eleemosynis  et  fide 
purgantur  delicta,’  or  as  in  the  Vulg.  ‘ Elee- 
mosyna  purgat  peccata.’  Some,  however,  refer 
this  citation  to  Prov.  xvi.  6 : e’Ae7 yxoavvais  Kal 
■niGTCffiv  airoKadalpovTat  a/xapnai.  It  is  also 
cited  by  Ambrose  ( Hexaemeron , vi.  4.  p.  88, 
Paris,  1614s — Talis  canis  viator  et  comes  an- 
geli  est,  quern  Raphael  in  Libro  Prophetico  non 
otiose  sibi  et  Tobiae  filio  adjungendum  putavit), 
who  considers  Tobit  a Prophet,  no  doubt  because 
of  his  allusion  to  the  future  destruction  of  Ni- 
neveh (xiii.  1 4),  or  his  prediction  of  the  rebuilding 
of  Jerusalem  (xiii.  16)  according  to  the  Greek, 
for  in  the  Vulgate  it  is  liberavit  Jerusalem  civi- 
tcdem  suam  (xiii.  19).  Origen  (De  Orat.  p.  47) 
says  that  the  Jews  reject  this  book  (tt>  8e  rov 
Toj/3tjt  avTiKtyovcriv  ot  e/r  trepiToprjs).  In 

the  work  attributed  to  Augustine,  entitled  Specu- 
lum Scriptures , it  is  asserted  that  the  Jews  reject 
Tobit,  but  that  it  is  received  by  the  Church  of 
the  Saviour  (Non  sunt  omittendi  et  hi,  quos 
quidem  ante  Salvatoris  adventum  constat  esse 
conscriptos,  sed  eos  non  receptos  a Judaeis  recipit 
tamen  ejusdem  Salvatoris  ecclesia).  Tobit  has 
been  at  all  times  a favourite  book  in  the  church, 
red  its  influence  is  stl  11  manifest  in  the  Angli- 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF. 

can  liturgical  forms,  as  in  the  Offertory  (Tobit 
iv.  7,  8) ; also  in  the  Litany,  ‘ ne  vindictaro 
sumas  de  peccatis  meis,  neque  reminiscaris 
delicta  mea,  vel  parentum  mecrum.’  In  the 
preface  to  the  marriage  service  there  is  also  a 
manifest  allusion  to  Tob.  vi.  17,  according  to  the 
Vulgate:  ‘ Hi  qui  conjugium  ita  suscipiunt,  ut 
Deum  a se  et  a sua  mente  excludant,  et  suae 
libidini  ita  vacent,  sicut  equus  et  mulus,  quibus 
non  est  intellectus.’  Chaps,  i.,  ii.,  vii.,  and  viii., 
are  read  in  the  course  of  lessons,  it  has  been 
supposed  from  a comparison  of  Rev.  xxi.  18 
with  Tobit  xiii.  21,  22,  that  the  author  of  the 
Apocalypse  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
book  of  Tobit. 

Texts  of  Tobit. — Th^re  have  descended  to  us 
no  less  than  six  different  texts  of  the  book  of 
Tobit. 

1.  Jerome's  Latin  text. — This  is  a translation 
from  the  lost  Chaldaean.  ‘ I do  not  cease  to 
wonder  at  your  urgency,’  says  Jerome  (Pref  to 
Tobit) ; ‘ you  require  of  me  to  translate  into 
Latin  a book  written  in  Chaldee,  the  book  of  the 
two  Tobiases. ...  1 have  done  so  at  your  request, 
but.  not  of  my  own  wish,  for  the  zeal  of  the  Jews 
reproaches  us  for  translating  for  Latin  ears  what 
is  opposed  to  their  canon.  But  preferring  to 
displease  the  Pharisees  rather  than  to  decline  the 
command  of  my  bishop,  I have  done  as  well  as  1 
could  ; and  as  the  Chaldee  is  nearly  allied  to 
the  Hebrew,  I found  a man  perfectly  acquainted 
with  both  tongues,  and  giving  one  day  to  the 
task,  I procured  the  aid  of  an  amanuensis,  who 
wrote  down  from  my  dictation  in  Latin  what 
the  other  uttered  in  Hebrew.’  It  would  seem 
from  this  that  Jerome  considered  the  Chaldee 
to  be  the  original,  for  he  says  nothing  of  the  Greek 
text,  with  which,  however,  he  must  necessarily 
have  been  acquainted.  The  Chaldee  text  has  no,* 
since  been  heard  of,  but  judging  from  the  hur- 
ried work  of  Jerome,  it  must  have  differed  widely 
in  several  of  its  details  from  the  present  Greek. 

2.  The  Gree7c  text. — This  is  the  text  of  the 
Septuagint,  from  which  the  English  version  has 
been  made.  Eichhorn,  Jahn,  and  many  others 
consider  the  Greek  as  the  original ; while  tin's  text 
is  more  copious  in  the  moral,  the  Latin  of  Jerome 
is  more  detailed  in  the  historical  parts  (comp, 
chaps,  i.,  ii.,  iii.,  iv.,  viii.,  ix.,  xi.,  and  xiv.). 

3.  The  Antehieronymian  Latin  Version , pub- 

lished by  Sabatier.  This  is  from  the  Greek,  and 
Ilgen  maintains  that  it  was  partly  employed  by 
Jerome  in  his  version.  It  ditl'ers  however  con 
siderably  from  the  Greek,  both  in  omissions  (see 
chaps,  v.,  vi.,  vii.,  viii.,  ix.,  x.,  xi.)  and  additions 
(see  i.,  vii.,  xi.,  xiv.).  • 

4.  The  Syriac  Version. — This  too  is  made 
from  the  Greek,  but  is  also  distinguished  by  se- 
veral additions  and  omissions  after  chaps,  vii.,  xi. 

5.  The  Hebrew  text  of  Sebastian  Munster. — 
This  was  first  published  at  Basel  in  1542,  and 
again  in  Walton’s  Polyglott.  Nothing  certain 
is  known  respecting  the  history  of  this  text.  De 
Wette  considers  it  a free  recension  of  the  original 
Hebrew.  Ilgen  thinks  it  the  work  of  an 
Italian  Jey,  who  lived  at  latest  in  the  5th 
century.  He  makes  use  of  it  to  correct  the 
Greek. 

6.  The  Hebrew  text  of  Paul  Fagius. — Pub- 
lished first  at  Constantinople  in  1517,  and  after- 
wards by  this  learned  Refoimer  in  1542.  It  i? 


TOGARMAH. 


TONGUE. 


877 


ixA  properly  a translation  from  the  Greek,  as  some 
haye  supposed,  but  rather  a mixed  text  formed 
from  the  Greek,  Italic,  and  other  sources.  It 
altogether  omits  chapters  xii.  and  xiii. — W.  W. 

TOGARMAH  (HDim,  nD13in,  or  in  some 
Codices  transposed  moilfl),  is  the  Hebrew  name 
of  Armenia,  which  in  the  Septuagint  translation 
is  called  Qopyapd,  Qepyayd,  Qvpyayd,  and 
&vpya/3d.  According  to  Moses  Chorenensis, 
the  Armenians  consider  themselves  to  be  descended 
from  Gomer,  through  Torgom,  and  therefore  they 
call  themselves  the  house  of  Torgom . The  sons 
of  Gomer  were  Ashkenaz,  Riphath,  and  Togarmah 
(Gen.  x.  3 ; 1 Chron.  i.  6).  The  name  for 

Turk  and  Turkoman , reminds  us  of  HDIJin. 

Armenia  was,  according  to  Strabo  (xi.  13.  9, 
p.  529),  distinguished  by  the  production  of  good 
horses  (comp.  Xenoph.  Anab . iv.  5.  21 ; Herod, 
vii.  40).  This  account  harmonizes  with  the 
statement  that  the  house  of  Togarmah  traded  in 
the  fairs  of  Tyre  in  horses,  and  horsemen,  .and 
mules  (Ezek.  xxvii.  14).  The  situation  of  To- 
garmah  was  north  of  Palestine  : ‘ Gomer  and  all 
his  bands ; the  house  of  Togarmah  of  the  north- 
quarters’  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  6).  The  countries  of 

DUX  and  DD  (M ivvas),  and  also  ^IPI  , were 
contiguous  to  Togarmah  (Joseph.  Antiq.  i.  1.6; 
compare  the  articles  Ararat,  Armenia  ; see  also 
Moses  Chorenensis,  Histories  Armen,  lib.  iii., 
Armen,  edidit,  lat.  vert,  notisque  illuslr.  W.  el 
G.  Whistonii,  Lond.  1736  ; Heeren,  Ideen,  i. 
1,  305  ; D.  Michaelis,  Spicilegium  Geographies , 
tom.  i.  67-78  ; Klaproth’s  Travels,  ii.  64).  — 

C.  H.  F.  B. 

TOMB.  [Burial.] 

TONGUE  ; Sept.  yAuxraa,  <pwfi ; Vulg. 

lingua,  os),  is  used,  1.  literally,  for  the  human 
tongue.  ‘ Every  one  that  lappeth  the  water  with 
his  tongue,  as  a dog  lappeth’  (Judg.  vii.  5;  Job 
xxvii.  4;  Ps.  xxxv.  28;  xxxix.  1,  3;  li.  14; 
lxvi.  17  ; Prov.  xv.  2;  Zech.  xiv.  12;  Mark  vii. 
33,  35;  Luke  i.  64;  xvi.  24;  Rom.  iii.  13; 
1 Cor.  xiv.  9 ; James  i.  26  ; iii.  5,  6,  8 ; 1 Pet. 
iii.  10;  Rev.  xvi.  10;  Ecclus.  xvii.  6 ; Wisd.  x. 
21  ; 2 Macc.  vii.  4;  for  the  tongue  of  the  dog, 
Ps.  lxviii.  23  ; of  the  viper,  Job  xx.  16  ; of  idols, 
Baruch  vi.  8 ; the  tongues  of  the  seven  brethren 
cut  out,  2 Macc.  vii.  4,  10  ; comp.  Prov.  x.  20). 
Various  explanations  have  been  offered,  why 
Gideon’s  three  hundred  followers  should  have  been 
selected  because  they  lapped  water  out  of  their 
hands,  standing  or  perhaps  moving  onward, 
tvhile  they  who  stayed  and  ‘ bowed  down  to  drink’ 
were  rejected.  Josephus  says,  that  the  former 
thereby  showed  their  timorousness  and  fear  of 
being  overtaken  by  the  enemy,  and  that  these 
poor-spirited  men  were  chosen  on  purpose  to  illus- 
trate the  power  of  God  in  the  victory  {Antiq.  v. 
6.  3.)  On  Mark  vii.  33,  35,  Dr.  A.  Clarke  offers 
the  interpretation,  that  it  was  the  deaf  and  stam- 
mering man  himself  who  put  his  own  fingers  into 
his  ears  to  intimate  his  deafness;  spat  or  emptied 
his  mouth,  that  the  Saviour  might  look  at  his 
tongue;  touched  his  own  tongue  to  intimate  that 
toe  could  not  speak ; looked  up  to  heaven  as  im- 
ploring divine  aid;  and  groaned  to  denote  his 
distress  under  his  affliction;  and  that  our  Sa- 
viour simply  said  ‘be  opened’  ( Commentary ). 
This  explanation  certainly  clears  the  passage  of 


some  obscurities.  .Jame3  iii.  8,  Dr.  Macknight 
translates,  ‘ But  the  tongue  of  men  no  one  can 
subdue,’  that  is,  the  tongue  of  other  men,  for  the 
apostle  is  exhorting  the  Christian  to  subdue  his 
own  (comp.  ver.  13).  He  observes  that  CEcume- 
nius  read  the  passage  interrogatively,  as  much  as 
to  say,  Wild  beasts,  birds,  serpents,  marine  ani- 
mals, have  been  tamed  by  man,  and  can  no  man 
tame  the  tongue  ? 2.  It  is  personified . ‘ Unto 

me  every  tongue  shall  swear,’  that  is,  every  man 
(Isa.  xiv.  23  ; comp.  Rom.  xiv.  1 1 ; Phil.  ii.  1 1 ; 
Isa.  liv.  17).  The  tongue  is  said  to  rejoice  (Acts  ii. 
26) ; to  meditate  (Ps.  Iii.  2)  ; to  hate  (Prov.  xxvi. 
28)  ; to  he  bridled  (James  i.  26)  ; to  be  tamed 
(James  iii.  8 ; comp.  Ecclus.  xxviii.  18,  &c.).  It 
is  apostrophized  (Ps.  cxx.  3).  3.  It  is  used  by 

metonymy  for  speech  generally.  ‘ Let  us  not 
love  in  tongue  only’  (1  John  iii.  18;  comp. 
y Acoacry  <p'i\os,  Theogn.  lxiii.  13;  Job  vi.  30;  xv. 
5;  Prov.  vi.  24);  ‘a  soft  tongue,’  i.  e.  soothing 
language  (xxv.  15).  ‘ Accuse  not  a servant  to  his 

master,1  literally,*  hurt  not  with  thy  tongue’  (Prov. 
xxx.  10)  ; ‘ the  law  of  kindness  is  in  her  tongue,’ 

i.  e.  speech  (xxxi.  26  ; Isa.  iii.  8 ; 1.  4 ; Wisd.  i.  6). 
4.  For  a particular  language  or  dialect,  spoken 
by  any  particular  people.  ‘ Every  one  after  his 
tongue1  (Gen.  x.  5,  20,  31  ; Dent,  xxviii.  49; 
Esth.  i.  22  ; Dan.  i.  4;  John  v.  2;  Acts  i.  19; 

ii.  4,  8,  11;  xxvi.  14;  1 Cor.  xii.  10  : xiii.  1; 

xiv.  2;  Rev.  xvi.  16).  5.  For  the  people  speak- 

ing a language  (Isa.  lxvi.  18  ; Dan.  iii.  4,  7,  &c. 
Rev.  v.  9;  vii.  9 ; x.  11  ; xi.  9:  xiv.  6;  xvii, 
15).  6.  It  is  used  figuratively  for  anything  resem- 
bling a tongue  in  shape.  Thus,  ‘ a wedge  of  gold,’ 
literally  a ‘ tongue’  (Josh.  vii.  21,  24;  yXdoaorm 
pia  xpwy  > Vulg . regula  aurea.)  The  French 
still  say  un  lingot  d'or,  ‘ a little  tongue  of  gold,’ 
whence,  by  corruption,  our  word  ‘ ingot.’  * The 
bay  that  looketh  southward,’  literally  ‘ tongue1 
(xv.  2;  xviii.  19)  ; ‘a  tongue  of  fire1  (Isa.  v.  24  ; 
comp.  Acts  ii.  3 ; Isa.  xi.  15).  7.  Some  of  the 

Hebrew  idioms,  phrases,  &c.,  formed  of  this 
word  are  highly  expressive.  Thus,  ‘an  evil 

speaker  (Ps.  cxl,  1 1 : |1.£2^  literally,  ‘ a man 
of  tongue;'  comp.  Ecclus.  viii.  3,  and  see  Eccles. 
x.  11,  Hebrew',  or  margin);  ‘a  fro  ward,’  or  rather 
‘ false  tongue’  (Prov.  x.  31 ; DinGHri  p8$6,  ‘ a 
tongue  of  revolvings’)  ; ‘ a wholesome  tongue  ’ 

(Prov.  xv.  4 ; |1EJ^>  literally,  ‘ the  healing 

of  the  tongue,’  reconciliation,  &c. ; Sept,  iaai» 
y\(t>o'(rr]s,  lingua placabilis) ; ‘a  backbiting  tongue 
(Prov.  xxv.  23  ; IflD,  ‘ secret  ;*  ‘ slow  of  speech 

(Exod,  iv.  10;  |1EJ>^  1H!D,  literally,  ‘heavy  of 
tongue,’  unfit  to  be  an  orator ; f}pa5vyA(ti<r(ros ; 
contrast  Ecclus.  iv.  29)  ; ‘ the  tongue  of  the  stam- 
merer’ (Isa.  xxxii.  4),  i.  e.  rude,  illiterate  (comp, 
xxxv.  6;  on  Isa.  xxviii.  11,  see  Lowth).  In 
xxxiii.  19,  it  means  a foreign  language,  which 
seems  gibberish  to  those  who  do  not  understand 
it  (comp  Ezek.  iii.  5)  ; ‘ the  tongue  of  the  learned’ 
(Isa.  1.  4),  i.  e.  of  the  instructor.  The  lexicons  will 
point  out  many  other  instances.  8.  Some  meta- 
phorical expressions  are  highly  significant.  Thws, 
Hos.  vii.  16,  ‘ the  rage  of  the  tongue.1  i.  e.  verbal 
abuse ; ‘ strife  of  tongues1  (Ps.  xxxi.  26)  ; ‘ scourge 
of  the  tongue’  (Job  v.  21  [Execration]  ; comp. 
Ecclus.  xxvi.  6;  xxviii.  17);  ‘snare  of  the  slan- 
derous tongue’  (li.  2);  on  the  phrase  ‘straago 
tongue’  (Isa.  xxviii.  1 1),  see  Lowth  notes  on  vcr. 


579 


TONGUE. 


9-12,  and  afterwards  the  vivid ’rendering  of  the 
Vulg. ; ‘ to  slip  with  the  tongue'  (Ecclus.  xx.  18 ; 
xxv.  8),  t.  e.  use  inadvertent  or  unguarded  speech ; 

‘ they  bend  their  tongues,  their  bows,  for  lies  ’ 
(Jer.  ix.3),  t.  e.  tell  determined  and  malicious 
falsehoods  ; ‘ they  sharpen  their  tongues’  (Ps.  civ. 
3),  i.  e.  prepare  cutting  speeches  (comp.  lvii.  4)  ; 

* to  smooth  the  tongue’  (Jer.  xxiii.  31),  employ 
flattering  language ; * to  smite  with  the  tongue’ 
(Jer.  xviii.  18),  i.  e.  to  traduce — if  it  should  not 
be  rendered,  ‘ on  the  tongue,’  alluding  to  a punish- 
ment for  false  witness  ; ‘ to  lie  in  wait  with  the 
tongue’  (Ecclus.  v.  14);  ‘ to  stick  out  the  tongue 
(Isa.  lvii.  4),  i.  e.  to  mock ; ‘ against  any  of  the 
children  of  Israel  shall  not  a dog  move  his  tongue’ 
(Exod.  xi.  7),  *.  e.  none  shall  hurt  them ; but  both 
Sept,  and  Vulg.  have,  * not  a dog  belonging  to 
the  children  of  Israel  shall  howl,  which,  as  op- 
posed to  the  ‘ great  cry’  in  Egypt  over  the  first- 
born, means,  not  one  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall 
have  cause  to  wail  (Josh.  x.  21  ; Judith  xi.  9). 

1 To  hide  under  the  tongue,’  means,  to  have  in  the 
mouth,  whether  spoken  of  hidden  wickedness 
(Job  xx.  12;  comp.  Ps.  x.  7),  or  delicious  lan- 
guage (Cant.  iv.  11);  ‘the  word  of  God  in  the 
tongue,’  denotes  inspiration  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  2)  ; * to 
divide  the  tongues  of  the  wicked,’  is  to  raise  up 
dissensions  among  them  (Ps.  lv.  9;  comp.  2 Sam. 

xv.  34  ; xvii.  14,  15).  ‘The  tongue  cleaving  to 

the  palate,’  signifies  profound  attention  (Job.  xxix. 
10),  or  excessive  thirst  (Lam.  iv.  4 ; comp.  xxii. 
16)  : ‘to  cause  the  tongue  to  cleave  to  the  palate,’ 
is  to  inflict  supernatural  dumbness  (Ezek.  iii.  26  ; 
Ps.  cxxxvii.  6).  9.  Some  beautiful  comparisons 

occur.  ‘ An  evil  tongue  is  a sharp  sword’  (Ps. 
lvii.  4)  ; ‘the  tongue  of  the  wise  is  health’  (Prov. 
xii.  18)  ; ‘ like  choice  silver’  (x.  20),  *.  e.  his  words 
are  solid,  valuable,  sincere.  10.  The  vices  of 
the  tongue  are  specified  in  great  variety  : flattery 
(Ps.  v.  9;  Prov.  xxviii.  33)  ; backbiting  (Ps,  xv. 
3),  literally,  * run  about  with  the  tongue’  (Prov. 
xxv.  23);  deceit  (Ps.  1.  19) ; unrestrained  speech 
(lxxiii.  9);  lying  (cix.  2);  ‘a  lying  tongue 
hateth  those  that  are  afflicted  by  it’  (Prov.  xxvi. 
28 ; comp.  Tac.  ( Agr . 42)  Proprium  humani  in- 
genii est,  odisse,  quern  laeseris).  ‘ They  have 
taught  their  tongue  to  speak  lies,  and  weary  them- 
selves to  commit  iniquity’  (Jer.  ix.^6) — words 
which  beautifully  illustrate  the  fact,  that  false- 
hood and  vice  are  not  natural,  but  are  a restraint 
and  compulsion  upon  nature  : ‘ double-tongued’ 
(l  Tim.  iii.  8),  SiAoyos,  saying  one  thing  to  this 
man  and  another  to  that  (comp.  Ecclus.  v.  9, 14  ; 
xxviii.  13).  The  retribution  of  evil  speakers 
brought  on  themselves  (Ps.  lxiv.  8).  11.  The 

virtuous  uses  of  the  tongue  are  specified  : ‘ keep- 
ing the  tongue’  (Ps.  xxxiv.  13 ; 1 Pet.  iii.  10  ; 
Prov.  xxi.  23)  ; ‘ruling  the  tongue’  (Ecclus.  xix. 
6 fSTames  i.  26) ; the  origin  of  the  right  and 
wrong  use  of  the  tongue  traced  to  the  heart 
(Matt.  xii.  34).  12.  Mistranslations : as  ‘ hold- 

ing the  tongue  ;’  the  Hebrews  had  no  such  idiom 
(Ps.  xxxix.  2 ; comp,  the  Bible  and  prayer-book 
version  of  Habak.  i.  13).  In  Ezra  iv.  7,  ‘ the  Sy- 
rian tongue,’  literally,  ‘ in  Syriac’  (Esth.  vii.  4 ; 
Ecclus.  xx.  i.  7).  Our  mistranslation  of  Prov. 

xvi.  1,  has  misled  many:  ‘The  preparations  of 

the  heart  in  man,  and  the  answer  of  the  tongue,  is 
from  the  Lord,’  literally,  ‘ Of  man  are  the  disposi- 
tions of  the  heart,  but  a hearing  of  the  tongue  is  of 
the  Lord.  1 3.  The  miraculous  gift  of  tongues , as 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

well  as  its  corresponding  gift  of  interpretation,  h.vi 
been  the  subject  of  two  opinions.  It  was  promised 
by  Christ  to  believers  : they  shall  speak  y\d(r<jais 
naivais  (Mark  xvi.  17};  and  fulfilled  at  Pente- 
cost, when  the  apostles  and  their  companions  ‘ be- 
gan to  speak  trepeus  y^cra'cus’  (Acts  ii.  4,  11 ; 
comp.  Acts  x.  46 ; xix.  6 ; 1 Cor.  xii.  30 ; xiv. 
2,  39).  In  the  last  passage  we  have  ‘ to  pray  in  a 
tongue’  (ver.  14), ‘to  speak  words  in  a tongue’ 
(ver.  19);  ‘tongues’  (1  Cor.  xii.  10,28;  xiii.  8; 
xiv.  22,  26).  The  obvious  explanation  of  most  of 
these  passages  is,  to  speak  in  other  living  lan- 
guages, the  supernatural  acquisition  of  which 
demonstrated  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  was  a 
means  of  diffusing  it.  But  some  verses  in  1 Cor. 
xiv.  have  given  rise  to  the  notion  of  a strange , 
ecstatic,  inspired,  unearthly  language  ; but  these 
all  admit  of  a different  solution.  In  ver.  2,  ‘ he 
who  speaketh  in  a tongue’  evidently  means,  he 
who  speaks  some  foreign  living  language ; the 
supplied  word  ‘ unknown’  in  the  Auth.  Vers,  is 
needless,  and  misleads  the  English  reader.  It  is 
further  said  that  ‘ he  edifieth  himself’  (which,  as 
Macknight  justly  pleads,  required  that  he  should 
understand  himself),  and  edifieth  the  church  also 
if  an  interpreter  were  present  (ver.  28).  The  apostle 
says  (ver.  14),  ‘If  I pray  in  a tongue,  my  spirit 
prayeth,  but  my  understanding  is  unfruitful,’ 
which  words  in  English  seem  to  intimate  that  the 
speaker  might  not  understand  himself;  but  the 
words  <5  8e  vovs  pov  signify,  ‘ my  meaning1  (comp. 
1 Cor.  ii.  16  ; Vulg.  sensum  doinini),  or,  as  Ham- 
mond and  Schleusner  say,  ‘ my  faculty  of  thinking 
upon  and  explaining  to  others  the  meaning  of  what 
I utter’  (comp.  vers.  15,  19),  though  in  ver.  15 
some  take  5 i foil  as  a dativus  com  modi,  and.  ren- 
der, ‘ that  others  may  understand.’  The  key  to  the 
difficulties  of  this  subject  is  the  supposed  absence 
of  an  inspired  interpreter  (ver.  28),  in  which  case 
the  gift  would  not  be  profitable  to  the  hearers. 
The  gift  of  tongues  was  to  cease  (1  Cor.  xiii.  8). 
See  Macknight’s  notes  on  1 Cor.  xiv. ; Olshau- 
sen’s  Comment,  on  Acts  ii.  4 ; Neander’s  Hist,  of 
the  Apostolic  Age , and  in  Bill.  Repos.,  iv.  p.  249, 
&c. ; Stosch,  Archceol.  (Econ.  N.  T.,  p.  93 ; Ga- 
taker,  ad  M.  Anton.,  p.  120;  and  Ernesti,  Lex. 
Techn.  Gr.  Rhet.,  p.  62. — J.  F.  D. 

TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF.  We  have 
already  touched  upon  this  subject  in  the  articles 
Babel  (vol.  i.  p.  266,  col.  2),  and  Nations,  Dis- 
persion of  (vol.  ii.  pp.  393-395).  Trusting  to 
the  favour  of  our  readers  to  peruse  those  passages, 
we  shall  now  first  cite  the  part  of  the  primeval 
history  which  relates  the  fact,  so  remarkable  and 
influential  upon  the  subsequent  fortunes  of  man- 
kind ; and  then  we  propose  to  offer  observations 
and  opinions  upon  the  narrative. 

‘ And  all  the  earth  was  [in  the  use  of]  the  same 
language  and  the  same  words.  And  it  was  in 
their  migrating  from  the  east  that  they  discovered 
a plain  in  the  land  of  Shinar,  and  they  settled 
there.  And  they  spake  each  to  other,  Come,  let 
us  make  bricks,  and  let  us  bum  them  completely. 
And  the  brick  was  to  them  for  stone,  and  the 
asphalt  [bitumen]  was  to  them  for  cement.  And 
they  spake,  Come,  let  us  build  for  ourselves  a 
city  and  a tower,  and  its  top  in  the  sky,  and  let 
ns  make  for  ourselves  a name  [a  designation  of 
eminence,  and  which  may  well  denote  a sign, 
land-mark,  or  rallying  point,  as  in  Isa.  lv.  13], 
that  we  may  not  be  dispersed  over  the  face  of  taj 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

^rhole  earth.  And  Jehovah  descended  to  inspect 
the  city  and  the  tower  which  the  sons  of  men  were 
building.  And  Jehovah  spake,  Behold  the  people 
is  one,  a*nd  the  language  one  to  the  whole  of  them  ; 
and  this  is  their  beginning  for  doing  [i.  e.,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  self-will],  and  now  nothing  what- 
ever which  they  may  take  into  their  heads  to  do 
will  be  prevented  them.  Come,  let  us  descend, 
and  there  put  confusion  into  their  speech,  so  that 
they  shall  not  understand  the  speech  of  each  other. 
And  Jehovah  dispersed  them  thence  over  the  face 
of  the  whole  earth  : and  they  ceased  from  build- 
ing the  city.  For  that  reason  its  name  was  called 
Babel,  because  there  Jehovah  put  confusion  into 
the  speech  of  the  whole  earth,  and  thence  Jehovah 
dispersed  them  over  the  face  of  the  whole  earth 1 
(Gen.  xi.  1-10). 

Obs.  Verse  1 : As  the  Hebrew  word  for  one  has 
a plural,  used  in  the  second  member  of  this  sen- 
tence, but  which  we  cannot  imitate,  we  have  ren- 
dered it  in  both  cases  the  same , which  sufficiently 
expresses  the  idea. — Verse  3 : Literally,  if  we 
might  coin  an  English  cognate  verb,  Let  us  brick- 
make  bricks.  The  existence  of  such  a verb  in 
Hebrew  pretty  clearly  indicates  that  this  simple 
and  early  art  was  in  previously  common  use. — 
Verse  4 : ‘ Top  in  the  sky;1  i.  e.,  their  intention 
was  to  carry  their  tower  to  a great  height.  So  the 
cities  of  the  Canaanites  were  described  as  e walled 
up  to  heaven.1  Also  the  expression  indicates  pride 
and  impiety. — Verse  6 : The  exact  sense  of  the 
verb  zamam  is  expressed  by  the  common  phrase  of 
taking  into  the  head — an  arbitrary  fancy,  an  irra- 
tional resolution. 

I.  This  narration  is  given  in  the  extreme  style 
of  anthropopathic  and  anthropomorphic  descrip- 
tion (see  vol.  i.  pp.  66,  161,  267  ; vol.  ii.  p.  394) 
Not  only  was  this  style  the  best  adapted,  rather 
we  must  say,  the  only  one  adapted,  to  the  com- 
prehension of  mankind  in  the  infantile  state  of  our 
race,  but  it  awakens  our  minds  to  a deeper  mean- 
ing : it  conveys  the  most  explicit  and  expressive 
idea  of  a communion  of  the  creature  with  the 
Creator,  an  intercourse  of  man  with  God,  a 
revelation  of  the  Supreme  Will  as  to  purpose 
and  authority.  Let  it  be  expunged,  and  we  have 
no  hold  of  the  all-momentous  reality  of  a mani- 
festation from  the  Lord  of  the  universe  to  the 
mind  of  man,  which  shall  be  sure  in  its  principle 
and  safe  in  its  effects — the  combination  of  moral 
desert  and  invincible  power  in  the  Highest  Being, 
and  of  holiness  and  love  in  his  administration. 
Let  it  be  expunged,  and  any  assignable  revelation 
upon  the  duty  and  prospects  of  the  creature  would 
be  indistinguishable  from  the  products  of  the  mind 
itself,  the  mere  fabric  of  its  own  reasoning  powers. 
The  mental  picture  of  a celestial  palace,  of  the 
Deity  coming  down  from  it,  of  his  exploring  and 
inspecting,  of- his  deliberating  and  weighing  con- 
tingencies, of  his  concluding  and  acting, — these 
form  the  first  and  most  childlike  form  of  an  ex- 
hibition of  God’s  perfections,  truth,  and  dominion. 
Tin's  is  the  representation  which  reigns  in  the 
earliest  Scriptures ; and  though,  in  the  subse- 
quent records  of  revelation,  we  can  trace  a very 
perceptible  advancement,  still  the  principle  re- 
mains in  all  its  gradations  of  ascent  to  the  very 
last  and  highest  forms  of  communication  from 
God  to  man.  The  style  is  ever,  ‘ Thus  saith  the 
Lord — the  Lord  spake — the  Lord  appeared — 
God  spake  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  and 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF  873 

unto  us  by  his  Son — He  who  sitteth  upon  tha 
throne,  saith.1  We  add  a passage  from  a German 
essay,  which,  we  humbly  think,  can  scarcely  be 
too  strongly  recommended  : ‘ The  languages  of 
men,  in  the  first  ages  of  the  world,  comprised,  of 
natural  necessity,  but  very  few  words.  Those 
words  did  not  reach  to  the  expression  of  that 
which  is  not  cognizable  by  the  senses  ; they  for 
the  most  part  expressed  only  such  objects  as  pre- 
sent themselves  to  our  organic  perceptions,  or  are 
felt  in  our  inward  experience.  When,  then,  it 
pleased  God  to  impart  to  men  the  instruction 
which  they  needed,  by  appearances,  whether  vi- 
sions or  manifestations,  his  wisdom  saw  fit,  in 
order  to  convey  the  knowledge  of  invisible  things, 
to  avail  itself  of  terms  derived  from  sensible  objects 
and  sensible  perceptions.  And,  as  men  cannot 
pass  beyond  the  sphere  of  themselves  and  the 
things  which  surround  them,  it  was  not  possible 
to  bring  within  their  comprehension  a repre- 
sentation of  the  exalted  nature  of  the  Deity  in 
any  other  way  than  that  GOD  should  speak  of 
himself  as  if  he  were  a human  being,  and 
thought,  and  felt,  and  acted  like  a human  being. 
Only  by  means  of  this  wise  condescension  of  God, 
placing  his  own  attributes  and  counsels  in  a con- 
stant comparison  with  the  faculties  and  mental 
operations  of  men,  could  mortals  arrive  at  the 
necessary,  though  as  yet  very  feeble,  knowledge 
of  the  invisible  and  eternal  Creator’  (Seiler,  in 
Pye  Smith’s  Script.  Testimony  to  the  Messiah , 
vol.  iii.  Append,  ii.). 

Upon  this  principle  of  Bible  interpretation,  in 
itself  most  important  and  incontrovertible,  while 
its  application  to  any  particular  case  must  be 
specially  judged  of,  we  conceive  that  the  passage 
before  us  may  be  resolved  into  a statement  to  this 
effect : — 

An  orderly  and  peaceful  distribution  and  mi- 
gration of  the  families  descended  from  Noah  had 
been  directed  by  divine  authority,  and  carried 
into  general  effect  (see  p.  393  of  this  volume). 
But  there  was  a part  of  mankind  who  would  not 
conform  themselves  to  this  wise  and  benevolent 
arrangement.  This  rebellious  parly,  having  dis- 
covered a region  to  their  taste,  determined  to  re- 
main in  it.  They  built  their  houses  in  conti- 
guity, and  proceeded  to  the  other  method  describei 
for  guarding  against  any  further  division  of  thei 
company.  This  was  an  act  of  rebellion  agains. 
the  divine  government.  The  omniscient  and 
righteous  God  therefore  frustrated  it,  by  inflicting 
upon  them  a remarkable  affection  of  the  organs 
of  speech,  which  produced  discord  and  sepa- 
ration. 

At  the  same  time,  we  cannot  dogmatically 
affirm  that  this  infliction  was  absolutely  and 
visibly  miraculous.  It  is  an  undeniable  cha- 
racter of  the  Scriptural  idiom,  especially  in  the 
Old  Testament,  that  verbs  denoting  direct  effi- 
ciency are  used  when  only  mediate  action  is  to 
be  understood,  or  permission,  or  declaration. 
Instances  are  numerous  : e.  g.,  ‘ God  caused  me 
to  wander 1 (Gen.  xx.  13)  ; ‘I  have  made — given 
— sustained1  (xxvii.  37);  the  ‘hardening  of 
wicked  men’s  hearts1  (Exoll.  vii. ; Isa.  vi.,  &c.); 
‘ I will  come  up  into  the  midst  of  them1  (Exod. 
xxxiii.  5).  See  many  examples  in  Mr.  Hartwell 
Horne’s  Introd.,  7th  ed.,  vol.  ii.  p.  459.  And  all 
such  declarations  are  perfectly  true.  The  Infi- 
nitely Wise  and  Holy  and  Powerful  worketh  al.J 


880  TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

things  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
ss  much  when  his  operation  is  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  rational  creatures  and  the  free  exer- 
cise of  their  own  faculties,  as  when  there  is  a 
miraculous  intervention.  Mr.  Shuckford  inclines, 
at  least,  to  the  opinion  that  the  whole  was  the 
result  of  natural  and  moral  second  causes,  fulfill- 
ing the  purposes  of  the  Most  High.  ‘ The  builders 
of  Babel  were  evidently  projectors  ; their  designed 
tower  is  a proof  of  it.  And  if  they  had  one 
project,  and  that  an  idle  one,  why  might  not 
they  have  others  ? Language  was  but  one,  until 
they  came  to  multiply  the  tongues  ; but  that  one 
was  without  doubt  scanty,  fit  only  to  express  the 
early  thoughts  of  mankind,  who  had  not  yet 
“ subdued  ” the  world  (Gen.  i.  28),  nor  arrived  at 
a large  and  comprehensive  acquaintance  with  the 
things  of  it.  Men  now  began  to  build  towers,  to 
open  to  themselves  views  of  a larger  fame,  and 
consequently  of  greater  scenes  of  action  than  their 
ancestors  had  pursued.  And  why  may  net  the 
thought  of  finding  new  names  for  the  things 
which  their  enlarged  notions  offered  to  their  con- 
sideration, have  now  risen  ? God  is  said  to  have 
“ come  down  and  confounded  their  language 
but  it  is  usual  to  meet  with  things  spoken  of  as 
immediately  done  by  God  which  were  effected, 
not  by  extraordinary  miracle,  but  by  the  course 
of  things  permitted  by  him,  to  work  out  what  he 
would  have  done  in  the  world.  Language  was 
without  doubt  enlarged  at  some  particular  time  ; 
and  if  a great  deal  was  attempted  at  once, 
confusion  would  naturally  arise.  The  men  of 
Shinar  were  got  away  from  their  ancestors,  and 
their  heads  were  full  of  innovations ; and  the  pro- 
jectors being  many,  the  projects  might  be  different, 
and  the  leading  men  might  make  up  several  parties 
amongst  them.  If  we  were  to  suppose  the  whole 
number  of  them  to  be  no  more  than  a thousand, 
twenty  or  thirty  persons,  endeavouring  to  invent 
new  words  and  spreading  them  amongst  their  com- 
panions, might  in  time  cause  a deal  of  confusion, 
it  does  indeed  look  more  like  a miracle  to  sup- 
pose the  Confusion  of  Tongues  effected  instantly, 
in  a moment ; but  the  text  does  not  oblige  us  to 
think  it  so  sudden  a production.  From  the  be- 
ginning of  Babel  to  the  dispersion  of  the  nations 
might  be  several  years;  and  perhaps  all  this  time 
a difference  was  growing  up,  until  at  length  it 
came  to  such  a height  as  to  cause  them  to  form 
different  companies,  and  so  to  separate’  {Connect, 
of  Hist.  i.  133-135). 

II.  The  date  of  this  event  we  cannot  satisfac- 
torily place  so  early  as  at  100  years  after  the  flood, 
as  it  is  in  the  commonly  received  chronology. 
Every  view  that  we  can  take  of  the  previous 
history  inclines  us  to  one  of  the  larger  systems, 
that  of  the  Septuagint,  which  gives  530  years, 
or  that  of  Josephus,  adopted  with  a little  emenda- 
tion by  Dr.  Hales,  which  gives  600  years;  and 
thus  we  have  at  least  five  centuries  for  the  inter- 
vening period.  Professor  Wallace,  in  his  ela- 
oorate  work,  makes  it  more  than  eight  centuries 
( Dissertation  on  the  True  Age  of  the  World , 
and  the  Chronology  to  the  Christian  Era , 1844, 
p.  298). 

III.  Upon  the  question,  Whether  all  of  man- 
kind were  engaged  in  this  act  of  concerted  dis- 
obedience, or  only  a part  V we  confess  ourselves 
unable  to  adduce  irrefragable  evidence  on  either 
cide,  but  we  think  that  there  is  a great  prepon- 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

derance  of  argument  on  the  part  of  the  latt».: 
supposition.  The  simple  phraseology  of  tire  text 
wears  an  appearance  of  favouring  the  former : 
but  the  extreme  brevity  and  insulated  character 
of  these  primeval  fragments  forbid  our  arguing 
from  the  mere  juxtaposition  of  the  first  and  the  se- 
cond sentence.  It  is  a common  idiom  in  Hebrew^ 
that  a pronoun,  whether  separate  or  suffixed,  stands 
at  the  introduction  of  a new  subject,  even  when 
that  subject  may  be  different,  and  remote  from  the 
nearest  preceding,  and  requires  to  be  supplied  by 
the  intelligence  of  the  reader.  Instances  : Ps. 
ix.  13  (12);  xviii.  15  (14);  xliv.  3 (2);  Ixv. 
10  (9)  ; cv.  37.  So  far  as  the  grammatical 
structure  is  concerned,  we  may  regard  the  two 
sentences  as  mutually  independent ; and  that, 
therefore,  the  question  is  open  to  considerations 
of  reason  and  probability.  It  is  difficult  to  sup- 
pose that  Noah  (who,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
chronology,  lived  350  years  beyond  the  time  of 
the  deluge;  but  this  we  do  not  urge,  for  we  em- 
brace a longer  series  of  years),  and  Shem,  and  all 
others  of  the  descendants  of  Noah,  were  confe- 
derates in  this  proceeding-!  Hence  the  opinion 
has  been'  maintained,  more  or  less  definitely,  by 
many  critics  and  expositors,  that,  it  was  perpe- 
trated by  only  a part  of  mankind,  chiefly  if  not 
solely  the  posterity  of  Ham,  and  upon  the  insti- 
gation and  under  the  guidance  of  Nimrod,  who 
(ch.  x.  10)  is  declared  to  have  had  Babel  for  the 
head  place  of  his  empire.  The  latter  part  of  this 
position  is  asserted  by  Josephus,  and  the  whole 
by  Augustine  and  other  ancients.  Of  modern 
writers  who  have  maintained  this  opinion,  we 
may  specify  Luther,  Calvin  by  apparent  impli- 
cation, Cornelius  & Lapide,  Bonfrere,  Poole  in 
his  English  Annotations,  Patrick,  Wells,  Samuel 
Clarke  the  annotator,  Henry,  by  implication ; 
narratives  derived  from  Arabian  and  Hindoo 
sources,  in  Charles  Taylor’s  Illustrations  of 
Calmet,  Fragm.  528 ; and  the  late  Jacob  Bryant, 
who,  though  too  imaginative  and  sanguine  a 
theorist,  and  defective  in  his  knowledge  of  the 
Oriental  tongues,  often  gives  us  valuable  col- 
lections of  facts  and  sound  reasonings  from  them 
(see  the  passages  quoted  from  him  in  p.  395  of 
this  volume).  A considerable  part  of  his  cele- 
brated work,  the  Analysis  of  Ancient  Mythology , 
i3  occupied  with  tracing  the  historical  vestiges  of 
the  builders  of  Babel,  whom,  on  grounds  of  high 
probability  at  least,  he  regards  as  Cuthites 
(assumed  to  be  a dialectic  variety  for  Cushites), 
the  descendants  of  Cush,  the  son  of  Ham,  but 
with  whom  were  united  many  dissatisfied  and 
apostate  individuals  of  the  branches  of  Japheth. 
Dr.  Doig,  in  the  article  ‘Philology,’  in  the  Ency- 
clopaedia Britannica  (seven th  edition,  1842)  has 
entered  at  some  length  into  this  question,  and 
arrives  at  the  following  conclusion  : ‘ From  these 
circumstances,  we  hope  it  appears  that  the  whole 
mass  of  mankind  was  not  engaged  in  building  the 
tower  of  Babel ; that  the  language  of  all  the  human 
race  was  not  confounded  upon  that  occasion,  and 
that  the  dispersion  reached  only  to  a combination 
of  Hamites,  and  of  the  most  profligate  part  of  the 
two  other  families  who  had  joined  their  wicked 
confederacy.’ 

IV.  Admitting,  however,  our  inability  to  de- 
termine, with  absolute  certainty,  on  which  side 
of  this  alternative  the  truth  lies,  no  difierenco 
accrues  to  the  subject  of  this  article,  What  wenj 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

ta«  phenomena  of  the  case?  In  what  did  the 
Confusion  of  Tongues  actually  consist  t For  the 
answer  a considerable  variety  of  opinions  has 
Wen  promulgated. 

1.  Some  have  supposed  that  the  operation,  pro- 
luced  either  by  a positively  miraculous  interven- 
tion, or  in  the  ordinary  way  of  natural  causes 
ander  the  divine  direction,  was  not  upon  the 
words  or  the  modes  of  speech  at  all,  but  upon 
(lie  tempers  of  the  men  concerned  ; a discordance 
of  minds,  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  of 
opinions  and  counsels,  upon  the  operations  and 
various  circumstances  of  the  building,  and  con- 
sequently an  angry  abandonment  of  the  work 
and  disruption  of  the  confederacy.  Such  a judg- 
ment upon  the  minds  of  wicked  men  is  expressed 
in  Ps.  lv.  10  : ‘Swallow  up  [*'.  e.  demolish,  frus- 
trate] and  divide  [palag^  their  tongues.1  But 
the  declaration  of  verse  1 stands  in  apparent  op- 
position to  this  interpretation,  and  in  verse  6,  the 
unanimity  of  the  people  and  the  identity  of  their 
language  are  distinguished.  The  learned  and 
pious  Vitringa  explains  and  defends  it  at  great 
length.  He  places  it  in  juxtaposition  with  the 
hypothesis  of  a sudden  impulse  to  new  habits  of 
pronunciation , though  the  language  remained 
the  same.  He  regards  either  of  these  interpreta- 
tions as  perfectly  accordant  with  the  sacred  nar- 
rative, but  he  seems  to  give  the  preference  to  the 
former  ( Observ . Sacrce,  tom.  i.  Diss.  i.  cap.  9). 
The  quotation  above  from  Shuck  lord  supports 
this  opinion. 

2.  Others  suppose  it  to  have  referred  to  opi- 
nion about  religion  ant£  worship;  applying  the 
word  saphah , ‘ lip,’  to  signify  confession  as  a 
religious  act,  and  affirming  this  meaning  to  be 
supported  by  Ps.  lxxxi.  6 (5);  Isa.  xix.  13,  &c. 
But  that  interpretation  of  those  passages  is,  to  say 
the  least,  very  disputable : also,  the  secondary 
use  of  saphah  to  denote  speech  or  language  as  a 
mode  or  system  of  speaking,  is  abundantly  esta- 
blished in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ; and  the  con- 
nection with  the  term  words  in  the  case  before  us 

• (verse  1)  determines  that  signification. 

3.  By  many,  probably  most,  learned  and  emi- 
nent men,  it  is  supposed  that  the-  ; was  a miracu- 
lous infusion  into  the  minds  ai>  l the  practical 
habit  of  the  Babel-builders,  of  languages  abso- 
lutely new  and  possessing  no  affinity  to  each 
other;  or  of  divergence  into  varieties  of  dialect, 
radically  indeed  the  same,  but  mutually  unin- 

® ' telligible;  or  of  mere  alterations  in  the  pronun- 
ciation, by  permutation  of  the  labial  letters  (for 
instance)  with  the  palatal.  Some,  among  whom 
was  the  distinguished  divine  Vitringa,  conceive 
the  effect  to  have  been  transient,  and  to  have  gra- 
dually worn  away  after  the  design  was  answered 
by  the  dispersion  ; others,  that  it  was  permanent, 
producing  a certain  number  of  great  stems  of  lan- 
guage, from  each  of  which  others  branched  out 
according  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  vocal  deriva- 
tion. ‘ The  gwat  affinity  that  still  reigns  among 
the  kindred  dialects  of  the  east  and  the  remoter 
of  the  west,  leads  us  to  suspect  that  the  Confu- 
sion of  Tongues  consisted  rather  in  diversity  of 
pronunciation  of  the  same  words,  than  in  the  in- 
troduction of  new  words  expressing  the  same 
ideas’  (Hales’s  Analysis  of  Chronology , vol.  i. 
p.  365).  For  Mr.  Bryant’s  opinion,  see  this 
volume,  p.  39  ). 

The  hypothesis  of  a change  in  the  pronuncia- 

voi  n.  57 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF.  881 

tion  leading  to  diversified  results,  some  of  which 
might  be  of  persistent  influence,  appears  to  us  tc 
have  the  most  of  probability  and  reason  on  its 
side. 

But  perhaps  we  need  not  lose  ourselves  in  the 
invention  of  conjectural  modes,  of  greater  or  less 
probability,  and  in  which  imagination  may  per- 
form a principal  part.  We  will  oiler  only  two 
lines  of  consideration,  as  what  we  think  appli- 
cable to  the  inquiry. 

1.  The  all- comprehensive  providence  of  God, 
— the  great  chain  of  dependent  causes  and  effects, 
each  cause  being  an  effect  of  a preceding  cause, 
and  each  effect  being  in  its  turn  a new  cause  : in 
a word,  the  universal  government  of  the  Supreme 
Cause,  is  the  product  of  infinite  wisdom  and  rec- 
titude, and  can  never  stand  in  need  of  being 
helped  out,  corrected,  or  remedied.  Supernatural 
events — miracles — are  such  only  to  our  limited 
perceptions ; they  are  not  so  to  God.  In  his 
purposes  and  their  executive  performance  there  is 
no  deviation  from  the  pre-established,  all-harmo- 
nious course.  They  are  signs  and  wonders  to 
men , inasmuch  as  they  stand  forth  in  prominent 
distinction  from  the  habitual  appearance  and 
sequence  of  things  ; but  they  are  not  so  to  ‘ Him 
who  worketh  all  things  according  to  the  counsel 
of  his  own  will — with  whom  there  is  no  darkness 
at  all — no  variableness  nor  the  shadow  of  turning.’ 

It  follows,  that  we  are  not  lightly  to  assume 
the  occurrence  of  supernatural  events.  Right 
views  of  the  divine  perfections,  the  analogies  of 
nature  and  providence,  and  the  current,  evidence, 
of  Scripture,  forbid  our  doing  sc.  The  whole* 
sum  of  events,  supernatural  (as,  from  our  fee&le 
faculties,  we  will  call  them)  equally  with,  the 
so-called  natural,  is  but  the  unfolding  of  the 
latent  energies  infused  by  the  Creator  into  the. 
system  of  his  works  when  he  gave  them;  exist* 
ence,  and  continually  operating  under  his  all- 
pervading  afid  Almighty  activity.  It  follows* 
also,  that  in  any  instance,  we  are  not  warranted 
to  assume  an  amount  of  deviation  from  the  regu- 
lar order  of  things  beyond  that  which,  is  necessary. 
to  the  effect. 

Therefore,  in  the  case  of  the  Confusion  of 
Tongues , it  was  not  necessary  to  the  end  designed 
that  any  new  language  or  languages  should  be 
introduced  into  the  mental  conceptions  or  the 
organic  expressions  of  the  persons  affected : for 
all  that  was  requisite  would  be  accomplished  by 
some  differences  in  pronunciation,  or  by  a few 
further  divergencies  of  meaning  and  shades  of 
meaning,  like  what  we  find  in  the  provincialisms 
and  dialects  of  all  living  languages.  The  occur-- 
rerice  of  such  a condition  of  things  between  the 
rulers  and  the  ruled,  the  directors  and  the  labour- 
ers, and  that  aggravated  by  consequent  mutual 
irritations,  would  be  quite  sufficient  to  derange 
their  plans,  inflame  their  animosities,  and  drive 
them  to  separation  and  mutual  avoidance. 

2.  To  some  such  conclusion  as  this  we  are  ledi 
by  the  meaning  of  the  verb,  which  occurs  here 

twice,  balal,  ‘ confound.’  Its  signification 

is  to  mingle  things  together  so  as  to  produce  com- 
pounds or  heterogeneous  masses.  It  occurs  nearly 
forty  times  in  the  Books  of  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
and  Numbers,  where  prescriptions  are  given  for 
the  compounding  of  various  substances  (flour, 
wine,  and  animal  flesh)  for  the  sacrificial  rites* 


882  TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

There  are  only  two  other  places  of  its  occurrence 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  them  it  is  used 
metaphorically.  ‘ I shall  he  anointed  [adverting 
probably  to  the  ceremonial  mixtures]  with  fresh 
oil’  (Ps.  xcii.  10).  ‘ Ephraim,  he  hath  mixed 

himself  with  the*  [heathen  and  idolatrous]  na- 
tions' (Hosea  vii.  8).  In  those  passages,  we  have 
the  whole  evidence  from  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures ; and  it  appears  to  the  writer  of  this 
article  that  the  expression  describes  the  conditibn 
of  men  speaking  different  dialects  of  the  same 
original  language ; and  that  it  by  no  means  re- 
quires any  further  extension.  ' 

The  case,  however,  is  one  in  which  we  cannot 
resume  to  expect  positive  evidence.  The  fol- 
owing  positions  are  what  appear  to  the  writer  to 
possess  the  higher  degrees  of  probability. 

1.  That  the  whole  scheme  was  an  act  of  rebel- 
lion against  the  plan  of  a well-regulated  disper- 
sion of  families,  or  peaceful  parties  variously 
organized — the  plan  which  had  been  directed  by 
wisdom  and  benevolence,  to  accelerate  the  occu- 
pation and  culture  of  the  earth,  and  the  many 
advantages  consequent.  Upon  the  urgent  motives 
for  speedy  occupation,  see  p.  393  of  this  volume. 
To  counteract,  this  beneficent  arrangement  the 
lofty  edifice  was  to  be  a signal-house , a rallying- 
point;  and  probably  on  the  site  had  been  already 
built,  and  around  it  speedily  would  be  built, 
groups  of  habitations,  not  mere  tents,  but  houses 
with  brick  walls;  so  that  the  adventurers  had 
both  ‘ a city  and  a tower.’ 

2.  That  the  persons  engaged  in  the  project  were 
not  the  whole  of  mankind,  but  a body,  probably 
numerous  but  certainly  powerful,  of  the  descend- 
ants of  Ham,  with  an  intermixture  of  some  other 
Darties. 

3.  That  Nimrod  was  their  chief  instigator, 
that  he  became  their  leader  and  commander,  that 
some  of  them  remained  after  the  dispersion,  or 
returned  to  the  spot  when  their  embarrassments 
had  iu  a measure  subsided,  and  that  thus  origi- 
nated the  most,  ancient  kingdom  of  Babylon. 
This  is  strongly  intimated  in  Gen.  x.  9-11,  where 
Nimrod  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  the  foun- 

■ der  of  Babel. 

4.  That — still  speaking  under  an  humble  sense 
of  difficulty,  and  disclaiming  presumption  and 
dogmatism — we  have  not  sufficient  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  differences  in  the  Languages  which 
exist  among  mankind  originated  in  this  event. 
This  is  a Held  of  inquiry  far  too  vast  to  be  at- 
tempted in  such  an  article  as  this;  and,  in  addi- 
tion to  its  extent,  it  abounds  with  entangled 
thickets  and  dark  places,  which  we  cannot  expect 
to  penetrate  and  enlighten.  We  venture  only 
upon  a few  observations. 

1.  It  cannot  with  any  show  of  reason  be  doubted 
»that  the  antediluvian  world  possessed  only  one 
language,  and  that  that  language  passed  through 
the  family  of  Noah  to  his  descendants,  and  con- 
tinued in  their  line  down  to  the  limes  of  sacred 
and  profane  history. 

2.  We  think  it.  more  probable  than  any  other 
hypothesis,  that  this  original  language  of  men 
was  essentially  the  same  as  what  modern  scholars 
generally  call  the  Semitic,  or  Shetnitic,  a term 
comprehending  the  three  divisions  of  the  Hebrew, 
the  Aramaic  (Chaldee  and  Syriac),  and  the 
Arabic,  which  includes  the  Ethiopic.  Of  these 
fcee,  we  judge  the  Hebrew  to  be  the  closest  re- 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

presentative  of  the  primeval  language.  Its  radica. 
words  are  few,  yet  fully  adequate  to  the  wants  of 
mankind  in  a state  of  such  knowledge  and  happi- 
ness as  involved  moral  goodness  unalloyed  by 
sin  ; and  it  was  adapted,  by  its  expansive  appli- 
cations, to  assist  and  sustain  the  course  of  im- 
provement, and  for  the  progress  of  discovery  in  the 
cultivation  of  agricultural  and  otlier  arts,  which 
would  continually  augment  usefulness  and  de- 
light. Those  radical  words  are,  to  a large  extent, 
the  offspring  of  an  effort  to  produce,  by  the  action 
of  utterance,  or  by  the  soimr/itself  uttered  (ono- 
matopeeia'),  some  resemblance  to  the  signification. 
The  letters  are  all  consonants,  vowels  being  sup- 
plied in  speaking.  Very  many  of  those  primitive 
words  were  originally  formed  by  only  twu'letters ; 
and  those  which  had  three  (the  third  being  usually 
a subsequent  annexation)  were  made  monosyl- 
lables in  pronunciation  (see  Nordheimer's  Hebrew 
Grammar , i.  74,  75,  and  Ewald’s  Ileb.  Gramm. 
by  Nicholson,  § 10).  All  the  proper  names  in  the 
antediluvian  history  are  personally  and  historically 
descriptive,  and  the  verb  or  appellative  which 
forms  the  name  really  and  always  gives  the  sound 
and  meaning  wanted  ; which  could  not  be  if  the 
compositions  which  we  have  were  a translation  from 
a prior  document  in  a different,  language.  Thus: 
‘ Ishah,  because  she  was  taken  from  Ish  ’ (Gen.  ii. 
23).  ‘ Adam  called  the  name  of  his  Ishah,  Havah , 
because  she  was  the  mother  of  all  Hai ’ (iii.  20). 
‘ Cain  [obtained],  because  canithi  [I  have  ob- 
tained] a man  from  Jehovah  ’ (iv.  1).  ‘She  called 
his  name  Sheth  [set,  put,  laid  down  instead  of 
something  else],  for  God  shath  [hath  set]  for  rne 
another  seed’  (ver.  20^*  ‘He  called  his  name 
Noach  [rest,  quiet,  comfort],  saying,' '\\\\sjenacha- 
menu  [shall  give  us  rest ; the  verb  lies  in  the 
second  syllable,  and  if  expressed  alone  would  be 
mwch\  on  account  of  our  toils  ’ (ver.  29).  It  must 
be  remembered  that,  in  the  early  limes  of  pro- 
bably all  nations,  the  names  of  infants  were  often 
modified  or  wholly  changed,  to  be  expressive  of 
some  fact  of  personal  or  family  interest.  Of  the 
instances  which  lie  here  before  us,  Nod  signifies 
wandering,  banishment , and  grief ; Enoch  (better 
written  llanoch ),  cramming  as  of  food  into  an 
infant's  mouth,  and  thence,  making  a beginning 
to  train  tip,  instructing,  educating ; Irad,  orna- 
ment of  the  city,  mentioned  in  the  preceding  sen- 
tence as  having  been  founded  by  Cain ; MUchu- 
jael,  smitten  by  God,  perhaps  with  some  deformity 
or  some  personal  afflict  ion  ; Methushael,  weakness 
from  God,  possibly  having  some  reference  to  his 
father,  the  last- mentioned,  or  it  may  denote  man 
of  God,  as  one  peculiarly  favoured,  in  contrast  to 
his  father’s  calamity ; Lantech,  strong  young  man, 
probably  to  intimate  his  fighting  and  murdering 
disposition  (ver.  23),  for  which  his  son  Tubal-cain 
had  provided  him  with  a sword  {%) ; Adah , greatly 
adorned,  very  beautiful ; Zillah,  shade,  or  tone 
in  music;  Jabal,  cattle-drover  (see  ver.  20); 
Jubal,  lively  music , musician,  he  being  the  in- 
ventor or  most  distinguished  improver  of  both  the 
classes  of  musical  instruments ; Tubal-caw,,  the 
man  of  progress  in  obtaining,  but  Dr.  Fiirst 
(< Concordant . Hebr.  p.  1293,  Leipzig,  1840^  gives 
iron-smith  ; Naamah,  lovely . These  examples 
are  all  that  occur  in  the  account  of  the  descend- 
ants of  Cain,  in  regard  to  most  of  whom  there  is 
an  intimation  of  the  character  or  history.  In  the 
line  of  Seth,  and  the  genealogy  descending  from 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

Noali,  as  all  the  names  are  significant,  we  should 
undoubtedly  find  them  the  echo  of  some  historical 
description,  if  we  had  any  such  fragments  of  nar- 
ration. In  a few  cases  there  does  remain  some 
hint  of  exposition:  ‘God  will  japliet  [ enlarge , 
cause  to  spread  out  far  and  wide\  Japheth  ; and 
will  dwell  [e.  e.  God  will  dwell]  in  the  tents  of 
Shem  " (vii.  27).  This  is  the  plain  grammatical 
construction,  and  we  regard  it  as  a prophecy  that 
the  true  God  would  be  worshipped  and  honoured 
by  distinguished  brandies  of  the  posterity  of  Shem, 
when  all  other  nations  would  have  apostatized  to 
polytheism  and  its  attendant  impieties  ; and  as 
tli is  was  an  effect  of  God's  special  grace  and 
mercy,  it  is,  by  a frequent  Hebraistic  phrase, 
called  his  dwelling  with  the  person  so  favoured. 
It  is  Worthy  of  observation,  that  here  we  have  the 
first  instance  in  the  volume  of  revelation  of  the 
Infinite  One  being  called  ‘the  God  of’  any  spe- 
cial person  or  persons;  a testimony  both  to  the 
exemplary  piety  of  Shem,  and  to  that  heavenly 
condescension  which  is  so  wondrously  manifested 
in  the  subsequent  promises  of  the  Bible.  The 
word  Shem  \iiame,  celebrity ] thus  expresses  that 
favour  and  honour,  in  meaning,  though  not  in 
similarity  of  sound,  and  therefore  we  do  not  ad- 
duce it  as  an  instance  parallel  to  the  others  ; but 
it  merits  our  especial  observation  as  an  anticipa- 
tion of  that  line  of  Shem’s  posterity  in  which  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed.  In  this 
view,  also,  we  mention  Ham , warm , dark-com- 
plexioned,, even  black  (Fiirst,  p.  1276),  the  chief 
of  whose  posterity,  and  probably  himself,  moved 
into  the  hottest  regions  then  known.  So  Nimrod , 
rebel,  from  mar  ad,  to  rise  up  against.  We  have 
already  referred  to  Peleg , whose  name  comme- 
morates the  division  of  the  earth.  The  word 
Babel  itself  has  propagated  its  onomatopceitic  re- 
presentatives to  a wide  extent  among  ancient  and 
modern  languages ; in  fSafidfa,  fiapfiaivca,  /3ap.- 
fiaAiCw,  fidpfiapos,  balbutio,  baldordd  (Welsh), 
babble  (English),  bobbel  and  bibbel  (Dutch), 
bain  Her  (French') ; and  no  doubt  in  other  tongues 
and  dialects.  The  more  we  scrutinise  this  branch 
of  argument,  the  more  its  solidity  appears. 

In  a word,  we  think  that  all  the  positive  evi- 
dence goes  to  substantiate  the  opinion,  that  the 
primitive  and  universal  language  of  mankind  was 
one  of  which  the  Shemitic,  in  its  Hebrew  form, 
is  the  closest  representative.  We  venture  to  sup- 
pose that  the  primitive  language  bore  a relation 
to.  the  successive  stages. of  the  biblical  Hebrew, 
analogous  to  that  of  the  Latin  of  the  T welve  Tables 
compared  with  the  Roman  classics.  It  might  not 
be  a mere  work  of  fancy  to  place  the  parallelism 
thus  : Moses  and  Job  with  Lucretius,  David  with 
Horace,  Isaiah  with  Virgil,  and  the  prophets  who 
flourished  about  the  times  of  the  exile  with  the 
Latin  authors  from  Quintilian  to  Claudian. 

3.  From  the  history  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  it  appears  that  no  difference  of  language 
obstructed  their  conversation  with  the  inhabitants 
of  Egypt,  Philistia,  and  Syria ; and  the  proper 
names  of  the  family  are  all  Hebrew  and  signi- 
ficant. Bed,  in  the  latter  part  of  this  period,  the 
Syriac  degradation  of  Hebrew  had  gained  some 
currency  in  parts  far  to  the  east  (Gen.  xxxi.  47)  ; 
and,  in  the  next  generation,  the  Hebrews  and  the 
Egyptians  spoke  widely  different  languages. 

V.  If  we  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  vast 
fieljl  of  the  known  languages  of  the  ancient  world 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF.  883 

— freely  confessing  its  appalling  difficulties, 
many  of  them  probably  insuperable — we  are  led 
to  put  them  into  three  primary  divisions,  Which 
we  may  call  classes.  Let  the  first  be  that  of  all 
the  cultivated  languages  of  which  we  have  any 
historical  knowledge  or  documentary  specimens; 
or  we.  may  describe  them  as  the  languages  of  na- 
tions who  had  a considerable  degree  of  science 
and  art,  and  a literature.  The  second  shall  be 
the  group  of  languages  possessed  by  tribes  or 
nations  whose  abode  lay  to  the  east  of  the 
Noachian  settlements,  and  of  which  ancient 
history  gives  us  scarcely  any  information.  The 
third  must  comprehend  those  which  lay  at  and 
beyond  the  outskirts  of  civilization. 

The  first  divides  itself  into  two  branches,  the 
Shemitic  and  the  Sanscritic. 

The  Shemitic  (or,  as  some  write,  Semitic),  a 
term  brought  into  use  by  the  late  J.  G.  Eichhorn, 
to  express  the  relation  of  the  Hebraistic  family  of 
languages  to  the  patriarch  Shem.  The  term  is 
generally  acquiesced  in,  though  it  is  not  strictly 
applicable ; for  it  is  undoubted  that,  besides  the 
posterity  of  Shem,  other  families  and  nations  used 
this  language  in  one  or  other  of  its  varieties. 
One  incontrovertible  and  very  striking  exception 
is,  that  the  Canaanitish  tribes,  descendants  of 
Ham  by  his  worst  son,  spoke  it,  and,  we  have 
good  grounds  of  belief,  in  its  primitive  and  purest 
form.  Dr.  Prichard  prefers,  for  this  distinction, 
the  term  Syro-Arabian  ; but  that  has  the  disad- 
vantage of  throwing  into  the  shade  the  most  im- 
portant branch  of  all ; it  seems  not  logical  to 
merge  the  Hebrew  in  the  Syriac.  Our  opinion, 
but  not  dogmatical  assertion,  is,  that  this  primi- 
tive Shemitic  was  the  universal  language  of  men 
before  the  flood,  and  for  some  ages  after ; and  that 
its  best  and  most  unaltered  form  came  forth  in 
the  speech  and  writings  of  Job  and  Moses.  Of 
this  language,  the  distinguished  philologist  Ewald 
has  said,  thar  ‘it  stands  one  degree  nearer  [than 
the  Sanscrit]  to  the  simplicity  of  nature  and 
antiquity  ; but  it  possesses,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
warmest  feeling,  the  most  enchanting  and  child- 
like truthfulness,  with  the  most  delightful  natural- 
ness and  clearness.  That  primitive  and  natural 
artlessness  can  be  recognised  in  it  more  easily 
than  in  any  other  language1  ( Heb . Gramm., 
transl.  by  Nicholson,  § 16,  17).  We  see  its  early 
state  of  majestic  simplicity  in  the  books  of  Moses, 
its  most  polished  condition  in  the  period  which 
includes  Davkl  and  Isaiah,  and  its  decline  in  the 
century  before  the  captivity;  after  which  humi- 
liating and  depressing  event  it  ceased  to  be  the 
spoken  language  of  the  people ; and  the  last 
compositions  that  we  have  in  it  are  the  narratives 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  the  prophecies  of  Daniel, 
Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  and  probably  a 
number  of  the  Psalms.  In  this  period  of  twelve 
hundred  years,  notwithstanding  the  course  at 
which  we  have  hinted  of  advancement  and  decay, 
the  difference  is  more  in  the  genius  and  spirit  than 
in  the  grammatical  forms.  The  uniformity  of  the 
language  is  preserved  far  more  than  in  the  history 
of  any  European  living  language.  Compare  it,  for 
example,  with  the  changes  in  English,  German, 
Dutch,  or  French,  within  only  the  last  four  hun- 
dred years.  But  this  high  degree  of  fixedness  is  a 
property  of  the  Asiatic  languages.  The  classical 
Chinese  of  the  present  day  is  the  very  same  aa 
that  of  Confucius  twenty-three  centuries  ago. 


884  TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 


In  the  countries  north  of  Palestine,  theShemitic 
developed  itself,  or  more  probably  degenerated, 
into  the  harsh,  impoverished,  and  clumsy  Ara- 
maic : and  this  again  separated  into  two  dialects, 
the  Eastern,  usually  called  Chaldee,  and  the 
Western,  or  Syriac.  ‘ But,’  says  Professor  Ewald, 

‘ in  the  south,  among  the  never-conquered  Arabs, 
it  preserved  greater  purity  and  sweetness,  and  a 
greater  richness  of  formations  and  words  ; many  of 
which  excellences  are  found  in  the  Ethiopic  lan- 
guage, a very  old  daughter  of  the  Arabic  ’ (Heb. 
Gramm.,  § i ). 

Our  second  division  of  cultivated  languages  we 
venture  to  denominate  Sanscritic,  in  order  to  in- 
clude both  that  most  remarkable  phenomenon,  the 
Sanscrit,  a language  whose  very  existence  was 
scarcely  known  seventy  years  ago,  whose  origin 
is  concealed  in  remotest  antiquity,  and  which 
possesses  the  perfections  of  language,  natural  and 
artificial,  in  a degree  almost  unrivalled;  and  the 
Zend , supposed  to  be  allied  to  the  Sanscrit,  and 
to  be  the  mother-form  of  the  most  ancient  Persian. 
To  this  division  the  late  Professor  Gesenius  gave 
the  name  of  Itido- Germanic,  which  others  have 
improved  into  Indo-European.  The  researches  of 
that  able  philologist,  and  the  not  less  distinguished 
Professors  A.  W.  Schlegel  (treading  in  the  path 
opened  by  Carey  and  the  oilier  Serampore  mis- 
sionaries), Bopp,  Rask,  Burnouf,  Bolden,  Lassen, 
Wilson,  and  other  honoured  names,  have  esta- 
blished the  fact  that  the  principal  languages  of 
India  on  this  side  the  Ganges,  the  Persian,  the 
Armenian,  and  the  stems  of  the  great  European 
languages,  Celtic,  Gothic,  Sclavonic,  Greek,  and 
Latin,  have  been  derived  from  this  amazingly 
fertile  root. 

A British  nobleman,  deservedly  honoured  for 
his  attainments  and  his  services  in  science  and 
literature,  has  given  the  following  summary  of 
the  relations  of  the  Sanscrit  : ‘^'his  language,’ 
says  Lord  Francis  Egerton,  ‘ will  tie  found  to  in- 
terest the  philologer  of  every  country  in  Europe. 
The  subjects  of  every  government  in  Europe  are 
writing  and  speaking  living  derivatives  of  that 
language — every  university  is  occupied  in  teach- 
ing its  two  noblest  extinct  varieties ; and  philo- 
logy must  cease  to  exist  as  a study  and  a science, 
when  interest  ceases  to  attach  to  the  exploration 
of  a connection  so  curious  and  so  extensive  as  that 
which  binds  together  the  members  of  the  Indo- 
Germanic  family.  In  this  point  of  view,  the 
Sanscrit  claims  an  indisputable  preference,  as  a 
subject  of  European  research,  over  the  two  other 
great  streams  of  language  which  seem  to  have 
descended  from  the  Caucasus — the  Semitic,  and 
the  monosyllabic  system  which  has  pervaded 
China 1 ( On  the  Study  of  Sanscrit,  in  the 
Classical  Museum,  Oct.  1844,  p.  248). 

The  question  arises,  Was  there  any  affinity,  or 
other  connection,  between  the  Shemitic  and  the 
Sanscrit,  in  their  earliest  stage  of  existence  ? To 
this  inquiry  we  fear  that  a satisfactory  answer  can- 
not be  given.  The  existence  and  the  extraordinary 
characters  of  the  Sanscrit  literature  form  a pro- 
blem which  we  do  not  hope  to  see  resolved.  That 
there  was  some  primeval  affinity  we  can  scarcely 
doubt;  but  the  vestiges  of  it  have  probably  been 
•bscured  and  obliterated  in  the  wonderful  pro- 
cess of  philosophical  elaboration  to  which  the 
Sanscrit  has  been  subjected,  it  is  supposed  under 
tne  influence  of  the  court  of  Benares  and  the  great 


poets  who  there  flourished  a little  before  th* 
Christian  era.  The  following  sentences  from 
Ewald  indicate  his  opinion  that,  there  really  was 
an  original  affinity  : ‘ We  learn,  from  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  primitive  elements  of  the  Semitic 
language,  that  its  beginnings  or  roots,  line  those 
of  all  other  languages,  were  short  monosyllabic 
words.  Hence  arises  the  great  connection  which 
these  roots  have  with  Indo-Germanic  roots;  a 
connection  the  less  astonishing,  as  the  territories 
of  both  these  families  afterwards  also  bordered  on 
one  another  in  Asia.  Formation  has  become  the 
predominant  principle  of  the  Semitic  language. 
In  this  [system  of]  formation,  the  Semitic  lan- 
guage lias,  it  is  true,  more  simplicity  and  fresh- 
ness, and  much  that  is  finer  and  more  regular, 
than  the  Indo-germanic  family  ; but  in  general 
it  has  not.  reached  the  high  degree  of  perfection 
which  distinguishes  the  latter.  To  the  power  of 
composition  [as  in  the  Greek],  a chief  ornament 
of  the  Sanscrit,  family  of  language,  the  Semitic 
has  not  advanced.  Like  the  whole  genius  of  the 
Semitic  nations,  like  their  poetry  and  religion, 
their  language  also,  as  opposed  to  the  Indo-Ger- 
manic,  possesses  rather  keen  sensibility  of  heart 
and  spirit,  than  rest  and  extended  scope  of 
thought  and  fancy;  more  lyric  and  poetical, 
than  epic  and  oratorical  elements.  It  is  the 
business  of  Hebrew  grammar  everywhere  to 
point  out  this  central  position  of  the  Hebrew, 
between  the  most  unformed,  e.  g.  Chinese,  and 
the  most  perfectly  developed  language,  e.  g.  the 
Indo-  Germanic]  (Hob.  Gramm.  § 13-17). 

The  Chinese  spoken  language  (for  the  written 
is  only  a rude  system  of  picture-signs  of  ideas, 
not  of  vocal  sounds)  has  a striking  character  of 
deficiency  and  powerless  ness.  It  consists  of  a 
few  more  than  300  monosyllables,  each  being  a 
consonant  followed  by  a vowel.  One  might  con- 
jecture that,  by  combining  some  of  these  radicals, 
compound  words  would  be  formed  ; but  this  is 
not  the  case.  The  multiplication  of  words  is  oniy 
by  varying  the  tone  ; and  of  such  variations  there 
are  at  least  ten  or  twelve,  some  of  which  are  with 
difficulty  perceivable  by  a foreign  ear.  The  en- 
durance of  so  miserable  a method  of  intercourse, 
for  above  three  thousand  years,  however  consistent 
with  the  surprising  fixedness  of  manners  and 
habits  which  characterizes  the  millions  of  China, 
cannot  but  astonish  us.  Whence  could  be  de- 
rived that  strange  immutability,  hostile  to  the 
most  rational  interests'  of  our  nature,  checking 
every  tendency  to  improvement,  and  debasing 
the  soul  of  man  to  wretched  servility?  Is  it  not 
a striking  proof  of  a hateful  usurpation,  the  do- 
minion of  the  prince  of  darkness,  ‘the  spirit 
which  even  now  worketh  in  the  children  ofViso- 
bedience?’  The  same  system  subsists  in  other 
tribes  and  nations  bordering  upon  China  properly 
so  called,  the  inhabitants  of  Cochin-China,  Siam, 
Japan,  &c.  But  the  origin  of  such  a language 
is  as  difficult  to  account  for  as  its  retention.  Mr. 
Shuckford  has  raised  the  hypothesis,  and  he  is 
followed  by  the  authors  of  the  Ancient  Universal 
History , tha.t  before  or  at  fhe  time  of  the  Shinar 
revolt,  Noah  with  a party  of  his  descendants, 
most  probably  voluntary  separatists  from  different 
families,  removed  themselves  eastwards ; and 
that  from  them  the  whole  population  of  which 
we  are  speaking  was  derived.  He  adduces  nt 
contemptible  reasons  in  support  of  this  hypothesis. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

The  Chinese  traditions  concerning  Fohee,  the 
alleged  founder  and  first  monarch  of  their  nation, 
or,  as  Sir  John  Barrow  deduces  from  the  Chinese 
traditions,  the  third,  have  remarkable  points  of 
coincidence  with  the  history  of  Noah.  Shuck- 
ford  places  the  residence  of  the  great  patriarch, 
after  the  deluge,  in  Thibet  or  Tartary,  north  of 
the  Coosh  ai  d the  Himalaya  mountains,  and 
supposes  that  his  offspring  spread  down  south- 
ward to  India,  and  eastward  to  China  ; ‘ and  so,’ 
he  adds,  ‘ it  is  probable  that  they  also  peopled 
Scythia  [meaning  no  doubt  Tartary],  and  after- 
ward the  more  northern  continent;  and,  if  Ame- 
rica be  anywhere  joined  to  it,  perhaps  all  that 
nart  of  the  world  came  from  these  originals’  ( Con- 
nection, vol.  i.  p.  104).  In  Mr.  Shuck  ford’s 
time,  Behring’s  Straits  were  unknown;  nor  could 
he  know  much  of  the  * traits  of  resemblance  in 
the  manners,  laws,  arts,  and  institutions  of  the 
two  nations  [Chinese  and  Peruvians],  which,  in 
our  opinion,  are  too  numerous,  striking,  and  pe- 
culiar, to  be  the  effect  of  chance’  (Mr.  Charles 
Maclaren,  in  the  Encyclop.  Brit.,  vol.  ii.  p.  626, 
7th  ed.). 

But  there  are  languages,  of  unknown  number 
and  variety,  which  cannot  be  reduced  to  any  of 
the  classes  and  kinds  of  which  we  have  been 
writing.  Such  are  those  of  the  inhabitants  of 
India  before  the  arrival  of  the  Hindoo  nations, 
supposed  to  be  now  represented  by  mountain- 
tribes  in  the  Himalayas,  the  Siugalese,  the  inha- 
bitants of  the  extreme  nortn-east  of  Asia,  the 
people  of  Southern  Africa,  those  of  America, 
from  the  frozen  ocean  of  the  north  to  the  southern 
extremity,  and  the  Australian  tribes.  With  re- 
gard to  these,  we  know  most  concerning  the 
American  tribes  or  nations.  They  and  their 
languages  form  a very  great  number,  probably 
not  fewer  than  four  hundred,  though  many  of 
these  may  be  dialects  at  a second  or  third  stage 
of  derivation  from  an  earlier  form  of  speech. 
The  materials  of  which  they  are  made  (the  sounds 
of  the  radical  words)  differ  much ; but  they  re- 
semble each  other  in  the  extreme  complication  of 
their  forms.  ‘ In  America,  from  the  country  of 
the  Esquimaux  to  the  banks  of  the  Orinoko,  and 
again  from  those  torrid  banks  to  the  frozen  cli- 
mate of  the  Straits  of  Magellan,  mother-tongues, 
entirely  different  with  regard  to  their  roots,  have, 
if  we  may  use  the  expression,  the  same  physio- 
gnomy. Striking  analogies  of  grammatical  con- 
struction have  been  recognised,  not  only  in  the 
more  perfect  languages,  as  that  of  the  Incas,  the 
Aymara,  the  Guarani,  the  Mexican,  and  the 
Cora,  but  also  in  languages  extremely  rude. 
Idioms,  the  roots  of  which  do  not  resemble  each 
other  more  than  the  roots  of  the  Sclavonian  and 
the  Biscayan,  have  resemblances  of  internal  me- 
chanism, similar  to  those  which  are  found  in  the 
Sanscrit,  the  Persian,  the  Greek,  and  the  German 
languages’  (William  von  Humboldt,  in  Dr. 
Prichard's  Nat.  Hist,  of  Man,  1843,  p.  358). 
‘ Amidst  that  great  diversity  of  American  lan- 
guages, considered  ordy  in  reference  to  their  vo- 
cabularies, the  similarity  of  their  structure  and 
grammatical  forms  has  been  observed  and  pointed 
out  by  the  American  philologists.  The  result 
appears  to  prove  that  all  the  languages,  not  only 
of  our  own  [North  American]  Indians,  but  of 
the  native  inhabitants  of  America,  fnm  the  Arc- 
tic Ocean  to  Cape  Horn,  have,  as  ar  as  they 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF  885 

have  been  investigated,  a distinct  character  com- 
mon to  all,  and  apparently  differing  from  any  of 
those  of  the  other  continent  with  which  we  are 
most  familiar’  (Gallatin’s  A rchceol.  Amer  , quoted 
by  Dr.  Prichard).  ‘ There  exist,  in  both  Ame- 
ricas, linguistic  formula?,  which  Balbi  refers  to  a 
Semitic  and  even  Hebrew  affinity  ; and  many 
words  in  the  Carib  tongue,  particularly  among 
the  trading,  vagrant,  and  lighting  Accawas,  hate 
striking  resemblances  to  the  languages  of  ancient 
Syria  and  Carthage’  ( Col.  Hamilton  Smith,  On 
the  Original  Population  of  America , in  the 
Edinb.  Philos.  Journal,  Jan.  1845,  p.  11). 

We  have  reason  also  to  believe  that  there  are  a 
few  scattered  fragments  of  tribes,  situated  in 
fastnesses  of  hardly  accessible  regions  in  other 
parts  of  the  world,  whose  languages  are  little 
known,  and  are  therefore  as  yet  incapable  of  being 
brought  into  any  classification. 

We  now  shall  conclude  this  disquisition  by  a 
brief  statement  of  the  inferences  which  to  us  ap- 
pear to  possess  the  greatest  degree  of  probability  ; 
premising  that  there  are  obscurities  and  difficulties 
in  almost  every  part  of  the  subject,  which  we  do 
not  pretend  or  hope  to  remove. 

1.  The  original  language  of  mankind  wa3  a 
form  of  that  which  was  preserved  in  the  post- 
diluvian world,  principally  in  the  line  of  Shem ; 
a form  to  which  the  subsequent  Hebrew  bore, 
and,  with  its  necessary  changes  and  improvements, 
still  bears,  the  closest  resemblance. 

2.  This  was  the  universal  language  till  many 
centuries  after  the  flood. 

3.  Deflections  from  it  arose,  in  various  modes 
and  degrees,  after  the  general  separation  and  wide 
dispersion  of  clans  and  tribes;  the  causes  and 
occasions  of  those  alterations  were  natural  and 
human,  arising  from  physical  and  historical 
causes,  such  as  climate,  peculiar  conformation  of 
individuals,  imitation  of  those  erratic  examples, 
caprice,  and  the  intercourse  of  tribes  after  sepa- 
ration. 

4.  The  variety  of  languages  existing,  or  having 
existed,  among  mankind,  may  be  traced  back, 
with  approximation  to  probability,  to  one  source, 
the  family  of  Noah,  as  the  representative  of  the 
antediluvian  world. 

5.  The  dispersion  of  the  Babel-builders  was 
attended  by  circumstances  of  discord  and  violence. 
Some  of  them  gained  the  mastery,  and,  under  the 
government  of  Nimrod,  retained  possession  of  the 
city  and  the  unfinished  tower.  The  rest  migrated, 
probably  in  hostile  parties,  to  different  regions. 
Whether  the  change  in  their  speech  affected  the 
substance  of  language,  or  consisted  only  in  the 
pronunciation,  and  whether  it  was  temporary  or 
permanent,  cannot  be  with  certainty  determined. 

6.  The  greatest  degree  of  alteration  from  any 
assumed  primeval  standard,  attaches  to  the  Ame- 
rican branches.  Perhaps  the  conjecture  might  not 
be  dismissed  as  absurd,  that  the  fugitives  from 
Shiuar,  or  their  early  descendants,  were  the  first 
settlers  in  America  ; whether  by  making  their  way 
to  the  north-east  coast  of  Asia,  or  upon  isthmuses 
or  chains  of  islands  which  have  been  since  sub- 
merged (not  impossible  nor  improbable;  and  the 
old  traditions  of  Atlantis  may  have  originated  in 
some  fact  of  this  kind),  or  by  drifted  canoes. 
Hence  a reason  might  be  given  for  the  monstrously 
entangled  forms  of  those  languages. 

7.  The-  whole  question  runs  parallel  to  that 


886  TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF. 

concerning  the  derivation  of  all  mankind  from  a 
common  ancestry,  the  family  of  Noah.  The 
range  of  argument  and  difficulty  is  nearly  if  not 
entirely  equal ; and  we  humbly  think  that  the 
resulting  problems  are  insoluble  by  mortals  in 
the  present  state. 

The  following  are  the  principal  passages  of 
ancient  authors,  rescued  from  the  wreck  of  time 
by  the  quotations  of  Josephus  and  Eusebius.  It 
scarcely  need  be  said  that  we  do  not  adduce  these 
fragments  as  authorities,  in  any  other  sense  than 
that  they  repeat  the  traditional  narratives  which 
had  descended  from  the  remotest  antiquity  among 
the  people  to  whom  they  relate.  The  ‘ Sibyl  ’ 
cited  by  Josephus  is  the  fictitious  appellation  of 
some  unknown  author,  probably  about  the  second 
century  nc.  Alexander  Cornelius  Polyhistor 
flourished  about  one  hundred  years  before  Christ. 
Eupolemus  was  probably  an  Asiatic  Greek,  two 
or  three  centuries  earlier.  Abydenus  (if  lie  was 
Palaephatus)  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century  b.c. 

‘ Concerning  this  tower,  and  the  discordance  of 
language  among  men,  the  Sibyl  also  makes  men- 
tion, saying  thus  : “All  men  having  one  language, 
some  of  them  built  a very  high  tower,  as  if  they 
proposed  by  means  of  it  to  climb  to  heaven  : but 
the  gods,  by  sending  storms  of  wind,  overthrew 
the  tower,  and  gave  to  each  person  a peculiar 
language  ;«and  on  this  account  the  city  came  to 
be  called  Babylon1'1  (Joseph.  Antiq.  i.  4.  3). 

The  Sibyl  here  quoted  may  be  that  very  ancient 
anonymous  authority,  to  which  we  have  obscure 
references  (in  the  discourse  of  Theophilus  to  Auto- 
lycus)  in  Plutarch's  Morals,  in  Virgil's  Pollio, 
and  in  the  Stromata  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus. 

‘ Alexander  Polyhistor — a man  of  the  highest 
celebrity  for  talents  and  attainments,  in  the  esti- 
mation of  those  Greeks  who  are  the  most  pro- 
foundly and  accurately  learned — has  the  follow- 
ing passage  : “ Eupolemus,  in  his  book  concerning 
the  Jews  of  Assyria,  says  that  the  city  of  Babylon 
was  first  built  by  those  who  had  been  preserved 
from  the  deluge ; that  they  were  giants  [the 
Greeks  used  this  word  to  signify,  not  so  much 
men  of  enormous  stature,  as  their  mythological 
heroes,  of  great  prowess,  and  defying  the  gods]  ; 
that  they  also  erected  the  tower  of  which  history 
gives  account ; but  that  it  was  overthrown  by  the 
mighty  power  from  God,  and  consequently  the 
giants  were  scattered  abroad  over  the  whole 
earth  ■’  (Euseb.,  Prcepar.  Evang.,  Col.  1688). 

‘Further,  with  respect  to  the  narrative  of  Moses 
concerning  the  building  of  the  tower,  and  how, 
from  one  tongue,  they  were  confounded  so  as  to 
be  brought  into  the  use  of  many  dialects,  the 
author  before  mentioned  [Abydenus],  in  his  book 
concerning  the  Assyrians,  gives  his  confirmation 
in  these  words  : “ There  are  some  who  say  that 
the  first  men  sprung  out  of  the  earth  ; that  they 
boasted  of  their  strength  and  size  ; that  they  con- 
temptuously maintained  themselves  to  be  superior 
to  the  gods  ; that  they  erected  a lofty  tower,  where 
now  is  Babylon  ; then,  when  it  had  been  carried 
on  almost  up  to  heaven,  the  very  winds  came  to 
assist  the  gods,  and  overthrew  the  vast  structure 
upon  its’djuilders.  Its  ruins  were  called  Babylon. 
The  men,  who  before  had  possessed  one  tongue, 
were  brought  by  the  gods  to  a many-sounding 
voice  ; and  afterwards  war  arose  between  Cronus 
[Saturn]  and  Titan.  Moreover,  the  place  in 


TOOTIl  TEETH. 

which  they  built  the  tower  is  now  failed  Babylon, 
on  account  of  the  confusing  of  the  prior  clearness 
with  respect  to  speech ; for  the  Hebrews  call  con- 
fusion Babel'11  (Euseb.,  Prcepar.  Evang,  ix. 

Abydenus,  the  Grecian  historian  of  Assyria,  is 
known  to  us  only  by  citations  in  Eusebius,  Cyril 
of  Alexandria,  and  Syncellus;  but  they  confirm 
his  respectability  as  a writer. — J.  P.  S. 

TOOTH,  TEETH  (|^ ; Sept.  dSois,  quasi 
iSovs,  from  e8u,  ‘to  eat;1  Vulg.  dens,  quasi  edens, 
‘eating').  The  Hebrew  word  is  usually  derived 
from  Hjty,  ‘ to  change  1 or  ‘ repeat,1  because  the 
teeth  are  changed,  or  replaced  by  others.  It  occurs 
first,  with  reference  to  the  literal  uiemher  itself  in 
man,  the  loss  of  which,  by  violence,  is  specified 
by  Moses,  in  illustration  of  his  law  concerning 
taliones,  ‘ tooth  for  tooth  1 (Exod.  xxi.  24).  This 
outrage  occurring  between  freemen  (or  between  an 
Israelite  and  a foreigner,  Lev.  xxiv.  22)  admitted, 
like  other  cases  of  maiming,  most  probably  of  a pe- 
cuniary compensation,  and  under  private  arrange- 
ment, unless  the  injured  party  proved  exorbitant 
in  his  demand,  when  the  case  was  referred  to  the 
judge,  who  seems  addressed  in  Deut.  xix.  21.  The 
Targum  of  Jonathan  renders  the  words,  ‘the  price 
of  a tooth  for  a tooth,1  in  Exod.  xxi.  21  ; Lev. 
xxiv.  20 ; and  Deut.  xix.  21  (comp.  Josephus, 
Antiq.  iv.  8.  35,  and  the  article  Punisiimknt  in 
this  work);  but  if  a master  inflicted  this  irrepa- 
rable damage  upon  a servant,  i.  e.  slave,  of  either 
sex,  he  was  punished  by  the  absolute  loss  of  his 
slave's  services  (Exod.  xxi.  27).  The  same  law 
applied,  if  the  slave  was  a Gentile,  notwithstanding 
the  national  glosses  of  the  Jewish  doctors  (Selden, 
DeJtire  Net.  et  Gent.  iv.  1,  p.  468).  Our  Lord’s 
comment  upon  the  law  (Matt.  v.  38),  which 
was  mudi  abused  in  his  time  (Horne’s  Introd. 
vol.  ii.  p.  377,  6th  ed.),  prohibits  no  more  than 
retaliation  upon  the  injurer  (to  Trovrjpai),  not 
such  a defence  of  our  innocence  as  may  consist 
in  words,  but  private  revenge , and  especially 
with  such  a disposition  as  actuated  the  aggressor, 
with  impetuous  rage  or  hatred.  His,  exhorta- 
tions relate  rather  to  those  injuries  which  cannot 
be  redressed  by  the  magistrate,  or  by  course  of 
law  : these  we  should  bear,  rather  than  resort  to 
revenge  (see  Uosenmuller,  Grotius,  and  Whitby, 
in  loc.).  Indeed  the  hermeneutics  of  our  Lord's 
precepts  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  require  much 
knowledge,  care,  and  discrimination,  in  order  to 
avoid  a primu  facie  interpretation  of  them,  which 
has  often  been  given,  at  variance  with  his  inten- 
tion, subversive  of  the  principles  of  natural  justice, 
and  productive  of  false  ideas  of  Christian  dt|ty. 

In  Ps.  iii.  7,  we  have  TI^,  for  the  human 
jawbone;  for  that  of  an  ass,  Judg.  xv.  15-17, 
c nayova , ‘ maxillam,  i.  e.  mandibulam  1 (which 
becomes  in  ver.  19,  rbv  \dicKov  t6v 

iv  rrj  aiayovL,  ‘ molarem  dentem  in  maxilla 
asini’)  [Samson]  ; and  for  that  of  leviathan, 
Job  xl.  14,  to  maxillam.  A ‘broken 

(or  rather  ‘bad,1  njTl,  that,  is,  decayed;  Vulg. 
dens  putridus')  tooth,1  is  referred  to  in  Prov.  xxv. 
19,  as  furnishing  an  apt  similitude  of  ‘confi- 
dence in  an  unfaithful  man  in  the  time  ot 
trouble.1  ‘The  teeth  of  beasts,1  or  rather  ‘tooth,’ 
is  a phrase  expressive  of  devastation  by  wild 
animals  : thus,  ‘ I will  send  the  tooth  of  neaata 
upon  them 1 (Deut.  xxxii.  24),  oSovrns 


TOOTH,  TEETH. 

faiplwv,  dentes  bestiarum  (comp.  2 Kings  xvii. 
25).  The  word  is  sometimes  metaphorically  used 
for  a sharp  cl  iff  or  summit  of  a rock  (Job  xxxix. 
28)  : thus,  ‘ The  eagle  dwelleth  and  abideth  upon 

the  footh  of  the  rock  eV  e£oxp 

rrerpas,  inaccessis  rupibus.  So  also  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
4)  : ‘ a sharp  rock  on  the  one  side  and  a sharp  rock 

on  the  other  side y^DiV|£2,  oSovs  irerpas,  quasi 
in  modum  dentium  scopuli  : these  eminences 
were  named  Bozez  and  Seneh. 

Teeth,  D’OSJ*  oSovres,  dentes , is  found  in 
the  dual  number  only,  referring  to  the  two  rows, 
yet  used  for  the  plural  (1  Sam.  ii.  13).  The  word 
occurs  first  with  reference  to  the  literal  organs 
in  man  (Gen.  xlix.  12) : ‘ His  teeth  shall  be  white 
with  milk,’  which  the  Sept,  and  Vulg.  understand 
to  mean  ‘whiteness  greater  than  milk,’  -])  yd\a, 
lactc  candidiores  (Nutn.  xi.  33;  Prov.  x.  26; 
Cant.  iv.  2;  vi.  6).  Although  be  the 

general  word  for  teeth,  yet  the  Hebrews  had  a dis- 
tinct term  for  the  molares  or  jaw  teeth,  especially 

of  the  larger  animals  ; thus,  Dlj/?Dft,  Job  xxix. 

1 7 ; Ps.  lvii.  4 ; Prov.  xxx.  14  ; Joel  i.  6 ; and  by 
transposition  DI^D^D,  Ps.  Iviii.  6,  pvX at,  molcc 
and  molares.  The  apparent  teeth  of  the  leviathan, 
gyrus  dentium , are  however  called  (Jobxli. 

14).  Ivory,  ‘ elephants’  teeth,"  1 Kings  x.  22,  is 
simply  D'OKJ;  in  Sept,  deest ; Vulg.  dentes  ele- 
phantorum:  dens  in  Latin  is  sometimes  so  used. 
In  2 Chron.  ix.  21,  the  word  is  obovres 

i\€(pduTiuoi,  ebur,  where  evidently  denotes  a 
tooth ; but  the  signification  of  the  latter  part, 
COP!,  is  unknown,  and  Gesenius  thinks  that  the 
form  of  the  word  may  be  so  corrupted  as  to  dis- 
guise its  original  meaning.  May  it  not  be  of 
foreign  origin,  imported  with  the  material  from 
Ophir?  [Ivory].  In  other  passages  the  reference 
to  teeth  is  metaphorical ; thus,  ‘ a flesh-hook  with 
three  teeth,’  that  is,  prongs  (l  Sam.  ii.  13) 
[Hooks].  ‘ The  teeth  of  lions’  is  a symbol  of  the 
cruelty  and  rapacity  of  the  wicked  (Job  iv.  10). 
‘To  take  one's  flesh  into  one’s  teeth,’ signifies  to 
gnaw  it  with  anguish  (Job  xi  ii.  14  ; comp.  Rev. 
xvi.  10.  ‘ Tlie  skin  of  his  teeth,"  with  which  Job 

says  he  had  ‘escaped’  in  his  affliction,  is  under- 
stood by  the  Vulgate,  of  the  lips — ‘derelicta  sunt 
tantummodo  labia  circa  dentes  meos  but  Gese- 
nius understands  it  as  a proverbial  expression, 
meaning,  I have  scarcely  a sound  spot  in  my 
body.  ‘ To  smite  upon  the  jaw-bone"  and  * to  break 
the  teeth,’  mean  to  disgrace,  and  to  disable  (Ps. 
iii.  7 : comp.  Mic.  vi.  13  ; l Kings  xx.  35  ; Lam. 
iii.  30).  The  teeth  of  calumniators,  &c.,  are  com- 
pared to ‘spears  and  arrows’  (Ps.  lvii.  4 ; comp. 
I Sam.  xxiv.  9).  To  break  the  teeth  of  such  per- 
sons, means  to  disable  them  (Ps.  Iviii.  6).  To 
escape  the  malice  of  enemies,  is  called  an  ‘ escape 
from  their  teeth  ’ (Ps.  exxiv.  6 ; Zech.  ix.  7). 
Oppression  is  compared  to  ‘ jaw-teeth  like  swords, 
and  grladers  like  knives  ’ (Prov.  xxx.  14).  Beau- 
tiful ;i’3fh  are  compared  to  ‘sheep  newly  shorn 
and  washed"  in  Cant.  iv.  2;  vi.  6 ; but  the  re- 
maining part  of  the  comparison,  ‘ whereof  every 
one  beareth  twins,  and  none  is  barren  among 
them,’  is  much  better  rendered  by  Le  Clerc,  ‘all 
of  them  twins,  and  none  hath  lost  his  fellow.’  To 
break  the  teeth  with  gravel  stones,’  is  a most 
lyuerbolical  metaphor  for  inflicting  the  harshest 
iisappointment  (Lam.  iii.  16).  ‘Iron  teeth* 


TOPHET.  881 

are  the  symbol  of  destructive  power  (Dan.  rii.  7, 
19)..  A nation  having  the  teeth  of  lions,  and  t'h« 
cheek-teeth  of  a great  lion,  denotes  one  which  de- 
vours with  irresistible  force  (Joel  i.  6 ; comp, 
Ecclus.  xxi.  2;  Rev.  ix.  8).  ‘Prophets  who  bite 
with  their  teeth,  and  cry  Peace,’  are  greedy  and 
hypocritical  prophets  (Mic.  iii.  5).  ‘ To  take 

away  blood  out  of  the  mouth,  and  abominations 
from  between  the  teeth,’  means,  to  rescue  the  in- 
tended victims  of  cruelty  (Zech.  ix.  7).  ‘ Clean- 
ness of  teeth,’  is  a periphrasis  for  hunger,  famine 
(Amos  iv.  6);  Sept.  yop-fpiaafiv  cbuvrwv’,  Sym- 
machus  and  Tlieodotion,  Kadapiapou.  Gnash- 
ing of  teeth  means  properly  grinding  the  teeth 
with  rage  or  despair.  The  Hebrew  word  so  ren- 
dered is  pin  (Job  xvi.  9;  Lam.  ii.  16  ; Ps.  xxxv 
16;  xxxvii.  12;  cxii.  10)  : it  is  invariably  ren- 
dered in  the  Sept.  Ppvx&,  and  in  the  Vulg.  infre- 
mo,  fremo,  frendo(see  also  Acts  vii.  54  ; Ecclus.  Ii. 
2).  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  said  of  the  epilep- 
tic child  (Mark  ix.  18),  rpifci  tovs  bbovras,  stridet 
dentibus.  The  phrase,  6 fipvy/xbs  tuu  obovTuv,  is  in 
the  Vulgate  ‘stridor  dentium’  (Matt.  viii.  12;  xiii. 
42,  50;  xxii.  13;  xxiv.  51  ; xxv.  30;  Luke  xiii. 
28).  Suidas  defines  Ppvypos’  Tpnrpbs  bbovrwv. 
Galen,  6 air 6 ruv  bbovTwv  avy KpovopAvuv  \f/o<pos . 
The  phrase  ‘ lest  thou  gnash  thy  teeth  ’ (Ecclus. 
xxx.  10),  is  yopcpidaeis  tovs  oborras  aov.  ‘To 
cast  in  the  teeth,"  is  an  old  English  phrase  (for 
the  Hebrew  has  no  such  idiom),  signifying  to  re- 
proach ; thus  ‘ the  thieves  who  were  crucified 
with  Jesus  cast  the  same  in  his  teeth,’  wvetSt- 
(ov  o.vtqv  (Matt,  xxvii.  44) ; Vulg.  improperabant 
ei ; compare  also  the  Bible  and  Prayer  Book  ver- 
sion of  Ps.  xiii.  11.  DVD'S,  ‘ a sharp  threshing  in- 
strument having  teeth,"  literally  ‘edges'  (Is.  xli. 
15).  The  action  of  acids  on  the  teeth  is  referred 
to  in  the  proverb,  ‘ the  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge’ 
(Ezek.  xviii.  2)  : eyopcpiaaavy  obstvpuerunt (Prov. 
x.  26).— J.  F.  D. 

TOPAZ.  [PlTDAH.] 

TOPHET  (DSD  ; Sept.  Ta<p4Q ; Vulg.  To- 
pheth ),  a place  very  near  to  Jerusalem,  on  the 
south-east,  in  the  valley  of  the  children  of  Hin- 
nom,  where  the  ancient  Canaanites,  and  after- 
wards the  apostate  Israelites,  made  their  children 
to  pass  through  the  fire  to  Moloch  (comp.  Ps. 
cvi.  38 ; Jer.  vii.  31).  If  is  first  mentioned,  in  the 
order  of  time,  by  Isaiah,  who  alludes  to  it  as 
deep  and  large,  and  having  an  abundance  of  fuel 
(ch.  xxx.  33).  He  here  evidently  calls  the  place 
where  Sennacherib’s  army  was  destroyed  (b.c. 
710)  Tophet,  by  a metonymy  ; for  it  was  probably 
overthrown  at  a greater  distance  from  Jerusalem, 
and  quite  on  the  opposite  side  of  it,  since  Nob  is 
mentioned  as  the  last  station  from  which  the  king 
of  Assyria  should  threaten  Jerusalem  (ch.  x.  32), 
where  the  prophet  seems  to  have  given  a very 
exact  chorographical  description  of  his  march  in 
order  to  attack  the  city  (Lowth’s  Translation, 
Notes  on  xxx.  33).  In  the  reformation  of 
religion  by  King  .losiah  (b.c.  624),  he  causeo 
Topheth  to  be  defiled  in  order  to  suppress  idolatry 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  10).  The  means  he  adopted  for 
this  purpose  are  not  specified,  whether  by  throw- 
ing all  manner  of  filth  into  it,  as  well  as  by 
overthrowing  the  altars,  &c..  as  the  Syriac  and 
Arabic  versions  seem  to  understand  it.  The  pro- 
phet Jeremiah  was  ordered  by  God  to  announc* 


TOPHET. 


TOWNS. 


from  this  spot  (ch.  xix.  14)  the  approaching  cap- 
tivity, and  the  destruction,  both  by  the  siege  of 
the  city  and  by  famine,  of  so  many  of  the  people, 
whose  carcases  should  be  here  buried,  as  that  it 
should  ‘ no  more  be  called  Tophet,  nor  the  valley 
of  the  son  of  Iiinnom,  but  the  valley  of  slaugh- 
ter’ (ch.  vii.  31,  32;  xix.  6,  11-14).  The  name 
of  this  place  is  generally  derived  from  ‘a 
drum/  because,  it  is  said,  the  rites  of  Moloch 
were  accompanied  with  the  sound  of  that  instru- 
ment; but,  in  the  absence  of  any  other  evidence, 
this  assertion  must  be  considered  a mere  Rab- 
binical conjecture,  derived  from  the  etymon. 
Some,  with  more  probability,  derive  the  word 
from  Chald.  P]in,  ‘ to  spit  out/  or  ‘ vomit  •/  hence 
TlSn,  ‘ that  which  causes  loathing  or  abhorrence’ 
(comp.  Job  xvii.  16.  Hebrew).  Others  derive  it 
from  the  fire-stove  (DDH)  in  which  the  children 
were  burnt  to  Moloch  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  3).  The 
place  miglrt  he  called,  even  by  the  idolaters 
themselves,  nnSH.  ‘the  place  of  burning/  With 
regard  to  its  locality,  Jerome,  on  Jer.  vii.  31, 
remarks,  * Tophet  signifies  that  place  which  is  wa- 
tered by  the  streams  of  Siloam  ; it  is  pleasant,  and 
woody,  affording  horticultural  pleasures/  Euse- 
bius, in  his  Onomasticon,  under  the  word  Qa<pe6, 
says,  ‘ In  the  suburbs  of  Ailah  is  still  shown  the 
place  so  called,  to  which  is  adjacent  the  fuller’s 
pool  and  the  potter's  field,  or  the  parcel  of  ground 
Acheldamach.’  For  an  account  of  the  modern 
aspect  of  the  place,  see  Kitto’s  Physical  History 
of  Palestine  (pp.  122,  123).  After  the  return  from 
the  captivity,  the  Jews  resumed  the  ancient  name 
for  the  whole  valley,  viz  , the  valley  of  Hinnom, 
called  in  our  Lord’s  time  by  the  Greek  name 
Ge  Hinnom,  by  corruption  Ttevv a [Gehen- 
na] ; and  in  order  to  perpetuate  the  disgrace  of 
idolatry,  they  made  it  the  common  receptacle 
of  the  filth,  &c.,  of  the  city,  in  which  ‘ fires’  were 
continually  kept  burning,  to  consume  the  car- 
cases of  animals,  executed  criminals,  & c.,  the 
unconsumed  portions  of  which,  as  well  as  the  off- 
scourings in  general,  became  the  nidus  of  insects, 
whose  larvae,  or  ‘ worms,’  revelled  in  the  corrup- 
tion. These  circumstances  furnished  the  most 
apt  representation  to  the  Jewish  mind  of  future 
punishment  (comp.  Judith  xvi.  17 ; Ecclus.  vii. 
17;  see  also  Chaldee  Par.  on  Isa.  xxxiii.  4,  where 

vby  npiD,  ‘ everlasting  burnings/  is  rendered 
‘the  Gehenna  of  everlasting  fire’).  Some  writers, 
however,  restrict  our  Lord's  allusions  to  Gehenna 
(Matt.  v.  22)  entirely  to  temporal  punishments. 
Thus,  ‘whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  with- 
out a cause,’  i.  e.  captious,  peevish,  aibitrary,  iras- 
cible, ‘shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment,’  that 
is,  by  indulging  such  an  unreasonable  disposition 
shall  be  in  danger  of  committing  some  act  for 
which  he  shall  be  cited  before  rj  Kpiais,  ‘ the 
judgment,’  an  inferior  court,  consisting  of  seven 
presidents — taken  before  the  magistrate  for  an 
assault,  as  we  should  say:  ‘and  whosoever  shall 
say  to  his  brother,  Raca/  i.  e.  worthless,  dissolute! 
‘shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council/ or  Sanhedrim 
— shall  render  himself  liable,  by  the  indulgence 
of  such  a rancorous  disposition,  and  by  the  use 
of  such  injurious  language,  to  be  called  to  trial 
for  slander — cited  before  the  spiritual  court,  as 
we  should  say,  for  defamation  : ‘ but  whosoever 
shall  say,  Moreh/  * thou  atheistic  wretch  !’  eyo%os 
it  +at  rts  tt]u  yeevvav  rov  Ttvpos,  will  betray  a 


likelihood  of  incurring  capital  punishment — com* 
to  the  gallows,  as  we  say- -through  violence  of  dis- 
position, and  of  his  body  being  cast  into  Gehenna, 
and  exposed  to  its  ‘fire’  and  ‘worm/  Our 
Lord’s  object  in  the  use  of  these  several  figures 
is  simply  to  exemplify  the  danger  of  unrestrained 
anger.  So  also  his  illustration  of  the  evil  of  un- 
restrained concupiscence,  &c.  (Matt.  v.  27-31)  is 
to  be  understood.  The  principle  on  which  he 
reasons  is  no  doubt  applicable  to  future  punish- 
ment ; namely,  that  self-denial,  at  any  cost,  is 
preferable  to  the  evils  incurred  by  the  neglefct 
of  it— J F.  D. 

TOWNS.  We  use  the  term  in  its  general  sig- 
nification, so  as  to  embrace  any  assemblage  of 
inhabited  human  dwellings  of  larger  size  than  a 
hamlet  or  a village,  the  only  way  in  which  we 
can  speak  with  correctness  and  advantage. 

Towns  are  a natural  result  of  the  aggregative 
principle  in  human  nature.  Necessity  led  the 
early  races  of  men  to  build  their  towns  on  lefty 
spots,  where,  with  the  aid  of  the  natural  advan- 
tages of  the  ground,  they  could  easily  protect 
themselves  against  beasts  of  prey  and  human  foes. 
A town,  and  a stronghold  or  fort,  would  thus  be 
originally  identical.  As  population  increased 
and  agriculture  spread,  so  some  degree  of  security 
came,  which  permitted  the  inhabitants  of  the 
castle  to  diffuse  themselves  over  the  hill-side,  and 
take  up  their  abode  in  the  valley,  and  by  the  side 
of  the  stream  that  lay  nearest  their  acropolis  ; still 
the  inhabitants  kept  at  no  great  distance  from  the 
centre  of  strength,  in  older  not  to  be  deprived  of 
its  protection.  The  town,  however,  would  thus  be 
enlarged,  and  as  the  necessity  for  self-defence  still 
existed,  so  would  the  place  soon  be  surrounded 
witli  walls.  Tlius  would  there  be  outer  and  inner 
bulwarks,  and  in  some  sort  two  species  of  com- 
munity— the  townspeople,  who  tilled  the  ground 
and  carried  on  trade,  and  the  soldiers,  whose 
business  it  was  to  afford  protection  : these  two, 
however,  in  the  earliest  stages  of  civilization  were 
one,  the  peasant  and  tradesman  taking  arms  when 
the  town  was  put  in  -danger.  How  early  towns 
were  formed  cannot  be  determined  by  any  general 
principle : they  were  obviously  a work  of  time  . 
The  primary  tendency  in  population  was  to  dif- 
fuse itself.  Aggregation  on  particular  spots  would 
take  place  at  a later  period.  When  then  Cain  is 
said  to  have  built  a city  (Gen.  iv.  17),  the  first 
city  (Enoch,  so  called  after  Cain's  son),  we  have 
evidence  which  concurs  with  other  intimations  to 
show  that  it  is  only  a partial  history  of  the  first 
ages  that  we  possess  in  the  records  of  the  book  of 
Genesis.  In  the  time  of  the  Patriarchs  we  find 
towns  existing  in  Palestine  which  were  originally 
surrounded  with  fortifications,  so  as  to  make  them 
‘ fenced  cities.’  In  these  dwelt  the  agricultural 
population,  who  by  means  of  these  places  of 
strength  defended  themselves  and  their  property 
from  the  nomad  tribes  of  the  neighbouring  desert, 
who  then,  as  they  do  now,  lived  by  plunder.  Nor 
were  works  of  any  great  strength  necessary.  In 
Palestine  at  the  present  day,  while  walls  are  in 
most  parts  an  indispensable  protection,  and  agri- 
culture can  be  advantageously  prosecuted  only  so 
far  as  sheltered  by  a fortified  town,  erections  of  a 
very  slight  nature  are  found  sufficient  for  the 
purpose,  the  rather  because  the  most  favourable 
localities  offer  themselves  on  all  sides,  owing  to  the 
natural  inequality  of  the  ground.  The  ensuing  el- 


TOWNS. 


TOWNS. 


889 


tract  ( Travels  in  Egypt  and  the  Holy  Land , &c., 
by  Rev.  S.  Olin,  New  York,  1843,  vol.  ii.  423, 
424)  throws  light  on  the  subject, : — ‘Continuing 
our  route  over  a well-wootled  limestone  ridge,  we 
came  in  sight  of  a large  village  which  occupied  a 
hill  directly  before  us,  while  farther  to  the  right, 
and  upon  a still  loftier  summit,  was  a ruinous 
castle  of  great  extent,  and  from  its  commanding 
position,  of  very  imposing  appearance.  The  in- 
tervening region  and  that  to  the  right  of  the  castle, 
was  undulating,  fertile,  and  cultivated.  We  were 
nearly  an  hour  in  reaching  the  base  of  the  iso- 
lated mount,  which  we  passed  to  the  right  through 
a deep  ravine  that  divides  it  from  another  lofty 
hill  on  the  east,  which  is  also  surmounted  with 
what  appeared  to  be  a ruined  fortress.  We  passed 
round  the  acropolis  to  the  north  side,  where  we 
obtained  a good  view  of  this  ancient  stronghold. 
It  embraces  the  entire  summit  of  the  mountain 
within  a massive  wall,  which,  as  well  as  the  se- 
veral towers  by  which  it  was  strengthened,  is  in  a 
very  dilapidated  state.  A little  further  west 
another  summit  is  occupied  by  ruinous  bulwarks 
and  towers.  The  large  village,  called  from  the 
castle,  Tibinin,  or  Chibinin,  lies  in  a valley  be- 
tween these  two  fortified  hills.  East  of  the  prin- 
cipal works  is  another  elevation  surmounted  with 
ruins,  and  farther  in  the  same  direction,  beyond 
the  narrow  valley  we  had  just  traversed,  is  a fourth 
summit,  the  one  I have  already  referred  to  as 
having  ruins  upon  its  top.’  From  this  striking 
passage,  an  illustration  may  be  gathered  of  the 
force  of  our  Lord’s  language,  when  he  describes 
his  disciples  as  a city  set  on  a hill,  that  cannot  be 
hid  (Matt.  v.  14).  Jesus  has  been  thought  to 
refer  in  this  description  to  some  particular  city, 
and  the  modern  Safet  has  been  fixed  on  and  is 
still  traditionally  regarded  as  the  place  which 
lie  had  in  view.  This  town,  now  in  a ruinous 
state, — one  of  the  four  cities — Hebron,  Tiberias, 
Jerusalem,  Safet,  regarded  as  especially  holy — 
occupies  the  summit  of  the  highest  mountain  in 
Galilee,  and  one  of  the  highest  in  the  Jewish 
territories.  It  is  conspicuously  seen  from  a great 
distance  in  all  directions  but  the  north.  The 
town  does  not  occupy  the  precise  summit  of  the 
rounded  mountain,  but  rather  the  sloping  ground 
immediately  below  it,  a military  castle  or  citadel 
having  been  erected  upon  the  highest  point.  The 
hilly  position  of  towns  sometimes  caused  the 
dwellings  to  be  curiously  placed  relatively  to  each 
other.  Thus,  in  Safet,  the  traveller,  as  he  sits  on 
tiis  horse  in  the  midst  of  the  town,  finds  the  smoke 
jf  a kitchen  rise  from  the  earth  near  him,  and  by 
a little  survey  ascertains  that  the  smoke  issues 
from  the  mouth  of  a chimney  standing  a few 
inches  above  the  ground  at  his  horse’s  feet : that 
he  and  his  animal  are  in  reality  on  the  flat  roof 
of  ahouse;  and  that,  as  the  hill-side  is  nearly  per- 
pendicular, the  inhabitants  have  judged  it  the 
easiest  mode  of  building  to  place  the  houses  one 
upon  another. 

Of  the  ancient  method  of  building  in  towns 
and  cities  we  have  no  accurate  knowledge,  any 
fvrtner  than  we  may  gather  information  from  the 
ruins  which  still  lie  on  the  soil  of  Palestine.  But 
these  ruins  can  afford  only  general  notions,  as, 
though  they  are  numerous,  and  show  that  the 
Land  of  Promise  was  thickly  peopled  and  highly 
Sourishing  in  its  better  days,  the  actual  remains 
%f  ancient,  towns  are  to  be  ascribed  to  di Cerent 


and  very  distant  periods  of  history.  The  crusade* 
left  many  strongholds  which  are  now  in  a state 
of  dilapidation  ; but  the  crusades  are  of  modem 
days  compared  with  the  times  of  the  Saviour, 
which  themselves  are  remote  from  the  proper 
antiquity  of  the  nation.  The  law  of  sameness, 
however,  which  prevails  so  rigidly  in  Eastern 
countries,  gives  us  an  assurance  that  a modern 
town  in  Palestine  may  be  roughly  taken  as  a 
type  of  its  ancient  predecessors. 

At  the  gates  of  the  town,  which  were  frequented 
as  the  court  of  justice,  the  town’s  market,  the 
rendezvous  for  loungers,  newsmongers,  pleasure- 
seekers,  there  were  wide  open  places  of  greater  or 
less  dimensions,  where  on  important  occasions  the 
entire  population  assembled  for  consultation  or  for 
action  (Nell.  viii.  1,  16;  2 Cnron.  xxxii.  6; 
2 Sam.  xxi.  12;  Job  xxix.  7;  2 Kings  vii.  1). 
The  streets  were  not.  so  narrow  as  streets  generally 
are  in  modern  Oriental  towns.  Their  names  were 
sometimes  taken  from  the  wares  or  goods  that  were 
sold  in  them : thus  in  Jer.  xxxvii.  21,  we  read  of 
‘the  bakers'  street.’  The  present  bazaars  seem  to 
be  a continuation  of  this  ancient  custom.  The 
streets  of  Jerusalem  at  least  were  paved  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  xx.  9.  7) ; but  the  streets  of  most  cities  of 
Palestine  would  not  need  paving,  in  consequence 
of  the  rocky  nature  of  the  foundations  on  which 
they  lay.  Herod  the  Great  laid  an  open  road  in 
Antioch  with  polished  stone  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xvi. 
5.  3;  comp.  1 Kings  xx.  34).  in  regard  to  the 
earlier  periods,  we  find  only  a notice  to  the  effect 
that  Solomon  caused  the  fore-court  of  the  temple 
to  be  laid  with  flags.  Besides  paved  streets, 
Jerusalem  before  the  exile  had  an  extensive  sys- 
tem of  watercourses  or  aqueducts,  which  seems 
to  have  been  rendered  necessary  by  the  natural 
supply  having  been  limited  to  one  or  two  spots 
in  the  immediate  vicinity.  This  subject  has  been 
handled  by  Robinson,  and  more  fully  by  Olin 
(ii.  139,  sq.  : see  Isa.  vii.  3 ; xxii.  9 ; 2 Kings 
xx.  20;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  3.  2).  Other  cities 
were  contented  with  the  fountains  whose  existence 
had  probably  led  to  their  formation  at  the  first. 

Palestine  underwent  constant  changes  in  regard 
to  its  towns,  from  the  earliest  ages  ; one  conse- 
quence of  which  is,  that  there  are  names  of  towns 
that  belong  exclusively  to  certain  eras.  The  pe- 
riod of  the  Roman  domination  gave  existence,  as 
to  structures  of  great  splendour,  so  to  many  towns 
and  fortified  places.  Galilee  was  especially  rich 
in  towns  and  villages,  which,  according  to  Jose- 
phus (Vita,  § 45),  amounted  in  all  to  the  number 
of  201.  The  names  of  the  Palestinian  cities,  for 
the  most  part,  have  meaning,  reference  being  made 
to  the  nature  of  the  locality,  as  Rama,  Ain, 
Jericho,  Bethlehem,  Gibeon,  Mizpah.  Many  are 
compounds  formed  with  the  aid  of  one  of  the  fol- 
lowing words,  rV2  (house), “fy  or  JVTp  (city),TVn 
(court),  pfty  (valley),  (a  grass  plot),  TJQ 
(well),  py  (fountain),  '"123  ^namlet).  To  distin- 
guish cities  that,  bore  the  same  name,  the  name  of 
the  tribe  was  added.  In  ‘ the  latter  days,’  especially 
under  the  Herods,  it  was  tne  fashion  to  give  to 
ancient,  towns  new  Greek  names,  as  Diospolis, 
Neapolis,  Sebaste,  Caesarea,  Tiberias.  Jerusa- 
lem, at  a later  period,  was  denominated  iEha 
Capitolina.  These  innovations  indicated  the 
slavish  disposition  of  the  age,  and  were  tokens  of 
the  bondage  in  which  the  nation  was  held ; aa 


890  TRACHONITIS. 

much  as  the  incorporation  of  the  name  (Baal), 
at  a much  earlier  era,  pointed  out  the  Canaan- 
itish  origin  of  a place,  and  gave  reason  to  think 
that  it  was  originally  addicted  to  idolatrous  wor- 
ship. The  population  of  towns  cannot,  now  be 
ascertained  with  any  degree  of  accuracy,  for  the 
materials  are  not  only  scanty  and  disconnected, 
hut  in  a measure  uncertain.  Respecting  the  go- 
vernment of  towns,  we  have  no  detailed  informa- 
tion relating  to  the  ante-exilian  periods,  though  it 
was  probably  in  the  hands  of  the  elders;  and  in 
Deut.  xv i.  IS,  Moses  commands,  ‘Judges  (Heng- 
stenberg  translates  the  word  ‘scribe’  or  ‘writer,’ 
Authentic  des  Pent,  i.450)  and  officers  shalt  thou 
make  thee  in  all  thy  gates,  and  they  shall  judge 
the  people  with  just  judgment.’  In  the  post- 
exilian  era  magistrates  occur  under  the  name  of 
Council  (Joseph.  Vita,  6 14.  34,  61,68),  at  whose 
head  was  a president  or  mayor  (Joseph.  Vita,  § 
27;  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  21.  3).— J.  R.  B. 

TRACHONITIS  (Tp«xwwr«;  |imO)  was,  in 
the  days  of  the  Herod ian  dynasty,  the  name  of 
the  country  situated  between  the  Antilibanus  and 
the  Arabian  mountains  south  of  Damascus  and 
west  of  the  provinces  of  Batanaea,  Gaulonitis, 
Iturasa,  and  Auranitis,  under  about  the  thirty- 
third  degree  of  northern  latitude.  Eusebius,  in  his 
Onomasticon,  s.v..  Ituraea,  places  Trachonitis  be- 
tween Rostra  and  Damascus  Plin.  (Hist.  Nat.  v. 
16  ; Strabo,  xvi.  pp.  75 5,  756).  This  country  had 
its  name  from  the  Greek  Tpax^v  = Tpaxvs  teal 
TrerpuiSgs  tottos.  a rough  and  rocky  place.  Jo- 
sephus sometimes  uses  the  term  Tpaxcor.  instead 
of  Trachonitis  ( Antiq . xiii.  16.  5;  De  Bell.  Jud. 
iii.3.  5).  Strabo  mentions  two  T pax&ves,  which, 
according  to  Burckhardt  (R.  I.  115),  are  the 
summits  of  two  mountain-ranges  on  the  road  from 
Mecca  to  Damascus,  near  the  village  El  Kes- 
sue.  Trachonitis  is  at.  present  called  Ledja. 
The  eastern  range  of  mountains  is  now  called 
Dshebel  Manai , and  contains  great  caverns  in 
chalk  rocks.  The  southern  portions  of  the  an- 
cient Trachonitis,  or  the  present  Ledja,  consist 
chiefly  of  basalt  rocks.  A Greek  inscription  found 
at  the  modern  Missema,  one  league  and  a half 
from  Sbaara,  proves  that  the  surrounding  country 
was  part  of  Trachonitis  (Burckhardt’s  R.  I.  201, 
510;  comp.  Berghaus,  Annalen,  i.  556,  ii.  453). 
The  inhabitants  of  Trachonitis  are  called  by 
Ptolemy  (v.  15)  ol  TpaxuArai  ''Apa/Hes,  the  Tra- 
chonite  Arabians,  and  are  described  by  Josephus 
(Antiq.  xv.  10.  l)as  much  addicted  to  robbery. 
A very  famous  commander  of  banditti  named 
Zenodorus  is  mentioned  by  Strabo  and  Josephus. 
Under  him  the  robbers  gave  so  much  trouble,  and 
made  the  country  so  unquiet,  that  Augustus  was 
induced  to  put  Trachonitis  under  the  authority 
of  Herod  the  Great ; who  forthwith  took  such 
vigorous  and  decided  measures  as  soon  brought 
the  district  into  a state  of  security. 

After  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great,  Trachonitis 
belonged  to  the  tetrarchy  of  his  son  Philip  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  xvi.  4.  6,  and  9.  1;  xviii.  5.  6;  De  Bell. 
Jud.  ii.  6.  3).  At  a later  time  it  belonged  to 
Herod  Agrippa  (Antiq.  xx.  6.  I ; De  Bell.  Jud. 
iii.  3.  5 ; Philo,  Opp.  ii.  593 ; comp.  Rammer’s 
Pdlastina,  p.  158,  sq. ; Winer’s  Real-  Worter- 
\uch,  under  Trachonitis. — C.  H.  F.  B. 

TRANCE  (nQT"fF) : Sept.  e/c<rra<m,  Vulg. 
pypor ; Geu.  ii.  21.  &c.),  a supernatural  state  of 


TRANCE. 

body  and  mind,  the  nature  of  which  has  been  wel* 
conjectured  by  Doddridge,  who  defines  it — ‘Such 
a rapture  of  mind  as  gives  the  person  who  falls  into 
it  a look  of  astonishment,  and  renders  him  insen- 
sible of  the  external  objects  around  him,  while  in 
the  meantime  his  imagination  is  agitated  in  an 
extraordinary  manner  with  some  striking  scenes 
which  pass  before  it  and  take  up  all  the  attention.’ 
He  refers  to  some  extraordinary  instances  of  this 
kind  mentioned  by  Gualtperius  in  his  note  on  Acts 
x.  It)  (Family  Expositor , in  loc.,  note  g.)  Stock  ins 
also  describes  it  as  ‘ A sacred  ecstasy,  or  rapture 
of  the  mind  out  of  itself,  when  the  use  of  the  ex- 
ternal senses  being  suspended,  God  reveals  some- 
thing in  a peculiar  manner  to  prophets  and 
apostles,  who  are  then  taken  or  transported  out  of 
themselves.’  The  same  idea  is  intimated  in  the 
English  word  trance,  from  the  Latin  ‘ transitus  * 
the  state  of  being . carried  out.  of  oneself.  The 
Greek  word,  e Karacris , denotes  the  effect  of  any 
passion  by  which  the  thoughts  are  wholly  ab- 
sorbed. In  the  Sept,  it  corresponds  to  ‘ a 

wonderful  thing  ’ (Jer.  v.  30)  ; and  pnEJ"l,  ‘asto- 
nishment ’ (Deut.  xxviii.  28).  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament it  represents  the  absorbing  effects  of  ad- 
miration (Mark  v.  42;  Luke  v.  26;  Acts  iii. 
10);  of  terror,  Mark  xvi.  8.  The  Hebrew  word 
is  used  to  denote  the  prophetic  ecstasy.  Thus 
‘ the  deep  sleep  ’ which  fell  upon  Adam  during 
the  creation  of  Eve  (Gen.  ii.  21),  and  during 
which,  as  appears  from  the  narrative,  he  was  made 
aware  of  the  transaction,  and  of  the  purport  of  the 
attendant  circumstances  (21-24)  [Marriage]. 
It  is  applied  again  to  the  ‘deep  sleep  ’ which  fell 
upon  Abraham  (xv.  12,  e/ccrracris,  sopor),  during 
which  the  bondage  of  his  descendants  in  Egypt 
was  revealed  to  him.  Possibly  all  the  accounts 
recorded  in  that  chapter  occurred  in  ‘ vision  ’ 
(1-12),  which  ultimately  deepened  into  the  trance 
(12-21).  Compare  verses  5,  12,  where  he  is  said 
to  have  seen  the  stars,  though  the  sun  was  not 
gone  down.  The  apparent  objection,  that  Abra- 
ham was  ‘ brought  forth  abroad  ’ to  see  the  stars, 
is  only  of  the  same  nature  with  others  explained 
in  the  Art.  Temptation  ok  our  Lord.  Some, 
perhaps  many  things  recorded  in  Scripture,  belong 
to  this  supernatural  slate  of  trance,  which  are  not 
expressly  referred  to  it.  See  the  long  list  of  such 
supposed  instances  in  Bishop  Law’s  Considera- 
tion of  the  Theory  of  Religion  (pp.  85,  86,  Lond., 
1820).  Eisner  includes  in  this  list,  the  star  seen 
by  the  wise  men  (Comment,  on  Matt.  ii.  9,  10, 
&c.).  In  the  narrative  which  Balaam  gives  of 
himself  our  translators  have  rightly  added  the 
words  ‘into  a trance ’ after  the  word  ‘falling.’ 
The  incident  of  ihe  ass  speaking  to  him,  &c.,  is 
also  understood  by  many  learned  Jews  and 
Christians  to  have  occurred  in  a vision  (Bishop 
Law,  u.  s.).  To  the  same  mode  of  divine  com- 
munication must  be  referred  the  magnificent 
description  in  Job  iv.  13-21.  Persons  receiving 
it.  often  fall  to  the  earth.  ‘ Abraham  fell  on  his 
face,  and  God  talked  with  him  ’ (Gen.  xvii.  3, 
&c. ; 1 Sam.  xix.  24,  Hebrew,  or  margin  ; Ezek. 
i.  28  ; Dan.  viii.  18  ; x.  15,  16  ; Rev.  i.  10,  17). 
It  is  important  to  observe  that  in  all  these  cases 
the  visions  beheld  are  also  related ; hence  such 
cases  are  distinguished  from  a mere  deliquiuin 
animi.  We  find  cases  of  prophetical  trance  in  tht 
New  Testament  as  that  of  St.  Peter;  ‘he  fell 
into  a trance’  (or  rather  a ‘ trance  fell  upon  him. 


TRANSFIGURATION. 


TRANSFIGURATION. 


8S! 


iirsTreaev  *V  aurW  efccrrains),  during  which  he 
‘ saw  a vision, ' winch  is  therefore  distinguished 
from  the  trance  (Acts  x.  10  ; comp.  St.  Paul’s 
trance,  xxii.  17;  2 Cor.  xii.  2,  &c.).  The  reality 
of  the  vision  is  established  by  the  correspondence 
of  the  event . The  nearest  approach  we  can  make 
to  such  a state  is  that  in  widen  oor  mind  is  so 
occupied  in  the  contemplation  of  an  object  as  to 
lose  entirely  the  consciousness  or  the  body — a state 
in  which  the  highest  order  of  ideas,  whether  be- 
longing to  the  judgment  or  imagination,  is  un- 
doubtedly attained.  Hence  we  can  readily  conceive 
that  such"  a state  might  bo  supernaturally  induced 
for  the  higher  purpose  cf  revelation,  &c.  The 
alleged  phenomena  of  the  Mesmeric  trance  and 
clairvoyance,  if  they  serve  no  higher  purpose,  may 
assist  our  conceptions  of  it. — J.  F.  D. 

TRANSFIGURATION.  One  of  the  most 
wonderful  incidents  in  the  life  of  our  Saviour 
upon  earth,  and  one  so  instructive  that  we  can 
never  exhaus.t.  its  lessons,  is  the  Transfiguration. 
The  apostle  Peter,  towards  the  close  of  his  life,  in 
running  his  mind  over  the  proofs  ofi^Christ's  ma- 
jesty, found  none  so  conclusive  and  irrefragable 
as  the  scenes  when  he  and  others  were  with  him 
in  the  holy  mount,  as  eye  witnesses  that  he  re- 
ceived from  God- the  Father  honour  and  glory, 
when  there  came  such  a voice  to  him  from  the 
excellent,  glory,  ‘ This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I am  well  pleased.’  If  we  divide  Christ's 
public  life  into  three  periods — the  first  of  miracles 
to  prove  his  divine  mission,  the  second  of  parables 
to  inculcate  virtue,  and  the  third  of  suffering,  first 
clearly  revealed  and  then  endured,  to  atone  for 
sin — the  transfiguration  may  be  viewed  as  his 
baptism  or  initiation  into  the  third  and  last.  He 
went  up  the  mount,  of  transfiguration  on  the 
eighth  day  after  he  had  bidden  every  one  who 
would  come  after  him  take  up  his  cross,  de- 
claring that  his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world, 
that  he  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  killed, 
&c. 

The  mount  of  transfiguration  was  long  thought 
to  have  been  Mount  Tabor;  but  as  this  height  is 
fifty  miles  from  Caesarea  Philippi,  where  Jesus 
last  taught,  it  is  now  supposed  to  have  been  a 
mountain  much  less  distant,  namely,  Mount  Her- 
mon.  It  may  have  been  neither  of  them,  and 
nothing  forbids  us  to  imagine  that  it  was  that 
exceeding  high  mountain  where  the  devil  showed 
our  Saviour  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the 
glory  of  them  in  a moment  of  time.  The  only 
persons  thought  worthy  to  ascend  this  mount  of 
vision  were  Peter,  James,  and  John,  three  being 
a competent  number  of  witnesses,  or  they  being 
more  faithful  and  beloved  than  any  others. 
Whatever  the  reason  was,  these  three  disciples 
appear  on  more  than  one  other  occasion  as  an 
elect  triumvirate — as  at  the  raising  of  Jairus’s 
daughter,  and  during  our  Lord’s  agony  in  the 
garden.  The  disciples,  in  all  probability,  ascended 
the  mountain  anticipating  nothing  more  than  that. 
Jesus,  as  at  other  times  (Luke  vi.  12),  would 
continue  all  night  in  prayer  to  God.  When  the 
curtains  of  night  closed  around  them,  they  were 
so  worn  out  by  their  labours  as  to  sink  down  in 
sleep,  till  startled  from  their  slumbers  by  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  shining  round  about  them  ; for 
as  Jesus  prayed,  the  fashion  of  his  countenance 
was  altered,  ‘and  his  face  did  shine  as  the  sun, 
and  his  raiment  was  white  as  the  light.’  And 


behold  there  talked  with  him  two  men,  wnich 
were  Moses  and  Elias,  who  appeared  in  glory, 
and  spake  of  his  decease,  which  he  should  accom- 
plish at  Jerusalem.  Peter's  words,  ‘ Master,  it  is 
good  for  us  to  he  here,’  are  a natural  expression 
of  rapture;  and  his  proposal  to  build  three  taber- 
nacles indicated  his  desire  both  to  keep  his  Lord 
from  going  down  to  Jerusalem  to  die  there,  and 
to  prolong  the  blessedness  of  beholding  with  open 
face  the  glory  of  God.  Such  is  at  least  a plau- 
sible interpretation  of  his  language,  while  4 he 
wist  not  what  to  say.’  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  Peter  had  no  thought  of  tents  for  himself 
and  his  companions,  his  only  desire  being  that 
the  beatific  vision  might  endure  for  ever.  While 
he  yet  spake,  heboid,  a bright  cloud  oversha- 
dowed them — not  a black  cloud,  such  as  that 
which  rested  on  Mount  Sinai,  but  a cloud  glisten- 
ing as  the  Shechinah,  when  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
filled  the  tabernacle,  or  as  the  cloud  that  filled 
the  house  of  the  Lord  when  the  priests  were  come 
out  of  the  holy  place.  4 And  behold  a voice  out 
of  the  cloud' — that  is,  out  of  the  long-established 
symbol  of  Jehovah's  presence — 4 which  said,  This 
is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I am  well  pleased  : 
hear  ye  him.  And  when  the  disciples  heard  it, 
they  fell  on  their  face,  and  were  sore  afraid' — like 
Daniel  and  all  others  who  have  felt  themselves 
entranced  by  revelations  of  God.  4 And  Jesus 
came  and  torched  them,  and  said,  Arise,  and  be 
not  afraid,’ — showing  such  gentleness  as  proved 
him  to  be  fitly  named  the  Lamb  of  God.  How 
long  the  glorification  of  our  Saviour  continued 
it  were  vain  to  inquire;  but  it  appears  from  the 
narrative  of  Luke  that  he  did  not  lead  down  his 
disciples  till  the  day  following  that  on  which 
they  had  ascended  the  height.  As  they  de- 
scended he  bade  his  disciples  keep  what  they  had 
seen  a secret,  till  after  his  resurrection, — doubtless 
because  the  whole  vision,  to  those  who  had  not 
seen  it,  would  have  been  a rock  of  offence,  ap- 
pearing as  an  idle  tale.  He  also  opened  their 
eyes  to  see  that  Elias  whom  they  looked  for  in 
the  future  was  to  he  sought  in  the  past,  even  in 
John  the  Baptist,  who  was  clothed  with  his  spirit 
and  power. 

The  final  causes  of  the  transfiguration,  although 
in  part  wrapped  up  in  mystery,  appear  to  be 
in  part  plain.  Among  its  intended  lessons  may 
be  the  following : — First,  to  teach  that,  in  spite 
of  the  calumnies  which  the  Pharisees  had  heaped 
on  Jesus,  the  old  and  new  dispensations  are  in 
harmony  with  each  other.  To  this  end  the  author 
and  the  restorer  of  the  old  dispensation  talk  with 
the  founder  of  the  new,  as  if  his  scheme,  even  the 
most  repulsive  feature  of  it,  was  contemplated  by 
theirs,  as  the  reality  of  which  they  had  promul- 
gated only  types  and  shadows.  Secondly,  to 
teach  that  the  new  dispensation  was  superior  to 
the  old.  Moses  and  Elias  appear  as  inferior  to 
Jesus,  not  merely  since  their  faces  did  not,  so  far 
as  we  know,  shine  like  the  sun,  but  chiefly  be- 
cause the  voice  from  the  excellent  glory  com- 
manded to  hear  him , in  preference  to  them. 
Thirdly,  to  gird  up  the  energies  of  Jesus  for 
the  great  agony  which  was  so  soon  to  excruciate 
him;  as  in  Gethsemane  itself  an  angel  appeared 
unto  him  strengthening  him;  as  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  upon  him  in  the  likeness  of  a dove 
before  his  temptation  in  the  wilderness;  and  as 
when  the  devil  left  him  angels  came  and  minis- 


TRANSFIGURATION. 


TRIBES. 


•92 

tered  unto  him.  Fourthly,  to  comfort  the  hearts 
of  the  disciples,  who,  being  destined  to  see  their 
master,  whom  they  had  left  all  to  follow,  nailed 
to  a cross,  to  be  themselves  persecuted,  and  to 
sutler  the  want,  of  all  things,  were  in  danger  of 
despair.  But  by  being  eye-witnesses  of  his  ma- 
jesty they  became  convinced  that  his  humiliation, 
even  though  he  descended  into  the  place  of  the 
dead,  was  voluntary,  and  could  not  continue 
long.  Gazing  at  the  glorified  body  of  their 
Master,  they  beheld  not  only  a proof  but  an 
express  and  lively  image  of  his  resurrection, 
ascension,  and  exaltalion  above  the  heavens.  As 
in  a prophetic  vision,  they  beheld  him  seated  upon 
clouds,  and  seen  by  every  eye  as  the  Judge  of 
the  quick  and  the  dead,  or  enthroned  in  heaven 
amid  the  host  of  his  redeemed.  Henceforth  they 
ceased  not  questioning  one  another,  what  the  rising 
from  the  dead  should  mean.  Fifthly,  to  teach 
that  virtue  will  not  allow  supine  contemplation, 
but  demands  the  exercise  and  exertion  of  our 
several  powers.  To  some  this  lesson  may  seem 
a refinement,  hut  it  is  ingeniously  deduced  by 
Schleiermacher  from  the  fact  that  while  Pefer 
yet  spake  in  his  extasy,  the  vision  in  which  he 
longed  to  wear  out.  his  life  vanished  away  : as 
if  the  aim  were  to  teach  us  that  when  we  have 
ascended  the  mount  of  vision  on  the  cherub- 
wings  of  contemplation,  even  if  we  burn  to  dwell 
there  in  a perpetual  sweetness,  yet  we  must  shun 
all  monastic  seclusion,  that  we  may  mingle 
among  men  and  do  them  good ; even  as  the  great 
Exemplar  would  not  let  his  chosen  repose  in  rap- 
turous musings,  and  had  scarcely  come  down 
from  the  mountain  of  his  glory  before  he  recom- 
menced his  works  of  usefulness. 

The  transfiguration  is  so  line  a subject  for  die 
painter  that  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  it 
employed  Raphael’s  best  hours,  and  that  his  por- 
traiture of  it  is  confessedly  the  highest  of  all 
efforts  of  pictorial  genius.  The  original  work, 
still  un faded,  though  more  than  three  centuries 
have  passed  over  it,  hangs  in  the  Vatican.  A 
copy  of  it  in  mosaic,  on  a colossal  scale,  and 
which  might  pass  with  most  men  for  the  original, 
tills  the  head  of  the  left  aisle  in  St.  Pettr's  at 
Rome.  The  design  is  as  simple  as  the  artless 
narrative  of  the  Evangelists.  In  the  centre,  and 
in  raiment  white  as  the  light,  is  He,  the  fashion  of 
whose  countenance  was  altered.  On  either  hand, 
and  floating  on  the  air,  appear  in  glory  Moses 
and  Elias.  Beneath,  the  disci  pies,  overshadowed  , 
by  a bright  cloud,  their  hands  shielding  their 
dazzled  eyes,  are  fallen  on  their  faces,  sore  afraid 
of  the  voice  proceeding  out  of  the  cloud,  hut 
catching  glimpses  of  Jesus  transfigured  before 
them.  Then,  just  below  the  brow  of  the  hill,  the 
only  son  torn  by  a spirit,  foaming,  gnashing  his 
teeth,  and  pining  away,  is  brought,  to  the  dis- 
ciples that  they  may  cure  him,  *and  they  can- 
not. The  scribes  are  cavilling — physicians  close 
the  books  they,  have  consulted  in  vain — the  dis- 
ciples confess  their  impotence — the  mother  and 
sister  of  the  possessed  are  half  frantic — and  the 
multitude  have  no  hope;  but  the  vision  above'fis 
on  the  point  of  bursting  upon  them,  to  amaze 
them  all  at  the  mighty  power  of  God.  Some 
«ay  that  the  wild  eyes  of  .the  boy,  rolling  in 
agpny,  are  already  catching  a glimpse  of  his 
Redeemer  transfigured  in  glory  on  high. 

If,  as  is  <ften  said,  no  picture  is  worth  seeing 


which  can  be  copied  in  language,  what  infatu*. 
tiou  were  it  to  think  of  sketching  the  attitude, 
grouping,  colouring,  and  expression  of  the  figure* 
in  a painting  which  shines  unrivalled  and  inimi- 
table !— J.  D.  B. 

TRIAL.  [Punishment.] 

TRIBES  (rVlLSO,  QvAal,  Iribwi ) i» 

the  name  of  the  great  groups  of  families  into 
which  the  Israelitish  nation,  like  other  Oriental 
races, -was  divided.  The  modern  Arab’s,  the  Be- 
douins, and  the  Berbers,  and  also  the  Moors  on 
the  northern  shores  of  Africa,  are  still  divided  into 
tribes.  The  clans  in  Scotland  are  also  analogous 
to  the  tribes  of  the  ancient  Israelites.  The  divi- 
sion of  a nation  into  tribes  differs  from  a division 
into  castes,  since  one  is  a division  merely  accord 
ing  to  descent,  and  the  other  superadds  a neces- 
sity of  similar  occupations  being  prevalent  among 
persons  connected  by  consanguinity.  There 
occurs,  however,  among  the  Israelites  a caste  also, 
namely,  that  of  the  Levites.  In  Gen.  xlix.  the 
tribes  are  enumerated  according  to  their  proge- 
nitors; viz.,  1,  flEUBEN,  the  first-born  ; 2,  Simeon, 
and  3,  Levi,  instruments  of  cruelty;  4,  Judah, 
whom  his  brethren  shall  praise;  5,  Zabui.on, 
dwelling  at  the  haven  of  the  sea;  6,  Issachak, 
the  strong;  7,  Dan,  the  judge;  8,  Gad,  whom  a 
troop  shall  overcome,  but.  who  shall  vanquish  at 
last;  9,  Ashen,  whose  bread  shall  be  fat ; 10, 
Naphta), i,  giving  goodly  words;  II,  Joseph, 
the  fruitful  bough  ; 12,  Benjamin,  the  wolf ; all 
these  were  originally  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
In  this  enumeration  it  is  remarkable  that  the 
subsequent  division  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  into 
the  two  branches  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  is 
not  yet  alluded  to.  After  this  later  division  of 
the  very  numerous  tribe  of  Joseph  into  the  two 
branches  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  had  taken 
place,  there  were,  strictly  speaking,  thirteen 
tribes.  It  was,  however,  usual  to  view  them  as 
comprehended  under  the  number  twelve,  which 
was  the  more  natural,  since  one  of  them,  namely, 
the  caste  of  the  Levites,  did  not.  live  within  such 
exclusive  geographical  limits  as  were.assigned  to 
the  others  after  they  exchanged  their  immadic  mi- 
grations for  settled  habitations,  hut  dwelt  in  towns 
scattered  through  all  the  other  twelve  tribes.  It 
is  also  remarkable  that,  the  Ishmaelites  as  well  as 
the  Israelites  were  divided  into  twelve  tribes ; and 
that  the  Persians  also,  according  to  Xenophon 
( Cyrojocedia , i.  2,  4 sq.),  were  similarly  divided. 
Among  other  nations  also  occur  ethnological  and 
geographical  divisions,  according  to  the  number 
twelve.  From  this  we  infer  that  the  number 
twelve  was  held  in  so  much  favour  that,  when 
possible,  doubtful  cases  were  adapted  to  it. 
An  analogous  case  we  find  even  at  a later  period, 
when  the  spiritual  progenitors  of  the  Christian 
fiu)8eicd(pvAov,  or  the  apostles,  who  were,  after  the 
death  of  Judas,  the  election  of  Matthias,  and  the 
vocation  of  Paul,  really  thirteen  in  number,  but 
were  nevertheless  habitually  viewed  as  twelve  : so 
that  wherever,  during  the  middle  ages,  any  divi 
sion  was  made  with  reference  to  the  apostles,  the 
number  twelve,  and  not  thirteen,  was  adopted, 
whether  applied  to  the  halls  of  theological  libraries, 
or  to  the  great  barrels  of  costly  wines  in  the  cellar 
of  the  civic  authorities  at  Bremen.  Concerning  the 
arrangement  of  these  tribes  on  their  march  through 
the  wilderness,  in  their  encampments  around  th« 


TRIBES. 


TRIBUTE. 


89* 


»rk,  and  in  their  occupation  of  the  land  of  Canaan, 
*ee  the  cognate  articles,  sucli  as  Exodus,  En- 
campment, Genealogies,  Lbvites.  Wander- 
ing, and  the  names  of  the  several  tribes.  We 
confine  ourselves  here  to  a few  words  about  that 
inexhaustible  source  of  theologico-historical  char- 
latanism, the  Lost  Tribes,  on  which  there  have 
been  written  so  many  volumes  that  it  would  be 
difficult  to  condense  the  contradictory  opinions 
adv  anced  in  them  within  the  limits  of.a  moderate 
article.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  there  is  scarcely 
any  human  race  so  abject,  forlorn,  and  dwindling, 
located  anywhere  between  the  Chinese  and  the 
American  Indians,  who  have  not  been  stated  to 
be  the  ten  tribes  which  disappeared  from  history 
during  and  after  the  Babylonian  captivity.  If 
the  books  written  on  the  Ten  Tribes  contained 
much  truth  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  where 
they  are  not.  And  although  these  books,  ac- 
cording to  our  opinion,  generally  bear  stronger 
evidence  of  their  writers’  activity  of  imagination 
than  the  strength  of  their  judgment,  they  lead, 
not  individually  but  collectively,  to  some  truth, 
if  they  only  impress  ns  with  the  fact  that  it  is 
difficult  to  say'  where  the  ten'  tribes  are  not.1  This 
result  the  author  of  Coningsby  should  have  borne 
in  mind,  when  he  lately  tracked  rather  than 
traced  Hebrew-Arabian  blood  in  all  men  of  Euro- 
pean celebrity. 

However,  among  the  various  works  about  the 
lost,  tribes,  the  following,  although  written  dif- 
fusely, contains  quite  as  much  probability  as  any  : 
Our  Israelitish  Origin  ; or,  British  Christians 
a Remnant  of  the  true  Israelites  ; with  a Reply 
to  the  Objections  of  the  Rev.  E.  Bickersteth,  by 
•I.  Wilson,  a witness  of  the  word  of  Prophecy; 
London,  1844.  We  refer  here  especially  to  the 
ninth  and  tenth  lectures  contained  in  this  book,  in 
which  the  author  endeavours  to  show  that  the 
Saxons  proceeded  from  Central  Asia  to  the  west 
of  Europe,  and  that  in  them  the  promises  given  lo 
Israel  are  fulfilling. 

The  truth,  however,  of  the  matter  seems  rather 
to  be  as  follows.  After  the  division  of  the  Israel- 
ites under  Jeroboam  and  Rehoboam  into  the  two 
kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel,  the  believers  in 
whom  the  feelings  of  ancient  theocratic  legiti- 
macy and  nationality  predominated,  and  especi- 
ally the  priests  and  Levites,  who  were  connected 
by  many  ties  with  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem,  had 
a tendency  to  migrale  towards  the  visible  centre 
of  their  devotions;  whilst  those  members  of  the 
tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  who  had  an  in- 
dividual hankering  after  the  fbieign  fashions 
adopted  in  Samaria,  and  the  whole  kingdom 
of  Israel,  had  a tendency  externally  to  unite 
themselves  to  a state  of  things  corresponding 
with  their  individuality.  After  the  political 
fall  of  both  kingdoms,  when  all  the  principal 
families  connected  with  the  possession  of  the  soil 
had  been  compelled  to  emigrate,  most  Israelites 
who  had  previously  little  feeling  for  theocratic 
nationality  gradually  amalgamated  by  marriages 
and  other  connections  with  the  nations  by  which 
they  were  surrounded  ; while  the  former  inhabit- 
ants of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  felt  their  nationality 
revived  by  the  very  deprivation  of  public  wor- 
ship which  they  suffered  in  foreign  lands.  Many 
of  the  pious  members  of  those  tribes  which  had 
formerly  constituted  tire  kingdom  of  Israel,  un- 
doubtedly joined  the  returning  colonies  which 


proceeded  by  the  permission  of  the  Persian  mo 
narchs  to  the  land  of  their  fathers.  However, 
these  former  members  of  the  other  tribes  formed 
so  decidedly  a minority  among  tire  members  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah  that  henceforth  all  believers 
and  worshippers  of  Jehovah  were  called  D'TliT, 
'lovbaloi,  JuuiEi,  Jews.  Thus  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  best,  although  smaller,  portion  of  the 
ten  tribes  amalgamated  with  the  Jews,  some  of 
whom  preserved  their  genealogies  till  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  ; wjiile  the  larger  pro- 
portion of  the  ten  tribes  amalgamated  with  the 
Gentiles  of  Central  Asia,  to  whom  they  probably 
imparted  some  of  their  notions  and  customs,  which 
again  were,  in  a state  more  or  less  pure,  pro- 
pagated to  distant,  regions  by  the  great  national 
migrations  proceeding  from  Central  Asia.  We 
are  glad  to  find  that  this  our  historical  conviction 
has  also  been  adopted  by  the  most  learned  among 
the  Jews  themselves.  We  may  refer  to  Allgemeiue 
Geschichte  des  Israelitischen  Volkes,  by  Dr.  J. 
M.  Jost,  Berlin,  1832,  vol.  i.  p.  407  sq.,  416  sq. 

That  the  name  of  the  Jews  became  general 
for  all  Israelites  who  were  anxious  to  preserve 
their  theocratic  nationality  was  the  more  natural, 
since  the  political  independence  of  the  Ten 
Tribes  was  destroyed  long  before  that  of  the  king- 
dom of  Judah. — C.  H.  F.  B. 

TRIBUTE  (DD  mas,  from  masas , ‘to melt’  or 
‘ liquify  ;’  Gr.  epopos),  a tax  which  one  prince  or 
state  agrees,  or  is  compelled,  to  pay  to  another,  as 
the  purchase  of  peace,  or  in  token  of  dependence. 

The  Hebrews  acknowledged  no  other  sovereign 
than  God;  and  in  Exodus  xxx.  12,  15,  we  find 
they  were  required  to  pay  tribute  unto  the  Lord, 
to  give  an  offering  of  half  a shekel  to  ‘ make  an 
atonement  for  their  souls.’  The  native  kings  and 
judges  of  the  Hebrews  did  not  exact  tribute. 
Solomon,  indeed,  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign 
levied  tribute  from  the  Canaanites  and  others 
who  remained  in  the  land  and  were  not  of  Israel, 
and  compelled  them  to  hard  servitude  (1  Kings 
ix.  21-23;  2 Chron.  viii.  9)  ; but  the  children  of 
Israel  were  exempted  from  that  impost,  and  em- 
ployed in  the  more  honourable  departments  and 
offices  of  his  kingdom.  Towards  the  end  of  his 
reign,  however,  he  appears  to  have  imposed  tri- 
bute upon  the  Jews  also,  and  to  have  compelled 
them  to  work  upon  the  public  buildings  (L  Kings 
v.  13,  14;  ix.  15;  xi.  27).  This  had  the  effect 
of  gradually  alienating  their  minds,  and  of  pro- 
ducing that  discontent  which  afterwards  resulted  1 
in  open  revolt  under  Jeroboam,  son  of  Nebat. 

‘ Thy  father  made  our  yoke  grievous,’  said  the 
Israelites  to  Rehoboam : ‘ now,  therefore,  make 
thou  the  grievous  service  of  thy  father  and  his 
heavy  yoke  which  he  put  upon  us  lighter,  and 
we  will  serve  thee’  (1  Kings  xii.  4). 

The  Israelites  were  at  various  times  subjected 
to  heavy  taxes  and  tributes  by  their  foreign  con- 
querors. After  Judaea  was  reduced  to  a Roman 
province,  a new  poll  of  the  people  and  an  esti- 
mate of  their  substance  were  taken  by  command 
of  Augustus,  in  order  that  he  might  more  cor- 
rectly regulate  the  tribute  to  be  exacted  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  xvii.  15).  This  was  a capitation-tax 
levied  at  so  much  a head,  and  imposed  upon  all 
males  from  14,  and  all  females  from  12  up  to  65 
years  of  age  (Ulpian,  Digest,  de  Censib.  lib.  iii.  - 
Fischer,  De  Nurnism.  Census ). 


894 


TRIBUTE-MONEY. 


TURTLE-DOVE. 


To  oppose  the  levying  of  this  tribute  Judas  the 
Gaulonite  raised  an  insurrection  of  the  Jews, 
asserting  that  it  was  not  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to 
a foreigner,  that  it  was  a token  of  servitude,  and 
that  the  Jews  were  not  allowed  to  acknowledge 
any  for  their  master  who  did  not.  worship  the 
Lord.  They  boasted  of  being  a free  nation,  and 
of  never  having  been  in  bondage  to  any  man 
(John  viii.  33).  These  sentiments  were  exten- 
sively promulgated,  but  all  their  efforts  were  of 
no  avail  in  restraining  or  mitigating  the  exactions 
of  their  conquerors. 

The  Pharisees  who  sought  to  entangle  Jesus  in 
his  talk,  sent  unto  him  demanding  whether  it 
was  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto  Caesar  or  not; 
but  knowing  their  wicked  designs  he  replied, 

* Why  tempt  ye  me,  ye  hypocrites?’  ‘Render 
unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar’s,  and 
unto  God  the  tilings  that,  are  God's/ 

The  apostles  Peter  and  Paul  severally  recom- 
mended submission  to  the  ruling  powers,  and 
inculcated  the  duty  of  paying  tribute,  * tribute 
to  whom  tribute  is  due'  (Rom.  xiii.  1-8;  1 Peter 
ii.  13).— G.  M.  B. 

TRIBUTE-MONEY.  The  money  collected 
by  the  Romans  in  payment  of  the  taxes  imposed 
upon  the  Jews.  The  phrase  may  apply  to  money 
of  any  description,  coined  or  uncoined.  The 
piece  shown  to  our  Saviour  at  his  own  request, 
was  a Roman  coin,  bearing  the  image  of  one  of 
the  Caesars,  and  must,  have  been  at  that  time 
current  in  Judaea,  and  received  in  payment,  of  the 
tribute  in  common  with  other  descriptions  of 
money.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
tribute  was  collected  exclusively  in  Roman  coins, 
or  that  the  tribute-money  was  a description  of 
coin  different  from  that  which  was  in  general 
circulation  [Money]. — G.  M.  B. 

TROAS  (Too; dr),  more  fully  Alexandria- 
Troas,  a city  of  northern  or  Lesser  Mysia,  in  Asia 
Minor,  situated  on  the  coast  at  some  distance 
southward  from  the  site  of  Troy  upon  an  emi- 
nence opposite  the  island  of  Tenedos  (Strabo,  xiii. 
p.  593;  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  v.  33).  Paul  was  twice 
at  this  place  (Acts  xvi.  8,  9;  xx.  6 ; 2 Cor.  ii. 
12;  2 Tim.  iv.  13).  The  name  Troas,  or  Troad, 
strictly  belonged  to  the  whole  district  around 
Troy.  Alaxandria-Troas  is  represented  by  the 
present  Eski-Stamboul,  and  its  ruins  are  now 
concealed  in  the  heart  of  a thick  wood  of  oaks, 
with  which  the  country  abounds  (Pococke,  pt.  iii. 
153 ; Richter,  Wallfahrten,  p.  462). 

TROGYLL1UM  ( TpwyuWiov ),  a town  and 
promontory  on  the  western  coast  of  Asia  Minor, 
opposite  Samos,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Mycale 
(Strabo,  xiv.  p.  636).  It  is  mentioned  in  Acts 
xx.  15. 

TROPHIMUS  (T pocpi/ios),  a disciple  of 
Ephesus,  who  accompanied  St.  Paul  into  Judaea, 
and  was  the  innocent  cause  of  the  dangers  which 
the  apostle  there  encountered ; for  having  been 
recognised  by  some  Jews  of  Asia  Minor,  and  seen 
in  company  with  Paul,  they  took  occasion  to  ac- 
cuse Paul  of  having  brought  Greeks  into  the  tem- 
ple (Acts  xx.  4;  xxi.  29).  His  name  does  not 
again  occur  till  after,  seemingly,  the  first  impri- 
sonment of  Paul.  In  one  of  the  ensuing  journeys 
he  remained  behind  at  Miletus  sick  (2  Tim.  iv.  20). 
This  circumstance  is  regarded  as  furnishing  a 
strong  fact  to  show  that  Paul  was  twice  impri- 
soned at  Rome ; for  Trophimus,  in  the  first  passage 


to  Miletus  (Acts  xx.  15),  was  not  left  behind,  but 
proceeded  to  Judaea;  after  which  we  do  riot  lose 
sight  of  Paul  for  one  day,  and  know  that  he  was 
not  again  at  Miletus  before  his  first.  impfSsonmem 
at  Rome. 

TRUMPET.  [Musical  Instruments.] 

TRUMPETS,  FEAST  OF.  [Festivals.] 

TRYPHENA  and  TRYPHOSA  ( Tp^aiva 
uat  Tpucpuca),  female  disci  pies  at  Rome,  who  la- 
boured to  extend  the  Gospel  and  to  succour  the 
faithful  (Rom.  xvi.  12).  Their  history  is  un- 
known ; but,  from  their  names,  they  were  probably 
sisters. 

TUBAL  (^n-in ; Sept.  6o/3eA),  a son  cf 
Japhet,  and  a people  descended  from  him  (Gen. 
x.  2;  Isa.  lxvi.  19;  Ezek.  xxvii.  13;  xxxii.  26; 
xxxviii.  2,  3 ; xxxix.  1),  supposed  to  have  been 
settled  in  Asia  Minor  near  the  Euxine  [Nations-, 
Dispersion  op.] 

TUBAL-CAIN  ()'p_  scoriarum  faber; 

Sept.  &6l 3eA),  son  of  Lamec’n  and  Zillah,  to 
whom  the  invention  of  the  art  of  forging  metals 
is  ascribed  in  Gen.  iv.  22  [Smith]. 

TURTLE-DOVE  (Tin  Tur,  or  Thor ; Gr 
rpvycav ; Lat.  Turtur ) occurs  in  Gen.  xv  0 
Lev.  i.  14;  v.  7,  11,  &c. ; Luke  ii.  24. 


The  birds  of  this  subgenus  are  invariably 
smaller  than  pigeons  properly  so  called ; they 
are  mostly  marked  with  a patch  of  peculiarly 
coloured  scutelated  feathers  on  the  neck,  or 
with  a collar  of  black,  aud  have  often  other 
markings  on  the  smaller  wing-covers.  The  spe- 
cies Columba  Turtur,  with  several  varieties 
merely  of  colour,  extends  from  the  west  of  Europe 
through  the  north  of  Africa,  to  the  islands  south 
of  China.  The  turtle-dove  of  Palestine  is  spe- 
cifically the  same;  but  there  is  also  a second, 
we  believe  local  : both  migrate  further  south 
in  winter,  but  return  very  early ; when  their 
cooing  voice  in  the  woods  announces  the  spring. 
In  the  rites  of  the  Hebrew  law,  full-grown  or  old 
turtle-doves  might  be  offered  in  pairs,  but  only 
( gozal ) the  young  of  pigeons  not  full  grown. 
They  were  the  usual  offering  of  the  poor,  a cir- 
cumstance, Bochart  remarks,  indicating  the 
humble  station  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  since  at  her 
purification  she  offered  a pair  of  turtle-doves  in- 
stead of  a lamb.  This,  however,  was  the  usual 
practice  on  that  and  sundry  other  occasions  : in- 
deed, so  constantly  was  either  one  or  other  species 
wanted,  that  dealers  in  doves  and  turtle-doves 
abounded  within  the  precincts  rf  the  temple,  and 
had  an  overseer  appointed  to  superintend  what 
concerned  them. — C.  H.  S. 


TYCHICUS. 


TYRANNUS. 


895 


TYCHICUS  (T vxiKbs  6 ’Aeriavbs)  Is  the  name 
of  an  assistant  and  companion  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  The  name  has  nearly  the  same  significa- 
tion which  we  find  in  the  Hebrew  Gad,  and  in  the 
Latin  Felix , or  Fortunatus.  Tychicus  was  a 
native  of  Asia,  who  accompanied  Paul  on  his 
third  missionary  journey  (Acts  xx.  4),  and  was, 
at  a later  period,  the  bearer  of  Paul's  letter  from 
Rome  to  the  Colossians.  Paul  styled  him  a be- 
loved brother,  faithful  minister,  and  fellow-ser- 
vant in  the  Lord,  who  should  declare  all  his  state 
unto  the  Colossians,  to  whom  he  was  sent  that  he 
might  know  their  estate  and  comfort  their  hearts 
(Col.  iv.  7,  8).  For  a similar  purpose  Tychicus 
was  sent  to  the  Ephesians  also  (Eph.  vi.  21,  22; 

1 Tim.  iv.  12),  and  employed  in  various  mis- 
sionary journeys  (Tit.  iii.  12).  According  to 
tradition,  Tychicus  was  made  bishop  of  Chal- 
cedon.— C.  H.  F.  R. 

TYPE  (Gr.  tv-itos),  derivatively  signifies  the 
print  or  mark  which  is  made  by  beating.  Thus, 
in  John  xx.  25,  rhy  tvttov  tuv  i)X(av,  which,  lite- 
rally translated,  is  ‘ the  type  of  the  nails.’ 

Again,  it  denotes  a model  or  example,  placed 
before  us  for  imitation  (see  Phil.  iii.  17;  1 Thess. 
i.  7 ; 2 Thess.  iii.  9 ; 1 Tim.  iv.  12  ; Titus  ii.  7 ; 

1 Pet.  v.  3 ; ii.  21  ; Acts  xxiii.  25  ; Rom.  vi.  17). 

The  word  is  used  also  by  physicians  to  desig- 
nate the  particular  form  which  diseases  assume  : 
hence  Galen  wrote  a work  entitled  Uep\  rwv  tv- 
7to>v.  But  in  its  theological  sense  the  best  defini- 
tion perhaps  is  that  which  Heb.  x.  1 supplies  : 
a type  is  a shadow  of  good  things  to  come, 
j>r,  as  the  apostle  elsewhere  expresses  it  (Col.  ii. 
17),  ‘a  shadow  of  things  to  come  ; but  the  body 
is  of  Christ.’  Adopting  this  definition  as  the 
correct  one,  we  proceed  briefly  to  point  out  the 
different  types  by  which  God  was  pleased  in  va- 
rious ages  to  adumbrate  the  person  and  work  ot 
the  Redeemer.  It  would  be  beside  our  present 
purpose  to  inquire  as  to  the  reasons  why  Jehovah 
developed  his  plan  of  human  redemption  in  a 
gradually  progressive  form — by  visions,  dreams, 
voices,  inspirations,  impulses  of  his  spirit,  and  by 
miracle.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  he 
actually  did  speak  (Heb.  i.  1)  ‘ at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners  to  the  fathers.’ 

In  tracing  out  rcho  and  what  typified  or  sha- 
dowed forth  Christ  and  his  salvation  under  the 
antediluvian,  patriarchal,  and  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tions, we  must  be  careful  not  to  substitute  the 
suggestions  of  our  own  imaginations  for  the  inti- 
mations of  Scripture.  We  must  endeavour  to  learn 
the  mind  of  God  as  to  what  actually  constitutes  a 
type,  either  by  the  express  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture, or  by  the  obvious  analogy  which  subsists 
between  things  under  the  Gospel  and  its  antece- 
dent dispensations.  'Thus  guarding  ourselves , 
we  may  notice  the  various  types  by  which  God 
was  pleased,  at  all  times,  in  a sense,  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  mankind.  1.  Before  the  law,  Adam, 
Enoch,  Noah,  Melchizedec,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Joseph  were  eminently  typical  of  Christ.  Again, 
under  the  law,  Moses,  Joshua,  Samson,  David, 
Solomon,  Elijah.,  Elisha,  Jonah,  Zerubbabel,  and 
Joshua  the  high  priest,  were,  in  many  points , 
Angularly  types  of  Christ. 

2.  The  first-born,  the  Nazarites,  prophets,  priests, 
ind  kings,  were  typical  orders  of  persons. 

3.  Under  the  head  of  things  typical  may  be 
•oticed:  Jacob’s  ladder,  the  burning-bush,  the 


pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  the  manna,  the  rock,  and 
the  brazen  serpent. 

4.  Actions  typical  were : the  deliverance  out 
of  Egypt,  passage  of  the  Red  sea,  sojourn  in  the 
wilderness,  passage  over  the  Jordan,  entrance  into 
Canaan,  and  restoration  from  Babylon. 

5.  Rites  typical  were : circumcision,  various 
sacrifices,  and  sundry  purifications. 

6.  Places  typical  were:  the  land  of  Canaan, 
the  cities  of  refuge,  the  tabernacle,  and  the  temple. 

The  above  types  were  designed  to  shadow  forth 
Christ  and  the  blessings  of  his  salvation  ; but 
there  were  others  also  which  pointed  at  our  mise- 
ries without  him.  There  were  ceremonial  un- 
cleannesses ; the  leprosy,  for  instance,  was  a 
type  of  our  natural  pollution;  and  Hagar  and 
lshmael  a type  of  the  covenant  of  works. 

As  there  must  be  a similarity  or  analogy  be- 
tween the  type  and  the  antitype,  so  there  is  also 
a disparity  or  dissimilitude  between  them. 

It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  type  and  antitype 
that  they  should  agree  in  all  things;  else,  in- 
stead of  similitude,  there  would  he  identity. 
Hence  the  apostle,  whilst  making  Adam  a type 
of  Christ,  yet  shows  how  infinitely  the  latter  ex- 
celled the  former  (1  Cor.  xv.  47).  So  the  priests 
of  old  were  types  of  Christ,  though  he  infinitely 
excelled  them  both  as  to  his  own  person  and  as  to 
the  character  of  his  priesthood  (see  Heb.  v ii., 
vi  ii. , ix.,  and  x ).  Chrysostom  observes  (Horn. 
61,  in  Gen.)  that  there  must  be  more  in  the  type 
than  in  the  antitype.  Hence  the  distinction 
must  be  observed  between  total  and  partial  types. 
This  distinction  CEcumenius  also  draws,  in  com- 
menting on  vii.  Heb.  p.  829.  He  says  : ‘Otuttoj 
oh  Kara  iravra  iaos  ecrrl  rfj  aXydsia  (eirel  /cal  ai»- 
ros  aXrfieia  evpianeTca,  kuI  Tamdrys  fxaXXov,  f) 
txjttos),  dXX'  et/edras  exe/  rivas  teal  Iv SaXpara : — 

‘ A type  does  not  express  that  which  it  represents 
in  every  minute  particular,  for  then  instead  of  si- 
militude there  would  be  identity,  but  it  contains 
certain  outlines  and  assimilations  of  the  antitype.’ 

Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  cap.  vi.  Amos  p. 
315,  also  observes  on  this  subject:  'O  rhnos  ovk 
aXydeia,  popepeaexiv  8e  paXXov  rys  aXyOeias 
ew-cpepei  : — A type  is  not  the  very  truth  itself,  but 
its  representation. 

Did  the  confined  limits  of  this  article  permit, 
it  would  be  at  once  both  easy  and  interesting  to 
trace  out  how  conspicuously  the  wisdom  and 
goodness  of  God  are  displayed  in  adapting  differ- 
ent. modes  of  instruction  to  the  state  and  con- 
dition of  his  creatures  in  all  ages;  and  how  his 
divine  purposes,  dimly  portrayed  by  types,  were 
gradually  developed  from  the  moment  the  first 
promise  of  salvation  was  giveff  till  the  advent  of 
that  Messiah,  who  was  the  theme  of  all  the 
prophets,  and  the  substance  of  all  the  shadows 
under  each  successive  dispensation  (See  on  this 
interesting  subject  Tropologia,  by  Rev.  B.  Keach. 
pp.  225 — 237  ; Suicer,  Thesaur.  vol.  ii.  p.  1337  ; 
Types  of  the  Old  Testament,  hv  Sam.  Mather; 
Christ  Revealed,  by  J.  Taylor,  D.D. ; also 
M'Ewen,  On  the  glory  and  fulness  of  Christ 
revealed. — J.  W.  D. 

TYRANNUS  (T vpavvos),  a sophist  or  rheto- 
rician of  Ephesus,  who  kept  one  of  those  schools  of 
philosophy  and  eloquence  so  common  at  that 
period.  St.  Paul  preached  for  two  years  daily 
in  his  school  after  quitting  the  synagogue  (Acta 
xix.  9).  This  proves  that  the  school  was  Greek, 


*96 


TYRE. 


TYRE. 


not  Jewish.  It  does  not  appear  whether  Tvran- 
mis  was  himself  a convert  or  not.;  for  it  may 
be  that  he  let  to  the  apostle  the  house  or  hall 
which  lie  used  : but  it  is  more  pleasant  to  suppose 
that  he  was  a convert,  and  that  the  apostle  was 
hospitably  entertained  by  him  and  obtained  the 
use  of  the  hall  in  which  he  himself  taught. 

TYRE.  Besides  its  antiquity,  manufactures, 
colonies,  and  commerce,  the  city  of  Tyre  claims 
attention  as  frequently  mentioned  in  biblical  his- 
tory, and  still  more  on  account  of  the  prophecies 
of  its  overthrow,  and  their  exact,  fulfilment.  Its 
Hebrew  name,  TTY  7Yr  or  Tsur.  which  means 
a rock , was  probably  derived  from  its  being  at 
first  founded  for  purpose  s of  defence  on  a rocky 
hill.  Our  word  Tyre  and  its  Latin  form  Tyrus, 
which  are  used  interchangeably  (indifferently) 
in  the  English  version  of  the  Scriptures,  as  well 
as  its  Greek  form  Tu/jos,  are  only  slightly  changed 
from  the  Aramaean  form  of  the  original 

Hebrew  name. 

The  original  position  of  Tyre  was  on  the  east- 
ern coast,  of  the  Mediterranean,  about  midway 
between  Egypt  and  Asia  Minor,  near  the  north- 
western frontier  of  Palestine.  As  it  was  a colony 
of  Zidon,  Isaiah,  by  a well-known  Hebraism, 
styles  it  (xxiii.  12)  ‘ daughter  of  Zidon,'  and  as 
it  was  founded  before  the  records  of  history,  or, 
as  some  say,  210  years  before  the  building  of 
Solomon’s  temple,  Isaiah  also  speaks  (xxiii.  7)  of 
its  ‘ antiquity  of  ancient  days A defensible 
location,  which  was  also  favourable  to  commerce, 
combined  with  other  circumstances  to  make  the 
daughter  surpass  the  mother  city,  becoming  the 
metropolis  of  Phoenicia,  a mart  of  nations,  and 
t(lie  planter  of  colonies. 

As  early  as  the  eleventh  century  before  the  ad- 
vent of  Christ,  the  Tyrians  had  become  famous 
for  skill  in  the  arts.  Apart  from  the  statement 
that  the  territory  of  Asher  extended  to  theirs 
(Josh.  xix.  29),  the  first  notice  of  tlrem  in  tne 
Scriptures  is,  that  about  1 142  b.c.  (2  Sam.  v.  11), 
their  king  Hiram  s^nt  cedar-trees  to  Jerusalem, 
and  workmen  who  built.  David  a house.  A gene- 
ration later,  when  Solomon,  preparing  to  build 
the  temple,  sent  to  the  same  monarch  for  similar 
assistance,  he  said  to  him  (1  Kings  v.  G),  ‘ Thou 
knowest  that  there  is  not  among  us  any  that  can 
skill  to  hew  timber  like  unto  the  Sidonians.’  He 
also  (1  Kings  vii.  13)  sent  and  fetched  Hiram 
out  of  Tyre,  a widow’s  son,  filled  with  cunning 
to  work  all  works  in  brass.  At  nearly  the  same 
period,  the  Sidonians,  of  whom  the  Tyrians  were 
a branch,  were  often  alluded  to  in  Homer  as 
artists  of  everything  elaborate  and  beauteous.  In 
subsequent,  ages,  every  king  coveted  a robe  of 
Tyrian  purple,  and  Ezekiel  (xxvii.  Ifi)  speaks  of 
‘ the  multitude  of  wares  of  its  making,' — eme- 
ralds, purple,  and  broidered  work,  and  fine  linen, 
and  coral,  and  agate. 

The  commerce  of  Tyre  was  commensurate  with 
its  manufactures.  Situate  at  the  entry  of  the 
sea,  it  became  a merchant  of  the  people  for  many 
isles.  It  was  inhabited  by  seafaring  knen,  and 
was  styled  by  way  of  eminence  ‘the  merchant- 
city,’  whose  merchants  were  princes,  whose  traffick- 
ers were  the  honourable  of  the  earth  (Isa.  xxiii.  8). 
When  the  ships  of  Solomon  sailed  away  to  Ophir 
(1  Kings  ix.  27).  ‘ Hiram  sent  in  the  navy  his 
servants,  ship-men  that  had  knowledge  of  the  sea, 
with  the  servants  of  Solomon.'  The  Tyrians  al- 


ready adventured  three  years'  voyages  to  Tarshish 
beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules.  In  its  vicinity 
they  afterwards  built  Cadiz.  Among  their  other 
colonies,  whither  ‘ their  own  feet  carried  them  afar 
off  to  sojourn,’  were  Cyprus,  Utica,  and  Carthage 
— the  last  so  long  the  most  formidable  rival  ot 
Rome,  the  founding  of  which,  so  poetically  treated 
by  Virgil,  is  placed  bv  antiquarians  in  the  year 
b c.  S69.  In  the  27th  chapter  of  Ezekiel,  Syria, 
Persia,  and  Egypt,  Spain,  Greece,  and  every 
quarter  of  the  ancient  world,  are  portrayed  has- 
tening to  lay  their  most  precious  things  at  the 
feet  of  Tyre,  who  sat  enthroned  on  ivory,  covered 
with  blue  and  purple  from  the  isles  of  Elishah; 
while  the  Gammadims  were  in  her  towers,  hanged 
their  shields  upon  her  walls  round  about,  and 
made  her  beauty  perfect. 

Near  the  close  of  the  eighth  century  before  the 
Christian  era,  Shalmaneser,  the  king  of  Assyria 
who  captured  Samaria,  was  led  by  cupidity  to 
lay  siege  to  Tyre.  He  cut.  off  its  supplies  of 
wafer  which  aqueducts  had  furnished,  but  wells 
within  the  walls  supplied  their  place;  and  at  the 
end  of  five  years  he  gave  up  his  blockade  as 
hopeless.  At  this  crisis,  or  even  earlier,  an  island 
half  a mile  from  the  shore  was  made  a strong- 
hold ^ for  the  riches  of  the  city : the  water,  to  a 
nautical  people,  being  the  best  bulwark  against 
the  Assyrians,  who  had  no  maritime  power.  The 
original  city  on  the  mainland  was  subsequently 
named  Palaio-Tyrus,  or  Old  Tyre. 

The  Tyrians  were  naturally  proud  of  having 
successfully  done  battle  with  the  mightiest  king 
of  the  East,  and  for  a time  played  a part  in  the 
ancient  world  like  that,  which  Venice  played  in 
the  middle  ages.  Each  was  insular,  colonial, 
and  continental — its  borders  in  the  midst  of  the 
seas — the  builders  had  perfected  its  beauty — 
every  precious  stone  was  its  covering.  Each  was 
not  only  commercial  and  opulent,  but  a joyous 
ciry,  a pieasant  place  of  all  festivity — dance, 
song,  and  harp. 

It  was  against  a city  such  as  this,  so  confident, 
and  to  all  appearance  so  justifiably  confident,  of 
sitting  a queen  for  ever,  that  several  prophets, 
particularly  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel,  fulminated  the 
denunciations  which  Jehovah  dictated.  They 
prophesied  that,  it  should  be  overthrown  by  Ne- 
buchadnezzar, that  it  should  revive,  but  at.  length 
be  destroyed  and  never  rebuilt. 

Before  a generation  had  passed  away,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  Philosfratus,  and  Seder  Olam, 
Nebuchadnezzar  came  up,  as  had  been  pre- 
dicted (Ezek.  xxvi.  7-13).  making  a fort,  casting 
a mount,  and  lifting  up  the  buckler.  At  the  end 
of  thirteen  years  (about  a.m.  3422)  he  took  the 
city,  at,  least  that  on  the  mainland,  and  Tyre 
was  forgotten  seventy  years,  as  had  been  foretold 
by  Isaiah  (xxiii.  15).  In  the  year  b.c.  332  Tyre, 
which  had  again  become  a flourishing  emporium 
for  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  upon  the  face 
of  the  earth,  ‘and  heaped  up  silver  as  the  dust, 
and  fine  gold  as  the  mire  of  the  streets.’  was 
assailed  by  Alexander  the  Great  in  the  midst  of 
his  Oriental  career  of  conquest.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  city  on  the  mainland  had  been  re- 
built; if  so,  it  yielded  at  once  to  the  youthful 
conqueror.  But  the  insular  city  sustained  a 
siege  of  seven  months,  and  was  at  length  taken 
only  by  means  cf  a mole,  by  which  the  island 
was  turned  into  a peninsula,  and  rendered  atr 


TYRE. 


TZAPHTZAPHA. 


CBasible  by  land  forces.  In  constructing  this 
mole  Alexander  made  use  of  the  ruins  of  the  old. 
city,  and  thereby  fulfilled  two  prophecies.  One 
was  (Ezek.  xxvi.  12),  ‘And  they  shall  lay  thy 
stones  and  thy  timber  and  thy  dust  in  the  midst 
of  the  water.’  The  other  was  (ver.  21),  ‘ And 
thou  sha.lt  be  no  more  : though  thou  be  sought 
for,  yet  shalt  thou  never  be  found  again,  saith 
the  Lord  God.’  So  utterly  were  the  ruins  of  old 
Tyre  thrown  into  the  sea,  that  its  exact  site  is 
confessedly  undeterminable,  although  the  ruins 
of  nearly  fifty  cities  near  Rome,  which  perished 
almost  2500  years  ago,  testify  that  the  extinction 
of  every  trace  of  a city  is  a sort  of  miracle. 
Moreover,  Alexander  laid  Tyre  in  ashes:  thus 
accomplishing  the  prediction  of  Zechariah  (ix.  4), 

‘ She  shall  be  devoured  with  fire.’  Besides,  as 
ships  from  Tyre,  out  on  a three  years’  voyage, 
returned  to  find  that  city  razed  to  the  ground 
which  they  had  left  and  looked  to  find  once  more 
'n  the  perfection  of  beauty,  there  is  a significance 
in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  not  at  first  obvious 
(xxiii.  1,  14):  ‘Howl,  ye  ships  of  Tarshish ; 
for  it  is  laid  waste,  so  that  there  is  no  house, 
no  entering  in.  Howl,  ye  ships  of  Tarshish,  for 
your  strength  is  laid  waste.’ 

The  more  of  Alexander  has  prevented  Tyre 
from  becoming  insulated  again.  The  revival  of 
the  city  was  long  retarded  by  the  rivalship  of 
the  newly-founded  Alexandria,  and  by  other 
causes,  so  that,  although  a ship  in  which  Paul 
sailed  was  there  to  unlade  her  burden  (Acts  xxi. 
3),  Pliny,  who  wrote  in  the  first  century,  after 
relating  how  great  it  had  been,  and  that  its  ruins 
were  nineteen  miles  in  circuit,  adds,  ‘ at  this  day 
all  its  nobility  consists  in  oysters  and  purple’ 
(v.  17).  But  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  the  latter 
half  of  the  fourth  century,  it  had  so  far  revived 
that  he  was  embarrassed  in  commenting  on  Ezek. 
xxvi.  14,  ‘ Thou  shalt  be  built  no  more;’  and  at 
last  interprets  the  meaning  to  be,  that  it  should 
not  again  become  an  independent  state,  but  re- 
main subject  to  the  Macedonian,  Seleucian,  Ro- 
man, or  some  other  power.  But  time  was  a better 
commentator,  or  has  now  made  Sabbath-school 
children  better  commentators  than  St.  Jerome. 

The  possession  of  Tyre  was  often  afterwards 
contested  as  if  it  were  a key  to  unlock  a king- 
dom ; it  was  beleaguered  more  than  once  during 
the  crusades,  was  the  burial-place  of  the  German 
Emperor  Barbarossa,  and,  remaining  in  European 
hands  till  1291,  was  almost  the  last  place  in  Asia 
which  the  chivaliy  of  the  West  yielded  to  the 
Moslems.  Its  fortifications,  which  were  almost 
impregnable,  were  demolished,  and  it  has  never 
since  been  a place  of  consequence.  Travellers 
of  every  succeeding  century  describe  it  as  a heap 
of  ruino,  broken  arches  and  vaults,  tottering  walls 
and  towers,  with  a few  starveling  wretches  housing 
amid  the  rubbish.  A chief  of  the  Druses,  indeed, 
attempted  to  rebuild  it  two  hundred  years  ago, 
but  in  vain.  Maundrell,  in  1694,  found  ‘ not  so 
much  as  one  entire  house  left.’  In  Pococke’s  day 
(1738)  it  was  a place  of  export  for  grain,  but 
contained  only  two  or  three  Christian  families 
and  a few  other  inhabitants.  In  1766  a part  of 
the  peninsula  was  walled,  and  a town  named  Sur 
founded,  which  still  exists,  and  exports  tobacco, 
cotton,  wool,  and  wood.  Yet  its  population  has 
never  exceeded  three  thousand  souls.  It  cannot 
compete  with  its  neighbour  Beirut;  its  harbour 
von.  58 


is  navigable  only  by  boats,  and  becomes  more 
anti  moie  shallow  every  year.  It  was  hal*f  ruined 
by  an  earthquake  in  1837.  One  of  the  best  ac- 
counts of  its  present  appearance  is  given  by  the 
American  traveller  Robinson,  who  spent  a Sab- 
bath there  in  1838  (Biblical Researches,  iii.  395)  : 

‘ I continued  my  walk,’  says  he,  ‘ along  the  shore 
of  the  peninsula,  part  of  which  is  now  unoccupied, 
except  as  “a  place  to  spread  nets  upon,”  musing 
upon  the  pride  and  fall  of  ancient  Tyre.  Here 
was  the  little  isle,  once  covered  by  her  palaces 
and  surrounded  by  her  fleets : but  alas ! thy 
riches  and  thy  fame,  thy  merchandise,  thy  ma- 
riners and  thy  piloN,  thy  caulkers,  and.  the  oc- 
cupiers of  thy  merchandise  that  were  in  thee, — 
where  are  they  ? Tyre  has  indeed  become  like 
“ the  top  of  a rock.”  The  sole  tokens  of  her  more 
ancient  splendour — columns  of  red  and  grey 
granite,  sometimes  forty  or  fifty  heaped  together, 
or  marble  pillars — lie  broken  and  strewed  beneath 
the  waves  in  the  midst  of  the  sea  ; and  the  hovels 
that  now  nestle  upon  a portion  of  her  site  present 
no  contradiction  of  the  dread  decree,  “ Thou  shalt 
be  built  no  more.” 

The  downfall  and  permanent  desolation  of 
Tyre  is  one  of  the  most  memorable  accomplish- 
ments of  prophecy  which  the  annals  of  the  world 
exhibit.  The  sins  which  sealed  its  ruin  were,  in 
the  words  of  the  sacred  writers,  these:  ‘Because 
that  Tyrus  hath  said  against  Jerusalem,  Aha,  she 
is  broken  that  was  the  gates  of  the  people;  she 
is  turned  unto  me ; I shall  be  replenished  now 
she  is  laid  waste’  (Ezek.  xxvi.  2).  ‘ Because  thy 

heart  is  lilted  up,  and  thou  hast  said,  I am  a 
God,  I sit  in  the  seat  of  God,  in  the  midst  of  the 
seas’  (xxviii.  2).  ‘ The  children  also  of  Judah 

and  the  children  of  Jerusalem  have  ye  sold  unto 
the  Grecians  that:  ye  might  remove  them  far  from 
their  border’  (Joel  iii.  6). — J.  D.  B. 

TZAPHTZAPHA  (flD^pY)  occurs  only  in 
Ezek.  xvii.  5,  and  is  usually  translated  ‘ willow- 
tree  :’  ‘ He  took  also  of  the  seed  of  the  land,  and 
planted  it  in  a fruitful  field  ; he  placed  it  by 
great  waters,  and  set  it  as  a icilloxo-tree .’  Cel- 
sius, however,  thinks  that  the  word  means  lo- 
cus planus,  planities,  although  he  at  the  same 
time  gives  all  the  evidence  for  the  former  mean- 
ing. First,  the  Rabbins  consider  it  to  mean  a tree, 

‘ et  quidem  sa/ix R.  Ben  Mele.ch  says  it  is 
‘ species  salicis,  Arabibus  Tziphtzaph  dicta;’  while 
‘ Avicenna  hoc  tit.  elicit  Tziphtzaph  esse  Chilaf .’ 
Travellers,  also,  give  us  similar  information. 
Thus  Paul  Lucas:  ‘ Les  Arabes  le  nomment  sof- 
saf \ qui  signifie  en  Arabe  saule.'  Rauwolf  (Tra- 
vels, i.  ch.  9),  speaking  of  the  plants  he  found  near 
Aleppo,  remarks,  ‘ There  is  also  a peculiar  sort  of 
willow-trees,  called  safsaf,  & c. ; the  stems  and 
twigs  are  long,  thin,  weak,  and  of  a pale  yellow- 
colour;  on  their  twigs  here  and  there  are  shoots 
of  a span  long,  like  unto  the  Cypriotish  wild  fig- 
trees,  which  put  forth  in  the  spring  tender  and 
woolly  flowers,  like  unto  the  blossoms  of  the 
poplar-tree,  only  they  are  of  a more  drying  quality, 
of  a pale  colour,  and  a fragrant  smell.  The  in- 
habitants pull  of  these  great  quantities,  and  distil 
a very  precious  and  sweet  water  out  of  them.* 
This  practice  is  still  continued  in  Eastern  coun- 
tries as  far  as  Northern  India,  and  was,  and 
probably  still  is,  well  known  in  Egypt.  The 
species  which  is  called  chilaf  by  the  Arabs  is 


TZEBI. 


TZERI. 


called  Salix  JEgyptiaca  by  botanists ; and  it  is  pro- 
bable that  it  is  also  found  in  Syria,  and  may  be 
the  above  safsaf.  Indeed,  it  was  found  by  Hassel- 


529.  [Salix  ^Egyptiaca._ 

quist  on  nis  journey  from  Acre  to  Sidon,  as  he 
mentions  it  as  S.  Egyptiaca,  v.  S.  Safsaf 
[Orebim].— J.  F.  R. 

TZEBI  ('?¥ ; Sept.  AopmLs'),  Dorcas  is  ap- 
plicable to  the  whole  group  of  Gazelles  properly 
so  called.  We  may  here  notice  that  Ant.  Sub- 
gutturosa  may  have  been  the  typical  animal 
whence  Thisbe,  in  the  Babylonian  legend  of  Py- 
ramus  and  Thisbe,  took  her  name ; and  that  the 
Cervus  Dama,  or  fallow-deer,  said  to  have  been 
seen  in  Palestine  by  Hasselquist,  was  the  same 
species,  or  Cervus  barbarus,  which,  when  young, 
has  horns  slightly  palmated,  and  a speckled 
livery  [Antelope]. — C.  H.  S. 

TZERI  OV))  or  Zeri,  also  Zori,  translated 
balm , occurs  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  25  ; xliii.  11 ; and 
in  both  passages  is  mentioned  along  with  lot  and 
necoth,  with  the  addition  in  the  second  of  botnim 
and  shekadim.  In  Gen.  xliii.  11,  Jacob  thus  ad- 
dresses his  sons  : ‘ Take  of  the  best  fruits  in  the 
land  in  your  vessels,  and  carry  down  the  man  a 
present : a little  balm  ( tzeri ),  and  a little  honey 
( debash ),  spices  ( tragacanth ) [Necoth]  and 
myrrh  \ladanum ; Lot],  nuts  [Botnim]  and 
almonds’  [Shekadim].  In  the  separate  articles 
on  these  substances  some  general  observations 
have  been  made,  which  will  equally  apply  to 
tzeri.  This,  therefore,  like  the  other  substances 
intended  as  presents,  or  forming  articles  of  com- 
merce, must  have  been  a produce  of  Gilead,  or 
of  the  northern  parts  of  Syria,  and  would  thus  be 
suitable  for  conveying  to  Egypt  on  the  occasion  re- 
ferred to.  Balm  or  balsam  [Basam  ; Baal-she- 
iibn],  we  have  seen,  was  an  Arabian  and  Abyssi- 
nian plant  cultivated  in  one  or  two  places  of 


Palestine,  hut  at  a later  period  than  the  rausac- 
tions  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  As  we 
have  before  said,  ‘ It  is  probable,  therefo.  e,  that 
some  other  tree  producing  a balsamic  secretion  is 
intended  in  the  above  passages,  where  the  word 
balm  has  been  considered  the  equivalent  of  tzeri. ’ 

But  it  is  difficult  to  determine  exactly  what  sub- 
stance is  intended  : we  may,  however,  adduce  the 
other  passages  in  which  the  word  is  found.  Eze- 
kiel (xxvii.  17)  mentions  tzeri  along  with  ‘wheat 
of  Minnith,  and  Pannag,  and  honey,  and  oil,’  as 
merchandise  which  Judah  brought  to  the  market 
of  Tyre.  That  it  was  possessed  of  medicinal  pro- 
perties appears  from  Jer.  viii.  22  : ‘Is  there  no 
balm  in  Gilead  i ' ‘ Go  up  into  Gilead  and  take 

balm'  (xlvi.  11).  ‘Take  balm  for  her  pain,  if 
so  she  may  be  healed’  (xli.  8).  It  has  been 
variously  translated — cera,  theriaca,  cedri  resina, 
stacti  unguenta,  medicamenta,  resina,  colopho- 
nia.  * Celsius  and  others  state  that  zuroo  in 
Arabic  signifies  mastic , and  that  tzeri  there- 
fore is  this  resin : in  which  he  is  followed  by 
Sprengel.  In  the  Arabic  and  English  Dictionary 

is  translated  the  gum  of  an  Arabian  tree, 

which  is  called  kamkamy  and  said  to  be  found  in 
the  mountains  of  Yemen.  In  the  writer’s  MS. 
Materia  Med ica,  khushkhushyor\e  of  the  names  of 
the  poppy,  is  given  as  the  synonyme  of  zuroo  ; 
hut  this  may  be  a mistake  of  transcribers.  It  is 
curious,  however,  that  Avicenna  mentions  zuroo 
as  a well-known  gum  brought  to  Mecca,  as  being 
odorous,  and  having  the  power  of  laudanum. 

zuree,  moreover,  means  ‘bleeding  profusely,’ 

as  a vein,  or  according  to  Rosenmulltr,  ‘ fluid  or 
liquid  in  general,  which  equally  applies  to  oil  of 
every  kind.’ 

We  are  unable,  however,  distinctly  to  connect 
any  of  the  above  names  with  any  product  of 
Gilead.  But  there  is  a product  which,  though 
little  known  to  Europeans,  is  highly  esteemed  by 
the  Arabs,  according  to  the  testimony  of  several 
travellers.  This  is  the  oil  of  the  zackum  tree, 
sometimes  called  the  Jericho  plum-tree,  also  the 
Jerusalem  willow,  oleaster  or  wild  olive-tree,  or 
Elseagnus  angustifolius  of  Linnaeus.  The  fruit 
of  one  species  is  much  esteemed  in  Persia,  and 
known  by  the  name  of  zinzyd.  The  Syrian  fruit 
is  ovoid,  but  oblong,  fleshy,  having  an  olive-shaped 
nut  with  a kernel  containing  oil.  The  oil  is 
separated  by  pressure  and  floating  it  on  wate’*, 
and  a further  portion  by  boiling.  The  Arabs 
are  described  by  Maundrell  and  Mariti  as  hold- 
ing it  in  high  esteem,  and  as  preferring  it  to  the 
balsam  of  Mecca,  because  they  found  it  very 
efficacious  against  contusions  and  wounds.  ‘ For- 
merly, if  not  now,  when  the  Christian  caravan 
advanced  towards  Jericho  it  used  to  be  met  by 
crowds  of  Arab  women,  offering  the  salutary  oil 
for  sale  to  the  pilgrims,  in  small  leather  bottles  ’ 
(Kitto,  Palestine,  ccxxiii.).  This  is  supposed  by 
some  to  be  the  Myrobalanus  of  Pliny  and  other 
ancient  writers ; but  by  some  the  fruit  of  Melia 
azadirachta,  and  by  others  again  that  of  Hyperan- 
thera  Moringa,  or  H.  aptera,are  considered  the  true 
Myrobalanus  of  the  ancients.  Of  the  last  it  is  said,  I 
‘ Oleum,  e cotyledonibus  expressum,  in  omni  ori-  J 
ente  usitatum,  ea  propter  praedicatur,  quod  non  fa- 
cile rancorem  contrahat.1  But,  as  we  are  uaable  te 


TZIYIM. 


UR. 


89*3 


•oanect  any  of  these  with  the  iztn  of  Scripture, 
we  need  not  further  pursue  this  subject  [Agrie- 
j.aia]. — J.  F.  R. 

TZIYIM  (D^V)-  Bochart,  inclined  to  recog- 
nise this  word  as  a general  term  denoting  cats,  or 
any  kind  of  wild  beasts  that  frequent  dry  places, 
discovered  an  incongruity  when  it  is  opposed  to 
a single  species,  Iyim,  which  he  translates 
‘ Thoes  ’ (Isa.  xxxiv.  14,  and  Jer.  1.39).  Both 
words  are  meant,  it  seems,  to  imitate  the  cry  of 
animals;  and  if  he  be  right  in  regarding  the  first 
as  expressive  of  the  mewing  or  screaming  of  wild 
cats,  with  such  other  animals  as  the  ancients  in- 
cluded in  the  feline  tribe,  and  we  now  class 
among  viveridae  and  mustelidae,  each  including 
several  genera,  more  or  less  represented  by  species 
residing  in  and  around  Palestine ; we  then  find  the 
opposition  of  the  two  words  strikingly  just,  pro- 
vided that,  instead  of  the  single  Thoes  of  Bochart, 
we  make  lyirn  include  also  the  various  wild 
canidae  (dogs)  of  the  same  region,  amounting  to 
at  least  twelve  species,  without  including  two 
hyaenas  [Weasel]. — C.  H.  S. 


u. 

ULAI  ('^IK ; Sept.  OujSaA),  a river  which 
flowed  by  Susa  [Shushan]  into  the  united  stream 
of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  It  is  mentioned  in 
Dan.  viii.  2.  It  is  called  by  Pliny  Eulaeus 
(Hist.  Nat.  vi.  81),  but  is  described  by  Greek 
writers  under  the  name  of  Choaspes  (Herodot. 
v.  49 ; Strabo,  xv.  p.  728),  and  is  now  known 
by  the  name  of  Kerah,  called  by  the  Turks 
Karasu.  This  river  is  formed  by  the  junction  of 
many  streams  in  the  province  of  Ardelan,  in 
Kurdistan.  It  runs  through  the  plain  of  Ker- 
manshah,  and  being  greatly  increased  in  magni- 
tude by  the  junction  of  two  small  rivers,  proceeds 
with  a furious  course  towards  Khuzistan,  re- 
ceiving numerous  tributaries  in  its  passage.  It 
passes  on  the  west  of  the  ruins  of  Shus  [Susa : 
see  Shusan],  and  enters  the  Shat-ul-Arab  about 
twenty  miles  below  Koma  (Kinneir,  Geog.  Mem. 
of  the  Persian  Empire , pp.  96,  97). 

UNCLEAN  BIRDS.  The  species  which  the 
law  forbade  the  Israelites  to  use  for  food  (Levit. 
xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.)  include  bats,  because  in  the 
most  ancient  classifications  of  animals,  all  flying 
animals  were  considered  to  belong  more  to  birds 
than  quadrupeds  ; in  other  respects  the  list  is 
confined  nearly  to  the  same  genera  and  species  as 
are  at  the  present  day  rejected  in  all  Christian 
countries.  There  are  only  twenty  named;  but 
in  the  text  the  additional  words  c of  the  like  kind  ’ 
clearly  imply  sometimes  even  more  than  genera, 
and  the  explanations  of  the  law  superadded  by 
human  authority  indicate  several  which  do  not 
«»ccur  in  either  list.  Such  are,  for  example  (as 
stated  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase),  all  long-legged 
waders  or  stilters,  and  cursorial  birds  that  have 
the  hind-toe  or  hallux  wanting:  no  doubt  an 
extension  of  the  prohibition  of  the  ostrich;  but 
m this  manner  including  most  bustards,  plovers, 
&c.,  and  giving  rise  to  nice  distinctions  among 
those  gallinaceae  which  are  nearly  allied  to 
partridges,  whrse  hind-toe  is  found  gradually  to 
be  higher  up  the  leg,  and  very  much  reduced  in 


size,  till  it  becomes  altogether  wanting.  This  gra- 
dation proceeds  from  the  grouse  species  through 
the  pterocles  or  gangas,  until  its  total  absence  is 
observed  in  the  turnix,  as  in  the  Andalusian  or 
Spanish  and  the  Gibraltar,  which  nevertheless  are 
in  other  respects  partridges  or  quails  according  to 
the  systems  of  Linnaeus  and  Latham  : — 

1.  “12^3  Neser  Eagles. 

2.  DID  Peres  Gypaeta,  or  bearded 

V ulture. 

3.  iTOty  Ozniya  Osprey — Bacha. 

4.  nan,  n&n  Daah,  Raah  Glede — Black  Kite. 

5.  m,  H'N  Ay  ah, Day  ah  Vulture — Merlin 

and  allied  species. 


6. 

my  Oreb 

Raven — Crow  and 
Congeners. 

7. 

my'  Yaanah 

Ostrich. 

8. 

DDiin  Tachmas 

Night  Hawk,  or  Goat- 
sucker. 

9. 

Shacaph 

Cuckoo — Gull. 

10. 

|*3  Netz 

Hawk  and  con- 
geners. 

11. 

DID  Chos 

Owl. 

12. 

Shalach 

Caspian  and  Nilotic 
Tern. 

13. 

Yanshuph 

Owl  (?),  Nigtat  Heron. 

14. 

Tinshemeth 

Porphyrio. 

15. 

ntfp  Kaath 

Pelican. 

16. 

Dm  Racham 

White  Carrion  Vul- 
ture Neophron. 

17. 

ilTDn  Chasidah 

Stork. 

18. 

HD3N  Anaphah 

Heron — Plover  and 

- 

allied  species. 

19. 

riD'an  Dukiphah 

Hoopoo. 

20. 

Fj^Dy  Ataleph 

Bat. 

We  confess  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  influence 
which  Rabbinical  decisions  have  so  long  exer- 
cised upon  the  opinion  of  Christian  Hebraists,  we 
should  have  been  greatly  inclined  to  regard  most 
of  the  names  here  enumerated  as  arranged  in 
greater  order  of  consimilarity  than  our  versions 
admit,  and  as  more  typical  of  what  we  now  would 
denominate  families  and  genera  than  they  appear 
to  show.  Every  ornithologist  who  reviews  this 
question  with  care  will  feel  with  Winer  (Biblisch. 
Beal-  Worterbuch),  that,  with  certain  exceptions, 
the  proposed  identifications  cannot  be  regarded  as 
claiming  entire  confidence. — C.  H.  S. 
UNICORN.  [Reem.] 

UPHAZ  (TD-1N  ; Sept.  ’£2<|>aQ,  a country  from 
which  gold  was  obtained  (Jer.  x.  9;  Dan.  x.  5). 
It  is  generally  supposed  to  be  a corruption  of 
Ophir,  which  would  require  the  change  of 
only  one  letter,  and  there  are  other  cases  in 
which  “7  and  t are  interchanged. 
UPPER-ROOM.  [House.] 

UR,  of  the  Chaldees,  was  the  native  place  of 
the  family  of  Abraham,  whence  he  migrated  first 
to  Haran  and  then  to  Canaan  (Gen.  xi.  28,  31  ; 
xv.  7 ; Neb.  ix.  7 ; Acts  vii.  4).  The  Biblical 
narratives  supply  only  indirect  implications  as  to 
the  locality  intended.  From  these  we  conclude 
that  it  was  land  lying  to  the  East  of  Canaan,  and 
affording  suitable  pasture-grounds  for  a nomade 
race  that  had  made  some  considerable  progress  in 


m 


URBAN. 


URIM. 


civilization.  And  as  the  Chaldees  were  originally 
a tribe  of  mountaineers  in  the  high  lands  of  Ar- 
menia, in  those  parts  must  we  look  for  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees.  With  this  view  the  most  recent  geo- 
graphical researches  are  substantially  in  agree- 
ment. Ritter,  in  the  last  volume  of  his  pro- 
found, comprehensive,  and  invaluable  work  ( Erd - 
ktinde,  vii.  320,  sq.),  after  a review  of  all  that  lias 
been  ascertained  respecting  the  countries  covered 
by  the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  from  their  sources 
to  their  mouths,  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  Ur 
was  a district  identical  with  the  modern  pachalic 
of  Urfa,  to  which  4here  belong  several  districts, 
among  others  Rouha,  which  is  the  ancient  Edessa. 

— J.  R.  B. 

URBAN  ( Ovpfiav6s ),  a disciple  at  Rome,  and 
one  of  Paul’s  companions  in  labour  (Rom.  xvi.  9). 
Nothing  is  known  of  him;  but  his  name  shows 
him  to  have  been  a Roman. 

URIAH  (nn-lX,  flame  of  Jehovah;  Sept. 
Ovpfay),  a Hittite,  and  therefore  a descendant  of 
the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  whose  name 
occurs  in  the  list  of  the  ‘worthies’  or  champions 
of  king  David,  in  whose  army  he  was  an  officer. 
He  was  the  husband  of  Bathsheba ; and  while  he 
was  absent  with  the  army  before  Rabbah,  David 
conceived  and  gratified  a criminal  passion  for  his 
wife.  T^e  king  then  directed  Joab  to  send  him 
to  Jerusalem,  but  failing  to  make  his  presence 
instrumental  in  securing  Bathsheba  from  the 
legal  consequences  of  her  misconduct,  he  sent 
him  back  with  a letter  directing  Joab  to  ex- 
pose him  to  the  enemy  in  such  a manner  as  to 
ensure  his  destruction.  This  the  unscrupulous 
Joab  accomplished ; and  David  then  took  the 
widow  into  his  own  harem  (2  Sam.  xi. ; xxiii. 
39)  [David  ; Bathsheba]. 

1.  URIJAH  flame  of  Jehovah;  Sept. 

Oupias ),  high  priest  of  the  Jews  in  the  time  of 
king  Ahaz.  He  received  from  this  young  prince, 
who  was  than  at  Damascus,  the  model  of  an 
altar  which  had  there  engaged  his  attention,  with 
arderg  to  make  one  like  it  at  Jerusalem.  It  vjfas 
ciis  duty  to  refuse  compliance  with  this  dan- 
gerous order;  but  he  made  such  haste  in  his 
obedience  that  the  altar  was  completed  by  the 
time  Ahaz  returned  ; and  he  afterwards  went,  so  far 
in  his  subservience  as  to  offer  upon  this  new  and 
unauthorized  altar  the  sacrifices  prescribed  by  the 
Jaw  of  Moses  (2  Kings  xvi.  10-12).  He  was 
probably  not  so  fully  aware  as  he  ought  to  have 
been  of  the  crime  and  danger  involved  in  this 
concession  to  a royal  caprice,  being  a transgres- 
sion of  the  law  which  fixed  the  form  of  the 
Mosaical  altar  (Exod.  xxvii.  1-8;  xxxviii.  1-7): 
for  he  appears  to  have  been  in  intention  a good 
man,  as  he  is  one  of  the  ‘ faithful  witnesses’ 
chosen  by  Isaiah  (viii-  2)  to  attest  one  of  his 
prophecies. 

2.  URIJAH,  a prophet,  son  of  Shemaiah  of 
Kirjath-jearim  in  Judah,  who,  in  the  time  of 
Jehoiakim,  uttered  prophecies  against  Judaea  and 
Jerusalem  of  the  same  tenour  as  those  which  Jere- 
miah was  commissioned  to  deliver.  Menaced 
with  death  by  the  king,  Urijah  sought  refuge  in 
Egypt;  but  Judaea  was  at  that  time  subject  to 
Pharaoh-Necho,  who  had  no  interest  in  protecting 
a proscribed  fugitive  wb  foretold  the  conquests 
of  the  Babylonians.  He  was  therefore  delivered 
up  on  tl>e  demand  of  Jehoiakim,  who  put  him  to 


death,  and  ordered  him  to  be  buried  dishonour* 
ably  in  one  of  the  graves  of  the  meanest  of  tb« 
people  (Jer.  xxvi.  20,  21). 

URIM*  and  THUMMIM  (D'SHI  D'VIN ; 
Sept.  SiiXuats  Ka\  aXydeia,  & c. ; Vulg.,  Doctrina 
et  Veritas).  The  Hebrew  words  are  generally 
considered  to  be  plurales  excellentiae,  denoting 
light  (i.  e.  revelation)  and  truth ; and  as  used  by  a 
metonymy  for  the  things  or  modes  whereby  the 
revelation  was  given,  and  truth  declared.  They 
may,  however,  be  duals.  A similar  view  of  their 
construction  and  meaning  pervades  the  Sept,  and 
Vulg.  renderings,  under  some  varieties  of  expres- 
sion. There  are  two  principal  opinions  respecting 
•the  Urim  and  Thummim.  One  is,  that  these 
words  simply  denote  the  four  rows  of  precious 
stones  in  the  breastplate  of  the  high-priest,  and 
are  so  called  from  their  brilliancy  and  perfection  ; 
which  stones,  in  answer  to  an  appeal  to  God 
in  difficult  cases,  indicated  his  mind  and  will  by 
some  supernatural  appearance.  Thus,  as  we  know 
that  upon  each  of  the  stones  was  to  be  engraven 
the  name  of  one  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  it  has  been 
conjectured  that  the  letters  forming  the  divine 
response  became  some  way  or  other  distinguished 
from  the  other  letters.  It  has  been  conjectured 
by  others  that  the  response  was  given  by  an 
audible  voice  to  the  high-priest  arrayed  in  full 
pontificals,  and  standing  in  the  holy  place  with 
his  face  turned  towards  the  ark.  The  other  prin- 
cipal opinion  is,  that  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
were  two  small  oracular  images,  similar  to  the 
Teraphim,  personifying  revelation  and  truth , 
which  were  placed  in  the  cavity  or  pouch  formed 
by  the  folds  of  the  breastplate,  and  which  uttered 
oracles  by  a voice.  [Priest,  the  breastplate  ; 
Teraphim.]  We  propose  simply  to  lay  before 
the  reader  a statement  of  the  facts  connected  with 
this  obscure  but  interesting  subject.  It  is  remark- 
able that  the  first  time  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
are  mentioned  in  Scripture,  they  are  referred  to 
as  things  already  known.  After  a minute  de- 
scription of  the  breastplate,  which,  as  we  have 
shown  in  Priest,  was  to  differ  in  several  parti- 
culars from  that  worn  by  the  Egyptian  priests,  it 
is  simply  added,  ‘And  thou  shalt  put  in  the 
breastplate  of  judgment,  the  Urim  and  the  Thum- 
mim ’ (Exod.  xxviii.  30).  So  indefinite, -how- 
ever, is  the  preposition  here  translated  ‘ in,’ 
that  it  may  also  mean  ‘on’  or  ‘ near’  (Sept, 
reads  eV/).  The  Urim  and  Thummim  are, 
however,  here  clearly  distinguished  from  the 
breastplate  itself,  or  from  the  four  rows  of  gems, 
unless  we  can  imagine  that  the  breastplate 
should  be  so  called  before  the  gems,  the  essential 
part  of  it,  were  put  into  their  place.  We  observe 
the  like  distinction  made  in  the  account  of 
Aaron's  consecration  (Lev.  viii.  8 ; comp.  Ecclus. 
xlv.  10),  and  by  Josephus  ( Antiq . viii.  3.  8), 
where  he  distinguishes  the  rb  \oyeiov,  or  oracle, 
from  the  precious  stones.  So  does  the  Samaritan 
text,  which  also  states  the  Urim  and  Thummim  to 
have  been  made  on  the  occasion.  We  think  the 
distinction  indicated  in  these  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture sufficiently  clear  to  withstand  the  inferenc* 
which  has  been  derived  from  comparing  Exod. 
xxviii.  29,  with  30,  and  Exod.  xxxix.  8,  &c.,  with 
Lev.  viii.  8 ; namely,  that  the  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim were  identical  with  the  gems  in  the  breast- 
plate. In  Num.  xxvii.  21,  the  word 


URIM. 


URIM. 


901 


done  u med  in  a brief  recapitulatory  manner, 
and,  no  doubt,  including  the  Thummim,  or  else, 
in  the  general  sense  of  divine  revelations,  answers, 
&c.,  by  this  method  (Sept,  f)  Kpins  rwu  oiv  evavn 

Kvplov;  comp.  1 Sam.  xxviii.  6;  Sept.  ev  rots 
S^Aoiy,  Vulg.  per  sacerdotes).  The  usual  order  is 
reversed  in  Dent,  xxxiii.  8,  where  it  is  Thummim 
and  Urim.  The  last  mention  of  them  occurs  after 
the  return  of  the  captivity,  when  ‘ the  Tirshatha’ 
decreed  that  certain  claimants  to  the  rights  of  the 
priesthood,  but  who  could  not.  produce  their  eccle- 
siastical pedigree,  should  wait  ‘till  there  stood  up 
a priest  with  Urim  and  with  Thummim/  by  whom 
their  claim  might  be  infallibly  decided  (Ezra  ii. 
63  ; Sept,  r o7s  cfnari^ovai  Kal  ro7s  reXelois ; Vulg. 
sacerdos  doctus  atqnc  perfectus ; Neh.  vii.  65, 
.epevs  (pomow,  sacerdos  doctus  et  eruditus). 
From  these  obscure  statements  of  Scripture  we 
naturally  turn  to  Josephus,  the  professed  antiqua- 
rian of  his  nation.  He  says,  when  intending  to 
treat  of  the  subject,  that  ‘ God  declared  before- 
hand by  those  twelve  stones  which  the  high-priest 
bore  on  his  breast,  and  which  were  inserted  into 
the  breastplate,  when  they  should  be.  victorious 
in  battle ; for  so  great  a splendour  shone  forth 
from  them  before  the  army  began  to  march,  that 
all  the  people  were  sensible  of  God’s  being  pre- 
sent for  their  assistance,  and  that  the  breast- 
plate left  oft'  shining  two  hundred  years  before  he 
composed  that  book’  ( Antiq . iii.  8.  9 ; see  Wins- 
ton’s Notes  in  loc. ).  On  the  contrary,  Philo, 
the  learned  contemporary  of  Josephus,  represents 
the  Urim  and  Thummim  as  two  images  of  the  two 
virtues  or  powers — 5^A«<rtV  re  /cal  aK^Qeiav.  The 
full  quotation  is  : ‘ Tb  5e  \oye7ov  (the  pectoral  or 
breastplate) ; rerpdyuvov,  bncKovv  /car ecnc evader o, 
wravel  Paris,  7va  Svo  dp  eras  dyaKparocpopfj  (that 
they  might  carry  the  image  of  the  two  powers); 
b^Kcocriu  re  Kal  aArjQeiaV  (De  Vita  Mosis,  lib.  iii.  p. 
152,  t.  2,  ed.  Mangey).  He  also  uses  the  following 
words  (De  Monarch,  lib.  ii.  p.824;  Opp.  vol.  ii.  p. 
226),  ’End  rod  \oyelov  dirra  vcpdrpara  Karanot- 
ulKKei,  icporayopevuv  rb  per  r b S’  a\i j- 

Qeiav.  Of  the  two  statements,  that  of  Philo  is  best 
supported  by  certain  external  evidence,  which  will 
now  be  produced.  It.  had  been  noticed  by  all 
the  old  commentators,  that  a remarkable  resem- 
blance existed  between  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
of  the  Jewish  high-priest,  and  the  custom  re- 
corded by  .(Elian  of  the  Egyptian  archjudge,  who 
was  always  a priest  venerable  for  age,  learning, 
and  probity,  and  who  opened  judicial  proceed- 
ings by  suspending,  by  a gold  chain  hung  round 
his  neck  (comp.  £»en.  xli.  42),  an  image  made 
of  a sapphire  stone,  which  was  called  ’A^Geta, 
*.  e.  ‘truth,’  and  with  which  Diodorus  Siculus 
says  lie  touched  (w pordeiro)  the  party  who  had 
gained  the  cause.  Certain  traces  of  a similar 
custom  among  the  Romans  had  also  been  adverted 
to,  namely,  that  among  the  Vestal  Virgins,  at  least 
she  that  was  called  Maxima,  and  who  sat  in  judg- 
ment and  tried  causes,  as  the  Pontifex  Maximus 
did,  wore  a similar  antepectorale  (Lipsius,  De 
Vestal,  el  Vestal;  Syntagma  Ant.  ap.  Plant. 
1603.  cap.  ult.).  But  these  resemblances  among 
the  Egyptians  were  considered  to  have  been 
derived  by  them  from  the  Jews,  in  consequence 
of  their  correspondence  with  them  after  Solomon’s 
marriage  with  Pharaoh's  daughter  (Patrick  on 
Exod.  xxviii.  30).  Subsequent  discoveries,  how- 
bvmt,  among  the  antiquities  of  Eg  rpt  lead  to  the 


conclusion  that  these  resemblances  belong  to  a 
much  earlier  period.  Sir  G.  Wilkinson  says  the 
figure  of  Truth  which  the  Egyptian  arch-judgo 
suspended  from  his  neck,  was,  in  fact,  a represen- 
tation of  the  goddess  who  was  worshipped  under 
the  dual  or  double  character  of  Truth  and  Justice, 
and  whose  name,  Thmei,  the  Egyptian  or  Coptic 
name  of  Justice  or  Truth  (compare  the  Greek 
6epis),  appears  to  have  been  the  origin  of  the 
Hebrew  Thummim — ‘a  word/  he  remarks/  accord- 
ing to  the  Sept,  translation,  implying  truth,  and 
bearing  a furtheranalogy  in  its  plural  termination.'1 
He  also  remarks  that  the  word  Thummim,  being 
a plural  or  dual  word,  corresponds  to  the  Egyptian 
notion  of  the  ‘ two  Truths,’  or  the  double  capacity 
of  this  goddess.  ‘This  goddess/  he  says,  ‘fre- 
quently occurs  in  the  sculptures  in  this  double 
capacity,  represented  by  two  figures  exactly 
similar,  as  in  No.  (530).  It  is/  he  adds,  ‘ fur- 


ther observable  that  the  chief-priest  of  the  Jews, 
who,  before  the  election  of  a king,  was  also  the 
judge  of  the  nation,  was  alone  entitled  to  wear  this 
honorary  badge.  Does  the  touch  of  the  successful 


litigant  with  the  figure,  by  the  Egyptian  arch-judge, 
afford  any  illustration  of  such  passages  as  Isa.  vi. 
7,  Jer.  i.  9,  Est.  v.  2,  or  of  those  numerous  instances 
in  which  touching  is  represented  as  the  emblem 
or  means  of  miraculous  virtue?  Our  authority 


URIM. 


USURY. 


902 

for  these  Egyptian  antiquities  adds,  that  according 
to  some  the  Urim  and  Thummim  signify  ‘ lights 
and  perfections,’  or  ‘light  and  truth’ — which  last 
presents  a striking  analogy  to  the  two  figures  of 
Re,  the  sun,  and  Thmei,  truth,  in  the  breastplate 
worn  by  the  Egyptians  (No.  532).  Here  Thmei 


is  represented,  as  she  is  frequently,  as  a single 
figure  wearing  two  ostrich  feathers,  her  emblem, 
because  all  the  wing-feathers  of  this  bird  were 
considered  of  equal  length,  and  hence  meant 
true  or  Correct’  ( Manners  and  Customs  of  the 
Ancient  Egyptians , ii.  27,  &c.  ; v.  28,  &c. 
London,  1842.  See  also  other  remark'3  on  the 
dual  offices  of  Thmei,  in  Gallery  of  Antiquities, 
selected  from  the  British  Museum  by  F.  Arun- 
dale  and  J.  Bonomi).  Upon  a view  of  the  pre- 
ceding facts,  we  incline  to  Mr.  Mede’s  opinion, 
that  the  Urim  and  Thummim  were  ‘things  well 
known  to  the  patriarchs,’  as  divinely  appointed 
means  of  inquiring  of  the  Lord  (Gen.  xxv.  22, 
23),  suited  to  an  infantine  state  of  religion  ; that 
the  originals  were  preserved,  or  the  real  use,  at 
least,  among  the  Abrahamida;,  and  at  the  reform- 
ation under  Moses,  were  simply  recognised ; that 
the  resemblances  to  them  among  the  Egyptians 
were  but  imitations  of  this  primeval  mode  of 
divine  communication,  as  were  the  heathen  aus- 
pices of  similar  means  originally  connected  with 
the  sacrifice  of  animals  [Cain;  Abel;  Liver], 
The  speculations  of  learned  Jews  and  Christians 
connected  with  this  subject,  may  be  seen  in 
Winer’s  Biblisck.  Real-Wbrterbuch , Leips.  1835, 
art.  ‘ Urim  und  Thummim ;’  or  in  Robinson’s 
Theological  Dictionary,  London,  1816 ; and  some 
of  them  in  Cruden’s  Concordance.  Dr.  Pri- 
deaux  maintains  that  the  divine  answer  was  given 
by  an  audible  voice  to  the  high-priests  arrayed, 
and  standing  opposite  to  the  ark  ( Connection , i. 
123.  &c.) ; but  when  David  consulted  the  oracle 
by  Abiathar  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  9,  11  ; xxx.  7,8),  the 
ark  was  at  Kirjath-jearim,  whereas  David  was  in 
the  one  case  at  Ziklag,  and  in  the  other  in  the 
forest  of  Hareth.  Jahn  supposes  that  the  answer 
was  given  by  the  words  yes  and  no  inscribed  on 
two  stones  (a  third  being  left  blank  for  no  answer ) 
which  the  high-priest  carried  on  his  breastplate; 
and  consequently  that  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
was  the  sacred  lot  referred  to  in  Prov.  xvi.  33.  The 
lot.  is  cast  (pTQ)  into  the  bosom  ; but  the  whole 
judicial  decision  is  of  the  Lord  (comp,  xviii.  18  ; 
Archceol.  § 370).  Michaelis  also  considers  it  as 
a lot,  which  was  used  in  criminal  cases  to  dis- 
cover, not  convict  the  criminal ; for  the  confes- 
sions of  the  guilty  are  recorded  in  the  only  two 
instances  of  this  kind  mentioned  in  Scripture 
(Josh.  vii.  14-18,  and  1 Sam.  xiv.  37-45).  Ob- 
serve the  Hebrew  or  margin  of  ver.  41,  in  the 
last  reference.  He  remarks  that  the  discovery  of 
an  unknown  murder  was  not  left  to  these  means 
(Notes  on  Exod.  xxviii.  30,  and  Laws  of  Moses, 


art.  304).  Braunius  maintains  the  notion  of  Jo- 
sephus as  to  the  mode  of  the  divine  answer  (De 
Vestitu  Sacer.  Heb.,  ii.  20).  Spencer  maintains 
that  of  Philo  (De  Legib.  Heb.  lib.  iii.  Diss.ult.); 
but  is  opposed  by  Pocock  (On  Hosea  iii.  4,  p.  149). ' 
See  also  Buxtorf,  Historia  Urim  et  Thummim, 
in  Exercitt.  ad  Hist.  Basileae,  1659 ; Jennings, 
Jewish  Antiquities,  i.  233  ; Witsius,  sEgyptiaca, 
c.  10,  &c.  Winer  also  refers  to  Norris’s  Archceo- 
logia,  or  Miscell.  Tracts  relating  to  Antiquity 
iv.  No.  19;  Schroeder,  Diss.  de  Urim  et  Thym- 
7mm,  Marb.  1744;  Bellarmann,  Urim  u.  Thum- 
mim die  altesten  Gemmen,  Berl.  1824;  Stiebriz, 
Diss.  de  Variis  de  Urim  et  Thummim  Sententt. 
Hal.  1753-4.— J.  F.  D. 

USURY,  an  unlawful  contract  for  the  loan 
of  money,  to  be  returned  again  with  exorbitant 
increase.  By  the  laws  of  Moses  the  Israelites 
were  forbidden  to  take  usury  from  their  brethren 
upon  the  loan  of  money,  victuals,  or  anything 
else,  not,  it  has  been  observed  by  Michaelis,  as 
if  he  absolutely  and  in  all  cases  condemned  the 
practice,  for  he  expressly  permitted  interest  to  be 
taken  from  strangers,  but  only  out  of  favour  to 
the  poorer  classes.  In  other  words,  he  did  not 
mean  to  represent  that  the  taking  of  interest  for 
the  loan  of  money  was  in  itself  sinful  and  un- 
just; but  as  at  that  period  the  Israelites  were 
comparatively  a poor  people  and  strangers  to 
commerce,  they  borrowed,  not  with  a view  to 
profit  but  from  poverty,  and  in  order  to  procure 
the  common  necessaries  of  life.  It  would  there- 
fore have  been  a hardship  to  have  exacted  from 
them  more  than  was  lent.  The  Israelites  were, 
however,  permitted  to  take  usury  from  strangers, 
from  the  Canaanites,  and  other  people  devoted  to 
subjection.  This  was  one  of  the  many  means 
they  adopted  for  oppressing  and  ruining  the  Ca- 
naanites who  remained  in  the  land.  After  the 
return  of  the  Jews  from  captivity,  they  were  re- 
quired by  Nehemiah  to  ‘ leave  off  this  usury,' 
and  to  restore  to  their  brethren  what  they  had 
exacted  from  them — ‘ their  lands,  their  vineyards, 
their  olive-yards,  and  their  houses ; also  the 
hundredth  part  of  the  money,  and  of  the  corn,  the 
wine,  and  the  oil  ’ (Neh.  v.  10,  11).  Our  Sa- 
viour denounced  all  extortion,  and  promulgated 
anew  law  of  love  and  forbearance: — ‘ Give  to 
every  man  that  asketh  of  thee,  and  of  him  that 
taketh  away  thy  goods,  ask  them  not  again.’ 

‘ Love  ye  your  enemies,  and  do  good,  and  lend, 
hoping  for  nothing  again  ’ (Luke  vi.  30,  35). 

The  practice  of  exacting  an  exorbitant  rate  of 
interest  for  the  loan  of  money  is  condemned  by 
all  laws  divine  and  human.  It  was  first  pro- 
hibited in  England  during  the  reign  of  Edward 
the  Confessor  ; but  that  law  is  considered  to  havi 
become  obsolete,  as  in  1126  usury  was  forbidden 
only  to  the  clergy,  and  in  1138  it  was  decreed 
by  the  Council,  that  ‘ such  of  the  clergy  as  were 
usurers  and  hunters  after  sordid  gain,  and  for  the 
public  employment  of  the  laity,  ought  to  be  de- 
graded.’ In  1199,  the  last  year  of  the  reign  of 
Richard  I.,  the  rate  of  interest  for  money  was  re- 
stricted to  10  per  cent.,  which  continued  to  be 
the  market  rate  until  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
In  1311,  Philip  IV.  fixed  the  interest  that  might 
be  exacted  in  the  fairs  of  Champagne  at  20 
per  cent.  James  I.  of  Arragon,  in  1242,  fixed 
it  at  18  per  cent.  In  1490  the  rate  of  interest  in 
Placentia  was  40  per  cent.  Charles  V.  fixed 


U3. 


the  rate  of  interest  in  his  dominions  at  12  per 
eent.  1 1 1546  the  rate  in  England  was  fixed  at 
10  per  cent;  in  1624  it  was  reduced  to  8;  in 
1651  to  6;  and  in  1714  to  5 per  cent.,  at  which 
it  remained  until  1833.  By  3 and  4 Will.  IV'., 
c.  98,  bills  not  having  more  than  three  months  to 
run  were  exempted  from  the  operation  of  the 
laws  against  usury ; and  by  the  1 Vic.  c.  80,  the 
exemption  was  extended  to  bills  payable  at 
twelve  months.  By  the  2 and  3 Vic.,  c.  37,  it 
was  enacted  that  bills  of  exchange  and  contracts 
for  loans  or  forbearance  of  money  above  10/.  shall 
not  be  affected  by  the  usury  laws.  Five  per  cent, 
is  still  left  as  the  legal  rate  of  interest  for  money, 
ml  ess  it  shall  appear  that  any  different  rate  was 
agreed  upon  between  the  parties. — G.  M.  B. 

UZ  *,  Sept.  Averins),  a region  and  tribe 
named  in  Job  i.  1 ; Jer.  xxv.  20 ; Lam.  iv.  21, 
now  generally  supposed  to  have  been  situated  in 
the  south  of  Arabia  Deserta,  between  Idumaea, 
Palestine,  and  the  Euphrates,  called  by  Ptolemy 
( Geog . v.  19)  A ler'nai,  unless  the  reading  ’AwcriTat 
is  to  be  restored  [Nations,  Dispersion  of]. 
The  tribe  seems  to  have  been  descended  from  Uz, 
the  son  of  Aram  (Gen.  x.  23),  although  it  has 
been  sometimes  doubted  whether  its  o.igin  might 
not  rather  be  referred  to  Huz,  the  son  of  Nahor 
(Gen.  xxii.  21),  or  to  Uz,  the  Horite,  son  of 
Dishan  (Gen.  xxxvi.  28). 

UZAL  (i?T-lN  ; Sept.  A IfSpX),  a descendant  of 
Joktan,  founder  of  one  of  the  numerous  tribes  of 
Joktanidae  in  Yemen  (Gen.  x.  27)  [Nations, 
Dispersion  of]. 

UZZ AH  (H-ty,  strength ; Sept.  ’0£a),  son  of 
Abinadab,  a Levite,  who,  with  his  brother  Ahio, 
conducted  the  new  cart  on  which  the  ark  was 
aken  from  Kirjath-jearim  to  Jerusalem.  When 
he  procession  reached  the  threshing-floor  of 
Nachen,  the  oxen  drawing  the  cart  became  un- 
*uly,  and  Uszab  hastily  put  forth  his  hand  to 
day  the  ark,  which  was  shaken  by  their  move- 
ments. For  this  the  anger  of  the  Lord  smote 
him,  and  he  died  cn  the  spot.  This  judgment 
appeared  to  David  so  severe,  or  even  harsh,  that 
he  was  much  distressed, by  it,  and  becoming  afraid 
to  take  the  ark  any  farther,  left  it  there,  in  charge 
of  Obed-edom,  till  three  months  after,  when  he 
finally  took  it  to  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  vi.  1-1 1). 
The  whole  proceeding  was  very  irregular,  and 
contrary  to  the  distinct  and  far  from  unmeaning 
regulations  of  the  law,  which  prescribed  that  the 
ark  should  be  carried  on  the  shoulders  of  the  Le- 
vites  (Exod.  xxv.  14),  whereas  here  it  was  conveyed 
in  a cart  drawn  by  oxen.  The  ark  ought  to  have 
been  enveloped  in  its  coverings,  and  thus  wholly 
concealed  before  the  Levites  approached  it ; but 
it  does  not  appear  that  any  priest  took  part  in  the 
matter,  and  it  would  seem  as  if  the  ark  was 
brought  forth,  exposed  to  the  common  gaze,  in 
the  same  manner  in  which  it  had  been  brought 
back  by  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  yi.  13-19).  It 
was  the  duty  of  Uzzah,  as  a Levite,  to  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  proper  course  of  proceeding  : 
he  was  therefore  the  person  justly  accountable 
for  the  neglect ; and  the  judgment  upon  him 
seems  to  have  been  the  most  effectual  course  of 
ensuring  attention  to  the  proper  course  of  pro- 
ceeding, and  of  checking  the  growing  disposition 
to  treat  the  holy  mysteries  with  undue  familiarity. 


VAT.  ifcJ 

That  it  had  this  effect  is  expressly  stated  in 
1 Chron.  xv.  2,  13. 

UZZEN-SHERAH  (?VW  Sept. 
2er]pd),  a small  city,  founded  by  Sherah,  the 
daughter  of  Ephraim  (1  Chron.  vii.  24). 

UZZIAH  (iT-ty,  might  of  Jehovah;  Sept. 
’O (las),  otherwise  called  Azariah,  a king  of 
Judah,  who  began  to  reign  b.c.  809,  at  the  age 
of  sixteen,  and  reigned  fifty-three  years,  being, 
with  the  sole  exception  of  Manasseh’s,  the  longest 
reign  in  the  Hebrew  annals.  Uzziah  was  but  five 
years  old  when  his  father  was  slain.  He  was  six- 
teen before  he  was  formally  called  to  the  throne  : 
and  it  is  disputed  by  chronologers,  whether  to 
count  the  fifty-two  years  of  his  reign  from  the  be- 
ginning or  from  the  end  of  the  eleven  intervening 
years.  In  the  first  half  of  his  reign,  Uzziah  be- 
haved well,  and  was  mindful  of  his  true  place  a8 
viceroy  of  the  Divine  King.  He  accordingly  pros- 
pered in  all  his  undertakings.  His  arms  were 
successful  against  the  Philistines,  the  Arabians, 
and  the  Ammonites.  He  restored  and  fortified 
the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  planted  on  them 
engines  for  discharging  arrows  and  great  stones  ; 
he  organized  the  military  force  of  the  nation 
into  a kind  of  militia,  composed  of  307,500 
men,  under  the  command  of  2600  chiefs,  and 
divided  into  bands  liable  to  be  called  out  in 
rotation  ; for  these  he  provided  vast  stores  of  all 
kinds  of  weapons  and  armour, — spears,  shields, 
helmets,  breastplates,  bows,  and  slings. 

Nor  were  the  arts  of  peace  neglected  by 
him  : he  loved  and  fostered  agriculture;  and  he 
also  dug  wells,  and  constructed  towers  in  the 
desert,  for  the  use  of  the  flocks.  At  length,  when 
he  had  consolidated  and  extended  his  power,  and 
developed  the  internal  resources  of  his  country, 
Uzziah  fell.  His  prosperity  engendered  the  pride 
which  became  his  ruin.  In  the  twenty-fourth 
year  of  his  reign,  incited  probably  by  the  example 
of  the  neighbouring  kings,  who  united  the  regal 
and  pontifical  functions,  Uzziah,  unmindful  of 
the  fate  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  dared  to  attempt 
the  exercise  of  one  of  the  principal  functions  of 
the  priests,  by  entering  the  holy  place  to  burn  in- 
cense at  the  golden  altar.  But,  in  the  very  act, 
he  was  smitten  with  leprosy,  and  was  thrust  forth 
by  the  priests.  He  continued  a leper  all  the  rest 
of  his  life,  and  lived  apart  as  such,  the  public 
functions  of  the  government  being  administered 
by  his  so''  Jotham,  as  soon  as  he  became  of  suffi- 
cient cge.  (2  Xings  xv.  27,  28 ; 2 Chron.  xxvi.). 


V. 

VALE ; VALIA&Y  [Palestine  ; Plain.] 

VASHTl  (W1  ; P t?*.  beauty  ; Sept.  ’AcriV), 
the  wife  of  Ahasuerus,  king  of  Persia,  whose  re- 
fusal to  present  herself  uin.iled  before  the  com- 
potators  of  the  king  led  to  her  degradation,  and 
eventually  to  the  advancement  of  Esther  (Esth. 
i.  9-12)  [Ahasuerus;  Esther]. 

VAT.  The  three  Hebrew  words  translated 
wine-fat , wine-press , and  vat , are  not  well  dis- 
criminated in  the  common  version  of  the  Bible; 
nor  indeed,  owing  to  their  comparatively  infre- 


VEIL. 


SH>4  VAT. 

|uent  occurrence,  are  their  original  distinctions 
very  obvious. 

1.  Zip'  yekeb  or  yekev,  seems  to  denote  the 
fruit-house  and  wine-press  as  a whole,  including 
the  press-vat  and  the  receptacle  for  grapes  in- 
tended to  be  preserved ; just  as  4 barn’  includes 
both  the  corn-heap  and  the  threshing-floor.  The 
word  occurs  sixteen  times,  in  most  of  which  it 
evidently  denotes  the  entire  building  appropriated 
to  vintage  and  orchard  fruit  (Deut.  xvi.  13; 
Judges  vii.  25;  Isa.  v.  2;  Hos.  ix.  2;  Hag.  ii. 
16;  Zech.  xiv.  10).  In  Joel  iii.  13;  iv.  13, 

4 the  press  (gath)  is  full,  the  fruit-vats  (yekeb) 
overflow.’  This  term  is  clearly  distinguished 
from  the  press-vat  in  which  the  grapes  were 
trodden.  The  apparent  exceptions  are  Prow  iii. 
10 ; Joel  ii.  24  ; but  these  texts  are  capable  of  a 
better  rendering.  W e translate  the  former — 4 Thy 
fruit-vats  shall  be  heaped  up  with  vintage-fruit.’ 
Gesenius  observes  that  ‘neither  the  wine-press 
nor  wine-vat  can  be  said  to  burst  from  the  quan- 
tity of  wine  made,  the  figure  applying  only  to  a 
cask  or  wine-skin’  (Lex.  by  Prof.  Robinson,  p. 
879);  hence  he  considers  translated  4 over- 

flow,’ as  a verb  of  abundance — metaph.  4 to  be 
redundant  with'  The  latter  text  is  explained 
under  Fkuits.  Olearius,  in  his  Persian  Travels , 
1637,  says,  4 they  have  a way  to  keep  grapes  by 
wrapping  them  up  in  green  reeds  and  hanging 
them  up  in  the  roof  of  their  chambers’  (lib.  vi. 
p.  310).  It  is  a mistake  to  suppose  that  the  yekeb 
would  be  needed  only  during  the  vintage,  since 
the  graj)€s  are  capable  of  preservation  all  the  year 
round,  and  it  would  therefore  be  useful  as  a store- 
house. Ellis  W.  Delesser,  Esq.,  of  Florence,  thus 
describes  to  us  the  mode  of  keeping  grapes  adopted 
in  Italy  : 4 The  grapes  are  preserved  in  the  state 
in  which  they  are  cut  from  the  vine,  from  the 
time  of  the  vintage  till  the  month  of  March,  by 
spreading  them  out  on  hurdles,  taking  care  to 
leave  sufficient  space  between  the  bunches,  in 
lofty  and  dry  outhouses’  (Private  Letter , 1844). 
Gesenius  considers  that  the  yekeb  was  4 the  vat 
or  receptacle  into  which  the  must,  or  new  wine, 
flowed  from  the  press  Mj  ;’  probably  impressed 
with  the  affinity  between  yekev  and  the  root  of 
4 excavate.'  But  the  fact  is,  that  in  the  rudest 
and  original  states  of  society  amongst  the  Orien- 
tals it  was  common  to  form  storehouses  by  ex- 
cavating, in  which  they  kept  their  grain,  grapes, 
and  other  fruit.  The  name  yekeb  might  origi- 
nally have  referred  to  this,  and  would  afterwards 
be  retained  in  its  application  to  more  civilized 
methods  and  structures.  By  this  interpretation 
Gesenius  is  compelled  to  give  two  distinct  mean- 
ings to  the  word — 1,  the  wine-vat;  2,  the  grape- 
vat;  whereas,  by  adopting  our  more  generic  but 
inclusive  definition,  these  and  other  difficulties 
are  obviated. 

2.  m)Q  poorah , occurs  but  twice  (Isa.  lxiii. 
3;  Hag.  ii.  16).  It  is  derived  from  TlQ  4 to 
break,’  and  hence  is  applied  to  the  vat  in  which 
the  grapes  are  crushed  or  broken.  The  vats  were 
generally  large  and  deep,  requiring  several  per- 
sons to  tread  the  grapes  in  them  together.  Hence 
to  ‘tread  the  wine-press  alone’  indicated  extreme 
distress  and  desolation.  Probably  this  term  was 
applied  only  to  the  wine-v at,  as  distinguished  from 
Gathshemen , the  oil-press. 

3.  HI  gath , occurs  in  five  passages.  It  de- 
»otes  the  vat  (\rjv6s)  in  which  grapes  and  olives 


were  trodden  with  the  feet.  These  were  either 
formed  with  stones  and  covered  with  insoluble 
cement,  or  were,  in  favourable  localities,  hewn 
out  of  the  rock,  forming  raised  reservoirs,  into 
which  the  picked  grapes  were  cast  and  trodden 
upon  by  men  to  press  out  the  must , or  new  wine, 
which  flowed  out  through  gratings  or  spouts  into 
large  vessels  placed  outside  (inro\i]viovs).  In  the 
Egyptian  paintings  these  vats  are  represented  as 
having  a temporary  beam  extended  over  them, 
with  short  ropes  hanging  down,  by  which  the 
treaders  held  fast,  and  which  greatly  helped  them 
in  their  labour,  inasmuch  as  the  beam  acted  as  a 
lever  in  its  rebound,  lifting  them  up  from  the 
mass  of  grapes  into  which  they  sank. 


533.  [Wine-press.] 

This  work,  although  laborious,  was  performed 
with  great  animation,  accompanied  by  vintage- 
songs,  and  with  a peculiar  shout  or  cry,  and 
sometimes  by  instrumental  music  (Isa.  xvi.  9, 
10;  Jer.  xxv.  30;  xlviii.  32,  33). 

The  v-ko\t\mov  referred  to  in  Mark  xii.  1,  was 
a vessel  placed  below  the  \rju6s,  or  vat,  as  a re- 
ceptacle for  the  new  wine  or  oil.  A place  was 
digged  for  holding  it,  as  well  as  sometimes  for 
the  vat  in  which  the  fruit  was  trodden  (Mark 
xxi.  33).— F.  R.  L. 

VEIL.  There  are  several  words  denoting 
veil  in  the  Hebrew  Scripture,  showing  that,  as  at 
present,  there  were  different  kinds  of  this  essential 
article  of  an  Eastern  female's  attire.  These  are 
essentially  of  two  descriptions.  The  first,  and 
which  alone  offer  any  resemblance  to  the  veils 
used  among  us,  are  those  which  the  Eastern  wo- 
men wear  iu-doors,  and  which  are  usually  of 
muslin  or  other  light  texture,  attached  to  the 
head-dress  and  falling  down  over  the  back. 
They  are  of  different  kinds  and  names,  some 
descending  only  to  the  waist,  while  others  reach 
nearly  to  the  ground.  These  are  not  used  to  con- 
ceal the  face. 

The  veils  mentioned  in  Scripture  were,  nc 
doubt,  mostly  analogous  to  the  wrappers  of  dif* 


VEIL. 


VERSE. 


903 


ferent  kinds  in  which  the  Eastern  women  envelop 
themselves  when  they  quit  their  houses.  These 


are  of  great  amplitude,  and,  among  the  common 
people,  of  strong  and  coarse  texture,  like  that  in 
which  Ruth  carried  home  her  corn  (Ruth  iii.  15). 
The  word  here  is  nn2tOO  mitpachat , and  is 
rightly  rendered  ‘ veil'  by  our  translators,  although 
6ome  lexicographers,  not  understanding  Eastern 
veils,  have  considered  it  a mantle  or  cloak.  The 
cuts  will  show  how  sufficient  the  out-door  ‘ veils’ 
of  the  Eastern  women  are  for  such  a use.  The 
word  which  indicates  Ruth’s  ample  and  strong 
veil  is  that  which  also  occurs  in  Isa.  iii.  22,  and 
is  there  translated  ‘ mantle.’  In  the  same  verse 
we  find  “PTl  radid,  which  denotes  another  kind 
of  veil,  probably  of  finer  materials,  from  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  mentioned  in  this  text  and 
in  Cant.  v.  7.  The  latter  passage  shows  that  it 
was  an  out-door  veil,  which  the  lady  had  cast 
around  her  when  she  went  forth  to  seek  her  be- 
loved. In  Isa.  iii.  22,  this  word  is  rendered  by 
the  old  English  and  now  obsolete  term  ‘ wimple,’ 
which  means  a kind  of  hood  or  veil  in  use  at 
the  time  the  translation  was  made,  and  was  not  a 


535.  [Dress  Veils,  &c.  In-door.] 

bau  representative  of  the  original.  The  word 
occurs  in  Spenser  : — 

4 For  she  had  laid  her  mournful  stole  aside, 

And  widiw-like  sad  wimple  thrown  away.* 


‘ But  (she)  the  same  did  r.ide 
Under  a veil  that  wimpled  was  full  low  ; 

And  over  all  a black  stole  she  did  throw, 

As  one  that  inly  mourned.’ 

Another  kind  of  veil,  called  tzamah , ia 

named  in  Cant.  iv.  1,  3 ; vi.  7,  and  Isa.  xlvii.  2,  in 
which  places  the  word  is  rendered  ‘ locks  ’ in  the 
Auth.  Vers.;  but  in  these  texts,  according  to  the 
best  critics,  we  should  read,  ‘ Thou  hast  dove’s 
eyes  within  thy  veil not  4 within  thy  locks.’ 
‘ Thy  temples  within  thy  veil ;’  not  4 within  thy 
locks.’  4 Raise  thy  veil not  ‘ uncover  thy  locks.’ 
And  as  these  passages  refer  mostly  to  the  effect  of 
the  veil  as  connected  with  the  head-dress,  it  may 
perhaps  have  been  one  of  those  veils  which  have 
been  already  described  as  a part  of  in-door  dress  ; 
although  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  expressions 
are  almost  equally  applicable  to  some  kind  of 
street-veil.  Of  this  the  reader  can  judge  from 
the  engravings. 


Another  veil,  called  tzaiph , is  mentioned 

in  Gen.  xxiv.  65  ; xxxviii.  14,  19,  under  circum- 
stances which  show  that  it  was  one  of  those  ample 
wrappers  which  women  wore  out  of  doors.  The 

etymology,  referred  to  the  Arabic  sub 

duplicavit,  suggests  that  it  was  ‘ doubled  * over 
the  shoulders,  or  folded  about  the  body,  in  some 
peculiar  manner  which  distinguished  it  from  other 
veils.  It  is  clear  that  it  concealed  the  face,  as 
Judah  could  not.  recognise  Tamar  when  she  had 
wrapped  herself  in  a tzaiph. 

VEIL  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  AND 
TEMPLE.  [Tabernaci.e  ; Temple.] 
VERMILION.  [Purple.] 

VERSE  (p-IDE)  ; crrlxos,  tcS/ipa ; ceesum , in- 
cisiim,  versus,  versiculus ).  An  inquiry  into  the 
origin  of  the  verses  into  which  the  printed  text 
of  the  Bible  in  every  language  is  at  present  di- 
vided, will  not,  we  trust,  prove  uninteresting  to 
the  lovers  of  Biblical  literature.  As  there  was 
no  distinct  work  on  the  subject  of  these  divisions, 
the  writer  of  this  article  attempted  to  supply 
the  deficiency  in  a series  of  papers  published 
in  the  year  1812  in  the  Christian  Remem 
brancer , but  the  subject  was  discontinued,  a. 
not  being  found  adapted  to  the  present  cir- 
cumstances of  that  periodical.  We  shall  here 
give  the  results  of  our  inquiries,  which  are 
not  fully  developed  in  the  papers  referred  to 


VERSE. 


VERSE, 


C06 

We  shall  first  treat  of  the  versicular  divisions  in 
manuscripts  of  the  Bible,  viz. : — 

1.  Members  of  rhythmical  passages. 

2.  Logical  divisions  in  the  prose  books,  pecu- 
liar to  the  versions. 

3.  Logical  divisions  in  the  original  texts. 

The  term  verse  ( versus , from  verto,  ‘ to  turn '), 

like  the  Greek  arlxos,  was  applied  by  the  Ro- 
mans to  lines  in  general,  whether  in  prose  or 
verse,  but  more  particularly  to  the  rhythmical 
divisions  which  generally  commenced  the  line 
with  a capital  letter.  The  custom  of  writing 
poetical  books  in  stanzas  was  common  to  the 
Greeks,  Romans,  Arabians,  and  Hebrews.  The 
poetical  books  (viz.  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ec- 
clesiastes, and  Canticles),  in  the  oldest  Hebrew 
MSS.,  as  the  Paris,  Bodleian,  Cassel,  and  Regio- 
montanus, are  also  thus  divided,  and  the  poetical 
passages  in  the  historical  books  are  still  given  in 
this  form  in  our  printed  Hebrew  Bibles.  The 
Alexandrian  MS.,  and  those  of  the  Italic  ver- 
sion, are  equally  so  written,  and  this  division  is 
found  in  the  Psalterium  Turicense,  the  Verona 
and  St.  Germain  Psalters,  and  in  Martianay’s 
edition  of  Jerome.  Athanasius  applied  the  term 
(tt'lxos  to  the  passage  in  Ps.  cxix.  62  : ‘ I arose 
at  midnight  to  praise  thee  for  the  judgment  of 
thy  righteousness and  Chrysostom  observes,  on 
Ps.  xlii.,  that  ‘ each  stich  ( arlxos ) suffices  to 
afford  us  much  philosophy.’  He  also  uses  the 
term  ms  in  the  same  sense.  The  poetical 
books  are  called  by  Epiphanius  the  five  an- 

xnp&- 

The  following  example  is  from  the  Alexan- 
drian MS.  (Brit.  Mus.): — [Job  iii.] 

AttoXoito  ri  rjpepa  ev  tj  eyevvT)9r)v  ev  avTrj 

Kat  7j  ev  7}  enrov  ibov  apaev 

Aireveyuoiro  avrriv  auoros 

M77  enj  e is  'ppepas  eviavTov 

M rjbe  aptOpTjden}  eis  rjpepas  pirjvwv. 

Let  the  day  perish  wherein  I was  born, 

And  the  night  wherein  it  was  said,  There  is  a 
man-child  conceived. 

As  for  that  night,  let  darkness  seize  upon  it: 

Let  it  not  be  joined  to  the  days  of  the  year  ; 

Let  it  not  come  into  the  number  of  the  months. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  this  division  may  have 
come  from  the  original  authors,  which  the  nature 
of  the  subject,  and  especially  the  parallelism  of 
the  sentences,  seems  to  require  (Jebb's  Sacred 
Literature ).  In  the  Cod.  Alex,  are  equally  di- 
vided in  this  manner  the  songs  of  Mose3  and  of 
Hannah,  the  prayers  of  Isaiah,  of  Jonah,  of  Ha- 
bakkuk,  Hezekiah,  Manasses,  and  Azarias ; the 
Benedicite ; and  the  songs  of  Mary  (theotokos), 
Sifneon,  and  Zachariah,  in  the  New  Testament, 
to  which  is  added  the  Morning  Hymn,  or  Gloria 
in  Excelsis. 

A similar  metrical  division  is  found  in  the 
Latin  version.  Jerome  (Ep.  ad  Sunn,  et  Fret.) 
applies  the  term  versiculus  to  the  words  ‘ grando 
et  carbones  ignis  ’ (Ps.  xviii,  13),  assigning  as  a 
reason  why  the  Greeks  had  not  this  versicle  after 
the  interposition  of  two  verses,  that  it  had  been  in- 
serted in  the  Sept,  from  the  Hebrew  and  Theodo- 
tion's  version  (with  an  asterisk).  He  also.observes 
that  it  was  not  easy  to  reply  to  the  question,  why 
St.  Paul,  in  citing  the  13th  Psalm,  added  eight 
verses  not  found  in  the  Hebrew.  Martianay  re- 


marks that  these  eight  verses,  which  form  buf 
three  divisions  in  the  Latin  Psalters,  are  thus 
found  in  an  ancient  Psalter  of  the  Koiri}  at>d  the 
Italic,  in  the  Abbey  of  St.  Germain  des  Prss : 

Sepulchrum  patens  est  guttur  eorum 

Linguis  suis  dolose  agebant  [Ps.  v.  9]. 

Venenum  aspidum  sub  labns  eorum  TPs.  cxi 

3]. 

Quorum  os  maledictione  et  amaritudine  pi* 
num  est  [Ps.  x.  7]. 

Veloces  pedes  eorum  ad  effundendum  Ban- 
gui nem 

Contritio  et  infelicitas  in  viis  eorum 

Et  viam  pacis  non  cognoverunt  [Isa.  lix.  7,  8] 

Non  est  timor  Dei  ante  oculos  eorum  [Ps. 
xxxvi.  1]. 

We  need  scarcely  add  that  these  eight  stichs, 
although  found  in  Justin  Martyr,  in  the  Vatican 
MS.,  and  in  the  Vulgate,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic 
versions,  are  an  early  interpolation  from  Rom.  iii. 
15-1 8.  They  are  wanting  in  the  Cod.  Alex. 

Jerome  observes  ( Pref to  Job ) that  the  book 
of  Job  commences  with  prose,  glides  into  verse, 
and  again  ends  with  a short  comma  in  prose  from 
the  verse  ‘ Idcirco  me  reprehendo,‘et  ago  pceni- 
tentiam  in  cinere  et  favilla'  (the  form  assumed 
also  by  the  text  of  the  oldest  Hebrew  MSS.).  He 
adds  that  there  were  700  or  800  verses  wanting  in 
the  old  Latin  version  of  this  book,  and  makes 
mention  of  ‘ three  short  verses  ’ in  Ezek.  xxi.  and 
Isa.  lxiii.  That  a stichometrical  arrangement  per- 
vaded the  whole  Latin  Bible  is  further  evident  from 
the  Speculum  Scriptures , attributed  to  Augustine, 
which  contains  extracts  from  Psalms,  Canticles, 
Ecclesiastes,  Job,  Hosea,  Amos,  Micah,  Zepha- 
niah,  Malachi,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus,  the  four  Evangelists,  2Corinthians, 
Philippians,  Timothy,  1 John,  and  Hebrews.  All 
these  passages  will  be  found  extracted  in  the 
Christian  Remembrancer  (ut  supra , vol.  iii. 
pp.  676-683)  ; and  although  the  first  editors  of 
the  Speculum  seem  to  have  misunderstood  Au- 
gustine's meaning  (Simon’s  Ilist.  Critique),  it  is 
beyond  a doubt  that  the  verses  in  the  Speculum 
(one  of  which  was,  ‘ Populus  ejus  et  oves  pascuae 
ejus’),  were  of  the  character  which  we  are  now 
describing.  Jerome  has  not  followed  any  of 
the  divisions  of  the  present  Hebrew  text,  except 
in  those  passages  where  he  couM  not  well  l.ave 
avoided  it,  viz.,  the  alphabetical  division  in  the 
book  of  Lamentations,  and  the  alphabetical 
Psalms,  but  even  here  he  differs  from  the  present 
divisions  (Moririi  Exerc.  Bib/.*  pars  ii.  cap.  2). 

Jerome  introduced  a similar  division  into  the 
prophetical  books  and  the  books  of  Chronicles. 
To  this  division  he,  in  the  prophetical  books, 
applies  the  terms  cola  and  commata  (or  ‘ stanzfts  ’ 
and  ‘hemistichs  ’),  while  in  the  Chronicles  he  only 
employs  the  colon,  or  longer  period.  ‘ No  one  ‘ 
he  observes,  ‘ when  he  sees  the  Prophets  divided 
into  verses  ( versibus ),  must  suppose  that  they  are 
bound  by  metrical  lines,  or  that,  in  this  respect 
they  resemble  the  Psalms  and  the  books  of  Solo- 
mon ; but  as  the  works  of  Demosthenes  and  Tully 
are  divided  into  colons  and  commas,  although 
written  in  prose  and  not  verse,  we  have,  for  th« 


* Of  this  learned  work  the  only  copy  in  ant 
public  institution  in  London  is  that  in  Mr.  Dar« 
ling's  Clerical  Library. 


VERSE 


VERSE. 


convenience  of  the  reader,  aho  distinguished  our 
sew  version  by  a new  species  of  writing.’  The 
Chronicles,  he  says,  he  divided  into  members  of 
verses  (per  versuum  cola)  in  order  to  avoid  an 
‘ inextricable  forest  of  names.’ 

The  following  specimens  of  Jerome’s  divisions 
are  from  Martianay  : — 

[Job  iii.] 

‘ Pereat  dies  in  qua  natus  sum 

et  nox  in  qua  dictum  est : Conceptus  est 
homo. 

Dies  ilia  vertatur  in  tenebras 
non  requirat  eum  Deus  desuper 
et  non  illustretur  lumine.’ 

. [Isaiah  xl.] 

< Consolamini,  Consolamini,  popule  mens, 
dicit  Deus  v ester. 

Loquimini  ad  cor  Jerusalem,  et  advocate  earn  : 

Omnis  vallis  exaltabitur, 

et  omnis  mons  et  collis  humiliabitur, 

Et  erunt  prava  in  directa, 
et  aspera  in  vias  planas. 

Et  revelabitur  gloria  Domini, 
et  videbit,  &c. 

Vox  dicentis  ; Clama. 

Et  dixi  : 

Quid  clamabo? 

Omnis  caro  foenum, 

et  omnis  gloria  ejus  quasi  flos  agri.’ 

[1  Chron.  xiv.] 

* Misit  quoque  Hiram  rex  Tyri  nuntios  ad  Da- 
vid, et  ligna  cedrina,  et  artifices  parietum, 
lignorumque,  ut  aedificarent  ei  domum. 

Cognovitque  David  quod  confirmasset  eum 
Dominus  in  regem  super  Israel,  et  sub- 
levatum  esset  regnum  suum  super  populum 
cjus  Israel. 

Accepit  quoque  David  alias  uxores  in  Jeru- 
salem : genuitque  filios,  et  Alias.’ 

A division  of  the  prophetical  books  into  cola , or 
stichs,  has  been  considered  by  some  to  have  had  its 
origin  before  the  time  of  Jerome.  Eusebius  ac- 
quaints us  (Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  16)  that  Origen,  in  his 
Hexapla , divided  the  Greek  and  other  versions  into 
Ku\a,  which,  however,  Bishop  Christopherson  (in 
Euseb.  Eccles.  Hist.)  supposes  to  be  the  columns 
containing  the  different  texts  into  which  Origen’s 
Polyglott  was  divided.  Hesy chius,  who  died  in 
a.d.  433,  also  published  his  <tt t^peis  of  the 
twelve  prophets,  which  he  calls  an  invention  of 
the  Fathers,  in  imitation  of  David  and  Solomon, 
who  had  thus  divided  their  rhythmical  compo- 
sitions. He  observes  that  he  had  found  a similar 
division  in  the  apostolical  books.  In  this  case 
such  division  must  have  been  anterior  to  the 
stichometrical  edition  of  Euthalius,  if  the  date 
assigned  to  his  publication  be  correct,  viz.,  a.d. 
450  [Holy  Scripture],  It  is  not  improbable 
that  the  work  of  Hesychius  was  but  an  adaptation 
of  Jerome’s  cola  and  commata  to  the  Greek  text. 
This  is  also  the  opinion  of  Martianay.  Epiphanius 
(De  Orth.  Fid.  iv  ) adds  the  two  books  of  Wis- 
dom to  the  poetical  books  thus  arranged. 

We  have  seen  that  Jerome  imitates  the  mode  of 
writing  fte  works  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  in 
his  divisions  of  Chronicles.  This  custom  of  writing 
icaro  <ttIxovs  appears  to  have  been  usual  among 
profane  writers.  Josephus  observes  that  his  own 
An4auities  consisted  of  sixty  thousand  <rTt%oi, 


although  in  Ittigius’s  edition  there  are  only  forty 
thousand  broken  lines.  Diogenes  Laertius,  in  bis 
Lives  of  the  Philosophers,  recounts  the  number  of 
stichs  which  their  works  contained.  There  have, 
however,  existed  doubts  as  to  what  the  arlxot 
really  were;  some  supposing  them  to  be  simply 
lines,  or  lines  consisting  of  a certain  number  of 
words  or  letters,  as  in  our  printed  books,  while 
others  have  maintained  them  to  be  lines  of  varied 
length  regulated  by  the  sense,  like  the  cola  and 
commata  of  Jerome.  The  fact  is  that  there  are 
MSS.  written  in  both  kinds  of  verses  or  stichs, 
with  the  number  of  the  stichs  placed  at  the  end  of, 
each  book  ; and  this  is  what  is  called  stichometry , 
or  the  enumeration  of  lines.  The  introduction  of 
lines  regulated  by  the  sense  into  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  supposed  to  have  been  a rude  substitute 
for  punctuation.  The  second  mode,  resembling 
our  printed  books,  is  also  common ; it  is  that 
adopted  in  the  Charlemagne  Bible,  at  the  close  of 
each  book  of  which  will  be  found  the  number  of 
verses,  that  is,  lines  of  equal  length,  but  without 
any  regard  to  the  number  of  words  or  letters. 

We  are  not  aware  at  what  time  or  by  whom 
stichometry  was  adapted  to  the  Gospels,  but  not 
long  after  the  time  of  Euthalius  we  find  it  in  com- 
mon use.  The  Cod.  Bezse  (C)  and  the  Clermont 
MS.  (D)  are  thus  written.  The  following  is  from 
C [John  i.] 

Er  apxy  yr  5 \oyos  Kai  o Aoyos  yr  n pos  top  Qeov 
Kai  &eos  yr  6 Aoyos.  ovtos  yv  ep  apxp  tt pos  top 
Qeov 

riai/Ta  St  avrov  eyeper o kcu  xwPls  avrov 
Eyepero  ovde  ep  6 yeyopep’  ep  avrep 
Zuy  yp  Kai  7]  fay  7]V  TO  (f>d)S  TUP  ApdpUTTUV 
K at  to  <\>us  ep  ry  crKOTia  <paivei 
Kai  y (TKOTia  avro  ov  Kare\a0ep 
Eyepero  apQpuiros  airearaXpepos 
Uapa  Qeov,  opopa  avrov  luarrys. 

The  following  is  from  Acts  xiii.  16,  in  Greek 
and  Latin : — (Kipling,  p.  747). 

A paaras  de  6 UavKos — Cum  surrexisset  Paulus 
Kai  icaraaeiaas  ry  XeiPL  eiirei/ — Et  silentium 
manu  postulasset,  dixit, 

A pdpes  larpayXirai,  Kai  oi  (pofiovpepoi  top  Qeop — 
Viri  Istraheliti,  et  qui  timetis  Deum 
AKovaare — Audite. 

O 0eos  t ov  A aov  rovrov,  k.  t.  A. — Deus  populi 
hujus,  &c. 

Afterwards,  in  order  to  save  parchment,  it  be- 
came usual  to  write  the  stichometrical  books 
continuously,  separating  the  stichs  by  a point, 
but  still  placing  their  numbers  at  the  end  of  each 
book.  The  following  is  a specimen  from  the 
Cod.  Cypr. : — O Be  eyepQeis.  nrapeXafie  to  irai- 
Siop.  Kai  ryp  pyrepa  avrov.  Kat  y\Qev  eis  yyp 
lapayX.  aKovcras  Se.  on  ApxyXaos  fiaaiXevae  em 
Tijs  lovdaias.  apri  HpuSov  rov  irarpos  avrov.  e<po- 
fiyOy  €Kei  aireA Qeip. 

Sometimes,  instead  of  the  point,  the  stichs  com- 
menced with  a capital,  as  in  the  Cod.  Boerner., 
which,  however,  seems  to  have  been  written  by  an 
ignorant  Irish  scribe,  unacquainted  with  the  lan- 
guages in  which  the  MS.  was  written  [Vulgate j. 

Ut  non  quasi  ex  necessitate  t em  bonum  tuunj 
h/a.  prj  us  KarapayKyp  to  ayadop  aov. 
sit.  Sed  voluntarium  forsitan  enim  ideo 

7j.  AAAa  KareKovaeiop.  T axa  yap.  At* 


VERSE. 


VERSE. 


t propterea.  Ad  horam  t ad  tempus  u* 

rovro.  Excopiadp.  irpos  copau  Iva. 

■'ternura  ilium  t eum  recipias  non  jam  quasi 
auvveiov  avTov  airex1)5  0VK  eT€t 
servura  fratrem  dilectum  maxime  milii 
tiovAov.  AdzA<pov.  AyanTjTov.  MaAAnrra  ejxoi 

quanto  autem  magis  tibi  et  in  came  et  in  dno 

flocr®.  Se  paAAov  aoi  kcu.  ev.  aapKet  kcu  ev  kZ> 

a igitur  t ergo  me  habes  socium  accipe 

ei  ovv  pe  ex€ts  koivwvov  HpoaAafiot 
illum  sieut  me.  77.  Si  autem  aliquid  nocuit  t 
7.\rrov  us  e/xat.  Et  Se  .ti.  rjSet- 
Isasit  te  aut  debet  hoc  mihi  imputa  ego 

Kijcev  <re  ij.  ocpeiAeirat.  Tovto  pot  eAA oya  Eyu 
paulus  scripsi  mea  manu  ego  reddam 

vavAos.  eypaipa  rrj.  ept]  XlPet'  airoTetaoc. 

ut  non  dicam  tibi  quod  et  te  ipsum  mihi 

Ira  p/j  Aeyu  aot.  on  kcu  ere  avrov.  /xoi. 

debes  ita  t utique  frater  ego  te  fruar 
vpoaoeptAets.  N at.  Hai  aSeA<pe.  E^co  aov.  ovaippv. 
in  dno. 

er.  it*.  [Philem.  14—20.] 

The  stichs  were  sometimes  very  short,  as  in  Cod. 
Laud.  (E),  in  which  there  is  seldom  above  one 
word  in  each.  The  Clermont  MS.  (D)  contains 
a list  of  the  stichs  in  all  the  Greek  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  the  Stichometry 
of  Nicephorus  contains  a similar  enumeration  of 
the  Canonical  hooks, — the  Antilegomena  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament, — and  of  the  Apocry- 
phal books,  as  Enoch,  the  Testaments  of  the  Pa- 
triarchs, &c.  &c. 

Hug  ( Introd .)  observes  that  the  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus  might  be  easily  mistaken  for  the  copy 
of  a stichometrical  manuscript,  from  the  resem- 
blance of  its  divisions  to  the  <tt Ixoi,  as,  rjKovaa 
8e  tpuvps  Aeyov<n)s  fxoi.  avacras  llerpe.  Ovaov  kcu 
(bays,  but  these  occur  only  in  occasional  pas- 
sages. 

distances  • occur  in  other  MSS.  in  which  the 
stanzas  are  numbered  in  the  margin,  as  in  the 
Song  of  Moses,  in  Greek  and  Latin  in  the  Psalter 
of  Sedulius  of  Ireland,  who  flourished  in  the 
ninth  century.  The  song  consists  of  forty-two 
commas  or  stichs,  comprised  in  seven  colons  or 
stanzas,  with  a Roman  numeral  prefixed  to  each- 
all  in  the  handwriting  of  Sedulius.  The  Latin 
is  Ante-hieronymian  (Montfaucon,  Palceogr. 
Grcec.;  also  Christ.  Rememb.  ut  supra,  p.  687). 

There  is  a Greek  Stichometrical  manuscript  of 
Isaiah,  probably  of  the  ninth  century,  in  the 
Bibliotheqne  du  Roi  (1892),  in  which  the  stichs 
do  not  commence  with  the  line,  but  there  is  a 
Greek  numeral  letter  attached  in  the  margin 
opposite  each  stich,  the  enumeration  recom- 
mencing at  the  end  of  every  hundred  lines,  iri  this 
form : — 

1.  The  vision  of  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  which 

he  saw  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  in 
the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and 
Hezekiah,  kings  of 

2.  Judah.  Hear,  O heavens,  and 

3.  give  ear,  O earth  : for  the  Lord  hath  spoken. 

4.  I have  nourished  and  brought  up  children, 

and  they 

5.  have  rebelled  against  me.  The  ox  knou  ?th 

6.  his  owner,  and  the  ass  his  master’s  crib  : 

7.  but  Israel  doth  not  know,  my  people 

8.  doth  not  consider.  O sinful  natnn, 


9.  a people  laden  with  iniquity,  a seed 

10.  of  evil-doers,  children  that  are  corrupters; 

they  have  forsa 

11.  ken  the  Lord,  they  have  provoked  the  ha 

1 y one  of  Israel  to  anger ; they  are  gone  away 

backward.  Ye  will  revolt  more  and  more,&c. 

12.  Why  should  ye  be  stricken  any  more? 

Hug  is  of  opinion  that  the  SWchometrical  sys- 
tem gave  rise  to  the  continuous  and  regular 
grammatical  punctuation.  Attempts  at  inter- 
punction  for  the  sake  of  the  sense  were,  however,  of 
much  greater  antiquity  in  profane  authors  than 
the  era  of  Stichometry.  Grammatical  points  are 
said  to  have  been  first  introduced  by  Aristophanes 
of  Byzantium  about  two  centuries  before  the 
Christian  era.  We  have  already  seen  that  inter- 
punction  was  in  use  in  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament 
before  Euthalius,  as  in  the  Cod  Alex.  Isidore 
of  Spain  acquaints  us  that  the  only  note  of  divi- 
sion in  his  t'ime  was  a single  point,  which,  to 
denote  a comma , or  short  pause,  was  placed  at 
the  bottom ; to  denote  a colon , or  larger  pa-use,  in 
the  middle;  and  to  denote  a full  pause,  or  period, 
was  placed  at  the  top  of  the  final  letter  of  the 
sentence.  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
the  Zurich  Cod.  Bas.  E.,  have  come  down  to 
us  thus  pointed.  In  others,  as  the  Cod.  Alex,  and 
Cod.  Ephrem.,  the  point  is  placed  indifferently  at 
the  top,  bottom,  or  middle  of  the  letter  (Tischen- 
dorf,  Cod.  Ephrem.').  Others,  as  L.,  use  a cross  for 
the  purpose  of  marking  a period,  and  Colb.  700 
makes  use  of  no  other  mark.  Hupfeld,  however, 
(Stud.  u.  Krit .),  doubts  whether  thepoints'in  Cod. 
Cyprius  are  notes  of  the  stichs,  and  denies  any 
distinction  between  grammatical  and  other  in- 
terpunction. 

Originally  there  were  no  spaces  between  the 
words,  but  in  the  eighth  or  ninth  century  they 
began  to  be  separated  either  by  spaces*  or  by 
points.  About  the  same  period  the  present  marks 
of  punctuation  began  to  be  gradually  and  im- 
perceptibly adopted,  aud  had  become  universal 
in  the  tenth  century.  Michaelis  (Introd.  ch.  xiii.) 
says,  ‘ that  Jerome  introduced  the  comma  and 
colon  but  this  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  divid- 
ing sentences  [Vulgate],  Cod.  V.,  however,  in 
Matthaei,  of  the  eighth  century,  has  the  comma  and 
the  point,  and  Cod.  Vat.  351,  the  colon.  The 
Greek  note  of  interrogation  came  into  use  in  the 
ninth  century.  After  the  invention  of  print  ing,  the 
Aldine  editions  fixed  the  punctuation,  which  was, 
however,  varied  by  Robert  Stephens  in  his  different 
editions  of  the  Bible.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
observe  that  the  punctuation  of  the  Bible  possesses 
no  authority,  and  that  no  critic  hesitates  to  dissent 
from  it.  The  accents,  or  the  writing  kccto  irpocrcp- 
Slav.  which  were  already  in  use  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, were  added  by  Euthalius  to  his  edition,  but 
were  not  in  general  use  before  the  tenth  century. 

The  Hebrew  MSS.  all  contain  a versicular 
division,  marked  with  the  accent  called  silluk, 
and  the  soph  pasuk  (end  of  the  verse).  The  word 
pasuk,  pIDD,  is  found  in  the  Talmud,  where  it 
denotes  some  division  of  this  kind  ; but  whether 
the  Talmudical  pesukim  are  identical  with  those 
in  the  manuscripts,  has  been  strongly  contested 


* In  the  Cod.  Alex,  blank  spaces  are  fouad  a*, 
the  end  of  the  commas  or  sections,  but  nowrbe? 
else  (Marsh’s  Michaelis). 


VERSE. 


VERSE. 


It  is  said  in  tract  Kiddushun  (30,  c.  1),  ‘Our 
rabbins  assert  that  the  lajv  contains  5888  (or,  ac- 
cording to  Morinus,  8S88)  pesukim,'  while,  ac- 
cording to  the  division  in  our  Bibles,  there  are 
5845  verses.  ‘The  Psalms  have  8 more.’  There 
are  at  present  2527.  ‘The  Chronicles  8 less.’ 
This  division  rather  resembles  the  arixot  in  the 
Sept.,  of  which  the  Psalms  contain  5000.  In 
the  Mishna  ( Megilla , iv.  1)  it  is  said,  ‘ He  who 
reads  the  law  must  not  read  less  than  three 
pesukim.  Let  not  more  than  one  be  read  by  the 
interpreter,  or  three  in  the  Prophets.’  The  passage 
in  Isa.  lii.  3-5  is  reckoned  as  three  pesukim.  In 
Taen  (iv.  3),  a precept  is  given  for  reading  the 
history  of  the  creation  according  to  the  Parashes 
and  the  verses  in  the  law  ; and  in  the  B .b.  Tal- 
mud ( Baba  Bathra,  xiv.  c.  2)  the  passage  in  Deut. 
xxxiv.  5-12  is  called  ‘the  last  eight  verses  ( pesu- 
kim) in  the  law.’  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  . 
some  at  least  of  our  present  verses  correspond 
with  the  Talmudical.  The  term  D'pPD'Q  pi- 
sukim  is  also  applied  in  the  Gemara,  as  synony- 
mous with  D'DJ/D,  to  reading  lessons  in  general, 
and  sometimes  to  short  passages  or  half  verses. 
But  no  marks  appear  to  have  existed  in  the 
text  to  distinguish  these  divisions,  which  were 
doubtless  preserved  by  oral  teaching.  The  first 
nutice  of  such  signs  is  found  in  Sopherim  (iii.  7), 
in  these  words  : ‘ Liber  legis,  in  quo  incisum  est,  et 
in  quo  capita  incisorum  punctata  sunt,  ne  legas 
in  illo.’  No  such  marks  occur  in  the  synagogue 
rolls.  The  Sept,  and  Vulg.  differ  both  from 
the  Hebrew  and  from  each  other  in  divisions  of 
this  character.  (Ps.  xliii.  1 1,  12 ; xc.  2 ; Lam. 
iii.  5 ; Jon.  ii.  6 ; Obad.  9 ; Vulg.  Cant.  v.  5 ; 
Eccles.  i.  5.).  Th  e pesukim  of  the  Talmud,  which 
are  said  there  to  have  descended  from  Moses, 
may  have  been  possibly  separated  by  spaces. 
From  a Targum  on  Cant.  v.  13,  it  appears  that 
the  decalogue  was  originally  written  in  ten  lines 
( tammim).  All  the  pointed  or  Masoretic  MSS. 
contain  the  present  verses,  divided  by  the  soph 
pasuk  (i).  We  ha  ve  already  referred  to  the  practice 
of  the  Masorites  in  numbering  these  verses,  which 
was  done  at  the  end  of  each  book.  Thus  at  the 
end  of  Genesis  : ‘ Genesis  has  1534  verses,’  &c. ; 
and  at  the  end  of  the  Pentateuch  : ‘The  number 
of  verses  ( pesukim ) in  the  book  of  Deuteionomy 
is  955,’  its  sign  (which  represents  the  same 
number);  the  middle  verse  is,  “And  thou  shalt  do 
according  to  the  sentence”  (xvii.  10) ; the  num- 
ber of  parashes  is  10,  and  of  sidarim  27  ; and  the 
number  of  verses  in  the  entire  Pentateuch  is  5245 

[5?.5?J The  number  of  verses  in  the 

Psalms  is  2527,  the  sign  “JfDNN  ; the  middle 
verse,  “Nevertheless  they  flattered  thee  with  their 
mouth  ” [Ixxviii.  36]  ; the  number  of  sidarim  19, 
and  the  number  of  Psalms  150.’  The  Venice 
edition  of  Ben  Chaijim,  from  which  these  divi- 
sions are  taken,  omits  them  in  Chronicles,  but 
they  are  supplied  by  two  MSS.  In  the  Penta- 
teuch the  number  of  verses  in  the  greater  sections, 
or  those  marked  by  D D D and  D O D,  is  also  in- 
dicated at  the  end  of  each  section,  thus  : ‘ Bere- 
shith  has  146  verses,  sign  ; Noah  has  153 

verses,  &c.  The  entire  number  of  verses  is 
23,206.’  Before  the  Concordance  of  Rabbi 
Nathan  in  the  fifteenth  century  [Holy  Scrip- 
tuh.es],  the  Jews  made  their  references  by  citing 
in  the  Pentateuch  the  two  first  words  of  the  Sab- 
bath lessons,  making  no  use  of  the  shorter  sidarim , 


or  of  the  open  or  shut  parashes.  Of  these,  which 
are  confined  to  the  Pentateuch,  there  are  290  open 
and  379  shut.  Of  the  larger  parashes,  or  Sabbath 
lessons,  Genesis  contains  12,  Exodus  1 1,  Leviticus, 
Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy  10  each.  Of  the 
lesser  sidarim  Genesis  contains  42,  &c.  These 
always  commence  in  the  Pentateuch  with  an  open 
or  closed  section.  From  the  time  of  Cardinal 
Hugo's  Concordance  citations  began  to  be  made 
by  chapter  and  letter  [Scripture,  Holy].  All 
MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  after  this  period  began  to 
be  thus  marked,  and  we  find  Nicholas  de  Lyra 
in  the  fourteenth  century  frequently  citing  them 
in  this  manner.  The  citation  of  chapter  and 
verse  was  a Jewish  improvement  of  the  succeeding 
century.* 

The  ancient  Greek  MSS.  which  have  descended 
to  our  times  also  contain  a division  into  short 
sentences,  which  have  been  sometimes  called 
ctiXoi  and  verses.  They  are  regulated  by  the 
sense,  and  each  constitutes  a full  period.  They 
are  frequently  double  or  treble  the  length  of  the 
verses  in  our  present  New  Testament,  although 
sometimes  they  aie  identical  with  them.  The 
Alexandrian,  Vatican,  Cambridge,  Dublin,  and 
other  ancient  MSS.,  all  contain  similar  divisions. 
The  following  is  from  the  Cod.  Ephremi : — [1 
Tim.  iii.  12-16]. 

A mkovoi  earuoav  / uas  yvvaucos  avSpes’  tckvcov 
Ka\(»s  TTpoiarapevoi  uai  twv  iSiuv  oikkdv’  oi  yap 
KaXcDS  SiaKovp<ravT€s’  fic.6p.ov  eavrois  KaXov 
TrepiTToiowraL'  kou  ttoWtjv  rrapppaiav  tv  7ncrT6t 
tt)  ev  Xw.  ID* 

TaoTa  croi  ypaefot  eXir ifav  eA Oeiv  tt pos  ere  ev  r a^et* 
eav  8e  fipadvva'  iva  eibps  rras  Set  ev  oiKcp  Qov 
avacrrpecpeoQar  eiTis  eernv  eteicXperia  Qov  favros' 
arvXos  ical  edpaicopa  ttjs  aXpQeias’ 

Kca  opoXoyovpevws  peya  eerriv  to  ttjs  evffcfieias 
pverrppiov'  os^ecpavepudr]  ev  (rapier  eSueaiwdei 
iuTr  uxpQp  ayyeXois * eKppvx^'l  ev  zQveeriv'  evia- 
revOri  ev  Koapcp * aveXppcpQp  ev  5o£p* 

Versicular  divisions  in  the  printed  Bibles. — 
These,  together  with  the  numerical  notation,  are 
generally  attributed  to  Robert  Stephen,  or  Ste- 
phens {Etienne).  Their  origin  is,  notwithstand- 
ing, involved  in  obscurity.  Even  those  who 
attribute  the  invention  to  Stephens  are  not  agreed 
as  to  their  date.  ‘We  are  assured,’  observes  Cal- 
met  {Pref.  to  the  Bible),  ‘that  it  is  Robert 
Stephens  who,  in  iiis  edition  of  1545,  has  divided 
the  text  by  verses,  numbered  as  at  present.’  This 
division  passed  from  the  Latins  to  the  Greeks  and 
Hebrews.  ‘ Robert  Stephens,’  says  Du  Pin  {Pro- 
log.), ‘ was  the  first  who  followed  the  Masorites 
in  his  edition  of  the  Vulgate  in  1545.’  * Verses,’ 

says  Simon  {Hist.  Critique ),  and  after  him  Jahn 
{Introd.),  ‘were  first  introduced  into  the  Vulgate 
and  marked  with  figures  by  Robert  Stephens  in 
1548.  Morinus  {Exercit.  Bibl.),  who  is  followed 
by  Prideaux  ( Connection ),  attributes  the  verses 
to  Vatablus,  without  naming  a date,  while  Che- 
villier  {Hist,  de  Vlmprimerie)  and  Maittaire 
{Hisloria  Stephanorum)  assert  that  Stephens  di- 

* Mr.  Gresly  {Forest  of  Arden,  ch.  i.)  is 
guilty  of  an  anachronism  in  making  Latimer,  in 
1537,  cite  for  his  text  the  twentieth  verse  of  the 
tenth  chapter  of  Matthew.  The  New  Testament 
was  not  referred  to  by  verses  until  long  after  thia 
period. 


910 


VERSE. 


VERSE. 


sided  the  chapters  into  verses,  placing  a figure  at 
each  verse,  in  the  New  Testament  in  1551,  and 
in  the  Old  in  1557.  Chevillier  adds  that  James 
Faber  of  Estaples  had  introduced  the  practice  in 
his  edition  of  the  Psalms  printed  in  1509  by 
Henry,  father  of  Robert  Stephens ; and  he  is  fol- 
lowed by  Renouard  (Annales  des  Etienne , 
Paris,  1843),  in  supposing  that  Stephens  took 
his  idea  from  this  very  work.  But,  not  to 
multiply  instances,  Mr.  Home  ( Introd . vol.  ii. 
p.  i.  ch.  ii.  s.  iii.  § 1)  gives  the  following  ac- 
count of  their  introduction  : * Rabbi  Mordecai 
Nathan  ....  undertook  a similar  Concordance 
[to  that  of  Hugo]  for  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
[Scripture,  Holy],  but  instead  of  adopting  the 
marginal  letters  of  Hugo,  he  marked  every  fifth 
verse  with  a Hebrew  numeral,  thus,  1,  H 5,  &c. ; 
retaining,  however,  the  cardinal’s  divisions  into 
chapters.  . . . The  introduction  of  verses  into 
the  Hebrew  Bible  was  made  by  Athias,  a Jew  of 
Amsterdam  [1661],  . . . with  the  figures  common 
in  use,  except  those  which  had  been  previously 
marked  by  Nathan  with  Hebrew  letters  in  the 
manner  in  which  they  at  present  appear  in  the 
Hebrew  Bibles.  By  rejecting  these  Hebrew  nu- 
merals, and  substituting  for  them  the  correspond- 
ing figures,  all  the  copies  of  the  Bible  in  other 
languages  have  since  been  marked.’  ‘ The  verses 
into  which  the  New  Testament  is  now  divided 
are  much  more  modern  [than  the  err txot]»  an<^ 
are  an  imitation  of  those  invented  for  the  Old  Test- 
ament by  Rabbi  Nathan  in  the  fifteenth  century. 
Robert  Stephens  was  the  first  inventor.’  In 
another  place  (§  2),  Mr.  Horne  has  observed 
that  the  Masorites  were  the  inventors  of  verses,  but 
without  intimating  that  they  are  the  same  with 
those  now  in  use.  Doubts  were  entertained  on 
this  subject  so  early  as  the  sixteenth  century. 
‘Who  first,’  observes  Elias  Levita,  ‘ divided  the 
oooks  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  info 
? There  are  even  some  who  entertain 
ioubts  respecting  a matter  but  recently  come 
iito  use,  viz.,  who  the  person  was  who  intro- 
luced  the  division  of  verses  into  the  Greek 
»nd  Latin  Bibles.’  Serrarius  (Proleg.)  makes 
the  following  allusion  to  the  circumstance : 
‘ I strongly  suspect  that  it  is  far  from  certain 
who  first  restored  the  intermitted  division  info 
verses.  Henry  Stephens,  indeed,  having  once  come 
to  Wurzburg,  would  fain  have  persuaded  me 
that  his  father  Robert  was  the  inventor  of  this 
distinction  in  the  New  Testament;  and  I after- 
wards observed  this  same  statement  in  his  preface 
to  his  Greek  Concordance , with  the  addition  that 
it  was  on  his  way  from  Paris  to  Lyons  that  he 
made  the  division,  a great  part  of  it  while  riding  on 
horseback  ’ (inter  equitandum).  ‘ This  may,  after 
all,  be  an  empty  boast;  but  supposing  it  true,  as 
Catholics  have  used  the  versions  of  Aquila,  Sym- 
machus,  and  Theodotion,  who  were  apostates  or 
heretics,  so  may  we  use  this  division  of  Robert 
Stephens  and,  not  able  to  conceal  his  mortifica- 
tion that  the  honour  should  belong  to  a Protestant, 
he  significantly  observes  that  Seneca  had  found 
the  best  scribes  (notarii)  among  the  vilest 
slaves.  Henry  Stephens,  in  the  preface  to  his 
Concordance , thus  expatiates  on  his  father’s  in- 
vention : ‘ As  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
had  been  alrea  ly  divided  into  the  sections  (tme- 
mata)  which  we  call  chapters,  he  himself  sub- 
divided them  into  those  smaller  sections,  called 


by  an  appellation  more  approved  of  by  othen 
than  by  himself,  v ersicles.  He  would  have  pro 
ferred  calling  them  by  the  Greek  tmematia,  on 
the  Latin  sectiuncidce  ; for  he  perceived  that  the 
ancient  name  of  these  sections  was  now  restricted 
to  another  use.  He  accomplished  this  division  oi 
each  chapter  on  his  journey  from  Paris  to  Lyons, 
and  the  greater  part  of  it  inter  equitandum.  A 
short  time  before,  while  he  thought  on  the  matter, 
every  one  pronounced  him  mad,  for  wasting  his 
time  and  labour  on  an  unprofitable  affair  which 
would  gain  him  more  derision  than  honour:  but 
lo ! in  spite  of  all  their  predictions,  the  invention 
no  sooner  saw  the  light,  than  it  met  with  universal 
approbation,  and  obtained  such  authority  that  all 
other  editions  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek, 
Latin,  German,  and  other  Vernacular  tongues, 
which  did  not  adopt  it,  were  rejected  as  un- 
authorized.’ Henry  Stephens  had  already  stated 
the  same  fact,  in  the  dedication  to  Sir  Philip 
Sydney,  prefixed  to  his  second  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  (1576).  We  now  proceed  to 
Stephens’s  own  statements. 

Upon  leaving  the  church  of  Rome,  and  em- 
bracing Calvinism  in  1551,  in  which  year  he 
took  refuge  in  Geneva,  he  published  his  fourth 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  containing  also 
the  Vulgate  and  the  Latin  version  of  Erasmus, 
with  the  date  in  the  title  mdlxi.,  an  evident 
error  for  mdli.  The  x has  been,  in  consequence, 
erased  in  nearly  all  the  copies.  In  the  preface,  be 
observes  : ‘ As  to  our  having  numbered  this  work 
with  certain  versicles,  as  they  call  them,  we  have 
herein  followed  the  most  ancient  Greek  and  Latin 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  have 
imitated  them  the  more  willingly,  that  each 
translation  may  be  made  the  more  readily  to  cor- 
respond with  the  opposite  Greek.’  Bishop  Marsh 
(notes  to  Michaelis),  and  after  him  Mr.  Horne  (ut 
supra),  asserts  that  * Beza  split  the  Greek  text  into 
the  verses  invented  by  Robert  Stephens but  the 
bishop  is  evidently  mistaken,  as  Stephens’s  fourth 
edition  is  divided  into  these  breaks  as  well  as 
Beza’s  (see  fac-simile  in  Christ.  Remembr.,  ut 
supra).  Each  verse  commences  the  line  with  a 
capital,  the  figures  being  placed  between  the  co- 
lumns. 

The  fourth  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
was  followed,  in  1555,  by  the  seventh  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  in  8vo.,  containing  the  whole  Bible, 
having  the  present  verses  marked  throughout  with 
numerals,  and  the  following  address  to  the  reader  : 
.‘Here  is  an  edition  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  ir. 
which  each  chapter  is  divided  into  verses,  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  form  of  verses,  with  numerals 
prefixed,  corresponding  to  the  number  of  the 
verse  which  has  been  added  in  our  new  and  com- 
plete Concordance,  after  the  marginal  letters 
A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F G,  that  you  may  be  relieved 
from  the  labour  of  searching  for  what  these 
figures  will  point  out  to  you  as  with  the  finger.’ 
The  title-page  bears  Stephens’s  olive  ; and  the 
name  of  the  printer,  Conrad  Badius,  the  son-in- 
law  of  Stephens,  with  the  date,  8 idibus  Aprilis. 
1555,  shows  where  and  when  it  was  printed.  It 
was  the  first  edition  of  the  entire  Bible  printed 
by  Stephens  since  he  left  the  church  of  Rome, 
The  text  is  continuous,  the  verses  being  separated 
by  a •[ , with  the  figures  in  the  body  of  the  text 

The  next  edition  of  the  Bible  by  Stephens  is 
that  of  1 556-7,  in  three  vols.  foLf  containing  ths 


VERSE. 


■VERSE. 


911 


Vulgate,  the  version  of  Pagninus,  vm!  BezaN 
Latin  version  of  the  New  Testam  *vt,  now  first 
published.  The  notes  are  those  com  ^ionly  ascribed 
to  Vatablus,  with  those  of  Claude  Badwell  in  the 
Apocryphal  books.  The  text  is  broken  up  into 
divisions,  and  there  is  a notice  to  the  reader, 
apprising  him  that  this  edition  contains  the  text 
divided  into  verses,  as  in  the  Hebrew  copies. 

Again,  in  the  preface  to  Stephens’  Latin  and 
French  New  Testament,  published  at  Geneva  in 
1552,  which  is  also  thus  divided,  but  which  we 
have  never  seen  cited,  he  observes  : ‘ Et  a fin  de 
plus  aisement  pouoir  faire  la  dicte  collation  et 
confrontement,  avons  distingue  tout  iceluy 
Nouveau  Testament  comme  par  vers,  a la  fa£on 
et  maniere  que  tout  le  Vieil  a este  escript  et  dis- 
tingue, soit  par  Moyse  et  les  prophetes  composi- 
teurs et  autheurs,  ou  par  scavans  Hebrieux  suc- 
cedans,  pour  la  conservation  des  dictes  Escriptures, 
suyuans  aussi  en  ce  en  partie  la  maniere  de  ceux 
qui  ont  escript  les  premieres  exemplaires  Grecs,  et 
les  vieulx  escripts  de  la  vielle  tralation  Latine 
du  diet  Testament,  qui  de  chasque  sentence,  ou 
chasqpe  moitie  de  sentence,  voire  de  tout  is  les 
parties  d’une  sentence  en  faisoyent  comme  des 
versets.  Et  en  la  fin  de  chasque  livre  mettoyent 
le  nombre  d iceulx  versets : possible  a fin  que 
par  ce  moyen  on  n’en  peust  rien  oster,  car  on 
l’eust  apperceu  en  retrouvant  le  contenu  du  nom- 
bre des  diets  versets.’  Stephens  adds  that  he  has 
also  given  references  to  the  verses  in  indexes  and 
concordances,  not  omitting  the  letters  (letl  lines) 
by  which  the  chapters  had  been  divided  by  his 
predecessors  into  four  or  seven  parts,  according  to 
their  length,  for  the  purpose  of  a concordance. 
He  makes  reference  to  the  chapters  and  verses  in 
his  Harmonia  Evangelica , taken  from  the  work  of 
Leo  Judah,  and  placed  at  the  end  of  his  edition  of 
the  New  Testament  (1551). 

Henry  Stephens,  in  his  preface  to  his  Concord- 
ance, states  that  it  was  this  division  which  first 
suggested  to  his  father’s  fertile  mind  the  idea  of 
a Greek  and  Latin  concordance  to  the  New 
Testament,  in  imitation  of  his  Latin  concord- 
ance, Concordantiae  Bibl.,  uiriusque  Tesiamenti 
vn  Cal.  Feb.  1555,  fol.  ;i  in  the  preface  to  which 
he  says  that  he  has  followed  the  Hebrew  mode  of 
numbering  the  verses.  In  the  title-page  he  makes 
an  appeal  to  his  brother  printers  not  to  ‘ thrust 
their  sickle  into  his  harvest,’  not  that  he  ‘ feared 
such  plagiary  from  well-educated  printers,  but 
from  the  common  herd  of  illiterate  publishers, 
whom  he  considered  as  no  better  than  highway 
robbers,  no  more  capable  of  Christian  integrity 
than  so  many  African  pirates.’  ‘ Whether  his 
apprehensions  were  well  founded,’  continues  his 
son,  ‘ let  the  experience  of  others  tell.’  Owing 
to  Stephens’s  death,  in  1559,  his  Concordance  was 
published  by  Henry  Stephens,  in  1594. 

But  it  is  far  from  being  true  that  Stephens,  as 
has  been  commonly  believed,  was  the  first  who 
either  followed  the  Masorites,  or  divided  the 
chapters  into  verses,  or  attached  figures  to  each 
verse.  This  had  been  done,  not  only  in  regard 
to  the  Psalms,  by  James  le  Fevre,  in  his  Psal- 
teriurn  Quincuplex  in  1509,  but  throughout  the 
whole  Bible  by  Sanctes  Pagninus  in  1528.  The 
Psalterium  was  beautifully  printed  by  Henry, 
father  of  Robert  Stephens,  each  verse  commencing 
the  line  with  a red  letter,  and  a number  prefixed ; 
and  we  may  here  observe,  that  the  Book  of 


P^lms  was  the  firet  portion  of  the  Scriptures  to 
winch  numbers  were  attached,  by  designating 
each  separate  Psalm  by  its  number.  Some  as- 
cribe this  numeration  to  the  Seventy ; it  is,  we 
believe,  first  referred  to  by  St.  Hilary  ( Prej i),  and 
is  found  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Sept.  Whe- 
ther they  were  so  numbered  at  the  Christian  era, 
is  somewhat  doubtful.  In  Acts  xiii.  33,  die  se- 
cond Psalm  is  cited  by  its  number,  but  in  vome 
of  the  best  manuscripts  the  reading  here  is  the 
first  Psalm.  In  ver.  35  ‘hi  another’  is  said, 
without  reference  to  its  number;  and  Kuinoel  is 
of  opinion  that  the  true  reading  in  ver.  33  is  simply 
iv  ifiaA pep, — ‘ in  a psalm.’ 

In  the  year  1528  the  Dominican  Sanctes  Pag- 
ninus of  Lucca  published  at  Lyons,  in  quarts 
his  accurate  translation  of  the  Bible  into  Latin 
from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek.  This  editi&h  is 
divided  throughout  into  verses  marked  with 
Arabic  numerals  in  the  margin,  both  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testament.  The  text  runs  on  conti- 
nuously, except  in  ttae  Psalms,  where  each  verse 
commences  the  line.  There  was  a second  edi 
tion,  more  beautifully  executed,  but  without  the 
figures  and  divisions,  published  at  Cologne  in  1541. 
The  versicular  divisions  in  the  Old  Testament  aiu 
precisely  the  same  with  those  now  in  use, — viz., 
the  Masoretic.  Each  verse  is  separated  by  a pe 
culiar  mark  m 

Masch  ( Biblioth . Sac.),  in  reference  to  Stephens 
statement  that  he  had  followed  the  oldest  Greek 
manuscripts,  says  that  this  assertion  was  made  by 
Stephens  to  conciliate  those  who  were  taking  ail 
methods  of  blackening  him,  for  that  the  ancient 
divisions  were  quite  different.  The  reader  will 
judge  from  Stephens’  preface  to  his  French  trans- 
lation above  cited,  whether  this  assertion  is  born* 
out . Stephens  there  asserts  that  the  authors  of  the 
ancient  (stichometrical)  division  reckoned  by 
whole  books,  and  he  only  professes  to  imitate  them 
in  part,  as  well  as  the  Hebrew  copies:  which  lie 
did  by  making  a versicular  division  of  each 
chapter,  and  prefixing  a figure  to  each  verse  (as 
in  Nathan’s  Concordance ),  instead  of  adding  th> 
amount  at  the  end  of  each  book.  observes 

that  it  is  really  true  that  ancient  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament  are  sometimes  divided  into  smaller 
sections,  which  have  some  analogy  to  our  verses, 
instancing  the  Alexandrine,  Vatican,  and  otheiv\ 
We  have  already  given  an  example  of  this  in  C, 
to  which  we  shall  here  add  one  more  instance — 
viz.,  V.  in  Matthsei  (Appendix  to  vol.  ix.  p.  265), 
who  observes  that  ‘ this  MS.  is  stichometrically 
arranged.’  His  fac-simile  contains  eight  of  the 
nine  first  verses  of  St.  Mark’s  Gospel,  each  of 
which  commences  the  line  with  a capital.  All 
but  one  are  identical  with  those  in  Stephens,  whoso 
first  two  verses  form  but  one  in  the  Moscow  MS. 

It  is,  however,  only  in  the  canonical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  that  Stephens  follows  Pag- 
ninus. In  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel,  Pagninus  has  577 
verses,  and  Stephens  1071.  The  number  of  verses 
in  each  chapter  in  Stephens  is  often  double,  fre- 
quently treble  that  in  Pagninus.  In  John  v. 
for  instance,  Pagninus  has  7 and  Stephens  22 
versfes.  In  the  deutero-canonical  books,  into 
which  no  Masoretic  distinction  had  found  its  way, 
Stephens  has  also  a different  division ; thus,  in  Tobit 
he  has  292  verses,  while  Pagninus  has  but  76 ; 
and  the  same  proportion  prevails  throughout  the 
odier  books,  only  Pagninus  has  not  the  third  and 


912 


VERSE. 


VERSE. 


fourth  hooks  of  Esdras,  the  Prayer  of  Manasses, 
nor  the  addenda  to  Daniel. 

There  are  two  editions  of  the  Bible  contain- 
ing this  division,  stated  by  Le  Long  to  have 
oeen  published  this  year  in  Lyons,  one  by  John 
Frellon,  the  other  by  Antony  Vincent.  The 
former  is  entitled  Biblia  Sacro-Sancta  Veteris  et 
Novi  Testamenti,  Lugdun.,  apud  Joannem  Frel- 
lonium,  1556,  8;  the  colophon  of  which  has  ‘Lug- 
duni,  ex  officina  typographic^  Michaelis  Sylvii, 
MDLV.,’  which,  doubtless,  induced  Le  Long  to 
assign  to  it  the  latter  date.  We  have  at  present 
a copy  of  tiiis  rare  edition  before  us,  and  there 
was  a second,  which  exactly  represented  it,  pub- 
lished in  1566,  of  which  there  is  a copy  in  the 
Brit.  Museum.  Masch,  the  continuator  of  Le 
Long,  observes  of  this  edition  (vol.  iii.  p.  202),  that 
tb^ublisher  did  not  venture  to  ascribe  the  division 
of  verses  to  Stephens,  but  refers  it  to  Pagninus.  Le 
Long  places  Stephens’  edition  and  Vincent’s  toge- 
ther among  the  Protestant  versions ; thus  : 

‘ Biblia  Latina.  Charactere  minutissimo.  R. 
Stephanus  lectori.  En  tibi  Bibliorum  Vulgata 
&c.  (ut  sup.  p.  910).)  in  8vo.  Oliva  Rob.  Ste- 
phani,  1555. 

‘ Biblia  Latina.  Minutioribus  characteribus, 
versibus  numerorum  distinctione  notatis,  in  8vo., 
Lugduni,  Ant.  Vincentii,  1555.  1556.  Eadem 
est  prorsus  editio.  Ex  monitione  typographi : 
“ Biblia  Sacra  quum  jam  non  semel  variis  turn 
typis  turn  formis  emiserim,  sicque  passis  ulnis 
accepta,  ut  ne  imum  quidem  aut.  alterum  nobis 
superesset  exemplar id  operis  minuti- 

oribus quam  antea  unqam  excudi  placuit  charac- 
teribus  Deinde  quse  ad  sacrarum 

sensum  literarum  pertinere  visa  sunt  non  omis- 
suros,  Hebraeorum  secutus  morem,  versos  quos- 

libet  notandos  curavi quo  sensa  ipsa 

certis  distincta  versibus  clarius  innotescerent,  et 
rninori  negotio  linguae  sanctae  candidati  con- 
cordantias,  commentaria,  &c.,  consul  ere  possent.” 

utraque  editio  prima  est  his  distincta 

versibus,’  & c. 

According  to  this  statement  of  Le  Long,  it 
would  appear  that  the  edition  of  Robert  Ste- 
phens and  that  of  Antony  Vincent  were  the 
same.  Masch,  however,  who  nlaces  Stephens'  edi- 
tion of  1555  in  its  chronological  order  (p.  209), 
and  does  not  transfer  it  to  the  Protestant  editions, 
notices  Vincent’s  thus : — 

‘ Biblia  utriusque  Testamenti,  Lugduni,  in  aedi- 
bus  Antonii  Vincentii,  MDLV.,  &c. 

Biblia  . . . MDLV1.  versibus  distinct.  Eadem 

est  prorsus  editio utraque  est  (ut  supra).’ 

Now,  whatever  the  word  utraque  or  eadem  here 
refers  to,  the  very  extract  from  the  preface  given 
by  Le  Long  as  Vincent’s  (whose  edition  we  have 
never  seen),  commencing  with  ‘ Biblia  Sacra 
quum  jam  non  semel,’  forms  part  of  the  pre- 
face to  Frellon ’s  edition,  of  which  Masch  had 
observed  that  the  publisher  did  not  venture  to 
assign  the  invention  of  the  verses  to  Stephens, 
but  ascribed  them  to  Pagninus.  It  was  this 
circumstance  which  led  us  to  turn  to  this  pre- 
face, which  also  contains  the  identical  assertion : 
‘ Et  ne  quern  sua  frustratum  a nobis  laude 
quispiam  clamitet,  aut  peculatus  arguet,  et 
etiam  ut  institutum  hoc  nostrum  plus  ponderis 
obtineat,  ultro  fatemur  nos  imitates  Santem 
ilium  Pagninum  Heb.  linguae  peritissimum,  qui 
et  hoc  ipsum  ceu  necessarium  magnopere  probans, 


eo  modo  sua  Imprimenda  curavit/  No*  it 
seems  clear  that  Frellon,  whom,  from  the  evidence 
before  us,  we  must  believe  to  have  been  the  true 
author  of  this  preface,  wishes'  to  take  credit  to 
himself  for  the  introduction  of  the  division  of 
verses  into  his  Bible,  and  from  his/  declaration 
that  he  takes  Pagninus  for  his  model,  in  order 
that  none  should  complain  of  being  defrauded, 
we  think  it  by  no  means  improbable  that  he 
meant  this  observation  as  a sly  insinuation 
against.  Robert  Stephens,  who  had,  in  the  preface 
to  his  Concordance  just  published,  not  only 
protested  against  such  frauds  on  the  part  oe 
his  brother  printers,  but  had  himself  adopted 
Pagninus’s  figures  without  acknowledgment, 
while  it  is  equally  evident  that  Frellon 
adopts  not  Pagninus’  but  Stephens’  division, 
both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  deutero- 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  ; for  we  presume  from 
the  dates  that  Stephens’  edition  was  the  earliest 
printed  ; and  his  Concordance , as  we  have  seen, 
was  published  so  early  as  the  month  of  January 
in  the  same  year.  The  verses  in  Frellon’s  edition 
are  divided  into  breaks,  with  the  figures  on  the 
left  margin. 

The  next  edition  containing  this  division  into 
verses  is  Stephens's  eighth  and  last  edition  of  the 
Vulgate,  1556-1557,  3 vols.  fol.  This  is  one  of 
the  editions  called  Vatablus’  Bibles,  of  which 
there  are  three,  viz.,  Stephens’  nonpareil  (1545), 
his  eighth  edition  of  which  we  are  now  treating, 
and  the  triglott  edition  published  at  Heidel- 
berg in  1599.  It  is  the  Bible  which  Morinus 
( Exercit . Bibl.\  Prideaux  ( Connect . vol.  i.), 
and  so  many  others,  conceived  to  have  been  the 
first  containing  the  division  of  verses.  Prideaux 
observes  that  Vatablus  soon  after  published  a 
Latin  Bible  after  this  pattern,  viz.,  that  of  Rabbi 
Nathan  (1450),  with  the  chapters  divided  into 
verses.  ‘ Soon  ’ after,  however,  meant  about  a 
century;  Vatablus  died  16th  March,  1547.  It 
is  evident  also,  from  Prideaux’  note,  that  he  was 
not  aware  that  Vatablus’  Bible  was  no  other 
than  Stephens’  eighth  edition. 

There  was  a beautiful  edition  of  the  Psalter 
published  in  1555  by  Robert  Stephens,  contain- 
ing the  Latin  of  Jerome,  with  that  of  Pagninus, 
the  numerals  attached  to  each  verse  being  placed 
in  the . centre  column  between  perpendiculai 
rubricated  lines.  It  is  entitled  Liber  Psalmorum 
Davidis,  Tralatio  duplex , vetus  et  nova.  Iicec 
posterior  Santis  Pagnini , partim  ab  ipso  Pag- 
nino  recognita  partim  et  Francisco  Fatablo, 
in  prcclectionibus  emendata  et  exposita.  The 
title  bears  the  date  MDLV.,  but  in  the  colophon 
is  the  subscription  : ‘ Imprimebat  Rob.  Stephanus, 
in  suS,  officina,  Anno  MDLVII.,  Cal.  Jan.’ 

The  form  of  printing  the  Bible  in  verses,  with 
numerals,  now  became  established.  It  appeared 
in  1556  in  Hamelin’s  French  version.  It  found 
its  way  the  next  year  into  the  Geneva  New  Tes- 
tament (English),  printed  by  Conrad  Badius,  of 
which  a beautiful  fac-simile  has  lately  issued 
from  the  press  of  Mr.  Bagster.  It  was  adopted, 
by  marking  every  fifth  verse  with  a Hebrew  nu- 
meral, into  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch,  printed  this 
same  year  (1557)  at  Sabiouetta  [Scripture, 
Holy].  In  1559  Henfenius  introduced  Ste- 
phens’s division  and  figures*  into  his  correct 

* * Biblia,  etc.,  in  quibus  capita  singula  iia 


VERSE. 


VERSE, 


Antwerp  edition  ot  the  Vulgate;  which  wa«  fol- 
lowed by  that  of  Planiin  in  1569-1572,  and 
passed  into  the  Antwerp  Polyglott  (1569). 

The  Sixtine  edition  of  the  Vulgate (1590)  hav- 
ing adopted  this  division,  it  was  continued  in  the 
Clementine  (1592),  and  has  been  ever  since  used 
in  all  editions  and  translations  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  Hentenius,  however,  having 
printed  the  text  continuously,  with  the  figures 
in  the  margin,  and  a mark  (thus,  ^)  at  the 
commencement  of  each  verse,  this  plan  was 
followed  in  the  Clementine *  * and  Sixtine  editions, 
in  which  the  verses  are  marked  with  an  asterisk, 
capitals  being  used  only  at  the  commencement 
of  a period,  while  the  Protestant  Billies  of  Basle 
and  Geneva  commence  the  verse  with  the  line, 
and  with  a capital  letter.  In  the  Roman  edi- 
tions, the  only  exceptions  are  the  metrical  books 
of  Psalms,  Job,  and  Proverbs,  from  the  tenth 
chapter. 

This  division  appeared  in  the  Geneva  (Eng- 
lish) Bible  in  1560  and  1562,  the  Bishops’  Bible 
(1568),  and  passed  into  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion in  1611.  Some  of  the  Protestant  editions 
followed  the  Roman  in  adopting  a continued 
text,  of  which  it  will  be  sufficient  to  name  the 
beautiful  Ziirich  edition  of  Osiander,  in  which 
each  verse  is  distinguished  by  an  obelus  in  the 
body  of  the  text ; and  it  is  to  be  regretted  that 
this  practice  has  not  been  generally  continued 
either  in  Protestant  or  Roman  Catholic  Bibles. 
We  may  add  that  Pagninus,  Stephens,  Frellon, 
and  the  Roman  editions,  all  slightly  vary  among 
each  other,  both  in  the  divisions  and  the  placing 
of  the  figures.  Nor  do  the  chapters,  owing  to  a 
diversity  in  the  manuscripts,  invariably  coin- 
cide, as  the  versicular  divisions  of  the  Psalms 
in  the  Sept,  and  Vulgate  are  not  always  the 
same  with  the  Hebrew  ; Stephens'  figures  some- 
times occur  in  the  middle  of  a verse  in  the 
Roman  editions. 

The  Roman  edition  of  the  Sept.  (1587  and 
1589)  was  printed  without  any  division  or  fi- 
gures ; and  the  present  notation  first  appeared  in 
Plantin’s  edition  of  the  deutero  canonical  books, 
Antwerp,  1584,  from  Tobit  iv.  24  (the  commence- 
ment, to  ch.  iv.  23,  being  marked  by  decades). 
The  Frankfort  edition  of  the  Sept.  (1597)  has  the 
present  numeration  throughout,,  but  without  any 
notice  of  the  fact  by  the  editors.  The  numbers 
are  placed  in  the  margin,  but  each  verse  com- 
mences with  a capital,  while  in  Plantin  they  are 
separated  by  spaces  only. 

From  what  has  been  said,  the  reader  will,  we 
presume,  be  satisfied  of  the  great  inaccuracies 
and  misconceptions  which  have  hitherto  prevailed 
on  this  subject.  It  will  no  longer  be  doubtful  that 
the  figures  were  not  introduced  by  Robert  Stephens 
into  his  edition  of  1545,  as  asserted  by  Calmet, 
nor  ot  1548,  as  stated  by  Father  Simon  and  Jahn 
(in  which  latter  year  there  was  no  edition  pub- 
lished). It  is  equally  untrue  tlrcit  they  first  ap- 
peared in  Stephens’  edition  of  1556-7,  as  stated  by 

versibus  distincta  sunt  ut  numeri  prefixi  lectorem 
non  remorantur,  et  loca  quaesita  tanquam  digito 
dsmonstrant.’ 

* Maittaire  and  Chevillier  are  both  mistaken 
in  asserting  that  the  Sixtine  and  Clementine 
adopted  the  division  immediately  from  Ste- 
phens’ ed.  of  1557. 

ritL.  n. 


9l» 

Chevillier,  Maittaire,  and  Pride&ux.  Neither  is  it 
altogether  correct,  as  stated  in  Mr.  Horne’s  Intro- 
duction, that  the  verses  in  the  New  Testament 
were  an  imitation  of  those  invented  by  Rabb. 
Nathan,  as  Rabbi  Nathan  only  referred  in  hi# 
Concordance  by  numerals  to  the  Masoretic  verses. 
Nor  was  it  from  the  Hebrew  Bible  of  Alhias,  in 
1662,  that  this  notation  came  into  the  copies  of 
the  Bible  in  other  languages  (Horne,  l.  c.),  as 
they  had  been  in  use  in  all  editions  for  above  a 
century  before.  Equally  far  from  the  truth  is 
the  statement  of  Du  Pin,  that  Stephens  was  the 
first  who  followed  the  distinction  of  the  Masoretes 
in  his  Latin  Bibles,  as  this  had  been  done  by 
Pagninus  many  years  before  Stephens  published 
any  one  of  his  numerous  editions. 

Having  now  succeeded  in  detecting  the  errors 
of  former  writers,  we  are  arrived  at  the  more  diffi- 
cult task  of  eliciting  the  truth  out  of  so  many 
contradictory  statements.  Our  limits  will  not 
allow  us,  however,  to  do  more  than  offer  the  fol- 
lowing view  as  the  result  of  our  inquiries. 

Rabbi  Nathan  having  in  his  Concordance  (in 
1450)  commenced  the  practice  of  referring  to  a 
versicular  division  of  each  of  the  Latin  chapters 
by  the  number  of  each  masoretic  verse  in  the 
chapter,  Arabic  figures  were,  after  the  example 
of  Le  Fevre’s  edition  of  the  Psalms,  affixed  to 
each  verse  by  Pagninus  in  his  Latin  Bible 
in  1528.  Pagninus  introduced  a somewhat 
similar  division  into  the  New  Testament  and 
Apocryphal  books.  His  system  was  adopted  byr 
Robert  Stephens  in  the  New  Testament  in  1551, 
and  in  the  whole  Bible  in  1555,  with  scarcely  any 
alteration  except  in  the  deutero-canonical  books 
and  the  New  Testament,  wherein  he  introduced 
a different  division.  This  division  was  partly 
founded  on  the  practice  of  ancient  manuscripts,., 
and  was  partly  kis  own.  But  as  his  object  was 
to  adapt  his  division  to  his  Concordance , without 
any  reference  to  the  sense,  he  unfortunatehy  intro- 
duced a much  worse  division  than  he  found  in 
any  of  his  models.  And  it  is  to  be  lamented  that 
his  ‘wild  and  indigested’  system  of  breaking  up,., 
the  text  into  what  appear  to  the  eyes,  of  the 
learned  and  to  the  minds  of  the  unlearned  as  so 
many  detached  ( sentences  (Michaelis’  Introd.), 
has  had  a deleterious  effect  on  the  sense  of  Scrijh 
ture,  and  perhaps  given  rise  to  some  heresies* 
(See  Pref.  to  Bishop  Lloyd's  Greek  Testament). 
Michaelis  supposes  that  the  phrase  ‘ inter  equitan- 
dum’  does  not  mean  that  Stephens  accomplished, 
his  task  whilst  actually  riding  on  horseback,  but 
that  during  the  intervals  of  his  journey  he  amused 
himself  by  doing  it  at  his  inn.  If  his  division 
was  a mere  modification  of  that  of  Pagninus  (see 
Bible  in  Taylor’s  ed.  of  Calmet’3  Diet.),  it 
might  easily  have  been  done  ‘ inter  equitandum 
a phrase  wMch,  however  we  understand  it,  not 
inaptly  rep  sents  the  post-haste  expedition  with 
which  his  work  was  executed.  Whether  Pagninus 
himself  adopted  his  division  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment from  manuscripts,  or  what  his  design  was  in 

* Tholuck  (see  Robinson's  Bibl.  Sacra,  1844,. 
vol.  i.  p.  354)  conceives  the  omission  of  the 
verses  to  be  a defect  in  Lachmann’s  edition;: 
but  Lachmann  has  inserted  Stephens’s  figures  in 
the  body  of  the  text,  and  has  properly  discarded 
the  use  of  cajitals,  except  at  the  commencement 
of  a period. 


*14 


VERSE. 


VERSIONS. 


introducing  it,  must  he  the  result  of  an  investiga- 
tion which  we  cannot  now  enter  upon.  Stephens, 
it  is  true,  never  once  refers  to  Pagninus’  system  ; 
but  we  could  hardly  suppose  that  he  was  unac- 
quainted with  it,  even  had  we  no  evidence  to  this 
effect.  The  evidence,  however,  does  exist,  for  we 
discovered,  after  the  greater  portion  of  this  article 
was  written,  that  Stephens,  in  1550,  had  in  his 
possession  two  copies  of  Pagninus*  Bible.  The 
preface  to  his  edition  of  1557  contains  the  follow- 
ing words  : * In  exteriori  autem  parte  interpreta- 
tionem  Sanctis  Pagnini  (quam  potissimum,  ut 
maxime  fidam,  omnes  utio  ore  laudant),  crassio- 
ribus  litteris  excusam  damns : sed  hanc  quidem 
eerte  multis  partibus  ea  quam  in  aliis  editionibus 
Babes,  meliorem.  Nacti  enim  sumus  duo  ex 
prinia  illius  editions  ezemplaria,  in  quibus  non 
«olum  typographica  errata  non  pauca,  nec  levia, 
manu  propria  i pse  author  correxerat,  sed  multos 
-etiam  locos  diligentius  et  aceuratius  quam  antea 
^xaminatos,  recognoverat.’ 

Croiu6  (Observat ) states  that  he  had  seen  very 
ancient  Latin  MSS.  containing  Stephens's  divi- 
*ion,  with  the  first  letter  of  each  verse  rubri- 
cated, but  he  does  not  designate  bis  MSS.  We 
believe  this  was  a biassed  assertion.  We  have 
ourselves  seen  Latin  MSS.  with  periods  so 
marked;  hut  they  are  not  thesamewith  Stephens’ 
verses.  There  is  in  tiie  British  Museum  also  a 
MS.  of  part,  of  the  Sept.  (Harl.  5021),  dated  in 
1647,  which  is  versiculated  throughout,  and  marked 
with  figures;  but  the  verses  are  much  longer  than 
those  of" Stephens's.  Latin  MSS.  are  found  divided 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  Greek,  one  of  which  is  the 
Cod.  Bezae,  which  was  collated  by  Stephens  for  his 
edition  of  1550.  Dr.  Laurence’s  book  of  Enoch 
is  divided  into  verses,  with  numbers  attached,  as 
a/ell  as  into  chapters  called  Kef  el.  Dr.  Laurence 
Kiys  that  these  divisions  into  verses  are  arbitrary, 
4,11(1  vary  in  the  different  Ethiopic  MSS.  of  Enoch. 
The  numbers,  we  presume,  were  added  by  the 
translator.  By  a letter  from  Dr.  Bandinel, 
keeper  of  the  Rodleian  Library,  we  learn  that  that 
Library  possesses  an  Ethiopic  MS.  of  the  New 
Testament  divided  into  sections  and  paragraphs 
•ntirely  different,  from  ours,  not.  numbered,  but 
.separated  by  a peculiar  mark.  The  verses  in  the 
Gospel  of  the  Templars  [Gospels,  Spurious], 
•instead  of  spaces  or  figures,  are  separated  by  a 
• horizontal  line  [ — 1 (Tliilo,  Cod.  Apoc .). 

The  MS.  of  the  Syriac  New  Testament  in  the 
British  Museum  (No.  7157),  written  at  Belli- 
ikuko,  a.d.  768  (see  Wright’s  Seiler,  p.  651,  note), 
contains  a numerical  division  in  the  Gospels, 
with  the  numbers  in  rubric  inserted  by  a coeval 
hand  into  the  body  of  the  text.  Attached  to 
•each  number  is  another  in  green,  referring  to 
a canon  of  parallel  passages  on  the  plan  of 
that  of  Eusebius,  but  placed  at  the  foot  of  each 
page.  The  sections,  which  are  called  versi- 
culi  in  the  Catalogue,  and  have  been  mistaken 
Yor  verses,  are  more  numerous  than  the  Am- 
monian,  Mathew  containing  426,  Mark  290, 
Luke  402,  and  John  27 i.  There  is  a complete 
capitulation  also  throughout  all  the  books,  the 
chapters  being  separated  in  the  text  by  a pecu- 
liar ornament,  with  the  number  in  the  margin  : 
cf  these  chapters  Matthew  has  22,  Mark  13, 
Luke  22,  John  20,  Acts  25 ; of  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  James  1,  and  [i  J John  6,  and  the  Pau- 
line have  54.  After  the  first  Gospel  there  is  a 


douh.e  number,  by  which  the  former  are  reca- 
pitulated, and  a treble  number  from  the  Acts  to 
the  end, 

The  numerical  divisions  into  chapters  and 
verses  were  first  adapted  to  liturgical  use  in  tike 
Anglican  Church  — the  chapters  in  Edward  VI. 's 
first  Book  of  Common  Prayer  (1549),  and  the 
verses  in  the  Scotch  Liturgy  (1637),  from  whence 
they  were  adopted  into  the  lust  revision  (1662). — 

W.  W. 

VERSIONS.  In  the  present  article  we  pro- 
pose to  give  some  account  of  such  versions  as  are  J 

not  noticed  in  other  places  of  this  work.  In  doing  j 

so,  it  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  mention  all  that 
ought  to  be  adduced,  were  a complete  enumeration 
attempted.  We  shall  first  describe  ancient  ver- 
sions; and,  secondly,  modern  English  versions  of 
the  Bihle. 

1.  Greek  versions. — 1.  Aquila. — Aquila  was 
a Jew  of  Pontus,  who  lived  in  the  reign  of  Adrian, 
and  undertook  a Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment about  a.d.  160.  It  appears  from  Jerome 
( mEzeli . iii.)  that  there  were  two  editions  of  this 
version,  the  second  more  literal  than  the  first.  It 
was  very  highly  prized  by  the  Jews,  and  much 
preferred  to  the  Septuagint,  because  the  latter  was 
employed  as  an  authorized  and  genuine  document 
by  the  early  Christians  in  their  disputations  with 
the  Hebrew  opponents  of  the  new  religion.  The 
very  circumstance  of  its  being  adopted  and 
valued  by  the  Jews  would  tend  to  create  a pre- 
judice against  it  among  the  Fathers,  independently 
of  all  perversion  of  Messianic  passages.  Irenteus, 
the  earliest  writer  who  mentions  Aquila,  pro- 
nounces an  unfavourable  opinion  respecting  Lia 
translation  ( Advers . Hceres.  iii.  24,  p.  253,  ed. 
Grabe).  So  also  Eusebius  ( Ad  Psalm,  xc.  4) 
and  Philastrius.  Jerome  speaks  of  him  in  va- 
rious parts  of  his  writings,  sometimes  disparag-  | 
ingly,  and  again  in  terms  of  commendation  : the 
former,  in  allusion  to  his  doctrinal  prepossessions  ; 
the  latter,  in  reference  to  his  knowledge  of  the 
Hebrew  language  and  exceeding  carefulness  in 
rendering  one  word  by  another.  He  was  early 
accused  of  distorting  several  passages  I'elating  to 
the  Messiah,  and  Kennicott,  in  modem  times, 
lias  re-echoed  the  censure.  There  is  some  ground 
for  the  charge,  but  certainly  not  so  much  as  Ken- 
nicott imagines.  A polemic  tendency  may  be 
detected  in  the  work,  but  not  to  a greater  degree 
than  in  most  translations. 

The  version  before  us  is  extremely,  and  even 
unintelligibly,  literal.  It  adheres  most  rigidly  to 
the  original.  So  highly  did  the  Jews  esteem  it, 
that  they  called  it  t lie  Hebrew  verity.  Its  use  in 
criticism  is  considerable,  but  in  interpretation  it 
is  comparatively  worthless. 

2.  Symmachus. — Symmachus  appears  to  have 
been  an  Ebionite  (Fuseli,  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.17  ; De- 
monstr.  Evang.  vii.  1,  Jerome,  Prof,  in  Ezram  ; 
Assemani,  Bibl.  Orient,  ii.  278  ; iii.  1,17).  His 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament  was  made 
after  thatofTheodotiori,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the 
silence  of  Irenseus,  and  the  language  of  Jerome  in 
his  commentary  on  the  xxxviii.  chapter  of  Isaiah. 

The  style  of  the  work  is  good,  and  the  diction 
perspicuous,  pure,  and  elegant  (Thieme,  De  puri- 
tate  Symmachi  ; Hody,  De  Bibl.  text.  Original.'). 

It  is  of  less  benefit  in  criticism  than  that  of 
Aquila,  but  of  greater  advantage  in  interpreta- 
tion. It  would  seem  from  Jerome,  that  tbcr» 


VERSIONS. 


VERSIONS. 


was  a second  edition  of  it  ( Comment  in  Jerem. 
xxxii. ; in  Nah.  iii.). 

3.  Theodotion. — Theodotion,  like  Symmachus, 
was  an  Ebionite.  Irenaeus  states  ( Advers . Hceres. 
iii.  24)  tha.  he  belonged  to  Ephesus,  and  was  a 
Jewish  proselyte.  His  Greek  version  of  the  Old 
Testament  appeared  during  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century,  and  is  first  mentioned  by  Ire- 
meus.  He  follows  the  Septuagint  very  closely,  so 
that  be  appears  to  have  intended  to  make  a re- 
visi  “i  of  its  text,  rather  than  a new  version.  He 
is  not  so  scrupulously  literal  as  Aquiia.  nor  so 
free  as  Symmachus.  He  was  certainly  not  well 
acquainted  with  Hebrew,  as  the  numerous  errors 
into  which  he  lias  fallen  demonstrate.  It.  is  pro- 
bable, if  credit  can  be  given  to  Jerome,  that  there 
were  two  editions  of  the  translation  (in  Jerem.  xxix. 
17).  His  translation  of  Daniel  was  very  early 
adopted  by  the  Christians  in  place  of  that  belong- 
ing to  the  Septuagint.  The  Jews  do  not  seem  to 
have  had  much  regard  for  this  castigated  edition 
of  the  Seventy,  alt.houghyVon  Lengerke  inclines 
to  the  opposite  opinion. 

4,  5,  6.  When  Origen  travelled  into  Eastern 
countries  collecting  materials  for  his  Polyglott, 
he  discovered  three  other  Greek  versions  not  extend- 
ing to  the  entire  Old  Testament,  but  only  to  several 
books.  These  are  usually  designated  the  fifth , 
sixth,  and  seventh.  The  authors  were  unknown 
to  Origen  himself.  As  far  as  we  can  judge,  they 
appear  to  have  translated  the  original  somewhat 
freely  and  paraph rasti call y.  The  fifth  compre- 
hended the  Pentateuch,  Psalms,  Song  of  Solomon, 
and  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  besides  the  books 
of  Kings.  Jerome  says  that  the  author  was  a 
Jew,  meaning  probably  a Jewish  Christian.  The 
sixth  version  contained  the  same  books  as  the 
filth,  except  those  of  the  Kings.  The  author  ap- 
pears to  have  been  a Jewish  Christian  also.  This 
inference  has  been  drawn  from  his  rendering  of 
Habak.  iii.  13.  The  seventh  embraced  the 
Psalms  and  minor  prophets.  Perhaps  the  author 
was  a Jew.  The  three  translations  in  question 
were  made  subsequently  to  those  of  Aquila,  Sym- 
machus, and  Theodotion.  Very  few  fragments  of 
them  remain.  (See  Epiphanius,  De  Pond,  et  Mens. 
cap.  17;  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  16;  Jerome, 
Comment,  in  Tit.,  cap.  3 ; Apolog.  contra  Rufin. 
ii.  34  ; Hody,  p.  590,  et  sq.) 

4.  Grceco-Veneta. — In  a MS.  belonging  to 
St.  Mark's  Library  at  Venice,  there  is  a Greek 
version  of  several  Old  Testament  books.  Its  in- 
ternal character  proves  that  the  translation  was 
made  directly  from  the  Hebrew.  It  is  more 
literal  than  any  other  ancient  version,  even  that 
of  Aquila,  adhering  with  slavish  scrupulosity  to 
the  original  words.  In  the  Chaldee  portions  of 
Daniel,  the  Attic  dialect  is  changed  for  the  Doric. 
The  style,  however,  is  a singular  compound.  Attic 
elegancies  occur  along  with  barbarous  expres- 
sions; high-sounding  words  used  by  the  best 
Greek  writers,  by  the  side  of  others  contrary  to 
the  genius  of  the  Greek  language.  The  origin  of 
the  version  cannot  be  placed  higher  than  the 
ninth  century:  the  MS.  itself  was  written  in 
the  fourteenth.  It  is  uncertain  whether  the 
author  was  a Jew  or  a Christian.  Gesenius  ad- 
duces several  particulars  in  favour  of  the  former 
suf  position  (Geschichte  der  Heb.  Sprache).  It 
is  probable  that  it  was  made  at  Byzantium  for 
vate  use?.  The  text  seldom  differs  from  the 


m 

Masoretic,  and  the  translator  consulted  the  Sep- 
tuagint and  othei  Greek  versions,  besides  ad- 
hering, as  he  generally  does,  to  the  current  ex®- 
gefical  tradition  of  the  Jews.  Criticism  can  never 
derive  much  use  from  this  version.  Extracts 
from  it  are  given  in  Holmes’s  edition  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint. The  Pentateuch  was  published  by  Am- 
mon, in  three  volumes,  at  Erlangen,  in  the  years 
1790-91.  Different  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  had 
been  previously  published,  along  with  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Daniel,  and 
Canticles,  by  Villoison,  at  Strasburg,  1784.  (See 
Eichhorn’s  Allgem.  Biblioth.  iii.  p.  371,  et  sq. ; v. 
p.  743,  et  sq. ; vii.  p.  193,  et  .sq. ; Dahler,  Ani- 
madverss.  in  versionem  Grtecam  Proverbb.,  Ar- 
gentor.  1786;  the  Introductions  of  Eichhorn 
Bertholdt,  De  Wette,  and  Havernick;  and  Da- 
vidson’s Lectures  on  Bib.  Crit.) 

II.  Egyptian  versions. — After  the  death  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  the  Greeks  multiplied  in 
Egypt,  and  obtained  important  places  of  trust 
near  the  throne  of  the  Ptolemies.  The  Greek 
language  accordingly  began  to  diffuse  itself  from 
the  court  among  the  people,  so  that  the  proper 
language  of  the  country  was  either  forced  to 
adapt  itself  to  the  Greek,  as  well  ki  construction 
as  in  the  adoption  of  new  words,  or  was  entirely 
supplanted.  In  this  way  originated  the  Coptic, 
compounded  of  the  old  Egyptian  and  the  Greek. 
There  is  aversion  in  the  dialect  of  Lower  Egypt 
usually  called  the  Coptic , or  better  the  Mem - 
phitic  version  ; and  there  is  another  in  the  dialect 
of  Upper  Egypt,  termed  the  Sahidic,  and  some- 
times the  Thebaic. 

1.  The  Memphitic  version  of  the  Bible. — The 
Old  Testament  in  this  version  has  been  taken 
from  the  Septuagint,  and  not.  the  original  Hebrew. 
It  would  appear  from  Miinter  (Specim.  verss. 
Dan.  Coptic.  Romae,  1786),  that  the  original  was 
the  Ilesychian  recension  of  the  Seventy,  then 
current  in  the  country.  There  is  little  doubt 
that  all  the  Old  Testament  Books  were  trans- 
lated into  the  Coptic  dialect,  although  many  of 
them  have  not  yet  been  discovered.  The  Penta- 
teuch was  published  by  Wilkins  (London,  1731, 
4lo.);  the  Psalms  at  Rome  (1744  and  1749)  by 
the  Propaganda  Society.  A small  part  of  Jere- 
miah (ix.  17,  to  xiii.)  was  published  by  Mingarelli 
at  Bologna  (1785),  and  the  ninth  chapter  of 
Daniel,  in  Miinter  s work  already  quoted.  Gre- 
gory Bar  Hehrseus  quotes  the  version  in  the  book 
of  Psalms  ; and  it  seems  to  have  been  well  known 
to  the  Syrians.  (Wiseman’s  Iiorce  Syriacce , pp. 
144-5.)  The  New  Testament,  made  from  the 
original  Greek,  was  published  by  Wilkins,  at 
Oxford,  with  a Latin  translation,  a.d.  1716.  Its 
readings,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  place  where 
it  was  made,  coincide  with  the  Alexandrine 
family,  and  deserve  the  attention  of  the  critic. 
Unfortunately,  however,  the  version  is  not  yet 
correctly  edited.  It  belongs  to  the  third  cen- 
tury. 

2.  The  Thebaic. — This  version  was  also  made 
from  the  Greek,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, and  probably  too  in  the  third  century. 
Only  some  fragmerts  of  the  Old  Testament  part 
have  been  printed  by  Miinter,  Mingarelli,  and 
Zoega.  In  the  New  Testament  it  agrees  gene- 
rally, though  not  uniformly,  with  the  Alexandrine 
family.  Not  a few  readings,  however,  are  pecu- 
liar ; and  some  harmonize  with  the  Latin  version®. 


916  VERSIONS. 

Fragments  of  it  have  been  published  by  Woide 
and  Ford. 

3.  The  Bashmuric  or  Ammonicin. — Only  some 
fragments  of  such  a version  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  have  been  published,  and  very  little  is 
known  concerning  it.  Scholars  are  not  agreed  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  dialect  in  which  it  is  written  ; 
some  thinking  that,  it  does  not  deserve  the  name  of 
a dialect,  while  others  regard  the  Bashmuric  as  a 
kind  of  intermediate  dialect  between  those  spoken 
in  Upper  anti  Lower  Egypt.  Hug  and  De  Wette 
are  inclined  to  believe  that  it  is  merely  the  version 
of  Upper  Egypt  transferred  into  the  idiom  of  the 
particular  place  where  the  Bashmuric  was  spoken. 
The  origin  of  this  version  belongs  to  the  third  or 
fourth  century. 

III.  TEthiopic  version. — The  sacred  language 
of  the  ./Ethiopians  is  called  the  Geez,  in  which 
they  have  a translation  of  the  entire  Bible  from 
the  Septuagint  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  from  the 
original  in  the  New.  The  oldest  allusion  to  it 
of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  is  by  Chry- 
sostom, in  his  second  homily  on  John.  Its  an- 
tiquity cannot  be  referred  farther  back  than  the 
fourth  century,  during  which  Christianity  wus 
diffused  among  the  people.  Nothing  certain  is 
known  about  the  author,  although  there  have 
been  various  conjectures  respecting  him.  It  was 
made  by  Christians,  although  the  ./Ethiopian 
Jews  have  also  used  it.  The  Old  Testament 
portion  is  extant  in  an  entire  state  in  various 
MSS.  throughout  Europe,  of  which  Ludolf  has 
given  a list  it)  his  Commentary  on  the  History  of 
the  ^Ethiopians.  With  this  work  may  bp  com* 
pared  T.  Pell  Platt's  Catalogue  of  the  Ethioptc 
Biblical  MSS.  in  various  Libraries,  published  at 
London,  a.d.  1823.  Some  specimens  only  have 
been  printed,  such  as  the  Psalms,  Canticles, 
Ruth,  Jonah,  Joel,  Malachi,  and  the  first  four 
chapters  of  Genesis. 

The  different  parts  of  the  New  Testament  are 
very  unequal.  The  Gospels  are  the  best  exe- 
cuted. Hug  thinks  that  various  versions , rather 
than  Greek  MSS.,  were  used  in  translating  the 
Gospels,  though  he  does  not  deny  that  the  latter 
were  also  consulted.  It  is  certain  that  it  agrees 
frequently  with  the  Peshito  and  the  Fetus  Itala. 
Its  character  is  literal.  The  New  Testament  lias 
not  yet  been  correctly  printed.  It  was  first  pub- 
lished at  Rome  in  1548-9,  2 vols.  4to.,  and  was 
afterwards  inserted  in  the  London  Polyglott,  but 
from  a faulty  MS.  If  it  were  edited  in  a more 
correct  form,  it  would  be  of  considerable  utility  in 
the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament.  It.  generally 
agrees  with  the  Alexandrine  family  and  the 
quotations  of  Origen. 

IV.  Persian  versions. — The  Bible  seems  to 
have  been  translated  at  an  early  period  into  the 
Persian  language.  Both  Chrysostom  ( Second 
Horn,  on  John')  and  Theodoret  ( De  civrand. 
Grcec.  Affect.)  speak  of  a Persian  translation  ; 
and,  according  to  Maimonides,  the  Pentateuch 
was  translated  many  centuries  before  Mohammed 
into  this  language  (Zunz’s  Gottesdienstlichen 
Fortrdge , p.  9,  note  a).  A Persian  version  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  first  printed  at  Constantinople, 
in  Hebrew  characters,  a.d.  1546,  as  part  of  a 
Polyglott  Pentateuch;  and  afterwards  inserted  by 
Walton  in  the  London  Polyglott,  in  the  proper 
Persian  character'.  It  was  made  after  the  time 
j(f  the  false  prophet,  and  must  have  been  later 


VERSIONS. 

than  the  eighth  century.  The  text  follows  the 
Hebrew  very  closely,  according  to  the  Masoretie 
recension,  retaining  many  of  the  original  terms, 
from  the  translator’s  inability  to  render  them 
into  Persian.  Both  Onkelos’s  and  Saadias's 
versions  appear  to  have  been  consulted  by  the 
author. 

If  credit  is  to  be  given  to  the  inscriptions,  it 
was  made  by  Jacob,  the  son  of  Joseph  Tawus,  for 
the  use  of  the  Persian  Jews.  Critics  are,  how- 
ever, not  agreed  about  the  meaning  of  Tus  oi 
Tawus.  Rosenmiiller  (De  Vers  Pentat.  Pers. 
Lips.  1813,  4to.)  assigns  it  to  the  ninth  century; 
Lorsbach  ( Jena  Allgem.  Lit.  Zeit.  1816,  No.  58), 
with  less  probability,  brings  it  down  to  the  six- 
teenth. Walton,  in  his  Prolegomena (ed.  Dathe, 
p.  694),  speaks  of  two  MS.  copies  of  the  Psalms 
which  he  had,  but  both  were  very  recent,  and 
taken  from  the  Vulgate,  not  the  kebrew. . Not 
long  since,  Hassler  discovered  an  immediate 
version  of  Solomon’s  writings  existing  in  Parisian 
MSS.  (Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1829,  p.  469, 
et  sq.). 

There  are  two  Persian  versions  of  the  Gospels, 
one  of  which  is  printed  in  the  London  Polyglott, 
from  a MS.  belonging  to  Pocock,  written  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  1341.  Its  source  is  the  Peshito , 
as  internal  evidence  abundantly  shows.  The 
other  version  was  made  from  the  original  Greek. 
Wheloc,  Professor  of  Arabic  in  the  University  of 
Cambridge,  began  to  print  it  with  a Latin  trans- 
lation. After  his  death  it  jvas  edited  by  Pierson, 
London,  1652-57.  The  editors  made  use  of  the 
Syro-Persian  MS.  of  the  Gospels  from  which  that 
in  the  Polyglott  was  printed.  In  consequence  of 
the  confusion  arising  from  their  procedure,  the 
version  is  of  little  use  either  in  the  criticism  or 
interpretation  of  the  text. 

V.  The  Georgian  version. — This  translation 
comprehends  the  entire  Bible,  made  from  the 
Septuagint  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  from 
Greek  MSS.  of  the  Constantinopolitan  family  in 
the  New.  It  belongs  to  the  sixth  century.  The 
author  or  authors  are  not  known.  The  edition 
published  at  Moscow,  a.d.  1743,  folio,  was  in- 
terpolated by  the  Georgian  princes,  Arcil  and 
Wacuset,  from  the  Slavonic  version.  This  cir- 
cumstance detracts  from  its  authority  and  value, 
since  it  is  now  impossible  to  separate  the  original 
from  the  interpolated  readings. 

VI.  The  Slavonic  version. — This  translation, 
embracing  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  was 
made  by  Cyril  of  Thessalonica  and  his  brother 
Methodius,  who  invented  the  Slavic  alphabet. 
In  the  Old  Testament  the  Septuagint  was  fol- 
lowed; and  in  the  New  the  original  Greek,  in 
MSS.  belonging  to  the  Constantinopolitan  family. 
According  to  Alter,  the  Old  Testament  portion 
Was  originally  made  from  the  Veins  Itala,  and 
altered  in  the  fourteenth  century  from  Greek 
MSS.  Perhaps  the  entire  text  of  the  version  ha* 
been  revised  after  the  Latin.  The  translation  is 
very  literal,  so  that  the  idiom  of  the  Slavonic  is 
often  violated  for  the  sake  of  retaining  the  Greek 
construction.  Of  the  readings  adopted  by  Gries- 
bach,  this  version  has  at  least  three-fourths.  In 
consequence  of  its  excellence,  it  is  considered  oi 
great  value  in  the  criticism  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. The  edition  of  the  entire  Eible  publishea 
at  Ostrog,  1581,  is  the  basis  of  all  succeeding 
impressions. 


VERSIONS. 


VERSIONS. 


917 


VII.  The  Gothic  version. — The  Maeso-Goths 
were  a German  tribe  which  settled  on  the  borders 
of  the  Greek  empire,  and  their  language  is  essen- 
tially a German  dialect.  Their  version  of  the 
Bible  was  made  by  Ulphilas,  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, after  Greek  MSS.  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
after  the  Seventy  in  the  Old.  The  author  is  gene- 
rally regarded  as  an  Arian : but  his  peculiar 
doctrinal  sentiments  do  not  seem  to  have  in- 
fluenced his  translation.  Of  the  Old  Testament 
portion,  nothing  but  a fragment  of  Nehemiah  has 
been  printed,  although  parts  of  other  books  have 
been  discovered.  A great  part  of  the  New  has 
been  published  at  different  times  in  fragments. 
The  four  Gospels  exist  in  the  very  celebrated  MS. 
called  the  Codex  Argenteus , now  preserved  in  the 
library  of  the  university  at  Upsal,  and  minutely 
described  by  Dr.  E.  D.  Clarke  and  others.  This 
MS.,  however,  has  considerable  chasms.  The 
Gospels  have  been  several  times  printed  from  it, 
but  not  very  correctly.  Kuittel  discovered 
fragments  of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  a 
codex  rescriplus  belonging  to  the  Wolfenbiittel 
library,  which  he  published  in  1762,  4to.,  and 
which  were  republished  by  Zalm  in  the  complete 
edition  of  the  Gospels  issued  in  1808,  4to.  In 
1817,  Angelo  Mai  discovered  important  parts  of 
the  Gothic  version  among  five  codices  rescripti  in 
the  Ambrosian  library  at  Milan.  They  contain 
for  the  most  part  the  Pauline  Epistles,  with  the 
exception  of  that  to  the  Hebrews ; and  two  frag- 
ments of  Matthew.  Various  portions  were  printed 
by  Mai  in  conjunction  with  Castillionaeus,  in 
1819.  In  1 829  the  latter  published  the  frag- 
ments of  Paul’s  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians. This  version  has  been  altered  from  the 
Vulgate. 

VIII.  The  Armenian  version. — Armenian  li- 
terature begins  with  Miesrob,  the  inventor  of  the 
Armenian  alphabet,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
fifth  century.  Before  that  time,  the  Armenians 
employed  the  Syriac  letters.  After  making  an 
alphabet.  Miesrob,  assisted  by  two  of  his  pupils, 
undertook  a translation  of  the  Bible,  which  he 
completed  in  a.d.  410.  The  Old  Testament  part 
was  made  from  the  Greek  ; in  the  book  of  Daniel, 
from  Theodotion ; and  the  text  of  the  Seventy 
which  it  follows  appears  to  have  been  a mixed 
one,  for  it  agrees  with  none  of  the  leading  recen- 
sions. It  is  said  to  have  been  interpolated  in  the 
6i-xth  century  from  the  Peshito;  but  this  is 
doubtful.  Gregory  Bar  Hebraeus  gives  it  as  a 
mere  conjecture.  (Wiseman,  Horce  Syriacce,  p. 
142.)  La  Croze,  Michaelis,  and  Bredenkamp 
think  that  it  was  altered  from  the  Vulgate  in 
the  thirteenth  century ; but  Alter  and  Holmes 
are  opposed  to  that  idea.  The  probability  is  on 
the  side  of  the  former.  In  the  New  Testament  it 
was  made  from  the  original ; but  here  too  it  is 
said  to  have  been  adapted  to  the  Peshito.  It  is 
likely  that  it  has  been,  at  least  in  this  part,  con- 
formed to  the  Vulgate  by  Haitho  or  Hethom, 
who  rtigned  over  the  lesser  Armenia  and  Cilicia 
from  a.d  1224  till  1270.  This  entire  version 
was  first  published  by  Bishop  Uscan  or  Osgan,  at 
Amsterdam,  in  1776,  4to.,  who  is  also  accused  of 
interpolating  it  The  best  edition  is  that  of  Dr. 
Zohrab,  published  at  Venice,  a.d.  1805,  4 to.,  for 
Which  he  consulted  sixty-nine  MSS.  This  edi- 
tion was  collated  for  the  Greek  Testament  pre- 
oared by  Scholz,  who  think*  that  if  we  possessed 


the  genuine  version,  we  should  find  its  text  to  bt 
a compound  of  the  Constautinopolitan  and  Alex- 
andrian  families. 

(See  the  various  Introductions  to  the  Scriptures, 
especially  those  of  Eiehhorn,  Havernick,  ami 
De  Wette,  and  the  references  there  given.  Com- 
pare also  Davidson's  Lectures  on  Biblical  Cri- 
ticism.) 

We  shall  now  very  briefly  notice  the  principal 
English  versions  of  the  Bible.  Translations  of  a 
portion  of  the  Bible,  or  of  separate  books,  must  be 
omitted. 

1.  Wycliffe's  version  of  the  entire  Bible  is  ge- 
nerally regarded  as  the  first  which  was  made  into 
the  English  language.  This  work,  which  must 
have  occupied  him  for  many  years,  was  finished 
about  the  year  of  our  era  1380. 

The  author  of  it,  although  a zealous  reformer, 
as  well  as  an  enlightened  theologian  and  a man 
of  learning  in  his  own  time,  was  ignorant  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek'  languages,  and  therefore  not 
qualified  for  the  task  of  translation  from  the  ori- 
ginals. Latin,  however,  was  all  but  universal  in 
the  fourteenth  century;  and  the  Latin  Bible  or 
Vulgate  was  the  only  document  which  consti- 
tuted the  word  of  God  in  the  estimation  of  men. 
There  are  indications  of  his  having  had  assistance 
in  the  work,  perhaps  from  various  individuals. 
■ The  version  is  remarkable  for  its  fidelity  and  the 
propriety  of  the  words  selected.  Still  it  is  but 
the  translation  of  a translation,  and  therefore 
more  important  as  illustrative  of  the  state  of  our 
language  in  the  fourteenth  century  than  as  con- 
tributing to  the  criticism  or  interpretation  of  the 
Bible. 

The  Old  Testament  has  not  yet  been  pub- 
lished, but  it  is  now  in  course  of  publication 
under  the  editorial  care  of  Sir  Frederick  Madden 
and  the  Rev.  J.  Forshall,  of  the  British  Museum. 
The  general  opinion  is  that  the  New  Testament 
portion  was  published  so  long  ago  as  the  year 
1731,  and  it  is  from  this  that  our  idea  of  Wy- 
clifl'e  as  a translator  is  formed.  The  subject; 
however,  is  involved  in  considerable  obscurity; 
and  he  that  trusts  to  the  common  accounts  given 
of  this  early  reformer  as  a translator  of  the  Bible 
may  probably  be  misled  in  his  opinions.  Accord- 
ing to  Baber,  another  version  was  made  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  posterior  to  Wycliffe's,  with 
which  it  is  frequently  confounded.  The  author 
of  it  is  said  to  have  been  the  writer  of  ‘ Eluci- 
darium  Bibliorum,  or  Prologue  to  the  Bible.’ 
But  this  is  a questionable  statement. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  Wycliffe’s  version 
has  yet  been  published  even  as  regards  the  New 
Testament,  although  it  is  generally  supposed  that 
it  was  first  printed  by  Lewis  in  1731,  folio,  and 
afterwards  by  Baber  (1810,  4to.)  and  Bagster. 
A version  of  the  New  Testament  is  now  being 
published  by  Mr.  Pickering  of  London  from  a 
MS.  in  the  possession  of  Lea  Wilson,  Esq., 
which  is  apparently  the  early  Wycliffite  version. 
That  already  published  is  a later  version,  in  which 
Wyclift'e  could  have  had  no  concern,  as  it  was 
not  made  till  after  his  death.  It  thus  appears 
that  if  the  reformer  had  any  concern  in  either  of 
the  two  versions  of  the  New  Testament  ascribed 
to  him,  it  is  to  the  earlier  of  them,  and  not  to  the 
later,  that  this  honour  must  be  assigned.  Both 
are  now  being  printed,  as  the  Old  Testament  has 
already  been,  in  parallel  columns,  under  tbs 


918 


VERSIONS. 


VERSIONS. 


•uperiritendence  of  Sir  F.  Madden,  by  whom, 
doubtless,  some  light  will  be  thrown  on  their 
comparative  claims.  The  writer  is  indebted  for 
the  information  now  communicated  to  the  same 
eminent  antiquarian  scholar. 

2.  Tyndale's  translation. 

William  Tyndale,  having  printed  at  Hamburg 
an  edition  of  the  Gospel  by  Matthew  and  an 
edition  of  Mark,  committed  to  the  press  at  Co- 
logne the  first  edition  of  his  New  Testament  in 
4tc.,  with  a prologue  and  glosses.  In  conse- 
quence, however,  of  the  exertions  of  Cochlaeus,  a 
violent  and  crafty  enemy  to  the  printing  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  edition  was  interrupted  before  it 
was  printed  off.  A precious  fragment  of  it  is 
now  in  the  library  of  the  Right  Hon.  Thomas 
Grenville.  (Facsimiles  are  given  by  Mr.  Ander- 
son, in  his  ‘Annals  of  the  English  Bible’  (vol.  i. 
p.  64.)  At  Worms,  whither  he  proceeded  on 
leaving  Cologne,  he  commenced  another  edition 
of  the  New  Testament  in  8vo.  without  the  pro- 
logue and  glosses  belonging  to  the  4to.  A third 
edition  was  printed  at  Antwerp  in  1526,  a fourth 
at  the  same  place  in  1527,  a fifth  in  1529,  a sixth 
in  1534,  and  three  editions  in  1535.  In  1536, 
the  year  in  which  he  was  strangled  at  Vilvorde, 
there  were  ten  or  twelve  editions.  He  also  printed 
at  different  times  the  five  books  of  Moses;  and  in 
1531,  the  book  of  Jonah,  with  an  admirable 
prologue  respecting  the  state  of  his  country.  In 
addition  to  the  Pentateuch,  he  translated  other 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  at  least  as  far  as  the 
end  of  Chronicles.  The  Old  Testament  was 
made  from  the  original,  not  from  Luther’s  Ger- 
man version ; for  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  Tyndale  was  acquainted  with  German,  or 
indeed  that  he  ever  saw  Luther,  though  there  is 
abundant  testimony  of  his  skill  in  Hebrew.  Be- 
sides, its  internal  character  proves  that  it  was 
made  from  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek. 

The  excellence  of  this  version,  the  basis  of  all 
subsequent  English  Bibles,  has  never  been  called 
in  question  by  candid  and  competent  judges, 
notwithstanding  the  severe  opposition  it  encoun- 
tered during  the  life  of  the  honoured  Tyndale, 
and  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  he  was 
placed.  The  language  is  pure,  appropriate,  and 
perspicuous.  It  is  an  astonishing  monument  of 
the  indomitable  zeal  and  great  learning  of  the 
author.  The  New  Testament  part  was  printed  in 
Bagster's  Hexapla. 

3.  Myles  Coverdale.  The  English  version  of  the 
whole  Bible  made  by  Coverdale,  is  dated  1535, 
in  folio.  Where  it  was  printed  is  matter  of  con- 
jecture. In  the  title-page  it  professes  to  be  faith- 
fully and  truly  translated  out  of  the  ‘Douche 
(German)  and  Lafyn.’  This  Bible  was  imported 
into  England  in  1536,  and  various  expedients 
were  tried  in  the  way  of  altering  the  title-page 
and  the  dedication,  or  of  affixing  a new  title-page, 
in  order  to  procure  it  the  royal  approbation. 
Another  edition,  in  4to.,  was  issued  in  1550,  and 
again  in  the  same  form  reissued  in  1553.  This 
Bible  certainly  owed  its  origin  to  Lord  Crom- 
well’s patronage.  Coverdale  states,  that  he  had 
five  translations  before  him  1 to  help  him  herein.’ 
Although  the  author  had  the  benefit  of  Tyndale’s, 
his  work  must  be  reckoned  inferior.  In  addition 
to  the  culpable  obsequiousness  of  Coverdale,  he 
was  not  so  well  skilled  in  the  original  languages 
«f  the  Scriptures,  and  had  therefore  to  rely  more 


on  the  German  and  Latin  (Anderson,  vol.  i.  p. 
587).  Tiiis  translation  was  recently  reprinted  by 
Bagster. 

4.  Mattheic's  Bible.  Although  this  version  is 
the  same  as  Tyndale’s  previously  described,  yet  it 
deserves  to  be  separately  spoken  of.  John  Rogers, 
an  intimate  friend  of  Tyndale,  set.  about  the  su- 
perintendence of  a new  edition,  soon  after  the 
incarceration  of  the  latter  at  Vilvorde.  Where  L 
was  printed  cannot  now  be  ascertained.  Ham- 
burg, Marburg,  Paris,  Antwerp,  and  Lubeck, 
have  all  been  named.  When  Rogers  had  pro- 
ceeded with  the  printing  as  far  as  Isaiah,  Richard 
Grafton  and  Edward  Whitchurch,  the  celebrated 
printers,  undertook  to  bring  out  the  work  as  a 
matter  of  trade.  The  New  Testament  entire,  and 
the  Old  as  far  as  the  end  of  Chronicles,  are 
Tyndale’s ; the  remainder  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  done  by  Rogers  himself,  with  the  assistance 
perhaps  of  Covevdale’s  sheets.  The  whole  was 
finished  in  1537.  Why  it  bears  the  name  of 
Thomas  Matthew  is  not  clear.  It.  has  been  con- 
jectured, however,  that  it  may  have  been  com- 
menced at  the  request  of  a person  of  that  name. 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  without  any  previous  con- 
nection with  the  undertaking,  was  applied  to  by 
Grafton  to  procure  it  royal  patronage,  which  he 
happily  effected  through  Lord  Cromwell. 

In  the  year  1538,  another  edition  was  begun  at 
Paris,  edited  by  Coverdale,  which  was  inter- 
rupted by  an  order  of  the  Inquisition.  It  was 
finished  in  London,  in  April,  1539.  This  book 
was  set  forth  and  enforced  by  the  highest  autho- 
rity in  England, 

5.  Taverner's  Bible.  Richard  Taverner,  t lie 
editor  of  this  work,  was  a learned  layman.  His 
Bible  was  published  in  London,  1539,  folio.  Two 
other  editions  of  it  were  issued  in  quarto.  It 
is  not  a new  version,  but  a correction  of  Mat- 
thew’s. 

6.  Cranmer' s Bible.  The  first  great  Bible,  with 
a prologue,  by  Cranmer,  was  published  in  1540, 
folio,  printed  by  Whitchurch.  Three  subsequent 
editions  had  the  archbishop’s  name  affixed  to  the 
title-page.  The  New  Testament  is  printed  in 
Bagster's  Hexapla. 

7.  Geneva  Bible.  The  New  Testament,  in  duo- 
decimo, printed  at  Geneva  by  Conrad  Badius,  in 

1557,  is  properly  a revision  of  Tyndale’s  from 
the  Greek,  by  William  Whittingham.  It  was 
merely  preparatory,  however,  to  the  revision  ot 
the  entire  Bible  by  Whittingham  and  other  exiles, 
which  appears  to  have  been  begun  by  January, 

1558,  and  to  have  been  continued  till  the  10th 
April,  1560.  Whittingham  had  for  his  associates 
in  the  undertaking  Anthony  Gibby  and  Thomas 
Sampson.  Its  size  is  quarto.  This  was  the  first 
Bible  printed  in  Roman  letter,  and  the  first  in 
verses.  A patent  relative  to  it  was  issued  by 
Elizabeth  in  favour  of  John  Bodeleigh.  The 
work  is  a new  translation  from  the  original,  not 
simply  a revision  of  any  former  version.  It  is 
faithful  and  literal.  The  New  Testament  portion 
was  reprinted  by  Bagster  in  his  Hexapla. 

8.  Archbishop  Parker  s,  or  the  Bishops'  Bible. 
This  Bible  was  published  in  1568,  at  London, 
in  one  folio  volume.  It  was  superintended  by 
Parker,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  text  being 
carefully  revised  after  the  originals,  by  upward 
of  fifteen  scholars,  eight  of  whom  were  bishops 
Different  portions  were  assigned  to  different  in- 


VERSIONS. 


VINE. 


919 


thriduals,  the  initials  of  whose  names  are  placed 
at  the  end  of  their  several  parts.  It  was  not,  as  is 
commonly  supposed,  undertaken  at  the  royal 
command  The  text  of  this  translation  is  much 
better  than  that  of  any  preceding  one. 

9.  Anglo-Romish  version. — An  English  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament  was  published  at 
Rlieims  in  1582,  in  a quarto  volume.  It  is 
made  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  not  from  the  ori- 
ginal, and  is  accompanied  bv  annotations.  In 
1609-10  the  Old  Testament  was  translated  from 
the  Vulgate,  and  published  at  Douay  in  two 
quarto  volumes,  also  with  notes.  These  three 
volumes  contain  the  standard  version  of  Roman 
Catholics.  Many  of  the  original  Hebrew  and 
Greek  words  are  retained,  so  that  simplicity  and 
perspicuity  are  sacrificed.  It  has  been  conjec- 
tured that  this  was  done  to  render  it  as  obscure 
as  possible  to  the  common  people.  The  New 
Testament  lias  been  lately  reprinted  in  Bagster's 
llexapla. 

10.  King  James's  Bible. — The  proposal  for  this 
new  translation  of  the  Bible  originated  with  Dr. 
John  Rainolds,  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Ox- 
ford. Forty-seven  persons  were  engaged  upon  it, 
doubtless  the  most  eminent  men  for  learning  that 
could  then  be  procured.  They  met  in  companies 
at  different  places,  having  their  respective  tasks 
assigned  them.  According  to  the  ordinary  ac- 
count, fourteen  rules  were  given  to  the  translators 
for  their  guidance ; but  another  account  states 
that  only  seven  were  tinally  prescribed.  The 
whole  was  revised  by  twelve  men  together,  two 
having  been  chosen  out  of  each  of  the  six  com- 
panies. The  ultimate  revision  was  made  by 
Dr.  Miles  Smith,  who  wrote  the  Preface,  and 
Dr.  Bilson.  It  was  first  published,  in  a folio 
volume,  in  1611.  The  whole  expense  was  de- 
frayed by  Barker,  the  patentee.  In  order  to 
judge  of  the  real  character  of  this  work,  which 
has  continued  to  be  the  authorized  version  down 
to  the  present  day,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  two 
of  the  rules  given  to  the  editors  or  translators, 
viz.  the  first  and  the  fourteenth ‘ The  ordi- 
nary Bible  read  in  the  church,  commonly  called 
the  Bishops’  Bible,  to  be  fallowed,  ami  as  little 
altered  as  the  original  will  permit.’  Again  : — 
‘ These  translations  to  be  used  when  they  agree 
better  with  the  text  than  the  Bishops'  Bible: 
viz.  1.  Tyndale's;  2.  Matthew's;  3.  Coverdale’s ; 
4.  Whitclmrche's  (Cranmer’s);  5.  The  Geneva.’ 
From  these  instructions  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  Authorized  Version  is  a revision  of  the 
Bishops’  Bible,  by  a careful  collation  of  the 
originals  and  a comparison  of  existing  transla- 
tions. It  was  not  a new  and  independent  work, 
but  a laborious  compilation  from  existing  works 
of  the  same  kind,  regulated  in  every  case  by  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew. 

It  is  needless  to  pronounce  a formal  encomium 
on  our  authorized  version.  The  time,  learning, 
and  labour  expended  on  it  were  well  bestowed. 
It  far  surpasses  every  other  English  version  of 
the  entire  Bible  in  the  characteristic  qualities  of 
simplicity,  energy,  and  purity  of  style,  as  also  in 
uniform  fidelity  to  the  original. 

A revision  of  it,  however,  is  now  wanted,  or 
rather,  a new  translation  from  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek,  based  upon  it.  Since  it  was  made,  criti- 
cism has  brought  to  light  a great  mass  of  ma- 
terials, and  elevated  itself  in  the  esteem  of  the 


fundamental  theologian  as  an  important  science. 
Hermeneutics  too  have  been  cultivated,  iso  as  to 
assume  a systematic,  sc  entific  form.  We  require, 
in  consequence,  a new  English  version,  suited  to 
the  present  state  of  sacred  literature.  It  need 
scarcely  be  stated  that  King  James’s  translators 
have  failed  to  apprehend  the  true  meaning  in 
many  passages.  Of  the  merit  attaching  to  their 
version  a considerable  share  belongs  to  Tyndale. 
Parker's  Bible  was  the  professed  basis,  and  that 
was  a revision  of  Cranmer’s.  Cranmer’s  Bible 
was  chiefly  a correction  of  Matthew’s,  or,  in  ether 
words,  of  Tyndale's,  as  far  as  Tyndale  iiad  trans- 
lated. Thus  King  James’s  translation  resolves 
itself  at  last,  in  no  small  measure,  into  Tyndale's  ; 
and  when  we  consider  the  ad  verse  circumstances 
continually  pressing  upon  that,  noble-minded  man, 
with  the  little  assistance  he  could  obtain,  the  work 
which  he  produced  assumes  a pre-eminent  position 
amid  the  immortal  monuments  of  human  learning 
and  skill.  # 

Few  men  have  since  attempted  an  English  ver- 
sion of  the  entire  Bible.  They  have  contented 
themselves  with  separate  books,  either  of  the  Old 
or  New  Testament.  In  point  of  style  and  dic- 
tion Lowth's  translation  of  Isaiah  is  the  best.  Dr. 
Campbell  translated  the  Gospels,  and  Macknight 
the  Epistles ; bnt  the  former  scarcely  equals  the 
expectations  which  a reader  of  the  Preliminary 
Dissertations  would  form,  while  the  latter  has  not 
commended  itself  to  competent  judges. 

(See  Johnson’s  Account  of  the  several  English 
translations  of  the  Bible , Lond.  1730,  8vo.,  re- 
printed in  Bp.  Watson’s  Theological  Tracts ; Bp. 
Marsh’s  History  of  the  Translations  which  have 
been  made  of  the  Scriptures,  from  the  earliest  to  the 
present  age,  Lond.  1812,  8vo.  ; Lewis’s  History 
of  the  principal  Translations  of  the  Bible,  Lond. 
1739,  8vo. : Newcome’s  Historical  View  of  the 
English  Biblical  translations,  Dublin,  1792,  8vo.; 
Colton’s  List  of  Editions  of  the  Bible,  from  the 
year  1505  to  1820,  Oxford,  1821,  8vo. ; Walter's 
Letter  on  the  Independence  of  the  Authorized 
Version  of  the  Bible,  Lond.  1823,  8vo.  ; Todd's 
Vindication  of  our  Authorized  Translation,  &c., 
Lond.  1819,  8vo. ; Whittaker’s  Historical  and 
Critical  Inquiry  into  the  Interpretation  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  Spc.,  Lond.  1819,  8vo.,  and 
Supplement,  1820;  Townley’s  Illustrations  of 
Biblical  Literature , Lond.  1821,  3 vols.  8vo.  ; 
and  especially  Anderson's  Annals  of  the  English 
Bible,  Lond.  1845,  2 vols.  8vo.,  which  must  now' 
be  regarded  as  the  standard  work  on  the  subject. 
— S.  D. 

VINE,  THE  (|SS  gepheii),  with  its  fruit,  the 
Grape,  amib,  or  yayin,  as  well  as  Wine, 
is  very  frequently  mentioned  in  Scripture,  as 
might  be  expected  from  its  being  a native  of 
the  East,  well  known  to  ancient  nations,  and 
highly  esteemed  for  its  various  natural  and  arti- 
ficial products.  Homer  and  Herodotus  mention 
the  vine ; Theophrastus  and  Dioscorides  treat  of 
it  in  several  chapters.  But  long  before  these  times 
it  was  known  to  the  Egyptians  : representations 
of  the  careful  culture  of  ihe  vine,  of  the  tread- 
ing of  the  grapes  and  squeezing  out  its  juice, 
and  of  the  storing  of  the  wine  in  jars,  being  all 
discovered  in  the  paintings  within  their  tombs. 
Though  cultivated  at  such  early  periods,  the  vine 
was  not  a native  of  Egypt,  nor  probably  of  Syria; 


920 


VINE. 


VIRGIN 


but  both  European  and  Asiatic  writers  mention  it 
as  a native  of  the  hilly  region  on  the  southern 
shores  of  the  Caspian,  and  in  the  Persian  province 
of  Gliilan.  In  the  districts  of  the  Caucasus,  as 
well  as  in  the  elevated  valley  of  Cashmere,  the  vine 
climbs  to  the  tops  of  the  loftiest  trees,  and  the 
grapes  are  of  tine  quality  and  large  size  in  many 
places  of  the  intermediate  country.  Every  part 
of  the  vine  was  and  still  continues  to  he  highly 
valued.  The  sap  was  at  one  time  used  in  medi- 
cine. Verjuice  expressed  from  wild  grapes  is  well 
Known  for  its  acidity.  The  late  Sir  A.  Burnes 
mentions  that  in  Caubul  they  use  grape  powder, 
obtained  by  drying  and  powdering  the  unripe 
fruit,  as  a pleasant  acid.  When  ripe,  the  fruit  is 
everywhere  highly  esteemed,  both  fresh,  and  in  its 
dried  state  as  iaisins.  The  juice  of  the  ripe  fruit, 
called  must , is  valued  as  a pleasant  beverage. 
By  fermentation,  wine,  alcohol,  and  vinegar  are 
obtained ; the  lees  yield  tartar ; an  oil  is  some- 
times expressed  from  the  s&ds ; and  the  ashes  of 
the  twigs  were  formerly  valued  in  consequence  of 
yielding  a salt,  which  we  now  know  to  be  carbo- 
nate of  potash. 


able  products  of  Palestine,  and  of  particularly  fine 
quality  in  some  of  the  districts.  Those  of  Eshcol, 
Sorek.  Jibmah,  Jazer,  and  Abel,  were  particularly 
distinguished.  The  men  sent  from  Kadesh-barnea 
to  explore  the  Promised  Land  brought  back  as 
a sign  of  its  fertility,  what  would  be  sure  to  be 
appreciated  by  men  who  had  been  sojourning  in 
the  desert,  a bunch  of  grapes  from  Eshcol,  near 
Hebron,  which  they  carried  between  them  on  a 
stick,  probably  to  prevent  its  being  bruised,  but 
no  doubt  also  on  account  of  its  great  size. 
Modern  travellers,  as  Dandini,  Mariti,  and  La- 
borde,  have  described  some  of  the  grapes  of 
Palestine  as  being  of  large  size.  Nau  affirms 
that  in  Syria  he  had  seen  clusters  ten  or  twelve 


pounds  in  weight ; and  Schulz  states  that  bfc 
supped  under  a vine  whose  stem  was  about  a foot 
and  a half  in  diameter,  its  height  about  thirty 
feet,  while  its  branches  and  brauchlets,  which  had 
to  be  supported,  formed  a tent  of  upwards  of 
thirty  feet  square.  But  this  will  appear  nothing 
extraordinary  to  \those  who  have  seen  the  vine 
at  Hampton  Court,  which  covers  a space  of  2200 
square  feet.  And  we  have  it  on  record  that,  even 
in  our  own  country,  a bunch  of  Syrian  grape* 
was  produced  at  Welbeck,  which  weighed  nine- 
teen pounds,  and  measured  in  length  twenty-three 
inches,  and  nineteen  and  a half  inches  in  its 
greatest  diameter.  It  was  sent  as  a present  from 
the  Duke  of  Portland  to  the  Marquess  of  Rock- 
ingham, and  conveyed  a distance  of  twenty  miles, 
on  a staff,  by  four  labourers,  two  of  whom  bore  it 
in  rotation,  thus  affording  a striking  illustration 
of  the  proceeding  of  the  spies  (Kitto,  Physic.  Geog. 
of  Palestine , p.  cccxxx.). 

A fruitful  vine  is  often  adduced  as  an  emblem 
of  the  Hebrew  nation,  and  also  the  vine  that  was 
brought  out  of  Egypt.  A period  of  security  and 
repose  is  figured  by  every  one  sitting  under  his 
own  vine  and  fig-tree;  and  prosperity  by  ‘Judah, 
a lion's  whelp,  binding  his  foal  to  the  vine, 
and  his  ass's  colt  to  the  choice  vine  both  in- 
dications of  Eastern  manners,  where  sitting  in 
the  shade  is  most  pleasant,  and  tying  cattle  in 
similar  situations  a common  practice.  Of  the 
vine  there  were  no  doubt  several  varieties,  as  of 
all  cultivated  plants,  but  that  of  Sorek  is  espe- 
cially distinguished  (Gen.  xlix.  11  ; Jer.  xi.  21). 
Rosenm tiller  supposes  this  to  be  the  variety  called 
serik  or  sori/i,  which  is  cultivated  not  only  in 
Syria,  but  also  in  Arabia  and  in  the  north  of 
Africa.  It  appears  to  be  the  variety  called  hish- 
mish , or  the  Persian  bedana , which  signifies 
‘ without  seed.1 

The  vine  must  have  been  cultivated  in  very 
early  times,  as  we  are  informed  in  Gen.  ix.  20, 
that  Noah  planted  the  vine  immediately  after  the 
deluge;  and  bread  and  wine  are  mentioned  in 
Gen.  xiv.  18.  In  Egypt  also  we  have  early  notice 
of  it  (Gen.  xl.  9,  10),  as  Pharaoh's  chief  butler 
saw  in  a dream  a vine  with  three  branches ; anil 
the  Israelites  complain  (Num.  xx.  5)  that  Moses 
and  Aaron  had  brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  into 
that  dry  and  barren  land,  where  there  were  neither 
figs  nor  vines.  The  wines  of  Syria  were  in  early 
times  also  highly  esteemed ; and  though  the  growth 
of  the  vine  has  much  decreased,  from  the  dimi- 
nished population  and  the  Mohammedan  rule,  yet 
travellers  still  speak  with  enthusiasm  of  some  of 
the  wines,  as  of  the  vino  d’oro  of  Lebanon.  As 
space  will  not  permit  us  to  notice  all  the  pas- 
sages in  which  the  vine,  the  grape,  and  wine  are 
mentioned,  we  must  refer  to  Celsius,  Hierobot. 
vol . i.  pp.  400-444;  Calmet's  Dictionary  ; Rosen- 
m filler's  Biblical  Bot.  p.  220  ; and  to  Kitto'* 
Physical  History  of  Palestine,  p.  cccxxiv.,  in 
all  of  which  the  subject  is  amply  discussed  anu 
clearly  elucidated. — J.  F.  R. 

VINEGAR.  [Wine.] 

VIOL.  [Musical  Instruments.] 

VIPER.  [Serpent.] 

VIRGIN  Vulg.  virgo). 

The  word  occurs  fifty  times  in  the  Old 

Testament,  and  is  translated  by  irapQtvos  ia 


VIRGIN. 


VOW, 


<fie  Sept.,  except  in  two  instances.  It  is  ren- 
dered once  by  veavis  (1  Kings  i.  2),  and  once 
by  vvpeprj  (Joel  i.  8).  See  Gen.  xxiv.  16;  Exod. 
xxii.  15,  16,  17;  Lev.  xxi. ; Dent,  xxii.,  xxxii. ; 
Judg.  xxi.,  &c.  occurs  seven  times,  in 

four  of  which  it  is  rendered  veavis,  puella  (Exod. 
ii.  8;  Ps.  lxviii.  25;  Cant.  i.  3;  vi.  8);  in  one 
(Prov.  xxx  19)  veorgs,  and  in  two  (Gen.  xxiv. 
43  ; Isa.  vii.  14)  tt apdevos*  The  same  word  is 
also  rendered  virgo  in  the  Vulgate  in  ihese  two 
passages ; in  Exod.  ii.  8,  puella  ; in  Ps. lxviii.  26, 
juvencula ; in  Cant.  i.  3.  and  vi.  8,  adolescentula ; 
and  in  Prov.  xxx.  19,  ado'escentia,  after  the 
Sept.  The  Syriac  follows  the  Seventy  in  Isa. 
vii.  14,  but  in  all  the  %ther  passages  agrees 
with  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  who 
translate  by  veavis,  not  only  in  Ps. 

lxviii.  26;  Gen.  xxxiv.  43;  Exod.  ii.  8;  Prov. 
xxx.  19  (in  which  they  agree  with  the  Sept.), 
but  also  in  Isa.  vii.  14.  Justin  Martyr  (Dio/. 
c.  Tryph.')  complains  of  the  partiality  of  the 

Greek  translators  in  rendering  n thy  here  by 
reaves  (a  term  which  does  not  necessarily 
include  the  idea  of  virginity),  accusing  these 
Jewish  writers  of  wishing  to  neutralize  the  ap- 
plication to  the  Messiah  of  this  passage,  which 
the  Jews  of  his  time  referred  to  Hezekiah.  Gese- 
nius  ( Comm.in  Isa.)  maintains,  notwithstanding, 
that  i /eaves,  not  tt apdevos,  is  the  correct  ren- 
dering in  Isa.  vii.  14,  while  he  at  the  same  time 
agrees  with  Justin  that  the  prediction  cannot 
possibly  refer  to  Hezekiah,  who  was  born  nine 
years  before  its  delivery.  Fiirst  ( Concordance ) 
explains  by  puella,  virgo,  nubilis  ilia  vel 

nupta,  tenera  et  florens  aetate,  valens  ac  vegeta; 
but  Hengstenberg  ( Christology ),  although  admit- 
ting that  does  not  necessarily  mean  a vir- 

gin (which  he  conceives  is  plain  from  Prov.  xxx. 
19),  maintains  that  it  is  always  applied  in  Scrip- 
ture to  an  unmarried  woman.  St.  Matthew  (i. 
23),  who  cites  from  the  Seventy,  applies  the  pas- 
sage (Isa.  vii.  14)  tQ  the  miraculous  birth  of 
Jesus  from  the  blessed  Virgin.  Professor  Robin- 
son (GrJ  and  Eng.  Lexicon ) considers  tt apdevos 
here  to  signify  a bride,  or  newly  married  woman, 
as  in  Homer  (II.  ii.  514)  : 

O us  reitev  ’ A(ttv6xV - • • • • tt  apdevos  alSo'nj’ 
(‘Them  bore  Astyoche,  a virgin  pure’ 

Cowper); 

and  considering  it  to  refer  apparently  to  the 
youthful  spouse  of  the  prophet  (see  Isa.  viii.  3,  4 ; 
vii.  3,  10.  21),  holds  that,  the  sense  in  Matt.  i.  23 
would  then  lie : Thus  was  fulfilled  in  a strict  and 
literal  sense  that  which  the  prophet  spoke  in  a wider 
sense  and  on  a different,  occasion.  Jerome  says 
that  thePunic  for  virgo  is  alma,  although  the  word 
is  but  twice  so  rendered  in  the  Vulgate. 


* In  Rose’s  edition  of  Parkhurst’s  Lexicon  of 
the  New  Testament  (18^9),  irapdevos  is  said  to 

‘ answer  to  in  several  passages  in  the  Sept.’ 

We  can  discover  but  these  two  instances.  There 
are  four  passages  cited  in  the  same  edition  and  in 
its  reprint  in  1845  (Gen.  xxiv.  14,  16  ; xxxv.  3 ; 
and  Isa.  vii.  4 [14?]),  in  not  one  of  which  does 
the  word  nzby  occur.  In  the  three  first  it  is 

msa 


The  early  Christians  contended  also  for  the  per 
petual  virginity  of  Mary  against  the  Jews,  who 
objected  the  use  of  the  term  ecvs  (until,  Matt, 
i.  25)  as  implying  the  contrary  ; but  the  Fathers 
triumphantly  appealed  against  the  Jewish  inter- 
pretation to  Scripture  usage,  according  to  which 
this  term  frequently  included  the  notion  of  per- 
petuity (comp.  Ps.  cx.  I ; Gen.  viii.  7 ; Isa. 
xlvi.  4;  Ps.  lxi.  7;  Matt,  xxviii.  20  ; and  see 
Suicer's  Tnesaurus,  and  Pearson,  On  the  Creed , 
Art.  iii.).  Although  there  is  no  proof  from  Scrip- 
ture that  Mary  had  other  children  [James; 
Jude],  the  Christian  Fathers  did  not  consider 
that  there  was  any  impiety  in  the  supposition 
that  she  had  (Suicer,  ut  supra).  But.  although 
not  an  article  of  faith,  the  perpetual  virginity  of 
Mary  was  a constant  tradition  of  both  the  Eastern 
and  Western  church.  Tiie  most  distinguished 
Protestant  theologians  have  also  adopted  this 
belief,  and  Dr.  Lankier  ( Credibility ) considered 
the  evidence  in  its  favour  so  strong  as  to  deserve 
that,  assent  which  he  himself  yielded  to  it. 

The  word  irapdevos,  virgin,  occurs  in  Matt, 
i.  ; xxv.;  Lukei.;  Acts  xxi.;  1 Cor.  vii.;  2 
Cor.  xi.  2;  and  Apoc.  xiv.  14.  In  1 Cor.  and 
Apoc.  it  is  applied  to  both  sexes,  as  it  frequently 
is  by  the  Fathers,  who  use  it  in  the  sense  of  coe- 
lebs.  It  is  sometimes  metaphorically  used  in 
the  Old  Testament  for  a country,  and  in  the 
New  to  denote  a high  state  of  moral  purity. — 

w.  w. 

VOW  (TT?J  is  represented  by  a Hebrew  word 
which  signifies  to  ‘ promise,’  and  may  therefore  be 
defined  as  a religious  undertaking,  either,  1.  Po- 
sitive, to  do  or  perform  ; 2.  or  Negative,  to  air- 
stain  from  doing  or  performing  a certain  thing. 
The  morality  of  vows  we  shall  not  here  discuss, 
but  merely  remark  that  vows  were  quite  in  place 
in  a system  of  religion  which  so  largely  consisted 
of  doing  or  not  doing  certain  outward  acts,  with 
a view  of  pleasing  Jehovah  and  gaining  his  fa- 
vour. The  Israelite,  who  had  been  taught  by  per- 
formances of  daily  recurrence  to  consider  par- 
ticular ceremonies  as  essential  to  his  possessing 
the  divine  favour,  may  easily  have  been  led  to 
the  conviction  which  existed  probably  in  the  pri- 
mitive ages  of  the  world,  that  voluntary  oblations 
and  self-imposed  sacrifices  had  a special  value  in 
the  sight  of  God.  And  when  once  this  conviction 
had  led  to  corresponding  practice,  it  could  not  be 
otherwise  than  of  the  highest  consequence  that 
these  sacred  promises,  which  in  sanctity  differed 
little  from  oaths,  should  be  religiously  and  scru- 
pulously observed.  Before  a vow  is  taken  there 
may  be  strong  reasons  why  it  should  not  be 
made  ; but  when  it  is  once  assumed,  a new  obli- 
gation is  contracted,  which  has  the  greater  force 
because  of  its  voluntary  nature : a new  element 
is  introduced,  which  strongly  requires  the  ob- 
servance of  the  vow,  if  the  bonds  of  morality  are 
not  to  be  seriously  relaxed.  The  writer  may  b« 
of  opinion  that  total  abstinence  is  in  itself  not  a 
virtue  nor  of  general  obligation,  but  he  cannot 
doubt  that  ‘ breaking  the  pledge,’  when  once 
taken,  is  an  act  of  immorality  that  cannot  be 
repeated  without  undermining  the  very  founda 
tions  of  character:  whence  it  obviously  appears 
that  caution  should  be  observed,  not  only  in  keep- 
ing, but  also  in  leading  men  to  make,  pledges, 
vows,  and  promises. 


VULGATE. 


VULGATE. 


S22 

Vows,  whbh  rest  on  a human  view  of  religious 
obligations,  assuming  as  they  do  that  a kind  of 
recompense  is  to  he  made  to  God  for  good  en- 
joyed, or  consideration  offered  lor  good  deside- 
rated, or  a gratuity  presented  to  buy  off'  an  im- 
pending or  threatened  ill,  are  found  in  existence 
in  the  antiquities  of  all  nations,  and  present 
themselves  in  the  earliest  Biblical  periods  (Gen. 
xxviii.  20  ; Judg.  xi.  30  ; 1 Sam.  i.  11  ; 2 Sam. 
xv.  8).  With  great,  propriety  the  performance 
of  these  voluntary  undertakings  was  accounted  a 
highly  religious  duty  (Judg.  xi.  35;  Eccles.  v.4, 
5).  The  words  of  the  last,  vow  are  too  emphatic, 
and  in  the  present  day  too  important,  not  to  be 
cited  : * Better  is  it.  that  thou  shouldest  not  vow, 
than  that  thou  shouldest  vow  and  not  pay’  (comp. 
Ps.  lxvi.  13,  sq.  ; lxxvi.  11;  cxvi.  IS).  The 
views  which  guided  the  Mosaic  legislation  were 
not  dissimilar  to  those  just  expounded.  Like  a 
wise  lawgiver,  Moses,  in  this  and  in  other  par- 
ticulars, did  not.  attempt  to  sunder  the  line  of 
continuity  between  the  past  and  the  present.  He 
found  vows  in  practice;  he  aimed  to  regulate 
what  it  would  have  been  folly  to  try  to  root  out 
(Deut.  xxiii.  2L,  sq.).  The  words  in  the  22nd 
verse  are  clearly  in  agreement  with  our  remarks: 
‘If  thou  shalt  forbear  to  vow,  it  shall  be  no  sin 
in  thee.’ — J.  R.  B. 

VULGATE  ( Vidgata ; icoirfi),  the  name  ge- 
nerally given  to  the  Latin  translation  of  the 
Bible  used  in  the  Western  Church. 

Old  Testament  Version.  There  have  been 
Latin  translations  of  the  Bible  from  the  first  ages 
of  the  Christian  Church.  Of  these  Augustine  ob- 
serves {De  Doct.  Christ,  ii.  11) : ‘ Those  who  have 
translated  the  Bible  into  Greek  can  be  numbered, 
but  not  so  the  Latin  versions.  For  in  the  first 
ages  of  the  Church,  whoever  could  get.  hold  of  a 
Greek  codex  ventured  to  translate  it  into  Latin, 
however  slight  his  knowledge  of  either  language.’ 
Of  these  he  prefers  the  Itala.  as  the  most  literal. 
Bentley  (see  his  Life  by  Monk)  supposed  that 
Itala  was  an  error  for  ilia,  others  (as  Bishop 
Potter)  for  usitata.  But  there  seems  no  sufficient 
reason  for  rejecting  the  common  reading  (Saba- 
tier's Preface , ut  inf).  Augustine  wrote  to  Jerome 
( Ep . 88)  to  acquaint  him  that  he  would  confer  a 
great  benefit  by  translating  the  version  of  the 
Seventy,  inasmuch  as  the  readings  of  the  Latin 
manuscripts  were  so  various  that  it  was  doubted  if 
any  thing  could  be  proved  by  them,  observing  that 
‘there  are  as  many  texts  as  there  are  copies.’ 
Eichhorn  is  of  opinion  that  all  the  quotations  of 
writers  before  Jerome  belong  to  the  same  text, 
which  he  conceives  to  have  been  made  in  the  first 
century,  and  in  Africa.  He  founds  this  opinion 
chiefly  on  the  badness  of  the  Latin,  as  well  as  on 
the  fact  that  Greek  was  too  well  understood  in 
Italy  to  render  a Latin  version  necessary.  In  this 
view  he  has  been  followed  by  Dr.  Wiseman  ( Letters 
on  1 John  v.  7),  and  by  Lachmann  ( Preface  to 
his  edition  of  the  New  Testament ).  De  Wette, 
however,  is  of  opinion  that  there  is  no  proof  of 
the  African  origin  of  this  version.  Some  frag- 
ments of  it.  still  exist,  which  show  it  to  have  been 
most  literal,  and  made  from  the  t:oirq,  or  the  text 
of  the  Septuagint  which  existed  before  Origen’g 
Hexapla,  whose  defects  it  preserves,  agreeingvery 
closely  with  the  Cod.  Vaticanus.  It  is  therefore 
of  the  greatest  use  towards  restoring  the  text 
o£  the  Severity.  The  parts  extant  are  the  Psalms, 


Job,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Tobit,  with  fragments  ol 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  Hi«ea.  These 
fragments  are  found  in  citations  from  the  Fathers, 
in  ancient  manuscripts,  and  in  psalters,  missals, 
and  breviaries,  from  which  they  have  been  col- 
lected with  much  care  by  Flaminius  Nobilius 
{Vet.  Text.  esc.  LXX.  Lat.  redd.,  1588),  who 
has  endeavoured  to  supply  the  omissions;  Sa- 
batier ( Bibl . Sac.  Lat.  verss.  antiq.  1749) ; 
Jac.  Faber  Stapulensis  ( Psalterium  Quincuplex , 
1509)  [Verse]  ; Blanch  ini  ( Psalter . Duplex , 
ex  insigni  Cod.  Grceco-Lat.  Veron.  uncial,  ante 
7m.  su.fi.);  and  Mini  ter  (. Frngm . Antekieron , 
e cod.  rescript.  Wirceburg.  Hafn.  1809).  In 
the  year  382  Jerome  undertook  a revision  of  this 
text.  He  Hist  corrected  the  Psalms,  producing 
what  is  called  the  lioman  Psalter,  which  is  still 
used  in  the  church  of  the  Vatican,  and  in  St. 
Mark’s  at  Venice.*  Afterwards,  finding  this 
work  corrupted  by  transcribers,  he  undertook  a 
second  revision.  This  is  the  Gallican  Psalter, 
and  is  that  contained  in  the  Vulgate,  and  used 
generally  in  the  Church  since  its  introduction  by 
Pope  Paul  IV.  Jerome  made  this  correction 
with  the  aid  of  Origen’s  Hexapla,  adding  aste- 
risks, obelisks,  commas,  and  colons  [Verse]. 
From  the  obelisk  or  asterisk  to  the  colon  was  con- 
tained something  added  from  the  Hebrew  by 
Theodotion,  and  the  same  with  the  comma  denoted 
that  the  Septuagint  contained  here  more  than 
Jerome  s Version.  He  afterwards  revised  in  the 
same  way  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament.  ‘Rejoice,’ 
he  says,  ‘ that  you  receive  the  blessed  Job  safe 
and  sound,  who  formerly,  among  the  Latins,  lay 
prostrate  in  filth  and  worms;  and  as  after  his  trial 
and  triumph  all  his  possessions  were  restored  to 
him  double,  I have,  in  our  own  language,  restoied 
to  him  what  he  had  lost.’  The  book  of  Chronicles 
he  corrected  with  the  help  of  a learned  Jew  of 
Tiberias.  To  these  he  added  Proverbs,  Ecclesi- 
astes, and  Canticles : the  rest  of  his  labours 
perished  by  fraud.  Of  this  work  the  only  parts 
printed  are  the  two  Psalters  and  the  book  of  Job. 
It.  acquired  Jerome  great,  fame  and  not  a little 
obloquy,  especially  on  the  part  of  his  quondam 
friend  Rufinus. 

Jerome  next,  at  the  request,  of  his  friends,  un- 
dertook a new  version  from  the  Hebrew,  between 
the  years  385  and  405.  This  version  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  controversies  with  the  Jews,  who 
constantly  appealed  to  the  original,  which  the 
early  Christians  did  not  understand.  Jerome 
commenced  with  Samuel,  then  proceeded  to  the 
Psalms,  the  books  of  Solomon,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah,  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  and 
Chronicles — together  with  Tobit  and  Judith  from 
the  Chaldee.  ]He  afterwards  translated  Dani'el, 
Esther,  and  Jeremiah,  with  their  apocryphal 
additions.  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  he  used 
too  much  haste  in  some  parts  of  his  work,  hav* 
ing  finished  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Can. 
tides  in  three  days,  and  Tobit  in  one.  Notwith- 
standing this,  and  his  own  observation  that  hie 

* There  is  a Psalter  different  from  both,  used 
in  Milan.  Mr.  Bagster’s  Hexaplar  Psalter  con- 
tains the  Roman  and  the  Gallican  Psalters, 
together  with  Jerome’s  version  from  tne  Hebrew 
that  of  the  Seventy,  the  original  Hebrew,  and 
the  two  authorized  versions  of  the  Anglicau 
Church. 


VULGATE. 


VULGATE. 


923 


work  would  have  been  superfluous  but  for  the 
corruptions  of  the  Septuagint,  he  produced  the 
best  and  noblest  work  of  the  kind  ol  which  an- 
tiquity can  boast.  He  proceeded  on  the  soundest 
principles,  and  studied  th«  Hebrew  language 
under  some  learned  Jews.  ‘ From  the  reading  of 
Quinctilian  and  Cicero,’  he  acquaints  us,  ‘ 1 en- 
tered upon  the  irksome  task  of  shutting  myself 
up  in  the  mill  of  the  Hebrew  language,  and  en- 
deavouring to  pronounce  its  panting  and  creaking 
Bounds  ; when,  at  length,  like  one  walking  in  a 
dungeon,  1 discerned  a faint  light  glimmering 
from  above.'  His  Hebrew  copy  was  procured 
from  the  Synagogue.  His  labours  now  procured 
him  only  the  most  cutting  railleries  from  his 
friends.  His  teacher's  name  being  Barhanina, 
he  was  accused  of  having  been  taught  by  Barab- 
bas.  He  did  not  translate  too  literally,  lest  lie 
should  not  convey  the  sense,  and  occasionally 
made  use  of.  other  versions,  when  they  did  not 
materially  differ  from  the  Hebrew,  lest  he  should 
alarm  his  readers  by  too  much  novelty ; hut  he 
adhered  to  it  in  general  very  closely,  lest,  contrary 
to  his  conscience,  he  should  ‘ forsake  the  founda- 
tion of  truth,  and  follow  the  streamlets  of  opi- 
nions.’ 

H is  work  at  first  met  with  no  flattering  recep- 
tion. It  was  by  many  condemned  as  heretical, 
and  even  his  friend  Augustine  feared  to  make  use 
of  it,  best  it  might  offend  by  its  novelty,  introduce 
variety  between  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches, 
and  distract  the  minds  of  Christians  who  h_d 
received  the  Septuagint  from  the  Apostles.  In 
one  instance,  where  an  African  bishop  caused 
the  book  of  Jonah  to  be  read  in  church  in  this 
version,  the  people  were  panic-struck  at  hearing 
the  word  hedera  (Jon.  iv.  6,  9)  in  place  of  the  old 
reading  cucurbita.  Augustine  afterwards  enter- 
tained a more  favourable  opinion  of  it,  although 
he  has  not  cited  it  in  any  of  his  acknowledged 
works  [John,  Epistles  of]. 

About  two  hundred  years  after  Jeromes  death 
his  work  had  acquired  an  equal  degree  of  respect 
with  the  ancient  Vulgate,  and  in  the  year  604 
we  have  the  testimony  of  Gregory  the  Great  to 
the  fact,  that  ‘ the  Apostolic  see  made  use  of  both 
versions.’  It  afterwards  became  by  degrees  the 
only  received  version,  and  this  by  its  intrinsic 
merits,  for  it  received  no  oflicial  sanction  before 
the  Council  of  Trent.  Baruch,  Ecclesiasticus, 
Wisdom,  and  Maccabees,  were  retained  from  t he 
old  version. 

Jerome’s  version  soon  experienced  the  fate  of 
its  predecessor;  it  became  sadly  corrupted  by 
a mixture  with  the  old  version,  and  by  the  un- 
critical carelessness  of  half-learned  ecclesiastics, 
as  well  as  by  interpolations  from  liturgical 
writings  and  from  glosses.  In  fact  the  old  and 
new  versions  were  blended  into  one,  and  thus  was 
formed  the  Vulgate  of  the  middle  ages. 

In  the  ninth  century  an  attempt  was  made,  but 
not  on  the  soundest  principles,  to  correct  the  Vul- 
gate. This  was  done  by  command  of  Charle- 
magne, who  intrusted  the  task  to  Alcuin.  The 
amended  Vulgate  was  now  introduced  by  royal 
authority  into  all  the  churches  of  France.  It  is 
still  doubtful  whether  the  correction  was  made 
from  the  Hebrew  original,  or  from  ancient  copies 
of  the  Vulgate. 

In  t.lte  eleventh  century  a new  revision  was  un- 
dertaken by  Laufrano,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 


and  another  in  the  succeeding  century  (at  which 
period  Roger  Bacon  says  that  it  was  horribly  cor- 
rupted), by  Cardinal  Nicolaus  the  Deacon,  a good 
Hebrew  scholar.  About  the  same  period  appeared 
in  France  the  Epanorthotce,  or  Correctoria  Bib * 
lica,  which  were  attempts  to  establish  the  true 
text  on  the  part  of  Abbot  Stephen,  Cardinal  Hugo, 
and  others.  From  these  corrections,  however,  it 
appears  that  the  corruptions  were  so  numerous  as 
to  render  it  almost  vain  to  expect  to  recover  the 
true  text.  ‘ Every  reader  and  preacher,’  says 
Roger  Bacon  ( Epist . to  Clem.  IE.),  ‘ changes 
what  lie  does  not  understand  : their  correction  is 
the  worst  of  corruptions,  and  God's  word  is  de- 
stroyed.’ This  was  the  state  of  the  text  at  the 
time  of  the  invention  of  printing,  by  which  its 
variations  were  more  clearly  brought  to  light,  and 
critical  attempts  made  to  amend  it. 

The  earliest  printed  editions  are  without  a 
date.  The  first  which  has  a date  was  published 
at  Mayntz  in  1462,  by  Fust  and  Schoiflher.  It 
was  afterwards  printed  in  1471,  1475,  and  1476. 
Critical  editions  appeared  in  1496,  1497,  1501, 
1501,  1506,1511,  and  1517— the  last  that  of  the 
Complutensian  Polyglott,  done  with  great  care. 
This  was  followed  by  the  Antwerp  Polyglott, 
and  the  critical  editions  of  Colinaeus,  Rudel, 
Benoist,  Isidore  Clarius,  and  Robert  Stephens. 
The  variations  of  the  text  now  appeared  more 
plainly  than  ever.  Isidore  Clarius  (1542)  cor- 
rected more  than  8000  errors  (which  some  have 
exaggerated  into  80,000).  Stephens’  beautifully 
executed  and  amended  text  (1527)  was  con- 
demned to  be  burned.  This  learned  printer  after- 
wards collated  several  manuscripts,  and  pub- 
lished editions  in  1532,  1533,  and  1540.  This  last 
(the  4th)  is  called  by  Father  Simon  a master-piece. 
Stephens’  edition  of  1545  (the  nonpareil)  con- 
tained a new  version,  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
being  made  by  Lew  Judah,  Bibliander,  and  Peter 
Choi  in.  This  is  one  of  those  called  Vatable’s 
Bibles.  The  translator  of  De  Wette’s  Einleitu^g 
observes  that  Stephens’s  sixth  and  seventh  editions 
(1546  and  1555)  contain  no  important  improve- 
ments. The  accurate  De  Wette,  however,  was 
aware  that  the  seventh  edition  contained  the  di- 
vision into  verses.  Benoist  (1541)  made  an  unsuc- 
cessful attempt  to  restore  Jerome's  text.  Stephens’s 
eighth  and  last  edition  has  been  already  noticed 
[Verse]. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Council  of  Trent  passed 
its  famous  decree  (a.d.  1546,  Sess.  4,  Decret.  2)  re- 
specting the  V ulgate  : ‘ The  most  holy  Synod,  con  • 
sidering  that  no  small  advantage  will  accrue  to  the 
church  of  God,  if  from  all  the  Latin  editions  of  the 
sacred  hooks  which  are  in  circulation,  it  should 
determine  which  is  to  be  received  as  authentic, 
decrees  and  declares  that  the  ancient  Vulgate 
version,  which  has  been  approved  in  the  church  by 
the  use  of  so  many  ages,  should  he  used  in  public 
readings,  disputatious,  sermons,  and  expositions, 
as  authentic,  anti  that  none  is  to  presume  to  reject 
it  under  any  pretence  whatsoever.’  De  Wette 
(^Ein  l titling)  conceives  that  this  decree  shuts  the 
door  against  any  exegetical  inquiry  into  the  doc- 
trines of  the  church.  Moehler  ( Symbolik , p.  1, 
ch.  v.  § xlii.),  however,  maintains  that  there 
could  he  no  such  tiling  as  an  exegetical  in- 
quiry into  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  which 
declares  her  dogmas  by  her  infallible  authority 
independently  of  Scripture,  although  she  maj 


>24 


VULGATE. 


VULGATE. 


apply  and.  even  misapply  testimonies  from 
Scripture  to  this  purpose,  being  infallible  in 
the  former  case,  but  not  in  the  latter.*  The 
most  learned  Roman  Catholics  differ  mate- 
rially as  to  the  sense  of  the  word  authentic, 
some  Considering,  as  Morinus  ( Exercit . Bibl .), 
that  the  Vulgate  is  hereby  pronounced  to  be  an 
inspired  version,  others  (as  Suarez)  that  the  version 
is  placed  above  all  existing  texts  of  the  originals. 
Many  contend  that  it  was  only  meant  to  give  it 
a preference  to  any  other  Latin  version  then  in 
use  (Rellarmin,f  De  Verbo  Dei ; Calmet’s  Dis- 
sert. ; John's  and  Hug's  Intrudd .).  Some  of  the 
Roman  theologians  hold  it  to  be  infallible  only 
so  far  as  faith  and  morals  are  concerned  (Dens, 
Theologici).  Hug  considers  the  meaning  of  the 
decree  to  be,  that  ‘as  in  civil  affairs  an  authentic 
instrument  is  valid  evidence,  so  in  public  religious 
matters  the  Vulgate  is  a document  from  which 
valid  arguments  may  be  drawn,  without  prejudice, 
however,  to  other  documents  [viz.  the  originals]  ; 
but  this  is  not  a prescription  of  doctrine,  ami 
from  its  nature  it  could  not  be;  it  is  a temporary 
decree  of  discipline.’  In  fact  few  Roman  Catho- 
lics have  maintained  its  exemption  from  error, 
and  the  most  learned  and  judicious  Protestants 
(Mill,  Proleg.;  Ben  gel.  Apparatus  ; Lachmann, 
Preface ) justly  conspire  in  holding  it  in  a 
high  degree  of  veneration.  Jahn  observes  that 
the  Oriental  Christians  in  communion  with  Rome 
still  use  their  own  versions,  the  Greek,  Armenian, 
Syriac,  and  Arabic. 

The  Council  of  Trent  not  having  declared  any 
particular  manuscript  or  edition  to  contain  the 
true  text  of  the  Vulgate,  a committee  of  six  was 
appointed  to  prepare  a new  edition,  but  the  pope 
prevented  them  from  proceeding.  The  Louvain 
theologians,  seeing  the  confusion  which  prevailed 
in  the  printed  editions,  as  well  as  the  persecutions 
to  which  Robert  Stephens  was  exposed  for  his 
laudable  undertakings,  now  undertook  to  correct 
the  text,  and  Hentenius  was  chosen  to  prepare  an 
edition.  For  this  purpose  he  collated  several  of 
the  former  ones,  including  Stephens's  of  1540,  and 
about  twenty  manuscripts,  the  most  modern  of 
which  was  of  the  fourteenth  century.  His  edition 
appeared  in  1547,  and  after  his  death  a still  more 
valuable  one  was  prepared  by  the  same  theolo- 
gians under  the  care  of  Lucas  Brugensis  and 
others,  which  was  printed  by  Plautin  in  1573. 
The  papal  chair  now  resolved  on  an  edition,  and 
thus  the  Sixtine  and  Clementine  Bibles,  the  va- 
riations between  which  amounted  to  above  2000, 
gave  rise  to  the  well-known  attack  of  James 
(Bell  urn  Papa/e ).  Sixtus  laboured  on  his  own 
edition,  which  was  founded  on  the  principle,  that 
wherever  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  and 

* ‘ Even  a Scriptural  proof  in  favour  of  a de- 
cree held  to  be  infallible,  is  not  itself  infallible, 
but  only  the  dogma  as  defined.’ 

+ Bellarmin  defends  the  use  of  the  Vulgate, 
Iron,  the  ignorance  of  the  original  languages 
which  prevailed  in  the  Church,  instancing  the 
Council  of  Ariminum,  where,  out  of  40U  bishops, 
not  one  knew  the  meaning  of  6p.oovcios , all  ex- 
claiming ‘not  Homoousios,  but  Christ.’  Mr.  Scri- 
vener ( ut  infra ) agrees  with  'hose  who  maintain 
*hat  the  Council  ol  Trent  ‘raised  the  Vulgate  to 
that  paramount  authority  which  only  belongs  to 
»he  jriginal  text.’ 


printed  editions  agreed,  their  reading  should  b* 
preferred.  It  appeared  in  1590.  By  the  decree 
of  Sixtus,  whoever  approved  of  any  other  edition, 
if  of  the  degree  of  a bishop,  was  to  be  excluded 
from  entering  a church  ; if  of  inferior  rank,  was  to 
be  excommunicated — with  other  more  dreadful 
anaihemas.  Notwithstanding  this,  Pope  Urban 
VII.  found  it  so  inaccurate  that  he  attempted 
to  suppress  it.  His  successor,  Gregory  XIV., 
prepared  a new  revision,  with  the  aid  of  some 
eminent  scholars,  including  Bellarmin  and  Fla- 
.ninius  Nobilius.  This  was  first  issued  under 
the  papacy  of  Clement  VIII.  in  1592,  and  al- 
though more  modestly  put  forth,  was  founded  on 
much  better  principles  than  the  former.  But  there 
was  a great  difficulty  to  lie  overcome  in  atlempt- 
ing  to  reconcile  the  discrepancies  of  the  two 
editions  with  the  authority  of  the  papal  chair. 
‘In  this  dilemma  Bellarmin  is  said  to  have  found 
a middle  course,  by  proposing  that  all  the  blame 
should  be  laid  upon  the  printer'  (Hug's  Introd .). 
In  the  preface  Bellarmin  states,  that  ‘Sixtus, 
having  perceived  the  errors  which  had  crept  into 
the  press,  ordered  the  edition  to  be  cancelled,1  (an 
assertion  which  Van  Ess,  Pragmatisch-  Geschicht. 
der  V'u/gut.,  declares  to  be  false),  ‘but  from  the 
execution  of  this  order  both  Sixtus  and  his  succes- 
sors, Urban  VII.  and  Innocent  IX.  were  prevented 
by  death.1  It  is  further  stated  that  ‘ although 
in  this  revision  no  small  labour  was  employed  in 
collating  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek, 
and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  some  things  are 
nevertheless  designedly  altered,  and  others,  which 
seemed  to  require  alteration,  designedly  left  un- 
changed.1 This  preface  is  said  to  have  led  to 
Bellarmin’s  beatification  (Hug,  ut  sup.).  The 
Clementine  edition  is  the  basis  of  all  subsequent 
ones,  from  those  of  Plantin,  1599-1650,  to  that  of 
Leander  van  Ess,  published  by  authority  of 
Leo  XII.  in  1826.  The  present  printed  Vulgate 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  thus  a mixed  text,  con- 
sisting partly  of  the  old  Lat  in,  partly  of  Jerome’s 
revision  of  the  same,  and  partly  of  his  new  version 
from  the  Hebrew. 

Descendants  of  the  Vulgate.  There  is  still 
extant,  an  Anglo-Saxon  version,  published  by 
Thwait.es  ( Heptateuchus , 1698),  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, Joshua,  Job,  and  a fragment  of  Judith. 
This  was  the  work  of  jElfric,  i'n  the  tenth  cen- 
tury, and  was  formerly  thought,  but  on  insuffi- 
cient grounds,  to  have  been  done  from  the  Sept. 
Ailfric  also  translated  Esther,  Maccabees,  and 
Kings.  There  was  an  earlier  translation  by  Ad- 
helm,  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century 
(Lingard’s  Anglo-Saxon  Church).  Bede  is  said 
to  have  translated  the  entire  Bible  about  the  same 
period.  At  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century  it 
was  again  translated  by  some  one  whose  name  has 
not  reached  us.  Wicklifie's  translation  appeared 
in  1380  [Versions]. 

The  New  Testament.  The  old  Latin  version 
was  made  immediately  from  the  Greek,  and  its 
dead  literalit.y  is  such  as  to  render  it  in  some  places 
quite  barbarous,  as  where,  for  instance,  the  Greek 
on  is  ‘almost  uniformly,  in  defiance  of  grammar 
and  common  sense,  rendered  quia  or  quoniam’ 
( e.g . ma,gister,  scinuis  quia  verax  es,  Maf  axii. 
16;  see  Campbell,  On  the  Gospels).  Camp* 
bell  refers  to  the  phrase  panem  nostrum  super- 
substantialem,  in  the  Lord  s Prayer,  as  an  in- 
stance of  an  etymological  barbarism.  Th*« 


VULGATE. 


VULGATE, 


926 


remarks  include  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as 
the  New. 

Manuscripts  and  editions  of  the  Italic.  There 
are  some  very  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  old  Latin 
version  of  the  New  Testament  still  extant,  which 
are  described  by  Blanchini  ( ut  supra) ; Iricus, 
Milan,  1749:  Dohrowsky  ( Fragments  of  St. 
Mark's  Autography  Prag.  1798)*,  Alter  ( Gold 
and  silver  purple  MSS.  in  the  Imperial  Library , 
containing  fragments  of  Luke  and  Mark)  ; Fleck 
( Wissensch.  Reise)  ; Matthaei  (Nov.  Test.)  ; and 
Sabatier  (Evany.  Quadr.).  The  oldest  of  these  is 
probably  the  Cod.  Vercellensis , published  by  Sa- 
batier, supposed  to  have  been  written  by  the  hand 
of  Eusebius.  This  version  is  also  contained  in  the 
Grajco-Latin  MSS.,  the  most  ancient  of  which  is 
the  Cod.  Bezce  [Manuscripts].  The  Codex  Boer- 
nerianus,  (G)  published  by  Matthaei,  at  Meissen, 
in  1791  (reprinted  1818),  is  a Graeco-Latin  MS. 
of  the  ninth  century,  preserved  at  Dresden,  and 
was  first  used  by  Bengel.  Jt  contains  St.  Paul’s 
Epistles  (omitting  Hebrews).  The  interlinear 
Latin  is  written  in  what  some  have  supposed 
to  be  the  Anglo-Saxon,  but  is  in  reality  that 
modification  of  the  Latin  called  the  Irish  cha- 
racter. It  lias  been  often  desired  by  critics  that 
some  Irishman  would  explain  the  words  at  the 
bottom  of  fol.  23.  We  have  therefore  endeavoured 
to  decipher  them  (with  the  assistance  of  our  friend 
Mr.  J.  O'Donovan),  and  here  present  an  attempt 
at  a translation  of  what  appears  to  be  a fragment 
of  a religious  poem  : — 

Cefcljr  bo  ponp  njorx  rA]t>o.  bejc  ropbAj. 

Nnf  cbonbA]5j.  ij.  hipopf.  njAtjjrpbepA  L\rc 

V] 

STlop  btxir,  mop  bAjle  mop  coll  cejlle  mop  mips 
o Utr  A]P  cbetp)  rejcljc  &o  ecAjb. 
bejel}  fro  ecojl  rpAjc.  m^tpe. 

Coming  to  Rome,  great  wisdom,  little  profit; 

THe  King  your  Saviour  you  will  not  find,  un- 
less you  take  him  with  you. 

Great,  folly,  great  madness,  great  breach  of 
sense,  great  phrenzy, 

When  you  set  out  to  meet  death, 

To  be  under  the  displeasure  of  the  Son  of  Mary. 

From  the  notes  in  the  margin  it  appears  that 
this  manuscript  had  been  in  the  possession  of 
Johannes  Scotus  of  Ireland,  for  whom  it  was 
probably  written  [Verse],  The  Cod.  Sangal- 
lonsis  of  the  Gospels,  of  the  same  age  and  cha- 
racter, (A)  has  been  also  published  by  Ilettig, 
Turici,  1836. 

The  editions  are  those  by  Sabatier  (ut  sup.  vol. 
iii.)  and  Blanchini  (Evany.  Quadr.).  Martianay 
(Opp.  Hieron.)  gives  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
and  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  only.  The  only  de- 
scendant of  this  version  is  the  Anglo-Saxon,  which 
is  probably  older  than  the  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

Jerome's  recension.  Jerome  did  not  translate 
the  New  Testament  from  the  Greek,  but  at  the 
request  ofDamasus,  bishop  of  Roue,  he  amended 
the  old  Latin,  by  comparing  its  corruptions  and 
various  readings  with  the  best  Greek  manuscripts, 
making,  however,  no  alteration,  unless  the  sense 
absolutely  required  it;  but  in  his  Commentary  he 
often  departs  from  this  text.  The  Vulgate  of  the 
New  Testament  generally  agrees  with  the  oldest 
MSS.  of  the  Italic,  and  is  one  of  the  best  critical 


helps  towirds  restoring  the  true  text  of  the  Greek. 
The  text,  has  undergone  the  same  fate,  and 
suffered  the  same  corruption  as  that  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  the  various  readings,  though 
numerous  (Michaelis  speaks  of  80,000)  are  of 
the  same  character  with  those  of  the  Greek, 
having  crept,  in  through  the  negligence  of  tran- 
scribers, and  ‘very  few  of  them  bearing  the  marks 
of  having  been  made  to  serve  a purpose  ’ (Pre- 
face  to  Mr.  Bayster's  Hexapla).  Dr.  Camp- 
bell (On  the  Gospels)  considers  that  as  the  last 
vpart  of  the  Vulgate  was  completed  MOO  years 
ago,  and  from  MS-S.  older  probably  than  any  now 
extant,  and  at  a time  when  there  was  no  bias  from 
party  zeal,  at  a time  too  when  the  modern  contro- 
versies were  unknown,  the  Council  of  Trent  acted 
rightly  in  giving  the  preference  to  this,  which 
he  designates  ‘ a good  and  faithful  version,  re- 
markable for  purity  and  perspicuity,  and  by  no 
means  calculated  to  support  Roman  views ;’  but 
valuable  as  this  text,  is,  it  is  to  be  lamented  that 
the  ambiguity  of  the  phrase  ‘ authentic’  should 
have  furnished  an  occasion  to  some  Roman  pole- 
mics of  the  last  century,  when  criticism  was  not 
so  well  understood  as  at.  present,  to  depreciate  the 
original  text.  What,  however,  an  accomplished 
Roman  Catholic  divine  has  said  respecting  Col- 
lins (see  Scripture,  Holy)  may  be  equally  ap- 
plied here:  ‘he  took  advantage  of  the  dif- 

ferences between  Mill  and  Whitby  about  some 
passages,  and  about  the  value  of  various  readings 
in  general,  to  conclude  that  the  entire  New 
Testament  was  thereby  rendered  doubtful.  He 
was  soon,  however,  chastised  by  the  heavy  lash 
of  Bentley,  who  thoroughly  exposed  the  fallacy 
of  Collins's  assertions,  and  vindicated  the  con- 
dition of  the  inspired  text Nothing  has 

been  discovered,  not  one  single  various  read- 
ing which  can  throw  doubt  upon  any  passage 
before  considered  certain,  or  decisive  in  favour 
of  any  important  doctrine.’  (Wiseman,  Lectures , 
Led.  x.) 

A pure  text  of  the  Vulgate  is  a great  deside- 
ratum. Lucas  Brugensis  (Letter  to  Bellarmin) 
pointed  out  no  less  than  4000  mistakes  in  the 
Clementine  edition.  An  edition  of  this  text,  in 
the  New  Testament,  was  published  in  1840  by 
F.  F.  Fleck,  who  has  added  to  it  the  various 
readings  of  the  Florentine  uncial  stichometrical 
MS.  of  the  sixth  century,  containing  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  This  MS.  was  used  by 
the  Clementine  editors,  but  they  differ  from  it 
in  many  instances,  one  of  which  is  1 John  v.  7, 
which  is  not  in  the  Florentine.  Lachmann, 
also,  in  his  recent  edition  of  the  New  Testament, 
has  furnished  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  from  the 
oldest  MSS.  written  before  the  tenth  century,  es- 
pecially the  Fulda  MS.  But  it  can  serve  no 
critical  use  to  correct  the  entire  of  the  Greek  text 
by  conforming  to  the  Vulgate,  as  has  been  re- 
cently done,  at  the  request  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Paris,  by  Tischendorf  (Nov.  Test.,  Gr.  et  Lat., 
Paris,  1842),  wherever  a single  MS.,  however 
worthless  or  modern,  was  found  to  support  the 
reading.  (See  The  Book  of  Revelation  in  Greek , 
by  Samuel  Prideaux,  Tregelles,  1844.) 

Manuscripts.  For  an  account  of  the  MSS. 
of  the  Vulgate,  we  must  refer  the  reader  to  Le 
Long’s  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  as  well  as  to  the  variouf 
editions  already  named.  We  shall  here  only 
notice  the  most  ancient  in  the  British  Islands. 


VULGATE 


VULGATE. 


There  is  a mutilated  Latin  MS.  of  the  Gospels 
in  Ireland,  described  by  Mr.  Petrie  in  the  19th 
vol.  of  the  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Irish  Aca- 
demy, which  that  able  antiquary  assigns  to  the 
fifth  century.  The  Kells  MS.  of  the  Gospels, 
preserved  in  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  the  writing 
and  illuminations  of  which  are  of  incomparable 
beauty,  was  written  in  Ireland  in  the  sixth  cen- 
tury. This  has  been  confounded  by  Dr.  O’Co- 
nor (Rerum  Hib.  Script.)  with  the  Book  of  Dur- 
row,  preserved  in  the  same  College.  The  beautiful 
Lindisfarne  book  of  the  Gospels  (Nero  D.  4)  is 
a sticnometrical  uncial  MS.  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, with  an  interlinear  Anglo-Saxon  version  by 
Aid  red  in  the  tenth.  There  are  two  MSS.  of  the 
Gospels  (the  same  to  which  allusion  is  made  in 
the  Life  of  St.  Augustine,  by  the  Rev.  F.  Oake- 
ley)  said  to  have  been  brought  to  England  by  St. 
Augustine.  One  of  these  is  preserved  in  C.  C. 
College,  Cambridge,  and  the  other  in  the  Bodleian 
Library.  To  these  is  to  be  added  St..  Cuthbert's 
MS.  of  St.  John’s  Gospel,  and  the  gospels  of  St, 
Mullin,  Dimma,  Mac  Durnan,  Mac  Regol,  and 
St.  Chad.  The  Codex  Armachanus,  written  by 
an  Irish  scribe  in  the  eighth  century,  now  in  pri- 
vate hands,  contains  the  entire  New  Testament, 
with  Pelagius’s  prelaces.  This  MS.  wants  1 
John  v.  7.  The  Cod.  Augiens.  (F),  a Grteco- 
Latin  MS.  containing  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  (that  to 
the  Hebrews  in  Latin  only)  now  in  Trim  Coll. 
Cambridge,  is  probably  an  Irish  MS.  of  the  ninth 
century  (see  Dr.  O’Conor’s  Rer.  Hib.  Script.  ; 
Sir  W.  Betham’s  Antiq.  Researches;  Petrie's 
Essay  on  the  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities  of  Ire- 
land ; O’ Donovan’s  Irish  Grammar  ; and  West- 
wood's  Palceog.  Sac.  Pictoria). 

Modern  versions  of  the  Vulgate.  The  versions 
used  in  the  Church  of  Rome  have  been  all  made 
from  the  Vulgate,  of  which  the  first  German 
translation  was  printed  in  1466,  the  Spanish 
in  1478,  and  the  Italian  in  1471.  Our  limits 
will  allow  us' only  to  refer  to  that  in  use  in  this 
country,  of  which  the  Old  Testament  was  printed 
at  Douai  in  1609,  and  the  New  at  Rheims  in 
1582.  This  is  greatly  inferior  in  strength  and 
elegance  of  expression  to  the  Authorized  Version 
of  1611,  but  is  highly  commendable  for  its  scru- 
pulous accuracy  and  fidelity,  which  cannot  be 
predicated  of  all  translations  from  the  Vulgate 
in  other  languages.  It  was  altered  and  modern- 
ized by  Bishop  Challoner  in  1749,  when  the  text 
was  conformed  to  that  of  the  Clementine  edition. 
It  has  since  undergone  various  alterations  under 
the  care  of  the  Irish  Roman-catholic  hierarchy, 
and  has  been  in  some  respects  conformed  to  the 
Authorized  Version,  even  in  passages  which  con- 
troversialists of  a bygone  age  had  stigmatized  as 
heretical.  But  this  has  been  done  without  any 
departure  from  the  text.  The  original  transla- 
tors, however,  adhered  so  servilely  to  this,  as  to 
employ  such  barbarous  words  and  phrases  as  sin- 
don  (Mark  xv.  46),  zealators  (Acts  xx.  20),  prae- 
finition  (Eph.  iii.  1 1),  contristate  (iv.  60),  agnition 
(Philcm.  16),  repropitiate  (Heb.  ii.  17),  with  such 
hosts  God  is  proinerited  (xiii.  16),  Ac.  ‘Yet  in 
justice  it  must  be  observed,  that  no  case  of  wilful 
nerversion  of  Scripture  has  ever  been  brought 
home  to  the  llhemish  translators '*  (Scrivener's 

* Some  grave  accusations  against  the  Rhemish 
version,  which  ap  reared  in  the  seventh  edition  of 


Supplement  to  the  Authorized  Version ).  Iffr, 
Scrivener  adds  that  ‘the  Rhemish  divines  Twho 
were  evidently  men  of  learning  and  ability], 
may  occasionally  do  us  good  service  by  furnish- 
ing some  hapuv  phrase  or  form  of  expression 
which  had  eluded  the  diligence  of  their  more 
reputable  predecessors.’  (i'6  ) 

The  translators  observe  in  their  preface,  that 
they  religiously  keep  the  phrases  word  for  word, 

‘ for  fear  of  missing  or  restraining  the  sense 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  fantasie ;’  in  proof  of 
which  they  refer  to  such  phrases  as  r(  iuol  teal 
aol,  yvyai  (John  ii.  4),  which  they  render,  ‘ What 
to  me  and  thee,  woman  ?’  explaining  it  in  tlie 
note  by  the  phrase,  ‘What  bast  thou  to  do  with 
me?’  But  in  some  of  the  modern  editions  of  the 
Rhemish  version  this  rule  lias  been  departed  from, 
and  the  text  altered  into,  ‘ What,  is  that  to  me  or 
thee?'  (Dublin  ed.  1791,  1824),  or,  ‘What  is  it  to 
me  and  thee?’  (Dublin,  1820);  a reading  inconsis- 
tent with  the  t ranslation  of  the  same  words  in  Luke 
viii.  28.  The  interpolation  has  been  removed  in 
Dr.  Murray’s  edition  of  1 825.  In  the  ‘ .New  Version 
of  the  Four  Gospels , by  a Catholic’  [Dr.  Lingard], 
the  words  are  rendered,  ‘ What  hast  thou  to  do 
with  me?’  The  whole  passage  is  thus  rendered 
and  commented  on  by  Tittmann  ( Meletemata 
Sacra)  : ‘ Mission  me  fac , o mca,  “ Leave  that 
to  my  care,  good  mother.”  It  is  not.  the  lan- 
guage of  reproof  or  refusal,  hut  rather  of  con- 
solation and  promise.  This  appears  from  the 
words  which  follow,  “ mine  hour  is  not  yet  come.” 
For  in  ihese  words  he  promises  his  mother  that  at 

the  proper  time  he  will  gratify  her  wish.  

But  our  Lord  purposely  delayed  his  assistance, 
that  the  greatness  of  the  miracle  might  he  the 
better  known  to  all.  The  appellation  yuvai,  which 
was  employed  by  our  Lord  on  other  occasions 
also  (John  xix.  26  ; xx.  15),  was  very  honourable 
among  the  Greeks,  who  were  accustomed  to  call 
their  queens  by  this  title,  and  may  be  rendered 
“ my  tieloved.”  ’ 

Professor  Moses  Stuart  ( Commentary  on  the 
Apocalypse,  vol.  i.  p.  1 19)  conceives  that  ‘ in  the 
translation  ot‘  peravoelre  by  agite  pccnitentiam 
(Matt.  iii.  2),  the  same  spirit  was  operating  which 
led  one  part  of  the  Church  in  modern  times  to 
translate  per aroelre  by  do  penance.'  But  the 
Latin  phrase  ‘ agere  pcenitentiam,’  which  is  also 
found  in  the  old  Italic,  is  evidently  synonymous 
with  p€T avoeiv,  * to  repent.’  ‘ Agite  pcenitentiam,’ 
says  Campbell,  ‘was  not  originally  a mistrans- 
lation of  the  Greek  peravoetTe.'  Dr.  Lingard  (ut 
supra)  renders  it  ‘ repent.’ 

We  shall  refer  to  one  passage  more,  often  ob- 
jected to  as  proving  that  the  Vulgate  was  altered 
to  serve  a purpose.  In  Heb.  xi.  21,  the  Vul 
gate  reads,  as  the  translation  of  'KpoaeKwgaev  ew 
to  aKpov  Tips  oaSdov  avrov  : adoravit  lastigiun 
virgae  ejus : ‘ worshipped  the  top  of  his  (Joseph’s) 
rod.’  If  the  present  pointing  of  the  Hebrew  n&tl 
(Gen.  xlvii.  31)  be  correct,  the  Seventy,  who 
read  it  HtSD,  ‘a  stall'’  or  ‘sceptre,’  must  have  been 

Mr.  Horne’s  Introduction  on  the  authority  of  an 
anonymous  writer  ( Brief  Hist.  Dublin,  1830), 
were  shown  to  he  without  foundation  (see  W light  a 
translation  of  Seiler’s  Hermeneutics,  pp.  404- 
407)  ; they  are  omitted  in  Mr.  Horne’s  cighti 
edition. 


VULTURE. 


VULTURE. 


91f 


In  an  error,  wherein  they  were  followed  by  the 
Syriac.  Tholuck  (Comm,  on  Hebr.)  is  of  opi- 
nion that  the  Latin  translators  did  not  (as 
some  suppose)  overlook  end,  ‘ upon,’  and  he  con- 
siders that,  this  preposition  with  the  accusative 
might  easily  lead  to  the  acceptation  in  which 
it  is  taken  by  the  Vulgate,  which  is  also  that 
adopted  by  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret,  who  ex- 
plain the  passage  as  if  Jacob  had  foreseen  Joseph’s 
sovereignty,  and  gave  a pi  oof  of  his  belief  in  it  by 
the  act  of  adoration  in  the  direction  of  his  sceptre. 
This  is  inTholuck’s  opinion  further  confirmed  by 
the  generally  spread  reading  avrov  (his),  not  avrov 
(his  own),  and  he  doubts  if  the  ins]  ired  writer 
of  the  epistle  did  not  himself  so  understand  the 
passage  in  the  Sept.,  as  being  the  more  signifi- 
cant. But  should  it  be  admitted,  with  Tholuck, 
that  * the  Protestant  controversialists  have  very 
unjustly  designated  this  passage  of  the  Vulgate 
as  one  of  the  most  palpable  of  its  errors,’  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Onkelos,  Jonathan, 
Symmachus,  and  Aquila,  follow  the  present  read- 
ing; to  which  Jerome  also  gives  a decided  prefer- 
ence, observing  (on  Gen.  xlvii.31),  ‘In  this  pas- 
sage some  vainly  assert  that  Jacob  adored  the  top 
of  Joseph’s  sceptre ; . . . for  in  the  Hebrew  the 
reading  is  quite  different.  Israel  adored  at  the 
head  of  the  bed  (adoravit  Israel  ad  caput  lec- 
tuli).’ 

It  has  been  erroneously  assumed  that  the  trans- 
lators of  the  English  Bible  followed  invariably 
Beza’s  third  edition.  They  acted  independently, 
sometimes  following  Stephens  where  his  text  dif- 
fered from  Beza’s,  and  sometimes  the  Vulgate  in 
opposition  to  both  (Scrivener,  ut  svpra).  The 
translators  of  King  James’s  Bible  have  been 
sometimes  reproached  with  having  adopted  read- 
ings in  opposition  to  the  authority  of  all  texts, 
and  of  the  former  English  translations,  as  in  1 
Cor.  xi.  27,  where  the  translation  is,  * whosoever 
shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,’  &c., 
while  the  Greek  text  reads  fj,  ‘ or  drink.’  But 
they  were  here  preceded  by  the  Geneva  trans- 
lators, who  have  ‘ and,'  and  this  was  supported 
not  only  by  some  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  but  by 
the  Syriac  version  (published  in  155$),  and  by 
the  Clermont.  MS.  (E)  which  has  /cal,  as  well 
as  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Cassiodorus,  and 
others.  This  reading  had  at  a subsequent  period 
the  additional  testimony  of  the  Corf.  Alexandrinus. 
Bengel,  also,  whom  all  unite  with  Dr.  Wiseman 
in  considering  ‘ an  amiable  and  profound  scholar,’ 
and  whom  Dr.  Wiseman  himself  calls  ‘a  noble 
model  of  the  principles  in  action  which  he  has  been 
striving  to  inculcate  through  the  course  of  his 
Lectures’  (Wiseman,  Lectures,  ut  sup-a),  was  so 
satisfied  of  the  truth  of  this  reading,  that  he  would 
have  introduced  it  into  the  text,  but,  for  his  canon 
above  referred  to  [Sckiptuke,  Holy].  The 
reading  $,  ‘or,’  however,  being  supported  by  the 
best  authority,  has  been  retained  by  all  other 
editors,  including  Beza,  Griesbach,  Scholz,  Lach- 
mann,  Tischendorf,  and  Schott,  while  the  last 
named  writer,  with  many  others,  still  considers 
1 and  ’ to  be  the  true  rendering. — W.  W. 

VULTURE  (Hlfjn,  daah).  Notwithstanding 
the  assignation  of  the  Hebrew  daah  to  ‘ glede  ’ 
and  ‘ black  kite,’  it  is  clear  that  in  various 
texts  IINT.  JTK,  and  m,  also  translated 

* merlin,’  all  indicate  raptorial  birds  of  inferior 


powers,  that  have  been  mixed  up  with  notions 
strictly  belonging  to  the  vulture ; while  the 
vulturidce  in  Egypt  alone  amount  at  least  te 
three  species,  exclusive  of  peres  (the  bearded 
vulture),  and  racham  (the  white  carrion  vulture, 
or  neophron ) ; and  in  other  passages,  again,  we 
find  neser  (eagle)  under  circumstances  leading  to 
a belief  that  vultures  are  meant,  or,  at  least,  are 
not  excluded.  This  intermixture  of  the  distinc- 
tive attributes  of  genera,  which  by  scientific  clas- 
sification can  now  be  readily  discriminated,  was 
far  from  being  understood  by  the  ancients,  and 
is  still  incomprehensible  to  Oriental  writers,  who. 
as  well  as  the  ancient  Greeks,  were  so  unac- 
quainted with  these  characters,  that  they  notice 
as  ‘ a terrible  species  of  eagle’  a bird  which  is 
now  believed  to  be  nothing  more  than  tetrao 
urogallus , ‘ the  cock  of  the  woods,’  or  caper- 
kalsie.  Late  Western  commentators,  anxious  to 
distinguish  eagles  from  vultures,  have  assumed 
that  the  first  mentioned  never  feed  on  carcasses ; 
and  judging  the  whole  family  of  vultures  by  the 
group  of  carrion-eaters  alone,  have  insinuated 
that  the  latter  do  not  attack  a living  prey.  In 
both  ciises  they  are  in  error : with  some  excep- 
tions, eagles  follow  armies,  though  not  so  abun- 
dantly as  vultures;  and  vultures  attack  living 
prey  provided  with  small  means  of  defence  or 
of  little  weight  ; but  their  talons  having  no 
means  of  grasping  with  energy,  or  of  seriously 
wounding  with  the  claws,  they  devour  their 
prey  on  the  spot,  while  the  eagle  carries  it  aloft, 
and  thence  is  more  liable  to  be  stung  by  a 
serpent  not  entirely  disabled,  than  the  vul- 
ture, who  crushes  the  head  of  all  reptiles  it  preys 
upon. 

The  species  of  vulture,  properly  so  called,  have 
the  head  naked  or  downy,  the  crop  external,  and 
very  long  wings;  they  have  all  an  offensive  smell, 
and  we  know  of  none  that  even  the  scavenger-ants 
will  eat.  When  dead  they  lie  on  the  ground  un- 
touched till  the  sun  has  dried  them  into  mum- 
mies. Those  found  in  and  about  the  Egyptian 
territory  are  Vultur  fulvus,  V.  gyps  (Savigny), 
V.  JEgyptius  (Savigny),  V.  monachus  (Arabian 
vulture),  V.  cinereus , V.  Nubicus , and  a black 
species,  which  is  often  figured  on  Egyptian  monu- 
ments as  the  bird  of  victory,  hovering  over  ihe 
head  of  a national  hero  in  battle,  and  sometimes 
with  a banner  in  each  talon.  It  is  perhaps  the 
gypaetus  barbatus  (peres),  or  lammer  geyer,  by 
the  Arabs  called  nesr ; for  though  neither  a vul- 
ture nor  an  eagle,  it  is  the  largest  bird  of  prey  of 
the  old  continent,  and  is  armed  like  the  eagle 
with  formidable  claws.  The  head  is  wholly 
feathered ; its  courage  is  equal  to  its  powers, 
and  it  has  a strength  of  wing  probably  superior 
to  all  raptorians,  excepting  the  condor;  it  is  con- 
sequently found  with  little  or  no  difference  from 
Norway  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  from 
tire  Pyrenees  to  Japan.  Most  of  the  above-named 
species  are  occasionally  seen  in  the  north  of 
Europe.  The  voice  varies  in  different  species, 
but  those  of  Egypt,  frequenting  the  Pyramids,  are 
known  to  bark  in  the  night  like  dogs.  Except- 
ing the  percnopterine  or  carrion  vultures,  all  ihe 
other  species  are  of  large  siz€  ; some  superior  in 
bulk  to  the  swan,  and  others  a little  less.  The 
Nubian  species  has  been  figured  in  Kitto’s  Pa- 
lestine  ; th e fulvus  in  Harris's  Diet,  of  the  Nat, 
Hist,  of  the  Bible. 


WAGES. 


WANDERING. 


938 


W. 


WAGES.  The  word  rendered  in  the  English 
Version  by  this  term,  signifies  primarily  ‘ to  pur- 
chase,’ to  obtain  by  some  consideration  on  the  part 
of  the  purchaser ; thence  to  obtain  on  the  part  of 
tne  seller  some  consideration  for  something  given 
or  done,  and  hence  to  hire,  to  pay,  or  receive 
wages.  Wages,  then,  according  to  the  earliest 
usages  of  mankind,  are  a return  made  by  a pur- 
chaser for  something  of  value — specifically  for 
work  performed,  And  thus  labour  is  recognised 
as  property  ; and  wages  as  the  price  paid  or  ob- 
tained in  exchange  for  such  property.  In  this 
relation  there  is  obviously  nothing  impro- 
1 per  or  humiliating  on  the  side  either  of  the 
buyer  or  the  seller.-  They  have  each  a certain 
thing  which  the  other  wants,  and  in  the  exchange 
which  they  in  consequence  make,  both  parties  are 
alike  served.  In  these  fevv  words  lies  the  theory, 
and  also  the  justification  of  all  service.  The  en- 
tire commerce  of  life  is  barter.  In  hire,  then, 
there  is  nothing  improper  or  discreditable.  It  is 
only  a hireling,  that  is,  a mercenary,  a mean  sor- 
did spirit,  that  is  wrong.  So  long  as  a human 
being  has  anything  to  give  which  another  human 
being  wants,  so  long  has  he  something  of  value  in 
the  great  market  of  life  ; and  whatever  that  some- 
thing may  be,  provided  it  does  not  contribute  to 
evil  passions  or  evil  deeds,  he  is  a truly  respect- 
able capitalist,  and  a useful  member  of  the  social 
community.  The  Scriptural  usage  in  applying 
the  term  translated  ‘ wages’  to  sacred  subjects — 
thus  the  Almighty  himself  says  to  Abraham 
(Gen.  xv.  1),  ‘I  am  thy  exceeding  great  re- 
ward’— tends  tc  confirm  these  views,  and  to  sug- 
gest the  observance  of  caution  in  the  employ- 
ment of  the  words  ‘ hire  ’ and  ‘ hireling,’  which 
have  acquired  an  offensive  meaning  by  no  means 
originally  inherent  in  themselves,  or  in  the  He- 
brew words  for  which  they  stand  (Gen.  xxx.  18, 
32,  33). 

Property,  in  all  ages,  has  in  practice  disowned 
the  truth,  that  it  has  its  duties  as  well  as  its 
rights.  This  Jacob  found  in  his  dealings  with 
Laban.  But  in  the  iron  age  of  the  Jewish  state, 
injustice  towards  those  who  had  no  property  but 
such  as  their  labour  supplied,  became  very  com- 
mon, and  conduced,  with  other  crimes,  to  call 
dovv-n  the  divine  wrath — ‘I  will  be  a swift  wit- 
ness against  those  that  oppress  tir  e hireling  in  his 
wages  ’ (Mai.  iii.  5). — J.  11.  B. 

WAGGON.  [Cart.] 

WAIL.  [Mourning.] 

WALLS.  [Fortifications  ; Towns.] 

WANDERING.  In  our  office  of  tracing  the 
steps  of  the  Israelites  from  Goshen  to  Palestine, 
we  have  conducted  them  across  the  Red  Sea  to 
their  first  great  station  on  its  eastern  bank,  and 
thence  onward  along  the  shore  and  over  the  cliffs 
of  that  sea  till,  following  them  up  Wady  Hebron, 
are  placed  and  left  them  before  Mount  Horeb,  in 
tor  capacious  plain  Rahah,  which,  having  its 


widest  part  in  the  immediate  frort  of  that  im- 
mense mass  of  rock,  extends  as  if  with  two  arms, 
one  towards  the  north-west,  the  other  towards  the 
north-east.  The  rrview  of  the  plain  by  so  compe- 
tent a person  &\a  Robinson,  is  of  great,  consequence 
for  the  interests  of  scientific  geography  and  the  yet 
more  important  interests  of  religious  truth;  the 
rathev  because  a belief  prevailed,  even  among  the 
best  informed,  that  there  was  no  spot  in  the  Sinaitic 
district  which  answered  to  the  demands  of  the 
Scriptural  narrative.  Even  the  accurate. Winer 
(Rea,/-  Wort,  in  art.  ‘Sinai,’  not  ‘Horeb*  as  referred 
to  by  Robinson,  i.  17  ; ii.  5.00)  says,  ‘Which- 
ever mountain  may  he  considered  as  the  place  for 
the  promulgation  of  the  law,  the  common  repre- 
sentation still  remains  false — t hat  at  the  foot  of  the 
hill  there  spreads  out  a great  plain,  on  which  the 
people  of  Israel  might  assemble  ’ (comp.  Ro- 
8enmiiller,  A/terth.  iii.  129).  We  shall  therefore 
transcribe  Robinson’s  words  in  extenso : ‘ We 
came  to  Sinai  with  some  iacredulity,  wishing  to 
investigate  the  point,  whether  there  was  any  pro- 
bable ground,  beyond  monkish  tradition,  for  fix- 
ing upon  the  present  supposed  site.  We  were  led 
to  the  conviction  that  the  plain  er  Rahah  is  the 
probable  spot  where  the  congregation  of  Israel 
were  assembled  ; and  that,  the  mountain  im- 
pending over  it,  the  present  Horeb,  was  the  scene 
of  the  awful  phenomena  in  which  the  law  was 
given.  We  were  surprised  as  well  as  gratified  to 
find  here  in  the  inmost  recesses  of  these  dark 
granite  cliffs,  this  fine  plain  spread  out  before  the 
mountain,  and  1 know  not  where  I have  felt  a 
thrill  of  stronger  emotion  than  when,  in  first  cross- 
ing the  plain,  the  dark  precipices  of  Horeb  rising 
in  solemn  grandeur  before  us,  we  became  aware  of 
the  entire  adaptedness  of  the  scene  to  the  purposes 
for  which  it  was  chosen  by  the  great  Hebrew 
legislator.  Moses,  doubtless,  during  the  forty 
years  in  which  he  kept  the  Hocks  of  Jethro,  had 
often  wandered  over  these  mountains,  and  was 
well  acquainted  with  their  valleys  and  deep  re- 
cesses, like  the  Arabs  of  the  present  day.  At  any 
rate,  be  knew  and  had  visited  the  spot  to  which  he 
was  to  conduct  his  people — this  adytwty  in  the 
midst  of  the  great  circular  granite  region ; a secret 
holy  place,  shut  out  from  the  world  amid  lone 
and  desolate  mountains  ’ (i.  175,  sq.).  We 
subjoin  what  Robinson  reports  of  the  climate : 
‘ The  weather,  during  our  residence  at.  the  coriven* 
(of  Sinai),  as,  indeed,  during  all  our  journey 
through  the  peninsula  (March  and  April),  was 
very  fine.  At  the  convent  tne  thermometer  ranged 
only  between  47°  and  67°  F.  But  the  winter 
nights  are  said  here  to  be  cold  ; water  freezes  as 
late  as  February ; and  snow  often  falls  upon  the 
mountains.  But  the  air  is  exceedingly  pure,  and 
the  climate  healthy,  as  is  testified  by  the  great 
age  and  vigour  of  many  of  the  monks.  And  if 
in  general  few  of  the  Arabs  attain  to  so  great  an 
age,  the  cause  is  doubtless  to  be  sought  in  the 
scantiness  of  their  fare,  and  their  exposure  to  pri- 
vations, and  not  to  any  injurious  influence  of  the 
climate  ’ (p.  175). 

After  having  been  about  a year  in  the  midst  of 
this  mountainous  region,  the  Israelites  broke  up 
their  encampment  and  began  their  journey  in  the 
order  of  their  tribes,  Judah  leading  the  way  with 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  under  the  guidance  of 
the  directing  cloud  (Num.  ix.  15,  sq. ; x.  11, 
sq.).  They  proceeded  down  Wady  Seikh,  haviiif 


WANDERING. 


'WANDERING. 


929 


the  wilderness  of  Paran  before  them,  in  a north- 
westerly direction  ; but  having  come  to  a gorge  in 
the  mountains  they  struck  in  a north-north-east- 
erly direction  across  a sandy  plain,  and  then  over 
the  Jebel  et-Tih,  and  came  down  Wady  Zulakah, 
to  the  station  Taberah.  It  took  the  army  three 
days  to  reach  this  station.  Whatever  name  the 
place  bore  before,  it  now  received  that  of  Taberah 
(fire),  from  a supernatural  fire  with  which  mur- 
murers,  in  the  extreme  parts  of  the  camp,  were 
destroyed  as  a punishment  for  their  guilt.  Here, 
too,  the  mixed  multitude  that  was  among  the  Israel- 
ites not  only  fell  a-lusting  themselves,  but  also 
excited  the  Hebrews  to  remember  Egyptian  fish 
and  vegetables  with  strong  desire,  and  to  com- 
plain of  the  divinely  supplied  manna.  The  dis- 
content was  intense  and  widely  spread.  Moses 
became  aware  of  it,  and  forthwith  felt  his  spirit 
misgive  him  He  brings  the  matter  before  Jeho- 
vah, and  receives  divine  aid  by  the  appointment  of 
seventy  elders  to  assist  him  in  the  important  and 
perilous  office  of  governing  the  gross,  sensuous, 
and  self-willed  myriads  whom  he  had  to  lead  to 
Canaan.  Mo-eover,  an  abundance  of  flesh  meat 
was  given  in  a most  profuse  supply  of  quails.  It 
appears  that  there  were  now  600,000  footmen 
in  the  congregation. 

The  next  station  was  Kibroth-hattaavah,  near 
which  there  are  fine  springs  and  excellent  pastur- 
age. This  spot,  the  name  of  which  signifies 
‘graves  of  lust,’  was  so  denominated  from  a 
plague  inflicted  on  the  people  in  punishment  of 
their  rebellious  disposition  (Num.  xi.  33  ; 1 Cor. 
x.  6).  Thence  they  journeyed  to  Hazeroth,  which 
Robinson,  after  Burckhardt,  finds  in  el-Hud- 
tiera,  where  is  a fountain,  together  with  palm- 
trees.  ‘ The  determination  of  this  point,’  says 
Robinson,  ‘ is  perhaps  of  more  importance  in  Bib- 
lical history  than  would  at  first  appear  ; for  if 
this  position  be  adopted  for  Hazeroth,  it  settles  at 
once  the  question  as  to  the  whole  route  of  the 
Israelites  between  Sinai  and  Kadesh.  It  shows 
that  they  must  have  followed  the  route  upon  which 
we  now  were  to  the  sea,  and  so  along  the  coast  to 
Akabah  (at  the  head  of  the  eastern  arm  of  the  Red 
Sea),  and  thence,  probably,  through  the  great 
Wady  el-’Arabah  to  Kadesh.  Indeed,  such  is  the 
nature  of  the  country,  that  having  once  arrived 
at  this  fountain,  they  could  not  well  have  varied 
their  course  so  as  to  have  kept  aloof  from  the  sea, 
and  continued  along  the  high  plateau  of  the 
western  desert  ’ (i.  223).  At  Hazeroth,  where  the 
people  seem  to  have  remained  a short  time,  there 
arose  a family  dissension  to  increase  the  difficulties 
of  Moses.  Aaron,  apparently  led  on  by  his  sister 
Miriam,  who  may  have  been  actuated  by  some 
feminine  pique  or  jealousy,  complained  of  Moses 
on  the  ground  that  he  had  married  a Cushite, 
that  is,  an  Arab  wife,  and  the  malcontents  went 
so  far  as  to  set  up  their  own  claims  to  authority  as 
not  less  valid  than  those  of  Moses.  An  appeal  is 
made  to  Jehovah,  who  vindicates  Moses,  rebukes 
Aaron,  and  punishes  Miriam  (Num.  xii.). 

‘ And  afterward  the  people  removed  from  Haze- 
roth, and  pitched  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran,’  at 
Kadesh  (Num.  xii.  16;  xiii.  26).  In  Deut.  i. 
1 9-2 J. , we  read,  ‘And  when  we  departed  from 
Horeb  we  went  through  a]l  that  great  and  terrible 
wilderness  which  ye  saw  by  the  way  of  the  moun- 
tain of  the  Amorites,  as  the  Lord  our  God  com- 
manded us;  and  we  came  to  Kadesh-barnea. 

VOL.  II.  6Q 


And  I said  unto  you,  Ye  are  come  unto  the 
mountain  of  the  Amorites,  which  the  Lord  our 
God  doth  give  unto  us.  Behold,  the  Lord  thy 
God  hath  set  the  land  before  thee  : go  up  anti 
possess  it;  fear  not,  neither  be  discouraged.’ 
Accordingly,  here  it  was  that  twelve  men  (spies) 
were  sent  into  Canaan  to  survey  the  country,  who 
went  up  from  the  wilderness  of  Zin  (Num.  xiii. 
21)  to  Hebron;  and  returning  after  forty  days 
brought  back  a very  alarming  account  of  what 
they  had  seen.  Let  it,  however,  be  remarked 
that  the  Scriptures  here  supply  several  local  data 
to  this  effect:  Kadesh-barnea  lay  not  far  from 
Canaan,  near  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites,  in 
the  wilderness  of  Zin,  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran. 
It  is  evident  that  there  is  here  a great  lacuna, 
which  some  have  attempted  to  fill  up  by  turning 
the  route  a little  to  the  west  to  Rithmah,  on  the 
borders  of  Idumsea,  and  then  conducting  it  with 
a sudden  bend  to  the  west  and  the  south,  into 
what  is  considered  the  wilderness  of  Paran  ( Re- 
lievo Map  of  Arabia  Petrcea,  published  by  Dobbs, 
London).  In  this  view,  however,  we  cannot 
concur.  Both  Robinson  and  Raumer  are  of  a 
different  opinion.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be 
admitted  that  so  great  a gap  in  the  itinerary  is 
extraordinary.  If,  however,  we  find  ourselves  in 
regard  to  the  journey  from  Horeb  to  Kadesh  pos- 
sessed of  fewer  and  less  definite  materials  of 
information,  we  have  also  the  satisfaction  of  feel- 
ing that  no  great  Scriptural  fact  or  doctrine  is 
concerned.  It  is  certain  that  the  narrative  in  the 
early  part  of  Numbers  goes  at  once  from  Hazeroth 
to  Kadesh ; and  although  the  second  account 
(in  Num.  xxxiii.)  supplies  other  places,  these 
seem  to  belong  properly  to  a second  route  and  a 
second  visit  to  Kadesh.  The  history  in  the  book 
of  Numbers  is  not,  indeed,  a consecutive  narra- 
tive ; for  after  the  defeat  of  the  Israelites  in  their 
foolish  attempt  to  force  an  entrance  into  Canaan 
contrary  to  the  will  of  God  (Num.  xiv.  45),  it 
breaks  suddenly  off,  and  leaving  the  joumeyings 
and  the  doings  of  the  camp,  proceeds  to  recite 
certain  laws.  Yet  it  offers,  as  we  think,  a clear 
intimation  of  a second  visit  to  the  wilderness  of 
Zin  and  to  Kadesh.  Without  having  said  a word 
as  to  the  removal  of  the  Israelites  southward,  and 
therefore  leaving  them  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin, 
at  Kadesh,  it  records  in  the  twentieth  chapter  (ver. 

1 ),  ‘ Then  came  the  children  of  Israel,  the  whole 
congregation,  into  the  desert  of  Zin,  in  the  first 
month,  and  the  people  abode  in  Kadesh.’  And 
this  view  appears  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the 
writer  immediately  proceeds  to  narrate  the  passage 
of  the  Israelites  hence  on  by  Mount  Hor  south- 
ward to  Gilgal  and  Canaan.  Robinson’s  remarks 
(ii.  611)  on  this  point  have  much  force  : ‘I  have 
thus  far  assumed  that  the  Israelites  were  twice  at 
Kadesh  ; and  this  appears  from  a comparison  of  the 
various  accounts.  They  broke  up  from  Sinai  on  the 
twentieth  day  of  the  second  month  in  the  second 
year  of  their  departure  out  of  Egypt,  correspond- 
ing to  the  early  part  of  May ; they  came  into  the 
desert  of  Paran,  whence  spies  were  sent  up  the 
mountain  into  Palestine,  “ in  the  time  of  the  first 
ripe  grapes  ;"’  and  these  returned  after  forty  days 
to  the  camp  at  Kadesh.  As  grapes  begin  to  ripen 
on  the  mountains  of  Judah  in  July,  the  return 
of  the  spies  is  to  be  placed  in  August  or  Septem- 
ber. The  people  now  murmured  at  the  report  of 
the  spies,  and  received  the  sentence  frr«>  Jehovah 


930 


WANDERING. 


nat  their  carcasses  should  fall  in  the  wilderness, 
anil  their  children  wander  in  the  desert  forty  years. 
They  were  ordered  to  turn  back  into  the  desert 
“ by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea,”  although  it  appears 
that  they  abode  “ many”  days  in  Kadesh.  The 
next  notice  of  the  Israelites  is,  that  in  the  first  month 
they  came  into  the  desert  of  Zin  and  abode  again 
at  Kadesh  ; here  Miriam  dies ; Moses  and  Aaron 
bring  water  from  the  rock  ; a passage  is  demanded 
through  the  land  of  Edom,  and  refused ; and  they 
then  journeyed  from  Kadesh  to  Mount  Hor,  where 
Aaron  dies  in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  departure 
from  Egypt,  in  the  first  day  of  the  fifth  month, 
corresponding  to  a part  of  August  and  September. 
Here,  then,  between  August  of  the  second  year 
and  August,  of  the  fortieth  year,  we  have  an  in- 
terval of  thirty-eight  years  of  wandering  in  the 
desert.  With  this  coincides  another  account. 
From  Mount  Hor  they  proceeded  to  Elath  on  the 
Red  Sea,  and  so  around  the  land  of  Edom  to  the 
brook  Zered,  on  t,he  border  of  Moab ; and  from 
the  time  of  their  departure  from  Kadesh  (mean- 
ing, of  course,  their  first  departure)  until  they 
thus  came  to  the  brook  Zered,  there  is  said  to  have 
been  an  interval  of  thirty-eight  years. 

In  this  way  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  jour- 
neyings  of  the  Israelites  becomes  perfectly  har- 
monious and  intelligible.  The  eighteen  stations 
mentioned  only  in  the  general  list  in  the  book  of 
Numbers  as  preceding  the  arrival  at  Kadesh,  are 
then  apparently  to  be  referred  to  this  eight  and 
thirty  years  of  wandering,  during  which  the  people 
at  last  approached  Ezion-geber,  and  afterwards 
returned  northwards  a second  time  to  Kadesh,  in 
the  hope  of  passing  directly  througn  the  land  of 
Edom.  Their  wanderings  extended,  doubtless, 
over  the  western  desert ; although  the  stations 
named  are  probably  only  those  head  quarters 
where  the  tabernacle  was  pitched,  and  where 
Moses  and  the  elders  and  priests  encamped ; 
while  the  main  body  of  the  people  was  scattered 
in  various  directions. 

Where,  then,  was  Kadesh  ? Clearly,  on  the 
borders  of  Palestine’.  We  agree  with  Robinson 
and  Raumer  in  placing  it  nearly  at  the  top  of  the 
Wady  Arabah,  where,  indeed,  it  is  fixed  by  Scrip- 
ture, for  in  Numbers  xii.  16  we  read,  ‘Kadesh, 
a city  in  the  uttermost  of  thy  (Edom)  border.’ 
The  precise  spot  it  may  be  difficult  to  ascertain, 
but  here,  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  which  lay  in  the 
more  comprehensive  district  of  Paran,  is  Kadesh 
to  be  placed.  Raumer,  however,  has  attempted 
to  fix  the  locality,  and  in  his  views  Robinson  and 
Schubert  generally  concur.  Raumer  places  it 
south  from  the  Dead  Sea,  in  the  low  lands  be- 
tween the  mountain  of  the  Edomites  and  that  c>f 
the  Amorites.  The  country  gradually  descends 
from  the  mountains  of  Judah  southward,  and 
where  thg  descent  terminates  Raumer  sets  Ka- 
desh. W ith  this  view  the  words  of  Moses  entirely 
correspond,  when,  at  Kadesh,  he  said  to  the  spies, 
‘ Get  you  op  southward , and  go  up  into  the  moun- 
tain ’ (Num.  xiii.  17).  The  ascent  may  have 
been  made  up  the  pass  es-Sufali ; up  this  the  self- 
willed  Hebrews  went,  and  were  driven  back  by 
the  Canaanites  as  far  as  to  Hermah,  then  called 
Zeplath  (Num.  xiii.  17;  xiv.  40-15 ; Judg.  i. 
17).  The  spot  where  Kadesh  lay  Robinson  finds 
in  the  present  Ain  el-Weibeh.  Rut  Raumer  pre- 
fers a spot  to  the  north  of  this  place — that  where 
the  road  mounts  by  WTadv  el-Khurar  to  the  pass 


WANDERING. 


Sufah.  It  ought,  he  thinks,  to  be  fixed  on  a spot 
where  the  Israelites  would  be  near  the  paa6,  and 
where  the  pass  would  lie  before  their  eyes.  .This 
is  not  the  case,  according  to  Schubert,  at  Ain  el- 
Weibeh.  Raumer,  therefore,  inclines  to  fix  on 
Ain  Hash,  which  lies  near  Ain  el  Khurar.  This 
is  probably  Kadesh.  The  distance  from  the  pass 
Sufah  to  Ain  Hasb  is  little  more  than  half  the 
length  of  that  from  the  same  pass  to  Ain  el-Wei- 
beh. According  to  the  Arabs,  there  is  at  Ain 
Hasb  a copious  fountain  of  sweet  wate’",  sur- 
rounded by  verdure  and  traces  of  ruins,  which 
must  be  of  considerable  magnitude,  as  they  were 
seen  by  Robinson  at  a distance  of  some  miles. 
These  may  be  the  ruins  of  Kadesh;  but  at  Ain 
el-Weibeh  there  are  no  ruins. 


By  what  route,  then,  did  the  Israelites  come 
from  Hazeroth  to  Kadesh  ? We  are  here  sup- 
plied with  scarcely  any  information.  The  entire 
distance,  which  is  considerable,  is  passed  by  the 
historian  in  silence.  Nothing  more  remains  than 
the  direction  of  the  two  places,  the  general  features 
of  the  country,  and  one  or  two  allusions 

The  option  seems  to  lie  between  two  routes. 
From  Hazeroth,  pursuing  a direction  to  the  north- 
east, they  would  come  upon  the  sea-coast,  along 
which  they  might  go  till  they  came  to  the  top  of 
the  Ruhr  Akabar,  and  thence  up  Wady  Arabah 
to  Kadesh,  nearly  at  its  extremity.  Or  they 
might  have  taken  a north-western  course  and 
crossed  the  mountain  Jebel  et-Tih.  If  so,  they 
must  still  have  avoided  the  Western  side  of  Mount 
Araif,  otherwise  they  would  have  been  carried  to 
Beer-sheba,  which  lay  far  to  the  west  of  Kadesh. 
Robinson  prefers  the  first  route;  Raumer,  the 
second.  ‘ I,’  says  the  latter,  ‘ am  of  opinion  that 
Israel  went  through  the  desert  et-Tih,  then  down 
Jebel  Araif,  but  not  along  Wady  Arabah.’  This 
view  is  supported  by  the  words  found  in  Deut.  i. 
19, ‘When  we  departed  from  Horeb  we  went 
through  all  that  great  and  terrible  wilderness 
which  ye  saw  by  the  way  of  the  mountain  of  the 
Amorites,  and  we  came  to  Kadesh-barnea.’  This 
journey  from  Horeb  to  Kadesh-barnea  took  the 
Hebrews  eleven  days  (Deut.  i.  2). 

At  the  direct  command  of  Jehovah  the  Hebrews 
left.  Kadesh,  came  down  the  Wady  Arabah,  and 
entered  the  wilderness  by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea 
(Num.  xiv.  25).  In  this  wilderness  they  wan- 
dered eight  and  thirty  years,  but  little  can  be  set 
forth  respecting  the  course  of  their  march.  It 
may  in  general  be  observed  that  their  route  would 
not  resemble  that  of  a regular  modern  army. 
They  were  a disciplined  horde  of  nomades,  and 
would  follow  nomade  customs.  It  is  also  clear 
that  their  stations  as  well  as  their  course  would 
necessarily  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  the 
country,  and  its  natural  supplies  of  the  necessaries 
of  life.  Hence  regularity  of  movement  is  not  to 
be  expected.  How,  except  by  a constant  miracle, 
two  millions  of  people  were  supported  for  forty 
years  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  must,  under  the 
actual  circumstances  of  the  case,  ever  remain 
inexplicable ; nor  do  we  conceive  that  such  scanty 
supplies  as  an  occasional  well  or  a chance  oasis 
do  much  to  relieve  the  difficulty.  In  the  absence 
of  detailed  information,  any  attempt  to  lay  down 
the  path  pursued  by  the  Israelites  after  their 
emerging  from  Arabah  can  be  little  belter  than 
conjectural.  Some  authorities  carry  them  quite 
over  to  the  eastern  bank  ©f  the  Red  Sea ; but  th# 


WAN  DERING. 


WANDERING. 


931 


expression  ‘by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea’  denotes 
nothing  more  than  the  western  wilderness,  or  the 
wilderness  in  the  direction  ot  the  Red  Sea. 

The  stations  over  which  the  Israelites  passed 
are  set  down  in  Num.  xxxiii.  18,  sq.  (comp.  Deut. 
x.  6,  7),  and  little  beyond  the  bare  record  can  be 
given.  Only  it  seems  extraordinary,  and  is  much 
to  be  regretted,  that  for  so  long  a period  as  eight 
and  thirty  years  our  information  should  be  so 
exceedingly  small.  Raumer,  indeed,  makes  an 
effort  (j Beitrage,  p.  11)  to  fix  the  direction  in 
which  some  of  the  stations  lay  to  each  other,  l ut 
we  cannot  find  satisfaction  in  his  efforts,  and  do 
not,  therefore,  bring  them  before  the  reader.  It 
may  be  of  more  service  to  them  to  subjoin  the 
following  table  of  the  stations  of  the  Israelites, 
from  the  time  of  their  leaving  Egypt,  which  we 
take  from  Robinson’s  Researches  in  Palestine  (ii. 
678,679). 

1.  From  Egypt  to  Sinai. 


Exodus  xii.-xix. 

From  Rameses,  xii.  37. 

1.  Succoth,  xii.  37 

2.  Etham,  xiii.  20 

3.  Pi-hahiroth,  xiv.  2 

4.  Passage  through 
the  Red  Sea,  xiv. 
22 ; and  three  days’ 
march  into  the  desert 
of  Shur,  xv.  22 

5.  Marah,  xv.  23 

6.  Elim,  xv.  27 

7. 

8.  t Desert  of  Sin,  xvi.  1 

9. 

10. 

11.  Rephidim,  xvii.  1 

12.  Desert  of  Sinai, 
.xix.  1 


Numbers  xxxiii. 
From  Rameses,  ver.  3. 
Succoth,  ver.  5 
Etham,  ver.  6 
Pi-hahiroth,  ver.  7 
Passage  through  the 
Red  Sea,  and  three 
days’  march  in  the 
desert  of  Etham,  ver.  8 

Marah,  ver.  8 
Elim,  ver.  9. 
Encampment  by  the 
Red  Sea,  ver.  10 
Desert  of  Sin,  ver.  1 1 
Dophkah,  ver.  12 
Alush,  ver.  13  * 

Rephidim,  ver.  14 
Desert  of  Sinai,  ver.  15 


2.  From  Sinai  to  Kadesh  the  second  time. 


Numbers  x.-xx. 
From  the  Desert  of 
Sinai,  x.  12. 

13.  Taberah,  xi.  3; 
Deut.  ix.  22 

14.  Kibroth-hattaavah, 
xi.  34 

15.  Hazeroth,  xi.  35 

16.  Kadesh,  in  the 
desert  of  Paran,  xii. 
16;  xiii.  26  ; Deut. 
i.  2, 19.  Hence  they 
turn  back  and  wan- 
der for  38  years. 
Num.  xiv.  25,  seq. 

17. 

18 

19 


A L, 

22 

23 

24 

25. 

26. 
27 
28. 
29, 


Numbers  xxxiii. 
From  the  Desert  of 
Sinai,  ver.  16. 


Kibroth-hattaavah,  ver. 
16 

Hazeroth,  ver.  17 


Rithmah,  ver.  18 
Rimmon-parez,  ver.  19 
Libnah,  ver.  20 
Rissah,  ver.  21 
Kehelathah,  ver.  22 
Mount  Shapher,  ver.  23 
Havadali,  ver.  24 
Makheloth,  ver.  25 
Tahath,  ver.  26 
Tarah,  ver.  27 
Mithcah,  ver.  28 
Hashmonah,  ver.  29 
Moseroth,  ver.  30 


30.  Bene  jaakan,  vei.  31 

31.  Hor-hagidgad,  ver.  32 

32.  Jotbathah,  ver.  33 

33.  Ebronah,  ver.  34 

34.  Ezion-gaber,  ver.  35 

35.  Return  to  Kadesh,  Kadesh,  ver.  36 
Num.  xx.  1 


3.  From  Kadesh  to  the  Jordan. 

Numbers  xxxiii. 


Num.  xx.,  xxi.  Deut. 
i.  ii.  x. 

From  Kadesh,  Num. 
xx.  22. 

36.  Beeroth  Bene-jaa- 
kan,  Deut.  x.  6 

37.  Mount  Hor,  Num. 

xx.  22  ; or  Mosera, 
Deut.  x.  6,  where 
Aaron  died 

38.  Gudgodah,  Deut. 
x.  7 

39.  Jotbath,  Deut.  x.  7 

40.  Way  of  the  Red 
Sea,  Num.  xxi.  4 ; 
by  Elath  and  Ezion- 
gaber,  Deut.  ii.  8 

41. 

42. 

43.  Oboth,  Num.  xxi. 
10 

44.  Ije  abarim,  Num. 

xxi.  11 

45.  The  brook  Zered, 

Num.  xxi.  12  ; 

Deut.  ii.  13,  14 

46.  The  brook  Arnon, 

Num.  xxi.  13  ; 

Deut.  ii.  24 

47. 

48. 

49.  Beer  (well)  in  the 
desert,  Num.  xxi. 
16,  18 

50.  Mattanah,  xxi.  18 

51.  Nahaliel,  xxi.  19 

52.  Bamotli,  xxi.  19 

53.  Pisgah,  put  for  the 
range  of  Abarim,  of 
which  Pisgah  was 
part,  xxi.  20 

54.  By  the  way  of 
Bashan  to  the  plains 
of  Moab  by  Jordan, 
near  Jericho,  Num. 
xxi.  33 ; xxii.  1 


From  Kadesh,  ver.  37» 


Mount  Hor,  ver.  37 


Zalmonah,  ver.  41 
Punon,  ver.  42 
Oboth,  ver.  43 

Ije-abarim,  or  Jim,  vex. 
44,  45 


Dibon-gad,  ver.  45,  now 
DhibSn 

Almon-diblathaim,  ver. 
46 


Mountains  of  Abarim, 
near  to  Nebo,  ver.  47 


Plains  of  Moab  by  Jor- 
dan, near  Jericho,  ver. 
48 


There  are  a few  events  which  must  be  recorded 
in  order  to  preserve,  in  a measure,  the  uniformity 
of  the  narrative  designed  to  trace  the  passage  of 
the  Hebrews  from  the  land  of  bondage  to  the 
Promised  Land. 

When  we  begin  to  take  up  the  thread  of  the 
story  at  the  second  visit  to  Kadesh,  we  find  time 
had,  in  the  interval,  been  busy  at  its  destructive 
work,  and  we  thus  gain  confirmation  of  the  view 
which  has  been  taken  of  such  second  visit.  No 
sooner  has  the  sacred  historian  told  us  of  the 
return  of  the  Israelites  to  Kadesh,  than  he  records 
the  death  and  burial  of  Miriam,  and  has,  at  no 


982 


WANDERING. 


WAR. 


great  distance  of  time,  to  narrate  that  of  Aaron  and 
Moses.  While  still  at  Kadesh  a rising  against 
these  leaders  takes  place,  on  the  alleged  ground  of 
a want  of  water.  Water  is  produced  from  the 
rock  at  a spot  called  hence  Meribah  (strife). 
But  Moses  and  Aaron  displeased  God  in  this  pro- 
ceeding, probably  because  they  distrusted  God’s 
general  providence  and  applied  for  extraordinary 
resources.  On  account  of  this  displeasure  it  was 
announced  to  them  that  they  should  not  enter 
Canaan.  A similar  transaction  has  been  already 
spoken  of  as  taking  place  in  Rephidim  (Exod. 
xvii.  1).  The  same  name,  Meribah,  was  occa- 
sioned in  that  as  in  this  matter.  Hence  it  has 
l>een  thought  that  we  have  here  two  versions  of  the 
'same  story.  But  there  is  nothing  surprising,  un- 
der the  circumstances,  in  the  outbreak  of  discon- 
tent for  want  of  water,  which  may  well  have 
happened  even  more  than  twice.  The  places 
are  different,  very  wide  apart ; the  time  is  differ- 
ent ; and  there  is  also  the  great  variation  arising 
out  of  the  conduct  and  punishment  of  Moses  and 
Aaron.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  judge  the  two 
records  to  speak  of  different  transactions. 

Relying  on  the  ties  of  blood  (Gen.  xxxii.  8) 
Moses  sent  to  ask  of  the  Edomites  a passage 
through  their  territory  into  Canaan.  The  answer 
was  a refusal,  accompanied  by  a display  of  force. 
The  Israelites,  therefore,  were  compelled  to  turn 
their  face  southward,  and  making  a turn  round  the 
end  of  the  Elanitic  gulf  reached  Mount  Hor,  near 
Petra,  on  the  top  of  which  Aaron  died.  Finding 
the  country  bad  for  travelling,  and  their  food  un- 
pleasant, Israel  again  broke  out  into  rebellious 
disconteut,  and  was  punished  by  fiery  serpents 
which  bit  the  people,  and  much  people  died,  when 
a remedy  was  provided  in  a serpent  of  brass  set  on 
a pole  (Num.  xxi.  4,  sq.).  Still  going  northward, 
and  probably  pursuing  the  caravan  route  from 
Damascus,  they  at  length  reached  the  valley  of 
Zared  (the  brook),  which  may  be  the  present 
Wady  Kerek,  that  runs  from  the  east  into  the  Dead 
Sea.  Hence  they  ‘ removed  and  pitched  on  tdae  other 
side  of  Arnon,  which  is  in  the  border  of  Moab,  be- 
tween Moab  and  the  Amorites  ’ (Num.  xxi.  13). 
Beer  (the  well)  was  the  next  station,  where,  find- 
ing a plentiful  supply  of  water,  and  being  rejoiced 
at  the  prospect  of  the  speedy  termination  of  their 
journey,  the  people  indulged  in  music  and  song, 
singing ‘the  song  of  the  well ’(Num.  xxi.  17, 
18).  The  Amorites  being  requested,  refused  to 
give  Israel  a passage  through  their  borders,  and 
so  the  nation  was  again  compelled  to  proceed  still 
in  a northerly  course.  At  length  having  beaten 
the  Amorites,  and  Og,  king  of  Bashan,  they 
reached  the  Jordan,  and  pitched  their  tents  at  a 
spot  which  lay  opposite  Jericho.  Here  Balak, 
king  of  the  Moabites,  alarmed  at  their  numbers 
and  their  successful  prowess,  invited  Balaam  to 
curse  Israel,  in  the  hope  of  being  thus  aided  to 
overcome  them  and  drive  them  out.  The  in- 
tended curse  proved  a blessing  in  the  prophet’s 
mouth.  While  here  the  people  gave  way  to  the 
idolatrous  practices  of  the  Moabites,  when  a ter- 
rible punishment  was  inflicted,  partly  by  a plague 
which  took  off  24,000,  and  partly  by  the  avenging 
sword.  Moses,  being  commanded  to  take  the 
sum  of  the  children  of  Israel,  from  twenty  years 
upwards,  found  they  amounted  to  600,730,  among 
whom  there  was  not  a man  of  them  whom  Moses 
and  Aaron  numbered  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai 


(Num.  xxvi.  47,  64).  Moses  is  now  directed  t« 
ascend  Abarim,  to  Mount  Nebo,  in  the  land  of 
Moab,  over  against  Jericho,  in  order  that  he  might 
survey  the  land  which  he  was  not  to  enter  on  ac- 
count of  his  having  rebelled  against  God’s  com- 
mandment in  the  desert  of  Ziu  (Num.  xxvii. 
12;  Deut.  xxxii.  49).  Conformably  with  the  divine 
command,  Moses  went  up  from  the  plains  of 
Moab  unto  the  mountain  of  Nebo,  to  the  top  of 
Pisgah,  and  there  he  died,  atlhe  age  of  120  years : 
‘ His  eye  was  not  dim,  nor  his  natural  force 
abated  ’ (Deut.  xxxiv.).  Under  his  successor, 
Joshua,  the  Hebrews  were  forthwith  led  across  the 
Jordan,  and  established  in  the  Land  of  Promise. 

Thus  a journey,  which  they  might  have  per- 
formed in  a few  months,  they  spent  forty 
years  in  accomplishing,  bringing  on  themselves 
unspeakable  toil  and  trouble,  and  in  the  end, 
death,  as  a punishment  for  their  gross  and  sensual 
appetites,  and  their  unbending  indocility  to  the 
divine  will  (Num.  xiv.  23;  xxvi.  65).  Joshua, 
however,  gained  thereby  a great  advantage ; inas- 
much as  it.  was  with  an  entirely  new  generation 
that  he  laid  the  foundations  of  the  civil  and  reli- 
gious institutions  of  the  Mosaic  polity  in  Pales- 
tine. This  advantage  assigns  the  reason  why  so 
long  a period  of  years  was  spent  in  the  wilder- 
ness. 

The  following  works  are  valuable : Paldstina 
und  die  Siidlich  angrenzenden  Lander ; German 
edition  of  Robinson’s  Biblical  Researches  in  Pa- 
lestine ; Reise  in  das  Morgenland  in  1836-7, 
von  Schubert ; Commeniaire  Geographique  sur 
I’Exode,  par  L.  de  Laborde,  Paris,  1841  ; Maps 
Paldstina , von  J.  L.  Grimm,  Berlin,  1830; 
Karten  fu  Robinson's  Paldstina , von  Kiepejt, 
1840 ; Karte  von  Paldstina , von  K.  Ritter,  1842 . 
Wandkarte  von  Paldstina , von  Volter,  1843; 
Louis  Erbe,  Relief  Karte  von  Paldstina , 1842; 
Plan  von  Jerusalem , von  Helmuth,  1843.  — 

J.  R.  S. 

WAR.  The  Hebrew  nation,  so  long  as  it  con- 
tinued in  Egyptian  bondage,  might  be  regarded  as 
unacquainted  with  military  affairs,  since  a jealous 
government  would  scarcely  permit  so  numerous 
and  dense  a population  as  the  pastoral  families 
of  Israel,  which  retained  their  seat  in  Goshen, 
certainly  were,  to  be  in  possession  of  the  means  of 
resistance  to  authority ; but  placed  as  this  por- 
tion of  the  people  was,  with  the  wanderers  of  the 
wilderness  to  the  south,  and  the  mountain  rob- 
bers of  Edom  to  the  east,  some  kind  of  defence 
must  have  been  provided  to  protect  its  cattle,  and 
in  a measure  to  cover  lower  Egypt  itself  from 
foreign  inroads.  Probably  the  labouring  popula- 
tion, scattered  as  bondsmen  through  the  Delta, 
were  alone  destitute  of  weapons,  while  the  shep- 
herds had  the  same  kind  of  defensive  arms  which 
are  still., in  use,  and  allowed  to  all  classes  in 
eastern  countries,  whatever  be  their  condition. 
This  mixed  state  of  their  social  position  appears 
to  be  countenanced  by  the  fact  that,  when  sud- 
denly permitted  to  depart,  the  whole  organization 
required  for  the  movement  of  such  a multitude 
was  clearly  in  force  ; yet  not  a word  is  said  about 
physical  means  to  resist  the  pursuing  Egyptians, 
although  at  a subsequent  period  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  they  were  wanting  to  invade  Palestine, 
but  that  special  causes  prevented  them  from  being 
immediately  resorted  to.  The  Israelites  were, 
therefore,  partly  armed  j they  had  their  bow»  and 


WAR. 


WAR. 


931 


trrows,  clubs  and  darts,  wicker  or  ox-hide  shields, 
and  helmets  (caps)  of  skins,  or  of  woven  rushes, 
made  somewhat  like  our  bee-hives. 

These  inferences  are  borne  out  by  the  fact,  that 
the  Egyptian  offensive  weapons  were  but  little 
better,  and  that  the  materials,  being  readily  acces- 
sible and  in  constant  use,  could  be  manufactured 
by  the  cattle-herds  and  dwellers  in  tents  them- 
selves. From  their  familiar  knowledge  of  the 
Egyptian  institutions,  the  Israelites  doubtless 
copied  their  military  organization,  as  soon  as  they 
were  free  from  bondage,  and  became  inured  to  a 
warlike  life  during  their  forty  years’  wandering 
in  the  desert;  but  with  this  remarkable  difference, 
that  while  Egypt  reckoned  her  hundred  thousands 
of  regulars,  either  drawn  from  the  provinces  or 
nomes  by  a kind  of  conscription,  such  as  is  to  he 
seen  on  the  monuments,  or  from  a military  caste 
of  hereditary  soldiers,  ihe  Hebrew  people,  having 
preserved  the  patriarchal  institution  of  nomades, 
werd  embodied  by  families  and  tribes,  as  is  plainly 
proved  by  the  order  of  march  which  was  pre- 
served during  their  pilgrimage  to  the  Land  of 
Promise.  That  order  likewise  reveals  a military 
circumstance  which  seems  to  attest  that  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  greatest  and  most  warlike  masses 
was  not  on  the  left  of  the  order  of  movement, 
that  is,  towards  their  immediate  enemies,  but 
always  to  the  front  and  right,  as  if  even  then  the 
most  serious  opposition  might  be  expected  from  the 
east  and  north-east — possibly  from  a reminiscence 
of  past  invasions  of  the  giant  races,  and  of  the 
first  conquerors,  furnished  with  cavalry  and  cha- 
riots, having  come  from  those  directions. 

At  the  time  of  the  departure  of  Israel,  horses 
were  not  yet  abundant  in  Egypt,  for  the  pursuing 
army  had  oidy  600  chariots,  and  the  shepherd 
people  were  even  prohibited  from  breeding  or 
possessing  them.  The  Hebrews  were  enjoined  to 
trust,  under  Divine  protection,  to  the  energies  of 
infantry  alone,  their  future  country  being  chiefly 
within  the  basin  of  high  mountains,  and  the 
march  thither  over  a district  of  Arabia  where  to 
this  day  horses  are  not  in  use.  We  may  infer  that 
the  inspired  lawgiver  rejected  horses  because  they 
were  already  known  to  be  less  fit  for  defence  at 
home  than  for  distant  expeditions  of  conquest,  in 
which  it  was  not  intended  that  the  chosen  people 
should  engage. 

Where  such  exact  order  and  instruction  ex- 
isted, it  may  not  be  doubted  ' that  in  military 
affairs,  upon  which  in  the  first  years  of  emanci- 
pation so  much  of  future  power  and  success  was 
to  depend,  measures  no  less  appropriate  were 
taken,  and  that,  with  the  Egyptian  model  univer- 
sally known,  similar  institutions  or  others  equally 
efficient  were  adopted  by  the  Israelites.  Great 
tribal  ensigns  they  had,  and  thence  we  may  infer 
the  existence  of  others  for  subordinate  divisions. 
Like  the  Egyptians,  they  could  move  in  columns 
and  form  well  ordered  ranks  in  deep  fronts  of 
battle,  and  they  acted  upon  the  best  suggestions  of 
human  ingenuity  united  with "physical  daring, 
except  when  expressly  ordered  to  trust  to  Divine 
interposition.  The  force  of  circumstances  caused 
in  time  modifications  of  importance  to  be  made, 
where  doctrine  had  interfered  with  what  was  felt 
to  hinge  on  political  necessities ; but  even  then 
they  were  long  and  urgently  wanted  before  they 
took  place,  although  the  people  in  religion  were 
constantly  disregarding  the  most  important  points, 


and  forsaking  that  God  who,  they  all  knew  and 
believed,  had  taken  them  out  of  bondage  to  make 
them  a great  nation.  Thus,  although  from  the 
time  the  tribes  of  Reuben  arid  Manasseh  received 
their  allotment  east  of  the  Jordan,  the  possession 
of  horses  became  in  some  measure  necessary  to 
defend  their  frontier,  still  the  people  persisted  for 
ages  in  abstaining  from  them,  and  even  in  the  time 
of  David  would  not  use  them  when  they  were  ac- 
tually captured  ; but  when  the  policy  of  Solomon 
had  made  extensive  conquests,  the  injunction  was 
set  aside,  because  horses  became  all-important ; 
and  from  the  captivity  till  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  the  remnant  of  the  eastern  tribes  were 
in  part  warlike  equestrian  nomades,  who  struck 
terror  into  the  heart  of  the  formidable  Persian 
cavalry,  won  great  battles,  and  even  captured 
Parthian  kings.  When  both  the  kingdoms  of 
Judah  and  Israel  were  again  confined  to  the 
mountains,  they  reduced  their  cavalry  to  a small 
body;  because,  it  may  be,  the  nature  of  the  soil 
within  the  basin  of  the  Libanus  was,  as  it  still  is, 
unfavourable  to  breeding  horses.  Another  in- 
stance of  unwillingness  to  violate  ancient  insti- 
tutions is  found  in  the  Hebrews  abstaining  from 
active  war  on  the  Sabbath  until  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees. 

There  are,  however,  indications  in  their  military 
transactions,  from  the  time  Assyrian  and  Persian 
conquerors  pressed  upon  the  Israelite  states,  and 
still  more  after  the  captivity,  which  show  the  influ- 
ence of  Asiatic  military  ideas,  according  to  which 
the  masses  do  not  act  with  ordered  unity,  but  trust 
to  the  more  adventurous  in  the  van  to  decide  the 
fate  of  battle.  Later  still,  under  the  Maccabees,  the 
systematic  discipline  of  Macedonian  importation 
can  be  observed,  even  though  in  Asia  the  Greek 
method  of  training,  founded  on  mathematical 
principles,  had  never  been  fully  complied  with, 
or  had  been  modified  by  the  existence  of  new 
circumstances  and  new  elements  of  destruction  ; 
such,  for  example,  as  the  use  of  great  bodies  of 
light  cavalry,  showering  millions  of  arrows  upon 
their  enemies,  and  fighting  elephants  introduced 
by  the  Ptolemies. 

But  all  these  practices  became  again  modified 
in  Western  Asia  when  Roman  dominion  had  su- 
perseded the  Greek  kingdoms.  Even  tlie  Jews,  as 
is  evident  from  Josephus,  modelled  their  military 
force  on  the  Imperial  plan  ; their  infantry  becagne 
armed,  and  was  manoeuvred  in  accordance  with 
that  system  which  every  where  gave  victory  by 
means  of  the  firmness  and  mobility  which  it  im- 
parted. The  masses  were  composed  of  cohorts 
or  their  equivalents,  consisting  of  centuriae  and 
decurise,  or  subdivisions  into  hundreds,  fifties, 
and  tens,  similar  to  modern  battalions,  com- 
panies, and  squads ; and  the  commanders  were 
of  like  grades  and  numbers.  Thus  the  people  of 
Israel,  and  the  nations  around  them,  cannot  be  ac- 
curately considered,  in  a military  view,  without 
taking  into  account  the  successive  changes  here 
noticed  ; for  they  had  the  same  influence  which 
military  innovations  had  in  Europe  between  the 
eras  of  Charlemagne  and  the  Emperor  Charles  V., 
including  the  use  of  cannon — that  invention  foe 
a longtime  making  no  greater  alteration  in  the 
constitution  of  armies,  than  the  perfection  of  war 
machines  produced  upon  'toe  military  institution* 
of  antiquity. 

The  army  of  Israel  was  chiefly  composed  e# 


WAR. 


WAR. 


*24 

infantry,  as  before  remarked,  formed  into  a trained 
body  of  spearmen,  and,  in  greater  numbers,  of 
siingers  and  archers,  with  horses  and  chariots  in 
small  proportion,  excepting  during  the  periods 
when  the  kingdom  extended  over  the  desert  to 
the  Red  Sea.  The  irregulars  were  drawn  from 
the  families  and  tribes,  particularly  Ephraim  and 
Benjamin,  but  the  heavy  armed  derived  their 
chief  strength  from  Judah,  and  were,  it  appears, 
collected  by  a kind  of  conscription,  by  tribes,  like 
the  earlier  Roman  armies ; not  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  selected  officers,  but  by  genealo- 
gists of  each  tribe,  under  the  superintendence  of 
tne  princes.  Of  those  returned  on  the  rolls,  a pro- 
nortion  greater  or  less  was  selected,  according  to 
the  exigency  of  the  time  ; and  the  whole  male  po- 
pulation might  be  called  out  on  extraordinary  oc- 
casions. When  kings  had  rendered  the  system  of 
government  better  organised,  there  was  an  officer 
denominated  hashoter , a sort  of  muster- 

master,  who  had  returns  ot  the  effective  force,  or 
number  of  soldiers  ready  for  service,  but  who  was 
subordinate  to  the  TD'lbn  hasopher,  or  scribe,  a 
kind  of  secretary  of  state.  These  officers,  or  the 
DntX>  shoterim , struck  out,  or  excused  from 
service: — 1st,  those  who  had  built  a house  with- 
out having  yet  inhabited  it ; 2nd,  those  who  had 
planted  an  olive  or  vineyard,  and  had  not  tasted 
the  fruit — which  gave  leave  of  absence  for  five 
years ; 3rd,  those  who  were  betrothed,  or  had 
been  married  less  than  one  year  ; 4th,  the  faint- 
hearted, which  may  mean  the  constitutionally 
delicate,  rather  than  the  cowardly,  as  that  quality 
is  seldom  owned  without  personal  inconvenience, 
and  where  it  is  no  longer  a shame,  the  rule  would 
destroy  every  levy. 

The  levies  were  drilled  to  march  in  ranks  (1 
Cliron.  xii.  38),  and  in  column  by  fives  (D'^Dn, 
c/iamushim*)  abreast  (Exod.  ^ xii i.  18);  hence 
it  may  be  inferred  that  they  borrowed  from  the 
Egyptian  system  a decimal  formation,  two  fifties 
in  each  division  making  a solid  square,  equal 
in  rank  and  file : for  twice  ten  in  rank  and 
five  in  file  being  told  off  by  right  hand  and  left 
hand  files,  a command  to  the  left  hand  files  to 
lace  about  and  march  six  or  eight  paces  to  the 
rear,  then  to  front  and  take  one  step  to  the  right 
would  make  the  hundred  a solid  square,  with 
only  the  additional  distance  between  the  right 
hand  or  unmoved  files  necessary  to  use  the  shield 
and  spear  without  hindrance ; while  the  depth 
being  again  reduced  to  five  files,  they  could  face 
to  the  right  or  left,  and  march  firmly  in  column, 
passing  every  kind  of  ground  without  breaking  or 
lengthening  their  order.  The  Pentastichous  f 
system,  or  arrangement  of  five  men  in  depth,  was 
effected  by  the  simple  evolution  just  mentioned, 
to  its  own  condensation  to  double  number,  and  at 

* If  this  term  could  be  satisfactorily  shown  to 
mear.  fifty,  it  would  still  contain  the  decimal 
system,  and  equally  necessitate  the  above  forma- 
tion ; but  no  army,  except  for  a short  manoeuvre 
before  battle,  could  march  in  column  with  a front 
of  fifty,  though  the  companies  were  of  fifty  men  ; 
they  must  always  have  been  doubled  for  sim- 
plifying every  efficient  manoeuvre.  There  was 
thus  also  an  office*  to  command  the  front,  and 
another  the  rear. 

f Taking  ctLxos  in  its  confined  sense  of  a file 
er  row  of  men  arranged  behind  each  other. 


the  same  time  afforded  the  necessary  space  V«- 
tween  the  standing  files  of  spearmen  oi  light  in- 
fantry for  handling  their  weapons  without  ob- 
stacle, always  a primary  object  in  every  ancient 
system  of  training.  Between  the  fifth  ai  i sixth 
rank  there  was  thus  space  made  for  the  ensign 
bearer,  who,  as  he  then  stood  precisely  between 
the  companies  of  fifty  each,  had  probably  some 
additional  width  to  enable  his  ensign  being  sta- 
tioned between  the  four  middlemost  men  in  the 
square,  having  five  men  in  file  and  five  in  rank 
before,  behind,  and  on  each  side ; there  he  was 
the  regulator  of  their  order,  coming  to  the  front  in 
advancing. and  to  the  rear  in  retreating;  and  this 
may  explain  why  gtixos,  a file,  and  the  Hebrew 
deghel  and  nes,  an  ensign,  are  in  many  cases  re- 
garded as  synonymous.  Although  neither  the 
Egyptian  depth  of  formation,  if  we  may  judge 
from  their  pictured  monuments,  nor  the  Greek 
phalanx,  nor  the  Roman  legion,  was  constructed 
upon  decimal  principles,  yet  the  former  wJs  no 
doubt  so  in  its  origin,  since  it  was  the  model  of  the 
Israelites,  and  the  tetrastichal  system,  which  after- 
wards succeeded,  shows  that  it  was  not  the  ori- 
ginal, since  even  in  the  phalanx,  where  the  files 
formed,  broke,  and  doubled  by  fours,  eights,  six- 
teens,  and  thirty-twos,  there  remained  names  of 
sections  which  indicated  the  first-mentioned  divi- 
sion : such  was  the  pentacontarchy,  denoting  some 
arrangement  of  fifty,  while  in  reality  it  consisted 
of  sixty-four,  and  the  decany  and  decurio,  though 
derived  from  a decimal  order,  signified  an  entire 
file  or  a compact  line  in  the  phalanx,  without  re- 
ference to  number. 

With  centuries  thus  arranged  in  masses,  both 
moveable  and  solid,  a front  of  battle  could  be 
formed  in  simple  decimal  progression  to  a thou- 
sand, ten  thousand,  and  to  an  army  at  all  times 
formidable  by  its  depth,  and  by  the  facility  it 
afforded  for  the  light  troops,  chariots  of  war,  and 
cavalry,  to  rally  behind  and  to  issue  from  thence 
to  the  front.  Archers  and  siingers  could  ply  their 
missiles  from  the  rear,  which  would  be  more  cer- 
tain to  reach  an  enemy  in  close  conflict,  than 
was  to  be  found  the  case  with  the  Greek  phalanx, 
because  from  the  great  depth  of  that  body  mis- 
siles from  behind  were  liable  to  fall  among  its  own 
front  ranks.  These  divisions  were  commanded,  it 
seems,  by  ketsinim,  officers  in  charge  of 

one  thousand,  who,  in  the  first  ages,  may  hav* 
been  the  heads  of  houses,  but  in.  the  time  of  the 
kings  were  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  had  a 
seat  in  the  councils  of  way ; but  the  commander 
of  the  host  fcQVn  ?]}  "W  sar  hat-tzaba,  such 
as  Joab,  Abner,  Benaiah,  &c.,  was  either  the 
judge,  or  under  the  judge  or  king,  the  supreme 
head  of  the  army,  and  one  of  the  highest  officers 
in  the  state.  He,  as  well  as  the  king,  had  an 
armour-bearer,  whose  duty  was  not  only  to  bear 
his  shield,  spear,  or  bow,  and  to  carry  orders,  but 
above  all,  to  be  at  the  chief’s  side  in  the  hour  of 
battle  (Judg.  ix;  |4;  1 Sam.  xiv.  6 ; xxxi.  4,  5). 
Beside  the  royal* guards,  there  was,  as  early  at 
least  as  the  time  of  David,  a select  troop  of 
heroes,  who  appear  to  have  had  an  institution 
very  similar  in  principle  to  our  modern  orders  or 
knighthood,  and  may  have  originated  the  dis- 
tinctive marks  already  pointed  out  as  used  by  the 
Romans  ; for  it  seems  they  strewed  their  hair  with 
gold  dust  [Arms.]. 

In  military  operations,  such  as  marches  ia 


WAR. 


WAR. 


93* 


«uest  of,  or  in  the  presence  of,  an  enemy,  and 
in  order  of  battle,  the  forces  were  formed  into 
three  divisions,  each  commanded  by  a chief  cap- 
tain or  commander  of  a corps,  or  third  part, 

'V&'hti  or  shelish,  as  was  also  the  case 

with  other  armies  of  the  east ; these  constituted 
the  centre,  and  right  and  left  wing,  and  durng 
a march  formed  the  van,  centre,  and  rear.  The 
great  camp  in  the  wilderness  was  composed  of 
four  of  these  triple  bodies  disposed  in  a quad- 
rangle, each  front  having  a tribal  great  central 
standard,  and  another  tribal  one  in  each  wing. 

The  war  cry  of  the  Hebrews  was  not  intonated 
by  the  ensign  bearers,  as  in  the  West,  but  by  a 
Levite ; for  priests  had  likewise  charge  of  the 
trumpets,  and  the  sounding  of  signals  ; and  one  of 
them,  called  ‘the  anointed  for  war,’  who  is  said 
to  have  had  the  charge  of  animating  the  army 
to  action  by  an  oration,  may  have  been  appointed 
to  utter  the  cry  of  battle  (Dent.  xx.  2).  It  was 
a mere  shout  (1  Sam.  xvii.  20),  or,  as  in  later 
ages,  Halelujah  ! while  the  so-called  mottoes  of 
the  central  banners  of  the  four  great  sides  of  the 
square  of  Judah,  Reuben,  Ephraim,  and  Dan, 
were  m(u:e  likely  the  battle-songs  which  each  of' 
the  fronts  of  the  mightjf  army  had  sung  on  com- 
mencing the  march  or  advancing  to  do  battle 
-(Num.  x.  34,  35,  36  ; Deut.  vi.  4).  These  verses 
may  have  been  sung  even  before  the  two  books 
wherein  they  are  how  found  were  written,  and  in- 
deed the  sense  of  the  text  indicates  a past  tense. 
It  was  to  these  we  think  Jehoshaphat  addressed 
himself  when  about  to  engage  the  Moabites  : he 
ordered  ‘ the  singers  before  the  Lord  ’ to  chant 
the  response  (2  Chron.  xx.  21),  ‘ Praise  the  Lord, 
for  his  mercy  endureth  for  ever.’  With  regard  to 
the  pass-word,  the  sign  of  mutual  recognition 
occurs  in  Judg.  vii.  18,  when,  after  the  men  had 
blown  their  trumpets  and  shown  light,  they  cried 
‘ The  sword  of  the  Lord  and  of  Gideon  ' — a re- 
petition of  the  very  words  overheard  by  that  chief 
while  watching  the  hostile  army. 

Before  an  engagement  the  Hebrew  soldiers 
were  spared  fatigue  as  much  as  possible,  and 
food  was  distributed  to  them  ; their  arms  were 
enjoined  to  be  in  the  best  order,  and  they  formed 
a line,  as  before  described,  of  solid  squares  of 
hundreds,  each  square  being  ten  deep,  and  as 
many  in’  breadth,  with  sufficient  intervals  be- 
tween the  files  to  allow  of  facility  in  the  move- 
ments, the  management  of  the  arms,  and  the 
passage  to  the  front  or  rear  of  slingers  and 
archers.  These  last  occupied  posts  according  to 
circumstances,  on  the  flanks,  or  in  advance,  but 
in  the  heat  of  battle  were  sheltered  behind  the 
squares  of  spearmen  ; the  slingers  were  always 
stationed  in  the  rear,  until  they  were  ordered 
forward  to  cover  the  front,  impede  an  hostile 
approach,  or  commence  an  engagement,  some- 
what in  the  manner  of  modem  skirmishers. 
Meantime,  the  king,  or  his  representative,  ap- 
peared clad  in  holy  ornaments,  ’HTH,  hadri 
kodesli  (in  our  version  rendered  ‘the  beauties 
of  holiness,’  Ps.  cx.  3 ; 2 Chron.  xx.  21),  and 
proceeded  to  make  the  final  dispositions  for 
battle,  in  the  middle  of  his  chosen  braves,  and 
attended  by  priests,  who,  by  their  exhortations, 
animated  the  ranks  within  hearing,  while  the  trum- 
pets waited  to  sound  the  signal,  it  was  now,  with 
tbs  enemy  at  land*  we  may  suppose,  that  the 


slingeYs  would  be  ordered  to  pass  forward  be- 
tween the  intervals  of  the  line,  and,  opening 
their  order,  would  let  fly  their  stone  or  leaden 
missiles,  until,  by  the  gradual  approach  of  the 
opposing  fronts,  they  would  be  hemmed  in  and 
recalled  to  the  rear,  or  ordered  to  take  an  appro- 
priate position.  Then  was  the  time  when  the 
trumpet-bearing  priests  received  command  to 
sound  the  charge,  and  when  the  shout  of  battle 
burst  forth  from  the  ranks.  The  signal  being  given, 
the  heavy  infantry  would  press  forward  under- 
cover of  their  shields,  with  the  flDI  romach 
protruded  direct  upon  the  front  of  the  enemy  : 
the  rear  ranks  might  then,  when  so  armed,  cast 
their  darts,  and  the  archers,  behind  them  all,  shoot 
high,  so  as  to  pitch  their  arrows  over  the  lines 
before  them,  into  the  dense  masses  of  the  enemy 
beyond.  If  the  opposing  forces  broke  through 
the  line,-  we  may  imagine  a body  of  charioteers 
reserve,  rushing  from  their  post,  and  charging  in 
among  the  disjointed  ranks  of  the  enemy,  before 
they  could  reconstruct  their  order ; or  wheeling 
round  a flank,  fall  upon  the  rear  ; or  being  en- 
countered by  a similar  manoeuvre,  and  perhaps 
repulsed,  or  rescued  by  Hebrew  cavalry.  The 
king,  meanwhile,  surrounded  by  his  princes,  I 
posted  close  to  the  rear  of  his  line  of  battle,  and  in 
the  middle  of  showered  missiles,  would  watch  the 
enemy  and  strive  to  remedy  every  disorder.  Thus 
it  was  that  several  of  the  sovereigns  of  Judah 
were  slain  (2  Chron.  xviii.  33;  xxxv.  23),  and 
that  such  an  enormous  waste  of  human  life 
took  place ; for  two  hostile  lines  of  masses,  at 
least  ten  in  depfh,  advancing  under  the  confi- 
dence of  breaslplate  and  shield,  when  once  en- 
gaged hand  <o  hand,  had  difficulties  of  no  ordi- 
nary nature  to  retreat;  because  the  hindermost 
ranks  not  being  exposed  personally  to  the  first 
slaughter,  would  not,  and  the  foremost  could  not, 
fall  back  ; neither  could  the  commanders  disen- 
gage the  line  without  a certainty  of  being  routed. 
The  fate  of  the  day  was  therefore  no  longer  within 
the  control  of  the  chief,  and  nothing  but  obstinate 
valour  was  left  to  decide  the  victory;  Hence, 
with  the  stubborn  character  of  the  Jews,  battles 
fought  among  themselves  were  particularly  san- 
guinary ; such,  for  example,  as  that  in  which 
Jeroboam  king  of  Israel  was  defeated  by  Abijah 
of  Judah  (2  Chron.  xiii.  3-17),  wherein,  if  there 
be  no  error  of  copyists,  there  was  a greater  slaugh- 
ter than  in  ten  such  battles  as  that  of  Leipsic, 
although  on  that  occasion  three  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  combatants  were  engaged  for  three  suc- 
cessive days,  provided  with  all  the  implements  ol 
modern  destruction  in  full  activity.  Undei 
such  circumstances  defeat  led  to  irretrievable 
confusion,  and  where  either  party  possessed  supe- 
riority in  cavalry  and  chariots  of  war  it  would 
be  materially  increased ; but  where  the  infantry 
alone  had  principally  to  pursue  a broken  enemy, 
that  force,  loaded  with  shields  and  preserving 
order,  could  overtake  very  few  who  chose  to 
abandon  their  defensive  arjnour,  unless  they  were 
hemmed  in  by  the  locality.  Sometimes  a part 
of  the  army  was  posted  in  ambush,  but  this 
manoeuvre  was  most  commonly  practised  against 
the  garrisons  of  cities  (Josh.  viii.  12;  Judg.  xx. 
38).  In  the  case  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.  15), 
when  he  led  a small  body  of  his  own  people, 
suddenly  collected,  and  falling  upon  the  guard 
of  the  captives,  released  them,  and  recovered 


WASHING  OF  FEET. 


WASHING  OF  FEET. 


996 

the  booty,  it  was  a surprise,  not  an  ambush  ; 
nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  he  fell  in  with 
the  main  army  of  the  enemy.  At  a later  period 
there  is  no  doubt  the  Hebrews  formed  their  ar- 
mies, in  imitation  of  the  Romans,  into  more  than 
one  line  of  masses,  and  modelled  their  military  in- 
stitutions as  near  as  possible  upon  the  same  system. 

Such  were  the  instruments  and  the  institutions 
of  war,  which  the  Hebrew  people,  as  well  as  the 
nations  which  surrounded  them,  apjiear  to  have 
adopted  ; but  in  the  conquest  of  the  promised 
land,  as  regarded  their  enemies,  the  laws  of  war 
prescribed  to  them  were,  for  purposes  which  we 
cannot  now  fully  appreciate,  more  severe  than  in 
other  cases.  All  the  nations  of  antiquity  were 
cruel  to  the  vanquished,  perhaps  the  Romans 
most  of  all : even  the  Egyptians,  in  the  sculptures 
of  their  monuments,  attest  the  same  disposition — 
the  males  being  very  generally  slaughtered,  and 
the  women  and  children  sold  for  slaves.  With 
regard  to  the  spoil,  except  in  the  special  case 
just  referred  to,  the  Hebrews  divided  it  in  part 
with  those  who  remained  at  home,  and  with  the 
Levites,  and  a portion  was  set  apart  as  an  obla- 
tion to  the  Lord  (Num.  xxxi.  50).  This  right 
of  spoil  and  prey  was  a necessary  consequence 
cf  military  institutions  where  the  army  received 

no  pay.  shalal,  that  is,  the  armour,  clothes, 

money,  and  furniture,  and  fTlppD  malkoch,  prey, 
consisting  of  the  captives  and  live  stock,  were 
collected  into  one  general  mass,  and  then  distri- 
buted as  stated  above;  or,  in  the  time  of  the 
kings,  were  shared  in  great  part  by  the  crown, 
which  then,  no  doubt,  took  care  to  subsist  the 
army  and  grant  military  rewards.  [Arms  ; 
Armour;  Encampment;  Engines;  Forti- 
fications; Standards.] — C.  H.  S. 

WARS  OF  THE  LORD.  [Scripture.] 

WASHING.  [Abi.ution.] 

WASHING  OF  FEET.  The  custom  of 
washing  the  feet  held,  in  ancient  times,  a place 
among  the  duties  of  hospitality,  being  regarded 
as  a mark  of  respect  to  the  guest,  and  a token  of 
humble  and  affectionate  attention  on  the  part  of 
the  entertainer.  It  had  its  origin  in  circumstances 
for  the  most  part  peculiar  to  the  East. 

In  general,  in  warm  Oriental  climes,  cleanliness 
is  of  the  highest  consequence,  particularly  as  a 
safeguard  against  the  leprosy.  The  East  knows 
nothing  of  the  factitious  distinctions  which  prevail 
in  these  (countries  between  sanatory  regulations 
and  religious  duties ; but  the  one,  as  much  as  the 
other,  is  considered  a part  of  that  great  system  of 
obligations  under  which  man  lies  towards  God. 
What,  therefore,  the  health  demands,  religion  is 
at  hand  to  sanction.  Cleanliness  is  in  conse- 
quence not  next  to  godliness,  but  a part  of  godli- 
ness itself. 

As  in  this  Oriental  view  may  be  found  the 
origin  and  reason  of  much  of  what  the  Mosaic 
law  lays  dowu  touching  clean  and  unclean,  so 
the  practice  of  feet-washing  in  particular,  which 
considerations  of  purify  and  personal  propriety 
recommended,  hospitality  adopted  and  religion 
sanctioned. 

In  temperate  climes  bathing  is  far  too  much 
neglected*;  but  in  the  East  the  heat  of  the  atmos- 
phere and  the  dryness  of  the  soil  would  render 
the  ablution  of  the  body  peculiarly  desh  \hle,  and 
make  feet-washing  i o less  grateful  than  alutary 


to  the  weary  traveller.  The  foot,  too,  was  Ima 
protected  than  with  us.  In  the  earliest  ages  w 
probably  had  no  covering ; and  the  sandal  worn 
in  later  times  was  little  else  than  the  sole  of  our 
shoe  bound  under  the  foot.  Even  this  defence, 
however,  was  ordinarily  laid  aside  on  entering  a 
house,  in  which  the  inmates  were  either  barefoot 
or  wore  nothing  but  slippers. 

The  washing  of  the  feet  is  among  the  most 
ancient,  as  well  as  the  most  obligatory,  of  the  rites 
of  Eastern  hospitality.  From  Gen.  xviii.  4,  xix. 
2,  it  appears  to  have  existed  as  early  as  the  days 
of  the  patriarch  Abraham.  In  Gen.  xxiv.  32,  also, 
‘ Abraham  s servant  is  provided  with  water  to 
wash  his  feet,  and  the  men’s  feet  that  were  with 
him.  The  same  custom  is  mentioned  in  Judg. 
xix.  21.  From  1 Sam.  xxv.  41,  it  appears  that 
the  rite  was  sometimes  performed  by  servants  and 
sons,  as  their  appropriate  duly,  regarded  as  of  a 
humble  character.  Hence,  in  addition  to  its 
being  a token  of  affectionate  regard,  it  was  a sign 
of  humility. 

The  most  remarkable  instance  is  found  in  the 
13th  chapter  of  John’s  Gospel,  where  our  Saviour 
is  represented  as  washing  the  feet  of  his  disciples, 
with  whom  he  had  take#  supper.  Minute  parti- 
culars are  given  in  the  sacred  narrative,  which 
should  be  carefully  studied,  as  presenting  a true 
Oriental  picture.  From  ver.  12,  sq.,  it  is  clear 
that  the  act  was  of  a symbolical  nature;  designed 
to  teach,  a fortiori , brotherly  humility  and  good- 
will. If  the  master  had  performed  for  his  scholars 
an  act  at  once  so  lowly  yet  so  needful,  how  much 
more  were  the  disciples  themselves  bound  to  con- 
sider any  Christian  service  whatever  as  a duty 
which  each  was  to  perform  for  the  other.  The 
principle  involved  in  the  particular  act  is,  that 
love  dignifies  any  service;  that  all  high  and  proud 
thoughts  are  no  less  unchristian  than  selfish ; and 
that  the  sole  ground  of  honour  in  the  church  of 
Christ  is  meek,  gentle,  and  self-forgetting  bene- 
volence. 

It  was  specially  customary  in  the  days  of  our 
Lord  to  wash  before  eating  (Matt.  xv.  2 ; Luke 
xi.  38).  This  was  also  the  practice  with  the 
ancient  Greeks,  as  may  be  seen  in  Jliad,  x.  577. 
From  Martial  ( Epig . iii.  50,  3,  Deposui  soleas), 
we  see  it  was  usual  to  lay  aside  the  shoes,  lest  they 
should  soil  the  linen.  The  usage  is  still  found 
among  the  Orientals  (Niebuhr,  b.  54;  Shaw,  p. 
202).  But  Jesus  did  not  pay  a scrupulous  regard 
to  the  practice,  and  hence  drew  blame  upon  him- 
self from  the  Pharisees  (Luke  xi.  38).  In  this 
our  Lord  was  probably  influenced  by  the  supersti- 
tious abuses  and  foolish  misinterpretations  con- 
nected with  washing  before  meat.  For  the  same 
reason  he  may  purposely  have  postponed  the  act 
of  washing  his  disciples’  feet  till  after  supper,  lest, 
while  he  was  teaching  a new  lesson  of  humility, 
he  might  add  a sanction  to  current  and  baneful 
errors  [Ablution]. 

Vessels  of  no  great  value  appear  to  have  been 
ordinarily  kept  anil  appropriated  to  the  purpose. 
These  vessels  would  gain  nothing  in  estimation 
from  the  lowly,  if  not  mean,  office  for  which  they 
were  employed.  Hence,  probably,  the  explanation 
of  Ps.  lx.  8,  { Moab  is  my  wash-pot.’  Slaves, 
moreover,  were  commonly  employed  in  washing 
the  feet  of  guests.  The  passage,  then,  in  effect 
declares  the  Moabites  to  be  the  meanest  of  God’s 
instruments. 


WATCH. 


WATER. 


as* 


The  upion  of  affectionate  attention  and  lowly 
service  is  found  indicated  by  feet-washing  in 
1 Tim.  v.  10,  where,  among  the  signs  of  the 
widows  that  were  to  be  honoured — supported,  that 
is,  at  the  expense  of  the  church— this  is  given,  if 
any  one  ‘ have  washed  the  saints’  feet.’ 

Feet-washing  (pedilavium)  became,  as  might 
be  expected,  a part  of  the  observances  practised  in 
the  early  Christian  church.  The  real  signification, 
however,  was  soon  forgotten,  or  overloaded  by  su- 
perstitious feelings  and  mere  outward  practices. 
Traces  of  the  practice  abound  in  ecclesiastical 
history,  and  remnants  of  the  abuse  are  still  to  be 
found,  at  least  in  the  Romish  church.  The  reader, 
who  wishes  to  see  an  outline  of  these,  may  consult 
Siegel,  Handbuch  der  ch.  Altertkiimer,  ii.  156, 
sq. — J.  R.  B. 

WATCH,  in  Hebrew  denoting  ‘to  cut 

into,’  thence  ‘ to  impress  on  the  mind,’  ‘ to  observe/ 

* to  watch  or  the  original  meaning  of  which 
is  ‘ to  look  out,’  thence  ‘ to  watch  •/  as  in  English) 

‘ to  keep  a look  out/  is  a nautical  phrase  for  ‘ to 
watch.’  Watching  must  have  been  coeval  with 
danger,  and  danger  arose  as  soon  as  man  became 
the  enemy  of  man,  or  had  to  guard  against  the 
attacks  of  wild  animals.  Accordingly  we  find 
traces  of  the  practice  of  watching  in  early  portions 
of  the  Hebrew  annals.  Watching  must  have 
been  carried  to  some  degree  of  completeness  in 
Egypt,  for  we  learn  from  Exod.  xiv.  24,  that  the 
practice  had,  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  caused 
the  night  to  be  divided  into  different  watches  or 
portions,  mention  being  made  of  the  ‘ morning 
watch.’  ^Compare  1 Sam.  xi.  11.  In  the  days 
of  the  Judges  (vii.  19)  we  find  ‘the  middle 
watch  ’ mentioned.  See  Luke  xii.  38.  At  a later 
period  Isaiah  plainly  intimates  (xxi.  5,  6),  that 
there  was  a watch-tower  in  Jerusalem,  and  that 
it  was  customary  on  extraordinary  occasions  to 
set  a*  watchman.  Watchmen  were,  however, 
even  at  an  earlier  day,  customarily  employed  in 
the  metropolis,  and  their  post  was  at  the  gates 
(2  Sam.  xviii.  24>  sq.  ; 2 Kings  ix.  17,  sq. ; 
Ps.  cxxvii.  1;  Prov.  viii.  34),  where  they  gave 
signals  and  information,  either  by  their  voice  or 
with  the  aid  of  a trumpet  (Jer.  vi.  17 ; Ezek. 
xxxiii.  6).  At  night  watchmen  were  accustomed 
to  perambulate  the  city  (Cant.  iii.  3 ; v.  7).  In 
the  New  Testament  we  find  mentiou  made  of  the 
second,  the  third,  and  the  fourth  watch  (Luke 
xii.  38;  Matt.  xiv.  25).  The  space  of  the  na- 
tural night,  from  the  setting  to  the  rising  of  the 
sun,  the  ancient  Jews  divided  into  three  equal 
parts  of  four  hours  each.  But  the  Romans,  imi- 
tating the  Greeks,  divided  the  night  into  four 
watches  ( vigiliae ),  and  the  Jews,  from  the  time 
they  came  under  subjection  to  the  Romans, 
following  this  Roman  custom,  also  divided  the 
night  into  four  watches,  each  of  which  consisted  of 
three  hours:  these  four  periods  Mark  (xiii.  35) 
has  distinguished  by  the  terms  6 \pe,  /lecoviKTiov, 
akefcrpocpuvia,  wpwf  (Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talmud;  Fis- 
cherus,  Prolus.  de  Vitiis  Lex.  N.  Test .).  The 

terms  by  which  the  old  Hebrew  division  of  the 
night  was  characterized  are,  1.  the  first  watch, 
ITnO^N,  beginning  of  the  watches  (Lam. 
ii.  19);  2.  ‘the  middle  watch/  rU’DTin  miDE*K 
(Judg.  vii.  19);  3.  ‘the  morning  watch/ 

(Deut.  xiv.  24;  1 Sam.  xi.  11).  The 


first  extended  from  sun-set  to  our  ten  o’clock,  the 
second  from  ten  at  night  till  two  in  tne  .morn- 
ing, and  the  third  from  that  hour  till  sun-rise 
(Ideler,  Chronol.  i.  486).— J.  R.  B. 

WATER.  No  one  can  read  far  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  without  being  reminded  of  the  vast 
importance  of  water  to  the  Hebrews  in  Palestine, 
and  indeed  in  every  country  to  which  their 
history  introduces  us  ; and  more  particularly  in 
the  deserts  in  which  they  wandered  on  leaving 
Egypt,  as  well  as  those  into  which  they  before  or 
afterwards  sent  their  flocks  for  pasture.  A subject 
of  such  importance  necessarily,  therefore,  claims 
considerable  attention  in  a Biblical  Cyclopaedia. 
The  natural  waters  have  already  been  disposed 
of  in  the  articles  Palestine  and  River  ; and  in 
Cistern  and  Jerusalem  notice  has  been  taken 
of  some  artificial  collections.  It  now  remains  to 
complete  the  subject,  under  the  present  head,  by 
the  addition  of  such  details  as  may  not  have 
been  comprehended  under  the  articles  referred  to. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  absence  of  small 
rivers,  through  the  want  of  rain  in  summer,  renders 
the  people  of  the  settled  country,  as  well  as  of  the 
deserts,  entirely  dependent  upon  the  water  derived 
from  wells,  and  that  preserved  in  cisterns  and 
reservoirs,  during  the  summer  and  autumn ; and 
gives  an  importance  unknown  in  our  humid  cli- 
mate to  the  limited  supply  thus  secured. 

With  respect  to  reservoirs,  the  articles  to  which 
reference  has  been  made,  will  supply  all  the  in- 
formation necessary,  except  that  we  may  avail 
ourselves  of  this  opportunity  of  noticing  the  so- 
called  Pools  of  Solomon,  near  Bethlehem,  which 
being  supplied  from  fountains,  furnish  some  cha- 
racteristics which  distinguish  them  from  cisterns, 
and  deserve  attention  as  ancient  works  of  pro- 
bably Hebrew  art.  The  tradition  which  ascribes 
them  to  Solomon  seems  to  be  founded  on  the 
passage  in  which  the  writer  of  Ecclesiastes  (usu- 
ally supposed  to  be  Solomon)  speaks  of  his  un- 
dertakings: ‘ I made  me  gardens  and  orchards, 
and  I planted  in  them  trees  of  all  kinds  of  fruits  ; 
I made  me  pools  of  zcater , to  water  therewith 
the  wood  that  bringeth  forth  trees’  (Eccles.  ii. 
5,  6).  To  these  allusion  is  also  supposed  to  be 
made  in  Canticles  (iv.  12):  ‘ A garden  en- 
closed is  my  sister,  my  spouse  ; a spring  shut  up, 
a fountain  sealed.’  In  short  we  have  here  a 
small  secluded  valley,  obviously  the  site  of  an 
ancient  garden,  with  reservoirs  of  water  supplied 
by  a ‘ shut  up’  fountain.  Hence  the  valley  itself 
goes  among  old  travellers  by  the  name  of  Hortus 
Conclusus.  It  is  also  conceived  to  be  the  spot 
mentioned  by  Josephus,  who  says:  ‘There  was 
about  fifty  furlongs  from  Jerusalem  a certain 
place  called  Etham,  very  pleasant  in  fine  gardens, 
and  abounding  in  rivulets  of  water,  whither  Solo- 
mon was  wont  to  go  forth  in  the  morning,  sitting 
on  high  in  his  chariot’  ( Antiq . 8.  7).  Maundrell 
(p.  86)  thinks  that  the  pools  were  very  probably 
made  by  Solomon  ; but  ‘ for  the  gardens/  he  says, 
‘ one  may  safely  affirm  that  if  Solomon  made  them 
in  the  rocky  ground  which  is  now  assigned  for 
them/he  demonstrated  greater  power  and  wealth 
in  finishing  his  design,  than  he  did  wisdom  in 
choosing  the  place  for  it.’  But  Hasselquist  (p. 
145),  a better  judge,  says:  ‘The  place  will  well 
admit  that  Solomon  might  have  formed  a garden 
here,  though  it  is  not  by  nature  an  agreeable  situ- 
ation, being  in  a bottom  ; but  perhaps  this  great 


WATER. 


WATER. 


138 


prince  might  choose  to  improve  nature  by  art,  as 
many  other  potentates  have  done.’  The  fact  is, 
that  a valley  kept  always  verdant  by  the  singular 
abundance  of  water,  afforded  peculiar  advantages 
in  this  country  for  a pleasure-ground.  Mariti  re- 
marks ( Voyage , ii.  388)  : ‘Nature  has  still  pre- 
served its  original  fertility  to  the  valley  of  IJortus 
C'cnclusus.  Although  but  little  cultivated,  the  soil 
still  produces  a tolerable  quantity  of  cotton  and 
various  kinds  of  grain.  There  are% also  seen  tine 
plantations  of  fruit-trees,  affording  the  most 
juicy  fruits  of  the  country.  Various  (lowers  and 
many  fragrant  plants  grow  there  naturally  at 
all  seasons,  among  which  are  thyme,  rosemary, 
marjoram,  sage,'  absinthium,  persil,  rue,  ranun- 
culuses, and  anemones.’  De  Breves  ( Voyage , p. 
ISO)  long  bore  similar  testimony,  though  he  was 
there  in  the  very  unfavourable  month  of  July  ; he 
describes  the  valley  as  ‘ always  green,’  and,  besides 
the  plants  just  named,  cultivated  by  nature’s 
own  kindly  hand,  he  adds  oranges,  citrons,  and 
pomegranates  to  the  fruits  which  grow  there. 
Zuallart  ( Voyage , iv.  3)  says  that  several  species 
of  rare  plants  were  found  in  the  valley,  and 
seems  to  insinuate  the  probability  that  they  had 
been  propagated  from  exotic  plants  which  Solo- 
mon introduced  into  his  gardens. 

Of  the  pools  a very  good  description  is  given 
by  Dr.  Wilde  ( Narrative , ii.  420)  : ‘At  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  valley  we  arrived  at  three  enor- 
mous tanks,  sunk  in  the  side  of  a sloping  ground, 
and  which  from  time  immemorial  have  been 
considered  to  be  the  workmanship  of  Solomon  ; 
and  certainly  they  are  well  worthy  the  man  to 
whom  tradition  has  assigned  their  construction. 
These  reservoirs  are  each  upon  a distinct  level, 
one  above  the  other,  an^l  are  capable  of  holding 
an  immense  body  of  water.  They  are  so  con- 
structed, both  by  conduits  leading  directly  from 
one  another,  and  by  what  may  be  termed  anas- 
tamosing  branches,  that  when  the  water  in  the 
upper  one  has  reached  to  a certain  height,  the 
surplus  flows  off  into  the  one  below  it,  and  so  on 
into  the  third.  These  passages  were  obstructed 
and  the  whole  of  the  cisterns  were  out  of  repair 
when  we  visited  them,  so  that,  there  was  hardly 
any  water  in  the  lowest,  while  the  upper  one  was 
nearly  full  of  good  pure  water.  Small  aqueducts 
lead  from  each  of  these  cisterns  to  a main  one 
that  conducts  the  water  to  Jerusalem.  They  are 
all  lined  with  a thick  layer  of  hard  whitish  ce- 
ment, and  a flight  of  steps  leads  to  the  bottom  of 
each,  similar  to  some  of  those  in  the  holy  city. 
"Where  the  lowest  cistern  joins  the  valley  of  Etham 
it  is  formed  by  an  embankment  of  earth,  and  has 
a sluice  to  draw  off  the  water  occasionally.  A 
short  distance  from  the  upper  pool  I descended 
into  a narrow  stone  chamber,  through  which  the 
water  passes  from  the  neighbouring  spring  on  its 
course  to  the  cisterns.  This  likewise  has  a tra- 
ditionary tale  to  tell  ; it  is  said  to  be  the  sealed 
fountain  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  the  4th 
and  5th  chapters  of  the  Canticles.  From  an  ex- 
amination of  this  place,  it  appeared  to  me  that 
several  springs  empty  themselves  into  these  reser- 
voirs, which  are  partly  cut  out  of  the  solid  rock, 
and  partly  built  with  masonry. 

‘ Nigh  to  the  upper  part  there  is  a large  square 
castle,  apparently  of  an  order  of  architecture  be- 
longing to  the  Christian  era  ; and  in  all  proba- 
bility so  placed  to  guard  these  waterworks  during 


the  period  of  the  hoi'y  war,  for  we  know  to  what 
extremities  some  of  the  early  crusaders  were  re- 
duced from  the  different  wells  being  poisoned  by 
the  enemy  upon  their  approach  to  Jerusalem. 

‘ These  fountains  having  been  already  de- 
scribed by  Maundrell,  Pococke,  and  others,  I 
shall  not  dwell  longer  upon  them,  except  to  men- 
tion two  circumstances,  that  it  appears  extraordi- 
nary they  have  not  been  adverted  to  by  former 
travellers  ; the  first  is,  their  great  similarity  to  the 
fountains  assigned  to  Solomon  at  Ras-el-Ain. 
near  Tyre;  and  the  fact  of  botlf  being  natural 
springs,  that  were  pent  up  so  as  to  raise  the  water 
they  contained  to  the  level  of  its  final  destination. 
The  second  is,  that  these  springs  were  originally 
collected  into  one  stream,  which  must  then  have 
formed  a considerable  rivulet,  and  running 
through  this  valley,  finally  discharged  its  waters 
into  the  Asphaltine  lake. 

‘ On  our  return  to  the  city  we  followed  the  track 
of  the  aqueduct  as  far  as  Bethlehem,  and  after- 
wards crossed  it  in  several  places  on  the  road.  It 
is  very  small,  but  the  water  runs  in  it  With  con- 
siderable rapidity,  as  we  could  perceive  by  the 
open  places  left  in  it  here  and  there.  From  the 
very  tortuous  course  that  this  conduit  takes  in 
following  the  different  sinuosities  of  the  ground, 
being  sometimes  above  and  sometimes  beneath 
the  surface,  it  is  difficult,  to  persuade  oneself 
that  it  dees  not  run  up  hill,  as  many  have  sup- 
posed. Finally,  it  crosses  over  the  valley  of  Re- 
phaim,  on  a series  of  arches,  to  the  north  of  the 
lower  pool  of  Gihon,  and  winding  round  the 
southern  horn  of  Zion,  is  lost  to  view  in  the  ruins 
of  the  city.  It  very  probably  supplied  the  pool 
of  Bethesda,  after  having  traversed  a cou®e  of  c©i- 
tainly  not  less  than  from  thirteen  to  fifteen  miles.’ 

To  this  very  clear  description  we  have  only  to 
add  the  measurements  of  Dr.  Robinson  ( Bibl , 
Researches,  ii.  165) : — 

Lower  Pool. — Length,  582  feet ; breadth  at 
the  east  end,  207  feet;  at  the  west  end,  148  feet; 
depth  at  the  east  end,  50  feet,  of  which  6 feet 
water  (in  the  month  of  May). 

Middle  Pool. — Distance  above  lower  pool,  248 
feet;  length,  423  feet;  breadth  at  the  east  end, 
250  feet ; at  the  west  end,  160  feet;  depth  at  the 
east  end,  39  feet,  of  which  14  feet  water. 

Upper  Pool. — Distance  above  middle  pool, 
160  feet ; length,  380  feet ; breadth  at  the  east 
end,  236  feet;  at  the  west  end,  229  feet;  depth 
at  east  end,  25  feet,  of  which  15  feet  water. 

Lord  Nugent  ( Lands  Classical  and  Sacred t 
ii.  11)  makes  the  pools  a few  feet  larger  each 
way,  but  admits  that  Robinson’s  measurement 
may  probably  have  been  more  exact  than  his  own. 

With  respect  to  wells,  their  importance  is  very 
great,  especially  in  the  desert,  where  the  means 
of  forming  them  are  deficient,  as  well  as  the  sup- 
ply of  labour  necessary  for  such  undertakings, 
which,  after  all,  are  not  always  rewarded  by  the 
discovery  of  a supply  of  water.  Hence  in  such 
situations,  and  indeed  in  the  settled  countries 
also,  the  wells  are  of  the  utmost  value,  and  the  wa- 
ter in  most  cases  is  very  frugally  used  (Num.  xx, 
17-19;  Deut.  ii.  6,  28  ; Job  xxii.  7).  It  is,  how- 
ever, not  merely  the  value  of  the  well  itself,  but 
certain  other  considerations  that  explain  the  con- 
tests about  wells  which  we  find  in  the  histories  of 
Abraham  and  Isaac  (Gen.  xxi.  25  31;  xxvi. 

1 5-22).  Here  we  see  that  the  people  of  the  country 


WATER.  939 

dition.  This  is  the  law  of  the  desert;  but  as  its 
application  to  the  Scriptural  questions  respecting 
the  property  of  wells  is  important,  we  may  be  al- 
lowed to  introduce  from  the  Pictorial  History  oj 
Palestine  (p.  61)  a passage  bearing  strongly  or 
the  subject : ‘ Abraham  had  digged  a well  near 
his  encampment,  and  of  the  use  of  this  the  “ ser- 
vants ” (probably  the  herdsmen)  of  Abimelech  had 
violently  deprived  him.  As  men  seldom  act 
without  some  reason,  or  show  of  reason,  which  is 
deemed  satisfactory  to  themselves,  it  may  seem 
likely  that  Abimelech’s  people  doubted  the  right 
of  Abraham  to  apply  the  law  of  the  desert  to  the 
common-lands  of  an  appropriated  territory,  and 
to  claim  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  well  he 
had  dug  in  such  a land.  If  their  view  had  been 
up,  and  remains  in  this  state  for  any  length  of  just,  however,  it  could  only  have  entitled  them  to 
time,  the  property  in  it  lapses  to  the  person  or  a share  of  the  water,  and  not  have  justified  them 
tribe  by  whom  it  is  restored  to  a serviceable  con-  in  assuming  that  exclusive  possession  which  they 


538»  [Solomon’s  Pools.] 


WATER. 

»tr«nuonsly  contested  the  right  of  the  patriarchs  to 
the  wells  which  they  digged,  and  even  went  so  far 
as  to  fill  up  again  (instead  of  leaving  open  for 
their  own  use)  the  wells  which  Abraham  had 
opened.  The  fact  is,  however,  that,  at  the  present 
day,  to  dig  a well  at  a station  remote  from  a sup- 
ply of  water,  is  the  most  difficult  and  arduous 
operation  which  the  chief  of  a tribe  or  clan  under- 
takes; and  the  benefits  of  such  a work  are  so  highly 
appreciated,  that  the  property  in  the  well  becomes 
vested  in  him  and  in  his  heirs  for  ever.  While 
his  clan  is  encamped  near  if,  no  persons  not  be- 
longing to  it  can  draw  water  from  the  well  without 
his  leave.  This  right  exists,  however,  only  on  the 
understanding  that  the  well  is  maintained  in  good 
condition;  for  if  it  gets  out  of  repair,  or  is  choked 


denied  to  the  party  at  whose  expense  the  benefit 
had  been  secured.  But  taking  into  account,  some 
transactions  of  rather  later  date,  we  incline  to 
think  that  the  cause  of  all  the  differences  about 
wells  which  we  read  of  in  the  history  of  Abraham 
and  of  Isaac,  lay  deeper  than  this  account  sup- 
poses, and  mpst  be  sought  in  a country  more 
similarly  circumstanced,  than  the  open  deserts,  to 
that  in  which  the  patriarch  was  at  this  time  so- 
journing. The  best  analogy  is  offered  in  Persia. 
There  all  waste  lands — that  is,  all  lands  which  are 
uncultivable  from  wanting  the  means  of  irrigation 
— are  called  ‘ God  s lands  and  although  the  king 

is  regarded  as  the  general  proprietor  of  the  soil, 
such  lands  are  free  for  any  uses  to  which  they  can 
be  applied  ; and  whoever  procures  the  means  of 
irrigation  becomes  the  proprietor  of  the  land  which 
he  thus  renders  cultivable.  Now,  as  among  the 
immemorially  ancient  usages  of  the  East,  none 


are  move  ancient  than  those  which  relate  to  the 
occupation  of  land,  it  is  not  too  much  to  suppose 
that  a similar  usage  to  this  existed  in  the  time  of 
Abraham  ; and,  if  so,  it  is  easy  to  conclude  that 
the  anxiety  of  the  Philistines  about  the  wells  dug 
by  Abraham  arose  from  the  apprehension  that  by 
the  formation  of  such  wells  he  would  be  understood 
to  create  a lien  on  the  lands  in  which  they  lay, 
and  would  acquire  an  indefeasible  right  of  occu- 
pation, or  rather  of  possession  ; and  it  might  seem 
to  them  inconvenient  that  so  powerful  a clan 
should  acquire  such  a right  in  the  soil  of  so  small 
a territory  as  that  which  belonged  to  them.  Hence 
their  care,  when  Abraham  afterwards  left  their  part 
of  the  country,  to  fill  up  the  wells  which  he  had 
digged  ; and  hence,  also,  the  renewed  and  more 
bitter  strife  with  Isaac  when  he,  on  arriving  there, 
proceeded  to  clear  out  those  wells  and  to  dig  new 
ones  himself.  That  Isaac  also  pursued  cultiva® 


940 


WATER. 


WEASEL. 


tion  to  some  extent  in  the  lauds  for  which  he  had 
thus  secured  the  means  of  irrigation,  is  a remark- 
able corroboration  of  the  view  we  now  take,  as  he 
certainly  might,  in  this  way,  but  we  know  not  how 
he  could  otherwise  acquire  such  a proprietary 
right  as  could  alone  entitle  him  to  cultivate  the 
soil. 


‘ Abimelech,  in  reply  to  the  complaint  of  Abra- 
ham respecting  the  well,  declared  that  the  con- 
duct of  his  servants  had  not  been  sanctioned  by 
him,  and  that,  indeed,  this  was  the  first  time  lie 
had  heard  anything  of  the  matter  ; and  he  made 
no  objection  to  the  proposal  of  Abraham,  that  the 
recognition  of  his  (the  patriarch’s)  right  to  the  well 
should  form  a part  of  the  proposed  covenant. 
This  proposal,  thus  represented  as  the  sole  matter 
for  which  Abraham  himself  took  care  to  provide 
in  a solemn  engagement  with  the  king  of  the 
Philistines,  is,  perhaps,  as  striking  an  indication 
of  the  supreme  importance  of  water  in  those 
Eastern  countries  as  can  anywhere  be  found.  Both 
parties  then  swore  to  the  covenant,  the  terms  of 
which  have  thus  been  staged  ; and  as  a memorial 
of  the  transaction,  and  in  particular  of  his  acknow- 
ledged right  to  the  well,  the  patriarch  gave  it  the 
name  of  Beer-sheba,  the  well  of  the  oath.  This 
imposition  of  commemorative  names  upon  places 
was  the  principal  of  various  methods  which  were 
resorted  to  in  these  earliest  ages  to  perpetuate  the 
memory  of  events  and  contracts,  in  the  absence  of 
those  written  documents  which  were  afterwards 
found  more  suitable  for  such  purposes.’ 

It  appears  in  Scripture  that  the  wells  were  some- 
times owned  by  a number  of  persons  in  common, 
and  that  flocks  were  brought  to  them  for  watering 
on  appointed  days,  in  an  order  previously  arranged. 
A well  was  often  covered  with  a great  stone,  which 
being  removed,  the  person  descended  some  steps 
to  the  surface  of  the  water,  and  on  his  return 
poured  into  a trough  that  which  he  had  brought 
up  (Gen.  xxiv.  11-15  ; xxix.  3-10;  Exod.  ii.  16; 
Judg.  v.  11).  There  is,  in  fact,  no  intimation  of 
any  other  way  of  drawing  water  from  wells  in 
Scripture.  But  as  this  could  only  be  applicable 
in  cases  where  the  well  was  not  deep,  we  must 
assume  that  they  had  the  use  of  those  contrivances 
which  are  still  employed  in  the  East,  and  some 
of  which  are  known  from  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments to  have  been  very  ancient.  This  conclusion 
is  the  more  probable  as  the  wells  in  Palestine  are 
mostly  deep  (Prov.  xx.  5 ; John  1v.  11).  Jacob’s 
well  near  Shechem  is  said  to  be  120  feet  deep,  with 
only  fifteen  feet  of  water  in  it  (Maundrell,  Journey , 
March  24) ; and  the  labour  of  drawing  from  so  deep 
a well  probably  originated  the  first  reluctance  of 
the  woman  of  Samaria  to  draw  water  for  Jesus  : 
‘Sir,  thou  hast  nothing  to  draw  with,  and  the  well 
is  deep.’  From  this  deeper  kind  of  well  the  water 
M drawn  by  hand  in  a leathern  bucket  not  too 


heavy,  sometimes  by  a windlass,  but  oftener, 
when  the  water  is  only  of  moderate  depth,  by  the 
shadoof  which  is  the  most  common  and  simple 
of  all  the  machines  used  in  the  East  for  raising 
water,  whether  from  wells,  reservoirs,  or  rivers. 
This  consists  of  a tapering  lever  unequally  balanced 
upon  an  upright  body  variously  constructed,  and 
from  the  smaller  end  of  which  is  suspended  the 
bucket  by  a rope.  This  when  lowered  into  the 
well,  is  raised  full  of  water  by  the  weight  of  the 
heavier  end.  By  this  contrivance  the  manual 
power  is  applied  in  lowering  the  bucket  into  the 
well,  for  it  rises  easily,  and  it  is  only  necessary  to 
regulate  the  ascent.  This  machine  is  in  use  under 
slight  modifications  from  the  Baltic  to  the  Yellow 
Sea,  and  was  so  from  the  most  remote  ages  to  the 
present  day.  The  specimen  in  the  annexed  wood- 
cut  occurs  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jaffa.  The 
water  of  wells,  as  well  as  of  fountains,  was  by  the 
Hebrews  called  ‘living  water,’  translated  ‘ running 
water,’  and  was  highly  esteemed  (Lev.  xiv.  5 ; 
Num.  xix.  17).  It  was  thus  distinguished  from 
water  preserved  in  cisterns  and  reservoirs. 
WEAPONS.  [Arms.] 

WEASEL  (“I^'n  choled ).  Although,  under  the 
head  Mole,  we  have  given  choled  as  its  He- 
brew synonyme,  yet  such  is  the  vagueness  of 
Oriental  denominations,  and  the  necessity  of  no- 
ticing certain  species  which,  from  their  importance, 
cannot  well  be  supposed  to  have  been  altogether 
disregarded  in  the  Bible,  that  in  this  place  a few 
words  descriptive  of  the  species  of  Viverridce  and 
Mustelidce , known  to  reside  in  and  near  Pales- 
tine, and  supposed  to  be  collectively  designated 
by  the  term  tzigim,  may  not  be  irrelevant. 
They  appear,  both  anciently  and  among  our- 
selves,  collected  into  a kind  of  group,  under  an 
impression  that  they  belong  to  the  feline  family  ; 
nencewe,  like  the  ancients,  still  use  the  words  civet- 
cat,  tree-cat,  pole-cat,  &c. ; and,  in  reality,  a consi- 
derable number  of  the  species  have  partially  retrac- 
tile claws,  the  pupils  of  the  eyes  being  contractile 
like  those  of  cats,  of  which  they  even  bear  the 
spotted  and  streaked  liveries.  All  sucli  naturally 
have  arboreal  habits,  and  from  their  low  lengthy 
forms  are  no  less  disposed  to  burrow  ; but  many 
of  them,  chiefly  in  other  hemispheres,  are  excellent 
swimmers.  One  of  these  species,  allied  to,  if  not 
the  same  as,  yenetta  harbara,  is  the  Thela  JElan, 
by  Bochart  described  as  having  ‘ various  colours, 
and  as  being  spotted  like  a paid.  In  Syria  it  is 
called  sephka,  in  Arabia  zebzeb , and  lives  by 
hunting  birds  and  sbaphans.  There  are  besides, 
in  the  same  region,  the  nimse,  ferret  or  pole- 
cat ( putorius  vulgaris ),  for  ihese  two  are  not 
specifically  distinct;  fert-el-heile,  the  weasel 
( mustela  vulgaris  Africana'),  differing  from  ours 
chiefly  in  its  superior  size  and  darker  colours. 
A paradoxurtis,  identical  with  or  nearly  allied  to 
P.  typus , occurs  in  Arabia;  for  it  seems  ihese 
tdrimals  are  found  wherever  there  are  palmifera\ 
the  date-palm  in  particular  being  a favourite  resi- 
dence of  the  species.  Two  or  three  varieties,  or 
perhaps  species,  of  nems  occur  in  Egypt  solely  ; 
for  the  name  is  again  generical  in  the  Arabian 
dialects,  and  denotes  the  ichneumon.  Arabia 
Proper  has  several  other  animals,  not  clearly 
distinguished,  though  belonging  to  the  families 
here  noticed ; but  whiih  of  these  are  the  su w- 
giab  and  the  simur , or  the  alphanex  of  Iba 


WEAVING. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES.  94i 


Qmar-ben- Abdulbar,  quoted  by  Bochart,  is  un- 
determined; albeit  they  evidently  belong  to  the 


540.  [Paradoxiirus  Tvpus — the  Palm-Martin.] 


tribes  of  vermin  mammals  of  that  region,  ex- 
cepting as  regards  the  last  mentioned,  now  known 
to  be  a kind  of  miniature  fox  {megalot is  zerda, 
Ham.  Smith),  or  fennec  of  Bruce,  who  never- 
theless confounded  it  with  paradoxiirus  typus , 

! cr  an  allied  species  which  equally  frequents  palm- 
trees;  but  ihe  fennec  does  not  climb.  It  is  equally 
impossible  to  point  out  the  cats,  tree-cats,  and 
j civet-cats  noticed  by  the  poet  Nemesianus,  who 
was  of  African  birth  ; or  by  the  Arabian  Damir, 
who  makes  no  further  distinctive  mention  of  them 
[Cat].— C.  H.  S. 

WEAVING  is  too  necessary  an  art  not  to  have 
existed  in  the  early  periods  of  the  world.  It  ap- 
pears, indeed,  to  have  in  all  nations  come  into 
existence  with  the  first  dawnings  of  civilization. 

| The  Egyptians  had,  as  might  be  expected,  already 
made  considerable  progress  therein  when  the 
Israelites  tarried  amongst  them ; and  in  this,  as  well 
as  in  many  other  of  the  arts  of  life,  they  became 
the  instructors  of  that  people.  Textures  of  cotton 
and  of  flax  were  woven  by  them  ; whence  we  fead 
of  the  ‘ vestures  of  fine  linen  ’ with  which  Pharaoh 
arrayed  Joseph  (Gen.  xli.  42)  ; terms  which  show 
that  the  art  of  fabricating  cloth  had  been  success- 
fully cultivated.  Indeed  Egypt  was  celebrated 
among  the  Hebrews  for  its  manufacturing  skill. 
Thus  Isaiah  (xix.  9)  speaks  of  ‘ them  that  work 
in  fine  flax,  and  them  that  weave  net-works.’  That 
these  fabrics  displayed  taste  as  well  as  skill,  may 
be  inferred  from  Ezekiel  xxvii.  7,  ‘ Fine  linen 
with  broidered  work  from  Egypt.’  So  in  Prov. 
vii.  16,  ‘ I have  decked  my  couch  with  coverings 
of  tapestry,  with  fine  linen  of  Egypt.’  If,  how- 
ever, the  Hebrews  learnt  the  art  of  weaving  in 
Egypt,  they  appear  to  have  made  progress  therein 
from  their  own  resources,  even  before  they  entered 
Palestine  ; for  having  before  them  the  prospect  of 
a national  establishment  in  that  land,  they  would 
naturally  turn  their  attention  to  the  arts  of  life, 
and  had  leisure,  as  well  as  occasion,  during  their 
sojourn  of  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  for  prac- 
tising those  arts  ; and  certainly  we  cannot  but  un- 
derstand the  words  of  Moses  to  imply  that  the 
skill  spoken  of  in  Exod.  xxxv.  30,  sq.,  came  from 
a Hebrew,  and  not  a foreign  impulse.  Among  the 
Israelites,  weaving,  together  with  spinning,  was 
for  the  most  part  in  the  hands  of  females  (Prov. 
xxxi.  13,  19)  ; nor  did  persons  of  rank  and  dis- 
tinction consider  the  occupation  mean  (Exod. 
xxxv.  25  ; 2 Kings  xxiii.  7).  But  as  in  Egypt 


males  exclusively,  so  in  Palestine  men  conjointly 
with  women,  wove  (Exod.  xxxv.  35).  From  I 
Chron.  iv.  21,  it  may  be  inferred,  that  there 
were  in  Israel  a class  of  master-manufacturers. 
The  loom,  as  was  generally  the  case  in  the  an- 
cient world,  was  high,  requiring  the  weaver  to 
stand  at  his  employment. 

Connected  with  the  loom,  are  1.  the  shut- 
tle (Job  vii.  6)  ; 2.  “IT7D,  the  weaver’s 

beam  (1  Sam.  xvii.  7;  2 Sam.  xxi.  19);  3. 

‘UV,  a weaver’s  pin  (Judg.  xvi.  14).  The 
degree  of  skill  to  which  the  Hebrews  attained,  it 
is  difficult  to  measure;  probably,  as  Egypt  and 
Babylon  already  supplied  the  finer  specimens  of 
workmanship,  the  Hebrews  would  content  them- 
selves with  a secondary  degree  of  excellence;  but 
many  passages  conduce  to  prove  that  art  preside  d 
over  their  weaving,  as  well  as  that  the  employ- 
ment was  very  common  (Lev.  xiii.  48)  ; Judg. 
xvi.  13;  Isa.  xxxviii.  12).  The  stuffs  which  they 
wove  were  of  linen,  flax,  and  wool.  Among  the 
latter  must  be  reckoned  those  of  camels’  and 
goats’  hair,  which  were  used  by  the  poor  for 
clothing,  and  for  mourning  (Exod.  xxvi.  7 ; 
xxxv.  6 ; Matt.  iii.  4).  Garments  woven  in  one 
piece  throughout  so  as  to  need  no  making,  were 
held  in  high  repute:  whence  the  Jews  have  a 
tradition,  that  no  needle  was  employed  on  the 
clothing  of  the  high- priest,  each  piece  of  which 
was  of  one  continued  texture.  This  notion  throws 
light  on  the  language  used  by  John  xix.  23  — 

‘ the  coat  was  without  seam,’ — words  that  are  ex- 
plained by  those  which  follow,  and  which  Wet- 
stein  regards  as  a gloss — ‘ woven  from  the  top 
throughout.’  This  seamless  coat,  x'rwr  appaipos, 
which  has  lately  given  occasion  to  the  great  re- 
ligious reformatory  movement  begun  by  the 
priest  Ronge,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  our 
Lord,  knowing  that  his  time  was  now  come,  had 
arrayed  himself  in  vestments  suitable  to  the  dig 
nity  of  his  Messianic  office. — J.  R.  B. 

WEDDING.  [Marriage.] 

WEEK.  [Sabbath.] 

WEEKS,  FEAST  OF.  [Pentecost.] 
WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES.  This  k a 
subject  on  which  our  knowledge  is  by  no  means 
complete  and  satisfactory.  The  notices  respect- 
ing it  which  the  Bible  supplies  are  fragmentary 
and  scattered;  and  though  the  Jewish  authorities 
and  Josephus  afford  us  useful  aids,  and  though  the 
topic  has  received  full  and  very  careful  investi- 
gation, still  difficulties  remain,  and  there  are 
points  on  which  we  must  be  content  either  with 
probable  conjecture,  or  an  approximation  to  the 
truth. 

So  long,  indeed,  as  the  subject  was  insulated 
from  its  natural  connections,  and  Hebrew  weights 
and  measures  were  studied  apart  from  those  of 
other  ancient  nations,  the  difficulty  and  uncer- 
tainty might  well  be  considerable.  Of  late,  how- 
ever, a juster  method  of  treatment  has  been  origi- 
nated in  Germany.  The  Roman  measures  came 
from  Greece,  the  Grecian  from  Phoenicia,  the 
Phoenician  from  Babylon.  Accordingly  each 
system  will  throw  light  on  the  other,  and  all  may 
be  made  to  contribute  something  to  the  elucida- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  weights  and  measures.  This 
method  of  viewing  the  subject,  and  the  satisfactory 
lessons  which  have  been  hence  deduced,  are  to  be 
ascribed  to  Bockh  ( Metrologischen  TJntersuch%m • 


912  WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


gen , Berlin,  1S3S),  who,  availing  himself  of  the 
results  ascertained  by  English,  French,  and 
German  scholars,  and  of  the  peculiar  facilities 
afforded  by  a residence  in  the  midst  of  the  pro- 
found and  varied  erudition  of  the  Prussian  capital, 
has  succeeded,  by  the  application  of  his  unwearied 
industry  and  superior  endowments,  in  showing 
that  tine  system  of  weights  and  measures  of  Baby- 
lon, Egypt,  Palestine,  Phoenicia,  Greece,  Sicily, 
and  Italy,  formed  one  great  whole,  with  the  most 
intimate  relationships  and  connections.  Our 
limited  space  permits  only  a very  brief  notice  of 
the  results  which  the  inquiries  of  Bockh  and  his 
school  seem  to  have  ascertained.  We  will  first 
advert  to  the  names  of  the  Hebrew  weights  or 
coins.  1.  “133  is  derived  from  a root  signifying 
round,’  so  that  the  word  denotes  a circular-shaped 
mass  of  metal.  Thus,  etymologically,  it  may  be 
rendered  ‘ the  circle.’  In  2 Kings  v.  22  it  is 
translated  1 talent;’  the  more  exact  determina- 
tion of  its  import  is  fixed  by  the  addition  of  an- 
other noun,  as  ‘talent  of  silver’  (2  Kings  v.  22, 
23),  and  ‘talent  of  gold  ’ (1  Kings  ix.  14).  2. 

PDD  is  a word  of  Shomitic  origin,  the  Greek  gva. 
It  occurs  in  the  Coptic  New  Testament  in  the 
forms  amna  and  enina.  In  1 Kings  (x.  17)  it  is 
rendered  ‘ pound.’  3.  weight  in  the  ab- 

stract, the  usual  weight  among  not  only  the 
Hebrews,  but  the  Persians  also — <t'lk\os.  It  varies 
in  its  import,  .and  is  rendered  shekel  by  our  trans- 
lators, who  have  thus  merely  preserved  the  ori- 
ginal word.  4.  Vp3,  ‘a  bekah ’ (Exod.  xxxviii. 
26),  is  from  a root  which  signifies  * to  divide ;’  hence 
a moiety  or  half,  ‘half  a shekel  ’ (Gen.  xxiv.  22). 
The  word  in  this  application  is  found  only  in  the 
Pentateuch.  5.  m3,  properly  a grain,  or,  in  par- 
ticular, the  bean,  or  St.  John’s  bread,  carob ; 
hence,  the  smallest  weight.  The  word  is  retained 
in  the  English  translation;  thus  in  Exod.  xxx.  12, 
‘ a shekel  is  twenty  gerahs.’  It  is  obvious  that  no 
determinate  and  satisfactory  unit  in  a system  of 
weights  can  be  gained  from  a changeable  object 
like  a grain.  This  difficulty,  however,  is  not 
peculiar  to  tke  Hebrews.  We  have  our  grains, 
and  the  Greeks  had  their  oboli. 

In  order  to  determine  the  relations  which  the 
“133,  talent,  bore  to  the  smaller  weights  and  coins, 
we  may  have  recourse  to  those  passages  which 
speak  of  the  formation  of  the  sanctuary.  Ac- 
cording to  Exod.  xxx.  13,  every  Israelite  above 
twenty  years  of  age  had  to  pay  the  poll-tax  of 
half  a shekel  as  a contribution  to  the  sanctuary. 
Exod.  xxxviii.  26,  tells  us  that  this  tax  had  to  be 
paid  by  603,550  men.  The  sum  amounted  to 
100  talents  and  1775  sacred  shekels  (Exod. 
xxxviii.  25),  which  are  equal  to  603,550  half,  or 
301,775  sacred  shekels.  Accordingly  the  talent 
contained  3000  sacred  shekels  ; for  by  deducting 
from  301,775  shekels 
1,775  shekels 


we  ge,t  300,000  shekels 

to  be  divided  among  100  talents,  making  each 
talent/equal  to  3000  sacred  shekels. 

The  value  of  the  sacred  shekel  in  regard  to  the 
gerah  is  determined  by  Exod.  xxx.  13  ; Lev. 
xxvii.  25;  Num.  iii.  47;  Ezek.  xlv.  20,  to  be 
twenty  gerahs ; the  half-shekel,  bekah,  is  equal  to 
ten  gerahs. 

The  determination  of  the  relative  value  of  the 


maneh  is  not  easy,  for  it  depends  on  a passage 
which  in  the  Hebrew  cannot  be  understood  (Ezek, 
xlv.  12),  ‘Twenty  shekels,  five  and  twenty  shekels, 
fifteen  shekels  shall  be  your  maneh,’  but  which 
in  the  Septuagint  {Cod.  Alex.)  seems  to  state  that 
a maneh  was  equal  to  fifty  sacred  shekels.  Thus 
there  ensues  this  table  : — 


Kikkar  1 
Maneh  60 
Shekel  3000 
Bekah  6000 
Gerah  60,000 


1 

50  1 

100  2 

1000  20 


1 

10  1 


The  use  of  the  precious  metals  as  a medium  of 
exchange  in  commerce,  dates  back  at  a very  early 
period  of  history.  A common,  recognised,  and  i 
invariable  standard  of  value,  by  means  of  which  i 
goods,  instead  of  being  exchanged  iri  barter,  might 
be  bought  and  sold,  is  indispensable  in  any  but  a 
primitive  state  of  trade.  Accordingly  Abraham  J 
buys  a field  by  the  intervention  of  silver.  But 
this  silver  or  gold  must  have  an  acknowledged 
value,  else  it  cannot  answer  its  purposes  ; there 
must  also  be  a means  of  ascertaining  easily  that 
the  professed  and  ostensible  is  the  real  value  of 
any  particular  portion.  Hence  coins  which  bear 
‘ the  image  and  superscription  of  Caesar,’  or  some 
token  to  assure  traders  that  the  piece  of  money  is 
right,  both  in  quality  and  in  quantity.  In  early 
periods  these  tokens  would  obviously  be  imperfect. 

The  quantity  was  ascertained  by  weight,  the 
quality  by  inspection.  If  now  we  inquire  how 
soon  the  Hebrews  possessed  money  of  a fixed  value, 
we  find  Abraham  himself  buying  a field  for  ‘ four 
hundred  shekels  of  silver  current  with  the  mer-  2 
chant,’  which  value  was  ascertained  by  weight.  ‘ 
Here  the  shekel  is  a recognised  ordinary  unit. 
This,  at  least,  is  clear.  The  passage  may  also 
imply  that  the  purchase  money  was  paid,  not  in 
silver  bars,  but  in  silver  pieces,  shekels ; the 
weighing  being  intended  to  ascertain  that  the 
shekels  were  of  the  proper  value,  which  was  not 
guaranteed  by  the  fixed  and  invariable  characters 
of  a coin.  If  we  pass  on  to  the  time  of  Moses,  we 
find  pieces  of  money  of  a fixed  and  recognised 
value  in  circulation  among  the  Israelites,  and  are 
led  to  see  that  the  amount  of  the  circulating  me- 
dium must  have  been  very  considerable.  In  the 
historical  and  prophetic  writings  of  a later  period 
mention  is  made  of  the  shekel  and  of  other  pieces 
of  money,  so  that  their  use  in  commerce  before 
the  Babylonish  captivity  is  placed  beyond  a 
doubt.  To  term  these  pieces  of  money  coin 
might  be  to  mislead,*  since  the  word  coin  refers 
the  mind  to  the  operations  of  a government  mint; 
but  it  is  clear  that  as  pieces  of  money  of  a fixed 
and.  recognised  value  they  must  have  been  of  a 
certain  size,  and  borne  some  distinctive  marks. 
Hence  the  only  difference  between  those  pieces  of 
money  and  coin  lies  irt  the  quarter  whence  they 
came — private  or  public, — and  in  the  sanction 
and  authority  winch  tlrey  accordingly  carried 
with  them.  The  Talmud  refers  coin,  strictly  str 
cajled,  to  the  ante-exilian  period.  What  the  cir- 
culating medium  among  the  Hebrews  was  made 
up  of,  may  be  inferred  from  what  has  gone  before  : 
there  was  the  shekel ; also  the  sacred  shekel,  if 
this  latter  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  former; 
then  the  half-shekel,  or  bekah,  which  may  be  a 
name  for  the  ordinary  shekel  ; there  was  also  a 
quarter-shekel,  ‘the  fourth  part  of  a shekel  of 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES.  943 


silver’  (1  Sam.  ix.  8);  and,  finally,  the  smallest 
silver  coin,  namely  the  gerali.  From  the  passage 
m Samuel  just  cited  it  appears  clear  that  those 
pieces  of  money  were  used  in  the  ordinary  com- 
nerce  of  life,  and  we  have  previously  seen  that 
money  was  demanded  in  the  service  of  religion. 
In  1 Sam.  ii.  36,  a word  occurs  (miStf)  dis- 
guised in  the  English  Version,  under  the  phrase 
‘a  piece  of  silver,’  which  may  have  been  the 
current  name  for  the  coin  that,  from  its  weight, 
was  called  a gerah.  It  is  thus  evident  that  there 
prevailed  among  the  Hebrews  at  an  early  period, 
a very  considerable  and  much  employed  metallic 
circulating  medium. 

Of  these  corns  the  shekel  is  worth  twenty  gerahs ; 
but  there  are  three  shekels  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament — the  ordinary  shekel,  the  shekel  of  the 
sanctuary  (Exod.  xxx.  13),  and  the  shekel  after  the 
king’s  weight  (2  Sam.  xiv.  26).  Are  these  three 
different  kinds?  or  are  they  different  descriptions 
for  the  same  coin  ? — thus,  is  the  first,  shekel,  the 
common  name?  the  second,  sacred  shekel,  the 
coin  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  standard?  the 
ihird,  king’s  shekel,  the  same  according  to  the 
regal  standard,  the  function  having  passed  from 
the  priests  to  the  monarch  ? No  satisfactory 
answer  to  these  questions  presents  itself,  and  our 
<pace  forbids  more  discussion. 

But  how  are  we  to  gain  a unit  for  estimating 
the  worth  of  the  ante-exilian  coins,  of  which  not 
one  has  come  down  to  us  ? Let  us  notice  one  or 
two  facts  connected  with  the  Jewish  post-exilian 
coins.  During  the  exile  the  Israelites  became 
intimately  acquainted  .with  the  money-system 
which  prevailed  in  Babylon.  After  their  return 
home,  and  during  the  Persian  dominion,  we  find 
mention  made  of  a Persian  coin,  UDDTl,  the 
darick  (Ezra  ii.  69 ; viii.  27  ; Neh.  vii.  70),  which 
is  Englished  by  ‘drachm/  in  the  Greek  Spax P-'f]- 
The  coin  was  so  named  after  Darius,  son  of  Hys- 
taspes.  These  coins  were  made  according  to  a 
foot,  which  was  nearly  the  same  as  the  Attic,  and 
the  standard  weight  of  each  was  1644  Parisian 
grains.  In  the  Greek  period,  under  the  Ptole- 
mies and  Seleucidae,  the  Jews  used  the  coins  of 
these  princes  (1  Macc.  xv.  5,  6);  but  when  they 
gained  a short  national  independence  under  the 
Maccabees,  they  coined  many  of  their  own,  as,  for 
instance,  in  the  first  year  of  Simon  Maccabseus. 
Coins  of  Simon  and  his  followers  are  in  existence, 
and  have  been  carefully  studied.  Confining  our 
remarks  to  the  coins  of  Simon  Maccabaeus,  we 
mention  the  following  ascertained  facts : they 
bear  the  old  Hebrew  or  Samaritan  characters, 
and  not  the  square  letter  of  the  modern  Hebrew, 
which  is  derived  from  the  former  under  the  in- 
fluence of  tachygraphy  and  calligraphy.  These 
coins  are  exclusively  of  silver.  The  shekels  and 
half-shekels  belong  to  the  first  and  second  years  of 
Simon’s  reign.  Doubts  prevail  as  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  coins  bearing  date  the  third  and  fourth 
years  of  his  rule,  but  the  shekels  of  his  third  year 
are  admitted  to  be  genuine.  The  coins  of  the  first 

year  bear  the  inscription  H&Hp  ‘Holy 

Jerusalem.’  The  weight  of  the  shekel  varies  some- 
what. The  heaviest  weighs  271-|  Parisian  grains; 
tne  greater  part  from  266  to  268  Parisian  grains. 
The  standard  may  approximate  vely  be  taken  at.274 
Parisian  grains,  to  which  Bockh  is  led  by  com- 
parison with  other  systems.  Here,  then,  we  have 


the  weight  of  the  shekel ; tl lough  we  cannot  say 
with  certainty  thac  it  remained  the  same  in  every 
period  of  the  earlier  history,  yet  this  becomes  very 
probable  when  the  retentiveness  of  customs  which 
characterizes  the  East  is  taken  into  account.  Be- 
sides, the  change  introduced  by  the  Maccabees 
was  a restoration  of  the  old  constitution  under  in- 
fluences which  would  cause  the  past  to  be  rigidly 
reproduced.  The  shekel  in  the  Pentateuch  and 
Ezekiel  is  found  equal  to  twenty  gerahs.  What 
shekel?  The  inscription  ‘ Holy  Jerusalem’  makes 
it  likely  that  it  was  the  sacred  shekel.  We  thus, 
then,  arrive  at  these  conclusions  : — 


Gerah 

Bekah,  or  common 
shekel 

Sacred  shekel 

Maneh 

Talent 


3 3 
3 3 
3 3 


13*7  Par.  grains. 

137 

274 

13,700  , , 

822,000  ,, 


These  conclusions  find  corroboration  by  being 
compared  with  the  weig-hts  of  other  Eastern  na- 
tions, and  the  whole  inquiry  authorizes  the  in- 
ference that  one  general  system  prevailed  in  the 
more  civilized  nations,  being  propagated  from  the 
East,  from  an  early  period  of  history. 

In  the  New  Testament  (Matt.  xvii.  24)  the 
Temple-tax  is  a didrachm  ; from  other  sources  we 
know  that  this  e tribute’  was  half  a shekel ; and  in 
verse  27  the  stater  is  payment  of  this  tax  for  two 
persons.  Now  the  stater — a very  common  silver 
Attic  coin,  the  tetradrachm — weighed  328’8  Pa- 
risian grains  : thus  not  considerably  surpassing 
the  sacred  shekel  (274  Parisian  grains).  Are  we, 
then,  to  hold  the  stater  of  the  New  Testament  for 
an  Attic  tetradrachm  ? If  so,  its  agreement  with 
the  sacred  shekel  is  striking.  There  is  reason  in 
the  passage  of  Matthew  and  in  early  writers  for 
regarding  the  two  as  the  same.  And  the  Attic 
tetradrachm  sank  from  its  original  weight  of  328'8 
to  308  and  304.  This  approximation  must  have 
gone  on  increasing,  for  under  the  empire  a 
drachm  was  equal  to  a Roman  denarius,  which 
,jn  the  time  of  Tiberius  weighed  69’8  Parisian 
grains.  Four  denarii  were  equal  to  279  Parisian 
grains;  so  that,  if  the  denarius  is  regarded  as  an 
Attic  drachm,  the  sacred  shekel  may  be  correctly 
termed  a tetradrachm.  With  this  Josephus  agrees 
( Antiq . iii.  8.  2),  who  says  that  the  shekel  (crncAos), 
a Hebrew  coin,  contains  four  Attic  drachms. 

Names  of  measures  of  length  are  for  the  most 
part  taken  from  members  of  the  human  body, 
which  offered  themselves,  so  to  say,  naturally  for 
the  purpose,  and  have  generally  been  used  in 
all  times  and  places  in  instances  where  minute 
accuracy  was  not  demanded.  And  though, 
within  certain  limits,  these  measures  have  ap- 
proached to  sameness — for  the  human  foot,  to 
take  it  as  an  example,  may  have  been  slightly 
over  or  somewhat  under  twelve  inches,  while  it 
never  in  any  generation  extended  to  twenty-four 
inches — yet  was  there  scope  also  for  considerable 
latitude  and  diversity,  and  nothing  like  a system 
of  normal  measures  can  hence  be  gained,  unless 
means  are  found  for  determining  the  average 
length  of  any  one  of  these  measures,  or  for  fixing 
the  length  which  it  waswntended  to  represent. 

At  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  system  of  measures 
of  length  lies  HEX,  cubit,  the  fore  arm,  or  the 
distance  from  the  point  of  the  elbow  to  the  tip  of 
the  third  finger.  This  is  a word  supplied  by  zxt 


944  WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 

Hebrew  root,  but  derived  from  the  Egyptian 
Mahe,  signifying  ‘ cubit,’  which,  with  the  same 
meaning,  is  found  in  the  Coptic  in  the  form  Mahi, 
and  with  the  prefix,  Ammahi. 

A longer  measure,  applied  in  measuring  build- 
ings, was  the  i“Op  (Ezek.  xli.  8;  Apoc.  xxi.  15), 
rendered  in  the  common  version  * reed,’  more  pro- 
perly ‘rod.'  In  Judg.  iii.  16,  Ehud’s  sword  (not 
‘ dagger’)  is  said  to  have  been  in  length  TDJ. 
As  he  wore  this  weapon  under  his  mantle,  the 
length  of  this  measure  may  be  approximatively 
conjectured. 

Smaller  measures  of  length  were,  1.  JV1T,  from  a 
root  meaning  to  expand  (the  hand),  heuce  a 
‘ span.’  This  word  is  found  in  the  Egyptian,  which 
seems  to  have  borrowed  it  from  the  Shemitic. 
2.  nSD,  the  breadth  of  the  hand  (1  Kings  vii.  26  ; 
Exod.  xxv.  25).  3.  the  finger  (Jerem. 

Iii.  21),  the  denomination  of  the  smallest  measure 
of  length.  Thus  we  have  the  breadth  of  the 
finger,  of  the  hand,  of  the  span — the  length  from 
the  tip  of  the  little  fiuger  to  the  point  of  the 
thumb, — and  the  cubit. 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  length  of  these,  we 
take  the  cubit  as  our  standard.  The  longer 
measure,  reed  or  rod,  consists,  in  Ezek.  xli.  8,  of 
six  great  cubits,  that  is,  of  six  such  cubits  as  were 
a hand’s  breadth  longer  than  the  common  cubit 
(Ezek.  xl.  5 ; xliii.  13).  The  relation  of  zereth, 
span ; tepach,  hand’s  breadth  : and  ezba,  finger, 
is  not  given  in  the  Old  Testament.  By  com- 
paring together  Exod.  xxv.  10,  with  Josephus 
(Antiq.  iii.  6.  5),  we  find  the  span  equal  to  half  a 
cubit,  for  the  length,  which  Moses  terms  two 
cubits  and  a half,  Josephus  designates  five  spans. 
The  relation  of  tepach  (hand’s  breadth)  and 
ezba  (finger)  to  ammah  (cubit)  appears  from 
their  several  names  and  their  import  in  othe^ 
systems.  The  hand’s  breadth  is  four  fingers ; the 
span  contains  three  times  the  breadth  of  the  hand, 
or  twelve  fingers.  This  is  the  view  which  the 
Rabbins  uniformly  take.  We  find  a similar 
system  among  the  Greeks,  who  reckoned  in  the 
cubit  twenty-four  fingers,  six  hands’  breadths,  and 
two  spans.  The  same  was 'the  case  with  the 
Egyptians. 

But  the  ammah  itself  is  •‘not  a fixed  unit,  for 
in  Ezekiel  we  have  found  a cubit  which  was  a 
hand’s  breadth  longer  than  the  common  cubit. 
The  subject  has  been  amply  discussed,  and  opi- 
nions are  various  [Cubit].  We  may  conclude 
that  there  were  two  cubits,  the  sacred  of  seven, 
the  common  of  six  hands’  breadth ; and  thus 
these  two  cubits  were  to  each  other  as  seven  to 
six,  that  is,  the  sacred  cubit  held  seven  hands’ 
breadths  of  the  ordinary  cubit  of  six  hands’ 
breadth.  There  is  no  reason,  however,  to  think 
that  the  sacred  cubit  was  divided  into  seven 
parts.  It  was  the  older,  and  would  be  divided 
according  to  the  duodecimal  method  which  pre- 
vails in  this  matter,  and  accordingly  would 
contain  six  palms  and  twenty-four  fingers,  only 
that  its  fingers  and  palms  were  greater  than  those 
of  the  ordinary  cubit.  This  is  proved  by  the 
express  statements  of  the  Talmud,  according  to 
which  the  sacred,  as  well  as  the  common  cubit, 
contained  six  hands’  breadths. 

As  we  have  no  unit  of  measure  given  us  in  the 
•Scriptures,  nor  preserved  to  us  in  the  remains  of 
any  Hebrew  building,  and  as  neither  the  Rabbins 
nor  Josephus  afford  the*  information  we  want. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 

we  nave  no  resource  but  to  apply  for  information 
to  the  measures  of  length  used  in  other  countries. 
We  go  to  the  Egyptians.  The  longer  Egyptian 
cubit  contained  about  234*333  Parisian  lines, 
the  shorter  about  204*8.  According  to  this,  the 
Hebrew  measures  of  length  were  these: — 

Sacred  cubit  . 234*333  Parisian  lines 
The  span  . .117*166  , 

The  palm  . . 39  • 055  , , 

The  finger  . . 9-7637  ,, 

Common  cubit  204*8  ,, 

The  span  t . 102*4  ,, 

The  palm  . . 34*133  ,, 

The  .finger  . . 8*533  ,, 

The  two  sets  of  measures,  one  for  dry,  another  foi 
liquid  things,  rest  on  the  same  system,  as  appears 
from  the  equality  of  the  standard  for  dry  goods, 
namely  the  ephah,  with  that  for  liquids,  namely 
bath.  The  difference  in  the  names  is  merely 
accidental.  ")Dn  (homer),  denoting  a heap,  is 
the  name  for  the  largest  measure  of  dry  goods 
(Lev.  xxvii.  16;  Num.  xi.  32;  Ezek.  xlv.  11). 
In  later  times  the  homer  was  replaced  by  the 
cor  (Ezek.  xlv.  14),  which  is  found  among  the 
Hellenists  in  the  form  n6pos.  In  Hosea  iii.  2, 
the  *]rb,  ‘ half  homer,’  is  mentioned,  which  the 
Seventy  render  by  rj/buSKopos,  and  the  Vulgate 
by  ‘ corus  dimidius.’  Another  measure  is  HS'N, 
which  comes  from  an  Egyptian  root  denoting  4 to 
measure.’  il^D,  found  in  the  Septuagint,  the 
New  Testament,  and  Josephus,  under  the  form 
aarov,  is  of  uncertain  origin.  The  Seventy  trans- 
late it  sometimes  by  simply  perpov,  ‘measure’ 
(Gen.  xviii.  6),  and  the  dual  form  by  S I/lktoov 
(2  Kings  vii.  1).  “ItOy,  in  its  derivation  and 
meaning  resembles  “)DI1,  but  denotes  a much 
smaller  mass.  2p  (cab),  the  hollow,  the  bowl, 
was  adopted  by  the  Greeks  as  Ka/3os.  These  are 
measures  for  dry  goods.  We  now  pass  on  to 
liquid  measures.  1.  DU,  is  from  a root  which 
denotes  ‘ to  determine,’  ‘ to  measure.’  It  is  put 
in  relation  to  the  homer  in  Ezek.  xlv.  11,  14; 
whence  we  learn  that  the  bath  was  applied  to 
fluids.  2.  pn,  is  retained  by  the  Seventy  in  the 
forms  efv,  IV,  iv.  The  word  is  of  Egyptian 

origin.  3.  (log),  is  a word  found  only  in 
the  Mosaic  law  regarding  the  cleansing  of  the 
leper  (Lev.  xv.  .12,  ‘ the  log  of  oil  ’).  It  is  refer- 
able to  an  Arabic  root  which  denotes  ‘to  press 
into.’  The  feminine  form  is  found  in  the  Syriac, 
with  the  meaning  of  bowl.  Log  had  the  same 
import  as  cab. 

In  order  to  determine  the  relations  between 
these  measures,  we  take  the  ephah  and  bath, 
which,  in  Ezek.  xlv.  11,  are  declared  to  be  of  one 
measure.  They  each  contained  the  tenth  part  of 
a homer  (Ezek.  xlv.  11,  14);  thus  the  relation  of 
the  homer  to  the  bath  and  the  ephah  belongs  to 
a decimal  division  (Exod.  xvi.  36). 

The  Seah,  fierpov : the  translation  given  by  the 
Septuagint  of  the  Hebrew  in  Exod.  xvi.  36,  is  as 
follows : — rb  5e  yopcbp  rb  benarov  rcov  rpiw’' 
p.erpuv  rfr, — ‘ the  homer  is  the  tenth  part  ol  three 
measures  ’ (-^).  With  the  Septuagint  and  the 
Targum  the  ephah  was  equal  to  three  seahs 
(comp.  Matt;  xiii.  33,  aara  rpia,  with  Gen.  xviii. 
6,  and  Jerome  on  the  former  place).  The  same 
relation  is  derived  from  a passage  in  Josenhua 
(Antiq.  lx.  4.  5),  where  the  contents  of  the  sea h are 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES.  945 


given  as  one  Italian  modius  and  a half,  for  the 
modius  held  sixteen  sextarii,  and  the  ephah,  ac- 
cording to  Josephus,  twenty-two  sextarii  ; a 
modius  and  a half  is,  therefore,  the  third  part  of 
the  ephah.  The  Rabbins  entirely  concur  in  these 
views.  The  cab,  according  to  Josephus  ( Antiq . 
ix.  4.  4 ; comp.  2 Kings  vi.  25),  is  equal  to  four 
xestae,  for  one-fourth  of  a cab  he  translates  by 
seventy-two  of  which  make  a perprirris , 
a measure ; eighteen  cabs  then  make  an  ephah, 
and  six  a seah.  In  the  same  way  the  Rabbins 
determine  the  proportion  of  the  cab  to  the  seah 
(comp,  the  passage  in  Leusden,  Phil.  Mixtus , 
p.  205).  There  remain  the  hin  and  the  log. 
The  hin,  according  to  Josephus  (Antiq.  iii.  9.  4), 
;.s  an  old  Hebrew  mass,  which  contained  two 
Attic  which  twelve  went  to  the  Attic 

metretes ; therefore  the  hin  is  the  sixth  part  of 
the  bath.  The  log,  according  to  the  Rabbins, 
is  the  twenty-fourth  part  of  the  seah,  consequently 
file  seventy-second  part  of  the  bath,  and  the 
twelfth  part  of  the  hin  (comp.  Leusden,  Phil. 
Mixtus,  p.  207). 

There  are  two  divisional  systems  found  in 
these  measures  : 1.  A decimal ; and  2.  A duo- 
decimal, thus  : — 

Homer  . . 1 

Bath  and  ephah  10  1 

Gomer  . . 100  10  1 

By  putting  together  the  measures  for  dry  and 
those  for  liquid  articles,  we  obtain  the  duodecimal 
division  : — 


Ephah  or  Bath  1 
Seah  ..31 
Hin  ...  6 2 1 

Cab  ...  18  6 31 

Log  . . . 72  24  12  4 1 

Here  all  the  numbers  are  divisible  either  by 
twelve  or  by  multiples  of  twelve.  Such  a duo- 
decimal arrangement  is  found  in  the  cubic  mea- 
sures of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  Hence  the  three 
systems  give  and  receive  support. 

We  will  now  exhibit  all  these  measures  in  re- 
lation to  the  greatest,  the  homer  : — 


Homer  . 

1 

Bath  and  Ephah  10 

1 

Seah  . . 

30 

3 

1 

Hin  . . . 

60 

6 

2 

1 

Gqmer  . 

100 

10 

3* 

1§ 

Cab  . . . 

180 

18 

6 

3 

Log  . . . 

720 

72 

24 

12 

14  1 


The  duodecimal  is  the  original  principle,  the 
decimal  system  being  introduced  only  to  bring  the 
two  methods  iuto  harmony.  The  homer  did  not 
at  first  form  a part  of  the  Hebrew  system  fEzek. 
xlv.  11).  V 

For  the  actual  size  of  these  measures  we  must 
refer  to  Josephus,  of  whom  Theodoret  (In  Exod. 
xxix.)  says  : TriareuTfoi/  8e  iu  tovtois  Tcp  ’ loo’ii'rrcp 
aKpifiws  too  eduovs  ra  perpa  Imarapei np, — ‘ follow 
in  these  things  Josephus,  who  well  understood 
the  measures  of  the  nation’  (comp.  Antiq.  viii. 
3.  8).  To  the  homer  or  cor  Josephus  ascribes 
(Antiq.  xv.  9.  2)  twelve  Attic  medimni,  where 
the  reading  should  be  metretae.  Bath  and  Ephah 
are  the  same.  Josephus  (Antiq.  viii.  2.  9)  de- 
termines each  at  seventy-two  xestae,  and  makes 
'hem  equal  to  an  Attic  metretes.  The  saton  is 

VOL.  XI. 


twenty-four  sextarii ; the  hin  is  twelve  sextarii , 
the  gomer,  the  tenth  part  of  the  ephah,  must  hold 
seven  and  one-fifth  sextarii  ; the  cab  is  equal  to 
four  xestae.  On  the  log  Josephus  gives  no 
information  ; as  the  fourth  part  of  the  cab,  it  held 
a xestes.  The  Attic  metretes,  which  corresponded 
with  the  Hebrew  bath  and  ephah,  contains  739,800 
Parisian  grains  of  rain-water,  which  would  fill  a 
space  of  about  1985  Parisian  oubic  inches. 
Thus  we  come  to  the  following  table : — 


Size. 

Weight  in  Water. 

Par.  < 

•ub.  in. 

Par.  gr. 

Homer 

19857-7 

7398000 

Ephah 

1985-77 

739800 

Seah 

661-92 

246600 

Hin 

330-96 

123300 

Gomer 

198-577 

73980 

Cab 

110-32 

41100 

Log 

27-58 

10275 

Bockh  has  proved  that  it  is  in  Babylon  wo  are 
to  look  for  the  foundations  of  the  metrological 
systems  of  the  ancient  world  ; for  the  entire  system 
of  measures,  both  eastern  and  western,  must  be 
referred  to  the  Babylonish  foot  as  to  its  basis 
Here  is  the  root  of  the  original  system,  and  of  the 
individual  systems  which  sprang  from  the  ori- 
ginal one.  This  important  fact,  ascertained  and 
established  by  Bockh,  has  been  investigated  and 
confirmed  by  an  independent  inquirer  of  the 
highest  authority,  namely,  K.  O.  Muller.  Not 
only  the  metrological  system,  but  with  it  other 
knowledge  went  westward  from  Babylon.  This 
metrological  system  bears  traces  of  having  pro- 
ceeded from  the  hands  of  Babylonian  astrono- 
mers. The  ancient  world  was  dependent  for  its 
astronomy  on  Babylon.  Herodotus  (ii.  101) 
says  that  the  Greeks  borrowed  the  division  of  the 
day  into  twelve  parts  from  the  Babylonians, 
calling  to  mind  the  duodecimal  division  which 
we  have  spoken  of.  The  Zodiac  too  is  of 
Asiatic,  Ideler  holds  of  Babylonian  origin  ; but 
recent  investigations  have  shown  a striking  agree- 
ment between  the  astronomy  of  the  Babylonians 
and  the  Chinese,  to  say  nothing  of  other  nations 
in  the  farther  east  (Ideler,  Ueber  die  Zeitrechnung 
der  Chinesen , &c.,  Berlin,  1839;  Biot,  Journal 
des  Savans,  Dec.  1839,  Jan.  and  May,  1840; 
Gottingen  Gel.  Anzeigen,  1840,  p.  201,  sq.). 
Of  this  common  knowledge  several  considerations 
concur  in  referring  the  origin,  not  to  the  Chinese, 
but  to  the  Babylonians.  Hence  Babylon  appears 
as  the  land  which  was  the  teacher  of  the  east  and 
the  west  in  astronomical  and  mathematical  know- 
ledge, standing- as  it  were  in  the  middle  of  the 
ancient  world,  and  sending  forth  rays  of  light 
from  her  two  extended  hands.  Palestine  could 
not  be  closed  against  these  illuminations,  which, 
in  their  progress  westward  must  have  enlightened 
its  inhabitants,  who  appear  to  have  owed  their 
highest  earthly  culture  to  the  Babylonians  and 
the  Egyptians. 

The  following  works  may  be  consulted : — 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Eupplem.  ad  Lex.  Hebr.y 
p.  1521  ; Hussey,  Essay  on  the  Ancient  Weights , 
Money , &c.,  Oxford,  1836  ; FTP.  Bayer,  De 
Nummis  Hebrceo-Samaritanis , Valentiae  Ede- 
tanorum,  1781,  written  in  reply  to  Die  Unacht - 
heit  der  Jiid.  M'unzen,  Biitzow,  1 779  ; Hupfeld, 
Betrachtung  dunkler  Stellung  der  A.  T.  Textgc - 
sckichte,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritikcn.  1830 


946 


WEST. 


WEST. 


2nd  heft,  p]u  247-301  ; G.  Seyffarth,  Beitrage 
zur  Kenntmss  der  Literatur,  Kunst,  Mythol. 
und  Gesch.  des  alien  Aegypten;  see  especially 
Bertheau,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Israelite n,  Got- 
tingen, 1842;  Cumberlawd,  Essay  on  Weights 
and  Measures  ; Arbuthnot,  Tables  of  Ancient 
Coins,  &c.  Hussey's  work,  referred  to  above, 
labours  under  the  disadvantage  of  having  been 
compiled  apart  from  auy  acquaintance  with  the 
best  German  writers  ; and  though  it  is  a merito- 
rious survey  of  much  that  has  been  written  in 
English  and  Latin  on  the  subject,  yet  for  want  of 
comprising  the  views  of  Bockh — as  glanced  over 
in  this  article — it  has  little  scholarlike  value. 
A thorough  work  on  the  subject  in  the  English 
language,  embracing  what  has  been  recently  ac- 
complished on  the  Continent,  is  a desideratum. — • 

J.  R.  B. 

WELL.  [Water.] 

west  oiriK,  d i,  aia,  :nyp). 

The  Shemite,  in  speaking  of  the  quarters  of  the 
heavens,  &c.,  supposes  his  face  turned  towards 
the  east;  so  that  the  east  is  before  him,  Dip, 
strictly  what  is  before,  or  in  front ; the  south  on 
Iris  right  hand,.|D'D,  strictly  what  lies  to  the 

right ; the  north  on  his  left  hand,  the  left 

side;  and  the  west  behind  him,  “YMN,  literally 
the  hinder  side.  The  latter  Hebrew  word,  though 
never  translated  ‘ west’  in  our  version,  means  so : as 
in  Isa.  ix.  12,  ‘the  Philistines  behind,’  opposed  to 
the  Syrians,  Dip  ; Sept.  a<p'  rj\iov  bvcrpuv  ; Vulg. 
ab  occidente  ; and  in  Job  xxiii.  8.  The  words 
(Deut.  xi.  24),  ‘ the  uttermost  sea,’  pinKH  DM, 
are  rendered  in  Sept,  ecos  rrjs  OaXdaays  rrjs  iirl 
Svapui/ ; Vulg.  ad  mare  occidental  (comp, 
xxxiv.  2 ; Joel  ii.  20).  The  more  general  use  of 
the  word  "llPiN  for  the  west,  was  doubtless  super- 
seded among  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine  by  D*, 
literally  ‘the  sea,’  that  is,  the  Mediterranean  Sea, 
which  lay  to  the  west,  and  which,  as  a more  pal- 
pable object,  became  to  them  the  representative  of 
t lie  west  generally,  and  chiefly  associated  with 
their  ideas  of  it.  Accordingly  this  word  D',  and 
its  derivatives  HD',  &c.,  are  thirty-two  times  ren- 
dered by  QdXacraa,  in  the  Sept.,  and  only  once  by 
bvapal:  in  the  Vulgate,  by  occidens  and  mare. 
It  is  used  to  signify  a quarter  of  the  heavens,  or 
of  the  earth  (Gen.  xxviii.  14  ; Deut.  xxxiii.  23  ; 
1 Kings  vii.  25 ; 1 Chron.  ix.  24  ; 2 Chron.  iv.  4 ; 
Isa.  xi.  14;  xlix.  12;  Ezek.  xlviii.  1;  Hos.  xi. 
10  ; Zech.  xiv.  4).  It  is  used  adjectively  in  the 
same  sense;  as,  west  border  (Num.  xxxiv.  6; 
.Josh.  xv.  12;  Ezek.  xlv.  7);  western  (Num. 
xxxiv.  6)  ; west  quarter  (Josh,  xviii.  14);  west 
side  (Exod.  xxvii.  12;  xxxviii.  12  ; Num.  ii.  18  ; 
xxxv.  5;  Ezek.  xlviii.  3-8,  23,  24);  westward 
(Gen.  xiii.  14;  Num.  iii.  23;  Deut.  iii.  27; 
Ezek.  xlviii.  18;  Dan.  viii.  4)  ; west  wind  (Exod. 
x.  19).  Those  words  of  Moses,  ‘ Naph tali,  possess 
thou  the  west,  and  the  south’  (Deut.  xxxiii.  23), 
6eein  to  contradict  the  statement  of  Josephus, 
that  this  tribe  possessed  the  east  and  the  north  in 
Upper  Galilee  ( Antiq . v.  1.  22);  but  Bochart 
interprets  ‘ the  south,’  not  with  regard  to  the  whole 
land  of  Canaan,  but  to  the  Danites,  mentioned 
in  ver.  22;  and  by  ‘the  west’  he  understands 
the  lake  of  Tiberias,  otherwise  called  the  sea  of 
Tiberias,  or  Galilee,  or  Gennesaret ; for  the  portion 
of  Naph  tali  extended  from  the  south  of  the  city 
called  Dan  or  Laish,  to  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  which 


was  in  this  tribe.  So  all  the  Chaldee  paraphrast* 
expound  the  word  D\  here  translated  west;  Sept, 
OaXacrcrav  teal  A if}a\  Vulg.  mare  et  meridiem. 

( Ilierozoic . pt.  i.  lib.  iii.  c.  18).  In  some  passages 
the  word  signifies  the  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean 
Sea,  and  ‘ the  islands  of  the  sea’  denotes  the  western 
parts  of  the  world,  or  European  nations.  Thus, 
in  regard  to  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  to 
their  own  land,  it  is  said  (Hosea  xi.  10),  ‘when 
the  Lord  shall  roar,  then  the  children  shall  trem- 
ble (that  is,  hasten  ; an  allusion  to  the  motion  of 
a bird’s  wings  in  flying)  from  the  west  ’ (see  ver. 
11,  and  comp.  Isa.  xxiv.  14,  15,  with  Isa.  xi.  11 ; 
xxiv.  14).  In  the  account  given  of  the  removal 
of  the  plague  of  locusts  from  Egypt,  we  are  told 
(Exod.  x.  19),  ‘the  Lord  turned  a mighty  strong 
west  wind,’  DMTH,  &repov  anb  Qa\a.a(Ti]s.  Sup 
posing  that  these  were  the  very  words  of  Moses, 
or  a literal  rendering  of  his  words,  it  follows  that 
the  Egyptians  made  a similar  reference  to  the 
Mediterranean,  since  Moses,  an  Egyptian,  would 
no  doubt  use  the  language  of  his  country  in  de- 
scribing an  event  which  occurred  in  it.  If  his 
words  do  not  i^fer  to  the  Mediterranean,  they 
must  refer  to  the  far  distant  Atlantic,  which,  how- 
ever, according  to  Herodotus,  was  not  known  to 
the  Egyptians  till  many  ages  afterwards.  Moses 
also  represents  God  as  saying  to  Abram , in  the 
land , ‘ Lift  up  thine  eyes  and  look  northward, 
and  southward,  and  eastward,  and  westward,’ 
HD*  (Gen.  xiii.  14).  The  allusion  to  the  sea  in 
the  latter  passage  may  be  accounted  for,  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  very  words  of  God  to 
Abram  had  been  preserved,  ai*.d  were  inserted  by 
Moses  in  his  history.  In  two  passages  (Ps.  cvii. 
3;  Isa.  xlix.  12)  D'D  stands  opposed  to 
but  ought  still  to  be  rendered  ‘ the  west comp. 
Amos  viii.  12 ; Deut.  xxxiii.  23.  The  west  is 
also  indicated  by  the  phrase  pK, 

airb  77 is  bvcru&v,  de  terra  occasus solas.  These  words 
are  translated  ‘ the  west  country’  in  Zech.  viii.  7, 
literally,  the  country  of  the  going  down  of  the 
sun,  and  are  fully  translated  in  Ps.  1.  1 ; cxi ii.  3; 
Mai.  i.  11;  comp.  Deut.  xi.  30;  Josh.  i.  4; 
xxiii.  4.  Another  word  by  which  the  west  is 
denoted,  is  211^12,  from  D“lV>  to  remove,  pass 
away,  disappear  as  the  sun  does ; hence  the  quar- 
ter of  the  heavens,  &c.,  where  the  sun  sets,  the 
west.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed  in  the  Greek 
word  Svcr/Jial,  from  5vw.  It  occurs  in  1 Chron.  xii, 
15;  Ps.  lxxv.  6;  ciii.  12;  cvii.  3;  Isa.  xliii.  5; 
xlv.  6;  lix.  19:  Sept.  bvapal-,  Vulg.  occidens. 
In  Dan.  viii.  5,  Aty,  occidens.  It  is  used  to  de- 
note the  west  quarter  of  the  heavens  or  earth.  In 
the  Apocryplij^  and  New  Testament  the  word 
translated  ‘ wfst’  invariably  corresponds  to  Sua/xai 
(Judith  ii.  19  ; Matt.  viii.  11  ; xxiv.  27  ; Luke 
xii.  54;  xiii.  29;  Rev.  xxi.  13;  Vulg.  occi- 
dens, occasus.  Our  Lord’s  memorable  words, 

‘ They  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west/  & c. 
(Matt.  viii.  11),  to  which  Luke  adds  ‘ and  from 
the  north  and  the  south’  (xiii.  29),  signify  all  the 
regions  of  the  world ; as  in  classical  writers  also 
(Xen.  Cyr.  i.  1.  3).  Grotius  thinks  that  this 
passage  refers  to  the  promise  to  Jacob  (Gen. 
xxviii.  14).  In  our  Lord’s  prediction  of  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  (Matt, 
xxiv.  27) — ‘ For  as  the  lightning  cometh  out  ol 
the  east  and  shineth  even  unto  the  west,  so  also 
shall  the  comingof  the  son  of  man  be’ — he  is  sup- 
posed to  have  intimated  the  precise  direction  in 


WHALE, 


WHEAT. 


which  the  Roman  army  conducted  the  invasion. 
His  reference  to  the  cloud,  ve<p4\r]v,  rising 
out  of  the  west,  as  the  precursor  of  a shower 
(comp.  1 Kings  xviii.  43-46),  still  corresponds  to 
the  weather  in  Palestine.  Volney  says,  L'ouest  ■ 
et  le  soud-ouest,  qui  regnent  (en  Syrie  et  Pales- 
tine) de  Novembre  en  Fevrier,  sont,  pour  meservir 
de  l’expression  des  Arabes,  les  peres  des  pluies  : — 
‘The  west  and  south-west  winds,  which  in  Syria 
and  Palestine  prevail  from  November  to  February, 
are,  to  borrow  an  expression  of  the  Arabs,  “ the 
fathers  of  showers .”  ’ ( Voyage  en  Syrie , tom.  i. 
p.  297  ; Shaw’s  Travels , p.  329.) — J.  F.  D. 

WHALE  (jn  than , and  fOD  thannin;  Sept, 
and  Matt.  xii.  40,  ktjtos),  occurs  in  several  places 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  once  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. In  the  passages  where  scales  and  feet  are 
mentioned  as  belonging  to  than , commentators 
have  shown  that  the  crocodile  is  intended,  which 
then  is  synonymous  with  the  leviathan  ; and  they 
have  endeavoured  also  to  demonstrate,  where  than- 
nin draw  the  dugs  to  suckle  their  young,  that  seals 
are  meant,  although  cetacea  nourish  theirs  in  a 
similar  manner.  It  may  be  doubted  whether,  in 
most  of  the  cases,  the  poetical  diction  points  ab- 
solutely to  any  specific  animal,  particularly  as 
there  is  more  force  and  grandeur  in  a generalized 
and  collective  image  of  the  huge  monsters  of  the 
deep,  not  inappropriately  so  called,  than  in  the 
restriction  to  any  one  species,  since  all  are  in 
Gen.  i.  26  made  collectively  subservient  to  the 
supremacy  of  man.  But  criticism  is  still  more 
inappropriate  when,  not  contented  with  point- 
ing to  some  assumed  species,  it  attempts  to  ra- 
tionalise miraculous  events  by  such  arguments  ; 
as  in  the  case  of  Jonah,  where  the  fact  of  whales 
having  a small  gullet,  and  not  being  found  in 
the  Mediterranean,  is  adduced  to  prove  that  the 
tjuge  fish  JT  dag  was  not  a cetacean,  but  a 
ihark  ! Now,  if  the  text  be  literally  taken,  the 
sransaction  is  plainly  miraculous,  and  no  longer 
within  the  sphere  of  zoological  discussion  ; and  if 
»t  be  allegorical,  as  some,  we  think,  erroneously 
issume,  then,  whether  the  prophet  was  saved  by 
means  of  a kind  of  boat  called  dagh , or  it  be  a 
mystical  account  of  initiation  where  the  neophite 
was  detained  three  days  in  an  ark  or  boat,  figu- 
ratively denominated  a fish,  or  Celtic  avanc,  the 
transaction  is  equally  indeterminate ; and  it  as- 
suredly would  be  derogating  from  the  high  dig- 
nity of  the  prophet’s  mission,  to  convert  the  event 
into  a mere  escape,  by  boat,  or  into  a pagan  legend 
such  as  Hercules,  Bacchus,  Jemsheed,  and  other 
deified  heroes  of  the  remotest  antiquity,  are  fabled 
to  have  undergone,  and  which  all  the  ancient 
mysteries,  including  the  Druidical,  symbolized. 
It  may  be  observed,  besides,  of  cetaceous  animals, 
that  though  less  frequent  in  the  Mediterranean 
than  in  the  ocean,  they  are  far  from  being  unknown 
there.  Joppa,  now  Jaffa,  the  very  place  whence 
Jonah  set  sail,  displayed  for  ages  in  one  of  its  pagan 
temples  huge  bones  of  a species  of  whale,  which  the 
legends  of  the  place  pretended  were  those  of  the 
dragon  monster  slain  by  Perseus,  as  represented 
in  the  Arkite  my  thus  of  that  hero  and  Andromeda; 
and  which  remained  in  that  £pot  till  the  conquer- 
ing Romans  carried  them  in  triumph  to  the  great 
city.  Procopius  mentions  a huge  sea-monster 
in  the  Propontis,  taken  during  his  praefecture 
cf  Constantinople,  in  the  36t,h  year  of  Justinian,* 
(l.D.  562),  after  having  destroyed  vessels  at  certain 


947 

Intervals  for  more  than  fifty  years.  Rondoletius 
enumerates  several  whales  stranded  or  taken  on  the 
coasts  of  the  Mediterranean : these  were  most  likely 
all  ore  as,  physeters , or  campedolios,  i.  e.  toothed 
whales,  as  large  and  more  fierce  than  the  mysti- 
cetes,  which  have  balein  in  the  mouth,  and  at  pre- 
sent very  rarely  make  their  way  farther  south  than 
the  Bay  of  Biscay ; though  in  early  times  it  is  pro- 
bable they  visited  the  Mediterranean,  since  the 
present  writer  has  seen  them  within  the  tropics. 
In  the  Syrian  seas,  the  Belgian  pilgrim  Lavaers, 
on  his  passage  from  Malta  to  Palestine,  incident- 
ally mentions  a ‘ Tonynvisch,’  which  he  further 
denominates  an  ‘ oil-fish/  longer  than  the  vessel, 
leisurely  swimming  along,  and  which  the  seamen 
said  prognosticated  bad  weather.  On  the  island  of 
Zerbi,  close  to  the  African  coast,  the  late  Com- 
mander Davies,  R.N.,  found  the  bones  of  a cacha- 
lot on  the  beach.  Shaw  mentions  an  orca  more 
than  sixty  feet  in  length,  stranded  at  Algiers ; and 
the  late  Admiral  Ross  Donelly  saw  one  in  the  Me- 
diterranean near  the  island  of  Albaran.  There  are, 
besides,  numerous  sharks  of  the  largest  species  in 
the  seas  of  the  Levant,  and  also  in  the  Arabian 
Gulf  and  Red  Sea,  as  well  as  cetacea,  of  which 
balwna  bitan  is  the  largest  in  those  seas,  and  two 
species  of  halicore  or  dugong,  which  are  herbi- 
vorous animals,  intermediate  between  whales  and 
seals.— C.  H.  S. 

WHEAT  (ntpn  ehittah)  occurs  in  various 
passages  of  Scripture,  as  enumerated  by  Celsius  : 
Gen.  xxx.  14;  Exod.  ix.  32;  xxix.  2;  xxxiv. 
22;  Dent.  viii.  8;  xxxii.  14;  Judg.  vi.  11; 
xv.  1;  Ruth  ii.  23;  1 Sam.  vi.  13;  xii.  17  - 
2 Sam.iv.  6;  xvii.28  ; 1 Kings  v.  11 ; 1 Clirou 
xxi.  20,  23 ; 2 Chron,  ii.  15 ; xxvii.  5 ; Job 
xxxi.  40;  Ps.  lxxxi.  16;  cxlvii.  14;  Cant.  vii. 
2;  Isa.  xxviii.  25;  Jer.  xii.  13;  xii.  8;  Ezek. 
iv.  9;  xxvii.  17  ; xlv.  13;  and  Joel  i.  11.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  ehittah , by  some  written 
chittha,  chetteth,  cheteh , &c.,  is  correctly  trans- 
lated 1 wheat,’  from  its  close  resemblance  to  the 
Arabic,  as  well  to  the  names  of  wheat  in  other  lan- 
guages. Celsius  says,  ‘ ni3n,  chittha , occultato  J 
in  puncto  dagesch,  pro  1113311  chintha  dicitur 
ex  usu  Ebraeorum.’  This  brings  it  still  nearer 

to  the  Arabic  name  of  wheat,  which  in 

Roman  characters  is  variously  written,  hinteh , 
hinthe,  kenta,  and  by  Pemplius  in  his  translation 
of  Avicenna,  hhinttha ; and  under  this  name  it 
is  described  by  the  Arabic  authors  on  Materia 

Medica.  As  the  Arabic  ^ ha , is  in  many  words 

converted  into  £ kha,  it  is  evident  that  the 

Hebrew  and  Arabic  names  of  wheat  are  the  same, 
especially  as  the  Hebrew  fl  has  the  guttural  sound 

of  Different  derivations  have  been  given  of 

the  word  ehittah : by  Celsius  it  is  derived  from 
‘ 13311  chanathy  protulit,  produxit,  fructum,  ex 

Cant.  ii.  13  ;’ or  the  Arabic rubuit,  quod 

triticum  rubello  sit  colore’  ( Hierobot . ii.  113). 
The  translator  of  the  Biblical  Botany  of  Rosen- 
miiller  justly  observes  that  ‘ the  similarity  in 
sound  between  the  Hebrew  word  ehittah  and  the 
English  wheat  is  obvious.  Be  it  remembered  thit 
the  ch  here  is  identical  in  sound  with  the  Gaeli? 


WHEAT. 


WIND. 


34$ 

gnttural,  or  the  Spanish  x.  It  is  further  remark- 
able, that  tl»e  Hebrew  term  is  etymologically 
cognate  with  the  words  for  wheat  used  by  every 
one  of  the  Teutonic  and  Scandinavian  nations 
(thus  we  have  in  Islandic  hveiti,  Danish  hvede , 
Swedish  hvete,  Maesogoth.  hwaite, German  weizen ) ; 
and  that,  in  this  instance,  there  is  no  resemblance 
between  the  Scandinavian  and  Teutonic  terms, 
and  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  Slavonic  (for  the 
Greek  word  is  irvpos , the  Latin  frumentum  or 
triticum , the  Russian  psienitsa,  Polish  pszemca)  ; 
and  yet  the  general  resemblance  between  the 
Slavonic,  the  Thracian,  and  the  Gothic  lan- 
guages is  so  strong,  that  no  philologist  now 
doubts  their  identity  of  origin  ’ (/.  c.  p.  75). 


Rosenmiiller  further  remarks  that  in  Egypt 
and  in  Barbary  kamich.  is  the  usual 

name  for  wheat  (quoting  Descrip,  de  I'Egypte , 
t.  xix.  p.  45  ; Host’s  Account  of  Maroko  and  Fez , 
p.  309) ; and  also,  that  in  Hebrew,  nDp  kemach 
denotes  the  flour  of  wheat  (Gen.  xviii.  6;  Num. 
v.  15).  This,  it  is  curious  to  observers  not  very 
unlike  the  Indian  name  of  wheat,  kunuk.  All 
these  names  indicate  communication  between 
the  nations  of  antiquity,  as  well  as  point  to  a 
common  origin  of  wheat.  Thus  in  his  Hima- 
layan Botany , the  author  of  this  article  has 
stated  : ‘ Wheat  having  been  one  of  the  earliest  cul- 
tivated grains,  is  most  probably  of  Asiatic  origin, 
as  no  doubt  Asia  was  the  earliest  civilized,  as 
well  as  the  first  peopled,  country.  It  is  known  to 
the  Arabs  under’ the viame  of  hinteh , to  the  Per- 
sians as  gundoom , Hindu  gehoon  and  kunuk. 
The  species  of  barley  cultivated  in  the  plains  of 
India  and  known  by  the  Hindu  and  Persian 
name  juo , Arabic  shaeer , is  houmd  hexaer - 
stichum.  As  both  wheat  and  barley  are  culti- 
vated in  the  plains  of  India  in  the  winter  months, 
where  none  of  the  species  of  these  genera  are  in- 
digenous, it  is  probable  that  both  have  been  in- 
troduced into  India  from  the  north,  that  is,  from 


the  Persian,  and  perhaps  from  the  Tartarian 
region,  where  these  and  other  species  of  barley 
are  most  successfully  and  abundantly  cultivated  ' 
(p.  419).  Different  species  of  wheat  were  no  doubt 
cultivated  by  the  ancients,  as  triticum  compositum 
in  Egypt,  T.  cestivum,  T.  hibemium  in  Syria  &c. ; 
but  both  barley  and  wheat  are  too  well  knowii  to 
require  further  illustration  in  this  place. — J.  F.  R. 

WHIRLWIND.  [Winds.] 

WIDOW.  [Woman.] 

WIFE.  [Marriage  ; Woman.] 
WILDERNESS.  [Deserts.] 

WIMPLE.  [Veil.] 

WIND,  &c.  (n-V7 ; Sept.  wevpaf  &vep os; 
Vulg.  spiritus,  ventus ).  The  Hebrew  word  sig- 
nifies air  in  motion  generally,  as  breath,  wind, 
&c.  Both  the  Septuagint  words  occur  in  the  fol- 
lowing definition  of  wind  by  Aristotle  (De 
Mundo,  c.  4)  : ''A repos  ov8e v iari  nKhv  a hp  tt6\vs 
£eW,  octtis  apa  Kal  irvevpa  \ eysreu. — ‘Wind  is 
nothing  else  but  a large  quantity  of  air  flowing, 
which  is  called  irvevpa.1  So  also  Plato  has 
peyd\(f)  tlvI  Trvevpc m for  a high  wind  ( Plicedon , 
§ 24,  edit.  Forster).  Josephus  also  uses  Trrevpa 
fiiaiov  for  a violent  wind  (Antiq.  xiv.  2.  2),  as 
Lucian  also  does,  fiialw  tt vedpari  ( Ver.  Hist. 
lib.  i.  tom.  i.  p.  714).  The  Vulgate  word  spiri- 
tus, from  spiro,  ‘to  breathe,’  ‘blow,’  is  applied 
in  like  manner  in  Latin,  as  by  Virgil  (JEn. 
xii.  365) : ‘ Boreae  cum  spiritus  alto  Insonat 
yEgaeo,’ — ‘When  the  northern  blast  roars  in  the 
jEgean.’  The  Hebrew  word  is  used,  1.  for  the 
wind  as  a natural  phenomenon  (Gen.  iii.  8;  Job 
xxi.  18;  xxx.  15,22;  xxxvii.  21;  Ps.  i.  4 ; ciii. 
16;  Prov.  xxx.  4;  Eccles.  i.  6 ; xi.  4;  Isa.  vii. 
2;  xvii.  13;  xl.  7;  Jer.  x.  13;  li.  16;  Amos 
xiv.  13.)  It  is  poetically  ascribed  to  the  imme- 
diate agency  of  God  (Ps.  cxxxv.  7 ; cxlvii.  18; 
comp.  Baruch  vi.  61).  In  the  New  Testament 
it  occurs  in  Matt.  xi.  7 ; xiv.  24  ; Mark  iv.  39 ; 
John  iii.  8 ; Acts  xxvii.  4;  Eph.  iv.  14;  James 
i.  6;  Rev.  vi.  13;  vii.  1).  Throughout  the  New 
Testament  the  word  is  drepos,  except  in  our  Lord’s 
illustration.  John  iii.  8.  In  the  Apocrypha  arepos 
occurs  in  Wisdom  v.  14;  xiii.  2,  &c. ; but 
irvevpa  in  xvii.  18;  Ecclus.  v.  9;  xxii.  18; 
Song  of  the  Children  xxvi.  42).  We  might  per- 
haps attribute  the  exclusion  of  the  word  rrpevpaf 
for ‘the  wind,’  from  the  New  Testament,  to  its 
having  become  almost  entirely  appropriated  to 
‘ heavenly  tilings.’  In  Acts  ii.  2,  we  have  irvoi], 
translated  ‘ wind  ;’  Vulg.  spiritus.  It  means  the 
same  in  Homer  (II.  v.  697),  ttpoiI]  for  irvoT)  fiopeao, 

‘ the  breath  or  blast  of  Boreas  ;’  comp.  Job  xxxvii. 
10,  Sept.  In  Gen.  iii.  8,  ‘the  cool  of  the  day/ 
or  rather  ‘ wind  of  the  day/  indicates  the  even- 
ing, since  in  the  East  a refreshing  breeze  arises  some 
hours  before  sunset;  Vulg.  ad  auram  post  me • 
nd<em.  Comp.  Cant.  ii.  17 ; iv.  6 ; where  the 
words  ‘until  the  day  break  and  the  shadows  flee 
away  ’ should  be  rendered  ‘ until  the  day  breathe 
or  blow'  ( i.e . till  evening);  Heb.  Sept. 

Siairpevar) ; Vulg.  aspiret.  The  eveniug  breeze 
is  still  called,  among  the  Persians,  ‘ the  breeze  of 
the  day’  (Chardin,  Voyage , t.  iv.  p.  48).  In 
Amos  iv.  13,  God  is  said  to  ‘create  the  wind.’ 
Although  this  idea  is  very  conformable  to  the 
Hebrew  theory  of  causation,  which  does  not  re- 
cognise second  causes,  but  attributes  e\  wy  nature./ 


WIND. 


WIND. 


949 


phcnotnen.ni  immediately  to  the  divine  agency, 
yet  the  passage  may  perhaps  be  directed  against 
the  worship  of  the  winds,  which  was  common 
among  ancient  nations.  Comp.  Wisdom  xiii.  2. 
Herodotus  relates  it  of  the  Persians  (i.  131).  The 
words  of  our  Saviour,  ‘a  reed  shaken  with  the 
wind’  (Matt.  xi.  7),  are  taken  by  some  in  the  na- 
tural, and  by  others  in  a metaphorical  sense.  The 
former  view  is  adopted  by  Grotius,  Beza,  Camp- 
bell, Rosenm.,  Schleusner,  and  Wetstein;  and  is 
confirmed,  as  Rosenmuller  observes,  by  the  anti- 
thesis of  the  rich  man,  whose  magnificence  all 
gladly  survey.  The  comparison  is  adopted  to  re- 
prove the  fickleness  of  the  multitude  (comp.  ver.  15, 
and  Eph.  iv.  14).  2.  The  wind  occurs  as  theme- 

dium  of  the  divine  interposition,  or  agency  (Gen. 
i.  2;  viii.  1;  Ex.  xv.  10;  Num.  xi.  31;  1 Kings 
xviii.  45  ; xix.  11 ; Job  i.  19  ; Isa.  xi.  5 ; Jonah 
i.  4).  In  the  New  Testament,  the  wind  was  super- 
naturally  employed  at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  like 
the  ‘sound’  and  ‘fire’  (Acts  ii.  3).  Indeed  our 
Lord's  illustration  (John  iii.  8),  and  the  identity 
of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  signifying 
breath,  wind,  and  spirit,  lead  to  the  inference, 
that  the  air  in  motion  bears  the  nearest  resem- 
blance of  any  created  object  to  divine  influence, 
and  is  therefore  the  most  appropriate  medium  of 
it.  The  idea  is  finely  embodied  by  Thomson  : 

‘To  Him,  ye  vocal  gales. 

Breathe  soft,  whose  spirit  in  your  freshness 
breathes.’ 

[Spirit.]  To  this  class  of  instances  we  refer  Gen. 
i.  2,  ‘ and  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of 
the  waters.’  Along  with  Patrick  and  Rosenmuller, 
we  construe  the  phrase,  ‘ a wind  of  God/  a wind 
employed  as  the  medium  of  divine  agency. 
Rosenmuller  compares  Ps.  civ.  30  : cxlvii.  8 ; Isa. 
*1.  7.  Dr.  Lee  refers  to  1 Kings  xviii.  12 ; 2 
tings  ii.  16;  and  Ps.  xxxiii.  6;  Isa.  xi.  4.  In 
Jhe  two  latter  passages,  he  observes  that  the  word 
equivalent  to  power , &c.  The  commotions  of 
4he  elements,  &c.,  through  means  of  which  the  pe- 
tulanceof  Elijah  was  reproved  (1  Kings  xix.  11), 
ere  best  understood  as  having  occurred  in  vision 
(comp.  Dan.  ii.  35 ; Zech.  v.  9).  3.  The  wind 

is  used  metaphorically  in  the  following  instances: 
‘The  wings  of  the  wind’  denote  the  most  rapid 
motion  (2  Sam.  xxii.  1 1),  where  the  phrase  may 
be  a poetical  representation  also  of  the  incident 
recorded  (2  Sam.  v.  24  ; Ps.  civ.  3).  The  ono- 
matopoeia in  the  two  former  passages,  in  Hebrew, 
is  remarkable.  Anything  light  or  trifling  is  called 
wind  (Job  vii.  7;  Isa.  xli.  29;  Ps.  lxxviii.  39; 
comp.  Eph.  iv.  14;  Ecclus.  v.  9).  Violent  yet 
empty  speech  is  called  ‘ a strong  wind,’  or  a mere 
tempest  of  words  (Job  viii.  2).  ‘ Vain  know 

ledge’  is  called  niTTljn,  knowledge  of  wind 
(Job  xv.  2)  ; ‘ vain  words,’  words  of  wind  (xvi.  3). 
Many  expressive  phrases  are  formed : with  this 
word.  * To  inherit  the  wind/  denotes  extreme 
disappointment  (Prov.  xi.  29)  ; ‘ to  hide  the  wind,’ 
impossibility  (xxvii.  16)  ; to  ‘ labour  for  the  wind/ 
to.  labour  jn  vain  (Ecc.  v.  16);  ‘to  bring  forth 
wind/  great  patience  and  pains  for  no  purpose 
(Isa.  xxvi.  18;  comp.  Hos.  viii.  7;  xii.  1);  ‘to 
become  wind/  to  result  in  nothingness  (Jer.  v. 
13).  ‘ The  four  winds’  denote  the  four  quarters 

jf  the  globe  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  9);  ‘ to  scatter  to  all 
winds/  to  disperse  completely  (Ezek.  v.  10;  xii. 
il ; Svii.  21)*  ‘to  cause  to  come  from  all 


winds/  to  restore  completely  (xxxvii.  9).  ‘The 
wind  hath  bound  her  upon  her  wings/  means 
deportation  into  a far  country  (Hos.  iv.  19)  ; ‘ to 
sow  the  wind  and  reap  the  whirlwind/  unwise 
labour  and  a fruitless  result  (viii.  7);  ‘to  feed  on 
the  wind/  to  pursue  delusory  schemes  (xii.  1); 

‘ to  walk  in  wind/  to  live  and  act  in  vain  (Micah 
ii.  11);  ‘to  observe  the  wind/  to  be  over  cautious 
(Eccles.  ^i.  4);  to  ‘winnow  with  every  wind/  to 
be  credulous,  apt  to  receive  impressions  (Eccles. 
v.  9).  Comparisons. — Disappointment,  after  high 
promise  or  pretension,  is ‘as  wind  without  rain’ 
(Prov.  xxv.  14)  ; the  desperate  speeches  of  an  af- 
flicted person,  are  compared  to  wind  (Job  vi.  26). 
Symbolically. — Empires  are  represented  as  having 
wings,  and  ‘ the  wind  in  their  wings,’  denotes  the 
rapidity  of  their  conquests  (Zech.  v.  9).  The 
wind  is  often  used  as  the  symbol  or  emblem  of 
calamities  (Isa.  xxxii.  2 ; xli.  16;  lvii.  13;  lxiv. 
6);  destruction  by  the  Chaldaean  army  (Jer. 
iv.  11,  12;  comp.  Wisd.  iv.  4;  v.  23;  xi.  20). 

‘ The  windy  storm  ’ (Ps.  Iv.  8)  denotes  Absalom 
and  his  party.  The  wind  is  the  frequent  emblem 
of  the  divine  chastisements  (Isa.  xxvii.  8 ; Jer. 
xxii.  22;  li.  ],&c.).  Beautiful  expressions  occur, 
as  in  Isa.  xxvii.  2,  ‘ He  stayethhis  rough  wind  in 
the  day  of  the  east  wind  ;’  that  is,  God  doth  not 
aggravate  the  misfortunes  of  mankind  by  his 
chastisements  ; to  ‘ make  a weight  for  the  winds  ’ 
(Job  xxviii.  25).  Mistranslations.  — In  Ps. 
lxxviii.  39,  ‘ He  remembered  that  they  were  but 
flesh,  a wind  that  passeth  away  and  cometh  not 
again/  should  probably  be  rendered,  ‘aspmigoing 
away  and  not  returning.’  All  the  versions  make 
the  words  relate  to  the  soul  of  man.  Homer  has 
a very  similar  description  of  death  (II.  ix.  408). 
In  Eccles.  i.  5,  6,  the  translation  is  faulty,  and  the 
sense  further  obscured  by  a wrong  division  of 
verses.  The  passage  should  be  read  : ‘ The  sun 
also  ariseth  and  the  sun  goeth  down,  and  hasteth  to 
his  place  where  he  ariseth,  going  to  the  south  and 
circulating  to  the  north.  The  wind  is  continually 
whirling  about,  and  the  wind  returneth  upon  its 
whirlings.’  All  the  versions  give  this  rendering  ; 
our  version  alone  mistakes  the  meaning.  The 
phrase  ‘ brought  forth  wind/  is  understood  by 
Michaelis  as  an  allusion  to.  the  female  disorder 
called  em pneumatosis,  or  windy  inflation  of  the 
womb  ( Syntagma , Comment,  vol.  ii.  p.  165). 
The  Syriac  translator  also  understood  the  pas- 
sage in  this  way  : ‘ enixi  sumus  ut  illse  quae 
ventos  pariunt.’  4.  The  east  wind  D'^lpTin, 
& vepos  v6tos,  &V6/J.0S  Kauaoor,  v6tos,  ventus 
urens,  spiritus  vehemens,  ventus  auster.  D*Hp, 
Kavacav,  ardor,  aestus,  ventus  urens.  Both  forms 
denote  the  natural  phenomenon  (Gen.  xli.  6,  23 ; 
Job  xxxviii.  24  ; Ps.  xl viii,  7 ; lxxviii.  26;  Jonah 
iv.  8)1  Considerable  indefiniteness  attends  the 
use  of  these  words.  Dr.  Shaw  remarks,  that  every 
wind  is  called  by  the  Orientals  CHp,  an  east 
wind,  which  blows  from  any  point  of  the  compass 
between  the  east  and  north,  and  between  the  east 
and  south  (Travels,  p.  285).  Accordingly  the 
Sept,  often  understands  this  word  to  mean  the 
south,  as  in  Exod.  x.  13;  xiv.  21  (see  Bochart, 
Hierozoicon,  pt.  ii.  lib.  i.  cap.  15).  If  the  east 
wind  happens  to  blow  a few  days  in  Palestine  dur- 
ing the  months  of  May,  June,  July,  and  August, 
it  occasions  great  destruction  to  the  vines  and 
harvests  on  the  land,  and  also  to  the  vessels  at  so 
on  the  Mediterranean  (Hos.  xiii.  15 ; Jonah  iv  3 


Q50 


WIND. 


WINE. 


Job  xir.  2 ; xv.  2 ; Is.  xl.  7 ; Gen.  xli.  6,  23 ; 
Ezek.  xvii.  10,  xix.  12  ; xxvii.  26  ; Ps.  xlviii.  7 ; 
ciii.  5).  In  Jonah  iv.  8,  the  phrase  occurs, 
1711  ri'^nn  D'lp,  a still  or  sultry  east  wind.  For 
testimonies  to  the  destructiveness  of  this  wind  in 
Egypt  and  Arabia,  see  Niebuhr  ( Beschreib . von 
Arabien,  p.  8);  Thevenot  ( Voyages,  pt.  i.  liv.  ii. 
c.  31).  It  is  accordingly  often  used  to  denote 
any  pernicious  wind,  as  in  Ps.  xlviii.  7,  where  it 
is  rendered  by  Sept,  irvevpa  filai ov,  Vulg.  spiritus 
vehemens.  It  is  used  metaphorically  for  perni-' 
cious  speech,  a storm  of  words  (Job  xv.  2);  cala- 
mities, especially  by  war  (Isa.  xxvii.  8 ; Jer.  xviii. 
17;  Ezek.  xvii.  10;  xix.  12;  xxvii.  26;  Hos. 
xiii.  15).  In  this  latter  passage  the  east  wind 
denotes  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria ; m Ezek. 
xxvii.  26,  it  denotes  the  Chaldaeans.  Tyre  is  there 
represented  under  the  beautiful  allegory  of  a ship 
towed  into  deep  waters,  and  then  destroyed  by  an 
east  wind.  A very  similar  representation  is  given 
by  Horace  (Carm.  i.  14).  The  east  wind  denotes 
divine  judgment  (Job  xxvii.  21).  Phrases. — ‘To 
follow  the  east  wind,’  is  to  pursue  a delusory  and 
fatal  course  (Hos.  xii.  1*.  5.  West  wind,  C 1717, 

&vepos  curb  OaXatraps,  ventus  ab  occidente  [West]  . 
6.  North  wind,  jlQV  1717  (Prov.  xxv.  23),  &vepos 
fiopeas,  ventus  Aquilo  [North].  7.  South  wind, 
Dill  (Job  xxxvii.  17),  |D'n  (Ps.  lxxviii.  26),  A ty, 
ventus  Africus  (Luke  xifc  55),  viros  (Sirocco), 
Acts  xxvii.  13)  [South]!  8.  The  four  winds , 
ninn  ra  Te<r aapa  Trveupara,  ol  reacrapes 

&vepot,  quatuor  venti.  The  Hebrews  speak  only 
of  four  winds ; and  so  Josephus  ( Antiq . viii.  3.  5). 
This  phrase  is  equivalent  to  the  four  quarters  of 
the  world  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  9 ; 2 Esdras  xiii.  5),  the 
several  points  of  the  compass,  as  we  should  say 
(Dan.  viii.  8).  Phrases. — ‘ Striving  of  the  four 
winds,’  is  great  political  commotions  (Dan.  vii.  2 ; 
comp.  Jer.  iv.  11,  12;  li.  1);  to  ‘hold  the  four 
winds,’  is  by  contrary  to  secure  peace  (Rev.  vii. 
I) ; ‘to  be  divided  to  the  four  winds,’  implies 
utter  dispersion  (Dan.  xi.  4 ; Jer.  xlix.  32  ; Ezek. 
v.  10,  12;  xvii.  2).  So  also  the  phrase,  4k  tup 
rcaaiptav  av4pa>v  (Matt.  xxiv.  31)  means  from 
all  parts  of  the  world  (Mark  xiii.  27).  9.  The 
Hebrews,  like  other  ancient  nations,  had  but  few 
names  of  winds.  Homer  mentions  only  fiopeas, 
pStos,  £4(pvpos,  and  tdpos.  Aul.  Gellius,  indeed, 
complains  of  the  infrequency  of  names  of  winds 
in  ancient  writers  ( Noct . Att.  ii.  22).  The  same 
indefiniteness  appears  in  Herodotus  (see  Larcher’s 
notes  on  i.  188).  In  the  course  of  time  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  added  eight  other  winds  to  theoriginal 
four,  but  that  appearing  too  minute  a division, 
they  reduced  the  additional  ones  to  four,  thus 
making  only  eight  in  all.  The  names  of  these 
may  be  seen  in  Larcher  (ut  supra ),  or  Pliny 
(Hist.  Nat.,  xviii.  34).  Further  information 
may  be  found  in  Coray’s  Translation  of  Hippo- 
crates, De  Aeribus,  Aquis  et  Locis,  Paris,  1800; 
Discours  Preliminaire ; and  see  index.  Fora 
comparative  table  of  the  English,  Latin,  and 
Greek  divisions  of  the  winds,  and  their  names, 
amounting  to  more  than  thirty,  see  Beloe’s  Hero- 
dotus ( Polymnia , notes,  vol.  iii.  p.  293,  Lond. 
1791).  One  Greek  name  of  a wind  occurs  in  Acts 
xxvii.  14,  EvpoKAvScDV,  Euroclydon,  a tempestu- 
ous wind  in  the  Mediterranean,  now  called  a Le- 
vanter. The  Alexandrian  M.S  has  EvpaKvAup; 
Vulg.  Euroaquilo ; Syriac  p7*?p71K.  The  com- 
mon reading,  EvpoKAvZup , seems  derived  from 


ESpos,  Eurus,  ‘ east  wind,’  and  kAvSup,  ‘ a wa*r?/ 
quasi  an  eastern  tempest.  Other  MSS.  read  Evpv- 
kAvZcdv,  Euryclydon,  from  eupvs,  ‘ broad,’  and 
kAvZwv,  ‘ a wave,’  or  rough  wavy  sea;  and  then  the 
word  would  mean  the  wind  which  peculiarly 
excites  the  waves.  Shaw  defends  the  common 
reading,  and  describes  the  wind  as  blowing  in 
all  directions  from  the  N.E.  round  by  the  N.  to 
the  S.E.  ( Travels , p.  330,  &c.  4to. ; see  Bowyer’s 
conjectures,  and  Doddridge,  in  loc.).  The  Ho 
brews  had  no  single  terms  indicating  the  relative 
velocity  of  the  air  in  motion,  like  our  words 
breeze,  gale,  &c.  Such  gradations  they  ex- 
pressed by  some  additional  word,  as  ‘ great/ 

nn,  ‘ a great  wind’.  (Jonah  i.  4),  ‘ rough/ 
&c.  Nor  have  we  any  single  word  indi- 
cating the  destructive  effects  of  the  wind,  like 
their  verbs  TJ?D  and  7yb,  as  DiyDNI  (Zech.  vii. 
14,  &c.),  and  answering  to  the  Greek  word  are- 
p6cj)6opos  (see  Sept,  of  Gen.  xli.  6,  23).  Our 
metaphorical  use  of  the  word  storm  comes 
nearest.  The  phrase  myD  171*7,  ‘ stormy  wind/ 
Trvevpa  KOLTaiyldos,  spiritus  procellce , occurs  in 
Ps.  cvii.  25  ; cxlviii.  8.  It  is  metaphorically  used 
for  the  divine  judgments  (Ezek.  xiii.  11,  13). 
The  word  myD  is  usually  translated  ‘whirl- 
wind ;’  it  means,  however,  more  properly  a 
storm  (2  Kings  ii.  1,  11;  Job  xxxviii.  1 ; xl.  6 ; 
Zech.  ix.  14;  Sept,  avaaeiapZs,  AaiAaif/,  pesos', 
Vulg.  turbo;  Ecclus.  xliii.  17;  avarporpi]  irpev- 
paros,  xlviii.  9 ; AatAcurt  n vp6s.  The  Hebrew 

word  is  used  metaphorically  for  the  divine  judg- 
ments (Isa.  xl.  24;  xli.  16);  and  to  describe 
them  as  sudden  and  irresistible  (Jer.  xxiii.  19; 
xxv.  32 ; xxx.  23).  ‘ A whirlwind  out  of  the 

north’  (Ezek.  i.  4)  denotes  the  invasion  from 
Babylon.  Another  word,  17Q1D,  is  also  trans- 
lated ‘whirlwind/  and  properly  so.  It  occurs  in 
Job  xxxvii.  9 ; Isa.  xxi.  1.  It  is  used  as  a simile 
for  complete  and  sudden  destruction  (Prov.  i.  27) ; 
and  for  the  most  rapid  motion,  ‘ wheels  of  war- 
chariots  like  a whirlwind’  (Isa.  v.  28 ; Jer.  iv. 
13).  Total  defeat  is  often  compared  to  ‘chaff 
scattered  by  a whirlwind’  (Isa.  xvii.  13).  It  de- 
notes the  rapidity  and  irresistibleness  of  the 
divine  judgments  (Isa.  lxvi.  5).  Th e phrase  ‘to 
reap  the  whirlwind  ’ denotes  useless  labour  (Hos. 
viii.  7) ; ‘ the  day  of  the  whirlwind,’  destruction 
by  war  (Amos  i.  14).  ‘ The  Lord  hath  his  way 

in  the  whirlwind/  is  probably  an  allusion  to  Sinai 
(Nahum  i.  3).  A beautiful  comparison  occurs  in 
Prov.  x.  25  : ‘ As  the  whirlwind  passeth,  so  is  the 
wicked  no  more:  but  the  righteous  is  an  everlast- 
ing foundation.’ — J.  F.  D. 

WINDOW.  [House.] 

WINE.  The  Bible  furnishes  the  earliest  au- 
thentic account  concerning  wine  (Gen.  ix.  21 ; 
xix.  32).  The  instances  of  its  use  by  the  patri- 
archs Noah  and  Lot,  with  its  deplorable  e beets, 
have  given  rise  to  numerous  conjectures  from  the 
earliest  periods ; and  both  the  Rabbins  and  the 
Christian  Fathers  indulge  in  much  apologetic  cri- 
ticism on  these  points.  Theodoret  alleged  that 
the  drunkenness  of  Noah  came  from  inexperience, 
for,  being  the  first  who  pressed  grapes,  he  was 
ignorant  of  its  properties,  having  been  used  for 
600  years  to  drink  water  only  ( Qucest.  § 65).  This 
seems  to  be  the  most  probable  opinion,  and  is 
adopted  and  elucidated  by  the  contributor  of 
the  article  Noaii,  p.  426  of  this  volume.  Thj 


WINE. 


WINE. 


difficulty  presented  in  the  case  of  Lot  is  well 
stated  by  an  old  writer.  ‘ Whilst  the  daughters 
sinned  in  giving  him  wine  unto  drunkenness, 
what  is  to  be  thought  of  him  for  drinking  so  libe- 
rally thereof?  Some  conjecture  that  it  was 
mingled  with  something  apt  to  make  him  drunk- 
en, although  he  took  but  a little,  and  so  excuse 
nim  ’ (Dr.  Mayer's  Comment.  Lond.  1653,  vol.  i. 
p.  246).  This  conjecture  is  well  illustrated  by  a 
narrative  of  adulterous  intercourse,  recorded  by 
Linschoten  (1584),  and  effected  by  means  of 
drugged  wine  administered  to  the  husband  : — 
i They  had  caused  him  to  drinke  of  a certaine 
wine  that  was  mingled  with  the  hearbe  deutroa 
[datura],  thereby  to  bereave  poore  Francis  of  his 
wittes,  and  so  to  effect  their  accursed  device  1 
( Voyages , b.  i.  p.  158).  That  the  incest  of  Lot 
was  performed  in  an  unconscious  state,  such  as 
is  induced  by  many  species  of  drugged  drinks, 
may  be  inferred  from  the  repetition  of  the  act. 
In  another  part,  again  referring  to  such  as  had 
drunk  of. this  drugged  wine,  Linschoten  says,  that 
‘ when  the  time  cometh  that  he  reviveth  out  of  his 
transe,  lie  knoweth  nothing  what  was  done,  but 
thinketh  that  hee  had  slept’  (p.  109). 

On  no  point  is  the  remark  of  the  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica  concerning  the  Authorized  Version  of 
the  Bible  more  just  than  in  reference  to  wine  : — 
‘ One  of  its  greatest  faults  is,  that  the  translation 
of  the  same  original  word  is  often  improperly  va- 
ried at  the  expense  of  perspicuity ; while,  on  the 
other  hand,  ambiguity  is  sometimes  occasioned 
by  the  rendering  of  two  original  words  in  the  same 
sentence  by  only  one  English  word,  which,  how- 
ever, is  used  in  different  meanings  ’ (vol.  iv.  p. 
619).  Not  only  two,  but  thirteen  distinct  Hebrew 
and  Greek  terms,  are  translated  by  the  word 
‘wine,’  either  with  or  without  the  adjectives  ‘ new,’ 

‘ sweet,’ ‘ mixed,’ and ‘strong.1  If  the  first  rule 
for  a translation,  as  laid  down  by  Dr.  George 
Campbell,  be  correct — that  ‘ the  translation  should 
give  a complete  transcript  of  the  ideas  of  the 
original  ’ — the  common  version  must,  on  this 
point,  be  deemed  exceedingly  defective.  We  pro- 
pose, therefore,  in  the  present  article,  to  attempt  an 
elucidation  of  the  various  Biblical  terms  translated 
‘ wine/  and  to  indicate  what  we  regard  as  their 
most  probable  meanings  and  distinctions. 

1.  yayin , olyos,  wine,  occurs  in  141  in- 
stances ; 21  times  in  connection  with 

shechar  [Drink,  Strong].  Its  root  was  pro- 
bably y avan , or  yanah,  the  primary  idea  of 

both  being  that  of  turbidness,  or  boiling  up,  so 
characteristic  of  the  appearance  of  the  grape-juice 
as  it  rushes  foaming  into  the  wine-vat.  The  able 
writer  of  the  article  ‘ Wine  ’ in  the  Penny  Cyclo- 
paedia, observes,  that  ‘ the  juice  of  grapes,  or  ve- 
getable juices  in  general,  become  turbid  when  in 
contact  with  air,  before  fermentation  commences, 
and  this  turbidity  is  owing  to  the  formation  of 
an  insoluble  precipitate  of  the  same  nature  as 
ferment’  (vol.  xxvii.  p.  455).  Yayin , in  Bible 

use,  is  a very  general  term,  including  every  spe- 
cies of  wine  made  from  grapes  ( ofros  ajuir e\ivos), 
though  in  later  ages  it  became  extended  in  its 
application  to  wine  made  from  other  substances, 
(a.)  It  is  frequently  used  in  the  same  compre- 
hensive sense  as  the  vinum  of  the  Latins.  Cato 
(De  lie  Rustica,  cxlvii.)  speaks  of  the  hanging 
wine  (vinum  pendens).  So  in  Num.  vi.  4, 


yayin  stands  for  vine — the  grape-vine.  In  Deut. 
xxviii.  39,  it  is  ranked  amongst  things  to  be  suck- 
ed, gathered,  or  eaten.  In  Isa.  xvi.  10,  it  is  used 
for  the  grapes  to  be  trodden.  In  Isa.  lv.  1,  it 
probably  signifies  thick  grape-syrup,  or  honey 
(see  Isa.  vii.  22).  The  word  syrup , it  may  be 
here  remarked,  is  derived  from  an  Oriental  term 
for  wine ; hence,  in  Turkey,  shirab- jee  signifies 
‘ wnne-seller  ’ (see  Turkey  and  the  Turks,  p.  1 97). 
This  species  of  wine  is  still  called  ‘honey  1 in  the 
East,  and  it  is  by  the  prophet  appropriately  con- 
nected with  milk,  as  a thing  to  be  eaten.  Yayin 
is  also  used  for  ‘ grapes,’  or  for  ‘ wine  in  the  clus- 
ter/ in  Jer.  xl.  10,  12;  xlviii.  33;  and  probably 
also  in  Deut.  xiv.  26.  In  this  sense  Josephus 
(De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.)  employs  the  Greek  equivalent, 
when  he  enumerates  amongst  the  stores  in  the 
fortress  of  Massada,  a it  os,  olvos,  and  eAai  ov,  and 
adds,  that  the  Romans  found  the  remains  of  these 
fruits  (rhv  icapirdv)  uncorrupted.  (6.)  Yayin 
signifies  also  ‘ the  blood  of  the  grape’  freshly  ex- 
pressed, as  in  Gen.  xlix.  2 (comp,  with  Isa.  Ixiii. 
1-3),  reference  being  there  had  to  the  juice  of 
the  claret  grape — ‘ His  eyes  shall  be  more  beau- 
tiful than  wine,  and  his  teeth  whiter  than  milk.’ 
In  this  sense  yayin  denoted  what  the  Greeks  spe- 
cifically called  y\evKos  (sweet  wine),  the  term 
used  by  Josephus  in  speaking  of  the  grape-juice 
expressed  into  Pharaoh’s  cup  (Gen.  xl.  11).  In 
Cant.  v.  1 (compared  with  vii.  9),  it  seems  to 
refer  to  a sweet  innocent  wine  of  this  sort,  which 
might  be  drunk  abundantly.  In  Ps.  civ.  15,  as 
illustrated  by  Judg.  ix.  13  ; Exod.  xxii.  29  (28), 
yayin  probably  designates  the  first  ‘ droppings  ’ 
or  tears  of  the  gathered  grapes,  which  were  to  be 
offered  fresh — without  ‘ delay.’  (c.)  In  Prov.  ix. 
2,  5,  yayin  refers  to  a boiled  wine,  or  syrup,  the 
thickness  of  which  rendered  it  necessary  to  mingle 
water  with  it  previously  to  drinking.  Wine  pre- 
served in  this  way  was  sometimes  introduced  into 
the  offerings  for  the  use  of  the  priests  (Num. 
xviii.  11),  as  appears  from  this  passage  in  the 
Mishna  : — ‘ Wine  of  the  heave-offering  must  not 
be  boiled,  because  it  lessens  it’  (Tr.  Teroomah , 
perek  xi.).  Bartenora,  in  a note,  says,  ‘ because 
people  drink  less  of  boiled  wine  ’ — which  is  true 
of  it  when  drunk  unmingled,  since  boiling  renders 
the  wine  more  rich  and  cloying.  But  the  Mishna 
adds — ‘ Rabbi  Yehuda  permits  it,  because  it  im- 
proves it.’  Such  a wine  Wisdom  is  aptly  repre- 
sented as  mingling  for  her  feast,  because  such 
was  esteemed  the  richest  and  the  best  w ne.  (d,.) 
Yayin  also  comprehends  a mixed  wine  of  a very 
different  character ; a wine  made  strong  and  in- 
ebriating by  the  addition  of  drugs,  such  as  myrrh, 
mandragora,  and  opiates.  ‘ Such/  observes  Bishop 
Lowth, ‘were  the  exhilarating,  or  rather,  stupe- 
fying ingredients  which  Helen  mixed  in  the 
bowl  together  with  the  wine  for  her  guests  op- 
pressed with  grief,  to  raise  their  spirits;  the  com- 
position of  which  she  had  learned  in  Egypt.’ 
(Horn.  Odyss.  iv.  220.)  And  how  much -the 
Eastern  people  to  this  day  deal  in  artificial  liquors 
of  prodigious  strength,  may  be  seen  in  a curious 
chapter  of  Kempfer  upon  that  subject  ( AmamK 
Exot.  Fasc.  iii.  obs.  15).  Thus  the  drunkard  i3 
properly  described  (Prov.  xxiii.  30)  as  one  ‘ that 
seeketh  mixed  wine/  and  is  ‘ mighty  to  mingle 
strong  drink1  (Isa.  v.  22).  And  hence  the 
Psalmist  took  that  highly  poetical  and  sublime 
image  of  the  cup  of  God’s  wrath,  called  by  Jsaiah 


052 


WINK. 


WINE. 


(li.  17)  ‘the  cup  of  trembling,*  causing  intoxica- 
tion and  stupefaction  (see  Chappelow’s  note  on 
Hariri , p.  33)  ; containing,  as  St.  John  (Rev. 
xiv.  10)  expresses  in  Greek  this  Hebrew  idea  with 
the  utmost  precision,  though  with  a seeming  con- 
tradiction in  terms,  KCKepa<rp.evov  &Kparov,  merum 
mixtwn * ( Comment . on  Isa.  i.  22).  (e.)  Yayin 

also  includes  every  spec;cs  of  fermented  grape- 
wine.  The  characteristics  of  fermentation  are 
well  marked  in  Prov.  xxiii.  31,  where  the  wine  is 
first  described  as  appearing  turbid,  in  consequence 
of  the  subsidence  of  the  gluten ; that,  absorbing 
air,  becomes  ferment,  or  yeast,  communicating  its 
own  decay  to  the  sugar  of  the  grape,  and  which  is 
then  converted  into  carbonic  acid  gas  and  alcohol, 
the  former  rising  up  as  a bubble  or  ‘ eye,’  and  thus 
producing  an  upward  movement  of  the  liquid. 

‘ Look  not  thou  upon  the  wine  when  it  is  turbid, 

When  it  giveth  its  bubble  in  the  cup,  moving 
itself  upward : 

At  the  last  it  biteth  like  a serpent, 

And  stingeth  like  a basilisk.’ 

Yayin.  then,  is  a general  term  for  ‘ all  sorts  of 
wine  ’ (Neh.  v.  18). 

2.  D'DJJ  ausis,  occurs  only  in  five  texts; 
Cant.  viii.  2 ; Isa.  xlix.  26  ; Joel  i.  5 ; iii.  (iv.) 
18;  Amos  ix.  13.  The  name  is  derived  from 
coy  asas,  ‘ to  tread  down,’  and  denotes  the  ex- 
pressed juice  of  the  grape  or  other  fruit.  By  the 
Greeks  it  is  called  yAevitos,  by  the  Latins  mus- 
tum,  from  the  Hebrew  ‘ fresh,’  ‘sweet,’  ‘ pure,’ 
by  transposition  of  letters,  as  stum  from  must. 

3.  N3D  sobhe  or  saba,  from  &QD  sabho,  ‘to 

drink  freely,’  because  the  inspissated  wine  which 
it  denoted  was  enticing,  and  might  be  freely 
drunk  when  mingled  with  water.  The  term  oc- 
curs but  thrice,  probably  because  this  sort  of  wine 
is  often  expressed  by  the  general  term  ‘ yayin,’  or 
by  ‘ debhash'  [Honey].  It  is  the  Latin  sapa, 
and  the  French  sabe,  ‘ vin  cuit ,’  baked  or  boiled 
wine.  Syreon , hepsema , and  defrutum,  ac- 
cording to  Pliny,  were  species  of  it  (Hist.  Nat. 
xiv.  9) : indeed,  syreon,  alpu/os  oivos,  and  seria, 
*a  wine-jar,’  most  likely  derived  their  name  from 
the  syr  or  caldron  of  the  Jews  (Nahum  i.  10), 
in  which  the  sobhe  was  prepared.  As  boiling 
would  confer  an  additional  sweetness  on  the 
juices  of  fruits,  the  syr  has  probably  some  con- 
nection with  the  Oriental  term  shir  or  sir,  ex- 
pressing ‘sweet  juice,’  and  from  which  the  words 
sherab , sirob,  and  syrup  are  derived.  The 
process  of  boiling  appear^  to  have  been  employed 
for  the  preservation  of  vegetable  juices,  from  the 
earliest  times,  and  is  founded  on  a correct  che- 
mical principle.  ‘ The  property  of  organic  sub- 
stances,’ says  Liebig,  ‘ to  pass  into  a state  of 
decay,  is  annihilated  in  all  cases  by  heating  to 
the  boiling  point  ’ (Lett,  on  Chemistry,  ii.  lett. 
xi.).  We  have  shown  above,  that  it  was  under- 
stood by  the  ancient  Jews,  and  it  is  yet  very  ex- 
tensively practised  in  the  East  in  the  preparation 
of  sherob,  or  ‘ rob  of  grapes.’  Baron  Tavernier, 
speaking  of  Shiraz,  says — ‘ Of  the  wine  there  are 
many  vessels  full,  which  are  burnt  for  the  benefit 
of  the  poor  travellers  and  carriers,  who  find  it  a 
great  refreshment  to  drink  it  with  water  ’ ( Persian 
Travels,  h.  v.  c.  xxi.  p.  248,  Loud.  1684).  The 
same  traveller,  speaking  of  the  Christians  of  St. 
around  Basrah,  affirms,  that  ‘ in  the  Eu- 


charist they  make  use  of  meal  kneaded  up  witb 
wine  and  oil.  To  make  this  wine  they  take 
grapes  dried  in  the  sun,  which  tlrey  call  in  their 
language  zebibes  [ zaha  or  sa&a],  and  casting 
water  upon  them  let  them  steep  for  so  long  a 
time’  (b.  ii.  c.  viii.  p.  91).  This  raisin-wine  was 
the  passum  of  the  Romans.* 

The  three  texts  in  which  sobhe  occurs,  answer 
to  the  preceding  description  of  it.  In  Isa.  i.  22, 
we  read — ‘Thy  silver  is  become  dross,  thy  sobhe 
(or  boiled  wine,  is  become)  a thin  wine  mingled 
with  water.’  Professor  Stuart  justly  observes, 
that  mahool,  ‘ here  rendered  mixed,  means  cut, 
cut  round,  circumcised.’  Varro  uses  a phrase 
exactly  parallel,  applying  to  wine  of  the  second 
pressing  the  term  ‘ circumcised  tome,’  which, 
being  mixed  with  water,  yields  lora,  the  drink  ol 
the  labourer  in  winter  (De  Re  Rust.  i.  54).  Hence 
the  force  of  the  text  is  this  : — ‘ Thy  silver  is  be- 
come like  dross  ; thy  sobhe  (the  rich  drink  of  thy 
nobles)  is  become  like  mahool,  even  as  circum- 
cised wine  mixt  with  water,  common  lora,  the 
drink  of  a peasant.’  Rabbi  D.  Kimchi  has  tins 
comment — ‘ The  current  coin  was  adulterated 
with  brass,  tin,  and  other  metals,  and  yet  circu- 
lated as  good  money.  The  wine  also  was  adul- 
terated with  water  in  the  taverns,  and  sold,  not- 
withstanding, for  pure  wine.’ 

In  Hosea  iv.  IS,  it  is  said,  ‘ Their  sobhe  is 
sour.’  As  this  wine  was  valued  for  its  sweetness, 
it  was  of  course  spoilt  by  acquiring  acidify.  But 
inspissated  wines  are  peculiarly  liable  to  this  de- 
generacy. ‘ Defrutum,'  says  Columella,  ‘ how- 
ever carefully  made,  is  liable  to  grow  acid  ’ 
(xii.  20). 

Nahum  i.  10,  referring  to  the  enemies  of  Je- 
hovah, we  should  read  as  follows  : — ‘ Like  thorns 
they  are  woven  together,  and  like  their  boiled 
wine  the  drunkard  shall  be  devoured,  (even)  a3 
stubble  fully  dry,’ — the  first  metaphor  referring 
to  thorns  heaped  up  together  for  fuel,  the  second  to 
the  burning  of  the  sobhe  in  the  syr  or  caldron 
from  neglect,  and  the  third  to  the  combustion  of 
stubble  (fcomp.  Ezek.  xxiv.  6-14). 

4.  “Ipn  chemer , occurs  twice  as  a descrip- 
tive; but  in  Isa.  xxvii.  2,  where  it  is  applied  to 
the  vineyard,  some  copies  read  *lDn,  ‘ fruitful.’ 
Chemer  and  chamar  are  derived  from  the  verb 
chamar,  ‘ to  foam,’  ‘ boil  up,’  ‘ froth,’  or  ‘ fer- 
ment’(the  latter  term  signifying  no  more  originally 
than  the  former),  and  are  used  in  reference  to 
waters  and  to  the  waves,  as  well  as  to  leaven, 
wine,  &c.  In  Deut.  xxxii.  14,  chemer  is  applied 
to  ‘the  blood  of  the  grape,’ — as  expressive  of  the 
juice  fresh  and  foaming  from  the  vat,  in  its  pure 
but  turbid  state  ; and  we  perceive  no  reason  for  re- 
sorting to  the  very  secondary  sense,  of  ‘ red  wine.’ 

‘HDfl  chamar,  the  verb,  in  Ps.  lxxv.  8 (9),  is 
applied  to  pure  wine,  unmixed  wine  filled  with 

* ‘ Nebeedh,  prepared  from  raisins,’  says  E.  W. 
Lane,  ‘ is  commonly  sold  in  Arab  towns,  under 
the  name  zebeeb,  which  signifies  raisins.  This  I 
have  often  drunk  in  Cairo,  but  never  could  per- 
ceive that  it  was  in  the  slightest  degree  fermented. 
Other  beverages,  to  which  the  name  of  nebeedh 
has  been  applied — though,  like  zebeeb , no  longer 
called  by  that  name — are  also  sold  in  Arab 
towns  ’ (Notes  to  Arabian  Nights,  vol.  i.  ch.  iii. 
p.  215.  18411. 


WINE. 


WINE. 


mixture,  which  exactly  answers  to  the  phrase  of 
St.  John,  ‘the  mixed  unmixed  ’ (Rev.  xiv.  10). 

5.  Nipn  chamra,  used  by  Daniel  (v.  1,  2,  4, 
23),  and  ‘lDPl  chemar , by  Ezra  (vi.  9 ; vii.  22), 
are  Chaldee  terms.  Chemar  we  regard  as  used 
for  pure  wine,  in  its  fresh,  foaming  condition; 
but  chamra  may  have  denoted  some  rich  and 
royal  drink,  made  strong  by  the  addition  of  drugs. 
Tavernier  refers  to  a drink  of  this  sort,  used  by 
the  luxurious  Grand  Seignior  on  visiting  the 
seraglio,  which  seems  to  illustrate  Daniel  v.  23. 
He  says  it  is  ‘a  sort  purposely  prepared  for  the 
Grand  Seignior  himself,  called  Muscavy ,’  but 
that  ‘ the  principal  persons  about  the  court  send 
for  it  secretly  to  the  halvagi-bachi  ( Rel . of  the 
G.  S.  Seraglio,  v ol.  iii.  p.  26,  Loud.  1684).  Such, 

robably,  was  the  wine  which  Belshazzar,  with 
is  lords,  wives,  and  concubines,  drank  in  the 
holy  vessels,  and  which  Daniel  would  not  touch. 
— The  compilers  of  the  Talmud  considered 
khamra  as  a ‘sweet  wine.’  It  is  a question, 
‘What  is  Carcenam  ? Iiabbi  Abhoo  explains 
that  khamroa  (vinutn  dulce)  is  so  called,  which 
is  brought  hither  from  Asia.’ 

6.  mesech,  once  translated  ‘mixture*1 
(Ps.  lxxv.  8 (9)),  once  ‘mixed  wine1  (Prov. 
xxiii.  30),  and  once  ‘ the  drink-offering  ’ (Isa. 
lxv.  11),  is  derived  from  masach , ‘to  mingle;’ 
whence  miscere  and  mix.  In  the  first  text  four 
terms  occur  which  are  elsewhere  all  rendered 
‘ wine  ’ — viz.  yayin,  khamar , mesech,  shemarim. 
It  should  be  read— ‘ There  is  a cup  in  the  hand 
of  Jehovah,  and  the  unmrxed  (or  pure)  wine  is 
full  of  mixture  ; and  he  poureth  out  this,  but  all 
the  wicked  of  the  earth  shall  wring  and  suck  out 
the  dregs  of  it.’  An  inebriating  and  disgusting 
mixture  seems  to  be  denoted  here. 

The  second  text  refers  to  drugged  wine;  either 
pure  wine  made  inebriating,  or  fermented  wine 
made  stronger  by  the  addition  of  spices  and 
drugs.  This  custom  has  prevailed?  from  the  ear- 
liest ages,  and  is  still  extant  in  the  East.  Bishop 
Southgate  states  ‘ the  reason  why  the  Persians 
adulterate  their  wines ; because,  in  their  natural 
state  they  are  too  weak  to  produce  the  desired 
effect  ’ ( Narrative  of  a Tour,  & c.  vol.  ii.  p.  326, 
Lond.  1840).  ‘Hence,’  says  he,  ‘it  has  been 
the  custom  in  Persia  to  fortify  the  wines  by  an 
infusion  of  nux  vomica  and  lime,  in  order  to  in- 
crease that  inebriating  power  which  a hard- 
drinking  Persian  is  apt  to  esteem  ’ (p.  325). 

In  the  third  (ext  the  idol- worshippers  are  really 
said  to  * fill  out  a mixture  to  Meni ;’  the  heathen- 
ish custom  of  pouring  out  mixed  wine  to  their 
gods  being  contrasted  with  the  worshippers  of 
Jehovah  on  his  ‘ holy  mountain,’  who  were  en- 
joined not  to  delay  the  presentation  of  their  first- 
fruits  and  liquors,  but  to  pour  out  ‘ the  pure 
blood  of  the  grape  ’ as  their  drink-offering.  When 
designed  for  the  use  of  the  priests,  however,  boiled 
wine,  as  we  have  seen,  was  sometimes  presented. 

Though,  in  the  three  texts  we  have  examined, 
mesech  refers  to  some  reprobated  or  offensive 
mixture,  we  must  not  therefore  conclude  that  all 
mixed  wine  was  pernicious  or  improper.  We 
have  already  seen  that  there  were  two  very  oppo- 
site purposes  sought  by  the  mixture  of  drinks ; 
one  mixture  was  for  the  purpose  of  sensuality, 
the  other  for  that  of  sobriety  or  use.  While  the 
kicked  sought  out  a drugged  mixture  (Prov.  xxiii. 


9*3 

30),  and  was  ‘mighty  to  mingle  sweet  drink1 
(lea.  v.  22),  Wisdom,  on  the  contrary,  ‘ mingled 
her  wine’  with  water,  or  with  milk  (Prov.  ix.  2, 
5),  merely  to  dilute  it  and  make  it  properly 
drinkable.  Of  the  latter  mixture  Wisdom  in- 
vites the  people  to  drink  freely  ; but  on  the  use  of 
the  former  an  emphatic  woe  is  pronounced. 

7.  "Dfcy  shechar,  ‘ sweet  drink,’  once  translated 
‘strong  wine’  (Num.  xxviii.  7).  It  seems  to 
have  formed  an  independent  subject  of  offering, 
Shechar  is  a generic  term,  including  palm-wine 
and  other  saccharine  beverages,  except  those  pre- 
pared from  the  vine.  That  shechar  was  made  in- 
ebriating by  being  mingled  with  potent  drugs 
we  have  just  seen  : but,  it  may  be  asked,  how 
shall  we  explain  Prov.  xxxi.  6,7  ? — ‘ Give  shechar 
unto  him  who  is  ready  to  perish.’  The  Rabbins 
have  generally  referred  this  apparent  command  to 
the  stupefying  cup  administered  to  criminals  with 
the  merciful  intent  of  allaying  their  pains  and 
fears.  But  can  we  associate  so  barbarous  a cus- 
tom with  Divine  inspiration?  The  example  of 
the  Redeemer  is  at  least  opposed  to  such  a notion, 
and  the  Spirit,  of  Christ,  was  the  Spirit  of  Pro- 
phecy also,  and  they  ought  therefore  to  harmonize. 
Nevertheless,  when  ‘they  gave  him  to  drink 
wine  mingled  with  myrrh  ’ (Mark  xv.  23),  ‘ he 
received  it  not.’  Besides,  this  supposition  does 
not  account  for  the  language  of  the  seventh  verse. 
The  writer  of  a series  of  elaborate  articles  on  ‘ the 
Wines  of  Scripture,’  in  an  English  periodical, 
contends  that  the  advice  is  given  ironically . 
Lemuel’s  mother  warns  her  royal  son  against  the 
deceitful  influences  of  inebriating  beverages,  and 
represents  them  as  being  especially  injurious  in 
their  operation  on  the  personal  and  official  cha- 
racter tf  kings ; and  then,  in  a strain  of  evident 
irony,  points  to  the  wretch  who  vainly  dreams 
the  Lethean  draught  will  rid  him  of  the  burden  of 

, anxiety  and  sorrow  which  his  own  profligacy  and 
intemperance  have  imposed  (Truth  - Seeker, 
1845-6).  A third  view  of  this  difficult  passage 
is  given  in  the  present  work,  in  the  article  Drink, 
Strong,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for  a full 
discussion  of  the  whole  subject. 

8.  tirosh,  ‘ vintage  fruit.1  The  usual 
definition  of  this  term  is.  absurd,  viz.  that  be- 
cause it,  is  derived  from  KH'  yarash,  ‘ to  possess,’ 
‘to  inherit,’  it  signifies  ‘a  strong  wine  which  is 
able  to  get  possession  of  a man,  and  drive  him 
out  of  himself!  ’ With  Bythner,  in  his  Lyra 
Prophetica,  we  would  adopt  the  simple  deriva- 
tion of  tirosh  from  its  passive  quality  of  being  pos- 
sessed, but  apply  it  rather  to  ‘vintage-fruit,’  than 
to  any  liquid  whatever.  Consult  article  Fruit. 

9.  shemarim,  ‘ preserves,’  or  ‘jellies,’ 
derived  from  the  verb  shamar,  ‘ to  preserve.’  It 
is  translated  ‘ wines  on  the  lees,’  in  Isa.  xxv.  6 ; 
but  in  the  three  other  passages  in  which  it  occurs, 
by  ‘dregs’  or  ‘lees’  alone.  Dregs  of  wine, 
however,  can  form  no  part  of  a delicious  feast ; 
while  in  the  East  various  species  of  ‘ preserves  ’ 
are  highly  esteemed.  Mr.  Buckingham  records 
that  at  Adjeloon  he  was  treated  with  wine-cakes 
( Trav . among  the  Arab  Tribes,  p.  137).  Our 
older  translators  so  understood  the  word.  Covei- 
dale  renders  the  passage  ‘ sweet  and  most  pure 
things;*  the  Bishops’  Bible  (1568),  ‘delicate 
things,’  and  ‘ most  pleasant  dishes’  [Shemarim]. 

A passage  from  Tavernier's  curious  Relatic 3> 


95i 


WINE. 


WINE. 


of  the  Grand  Seignior’s  Seraglio  serves  to  show 
what  an  important  place  in  Eastern  entertain- 
ments preserves  and  confections  occupy  : ‘ The 
offices  where  the  conserves  and  sweetmeats  are 
made  (there  being  six  or  seven  of  them)  are  above 
the  kitchens,  and  served  by  four  hundred  Hel- 
vagis.  They  are  perpetually  at  work  in  those 
seven  offices,  and  there  they  prepare  all  sorts  of 
conserves,  dry  and  liquid,  and  several  sorts  of 
syrups.'  ‘ In  the  same  offices  they  also  prepare 
the  ordinary  drink  of  the  Turks,  which  they  call 
sherbet , and  it  is  made  several  ways.’  ‘ They  make 
also  another  sort  of  drink  which  they  call  magion 
\el-majoon\  composed  of  several  drugs,  whereby 
it  is  made  hot 1 (Lond.  1684,  chap.  iii.  p.  26). 

10.  eshishah,  once  translated  ‘flagon  ’ 

only  ; in  three  passage?  ‘ flagon  of  wine and 
once  ‘ flagon  ’ with  grapes  joined  to  it  in  the  ori- 
ginal, as  noticed  in  the  margin  (Hosea  iii.  1). 
The  Sept,  renders  it  in  four  different  ways,  viz. 
\dyavov  airb  rpyavov,  ‘ a cake  from  the  frying- 
pan’  (2  Sam.  vi.  19);  in  another  part,  which 
narrates  the  same  fact,  apopl tt)v  & prov,  ‘a  sweet 
cake  of  fine  flour  and  honey  ’ (1  Chron.  xvi.  3); 
nreppara  pera  aracpibosS  a cake  made  with  raisins  ’ 
(Kos.  iii.  1),  ‘ raisins  ’ here  corresponding  to 
‘ grapes  ’ in  the  Hebrew  ; and  by  one  copy  apvpois, 
‘ sweet  cakes  ’ (Cant.  ii.  5)  ; but  in  others  pvpois, 
1 unguents.’  In  the  Targum  to  the  Hebrew 
mVBS  tzappikhith,  m in  Kxod.  xvi.  31,  the 
Chaldee  term  is  eshishan , ‘ a cake,’  ren- 

dered in  our  version  by  ‘ wafers.1  Eshishah  has 
been  supposed  to  be  connected  with  ash,  ‘ fire,* 
and  to  denote  some  sort  of  ‘ sweet  cake 1 prepared 
with  fire;  but  the  second  part  of  the  word  has  not 
been  hitherto  explained. 

Perhaps  the  following  extract  from  Olearius 
(1637)  may  throw  light  on  the  kind  of  prepara- 
tions denoted  by  shemarim  and  eshishah  : * The 
Persians  are  permitted  to  make  a sirrup  of  sweet 
wine,  which  they  boyl  till  it  be  reduc’d  to  a sixth 
part,  and  be  grown  as  thick  as  oyl.  They  call 
this  drug  duschab  [ debhash~\ , and  when  they 
would  take  of  it,  they  dissolve  it  with  water.1 
‘ Sometimes  they  boyl  the  duschab  so  long  that 
they  reduce  it  into  a paste,  for  the  convenience  of 
travellers,  who  cut  it.  with  a knife,  and  dissolve 
it  in  water.  At  Tabris  they  make  a certain  con- 
serve of  it,  which  they  call  hehoa  \el-magin~\ , 
mixing  therewith  beaten  almonds,  flour,  &c. 
They  put  this  mixture  into  a long  and  narrow 
bag,  and  having  set  it  under  the  press,  they  make 
of  it  a paste,  which  grows  so  hard  that  a man 
must  have  a hatchet  to  cut  it.  They  make  also  a 
kind  of  conserve  of  it,  much  like  a pudding, 
which  they  call  zutzuch,  thrusting  through  the 
middle  of  it  a small  cotton  thread  to  keep  the 
paste  together1  ( Ambassador’s  Travels,  b.  vi. 
p.  311).  The  Tartars  consumed  a similar  pre- 
paration ; ‘ They  have  certain  cakes  made  of 
meal,  rice,  and  millet,  fry*d  in  oil  or  honey  ’ (b. 
iv.  p.  173).  Amongst  the  presents  received  by 
the  ambassadors  there  is  enumerated  ‘ a bottle  of 
scherab  [syrup]  or  Persian  wine  1 (p.  175).  This 
zutzuch  is  but  a harsh  corruption  of  the  Hebrew 
eshishah.  and  is  by  others  called  hashish  and 
achicha.  Even  this  substance,  in  course  of  time, 
was  converted  into  a medium  of  intoxication  by 
means  of  drugs.  ‘ Hemp  is  cultivated  and  used 
ca  a narcotic  over  all  Arabia.  The  flowers,  when 


mixed  with  tobacco,  are  called  hashish  Thj 
higher  classes  eat  it  (hemp)  in  a jelly  or  pasta 
called  maajoun  \el~magin\ , mixed  with  honey, 
or  other  sweet  drugs1  (Crichton's  Arabia,  voi.  ii. 
p.  413).  Lempriere  says — ‘Instead  of  the  in- 
dulgence of  opium  by  the  Moors,  they  substitute 
the  achicha,  a species  of  flax’  ( Tour  to  Morocco , 
1794,  p.  300).  The  leaves  of  the  garden  hemp 
( shahdanaj ),  says  El-Kazweenee,  are  the  benj 
(bange),  which,  when  eaten,  disorders  the  reason. 
De  Sacy  and  Lane  derive  the  name  of  the  Eastern 
sect  of  ‘Assassins’  ( Hashshasheen ),  ‘hemp- 
eaters,1  from  their  practice  of  using  shahdanaj  to 
fit  them  for  their  dreadful  work.  El-Idreesee, 
indeed,  applies  the  term  Hasheesheeyeh  to  the 
‘Assassins.1 

11.  fDn  chometz,  u£os  [Leaven],  rendered 
‘ vinegar’  (i.  e.  sick  or  sour  wine)  in  the  common 
version.  The  modern  Jews  still  employ  this 
phrase  to  denote  wine  spoiled  by  acidity.  It 
seems,  however,  in  its  general  use,  to  have  sig- 
nified anciently  a thin  acidulated  beverage,  as 
well  as  to  comprehend  ‘ vinegar,1  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  word.  In  Ruth  ii.  14,  it  is  named  as 
the  drink  of  the  reapers  of  Boaz,  and  probably 
corresponded  to  the  posca  (from  post-escam)  given 
to  the  Roman  legions.  A very  small  wine, 
called pesca  and  sera  (from  seor , ‘sour’),  is  still 
used  by  the  harvesters  in  Italy  and  the  Penin- 
sula. This  term  is  employed  by  the  Psalmist 
in  lxix.  21, ‘They  gave  me  also  gall  for  my 
meat ; and  in  my  thirst  they  gave  me  vinegar  to 
drink,1 — a prediction  actually  fulfilled  at  the  Cru- 
cifixion of  the  Messiah.  Thus  the  o|os  mingled 
with  gall  (Matt,  xxvii.  34)  is  the  same  as  the 
olvos  mingled  with  myrrh  (Mark  xv.  23),  a 
bitter  substance  [Rosh]. 

12.  Olvos,  the  Greek  generic  term  for  wine, 
from  the  Hebrew  yayin.  It  comprehended  new 
wine  ( olvos  veos ),  luscious  wine  (y\ evKos),  pure 
or  unmingled  wine  (jxKparov),  and  a thin  sour 
wine  (tiljos).  The  adjective  veos  distinguished 
olvos  from  7ra\atos,  old  wine  (Matt.  ix.  17; 
Mark  ii.  22  ; Luke  v.  37).  Florentinus,  in  the 
Geoponica , counsels  the  husbandman  often  to 
taste  both  his  new  and  his  old  wine,  so  that  the 
slightest  sign  of  acidity  might  be  detected  at  its 
commencement  (lib.  vii.  cap.  7).  In  Luke  v. 
37-8,  ‘No  man  putteth  veos  olvos  into  old 
bottles,  else  the  veos  olvos  will  burst  the  bottles 
and  be  spilled,  and  the  bottles  shall  perish;  but 
veos  olvos  must  be  put  into  new  bottles,  and  both 
are  preserved,1 — the  allusion  is  to  the  large  skin 
bottles  of  the  East,  into  which  the  fresh  grape- 
juice  ( mustum  or  yXevuos)  was  frequently  put 
for  preservation.  Job  alfectingly  refers  to  tint 
custom,  when  he  says,  ‘ I am  as  wine  which  hath 
no  vent — ready  to  burst,  like  new  bottles 
his  heart  was  full  to  bursting,  so  that  the  bodily 
frame  could  hardly  resist  the  internal  working’. 
of  the  afflicted  spirit.  If,  however,  the  bottli. 
happened  to  be  old,  the  wine  would  commencx 
fermentation,  and  the  bottle  would  actually  burs!, 
and  both  would  perish.  ‘The  force  of  termer.* 
ing  wine  is  very  great;  being  able,  if  closdh 
stopped  up,  to  burst  through  the  strongest  casi. 
(Chambers1  Cyclopcedia,  vol.  ii.art.‘ Wine,’175C% 
The  phenomena  referred  to  have  been  fully  ex- 
plained by  the  chemical  researches  of  Liebig. 
Fermentation  depends  upon  the  access  of  ail 


WINE. 


WINE. 


95  6 


to  the  grane-juice,  the  gluten  of  which  absorb* 
oxygen  and  becomes  ferment  or  yeast,  communi- 
cating its  own  decomposition  to  the  saccharine 
matter  of  the  grape,  which  becomes  transformed 
into  alcohol  and  carbonic  acid  gas.  It  is  the  ex- 
pansion of  the  gas  thus  liberated  which  bursts  the 
bottles,  when  the  fermentation  has  once  fairly 
started.  Old  bottles  would  have  portions  of  the 
sediment  of  former  wine  adhering  to  their  sides, 
which  must  have  absorbed  oxygen,  and  thus 
have  become  converted  into  fermenting  matter. 
From  age  and  exposure  to  the  heat,  old  bottles 
would  become  dry  and  full  of  cracks  and  minute 
crevices,  which  would  give  admission  to  the  air. 
Thus,  as  Burckhardt  informs  us,  speaking  of  the 
Beyrouk  honey  of  the  Syrians,  ‘ They  use  it  in 
rubbing  their  water-skins,  in  order  to  exclude  the 
air’  ( Travels  in  Syria , p.  129).  Hence  our 
Lord,  adverting  to  the  difficulty  of  young  dis- 
ciples bearing  all  at  once  his  new  doctrines  and 
commandments,  intimates  that  the  earthly  or 
fleshly  vessel  was  noc  yet  fitted  for  their  full  re- 
ception ; that  their  minds  must  be  first  cleansed 
from  the  remnants  and  leaven  of  the  old  doctrine, 
and  gradually  renewed  by  the  power  of  the  truth. 

13.  rxevKos,  must,  in  common  usage,  ‘sweet’ 
or  ‘ new  wine.’  It  only  occurs  once  in  the  New 
Testament  (Acts  ii.  13).  Josephus  applies  the 
term  to  the  wine  represented  as  being  pressed  out 
of  the  bunch  of  grapes,  by  the  Archi-oino-choos, 
into  the  cup  of  the  royal  Pharaoh.  It  seems  to 
have  been  applied  to  wine  in  its  sweetest  state. 
Its  derivation,  indeed,  denotes  ‘ lusciousness  :’ 
hence  Homer  ( Odyss . xx.  68)  applies  a word  of 
kindred  origin,  y\vK€p6s,  ‘luscious,’  to  honey,  but, 
in  the  same  line,  pbvs,  ‘ sweet,’  to  wine.  The 
writers  of  the  Geoponica  constantly  use  ykevicos 
in  the  sense  of  must.  Diophanes,  who  was  a 
good  Latinist,  puts  mustum  into  a Grecian  dress, 
in  order  the  better  to  express  his  meaning.  See 
Geoponica  (ix.  20),  where  he  says,  ykevuovs, 
TouTearl  rov  Kakovpevov  govarov, — ‘ of  gleukos , 
that  is,  what  is  called  mouston .’  In  the  same 
way  the  Romans  distinguished  must  as  dulce, 

‘ luscious,’  but  the  wine  made  from  it  only  as 
suave , ‘ sweet.’  Pliny  »ays,  ‘ Medium  inter  dulcia 
vinum  est,  quod  Greeci  aigleucos  vocant,  hoc  est, 
semper  mustum.  Id  evenit  cura,  quoniam  fervere 
prthibetur  : sic  enim  appellant  musti  in  vina  tran- 
situm  ’ (Hist.  Nat.  xiv.  9)  : — ‘ That  which  holds 
the  middle  place  among  the  sweet  wines  is  what 
th*»  Greeks  call  aigleucos,  that  is,  always  must. 
Tnat  comes  out  with  care  [being  the  first  pres- 
sure of  the  ripe  grapes],  by  which  it  is  for- 
bidden to  ferment : for  so  they  call  the  passing  of 
must  into  [intoxicating]  wine.’  Tkevuos  was 
often  preserved  by  being  put  into  jars  closely 
stopped  up,  which  were  placed  in  cool  cellars, 
and  sometimes  it  was  buried  in  vessels  beneath 
the  earth,  a custom  still  followed  in  the  East. 
Formerly  in  France  a similar  plan  of  keeping 
sweet  wine  obtained.  The  Nouveaux  Secrets 
concetnans  lesArtset  Metiers  gives  this  receipt : 

‘ To  preserve  the  wine  in  the  must  one  year. 
Take  the  first  wine  which  runs  from  the  grapes,  be- 
fore tl  ey  have  been  pressed  ; put  it  in  the  barrel, 
and  having  stopt  the  mouth  well  and  pitched  it 
over,  bo  that  the  water  cannot  penetrate,  then  put 
(lie  bai^el  in  a cistern  sufficiently  full  of  water 
o cover  it  entirely ; at  the  end  of  forty  days  with- 
Iraw  it.  and  the  wine  will  preserve  its  liquor  all 


.he  year’  (vol.  ii.  p.  371,  Nancy,  ‘.721).  This 
would  resemble  the  celebrated  Hungarian  wine 
called  Tokay  JEssenz,  and  be  little  liable  to  the 
alcoholic  fermentation,  since,  from  the  gentle 
pressure  of  the  grapes  themselves,  the  albumen  of 
the  grape,  contained  in  the  central  division  of  the 
fruit,  would  not  be  pressed  out,  and  upon  this 
the  fermentation  partly  depends.  The  ancients 
preserved  some  of  their  wines  by  depurating  them. 
‘ The  must  or  new  wine,’  says  Mr.  T.  S.  Carr, 
‘ was  refined  with  the  yolks  of  pigeons’  eggs  ’ 
(Rom.  Antiq.  p.  323),  which  occasioned  the  sub- 
sidence of  the  albumen  or  ferment.  But  on  the 
new  wine  being  allowed  to  stand,  this  principle 
would  subside  by  natural  gravity : hence  the 
ancients  poured  off  tlfe  upper  and  luscious  por- 
tion of  the  wine  into  another  vessel,  repeating  the 
process  as  often  as  necessary,  until  they  procured 
a clear  sweet  wine  which  would  keep.*  If  the 
precautions  we  have  referred  to  were  neglected, 
as  was  probably  the  case  sometimes  with  ykevuos, 
intended  for  speedy  consumption,  the  wine  would 
of  course  ferment.  Perhaps  such  a species  might 
be  referred  to  in  Acts  ii.  13. 

Tiie  Latin  translator  of  Galen,  with  others,  has 
confounded  ykeGuos  with  ykvuv,  or  ykv  kos,  a 
very  different  sort  of  wine,  corresponding  to  the 
Roman  passum.  It  was  a sort  of  natural  sapa 
concocted  with  the  heat  of  the  sun.  Didymus, 
one  of  the  Geoponic  authors,  thus  describes  the 
mode  of  making  it  in  Bithynia  : ‘ Thirty  days 
before  the  vintage  they  twist  the  twigs  which  bear 
the  clusters,  and  strip  off  the  foliage,  so  that  the 
sun,  striking  down,  may  dry  up  the  moisture, 
and  make  the  wine  sweet,  just  as  we  do  by  boil- 
ing.* ‘ Some  persons,  after  they  have  bared  the 
bunches  from  the  leaves,  and  the  grapes  begin  to 
wrinkle,  gather  them  together  in  the  clusters,  and 
expose  them  to  the  sun  until  they  have  all  become 
uvce  passes.  Lastly,  they  take  them  up  when  the 
sun  is  at  the  hottest  point,  carry  them  to  the 
upper  press,  and  leave  them  there  the  rest  of  the 
day  and  the  following  night,  and  about  daylight 
they  tread  them’  (Geop.  lib.  vii.  c.  18,  p.  503, 
Leipsic  ed.  1781).  Hesychius  identifies  the 
ykvuv  with  hepsema  and  siraion : — eif/pga,  Unep 
evioi  'S.lpaiov  uakovaiv,  akkoi  Ykvuv. 

Besides  the  various  kinds  we  have  considered, 
two  other  wines  are  mentioned  in  Scripture,  which 
derive  their  name  from  the  locality  of  their 
growth. 

The  Wine  of  Helbon. — We  have  no  inti* 
mation  of  the  character  of  this  wine;  but  as  the 
pleasant  smell  of  the  grapes  is  noticed  in  Cant, 
ii.  13,  we  may  infer  that  the  wine  also  had  a 
fragrant  scent.  It  has  been  generally  regarded 

* Chardin  observes  that  * they  frequently  pour 
wine  from  vessel  to  vessel  in  the  East ; for  when 
they  begin  one,  they  are  obliged  immediately  to 
empty  it  into  smaller  vessels,  or  into  bottles,  or  it 
would  grow  sour'  (Harmer’s  Observ.  vol.  ii.  p. 
155).  Reference  is  made  to  this  custom  in  Jer. 
xlviii.  11 — ‘ Moab  hath  not  been  emptied  from 
vessel  to  vessel ; his  taste  remaineth  in  him,  and  his 
scent  is  not  changed.’  Fermentation,  excited  by 
the  lees,  completely  changes  the  character  of  the 
wine ; the  luscious  saccharine  fruit  of  the  vine 
be<  omes  transformed  into  other  substances  (alco- 
hol, cenanthic  ether,  essential  oils,  &e.),  of  ^ 
pungent  taste  and  powerful  odour. 


WINS. 


WISDOM  OF  SOLOMON. 


as  tftt  Chttlyhonium  vinum  of  the  ancients,  and 
wag  sold  at  the  marts  of  Tyre  (Ezek.  xxvii.  18). 
As  Judah  and  Israel  supplied  this  celebrated 
mart  with  ‘ wheat  of  Minnith  and  Pannag,  and 
i lebkash,  and  oil,  and  balm,’  so  the  Syrian  wine  of 
Helbon,  as  the  choicest  of  the  country,  being  car- 
ried to  Damascus,  would  find  its  way  hence  to 
Tyre,  and,  through  the  Tyrians,  become  known 
to  the  Greeks  and  Romans..  As  the  land  car- 
riage to  Damascus,  and  thence  over  the  shoulder  ot 
Mount  Lebanon,  to  Tyre,  must  have  considerably 
enhanced  the  price,  it  seems  natural  to  suppose 
that  this  wine  was  of  the  concentrated  or  inspis- 
sated sort.  Such  the  Chalybonium  vinum  was 
in  fact.  In  truth,  as  Mr.  Carr  observes,  ‘ the 
application  of  the  fumarium  * to  the  mellowing 
of  wines,  was  borrowed  from  the  Asiatics  ; and 
thus  exhalation  would  go  on  until  the  wine  was 
reduced  to  the  state  of  a syrup  ’ (Rom.  Antiq. 
]).  323).  ‘Such  preparations,’  says  Sir  Edward 
Barry,  ‘ are  made  by  the  modern  Turks,  which 
they  frequently  carry  with  them  on  long  journeys, 
and  occasionally  take  as  a strengthening  and  re- 
viving cordial’  ( Obs . on  Ancient  Whies , ch.  v. 
Lond.  1775).  Dr.  Bowring,  in  his  Report  on 
the  Commerce  of  Syria , says  that  ‘ the  habit  of 
boiling  wine  is  almost  universal,  and  destroys 
its  character’  (p.  17).  Dr.  A.  Russell,  in  his 
Natural  History  of  Aleppo  (the  ancient  Helbon ), 
considers  its  wine  to  have  been  a species  of  sapa. 

4 The  inspissated  juice  of  the  grape,  sapa  vini, 
called  here  dibbs , is  brought  to  the  city  in  skins, 
and  sold  in  the  public  markets ; it  has  much  the 
appearance  of  coarse  honey,  is  of  a sweet  taste, 
and  in  great  use  among  the  people  of  all  sorts  * 

(p.  20). 

The  Wine  of  Lebanon  is  remarked  as  famous 
for  its  fragrant  scenf(Hos.  xiv.  7).  We  understand 
‘ grapes’  to  be  meant  here,  but  some  of  the  wine 
made  from  them  might  also  be  odoriferous.  The 
20,000  bottles  of  wine  which  Solomon  supplied 
to  Hiram  for  the  labourers  in  Lebanon  (2  Chron. 
ii.  10),  was  probably  a thin  weak  drink,  a species 
of  o|os  or  khomets,  a common  drink  in  Syria 
and  Southern  Europe  at  this  day.  Rauwolf, 
D’Arvieux,  La  Roque,  Le  Bruyn,  Buckingham, 
and  Bowring,  all  speak  of  the  modern  wines  of 
Lebanon  as  excellent.  There  are  two  species  of 
the  sweet  fermented  wines  : one  red,  and  so 
unctous  that  it  adheres  to  the  glass  ; the  other 
of  the  colour  of  muscadine,  called  vino  d’oro. 
Cyrus  Redding  states  that  ‘ on  Mount  Libanus, 
at  Kesroan,  good  wines  are  made,  but  they  are 
for  the  most  part  vins  cuits.  The  wine  is  pre- 
served in  jars’  (Hist,  of  Modern  Wines , p.  282). 
Paxton,  who  witnessed  the  vintage  in  Libanon, 
says,  ‘ The  juice  that  was  extracted  when  I visited, 
the  press,  was  not  made  into  [what  is  now  called] 
wine,  but  into  what  is  called  dibs'  (p.  215). 

Much  light  may  be  obtained  concerning  an- 
cient wines,  by  consulting  the  Greek  and  Roman 
writers  on  this  subject ; and  a most  able  summary 
of  the  information  they  contain  will  be  found  in 

* When  the  Mishna  forbids  smoked  wines  from 
being  used  in  offerings  (Menachothf  viii.  6,  et 
comment.),  it  has  chiefly  reference  to  the  Roman 
practice  of  fumigating  them  with  sulphur,  the 
vapour  of  which  absorbed  the  oxygen,  and  thus 
arrested  the  fermentation.  The  Jews  carefully 
vchewed  the  wines  and  vinegar  of  the  Gentiles. 


Dr.  Smith’s  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman 
Antiquities , under  the  article  ‘ Vinum,’  by  Pro- 
fessor Ramsay  ; vide  also  Tirosh  lo  Yayin,  Lond. 
1841;  Athenaeum  for  1836;  and  a series  of 
elaborate  articles  in  the  Truth- Seeker,  1845. 

The  annexed  engraving  of  the  Thermapolium 
is  copied  from  the  scarce  work  of  Andreas 
Baccius  (He  Nat.  Vinorum  Hist.  Romae,  1597, 
lib.  iv.  p.  178).  The  plan  was  obtained  by  him- 
self, assisted  by  two  antiquaries,  from  the  ruins 
of  the  Diocletian  Baths.  Nothing  can  more 
clearly  exhibit  the  contrast  between  the  ancient 
wines  and  those  of  modern  Europe,  than  the 
widely  different  modes  of  treating  them.  ‘ The 
hot  water,’  observes  Sir  Edward  Barry,  ‘ was 
often  necessary  to  dissolve  their  more  inspissated 
and  old  wines.’ 


Oil  and  Wine  (i\aiov  na\  oluov,  Luke  x.  33, 
34).  in  this  passage,  signifies  ‘ pouring 

upon.’  Galen  mentions  an  article  called  olveXaioi /, 
‘oil-wine,’  or  wine  compounded  with  oil;  and 
Africanus,  in  the  Geoponica , directs  the  young 
branches  of  the  fig-trees,  after  pruning,  to  be 
anointed  with  it.  In  the  Latin  translation  ap- 
pended, the  single  compound  word  of  the  original 
is  translated  vino  et  oleo.  Pliny,  in  the  chapter 
relating  to  medicated  oils,  gives  to  one  the  title  of 
oleum  gleucinum , made  by  incorporating  ‘must’ 
and  ‘ oil  ’ (Hist.  Nat.  xv.  7 ; Columella,  xii.  51). 

p R JL 

WINNOWING.  [Agriculture.]  ’ 
WINTER.  [Palestine.] 

WISDOM  OF  SOLOMON  (2o<pla  2a\o- 
p.6vTos  [Apocrypha],  is  the  name  of  one  of  the 
deuterocanonical  books,  and  one  of  those  to 
which,  with  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Wis- 
dom of  Jesbs  son  of  Sirach,  the  term  libri  so* 
pientiales  has  been  generally  applied.  As  in  the 
book  of  Ecclesiastes,  of  which  this  is  an  imitation, 
the  anonymous  author  personates  King  Solomon, 
whom  he  introduces  as  speaking.  From  the  ci- 
tations (according  to  the  Septuagint)  of  the  JO 


WISDOM  OF  SOLOMON. 

pheta  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  it  may  be  inferred 
that  the  writer  had  no  intention  of  giving  it  to 
be  understood  that  it  was  written  by  Solomon  ; but 
that  he  only  followed  a common  custom  of  Greek 
and  other  writers,  in  employing  the  name  of  this 
distinguished  royal  penman.  Athanasius,  or  the 
author  of  the  Synopsis , and  Epiphanius  ( De 
Ponder .)  give  it  the  name  of  Panaretos,  or  ‘ the 
treasure  of  virtue.’  It  is  divided  into  two,  or, 
according  to  some,  into  three  parts.  The  first 
six  chapters  contain  encomiums  on  Wisdom, 
which  all,  and  especially  kings,  are  admonished 
to  acquire,  as  the  true  security  against  present 
evils,  and  as  leading  to  future  glory  and  immor- 
tality, while  a contrary  course  tends  to  misery 
here,  and  still  greater  misery  hereafter.  This, 
observes  Jahn  ( Introd .),  is  the  first  express  men- 
tion of  a future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments. 
In  chaps,  vii.  and  viii.  Solomon  is  introduced, 
teaching  how  wisdom  is  to  be  acquired ; and  in 
chap.  x.  is  given  his  pi-ayer  for  this  inestimable 
gift.  Chaps,  x.-xix.  contain  historical  examples, 
drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  showing  the  hap- 
piness which  had  resulted  from  the  pursuit  of  wis- 
dom, and  the  fatal  consequences  of  sin,  especially 
the  sin  of  idolatry.  The  book  concludes  with 
divers  pious  and  philosophical  observations.  De 
Wette  ( Einleitung , 6 312)  observes  that  this  book 
embodies  the  ethi co-religious  notions  of  the 
Alexandrian  Jews,  in  which  the  philosophy  of 
the  Greeks  and  further  Asiatics  was  engrafted 
on  Mosaism.  From  the  author’s  invectives 
against  unbelieving  and  oppressive  rulers,  as  well 
as  his  strongly-marked  nationality,  it  has  been 
inferred  that  some  special  object  may  have  given 
occasion  to  the  work.  Jahn  ( l . c.)  and  De  Wette 
( l . c.)  both  defend  the  unity  of  the  book  against 
some  who  have  endeavoured  to  show,  from  the 
variety  in  the  style  and  subjects,  that  it  was  the 
composition  of  more  than  one  author. 

The  Book  of  Wisdom  has  been  always  * ad- 
mired for  the  sublime  ideas  which  it  contains  of 
the  perfections  of  God,  and  for  the  excellent 
moral  tendency  of  its  precepts  ’ (Horne’s  Introd.). 
Its  style,  observes  Bishop  Lowth,  after  Calmet, 

( is  unequal,  often  pompous  and  turgid,  as  well 
c.s  tedious  and  diffuse,  and  abounds  in  epithets  di- 
rectly contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Hebrews  : it 
is,  however,  sometimes  temperate,  poetical,  and  sub- 
lime.’ Calmet  supposes  that  the  author  had  read 
the  works  of  the  Greek  poets  and  philosophers. 

Language  of  Wisdom. — Although  there  have 
not  been  wanting  individuals  who  have  con- 
tended for  a Hebrew,  Syriac,  or  Chaldee  original, 
at  least  of  some  parts  of  the  book,  these  hypo- 
theses are  now  considered  to  be  entirely  without 
foundation.  The  Hebraisms  admit  of  an  easy 
explanation.  The  assonances  and  verbal  allu- 
sions, and  the  Greek  colouring  throughout,  be- 
speak a Greek  original  (De  Wette,  l.  <?.).  That 
the  book  never  existed  in  Hebrew  we  have  also 
the  testimony  of  Jerome,  who  observes  that  ‘ the 
style  savours  of  the  Greek  eloquence’  ( Prcef . in 
Lib.  Salom.). 

Author  and  Age. — The  book  was  ascribed  to 
Jesus  Sirach  by  Augustine  (De  Doct.  Christ.), 
who  afterwards  withdrew  this  opinion  ( Retract .); 
to  Zerubbabel  by  J.  Faber,  and  to  Solomon  him- 
self by  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Tertullian,  Lac- 
tantius,  and  others  of  the  fathers;  but  their  con- 
jectures were  witnout  a shadow  of  foundation. 


WISDOM  OF  JESUS  SIRACH.  957 

Jerome  (. Prcef . in  Lib.  Salom.)  calls  it  a pseudepi- 
graphal  book,  commonly  ascribed  to  Solomon, 
He  adds  that  some  of  the  ancients  assigned  it  to 
Philo,  an  opinion  favoured  by  Augustine  (De 
Civit.  Dei)  and  adopted  by  Nicholas  de  Lyra 
and  Luther  (Pref.  to  Wisdom).  But  both  the 
style  and  the  philosophical  views  are  altogether 
repugnant  to  this  hypothesis  (De  Welte,  ut  sup.), 
Others  have  ascribed  it  to  an  elder  Philo,  men- 
tioned by  Josephus,  who  flourished  under  the 
second  temple,  and  wrote  a book  De  Anima  : 
but  this  Philo  was  a heathen.  All  that  can  be 
concluded  with  any  degree  of  probability  is,  that 
the  author  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  who  lived 
after  the  transplanting  of  the  Greek  philosophy 
into  Egypt,  and  who  seems  to  refer  to  the  oppres- 
sions of  the  later  Ptolemies.  Jahn  (Introd.)  con- 
ceives that  the  book  was  written  at  the  close  of 
the  first,  or  beginning  of  the  second,  century  before 
the  Christian  era,  and  that  the  persecution  of  the 
* son  of  God  ’ points  to  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  From  the  striking  resemblance  to  the 
history  of  the  persecution  of  Jesus,  it  has  been 
erroneously  supposed  to  have  been  written,  or,  at 
least,  interpolated,  after  the  Christian  era. 

Church  Authority  of  Wisdom. — It  is  cited 
with  the  highest  degree  of  respect  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (Strom.),  Tertullian  (De  Prescript.), 
Rufinus,  and  others.  It  is  declared  canonical  by 
the  third  council  of  Carthage,  and  included 
among  the  five  books  of  Solomon.  Jerome  (ut 
sup.),  however,  says  that  he  refrained  from  cor- 
recting the  old  Latin  version  of  it,  as  he  only 
desired  to  amend  the  canonical  Scriptures.  Au- 
gustine observes  that,  from  long  prescription,  it  had 
deserved  to  be  heard  with  veneration  in  the  church 
of  Christ  (De  Prcedesl.  Sanct.  i.  14),  and  tha* 
it  was  therefore  read  from  the  step  of  the  readers, 
&c.  Bishop  Cosin  (Scholast.  Hist,  of  the  Canon) 
deduces  from  this  an  implied  inferiority  to  the 
universally  received  books,  inasmuch  as  the 
reader  was  an  inferior  officer ; and  supposes  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  higher  class  were  read  by  the 
priests  and  bishops  from  the  ambo.  But  we  con- 
ceive that  Augustine  only  meant  to  show  that  this, 
with  the  other  books  of  the  same  class,  was 
honoured  by  being  read  in  the  church  at  the 
same  place  and  by  the  same  functionary  as  the 
canonical  Scriptures.  Some  have  supposed  that 
Wisdom  is  cited  in  the  New  Testament.  Comp, 
iii.  7,  with  Matt.  xiii.  43;  ii.  18,  Matt,  xxvii, 
46;  xiii.  1,  Rom.  i.  20  ; ix.  13,  v.  18,  19,  vii. 
26,  Rom.  xi.  34,  Eph.  vi.  13,  14,  17,  Heb.  i.  3. 

Versions. — There  are  three  ancient  versions  ex- 
tant— the  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Latin.  Jerome 
did  not  revise  the  Latin  [Vulgate]. — W.  W. 

WISDOM  OF  JESUS,  SON  OF  SIRACH 
(Gr.  ZZotyia  TtjctoD  viov  leipax,  Lat.  Ecclesias- 
ticus)  [Apocrypha],  one  of  the  books  of  the 
second  canon  [Deuterocanonical],  consists  of 
a collection  of  moral  sentences  after  the  manner 
of  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  (i. — ix.  xxiv.  comp, 
with  Prov.  i. — ix.)  The  work  is  arranged  upon 
no  systematic  plan,  but  abounds  in  directions  re- 
lating to  religion  and  human  conduct.  Wisdom 
is  represented  here,  as  in  Proverbs,  as  the  source 
of  human  happiness,  and  the  same  views  of  human 
life,  founded  on  the  belief  of  a recompense,  per- 
vade the  instructions  of  this  book  also,  wherein, 
however,  a more  matured  reflection  is  perceptible 
(De  Wette’s  Einleitung).  It  is  in  fact  the  com* 


958  WISDOM  OF  JESUS  SIRACH. 


WISDOM  OF  JESUS  SIRACH. 


position  of  a philosopher  who  had  deepTy  studied 
the  fortunes  and  manners  of  mankind,  and  did 
not  hesitate  to  avail  himself  of  the  philosophy  of 
older  moralists;  xii.  8 — xiii.  23  ; xv.  11 — 20; 
xv i.  26 — xvii.  20;  xix.  6 — 17  ; xxiii.  16 — 27  ; 
xxvi.  1 — 18;  xxx.  1 — 13;  xxxvii.  27;  xxxviii. 
15,  24 — xxxix.  1 1,  &c.  ( lb .).  It  abounds  in  grace, 
wisdom,  and  spirit,  although  sometimes  more  par- 
ticular in  inculcating  principles  of  politeness  than 
those  of  virtue  (Cellerier,  Introd.  d la  Lecture 
des  Liv.  Saints ).  It  is  not  unfrequently  marked 
by  considerable  beauty  and  elegance  of  expres- 
sion, occasionally  rising  to  the  sublimest  heights 
of  human  eloquence  ( Christ . Remembrancer,  vol. 
ix.).  It  has  been  observed  of  it  by  Addison 
(see  Horne’s  Introd.,  vol.  iv.)  that  ‘ it  would  be 
regarded  by  our  modern  wits  as  one  of  the  most 
shining  tracts  of  morality  that  are  extant,  if  it 
appeared  under  the  name  of  a Confucius  or  of 
any  celebrated  Grecian  philosopher.’ 

Language. — The  original  of  the  book  was 
Hebrew.  This  is  attested  by  the  Greek  trans- 
lator in  his  preface,  as  well  as  by  the  idiomatic 
character  of  the  version,  the  author  of  which 
(as  has  been  shown  by  Drusius  and  Eichhorn) 
jas  sometimes  even  misunderstood  his  original. 
Jerome  (Prof,  in  Lib.  Salom.')  asserts  that  he 
nad  seen  it  in  Hebrew : ‘ There  is  also  carried 
about  the  Panaretos  of  Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  and 
another  pseudepi graph al  book,  which  is  inscribed 
The  Wisdom  of  Solomon.  The  first  of  these  I 
have  seen  in  Hebrew,  styled,  not  Ecclesiasticus, 

as  in  Latin,  but  the  Parables  (D'^D  mishlim ) ; 
to  which  were  united  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles, 
(hat  it  might  resemble  Solomon  not  only  in  the 
number,  but  the  character  of  the  subjects.’  It  has 
been,  however,  questioned  whether  the  work  which 
Jerome  saw  was  not  an  Aramaic  version. 

Author  and  Age. — The  author  calls  himself 
Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  of  Jerusalem,  but  we  know 
nothing  further  of  him.  George  Syncellus  ( Chro - 
nogr.')  calls  him  high  priest  of  the  Jews;  but 
there  appears  to  be  no  sufficient  authority  for  this 
and  other  conjectures  respecting  him. 

The  age  of  the  book  is  not  easily  determined. 
The  author  eulogizes  the  high  priest  Simon,  son 
of  Onias,  in  terms  which  seem  to  indicate  a con- 
temporary ; and  the  author’s  grandson,  who  trans- 
lated it,  states  in  his  preface  that  he  had  arrived 
in  Egypt  in  the  thirty-eighth  year , in  the  reign 
of  King  Euergetes.  But  there  were  two  high 
priests  of  the  same  name,  Simon  the  Just,  who 
lived  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Lagus  (about  b.c. 
290),  and  another,  the  contemporary  of  Ptolemy 
Philopator  (b.c.  221).  There  were  also  two  sove- 
reigns called  Euergetes , the  first  of  whom  was  the 
son  and  successor  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (b.c. 
247),  and  Euergetes  II.  or  Ptolemy  Physcon 
(b.c.  169).  Prideaux  ( Connection ) and  Eich- 
horn maintain  that  Simon  the  Second  is  the  priest 
referred  to,  that  the  oppressions  presupposed  by 
the  prayer  in  chap.  1.  correspond  with  the  reign 
of  Ptolemy  Philopator,  and  that  the  translator 
came  to  Egypt  in  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Euergetes  II.  (Physcon).  Jahn,  on  the 
other  hand,  observes,  that  the  first  Euergetes 
reigned  only  twenty-four,  and  the  second  twenty- 
rune  years,  and  that  the  thirty-eighth  year  refers 
to  the  age  of  the  translator.  Jahn  further  ob- 
rorvco,  that  the  eulogies  on  Simon  do  not  corre- 


spond with  the  character  of  Simon  II.,  but  tba- 
they  are  in  every  respect  applicable  to  Simon  tha 
Just.  He  therefore  infers  that  the  author  com- 
posed this  work  about  the  year  b.c.  300,  and  that 
his  grandson  translated  it  about  b.c.  280.  Winer 
(De  utr.  Sirac.  atate , and  Real-Worterbuch ) 
maintains  that  Simon  the  Just  is  the  person  re- 
ferred to,  but  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  conclude 
that  the  author  was  his  contemporary.  He  still 
thinks  idiat,  although  the  grammatical  construc- 
tion rather  requires  erei  tg3  iirl  rov  Evepyerov 
to  refer  to  the  age  of  the  monarch’s  reign,  Euer- 
getes the  Second  was  the  king  in  whose  reign  the 
translation  was  made,  as  the  canon  could  not 
have  been  yet  closed  under  the  reign  of  the  first 
Euergetes,  as  implied  in  the  preface, — ‘ the  law, 
the  prophets,  and  the  other  books.’  The  ‘ thirty- 
eighth  year  of  his  reign,’  although  not  applicable 
to  the  first  Euergetes,  may  refer  to  the  second,  if 
his  regency  be  included.  According  to  this, 
which  De  Wette  conceives  the  most  probable 
hypothesis,  the  translator  lived  b.c.  130,  and  the 
author  b.c.  180. 

Church  Authority  of  Ecclesiasticus. — Rufinus 
(in  Symb.)  observes  that  ‘ The  Wisdom  of  the  Son 
of  Sirach  is  called  in  Latin  Ecclesiasticus,  which 
signifies  not  the  name  of  the  author,  but  the  qua- 
lity of  the  writing,’  and  that  it,  with  the  other 
ecclesiastical  books,  including  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  was  read  in  the  Church,  but  not.  em- 
ployed to  confirm  the  authority  of  the  faith.’ 
Calmet  ( Preface ) concludes  that  it  was  called 
Ecclesiasticus  from  its  supposed  resemblance  to 
Ecclesiastes,  as  well  as  to  denote  its  inferior 
authority  before  it  was  finally  received  into  the 
canon.  Jerome,  although  rejecting  it  from  the 
canon,  cites  it  as  divine  Scripture  : ‘ Divina  Scrip- 
tura  loquitur  : musica  in  luctu  in  tempestivanar- 
ratio’  (Ecclus.  xxii.  6).  It  is  cited  in  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  : ‘ Let  not  thine  hand  be  stretched  out. 
to  receive,'  &c.  (Ecclus.  iv.  31),  in  the  first  Epistle 
of  Clement,  and  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
Origen,  Tertullian,  and  most  of  the  fathers. 
Augustine  (De  Doct.  Christ,  c.  8)  says  that  se- 
veral of  the  fathers  cite  it  under  the  name  of 
Solomon,  not  because  it  was  his,  but  from  a cer- 
tain resemblance  to  his  writings.  Allusions  to 
this  book  have  been  supposed  to  be  not  unfre- 
quently discernible  in  the  New  Testament.  Com- 
pare, especially,  Ecclus.  xxxiii.  13  ; Rom.  ix. 
21;  xi.  19;  Luke  xii.  19,  20;  v.  11;  James  i. 
19,  &c. ; xxiv.  17,  18;  Matt.  xi.  28-9;  John 
iv.  13,  14;  vi.  35,  &c. 

We  may  observe,  in  conclusion,  that  all 
which  applies  to  the  authority  of  this  book  is 
equally  applicable  to  the  other  books  of  the 
second  canon.  In  the  early  ages  of  the  Church, 
the  protocanonical  books,  or  those  received  by  the 
Jews,  and  preserved  in  Hebrew,  were  alone  con- 
sidered as  canonical,  at  least  until  the  time  of 
Augustine,  when  the  term  ‘ canonical  ’ seems  to 
have  acquired  a new  meaning.  But  some  of  the 
most  distinguished  teachers  of  the  same  period 
considered  all  the  books  in  the  Alexandrian  ver- 
sion, if  not  canonical,  as  inspired,  and  cite  them 
as  authorities.  At  the  period  of  the  Reformation 
the  Protestants  reverted  to  the  Jewish  canon* 
Learned  Roman  Catholics,  even  since  the  decision 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  have  considered  them- 
selves at  liberty  to  make  a distinction  betw^o 
the  books  of  the  first  and  second  canon,  pod  to 


WITCH. 


WITCHCRAFTS. 


hold  the  tatter  as  of  inferior  authority  ; whilst  in 
recent  times  there  have  not  been  wanting  voices 
raised  in  the  Reformed  Church  in  favour  even  of 
their  inspiration  (Cellerier,  ut  sup.).  Mr.  Robin- 
son, the  translator  of  Moehler’s  Symbolik , is  mis- 
taken in  his  statement  (§  xlii.,  note)  that  the 
Anglican  Church  agrees  in  the  canon  of  Scripture 
with  the  French  Protestants.  The  Church  of 
England,  as  has  been  already  seen  [Deutero- 
canonical],  has  adhered,  in  respect  to  the  Old 
Testament,  to  the  only  canon  which  was  known 
to  the  Church  before  the  Council  of  Hippo  ; and 
while  she  excludes  the  Greek  books  from  the 
canon,  has  passed  no  definitive  judgment  respect- 
ing their  authority  or  inspiration. 

In  the  Libri  Symbolici  Ecclesice  Orientalis, 
Jena,  1843,  there  are  two  canons  given,  one  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith  of  Cyril  Lucaris,  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  1631,  comprehending  only  the 
twenty-two  books  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the 
canon  of  Laodicea,  and  rejecting  the  ‘ Apocry- 
phal,’ so  called,  because  they  have  not  received 
the  same  authority  and  approbation  from  the 
Holy  Spirit  with  those  properly  and  beyond  con- 
troversy accounted  canonical the  other,  that  of 
Dositheus,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  who  presided 
at  the  synod  held  in  that  city  in  1672,  which 
charges  Cyril  with  applying  the  term  apocryphal 
foolishly  and  ignorantly,  or  rather  maliciously, 
to  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Judith,  Tobit,  the 
history  of  the  Dragon,  and  of  Susanna,  the  Mac- 
cabees, and  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  which,  although 
they  do  not  perhaps  seem  to  be  included  by  all, 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem  holds,  notwithstanding, 
to  be  genuine  and  integral  parts  of  the  same 
Scriptures, 

Versions  of  Ecclesiasticus . — We  have  already 
seen  that  Jerome  did  not  translate  this  book.  The 
old  Latin  version  frequently  differs  from  the 
Greek,  and  has  several  additions,  besides  some- 
times reversing  the  order  of  the  text.  Athanasius, 
or  the  author  of  the  Synopsis  Scriptures,  considers, 
but  without  sufficient  grounds,  the  fifty-first  chap- 
ter to  have  proceeded  from  the  Greek  translator. 
The  Greek  MSS.  differ  considerably  from  each 
other.  The  Authorized  English  version  is  taken 
from  the  same  text  with  that  in  the  London  Poly- 
glott,  which  is  not  so  pure  as  the  Vatican  text. 
The  Syriac  version,  contained  in  the  same  Poly- 
gloft,  differs  also  in  many  places  from  the  Greek  ; 
and  Bendsen  (Exercit.  Crit .)  maintains  that  it  is 
derived  immediately  from  the  Hebrew.  The 
Arabic  in  the  same  work  seems  to  be  a descendant 
from  the  Syriac.  The  Sentences  of  Ben  Sirach , 
cited  in  the  Talmud  ( Sanhed . Gem.  xi.  42 ; 
Bereschith  Rabba , viii.  f.  10  ; Baba  Kama,  f.  92, 
c.  2),  and  published  in  Latin  by  Paul  Fagius 
(1542),  and  in  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  and  Latin,  by 
Drusius  (1597),  though  sometimes  similar  to 
those  in  Ecclesiasticus,  are  upon  the  whole  a 
different  work  (Eichhorn’s  and  Bertholdt’s  Intro- 
ductions).— W.  W. 

WITCH.  The  fern.  HD&OP  (a  sorceress),  is 

found  in  Exod.  xxii.  18  ; Sept.  (pappaicSs;  Vulg. 
m&lefica ; the  mas.  (a  sorcerer  or  magi- 

cian), in  Exod.  vii.  11;  Deut.  xviii.  10;  Dan. 
ii.  2;  Mai.  iii.  5;  Sept.  (pappaKos ; Vulg.  male- 
ficus ; and  in  Jer.  xxvii.  9.  In  the  New 
Testament  4 sorcerer  ;’  (pappaicis ; Vulg.  male- 
Hcns,  occurs  in  Rev.  xxi.  8;  xxii.  15. 


m 

WITCHCRAFTS  (D  W3)  occurs  in  2 King* 
ix.  22;  Isa.  xlvii.  9,  12;  Mic.  v.  12;  Nah.  iii. 
4;  Sep i.  (pappaiee'ia,  (pappana",  Vulg.  venefeium, 
maleficium.  In  the  Apocrypha  ‘ witchcraft,’ 
4 sorcery  ;’  (pappaKzia ; veneficium , Wisd.  xii.  4 ; 
xviii.  13  ; and  in  the  New  Testament,  Gal.  v.  20  ; 
Rev.  ix.  21  ; xviii.  23.  As  a verb  C]t^3,  ‘ he 
used  witchcraft,’  occurs  in  2 Chron.  xxxiii.  6; 
iepappartevero,  maleficis  artibus  inserviebat.  This 
verb,  in  Arabic,  signifies  ‘to reveal'  or  ‘discover;’ 
in  Sv;-iac  ethpaal,  according  to  Gesenius,  ‘ to 
pray  ;’  but  this  word,  he  observes,  like  many  other 

sacred  terms  of  the  Syrians,  as  D’HDD  &c., 

is  restricted  by  the  Hebrews  to  idolatrous  ser- 
vices : hence  PjKO  means  ‘ to  practise  magic,’ 
literally ‘to  pronounce  or  mutter  spells.’  The 
word  (pappaKos  is  derived  from  epappaneia,  to  ad- 
minister or  apply  medicines  as  remedies  or  poi- 
sons ; (o  use  magical  herbs,  drugs,  or  substances, 
supposed  to  derive  their  efficacy  from  magical 
spells  ; and  thence  to  use  spells,  conjurations,  or 
enchantments ; hence  cpappands  means,  in  the 
classical  writers,  a preparer  of  drugs,  but  generally 
of  poisons,  or  drugs  that  operate  by  the  force  of 
magical  charms;  and  thence  a magician,  an  en- 
chanter of  either  sex.  It  occurs  in  the  latter 
sense  in  Josephus  ( Antiq . xvii.  4.  1),  and  is  ap- 
plied by  him  to  a female,  tV  pTjrepa  avrov 
(pappaKbi/  ical  irSpvrjv  anoKaAeacu,  (Antiq.  ix.  6.  3). 
This  word  also  answers  in  the  Sept,  to 
‘ magicians’ (Exod.  ix.  11),  cpappaKol,  malefici. 
The  received  text  of  Rev.  xxi.  8,  reads  (pappa - 
tcevs ; but  the  Alexandrian,  and  sixteen  later  MSS., 
with  several  printed  editions,  have  'pappaKos,  a 
reading  embraced  by  Wetstein,  and  by  Gries- 
bach  received  into  the  text.  Gappcucevs  occurs  in 
the  same  sense  as  (pappaKos , in  Lucian  (Dial. 
Deor.  xiii.  1 ; Joseph.  Vita , § 31).  The  word 
< papuaKfla  is  used  of  Circe  by  Aristophanes  (Plut. 
302),  and  in  the  same  sense  of  enchantment,  &c., 
by  Polybius  (vi.  13.  4 ; xl.  3.  7).  It  corresponds 
in  the  Sept.  to.D'Dn^,  ‘enchantments’ 

(Exod.  vii.  11,  22).  The  verb  epappaiteva)  is 
employed  in  the  sense  of  using  enchantments  by 
Herodotus  (vii.  114),  where,  after  saying  that 
when  Xerxes  came  to  the  river  Strymon,  the  magi 
sacrificed  white  horses  to  it,  he  adds,  (pappanev - 
eravres  Se  ravra  is  rbv  Trorapbv,  Kai  c»AAa  7roAAa 
7rpbs  Tovroiai, — ‘ and  having  used  these  enchant- 
merits  and  many  others  to  the  river,’  &c.  The 
precise  idea,  if  any,  now  associated  with  the  word 
‘ witch,’  but,  however,  devoutly  entertained  by 
nearly  the  whole  nation  in  the  time  of  our  trans- 
lators, is  that  of  a female,  who,  by  the  agency  of 
Satan,  or  rather,  of  a familiar  spirit  or  gnome  ap- 
pointed by  Satan  to  attend  on  her,  performs 
operations  beyond  the  powers  of,  humanity,  in 
consequence  of  her  compact  with  Satan,  written 
in  her  own  blood,  by  which  she  resigns  herself  to 
him  for  ever.  Among  other  advantages  result- 
ing to  her  from  this  engagement,  is  the  power  of 
transforming  herself  into  any  shape  she  pleases; 
which  was,  however,  generally  that  of  a hare ; 
transporting  herself  through  the  air  on  a broom- 
stick, sailing  ‘ on  the  sea  in  a sieve,’  gliding 
through  a keyhole,  inflicting  diseases,  &c.,  upon 
mankind  or  cattle.  The  belief  in  the  existence  cf 
such  persons  cannot  be  traced  higher  than  the 
middle  ages,  and  was  probably  derived  from  the 
wild  and  gloomy  mythology  of  the  northern  nv 


WITCHCRAFTS. 


WITCHCRAFTS. 


vGO 

tiong,  amongst  whom  the  Fatal  Sisters,  and  other 
impersonations  of  destructive  agency  in  a female 
form,  were  prominent  articles  of  the  popular  creed. 
This  comparatively  modern  delusion  was  strength- 
ened and  confirmed  by  the  translators  of  the  Bible 
into  the  Western  languages;  a popular  version  of 
the  original  text  having  led  people  to  suppose  that 
there  was  positive  evidence  for  the  existence  of 
such  beings  in  Scripture.  Bishop  Hutchinson 
declares  that  our  translators  accommodated  their 
version  to  the  terminology  of  King  James’s  Trea- 
tise on  Demonologie  ( Encyclopcedia  Metropoli- 
tana , art.  * Witch,’  &c.).  For  an  account  of  the 
appalling  atrocities  perpetrated  against  supposed 
witches  in  Germany,  England,  and  Scotland,  see 
Quarterly  Revieio  (vol.  xi.),  or  Combe’s  Consti- 
tution of  Man  (2nd  ed.,  Edin.  1835,  p.  390).  A 
very  different  idea  was  conveyed  by  the  Hebrew 
word,  which  probably  denotes  a sorceress  or  magi- 
cian, who  pretended  to  discover,  and  even  to 
direct  the  effects  ascribed  to  the  operation  of  the 
elements,  conjunctions  of  the  stars,  the  influence 
of  lucky  and  unlucky  days,  the  power  of  in- 
visible spirits,  and  of  the  inferior  deities  (Graves's 
Lectures  on  the  Pentatetich,  pp.  109,  110,  Dub- 
lin, 1829).  Sir  Walter  Scott  well  observes,  that 
* the  sorcery  or  witchcraft  of  the  Old  Testament 
resolves  itself  into  a trafficking  with  idols  and 
asking  counsel  of  false  deities,  or,  in  other  words, 
into  idolatry’  {Letters  on  Demonology  and  Witch- 
craft, London,  1830,  Let.  2).  Accordingly,  sor- 
cery is  in  Scripture  uniformly  associated  with 
idolatry  (Dent,  xviii.  9-14;  2 Kings  ix.  22; 
2 Chron.  xxxiii.  5,  6,  &c. ; Gal.  v.  20 ; Rev. 
xxi.  8).  The  modern  idea  of  witchcraft,  as  in- 
volving the  assistance  of  Satan,  is  inconsistent 
Scripture,  where,  as  in  the  instance  of  Job, 
Satan  is  represented  as  powerless  till  God  gave 
him  a limited  commission;  and  when  ‘Satan  de- 
sired to  sift  Peter  as  wheat,’  no  reference  is  made 
to  the  intervention  of  a witch.  Nor  do  the  actual 
references  to  magic  in  Scripture  involve  its 
reality.  The  mischiefs  resulting  from  the  pre- 
tension, under  the  theocracy,  to  an  art  which 
involved  idolatry,  justified  the  statute  which 
denounced  it  with  death ; though  instead  of  the 

unexampled  phrase  flTin  ‘ thou  shalt  not 

suffer  to  live,’  Michaelis  conjectures  iTilD 
‘snail  not  be’  (Exoa.  xxii.  18),  which  also  better 
suits  the  parallel,  ‘ There  shall  not  be  found  among 
you,  &c.,a  witch’  (Deut.  xviii.  10).  Indeed,  as 
‘ we  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world, 
and  that  there  is  none  other  gods  but  one’  (l  Cor. 
viii.  4),  we  must  believe  all  pretensions  to  traffic 
with  the  one,  or  ask  counsel  of  the  other,  to  be 
equally  vain.  Upon  the  same  principle  of  sup- 
pressing idolatry,  however,  the  prophets  of  Baal 
also  were  destroyed,  and  net  because  Baal  had  any 
real  existence,  or  because  they  could  avail  any- 
thing by  their  invocations.  It  is  highly  probable 
that  the  more  intelligent  portion  of  the  Jewish 
community,  especially  in  later  times,  understood 
the  emptiness  of  pretensions  to  magic  (see  Isa. 
xliv.  25;  xlvii.  11-15  ; Jer.xiv.  14 ; Jonah  ii.  8). 
Plato  evidently  considered  the  mischief  of  magic 
to  consist  in  the  tendency  of  the  pretension  to  it, 
and  not  in  the  reality  {De  Leg.  lib.  11).  Divi- 
nation of  all  kinds  had  fallen  into  contempt  in 
the  time  of  Cicero:  ‘ Dubium  non  est  quin  haec 
disciplina  et  ars  augurum  evanuerit  jam  et  ve- 


tustate  et  negligentia ’ {De  Legibus,  ii.  i3\ 
Josephus  declares  that  he  laughed  at  the  very 
idea  of  witchcraft  ( Vit.  § 31).  For  the  very  early 
writers  who  maintained  that  the  wonders  of  the 
magicians  were  not  supernatural,  see  Universal 
Hist.  (vol.  iii.  p.  374,  8vo.  ed.).  it  seems  safe  to 
conclude  from  the  Septuagint  renderings,  and 
their  identity  with  the  terms  used  by  classical 
writers,  that  the  pretended  exercise  of  this  art  in 
ancient  times  was  accompanied  with  the  use  of 
drugs,  or  fumigations  made  of  them.  No  doubt 
the  skilful  use  of  certain  chemicals,  if  restricted 
to  the  knowledge  of  a few  persons,  might,  in 
ages  unenlightened  by  science,  along  with  other 
resources  of  natural  magic,  be  made  the  means  of 
extensive  imposture.  The  natural  gases,  exhala- 
tions, &c.,  would  contribute  their  share,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  ancient  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
oracle  at  Delphi.  The  real  mischiefs  ever  effected 
by  the  professors  of  magic  on  mankind,  &c.,  may 
be  safely  ascribed  to  the  actual  administration  of 
poison.  Josephus  states  a case  of  poisoning  under 
the  form  of  a philtre  or  love-potion,  and  says  that 
the  Arabian  women  were  reported  to  be  skilful  in 
making  such  potions  {Antiq.  xvii.  4.  1).  Such 
means  doubtless  constitute  the  real  pernicious- 
ness of  the  African  species  of  witchcraft  called 
Obi,  the  similarity  of  which  word  to  the  Hebrew 
DIN,  inflation , is  remarkable.  Among  the  Sand- 
wich Islanders,  some,  who  had  professed  witch- 
craft, confessed,  after  their  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity, that  they  had  poisoned  their  victims. 
The  death  of  Sir  Thomas  Overbury  is  cited  as 
an  instance  in  this  country,  by  Sir  Walter  Scott, 
{utsupray.  There  was,  indeed,  a wide  scope  for 
the  production  of  very  fantastic  effects,  short  of 
death,  by  such  means.  The  story  of  ‘the  witch 
of  Endor,’,as  she  is  commonly  but  improperly 
called,  is,  under  the  article  Saul,  reterred  to 
witchcraft.  She  indeed  belongs  to  another  class 
of  pretenders  to  supernatural  powers  [Divina- 
tion]. She  was  a necromancer,  or  one  of  those 
persons  who  pretended  to  call  up  the  spirits 
of  the  dead  to  converse  with  the  living  (see  Isa. 
viii.  19;  xxix.  4;  Ixv.  3).  A full  account  is 
given  of  such  persons  by  Lucan  (vi.  591,  &c.), 
and  by  Tibullus  (i.  2.  v.  45 ),  where  the  preten- 
sions of  the  sorceress  are  thus  described — 

Haec  cantu  finditque  solum,  Manesque 
sepul  chris  & 

Elicit,  et  tepido  devocat  ossa  rogo. 

Of  much  the  same  character  is  the  Sibyl  in  the 
6t.h  book  of  Virgil’s  JEneid.  It  is  related  as  the 
last  and  crowning  act  of  Saul’s  rebellion  against 
God,  that  he  consulted  ‘a  woman  who  had  a 
familiar  spirit’  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  7),  literally  ‘a 
mistress  of  the  Ob,' — an  act  forbidden  by  the 
divine  law  (Lev.  xx.  6),  which  sentenced  the 
pretenders  to  such  a power  to  death  (ver.  27),  and 
which  law  Saul  himself  had  recently  enforced 
(1  Sam.  xxviii.  3,  9),  because,  it,  is  supposed,  they 
had  freely  predicted  his  approaching  ruin  ; al- 
though after  the  well-known  prophecies  of  Sa- 
muel to  that  effect,  the  disasters  Saul  had  already 
encountered,  and  the  growing  influence  of  David, 
there  ‘ needed  no  ghost  to  come  from  the  grave  to 
tell  them,  this.’  Various  explanations  of  this 
story  have  been  offered.  It  has  been  attempted 
to  resolve  the  whole  into  imposture  and  collusion* 
Saul,  who  was  naturally  a weak  and  excitahh 


WITCHCRAFTS. 


WITCHCRAFTS. 


man,  had  Income,  through  a long  series  of  vexa- 
tions and  anxieties,  absolutely  ‘ delirious,’  as 
Patrick  observes  : ‘ he  was  afraid  and  his  heart 
greatly  trembled,’  says  the  sacred  writer.  In 
this  state  of  mind,  and  upon  the  very  eve  of  his 
last  battle,  he  commissions  his  own  servants,  to 
seek  him  a woman  that  had  a familiar  spirit, 
and,  attended  by  two  of  them,  he  comes  to  her 
‘.by  night,’  the  most  favourable  time  for  imposi- 
tion. He  converses  with  her  alone,  his  two 
attendants,  whether  his  secret  enemies  or  real 
friends,  being  absent,  somewhere , yet,  however, 
close  at  hand.  Might  not  one  of  these,  or  some 
one  else,  have  agreed  with  the  woman  to  per- 
sonate Samuel  in  another  room? — for  it  appears 
that  Saul,  though  he  spoke  with,  did  not  see 
the  ghost  (ver.  13,  14)  : who,  it  should  be  ob- 
served, told  him  nothing  but  what  his  own  at- 
tendants could  have  told  him,  with  the  exception 
of  those  words,  ‘ to-morrow  shalt  thou  and  thy 
sons  be  with  me’  (ver.  19)  ; to  which,  however, 
it  is  replied,  that  Saul's  death  did  not  occur 
upon  the  morrow,  and  that  the  word  so  trans- 
lated is  sufficiently  ambiguous,  for  though  “HID 
means  ‘ to-morrow  ’ in  some  passages,  it  means  the 
future,  indefinitely,  in  others  (Exod.  xiii.  14,  and 
see  the  margin ; Josh.  iv.  6.  21  ; comp.  Matt, 
vi.  34).  It  is  further  urged,  that  her  ‘ crying 
with  a loud  voice,’  and  her  telling  Saul,  at  the 
same  time,  that  she  knew  him,  were  the  well-timed 
arts  of  the  sorceress,  intended  to  magnify  her  pre- 
tended skill.  It  is,  however,  objected  against 
this,  or  any  other  hypothesis  of  collusion,  that 
the  sacred  writer  not  only  represents  the  Pytho- 
ness as  affirming,  but  also  himself  affirms,  that 
she  saw  Samuel,  and  that  Samuel  spoke  to  Saul, 
nor  does  lie  drop  the  least  hint  that  it  was  not  the 
real  Samuel  of  whom  he  was  speaking.  The 
same  objections  apply  equally  to  the  theory  of 
ventriloquism,  which  has  been  grounded  upon 
the  word  used  by  the  Sept.,  lyyaarpivv^os. 
Others  have  given  a literal  interpretation  of  the 
story,  and  have  maintained  that  Samuel  actually 
appeared  to  Saul.  Justin  Martyr  maintains  this 
theory,  and  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew, 
urges  this  incident  in  proof  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  (p.  333).  The  same  view  is  taken  in  the 
additions  to  the  Sept,  in  1 Ghron.  x.  13,  naL  cbre- 
Kpivaro  dv T<j3  2cty*oid?A.  d vpocpTiTps ; and  in 
Ecclus.  xlvi.  9,  20,  it  is  said,  ‘and  after  his  death 
Samuel  prophesied,  and  showed  the  king  his  end,’ 
&c.  Such  also  is  the  view  Josephus  takes  ( Antiq . 
vi.  14.  3.  4),  where  he  bestows  a laboured  eulo- 
gium  upon  the  woman.  It  is,  however,  objected, 
that  the  actual  appearance  of  Samuel  is  incon- 
sistent with  all  we  are  taught  by  revelation  con- 
cerning the  state  of  the  dead  ; involves  the  possi- 
bility of  a spirit  or  soul  assuming  a corporeal 
shape,  conversing  audibly,  &c. ; and  further, 
that  it  is  incredible  that  God  would  submit  the 
departed  souls  of  his  servants  to  be  summoned 
back  to  earth,  by  rites  either  utterly  futile,  or  else 
defjvirig  their  efficacy  from  the  co-operation  of 
i Satan.  So  Tertullian  argues  (De  Anima,  cap. 
lvii.),  and  many  other  of  the  ancients.  Others 
have  supposed  that  the  woman  induced  Satan  or 
some  evil  spirit  to  personate  Samuel.  But  this 
theory,  beside  other  difficulties,  attributes  nothing 
less  than  miraculous  power  to  the  devil ; for  it 
supposes  the  apparition  of  a spiritual  and  incor- 
poreal being,  and  that.  Satan  can  assume  the  ap- 
YOL.  ti.  62 


pearance  of  any  one  he  pleases.  Again,  the  hi» 
torian  (ver.  14)  calls  this  appearance  t>j  Saul, 

N1H  ‘Samuel  himself'  (the  latter  word 

is  entirely  omitted  by  our  translators)  ; whicn  he 
could  not  with  truth  have  done  if  it  was  no  other 
than  the  devil;  who,  besides,  is  here  represented  as 
the  severe  reprover  of  Saul’s  impiety  and  wicked- 
ness. The  admission  that  Satan  or  an  evil  spirit 
could  thus  personate  an  individual  at  pleasure, 
would  endanger  the  strongest  evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity. Others  have  maintained  another  interpre- 
tation, which  appears  to  us  at  once  tenable,  and 
countenanced  by  similar  narratives  in  Scripture, 
namely,  that  the  whole  account  is  the  narrative  of  a 
miracle,  a divine  representation  or  impression , 
partly  upon  the  senses  of  Saul,  and  partly  upon  those 
of  the  woman,  and  intended  for  the  rebuke  and  pu- 
nishment of  Saul.  It  is  urged,  from  the  air  of  the 
narrative  in  ver.  11,  12,  thatSamuel  appeared  be- 
fore the  woman  had  any  time  for  jugglery,  fumi- 
gations, &c. ; for  although  the  word  ‘ when  ’ (ver. 
12)  is  speciously  printed  in  Roman  characters,  it 
has  nothing  to  answer  to  it  in  the  original,  which 
reads  simply  thus,  beginning  at  ver.  11  : ‘Then 
said  the  woman,  Whom  shall  I bring  up  unto 
thee  ? And  he  said,  Bring  me  up  Samuel.  And 
the  woman  saw  Samuel,  and  cried  with  a loud 
voice.’  No  sooner  then  had  Saul  said,  ‘ Bring  me 
up  Samuel,’  than  Samuel  himself  was  presented 
to  her  mind — an  event  so  contrary  to  her  expecta- 
tion, that  she  cried  out  with  terror.  At  the  same 
time,  and  by  the  same  miraculous  means,  she 
was  made  aware  of  the  royal  dignity  of  her  visit- 
ant. The  vision  then  continues  in  the  mind  of 
Saul,  who  thereby  receives  his  last  reproof  from 
heaven,  and  hears  the  sentence  of  his  approach- 
ing doom.  Thus  God  interposed  with  a miracle 
previously  to  the  use  of  any  magical  formulae, 
as  he  did  when  the  king  of  Moab  had  recourse 
to  sorceries  to  overrule  the  mind  of  Balaam,  so 
that  he  was  compelled  to  bless  those  whom  Balak 
wanted  him  to  curse  (Num.  xxiii.) ; and  as  God 
also  interposed  when  Ahaziah  sent  to  consult 
Baal-zebub  his  god,  about  his  recovery,  when  by 
his  prophet  Elijah  he  stopt  the  messengers,  re- 
proved their  master,  and  denounced  his  death 
(2  Kings  i.  2,  16).  It  may  also  be  observed  that 
Saul  was  on  this  occasion  simply  sentenced  to  the 
death  he  had  justly  incurred  by  having  recourse 
to  those  means  which  he  knew  to  be  unlawful. 
Of  the  same  nature  of  divine  representation  or 
vision,  we  think,  was  the  reproof  administered  tc 
Elijah,  at  Mount  Horeb,  when  ‘a  great  and  strong 
wind  rent  the  mountains,  and  brake  in  pieces 
the  rocks  before  the  Lord,’  and  was  succeeded 
by  ‘an  earthquake,’  &c.  (1  Kings  xix.  11,  &c.). 
Of  the  same  nature,  also,  was  the  Temptation  of 
our  Lord  (see  the  article,  and  other  instances  of 
divine  vision  not  expressly  specified  as  such,  in 
Bishop  Law’s  Theory  of  Religion , pp.  85,  86, 
London,  1820).  Farmer  is  of  opinion  that  the 
suppression  of  the  word  ‘himself’  (ver.  14), 
and  the  introduction  of  the  word  ‘ when  ’ (ver. 
12),  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  prejudices  of  our 
translators.  If  they  do  not  betray  a bias  on  then 
minds,  these  instances  support  the  general  re- 
mark of  Bishop  Lowth,  upon  the  Englisn  transla* 
tion,  ‘ that  in  respect  of  the  sense,  and  accuracy 
of  interpretation,  the  improvements  of  which  it  is 
capable  are  great  and  numberless 1 ( Preliminary 


$62 


WITNESS. 


WITNESS. 


Dissertation  to  Isaiah,  ad  finem).  Some  other 
mis-translations  occur  in  reference  to  this  subject. 
In  1 Sam.  xv.  23,  ‘ rebellion  is  as  the  sin  of  witch- 
craft,1 should  be  of  ‘ divination.’  In  Deut.  xviii. 
10,  the  word  PjJiOD  does  not  mean  * witch,1  but, 
being  mascul  ne,  ‘ a sorcerer.1  In  Acts  viii.  9, 
the  translation  is  exceedingly  apt  to  mislead  the 
mere  English  reader  : ‘ Simon  used  sorcery,  and 
bewitched  the  people  of  Samaria1 — 'S.lpcav  irpovirrip - 
X*v  & rf}  r.6Xu  paydnav  /cal  rb  (6vos  rrjs 

Hapapdas — i.  e.  * Simon  had  been  pursuing  magic, 
and  perplexing  (or  astonishing)  the  people,1  &c. 
See  also  vcr.  1 1 , and  comp,  the  use  of  the  word 
i^i(TTT)fju,  Matt.  xii.  23.  In  Gal.  iii.  1,  ‘ Foolish 
Galatians,1  r is  vpas  ifiacKave,  ‘who  hath  fasci- 
nated you  ? 1 (For  the  use  of  the  words  fiaanavla 
and  (pappattda  in  magic,  among  the  Greeks,  see 
Potter’s  Archeeologia  Grceca , vol.  i.  ch.  xviii. 
p.  356,  &c.,  Lond.,  1775.)  It  is  considered  by 
some,  that  the  word  ‘ witchcraft 1 is  used  meta- 
phorically, for  the  allurements  of  pleasure,  Nah. 
iii.  4;  Rev.  xviii.  23,  and  that  the  ‘sorcerers’ 
mentioned  in  ch.xxi.8,  may  mean  sophist ica tors  of 
the  truth.  The  kindred  word  <pa.pp.ao oca  is  used  by 
metonymy,  as  signifying  ‘ to  charm,1  ‘ to  persuade 
by  flattery,1  &c.  (Plato,  Sympos.  § 17),  ‘ to  give  a 
temper  to  metals1  ( Odyss . ix.  393).  The  last 
named  theory  concerning  the  narrative  of  Samuel’s 
appearance  to  Saul  is  maintained  with  much 
learning  and  ingenuity  by  Hugh  Farmer  {Disser- 
tation on  Miracles , p.472,  & c.  Lond.  1771).  It 
is  adopted  by  Dr.  Waterland  ( Sermons , vol.  ii. 
p.  267),  and  Dr.  Delaney  in  his  Life  of  David; 
but  is  combated  by  Dr.  Chandler  with  objections, 
which  are,  however,  answered  or  obviated  by 
Farmer.  On  the  general  subject  see  Michaelis’s 
Laics  of  Moses,  by  Dr.  A.  Smith,  London,  1814, 
vol.  iv.  pp.  83-93  ; Banier's  History  of  Mythology, 
lib.  iv.  ; Winer’s  Biblisches  Real-  Worterbuch, 
art.  ‘ Zauberei.1 — J.  F.  D. 

WITNESS.  It  is  intended  in  the  present 
article  to  notice  some  of  the  leading  and  peculiar 
senses  of  this  voluminous  word.  It  occurs,  1st, 
in  the  sense  of  a person  who  deposes  to  the  occur- 
rence of  any  fact,  a witness  of  any  event,  Sept. 

paprvs  or  paprvp ; Vulg.  testis.  The  Hebrew 
word  is  derived  from  to  repeat.  The  Greek 
is  usually  derived  from  pelpca,  to  ‘divide,’ 

‘ decide,’  &c.,  because  a witness  decides  contro- 
versies (Heb.  vi.  16)  ; but  Damm  (Lex.  Horn.  col. 
1495)  derives  it  from  the  old  word  papri,  ‘the 
hand,’  because  witnesses  anciently  held  up  their 
hands  in  giving  evidence.  This  custom  among 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  is  referred  to  in  Gen.  xiv. 
22;  among  the  heathens,  by  Homer  (II.  x.  321), 
and  by  Virgil  (AEn.  xii.  196).  God  himself 
is  represented  as  swearing  in  this  manner  (Deut. 
xxxii.  40;  Ezek.  xx.  5,  6,  15;  comp.  Num. 
xiv.  30).  So  also  the  heathen  gods  (Pindar, 
Olymp.  vii.  119,  120).  These  Hebrew  and  Greek 
words,  with  their  various  derivations,  pervade  the 
entire  subject.  They  are  applied  to  a judicial 
witness  in  Exod.  xxiii.  1 ; Lev.  v.  1 ; Num.  v. 
13;  xxxv.  30  (comp.  Deut.  xvii.  6;  xix.  15; 
Matt,  xviii.  16;  2 Cor.  xiii.  1);  Prov.  xiv.  5; 
xxiv.  28;  Matl.  xxvi.  65;  Acts  vi.  13  ; 1 Tim. 
v.  19;  Heb.  x.  28.  They  are  applied,  generally , 
to  a person  who  certifies,  or  is  able  to  certify,  to 
any  fact  which  has  come  under  his  cognizance 
(Josh.  xxiv.  22;  Isa.  viii  2;  Luke  xxiv.  48; 


Acts  i.  8,  22:  1 Hess.  ii.  10;  1 Tim.  vi.  12;  1 
Tim.  ii.  2;  1 Pet.  i.  5\  So  in  allusion  to  those 
who  witness  the  public  games  (Heb.  xii.  1).  They 
are  also  applied  to  any  one  who  testifies  to  the 
world  what  God  reveals  through  him  (Rev.  xi.  3). 
In  the  latter  sense  the  Greek  word  is  applied  to  our 
Lord  (Rev.  i.  5;  iii.  14).  It  is  further  used  in 
the  ecclesiastical  sense  of  martyr  [Martyr], 
Both  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  are  also  applied 
to  God  (Gen.  xxxi.  50  ; 1 Sam.  xii.  5 ; Jer.  xlii. 
5 ; Rom.  i.  9 ; Phil.  i.  8 ; 1 Thess.  ii.  5)  ; to  ina- 
nimate things  (Gen.  xxxi.  52  ; Ps.  lxxxiv.  37). 
The  supernatural  means  whereby  the  deficiency 
of  witnesses  was  compensated  under  the  theo- 
cracy, have  been  already  considered  under  the  ar- 
ticles Adultery,  Trial  of;  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim.  For  the  punishment  of  false  witness  and  the 
suppression  of  evidence,  see  Punishment.  For 
the  forms  of  adjuration  (2  Chron.  xviii.  15),  see 
Adjuration.  Opinions  differ  as  to  what 
is  meant  by  ‘ the  faithful  witness  in  heaven  * 
(Ps.  lxxxix.  37).  Some  suppose  it  to  mean 
the  moon  (comp.  Ps.  lxxii.  5,  7 ; Jer.  xxxi. 
35,  36  ; xxxiii.  20,  21  ; Ecclus.  xliii.  6)  ; others, 
the  rainbow  (Gen.  ix.  12-17). — 2.  The  witness 
or  testimony  itself  borne  to  any  fact,  is  expressed 
by  TT  ; paprvpla  ; testimonium.  They  are  used 
of  judicial  testimony  (Prov.  xxv.  18;  Mark 
xiv.  56,  59).  In  ver.  55,  Schleusner  takes  the 
word  paprvpla  for  pdprvp,  the  abstract  for  the 
concrete  (Luke  xxii.  71  ; John  viii.  17 ; Joseph 
Antiq.  iv.  8.  15).  It  denotes  the  testimony  to 
the  truth  of  anything  generally  (John  i.  7,  19; 
xix.  35) ; that  of  a poet  (Tit.  i.  13).  It  occurs 
in  Josephus  ( Cont . Apion.  1.  21).  In  John  iii.  11, 
32,  Schleusner  understands  the  doctrine,  the  thing 
professed  ; in  v.  32,  36,  the  proofs  given  by  God 
of  our  Saviour’s  mission  ; comp.  v.  9.  In  viii.  13, 
14,  both  he  and  Bretschneider  assign  to  the  word 
the  sense  of  praise.  In  Acts  xxii.  18,  the  former 
translates  it  teaching  or  instruction.  In  Rev.  i.  9, 
it  denotes  the  constant  prof ession  of  Christianity, 
or  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  (comp.  i. 

2 ; vi.  9).  In  1 Tim.  iii.  7,  paprvp'iav  KaX-pv 
means  a good  character  (comp.  3 Ep.  John  12; 
Ecclus.  xxxi.  34;  Joseph.  Antiq.  vi.  10.  1).  In 
Ps.  xix.  7,  ‘ The  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure  * 
probably  signifies  the  ordinances , institutions,  &c. 
(comp.  cxix.  22,  24,  &c.)  Those  ambiguous  words, 
‘He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  of  God  hath  the 
witness  in  himself1  (1  John  v.  10),  which  have 
given  rise  to  a variety  of  fanatical  meanings,  are 
easily  understood,  by  explaining  the  word  exei,, 

‘ receives,1  ‘ retains,1  &c.,  i.  e.  the  foregoing  testi- 
mony which  God  hath  given  of  his  Son,  whereas 
the  unbeliever  rejects 'it.  The  whole  passage  is 
obscured  in  the  English  translation  by  neglecting 
the  uniformity  of  the  Greek,  and  introducing 
the  word  ‘record,1  contrary  to  the  profession  cf 
our  translators  in  their  Preface  to  the  Header 
(ad  finem).  The  Hebrew  word,  with  uaprvpiov, 
occurs  in  the  sense  of  monument,  evidence,  & c. 
(Gen.  xxi.  30  ; xxxi.  44 ; Deut.  iv.  45 ; xxxi. 
26;  Josh.  xxii.  27;  Ruth  iv.  7;  Matt.  viii. 
4;  Mark  vi.  11  ; Luke  xxi.  13;  James  v.  3). 
In  2 Cor.  i.  12,  Schleusner  explains  paprvpiov , 
commendation.  In  Prov.  xxix.  14  and  Amos 

i.  n.  nh  is  pointed  to  mean  perpetually,  for 
ever  but  the  Septuagint  gives  els  paprupw, 
Aquila  ds  eri ; Symmachu?  eU  ad ; Vulg.  on 


WOLF 


WOLF. 


wlernum.  In  Act*  vii.  4 4 and  Rev.  xv.  5,  we  find 
»/  rov  fxapi  vplov,  and  this  is  the  Sept. 

rendering  for  (which  really  mean* 

‘ the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation')  in  Exod. 
xxix.  42,  44 ; xl.  22,  24 — deriving  from  YlJJ, 

‘ to  testify,’  instead  of  from  ‘IV,  * to  assemble.’ 
On  1 Tim.  ii.  6,  see  Bowyer’s  Conjectures.  In 
Heb.  iii.  5,  Schleusner  interprets  els  papripiov 
ruu  \(t\riQr}(rofx€vo)V,  ‘ the  promulgation  of  those 
things  about  to  be  delivered  to  the  Jews.’ — 3.  To 
be  or  become  a xcitness,  by  testifying  the  truth  of 
what  one  knows.  Thus  the  Sept,  translates 
(Gen.  xliii.  3),  paprvpeco,  to  bear  witness , and 
Amos  iii.  13  : see  also  1 Kings  xxi.  10,  13.  In 
John  i.  7 ; xv.  26  ; xviii.  23,  Schleusner  gives 
as  its  meaning,  to  teach  or  explain ; in  John 

iv.  44;  vii.  7;  1 Tim.  vi.  13,  to  declare;  in 

\cts  x.  43 ; Rom.  iii.  21,  to  declare  prophetically. 
With  a dative  case  following,  the  word  sometimes 
means  to  approve  (Luke  iv.  22).  So  Schleusner 
understands  Luke  xi.  48,  ‘ ye  approve  the  deeds 
of  your  fathers,’  and  he  gives  this  sense  also  to 
Rom.  x.  2.  In  like  manner  the  passive  paprv- 
peopbu,  ‘ to  be  approved,’  ‘ beloved,’  ‘ have  a good 
character,’  &c.  (Acts  vi.  3 ; 1 Tim.  v.  10  ; comp. 
3 John  6,  12.)  ‘ The  witness  of  the  Spirit,’  al- 

luded to  by  St.  Paul  (Rom.  viii.  16),  is  explained 
by  Macknight  and  all  the  best,  commentators,  as 
the  extraordinary  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
concurring  with  the  filial  dispositions  of  con- 
verted Gentiles,  to  prove  that  they  are  * the  chil- 
dren of  God,’  as  well  as  the  Jews. — 4.  ‘ To  call  or 
t ike  to  witness,’  ‘ to  invoke  as  witness,’  papTi/popai 
(Acts  xx.  26 ; Gal.  v.  3 ; Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud, 
iii.  8.  3).  A still  stronger  word  is  biapap'rvoopai, 
which  corresponds  to  "PJJn  (Deut.  iv.  26).  It 
means  ‘ to  admonish  solemnly,’  * to  charge  ear- 
nestly,’ ‘ to  urge  upon’  (Ps.  Ixxxi.  8;  Neh.  ix. 
26  ; Luke  xvi.  28  { Acts  ii.  40).  In  other  pas- 
sages the  same  words  mean  to  ( teach,  eame ytly.’ 
In  Job  xxix.  11,  a beautiful  phrase  occurs, 
‘ When  the  eye  saw  me  it  gave  witness  to  me.’ 
The  admiring  expression  of  the  eye  upon  behold- 
ing a man  of  eminent  virtue  and  benevolence,  is 
here  admirably  illustrated.  The  description  of 
the  mischief  occasioned  by  a false  witness,  in 
Prov.  xxv.  18,  deserves  notice ; ‘ a man  that  bear- 
eth  false  witness  against  his  neighbour,  is  a maul, 
and  a sword,  and  a sharp  arrow.’  Few  words 
afford  more  exercise  to  discrimination,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  various  shades  of  meaning  in  which 
the  context  requires  they  should  be  understood. 
-J.  F.  D. 

WIZARD.  [Divination.] 

WOLF  (3fc$J  zeeb ; Arab,  zeeb ; Coptic, 
ounch;  Gen.  xlix.  27  ; Isa.  xi.  6 ; lxv.  25;  Jer. 

v.  6,  &c. ; A vkos,  Matt.  vii.  15  ; x.  16 ; Luke 
x.  3;  John  x.  12;  Acts  xx.  29;  Ecclus. 
viii.  17),  a fierce  carnivorous  animal,  very 
nearly  allied  to  the  dog,  and  so  well  known  in 
Europe  as  to  require  no  particular  description, 
excepting  as  regards  the  identity  of  the  spe- 
cies in  Palestine,  which  although  often  asserted, 
is  by . no  means  established ; for  no  professed 
zoologist  has  obtained  the  animal  in  Syria, 
while  other  travellers  only  pretend  to  have  seen 
it  Unquestionably  a true  wolf,  ora  wild  canine 
with  very  similar  manners,  was  not  infrequent  in 
that  country  during  the  earlier  ages  of  the  world, 


963 

and  even  down  to  the  commencement  of  our  era. 
The  prophets,  as  well  as  the  Messiah,  allude  to  it 
in  explicit  language.  At  this  day  the  true  wolf  is 


still  abundant  in  Asia  Minor,  as  well  as  in  the 
gorges  of  Cilicia,  and  from  the  travelling  disposi- 
tion of  the  species,  wolves  may  be  expected  to  re- 
side in  the  forests  of  Libanus  ; yet,  except  we  rely 
on  mere  rumours,  wild  and  contradictory  asser- 
tions, or  decided  mistakes  as  to  the  species,  none 
are  at  present  found  in  the  Holy  Land.  Hemprich 
and  Ehrenberg,  the  most  explicit  of  the  naturalists 
who  have  visited  that  region,  notice  the  did  or 

zeb  i,„ A.  under  the  denomination  of  cants  lu- 

paster , and  also,  it  seems,  of  lupus  Syriacus  : they 
describe  it  as  resembling  the  wolf,  but  smaller,  with 
a white  tip  on  the  tail,  &c. ; and  give  for  its  syno- 
nyme  canis  anthus,  and  the  wolf  of  Egypt,  that 
is,  the  A vkos  of  Aristotle,  and  thoes  anthus  of  Ham. 
Smith.  Tiiis  species,  found  in  the  mummy  state 
at  Lycopolis,  though  high  in  proportion  to  its  bulk, 
measures  only  eighteen  inches  at  the  shoulder, 
and  in  weight  is  scarcely  more  than  one-third  of 
th-t  cf  a true  wolf,  whose  stature  rises  to  thirty 
and  thirty-two  inches.  It  is  not  gregarious,  does 
not  howl,  cannot  carry  off  a lamb  or  sheep,  nor  kill 
men,  nor  make  the  shepherd  flee;  in  short,  it  is 
not  the  true  wolf  of  Europe  or  Asia  Minor,  and  is 
not  possessed  of  the  qualities  ascribed  to  the  species 
in  the  Bible.  The  next  in  Hemprich  and  Ehren- 
berg’s  description  bears  the  same  Arabic  name  ; 
it  is  scientifically  called  canis  sacer , and  is  th e pi- 
seonch  of  the  Copts.  This  species  is,  however, 
still  smaller,  and  thus  cannot  be  the  wolf  in  ques- 
tion. It  may  be,  as  there  are  no  forests  to  the  south 
of  Libanus,  that  these  ravenous  beasts,  who  never 
willingly  range  at  a distance  from  cover,  have 
forsaken  the  more  open  country  ; or  else,  that  the 
derbonn , now  only  indistinctly  known  as  a species 
of  black  wolf  in  Arabia  and  southern  Syria,  is  the 
species  or  variety  which  anciently  represented  the 
wolf  in  Syria:  an  appellation  fully  deserved, 
if  it  be  the  same  as  the  black  species  of  the  Pyre- 
nees, which,  though  surmised  to  be  a wild  dog,  is 
even  more  fierce  than  the  common  wolf,  and  is 
equally  powerful.  The  Arabs  are  said  to  eat  the 
derbonn  as  game,  though  it  must  be  rare,  since 
no  European  traveller  has  described  a specimen 
from  personal  observation.  Therefore,  either  the 
true  wolf,  or  the  derbonn,  was  anciently  more 
abundant  in  Palestine,  or  the  ravenous  powers 
of  those  animals,  equally  belonging  to  the  hyaena 
an.l  to  a great  wild  dog,  caused  several  species 
to  be  included  in  the  name  [Dog].*— C.  H.  S 


y?  i 


TV  OMAN. 


WOMAN. 


WOMAN,  in  Hebrew  nj^K,  which  is  the  femi- 
nine form  of  as  among  the  ancient.  Romans 

mra  (found  still  in  virago)  from  vir ; and  in 
Greek  avdpls  from  avf]p  : like  our  own  term  wo- 
man, the  Hebrew  is  used  of  married  and  unmar 
ried  females.  The  derivation  of  the  word  thus 
shows  that  according  to  the  conception  of  the 
ancient  Israelites  woman  was  man  in  a modified 
form — one  of  the  same  race,  the  same  genus,  as 
man;  a kind  of  female  man.  How  slightly 
modified  that  form  is,  how  little  in  original  struc- 
ture woman  differs  from  man,  physiology  has 
made  abundantly  clear.  Different  in  make  as  man 
and  woman  are,  they  differ  still  more  in  character ; 
and  yet  the  great  features  of  their  hearts  and 
minds  so  closely  resemble  each  other,  that  it  re- 
quires no  depth  of  vision  to  see  that  these  twain 
are  one  ! This  most  important  fact  is  character- 
istically set  forth  in  the  Bible  in  the  account 
given  of  the  formation  of  woman  out  of  one  of 
Adam's  ribs  : a representation  to  which  currency 
may  have  the  more  easily  been  given,  from  the 
apparent  space  there  is  between  the  lowest  rib  and 
the  bones  on  which  the  trunk  is  supported.  ‘ And 
Adam  said,  This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh 
of  my  flesh  : she  shall  be  called  Woman,  because 
she  was  taken  out  of  man.’  An  immediate  and 
natural  inference  is  forthwith  made  touching  the 
intimacy  of  the  marriage-bond  : ‘ Therefore  shall 
a man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  unto  his  wife,  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh  ’ 
(Gen.  ii.  21-24).  Those  who  have  been  pleased  to 
make  free  with  this  simple  narrative,  may  well  be 
required  to  show  how  a rude  age  could  more  effec- 
tually have  been  taught  the  essential  unity  of  man 
and  woman — a unity  of  nature  which  demands, 
and  is  perfected  only  in,  a unity  of  soul.  The 
conception  of  the  Biblical  writer  goes  beyond  even 
this,  but  does  not  extend  farther  than  science  and 
experience  unite  to  justify.  There  was  solid 
reason  why  it  was  not  good  for  Adam  ‘ to  be 
alone.’  Without  an  help  meet  he  would  have 
been  an  imperfect  being.  The  genus  homo  con- 
sists of  man  and  woman.  Both  are  necessary  to 
the  idea  of  man.  The  one  supplements  the  qua- 
lities of  the  other.  They  are  not  two,  but  one 
flesh,  and  as  one  body  so  one  soul. 

The  entire  aim,  then,  of  the  narrative  in  Genesis 
was,  by  setting  forth  certain  great  physical  facts, 
to  show  the  essential  unity  of  man  and  woman, 
yet  the  dependance  of  the  latter  on  the  former ; 
and  so  to  encourage  and  foster  the  tenderest  and 
most  considerate  love  between  the  two,  founded 
on  the  peculiar  qualities  of  each — pre-eminence, 
strength,  intellectual  power,  and  wisdom  on  the 
one  side  ; reliance,  softness,  grace,  and  beauty  on 
the  other, — at  the  same  time  that  the  one  set  of 
excellences  lose  all  their  worth  unless  as  existing 
in  the  possession  of  the  other. 

It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  under  the  influence 
of  a religion,  at  the  bottom  of  which  lay  those 
ideas  concerning  the  relations  of  the  sexe3  one  to 
another,  slavery  on  the  part  of  the  woman  was 
impossible.  This  fact  is  the  more  noticeable,  and 
it  speaks  the  more  loudly  in  favour  of  the  divine 
origin  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  because  the 
Kast  has  in  all  times,  down  to  the  present  day, 
kept  woman  everywhere,  save  in  those  places  in 
which  Judaism  and  ^Christianity  have  prevailed, 
m a state  of  low,  even  if  in  some  cases  gilded, 


bondage,  making  her  the  mere  toy,  plaything, 
and  instrument,  of  man.  Nothing  can  be  more 
painful  to  contemplate  than  the  humiliating  con- 
dition in  which  lslamism  still  holds  its  so-called 
free  women — a condition  of  perpetual  childhood 
— childhood  of  mind,  while  the  passions  receive 
constant  incense ; leaving  the  fine  endowments  of 
woman's  soul  undeveloped  and  inert,  or  crushing 
them  when  in  any  case  they  may  happen  to  ger- 
minate; and  converting  man  into  a self-willed 
haughty  idol,  for  whose  will  and  pleasure  tlie 
other  sex  lives  and  suffers. 

It  will  assist  the  reader  in  forming  a just  con- 
ception of  Hebrew  women  in  the  Biblical  periods, 
if  we  add  a few  details  respecting  the  actual 
condition  of  women  in  Syria.  Mr.  Bartlett 
( Walks  about  Jerusalem , p.  291,  sq.)  visited  the 
house  of  a rich  Jew  in  the  metropolis  of  the  holy 
land.  We  give  the  substance  of  his  observations  : 

‘ On  entering  his  dwelling  we  found  him  seated 
on  the  low  divan,  fondling  his  youngest  child  ; 
and  on  our  expressing  a wish  to  draw  the  costume 
of  the  female  members  of  his  family,  he  com- 
manded their  attendance,  but  it  was  some  time 
before  they  would  come  forward  ; when  however 
they  did  present,  themselves,  it  was  with  no  sort 
of  reserve  whatever.  Their  costume  is  chastely 
elegant.  The  prominent  figure  in  the  room  was 
the  married  daughter,  whose  little  husband,  a 
boy  of  fourteen  or  fifteen  as  he  seemed,  wanted 
nearly  a head  of  the  stature  of  his  wife,  but  was 
already  chargeable  with  the  onerous  duties  of  a 
father.  An  oval  head  dress  of  peculiar  shape, 
from  which  was  slung  a long  veil  of  embroidered 
muslin,  admirably  set  off  the  brow  and  eyes; 
the  neck  was  ornamented  with  bracelets,  and  the 
bosom  with  a profusion  of  gold  coins,  partly 
concealed  by  folds  of  muslin ; a graceful  robe  of 
striped  silk,  with  long  open  sleeves,  half-laced 
under  the  bosom,  invested  the  whole  person,  over 
which  is  worn  a jacket  of  green  silk  with  short 
sleeves,  leaving  the  white  arm  and  braceleted 
hand  at  liberty.  An  elderly  person  sat  on  the  sofa, 
the  mother,  whose  dress  was  more  grave,  her  tur- 
ban less  oval,  and  of  blue  shawl,  and  the  breast 
covered  entirely  to  the  neck,  with  a kind  of  orna- 
mented gold  tissue ; and  over  all  was  seen  a 
jacket  of  fur:  she  was  engaged  in  knitting,  wiiile 
her  younger  daughter  bent  over  her  in  conversa- 
tion; her  dress  was  similar  to  that  of  her  sister, 
but.  with  no  gold  coins,  or  light  muslin  folds,  and 
instead  of  large  ear-rings,  the  vermilion  blossom 
of  the  pomegranate  formed  an  exquisite  pendant, 
reflecting  its  glow  upon  the  dazzling  whiteness  of 
her  8k in.  We  were  surprised  at  the  fairness  and 
delicacy  of  their  complexion,  and  the  vivacity 
of  their  manner.  Unlike  the  wives  of  Oriental 
Christians,  who  respectfully  attend  at  a distance 
till  invited  to  approach,  these  pretty  Jewesses 
seemed  on  a perfect  footing  of  equality,  and 
chatted  and  laughed  away  without  intermission. 
Many  of  the  daughters  of  Judah,  here  and  at 
Hebron,  are  remarkable  for  their  attractions. 
Mr.  Wolff  describes  one  of  them  with  enthu- 
siasm, and  no  small  unconscious  poetry— ■“  the 
beautiful  Sarah,”  whom  his  lady  met  at  a “ wed- 
ding-feast.” ‘She  was  scarcely  seated  when  she 
felt  a hand  upon  hers,  and  heard  a kind  greeting. 
She  turned  to  the  voice  and  saw  a most  beautiful 
Jewess,  whom  I also  afterwards  saw,  and  I nev«f 
beheld  a more  beautiful  and  well-behaved  WV 


WOMAN. 


WOMAN. 


960 


in  my  l<fe,  except  the  beautiful  girl  in  the  valley 
of  Cashmere;  she  looked  like  a queen  in  Israel. 
A lovely  lady  she  was ; tall,  of  a fair  com- 
plexion and  blue  eyes,  and  around  her  forehead 
and  cheeks  she  wore  several  roses.  No  queen 
had  a liner  deportment  than  that  Jewess  had.’ 


544.  [Syro- Arabian  costume.  Indoor  dress.] 


Mr.  Bartlett  was  also  admitted  into  fhe  abode 
of  a Christian  family  in  Jerusalem,  of  whom  he 
thus  speaks  (pp.  205-6): — ‘ The  interior  of  their 
houses  is  similar  to  those  of  the  Jews.  In  our 
intercourse  with  them  we  were  received  with 
more  ceremony  than  among  the  former.  The 
mistress  of  the  family  is  in  attendance  with  her 
children  and  servants,  and  besides  pipes  and 
coffee,  the  guest  is  presented  with  saucers  of 
sweetmeats  and  small  glasses  of  aniseed  ; which, 
when  done  with,  are  taken  from  him  by  his  fair 
hostess  or  her  servant,  who  kiss  his  hand  as  they 
receive  them.  They  are  more  reserved,  often 
standing  during  the  visit.  Their  dress  is  more 
gorgeous  than  that  of  the  Jewish  women,  but  not 
so  chastely  elegant;  it  suits  well  with  the  languor 
of  their  air,  their  dusky  complexion,  and  large 
black  eyes.  The  head-dress  has  a fantastic  air, 


like  that  of  a May-day  queen  in  England,  and 
the  bust  is  a little  in  the  style  of 

“ Beauties  by  Sir  Peter  Lely, 
Whose  drapery  hints  we  may  admire  freely.” 

A heavy  shawl  is  gracefully  wreathed  round  the 


figure,  and  the  dress,  when  open,  displays  long 
loose  trowsers  of  muslin  and  small  slippers.  The 
ensemble,  it  must,  be  admitted,  is  very  fasci 
nating,  when  its  wearer  is  young  and  lovely.’ 

We  now  pass  to  the  peasantry,  and  take  from 
Lamartine  a sketch  of  the  Syrian  women  as  seen 
by  him  at  the  foot  of  Lebanon,  on  a Sunday, 
after  having  with  their  families  attended  divine 
service,  when  the  families  ‘return  to  their  houses 
to  enjoy  a repast  somewhat  more  sumptuous  than 
on  ordinary  days  : the  women  and  girls,  adorned 
in  their  richest  clothes,  their  hair  plaited,  and 
all  strewed  with  orange-flowers,  sca.let  wall- 
flowers, and  carnations,  seat  themselves  on  mats 
before  the  doors  of  their  dwellings,  with  their 
friends  and  neighbours.  It  is  impossible  to  de- 
scribe with  the  pen  the  groups  so  redolent  of  the 
picturesque,  from  the  richness  of  their  costume 
and  their  beauty,  which  these  females  then  com- 
pose in  the  landscape.  I see  amongst  them  daily 
such  countenances  as  Raphael  had  not  beheld, 
even  in  his  dreams  as  an  artist.  It  is  more  than 
the  Italian  or  Greek  beauty  ; there  is  the  nicety 
of  shape,  the  delicacy  of  outline,  in  a word,  all 
that  Greek  and  Roman  art.  has  left  us  as  the 
most  finished  model ; but  it  is  rendered  more 
bewitching  still,  by  a primitive  artlessness  of  ex- 
pression, by  a serene  and  voluptuous  languor, 
by  a heavenly  clearness,  which  the  glances  front 
the  blue  eyes,  fringed  with  black  eyelids,  cast 
over  the  features,  at  it  by  a smiling  archness,  a 
harmony  of  proportions,  a rich  whiteness  of  skin, 
an  indescribable  transparency  of  tint,  a metallic 
gloss  upon  the  hair,  a gracefulness  of  movement, 
a novelty  in  the  attitudes,  and  a vibrating  silvery 
tone  of  voice,  which  render  the  young  Syrian 
girl  the  very  houri  of  the  visual  paradise.  Such  ad- 
mirable and  varied  beauty  is  also  very  common  : 
1 never  go  into  the  country  for  an  hour  without 
meeting  several  such  females  going  to  the  foun- 
tains or  returning,  with  their  Etruscan  urns  upon 
their  shoulders,  and  their  naked  legs  clasped  with 
rings  of  silver.’ 

The  ordinary  dress  of  the  women  of  Palestine 
is  not  perhaps  much  fitted  to  enhance  their  natu- 
ral charms,  and  yet  it  admits  of  ease  and  dignify 
in  the  carriage.  Dr.  01  in  thus  describes  the 
customary  appearance  of  both  male  and  female  i 
1 The  people  wear  neither  hats,  bonnets,  nor 
stockings;  both  sexes  appear  in  loose  flowing 
dresses,  and  red  or  yellow  slippers ; the  men 
wear  red  caps  with  or  without  turbans,  the  women 
are  concealed  by  white  veils,  with  the  exception 
of  the  eyes’  (vol.  ii.  p.  437). 

The  singular  beauty  of  the  Hebrew  women, 
and  the  natural  warmth  of  their  affections,  have 
conspired  to  throw  gems  of  domestic  loveliness 
over  the  pages  of  the  Bible.  In  no  history  can 
there  be  found  an  equal  number  of  charming 
female  portraits.  From  Hagar  down  to  Mary 
and  Martha,  the  Bible  presents  pictures  of  wo- 
manly beauty,  that  are  unsurpassed  and  rarely 
paralleled.  But  we  should  very  imperfectly  re- 
present in  these  general  remarks  the  formative 
influence  of  the  female  character  as  seen  in  the 
Bible,  did  not  we  refer  these  amiable  traits  of 
character  to  the  original  conceptions  of  which 
we  have  spoken,  and  to  the  pure  and  lofty  reli- 
gious ideas  which  the  Biblical  books  in  general 
present.  If  woman  there  appears  as  the  coca- 
pan  ion  and  friend  of  man,  if  she  rises  above  tfcf 


WOMAN. 


WOMAN 


CCS 

condition  of  being  a bearer  of  children  to  that 
noble  position  which  is  held  by  the  mother  of  a 
family,  she  owes  her  elevation  in  the  main  to 
tbs  religion  of  Moses  and  to  that  of  Jesus.  The 
first  system — as  a preparatory  one — did  not  and 
could  not  complete  the  emancipation  of  woman. 


546.  [Young  lady  in  full  dress.] 


The  Oriental  influence  modified  the  religious  so 
materially,  as  to  keep  women  generally  in  some 
considerable  subjection.  Yet  the  placing  of  the 
fondest  desires  and  the  glowing  hopes  of  the  na- 
tion on  some  child  that  was  to  be  born,  some  son 
that  was  to  be  given,  as  it  made  every  matron's 
heart  beat  high  with  expectation,  raised  the  tone 
of  self-respect  among  the  women  of  Israel,  and 
caused  them  to  be  regarded  by  the  other  sex  with 
lively  interest,  deep  regard,  and  a sentiment 
which  was  akin  to  reverence.  There  was,  how- 
ever, needed  the  finishing  touch  which  the  Great 
Teacher  put  to  the  Mosaic  view  of  the  relations 
between  the  sexes.  Recognising  the  fundamental 
truths  which  were  as  old  as  the  creation  of  man, 
Jesus  proceeded  to  restrain  the  much-abused  fa- 
cility of  divorce,  leaving  only  one  cause  why  the 
marriage-bond  should  be  broken,  and  at  the  same 
time  teaching  that  as  the  origin  of  wedlock  was 
divine,  so  its  severance  ought  not  to  be  the  work 
of  man.  Still  further — bringing  to  bear  on  the 
domestic  ties  his  own  doctrine  of  immortality, 
he  made  the  bond  co-existent  with  the  undying 
soul,  only  teaching  that  the  connection  would  be 
refined  with  the  refinement  of  our  affections  and 
our  liberation  from  these  tenements  of  clay  in 
which  we  now  dwell  (Matt.  v.  32 ; xix.  3,  sq. ; 
xxii.  23,  sq.).  With  views  so  elevated  as  these, 
and  with  affections  of  the  tenderest  benignity, 
the  Saviour  may  well  have  won  the  warm  anti 
gentle  hearts  of  Jewish  women.  Accordingly, 
the  purest  and  richest  human  light  that  lies  on 
the  pages  of  the  New  Testament,  comes  from  the 
band  of  high-minded,  faithful,  and  affectionate 
women,  who  are  found  in  connection  with  Christ 
from  his  cradle  to  his  cross,  his  tomb,  and  his  re- 
surrection. These  ennobling  influences  have 
operated  on  society  with  equal  benefit  and  power. 
Woman,  in  the  better  portions  of  society,  is  now 
a new  being.  And  yet  her  angelic  career  is  only 
just  begun.  She  sees  what  she  may,  and  what 
under  the  Gospel  she^  ought  to  be  ; and  ere  very 
j oog,  we  trust,  a way  will  be  found  to  employ  in 


purposes  of  good,  energies  of  the  finest  nature 
which  now  waste  away  from  want  of  scope,  in 
the  ease  and  refinements  of  affluence,  if  not  in 
the  degradations  of  luxury — a most  precious 
offering  made  to  the  Moloch  of  fashion,  but 
which  ought  to  be  consecrated  to  the  service  of 
that  God  who  gave  these  endowments,  and  of 
that  Saviour  who  lias  brought  to  light  the  rich 
capabilities,  and  exhibited  the  high  and  holy  vo 
cation,  of  the  female  sex. — J.  R.  B. 

Women  appear  to  have  enjoyed  considerably 
more  freedom  among  the  Jews  than  is  now 
allowed  them  in  western  Asia,  although  in  other 
respects  their  condition  and  employments  seem  to 
have  been  not  dissimilar.  At  present,  women  of 
all  ranks  are  much  confined  to  their  own  houses, 
and  never  see  the  men  who  visit  their  husbands  or 
fathers ; and  in  towns  they  never  go  abroad  with- 
out their  persons  and  faces  being  completely 
shrouded : they  also  take  their  meals  apart  from 
the  males,  even  of  their  own  family.  But  in  the 
rural  districts  they  enjoy  more  freedom,  and  often 
go  about  unveiled.  Among  the  Jews,  women 
were  somewhat  less  restrained  in  their  intercourse 
with  men,  and  did  not  generally  conceal  their 
faces  when  they  went  abroad.  Only  one  instance 
occurs  in  Scripture  of  women  eating  with  men 
(Ruth  ii.  14);  but  that  was  at  a simple  refection, 
and  only  illustrates  the  greater  freedom  of  rural 
manners. 

The  employments  of  the  women  were  verj 
various,  and  sufficiently  engrossing.  In  tin 
earlier,  or  patriarchal  state  of  society,  the 
daughters  of  men  of  substance  tended  their 
fathers’  flocks  (Gen.  xxix.  9 ; Exod.  ii.  16).  In 
ordinary  circumstances,  the  first  labour  of  the 
day  was  to  grind  corn  and  bake  bread,  as  already 
noticed.  The  other  cares  of  the  family  occupied 
the  rest  of  the  day.  The  women  of  the  peasantry 
and  of  the  poor  consumed  much  time  in  collect- 
ing fuel,  and  in  going  to  the  wells  for  water. 
The  wells  were  usually  outside  the  towns,  and 
the  labour  of  drawing  water  from  them  was  by 
no  means  confined  to  poor  women.  This  was 
usually,  but  not  always,  the  labour  of  the  even- 
ing ; and  the  water  was  carried  in  earthen  vessels 
borne  upon  the  shoulder  (Gen.  xxiv.  15-20; 
John  iv.  7,  28).  Working  with  the  needle  also 
occupied  much  of  their  time,  as  it  would  seem 
that  not  only  their  own  clothes  but  those  of  the 
men  were  made  by  the  women.  Some  of  the 
needlework  was  very  fine,  and  much  valued 
(Exod.  xxvi.  36 ; xxviii.  39  ; Judg.  v.  30  ; Ps. 
xlv.  14).  The  women  appear  to  have  spun  the 
yarn  for  all  the  cloth  that  was  in  use  (Exod. 
xxxv.  25;  Prov.  xxxi.  19);  and  much  of  the 
weaving  seems  also  to  have  been  executed  by 
them  (Judg.  xvi.  13,  14;  Prov.  xxxi.  22).  The 
tapestries  for  bed-coverings,  mentioned  in  the 
last-cited  text,  were  probably  produced  in  the 
loom,  and  appear  to  have  been  much  valued 
(Prov.  vii.  16). 

We  have  no  certain  information  regarding  the 
dress  of  the  women  among  the  poorer  classes ; bu« 
it  was  probably  coarse  and  simple,  and  not  mate- 
rially different  from  that  which  we  now  see 
among  the  Bedouin  women,  and  the  female 
peasantry  of  Syria.  This  cc*sV«  of  drawers,  and 
a long  and  loose  gown  of  cecrv  blue  linen,  with 
some  ornamental  bordering  swutj.h't  with  the 


WOMAN. 


WOMAN. 


967 


cccdle,  m another  colour,  about  the  neck  and 
boson.  The  head  is  covered  with  a kind  of 


547.  [Matron  in  full  dress.] 


turban,  connected  with  which,  behind,  is  a veil, 
which  covers  thg  neck,  back,  and  bosom  [Veil]. 
We  may  presume,  with  still  greater  certainty, 
that  women  of  superior  condition  wore,  over  their 
inner  dress  a frock  or  tunic  like  that  of  the  men, 
but  more  closely  fitting  the  person,  with  a girdle 
formed  by  an  unfolded  kerchief.  Their  head- 
dress was  a kind  of  turban,  with  different  sorts  of 
veils  and  wrappers  used  under  various  circum- 
stances. The  hair  was  worn  long,  and,  as  now, 
was  braided  into  numerous  tresses,  with  trinkets 
and  ribands  (1  Cor.  xi.  15 ; 1 Tim.  ii.  9 ; 1 Pet. 
iii.  3).  With  the  head-dress  the  principal  orna- 
ments appear  to  have  been  connected,  such  as  a 
jewel  for  the  forehead,  and  rows  of  pearls  (Sol. 
Song  i.  10;  Ezek.  xvi.  12).  Ear-rings  were  also 


*rom  (Isa.  iii.  20 ; Ezek.  xvi.  12),  as  well  as  a 
oncs-jewel,  consisting,  no  doubt,  as  now,  either  of 


a ring  inserted  in  the  cartilage  of  the  rose,  or  an 
ornament  like  a button  attached  to  it.  The  nose- 
jewel  was  of  gold  or  silver,  and  sometimes  set 
with  jewels  (Gen.  xxiv.  47  ; Isa.  iii.  21).  Brace- 
lets were  also  generally  worn  (Isa.  iii.  i9 ; Ezek. 
xvi.  11),  and  anklets,  which,  as  now,  were  pro- 
bably more  like  fetters  than  ornaments  (Isa.  iii.  16, 
20).  The  Jewish  women  possessed  the  art  of  stain- 
ing their  eye-lids  black,  for  effect  and  expression 
(2  Kings  ix.  30;  Jer.  iv.  30;  Ezek.  xxiii.  40); 
and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  they  had  the 
present  practice  of  staining  the  nails,  and  the 
palms  of  their  hands  and  soles  of  their  feet,  of  an 
iron-rust  colour,  by  means  of  a paste  made  from 
the  plant  called  henna  (Lawsonia  inermis). 
This  plant  appears  to  be  mentioned  in  Sol.  Song 
i.  14,  and  its  present  use  is  probably  referred  to 
in  Deut.  xxi.  12;  2 Sam.  xix.  24. 

The  customs  concerning  marriage,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances which  the  relation  of  wife  and  mother 
involved,  have  been  described  in  the  article  Mar- 
riage. 

The  Israelites  eagerly  desired  children,  and 
especially  sons.  Hence  the  messenger  who  first 
brought  to  the  father  the  news  that  a son  was 
born,  was  well  rewarded  (Job  iii.  3 ; Jer.  xx.  15). 
The  event  was  celebrated  with  music ; and  the 
father,  when  the  child  was  presented  to  him, 
pressed  it  to  his  bosom,  by  which  act  he  was 
understood  to  acknowledge  it  as  his  own  (Gen. 
1.  23  ; Job  iii.  12  ; Ps.  xxii.  10).  On  the  eighth 
day  from  the  birth  the  child  was  circumcised 
(Gen.  xvii.  10)  ; at  which  time  also  a name  was 
given  to  it  (Luke  i.  59).  The  first-born  son  was 
highly  esteemed,  and  had  many  distinguishing 
privileges.  He  had  a double  portion  of  the  estate 
(Deut.  xxi.  17) ; he  exercised  a sort  of  parental 
authority  over  his  younger  brothers  (Gen.  xxv. 
23,  &c. ; xxvii.  29  ; Exod.  xii.  29  ; 2 Chron.  xxi. 
3);  and  before  the  institution  of.  the  Levitical 
priesthood  he  acted  as  the  priest  of  the  family 
(Num.  iii.  12,  13  ; viii.  18).  The  patriarchs 
exercised  the  power  of  taking  these  privileges 
from  the  first-born,  and  giving  them  to  any  other 
son,  or  of  distributing  them  among  different  sons; 
but  this  practice  was  overruled  by  the  Mosaical 
law  (Deut.  xxi.  15-17). 

The  child  continued  about,  three  years  at  the 
breast  of  the  mother,  and  a great  festival  was 
given  at  the  weaning  (Gen.  xxi.  8 ; 1 Sam.  i. 
22-24;  2 Chron.  xxxi.  6;  Matt.  xxi.  16).  He 
remained  two  years  longer  in  charge  of  the  wo- 
men ; after  which  he  was  taken  under  the  especial 
care  of  the  father,  with  a view  to  his  proper  train- 
ing (Deut.  vi.  20-25  ; xi.  19).  It  appears  that 
those  who  wished  for  their  sons’  better  instruction 
than  they  were  themselves  able  or  willing  to  give, 
employed  a private  teacher,  or  else  sent  them  to  a 
priest  or  Levit.e,  who  had  perhaps  several  others 
under  his  care.  The  principal  object  was,  that 
they  should  be  well  acquainted  with  the  law  of 
Moses ; and  reading  and  writing  were  taught  in 
subservience  to  this  leading»object. 

The  authority  of  a father  was  very  great  among 
the  Israelites,  and  extended  not  only  to  his  sons, 
but  to  his  grandsons — indeed  to  all  who  were  de- 
scended from  him.  His  power  had  no  recognised 
limit,  and  even  if  he  put  his  son  or  grandson  to 
death,  there  was,  at  first,  no  law  by  which  he 
could  be  brought  to  account  (Gen.  xxi.  14; 
xxxviii.  24).  But  Moses  circumscribe  l thb 


960 


WORD  OF  GOD. 


WORD  OF  GOD. 


power,  by  ordering  that  when  a father  judged  his 
son  worthy  of  death,  he  should  bring  him  before 
the  public  tribunals.  If,  however,  he  bad  struck 
or  cursed  his  father  or  mother,  or  was  refractory 
or  disobedient,  he  was  still  liable  to  capital  pu- 
nishment (Exod.  xxi.  15, 17  ; Lev.  xx.  9 ; Deut. 
axi.  18-21).— Ed. 

WOOL.  [Sheep.] 

WORD  OF  GOD.  The  mystical  dogma  of 
emanations  is  at  once  the  most  universal  and 
most  venerable  of  traditions ; so  ancient  that  its 
source  is  hidden  in  the  grey  mists  of  extreme  an- 
tiquity ; so  universal  that  traces  of  it  may  oe 
found  throughout  the  whole  world.  Under  every 
form,  Persian  or  Egyptian,  Greek  or  Roman, 
whether  half  hidden  in  the  mythological  folds  of 
ancient  fables,  or  more  clearly  expressed  in  the 
speculations  of  philosophers,  whether  blended 
with  the  law  of  Moses  in  the  Cabbala  and  by 
Philo,  or  with  the  Gospel  of  Christ  by  the  Gnos- 
tics and  the  Manichseans,  in  ail  forms  and  lan- 
guages the  mystic  dogma  of  emanations  intimates 
the  same  great  truth — -that  the  many  proceeded 
from  the  one,  or,  in  plainer  language,  that  every- 
thing good  and  fair,  the  universal  frame  of 
things  and  all  that  it  contains,  material  and  cor- 
poral, intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual,  all  pro- 
ceed from  One  Divine  Mind,  and  are  a manifest- 
ation of  His  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness.  This 
venerable  dogma  teaches  us  further,  that  of  the 
Divine  Essence  we  can  know  nothing  (for  how  can 
the  finite  comprehend  the  infinite?);  but  that  of 
the  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  and  also  of  the 
will  of  God,  sufficiently  plain  indications  are 
made  to  us  in  the  works  and  plan  of  creation. 
Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  dogma  of  emanation 
in  every  form.  But  this  venerable  tradition  has 
unhappily  been  blended  with  contradictory  at- 
tempts to  account  for  the  origin  of  evil.  Our 
extracts  from  Professor  Burton's  Lectures  on  the 
Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age  (in  our  articles  on 
Gnosticism  and  Logos)  have  exhibited  but  a 
small  part  of  the  mass  of  presumption,  supersti- 
tion, and  er*-or,  which  have  arisen  from  this 
source,  pouri  ig  a muddy  and  unwholesome 
stream,  not  only  into  mythology  and  mysticism, 
but  into  the  language  of  philosophy.  Let  us 
add,  that  Professor  Burton  has  treated  the  mys- 
tical dogma  of  emanations  (its  meaning,  origin, 
progress,  and  developments,  together  with  its 
bearings  on  the  more  mysterious  doctrines  of 
Christianity)  with  a learning,  moderation,  and 
fairness,  which  must  make  his  work  a storehouse 
both  of  valuable  information  and  judicious  criti- 
cism, equally  deserving  the  attention  of  the 
scholar,  philosopher,  and  divine. 

From  this  whole  body  of  evidence  it  appears 
that  a constant  tradition  had  come  down  from 
the  most  remote  antiquity ; that  long  before  the 
time  of  the  Gnostics,  of  Plato,  or  even  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, this  venerable  tradition  had  its  origin,  and 
that  a term  expressive  of  this  tradition  was  ap- 
plied to  Christ  by  tl*e  earliest  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity, and  was  afterwards  adopted  by  St.  John. 
In  what  sense  and  for  what  object  the  term  logos 
was  admitted  by  the  apostle  into  Christianity, 
may  be  made  matter  )f  inquiry ; but  the  fact  of 
its  having  been,  so  derived  and  so  applied  is  esta- 
blished by  the  text,  the  notes,  and  the  scriptural 
quotations  in  Professor  Burton’s  work,  beyond  the 
poccibility  of  doubt 


Both  the  fact  itself  and  the  object  of  the 
apostle  are  briefly  stated  by  Professor  Burton  in 
the  following  words: — ‘ St.  John  was  as  far  as 
possible  from  being  the  first  to  apply  the  term 
logos  to  Christ.  I suppose  him  to  have  found  it 
so  universally  applied  (that  is,  both  by  Gnostics 
and  Christians)  that  he  did  not  attempt  to  stop 
the  current  of  popular  language,  but  only  kept 
it  in  its  proper  channel,  and  guarded  it  from  ex- 
traneous corruptions’  (see  Inquiries,  p.  220). 

What  those  corruptions  were  may  be  seen  in 
our  article  on  Gnosticism,  and  in  the  works  ot 
Cud  worth,  Mosheim,  Blacker,  Beausobre,  Matter, 
and  Professor  Burton,  and  in  the  remarks  ol 
Michaelis  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  Professor 
Burton’s  facts  and  inferences  respecting  the  logos 
in  St.  John’s  Gospel  are  summed  up  in.  his 
seventh  lecture,  and  in  a series  of  valuable  notes, 
and,  we  may  add,  that  the  conclusion  at  which 
the  learned  author  arrives  respecting  the  logos  of 
St.  John  is  borne  out  by  the  following  passage  in 
Bishop  Burnet's  work  upon  the  articles  of  our 
church. 

‘ There  are  indeed  points  of  a very  ancient  tra- 
dition in  the  world,  of  three  in  the  Deity,  called 
the  Word  or  the  Wisdom,  and  the  Spirit  or  the 
Love , besides  the  fountain  of  both  these,  God  : 
this  was  believed  by  those  from  whom  the  most 
ancient  philosophers  had  their  doctrines.  The 
author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  Philo,  and  the 
Chaldee  Paraphrasts,  have  many  things  that  show 
that  they  had  received  these  traditions  from  the 
former  ages ; but  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  what 
gave  the  first  rise  to  them1  (see  Burnet,  On  the 
Articles , p.  47). 

If  these  views  are  correcl,  the  term  logos,  as 
applied  to  Christ,  represents  one  of  the  most  an- 
cient. universal,  and  venerable  of  traditions. 
Professor  Burton  argues  that  if  St.  Paul,  when  he 
saw  at  Athens  ‘ altars  to  the  unknown  God, 
might  fairly  take  occasion  to  reprove  the  Athe- 
nians as  too  much  given  to  superstition,  and  im- 
mediately added,  ‘ Him  whom  ye  ignorantly 
worship  declare  I unto  you,’  there  seems  no  reason 
why  a similar  course  might  not  be  taken  by  St. 
John  with  the  Gnostic,  as  if  he  had  in  effect 
said,  that  Word  or  Wisdom  of  God  whom  you 
ignorantly  seek  declare  I unto  you.  Tims  also 
the  Christian  missionary  in  India  might  take  as 
his  text  the  opening  verses  of  St.  John's  Gospel, 
and  might  preach  to  them  ‘ Christ  the  power  of 
God  and  the  wisdom  of  God.’  Now  can  there 
be  a doubt,  were  the  word  of  God  preached  thus 
to  the  Indian,  with  a zeal  according  to  know- 
ledge, that  he  would  in  deed  and  in  truth  find 
the  words  of  the  Apostle  verified,  ‘As  many  as 
receive  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  in  his 
name.’  And  if  it  is  thus  with  the  Indian  con- 
vert to  Christianity  in  our  own  day,  so  also  was  it 
in  the  case  of  converts  from  the  ‘ endless  genea- 
logies’ of  Gnostic  mysticism  to  ‘ the  only  begotten 
Son  of  God.’  And  when  we  ourselves  view  the 
more  mysterious  articles  of  our  faith  in  relation 
to  the  primary  objects,  the  primary  means,  and 
the  primary  effects  of  Christianity,  many  doubts 
and  difficulties  which  have  been  raised  respecting 
the  character,  history,  and  doctrines  of  Christ, 
will  be  obviated  or  removed,  so  that  having  ob- 
tained a more  perfect  understanding  of  the  mean- 
ing and  spirit  of  the  Scriptures,  we  shall  be  Iwfa 


WORD  OF  GOD. 


WORLD. 


likely  to  find  objections  to  the  expression  and  the 
letter,  when  we  read, « And  the  Word  was  made 
flesh,  and  dwelt  amongst  us  (and  we  beheld  his 
glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father)  full  of  grace  and  truth.’ 

Ti»e  conclusion  to  which  we  are  biought,  by  the 
series  of  remarks  winch  are  embodied  in  our  ar- 
ticles Gnosticism,  Logos,  and  Greek  Philo- 
sophy, is,  that,  an  inquiry  into  the  primary 
objects  and  effects  of  Christianity  not  only  esta- 
blishes a large  body  of  evidence  respecting  the 
benefits  wrought  out  by  Christianity,  to  wit, 
the  removal  of  the  three  great  evils,  heathen 
sensualism,  Gnostic  mysticism,  and  Jewish  cere- 
monialism, throwing  much  light  cn  the  means  by 
which  this  was  effected,  that  is,  upon  the  cha- 
racter, history,  and  doctrines  of  Christ,  but  that 
such  knowledge  tends  to  draw  attention  to  the 
yet  only  in  part  accomplished  objects  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  the  means  by  which  they  are  still 
to  be  carried  out.  Such  inquiries  tend  also  to 
prevent  our  mistaking  means  for  ends,  and  warn 
us  against  that  greatest  of  errors,  which  would 
introduce  the  very  evils  Christianity  was  intended 
to  cure  (sensualism,  mysticism,  and  ceremonial- 
ism) under  the  disguise  of  remedies.  Lastly,  an 
inquiry  into  the  primary  objects,  primary  means, 
and  primary  effects  of  Christianity,  draws  our 
attention  to  whatever  was  in  its  nature  peculiar 
to  those  times,  and  which  requires  to  be  so 
treated  whenever  its  application  to  our  own  times 
is  considered.  It  is,  we  repeat,  by  inquiring,  in 
the  first  place,  what  were  the  evils  for  which 
Christianity  was  primarily  and  immediately  in- 
tended to  be  the  cure,  that  we  shall  best  discover 
what  are  the  evils  for  which  Christianity  is  still 
the  remedy ; and  it  is  by  inquiring  what  were 
the  means  by  which  Christianity  overcame  those 
“vils,  that  we  may  hope  to  understand  more 
dearly  what  are  the  means  which  Christianity 
possesses  for  resisting  and  overcoming  like  evils 
in  the  present  times ; and  it  will  be  found  that 
by  adopting  this  mode  of  treatment,  division,  and 
•order,  we  are  most  likely  to  remove  from  our 
own  minds,  and  from  the  minds  of  others,  diffi- 
culties and  doubts  respecting  the  character,  the 
history,  and  the  doctrines  of  Christ. 

To  refer  once  more  to  the  work  of  the  learned 
theologian  to  whose  labours  we  have  been  so 
much  indebted.  Assuredly  there  is  nothing  in 
Dr.  Burton’s  theory  respecting  the  application  of 
the  term  logos  to  Christ  to  astonish  the  scholar, 
or  to  perplex  the  divine,  or  to  alarm  the  Chris- 
tian. Doubtless,  to  repeat  a remark  which  can- 
not be  too  often  insisted  on,  there  is  an  absolute 
meaning  in  each  of  the  texts  of  Scripture  quoted 
by  Dr.  Burton,  which  is  as  true  now  as  it  was 
true  tiien ; but  in  order  to  get  at  this  absolute 
meaning  we  must  attend  to  the  relative  meaning 
of  each  text,  as  it  applied  to  the  opinions,  prac- 
tices, and  persons  to  whom  and  to  which  it  pri- 
marily related.  If  this  is  confessedly  true  re- 
specting the  texts  of  Scripture  which  are  con- 
nected with  Judaism,  why  should  it  not  be  true 
in  the  case  of  texts  which  relate  to  Gnosticism  ? 
And  why  should  not  a knowledge  of  the  history, 
philosophy,  and  language  of  the  gentile  converts 
to  Christianity  be  useful  to  the  scholar,  divine, 
and  Christian,  in  explaining  all  the  texts  of 
Scripture  which  Dr.  Burton  has  illustrated  with 
equal  learning,  moderation,  and  respect  for  the 


articles  of  our  creed1?  It  is  thus  that  we  may 
hope  to  obtain  a better  understanding  of  the 
meaning,  and  a fuller  conviction  of  the  truth,  ot 
the  text  which  has  so  often  been  misunderstood 
and  misapplied:  ‘After  that  in  the  wisdom  of 
God,  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God  ; it 
pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to 
save  them  that  be-lieve.’ — J.  P.  P. 

WORLD  is  the  English  term  by  which  our 
translators  have  rendered  four  Hebrew  words : 1. 

, which  is  erroneously  supposed  by  some  to 
have  arisen  by  transposition  of  letters  from  l/H, 
comes  from  a root  which  signifies  ‘ to  rest,’  to  ‘ dis- 
continue,' and  hence  ‘ to  cease  from  life,’  ‘ to  be  at 
rest •/  and  as  a noun,  ‘ the  place  of  rest,’  ‘ the  grave.' 
The  word  occurs  in  the  complaint  uttered  by  He- 
zekiah  when  in  prospect  of  dissolution,  and  when 
he  contemplates  his  state  among  the  inhabitants, 
not  of  the  upper,  but  the  lower  world  (Isa.  xxxviii. 
1 1)  ; thus  combining  with  many  other  passages  to 
show  that  the  Hebrews,  probably  borrowing  the 
idea  from  the  Egyptian  tombs,  had  a vague  con- 
ception of  some  shadowy  state  where  the  manes  of 
their  departed  friends  lay  at  rest  in  their  ashes,  re- 
taining only  an  indefinable  personality  in  a land 
of  darkness  and  ‘ the  shadow  of  death’ (Job  x. 

21,22).  2.  ibn  means  ‘ to  conceal/  and  deriva- 
tively ‘any  hidden  thing/  hence  ‘age/  ‘anti- 
quity/ ‘ remote  and  hidden  ages  •/  also  ‘ the  world,’ 
as  the  hidden  or  unknown  thing  (Ps.  xlix.  1) ; in 

a similar  manner,  3.  D b)V  (in  the  New  Testament, 
aluv),  the  root-signification  of  which  is  ‘ to  hide/ 
denotes  a very  remote,  indefinite,  and  therefore 
unknown  period  in  time  past  or  time  to  come, 
which  metaphysicians  call  eternity  a parte  ante, 
and  eternity  3,  parte  post.  In  Ps.  Ixxiii.  12, 
it  is  rendered  ‘ world ;’  but  in  this  and  in  the 
previous  instance,  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
the  natural  creation  is  really  meant,  and  not 
rather  ‘ the  world  ’ in  our  metaphorical  use  of  the 
term,  as  denoting  the  intelligent  world,  the  ra- 
tional inhabitants  of  the  earth,  and  still  more 
specifically  that  portion  of  them  with  which  we 

are  immediately  concerned.  4.  bn  comes 
from  a radix  that  signifies  ‘ to  flow/  and  as  wafer 
is  the  unfailing  cause  of  fertility  in  the  East,  it 
denotes  ‘ to  be  productive/  ‘to  bear  fruit and  as 
a noun,  ‘ the  fruit-bearer,’  that  is,  the  earth.  This 
word  is  frequently  rendered  ‘world’  in  the  common 
version,  but  if  more  was  intended  than  the  earth 
on  which  we  dwell,  it  may  be  doubted  if  the  pas- 
sages in  which  it  occurs  will  justify  the  trans- 
lators. 

In  truth,  the  Hebrews  had  no  word  which  com- 
prised the  entire  visible  universe.  When  they 
wanted  to  speak  comprehensively  of  God  s crea- 
tion, they  joined  two  words  together  and  used  the 
phrase  ‘heaven  and  earth  ’ (Gen.  i.  1).  We  have 
already  seen  that  they  had  a<n  idea  of  an  under 
world ; the  meaning  of  their  ordinary  term  for 
earth,  which  signifies  the  ‘ lower/  shows  that 
they  also  regarded  the  earth  as  beneath  the  sun  ; 
while  the  term  for  heaven,  denoting  ‘ what 

is  elevated/  indicates  that  their  view  was  that 
the  heavens,  or  the  heights,  were  above.  Above, 
below,  and  under — these  three  relations  of  sp&cc 
comprehend  their  conception  of  the  world. 


WORM. 


WORM 


*70 

WORM  (HEn,  yVm  ; Sept.  ctkco\t}^,  aairpla , 
rfj if/is;  Vulg . vermis,  putredo,  tinea.  No  distinc- 
tion is  observe^!  in  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  words. 
For  instance,  is  applied  to  the  creature  bred 
in  the  manna  (Exod.  xvi.  24);  to  that  which  preys 
on  human  flesh  (Job  vii.  5;  xvii.  14;  xxi.  26; 
xxiv.  20  ; Isa.  xiv.  1 1) ; and  y^1D,  to  the  creature 
bred  in  the  manna  (Exod.  xvi.  20);  to  that  which 
preys  on  human  flesh  (Isa.  xiv.  11  ; lxvi.  24);  on 
vegetables,  as  on  the  gourd  of  Jonah  (iv.  7)  ; and 
on  vines  (Deut.  xxviii.  39).  The  ancient  Hebrews 
applied  these  words  as  indeterminately  as  the 
common  people  now  do  the  words  ‘worm,’  ‘ fly,’  &c. 
The  only  distinction  occurring  in  the  Bible  is  'JK* 
ny^in,  the  insect  which  furnished  the  crimson 
dye  [Purple].  Similar  indeterminateness  at 
tends  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  renderings. 
Aristotle  also  applies  the  word  <r/c« Arj|  to  the  larva 
of  any  insect — rUrei  5e  iravra  aKcvAyna,  ‘ all 
insects  produce  a worm’  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  19). 
The  insect  which  the  manna  is  said  to  have 
‘ bred,  when  kept,  till  the  morning ;’  HID"), 
a-KU) \r)£,  vermis  (Exod.  xvi.  20,  24),  whatever  it 
was,  must  be  considered  as  miraculously  pro- 
duced as  a punishment  for  disobedience,  since 
the  substance  now  understood  to  be  the  same, 
keeps  good  for  weeks  and  months,  nor  did  the 
specimen  laid  up  in  the  ark  breed  worms 
[Manna].  An  insect  is  alluded  to  as  in- 
juring vines  and  grapes  (Dent,  xxviii.  39) ; 

<tk<&X7}£,  vermis.  The  Greeks  had  a dis- 
tinct name  for  this  insect,  and  probably  as  early 
as  the  Septuagint  translation  of  Exodus  was 
made,  ver.  Yi]/  and  ?£  (Theophrastus,  De  Causis , 
iii.  27).  It  was  called  by  the  Latins  invol- 
volus,  convolvulus,  and  volvox  (Plautus,  Cis- 
tell.  Act  iv.  Sc.  2;  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  xvii. 
28).  Rosenm  filler  thinks  it  to  have  been  the 

scarabceus  hirtellus,  or  the  scarabaus  muticus 
hirtus  testaceo-nigricans  of  Linnaeus  (Syst.  Nat. 
tom.  i.,  pt.  iv.  p.  1577).  Forskal  calls  it  the 
pyralis  vitana,  or  py rails  fasciana.  A species 
of  beetle,  lethrus  cephalotes , is  injurious  to  the 
vines  of  Hungary ; other  species  of  beetles  do 
similar  mischief  (rynchites,  bacchus , cumolpus). 
Vine-leaves  in  France  are  frequently  destroyed 
by  the  larva  of  a moth,  tortrix  vitana.  In 
Germany  another  species  does  great  injury  to  the 
young  branches,  preventing  their  expansion  by 
the  webs  in  which  it  involves  them ; and  a third 
species,  tortrix  fasciana,  makes  the  grapes  them- 
selves its  food  (Kirby  and  Spence,  Introduction 
to  "Entomology,  vol.  i.  p.  205,  London,  1828).  It 
may  serve  as  an  illustration  of  the  looseness  of 
popular  diction  respecting  insects,  to  remark,  that 
what  the  farmers  call  ‘ the  fly  ’ in  the  turnip,  is 
in  reality  a small  species  of  jumping  beetle,  for 
which  turnip-flea  would  be  a more  appropriate 
name.  In  Job  vii.  5,  the  patriarch  complains 
that  bis  ‘ flesh  is  clothed  with  worms  and  clods 
of  dust,’  flD"l,  aairpla  aKibAr/Kwv ; and  in  2 Macc. 
ix.  9,  it  is  stated  to  be  the  fate  of  Antiochus,  that 
while  he  lived  ‘worms’  (aKdoXrjKas)  ‘rose  up  out 
of  his  body  ;’  and  St.  Luke  records  this  disorder 
to  have  been  inflicted  on  Herod  (Acts  xii.  23, 
UK<a\r,K&fip<tiTOS  : comp.  Joseph.  Antiq.  xix.  8.  2 ; 
xvii.  6.  5 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33.  5).  It  has  been 
attempted  to  explain  all  these  instances  as  cases 
of  phthiriasis,  or  the  lousy  disease  • but  the 


conjecture  is  inconsistent  with  the  words  em« 
ployed  in  the  several  narratives ; and  since  they 
are  instances  of  persons  being  devoured  by 
worms  while  alive,  contrary  to  the  order  ol 
nature,  we  are  compelled  to  ascribe  the  pheno- 
menon to  divine  agency.  For  the  account  ol 
insects  infesting  the  human  frame,  from  disease, 
see  Kirby  and  Spence  (Introduction  to  Entomo- 
logy, vol.  i.  p.  84).  Allusion  is  made  in  varipus 
passages  to  ‘worms’  preying  upon  the  dead. 
Thus  Job,  in  the  anticipation  of  death,  says,  ‘ 1 
have  said<4o  the  worm,  Thou  art  my  mother,  and 
my  sister  (Job  xvii.  14;  comp.  xxi.  26;  xxiv. 
20  ; Isa.  xiv.  1 1 ; lxvi.  24;  Ecclus.  x.  11  ; xix. 
3;  1 Mac.  ii.  62).  In  one  apparent  instance  of 
this  nature  (Job  xix.  26),  ‘ though  after  my  skin 
worms  destroy  this  body,’  the  word  ‘ worms’  is 
supplied  by  our  translators.  These  passages,  and 
especially  the  latter,  have  contributed  to  the  po- 
pular impression  in  this  country,  that  the  human 
body,  when  buried  in  the  grave,  is  consumed  by 
worms.  The  Oriental  method  of  burial  in  wrap- 
pers, and  of  depositing  the  corpse  in  caves,  &c., 
would  no  doubt  often  afford  the  spectacle  of  the 
human  body  devoured  by  the  larvae  of  different 
insects ; but  the  allusions  in  Scripture  to  such 
sights  do  not  apply  to  burial  in  this  country,  ex- 
cept where  the  body,  as  was  the  case  in  London 
till  lately,  is  buried  in  a wooden  coffin  only,  in 
vaults  which  have  communications  with  the  ex- 
ternal air,  when  even  in  the  centre  of  the  metropo- 
lis, the  writer  has  found  swarms  of  a species  of  fly, 
of  a cimex  aspect,  which  insinuates  itself  between 
the  lid  and  lower  part  of  the  coffin,  and  whose  lar- 
vae battened  in  the  corpse  within,  while  the  adult 
insect  sported  in  the  lurid  atmosphere  of  the  vault. 
The  ‘ gourd  ’ of  Jonah  is  said  to  have  been  de- 
stroyed by  ‘ a worm’  (Jon.  iv.  7)  ; aKdbAi)^, 

vermis.  The  identity  of  the  gourd  with  the 
ricinus  communis  seems  to  be  well  established 
[Kikayon]  ; and  llumphius  (Herbar.  Am- 
boinens.,  tom.  iv.  p.  95)  testifies  to  the  ravages  of 
a species  of  black  caterpillar  upon  it.  These  are 
produced,  he  says,  in  great  quantities  in  the 
summer  time,  during  a gentle  rain,  and  eat  up 
the  leaves  of  the  Palma  Christi,  and  gnaw  its 
branches  to  the  pith  in  a single  night  (Michaelis, 
Suppl.  ad  Lexic.  Hebraic.,  p.  2187).  Allusions  to 
the  worm  in  wood  occur  in  the  Septuagint  of 
Prov.  xii.  4,  and  xxv.  20;  eV  .w  <r/cct>A7?£; 
Vulg.  vermis  ligno ; which  words  have  nothing 
corresponding  to  them  in  the  present  Hebrew  text 
(see  Vulgate  of  2 Kings  xxiii.  8).  The  word 
‘ worm  ’ occurs  metaphorically  (Job  xxv.  6),  ‘ how 
much  less  man  that  is  a worm’  (HD“),  aairpla, 
putredo ),  ‘ and  the  son  of  man  which  is  a worm  ;' 
njtan,  anwAr) £,  vermis  (Ps.  xxii.  6;  Isa.  xii. 
14).  Homer  also  compares  a man  of  inferior  con- 
sequence to  a worm,  Share  aKcoAr)£  eirl  yah)  ueiro 
radels  (II.  xiii.  654).  It  is  possible  that  the  word 

jtan  was  also  given  as  a proper  name  ; thus 
‘ Tola  ’ occurs  among  the  descendants  of  Issachar 
(Gen.  xlvi.  13),  and  was  also  the  name  of  a person 
of  the  same  tribe  (Judg.  x.  1).  Bochart  conjec- 
tures that  the  name  was  given  to  these  child reu 
by  their  parents  because  the  tribe  of  Issachar  was 
one  of  the  meanest,  and  they  were  themselves  in 
needy  circumstances,  or  that  these  were  very 
sickly  children  when  born.  He  remarks,  how- 
ever, that  the  first  Tola  became  a great 


WRITING. 


WORMWOOD,  STAR  OF. 

the  head  of  the  Tolaites  (Num.  xxvi.  23),  who, 
in  the  days  of  David,  amounted  to  22,600  (I 
Chron.  vii.  2);  and  that  the  latter  judged  Israel 
twenty  years  (Judg.  x,  1,2).  ‘ Worm’  occurs  in 

the  New  Testament  in  a figurative  sense  only 
(Mark  ix.  44,  46,  48),  ‘ Thei<  worm  dieth  not, 
and  the  fire  is  not  quenched;’  words  borrowed 
from  Isa.  lxvi.  24,  which  originally  relate  to  a 
temporal  state  of  tilings,  but  which  had  also 
become,  in  our  Lord’s  time,  the  popular  repre- 
sentation of  future  punishment  (Judith  xvi.  17  ; 
Ecclus.  vii.  17)  [Soul  ; Tophet].  Origen 
here  understands  ‘ worm’  in  a metaphorical  sense, 
as  denoting  ihe  accusation  of  conscience;  but 
Austin,  Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Theo- 
phylact,  &c.,  contend  that  the  word  should  be 
understood  literally.  Several  mistranslations 
occur.  In  Isa.  li.  8,  ‘ and  the  worm  shall  eat 
them  like  wool,’  the  word  DD,  means  a species  of 
moth  [Moth].  In  Mic.  vii.  17,  the  words,  ‘like 

worms  of  the  earth,  literally,  * creepers 

in  the  dust,’  ‘ serpents ;’  Vulg.  reptilia  terrse  (comp. 
Deut.  xxxii.  24).  In  1 Macc.  ii.  62,  ‘ Fear  not 
the  words  of  a sinful  man,  for  his  glory  shall  be 
dung  and  worms;’  instead  of  Koirpia , ‘ dung,’ 
should  be  read  crairpla,  ‘rottenness,’  as  in  the 
Sept,  of  Job  vii.  5 ; xxv.  6.  So  also  in  Ecclus. 
xix.  3,  ‘Moths  and  worms  shall  have  him  that 
cleaveth  to  harlots,’  instead  of  arjres,  ‘ moths,’ 
read  * rottenness.’  Bochart  ( Hierozoicon , 

ed.  Rosenmuller,  Lips.  1793-1796,  vol.  iii. ; De 
Vermibus). — J.  F.  D. 

WORMWOOD,  STAR  OF  (Rev.  viii.  10, 
11),  the  Apocalyptic  appellation  for  the  national 
demon  of  Egypt,  set  forth  in  the  vision  of  Patmos 
as  a luminous  idol  presiding  over  ‘ the  third  part 
of  the  waters.’  The  vocation  of  this  star  was  to 
destroy  by  poison,  not  by  fire,  sword,  or  famine ; 
hence  the  Talmudic  phrase  ‘ poison  in  Egypt  ’ is 
put  in  opposition  to  food  or  ‘corn  in  Ephraim ’ 
as  the  symbol  of  blasphemy  and  idolatry  (Bab. 
Talmud  in  Menacoth , fol.  85.  1).  Philo  also, 
speaking  of  Helicon,  ‘ the  scorpion-like  slave,’ 
represents  him  as  having  cast  up  rbv  AlyvirTianbv 
ibv,  ‘the  Egyptian  venom,’ against  the  dwellers 
in  Palestine  ( De  Legat.  p.  102,  ed.  Turneb.). 
Daniel  gives  a clear  intimation  of  his  acquaint- 
ance with  the  prevalent  belief  that,  like  Persia, 
Greece,  and  Judaea,  every  nation  had  a celestial 
prince  or  patron,  sar,  or  sire  (Dan.  x.  21). 
This  sar  lame-ala,  ‘ prince  on  high,’  of  the  Rab- 
bins had  also  a representative  image  in  the  ma- 
terial firmament  (Rabbi  Salomon  on  Dan.  xi.  1), 
some  helel ) glittering  son  of  the  morning 

(Isa.  xiv.  12),  or  ‘light  of  lights’  ( more  red) 
among  the  splendid  stars  or  intercessors  above 
(M-litzim  ; Ezek.  xxxii.  7,  8),  who  were  ‘dark- 
ened ’ when  Pharaoh  was  extinguished.  Eusebius 
(Demonstr.  Evangelic,  iv.  8. 10)  and  Iamblichus 
(De  yEgyptiorum  Mysteriis,  § v.  c.  25)  both  men- 
tion ‘ the  angels  who  preside  over  the  nations ;’ 
and  Rabbi  Solomon,  the  chief  of  the  Gallican 
synagogue  in  his  day,  affirms  that  ‘ before  God 
wreaks  his  vengeance  on  a people  he  punishes 
their  prince , because  it  Is  written,  “ The  Lord 
shall  punish  the  host  of  the  high  ones  on  high,” 
and  then  follows  “ and  the  kings  of  the  earth  upon 
the  earth;”  and,  moreover,  it  is  written,  “How 
art  thou  fallen,  O Lucifer,  son  of  the  morning!”  ’ 
' Comment . on  Isa.  xiii.  13).  Hence,  as  the 


©71 

literal  fulfilment  of  Isa.  xxiv.  21,  the  Jews  y«t 
anticipate  ‘the  extirpation  of  all  the  Gentiles, 
with  their  princes  on  high  and  their  [pretended] 
Gods’  (JS’izzehon,  p.  *255,  in  Wagenseil’s  Tela 
Ignea). 

St.  John  seems  to  employ  this  symbol  of 
Egyptian  poison  and  bitterness,  as  the  prototype 
of  a great  Anti-Christian  Power,  which  would 
poison  and  embitter  the  pure  waters  of  Christian 
life  and  doctrine,  converting  them  into  ‘ worm- 
wood,’ mitzraim  being  a figure  of  apostasy  and 
rebellion. — F.  R.  L. 

WRESTLING.  [Games.J 

WRITING  is  an  art  by  which  facts  or  ideas 
are  communicated  from  one  person  to  another  by 
means  of  given  signs,  such  as  symbols  or  letters. 
It  has  been  a generally  received  and  popular 
opinion  that  writing  was  first  used  and  imparted 
to  mankind  when  God  wrote  the  Ten  Command- 
ments on  the  tables  of  stone ; but  the  silence  of 
Scripture  upon  the  subject  would  rather  suggest 
that  so  necessary  an  art  had  been  known  long  before 
that  time,  or  otherwise  the  sacred  historian  would 
probably  have  added  this  extraordinary  and  divine 
revelation  to  the  other  parts  of  his  information 
respecting  the  transactions  on  Mount  Sinai. 

After  the  gift  of  language  (which  was  indis- 
pensable to  rational  creatures),  it  would  seem  that 
writing  was  the  most  highly  beneficial  and  im- 
portant boon  which  could  be  conferred  on  men 
possessed  of  intellect  and  understanding,  who  from 
their  circumstances  must  divide  and  spread  over 
the  whole  earth,  and  yet  be  forced  from  various 
necessities  to  maintain  intercourse  with  each  other. 

In  the  earliest  times  families  must  have  sepa- 
rated : the  pastoral  life  required  much  room  for 
flocks  and  herds ; and  as  the  wealth  of  each  house- 
hold increased,  the  space  between  them  must  have 
become  greater,  and  every  year  would  compel 
more  distant  migrations  from  these  unfailing 
causes  (Gen.  xiii.). 

But  even  in  the  first  ages  of  the  world  it  would 
be  requisite  not  only  to  preserve  unimpaired  the 
knowledge  of  God,  but  it  would  be  desirable  to 
have  some  method  of  transmitting  and  receiving 
intelligence  from  the  scattered  communities,  of  a 
more  certain  nature  than  verbal  messages  ever 
can  be  ; nor  is  it  probable  that  events  which  were 
destined  to  act  upon  all  time  should  be  left  to 
float  upon  the  uncertain  stream  of  tradition,  when 
by  the  art  of  writing  they  might  be  accurately 
conveyed  without  addition  or  diminution  to  the 
latest  posterity.  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  the 
wondrous  gift  of  writing  was  withheld  until  the 
world  had  been  twice  repeopled,  and  2513  years 
had  rolled  by. 

The  working  in  iron  and  the  construction  of 
musical  instruments  are  recorded  in  Gen.  iv.  21, 
22 ; whilst  neither  before  nor  after  that  period  is  the 
origin  or  discovery  of  writing  any  more  alluded 
to  than  is  the  origin  of  language  itself.  Is  it  then 
too  much  to  believe  that  God  by  revelation  imme- 
diately imparted  to  mankind  the  power  of  writing  ? 
For  it  does  not  appear  that  any  person  ever  in- 
vented an  alphabet  who  had  not  previously  heard 
of  or  seen  one ; and  every  nation  which  possessed 
the  art  always  professed  to  have  derived  its  know- 
ledge from  a God.  Without  writing,  no  informa* 
tion  could  have  been  conveyed  to  remote  nations 
with  accuracy.  Few  persons  repeat  a thing  in  the 
precise  words  in  which  a detail  was  given  to  them, 


972 


WRITING. 


WRITING. 


and  the  most  trifling  change  in  an  expression  may 
throw  tiie  whole  into  error  and  confusion,  or  en- 
tirely destroy  the  sense.  But  such  cannot  be  the 
case  if  writing  be  the  means  of  communication, 
for  whatever  is  thus  definitely  stated  may  be 
equally  well  understood  by  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed  as  by  those  who  write  it.  God  never 
works  unnecessary  miracles ; but  that  must  have 
been  the  case  if,  for  upwards  of  two  thousand  years, 
the  memory  and  speech  of  various  men  were  alone 
the  depositaries  of  His  dealings  with  mankind. 

It  was  a matter  of  the  utmost  consequence  that 
the  most  exact  accounts  should  have  been  pre- 
served of  the  creation,  the  fall  of  man,  and  many 
prophecies  of  deepest  interest  to  unborn  genera- 
tions. The  ages  and  genealogies  of  the  patriarchs ; 
the  measures  of  the  ark  ; the  first  kingly  govern- 
ment in  Assyria;  the  history  of  Abraham  and  his 
descendants  for  430  years,  including  minute  cir- 
cumstances, changes,  and  conversations,  in  many 
different  countries ; could  scarcely  have  been  per- 
fectly preserved  by  oral  descent  for  twenty  cen- 
turies, unless  the  antediluvians  and  their  imme- 
diate posterity  did  not  partake  of  the  failings  of 
Christians  in  the  defects  of  forgetfulness  and 
exaggeration ; but  allowing  the  art  of  writing  to 
have  been  given  with  language , there  is  no  diffi- 
culty, and  it  becomes  obvious  that  each  transac- 
tion would  be  recorded  and  kept  exactly  as  it  was 
either  revealed  or  happened. 

It  is  not  a vain  thing  to  suppose  that  the  his- 
tory of  creation,  and  all  following  events,  as 
briefly  related  by  Moses,  were  taken  from  ancient 
documents  in  the  possession  of  the  Israelites: 
this  opinion  is  maintained  by  Calmet  ( Commen - 
taire  Litteral , vol.  i.  part  i.  p.  13).  The  gifts 
of  inspiration,  like  those  of  nature,  are  never 
superfluous.  When  God  had  once  revealed  to  the 
Patriarchs  what  was  ‘ in  the  beginning,’  there 
was  no  further  need  for  a new  revelation ; and 
the  Hebrew  historian  might  compile  from  pre- 
vious records,  what  was  sufficient  for  mankind  to 
know  respecting  the  origin  of  ‘ things  which  are 
seen.’ 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Genesis  it  is  said,  ‘ This 
is  the  book  of  the  generations.’  If  there  had  been 
merely  a traditionary  recollection  of  ‘ the  genera- 
tions of  Adam,’  preserved  only  by  transmis- 
sion from  one  memory  to  another  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years,  the  term  book  would  have  been 
most  inapplicable,  and  could  not  have  been  used ; 
and  to  suppose  that  a written  document  had  been 
referred  to,  cannot  be  deemed  as  forcing  the  con- 
struction of  the  word  in  this  instance,  more  than 
when  it  is  also  believed  that  ‘ the  book  of  the 
generation  of  Jesus  Christ’  (Matt.  i.  1)  was  like- 
wise copied  from  a national  register,  and  not 
given  by  a new  revelation  or  old  tradition,  for 
the  genealogies  in  the  New  Testament  were  not 
of  less  importance  than  those  of  the  sons  of  Shem 
(Gen.  xi.),  and  yet  the  former  were  taken  from 
ublic  records.  Why,  then,  should  a miracle 
ave  been  wrought  to  preserve  the  latter? 

The  book  of  Job  is  considered  to  be  the  most 
ancient  written  document  extant,  and  is  deemed 
an  authentic  narrative  and  not  an  imaginative 
poem  (James  v.  11).  By  some  persons  it  is 
thought  to  be  the  work  of  Moses  (see  Mason  Good’s 
Dies,  to  Translation  of  Job)\  but  this  is  de- 
nied by  Bishop  Lowth  ( Lectures  on  Hebrew 
Potfjrfy  Lightfoot  and  others  think  Elihu  was 


the  author.  This  is  the  more  credible  opinion 
for  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  be’ieve  that  long  con- 
versations between  several  persons  in  the  land  of 
Uz  should  have  been  orally  preserved  for  perhaps 
several  centuries,  and  then  recorded  with  minute 
accuracy  by  an  individual  who  spoke  a different 
language,  and  who  received  it  from  the  lips  of 
strangers  and  foreigners. 

Hales  asserts  that  Job  lived  at  most  two  hun- 
dred years  before  the  Exode.  Our  version  of  the 
Scriptures  fixes  the  time  of  Job  at  b.c.  1520, 
which  allows  but  twenty-nine  years  between  his 
era  and  that  of  the  departure  of  the  Israelites 
from  Egypt.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  declarations 
of  Job  prove  that  letters  and  books  were  known 
to  him  and  his  countrymen,  who  were  a people 
quite  distinct  from  the  Hebrews. 

in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Job  (ver.  23,  24) 
it  is  said,  ‘ Oh,  that  my  words  were  now  written ! 
Oh,  that  they  were  printed  in  a book!  that  they 
were  graven  with  an  iron  pen  P Also  Job  xxxi.  35, 

‘ mine  adversary  had  written  a book.’  Such  ex- 
pressions could  not  have  been  used,  and  would 
have  had  no  meaning,  if  the  art  of  writing  had  been 
unknown;  nor  could  there  have  been  such  terms 
as  book  and  pen,  if  the  things  themselves  had  not 
existed. 

If,  then,  it  be  granted  that  the  Book  of  Job 
was  written , and  such  expressions  were  current 
before  the  Exode,  it  becomes  evident  from  sacred 
history,  that  writing  was  not  only  in  use  before 
the  law  was  given  on  Mount  Sinai,  but  that  it 
was  also  known  amongst  other  patriarchal  tribes 
than  the  children  of  Israel.  The  supposed  writer, 
Elihu,  the  son  of  Barachel  the  Buzite  (Job  xxxii. 
2),  was  a descendant  of  Nahor,  the  brother  ot 
Abraham  (Gen.  xxii.  20,  21),  and  might  thus  be 
possessed  of  whatever  arts  the  family  of  Terah 
had  inherited  from  Noah.  Another  singular 
phrase  is  found  in  Job : * My  days  are  swifter 
than  a post’  (ix.  25).  This  would  imply  the  re- 
gular transmission  of  intelligence  by  appointed 
messengers  from  place  to  place ; and  although  it 
does  not  follow  as  a necessary  consequence  that 
such  a person  on  all  occasions  carried  letters , it 
is  more  than  probable  that  such  a mode  of  con- 
veying important  communications  was  established 
in  civilized  countries,  where  books , pens , and 
writing  were  known. 

Before  the  law  was  given  by  God  to  Moses,  he 
had  been  commanded  to  write  the  important  trans- 
actions which  occurred  during  the  progress  of  the 
Israelites  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  ; for  in  Exod. 
xvii.  14,  it  is  recorded,  ‘And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  write  this  for  a memorial  in  a book.’  An 
account  of  the  discomfiture  of  the  Amalekites  is 
the  first  thing  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses. 
This  battle  was  fought  ere  the  people  left  Rephi- 
dim  (Exod.  xvii.  13),  from  whence  they  departed 
into  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  (Exod.  xix.  2);  and, 
therefore,  that  writing  was  drawn  up  before  the 
events  on  the  mount  took  place.  The  law  was 
‘written  by  the  finger  of  God’  (Exod.  xxxi.  18), 
B.c.  1491,  and  since  that  time  there  is  no  question 
as  to  the  existence  of  the  art  of  writing.  The  com- 
mandments were  written  on  two  tables  of  stone 
(Exod.  xxxi v.  1);  but  immediately  afterwards, 
when  Moses  was  interceding  with  God  for  the 
sinning  idolaters,  he  says,  ‘ Blot  me  out  of  thy 
book  Which  thou  has  written’  (Exod.  xxxii.  32)® 
If  writing  in  alphabetical  characters  had  bseo 


WRITING. 


WRITING* 


973 


j©jci  by  Moses  for  the  first  time  on  the  ‘ tables  of 
stone,’  he  could  not  from  these  have  had  the 
faintest  conception  of  a book,  which  is  a thing 
composed  of  leaves  or  rolls,  and  of"which  the 
stones  or  slates  could  have  given  him  no  idea. 

Forty  years  after  the  law  was  written,  the 
Israelites  took  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan, 
where  the  ‘cities  were  walled  and  very  great  ’ 
(Num.  xiii.  28).  Amongst  other  places  which 
were  conquered  was  one  called  by  them  Debir, 
but  whose  original  name  was  Kirjath-sepher,  or 
the  City  of  Books,  or  Kirjath-sannah,  the  City  of 
Letters  (Jos.  xv.  49  ; Judges  i.  1 1).  The  Canaan- 
ites  could  not  have  gained  their  knowledge  of 
letters  or  of  books  from  the  Hebrews,  with  whom 
they  were  entirely  unacquainted  or  at  war,  and 
must,  therefore,  have  derived  them  from  other 
sources.  The  Canaanites  being  the  descendants 
of  Canaan,  a son  of  Ham,  had  probably  preserved 
and  cultivated  the  same  arts  and  sciences  which 
Misraim,  another  son  of  Ham,  carried  into  Egypt 
(Gen.  x.  6). 

‘The  Book  of  Jasher’  (Josh.  x.  13),  is  men- 
tioned by  Joshua,  but  whether  as  a chronicle  of 
the  past  or  present  is  uncertain. 

Books  and  writing  must  have  been  familiar  to 
Moses,  ‘ who  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of 
the  Egyptians’  (Acts  vii.  22),  for  at  the  time  of 
his  birth  that  people  had  arrived  at  a high  pitch 
of  civilization.  Since  the  penetration  of  Dr. 
Young  discovered  the  key  by  which  the  hitherto 
mysterious  hieroglyphics  can  be  deciphered,  it 
has  been  found  that  from  the  earliest  era  Egypt 
possessed  a knowledge  of  writing.  Without  cre- 
diting the  very  distant  period  given  by  some 
chronologists,  which  fixes  the  beginning  of  the 
first  regal  dynasty  there  58G7  years  b.c.,  or  as  M. 
Prisse,  the  learned  hieroglyphist,  says,  in  his 
private  accounts,  ‘ unnumbered  ages  before  the 
erection  of  the  pyramids,’  it  is  not  presuming  too 
much  to  think  that  the  chronology  adopted  by 
Usher  is  too  short  to  include  many  Scriptural 
transactions.  Chronology  is  a matter  of  opinion, 
founded  on  data  supplied  by  various  sources  of 
information,  and  not  an  article  of  faith:  it  may 
therefore  be  altered  and  improved  in  conformity 
with  well-ascertained  facts  and  legitimate  evidence. 

Hales,  agreeing  with  Josephus,  says  that  Menes, 
the  first  king  of  the  first  Egyptian  dynasty, 
began  his  reign  b.c.  2412  years  (Chronology) ; 
but  previous  to  his  assuming  the  royal  dignity, 
Egypt  had  been  long  ruled  by  a succession  of 
priests,  and  in  their  theocracy  Thoth  or  Hermes, 
a god , was  considered  by  them  to  be  the  inventor 
of  letters  (the  Egyptians  never  acknowledged 
demi' gods);  and  in  no  instance  is  the  discovery 
of  the  art  of  writing  ever  attributed  to  men 
(Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  v.  2). 

There  were  three  kinds  of  writing  practised  in 
Egypt: — 1st.  The  hieroglyphical,  or  sacred  sculp- 
tured characters  ; 2d.  The  hieratic,  or  sacerdotal, 
which  was  abbreviated;  3rd.  The  demotic,  or 
enchorial,  which  became  the  hand  in  general  use. 
Leipsius,  in  The  Annals  of  Archaeological  Cor- 
respondence, Rome,  1837,  maintains  that  the 
Egyptians  had  two  colloquial  dialects  in  use, 
which  were  very  distinct;  the  classical  or  sacer- 
dotal, and  the  popular.  The  sacred,  or  hiero- 
glyphic writing,  as  well  as  the  hieratic  of  all 
ages,  presents  the  former,  whilst  the  demotic  pre- 
sents the  common  dialect.  Wilkinson  thinks 


the  hieroglyphical  was  the  sole  mods  of  writing 
in  the  more  ancient  times,  yet  allows  the  hieratic 
to  have  been  employed  in  remote  ages  ; but  if  M. 
Prisse’s  discovery  be  true,  of  a papyrus  said  to  be 
written  in  the  reign  of  an  hitherto  unknown  king 
in  the  first  Memphite  dynasty,  and  in  the  hieratic 
character,  its  extreme  antiquity  will  be  found 
coeval  with  the  hieroglyphical. 


If  there  be  no  enchorial  writing  found  (foJ 
monuments  or  tombs  which  were  sacred  could 
not  have  common  characters  upon  them)  until 
about  B.c.  600,  that  circumstance  does  not  prove 
that  such  a mode  of  writing  was  unknown  in  the 
earliest  times  ; for  from  the  account  of  the  burial 
of  Jacob  (Gen.  1.  9),  and  from  the  Song  of  Moses 
(Exod.  xv.  1,  and  xiv.  26),  it  is  clear  that  horsemen 
were  a part  of  the  Egyptian  army,  and  yet  there 
is  but  one  solitary  specimen  of  a man  on  horse- 
back amongst  the  infinite  variety  of  sculptured 
representations  of  their  manners  and  customs 
(Wilkinson,  vol.  i.  p.  289).  The  priestly  rulers 
of  Egypt  had  continued,  like  the  framers  of  caste 
in  India,  to  bind  down  by  certain  definite  and 
established  laws  (even  to  the  meagre  delineation 
of  the  human  body  in  painting)  every  mode  of 
action,  and  from  that  circumstance  it  may  be 
inferred  that  the  manner  in  which  trials  before 
the  judges  were  carried  on,  was  not  an  innovation 
of  later  times.  There  were  royal  and  priestly 
scribes,  but  there  must  have  been  a different  grade, 
employed  by  other  classes,  as  in  their  law-courts 
the  complainant  always  stated  his  case  in  writing, 
and  the  defendant  also  replied  in  writing  ; from 
which  circumstance  (were  there  none  other) 
it  may  be  inferred  that  there  was  some  common 
popular  writing  for  such  purposes,  besides  that 
of  the  sacred  hieroglyphics,  or  sacerdotal  mode.  In 
the  paintings  which  represent  the  judgment  after 
death,  Thoth,  who  is  called  the  ‘ Secretary  of  Jus- 
tice,’ is  always  portrayed  with  his  tablet  and  style, 
just  beginning  to  write. 

The  Memnonium  is  said  to  have  been  built 
about  the  time  of  Moses  (b.c.  1571);  over  the 
entrance  gateway  to  the  library  was  inscribed, 
‘ Remedy,  or  Balsam  for  Souls.’  Over  the  moul- 
dering door  which  led  to  the  bibliothetical  reposi* 
tory,  Champollion  read,  written  over  the  heads  of 
Thoth  and  Safkh  (who  were  the  male  and  female 
deities  of  arts,  sciences,  and  literature),  the  re- 
markably appropriate  titles  of  c President  of  the 
Library,’  and  ‘ Lady  of  Letters.’  In  the  Sanc- 
tuary at  Luxor,  erected  200  years  before  the  birth 


974 


WRITING. 


WRITING. 


of  Moses,  there  is  an  inscription  over  Thoth,  which 
begins,  ‘ Discourse  of  the  Lord  of  the  Divine 
Writings/  The  number  of  works  ascribed  to 
Thoth  is  stated  to  have  been  36,525. 

The  great  Pyramid  is  supposed  to  have  been 
erected  at  least  2123  years  b.o.  ; in  a.d.  1837, 
Col.  Howard  Vyse  found  in  the  low  chamber  the 
name  of  Suphis  (Cheops)  scored  in  red  ochre  on 
the  rough  stones  behind  the  front  facing  of  the 
room  (see  Ancient  Egypt , by  G.  R.  Gliddon, 
Vice-consul  at  Cairo;  Boston,  U.  S.  1844). 

‘ In  Egypt  nothing  was  done  without  writing. 
Scribes  were  employed  on  all  occasions,  whether 
to  settle  public  or  private  questions,  and  no  bar- 
gain of  any  consequence  was  made  without  the 
voucher  of  a written  document'  (WTilkinson, 
vol.  i.  p.  183).  On  a tomb  said  to  have  been 
built  about  the  time  the  Pyramids  were  erected, 
is  seen  the  representation  of  a steward  giving 
an  account  of  the  number  of  his  master’s  flocks 
and  herds  (vol.  iv.  p.  131).  The  scribes  and 
stewards,  who  were  employed  in  domestic  suits, 
conveyancing,  and  farming,  could  not  have  used 
the  sacred  characters  for  their  affairs,  nor  could 
they  have  been  understood  by  the  people  gene- 
rally if  they  had ; it  may  therefore  be  concluded 
that  the  enchorial  writing  was  that  in  popular 
practice. 

Pliny  is  in  error  in  saying  that  papyrus  was  not 
used  for  paper  before  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  for  papyri  of  the  most  remote  Pharaonic 
period  are  found  with  the  same  mode  of  writing 
as  that  of  the  age  of  Cheops  (Wilkinson,  vol.  iii. 
p.  150).  A papyrus  now  in  Europe,  of  the  date 
of  Cheops,  establishes  the  early  use  of  written 
documents,  and  the  antiquity  of  paper  made  of 
the  byblus,  long  before  the  time  of  Abraham 
{Ancient  Egypt,  p.  13).  As  papyrus  was  ex- 
pensive, few  documents  of  that  material  are  found, 
and  these  are  generally  rituals,  sales  of  estates, 
and  official  papers  (papyrus  was  used  until  about 
the  seventh  century  of  our  era).  A soldier's  leave 
of  absence  has  been  discovered  written  upon  a 
piece  of  broken  earthenware. 

No  one  can  dispute  the  extreme  antiquity  of 
Egypt  as  a nation,  nor  that,  at  the  time  of  Moses, 
its  inhabitants  were  in  a state  of  advanced  civil- 
ization. From  the  researches  of  travellers  and 
hieroglyphists  in  late  years,  it  is  proved  beyond 
doubt  that  many  of  the  hieroglyphical  inscrip- 
tions were  written  before  the  Exodus  of  the  He- 
brews, and  that  writing  must  therefore  have  been 
in  use  at  or  before  that  period  ; but  it  yet  remains 
to  be  said  from  whence  the  art  was  derived. 

‘ The  earliest  and  surest  data’  (respecting  al- 
phabetical language)  ‘ are  found  in  the  genuine 
palaeographical  monuments  of  the  Phoenicians/ 
‘ Amongst  the  most  ancient  coins  yet  known  is 
one  supposed  to  be  b.c.  394’  [Alphabet]  ; but 
these  ancient  specimens  of  engraving  or  writing 
prove  nothing  as  to  the  origin  of  the  thing  itself. 
It  is  possible  that  written  characters  can  be  traced 
no  higher  than  from  a Phoenician  stock,  for  they 
were  the  immediate  posterity  of  Noah’s  family. 
The  argument  here  stated,  as  to  the  credible  sup- 
position that  writing  was  given  with  language,  is 
not  at  all  invalidated  by  gems  or  coins  which 
exhibit  the  oldest  or  most  primitive  form  of  writ- 
ten characters  known. 

The  Hindoos  and  Chinese  profess  to  have  had 
Amongst  them  the  art  of  writing  from  time  imme- 


morial ; hut  although  they  cannot  esrablish  the 
truth  of  their  endless  chronologies,  yet  it  is  highly 
probable  that  they  have  been  acquainted  with  that 
mode  of  communicating  and  transmitting  ideas 
from  remote  ages.  Eight  Chinese  bottles  have 
been  found  in  different  tombs  at.  Thebes;  on  five 
of  them  is  written  the  same  inscription,  ‘ The 
flower  opens,  and  lo ! another  year.’  In  China 
writing  is  still  symbolical,  there  being  80,000 
characters,  to  which  there  are  214  radical  keys. 

Letters  are  generally  allowed  to  have  been  intro- 
duced into  Europe  from  Phoenicia,  and  to  have 
been  brought  from  thence  by  Cadmus  into  Greece, 
about  fifteen  centuries  before  Christ,  which  time 
coincides  with  the  eighteenth  Egyptian  dynasty; 
but  whilst  none  may  deny  such  to  have  been  the 
origin  of  European  alphabetical  characters,  it 
does  not  prove  the  Phoenicians  to  have  been  the 
inventors  of  writing.  That  people  occupied 
Phoenicia  in  very  early  times  after  the  Deluge, 
and  if  the  patriarch  and  his  sons  possessed  the 
knowledge  of  letters,  their  posterity  would  doubt- 
less preserve  the  remembrance  and  practice  of 
such  an  invaluable  bequest,  which  would  be  con- 
veyed by  their  colonists  into  Greece  and  Africa. 
In  the  New  World  it  was  found  that  the  Peru- 
vians had  no  system  of  writing,  whilst  the  Mex- 
icans had  made  great  advances  in  hieroglyphical 
paintings. 

The  Aztecs,  who  preceded  the  Mexicans,  had 
attained  much  proficiency  in  the  art,  such  as  was 
adequate  to  the  wants  of  a people  in  an  imperfect 
state  of  civilization.  ‘ By  means  of  it  were  re- 
corded all  their  laws,  and  even  their  regulations 
for  domestic  economy ; their  tribute  rolls,  speci- 
fying the  imposts  of  the  various  towns  ; their 
mythology,  rituals,  and  calendars,  and  their  po- 
litical annals  carried  back  to  a period  long  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  city.  They  digested  a 
complete  system  of  chronology,  and  could  spe- 
cify with  accuracy  the  dates  of  the  most  important 
events  in  their  history,  the  year  being  inscribed  on 
the  margin  against  the  particular  circumstances 
recorded  ’ (Prescott’s  Conquest  of  Mexico,  i.  88). 

A Mexican  MS.  usually  looks  like  a collect 
lion  of  pictures,  each  forming  a separate  study. 
Their  materials  for  writing  were  various.  Cotton 
cloth,  or  prepared  skins,  were  used,  but  generally 
a fine  fabric  made  from  the  leaves  of  the  aloe 
{Agave  Americana ),  from  which  a sort  of  paper 
was  prepared,  somewhat  resembling  Egyptian 
papyrus,  which  could  be  made  more  soft  and 
beautiful  than  parchment.  When  written,  the 
documents  were  either  made  up  into  rolls  or  else 
into  volumes,  in  which  the  paper  was  shut  up  like 
a folding  screen,  which  gave  the  appearance  of  a 
book.  When  the  Spaniards  arrived  in  Mexico, 
great  quantities  of  these  MSS.  were  in  the  coun- 
try ; but  the  first  Christian  archbishop,  Zurmar- 
raga,  caused  them  to  be  collected  from  every 
part  of  the  country,  and  had  the  whole  burnt ! 
(Prescott). 

In  later  times  there  have  been  two  instances  in 
which  persons  in  semi-barbarous  countries  have 
constructed  an  alphabet,  from  having  heard  that 
by  such  means  ideas  were  communicated  in  many 
lands.  A man  of  theGreybo  tribe,  on  the  African 
coast,  and  a Cherokee,  are  said  to  have  formed  a 
series  of  letters  adapted  to  their  respective  lan- 
guages ; but  in  neither  case  was  it  the  result  of 
intuitive  genius  (Gliddon,  p.  17). 


YANSHUPH. 


YANSHUPH. 


579 


Vaiious  have  been  the  materials  and  imple- 
ments used  for  writing.  As  was  before  observed, 
paper  made  from  the  papyrus  is  now  in  existence 
which  was  fabricated  2000  years  b.c.  Moses 
hewed  out  of  the  rock  two  tables  of  stone  on 
which  the  Commandments  were  written  (Exod. 
xxxiv.  1).  After  that  time  the  Jews  used  rolls  of 
skins  for  their  sacred  writings.  They  also  en- 
graved writing  upon  gems  or  gold  plates  (Exod. 
xxxix.  30), 

Before  the  discovery  of  paper  the  Chinese  wrote 
upon  thin  boards  with  a sharp  tool.  Reeds  and 
canes  are  still  used  as  writing  implements  amongst 
the  Tartars  ; and  the  Persians  and  other  Orientals 
write  for  temporary  purposes  on  leaves,  or  smooth 
sand,  or  the  bark  of  trees.  The  Arabs  in  ancient 
times  wrote  their  poetry  upon  the  shoulder-blades 
of  sheep. 

The  Greeks  occasionally  engraved  their  laws 
on  tables  of  brass.  Even  before  the  days  of  Homer 
table-books  were  used,  made  of  wood,  cut  in  thin 
slices,  which  were  painted  and  polished,  and  the 
pen  was  an  iron  instrument  called  a style.  In 
later  times  these  surfaces  were  waxed  over,  that 
the  writing  might  be  obliterated  for  further  use. 
Table-books  were  not  discontinued  till  the  four- 
teenth century  of  the  Christian  era. 

At  length  the  superior  preparations  of  paper, 
parchment,  and  vellum,  became  general,  and 
superseded  other  materials  in  many,  and  all  en- 
tirely civilized,  nations. 

The  European  mode  of  writing,  with  its  perfect 
and  complete  apparatus  of  pen,  ink,  and  paper,  is 
too  well  known  to  need  description  in  these  pages, 
and  would  be  irrelevant  in  an  article  like  the 
present. — S.  P. 


Y. 

YANSHUPH  ; Lev.  ii.  17;  Dent 

xiv.  16;  Isa.xxxiv.il).  In  the  Septuagint  and 
Vulgate  it  is  translated  ‘Ibis,’  but  in  our  version 
* Owl ;’  which  last  Bochart  supports,  deriving 
the  name  from  nesheph , ‘ twilight  ’ [Own]. 
It  may  be  remarked  that  ‘ Ibis’  in  Europe,  and 
even  in  mediaeval  and  modern  Egypt,  was  a very 
indefinite  name,  until  Bruce  first  pointed  out, 
and  Cuvier  afterwards  proved,  what  we  are  to 
understand  by  that  denomination.  All  reason- 
ing therefore  upon  the  question  by  interpreters 
of  the  Hebrew  anterior  to  the  establishment  of 
this  fact  must  of  necessity  be  inconclusive;  and 
though  Parkhurst  asserts  that  in  Coptic  Yan- 
suph  was  rendered  by  hip  and  ip,  his  inference 
remains  without  force  so  long  as  he  and  the  Copts 
are  ignorant  what  bird  these  names  really  in- 
dicate, It  is  not,  as  the  older  commentators 
believed,  a great  bird  of  the  heron  or  stork 
tribes  ( Ardea  of  Linn,  and  Hasselquist)  ; nor,  as 
was  subsequently  the  opinion,  a Tantalus , though 
correct  in  its  former  definition.  The  real  bird  is 
not  the  Tantalus  Ibis  of  Linnaeus^  or  Abu-ba- 
Rara,  but  one  of  smaller  dimensions,  probably 
the  Abou-hannes  of  Bruce,  and  certainly  the 
Ibis  religiosa  of  Cuvier,  who  discovered  speci- 
mens in  the  mummy  state,  such  as  are  now  not 
uncommon  in  museums,  and,  by  comparison, 
proved  them  to  be  identical  with  Ins  sacred  ibis. 


This  species  is  in  size  somewhat  less  than  a fowl, 
has  the  head  and  heck  bare,  and  a curved  bill 
resembling  that  of  a curlew,  all  black  ; the  feet 
and  quill-feathers  the  same;  and  from  the  rump 
there  are  projected  over  the  tail  a number  ot 
black,  delicate,  unbarbed  feathers,  giving  a 
marked  character  to  the  biid,  which  in  all  the 
rest  of  its  plumage  is  white.  The  species  is  no- 
where abundant ; it  occurs,  in  the  season,  on  the 
Upper  Nile,  a few  in  company,  seldom  coming 
down  into  Lower  Egypt,  but  extending  over 
central  Africa  to  the  Senegal.  A bird  so  rare 
about  Memphis,  and  totally  unknown  in  Pales- 
tine, could  not  be  the  Yanshuph  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, nor  could  the  black  ibis  which  appears 
about  Damiet.ta,  nor  any  species,  strictly  tenants 
of  hot  and  watery  regions,  be  well  taken  for  it. 
Bochart  and  others,  who  refer  the  name  to  a 
species  of  owl,  appear  to  disregard  two  other 
names  ascribed  to  owls  in  the  16th  verse  of  the 
same  chapter  of  Leviticus.  I f,  therefore,  an  owl 
was  here  again  intended,  it  would  have  been  placed 
in  the  former  verse,  or  near  to  it.  In  this  diffi- 
culty, considering  that  the  Seventy  were  not 
entirely  without  some  grounds  for  referring  the 
Hebrew  Yanshuph  to  a wader ; that  the  oldej 
commentators  took  it  for  a species  of  ardea ; ana 
that  the  root  of  the  name  may  refer  to  twilight, 
indicating  a crepuscular  bird  ; we  are  inclined  to 
select  the  night  heron,  as  the  only  one  that  unites 
these  several  qualities.  It  is  a bird  smaller  than 
the  common  heron,  distinguished  by  two  or  three 
white  plumes  hanging  out  of  the  black-capped 
nape  of  the  male.  In  habit  it  is  partially  noc- 
turnal. The  Arabian  Abou-onk  ?,  if  not  the  iden 


tical,  is  a close  congener  of  the  species,  found  in 
every  portion  of  the  temperate  and  warmer  cli- 
mates of  the  earth  : it  is  an  inhabitant  of  Syria, 
and  altogether  is  free  from  the  principal  objections 
made  to  the  ibis  and  the  owl.  The  Linnsean 
single  Ardea  nycticorax  is  now  typical  of  a genus 
of  that  name,  and  includes  several  species  of  night 
herons.  They  fly  abroad  at  dusk,  frequent  the 
sea  shore,  marshes,  and  rivers,  feeding  on  mol- 
lusca,  Crustacea,  and  worms,  and  have  a cry  of  a 
most  disagreeable  nature.  This  bird  has  been 
confounded  with  the  night  hawk,  which  is  a goat- 
sucker (caprimulgus),  not  a hawk. — C.  H.  S. 


m 


YEAR. 


. YSOP. 


YEAR  (i"l3t^).  The  Hebrew  year  consisted 
of  twelve  unequal  months,  which,  previously  to 
the  exile,  were  lunar,  as  may  be  seen  from  the 

names  of  the  moon,  £2*1 H and  PIT,  which  sig- 
nify respectively  a month  (so  with  us  moon  from 
month,  German  mond)  ; though  Credner,  relying 
too  much  on  hypothesis,  especially  on  the  as- 
sumption of  the  late  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  has 
endeavoured  to  show  that,  until  the  eighth  cen- 
tury before  Christ,  the  Israelites  reckoned  by 
solar  years.  The  twelve  solar  months  made  up 
only  354  days,  constituting  a year  too  short  by 
no  fewer  than  eleven  days.  This  deficiency 
would  have  soon  inverted  the  year,  and  could 
not  have  existed  even  for  a short  period  of  time 
without  occasioning  derangements  and.  serious 
inconvenience  to  the  Hebrews,  whose  year  was  so 
full  of  festivals.  At  an  early  day  then  we  may 
well  believe  a remedy  was  provided  for  this  evil. 
Thri  course  which  the  ancients  pursued  is  un- 
known, but  Ideler  (Chronol.  i.  490)  may  be  con- 
sulted for  an  ingenious  conjecture  on  the  subject. 
The  later  Jews  intercalated  a month  every  two, 
or  every  three  years,  taking  cave,  however,  to  avoid 
making  the  seventh  an  intercalated  year.  The 
supplementary  month  was  added  at  the  termina- 
tion of  the  sacred  year,  the  twelfth  month  (Fe- 
bruary and  March),  and  as  this  month  bore  the 
name  of  Adar,  so  the  interposed  month  was  called 
/eadar  (“nX’l),  or  Adar  the  Second.  The  year, 
as  appears  from  the  ordinary  reckoning  of  the 
months  (Lev.  xxiii.  34;  xxv.  9;  Num.  ix.  11; 
2 Kings  xxv.  8 ; Jer.  xxxix.  2 ; comp.  1 Macc. 
iv.  52;  x.  21),  began  with  the  month  Nisan  (Esth. 
iii.  7),  agreeably  to  an  express  direction  given  by 
Moses  (Exod.  xii.  2;  Num.  ix.  1).  This  com- 
mencement is  generally  thought  to  be  that  of 
merely  the  ecclesiastical  year  ; and  most  Jewish, 
ami  many  Christian  authorities,  hold  that  the 
civil  year  ofiginally  began,  as  now,  with  the 
month  Tisri;  the  Rabbins  conjecturally  assigning 
as  the  reason  that  this  was  the  month  in  which 
the  creation  took  place.  Josephus’  statement  is 
as  follows  : ‘Moses  appointed  that  Nisan  should 
lie  the  first  month  for  their  festivals,  because  he 
brought  them  (the  Israelites)  out  of  Egypt  in  that 
month ; so  that  this  month  began  the  year,  as  to 
all  the  solemnities  they  observed  to  the  honour  of 
God,  although  he  preserved  the  original  order  of 
(he  months  as  to  selling  and  buying  and  other 
ordinary  affairs  ( Antiq . i.  3.  3).  YViner,  however, 
is  of  opinion  that  the  commencement  of  the  year 
with  Tisri,  together  with  the  beginning  of  the 
sacred  year  in  Nisan,  is  probably  a post-exilian 
arrangement,  designed  to  commemorate  the  first 
step  of  the  return  to  the  native  soil  of  Palestine 
(Esth.  iii.  1 ; Neh.  vii.  73  ; viii.  I,  sq.);  an  idea, 
however,  to  which  they  only  can  give  assent  who 
hold  that  the  changes  introduced  on  the  return 
from  Babylon  were  of  a constructive  rather  than 
a restoratory  nature — a class  of  authorities  with 
which  the  writer  has  few  bonds  of  connection. 
The  reader  should  consult  Exod.  xxiii.  16 ; 
xxxiv.  22.  But  the  commencement  of  the  civil 
year  with  Tisri,  at  whatever  period  it  originated, 
had  after  the  exile  this  advantage, — that  it  ac- 
corded with  the  era  of  the  Seleucidae,  which  began 
in  October.  The  ancient  Hebrews  possessed  nc 
such  thing  as  a formal  and  recognised  era.  Their 
year  and  their  months  were  determined  and  regu- 


lated, not  by  any  systematic  rules  of  astroiiom/; 
but  by  the  first  view  or  appearance  of  the  moon. 
In  a similar  manner  they  dated  from  great  national 
events,  as  the  departure  from  Egypt  (Exod.  xix. 

1 ; Num.  xxxiii.  38;  1 Kings  vi.  1);  from  the 
ascension  of  monarchs,  as  in  the  books  of  Kings 
anil  Chronicles ; or  from  the  erection  of  Solo- 
mon’s temple  (1  Kings  viii.  1 ; ix.  10) ; and  at 
a later  period,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
Babylonish  captivity  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  21;  xl.  1). 
When  they  became  subjects  of  the  Graeco-Syrian 
empire  they  adopted  the  Seleucid  era,  wnich 
began  with  the  year  B.c.  312,  when  Seleucus 
conquered  Babylon. — J.  R.  B. 

YSOP  or  HYSSOP.  Reference  was  from 
Hyssop  to  the  German  form  of  the  name,  as  the 
author  was  engaged  in  a course  of  investigation, 
which  he  hoped  would  lead  to  some  satisfactory 
information.  The  result  he  communicated  in  a 
paper  read  before  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  and 
published  in  their  Journal  for  November,  1844. 
From  the  passages  in  which  esobh  and  hyssop 
are  mentioned  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
and  which  are  enumerated  in  the  article  Hyssop, 
the  author  inferred  that  any  plant  answering  to 
all  that,  was  required  should,  in  the  first  place,  be 
found  in  every  one  of  the  places  and  situations 
where  it  is  mentioned  as  existing  in  Scripture. 
Thus  it  should  be  found  in  Lower  Egypt  (Exod. 
xii.  22);  in  the  desert  of  Sinai  (Lev.  xiv.  4,  6, 
and  52;  Num.  xix.  6,  18);  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Jerusalem  (John  xix.  29) ; secondly,  that  it 
should  be  a plant  growing  on  walls  or  rocky 
situations  (1  Kings  iv.  33);  and,  finally,  that  it 
should  be  possessed  of  some  cleansing  properties 
(Ps.  li.  7)  ; though  it  is  probable  that  in  this 
passage  it  is  used  in  a figurative  sense.  It  should 
also  be  large  enough  to  yield  a stick,  and  it  ought, 
moreover,  to  have  a name  in  the  Arabic  or  cognate 
languages,  similar  to  the  Hebrew  name.  This,  we 
have  before  seen,  is  written  Esob  and  Esobh,  also 
Esof ; and  in  the  Chaldee  version  it  is  Esofa. 
The  author  stated  that  his  attention  had  been 
drawn  to  the  subject  when  collating  the  list  of 
drugs  in  his  MS.  catalogue,  mentioned  vol.  i. 
p.  6,  with  that  in  the  great  work,  entitled  Con- 
thins,  of  Rhages,  by  finding  that  the  Arab  author 
described  two  kinds  of  hyssop,  one  of  them  grow- 
ing on  the  mountain  of  the  temple,  that  is,  of 
Jerusalem.  Celsius,  indeed  ( IJierobot . i.  407), 
mentions  the  same  plant — Hyssopus  in  montibus 
Hierosolymorum,  or  in  Arabic  Zoofa  bujebal  al 
kuds.  Jerusalem  is  now  called  by  the  Arabs 
El  Kuds,  * the  Holy,’ and  by  Arabian  writers 
Bcit-el-Mukdis,  or  Beit-al-Mukuddus,  ‘ the 
Sanctuary.’  In  connection  with  this  the  author 
observed,  that  Burckhardt  had  described  a plant, 
called  alsef,  which  he  had  met  with  in  several 
wadeys  about  Mount  Sinai,  creeping  up  the 
mountain  side  like  a parasitic  plant,  its  branches 
covered  with  small  thorns.  From  the  name  and 
description  the  aulnor  inferred  that  this  must  be 
the  coper  plant  ( capparis  spinosa  of  botanists), 
or  some  closely  allied  species.  For  he  found  on 
investigation,  that  though  habir  is  the  ordinary 
Arabic  name  of  the  caper,  it  is  also  called  asaf, 
as  may  be  seen  in  the  Alfag.  Udioich , translated 
by  Mr.  Gladwin.  So  in  the  Kamus , asub  is  a» 
kubbas  ; in  Frey  tag’s  Lexicon  Arabico-Laiinum , 
asafis  translated  capparis,  Sue.  The  similarity 
in  name  being  sufficiently  great,  the  author  pro* 


ZABAD. 


ZACCHEUS. 


<w>edg  to  show'  that  the  caper  bush  corresponds  in 
nearly  every  thing  that  is  required. 

Thus  tiie  caper  plant  is  well  known  to  be  indi- 
genous in  Lower  Egypt,  as  mentioned  by  De  Lile, 
Forskal,  and  Prosper  Alpinus,  &c.  Bove  says, 

‘ Le  Mont  Sainte  Catherine  est  au  sud-sud-ouest 
du  Mont  Sinai.  Dans  les  deserts  qui  environ- 
nent.  ces  montagnes  j'ai  trouve  capparis  spinosa.’ 
He  also  found  it  among  the  ruins  near  Jerusalem, 
as  Belon  and  Rauwolf  had  done  previously. 
That  it  grows  upon  walls  is  sufficiently  well 
known.  De  Candolle  says  it  is  found  ‘ in  muris 
et  rupestribus  Europae  Australis  et  Orientis.’ 
That  it  possessed,  or  was  supposed  to  possess, 
cleansing  or  detergent  properties,  may  be  seen  in 
the  various  accounts  of  it  from  the  time  of  Hip- 
pocrates. Pliny  remarks  especially,  that  it  is  use- 
ful in  a skin  disease  nearly  allied  to  leprosy.  It  is 
not  a little  remarkable,  that  it  was  in  the  cere- 
monies of  purification  from  this  disease  that  esof 
was  employed  by  the  Israelites.  It  remains  only 
to  see  whether  the  caper  plant  would  yield  a 
stick  long  enough  for  a man  with  his  outstretched 
arm  to  be  able  to  raise  the  sponge  dipped  in  vi- 
negar to  the  lips  of  our  Saviour.  The  cross,  to 
be  sufficiently  strong,  could  not  have  been  very 
lofty,  to  admit  being  borne  along  ; and  therefore 
an  ordinary  sized  stick  would  be  long  enough  for 
the  purpose.  Such  a stick  a shrub  like  the  caper 
plant,  growing  in  a congenial  climate,  would  sup- 
ply. Pliny  describes  the  capparis  as  a shrub  of  a 
hard  and  woody  substance.  The  term  calamus 
was,  however,  used  in  a much  more  general  sense 
than  is  generally  supposed  [Kaneh],  and  Pliny 
employs  the  phrase  ‘ imprimere  calamum,’  to  sig- 
nify grafting  ; as  ‘ kalm  lugana  ’ is  used  in  the  pre- 
sent day  in  India.  Besides  this,  every  part  of  the 
caper  plant  was  preserved  in  vinegar  in  ancient 
times  (Pliny) ; which  may  explain  the  pre- 
sence of  the  vessel  full  of  vinegar;  and  a reed 
may  have  been  employed  in  collecting  the  flowei 
buds,  or  fruit  of  the  caper  bush,  growing  on  walls 
or  the  sides  of  rocks.  If  such  a stick  were  em- 
ployed, it  would  naturally  be  called  the  caper, 
or  hyssop  stick. 

Hence  the  author  concludes,  that  as  the  caper 
ulant  has  an  Arabic  name,  asuf,  similar  to  the 
Hebrew  esob  or  esof,  as  it  is  found  in  Lower 
Egypt,  in  the  deserts  of  Sinai,  and  in  New 
Jerusalem  ; as  it.  grows  upon  rocks  and  ’walls, 
was  always  supposed  to  be  possessed  of  cleansing 
qualities,  is  large  enough  to  yield  a stick  ; and  as 
its  different  parts  used  to  be  preserved  in  vinegar, 
as  its  buds  now  are ; he  ys  warranted,  from  the 
union  of  all  these  properties  in  this  plant,  corre- 
sponding so  closely  to  those  of  the  original  esof, 
in  considering  it  as  proved  that  the  caper  plant 
sa  the  hyssop  of  Scripture. — J.  F.  R. 


z. 


1.  ZABAD  (*DT5  God- given ; Sept.  Za£e5),  a 
}>erson  of  the  tribe  of  Juddi,  mentioned  in  1 
Chron.  ii.  36,  among  the  descendants  of  Sheshan, 
oy  the  marriage  of  his  daughter  with  an  Egyptian 
servant  [Jarha;  Sheshan]. 

2.  ZABAD,  a grandson  of  Ephraim,  who,  with 
others  of  the  family,  was  killed  during  the  life 

VOL.  II.  63 


071 

time  of  Ephraim,  by  the  men  of  Gath,  in  an 
attempt  which  the  Hebrews  seem  to  have  made 
to  drive  off  their  cattle  (1  Chron.  vii.  21).  [See 
Ephraim.] 

3.  ZABAD,  son  of  an  Ammonitess  named  Shi 
meath,  who,  in  conjunction  with  Jehozabad,  the 
son  of  a Moabitess,  slew  King  Joash,  to  whom  they 
were  both  household  officers,  in  his  bed  (2  Kings 
xii.  21 ; 2 Chron.  xxiv.  25,  26).  In  the  first  of  these 
texts  he  is  called  Jozachar.  The  sacred  historian 
does  not  appear  to  record  the  mongrel  parentage 
of  these  men  as  suggesting  a reason  for  their 
being  more  easily  led  to  this  act,  but  as  indi- 
cating the  sense  which  was  entertained  of  the 
enormity  of  Joaslfs  conduct,  that  even  they,  though 
servants  to  the  king,  and  though  only  half  Jews  by 
birth,  were  led  to  conspire  against  him  ‘ for  the 
blood  of  the  sons  of  Jehoiada  the  priest.’  It 
would  seem  that  their  murderous  act  was  not 
abhorred  by  the  people  ; for  Amaziah,  the  son  of 
Joash,  did  not  venture  to  call  them  to  account 
till  he  felt  himself  well  established  on  the  throne, 
when  they  were  both  put  to  death  (2  Kings  xiv. 
5,  6 ; 2 Chron.  xxv.  3,  4). 

4.  ZABAD,  qne  of  the  persons  who,  at  the  in- 
stance of  Ezra,  put  away  the  foreign  wives  they 
had  laken  after  the  return  from  captivity  (Ezra 
x.  27). 

ZABUD  (‘T'QT,  bestoiced ; Sept.  ZafiovO),  a 
son  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  who  held  under  Solo- 
mon the  important  place  of  ‘king’s  friend,’  or 
favourite  (1  Kings  iv.  5),  which  Hushai»hati 
held  under  David  (1  Clnon.  xxvii.  33),  anti 
which  a person  named  Elkanah  held  under  Ahaa 
(2  Chron.  xxviii.  7).  Azariah,  another  son  of 
Nathan,  was  ‘ over  all  the  (household’'  officers’  of 
king  Solomon  ; and  their  advancement  may  doubt- 
less be  ascribed  not  only  to  the  young  king's  re- 
spect for  the  venerable  prophet,  who  had'  been  his 
instructor,  but  to  the  friendship  he  had  contracted 
with  his  sons  during  the  course  of  education. 
The  office,  or  rather  honour,  of  ‘ friend  of  the 
king,’  we  find  in  all  the  despotic  governments  of 
the  East.  It  gives  high  power,  without  the  public 
responsibility  which  the  holding  of  a regular  office 
in  the  state  necessarily  imposes.  It  implies  the 
possession  of  the  utmost  confidence  of,  and  familiar 
intercourse  with,  the  monarch,  to  whose  person 
‘ the  friend’  at  all  times  has  access,  and  whose 
influence  is  therefore  often  far  greater,  even  in, 
matters  of  state,  than  that  of  the  recognised  mi-- 
nisters  of  government.. 

ZABULUN.  (Zebulun.] 

ZACCHEUS  ('K3T  ; ZaKxaios,  justns  ?),  a su- 
perintendent of  taxes  at  Jericho.  Having  heard 
of  the  Redeemer,  he  felt  a great  desire  to  see  him 
as  he  drew  near  that  place  : for  which  purpose  he 
climbed  up  into  a sycamore-tree,  because  he  was, 
little  of  stature.  Jesus,  pleased  with  this  mani- 
festation of  his  eagerness,  and  knowing  that  it 
proceeded  from  a heart  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God,  saw  fit  to  honour  Zaccheus  by  becoming 
his  guest.  This  offended  the  self-righteous  Jews, 
who  objected  that  ‘ he  was  gone  to  be  a guest,  with 
a man  that  is  a sinner.’  This  offensive  imputa- 
tion was  met  by  Zaccheus  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Mosaic  conception  of  goodness — ‘ The  half  of  my 
goods  I give  to  the  poor;  and  if  I have  taken, 
anything  from  any  man  by  false  accusation,  X 
restore  him  fourfold.’  He  that  knew  the  heart  ol 


178 


ZADOK. 


ZAIT. 


man  knew,  not  cnly  the  truth  of  this  statement, 
out  that  the  good  works  of  Zaccheus  emanated 
from  right  motives,  and  therefore  terminated  the 
conversation  with  the  words,  ‘ This  day  is  salva- 
titn  come  to  this  house,  forsomudi  as  he  also  is 
a son  of  Abraham’ — a declaration  which,  whether 
Zaccheus  was  by  birth  a Jew  or  not,  signifies 
that  he  had  the  same  principle  of  faith  which  was 
imputed  to  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful, 
for  righteousness  (Luke  xix.  2,  sq.). 

Tradition  represents  Zaccheus  as  the  6rst  Chris- 
tian bishop  of  Ca?sarea. — J.  R.  B. 

ZACHARI  AH.  [Zechariah.] 

ZACHARIAS.  [Zechariah.] 

ZADOK,  derived  from  the  root  pTV,  corre- 
sponding with  the  Latin  justus.  There  are 
several  men  of  this  name  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

1.  In  the  reign  of  David,  Zadok  (the  son  of 
Ahitufc  and  father  of  Ahimaaz  (1  Chron.  vi.  S) 
and  Ahimelech  were  the  priests  (2  Sun.  viii. 
17).  Zadok  and  the  Levi'es  were  with  David 
when,  after  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century 
B.C.,  he  lied  from  Absalom  ; but  the  king  ordered 
Zadok  to  carry  back  the  ark  of  God  into  the  city 
(2  Sam.  xv.  24,  25,  27,  29,  35,  30  ; xviii.  19,  22, 
27).  The  king,  also,  considering  Zadok  a seer, 
commanded  him  to  return  to  the  city,  stating 
that  he  would  wait  in  the  plain  of  the  wilderness 
until  he  should  receive  such  information  from 
him  and  his  son  Ahimaaz,  and  also  from  the 
son  of  Abiathar,  as  might  induce  him  to  remove 
farther  away.  On  hearing  that  Ahithophel  had 
joined  Absalom,  David  requested  Hushai,  his 
friend,  to  feign  himself  to  be  also  one  of  the  con- 
«pirators,  and  to  inform  Zadok  and  Abiathar  of 
the  counsels  adopted  by  Absalom  and  his  rebel- 
lious confederates.  The  request  of  David  was 
•complied  with,  and  the  plans  of  the  rebels  made 
known  to  David  by  the  instrumentality  of  Zadok 
and  the  others. 

After  Absalom  was  vanquished,  David  sent  to 
Zadok  and  Abiathar,  the  priests,  saying,  ‘Speak 
•unto  the  elders  of  Judah.  Why  are  ye  the  last  to 
bring  the  king  back  to  his  house?’  & c.  (2  Sam. 
xix.  1 1 ; xx.  25).  When  Adonijah  attempted  to 
succeed  to  the  throne,  Abiathar  countenanced 
him,  but  Zadok  was  not  called  to  the  feast  at 
winch  the  conspirators  assembled.  King  David 
/ nt  for  Zadok  and  Nathan  the  prophet  to  anoint 
Solomon  king  (1  Kings  i.  32-45). 

2.  In  1 Chron.  vi.  12,  and  Neh.  xi.  11,  an- 
other Zadok  is  mentioned,  the  father  of  whom 
was  also  called  Ahitub,  and  who  hegat  Shallum. 
This  Zadok  descended  from  Zadok  the  priest  in 
ihe  days  of  David  ami  Solomon,  and  was  the  an- 
cestor of  Ezra  the  scrihe  (Ezra  vii.  2).  We  learn 
from  Ezek.  xl.  46;  xliii.  19;  xliv.  15;  xlviii. 
11,  that  the  sons  of  Zadok  were  a pre-eminent 
sacerdotal  family. 

3.  Zadok  was  also  the  name  of  the  father-in- 
law  of  Uzziah  and  the  grandfather  of  king  Jotham, 
who  reigned  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  cen- 
tury before  Christ  (2  Kings  xv.  33 ; 2 Chron. 
xxvii.  1). 

4 and  5.  Two  priests  of  the  name  of  Zadok 
are  mentioned  in  Neh.  iii.  4-29,  as  having  as- 
sisted in  rebuilding  th?  wall  of  Jerusalem  about 
h.c.  445. 

The  Zadok  mentioned  in  Neh.  x.  22  as  having 
sealed  the  covenant,  and  Zadok  the  scribe  named 


in  Neh.  xiii.  13,  are  probably  the  same  wh« 
helped  to  build  the  wall. — C.  rl.  F.  B. 

ZAIT,  or  SAIT  (JVt),  is  universally  ac. 
knowledged  to  be  the  Olive-tree.  The  Latin 
author  Ammianus  Mar cellinus,  as  quoted  by 
Celsius  (vol.  ii.  p.  331),  was  acquainted  with  it, 
for  he  says  of  a place  in  Mesopotamia,  * Zaitam 
venimus  locum,  qui  Otea  arbor  interpretafur.’ 
Zaitoon  is  the  Araoic  name  by  whicn  th<»  olive 
is  known  from  Syria  to  Cauhul,  and  described  in 
the  works  of  both  Arabic  and  Persian  authors. 
It.  is  more  than  probable  that  it  was  introduced 
from  Asia  into  Europe.  The  Greeks,  indeed, 
had  a tradition  that  the  first  branch  of  it  was 
carried  by  a dove  from  Phoenicia  to  the  temple 
of  Jupiter  in  Epirus,  where  the  priests  received 
and  planted  it;  and  Pliny  states  that,  there  were 
no  olive-trees  in  Italy  or  Spain  before  the  173rd 
year  from  the  foundation  of  the  city  of  Rome. 
Though  the  olive  continues  to  be  much  culti- 
vated in  Syria,  it  is  yet  much  more  extensively 
so  in  the  south  of  Europe,  whence  the  rest  of  the 
world  is  chiefly  supplied  with  olive-oil. 

No  tree  is  more  frequently  mentioned  by 
ancient  authors,  nor  was  any  one  more  highly 
honoured  by  ancient  nations.  By  the  Greeks  it 
was  dedicated  to  Minerva,  and  even  employed 
in  crowning  Jove,  Apollo,  and  Hercules,  as 
well  as  emperors,  philosophers,  and  orators,  and 
‘ qui  vis  alii,  caeteros  mor tales  virtute  et  industria 
supergressi,  olea  coronantur.’  By  the  Romans 
also  it  was  highly  honoured.  ‘ 01eae,’says  Pliny, 
* honorem  Rnmana  majestas  magnum  prsebuit;' 
and  Columella  describes  it  as  ‘ prima  omnium 
arbornm.’  It  is  not  wonderful  that  almost  all 
the  ancient  «,utnors,  from  the  time  of  Homer,  so 
frequently  mention  it,  and  that,  as  Horace  says 
(Cam.  i.  7) — 

‘ sunt  quibus  unum  opus  est 

Undique  decerptam  f'ronti  praeponere  olivam.’ 

The  olive-tree  is  of  slow  growth,  but.  remarkable 
for  the  great  age  it  attains.  It  never,  however, 
becomes  a very  large  tree,  though  sometimes  two 
or  three  stems  rise  from  the  same  root,  and 
reach  from  twenty  to  thirty  feet  high.  The 
leaves  are  in  pairs,  lanceolate  in  shape,  of  a dull 
green  on  the  upper,  and  hoary  on  the  under 
surface.  Hence  in  countries  where  the  olive  is 
extensively  cultivated,  the  scenery  is  of  a dull 
character  from  this  colour  of  the  foliage.  The 
fruit  is  an  elliptical  drupe,  with  a hard  stony 
kernel,  and  remarkable  from  the  outer  fleshy  part 
being  that  in  which  m\§ch  oil  is  lodged,  and  not, 
as  is  usual,  in  the  almond  of  the  seed.  It  ripens 
from  August  to  September. 

Of  the  olive-tree  two  varieties  are  particularly 
distinguished  ; the  long-leafed,  which  is  cultivated 
in  the  south  of  France  and  in  Italy,  and  the 
broad-leafed  in  Spain,  which  has  also  its  fruit 
much  larger  than  that  of  the  former  kind.  The 
wild  olive-tree,  as  well  as  the  practice  of  grafting, 
has  been  noticed  in  tiie  article  Agrileia.  That 
the  olive  grows  to  a great  age,  has.  long  been 
known.  Pliny  mentions  one  which  the  Athenians 
of  his  time  considered  to  be  coeval  with  their  city, 
and  therefore  1600  years  old.  Near  Terni,  in 
the  vale  of  the  cascade  of  Marmora,  there  is  a 
plantation  of  very  old  trees,  supposed  to  consist 
of  the  same  plants  that  were  growing  there  in  thi 
time  of  Pliny.  Lady  Calcott  states  that  at 


ZA1T. 


ZAMZUMMIMS. 


S79 


eoncio,  on  the  mountain-road  between  Tivoli  and 
Palestrina,  tnere  is  an  ancient  olive-tree  of  large 
dimensions,  which,  unless  the  documents  are  pur- 
posely falsified,  stood  as  a boundary  between  two 
possessions  even  before  the  Christian  era,  and  in  the 
second  century  was  looked  upon  as  very  ancient. 
The  difficulty  on  this  point  arises  from  a fresh  tree 
springing  up  from  the  old  stump.  Chateaubriand 
says:  ‘Those  in  the  garden  of  Olivet  (or  Geth- 
semane)  are  at  least  of  the  times  of  the  Eastern 
empire,  as  is  demonstrated  by  the  following  cir- 
cumstance. In  Turkey  every  olive-tree  found 
standing  by  the  Mussulmans,  when  they  con- 
quered Asia,  pays  one  medina  to  the  Treasury, 
while  each  of  those  planted  since  the  conquest  is 
taxed  half  its  produce.  The  eight  olives  of  which 
we  are  speaking  are  charged  only  eight  medinas .’ 
By  some,  especially  by  Dr.  Martin,  it  is  supposed 
that  these  olive-trees  may  have  been  in  existence 
even  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour.  Dr.  Wilde 
describes  the  largest  of  them  as  being  twenty-four 
feet  in  girth  above  the  roots,  though  its  topmost 
brand)  is  not  thirty  feet  from>the  ground  ; Bove, 
who  travelled  as  a naturalist,  asserts  that  the 
largest  are  at  least  six  yards  in  circumference, 
and  nine  or  ten  yards  high  ; so  large,  indeed,  that 
he  calculates  their  age  at  2000  years. 


The  wood  of  the  olive-tree,  which  is  imported 
into  this  country  from  Leghorn,  is  described  by 
M.  Holtzapflel  to  be  ‘like  that  of  the  box,  but 
softer,  with  darker  grey  coloured  veins.  The 
roots  have  a very  pretty  knotted  and  curly 
character ; they  are  much  esteemed  on  the  con- 
tinent for  making  embossed  boxes,  pressed  into 
engraved  metallic  moulds.’  Furniture  is  made 
of  the  olive-tree  in  Italy,  anl  the  closeness  of  the 
grain  fits  it  even  for  painfeis’  pallettes.  A resin-like 
exudation  is  obtained  from  it,  which  was  known 
to  the  ancients,  and  is  now  sometimes  called 


olive-gum ; but  the  fruit,  with  its  oil,  is  that 
which  renders  the  tree  especially  valuable.  The 
green  unripe  fruit  is  preserved  in  a solution  of 
salt,  and  is  well  known  at  our  desserts.  The 
fruit  when  ripe  is  bruised  in  mills,  and  the  oil 
pressed  out  of  the  paste.  Different  qualities  arc 
known  in  commerce,  owing  partly  to  variations 
in  the  fruit,  but  more  to  the  greater  or  less  care 
bestowed  in  the  collection  of  it,  and  in  the  sub- 
jecting of  it.  to  pressure. 

The  olive  is  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  plants 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  the  fig  being 
the  first.  Thus,  in  Gen.  viii.  1 1,  the  dove  is  de- 
scribed as  bringing  the  olive-branch  to  Noah.  It 
is  always  enumerated  among  the  valued  trees  of 
Palestine  ; which  Moses  desc»ibes  (Deut.  vi.  11; 
viii.  8)  as  ‘ a land  of  oil-olive  and  honey  1 (so  in 
xxviii.  40,  &c.);  and  (2  Chron.  ii.  10)  Solomon 
gave  to  the  labourers  sent  him  by  Hiram,  king 
of  Tyre,  20,000  baths  of  oil.  Besides  this,  im- 
mense quantities  must  have  been  required  for 
home  consumption,  as  it  was  extensively  used  as 
an  article  of  diet,  for  burning  in  lamps,  and  for 
the  ritual  service.  The  olive  still  continues  one 
of  the  most  extensively  cultivated  of  plants.  Mr. 
Kit.fo  mentions  that  in  a list  he  had  made  of 
references  to  all  the  notices  of  plants  by  the  dif- 
ferent travellers  in  Palestine,  those  of  the  presence 
of  the  olive  exceed  one  hundred  and  fifty,  and 
are  more  numerous  by  far  than  to  any  other  tree, 
or  plant.  The  references  to  vines,  fig-trees,  mul- 
berries, and  oaks,  rank  next  in  frequency.  Some- 
thing of  this  must,  however,  depend  upon  the 
knowledge  of  plants  of  the  several  travellers. 
Botanists,  even  from  Europe,  neglect  forms  with 
which  they  are  unacquainted,  as,  for  instance,' 
some  of  the  tropical  forms  they  meet  with. 
Not  only  the  olive-oil,  but  the  branches  of  the 
tree  were  employed  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 
The  wood  also  was  used  (1  Kings  vi.  23)  by  Solo- 
mon for  making  the  cherubim  (vers.  31,  32),  and 
for  doors  and  posts  ‘ for  the  entering  of  the  oracle,’ 
the  former  of  which  were  carved  with  cherubim, 
and  palm-trees,  and  open  flowers.  The  olive 
being  an  evergreen  was  adduced  as  an  emblem 
of  prosperity  (Ps.  lii.  8),  and  it  has  continued, 
from  the  earliest  ages,  to  be  an  emblem  of  peace 
among  all  civilized  nations.  The  different  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  are  elucidated  by  Celsius 
( Hierobot . ii.  p.  330),  to  whom  we  have  been 
much  indebted  in  most  of  the  botanjcal  articles 
treated  of  in  this  work,  from  the  care  and 
learning  which  he  lias  brought  to  bear  on  the 
subject. — J.  F.  R. 

ZALMON  (jlD^V  I Sept.  2eAju^)»  a moun- 
tain in  Samaria  near  to  Shecliem  (Judg.  ix.  48). 
Many  suppose  this  to  be  the  same  with  the  Zal- 
mon  of  Ps.  lxviii.  15:  ‘where  the  Almighty 
scattered  kings  in  it  (the  land),  there  was  snow  as 
in  Zalmon i.  e.  the  fields  were  whitened  with 
the  bones  of  the  slain.  So  Gesenius  : but  Ro- 
binson says  ‘ The  only  high  mountains  around 
Shechem  are  Ebal  and  Gerizim,  and  these  would 
be  first  covered  with  snow."  True  : but  may  not 
Zalmon  be  another  name  for  either  Ebal  or 
Gerizim’? 

ZALMUNNA.  [Zebah  and  Zalmunna.] 

ZAMZUMMIMS  (D'BfPt ; Sept. 
a race  of  giants  dwelling  ancien  Jy  in  the  territotf 


ZANOAH. 


ZECHARIAH. 


9m 


afterwards  occupied  by  the  Ammonites,  but  ex- 
tinct before  the  time  of  Moses  (Deut.  ii.  20). 

ZANOAH  (DiJT,  marsh,  bog),  one  of  the 
towns  of  Judah  4 in  the  valley  ’ (Josh.  xv.  34)  ; 
which  Jerome  identifies  with  a village  called  in 
his  time  Zanua,  on  the  borders  of  Eleutheropolis, 
on  the  road  to  Jerusalem  ( Onomast.  s.  v. 4 Zano- 
hua*).  The  name  of  Zanua  is  still  connected 
with  a site  on  the  slope  of  a low  hill  not  far  east 
of  Ain  Shems  (Beth-shemesh). 

ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH  ( 

Sept.  'VovOofxfpavnx),  an  Egyptian  name  given  by 
Pharaoh  to  Joseph  in  reference  to  his  public 
office.  The  genuine  Egyptian  form  of  the  word 
is  supposed  to  have  been  more  nearly  preserved 
by  the  Sept,  translator,  as  above;  in  which  both 
Jablonsky  ( Opusc . c.  207-216)  and  Rosellini 
(Mon.  Storici,  i.  185)  recognise  the  Egyptian 
Psotmbenbh,  4 the  salvation,’  or  4 saviour  of  the 
age;’  which  corresponds  nearly  enough  with 
Jerome’s  interpretation,  4 Salvator  mundi.’  Ge- 
senius  and  others  incline,  however,  rather  to 
regard  its  Egyptian  form  as  Psontmeeneh, 

4 sustainer  of  the  age,’  which  certainly  is  a better 
meaning.  This,  in  Hebrew  letters,  would  pro- 
bably be  represented  by  flJDQ  H3VQ,  Paznath- 
Paaneah  ; but  in  the  name  as  it  now  stands  the 
letters  ¥D  are  transposed,  in  order  to  bring  it 
nearer  to  the  Hebrew  analogy.  Concerning  the 
Egyptian  root  snt,  sustentare , tueri,  see  Champol- 
iion,  Gramm,  p.  380 ; Pezron,  Lex.  Copt.  p.  207. 

ZAREPHATH.  [Sarepta.] 

ZEALOTS.  The  followers  of  Judas  the  Gau- 
lonite  or  Galilean  [Judas].  Josephus  speaks  of 
them  as  forming  the  4 fourth  sect  of  Jewish  philo- 
sophy,1 and  as  distinguished  from  the  Pharisees 
chiefly  by  a quenchless  love  of  liberty  and  a con- 
tempt of  death.  Their  leading  tenet  was  the 
unlawfulness  of  paying  tribute  to  the  Romans, 
as  being  a violation  of  the  theocratic  constitution. 
This  principle,  which  they  maintained  by  force 
of  arms  against  the  Roman  government,  was  soon 
converted  into  a pretext  for  deeds  of  violence 
against  their  own  countrymen;  and  during  the 
last  days  of  the  Jewish  polity,  the  Zealots  were 
lawless  brigands  or  guerrillas,  the  pest  and  terror 
of  the  land.  After  the  death  of  Judas,  and  of  his 
two  sons,  Jacob  and  Simon  (who  suffered  cruci- 
fixion), they  were  headed  by  Eleazar,  one  of  his 
descendants,  and  were  often  denominated  Sicarii , 
from  the  use  of  a weapon  resembling  the  Roman 
Sica  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  1 ; De  Bell.  Jud.  iv. 
1-6 ; vii.  8 ; Lardner’s  Credibility,  pt.  i.  b.  i.  ch. 
6,  9;  Kitto’s  Palestine,  pp.  741,  751). — J.  E.  R. 

ZEBAH  AND  ZALMUNNA,  chiefs  of  the 
Midianites,  whom  Gideon  defeated  and  slew 
[Gideon]. 

ZEBEDEE  (ZejSeScuos;  in  Hebrew,  '’IQT 
Zabdi,  HH2T,  Jehovah's  gift),  husband  of  Sa- 
lome, and  father  of  the  apostles  James  and  John 
(Matt.  x.  2 ; xx.  20  ; xxvi.  37  ; xxvii.  56  ; Mark 
iii.  17  ; x.  35;  John  xxi.  2).  He  was  the  owner 
of  a fishing  boat  on  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  and, 
with  his  sons,  followed  the  business  of  a fisher- 
man. He  was  present,  mending  the  nets  with 
them,  when  Jesus  called  James  and  John  to  fol- 
low him  (Matt.  iv.  21  , Mark  1.19;  Luue  v.  10)  ; 
*nd  as  he  offered  no  obstacle  to  their  obedience, 
Q$xt  remained  alone  without  murmuring  in  the 


vessel,  it  is  supposed  that  he  had  been  previously 
a disciple  of  John  the  Baptist,  and,  as  such,  knew 
Jesus  to.  be  the  Messiah.  At  any  rate,  he  mus4 
have  known  this  from  his  sons,  who  were  certainly 
disciples  of  the  Baptist.  It  is  very  doubtful 
whether  Zebedee  and  his  sons  were  of  that  very 
abject  condition  of  life  which  is  usually  ascribed 
to  them.  They  seem  to  have  been  in  good  circum- 
stances, and  were  certainly  not.  poor.  Zebedee 
was  the  owner  of  a 4 ship.’  or  fishing  smack,  as  we 
should  call  it — and,  perhaps,  of  more  than  one  ; 
he  had  labourers  under  lnm  (Mark  i.  20)  ; his 
wife  was  one  of  those  pious  women  whom  the 
Lord  allowed  4 to  minister  unto  him  of  their  sub- 
stance ;'  and  the  fact  that  Jesus  recommended 
his  mother  to  the  care  of  John,  implies  that  he 
had  the  means  of  prpviding  for  her  ; whilst,  a still 
further  proof  that  Zebedee’s  family  was  not  alto- 
gether mean,  may  be  found,  perhaps,  in  the  fact, 
that  John  was  personally  known  to  the  high- priest 
(John  xviii.  16). 

1.  ZEBOIM  (D'yh¥;  Sept.  a valley 

and  town  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (1  Sam.  xiii. 
18;  Neh.  xi.  34). 

2.  ZEBOIM  (Dnsh?;  Sept.  Seflcoef/i),  a 
city  in  the  vale  of  Siddim,  destroyed  along  with 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (Gen.  x.  19;  xiv.  2 
Hos.  xi.  8).  [Sodom.] 

ZEBUL  (^Ilt,  a dwelling ; Sept.  Ze/3 ovX),  an 
officer  whom  Abimelech  left  in  command  at 
Shechem  in  his  own  absence;  and  who  dis- 
charged with  fidelity  and  discretion  the  difficult 
trust  confided  to  him  (Judg.  ix.  29-41).  See  the 
particulars  in  Abimei.ech. 

ZEBULUN  habitation ; Sept.  Za- 

/3ou \d>v),  the  sixth  and  last  son  of  Jacob  by 
Leah  (Gen.  xxx.  19,  seq. ; xxxv.  23),  who,  in 
the  order  of  birth,  followed  his  brother  Issachar, 
with  whom,  in  history,  as  in  the  promised  land, 
he  was  closely  connected  (Deut.  xxxiii.  18). 
Zebulunwas  the  founder  of  the  tribe  which  bore 
his  name  (Gen.  xlvi.  14),  and  which,  while  yet 
in  the  wilderness,  was  respectable  for  numbers 
(Num.  i.  30;  xxvi.  26).  Zebulun  obtained  its 
lot  in  north  Palestine  between  Naphtali  on  the 
north  and  Issachar  on  the  south,  while  Asher 
stretched  along  both  it  and  Naphtali  on  the 
west  (Josh.  xix.  10,  seq.).  The  country  of  the 
Zebulonites  bordered  towards  the  east  on  the 
south-western  side  of  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  and 
was  connected  with  the  Mediterranean  by  means 
of  Carmel  (Gen.  xlix.  13).  Its  inhabitants  in 
consequence  took  part  in  seafaring  concerns 
(Joseph.  Antiq.  v.  1.  22).  They  failed  to  expel 
all  the  native  race,  but  made  those  of  them  that 
remained  tributaries  (Judg.  i.  30).  One  of  the 
judges  of  Israel,  Elon,  was  a Zebulonite  (Judg. 
xii.  11).  A city  lying  on  the  borders  of  Ash'r 
also  bore  the  name  of  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  27).- 

J.  R.  F. 

ZECHARIAH  (?V*pT,  whom  Jehovah  re 
members ; Sept,  and  N.  T.  Za^a/nas),  a verj 
common  name  among  the  Jews,  borne  bv  the 
following  persons  mentioned  in  Scripture. 

1.  Zechariah,  son  of  Jeroboam  II.,  and  four- 
teenth king  of  Israel.  He  ascended  the  throne  in 
b.c.  772,  and  reigned  six  months.  It  has  bee* 
shown  in  the  article  Israel,  that  from  undue 
deference  to  a probably  corrupted  uumber,  wni*i 


ZECHARIAH. 


ZECHAR.AII. 


Mcribes  11  years  to  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II., 
chronologers  have  found  it  necessary  to  suppose 
anarchy  or  an  interregnum  of  11  years,  during 
which  his  son  Zechariah  was  kept  from  the 
throne.  But  there  is  no  appearance  of  this  in  the 
sacred  narrative,  and  it  was  not  likely  to  follow  a 
reign  so  prosperous  as  Jeroboam’s.  The  few 
months  of  Zechari all’s  reign  just  sufficed  to  evince 
his  inclination  to  follow  the  bad  course  of  his 
yredecessors  ; and  he  was  then  slain  by  Shallum, 
vho  usurped  the  crown.  With  his  life  ended  the 
dynasty  of  Jehu  (2  Kings  xiv.  29  ; xv.  8-12). 

2.  Zechariah,  high  priest  in  the  time  of 
Joash,  king  of  Judah.  He  was  son,  or  perhaps 
grandson,  of  Jehoiada  and  Jehosheba  ; the  latter 
was  the  aunt  of  the  king,  who  owed  to  her  his 
crown,  as  he  did  his  education  and  throne  to  her 
husband  [Joash].  Zechariah  could  not  bear  to 
see  the  evil  courses  into  whicli  the  monarch  even- 
tually fell,  and  by  which  the  return  of  the  people 
to  their  old  idolatries  was  facilitated,  if  not  en- 
couraged. Therefore,  when  the  people,  were  as- 
sembled at  one  of  the  solemn  festivals,  he  took 
the  opportunity  of  lifting  up  his  voice  against  the 
growing  corruptions.  This  was  in  the  presence 
of  the  king,  in  the  court  of  the  temple.  The 
people  were  enraged  at  his  honest  boldness,  and 
with  the  connivance  of  the  king,  if  not  by  a di- 
rect intimation  from  him,  they  seized  the  pontiff, 
and  stoned  him  to  death,  even  in  that  holy  spot, 
‘ between  the  temple  and  the  altar.’  His  dying 
cry  was  not  that  of  the  first  Christian  martyr, 
* Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge  ’ (Acts  vii. 
60),  but  ‘The  Lord  look  upon  it,  and  require  it  ’ 
(2  Chron.  xxiv.  20-22).  It  is  to  this  dreadful 
affair  that  our  Lord  alludes  in  Matt,  xxiii.  35 ; 
Luke  xi.  51.  At  least,  this  is  the  opinion  of  the 
best  interpreters,  and  that  which  has  most  proba- 
bility in  its  favour.  The  only  difficulty  arises  from 
his  being  called  the  son  of  Barachias,  and  not  of 
Jehoiada  : but  this  admits  of  two  explanations — 

/ either  that  Zechariah,  though  called  the  ‘ son’  of 
Jehoiada  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  really  his 
grandson,  and  son  of  Barachias,  who  perhaps  died 
before  his  father ; or  else  that,  as  was  not  uncom- 
mon among  the  Jews,  Jehoiada  had  two  names, 
and  Jesus  called  him  by  that  by  which  he  was 
usually  distinguished  in  his  time,  when  the  Jews 
had  acquired  a reluctance  to  pronounce  those 
names  which,  like  that  of  Jehoiada,  contained 
the  sacred  name  of  Jehovah.  See  Doddridge,  Le 
Clerc,  Kuinoel,  Wetstein,  and  others,  on  Matt, 
xxiii.  35. 

3.  Zechariah,  described  as  one  ‘who  had  un- 
derstanding in  the  visions  of  God’  (2  Chron. 
xxvi.  7).  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  eulogiurft 
:ndicates  a prophet,  or  simply  describes  one  emi- 
nent for  his  piety  and  faith.  During  his  lifetime 
Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  was  guided  by  his  coun- 
sels, and  prospered  : but  went  wrong  when  death 
had  deprived  him  of  his  wise  guidance.  Nothing  is 
known  of  this  Zechariah’s  history.  It  is  possible 
that  he  may  be  the  same  whose  daughter  became 
the  wife  of  Ahaz,  and  mother  of  Hezekiah  (2 
Kings  xvi.  1,  2;  2 Chron.  xxix.  1). 

4.  Zechariah,  son  of  Jeberechiah,  a person 
whom,  together  with  Urijah  the  high  priest,  Isaiah 
took  as  a legal  witness  of  his  marriage  with  ‘ the 
prophetess’  (Isa.  viii.  2).  This  was  in  the  reign 
of  Ahaz,  and  the  choice  of  the  prophet  shows  that 
Zechariah  was  a person  of  consequence.  Some 


981 

confound  him  with  the  preceding  ; but  the  dis- 
tance of  time  will  not  admit  their  identity.  He 
may,  however,  have  been  the  descendant  ot 
Asaph,  named  in  2 Chron.  xxix.  13. 

5.  Zechariah,  the  eleventh  in  order  of  the 
minor  prophets,  was  ‘ the  son  of  Berechiah,  toe 
son  of  Iddo,  the  prophet.’  The  meaning  of  the 
word  has  been  disputed,  some  affirm- 

ing that  Iddo  was  not  the  grandfather , as  the 
formula  seems  to  indicate,  but  the  father  ot 
Zechariah,  and  thus  rendering  the  clause  with 
Jerome,  ‘filium  Barachiae.  filium  Addo,’  or  with 
some  MSS.  of  the  Septuagint,  tIv  toC  Bapaxtov, 
vtbv  ’A85c6.  Jerome  likewise  refers  to  his  pecu- 
liar rendering  in  his  notes.  Others  of  the  fathers 
also  adopted  it,  such  as  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
who  attempts  to  solve  the  difficulty  created  by  it 
by  maintaining  that  the  one  was  the  natural, 
the  other  the  spiritual  parent,  of  the  prophet — 
Berechiah  being  his  father  Kara  ryv  crap/ca,  and 
Iddo  the  prophet,  Kara  iwevpa.  Others  have  jus- 
tified this  translation  by  assigning  both  names  to 
Zechariah’s  father,  as  if  he  had  worn  them  succes- 
sively at  different  periods  of  his  life,  or  as  if  one  of 
them  had  been  a cognomen.  But  the  version  of 
Jerome  and  the  Seventy  i§  a false  one.  Analogy 
declares  against  it,  and  its  origin  is  to  be  traced 
to  Ezra  v.  1,  and  vi.  14,  where  the  prophet  is 
named  only  ‘ Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo.’  The 
words  N’ny-'-Q  denote  merely  ‘ grandson  of  Iddo  ’ 
(Gesenius,  Thesaur.  p.  216),  and  the  paternal 
name  may  have  been  omitted,  because  of  its  com- 
parative obscurity,  while  the  grand-paternal  name 
is  inserted,  because  of  its  national  popularity,  it 
was  a very  foolish  mistake  of  Jerome  to  confound 
the  Iddo  named  in  connection  with  this  prophet 
as  his  ancestor  with  Iddo  the  seer,  who  flourished 
some  centuries  before  under  Jeroboam,  first  king 
of  Israel  (Hieronym.  Comment,  ad  Zachf.  The 
term  in  the  first  verse  belongs,  not  to  Iddo, 
but  to  Zechariah,  as  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate 
properly  render  it,  or  as  it  appears  in  Henderson’s 
version — 1 The  word  of  Jehovah  was  communi- 
cated to  Zechariah  (the  son  of  Berechiah,  the  son 
of  Iddo)  the  prophet.’  The  probability  is,  that 
Iddo  is  the  person  mentioned  in  Nehemiah  xii.  4, 
as  one  of  the  sacerdotal  prophets,  who  had  re- 
turned from  Babylon  with  Joshua  and  Zerubbabel. 
Berechiah,  son  of  Iddo,  and  father  of  Zechariah, 
seems  to  have  died  young,  for  in  Nehemiah  xii. 
16,  Zechariah  is  said  to  be  Iddo’s  successor,  under 
Joiakim,  son  of  Joshua.  Thus  the  prophet’s  de- 
scent is,  in  Ezra,  traced  at  once  from  his  grand- 
father. Compare  Gen.  xxix.  5,  and  xxxi.  28 — 
55.  Should  this  theory  be  correct,  Zechariah 
exercised  the  priestly  as  well  as  the  prophetical 
office.  The  name  signifies  one  whom  Jehovah 
remembers — a name  very  common  among  the 
Jews  (three  others  bearing  it.  seem  also  to  have 
been  prophets),  and  not  therefore  specially  given  to 
this  inspired  agent,  as  Jerome  thought,  because 
in  his  days  pt'tip.r]  Kupiov,  remembrance  of  God 
and  of  his  kindness  prevailed  intensely  among 
the  returned  exiles. 

Zechariah  seems  to  have  entered  upon  his 
office  in  early  youth  (Zech.  ii.  4).  The  period 
of  his  introduction  to  it  is  specified  as  the  eighth 
month  of  the  second  year  of  Darius,  a very  short 
time  later  than  the  prophet  Haggai.  The  mission 
of  Zechariah  had  especial  reference  to  the  affaire 


ZECHARIAH. 


ZECHARIAH. 


§82 

of  the  nation  that  had  been  restored  to  its  terri- 
tory. The  second  edict,  granting  permission  to 
rebuild  the  temple,  had  been  issued,  and  the  office 
of  Zechariah  was  to  incite  the  flagging  zeal  of  the 
people,  in  order  that  the  auspicious  period  might 
be  a season  of  religious  revival,  as  well  as  of  ec- 
clesiastical re-organization ; and  that  the  theo- 
cratic spirit  might  resume  its  former  tone  and 
energy  in  the  breasts  of  all  who  were  engaged  in 
the  work  of  restoring  the  ‘ holy  and  beautiful 
house/  where  their  fathers  had  praised  Jehovah. 
The  prophet  assures  them  of  success  in  the  work 
of  re-erecting  the  sacred  edifice,  despite  of  every 
combination  against  them  ; for  Zerubbabel  ‘should 
bring  forth  the  head  stone  with  shouting,  Grace, 
grace  unto  it — comforts  them  with  a solemn  pledge 
that,  amidst  fearful  revolutions  and  conquests  by 
which  other  nations  were  to  be  swept  away,  they 
should  remain  uninjured  ; for,  says  Jehovah, ( He 
that  toucheth  you  toucheth  the  apple  of  mine 
eye’ — sketches  in  a few  vivid  touches  the  bless- 
ings and  glory  of  the  advent  of  Messiah — im- 
parts consolation  to  those  who  were  mourning 
over  their  unworthiness,  and  pronounces  a heavy 
doom  on  the  selfish  and  disobedient,  and  on  such 
as  in  a remote  age,  imbibing  their  spirit,  ‘should 
fall  after  the  same  example  of  unbelief.’  The 
pseudo-Epiphanius  records  some  prodigies 
wrought  by  Zechariah  in  the  land  of  Chaldaea, 
and  some  wondrous  oracles  which  lie  delivered ; 
and  he  and  Dorotheus  both  agree  in  declaring 
that  the  prophet  died  in  Judaea  in  a good  old  age, 
and  was  buried  beside  his  colleague  Haggai. 

Book. — The  book  of  Zechariah  consists  of  four 
general  divisions. 

I.  The  introduction  or  inaugural  discourse  (ch. 

i.  1-16). 

II.  A series  of  nine  visions,  extending  onwards 
to  ch.  vii.,  communicated  to  the  prophet  in  the 
third  month  alter  his  installation.  These  visions 
were, 

1.  A rider  on  a roan  horse  among  the  myrtle- 
trees,  with  his  equestrian  attendants,  who  report  to 
him  the  peace  of  the  world,  symbolizing  the  fit- 
ness of  the  time  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises 
of  God,  his  people's  protector. 

2.  Four  horns,  symbols  of  the  oppressive  ene- 
mies by  which  Judah  had  been  on  all  sides  sur- 
rounded, and  four  carpenters,  by  whom  these  horns 
are  broken,  emblems  of  the  destruction  of  these 
anti-theocratic  powers. 

3.  A man  with  a measuring-line  describing  a 
wider  circumference  for  the  site  of  Jerusalem,  as 
its  population  was  to  receive  a vast  increase,  fore- 
showing that  many  more  Jews  would  return  from 
Babylon  and  join  their  countrymen,  and  indi- 
cating the  conversion  of  heathen  nations  under 
the  Messiah,  when  out  of  Zion  should  go  forth 
the  law  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem. 

4.  The  high-priest  Joshua  before  the  angel  of 
the  Lord,  with  Satan  at  his  right  hand  to  oppose 
him.  The  sacerdotal  representative  of  the  people, 
clad  in  the  filthy  garments  in  which  he  had  re- 
turned from  captivity,  seems  to  be  a type  of  the 
guilt  and  degradation  of  his  country  ; while  for- 
giveness and  restoration  are  the  blessings  which 
the  pontiff  symbolically  receives  from  Jehovah, 
when  he  is  reclad  in  holy  apparel  and  crowned 
with  a spotless  turban,  the  vision  at  the  same  time 
dtretehing  into  far  futurity,  and  including  the 
adv«nt  of  Jehovah's  servant  the  Branch. 


5.  A golden  lamp-stand  fed  from  two  olive* 
trees,  one  growing  on  each  side,  an  image  of  the 
value  and  divine  glory  of  the  theocracy  as  now 
seen  in  the  restored  Jewish  church,  supported, 
not  ‘ by  might  nor  by  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah/  and  of  the  spiritual  development  of  the 
old  theocracy  in  the  Christian  church,  which  en- 
lightens the  world  through  the  continuous  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (Dr.  Stouard,  in  his 
Commentary  on  Zechariah , without  foundation 
supposes  that  this  candelabrum  had  twice  seven 
lamps,  seven  on  each  side,  emblematizing  the 
church  of  God  in  both  dispensations,  Jewish  and 
Christian.) 

6.  A flying  roll,  the  breadth  of  the  temple- 
porch,  containing  on  its  one  side  curses  against 
the  ungodly,  and  on  its  other  anatnemas  against 
the  immoral,  denoting  that  the  head  of  the  theo- 
cracy, the  Lord  of  the  temple,  would  from  his 
place  punish  those  who  violated  either  the  first  or 
the  second  table  of  his  law  (Hengstenberg's 
Christol:  ii.  45). 

7.  A woman  in  an  ephah  (at -length  pressed 
down  into  it  by  a sheet  of  lead  laid  over  its 
mouth),  borne  along  in  the  air  by  two  female 
figures  with  storks'  wings,  representing  the  sin 
and  punishment  of  the  nation.  The  fury,  whose 
name  is  Wickedness,  is  repressed,  and  trans- 
ported to  the  land  ofShinar;  i.e.  idolatry,  in  the 
persons  of  the  captive  Jews,  was  for  ever  removed 
at  that  period  from  the  Holy  Land,  and,  as  it 
were,  taken  to  Babylon,  the  home  of  image-wor- 
ship (for  another  meaning,  see  Jahns  Introduc- 
tion, Turner’s  translation,  p.  428). 

8.  Four  chariots  issuing  from  two  coppei 
mountains  and  drawn  respectively  by  red,  black, 
white,  and  spotted  horses,  the  vehicles  of  the  four 
winds  of  heaven,  a hieroglyph  of  the  swiftness 
and  extent  of  divine  judgments  against  the  former 
oppressors  of  the  covenant  people.  Judgments 
seem  issuing  from  God's  holy  habitation  in  the 
midst  of  the  ‘ mountains  which  are  round  about! 
Jerusalem/  or  from  between  those  two  hills,  the 
ravine  dividing  which  forms  the  valley  of  Jeho- 
shaphat,  directly  under  the  temple  mountain, 
where  dwelt  the  head  of  the  theocracy. 

9.  The  last  scene  is  not  properly  a vision,  but 
an  oracle  in  connection  with  the  preceding  visions, 
and  in  reference  to  a future  symbolical  aft  to  be 
performed  by  the  prophet.  In  presence  of  a de- 
portation of  Jews  from  Babylon,  the  prophet  was 
charged  to  place  a crown  on  the  head  of  Joshua 
the  high-priest,  a symbol  which,  whatever  was  its 
immediate  signification,  was  designed  to  prefigure 
the  royal  and  sacerdotal  dignity  of  the  man 
whose  name  is  Branch,  who  should  sit  as  ‘a 
priest  upon  his  throne.’ 

The  meaning  of  all  the  preceding  varied  images 
and  scenes  is  explained  to  the  prophet  by  an  at 
tendant  any  elus  interpres. 

III.  A collection  of  four  oracles  delivered  at 
various  times  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius,  and 
partly  occasioned  by  a request  of  the  nation  to  be 
divinely  informed,  whether,  now  on  their  happy 
return  to  their  fatherland,  the  month  of  Jerusa- 
lems overthrow  should  lie  registered  in, their  sacred 
calendar  as  a season  of  fasting  and  humiliation. 
The  prophet  declares  that  these  times  should 
in  future  ages  be  observed  as  festive  solemnities. 

IV.  The  8th,  9th,  10th,  and  1 1th  chapters  con- 
tain a variety  of  prophecies  unfolding  the  fortunas 


ZECIIARIAH. 


ZECHARIAH. 


083 


tf  the  people,  their  safety  in  the  midst  of  Alexan- 
der’s expedition,  and  their  victories  under  the 
Maccabaean  chieftains,  iucluding  the  fate  of  many 
of  the  surrounding  nations,  Hadrach  (Persia), 
Damascus,  Tyre,  and  Philistia. 

V.  The  remaining  three  chapters  graphically 
portray  the  future  condition  of  the  people,  espe- 
cially in  Messianic  times,  and  contain  allusions 
to  the  siege  of  the  city,  the  means  of  escape  by 
die  cleaving  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  with  a sym- 
bol of  twilight  breaking  into  day,  and  living 
water  issuing  from  Jerusalem,  concluding  with  a 
blissful  vision  of  the  enlarged  prosperity  and 
holiness  of  the  theocratic  metropolis,  when  upon 
the  bells  of  the  horses  shall  be  inscribed  ‘ holiness 
unto  the  Lord.’ 

Integrity. — The  genuineness  of  the  latter  por- 
tion of  Zechariah,  from  ch.  ix.  to  xv.,  has  been 
disputed.  Among  the  first  to  suggest  doubt  on 
this  subject  was  Joseph  Mede,  who  referred  chaps, 
ix.,  x.,  and  xi.  to  an  earlier  date,  and  ascribed 
them  to  Jeremiah.  Remarking  on  Matt,  xxvii. 
9,  10,  he  says  : ‘ It,  may  seem  the  Evangelist  would 
inform  us  that,  those  latter  chapters  ascribed  to 
Zachary,  namely,  the  ninth,  tenth,  eleventh,  &c., 
are  indeed  the  prophecies  of  Jeremy,  and  that  the 
Jews  had  not  rightly  attributed  them.  Certainly, 
if  a man  weigh  the  coutents  of  some  of  them, 
they  should  in  likelihood  he  of  an  elder  date  than 
the  time  of  Zachary,  namely,  before  the  capti- 
vity ; for  the  subjects  of  some  of  them  were  scarce 

in  being  after  that  time As  for  their  being 

joined  to  the  prophecies  of  Zachary,  that  proves 
no  more  they  are  his  than  the  like  adjoining  of 
Agur’s  proverbs  to  Solomon's  proves  that  they  are 
therefore  Solomon’s,  or  lhat.  all  the  psalms  are 
David’s  because  joined  in  one  volume  with  Da- 
vid’s psalms’  ( Epist . xxxi.).  His  opinion  was 
adopted  in  England  by  Hammond,  Kidder,  New- 
come,  Whiston,  and  Seeker,  and  has  been  fol- 
lowed, with  variations,  oil  the  continent  by 
Fliigge  ( Die  Weissagung,  D.  p.  Zaeh.  ubersetzt, 
&c.,  1784);  by  Bertholdt  (Einleit.  p.  1701);  by 
Rosenmuller  in  his  Scholia,  though  in  the  first 
edition  he  defended  the  genuineness  of  these 
chapters;  by  Eichhorn  (Einleit.') ; Corrodi  (Be- 
leuchtung des  Eibelcanous,  i.  107) ; and  De  Wette, 
in  the  earlier  editions  of  his  Einleitung,  though 
in  the  last  edition  he  says  in  the  preface,  ‘ I feel 
constrained  to  adhere  to  Koester  s opinion  of  the 
second  part  of  Zechariah Hifzig  (Stud,  und 
Krit.f  1830);  Credner  (Joel,  07);  Knobel  (Der 
Prophetism,  &c.  Th.  ii.  s.  284);  Forherg  (Com- 
ment, in  Zach.  Vaticin.,  pars  i ).  Pye  Smith 
(Principles  of  Interpretation  applied  to  the  Pro- 
phecies, p.  65),  and  Davidson  (Sacred  Herme- 
neutics'), also  deny  these  later  chapters  to  be  the 
production  of  Zechariah. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  integrity  of  this  portion 
of  Zechariah  lias  been  defended  by  Jahn  ( Intro- 
duction, pt.  ii.  § 161),  Carpzov  (Critica  Sacra , 
p.  848),  Beckliaus  (Integriii.it  d.  Proph.  Schrif- 
ten,  p.  337),  Koester  (Meletemata  Crit.  ezExeget. 
in  Zach.  part.  post.  p.  10),  Hengstenberg  (d.  In - 
tegniat  d.  Sacharjah , in  his  Beitrdge , i.  361), 
and  Blayney  (Minor  Proph.  p 362).  The  theory 
of  Mede  was  suggested  by  the  difficulty  arising 
Irom  the  quotation  in  Matthew,  and.  rejecting 
tither  hypotheses,  lie  says: — ‘It  is  certain  that. 
Jeremiah’s  prophecies  are  digested  in  no  order, 
Nut  only  as  it  seems  they  came  to  light  in  the 


scribes’  hands.  Hence  sometimes  all  j8  ended 
with  Zedekiah,  then  we  are  brought,  back  tc 
Jehoiakim,  then  to  Zedekiah  again,  &c.  Where- 
by it.  seems  they  came  not  to  light  to  he  enrolled 
secundzim  ordinem  temporis,  nor  all  together, 
but  as  if  happened  in  so  distracted  a time.  And 
why  might  not.  some  not  he  found  till  the  return 
from  captivity,  and  he  approved  by  Zechariah, 
and  so  put  to  his  volume  according  to  the  time 
of  their  finding  and  approbation  hv  him,  ami 
after  that  some  other  prophecies  yet  added  to  hisT 
(Epist.  lxi.)  The  others  who  deny  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  chapters  are  by  no  means  agreed  as 
to  the  real  authorship  of  them.  Eichhorn  ascribes 
one  portion  to  the  time  of  Alexander,  and  the 
other  sections  to  a period  before  the  exile  ; while 
Corrodi  places  the  fourteenth  chapter  as  low  as 
the  age  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Bertholdt  sup- 
poses the  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  chapters  to  he 
the  production  of  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Jeberechiah, 
referred  to  in  Isaiah  viii.  2,  and  the  remaining 
three  to  he  the  composition  of  an  anonymous 
author  who  lived  under  Josiah,  and  of  course 
before  the  captivity.  Rosenmuller  is  of  opinion 
that  the  whole  second  part  is  the  work  of  one 
authqr  who  lived  under  Uzziah.  Flugge  arbitrarily 
divides  it  into  no  less  than  nine  sections,  referring 
them  to  different  times  and  authors,  hut  yet 
ascribing  the  ninth  chapter  to  the  Zechariah 
spoken  of  in  2 Chron.  xxvi.  5.  Newcome  places 
the  first  three  chapters,  as  to  date  of  authorship, 
before  the  overthrow  of  Israel,  and  the  last  three 
before  the  captivity  of  Judah.  Hifzig  and  Cred- 
ner carry  hack  the  period  of  their  authorship  to 
the  age  of  Ahaz,  or  before  it.  Knobel  finds  in 
them  a diversity  both  of  authors  and  times;  and 
his  opinion  is  partly  adopted  by  Dr.  Davidson. 
This  great  variety  of  opinion  is  proof  that  these 
conflicting  views  are  the  result  of  peculiar  tastes 
and  fancies. 

Many  of  the  arguments  against  the  genuineness 
of  this  latter  portion  of  Zechariah  rest  on  peculiar 
interpretations  of  his  language,  making  it  refer 
to  events  that  happened  prior  to  the  time  when 
the  prophet  flourished.  But  this  exegesis  is  not 
in  all  points  correct.  Ephraim  is  indeed  spoken 
of,  though  that  kingdom  was  overthrown  186  years 
before  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  ; 
and  it,  is  inferred  that,  the  author  of  such  oracles 
must  have  lived  when  Ephraim  was  an  inde- 
pendent sovereignty.  It  may  he  said,  in  reply, 
that  vast  numbers  of  the  ten  tribes  returned  witli 
their  brethren  of  Judah  from  captivity;  and  we 
find  (ch.  xii.  1)  Israel  used  as  a name  for  all  the 
tribes.  In  Malaclii,  too,  we  find  Israel  used  after 
the  captivity  in  contrast  to  Jerusalem.  Zechariah 
never  characterizes  Ephraim  as  a separate  poli-, 
tical  confederation;  nor,  as  Henderson  remarks, 

‘ is  there  any  thing,  hut  the  contrary,  to  induce  the 
conclusion  that  a king  reigned  in  Judah  in  the 
days  of  the  author.’  The  predictions  in  this  latter 
part,  supposed  by  some  to  refer  to  past  events,  are 
most  correctly  interpreted  to  refer  to  the  Egyptian 
expedition  of  Alexander,  the  sufferings  of  the 
Messiah,  and  the  final  overthrow  of  Jerusalem. 
The  prophets  before  the  Babylonian  captivity 
threatened  a deportation  to  Babylon;  Zechariah* 
living  after  that  event,  menaces  a Roman  invasion 
and  slavery.  Little  force  can  he  placed  in  any 
argument  based  on  an  imagined  difference  of 
style  in  the  former  and  latter  ehajtersof  this 
\ 


>84 


ZECHARIAH. 


ZECHARIAH 


prophecy  The  introductory  notices  to  the  separate 
oracles  recorded  in  the  early,  portion  of  the  hook, 
are  either  not  found  in  the  last  section,  or  are  very 
different  in  form  (comp.  i.  1*7  ; iv.  8;  vi.  9,  with 
Lx.  1 ; xi.  4).  But  we  are  too  ignorant  of  many 
circumstances  in  the  prophet’s  history  to  speculate 
on  the  causes  of  such  change  ; or  if  we  are  unable 
to  discover  any  cssthetical  or  religious  reasons  for 
the  alteration,  it  is  surely  rash  to  come  on  such 
grounds  to  a decision  of  diversity  of  authorship. 
Introductory  formulae  as  different  as  those  in 
Zechariah  occur  in  other  books,  whose  sameness 
of  style  is  admitted  as  proof  of  identity  of  author- 
ship, as  in  Amos,  where  the  application  of  the  same 
principles  of  criticism  would  ‘ dismember  it,’  and 
assign  its  composition  to  three  different  authors. 
Nor  is  the  difference  of  style  of  the  former  and  lat- 
ter portions  of  Zechariah  greater  than  the  different 
topics  treated  would  lead  us  to  expect.  The 
difference  of  style  is  not  very  striking;  and  such 
difference  is  often  a fallacious  ground  of  judg- 
ment. Would  the  difference  of  style  in  such 
volumes  as  Ancient  Christianity  and  the  Na- 
tural History  of  Enthusiasm  warrant  us  to  de- 
clare them  the  works  of  different  authors  i It  is 
also  a presumption  in  favour  of  the  genuineness 
of  this  portion  of  Zechariah,  that  the  arranger  and 
editor  of  the  Hebrew  canon  gave  it  the  place 
which  it  now  occupies;  for  it  is  also  found  in  the 
Septuagint,  executed  three  centuries  before  the 
composition  of  Matthew's  Gospel.  The  chief  ar- 
gument against  the  genuineness  of  these  chapters, 
and  that  which  seems  to  have  suggested  all  the 
varied  hypercritical  judgments  on  the  text,  is  that 
expressed  by  Mede-:  ‘ There  is  no  Scripture  saith 
they  are  Zechariah’s,  bnt  there  is  Scripture  saith 
they  are  Jeremiah's’  (Works,  p.  786).  The  ques- 
tion, then,  resolves  itself  into  the  consideration  of 
the  passage  in  Matt,  xxvii.  9,  referred  in  our  text 
to  Jeremiah,  but  now  found  in  Zechariah.  We 
cannot  accede  to  the  supposition  of  Dopke 
(Hermeneutik,  p.  212)  and  Kuinoel  (Comm., 
in  loc.),  that  Matthew  quoted  some  unpub- 
lished apocryphal  Jeremiah,  perhaps  such  a one 
as  that  to  which  Jerome  rel'ers,  as  having  found 
it  among  the  Nazarenes,  and  of  which  a por- 
tion containing  analogous  language  is  yet  extant 
in  a Sahidic  lectionary  in  the  Codex  Hunting - 
tonianus,  5,  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  and  in  the 
Coptic  language  in  a MS.  in  the  library  of  St. 
Germain  in  Paris.  This  passage,  as  given  by 
Dr.  Henderson,  at  once  betrays  itself  to  be  a 
clumsy  imitation,  designed  to  solve  the  very  dif- 
ficulty on  which  we  are  writing.  We  must  also 
dismiss  at  once  all  the  neological  theories  which 
rest  on  any  supposed  error  of  quotation  made  by 
the  Evangelist,  condemning  utterly  the  remark  of 
Frirzshe,  that  the  discrepancy  arose  on  the  part  of 
the  Evangelist,  ‘ per  memoriae  errorem’  (Comment, 
in  Matt.,  p.  801).  Nor  is  there  any  extrication  from 
the  difficulty  in  supposing,  with  Eisner,  that  the 
reference  of  the  Evangelist  is  to  the  transaction 
recorded  in  Jer.  xxxii.  8,  or  in  hinting,  with 
Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  x.  4),  that  the  oracle 
cited  has  been  falsified  by  the  Jews.  Another 
conjecture  without  warrant  is  to  affirm  that  the 
name  Jeremiah  was  the  technical  appellation  of 
the  third  great  division  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
and  that  any  quotation  from  the  minor  prophets 
taay  be  referred  to  him,  not  as  its  author,  but  as 
Wm  title  of  tk  at  collection,  from  one  of  the  books 


of  which  it  is  taken  (Lightfoot’s  Works,  oy  Pii 
man,  vol.  xi.  p.  344).  Such  hypotheses  plainly 
lead  us  to  look  for  some  corruption  in  the  text. 
That  there  is  a difference  of  reading  was  a fact 
early  known.  It  may  be  that  the  proper  name 
was  omitted  altogether,  or  rather  not  inserted  at 
all  by  the  Evangelist,  that  he  only  wrote  5ia  reo 
Trpo(j)T)Tou.  Augustine  testifies  that  MSS.  were 
found  in  his  days  wanting  the  word  'Upeytov.  It 
is  not.  found  either  in  the  most  ancient  and  faith- 
ful version,  the  Syriac,  nor  in  the  Verona  and 
Yercelli  Latin  MSS.  It  is  wanting  also  in  MSS. 
33,  157,  and  in  the  Polyglott  Persic,  in  the  mo- 
dern Greek,  and  in  a Latin  MS.  of  Luc.  Brug. 
Other  codices  and  versions  read  Z axapiov,  such 
as  MS.  22,  and  the  Philoxenian  Svriac  in  the 
margin — a reading  which  was  approved  of  by 
Origen  and  Eusebius.  Griesbach  (Nov.  Test.,  in 
loc.),  Dr.  Henderson,  and  others,  believing  that 
Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic, 
think  the  original  was  simply  *YO,  ‘ by 

the  prophet,’  and  that  the  Greek  translator  mis- 
taking the  T fur  *7  in  the  word  TQ,  read  T3,  and 
thinking  it.  a contraction  for  'TTUD’YQ,  rendered  it 
5 ia  'UpeyLov  rod  irpo<p-f]Tov ; but  this  theory  vests 
upon  a foundation  which  we  do  not  regard  as  te- 
nable, viz.,  that  the  original  of  Matthew  was  com- 
posed in  Aramaic,  and  that  our  present  Gospel  is 
only  an  anonymous  translation.  If  the  authority 
of  MSS.  be  now  in  favour  of  the  insertion  of  the 
name  'I epe/Aiov,  then  the  error  may  have  arisen  on 
the  part  of  some  early  copyist  meeting  with  the 
contracted  form  Z piov,  and  mistaking  it  for  Iptou. 
The  various  opinions  of  the  fathers  and  the  differ- 
ent lections  in  MSS.  and  versions,  seem  to  point  to 
some  such  change  and  error  in  the  course  of  early 
transcription.  Or,  lastly,  we  may  refer  to  the 
theory  of  Hengstenberg  (Christologie,  ii.  189), 
who  imagines  that  Matthew  names  Jeremiah,  and 
not  Zechariah,  on  purpose  to  turn  the  attention  of 
his  readers  to  the  fact  that  Zechariah’s  prophecy 
was  but  a reiteration  of  a fearful  oracle  in  Jer. 
xviii.,  xix.,  which  was  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  utter 
destruction  and  abandonment  of  the  Jewish  people. 
It  is  not  our  province  to  enter  into  any  exegesis  of 
the  passage,  so  as  either  to  vindicate  or  refute  the 
view  of  Hengstenberg ; only,  to  make  it  intelligible, 
we  add,  that  in  his  opinion  Jeremiah  had  already, 
by  the  breaking  of  a potter's  vessel,  portrayed  the 
fearful  ruin  of  the  people  in  Nebuchadnezzar’s 
invasion  ; and  as  the  oracle  of  Zechariah  is  a vir- 
tual repetition  of  this  fearful  commination  to  be 
inflicted  again  in  Messianic  times,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  the  national  rejection  of  the  Son  of  God, 
so  the  evangelist  wishes  to  remind  bis  readers  that 
the  field  of  blood,  now  purchased  by  the  ‘reward 
of  iniquity,’  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  had  been 
long  ago  a scene  of  prophetic  doom,  in  which 
awful  disaster  had  been  symbolically  predicted  ; 
that  the  present  purchase  of  that  field  with  the. 
traitor's  price  renewed  the  prophecy  and  revived 
the  curse — a curse  pronounced  of  old  by  Jeremiah, 
and  once  fulfilled  in  the  Babylonian  siege,  a 
curse  reiterated  by  Zechariah,  and  again  to  be 
verified  in  the  Roman  desolation.  Such  a theory 
is  at  least  preferable  to  that  of  such  critics  as 
Glassius  and  Erischmuth,  who  believed  that  the 
quotation  in  Matthew  is  made  up  of  a mixture  of 
oracles  from  Jeremiah  and  Zechariah,  while  Je- 
remiah only  is  named  as  the  earlier  and  »oi* 
illustrious  of  the  two. 


ZEDEKIAH. 


ZEMER. 


983 


Style. — The  language  of  Zechariah  has  no?  the 
purity  and  freshness  of  a former  age.  Some  of  its 
solecisms  are  noticed  by  De  Wette  ( Einleit . 
$249).  A slight  tinge  of  Chaldaism  pervades 
the  composition.  The  symbols  with  which  he 
abounds  are  obscure,  and  their  prosaic  structure 
is  diffuse  and  unvaried.  The  rhythm  of  his  poetry 
is  unequal,  and  its  parallelisms  are  inharmonious 
and  disjointed.  His  language  has  in  many  phrases 
a close*  alliance  with  that  of  the  other  prophets, 
and  occasional  imitations  of  them,  especially  of 
Ezekiel,  characterize  his  oracles.  He  is  also  pe- 
culiar in  his  introduction  of  spiritual  beings  into 
his  prophetic  scenes. 

Commentaries. — Der  Proph.  Zach.  Ausgelegt 
durch , Mart.  Luthern.  Vitemberg,  1528;  Phil. 
Melanchthonis  Comment,  in  Prcph.  Zach.  1553  ; J . 
J.  Grynaei  Comment,  in  Zach.  Geneva?,  1581  ; 
J.  H.  Ursini  Comment,  in  Proph.  Zach.  1652; 
C.  Vitrjpga,  Comment,  adlib.  Proph.  Zach.  1734; 
11.  G.  Flngge,  Die  Weissagungen  welche  bey 
den  Schrift.  des  Proph.  Zach.  beygebogen  sind, 
6(C.  1788  ; F.  Venema,  Sermones  Academ.  in  lib. 
Proph.  Zach.  1789;  Koester,  Meletemata  Crit. 
&;c.  1818 : Forberg,  Comm.  Crit.  et  Exeget.  in 
Zach.  1824;  Rosenmulleri  Scholia , pars  sept. 
1828  ; Hengstenberg’s  Christology,  Keith’s  trans- 
lation, vol.  ii.  1839  ; B.  Blaney,  New  Translation 
of  Zech.  Oxf.  1797 ; W.  Newcome,  Minor  Pro- 
phets, 1785;  Comment,  on  the  Vision  of  Zecha- 
riah the  Proph.,  by  John  Stouard,  D.D.,  1824; 
Rabbi  David  Kimchi,  Comment,  on  the  Proph.  of 
Zech.,  translated,  with  Notes,  &c.,  by  A.  M‘Caul, 
A.M.,  1837  ; Henderson,  On  the  Minor  Prophets, 
1845.— J.E. 

6.  Zechariah,  the  father  of  John  the  Baptist. 
.See  John  the  Baptist. 

ZEDEKIAH,  son  of  Josiah,  the  twentieth  and 
last  king  of  Judah,  was,  in  place  of  his  brother 
Jehoiakim,  set  on  the  throne  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
who  changed  his  name  from  Mattaniah  to  that 
by  which  he  is  ordinarily  spoken  of.  As  the 
vassal  of  the  Babylonian  monarch,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  him, 
which,  however,  he  observed  only  till  an  oppor- 
tunity offered  for  throwing  off’  his  yoke.  Suc- 
cess in  6uch  an  undertaking  was  not  likely  to 
attend  his  efforts.  His  heart  was  not  right  be- 
fore God,  and  therefore  was  he  left  without  di- 
vine succour.  Corrupt  and  weak,  he  gave  him- 
self up  into  the  hands  of  his  nobles,  and  lent  an 
ear  to  false  prophets ; while  the  faithful  lessons 
of  Jeremiah  were  unwelcome,  and  repaid  by  in- 
carceration. Like  all  of  his  class,  he  was  unable 
to  follow  good,  and  became  the  slave  of  wicked 
men,  afraid  alike  of  his  own  nobility  and  of  his 
foreign  enemies.  By  his  folly  and  wickedness  he 
brought  the  state  to  the  brink  of  ruin.  Yet  the 
danger  did  not  open  his  eyes.  Instead  of  looking 
to  Jehovah,  he  threw  himself  for  support  on 
Egypt,  when  the  Chaldsean  came  into  the  land 
and  laid  siege  to  his  capital.  The  siege  was  be- 
gun on  the  tenth  day  of  the  tenth  month  in  the 
ninth  year  of  his  reign.  For  a year  and  a. half 
did  Jerusalem  effectually  withstand  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. At  the  end  of  that  time,  however,  the 
city  was  stormed  and  taken  (b.c.  588),  when 
Zedekiah,  who  had  fled,  was  captured  on  the  road 
to  Jericho.  Judgment  was  speedily  executed  : his 
•on*  were  slain  before  his  eyes,  and  he  himself 


was  deprived  of  sight,  and  sent  in  chains  to  II®- 
bylon,  where  he  died  in  prison  (2  Kings  xxiv.  17 
seq. ; xxv.  1,  seq. ; 2 Chron.  xxxvi.  10,  sq. ; 
Jer.  xxviii. ; xxxiv. ; xxxvii.;  xxxviii. ; xxxix.; 
lii. ; Ezek.  xvii.  15). — J.R.  B. 

ZELOPHEHAD,  son  of  Hepher,  a descendant 
of  Joseph,  who  had  no  sons,  but  five  daughters. 
These  came  to  Moses  and  Eleazar  when  now  at  the 
edge  of  the  promised  land,  to  lay  their  case  before 
them  for  adjudication.  Their  father  had  died  in 
the  wilderness,  leaving  no  male  child.  The 
daughters  thought  themselves  entitled  to  take 
their  father’s  share  of  the  land.  Moses  on  this 
brought  their  cause  before  Jehovah,  who  ordered 
that  they  should  receive  their  father’s  inheritance, 
taking  occasion  to  establish  the  general  rule  : ‘ If  a 
man  die,  and  have  no  son,  then  ye  shall  cause 
his  inheritance  to  pass  unto  his  daughter,’  and 
failing  daughters,  to  his  next  of  kin  fNum.  xxvi. 
33;  xxvii.  1,  sq.  Compare  Josh.  xvii.  3,  sq.) — 

J.  R.  B. 

ZEMER.  In  our  version  of  Dent.  xiv.  5, 
“IDT  zemer,  is  rendered  Chamois;  .Sept.  Ka/zij- 
\oirdpba\is ; Vulg.  Camelopardalus ; Luther,  in 
his  German  translation,  adopts  Elend,  or  ‘ Elk  ;' 
and  the  old  Spanish  version,  from  the  Hebrew, 
has  ‘ Cabra  montes.’*  All,  however,  under- 
stand zemer  to  be  a clean  ruminant ; but  it  is 
plain  that  the  Mosaic  enumeration  of  clean  ani- 
mals would  not  include  such  as  were  totally  out 
of  the  reach  of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  at  best 
only  known  to  them  from  specimens  seen  in 
Egypt,  consisting  of  presents  sent  from  Nubia,  «r 
in  pictures  on  the  walls  of  temples.  The  Ca- 
melopardalis or  Giraffe  is  exclusively  an  inha- 
bitant of  Southern  Africa,  and  therefore  could  not 
come  in  the  way  of  the  people  of  Israel.  The 
same  objection  aj  plies  to  the  Elk,  because  that 
species  of  deer  never  appears  further  to  the  south 
than  Northern  Germany  and  Poland;  and  with 
regard  to  the  Chamois,  which  has  been  adopted  in 
our  version,  though  it  did  exist  in  the  mountains 
of  Greece,  and  is  still  found  in  Central  Asia,  there 
is  no  vestige  of  its  having  at  any  time  frequented 
Libanus  or  any  other  part  of  Syria.  We  may, 
therefore,  with  more  propriety  refer  to  the  rumi- 
nants indigenous  in  the  regions  which  were  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  sacred  legislator,  and  we 
may  commence  by  observing  that  “ttDt  zemer  is 
a term  which,  in  the  slightly  altered  form  of 
zammer,  is  still  used  in  Persia  and  India  for 
any  large  species  of  ruminants,  particularly  those 
of  the  stag  kind,  which  are  commonly  denomi- 
nated Rusa,  a subgenus  of  deer  established  in 
Griffith’s  translation  of  Cuvier's  ‘ Animal  King- 
dom.’ In  the  sacred  text,  however,  the  word 
zemer  is  not  generical,  but  strictly  specific.  Ail, 
or  ‘ stag,’  is  mentioned  at  the  same  time,  and,  as 
well  as  several  Antilopidse,  in  the  same  verse : we 
must,  therefore,  look  for  an  animal  not  hitherto 
noticed,  and  withal  sufficiently  important  to  merit 
being  named  in  so  important  an  ordinance. 

The  only  species  that  seems  to  answer  to  the 
conditions  required  is  a wild  sheep,  still  not 
uncommon  in  the  Mokattam  rocks  near  Cairo, 
found  in  Sinai,  and  eastward  in  the  broken  ridgee 


* Biblia  en  lengua  Espanola  traducida  p*- 
labra  por  palabra  da  la  verdad  Hebrayca  pc* 
muy  excellentes  letrados,  fol.  No  date. 


ZENAS. 


ZEPIIANIAH. 


9ZQ 

of  Stony  Arabia,  where  it.  is  known  under  the  name 
of  Kebsch,  a slight  mutation  of  the  old  Hebrew 
Cheseb,  or  rather  BO  3 Chebes , which  is 
applied  indeed  to  a domestic  sheep,  one  that 
g-azed;  while  Zemer  appears  to  be  derived  from 
a root  denoting  ‘ to  crop  ’ or  ‘ feed  on  shrubs.’ 


This  animal  is  frequently  represented  and  hiero- 
glyphically  named  on  Egyptian  monuments,  but 
we  question  if  the  denomination  itself  be  phoneti- 
cally legible.  The  figures  in  colour  leave  no  doubt 
that  it  is  the  same  as  the  Kebsch  of  the  modern 
Arabs,  and  a sjjecies  or  a variety  of  Ovis  Trage- 
la|thus,  or  bearded  sheep,  lately  formed  into  a 
separate  group  by  Mr.  Blyth  under  the  name  of 
Ammotragus  Bar  bat  us.  The  Spanish  version  ot 
the  Hebrew  text,  before  quoted,  appears  alone  to 
be  admissible,  for  although  the  species  is  not 
strictly  a goat,  it  is  intermediate  between  that 
genus  and  the  sheep.  It  is  a fearless  climber,  and 
secure  on  its  feet,  among  the  sharpest  and  most 
elevated  ridges.  In  stature  the  animal  exceeds  a 
large  domestic  sheep,  though  it  is  not  more  bulky 
of  body.  Instead  of  wool,  it  is  covered  with 
close  fine  rufous  hair : from  the  throat  to  the 
breast,  and  on  the  upper  arms  above  the  knees, 
there  is  abundance  of  long  loose  reddish  hair, 
forming  a compact  protection  to  the  knees  and 
brisket,  and  indicating  that  the  habits  of  the  species 
require  extraordinary  defence  while  sporting 
among  the  most  rugged  cliffs ; thus  making  the 
name  Zemer , ‘ one  that  springeth,’  if  that  in- 
terpretation he  trustworthy,  remarkably  correct. 
The  head  and  face  are  perfectly  ovine,  the  eyes 
are  hluish,  and  the  horns,  of  a yellowish  colour, 
are  set  on  as  in  sheep;  they  rise  obliquely,  and 
are  directed  backwards  and  outwards,  with  the 
points  bending  downwards.  The  tail,  about  nine 
inches  long,  is  heavy  and  round.  It  is  the  Mouflon 
d’Afrique  and  Mouflon  & Manchettes  of  French 
writers,  probably  identical  with  the  Tragelaphus 
of  Caius,  whose  sj>eeimen  came  from  Barbary. 
See  bearded  Argali  in  Griffith's  ‘ Animal  King- 
dom5 of  Cuvier.  We  figure  a specimen  in  the 
Paris  Museum  and  one  in  Wilkinson’s  Egypt , 
vol.  iii.  p.  19- — C.  H.  S. 

ZENAS  (Ztjvus),  a disciple  who  visited  Crete 
with  Apollos,  bearing  seemingly  the  epistle  to 
Titus,  in  which  Paul  recommends  the  two  to  his 


attentions  (Tit.  iii.  13).  He  is  called  ‘the  Jaw 
ver  and  as  his  name  is  Greek,  it  seems  douotfui 
whether  he  is  so  called  as  being,  or  having  been, 
a doctor  of  the  Jewish  law,  or  as  being  a pleader  at 
the  Roman  tribunals.  The  most  probable  opinion 
is,  perhaps,  that  which  mattes  him  an  Hellenistic 
Jew,  and  a doctor  of  the  Mosaical  law. 

ZEPIIANIAH  (fTOQV  ; Sept.  Zofovtas),  the 
ninth  in  order  of  the  minor  prophets,  both  in  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
(Hieronym.  Prolog,  ad  Paul,  et  Eustoch.). 

Author. — The  name  of  this  prophet  has  been 
variously  explained.  Disputes  upon  it  arose  as 
early  as  the  time  of  Jerome,  for  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  this  book  he  says,  ‘Nomen  Sophonia*, 
alii  speculam,  alii  arcanum  Dei,  transtulerunt.’ 
The  word  was  thus  derived  either  from  HSV,  he 
saw  beyond , or  JSlf,  he  hid , with  the  common 
affix  H'.  The  old  father  made  it  a matter  of 
indifference  which  etymon  he  adopted,  as  both, 
according  to  him,  give  virtually  the  same  sense, 
— the  commission  of  a prophet  being  virtually 
that  of  a watchman  or  seer,  and  the  burden  of  his 
message,  some  secret  revealed  to  him  by  God. 
Aharbanel  ( Prcej in  Ezc/c.')  adheres  to  the  latter 
mode  of  derivation,  and  the  pseudo-Dorotheus, 
following  the  former,  translates  the  prophet's 
name  by  the  Greek  participle  aKoirevuv.  Hiller 
and  Simonis  ditfe  ralso  in  a^similar  way — Hiller, 
taking  the  term  from  renders  it  ‘ abscondidit 
se,  i.  e.  delituit  Jehovah’  ( Onomast . sub  voce), 
as  if  the  name  had  contained  a mystic  reference 
to  the  character  of  the  age  in  which  the  prophet, 
lived,  when  God  lmd  withdrawn  himself  from  his 
apostate  people;  but  Simonis  ( Onomast . V.  T .) 
gives  the  true  signification,  one  sanctioned  by 
Gesenius — ‘abscondidit,  i.  c.  custodivit  Jehovah,’ 
Jehovah  hath  guarded,  the  verb  being  used 
of  divine  protection  in  Ps.  xxvii.  5;  and  lxxxiii. 
4.  The  name  seems  to  have  been  a common  one 
among  the  Jews.  Contrary  to  usual  custom  the 
pedigree  of  the  prophet  is  traced  back  for  four 
generations — ‘ the  son  of  Cushi,  the  son  ot 
Gedaliah,  the  son  of  Amariah,  the  son  of 
Hizkiah.’  This  formal  record  of  his  lineage 
has  led  many  to  suppose  that  Zephaniah  had 
sprung  from  a noble  stock  (Cyril,  Preef.  ad 
Zeph .),  and  the  occurrence  of  the  highest  name 
in  the  list,  which  in  the  Hebrew  text  is  spelled 
and  pointed  in  the  same  way  as  that  rendered 
Hezekiah  in  the  hooks  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
has  induced  some  to  identify  it  with  that  of  the 
good  king  Hezekiah,  and  to  pronounce  the 
prophet  a cadet  of  the  royal  house  of  Judah. 
Kimchi  is  very  cautious  in  his  opinion,  and  leaves 
the  point  undecided  ; but  Aben-Ezra.  ever  ready 
to  magnify  his  nation,  at  once  concludes  tha* 
Zephaniah  was  descended  from  Hezekiah ; and 
his  opinion  has  been  followed  by  Huet  ( Demon - 
strut.  Evangel.  Propos.  iv.  303),  and  partially 
by  Eichhorn  ( Einleit . § 593).  The  conjecture 
ha3  little  else  to  recommend  it  than  the  mere 
occurrence  of  the  royal  name.  But  it  was  not  a 
name  confined  to  royalty;  and  had  it  been  I lie 
name  of  the  pious  monarch  to  which  Zephaniah’s 
genealogy  is  traced,  certainly  his  official  designa- 
tion, ‘ king  of  Judah,*  would  have  been  subjoined, 
in  order  to  prevent  mistake.  Such  an  addition  is 
found  in  connection  with  his  name  in  Prov.  xxv.  1, 
and  Isa.  xxxviii.  9.  It  forms  no  objection  to  thia 


ZEPHANIAH. 


ZEPHANIAH. 


gtatement.  lo  affirm  Lhat  the  phrase  ‘ kin"  of  Judah  ’ 
i*  added  to  Josiah,  and  to  amid  repetition  may- 
have  been  omitted  after  Hizkiah,  for  such  regard 
to  euphony,  s ich  finical  delicacy,  is  no  feature  of 
Hebrew  composition.  The  argument  of  Carpzov 
( Introd . p.  414),  copied  by  Rosenmiiiler  ( Froae - 
tnium  in  Zeph.),  against  the  supposed  connection 
of  the  prophet  with  the  blood  royal,  is  of  no  great 
weight.  These  critics  say  that  from  Hezekiah  to' 
Josiah,  in  whose  reign  Zephaniah  flourished,  are 
only  three  generations,  while  from  Hezekiah  to 
Zephaniah  four  are  reckoned  in  the  first  verse  of 
the  prophecy.  But  as  Hezekiah  reigned  twenty- 
nine  years,  and  his  successor  sat  on  the  throne  no 
less  than  fifty-five  years,  there  is  room  enough  in 
such  a period  for  the  four  specified  descents  ; and 
! Amariali,  though  not  heir  to  the  crown,  may  have 
j been  much  older  than  his  youthful  brother  Ma- 
i nasseh,  who  was  crowned  at  the  age  of  twelve. 

Asr  there  was  at  least  another  Zephaniah,  a con- 
! spicuous  personage  at  the  time  of  the  captivity, 
the  parentage  of  the  prophet  may  have  been 
recounted  so  minutely  to  prevent  any  reader 
from  confounding  the  two  individuals.  The 
Jews  absurdly  reckon  that  here,  as  in  other  super- 
scriptions, the  persons  recorded  as  a prophet’s 
ancestors  were  themselves  endowed  with  the  pro- 
I phetic  spirit.  The  so-called  Epiphanius  ( De 
I Vitis  Prophet,  cap.  xix.)  asserts  that  Zephaniah 
[ was  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  of  the  hill  Sarabatha, 
&7t2>  ooovs  'Sapa&add.  The  existence  of  the  pro- 
phet is  known  only  from  his  oracles,  and  these 
have  no  biographical  sketches ; so  that  our  know- 
' ledge  of  this  man  of  God  comprises  only  the  fact 
' and  the  results  of  his  inspiration.  It  may  be 
| safely  inferred,  however,  that  he  laboured  with 
Josiah  in  the  pious  work  of  re-establishing  the 
I worship  of  Jehovah  in  the  land. 

Age. — It  is  recorded  (ch.  i.)  that  the  word  of 
the  Lord  came  to  him  4 in  the  days  of  Josiah,  the 
son  of  Amon,  king  of  Judah.’  We  have  reason  for 
J supposing  that  he  flourished  during  the  earlier 
portion  of  Josiah 's  reign.  In  the  second  chapter 
I (vers.  13-15)  he  foretells  the  doom  of  Nineveh, 

! and  the  fall  of  that  ancient  city  happened  about 
the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah.  In  the  commence- 
ment of  his  oracles  also,  he  denounces  various 
forms  of  idolatry,  and  specially  the  remnant  of 
Baal.  The  reformation  of  Josiah  began  in  the 
twelfth,  and  was  completed  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  his  reign.  So  thorough  was  his  extirpation  of 
the  idolatrous  rites  and  hierarchy  which  defiled 
his  kingdom,  that  he  burnt  down  the  groves, 

. dismissed  the  priesthood,  threw  down  the  altars, 
and  made  dust  of  the  images  of  Baalim.  Zepha- 
niah must  have  prophesied  prior  to  this  religious 
I revolution,  while  some  remains  of  Baal  were  yet 
I secreted  in  the  land,  or  between  the  twelfth  and 
eighteenth  years  of  the  royal  reformer.  So  Hitzig 
I (Die  12  Klein  Prophet.)  and  Movers  ( Chronih . 

[ p.  234)  place  him  ; while  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt, 

. and  Jaeger,  incline  to  give  him  a somewhat  later 
i date.  At  all  events,  he  flourished  between  the 
| years  bc.  642  and  b.c.  611  ; and  the  portion  of 
! his  prophecy  which  refers  to  the  destruction  of  the 
| Assyrian  empire,  must  have  been  delivered  prior 
1 o the  year  b.c.  625,  the  year  in  which  Nineveh 
ell  (Henderson,  On  the  Minor  Prophets , p.  326). 
The  publicati  w of  these  oracles  was,  therefore,  con- 
tain porary  wi  b a portion  of  those  of  Jeremiah, 
tor  ik ' word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him  in  the 


©81 

thirteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Josian.  Indeed,  tha 
Jewish  tradition  is,  that  Zephaniah  had  for  hia 
colleagues  Jeremiah  and  the  prophetess  Huldah, 
the  former  fixing  his  sphere  of  labour  in  the  tho- 
roughfares and  market-places,  the  latter  exer- 
cising her  honourable  vocation  in  the  college  in 
Jerusalem  (Carpzov,  Introd.  p.  415).  Koestei 
( Die  Propheten,  iii.)  endeavours  to  prove  that 
Zephaniah  was  posterior  to  Habakkuk.  His  argu- 
ments from  similarity  of  diction  are  very  trivial, 
and  the  more  so  when  we  reflect  that  all  circum- 
stances combine  in  inducing  us  to  fix  the  period 
of  Habakkuk  in  the  reign  ofJehoiakim  [Habak- 
kuk], immediately  before  the  dial dsean  invasion. 

Contents. — The  book  consists  of  only  three 
chapters.  In  the  first,  the  sins  of  the  nation  are 
severely  reprimanded,  aifd  a day  of  fearful  retri- 
bution is  menaced.  The  circuit  of  reference  is 
wider  in  the  second  chapter,  and  the  ungodly  and 
persecuting  states -in  the  neighbourhood  of  Judaea 
are  also  doomed;  but  in  the  third  section,  while 
the  prophet  inveighs  bitterly  against  Jerusalem 
and  her  magnates,  he  concludes  wifli  the  cheering 
prospect  of  her  ultimate  settlement  and  blissful 
theocratic  enjoyment.  It  has  been  disputed  what 
the  enemies  are  with  whose  desolating  inroads  he 
threatens  Judah.  The  ordinary  and  most  probable 
opinion  is,  that  the  foes  whose  period  of  invasion 
was  ‘ a day  of  the  trumpet  and  alarm  against  the 
fenced  cities  and  against  the  high  towers’  (ch.  i. 
16),  were  the  Chaldaeans.  Hitzig  especially,  Cra- 
mer too,  and  Eichhorn,  supposed  the  prophet  to 
refer  to  a Scythian  invasion,  the  history  of  which 
they  imagine  has  been  preserved  by  Herodotus 
(i.  105).  But  the  general  style  of  the  oracle, 
and  the  sweeping  vengednce  which  it  menaces 
against  Assyria,  Philistia,  Ammon,  and  Cush,  as 
well  as  against  Judah,  by  some  great  and  un 
named  power,  point  to  the  Chaldaean  expedition 
which,  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  laid  Jerusalem 
waste,  and  carried  to  Babylon  its  enslaved  popu- 
lation. The  contemporary  prophecies  of  Jeremiah 
contemplate  the  musterings,  onset,  and  devasta- 
tions of  the  same  victorious  hosts.  The  former 
part  of  Zephaniah’s  prediction  is  ‘a  day  of  clouds 
and  of  thick  darkness,’  but  in  the  closing  section 
of  it  light  is  sown  for  the  righteous:  ‘The  King 
of  Israel,  the  Lord,  is  in  the  midst  of  thee  ; lie  will 
rejoice  over  thee  with  joy;  He  will  rest  in  his 
love.’ 

Style. — We  cannot  by  any  means  award  so 
low  a character  to  Zephaniah’s  style  as  is  done 
by  I)e  Wette  ( Enleit . ^ 245),  who  describes  it  as 
being  often  heavy  and  tedious.  It  has  not  the 
sustained  majesty  of  Isaiah,  or  the  sublime  and 
original  energy  of  Joel  : it  has  no  prominent  fea- 
ture of  distinction  ; yet.  its  delineations  are  gra- 
phic, and  many  of  its  touches  are  bold  and 
striking.  For  example,  in  the  first  chapter  the 
prophet  groups  together  in  his  descriptions  of  the 
national  idolatry  several  characteristic  exhibition 
of  its  forms  and  worship.  The  verses  are  not 
tame  and  prosaic  portraiture,  but  form  a series  of 
vivid  sketches.  The  poet  seizes  on  the  more 
strange  peculiarities  of  the  heathen  worship — ut- 
tering denunciations  on  the  remnant  of  Baal,  the 
worshippers  of  Chemarim — the  star-adorers,  the 
devotees  of  Malcham,  the  fanatics  who  clad 
themselves  in  strange  apparel,  and  r.hon»  who  in 
some  superstitious  mummery  leapt  uprn  tbe 
threshold  (Bochart,  Hier.  cap.  36).  Not  a fear 


ZEPHaTH. 


ZERED. 


verse*  occur  in  the  course  of  the  prophecy  which, 
lu  tone  and  dignity,  are  not  unworthy  to  be  as- 
sociated with  the  more  distinguished  effusions  of 
Hie  Hebrew  bards.  A few  paronomasiae  occur 
(i.  15  and  ii.  1-4);  and  occasionally  there  is  a 
peculiar  repetition  of  a leading  word  in  the  forma- 
tion of  a climax  (ii.  15).  Jahn  ( Introd . § 132)  and 
Eiehhorn  assert  that  Zephaniah  has  borrowed  to 
a considerable  extent  from  the  earlier  prophets, 
especially  from  Isaiah;  yet  the  similarity  of  such 
passages  as  Isa.  xxxiv.  11  to  Zeph.  ii.  14,  or 
Isa  xlvii.  8 to  Zeph.  ii.  15,  or  Isa.  xviii.  1 
to  Zeph.  iii.  10,  or  Isa.  xvi.  6 to  Zeph.  ii.  8, 
is  not  sufficient  evidence  that  Zephaniah  was 
Isaiah's  imitator.  The  clauses  of  resemblance 
are  idiomatic  in  nature,  and  seem  to  have  been 
of  proverbial  force  and  currency,  so  that  both 
prophets  may  have  taken  them  from  the  national 
usus  loquendi.  Coincidences  of  expression  have 
also  been  noted  between  Zephaniah  and  some  of 
lis  contemporaries,  particularly  Jeremiah  (Eich. 
Einleit.  § 595 ; Rosen.  Prooem.  vi.)  Between 
Zeph.  i.  5 and  Jer.  viii.  2,  we  can  perceive  little 
similarity  of  language,  though  the  same  supersti- 
tious custom  is  referred  to,  and  a comparison  of 
Zeph.  i.  12  with  Jer.  xl viii.  11,  leads  to  such  a 
conclusion  as  we  have  already  stated,  as  the  phrase 
common  to  both  passages — ‘settled  on  the  lees' — 
must  have  been  one  in  wide  circulation  in  a wine 
country  like  Judaea.  It  was  altogether  ground- 
less, therefore,  in  some  of  the  older  critics,  such 
as  Isidore  and  Schmid ius  ( Prolegom . in  Sophon.), 
to  style  Zephaniah  the  abbreviator  of  Jeremiah. 
Resemblances  have  also  been  traced  between 
Zephaniah  and  Amos,  and  between  him  and  his 
successor  Ezekiel  ; but  to  call  these  imitations,  is 
rash  indeed,  if  we  reflect  on  the  similarity  of  the 
topics  discussed,  the  peculiar  range  of  imagery 
and  phraseology  which  is  common  lo  Hebrew  pro- 
phetic poetry,  and  which  was  the  stereotyped  lan- 
guage of  the  inspired  brotherhood.  The  language 
of  Zephaniah  is  pure  : it  has  not  ihe  classic  ea se 
and  elegance  of  the  earlier  compositions,  but  it  wants 
the  degenerate  feebleness  and  Aramaic  corruption 
of  the  succeeding  era.  Zephaniah  is  not  expressly 
quoted  in  the  New  Testament ; but  clauses  and 
expressions  occur  which  seem  to  have  been  formed 
from  his  prophecy  (Zeph.  iii.  9;  Rom.  xv.  6,  &c.). 
He  was,  in  fine,  as  Cyril  of  Alexandria  terms  him 
( Prcefat . in  Soph.  tom.  iii.),  ‘a  true  prophet, 
and  tilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  bringing  bis 
oracles  from  the  mouth  of  God.’ 

Commentaries. — Martini  Lutheri  Comment, 
in  Sophon.  Prophet.  Opera  Latina,  t.  iv. ; Mart. 
Buceri  Sophonice  Explicatio,  1528;  Noltenii 
Dissertatio  Exeget  Prcelim.  in  Proph.  Zeph- 
1719  ; Cramer,  Scythische  Denkmaler  in  Palees- 
tina , 1777,  contains  a Comment  on  Zephaniah; 
Don  A.  Coelln,  Spicileg.  Observat.  Exeget.  Critic, 
ad  Zeph.  Vaticinia , 1-8 1 8 ; Maurer,  Comment. 
Grammat.  Hist.  Crit.  in  Prophetas  Minor  es, 
p.  373,  1840;  Ilandbuch  Exeget . z.  A.  T.  die 
12  kleinen  Prophet,  erklaert  von  F.  Hitzig, 
1838;  Rosenmulleri  Scholia  in  Proph.  Min.  \ ol. 
iv. ; Dr.  E.  Henderson,  On  the  Tioelve  Minor 
Prophets , 1845. — J.  E. 

ZEPHATH  (HSV  j Sept.  2 «f>ed),  a Canaan- 
itixh  city,  afterwards  called  Hormah  (Judg.  i. 
17).  The  ancient  design  it  ion  is  perhaps  retained 
ie  the  modern  Sufah,  the  lame  of  a difficult  pass 


leading  up  from  the  Arabah  tc  the  south  of 
Judah  (Robinson,  Bibl.  Researches,  ii.  592- 
616). 

ZEPHATHAH  (finBX Sept.  B oftav  M«- 
frr]<rd),  sk  valley  at  Mareshaii,  in  the  tribe  of  Judah 
(2  Cliron.  xiv.  10),  where  Asa  defeated  Zerah  the 
Cushite.  Maresnah  was  near  Eleutheropolis 
( Onomast .,  s.  v.  4 Masera1),  and  Robinson  thinks 
the  valley  may  have  been  the  broad  wady  which 
comes  down  from  Beit  Jibrin  (Eleutheropolis) 
towards  Tell  es-Saifeh;  in  which  last  name  a 
trace  of  Zephathah  may  perhaps  be  recognised 
(Robinson,  Bibl.  Researches , ii.  361). 

1.  ZERAH  (rnj,  a rising ; Sept.  Zapu),  son 
of  Judah  and  Tamar,  and  younger  but  twin 
brother  of  Pharez  (Gen.  xxxviii.  30  ; Matt.  i.  3). 
Geddes,  in  his  Critical  Remarks  (pp.  126,  127), 
has  some  interesting  medical  testimony  in  illus- 
tration of  the  remarkable  circumstances  attending 
the  birth  of  the  twins. 

2.  ZERAH,  son  of  Reuel  and  grandson  of 
Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.  13,  17). 

3.  ZERAH,  son  of  Simeon  and  founder  of  a 
family  in  Israel  (Num.  xxvi.  13).  He  is  called 
Zohar  in  Gen.  xlvi.  10 : his  descendants  aro 
called  Zarhites  in  Num.  xxvi.  13,  20. 

4.  ZERAH,  the  Cushite  king  or  leader  who 
invaded  Judah  in  the  tenth  year  of  king  Asa  (n.c. 
941),  with  an  army  of  ‘ a thousand  thousands’ 
(i.  e.  very  many  thousands)  of  men,  and  three 
hundred  chariots.  Asa  defeated  them  in  the 
valley  of  Zephathah  at  Mareshah,  utterly  routed 
them,  pursued  them  to  Gerar,  and  carried  back 
mucli  plunder  from  that,  neighbourhood.  We 
are  left  uncertain  as  to  the  country  from  which 
Zerah  came.  The  term  Cushite  or  Ethiopian 
may  imply  that  he  was  of  Arabian  Cush ; the 
principal  objection  to  which  is,  that  history  affords 
no  indication  that  Arabia  had  at  that  epoch,  or 
from  its  system  of  government  could  well  have, 
any  king  so  powerful  as  Zerah.  That  he  was  of 
Abyssinia  or  African  Ethiopia,  is  another  con- 
jecture, which  is  resisted  by  the  difficulty  of 
seeing  how  this  ‘huge  host1  could  have  obtained 
a passage  through  Egypt,  as  it  must  have  done  to 
reach  Judaea.  If  we  could  suppose,  with  Cham- 
poll  ion  ( Precis , p.  257),  whom  Coquerel  follows 
(Biog.  Sacr.  s.  v.),  that  Zerah  the  Cushite  was 
the  then  king  of  Egypt,  of  an  Ethiopian  dynasty, 
tiiis  difficulty  would  be  satisfactorily  met.  In 
fact  it  is  now  often  stated  that  he  was  the  same 
with  Osorkon  I.  (of  whom  there  is  a statue  in  the 
British  Museum,  No.  8),  the  son  and  successor  of 
the  Shishak  who  invaded  Judaea  twenty-five 
years  before,  in  the  time  of  Rehoboam.  This  is 
a tempting  explanation,  but.  cannot  be  received 
without  question,  and  it  is  not  deemed  satisfac- 
tory by  Rosellini,  Wilkinson,  Sharpe,  and  others. 
Jahn  hazards  an  ingenious  conjecture,  that  Zeralt 
was  king  of  Cush  on  both  sides  of  the  Red  Sea, 
that  is,  of  both  the  Arabian  and  African  Ethiopia ; 
and  thus  provides  him  a sufficient  power  without 
subjecting  him  to  the  necessity  of  passing  through 
Egypt.  This  also  is  not  without  serious  difficulties. 
In  fact  no  conclusion  that  can  be  relied  upon  has 
yet  been  exhibited. 

ZERED,  the  name  of  a valley  (Num.  xxi.  »2) 
and  of  the  stream  flowing  through  it,  east  of  tb« 
Dead  Sea  [River] 


ZE11EDA. 


ZIKLAG. 


889 


ZEREDA  (flTYJf ; Sept,  2ap7j8a0<£),  a city 
i>f  Manasseh,  near  Beth-shan  (1  Kings  xi.  26  ; 2 
Chron.  iv.  17).  This  is,  probably  through  an  er- 
roneous reading,  the  Zererath  (nriTlV)  of  Judg. 
vii.  22 ; and,  perhaps,  the  Zaretan  (jm¥)  of  Josh, 
iii.  16;  1 Kings  iv.  12  J vii.  46). 

ZERESH  (S5HT  ; Pers.  gold ; Sept.  Zuadpa), 
the  wife  of  Haman  (Esth.  v.  10;  vi.  13),  and 
well  worthy  of  him,  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
advice  she  gave  him  to  prepare  a gibbet  and  ask 
the  king’s  leave  to  hang  Mordecai  thereon  [Ha- 
man;  Mordecai], 

ZERUAH  (ny-lTV,  leprous;  Sept.  ~2,apipa), 
the  widowed  mother  of  Jeroboam  (1  Kings  xi. 
26). 

ZE  RUBE  ABEL  sown  in  Babylon ; 

Sept.  Zopoj8d/3eA),  called  also  ‘ Sheshbazzar, 
prince  of  Judah  * (Ezra  i.  8),  son  (comp.  1 Chron. 
iii.  17)  of  Shealtiel,  of  the  royal  house  of  David 
(1  Chron.  iii.),  was  the  leader  of  the  first  colony 
of  Jews  that  returned  from  captivity  to  their 
native  land  under  the  permission  of  Cyrus,  car- 
rying with  them  the  precious  vessels  belong- 
ing to  the  service  of  God.  With  the  aid  of 
Joshua  and  his  body  of  priests,  Zerubbabel  pro- 
ceeded, on  his  arrival  in  Palestine,  to  rebuild  the 
fallen  city,  beginning  with  the  altar  of  burnt- 
offerings,  in  order  that  the  daily  services  might 
be  restored.  The  Samaritans,  however,  having 
been  offended  at  being  expressly  excluded  from 
a share  in  the  land,  did  all  they  could  to  hinder 
the  work,  and  even  procured  from  the  Persian 
court  an  ordei  that  it  should  be  stopped.  Ac- 
cordingly, everything  remained  suspended  till  the 
second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspis  (a.c.  521),  when 
the  restoration  was  resumed  and  carried  to  com- 
pletion, according  to  Josephus,  owing  to  the  in- 
fluence of  Zerubbabel  with  the  Persian  monarch 
{Antiq.  xi.  3 , Ezra;  llaggai  i.  1-14;  ii.  J .) 

— J.  R.  B. 

ZERUIAH  (rpjmv,  wounded ; Sept.Sapouia), 
daughter  of  Jesse,  sister  of  David  (1  Chron.  ii. 
16),  and  mother  of  Joab,  Abishai,  and  Asahel 
(2  Sam.  ii.  18:  iii.  39  ; viii.  16;  xvi.  9). 

ZIBA  (fcO1''!?,  statue ; Sept.  2tj3a),  a servant 
of  the  house  of  Saul,  of  whom  David  inquired 
if  there  was  any  one  left  of  the  house  of  Saul  to 
whom  the  monarch  might  show  favour.  Mephi- 
bosheth  was  in  consequence  found,  and  having 
been  certified  of  David’s  friendship,  Ziba,  who 
was  at  the  head  of  a large  family,  having  fifteen 
sons  and  twenty  slaves,  was  appointed  to  till 
the  land  for  the  prince,  and  generally  to  con- 
stitute his  household  and  do  him  service  (2 
Sam.  ix.  2-10).  This  position  Ziba  employed 
for  his  master’s  harm.  When  David  had  to 
tly  from  Jerusalem  in  consequence  of  the  rebel- 
lion of  Absalom,  Ziba  met  the  king  with  a 
large  and  acceptable  present : — ‘ But  where  is 
Mephibosheth?’  asked  the  fugitive  monarch  ; ‘ in 
Jerusalem,’  was  the  answer;  * for  he  said,  To-day 
shall  the  house  of  Israel  restore  me  the  kingdom 
of  my  father.’  Enraged  at  this,  which  looked 
like  ingratitude  as  well  as  treachery,  David 
thereupon  gave  to  the  faithless  Ziba  all  the  pro- 
perty of  Mephibosheth  (2  Sam.  xvi.  1,  sq.).  On 
David's  return  to  his  metropolis  an  explanation 
took  place,  when  Mephibosheth  accused  Zioa  of 
%)ving  slandered  him  ; and  David,  apparently 


not  being  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  defence, 
gave  his  final  award,  that  the  land  should  be 
divided  between  the  master  and  his  servant  (3 
Sam.  xix.  24,  sq.). — J.  It.  B. 

ZIBEON  (|iyil¥,  dyed;  Sept.  2e)3 rywy),  a 
son  of  Seir,  phylarch  or  head  of  the  Hivites  (Gen. 
xxxgi.  2,  20,  24, 29). 

ztCH III  ('"pT,  renowned ; Sept.  Zexpl),  an 
Ephraimite,  probably  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
tribe,  and  one  of  the  generals  of  Pekah  king  of 
Israel.  It  has  been  supposed  that  he  took  advan- 
tage of  the  victory  of  this  monarch  over  the  army 
of  Judah  to  penetrate  into  Jerusalem,  where  he 
slew  one  of  the  sons  of  Ahaz,  the  governor  of  the 
palace,  and  the  king's  chief  minister  or  favourite. 
It  is  difficult  without  this  supposition  to  explain 
2 Chron.  xxviii.  17.  There  is  some  probability 
in  the  conjecture,  that  he  was  the  ‘ Tabael’s  son’ 
whom  Pekah  and  Rezin  designed  to  set  upon  the 
throne  of  Judah  [Tabael]. 

ZIDON  (ffPV;  5iS^v).  1.  The  eldest  son 

of  Canaan  (Gen.  x.  15).  2.  One  of  the  most 

ancient  cities  in  Phoenicia.  Justin  derives  the 
name  from  the  Phoenician  word  for  fish,  ‘ piscem 
Phoenices  sidon  vocant’  (xviii.  3) ; but  Josephus, 
from  the  son  of  Canaan  ( Antiq . vi.  2).  It  had 
a very  commodious  harbour,  which  is  now  nearly 
choked  up  with  sand  (Strabo,  xvi.p.  756  ; Joseph 
Antiq.  xiv.  10.  6):  it  was  distant  one  day  s 
journey  from  the  fountains  of  the  Jordan  (Joseph. 
Antiq.  v.  3.  1),  400  stadia  from  Berytus.  and 
200  stadia  from  Tyre  (Strabo,  xvi.  pp.  756,  757). 
It  was  situated  in  the  allotment  of  the  tribe  of 
Asher,  but  never  conquered  (Judg.  i.  31) ; on 
the  contrary,  it  was  sometimes  a formidable  enemy 
(Judg.  x.  12),  Even  in  Joshua’s  time  it  was 
called  Tsidon-Rabba,  or  Great  Zidon  (Josh.  xix. 
28).  It  was  noted  in  very  early  times  for  its 
extensive  traffic  (Isa.  xxiii.  2 ; Ezek.  xxvii.  8) 
and  manufactures,  particularly  glass  (Plin.  v. 
20;  Strabo,  xvi.  10).  Frequent  reference  to  it 
occurs  in  Homer  (i7,  vi.  290  ; xxiii.  743  ; Odyss . 
xiii.  285  ; xv.  425).  The  best  vessels  in  the 
fleet  of  Xerxes  were  Sidonian  (Herodotus,  vii. 
99.  128).  Its  modern  name  is  Saide.  In  Has- 
selquist’s  time  (1750)  its  exports  to  France  were 
considerable  ( Travels , p.  166);  but  at  present 
its  traffic  is  chiefly  confined  to  the  neighbouring 
towns;  the  population  is  about  15,000  (Man- 
nert’s  Gengraphie,  vi.  1,  p.  291  ; Pictorial  Bible, 
notes  on  Deut.  xxxiii.,  Josh.  xix.). — J.  E.  R. 

ZIF  (IT  BHh,  bloom-month ),  an  ante-Exilian 
name  of  the  second  Hebrew  month  (1  Kings  vi. 
1 -37),  corresponding  with  our  April  and  May. 
This,  the  second  month  of  the  sacred,  was  the 
eighth  of  the  civil  year.  The  second  month  bore 
also  the  name  lyar. — J.  R.  B. 

ZIKLAG  5 Sept.  SexeAcuc),  a city  be- 

longing to  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xv.  31  ; 
xix.  5),  but  at  times  subject  to  the  Philistines  of 
Gath,  whose  king,  Achisli,  bestowed  it  upon 
David  fora  residence  ; after  which  it  pertained  to 
Judah  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  6;  xxx.  1,  14,  26;  2 Sum. 
i.  1 ; 1 Chron.  iv.  30 ; Neh.  xi.  28). 

While  David  was  absent  with  his  men  to  join 
Achish,  Ziklag  was  burned  and  plundered  by 
the  Amalekites ; and  on  his  return,  after  receiv- 
ing the  spoil  from  them,  he  remained  here  till 
called  to  assume  the  crown  after  the  death  vi 


9SQ 


ZILLAH. 


Z1MRL 


553.  [Zidon.J 


Saul.  It  was  during  hi*  stay  in  this  place  that 
he  was  joined  by. many  considerable  and  valiant 
persons,  whose  adhesion  to  his  cause  was  of  much 
importance  to  him,  and  who  were  ever  after  held, 
in  high  esteem  in  his  court  and  army. 

ZILLAH  (nW,  shade ; Sept,  2eAAa),  one  of 
the  wives  of  Lamech,  and  mother  of  Tubal-cain 
(Gen.  iv.  19)  [Lamech]. 

ZILPAH  (HQ^T,  a dropping;  Sept.  ZeA .(pa), 
a female  servant  of  Laban,  whom  he  gave  to  Leah 
on  her  marriage  witli  Jacob  (Gen.  xxix.  24),  and 
whom  Leah  eventually  induced  him  to  take  as  a 
concubine-wife;  in  which  capacity. she  became 
the  mother  of  Gad  and  Asher  (Gen.  xxx.  9-13 
xxxv.  26  ; xxxvii.  2;  xlvi.  18). 

Z1MRAN  (HPT,  sung , i.e.  celebrated  in  song  ; 
Sept.  ZopPpai’),  a son  of  Abraham  by  Keturah, 
and  the  name  of  an  Arabian  tribe  descended 
from  him  (Gen.  xxv.  2;  1 Chron.  i.  32).  This 
name  may  perhaps  be  connected  with  the  Zabram 
mentioned  by  Ptolemy  as  a city  with  a king 
situated  between  Mecca  and  Medina. 

ZIMRI(HP.T),  a proper  name  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which  is  derived  from  the  root.  IDT, 
carpere,  especially  carpere  vites=putare  vites, 
‘ to  prune  ; and  also  carpere  fides=pulsare , can- 
tare,  ‘ to  play,’  ‘ sing.’  It  is  very  remarkable  that 
the  Greek  if/aAAetv  also  occurs  in  both  these  accep- 
tations, which  appear  at  first  sight  to  be  so  very 
heterogeneous  — to  scrape,  pull , pluck,  and  to 
sing.  Compare  the  Latin  carpere,  which  is  ety- 
mologically connected,  as  well  with  the  Greek 
&f>Tni,  sickle , as  with  the  English  harp;  and 
the  English  colloquial  and  vulgar  expressions, 

' Jo  scrape  the  violin,’  ‘ to  pull  away  at  the  piano,’ 
and  k to  pull  out  a note.  If  we  consider  the 
striking  coincidence  of  the  Greek  with  the  Hebrew, 
«e  are  led  to  suppose  that  the  link  of  the  ideas  is 


as  we  have  stated,  and  cease  to  be  surprised  that 
Fiirst  translates  the  name  'IDT  by  the  German 
Winzer= vine-dresser,  but  Gesenius  by  carmine 
celebratus , i.  e.  a man  celebrated  by  song,  or  a 
man  of  celebrity  in  general. 

The  Septuagint  imitates  the  Hebrew  sound  by 
Zapfipl,  and  Josephus  ( Antiq . viii.  12.  5)  by 
Zagdprjs. 

Four  men  are  called  Zimri  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment : — 

1.  A son  of  Zerah,  who  was  a son  of  Judah  by 
Tamar  (1  Chron.  ii.  6). 

2.  The  name  of  the  Israelite  slain,  together 
with  the  Midianitish  woman,  in  Shittim,  by 
Phinehas,  was  Zimuj,  the  son  of  Salu,  a prince 
of  a chief  house  among  the  Simeonites  (Num. 
xxv.  14). 

3.  King  Saul  begat.  Jonathan,  who  begat 
Merib-baal,  who  begat  Micah,  who  begat  Aha/, 
who  begat  Jehoadah,  whose  sons  were  Alemeth, 
Azmaveth,  and  Zimiii.  Zimri  begat  Moza,  &c. 
(1  Chron.  viii.  36;  ix.  42). 

4.  In  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  Asa,  king  of 
Judah,  Elah,  the  son  of  Baasha,  began  to  reign 
over  Israel  in  Tirzah.  After  lie  had  reigned  two 
years,  Zimri,  the  captain  of  half  his  chariots,  con- 
spired against  him  when  he  was  in  Tirzah,  drunk, 
in  the  house  of  his  steward.  Zimri  went  in  and 
smote  and  killed  him,  and  reigned  in  his  stead, 
about  b.c.  928 ; and  he  slew  all  the  house  of 
Baasha,  so  that  no  male  was  left.  Zimri  reigned 
only  seven  days  at  Tirzah.  The  people  who  were 
encamped  at  Gibbethon,  which  belonged  to  the 
Philistines,  heard  that  Zimri  had  slain  the  king. 
They  made  Omri,  the  captain  of  the  host,  king 
over  Israel  in  the  camp.  Omri  besieged  Tirzah 
and  took  it.  Zimri,  seeing  that  the  city  was  taken, 
went  into  the  king's  palace,  set  it  on  tire,  and 
perished  in  it  for  his  sins  in  walking  in  the  way 
of  Jeroboam,  and  for  making  Israel  to  tis 
(1  Kings  xvi.  1-20;  2 Kings  ix.  311. 


ZIN. 


ZIPPORIS. 


991 


5.  The  kings  of  Zimri,  mentioned  hi  .Ter.  xxv. 
25,  seem  to  have  been  the  kings  of  the  Zimranites, 
the  descendants  of  Zimran,  son  of  Abraham  by 
Keturah  (fieri,  xxv.  2:  l Cliron.  i.  32).  It 
seems  that  in  Jer.  xxv.  25,  '"IDT  is  a contraction 
for  The  town  Zabram,  mentioned  by 

Ptolemy  as  situated  between  Mecca  and  Medina, 
cerhaps  had  its  name  from  the  tribe  of  Zimran. — 

C.  H.  F.  B. 

ZIN  (|V  i Sept.  2 iv),  a desert  on  the  south 
sf  Palestine,  and  westward  from  Idumaea,  in 
which  was  situated  the  city  of  Kadesh-barnea 
(Num.  xiii.  22 ; xx..l:  xxvii.  14).  Its  locality 
is  therefore  fixed  by  the  considerations  which  de- 
termine the  site  of  Kadesh  to  the  western  part  of 
the  Arabah  south  of  the  Dead  Sea. 

ZION.  [Jerusalem.] 

ZIPH  (f|'T  ; Sept.  Zup),  the  name  of  a city 
in  the  tribe  of  "Judah  (Josh.  xv.  55;  2 Chron. 
xi.  8),  and  of  a desert  in  its  vicinity  (1  Sam. 
xxiii.  14,  15).  It  is  mentioned  by  Jerome  ( Ono - 
mast.  s.  v.),  but  had  not  been  since  noticed  till 
Dr.  Robinson  found  the  name  in  the  Tell  Zif 
j^Hill  of  Zif),  which  occurs  about  four  miles  and 
a half  S.  by  E.  from  Hebron,  and  is  a round 
eminence  about  a hundred  feet  high,  situated  in 
a plain.  A site  also  called  Zif,  lies  about 
ten  minutes  east  of  this,  upon  a low  hill  or  ridge 
between  two  small  wadys,  which  commence  here 
and  run  towards  the  Dead  Sea.  There  is  now  little 
to  be  seen  besides  broken  walls  and  foundations, 
mostly  of  unhewn  stones,  but  indicative  of  solidity. 

ZIPPORAH  (rn'S)^>  little  bird;  Sept.  Zeir- 
</>wpa),  one  of  the  seven  daughters  of  Reuel 
(comp.  Exod.  xviii,),  priest  of  Midian,  who, 
in  oonsequence  of  aid  rendered  to  the  young 
women  when,  on  their  going  to  procure  water 
for  their  father’s  flocks,  they  were  set  on  by  a 
party  of  Bedouins,  was  given  to  Moses  in  mar- 
riage (Exod.  ii.  16,  sq.).  A son,  the  fruit  of  this 
union,  remained  for  some  time  after  his  birth  un- 
circumcised ; but  an  illness  into  which  Moses  fell 
in  a khan  when  on  his  way  to  Pharaoh,  being  ac- 
counted a token  of  the  divine  displeasure,  led  to  the 
circumcision  of  the  child,  when  Zipporah,  having, 
it  appears,  reluctantly"  yielded  to  the  ceremony, 
exclaimed,  ‘ Surely  a bloody  husband  thou  art 
to  me’  (Exod.  iv.  26).  This  event  seems  to  have 
caused  some  alienation  of  feeling,  for  Moses  sent 
iris  wife  back  to  her  father,  by  whom  she  is  again 
brought  to  her  husband  while  in  the  desert,  when 
a reconciliation  took  place,  which  was  ratified  by 
religious  rites  (Gen.  xviii.  1,  sq.). — J.  R.  B. 

ZIPPORIS,  or  Sepphoris,  «'as,  about  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Christian  era,  a principal  and 
strongly  fortified  city  of  Galilee,  under  latitude 
32°  44k  Rabbinical  writers  call  it  J'TlS'V, 

d nas,  mav,  or  sPaRrow, 

the  radicals  of  which  are  transposed  in  the  Latin 
PaSseR,  from  the  root  *7SV,  to  pipe  like  a bird , 
the  German  ZiRPen.  According  to  Bab.  Me- 
gillah,  fol.  6.  1,  Zipporis  had  its  name  from 
being  perched  on  a mountain  like  a bird,  “Vl27f2. 
The  name  occurs  also  beginning  with  T instead 
Josephus  and  Suidas  give  Zipporis  in  the 
form  of  XeTr<peopis,  and  Pto)emy,  according  to  the 
present  reading,  in  that  of  ’AnQovpel.  At  a later 
period  it  was  called  Diocaesarea.  Ol  iv  Aieicat- 
trapeta  rfj  s UaXaiarluvs  ’louScuoi  Kara  P copaiw* 
tasAa  ut'T'hpow.  ‘ The  Jews  of  Dines  area  in 


Palestine  took  up  arms  against  the  Romans 
(8ocrates,  Hist.  xi.  31).  Sozomen  (Hist.  ir. 
7)  adds  that  Gall  us  Ceesar,  who  wa3  then  at 
Antioch,  destroyed  Dioc.esahea,  dvaerrarow 
iiroipae.  Epiphanins  uses  both  the  narnes,— 
Diocaesarea  and  Sepphoris.  The  same  city 
which  ( Adversus  Ilcereses , p.  128)  he  calls 
AioKaiaapeia,  he  mentions  (p.  136)  under  the 
name  of  i$iir(pcopis.  It  is  also  called  Sephorum, 
and  described  as  contiguous  to  Mount  Carmel 
and  Cana,  and  six  miles  west  of  Nazareth.  It 
is  considered  to  be  the  birthplace  of  Joachim, 
the  brother  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  According  to  R. 
Benjamin,  Zipporis  was  distant,  from  Tiberias 
niNDIQ  i"l,  or  twenty  miles.  The  distance  of 
Zipporis  from  Mount  Tiberias  is  indicated  in 
Echa  Rabbati,  fol.  75.  2 : — ‘ Adrian  had  a vine- 
yard forming  a square  of  eighieen  miles,  which 
is  the  distance  from  Tiberias  to  Sepphoris.’ 
Tapeio-lpps  was  twenty  stadia  from  Zipporis.  Zip- 
poris is  celebrated  in  the  works  of  Josephus  as 
a military  station,  and  in  the  Talmud  on  ac- 
count of  its  famed  rabbinical  academy.  Rabbi 
Judah  Hakkadosh,  or  the  Saint,  resided  seven- 
teen years  in  Zipporis,  and  he  used  frequently  to 
say  that  Jacob  sojourned  in  Egypt  seventeen  years, 
and  Judah  in  Zipporis  seventeen  years  ( Hieros . 
Ke/aim,  fol.  32,  col.  2).  He*  resided  also  in 
Beth-shaarim,  but  died  in  Zipporis  ( Jnchasin, 
fol.  2,  col.  2).  . 

According  to  the  Gloss,  in  Tal.  Babylon.  ( San- 
hedrim, fol.  47,  col  .1),  Rabbi  Judah  died  in  Zip- 
poris, but  was  buried  in  Beth-shaarim.  When  dying 
he  commanded  his  sons, — ‘ in  carrying  me  to  the 
grave,  weep  not  in  the  small  towns  through  which 
you  pass,  but  in  the  great  cities.’  Nevertheless, 
Rabbi  Benjamin,  in  his  Itinerarium,  supposed  he 
saw  the  sepulchre  of  Rabbi  Judah,  and  that  of 
Rabbi  Chaija,  and  of  the  prophet  Jonas,  on  a 
mountain  at  Zipporis. 

Eighteen  synagogues  lamented  at  the  burial  of 
Rabbi  Judah,  but  it.  is  doubtful  whether  all  these 
belonged  to  Zipporis  ( Hieros . Berac,  fol.  6,  col. 
1 ; fol.  9,  col.  1.  Nazir,  fol.  56,  col.  1 ; Shabb., 
fol.  3,  col.  1). 

Among  the  celebrated  rabbis  of  Zipporis,  there 
occur  in  the  Talmud  Rabbi  Honna  Rabba,  R. 
Abudma,  R.  Bar  Kaphra,  and,  R.  Chaninah.  It 
appears,  however,  that  the  number  of  Gentiles  at 
Zipporis  was  so  great  that  they  could  stir  up  per- 
secutions against,  the  Jews  for  affixing  to  the  doors 
the  prescribed  sacred  sentences  (Babylon- Joma, 
fol.  11,  col.  1). 

It  seems  that  R.  Akibah  also  died  in  Zipporis, 
about  forty  years  before  the  academy  was  trans- 
ferred thither  (Abodah  Zarah , fol.  41,  col.  2) , 
but  here  the  spelling  is  I'TlDT.  To  Zipporis  also 
belonged  Ben  Elam,  who,  when  the  high-priest 
was  not.  clean  on  the  day  of  atonement,  and  there- 
fore unable  to  perform  his  functions,  went  him- 
self into  the  holy  of  holies  and  did  duty  for  him. 
According  to  Hieros.  Biccurim,  fol.  64.  2,  for 
sixteen  miles  round  Zipporis  the  country  every- 
where flowed  with  milk  and  honey ; an  expres- 
sion which  denotes  the  greatest  degree  of  fertility 
and  prosperity.  Among  the  numerous  synagogues 
in  Zipporis  two  were  especially  celebrated,  viz., 
Synagoga  Gophnitica..  iOQlin  NDKOD,  and  Sy- 
nagoga  Babylonica,  ( Hieros.  B&- 

rachoth , fol.  6.  1,  and  9.  5s). 

Ziliruivirf  —» EJ— " »*— j ‘tw*  Ration 


992 


ZIPPORIS. 


ZIZANION. 


and  decision  of  legal  niceties  ( Hieros . Jevamoth , 
fol.  15.  3).  Josephus  mentions  Sepphoris  fre- 
quently as  the  greatest  town  of  Galilee,  and  built 
in  a well  fortified  situation  : heiupccpis  peyiaTij  rrjs 
Tu\i\aias  ir6\is,  epoporanp  de  eireKTKrixevri  XUP^V 
( De  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  2;  Antiq.  xiii.  21  ; xvii.  12). 
Sepphoris,  Jerusalem,  Jericho,  Gadara,  and 
Amathus,  were  the  five  cities  in  which  the  assem- 
blies of  the  Synedrium  were  held  (Antiq.  xiv.  10). 
In  this  passage  the  name  has  undergone  some 
modification,  as  we  read  h?  'S.apupopois.  After 
Sepphoris  was  taken  by  Varus,  it  was  made 
the  chief  city  of  Galilee,  and  strongly  fortified 
by  Herod  Antipas  (Antiq.  xviii.  3).  Herod 
Agrippa  junior  obtained  Zipporis  as  a present 
from  the  emperor  Nero  (Joseph.  Vita). 

Before  this  period  Tiberias  was  considered  to  be 
the  first  city  in  Galilee.  Sepphoris  was  surrounded 
by  many  villages,  and  situated  near  Mount  Asa- 
mon,  iti  the  centre  of  Galilee  (De  Bell.  Jud.  ii. 
23),  in  a very  strong  and  secure  situation  (De 
Bell.  Jud.  iii.  1).  One  of  the  small  towns  near 
Zipporis  was  called  Jeshenah  ( Kidduschin , 

cap.  iv.  5) ; another  was  called  m¥p,  K’zarah 
(Gloss,  in  Erachim,  cap.  ix.  6).  Sepphoris  was 
destroyed  a.d.  339,  in  consequence  of  the  rebel- 
lion of  its  citizens.  ^ 

Theophanes  relates  (page  33,  ed.  Par.)  ; Tovrip 
Tip  erei  ot  Kara  HaKaiorturju  ’I ovSaioi  aurrjpav  koX 
sroAAoCs  twv  dWoedvuv  'E KX-fjvwy  re  /cal  2 agapei - 
tu)v  aueiXov"  Kal  avrol  8e  i rayyevel  ('Jrayyevrj, 
Cedrenus)  inrb  rov  err  par  ov  'P  upaixv  drypeByany, 
Kal  t)  avrwv  Aiotcaiadpeia  yipavlarOi)  : — ‘ In 

this  year  (the  25th  of  Constantine)  the  Jews  in 
Palestine  rebelled,  and  killed  many  of  other 
nations,  both  Greeks  and  Samaritans ; but  they 
were  themselves  extirpated  by  the  Roman  army, 
and  their  town  Diocaesarea  entirely  destroyed.’ — 
Cedrenus  has  the  same  account  (Comp.  Ilistor. 
299).  It  is  remarkable  that  a similar  fatality  be- 
tel the  town  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  for  which 
Gregorius  Nazianzenus  interceded,  in  a letter  to 
Olympius,  which  still  exists  in  his  works,  (tom. 
i.  p.  809). 

In  the  acts  of  the  Concilium  Constantinopoli - 
tanum , among  the  bishops  of  Palestine  is  men- 
tioned MapKeWii/os  NeoKaurapelas  (Concil.  tom. 
v.  p.  192). 

Reland,  in  his  Palaestina,  under  Sepphoris,  con- 
jectures that  NeoKaicrapelas  is  an  erratum  for 
AioKbuaape'ias,  which  latter  town  is  omitted  in  the 
above  list  of  bishops,  although  we  have  clear 
proof  that  it  was  rebuilt,  and  had  at  a later  pe- 
riod a bishop;  as  we  learn  from  the  list  of  bi- 
shops in  the  Acta  Concilii  Hierosolymitani , a.d. 
536,  where  mention  is  made  of  Kvpiaubs  Aio- 
Kataapelas,  but  not  of  any  bishop  of  Neocsesarea ; 
nor  does  there  occur  any  ancient  notice  of  such 
a town  in  Palestine.  Hence  we  infer  that  Neo- 
cesarea  is  nothing  but  an  editorial  blunder,  as 
well  in  the  Acts  quoted,  as  also  in  the  Itinera- 
rium  Antonini  Martyris,  where  we  read : De  Tho- 
lomaide  maritima  venimus  in  fines  Galilaeae  in 
civitatem  Neocesaream,  in  qua  adoravimus 
prse  veneratione  molam  et  canistellum  Sanctae 
Marise,  in  quo  loco  est  cathedra  in  qua  sedebat, 
quando  ad  earn  venit  Gabriel  Archangelus  : — 
‘From  Ptolemais  at  the  sea-ooast  we  came  into 
the  borders  of  Galilee,  to  the  town  of  Neocse- 
sarea, where  we  adored  with  veneration  the  mo/a, 
a^d  the  little  basket  of  St.  Mary.  In  that  place 


is  also  the  chair  in  which  she  was  seated  when  the 
Archangel  Gabriel  came  to  her.’  We  have  re- 
tained here  the  word  mola , since  we  would  leave 
it  uncertain  whether  Antoninus  Martyr  adored  the 
hand-mill,  molar  tooth,  or  the  jawbone,  or  even  a 
more  delicate  part  of  the  virgin.  Mola  dicitur 
in  uteris  mulierum  massa  cornea  sine  ossibus  et 
visceribus,  ex  imperfecta  conceptione  concre- 
scens  (PI in.  Hist.  Nat.  vii.  15.  13).  Let  it  lie 
decided  by  others  which  object  of  adoration  at 
Zipporis  should  be  preferred.  The  Greek  pv\r, 
occurs  in  the  same  acceptation  with  molat 

It  is  also  remarkable  that  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury the  place  where  Gabriel  met  St.  Mary  was 
shown  at  Nazareth  ; but  it  is  clear  from  the  pro- 
gress of  the  journey  that  Antoninus,  by  the  name 
Neocsesarea,  meant  Diocsesarea  or  Sepphoris,  be- 
cause this  was  the  first  city  on  the  road  from 
Ptolemais  into  Galilee.  We  therefore  read  in 
Johanns  Phocas  (Descript.  Palestine,  §10): 
UpuTos  ovv  Kara  t)}v  IlTO\ep.uiba  early  77  2eR- 
(pcopl,  rrjs  raA.tA.odas  7icu"rp  &oikos  axeSby 

prj 5k  \el\pavoy  rrjs  irpilyy  avrrjs  evdaipovlas 
<f>alyovaa : — ‘ After  Ptolemais,  one  awives  first  at 
Semphori,  a town  of  Galilee,  which  is  now  en 
tirely  uninnabit.ed,  and  shows  no  remains  of  its 
former  prosperity.’ 

Some  old  coins  are  extant  with  the  inscription 
2Eri4>flPHNflN.  One  of  these,  belonging  to  the 
reign  of  Domitian,  is  mentiwned  by  Vaillant, 
(p.  23);  and  (p.  31)  he  produces  another  with  a 
similar  inscription,  belonging  to  the  reign  of  Tra- 
jan, of  which  Patinus  furnishes  an  engraving 
(Numm.  eer.  Imperatorum , p.  146).  Comp. 
Hadriani  Relandi  Palcestina , sub  Sepphoris,  and 
Othonis  Lexicon  Rabbinicum , sub  Zipporis; 
Lightfoot,  Centuria  Geographica , cap.  lxxxii., 
lxxxiii. ; Nicol.  Santon,  Index  Geographic tut, 
sub  Sephoris. — C.  H.  F.  B. 

ZIZ  I Sept.  ’A atrels),  a cliff  or  pass  lead- 
ing up  from  the  Dead  Sea  towards  Jerusalem,  by 
which  the  bands  of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites 
advanced  against  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chrom  xx.  16). 
They  seem  to  have  come  round  the  serfith  end  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  along  the  western  shore  as  far 
as  Engedi,  where  there  is  a pass  which  leads  out 
northward  towards  Tekoa  (Robinson,  Bibl.  Res. 
ii.  215).  This  is  the  route  which  is  taken  by  the 
Arabs  in  their  marauding  expeditions  at  the  pre- 
sent day. 

ZIZANION  (Zi^aviov).  This  word  occurs  in 
Matt.  xiii.  25,  and  several  of  the  following  verses, 
and  is  translated  weeds  by  Luther,  and  tares  in 
the  Auth.  Vers. ; but  it  is  not  found  in  any 
Greek  author.  It  is  therefore  supposed  that,  as 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  (as  some  think)  first 
written  in  Syro-Chaldaic,  the  vernacular  name  of 
some  particular  plant  was  adopted,  and  thus  intro- 
duced into  the  Greek  version.  This  seems  to 
be  confirmed  by  the  existence  of  a plant,  which 
is  suitable  to  the  above  passage,  and  of  which 
the  Arabic  name  is  very  similar  to  zizatiiun. 
Thus,  in  the  parable  of  the  man  who  sowed 
good  seed  in  his  field,  it  is  said,  ‘ But  whila 
men  slept,  his  enemy  came  and  sowed  tares 
among  the  wheat:  when  the  blade  sprung  uj 
and  brought  forth  fruit,  then  appeared  the  tarei 
also/  From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  wheal 
and  the  zizanion  must  have  had  considerabl# 
resemblance  *0  each  other  in  the  herbaceous  parts, 


ZOAN. 


ZOAR. 


993 


which  could  hardly  be  the  case,  unless  they  were 
Doth  of  the  family  of  the  grasses.  That  such, 


nowever,  is  the  case,  is  evident  from  what  Volney 
says,  that  the  peasants  of  Palestine  and  Syria  do 
not  cleanse  away  the  seeds  of  weeds  from  their 
corn,  but  even  leave  that  called  Siwan  by  the 
Arabs,  which  stuns  people  and  makes  them  giddy, 
as  he  himself  experienced.  This  no  doubt  is 

the  <A)  Zawan,  or  Ziwan , of  Avicenna,  and 
which  Buxtorf,  in  his  Rabbinical  Lexicon,  says 
was  by  the  later  Hebrews  called  ('Oil  Zonin. 
Avicenna  describes  two  kinds  of  Ziwan;  one 
‘quidpiam  tritico  non  absimile,’  of  which  bread 
is  made ; the  other,  ‘ res  ebrietatem  inducens, 
pravae  naturae,  atque  inter  fruges  provenit.’  The 
Ziwan  of  the  Arabs  is  concluded  to  be  our  Darnel, 
the  ivraie  of  the  French,  the  Lolium  temulentum 
of  botanists,  and  is  well  suited  to  the  palate.  It  is 
a grass  often  found  in  corn-fields,  resembling  the 
wheat  until  both  are  in  ear,  and  remarkable  as 
one  of  the  very  few  of  the  numerous  family  of 
grasses  possessed  of  deleterious  properties.  These 
have  long  been  known,  and  it  is  to  this  plant  that 
Virgil  alludes  {Georg,  i.  154)  : — 

‘ Interque  nitentia  culta 

Infelix  lolium  et  steriles  dominantur  avense.’ 

ZOAN  (|y¥ ; Sept.  T avis),  an  ancient  city  of 
Lower  Egypt,  situated  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Tanitic  branch  of  the  Nile,  called  in  Egyptian 
or  Gane  or  Gani, 

i.  e.  ‘low  region,’  whence  both  the  Hebrew  name 
Zoan,  anti  the  Greek  Tanis,  are  derived ; as  t3 
also  the  Arabic  San,  by  which  name  the  site  is 
still  known.  Zoan  is  of  considerable  Scriptural 
interest.  It  was  one  of  the  oldest  cities  in 
Egypt,  having  been  built  seven  years  after  Hebron, 
which  already  existed  in  the  time  of  Abraham 
CNum,  xiii.  22;  comp.  Gen.  xxii.  2).  It  seems 
also  to  have  been  one  of  the  principal  capitals,  or 
royal  abodes,  of  the  Pharaohs  (Isa.  xix.  11,  13; 
xxx.  4)  ; and  accordingly,  ‘ the  field  of  Zoan,’  or 

von.  u.  64 


the  fine  alluvial  plain  around  the  city,  is  described 
as  the  scene  of  the  marvellous  works  which  God 
wrought  in  the  time  of  Moses  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  12, 
33).  The  destruction  predicted  in  Ezek.  xxx. 
14,  has  long  since  befallen  Zoan.  The  ‘ field’  is 
now  a barren  waste ; a canal  passes  through  it. 
without  being  able  to  fertilize  the  soil;  ‘fire  lias 
been  get  in  Zoan ;’  and  the  royal  city  is  now 
the  habitation  of  fishermen,  the  resort  of  wild 
beasts,  and  infested  by  reptiles  and  malignant 
fevers.  The  locality  is  covered  with  mounds  of 
unusual  height  and  extent,  full  of  the  fragments  of 
pottery  which  such  sites  usually  exhibit.  These 
extend  for  about  a mile  from  north  to  south,  by 
about  three  quarters  of  a mile.  The  area  in  which 
the  sacred  enclosure  of  the  temple  stood,  is  about 
1500  feet  by  1250,  surrounded  by  the  mounds  of 
fallen  houses,  as  at  Bubastis  [Pi-bkskth],  whose 
increased  elevation  above  the  site  of  the  temple 
is  doubtless  attributable  to  the  same  cause — 
the  frequent  change  in  the  level  of  the  houses  to 
protect  them  from  the  inundation,  and  the  un- 
altered position  of  the  sacred  buildings.  There 
is  a gateway  of  granite  and  fine  grit  stone  to  the 
enclosure  of  this  temple,  bearing  the  name  of 
Raineses  the  Great.  Though  in  a very  ruinous 
condition,  the  fragments  of  walls,  columns,  and 
fallen  obelisks,  sufficiently  attest  the  former 
splendour  of  the  building  to  which  they  belonged. 
The  obelisks  are  all  of  the  time  of  Rameses  the 
Great  (b.c.  1355),  and  their  number,  evidently 
ten,  if  not  twelve,  is  unparalleled  in  any  Egyptian 
temple.  The  name  of  this  king  most  frequently 
occurs;  but  the  ovals  of  his  successor  Pthamen, 
of  Osirtasen  III.,  and  of  Tirhakah,  have  also  been 
found.  The  time  of  Osirtasen  III.  ascends  nearly 
to  that  of  Joseph,  and  his  name,  therefore,  corro- 
borates the  Scriptural  account,  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  town.  Two  black  statues,  and  a granite  sphinx, 
with  blocks  of  hewn  and  occasionally  sculptured 
granite,  are  among  the  objects  which  engage  the  at- 
tention of  the  few  travellers  who  visit  this  desolate 
place.  The  modern  village  of  San  consists  of  mere 
huts,  with  the  exception  of  a ruined  kasr  of  modern  * 
date  (Wilkinson's  Modern  Egypt , i.  449-452  ; 
Narrative  of  the  Scottish  Deputation , pp.  72-76). 

ZOAR  (“itfif  and  ; Sept.  Zyydo,  Z 6yo- 
pa),  a town  originally  called  Bala,  and  one, of 
the  five  cities  of  the  plain  of  Siddim.  It  was 
doomed  with  the  rest  to  destruction ; but  spared 
at  the  intercession  of  Lot  as  a place  to  which  he 
might  escape.  He  alleged  the  smallness  of  the 
city  as  a ground  for  asking  this  favour;  and 
hence  the  place  acquired  the  name  of  Zoar,  or 
‘smallness’  (Gen.  xiii.  10;  xiv.  2,  8;  xix.  20, 
22,  30).  It  is  only  again  mentioned  in  Deut. 
xxxiv.  3 ; Isa.  xv.  5 ; Jer.  xlviii.  34  ; which 
passages  indicate  that  it  belonged  to  the  Moabites, 
and  was  a place  of  some  consequence.  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  describe  it  as  having  in  their  day 
many  inhabitants,  and  a Roman  garrison 
( Onomast s.  v.  ‘ Bala’).  Stephen  of  Byzantium 
calls  it  a large  village  and  fortress  (Reland,, 
Palcest.  p.  1065).  In  the  Ecclesiastical  Notitia 
it  is  mentioned  as  the  seat  of  a bishop  of  the- 
Third  Palestine,  down  to  the  centuries  preceding- 
the  Crusades  (Reland,  pp.  217,  223,  226,  230) 
The  Crusaders  seem  to  have  found  it  under  th* 
name  of  Segor,  as  in  the  Sept.,  and  they  describe 
the  place  as  pleasantly  situated,  with  many  palm 


094 


ZOBAH. 


ZUZIMS.. 


trees  ( Will.  Tyr.  x.  8).  Abulfeda  repeatedly 
speaks  of  Zoghar  as  a place  adjacent  to  the  Dead 
Sea  and  the  Ghor  {Tab.  Syr.  pp.  8,  9,  11,  148), 
and  indeed  calls  the  Dead  Sea  itself  the  Lake  of 
Zoghar  (pp.  xii.  148,  156).  This  is  the  same 
name  as  JtY ; the  apparent  difference  in  Ro- 
man types  arising  from  the  fact,  that  the  letter 
V ain  in  the  Hebrew  word  is  treated  as  mute,  but 
in  Arabic  is  represented  by  gh.  Dr.  Robinson 
{Bib.  Researches , ii.  480,  481 ; 648 — 651)  has 
much  argument  to  show  that  Zoar  must  have 
Iain  on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea  ; which  seems 
clear  enough  from  its  having  been  in  the  territory 
of  Moab  : and  he  thinks  that  Irby  and  Mangles 
have  rightly  lixed  its  position  at  the  mouth  of  the 
W ady  Kerak,  at  the  point  where  the  latter  opens 
upon  the  isthmus  of  the  long  peninsula  which 
stands  out  from  the  eastern  shore  of  the  lake 
towards  its  southern  end.  At  this  point  Irby  and 
Mangles  discovered  the  remains  of  an  ancient 
town.  Here  * stones  that  have  been  used  in 
building,  though  for  the  most  part  unknown,  are 
strewed  over  a great  surface  of  uneven  ground, 
and  mixed  with  bricks  and  pottery.  This  ap- 
pearance continues  without  interruption,  during 
the  space  of  at  least  half  a mile,  quite  down  to 
the  plain,  so  that  it  would  seem  to  have  been  a 
place  of  considerable  extent.  We  noticed  one 
column,  and  we  found  a pretty  specimen  of  an- 
tique variegated  glass.  It  may  possibly  be  the 
site  of  the  antient  Zoar’  ( Travels , p.  448). 

ZOBAH  (nili¥ ; Sept.  2ou£a),  a Syrian 
Kingdom,  whose  king  made  war  with  Saul  (1 
Sam.  xiv.  47),  with  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  3 ; x. 
6),  .and  with  Solomon  (2  Chron.  viii.  3).  Re- 
specting its  situation,  see  Ah  am. 

1.  ZOHAR  (*inV,  whiteness  ; Sept.  2aap),  a 
son  of  Simeon  [Zerah]. 

2.  ZOHAR,  the  father  of  Ephron  the  Hittite 
/Gen.  xxiii.  8 ; xxv.  9). 

3.  ZOHAIl  (in  Keri ; in  Chetib  Je- 

Eoar),  a descendant  of  Judah  (l  Chron.  iv.  7). 

-ZOPHAR  sparrow?  Sept.  "Xucpdp), 

one  of  Job’s  three  friends  and  opponents  in  argu- 
ment (Job  ii.  11 ; xi.  1 ; xx.  1 ; xlii.  9).  He  is 
called  a Naamathite,  or  inhabitant  of  Naamah, 
a place  whose  situation  is  unknown,  as  it  could 
not  be  the  Naamah  mentioned  in  Josh.  xv.  41. 
Wemyss,  in  his  Job  and  his  Times  (p.  Ill),  well 
characterizes  this  interlocutor  : — ‘ Zophar  exceeds 
the  other  two,  if  possible,  in  severity  of  censure  ; 
he  is  the  most  inveterate  of  the  accusers,  and 
speaks  without  feeling  or  pity.  He  does  little 
uarjre  than  repeat  and  exaggerate  the  arguments 


of  Bildad.  He  unfeelingly  alludes  (ch.  xi.  15, 
to  the  effects  of  Job’s  disease  as  appearing  in  hit 
countenance.  This  is  cruel  and  invidious.  Yet 
in  the  same  discourse  how  nobly  does  he  treat  of 
the  Divine  attributes,  showing  that  any  inquiry 
into  them  is  far  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  human 
mind ! And  though  the  hortatory  part  of  the 
first  discourse  bears  some  resemblance  to  that  of 
Eliphaz,  yet  it  is  diversified  by  the  fine  Imagery 
which  he  employs.  He  seems  to  have  had  a full 
conviction  of  the  providence  of  God,  as  regulat- 
ing and  controlling  the  actions  of  men;  but  he 
limits  all  his  reasonings  to  a present  life,  and 
makes  no  reference  to  a future  world.  This  cir- 
cumstance alone  accounts  for  the  weakness  and 
fallacy  of  these  men's  judgments.  In  his  second 
discourse  there  is  much  poetical  beauty  in  the 
selection  of  images,  and  the  general  doctrine  is 
founded  in  truth;  its  fallacy  lies  in  its  applica- 
tion to  Job’s  peculiar  case.  The  whole  indicates 
great  warmth  of  temper,  inflamed  by  misappre- 
hension of  its  object  and  by  mistaken  zeal.’ 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  Zophar  has  but  two 
speeches,  whereas  the  others  have  three  each. 
When  Job  had  replied  (oh.  xxvi.-xxxi.)  to  the 
short  address  of  Bildad  (ch.  xxv.),  a rejoinder 
might  have  been  expected  from  Zophar ; but  lie 
said  nothing,  the  three  friends,  by  common  con- 
sent, then  giving  up  the  contest  in  despair  (ch. 
xxxii.  1)  [Job]. 

ZOItAH  (Hiny,  hornets'  toivn  ; Sept.  2apaa), 
a town  reckoned  as  in  the  plain  of  Judah  (Josh, 
xv.  33),  but  inhabited  by  Danites  (xix.  41),  not 
far  from  Eshtaol,  and  chiefly  celebrated  as  (he 
birthplace  of  Samson  (Judg.  xiii.  2,  25;  xviii. 
2,  8,  11;  comp.  2 Chron.  xi.  12;  Neh.  xi.  29). 
The  site  may  still  be  recognised  under  the  name 
of  Surah,  situated  upon  a spur  of  the  mountains 
running  into  the  plain  north  of  Beth-shemesh 
(Robinson,  ii.  339;  iii.  18). 

ZUllIEL  God  is  my  rock;  Sept. 

^.ovprrjA),  son  of  Abihail,  and  family  chief  or 
genesarch  of  the  Merarites  at  the  organization  of 
the  Levitical  establishment  (Num.  iii.  35).  It 
does  not  appear  to  which  of  the  two  great  divi- 
sions of  the  Merarites  he  belonged. 

ZUZIMS  (D'T-IT  5 Sept.  iQv t]  ierx^pa),  one  ot 
the  ancient  tribes  or  nations  conquered  by  Che- 
dorlaomer  and  his  allies  (Gen.  xiv.  5).  Ths 
Zuzims  were  settled  beyond  the  Jordan,  and  are 
perhaps  the  same  as  the  Zamzummims  of  Deut. 
ii.  20.  The  Syriac  and  Onkelos,  like  the  Septua- 
gint,  take  the  word  for  an  appellative,  signifying 
* strong’  or  ‘ valiant.’ 


THE  END. 


fesi 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


